/ d~o Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/highercatechismoOOpope A Higher Catechism OF Theology. WILLIAM BURT POPE, D.D., Thrologicai Tutor* Didsbury College^ Manchester. NEW YORK: PHILLIPS & HUNT. CINCINNATI : WALDEN & STOWE. 1 884 > CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. I. II. III. Theology Christian Theology Theology in the Church . . . The Science of Theology . . • BOOK I. PAGS I 5 7 II THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION AND THE RULE OF FAITH. CHAPTER I. Revelation and the Christian Faith 17 CHAPTER II. The Credentials or Evidences of the Christian Revelation 26 CHAPTER III. The Inspiration of Holy Scripture. 49 ; CHAPTER IV. Canon of Scripture 59 . \ CHAPTER V, The Canon as Rule of Faith 64 r Q Xm ^ IV Contents BOOK II. GOD. The Triune God • . • CHAPTER I. The Attributes of God CHAPTER II. CHAPTER III. Historical Theories and Discussions 85 BOOK III. GOD AND THE CREATURE. Creation CHAPTER I. The Created Universe . CHAPTER II. Providence •••••• CHAPTER III. Historical Discussions • CHAPTER IV. Sin, Guilt, Punishment . BOOK IV. SIN. CHAPTER I. • .115 Original Sin CHAPTER II. Contents. V BOOK V. THE MEDIATORIAL WORK OF THE REDEEMER. CHAPTER I. The Redeeming Purpose of the Triune God 146 CH TE II. The Person of Christ 155 CHAPTER III. The Historical Christ, or the Process of the Mediatorial Work 163 CHAPTER IV. The Finished Atonement 181 BOOK VI. THE APPLICATION OF REDEMPTION. CHAPTER I. The Holy Spirit as Administrator 196 CHAPTER II. Vocation, or the Calling of the Spirit 202 CHAPTER HI. Prevenient Grace and the Conditions of Salvation .... 207 CHAPTER IV. The Estate of Grace, or Personal Salvation 222 CHAPTER V. The Probation of the Gospel • 276 CHAPTER VI. Christian Morals; or the Ethics of Redemption 292 CHAPTER VII. The Christian Church 322 'dv W- . VI Contents BOOK VII. THE LAST THINGS. CHAPTER I. The Intermediate State . 360 CHAPTER II. The Second Coming of Christ: Resurrection and Judgment . 367 CHAPTER HI. The Consummation, or End of all Things ••••«••• 386 Introduction, I. THEOLOGY, ir. CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. III. THEOLOGY IN THE CHURCH* IV. THE SCIENCE OF THEOLOGY. INTRODUCTION. 1 . What is Christian theology ? The science of God and Divine things or religion, as based upon the revelation made to mankind in Jesus Christ and systematised within the Christian Church. 2. What is embraced by this definition? (1) Generally, the entire encyclopaedia of theological sciences, or the whole sum of the literature of Christianity, is comprehended in it. (2) But it is particularly limited to that which treats of the faith, practice, and worship of the fellowship founded by our Lord. 3. How may we distribute the subject by way of intro- duction ? By considering the main principles (i) of theology and religion ; (2) of Christian theology and religion as such ; and (3) of their scientific exposition in the church. § 1. anii IHeltgi'on. 1. What is theology proper? The doctrine concerning God. Theology is from the Greek ; the term divinity, from the Latin (Divinus), includes more generally all Divine things. 2. In what sense does this word embrace all ? Because there is nothing in man’s knowledge concerning himself or the universe which is not related to God ; and, more particularly, because God is the great and leading object in every department of theological literature. 1 * 4 Introduction, 3. What does the doctrine concerning God presuppose In man ? A faculty for the reception of that knowledge of Himself which God imparts ] or the capacity of religion. 4. What is religion ? (i) It is strictly the bond (religere) which, in the very constitution of his nature, unites man to God : faith that He Heb xi 6 consciousness of dependence and obligation. ^ * (2) More widely, it is the form in which the religious sentiment finds expression in worship and duty and fellow- ship. 6. How are the terms religion and theology connected? (i) On the one hand, religion is wider than theology. The former is the posture of the whole man towards God ; the latter has to do with the inquiries and judgments of his mind only. (2) On the other hand, theology is much wdder than religion ; as the latter word refers only to human relations, while the former ranges over the relations of all things to God. But (3) their influence on each other is important : man’s religion takes its character from his theology, and the converse is also true, that as his worship is his creed will be. 6. What is implied in this limitation to man? (1) That man is in some sense the central object : the relation of all other beings and things is scantily dealt with, but nothing is omitted that vitally concerns the nature and destiny of mankind. (2) That the teaching concerning God is adapted to human faculties, the Divine method being, as it is called, anthropomorphic: condescending to human terms of speech. (3) That, therefore, the whole study of theology implies the unspeakable dignity and value of human nature in the sight of God who created man in His own image. 7. Is anything else suggested by the union of these terms? (1) That God is the sole teacher of the things concerning Introduction. 5 Himself: He alone who gave the faculty and instinct can respond to it. (2) That the essence of theology is the practical know- ledge of God, as revealed in His Son through the Spirit. (3) That the study can be successfully carried on only in the spirit of reverence and devotion. All is concerning God, and comes from God, and leads to God. 8. Where do we look for the supreme evidence that God condescends to teach man both his theology and his religion ? In the Incarnation of the Eternal Son, Who is God teaching man his religion in his own human nature. § 2. Christian STt^oIogp. 1. State more particularly the relation of theology to Jesus Christ. He is the supreme teacher both of theology and of religion : they are united in Him. 2. In what sense are they united in Him ? He has revealed God in His own person, making that revelation the centre of all truth ; and He has founded on that revelation the Christian religion, which meets all the require ments of man^s relations to his Maker. 3. Was there no religion in the world before He came ? There was a natural religion, without express revelation ; and a revealed religion among the Jews : both, though in very different senses, preparing for the supreme and final Revealer. 4. What is the relation of Christianity to natural religion? (1) The best theology of the religion of nature consisted of unwritten principles of truth found in men generally : these the Saviour appealed to and confirmed. (2) Perversions of these principles took the form of mythology, on the one hand, or philosophy, on the other ; the errors of these Christianity condemned and corrected. 6 Introduction. (3) Its religions were the great systems of worship found throughout the world, especially in the East : these the religion of Christ came to supersede and abolish. 6. What is the modern Science of Religion ? The study and classification of the various developments of the religious instinct in mankind, conducted without re- ference to supernatural revelation. 6. What is the relation of Christian theology to this science? It uses the materials of that science for its own purpose : to show the world’s need of one absolute religion. But, while the science of religion begins with man and makes Christianity only one form of the religious instinct, Christian theology begins with God who gives one great revelation through His Son : all other manifestations of truth being indirectly His. 7. How is Christian theology related to Jewish ? Old-Testament theology, Patriarchal, Mosaic and Pro- phetical, was fulfilled and consummated by the teaching of Christ. Its perversions in Rabbi nism or Talmudism are, like the perversions of natural religion, condemned. 8. Where are the elements of this theology deposited ? In the New-Testament Scriptures, which are the records of the establishment of the Christian religion and the docu- ments of the Christian faith. 9. How is Christian theology connected with these elements ? All first principles are intended for application to life ; and the Founder of Christianity has left the principles of His theology to be expanded with the growth of His religion and thus to find its large development : in other words, to be unfolded in the congregation of His people. 10. Meanwhile, what obligation does His name impress ? That the study of theology, in its whole compass, shall pay its tribute to the dignity and authority of His person. Introduction. 7 § 3. STfjeologp in tje CJ)urci). 1. What is the relation of theology to the church ? (1) Generally, it is the whole sum of the literature to which Christianity has given birth. (2) Particularly, it is the formal arrangement of the methods by which the churches have unfolded, taught, and defended the principles of the Christian faith. 2. What does this presuppose ? (1) That the Scriptures have been committed by our Lord to His people to be the rule of faith and practice for ever. (2) That He is present by His Spirit and watches over the gradual developments of religious teaching and knowledge. 3. Y.Tiat have been the forms of teaching in the church? (1) The first, and most universal, is the unfolding of Scripture in the edification cf believers. Hence has arisen practical theology : official in the ministerial office, and more general in all devout religious literature. (2) Catechetical instruction by catechists : preparing catechumens for baptism, adults before and children after. Hence the universal theology of the catechism. (3) The definitions of the faith as against heresy and stated in dogmas, or authoritative decisions on doctrine. Hence, in its strict meaning, dogmatic theology : the exposition of creeds and confessions of faith. (4) The defence of the faith against assault has given rise to apologetic theology : Polemics, as conducted within the church ; and Apology or Evidences, as directed against external foes. This has been a fruitful branch of Christian literature. 4. What is the difference between creeds and confessions ? Generally speaking, the creeds were the authoritative statements of the faith in the ancient and undivided church ; the confessions, or standards, or articles, or formularies, are those of the divided church in its individual communities. 8 Introduction. 6. Which were the ancient creeds? (i) The Apostles^: a gradual expansion of the baptismal formula. ( 2 ) The Nicene : the same, with a clearer definition of the Eternal Sonship. (3) The Athanasian : distinguished by a fuller exposition of the Trinity and the Incarnation. 6. What was the theology of the interval between the creeds and confessions? It may be termed Mediaeval. During the middle ages, darkness and light struggled together. In the East, theology was comparatively stagnant ; in the West, it was actively studied in the Schools or Universities of Europe, whence the term Scholastic theology. This took two forms : one develop- ing the principles which were afterwards consolidated in the final form of Roman Catholicism ; the other more evangelically mystical, and in many ways preparing for the Reformation. 7. What may be called confessional theology? That which represents the several views of Christian faith held by the divisions of Christendom since the sixteenth century : the dogmatic and polemical testimony and teaching of each communion, viewed in its relation to the others, 8. Name the principal branches of this. (1) Protestant theology, in general, is the teaching of all communions that separated from the pontifical unity of the Western Church. This was opposed to Roman Catholicisna, which, as Tridentine, was itself a protest against Protestantism. (2) Lutheran or Evangelical, and Reformed or Calvinistic, were the two main forms of European Protestantism : the former being more sacramental in its tendency, the latter more predestinarian, but botn fundamentally the same. (3) Arminian or Remonstrant theology sprang up in Holland as a protest against Predestinarianism. (4) Socinian teaching had its seat in Poland: based on an unscriptural protest against the distinction of Persons in the Godhead, and gradually descending to modern Unitarianism. Introduction. 9 9. Why is confessional theology sometimes called symbolical ? From the term (rvfxpoXov^ symbol, the technical term foi a creed or formulary of confession. 10. Which are the leading symbols or formularies of faith? After the Reformation, and as the result of it, the lead- ing communions put forth a succession of formularies and catechisms. (1) Lutheranism had its chief standard in the Augsburg Confession (i 530) and the Catechism of Luther, followed nearly fifty years after by the Formula Concordiae. (2) The Reformed or Calvinistic churches set out with the Helvetic Confession (1564) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) ; followed by others in France and Belgium and else- where. Presbyterianism, as a branch of the Reformed, issued the Westminster Confession, which, with its modification in the Savoy Confession and others, remains still in some sense the recognised standard of the Presbyterian and Congrega- tional bodies in England and America. (3) Anglicanism had its main standard in the Thirty-nine Articles ; combining the chief elements of the two former. (4) Arminianism, which sprang up in Holland as a protest against Calvinism, issued a Remonstrant Confession (1620), specially in Five Articles of difference ; this, however, is not a living formulary, nor is Arminianism a distinct body. (5) The Society of Friends acknowledges no human standard ; but Barclay's Apology is of the nature of a con- fession of faith. (6) Methodism has issued no formal and general confession. It holds for the most part the three creeds, and the doctrinal formulary of the English Church ; but its standards are found more particularly in certain writings of the Founder of the Society. American Methodism aims at a more distinct con- fession. (7) The old Socinian system has also lost its hold : modern Unitarianism having taken its place ; but with a very much lower teaching as tu the person of Christ, His communion with the Father in heaven, and His lordship over all. (8) The old communions of East and West had also their lO Introduction. new confessions : the Tridentine decrees and the Catechism of Pius V. were the definitive doctrine of Rome, supplemented in the present age by the Vatican decisions of 1854 1870 ; the Greek Church has held to the first creeds, but with several modern confessions added. 11 . Is a Catholic theology to be traced through all these ? From the time that the Christian church began the de- velopment of scriptural teaching there has been an unfailing witness to the fundamental verities of the gospel : a catholic theology, in the truest sense, which no errors in any com- munity or in the darkest age have entirely concealed. 12. What is meant here by development ? Development has two ideas in it : the laying open what is already behind, and the letting a germ grow which was waiting for its time. In both senses the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has been developed in the dogmatic teaching of the churches : the latter however not without peril. 13. How then are doctrine and dogma related ? Strictly speaking, doctrine is only of God and dogma is the fixed opinion of man. But in general usage doctrine is the current of teaching and dogma the established expression of it in formulas ecclesiastical. 14. What general principles have guided the development, as thus defined ? Certain marked tendencies are discernible in the history of the church. (1) Patristic theology (down to a.d. 600) was divided into two branches : one more faithful to the letter of Scripture, and another more philosophical, mystical, and speculative. These two have been more or less permanent down to the present. (2) A tendenc}^ to corrupt the simplicity of the faith in the interest of a false theory of the unity of the church, joined to the notion of an infallible traditional interpretation, has Introduction. II moulded the development of the greater mass of Christian theology: the influence that has reigned most extensively. (3) A mystical tendency has illumined theology from the beginning : partly with a false, and partly with a true, light. This has not been limited to any one section, nor has it been excluded from any. No element has been more pervasive. (4) The Latitudinarian or Eclectic spirit has affected theo- logical teaching, especially in the earlier and the later periods of the history of Christianity. Its principle is indifference to dogmatic statements or decisions. (5) Rationalism in all ages, but especially in the last, has played its part. Its spirit is jealous distrust of pure faith and undue homage to pure reason in the acceptance of all the truths professedly revealed. 15. What may be hoped for the future? That all communions will be brought nearer and nearer to the unity of the faith : of which there are not wanting many signs. It is the duty of every theo- logian to help forward this. 16. Meanwhile what is the duty of the student ? To study theology historically as represented by all com- munions : for without this he cannot make sure advancement towards that catholic unity. But, at the same time, to hold fast the confession which he believes that Providence has given him, and with humble confidence to study the whole round of theology by its light. In all and above all, he must make the Scriptures his principle, his guide, and his final appeal. § 4. Science of 2Tl)eologp. 1. What claim has theology to be called a science ? Science is the logical arrangement of certified truth ; and by every test theology makes good its claim to be this. 2. In what sense is it certified truth ? Truth theological is the conformity of our knowledge with the realities of God and the invisible world. Its certitude is 12 Introduction. the faith that receives and trusts in the witness given to these by God Himself. 3. But is not the certitude of science as such determined by reason? In laying the foundations of all science reason is or must become faith : the primary principles of knowledge are in- destructible beliefs ; which are certitudes, though not demon- strable by reason as distinguished from faith. 4. What is the theological relation of reason and faith? While philosophy merges faith into reason, theology keeps them distinct : faith is the proof of things not seen ; reason accepts the proof, and logically forms all the materials of this knowledge into ordered and systematic science. 6. Where are the materials of this science gathered? In every region : in the consciousness of man ; in the external universe ; in the books of revelation ; in the common experiences of mankind. 6. Does not this make theology a universal science ? Such it is, in a sense appropriate to no other. But in theology the science is subordinate to the practical art : all true science has its application to human interests, but this holds good especially of theology in relation to ethics. 7. What is its specific relation to other sciences? The sciences of being and knowing, Ontology, Meta- physics and Philosophy proper, are all really occupied with one branch of theology : God and the relation of the universe to Him. Psychology, with all the inquiries that deal with man as soul and body, cannot be truly studied apart from our science. The Physical sciences, as such, are less directly con- nected with it ; but their value as the study of phenomena and laws is to be estimated by the tribute they pay or fail to pay to the Supreme Author of the universe and its laws. Introduction. 13 8. How do we understand tlie logical order of our science ? (1) Theology uses the rules by which facts are made science : induction, the reasoning process that gathers up particulars into generals ; and deduction, that carries a general truth into its many applications. By the former, generally speaking, the definitions of theological dogma are reached ; the latter more particularly governs theological ethics. (2) The result is systematic theology, which is the orderly presentation of the entire subject in all its branches, with the relation of these branches to each other, 9. What are the branches of systematic theology? They are mainly three : (1) Biblical theology, which investigates and defends the Scriptures, and exhibits their various teachings systematically. (2) Historical, which connects theology with its develop- ments in ecclesiastical usages and controversies. (3) Dogmatic, which analyses and combines the result in formal doctrine regarded as authoritative. 10. How do these enter into a course of theological study ? They may be regarded as entirely distinct, and presented accordingly. Or they may be taken coordinately ; the scrip- tural principles of doctrine may be laid down, then the his- torical controversies concerning it, and the dogmatic state- ment as finally accepted. But the simpler method, followed in this course, is to combine the biblical and dogmatic ; adding, where necessary, an historical review. 11. What principles generally govern the order ? Sometimes the Articles of the Creed, sometimes points in a Confession, are made the foundation of a system : but this tends to a contracted scheme. Or the whole course may be divided into the evidences, doctrines, morals, and institutions of Christianity : with this disadvantage, however, that the last two are apt to be severed from the second. Our method will gather the whole into unity, by taking; (i) Revelation, the 14 Introduction. Scriptures, and the Rule of Faith ; (2) the Doctrine of God ; (3) the Creature, Creation, and Providence ; (4) Sin ; (5) the Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer ; (6) its Administration by the Spirit in the Church of Christ ; and (7) the Last Things. 12. Finally, tinder what rules and safeguards must theo- logical study be conducted ? It must always be remembered : (1) That accurate system is here of great importance : the student has a great advantage who always surveys the bearings and connections of his subject ; and no outcries against dogma, from any quarter, should be listened to for a moment. (2) That the terms of theology, conventionally established, should be fixed and held sacred in their meaning : for instance, such words as inspiration, substance, person, must have and should always retain their own sense in this science. (3) That mysteries are to be expected, accepted and gloried in : all revelation unfolds a mystery, in the theological sense of a secret revealed ; and every doctrine is surrounded by mystery in the more common meaning of the word, (4) That the unity of the whole is the presence of the Word in the word : the Scriptures being the supreme guide. (5) That the Holy Spirit is the Sole Interpreter ; and that He will guide those who submit to be led by Him into the Col ii.2. FULL ASSURANCE OF UNDERSTANDING, BOOK I The Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. I. REVELATION AND THE CHRISTIAN FAITH. II. THE CREDENTIALS OR EVIDENCES OF REVELATION. III. THE SCRIPTURES OF INSPIRATION. IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE. V. THE DIVINE RULE OF FAITH, BOOK I. g^rtsftatt '^eeelcition an5 llye '^ulc of iSrflitm'narp. 1. On what grounds do we begin thus ? (i) All the topics of theology presuppose a revelation of God to man, which we hold to have been perfected in Christianity ; (2) this is witnessed by its credentials for faith, and its evidences to reason ; (3) Christianity itself is to us based upon its inspired documents ; (4) these are contained in the canonical Scriptures ; and (5) therefore the canon of Scripture is to us the Divine Rule of Faith. 2. State this in one definition. Christianity is the supreme revelation, infallible in its credentials, bound up with written documents which are to the Christian Church the canonical and Divine rule of faith. Chapter I. ■^ctjclafion an6 g^risUan § 1. iJlebelatCoit. 1 . What is the meaning of this word^n Scripture? It is expressed generally by two leading terms : d7ro#caXvi^t5, which is the Divine unfolding of what lay hid ; and av€po)o'ts, which is the manifestation to human knowledge. 2. Are those terms used with different applications ? (i) The latter, manifestation, is so applied as to cover all revelation : that which is natural and that which is super- natural. (2) The former, revelation proper, will be found, when examined, to be used only of the supernatural order. 1 8 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. 3 . How is the distinction of natural and supernatural established ? (1) We read every wliere in Scripture of a universal re\'elation in nature. That which may be known of God is Rom. i. 19, manifest^ and in the framework of the universe the 20- invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen : His everlasting power is as it were perceived^ and His Divinity inferred as behind it. (2) But in connection with this, we read also of a special revelation over and above that which is general : a light iTim.iii.i6, shining above the light of the sun in nature, in Him Rom.xvi.25. Who was manifested in the fleshy and which also is clearly seen according to the revelation of the mystery. 4 . What is the relation between the two? (1) The former, or natural revelation, is the ground of the latter: first the Son lighteth every man; and then, as coming into the worlds He specially unveils the John 1. 9. Godhead to whomsoever He willeth to reveal Him, (2) Its deficiencies also are the reason for it. The world Matt xi 2 through its wisdom knew not God ; and then it was I Cor. i.’2i. His will to send the Redeemer Who was made unto us wisdom f'om God. 6. Why do we limit the term revelation to the supernatural ? (1) Because in Scripture it is always so limited. Every use of the term Apocalypse points to the higher manifesta- tions. Even those applications which seem to be less Gal. ii.2. important have to do with redemption: such as / Gal. i. 16. went up by revelation which has some connection with the pleasure of God to reveal His Son in the Apostle. (2) Because the objects or subjects of this revelation are of so transcendent a nature that we appropriate the word to them : when the sun is risen there can be no #ther light 6. Thus limited, then, what further distinction must we necessarily make? Supernatural revelation is either objective, what is revealed TO the receiver ; or subjective, how it is revealed in man. Revelation and the Christian Faith. i9 7. Wliat are the main objects of this revelation ? (1) Supremely, the being of God and man’s true relations to Him : the Divinity manifest in nature becomes the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (2) The great mystery of Christ and human redemption : the secret kept in silence through times eternal. Rom. xvi. (3) The nature of religion and its eternal issues. 8. What is revelation as in man or subjective? (1) It is direct or immediate : as to the sacred organs of the heavenly communications. And to them direct, in external or internal visions, by the Voice from heaven, and in secret suggestions of the Divine Mind to the human. (2) It is mediate : through those who received it from God to those who receive it at their hands. (3) It is also, combining these, once more direct to those who embrace their testimony, through an internal and imme- diate revelation of the Holy Spirit. 9. Then, in every sense, revelation is one and Divine? (1) It is Divine: for man cannot originate truth, or the knowledge of anything external, in his own mind. (2) It is one : for the great outline and every subordinate detail of revelation point to the supreme revelation in Christ. (3) Hence we understand what is meant by Divine Reve- lation absolutely ; and that as consummated in the Christian faith, to which we now turn. § 2. iSlrbelation m Cfirist, or tlje ©Ijristian jFaitl). 1. What is the relation of these phrases? The sum of all revelation is really the mystery ot Christ, of God manifested in His Son, who is Himself the revelation and the revealer of it. 2. Explain these two more particularly. (i) In His person, God and Man, Christ is the sum and substance of all revelation : the Truth. johnxiv. 6. 2 20 Christian Revelation and the Ride of Faith. (2) In His teaching, our Lord gives us all truth : making all former and lower revelations His own by taking them up into His personal communications, and by adding all that is necessary for man as a probationary creature. 3. But is not the Christian revelation more properly a ■branch of general revelation ? There have been many revelations, but to us there is only one. Divine revelation is no other than Christianity or the Christian Faith. 4. What is the precise force of this last phrase? It signifies that the teaching of Christ is made up of things most sm'ely believed by Christians, or fully established ; L k i I ^ Christian philosophy, which may be ^ ^ the ground of speculation ; nor a mere historical record of events. 5. But surely it is accepted as a historical record ? It is so : but that does not fully explain the Christian Faith, in the fulness of the meaning of that word. 6. What then is the faith to which this revelation in Christ is addressed? It is threefold : the principle or faculty in human nature which apprehends the invisible ; that which receives facts on adequate testimony ; and finally that which appropriates and trusts in the object revealed. These in their unity are appealed to by Christian revelation and accept it. 7. But may not the last of these he wanting in an accept- ance of Christianity? This is a difficult question : as the revelation of nature was held in unrighteousness, so also may supernatural revela- tion. But the question may be answered by a distinction between the Christian faith as objective and as subjective. 8. Illustrate that distinction. (i) Sometimes in the New Testament we read of tJie Revelation and the Christian Faith, 21 faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints : this may be accepted and even be hereditarily transmitted. Jude 3. (2) But generally the faith is regarded as an internal principle in virtue of which the believer says Jesics T ^ j 1 Cor. xii. 3. IS Lord. ^ (3) The union of these is a perfect acceptance of Divine revelation. The truth becomes Yoiir most holy faith. § 3. i^lrbrlation anb tlje 53ible. Jude 20. 1. What is meant by combining these terms ? That all revelation, in its highest sense, is contained in the Holy Scriptures, which therefore have been generally and rightly spoken of by metonymy as a Divine revelation. 2. Does this imply that every part of the Bible is imme- diate and proper revelation ? By no means : the greater part is not of that character. But there is no part of it which is not directly or indirectly connected with one great historical scheme. 3. What is meant by Historical Revelation? This expression unites revelation with Christ, and indicates the progress of truth toward Him its End ; it also includes the methods by which revelation has been made permanent in documents and in institutions. 4. As applied to the documents, what is the difference between revelation and inspiration? (i) In its highest department revelation coincides with inspiration ; (2) but, generally, revelation is the result as a whole, inspiration the means ; and (3) inspiration is con- ventionally used to signify the Spirit’s agency in providing for the permanence of revelation in Holy Scripture. § 4. 5^i0toncal. 1 . What controversies have arisen on these subjects ? Three classes : (1) as to the possibility of any revelation ; (2) as to the necessity of a supernatural revelation ; and (3), 22 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. granting such a revelation, the relation of reason to faith as it respects its acceptance. 2. Who represent the first class? Only the Atheist and the Pantheist and the Materialist. If there is a God, personal and distinct from man, then the very acceptance of this truth means revelation : for it is an idea given to the mind, whether as innate or as subsequently im- parted. And that again renders all further revelation possible. 3. But if it is said that there can be no distinction between the mind’s consciousness and revelation from without ? Then we must reply that the very consciousness is a revelation from without : there is no knowledge of things seen but through Him who is the light of the world. Jo nix. 5. same is true of things not seen. But it is enough to say that as man, the image of God, can act upon the mind of his fellow, the infinite Mind can act upon all as He will. 4. Who represent the second class? Those who admit that all religion is taught of God, but think that it is taught only and sufficiently by the light of nature. To them nature is not the corrected but the corrector. 6. How are these divided amongst themselves? They have the common name of Theists, believers in God : Deists is the name given more particularly to the English advocates of the religion of nature in the last century. Uniting in the rejection of supernatural revelation, they part in two lines : those who respect the Scriptures as the highest form of natural religion, and those who reject them as a corrup- tion of that natural religion. 6. What ground do the former take? They regard the phenomena of the religious instinct in mankind as an object of science, the Science of Religion or Comparative Theology ; and classify the races of men accord- ing to their religious beliefs and practices. Religions have Revelation and the Christian Faith. 23 their founders, among whom Moses is first and Jesus Christ the last but one ; their sacred books, among which the Jewish and Christian are placed as in a polyglot ; and their various usages, adapted to their various circumstances and characters. 7. What is our argument against this science? (1) The negative one, which shows by a comparison ot these religions with that of the Bible that a supernatural religion was necessary for their correction. (2) The positive one, that if the Revealer is the Son of God there can be but one religion, absolute and eternal. 8. But is not this arguing in a circle? Yes: on our part as on theirs. The Theist begs the question of God’s existence; Christianity begs the question as to its Divine Head and His necessary supremacy. 9. What ground do the latter class take? That all the good in Biblical revelation is only a republi- cation of the religion of nature ; that what it brings over and above is to be rejected of human reason. 10. How is this to be met? (1) By admitting that supernatural revelation is based on the natural, confirms all its great principles, and honours it throughout : reasserting its beliefs and in its own terms. (2) By proving from its own records and history that natural religion has utterly failed in the first obligations of all religion ; and has nowhere tended to improvement. (3) By urging that, a Ruler of the universe being granted, it might be expected He would interpose from the beginning to correct this failure. (4) By showing that supernatural religion at all points professes to bring that correction and does actually bring it : as will be seen in the next chapter. (5) By appealing to the instincts of natural religion which in its sense of sin, and craving after propitiation, and philo- 24 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. sophical discipline of morals, anticipated the very answers which the New Testament gives. 11. Does this reasoning exhaust the attack of natural re- ligion and our defence ? It does not ; there are two arguments of much force that it uses : one is derived from the transcendent nature of some of the new truths of the Bible ; and another from the delay of supernatural religion in coming and the slowness of its diffu- sion after having come. 12. How may we meet these two grave difficulties? The former belongs to the credentials of Christianity, and we may postpone it to the next chapter: premising here that the religion of nature has accepted wonder piled on wonder, and ought not after its experience to shrink from anything not contradictory to reason. 13. But as to the slow development of the Divine counsel in supernatural revelation ? That is a deep mystery : but the very word mystery, as interpreted by evolution, ought to plead as an apology. Natural religion believes in a God whom, in these its last days at least, it supposes to have developed His plans with infinite patience through unlimited ages. Surely it cannot consis- tently reject supernatural revelation on the ground of its being a secular e\'olution of spiritual forces which are gradually suppressing all rivals, and showing themselves to be the best by surviving all others. 14. The word evolution suggests another thought : may not what is called supernatural revelation he a natural evolution of natural religion ? By the very terms natural and supernatural are as distinct as finite and infinite. Moreover, there are some truths in the latter part of the Bible which can hardly be said to have their germs in natural religion. But, finally and chiefly, our super- natural religion, as such, stands or falls with its claim to Revelation and the Christian Faith. 25 have come from above and not to have been developed from below. There can be no reconciliation with evolution. 15. Are not the principles of natural religion as much contradicted by evolution as those of supernatural religion ? Assuredly they are. Natural theology and natural re- ligion are based on the foundation of the existence of God, of the creation of man, of moral responsibility, and therefore of man’s spiritual nature. All these it holds in common with supernatural revelation. But the tendency of modern evolution is to make all religious ideas and spiritual emotions and judg- ments of conscience the final result — so far as anything can be final — of developments, the processes of which we see at their various stages in the creatures below us. 16. But does not the slowness of revelation after all form a great obstacle to its ready acceptance? Undoubtedly it does. We may use the argument of analogy as against the evolutionist adversary ; but the argu- ment is only defensive. The slow unfolding of the purposes of God is and must ever be an unsearchable mystery. 17. A third kind of controversy was mentioned, as to the claims of reason as the judge and interpreter of reve- lation ? Of this it may be said, generally, that a supernatural revelation judged by reason is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, that a Divine revelation could not be inter- preted by reason would be equally a contradiction. But the question comes up in its fit place under the Rule of Faith, 26 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. Chapter II. §trej»cttftals oi* ^ui^cnccs of ^l^ristian ■gleoelation. § 1. ^^reh'mmarp, 1. Is there any difference between credentials and evi- dences ? There is no essential difference. But the term credentials rather suggests : (i) the internal character of revelation as commending itself to the faith and acceptance of men ; (2) the Divine attestations given to the organs and documents of the Faith ; thus (3) the credentials are from within and the evidences are both from within and from without. 2. What is here meant by the Faith ? The Faith, the Christian Faith, Divine Revelation, we must regard as meaning the same thing. The first is theNew- Testarnent term for the Christian revelation. It is addressed to faith subjective ; those who receive it are called believers ; and that which they receive is called their faith Jude 20. objectively : their most holy faith, 3. How are men classed in relation to these evidences? (1) In the New Testament we read generally of believers and unbelievers : doubters are mentioned only in the Gospels. (2) In modern times, unbelievers are subdivided as infidels or disbelievers ; sceptics, who willingly, or doubters who unwillingly, remain in suspense ; and agnostics, who have devised this name to express not the fact of their ignorance, but the impossibility of knowing anything outside of nature. Credentials of Christianity. 27 4 . What names are given to evidences in revelation itself? Generally, they are signs or witnesses, from God ; proofs or demonstration, as of the doctrines ; seals, to the mind receiving them as fully assured. 5. What do we gather from this? That the evidences are regarded as necessary and suffi- cient to make unbelief inexcusable. 6. And what are we taught as to the true though secret character of unbelief itself? That the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving : they have an evil heart of unbelief ^ ^Cor. iv. 4. and are reprobate concerning the faith. Unbelief is Heb. iii.12. usually connected with moral depravity. ^ 7. How does this affect the value of the evidences ? It should lead us not to expect too much from them, as apart from the moral influence of the Holy Spirit. 8. How may the evidences of Christianity be best studied? (1) They may be exhibited as internal and external: internal, from the character of the revelation itself ; external as brought from history without. But, strictly speaking, these cannot be separated ; since most of the external evidences are only confirmation of the internal. (2) The evidences are really to be incorporated with the doctrines ; and every truth of a fundamental character must have its own credential. (3) There is a distinct range of evidences which establish the genuineness of the books and institutions of Christianity. (4) All these run into each other ; and every subject in theology must be studied apologetically. Independent works on the evidences collectively have their value ; but the best evidences are distributed through the whole course. 9. How do these evidences concern us at our present stage ? Simply as the internal credentials of the Christian faith as such : that is, the irresistible claims it has to our attention. 2 * 28 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. 10. And liow may these credentials he arranged ? It may be demonstrated in a cumulative way: (1) That the Christian revelation is a perfect response to human need and expectation, thus demanding to be heard ; (2) That the Divine Hand is manifest in its whole history from the beginning down to its consummation in Christ ; (3) That the character of Jesus the Revealer is the supreme and all-sufficient credential of its claims ; (4) That the history and effects of Christianity vindicate its claims as the one permanent and victorious religion ; and, finally, (5) That the Holy Spirit is in the Christian revelation as its ordained, sufficient, and never-failing demonstration. I. "^crfecf "Response fo #«pccfafion. 1. What is the bearing of this credential ? The Christian revelation alone answers the deepest and most universal inquiries of human nature about spiritual realities, and the connection between tim^e and eternity. 2. Does the Christian religion itself make this claim ? Directly or indirectly it professes everywhere to teach man all that he can know of himself, of his God, of his redemption, of his duty, and of his way to heaven : that is, to respond to every instinctive demand of the human heart. And that claim it justifies ; no question being unanswered, for good or evil. 8. But can it be said that Christianity alone does this ? Yes, alone : for (i) many great truths were never revealed till Christ revealed them ; (2) those which were known before were only partially known ; and (3) even that partial know- ledge was mingled everywhere with corruptions. 4. Then this credential implies a revelation gradually and very slowly perfected? The Christian faith has this for its fundamental principle. Credentials of Christianity , 29 5. What is the force of this credential ? Its strength rests on these impregnable principles: (i) That the Author of human nature intended this universal instinct, like every other, to be gratified ; (2) that nowhere save in Christianity is there even a profession to offer this satisfaction ; (3) that in the religion of Jesus there is a response to the inquiry of man individually and of mankind on every possible subject that concerns our destiny in time and eternity ; and therefore (4) that it demands even on these accounts to be solemnly considered. 6. Do these last words go far enough ? Not for the Christian himself. But as an argument for Christianity it is sufficient that it establishes a strong claim for acceptance : he who turns away does it at a fearful peril. £ts Fintn'ration. 7. What arguments are brought against this credential? Two classes : (i) those which assert that the religious expectation of the race is sufficiently answered by all religions, Christianity being only one of them ; and (2) those which deny that the revelation of Jesus responds truly to the religious inquiries of mankind, and therefore reject, it at once. 8. What is common to these, and what peculiar to each ? (1) They agree in refusing to Christianity the place of a sole and absolute religion, uniting in opposition to its exclu- siveness. As to the Christian faith they are one in Infidelity. (2) They differ, inasmuch as the former gives the Christian system a high place in the development of universal religion, though regarding it as containing, like all others, corruptions of primitive religious ideas ; while the latter holds Christianity to be a superstition contradictory to the truer natural religion. 9. Is Christianity rejected by both as being supernatural? Strictly speaking, it is so : the modern science of religion regards the religious instinct, or the faculty for the Infinite, as taking a wide variety of forms ; and indeed makes that variety the deepest secret of race distinction. Hence it thinks that no 30 Christian Revelation a 7 id the Rule of Faith, single religion can give that one universal response which is adapted to all races of men alike. 10. How does our credential meet this ? By firmly maintaining that there must be one absolute religion ; and by insisting on the great gulf that is fixed between the highest development of any natural religion and ihe first elements of Divine revelation or the Christian faith. 11. Does not the science of religion admit this superiority ? No : it holds that the specific doctrines of Christianity — such as the incarnation, the atonement, and the future destiny of men — are morbid developments of germs in other religions. Rejecting these doctrines, it holds nevertheless that the ethics of Christianity are on the whole the highest. 12. What is the tendency of modern infidelity as avowed opposition to the Christian faith? It is rapidly drifting toward the denial of our spiritual nature and immortality. The infidelity of Positivism holds that man’s spiritual instincts are accidents of his nature, which he invents a religion to respond to. Agnosticism wraps both the inquiry and the response in a cloud of darkness. Hence with these our credential has necessarily no force. 13. But the credential has its force against them? Yes : for the universal appeal to the supernatural cannot be suppressed. Modern Theism is a protest in defence of it. But Theism, like the Deism of the last century, denies to Jesus supreme authority ; and this is its weakness as a protest. God does not answer the cries of humanity save by His Incar- nate Son : mere nature cannot teach or save nature. II. of ^ob in §§risftan '^etjclaiton. 1 . What is meant hy this credential ? That throughout the whole course of revelation, as per- Credentials of Christianity. 31 fected in Christ and the documents of the Christian Faith, there are manifest proofs of the Divine presence in the super- natural order : of God’s power in miracles ; of His knowledge in prophecy ; and of His wisdom in the unity of the whole reve- lation. This last is important as the complement of the others. 2. How does the supernatural order cover all this ? A power above phenomenal nature has been always operating among men, the occasional tokens of Avhich we call miracles ; a guidance above the light of human reason has been always present, the manifestations of which we call prophecy ; and both have been fixed and rendered permanent in human affairs by the documents of revelation as consummated in the Christian faith. The last is only another form of the others. 3. What is the force of this credential ? To those who yield to the preliminary demand of the first, it comes as an irresistible confirmation. § 1 . 1. What is the meaning of miracle as a credential? (i) It signifies any act of God which is distinguished from those ordinary Divine operations the laws of which we know ; and (2) it signifies any act of God which is performed for the sake of confirming His word. Miracle in both senses is bound up with the entire fabric of revelation. 2. How are these two meanings related ? The former, known as powers, Svm/i€t9, or works c/oya, or wonderful things, /xeyaXeta, are generally the substance of revelation itself. The latter, o-r^/xeta, are, so far as distinguished from the former, the occasional tokens by which it pleases God to excite and encourage human faith. 3. How may we illustrate from the Scriptures the distinc- • tion thus attempted? The two highest instances may suffice. The incarnation of the Son of God was the supreme miracle, and itself revela- 32 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. tion ; the sign was the miraculous conception. The gift of the Spirit and His influence were the wonderful works of God, and the revelation itself ; the speaking with tongues was the miracle as sign. But illustrations are found in the entire series of the older and later records. Cts Ftoicati'on. 4. Wliat may he urged against this credential? (i) Objections are taken to the possibility of miracle generally ; (2) the general evidence of miracles may be im- peached ; (3) the character of some special miracles is turned to the disparagement of all ; (4) the testimony of the New Testament is sometimes quoted against the validity of this evidence ; (5) extra-Biblical miracles, and wonders performed by other than Divine power, are brought in as arguments which can hardly be meant to do more than excite prejudice. 6. How may we meet the first ? By simply asserting that, if God is. He may do what- soever He will. It cannot be proved that He has in any way bound Himself to what are called natural laws. 6. What may he said as to the general evidence of miracles ? That they are, like other events, matter of testimony. The Biblical miracles were accepted by those who witnessed them on the evidence of their senses ; and they are accepted by after generations on historical evidence sufficient to command cre- dence : being worthy of all acceptation, whether regard be had to the character of the reporters or to the dignity of the per- formers or to the reasons for which they were performed. 7. Has the third objection any force? No : for the few miracles which seem unworthy of the Divine intervention really convey important lessons as to the power and special providence of God : indeed, not a miracle recorded fails itself to teach as well as to vindicate the teacher. This applies both to the wonder which is thought to be too great and to that which is thought to be too little. Credentials of Christianity. 33 8. But does not the Bible in some sense disparage miracles? There are two errors to be avoided here : (1) It is true that the signs are disparaged in comparison of the thing signified. Hence the phenomenal miracles com- paratively ceased after the permanent miracle of the resurrection of Christ and the Holy Spirits abiding presence. (2) Undue dependence on miracles is deprecated : Except ye see signs and wonders^ ye will in no wise xx. 29*; ii! believe I (3) But, while revelation in Christ was in process, every great crisis was attended by miracles : the patriarchal times, the Mosaic institute, the restoration under Elijah, the cap- tivity, the advent and life and resurrection of Jesus, the Pentecostal establishment of the church, the minor pentecosts, the heralding of the Gospel by the apostles, all illustrate and exalt the special design of miraculous interventions. 9. How do the miracles not bound up with revelation affect the question? (1) The portents performed — if indeed performed — by the permission of God were indirectly His own. (2) Miracles alleged in times following the consummation of the faith must stand or fall by their evidence : there is no law or prophecy of revelation which they necessarily contradict. § 2. f rop^ecg. 1. What is the meaning of prophecy as a credential? (i) It signifies the method of the Divine announcement by special inspired agents ; (2) the prediction by these agents of the coming accomplishment of the Divine purposes. In both these senses prophecy is an essential and pervasive element of revelation: but neither without the other. 2. In what sense pervasive as to the former? God has never spoken from heaven to man but through men of whom it is said that He put His Spirit Numb. xi. upon them : this is true of all from Moses to our 29. Lord. Here the word prophet means one who announces or speaks before others. 34 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. 3. What then were the prophet’s own credentials? Such tokens of the Divine Spirit with him and of the Deut xviii divinity of his message as were sufficient for those 23/ ’ who heard : as in the case of the workers of miracles John vii. 18. must judge of both by the records of their ministry. 4. In what sense pervasive as to the latter ? From the first prediction It shall bruise thy head down to the last I come quickly^ it has pleased God to predict the Gen. iii. 15. coming future; and through the events of im-. Rev.xxii.20. mediately coming times to predict the events of times more distant. 5. What are the main laws of prophetic prediction? (1) The coming Christ is its central subject and object: directly or indirectly all prophetic announcement tends to Him. (2) There is prophecy of His first coming ; followed by pro- phecy of His second coming : dividing the ages into two parts. (3) In the subordinate prophecies the outlines of all the future are more or less vividly sketched. (4) Every prophetic stage is folded in reserve, more or less, until the accomplishment brings in its light. (5) All prophecies, like all miracles, have been at the same time vehicles of general instruction. 6. What is the general character of this credential ? While the evidential force of the miracle has been felt by the then present generation, that of the prophecy is mainly for the generation that witnesses the accomplishment. 7. Were not prophecy and miracle blended as credentials ? (1) The prophets sometimes wrought miracles both to authenticate and to illustrate their messages. (2) Their prophetic inspiration was itself a miracle. (3) Miracle and prophecy run together through all the history of revelation until the church was founded, and then both gradually cease together. Credentials of Christianity . 35 8. Have they then ceased? At the time of the end miracle will wind up the history of the world as the last and greatest accomplishment of prophecy. FmDttation. 9. What are the tests of this credential? Prophetic prediction must be proved to have been Divine and not the result of human foresight ; to have been accom- plished only by Divine power ; and of course to have been uttered before the event. 10. Will all the predictions of revelation sustain these tests ? So far as we are capable of applying them they will. In some cases the limited resources of history forbid. But in all that concerns the established Christian revelation there remains no shadow of doubt. 11. How may this be illustrated ? (1) The prophetic Form of the coming Messiah, drawn by many pens during a thousand years, and the dispersion of the ancient people predicted in both Testaments, were the pro- phecies of omniscience ; the fulfilment could not have been brought about by human devices ; and certainly the predic- tions were before the event. (2) The Assyrian conquest of Israel, the ruin of Nineveh, and afterwards of Babylon, the Babylonian captivity, in the Old Testament ; the destruction of Jerusalem in the New, are a few out of many other instances which must be studied. (3) But the credential is one that will be felt in all its force when the entire series of prophecies is examined in the light of their fulfilment. 12. Are not some of the ancient predictions supposed to have been written after the event ? That has always been the contention as it respects Daniel especially. His book is the battle-ground as to both miracle 36 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. and prophecy. In modern times, however, the Pentateuch and the Messianic psalms, with most of the other prophetical parts of the Old Testament, are assigned to a very late period. 13. How are these assaults on the credential to he mot? By careful study of the evidence, which, as it satisfied the ancient Jewish and Christian churches, will satisfy us. Meanwhile the Lord Himself has thrown His shield around precisely those books that are most assailed. § 3. Slnitg of lUebelation. 1. What is meant by this credential ? That the unity of revelation as a whole, and of its docu- ments as the record given in many ages by many hands, yields strong concurrent evidence that it comes from God. 2. How may this credential he viewed ? More generally and more particularly. Generally, there is nothing in the world’s history that can parallel the sublime oneness and uniqueness of the revelation of God as exhibited in the finished Christian system. Particularly, the agreement of so many authors, writing in various ages and lands, in one great design, and the organic harmony of the one Bible as the result, furnish unlimited illustration of an argument that has the strongest moral force. 3. But is there not another side to this argument? Yes, it is turned against us by two classes of opponents : those who think the slow development of the great scheme fatal to its divinity; and those who allege the internal differ- ences of the revelation itself. 4. How may we meet the former ? By falling back upon the principle on which Christianity rests: that it is an eternal purpose gradually accomplished. And those wdio hold fast evolution in every branch of their philosophy should not oppose it here. Credentials of Christiamty . 37 6. And liow the latter ? By asserting and proving that the apparent discords are harmonised through their unity in Christ: Who is Himself the supreme Apologist of His own religion. III. Supreme ^re5cnfial: ^oun5er of § 1. ©rrtjenti'al Itself. 1. What is meant by this? That there is no argument, internal or external, in favour of Christianity so powerful as the character of its Founder. 2. Does character here mean excellence simply? Rather His person, manifestation and life as a whole ; but especially the perfect consistency between His claims and Himself. This, however, will include much more. 3. What is the force of this as a credential ? Obviously it is exceedingly strong if it can be proved. Christianity in the person of Jesus makes a transcendent claim: in fact, its most difficult problem is the pretension of its Founder. Now the slightest disparity between His presenta- tion of Himself and that claim would be fatal. 4. Is it enough to show that there is no inconsistency ? No : that is only negative. We should show positively that all we know of Jesus supports His plea. But it is obvious that all we know of Him is but little ; and therefore that the strength of our credential lies mainly in the negative demon- stration, which however easily passes into the positive. 5. Would not the Lord’s consummate moral excellence itself and alone carry all with it? It does indeed to His own : to them the personal character of Jfsus is the sufficient credential for Himself, His doctrine, 38 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. and the entire Scriptures. But for the world at large a wider view must be taken : more than merely human excellence being affirmed of the Divine-human Author of Christianity. 6. How then shall we proceed? By considering His claims, with their credential in the consistency of His character with those claims ; and then by establishing the futility of every objection. § 2. 2Tf)e ©laim of gesus, 1. How may the Lord’s claim he most strongly stated? By exhibiting it in a few broad antitheses : (1) He professes to be in His own person God Himself teaching mankind, and yet withal a human teacher. (2) He comes with a provision for man^s universal salva- tion, which however man must seek for and apply. (3) He presents Himself as the sinless Son of God, yet as not the less on that account a human example of perfection. (4) He avowedly purposes to set up a universal kingdom, which however is not to appear till the end of the world. (5) He makes His departure an essential part of His design, and yet promises His constant presence. 2. Is all this to he included in the claim of Jesus? All without exception. Neither Christ nor His religion can be either understood or defended if any are omitted. 3. Does our Lord Himself unite these in His appeals ? Only by degrees did either He or His apostles blend them ; but in the final gospel which we have to defend they are combined in their unity. 4. Is it not wiser to take lower ground ? Under certain circumstances it might be expedient : it was so, and it may still be so, in the first approaches to the heathen ; and, if we are pleading for the Lord’s highest place in the science of religion, His supremacy among human Credentials of Christianity. 39 teachers may be insisted on. But the defence of Christianity is the defence of the perfect Christ; Immanuel, God Matt.i.23. WITH US. 6. This implies that the advocacy of many theistic and Unitarian friends of the Christian faith is declined? Undoubtedly: while admitting how convincing it is so far as it goes. We do not vindicate a human founder of the faith. 6. But speaking of His claim, consistently maintained, as a credential, how may we simplify these points ? By studying separately and as united the Lord’s presenta- tion of Himself as Divine-human ; and the perfect sinlessness of His character. These are the two main points. ^onsistencp of tljw €latm. 7. How may this be traced ? It may be said that the whole tenour of our Lord’s mani- festation can be perfectly explained as in harmony with these claims : with these only, but certainly with these. 8. Does not the very claim by its transcendent uniqueness condemn itself? It should have the opposite effect : that no one had ever made such a pretension is a most wonderful truth in itself ; while the distant anticipation of it both in Judaism and in heathenism brings its sublimity into clearer relief. 9. How is the great claim sustained? By the wonderful consistency with which our Lord speaks every word as heard of the Father, as having a final authority, and yet as spoken under a commission. He never classes Himself with human teachers ; nor indeed with men. 10. But what makes it a credential of Christianity ? That this claim is consistently made by One whose faultless sanctity and perfect selfsacrifice demand our faith in Him. Not to tr ist Him seems to be self-condemned. 40 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. 11. But can that perfect character he proved? It is undoubted that the Lord claims to be exempt from sin. We see Him before us in the lustre of all devotion to God and man. And we are bound to accept His own solution and His evangelist’s : beholding in Him the glory Jo n 1 . 14 . of the only-begotteji from the Father, 12. Is the credential then the incarnation or the sinlessness ? These are indissolubly united : the one confirms the other. 13. But supposing both denied? Then we fall back upon the human excellence, and ask : Could one with the high measure of goodness which all , , . concede to Christ have been capable of such an X. 30; xiv. awful and unparalleled assertion as that the bather was in him, one with him and seen in him as in no other 1 14. What is the force of the credential to those who accept it? It is the credential of all other credentials : giving a heavenly dignity and sanctity to the Gospels ; plenary authority to the entire Scriptures as protected and sanctioned by their Lord ; and stability to the whole Christian system. § 3. Finlu'cation of ©retiniti'al. 1. What is meant hy this vindication ? Simply the proving that no hostile hypothesis concerning the Founder of Christianity can be sustained. 2. How may such hypotheses he classified? By taking historically the forms they have assumed ; but this will come in at a later stage when the triumphs of Chris- tianity are before us. At present it is enough to consider the two theories to which all others may be reduced. 3. What are they? Either Jesus was an enthusiast, and his disciples shared his fanaticism ; or he was an impostor, and his followers, whether consciously or unconsciously, entered into bis im- Credentials of Christianity, 41 posture. The case may be put in many forms, but it must come at last to this alternative. 4. Must the disciples he hound up so olosely with their Master in this argument? They cannot be separated- We know nothing or little of Jesus apart from the records of His followers : He made them what they were ; and they then made Him what we receive. 5. Heis the theory of imposture been ever really maintained ? It was certainly that of His Jewish enemies in the Gospels, and of the malignant foes of Christianity in early centuries. It was revived in the last century ; but can hardly be said to survive in the present day. 6. What is its sufficient refutation? Our Lord’s two words gave it once for all : How can Satan cast out Satan ? and He that speaketh of him- , ... self seeketh his own glory. By these two tests, well joim vii." is* weighed before application, both Jesus and His disciples are vindicated for ever. The effect He gave in a third word ; Ye both know Me ajid ye know whence I am ! 7. Where lies the force of this vindication ? Steadfast opposition to all evil, and utter absence of self- ends, were never notes of imposture since the world began. 8. Then the hypothesis of self-deceived enthusiasm remains. That was unknown in the earliest times, or to the contem- poraries of Jesus and His apostles : in the face of their practical simplicity, and the logical coherence of the system they taught, it could not arise. But it has appeared in later times under many forms. 9. How has this affected the estimate of our Lord’s personal character ? (i) Some have supposed that he never asserted his sin- lessness ; but only challenged his foes as a man conscious of high purpose might challenge them. 42 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. (2) Some that he consciously fell into unheroic fear of death, and anger against sinners : which however they do not regard as absolutely inconsistent with high integrity. (3) Others, again, suppose that he began with a pure aim, but gradually yielded to the temptation he once resisted ; in which case enthusiasm and imposture joined. This was the argument of the infidels of Europe at the beginning of the century : forced upon them as an expedient of compromise. 10. And what is the defence of our Lord’s personal cha- racter ? Its entire consistency with His incarnate relation to God and man. His holiness is Divine but in human nature. His severity was that of the ancient Jehovah, and belonged only to God. His struggle with suffering pertained to the mystery of His unshared redeeming passion. His pure and absolute perfection shines through all. 11. What forms do the more special theories assume? Three : having respect to the Lord Himself, to His disciples, and to the writings of the New Testament. To state these individually is to refute them. 12. How does this apply to our Lord? We are required by infidelity to believe that he conceived the design to assume the character of the Messiah ; that he studied the prophets to that end ; formed his plan in the wilderness ; gave himself out to be always taught of God ; and paid the penalty of his self-deception in death ; but left the legacy of his sublime delusion to his followers. It is enough to ask : Can any one read the Gospels and believe this ? 13. How to His disciples? They are supposed to have made their Master their hero ; and to have woven around Him as the central figure, or Messianic m^yth of Jewish hope, the wonderful narratives of the Gospels and Acts. This is sometimes called the Legendary and Mythical theory ; and it is swept away by three considera- tions : the simplicity of these men, first j then their firm Credentials of Christianity, 43 conviction of the Lord^s veritable resurrection ; and finally, the heroic sacrifice of their lives for their personal Lord. 14. And how to the writings? The latest and most laborious effort of unbelief has en- deavoured to show that Christianity was simply a sect of Judaism, probably originating from Essenism ; that, after the martyrdom of its founder, it was divided into a straiter Judaic community and one that would abolish the ceremonial law and admit the world : that some of the writings of the New Testa- ment were composed in one interest, some in the other, and some aimed to unite the two tendencies. 16. How does St. Paul appear in this theory? As really the founder of Christianity : since his teaching transformed Christ from the highest Jewish Rabbi, which he was, into an abolisher of Judaism, which he was not. 16. What is the refutation of it? (1) The perfect unity of all these writings, when collated in their reference to the Christ. (2) The testimony of St. Paul himself as to his conversion — an argument of great force in favour of Christianity — and as to his relations with the Lord and the other apostles. IV. gnfluence an6 permanence of f^risftantffi. 1. What are the general bearings of this credential ? It supposes the religion of Christ to be in the world, and to plead from age to age its own perfect adaptation to the needs of man, with its accomplishment of its own professed designs as the only saving power among men. 2. Under what laws must we study and interpret it? We must consider (i) what this religion professes to do ; (2) under what conditions ; and (3) against what opposition, 3 44 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. 3. What is its force as a credential ? Taken by itself, it cannot go further than to claim respect for Christianity and make it probable that it is of Divine origin. Following, however, the plea from the character of Jesus, it has irresistible weight. 4. Is it ever literally irresistible? By no means : the good work of the Christian religion in the world, and its manifest tendency to become the sovereign power among men, are by many blankly denied or accounted for on natural principles. 5. What then is the first great profession of the gospel ? To bring to every man who embraces it reconciliation with God through the cross, the entire sanctification of his nature, and victory over all fear for the future. 6. How is it justified? By the experience of countless multitudes : against which, on the one hand, nothing can be rationally alleged, not even the inconsistencies of many professors of Christianity ; though, on the other, it must be admitted that it is an argument that cannot be demonstrative to unbelief. 7. What further does it profess ? To introduce a kingdom of heaven among men the powers of which shall remove by degrees every yoke of ignorance, cruelty, misery and vice. 8. Has not Christianity notoriously failed to redeem this pledge ? (1) Before answering this, two things are to be taken into account : the kingdom of God must not be identified with the visible church, which has itself fallen into corruption ; and the promise of our Lord was that the tree should slowly grow and the leaven gradually leaven the lump. The gospel does not profess to be an irresistible and despotic power. (2) These reservations made, we may appeal : to the differ- Credentials of Christianity . 45 ence between the heathen world and the Christian ; the coinci- dence of Christianity and civilisation ; the elevation of woman ; the gradual suppression of slavery ; the mitigation of war ; and countless blessings which the religion of Christ has given to a world that is by degrees becoming conscious of the benefit. Fifto-rioua UmUuati'on of Itself fip ^fin'stfam'tp. 9. Has the success of Christianity over its opponents been such as to vindicate its claims? Assuredly it has : always taking into account the spiri- tuality of its claims ; and its own predictions concerning that success. We must always remember its own profession. 10. Will the argument allow these to be taken into account ? Certainly : for (i) it only professed to be a spiritual power, which should produce and overcome its enemies by conviction ;* and (2) its predictions are part of Christianity itself, which teach us to expect a slow succession of victories. 11. But is not the present condition of Christendom in relation to the world at large a great preliminary obstacle ? Undoubtedly it is. There is no doubt, however, that Christianity is gradually suppressing every form of heathenism and superstition. Its ultimate universality is, even humanly speaking, merely a matter of time. 12. Has the Faith vanquished its first enemy, Judaism ? In the age after the Lord’s departure, the chief triumphs of Christianity were over the Jews, who were and have con- tinued its bitterest enemies. The religion of Jesus has now indisputably the place which Judaism once had. And the continuance of the ancient people, with their veiled Old Testament in their hands, is itself a standing triumph of Christianity ; even as their future conversion will be. 13. Can it be said to have triumphed over heathenism? It has always triumphed over it as an opponent : wherever it has resisted, it has yielded or is yielding. 46 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. 14. But has not heathenism sometimes vanquished its victor ? Yes : throughout its history. The heathenism of the Roman empire, Oriental philosophy, and Judaism — all van- quished — left their impress on Christianity ; and its subsequent corruptions were the result. But the genuine influence of the Faith was never lost, nor ever without perceptible evidence. 15. Is not this at best an imperfect triumph? Yes : if triumph is estimated on human principles. But to a thoughtful mind the fact that Christianity, so heavily encumbered, has done so much is a strong argument in its favour. As a merely human system it has been its own enemy. 16. But is there really any form of heathenism that has been abolished ? The mythologies of Greece and Rome ; the Scandinavian, Gothic, and many other superstitions vanished in early times. In later days many of the ruder forms of heathenism are known to have been displaced. The more ancient and firmly rooted systems of the East are slowly but surely yielding. 17. If it be said that some of these decaying systems did in their time triumph over others, even as Christianity has : what then ? The inference suggested is that the influence of the Christian faith may also decline ; but it is enough to say that it is giving no tokens of that. Moreover, we can trace in every great religious movement that has only for a time swayed the world the reasons of its decay : the want of truth or even the profession to bring truth, in some; dependence on the sword, and pandering to vice, in others ; and, in the best, the lack of a universal mission. Christianity declares war against every other religion ; conciliates nothing evil in man ; and patiently but confidently waits its time. 18. But, finally, are not modern philosophy and science winning a victory over Christian faith ? Nothing can be less true than that. Philosophy is in its best forms paying its tribute to the essential doctrines of the Credentials of Christianity . 47 Faith. And science, though rejecting the supposed fetters of Scripture, is, when believing in God, coming more fully to believe in Christ also : agnostic Atheism is neither philosophy nor science. In any case, neither mental philosophy nor physical, can be said to be retarding or overcoming the Christian religion. V. 1 . In what sense have we here a credential ? The Christian revelation does undoubtedly base its evi- dence on the presence of the Holy Spirit : on the one hand, as enforcing its claims ; and, on the other, as perfectly satisfying those who do not reject Him. 2. Is not this staking too much, by limiting the acceptance of Christianity to such as have personal experience ? The former part of our proposition precludes that : the Holy Spirit is given to demonstrate the claims of the gospel even to those who resist it, and even seem to disbelieve it. 3. Then the New Testament really witnesses to itself? Its plea amounts to that. It comes with the promise of a Divine power ; and is content to be rejected if that is not felt : this is apparently a petitio principii, and so in its last issues is all argument for God and religion. 4. But surely the external evidences of Christianity are sufficient to command assent? They have their force ; but the Gospel itself does not appeal to them alone. We are witnesses of these things ; and so is the Holy Ghost ^ Whom God hath given to them that obey Him, The testimonies of God and man meet. 5. What external witness of man is here meant? The testimony borne to the resurrection of Jesus, as following the atoning death and preceding the ascension. 6. How does the Holy Spirit attest this? (i) By for ever enshrining in the record and protecting 48 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith, and commending to acceptance the maiiy proofs of the resur- rection which were given to a great number of Actsi.3. honest and trustworthy witnesses: whose testi- monies, calmly considered, are consistent and unimpeachable. (2) By confirming the evidence of the Lord’s risen life experimentally in the fulfilment of His promise of an abiding spiritual influence as its result. (3) By raising on the faith of His resurrection the Christian church, with its sacraments and its Lord’s day and its permanent worship. 7. How is it then that self-evidencing light has failed to convince very many sincere doubters? The process by which conviction of truth passes through assent into confident trust is tracked only by omniscience. If the soul is sincere before God, the inquiry must lead to Christ: if it do not, there must be some fatal flaw, though undiscernible , , ... by man. For He Himself has said : Every one that 37. .. ts of the Euth heareth My voice. And again : Ij any John vii. 17. willeth to do His will,, he shall know of the teaching,, whether it be of God, or I speak from Myself, 8. Is not the objection of the Pharisees to this an irre- sistible instinct of the logical understanding ? In reference to every other claim but Christ’s it is. But when they said. Thou hearest witness of thyself : thy witness is johnviii.i», true, it was w'hile His words were in their ears, 12, 18. ‘ / am the light of the world: he that folloiveth Me shall not walk in the darkness. Still He cries : I am He that BEARETH WITNESS OF MySELF. 9. What is our Lord’s special testimony as to the Spirit ? After having said above. Every one that hath heard from the Father, and hath learned, cometh unto Me, He closed by , , . saying that the Advocate, the Spirit, when He is John xiv. 8, come. Will coiivict the world in respect oj sin, ana of righteousness, and of judgment ; of sin because they believe not on Me I Christianity never appeals to any man and leaves him unconvicted, though it may leave him seemingly unconvinced. The Inspiration of Holy Scripture. 49 Chapter III. gttspifaliott of <^oIs ^cripluro. § 1. inspiration. 1. What is the meaning of the term inspiration? The inbreathing of God (^€ 09 , Tn/eo)), and the result of it. In the classics it is used of wisdom and dreams 2Tim. m. as given to man. In our sacred writings it is only once found : Trao-a ypa^ ^eoTTvcvo-Tos, giving a great truth its final expression. 2. Do we find there any definition of it ? (1) Its nature, method of operation and limits are nowhere defined: a fact of considerable importance in our inquiry. (2) But there are many expressions which help ^ pet. i. 21. us to understand it. For instance, as to influence on Numb. xxiv. the mind, the prophets spake as they were moved by 2Chron. xv. the Holy Ghost ; The haiid or The word or the Spirit ^ ^ ^ of the Lord is said to come upon men ; and David Matt. xxh. in the Spirit called the Son his Lord. 3. Do these passages limit inspiration to ofiicial utterances ? Not entirely ; but we gather that the influence of the Spirit on speakers and writers of God’s will is distinguished clearly from His influence, entrance and indwelling for personal salvation. There is always something special in it. 4. May we then refer inspiration to both speaking and writing ? The two are very strictly connected. Our Lord illustrates this when in one sentence He speaks of Your law, and says that 7 he word of God came, and The scripture cannot . u 77 / Oil 1 Ti ohn X. 34, be broken. So do the two later cardinal texts. St. 35 . Paul speaks of all scripture or every scripture as mspired of God, referring to the sacred writings of the pre- 50 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faiih. vious verse, and thus showing that all and every really must mean the same thing. St. Peter makes no prophecy of scripture 2 Peter i. '.io, prophecy the same : the predictions and the 2^- books containing them were alike a result of the powerful impulse of the Spirit. 6. Are we justified then in connecting inspiration specifi- cally with scripture ? The final testimony of St. Paul has led to the conven- tional use of the word according to which it signifies the specific influence of the Holy Spirit in the construction and perpetuation of the sacred writings. § 2. Cuspi'n'ng Spirit anti flje Cnsptre?) SSan'ters. 1. What is here the specific ofiice of the Holy Spirit? (1) In the unity and intercommunion of the Holy Trinity God is the inspirer : Every scripture inspired of God. Alen 2 Tim. iii. i6. Spake froiu Gody though being moved by the Holy 2Pet. 1. 21. Ghost. All the acts and offices of the Three Persons severally are the acts and offices of the one God. (2) The Son is the source and sphere of all revelation ; iPet. i. ii. and still the Spirit of Christ was in the ancient John XVI. 13. prophets and is the Spirit of truth in the apostles. (3) Hence, as the administrator of redemption in all ages, the Holy Spirit is the organ of Divine communications and the inspirer of the writers or the writings that record them. 2, How does the New Testament speak of the Spirit’s inspi- ration in the Old ? In a style which assumes that He both speaks and writes in the ancient oracles : (1) Our Lord’s solitary testimony to the speaking is, How then doth David m the Spirit call Him Lord? but we Matt. xxii. must connect with this, The scripture cannot be 43- broken : every voice and every scripture shares the Jo n X. 35. prerogative of inviolability with this voice and this particular scripture. (2) The later New Testament is still plainer. After Pentecost the first quotation rurs: That the scrip- ture should be fulfilled which the Holy Ghost spake Acts i. 16. The Inspiration of Holy Scripture. 51 before. The epistle to the Hebrews is most copious ; The Holy Ghost also heareth uoitness to us, St. Paul Heb. x. 15. says that the Spirit speaketh expressly : which last ^Tim. iv.i. words however lead naturally to another question. 3 . What is the evidence of the continued inspiration of the Spirit as found still in the New Testament ? It mainly rests upon our Lord’s official promise spoken to the apostles as witnesses : the Holy Spirit shall teach you all things,, and bring to your remembrance all that I said John xiv. 26. unto you ; He shall guide you into all the truth ; shall ^ 3 - declare unto you the things that are to come. First for the past, then for the continuous present, and lastly for all the future. 4 . Do these sayings without violence sustain the inspira- tion of the New-Testament Scriptures? When we take into account the deep importance of the occasion, that our Lord is speaking of an abiding testimony, and that the documents of the new covenant precisely answer to the respective parts of the triple promise, we may rest assured that they do without demanding further proof. 5 . How do they thus answer that threefold promise? (1) The remembrance of the past is found in the Gospels. (2) The guidance into truth is the leading them onward {o^y'^(T€L) in Christ the way (680s) to all develop- joha xiv.e. ments of that truth as it is in Jesus: this is Eph. iv. 21. strictly exhibited in the oral and written teaching of the apostles. (3) The coming things are recorded in the prophetic parts of the New Testament, which are interwoven with the whole: the mystery is said to be made known by the scrip- Rom.xvi.26. tures of the prophets. In the last days also the testi- Eev. xix. 10. mony of Jesus is the spirit (as it were from the Spirit) of prophecy, 6. What analogy is there between the methods of inspira- tion in the Old and in the New economies? The direct communications from the '^Vord, the sugges- tions of the Spirit, the dreams and visions, the com- ex. xvii. 14, mandment to write, are as a whole and severally Rev. i. 19. the same in both. 3 * 52 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. 7. Do all these testimonies help towards a theory? Only to a limited extent. They teach, however, that inspiration did not make the speakers and writers merely mechanical instruments ; that in many instances the very words were given ; that in all cases the influence of the Spirit guided the apostles’ reasonings and their general applications of truth ; and that the testimony to the Lord’s life, or the early distinct Gospels, were arranged under a special superintendence of the Spirit which we may suppose to have been exceedingly minute. Precisely the same — no more and no less — may be said of the framework of the Old Testament. 8. Do the writers of the New Testament manifest any con- sciousness of this inspiration? They show it precisely as the ancient writers showed it : by the assertion of an authority in their words not otherwise to be understood ; by hints here and there which are full of significance ; and by the uniform majesty of the whole. 9. Give instances in illustration of this. St. Luke records the promise of oral inspiration : The Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say : compare this with his discourses of St. Peter, St. Luke XU. 12. Paul in the Acts. St. Peter speaks of the new revelation as making the old more sure ; as containing the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through 2 Pet. i. ig, your apostles f one of whom, St. Paul, approved the iii.2, i 6 . wisdom given him m all his epistles^ which are classed with the other scriptures- St. John closes the New Rev i 10 2 Testament by two notes : I was in the Spirit., the ig. ’ ’ same John who bare witness^ and was commanded, I John V. 7. therefore ; and, remembering the Lord’s promise fulfilled in himself, gave the important testimony. It is the Spirit that bear eth witfiess^ because the Spirit is the truth. 10. What is to be said of the inspiration of St. Paul, who so largely contributed to the New Testament? Without applying to his own writings the word he applies to the ancient scriptures, he writes with precisely The Inspiration of Holy Scripiure. 53 the same authority as theirs. He stood in a special relation to both the Revealer and the Inspirer. He delivered to the churches that which also he received of the Lord ; and when bespoke of that concerning which he had 7 io com- iCor. xv.3. mandment of the Lord he could still say, L think 1C0r.vii.40. that I also have the Spirit of God, If any writer was God- inbreathed, he more. 11. Does St. Paul give any help towards a theory? He illustrates everywhere the principles already laid down. We perceive that he had special and repeated communications of direct suggestion, in which revelation and inspiration are one; that he uses not words which man's wisdom i cor. ii. 13, teacheth,, hut which the Spirit teacheth,, when unfold- ing the hidden mystery that God revealed through the Spirit ; and that he always retained his individuality of thought, diction and style. 12. Why is not the gift or charism of inspiration mentioned where the dispensations of the Spirit are enumerated? Because it was not peculiar to the Christian economy. 13. But, on the whole, do we not make the Bible prove its own inspiration by declaring it? Undoubtedly we do. But its petitio principii is abun- dantly justified by the Holy Spirit’s influence on every one who hears these speakers and reads these writers with desire to know and do the will of God. Never man so spake. § 3. 2Tf)e Scriptures of Inspiration. 1. What names are given to the documents to express the idea of their inspiration? (1) Such as refer to them as oral or spoken : generally, the oracles of God^ which, as being intrusted to the ^ ancient people, must mean the Old Testament; ActsVii.'ss. particularly, as used of individual passages, living oracles^ or the word of God, (2) As written, they are the scripture f he sacred 2Tim.iii. writings. This is St. Paul’s last term ; but he had *5. 16. 54 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. Spoken of the old covenant as%read, and from that sprang the 2 Cor iii i rnodem distinction of the two testaments : the words 2 or.m. 14. same in the Greek. 2. How is tlie term inspired applied to them? As written by inspired men ; but also as having in them an inbreathed and permanent power of life. 3. Does St. Paul’s word bear both these meanings? The word God-inbreathed might seem purposely chosen to combine them. 4. The scriptures being thus inspired, what character does this of necessity stamp on them ? (1) They must needs have plenary authority as the vehicle of Divine revelations sufficient, that is, in every province. (2) Also they cannot be less than a certain standard ot faith and practice and hope. (3) They must be marked off from all other literature as alone containing Divine words and Divine writings. (4) And, finally, their inspiration may be expected to commend itself as the witness of the Spirit who still lives and moves and has His being in them. 6. Inspiration being predicated only of the Old Testament, can the writers of the New be included? We are now dealing only with inspiration, and it has been seen that the Lord promised to His apostles this specific gift. As to the New-Testament books which may claim it, this is a question belonging to the Canon of Scripture, § 4. I^iston'ral. 1 . Is the idea of inspiration limited to our sacred books ? Many of the religions of the world have sacred books : recording a general faith in the inspiration of higher powers as acting on the minds of poets, soothsayers and lawgivers. But the scriptural idea in its purity and grandeur is unknown to them ; nor is there more than a faint analogy. 2. What was the faith of Judaism on this subject? Admitting degrees of inspiration, both the ancient and The Inspiration of Holy Scripture. 55 the more modern Jews maintained a high theory of the plenary and verbal inspiration of their holy writings 3. Did the early Christian church maintain this? (1) The reigning view throughout the patristic ages was precisely that uf the Jews, from whom they received it, (2) But germs of a laxer theory appear : the prophetic inspiration was elevated to the disparagement of that of some books not written by prophets ; and the human factor in the Bible was by degrees made more and more prominent, 4. How was the subject treated in mediaeval times? (1) Gradually two concurrent inspirations were estab- lished, that of scripture and that of tradition : the former in the Bible, the latter in the teaching church. These the Council of Trent decreed to be of equal and united authority. (2) Meanwhile two opposite tendencies were evident : a few scholastic divines elaborated an almost mechanical theory ; while the mystical schoolmen, like the mystics of all ages, absorbed the direct influence of the inspiring Spirit in the high intuition of contemplative faith. 6, Wbat was the point of view at the Reformation ? (1) It was the authority rather than the inspiration of scripture that ruled at the outset : Luther and Calvin were lax as to the admixture of the inspired and uninspired ele- ments ; the Lutheran formularies oscillated between an ex- tremely high and a comparatively low view ; the Calvinistic or Reformed, however, were generally strict in their theory. (2) The Arminian divines limited inspiration to matters of faith : in fact making it one with revelation proper, and leaving all the rest to general direction or superintendence. (3) None of the Reformation formularies decided on th^ question of verbal inspiration, as dictating the very words. 6. What form did this last question take in theology ? Most admitting that the very words were sometimes 56 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. suggested, the thought arose that, taking all the facts into account, it was better to assume instead of a verbal a plenary inspiration, this however covering many different degrees. 7 . What bearing has the theory of degrees of inspiration exerted on the doctrine ? Much in all its history ; though the theory itself like its application is indeterminate. (1) The ancient Jews maintained a distinction between the inspiration of Moses, who spake with Jehovah face to face, and that of the later prophets and writers of the devotional parts of scripture ; but they did not, like their later descendants as represented by Maimonides, make any difference in the result. (2) Christian writers in all communions have more or less adopted the same thought : the inspiration of suggestion foi express revelations ; of elevation, as qualifying the receivers and writers; of general superintendency, for the arrangement and as it were editorial organisation of the whole. (3) But, inasmuch as the result of all the Spirit’s methods is incorporated in one volume, it is evidently His mind that no such distinction should be capable of verification. (4) Meanwhile, He who said that It is the Spirit that qiiickeneth^ said also The words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life. Neither can truth be given John VI. 63. received altogether and literally without words. 8. How does the modern critical spirit treat the question ? It attacks the doctrine in two ways : first, by granting inspiration, but taking away its essentially distinctive cha- racter ; secondly, by denying inspiration, on the ground of internal unworthiness in the fabric of the documents. 9. In what way may the former be met ? (1) By appealing to scripture itself, which, though it does not define inspiration, expressly declares it to be or implies that it is a specific influence of the Spirit on those who spoke or wrote the Divine oracles. God-breathed can mean nothing less than this. (2) As against those unbelievers who reduce it to a level The Inspiration of Holy Scripture. 57 with the exhibitions of human genius, this is still the only answer. But it suggests that the advocates of the true doctrine should in their practice strictly limit the term to its right use. (3) It holds also against a large class of Christians, who make inspiration the ordinary illumination of the Spirit raised to a higher and purer force. 10. Of what kinds are the latter objection ? Either it asserts that the matter of scripture is unworthy of the inspiration of God ; or that the forms in which it is given by their internal inconsistencies discredit the doctrine. 11. The former evidently concerns the scripture as the rule of faith : how can the latter be met ? By analysing and carefully considering each objection : a duty incumbent on Christian learning, and one which the growth of Biblical literature makes constantly more easy and more profitable. There is a specific apology of the Bible. 12. If, for instance, it is said that an inspired volume cannot contradict science ? The answer is that it never does contradict science either intellectual or physical. Where they seem to come in collision, it is the interpretation of one or the other that is at fault. 13. If it is said that scripture does not quote scripture as if its very words were inspired ? (1) The reply is that this affects only an extreme theory of verbal inspiration: one pertinaciously holding fast the letter as if the words were as eternal as the truths they carry. (2) The Divine Spirit may surely change His own words. (3) Undoubtedly the Lord and His apostles sometimes cite the Septuagint as the current and as it were authorised version : to Whose authority we must bow without question. (4) But there are many quotations which show such intention in the change as confirms the true doctrine. For instance, the prophet said, Sanctify the Lord of hosts isa. viii. 13. Himself ; the apostle says, Sanctify in yoitr hearts * ^5 Christ as I^ord, 58 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. (5) If we affirm that the Spirit may have been pleased to transmit different versions of the same sentences, or that He may have given words by inspiration which were then left to the custody of time and of various transcription : even this cannot be charged with absurdity. 14. How far do the modern terms plenary and dynamical solve these difficulties? Very imperfectly. Both words are vague, having more of the semblance than of the reality of definition. If plenary signifies that the power of the Spirit is in every part of the Bible, adapting itself to the subject and securing that the doctrine shall be sound and the history true,* it may be accepted as a tribute to the Divine element. If dynamical signifies that the human writers are always actuated by the Spirit as thinking, examining, collating, witnessing and reason- ing men, it may be accepted as a tribute to the human element. The combination of plenary and dynamical is hard ; but it is not impossible. 15. What is the sum of all ? (1) The Christian receives what are commonly called the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as the mind and word of God given by His Holy Spirit through the in- strumentality of holy men. (2) He must have a strong faith in the watchful providence of the Spirit over the work of His own hands : whether as to the unknown history of ages past, the present with its assaults and objections innumerable, or the unknown future of truth in the world. (3) He must expect that Spirit to breathe through the oracles within his soul His own effectual demonstration of the living and lifegiving power of the holy oracles. (4) And, in the proportion that his faith forms for him a high theory of the inspiration of the sacred writings will be his own delight in them and sanctification through their influence. The Canon of Scripture. 59 Chapter IV. ®I)c @anott of ^cripfuro. 1. What does this subject embrace? The question of what constitutes the collection of the sacred books of revelation : the Old Testament and the New. 2. How is the term Canon of Scripture used ? The term canon (/cavcov) means a rule or testing rod. The scriptural books are those to which the test has been applied. They are also the canon or resting rule of faith ; but it is the former meaning we now consider. The books were canonical or canonised, before they became the canon or rule of faith. 3. How is the canon related to inspiration ? Inspiration concerns the Divine influence on the writers ; but the determination of the canon concerns the number of the writers, and their claim to be held as inspired. 4. Is this a question outside of the books themselves ? Not altogether so. Whatever tests were applied were derived first from the books, and one part of scripture very much helps to give canonical authority to another. § 1. ©anon of tte ©lU ^Testament. 1. What do Christians understand by this canon ? The Hebrew text of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or holy writings, as our Lord received and approved it and gave it to His disciples and the future church. 2. Is this the only ground of our acceptance? The circumstances under which the canon of the Old Testament was finally closed are very obscure in history. Our 6o Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith, Saviour’s authority is enough for those who cannot study the subject, and the best evidence for those who can. 3. From what is the Hebrew canon distinguished ? (i) From the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint — a Greek translation of the third century before Christ — which includes some books not in the Hebrew ; and (2) from the Apocrypha, as these last additions are now named : the term apocrypha signifying hidden,” in a sense of discredit. 4. Has the Saviour authenticated every individual book? Not every book as such : but He quoted the scriptures as they were generally quoted. In the New Testament all the books save four are referred to as sacred. 6. Has He directly or indirectly sanctioned the canon as such ? The three main divisions — the law of MoseSj and the Prophets^ and the Psalms — imply what is meant by the canon. Lukexxiv charge the corrupters of the interpre- 44. ‘ tation with corrupting the text itself. Though the Matt. XV. 6. Septuagint is often used, the apocryphal books are never directly quoted. 6. Does the Old Testament itself give any support? From the first reference to the Booh of the law onwards there is reference to one Book of the Lord ; as distinguished Deut. xxxi. from all other literature. After the captivities the Is? xxxiv. liniits of this were defined (b.c. 450-300) probably by ik a council of scribes. § 2. Keb3='0^estamrnt Ctanon. 1 . What parallel is there between the old and the new canons ? As the old covenant had its documents, so has the new. As the revelation of truth had been begun by oracles and writings, so might it be expected to end. As the ancient church had its books of statutes, devotions and prophecies, we might anticipate that the new would have the same. The New Testament is in many respects the counterpart of the Old. The Canon of Scripture 6i 2. Does the New Testament itself profess to constitute a second body of holy writings ? Not directly. There are many signs, however, in almost all the documents that the writers were writing authoritatively and for permanence : signs as plain as in the Old Testament. 3. How does this bear on the meaning of canon ? (1) The writers appeal to their credentials: inviting the application of the canon, or testing rule, to themselves. (2) They also write as the arbiters and final authorities in doctrine: applying their writings as the canon or testing rule of all things, with an authority from which they allow no appeal. (3) These two meanings of the word canon point onwards to the Rule of Faith. § 3. 1. How was the Old Testament treated in the early Christian church ? Both our Lord and His apostles largely used the Greek version : almost as if the Hebrew Scriptures, like the temple, had lost their prerogative. But they never quoted the apoc- ryphal additions ; and these were very hesitatingly admitted into such of the early lists as mentioned them. 2. What was the history of the formation of the New- Testament canon ? Three centuries were occupied in defining its exact limits ; though the volume as a whole, as we now hold it, was accepted and reverenced in the second century. Doubts existed as to a few books which some accepted and a few which some rejected. 3. What tests were applied and by whom ? (1) The tests were apostolical authorship or authorisation ; and, in the case of the Homologoumena, all the churches were historical vouchers as it were with one consent. (2) In the case of the Antilegomena, difficulties arose which have been felt more or less to the present time. The test here was mainly the common Rule of faith,” which decided the gradual rejection of certain apocryphal books, with the writings of some apostolical fathers, and, as combined with 62 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. the testimony of individual churches, secured the gradual acceptance of the epistles which had been suspected. 4. How stood the question of the canon at the Reformation ? (1) The Mediaeval churches had accepted the Old- Testament Apocrypha : they were included by the Council of Trent and by a later decision of the Greek church. Lutheranism, like the Anglican church, admitted parts of them for public reading ; but, as they were never in the Hebrew canon, present internal evidence of being uninspired, and have no place in the history of redemption, their canonical authority has been rejected by Protestants. (2) The churches of the Reformation laid great stress on the internal witness of the Spirit in their decision as to what must be included in Holy Scripture. The books that lay under doubt were called deutero-canonical and placed at the close of the New Testament. (3) The Arminians, like the Reformed churches, received the Bible as we hold it : much on the general and indefinite principle of the Anglican article, which speaks cautiously but truly and wisely of those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the church.^^ The questionable books were not generally doubted. 6. What are the questions involved in the modern contro- versy as to the canon? (1) The determination of the genuineness of the book : as being the very document itself that was received from the beginning, as from its professed author. (2) The grave investigation of the authenticity of the records, or their trustworthiness as being true deliverers of what they profess to hand down. (3) Only the former strictly belongs to the subject of the canon : the latter belongs to the Rule of Faith. 6. Is there any real difference between these ? There is actually in modern times only one inquiry as to any document : its worthiness of credit. Much of the Bible is thought to be untrustworthy or spurious as pro- fessing to come, for instance from Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, John The Canon of Scripture. 63 the apostle, Simon Peter, and untrustworthy or fictitious in its representation of fact. The whole is only one impeach- ment ; and challenges the authority of revelation generally. 7. How does the uncertainty of the text affect the question ? We must accept these facts: (i) that it has not pleased the Author of scripture to preserve its autographs ; (2) that He has committed its books to the care of His church, which both in Jewish and in Christian ages has watched over them with great care ; (3) that the Holy Spirit Himself has exercised a special providence over their transmission, translation, and exposition ; (4) and that the science of Biblical Criticism has a prosperous function in deciding as to larger interpolations and smaller variations in the text. 8. But surely the uncertainty of the text must throw some disparagement on the canon and its inspiration ? Here it is important to make some distinctions. (1) When the question touches the entire fabric of the Old Testament, and an attempt is made to show that the Pentateuch and the subsequent books of the Old Testament were, like the writings of the prophets themselves, productions of a later age and records of an imaginary history, it becomes vital : unless that kind of criticism is discredited the canon must be given up. The same may be said of the attempts to reduce the genuine New Testament to a very few original documents. As to these attacks on the canon, the student may be sure that the further he advances in his study the more surely will he know the certainty concernmg the things in the faith of which he has been brought up. (2) There are some doubtful points as to the canon — not affecting the inspiration or canonical authority of scripture generally — which must be left or may be left to the conscien- tious private judgment of the inquirer. (3) As to the exact text of the two Testaments, there is little hope of its being recovered till it will be wanted no longer. Meanwhile, we are gradually and surely approxi- mating to exactitude, and the variations that defy decision do not affect in any degree the fundamentals of the truth. 64 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. Chapter V. ©anott as llulc of 1 . What is meant by this application of the word? The Canonical Scripture is here viewed as itself the Canon to measure and determine the value of all knowledge and of all other Christian literature. 2. What range of subjects is embraced? We have to ask in what sense, and under what conditions, scripture is a final authority ; and then consider the bearings of this on historical controversy. § 1. of iTaitt Supreme anH 5ole* 1. With what latitude is this to be taken ? (1) The Bible is the standard of what is to be believed ; the directory of duty ; and the charter of Christian promise : in other words, of faith, morals, and privileges. (2) But as these together constitute the substance of the Christian verity to be accepted, all may be summed up under the one common head of the Rule of Faith. 2. What is the testimony of scripture itself? It everywhere assumes to be a final authority : To the law and to the testimony! Do ye not therefore err^ because ye Isa. viii. 20. know not the scriptures P It appeals to itself always, Markxii.24. and never to anything else save for confirmation of its own words. 3. Does not all this refer to the Old Testament and the dispensation of the letter? (i) The same reason which demanded a final standard in the old economy demanded it much more in the new : the new The Canon of Scripture, 65 containing not only the infallible interpretation of the old but also its own new truth of supreme importance. (2) Hence the writings of the New Testament professedly give the mind of Christ and that as confirmed imto ^ .. us by them that heard. They are added to the other Heb. ii. 3. scriptures. 2 Pet. iii. 16. 4. Still, all this is only their own witness to themselves ? It is one that approves itself to our reason, which admits that if God gives a revelation to man it should speak authori- tatively, PERSPICUOUSLY, and sooner or later to all. § 2. J^tston'cal. 1. What opponents has this principle to withstand ? If we omit those who deny a Divine revelation altogether, there are two : the adherents of Rationalism at one extreme, and those of Traditionalism at the other. 2. How does Rationalism object? It either makes reason the basis of man^s universal religion, and then denies that any one class of sacred books can be its standard ; or, assenting that Christianity is the absolute religion, it makes reason the sole arbiter of what scripture means or must mean, thus undermining its final authority. 3. And how does our Rule of Faith meet this ? (i) By conceding to reason its own province, as the minister of faith : a province allowing private interpretation to the man that is spiritual. (2) By prescribing its j cor. ii. 15. limits: The natural man receiveth not the things of ^ Cor.ii. 14. the Spirit of God. (3) By appealing to reason itself, which ought to admit that the most important truths in a revelation from heaven concerning spiritual and eternal realities must be beyond the limits of reason, whether as a discoverer or as an interpreter. 4. What is Traditionalism ? The system which accepts scripture as the rule of faith, but qualifies this in two ways : first, by making its interpre- tation dependent on the infallible voice of the church, speaking through its representatives ; and, secondly, by establishing the 66 Christian Revelation and the Rule of Faith. co-ordinate authority of an oral tradition handed down from the beginning in that church. 6. And how does our Rule of Faith meet this ? As in the case of Rationalism, (i) By conceding the great importance of tradition in its own place, as transmitting the testimony of the church to the books of scripture and its early interpretation of them. (2) By denying that tradition has ever been allowed a place co-ordinate with the inspired scrip- Matt V tures. Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of ^ men : this sentence of our Lord condemned what afterwards became the vast fabric of the Jewish Talmud, and forbids any Christian imitation of it. (3) An appeal to the results of the principle of a double standard in the history of the ancient church is its most effectual condemnation : decisions contrary to the word of God, and contrary to each other, abound 0. What is the relation to this of the theory of development ? This theory is a modern appendage of the older doctrine of a continuous authoritative voice in the church : assuming that, by the will of God, truths only the germs of which are found in scripture were to be expanded as the ages passed. But an infallible standard would never leave articles of necessary faith in germ ; that notion is contradictory to the principle of a rule 7. What is the latest development of this ? The decree of 1870, which made the Pontiff or Bishop of Rome infallible arbiter in every matter coming before him for personal decision ex cathedra. 8. What objections may be urged against the general prin- ciple that the Bible is the sole rule of faith ? Only such objections as may rather be turned into cautions ; such as the differences in the confessions of the churches, and the irregularities of private judgment. 9. And what is to be said as to these? (i) That the rule of faith is only the standard by which all confessions are to be tested. (2) That as to the essentials of Christianity there is a wide range of evangelical unanimity. (3) That the individual is responsible for his private judgment, and has the promise of the Teaching Spirit, BOOK II. God. L THE HOLY TRINITY. II. THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. III. HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS. 4 /! { -i • (-i A -:iii ■M The Holy Trinity. 69 BOOK II. ^ot>. ^preli'mmairg. 1 . What is God in the scriptures of revelation ? The One Being, the Source of all existence, Who reveals Himself by names and attributes and works which belong to Him alone. 2. Is there difference between the names and attributes ? (1) As God can be known only as He reveals Himself, His names are in a certain sense attributes. Elohim is God as fulness of power ; El-Shaddai is the Almighty ; El- Gen. xvii. i. Elyon the Most High, the Supreme ; Adonai is the Gen.xiv. 18. Lord as Master ; Jehovah is absolute and self-existing Being. (2) Elohim, ©60S, and Jehovah, Kvpcosy are however the preeminent names of God as such. (3) The attributes are those perfections, whether single or manifold, which are given by God to Himself, that by them we may regulate our thoughts concerning His infinite and incomprehensible nature. 8. Is not the proof of God’s being a preliminary ? No : that may be considered in historical review : here we must believe that He is. 4. Have we to trace a gradual revelation ? (1) In the name we find it: God and Jehovah in the Old Testament become in the New the Three-One, ^ the Most Holy Trinity. By this name He had not been known. Ex. vi.3. (2) In the attributes there is no development: some of them, however, such as justice and love, are revealed in new forms and manifestations. (3) And the full revelation of both the names and the attributes of God is connected with the full revelation of His works in creation, providence and redemption. 70 God^ I. flriunc ^ob. 1. On what ground do we thus begin the doctrine of God ? It is well for us to begin where our Lord ends, who com- Matt. xxviii. Hiaiids that all nations should be baptised into the 19 - Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 2. Is this then His final revelation of God? Thus our Lord will have all the nations taught, consum- mating all former and partial instruction ; Baptising them into denotes the confession, worship and service of Three Persons in the Godhead ; and the Name assures still the unity of those three Persons, or the essential unity of God. 3. Should not the mystery of the Trinity be postponed until questions concerning the notion of God and His attributes have been studied ? To us the mystery of the Trinity is God. We should carry this to the attributes and other revelations as the standard of all ; and the result will justify our so doing. 4. This being so, how may we study the doctrine ? By shedding the light of our Lord’s revelation on the past ; by considering it in itself as the final doctrine of the Divine Triunity ; and by tracing its redemptional develop- ment through the subsequent Christian scriptures. § 1. ^xinnt GoD in tf)e lEarlier iXrbelation* 1. In what sense may we seek to trace this? By marking certain mysterious hints, in the Divine names and manifestations and worship and prophecies, which reveal their meaning under the fuller teaching of the New Testament. 2. Which are they in the Divine names? The first and most universal term Elohim is plural, a The Holy Trinity. 71 peculiarity of the Hebrew form of the word. Jehovah is the name by which God revealed Himself to sinful and redeemed man : in Genesis, to man as a race ; in Exodus, to the people of the Mosaic covenant; and in the New Testament as the Triune Jehovah. The mystery of the Trinity perhaps lay in the form of the word Elohim ; and in the Divine interpreta- tion of the word Jehovah, which is I am and I am to ... ^ BE WHAT I AM TO BE. This God says of Himself ; man puts it into the form of Yahveh, He is, Jehovah, or Lord. 3. What in the Divine manifestations ? In the earlier books of the Bible the appearances of God or Jehovah, the Theophanies as they are called, were some- times in the form of angels or men. Moses spake to Jehovah face to face. In the plains of Mamre three men appeared to Abram, while one Lord spake to him ; 10.' but one Angel, and one Man, is preeminent. Of ix!^xxiTi!2i. Him Jehovah said My Name is in Him, It was Gen.xxii.15, the Angel of Jehovah who gave Abraham the first hos! xii. 4, promise, swearing by Myself, With Him Jacob 5- wrestled ; and Hosea says that this Being was even Jehovah^ God of hosts, 4. How may it be observed in the ancient worship ? In the temple the glory within the veil, and the seven- branched candlestick outside, waited their interpretation. The levitical benediction, which put My Name upon the children of Israel,, distributed that name in a three- 27. fold form. And the doxology was Holy,, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts, 5. How, lastly, in the prophetic hints ? There are many of these. In Isaiah we read The Lord God, and His Spirit, hath sent Me, the future Redeemer , , ... of men. And in Zechariah the Spirit of grace is 16. promised by Jehovah to lead the people to look upon ^ech.xn.io. Me whom they have pierced. These two are specimens of a style of speech that suggested to ancient Jewish interpreters the dim outlines of our doctrine of the Trinity ; but which was utterly incomprehensible until the light of the New Testament ex- plained it. 72 God. § 2. 2Trmn(tg of tf)e iSaptismal ^Formula. 1. What is meant by Triunity here ? That our Lord, the final Revealer, still gives to our faith the One and ancient Name, but as Three in One. 2. Then is the testimony to the Trinity a testimony also to the Unity ? Emphasis is laid on into the Name. On that name, Jehovah, the monotheistic confession of Judaism was based : • . Hear^ O Israel^ Jehovah our God is one Jehovah^ or Deut. VI. 4. God. This passage — known as the Shema, or Memorial preeminently, — has been always the Jewish con- fession of faith ; and our Lord came not to destroy Matt. V. 17. fulfil it : Monotheism is the Christian confession also. 3. Explain further the bearing of our Lord’s testimony to the unity of God. (1) The unity of the Godhead was taught in the Old Testament in two ways : first, as the ground of undivided Deut. iv. 39 worship ; and, secondly, as protest against idolatry, isa-xiiv. 8. We must receive the baptismal confession in the light of this. (2) If the Three Names in the One Name are the object of one worship, and this is still a protest against idolatry, they must be equally Divine. Were the Son the highest creature, and the Spirit the second, or a personified influence, our Lord would in effect have contradicted the Old-Testament doctrine. 4. But it may be argued that, while our Lord asserts the unity of God, the baptising means only the subordinate recognition of two persons in redemption. This redemptional Trinity must be based upon a Trinity in the absolute essence. All nations are to be drawn from idols to serve the true God. Into the Name sig- iThess.1.9. revelation of Jehovah ; and the Three Persons are the New-Testament meaning of the I am WHAT I WILL BE. 6. What are we taught here concerning the relation of the Three N ames ? That the Father and the Son have eternally such relation The Holy Trinity. 73 as in human language is thus expressed ; and that the Spirit is a name also derived from human speech which is given to an eternal Person. Son and Spirit are terms used by God Himself. 6. What is taught of the Father first ? He is revealed as a Father in His relation to men, espe- cially believing men. But this is on the ground of a special relation to His eternal Son, His only begotten. Not i Pet. i. 3. only is He the Father of our Lord fesus Christ as jg / Incarnate, but the Son was originally in the bosom of Matt. xi. 27. the Father^ and sent as such by Him. Neither doth any know the Father^ save the Son, 7. Under what conditions is the term Father generally used ? Sometimes with express reference to the Son ; and some- times as standing for God generally, as the Head of the re- demptional Trinity. We find both in St. John^s final testi- mony, God hath sent His only begotten Son into the ^ ^ world ; and The Father hath sent the Son to be the ^ 14. ” Saviour of the world. And perhaps in St. Paul's : Who is over all^ and through all^ a7id m all. 8. Then the Eternal Sonship has an essential relation to the doctrine of the Trinity ? It has ; and nothing is more important than to distin- guish between this and those applications of the term Son which refer to the incarnate estate. Thou art My Son ; this day have I begotten Thee ! is applied in the New Testament to the full manifestation of the Son as Mediator; but St. Paul teaches that the Son as Coi. such is the Image of the invisible God^ the Firstborn before every creature^ Who is before all things. Psalm ii. 7. Acts xiii. 33. Heb. i.5; V. 5. 15- 9. What other terms express the Divinity of the Second Person ? He is called the Logos or Word, the eternal Revealer, Himself God. His relation to the Father is expressed . . . as His having been before the incarnation m the form Phii. ii. 6 . of God^ the Effulgence of His glory ^ and the Very 2* Impress of His substance. 10. What is the specific relation of the Third Person ? The Spirit receives three peculiar denominations from the 74 God. Great Revealer. Two of them, the Paraclete and the Spirit oj truth, express His relation to us ; the third, Who pro- John XV. 26. from the Father^ expresses His eternal re- lation to God and in God, In that relation His name is always THE Spirit, or the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God. 11. What is the scriptural evidence of this ? The two points of the Personality and the Divinity of the Spirit go together : (1) The identity of God and the Spirit of God runs through the Bible. Whoever the Spirit is, there is no distinction between Him and God : St. Paul draws an analogy between the Divine Spirit and the spirit of the man which I Cor. ii. II. • • 7 • ^ ^ ts in him, (2) The distinct personality of the Spirit is among the revelations of our Lord, who emphatically supplements His testimony to the eternal procession by the words, Whom I will John XV. 26. and He shall testify. The general strain of Gal. iv. 6. scripture similarly combines the two: the eternal procession and the temporal mission are blended almost into one. 12. What other arguments prove the Holy Trinity ? The Divine attributes which are ascribed to the Two Persons : to Them indeed especially, as will be hereafter seen. Whatever may be said against the Divinity of the names Son and Spirit, as sometimes used with a more limited meaning, the ascription of any Divine attribute to either is ample de- monstration : Divine perfections can belong to God alone. 13. How may we sum up at this point ? (1) It must be remembered that the mystery of the Trinity is the supreme revelation to faith, embracing in a sense all other mysteries. (2) And the terms Generation for the Son and Procession for the Spirit are given by our Lord to express an eternal sub- ordination in the Godhead, one however which infers no inferiority of essence in the Two Persons. (3) That this subordination in the absolute Trinity is the mysterious ground of the redemptional or economical Trinity. The Holy Trinity. 75 § 3 . €\)t ^Tvim'tp in tt)e iLater Scripture. 1. Does tlie revelation of the Holy Trinity by onr Lord govern the later doctrine concerning God ? The essential unity of the Godhead remains still the great governing idea, which orders the phraseology. But the Trinity constantly appears in its relation to the redeeming work, as our Lord prepared us to expect that it would. 2. How did He so prepare us ? By those specifically doctrinal discourses in the paschal chamber, which were really His final testimony to the Trinity, preceding and explaining beforehand the baptismal formula. In them He spoke of Himself as at once a revelation , ^ of the Father and inferior to Him by the incarnation ; 28. and of the Spirit as at once proceeding from the 26- Father and sent by the incarnate Son. 3. Does not the early history of the propagation of the gospel in the Acts disappoint our expectation as to the Trinity ? (1) We must remember that in evangelising both Jews and Gentiles the essential unity of God was preached as the supreme truth and necessary foundation. (2) That baptism into the 7 iame of the Lord Jesus ^ as alone, meant the Lord’s baptism as distinguished from every other ; it does not imply that the Triune Name was not used. Moreover, fuller instruction followed baptism. (3) That the history of the spread of the gospel contains the abundant materials of Trinitarian doctrine. 4. How may this be shewn ? Especially by the combination of the Three Persons in the teaching given to the churches. 5. And how is this combination seen ? Everywhere we see the Three Names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit bound up with the processes of redemption ; and that in such a manner as to be utterly inexplicable save on the ground of their equal Divinity. 76 God. 6. Can these passages be classified ? To classify them would be a large and profitable study. For instance, to give three specimens : (1) In the dispensation of grace. Throtigh Him we both Eph ii i8 access in One Spirit nnto the Father, In I Cor. iii. 4, the diversities of gifts, ministrations and workings, there is the same Lord^ the same Spirit^ the same God, (2) In the interior economy of religion the Father is sup- Eph. iii. 14 plicated for His power through His Spirit in the in- “■21. ward man ^ that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith ^ and thus that we may be filled unto all the fulness of God, (3) In the worship of the church the apostolical benedic- tion, the calling on the name of ottr Lord Jesus Christ,, the praying in the Holy Ghost y and the ascription of glory to Christ, are sufficient evidence. In the other world invocation of grace is from the Three Persons, and the highest glory is offered to fesus as the Redeemer of mankind. 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 1 Cor. i. 2. Jude 20. ■j Tim. iv. 18. Rev. i. 4, 5,6. 7 . As it regards this last point, is there not a marked absence of adoration addressed to the Trinity in Unity ? It must be remembered : (i) that the worship of God is the worship of the Trinity ; (2) that in the economy of re- demption the Two Persons are subordinate. One as the Mediator and the Other as the Inspirer of worship ; 1C0r.xv.28. until God is All in all that subordina- tion continues. II. Jlffribufes of ^oJ>, 1. What is the difference between Divine names and at- tributes ? Every name of God expresses His whole being ; but the attributes indicate various aspects of the Divine character ; and no one is independent of the others. 2. In what way does revelation speak of them ? By asserting (i) as from God Himself, what He is in His own perfection; (2) what He is not, or denying imperfection The Divine Attributes. 77 to Him ; and (3) that He has the qualities which account for all that is. Thus, the old divines followed scripture when they spoke of reaching adequate notions of the Divine attributes VIA EMINENTLE, VIA NEGATIONIS, and VIA CAUSALITATIS. 8, How are the terms, attributes, perfections, glory, and properties to be used of G-od ? The glory — not glories — is the manifestation of the Divine nature to the bodily or spiritual eye of His creatures. Property, or propriety, notes what belongs to God viewed as a Person, or in a threefold personality. When the term perfections is used we mean the assemblage of attributes each of which as perfect is a perfection. But attributes is the aptest term, as avoiding the idea of distinction in the Divine nature, and meaning only what God permits us to attribute to His unfathomable essence. 4. Is there any classification of the attributes in scripture ? There are constant indications of it. For instance, sometimes God is spoken of as independent of creaturely existence, and the attributes are a negation of the limits of matter and time and space : more frequently His attributes are such as require the universe for their existence ; and most frequently they are such as connect Him with moral beings and man especially. This scriptural order we must follow : in preference to any such classification as natural and moral, communicable and incommunicable, or the like. § 1. 2anteIateU ^ttritute0. 1. What is the force of unrelated? It means that it is the dignity of the human mind to be capable of at least thinking of God as the Only Being. But every term or nearly every term we use to express this must be related to the creature, and seem only to deny limitation. 2. What qualification is here necessary ? It must be remembered that the same revelation which speaks of God as in Himself unconditioned or absolute or 78 God. unrelated to things, speaks of Him as having internal re- lations. But the internal properties of the Divine essence — His unity and triune subsistences — are not attributes. The only exception might seem to be love ; but that is called I John iv. 8, the Very nature of God ; God is love^ and Love is of 7 * God (iK.) 3. Whicli then are the absolute attributes? They are two, each of which governs a class ; spirituality and infinity. God is the Infinite Spirit. 4. How are these related? Together they express in human language our conception of an incomprehensible essence : God is an infinite Spirit. The former is positive : we believe that God is a Spirit ; the latter is negative : we believe that He is infinite, a Being who has no possible or conceivable limitation. 5. How is the spirituality of God taught ? In the Old Testament as opposed to materiality. Our Lord's new revelation is, God is spirit : His only John IV. 24. (jggnition. 6. What attributes hang upon this? Personality : God is a Spirit Whom we must worship as John iv. 23. Father in spirit, and He is the Father of spmts. Heb.xii.g. Immutability or simplicity of nature: Who only hath 1 Tim. VI. 16. ^ tcrm NATURE is not so appropriate as essence. 7. How is the infinity of God taught ? In the scripture as immensity, in relation, or rather out of relation, to space : Behold^ heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee ; and eternity, in relation, or out 2 chron. vi. relation, to time : He is the everlasting God^ or the fsa^xiiv’e^’ God of eternity. Hence springs the self-sufficiency of the Divine essence, as being absolute : lam the First and lam the Last^ and beside Me there is no God. His being is therefore necessary being. And from all this follows the Divine unity, as an attribute : there can be only one such Being. The Divine Attributes. 79 8. Is then the infinity of God only a negative idea? The term infinite has a negative form, but infinity in the human mind is its highest positive idea : we measure limitation by it, and do not measure it by limitation. He hath Ecdes.iU. set eternity in their heart : the deepest mystery in “• our nature. 9. Are these attributes ascribed to the Trinity? The Son is the Lord^ the Spu'ity Who by Eternal Spirit offered Himself. The Third Person is revealed pre- 2C0r.iii.18. eminently by this name. And of the Son it is said that all things outside of the Divine essence are the works of His hands : They shall he changed; but Thou art the . same. The self-sufficiency of God is that of the Three Persons in eternal communion ; having in Themselves the possibilities of the created universe, and of the absolute attributes’ becoming relative. 10. What is the sum on this subject? That these attributes are unfathomable ; that it is oui highest dignity so to reflect them in our finite nature as to be able to apprehend though we cannot comprehend them ; that they are the eternal ground of all other attributes ; expressing all of them collectively and individually rather the essence than the several perfections of the Deity. § 2. ^ttritmtes iHelatetj to tl)e ©reaturr. X. What is meant by this expression? That many qualities are ascribed to God which have no meaning save as related to the creaturely existence. 2. What is their relation to the absolute attributes? It will be seen that each of them is based upon an absolute attribute, under a divinely appointed limitation, real and not figurative, to time and things. 3. What is aimed at by this distinction? The importance of remembering in every discussion that we must keep the two apart without understanding how it 8o God, may be. For instance, to the Eternal, as above time, all is one unchanging now ; but, having created time. His omniscience has its true temporal past and present and future. 4. Which are these attributes? They are, in the order of human thought. Freedom, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omniscience, Wisdom and Goodness : all necessarily presupposing a sphere of creation. 6. Do we here exclude what we call the moral attributes? These really spring out of the first and the last, freedom and goodness. But we are limited here to the creature as such and universally. The moral attributes refer only to a part, the best part, of the creature, and must be reserved. 6. What is freedom as an attribute of God ? Freedom means the will of a personal agent, conscious of originating his own act. There is no absolute personal agent but God : the creaturely origination of act is real, but derived and dependent and responsible. 7. What are the bearings of this attribute in theology? It takes the lead in creation, as the Triune will ; it contradicts pantheism ; it issues the decree of redemp- tion, and presides over the government of the moral world. It is decretive and absolute ; or, if permissive, only as har- monised with other attributes such as goodness, though not limited by them. 8. What is the relation of omnipotence to this ? It is expressed thus. Hi hath done whatsoever He hath pleased ; but not all that He can do is it God's will to Ten xxxii. 17. Omnipotence is assigned to the Supreme via Psaimcxv.3. cAUSALiTATis ; it siuiply accounts for all that is. Hence it is impressed on our minds in our idea of causation ; everything has its cause, and the First Cause i? the will of God executed by omnipotence, the attribute which ministers to His will. Hence, further, every difficulty that can arise here must be carried higher; to what we call purpose in God as the Holy Trinity. I'he Divine Attributes. 8i 9. How does scripture treat the Divine Omnipresence ? God is present in all His Divinity everywhere : I?o not 1 fill heaven and ea^'th ? But it is better to say that all things are present to God : In Him we live and move 24. U7id have on7' being. Acts xvii. 28. 10. And how is Omniscience related to this ? (i) The universal presence of God is essentially His universal knowledge : All thmgs are naked and laid ^ open before His eyes. (2) The God of eternity, be- ^ coming the God of time, knows the past and the future as such : remembrance, observation, and foreknowledge belong to Him whose tmder standing is mfinite^ or beyond reckoning. (3) The most impressive aspect of the attribute is the foreknowledge that is bound up with what man calls con- tingency. 11. What is Wisdom as an attribute of God ? It is ascribed by God to Himself as the use of that infinite understanding in the employment of means, to attain ends in the created universe both physical and spiritual. 12. And what is Goodness ? The lovingkindness which wills the welfare of the creature as such. The eai'th is full of the goodness of the Lord. ps. xxxiii. 5. It has many names, as signifying the diffusive kind- Ps. cxiv. 9. ness which is over all His works. The existence of evil may be thought to conflict with this. But without reason ; for the goodness of God endureth continually in con- tending with sin and its consequences. The origin of evil is sealed from us. 13. Are all these attributes assigned to the Three Persons? In the Old Testament the Word or Wisdom of God and His Spirit represent all the Divine attributes in the creaturely universe. In the New Testament Christ is the power j cor. i. 24. of God and the wisdom of God ; while the Spirit ^ searcheth all things., yea., the deep things of God. But both the Son and the Spirit are in the economies of creation and redemp- tion regarded rather as the Agents by Whom the attributes are 82 God. exercised. Moreover, the Son in His estate of humiliation displays them no further than they are capable of being mani- fested in human nature. Though as Divine He has all the perfections of Deity, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omni- science are limited by the sphere of His incarnate work. § 3. il^oral ; or, related to J^oral ©rrature* 1. On what principle are these distinguished? As God creating a universe limits His attributes in relation to it, so as the Creator of moral and free intelligences He assigns to Himself moral attributes belonging to that relation. 2. But are not the principles of morality eternally in God ? The God who is absolute, and without a creature, is of course the same God who creates and governs the world. But, unless we suppose created intelligences, we cannot suppose in Him holiness, righteousness, grace, mercy, or truth. 3. Does not this seem to imply that God created morality? And that is certainly true: there is no creature without obligation ; and no obligation without a creature. Of the Eternal neither obligation nor responsibility can be predicated. 4. Is not God eternally holy, and just, and true, and good? Holiness being separation from evil existent or possible, justice supposing a law administered, truth implying obligation and responsibility, and goodness being either estimated as such or received by a creature, they all imply creaturely intelligences. 5. Where may we find a link between the eternal essence and the ethics of Divine relation to the creature ? In Love, which is the eternal property of the Triune God, in the intercommunion of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: the final interior basis of all that is external. 6. Is love then the sum of the moral attributes of God ? It would be so if all creatures were under necessity of goodness ; but their probationary freedom renders evil possible, and hence arise other attributes in God. The Divine Attributes. 83 7, What other attributes ? All those which guard against evil, holiness being at their head : answering to love, the head of the diffusive attributes. 8. Then do love and holiness divide them all? Yes: but not as distinct. God is one ; His attributes are one in Him ; and the combination of love and holiness will be found of great importance throughout theology. anil tte IProtectibe ^ttntutes. 1. How is the Divine holiness treated in Scripture? In two ways : (i) As the attribute which expresses the separation of God from all evil ; and (2) the perfection to which man is called in the Divine fellowship. 2. Are not these contradictory? (1) In the case of the unfallen, the holiness of God is viewed as the separation from evil as possible. (2) The fallen are severed from God by sin for ever : His holiness alone would never recall them ; but it is not alone. 3. How then are sinners partakers of His holiness ? Through the intervention of atonement only. Ye shall be holy ; for lam holy 1 is said to those who have i Pet. i. 16, purified their souls in the way ordained of God. The ^2. atonement at once protects Divine holiness and restores it to man. 4. How is the justice of God related to this ? What holiness is to the Divine nature, righteousness is to the Divine government. (1) God’s rectoral righteousness ensures the perfection of His laws and their administration. (2) His judicial righteousness is the attribute that assures perfect justice in the distribution of rewards and punishments. 5. Is it consistent with the supremacy of God’s love and the majesty of His name that exacting and retributive righteousness should be ascribed to Him? (i) Majesty is the attribute that places God at the head of 84 God. the creaturely universe ; and nothing that tends to His glory can be inconsistent with His several perfections. (2) Love is supreme among and not over the moral per- fections of the Divine nature. (3) But, finally, both the glory of the Moral Governor and the good of the governed demand that righteousness in God should have its full character and its unforced definition. 6. How is that taken from it? By theories of righteousness which make it simply the conformity of God to His own established order, whatever that may be : thus making it synonymous with His goodness. 7. What is its defence? (1) This current idea of righteousness will not suit many passages of scripture: especially that one which speaks of the righteous judgment of God^ Who will render to every ' man according to his works. (2) There are other attributes, and names of attributes, which express that softei idea of righteousness. 8. Which are they? Truth and Faithfulness : God is true in His revelations, and faithful in His promises and threatenings, though the latter aspect is not made so prominent as the former. iLote anU bating 1. How is the Divine love towards moral agents treated? In two ways : (1) as the attribute that provides salvation ; and (2) administers that salvation under many names. 2. Does love in God supremely provide and administer salvation ? (1) Not as of necessity : for it is displayed only on con- ditions. Herein is love .... that He loved us and sent His Son to he the propitiation for our sins. And hence ijohniv.io. to man in Christ: it is reserved for the atonement. (2) But it is supreme : as sending the Greatest Gift j as Historical Discussions, 85 throwing always the restraint of mercy over the judgment of God; and thus presiding over the beginning and John m. 16. the end of redemption, though not as silencing Jas.u. 13. righteousness. 3. What forms does love take? It is Grace in Jesus as resting on the unworthy; Com- passion, or pity as viewing misery ; Mercy as remitting penalty. But its names are as many as the aspects of man’s evil. III. ^tsforical. 1. What belongs to an historical review of this whole question ? We have seen that in scripture there is one doctrine : that God is, and that revelation is a continuous development of His ^ name and attributes as the redeeming Trinity. All independent speculation on these two subjects belongs to the history of human thought. 2. What has been the range of independent speculation ? Under the first head come arguments for and against the being of God ; with questions as to the possibility and the limits of the knowledge of the Infinite. Under the second all specu- lations, whether outside of revelation or within the Christian church, as to the interior plurality of the Godhead. § 1. 2Tf)e ISemg of GoU as a Question. 1. Has this ever really been questioned ? In a certain sense it has ; if we may judge by the argu- ments which have been used in all ages to prove it. 2. Why “in a certain sense” ? Because the argumentation itself seems to assume that which it argues about. 3. How may this be explained ? Man was created in the image of God ; and by the very constitution of his nature inquires after the Being from Whom 86 God, he came, on Whom he is dependent, and to Whom he is responsible. 4. Does this mean that the idea of God is innate ? Rightly understood, it is innate. As man surely comes to consciousness of self and the outer world, not self, so he comes to the consciousness of a Being above both: all this being innate or connate, though at first undeveloped. It is born in or with man as a faculty to seek and a capacity to receive the knowledge and enjoyment of the God who made him. 5. What is the testimony of revelation to this ? Ps. xiv. I. It never proves that God is : the atheism it Eph. ii. 12. rebukes is always and everywhere moral. 6. Does not revelation use arguments in that appeal? Only to encourage or confirm the belief it assumes, and Rom. i. 28. the obscuration of which it attributes to sin. 7. What is the line of scriptural argument ? It makes its constant appeal as follows : — (i) To the sense Actsxvii.27, of God in every human spirit ; (2) to the logic of is^’xi. 21. every mind, arguing from the creation to an adequate Ps.xix.i— 3; cause of it ; (3) to the universal marks of design ; Rom.\^i8. (4) to the conscience of man as a sinner ; (5) to the Rom agreement of all nations, taught by God Himself to ^s^xvn. 2 after Him and fi7id Him, 8. But this seems like the line of theological argument? It is so, but with a difference. The scripture speaks to rebuke man^s trifling with his convictions. ' Theological argu- ment professes to convince unbelievers as such. 9. Who then are on this question the unbelievers ? It is usual to term them Atheists. But this is an inde- finite word, requiring analysis and classification. Strictly speaking, there is but one logical form of unbelief ; and that is Antitheism, which argues against the possibility that there can be a God. Pantheism does not deny that God is, but Historical Discussions. 87 will not admit that He is distinguished from the universe. Agnosticism denies only that He is an object of thought. 10. How are tlie demonstrations of the being of God conducted ? In such a way as to meet all these at once. But it must be remembered that their demonstrative force is no more and no less than what scripture assigns them. In their new ter- minology they may be presented as follows : — (1) The Ontological argument : that the idea of the Infinite, or God, in the human mind implies A priori a corresponding object. (2) The Cosmological : that an absolute First Cause of all things is a necessity of thought. (3) The Teleological : that marks of design, infinitely diversified yet all converging to final ends, demand a Designing Creator. (4) The Moral : man^s indestructible sense of dependence, responsibility, and desire points to a Supreme Father and Ruler and End of his being. (5) The Consensus Gentium : in all ages, and among all men, some sense of the supernatural is found, though varying in its errors from the lowest fetichism to the highest pantheism. § 2. }Poj335iIiilttg of a Notion of Goij. 1. What is the meaning of this question ? It has been argued that the finite mind cannot comprehend or define an infinite object, that is, form an adequate concept and express a complete definition of it ; and therefore that all demonstrations of God are efforts to prove that Something is behind all phenomena to which no demonstration can warrant our giving a defining name. 2. And what are the bearings of this question ? It is of wide and fundamental importance : in fact, it vitally concerns every error as to the being of God, whether of the antitheist or the theist. 88 God. 3. How does it iDear on Antitheism ? It really removes the ground from under it. While Agnosticism urges that the Power behind the universe cannot be known, Antitheism professes to have such a knowledge of its necessary attributes as to be sure that it cannot exist : the most stupendous instance of proving a negative. 4. How does it bear upon Pantheism ? The term expresses that what we call God is the sum of all things, the universal substance as manifested by what we call the attributes of spirit and matter. It may be said that Agnosticism, denying of course the possibility of so clear a conception of what God is, cannot fairly be pantheistic. 5. What other errors does it oppose? There are no others : all the fundamental errors as to the Deity are summed up in these two, Antitheism and Pantheism. And each means, when pressed to its issues, that what the human intellect cannot define is not. Agnosticism must on its own principles deny that : it supposes Something that is. 6. But we have not yet answered its own argument ? Indirectly it has been answered. But more positively the following positions may be taken : (1) God is an object not of definition but of knowledge. (2) Knowledge is the right relation of the mind to the truth of its object ; and this holds of the Supreme Object. (3) The definition of an object of knowledge is far more what it excludes than what it includes : we know in part only almost all that we know. (4) Many things that are practically indefinite and un- limited we nevertheless know ; and the finite, in constant contact with the Infinite, knows it with a real knowledge which though limited is sufficient for every practical purpose. 7. Is this the ‘‘regulative knowledge’’ which those allow who deny that we can know the Infinite Being ? No : they admit the second and third of these terms, but Historical Discussions. 8g refuse the first. We must maintain that our limited know- ledge is not only sufficient but real : that there is no knowledge more real than this. 8. What is the testimony of scripture on this subject ? (1) That God is both unknown and revealed. No man hath seen God at any time ; the 07 ily begotten Son^ Who is in the bosom of the Father^ He hath declared Actsxvii.23. Him, Whom ye worship not knowings Him set I foidh unto you : this saying of St. Paul, studied in its context, bears out our application. (2) That there is a knowledge of God which is not only real, but synonymous with the souPs highest life : And this is life eternal that they should htow Thee, ^ § 3 . ^xinitv, 1 . How far has this mystery entered into human specula- tion ? Much more extensively than is sometimes assumed. A certain triad is found in most of the ancient Asiatic religions, in the Egyptian, and in the religious philosophy of Plato. But nothing that even approaches a Trinity in unity can be traced. 2. Did not later Judaism find the doctrine in their ancient books ? Rabbinical writers in early Christian ages collected many testimonies from the oral expositions of their scriptures which, they affirm, were the basis of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Whether some of these were or were not themselves due to the New Testament, they are valuable testimony to Jewish opinion and secret tradition. 3. Do the Gospels indicate that our Lord appealed to any latent Trinitarian idea ? He constantly prepared His hearers for that full revelation of God which, equally with the salvation of man, was the end of His mission. But, as He did not lift the veil from His atonement until He suffered, so He did not declare the Trinity until the Holy Spirit came. His full testimony to the Third go God. Person was given in His last discourse ; but His entire ministry was a perpetual appeal to the faith of the covenant people in an Eternal Son of God. 4. Do the scriptures give any hints to prepare for future dogmatic expositions of the Trinity? Very few, if any. The writers of the New Testament, having Jewish monotheism and Gentile polytheism in view, are instructed to do no more than furnish a multitude of testimonies to the personality, Divinity, and relations of the Three Persons. These would demand, when the kingdom of our Lord was fully set up, the terminology which we now use. 6. By what stages was this terminology reached ? By the expansion of the Baptismal Formula ; by the triune classification of the doxologies of scripture and the benedictions ; by the introduction in the second century of the term Trias or Trinitas ; and by the adoption of the conven- tional distinction between ovcrta for the nature common to the Three Persons and vTroVracrt? for the personality belonging to each. 6. What was the earliest development in the doctrine as such ? That which has been called in later times Subordinationism: the logical expression of the revealed truth that the Son was John i. i8. the only begotten God and that the Spirit proceeded John XV. 26. from the Father. The order of the Trinity, and the relation of this to the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit. 7. What was the Sahellian heresy? The denial by Sabellius, in the third century, of the Three Personal Subsistences in the One God. Its trinity was simply three modes in which that one God presented Himself to man : first as Jehovah, then as the Son, then as the Holy Ghost. 8. What was Arianism in relation to the Trinity ? The doctrine that the Son was begotten of the Father’s will, and therefore, though before all worlds, was not eternal. Historical Discussions. 9 ^ The Spirit, also, it taught, came into being in God and from God in order to the creation. 0. How may we state the relation of these three ? Together they prove that the Trinity in Unity was the earliest doctrine. The first heresy, Sabellianism, arose out of an exaggeration of the Unity which denied any subordination ; Arianism so exaggerated the idea of subordination that the Unity was lost. But both were protests against sundry forms of Unitarianism, or Monarchianism, which heretics had devised, especially in the second century. 10. How was subordinationism developed ? Authoritatively, in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed. God of God, as it respects the Son; Who proceedeth from THE Father and the Son, as it respects the Spirit. 11. What were the bearings of the controversy as to the procession of the Spirit ? The addition Filioque, “ and from the Son,” to the Nicene Creed, was rejected by the Eastern Church ; and was one reason of the breach between East and West. 12. What were the characteristics of mediaeval speculation ? It was much occupied in endeavours to find analogies of the Trinity in the constitution of human nature and the pro- cesses of thought ; as also in constructing the terminology of the internal and external relations of the Three Persons. 13. Had all this any value? Great value in obviating objections ; and in protecting the doctrine they had their use, especially as continued in the dogmatics of the Reformation. But, as aiming at a solution of the unfathomable mystery, they had no value. 14. What was the later development of the order or sub- ordination of Persons in the Trinity ? (i) Reaction against it gave birth to a doctrine scarcely distinguishable from Tritheism : that of three distinct Gods. 5 92 God. (2) After the Reformation the earliest Arminian divines made it very emphatic ; but their descendants proved the danger of too careful definition by verging on Arianism. (3) In later times there was much exercise of human subtilty in tracing analogies between the interior life of the Trinity and the exterior manifestation of God in the universe. This also had its unhealthy reaction. (4) During the sixteenth century Socinianism revived the ancient Monarchianism, or the doctrine of the absolute unity of God : but with a certain effect of Arian subordinationism lingering in it which raised its conceptions of the Son and the Spirit much higher than those of modern Unitarianism. 15. What have been the modern bearings of the question? (1) It has been closely connected with controversy as to the Eternal Sonship : the doctrine which may be said to be the central element of our Lord’s own teaching concerning Himself throughout the Gospels. (2) And it has been found of great importance as the eternal origin of the temporal subordination of the Two Per- sons in the work of redemption. 16. What lessons are taught by the history of controversy on this subject ? The importance of remembering (i) that this ultimate mystery of Christianity must be accepted by faith and pro- foundly adored ; (2) that it is the regulative doctrine of the whole system of Christian truth ; and (3) that it must be the ceaseless care of the teacher or preacher so to order his language as to avoid the three cardinal errors of Tritheism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. BOOK III God and the Creature. I. CREATION. II. THE CREATED UNIVERSE, III. PROVIDENCE. IV. HISTORICAL DISCUSSIONS. Creation. 95 BOOK III. au6 t^e ^rcalutrc. Prelim marg. 1 . Why do we not pass at once to Creation and the Creature ? Because the doctrines concerning God and concerning the created universe are most intimately connected. Much that is generally treated under the former belongs equally to the latter : for instance, Pantheism, Polytheism, Dualism ; which really are questions involving the relation of the creature to the Creator. And certainly the subjects which now lie before us are never safely studied saving in strict connection with the true doctrine of God. 2. Preserving this combination, how shall we proceed ? By considering first the God of creation ; and then the God of providence. 3. What is the link between these ? The first deals with the How and the What of creation ; the second deals with the How and the Why. I. 1 . What topics present themselves here ? Mainly two : the connection of creation with God and His attributes ; and the creating acts or processes themselves. 2. How is this question to be dealt with ? First, as matter of revelation, which gives it a large place ; and then in relation to human theories and speculation. 8. Is not this too extensive a field of inquiry? We are shut ud to a few plain principles : First, it must God and the Creature. 96 be remembered that theology regards the question as one of ^ ^ . pure faith : faith we understand. It must, ^ secondly, be remembered that we have to do with the created universe mainly as the sphere of redemption. 4. Does not science conflict with revelation here? Science has absolutely nothing to say about creation proper. Its reasonings concern the processes of nature, or God in nature, in the construction of the universe ; or what may be termed secondary creation. And as to this, our duty is simply defensive : to show that science does not overturn the general teachings of the word of God. § 1. 0olJ as €^reator. 1. How does revelation speak of God as Creator ? It begins with the truth that God created the heaven and the earth. But the Three Persons of the Godhead are con- Gen i i nected with the process of creation. The Spirit of Gen*.L2’ God fnoved iLpon the face of the waters. Of the Son John 1.3. jg without Him was not anything made that hath been made. 2. What is the .special relation of the Three Persons to the creature, as disclosed in the later scripture ? It is somewhat similar to that which They sustain to redemption : Their relation to the latter being within a narrower circle, and after a different manner. 3. How are the Divine attributes related to creation? (i) All the relative attributes are displayed in the universe and are to be understood in its laws ; power and wisdom supremely. (2) But the freedom of the Divine will, or His R V V II pleasure, originated all : Of Thy ivill they were., * and IV ere created. (3) Majesty and other terms in- dicating the supremacy or lordship of the Creator, ascribe to Him His glory. 4. Is not the glory of the Divine attributes to be regarded as the end of creation? Not certainly the only final cause : the Supreme has no need of that. His glory is rather the result than the end. Creation. 97 § 2. Cvratiou ^Proper, 1. What does this import? ^ All things were called into existence by God. 2. Does revelation teach that this was from nothing ? From nothing” has no meaning. Scripture says that the Son was before all things^ spiritual or material ; that God calleth the things that are not as though Rom.’iy.’i 7 .‘ they were ; and that What is seen hath not been 77iade out of things which do appear, 3. What is the full force of these passages? The first shows that all things include the whole universe of spirit and matter; the second that to the will of God not being becomes being ; and the third lays it on faith, as its fjrst recorded triumph, to understand that the visible creation did not spring from preexisting things about to become phenomena. 4. How may we sum up all this ? By the assurance of faith that the creation came into existence through God’s will ; that in the ordered universe His wisdom presides over the word of His power ; that the Son was the source of existence as outside of God ; and that the Holy Spirit was and is the organ or administrator of all life. § 3. Crfati'ott as .^Formation. 1. How does this limit our subject ? By confining it mainly to the Cosmos, or ordered universe. 2. Is the distinction found in scripture ? When it is said that by faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God we are taught that the successive ages of the universe were brought into order by creative fiats. This secondary creation is most spoken of. 3. Then the construction of the world is matter of faith ? Yes, faith in the record that gives us to understand how the universe as seen came into existence. Every great change is to be regarded by faith as a Divine effect of creating will. 98 God and the Creature. 4. What then is the record referred to ? The Mosaic account of the creation ; which, like the events it describes, we receive by faith as a Divine revelation to our first parents, through whom it passed to Moses. 5. Is the Mosaic record, strictly speaking, a history ? It is that kind of history which it pleases God to give for the assistance of faith when He describes the visible appearance of His invisible things^ even His everlasting power Rom. 1. 20. Godhead, A literal history was impossible ; what we have is the Divine symbolical teaching of certain great lessons. 6. Is this teaching independent of scientific verification ? In one sense, it must be so : by faith we understand. But, in another sense, it is not independent : science will in due time go far towards explaining the laws of the begin- Heb. XI. 3. j laws the operation of which will bring the end. 7. Meanwhile, what is the teaching of the Mosaic record ? (i) That all things were created by one God ; (2) that they were created according to laws, the evolution of which proceeded from lower to higher ; and (3) tha 4 : the whole was ordered in creative epochs ceasing with the creation of man. 8. Is this the meaning of the six days ? These epochs are connected with a seven days’ reckoning by the will of the Creator ; each day representing to us a period of undefined extent. The sabbath of His rest from creative activity is now running on ; and is weekly commemorated. 9. Is this a sufficient account in the light of science ? The Divine history is a hymn of creation : simply above and beyond scientific criticism. Two things are indisputably true : first, that it teaches an evolution proceeding within the limits of KIND even in the seventh age, while creative inter- ventions have ceased ; and, secondly, that it represents man as the end of all, which science also does without avowing it. The Created Universe. 99 II. @reafc6 ^tniocrsc, 1 . In wliat way is this described ? As The heaven and the earthy All things^ The joh”n!‘. 3. creation or creature. The worlds The worlds^ All folTtixvii's things visible and invisible, Heb. i. 2. Col. i. 16. 2. Under what relations are these presented? Chiefly in regard of redemption. But this is in such a man- ner as to furnish materials for a complete view of the universe. 3. What is here meant by the term universe ? The sum of things viewed as one: the unity of all being supremely in God, subordinately in the human mind. 4. How may we distribute the creation in harmony with this ? As the world of spirits, the material world, and man. 5. Can we regard these as entirely distinct ? We know not the relation of spirits to the material universe ; and man is composed of matter and spirit. But we may consider the three parts of the creation as distinct : the doctrine of the creature here being between those of creation and providence. I. ^niocrsc of Spirits. 1 . How may this expression be justified ? It is the plain teaching of revelation that before tion of the visible world a universe of spiritual beings existed: unlimited in number, and as orderly in gradation as the visible economy. The same name, the Lord ofhosts^ is given to Jehovah as Creator of the heavenly bodies and of spirits. 2. What is recorded as to their creation and history ? (i) They occupy a large place in the Old Testament ; but their creation is presupposed. In the New, their creation is assigned to the Son, and that in their hierarchy or order, as corresponding to what in the material universe is the Cosmos. ( 2 ) Again, it is presupposed in the Old Testament that before 5* the crea- Isa. ii. 12. I Kings xxii. T ••• Jer.xxx1u.22. Deut. xxxiii. Dan. vii. lo. Col. i. 16. ICO God and the Creature. the history of man they had two estates, fallen and unfallen: the fallen, represented by Satan, the unfallen by the attendants I Tim. iii. 6 . ministers of Jehovah. In the New Testament Jude 6 . their fall is dimly alluded to as preceding that of man. 3. What view is presented of their relation to the universe ? They are uniformly described as spirits in their nature, and as angels intermediary between the Holy Trinity and created things. But one law governs the revelation: that they are bound up with the providential government of mankind. 4. How are they related as spirits and as angels ? (1) As spirits they are So 7 ts of God^ and addressed them- selves as Ye gods ! The fallen among them are still in their Job i 6 order, sph'itual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly Ps. xcvii. 7. places: that principalities^ powers^ worldrulers va Eph. VI. 12. supernatural order. In their relation to men they are under one head, the devil ; and serve him as demons Mark v. i2 iinclean spirits^ who have power over both the Tob^ii bodies and the souls of men : as to the former, they Luke xni. i6. are instruments of disease ; as to the latter, of 1 Tim. 111. 7. deception and temptation, though this is referred generally to Satan. (2) As angels, they are almost always seen to minister 1 Thess. iv. hoHly to the Divine will : from the archangel down Matt, xviii. those representatives and guardians of the little 10. ones of Christ who are called their angels, 6. What is the preeminence of Satan in Angelology? He is marked out as a personal agent, the original sinner, and the head of all opposition to the Divine will. His many 2 Cor iv. 4. names are as it were official : The god of this world^ ^xxv^4i^’ who has his kmgdom and his angels ; Satan, or the 1 John iii. 12. adversary; That wicked one; The tempter ; The devif or the slanderer, his last and abiding name. 6. What suggestions of importance occur here ? (1) The teachings of scripture are so consistent and unique that no parallel need be sought in extra-Biblical sources. (2) The view given of the universe would be incomplete without the doctrine of spirits in their gradation and order. The Created Universe. lOI (3) The personality of Satan and of evil spirits is inti- mately connected with the whole history of redemption. (4) We may regard the angels as our fellow worshippers, in the communion of saints, avoiding the two extremes : the worshipping of the angels^ on the one hand ; and the ^ | - g forgetfulness of their great place in the universe, on • the other. II. 'gJTafciial '^Inivcxsc. 1 . Does anything: correspond to this phrase in scripture? Neither matter nor any of its compounds occurs there. The general view is that things visible and things in- coi. i. 16, 17. visible were created in the Son, and in Him consist or 2- hold together. God by Him made the worlds; and He is appointed heir of all things : heir, the Eternal Son, of His own creation. 2. Is any plan of creation ever referred to ? The worlds express the Divine glory ; but always in con- nection with the Son and the destiny of mankind. As the end and head of creation He is The Beginning (dpx^) Rev. m. 14. of the creation of God ; and its end, All things were Coi. i. 16. created through Him^ and unto Him as its Ti\o%. 3. Is the universe viewed only in the light of redemption ? By no means, (i) The Son is more than the Redeemer. (2.) But His relation to the worlds is limited to the world of man : as it respects both its origin and its end. 4. How is this truth related to scientific theories as to these ? (1) It leaves science perfectly free to investigate the laws by which the Word acted, from Tet there be light onwards : as it regards either the construction of cos- mical systems or the preparation of the earth for human history. (2) The end of the material system as to man is pre- dicted to be by fire, by which the elements shall be 2 Pet iii 10 dissolved : in other words, they shall be changed ; and Heb. i. 12. science abundantly sanctions this prediction and shows how it may be fulfilled. 6. How does this limitation otherwise affect theology? (i) It teaches the lesson of the transcendent superiority of the spiritual creation over the material : the greatness of the 102 God and the Creature. latter is measured by unlimited worlds and systems of worlds ; that of the former by the incarnation of the Son of God. (2) Man has to seek his salvation as ignorant of all other beings, save where their existence affects himself. (3) It opens a vista of the revelations that are to come hereafter. The present teachings of science minister to Chris- tian hope. III. 'gJTan. § 1 . litis Creation. 1 . How is the origin of man described ? As the end of creation. First, as mankind, and in relation to the creature, Male and female created He them. Secondly, Gen. i. 27. the mail, preeminently, in relation to his own Gen. ii. 7, 23. histoiy and destiny : out of whom,IsH, woman, Isha, was taken, 2. How was he distinguished from other animals ? God breathed into him, in the act of his formation out of the dust, the h eath of lives,. The life was common to him and Gen. ii. 7. lowcr oi'ders ; but into him it was breathed by Gen. i. 26. the Spirit as a life peculiar. And in his personality, as man, he was created by the Holy Trinity in Our image,, after Our likeness, 3. Do the two accounts of man’s creation agree ? Perfectly, if their several purpose is observed. In the second, Elohiin becomes lehovah Elohim ; they were not, however, independent documents, but lehovah is introduced as the God of the covenant based upon redemption, and the second record of man’s creation is introductory to his fall. § 2. E\)t Image of 6oti. 1 . What is the importance of this ? It is the one note of the essential, inherent, and inde- structible dignity of mankind throughout the scripture: essen- tial, as constituting man a free spiritual personal agent ; in- herent, as not arising from anything added after his creation ; and indestructible as a chaiacter of human nature. The Created Universe. 103 2. Is there any distinction between image and likeness ? The image may refer to the pattern in God, the likeness to the copy in man. But the original words do not suggest this; they indicate by repetition the importance of the fact. 3. Do they divide between the natural and the moral image ? (1) The distinction is not alluded to in the first creation ; and the same words are used about the image of Adam . , • ° Gen. V. 3. in his son. (2) In the New Testament there is an indirect reference to the moral image of God as having been lost in Adam and retrieved in Christ. The new man is being renewed coi. iii. 10. unto knowledge after the image of Him that created ^ph. iv. 24. Him ; or after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth, 4. What does this teach as to the relation of these ? (1) That the natural image was the free personality which was capable of reflecting the Divine character. (2) That the moral image was man’s possession of truth and righteousness and holiness in their principles. (3) That the fall was a descent from a high estate and the arrest of a glorious development. 6. What relation does this bear to the Son ? The Son, as such, is the supreme Image of the invisible God, revealing to the created universe His substance coi. i. 15. and His moral attributes : in the image of that Image ^eb. i. 3. man was created. 6. What relation to the Holy Spirit ? The Spirit was breathed into man, as his immortal and holy life. We cannot say to what extent the fall deprived him of that Spirit: but we know that He continued His influence in the human soul ; and that the Saviour, after His resurrection, breathed into His people the same Spirit. The word iv€cj>vcrr](Te is used only of these two. John XX, 22. § 3. plan’s IRdation to tlje SISaorlD. 1. What does the first narrative teach on this subject? That, as bearing the image of his Creator, he was placed in authority over the earth and all creatures on it : this dominion was not the image but a prerogative of the image. 104 God and the Creature. 2 . Does it shed any further light on it ? While as yet unfallen the man was appointed to culti- vate the earth, to subdue it to his own uses, and thus to acquire ^ .. dominion over it. At the same time he was able Gen. i. 28. to understand the creatures below him and give Gen. 11. 20. ihQYn their names. 3. How does later scripture refer to this ? Gen.iii.17— (i) The sentence after the fall makes man’s im- ^ 9 - potence in the world very emphatic. (2) In the second Adam man has retrieved his dominion : the Son of man has it absolutely, and His people will share it, (3) Man and the earth will be restored to their relation. § 4. ^probation anb Jpeberal J^eabsbip* 1. How are we to understand Adam’s probation ? Probation means the test or trial of free intelligences, issuing in confirmation of character good or evil. We know it only as trial addressed to good and evil in our nature, and cannot understand its application to unfallen beings. Revela- tion describes it in the terms known to us. The sensible world was a sphere of temptation ; an evil spirit applied it ; the is-ue was the fall ; but the interior secret it is vain to investigate. 2 . What was his federal headship ? Federal refers to a covenant (foedus) ; and the idea is that Adam represented his descendants in a covenant. But it is better to regard Adam as the natural head of the race, one in him ; and to leave the covenant to the Second Head. § 5. Creation anb iilebemptton. 1. In what sense are these connected ? While the history gives us a record of creation as such, the creation of man is bound up with the history of his redemption. 2 . Was he then created to be redeemed ? This question takes us beyond our faculties. But St. Paul, while he never speaks of man’s creation as an eternal purpose, Eph. i.4,5. speaks of his redemption as such : especially in re- Rom.xvi.25. lation to the mankind of which Christ will be the Head. The Created Universe. 105 § 6. (stomal. 1 . What are the leading topics of controversy here ? There are very many points in which the modern science of Anthropology comes into conflict with the biblical account. W e regard the questions discussed among believers in revelation. 2. How is this restriction justified ? The speculations excluded belong to the wider subject of creation in relation to God. Scripture is very explicit as to the place of m in in the universe as the product of a Divine purpose and act ; but it leaves room for inquiry on some topics of interest : for instance, as to the unity and antiquity of the race and the essential elements of human nature. 3. What are the bearings of the question as to unity ? The unity of the race in its two heads is fundamental ; amd it is of great importance to discuss thoroughly the manifold grounds on which the latest science 26. bases its conclusion that the varieties of mankind are consistent with a common origin. Here of course the question of sufficient time enters. 4. Does the Bible harmonise with the antiquity of man ? Perfectly, if that necessary antiquity is not stretched too far back. The New Testament speaks generally of long past ages and of Christ as having come at the end of the world. The Old Testament runs through these ages ; but its chro- nology is very obscure, especially as to the times before the flood. Meanwhile, an extremely high antiquity is, on the one hand, not proved by any established facts, and, on the other, is quite inconsistent with the recent beginnings of history and the present comparatively limited distribution of mankind. 5. What are the discussions as to human nature ? The question of the meaning of living soul as used of Adam, and contrasted by St. Paul with the quicken- ing Spirit^ has taken many forms. The nature of ^ 45- man is the same throughout : body and soul being the current distinction between his bodily and his spiritual elements; body and soul and spirit expressing this with reference to the process of religion. io6 God and the Creature. 6. How is all this sustained by scripture ? (1) The first record that underlies all declares that man was created in the Divine image ; therefore as a per- sonal spirit. (2) He became a living soul, when his relation to the earth is mentioned. His spirit in God’s image was a soul as using a bodily organ : the soul is his proper self. (3) Man’s soul as regenerate is regarded rather as spirit : That which is horn of the Spirit is spit'it. And the spirit not johniii. 6. possessed by the Holy Ghost is regarded rather as Jude 19. soul : Sensual^ or animap not having the Spirit, Gen. i. 26. Gen. ii. 7. III. ■^rot)i5encc. 1. What is the meaning of Providence ? It expresses the truth that God orders and governs all things for the attainment of the purpose of their creation. 2. How is this found in the word ? The word providence means foresight and provision. Three ideas concur : Trpo^co-i?, purpose ; TTpovota, provision or forethought, for the accomplishment of the purpose ; and 7r/Qdyi/w(rt9, which is the purpose regarded as accomplished, and therefore, as every purpose of God must be, foreknown, 3. How is the providence of Gfod described ? Precisely as His creating act is : with the same relation to the Holy Trinity. As the Three Persons concurred in the beginning, so They conspire to bring all things to their end. 4. What is the range of the operation of providence ? Most widelv, the conservation of all things for their end ; then, more specifically, the preservation of cheated life ; and, in the highest sense, the government of moral intelligences. § 1. pvobiDrnti'al ©ouserbation. 1. What is meant by conservation ? Not merely preservation against danger, but continuing all things in existence in their frame and harmony. Providence. 107 2. In what way is this attributed to God ? The Divine omnipotence is always the ground : God being strong in power ^ not one faileth. But that isa. xi. 26. strength is put forth through the Son, upholding all Heb. i. 3. things through the word of His power. If this is the Father^s power, the Son Himself exerts it, for in Him all ^ things consist^ or hold together, ° 3. Does not this amount to continual creation ? Certainly not : the words just quoted show the distinc- tion. As also the words : Thou sendest forth Thy ^ ^ Spirit.^ they are created : .and 2hou renewest the face of the earth, 4. But how does providence apply to the upholding of all? Because nothing exists without a purpose, or in vain. All things subserve an ultimate Divine intention, for the isa. xiv. 18. attainment of which they are preserved or hold /•- ^7- gether. 6. How may this be illustrated? (i) As it regards the universal economy of created nature, the eternal counsel of providence is hidden from us. Of the Son it is said that in Him were ah things created., and, through Him and unto Him., who is before all things, ° ^ \ 2 ) As it regards our own earth, the design of providence IS plain : the earth was prepared through successive ages to be the abode of life ; lower life was ordained to give support to higher ; and the highest life is sustained for spiritual ends. 6. Are we required to believe that the conservation of created nature is maintained by the direct action of God ? Yes; for there is no power but the Divine : In Him all things consist and in Him we live^ and move., and have coi. i. 17. our being, Acts xvii. 28. 7. Do not great difficulties arise here ? There is no difficulty in the thought that the Being who gives existence to all things is present to them in His power. The pressure arises when we make the sustentation of God lie at the root of things evil and at the spring of evil acts. io8 God and the Creature. 8. How are tliese difficulties met ? The expedient of Secondary Causes has been resorted to, as that of Concursus or natural cooperation of the Supreme apart from the moral. But our only refuge is submission to hidden mystery. § 2. ?probi'tjenttal Care. 1. What is meant by this ? The special provision made by the wisdom and goodness of God for the sustenance, preservation, and continuance of all organic life : that is, of those creatures of God within the outer sphere of the universe which are dependent on supplies that do not naturally come and the absence of which causes suf- fering. These two conditions do not apply to inorganic matter. 2. Does the phrase ‘‘the providence of God^’ refer to this? It does, as generally used to distinguish His general care of His creatures : first, from the conservation of all things, and, secondly, from the government of the Mediator in the kingdom of grace and the Spirit’s special guidance of believers. 3. What of the terms general and special providence ? Strictly speaking, they have no meaning. God equally provides for all His creatures as such. Not one of them shall fall Matt. X. 29, on the ground without your Father^ spoken of the 30 - sparrows, and The very hairs of your head are all numbered^ spoken of men, are parallel, notwithstanding the But between them. 4. What difference does the But signify ? (i) That men are more important than sparrows ; and (2) that the saints are objects of a special complacency and care to the God, not so much of providence as, of grace. 5. What are the difficulties that arise here ? (1) The lovingkindness of God which is over all His works subjects the lower creation to the law of preservation by mutual rapine, and to great misery at the hands of man. (2) The care of God over saints does not distinguish them from the ungodly in the allotineiits of providence. Providence. log 6. And how are these difficulties to be viewed ? (1) Some they drive to Antitheism : in the form at least of Dualism, which is the atheism of blind reason. (2) Others take refuge in a ruthless fatalism, disguised as Predestinarianism. (3) Those who accept the scriptures are by them instructed to wait for the solution of the second difficulty at i^ai.iii.14- the future world and the day of judgment. The 18. first difficulty is never mentioned in the Bible, which speaks of the wild beasts which roar after their prey and seek their meat from God, § 3. probiUenttal ^obernment. 1 . What does this expression signify ? That there is a sphere of providence to which alone the term government applies : He who sustains all things, and cares for creatures as such, governs moral intelligences and governs them providentially or according to a fixed moral order. 2. Then this includes all intelligent beings ? Yes : we perceive that in probation, law and judgment, spirits and men are one. But we are specially concerned with the providential government of our own race : as sinful, as redeemed, and as under individual process of salvation. 3. Then this doctrine extends over a wide range ? It embraces literally all : the counsel that ordained pro- bation, permitted sin, provided for its abolition by a Redeemer, prepared the world for His coming, ordered the methods of man’s recovery, overrules all things for the spread of the Church and good of believers, and secures the ultimate vindi- cation of Divine holiness. With reference to all these the terms that denote providence are directly or indirectly used. 4. Must we then discuss all these ? No : but prepare for them as they arise by arming our minds with the conviction that the wise though unfathomable counsel of a Personal God is in course of accomplishment. 5. Why is counsel used and not decrees ? Because the idea of determinate decree is not con- sistent with that of providence, as we understand it. no God and the Creature. Reverence would accept the word decree, if the Supreme used it ; but He does not use it, nor does it belong to the three elect words which make up our doctrine. The representatives of God on earth issue decrees ; God Himself issues them to the forces and ordinances of the universe ; but His purpose finds other terms when addressing the subjects of His moral government. IV. '^feforical discussions. 1. What is the range of human speculation on these subjects ? It includes the greatest questions of all ages : the relation of God to creation and providence has been the problem of science and philosophy since they began. 2. How may we attempt to classify these speculations ? Not by tracing them historically ; since the very same errors appear in every age with different names and forms. They may be reduced to three : (i) those which have held a kind of providence without creation ; (2) those which have asserted a creation and rejected providence; and (3) those which have ignored both creation and providence. 3. What systems of thought have represented the first ? (1) Those which belong to what has been called Dualism. In the Iranian or Persian religion the idea of two independent eternal principles was predominant : presiding over two worlds of spirit and matter. But in the conflict of these powers lay the idea of providence, controlling the evil. (2) Polytheism falls undei the same category. The in- numerable gods of almost every system of antiquity were the personifications of the forces of nature : expressing in this way the conception of a manifold providence of one God over all. (3) In the refined philosophy of Greece, Plato and Aristotle represented the idea of a Divine providence, or soul in the world, moulding uncreated matter. (4) Much modern scientific thought runs in that direction : substituting for creation an eternal something without name, and for providence an immanent force without reason. The Historical Discussions. Ill Positivists and Agnostics may be reckoned among them ; so far as they deny creation by pronouncing the beginning of anything unthinkable, and accept a kind of providence dis- guised under the irrational conception of immanent cause. 4. But do not these renounce both creation and providence ? It must be admitted that they disavow both in their Christian meaning; but, while they deny that anything can come from nothing, they are obliged to confess in the system of things all the ideas that belong to providence : ends con- templated ; ends provided for ; ends surely attained. Our word they deny, but they “ ignorantly worship the thing. 5. What is the unreason of the phrase “ immanent cause ” ? Cause must be independent of the thing affected by it> and cannot be inherent. Similarly, there can be no law with- out an independent being who acts according to it. 6. How is creation without providence represented ? By those systems, ancient and modern, which admit the being of God as the Cause and Source of all things ; but deny the proper notion of His providence. (1) Epicurus in antiquity denied that the gods were troubled with the government of the world they created. (2) English Deists taught the same thing, when they in- sisted that God revealed Himself only in general laws. (3) Many Christian advocates of Evolution are in danger of the same error. They think that it is more honourable to the Creator to represent Him as having impressed on the ori- ginal germ a tendency to develop according to certain deter- minate laws, the slow operation of which produces all the variety of the universe, than to make His power a force in- terposing occasionally. Providence in this theory is stripped of its middle term ; the design and the accomplishment being retained, but the intermediate wisdom being absent. 7. May evolution be made consistent with our doctrine ? The scriptural account of the secondary creation or forma- tion of all things combines creation and providence : there are the creative epochs, in the intervals of which providence works II2 God and the Creature, ceaselessly by the development of types. Natural selection, heredity, and the survival of the best types are terms which are all but used in the scriptures : the middle one is used. Under the seventh secular day of Moses we now live : there is no longer creative intervention ; but the Creator still works in a regular development which preserves the original John V. 17 . jypgg/ 8. Does not science demand far more than this ? Yes ; but without justifying its demand. All the evidence is in favour of certain breaks in the continuity ; and one breach overturns the theory, so far as it ascribes all phenomena to evolution. The molecular arrangement of atoms, man now what he ever has been, and the persistence of the self-conscious thinking ego, are three facts to which no bridge leads. 9. What theories abolish both creation and providence ? Only two, absolutely and wholly. Pantheism and Ma- terialism : the former the grandest, the latter the most grovelling, delusion of the human mind. 10. What is the position of Pantheism to the question ? It is a refuge from the difficulty of supposing aught to be outside of the infinite Being : therefore it makes God all. One eternal Is admits no creation, no providence. (1) Ancient pantheistic systems fell far short of this idea : they supposed an infinite One from whom the universe ema- nated as a transient illusion to return to his abyss. (2) Pantheism proper is a growth of modern times. In the mysticism of the middle ages, and in modern absolute Idealism, it repeats the ancient oriental type. But in Spinoza it takes its most consistent form : mathematically demonstrated and yet contradicted by the primary instincts of consciousnes-s. 11. What is the position of Materialism ? As pantheism makes God all, so materialism makes matter all. Speculation about creation and its cause, about thought and its dignity, about everything outside of man, is only itself matter in a peculiar manifestation. There is no argument against a system which suppresses the first conditions of argument. BOOK IV, Sin. I. SIN, GUILT, PUNISHMENT. II. ORIGINAL SIN. IIL HISTORICAL THEORIES. Sin, Guilt, Punishment. 115 Chapter I. §1. Sm. 1. What is sin ? The voluntary separation of the soul or the self from God. That is the ultimate mystery of sin ; but the Scriptural defi- nition, leaving that deep mystery untouched, describes it generally in its manifestation as disobedience to the Divine will. 2. What does this presuppose in the creature? Personality, which means a self-conscious, self-determin- ing, and, in the creature, responsible agent. 3. What does it presuppose in the Creator? That He places His creature in a state of probation or test, with freedom of will : this not being the liberty of indif- ference, as if hovering between two objects of choice ; but the perfect freedom of union with God^s will, with the mysterious possibility of becoming an independent spring of action. 4. What is the specific relation of sin to God? As to His moral government and law it is disobedience ; and as to His nature it is ungodliness or unholiness. There is no third relation to God conceivable. 6. Is this distinction seen in the names given to sin ? To the former class belong one series of terms, such as transgression, rebellion, lawlessness, iniquity ; and to the latter another, such as godlessness, defilement, selfishness or selfhood, and evil generally. These run as two streams through the Bible. 6 ii6 Sin. 6. Has sin an analogous relation to the creature? As it is his revolt against Divine law, it is the act of his creaturely will ; as it is separation from God Himself, it becomes a state of man^s sinful nature. Hence it is always to be pre- dicated of the act or of the character. 7. What is the leading definition of man’s sin in Scripture ? The final, and as it were generic term is a/xaprta, sin as not attaining a mark prescribed ; All have sinned^ and fall Rom. iii.23. short of the glory of God, But the last definition is ijohniii.4. that Stn is lawlessness; Every one that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness^ r^v avoixiav : here to be without law is to be against law. 8. Where then is the seat of sin to he first sought ? In the will which governs the act of the person. 9. Is this a full account of the seat of sin ? No : the will is only the executive of the personality of the man. He is the sinner ; the things which proceed out of Matt XV 18 7 nouth — and also the will — come forth out of the hearty whence are all the manifestations of evil, in the mind and in the affection as well as in the will. 10. What effect has this on the doctrine of sin ? It reminds us that, besides the direct act which is sin, the nature of the man who sins may be sinful apart from the act. 11. What is the relation betiv'een the act and the character in sin ? The act forms the character ; yet out of the character the act springs. Hence there is a mutual relation. But it is important to remember that sin may exist without any overt act : God alone sees the distinction, and knows the latent sin. 12. But how could sin arise in the heart of a creature formed by God in His own image ? That is the mystery of the origin of evil, which it is not possible for the finite mind to fathom. Sin, Guilt, Punishment. 117 13. Is there any difference between sin and evil ? Sin is the cause of evil ; but the effect is wider than the cause. Evil is the opposite of that good which is the harmony of the universal creation of God and the blessedness of the intelligent creature. There was evil before human sin : the sin of man gave him f/ie hiowledge of good and evil .j as a distinction already existing. 14. How may the distinction be referred to human sin? As man^s sin is separation from God its effect is evil or misery ; as it is transgression of His law it is the guilt that causes the evil, or rather explains and justifies its infliction. § 2. etn'U. 1. What is guilt? Sin as objectively reckoned by God to the sinner, and subjectively reckoned by the sinner to himself. 2. How is this related to conscience? Conscience is the faculty that unites God^s imputation of sin and man’s own in one. ‘‘I did it,” first ; and, then, “I must answer for it : ” these two being undistinguishable. 3. What does this conscience, or moral consciousness, pre- suppose ? That on the mind, or reason, of the personality created in the image of God, there is engraven the everlasting prin- ciple of obligation to the Divine law. 4. But is not this itself the conscience ? No : conscience is not, strictly, the faculty that discerns between right and wrong, though this meaning is generally attached to the word. It is man’s privity to himself, or with himself, o-wetSrJo-t?, as to his own conformity to the law other- wise given. They show the work of the law written t7i their hearts^ their conscience hearing witness therewith^ and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing. ii8 Sin. 5. Are sin and guilt or the conscience of sin inseparable? These are joined together by the ordinance of God ; but there is a distinction in guilt which modifies this. 6. What is that distinction ? Guilt is the imputation of the act, and the sinner guilty of the fault, which is reatus culp^ ; and it is the imputation of the consequences, and the sinner guilty as to the consequences, which is REATUS PCEN^ 7. How is this distinction preserved in the terminology ? (i) The sinner is guilty, or atnos, having in himself the ama, or cause, of his sin. l^hey foii 7 id no cause^ or charge^ or Acts xiii 28 in Him, (2) He is guilty, or eVo^o?, Markiii.*29.‘ obnoxious to judgment: as in Guilty of an eternal Matt. V. 21. danger of eternal co7idemnation^ and I71 danger of the judgment. 8. Are the guilt of the act and the guilt of the conse- quences always united? Apart from the economy of redemption they are ; but that economy introduces a great modification. 9. How may that be seen ? In the doctrine of Original Sin, where those are guilty as to the consequences of the act who were not guilty of the act of Adam. In the doctrine of the Atonement, where One is guilty of death who is not guilty of sin. And in the doctrine of Justification, where the guilt of the sin is no longer imputed, but some of the consequences still follow. § 3. jpumssjment. 1. What is punishment in relation to evildoing or sin ? The infliction of penalty on the sinner in vindication of the law : that is, of the dignity of the God of law. 2. What principles are here guarded? That punishment is inflicted in requital of offence and is Sin, Guilt, Punishment. iig not merely a natural consequence of sin ; that it is a vindica- tion or avenging of dishonour done to the Lawgiver, and not merely for the protection of moral order in the universe. 3. How does Scripture express these two points? Vengeance {iK^UrjcrL^) is Mine^ I will recompense (ai/TaTTo^wcra)), saith the Lord: the former as to God ; the latter as to man j and together speaking of strict retribution. 4. Is not separation from God the sole and sufficient punishment of sin? Yes : for as man’s will separating himself from God is sin, so the punishment of sin is God’s will separating man from Himself. But that is not a full account of the matter. 5. What then is wanting to it ? It forgets that God is more than the Supreme Good, separation from Whom is the consequence of sin. He is also the Moral Governor of the universe. Whose sacred order must be maintained. The term punishment, like the term guilt, strictly belongs to the province of God’s rectoral justice 6. Is it not enough to say that sin is its own punishment? It is true that the misery of sin and a guilty conscience is punishment. But it is not true that God punishes sin by further sin : on the one hand this supposition is inconsistent with the Divine attributes ; and, on the other, it confounds two things that differ, sin and the punishment which results. 7. What is the other extreme? To say that punishment is only or mainly correction. 8. How are we guarded against this error ? The term TratSeta, correction or chastening,, always con- notes the purpose of bringing the sinner to repent- ance, or of disciplining God’s children not yet wholly delivered from sin. Punishment as such has no such design : the terms expressing it, such as death, destruction, imply a totally different purpose. 120 Sin. 9. What then is punishment in the teaching of the Bible ? The manifestation of the wrath of God, which is the expression of His holiness and justice: not for the amendment Rom i i8 sinner but for the vindication of the law against all tmgodliness and unrighteous- •ness of men. 10. What is the proper punishment of sin inflicted by the Divine wrath? The supreme and only punishment threatened against sin is death : the death of the sinning soul. 11. Is this death the extinction of the soul? Assuredly not : the condemned spirits exist still ; and it Matt. XXV. is everlasting pimishment that is threatened against 46. obdurate human sinners. There is no word for extinction in the Bible. 12. Do we not read that the first threatening was that of physical and temporal death ? Yes, but not of that only. Physical death is a subordinate form of the punishment, pertaining only to embodied spirits ; and it has nothing to do with the punishment of sin in the abstract, or is only an accident of it. 13. What means then the classiflcation of death as tem- poral, spiritual and eternal ? That belongs to the doctrine of sin as connected with the economy of human redemption : that is, to Original Sin. 14. Must we not think of degrees of sin and punishment? These also must be deferred to a later stage : we have to do only with sin and death in their principles. 15. But is not this whole doctrine inconsistent with the infinite love of God? God only can say what is consistent with His love. But we must remember : ( i ) That these truths run through revelation ; (2) that they are reflected in the constitution of nature, and in the human conscience, as also in the courts of human law which are the reflection of the Divine (/ have Sin^ Guilty Punishment. I2I said^ Ye are gods) ; and (3) that, so far as the race of mankind is concerned, they are to be studied at the foot of ps. ixxxii. 6. the cross. Who knoweth the power of Thine anger f Ps. xc. h. 16. How does this last text bear on the whole question ? The Divine anger is a power (opyrj) infinite as His being ; the calamities of mortals are only finite expressions of its irresistible force ; but the fulness of His displeasure shall never be known by those who fear God. To them both sin and the punishment of sin are abolished. 17. What is the relation of the cross to the subject ? (1) It gives the most awful proof of the severity of the Divine wrath against sin. (2) It proves also that the expression of that wrath cannot be merely for chastisement or correction : this could not be vicarious, though punishment may in a certain sense be so. (3) The solemn declaration is that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for Gai.iii. 13. us. And Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on ^ Cor. v. 21. our behalf,^ that we might become the i'ighteousness of God in Him. With these we must compare the two parallel revela- tions of wrath and righteousness in the forefront of Rom. i. 17, the Epistle to the Romans. 18. How does the constitution of nature illustrate it ? Innumerable calamities assert that there is an anger abroad in the universe which is not simply designed for correction. 19. And how the human conscience ? By the inextinguishable sentiment that connects wrong- doing with the desert of due punishment. That wrath which is revealed from heaven may be said also to be re- vealed within the human heart : the true voice of ‘ ' man’s conscience for ever acknowledges the righteousness of the Divine anger. 122 Sin, Chapter II. Original §xn. 1. What is meant hy Original Sin ? This expression — not found in Scripture — defines sin in its relation to the human race as such. It is the fault and cor- ruption of mankind shared by every individual naturally born into it : the word “ naturally excluding only One. 2. What is the force of the term Original ? It refers simply and solely to the derivation of mankind from a common stock. Our first parents, created without sin, nevertheless transmitted sin to their posterity, who inherit the consequences of their first fault. 3. In what sense may sin be transmitted? The human nature propagated is sinful as alienated from the Divine law and from the Divine holiness. 4. How is the fault or culpa transmitted? Only in the second sense of guilt : the reatus pcen^, or liability to endure the consequences of sin. 5. How is the corruption transmitted? Only in the second sense of nature, or its moial tendency : this being contrary to the Divine nature. 6. What definition of original sin is thus gained ? It is the transmission of hereditary guilt and depravity from Adam to all his descendants. 7. But did the just and merciful God permit Adam’s race to continue only under these hard conditions? No : He placed mankind under a covenant of grace through a Mediator to be revealed in the fulness of time. 8. How does this affect our definition ? Original sin is the transmission of guilt and depravity under a constitution of grace. 9. This being understood, what are the elements of our doctrine ? (i) The original sin ; (2) original sin under the covenant of grace ; and (3) original sin in its developments as actual sin. § 1. On'gmal J6m. 1. What is meant by this term and expression ? The first sin of Adam and the fall of man. 2. How are these two ideas united ? Adam was the natural head and representative and sum of mankind : so that his sin and his fall were the sin and the fall of the human race. 3. In what sense was this by imputation? Imputation has two meanings: the reckoning to the agent his own act, and in this sense his sin was imputed to A lam ; also the reckoning to another the consequences of an act not his own, and in this sense Adam’s act is reckoned to his descendants in common with himself. 4. How can we meet the preliminary objection of reason to such a transference ? In three ways: (i) the whole economy of redemption is based upon this second kind of imputation ; (2) it has its analogy in all the providential dealings of God with man ; and (3) in the profound mystery of our relation to Adam our individual personality is not really separate from his. 5. What is the theological expression of this? Adam was the natural and federal head of the race. 6. How are we to understand this covenant of federal head- ship ? (i) The word covenant iiioans generally a Divine disposi- 6 * 124 Sin. tion or order or arrangement ; and in this sense Adam was as a creature placed under a covenant which included his pos- terity in him. But (2) the word covenant is throughout Scripture connected with sacrifice and a Mediator ; in this sense Adam was not placed under a covenant. 7. Then the Paradisaical Covenant of Works is not meant? No such covenant with Adam as the surety for his posterity is mentioned in Scripture. Apart from the unre- vealed Mediator, he is dealt with as an individual creature of God. The first of all covenants is in Christ. 8. Does the narrative of Genesis sustain this view ? (1) The record itself indirectly suggests it in two ways. The name Adam signifies Man : the punishment expressly refers to the sorrows of human birth ; and the promise connected with it embraces the seed and posterity of the woman. Thua the unity of the race in Adam is affectingly bound up with a coming redemption. (2) But that narrative has the light of the New Testament thrown upon it ; and in that light we see that Another joined him in suretyship for the coming race. 9. What bearing has this on the probation of man ? The narrative of the fall describes the issues of a trial under which Adam failed. But it also describes the process of probation as continued under other conditions for mankind. The probation of Adam is the continuous probation of man ; in his case it was conducted with reference to a coming Redeemer, in ours with reference to One Who has come. 10. How is the process of the fall described ? A positive law was given, with its sanction ; temptation from without, or probationary trial, was ordained of God and permitted to Satan ; the sinless will was free, or under no re- straint ; and sin appeared in human nature as disobedience. 11. What is meant here by the sinless will being free ? The sinlessness of the will wa's its being one with the will 125 Original Sin. of God, and therefore not yet a personal self-determination. But there was in it the possibility of becoming the will of self, independent of God. 12. What principles must we bring to the study of these points ? We must remember (i) that a state of things is described of which we who read have no experience, and the whole is the revelation of a mystery to us unfathomable ; (2) that all is set forth in the language with which our experience has made us familiar, and the first sinners are presented to us as if tempted and falling like ourselves ; (3) that the grace of redemption and the coming of a future trial are bound up with the whole narrative ; and (4) that the histor}’ of real facts is also the history of symbolic facts : every incident in the record is connected with outward signs having their spiritual meaning. 13. Is not this very much like the allegorical or mythical interpretation ? Allegory teaches truth through parable not based on fact. Myth invents both the truth taught and the history that teaches it. Here we have a true history bound up with symbols which must be spiritually discerned. 14. What obliges us to hold fast the truth of the history ? (1) The record of Beginnings in Genesis requires it : as symbolical teaching is based on history in the first chapter -so it is in the second. (2) The New Testament treats the narrative as historical. Our Lord assumes this when he says. He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female,^ and speaks of the MiLvderer fro 7 u the beginning. So does St. john’viii.’44. Paul when he says that the serpent beguiled Eve ^Cor. xi. 3. through his subtilty^ and throughout his doctrine of original sin and death. 15. How may we understand the positive law and its sanction ? (i) The law of God was engraven on the heart of man, but not as law proper : the one positive or special command- ment was a test of obedience. Thus it pleased God that His 126 Sin. creatures should in one sense already know the distinction of good and evil. (2) The U'ee of the k7iowledge of good and evil was both law and sanction of law. Sanction means the protection Gen.ii. 17. thrown around commandment, whether by promise Gen. ii. 17. or threatening; but the deterrent sanction alone was necessary, and that took the form of prediction. Thou shall surely die, (3) To abstain from the tree would be obedience : the knowledge of good as good. To eat of it would be disobedience, and bring the conscious knowledge of evil too. Before eating, the knowledge was theoretical; afterwards it was practical. 16. How is temptation from without described? Man had no sinful hnOvixia^ or lust, by which he might be drawn away and enticed: only innocent desire for jas.i.14. spiritual and sensuous gratification which might Col. iii. 5. become sinful, the natural concupiscence which might turn to evil concupiscerice {iTnOvjjLiav KaKi^v). (2) The tempter, Satan, himself the original sinner, was per- mitted to assail that innocent desire, whether spiritual Gen. m. 5. seiisuous I the former by urging Ye shall be as gods; the latter by acting on the desire to eat the forbidden fruit. 17. Can we understand the process of interior temptation? We cannot ; since tlie only temptation of which we have experience assails a mother lust already in man, his own lust. Our Lord, without that lust, was tempted ; but He jas. 1. 14. could not sin, being the Son of God. It is vain therefore to speculate as to a mystery which is unfathomable. Suffice that the mystery stands revealed before us : fact shows that the creature may come to a guilty consciousness of a self separated from God. 18. What was the resulting sin ? (1) In its hidden secret the sin began in listening to another than God ; from that moment Satan became virtually the god of this world. (2) As we see its working, it was first sensual. The tree was Ge *“ 6 for food and pleasa^it to the eyes: and then * spiritual, it was to he desired to make one wise. Original Sin. 127 (3) But in both the spirit of the mind must have been then as always, the seat of the transgression. Eph. iv.23 19. In what sense was this the fall of man ? (i) It was active, first as internal and then as external : irapaKOY)^ disobedience. And passive, a fall from the estate of life into that of death : 7rapa7rro)/xa, in the original meaning of that word. 20. Is the beginning of human sin called in Scripture the fall? Indirectly it is. St. Paul teaches that By the trespass of die one the many died. In the apocryphal book of Rom. v. 15. Wisdom this word is translated fall : Wisdom is said wisd. x. i. have‘‘ preserved the first formed (or protoplast) father of the world, and brought him out of his fall.^^ In both places the word is TrapdirTw/xa, 21. Why then have we spoken of the fall of man or mankind ? (1) Because Adam, the first man, was the natural head of the human race ; even as Christ, the last Adam, is its spiritual head. (2) Eve being beguiled fell in the transgression., received the first doom and the first promise. She was only ^ u. 14. the mother of all living^ but Adam was the father and Gen. m. 20. representative of all. 22. What was the immediate consequence of the fall? (i) Man died by separation from God: a mystery known in its effects ; (2) he felt the sting of death which is j cor.xv.56. the conscience of sin; (3) he fell under the bondage Heb.ii. 14. of Satan, who had the power of death; (4) and his moral nature became disordered : so that his spirit became enslaved to the flesh, and the world over which he was to rule began to rule over him. § 2. Original Sm tinter tl)e Cobenant of 6rarr. 1 . What is conveyed by this theme ? That the transmission of sin to the race must at all points 128 Sin. be studied in connection with the great provision for its removal, counteraction, or mitigation. 2. How may the general principles of this connection he established ? By combining and weighing many particulars, first in the history of the fall, and secondly in the New-Testament explanation of it : the latter having preeminence. Rom. viii. Gen.iii. 15. 3. What indications have we in the early narrative? (1) The judgments threatened or predicted were evidently arrested. Though man’s body was dead because of sin^ that death was only a coming evil ; though his soul was alienated froryi the life of God^ God came to the Eph. IV. 18. sinner and still communed with him ; though he fell under the bondage of Satan, he heard it said to Satan, It — the seed of the woman — shall bruise thy head ; though he found the earth outside different from the garden whence he was driven, it was yet to sustain the life that was already redeemed. (2) While the religious history of Adam and Eve is passed over, we see that the worship of God by sacrifice enters into the narrative as an established fact and runs on Gen. IV, 3. unbroken. In short, a new method of approach to the Divine Being glides blessedly into the outer world of man’s banishment. (3) Thus an unrevealed Saviour seems to intercept the full effects of sin : coming in as it were between the fall and the propagation of the fallen race. 4. What is the teaching of the New Testament ? (1) Generally that Adam was the type of Him that was to come : not the type of what should come to his Rom. V. 14. posterity, but a personal type of a personal Antitype. (2) The original transgression and death its penalty are revealed in their full spiritual meaning. (3) Every description of original sin as such and every allusion to it is, without exception, connected more or less directly with the grace of the atonement. (4) The symbols of the garden of probation have their interpretation : The tree of life^ and That old serpent^ called the devil and Satan, especially. We gather that the tree Rev.ii.7. of life was the sign or sacrament of immortality ; and xii. 9. that exclusion from it shut the human race up to another way of life. 5. What is the doctrine of the two Adams ? Strictly speaking, there is no such doctrine in Scripture St. Paul once calls the Redeemer the last Adam ^ as 1C0r.xv.45 distinguished from the first man Adam : and this 47- in reference to the resurrection. The first man is of the earthy earthy : the second man is of heaven. Comparing this with other teaching, theology has made Adam and Christ two several heads. 6. How far does the parallel hold ? (1) If in the Christy the last Adam at the end of tne race^ all shall he made alive ^ even as in Adam^ at the beginning of the race, all die^ the two heads must ^ or.xv.22. each include all mankind. (2) But, while the race receives some benefit from its better Head, He is really the Father only of a new humanity, spiritually and not naturally receiving life from Him. And it is the relation between that universal benefit and this more limited one which concerns the doctrine of original sin. Original Conliemnatton as untier (State. 7. How is original sin as universal condemnation connected with the first and the second man ? St. Paul, in what may be called the classical chapter on the subject of sin, unfolds its genesis in the following way: (i) In a fivefold gradation, he traces it to Adam. Through one man sin entered into the worlds and death through sin ; and so death passed unto all men^for that (or, on — ^9- the ground that) all sinned. They did not die for their own sin, yet sin was imputed to them in its consequences fro 7 n Adam unto Moses^ even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam'' s transgression. More specifically, by the trespass op the one the many died ; and still more so, the judgment came of one unto condemnation. And that condemnation was death 130 Sin. in full sway : by one mail's offence death reigned by one. And upon all the race : by the offence of one it came upon all men to condemnation : and many were made sinners. (2) Beginning with the second of the five, St. Paul intro- duces Him that was to come^ and the gift by the grace of the one R om. V. 14 j which came of many trespasses unto justifica- —19- tion,^ or an act of original righteousness parallel with original condemnation ; through which they that make it their own shall reign in life by One^ Jesus Christ, For by the obedience of One shall^ in this higher sense, many be made righteous, (3) And all this follows a fourfold description of the character of universal sin as in man, each description being connected with the atonement : While we were yet weak, in Rom. V. 6, 8 , season Christ died for the ungodly. While we 10. were yet sinners Christ died for us. While we were ENEMIES, we were reconciled to God, The cross is in the middle of the four. (4) Throughout the whole the gift by the grace of the One Man reigns and governs the doctrine. The grace is the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness at the om. V. 15. of world ; and the gift, the Free Gift, is that grace in its first and most universal form. 8. Is this doctrine of original condemnation and grace taught only by St. Paul and in this chapter alone ? Formally it is here alone ; but then it is taught as the foundation of the entire fabric of the atonement. 9. What effect has this combination on our doctrine ? It is relieved of an apparent inconsistency with the Divine justice ; the condemnation to the evils of mortality is not connected with final condemnation ; God is not seen to be reconciling Himself to the world but the world to Himself ; no one is eternally punished for the sin of Adam ; and every penitent believer is assured of a more abundant blessing than was forfeited by his first parent. 10. Why then should the definition of original sin preserve the element of a rescinded hereditary condemnation ? Because the vicariousness and universality of ChrisPs redeeming work both demand its clear assertion. Original ?3eprabitp as unDer €^rare. 11. How is original sin as depravity connected with the first and the second man ? Not so directly as its condemnation ; but it is every- where presupposed in Scripture that the effect of the atone- ment saved the nature of man from utter ruin. 12. What are the Scriptural testimonies that lead to this? They may be classed under three heads : (i) those which represent the benefit of the atonement as provided before sin began ; (2) those which speak of Christ as the light of all men ; and (3) those which expressly refer to an influence of the Holy Spirit as striving with man from the beginning. 13. Show the hearing of the first. It is said that the sacrificial Lamb was foreknoivn indeed before the foundation of the worlds and slain from the ^ peter i. 20. foundation of the world. The benefit of the atone- xiu. 8. ment is twofold as it respects the world : as a propitiation it abolished the condemnation of the race, and as an atonement or reconciliation it procured the Spirit of grace. 14. May we call this a restoration of the Spirit? It is better to say that the Spirit was not totally with- drawn. The Son, in whose image man was made, Hi. 16, did not leave the race, though He is said to be a Gift iv. 10. to man. So the Spirit did not leave the race, though He also is said to be a Gift. The gift (^wpea) applies to both, though in this passage it refers rather to release from condemnation. 15. What evidence do we find in the history of the fall? The consciousness of guilt in our first parents was also the sense of shame : they knew that they were naked and hid themselves. This does not permit the thought of an entire death of the spiritual nature ; shame is the dawn of repentance. 16. What in the early development of sin? We see that, though every imagination of the thoughts of 132 Sin. his heart was only evil continually^ yet the Spirit of God strove with the sinner ; My Spirit shall not always judge in Gen. VI. 5, 3. their wandering they are Jiesh. Here it is probable that the flesh has the full meaning which our Saviour gave it. 17. And what in general allusions to original depravity in the Old Testament? Two may here stand for many: that of Job, Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? Not one ; and that of Job. xiv. 4. David, hi sin did my mother conceive me. But these Ps. ii. 5. and all like them make inbred sin ground of appeal to the mercy of God, as if the very depravity had a claim upon compassion. 18. What is the Saviour’s testimony above referred to ? (i) That which is horn of the flesh is flesh. Here we must note two things : that original depravity is called the flesh as in the beginning of human history ; and that our John 111. 6. Lord introduces this inherited bias only to parallel it with the new birth : That which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Thus, as we have seen that the testimonies to original con- demnation are bound up with those of an original relief, so original depravity is bound up with original provision to neutralise it. (2) When our Lord said, If ye then att.vii.ii. jj^tng evil know how to give good gifts unto your children,, He most clearly asserted both original sin and original grace in human nature. 19. What influence has this on the doctrine? It shows that something is left in man for redemption to work upon ; that the image of God was not entirely effaced ; therefore that human nature must not be regarded as hopelessly corrupt ; and that the will of man universal is under a measure of restraining and prompting and assisting grace. 20. What justifies our attributing this to the influence of the Holy Spirit? He is and ever has been the Administrator of the media- Heb X torial work of Christ ; and as He is the Spirit of eo.x. 29. gYdce all tendencies to good must come from Him. Original Sin. 133 21. What light does this shed upon human nature? It shows that it was not utterly marred ; and explains how the inward man still remained, not without the germ Rom.yii. 22. of good. It accounts also for the Gentiles having A?t?xvii^27, the work of the law written in their hearts^ and gives 22. their true force to St. Paul’s words ; though He be not far from each one of us, 22. How does it hear on the freedom of the will ? The freedom of the will, strictly speaking, was unaffected by the fall ; though as a tendency of the will towards good it ceased. But the coming recovery gave to the will a secret bias towards good as lost, impressed on it a certain restraint from evil, and bestowed a measure of power to seek recovery. 23. What terms are used in the New Testament to define original sin as depravity ? Sin generally, as when this is said to have reigned in death; but it is spoken of by St. Paul as My fleshy ^ or the Law in my members^ or The carnal mind. It Rom!vii.23. is not selfishness, nor the old man: the former is a ^^"’•viii.7. manifestation of the flesh, and the latter connotes figuratively its growth to maturity. 24. Then the flesh is the main definition? Yes, the flesh has two meanings in Scripture : human nature as in the body of transitoriness, and in that sense our Saviour partook of the same; human nature as Heb. n. 14. swayed by sin, and our Lord came only in the Rom. vUi.3. likeness of sinful flesh, § 3. C^n'gmnl ant victual Sin, 1. What is the relation between these? Original sin, as the inborn bias, is the source of all the particular sins of mankind and all forms of sinful habit. 2. How are we taught to understand original sin as existing before actual sin ? It is said to be present but latent until the law awakens it : there is a time when the moral consciousness of personality and of sinfulness awake together, the one never being regarded as without the other. The I and my guilt spring up as one. 134 Sin. 3. How does St. Paul assert this? In Romans vii., which contains as it were the history of sin in man, he says that he was alive apart from the law Rom. vii. g. ojice^ but stn revived and I died. For through the Rom.iii. 20. law cometh the knoivledge ofsm: in a certain sense this is as true in every man of his race as in Adam himself. 4-. But does not this make the appearance of sin in the individual his own fall? We are not to suppose that, as the condemnation of original sin is abolished by the atonement, so also the bias of it is destroyed. This is its mystery, that it lies in the nature ready to be revealed. No new fall is to be thought of. 6. This bein^ the ultimate principle of sinful bias, what principles govern the various manifestations of it ? These arose under many influences. As the deep bias of sin comes from the more distant head of the race, so forms of that bias may be inherited from the more immediate pro- genitor. The individual constitution gives a character to individual sinfulness. So every position or course in life affects and directs its manifestations. 6. What are the leading classifications of actual sin ? Life is not more diversified than the sin of life. But there are certain principles of arrangement. (1) As to the sinner himself, sin is of thought or word or act ; and also of the flesh, as using the body, and of the spirit, as independent of the body. (2) As to the object; sin is supremely against God, but also against the neighbour and against self. (3) Viewed as to law, sin is of commission or omission ; it is also voluntary or involuntary : this last being subdivided into sins of ignorance, precipitancy, and infirmity. (4) In respect to temptation, sin is the lust of the fleshy or I John ii. 16. the lust of the eyes^ or the vainglory of life, 7. What may be said of such a classification ? That all sins are manifestations of one and the selfsame Original Sin. 135 principle ; that the several orders of sin are to be estimated by that and not by their apparent variations in evil ; and finally, that such analyses are useful chiefly in Christian ethics. 8. What is the Scriptural doctrine as to the degrees of sin ? In both Testaments degrees of guilt are recognised ; (i) in the Old, we read of secret sins and presumptuous sins ; of sins for which atonement was accepted and of sins for which the Levitical economy provided no remission. (2) In the New, our Lord speaks of the debtor of Jive hundred pence L^ke vii. 41. and of Jifty; and, still more expressly, of him that Johnxix. n. had the greater sin. 9. How does the New Testament apply this truth ? .(i) To show that Divine mercy, through the great atone- ment, extends to all transgression : the Divine charity that shall cover a multitude of sins as the pattern of the human. _ To direct our thought to the one centre and source of the fountain which must be cleansed. To impress on us that, notwithstanding the tolerance whosoever shall keep the whole laWj and yet (2) all evil : (3) of God stumble in one point.^ he is become giulty of all. Jas. ii. 10. 10. What is taught as to the progress and stages of sin ? (1) That acts of transgression form the general character and specific habits : towards this every deed contributes, however insensiblv, in those who become accustomed to do evil. (2) That resistance to grace strengthens the power to resist : till men become branded in their own con- ^ 'pim. iv. 2 science and always resist the Holy Ghost. Acts vii. 51. (3) Sin then becomes either insensibility or hypocrisy or blasphemy : three stages, or different forms of the final stage, which are distinguished in Scripture. The first denotes that the heart is hardened by the deceitfulness of sin ; the second, that indifference to Divine things makes a pretence to honour them ; and the third utters the feeling of the heart in impious contempt of God and religion. (4) And these issue in what the Scriptures call hardening 136 Sin. or reprobation ; which is the anticipation in this world of the final sentence : sin and punishment united in one. 11. What is the extreme form of reprobation? The sentence, already passed, upon the sin against the Holy Ghost : as that sin is generally called which is thrice in the New Testament excluded from hope. (1) By our Saviour, who says : Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath 7 iever forgiveness^ but is guilty of an eternal sin. This is the rejection of the last Mark 111. 29. clearest manifestation of God the Holy Trinity. (2) In the Epistle to the Hebrews those who do not press on unto perfection,^ but reject the Saviour and put Him to an Heb. vi. 1, 6, shame,, are for ever unforgiven, because there X, 26. remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins : they re- nounce the only refuge. (3) And therefore, in St. John’s language, they commit a sin unto death, for which the apostle does not exhort I John V 16. . ^ •' us to pray. 12. Is such a sin consistent with probation under the in- finite mercy of God ? In each instance the sin is supposed to shut itself from mercy. But no man can commit this last offence who dreads it or fears that he has committed it. 13. What is the character of sin in the regenerate? Strictly speaking, it is reduced to original sin : for whoso- ever is begotten of God doeth no sin. That original sin is ijohniii. 9. the flesh which, in its first expression of itself, Gal. V. 17, 24. lusteth against the Spirit ; but the regenerate have crucified the flesh,, with the passiotis aftd the lusts thereof ; and this gives their sin a peculiar character and aggravation. But for such sins there is a special intercession : We have I John 11. 1. Advocate with the Father, 14. How are actual sins effectually done away? Only by the removal of the sin that is behind all. 15. Meanwhile is sin imputed to the regenerate? There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are 137 Original Sin. in Christ Jesus. But the evil that remains “ hath of itself the nature of sin,” requiring the constant virtue of the Rom. via. i. blood which cleanseth us from all sin^ and the i John 1.7. constant exercise of penitence. § 4. I^iston'cal. 1. What has been the current of thought concerning sin ? (i) It may be said that the evil affecting mankind has almost universally been felt as the consciousness of guilt ; and that every language has in it something corresponding to our word sin. (2) That the thoughts of men have taken the form of inquiry concerning the secret of its origin and universality : in other words, concerning what we call Original Sin. 2. How is this illustrated by the leading theories of sin ? (1) In the systems outside of revelation, and in specula- tions independent of Christian teaching, there have been two prominent modes of thought, one generally called Pantheistic and the other Dualistic : both accounting for the origin of evil. (2) And most of the controversies within the Christian Church have had to do with the relations of the first offence of Adam to the transgressions of his posterity. 3. What may be said as to the Oriental ideas of sin? The Indian religions are not strictly Pantheistic in their conceptions ; since evil is always regarded as something in the creature that separates from God and must be purged out in successive stages of existence. The Zend or Persian Dualism, which asserted two eternal principles, embodied in Ormuzd (Ahura-Mazda) and Ahriman (Angro-Mainyus), taught rigor- ously the evil of sin and in some sense its final suppression. 4. How does modern Pantheism view sin ? It holds that evil is a necessary evolution of the one eternal substance ; that it springs from the limitation of the creature as a fleeting manifestation of the infinite ; and that it is not personal guilt, but a process towards good. 138 Sin. 6. How has the Dualistic view appeared in Christianity ? (1) In the Gnostic heresies which made matter the seat of evil : its last form was Manichaeism. (2) In all those ancient and modern theories which havt regarded man’s sensuous nature as the seat of sin. (3) In certain notions of the transmission of evil bias in the soul only, the spotless spirit being infused by God. (4) And in the widespread opinion that until death the flesh must needs be a body of sin ; a relic of Gnosticism. 6. What was the general testimony of pagan writers? In all the best writings of antiquity there is the acknow- ledgment that “ no one is born without sin/’ and no one without some seed of good. Moreover, the idea is often expressed that man has degenerated from a better condition. 7. And what was that of the Judaism of the Interval? It preserved the tradition that “ the first man was the cause of death to all his descendants : in the later Rabbinism Adam postremus est Messias.” 8. How was the doctrine of sin held in the early church? During the first three centuries there was no difference of opinion as to the universality of sin. The relation of original sin to Adam was not much discussed ; but two currents of thought as to inborn depravity began to set in. 9. What form did this variation assume? The churches almost universally held that the fall left some remainder of good on which internal prevenient grace might work. This was regarded as the preservation of free- will : without discussing the nature of will and its freedom. The Eastern churches held rather more strongly than the Western that man has the power to co-operate with grace. The two tendencies found their issue in the Pelagian controversy. 10 . Meanwhile, what other discussions tended to this issue ? Three theories of the origin of the human spirit which divided opinion down to the middle ages : Original Sin. 139 (1) That of the Preexistence of spirits, their preadamite fall, and entrance into earthly life for purgation, as taught by Origen in connection with universal restoration. (2) Creationism : namely, that each spirit is created and infused into a human soul, deriving a taint from the union. (3) That of Traducianism : the propagation of the entire man, body and soul and spirit, according to the mysterious law of God under which the first man was formed. 11. How did these affect our doctrine? (i) The first would make every sinner in the world responsible for his original sin. (2) The second favoured the mitigating theories of depravity: making it evil rather than sin. But it involves, on the other hand, a very harsh impu- tation on the Divine justice. (3) The third is the only one which allows the thought of a human race, or mankind, viewed as a federal unity and corrupted once for all. 12 . What were the issues of the Pelagian controversy ? (1) Pelagius taught that men are born in the state in which their first, father was created ; but with the influence of bad example and the solicitations of the flesh to fight against; that grace is no other than the natural bias to good, which the law and the example of Christ work upon ; that man can of himself choose good and through discipline reach perfection. (2) Augustin taught that all men “ sinned in Adam,’^ and in him or with him lost their freedom of will : that is, the will became determined only and necessarily to evil ; this being both guilt and utter corruption. (3) Semi-Pelagianism mediated : it introduced the thought that the fall only weakened the will and the power of men : the residue of good being sufficient to begin what grace brings to maturity. It regarded this grace, moreover, as universal. 13 . Have those three types of doctrine continued? The first has perhaps passed away, being held only by those who like Pelagius deny and reject the need of an atone- 7 140 Sin. ment. The second is held by the Calvinistic churches. The third, with modifications, is predominant. 14. What modifications ? Every doctrine of original sin has had to take account of that something in the nature of fallen man which shows that he is not totally and absolutely dead in separation from God. Semi-Pelagianism made the first attempt ; every succeeding theory has more or less endeavoured to define the source, value, and limitations of that residue of good. To trace them is to trace the history of modern thought on sin. 15. What was the current of that tendency of thought before the Reformation ? (1) During the middle ages, most of the schoolmen taught that the original righteousness of man was a supernatural gift enabling him to keep the natural desires of the flesh under the control of the spirit ; that by sin this restraint was lost ; that this loss was original sin as condemnation, and as the weakening of the natural power ; that in baptism the guilt is taken away, the concupiscence remaining but not reckoned as sin ; and that grace is given before baptism by which the sinner may prepare himself for justification. (2) The Council of Trent put this into its final form, 16. What in the Lutheran and Calvinistic Confessions? They agreed at first in presenting an unmitigated dogma of original sin: as the condemnation of the race, and the total extinction of true spiritual life. 17. What controversy arose as to the transmission of guilt ? As to whether it must be traced immediately to the sin of Adam, or comes in mediately, on the supposition that the depravity brings or conditions the guilt. 18. How does this bear on our doctrine? (i) In Predestinarianism, which assumes that there was Original Sin. 141 no redemption provided for part of the race, an immediate imputation is utterly repugnant to the mercy of God. (2) As connected with the doctrine of universal redemp- tion, immediate imputation is a necessary foundation for the universal original benefit of the atonement. Immediate and mediate imputation harmonise well : the former is neutralised by a free gift of righteousness to mankind ; and the latter is the sin of his nature charged upon him who makes it his own. 19. What modification arose in Lutheranism? Synergism — the doctrine of co-operation — or semi-Pela- gianism, with one striking difference : the latter assigns to human will the first movement which grace afterwards helps ; the former holds that grace begins what man must afterwards co-operate with. This view was condemned, but subsequently became prevalent as a protest against the extreme view of Flacius, that sin has become of the very nature of man. 20. How did Arminianism still further lighten the doctrine ? The Remonstrant Confession carefully defined the trans- mission of guilt as actually limited to the consequences of Adam’s sin ; it distinguished between depravity and sin proper ; and ascribed the struggle between good and evil in the natural man to a universal grace of the Spirit of God. 21. Is the Methodist doctrine precisely the same ? In the last point it is. But in the two former it is more distinct : holding the transmission of guilt in full, though as counteracted by the atoning righteousness of the Second Adam ; and affirming that the concupiscence of original sin is sin in reality, to be confessed as such and taken away by grace. 22. What less qualified developments of semi-Pelagianism are seen in modern theology ? An American school, mainly connected with the Oberlin university, teaches a doctrine which denies original sin altogether. It holds that there is no sin but in voluntary disobedience of a known law ; and accounts for universal 142 Sin. depravity — if indeed universal — on the ground that the first exercises of the will are determined by sense. 23. What are the cardinal errors of this view? (1) The undue prominence it gives to the human will as distinguished from the personality behind the will. (2) The confusion between natural and moral ability. (3) Its Pelagian denial of the federal connection of the race with its twofold head. 24. As to the second of these, what is its error? It holds rightly that there is no liberty of indifference in the human will, which must be determined to good or evil ; but inconsistently supposes that the beginning of sin is the election of self as the ultimate choice, and the beginning of regeneration its ultimate choice of universal benevolence. 25. What are our safeguards in studying this doctrine? (1) It will be well to remember that the facts of human life and history confirm the doctrine both of a condemnation resting on the race, and of a depravity shared by every individual. (2) Nothing is gained by limiting original sin to an inherited bias to evil : the atonement, as relieving from guilt and saving from spiritual impotence, cannot be divided. (3) It is not supposed that sin is a new entity in the soul : the essentials of human nature are unimpaired. (4) The redemption of the whole race, as determined before sin began and beginning with it, is the one solution given for our present estate of probation. The Ztch. xiii. X. opened in Paradise itself for sin and for uncleanness may have two historical meanings given to it : one for the origin of the evil, the other for the origin of the remedy. But this leads to the next Book. BOOK V, The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. L THE REDEEMING PURPOSE OF THE TRIUNE GOD. II. THE PERSON OF CHRIST. III. THE MEDIATORIAL HISTORY. IV. THE ATONEMENT. The Redeeming Purpose of the Triune God. 145 BOOK V. ^1)0 ■§JTe 6 taforiaI of ’^cSccmer. What is the general subject of this Book? The whole ministry of the Incarnate Son as objectively undertaken and accomplished for the restoration of mankind. 2. What does the word Objectively here mark? That we have to do with the Saviour's work as finished once for all on behalf of the human race : no reference being had to the benefits of this work as applied. But it is plain that the latter cannot be altogether excluded. 3. Show the propriety of the term Ministry. Ministry is the word used by the Lord Himself : T/ie Son of man came not to he ministered iinto^ but to minister^ and to give His life a ransom for many. It includes doing and suffering, both on earth and in heaven : which no other word does. But the Mediatorial Work is a more familiar phrase. 4. And that of the term Mediatorial. It signifies that the whole intervention of Christ for man is to be regarded as that of a Mediator : One, however, who is not a third person between two others, but who is Himself the union of God and man. There is a restricted meaning of mediation which refers to the atoning part of Christ’s work ; but it is the wider meaning that is signified here. 6. How is the subject to be divided? The most systematic treatment of it is the best. We may pass from stage to stage, thus : (i) the eternal purpose in the Trinity viewed here as redemptional, with its gradual accom- plishment until the fulness of time ; (2) the Person of the Christ who then appeared ; (3) the estates and offices of the historical Redeemer ; (4) the finished atonement. 146 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. Chapter I. '^e6eemtng "purpose of l^e ^triune ^ob. 1. What is the meaning of this expression ? It is intended to signify that the whole work of Christ was the accomplishment of a decree that announced the purpose of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost to redeem the world : a purpose which is declared to have pre- ceded the sin of man and to have been gradually revealed. 2. But may we presume to dwell on this apart from its accomplishment ? There is no topic in theology which scripture makes more prominent or more fundamental. 3. How is this seen? In three ways : the purpose is described by various terms ; this is connected with the three Persons of the Godhead ; and its eternity is constantly dwelt on, or rather its being before time but in time made manifest. § 1. ictental or 33ecm. 1. Which of these words must be used? Both : with a third added including counsel. According to the purpose of Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will : here we have OiXrjfjia, decree ; Eph. 1. II. deliberative counsel ; irpoOecnsy purpose before the mind. These terms we may rearrange and transpose : their deep combined meaning is inexhaustible, and what is wanting in one is supplied by the others. 2. What is the result on our doctrine? That redemption must be viewed as, equally with creation, The Redeeming Purpose of the Triune God. 147 the pure expression of a Divine fiat : it was a purpose expressed in decree and accomplished by counsel. 3. Does this last refer to a plan of redemption ? No : that idea is what it means to avoid. We may speak of a plan of salvation, that is of an ordo salutis, or method of saving individuals ; but not with the same propriety of a scheme or plan for saving mankind. 4. But does not this make the purpose too absolutely matter of will ? (1) The will is that of love : God ts love ; and He so loved the world that He gave His oiily -be gotten j jo^n iv. 8. Son, John iii. i6. (2) The determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God only executed His good pleasure for the salvation of ^cts ii. 23. man. It has nowhere the character of an indepen- Eph. i. 9. dent decree ; but this word ev^oKta goes on from beginning to end of the evangelical history, shedding a certain tender sympathy over the idea. 6. Is this last point literally and universally true ? There is no instance to the contrary. Every reference to the eternal counsel is connected with His love to the saved as men and as persons : absolute decree there is none. 6. Does not all this resolve the eternal decree rather into a purpose of grace to the elect than a purpose of salva- tion for all? There is purpose of design (tm) and purpose of result (wcrre). Both are used of the philanthropy of God or His love to the race. But there is no doubt that the result in the congregatior\ of brethren gathered round the Eternal Son is generally spoken of as the design : believers Rom. via. are foreordained to be conformed to the image of 29* His Son, § 2. STrinitg of l^rtempUon. 1 . What means this expression here ? That the absolute Trinity is revealed to us as sustaining special relations to the redemption of mankind ; relations 7* 148 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. which have their beginning in the original purpose, and their full exhibition in its final accomplishment. 2. How their beginning in the original purpose ? There was in the most holy essence of the Three Persons a counsel of redemption, this being rightly understood : in which the Father’s will is a good pleasure accepted by the Son, and a purpose to be accomplished by the Holy Ghost. 3. What means here the “ rightly understood”? The scriptures do not speak directly of this Triune counsel in that sense of a Covenant of Redemption according to which the Son undertook to save a portion of the race and had them given to Him as His reward : the Father being the originator of the covenant and the Holy Spirit its witness and administrator. 4. How is this error to be obviated? By bearing three things always in mind, (i) That God is one in will and purpose and operation : the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit each and severally represents the perfect Godhead. (2) That the object of the Divine purpose in re- demption is the same man that was created by the Holy Trinity, (3) That the mysterious interior relations of the Triune God, for ever unfathomable to us, rendered it possible that each Person should have a distinct function in the salva- tion of the human race. 6. But is net theology here adventuring too highly? By no means: since the entire revelation of Scripture marks out these distinctions in the clearest manner. 6. How then may we venture to express them ? That the Divine Personality of the Son, being eternally derived from the Father as the fountain of the Deity, could execute the Father’s will or the will of God, in becoming incarnate ; and that the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, could execute the will of Both or the will of the Triune God. The Redeeming Purpose of the Triune God. 149 7. Does not this imply a subordination in the Two Eternal Persons ? Subordination is a thought of man, and in human lan- guage has associations which make it a dangerous term for the expression of this sublime mystery. In any case it must be used consistently with the eternal unity of essence. 8. How does the language of scripture support this doctrine ? One passage will be the key to many : St. John says of God that He loved us^ U 7 id sent His Son^ adding that j jo^n iv. lo the Father hath sent the Son to he the Saviour of the — ^4- world. Thus God and the Father are interchangeable terms ; as here, so generally in the New Testament. Again, the same Saviour is also God our Saviour,^ in the epistle which Tit. ii. lo. distinguishes God the Father and Christ Jesus our xit Saviour speaks of our great God a 7 td Saviour 2Cor.iii. i8 Jesus Chi'ist. And the Holy Ghost is the Spu'it which is the Lord, § 3. IBtental |9urpose ^ctompUatflJ tn Zimt, 1. How is the redeeming purpose carried up in scripture to eternity ? In a variety of phrases which more or less borrow the language of time. (1) The gospel is said to be the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through tunes eternal : Rom. xvi. of which we can only say that times are, as it were, 25. lost in eternity, but nevertheless continue their name. (2) The counsel is said to have been bound up with the eternal gift of Christ, purposed in Him, Who was the i. 10. Beloved in heaven and on earth : the incarnate Son Coi. ii. 2. was the mystery of God^ not indeed here of His essence but of His will for man. (3) Tnis purpose is presented as foreknowledge : the Redeemer was foreknown indeed before the founda- ^ pg^er i. 20. tion of the world. St. Peter here outruns the other Rev. xiii. 8. disciple, who speaks only of the Lamb that hath been slain from the fotmdation of the world. Their combination is of great importance. 2. What is the bearing of all these testimonies? That the redeeming purpose was or is outside of the 150 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. manifestation of man and his sin, and enfolds the whole : a truth of unspeakable importance to theology and human hope. 3. What is the specific value of St. John’s last testimony above ? It shows the point where eternity joins time: the eternal purpose was actual at the beginning of human history; and the fulness of time was virtually come in Paradise itself. Gal. iv. 4. 4 . But what is the scriptural Fulness of the Time ? The period when the purpose of redemption was accom- plished in the incarnation of the Son of God : this being viewed (i) as a period fixed in the counsel itself; and (2) as a period when the world itself was ripe for it. 5. How is the purpose viewed as it respects the former? As the end of a series of preparatory covenant dispensa- tions, given in progressive disclosures : this was the Divine positive preparation by a chosen people. 6 . And how as it respects the latter ? As the end of a long trial of the endeavour of mankind : this was the negative preparation in the Gentile world, which through its wisdom knew not God, 7. What were the characteristics of the Divine preparation ? Progressive foreannouncement in prophecy and type, generally : and, particularly, a series of covenants or dis- pensations having express reference to the coming Saviour. 8 . Define prophecy and type in their relations. Prophecy is the prediction of the coming of the Redeemer in word ; type is the prediction in act. The types and prophecies of Christ go on together through the Old Testa- ment. They begin human history : Adam was the first Type Rom. V. 14. figure of Him that was to come ; and the first pro Gen. iii. 15. phecy was : It — her Seed — shall bruise thy head. The Redeeming Purpose of the Triune God. 151 Isaac was a type, and the prophecy was : In thy Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Solomon was a ^ „ type, and the prophecy was : I will set up thy Seed 2Sam. vii. after thee.^ . . . and I will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever. This threefold reference to the One Seed — of the woman, of Abraham, and of David — illustrates a law. 9. What is the connection between the general fore- announcement and the specific dispensations? The promises concerning the coming Christ were given and preserved in successive revelations limited to a chosen people at sundry times or in divers portions ; and the ^ ^ measures according to which these were meted out ^ or dispensed by God are expressed by the word dispensations. 10. Does the scriptural word for dispensation note this? Not precisely : there is one word, o^ovo/xta, which is translated both by dispensation and economy. This latter signifies rather the ordering of God’s house or church as in the form of economies : for instance, under the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Christian dispensations. 11. But does not economy connote stewardship ? Yes : and in that sense the New Testament speaks of only two economies : the Israelites were intrusted with the oracles of Godj and Moses indeed was faithful in all iii-5, 6 . his house ; in the Christian economy Christas a Son is over God^s house., and the apostles under Him had the dis- pensation of the fulness of the times committed to them. 12. What is the relation to this of the word covenant ? (1) The general meaning of the word StaOy^Krjj covenant, is a Divine institution f®r man : it is not a-vvOrjKYj or compact between two parties. God has the ordering of all, and there- fore covenant and dispensation are really the same. (2) But the peculiarity of covenant is that it is always ratified by sacrifice, and imposes conditions to be complied with in order to the enjoyment of privileges. 13. How many covenants are spoken of ? One only, but divided into three branches. 153 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 14. What was the one covenant? The covenant of grace appointed for the human race in Isa xi* 8 * Who is called the covenant of the people.^ sa. X IX. . mediator, its promise, and its administrator from the beginning. 15. How was this divided into three branches? God entered into covenants with mankind before the law ; with the peculiar people under the law ; and with all the world again, after that narrower covenant, in Christ. 16. What was its peculiarity before the law? (i) That it was repeatedly renewed with individuals as representing the world : Adam, Noah, Abraham. (2) That the covenant was ratified with Abraham as at once represent- ing the world and the chosen race of his descendants. Thus as the last of the universal covenants and the first of the limited, it is introduced with deep solemnity in the Gen. XV. 18. , i. u ^ ^ great covenant chapter. 17. What peculiarity had the covenant under the law? It was national ; had circumcision and the passover as its signs and seals ; engaged the people to a service of ceremonial rites and many political obligations ; made obedience to the law as outward ordinance its condition ; and thus kept alive a sense of the condemnation of sin, with the hope of a Redeemer. 18. Where was it established and how? After the people had left Egypt ; and by the hand of a Gal. iii. 19. mediator.^ Moses. 19. Was there but one covenant under the law? (i) Only one, called* in the New Testament the first and Heb. ix. I- the old, (2) But under it there were certain sub- viii. 13. ordinate covenants entered into with types of the Messiah and foreshadowing His offices: for instance, Aaron, Samuel, and David. 20. What is its character under the gospel ? (i) It is new and better and unchangeable or everlasting : Heb.viii.8,6. this last Old-Tesliament word being paraphrased in Isa. iv. 3. ’ the New. The Redeeming Purpose of the Triune God. 153 (2) It is established or enacted upon better promises : promises that is of the filial inheritance. Heb. viii. 6 (3) Hence it is elevated into a testament: the promises become ours through the death of the Testator. Heb. ix. 16. (4) That death is the ratification of all the covenants in one for ever : the new testament {px cove^iant) in My blood. i Cor. xi. 25. (5) It is universal : that is, its provisions are offered to all, and every man may set his seal to this, that God • . John 111. 33. ts true. (6) It is particular also : He who is the one 7nediator (/xecrirT^s) between God and men, as a ransom for aip is the ^ Tim. ii. 6. surety (eyyro?) as between God and believers. But Heb. vh. 22. this must be reserved. 21. By what terms is the accomplishment of the eternal purpose described? (1) As the economy ox dispejisation of the fttlness of times: when all former dispensations were perfected. Rom.xvi.25. (2) As the revelation of the mystery through times eternal kept m silence : all the secrets of heaven being dis- xm. closed. This sublime view is common to our Lord 35- and St. Paul : the psalmist having given the note. n^eb^ix^ae^’ (3) As the end or consummatioit of the ages^ or Gai.’iv. ^. ' the fulness of the time, or the last days. “• ^ 7 * 22. What is the emphasis on the last days? In nearly the same phrase we have three characteristics of the perfect economy described, (i) The final revelation of the Divine will in His Son. (2) The finished atonement . in His precious bloody Who was manifested at the end i Pet.^i.^io. of the times. (3) The bestowment of the Spirit upo7i ^ 7 * all flesh. 23. In what sense may the purpose be said to have been accomplished ? As the fulfilment of the decree of objective salvation : according to this last threefold answer. § 4. J^istorital. 1. What controversies have arisen on this general subject? Many on subordinate points ; but one preeminently that is limited to it : that concerning the predestinating decrees. 154 Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 2. Is tlie germ of this controversy in scripture ? Only in the epistle to the Romans does it appear as matter of discussion ; but neither there nor anywhere is the election or hardening carried up to eternity. The ways of God with Jew or Gentile in time are the subject ; and we are om. X1.33. Qff fi-om controversy as to His ways past tracing out, 3. What course has it taken in Christian times? The initiative was taken by Augustine, who introduced into the patristic church the predestination of individuals to special, irresistible grace. In the ninth century, Gottschalk first formulated the predestination to death ; but this gemina PR^DESTiNATio was ambiguous until the eve of the Reforma- tion, the absolute predestination to sin and the limitation of the atonement never having been issued as dogmas. The mediaeval theology and the council of Trent favoured universal redemp- tion. So did the Lutheran formularies. But Calvin carried out to its issue what Augustine began : basing the limitation of grace solely on the absolute sovereignty of God. 4. Has this stern type been maintained? Only by few in the highest form of Supralapsarianism : that is, of a decree in eternity including a necessary fall. 6. What reactions have set in ? Among Calvinists themselves some have preferred to make the determining decree date this side the fall : Infra- lapsarians. Under this latter head may be classed those modifications which in France and England have limited the decree to the elect and made it hypothetical. In another sense, the advocates of universal redemption are Infralap- sarians, since all admit that, the fall and redemption being presupposed, there is a predestination of the saints to life and of all who are foreseen as reprobate to death. 6. What is the issue of this controversy ? We are not permitted to speak or think of eternal decrees : to us the Divine purposes are expressed in terms of time and are conditional. The Person of Christ. 155 Chapter II. person of § 1. ^person antJ JpersonaU'tj. 1. What is the theological meaning of this term ? It expresses the truth that in the undivided and indi- visible unity of two natures our Lord is one person for even 2. What does this definition guard against? (i) The error of ascribing to Christ two personalities : as if He was the personal Son of God joined to a personal son of man. (2) Also the error of regarding the Divine and human natures as so blended that the Redeemer is one person in one composite nature. 3. Are these distinctions logically conceivable? Most certainly they are, though they pass understanding. Their value is not their explanation of the mystery ; but their protection of the doctrine. 4. Is their importance so fundamental? This truth lies at the basis of Christianity as it reveals a Mediator and mediation. One represents man to God and God to man Who is as a person distinct from both : His person is not His Divinity alone, nor is it His humanity alone, but the Being who calls these two natures alike His own. 5. But would not two persons, Divine and human, united answer every purpose of mediation ? A mediator must be one personal agent. 6. Give the more precise theological statement of this. The Person of Christ is both Divine and human. As 156 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. Divine He represents God to man ; as human He represents mankind to God. The personality, or supreme I of the person, is Divine ; and gives the virtue of Divinity to all that belongs to His mediation and work. 7. Does not this introduce a strange distinction between person and personality ? It simply declares that the Divine person took human nature ; and continued still to be the supreme agent after the incarnation as He was before. 8. Has not the human nature a personality of its own ? Not in this case. The Lord^s human nature possessed a will, but will as such is not essential personality. Personality means a self-conscious agent ; and that in Christ was always the Son of God. 9. But can we speak of impersonal human nature? We need not use the phrase. But what the phrase signifies is the glory of Christianity, and the very secret of the atonement. Our Lord represented not a man but men ; He took our nature, or conditions of life, before personality belonged to it ; and He enriched His human estate with a Divine personality which perfectly controlled the human will. 10. How then may we trace the scriptural teaching ? B}^ showing that there is one personality ; always that of the Eternal Son ; nevertheless, always as animating a perfect human nature. § 2. anb J^ersonalitp. 1. How is the unity of our Lord’s person exhibited ? In two ways : (i) Sometimes that one and the same person is described formally as possessing two natures. (2) There is always one personal subject, or personality, to Whom belong interchangeably both Divine and human attributes. 2. Give instances of the former. In sundry passages our Lord^s human nature is called His The Person of Christ, 157 flesh, and His Divine nature is expressly set over against it. He was of the seed of David accordmg to the flesh,, Rom. i. 3, 4. Who was declared to he the Son of God with power,, 5- according to the Spirit of holiness. Again : Of whom is Christ as co7icej'7iing the flesh,, Who is over all,, God blessed for ever. The ONLY antithesis of flesh and spirit in Christ is that of His two natures. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,, or is come m the fleshy or in the likeness of i John iv. 2. sinful flesh. ^ Rom. viii. 3. 3. Is this antithesis really without exception? It is hard to dispute it. One passage might seem to speak of the Lord^s flesh as the flesh of mere infirmity : Who in the days of His flesh havmg offered up .. . ! But, Heb. v. 7, 8. as earlier in the epistle the incarnation was seen to be His partaking with the sharers m fle!^h aiid blood, so here Though He was a So7i follows. The Flesh is the one formula for His human nature ; and the Divine corresponds in a variety of terms : the Word, the Son, the Spirit of holiness, ... or the Spirit, or the Eternal Spirit, God over all, are i Pet.’hi. 19 ! set over against it. 4. Can “Spirit of holiness” and “God over all” be applied to the Divine nature of Christ ? Spirit is the common name of God, and belongs to each of the Three Persons. And our Lord is mediatorially the God Who is OVER ALL. These and other such passages are difficult on any scheme of interpretation ; but the theory of antithesis between the two natures offers them the simplest solution. 6. Give instances of the second law mentioned above. (r) The one eternal I or Me reigns throughout the Gospels ; a Subject with attributes taken from heaven and earth, eternity and time, Divinity and humanity. Hast thou seen Abraham? Before Abraham was, 1 am! jo^nviii 57 Glorify Jhoti Me with Thme ow7i self with the glory ^ 58. which I had with Thee before the world was. ( 2 ) This one subject, the Person of Christ, has many names ; and is referred to in many ways throughout the New Testament : God, the Son, the Son of man Jesus, Jesus Christ, 158 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. the Lord, the Saviour, and some others. But the predicates are taken from both natures, or from either : for instance, The John iii 13 ^ mafi^ Which is in heaven ; The church of God^ Acts XX. 28* which He purchased with His own blood ; They would not have crucified the Lord of glory. I Cor. ii. 8. 0. State more particularly the force of these testimonies. They lead up by induction to the great law that to One Person belong two natures equally, indissolubly, and without confusion. This is the key of the New-Testament phraseology. 7. What theological term expresses this combination ? The Hypostatic Union. 8. What is meant by this ? The union refers to the two natures : Hypostasis here means person ; and signifies that the union is not that of fusion, but results in a personal unity. 9. What four terms protect this entire doctrine ? Christ is truly God, perfectly man, indissolubly one person, unconfusedly two natures. The last two are expressed by the hypostatic union ; the first two have still to be more particularly seen. § 3. 33itme jpei'jsonaliti) of ^Eternal Son. 1. What is the general meaning of this section ? That the Second Person of the Godhead, the Eternal Son, continues His personality sole and supreme in all the facts and issues of the incarnation. 2. Then the term person as applied to the Son in the God- head has a different meaning from that which it bears in the incarnate Christ ? Yes : it may be well to remember that in the Godhead there are three Persons in one nature ; while in the Christ there is one Person in two natures. The Person of Christ. I5Q 3. But is the Redeemer’s Divinity always that of the Eternal Son? Not precisely always : He is the Word^ and He is God^ and He is the Lord ^ in His incarnation. But generally and as the rule He is the Son. jal iti.* 4. How and by what ways is the term Son qualified ? In four ways : He is the Only-begotten Son, the Son of God, the Son absolutely, and the Son of man. 5. Are these all connected with the incarnation ? All of them, directly or indirectly ; but the first three expressly assert or imply an eternal sonship before and behind the incarnation. 6. What is the precise relation of the eternal sonship to the incarnation? It may be looked at under two aspects : (1) As to the Holy Trinity : only the Son, in the un- fathomable mystery of the Godhead, could be and was sent ; not the Father nor the Holy Ghost. (2) This shows, as to man himself, that between the Son, the eternal Image of God, and man, the human image of that Image, there is some mysterious and blessed bond. 7. Does the scripture encourage speculation on such a subject? It perpetually suggests thoughts like these : especially, as we shall hereafter see, when the humiliation of the Son is in question and the dignity of our saved race. § 4. ^Perfect planJiooli. 1. What does this involve as to the Person of Christ ? That the Divine personality of the Eternal Son appeared in a perfect human nature : in it living and acting and suffering as Immanuel^ which is^ being interpretedy God with us. i6o The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 2. What is the force of the adjective Perfect? Twofold : (i) the manhood He assumed was, without diminution, body, soul, and spirit ; (2) it was without addition : the Divine Logos ruled in that nature, but as distinct and not blended with it. 3. Why is the emphasis on His assuming human nature ? To mark that He did not join Himself to a man, con- ceived with the germ of an independent personal existence ; but that He was the Son of God living, amidst human con- ditions, in that human nature which was the ideal in the mind of the Creator when man was first created. 4. Is not this notion of a human nature apart from a distinct human personality an unreality ? In human philosophy it may be ; but not in the Divine philosophy of scripture, which assumes this without explaining it. Our Lord was the Son incarnate ; not a man united to God in any manner however preeminent. 6. May we not include in the perfection of this nature its sinlessness ? Not precisely so. The human nature is perfect only in its constituents: a spirit acting through the body as a soul. From sin our Lord^s manhood was specially shielded. 6. In what way specially shielded ? His human nature was conceived of the virgin by the Holy Ghost, and thus saved from the taint of original sin as well as its condemnation. He could not sin after that because He was the Son of God. In other words. He was sinless through His Divine conception ; and He was impeccable, or for ever incapable of sin, because His only personality was never other than that of the Eternal Son. 7. How does the New Testament explain and protect this ? (i) By the terms of incarnation. Our Lord is Man^ iTim. ii. 5. Chvist Jesus j The Word became flesh ; partook lieb! ii. 14. of the same flesh and blood which the children shared ; The Person of Christ. i6i but was sent only m the likeness of sinful flesh ; the final testimony being that Jesus Christ is come in the Rom. viii. 3. flesh. I J ohn iv. 2. (2) By representing the Son of God as having and developing and using every element of human nature throughout His career. Before the resurrection Jesus in^ creased in wisdom^ and He perceived hi His spirit^ .. ^ cried My soul is exceeding sorrowfuf and Not as I Markii. 8^* wilf but as Thou wilt. After the resurrection He said, A spirit hath not flesh and bones^ as ye see Me have^ Luke xxiv. thus asserting the verity of the lower part of His humanity, which then most needed assertion and evidence. § 5. JliistoruaU 1 . What have been the bearings of controversy on this subject? Vital differences have existed as to the Two Natures respectively, and then as to the nature of their Union. 2. Excluding errors as to the Divinity of Christ ? Those who hold this error have no doctrine of the Person of the Incarnate Redeemer, as we understand it. 3. Which were the earliest heresies as to the verity of both natures at once? Those of the Gnostics, who regarded the Divinity as an emanation or aeon, and the humanity as only a seeming appearance in the flesh : hence Docetae (from Sok^lvj to seem). 4. Which heresies dishonoured the two natures respectively ? (1) The Apollinarians assailed the human nature by denying that the Lord had a human spirit, making His Divinity take its place or render it superfluous. (2) The Arians denied the eternal consubstantiality of the Son and the Father : they regarded the Son as God generated of His essence by the Divine will before the world was. The semi-Arians endeavoured to explain and reconcile by changing ojxoovcnov^ of the SAME substance, into o^oiovcnov^ of like sub- stance. But there can be no such thing as inferior Divinity. 1 62 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 6. What were the leading errors as to the union of the Two Natures ? Two; Nestorianism and Eutychianism. Nestorius and Eutyches gave these their names ; but they represented two lines of error which have never been altogether absent. 6. Where lies the theological danger of Nestorianism ? It represented Christ as having two persons in two natures : dividing the Person. And its danger is that of making the One Saviour two separate agents, thus taking away from the work of the Redeemer its supreme Divinity. 7. And what is the peril of Eutychianism ? It represented Christ as having one person in one nature : confounding the Natures. And its danger is that of re- moving from redemption the pure humanity of the Redeemer, and giving Him a nature neither perfect God nor perfect man. 8. When were these errors severally condemned? (1) At the Council of Nicaea (a.d. 325), the Divinity of the Son, consubstantial with the Father, was established. (2) At that of Constantinople ( a . d . 381) the reality of the human spirit of Christ was asserted : as also the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. (3) At that of Ephesus (a.d. 431) the unity of our Lord’s Person was vindicated. (4) And at that of Chalcedon (a.d. 451) the verity of His two natures : a general formulary of the true doctrine being issued, which is still the last word on the subject. 9. What quaternion of terms protect the truth ? Our Lord was affirmed to be truly God in the first ; PERFECTLY Man in the second ; undividedly one Person in the third ; and unconfusedly Two Natures in the fourth. 10. Were there not other errors on this subject? Not strictly as to the Person of Christ. Later errors on the relation of the union of the two natures to our Loid’s humiliation will appear in due course. The Historical Christ. 163 Chapter III. (historical @^risf, or tlye "process of t^c ■gtle^iatorial ^Sorfe. 1 . What range of subjects do we now enter on ? The ministry of our Lord as historically accomplished : including His incarnation as the basis of all ; His two estates as humbled and exalted ; the relations of His three offices. 2. Is this what is meant by ‘‘ the Life of Jesus ? ” The life of our Lord, as a manifestation of the Son of God, cannot be written ; or only as an exposition of the Gospels. I. gttcarnafiott of §on of ^jo6. 1. Phil. ii. 6, 7. Why is the incarnation here alone and as apart? Because it is the basis of our Lord’s estates and offices : preceding and underlying and outlasting them all. 2. Is not the incarnation, or the descent to our nature, the beginning of His humbled estate? Strictly it is not : He e^nptied Himself^ as 4:he pre- temporal Son, by a previous conlescension, of the J^orm of God, 3. Does then the incarnation in any intelligible sense pre- cede the manifestation in the flesh? To this there are two answers. (i) The purpose was virtually accomplished ; and in this sense we speak of the incarnation as a Divine reality before time was : the last Adam is as real in paradise as the first. ( 2 ) Though we have no word in scripture to express the idea, we must regard the assumption of human nature as a theological conception distinct from the actual birth of the virgin. 8 164 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 4. How does scriptural phraseology comport with this? (i) Our Lord never speaks but of His coming from heaven: Tohnviii 2^ lam from ahove, I came forth and am come from 42 . God, John i. 14. I John iv. 2. I Tim. ii. 5. (2) His apostles say: The Word became flesh ; He is come in the flesh : He is Jesus Christy Himself Man. (3) They make the actual incarnation a necessary condi- John i. 14. tion of the atonement : the Redeemer became or was 2 Cor. V. 21. f^ade flesh that He might be made to be sin for us. (4) Therefore the incarnation was virtually but not actually the salvation of men. II. "§l)c ®n)o §statcs. 1. What is signified by this phrase ? The ministry of our Lord, first as humbled on earth and then as exalted in heaven. 2. Can the limits separating these be precisely defined? If we understand the term humiliation literally they can. Formally, His conception began and His ascension ended the - , ... humbled estate. Really the humiliation ended with Johnxill.31; r TT* 1 1 1*1 TT* • 1 xvii. I. the moment of His death, which was His victory and Col. 11. 15. glorification. 3. Is the history of the Mediator confined within these limits ? As He is the Mediator it is. But in a wider sense His history runs through five stages : His eternal preexistence as the Son ; His unrevealed headship of the human race ; His temporal manifestation ; His mediatorial reign in glory ; His resignation of the kingdom at the end. I §state of ^mniUation. 1 . Of Whose humiliation do we speak? Of the Christ’s in His incarnate Person, God and man : not of His Divinity alone, nor of His manhood alone. The Historical Christ. 165 2 . What is the hearing of this distinction ? His union with our nature involved an obscuration or veiling of His Divinity ; and the ministry He undertook involved the deep humiliation of His human nature. 3. May we make a difference between the humiliation of His Person and that of His work ? Such a distinction may be made ; but it is the glory of our redemption that the two are really one, and quality each the other. The God and the Man are never ^ , .. ^ j Col. 11, 9. separated. 4. How are they one ? Throughout the ministry of redemption the Incarnate Son performs in successive stages one great act of vicarious OBEDIENCE. That is the one word which expresses His humi- liation : He humbled Hhnself after being made in .. the likeness of man. The Divine Agent was in all ^ ‘ the work. 6. How do they qualify each other ? The weakness of His suffering flesh, being His own, made the humiliation of the Divine Person real ; but the unchange- ableness of His Divine nature protected His Person from the possibility of any subjection to sin : His obedience was humi- liation, only as He was the Representative of sinners. 6. What principle must guide us here? While we distinguish between the Person and the work of the Redeemer, we must bear in mind in every statement that He is the Representative, though only the Representative, of the sinning race. His humanity was the sphere of His submission. § 1. ^etaonal J^umfliation Jbistoncallg 'Fieb3eU. 1. Where must we place the beginning of this ? In the sacred history of the Conception : the Eternal Son humbled Himself and became fiesh in the womb John i. 14. of the virgin, being conceived by the direct operation Heb. ii. 14. of the Holy Ghost. He took or received the human nature. 1 66 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 2. How do we continue it? In the pure development of the human nature of our Lord : physical, moral, intellectual, spiritual. This sinless Matt iv I development was that of the Incarnate Son. Its ^ humiliation was His being, though the Son, led of the Spirit as Man. 3. Did not His circumcision and baptism and temptation imply that His humiliation was a fellowship with our sinful nature? No. All were undergone by our Lord as the sinless Repre- sentative of sinners : circumcision as He became under the Gal iv 4 Jewish law ; baptism as the Lamb of God who taketh John Lag. away the sin of the world ; and His temptation to jas. 1. 13. prove that as God He could not be tempted of evil as men are enticed. 4. Does not such a view make the temptation an unreality ? The Lord’s temptation was a real test applied, as real as that applied to Adam. But it was proved that the Son of God was the strength of His human nature. During the forty days He was tried as no man ever was tried by temptations proper to the Christ. Afterwards three kinds 1 Cor X I temptation common to man assailed Him, and His 1 or. X. 13. j)iyin0.]^riman answers both explain the temptations and teach us how to resist them. These answers are the key to the whole. 5. What marks of humiliation are seen in the successive stages of the Lord’s life ? He encountered the lot of a righteous man in an ungodly world. These sufferings were His glory : that He endured them as the Representative of sinners who should humble themselves under the mighty hand of God was His humiliation. 6. In what sense was death the end of His humiliation ? (1) Generally, all the redeeming life was suffering unto death. He was obedient even unto death. Hence, though Phii. ii, 8. all was passion, the end we call the Passion pre- Acts i. 3. eminently. (2) The kind of death was the most shameful by which Phil. ii. 8 . man can leave the world : the death of the cross. The Historical Christ. 167 This connected His death with the world ; as the altar with Judaism. It is not an altar, but a cross. The sacrifice on the altar makes emphatic the good pleasure of God : the cross makes emphatic the shame of sin which He endured Heb.xiii.12, when He went without the gate^ thus hearing His ^3. reproach and leaving the temple behind. His people go forth unto Him^ bearing it also. § 2. iXebeemmg 1 . How is the humble estate here viewed? As obedience ; perfect, unbroken, to the end. 2. Can there be humiliation in such obedience? Yes, as rendered by the Son of God, the Representative of sinners. Otherwise, there is no humiliation in obedience as such. 3. How is this set forth in the scriptures? In three cardinal and most important passages. (1) The all-holy, incarnate Jesus, though He was a Son^ yet learned obedience : not learned to obey, but ex- perienced or proved all that the Messianic work imposed on Him. (2) All His obedience was suffering as the desert of sin ; but all His suffering was obedience. Thus it was a cancelling of human sin : the opposite of the great transgression. As through the one man^s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One shall the many be made righteous. He at once suffered for sin and kept the law. (3) Becoming obedient even unto death. There it ended • but not before. Death finished the lesson which the Incarnate had to learn in order to negative Adam’s disobedience. 4. Does then the word obedience cover the whole meaning of the Saviour’s work? It does so, if obedience is made to include the whole will of God for our salvation as laid upon our Representative. II. §state of ^ieallalion. 1 . What are the stages and processes of this? Beginning with the descent into Hades, the resurrection, 1 68 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. the ascension and session, it continues in the heavenly dominion, and is perfected at the end of the mediatorship. 2 . What is the relation between the humbled and the exalted estates? As the humiliation was viewed in respect of the Person and the work of Christ, so must the exaltation be at all points, 3. How does this bear on the descent ? This was the first glorification of the Redeemer’s Person : iTim iii manifested in the flesh was, as God, i6. ’ * justified in the Spirit, And it was the first triumph Rom. XIV. 9. pj-g redeeming work : He proved Himself Lord of the dead as the result of His death. 4. And how on the resurrection? (i) In it He was declared to he the Son of God with ^ . power : and (2) His atoning work was declared to be Acts.xiij.34. accepted and valid for us: I will give you the sure Rom. IV. 25. fjiercies of David, He was raised for our justification. 6. What is the preeminence of the resurrection? (1) That it sums up in itself the whole of the Lord’s glorification : as the atoning death is one pillar of the Acts. 11. 32. resurrection is the other. (2) It is the Divine demonstration of the truth of the 1C0r.xv.17. Christian revelation. 'Wiihout it your faith is vain ^ (3) Hence its evidences are absolute. The only infallible Acts i. 3. proofs given in scripture are related to this. And Acts V. 32. to sincere examination they are infallible through the Holy Ghost. 6. What is the relation of the ascension and session? (1) The ascension was the sequel of the resurrection, as it regards the Lord's Person ; and therefore the close of His earthly manifestation. (2) The session was the ascension, viewed rather with , , . relation to heaven than to earth. The Lord ascended 51. ‘ from earth, being parted from His disciples, and sate Heb. 1. 3. down on the right hand of the Majesty on high The Historical Christ. 169 7. What is His dignity in heaven ? (1) That all principalities and powers are put in sub- jection under His feet, Eph. i. 22. (2) That He is accomplishing all the designs of the Holy Trinity : Head over all things to the church, Eph. i. 22. 8. How are we to understand its final surrender? As to the Redeemer’s work this will belong to His exalta- tion : since it will declare every other authority sub- jected unto Him. As to His Person, He will as ^ 28- Mediator cease to be between the Trinity and the creature : that God may be all in all, III. "§l)vce Offices: as '^xoplyctj priest mi5 r^xinq. 1, In what sense is the term Ofiices appropriate ? As redemption is the ministry of the Incarnate Son, called in His humiliation the Servant of God, this isa. lii. 13. term has its fitness. But scripture never uses any- iii. 26. thing equivalent to it ; and we should apply the expression with great care. 2, What relation is there between the offices and the Christ ? Christ from the Greek and Messiah from the Hebrew signify anointed. In the Old Testament the prophets, priests, and kings who typified the future Redeemer were consecrated to the service of God, and fitted for it by the Holy Spirit using the emblem of an effusion of holy anointing ex. xxx. 22 oil. No longer using the emblem that Spirit de- ““33- scended upon Jesus, consecrated His Person and filled His human spirit with the preparation for His work of redemption. He thus became the Anointed One preeminently, THE Lord’s Christ. Luke n. 26. 3, What is the history of this name in scripture ? It was used thrice in the ancient prophecy ; it became in the New Testament the elect name of the Redeemer Psaimii.2* as such ; it has given a name to His religion ; and it marks the sanctity of those who are one with Him by Dan.^x. 24- receiving His unction. i John u. 27. 170 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 4 . How does the New Testament exhibit the consecration of Jesus as Christ? As the preparation of His human nature at the con- Lukeii. 26. ception ; and as His being sealed to the Messianic John i. 31. office at His baptism. The first was the basis of the second. 6. And how the assumption of the several offices ? Though our Lord was from His baptism the perfect Christ, we mark that in Nazareth He formally entered on the Luke iv. 21. prophetic office ; that in His consecration prayer He John xvii. assumed the highpriesthood ; and after the resur- Matt. xxviii. rection, on the mountain in Galilee, announced His assumption of all power as given to Him in conse- quence of His death. 6. And how His subsequent exercise of it? He is still in heaven the one Christ in the three offices : all of which as Christ He will lay down at the last day. I. §^rist as '^rop^cf. 1. In what sense do we use this word? In its widest, most absolute, and incommunicable meaning as the Revealer of all knowledge to man. But also more speci- fically as the Great Teacher of the Christian revelation : the Light of men, and the Founder of Christianity. 2. In the latter sense how may it be unfolded? Our Lord was a minister to His own generation for three years ; and Himself the Truth for all time. 3. How to His own generation ? He was the Prophet of whom Moses said to his people that God would raise Him up fi'ojn among your brethren^ as Acts vii. 37. raised up 7ne. Hence throughout His teaching Rom. XV. 8. He is an expositor of the Old Testament, and a prophet of things to come : a Minister of the circumcision. 4 . And how for all time? As the supreme Lawgiver, and as the Preacher of His own The Historical Christ. 171 gospel. These subjects, therefore, may be referred to a later stage, when Vocation and Ethics are before us. II. as ^xicst. 1 . What does this term cover ? The whole work of the Redeemer as offering the atoning sacrifice : both on earth and in heaven. 2. How is it presented in the New Testament? As the fulfilment of the entire sacrificial service of the ancient temple, and of the Old Testament generally. 3. What is the relation between type and antitype here ? This is matter of great importance. There are two op- posite and contradictory views. (1) It is said that the redeeming work of Christ is only described in terms derived from the old economy and accom- modated to it. This is an utterly false view of type and anti- type, in relation to the coming Redeemer. (2) The truth is that the ancient system was constructed with reference to the future atonement, which was ^ ^ ... the true pattern shown on the mount. The sacri- ^ vm. 5- ficial ideas are not figures in the New Testament : they are figures only in the Old. 4. In what sense was Christ anointed as priest? As the antitype of the high priest, who represented in his relation to Christ the whole economy of priesthood and sacrifice and temple. § 1. JPrtest. 1. Is there difference here between priest and high priest ? Both terms are used of our Lord, (i) They are one in the supreme idea, that of representing man to God and God to man ; (2) they differ in that the priest was occupied in the sacrifice without, the high priest had his supreme function in entering before God ; (3) but Christ was a priest on earth, though He sprang out of Judah ^ and is high priest in heaven. ^ 8 * 172 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 2. Was the high priest at all points a type of Christ? Yes : both where he was unlike and where he was like Him. As to the former : Aaron and his successors were taken Heb. V. I. from ajnong men., Christ was Separate from sinners ; Heb vii* 2^* offered for their own sins^ He only for the sins Hebivii.'la, of the people ; they were many.^ He had an urichange- able priesthood. 3. How otherwise is the supremacy of Christas office marked ? By this, that He alone has really executed the office of a high priest, in bringing man to God and God to man : the repeated emphasis is on His entering heaven once e . IX. 12. by the one sacrifice of His own blood ; whereas the repetition of the Levitical sacrifices, and the remaining of the veil before the holiest, showed that they did not effect the true mediation. 4. Did not then the ancient service avail for any end? (i) It was the service of a worldly sanctuary : as to the earthly relation of the people to their God it was thoroughly effectual. But (2) only of a worldly sanctuary : as Heb. IX. I. fellowship with God in the heavenly sanc- tuary it was only a shadow of good things to come. (3) Yet the virtue of Christ’s mediation surrounded and pene- Heb. X. I. ^-|*ated the whole to faith, and in things pertaining to the conscience. 6. What other tokens are given of this last point? In the epistle to the Hebrews, which gives an evangelical account of the ancient sanctuary, are three other remarkable proofs : Melchizedek, the Oath, and the One Faith. (1) It is said that there was a priestly type of Christ higher than Aaron : Melchizedek, namely, who was made like unto the Son of God., and represented the divinity, Heb. vn.3. unity, and abidingness of the universal priesthood, which the Levitical foreshadowed in one land and for a limited period. Melchizedek represented the spiritual priesthood of Christ. (2) The highpriesthood of our Lord is solemnly declared to have been established on the oath of God, rather Heb. vii. 20. upon the Levitical law of priesthood : the The Historical Christ. 173 OATH that confirms the promise given again and again from the beginning, outside of Judaism and surrounding it ; as it were the gospel before the law. (3) It is shown that faith in a great unseen sacrifice availed from the days of Abel downward, and will avail as faith in the sacrifice manifested to the end ^ of time. § 2. Satn’fices. 1. In what relation do these stand to the priesthood of Christ ? Everything in connection with them — their rites, their kinds, their times — furnishes illustration of the atonement, and should be therefore carefully studied. 2. Illustrate this by the rites of sacrifice. (1) The presentation and examination of the victim, with the laying on of the offerer’s hands, pointed to the Saviour, Himself Priest and Victim, who represented the ^ offerer too: He offered Himself without spot to God, ^ -ix. 14. (2) Also the slaughtering, and sprinkling of the blood. It is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul ; Lev.xvn. n. because the life of the flesh is in the blood. The blood ^ev. xxi. 6. of atonement was sprinkled on the altar and towards the veil. It covered or cancelled the sin or guilt, as expiation ; and thus brought God near, as propitiation : both are in the one word. (3) And the burning by sacrificial fire with eating of part: that is, God receiving by fire and man as food. Both ^ ^ signify acceptance and reconciliation ; and have their ^ final fulfilment in the Lord’s supper. 3. Did all these rites pertain to every sacrifice ? Not as complete in any one. But all unite in the Lord’s offering. (1) The burnt offering was the earliest and supreme typical sacrifice : including all but the eating. God ^ alone received it by fire : He once for all received the 21.' total oblation of Jesus, and still receives ours for the sake of His. (2) The various peace offerings were based upon the former : personal gratitude and dedication of gifts Lev. vU. n. were expressed in these. He is our peace, ^p^- ^4. 174 Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. (3) The sin offering, introduced under the law, was the ^ special type of Christ’s sacrifice Who was made sin 2 Cor. V. 21. J ^ for us. § 3. Sfasons of Satriflte. 1 . What seasons of sacrifice were specially typical of the Christian atonement ? (i) The passover, with its sequel the pentecost, or feast Ex. xii. of weeks ; in the spring. {2) The day of atonement, in the autumn ; when the high . priest presented the blood of the sin offering within ev. XVI. transgressions of the whole people. 2. How were these related to each other? (1) The passover commemorated the redemption of the Israelites from bondage, and the institution of Jehovah’s covenant with them by sacrifice. It was the feast of the families of Israel as such. The Lord’s supper is the Christian I Cor. V. 7, passover — Cht'ist our passover is sacrificed for us ; wherefore let us keep the feast — as the commemora- tion of His sacrifice. (2) The day of atonement was the great national fast. 3. How were they related to the other seasons of sacrifice ? The passover was the first of three national feasts : being followed by the feast of weeks and the feast of tabernacles. The day of atonement summed up once in the year the daily ski offerings, and the sin and trespass offerings of individuals. 4. How were they related to the Christian sacrifice ? They foreshadowed the one atonement, as the expiation of sin and the redemption of man. In the cross they and all sacrifices with all their rites found their end. III. as 1. How is this office presented to ns in scripture? As the mediatorial authority of Christ in His one person, Divine and human ; based however on His death, which obtained for Him the lordship over the race and Rom. XIV. 9. universe, for the accomplishment of the Divine eternal purpose ; and exercised until the last day from His place at God’s right hand in heaven. The Historical Christ. 175 2. What is its relation to His other offices? It must be remembered that the offices are not distin- guished in scripture as we distinguish them. (1) The prophetic and kingly office are really one : Hear ye Him ! unites them for ever. Matt.xvii.5. (2) Melchizedek was the type of Christ as priest and king. When the Antitype for ever sate down the types ceased and were absorbed in His saving presence in heaven. (3) Hence the intercession and benediction of the High Priest in heaven is part of His supremacy, and not to be distin- guished from it. He blesses as the ascended Lord. 3. What is its special relation to the church ? The Great Priest over the House of God is Head of the church which is the kingdom of Christ. Our Lord is not called the King of His church but its Head. Heb. x. 21 4. What is its relation to theology ? (1) As the supreme authority of the Lawgiver it is found in the ethics of redemption and the doctrine of the church. (2) As the highpriestly authority it appears in the ad- ministration of redemption by the Holy Ghost. (3) As specially the royal authority its exercise takes us to the doctrine of final judgment. IV. /historical. 1. What has been the course of controversy on these subjects? After the decisions of the four oecumenical councils as to the person of Christ, controversy was continued rather with respect to the nature of our Lord’s subordination : in other words, there has been a continual effort to fathom the im- penetrable mystery of the union of the two natures. 2. What were the earliest forms of speculation? Two errors express it : the monophysite, or the doctrine of one nature in Christ, which was the Eutychian heresy 176 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. revived ; and the monoth elite, which was a compromise, urging that there was only one will in Christ. These were condemned in the fifth and sixth oecumenical councils, but representatives of them remain in the East to this day. 3. What form did it take at the Reformation? (1) The Lutherans adopted the principle that after the ascension the human nature of Christ was clothed with Divine attributes : by a Communicatio Idiomatum, or common pos- session of properties between the two natures. This gave the technical term Ubiquity to the glorified humanity as the foundation of the doctrine of Consubstantiation. (2) The Reformed rejected this ; regarding the humilia- tion of the person of Christ as belonging for ever to both matures : the Divine sank into an obscuration or concealment only of its attributes, and the human was exalted to the per- fection of humanity alone. (3) The Tridentine council confirmed the mediaeval dogma of a continued repetition of the humiliation through the tran- substantiation of the eucharistic elements : by which the Divine and human are really confounded and made one. 4. What have been later developments? It has been thought by divines, especially in Lutheranism, that the problem of theological science is to explain the unity of Christas Person as being at once the Infinite and the finite. 5. How has this been attempted? Whereas early Lutheranism was content with exalting the humanity into participation of Divine attributes at the ascension, more modern thought begins with the incarnation and occupies itself with theories of the kenosis or emptying of the Son, and His depotentiation or selfretraction and reduc- tion within the finite limits of the human soul. 6. What judgment may be passed on this ? That it goes beyond the limits of inquiry sanctioned by revelation. In scripture certain principles are laid down not for the explanation but for the protection of this unfathom- The Historical Christ. 177 able doctrine, (i) The condescension of the Son of God was His divesting Himself of the manifestation of His .. attributes: His essential Divinity being immutable. Heb.’xHi!’8. (2) The humiliation was that of His Person until the end of the world. (3) The end will be like the be- ginning, the unhumbled condescension of the Son to abide in human nature for ever. 7. May not speculation be allowed to go farther than this ? Never with success. Christ is the mystery of God : not only as a secret revealed, but as a secret eternally incomprehensible. And the only language in which thought on this subject may be safely shaped is that of the scripture itself. 8. Meanwhile, are not the two estates and the three offices mutually protective? They are so : for the prophetic, priestly, and regal func- tions of the Christ require the precise distinction of the two natures, whether as humbled or exalted ; while the unity of the Person in both estates ensures the eternal fulfilment of all that the offices mean. In each tlie Divine underlies the human. 9. What general safeguards may be laid down with regard to the three offices ? (1) It is important to remember that in this sense also Christ is not divided : His Person and His work are alike one. (2) That the sacrificial office of the High Priest is really fundamental, and contains the marrow and substance of the Saviour’s mediatorial redemption. (3) That most of the errors which afflict the Christian church have sprung from forgetting this. Hence by a large number the Saviour’s relation to mankind is reduced to that of a teacher or lord in morals, preeminent among human authorities but only human. (4) The observation already made cannot be too often repeated, that the mystery of our Lord’s condescension to appear in the flesh is one that in our present estate at least, if not for ever, cannot with any success be inquired into. (5) The scriptural method of setting the subject before us is that of giving our Lord a series of names, which severally and unitedly furnish the best exhibition of His manifold 178 Th Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. character. To these names, which, like the names of God, are objects of faith rather than investigation, we now turn. V. of 1 . What is the importance of the scriptural names of our Lord ? They range over the Person, the estates and the offices of Christ ; and are as it were the terms by which the Holy Ghost teaches the doctrines of the gospel. Hence the study of these names, singly and collectively, is the study of Christian theology, 2. What class of names define the Person of our Lord? Some belong to the pretemporal Redeemer ; some to His incarnate estate ; and some are derived from both, or are common to the Godhead and the manhood. 3. Can any names be surely applied to the being of Christ before the incarnation ? He is called God ; He is by comparison of passages Jehovah or Lord ; but it is as the Son that His pretempoial John i. I. estate is most directly indicated. And when He is Luke^Ve spoken of as the Only-begotten, this goes highei John iii. 1*6. than His miraculous conception : a point of profound importance. 4. What names express the incarnation ? As incarnate our Lord is once called Immanuel, though Matt i 2 rather as a sign than as a name ; His own designation Isa. yii. 14. of Himself was Son of man. Theology has no Passim. specific term for the mystery of the One Person answering to that of Trinity for the mystery of the Godhead ; but adopts adjectives, such as Incarnate and Divine-human. 6. What names embrace the Divine and human natures? The Son in its general application blends the two ; and it is perhaps the only one that does so. 6. What may be called the official names? They are of two classes : those which emphasise the dignity in the humiliation, and those which emphasise the The Historical Christ. 179 humiliation rather than the dignity. The latter are most common. 7. Which are the former? He is called the Lord, the Lord of Glory, as crucified ; THE Prince of Life ; we may add also the Word ; ^ .. g and THE First-begotten : before every creature^ and Acts Hi. 15*. from the dead. But none of these names has passed into ordinary use. 8. Which are the latter? Jesus, the Christ, the Servant (or, as formerly, Child^ TToxi) of God ; and all those names which He receives from His several offices : these however being not so ^ much names as theological designations of our Lord in relation to His work. A name not used in scripture, the isa. Hx. 20. Redeemer, has become the most usual designation in xi.26. the Christian church. 9. What are the names of His prophetic office ? Some were transitory, belonging to His earthly ministry : such as Rabbi, Prophet, Teacher, Minister of the Cir- ^v. 8. cumc’sion. Apostle. Nor has any been permanent, unless THE Word may be considered an abiding name. 10. What are those which His priesthood gives Him ? They are very abundant : High Priest, Paraclete, ^ .. ^ the Lamb of God, the Propitiation, being the most John i.V. prominent. ijohmv. 10. 11. Which spring from His mediatorial kingship ? The preeminent is the Lord, which absorbs into itself all others. This is perhaps the most universally used of all the names that His offices have given the Saviour. It answers rather to the Adonai than to the Jehovah of the Old Testa- ment ; and may be traced throughout the New Testament as the expression of the reverence of the disciples. Bearing this significance it is combined with almost every other. 12. What miscellaneous names are applied to the Lord ? The whole of scripture abounds with figurative expres- sions, taken from every region, to describe the character and i8o The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. supreme excellence and unbounded preciousness of Christ. Our Lord Himself has used them in large number : the catalogue of figurative designations which He has given to Himself is a very large and very instructive one. These be- long rather to devotional theology. 13. How are these names combined in scripture ? The combinations are very diversified, and should be studied as they occur, and where they occur, with reference to the reasons for them. It will be found that Jesus gradually became Christ, each word by degrees passing from an official designation to a personal name, and then Jesus Christ. Jn St. Peter^s epistles we have the most lofty combinations, the 2Pet. i. 1, 2, second surpassing the first : Our God and Saviour II- ’ ’ Jesus Christ, Jesus our Lord, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Apocalypse gives a variety ot new figurative names, together with some which identify Him with Jehovah. 14. How are we to understand the infrequent application of the word God to our Saviour ? (i) On the ground of His subordination to the Father in the work of redemption. (2) Because it is His Eternal Son- ship that required everywhere to be made prominent. (3) But it must be remembered that on certain occasions, when His dignity required it, the supreme appellation is unsparingly applied to Him : for instance, the God Who is over Rom.ix.5. 15. What reflections arise from the whole ? Jt may be said generally : (1) That the names of our Lord are really the best and sometimes the only demonstrative texts to be quoted in Christian theology. (2) That their application in the New Testament should strictly govern our use. (3) That the study of them should impress upon us the profound reverence which belongs to the Name which is above Pet. i. 8. every name. Adjectives of familiarity or endearment hii. ii. 9 . should be cautiously used, even in the language of Chiistian devotion. The Finished Atonement. i8i Chapter IV. ^inis^e6 Jlfoncmcnf. JPreli'mmarp. 1 . What is meant by Finished Atonement ? The result of that mediatorial intervention the processes of which, on earth and in heaven, we have been tracing. 2. What is the force of finished ? It means that it is regarded as an objectively accomplished fact : (i) thus distinguished from its virtual accomplishment since the foundation of the world ; and (2) from the sub- jective benefit of it to mankind and believers. 3. Thus viewed, how is the atonement to be defined ? It has, and must have, two definitions, according to the more general and the more strict sense of the term atone- ment : in other words, its Old-Testament and its New-Testa- ment significance. 4. What is that difference? The popular idea regards atonement as that which is offered to propitiate Divine wrath ; that is the levitical sense. Its meaning in the New Testament, like that of KaraXkay^ in St. Paul, is the resulting reconciliation between God and man. The difference is between the means and the result. 5. Then what is the true definition as including both ? The reconciliation between God and the human race through the vicarious mediation and sacrificial obedience of Jesus Christ. This combines the two. 6. Define the terms of the definition. (i) The first part of it lays stress on the relation of the i 82 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. vicarious atonement to the race : there is nothing vicarious, strictly speaking, in its application to the individual. (2) The reconciliation includes God and man : it is between these two. There is literally no doctrine of atone- ment (perhaps in English at-one-ment) on any other sup- position. Man alone reconciled to God is an anomaly. (3) The sacrificial obedience refers to the active and passive offering of Himself by the Son to the Father as instead of the passive suffering and the active obedience of mankind : both being vicarious as to the race ; and in their unity the virtue or the value effecting the reconciliation. (4) But the term through must be connected with mediation as well as sacrificial obedience : through the mediation itself God shows that He is reconciled : as having pro\dded the propitiation through which alone His love could be revealed. (5) The term vicarious implies, however, a redemption of the race : it is not only vicarious presentation TO God, but for man also ; and the race is redeemed. 7 . How may we systematise and simplify all this ? The atonement is to be considered, first, in its essence as offered by Christ and accepted by God ; secondly, in its three- fold result as the expiation of sin, as the reconciliation of God and man, and as man^s redemption. I. Jlfottement as '^xesenteb. 1 . What aspects of onr subject belong to this? Those only which concern the necessity, the reality and the perfection of the Redeemers sacrificial oblation. 2. How may these be shewn ? In the relation of God and man, demanding atonement ; the relation of Christ and man, making it possible; and the relation of God and Christ, rendering it perfect* The Finished Atonement. 183 § 1 . 0oti aulj t!)e Smner. 1 . Wliat is the ground of the necessity of Christ’s oblation ? The relation between man and his Creator is disturbed by sin ; and the atonement is the method of its restoration. 2. Must this necessarily be by atonement? Why it must be thus is an inquiry beyond our faculties. Nor are human analogies sufficient to solve it. Enough that the voice of conscience is heard asking, How should man he just with God? and revelation gives one only answer. 3. But does not the heart of sinful man rely upon the sovereign compassion of G-od towards his misery ? Never in its uncorrupted impulses. Deep in the human spirit is lodged a dread of God as offended, and not merely of His power to punish. This latter is awakened first in con- viction of sin, but with pardon and renewal comes the pro- founder consciousness of the sinfulness of sin in itself. 4. Then revelation does not declare this necessity? It does not formally state or prove this ; but everywhere assumes it, as the being of God and the strength of sin ^att. xxvi. are assumed. If it be possible is followed by the cross. 39- 6. How is the necessity of atonement more particularly viewed in theological treatment ? By referring it to the law and to the nature of God. 6. How to His law? That is protected by the Divine justice, which demands reparation to the law itself in the Person of the Lawgiver, and its vindication in His universal government. 7. How to His nature ? That is protected by the Divine holiness, which demands that sin should be put away in order to the sinner’s restoration to fellowship with God. The atonement — to put away sin {els d$€Trj(rLv ) — has effect both as to this and *** the former. 184 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. 8. But may not both these ends be met by the forgiveness of sheer omnipotence? This has been the leading contention of all opponents of the doctrine of atonement. But, even if unconditional forgive- ness were consistent with the Divine justice, the Divine holi- ness would require that the sinner’s nature should be changed in order to fellowship with it. 9. Does the word of revelation make a distinction between these two kinds of necessity ? (1) The justice of God guarding His law, and His holiness guarding His nature, are one in God Himself : it is He who demands the mediation of atonement in our return to His law and to Himself ; and the Christian atonement secures both. (2) But the scripture adopts these two methods of teach- ing the doctrine ; which, a unity in itself, runs in two distinct lines of phraseology : one teaching our restoration to God’s favour, and the other our recovery to His holiness. 10. How is our definition shaped at this point ? The atonement is the Divine provision for annulling human sin both as guilt and as defilement. § 2. antf pinner* 1. What relation does the atonement reveal between Christ and man the object of His intervention ? The Incarnate Son is, though with a certain differencei the substitute, the representative, and the other self of men. 2. How may that certain difiterence be viewed ? With respect to the race, to the church, and to the indi- vidual : a distinction, however, which must be cautiously used. 3. How with respect to the race of mankind ? Christ is most absolutely the vicarious Redeemer of the world : what we now call human nature He assumed and ^aved. As to this the vicariousness is express, and avri is the The Finished Atonement. 185 preposition : Himself man^ Christ Jesus^ Who gave Himself a ransom for alL In His own words a ransom for i Tim. a. 5, maily (olvtl). Matt. xx. 28. 4. How as to His body, the cliurcli ? Here the representative character almost excludes the substitutionary. One died for all^ therefore all died^ 2 cor. 5. 14. and the preposition is virepy on behalf of. And in this sense He is gone to appear bejore the face of God for us. 5. And as to the individual? There is more than either the vicarious or the representa- tive character : the believer is one with Christ by a mystical union. As in St. Paul’s I have been crucified with oai. ii. 20. Christy and that I may know Hiniy and the power of Phil. ill. 10. His resurrectioiiy and the fellowship 0/ His sufferings. § 3. in ©tnst. 1. What does this imply ? That the Divinity of our Lord’s Person gave an infinite value to the offering which as perfect Man He presented for men. His blood is, reverently speaking, called by God indirectly through the apostle His own blood. c sxx. 2 . 2. How does scripture express this ? During the process the Father’s word is : This is My beloved Sony in Whom I am well pleased. And after Matt.xvii.5. the accomplishment it is said that God was in Christ 2 Cor. v. ig. reconciling the world unto Himself, But generally the fact that He who died for us is the Son of God is sup- ^ ^ posed to speak enough : He gave Himself ! The ^ blood and the life rise into Himself. 3. How does the distinction of the two natures in Christ affect the doctrine ? He accomplished a perfect obedience in our fallen nature, and so condemned sin in the flesh : not only as an ojfering for siuy but also as showing perfect love to God and man in retrieved human nature. This, however, He did not for Himself, but as God in the flesh. For whose benefit but man’s ? 4. How is the term Merit to be understood ? (i) It is the term by which theology expresses the value i86 The Mediatorial Work of the Redeemer. laid upon the offering of the Incarnate Son by the Father : that iPet. i. 19. value being set against human sin. (2) Similarly it Eph. V. 2. speaks of the virtue of the atonement, corresponding with the personal merit of Him who offered it. (3) And both it sometimes expresses by for the sake of Christ, a p • IV. 32. which literally is not found, any more than the other two, in the New Testament. II. JUoncment '25icit)c5 as in iis 'Result. 1. How may this be analysed ? As to God its effect is expressed as propitiation ; as to God and man reconciliation ; as to man alone redemption. 2 . Can these be separated ? Though the terms run into each other, this distinction will be found a great help to the understanding of the phraseology of the New Testament, and therefore of the doctrine of the atonement taught by it. § 1. propitiation. 1. What is the meaning of this term? The one Greek word Wao-Kia-Oai divides into two in trans- lation. In propitiation God is supposed to be brought near again (prope). In expiation, the sin is hidden from His view. God is propitiated ; and sin is expiated or cancelled or an- nulled as guilt by being covered from His sight (the Hebrew word for atonement). 2 . In what connections is the term used ? Always in close relation with the High priestly sacrifice. (1) Christ is a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God^ to make propitiation for the sins of the people (tAao-Kecr^ai, wrongly translated recon- Heb. 11. 17. ciliation). (2) He was set forth to he a propitiation^ through faith^ by His blood {IXaarrjpLov, the propitiatory covering, or Rom. 111.25. mercy-seat). (3) And He is now in His own person the propitiation for I John ii. 2. our sins in heaven (tAao'/xos). (4) What is perhaps the last word on the subject repeats The Finished Atonement. 187 this of His whole mission. And sent His Son to he the pro- pitiation for our sins. In all His work He is the en are called first, and then elected. 3. Were the leading historical calls independent of cha- racter ? By no means : witness the earliest instances of Cain and Abel ; the sons of Noah ; Abraham and Jacob, and others, who were or became true servants of God. 4. What is the specific difference between the Old-Testa- ment call and that of the New? The ancient call was chiefly that of a nation or people, the calling of individuals being subordinate ; the Gospel call is mainly that of the individual, the national being subordinate. 5. What is the peculiar importance of the call of Abraham ? It was the great crisis in history ; which determined the course of historical revelation to a special race, and at the same time prophesied a future and universal call. 6. Were the nations outside of the first covenant altogether abandoned ? Only as to outward revelation. There is a gradually strengthening prediction of the future call of the Gentiles, ending with My name shall be great among the nations. Meanwhile, as St. Paul afterwards says, God Acts xiv.’i6, suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways, Into this mystery we cannot penetrate : but He left not Himself without witness. 204 The Spirit's Administration. § 3. Sf)e CKospel ©all* 1. Wliat is the Gospel Call proper, as commencing with the personal ministry of Jesus? It may be regarded as threefold : the proclamation of the glad tidings ; the command to submit to Christ as Lord ; and the offer of personal salvation through Him. 2. How does the first appear in the New Testament? In a variety of ways. First came the proclaiming Matt, iii.2. (Krjpvaa€Lv) the kingdom of heaven or the Gospel of Ma^kri^^’ kmgdom^ with the command to repent and Actsviii.25. believe in the Gospel ; then preaching the Gospel Acisv.^42'!* or the Word or Jesits ; and, finally, the ministry of 2 Cor. V. 18. fjie reconciliation, 3. What are the uses of the word Gospel? The word (euayycXtov) means in the New Testament a joyful announcement or good tidings generally : the Gospel in many Acts XV relations, of God., of Christ.^ of our salvation., of the Rom. XV. 16. grace of God, The verb evangelise {^vayweXi^eLv) is Eph.’i.’lt ^sed for the preaching of those tidings. The word been thought to be once used for the narrative of our Lord’s history as the Author of salvation : the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Certainly it was afterwards used with this meaning ; and thus this one word has become the most central and the most important title of the whole mission and work of the Redeemer. 4. Is submission to Christ part of the Gospel message? An essential part : He is the Author of eternal salvation to all them that obey Him, Repentance toward God includes, Heb V ’'vhen the way of salvation is declared, the humble ^ acknowledgment of Christ’s mediatorial authority. 6. What is the offer of personal salvation ? The promise of acceptance to all who believe ; the com- mendation of Christ as an all-sufficient Saviour ; the exhorta- tion to receive Him, enforced by many arguments ; and, finally, the present offer of Divine grace to assist both the repentance and the faith. Calling of the Spirit. 205 6. Are all these necessary to the preaching of the Gospel? Many of the details will be filled up in the teaching that follows when preaching has done its work. But no one of these main characteristics can be omitted in a sound evangelical ministry. All are included in apostolical preaching. 7. To whom is this important office committed? To the Christian company universally, but specially to men set apart for that purpose. Go ye therefore Matt, xxviii. and make disciples of all the nations. They went Ac\s‘viii.4. about preaching the word. Hoiv shall they preachy Rom. x. 15. except they be se?it ? 8. Is the call of the Gospel effectual? It is effectual in the purpose of God : that is, He who sends it willeth that all men should be saved., and come to the knowledge of the truth. It is actually ^ effectual also, inasmuch as the grace accompanying it impresses every hearer and gives every man the power to obey. ^ ^ But it may be resisted : Ye will not come unto Me ! Acts^^i.'^5i Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost / 9. But are there not reprobate sinners foredoomed to be called in vain ? The reprobate, dSoKt/xot, are those, and those only, who did not like to retain God in their knowledge ; who resist the truth ; and who have lost the in- 2Trm!m.’8. dwelling Lord: Know ye not as to your own selves that fesus Christ is in you f except ye be reprobate. The word implies failure under test. 10. Is it not said that in Antioch they believed who were ordained to eternal life ? Compare with this : Seeing ye thrust it from you^ and 'judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life., lo^ we turn to the Gentiles. After the wilful refusal and rejection of the Jews, those among the Gentiles are referred to who reray/xeVot were rightly ordered for. or disposed to., eternal life. 2o6 The Spirit's Administration. 11. Are not true Christians the Called, implying that their call was necessarily effectual? Three terms are used, each of which is adopted to de- scribe generally the Christian estate : the Called, kXtjtol ; the Chosen or Elect, ^kX^ktol ; and the Faithful, ttlo-toL But when they are connected they explain and limit each other : the Matt xxii have yielded to the call, for many are called^ 14.* hut few chosen ; and of those elect only such as Revxvii°i P^^^e faithful unto death are saved. Those who finally overcome with the Lamb are the called and chosen and faithful, 12. Is there any distinction between a merely outward call and an effectual internal call ? There is none in Scripture ; but there is undoubtedly a secret voice of the Spirit which speaks inwardly what is outwardly heard. Both calls, however, may be resisted. 13. What is the teaching of St. Paul on this subject in his Three Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans? They deal with the Jews, who perverted the truth of their ancient national election : refusing to believe that any of their nation could be cut off, and that the Gentiles should enter into their privileges. Hence : (i.) In the central chapter of the three, the tenth, it is shown that in the Gospel there is no distinction between Jew Rom.x. 12. and Greek : for the same Lord is Lord of all. (2.) In the ninth the leading thought is that a national election is one thing, the election of individuals another : Rom. ix. 8 children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. 22, 24. Both in judgment and in- mercy God is righteous : the former He exercises after much longsuffering ; and the latter He abundantly shewed in that He called^ not from the Jews only., but also from the Gentiles., individuals who should receive His salvation. (3.) In the eleventh it is seen that national election is lost in individual. God hath shut up all unto disobedience., that Rom. xi. 32, might have mercy upon all. All Israel shall be 26. saved : all the true Israel, whether Jews or Gentiles. Conditions of Salvation. 207 Chapter TIL ■^reuctticnt ^racc an6 §ott6iHons of galoafton. 1. What subjects are included under this head? All that belongs to the work of the Spirit in helping man to prepare himself for full acceptance in Christ or personal salvation : as it were in the outer court of the temple. 2. Are not these preparations the work of the Spirit alone ? The beginnings of grace are before any human will to good ; but human co-operation must accompany every stage of this process. 3. Is man's co-operation with grace more marked in this process than afterwards? (i) When the blessings of salvation are imparted, those who receive them, are perfectly passive : justification, regene- ration, sanctification are acts administered by the Spirit alone. (2) In the state of salvation, the believer must co-work with grace in order to retain his privilege and reach its perfection. (3) But the difference is this, that in the work of preparation the man still has a self and may co-operate, while in the re- generate estate his life is the life of Christ within him, and the term co-operate is not used with the same propriety. 4. What is the theological order in this department ? We have prevenient grace and its relation to free will ; and then the conditions or terms of salvation as complied with through that grace. § 1. ^prebeni'ent 6frace. 1. What name connects the Holy Ghost with this subject? He is called the Spirit of grace^ even as He is the Spu'it of the truth. These two appellations strictly Heb. x. 29. harmonise. John xvi. 13. 2o8 The Spirit's Administration. 2. What is grace prevenient ? The effect of God’s favour towards undeserving and helpless man : (i) as anticipating or going before man’s own desire for it ; and (2) as preceding and preparing for the fuller manifestation of grace in pardon and the new life. 3. Where is the final ground of this grace to he sought? In the virtue of the universal atonement securing a measure of the Spirit’s influence to every child of Adam. 4. How may this he said to operate? (i) As to the object on whom it is exerted, it is restraint upon inherited bias to evil and secret prompting towards John vi. 44. good. (2) As to the operation itself, it is the Actsvii. 51. drawing of the obedient and the striving with the disobedient. (3) As to the means used, it is generally the effectual working of the truth through //te demon- iCor. U.4. miration of the Spirit. 5. Are these influences to he regarded as directing the several faculties of man ? The grace itself is strictl}^ speaking bestowed on the sinner behind these faculties : it is prevenient and therefore ac- companies the first exercises of man’s mind and heart and will. 6. Does the appeal of the word find as well as bring this grace ? It finds it waiting in the roots of the nature ; and is also ready to move upon the will through the feelings which are excited by the truths applied to the understanding. § 2. anU jrteebjill. 1, Do Divine grace and the human will co-operate? In whatever sense there may be co-operation it is between the Spirit and the sinner under His influence. 2. Then in this co-operation grace has the pre-eminence? Otherwise it would not be prevenient. It has already in the mystery of nature, as redeemed, set the sinner free from any such slavery to sin as would render the Divine call useless. Conditions of Salvation. 209 3. Explain further this freedom and this slavery. The will is necessarily free, by the very term ; and con- sciousness asserts this. The theological meaning of bondage is that the unrenewed man has no power as yet to do what he wills. Hence the man who has the free will is bound. 4. How does St. Paul mourn over his slavery? His mourning shows the effect of prevenient grace ; and has in it the anticipation of coming deliverance. 6. How does Holy Scripture solve the difficulty of recon- ciling Divine grace and human freedom ? By always regarding the inward man., tov eo-o) av0p(jD7rov, as under grace, and by appealing to a certain secret influence of the Spirit already present. Thus the voice without penetrates to the ear of that inner man to which a preliminary Ephphatha has been already spoken. 6. Is any difficulty acknowledged in Scripture ? No : its watchword is, both after and before regeneration, It is God which workeih in vote, both to will and to ' pvii'i a § 3. ©f.nUittotts of SaUjati'on. 1 . What is meant by the conditions or terms of salvation ? What God requires in the man whom He accepts for Christ’s sake, and on whom He freely bestows the blessings of the Gospel of grace. 2. How may we reconcile ‘‘What God requires” with “Freely bestows” and “For Christ’s sake”? By remembering : (i) that nothing brought or done by man can have any merit ; (2) that the terms are so ordered as to demand only the removal of what would hinder his re- ceiving blessings already provided ; and (3) that the conditions themselves include the use of a Divine grace enabling the sinner to comply with them. 210 The Spirifs Administration. 3. What, then, are these necessary conditions? They are laid down in many ways ; but are all briefly comprehended in one saying : Repentance toward Gody and Acts XX. 21. faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, 4. Are repentance and faith equally necessary ? They are both necessary conditions ; but not in the same sense necessary. 6. What is the difference between them ? They may be united as one condition ; but, as separated, faith is the instrument or means by which we receive salva- tion, which repentance is not. 6. But does not repentance embrace the mercy of the Gospel ? It thinks only of sin ; its guilt, its misery, and its danger. 7. Does not Scripture sometimes speak of repentance and amendment as all that God requires ? Yes ; but it always implies trust in the promises of Divine mercy ; which promises and which trust from the beginning of the Bible to the end are based on the covenant of grace in Christ. 8. Was not the publican accepted when he said “God be merciful to me a sinner ? and the prodigal when he returned to his father ? It must be remembered that, in the same Gospel which records these parables, our Lord says, This cup is the new Lukexxii 20 oovenaiit in My bloody which is shed for you. The Luke xviii.* publican, moreover, cried : God he propitiated to me (IXdcrOrjTL fiot) a sinner: using, near the altar, the language of atoning sacrifice. The Gospels, and the entire Scripture, must be read in the presence of the cross : the one atonement underlies all. 9. How is faith the special means or instrument of sal- vation ? Because the believer penitently accepts Christ as offered in the Gospel ; claims his interest in His sacrifice and inter- cession ; and receives the grace of His Spirit. Conditions of Salvation. 2II 10. Can there be such faith without repentance ? Only the penitent feels the need of a Saviour and desires the salvation of his soul. 11. But does not the Saviour speak of other conditions? Yes : Except ye be converted^ and become as little children^ ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. If any man would come after Me^ let him deny himself^ and 3 ; xvi. 24’ take up his cross ^ and follow Me, He that believeth Markxvi.16. and is baptised shall be saved. All these are our Lord’s terms of discipleship. 12. How, then, are repentance and faith the sole conditions ? Those others are really variations of the same two. Con- version is turning from sin in repentance and to God in faith. Self-renunciation and taking up the cross and following Christ are of the very essence of repentance and faith viewed in their relation to the Lord as a Master. And baptism is the outward and visible sign of separation from sin and belief of the Gospel: an economical and ordained condition, not in itself essential. 13. What errors have we here to avoid ? Two, in opposite directions, (i) We must be careful not to import the thought of merit into the sacrifice of repentance which God absolutely demands. The mediaeval divines in- vented a lower kind of merit — not a ‘‘merit of worthiness,” but a “ merit of congruity ” — which was supposed to recom- mend the works of contrition to God. But the supreme condition is that we come to receive unmerited grace. (2) We must be equally on our guard against tampering with the strict idea of condition : there is no absolutely unconditional freeness in the Gospel ; and the faith which sinners are some- times called to exercise without a true and deep repentance is not that which the Spirit acknowledges. Faith apart from works is* dead : whether in the outer court of preliminary grace or in the sanctuary of the re- generate life. Accordingly, it should be impressed upon all seekers of salvation that God always requires the act or the deep purpose of amendment before He confers the benefit of Christ’s atonement. 10 212 The Spirit's Administration. § 4. €:onbersi'om 1. What is the scriptural importance of this term ? It runs through both Testaments as denoting the critical period of a sinner’s return from the ways of sin to God : the great change in the moral and religious life. 2. But does it not sometimes signify a return from hack- sliding ? In the old economy it was so used ; since all sin was in some sense apostasy from God already known. It is so used , , .. also in respect to Peter’s recovery from his fall, 32. When once thou hast tmmed again; and in the jas. V. 20. encouragement given to him which converteth a sinner from the error of his way. But after the Pentecost it is generally employed to signify the first abandonment of heathenism and the service of Satan. 3. What does the term teach as to man's co-operation ? The two notes alwavs are : Turn Thou me^ and I shall he turned; and Turii ye^ turn ye^ from your evil ways. No word Ter xxxi i8 Scriptui'c SO Consistently represents both the Ezek. xxxiii! Divine and the human work in the preliminaries of salvation. 4. How is conversion related to repentance and faith ? The term stands occasionally for either or for both, as in the following passages : Repent ye therefore and he converted. Acts iii 19 ^ g'f'eat mtmher that believed turned unto the Lord. Acts xi. 21. BiU are noiv returned unto the Shepherd a 7 id Bishop I Peter ii. 25, of yoUr SOUls. 6. What inexact uses of the word are current? (i) Sometimes it signifies the entire course of religion to the end. (2) Such as make regeneration the Very beginning of the spiritual life from God regard conversion as the expression of that life on the part of man. (3) Those who hold that regeneration to be only baptismal would keep the word con- version for a recovery of forfeited baptismal grace. (4) It is very common to speak of conversion as meaning the time Conditions of Salvation. 2T3 of conscious acceptance with God. (5) Occasionally this great word is employed to denote a mere change of religious opinion. 6. What is its truer and better meaning ? The process, longer or shorter, more or less outwardly troubled, of the soul’s turning away from sin and Satan and self to Christ its Saviour. On entering the inner court, and being united to Jesus, its conversion may be said to be ended. § 5. Hiepnttance. 1. What is repentance ? The conviction of guilt produced by the Holy Spirit’s application of the Divine law to the heart ; with the effects of this conviction on the life. 2. By what terms does Scripture define it ? There are three leading ones : the first and most fre- quently used signifies the change of purpose ; the second expresses sorrow or inward contrition ; and the third, peculiar to the New Testament, introduces the idea of conviction or reproof as being effectual in the conscience. 3. Illustrate this from the New Testament. Inverting the order, we have a systematic view of the process from conviction through sorrow to amendment. (1) And He^ when He is come^ will convict the world in respect of sin. Here is the deep secret of true John xvi. 8 . repentance. Through law is the hiowledge of sin, Rom. iii.20. (2) The broken and contrite heart of the Old Testament becomes godly sorrow^ Kara ^eov \viry]. This stands for pg; \i 17. all its internal emotions through their entire range. 2C0r.vii.10. (3) The Baptist enj’oins fruits worthy of repentance. These include all the outward expressions of repentance : this is the fjLeTafxlXecrOat and the fieTavoeiVj which together mean change of mind and purpose and act. 4. But are not all these the fruit of a regenerate life ? No : for, though there is spiritual life in true repentance, it is not yet the life of regeneration. 214 The Spirit’s Administrahon. 5. Is repentance then a midway state, between nature and grace ? In a certain sense it is so : there are fruits of a corrupt tree, and there are fruits of righteousness in the new nature ; but the fruits of contrition belong, strictly speaking, to neither of these. 6. What is the specific relation of repentance to the law ? As faith honours the Gospel, so repentance honours the law. (i) In contrition, it mourns over its alienation from the holy commandment, and over personal vileness as revealed in its light ; (2) in confession, it acknowledges the justice of the sentence ; (3) in amendment, it strives to make reparation. 7. What does this reparation include ? The strictest endeavours to keep the commandment, to renounce all sin, before God ; and, before man, confession of faults and reparation for every offence. 8. Where in the Gospels have we the full doctrine of re pentance ? Lukeiii. 8, In the preaching and ministry of John the Baptist. 9. In what sense is repentance the effect of grace ? It is the result of prevenient grace : (i) applying the law, whether preached or read, to the conscience ; (2) blessing the thoughtful consideration induced by affliction or calamity ; (3) strengthening the endeavour to turn from sin. 10. Where is the state of conviction fully described? In the seventh chapter of the epistle to the Romans, where St. Paul describes his former experience as having been brought to the knowledge of sin ; his state of inward distress ; and his unavailing efforts to keep the perfect commandment : the three elements of repentance in its relation to the law of God. 11. But does not the same apostle, in Galatians v., describe the same confiict as existing in the regenerate ? Not the same conflict : it is between the flesh and the Conditions of Salvation. 215 Spirit in the Galatians, but between my flesh and my mind in the Romans. Moreover, in the former he describes the flesh as crucified, Christian men, led by the Spirit^ as not fulfilling its lusts. It is quite otherwise in the latter, where the convinced sinner is a wretched man and still sold under situ § 6. jTaitl) m instrument of Saltjation, 1. What is the faith which brings salvation ? It is that act or habit of the penitent by which, under the influence of the Divine grace, he puts his trust in Christ as the only and the sufficient Saviour. 2. Does not this definition give a limited view of faith ? As a condition of salvation it must be thus limited : it is an exercise of a common faculty directed to special objects ; the act of the penitent only ; as specially aided by the Spirit ; as resting on Christ ; and as including trust in Him. 3. Is there a more general view of faith given in Scripture ? Yes : in each of these five respects a wider faith may be noted, out of which the saving faith springs. 4. Explain this more fully as to the first. Faith is a primary faculty of human nature, which appre- hends and believes in and trusts the invisible : all men to a certain extent walk by faith and not by sight alone. But saving faith is that faculty directed to the entire compass of the revelation of saving truth. 6. How is it the act of the penitent only ? There is a mere intellectual belief or credence of which the truths of revelation are the object : their external and internal credentials may win men’s assent without attracting their hearts. This faith every intelligent being shall sooner or later possess. But the supernatural order has in it a Gospel revealed only to the faith of the penitent : it is adapted to repentance as light is to the eye. Gal. V. 17. Rom. vii. 18, 23- Gal. V. 18. Rom. vii. 14, 24. 2I6 T he Spirit's A dministration. 6. What is its special relation to Divine grace ? Saving faith is exercised under the influence of that general prevenient grace without which man can do nothing good: that grace here reaching its highest point. 7. But is not faith said to be of the operation of God ? No, faith is said to be m the working and operation of the God who raised Christ from the dead : it is nowhere declared Col. ii. 12. to be wrought in us directly and independently. 8. Is not faith one of the fruits of regeneration, and a gift of the Spirit ? The former is a special grace of the new life, and the latter one of the extraordinary charisms of the Spirit. 9. Does saving faith make Christ its only object ? Christ is certainly the first and nearest object where the Gospel is preached. God is however always and most neces- Heb i 6 ultimate object of all saving faith : for he ^ * that cometh to God must believe that He is^ and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him, But the revelation of Christ is the revelation of God ; and thus where God is the object — as in justifying faith — Christ is implied: and, where Christ is the object, God is implied. 10. What measure of knowledge must precede this faith ? Belief cometh of hea^'mg : it is therefore not a vague trust in the mere name of Jesus. But, as the sole condition of our being saved, faith requires no more than a Rom. X. 17. h.nowledge of Christ as the appointed mediator between God and men. 11. Why is the trust of faith made so emphatic? Because, first, it is the person of a living God and Saviour that is behind all nearer objects of faith ; and, secondly, • it is the simple trust of the heart that distinguishes saving faith from all other belief. 12. Does the idea of trust inhere in every description of saving faith ? That it does so may be seen by examination. The word mcTT^vuv is used in certain varieties ©f phraseology: (i) Conditions of Salvation, 217 followed by the dative, it means belief of the words of God or of His Son, and this is reliance on Divine authority ; (2) followed by liri or C69, it strongly marks repose on a sure foundation ; (3) indirectly connected with cv it expresses the trust which is really one with its object. Take these in their order: Ahraham believed God. He that believeth in n \ - r the 00;/ hath everlasting life. Ye are all sons oj John in. 36. God in Jesus Christy through faith. Gai. 111.26. 13. How is this seen in the figures used to describe faith ? Seeking refuge in Him, coming to Him, beholding Him, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, following Him : all these current illustrations, which almost cease to be figures, have personal trust at their root. 14. Is not this trust full assurance ? It is an assured trust ; but the assurance of having its object does not belong to the essence of faith as a condition of salvation. To trust without this assurance is the strength of faith ; to be followed by assurance is its privilege and glory. 15. How does this agree with the definition of Heb. xi. 1 ? That definition, which precedes a catalogue of the triumphs of faith, includes, and indeed makes pre-eminent, the assurance that animates the work of faith. Moreover, it is not the specific faith that precedes salvation, but the general prin- ciple of faith in God, which is there intended. § 7. i^epentance anU jTait]^. 1. In what sense does repentance precede faith? The self-loathing, self-renouncing, and self-despairing penitent alone is capable of saving faith. 2. In what sense does faith precede repentance ? None can thus repent without faith in the testimonies of God’s word concerning sin, with its punishment and remedy. 3. How are they, in their unity, related to justification? The penitent convicted of sin pleads guilty, trusts in the atoning Reconciler, and his faith is reckoned for righteousness. 2I8 The Spirit's Administration. 4. How to regeneration ? The penitent, acknowledging his spiritual death, receives the Son of God as the new life of his soul. 6. How to sanctification ? The penitent, confessing his unholiness before the altar and trusting in the virtue of the sprinkled blood, is purged from his defilement and accepted on the altar of consecration. 6. Are repentance and faith only preparatory to salvation ? They both enter the regenerate life and are perfected in it: repentance as the constant remembrance of past forgiven sin, with zealous use of all the means of self-mortification ; and faith as the grace which worketh by love in the pursuit of perfection, always deepening as its range enlarges. § 8. 'piistorical. 1. What was the doctrine of the early Church on these subjects of Vocation and Prevenient G-race ? That the purpose of redemption was universal, and its effect the deliverance of mankind from absolute slavery to sin : this was brought into strong prominence in opposition to the Manichaean notion that its connection with matter determined the soul to evil. 2. Was there any difference in the tendencies of Eastern and Western theology ? The Eastern Church from the beginning exaggerated the function of human will in salvation. The Western dwelt more upon the influence of Divine grace upon the sinner using his will. The former developed into Pelagianism ; the latter into Augustinianism, or what in modern times is termed, from John Calvin, its second founder, Calvinism. 3. What did Pelagius teach ? That every man has the same capacity for good in which Adam was created : this being exposed to evil example on the one hand, and led astray ; or stimulated by the teaching and better example of Christ on the other, and thus corrected. Conditions of Salvation. 219 4. Wliat was Augustine^s teaching in opposition ? That all whom Christ redeemed are actually saved ; that irresistible, efficacious grace is given to them at the set time ; and that a special gift of perseverance ensures the perpetuity of the state of grace. This last was necessary in Augustine’s scheme, because of his doctrine of a sacramental grace in baptism which might be lost. His successor, Calvin, was not embarrassed by any views of a universal sacramental grace. 5. What was the compromise of semi-Pelagianism ? The doctrine that grace is given to all men to counteract the effect of the fall ; that every man has strength in himself to turn to God, though subsequent stages of the religious life require direct grace. 6. What form did this assume in the mediaeval Church ? There was much controversy in the sixth and ninth centuries ; but both synodical decisions and common opinion inclined towards semi-Pelagianism. There was a very general agreement that the foreknowledge of faith or disobedience lies at the root of the revealed doctrine of election. The dogma ot prevenient grace settled at the Council of Trent lays much stress on a certain “ merit of congruity in the sinner’s co- operation with Divine grace. 7. How was it modified in Lutheranism ? By the theory called Synergism, which rightly taught that man co-operates with Divine grace from the beginning of his salvation ; but did not with sufficient distinctness trace this power to the special grace of the Spirit restored in redemption. Some in later times made it too dependent on the grace of baptism. And others have supposed that the prevenient grace of the Spirit goes with the spirits into their prison ; and that it is awakened by preaching in Hades. 8. How did Calvin mould Augustine’s doctrine ? ^ (i) He laid his foundations deeply in the absolute sovereignty of God. (2) The internal call of the Gospel is, he asserted, as to the non-elect a “sign only, or the expression of “common grace, to be distinguished from the “sealing 10 * ^ 220 The Spirits Administration. wilP^ of “grace effectual for the elect (3) He deprecated the suppression or disguising of the dogma of reprobation. 9. Has Calvinism undergone any modifications ? Its leading standards — of which the Westminster Con- fession is the English representative — are unchanged. But Amyraldus in France, and Baxter in England, and others else- where, omitted reprobation from the system, or changed it into the mere withholding of irresistible grace from the non- elect. Again, inasmuch as the Divine decrees are secret, pre- destinarian preachers have felt bound to offer the Gospel to all men, and some of them have been among the most catholic and effective evangelists. 10. What was the Arminian form of the doctrine ? The semi-Pelagian mean between Pelagianism and Augus- tinianism ; but with its own special emphasis on the gift of the Spirit as preserving human nature from total ruin. 11. What marks the best Methodist teaching here ? It still more than Arminianism develops the doctrine of prevenient grace : asserting that man is not to be found in the fallen state of nature simply, but that the very nature itself is grace ; that the Spirit works through the word with His own preliminary influences, deepening and bringing them to per- fection ; and that this continuous prevenient grace is in salvation consummated by the gift of regenerate life. 12. What evil does this avoid ? That of counting mankind, with Augustine, a “ mass of perdition ; of holding the signs of preparatory life in the convinced sinner to be only “splendid vices’^; and of de- stroying the identity between the converted sinner and the regenerate man in Christ. 13. Does not the opposed system ascribe too much to the human will ? (1) It adopts strictly the language and tone of the New Testament ; and leaves the unfathomable mystery with God. (2) It simply agrees with every sound theory of religion Conditions of Salvation. 221 or philosophy in making the will necessarily free, but swayed by the character of the man who uses it. (3) It asserts that the sinner has grace given to him which he must reject if he turns not to God. 14. What principles are here unquestionably to be held fast at all costs ? (1) That God is righteous, and will finally approve His righteousness, in all His dealings with His creatures. (2) That whom He redeemed He will certainly call. (3) That the methods of His calling are unsearchable. (4) That He calls none to obey without giving them grace sufficient, if rightly used, to enable them to obey. (5) That it is a hopeless if not irreverent task to attempt a reconciliation between the undoubted sovereignty of grace and the equally undoubted freedom and responsibility of man. 2^2 The Spirit's Administration. CHAPTER IV. §5tale of ^mce, or personal ^aloalion. § 1. $tj5 3I3ii)ersitp m Slnitp* 1. What is the meaning of this phrase ? It imports the Christian state of full privilege: as dis- tinguished (i) from the grace of preparation on one side, and (2) from the ethics of the religious life on the other. 2. Is it not the middle term between the state of nature and the state of glory ? It is so : always remembering, however, that the state of nature is itself more or less a state of grace. 3. How is this state described in the New Testament ? Rom. V. 2. As T/ie grace wherein we stand, or Our common I'cor^xiii 14. or The communion of the Holy Spirit^ or 2 Cor. V. 17. our being Christ, 4. Are there no other terms or phrases that describe it ? Rom V II Less directly, and in more special relations, it is I john y. 12. said to be Receiving the reconciliation^ or Having Rom.v111.23. Qj. possessing The firstfruits of the Spirit, 6. What is specially meant by the state of grace ? St. Paul says that hy faith we have had our access into this grace wherein we stand: all the words are emphatic, and teach that grace is a sphere or state into which penitent Rom. V. 2. believers are admitted, which they occupy together, and in which they prepare for glory. Grace was given out- „ side, or we could not have entered ; but grace Rom. vi. 14. reigns within. Hence it is said that we are not under law^ hut under grace. The grace that brought Personal Salvation. 223 Christ to us and us to Christ here puts on its perfection and imparts its highest gifts. 6. What is the leading idea in the word Grace ? The unmerited favour of God resting on the soul : this will satisfy nearly all the passages in which occurs. Oc- casionally, however, that favour becomes, as it were, an internal principle. The same word is used for thanks returned to God. 7. What is meant here by unity and diversity? (1) The estate of grace or personal salvation may be viewed under several aspects : in relation to the law of God, it is the recovery of righteousness ; as it respects the soul’s death in sin, it is the renewal of life in Christ Jesus, or sonship ; in regard to our fellowship with God, it is sanctification. (2) But these are not blessings following one another : they are all one as an application of the virtue of the atone- ment by the Spirit, and one as flowing from union with Christ. 8. How are these three one in the atonement? They are procured by the virtue of the death of Christ toward God. That virtue toward man is imparted by the Holy Spirit in three lines : as the atonement has satisfied the claims of law, its benefit is our pardon and righteousness ; as it has abolished death and removed the veil between God and man in the reconciliation, its benefit is our new regenerate life ; as it is the sacrifice of expiation, its benefit is our sancti- fication unto holiness. But these are one and the same blessing. 9. How are they one in our union with Christ? (i) We are to become the righteousness of God in Him; and are accepted through His grace ^ which He freely ^ bestowed on us in the Beloved. (2) If any man is in Christy he is a new creature ; and (3) we are sancti- jCor TJ’ fied in Christ Jesus. 10. Does all this mean that these blessings are given for Christ’s sake? For Christ’s sake is in Scripture simply “ in Christ : As God also in Christ forgave you. Both ideas are sacred; but that of union with Christ implies that the believer is really one with Christ in the virtue of His 224 The Spirits Administration, atoning death to sin and in the virtue of His life-giving Spirit. This is the deepest earthly mystery of grace. 11. Is there then no consecutive order in the communication of these blessings? They are all given together ; or rather are the same common salvation viewed under three aspects. (1) We may begin with righteousness: the sentence of condemnation is taken away from the penitent, who is then adopted and regenerated and then consecrated to God. (2) We may begin with sonship : the new life given in Christ is released from the sentence in the court and placed on the altar in the temple. This is essentially the same. (3) We may begin with sanctification : the defiled sinner sprinkled from the conscience of sin in the temple is blessed with a new life in Christ, and his sins are remembered no more. This third combination harmonises with the preceding. 12. But is there no difference between inward and outward salvation ? The righteousness and sonship and sanctification are all three both inward and outward : no one of them is different from the others in this respect. 13. Is not justification wrought for us and sanctification wrought in us? This popular distinction is hardly scriptural : there is an internal as well as an external righteousness ; and there is both an external and an internal sanctification. 14. But is not sanctification the continuance and progress of regeneration ? Not any more than it is the progress of justification. The three terms belong to totally distinct departments of thought : regeneration means new life, sanctification the giving this to God, and righteousness its harmony with the Divine law. 15. What terms are used to distinguish the outward and inward blessings of the Christian estate? (i) We speak of righteousness as imputed and imparted. Sometimes the distinction is between forensic (pronounced in a court) and moral, or inwrought. Personal Salvation. 225 (2) It is more appropriate to speak of sonship as declaratory adoption and as inwrought regeneration. (3) And of sanctification as external consecration, as on an altar, and internal purification. 16. Does this threefold distinction regulate the phraseology of Scripture ? Yes, down to very minute shades : there are three classes of terms into which may be distributed all the descriptions of the Christian estate. They are terms of the lawcourt, of the household of God, and of the temple, respectively. 17. Illustrate the unity in diversity of these terms. (1) As the Christian estate is before the law, God is the Judge, Christ is the Advocate and Surety, sin is transgression, the atonement is a satisfaction, repentance is conviction, accept- ance is pardon or remission, renewal is righteousness, the Spirit’s witness is of pardon, and the Christian life is obedience : its perfection being the fulfilment of the ordinance of the law. (2) As it is a new life in Christ, God is the Father, Christ is the Elder Brother and the Life, sin is selfwill and rebellion, the atonement is reconciliation, the penitent is a prodigal, accept- ance is adoption, renewal is regeneration, the Spirit’s witness is that of adoption, the Christian life is the mortification of the old man and the raising up of the new: its perfection being the perfect reflection of the image of Christ the Onlybegotteri. (3) As it is life dedicated in the temple, God is God only, Christ is the High Priest, sin is defilement, the atonement is an expiatory sacrifice, repentance is consciousness of being unclean, the soul is accepted on the altar, the Spirit’s witness is the silent seal of His possession, the Christian life is holiness ; its perfection being entire sanctification from sin and to God. 18. Is there not a progression from justification through regeneration to entire sanctification ? These three blessings must begin together ; and each has its own sure progress towards its own perfection. 19. Are all the terms in each class kept quite distinct? Usually they are ; but a few, such as faith and love, belong to the phraseology of all departments alike. 226 The Spirit's Administration. I. §:^rtsftatt '^ig^feousttcss. § 1. JpreU'minarp. 1. What are the leading terms in this subject? (1) Those which belong to the family of hiKyj or right, each of which will be found to occupy its place in the doctrine. (2) All those which use the language of judicial procedure : almost every forensic term employed in human lawcourts is introduced with its evangelical meaning. (3) Many also which more indirectly keep in view the idea of religion as obedience to law, and as the attainment of a character in harmony with right. 2. Is not Christianity made, here at the outset, too legal ? The Saviour came not to destroy the law ; He bids us to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. And Matt. V. 17; St. Paul says that in the Gospel we establish law. Rom^iii.31 substance of Christianity is the perfect law., the jas. i. 25. law of liberty. 3. Does not the Gospel, having delivered ns from the sentence of the law, train ns to a perfection independent of law ? No : for the whole business of religion, from beginning to end, is transacted in the mediatorial court ; that the require- Rom.viii.4. 't'yteiit (or righteousness) of the law might be fulfilled Rom. vi. 18. in US. Christianity makes its bondservants unto righteousness : though the service is perfect freedom. § 2. iii'gtteousness. 1 . What is the meaning of righteousness in Scripture ? The state or character which is conformed to the standard of the Divine law. That is StKaLoavvrjj and he who has satisfied or is satisfying the law is SiKatos, righteous. 2. Can fallen man thus satisfy the law? He cannot satisfy it save by suffering its penalty. He is by nature both condemned and without strength : under the law. Rom. vi. 14. Personal Salvation. 227 3. How is the phrase ‘‘righteousness of God” used in the New Testament ? To signify that new and special righteousness which in the gospel God provides and accepts. This righteousness of God is called the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of faith as opposed to man’s own righteousness and Rom. x.3. to that of the law or of works. Phii. iii.g. 4. In what sense is it a special righteousness ? Because it has been specially provided to meet the case of sinners by the Lawgiver Himself. 6. How does it meet their case? Through the virtue of Christ’s atoning satisfaction, right- eousness is imputed to them as they are outwardly condemned, and imparted to them as they are inwardly unrighteous. 6. Is it then Christ’s righteousness as well as the righteous- ness of God ? The phrase “ righteousness of Christ’^ is never used; nor is^ that said to be imputed. But He is made iCor.i.30. unto Its righteousness., and we are made the righteous- 2Cor.v.2i. ness of God in Him. 7. Is there here any real difference? It may seem hard to deny that Christ’s righteousness is put to the believer’s account ; but the true doctrine of imputa- tion shows why the Scripture does not say that it is. 8. What is the true doctrine of imputation ? Imputation is the reckoning to a man his own act with its consequences : as when sin is imputed to every living soul. But imputation, in its evangelical meaning, is also the reckon- ing to any one the consequences of another’s act : as the con- sequences of Adam’s sin are reckoned to his descendants ; the consequences of man’s sin were reckoned to Christ ; and the consequences of Christ’s obedience are reckoned to the believer. 9. How then is Christas righteousness reckoned to man ? First, it is put to the account of all the world in that God is reconciled to the human race and condemns none for the 228 The SpiriVs Administration. original sin. Secondly, and chiefly, it is put to the believer’s account in his being reckoned and dealt with as a righteous person in Christ or for His sake. 10. What is that righteousness of Christ which is reckoned to us in its benefit ? His one great obedience, active and passive, — these being , essentially one, — whereby He is the Lord our Jer. xxui. i6. * 7 / ^ righteousness. 11. Is the personal righteousness of Christ Himself reckoned to the believer as his own ? Assuredly not ; any more than the personal sin of the sinner was reckoned to be Christ’s. Moreover, as the Divine Son of God could not have our individual sins imputed to Him, so His Divine-human obedience was altogether beyond the range of man’s obedience to the law. There could not be any such personal transfer. 12. What is the meaning of the phrase “righteousness of faith”? As the “righteousness of God” describes the evangelical method in its origin, and the “righteousness of Christ” describes it in its grounds, so the “ righteousness of faith ” describes it in its instrumentality on the part of man. Faith receives it as external, and works through love an internal righteousness : thus it is always of faith. 13. Then the righteousness of faith includes the internal righteousness ? Yes : it is the Divine method of placing man at all points and for ever in his right relation to the eternal law. 14. In what sense was this called a new method ? Its grounds and nature are fully revealed only in the Gospel ; but this righteousness alone has been valid and sufficient in all ages. Through the mediation of Jesus not yet manifested God has been Just and the Justifier of all from the beginning who put their trust in Him. St. Paul says that this method, apart from law^ is yet witnessed by the law and the prophets : Rom. 111.21. Scripture. Faith in the Redeemer, revealed or unrevealed, has been the principle of acceptance from the first. Personal Salvation. 229 15. What parti<3ular proof of this does St. Paul give ? His chief illustration is Abraham : to Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness ; who received the ^ sign of circumcisio 7 i^ a seal of the f'ighteousness of n. the faith which he had while in circumcision : that he might he the father of all thetn that believe. St. James uses the same illustration. 10. Was not the righteousness of faith before Abraham ? From the beginning faith was the condition of acceptance and the strength of all obedience. Noah became heir of the 7 'ighteousness which is according to faith. ^ 17. W'hat was in early times the specific object of this faith? The general promise of Christ the Deliverer. Abraham’s faith had reference to the Seed of whom Isaac was the type : it was not faith in God generally, but faith towards God as revealing the promise of Christ. A certain prophecy of a coming Saviour began the history of fallen mankind. 18. How does St. Paul sum up all this ? In the epistle to the Romans chiefly, which is much occupied with the judicial aspect of the Gospel ; and especially in the sentence at the outset which lays down its general subject. 19. Give an analysis of that verse. It speaks (i) of the righteousness of God ; as (2) revealed in the gospel as a righteousness through Christ; j ^5 and (3) as a righteousness only to believers, whether 17, 19- Jew or Greek : being a righteousness originating as to God from faith, and as to man operating by faith unto faith; attested by the prophet’s word. But the righteous shall live by faith ; and finally a revelation not only of mercy but of the power of God unto salvation^ unto righteousness internal and external. 20. Is this epistle occupied only with righteousness ? That is its leading theme ; but as it proceeds it connects Christian righteousness both with Christian sonship and with Christian sanctification. 230 The SpiriVs Administration. § 3. justification fip jFaitt) : ImputeU iHi'g^teousness, 1. In what way is the relation of righteousness to faith expressed ? We read of (i) righteousness through faith (Sid) ; (2) righteousness f'om faith (iK ) ; (3) righteousness 0/ faith (the Rom. iii. 22. genitive) ; (4) righteousness according to faith { ko . t 6 ) ; Kom iv^ii’ righteousness of God on faith {Ittl), Never, of Heb.’xi.V. * course, “ on account of’’ (Sta with the accusative) : as Phil. 111. 9. were the ground. 2. These indicate faith as the instrument generally ; hut what is the more precise relation of faith to righteousness ? It is exhibited in two ways, (i) Faith is reckoned for righteousness : to him that worketh not^ hut believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly^ his faith is reckoned for om.iv.5. righteousness. The ungodly who believes is treated as if he were not ungodly : his faith is the only obedience he can render, and it stands in the stead of all other righteousness at the moment of his acceptance. (2) Righteousness, however, is not reckoned to the faith, but to the man who believes : Ahraham believed God^ and it was reckoned to him om. IV. 3. righteousness. This latter way of stating the same truth guards the former. 3. What terms are used for the application of this blessing ? (i) God is said to justify ; that is, to pronounce or declare righteous, StKatovv. It is God that justifieth^ who is he that shall condemn ? Here this SiKaiwy is the exact 0m.v111.33. of Kara/cptVan', as it usually is throughout Scripture. (2) God pronounces a sentence of justification, 0)0-19. Who was delivered up for our trespasses^ and was raised for owr justification.^ ^id rrjv diKaLo^cnv Rom. IV. 25. Christ was raised to justify us; but His resurrection declared that His death was the valid meritorious ground justifying or warranting the act of our justification. (3) God is said to pardon the sinner or remit his penalty or not impute his sin : these meaning the same. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven. Blessed is the Rom. IV. 7, 8. whom the Lord will not reckon sin. Personal Salvation. 231 4. state clearly the distinction between pardon, remission, and justification. (i) Pardon rests upon the sinner, and is expressed as the free bestowment of grace : exapco-aro, He frankly forgave, Grace^ which He freely bestowed on us in the ^2. Beloved. (2) Remission refers to the guilt or debt Eph. i. 6. or penalty of sin not exacted : dt€Vat, and dcj5)eo-t9, the most frequent of all. (3) Justification is the regarding that forgiven person, whose debt is remitted, as being also in the position of a righteous person. This is the strict meaning of an imputa- tion of righteousness. 6. Who is the dispenser of justification ? It is God that justifieth as the Judge in the mediatorial court. Our Lord forgave sins ; but when the economy „ C T - II** XX Rom.vm. 34 01 mediation is fully revealed it is in Him eve^y one Actsxiii.39. that believeth is justified^ not ‘‘by Him -f God also IN Christ forgave us^ which has been translated and read as “ for Christ’s sake.” 6. What is the specific object on which justifying faith rests ? (i) Formally stated, and according to the theory of the covenant of grace, it rests on Him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead., who was delivered up for our trespasses., and was raised for our justification : the Father accepts His Son’s sacrifice for us, proves this by His Son’s resurrection, and as the just consequence exercises the judicial act of dt/caiWt?. (2) But habitually the object is Jesus Christ Himself ; Roni. m. 22; and once it is God that justifieth the ungodly., this iv.5. “ strange act ” being His glory in redemption, and the prerogative of the mediatorial court : its most ancient and sacred tradition. 7. Is not the blood of Christ the object of this faith? St. Paul speaks of our being now justified by., or in^ His blood as the great first deliverance, which is ground of confidence that we shall be saved from future wrath. “ Faith in His blood ” is a phrase that does not cer- tainly occur ; we should rather read : Whom God set forth a propitiation in His bloody through faith., to shew His righteousness. Our reliance is on the blood of Christ, but still more directly on Himself ; faith passes by every other object and seeks only the Lord. 232 The Spirit's Administration. § 4. justification fjg jF^'ii't?) : Jmpartetf l^ltg^teouaness. 1. What is the relation between imputed and imparted righteousness ? (i) They are to be carefully distinguished: the former looks at the present and past, imputing righteousness in the sense of not imputing sin ; the latter looks at the present and future, making provision for new obedience. (2) They must never be separated : imputation would dishonour law if it was not bound up with security for future righteousness ; and imparted righteousness must always be accompanied by im- puted in the case of every forgiven sinner. 2. More explicitly state this last view of the relation. It may be said that the imputation of righteousness 01 non-imputation of sin must take the lead ; a man is pardoned before he goes to sin no more. It may also be said that, when he is made perfectly righteous, and throughout eternity, his past sin will still remain as a fact not imputed : there will be for ever a non-imputation to him of his guilt. 3. What is the strict meaning of imparted righteousness ? It is given in the terms of the new covenant : T will put My laws mto their mind^ and on their heart also I will write Heb. vii. 10. them. Again, the new nature hath been created in Eph. iv. 24. righteousness. 4. Does not this connect righteousness with regeneration ? Yes : it has already been seen that it is the regenerate soul which is both made righteous and made holy. The living Christian is brought into harmony with the law of God : that is his righteousness. He is brought into fellowship with the holiness of God : that is his sanctification. 6. What terms are used for the pursuit of this righteousness ? It is called obedience in principle : And hereby we know that we know Him., if we keep His commandments. The sum and strength of this obedience is love : Love there- Rom.xiii.io. fore is the fulfilment of law. And the result is I John 111.7. practical righteousness ; He that doeth righteousness is righteous. Personal Salvation. 233 6. But is not this anticipating Christian ethics ? Yes, in some measure : doctrine and morality go together. This righteousness, however, is really imparted by the Spirit, and imparted to faith : hence it is as much a branch of the righteousness of faith as imputed righteousness is. 7. How is this seen ? (i) Faith embraces the promise of the virtue of the blood of Jesus to cleanse us from all unrighieousness ; and j jo^n i. 9. (2) faith working through love is reckoned for a perfect Gai. v. 6. fulfilment of all law. Together these passages show that the internal righteousness is given or administered by the Spirit to faith. 8. What is the extent of attainment permitted to the hope and desire of faith? That the righteousness (or requireme 7 it) of the law might he fulfilled in us. The standard is even as He is Rom.viii. 3. righteous. These classical passages also shew that ijohniii. 7. the righteousness of the inner man is a gift that must come from above. § 5. iFaitf) anU OTorfes. 1. How is the relation of faith and works exhibited ? (1) Faith is opposed to works as meritorious, and the formula is : A man is not justified by works of law^ but only through faith in Jesus Christ. (2) Faith lives only in its works, and the formula is : Faith without works is dead, Jas.u.26. (3) Faith is justified and approved by works, and the formula is : Twill shew thee my faith by my works. (4) Faith is perfected in works, and the formula is : By works was faith made perfect. 2 . How may this be otherwise stated ? The texts given above justify us in saying that works are (i) the result of faith, (2) the test of faith, (3) the consum- mation of faith. 3. What works are excluded from justification and in what sense? (i) All that flows from the sinner and is his own Phil. Hi. 9 234 The SpiriVs Administration. righteousness must be below the requirement of the law, and therefore be rejected as a ground of justification. (2) Any righteousness of the law^ of any law whatever, ... must be insufficient ground of justification, on account 1.111.9. transgression which law never forgets. 4. What works are necessary for justification and in what sense are they necessary? (1) All those which spring from Christ and the poiver of His resurrection^ or the virtue of His life within the believer. (2) All those that show the special kind of obedience which is the condition of present and future and final acceptance. Phil. iii. 10. Heb. V. 9. 6. What then do we mean in saying that justification is by faith only? That (i) faith excludes the righteousness of our own works ; (2) it simply appropriates the righteousness provided in Christ ; and (3) it is the strength of all subsequent obedience to law or internal righteousness. 6 . How do works show the life of faith ? In two ways : (1) living faith is the faith of a living ot regenerate soul and worketh through love; (2) living faith Gai.v. 6. unites with Christ and must produce the fruits John XV. 5. which declare His indwelling. He that abideth in Me and I in him^ the same beareth much fruit. 7. Does not this discountenance the thought of a distinct imputation of Christ’s active righteousness? Most certainly. Before union v ; Him we must think of no other obedience than His ; afterwards by His Spirit He fulfils the law in us who fulfilled it once for all for us. 8. How is all this illustrated in Abraham the Father and Pattern of believers ? By St. Paul and St. James respectively, and independently of each other, (i) Both represent the justification of Abraham as a declaration or reckoning of righteousness, quoting the Rom. iv. 22. same phrase, IXoyio-Or) avrlj^ eh BiKaLoo-vvrjv : St. James jas.ii. 23. indeed quoting it more fully. (2) St. Paul refers to Personal Salvation. 235 the time when Abraham’s faith was only looking unto the pro 7 nise of God ; St. James’s to a time when faith wi'oicght with his wof'ks. (3) St. James gives the cen!xv'.’6.°* solution : By works was faith made perfect^ eTek^idiOrj. ii-^22. The principle of faith in Gen. xv. was developed into its issues in Gen. xxii. But it was the same faith and the same righteousness of faith. 9. What is the difference between the two apostles as to living faith ? St. Paul makes living Yaith the soul which quickens works otherwise dead ; St. James makes works the soul which quickens faith otherwise dead. But a close examination shows that they mean the same thing. 10. How does St. John harmonise the two views? By this warning : Little children^ let no man deceive you : he that doeth righteousness is righteous ^ even as He is righteous. * § 6. 5^1'atoncal. 1. What was the general teaching of the early Fathers as to the righteousness of faith ? (1) They were faithful to apostolical doctrine and phrase : laying more stress, however, on the internal righteousness than on the righteousness imputed. (2) Gradually, in the third and fourth centuries, germs of error began to appear : such as the satisfaction of good works being held necessary for the forgiveness of sins committed after baptism ; and a higher righteousness to be found in keeping the counsels of perfection. 2. Sum up the tendencies of mediaeval error. They may be expressed in few words. The legal element in Christianity was exaggerated : (i) Justification was made to be the issue of a series of preparations which, not having any merit properly so called (meritum e condigno), yet deserve acceptance by way of con- gruity (meritum e congruo). This disturbed the simplicity of the Gospel, and laid a snare in the way of the penitent. 11 236 The SpiriVs Administration. (2) Justification when bestowed was regarded as the making righteous by the infusion of inherent grace. Thus faith, hope and charity, the three theological graces, were themselves regarded as righteousness. (3) Faith therefore was the instrument of justification, not as appropriating the promise in Christ, but as being the germ of all good : informed with charity.’^ (4) Justification as imputed righteousness was entirely undervalued, if not lost, in the dogma of a justification which ONLY makes righteous ” and imparts righteousness gradually. 3. Were there no protests against these tendencies? Yes : there were never wanting voices that warned against the idea of merit in good works, and denied the Church’s fund for indulgences, and mourned over the dishonour thus done to the Grace of the Gospel. 4. Were these protests effectual ? Not until the Reformation of the sixteenth century — Protestantism proper — which originated in the vindication of the doctrine of justification by grace or the righteousness of faith against the traditions of Rome. 5. What were the characteristics of this vindication? (1) Justification by faith was declared to be mainly the being “absolved from sins,’^ by a sentence strictly forensic, for the sake of Christ’s righteousness apprehended by faith. (2) Good works were inculcated as the fruits of faith, but carefully denied any place in the dogma of justification. (3) This one truth, recovered from perversion, was n turally exaggerated for a time, and too much limited to the forensic view. Justification was only imputed righteousness. 6. Wherein did the Reformed or Calvinist doctrine differ from the Lutheran or Evangelical ? Both laying stress upon the imputation of Christ’s righte- ousness, the Calvinist teachers held that it was transferred in all respects to those who were elected in Christ : an eternal Personal Salvation. 237 justification only applied in time, and never to be lost. Hence the Calvinist teaching regards justification as no other than the pronouncing a believer for ever freed from the obligation of obedience as such. 7 . What error then must be guarded against in respect to the imputation of Christ’s righteousness ? (1) That of making His entire righteousness wholly sub- stitutionary (dvrt) instead of partly beneficial ( Wp) : it is neither alone ; but includes both, the one idea always accom- panying and qualifying the other. (2) That of dividing it into two parts: the passive, reckoned to the believer as his own satisfaction to penal justice ; and the active, reckoned to the believer as his own satisfaction of the moral requirement. This distinction violates the eternal principles of God’s government; no crea- ture can ever be discharged from obedience. (3) Consequently, as has been seen in the doctrine of the atonement, it is wrong to speak of Christ’s righteousness as 'directly imputed. It is rather to be regarded as the all- sufficient ground of God’s mercy to the whole world and to every man. 8. But was not Christ’s righteousness substitutionary, see- ing that as the Godman He was bound to no obedience for Himself ? It is certainly true that the Incarnate Son of God was not obedient for Himself : He was always, in life and in death, a Divine Person. But that very fact shows that His righteous- ness could not be strictly vicarious : the Godman could not take the very place of man either in suffering or in obedience. 0 . Wliat new views did Arminianism introduce ? It mediated between the Mediaeval and the Protestant teaching : asserting that the faith which is reckoned for righte- ousness is a faith including obedience, though having no merit ; and that God accepts the imperfect righteousness of faith as perfect for Christ’s sake. Accordingly, the law was held to have been in some sense relaxed as to its requirements. 238 The Spirit's Administration. 10. What error is there here? It is better to say that for Christ’s sake, and in Christ, God accepts the believer and pardons the imperfection of his righteousness always until by grace his conformity to law is made inwardly complete, which it certainly must be. 11. How does our Lord’s suretyship affect this? He is the general Mediator of the covenant (/xecriTT^?) ; but He is the special Surety (eyyvog) or sponsor that its provisions shall be carried out in the interest, so to speak, of both parties. For God He pledges forgiveness as to the past ; for man He pledges a perfect tribute to the righteousness of the law in the future. The latter is too often forgotten. 12. What difference was there between the Arminian and the Tridentine doctrines of a gradual righteousness? (1) Both held rightly that justification is a state of man as well as an act of God ; and that believers are made more and more righteous in increasing conformity with law. ( 2 ) But the Arminians held that the imputation of righteousness must always come first, as faith embraces Christ for pardon ; while the Romanists taught that justification is from the beginning the making righteous. 13. How are Antinomianism and Supererogation related to this subject? (1) Antinomianism as a doctrine makes Christ the end of t&e law. For its penalty and its demands He has made Him- self responsible. There may be reasons for obedience in the filial relation, but none in the law as a condition of life. ( 2 ) Supererogatory works make Christ the end of the law in another sense. While they exaggerate the importance of obedience as the condition of life, they dishonour law by divid- ing it into obligatory commandments and optional counsels. 14. What was the Socinian or Unitarian teaching? Rejecting the divinity and atonement of Christ it regarded the term imputation as meaning merely God’s merciful estimate of good desires and good works as all the righteousness He Personal Salvation. 239 requires. He imputes in mercy to man what man has not : repentance and honest endeavour being enough. 15. Wliat expedients have been adopted by mystical theology to soften the idea of imputation ? It regarded the Indwelling Christ as the formal cause of justification : His righteousness being at once reckoned to the believer as his own and flowing into the believer’s life. The being reckoned righteous is however almost lost in the having righteousness. 16. Eow may this be set aside? By saying that what truth it has is only a variation or disguise of the twofold principle of the righteousness of faith : Christ FOR us and Christ in us. 17. What is the best defence of imputation ? (i) The constant assertion that there must needs be imputation of righteousness and non-imputation of sin forever; the eternal law can never forget the past ; ( 2 ) that the notion of an imputed righteousness is never to be separated, either in doctrine or practice, from that of a righteousness imparted ; ( 3 ) that justification is more than pardon, being an imputation of righteousness for Christ’s sake which anticipates the future and perfect reality of the righteousness which it imputes. n. § 1. |3relimmarg. 1 . What is the full meaning of this expression? It means the Christian estate of grace as restoration to life in God and the filial relation to Him as a Father. 2. How is it connected with righteousness and sanctification ? The relation maybe stated in two ways, (i) The per- sonality of the sinner being the same always, he must first 240 The Spirit's Administration. have the sentence cancelled in justification before he can become an adopted child of God and be consecrated to His service. But (2) it is the new nature given him in regene- ration that renders him capable of being made righteous and inwardly pure. (3) Thus- the former refers to external privi- lege ; and the order is justification, adoption, consecration. The latter refers to internal possession ; and the order is regeneration, righteousness, and sanctification. But strictly speaking, these three are one blessing of the new covenant under three aspects. 3. What is included in the vocabulary of the estate of sonship ? All the terms that introduce life as in Christ ; as also those which define the means of its impartation, the privileges which it confers, its struggle with the old nature, its perfec- tion as the restoration of the Divine image. 4. What then are the two branches of our present subject? Adoption as external and declaratory • regeneration as inwrought in the soul. § 2. flljopti'on ant Regeneration. 1 . State the unity and the difference of these terms. They are one as the Christian sonship ; regeneration being its internal reality and adoption its external privilege. 2. Is the distinction carefully maintained in the New Testament ? No : for the common sonship is defined sometimes by the word sons (mot), which lies at the root of adoption ; and some- times by the word children (reWa), which implies regeneration. 3. Where is it then to be observed ? St. Paul alone combines the two ideas : Ye received the spirit of adoption^ whereby we cry^ Abba^ Father, The Spirit Rom.viii.15, Himself beareth witness with our spirit,, that we 16. are children of God : and if childreji,, then heirs. Without the term adoption, we find the distinction in St. John : Personal Salvation. 241 To them gave He the right to become children of God^ . • . which were horn or begotten of God, And again ; that ,, . we shotild be CAiAJEiy children of God: and such we ijohn iH. i. ARE. St. Peter speaks of the Father as having be- ^ Peter 1.3, 4. gotten us again in our regeneration to an inheritance^ which is the privilege of adoption. Our Lord gave the two thoughts when He said, speaking of sonship, If therefore the johnviii.36, Son shall make you free^ ye shall he free indeed. 42. This was thopia) is shewn in boldness to enter into the holy place (TrappTjo-ta). But this faith may be viewed as in respect to its present object known : then it is the ftdl assurance of ^ understanding; and it is shewn m great boldness 19.’ ' ’ in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. As it J'xim’iii. 13 respects its future object it is the full assurance of Heb. vi. n.‘ hope even to the end ; and is shewn in not casting mi- 28. away the present confidence in order that we may have boldness^ and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. 3. How may we treat assurance theologically ? By regarding first its objective grounds and then its subjective experience. 4. What is meant by objective assurance? Limited here to the blessings of personal salvation, it 28 o The SpiriVs Administration. refers to the external and standing pledges given by God for faith to rest upon. 6. Where are they to be found ? (i) Ultimately in the resurrection of Christ: As concern- ing that He raised Him up from the dead . . . He hath spoken on this wise, I will give you the holy and sure Actsxiii. 34. blessings of David. He was raised for our justi- Rom.iv. 25. fication. (2) The Christian Church, with its means of grace, and sealing sacraments, is a permanent witness of the goodwill of heaven in the world. (3) Especially the word of God with its innumerable promises in the Divine standing assurance to man. 6. To what extent is this outward assurance sufficient ? None who persistently trust in these great pledges shall perish ; but it has pleased God to give a corresponding in- ward assurance : that we may have a strong Heb. VI. 18. encouragement. 7. What is the strict relation between these? All internal assurance is based upon the external ; but the internal is distinct and direct ; and in full Christian experi- ence the two are to be combined. 8. Who is the agent of internal assurance? The Holy Spirit, Whom God hath given to them that obey Him.^ to those who were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Acts V. 32. promise. This gift is in us the assuring seal : as Eph.i. 13. to God that we are His; as to ourselves, that we know ourselves to be His. 9. How is He the assuring seal? First of our union with Christ and interest in Him generally ; and then of each special relation of our common privilege. All these, however, are generally united. 10. How of our salvation in Christ generally ? The first experience of faith is the access into this grace wherein we stand through the personal reception of the Gospel Rom. V. 2. and the Saviour : of this generally the Spirit is the 1 Thess. i. 5. seal ; the word comes in the Holy Ghostj and in The Probation of the ospel. 281 much assurance. No man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. xii. 3 11. What is the assurance as it respects the particular privileges individually and distinctly? (1) Of our acceptance as justified He is the witness : There is therefore now no condeniJiation to them that are in Christ Jesus, For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ via. i Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death, 2- He speaks to the conscience the Lord’s own and peculiar words, Thy sins are forgiven. For the Spirit’s ^ukev i 8 witness of pardon there is no text. “ evn.48. (2) Of our sonship He is the witness : confirming the testimony of our regenerate spirit ; The Spirit Himself heareth witness with our spirit.^ that we are children of God, Our spirit of adoption as sons confirms our regenerate voice as children. Hence we may read : 15. the Spirit of adoption, (3) Of our sanctification He is the silent seal by His in- dwelling : Ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Eph. i. 13, promise . . • unto the redemption of God's own h* possession. 12 . Are these distinct kinds of assurance ? So are they described in Scripture ; but they all flow into the one common experience which is said to be this, that we might know the things that are freely given to us ^ dy God. 13 . What other characteristics of assurance may be named ? That it is the full interior persuasion of personal salvation through Christ and in Christ ; that in it there is to faith a supernatural revelation of its present object ; that it is wrought by the Holy Spirit in the soul on or after believing ; that it is the common privilege of believers ; that, not being, however, a condition of salvation, it is distinct from saving faith. These are several aspects which must be united and reconciled. 14 . What is the soul’s state in the absence of assurance ? It is shut up to the outward pledges of God, waiting for the internal evidence : faith as simple trust rests only on the word of God, and saves ; assurance follows it and makes it perfect though not always immediately. 282 The spirit's Administration. 15. But is it not said that faith is itself the evidence of things not seen ? That is its perfection as the great regulator of life on the way to eternity. Faith 'is the assurance of things hoped for^ or it is the giving substance to them, making them a Heb.xi. I. reality to hope ; it is the proving of things not seen^ their internal demonstration to the soul by a supernatural revelation. 16. Is it not very difficult to sever saving faith from assu- rance ? Hard as it is, the distinction must be made. Faith is necessarily assured that Christ is a Saviour ; but its personal trust in Him may be in its simplicity a naked ven- john XX. ag. soul. Blessed are they that have not seen^ and have believed! 17. Is not this the 'distinction between the assurance of faith and the assurance of hope ? No : the only distinction between these is as to the present possession and the eternal possession of the blessings of the covenant : faith is sure now, hope is sure for the future. 18. What is meant by calling this witness a direct one ? (1) We thereby distinguish it from the indirect witness which the Spirit bears in the external means of grace. He comes through them into personal contact with the spirit of the believer : to it, with it, and in it, working assurance. (2) Also from the indirect testimony which He bears through the fruits of the new nature seen in the life. 19. Is this testimony of a changed heart and life called the Spirit’s witness? Generally it is called our own : He that hath received His witness hath set his seal to this^ that God is true. It is the testimony of our own conscience, or moral consciousness of John iii 33 ^ State of grace : If our heart condemn ijohaiii.2i. US notj we have boldness toward God. For our 2Cor. 1. 12. glorying is thiSy the testimony of our conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity . . . The apostle here uses, The Probation of the Gospel. 283 for himself at least, the same word (/ca^x^o-ts) which he uses when speaking of the Spirit^s witness : We glory in Gody through otcr Lord Jesus Christy through Whom we ^ have now received the reconciliations 20. What is the general strain of the New Testament as to the universality of this privilege? Everywhere it is said to be the common prerogative of the estate of grace : not one given to the advanced in godliness ; nor one to be sought as a higher experience. St. Paul says, speaking as in the Mediatorial court : Being therefore justified by faiths^ we have peace with God throitgh otcr Lord Jesus Christ ; through Whom also we have had our ^ access by faith itito this grace wherein we stand ; and rejoice in hope of the glory of God, (2) In the temple we read of the same tranquil confidence of assurance : Having,^ therefore,^ brethren, boldness to Heb. x. 19 enter , . . let us draw near with a true heart in full —22. assurance of faith. We enter into the same assured estate of grace : whether as righteousness or sanctification. (3) But chiefly as children of God the witness is ours, interior and permanent and universal: And the witness is this^ that God gave unto us eternal life,, and this life is in i John v. 10, His Son. He that hath the Son hath the life. And of him who believes it is said that he hath the witness in himself 21. What is the peculiarity of this last passage ? That it is the final testimony of Scripture to this assurance. § 3. ^perseberance. 1. What place has this term in the Spirit’s administration ? Strictly speaking, it belongs to the ethics of Christian life. But it is introduced here to signify that special grace which is pledged to the Christian in his probation. 2. What is the ground or source of this grace ? As administered by the Spirit, its ground is the sufficiency of the atoning provision of the Gospel ; the intercession and 13 284 The SpiriVs Administration. will of Christ ; as in the believer’s soul it is the Spirit’s own effectual indwelling. 3. Do not these three, taken together, carry the whole doctrine of a necessary final perseverance? They do so certainly as it respects faithful believers, who are ttuttol in both senses of the term : the called and chosen Rev. xvii. faithful. These three are not simply correla- ^4- tive : they are progressive also. 4. How is onr Lord’s intercession specially related to this ? (1) He declares both His will, and His request, that His Father would Keep them from the evil one whom He regards John xvii. given Him for His own : that which Thou hast 15.24. given Me, These words imply that, though given to Him, this possession needed a special protection and might be lost. (2) After the ascension our Lord maketh intercession for US- Against every enemy that might separate us from the Rom. viii. love of Christ He Himself intercedes ; and the answer Heb.iv 16 prayer is grace to help us in time of need. But 2 Cor. vi. I. we are exhorted to receive not the grace of God in vain : hence the effectual succour obtained is itself a testi- mony to our probationary state and conditional salvation. (3) The gift of the indwelling Spirit is the fruit of our Lord’s intercession : Ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of Eph. i. 13, promise . . . unto the redemption of God^ s own ^ 4 - possession : cfe, unto^ however, is not here a link that cannot be broken. 5. Can the Saviour’s love to His own he baffled and dis- appointed ? He Himself says : If a man abide not in Me^ he is cast forth as a branch and is withered. And it is hard to interpret John XV. 6. His lamentation over Judas as other than an acknow- John xvii. 12. ledgment that he was reprobate, that is, rejected after probation : Not one of them perished^ but the son of perdition, 6. Can the Spirit^s power be baffled in the human spirit? We read that He may be grieved, quenched, lusted against : stages of resistance. That He may be finally over- The Probation of the Gospel. 285 come by persistent obstinacy is never denied, Eph. iv. 30. and in some passages very plainly suggested : as in ^ Thess. v. St. Jude’s words to fallen Christians having not the gII'v. 17. spirit, b'deig. 7. What Scriptural argument is there for a conditional guarantee of final salvation ? The whole current of exhortation, of which one typical example may be given. The Word of God thus warns: Tahe heed, brethren^ lest there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbeliefs in falling away from the living God ; but Heb. iii. 12 exhort one another day by day^ so long as it is called --^4- To-day ; lest any of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin : for we are become partakers of Chris f if we hold fast the begin- ning of our confidence firm unto the end. The if is emphatic. 8. How is this typical ? (1) It expressly makes the rejection of individuals, while the nation as a whole was saved, .a warning example to Christians : the body of Christ is absolutely secure, but in- dividual salvation is viewed as probationary. (2) It deeply impresses the to-day of probation. (3) It speaks of a falling away from the living God : this is the death of a soul that had lived in God. (4) It describes sin in its result of hardening or reprobation. (5) It expressly declares that union with Christ eternally requires that the confidence of assurance be held firm to the end. Thus all the elements of our doctrine — probation, as- surance, and conditional perseverance — have their strongest expression in this passage, the type of many others. 9. But is there not a glorious host of passages which run in another strain? Yes, in both Testaments ; and they must not be despoiled of their meaning in the interests of any doctrine. 10. How are these opposite strains to be reconciled? By remembering the following points : (i) That the whole church perfected into one is always present in revelation, as already saved in the Divine John xvii purpose. *3- 286 The SpiriVs Administration. (2) That one part of the testimonies regards the accom- plishment as already foreknown of God ; while the other addresses us as working out our salvation. As to the former : W/iom He forehiew^ He also foreordained to he con^ Rom. vui. formed to the image of His Son, And whom 29.30. foreordained^ them He also called ; and whom He called^ them He also justified ; and whom He justified^ them He also glorified. As to the former, there is a corre- sponding chain of virtues in which we are bidden to give all diligence to make our calling and election sure ; 2 Peter 1. 10. these things ye shall never stumble, St. Paul and St Peter must here be harmonised. (3) That the mystery of the reconciliation is beyond our faculties ; but altogether within the range of our practical duty. § 4. J^tatoncal. 1 . What are the relations of historical theology to the leading terms of this chapter ? They have been bound up together under two very different aspects : varied according to the views held as to the nature of the covenant of grace in Christ. 2. Distinguish these two. (1) According to one, the covenant of redemption betwee^i the Father and the Son as Mediator and the Holy Spirit as Administrator guaranteed the salvation of a certain number of the descendants of Adam : on this principle probation loses its full meaning, assurance when reached is the certitude of salvation, and perseverance is guaranteed as final. (2) According to the other, the covenant is with Christ as the Saviour of the race ; and, inasmuch as the entire race is not saved, the probation of all is the test of each, assurance is only of present salvation, and perseverance is a grace or virtue of religion on which final acceptance depends, humanly speaking, as a condition. 3. Which of these views had the precedence in Christian history ? The latter. Before the time of Augustine the former, as T he Probation of the Gospel. 287 we have seen, had no clear expression. Since the time of Augustine, but especially since the revival of Predestinarian- ism by Calvin, and most .especially the Federal Theology that sprang out of his system, the two views of the Christian covenant have ruled and divided theological opinion on these subjects. The controversy, however, becomes gradually fainter. 4. Do Predestinarians base their views of probation, assu- rance, and perseverance, entirely on the immutability of the covenant of redemption ? That is their stronghold ; by the light of their conviction on this subject they interpret all Scripture. Some passages give them support ; and others, which fail them, they bend into submission or resign for future light. 6. But is not the Absolute Sovereignty of God their final refuge ? It may be said to be so, though many shrink from the term. The will of God, of which He gives no account, is supposed to have been represented by the Father, Whose counsel the Son covenanted to fulfil, having a portion of mankind given to Him of the Father as His reward. The Holy Spirit enters into the covenant as its future Admini- strator on behalf both of the Father and of the Son. This covenant being granted, or taken for granted, the final per- severance of the saints needs no other proof : the Scriptures must be, they ought to be, harmonised with it. 6. Where is the supposed Scriptural ground of this ? Here again the Predestinarian acceptation of the Gospel does not rely so much upon specific texts as upon the entire history and mystery of redemption, which is regarded as the actual deliverance of those whose place the Redeemer took by vicarious substitution, suffering in their stead the penalty and curse of the law and in their stead honouring that law by obedience. The mind once possessed by that thought finds that the word of revelation possesses it everywhere. 7. But are there no special passages ? The Saviour^s words are quoted : All that which the 288 The SpiriVs Administration. Father giveth Me shall come unto Me, But He adds : Every John vi. 37. heard from the Father,^ and hath John vi. 45. learned^ cometh unto Me; and, moreover, He John xvii. 12. n-^ourns over one of those given to Him as having perished^ as the son of perdition, 8 . Is there no more direct answer? Yes ; all the passages which speak of the Saviour's heritage and possession refer to the portion of mankind who are foreseen as saved : whose salvation is now a present reality to Omniscience : but without any necessary reference to a pre- destinating decree. 9. How does this view of the eternal covenant affect the doctrine of probation particularly ? The redeemed of the Lord are not saved in the way of probation. The first Adam's probation having been a failure, under the supposed covenant of works, the second Adam took the probation on Himself and became the Surety for His own : the test was really His, not theirs. 10. But does not this system allow any probation for the saints ? Yes ; their own works are proved and found wanting and rejected or reprobate, in the sight of God and in their own sight ; and, further, the issue of probation may in their case determine their relative place in the rewards of glory. 11. Is this doing justice to the system ? Not quite : its whole economy of probation is maintained on the ground that the saints are predestined to the means as well as to the end. Moreover, the conditions on which we lay so much stress are said by its defenders to be the very gifts of the charter themselves. Repentance and faith, for instance, are certainly conditions ; but grace alone gives them in and with and after the new birth. 12. How does it affect particularly the doctrine of assu- rance ? It lays the main stress on the objective assurance of the stability of the covenant of redemption. Personal subjective The Probation of the Gospel. 289 assurance is a special grace, to be sought and found ; but, when received, it is an assurance for ever. 13. What may be said of this? That, on the one hand, it limits unduly a blessing which is made in the New Testament a common privilege ; while, on the other hand, it unduly enlarges that privilege, making it include confidence of final perseverance. 14. Then, as to final perseverance, what is its precise doctrine ? That none for whom Christ died can perish : they being not only ordained to eternal life but also to that way of watch- fulness and diligence in probation which leads to it. 15. Is this latter point essential to predestinarianism ? It is much used in argument, and still more in the earnest lives of those who use it ; but it is not essential, for Christ has obtamed eternal redemption. He who has built ^ ^ on the foundation may see all his superstructure i cor]m^%. burnt, but he himself shall he saved ; yet so as j^o^hn through fire. He is ordained to eternal life : con- cerning which our Saviour said, I give unto them eternal life ; and they shall never perish. 16. Can this quaternion of texts be withstood ? No ; they are the everlasting sheetanchor, entering into that which is within the veil., for all who continue in Heb. vi. 19. the faith, grounded and stedfast, and not moved away Coi. i. 23. from the hope of the gospel. But they may be dangerously perverted. (1) With regard to the first, the eternal redemption is not in any way limited : nor can it be, for St. John, speaking expressly of the Advocate for His people as possibly sinning, adds that He is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours only., but also for the whole world. ijohnu 1,2. (2) As to the second, St. Paul is speaking of false teachers who erect on the one foundation a perishable superstructure. (3) The Teray/xeVot to eternal life are those then disposed or set in order for it. Fereordination or predestination to life is not a scriptural idea: we are foreordained only to be con- 2Q0 The Spirit's Administration. formed to the image of His So7i ; and that not in the future Rom.viii.29. only, though then preeminently. (4) Our Saviour adds : No one shall pluck them out of My hand. He does not say that they may not leave Him and no John X 28 follow Him. Nor could He : for, in His only John vi. 66. other allegory, that of the vine, which is the pendant John XV. 6. sheep, He says : If a ma^i abide not in Me^ he is cast forth as a branchy and is withered, John x. and XV. must not be divided. 17. On what other texts does this theory of the gospel rely? Three classes may be mentioned, which have reference to the three estates of justification, regeneration and sanctifica- tion respectively. (1) As to an eternal and necessary justification: And P ... whom He called^ them He also justified ; and whom 0m.v1n.30. justified^ the 7 n He also glorified, (2) As to a new life never to be forfeited : Having been I Pet. i. 23. begotten^ not of corruptible seed^ but of incorruptible. (3) As to an inviolable sanctification to God : By which will we have been sanctified through the offei'mg oj Heb.x. 10. body of Jesus Chi'ist once for all. 18. How may the evidence of these be resisted ? There is no need to resist them : they are the strength of religion. They are the glorious things spoken of the church ; and belong to every one who is faithful. The justification of the first passage, however, is after all only one link in a chain of events looked back upon as from the fixed future. The indestructible life is such in contrast with all the glory of the flesh : it is nowhere said that the living may not become twice dead. The eternal sanctifica- tion is the lot of the holy^ who are to be made holy yet more. The once for all refers to the offering of the Lord’s Body and not to its virtue in us. I Pet. i. 24. Jude 12. Rev. xxii. il. Heb. X. 10. 19. But is not the true view of our present trilogy of doctrines concerned with, other systems than the pre- destinarian ? Undoubtedly : the truth of probation is a test of almost every Christian theory. The Probation of the Gospel. 291 20. How, for instance, does it affect sacramentarianism ? That system, fully developed, tends in no small degree to lighten the sacred burden of personal responsibility ; and, in every form, its danger is that of diminishing the sense of the unspeakable solemnity of probation. 21. Is there no opposite danger ? That of those who refuse the doctrine of assurance, and decry it as fanaticism ; making the whole religious discipline of life a fearful looking for of final decision. We cai.v. 5. through the Sph'it wait for the hope of righteousness ‘v. 4 * by faith : this is for cautionary use on one side. Rejoice in the Lord alway : this is the tranquillising counterpart on the other. 22. How does onr doctrine bear on theories of the future? (1) The true view of probation, embracing all its meaning, is inconsistent with any moral test in the intermediate estate : though the day of judgment is its limit, it is such only as making finally manifest the issues of a probation in time : It is appointed unto 7 nen once to die^ and after this judgment. (2) The annihilation of the reprobate might be har- monised with one meaning of reprobation ; but not with the full significance of a judgment in which each one may receive the things done in the body^ according to * what he hath done. (3) Universal restoration is not consistent with our doctrine : as probation would on any interpretation of that bold theory be overpowered by a grace omnipotent. 23. But what is the theological error which the teaching of scripture most firmly opposes? Antinomianism, theoretical and practical. 24. And how does our doctrine effectually oppose it? By enforcing Christian Morals as the Ethics of Redemp- tion. 13 * 292 The Spirit's Administration. Chapter VI. g^nsfian ^JTorals; ov tl)e §tf)ics of 1. What do we understand by Christian morals? The conduct of life according to the principles contained in the gospel of Jesus Christ, Who, as the Incarnate Son of God, is the Supreme Lawgiver. 2. Why is this subject introduced under the Holy Spirit’s administration ? Because the new moral life springs out of that estate of ^race into which the Holy Spirit introduces believers. We have seen what that estate is, and its probationary character : it remains that we consider what the new life is, as the fruit of redemption, and how in it the Christian probation is regulated and successfully accomplished. 3. Is this what is meant by the second title, the Ethics of Redemption ? Ethics and morals are terms derived from the Greek and Latin to designate the moral or ethical habit. But their connection with redemption implies two things : (i) they are the new life as based upon the fundamental principles of our redemption generally in Christ ; and (2) they are the new life as springing from that redemption personally experienced. 4. But do we not thus unduly limit the field of morals ? By no means : for ( i ) redemption is universal in its effect on mankind, and therefore morals in their widest range may be connected with it ; and (2) personal redemption prepares those who receive it to exhibit morality in all its depart- ments, leaving none of them unguided by precepts. The Ethics of Redemption. '^93 5. How may the subject, thus viewed, be unfolded? By first considering the specific principles of the Christian moral system. After this we may take up the application of these principles in relation to personal character, and in relation to the community of Christian life : that is, Applied Ethics. L principles of f^risfian §t^\cs as suc^. 1. What are our main subjects here? First, we are bound by our loyalty to pay homage to the New Lawgiver ; then we may study His legislation in relation to moral philosophy as a science ; and lastly, mark the new principles of Christian law as based on the gospel. 2 . But is there not a preliminary difficulty in the word New, in relation to eternal and unchangeable morality? Not when rightly understood. The word new is a relative one, and has three meanings in theology : it is here the con- summation of the old ; it is a beginning as having all the force of a higher revelation ; and it is the beginning of a better order. In all these senses the Christian legislation is new. § 1. graus CDtnst iLatogiber. 1. What is the full meaning of the term lawgiver? It has two senses. First and chiefly, that of a supreme authority in imposing moral law : There is one lawgiver, Subordinately, that of a delegate or minister appointed to deliver and set in order the various ordinances of that supreme Lawgiver : Did not Moses give you the law f 2. In which sense is our Lord the lawgiver? In both. As the Eternal Son, He has Divine authority : that all may honour the Son,, even as they honour John v. 23. the Father. As the Incarnate Lord, He is set as a Heb.iii.e. 294 The Spirit’s Administration. Son over His own house with a delegated supremacy. In both, as united, He is the fountain of law : Hear Matt xvii.5. TT' t ye Him ! 3. Do we note any distinction between these in the New Testament ? It is the characteristic teaching both of the Gospels and of the Epistles that in His undivided Person the' Lord Christ is the final authority. They do not ask in what sense. 4. But is there not a special relation between the Lord’s supremacy in morals and His mediatorial work ? Undoubtedly there is ; as the doctrine of the three offices has shown, (i) As to us : by His atoning death the con- demnation of the law has been removed, and the Spirit obtained for our new obedience. (2) As to Himself: He acquired, as God-man, supreme authority over the redeemed world, which He has made His own kingdom. 5. Is He not, however, presented to us as setting an example of obedience ? Yes: but in this matter we must carefully distinguish. (1) The Son was made under the law^ as He was made a curse for us and was made flesh : being in these three respects still essentially Divine. It was God who GaLiH.13 became flesh, the Blessed One who bore the curse, {ieb V 8 ^* Lawgiver above law who learned ohedience : that is, who learned, not to obey, but what His suffering obedience meant and required. (2) His example was that of perfect love to God and man : shown in His absolute self-sacrifice, to which indeed His character as exemplary is generally limited throughout the New Testament. But it must be remembered that He is the supreme model (woSay/xa) of our aspiration, rather johnxiii.15. example of our religion in detail: a perfect EXEMPLAR rather than a perfect example. 6. What were the characteristics of our Lord’s legislation ? It must be viewed in respect of the moral law generally, and particularly of that form of the law which already existed among the Jewish people. The Ethics of Redemption. 295 7. How did He treat tlie Jewish law ? He honoured it at all points as being Himself a minister of the circumcision. But in honouring it He dissolved it as it was a ceremonial law, fulfilled in Himself the great reality : this however was clearly seen only after Pentecost. The political laws of the old theocracy were silently changed into the laws of the new kingdom of heaven. Of the moral law, as running through the Mosaic legislation, and summed up in ^ ^ the decalogue. He specially said : I came not to ^ destroy^ but to fulfil, 8. What was His relation to moral law generally? He came to restore man to obedience. The end of the law unto righteousness. This may be said to have been the ultimate design of His whole work. Hence His doctrine is the foundation of ethics : the particular doctrines of the faith are all bound up with morals ; and morals or godliness are their crown and end. § 2. Christian iLato ant lEtttcal Shencr. 1 . What is to be understood by ethical science and moral philosophy ? That branch of knowledge which is concerned with human nature as morally constituted : that is, as amenable to the law of right and wrong. 2. How is Christian morality related to this ? Precisely as natural theology is related to supernatural revelation. The ethical science of Christianity acknowledges and builds on the fundamental principles of natural ethics ; but its peculiar doctrines give them new applications, running through the whole course of morals. 3. Is there merely an analogy between the two ? More than that ; for they are essentially one : the natural religion of the world was the foundation of its moral philo- sophy before the coming of Christ ; and, since then, the case has been very much the same. The Spirit's A dministration. 2q6 4. What are the fandamental principles of ethical science which the Christian legislation accepts? All those which are really fundamental : such, namely, as are expressed in the universal language of mankind as belong- ing to the ideas of Duty, Virtue and the Chief Good. 6. How does Christianity treat the first ethical idea, that of duty? The idea of duty — expressed by the terms obligation, right and wrong, conscience, ought and must, law, judgment, reward, and punishment — remains unaltered; but Christianity, or rather revelation, alone gives the ground of moral obligation. 6. How is this to be established ? The science of ethics, as independent, has been what its theories on this subject have made it. One theory finds the ground of morals, or that which makes good to be good, in the fitness of things : a vague and unmeaning notion. Another in the idea of right, which begs the question ; another in the subjective moral sense of mankind, which denies an immutable standard ; another in the idea of bene- volence or the good of the whole, which is Utilitarianism, under many forms ; another in the general principle of evolution, which neither fears God in His authority nor regards man in his dignity. Christianity rises above all these. 7. What then is its teaching? That man, created in the image of God, has the ground of obligation as a creature in the Divine nature, and as a moral agent in the Divine will. 8. How does Christianity here supplement the deficiencies of ethical science ? By its three doctrines of the fall, redemption and eternal judgment : the first explaining how man knows a duty which he cannot fulfil ; the second how he may both know it and fulfil it ; and the third what the issues of his responsibility are. The Ethics of Redemption. 297 9. How does it deal with the second ethical idea, of virtue ? By accepting here also the entire vocabulary : for instance, as seen in the ancient and universal cardinal virtues, formed into habits, of wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. But it imports the true grounds and principles of virtue and glori- fies it in every sphere. 10. How is this to be seen ? In many ways. The noblest conception of virtue, apart from revelation, was the Stoic subjection of sense to reason : Christianity makes it the ascendency of the Holy Spirit con- forming the whole man to the holiness of God. The four cardinal virtues have become the three theological graces of faith, hope, and charity. The standard of virtue is the per- fection of human nature as seen in the Son of God. And the virtues which ethical science describes as unattainable Christianity brings within human reach. 11. And how is the third idea treated, that of the summun bonum or chief good ? The best definition in ethical science — from Aristotle to Kant — Christianity accepts : It is that which is sought as an end in itself and not as means to an end. But the chief good of man is shown to be not happiness but blessedness : blessed- ness IN God. 12. In what other respects do Christian ethics correct the natural systems ? (1) By treating the subject as more than merely psycho- logical : that is, not simply a study of the make and constitu- tion of the human soul as it now is. Many of the best moral systems have erred by studying the phenomena of human nature in themselves and too exclusively. (2) By limiting it to its proper object : the moral rela- tions of man. Ancient and modern ethical systems have gone on the principle that the whole sum of human interest and duties must be included. .Esthetics, jurisprudence, social science, politics, are here only indirectly concerned. 2q8 The Spirit's Administration. (3) By making the entire science hang upon Christian doctrine; and teaching all morals in their connection with redemption : thus introducing a totally new vocabulary as well as enlarging the meaning of almost every word in the old. (4) Lastly, by taking the subject out of the sphere of philosophy, which is the pursuit of wisdom, and making it the practical directory of the new life in Christ. § 3. iPrmtiples of ®l)rtatian l^oralitp. 1. What is meant by these fundamental principles ? They are certain leading characteristics which are brough into prominence by the Christian legislation. 2. Only brought into prominence ? It can hardly be said that any of them are positively new ; but, though they are latent in other legislation, only in this are they made supreme. 3. Which are these principles ? They might be summed up in one word, love, as itseli the summary of all law and all fulfilment of law. But it will be well to resolve this into three ideas, given us by our Lord Himself and His servants : the unity of the law as love ; the spirituality of its interpretation ; and the liberty of its obedience. % iLote ant iLato. 4. How has our Lord connected love and law? (1) By making all duty, that is, the whole of practical religion, one in the love of God. This precept, found in the law, He for the first time stamped as the great Deut. vL 5. ^ ^ AND FIRST COMMANDMENT. (2) By combining with this a second like unto which Matt. xxii. He for the first time declared to contain all duty 38,39- to man : Thou shall love thy neighbotu' as thyself, {2) Thus making all true self-love and love of the neigh- bour one; and placing that unity in the love of God which The Ethics of Redemption. 299 must be frorn all thy heart and from all thy soulj and from all thy mind., and from all thy strength. All other love must be part of the love of God and flow from it. 6. Was not this in the old legislation ? The precepts were there, but not as combined ; and not as the compendium of all duty : in these two com- Matt. xxii. mandments hangeth the whole law^ and the prophets 40. (not only Ik but hi), 6. What effect had this on later teaching? The hour when our Lord thus spoke was the most glorious crisis in morals ; and its influence is felt throughout the New Testament : every one of our Lord’s teachers pays his tribute to love as the unity of all obligation. 7. How does St. Paul pay his tribute? (1) The end of the charge is charity^ even as iTim. i. 5. Christ is the end of the law, Rom. x. 4. (2) In his hymn to charity he shows that all religion is love : negatively, without it I am nothing^ and 1 cor. xin. positively, the greatest of these is love, 2, 13. (3) With special reference to the neighbour, he says, lofue,, therefore^ is the fulfilment of law^ and 10.' the bond of perfectness, 8. And how St. Peter? Not so expressly. But as he makes faith the beginning or so he makes love the end or tcAos charity of religion : and to love of the brethren,, charHty or love. ^ Rot.1.7. 9. What is St. J ames’s testimony ? He calls love royal law: with reference, however, to the Lord’s second commandment, concerning which he adds. If ye fulfil it ye do well (reXctrc, a great word). 10. And how does St. John crown the whole? He alone absolutely makes all religion love: not, as the others, referring it to the neighbour: God is love; ijohniv. 16 and he that abideth in love abideth m God,, and God abideth in him. Perfect love casteth out fear. 300 The Spirit's Administration. 11. Does all this mean that love is substituted for law? By no means : summing up is not absorbing or anni- hilating. 12. In what other sense is love the unity of the law ? In that it is the fulfiller as well as the fulfilment. 13. How is it the fulfiller ? (1) It is the strongest principle of our nature: as re- Gai. V. 6. generate it worketh through love, (2) As delight in God and gratitude for redemption, it is , , . the response of God’s love. We love because He first loved us. (3) It is the guardian of the law : jealous of its honour. Ps. cxix. 97. O how love I Thy law ! (4) It is the expositor of law where it does not speak in . precepts : abounding in knowledge and all discern- Matt. xxvi. (S) It is the infallible arbiter in cases of casuistry. 10- She hath wrought a good work upon Me, 14. What effect on Christian ethics has this whole doctrine ? If love is the unity of law and fulfilment, then (i) we need not fall short of obedience, and (2) we cannot go beyond it in works of supererogation. Both these are esta- om.xni.g. jjr other Commandment rightly understood. ^pmtuaUtp of Interpretation. 15. What may we understand by this generally? As to the law itself, that all its precepts have an applica- tion wider than the letter ; and as to the performer, that obedience lies in the intention. 16. How has the Lord given prominence to this ? Throughout His teaching ; but especially in the sermon on the mount. In the first part of it the spiritual meaning is brought out : as, for instance, that the prohibition of murder Matt. V. 22. adultery extends to every form of anger and lust. Matt. vi. 22. In the second part, the single eye is explained and illustrated. The breadth of the law and the obedience of the heart are the two leading ideas of the whole discourse. The Ethics of Redemption. 301 17. Can the spiritual interpretation be called a new prin- ciple of the Christian legislation ? By no means. The best heathen morality laid stress upon it. The Mosaic legislation used the very words which have been quoted as giving the characteristic of Christianity : And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine hearty and peut. xxx. the heart of thy seed^ to love the Lord thy God with ^4- all thine heart. And again : The word is very nigh unto thee^ in thy mouthy and in thy hearty that thou mayest do it, 18. Did not these passages point onward to the gospel ? Yes ; but they had their application on the way. The ethics of psalmist and prophet are in the highest Ps. cxix. 96, strain of spirituality : Thy commandment is exceeding broad ! Thy word have I hid in mine heart ! 19. What means then the preeminence of the gospel as a ministration of the Spirit? Undoubtedly it was the characteristic of the old covenant that its legislation was a ministration of death.^ written and engraven on stones^ and of the letter; while the new ^ cor. iii. covenant is a mmistration of the Spirit. The latter 7, 6. brings the spiritual meaning in Christ of the typical letter in Moses ; and also the spiritual power of the Holy Ghost, from which alone the true obedience can flow. 20. What form does the principle take in the later New Testament ? It is more closely linked with the fully developed doctrines of regeneration and the indwelling Spirit. The law ^ ^or ii i is regarded as spoken to the spiritual inner man : Heb° viii. 10. he that is spiritual judgeth all things. It is written ON their heart. And it is obeyed from the heart. 21. How then may we state the application of this prin- ciple in Christian legislation ? (i) In the interpretation of the moral code of the Old Testament generally and of the decalogue in particular : every 302 The Spirit's Administration. one of the ten words of which must have a large and spiritual meaning put into its letter. (2) In the interpretation of the Lord’s own precepts : for Luke xviii. instance, in those which were designed for a transi- 22. tional state, such as Sell all thou hast ! (3) In the application of every precept universally, which, as it has a letter, so must have a much wider meaning than the letter. 22. What has to he guarded against here? (i) That the letter never be forgotten, while the spiritual meaning is observed ; (2) that the spiritual meaning never be forgotten, while the letter is observed. iLitertp anij iLaiu. 23. What is the relation of these two terms? Taken together, they express the great truth which Christian legislation first taught, that perfect obedience is perfect freedom. 24. As to the law itself, or obedience to the law? As to the latter first and chiefly : perfect obedience is unconsciousness of law, which is lost in love. 25. How can that be? The supreme proof is the supreme illustration : our Lord’s perfect love to God and man was expressed in the must of a most perfect obedience: I must be about My Luke 11. 49- Pather^s business. But absolute necessity in Him was absolute freedom. 26. As our ethical Master does He apply this to us? He graciously promises to make us partakers of His own johnviii 36. hhcrty : If therefore the Son shall make you free., johnxiv.23. ye shall be free indeed. Again : If a man love Me^ Gal. V. 18. My word. And, If ye are led by the Spirit., ye are not under the law, 27. How does the term liberty apply to the law itself as external ? That is a more difficult question ; and one that must be carefully handled, so as to avoid opposite extremes. The Ethics of Redemption. 303 28. Which are the two extremes ? One is what may be called Pharisaism ; and the other Antinomianism : the best method of ascertaining what Chris- tian liberty from law means is to consider it in relation to these. 29. What is the former? We call it Pharisaism, because our Lord made the Pharisees its representatives. It may be termed legalism, or nomism ; and means that religion is summed up, not in love but in obedience to external commandment. 30. What is Christian liberty, as protecting from this? It rejoices in being no longer under the law as a law that condemns. And it rejoices in being under the influence ot the Spirit of love in obeying its precepts. 31. What is the latter, Antinomianism? As doctrinal, it holds that Christ has vicariously fulfilled the law as well as suffered its penalty : that therefore ... ^ believers have nothing to do with law. As practical, ^ * it abuses its liberty to licentiousness. These are the enemies of the cross of Christ 32. What is Christian liberty, as protecting from this? Its watchword is the doctrine that the gospel is the perfect law of liberty : its perfection being that its liberty is j 25. under law to Christy and that its law is the royal i Cor. ix. 21. law of love. 33. Are there any other applications of the principle? Yes, there are two : (i) As to things indifferent ; (2) As to the voluntary imposition of laws on self. The Christian man is free to be a law unto himself in all these things. § 4. 2T!)e Codifitati'on of Christian 1 . What is meant by this? The consideration of the inquiry how far and in what way Christianity proposes a systematic body of moral rules ; like those, for instance, of the levitical economy. 304 The Spirifs Administration. 2 . And how may the question he generally answered? By saying that as there is One Lawgiver His methods have been one throughout revelation : Christian ethics are taught on the whole exactly as Jewish were. 3. Is this literally true? (1) Jehovah in the Pentateuch uttered some eternal laws, and summed them up in the perfect love of Himself ; Jehovah in the New Testament, our Lord, points to the decalogue as the way of life, making however that spiritual interpretation prominent which is really the interpretation of love. (2) Statutes were given, at great length, referring to the theocracy ; our Lord abolishes them, but only to substitute the laws of His kingdom : which are mainly, though not entirely, the precepts that regulate the fellowship of the church. (3) As circumstances arise the ethics of both Testaments adapt themselves. We see the same gradually developed ethical system : from patriarchal to levitical and prophetical legislation in the Old ; from Gospel to Acts and Epistles in the New. The analogy is almost perfect. 4. Is then the moral legislation and is the standard of morals in the Old Testament the same as that of the New? Yes: allowance being made (i) for the great principles already referred to ; and (2) for the special adaptation of many statutes not good — not permanently good — to Ezek. XX. 25. hardness of the people’s hearts; and remember- ing further that (3) many actions recorded in the history of the ancients are simply recorded but not approved. 5. How does this affect the decalogue ? The decalogue — the ten words — was originally written on two tables of stone : it is now written in fleshy tables ffl the heart. Afterwards it was written in the Book ; 2 Cor. 111. 3* there it still stands, the same in the New Testa- ment as in the Old : being in neither, strictly speaking, the code of all duty. It is for ever the remembrancer of manifold obligation ; but is insufficient as the basis of a Christian ethical system. rite Ethics of Redemption. 305 6. What traces of system are to he found ? According to a wide variety of principles ethics are in- troduced. Besides the indications already given, we may note : (1) The Saviour’s discourses contain the inexhaustible materials of an orderly system of human duties. (2) The apostles connect with the exhibition of every doctrine its practical and moral aspect : thus the arrangement of their doctrinal system is the arrangement of their ethics. (3) Every epistle has its ethical section : mostly in strict order, as may be seen at the close of that to the Romans ; but sometimes the practical application is interwoven throughout. (4) Each writer without exception has his own method of summarising the essentials of ethics : either arraying the contrasted vices and virtues, the fruits of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit ; or presenting surveys of morals demanded in every relation of life ; or drawing consummate pictures of universal moral excellence. II. §t^ic5. 1. What is signified by this term ? The systematic arrangement of Christian morals as they are the application to life of the principles already laid down. 2. What law should govern the arrangement ? That which best shows the perfect symmetry and com- pleteness of the Christian system. This cannot be done by enumerating the several virtues of religion as contrasted with the opposite vices ; nor by simply taking the various relations in which man stands to other beings and objects. Christianity may be regarded as an ethical discipline tending to form a per- sonal character in harmony with the estate of grace : this should be our first department. It may be regarded also as sanctifying all relations : this should be the second. 3 . Can these be kept entirely distinct ? They necessarily blend with each other ; the individual The Spirit's Administration. 306 character is formed amidst Christian relations ; and Christian relations are moulded by personal character. But it will be found that the distinction can be fairly maintained. I. §tt6it)i6ual §l^ic5 : or ■personal g^arader. 1. Define strictly what is meant by this. The influence of the gospel in the heart and life of every man who is brought under its full power as led by the Holy Spirit of regeneration and renewal. 2. How may this be reduced to system ? By bringing it into harmony with the Spirit^s adminis- tration of the grace of the gospel. We have seen that there is an administration of preliminary grace leading to a state of salvation : the ethics of this do not here enter ; they have been already treated. The estate of grace proper, as the new life of righteousness and sanctification, gives an obvious three- fold distribution which is complete. In addition to these, the doctrine of probation in this life for the life to come intro- duces another class of ethical obligations consummating all. 3. Shall we not be going over again the old ground ? That is the danger of our method. But it must be remembered that we have to do now only with Christian duty as man^s cooperation with the Holy Spirit; and that only in a brief analytical exposition. § 1. of lJUgtteousnfsa. 1. How may these be generally viewed ? As comprising the graces and duties of universal obedience to the law of God. 2. Can we distinguish between the graces and the duties ? They are really one; but, regarded as duties, they may be discharged outwardly, and therefore are connected with re- lative ethics. It is the internal principle with which we now have more particularly to do : that is, the spirit of obedience and fidelity, forming a righteous character. The Ethics of Redemption. 307 3 . How may the spirit of obedience be viewed ? As active and passive : obedience and resignation. (1) To the former belong the doing God’s will, which is called also doing righteousness. It is the habit of surrendering the will, honouring the letter and spirit of law, and by Divine grace obeying every known com- mand at all costs. (2) To the latter resignation to the Divine dispensations, which are His will expressed in act ; surrender to the guidance of God ; and submission to His will in special tribulations. 4. What is the special dignity of this grace ? Beyond every other it may be said to sum up all religion. It was the ideal of the best systems outside of revelation, espe- cially in the East, where however it degenerated into fatalism. It was the leading feature of religion in the Old Testament ; and the first prayer of Christianity is Thy will be 1 /j Matt. VI. 10. do 7 ie ! done by us, and on us, and m us. 5. What is its specifically Christian character ? The redeeming work of Christ is the ground of our righteousness before God ; He Himself is the ex- i cor. i. 30. ample and standard of our internal righteousness, iJohnUi. 3 as He is righteous ; and all the obedience of right- John xv. 14. eousness is offered to Him as well as through Him : ^ 7 * Whatsoever I command you. Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus : where all is emphatic. 6. And how may the spirit of fidelity be considered ? This the Christian duty as faithful discharge of a trust : a principle of personal ethics that extends over a wide and too much neglected range. 7. What are its various aspects in Christianity ? (1) Religion is regarded as fidelity in the general pro- bation : Christians are ol believers or the faithful. (2) Christ is a Master who assigns to every Christian a charge : generally ov^er himself, and specifically over others in what is called in modern language a vocation. (3) The whole conduct of religion is faithfulness in that which is least and that which is greatest. 14 Lu. xvi. la 3o8 rhe Spirits Administration. (4) Death is the surrender of the trust, and judgment the examination into our conduct in its discharge. 8. Is there a distinction between general and special vocation ? Vocation or calling is used only of the gospel generally ; specific trusts are spoken of rather as stewardship. 9. How is the universal stewardship introduced ? We as servants are also stewards ; and the stewardship in- cludes our natural and acquired endowments. Ye are not your Luke xii. 42, extends to all : Glorify God in your body^ suggests 43- . ’ that our physical health is part of the charge. The iCor. VI. 19, Qf unjust steward shows that wealth is ; Luke xvi. 9, ^nd the two parables, of the ten pounds distributed Luke xix. 13. equally, and of the seven talents distributed un- Matt.xxv.15. equally according to our several ability^ extends the law to every kind of special endowment. 10. What are the ethics of stewardship ? (1) Fidelity in the spirit. Of the lowest of all stewards the apostle speaks as shewing all good fidelity : the only grace 1 itus ii. 10. called good ; and only on this occasion, till the good Matt.xxv.23. and faithful servant is praised by the Supreme Lord and Judge. (2) In the Christian stewardship singleness of eye : self being always subordinate to the Master’s interest • Luke XVI. 13. at ^ j j. JSo servant can serve two masters, (3) Conscientiousness : that is, anxiety to be faithful in that which is leasts and training the conscience Luke xvi. 10. accordingly. 11. What then is this training of the conscience ? The habit of so living as never to be conscious of neglect- ing what is right. Herein do I also exercise myself to have a conscience void of offence : not training himself to ctsxxiv.i6. right, but always to do it ; thus keeping the consciousness clear. § 2. 2Tf)e of generation. 1. How may these be generally viewed ? As the duties required for the maintenance of the new The Ethics of Redemption. 309 life ; as the graces of that life to be cultivated ; and as the obligations entailed by the conflict with the residue of evil, which, in the ethics of regeneration, is spiritual death. 2. Does the maintenance of the new life depend on any dis- charge of duty by the regenerate ? There are three ethical conditions to be noted : (1) Union with Christ becomes abiding, not without our concurrence : Abide in Me. and I in you / is a . ' John XV. 4. precept. ^ (2) The use of those means of grace which are the nourishment of the new life : prayer generally, but specially the hearing of the word, meditation on it, and communion with the Lord in the holy supper and in the whole of life. (3) Those who live by the Spirit, Who is the oai. v. 25. Spirit of life ^ are exhorted by the Spirit to walk. Rom. viii. 2. 3. What are the graces of the new life ? There is hardly a mark of religion which does not in a sense belong to these ; but, specially viewed, the ethics of regeneration are simply and solely the character of Christ formed in the life and the means to that end. 4. How may this be ethically treated ? Passively, as the reflecting His image ; actively as the imitation of His example. 6. Can the former be called a duty? Christian ethics include the preparations of the heart and its intense desires for the perfect likeness of Jesus. We are changed into the same image ^ even as from the Lord the Spirit ; but much of our religion consists in not thwarting or retarding, but promoting, the processes of this transformation. 0. Under what aspect is the imitation of Jesus presented? (1) The Lord’s character is our standard and pattern, to which we are to aspire as Divine excellence in human form. (2) But the processes and individual acts of our re- ligious life have not their example in Him, Who knew no sin. * *** 310 The Spirit^ s Administration. 7. How are the graces ol adoption shewn to the world ? By the maintenance of the dignity of the children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse genera- Phil. ii. 15. ^ton : the ethical principle which aims to walk worthy Rom.viii.22. of our predestination to be conformed to the image of His Son. 8. What is the relation of filial ethics to the interior confiict ? A very important one : pervading the New Testament as the gradual victory of the regenerate nature over the remainder of sin. The conflict is between the old man and the new, between the flesh and the Spirit. 9. Can the more precise relation of these he given ? (1) In the former Christ is regarded as our life ; and the ethics belong to our fellowship with His passion and resurrec- _ ... _ tion. In the latter the Spirit of Christ is regarded II. as our life, and the ethics belong to our being led by Gal. V. 18. Spirit, (2) Both shew that the sublime principle of Christian ethics is the conflict unto victory in union with our Head. (3) The ethics of both are taught by St. Paul as the con- trast of vices and virtues : the former as the works of the flesh which they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified: a. V. 19, 22. latter the XWxw^ fruit of the Spirit, The two catalogues are a complete epitome of this class of ethics. 10. What are the graces and duties pertaining to our fellow- ship with the cross ? Absolute and habitual self-denial, or renunciation of the self of sin. (i) The crucifixion of the flesh with its passive Luke ix 2 affection and active lusts ; this whole self of the old man it is a Christian duty to hate and devote to Col. 111. 5. death. (2) The mortification of self in individual tendencies to evil : Mortify^ therefore (or, make dead) your members which are upon the earth, (3) Those who Col. 111. 9. ]^2iyQ onee for all put off the old man have never- theless to fight against the flesh not entirely destroyed. 11. What are the subordinate ethics that arise here ? The duty of religious self-discipline : Abstinence, fasting, self-examination, self-control, and the cultivation of spiritual* The Ethics of Redemption. 311 mindedness, or the constant suppression of the carnal mind, by that special denial of it to which self-government prompts. 12. What is the speciality of this class of ethics ? They are entirely Christian : springing from union with Christ in His passion, and in His resurrection. All the best ethics of antiquity extolled self-control and the ascendency of the higher nature over the lower; but Christianity alone reveals the secret of the old man within us crucified, and the new man raised up to perfect life. This interior conflict is, in its relation to the cross and resurrection of Christ, a new reve- lation in ethics : it occupies a large place in the New Testa- ment ; and in the heart of every earnest Christian. § 5. of Sanctifitati'on. 1. What is the range of this branch ? It includes the maintenance of the spirit of consecration and the renunciation of all that is inconsistent with it ; the cultivation of the spirit of devotion and its exercise in all ap- propriate acts ; the ceaseless pursuit of perfect union with God. 2. In what sense is consecration an ethical duty ? Religion begins with the presentation of self to is our obligation to reckon ourselves with all that we have and are as His and not our own ; renewing the dedication perpetually, and with deep solemnity at set times. 3. What follows from this? The principle that the ultimate intention of life must be to glorify God: which is a peculiarly Christian idea ^ ^or vi and the watchword of the ethics of sanctification. It is negative, the ordering every act in such a way ^ that the honour of it may be the Lord^s alone ; and positive, so living that the glory of God^s holiness may shine through us. 4. What is the renunciation required? Supremely, that of sin and of self ; subordinately, that of Satan and the world. God ; it Rom. vi. 17. 13 ; xii. 1. I Cor. vi. ig, 312 The Spirit's Administration. (i) Of sin ; because holiness unto the Lord is separation from sin, viewed as impurity : from all defilement of flesh and 2Cor.vii. I. spirit^ sensual and spiritual. Of self: the Christian 2 Cor. iv. 4. law does not allow self to be the final aim in any the least action of life. Eph. ii. 2. (2) As Satan is the god of this worlds this present ja^ iv.";. e'^ii 'world ^ he is to be renounced, resisted, and defied. 5. Show the connection between sanctification and devotion. The word devotion means dedication to another, that is to God ; and as God is the object of worship always and in all things, devotion comes to signify the exercises of worship. 6. And what do these include ? As they pertain to personal duty, they mean that the heart is a temple in which God is sanctified : God, the Holy I p t i'i i5 Son. The spirit of reverence or awe, I e . 111. 1 . habitual practice of the presence of God, and oc- casional meditation on His perfections ; habitual gratitude and occasional thanksgiving ; habitual spirit of prayer and occasional acts of worship. Thus union with God, the highest privilege of the created spirit, is to be reached ; or rather be for ever confirmed. 7. Does this exhaust the ethical range of sanctification ? That cannot be exhausted. There is no grace of the soul, no duty of life, which is not to be hallowed on the altar. The ijohniv. 16. ethics of sanctification include the whole sum of life johniii.2i. and act as the soul ahideth in God and its works are wrought in God, § 4. iBtljtfs of ti)e f rotati'onarj Estate. 1. What is the range of this class ? The duties and graces that connect time with eternity, this world with the next. Here we have opportunity to intro- duce every ethical principle or precept that has not been already mentioned as belonging to the personal character. 2. How may they be classified ? We have the duties arising (i) from our present peril ; (2) from our grounds of confidence ; (3) from a right estimate of the relation between this life and the next ; (4) from the The Ethics of Redemption. 313 responsibility of judgment ; (5) and from the character re- quired for admission to heaven. 3 . What are the duties arising from our danger ? Of two classes, springing from one common principle of spiritual caution, (i) As to the internal peril, self-distrust, remembering that the heart is deceitful, impels to habitual self- examination, or the careful scrutiny of secret motives and secret tendencies to evil. As the danger is from without. Matt. xxvi. this becomes watchfulness, which our Lord stamped ^ 40.^ with deep emphasis. Watch and pray : this being 13.' both wakefulness and caution. * 4 . What are the ethics of confidence ? They are as prominent as the ethics of fear, and preserve them from excess. (1) At their root is glorying or rejoicing in the Lord: the former objective, in Him; the latter subjective, in iCor. i.31. ourselves. 4 - (2) A true estimate of our foes : of their strength, ^.pj^ and of their weakness. This inspires that vigour and —18. * courage which the New Testament so much dwells i^cory’xvi. upon. ^3- (3) Decision of purpose : purpose of heart. This ^ is the guard against undue scrupulosity, and the i Con morbid fear of self which becomes despondency. ^7- (4) Hope, both as a virtue and as a duty, is found in uni- versal ethics, but in Christianity shines resplendent. It is subjectively the active expectation of future ^2^25!“* good ; and Christ is our hope objectively. It is a J duty to hope perfectly ; it is a grace, the patience of i Thess.i?*3. hope ; and it putteth not to shame. 5 - (5) Patience, which has two forms: endurance under pressure; persistence against difficulty. The latter Rom.v.3.4; includes patience with self; both are preservatives against undue fear. 6. How are the ethics of the relation between time and eternity treated ? They arise in great variety throughout the scriptures, but in the New Testament especially ; appearing as principles of conduct, as positive duties, and as the highest graces. 3H T he Spirit's A dministration. (1) The habitual weighing eternity against time is laid down by our Lord as a fundamental regulative principle, even as the motive of all religion. And there is no Luke ix. 25. ethical duty more pervasive than that of re^ardinor Phil. iii. 20. life as a pilgrimage : on the one hand, contemning or not loving the world through which we pass, and, on the other, aiming at heaven as our true home and permanent commonwealth. (2) The graces of religion to be cultivated accordingly are deadness to the present life and heavenly-mindedness. These are the constant aspiration and the noblest finish of Col. 111. 1, 2. perfect Christian character. 6. How are the ethics of future judgment to be viewed ? (i) They teach us to regard ourselves as forming a charactei which will then be made manifest, (2) They impose the duty 2 Cor. V. 10. of thinking, speaking, and acting, as those who have jas. ii. 12. to give account of every act, word, and thought. (3) They bring that future reckoning into the habitual self- judgment of the present life. 7. How may we, finally, connect these ethics with those which have preceded ? The sum of all being the establishment of a perfect character, and this life being the sphere of probation for the next, it is plain that every other aspect of ethics must be viewed in the light of eternity. II. '^ielativc §tf)ics. 1. How is the relation of personal to relative ethics viewed in scripture ? Individual character and discharge of duty to others are always united : there is a constant mutual reaction ; nor can we conceive any grace of interior religion which is entirely unrelated to external obligation. 2. What is the special aspect of this in Christianity ? It regards every man as a body of which Christ is the 1 Cor. xi. 3. Head : and every man also as a member of the cor- iCoi. i. 18. porate body of which Christ is the Head. Hence The Ethics of Redemption. 315 the word edification {olKoSofir})^ or building up, is a new term which embraces all interior and exterior religion. iCor. xiv.4. 3. What distribution is suggested by the New Testament ? There is no ethical summary to guide us ; but a careful examination will show that there are no applications of duty untouched. Relative ethics are viewed (i) as the bond of obligation to mankind as such ; (2) as pervading family life ; (3) as regulating common and social organisations generally ; (4) more indirectly as affecting politics ; and (5) lastly, as finding a special field in the community of the church. § 1. lEtti'cs of our Common J^untaniio. 1 . How are these treated in Christian legislation ? In a larger and nobler spirit than in any other moral system, (i) In the highest outside of Christianity there was always either, as in the case of Judaism, some taint of ex- clusiveness in the feeling towards universal man, or, as in the case of Buddhism, a deep inferiority in the inspiring motive. (2) Christianity alone founds these catholic ethics on the unity of the race in the fall and in redemption. 2. What is the preeminence of the Christian law ? That it bases all duty to man as such on love and justice : the combination of which is the perfection of its teaching. 3. How is this seen ? Charity in him who performs the duty is the very love of God in man for man ; and justice, regarding the object of the duty, recognises in that object an absolute claim to love. 4. How is love stamped as universal ? By our Lord’s second commandment like unto the first ; by His catholic interpretation of the neighbour, His own unlimited love being the standard of ours ; by i [ohn hi. St. Peter’s placing love beyond brotherly kindness; aptt. i. 7. and by St. Paul’s unique description of Divine love, the pattern of ours, as philanthropy^ and as the fuh filment of the law, 14* 3i6 The Spirit's Administration. 5. What are the gradations of universal love ? It is benevolence as desiring, or beneficence as practising, good to all ; it is self-sacrifice as the expression of unlimited love ; and, passing through long-forbearance or magnanimity, mercy or pity or compassion, which regard the sin and misery of men, descends to the kindness and courtesy that make love pervade the ordinary intercourse of life. 6. What is universal justice ? It is the obligation to respect the rights of all men and Rom. xiii. 7. in the widest sense to render to all their dues. 7. From what is it distinguished as universal ? (i) From the rectoral and distributive justice of God; (2) from the rectoral and distributive justice of human law. 8. What does it include as universal ? The rendering by man to man all human rights. Man has a right in himself, and justice forbids slavery ; to his possessions, and it forbids both in spirit and act all robbery ; to his character, and it protects him against positive slander and negative detraction; to his dignity as created in the r Pet ii I God, and it is justice that says Honour 9. What is the sublime peculiarity of Christian ethics here ? That love and justice are interwoven in them. Love regards all its own offices as the right of all men ; and is the liberal interpreter of those rights. 2. iBttus of ifamilg Hi'fr. 1. How are these treated generally ? The family is throughout scripture regarded as the foun- dation of all society ; its ethics are in general the same in all dispensations ; but Christianity has, in this as in every depart- ment, impressed its own peculiar character and elevated to perfection what had been imperfect. 2. What is the Christian meaning of the household ? Christianity is described both as the household or family The Ethics of Redemption, 317 and as the temple of God : the two ideas blending. Hence Chris- tians are the oIk€lol (domestics) of God and of the faith. Eph. xL 19. But, just as every Christian is a temple, while all are Gai. vi. 10. the temple, so, while all are the household, each family is such : under a master of the house, the members of which are husband, wife, children, master or mistress, servants (otKcVat), slaves (8oi)Aot). 3. What is its obligation ? The same as in every age. The head of the house is held responsible for its worship of God, its soundness in faith, and its obedience to the Divine law : that is, for the maintenance of family religion, the master of the house, the father of the family, is held responsible. The head may be a woman : the noblest document of family religion is written to a widow. 4. Is this the meaning of a church in the house ? Congregational religion and family religion are as a rule quite distinct. But under certain circumstances, as in the case of Philemon, a family might be assembled for eccle- siastical ordinances and be the same as a church. Phiiem. 2. 5. In what sense are they so distinct ? (i) Family religion is without the ministry, the sacra- ments, and the public assemblies, and the obligation to spread the gospel. (2) But the word of God and prayer it must have : this may be very simple, a lesson read and the Lord^s Prayer ; or it may be a very full service ; but it should never be regarded as rendered needless or as superseded by the public worship of the congregation. 6. What are the Christian ethics of the estate of marriage ? (1) Our Lord has set His seal on monogamy as the original institution of the Creator. Mark x. 6. (2) St. Paul gives the highest possible dignity to this estate by making it an emblem and illustration of Eph. v. 32. the union betwixt Christ and the churchy which is xxi. 9. the Lamb's wife. (3) Accordingly, the Christian man and wife are joint-heir;^ of the grace of life ; their union is undefiled in itself ; i Pet. iii.7 and must be kept undefiled. Heb. xiiL4. 318 The spirit's Administration. (4) It is indissoluble in its nature ; divorce is not per- Markx.g. mitted by the new legislation except for conjugal in- i^Cor.va!i5 fidelity and desertion ; and the forsaken wife should II. ’ remain unmarried, 7. What are the ethics of the parental and filial relations ? These are released from some rigorous enactments of the Jewish law, on the one hand ; and, on the other, are, in common with all relations, but with special emphasis, Eph.vi. I. elevated and hallowed in the Lord, (1) Parents are taught to regard their offspring as holy^ that is, as by their birthright the Redeemers property in I Cor. vii. 14. ^ special sense, of which their baptism is the sign Eph. vi. 4. and seal ; and to educate them in His nurture and admonition, (2) Children are taught to obey their parents in all things^ Col. iii. 20. and in due time to requite their parents. Here in the f ^^’m.^V?4. Lord derives special significance from the Lord^s own Luke ii. 51. perfect example in His twelfth year. § 3. Social anil ©ontmmial anU IPolitical ^tjics. 1. What is the range of these ? Strictly speaking, Christianity knows no social relations which are not bound up with the society of the church. Fellowship in art and science and numberless organisations of civilisation it indirectly sanctifies. But commerce it ac- knowledges as more directly a Divine institution ; hallowing its principles, and taking them up into the general sancti- fication of life. The same may be said of civil and political society in all its departments and branches. 2, Is then the bearing of Christian ethics on all these only indirect ? It is indirect in this sense, that the Christian law is a leaven which gradually pervades all things, and the process of its influence is silent and secret. But, in proportion as Christianity obtains sway, and where it rules, the influence of its morals becomes direct and manifest. Meanwhile to the society of this world the highest teaching of Christianity remains and must ever remain an ideal. The Ethics of Redemption. 319 3. Give some illustrations of this. (1) The relation of the church to the world, its fellow- ships and its ways of life, requires that the disciples of Jesus should carry religion everywhere : in the midst of phn. n 15. a crooked and perverse generatiofi being blameless ^ and harmless and seen as lights. They are not permitted to go out of the world, (2) Many social and political evils have been and are en- countered by the indirect influence of Christian ethics : such as slavery, war, and some unbecoming public pastimes. (3) There is no form of government which its influence has not indirectly penetrated : that influence which Matt. xxii. the apostles describe and recommend. Rom. xiii. 4. What is meant by Christian ethics remaining as ideals ? Within the Christian church all the laws of Christ should be supreme: the sermon on the mount is the literal code; and accumulation of wealth, judicial or other swearing, retali- ation in every form, must be excluded. But, until society is moulded by Christian law, it is hard to apply this standard. The Saviour and His apostles lived in a society which could not bear these precepts ; and they conformed to the lower standard, for instance, in submitting to the oath. 5. Can this be proved or illustrated by nearer examples ? On the one side, St. Paul severely condemns having law- suits one with another especially as before unbelievers, ^ g But, on the other side, he himself appealed to Caesar, Acts ixv! li. and he had his Lord’s sanction and authority for not refusing to plead before unbelievers. 6. How does this apply to the ethics of commerce? Commerce is presupposed as one of the foundations of society. But it requires for its success and perfection a special application or accommodated interpretation of some of the pre- cepts of Christianity. 7. For instance, the community of goods ? This was not obedience to a precept, but a special charisma, as it were, of the early church : the history of which flows on afterwards in the ordinary channels. 320 The Spirit's Administration. 8. What is the strain of legislation on this subject ? It is generally defensive, warning against laying up trea- sure as such, and apart from the necessities of capital, or the Matt. vii. 19. due provisiou for the household. It also makes L^ke charity prominent : To give to him that needeth, 2 John How wide an application this admits may be seen in our Lord’s parable of the Unjust Steward ; in the hospitality of Gains ; and in the sanctification of Christian wealth in all ages. Nowhere, however, more impressively than in St. Paul's I Tim. vi. 9. instruction to Timothy. There we have the warning 10, 17—19. side first, and then the encouraging side, of the pos- session of riches : in the one it seems almost impossible to be rich and a Christian ; in the other riches are retained and made profitable in the Christian service; and thus the two passages are complementary. 9. How does it apply to political society ? (1) Christianity in the clearest manner recognises that the powers THAT BE are ordained of God^ because there is no Rom. xiii. i. power hut of God. Our Lord in a certain sense co- Matt. xxii. ordinates Divine and human authority : Render iPet. ii. 17. therefore U7ito Ccesar the things that are Ccesar^s; a7id unto God the things that are God^s. And His apostle also : Fear God ; honour the king, ( 2 ) Accordingly, the duty to pray for the government and I Tim. ii. i, its administration, to respect the laws, to pay tribute, Rom. xiii. i livts of peaceable citizenship, is every- — 7 - where inculcated. 10. Is nothing further said as to the relations between the church and the state ? Nothing in precept and little in prophecy. New-Tes- tament legislation is for Christians as members and subjects of John xviii. the kingdom of Christ, which is not of this world. 36. And the prophetic intimations, whether of the Old or of the New Testament, never suggest a blending of church and state. 11. How then do they speak of it ? (i) In the ancient scripture, where church and state are isa.xiix. 23. one in the Theocracy, it is predicted that kings and The Ethics of Redemption. 321 nations will bring their support and their treasures into th:^ church of Christ, or that they will oppose it and be crushed. (2) In the Apocalypse the alliance of temporal and spiritual power is foreannounced as one form of Antichrist ; while in the same prophecy the king- dom of the world is become of our Lord and His Christ, (3) But throughout the scripture it is assumed that Chris- tianity must gradually mould every social and political con- stitution, while perfectly distinct from any of its forms. Isa. lx. 3 — 17 - Hag^. li. 7. Ps. ii. 9. Rev. xiii. 4. Rev. xi. 15. 12. How may we suppose this ideal realised ? By national acknowledgment of the Christian religion : as shown in legislative respect to the laws of Christ, in the main- tenance of Christian principles in education, in public rever- ence for the name of God as the sanction of all authority, and in the protection of the Faith in its free and independent work. 13. How has the history of Christendom illustrated this ? By almost uniform failure to adjust rightly — whether in theory or in practice — the relations between the kingdoms of this world and the kingdom of Christ. 14. Where may we trace these failures ? Historically, throughout the corruptions of Christendom. In their principle, these have exhibited two general forms, with modifications, of the one error of confounding the two co- ordinate authorities, (i) Either the spiritual side of the power bas been made supreme, as in Rome, and the secular made subordinate to it ; or (2) the temporal power has patronised and directed the spiritual, as in the East and in Protestant Erastianism, whether Lutheran or Anglican. The true solu tion leads us to the doctrine of the Church. 322 The Spirit's Administration. Chapter VII. §^ristian @^urc^. 1 . Why is this subject introduced at this point ? Because the church is the sphere in which the Spirit administers all the offices of Christ. On this account it seems better to place it under the administration of redemption than to give it a too prominent and independent place. 2 . What is the range of subjects here ? First we must study the foundation of the church, with its notes or attributes, as a body or corporate institution ; then consider it as a temple or sphere of worship ; and finally mark its relation to the world as preparing it for the final kingdom. I. §^nvc^ au6 tfs § 1. Its jFounDatton. 1. What evidence is furnished by the Gospels that our Lord purposed to found a fellowship or community ? The proofs of this take a threefold form. (i) He spoke as come to set up tke kingdom of God^ or Matt vii 33- kingdom of heaven^ or My kingdom, iii.’a. * ' (2) Twice He called it a church ; first, in its ^^35" universality, I will build My churchy and then in its Matt. pi. 18; congregational character, Tell it unto the church, xvm. 17. ministry He ordained in- stitutions which imply and require a permanent organisation. 2 . When was the church actually founded? On the day of Pentecost, (i) Then the kingdom came Matt.xvi.28. with power; (2) the church began as an ingathering The Christian Church. 323 upon and around the name of Jesus ; and (3) the ministry and word and sacrament are first seen as united. Organisation commenced under the Holy Ghost, and flows on at once in the narrative. 3. What is the relation of kingdom and church ? The kingdom refers rather to the authority of Christ its King ; the church, to the subjects of it gathered out of the word (e^, KaXeo)) : as the ancient people lived under a Theocracy, so we under a Christocracy ; and as they were called the con- gregation, so we are called the church. The kingdom is one and always coming: the churches may be many in the one church, which is come. § 2. Kotes or ^ttributejs. 1. What is here meant by the notes of the church ? Certain attributes which define it as the body of which Christ is the Head, and express its relation to time and eternity, to heaven and the world. 2. Does this imply that the church is Divine and human like its Head ? The analogy is obvious, as it is His body ; but, like every other analogy, must not be pressed too far. Discreetly applied, it will be useful at every point of the study of the church, which has always two aspects, the heavenly and the earthly. 3. Which is the first note that illustrates this ? The note of unity : in regard to this, the church is both one and manifold: its spiritual and heavenly oneness being essentially bound up with earthly diversity of forms. 4 . What is the teaching of scripture as to the unity ? (1) The body of saved mankind out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation is in a broad sense the ^ one church. (2) The church of God is one under the several dispensa- tions : the patriarchal, Jewish, Christian. (3) But, more appropriately, the church of Christ Eph. iy. 3— is one in the confession of the one Lord : this being 324 The S pint's Administration. the one baptism into the name of the Trinity which makes one Eph. iv. 3— b)ody; and the possession of the Holy Ghost uniting 6- with the Head, which makes the one Spirit 5. And what does it teach as to diversity ? (1) It speaks of churches distinct, though united in the common confession, worship, and discipline. (2) It is silent as to necessary uniformity, and teaches by that silence. (3) Especially as the breaches of spirit, or schism, and I Cor. i. II. the breaches of doctrine, or heresy, are sternly Gal. V. 19. condemned. 6. How do unity and manifoldness blend ? In the theological doctrine of the subject : we may speak of the same church of Christ as one and as many. Ethically, we may believe in the essential unity, while we see much diversity ; and it is the common duty to avoid all breaches of unity, while the diversities which have sprung from the past must be reduced as much as possible. 7. What is the next note oi* attribute ? Sanctity, which however has in this world imperfection for its necessary counterpart. 8. Illustrate this more fully. As to the mystical fellowship of that body which is the fulness of Him that filleth all in all^ it is regarded prophetically as separated from the world and presented without ^ spot. But, speaking of the Church of Christ on earth, it is (i) actually holy in a relative sense, as a body separated from the world now and to be separated for ever; and (2) it has as a community a real but partial internal holiness. The relative and the real holiness will not be one and perfectly coincide until the time of harvest.^ when Matt.x111.30. ^1^^ wheat and the tares are severed. 9. How is this seen in the note of visibility ? (i) The church of the New Testament is a visible organi- sation : very clearly defined, both from the world and within itself. No corporate body has ever surpassed it in this. The Christian Church. 325 (2) It is at the same time invisible or mystical or spiritual. The Lord knoweth them that are His in the great 2 Tim. ii. 19, house. 20- (3) But we never find the distinction clearly expressed. These two counterparts of visible and invisible are the simplest of all in the scripture, which however always make the former more prominent than the latter. It is, strictly speaking, rather the kingdom than the church which is invisible. 10. And how in that of catholicity ? As a scriptural note catholicity signifies universality : as differing from the church of Judaism, by embracing oai.i. 2. all nations ; and as distinguished from the individual Rev.i.4. churches of cities and provinces and lands. 11. How is apostolic a scriptural note ? The Pentecostal church contmued stedfastly in the apostles^ teaching and in fellowship , and, as the household of Acts u. 42. God., it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and trophets. 12. What is meant by indefectible and mutable ? (1) The visible church shall abide unto theLord^s coming ; the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. Matt.xvi.i8. (2) But individual churches may be dissolved, ^ev.ii.5. or corrupt the faith and be removed. (3) The two counterparts — the church permanent and the churches transitory — are therefore scriptural ; and of great im- portance, both for the rebuke of bigotry and the relief of doubt. 13. How may the predicates militant and triumphant be asserted of the same one subject ? The church militant is always in conflict with the enemies of her Head, both without and within. As trium- ^ .. ^ phant the same church is in Him victorious; part Rev^^Vu, ^ of it already enjoys the peace of final victory. “"^7- § 3. I^iatoncal. 1. What has been the significance of the notes in eccle- siastical history ? The term was early used to define the church by its 326 The Spirit's Administration. marks of prerogative and distinction. But it gradually came to denote the tests by which the true church was distinguished from the false. 2. How is this illustrated by the four notes in the early creeds ? In the Apostles^ the notes are *^holy, catholic in the Nicene “catholic^’ ; in the Constantinopolitan, one, catholic, apostolic.^^ Each is an attribute of excellence, and a watch- word of discrimination from some heresy of the day. 3. Why do we not limit ourselves to these ? Because the relations of the church are much changed ; and the additional characteristics have acquired much import- ance, especially since the reformation. Around these notes hang almost all ecclesiastical controversies. 4. What controversies are touched by the note of unity ? The question between unity and uniformity ; and that between unity and schism. (1) As to the former, the will of the Spirit has been declared from the beginning : there has never been one outward form of Christianity in the world since the early centuries. It has been found vain to aim at a national uni- formity ; or even to maintain uniformity in any one place. However desirable that might seem, the One Head of the church has become the Head of manifold and various churches, using them all for the edification of the saints, for the main- tenance of the truth, and for the diffusion of the gospel. (2) As to the latter : schism is in the New Testament a great sin ; and therefore it is wrong to break the uniformity of the church. From an apostate church separation is a duty; but, whether this separation be personal or of communities, it must be the last resort, and involves deep responsibility. 6. How does this apply to modern Christendom ? The state of the Christian religion shows that there is no true unity save that which is spiritual. Uniformity is the watchword of the old communions : the Oriental, however, counts Romanism a schism ; and Romanism counts all bodies The Christian Church. 327 schisms which do not submit to the chair of St. Peter. National churches are generally based on the principle of exclusiveness, but sooner or later they are constrained to abandon this. 6. How does the note of sanctity involve controversy ? Mainly through the question of discipline : which must have as its main principle the maintenance of the internal purity of the church ; but at the same time must remember that the fellowship as such has an external and relative holiness. 7. What are the specific bearings of this on ecclesiastical history ? These must be viewed in connection with the note of visibility and its counterpart. (1) The visible church is only holy at best by imputation. But this truth has been perverted : by making external union with the community suffice ; by relaxation of discipline ; and by neglect of fences around holy ordinances. (2) The invisible church, in Christ, is truly sanctified. But this truth has been perverted : by those who have in all ages made membership dependent on experience and confes- sion of spiritual renewal ; and have accordingly drawn the line too sharply between the church and the congregation. 8. How does this bear on societies within the church ? From the beginning these have been a refuge from a church too much like the world, and taking two lines : one, the retreat into religious orders, following the counsels of perfections^; another, more especially since the reformation dawned, seek- ing more intimate fellowship and mutual supervision in volun- tary associations. 9. What has been the general course of these interior societies ? Some have declined and withered away ; some have had a long and healthy existence, as in Germany ; and some, finally, have become themselves separate churches. Of this last the Methodist Societies are the most remarkable instance in the history of Christendom. 328 The Spirit's Administration. 10. Why the most remarkable ? Because they have to a great extent succeeded in com- bining all the essentials of a Christian church and of a society within the church ; their Class-meeting organisation being the centre of the latter. 11. How has the note of catholicity been applied ? In the early creeds the word catholic was used to signify the one universal body as opposed to fragmental y and isolated heresies and schisms. It then had a good meaning; as the bodies representing errors which the several articles of the creeds condemned were really separations from the true church. But since the falling asunder of Eastern and Western Chris- tendom there has been no catholic visible church strictly one in external representation. 12. What is here the relation of heresy to schism ? The term schism (orx^afjia) means division viewed as to the corporate body, the term heresy (atpccrts) makes prominent the private judgment which leads to it. But the history of Chris- tianity shews that the words must be applied with discrimina- tion : they have been more abused than almost any others. 13. What principles of discrimination are necessary ? (1) It should be remembered that schism is not charge- able on the mere fact of separation : the body departed from may so act as to render the separation necessary ; and separated bodies, called sects, have had the seal of Divine approval in their subsequent history. (2) The term heresy is indefinite ; Christianity was called a Heresy ; and the only use of the word now valid is to note those communions which have departed from the Actsxxiv.14. of New-Testament doctrine. (3) Every church is responsible for its maintenance of the catholic doctrine against heresy, and of the catholic spirit against schism. 14 . What have been the bearings of the note of apostolicity ? At first it was the mark of churches founded by apostles The Christian Church. 329 or their authority ; then it became the mark of fidelity to apostolic teaching. The latter use it retains. 15. What errors have crept in with regard to this? Mainly, that which is based on an erroneous view of apostolical succession: the theory, namely, (1) that the authority of the apostles has descended in lineal succession through the bishops ; (2) that the primacy of St. Peter has de- scended through the line of the bishops of Rome; and (3) that the true church can be found only where this descent can be traced, at least in its broad outlines. 16. What is the effect of this ? Unlimited confusion and uncertainty. As applied by Rome, it excludes from Christendom all the Eastern churches before the Reformation, and the entire Protestant world since ; as applied by other episcopal communities, it cuts off all non- episcopal communions, and makes their own position very doubtful, even on their own principles. 17. How does the article of “ the communion of saints ” bear on the whole subject of the notes ? (1) As an article of faith, it asserts that all true Christians believe in their common fellowship with the Holy Trinity in Christ, with the whole community of true believers in the past and present, on earth and in heaven ; and in the reality of a mystical oneness in spite of many and wide divisions. (2) As a confession of that faith it involves the respon- sibility of using all means to lessen divisions and promote brotherly love ; by embracing every opportunity of cooperation for the spread of the Redeemer’s kingdom, which is the one end for which the several churches exist. II. tts of ^ors^ip. 1 . What does this subject embrace ? The worship of the congregation ; the public means and ordinances of grace ; and the Christian ministry. 330 The Spirit's Administration. 2. How are these related in our analysis? The first includes the whole service of public devotion as going up to God ; the second regards the fellowship of Christas people as receiving blessings from God through appointed chan- nels ; and the third the official representatives of the Christian church in both these relations. I. of t^e §onqxcqation. 1 . What are the special characteristics of this worship? It is the highest form of that public homage which in every age God has received from His people as such. 2. How is Christian worship distinguished as the highest? (i) As presented to the Triune God in His final revela- tion of Himself ; (2) through the Mediator now fully made known ; (3) as no longer ritualistic but in harmony with the perfected spirituality of worship itself ; and (4) in accord- ance with the full manifestation of the nature of the church it is now, as it never was before, congregational. 3. What are the essential and common characteristics 01 all public worship ? (1) Adoration of God Himself, praise of His perfections and works, thanksgiving for His mercies : as the tributes due to the Supreme from His people. (2) Confession, prayer, intercession : as demanded by their own sinful character, their needs, and their charity. (3) The assembling together to offer both. 4. Has this last been universal ? Yes: but with differences in the several dispensations as to the set times and the places and the ceremonial of worship. 5. What is the Christian law as to place ? Whereas in the old economy there was one place of Deut xii. i. sacrifice where the congrep^ation as such might The Christian Church. 331 gather, the ordinance now is Where two or three are gathered together in my name^ there am I in the midst of Matt. xviiL them. 20. 6. And as to time ? (1) The sabbath is still hallowed as the day of rest and worship : as the day set apart by God and made for .. ^ man. ^ (2) But this is now, like the supper and the church itself, appropriated for Christ : the Lord's day ; observed as such from the first assembly on the day of His resurrection onwards. (3) In former ages other times and seasons were appointed ; but these are now left to the discretion of the people themselves. 7. And as to ceremonial ? Little is said of this in the New Testament ; Let all things be done decently and in order is the rule. The ritual of the temple found no place ; and the frame of ^ worship was rather conformed to that of the synagogue : prayers, liturgical or other ; reading of scripture; and exhortation. § 2. ^.tstorical. 1 . What were the earliest corruptions of worship ? It gradually became conformed to that ritual sacrificial service which, as such, had been abolished by the gospel ; and corrupted the simplicity of devotion by undue use of symbols. 2. Are then ritualism and sacrificial worship combined ? Almost all the ancient rites were directly or indirectly connected with the service of the visible altar : the Christian altar is invisible. We have an altar : but Jesus is i