XYSIS OF PEARSON ON THE CREED 
 
 LONDON COLLEGE OF DIVINITY.
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 - 
 
 : J- /
 
 EXPOSITION OF THE CREED 
 
 FOR THE USE OF THE 
 
 LONDON COLLEGE OF EIYINITY 
 
 ST JOHN'S HALL, HIGHBUKY 
 
 [got 
 
 FEINTED BT 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE & CO., NEW-STKEET SQUAEE, LONDOJS' 
 
 1878
 
 PBEEACE. 
 
 FEW THINGS have tended more to preserve that theolo- 
 gical steadfastness which, notwithstanding recent aber- 
 rations, has peculiarly distinguished the English Church, 
 than the almost unvaried habit of her bishops to require 
 a knowledge of Pearson's Exposition of the Creed from 
 candidates for Holy Orders. For, while he has brought 
 the resources of vast learning to bear on the several 
 Articles of the Creed, he has never forgotten the words 
 of our Church in the eighth Article, that the Creed 
 itself must be received because it may be " proved by 
 most certain warrants of holy Scripture." Accordingly, 
 at every turn the student is led to the fountain ; and 
 the Creed is recommended by the learned prelate in 
 his dedication, because " it leads " the student " to the 
 Scriptures, from whence it was first deduced." It is 
 not possible that all minds will equally receive every 
 application or exposition of the numerous passages of 
 
 A2 
 
 3036136
 
 4 PBEFACE. 
 
 Scripture noticed by Bishop Pearson, but all must 
 acknowledge how fully he has brought every doctrine 
 to the test of (rod's word. " Wait not," says Chry- 
 sostom, " for another teacher ; thou hast the oracles of 
 
 God, no man teacheth thee like them This is 
 
 the cause of all evils, not to know the Scriptures." 
 
 Should this little book come into the hands of any 
 other than a member of the College for which it was 
 written, it may be well to note that the original itself 
 is carefully used there as the text book. This Analysis 
 is only useful as subsidiary to the clearer understanding 
 and more accurate remembrance of the numerous theo- 
 logical arguments and definitions contained in the 
 Exposition of the Creed.
 
 EXPOSITION OF THE CEEED, 
 
 ARTICLE I. 
 
 "I BELIEVE EN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, MAKER OP 
 HEAVEN AND EARTH." 
 
 SECTION 1. "I Believe" 
 
 THE words " I believe " are to be understood before every 
 separate Article of the Creed ; and therefore in Pearson's 
 arrangement of it may be repeated twenty-four times. 
 There is a threefold division of this Article : 
 
 I. What faith is. 
 
 II. What is the confession of faith. 
 III. What is the duty arising out of such faith and 
 confession. 
 
 I. Definition of Belief in general. 
 
 "The assent to that which is credible, as credible." 
 Assent is defined to be either " an act or habit of the 
 understanding, by which it receives and acknowledges a 
 thing as a truth." But we assent to things which we see 
 or know, as well as to things which we believe. Hence 
 the necessity of the last clause of the definition, which in 
 philosophical language is called the "formal object" i.e., 
 the part of the matter which gives the particular shape or
 
 6 "I BELIEVE." 
 
 form of faith, instead of knowledge, to this act of the 
 understanding. 
 
 It is, therefore, this "formal object" which distinguishes 
 faith from other acts of assent, which may be then classified 
 as grounded upon : 
 
 1. The perception of our senses. 
 
 2. Our mental intuitions, like the axioms of Euclid. 
 
 3. Scientifical demonstration; e.g., the propositions of 
 Euclid, &c. 
 
 To these may be added a lower or looser mode of assent, 
 grounded on no certain testimony, which may be called 
 mere opinion. 
 
 In contrast to all these, in matters not apparent to the 
 senses, nor intuitively true, nor scientifically demonstrable, 
 nor mere loose opinions, but yet brought to us with what 
 appears sufficient testimony, and therefore to be what we 
 call credible, the assent resting on such credibility is properly 
 called faith. 
 
 Hence the degrees of faith will depend on the degrees of 
 credibility of the testimony on which we receive the object 
 of faith. In other words, they will depend on the authority 
 of the testifier. 
 
 This authority depends on two things : 
 
 1. The ability of the testifier. 
 
 2. His integrity. 
 Hence we find two kinds of faith. 
 
 A. Human faith ; which is "an assent to anything 
 as credible merely on the testimony of man." Pearson 
 illustrates this principle as the basis of all the affairs of 
 human life, and as including many degrees, from the lowest 
 probability to a high moral certainty. 
 
 This human faith, by reason of inevitable defects both
 
 "l BELIEVE." 7 
 
 in the ability and integrity of the testifier, must needs be 
 very imperfect. 
 
 B. Divine faith ; which is " an assent to something as 
 credible upon the testimony of God." This must be 
 perfect and infallible, inasmuch as the ability and integrity 
 of the Testifier are infinitely perfect. This completes our 
 definition. In it " the material object," or matter offered to 
 our faith, is the doctrine delivered by God. " The formal 
 object," or that which gives the special form and description 
 of the faith, is the credibility resting on divine testimony. 
 
 If we further consider what that divine testimony is, we 
 shall see that it is given to us by revelation. Revelation 
 is either immediate, as enjoyed by the inspired men them- 
 selves ; or mediate, as handed down to others by human 
 testimony and means of transmission. Successive ages 
 have been in different relations to these modes of revelation. 
 Our position in regard to divine testimony may be thus 
 introduced into our definition of faith. To us the faith of 
 a Christian is "an assent unto truths credible upon the 
 testimony of God delivered unto us in the writings of the 
 Apostles and Prophets." 
 
 [We note here, at the outset of the work, that with what- 
 ever fulness of learning Pearson illustrates the clauses of 
 the Creed, he acknowledges (in accordance with our eighth 
 Article) that the written word of God is the sole basis of the 
 Creed. From Durandus, one of the early school-men, he 
 gives this definition "Faith is a habit, by which we 
 assent to the sayings of Scripture on account of the 
 authority of God who reveals them."] 
 
 II. Faith being an internal habit in the soul is invisible, 
 it needs therefore an external manifestation ; because faith
 
 8 "l BELIEVE IN GOD." 
 
 was intended not to remain with individuals who have it, 
 but to be propagated from man to man ; which communi- 
 cation cannot be without open declaration and profession' 
 of it. Hence (Rom. x. 9) confession and belief are both 
 required. 
 
 III. The individual obligation of such a public con- 
 fession arises from the following reasons : 
 
 1. It is commanded. (1 Pet. iii. 15.) 
 
 2. Great promises attend it. (Matt. x. 32.) 
 
 3. Mutual edification requires it. 
 
 4. It glorifies God. 
 
 5. To refuse it dishonours God. (Luke ix. 26.) 
 Hence the Creeds were provided for the instruction of 
 
 catechumens and profession at baptism, and were gradually 
 introduced, after the Arian controversies, into the Com- 
 munion Service. 
 
 Lastly, the singular pronoun " I " is more appropriate 
 and individualising than the plural form " We." 
 
 SECTION 2. " I believe in GOD." 
 
 I. The difference between the expressions believe, and 
 believe in, is first considered. In the English idiom, I 
 believe God, and I believe in God, differ in their meaning. 
 
 There is also a corresponding difference in the Latin, at 
 least since the days of Augustine, who has much to say 
 about the difference between Credere Deo, Deum, or in 
 Deum (tiy 0toV). 
 
 But passages are brought by Pearson to shew that in the
 
 "I BELIEVE IN GOD." 9 
 
 Hebrew and Greek Scriptures the verb to believe, taken with 
 the simple dative, or with the preposition in, (PP&H with 5 
 or ? = irtffTeveiv TW, or etc TOV,} is used with reference both 
 to God and man. From this Pearson argues that there was 
 no inherent difference between these expressions such as 
 would assign one of them to God, and the other to man. 
 He, therefore, discusses this Article as dealing only with 
 the existence of God. 
 
 II. The nature of the truth believed requires a threefold 
 consideration. 
 
 A. The true notion of God. A being, self existent, in- 
 dependent of any other, on whom all else depend, and 
 governing all things. These are involved in the idea of 
 infinite perfection. 
 
 B. How we are assured of the existence of this Being. 
 
 1. Not by a connate idea ; Pearson denies the existence 
 of such ideas, and God has never charged us with guilt on 
 this score : 
 
 2. Not as a self-evident truth or axiom ; though some 
 assert this, it can be no argument to one who denies it in 
 his own case : 
 
 3. But by the necessity of assigning an origin to things 
 which have existence. 
 
 4. From the perfect adaptation of means to ends in 
 creation, or from the relation of final causes to the efficient 
 cause ; 
 
 5. From the universal consent of mankind ; 
 
 6. From the fulfilment of prophecy ; 
 
 7. From miracles ^ 
 
 8. From a universal existence of a conscience in man.
 
 10 "I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER." 
 
 C. The unity of God must be held against all poly- 
 theistic multiplications, or pantheistic confusions of His 
 personality. 
 
 1. The notion of God implies independence, as we have 
 seen (A), and there cannot be two independent beings co- 
 existent and acting together : 
 
 2. Because of the unity of design, and of government 
 in creation. Hence God has an absolute unity peculiar to 
 His own being. 
 
 SECTION 3. " I believe in God the FATHER." 
 
 I. The word Father conveys a relative idea. It is 
 applied to God in an analogical mode of speech 
 
 1. As Creator ; 
 
 2. As Preserver ; 
 
 3. As Redeemer ; 
 
 4. As the Author of regeneration, including 
 
 the resurrection ; 
 
 5. As the Author of adoption. 
 
 Practical results from these ideas of God are in those 
 who believe them 
 
 Reverence Faith in prayer Patience Imitation. 
 
 II. But properly God is the Father, as being the Father 
 of the only begotten Son, which is claimed by Pearson to 
 be the original and proper meaning of this clause. 
 
 A. Christ as man is the Son of God, 
 
 1 . As conceived in the Virgin's womb ; 
 
 2. As sent by God ; 
 
 3. As raised from the dead.
 
 " I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY." 11 
 
 B. Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, in which 
 respect, 
 
 1. There is identity of essence. 
 
 2. There is unity of essence, making this a more perfect 
 fatherhood than the human relation, which only produces 
 identity of species ; nevertheless, one is Father, the other 
 is Son, and this cannot be inverted. 
 
 The order of the three Persons is unchangeable, being 
 founded on their eternal relation. So there is a priority of 
 order, not of time, power, or dignity. The orthodox fathers 
 of the Nicene age Athanasius, Basil, &c. are largely 
 quoted by Pearson, to show that it was thus they under- 
 stood the passages in St. John which speak of the Father 
 being greater than the Son, in that the Father is the source 
 and origin of all, and that the Son has His life from the 
 Father, yet so that the life thus derived is essentially equal 
 to that from which it is derived. 
 
 Hence it arises from this relation that the Son and the 
 Holy Ghost are said to be " sent," but that this is never 
 said of the Father. 
 
 The necessity of this belief will appear 
 
 1. In order to avoid any approach to tritheism, because 
 God the Father is thus viewed as the One Source of all. 
 
 2. To establish our faith in our restoration to the One 
 Father through the Son and by the Spirit. 
 
 SECTION 4. " I lelieve in God the Father ALMIGHTY." 
 
 Pearson divides the consideration of the Almightiness of 
 God into two parts. He observes, that in the Septuagint 
 the word Travro/cpdrwp is sometimes used as the rendering of
 
 12 "l BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY." 
 
 Jehovah Sabaoth, sometimes as the equivalent of Sliaddai. 
 In the first of these cases he takes it to express authoritative 
 power ; in the second, power in operation. He further notes 
 that in some Greek copies, though by no means in all, 
 iravTOKpuTwp is used in our present Article, and iravTo^vvajjioq 
 in the sixth. Pearson, therefore, considers the above two 
 branches of the Almightiness of God separately under the 
 two different Articles of the Creed. They are, however, 
 here grouped together. 
 
 I. Almighty in the sense of Tranm-joarwp, taken by 
 Pearson to signify the universal dominion of God. 
 This is taken in three degrees or branches : 
 
 1. The absolute power of freewill in creating what He 
 
 pleases. 
 
 2. The absolute right of possession of all things. 
 
 3. The absolute right of using and disposing of all 
 
 things. 
 
 1. The first of these is only named as the foundation 
 of the others. 
 
 2. The second involves two qualifications : 
 
 A. That the right of possession comes from Himself is 
 derived from none. 
 
 B. That it is infinite, in respect of extension, of per- 
 fection, and of duration. 
 
 These are confirmed by passages of Scripture, excluding 
 all exceptions to the authority of God. 
 
 3. The third degree or branch of God's omnipotence 
 is His absolute right of use. Although God does many 
 things for the benefit of His creatures, Scripture teaches 
 us to consider His glory as the final end of all things.
 
 "MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH." 13 
 
 The necessity for this belief in the universal authority of 
 God is thus arranged : 
 
 1. To produce in ns reverence and submission. 
 
 2. To breed in us patience. 
 
 3. To suggest a due gratitude to God, since we have 
 
 no right of possession. 
 
 II. Almighty in the sense of Travrr.lvvap.oq able to do all 
 things. 
 
 The consideration of this omnipotency is divided into 
 three heads : 
 
 1. He is the source of all power whatever in any 
 creature. 
 
 2. There can be no resistance to His will. 
 
 3. There is no limit to His power to do anything, save 
 that which involves a contradiction, either physical, 
 rational, or moral. 
 
 The necessity for this belief is thus divided : 
 
 1. It produces fear, reverence, submission, and obedience. 
 
 2. It is the necessary foundation of faith. 
 
 3. To produce reliance on God's promises. 
 
 4. To give life to our devotions. 
 
 SECTION 5. " Maker of Heaven and Earth." 
 
 This Article was not found in the earlier forms of the 
 Latin Creeds. 
 
 I. The object of creation, " heaven and earth" must be 
 understood as including all things, " visible and invisible."
 
 14 "MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH." 
 
 Such is the usage of Scripture in many places, and this is 
 positively asserted. (Col. i. 16.) 
 
 Hence follows the axiom : " Everything is either made 
 or not made. Whatsoever is not made, is God. What- 
 soever is made, is not God." 
 
 Against this, the ancient philosophers held a variety of 
 fallacious theories, although the oldest of all were nearer 
 the truth in their ideas of the creation. The following 
 may be specified : 
 
 1. The notion that whatever has a beginning must have 
 an end, and the deduction that what has no end can have 
 had no beginning. As they perceived no sign of the earth 
 decaying and coming to an end, they argued that it could 
 have had no beginning. 
 
 2. Some were mislead by the fallacy of the very word 
 they used, the " Universe," TO -rrav. 
 
 3. Some vainly imagined that if the world were made, 
 it must be in the ordinary way of generation. 
 
 4. It was laid down as a maxim, " ex nihilo nihil fit." 
 
 II. In opposition to all these fallacies, we consider the 
 creation in three points of view : 
 
 1. The effect produced was to bring all things out 
 of that which had no previous existence. Pearson does not 
 rely on the mere word create, whether in Hebrew or Greek, 
 but-^- 
 
 A. On various passages of Scripture; and, 
 
 B. On the reasoning that to suppose anything existing 
 independent of God, and coeval with Him, detracts from 
 His independence and all-sufficiency.
 
 " MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH." 15 
 
 2. In respect of the Creator viewed in His creative 
 action, it is asserted 
 
 A. That nothing but "His own goodness moved Him 
 to create. 
 
 B. That He was nnder no necessity to create, either 
 to ensure His own happiness or for any other use. 
 
 C. That His will was a sufficient cause for the immediate 
 production of all that He willed to exist. 
 
 3. In respect of time, the heavens and earth did not 
 exist from eternity, but were called into being at a certain 
 point of time. The question of the antiquity of the present 
 frame of creation on this world is next considered at some 
 length, and reasons given to show that the duration of man's 
 existence upon the world may be reasonably traced back 
 to a time at least within the longer schemes of Bible 
 chronology. 
 
 III. In the act of creation the great agent was God alone. 
 This must include all that is God. 
 
 The fallacy of Gnostic and Manichean notions of creation 
 is here argued, because no nature or substance is in itself 
 evil, and therefore there is nothing which might not have 
 come from God. 
 
 The creation is often in Scripture, as well as in the Creed, 
 ascribed to God the Father, but in some passages ia 
 ascribed emphatically to the Son, and occasionally to the 
 Spirit. This is due to the " paternal priority in the Deity, 
 whereby that which is common to the three persons may be 
 rather attributed to the Father, as the first person in the 
 Trinity." In connexion with this the prepositions used by 
 the Apostle (1 Cor. viii. 6) are noticed, " the Father," t ov,
 
 16 "MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EABTH." 
 
 and " the Son," Si ov. Also, (John v. 9,) " The Son can do 
 nothing of Himself but what he seeth the Father do," 
 implies some kind of priority of action, according to that 
 of the person. 
 
 IV. The necessity for this belief is shown in that 
 
 1. It sets forth God's glory. 
 
 2. It humbles man. 
 
 3. It produces cheerful obedience. 
 
 4. It consoles God's servants.
 
 17 
 
 ARTICLE II. 
 
 "AND IN JESUS CHRIST, His ONLY SON OUR LOED." 
 
 SECTION 1. "And in Jesus." 
 
 JESUS being the proper name, and CHRIST the official 
 title of our Lord, the two words require separate con- 
 sideration. 
 
 I. The ordinary use of the word " Jesus." 
 
 1. This was one of the commonest names among the Jews. 
 Several persons of the name are mentioned in the New 
 Testament, and many more by Josephus. 
 
 2. It is a corrupt Greek mode of spelling the word 
 Joshua. The process may be thus traced. The complete 
 word Jehoshua had two contractions, Joshua and Jeshua. 
 (Ezra iii. 2.) The usage of the Greek seems to have 
 generally added the letter s to Hebrew names ending 
 in a or ah, e.g., Jeremias, Elias, &c. Hence Jeshua would 
 probably be spelt in Greek 'Irjavas, or, by a slight contrac- 
 tion, 'iTjcroi/g Jesus. 
 
 3. The original name of Joshua was Oshea, which, though 
 differently spelt in the English version, is the same in the 
 Hebrew as the name of the king Hoshea and the prophet 
 Hosea. The name is derived from the verb y{?J, " to save," 
 unused in the Kal ; it therefore comes from the Hiphil 
 voice, yt^in. The addition of the name of God, Jah, to 
 this, makes the compound name Jehoshua. The change of
 
 18 "AND IN JESUS." 
 
 name is noticed (Numb. xiii. 16) in the list of the twelve 
 spies, but it is not clear whether we are to understand that 
 it was made at that time. 
 
 II. 1. The meaning of this term is undoubtedly and 
 properly Saviour, according to the words of the angel. 
 (Matt. i. 21.) Moreover, that the name of Jah enters into this 
 word seems to be recognised by the evangelist, (Matt. i. 22, 
 23,) in applying the prophecy of Emmanuel to the same 
 event. 
 
 2. In certain lower senses, the name of " Saviour " has 
 been applied by the Jews and heathens to eminent men. 
 The Greeks used the term <rwrj;p ; the Latin language was 
 found deficient in properly rendering this word. Various 
 terms were therefore used, e.g., Servator, Conservator, 
 Salutificator. Finally, the Christian writers settled upon 
 Salvator, if they did not introduce it. 
 
 III. Christ is properly our Saviour 
 
 1. As making known the way of salvation. (2 Tim. i. 10.) 
 v 2. As procuring that salvation for us by His obedience 
 ^ and death. 
 
 3. As conferring that salvation upon us in His media- 
 ^"/Cltorial capacity. 
 
 IY. The typical resemblances between the work of 
 Joshua and of Christ are traced out. 
 
 V. The necessity for the belief in this Article is thus 
 arranged 
 
 1. Because there is salvation in no other. 
 
 2. That we may delight in the name of Jesus. 
 
 3. That He may have the first place in our affections. 
 
 4. To produce a right esteem and obedience.
 
 ; AND IN JESUS CHRIST." 19 
 
 SECTION 2. " And in Jesus CHRIST." 
 
 The Jews called our Saviour Jesus, but denied Him to be 
 tlie Christ. (John ix. 22, Acts xvii. 3.) 
 
 This Article will be considered under five particulars : 
 
 I. The signification of the term. 
 II. Why the Jews expected a Messiah. 
 
 III. That the promised Messiah has come. 
 
 IV. That Jesus is that Messiah. 
 
 V. The nature of the unction by which Jesus is Christ. 
 
 I. ^LffTOQ is derived from the verb xi tw > " t anoint," 
 and is the equivalent of the Hebrew word D^D, from the 
 verb n>D, "to anoint." This word, with the. usual modi- 
 fication of vowels, and the change of the final guttural into 
 c, became in the Greek spelling Messias. 
 
 The word must be understood not merely as conveying 
 the outward action of applying oil, but also as including 
 the purpose of the action, viz., dedication or ordination. 
 
 II. That both Jews and Samaritans expected a Messiah, 
 is clear from many passages in the Gospels. 
 
 This expectation was founded on many prophecies in the 
 Old Testament. In these, Daniel alone styles him " the 
 Messiah," and that twice in one prophecy, (that of the 
 seventy weeks). But after the return of the Jews from 
 captivity, they were accustomed to Chaldee renderings of 
 the Hebrew in their synagogues. The oldest Targnms 
 remaining, those of Onkelos and Jonathan, no doubt repre- 
 sent fairly those more ancient renderings. These Targums, 
 in a great number of prophecies, style the expected One
 
 20 "AND IN JESUS CHRIST." 
 
 "the Messiah." Hence the Jews, in the time of onr 
 Lord, were more accustomed to the term than we should 
 expect from our familiarity with a translation from the 
 Hebrew text. 
 
 III. That the Messiah has come is argued from the 
 prophecy of Jacob, (Gen. xlix. 10,) inasmuch as the national 
 existence of Judah ended A.D. 70. 
 
 Also from the prophecies of Malachi and Haggai, which 
 import that the Messiah would come to the second temple. 
 But that temple was destroyed A.D. 70. 
 
 IV. That Jesus is the Messiah appears thus : 
 
 1. Since none but Jesus appeared within the period 
 defined under the last head, who can have the least claim 
 to be the Messiah, it follows either that there is none, or 
 that He must be the Messiah. 
 
 2. By many passages it is proved that the following 
 predicted particulars concur in the person of Jesus. 
 
 A. That He was to be of the tribe of Judah, and the 
 family of David. 
 
 B. That He should be born at Bethlehem. 
 
 C. The manner of His birth from a virgin. 
 
 D. Jesus, as a Teacher, fulfilled the prophecies of Moses 
 and Isaiah as to the expected One. 
 
 E. The miracles of Jesus, in number, quality, and 
 manner, fully bear out His claims. 
 
 F. The sufferings of our Lord correspond remarkably 
 with many prophecies, particularly those in Ps. xxii. and 
 Isa. liii. 
 
 G. The gathering in of all nations under the dominion
 
 "AND IN JESUS CHRIST." 21 
 
 of the Messiah is marked in many prophecies, and very 
 signally fulfilled, or in process of fulfilment, in the person 
 of our Saviour. And this, notwithstanding that the nature 
 of the doctrine is in itself unattractive to man, and that the 
 position of Jesus and His Apostles was one destitute of 
 influence. 
 
 V. The nature of the unction. 
 
 It is clear from several passages that kings and priests 
 were anointed. It is inferred from 1 Kings xix. 15, 16, 
 that prophets also were anointed. Hence it is usual to 
 consider the unction as implying the consecration of Jesus 
 to these three offices : 
 
 1. Jesus as Prophet. This office consists not so much in 
 uttering predictions, as in revealing and confirming the 
 doctrine concerning the will of God in man's salvation. 
 Now Jesus not only uttered revelations of the highest 
 importance, but by His Spirit, given after His ascension, 
 continued a marvellous series of similar unfoldings of God's 
 purpose. 
 
 2. That Jesus is a Priest is carefully explained in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews, His sacrifice being His own 
 death, by which one offering He hath perfected for ever 
 them that are sanctified. 
 
 3. The Kingly office of the Messiah was that which the 
 Jews chiefly recognized. The Targums continually use 
 the expression, Messiah the King. Jesus Himself claimed 
 it before Pilate, and it is fulfilled in many ways to His 
 people, and will have a complete accomplishment at the 
 last. 
 
 4. The matter of unction under the law was the sacred 
 oil. Jesus never received that material anointing ; but it
 
 22 "HIS ONLY SON." 
 
 is universally confessed that the oil was symbolical of the 
 Holy Spirit. (Acts x. 38.) Two occasions are mentioned 
 when Jesus received that spiritual unction : 
 
 A. At His incarnation. (Luke i. 35.) 
 
 B. At His Baptism. (Matt. iii. 16.) 
 And, indeed, both of these are true. 
 
 VI. The necessity of the belief that Jesus is the Christ 
 appears in these particulars : 
 
 1. That He cannot be Jesus (Saviour) unless He is the 
 Christ. This was the test in the first age of the Church. 
 (1 John v. 1.) 
 
 2. Because the belief that Jesus is the Christ, is the 
 acknowledgment of our obligation as subjects of His king- 
 dom in respect of purity, obedience, love, and unity. 
 
 3. It binds us to believe Him as a Prophet, to trust Him 
 as a Priest, to obey Him as a King. 
 
 4. It tells us of all the obligation which rests upon us 
 as being called from this name Christians ; and as needing 
 from Him the unction of the Holy Ghost, which alone 
 makes us truly His members. 
 
 SECTION 3. " His only Son." 
 
 It was acknowledged by the Jews of old, (as appears 
 from several passages in the Gospels, e.g., the question 
 of the High Priest, Matt. xxvi. 63,) that the Messiah 
 was to be the Son of God. This expectation arose from 
 Ps. ii. 2, 7. 
 
 The Greek word used in the Creeds and in the New
 
 "HIS ONLY SON." 23 
 
 Testament is povoytviiQ. The Latin varies between "unions" 
 and " unigenitus." 
 
 I. The Scripture calls Jesus the Son of God in certain 
 lower senses. 
 
 A. Because His human nature was conceived by the 
 Holy Ghost. (Luke i. 35.) 
 
 B. On account of His high office, to which He was 
 appointed by the Father. (John x. 35, 36.) 
 
 C. As the first-born from, the dead. (Rom. i. 4.) 
 
 D. Because of His present exaltation. (Heb. i. 3 5.) 
 
 II. But the pre-eminent sense in which He is the only 
 begotten Son of God, remains to be shown in five particulars. 
 
 A. That Jesus Christ had a real existence before His 
 conception will appear from the following passages : 
 
 1. " What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up 
 where He was before ? " (John vi. 62,) which passage is 
 confirmed by several others, (e.g., Eph. iv. 9.) 
 
 2. " He that cometh after me is preferred before me : for 
 He was (?)v) before me." (John i. 15.) He existed, there- 
 fore, before John the Baptist, whose birth preceded His. 
 
 3. " Before Abraham was, I am." (John viii. 58.) 
 N.B. The Socinians evade this passage by supplying 
 
 the light of the world, or some similar expression, after lam. 
 
 4. " By the Spirit . . . He went and preached to the spirits 
 in prison ... in the days of Noah." (1 Pet. iii. 18 20.) 
 
 5. " By whom also He made the worlds," (Heb. i. 2,) 
 together with several similar passages. 
 
 This assertion (A) is opposed to Photinian or Sabellian 
 confusions of the persons. Heretics of this class, supposing
 
 24 "HIS ONLY SON." 
 
 an effluence of the Deity to have rested on the man Jesus, 
 cannot attribute to Him a distinct personal existence before 
 the conception. 
 
 B. This nature, in which He existed before His concep- 
 tion, was not created, but essentially divine. 
 
 1. This follows of necessity from the fact of creation being 
 ascribed to Him. For this is absolutely a divine attribute. 
 
 2. It also follows from the well-known passage (Phil. ii. 
 6, 7,) which, being fully argued out, shows three things, 
 
 (<0 That He was in the form of a servant as soon as He 
 was made man. 
 
 (/3) But that before this, He was in the form of God. 
 
 (y) Theword"form" (p>p</))beingusedinbothinstances, 
 must apply as really to the divine as to the human nature. 
 
 3. Jehovah thus describes His being : " I am the first, 
 I also am the last," (Isa. xlviii. 12.) The same is predicated 
 of Christ, (Rev. i. 11.) 
 
 4. The Seraphim ascribe to Jehovah, the thrice holy, 
 (Isa. vi. 1, 3.) This is asserted to belong to Christ, (John 
 xii. 41.) 
 
 5. In several passages Christ is called God, especially 
 Col. ii. 9 : "In whom dwelleth all the fulness of the 
 Godhead bodily." See also the confession of Thomas, &c. 
 
 III. That this divine nature the Son had not of Himself, 
 but as communicated from the Father. This will appear 
 
 1. Because of the absolute unity of the divine essence, 
 which will not permit the existence of two divine persons 
 independently existing. Hence if the Son be God, He 
 mnst have the Godhead communicated to Him by the 
 Father. Thus are explained passages in St. John, which
 
 "HIS ONLY SON." 25 
 
 recognise a kind of subordination of the Son to the Father. 
 (John v. 18, 19, &c.) Hence, also, the expressions in the 
 Nicene Creed, deoy t/c deov, K.T.\. 
 
 2. The divine nature being indivisible, the whole and 
 not a part of the Deity must be thus communicated. " I 
 and the Father are one." (John x. 30.) This is the o/xoowatov 
 of the Nicene fathers. 
 
 IV. That this communication of the divine essence is of 
 such a nature that it is called in Scripture the generation 
 of the Son of God. (Heb. i. 5.) 
 
 In the case of human generation man begets a son in his 
 own likeness, but with a separate individuality from his 
 own. God, as the Father, has a more perfect relation to 
 God the Son, in that He communicates the whole nature 
 and properties of the Deity, not by dividing Himself, but 
 by a full communication of Himself. 
 
 V. That this generation is so peculiar, that Christ is " the 
 only begotten Son of God." 
 
 1. Some of the semi-Arians evaded this term by making 
 it mean, that God was the only Father of the Son, which 
 is contrary to sense and grammar. 
 
 2. Socinians sometimes lower it into a mere term of 
 endearment, alleging the instance of Isaac, (Gen. xxii. 2,) 
 which, however, must be otherwise explained. 
 
 3. It is acknowledged that in lower senses, by creation, 
 regeneration, or adoption, others are called the sons of 
 God. But Christ alone is the " only begotten." 
 
 4. It is acknowledged that the divine nature is also 
 fully communicated to the Holy Ghost. But there is a 
 mysterious difference in the mode, for Scripture never
 
 26 "OUR LORD." 
 
 styles the Holy Ghost the Son of God. Hence, this does 
 not interfere with the doctrine before us. 
 
 VI. The necessity for the belief in this Article is thus 
 arranged : 
 
 1. This excellency of the person is essential to our belief 
 in the perfection of the Atoning Sacrifice. 
 
 2. It is necessary to justify direct prayer to Jesus Christ, 
 for which purpose John v. 22, 23 ; Rev. v. 13 ; Heb. i. 6 
 are alleged. 
 
 3. It is necessary to inflame our gratitude to Him who 
 has bestowed this unspeakable gift. 
 
 SECTION 4. " Our Lord." 
 This Article is treated under three heads : 
 
 I. The use of the word Lord in Holy Scripture. 
 II. The application of this word to Christ. 
 III. Why we use the possessive pronoun " Our." 
 
 I. In the Septuagint the word xvpioe is used to represent 
 the Hebrew words, mil? and fns or 'jnt?. Of these the 
 first is the incommunicable name of God, and the second 
 the ordinary title, master or owner, like the Latin Dominus. 
 In the New Testament it is sometimes the ordinary language 
 of compliment, and as such is usually translated " Sir," e.g., 
 John iv. 19, Acts xvi. 30. It is generally said that the 
 Septuagiiit used this rendering for Jehovah, following the 
 Jewish superstition which forbade the pronunciation of that
 
 "OUR LORD." 27 
 
 word, and ordered Adonai to be substituted for it. Pearson, 
 however, maintains that, as Jehovah conies from ~Pn, to be, 
 so KvpwQ comes from *rupw, which he asserts to be also a 
 verb signifying existence. 
 
 II. The word Lord is applied to Christ in both these 
 senses : 
 
 1. The name Jehovah is directly or by implication 
 applied to Him in the New Testament. 
 
 Leading passages are these : 
 
 Isa. vi. : Where the glory of Jehovah is seen, -which is 
 applied by St. John to Christ. 
 
 Jer. xxiii. 6 : " Jehovah our righteousness." 
 
 Mai. iii. 1 : The messenger was to prepare the way 
 before Jehovah, and this is applied to the coming of Christ. 
 
 Isa. xl. 3 : The voice cries in the wilderness to prepare 
 the way before Jehovah. This also is applied to Christ. 
 
 2. The title of Lord in the sense of Adonai is applied 
 to Christ. The leading passage is Ps. ex. 1. Jehovah 
 said to Adonai where, as we know from our Lord's 
 quotation, the latter title is given to the Messiah. The 
 proper signification of the word, thus taken, is " dominion, 
 implying right of possession and power of disposing." 
 
 Christ has this dominion in a twofold manner : the one 
 inherently, as God ; the other imparted or bestowed, as 
 man. The first of these follows necessarily when we have 
 proved His divine nature. With regard to the second, we 
 may consider it in two parts. 
 
 A. A portion of it belongs only to this dispensation, and 
 will terminate. (1 Cor. xv. 24, 25, 28.) 
 
 B. A portion of it is eternal, being the everlasting
 
 28 " OUR LORD." 
 
 reward of His sufferings, in accordance with the promise 
 of an everlasting kingdom to David. 
 
 III. Christ is universal Lord over all created things. 
 (1 Cor. xv. 27.) But He is here styled our Lord. He 
 has this right not only by creation and preservation, 
 but more emphatically by redemption, which implies two 
 things, conquest, (Col. ii. 15,) and purchase, (1 Pet. i. 
 18, 19.) This right is further strengthened by promotion, 
 i.e., by gifts of grace and glory ; and further by our 
 baptismal vow and obligation. 
 
 IV. The necessity for this belief is thus arranged : 
 
 1. That we may know that we are not our own. 
 
 2. To enforce and invite obedience. 
 
 3. To regulate, enforce, and control earthly power and 
 dominion. 
 
 4. For the comfort and encouragement of His people.
 
 29 
 
 ARTICLE III. 
 
 " WHO WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLT GHOST, BORN OF THE 
 VIRGIN MART." 
 
 THE Nicene Creed and others do not make this distinction, 
 but say more generally, " was incarnate (or simply born) 
 by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary." The Article will 
 fall into three sections corresponding to the action of the 
 three persons involved in it Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, 
 and the Virgin Mary. 
 
 SECTION 1. " WHO was conceived." 
 
 The relative ivho refers back to the Son of God alone, as 
 against the Patripassians, who believed that the Father, or 
 some effluence from the Father, was incarnate and suffered. 
 
 i 
 
 I. He who was conceived and born, partook of the same 
 
 human nature which is in all men. He is often called 
 man; a parallel is drawn between Him and Adam. He is 
 the seed of Eve, of Abraham, of David, &c. Being thus 
 truly man, His manhood consisted of body and soul. 
 
 1. The body was real, (as against the various sects of 
 the Docetge ;) this is proved by texts showing its growth, 
 nutrition, and sufferings. 
 
 2. The soul was a rational human soul, for He increased 
 in wisdom as well as stature, which the Godhead cannot do.
 
 30 " WHO WAS CONCEIVED." 
 
 Moreover, He experienced the various affections and sor- 
 rows of man, whose seat is in the soul. And He com- 
 mended this human spirit to His Father at the moment 
 of death. Moreover, His human will was distinct from, 
 though in accordance with, the divine will, (Luke xxii. 42.) 
 This belief is counter to the heresy of the Apollinarians, 
 who held that, though Christ had a human body and 
 understanding, the spiritual part of man was in Him 
 supplied by the Divine Logos. 
 
 II. We are next to maintain that in this incarnation 
 there is no conversion of one nature into the other, nor 
 confusion between them. 
 
 1. If there were a confusion or mixture of the two 
 natures, a third something would result which would be 
 neither God nor man. The affections and infirmities of 
 our nature could not belong to such a being. Moreover, 
 the Godhead being one, the Father would thus be inter- 
 mingled likewise. 
 
 2. The divine cannot be converted into the human 
 nature, for the uncreated Godhead cannot be created or 
 divided. 
 
 3. The human nature cannot be converted into the 
 divine, as the Eutychians and other Monophysites taught. 
 In opposing this heresy, several of the fathers use a 
 comparison which shows that they did not hold transttb- 
 stantiation ; e.g., Pope Gelasius argues, that as the bread 
 and wine in the Eucharist do not lose their substance 
 or nature, so the two natures in Christ do not lose their 
 individual properties. 
 
 4. Nevertheless, though there are two natures, yet we 
 confess (against the Nestorians) that there is one Christ.
 
 "BY THE HOLY GHOST." 31 
 
 III. The necessity for this belief arises from our having 
 thus one Christ, and not two Christs. 
 
 SECTION 2. "By the Holy Gliost." 
 
 This Divine person will be here considered only in 
 reference to His action in the incarnation. 
 
 I. This action of the Spirit excludes all human agency, 
 even that of the Virgin herself, as the cause of the con- 
 ception. This appears from some passages in the Gospels, 
 describing what took place previous to the birth. 
 
 II. What this action of the Spirit includes cannot further 
 be defined from the words of Scripture than to say, that 
 whatever " was necessary to cause the Virgin to perform 
 the actions of a mother " must be attributed to the Spirit. 
 But 
 
 1. This did not involve any communication of the sub- 
 stance of the Holy Ghost, which is uncreated. 
 
 2. The flesh of Christ was not formed of any substance 
 but that of the Virgin, as the early Socinians imagined, 
 who thus explained that Christ became the Son of God. 
 
 III. The necessity for this belief may be thus arranged : 
 
 1. It removes all suspicion of sin in this spotless Lamb 
 of God. 
 
 2. It shows the freedom of God's grace. 
 
 3. It teaches the necessity of our new birth unto right- 
 eousness by the same Spirit.
 
 32 "BORN OP THE VIRGIN MART." 
 
 SECTION 3. "Born of ike Virgin Mary" 
 
 The consideration of the Virgin Mary in the Creed is 
 threefold : 
 
 I. Her name, Mary. 
 II. Her condition, a Virgin. 
 III. Her action, She gave birth to our Lord. 
 
 I. With regard to her name, Pearson thinks it is only 
 mentioned to identify her person, not for any special sig- 
 nification of it. The name is a very common one in the 
 New Testament, and is identical with the M'riam of the 
 Old Testament, which in Syriac was pointed Mariam. 
 Ancient writers, chiefly following Jerome for their authority 
 on Hebrew questions, have dealt fancifully with a variety 
 of supposed derivations of the name, some deriving it from 
 Q-n, and so making it to signify an exalted one, " domina." 
 The more favourite derivation has been that which makes 
 it signify " Star of the Sea," from "V)X!p a luminary, and 
 DJ sea. This seems entirely rejected by modern critics. 
 Pearson agrees with the Jewish etymology, " Bitterness of 
 the Sea." Gesenius gives " their rebellion " as the meaning. 
 
 The silence of Holy Scripture on all points connected 
 with this holy woman is most remarkable. Unless St. 
 Luke's genealogy be hers, we are not even informed directly 
 as to her descent. The traditional names of her parents, 
 Joachim and Anna, come from the Apocryphal Gospels. 
 
 II. As to her condition of Virginity, Pearson says three 
 things are necessary : 
 
 1 . That this was prophesied. 
 
 2. That she was a virgin when Christ was born. 
 4. That she always continued so afterwards.
 
 "BORN OF THE VIRGIN MART." 33 
 
 1. Three prophecies are alleged : viz., Gen. iii. 15 : 
 "The seed of the woman" not of the man. Jer. xxxi. 22 : 
 The new thing created, that a woman should compass a 
 man, which the ancient Jews interpreted of the Messiah. 
 Isa. vii. 14 : "A virgin," or properly " the Virgin shall 
 conceive," &c. Later Jews evaded this by translating ifc 
 the " young woman," and referring it to the birth of Heze- 
 kiah ; who was, nevertheless, some years old at the time. 
 
 2. That she was a virgin at the time of the birth of 
 Jesus depends on the authority of the Evangelists, who 
 plainly assert it. (Matt. i. and Luke i.) 
 
 3. That she afterwards continued a virgin was early 
 asserted in the Church. So far as the question may be 
 considered from Holy Scripture, it will chiefly depend on 
 the consideration of these points. 
 
 A. The expression, (Matt. i. 25,) " Joseph knew her not 
 wntil " &c. 
 
 B. That Jesus is called her^rsf-born son. 
 
 C. What relation to Jesus was really held by those called 
 his ct^eA^ot. 
 
 [C is ably discussed by Professor Lightfoot, in the Ap- 
 pendix to his Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians.] 
 
 III. As to the maternity of the Virgin Mary, we have to 
 maintain three things : 
 
 1. The reality of the conception of the real substance of 
 our Saviour, in her womb and of her substance. 
 
 2. The reality of the growth from her substance in her 
 womb of that which was so conceived. 
 
 3. That what was thus conceived and grew, was brought 
 forth by her, with a true and proper nativity. 
 
 In the fifth (and perhaps in the fourth) century the 
 
 C
 
 34 "BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY." 
 
 Greeks named the Virgin Mary Georococ, meaning to 
 imply, in opposition to Nestorius, that the divine was 
 united to the human nature from the moment of conception. 
 [As to the use of such a title, (putting aside the question 
 whether it does not favour Eutychianism as much as it 
 opposes Nestorianism, and the further question as to the 
 English expression, " Mother of God" being an inaccurate, 
 or at least inadequate rendering of the Greek,) we may 
 observe, that what ought to be asked by a practical divine 
 is not what he theoretically means, but what will be 
 popularly understood by the expression he uses, and 
 further that it is wise, to say the least, in the mysteries 
 of God, to confine ourselves as nearly as may be to 
 Scripture language.] 
 
 IV. The necessity for this belief will appear in these 
 particulars : 
 
 1. That due honour may be given to her who was so 
 highly favoured. 
 
 2. To assure us of the true human nature of Jesus. 
 
 3. To assure us that He, being born of a virgin, had not 
 the inheritance of original sin. 
 
 4. To fulfil the prophecies that he should be of the 
 lineage of David.
 
 35 
 
 ARTICLE IV. 
 
 " SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE, WAS CRUCIFIED, DEAD, 
 AND BURIED." 
 
 SECTION I." Suffered." 
 
 THE ancient Creeds seem to have omitted the word 
 " suffered," and to have said more briefly, "crucified under 
 Pontius Pilate." 
 
 Under this section we take those sufferings which preceded 
 the crucifixion. 
 
 Three particulars require consideration ; 
 
 I. Who suffered. 
 II. How He suffered. 
 III. What He suffered. 
 
 I. Who suffered. 
 
 A. As to His office, it was Jesus Christ. 
 
 B. As to His person, it was the only begotten Son of God. 
 
 A. Jesus Christ suffered; this is handled under four 
 heads : 
 
 1 . That the promised Messiah should suffer. . 
 
 2. That Jesus did suffer. 
 
 3. That the sufferings of the Messiah were foretold. 
 
 4. That Jesus endured those sufferings. 
 
 c2
 
 36 " SUFFERED." 
 
 1. That Christ was to suffer our Lord always declared ; 
 and it is shown from several leading prophecies, especially 
 the bruised heel of the promised seed, and from Isa. liii. 
 Pearson shows from ancient Targums that the original 
 Jewish interpretation referred these to the Messiah. He 
 also discusses the subsequent Jewish invention of two 
 Messiahs, the one the son of Joseph of the tribe of 
 Ephraim, who was to suffer and die ; the other the son of 
 David, who was to conquer and reign for ever. He shows 
 that inasmuch as Scripture knows only one Messiah, and 
 that the son of David, this notion, in fact, concedes the 
 truth of the suffering Christ. 
 
 2. That Jesus did suffer is eloquently asserted as needing 
 no proof. 
 
 3. More particularly, that the sufferings of Christ were 
 foretold will appear under the following heads : 
 
 (a.) They were predetermined in the counsels of God. 
 (Acts iv. 27, 28.) 
 
 (6.) They were the covenant between the Father and 
 the Son, " I come to do Thy will." 
 
 (c.) They were predicted by the prophets. (Lukexviii.31.) 
 
 (d.) They were represented in type, e.g, the Passover ; 
 the brazen Serpent ; the bleeding Sacrifices ; the Day of 
 Atonement. 
 
 4. That all things thus foretold were really endured by 
 Jesus is always asserted by Holy Scripture. (Acts iii. 18.) 
 
 B. The person who suffered was the only begotten Son 
 of God, and this brings us to the important question : 
 
 II. How He who was God can be said to have suffered. 
 In dealing with this question, we have to keep distinctly
 
 " SUFFERED." 37 
 
 before our minds the great Articles of the Creed as to th.e 
 Incarnation. We believe that God and man are one 
 Christ, and therefore in virtue of this unity we say that 
 God the Son suffered. 
 
 But we also believe that they are " One, not by confusion 
 of substance, but by unity of person." The nature of the 
 Deity is in itself incapable of suffering. It follows there- 
 fore from the Creed, that the union of the divine nature 
 with the human nature in Christ does not modify the 
 divine nature so as to make it susceptible of suffering. 
 Hence the Church has always asserted, that " all the 
 sufferings of our Mediator found their subject in His 
 human nature." 
 
 The intimate conjunction of the two natures in one 
 person in Christ, justifies us in the use of language which 
 ascribes to that one person the attributes which properly 
 belong to one only of the two united natures. Such a 
 transfer of language is what divines have called " Com- 
 municatio idiomatum," or the older Greek divines, 
 'Avr/cWie or 'Avrt/xeraoTao-ie ; e.g., the human nature of our 
 Lord suffered ; but there is one Christ, not two Christs, 
 and Christ is the Son of God ; thus we say that the Son of 
 God suffered. [Or again, God is omnipresent ; but Christ 
 is God ; therefore we say that Christ is omnipresent. But 
 if we allow this inevitable mode of speech to lead to any 
 kind of confusion of the two natures, we shall fall into some 
 shape of monophysite error. Some such error pervades 
 all systems of consubstantiation and transubstantiation, 
 which not only claim that the Person, the Son of God, is 
 present, but that His human nature has acquired (in some 
 sense) the omnipresence of the divine nature.] 
 
 Hence, " although the human nature was conjoined to
 
 38 " SUFFERED." 
 
 the divine, yet it suffered as much as if it had been alone ; 
 and the divine as little suffered, as if it had not been 
 conjoined : because each kept their respective properties 
 distinct, without the least confusion in their most intimate 
 conjunction." 
 
 Those who deny or confuse this doctrine of the sufferings 
 of Christ are 
 
 1. The ancient Docetse of all kinds, who believed the 
 crucifixion to be only in appearance. 
 
 2. The Arians, who believed that the Son of God was 
 not of the divine essence, and therefore to be capable of 
 suffering in His higher nature. 
 
 3. The Apollinarians, who held that the divine nature 
 took the place of the rational soul in Christ. 
 
 III. What He suffered must be limited by the terms of 
 the Creed to the latter part of His earthly life " under 
 Pontius Pilate," but this will at least include the whole 
 period of His ministry. It should also exclude the more 
 particular consideration of the final sufferings, since these 
 come in a subsequent Article. 
 
 The sufferings are considered, ^ 
 
 1. As those of the body, which are enumerated in an 
 eloquent passage. 
 
 2. As those of the soul, including fear, sorrow, and other 
 emotions. In order to arrive at some adequate idea of 
 the intensity of these sufferings, Pearson dwells upon the 
 description given by the Evangelists of the scene in 
 Gethsemane. He further shows that Christ suffered thus 
 because God " laid on Him the iniquity of us all." And 
 from the agony of a soul labouring under even inadequate- 
 conceptions of its own guilt, he argues the intolerable
 
 "UNDER PONTIUS PILATE." 39 
 
 weight of a perfect and holy apprehension of the sin of the 
 whole world. To this must be added the hand of God 
 pressing all this upon Him. 
 
 IY. The necessity for this belief is thus arranged : 
 
 1. That we may be assured of the reality of His human 
 nature. 
 
 2. That we may know that a full satisfaction was offered 
 to God. 
 
 3. That we may know that Christ has purchased eternal 
 happiness for all His people. 
 
 4. That we may be assured of His sympathy. 
 
 5. That we may learn also to suffer. 
 
 SECTION 2. " Under Pontius Pilate." 
 
 This Article marks the time of our Saviour's suffering. 
 
 [N.B. The Greek is iirl Hovriov. This has two mean- 
 ings in the New Testament : 1st, " in the time of," as 
 Luke iii. 2, &c. ; 2nd, " before the tribunal of," as Acts 
 xxv. 9, &c.] 
 
 I. Pontius Pilate and his office. 
 
 He was a Roman by birth, and of the equestrian order, 
 sent by Tiberius as Procurator of Judaea. After the 
 banishment of Archelaus, Augustus sent Coponius as first 
 procurator. Pilate was the fifth. The other four fall into 
 the first thirty years of our Lord's life, on which the 
 Gospels are silent. 
 
 When Augustus reorganized the Empire, he appointed
 
 40 "UNDER PONTIUS PILATE." 
 
 procurators in the provinces as heads of the revenue 
 department. But Judaea was exceptionally treated, and 
 the procurator there exercised full powers as governor. 
 
 II. Thus, since the banishment of Archelaus, the Jews 
 had lost the power of life and death, and Jesus suffered 
 after Roman, and not after Jewish usage. 
 
 III. Pilate repeatedly testified to the innocence of Jesus. 
 The rapacity and tyranny of this man are known from 
 history. (Pearson gives examples.) Complaints had been 
 frequently made at Borne. He was, therefore, peculiarly 
 open to alarm at the treasonable charge which the Jews 
 intimated would be made if he released Jesus. 
 
 IV. The necessity for this clause. 
 
 1. That we might be assured of the time when Jesus 
 suffered. The Jews and others have propagated some false 
 statements on this point. But it has pleased Providen'ce, 
 that the time and manner of our Lord's death should stand 
 out in history, sacred and profane, as one of the most 
 definite facts. [On this Paley builds up the commencement 
 of the historical argument of his work on the Evidences of 
 Christianity.] 
 
 2. Because Pilate bore testimony to the certainty of 
 Christ's death, and the innocency of His life. 
 
 [In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tertullian 
 appealed to the "Acta Pilati," as extant in the Roman 
 archives. The existence of the apocryphal "Acta Pilati" 
 in subsequent times does not necessarily invalidate that 
 original testimony.] 
 
 3. In order that we might koow how it came to pass
 
 "WAS CRUCIFIED." 41 
 
 that Jesus suffered as foretold " according to the Scriptures," 
 and not by the Jewish mode of execution. 
 
 SECTION 3. " Was crucified." 
 There are three points to be considered : 
 
 I. That the Messiah should be crucified. 
 II. That Jesus was actually crucified. 
 III. What crucifixion was. 
 
 I. That the Messiah should be crucified will appear, 
 
 A. From types, 
 
 B. From direct prophecies. 
 
 A. From types. Passing over fancies of the early 
 fathers, Pearson selects these from Scripture, 
 
 1. The offering of Isaac, including the father's surrender, 
 the son's willingness, and his carrying the wood. 
 
 2. The brazen serpent. 
 
 3. The paschal lamb the bones remaining unbroken, &c. 
 
 B. From prophecy, 
 
 1. Zech. xii. 10 : " They shall look upon me, whom they 
 pierced." 
 
 2. Ps. xxii. 16 : " They pierced my hands and my feet." 
 
 II. That Christ was crucified appears 
 
 1. From the direct statements of the Evangelists. 
 
 2. From our Lord's offering His person to the inspection 
 of Thomas after His resurrection.
 
 42 "WAS CRUCIFIED." 
 
 III. What crucifixion was. 
 
 It differed from the aravpw<Ti(; or impalement of the 
 Easterns. The ancients, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, &c., 
 speak of the cross as having five horns or extremities. In 
 addition to the four which are familiar to us, one is 
 described as projecting from the middle of the upright 
 beam, upon which, they say, the crucified person " sat " or 
 " rode." 
 
 It is further stated to have been a Roman custom to fix 
 (at least occasionally) over the head an inscription con- 
 taining the accusation. 
 
 The charge upon which Christ suffered was treason 
 against the Emperor, and upon this ground it was that 
 Pilate was deterred from releasing Him. 
 
 Two things are observable in the cross : 
 
 1. Its acerbity. 
 
 2. Its ignominy. 
 
 1. Its acerbity : the laceration of tender parts, and the 
 lingering agony. 
 
 [Note. Words of Latin origin signifying torture are 
 derived from " crux."] 
 
 2. Its ignominy : it was inflicted on slaves, and, as a 
 crowning dishonour, on the bodies of dead criminals. 
 
 IV. The necessity for this clause in the Creed, 
 
 1. To assure us that Christ has borne the curse for us. 
 (Gal. iii. 13.) 
 
 2. That we may know that the power of the law is 
 broken. (Col. ii. 14.) 
 
 3. To testify the power of the death of Christ in us. 
 (Rom. vi. 6.)
 
 " DEAD." 43 
 
 4. To teach us to bear whatever we may be called upon 
 to suffer for Him. 
 
 5. To give us a lesson of humility, and to deter us from 
 crucifying to ourselves the Son of God afresh. 
 
 6. By a visible death before His enemies, to assure us of 
 the reality of that death. 
 
 SECTION 4. "Dead." 
 
 This Article is needful, because a crucifixion might be 
 interrupted, and so death might not ensue. 
 
 Three things are to be elucidated in this Article : 
 
 I. That the Messiah was to die. 
 II. That Jesus did really die. 
 III. How His union with God bears on that death. 
 
 I. That the Messiah was to die. 
 
 A. From types. 
 
 1. The sacrifice of Isaac properly considered implies this. 
 
 2. The paschal lamb and all the atoning sacrifices 
 plainly foreshow this. 
 
 B. From prophecy. 
 
 Isa. liii. expressly declares it. 
 
 II. That Jesus did really die. 
 
 A. 1. His worst enemies were satisfied of His death. 
 
 2. Nature itself testified to it. 
 
 3. The water and the blood witnessed to it.
 
 44 " DEAD." 
 
 B. This was a proper human death. 
 
 1. Life consists in the union of the soul to the body. 
 
 2. Death, being the cessation of life, consists in the 
 separation of the soul from the body. 
 
 3. We therefore imply by the death of Christ, that His 
 body was bereft of the soul, and of all vital influence 
 from it. 
 
 4. This appears from the expressions of the Evangelists 
 describing the death of Jesus. 
 
 5. There was an adequate cause for the death of Jesus 
 in the anguish, bodily and spiritual, endured. 
 
 6. Christ's death was voluntary (John x. 18) in the sense 
 that of His own will He submitted Himself to that which 
 would cause death, and that by His divine power He could 
 at any moment have interrupted it. 
 
 It was involuntary in the sense that without such divine 
 interposition, the human frame, subjected to such anguish, 
 must suffer dissolution. 
 
 7. We must not conceive that Christ anticipated the 
 natural moment of death. Otherwise the actual death 
 itself would not have been the act of His enemies. 
 
 HI. How His union with the Deity bears on this. The 
 soul departed from the body, but neither soul nor body 
 was separated from the Deity. 
 
 1. It is the Son of God of whom all this is asserted in 
 the Creed, and He did not cease to be the Son of God in 
 any respect. 
 
 2. The Church has always said, t; God died for us ;" this 
 implies that soul and body must have continued united to 
 the Deity. 
 
 3. God withdraws not His gifts except for sin. How
 
 "AND BURIED." 45 
 
 could the grace of union be withdrawn from Christ in the 
 highest act of obedience ? 
 
 4. The cry of desertion on the cross applied to the with- 
 drawal of comfort from the Father, not to a separation of 
 natures. 
 
 IY. The necessity of this Article. 
 
 A. To the office of Christ as Prophet. 
 
 1. To seal His testimony and His covenant. 
 
 2. To teach by example the virtues of meekness, patience, 
 humanity, obedience, charity. 
 
 B. To His office as Priest. 
 
 1. A priest must have an offering to bring. 
 
 2. "We needed a perfect sacrifice. 
 
 3. Having this we have access to God. 
 
 4. He is qualified for this office by His perfect sympathy. 
 
 C. To His office as King. 
 
 It is the doctrine of Scripture that the death of Christ 
 prepared for His exaltation. (Phil. ii. 8, 9 ; Col. ii. 15, &c.) 
 
 SECTION 4. " And Buried" 
 We shall have to show 
 
 I. That the Messiah was to be buried. 
 II. That Jesus was accordingly buried. 
 
 I. That the Messiah was to be buried : 
 1. Because He was to be a Jew, and Jews ordinarily 
 buried their dead.
 
 46 "AND BUEIED." 
 
 2. From the type of Jonah. 
 
 3. From the prophecies. (Ps. xvi. 9, 10 ; Isa. liii. 8, 9.) 
 
 II. That Jesus was buried. 
 
 1. The crucified were usually left exposed on the cross, 
 but might be removed for burial on permission, (see note.) 
 
 2. In this case, the Jews themselves asked for His burial, 
 in accordance with the law of Moses. (Deut. xxi. 22, 23 ; 
 John xix. 31.) Joseph of Arimathea further asked for the 
 body, and thus it was given up for burial. 
 
 3. In the burial there are three things to be considered 
 (a.) What was done to prepare the body for the grave. 
 The previous anointing by Mary ; the spices and grave- 
 clothes brought and used by Joseph and Nicodemus ; and 
 the intended anointing of the body by the women. 
 
 (6.) The preparation of the sepulchre. 
 
 Joseph had hewn a new sepulchre out of a rock in a 
 garden, which was secured in the Jewish manner by a large 
 stone. 
 
 (c.) The persons who fulfilled the prophecy. 
 
 Joseph and Nicodemns rich and honourable. 
 
 III. The necessity of this Article. 
 
 1. That it seals the truth of the death. 
 
 2. That it may be a symbol of our death to sin. 
 
 3. That we may learn how to treat the bodies of those 
 who sleep in Christ.
 
 ARTICLE V. 
 
 " HE DESCENDED INTO HELL ; THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE 
 AGAIN FROM THE DEAD." 
 
 SECTION I. " He descended into Hell." 
 
 THIS Article is not found in the Nicene Creed. It was 
 contained in tie Creed of Aquileia in the fourth century, 
 which, however, omitted the burial. Soon afterwards it 
 was admitted into the Roman Creed, which we call the 
 Apostles' Creed. It is also in the Athanasian Creed. 
 
 In the Forty-two Articles of Edward it was coupled 
 with 1 Pet. iii. 19. But in the Thirty-nine Articles of 
 Elizabeth, the reference to that passage was removed. 
 We are, therefore, freed from the necessity of main- 
 taining that interpretation of it. 
 
 The original Latin is " descendit in inferna," or ad inferos. 
 The Greek rendering was etc carwrara, or elg ffiov words 
 obviously indefinite. 
 
 I. Three passages are usually quoted as inferentially 
 containing this doctrine. 
 
 1. Eph. iv. 9. Pearson grants that this passage may be 
 understood of this Article. But since it may speak of His 
 incarnation, (Ps. cxxxix. 15,) or of His burial, or of His 
 humiliation in His descent from glory, (John iii. 13,) we 
 cannot rest upon this passage.
 
 48 "HE DESCENDED INTO HELL." 
 
 2. 1 Pet. iii. 18, has been extensively interpreted of a 
 local descent of the soul of Christ after death, to preach to 
 the souls in hell. Pearson rejects this interpretation as 
 encompassed with difficulties, and takes the meaning to be 
 that Christ by the Spirit spoke to the disobedient in Noah's 
 days, as in all others. 
 
 3. Acts ii. 26, 27, plainly implies this doctrine, for if 
 His soul was not left in hell, and was not there before His 
 death, it must have descended thither. 
 
 II. Hence this question now resolves itself into one of 
 interpretation of this passage. We shall have to ask, 
 what that hell was, and how He descended thither. 
 
 SOME OF THE EXPLANATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. 
 
 A. That of Durandus, (one of the school-men of the 
 thirteenth century,) that it was not a local descent, but one 
 of efficacy and influence. This may be true, but is not 
 what the Article means. 
 
 B. That of Calvin, Beza, and others, that Christ actually 
 suffered the torments of the damned. This is denied, 
 because remorse of conscience, despair, alienation from 
 God, were far from Him. 
 
 C. Following a peculiar use of the original Hebrew, 
 in which 5^53, dvxi), is used of the body from which the 
 soul has departed, (Numb. vi. 6 ; Lev. xxi. 11, &c.,) and 
 in which ?1N^, $?, is used of the grave, (Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; 
 1 Sam. ii. 6, &c.,) this Article has been interpreted of the 
 burial of Christ. It is granted that this is a possible 
 interpretation of the verse in the Psalm, but it cannot be 
 that of this Article, for the burial has been already named.
 
 " HE DESCENDED INTO HELL." 49 
 
 D. That the Article only signifies a continuance in the 
 state of the dead. But it is urged that hades never 
 signifies a state or condition, but always a locality. 
 
 E. The interpretation preferred by Pearson, viz., that 
 the soul means that part of man in which all vital power 
 resides, and which when separated from the body retains 
 those vital powers, understands, wills, rejoices, grieves ; 
 that, therefore, we mean that the soul of Christ, as dis- 
 tinguished from His body, was really carried into those 
 parts where the souls of men before departed were. 
 
 In this opinion nearly all the fathers agree. This be- 
 comes manifest from the line of argument taken against 
 the Apollinarians. 
 
 [Apollinaris of Laodicea, in the end of the fourth century, 
 denied the existence of a rational human soul in Christ, 
 and explained the incarnation thus, that the Divine Logos 
 supplied the place of the human soul.] 
 
 The fathers argued thus Christ descended into hell, 
 but the Deity did not descend into hell, therefore He 
 must have had a human soul which was capable of such 
 a descent. 
 
 But though the fathers were generally agreed as to the 
 fact, they differed widely as to the persons and object of 
 His descent. These varieties of opinion may be briefly 
 thus classified. 
 
 1. That He descended to the faithful dead, and removed 
 them to a better place. 
 
 2. That He descended to them, but did not so remove 
 them. 
 
 3. That He descended to hell in its proper sense, and 
 preached the Gospel to the souls detained there. 
 
 It was generally thought heretical to believe, as some 
 
 D
 
 50 "HE DESCENDED INTO HELL." 
 
 did, that He then delivered all. But it was very widely 
 held that He delivered some. 
 
 This last opinion, however, passed away, and the first of 
 these prevailed in the middle ages, and was stated as an 
 Article of faith by the school-men. 
 
 4. Latimer and others in our own Chnrch held that 
 Christ descended into hell to triumph over Satan there. 
 But the triumph in Scripture is referred (Col. ii. 15) to 
 the Cross, and (Ephes. iv. 8, 9) to the Ascension. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The substance of the Article has been already stated (E). 
 The end of the descent appears to be, that He might un- 
 dergo the condition of a dead man, as He had done that 
 of a living man. His body was laid in the grave. His 
 soul was conveyed into the same receptacles as the souls 
 of other persons. 
 
 Thus by His actual descent into the realms of death, He 
 has assured His followers of His power and presence there 
 also. 
 
 [The ordinary mode of dealing with this subject is to 
 combine the words of Jesus to the dying thief, with the 
 quotation of Peter from the Psalms thus : If the thief 
 was to be with Him in Paradise that day, and yet He 
 descended into hades ; that part of hades into which He 
 descended must be the place where the souls of the just 
 await the resurrection.]
 
 '"THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD." 51 
 
 SECTION 2. " The third day He rose again from the dead." 
 
 Three particulars need consideration : 
 
 I. That Christ did rise, (He rose again.) 
 II. The reality and propriety of that resurrection (from 
 
 the dead.) 
 III. The time when He rose. (The third day.) 
 
 I. The action itself, that Christ did rise. 
 
 A. The prophetical question that the Messiah was to 
 rise. 
 
 1. From Ps. ii. 6, 7, coupled with Acts iv. 27, 28, 
 Pearson argues that the glory of the Messiah following 
 on His persecution, involves the necessity of His resur- 
 rection. 
 
 2. Ps. xvi. 10, applied by Peter (Acts ii. 29, 31) to 
 the resurrection. 
 
 3. Types viz., Joseph taken out of prison, and Isaac 
 received from the dead in a figure. 
 
 B. That Jesus rose again, is proved 
 
 1. By human testimony : viz., that of the women ; of the 
 Apostles ; of five hundred brethren at once ; of the soldiers. 
 
 2. By angelical testimony : viz., the angels at the tomb. 
 
 3. By divine testimony : the Apostles were endued 
 with the Holy Ghost to bear witness. 
 
 II. The reality and propriety of the resurrection (from 
 the dead.) 
 
 Definition of a resurrection " A substantial change, by 
 
 D2
 
 52 "THE THIRD DAT HE ROSE AGAIN FKOM THE DEAD." 
 
 which that which was before, and was corrupted, is repro- 
 duced the same thing again." 
 
 For a resurrection must be distinguished from a creation, 
 or a mere alteration of state. A resurrection can only be 
 predicated of a rational being, and it requires personal 
 identity. The reunion of the same soul to the same body 
 in all that is requisite to secure that personal identity, is a 
 perfect and proper resurrection. 
 
 Christ did thus properly rise. 
 
 A. 1. He had a real body ; for He said, " Handle me and 
 see." 
 
 2. He had the same body ; for He offered His wounds to 
 Thomas. 
 
 3. The animal soul was present ; for He ate before them. 
 
 4. The sensitive part was there ; He conversed, He saw, 
 He heard. 
 
 5. The rational soul was present ; He reasoned with them 
 out of the Scriptures. 
 
 6. It was the same soul ; because the Deity was united to 
 only one human nature, and that it was conjoined to the 
 risen body of Jesus, appears from His display of divine 
 power after the resurrection. 
 
 B. The efficient cause of the resurrection was God's 
 omnipotence. 
 
 1. Of the Father. (Gal. i. 1.) 
 
 2. Of the Son Himself. (John ii. 19, 21.) 
 
 [Note the Socinian evasion, that Christ only raised 
 Himself as the paralytic man did when cured.] Also 
 John x. 17, 18 ; Eom. i. 4. 
 
 Any instrumental cause is unnamed and unknown.
 
 "THE THIRD DAT HE ROSE AGAitf FROM THE DEAD." 53 
 
 The meritorious cause was the sinless obedience of 
 Christ. 
 
 III. The time of the resurrection, (the third day.) 
 
 A. Typical predictions. 
 
 1. The sign of Jonah. 
 
 2. The wave-sheaf in the feast of the firstfruits : Christ 
 was the firstfruits from the great harvest-field of mortality. 
 
 B. The space of three days considered. 
 
 1. A sufficient space was required to make the fact of the 
 death manifest. But the space must not be too long, 
 because the whole power and promulgation of the Gospel 
 were waiting for His resurrection and ascension, and 
 because the resurrection should take place while the facts 
 were fresh, and the soldiers still watching. 
 
 2. The space of three days is variously expressed. The 
 most explicit is " the third day." In Scripture such ex- 
 pressions are always inclusive, e.g., the eighth day for 
 circumcision, the fiftieth day for Pentecost. 
 
 Hence those other expressions, " after three days, 1 ' " three 
 days and three nights," must be interpreted in accordance 
 with the former, as Pearson shows they may be in the 
 Hebrew idiom, particularly referring to Dan. viii. 14 ; 
 Lake ii. 21. [See Lightfoot, Horae Hebraic, on Matt. 
 xii. 40.] 
 
 3. Which day this third day was, appears : 
 
 (a) Because the day of crucifixion is called the prepa- 
 ration for a high Sabbath, which preparation would be 
 Friday. 
 
 (/3) Because the Evangelists expressly say, that Jesus 
 rose early on the first day of the week.
 
 54 "THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD." 
 
 4. Thus the obligation of the Sabbath was transferred 
 from the seventh to the first day of the week, as appears 
 from notices of the observance of that day from that 
 time forward. 
 
 IV. The necessity for this Article follows : 
 
 1. Because we are hereby assured of His divinity. 
 (Rom. i. 4.) 
 
 2. Because we are thus assured of our justification. 
 (Rom. iv. 24, 25 ; viii. 33, 34.) 
 
 3. To strengthen our hope in Christ, that we may be 
 assured of a like resurrection. 
 
 4. That His resurrection may powerfully work in our 
 lives. (Rom. vi. 4.)
 
 55 
 
 ARTICLE VI. 
 
 " HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN, AND SITTETH ON THE 
 RIGHT HAND OF GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY." 
 
 SECTION I. "He Ascended into Heaven" 
 THREE points require consideration : 
 
 I. Prophetical That the Messiah was to ascend. 
 II. The fact That Jesus did ascend. 
 III. Local Whither He ascended. 
 
 I. That the Messiah was to ascend appears : 
 
 A. From type The entry of the High Priest into the 
 Holy of Holies. (Heb. ix. 11, 12.) 
 
 B. From prophecy. (Ps. Ixviii. 18 ; applied Eph. iv. 8 ; 
 also Micah ii. 13.) 
 
 II. That Jesus did ascend must be understood : 
 
 A. Not by a metaphorical or figurative ascent, by virtue 
 of the hypostatical union ; (for thus Pearson explains 
 John iii. 13.) But 
 
 B. By a local transfer of the human nature, body and 
 soul, which was on earth, into heaven. 
 
 It was observed by Chrysostom that it was not neces- 
 sary that the resurrection should be visible, because the 
 risen body sufficiently testified to the fact.
 
 56 " HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN." 
 
 It was necessary that the ascension should be visible, 
 because the ascended body disappeared. 
 We have the testimony to the fact : 
 
 1. Of the Apostles. (Acts i. 9, 10.) 
 
 2. Of Angels. (Acts i. 10, 11.) 
 
 III. Whither He ascended : 
 
 1. Heaven is sometimes understood of the atmospheric 
 regions. (Dan. vii. 13 ; Gen. i. 20, &c.) 
 
 But Jesus passed through these into whatever is most 
 august and noble in the heavenly regions, (Heb. iv. 14, 
 "through the heavens;" Eph. iv. 10, "far above all 
 heavens ; " John vi. 62, "where He was before.") 
 
 We understand, therefore, a local and literal ascent, not 
 of His divinity, but of His humanity, into heaven in its 
 most exalted sense. 
 
 IV. The necessity of this belief appears : 
 
 1. To confirm faith. We are thus assured that Christ 
 came from the Father, and that His work on earth was 
 accepted. 
 
 2. To confirm our hope. Where the head is, there the 
 body will be ; He is the " Firstfruits," and the " Fore- 
 runner." 
 
 3. To exalt our affections. (Col. iii. 1, 3.) 
 
 4. In respect of the great results flowing from it ; espe- 
 cially the gift of the Holy Ghost, which depended on the 
 ascension of Christ.
 
 ETC. 57 
 
 SECTION II. " And sitteth on the right hand of God the 
 Father Almighty." 
 
 Three things require elucidation under this Article : 
 
 I. That the Messiah should thus sit. 
 II. That Jesus did thus sit. 
 III. What this sitting means. 
 
 I. That the Messiah should thus sit is proved : 
 
 A. From the type of Joseph raised from prison to power. 
 
 B. From the prophecy. (Ps. ex. 1.) Applied by later 
 Jews to Hezekiah, Zerubbabel, &c. ; but by earlier Jews 
 to the Messiah, as it was also by our Lord Himself. 
 (Matt. xxii. 42, 46.) 
 
 II. That Jesus did thus sit. This appears from many 
 express passages, (Mark xvi. 19 ; Eph. i. 20, &c.) This 
 was promised to none but the Messiah. (Heb. i. 13.) 
 
 III. What this sitting means : 
 A. What is the right hand of God ? 
 
 1. This cannot be corporeally understood, since God is 
 a Spirit. 
 
 2. The hand being the executive of the body, and the 
 right hand more eminently so, this will signify power. 
 (Matt, xxvii. 64, &c. : " The Son of Man sitting on the 
 right hand of power.") 
 
 3. It is the place of honour, (1 Kings ii. 19 ; Heb. i. 3. 
 " The right hand of the Majesty on high.") 
 
 4. The right hand bestows gifts. Hence it is the place 
 of felicity, and therefore signifies the present rest and 
 glory of Jesus.
 
 58 "AND SITTETH ON THE EIGHT HAND 
 
 B. The act of session itself. 
 
 1. This is not necessarily a corporeal posture. For the 
 posture is sometimes omitted, and (Acts vii. 56) Jesus is 
 represented as standing, that position being appropriate to 
 Stephen's necessity. 
 
 2. To sit (2{?>J) in Hebrew, (and to some extent in other 
 languages also,) signifies to " dwell," to " possess," to 
 " remain." 
 
 3. To sit, implies rest and quietness. 
 
 4. It implies dominion, sovereignty, majesty. Hence 
 (1 Cor. xv. 25) St. Paul uses the word "reign" as an 
 equivalent. 
 
 5. It implies judicial power. 
 
 Hence this Article imports the solemn entry of the 
 Messiah into His full dominion. 
 
 This is connected with the original promise to David of 
 an everlasting kingdom, (2 Sam. vii. 16.) In an earthly 
 sense this was conditional, (Ps. cxxxii. 12.) And therefoi'e 
 the promise dropped on the failure of the condition. 
 
 But in the higher sense, the promise was perpetuated in 
 Christ, according to the prophecy by Gabriel, (Luke i. 32, 
 33,) insomuch that Ezekiel (xxxvii. 24, 25) expressly 
 calls the Messiah David, without any qualifying addition. 
 
 The humiliation and final glory of the Messiah are 
 illustrated from the history of David, and the gradual steps 
 by which He attained full sovereignty. 
 
 The effect of this regal power is the subduing of His 
 enemies, (Heb. x. 12, 13 ; illustrated from Josh. x. 14.) 
 These enemies are : 
 
 1. Temporal who have been or will be destroyed, e.g., 
 the Jews of old, &c. 
 
 2. Spiritual as Satan, sin, death.
 
 OF GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY." 59 
 
 Passages are quoted referring to each of these. This 
 mediatorial kingdom will have a termination, (1 Cor. xv. 
 24, 28), when its object shall be completed. But that the 
 kingly glory of Christ will not depart, but take a changed 
 position in the change of circumstance, is asserted in the 
 words of the present Nicene Creed. " Whose kingdom shall 
 have no end." 
 
 IV. The necessity for this belief : 
 
 1. To remind us of our duty subjection and obedience. 
 
 2. To assure us of protection. 
 
 3. To assure us of the intercession of Christ.
 
 60 
 
 ARTICLE VII. 
 
 " FROM THENCE HE SHALL COME TO JUDGE THE 
 QUICK AND THE DEAD." 
 
 THERE are four necessary considerations under this 
 Article : 
 
 I. That Christ shall return. 
 II. Whence He shall return. 
 
 III. That His purpose will be Judgment. 
 
 IV. Whom He shall judge. 
 
 I. That He shall return appears 
 
 A. From Old Testament prophecies, (e.g., Dan. vii. 13, 
 14.) These prophecies are so manifest that the Jews in- 
 vented the fiction of the two Messiahs to evade them. 
 
 B. From New Testament prophecies. (Acts i. 11 ; John 
 xiv. 3 ; Rev. i. 7, &c.) 
 
 II. Whence He shall return. 
 
 A. From the grammatical connexion of the passage, it 
 must be from heaven. 
 
 B. From express passages of the New Testament, the 
 same appears. (Acts iii. 21 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16.) 
 
 III. That His purpose will be judgment. 
 
 A. How we are assured that there will be a judgment
 
 "FROM THENCE HE SHALL COME" ETC. 61 
 
 1. The tribunal of conscience suggests our accountability 
 for our actions. 
 
 2. Our belief in God's justice, coupled with the apparent 
 imperfection of the moral administration of the world, 
 points in the same direction. 
 
 Either these considerations, or else a residue of primitive 
 tradition, (see the prophecy of Enoch in Jude,) led the 
 ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans to expect a judg- 
 ment after death. 
 
 3. From the express testimony of revelation. 
 
 B. Who shall be the judge. 
 
 1. God is the Judge. (Heb. xii. 23.) 
 
 2. More particularly Christ is the Judge, being man as 
 well as God. (Acts xvii. 31 ; John v. 22, 27.) 
 
 The propriety of Christ being the Judge appears 
 
 (a) Because it is a part of His exaltation, the reward of 
 His sufferings and obedience. 
 
 (/3) Because there will be a visible Judge. 
 
 (y) Because the Judge will know human infirmities by 
 His own experience. 
 
 3. This office was set forth in many of the parables. The 
 tares and wheat the good and bad fish the account for 
 the talents the sheep and goats, &c. 
 
 C. What the judicial action is 
 
 It is the eternal disposal of the souls and bodies of all 
 persons. We are informed of the fact, but not of the 
 manner, except that the process is represented as formal 
 and judiciary. 
 
 Accordingly, Scripture gives us the following particulars : 
 1. A throne, or judgment seat. (Rev. xx. 4 ; Matt. xix. 
 28.)
 
 62 " FROM THENCE HE SHALL COME " ETC. 
 
 2. A personal appearance of all before the tribunal. 
 (Rev. xx. 12.) 
 
 3. The manifestation of all thoughts and actions. (1 
 Cor. iv. 5.) 
 
 4. A definitive sentence. (Matt. xxv. 34, 41.) 
 
 5. There will be execution. (Matt. xxv. 46.) 
 
 IV. Who shall be judged 
 
 " The quick and the dead." (Acts x. 42, &c.) 
 This has been interpreted anciently 
 
 1. Of the living soul and the dead body. But all will 
 not die. 
 
 2. Of the spiritually alive and dead. But it is not likely 
 that we should find a metaphorical expression in such a 
 document of fact as this Creed. 
 
 3. Of those who will be alive at the second coming, and 
 those who shall have previously died. This is the true 
 explanation. 
 
 The inquiry whether those who shall be found alive at 
 the second coming must then pass through death, is 
 answered negatively from 1 Thess. iv. 15-17, and 1 Cor. xv. 
 51. It is, however, acknowledged that there is a various 
 reading of the latter passage, "We shall all sleep, but shall 
 not all be changed," but this reading is not considered 
 
 genuine, and the former passage is conclusive. 
 
 * 
 
 V. The necessity for this belief is thus arranged 
 
 1. That we may believe in the perfect justice of God, in 
 spite of present appearances. 
 
 2. That our responsibility to God may regulate our lives. 
 
 3. That regarding Christ as the Judge may strengthen 
 our hope, and augment our comfort.
 
 63 
 
 ARTICLE VIII. 
 
 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLT GHOST." 
 
 SOME of the fathers relied on the phrase " believe IN," as 
 distinguished from "believe," simply in order to prove from 
 it the deity of the Holy Ghost. At the commencement of 
 this work, Pearson has already stated that he does not rely 
 upon that difference of expression. 
 
 This Article will have two main divisions : 
 
 I. The nature of the Holy Ghost. 
 II. His office. 
 
 I. The nature of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 His existence no one doubts. But there have been 
 various opinions as to what is meant by this name. In the 
 note Pearson classifies them into three, taken from Gregory 
 Nazianzen. 
 
 1. That hereby is meant an energy or operation of the 
 divine Being. 
 
 2. That a created substance is spoken of. 
 
 3. The orthodox opinion. 
 
 In setting forth this we must show 
 
 A. That the Holy Ghost is a person in opposition to 
 opinion (1) above stated. 
 
 (a) He is contrasted with the evil spirits who are persons w 
 See the cases of Saul and Micaiah. 
 
 (/3) He can be grieved. 
 
 Makes intercession.
 
 64 " I BELIEVE IN THE HOLT GHOST." 
 
 Searches all things. 
 
 Distributes spiritual gifts. 
 
 Speaks to Peter. 
 
 Speaks to prophets at Antioch. 
 
 As the Paraclete, He is sent, teaches, testifies, comes, 
 reproves, guides, speaks. 
 
 All these are personal acts. 
 
 It is objected to this that these are only instances of 
 personification or prosopopoeia, just as St. Paul personifies 
 charity in Cor. xiii. 
 
 Pearson replies that this might account for some passages, 
 but not for all, for in some of the above the Spirit is clearly 
 distinguished from the Father ; especially in Rom. viii. 27, 
 and in all those promises of Christ which speak of the office 
 of the Paraclete. 
 
 Moreover, in many of these passages He is distinguished 
 as clearly from the man who is the object of His influence. 
 
 It is further objected that words used of the Spirit are 
 not proper to a person ; e.g., He is given, poured out, 
 divided, doubled, &c. 
 
 It is answered to this that a person may be given : " Unto 
 us a Son is given," &c. And further, we acknowledge that 
 the effects and operations of the Spirit have sometimes in 
 Scripture the name of the Spirit Himself. Indeed, to 
 identify a person with his work, or a cause with an effect, 
 is one of the commonest modes of speech, and seldom leads 
 to confusion. 
 
 B. That He is not only a person, but a divine and 
 uncreated person. 
 
 1. Pearson argues this from 1 Cor. ii. 11. 
 
 2. Because the sin against the Holy Ghost is irremissible.
 
 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLT GHOST." 65 
 
 All sin, even against God, is not unpardonable. Therefore, 
 certainly sin against a created being cannot be unpardon- 
 able. 
 
 3. John i. 3. All created things were made by the Son. 
 But the Spirit of God was in the beginning, (Job xxvi.,) 
 and therefore is not a creature. 
 
 4. Luke i. 35. Since Jesus was conceived by the operation 
 of the Holy Ghost, He is called the Son of God. There- 
 fore the Holy Ghost must be God. 
 
 The heresy of denying the Deity of the Holy Ghost was 
 that of the Macedonians, a branch of the semi-Arians. 
 Macedonius was Bishop of Constantinople in the latter 
 half of the fourth century. The Macedonians were con- 
 demned by the First Council of Constantinople, which added 
 the latter portion to the Nicene Creed, after " I believe in 
 the Holy Ghost." [N.B. The Greek runs thus : Kat etc TO 
 Hvevpa. TO aytoi', TO Kvpiov, TO wo7rotoV.] 
 
 5. Further proofs of the divine nature of the Holy Ghost 
 are alleged from the following passages : 
 
 (a) 2 Cor. iii. 15-17 : " The Lord is that Spirit." 
 
 (/3) Acts v. 3, 4 : The lie to the Holy Ghost is a lie to God. 
 
 (y) 1 Cor. vi. 19 : The inhabitation by the Spirit makes 
 man the temple of God. 
 
 (2) Acts xxviii. 25, identifies the Holy Ghost with 
 Jehovah. Compare Isa. vi. 9. 
 
 (t) The divine attributes omniscience, omnipotence, 
 omnipresence are attributed to the Holy Ghost. 
 
 C. That the Holy Ghost is not to be confused with the 
 Father or the Son. 
 
 1. He proceeds from the Father, (John xv. 26.) There- 
 fore, is not the Father. 
 
 E
 
 66 "I BELIEVE IN THE HOLT GHOST." 
 
 2. He receives of that which is the Son's, and glorifies 
 the Son. He is sent on condition of the Son's departure, 
 (John xiv. 26, and xvi. 7, 14,) therefore, He is not the Son. 
 
 3. He is distinguished from both Father and Son. Matt, 
 iii. 16 : The voice at the baptism of Christ. Eph. ii. 18 : 
 Access to the Father through the Son by the Spirit. 
 Also other passages relating to the Paraclete, and the 
 baptismal formula. 
 
 D. That there is a priority of order in the Holy Trinity as 
 it is set forth to us in Scripture ; but not one which would 
 imply a breach of the co-equality of the persons. Still, that 
 the Son is described as begotten, and the Spirit as proceed- 
 ing from the Father and the Son, shows that there is a 
 propriety in the order. 
 
 E. That the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and 
 the Son. 
 
 1. From the Father is expressly stated. (John xv. 26.) 
 
 2. That He proceeds from the Son is deduced from the 
 identity of the expressions describing the relation of the 
 Spirit to the Son and to the Father. 
 
 He is called the " Spirit of the Father " and the " Spirit 
 of God;" and in the Epistles is repeatedly called "the 
 Spirit of Christ." 
 
 Both the Father and the Son send the Paraclete. (John 
 xiv. 26, and xv. 26.) 
 
 [Note here the breach between the Greek and Latin 
 Churches, owing to the latter making the unauthorized 
 addition of the words " filioque " to the Nicene Creed, 
 against the decree of the Council of Ephesus.]
 
 " BELIEVE IN THE HOLY GHOST." 67 
 
 II. The office of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Pearson takes the word " Holy " chiefly as applying to 
 the nature of His office. 
 This office is considered, 
 
 A. In its relation to the whole Church. 
 
 B. In its relation to individuals. 
 
 A. To the whole Church : His great office has been that 
 of revealing the will of God in Holy Scripture. (2 Tim, 
 iii. 16.) 
 
 B. To individuals : His office is, 
 
 1. To enlighten. (Acts xvi. 14, "Lydia;" Heb. iv. 2.) 
 
 2. To regenerate and renew. (Tit. iii. 5 ; John iii. 5.) 
 
 3. To guide our lives and quicken our devotions. (Rom. 
 viii. 14, 26, 27.) 
 
 Hence He is called TrapauXjjroe, " Advocate." 
 
 4. To give us vital union with Christ. (1 Cor. xii. 12, 
 13 ; 1 Cor. vi. 17.) 
 
 5. To give us the Spirit of Adoption. 
 
 6. To set apart men for the work of the ministry. (Eph. 
 iv. 12 ; Acts xx. 28.) 
 
 III. The necessity of this belief appears : 
 
 1. By reason of our baptismal profession, which requires 
 it. 
 
 2. That we may desire the abundance of His gifts. 
 
 3. That the will of God, even our sanctification, may be 
 effectual in us. 
 
 4. For our support, comfort, and joy. 
 
 5. For the true and faithful relation of Christian 
 ministers and people to each other. 
 
 E 2
 
 68 
 
 ARTICLE IX. 
 
 x i 
 
 " THE HOLT CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE COMMUNION OP 
 SAINTS." 
 
 SECTION I." The Holy Catholic Church:' 
 
 The wording of this Article has been slightly varied by 
 the addition of the word Catholic in early times. 
 
 I. The senses in which the word " Church " has been 
 used : 
 
 1. For the derivation of the words "church" and 
 " ecclesia," see notes on Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 2. Some have included angels as well as men in the 
 notion of the Church. Pearson, however, restricts it to 
 believers in Christ. 
 
 3. An examination of the New Testament use of the 
 word. 
 
 A. Spoken of by our Lord in the future, (Matt. xvi. ]8,) 
 and in the parables describing the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 B. Recognised as actually existent for the first time on 
 the day of Pentecost. (Acts ii. 47.) 
 
 C. Defined in its essentials in the same chapter. (Acts 
 ii. 41, 42.) 
 
 D. In some passages the word inrXifer/a has its classical 
 meaning in 'the New Testament, either of a confused 
 assembly, (Acts xix. 32,) or of a legal meeting of the 
 people, (Acts xix. 39.)
 
 "THE HOLT CATHOLIC CHURCH." 69 
 
 E. In one or two places it is used for the assembly of 
 the Jewish people in the wilderness, the congregation of the 
 English Bible. (Acts vii. 38.) 
 
 F. Some would translate 1 Cor. xi. 18, 22, of the building 
 itself, instead of the people assembled. The meaning is 
 obviously possible, but by no means necessary, and perhaps 
 not likely. 
 
 G. The word is used both in the singular and the plural. 
 We have the Church in a house, viz., the Christians usually 
 meeting in that particular house ; the Church of a city ; 
 the Church of a province. And yet we also have all these 
 viewed as one great aggregate. The One Church, which 
 includes them all. 
 
 II. In what this unity consists : 
 
 The essentials of this unity are gathered from Acts ii. 
 41, 42, 44, 47 ; viz., believing and baptized persons, pro- 
 fessing the same faith, receiving the same sacraments, 
 performing the same devotions. To this Church the saved 
 ones were then, and have ever since been added. 
 
 The unity therefore consists : 
 
 A. In the one foundation, Christ. (1 Cor. iii. 11.) The 
 Apostles and Prophets in a secondary sense being founda- 
 tions. (Eph. ii. 19-21.) 
 
 B. In the unity of faith. (Eph. iv. 5 ; Jude 3.) 
 
 C. In receiving the same sacraments. (Matt, xxviii. 19 ; 
 1 Cor. x. 17.) This was illustrated in Israel of old. (1 Cor. 
 x. 2, 4.) 
 
 D. In partaking of one hope. (Eph. iv. 4.) 
 
 E. In the bond of love. (John xiii. 35.) 
 
 F. In the unity of discipline and government, through 
 which Christ rules over all.
 
 70 "THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH." 
 
 [N.B. The dissensions and divisions among Christians 
 not separated essentially on any of the five previous points, 
 will be found to lie, not in their repudiation of this last, 
 but in their opinion as to what is or is not essential to the 
 unity of discipline and government, whether Episcopacy, 
 Presbytery, or a less organized and uniform constitution.] 
 
 III. That the Church, thus defined, is an object of faith, 
 and not merely an acknowledged fact, arises from the 
 consideration of Christ's promise, (Matt. xvi. 18 ; also 
 xxviii. 19, 20,) which assures us that the Church shall be 
 perpetual. 
 
 IV. This Church is holy. 
 
 A. In reference to its vocation. (2 Tim. i. 9.) 
 
 B. In relation to the offices appointed in it. 
 
 C. Because of the life to which Christians are bound. 
 (2 Tim. ii. 19.) 
 
 D. In regard to the end for which the Church was 
 established. (1 Pet. ii. 9.) 
 
 For these four reasons, holiness may in an outward sense 
 be predicated of the whole body. 
 
 But there is also an inner body within the Church, 
 generally known as the Church invisible, to which the 
 above qualities truly belong. 
 
 The Church visible includes both bad and good, as we 
 learn from the parables on the kingdom of heaven. But 
 those who " are efficaciously called, justified, and sanctified, 
 while they live are truly holy, and when they die are per- 
 fectly holy." And at last the Church glorified shall be truly 
 holy. (Eph. v. 27.)
 
 " THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH." 71 
 
 V. The Catholic Church. 
 
 The word Catholic, radoXueog, is not used in the Scripture. 
 It was used by the early fathers, not as a technical theological 
 word, but as a word in common use, meaning whatever 
 was general or universal. Thus it was applied to certain 
 Epistles, to the resurrection, to notions commonly held. 
 Certain heads of revenue departments under the Romans 
 bore the title of Catholicus. 
 
 When applied to the building, it meant the common, or 
 (so to speak) parish church, as opposed to a private or 
 monastery chapel. Obviously such a meaning could not 
 arise before the fourth century at the earliest. 
 
 When applied to the people, it meant either the ortho- 
 dox Church, as opposed to heretics and schismatics ; or the 
 whole Church, as distinguished from peculiar and individual 
 Churches. 
 
 Hence the proper meaning of the word is " universal." 
 
 This catholicity or universality consists : 
 
 A. In its diffusiveness, (Mark xvi. 15,) as distinguished 
 from the contraction of the Jewish system. 
 
 B. In the Church holding the tvhole body of truth. 
 (John xvi. 13.) 
 
 C. In reference to the universal obedience of the whole 
 man to the truth which is required of all. 
 
 D. By reason of all saving grace being given in the 
 Church. 
 
 These four are taken from the Catechetical lectures on 
 the Creed of Cyril of Jerusalem. 
 
 VI. The necessity for this belief: 
 
 1. Because salvation is to be had in the Church alone, 
 a doctrine in which all, except the free-thinking sects, agree.
 
 72 "THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS." 
 
 2. That we may be anxious not to be separated from the 
 Church, actively or passively. 
 
 3. That we seek the holiness which belongs to the true 
 Church. 
 
 4. That we may be in that Church which is truly 
 Catholic. 
 
 SECTION 2. " The Communion of Saints." 
 
 This Article seems to have been admitted into the Creed 
 in the fifth century. 
 
 The Latin word is " Communio," the Greek is cotrwr/a. 
 In the very first days of the Church this was practised in 
 the most absolute manner. (Acts ii. 44, 45.) But this 
 practice did not continue in the Church nni versa! as 
 organised by the Apostles, as we gather from the Epistles, 
 and was unknown in the age in which this Article was 
 added. Therefore this meaning is excluded. 
 
 Three inquiries are necessary to bring out the doctrine 
 here taught : 
 
 I. Who are called " saints." 
 II. With whom they hold communion. 
 III. What the nature of that communion is. 
 
 I. Who are called Saints. The Greek aytW, and the 
 Latin Sanctorum, might be neuter, TO. ajia being used in the 
 Scripture for dedicated things, or the sanctuary itself. But 
 it is assumed that here it is masculine, which excludes both 
 of these. Moreover, it is assumed that God Himself and 
 the angels are not intended here, although the saints have 
 communion with them, and they with the saints. For this 
 is taken as a further description, or privilege of the Holy
 
 "THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS." 73 
 
 Catholic Church. The saints are, therefore, members of 
 the Church. 
 
 Further, in what does their sanctity consist ? 
 
 1. In being set apart for God's service, as were the 
 vessels of the tabernacle and the whole nation of Israel. 
 This is the holiness of outward vocation. 
 
 2. In an intrinsic holiness. 
 
 A. In respect of the faith by which they are regenerated, 
 (1 John v. 1,) by which they are purified, sanctified, and 
 justified, (1 Cor. vi. 11,) and sealed with the Spirit, (Eph. 
 i. 13.) 
 
 B. In respect of their conduct and lives. (1 Pet. i. 15 ; 
 2 Pet. i. 58.) 
 
 These saints may receive . a twofold classification, as the 
 Church militant, and the Church triumphant. 
 
 II. With whom do these saints hold communion ? 
 
 1. With God the Father. (1 John i. 3.) 
 
 2. With God the Son. (John xvii. 2023.) 
 
 3. With God the Holy Ghost. (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) 
 
 4. With the angels. (Luke xv. 10.) 
 
 5. With even the mere outward members of the Church, 
 in respect of those outward things which they share 
 together. 
 
 6. With all true living saints. (1 John i. 7.) 
 
 7. With the departed saints. (Heb. xii. 22, 23.) 
 
 [If there be communion with so many different classes of 
 beings, and if the word in itself means, according both to its 
 derivation and usage, there being something in common 
 between the two parties, it becomes manifest that this 
 something cannot be one and the same thing in all the 
 above cases. Therefore the thing in respect of which
 
 74 " THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS." 
 
 communion is possible may be, and indeed is, quite 
 different in respect of ourselves and God, ourselves and the 
 angels, ourselves and living saints, ourselves and departed 
 saints. Hence to avoid confusion and mystification, and 
 therefore dubious or erroneous doctrine, it behoves us 
 clearly to consider in the light of Scripture, what that 
 common thing is in respect of which communion is possible in 
 any of the above cases which may be under consideration.] 
 
 III. What the nature of the communion is, has been 
 answered by Pearson under each of the above heads. He 
 simply adds now that the communion with the departed 
 saints is grounded upon the mystical union with Christ their 
 head, that we share the same hope, and partake of the 
 same Spirit, though in different stages of fruition ; but 
 that their heavenly employment in relation to us, if any, is 
 neither revealed, nor deducible from Scriptural principles. 
 Certainly in the age in which this article was introduced, 
 the Romish doctrine of saintly intercession was unknown, 
 although already some beginnings of prayers for the dead 
 had been introduced. 
 
 IV. The necessity for this doctrine is thus arranged 
 
 1. To encourage us to holiness. 
 
 2. To excite our gratitude for such a privilege. 
 
 3. To rouse an affection to living saints, and reverent 
 respect to the departed. 
 
 4. To guide and enlarge our charity.
 
 75 
 
 ARTICLE X. 
 
 " THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." 
 
 THIS Article, having been in the earlier forms of the 
 Creed next in order to the Article on the Church, is taken 
 by Pearson as importing that forgiveness of sins is to be 
 obtained in the Church. [As no sect will doubt this, its 
 discussion is not very material, and it is of necessary con- 
 sequence from the mere arrangement of the Creed.] 
 There will be two main considerations : 
 
 I. What is the nature of remission of sins. 
 II. How this great privilege is procured. 
 
 I. In considering the nature of the remission of sins, 
 three considerations are requisite : 
 
 1. The nature of sin. 
 
 2. The guilt which needs forgiveness. 
 
 3. The remission itself. 
 
 1. The nature of sin. 
 
 " Sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John iii. 4.) 
 " Where no law is, there is no transgression." (Rom. 
 iv. 15.) Sin may therefore be an act of omission 
 against an affirmative law, or of commission against a 
 negative law. The actions, movements, and propensities 
 of the soul must be included in the above definitions. 
 
 2. Sin causes guilt, which is an obligation to suffer a
 
 76 " THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." 
 
 proportional punishment. This obligation results from 
 the nature of sin, and is distinctly pronounced in Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 3. Remission must be an act of God towards the sinner. 
 The Greek word for remission is o^eutc, which being used 
 in various senses in Holy Scripture e.g., dismission, 
 omission, &c. cannot of itself fully clear up its meaning. 
 [Nevertheless, an examination and grouping together of the 
 numerous words by which Scripture expresses the act of 
 forgiveness, ought to throw great light upon the nature of 
 that divine act.] 
 
 Various passages are next quoted by Pearson, especially 
 from the Epistle to the Hebrews, showing that without 
 shedding of blood there can be no remission ; and from 
 Isa. liii., &c., showing that Christ shed His blood for us 
 and bore our chastisement. 
 
 Hence it is concluded that forgiveness of sin contains : 
 
 A. The reconciliation of an offended God. 
 
 B. A satisfaction to a just God. 
 
 A. There was a reconciliation of God to us. In this sense, 
 in many passages, Christ is set forth as the propitiation. 
 
 The opinion that we needed to be reconciled to God, but 
 not God to us, although the former of these two is the 
 mode of expression in many passages, (e.g., Rom. v. 10,) 
 will not stand against many expressions of Scripture which 
 speak of God's wrath against sin and sinners, and is 
 contrary to the Church Catechism when describing our state 
 by nature. [N.B. The opponents of this doctrine usually 
 misrepresent it. That in God which needs reconciliation 
 lies in the depth of His purity and justice, and must be 
 spoken of consistently with such passages as " God so loved
 
 " THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." 77 
 
 the world" &c. We must not conceive an enmity of God 
 to man at all of the same nature as the enmity of man to 
 God, as though the reconciliation on the two sides were 
 equal or even comparable.] 
 
 B. That the great act of forgiveness included a satisfac- 
 tion to God appears from many passages, especially those 
 which represent Christ as laying down a ransom (Xvrpoi>) 
 for us. This is properly an actual price paid. (1 Cor. vi. 
 20 ; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19.) 
 
 These two, A and B, together describe the nature of the 
 act of remission. 
 
 II. How this great privilege is procured. 
 
 Pearson considers it in connection with the Church. He 
 shows that from the first moment of its history, forgiveness 
 of sin was the burden of the Gospel message, (Acts iii. 19, 
 &c.,) and that the law had always prefigured this. 
 
 He next states that forgiveness is conferred in the Church 
 in baptism, the statement being thus worded : " It cannot 
 be doubted but all persons who did perform all things 
 necessary to the receiving the ordinance of baptism, did 
 also receive the benefit of that ordinance, which is remission 
 of sins." (Acts ii. 38.) Further on he says, that " Where- 
 soever it was received with all qualifications necessary 
 in the person accepting, and conferred with all things 
 necessary to be performed by the person administering, it 
 was most infallibly efficacious to the remission of all sins 
 committed before the administration of this sacrament." 
 [When we recall the statement of the Church Catechism as 
 to what is required in persons to be baptized, no Christian 
 can doubt the above statement. For true repentance and 
 faith being present there must be forgiveness. Many,
 
 78 "THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." 
 
 however, wonld prefer the statement, which perhaps more 
 clearly harmonizes with our 27th Article, that the sacra- 
 ment was a seal of the pardon already given to the 
 contrite sinner.] 
 
 His next statement is that sins after baptism are remitted 
 upon repentance. The Lord's Prayer itself indicates this. 
 
 [The Nicene Creed confesses tv (Saimana. dg afytoiv 
 a/j.af)riwv. The invariable and necessary connection between 
 baptism and remission has been urged from this clause. 
 But the preposition ely has no such force in the New 
 Testament. It signifies direction, object, and purpose, 
 but not necessary fulfilment. John's baptism (Matt. iii. 11) 
 is said to be ds peTaroiav, but undoubtedly did not produce 
 it in all who received it.] 
 
 [The doctrine of the application of Christ's merits to 
 the sinner has been evidently dealt with by Pearson with 
 extreme brevity. It requires to be supplemented by the 
 doctrine of justification as taught in our eleventh Article.] 
 
 III. The necessity for this belief. 
 
 1. There can be no Christian consolation without it. 
 
 2. That we may esteem rightly God's goodness and our 
 blessedness. 
 
 3. To excite our love to God. 
 
 4. To teach what we owe to Christ. 
 
 5. To remind us of the conditions required on our part.
 
 79 
 
 ARTICLE XL 
 
 " THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 
 
 IN the Greek and Latin Creeds this is expressed, "the 
 Resurrection of the flesli ; " as it is also in the questions in 
 the Baptismal service. 
 
 For the proper definition of a resurrection, Pearson 
 refers us to Article V., section 2. 
 
 But there are farther difficulties in the present Article, 
 because Christ saw no corruption, whereas the bodies of 
 men generally will have been totally dissolved and 
 separated. 
 
 There will be three divisions of the subject : 
 
 I. That such a resurrection is not impossible. 
 II. That it is probable. 
 III. That it is certain on Christian principles. 
 
 I. That it is not impossible. 
 
 1. The philosophers of old thought it was. (Pearson 
 quotes from Pliny, ^schylus, and Tertullian, also from 
 Acts xvii. 18.) Bat they equally believed in the eternity 
 of matter, and the impossibility of its having been created. 
 
 2. It is not impossible in respect of God. Because His 
 knowledge embraces every particle of matter, and His 
 power can deal with it as He will. 
 
 3. It is not impossible in respect of man. Because the
 
 80 "THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 
 
 particles of matter do not perish. They had no relation to 
 the human body originally. After death they lose that 
 relation which during life they had. It is not impossible 
 that such a relation may be restored ; especially since the 
 same power which made, can remake. 
 
 II. That the resurrection is probable. 
 
 1. From the consideration of the compound being of 
 man. The soul is immortal. It is less likely that it should 
 continue to exist with a divided and imperfect being, than 
 that the whole compound existence should be restored. 
 
 2. From the doctrine of rewards and punishments, which 
 seems to require the resurrection. (2 Cor. v. 10.) 
 
 3. From sundry analogies in nature, one of which, viz., 
 the growth of seeds, is used (1 Cor. xv.) to illustrate the 
 subject. 
 
 III. That from divine revelation the resurrection is 
 certain. 
 
 1. In the Old Testament, Pearson refers to Job xix. 25, 
 26 ; Daniel xii. 2. 
 
 2. It appears also from the New Testament, that though 
 there were Sadducees who denied the resurrection, the 
 Pharisees and the Jews generally believed in it, and our 
 Lord argued, from the promises made to the Patriarchs, 
 in its favour. 
 
 3. It is expressly taught in the Apostolical writings. 
 
 4. There are three instances of resurrection in the Old 
 Testament ; also three in the Gospels as performed by our 
 Lord ; there are also those accompanying His resurrection, 
 and the instances in the Acts.
 
 " THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 81 
 
 5. The resurrection of Christ as the Head and firstfruits 
 carries with it that of all His members. 
 
 IV. The older theology, with which Pearson seems to 
 concur, required the actual numerical identity of every 
 particle of the restored body with those composing the body 
 which died. 
 
 [The necessity for this seems to be generally abandoned. 
 Since from moment to moment during life the material 
 particles composing the body change, such an identity does 
 not seem necessary on any of the above considerations. 
 It would also not follow from the analogy in 1 Cor. xv. 37.] 
 
 But it is required that whatever constitutes personal 
 identity shall be present. It is also required, from the same 
 analogy, (1 Cor. xv. 37,) that the new shall not be a new 
 creation, but shall spring from the old. 
 
 The following considerations are subjoined : 
 
 1. That the same soul must be united to the same body, 
 so as to ensure personal identity. (See Bom. viii. 11 ; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 53.) 
 
 2. The places whence the resurrection comes import as 
 much "the graves," (John v. 28;) "the sea" (Rev. 
 xx. 13.) 
 
 3. The identity follows also from the doctrine of the 
 judgment. 
 
 4. Also from the case of those who shall be alive at the 
 coming of the Lord. (1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.) 
 
 5. From the actual instances of resurrection in Scripture. 
 
 V. Who will be raised. 
 
 1. The expressions and allusions in the Old Testament 
 will not suffice fully to elucidate this.
 
 82 " THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY." 
 
 2. But in the New Testament the universality of the 
 resurrection is unequivocally declared. (John v. 28, 29 ; 
 2 Cor. v. 10.) 
 
 3. That the resurrection is future, and not past. (2 Tim. 
 ii. 17, 18.) 
 
 VI. The necessity for this doctrine. 
 
 1. To display the attributes of God in their harmony. 
 
 2. To bring out the fulness of our redemption in Christ. 
 
 3. To remove the fear of death and immoderate sorrowing. 
 
 4. To ensure the necessary preparation for the future 
 life.
 
 83 
 
 ARTICLE XII. 
 
 "AND THE LIFE EVERLASTING." 
 
 THIS Article also was not found in many of the ancient 
 Creeds. 
 
 Connected as it is with the universal resurrection, we 
 must take it not merely in its exalted signification as the 
 eternal life of the righteous, but as asserting the eternal 
 existence of all those who shall be raised. 
 
 We have therefore two divisions : 
 
 I. As applied to the condemned. 
 II. As applied to the saved. 
 
 I. As applied to the condemned. 
 
 1. Many passages of Scripture speak of them as being 
 destroyed, ( e.g., Matt. x. 28). But, 
 
 2. Other passages do not permit us to understand this of 
 annihilation. 
 
 A. The same qualifying epithets are used of the dura- 
 tion of the state both of reward and punishment. (Matt, 
 xxv. 41, 46.) 
 
 B. The fire itself is called " everlasting." 
 
 C. If the word aJwrtoc, &c., be doubted, other more 
 definite expressions are used. (Matt. iii. 12, " Unquench- 
 able"; Matt, xviii. 8 ; Mark ix. 44, 46.) 
 
 3. Annihilation would terminate suffering, which would 
 be inconsistent with Rev. ii. 11, &c., for certainly judgment 
 
 F 2
 
 84 " AND THE LIFE EVERLASTING." 
 
 and annihilation following would be a welcome sound to 
 the suffering wicked. 1 
 
 4. Scripture gives us no ground for thinking that the 
 state of punishment shall. cease. The essence of that state 
 of punishment is alienation from God, incapacity for 
 spiritual happiness. There is no hint of anything remedial 
 in the state of the lost, but rather the contrary, that they 
 have entered into a condition to which the possibilities and 
 terms of redemption and restoration do not apply. 
 
 II. The life eternal of the saved. 
 
 1. Initial, as enjoyed in this life. (John v. 24.) 
 
 2. Partial, as enjoyed by the departed soul before the 
 resurrection. [N.'B. We mean partial not as to the soul, 
 which may enjoy all the bliss of which it ie capable, brrfTas 
 to the partial existence of the soul severed from the body.] 
 (Phil. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. v. 8.) 
 
 3. Perfectional, as enjoyed by the reunited soul and 
 body. 
 
 A. This is life natural, i.e., the union of soul and body. 
 It is moreover life spiritual, viz., union to God in Christ. 
 (1 John v. 12.) 
 
 B. This body will be transformed. (1 Cor. xv. 42 44 ; 
 Phil. iii. 21.) 
 
 C. The soul will be made perfect 
 
 (a) In understanding. (1 Cor. xiii. 12.) 
 
 (/3) In will, conformed to that of God, and therefore at 
 perfect liberty. 
 
 (y) Our affections will be regulated, so that we receive 
 perfect satisfaction. 
 
 D. An immunity from pain, misery, and want, and from 
 the liability to sin.
 
 "AND THE LIFE EVERLASTING." 85 
 
 E. A perfect security ; i.e., an assurance that we cannot 
 be deprived of it. 
 
 III. The necessity for this Article. 
 
 1. To deter us from sin, and to bring us to repentance. 
 
 2. To produce a salutary fear of God's wrath. 
 
 3. To teach a right estimate of Christ's sacrifice. 
 
 4. To stir up a great desire for heaven. 
 
 5. To take away the love of the world. 
 
 6. To support us under affliction. ^& 
 
 LONDON f PRINTED BT 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE 
 AND PARLIAMENT STREBT