Christian Doctrines : A COMPENDIUM OF theology BY J. M. PENDLETON, D.D., PASTOR OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH, UPLAND. PKNNA. PHILADELPHIA : AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY 1420 Chestnut Street. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, oy the AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, fn the Oflice of the Librarian of Congress, at Waahingtco. Wkstcott & Thomson, Stereotypers and Electrolypers, Philada, X MR^ S A L iSf-E L.VCROZER, FOR MANY YEARS THE LOVING AND DEVOTED WIFE OF i JOHN P. CROZER, IF HO SINCE HIS DEATH HAS EXEMPLIFIED THE DIGNITY OF CHRISTIAN WIDOW HOOD; WHOSE YEARS HAVE BEEN PROLONGED TILL HER CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN HAVE RISEN UP TO CA7,L HER “BLESSED;” WHOSE UNIFORM COURTESY AND KINDNESS HAVE HAD MUCH TO DO IN MAKING MY UPLAND PASTORATE PLEASANT; REGARDING HER CHARACTER WITH EXALTED ADMIRATION, AND WISHING HER NAME TO BE FAVOR- ABLY KNOWN WHEREVER I CAN, IN ANY WAY, MAKE IT KNOWN, V | berg gUspecifuUg anb berg Affection itelg $ebicate (ji* Volume. THE AUTHOR. PREFACE. For several years I have thought that a small work treating theological topics in an abridged form would be useful, and have at last undertaken to prepare such a vol- ume. My plan has been to present in a concise manner k the chief subjects usually discussed at length in works on Systematic Theology. The w r ork lays no claim to originality. While a few ideas are my own, the substance of the volume is not new. The same ideas may *be found in books written within the last three hundred years, and these ideas are expressed in my own words, except in extracts for which due credit has been given. No man wfto nas made Theology a study for nearly half a century can possibly tell the measure of his indebtedness to the authors he has read. I can make nothing more than a general ac- knowledgment of my obligations. Bat it has been my purpose to present the views of theologians so far only as those views accord with the teachings of the Scriptures. The Bible is the only au- thoritative standard in matters of faith and practice. 1 * 5 6 PREFACE. The questions in the writing of every chapter have been, “What saith the Scripture?” “Howreadest thou?” Of course, the views here presented seem to me to be in ac- cordance with the word of God, but, having had so many proofs of the fallibility of my opinions, it will not be surprising if it should be necessary to modify some of them. Every page has been written in the interest of scriptu- ral truth, and for its maintenance. I trust that it has not been written in vain, but that the blessing of God will go with the volume which is now sent forth. My days are passing away, and I shall be soon num- bered with the dead. I would not be entirely forgotten when I die. Still, my desire of posthumous fame comes within narrow limits: it amounts only to this — a wish that some, profited by the Compendium of Theology, may, when their kindness prompts them to go to my grave, thank God that I lived. J. M. P. Upland, Pa., April 15, 1878 CONTENTS CHAPTER I. rial Thu Being of God 11 CHAPTER II. The Bible a Revelation from God 23 CHAPTER III. The Attributes of God 42 CHAPTER IV. The Trinity 64 CHAPTER V. The Deity of Christ 72 CHAPTER VI. I The Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit.... 91 CHAPTER VII. The Purposes of God 97 7 8 CONTENTS. CHAPTER VIII. PAOK Creation 115 CHAPTER IX. Providence... 128 ^ /3 CHAPTER X. Angels 138 v-. • - - \ CHAPTER XI. Man — in his Original State— in his Fall— and in his Present State 157 CHAPTER XH. Man Needs a Saviour 176 CHAPTER XIII. The Promised Saviour 186 CHAPTER XIV. The Person op Christ * 198 CHAPTER XV. The Mediatorial Office of Christ 208 CHAPTER XVI. The Atonement of Christ 221 * CONTENTS. 9 CHAPTER XVII. PAGB The Intercession of Christ 246 CHAPTER XVIII. Regeneration, with its Attendants, Repentance and Faith 256 CHAPTER XIX. Justification , 274 CHAPTER XX. Adoption 290 CHAPTER XXI. Sanctification 298 CHAPTER XXII. Good Works 312 CHAPTER XXIII. Perseverance of Saints.... 321 CHAPTER XXIV. The Church 329 CHAPTER XXV. Baptism 342 10 CONTENTS. * Lord’s Supper CHAPTER XXVI. PAG* CHAPTER XXVII. Death of Christians, and the Intermediate State, The Kesurrection CHAPTER XXVIII. / lO • r •• CHAPTER XXIX. Tiie General Judgment CHAPTER XXX. Heaven and Hell 399 Christian Doctrines: A • COMPENDIUM OF THEOLOGY. CHAPTER I. THE BEING OF GOD. The first words in the Bible are these: “In the te« ginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Gen. i. 1. Here the important fact of creation is declared, and the sublimest of all truths — namely, the existence of God — is taken for granted. There is no array of arguments to prove that there is a God, but it is simply assumed. Moses, under divine inspiration, had no doubt the best reasons for the course he adopted, and it would probably have been better for the interests of truth had some spec- ulative theologians copied his example. To attempt to be “wise above what is written” is great folly. The existence of God is the greatest of mysteries. Neither man nor angel can comprehend it. There must be heights and depths in the Infinite that can never be measured by the finite. “ Canst thou by searching 4iud out God ? Canst thou find out the Almighty unto per- fection? It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell ; what canst thou know? The measure thereof is longer than the earth and broader than the sea.” Job xi. 7, 8, 9. 12 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. whose existence are in hi m “lf „e °“ USes of h*m lhe ? i! SUCh .re al, tM ’ to sf' ari=SS man can know something about himself v h ^ came ; something about the world, whence it Tnran something about the universe, why it exists. If there !s no God, nothing can be satisfactorily known and a answer is not sufficient, we sTr7v r to Ca hr e *T We *" “ i-tituM 1 2:-rrr„sr THE BEING OF GOD . 13 finite, can be numbered ; for there is not and cannot be an endless succession of them. Tracing effects and secondary causes as far as possible, we reach the First Cause. Here we stop, for we can go no further. The constitution of the human mind finds its limits at this point. The First Cause is another name for God. All secondary causes are dependent on the First Cause, but the First Cause is absolutely independent. Jehovah is “ God over all, blessed for ever.” The capacity of man to know that there is a God is recognized by Paul in these words : “ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them ; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,' even his eter- nal power and Godhead ; so that they are without ex- cuse.” Rom. i. 19, 20. It is worthy of special notice that the apostle in this language refers to idolatrous heathen nations. He tells us that they know enough of God to render them inexcusable in their idolatry. Whence comes their knowledge? Evidently from their ability to infer from the works of creation the existence of a Creator. This inference has been drawn in all ages — “from the creation of the world.” It should perhaps be said that some of the best scholars give to from in this passage the meaning since . The translation of Dr. Noyes is this : “ For, ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, even his eternal power and divin- ity, being perceived from his works, are clearly seen, so that they might be without excuse.” 1 The idea, accord- ing to this translation, is that at all periods since the world 1 The New Testament: Translated from the Greek Text of Tischendorf By George K. Noyes, D. D The general excellence of this translation is unquestionable 2 14 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. was made the human mind has been able to recognize the invisible attributes, the “ eternal power and divinity,” of the Creator. These “ invisible things ” are perceived or understood by u the things that are made,” so that it is undeniably true that things made suggest a Maker, and works imply a Worker. It is also beyond question that man, in inferring the existence of a Creator, must attrib- ute to him “ eternal power.” Creation in the absence of pqwer is equally impossible and absurd. There can be no higher view of power than that suggested by the pro- duction of something out of nothing. This power, too, is manifestly eternal. That is to say, it must have exist- ed before it was exerted and manifested in creation. Its existence clearly antedates creation, and everything before creation is eternal. In our conceptions of duration we can go back through intervening centuries to creation, but beyond that demonstration of Almighty power our thoughts are lost in the recesses of eternity. The power which created all things must be eternal power. Nor is this power impersonal. Paul refers to the u in- visible things of him ” to whom he applies the term “ Godhead ” — a term suggestive of personality. If there is a Godhead, there is a God, and he is a personal being. The simplest idea of power is that of ability to do some- thing ; and the ability is either inherent or in actual ex- ercise — that is, it exists in a quiescent state, or it is developed in action. In popular speech the word pow r er is used with some latitude of meaning. We speak of the power of wealth, the power of govern- ment, the power of gravitation, or the power of Nature. A little reflection, however, will convince us that there is in wealth no power apart from those who possess and use it. There is in government no power independent of those who govern. There is no power of gravitation cr THE BEING OF GOD . 15 power of Nature which God has not given. Witnessing some of the movements of matter — for example, the op- eration of machinery which turns ten thousand spindles, or the train of cars obediently following the dashing loco* motive — we thoughtlessly exclaim, “What power!” We forget how long intellect was at work before the way to turn those spindles was invented and the majestic run- ning of a railroad train became an actual thing. It was mind that arranged and controlled matter so wondrously as to excite the admiration of the world. I present this illustration to show that power, in its inferior operations, belongs to mind, or spirit, and not to matter. Much more does power, in the highest meaning of the word, belong to the Supreme Spirit. David well says that “ power be- longeth unto God.” Ps. lxii. 11. I cannot so well express my view of the superiority of mind to matter as by quot- ing from Robert Hall’s sermon on “ The Spirituality of the Divine Nature.” 1 He says : “ There is a vulgar prej- udice in favor of matter and against spirit, as if the former were possessed of great force, while the latter is only invested with a feeble degree of energy. Hence, in contemplating the operations of the elements of Na- ture, producing great and important changes, we are apt to think of matter, and of matter in its most gross and palpable form. This- prejudice arises from our mistaking secondary and remote effects for causes, allowing them therefore to terminate our view, instead of ascending from those laws of Nature which God has established to him- self the Supreme Cause. These changes certainly indicate the existence of great power, which, at the first view, we are apt to connect with the material part of the system. We are also acquainted in a measure with the mechanical forces, and, seeing that these are exerted through the 1 Hall’s Works , Harpers’ edition, vol. iii., pp. 296-298. 16 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . medium of matter, we are thence led to suppose that to be the source of power. We find that we are incapa- ble of operating on matter, of moving even an atom, by a mere act of our will ; a material medium is necessary to enable us to produce the slightest change on the objects of Nature ; and if a material substance is brought to bear upon them, the most important effects are produced. We have no power of operating on the objects immediately around us but by means of our bodies ; and the changes that take place are always connected with certain motions in them, which enable us to come into contact with the visible world. Hence, we are apt to terminate our ideas of power in matter. But in these cases it is mind, and mind alone, which is the seat of power. The influence which our bodies have upon other bodies, whereby their relative position is changed, is merely a secondary effect — an effect of that act of will which produces the motion of our bodies. The power by which all changes are ef- fected through the instrumentality of the body resides immediately in the mind. It is that mysterious princi- ple, called Will, which the Divine Being has invested with a control over the various parts of our bodies ; nor have we power to alter the state of a single external thing, in the least degree, except by means of volition, which is a mental power operating immediately upon the body. No other account can be given of this capacity but that the Divine Being has endowed us with instantaneous control over the muscular parts of our bodies. We can conceive nothing intermediate between the act of the will and the movement of the muscles. So complete, indeed, is the dominion of mind over matter that the moment we will a certain motion in the body it takes place, and thus only are we enabled to effect changes in the system of sur* rounding Nature. We probably derive our idea of power THE BEING OF GOD. 17 from the changes we see effected in this manner, bnt all these changes resolve themselves into acts of the will. It is therefore plain that power resides in the mind, and that matter is in these respects only the instrument of mind, which in the first instance acts, which alone properly acts, and becomes the author of all the subsequent changes. Mind, indeed, to a certain extent and within a certain sphere, is absolute power, and whatever motions it wills instantly take place. Though we are far from supposing for a moment that the Divine Being is the soul of the universe, or that he bears the same relation to the visible world as the soul does to the body — a notion replete with absurdity and impiety — yet the power which the mind exerts over the whole of our corporeal system may afford an apt illustration of that control which the Deity exer- cises over the universe. We will a certain motion in the muscles of our body, and immediately it takes place; nothing is perceived to intervene between the act of the will and the subsequent motion. By the mysterious con- stitution of our nature we are capable, from a very early period of life, of putting into instantaneous motion the right set of muscles for producing a certain change, but nothing intervenes between the volition and the change. In vain do we inquire how this takes place, because we can find nothing which comes between the operation of the will and the change produced in our corporeal frame. “ Conceive the Divine Being as a Spirit, having the same dominion over the invisible universe, in every part of space, as that which our minds possess over every portion of our bodies ; and then you will perceive, faintly at least, the origin of that power the indications of which are so visible throughout the universe. He has only tc will the most important changes, and they are instantly 18 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . accomplished. ‘He speaks, and it is done; he com- mands, and it stands fast.’ He said, ‘Let there be light, and there was light.’ No causes intervene between the volition and the change which ensues, for the will of the Deity is itself the effect. Being an Infinite Spirit and coming into immediate contact with all the parts of the universe, he is capable, by a mere act of will, of effecting all possible changes in the same manner, but in an infinitely higher degree, as we are capable, by an act ol our will, of causing certain motions in the muscular parts of our body, and thus producing changes in the external objects around us. “We shall find it impossible to give any account of innumerable changes which are continually taking place in the visible world, without tracing them up to mind. There cannot be a clearer proof of a Deity than the existence of motion. This evidently appears not to be essential to matter, because we see a very great portion of the material universe without it. Not being, therefore, an original state of matter, but merely an incident, it must be an effect. But since matter, not being intelligent, can- not be the cause of its own motion — and yet we cannot conceive of any atom beginning to move without a cause — that cause must be found out of itself. Whatever may be the nearest cause or the number of secondary causes, though innumerable portions of matter may be reciprocally moved — though the series of links in the chain through which motion is propagated may be indefinitely multiplied — we must, in order to arrive at the origin of these various phenomena, ascend to mind, terminate our inquiries in spirit ; nor can we account foi the beginning, much less for the continuance and exten- sion, of motion, unless we trace it to the will of that Being who is the Cause of all causes — the great Original THE BEING OF GOD . 19 Mover in the universe. Power is, therefore, the attribute of mind ; instrumentality, that of body. When we read in the Old Testament of the most exalted achievements ascribed to angelic spirits, we cannot suppose that it is owing to any gross materialism which they possess'; on the contrary, they have no bodies capable of being inves- tigated by our senses ; and in proportion as they are more attenuated do they possess greater power. We have reason to believe . that all finite minds are under the direction of the Supreme Power, who, without destroy- ing their accountability or interfering with their agency, makes all their operations subservient to the accomplish- ment of his counsels. Hence all opposition to the Deity is beautifully represented by Isaiah, as if the instrument should rebel against him that wields it, as if ‘the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up.’ . . . All created beings in this respect are but instruments in the hand of the Deity, whose will is sovereign over them. The Divine Being, as the great Father of spirits, com- bines within himself all the separate energies of the universe. He is the source, origin, and fountain of all power diffused through creation. The very minds which he has formed are kept in mysterious subordination, and can never overstep the bounds he has assigned them. i Once have I heard this, that power belongs unto God.’ ” It is needless to call special attention to this quotation from the writings of one of the most eloquent men of modern times, for the view presented is too striking to pass unnoticed. The prominent thought is that mind, or spirit, is the residence of power. In a subordinate sense this is true of finite spirits, and in the highest sense it is true of the Infinite Spirit. This Spirit we call God, the great First Cause of all things, himself uncaused. He is, therefore, self-existent; for there can be no reasons why 20 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. he exists that do not inhere in himself. He existed before there were any angels, any men, any worlds, and consequently none of the causes of his existence could be external to himself. They are intrinsic causes, found in himself alone ; and if all created things should sink into the abyss of nothingness, such a disaster would affect the existence of the Supreme Spirit as little as the quenching of the glow-worm’s spark would affect the sun in the heavens. What a Being is God ! How incompre- hensible I The idea of self-existence overwhelms us, but the constitution of the human mind is such as to require us to believe that there is a self-existent Being, the cause of all finite existence. Paul, as we have seen, refers to his “eternal power and Godhead,” the indications of which are so evident from the works of creation that idolaters among heathen nations are without excuse. There is a God. In this fact we find an explanation of many things otherwise inexplicable. The mind re- poses on this fact, and finds satisfaction. It can be satisfied in no other way. It revolts from the doctrine of fate — that all things exist, and have existed from eternity, by inevitable necessity, so that there has been no creation at all. The mind of man in its normal state cannot accept this doctrine, but protests against it as entirely unsatisfactory, because utterly unreasonable. Nor is the human mind satisfied with the opposite doctrine of chance. That all things exist by chance is a theory that had its advocates in ancient times, and it is virtually defended by men now living. There is a denial of crea- tion in the proper sense of the term — fate is ridiculed — and it is supposed that the material universe was con- structed out of atoms fortuitously coming together from realms unknown, and giving no account of themselves. Now, these two systems — Fate and Chance — equally excite THE BEING OF GOD. 21 the revulsion of the well-balanced intellect. The capital objection to both is that they exclude God from the uni* verse. They have no use for the existence of a Supreme Being to control all things, from the revolution of a planet to the fall of a sparrow. They are far as the poles apart in their distinctive teachings, but they are agreed in endorsing w T hat, in David’s day, the fool said in his heart, “ There is no God.” There is no satisfac- tory way of accounting for the existence of this world or any other world unless w r e admit that there is a God, the Omnipotent Creator of all things. What the mind of man calls for and presents as its first postulate is, Let there be a God. While it is true that we cannot satisfactorily explain why the world exists if there is no God, it is also true that the indications of design are unaccountable if a Supreme Intelligence does not preside over all things. We see evidences • of adaptation all around us. The world seems to be adapted to man and to other animals, and they seem to be suited to the world. The soil is adapted to such productions as are necessary to the sup- port of physical life. The lungs and the air are adapted each to the other. Birds are fitted for the air, and fishes for the sea. There is adaptation everywhere and in every thing ; and adaptation, so far as we are capable of judging, indicates intelligence and design. Intelligence and design are not properties of matter, but attributes of spirit. Where there is intelligence there is mind, and where there is design it must be the result of in- telligence, and there must be a Designer. If, then, the many instances of adaptation visible everywhere aye suggestive of design, the question arises, “Who is the Designer ?” and the only answer is, “ God, the Creator and Ruler of all things.” One of the most obvious indi- 22 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. cations of design is to be seen in the provision made foi the perpetuity of the human race. The two sexes are about equal in numbers, and it is utterly incredible that this is the result of accident. There must be design, and when we look into the matter in the light of the Bible, we shall see that the existence of the two sexes is the basis of the marriage relation; which relation contem- plates the promotion of human happiness, the preserva- tion of social order, and the continuance of the race. All this shows purpose, and Where there is purpose affect- ing the condition, and even the existence, of the human race, who will say that there is not an intelligent and almighty Purposer? These are suggestions rather than elaborate arguments in favor of the existence of a God, the First Cause of all things, infinite in power and boundless in wisdom. To this God we may say, in the reverent language of Scrip- ture, “ Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the founda- tion of the earth; and the heavens are the -works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest ; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and .they shall be changed ; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” Heb. L 10-1?. CHAPTER II THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM GOD . For many centuries there has been in the world a book claiming to be The Bible — that is, The Booh. There is no book like to it. It has had, and still has, more earnest friends and more bitter enemies than, any other. Multi- tudes have submitted to martyrdom rather than abjure its teachings, and have been cheered by its promises when earth has receded from their view. On the other hand, greater efforts have been made to destroy the Bible than were ever put forth for the destruction of any other book. Its foes have persistently attempted to arrest its influence. Criticism has assailed it and ridicule has derided it. Science and philosophy have been invoked to discredit it. Astronomy" in the disclosure of its heav- enly wonders has been asked for some fact to disparage it, and geology in its researches in the earth has been importuned to throw suspicion on it. The Bible, however, yet has a place in the world. There are more copies of it in circulation to-day than ever before. Written originally in Hebrew and Greek, it has been translated into hundreds of languages, so that poetry breathes historical truth in the words, “ Dialects unheard at Babel or at Jewish Pentecost Now first articulate divinest sounds, And swell the universal anthem.” 23 24 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. In view of these facts, whatever men may think of the Bible, it must be conceded that it is a wonderful book — wonderful in its effects and in its history. But different opinions are entertained as to the origin of the Bible. Some do not hesitate to assign to it a human origin. This is the position of Deists, who, as their designation denotes, believe in the existence of God. They believe also in his wisdom and goodness, but they suppose that the volume of Nature and the teachings of reason are sufficient, without such a revelation as Christians con- sider the Bible to be. This is a very weak point in Deism, for the system not only grants that God is good to men, but glories in it. If this be so, then it is surely reasonable to expect from him a supernatural revelation of his will. The reasonableness of this expectation grows out of the insufficiency of the light of Nature to teach men all that they need to know. The rational inference from the goodness of God is that he will not leave his creatures in comparative darkness. It is more accordant with his benevolence to believe that he has given his word to be “ a lamp to their feet and a light to their path.” It is scarcely necessary to make a distinction between Deists and Rationalists. The latter are so excessively addicted to the inculcations of reason, and attach so much importance thereto, that they reject the teachings of the Bible unless its doctrines accord with their Ration- alistic views. Admitting, as some of them do, that God lms spoken in his word, they, in the plentitude of their self-conceit, attempt to decide how much of what he has said harmonizes with reason. The attitude they assume is fatal to a fair and candid examination of the Bible. In opposition tc the views of Deists, Rationalists, and all kindred errorists, I maintain that the Bible is a super- THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM GOD . 25 human production — that it is the book of God, properly so called, because it contains a revelation from him. Before attempting to show that the Bible is a revelation from God it may be well to refer to the necessity of such a revelation. The necessity, it may be argued, does not prove that the revelation has been given. Even so, but it creates an antecedent probability in favor of a revelation. The necessity of a divine revelation is suggested by such considerations as the following : \ 1. Without it , there cannot be such knowledge of God as is essential to acceptable worship. While it is true, as has been seen in the preceding chapter, that heathen nations are not ignorant of the existence of a Supreme Being, it can- not be maintained that they have sufficient knowledge of his character to render them intelligent and acceptable worshippers. The existence and the character of God are distinct from each other. (His existence may be recog- nized when there is no satisfactory knowledge of his cha- racter^] To know that God exists does not determine how he is to be worshipped. There^must be knowledge of his character. His character is what he is, and we must know his character to render him acceptable service. Can his character be known without a revelation from himself? Let us see. (As we may know something of what are called God’s natural attributes from the proofs of his existence around us, it may be said that we are not ignorant of what may be termed his intellectual charac- ter. This is true, for we have conceptions of his wisdom, pmver, greatness, and of other natural attributes. But what can we say of his moral character, made up of his moral perfections ? The light of Nature does not reveal it, and the deductions of man’s reason do not disclose it. This, too, is the very point on which information is need 3 26 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . ed ; for G od, if worshipped at all, must be worshipped in his moral character. His natural perfections may excite our Intellectual admiration, but cannot awaken our love, hove, however, is the central idea of worship, and there can be no true worship without it. The injunction, “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” commends itself to every man’s common sense. But those excellences of the divine character which excite love cannot be known without a divine revelation. Surely, then, the necessity of such a revelation cannot be denied. 2. Without a revelation , it is impossible to fix the standard of moral right and wro^. This point, considered in its relation tcTttor foregoing, is too plain to need much elab- oration. Every one can see that ignorance of the moral character of God renders the adoption of a correct rule of morals impossible. What is right or what is. wrong must ever depend on what God is. In his nature are found the elements of all that is right. The origin of right is traceable to the nature rather than to the will of God, though his will m ist be in accordance w r ith his na- ture \What I mean to say is, that things, strictly speak- ing, are not right because God wills them, but that he wills them because they are right.\ Whatever is in harmony with the moral character of God is right, and whatever is in conflict with it is wrong. Here, then, we see how the standard of duty is to be established among men, for their duties to one another grow out of their duties to God. The second commandment, “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor ” — that is, thy fellow-creature — “ as thy- self,” i3 like the first, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.” Obligations grow out of relations. The highest ‘relation is that between the creature and the Creator, and therefore in this relation obligation shows its supreme strength ; but there is a subordinate . relation between THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM GOD . 27 creattUres themselves, out of which mutual relation mu- tual duties arise. It must not be forgotten, however, that we should love our fellow-creatures primarily be- cause they are the creatures of God , and secondarily be- cause they are our fellow-creatures. Love to God inspires love to men, and prompts the performance of the duties we ow^e to men in the various relations of life. This we see where the influence of the Bible is felt; but if God had not given us the Bible, how could the standard of duty be known? Ignorant of his moral character, we should be utterly finable to settle the question of right and wrong. This view receives confirmation from the inadequate and variable standards of morals among an- cient, and also among modern, heathen nations. Even the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, with all their mental cultivation, were very ignorant on moral subjects — a fact which shows that there is no necessary connection between intellectual culture and moral rectitude. As to modern heathen nations, our missionaries tell us that in them is exemplified the repulsive depravity described by Paul in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. The more their deplorable condition is studied, the more manifest will be the necessity of a revelation from God. ^ 3. Without a revelation, a future state must be a matter of conjecture. Ancient philosophers speculated concerning it, some professed to believe it, some wished to believe it, and others denied it, while others still ridicu ed it Julius Caesar said in a speech in the Roman Senate — for he was an orator as well as a warrior — “To those that live in sorrow and misery death is a repose from their calamities, not a torment : it puts an end to all the evils that mortals are subject to, and beyond it there is nc place left for anguish or joy.” Pliny, who lived some time after Cresar, expressed himself thus: “AD 28 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. men are in the same condition after their last day as before their first; nor have they any more sense, either in body or soul, after they are dead than before they were born .” 1 These two great men were doubtless representative men, Others espoused the views they advocated, and before them all was the gloomy abyss of annihilation. Some of the Greek philosophers had held substantially the same views, and one of the Greek poets had eloquently exclaimed in language which has been translated thus : “ Alas 1 the tender herbs and flowery tribes, Though crushed by winter’s unrelenting hand, Revive and rise when vernal zephyrs call. But we, the brave, the mighty, and the wise, Bloom, flourish, fade, and fall; and then succeeds A long, long, silent, dark, oblivious sleep — A sleep which no propitious power dispels, Nor changing seasons, nor revolving years.” Thus hopeless was the future to many of ancient times, and others, according to the testimony of Cicero, while reading the arguments in favor of the immortality of the soul, accepted the doctrine, and laying down their books gave it up. If there is a future state, doubtless there will be in it rewards for the righteous and punishments for the wicked. How important, then, to be assured of such a state ! Most men who think at all will ask, “ Whither do we go?” as well as, “ Whence did we come?” The restless spirit wants, an answer to such questions. Surely it is desirable to have some assurance concerning the mysterious future; and how can it be obtained apart from revelation? “ Faith is a conviction of things not 1 Quoted in Leland’s Advantage and Necessity of the Christian R&& lation , vol. ii. p. 387. THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM Q01). 29 Been .” 1 But faith rests on testimony, and testimony implies a revelation from God ; for he alone can testify to a future state, he being “ the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity,” with whom “ one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” With regard to a future state of rewards and punish- ments, it may be said that a belief in such a state supplies strong m )tives to stimulate to the doing of that which is right and to the avoidance of that which is wrong. For, whatever theorists may say, it is practically true that self-interest appeals to men, while hope and fear are the two powerful springs of human action. A belief that the rewards and punishments of a future state will be distributed according to the characters that men form md the courses they pursue in this life cannot be other- wise than influential and salutary. }But the future is dark without a revelation from God, and hence the ne- cessity of a revelation, j 4. Without a revelation there is not an intimation of a way of salvation for sinners . I have referred to the fact that a correct standard of right is impossible unless there is a divine communication on the subject. Light is needed from heaven. It must be remembered, however, that heathen nations have their imperfect standards -of right and wrong, and that they universally fail to come up to these standards. They are therefore self-condemned. Conscience pronounces its censure and stings with its accusations. In accordance with this view, Paul says: “ For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witaess, and their thoughts the mean while 1 No yes’ a translation. 30 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES accusing or else excusing one another.” Rom. ii. 14, 15. The excusing or approving operation of conscience is dependent on conformity to the recognized standard of right, while a departure from that standard is followed b) self-accusation. That the departure and the self-accusa- tion are universal among the heathen is evident from the universality of sacrifices. Offerings are made to propitiate their gods, and in these offerings there is a recognition of sin and of the necessity of appeasing the wrath of these gods “ which are yet no gods.” I think it may be said that the benighted heathen labor under the consciousness that some moral disaster has come upon them, that some wreck has befallen their moral nature. They are aware that their moral constitution is infected by disease, but they know not of a remedy. They grope in darkness. That we may, as far as it is possible, place ourselves in their condition, let us shut out all the light we have re- ceived from the gospel on the subject of salvation. Then what could we learn from the light of Nature? There are many things recorded in the volume of Nature, but there is nothing concerning the salvation of a sinner. In the wide realm of Nature no discoveries can be made touching this infinitely important matter. No word comes from the abysses of the deep; for “The depth saith, It is not in me: and the sea saith, It is not with me.” No price paid for a knowledge of salvation can procure it; for “It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof.” Not a syllable is heard from the blue heavens above us nor from the green earth beneath us. The whistling winds say nothing, the rolling thunders utter nothing, the fiery lightnings disclose nothing. All Nature is, as to the salvation of sinners, as silent as the grave. Nor can human reason, in i s amplest researches, find THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM GOD . 31 a way in which a sinner can be saved. We have seen that the moral character of God cannot be known by the discoveries of reason, but his moral character is specially concerned in saving sinners. As moral Governor of the world he must exercise pardoning mercy if it is exercised at all, but reason cannot tell whether there is mercy in God. The truths involved in the salvation of a sinner are beyond the jurisdiction of reason. The science of redemption is a supernatural science. Without the light of a divine revelation it defies comprehension. We must not forget that salvation is a subject of infinite moment. It is invested with an importance which language was not invented to describe. This we see in listening to such questions as these: Shall I be saved or lost? Shall I go to heaven or hell? Shall I spend eternal ages in the beatific presence of God or in hopeless exile from him ? These questions will appear far more important ten thou- , sand centuries hence than they do now. If salvation thus affects and involves man’s supreme interests — inter- ests which overleap the horizon of time and measure years with eternity — and if there is no intimation of a way of salvation for sinners without a revelation from God, the necessity of a revelation is incontrovertible. having attempted to show the necessity of a divine revelation, I shall now endeavor to show that the Bible contains such a revelation. The two things are distinct. What reasons justify the belief that the Bible is the word of God, a revelation from heaven? In answer to this question the following things may be said: 4-i. The human intellect could not produce such a hook as the Bible . It is cheerfully conceded that the capacity of man’s intellect is great. The extent to which the mind may be strengthened and expanded is an unsettled ques- tion. It is unsettled, because no man can say to the 32 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. mind in its high career of improvement, “ Hitherto shalt thou come, but no farther. \ It is equally foolish and false to deny that the capabilities of the human intellect are wonderful. But these capabilities can be exercised only in their proper spheres. There are doc- trines taught in the Bible of which the unaided intellect of man could have formed no conception. We may take, for example, what the Scriptures say of God’s omni- presence. They teach that he is everywhere — not that he is in different places at different times, but that he is in all places at all times. They teach that he has control of matter and of spirit, and that he is present with both . that his presence displaces neither matter nor sjjirit; and that there is in the vast realms of space no spot from which he is absent. He himself asks, “Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.” Jer. xxiii. 23, 24. David, solemnly impressed with the doctrine of the divine omnipresence, exclaimed, “Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.” Ps. cxxxix. 7-10. Were not these grand ideas divinely communicated to David? Was it possible for his unaided intellect to origi- nate a conception of them? Now that they are revealed, the mind can comprehend them only in part, and surely they did not have a -human origin. Again: What the Bible says of redemption ty Christ is obviously above the invention of the human intellect. THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM GOB. 33 We are told that “ God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “ When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adop- tion of sons.” u But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Captain of their salva- tion perfect through sufferings.” John iii. 16; Gal. iv. 4,5; Heb. ii. 9, 10. Can any man read these passages and say that they are the production of the human intellect? Could the thought have originated in the mind of man that God loved this perishing world to such an extent as to give his Son to become incarnate and suffer death, even the death of the cross ? Could man or angel have imagined that it “ became God,” that it was worthy of him, to bring many sons to glory under the leadership of a Captain of salva- tion fitted for his position by means of sufferings? That the guilty creature should be saved at the expense of the incarnation of the Creator ; that life should come to the sons of men through the death of the Son of God ; that heaven should become accessible to earth’s distant popu- lation by the blood of a shameful cross, — was utterly re- mote from all finite conception. Even when the won- der was made known by the gospel, it excited the con- tempt of Jews and Greeks, To the former it was a stumbling-block, an offence ; to the latter it was foolish- ness. The Greeks were a highly cultivated people, acute in intellect, profound in philosophy, and subtle in reason- 34 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. ing, but they ridiculed the idea of salvation through one who was crucified. They may well be regarded as repre- senting the possibilities of the human intellect — what it can do ; and, so far from claiming the Christian doctrine of redemption as an invention of philosophers, they laughed at it as unworthy of philosophy. The facts of the gospel they rejected as incredible, because they seemed to be in positive conflict with their conceptions of reason. The point of the argument is, that as intel- lect, which was developed so favorably among the Greeks, did not recognize the doctrine of redemption through Christ as in harmony with their philosophy, we must conclude that the doctrine is above the invention of the human intellect. 2. Marts heart would not prompt him to make such a book as the Bible . He has a heart as well as an intellect, and even if he were mentally capable of making such a vol- ume, he is morally incompetent. This will appear if we consider the universal depravity of the human race. Whether men accept or reject the Bible view of the origin, the transmission, and the history of sin, they are compelled to admit that man’s moral nature rests under the blight of some disaster. It exhibits imper- fection and perversity from infancy to old age, and this it has done as far back as the records of history give us information. The power of human depravity does not exhaust itself by lapse of time and the succession of generations, but continues in undiminished strength from century to century. All the annals of the world’s history bear testimony to this truth. The moral depravity of man shows itself in some diversity of manifestation, as we see in savage and in civilized lands, under different forms of gov- ernment, but it is substantially the same in all climes and in all ages. It may surely be assumed as true that univer- THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM G01 ) . 35 sal man is the subject of moral depravity, that his heart is not right with God, that he^loves^sm^ and that his tend- encies are in the direction of evil. This being the case, bow is it possible to believe the Bible a human produc- tion ? It commends everything that is right and con- demns everything that is wrong. It puts the seal of its approval on all that is good, and pronounces its censure on all that is evil. It inculcates supreme love to God, * and universal love to men as the creatures of God. It declares all human works to be without merit, and pre- sents salvation as the gift of God’s sovereign grace. It crucifies the pride of man, placing him in the dust; it exalts the Lord of glory, placing him on the throne. Now the questions arise, Would man with his depraved heart be inclined to make such a book as the Bible? Would he produce a volume in condemnation of him- self? Would he, though by nature under the influence of a self-justifying disposition, declare his righteousness to be “as filthy rags”? Would his natural self-love operate so strangely ? Would he become the patron of every virtue and the censor of every vice? Would he urge holiness of heart and life by the glories of an eter- nal heaven and the miseries of an eternal hell? If so, it would be equivalent to the emanation of a sweet stream from a bitter fountain. In the one case, there would be a violation of a fixed analogy of Nature; in the other, one of the established analogies of the moral world would be nullified. It cannot be. The Bible is not a human pro- duction. Man’s heart would not let him make such a book even if he had the intellectual ability. The latter, however, he does not possess. The argument in favor of the Bible as a divine revelation, as now presented, is in substance this : Man could not make such a book if he would, and would not if he could. The former is pre* 36 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. eluded by the condition of his intellect, the latter by the state of his heart. If, then, the Bible is not a human pro- duction, it follows that it is the book of God. There is no middle ground. fThe Bible tells us what no being in the universe but God xnew, and therefore it contains a revela- tion from him. I may thus illustrate my view : A hus- band, being absent from home, receives a letter purporting (o be from his wife. Some one, we will suppose, tries to convince him that the letter is not genuine, that the hand- writing of the wife has been counterfeited. The husband knowing the expertness of counterfeiters, admits that some- body may have learned to form letters and to w T rite words precisely as does his w T ife; but he says, “ This letter is from iny wife, because it tells me what no one except herself knows.” Here he rests unmoved, feeling that he has the most solid foundation for his belief. Our faith in the Bible as a divine revelation may well and safely repose on the fact that it tells us what God alone knows\ It is the word of the Lord, for the men who wrote it ^spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Pet. i. 21. 3. The person and character of Christ as revealed in the Bible prove the divine origin of the book. As to the person of Christ, it is unique — it stands alone — there is nothing like it in the universe. The constitution of his person 5s the Christ results from the mysterious union in him of two natures, the divine and the human. As the Word, who “in the beginning w r as with God and w T as Gcd,” he was not the Christ. As man, possessing a human body and a human soul, he was not the Christ. But as the “Word made flesh,” taking human nature into alliance with supreme Divinity, he became the Christ, the Anoint- ed One. As the Christ, he lived on the earth, suffered in Gethsemane, died on Calvary, was buried, rose again, as- cended to heaven, and there lives immortal His person THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM GOD. 37 will undergo no change through all the boundless future. He will ever be the God-man, for the union of the two natures constituting him the Christ is indissoluble. Strange as it is, humanity is exalted and enthroned in the heavens. Such honor has never been conferred on the angelic nature. The person of Christ w T ill be. the wonder of wonders through all eternity. Who can be- lieve that the thought of such a person as the Scriptures represent Christ to be could have entered into the mind of man, except by divine revelation? The origin of such a thought in the unaided human intellect would have oeen about as impossible as the creation of a world by . human power. The character of Christ is to be considered as well as his person. It wa_s _a perfect char acter. Nothing like it ? had been seen on earthT Omperfection clea ves to the best of men, and even in the^strongest points of character weakness sometimes exhibits itself. ^ For example, Abra- ham, remarkable for his faith, seems on some occasions not to have trusted in God fully; Moses, distinguished for his meekness, w r as not invariably meek; Job, pro- verbial for his patience, w r as not always patient ; Peter, bold and impetuous, occasionally acted the coward ; and Paul, most loyal of men to principle and truth, did a few things that are scarcely defensible. But the character of Christ was absolutely faultless and spotless. His friends, who for years were on intimate terms with him, w T ho saw him in public places, in the social circle, and in the pri- vacy of life, do not attribute to him a solitary imperfec- tion. Their opinion of him obviously was that his cha- racter w r ould bear the most scrutinizing inspection. Of Christ’s twelve disciples, there were three, Peter, James, and John, who on several occasions were admitted to the intimacy of special friendship. The testimony of two of 4 38 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. the three has been handed down to us. Peter refers to his Lord as a “ Lamb without blemish and without spot,’ 5 1 who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth ;* and John uses this language: “ And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.” The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says of him that he “ is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sin- ners.” Nor can we attribute this immaculate perfection to the absence of temptation. Good men have often yielded to temptation, falling before its power, but Jesus, though “ tempted in all points like as we are,” resisted and triumphed. “ Without sin ” are the significant words used in connection with his temptations — “ tempted in all points - like as we are, yet without sin.” Heb. iv. 15. The tempter no doubt employed all his ingenuity in presenting induce- ments to lead him to sin, but failed in every instance. Jesus himself said, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” John xiv. 30. That is, the purity of his character was so perfect that there was in him absolutely nothing responsive to the suggestions of Satan. The temptations which Christ resisted proved his moral rectitude, and were the means of displaying his glory, even as the dark clouds from which the sun emerges cause his welcome face to appear more bright. If the person and character of Christ are what the Bible declares them to be, then the Bible contains a revelation from heavenX The argument is, that the unassisted intel- lect of man could not have conceived of such a person and such a character, and therefore the portraiture of the person and character of Christ must be divine. If any man takes the opposite view and insists that the human intellect, without light and aid from heaven, could: invent such a person and character, let him accept what follows; and this plainly follows: If the New Testament writers THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM GOB. 39 did, of themselves and without divine inspiration, con- ceive and present the person and character of Christ, they performed a greater miracle than any recorded in the Bible. He who assumes so unreasonable a position can never make a plausible objection to the most as- tounding miracles. It is not necessary to enlarge on this point. I The person and character of Christ, as revealed in the New Testament, prove the Bible to be of superhuman origin. If there were no other sources of proof, this would be sufficient. \ There is no rational way of ac- counting for what the Scriptures say of Christ, unless they are divinely inspired. While I have referred to the New Testament as specially revealing the person and cha- racter of Christ, it is to be remembered that the divine origin of the Old Testament is as undeniable as that of. the New. The New Testament everywhere recognizes the Old Testament as the word of God. How often did Jesus in referring to the ancient Scriptures say, “ It is written,” . “How readest thou?” “As the Scripture hath said”! The Old Testament and the Now are both parts of the same revelation of God to man. The Old anticipates the New, and the New presupposes the Old. Neither is com- plete without the other, but the two constitute God's book given to man, There is no other revelation ; there is no intimation that there will be another while the world stands. It is not worth while to go into the question of “ degrees of inspiration.” Nothing is said about low r er or higher degrees in the Bible itself. Inspiration is a mystery. How God inspired men to speak and write his truth, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth,” and at the same time did not interfere with individuality of style, but left it 40 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. undisturbed, we do not know. We do know, however, that the style of Moses is not that of David, nor is the style of Isaiah like that of Jeremiah, nor the style of Matthew similar to that of John; and the style of Paul is plainly different from that of Peter. This diversity of style seems to us to result from individuality of character each writer using such words as he was acquainted with and accustomed to use ; yet they were God’s words as cer- tainly as if the inspired men had known nothing of them. Hence we read again and again, “ Thus saith the Lord,” and “The Lord spoke, saying.” While revelation and inspiration are not precisely equivalent, the terms are often used convertibly. Thus we say “ the volume of reve- lation” and “ the volume of inspiration,” meaning the same thing. Possibly a strict use of terms would require us to confine the word revelation tofthose things in the Bible which were not known, and could not be known, till God revealed them,^vhile inspiration has to do with the whole Bible. For example, the coming of Christ in the flesh to save sinners was a matter of revelation; but that there were Pharisees and Sadclucees at Jerusalem, and that the river Jordan ran through Judea, are unquestionable facts, though not supernaturally revealed. Still, all that is con- tained in the Bible concerning Pharisees, Sadducees, and the river Jordan was written under the inspiration of God. That is to say, God by his Spirit influenced the sacred penmen to write just what they did write, no more, no less ; so that the Bible is as much the book of God as if Tie, without the intervention of men had written it himself. I have thought proper to say as much as this concern- ing inspiration, as there will be no chapter of this work specially devoted to the subject. Indeed, such a chap- ter will hardly be necessary, for if the Bible is, as I THE BIBLE A REVELATION FROM GOD. 41 « have attempted to show, a revelation from God, its in- spiration must be granted. Nor shall I dwell on what are called the external evidences of the truth of the Bible, such as miracles, prophecy, etc. The limit's I have prescribed for myself will not permit; and, moreover, 1 have preferred to present some of the internal evidences of the truth of the Scriptures. Of these I have selected only a few, but if the trains of thought which they sug- gest are carried out, we shall see that in accepting the Bible as true “we have not followed cunningly-devised fables.” 2 Pet. i. 16. If the Bible is the word of God, its authority cannot be questioned. There must be no cavilings as to its teach- ings. What it says must be received as true, and its words must be candidly and faithfully interpreted. There must be docility of spirit — a willingness to “ be taught of God,” which will express itself in the language of the child Samuel: “ Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth.” 1 Sam. iii. 9. Recognizing the Bible as the word of God, I shall appeal to it in every part of this volume as the stand- ard of truth and right. 4 * » CHAPTER [II. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD The term attribute , in its application t) persons oi things, means something belonging to persons or things. The attributes of a thing are so essential to it that with- out them it could not be what it is ; and this is equally true of the attributes of a person. If a man were divested of the "attributes belonging to him, he would cease to be a man, for these attributes are inherent in that which constitutes him a human being. If we trans- fer these ideas to God, we shall find that his attributes belong inalienably to him, and, therefore, what he is now he must ever be. His attributes are his perfections, inseparable from his nature and constituting his character. There have been many attempts made by theologians to arrange the attributes of God in classes. They have been styled natural and moral -attributes, (communicable and incommunicable^, positive and negative* absolute aqd relative. To all these divisions and epithets of designa- tion objections can no doubt be made. Possibly the classification of natural and moral attributes in God is as good as any. These have been defined thus: “ The ^natur al are all those which pertain to his exist- ence as an infinite, rational Spirit. . . . The moral are those additional attributes which belong to him as an infinite, righteous Spirit .” 1 In the light of this defini- 1 Ilodge’s Outlines of Theology , p. 104. 42 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 43 * tion I will refer to some of the more prominent of the attributes of God. I. His Natural Attributes. 1 . Self-existence. This, of course, means that the causes of his existence are in himself. Jesus teaches this doc- trine where he says that “the Father hath life in himself.” John v. 26. The life is inherent. Unlike the life of creatures, it comes from no external source. If there were no creatures in the universe, their non-existence would not in the least affect the existence of God. It did not affect his existence before he performed the work of creation. He had “life in himself” when there was life nowhere else. In the total absence of life outside of himself all the possibilities of life were in himself. We are never to forget that in him creatures “live and move and have their being ” — are dependent on him for life, motion, and existence ; but his self-existence makes him absolutely independent. The causes of their existence not being in themselves, creatures are of necessity de- pendent on the Creator, to whose will the reasons of their existence are traceable. The reasons of God’s existence are in himself alone, and his self-existence is an inalien- able attribute of his nature. When he interposes his oath to confirm his word he swears by himself, saying, “As I live,” leaving his oath to rest on the immutable basis of his self-existence. In the boundless range of human and angelic thought there will never be found a deeper mystery than the self-existence of God. It defies finite comprehension. God alone knows how he exists, why he exists, why he has always existed, and why he will exist for ever. “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised ; and his greatness is unsearchable.” Fs cxlv. 3. 44 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 2. Hepui v. The attribute of self-existence suggests that of eternity, or it may be said that the two attributes are suggestive of eaoh other. For if the causes of God’s existence are in himself, reason will admit that those causes have been in operation from eternity ; and if he is an eternal Being, then he must be self-existent. As to the eternity of God, the Scriptures are plain. We read as fellows : “ And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.” Gen. xxi. 33. “The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.” Deut. xxxiii. 27. “ Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from ever- lasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Ps. xc. 2. “ Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.” 1 Tim. i. 17. “ And they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.” Rev. iv. 8. These passages are sufficient to show that the God of the Bible is he who “ inhabits eternity.” He “ was,” and this includes all the past; he “is,” and this includes the present; he “is to come,” and this includes all the future. I may avail myself of the eloquent words of one of the most distinguished of American scholars. 1 Referring to God, he says: “ His existence in space is an infinite here; his existence in duration is an infinite noiv. The waves of two eternities break upon his throne, and it rests unmoved above the flood.” We are reminded by the words, “an infinite now,” of the language of Peter: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” 2 Pet. iii. 8. The finite mind is impressed 1 Prof. A . C. Kendrick, D. D., of Rochester University THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD . 45 with the difference between a day and a week, bat to the Infinite Mind the distinction between a day and a thou- sand years is obliterated. Points of time as far apart as the creation of the world and the last judgment are surveyed with the same glance, while intermediate cen- turies pass “ as a watch in the night.” This is the case, because God’s “ existence in duration is an infinite now.” The God of the Bible is the only Being who is absolutely eternal, his existence having neither beginning nor end. In this sense eternity is an attribute peculiarly his own, and on the throne which is “ for ever and ever ” he must ever sit in majestic isolation. There is no being like Jehovah. 3. Unitu . The application of this term to God is de- signed to teach that there is one, and but one, God. The doctrine of God’s unity is involved in his self-existence and in the eternity of his being. It is evident that there is need of only one self-existent being in the universe, for self-sufficiency is allied to self-existence. That is to say, a self-existent being must be a self-sufficient being, able to do whatever needs to be done and whatever he chooses to do. One self-existent being for ever supersedes the ne- cessity of another ; and not only so, but renders the ex- istence of another impossible. There cannot be two self- existent beings, for the very good reason that self-exist- ence implies the possession of all perfections. If, then, there could be two such beings, they would each possess all perfections, and would therefore be essentially one and the same. They would fill one and the same sphere — a thing impossible if they were two, and not one. The ex- istence of more than one God comes not within the limits of possibility. The attribute of self-existence es- tablisnes this position, and the attribute of eternity for- tifies it. For if one God has existed from eternity, there 46 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. has been no place for another. The eternity of God is a conclusive proof of his unity. As illustrative of the di- vine unity I might refer to the system of Nature as indi- visible, bearing the impress of one Almighty Agent in all its wide realm, from the revelations of the telescope to the wonders of the microscope, with all intervening displays of oneness of design. But it is time to ask, What do the Scriptures say? Let the earth listen: “ Hear, 0 Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” l)eut. vi. 4. “For thou art great, and doest wondrous things : thou art God alone.” Ps. Ixxxvi. 10. “ Is there a God besides me? Yea, there is no God ; I know not any.” “ Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : for I am God, and there is none else.” Isa. xliv. 8 ; xlv. 22. “The Lord our God is one Lord.” Mark xii. 29. “ And this is life eter- nal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” John xvii. 3. “For there is one God.” 1 Tim. ii. 5. “ Thou believest that there is one God ; thou doest well.” James ii. 19. These passages abundantly prove the doctrine of the Hi vine unity, and the one God claims for himself exclusive worship and service. 4. Immutability. Creatures change, everything earthly changes!, but God changes not. He is and must be eter- nally the same, for he is infinitely perfect, and infinite perfection precludes change. There can be no change which does not imply imperfection. It is needless to say that imperfection is implied in a change for the worse, for such a change would indicate imperfection before, and greater imperfection after, its occurrence. It is also true that a change for the better denotes previous imperfec- tion, for such a change is toward perfection. Now r , God, whether we consider him as possessing natural or moral attributes, is absolutely perfect. There can be no addi- THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 47 tion to the number of his natural attributes, and there can be no increase of their capacity and power. There can be no change in these respects. It would be absurd to suppose that God can be more self-existent?. more eternal, v wre omnipotent than he is. It is equally absurd to sup- pose that his natural attributes can be alienated from him, or that he can lose them in any way. He must retain them and as his attributes are immutable, he changes not. As to the moral attributes of the divine character, they also are unchangeable. They bear the stamp of perfec- tion. If God, however, could change in his moral attri- butes, it would imply imperfection in his moral character. If, for example, he could become a better being than ho is, it would imply that he is not perfect in goodness. If he could be more just, then justice has not reached it? climax in him. If he could be more faithful to his word his veracity is not perfect. If he could be more holy, it follows that he is not infinitely holy now. I present these suppositions, and the consequences resulting from them if true, to show that they cannot possibly be true. God in his moral as well as in his natural attributes is immutable, and therefore his character is unchangeable. This conclusion is sustained by the following Scriptures : “But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.” Ps. cii. 27. “ For I am the Lord, I change not ; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” Mai. iii. 6. “ Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometli down from the Father of Lights, with whom is no varia- bleness, neither shadow of turning.” James i. 17. The doctrine of God’s immutability is replete with joy to his people. They see indications of change in every- thing around them. They are constantly in the midst of changing scenes ; their spiritual emotions change ; soon the 48 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. mode of their existence will change — for their spirits will go forth and leave their bodies to fall into the grave — but the God of their salvation is unchangeable in his purposes of love, and says to each one of his children, “ The moun- tains shall depart, and the hills be removed: but my kind- ness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord, that hath mercy v thee.” Isa. liv. 10. 5. Omnipresence. This is one of the essential attributes of God. It is his prerogative to be everywhere. Some make a distinction between the omnipresence and the im- mensity of God. This distinction will be sufficiently de- noted by the following words : “ When we call his essence immense, we mean that it has no limits; when we say that it is omnipresent, we signify that it is wherever creatures are.” 1 We can imagine remote tracts of space where creatures are not and have never been, but God is there. In those places the doctrine of his immensity is exemplified, but we, for obvious reasons, are more inte- rested in his omnipresence. He is emphatically present wherever his creatures are. We are lost in wonder in contemplating this fact. We know that there are hun- dreds of millions of human beings in the world. They are on the land, and on the sea, and in the isles of the sea. Some of them are in high and some in low posi- tions, some rich and others poor, some wise and others ignorant, some righteous and others wicked — all hasten- ing to eternity; but the presence of God is with every one of them. There is no place on this planet where God is not. If we leave this world and go in our con- templations to heaven, to “ the innumerable company of angeb,” to the various orders of the celestial hosts, we shall find that God is present with them all. Even if the 1 Dick’s Theology, Lecture 19. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 49 theories of some astronomers be true, and there are so many worlds that their number cannot be computed, and all peopled with rational beings, God is in all those worlds and present with every one of those beings. Well did David say, ‘ Whither shall I go from thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there ; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. If I take the wings of the morn- ing, and dw^ell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me, even the night shall be light about me. Yea, the dark- ness hideth not from thee, but the night shineth as the day ; the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.” Ps. cxxxix. 7-12. How transcendently great is God ! How deeply should his omnipresence impress us ! The practical influence of the doctrine should ever be seen in restraining from sin. God is everywhere. How absurd to suppose that sin can be committed wdiere he is not ! He is in every place. He knows every act performed, every word spoken, every thought entertained, every feeling indulged. “ Oh, may these thoughts possess my breast Where’er I rove, where’er I rest I Nor let my weaker passions dare Consent to sin, for God is there.’* 6. Omnipotence . By this attribute of God is meant ms unlimited power, his power to do whatever he chooses to do. Finite beings can form nothing more than a feeble conception of this power. They exercise what power they have in contracted spheres and under necessary limita- tions. It is a secondary power derived from God the Source of supreme power. Accustomed to manifesto 5 50 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. tions of imperfect power among men, {we ^ara^miazed in contemplating the almighty power of Go(^(His omnipo- tence, hoover, is conceded by all who believe in his ex- istencg^ (There is no more striking proof of divine power than the work of creation. central idea in the term “ creation ” is the production of something out of nothing. To create is not to select and adjust pre-existent mate- rials, but to give existence to that which did not exist before. A created thing springs of necessity from the abyss of nothingness. It follows, therefore, that omnip- otence alone was adequate to the work of creation as described in the divine word. God was able to perform this work, because the attribute of omnipotence belongs inalienably to him. Hence we read, “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Gen. i. 1. He said, “ Let there be light, and there was light.” Gen. i. 3. The ease w r ith which this majestic work was done seems to be indicated by the Psalmist: “He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” Ps. xxxiii. 9. The almighty power of God is seen, not only in the crea- tion of all things, but also in their preservation. He is said to “ uphold all things by the word of his power,” and “by him all things consist.” Heb. i. 3; Col. i. 17. The preservation of all things requires the constant exertion of the power employed in their creation. When we re- member that God created things visible and invisible ; that the invisible are far more numerous than the visi- ble ; and that all these things, seen and unseen, are kept in existence by him, — we are filled w T ith reverential awe. We recognize the truth of the words addressed to Abra- ham : “ I am the Almighty God.” Gen. xxvii. 1. The Scriptures, both of the Old Testament and the New, ascribe omnipotence to Jehovah. We therefore read, “Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOB. 51 heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are therein, the seas and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” Neh. ix. 6. “ Behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee.” Jer. xxxii. 17. “ With God all things are possible.” Matt. xix. 26. “The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” Rev. xix. 6. Those who love God may well rejoice in the thought that all power is his, that he sits on the throne, sways a universal sceptre, controls all things, and exercises his omnipotence in behalf of those who trust in him. 7. jQm mscience. This term denotes the infinite intelli- gence of God — his knowledge of all things. Like every other attribute we have considered, the omniscience of God defies our comprehension. We know very little, and while in this world will probably not turn over the first page of the book of knowledge. How impossible, then, to take in the idea of universal knowledge! The little knowledge we acquire is usually gained by laborious study. (We learn one thing, and infer from it another, and thus we proceed, drawing conclusions which we lay down as premises from which to draw other conclusions. How, then, can we comprehend the Infinite Mind, which knows all things by intuition? We speak of knowledge as of the past, the present, and the future. What shall we say of God, to whom the past and the future are not distin- guished from the present, and whose knowledge, therefore, is not successive, hut perfectly simultaneous ? The Psalm- ist’s words at once suggest themselves : “ Such knowledge is too wonderful for me ; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.” Ps. cxxxix. 6. The omniscience of God is in harmony - with his omnipresence and his omnipotence. Being every- 11BKARY II f 52 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. where in all parts of his vast dominions at ah times, he knows what needs to be done, and his omnipotence is equal to any exigency that may arise. What a blessing that the universe has an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God ! The theory which some hold concerning the omnisci- ence of God is an absurdity — namely, that as God’s om- nipotence is his ability to do all things he pleases to do, but he does not please to do all things ; so his omnis- cience is his ability to know all things, but he does not choose to know all things. To banish this theory from the world it is only necessary to say that, even in accord- ance with it, God must first know all things before he could decide which to know and which not to know. The doctrine of God’s omniscience is clearly revealed in the Bible, as the following passages show: “The Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imagina- tions of the thoughts.” 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. “ His under- standing is infinite.” Ps. cxlvii. 5. “ I am God and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done.” Isa. xlvi. 9, 10. “ Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wis- dom and knowledge of God !” Rom. xi. 33. “ All things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.” Heb. iv. 13. “ For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.” 1 John iii. 20. “And all the churches shall know that I am he who searcheth the reins and hearts.” Rev. ii. 23. Reflections on the omniscience of God should afford his people comfort and joy at all times, but especially when their motives are misconceived, their words misin- terpreted, and their acts misconstrued. It is a source THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 53 of high satisfaction on such occasions to think that God, who knows all things, looks approvingly on his per- secuted children. II. The Moral Attributes of God. 1 . Goodne ss. The disposition in God to impart happi- ness to his creatures is called his goodness. Whether the term hippiness can be properly applied to irrational crea- tures may be questioned ; but they experience what is called animal enjoyment. Of this, the gambols of lambs and the singing of birds are proofs. There is, perhaps, much more of this enjoyment among the various orders of animals than we suppose. According to their differ- ent capacities, they find satisfaction, and even pleasure, in the spheres in which they move. Their eyes wait on God, and he giveth them their meat in due season. Thus he displays his goodness, but this is the lower grade of his goodness ; its higher manifestations have reference to rational and accountable beings. God is good to angels. His love is in constant exercise toward them, and is included in his goodness. This love is expressed in their preservation and in the bestowal of all the blessings which render their existence a perpetual joy. They derive their happiness from God, for he is the “ blessed ” or “ happy God,” the fountain of felicity, and it is his delight to communicate of his blessedness to all the angelic hosts. He is ever displaying his goodness and manifesting his love. It has been his pleasure to give to angels a nature which, so far as we know, is ex- clusively spiritual. If we ask why, the answer is to be found in the words of Jesus: “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Matt. xi. 26. God's goodness to men has been differently manifested. They are complex beings, made up of body and spirit, 5 * 54 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . The divine goodness is seen in their twofold organization. The constitution of their bodies is such that their senses are inlets of great pleasure and enjoyment. Who does not say with Solomon, “ Truly the light is sweet, and a pleasant thing it is for the eyes to behold the sun ” ? Eccles. xi. 7. W T ho has not enjoyed the fragrance of flow T ers? Who has not been thrown into ecstasy by the sw T eet strains of music? God might have made the senses the medium only of pain and disgust: he might have rendered every object of sight as repulsive as the loath- some serpent, every object of taste as bitter as wormwood, every object of smell as offensive as a putrefying carcass, every object of touch as painful as the piercing of the thorn, and every sound as doleful as the wail of sorrow. God’s goodness is seen in the formation of our bodies with a view to physical enjoyment. So also of our mental constitution. How elevated are the pleasures of the intellect! The powers of the mind, if rightly improved, are sources of much enjoyment. Who in the acquisition of knowledge has not been made glad ? Who has not felt the impulse to strive after higher and larger attainments ? It is the possession of intellect which raises man above the beasts that perish and allies him to the angels of God. Indeed, so far as his intellect- ual nature is concerned, man, even since his fall, is made after the similitude of God. James iii. 9. He is a rational creature ; and when we think of the pleasures resulting from rationality, we see plainly the goodness of God in man’s mental constitution. His moral organization likewise indicates the goodness of God. This is inseparable from his mental constitu- tion. He is a moral, accountable agent, because he is a rational creature. His rational nature makes him a proper subject of moral government, and his moral na- THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 55 ture enables him to appreciate his relations to God and to hold fellowship with him. Evidently, man was made that he might glorify God and enjoy him for ev^r, and the adaptation of his moral nature to these ends shows the goodness of God. Time would fail in referring to the providential bless- ings which God bestows on men. From the cradle to the grave there is a constant succession of providential kind- nesses which proclaim the goodness of God. Thus are we reminded of the words of David: “The Lord is good to all.” Ps. cxlv. 9. The goodness or love of God in re- demption is supremely worthy of notice. This phase of divine goodness has to do, not with angels, but with men. It is peculiar to sinners of Adam’s fallen race. It is therefore written, “ God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom. v. 8. “ Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John iv. 10. To a certain point the good- ness or love of God to angels and men is identical and coincident, but beyond that point it may be said, so far as men are concerned, to diverge into grace and mercy. That is to say, grace and mercy are terms not applicable to holy angels, but to sinful men. Grace always implies unworthiness in its recipients. They are unworthy, be- cause they are sinners. Their sinfulness creates their un- worthiness. If saved, they must be saved as unworth} r , and therefore saved by grace. There is no salvation to the unworthy but by grace, and grace implies the justice of the condemnation of the unworthy; for if they are not justly condemned, they may claim deliverance from con- demnation as a matter of right and of debt. The capita] fact of the gospel is that grace reigns in the salvation of the unworthy. While grace regards men as unworthy, 56 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. mercy contemplates them as miserable and wretched. It therefore means all that is included in pity, compassion, and kindred terms. The goodness of God, assuming the form of mercy, commiserates sinners in their ruin and wretchedness. This mercy will be glorified in the sal vation of unnumbered millions in heaven. 2. Justice. This attribute may be considered in two aspects — internal and external. In the former sense, it refers to ttie^lmoral uprightness and excellence of the divine character; in the latter, to the inflexible recti- tude of the divine conduct. God is infinitely just. In his bosom justice has its seat and its throne. Because of the perfect righteousness of his character it is infallibly certain that he will do right — that is,|act in accordance with the principles of justice.N He can make no compro- mise with wrong, nor can he “connive at evil in any of its forms. The thought of injustice is infinitely remote from him. Being perfectly just, he is just in all he does. The Bible therefore says, “ The Lord is righteous in all his ways.” Ps. cxlv. 17. He himself says, “Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet ” (Isa. xxviii. 17), and Paul declares that God “ will judge the world in righteousness.” Acts xvii. 31. A reference to the day of judgment suggests that on that day the ways of God will be vindicated, and it will be clearly seen that in his government of the world, and in the distribution of the rewards and punishments of eternity, there has not been the slightest deviation from the great principles of justice. God not only administers the affairs of his vast empire in accordance with righteousness, but he intends that 4 II the subjects of that empire shall see and acknow- ledge it. The justice of God sustains so important a relation to sin that it has been considered by some as the perfection THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 57 which is specially displayed in the punishment of sin. It certainly requires the punishment of sinners, and they should be punished on account of their ill-desert. No other thQory of punishment is defensible. Two theories have been earnestly advocated : The one affirms that punishment should be inflicted with a view to the refor- mation of the guilty ; and the other, with a view to the prevention of crime. According to the former opinion, if the guilty are too bad to be reformed, they need not be punished ; so that the more wicked a criminal is, the less propriety there is in punishing him. This is too absurd to think of. According to the latter opinion, it would follow that there is no reason why the guilty alone should suffer punishment. It might, according to this theory, be applied to any person whatever, if there were any danger at all that he might be led into sin. It would be merciful to inflict the punishment beforehand, and pre- vent him from incurring guilt. Neither opinion will stand examination. The reformation of criminals and the preven- tion of crime are only secondary objects in punishment. The primary, the supreme, reason for the infliction of pun- ishment is found in the fact that there is inherent ill-desert in sin, and therefore the guilty deserve to be punished. The death of Christ furnishes the most impressive and even appalling exhibition of divine justice. An able writer has forcibly said, “ If God could have permitted sin to escape with impunity, if the determination to punisb it had not proceeded from his nature, but merely from his will, he would not have subjected his own Son to a cruel and ignominious death. . . . No ; the unavoid- able conclusion is, that the death of Christ was the indis- pensable condition of the redemption of the world ; that the designs of mercy, abstractly considered, were at variance with the demands of justice ; and that, to establish har- 58 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. mony between them, it was necessary that justice should be satisfied. This w r as the most solemn display of justice — the highest proof that it is as truly an attribute of the divine nature as power and wisdom. It no longer admits of a doubt that there is a necessary connection between guilt and punishment. Who can hope for impu- nity if the Son of God did not escape?” 1 3. Veracity. Writers on theology usually employ the term “ truth 55 in this connection. I prefer veracity, be- cause it is more applicable to persons, while truth more properly refers to things. A man of veracity makes a true statement. Veracity is, therefore, a personal moral attribute, and truth is a property of things. This being the case, veracity is that perfection in God which renders all his judgments according to truth, which prompts him to say what is true, and which makes it impossible for him to lie. The impossibility is moral, not natural. That is, God has the natural ability to say what is not true, but the infinite excellence of his character, including his ve.rs.city, makes it morally impossible for him to lie. Jesus in praying for his disciples addressed his Father thus : u Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth.” John xvii. 17. The word of God is true, because ve- racity is one of the attributes of his moral character. Whatr ever that word says as to the past, the present, or the future is true, for the truth of God endures to all gen- erations. 4C A God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” Deut. xxxii. 4. Truth, in the highest sense of the word, is a correct representation of things as they have been, as they now are, or as they will be for ever. In this view 7 the term truth is fully applicable to all that God says, for, though heaven and earth shall pass away, his words will not pass away. 1 Dick’s 'Eulogy, Lecture xxv. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 59 The veracity of God comprehends his faithfulness, and his faithfulness includes the fulfilment of his promises and the execution of his threatenings. The certain per- formance of the divine promises may be argued from the omniscience of God. Men make promises, not knowing the future ; and the occurrences of the future make the doing of what they had promised impossible. It is not so with God. When he made his promises, he knew all the future; and if he had seen anything to prevent their accomplishment, they would not have been made. The promises are given in Christ: Paul says, “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God 'by us.” 2 Cor. i. 20. As the promises are in Christ, God in fulfilling them will, if I may so say, draw on the exhaustless mediatorial resources of his beloved Son. Then, too, as the promises are to the divine glory, whatever considerations prompt God to take care of his glory will prompt him to fulfil his promises. This of itself is a sufficient reason jbr believ- ing that God will do what he has promised. The prom- ises of God, giving his people assurances of blessings on earth and in heaven, open to view a sacred realm too large to be explored. I do not enter it, but only say that the day will doubtless come when all the redeemed from the heights of glory will say, as did Joshua on his dying day, “Not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you.” Josh, xxiii. 14. God show 7 s his faithfulness to his word in executing his threatenings. His veracity makes the execution of his threatenings as certain as the performance of his prom- ises. His incorrigible enemies cannot escape his wrath “ There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where tli€ workers of iniquity may hide themselves.” Job xxxiv 60 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . 22. On the very day when the Lord Jesus shall come “ to be glorified in his saints ” we are told that he “ will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flam- ing fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” 2 Thess. i. 7-9. Fidelity to his word, whether it be word of promise or w r ord of threatening, is included in Ciod’s veracity. 4. Wisdom. There is a distinction between omniscience and wisdom. We may conceive of knovdedge so vast as to imply acquaintance with all things, and we may imagine such knowledge as unused or not used for valuable purposes. In this there would be no wisdom, for fgdsdom always makes use of knowledge for some good end. Wisdom implies knowledge. To this extent it may be classed among the natural attributes of God. But there is something in wisdom additional to know- ledge ; and # wisdom in this sense, as using knowledge for purposes worthy of the moral character of God, may be regarded as one of his moral attributes. Or it may be considered as a divine attribute partly natural and partly moral. The proofs of God’s wisdom in creation, providence, and redemption justify this view. It has been said so often as to be quite familiar, that wisdom consists in the choice of proper ends, and proper means to accomplish them. The two things must be united. Unworthy ends, whatever the means to effect them, would exhibit no wisdom ; and worthy ends with means bo unsuitable as to defeat their accomplishment would be no proof of wisdom. In the works of God we have worthy ends and proper means. David, in referring to these works, said, “ 0 Lord, how manifold are thy works I THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD . 61 in wisdom hast thou made them all.” Ps. civ. 24. In an exhaustive work on this subject specific references would be made to his various works as showing the wisdom of God. It would be interesting thus to dwell on the for- mation of the earth, the constitution of the atmosphere, the tides of the ocean, the position of the sun, the in- stincts of animals, the bodily organism of the human frame, man’s intellectual powers, his consciousness of accountability and free agency, and all the works of crea- tion opened to our view. But we can only make to thesa this brief reference. The providence of God also opens a large volume illustrative of his wisdom. Into . this volume we must not look even far enough to see how wisely God preserves and governs what he has made. Redemption through Christ is a luminous display of the wisdom of God. Wisdom appears in rendering the glory of God and the salvation of man compatible; in harmonizing law and justice with mercy ; in manifesting divine love to sinners and hatred of their sins; in the manner in which the conscience is tranquillized ; in pro- viding for the interests of practical holiness ; in humbling and elevating the saved ; and in making the Saviour’s death, instigated by Satan, the means of overturning Satan’s empire. Who can contemplate topics like these without adopting the words of Paul ? — “ Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence.” Eph. i. 8. Who does not exclaim ? — “ Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!” Rom. xi. 33. It is not strange that angels are students of the science of redemption, for we are told that they desire to look into the things reported in the gospel. 5. JJptrf&ss. The holiness of God is often assigned a place among the moral attributes of the divine nature ; yet, strictly speaking, it is not a single attribute, but ft (52 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . rather a combination of all the moral attributes of God If we consider this combination, this aggregation, of moral perfections, and gaze on the glory radiating there- from, we shall probably have the scriptural idea of “the beauty of holiness.” The definition of the term holiness, as now given, will enable us to understand several pas- sages of Scripture in which there seems to be a manifest purpose to ascribe all moral excellence to God, and yet he is not referred to as good and just, but only as holy. The following is a specimen of these passages : “ Who is like unto thee, 0 Lord, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing won- ders?” Ex. xv. 11. “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” Isa. vi. 3. “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” 1 Pet. i. 16. “Who shall not fear thee, 0 Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy.” Rev. xv. 4. It would be absurd to sup- pose that in these passages goodness, justice, and veracity are not attributed to God, but they are not mentioned. They are, however, comprehended in the holiness, which is evidently referred to as inclusive of the moral excel- lences of the divine character. The view now expressed concerning the holiness of God is substantially the view of Andrew Fuller. He uses the following words : “ There 3'e certain perfections which all who acknowledge a God agree in attributing to him ; such are those of wisdom, power, immutability, etc. These, by Christian divines, are usually termed his natural perfections. There are others which no less evidently belong to Deity, such aa goodness, justice, veracity, etc., all which may be ex- pressed in one word — holiness; and these are usually termed his moral perfections.” 1 A profound American theologian uses these words 1 Complete Works , vol. ii. p. 9. THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 63 u Goodness, truth, and justice are moral attributes of God. Holiness is not an attribute distinct from these, but a name which includes them all, in view of their opposi* tion to contrary qualities. It implies the perfection of the assemblage — the absence of everything in it contrary to either of the properties included .” 1 Dr. A. A. Hodge expresses himself very forcibly as follows: “The holiness of God is not to be conceived of as one attribute among others; it is rather a general term representing the conception of his consummate perfection and total glory. It is his infinite moral perfection crown- ing his infinite intelligence and power. There is a glory of each attribute, viewed abstractly, and a glory of the whole together. The intellectual nature is the essential basis of the moral. Infinite moral perfection is the crown of the Godhead. Holiness is the total glory thus crowned .” 2 Such is holiness, rendering the divine character the bright centre in which all the lines of moral perfection and beauty and glory meet. 1 Dr. Dagg’s Theology , j . 86. 2 Outline* yf Theology , pp. 127, 128. CHAPTER IV. THE TRINITY. While the Bible teaches the unity of God — that there is one and only, one God — it also teaches that in the one Godhead there is a distinction of persons. The distinc- tion is threefold. It is such as to justify the use of the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The recognition of these three persons as equally belonging to the Godhead is in theology styled the Doctrine of the Trinity. The idea intended to be conveyed by this term is that of three in one. It is not meant that the three divine persons are three in the sense in which they are one, or that they are one in the sense in which they are three. I have seen no better definition of the term Trinity than I find in Webster’s Dictionary — namely, “The union of three per- sons (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) in one Godhead, so that all the three are one God as to sub- stance, but three persons as to individuality.” It must be admitted that the word person in its Trinitarian sense is not wholly free from objection, but it seems to be un- derstood by orthodox writers that there is no better word. The objection is, that it cannot be used in its common acceptation as applied to human beings. It needs modi- fication. For example, person in the ordinary use of the term means a distinct and independent being, so that one person is one being, and a hundred persons are a hundred THE TRINITY. 65 beings. But ui the Godhead there are three persons and one Being . The dissimilarity in the two instances is manifest. ^The doctrine of the Trinity is one of mysterious gran- - deur, which defies the comprehension of every finite mind, and must be received as true on the authority of the Bi- bleQ The wisest men have most readily confessed theii inability to explain Trinity in Unity or Unity in Trinity. Prof. Moses Stuart well remarks, in his second letter to Dr. Channing: “ What, then, you will doubtless ask, is the specific nature of that distinction in the Godhead which the word person is meant to designate ? I answer, without hesiti tion, that I do not know. The fact that a distinction exists is what we aver; the specific definition- of that dis- tinction is what I shall by no means .attempt to make out. By what shall I, or can I, define it ? What simile drawn from created objects, which are necessarily derived and dependent , can illustrate the mode of existence in that Being who is underived, independent, unchangeable, in- finite, eternal ? I confess myself unable to advance a sin- gle step here in explaining what the distinction is. I re ceive the fact that it exists , simply because I believe that the Scriptures reveal the fact. And if the Scriptures do reveal the fact that there are three persons in the Godhead ; that there is a distinction which affords grounds for the re- spective appellations of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; which lays the foundation for the application of the per- sonal pronouns,/, Thou, He ; which renders it proper to speak of sending and being sent; to speak of Christ as being with God , being in his bosom , and of other things of the like nature in the like way, and yet to hold that the divine nature equally belongs to each, — then it is, like every fact revealed, to be received simply on the credit of divine revelation.” 1 1 Miscellanies , p. 23. 6 * 66 CHitlSTIA N DOCTRINES . It has by some been made an objection to the doctrine of the Trinity that the word is not to be found in the Bible. This is true, but there is no weight in the objec- tion if what is meant by the term is there ; and this I shall attempt to show. I merely notice, without enlarg- ing on the fact, that in the Old Testament, in several places, when God speaks the plural number is used, as in the following passages : “ Let us make man in our image ;” “Behold the man is become as cne cf us;” “Let us go down and there confound their language;” “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us ?” Gen. i. 26 ; iii. 22 ; xi. 7 ; Isa. vi. 8. These forms of expression are certainly pe- culiar, and there is nothing incredible in the supposition that they were used as intimations of a plurality of per- sons in the Godhead — a fact to be distinctly revealed in the New Testament. The teachings of Christ and his apostles are too plain to be misunderstood. In Matthew xxviii. 19, Jesus says, “ Go ye therefore, and teach [disciple] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” I shall enter into no critical examination of the import of the phrase “in the name,” nor inquire whether it might be more properly rendered “ into the name.” It is enough for my present purpose to notice that baptism is connected with the name of every person in the Godhead. There is no consistent interpretation of the language which does not place on equality the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If the Deity of one of these persons is recognized, there is a recognition of the Deity of the three. It is im- possible to make a valid distinction as to equality and sameness of nature. The Deity of the Father will be ac- knowledged by all who believe there is a God. This point, then, is settled. Now, as to the Son and the Holy Spirit, who could without a shudder hear of the name of TIIE TRINITY. 67 Rngel or archangel as substituted in place of the r.ame of either ? Why ? Because of the blasphemous inconsistency of exalting creatures to an equality with God. But the name of the Son and the name of the Holy Spirit are joined with the name of the Father, and the conjunction is so important that the validity of baptism is inseparable from it. The doctrine of the Trinity must be true. Some, conceding the personality of the Father and of the Son, have supposed the Holy Spirit to be an “ energy ” or an “influence.” To show the absurdity of this view it is only necessary to point to the absurdity of baptizing in the name of an “ energy ” or an “ influence ” in connection with baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son. It is plain that the reference, in the last commission of Christ, to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is a reference to persons, and not to energies or influences. The doctrine of the Trinity is distinctly brought to view in 2 Cor. xiii. 14 : “ The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all.” These words constitute what is usually called the apostolic benediction, and they are an invocation. The love of God the Father is in voked. This is too manifest to be denied. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is also mentioned, as is the com- munion of the Holy Spirit. It transcends all belief that the grace of the Son and the communion of the Spirit are referred to in immediate connection with the love of God the Father if the three persons are not the same in sub- stance and equal in glory. Should the names Gabriel and Michael, conspicuous among angelic spirits, be put in place of the names Lord Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit, all who reverence the Scriptures would revolt from the blasphemous substitution. They would protest against 68 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. the elevation of the highest order of creatures to an equality with God. In the benediction, however, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are invoked as well as God the Father — a fact which shows the equal- ity of the three persons. In Ephesians ii. 18 we read, “ For through him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.” Here the three persons of the Godhead are referred to, and the pas- sage confirms the view already presented. In Revelation i. 4, 5 w^e have this remarkable language : “ Grace be unto you, and peace from him which is, and which was, and which is to come ; and from the seven spirits which are before his throne ; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faith- ful Witness.” As seven was the perfect number among the Jews, we are to understand by “ the seven spirits ” the Holy Spirit in the plenitude of his gifts, in the complete- ness and diversity of his beneficent operations. If this view is correct, the point to which special attention is called is, that grace and peace are sought from the Holy Spirit and from Jesus Christ, as well as from him “ which was, which is, and which is to come.” These last words indicate existence from eternity to eternity, one of the at- tributes of Supreme Deity ; and as Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are named in conjunction with him who was, is, .and is to come, the irresistible inference is that they are equally divine. The argument in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity sup* plied by the use of the personal pronouns, “ Thou , He” is worthy of some expansion. The passages in the Bible ere almost numberless in wdiich God, in referring to him- self, says, /, mine , and me: “As I live, saith the Lord;” “Ian: the Lord;” “All souls are mine;” “Every beast of the forest is mine ;” “ Besides me there is no Saviour ;’ “ Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts.” There THE TRINITY. 69 are passages, too, in which the Father and the Son say to each other thou , thee , and thirx : “ Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee ;” “ Thou hast loved right- eousness “ As thou hast given him power over all flesh “All mine are thine, and thine are mine.” While the Father and the Son address each other in the use of the personal pronouns, thou , thee , and thine, the Spirit is referred to as he and him : “ But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things” (John xiv. 26) ; “He shall glorify me ” (xvi. 14) ; “ The Comforter whom I will send unto you.” xv. 26. It is needless to multiply proofs that the Spirit w T as to be sent by the Father and the Son. The Father is said to have sent the Son into the world, but neither the Son nor the Spirit is ever said to have sent the Father. The Son is represented as becoming flesh and dying, but this is not true of the Father and the Spirit. In view of these significant facts it is obvious that there is such a threefold distinction of persons in the Godhead as to justify and to require the use of the terms Father, Son, and Spirit. Nor does this threefold distinction con- flict with the unity of God, for the three persons are one in substance, while they are three in individuality. These two truths present unity in Trinity. It may be well, before dismissing this topic, to notice that equality of nature may consist with inequality in office. 'The most zealous Trinitarian will admit that while the three persons of the Godhead are equal in na- ture and in essential glory, there is, on tne part of the Son and the Holy Spirit, official inferiority. There are various scriptures in which the Father is represented as supreme in office. That is, the Son and the Spirit act in subordination to him. For this reason God is said to have sent his Son into the world, and the Son is said to 70 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. have come in the flesh. Here we have inferiority, in the sense that he who is sent is inferior to him who sends. The Son is also recognized as the servant of the Father, for it is said, “ Behold my servant whom I have chosen.’ 5 Matt. xii. 18. As the servant is subordinate to the master, so was the Son subordinate to the Father. Christ said again and again, u I came to do the will of him that sent me. 15 As doing the will of another denotes inferior- ity, so Christ in doing the will of the Father appears as his inferior. But the inferiority is in office, not in na- ture; the subordination is official, and does not touch the divine substance. Here there is perfect, undisturbed equality. What I have said of the second person of the Godhead may be said substantially of the third. When God the Father says, “ I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh, 55 when he is said to u give the Holy Spirit, 55 and when Jesus says, “ The Comforter whom I will send unto you, 55 there is manifest reference to inequality of office. There is the sublimest equality of nature. Official infe- riority and natural equality may be easily illustrated. The President of the United States is officially superior to any and every man in the nation. All the men who hold office are, so far as official position is concerned, inferior to him. No one aspires to be his equal. But in nature every citizen of the republic is his equal — that is, every citizen possesses the same human nature. Equality in nature and inferiority in office are therefore exempli- fied in matters both human and divine. In contemplating the doctrine of the Trinity as an un- speakable mystery we must ever guard against looking on it as a profitless speculation, without practical influ- ence. The very fact that the subject is so far above our comprehension should inspire us with reverential mod- esty and humility. The highest flights of reason cannot THE TRINITY. 71 reach it, yet the doctrine is among “ the true sayings of God.” Alas, how little we know ! God is infinite — we are finite, and can know but little of him and the mode of his existence. Where we cannot understand, let us won- der and adore. The economy of redemption seems to have been arranged in recognition of a distinction of persons in the Godhead, and hence the three persons are represented as acting their respective parts in the great work. It is our privilege to consider the love which had been lodged in the Father’s bosom from eternity as ex- pressing itself in the gift of his Son; to contemplate the Son as pouring forth his soul unto death, thus procuring redemption by his blood ; and to rejoice in the work of the Spirit in renewing the heart, sanctifying the soul, and fitting it for heaven. We should never forget that in bap- tism there is avowed consecration to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity, as it is recognized in baptism, has much to do with experi- mental and practical piety. Far, far from us be the idea that the existence of three persons in the Godhead is a barren speculation. It is a truth both mysterious and grand, and its influence should be eminently salutary. One of its effects should be the stimulation of desire on the part of Christians to be one even as the three persons of the Godhead are one. Who can think of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one — one in nature, one in love, one in purpose — and not hope for the day when the intercessory prayer of Christ will be answered* in the union of all his followers? CHAPTER V. THE DEITY OF CHRIST. Ii? the argument presented in the foregoing chapter is conclusive in favor of the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ must be admitted. That is, if Christ is the second person of the Godhead, he is divine, the same in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, to w T hom he is by a blessed necessity equal in power and glory. This being the case, some suppose that a special discus- sion of Christ’s Deity is needless. This is a very plausi- ble opinion, to which I should yield if the subject was not of transcendent importance. Being fully satisfied, however, that the supreme divinity of the Lord Jesus is the basis of the system of Christianity, and that without this basis the system has no saving value, I deem it prop- er to assign to the Deity of Christ a distinct prominence. Before adducing proofs that Christ is God, I wish to present a few considerations to prepare the way for these proofs, and to induce a higher appreciation of them. 1. Christ both in the Old Testament and the New is repre- sented as acting the part of Substitute for those he came to save. We therefore read, “But he was wounded for our trans- gressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastise- ment of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isa. liii. 5, 6. “ Even as the Son of man came 72 THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 73 not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many/’ Matt. xx. 28. “ The good Shep- herd giveth his life for the sheep.” John x. 11. u Christ lath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.” Gal. iii. 13. These are but a specimen of the passages which teach that Christ took the place of those whom he saves, and died in their stead. I might refer to other passages from which we learn that we are forgiven and saved for Jesus’ sake, but it is not necessary. It will be conceded that the gospel teaches that sinners are saved, because Jesus has done and suffered something for them. As to the specific nature of what he did and suffered, I do not now inquire. I only assume that he was the Substitute of those who are saved by him, and that they are saved through his mediation. 2. If Christ is not divine , he could not have taken the place of sinners , so as to make atonement for their sins . One crea- ture cannot, in the government of God, take the place of another. An angel cannot act in the room of a man. Why? Because all that an angel can do is, on his own personal account, due to God. This is the universal law of creatureship. It asserts its claims in all worlds, and will assert them for ever. Now, suppose Christ to have-'' been a created being. Take the Arian view, first espoused in the fourth century. Arius conceded that Christ was the most exalted of beings, next to God, but he said also, “ There was a time when the Son was not.” Thus he refused to accord to the Son the attribute of eternity, and there cannot be Deity without eternity of existence. If we suppose, for argument’s sake, the doctrine of Arius to be true, and that Christ, however highly exalted in the 6cale of being, is not God, but a creature, then it follows that he was personally bound to serve God the Creator. His creatureship must have imposed on him personal 7 74 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. obligations, rendering it impossible for him to act in the room of others. Creatureship and substitution are not consistent with each other. They cannot stand together. “ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with, all thy strength ” (Mark xii. 30), is the law which extends its jur- isdiction over the whole realm of creatureship. If all the creature’s strength is to be exerted in the love and service of God on account of the creature’s personal relation to the Creator, then there is no remaining strength to be used in any other way or for any other purpose. If Jesus was merely a created being, he must, like other creatures, act for himself alone. It is plain, therefore, that if Christ is not divine, he could not have taken the place of sinners, so as to die for them and make atonement for their sins. 3. If Christ , as a created being , could have taken the place of sinners , suffering in their stead , there would not have been saving merit in his sufferings. We speak of the different orders of rational creatures, but they are substantially one. As compared with God, their diversity as to each other disappears. If one creature fails to meet his obliga- tions to God, how can another creature atone for the fail- ure by satisfying the law which has been violated ? " There must be merit to satisfy the claims of God’s law. But where is merit to be found in anything a creature can do? When creatures have done all required of them, Jesus teaches them to say, u We are unprofitable servants : we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke xvii. 10. On the supposition that Christ, as a mere creature, died for sinners, what saving merit could there be in his blood ? When creatures deserved perdition, could the death of a creature effect their salvation? The law of God can rec- ognize merit in that only which does honor to its precep- tive and penal claims. Nothing that a creature can do o t THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 75 suffer can confer this honor. There is an absence of merit, and there can be no merit unless it is found in a Being in whom the divine element supplies it. In view of these considerations it is perfectly clear that Christ, unless divine, could have done nothing in the matter of human salvation. It w T ould not have been p >ssible for him to act in the room of others ; and had it been possible, he could not have saved them. There is absolutely no hope for any sinner of Adam’s race un- less the Word who in the beginning was with God w r as God. John i. 1. This eternal Word, the second person in the Trinity, being above law, free from the obligations of creatureship, was at his own disposal, and could, if so in- clined, place himself under a law enacted for the govern- ment of creatures. This the advocates of Christ’s Deity believe he has done, and that the fact is recorded in these words : “ God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” Gal. iv. 4, 5. Obeying the precepts of the law in his life and suffering its penalty in his death, the divine nature in the twofold constitution of his person imparted infinite worth to his obedience and sufferings. The law was mag- nified and made honorable, while a way was opened for the consistent exercise of mercy in the salvation of the guilty. This was done if Christ was divine, but on no other supposition. We may now proceed to consider in order some of the more prominent proofs of Christ’s Deity. They are such as these: I. Divine Names are Given to Him. Before establish- ing this by direct quotations from the New Testament, I will name some passages in the Old Testament which without doubt refer to God in the supreme sense of the term, and are by the New Testament writers applied to Christ. In Ps. xlv. 6 it is written, “ Thy throne, 0 God, 76 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre.” In Heb. i. 8 we read, “ But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever : a sceptre of right- eousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” It is. worthy of special notice that these w^ords, as used in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are found in the midst of an argument to prove the pre-eminent dignity of Christ by showing his superior- ity to angels. It would be difficult to explain why the in- spired writer wished to prove Christ’s superiority to angels if he did not intend to teach his equality with God. It is indisputable that the Father in addressing the Son ap- plies to him the term God : “ Th}^ throne, 0 God.” Isaiah in the sixth chapter of his prophecy records a wonderful vision, in which he saw the Lord “ high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.” He saw the six-winged seraphim, and heard them cry with rever- ential awe, “ Ifoly, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” No one will deny that the Lord Jehovah of hosts is the supreme God. But in the twelfth chapter of the Gospel of John we are referred to this vision of the prophet ; and the evangelist, with Christ as the theme of his discourse, says, “ These things said Esa- ias, when he saw his glory and spake of him.” John xii. 41. Nothing is plainer than that Isaiah, in seeing the glory of the Lord of hosts, saw the glory of Christ ; and why? Because Christ is Jehovah of hosts. We have in Isaiah xl. 3 these words : “ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” John the Baptist said of himself, u I am the voice of one crying in the wulderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.” John i. 23. As the harbinger of Christ, John the Baptist was his messenger, as we learn from Mai. iii. 1 ; Mark i. 2, 3, and came to pre- THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 77 pare his way. In the Old Testament the way of the Lord is the way of Jehovah, and in the New Testament the way of the Lord is the way of Jesus. The conclusion is irre- sistible that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the Je- ll /vah-Jesus of the New Testament. I now proceed to quote from the New Testament a number of passages which obviously teach the Deity of Christ. It is natural to refer first to John i. 1, 2 : “ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the be- ginning with God.” That by the Word is meant the Being who became incarnate, we are taught in the fourteenth verse of the same chapter: “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” The words “ In the beginning ” no doubt mean what they do in Gen. i. 1. The reference is to the period at which “ God created the heaven and the earth.” The Word was then with him, and as God existed before he performed the work of crea- tion, and as the Word was with him, it follows that the Word existed before creation, which is equivalent to eter- nity of being. Jesus, therefore, in one place refers to the glor}” which he had with the Father before the world was. John xvii. 5. “ The Word was God ” is the declaration to which special attention should be called, and which deserves the strongest emphasis. What could be more unequivocal ? How could testimony in favor of Christ’s Deity be more positive? The language of Thomas in John xx. 28 deserves con- sideration. This apostle had expressed his incredulity in terms unreasonably strong, but when Jesus presented in- fallible proofs of his resurrection Thomas said, “ My Lord and my God !” I am aware that some who deny Christ’s divinity insist that the words of Thomas are those of exclamatory surprise, and do not attribute Lordship and 78 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . Deity to Christ. To adopt this view it would be neces- sary to believe that the apostle expressed his surprise in a very irreverent, not to say blasphemous, manner. What- ever surprise Thomas felt, his words were declarative of his faith in Christ as his Lord and his God, and the avowal of his faith was pleasing to Christ. It is manliest that Jesus did not disclaim the titles that Thomas gave him, but recognized their propriety. He is, then, Lord and God. In the ninth chapter of Romans, Paul refers to the advantages ehjoyed by the Israelites, “ of whom, as con- cerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.” v. 5. The words “ as concerning the flesh,” though they almost seem to have been thrown in inci- dentally, are very significant. They teach the descent of Christ, how he came, as to his human nature ; but the language which follows shows him to be divine, for he “is over all, God blessed for ever.” It can only be said of a Divine Being that he is over all f and it is therefore perfectly natural that the term God should be applied to him “who is over all.” In 1 Tim. iii. 16 occurs the expression, “ God was mani- fest in the flesh.” It is the part of candor to say that the correctness of this translation is disputed. The two prominent views of the passage are these : Some -say that the authority of ancient manuscripts justifies the Com- mon Version, while others insist that the best manusciipt authority requires the substitution of who in the place of God . Dr. Noyes, taking the latter view, translates, as fol- lows : “ And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness in him who was manifested in the flesh.” He says in a note that “ the words ‘ in him 5 are not in the Greek, but seem to be implied in the context.” It is evident, then, whichever view we take, that there was a manifestation THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 79 in the flesh and the manifestation of a being. Mr. Spur- geon, in his sermon on this verse entitled “ The Hexapla of Mystery,” has placed the matter in controversy in so clear a light that any one can understand it. He says : ‘‘There is very little occasion for fighting about this matter, for if the text does not say ‘ God was manifest in the flesh,’ who does it say was manifest in the flesh ? Either a man, or an angel, or a devil. Does it tell us that a man was manifest in the flesh ? Assuredly that cannot be its teaching, for every man is manifest in the flesh, and there is no sense whatever in making such*a statement concerning any mere man, and then calling it a mystery. Was it an angel, then ? But what angel was ever mani- fest in the flesh ? And if he were, would it be at all a mys tery that he should be ‘ seen of angels ’ ? Is it a w T onder for an angel to see an angel ? Can it be that the devil was manifest in the flesh? If so, he has been ‘received up into glory,’ which, let us hope, is not the case. Well, if it was neither a man, nor an angel, nor a devil, w T ho was manifest in the flesh, surely he must have been God ; and so, if the word be not there, the sense must be there, or else nonsense. We believe that if criticism should grind the text in a mill, it would get out of it no more and no less than the sense expressed by our grand old version : God himself was manifest in the flesh.” To this striking interpretation of Mr. Spurgeon not a word needs to be added, and every objection will assail it in vain. I refer to one passage more in which Christ is called God : “And we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” 1 John v. 20. Here Christ is not only designated God, but the true God. As there can be but one true God, the epithet true , in its application to Christ, makes him one 80 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. in essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, while it Lays the axe at the root of polytheism and shows all idol gods to be vanity. The phrase “ eternal life ” claims atten- tion. If full force is given to the article in the original, we must read, “ This is the true God, and the eternal life.” In this case there would be a repetition of the idea in chapter i. 2: “ For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” Here eternity of life or being is ascribed to Christ, and he must be God. Or if we take the words as we have them, without the force of the article — “This is the true God, and eternal life” — then we must understand the be- loved disciple to teach, by a figure of speech, that Christ is the Author of eternal life. If so, he is divine, for God alone can give eternal life to creatures. The argument from the ascription of divine names to Christ in favor of his Deity is by no means exhausted, but I pursue it no further. The Scriptures call him God, and he is God. II. Divine Attributes Belong to Christ. The pre- ceding argument derives its power from the fact that names which in the highest sense are applied to God are also applied to Christ. The force of the present argument will be seen in Christ’s possession of attributes unques- tionably divine. I shall not attempt to give an exhaus- tive catalogue of these attributes, but merely name the following conspicuous ones : 1. Eternity. That the Word, who in the beginning was with God, had an eternal existence is proved by the following Scripture: “ But thou, Bethlehem-Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ru.er in Israel; w T hose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Mic. v. 2. That this langvage refers THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 81 to Chr.st is manifest from Matt. ii. 6. It will be observed that while the “ ruler in Israel ” was to come out of Bethlehem — that is, be born there — it is said that his “ goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” While the passage contains a clear intimation of the two- fold constitution of the person of the Messiah, it is here quoted to show T that he who was born in Bethlehem had ex- isted from eternity : “ His goings forth had been from ever- lasting.” When it is said in Psalm xc. 2, “ From ever- lasting to everlasting thou art God,” it is universally understood that God has existed from eternity. Why, then, do not the words “ from everlasting,” when applied to the Lord Jesus, mean the same thing? The} must have the same meaning. I refer to one other passage in proof of the eten ity of Christ’s existence. It is found in John xvii. 5, and has been mentioned in another connection : “ And now, 0 Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” The words “ before the world was ” are identical in import with “before the foundation of the world,” as in Eph. i. 4. Bringing the world into existence is referred to as one of the creative acts of divine power, and there is no intimation that it was subsequent to any other creative act. Between the remotest depths of eternity and the creation of the world there is no epoch from which to date, and therefore whatever was before the foundation of the world was eternal. “ Glory before the world was ” must have been eternal glory, and as the glory of a being implies his existence, his eternal glory implies his eternal existence. That Christ existed “ before the world was ” is a strong argument for his eternity ; and if the posses- sion of unbeginning existence is not proof of Deity, there is no proof of anything. 82 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 2. Om A science . To know all things is a divine prerog- ative. It is God who “ searches all hearts and under- stands all the imaginations of the thoughts.” 1 Chrom xxviii. 9. He is referred to in Acts xv. 8 as “ knowing the hearts” — literally, “ the heart-knower ;” and in 1 John iii. 20 he is said to “ know all things.” If these things are true of God and also of Christ, it follows that Christ is God. Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee” (John xxi. 17); and if in Acts i. 24 the term Lord, as in most places in the New Testament, refers to Christ, he is designated “heart-knower.” However this may be, we know that it is he who in Rev. ii. 23 says, “And all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts.” Probably the strongest proof of Christ’s omnis- cience is to be found in his own words in Matt. xi. 27 : “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son,” A literal translation requires the substitution of one for man — no one, any one. Tt is not Only said that man does not pos- sess the knowledge referred to, but that no one, in any class of rational beings, possesses it. The knowledge is peculiarly divine, and as Christ is in possession of it in common with the Father, the Deity of the Son is as undeniable as that of the Father. 3. Omnipresence. In the chapter on the attributes of God it was shown in the light of Ps. cxxxix. 7-12 and other Scriptures that God is everywhere. Omnipres- ence is obviously a divine perfection. If, then, this perfection belongs to Christ, his Deity is unquestionable. What did he himself say in his conversation with Nico- demus? — “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is i r heaven.” John iii. 13. Here we are plainly taught THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 83 that he who came down from heaven was in heaven. The only explanation is, that while his bodily presence was on earth his essential presence was in heaven. Christ also said, “ For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them ” Matt, xviii. 20. It is quite observable that Jesus does not refer to laige numbers of his disciples, but to two or tfc:ee met in his name. However numerous and however widely separated these little companies may be, the Saviour’s presence is with them all. If it is said that his gracious presence is specially meant, I grant it, but his gracious presence wherever two or three meet is possible only because he is omnipresent. For the same reason his words are true : u Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” Matt, xxviii. 20. His presence everywhere is of necessity implied. The omnipresence of Christ is proof of his Deity. 4. Omnipotence. If omniscience and omnipresence are divine attributes, it is certain that omnipotence must be classed among the perfections of God. If, therefore, it can be shown that Christ possesses almighty power, there will be another argument in support of his divin- ity, It is manifest that in the exercise of power he claimed equality with God the Father. Referring to the Father, he said, “ For what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” Prophecy spoke of him as “ the mighty Go. I.” Isa. ix. 6. Even while on earth, in the days of his humiliation, his superhuman power was recognized. Winds and waves obeyed him, disease loosed its grasp at his bidding, while death and the grave were in haste at his word to yield up their prey. So great and so beneficent is the power of Christ, that Paul considered it a special favor for this power to rest 84 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. on him, and he rejoiced in his ability to do all things through Christ strengthening him. Surety Christ is almighty, and he is therefore divine. 5. Immutability . When God says, “ I am the Lord, I change not ” (Mai. iii. 6), the form of expression denotes that his unchangeableness is proof of his divinity. This being the case, it must be admitted that, if Christ is immuta- ble, he is God. In Heb. i. 10-12, Christ seems evidently referred to as the Maker of the heavens and the earth, which are to perish and be changed ; but it is said, “ Thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” In the last chapter of the same Epistle we have the words, “ Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.” v. 8. Changes belong to things and creatures. Immutability belongs to God alone, and Jesus Christ is invariably the same, because he is God. Thus does the Deity of Christ appear from the ascrip- tion of divine attributes to him. III. Christ is Represented as. performing Divine Works. No physical act displays omnipotence more strikingly than creation. The production of something out of nothing is everywhere in the Scriptures considered the exclusive work of God. I concede, therefore, that if Christ has not exerted creative power, one of the strongest, if not the strongest, proofs of his Deity is wanting. . But what say the Scriptures? — “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that w\as made.” John i. 3. I do not see how the universal and the par- ticular can be more fully expressed than in this verse. “ All things were made by him ” — this is the universal ; “without him was not anything [literally, one thing] made” — this is the particular. There is nothing that rises above “ all things ” and there is nothing that falls below the “one thing,” Every created object is embraced THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 85 in this inspired account of creation, and the omnipotent work is ascribed to Christ. We have similar language in Col. i. 16: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created by him, and for him.’ 5 Here, too, the existence of all things is ascribed to the creative power of Christ. The statement of the apostle is so positive and so forcible that all words of paraphrase would weaken it. I therefore leave it without comment. Nor shall I quote other Scriptures to prove that the work of creation is attributed to Christ. The two passages now before the reader are amply sufficient. Who but a Divine Being has created all things ? Christ is therefore God. The work of preservation is also the work of Christ. Of him it is said, “ And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Col. i. 17. Being before all things, he existed prior to the creation of all things by his power, and since their creation he has preserved them by the same power. “ All things consist ” — that is, they stand together, are kept in place — by him who made them. They would fall to pieces, there would be disintegration, if Christ were not Conserver as well as Creator. In Heb. i. 3 are these words : “ Upholding all things by the word of his power.” Here the kindred idea of sustaining is presented. The imagery employed supposes the uni- verse to rest on the word of Christ’s power, and he is in- finitely able to uphold the “ all things ” he has created. Does not his work of providence prove his Deity ? The resurrection of the dead will be a glorious display of the power of God. No sane mind can suppose that anything but omnipotence can reanimate the dust of the countless millions in the empire of the grave. Indeed, some in apostolic times seem to have thought it “ incred- 86 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. ible that God should raise the dead.” Certainly, no one supposed that an}^ being but God could perform such a work. There is, however, a special ascription of this work to Christ. He says himself, “ The hour is- coming in thj which all that are in the grave shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.” John v. 28, 29. What amazing power will this be, accompanying the voice of •.he Son of God, and causing all the dead to hear that voice! They will do more: “They will come forth.” These are the words of “ the faithful and true Witness. 5 Paul says of Christ, “ Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, ac- cording to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” Phil. iii. 21. This passage refers to the resurrection of the saints, and teaches three things : that the vile body — literally, the body of our humiliation — is to be changed ; that it is to be conformed to the glorious body of Christ ; and that this is to be done by the power of Christ — a power so great that in its exercise he is able to subdue all things. It is needless to quote further to show that Jesus will raise the dead. Now, I ask if divine works — creation, preservation, and the resurrection of the dead — are not ascribed to Christ, and do they not prove his Deity? But there is other proof. IV. Christ is the Object of Worship. What is wor- ship? When our translation of the Bible was made the term was used in two senses: in the lower sense of the word it meant civil respect and deference, as in Luke x;v« 10: “Then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. 55 The term in this sense is now obsolete, but it is used in its highest scriptural sense to denote adoration paid to God because he is God. We have the authority of Jesus himself on this point. In repelling one of Satan’s temptations he said, “ For it is THE DETTY OE CHRIST. 87 written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Matt. iv. 10. Here we are taught that worship belongs exclusively to God. If, then, it can be shown that, according to the Scriptures, Jesus Christ is the object of worship, the doctrine of his Deity will bo established. In John v. 23 it is written, “That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” No one will deny that supreme honor is claimed for the Father, and equal honor is claimed for the Son. This honor surely implies worship. The first Christians were designated as those who called on the name of the Lord. Paul wrote, “ Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” 1 Cor. i. 2. To call upon the name of the Lord is to invoke his name, and this implies prayer, whatever else it may imply. Prayer is an act of worship. Nor is this all. Calling on the name of the Lord is inseparably connected with salvation. “ For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Rom. x. 13. It is here taken for granted that the Lord has power to save. I need not say that it requires the power of God to save. The Lord Jesus must be God. Not only did the first Christians call upon the name of the Lord in their wor- ship and service during life, but in death they invoked his name and committed their departing spirits into his hands. Of the latter truth, Stephen is the most conspicu- ous illustration : “ And they stoned Stephen, calling upon and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Acts vii. 59. This is the correct translation. There is no .word in the Greek text corresponding to God, and there is no pause between the calling upon and the saying. The Redeemer was invoked, and the words of invocation were, “Lord 88 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. Jesus, receive my spirit.” This was the first Christian martyr. With eternity just before him he called on his Lord, commending to him the spirit struggling to escape from the murdered body. Did Stephen labor under a mistake in believing that Jesus, because divine, was able \ ) receive his disembodied spirit? Strange time to make a mistake when he saw the glory of God shining brighter than ten thousand suns ! There was no mistake. The dying martyr recognized the Deity of his Lord. In Heb. i. 6 it is said, “ And let all the angels of God worship him.” This is the command of the eternal Fa- ther — a command implying the divinity of the Son and the equality of his claims to angelic adoration. If the Lord Jesus is worshipped by saints and angels, is not this a conclusive proof of his Deity? Saints on earth worship him, and saints in heaven sing a new song, saying, “ Thou art worthy ; ... for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” Rev. v. 9. John heard this ex- alted song, and then he heard the angels, “ and the num- ber of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, Worth} is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and w T isdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing.” Rev. v. 12. It will be observed that while the angels make no reference to personal redemption, as do the saints, they fully recognize the worthiness of the Lamb slain. Christ is worshipped by saints and angels, cn earth and in heaven. He accepts the worship. Peter w r as utterly unwilling to receive worship frcm Cornelius, but raised him up from his prostrate position, “ Saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” Acts x. 26. Paul and Barnabas “rent their clothes ” at the very intimation that sacrifices were to be offered to them. Acts xiv. 14, 18. ' When John was so impressed by the glory of the angel THE DEITY OF CHRIST. 89 who made known to him the wonderful things which he Baw that he fell down to worship, mistaking the angel for the Lord of angels, the heavenly messenger rebuked him / saying, “See thou do it not; . . . worship God.” Rev. xxii. 9. Thus we see that apostles on earth would not receive worship, nor would angels in heaven. Bui Jesus accepted worship on earth and in heaven. Why? Because he knew himself to be the proper object of ado- ration. This he could not know without a consciousness of Deity. Christ is God. In closing this chapter it is proper to notice a strange declaration, sometimes made by those who deny the su- preme divinity of Christ. It is in substance this : That, though Jesus is not God, he is the best man the world ever saw. Nothing can be further from the truth than such a statement. The alternative is not that Jesus is God or the best of men. No ! the alternative is that Jesus is God or the worst of men. If he was not God, he was such an impostor, such a blasphemer, as the world never saw. He claimed for himself divine honors and divine worship. lie said, “ He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me ” (Matt. x. 37) ; “ If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke xiv. 26. It is proper to say that in the latter passage the word “ hate ” means to love less, and thu spirit of both passages is that love to Christ must be superior to that exercised in any of the relations of life. Think of it ! Here is a man — if Jesus is only a man — who requires the husband to love him more thari he does his wife, and the wife to love him more than she does her husband ; who requires parents and children to love him 8 * 90 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. more than they love one another, and who requires every* body to love him more than life itself! On the supposi- tion that Jesus is a mere man, there is no language that can define the presumption that presents such claims. He gives orders that in baptism his name shall be used between that of the Father and of the Holy Spirit ; that his death shall be commemorated till the end of the world ; that repentance and remission of sins shall be preached through him ; and says that he will come in the clouds of heaven on the last day, raise the dead, judge the world, welcome the righteous into the kingdom of glory, consign the wicked to eternal perdition, and w T ill then be the light and the joy of the New Jerusalem. Imagine prophet or apostle as asserting such claims and saying such things: Would not the presumption and the blas- phemy be intolerable ? They are just as intolerable in the case of Jesus Christ if he is not’ divine. I present these views to show how absurd it is to deny the Deity of Christ and insist that the world never saw so good a man. No, he is the w T orst of men if nothing more than man. But he is God. This is the glory of the sys- tem of Christianity, that its Author is divine. His Deity is- essential to the value of his atoning sacrifice — essential to his ability to save. In view of the proofs of his di- vinity presented in this chapter, every Christian may say with Thomas, “My Lord and. my God!” and with Paul, “ I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that lie is able to keep that which I have committed unto him ;” and in the dying hour the words of Stephen may well come into the heart and find expression through the q livering lips : “ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” CHAPTER VI. THE PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOL Y SPIRIT. The subject discussed in the preceding chapter may be considered in some of its aspects the most important and vital in the system of theology. It is therefore wise to establish by conclusive proofs the Deity of Christ. When this is done, the doctrine of the Trinity is usually accepted without hesitation, while personality and divinity are ac- corded to the Holy Spirit. This being the case, it will be unnecessary for the subject of this chapter to receive a very elaborate investigation, but it should by no means be passed over. It divides itself into two parts : I. The Personality of the Holy Spirit. By this is meant that the Spirit is a person, not a mere energy or in- fluence or operation, but an intelligent person. What does Jesus say? — “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost j whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things.” John xiv. 16. 26. The Comforter here promised is said to be the Holy Spirit, and the plain meaning of the term is, one who administers comfort. This is clearly suggestive of personality ; but if stronger proof is" required, it is found in the fact that the Spirit is said to teach. Surely the office of teacher is inseparable from personality. When it is said of the Spirit, “ He 92 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. shall teach you all things,” it is virtually declared that he is a person. The baptismal commission furnishes as strong proof of die personality of the Holy Spirit as of that if the Father and of the Son. “ Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” The phrase “in the name” usually means “by authority of,” and if this is its meaning here, the authority of the Spirit is equal to that of the Father and of the Son, and the Spirit must be a person. But this is not the mean- ing of “ in the name ” in the commission. Baptism is ad- ministered by authority of the Son, but, as it seems to me, “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit;” that is, there is an avowal of allegiance and consecration to the throe persons of the Godhead ; there is a profession of fellowship with God in his three- fold unity. The personality of the Spirit is undoubtedly implied, for it would be absurd to associate an influence or energy with the Father and the Son in the ordinance of baptism. The Spirit has equal personality with the Father and the Son. To confirm the view now presented, I may say that the Spirit is referred to as doing what a personal agent alone can do. He is said to “ testify ” of Christ, to “glorify” him, to make “intercession for the saints,” to distribute gifts “ as he will,” to “ seal unto the day of redemption.” John xv. 26 ; xvi. 14 ; Rom. viii. 27 ; 1 Cor. xii. 11 ; Eph. iv. 30. The acts mentioned in these passages are personal acts. It requires a person to “ tes- tify,” to “ glorify,” to “ intercede,” to “ will,” and to “seal.” It is morally certain that the Holy Spirit is a Person. II The Deity of the Holy Spirit. Not more evi- dent is the personality than the divinity of the Holy Spiri This will appear in view of such facts as these : 1. He is called God. 4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and HOLY SPIRIT'S PERSONALITY AND DEITY . 93 to keep back part of the price of the land? . . . Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.” Acts v. 3, 4. Here it is plain that to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God. But why is it so ? Because the Holy Spirit is God. The charge which Peter interrogatively makes is, that Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit; and to show the greatness of the sin he said it was lying to God, the term God being no doubt better understood by the guilty man than the phrase Holy Spirit. “ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” 1 Cor. iii. 16. The temple at Jerusalem was God’s house, and he was said to dwell there. Availing himself of this form of speech, Paul told the members of the Corinthian church that they were the temple of God — that is, his habitation. What else does he say? — “ Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost?” 1 Cor. vi. 19. We have, therefore, in the same Epistle the expressions “ tem- ple of God” and “temple of the Holy Ghost” applied to the same church. If a church or an individual Chris- tian is the temple of God and the temple of the Holy Spirit, it must be because the Holy Spirit is God. 2. Divine perfections are ascribed to the Holy Spirit . if these perfections, when ascribed to Christ, prove his Deity, they also, when ascribed to the Spirit, prove hh? Deity. That the Spirit is represented as eternal, omnis- cient, omnipresent, and omnipotent is manifest from the following passages : “ How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself with- out spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ?” Pleb. ix. 14. “ But God hath re- vealed them to us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” 1 Cor. ii. 10. c< Whither shall I go from thy Spirit? or whither shall I 94 ' CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. flee fiom thy presence?” Ps. cxxxix. 7. “ Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.” “He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” 1 Pet. iii. 18; Rom. viii. 11. As the attributes of eternity, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence belong in- alienably to God, and as they are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, the conclusion is irresistible that he is God. 3. Divine operations are ascribed to the Spirit. The most prominent of these operations are connected with crea- tion and the working of miracles. “ The earth was with- out form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Gen. i. 2. Order and beauty were brought out of chaotic darkness by the Spirit; and in Job xxvi. 13, we read, “ By his Spirit he hath garnished the heav- ens.” These two passages sufficiently show the Spirit’s connection with the work of creation, and by consequence his Deity. As to miracles, it is written, “ But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” “For to one is given, v y che Spirit, the word of wisdom; ... to another the gifts of heal- ing by the same Spirit; to another the working of mira- cles.” Matt. xii. 28 ; 1 Cor. xii. 8-10. A miracle is a supernatural work which no created being can perform, and therefore the working of miracles by the Holy Spirit proves him to be divine. The “laws of Nature,” as they are called, God has established, and he alone can suspend them ; but as a miracle is a suspension of some law of Nature, the Holy Spirit in working miracles vindicates his claim to divinity. I may say also that what is said of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit furnishes conclusive proof of his Deity ; “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and HOLY SPIRITS PERSONALITY AND DEITY. 95 blasphemies wherewithsoever they shall blaspheme: but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Mark iii 28-30. Ihe intimation here seems to be that ascribing an evil sj irit to Christ and saying that his miracles were wrought by such a spirit, and not by the Spirit of God, was blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. This sin was not to be forgiven, and this fact implies the divinity of the Holy Spirit. That is, if the Holy Spirit is not divine, we cannot see why a sin committed against him cannot be forgiven, especially as sins against the Father and the Son are forgiven. There is of course something peculiar in blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, rendering it un- pardonable, but the peculiarity, so far as we can judge, is inseparable from the Deity of the Spirit. It will be seen that I prefer the phrase Holy Spirit to Holy Ghost, though they are of the same import. The chief reason for the preference is that Spirit is a more familiar word than Ghost, and is therefore better under- stood, to say nothing of associations connected with the latter term. It is a singular fact that “ Holy Ghost ” is not to be found in the Old Testament, though it occurs frequently in the New. There has been some curiosity felt as to the more fre- quent application of the epithet “ Holy ” to the Spirit than to the Father and the Son. As there is in tne three persons of the Godhead equality of nature, there must be equality of holiness. The holiness is infinite, and in the infinite there are no degrees. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are equally and perfectly holy. It follows, therefore, that the Spirit is emphatically called Holy to denote official distinction. In other words, the Spirit is termed Holy because it is his office to make 96 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . holy. It is his work to deposit the germ of holiness in the »sinful heart of man. There is no holiness in any human heart till the Holy Spirit produces it. The germ of holiness implanted in regeneration is developed in sanctification; which is, equally with regeneration, the work of the Spirit. The third person in the Godhead in designated the Holy Spirit because he renovate* the feoui, purifies it, and prepares it for heaven. CHAPTER VII. THE PURPOSES OF GOD. The transition from the being and attributes of God to his purposes is natural and easy. For if there is a God infinite in wisdom and holiness and glory, he must act according to a predetermined plan. The perfection of his nature suggests this. If, as has been shown, there are three persons in the Godhead, coequal and coeternal, it accords with reason to suppose that in their triune com- munings and consultations — to speak after the manner of men — they decided from eternity on a programme to be carried into effect to eternity. Such decision is embraced in the purposes of God, and is in truth his all-comprehen- sive decree. With regard to the divine purposes it may be said — 1. They are eternal. The eternity of the divine pur- poses cannot be severed from the eternity of the divine existence. We are utterly unable to conceive of God as sitting in purposeless majesty on his throne. Could we form such a conception it would be infinitely unworthy of God. As we cannot think of the sun apart from the light and heat which he sends forth, so we cannot think of God apart from his purposes. But what do the Scriptures say? — “Come, ye blessed of my Father, in- herit the kingdom prepared for } 7 ou from the foundation of the world.” Matt. xxv. 34. If we ask in what sense 9 97 98 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. the kingdom was prepared from the foundation of the world, the answer is, In the purpose of God. A purpose which can be traced back to the foundation of the world is the purpose of him who made the world, and must be as eternal as himself. In the Epistle to the Ephesians there are several passages which teach the eternity of God’s purposes : “ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world.” Eph. i. 4. “ The fellowship of the mystery which from the begin- ning of the world hath been hid in God. . . . Accord- ing to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” iii. 9, 11. There could have been no choice, no election, before the foundation of the world if there had not been a purpose antedating the creation of the world ; and such a purpose must have been eternal. While the “manifold wisdom of God” in the redemption of the church is made known to the inhabitants of heav- en, it is according to his eternal purpose. In 2 Tim. i. 9 it is written, “ Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” The grace was given in the purpose of God before the world began, and in this sense the grace was coeval with the purpose. Peter, in re- ferring to Christ, says, “ Who verily was foreordained be- fore the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.” 1 Pet. i. 20. Christ was mani- fested by his incarnation, but the manifestation was in pursuance of the foreordination of God, which bore date before the foundation of the world — a form of expression equivalent to the words from eternity . These scriptures sufficiently show the purposes of God to be eternal. 2. They are also full of wisdom . God is infinite]} 7 ’ wise, and therefore his purposes are wise. It would be absurd THE PURPOSES OF GOD. 99 to suppose a conflict between the nature of God and liis plan of operation. In judging of the divine purposes we should ever remember that they are unfolded only in part, and for this reason the wisdom pertaining to them is disclosed but in part. Still, we have such indications of wisdom in the works and ways of God as to call forth the exclamatory words of an apostle : “ Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God !” Rom. xi. 33. Our attention has been directed in another place to some of the proofs of divine wisdom as seen in creation, providence, and redemption ; nor should we forget that whatever proves the wisdom of God in his works is an argument in favor of the wisdom of his purposes. For all his works are performed in accordance with his pur- poses. The strongest proof of the wisdom of the divine purposes is to be found in the scheme of redemption, as we learn from Eph. iii. 10 : “ To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known, by the church, the manifold wisdom of God.” These orders of celestial beings had seen much of the wisdom of God in the wonders of creation and the reve- lations of providence, but the disclosures of redemption through Christ gave them new views of what is termed “ the manifold wisdom of God.” But redemption itself and all its disclosures are in pursuance of God's purposes, and these purposes must therefore be full of wisdom. 3. They are likewise free. God freely formed his pun [,ose? in himself. The reasons for their formation were all in himself, for there were no external influences to act on him. The freedom, too, with which God framed his decrees was in direct opposition to what has been called by some, u necessity of nature.” He was not obliged to form the purposes which the Bible reveals, but might 100 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . have formed different purposes. To illustrate: He might have purposed the creation of a world ten or twenty times as large as the one we inhabit, to be illuminated by a plurality of suns by day and a plurality of moons by night. He might have decreed the formation of rational creatures alone or of irrational creatures alone. He might have purposed the salvation of some or all of the fallen angels, or the salvation of more or less of the human race than will be finally saved. These supposi- tions are designed to give^pmphasis to the idea that the divine purposes are free, f God in forming them was infi- nitely at liberty to do his pleasure. He arranged the plan according to which he is carrying on the affairs of the universe, and of all the plans conceivable by his omnis- cient mind he adopted the one which seemed to him bes0 The adoption was not arbitrary, not without reason. There were the wisest and the best reasons controlling his purposes and making them just what they are. “Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.” The reasons of the divine purposes it is not given to men or angels to know, but they are treasured up in that which seems good in the sight of God. /They are to be found in what is called “ the good pleasure of his will,” and if his purposes accord with his pleasure, his good pleasure, they are fre^jj It is therefore written, “ Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the way of understand- ing ?” Isa. xl. 13, 14. “ For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?” Rom. xi. 34. “ For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?*' 1 Cor. ii. 16. 4. The purposes of God aie unchangeable . The immuta- THE PURPOSES OF GOD. 101 Dility of God is a truth decisive of the immutability of his purposes. As he is unchangeable, it does not accord with reason that h,is plans and purposes should be vari- able. It may be said of men that they often change their purposes. Why is it so ? Because in some cases they are too ignorant to form wise purposes, and in other instances they lack ability to execute purposes which are wise and good. When purposes are seen to be unwise, they should be promptly given up and other purposes should take l heir place. So also the purposes which cannot be exe- cuted should be superseded by those that are practi- cable. Thus, because men have so little wisdom and so little power, it is often the best thing they can do to change their purposes. But how is it with God ? His wisdom is infinite. When he formed his purposes he knew all the future. Nothing, therefore, that occurs can take him by surprise. Knowing all things from the beginning, had he known that any event or combination of events would detract from the wisdom of a purpose, his knowledge would have prevented the formation of the purpose. It follows, therefore, that the infinite wisdom of God renders needless a change of his purposes. So also of his power ; he can do anything which does not involve a contradic tion, or antagonize with the perfection of his nature. It is morally certain that no divine purpose would, in its execution, require either of these impossible things to be done, and we may therefore say that no lack of power on the part of God will ever render it necessary for him to change his purposes. This reasoning, however, amounts to nothing unless the Bible sustains it. What, then, does the Bible say ? — “ The counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations ” (Ps. xxxiii. 11) ; “ The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass ; and as I have 9 * 102 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. purposed, so shall it stand” (Isa. xiv. 24) ; “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isa. xlvi. 10) ; “ I am the Lord, I change not ” (Mai. iii. 6) ; “ With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James i. 17. 5. His purposes do not make God the author of sin. Here we are required to survey a field on which many a theo- logical battle has been fought. It has been said and writ-* ten a thousand times that if God has decreed from eternity whatever comes to pass, as sin is one of the tilings that have come to pass, God must be the author of sin. I suppose that all things which come to pass may be included in two classes ; namely, things which God does by his positive agency, and things which he permits to be done. Things belonging to the former class are embraced in his efficient purposes, while things belong- ing to the latter class are embraced in his permissive pur- poses. This distinction between the purposes of God must not be forgotten, if we would know the truth as the Bible reveals it. The distinction itself is recognized and variously illustrated in the Scriptures. It was no doubt among the efficient purposes of God to create the world, to make Adam the ancestor of his race, to endow him with free agency and place him in the garden of Eden. In pursuance of his efficient purposes God did all this, but did he in the same manner decree the sin of Adam ? Clearly he did not. His purpose in regard to Adam’s sin was only permissive ; it was not efficient. I am aware that the word “permissive ” is not wholly free from objec- tion, but I know of no better word. The objection to it is that some persons will regard it as expressive of sanc- tion, if not of approval. I protest against this under- standing of the word. There was, on the part of God,, no approval, no sanction of the sin of Adam, yet it was per* THE PURPOSES OF GOD. 103 mitted. God could have prevented the introduction of sin into the world, and would have done so had its non- introduction been among his efficient purposes, but it was not. Its introduction was among his permissive pur- poses ; and Adam, in the exercise of his free agency, sinned. So it has been with Adam’s descendants in every age. God has permitted them to sin ; but, so far from giv- ing sanction to their sins, he has expressed his abhorrence and condemnation of evil in the waters of the flood, in the fires of Sodom, in the calamities of war, in the hard- ships of captivity, in the destruction of Jerusalem, and in a thousand other ways. God is not the author of sin, neither has he “ fellowship with any therein ” — no fellow- ship with the devil who tempts men to sin, and no fellow- ship with men in yielding to temptation. “ To the law and to the testimony “ Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God : for God cannot be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man.” James i. 13. So immaculate is his holiness that, in the sense of soliciting to evil, it is morally impossible for God to tempt any man, and equally impossible for him to be tempted of evil. None but pure influences can reach him, none but pure influences can emanate from him. Perish the thought that God is the author of sin ! for it was in his “ wise and holy counsel ” that he decreed al] things. 6. In Gods purposes “ violence is not offered to the will of the creature .” There are no truths more plainly revealed in the Bible than that God is sovereign and man is free. The King of Babylon, when saved from the calamity that came upon him and restored to reason, said of Jehovah, “He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth : and none can stay his hand, cr say unto him, What doest thou ?” Dan. 104 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . iv. 35 It is the glory of the universe that such a Be* ing sits on the .throne and sways nis sceptre over all worlds. Supreme dominion belongs to God, and he ex- ercises absolute control over things animate and inani- mate over creatures rational and irrational. But the ex- ercise of divine sovereignty does not conflict with human agency. It was, doubtless, among the purposes of God to make man a free agent. What is a free agent? I answer in the- words of Andrew Fuller : “ A free agent is an intel- ligent being, who is at liberty to act according to his choice, without compulsion or restraint.” The question is not as to what prompts to action; the point is that the action is free. Men have acted freely in all ages of the world. The purposes of God, whether efficient or permis- sive, have not prevented such action. Good men have acted freely, and bad men have acted with equal freedom. In the world’s infancy, Abel, in the exercise of his choice, presented his offering to the Lord ; and Cain, without com- pulsion, became the murderer of his brother. Abraham, at the command of God, voluntarily left the land of his fathers; and the brothers of Joseph 7 voluntarily sold him as a slave to the Ishmaelites, in violation of their obligation to God and in disregard of the claims of fraternal duty. In these cases the obedience and the disobedience were equally free. “ No violence was offered to the will ” in either case. Perhaps the most striking instance of the harmony between the purposes of God and the free agency of men is recorded in Acts ii. 23 : “ Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” The death of Christ occurred, without doubt, in pursu- ance of the purpose of God ; nor can we conceive how any divine purpose could be more property formed than THE PURPOSES OF GOD. 105 in connection with such an event. The Lamb was “slain from the foundation of the world,” — that is, slain in the purpose of God — but the Jews acted very wickedly in procuring the crucifixion of Christ. They never acted more freely. There was a perfect absence of compulsion. The purpose of God was executed, and in its execution there was such a murder committed as never took place before and will never take place again. There was “no violence offered to the will ” of the murderers, but they acted with perfect freedom. If any one asks, How could these things be ? I answer, The facts are as I have stated ; the philosophy of the facts I do not attempt to explain. To make the attempt would be to add one more to the number of those who have “ darkened counsel by words without knowledge.” Having presented these general views of the purposes of God, it is proper before closing this chapter to say something of Predestination as taught in the Scriptures. While there is nothing in the term itself which forbids its use in the sense of the foreordination of all events, it is commonly employed with reference to human beings. It comprehends the purpose of election, and also, as will be shown, the purpose of “ reprobation,” as it has been called, which, as has been well said, “is nothing more than withholding from some the grace which is imparted to others.” 1 These two purposes may be expressed thus : “ That God chose in Christ certain persons of the fallen race of Adam, before the foundation of the world, unto eternal glory, according to his own purpose and grace, without regard to their foreseen faith and good works, or any conditions performed by them ;” and that from the rest of mankind he withheld his grace and left them to dishonor, and the just punishment of their sins. The 1 Hills Divinity p. 561. 106 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. ideas brought to view in this statement need and deserve expansion. I may therefore say — 1. Election is personal The choice exercised is a choice of persons. It is a choice of persons as distinguished from nations. The Jews were in one sense an elect nation, but their election from among the nations had no special reference to eternal life , to which persons are elected ; and in addition to this, they were the only elect nation the world ever saw. But to see that election is not national we need only turn to Rev. v. 9 : “ And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof : for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” Here we are plainly taught that salvation is not national deliver- ance, but that the saved are redeemed out of every nation. An eclectic operation is referred to — persons selected out of nations. The theory of national election cannot be maintained as the doctrine of the New Testament. Election is not only personal as distinguished from national, but it is of individuals as distinguished from individuals. The line of discrimination runs between persons. When Paul says in Rom. xvi. 13, “ Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord,” the reference must be to personal election, as also when he writes to the members of the Thessalonian church, “ God hath from the begin- ning chosen you to salvation.” 2 Thess. ii. 13. Peter, m writing to the “ strangers scattered abroad,” addressing them as “ elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,” must have meant personal election. If it is said that the election of some is the rejection of others, it may be remarked, Rejection is a term needlessly strong, and it is preferable to say that God has left others as they were. TI e decree of election leaves them where THE PURPOSES OF GOD. 107 - they would have been had there been no election of any No injustice is done them. The truth is, election ia injustice to none, while it is an unspeakable blessing to some. It takes a multitude which no man can number but which God can number, out of the fallen race of Adam, and raises them up to hope and heaven. " 2. Election is eternal. In proof of this the following passages may be quoted : “ According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love ” (Eph. i. 4); “Who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to -our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began ” (2 Tim. i. 9); “ God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” 2 Thess. ii. 13. After what has been said on preceding pages concern- ing the eternity of God, and the consequent eternity of his purposes, it is not necessary to enlarge on a point so plain as that his election of his people is from eternity. Election, being inseparable from the divine purposes, is as eternal as they. As it has to do with eternal life, it is eternal, as going back to the unbeginning past and for- ward to the unending future. 3. Election was not in view of foreseen faith and good works. There are some who make faith and good works the ground of election. That is, they suppose that God elected his people because he foresaw their faith and good works. This view transposes cause and effect, foi it makes election dependent on faith and good works, whereas faith and good works are scripturally depend- ent on election. When we read, “chosen . . . that we should be holy,” it is obvious that the election is not 108 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. because of holiness, but in order to holiness. The pur- pose of election contemplates the sanctification of the elect, and therefore regards them as sinners needing sanctification. The same truth is suggested by the words, For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.” Rom. viii. 29. Here evidently the predestination, including election, did not find its basis or reason in the conformity of the pre- destinated to the image of Christ, but the conformity is the result of the predestination. As to the much-contro- verted passage in Acts xiii. 48, “And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” the only natural inter- pretation is that they believed because of their ordination to eternal life. The Arminian view is without foundation in the word of God ; for election is the source, the only source, whence spring faith, holiness, and good works. 4. The purpose of election is irreversible. This is the only view of the matter that is worthy of God. Changeable purposes would detract from his glory as an infinitely perfect Being. The purpose of election is not arbitrary, is not without reason. God does nothing without reason, but the reason or reasons of his action he is not always pleased to reveal. Why he chose some persons to eternal life in preference to others, we do not know, but if the reasons of his choice were satisfactory to him when the choice was made, they will be satisfactory for ever, unless better reasons should present themselves to his mind — a supposition which the perfection of his character does not Cor a moment tolerate. In short, there can be no philo- sophic belief that God will reverse his purpose of elec- tion, and the Scriptures confirm the teachings of sound philosophy. Jesus says of his disciples, “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shah any man pluck them out of my hand. My THE PURPOSES OF GOD. 109 Father, which gave them me, is greater than all ; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” John x. 28, 29. Here the security of believers is strongly asserted ; but whence arises the security ? Chiefly from the fact that the Father gave them to the Son in the pur- pose of election. If, however, the purpose is reversible, there is no security. We are also taught that “ God, will- ing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath : that by two immutable things, in which it was impossi- ble for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation.” Heb. vi. 17, 18. The “ strong consolation ” grows out of the immutability of the divine counsel, which is con- firmed by an oath ; and the purpose of election, being included in the divine counsel, is as immutable as the counsel itself. It is not necessary to enlarge. Surely the purpose of election is irreversible. * is well at this point to answer an objection that is often made to the doctrine of predestination. It is said that while the economy of Nature and grace illustrates the use of means, predestination renders their use un- necessary. Why unnecessary? Because the objector sup- poses a predestinated end will be accomplished without means. There is nothing, however, to justify such a sup- position. We can find nothing in the realm of Nature to counfSKnce it. God said to Noah, “ While the earth re- maineth, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall - not cease.” viii. 22. The object in view requires me to refer only to “ harvest” as included among the purposes of God. It will not be denied that God has decreed the production of harvests while the earth remains ; but has he decreed the production of miraculous harvests, that is, harvests without the sowing of seed? Manifestly not. “Seed- 10 110 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. time ” is mentioned as before ‘ harvest,” and clearly preparatory to it. No harvest is predestinated apart from seed-sowing. The means are appointed equally with the end. /Let the nations practically adopt the philosophy of the* objection under consideration, — name- ly, that predestination supersedes the use of means, — and what must follow ? Universal starvation. But we need not anticipate this world-wide calamity 5 for men exerci£6 common sense on every subject except that of religion. Paul’s voyage to Rome is often referred to as ill ustrative of the connection between means and ends. apostle bad been assured by an angel of God that of the two hun- dred and seventy-six persons on board the ship not one should be lost ; but when he saw that “ the shipmen were about to flee out of the ship,” he “ said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship ye can- not be saved.” The safe deliverance of all on board the storm-tossed vessel was the predestinated event, but it could not be accomplished unless the “ shipmen ” remained in their position and performed their dutj^J) Thus in the natural world, on the land and on the sea, we see that means are predestinated as well as ends, and that ends cannot be accomplished without the use of means. How is it in the realm of grace ? The principle is the same, showing the God of Nature to be the God of grace. u Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called : and w r hom he called, them he also justified : and whom he justified, them he also glorified.” Rom. viii. 30. In this verse we have, if I may so call it, a golden chain of four links, and this chain reaches from eternity to eter- nity. The first link is predestination, and the last glorifi- cation, while the two intervening links are calling and jus- tification. The first link has no connection with the last, except through the intermediate links. That is to say, THE PURPOSES OF GOP. Ill there is no way in which the purpose of God in predesti- nation can reach its end in glorification, if calling and jus- tification do not take place. But calling and justification are inseparable from “ repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Repentance and faith, then, not to name other things, are means through which the purpose of God in election is accomplished. God, therefore, in predestinating the salvation of his people, predestinated their repentance, and faith and all other means necessary to their salvation. If any inquire, as is sometimes the case, what will become of those elected to eternal life if they do not repent and believe, it is best to answer by asking what would have become of the per- sons in the ship with Paul if the “ shipmen ” had not re- mained at their posts of duty. If it is said the “ship- men ” did remain, I say, those chosen to salvation will repent and believe. (.The following passages teach the use of means in con- nection with the purpose of God in election “ God hath from the beginning chosen yo'u to salvation through sanc- tification of the Spirit and belief of the truth ” (2 Thess. ii. 13) ; “ Therefore I endure all things for the elect’s sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory ” (2 Tim. ii. 10); “Elect accord- ing to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ ” (1 Pet. i. 2) ; “ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ -Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Eph. ii. 10. From the first of these scriptures we learn that election to salvation is indicated by “sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth ;” from the second, that Paul’s many trials as a minister had an instrumental connection with the salvation of the elect; 112 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. from the third, that election is not only through sanctifi cation of the Spirit, but unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ; and from the last, that the pur- pose of election embraces foreordination to good works. In view of these passages it is plain that the doctrine of predestination does not supersede the use of means, but requires them. > Before dismissing this -topic it should be said that as God’s purpose of election is “ in himself,” we can know nothing about it till it is disclosed in the “ calling ” al- ready referred to. Paul, for example, when he preached in Thessalonica, knew nothing of the election of any of its citizens to eternal life, but after the grace of God was displayed in “effectual calling” he did not hesitate to write, “ Knowing, brethren, beloved, your election of God.” 1 Thess. i. 4. Hence, too, Peter wrote to his breth- ren, “ Give diligence to make your calling and election sure.” 2 Pet. i. 10. It is observable that he puts calling before election. God begins with election, but man can- not. He must begin with the calling, and when he makes that sure, the election is sure. The calling is the only attainable proof of the election. It will be seen, therefore, that the question of election is, in the hands of a sinner, the most unmanageable of all questions. The reason is, it is none of his business, and he can do nothing with it. The time has been when in some places sinners, becoming serious on the subject of salvation, in- stead of repenting and believing in Christ, employed themselves in efforts equally earnest and fruitless to as- certain whether they were elect or non-elect. This was, is, and ever must be, an absurdity. That which is re- quired of sinners is expressed in the words of Peter: “ Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Acts iii. 19. THE PURPOSES OF GOD. 113 In closing this chapter I make a brief reference to what is often called God’s purpose of “ reprobation,” by which, as we have seen, is meant his purpose to leave some to them* selves, to give them over “ to a reprobate mind.” Rom. i. 28. That there is such a purpose is as evident as that God has threatened his incorrigible enemies with everlasting destruc- tion. TIis threatenings are in pursuance of his purpose, and in the absence of purpose there would be no threatenings. That God has purposed to leave to dishonor and the just punishment of their sins any of the human race is a tenet which many regard as both incredible and cruel. This tenet has been often misrepresented, and placed even in an odious light. How many have said with a semblance of holy horror, “ Does God make men to damn them ? Is he not too good to punish his creatures?” In both of these questions there is a deceptive ellipsis. In the first, the words u for their sins ” are omitted ; and in the second the epithet “ sinful ” should qualify creatures. No intelli- gent believer in the divine purposes will say that God has made any of the sons of men with a view to their damna- tion without respect to their sins, or that he is not too good to punish his creatures as creatures. But how is it as to his purpose to damn men for their sins and to punish his sinful creatures? We must not suppose, because there is a purpose of election uninfluenced by foreseen holiness, that there is therefore a purpose of reprobation which has no connection with the sins of men. There is no such purpose as the latter, for the wages of sin is death. The lost earn the wages paid them — eternal death ; but the saved do not earn eternal life, for it is the gift of God. It is a fact that every mouth is stopped and all the world is guilty before God. All the inhabitants of the world being guilty deserve to be punished ; that is, deserve to suffer the penalty of the law by a violation of which guilt 10 * 114 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . has been incurred. God may justly punish the guilty — • all the guilty — for their sins. If he chooses to save some of them to the praise of his glorious grace, and to leave the rest to suffer the consequences of sin to the glory of his justice, who shall find fault? Who shall charge God with unrighteousness? But some object to any purpose on the part of God to punish sinners. There is nothing valid in the objection. Gpd does punish men for their sins. It is therefore right for him to do so, for he cannot do wrong. If it is light, it cannot be wrong for him to form the purpose to punish, for his purpose is only his intention to do right in vindication of his justice. Thus does it appear that this purpose of God is in full accord with the soundest principles of reason and righteousness. It is nothing more than his determina- tion to treat those who live and die in impenitence as they deserve to be treated. There will be no departure from these principles in the miseries of hell. No lost sinner will ever feel a pang which he does not deserve to feel. There will be no arbitrary infliction of pain. No groan will be capriciously wrung from the bosom. No tear will be causelessly drawn from the eye. The fires of perdition will glorify the perfect justice of God. The wages of sin is death, and no more wages will be paid than have been earned. Justice will be done, and the sinner will feel that justice has him in custody. What anguish will this fact create! Could the ruined sinner persuade himself that his damnation is his misfortune, and not his fault ; that he is unjustly dealt with, — how would his miseries be alleviated! But there will be no such alleviation. The sorrows of hell are unmitigated sorrows. The lost soul will know and feel that it suffers its deserts — no more no less. CHAPTER VIII. CREATION. A consideration of the work of creation properly fol- lows a discussion of the divine purposes. The reason is obvious, because creation initiates the execution of these purposes. While the purposes of God are as eternal as himself, there could be, so far as we can conceive, no exe- cution of them before the creation of the universe. He must have begun to do, in the exercise of his creative power, what he from eternity had determined to do. It is worthy of God to do u all things after the counsel of his own will and this means that he conforms his acts to the plan devised by his infinite wisdom. This plan, if we speak after the manner of men, called for the creation of all things that were brought into exist- ence. What is creation? is an important question. Some learned men in ancient and in modern times have held the doctrine of the eternity of matter. Those who adopt this view do not believe in creation in the supreme sense of the word. They can only regard it as the disposal and ^arrangement of materials already existing^ The correct theory of creation is th^production of something out of nothing^ The philosophers of Greece and Rome, as well as the masses of the people, declared this impossible, and accepted as ar axiom the proverb, “ Out of nothing noth- in 116 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. mg comes.” This is true, so far as finite power is con- cerned, for it can be exerted only on that which has ex- istence. In other words, it must have something to work upon, and in this sense it is subject to limitations. But this is not the case with infinite power; and therefore that is possible with God which is impossible with men. “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Gen. i. 1. By heaven and earth is no doubt meant what we mean by the term universe, embracing all things ; and these things conceived to exist in two classes, things above and things below. When God created* heaven and earth he brought into being what had no existence before. There was an absolute production of something out of nothing. We need not ask how this could be, for it is the greatest of wonders and must ever defy finite compre- hension. While man in his operations uses materials fur- nished to his hands, God in creation originated materials themselves. This idea of absolute origination is the cen- tral idea in creation. We are dependent on the Bible for what we know of creation, for the Bible is the book of God. As he was the only being present at creation, it is manifest that the book inspired by him is the only book which can give us an account of the wonderful display of his creative pow- er. “ Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Heb. xi. 3. It is worthy of remark that the sacred writer, intending to give illustrations of the power and value of faith, refers first to the creation of the world. No secular history goes back to creation, and it is therefore useless to search his- torical records for information concerning the creation of the world. Nor will the speculations of reason and philoso- phy enable any man to account satisfactorily for the work CREATION. 117 of creation. Men have often indulged in such specula- tions, but they have proved to be vain and unprofitable. Faith is the only means of attaining satisfactory know- ledge of the creation of the universe. “ By faith we un- derstand.” Faith implies testimony, and the testimony in this case is to be found in the first chapter of Genesis. There we learn that the work of creation was performed by the word of God. In the language of the Psalmist, “ By the word of the Lord were the heavens made ; and all the hjst of them by the word of his mouth.” “For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.” Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9. Infinite energy accompanied his w’ord, and therefore “the worlds were framed by his word;” and the inspired account of the matter we re- ceive by faith, accepting the testimony only and solely because it is the testimony of God. How it relieves the anxious mind and gives rest to the throbbing brain by faith to understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God! But the reasoning of the inspired writer is that if “ the worlds were framed by the word of God,” then “ things which are seen were not made of things which do ap- pear.” There are two points brought to view here : First, that things which are seen were made, that is, were brought into existence ; and secondly, that they were not made out of “things which do appear,” that is, out of pre-existing materials. There was, therefore, in the high- est sense of the word, a creation. This was God’s work, lor it is his ' prerogative to “call those things which are not as though they were.” In contemplating the six days of creation it is w T ell to refer to the Mosaic account, that we may see what was done on each day. I therefore quote as follows : “ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And 118 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . the earth was without form, and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep [the abyss]. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light : and there was light. And God saw the light that it was good: and God divided the light frcm the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” Gen. i. 1-5. Philosophers of ancient times would have prized more highly than thousands of gold and silver this state- ment, which is sublime in its simplicity and simple in its sublimity. Such information as it affords would have superseded many useless speculations and fruitless in- quiries. Of the earth, it is said that it was “ without form, and void.” What is called “ the deep,” or the abyss, was covered with darkness." Everything w T as in a state of chaotic confusion, and “the Spirit of God moved upon [or brooded over] the face of the waters.” The imagery employed here is supposed by scholars to be de- rived from the brooding of fowls over their eggs to com- municate life-giving warmth. There was nothing but darkness. Light being necessary in carrying out the di- vine purposes, God said, “ Let there be light: and there was light.” The forre, the beauty, and the sublimity of these words defy paraphrase. Concerning light many questions may be asked which can receive no answer, but we trace its origin to the first day of creation. It seems at first to have been mingled with darkness, but God divided between the two, calling the light day and the darkness night. When the light making the day was followed by darkness, there was evening; and when the darkness was followed by light, there was morning. The evening and the morning — from the first light until light came again — constituted the first day. CREATION. 119 “And God said Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the wa- ters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.” Gen. i. 6-8. This language leads us to infer that before the second jay dense vapors and mists enveloped the earth. There was no firmament, no expanse, and God therefore said, “ Let Jiere be a firmament.” The purpose of this firmament was to effect a division in the waters. The expanse was the place of division. Below this expanse, or firmament, the weightier parts of the waters remained in contact with the earth, spread out on its face, while the lighter vapors ascended, finding a home in the clouds above the expanse. This was plainly designed to be a permanent arrangement. Hence to this day the process of evaporation goes on, sat- urating the clouds with moisture, which, under suitable conditions, falls to the earth in the form of rain. This evaporating process goes on with uninterrupted con- stancy, and subserves very important purposes. “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth ; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas : and Go I saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth : mid it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, aftei its kind : and God saw that it was good. And the even- ing and the morning were the third day.” Gen. i. 9-13. 120 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . Before the occurrences of the third day the world could not be .properly called a terraqueous globe. The dry land did not appear. The gathering together of the waters into distinct places involved, of course, the up- heaval of certain portions of the earth. This was done by the power of God. The dry land was called Earth, and the waters when they filled the depressions caused by the emergence of the dry land were called Seas. These names are as appropriate now as they were then. The earth was commanded to bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree with seed in itself; and, being endowed with vegetative power, the earth obeyed the divine fiat. By these remarkable events was the third day signal- ized. “ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night ; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years : and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth : and it was so. And God made two great lights ; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness : and God saw that it was good. And the even- ing and the morning were the fourth day.” Gen. i. 14- 19 Light, as we have seen, was created on the first day, but on the fourth day the sun and the moon were placed in the heavens as luminaries, or light-bearers. It is worthy of notice that in the sacred narrative the sun and moon, though evidently referred to, are not named, but the sun is described as the “ greater ” and the moon as the “ lesser light.” We may supp >se that the light created on the CREATION. 121 first day had been diffusing itself, modifying and reliev- ing chaotic darkness, until the fourth day; when the sun and moon were made its depositories. The sun, however, was the chief depository, for it is well known that the moon shines by light borrowed from the* sun and reflect- ed on the earth. The purpose for which “the two great lights” were established in the heavens was threefold : they were de- signed to mark a formal division “ between the day and the night;” to be “for signs and for seasons, and for days and years ;” and also, so far as this world is concerned, to “give light upon the earth.” They have been performing their office for nearly six thousand years. They have divided the day arid the night, faithfully answering the purpose of their creation by “ affording signs to the mari- ner to aid his navigation of the ocean ; to the husband- man to guide him with reference to the proper seasons of sowing and reaping ; and to all they serve as the grand regulators, the standard measurers of our time, dividing it into days and months and years.” The sun and moon are personified, the former represented as^ ruling the day, and the latter the night. This has been the case through all the centuries of time. “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind : and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, say- ing, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the even- ing and the morning were the fifth day.” Gen. i. 20- 23. li 122 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. As the third day was the beginning of vegetable life, so the fifth day was distinguished by the creation of animal life. God gave the waters command to bring forth abun- dantly, even to swarm with living creatures ; and it was so. He created “ great whales,” or mighty monsters of the sea, and the innumerable little vital forms which are in- debted to the microscope for recognition, with all the inter- mediate grades of animal existence. Jehovah is properly termed in the Saored Scriptures the living God, for he has life in himself and is the source of life to all creatures. While the waters were commanded also to bring forth fowl, it is to be observed that “ God created every winged fowl after its kind,” and said, as we read in the margin of our Bibles, “ let fowl fly ” above the earth. Thus on the fifth day were created inhabitants of the waters and occu- pants of the earth. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind : and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our like- ness ; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him ; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it : and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. . . . And God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very CREATION. 123 good. And the evening and the me rning were the sixth day.” Gen. i. 24-31. “ Cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth ” are included in the phrase “living creature.’ The term “cattle” may be regarded as the representative of all do- mestic animals ; “ creeping thing ” denotes the various orders of reptiles,; while “beasts of the earth” is descrip- tive of wild animals that roam over the earth. Thus it appears that while “the moving creature” and “the fowl” came forth from the waters, “cattle, and creeping thing, and beast ” are of the earth, that is, were formed of its substance. Still, it must be remem- bered that the waters and the earth had no creative power, for it is said that “ God created ” and that “ God made.” The creation of living beings as well as of in- animate matter was the work of God. On the sixth day of creation man was brought into existence. He was made in the image of God after the divine likeness. There is no reference to a bodily image, lor God is a Spirit. Man, unlike all other creatures that took the places assigned them on the land and in the sea, was made a rational being, and in this sense he was created in the image of God. The possession of ration- ality does not, however, by any means exhaust the import of the words “in our image.” They are in the highest sense expressive of holiness. We therefore read that “ God hath made man upright.” Eccl. vii. 29. We learn, too, that regeneration restores fallen man to the image of God, which image consists “ in righteousness and true holiness.” Eph. iv. 24; Col. iii. 10, The six days of creation have now passed in rapid review, and it is well to remember that in the giving of the law on Sinai there is incorporated, as a reason for observing the Sabbath day, this language: “For in six 124 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day. 1 ’ Ex. xx. 11. It is not worth while to encumber these pages with any elaborate reference to the arguments of those who con- tend very earnestly that the six days of creation were not six natural days, but six periods of indefinite duration, certainly embracing millions of years. They say that the term day often denotes an era, as when we say “the day of visitation,” “the day of salvation,” “the day of judgment.” It is true that in these forms of expression twenty-four hours are not meant. But who ever heard it said of one of these indefinite periods that its evening and morning constituted it a day ? This, however, is the record in the first chapter of Genesis : “ The evening and the morning were the first day ;” “ the evening and the morning were the second day.” That the half of a period including millions of years should be called the evening of that period, and the other half its morning, is utterly incredible. The statement of this view seems to me its exposure. The view of Dr. Chalmers is much more plausible. It is substantially this: that the first verse of Genesis is not to be interpreted in immediate connection with the verses that follow ; that the heaven and the earth were created at some period incalculably remote; and that from that period to the time when God said ‘Let there be light 5 the earth was without form and void. Then it is supposed that God began to arrange in order materials which had been created before, and that in six natural days he finished this work of adjustment, mak- ing man on the sixth day, and committing to him the lordship of the earth. This view is far less objectionable than the preceling one, and it is perhaps generally held CREATION. 126 by those who consider geology an established science. After all, there is great danger of “ darkening counsel by words without knowledge ” on a subject so incompre- hensible as creation. Surely the creative acts of the Almighty were miracles. He might have performed them all in a moment had he chosen to do so, fof who can limit his power ? It was his pleasure to employ six days in the work of creation ; and because it is a miracle to create, it is easily credible that the six days of Genesis were natural days. At any rate, those who hold this opinion should not be reproached with weakness, for their interpretation is the most natural one, and indeed no other would have been heard of if geology had not suggested it. Before closing this chapter the teaching of the Bible concerning the purpose of creation will be briefly referred to. The following passage has a manifest bearing on the subject : “ Thou art worthy, 0 Lord, to receive glory and honor and power : for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” Rev. iv. 11. The term translated pleasure in this verse literally means will, and the best authorities substitute were for are. Drs. Conant and Noyes therefore translate, “ and on account of thy will they were, and were created.” The creation of all things is here traced to the will of God. They were brought into existence because it was his will that they should exist ; they were created because it was his sovereign pleasure to create them. The will of God, to which creation is ascribed, is inseparable from his glory. That is, God in willing to create the universe designed thereby to promote the glory of his own name. It is needless, and indeed it would be untrue, to say that he had no other object in view ; but manifestly his supreme purpose was the glory of his own name. All other pur- li * 126 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. poses are inferior and subordinate to this. For men to seek their own glory is selfish and culpable, because in this case they seek a low and insignificant object; where- as the highest and most important object — namely, the divine glory — should ever be had in view. Hence there is a positive command: “ Do all to the glory of God.’ 5 1 Cor. x. 31. But how is it with God himself? The divine intellect in the boundless range of its contempla- tions finds no object of such exalted importance as the divine glory, and God is therefore under the blessed necessity of acting with a view to his own glory, and of subordinating everything to its promotion. He had his glory supremely in view in the creation of all things ; and as the purpose of creation is executed in providence and redemption, we see that it is one and the same. We therefore learn from the Old Testament that “ the Lord Jehovah hath made all things for himself” (Prov. xvi. 4), and that his glory he “ will not give to another ” (Isa. xlii. 8); while in the New Testament it is said of Christ that “ all things were created by him, and for him.” Col. i. 16. The statements are in perfect harmony, because the Jehovah of the Old is the Jesus of the New Testament. When the light of eternity shines on us and clarifies our vision, we shall most probably see that the work of crea- tion was performed, in order that there might be a theatre on which should be manifested the glories of redemption by the cross of Christ. Here I cannot resist my inclina- tion to quote from the devout Dr. Edward Payson : 1 “ To the cross of Christ all eternity has looked forward ; to the cross of Christ all eternity will look back. The cross of Christ was, if I may so express it, the first object which existed in the divine mind ; and with reference to this great object all other objects were created. With 1 Works , vol. ii. p. 50. CREATION. 127 reference to the same object they are still preserved. With reference to the same object every event that takes place in heaven, earth, and hell is directed and overruled. Surely, then, this object ought to engage our undivided attention. We ought to regard this world merely as a stage on which the cross of Christ was to be erected and the great drama of the crucifixion acted. We ought to regard all that it contains as only the scenes and draperies necessary for its exhibition. We ought to regard the celestial luminaries merely as lamps, by the light of which this stupendous spectacle may be beheld. We ought to view angels, men, and devils as subordinate actors on the stage, and all the commotions and revolu- tions of the world as subservient to this one grand design. Separate any part of this creation, or any event that has ever taken place, from its relation to Christ, and it dwindles into insignificancy. No sufficient reason can be assigned for its existence, and it appears to have been formed in vain. But when viewed as connected with him every- thing becomes important ; everything then appears to be a part of one grand, systematic, harmonious whole — a whole worthy of him that formed it. It was such a view of things which led the apostle to exclaim, ‘ God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ ” This extract contains the seeds of thought, and the fact that all things were created for Christ requires us to be- lieve that the work of creation had reference to the glory of God in redemption through the cross. The more we study the wonders of creation, the more devoutly shall we say, “ Great and marvellous are thy works. Lord God Almighty. 5 Rev x^\ 3. CHAPTER IX. PRO VIDENCE. Thai God created all things by his power and for his glory may be considered an established fact. In doing this he began, as already stated, to execute his purposes and his plans, but there was only a beginning. Many divine works follow, though none precede, creation. What is commonly called Providence, the providence of God, is suggested by creation, and may be inferred from it. For it is natural to suppose that God takes care of that which he w r as pleased to bring into exist- ence. This is a sufficient answer to the objection urged, from the days of Epicurus till now, against the provi- dence of God ; namely, that it is unworthy of God to concern himself about the things, and especially the little things, of this world. It cannot be unworthy of him to care for that which it was not unworthy of him to create. There is nothing in reason to justify the belief that God, having performed the work of creation, retired into the pavilion of his glory, giving himself no concern as to what should become of the workmanship of his hands. Nor is there anything in "the Bible to countenance this view. So far from it, the doctrine of providence is taught and illustrated from Genesis to Revelation. Indeed, should we take from the Bible all that it says of providence, the volume would be greatly lessened and would, in truth, become another book. 1 28 PROVIDENCE . 129 But it is time to inquire, What is embraced in the providence of God? My answer is threefold : 1. The preservation of what he has made. God keeps in being what he was pleased to create. He upholds all things by the word of his power. Creation and preser- vation are inseparable. It is therefore written as follows in Neh. ix. 6: “Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all.” In Job vii. 20 God is recognized as the “ Preserver of men,” and in Ps. xxxvi. 6 we read, “ 0 Lord, thou preservest man and beast.” In preserving his creatures, rational and irrational, God provides for their wants. “These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season. That thou givest them they gather : thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.” “ The eyes of all wait upon thee, and thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the de- sire of every living thing.” “ He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.” Ps. civ. 27, 28; cxlv. 15, 16 ; cxlvii. 9. God’s vital power so pervades the universe that “ in him we live, and move, and have our being.” Acts xvii. 28. • I know not how language can ex- press more forcibly the idea of dependence on God than do the words of Paul in his discourse to the Athenians. He teaches that this dependence is so absolute that apart from God there is in us no life, no motion, no existence. Manifestly, this is true. Separation from him would ex- tinguish the mysterious principle called life, would arrest all motion, and put an end to existence. In short, if God’s sustaining hand were withdrawn, all his creatures would sink into their original nothingness. His providence keeps them in being. He preserves his rational crea« 130 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . tures, his friends and his enemies, his irrational crea- tures, from the huge leviathan to the tiny insect, and masses of inanimate matter, including the waters of the ocean and the compacter substances of the solid earth. Nor is God’s work of providential preservation confined to this world. It extends to all worlds. 2. The cxii/'ol of v'hat he has made . This differs from preservation, though it includes it. God exercises domin- ion over all his works. Creation gives him the right of control, and this right he does not transfer. All things and all creatures are in his hands. He governs the movements of every planet and the fall of every sparrow. He gives light to the sun in the heavens and to the glow- worm on the earth ; for he is “ God over all, blessed for ever.” It may be as well here as anywhere to refer to a matter about which there has ever been a difference of opinion ; and in doing so I quote from a distinguished author still living: “ There have been disputes among thinking minds in all ages as to whether the providence of God is general or particular. Philosophers, so called, have generally taken the former view, and divines the latter. These two parties have contended with each ether as fiercely as if there had been a real inconsistency between their views. The g eneral providenc e of God, properly understood, reaches to the most particular and minute objects and events; and the particular providence of God becomes general by its embracing every particular. “ Those who suppose that there is a general, but that then cann >t be a particular, providence, are limiting God by ideas derived from human weakness. The great- est of human minds, in contemplating important ends, are obliged to overlook many minor events falling out in- cidentally as they proceed with their plane. The legis- PROVIDENCE. 131 lator, for instance, is sometimes under the necessity of disregarding the temporary misery which the changes in- troduced by him, and which are advantageous as a whole, may bring along with them. In short, in attending to the general, man must often overlook the particular. But we are not to suppose that an infinite God — infinite in his power, his wisdom, and resources, and present through all his works— is laid under any such inability to attend to particular events because he is also superintending em- pires and worlds^ The pains, if we may so speak, which God has taken to beautify every leaf and flower, nay, every weed that we trample under foot — the new beauties unseen by the naked eye which the microscope discloses in the vegetable kingdom and the beautiful organization of the insect world — all show that the greatness of God is peculiarly se en in the care which he takes of objects the most min ute. “ On the other hand, they take a most unworthy view of the divine character who conclude that his attention is exclusively directed to a few favorite objects, in which they themselves possibly feel a special interest. Here, again, we discover the tendency of mankind to measure God by standards derived from human infirmity. It not unfrequently happens that the minute man, who manages with care and kindness his own affairs and those of his family, has no very enlarged views or feel- ings of general philanthropy. Taking such a model as this, there are piously-disposed minds who would make God ‘altogether such an one as themselves,’ and conceiv- ing it to be impossible for him, in the attention which he must pay to certain objects, to provide for the wants of all his creatures, they would praise him because, in tho exercise of what would truly be a weak favoritism, he is supposed to pass by and disregard the whole world in tlia 132 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. extraordinary care which he takes of persons who are the special objects of his regard^ “ In the government of this world the individual is not lost in the general on the one hand, nor is the general ne- glected in the attention to the individual on the other hand. No creature, no object, however insignificant, has been overlooked. The general includes every individual, which. finds accordingly its appropriate place. Provision has been made for all and for each in the grand system of the universe.” 1 In view of the subject itself, and of the way in which it is presented in this quotation, it may be safely said that a general and a particular providence so involve each other that the one cannot exist without the other. Generals imply particulars, and particulars are included in generals. I may therefore repeat that God’s provi- dence comprehends his control of what he has made. It embraces, too— 3. The ordering of all events. Of these events, so far as we are personally concerned, we may notice : (A.) The time and place of our birth. If we ask why we were not born five thousand years ago or one th( u- sand years ago ; why we were not brought into being dur- ing the patriarchal age or under the Mosaic economy, but under the Christian dispensation, — the only answer is, The Lord so ordered it. He decided the time of our birth, the period at which we should make our appearance on the theatre of human action to fulfil our appointed destiny. It is obvious that we were not consulted, and that we had no agency in the matter. Everything was in the hands of God and under the control of his provic ence. If we inquire why we descended from Asiatic or European or African or American ancestors, the same answer must 1 McCosh, The Divine Government, pp. 196-198. PROVIDENCE 133 be returned, for the very good reason that no other answer can be given. He who watches the fall of every sparrow determines the birthplace of every human being. If we wish to know why we were born amid the splendors of wealth or the comforts of competency or the privations of poverty, it can only be said that God willed it. If we institute investigations as to differences in color, and other natural distinctions coeval with birth, our researches must end in the belief that there is an overruling providence. It is unquestionable that God, either by his efficient or permissive decree, decided the time, the place, and the circumstances of our birth. (B.) Occurrences during life. These are more or less numerous in the history of every person. It is estimated that about one-half of the human race die in infancy. This fact, in some of its aspects, is distressing and appal- ling, yet, all things considered, it is doubtless wisely or- dered. If there is anything on earth that agonizes the hearts of loving parents, it is the pale face of a speechless infant tortured by disease, looking imploringly for help, and utterly unable to give an intimation of what would give relief, the weeping parents meanwhile as powerless to aid as if they were a thousand miles away. The mul- titudinous deaths of infants occur under the mysterious and adorable providence of God. As to persons who reach mature years, how different their conditions! A few are rich, many have a comfortable sufficiency, but the great majority are poor. Some who were poor have become rich, and some who were rich have been plunged into the depths of poverty. Some are always poor and diseased, not knowing, it may be, the luxury of a cradle in infancy, not spending a painless day during life, and indebted to charity for a decent burial. Some are placed in circumstances which enable them 12 134 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . to acquire education and intelligence. Knowledge opens to them its ample treasures, and they revel amid intel- lectual delights. Others are uncultivated and ignorant, and scarcely make an effort to rise above their “low es- tate.” Their mental impulses are not strong enough to stimulate them to the pursuit of knowledge. Alas for them ! yet in one sense it may be well for them that they do l-i °»t know the wretched disabilities of their condition. (C.) The time and place of death. Of the time w T e may speak with certainty, and yet indefinitely. We know that it will soon come. “ As for man, his days are as grass ” (Ps. ciii. 15) ; “ It is appointed unto men once to die.” Heb. ix. 27. The appointment is inevitable and universal. The stroke of mortality falls on all “ born of women.” But we cannot tell when it will fall on us. It might gratify our curiosity to know, but it would be of no practical benefit. Whether we shall die at the expiration of a day, a week, a month, a year, or ten years, or twenty years, we cannot tell ; so that while death is certain, the time when we shall die is hidden in the mysteries of the future. We are ignorant, too, as to the place where we shall draw our last breath. Though we may wish to die at home and among our kindred, God in his providence may order it otherwise. W e may die among strangers, in our own coun- try or in a foreign land, with no familiar face to watch the dying struggle and no hand of kindred to wipe the sweat of death from the pale brow. We might prefer to die on the land, yet we may die on the sea, the pulse beating its last throb amid the majestic roar of ocean waves. It may be our desire to die with some intimation, in the form of disease or other bodily infirmity, that death is at hand ; but God’s plan may require that we die suddenly and without a mo- ment’s warning. Great as our preference may be to die what is called a natural death, we may be hurried into eternity PROVIDENCE. 135 by some unexpected casualty. In short the time and place and circumstances of our death are as certainly under the providence of God as were those of our birth. To him the time when and the place where we shall die, and all the surrounding circumstances, are full} 7 known. Everything pertaining to us — birth, death and all intermediate events — is under the direction of God, who “ doeth according to his will in the army of heaven and among the inhabit- ants of the earth.” Dan. iv. 35. Before closing this chapter it is well to notice two additional points: ' ** 1. The doctrine of pftfmclence is full of consolation w the saints. They are assured that the world, that the universe, is not under the dominion of unreasoning Fate or blind Chance. Many of the old philosophers adopted the one or the other of these views. While some of them believed in “gods many and lords many,” they at the same time believed these gods and lords to be controlled in all their acts by a fate as irresistible by them as by men. Others ascribed everything to chance. They supposed the world itself to be the result of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, and that everything taking place in it must be as acci- dental as its formation. There is no comfort in either of these views. Fate and chance are impersonal things. There is neither life nor intelligence in them. We need a personal God on the throne of the universe, infinite in wisdom and goodness and power. Such a God the Bible reveals, and such a God his people worship. He is ever able to help them ; “ For the eyes of the Lord run to and fio throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them w T hose heart is perfect toward him.” 2 Chron. xvi. 19. The eyes of the Lord are in every place, and where his eyes are, there is his omnipotent arm to protect. Lovices to God in thanksgiving and praise for the blessings bestowed upon them in rich- est profusion. There was no need of prayer, and there- fore ampler opportunity for praise. God was pleased to have worship on earth as well as in heaven. How beautiful must have been the garden which “ the Lord God planted eastward in Eden ” ! In it was to be found “ every tree pleasant to the sight,” whose “ fruit was good for food.” We may imagine that on every hand were flowers of thornless beauty and sweetest perfume, birds of bulliant plumage and richest voice, while the river which “ went out of Eden to water the garden ” sent forth its limpid stream bright by day and musical by night. The sun shone in cloudless spler\dor in the heavens, but be- neficent only were his rays ; while the moon threw a mild- er charm on all sur:ounding objects, leaving the happy pair m blessed perplexity whether to give preference to the sun and the day or to the moon and the night. How lovely was Paradise ere sin shed its curse and its blight 14 * 162 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . on the earth ! What a suitable abode for man in hi t original state \ Alas ! his original state was not perma- nent. The Fall of Man. u And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat : but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: foi in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen. ii. 15-17. These words seem to have been addressed to Adam be- fore Eve was made, but it is evident from the subsequent part of the narrative that she considered them as equally applicable to herself. (How long our first parents remain- ed in a sinless state — in otffer words, how long they re- tained the moral image of God, in which they were made — it is impossible to sa}^} The matter comes not within the horizon of human knowledge. Some have supposed that man’s state of innocence continued about a century, and others have thought that it was of only a few days’ duration. Conjecture is useless and vain. It is enough for us to know that it continued until the fact was proved that man was capable of obedience. This fact being proved, it follows that his obedience might have been permanent. That is to say, as there was nothing to make bis obedience impracticable while he rendered it, so there was no reason why that obedience might not have been perpetual. What was done for a day or a year might have been done for an indefinite number of days or years, and would have been done, but for man’s volun- tary decision to disobey. Alas for that decision ! Before proceeding farther it will be well tu give the scriptural account of the Fall: MAN. 163 “ Now the serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden : but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, know- ing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her husband with*her; and he did eat.” Gen. iii. 1-6. With regard to the serpent, it may be said that though the animal is not to be identified with Satan, yet Satan so evidently acted through it, that in Scripture serpent has become one of his names. This will appear from the following passages : “ And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world “ And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil and Satan and bound him a thousand years.” Rev. xii. 9; xx. 2. It is manifest that Satan is called serpent because lie availed himself of a serpent in tempting Eve, and is called “ that old serpent ” because he began his work of deception and ruin in the world’s infancy. It is difficult to divest ourselves of associations that have clung to us from our earliest years; and as there is in the serpent something very repulsive, we are apt to think it strange that our mother Eve was successfully approached by 164 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. such an animal. We must remember that the serpent is not now what it was before the fall of man. The curse pronounced on it was heavy, and was expressed in part in these words : “ Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” Gen. iii. 14. It may be inferred from this language that the serpent before receiving its doom was erect, and most probably there was no animal so beautiful and graceful. Oertaimy, Satan, to accomplish his purpose, selected the most suitable instrument. Some have thought it unworthy of God to make results so grave and so fearful contingent on eating the fruit of a certain tree. How could it be unworthy of him? He designed to test the obedience of the two rational beings he had placed in the garden. Obedience can be tested as well by a little thing as by a great thing, and possibly better. In doing a great thing, a man may be influenced more by the magnitude of the thing than by the authority enjoining its performance; whereas, in doing a little thing, so called, he is much more likely to act out of reverence for the authority of God. This is the very essence of true obedience. There is no genuine obedience without it. If any one of a thousand con- siderations possible should prompt one to the performance of an act that God requires, it would not be an act of obedience unless it were performed because required by him. In the case of Adam and Eve the temptation to dis- obedience was by no means strong. They were permitted to eat the fruit of all the trees in the garden except one. Only one prohibition was laid upon them. They were told that, if they violated this prohibition, a terrible evil, death, would come upon them. So far as we can judge, there was no reason in favor of eating the .orbidden MAN. 165 fruit, and a reason of tremendous strength in favor of abstaining from it. The serpent, however, beguiled Eve and she ate the fatal fruit, giving it to her husband, who also ate. Paul tells us that “Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” 1 Tim. ii. 14. This is in perfect accordance with tho account we have in the third chapter of Genesis. Eve was beguiled and sinned under deception, but Adam sinned, as we say, with his eyes open. He knew what he was doing, and with purpose linked his destiny with that of his wife, while he cast the blame of his act on God, saying, “ The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Gen. iii. 12. 1 Eve, though acting under a mistake and a delusion, was by no means excusable, but Adam was far more inexcusable than she, for he acted intelligently as well as voluntarily. There was, in his case, not a single circumstance of palliation. He knew what he was doing. It is to be remembered, too, that the sin of Adam had a far more important connection with the human race than the sin of Eve. The man, and not the woman, was to be the head and representative of the race. We are therefore told that “by one man sin entered into the world,” and that “in Adam all die.” Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor, xv. 22. Men in contemplating the disastrous results of Adam’s sin have asked many questions: Ihey have wished to know whether his sin could not have been prevented— 1 It is strange that so many persons believe that Adam blamed E?e for his act. lie blamed God. “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me.” As if he had said, Thou gavest me this woman to be with me as my wife; and how could the purposes of our conjugal compan- ionship be carried out unless, by copying her example, I made hex character and destiny mine? [66 CHRISTIAN JD0CTRI1 \ ES. whether he could not have been made incapable of sin- ning, etc. No doubt, if God had chosen so \o exert his power, he could have prevented sin : but he did not- choose thus to prevent its introduction into the woild, He could have made man incapable of sinning, In how many ways he could have done this, we know not; but we are sure he could have done it by making man a piece of mere machinery, irresponsible, because not a free agent. That there are mysteries connected with the existence of sin, no one will deny ; but it is certainly unreasonable to complain that Adam was mode a free agent. What is free agency? As an agent is an actor, so the central essence of free agency is the power of acting as the agent pleases. This power was given to / Adam. He had the capacity to love and serve God, in proof of which he did for a time love and serve him. In doing so he exercised powers that God had given him, and acted in accordance with his inclination. ' In sinning also he acted in accordance with his inclination, and illustrated the doctrine of free agency, for there was a perfect absence of all compulsory influence. Adam sinned because he chose to sin; he chose to sin in the exercise of his free agency ; and he was capable of sinning, because he was a man and not an irrational creature. • Sometimes it is curiously inquired whether Adam and Eve did not sin in their hearts before they sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. No doubt they did. The sin of Eve had its beginning in unbelief. In giving credence to what the tempter said she called in question the truth of what God had said, and the unbelief of her heart led to the outward act of eating the fruit. As Adam was “not deceived,” his consent to disobey God — and consent is of the heart — must have preceded the MAN 167 external act of disobedience. It seems plain, therefore, that the sin of our first parents had its origin in their hearts. The threatened penalty claims attention. It is in these words : “ In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die.” Most persons, perhaps, in reading this lan- guage, receive the impression that natural death is refer- red to. No doubt it is, but the death of the body by no means exhausts the reference. The bodies of Adam and Eve did not die actually on the day of trangression, but they died virtually . They were at once placed under the law of mortality — sin put them there — and the seeds of death were planted in them. There was, in consequence of sin, subjection to disease, infirmity, and dissolution ; and the physical death of the guilty pair became just as certain when they sinned as if it had occurred while yet they were eating the fatal fruit. Not only did the natu- ral death of Adam result from his sin, but the natural death of all his posterity results from the same cause. This fact, as it seems to me, is utterly destructive of the theory that the body of Adam would have died even if he had not sinned. The Bible knows nothing of death where sin is not. I have intimated that something more than the death of the body is meant by the threatening, “ Thou shalt surely die.” Spiritual death is evidently referred to ; and it is far more fearful than bodily death. The latter takes place when the spirit leaves the body ; the former takes place when God leaves the spirit. By how much the soul is worth more than the body, by so much is spiritual worse than natural death. The cessation of union, com- munion, and fellowship with God is so great a calamity that death is its fittest designation. The spirit cut off from God as the source of blessedness feels a wretchedness 168 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. which language is powerless to define. It may wander to the outermost limits of space in quest of something to satisfy its large desires, but that something is not found. It has never been found, and it never will be found. The life of the soul is in its union with the blessed God ; the death of the soul, not its annihilation, consists in its separation from God. The consummation of spiritual death is leath eternal. This consummation is sure to come, unless spirit- ual death is abolished by the impartation of spiritual life, Now, Jesus, looking on eternal death, the culmination ot spiritual death, as the greatest conceivable evil, seems not to have thought the death of the body worthy of mention. He therefore said, “ If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” John viii. 51. “ He shall not see death for ever,” is the more accurate translation of the last clause. He who keeps Christ’s word will of course die a natural death, but, being saved from spiritual death, will not die for ever — will never see death in the most appalling sense of the term. Adam and Eve died a spiritual death the very day they sinned against God. They were cut off from him as the source of their happiness and joy. No longer did they live in the light of his countenance, with his complacent smile resting upon them; but they walked in darkness, and trembled under the frown of the Ah mighty. The garden of Eden was no longer their home, for they had sacrificed its delights and forfeited its pleas- ures. They learned by painful experience the lesson which their posterity have been learning from that sad day till now — namely, that it is an evil and bitter thing to forsake God. Jer. ii. 19. It is written of the apostate head of our race, “ Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man : and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming MAN. 169 Bword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.” Gen. iii. 23, 24. The Present State of Man. We cannot suppress the sigh and the tear that the origi- nal state of man was* followed by his fall, and it intensifies our sadness to know that his fall was the fall of all his descendants, and therefore our fall. Julius Caesar fell in the senate-chamber at Rome, and the great poet of nature centuries after attributed certain words to Mark Antony while pronouncing the funeral oration. Taking the term “ countrymen ” in its widest sense to embrace all the in- habitants of the w r orld, every man may sav of the day of Adam’s disobedience, “ Oh what a fall was there, my countrymen I Then you, and I, and all of us fell down.” The truth is as resistless as an axiom, that the effects ot Adam’s sin were not restricted to himself, but have been transmitted to his posterity. By his posterity I mean every human being — beginning with Cain and Abel — that hag lived or is now living on the face of the earth. In ex- pressing myself thus definitely I only adopt the words of Paul in Athens when he says, that God “hath made of one blood all n\tions of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath\ determined the times before appointed, and the bounds^ of their habitation.” Acts xvii. 26. The unity of the human race has been denied by philosophers, so colled, because they were unable to reconcile with such unity the discordant peculiarities of different nations. When the Bible speaks, let the philosophy of this world keep silence. The passage just quoted asserts most posi- tively that “ God made of one blood all nations of men.” A perfectly literal translation would be, “ God made out 15 170 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. of one blood every nation of men.” This, of course, means that every nation, and all the individuals composing every nation, have descended from a common stock. There liave not been many bloods ; the Bible recognizes only “ one blood.” How could the unity of the human race be more distinctly taught? Then, too, the divine purpose is de- clared to be that “ all nations of men should dwell on all the face of the earth.” If all the face of the earth is to be occupied by a population descended from one blood, where will a place be found for any other population ? The Spirit of God in the significant passage under review must have designed to meet and refute, through all time, every argument in favor of a plurality of races propagated from different ancestral heads. The doctrine of the unity of the human race is vastly important, for the Scriptures teach that ruin comes through “ the first Adam,” and sal- vation through “ the last Adam,” the Lord from heaven. But if any of the inhabitants of the earth sustain no re- lation to the first Adam, how can they be brought into union with Christ, “the last Adam”? There can be no connection with Calvary, if there is no connection with Eden. He who cannot trace his natural lineage to Adam will never trace his spiritual lineage to Christ. In illustration of the unity of the race, it may be said that all men are sinners, for sin is everywhere and has been in all generations. It has never been confined to the white or the black or the red or the copper-colored peoples of the earth. It has prevailed with disastrous uniformity among all peoples. The highest mountains are not barriers to its progress, nor do the widest oceans stop its march of ruin and desolation. All the inhabitants of the world, too, are the subjects of sorrow. All men, however descended, have been u born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward.” Job v. 7. MAN. 171 Tears, the exponents of the sorrows of broken hearts, have flowed, and are now flowing from human eyes in every clime. All men are liable to disease and death. Physical suf- fering is universal. There is no escape from it. Men of every hue feel it. The name of the maladies to which flesh is heir is legion. Death has swayed a universal sceptre. His ravages have not been circumscribed by the limits of kingdoms and empires and continents, but have been world- wide. The stroke of mortality has fall- en indiscriminately on all the nations, “ from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same.” Surely, such sad similarities as these would not have been illustrated in all lands and in all centuries if the nations, though differing in circumstances, had not been substantially one. The indivisible unity of the human race being a settled point, it follows that Adam was the head of the race. He was its natural head, and it was before the Fall that the first pair received the command, “ Be fruitful, and multi- ply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” Gen. i. 28. Their descendants were, according to the divine arrange- ment, to fill the earth. There is, outside of the Bible, no plausible account of the peopling of the wirld. We are dependent on sacred history for all satisfactory informa- tion, and it is from the word of God alone that we learn of Adam in connection with the natural headship of his race. We regard him as the ancestral source of human existence, whence every human being has lineally de- scended. Adam was the representative of his race. I am aware that the Scriptures do not say in so many words that he was the federal head of his posterity, but they say that which can be explained on no other supposition. Hence, 172 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES after the Fall, God said to Adam that which was as true in his representative as in his personal capacity. For ex- ample : “ In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou re- turn.” Gen. iii. 19. Eating bread in the sweat of the fare lias been the universal law of human ty from the day cf the expulsion from Eden to this day. There is an estab- lished connection between eating bread and the sweat of the face. He who eats bread does it in the sweat of his own face or the sweat of another’s face. Adam, after he sinned, was obliged to extort from the unwilling soil the means of living, and his descendants are now doing the same thing. The toiling millions of earth’s inhabitants are a monumental proof of the truth of the words, “ In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” Many an in- fidel, while he neglects the Bible, is, in wiping the sweat from his brow, a living illustration of one of the truths of the Bible. When God said to Adam, “ Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return,” he spoke to him repre- sentatively as well as personally. His return to dust was assured, and also that of his posterity. The fearful sen- tence has been in course of fulfilment to this hour. Nothing is going on more constantly in this world, than are the pulverizing processes of the grave. It is as true now as when Solomon wrote, that at death “ shall the dust return to the earth as it was.” Eccles. xii. 7. Now, if it be asked, why Adam’s descendants suffer such disabilities and receive from him so sad an inheritance, I can only say, Because he was by divine appointment con- stituted the covenant head of his race. I use the term in this connection as denoting that arrangement, that order, that constitution of things, under which Adam was made and placed in the garden of Eden. His position as rep- MAN 173 resentative of his race was such that if he had retained his integrity he would thereby have secured the holiness of his descendants; but as he swerved from his integrity and sinned against God, he by so doing, not only ruined himself, but involved all his posterity in his sin and in its penal effects. No one is more fully convinced than the writer of these lines that it is very easy to ask unanswerable questions concerning Adam’s sin and its effects on his posterity; and it is well to remember our liability to “darken counsel by words without knowledge.” It may be safely said, however, that from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans we may learn some very import- ant truths. We are there taught that “ by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” v. 12. We learn also that Adam, through whose transgression ruin came on his race, was a figure, a type, of Christ ; that is, there was a resemblance between the two, which is seen in the fact that they both acted in a representative capacity. The resemblance is seen in nothing else. Moreover, it was “by the offence of the one” that “the many died,” and it was “by one offence” that “judg- ment came upon all men to condemnation.” It is very observable that the one man, Adam, is not only said to have brought ruin and death on his race, but to have done this by one offence ; for I assume that in the latter part of verse 16 the “ many offences unto justification ” are in contrast with the “ one [offence] to condemnation.’' We may suppose, without a doubt, that the sins of Adam after his fall affected his posterity no more than the sins of another man. His one specific, fatal offence was eating the forbidden fruit. According to the appoint- ment of God, abstaining from or eating that fruit was to 174 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. decide the happy or wretched destiny of his race. The one oflbnce “ Brought death into the world, and all our woe.” The fatal deed of Adam, designated “sin,” “transgres- sion,” “ offence,” is in verse 19 termed “ disobedience and it is said that “ by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” They were so united to him, that they stood in him while he stood, and fell in him when he fell. Thus were they constituted sinners. Adam’s apostate children have often blamed their apostate ancestor for his disobedience, but they prac- tically endorse it as soon as they are able to discern between good and evil. They invariably choose the evil and reject the good. Their depraved nature shows its depravity in their preference of the ways of sin. They love darkness rather than light. All the teach- ings of history confirm the truth of what the Bible says about the present state of man, and show that some great disaster has spread itself over the whole area of humanity. The condition of fallen man is clearly de- scribed in the Sacred Scriptures. When the apostle speaks of the condition in which the Ephesian believers once were, he describes the natural state of every one of Adam’s fallen race : u Who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in times past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conver- sation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind ; and were * bv nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Eph. ii. 1- 3. This represents man in a condition of guilt and utter helplessness, tie is guilty in his helplessness, and help- MAN ; 175 less in his guilt. He is the subject of depravity and condemnation, equally impotent to counteract the former or to remove the latter. The apostasy of the race is universal, and the proof of it is found everywhere from the equator to the poles. “ The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth go^d, no, not OAe.' J Ps. xiv. 2, 3. CHAPTER XU MAN NEEDS A SAVIOUR. This conclusion is irresistible. It follows tLe sad truth that man is a sinner; and this truth has been made evident in the preceding chapter. For, as we have seen, Adam, though created holy, did not remain in that state, but by voluntary transgression fell therefrom, bringing ruin on himself and his posterity. His sinful nature is propagated by ordinary generation ; and the propagation had an early beginning, for it is said of Adam that he “ begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” Gen. v. 3. This declaration is specially worthy of notice in view of the fact that u God created man in his own image.” Gen. i. 27. Had Adam remained in his state of innocence, no doubt his children would have been born as he was created, namely, in the moral image of God. But he sinned, and humanity, becoming poisoned in its source, has transmitted poisonous streams only through all generations. Paul, assuming as true the universal corruption of human nature, refers to “ the children of disobedience,” and says, as we have seen, that himself and the members of the church of Ephesus had formerly a place among them : “ Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind ; and 176 MAN NEEDS A SAVIOUR. 177 were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” Eph. ii. 3. Children of wrath are children of sin, and if we are bv nature children of wrath, we are by nature children of sin. Man’s wretched condition as a sinner, and his con- sequent need of a Saviour, are also clearly taught in the following portion of Scripture: “For we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips : whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Rom. iii. 9-19. This is a very severe indictment of the human race, for it includes Jews and Gentiles, the two divisions of the race, and declares all guilty before God. Every mouth is stopped in view of the just sentence of condern nation pronounced by the law. This is what is usually called the moral law, the only law whose jurisdiction ex- tends to “ all the world.” It is manifest that the foregoing scripture teaches man’s condemnation and his depravity. He is condemned because he has transgressed the law of God, and the justice of the sentence of condemnation is so undeniable that his “ mouth is stopped ;” that is, he 178 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. can give no reason why the sentence should not be executed. As to man’s depravity, it is clearly seen in his not seeking after God. He does not seek after God, because he does not love him ; and not to love God is the essence of depravity. When the throat is declared to be an open sepulchre the repulsive corruption of the heart is indicated. An open sepulchre sends forth from a putrefying corpse the most offensive effluvia. What, then, must be the state of man’s heart when his throat, which gives vent to what is in his heart, is “an open sepulchre”? When the tongue uses deceit, it is because the heart is deceitful; when the poison of asps is under the lips, there is always poison in the heart; when the mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, the cursing and bitterness are first in the heart; and when the feet are swift to shed blood, it is the heart whose murderous impulses give swiftness to the move- ments of the feet. The heart is the seat of depravity. What says Jesus the great Teacher? — “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wuckedness, de- ceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolish- ness : all these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” Mark vii. 21-23. What a corrupt, polluted thing the natural heart is! How imperative the necessity of a new heart if man is to be saved ! Salvation must have an indispensable connection with a change of heart. Now, to show that man needs a Saviour, it is only ne- cessary to show that he cannot by anything he can do re- move the obstacles out of the way of his salvation. These obstacles may be termed legal and moral . The former are embraced in condemnation, and the latter are compre- hended in depravity. These topics require distinct and earnest discussion : MAN NEEDS A SAVIOUR. 179 1. Condemnation. I use this term to denote man’s just exposure to the curse of the divine law. The wrath of God abides on him. The curse of the law is a righteous curse, and the wrath of God is righteous wrath. This will be seen if we consider that “ the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Rom. vii. 12. It must, then, be a transcript of the moral excellence of the divine character. All that is meant by holiness, justice, and goodness belongs to the law, and it is therefore a per- fect law. It is scarcely necessary to say that it has a pen- alty, for this is characteristic of all lav/. Divested of pen- alty, law would become mere advice, which might be taken or rejected at pleasure. If penalty belongs to law, the better the law, the severer should its penalty be. The reason is, the better the law, the stronger the motives to obedience and the greater the guilt of disobedience. It follows, therefore, that the very perfection of God’s law requires that there shall be embodied in its penalty a righteous severity, of which all our conceptions are prob- ably very inadequate. If penalty as well as precept is a part of God’s law, then both are “ holy, and just, and good.” That is, we are not at liberty to apply these epi- thets to the precept and withhold them from the penalty. They are as applicable to the one as to the other. If the “ holy, and just, and good ” precepts of the law are trails- gressed, the transgressor exposes himself to the “holy, and just, and good” penalty of the law. The penalty, being a righteous one, should be executed, unless some- thing can be done to render its remission consistent with righteousness. Can man do this ? If so, it must be ac- complished by what he does or by what he suffers, or by a combination of doing and suffering. As to doing, it is clear that nothing can be done by man in the way of atoning for his sins, unless he is able to do more than the 180 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. divine law requires, so that the superfluous obedience of the present and the future may make up for the failures of the past. But is superfluous obedience a possible thing? Obviously not; for “ the first and great com- mandment” of the law says, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” Mark xii. 30. If all the strength that man possesses is to be ex- pended in the love and service of God, it is manifest that he can do no more than this. All is all. His obedience must be continuous, filling up the measure of every mo- ment. If for the present moment and every future mo- ment of his life his obedience is perfect, he only meets the obligations of duty — does nothing more; and what does Jesus say? — “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are un- profitable servants : w r e have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke xvii. 10. This passage at once and for ever explodes the idea of a sinner saving himself by his own merit. There can be no merit on the part of a sinful man, unless he can do more than his duty, which is impossible. Suppose man, however, to do all his duty from this hour to his dying hour, still the government of God holds him justly chargeable with all the sins of bis past life. What is to be done with them ? What disposal is to be made of them? Man cannot dispose of them at all, for he can do nothing with them. He cannot change the past, nor can he bring God under obligation to change it. He is under the penalty of the divine law, and can do nothing that will so honor the law as to justify the remis- sion of its penalty. Release from condemnation by man’s works is plainly impossible. “ By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” Rom. iii 20 . MAN NEEDS A SAVIOUR . 181 What, then, is to be said of suffering? If man cannot save himself by doing, can he save himself by suffering? It is needless to speak of the sufferings of this world, for they are a very small part of the penalty of the law. Eternal death is the truly awful part of the penalty. This we have seen in what was said of the fearful words, u In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Gen. ii. 17. The same truth is taught in Rom. vi, 23: “For the wages of sin. is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” There can be no consistent interpretation of this passage which does not make the life and the death equal in duration, for the death is in direct contrast with the eternal life. Now, if the penalty of the law involves the eternal death of the sinner, and if eternal death involves eternal suffering, then it is clearly true that man by suffering cannot re- lease himself from the condemnation which rests on him. The suffering will be commensurate with eternity, and we can form no idea of anything which outreaches eternity. How, then, can the suffering of a creature make it either proper or possible to remit the penalty of the law when the exhaustion of the penalty requires eternal suffering? We may surely conclude that man, neither by doing nor suffering, can save himself from condemnation. If the doing by itself is insufficient, and if the suffering by itself is insufficient, it needs no argument to show that the doing and the suffering combined are insufficient. It follows that the legal obstacles in the way of man’s sal- vation cannot be removed by man. He rests under the condemnation of the law, and there he must remain for ever if there is for him no deliverance but self-deliver- ance. How sad is man’s state ! He is justly condemned, and utterly helpless in his condemnation. The thunders of the divine law roll over his head and strike terror to lfi 182 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES, his soul, but he can do nothing to silence those thunders. He must hear them fo~ ever, unless salvation shall come from a source outside of himself. This is the only ground of hope. '^^^epravity. It has been said that in depravity are comprehended the moral obstacles in the way of man’s salvation. Man, in his natural state, is the enemy of Godj I use the term in its widest sense, as embracing the wfiole human race. We have. seen that, according to the inspired utterances of Paul, Jews and Gentiles were in- volved in the miseries of a common apostasy. His argu- ment is that the Gentiles, though less favored than the Jews, had sufficient knowledge of God and of their rela- tion to him to leave them without excuse for their idol- atry. More than this : their idolatry was not the cause, but the effect, of their depravity. For the sake of illustra- tion, it may be said that depravity was the moral disease under which they were laboring, while idolatry was but a symptom of the disease. To the Jews, with their superior advantages, Jesus said, “ Ye are of your father the devil,” and “ I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.’* John viii. 44; vi. 42. ^In all ages and in all climes the carnal mind has been “ enmitv against GoddL*) ^-N^hether man is totally depraved has often been the subject of theological discussion. In discussing any question, the first thing to be done is to ascertain the precise meaning of the terms in which it is expressed. If by “ total depravity ” it is meant that man is as bad as he can beft the doctrine receives no human illustration ; for the Bible represents wicked men as becoming i( worse and worse.” Nor can we suppose that Mien angels, and the chief of them, Satan himself, are as bad as they can be. They are, doubtless, in a state of progressive moral deterioration — growing worse and worse as in charactei MAN NEEDS A SAVIOUR. 183 <^ke they become less and less like God. “Total depravity” in this sense of the phrase has no exemplification on earth or in hell. ITe correct meaning of “ total depravity ” is entire des- titution of holin ess^ Man is totally depraved in the sense that there is in his heart no love to Gody We see in many unregenerate persons an exhibition of amiable qualities and social virtues which renders them desirable neigh- bors and useful citizens, but there is in them no spark of holiness. The influence of many things that they say and do may be beneficial to society, and even to the world at large, but they do nothing with a view to the glory of God. They are not prompted by the high and holy mo- tive which the Bible recognizes and approves. The rea- son is they do not love God, and therefore care not for his glory. Who can ask for a stronger argument to prove man’s total depravity, than the fact that he is totally des- titute of love to God, and, consequently, totally destitute of holiness? *T^e depravity of man shows itself every- where on the face of the wide earth. In civilized and in savage climes — where intelligence triumphs and where ignorance reigns — where despotism forges its fetters and where all men are free — “ from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same ” — man is a depraved crea- ture. He may leave the land of his birth, sail across the sea, and wander over foreign realms, but wherever he goes or wherever he stays he has within him a sinful and a cor- rupt h ear^J Now, the question is as to the counteraction and the re- moval of this depravity, which has alienated man from God. Will man himself start some counteracting pro- cess? He does not wish his depravity counteracted. He will make no effort to remove his moral corruption, for he does not desire its removal. He is satisfied wflth the 184 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . state of his heart, and lives according to its inclinations. He is the voluntary slave of sin, and is therefore pleased with the slavery. Here, too, we may see that if man could save himself from condemnation — a thing, as we have seen, impossible — he would, under the impulses of his depravity, sin again and fall once more into condem- nation. In short, if he could remove the legal barriers out of the way of his salvation, the existence of moral . barriers would render certain the creation of other legal barriers. Such is the powerful dominion of depravity over the heart of man, that it can never be broken by influences originating within the heart itself. They must come from without if they come at all. Man, being not only a sinner, but in love with sin, does not wish to be holy. He cannot desire holiness while he takes pleasure in sin; and even if he had all the “ ability ” that has ever been claimed for him, it is morally certain that he would not exercise it. It is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural to expect sinful creatures to act in opposition to the pre- vailing inclinations of their hearts. Hence I argue that man cannot remove the moral obstacles out of the way of his salvation. They are as incapable of removal by hu- man agency as are the legal obstacles already considered. Truly, man is in a state of ruin, from which he is utterly powerless to save himself. Self-help is impossible. We know what self-ruin means, but we shall never know what self-salvation is, In view of the considerations now presented, it is as clear as the sun in heaven that man needs a Saviour. This is his great need. All other necessities are trivial as compared with the necessity of salvation. {Man needs a Saviour to do for him what he cannot do for himself He is in moral darkness, and needs spiritual illumina- MAN NEEDS A SAVIOUB. 185 tion ; he is in a condemned state, and needs justifica- tion ; he is the captive of Satan, and needs deliverance ; he has a depraved heart, and needs regeneratidfir^ The heading of this chapter — “ Man Needs a Savour — r would only torment him before the time if there were no Saviour. Indeed, it would be the refinement of cruelty to remind man of his urgent, perishing need, without tell- ing him how that need can be supplied. There is a Sa- viour. “ This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all accep- tation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sin- ners.” 1 Tim. i. 15. It will be my business in future chapters to call attention to the person and work of the Lord Jesus, thus showing that he is the very Saviour that man needs, the “ only-begotten Son,” whom God gave “ that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 16. if » CHAPTER XIII. THE PROMISED SAVIOUR. If, as has been shown, man needs a Saviour, it is a mat- ter of the greatest importance to know whether a Saviour has been provided. On this point we get no information from the light of Nature or the teachings of human phil- osophy ; because the science of salvation is above Na- ture, and comes not within the realm of man’s philoso- phy. We must turn to the Bible if we would know what salvation is, and who is the Saviour. It is an interesting fact that the first intimation of mercy to our race was given in the garden of Eden, im mediately after the Fall and just before the expulsion of Adam and Eve. It is found in connection with the curse pronounced on the serpent. The words are God’s, and they are these: find I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel*’) Gen. iii. 15. It is quite worthy of notice that the seed of the woman, and not of the man, is referred to. The lan- guage seems to he ^gjgnhetic of the miraculous birth of Jesus of Nazareth. RHis body was not produced by ordi- nary generation, but by the supernatural agency of the Holy Spirit. He therefore escaped the depravity trans- mitted by Adam to all his lineal descendants. Paul ex- presses the same idea more definitely as follows : “ But 186 THE PROMISED SAVIOUR . 187 when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Gal. iv. 4. The words “ made of a woman ” suggest a peculiar relation to the female sex — a relation not sustained to the other sex — a relation created by the miraculous formation of the body of Jesus in the womb of the Virgin Mary. The promised Saviour was to be “ the seed of the woman.” Centuries rolled away, and there was a renewal of the promise concerning the Christ. After the expiration of two thousand years, Abraham was called to leave his country and to go to a land which the Lord would show him. At this time, God said to Abraham, “ In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Gen, xii. 3. Subse- quently, just before the destruction of Sodom, the Lord said of Abraham, “ All the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him.” Gen. xviii. 18. After the offering of Isaac on the altar, Jehovah said to Abraham, “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” Gen. xxii. 18. The nations were of course to be blessed in Abraham’s seed, but the fact was- not stated in so many words till after the offering of Isaac. As to the seed of Abraham we may learn much from Paul, who says, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made! He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” Gal. iii. 16. The apostle under inspiration seized hold of the import- ant fact that the seed of Abraham is Christ, in whom all nations are to be blessed. Thus the promised Saviour was known to Abraham, of whom Jesus said to the Jews, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” John viii. 56. ' There are in the Old Testament so many references to the promised Saviour, that they cannot be referred to in 188 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. detail. His coming is predicted the prophets, and it is assumed by them that he would come to suffer and to die. That they did not fully understand their predictions is manifest from the words of Peter : “ Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow.” 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. It may have been that the prophets themselves were in some degree influenced by the Jewish opinion that the Messiah would come to live and reign, and not to suffer and die. We may be sure that it is next to impossible for us to imagine how difficult it was for Jews of Old Testament times to unite the two ideas of humiliation and exaltation in the person of the Christ. No man, so far as we know, was competent to the task till the rich effusions of the Holy Spirit were granted on the day of Pentecost. Till then the apostles, though they had en- joyed the personal instructions of Jesus, were in com- parative darkness. “ What think ye of Christ ?” is a question of infinite importance. Is he the promised Saviour, whose coming was foretold by the prophets? Do the Old Testament Scriptures refer to him? Of these very writings Jesus of Nazareth said, “They are they which testify of me.” John v. 39. On the day of his resurrection we are told of his interview with two disciples as they “ went into the country,” and it is said that, “beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scrip- tures the things concerning himself.” Luke xxiv. 27. There are, then, in the Scriptures things concerning Jesus Christ, and these things, having leference the THE PROMISED SAVIOUR. 189 Old Testament, are chiefly prpphetic. Without attempt- ing an exhaustive reference to the prophecies relating to the Messiah, I shall mention certain classes of predictions, with a view of showing that the}" have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth. Ay, more — that if they have not been fulfilled in him, they can never be fulfilled at alh May God enable me to present the matter in such a light as to show that the promised Deliverer of the Old Testa- ment is the Jehovah-Jesus of the New Testament! The classes of predictions alluded to are such as the following: Those that refer to — 1. The tribe and family to which he belongs. As to the tribe, we have definite information in the following words: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come ; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” Gen. xlix. 10. From 1 Chron. v. 1, 2 we learn that “ Reuben, the first-born of Israel,” by an atrocious crime forfeited “the birthright” which “was given unto the sons of Jo- seph.” The sacred historian tells us, however, that “the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright;” and the explanation is that “ Judah prevailed above his breth- ren, and of him came the chief ruler.” In exposition of the words of Jacob already quoted I make the following extract from the “ Annotated Para- graph Bible :” “ Having announced the sovereignty of Judah, the patriarch goes on to declare that it should have no end until one should come bearing the name of ‘Shiloh,’ whose sway both Israel and all mankind should acknowledge. The subsequent history presents the ful- filment of this prediction. In the journeyings of the Is- raelites through the wilderness, and under the theocracy in the Promised Land, this tribe took the precedence; after the return from Babylon it absorbed the others and gave 190 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. its name to the whole nation ; and even under the domin- ion of the Romans it retained a measure of authority. But on the appearance of Christ all this quickly passed away, to make room for the spiritual and universal reign of the Prince of Peace.” It is needless to say more of the tribe from which the promised Saviour was to come, and in the New r Iestament we read, “It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah.” Heb. vii. 14. If the prediction of the dying Jacob has not been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, it can never be fulfilled. The conditions of its fulfilment once existed, but they can never exist again. As to the family honored by its connection with the promised Saviour, it is without doubt the family of David. God said to him, “ Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne.” Ps. cxxxii. 11. The universal expectation of the Jews was that the Messiah would be the descendant of David. When, therefore, Jesus asked the Pharisees, “What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? they say unto him, The Son of David.” Matt. xxii. 42. The multitudes also at his triumphant entry into Jerusalem cried, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” Matt, xxi. 9. Paul says of Christ that he “ was made of the seed of David according to the flesh ” (Rom. i. 3), and Jesus himself says, “ I am the root and the offspring of David.” Rev. xxii. 16. We have nc need of additional testimony. It is not historically possible to show that any one except Jesus of Nazareth is, in the sense of these pas- sages, the “ Son,” the “ seed,” the “ offspring,” of David. 2. The time of his coming . Of this there is all the cer- tainty that can be desired. An important prophecy reads thus : “ Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem, unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven THE PROMISED SAVIOUR . 191 weeks and threescore and two weeks : the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself.” Dan. ix. 25, 26. I take it for granted that in the “ weeks” here men- tioned every day represents a year. With this under- standing we see that the periods of time designated must have expired about the year of the world 4000. It is per- haps not possible to make a perfectly accurate statement on account of the difficulty of knowing what “ command- ment ” is referred to. There were more commandments than one. Hence we read, “ And they builded, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of Persia.” Ez. vi. 14. The general opinion is that from the last of these kings Ezra the scribe received all needful help, and with a large company of exiles returned from Babylon to Jerusalem about the year 457 before Christ. This of course was some years after “ the commandment of Cyrus ;” but we can see with sufficient certainty at what time the prom- ised Saviour was to come. From the prophecy of Haggai we learn that the second temple was to be superior to the first. The superiority, however, was not to be in splendor and beauty of archi- tecture, but in the personal presence of “ the Desire of all nations :” “ And the Desire of all nations shall come : and I will fill this house with glory, saith the Lord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts. The glory of this latter house shall be greater than of the former, saith the Lord of hosts.” Hag. ii. 7-9. The Messiah is “the Desire of all nations,” and his presence rendered the second temple more ilftistrious 192 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . than the first. The words of God through the prophet were verified when Jesus of Nazareth appeared in the temple at Jerusalem and taught the lessons of salvation. We learn from the prophecy that the promised Saviour was to come during the existence of the second temple, and therefore at some period between the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem and the destruction of the city in (lie year of our Lord 70. Jesus of Nazareth came at the time when God by the prophet said “ the Desire of all na- tions ” would. come. Is he not, therefore, “the Desire of all nations”? No man of sane mind will say that dur- ing the centuries referred to the second temple was made more glorious than the first by the personal presence and teaching of any one except Jesus of Nazareth. I may say, then, that the prophecy has been fulfilled in him. If this is denied, the denial is a virtual declaration that the prophecy is unfulfilled; and if so, its fulfilment is impossible, for the second temple was destroyed eighteen hundred years ago, and can never exist again. 3. The place of his birth . The most striking prediction bearing on this point is the following: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratali, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Mic. v. 2. That the birth of the Messiah, when he came, would take place at Bethlehem of Judea, was the opinion of all the Jews. When, therefore, Herod inquired of “the chief priests and scribes of the people ” where “ Christ should be born,” they said, “In Bethlehem of Judea.” During the Saviour’s ministry “the chief priests and Pharisees” once attempted to discredit his claim to be a prophet by assuming that he was born in Galilee; and then they THE PROMISED SAVIOUR. 193 said, “ Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” John vii. 52. Humanly speaking, the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem was very remarkable. His mother was a resident of Nazareth, as we see from these words : “ And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God, unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” Luke i. 26, 27. Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, lived at Nazareth, and most probably died there. Why he did not live at Bethlehem, as he “ was of the house and lineage of David ” (Luke ii. 4), we do not know; we only know that in obedience to the edict of Augustus, the Roman emperor, he went to Bethlehem to be taxed — or rather enrolled — because of his connection with the family of David. Bethlehem was some distance from Nazareth. Why was it not suf- ficient for Joseph to go alone? Why was it necessary for Mary to perform the laborious journey? I do not know that we can answer these questions, but we may reasonably believe that it was not sufficient for Joseph to go alone, and that it was necessary for Mary to make the journey. However this may have been, the decree of Augustus was the means of making Bethlehem the birthplace of Jesus Christ. Nothing was further from the design of the emperor, but the God of heaven over- ruled the imperial decree for the accomplishment of a great prophecy. Thus was the angel of the Lord author- ized to say to the trembling shepherds, “Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the city of David, a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord.” Luke ii. 10, 11. The promised Saviour was born in Bethlehem, and that Saviour is the Lord of glory. No birth but his has conferred earthly immortality on Bethlehem. 17 194 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . 4 . The treatment he was to receive . Isaiah had prophesied (chapter 53) that he would be “ despised and rejected of men,” and that for very shame they would hide their faces from him. The prophets had expressed all the reproach and contempt of men in saying, u He shall be called a Nazarene.” Matt. ii. 23. It is worthy of notice that no one prophet is named. The language is, “ that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets.” The idea clearly is that, according to the predictions of the prophets, the Messiah would be the object of contemptu- ous reproach. For Nazareth was in bad repute. Indeed, there seems to have been a sort of interrogative proverb in circulation among the people — Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” John i. 46. Even Na- thanael, a guileless Israelite, was prejudiced against the place. The contemptuous treatment which the prophets said the promised Saviour would receive was received by Jesus of Nazareth. His name was cast out as evil. His enemies said, “ Behold, a man gluttonous, and a wine- bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” Matt. xi. 19. They meant, not only that he was the associate of “ pub- licans and sinners,” but that he was as bad as they. When his expulsion of demons w’as too manifest to be de- nied, the Pharisees said, “ This fellow doth not cast out de- mons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons.” Math xii. 24. Thus they charged that Jesus acted in concert with Satan himself. There could not be an imputation of greater wickedness than this. When his enemies de- termined to secure the condemnation and death of Christ, they presented two counts in the indictment against him — blasphemy and sedition. There was a malicious shrewdness in this, for it was designed that the charge of blasphemy should influence the Jewish council, and that THE PROMISED SAVIOUR. 195 fcne charge of sedition should render certain a sentence of death from Pilate the Roman governor. Thus was Jesus the object of reproach, and thus he endured the “ contra- diction of sinners against himself.” Heb. xii. 3. 5 The manner of his death. It was predicted that the promised Saviour would die, but not an ordinary death, It was to be a death by violence, for he was to be “ cut off out of the land of the living.” He was to die in the place of others, giving an example of substitution such as had never been given before. Of all this the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah contains abundant proof. It teaches also that the wonderful Sufferer was to be “ stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted,” while he was to be “ led as a lamb to the slaughter.” The death of the cross is no doubt alluded to in the words, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” Ps. xxii. 16. It is scarcely con- ceivable that the piercing of the hands and feet would have been required by any other form of death; yet crucifixion was not a Jewish punishment. The remark- able Personage referred to is represented as saying, “ I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.” These words are found in the same psalm, as also the exclamatory question, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” This appeal to God indicates that the Sufferer’s usual state had been one of intimacy and fellowship with God, and that the suspension of thi» blessed communion was regarded as the greatest of calamities. To be forsaken of God was the climax of the grief the promised Saviour was to be called to endure. We may now direct our attention to the death of Christ, . and see if it does not correspond to the death just referred to, and so strikingly portrayed in the Old Testament. 196 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. * Certainly, the death of Jesus was not an ordinary, but a violent, death. It was described in the words of the apostles to the Jewish council: “Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.” Acts v. 30. He died as a substitute, “ the just for the unjust ” (1 Pet. iii. 18), “ giving his life a ransom for many.” Matt. xx. 28. His hands and his feet were pierced, and his garments were divided by lot. Matt xxvii. 35. Such a death as that of Jesus on Calvary never occurred before, and will never occur again. The event stands alone, clothed with all the glory of majestic isolation. It may be said, too, that, if the prophecies concerning the death of the Messiah were not accomplished in the death of Christ, they can never be accomplished. All the con- ditions requisite to their fulfilment existed when Jesus died, never existed before, have not existed since, and cannot exist in the future. That the death of Christ was infinitely remarkable appears in view of such facts as these — facts which I merely present without dwelling on them : It was instigated by Satan, facilitated by a pro- fessed disciple, demanded by Jewish clamor, sanctioned by Roman authority ; it took place in pursuance of the purpose of God, was inflicted by him as the Lawgiver and Executive of the moral universe, and it was, on the part of Christ, a voluntary death. The victim went will- ingly to the altar of sacrifice. What strange things are these ! Satan, Judas, Jews, and Romans acted most free- ly, yet God through them executed a decree equally irre sistible and eternal, while Jesus died of his own accord, verifying his own words : “ No man taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.” John x. 18. In view of the preceding considerations, which mighl THE PROMISED SAVIOUR. 197 be expanded into a volume, I claim that the promised Saviour is Jesus Christ. He was promised in the sure word of prophecy, for “ to him give all the prophets wit- ness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Acts x. 43. It may be said, too, that every sacrificial altar of patriarchal and Jewish times was a promise of the coming of him whose one offering of himself would be the consummation of the whole system of sacrifices. The blood of slain animals typified for forty centuries the blood of Cal- vary, the blood which “cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John i. 8. if / CHAPTER XIV THE PERSON OF CHRIST. A reference to this topic properly follows the preced- ing subject, for if there is a promised Saviour, his person claims attention. Who is he ? is a question of the great- est importance. Manifestly, salvation depends on what he is, as well as on what he does ; for what he is able to do depends on what he is. This chapter needs not to be a long one, as I have writ ten at some length on the Deity of Christ . 1 There will be no repetition of arguments already adduced to prove the Lord Jesus divine. Believing those arguments valid, I regard the point as settled. We are accustomed to say that Christ is God, and that Christ is man ; and what we mean is true ; but neither statement is perfectly accurate. The second person of the Godhead, apart from his as»- sumption of human nature, is not the Christ ; nor is the Son of man, apart from his union with the divine nature, the Christ. The only-begotten Son of God dwelt in the bosom of the Father from eternity, but he was not the Christ, till by his incarnation he became the Son of man. A union of divinity and humanity was essential to the constitution of the person of the Christ. It follows, therefore, that the Christ is God-man. Divinity and humanity are united in him, but they are not blended. 1 See Chapter V. 198 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 199 Humanity is not deified, and divinity is not humanized. This is plainly impossible. Divinity cannot take into its essence anything finite, and the human is finite. Hu- manity cannot be so absorbed in Deity as to become part of it. The two natures must ever remain distinct, while the person of Christ formed by their union will ever be one and indivisible. That he has two natures in one per- son is true, and must ever be true, of the Messiah. The union of the two natures is confessedly mysterious, but the doctrine is not, on this account, to be rejected. Its rejection, for this reason, would be strangely inconsistent in men who cannot understand the union of matter and spirit in their own persons. So far as we know, there are no two things more diverse than matter and spirit. The point of contact between the two is not only invisible, but the manner of contact defies comprehension. The fact how r ever, of the union between soul and body in the per- son of every man, is unquestionable. To doubt it would awaken a suspicion of lunacy. While, then, we can neither deny nor comprehend the complexity of men’s persons, we must accept as true what the Scriptures teach concerning the person of Christ. Divine and human ele- ments belong to it. The explanation of this fact is given when we are told that the Word, who in the beginning “ was with God,” and who “ was God,” “ was made flesh and dwelt among ” men. There was on his part a voluntary incarna- tion, for the incarnation pertained to the second person of the Godhead, and not to the first or the third. It is not, therefore, strictly proper to say, without qualification, that the divine nature became incarnate, for this would imply the incarnation of all the persons of the Godhead. It is bet- ter to say that the divine nature in the second person of the Trinity — or, better still, that the second person himself — be- came incarnate. The act of incarnation was his, and the 200 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. result of the act was the manifestation of God in the flesh. I do not mean by this language that the incarnation was not approved by the Father and the Holy Spirit — far from it — but that it was the personal act of the only-begotten Son of God. He it was who “ though he was rich, yet for our sakes became poor ” (2 Cor. viii. 9), and “ made him- self of no reputation.” Phil. ii. 7. There have been various false views of the humanity of Christ. To only two of these views will I refer : It was supposed by some at an early day, perhaps in the latter part of the apostolic age, that Christ was not in reality a man, but that he only assumed the appearance of a man. Whether this opinion grew out of the difficulty of believ- ing that a Divine Being assumed human nature, or out of an unwillingness to believe that Jesus really suffered and died, it is useless to inquire. It seems almost certain that John intended to meet and refute this heresy when he wrote as follows : “ That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life.” 1 John i. 1. There seems to be a striking gradation in the proofs given of the possession of a human body. First, we have hearing ; then seeing, as more convincing than hearing; next, looking upon, intently contemplating, as more satisfactory than seeing ; and lastly, handling, as rendering the proof complete. Jesus was really a man. He called himself a man when he said to the Jews, “ But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of God.” John viii. 40. There is additional proof of his humanity in these words : “ Forasmuch then as the children are par- takers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same.” Heb. ii. 14. We could not be taught more clearly than in this verse that the Son of God assumed THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 201 the nature of those he came to redeem. He partook of their “ flesh and blood.” The other false view, which also deserves most decided condemnation, is, that Christ had no human soul. It is supposed by the advocates of this theory that the Word in becoming flesh took a human body only into union with himself. The necessity of a human soul is denied, and is thought to be superseded by what is called a “ divine soul.” Hence, in passages in which the soul of Jesus is referred to, it is said that his “ divine soul ” is meant. It would perhaps be difficult for them to say just what they mean by a “ divine soul.” Whether they make a distinction between this “ divine soul ” and Christ’s proper divinity, I will not undertake to say. If they do, they seem to attribute to the person of Christ an element not strictly divine or human. If they do not, it is need- less to use the words at all, for the term “ divinity ” or the phrase “ divine nature ” would answer every purpose. I imagine that some obscurity rests on the views of those who refer to Christ’s “ divine soul,” and they would per- haps find it impossible to dispel the obscurity. It is surely not our business to attempt it. To prove that Jesus had a human soul it is only neces- sary to prove him a man. This surely is not difficult, for he was pleased to call himself “Son of man.” If the phrase “Son of God” indicates that Jesus was divine, the phrase “ Son of man ” indicates that he was human. Isa- iah prophesied of him as “ a man of sorrows,” and God by the mouth of Zechariah said, “Awake, 0 sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts.” Zech. xiii. 7. I have shown already, by refe:ence to John viii. 40, that Jesus called himself a man. Paul says : “ The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from 202 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. heaven ” (1 Cor. xv. 47) ; “ For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Tim. ii. 5. Language cannot more plainly declare that Christ is a man. But the advocates of the theory I am opposing will ad mit this. They say without hesitation that Christ is a man. They suppose that his assumption of a human body made him a man. This I deny, and to present the matter in a clear light it is proper to ascertain w 7 hat man is, what the term “man” means. We cannot do better than to go back to the first use of the word : “ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him.” Gen. i. 26, 27. This language cannot refer to a bodily image, for God is a Spirit. The reference must be to man’s rational, spiritual nature. The formation of man’s body is described as follows: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.” Gen. ii. 7. In view of these passages of the divine word it is evident that spirit and matter both enter into the constitution of the person of man. The union of the two elements is so essential, that without it there cannot be a man. That is, a rational spirit or soul is not of itself a man, and no form of matter is of itself a man. In proof of this I need only say that when a man is dying we call him a man till he is dead — not after he is dead. We then speak of the disembodied spirit, but we do not apply to it the term “ man.” We talk about the corpse, but we call it “ body,” not “ man. ’ Why these forms of expression? They grow out of the universal belief that the union of soul and body is so essential to a man, that when it is dissolved the term “ man ” can- not be properly applied to either of the severed parts. Now, the bearing of all this on the point under consid- THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 203 eratbn is obvious. For if Jesus Christ did not possess a soul as well as a body, he was not a man. The union of a body with his divine nature would not make him a man. In such a union the more important element of humanity would be absent, for there would be no human soul. There must be the union of a human body and a human soul to constitute Jesus a man, and then there must be the union of his humanity with his- divinity to constitute him the Christ. Nor are we for a moment to suppose that he has two personalities. He has two natures, but one person. The view now presented supplies the only basis for a rational interpretation of certain passages of Scripture. For example, it is said, “ And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” Luke ii. 52. It is evident that increase of wisdom referred to his soul, while increase of stature had reference to his body. The term “ wisdom ” cannot be applied to the material part of man. Shall I ask whether the divine nature in Christ was capable of degrees in wisdom? He who answers af- firmatively must have low views of divinity, but those whose theory I deny must answer affirmatively or not at all. They are shut up to affirmation or silence, and if they preserve silence, it is because it is too startling to affirm. In the garden of Gethsemane Jesus said, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death.” Matt. xxvi. 38. No words could more fully express the fact that the emo- tional nature of Jesus was excited to the highest degree of intensity. It was his soul that was sorrowful, and it vras his human soul, because he was a man. That the soul of Christ, like the souls of men, was ca- pable of separation from his body, appears from these words : “ He hath poured out his soul unto death.” Isa. liii. 12. Should it be said that “soul” here means life, the 204 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . import of the passage would not be materially changed. For when the life is poured forth death occurs, because the soul leaves the body. The soul of Jesus left his body at death, as does the soul of every man in the dying hour ; and therefore the only reasonable view of the matter is that the soul of Jesus was a human soul. The Deity of Christ having been proved in another place, his humanity is, if I mistake not, demonstrated in this chapter. Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Mary. The statement of this fact suggests that, by virtue of the constitution of his person, he possesses all needful mediatorial qualifications. “ Great is the mystery of godliness and to many it seems a mystery that we can say of Christ’s one person what is true, but which is not true of both of his natures. His one person is more frequently referred to than his two natures. Whatever is true of his person is true of one of his natures. If this were not so, the element of truth would be wanting entirely. To illustrate what I mean : We learn from the Scriptures that Christ hungered, thirst- ed, slept, and wept. This is true of his person, and true of his human nature. He hungered as a man, thirsted as a man, slept as a man, and wept as a man. But these things cannot be affirmed of his divine nature. We dare not say that he hungered, thirsted, slept, and wept as God. This would not be true. On the other hand, it in true of the person of Christ and true of his divine nature that he withered the fruitless fig tree, gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, cast out demons, and raised Lazarus from the dead. These things, however, if af- firmed of his human nature, would not be true. Does any one question the accuracy of these statements ? To make the matter plainer, if possible, I may say that the same principle is illustrated in men every day Should THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 205 it be said of a man, that he is tall, or corpulent, or sick, every one would know that the body was meant. The declaration would be accepted as true of the man in his physical nature, but not in his mental nature. Should it be said of a man, that he is wise or ignorant, sad or joyful, the truth of the statement would be granted in its relation to man’s mental constitution, but its truth would be de- nied in its application to the body, because the body is not wise, ignorant, sad, or joyful. It may be said of every man that he is mortal, and also that he is immor- tal. Two expressions cannot be more contradictory than these, but they are both true. How ? Both true in rela- tion to man — the one in relation to his body, the other in relation to his soul. Thus it is concerning Christ. All that ’the Scriptures say of him is true as to his person, but it does not follow that it is true of both his natures. Nor should we anx- iously concern ourselves about the matter. It is safe for us to believe that what the Scriptures say of Christ as to his person is true, even though we may be utterly unable in many things to discriminate between the emotions and % operations of his divinity and his humanity. We read, for example, as follows : “ For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given : and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” Isa. ix. 6. In pondering these sublime words we know that the being described is the God-man, the Christ, and we know from other scriptures that Christ was born, that he died, that he was buried, that he rose from the dead, that he ascended to heaven, and that he is making intercession for us at the right hand of God. In- finite value must attach to all the acts and sufferings of such a being in the room of guilty men. is 206 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. I close this chapter by quoting the following from a very able theologian now living, and who, I trust, will live for many years to come: 1 “ Thus have we seen, in the review of the Scripture teachings as to the doctrine of the suffering Christ, that in the possession of an unchanged and proper divine nature, and a complete human nature, Christ suffered on our behalf. The Sufferer was God and was man. Yet it was not God that suffered, but he that is God, being also man, suffered in his human nature. As the same person, however, was united with both natures, and as that person was the Son of God, so we may say that the Son of God suffered. This, however, is the suffering of a divine per- son, not of the divine nature, and of that person, other wise incapable of suffering, through the assumption of human nature. If, therefore, called upon to give expres- sion to the Scripture statement upon this whole subject, we may express it thus : There is one God in three persons, distinct in personality, but undividedly and unchange- ably the same in essence and nature. We may speak of a divine person, but not of a divine nature ; we must say the divine nature. A divine person may therefore become incarnate, and yet the incarnation be not of the whole Godhead, for the persons are distinct; but the divine nature cannot, because, as common to all, its incarnation would be that of the whole Godhead. It was a person of this Godhead, the Son, the Word, who so united to him self human nature as to become in that nature a man In this union he assumed all that constitutes a man. The fact that he had no other personality than such as had always subsisted in the divine nature does not make him an impersonal man. It only forbids the idea of an addi« 1 Rev. Dr. James P. Boyce, who so worthily fills the office of Presh dent of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 207 tional personality exclusively in the human nature. This human nature was assumed, because necessary to the work of salvation, it being impossible that a being only divine could undergo the experience necessary to redeem man. In its assumption the divine nature of Christ was wholly unchanged, and the human nature still remained purely human. The nature of personality, however, allows a most vital union of the two natures in his own person. Thus uniting in himself God and man, Christ suffered. There was here, therefore, no participa- tion of the divine nature in the suffering. Such partici- pation would involve actual suffering of that nature. But there was this connection of God, even of the undi- vided divine essence, that he who thus suffered subsists eternally and essentially in that essence, and is God Yet, intimate as is the connection of the two natures, they are not merged in each other, nor does either of them lose its separate conscious existence or the possession of those peculiarities which make the one divine and the other human. It is one person, truly God and truly man — as much God as though not man", as much man as though not God. The human can add nothing to the divine, except that it gives to the person that is divine the means of suffering for, and sympathizing with, us. The divine adds to the human only that it gives to him that is thus man that dignity and glory and power which enables him to perform the work of salvation, and to give to that work inestimable value .” 1 1 Baptist Quarterly , vol. iv. pp. 409-411. CHAPTER XV. THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. A mediator, as the word is commonly used, is a person who interposes between two parties ; and the need of interposition arises from the fact that the parties are at variance. In view of what has been said in preceding chapters, it is without doubt true that God and man are at variance. God is holy, and man is sinful. There cannot be more direct antagonism than that between holiness and sin. If the person of Christ lias been properly described — that is, if he is the God-man — he is perfectly qualified to assume the office of mediator. The reason is, that he combines in his- person the nature of God and the nature of man. In matters of mere human mediation it is suf- ficient for men to intercede between men. In every such case the mediator possesses the nature of each party. When God and man are the parties at variance, the me- diator must have that relation to both which is exempli- fied only in the person of Christ. He alone possesses the two-fold constitution in which divine and human elements unite. There is no being like Christ; and while we can- not comprehend his mysterious person, we can see the necessity of it. It was requisite that he should possess the nature of God, in order that the rights of the divine government might be suitably cared for and vindicated. It was indispensable for him to have the nature of man 208 THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 209 that he might be capable of human sympathies, human sufferings, and a human death. Paul says, that “ there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus ” (1 Tim. ii. 5) ; and while we accept the statement as true in its literal import, it is also true in the sense that this one Mediator alone possesses necessary media- torial qualifications. He only, as “ daysman,” can lay one hand on the throne of God to protect its majesty inviolate, while with the other he reaches down to man to raise him from his wretchedness and ruin. There is no mediator but Christ. By a blessed necessity the work of mediation is confined to him alone. The personal holiness of Christ was essential to his mediatorsliip. We are therefore told that “ such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, sepa- rate from sinners.” Heb. vii. 26. It is too plain to require argument that a sinful being could not mediate between a holy God and sinful men. In case of such a thing there would be a complicity with evil that would vitiate all attempts at mediation. The purity of Christ’s cha- racter was put to the severest test. He was artfully and violently assailed by temptation. Satan, no doubt, ex- erted all his tempting power, and Christ was “ in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Heb. iv. 15. He retained his sinless integrity to the last, saying to his enemies, “Which of you convicteth me of sin?” John viii. 46. When he died he suffered, “the just for the unjust.” 1 Pet. iii. 18. His personal holiness shone bright, even amid the darkness that gathered around his cross. There is another qualification of a mediator between God and men. I cannot do better than to call it the right of self-disposal. Here we see at once how essential to effective mediation is the divine element in the person 18 * 210 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. of Christ. In the absence of this element the right of self-disposal cannot exist. What creature is at liberty to dispose of himself? His supreme obligation is to God. All that he can do is, on his own personal account, due to God — a fact which makes it impossible for one creature to act in the room of another. But there was substitution in the mediation of Christ. He came into the world to save sinners ; and to save them, he must take their place in law and die in their stead. It is therefore said, that he was “made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” Gal. iv. 4, 5. The language implies that he was originally above law. He was never under it till made under it; and how was it possible for him to be made under it? The answer is, That it was possible, because he had the right of self-disposal. There was no coercion in the matter. To compel the innocent to suffer for the guilty would violate every principle of propriety and justice, but Jesus suffered voluntarily. He did so in the exercise of his right of self-disposal — a right vital to his mediatorial work. There is still a mediatorial qualification to be considered. It is the mediator’s capability of death. He must be able, to die, and must, therefore, have a nature capable of death. The Son of God before his incarnation had not such a na- ture. He must, for this reason, assume a nature that could die. As human redemption was his purpose, he assumed human nature — the nature of those to be redeemed by his olood. He became “ the man Christ Jesus,” but we must remember that never as a man did he exist apart from the divine nature. He became incarnate in order to die. Hence we read : “ And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the prom- THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 211 ise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead : otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” Heb. ix. 15-17. Here we learn the necessity of the Mediator’s death, and the fact is set forth prominently that it was necessary to the pardon of sins committed under the first covenant. If so, it is necessary to the forgiveness of sins in all ages. Dr. Ripley well remarks : “ The death of Christ being, by anticipation, efficacious for the pardon and sal- vation of men during the Mosaic age, its efficacy extended back, beyond doubt, to the very commencement of human transgressions; and thus, it appears, it was designed to cover the whole period of the human race.” 1 Unquestionably, all the people of God, from the days of Abel to the coming of Christ, were saved by virtue of the prospective death of the Mediator, even as all saved since that great event have been saved by the blood shed on Calvary. Through all the centuries of the world’s his- tory there has been but one Mediator between God and men, and there will be no other while the world stands. % The matter, however, claiming special attention in this connection is the necessity of the Mediator’s death. This necessity made it imperative that the Son of God should assume human nature, in order to perform the work of mediation. In other words, he must have a nature capa- ble of death, and he must actually -die. Such a nature the second person in the Godhead took into union with his divine nature, and that Christ died is the central fact of history. In view of the foregoing considerations, it is not only manifest that Christ fills the mediatorial office, but that he is the only being in the universe by whom it can be filled. There is but one Jesus Christ. 1 Notes on the Epistle to the Hebrews , pp. 112. 113. 212 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. The general office of Mediator includes th* three subor= dinate offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. There are many passages of Scripture which teach that Christ per- forms the functions of these offices. 1. He is Prophet. “ For Moses truly said unto the fathers A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.” Acts iii. 22. I may say, in passing, that for the phrase “ like unto me ” Dr. Noyes in his translation substitutes the words “ as he raised up me,” which clearly convey the idea of the original Greek. The point now in hand, however, is the fact that a prophet was to be raised up in fulfilment of the prediction of Moses. The expectation was general among the Jews that such a prophet would come. When, therefore, “ the Jews sent priests and Levites ” to ask John the Baptist who he was, they inquired, “ Art thou Elias ? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.” John i. 21. They evidently meant the prophet of whom Moses spoke, and for whom they were looking. When Jesus came and entered on his ministry, he was recognized as the great prophet, not only by his disciples, but by the people. It is therefore said, “ And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.” Matt. xxi. 10, 11. It is a very 'common opinion, if I mistake not, that the chief, if not the exclusive, function of a prophet was pre- diction — telling beforehand what should come to pass. That the ancient prophets, and the New Testament prophets also, predicted coming events is true, but they did much more than this. They revealed and interpreted the will of God to men, for he spoke to the fathers by the prophets. If we were to trace the term “ prophet ” to its THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 213 origin, we should probably find that it was used at first to denote a messenger speaking in front of a monarch or king, and occupying this position because speaking for the monarch or king. While, therefore, the primary meaning of the Greek preposition pro is in front of we can easily see that its secondary meaning, in place of that is, /or, w r as inevitable. In ancient times “ holy men of God spake as they were n:ov3d by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Pet. i. 21. They spoke fcr God because God spoke through them. Jesus the great Teacher is in the highest sense the prophet of God. All other prophets were subordinate to him, and indebted to him for their official positions. For this reason it is said, “ No man hath seen God at any time : the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.” John i. 18. We may therefore say that to Christ as prophet the world is indebted for all that it knows of God. As words are used to express ideas, it is probable that the second person of the Trinity was called the Word, because through him divine revelations have been made to men. There were gradual disclosures of the will of God from the fall of Adam to the end of the book of Revelation, but they were all under the superintendence of Jehovah-Jesus, the great Prophet. Indeed, it is written in the last chapter of the Bible, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches.” Rev. xxii. 16. During the personal ministry of Christ on earth Moses and Elijah rendered to him their devout homage. They appeared with him on the Mount of Transfiguration. Out of all the Old Testament saints there were no two who could more fitly recognize the Prophet of hea\en. Their recognition, however, was feeble as compared with the higher recognition expressed in the words tha' came from the excellent glory : “ This is my beloved Son, in 214 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. whom I am well pleased ; hear ye him.” Matt. xvii. 5. Christ as Prophet has the seal of the Father’s approval. He is the object of the Father’s complacent lcve, and in the audience of the world the Father says, “Hear ye him.” Well may we hear him, for “never man spake like this man.” John vii. 46. No man ever spake like him in the authoritative manner of his teaching; in the •adaptation of what he said to the common people ; in his revelation of the character of God ; in his delineation of human nature; in his development of the way of salva- tion ; in the light he poured on the doctrine of the soul’s immortality, the resurrection of the body, the bliss of heaven, and the miseries of hell. Who ever spoke like him among sages, philosophers, patriarchs, or prophets? He stands forth in the majesty of approachless superior- ity, extorting from his enemies the reluctant eulogy, “Never man spake like this man.” John vii. 46. Truly we may say there is no teacher, no prophet, like Christ. Happy, thrice happy, are those who reverently hearken to his teachings! They not only find rest to their souls in this life, but will in the life to come be ex- alted to the enjoyment of eternal glory in heaven. Awful will be the doom of those who turn away from the teach- ings of Christ. He who hears not this Prophet shall be destroyed. So Moses wrote. Alas! who can tell how much is implied in the destruction which comes on those who refuse to learn the lessons of salvation as taught by Christ? Good, indeed, were it for them had they nevei been born ! 2. Christ is Priest . The chief functions of his priestly office are atonement and intercession. Nothing is said on these topics here, as they are treated elsewhere. 1 1 See Chapters X VI. and XVII. The intelligent reader will know why these topics have a distinct presentation. THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 215 3 . Christ is King. When he stood before Pilate and made what Paul terms “ the good confession,” he said, “ My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came J into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” John xviii. 36, "37. In reading these words we are reminded of what the Saviour said on another occasion : u Judge not according to the appearance.” John vii. 24. Judgment based on the appearance of things when Jesus was arraigned as an evil-doer would have been fatal to his kingly claims. There was no royal banner around which devoted sub- jects were rallying and shouting, “ 0 King, live for ever!” The marks of royalty were conspicuously absent. The “ despised Galilean ” was insulted by his enemies and forsaken by his friends. Where was his kingdom? In the worldly sense of the term there was none. He, how- ever, referred to a kingdom not of this world, and claimed it as his own. He said, “ My kingdom.” A kingdom im- plies subjects, and the loyal subjects of Jesus are those w T ho are “ of the truth.” This utterance by the illustrious prisoner at Pilate’s bar w r as enough to relieve the suspi cious Roman emperor Tiberius of all apprehension. The subjects of Caesar were not required to be “ of the truth.” Christ is King. I refer not now to the dominion which he, as one of the persons of the Godhead, exercised before his incarnation. There must have been such dominion for as he made all things he must have ruled all things. I refer to Christ’s mediatorial kingdom. As the God-man, 2.6 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. all authority is committed to him. This authority he is represented as receiving from the Father. For this rea- son it is said, “ The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” John iii. 35. The Son W£3 appointed to his mediatorial kingship by the Father, and is therefore inferior to the Father in office, though equal in nature. The official subordination of Christ to the Father makes plain such scriptures as the following : “ Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion ” (Ps. ii. 6) ; “ Therefore let all the house of Israel know as- suredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ ” (Acts ii. 36) ; “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Phil. ii. 9-11. It will be seen from these passages that Christ, as me- diatorial Lord and King, has been exalted to universal dominion. “ He must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet.” “ Then cometh the end,” and, according to the teaching of Paul, it seems that Christ is to deliv- er up his mediatorial kingdom to God the Father, from whom he received it, that God, in his threefold unity, may be all in all. See 1 Cor. xv. 24-28. I of course ad- mit that there is some obscurity resting on this passage, which I am incompetent to remove. The phrases “ kingdom of Christ,” “ kingdom of heav- en,” and “ kingdom of God ” are used in the Scriptures with some diversity of meaning. Many of the parables of Christ were designed to teach and illustrate important truths concerning his kingdom, but they were not all de- THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 217 signed to teach and illustrate the same truths. Some- times one peculiarity of the kingdom is presented, and sometimes another. One parable, it may be, refers to the kingdom as embracing Christ’s rule .over the righteous and wicked ; and in another, his dominion over his saints may be specially referred to. A notable instance of his dominion over the good and the bad is seen in the par- able of the “ Tares and Wheat.” In his explanation of this parable Jesus said, a The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.” Matt. xiii. 41' There is a sense, then, in which “things that offend ” and persons who “ do iniquity ” are in the king- dom of heaven, but they are to be gathered out by angels on the last day. When, however, Paul refers to deliver- ance from the power of darkness and translation into the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. i. 13), it is plain that re- generate persons are meant. They alone have been the subjects of such a deliverance and such a translation. When James mentions the heirs of the kingdom which God “ hath promised to them who love him ” (chap. ii. 5), there seems to be special reference to the kingdom of glory. When the kingdom of God is said to be “ right eousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ” (Rom xiv. 17), the blessed effects of the reign of God in the soul are signified. But my purpose does not permit me to enlarge on | matters like these. I wish to make prominent the fact that Jesus claims the right to exercise kingly authority over his churches. Such right is implied in the first use of the term “church” in the New Testament: “Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. xvi. 18. 1 It will be observed It does not accord with my plan to enter into a critical examination 19 i 218 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. that Christ says, “ my church.” It was to be his property, belonging to him in a sense that justified him in claiming it as his own. This is true of the term “ church ” in the two prominent acceptations in w T hich it is used by Christ and the apostles. It is employed to denote the aggregate body of the redeemed, the “ glorious church ” which Christ is to present to himself, “not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing,” as we are taught in Eph. v 27. In almost numberless cases in the New Testament the word church is used to describe a local congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, united in the belief of what he has said, and covenanting to do what he has com- manded. In the former sense the church of course belongs to Christ, having been bought with his blood. He is her King, and she cheerfully and gladly yields to his authority, rejoicing to own him as Lord. Through endless ages the church, “ the sacramental host of God’s elect,” will recognize Christ as the Author of redemption, and be animated by the spirit of loyal submission and loving obedience to him. As to local assemblies, so often called churches in the New Testament, their very organization ynplies an ac- knowledgment of Christ’s kingly authority. Their right to existence depends on his authority. Those who can rightfully enter into them as members must first be called out of the world. This calling out from the world must ever precede scriptural church membership; and they are called out who obey Christ’s command and experi- ence the truth of his promise, “ Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” of passages. I do not, therefore, examine this controverted verse. My opinion is that the “Rock” is Christ the Son of the living God. This was the great truth confessed by Peter, which the Father had revealed to him. THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. 219 Matt. xi. 28. This, however, is net all that ‘the called out” are required to do. Their King and their Lord says, “ Take my yoke upon you.” v. 29. The yoke is the symbol of subjection. Christ requires unconditional s ib- jection, and this is professed in the ordinance of baptism, which formally draws the line of demarcation between the churches of Christ and the world of the ungodly. This ordinance, of open, public consecration, he himself appointed, for it was he who said to his apostles, “ Go ye, therefore, and teach [disciple] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things what- soever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. Baptism is administered and received upon the author ity of Christ. The subjects of baptism are baptized into Christ ; and having professed their faith in his name, are to be instructed to do all that he has commanded. The language is very specific : “ Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” The great commission was to be executed first among Jews, who had an almost idolatrous reverence for what Moses had commanded; but Jesus, the King of 1. is churches, said, “teaching them to observe,” not what Moses com- manded, but “ all things whatsoever I have commanded. 5 The apostles had no discretionary authority, but were strictly required to teach the baptized disciples of Christ to observe all his commands. The exclusive authority of Christ as King was recog- nized in the formation of churches, and hence Paul uses the phrase “churches of Christ 55 (Rom. xvi. 16), and takes it for granted that “ the church is subject to Christ. 55 Eph. v. 24. The nature of a church, its membership, its offices, 220 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. its doctrines, its government, its discipline, its work of evangelization, all were determined by Christ. Every church should regard itself as an executive democracy solemnly appointed to carry into effect the laws of Christ. He is the Lawgiver. The legislation in his kingdom is all his own. He is “ Head over all things to the church.’’ CHAPTER XVI. THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. As already stated, the two chief functions of the priestly office of Christ are atonement and intercession. The for- mer of these topics claims attention in this chapter, and will be discussed in the following order: I. The Nature of the Atonement. The term atonement is used but once in the New Testa- ment. It is found in Rom. v. 11 : “We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.” This passage, according to the present meaning of the word “ atonement,” does not cor- rectly express the sense of the original. We — that is, believers— ttire represented as receiving the atonemenh But, strictly speaking, we receive only the benefits of the atonement, while the Lawgiver receives or accepts the atonement itself. The original word means “ reconcilia- tion,” and “ atonement ” was often used in that sense at the time when our translation was made. Shakespeare, who died five years after the common version of the Bible was published, uses the word “ atonement ” where we should now employ “ reconciliation,” as in the following lines : “ He seeks to make atonement Between the duke of Glo’ster and your brothers.” 19 • 221 222 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. It is probable that the translators employed the word 'in the same sense in Rom. v. 11. At the same time, it should be noticed that they also used it in the sense to which it is now confined, to express the idea of “ expia- tion,” as in the subjoined passages : “ And Aaron shall bring the bullock of the sin-offering, which is for him- self, and shall make an atonement for himself and for his house” (Lev. vi. 11); “And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a censer, and put fire therein from off the altar, and put on incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them : for there is wrath gone out from the Lord ; the plague is begun. And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congre- gation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people : and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed.” Num. xvi. 46-48. In these and in similar forms of expression the idea seems to be that an atonement, an expiatory measure^ was resorted to as the means of effecting reconciliation. In the passage last quoted w e are lnfnxmed. ,that wrath had gone out from the Lord. This wrath was excited by the sins of the people, and before God could be consist- ently propitious, an atonement — in that case a ceremo- nial one — must be made to justify the cessation of wrath and the exercise of mercy. Though the word “ atonement ” was sometimes used, perhaps generally, two or three hundred years ago, to sig- nify reconciliatio'n, this meaning has been obsolete for at least a century, and it now denotes expiation, satisfaction, reparation of injury, In proof of this I refer to the fol- lowing among standard authors: “ Junius,” in his in- imitable Letters , says, '‘The ministry not atoning for their former conduct by any wise or popular measure.” Pope THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST 223 says, “The murderer fell, and blood atoned for blood.” Other extracts might be given from other authors, but it is needless. It is e vident that an atonement is that which repairs an injury, gives satisfaction, makes amends, i With this view of the import of the term let us consider the atonement of Christ. What is it? It is the expiation of sin by the satisfaction rendered to the law and justice of God through the obedience and death of Christ. I know of no better definition than this. It should be remembered that the atonement of Christ, though intended to satisfy the claims of the divino law, is a measure above law. I will not say contrary to it, but obviously above it. The law of God contemplated no atonement, and anticipated no reparation of its dishon- or, apart from the punishment of personal transgressors. This must have been the case; for if the law had held out the idea that something would be substituted for the personal punishment of the guilty, instead of deterring from sin it would probably have encouraged its commis- sion. The hope of escaping the consequences of sin would have been presented to every one tempted to trans- gress. Such a hope in many cases would have been almost a bribe to sin. The law of God, being “ holy, and just, and good,” could neither directly nor indirectly coun- tenance the commission of sin; for this would have been equivalent to a defeat of the object of its own enactment. In view of these and kindred considerations it is mani- fest that the atonement of Christ is a measure ?bove law. Man’s ruin was brought on him by a violation of the divine law, and his recovery from that ruin, if effected at all, must take place in a manner^ consistent with the lawX God, therefore, u when the fulness of the time was come, • Bent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 224 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. to redeem them that wer3 under the law.” Gal. iv. 4, 5, Christ was made under the law that he might render the obedience and suffer the death already referred to. Man in sinning had treated the law with indignity and dis- honor. He had cast contempt on it. jfcr te had virtually and prac tically said that it was not a good law, and that lie would not obey it nor be governed by it. When Jesus came in the flesh, then did he truly “ magnify the law and make it honorable.” Isa. xlii. 21. By his obedience and death he removed the dishonor, the indignitjq the contempt, which rested on the law, and showed to the universe that it is a perfect law. He clothed it with a moral grandeur more sublime than it had before its violation. He exalted it to a dignity as glorious as a full vindication of its claims could give it. He honored the law by being born under it, honored it more by obeying it, and honored it in the highest degree by suffering its death-penalty. That the atonement of Christ is an expiation of sin is clear from the following scriptures : “fee was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray ; we have turned every one to his own way ; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa. liii. 5, 6); “ Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world ” (John i. 29) ; “ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus ” (Rom. iii. 25, 26) ; “ Once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. ix. 26); “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 225 on the tree ” (1 Pet. ii. 24) ; “ Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” 1 John iv. 10. These are a specimen of the passages of Scripture that teach the doctrine of atonement. Christ assumed the legal responsibilities of those he came to save. Hence his obedience and death on their account. “To bear his iniquity ” is a phrase of frequent occurrence in the Old Testament. It means, to suffer the consequences of his iniquity. This can be seen by a reference to Lev. v. 1 : “ And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it ; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.” The supposition here is, that the witness may refuse to tell what he knows about the matter in question. His con- cealment of his knowledge would defeat the purposes of justice, and would therefore be a sin. It is called iniq- uity, and was to be borne in the sense of endurance of the penalty attached, in such cases, by the Mosaic statute. The unfaithful witness, in bearing his iniquity, suffered the consequences of his iniquity. This was an instance of the bearing of iniquity in the personal punishment of the sinner. We are now prepared to understand, in their application to Christ, such scriptures as the following : “ He shall bear their iniquities ;” “ Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;” “who his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree.” Isa. liii. 11; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Pet ii. 24. They mean that when our iniquities were laid on Christ he suffered the consequences of our iniquities. He bore our sins in the sense of bearing the penalty of the law, which law we had violated. He was not personally guilty. The epithet guilty , in its present acceptation, can with no propriety be applied to Christ. Some centuries 226 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . ago the term guilt was used to denote “ liability to pun- ishment,’* but this is not now its meaning. In our cur- rent literature it suggests the idea of personal criminal- ity, and consequent desert of punishment. This is the understanding of everybody when the jury brings in the verdict of guilty. How, then, can it be affirmed that Christ was guilty ? It is impossible, for when he died there was no personal criminality, but personal innocence in its most attractive form. But while Christ was not guilty — that is, was not per- sonally blameworthy — there was exemplified in him what Dr. J. Pye Smith and others have termed “ legal answer- ableness.’ 1 In assuming the place of sinners, Christ of necessity incurred their legal responsibilities. This was indispensable to atonement. Without it, the sufferings of Christ might have been calamitous, but in no sense expiatory. They could not have satisfied the claims of the law, for there would have been in them no element of satisfaction. The idea of “ legal answerablenes# ” makes the matter plain. Christ having voluntarily taken the place of sinners, there was a sacred propriety in his being held answerable for them. It was proper, right, just for him to suffer, because he was legally responsible for those in whose behalf he suffered. “ Ought not Christ to have suffered these things ?” Luke xxiv. 26. This question he himself asked the two disciples on their way to Emmaus after his resurrection ; and it indicates the fitness, the propriety, as well as the necessity, of his sufferings. The Jews thought salvation through a suf- fering Christ unworthy of God, but the Scriptures say, “ It became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffer- ings.” Heb. ii. 10. It was worthy of God to do this. THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 227 Instead of detracting from his glory, it exhibits his character in new aspects of loveliness, and will caP forth the sweetest hallelujahs of heaven. Jesus was “ made perfect through sufferings.” There is no reference to moral, but to official or mediatorial, per- fection. That is to say, his sufferings, which resulted in death and accomplished the work of atonement, perfectly qualified him to act as the Saviour of sinners. It is therefore said, “ And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” Heb. v. 9. His becoming the Author of salvation was the consequence of his being made perfect ; and as there could be no salvation without expiatory sufferings, he was made perfect through sufferings. The doctrine of atonement involves the kindred doc- trine of substitution. We are therefore told that Christ “died for us” (1 Thess. v. 10), “gave himself for us” (Tit. ii. 14), “gave himself a ransom for all.” 1 Tim. li. 6. It is true that these forms of expression teach that Jesus died for our benefit, but they teach much more. The Spcinian of England and the Unitarian o f America say, < EEair Jesus died for our benefit as “ a martyr to the truth,” but they carefully exclude from his death the idea of expiation. Paul died as “ a martyr to the truth,” and in this respect died for our benefit, but there is an exclusive sense in which Jesus died for us. He died as our substitute. He placed himself in our legal relation to the divine government, and incurred all the responsi- bilities of such a position. This Paul could not do— this an angel could not do — this no creature could do. Christ died for our benefit, because he died in our stead. We are benefited by his death, because it was substituted for our death. There could be no saving benefit without this substitution ; and it is to be feared that the words X 228 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . “ for our benefit ” delude many to their eternal ruin They vainly suppose that they will be benefited by the death of Christ, whereas they divest it of the very pecu- liarity which enables it to confer benefit. The Redeemer’s death possesses saving power for men, because he died for men, in the room of men; but it possesses no such power for fallen angels, because he did not die for fallen angels. It cannot be insisted on too earnestly that the only reason why we are savingly benefited by the death of Christ is that he died in our place. He suffered in our stead and “ put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.’ 5 Heb. ix. 26. His obedience and death sustained the dignity of the divine throne, vindicated the rectitude of the divine administration, honored the preceptive and penal claims of the divine law, and opened a channel for the consistent exercise of mercy to guilty sinners. In short, the atonement of Christ exerts so important an influence on the throne of God, as to make its occupant “just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” Rom. iii. 26. What words the atonement puts together — just and the justifier! Blessed collocation of terms! Without the atonement we should, have heard of God as just and the condemner — with it we hear of him as “just and the justifier.” He justifies through the atonement the very persons whom, had there been no atonement, he would have righteously condemned for ever. This *s one of the sublime wonders of the cross. II. The Necessity of the Atonement. On this point I am not to be understood as intimating that God was under obligation to provide an atonement, or that there was an absolute necessity for guilty men to be saved. There was a perfect exemption from obliga- tion on the part of God, as is seen in the fact that THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST 229 reigned in providing the atoning sacrifice. The necessity of salvation was not absolute ; for men, like fallen angels, mightrhave been left to the consequences of their rebel- lion. -t-Had they been so left, the eternal Throne would have remained bright with the awful glory of its recti- tude, and no suspicion of injustice would have attached to the divine administration. 1/ By the necessity of atonement is meant this: That it was indispensable to a consistent exercise of mercy to- ward condemned sinners, and therefore without it there could have been no salvation for them. It is proper, however, to say that the atonement of Christ was not necessary to excite the love of God to man, for it is the effect, and not the cause , of God’s love. Jesus therefore said to Nicodemus, “God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John iii. 16. It is plain from this superlative summary of the gospel that the love of God was the originating cause of atonement. There was antecedent love in the divine bosom — there was compassion for lost men. But with- out an atonement that love could not, consistently with law and justice, express itself in the salvation of sinners ; that compassion could have no development. It is incor- rect, therefore, to say that the atonement of Christ ren- dered God propitious to sinners, and stop there; but it is strictly true to say that it rendered him propitious to sinners according to law and justice. It follows, then, that the necessity of atonement originated in the obstacles interposed by the law and the justice of God to the salva- tion of sinners. The law, having been transgressed, de- manded the execution of its penalty, and justice con- curred in the demand. The law being k ' noly, and just, and good,” holiness, and justice, and goodness all com* 20 230 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . billed and required the infliction of its curse. Here, then, we see that the law, having been violated, rose up in its terrible majesty, restrained the exercise of divine mercy in man’s salvation, and called for the execution of its penalty. At this point the necessity of an atonement clearly appears. In order to the salvation of sinners an expiatory measure must be introduced into the divine government to meet the claims of the law, by preserving its honor, and vindicating its penal sanctions. Justice required the introduction of such a measure or the execution of the penalty of the law on personal trans- gressors. The atonement of Christ was the measure introduced. It rendered satisfaction to the law and the justice of God, and removed the restraints which they had placed on the exercise of mercy. It harmonized the divine perfections in the salvation of sinners. This is the glory of redemption through the blood of the cross. There is a cordial co-operation of the divine attri- butes in the salvation of the guilty. ; Mercy triumphs in all its glory; justice shines forth in all its majesty ; holi- ness appears in all its beauty ; while wisdom, in devising the wondrous plan, exhibits itself to infinite advantage. In treating of the necessity of Christ’s atonement it is generally deemed sufficient to refer to it as satisfying the law and the justice of God. When this is done the interests of truth are not likely to suffer. Sometimes, however, it is well to go more thoroughly into the matter of necessity, and trace it to the ill-desert of sin , and thence to the nature of God. The logical and the theological exig« ences of the case require this, ^or it may be asked why the law of God, when violated, needs satisfacti on. This is a legitimate question, and Ands its only answer in the nature of sin and the nature of God. There is intrinsic demerit in sin, which rer lers it de* THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 231 serving of punishment. It is better to present the matter concretely than abstractly. I say, /(Chen, that a sinner, be- cause he is a sinner, deserves punishment. He is a :t3bel against the government of God, and justice requires that he shall pay the penalty of rebellion. He is guilty of high treason against the Majesty of heaven, and every prin- ciple of righteousness demands that he shall suffer the consequences of his capital crimo^) It is to be regretted that the philosophy of punishment is by many imperfectly understood, and is not therefore presente I in its most important aspect. They regard punishment as exemplary ; that is, they suppose that criminals are punished to deter others from committing crimes. This is only the secondary reason for punish- ment; the primary reason is that the punishment is de- served. It may be classed almost among the intuitive beliefs of the human mind that criminals ought to be punished because they personally deserve to be punished. The benefit which society receives from their punishment is incidental and collateral ; and this benefit would be precluded if personal ill-desert was not regarded as the true ground of punishment. For how could suffering in- flicted on the innocent — that is, inflicted without regard to personal criminality — promote the welfare of society ? How could its influence be suppressive of vice and con- ducive to virtue? Would not the question arise in the mind of many a citizen, “ Why should I specially concern myself about obeying the laws when the innocent are made to suffer as well as the guilty? 1 '' Thus does it ap- pear that a government, by disregarding the primary ob- ject of punishment and keeping in view the secondary object alone, would more effectually defeat the secondary than if the primary object was regarded. These consider- ations are deemed sufficient to show that the design in the 232 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . execution of the penalty of law is to punish the trans- gressor according to the demerit of his offence, and not merely to present him as an example to deter others from crime. But, to make the position I maintain still stronger, T need only ask, What would have been the state of things if it had been the pleasure of God to bring into existence but one rational creature? Suppose this one creature to rebel against him. Would not justice call for the penally of rebellion, although, on the supposition, there would be no other creature to be affected by the execution of the penalty? In other words, Would not the personal guilt of such L creature render it proper for him to bear the curse of the law, though in a state of perfect isolation? How could the non-existence of other creatures affect his ill-desert? To say that it could is, in effect, to say that the relations of creatures to creatures are more important than the relation of a creature to God. This is of course an absurdity, because the creature’s relation to God is the first and supreme relation, from which all subordinate relations spring. If any inquire what this reference to the philosophy of punishment has to do with the necessity of atonement, the answer is, To trace its necessity to the demerit of sin. Sin against God is a great evil, and deserves punishment. This punishment is due to the transgressor on account of his personal demerit, and the law of God calls for its infliction. This demand made by the law implies the in- trinsic evil and ill-desert of sin. There could be no such demand were it not for the sinner’s personal blame- worthiness. Hence it follows that there is something in the nature of sin which requires the execution of the penalty of God’s violated law. This penalty must fall either on the transgressor himself or on his substitute. It must fall somewhere . The ill-desert of sin makes this THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST 233 inevitable. If the sinner is punished in person, bctli the spirit and the letter of the law are carried into effect; if his iniquity is laid upon a voluntary substitute, though the letter of the law is dispensed with, its spirit is fully preserved, jflf the transgressor bears his own iniquity, there is of course no pardon; if the substitute bears it, the transgressor may be pardoned and go free. The iniq- uity must be borne. The necessity of atonement, there- fore, arises from the fact that while the pardon of sin is indispensable to salvation, sin_Js LSo great an evil , and so justl y deserving of punishment, as to be for ever un- pardonable without an expiatory sacrifice. But the necessity of atonement is traceable from the nature of sin to the nature of God. It can be traced no further. All reasoning on the subject is destined to cul- minate at this point, and here to exhibit its supreme strength. For if we ask why the law of God is what it is, the answer is, Because the nature of God is what it is. If we ask why sin is such an evil as to deserve punish- ment, the answer is, Because it is antagonistic to the nature of God. Here, therefore — in the divine nature — is the field on which is to be decided the contest for or against the necessity of atonement. All theories which teach that the aspects of Christ’s atonement are manward and not Godward virtually deny the justice and holiness of God. The correct view is that the atonement has refer- ence both to God and man. Its saving -influences reach man, because its propitiatory merit first reaches the throne of God. It is idle, therefore, to talk of what the atonement can do for man, unless it does something for the govern- ment of God. This is so obvious, that those who say that the death of Christ does not affect the divine administra- tion toward men, but only affects men toward the divine administration, usually deny that his death was, in any 20 * 234 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. proper sense of the words, a vicarious sacrifice. Not be- lieving that the God of justice needed to be propitiated so as to turn away his holy wrath from the guilty, they cannot believe that Jesus died as an atoning substitute for sinners. If they use at all such words as propitiation, expiation, substitution, it is to be feared that many of them do so to “ deceive the simple.” To say that no in- fluences emanate from the cross Godward is equivalent to a denial of all expiatory value in the sufferings of Christ. They may possess other and inferior values, but if their atoning quality is abstracted, to what saving purpose can those values be applied ? But this may be called phil- osophizing ; and it may be asked, What do the Scriptures teach ? To the Scriptures, then, we go. The Bible teaches that there is something in the nature of God to which sin is so offensive, so infinitely hateful, as to excite his holy wrath. It may be said, too, that sin is the only thing in the universe that has ever excited the wrath of God. That moral quality of the divine nature which causes hatred of sin excites wrath against sin, and therefore makes necessary an atonement, in order that sin may be pardoned. If sin originates wrath in God, it is morally certain that that wrath can never be turned away, unless some provision is made for the forgiveness of the sin that originates it. What do the Scriptures say in re- gard to the wrath of God ? — “ He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him ” (John iii. 36) ; “ The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men ” (Rom. i. 18) ; “ The wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience ” (Eph. v. 6) ; “ Which deliver- ed us from the wrath to come.” 1 Thess. i. 10. Here are several passages of Scripture which speak of wrath, nor THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST 235 can it be doubted what wrath is meant. It is expressly termed “ the wrath of God.” We are not to suppose that wrath in God is something like excited passion in man. Tt is not. God’s wrath is his holy and just indignation against sin. We are not left to conjecture whether this wrath exists, for it is revealed from heaven. It comes on the children of disobedience, abides on unbelievers, and believers are saved from it through Jesus Christ. Wrath against sin and love for sinners are perfectly consistent. The feelings of every good man may be appealed to in proof of this fact, but the fact itself receives its highest exemplification in God. He so loved sinners and so hated their sins as to send his Son from heaven “ to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. ix. 26), that he might gratify the impulses of his love in saving sinners. In the cross, God show T s himself to the universe as the sinner’s friend and the uncompromising and eternal enemy of sin. Some think that it detracts from the perfection of his character to speak of the wrath of God. Their view of wrath is that it is a vindictive, resentful passion. Such a passion is, they think — and properly, too — unworthy of God. But there is a vast difference between vindictive and vindicative ; and while the wrath of God is not vin- dictive, it is vindicative of his justice, his- law, his gov* ernment. This is seen in the agony of Gethsemane and in the tragedy of Calvary. To understand many passages of Scripture we must consider God the Father as Lawgiver and as the guardian of the rights of the divine government. He presided over the awful transaction of Calvary. Whatever Jesus suf- fered, the Father required him to suffer as the voluntary Substitute for sinners Hence the Saviour, when his death was at hand, said, “The cup which my Father 236 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. hath given me, shall I i.jt drink it?” John xviii. 11. It was an inconceivably bitter cup, but the Father gave it. As the preserver of the authority of his law and the pro- tector of the interests of his moral empire, he was obliged to give that cup. Jesus, with the legal responsibilities of sinners resting upon him, was obliged to drink it. This was determined in Godhead council before the worlds were made. We therefore read on the prophetic page, “It pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief” (Isa. liii. 10) ; “Awake, 0 sword, against my Shep- herd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts : smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered.” Zech. xiii. 7. How much was implied in the bruising and smiting no finite mind will ever know. They were inflicted by the omnipotent Hand. They were worthy of a God terrible in his majesty and inflexible in his pur- pose to vindicate the rectitude of his throne. We are not to suppose that the Father in smiting the Son inflicted sufferings merely physical. The bodily sufferings of- Christ seem to have made on him scarcely any impres- sion. When the crown of thorns was put on his head; when he was buffeted, scourged, nailed to the cross, there was not a word of complaint But when the lowering cloud of Heaven’s wrath poured out its awful contents on his soul; when he tasted the bitterness of that wrath ; when angels looked on aghast and impotent to help ; when communion with heaven was suspended; when the Father, as the Executive of the divine government, abandoned him to the responsibilities he had assumed, leaving him alone to feel all the anguish of excruciating Bolitude, all the horrors of unmitigated desolation, — then did his agony reach its climax and extort the exclama- tory question, “ My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matt, xxvii. 46. He was forsaken by his Father. THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 237 Because lie was in the place of sinners, their iniquities were laid upon him and sin was condemned in the flesh — that is, in the nature that had sinned. The Father must show his displeasure against sin and his judgment of its ill-desert, even when charged to his beloved Son, not personally, but by imputation. It really seems that hatred of sin is, if possible, a stronger feeling in the bosom of the Father than love for his Son. What mighty emotions stirred that bosom when Calvary was bathed in blood ! According to human conception there must have been a sublime antagonism between those emotions. Never did the Father love the Son more in- tensely than then. Never was he more inflexibly at- tached to the principles of justice embodied in his law. Never was his abhorrence of sin more implacable, and never so fully shown. The divine displeasure against sin indicates the divine estimate of sin, and this estimate grow T s out of the divine nature and is inseparable from it. It follows, therefore, that the supreme argument in proof of the necessity of atonement is supplied by that moral quality in the nature of God to which sin in its intrinsic demerit is so odious as to be pardonable only through an atoning sacrifice of infinite worth. What wonders are involved in the preceptive obedience and penal sufferings of Jesus the Nazarene ! Had there been no sin, there would have been no atonement. Had there been no atonement, we should know far less of every divine attribute than we know now, and, consequently, much less of the divine character. Thus it appears that the existence of sin, the abominable thing that God hates, has been so overruled as to give the universe sublimer and more comprehensive views of the perfections of God. This is the wonder of wonders. 238 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. III. The Value of the Atonement. On this point I shall not write at length, for the limits prescribed to this chapter require that the remaining por- tion of it be abridged. Nor is it necessary to elaborate the arguments which prove the worth of Christ’s atoning sac- rifice. It will be sufficient to present briefly a few of these arguments, and leave them to make their proper impres- sion. I refer to the following: The value of Christ's atoning sacrifice is seen from the following considerations : 1 . It was the antitype and the consummation of all sacrifices. I assume that the sacrificial rite was divinely appointed immediately after the fall of man. Abel, we are told, of- fered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain. He laid on the sacrificial altar one of the. firstlings of his flock. He approached God by means of blood. Abra- ham offered sacrifices, and Job did the same thing. At Mount Sinai there was an enlargement of the sacrificial system. Many additions were appended to it, and provis- ion was made for greater regularity and solemnity in its offerings. Now, all the sacrifices of the patriarchal and the Jewish ages prefigured the one Sacrifice of the cross. Every altar sent its blood and smoke in the direction of Calvary. The many victims pointed to one victim. The many oblations called attention to the one oblation to be offered in “the end of the w r orld.” Heb. ix. 26. The rivers of animal blood typified Immanuel’s blood. There must have been this anticipatory reference to the atoning death of Christ, for otherwise all sacrificial regulations would have been unmeaning. With this reference there was in them an expressive significance. The Epistle to the Hebrews is a sufficient justification of this view of the matter. I argue, then, the value of Christ’s atone- THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 239 ment because for four thousand years God in his wis- dora caused typical atonements to be made by animal sacrifices, and thus directed attention to the death of his Son. It cannot be supposed that preparation so elaborate, and continued for forty centuries, was made for an unim- portant transaction, and therefore the atonement of Christ possesses unspeakable worth. When Jesus died the type yielded to the antitype and the shadow to the substance. It follows that the atoning sacrifice of Christ was the con- summation of all sacrifices. 2. The appointment of God furnishes a further proof of the value of Christ’s atonement. While it would not be true to affirm that its value arises chiefly from divine ap- pointment, it is true that such appointment conduces ma- terially to its worth. The reason is manifest, and it is this: No expiatory offering could be admitted, in the administration of the divine government, to possess the requisite value, unless it were sanctioned by divine ap- proval. Christ’s atonement was divinely appointed. In proof of this I refer to two out of many passages of Scrip- ture : “ Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world “ Him hath God the Father sealed.’’ John i. 29; vi. 27. In the former of these passages Christ is referred to in his sacrificial character, and is called the Lamb of God — that is, the Lamb that God provided. The latter passage probably refers to a custom observed among certain nations of antiquity. That custom was to place a % seal on every animal selected for sacrifice. Wherever the seal was seen it was known that the animal was destined to the sacrificial altar. God the Father sealed his Son, designated him as the Messiah, the Mediator, and set him forth as a propitiation. See Rom. iii. 25. It is plain, therefore, that the atonement of Christ possesses whatever value divine appointment can confer. In relying on this 240 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. / atonement we rely on God’s constituted and approved medium of salvation. 3. The dignity of his person. This supplies the. strongest argument in proof of the value of Christ’s atonement. Every sacrifice is, according to the logic of Scripture, materially affected by the character of its victim. This is the reasoning in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “It is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take aw r av sins.” x. 4. Why? Such sacrifices were di- vinely appointed. We see, therefore, that divine appoint- ment does not of itself give requisite value to a sacrifice. But why could not animal sacrifices take away sins? There was a want of dignity and worth in the victims sacrificed, and for this reason their blood was ineffica- cious. This blood could make, and did make, ceremo- nial atonements, but was entirely ^incompetent to make a real atonement for sin. But behold the Victim slain oi ce for all. Let the intelligent universe contemplate him. Who is he? This question is answered in the chapter on the Person of Christ. The Sufferer of Cal- vary is the God-man, the Christ. All the majestic glories of Supreme Deity and all the excellences of sinless hu- manity belong to him. It was the union of divinity and humanity in the person of Christ that gave atoning merit to the blood he shed on the cross. While suffering and death are to be restricted to the human nature of Christ, we may well rejoice in the belief that his divinity impart- ed infinite worth to the sufferings and blood and death of his humanity. Thus the atonement was made. Nor is there anything to forbid the belief that the atoning ago- nies of Jesus possess as great value as if his divinity had been capable of suffering and had really suffered. The merits of his death grow out of the divine element in the twofold constitution of his person. Were this ele- THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. 241 ment abstracted, his death would be nothing more than a martyr’s death, whereas the Scriptures represent it as an atoning death. In this aspect it is unlike all other deaths ; it is unique, and clothed with a glory all its own. Now, if the worth of Christ’s sacrifice arises chiefly from the dig- nity of his person, while the dignity of his person grows out of his divinity, and is inseparable from it, who can set limits to the value of his atonement when divinity is the chief factor in the creation of that value? Must it not be, by a sublime logical necessity, infinite? Must not its merits be exhaustless? It cannot be too earnestly insist- ed on that the strongest proof of the value of Christ’s atonement is furnished by the dignity of his person as the God-man; and this suggests, by contrast, the worth- lessness of those schemes of theology, so called, which deny the Deity of Christ. A denial of this fundamental truth leads to a denial of the doctrine of atonement. For if Christ is not divine, he could not become the Sub- stitute for sinners, and substitution is indispensable to atonement. To reject the divinity of Jesus is a virtual rejection of every truth pertaining to a sinner’s salvation. It makes the obedience of his life of no avail, and takes from his death its redemptive significance. I do not see how salvation is possible to those who deny the divinity of Christ. For them I see no comfort in the gospel of the grace of God. But there is precious consolation for all who receive Christ as the gospel reveals him, and who, in the fulness of their hearts, adopt the words of Thomas, “ My Lord and my God!” John xx. 28. IV. The Extent of the Atonement. This topic, if considered in all its amplitude, would em- brace the atonement in its relations to the universe. That it sustains such relations is entirely credible, but we are 21 242 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. specially concerned with its relation to God and mem In this view the subject is one of deep personal interest to all the human race. As to the sufficiency of the pro- visions of the atonement for the salvation of the world, there can be no doubt and there need be no controversy. If as has been shown, the value of the atonement arises chiefly from the dignity of Christ’s person, and if his dig- nity results by a sublime necessity from his divinity, it is a grand impertinence to attempt to limit its sufficiency. So* far as the claims of law and justice are concerned, the atonement has obviated every difficulty in the way of any sinner’s salvation. In supplying a basis for the ex- ercise of mercy in one instance it supplies a basis for the exercise of mercy in innumerable instances. It places the world, to use the language of Robert Hall, “in a salvable state.” It makes salvation an attainable object. That is, all men, in consequence of the atonement, oc- cupy a position where saving influences can reach them. There is no natural impossibility in the way of their sal- vation. If it be asked why all men are. not saved, I re- ply, The answer is not to be sought in the atonement, but in the culpable unwillingness of sinners to be saved. Here the question is to be left, and here it ought always to have been left. The sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the world’s salvation, is the only basis on which can con- sistently rest the universal invitations of the gospel. On this point I cannot express my views so well as Andrew Fuller has done in the following language: “ It is a fact that the Scriptures rest the general invita- tions of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ. But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST . 243 God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew' no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to be reconciled to God from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men? You would say, It is inviting th.em to partake of a benefit which has no existence , the obtain- ing of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficent for the salvation of any more than are actually saved, the non- elect, however, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels ; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him, there is no other impossibility in the way of any man’s salvation, to whom the gospel comes at /east, than what arises from the state of his ow r n mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the Scriptures as necessary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations. “ I do not deny that there is difficulty in these state- ments, but it belongs to the general subject of reconcil- ing the purposes of God with the agency of man ; wdiereas in the other case God is represented as inviting sinners to partake of what has no existence, and w T hich, therefore, is physically impossible. The one, while it ascribes the salvation of the believer in every stage of it to mere grace, renders the unbeliever inexcusable; which the other, I conceive, does not. In short, we must either acknowledge an objective fulness in Christ’s atonement for the salvation of the w r hole world, were the whole 244 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. world to believe in him, or, in opposition to Scripture and common sense, confine our invitations to believe to such persons as have believed already.” 1 This extract from the writings of Mr. Fuller is com- mended to candid and earnest consideration,' especiall} T that part of it which presents the absurdity of offering salvation to fallen angels because an atonement has been made for fallen men. The absurdity arises from the fact that the atonement has no reference to fallen angels ; and if there are sinners of Adam’s race to whom it has no more reference than to fallen angels, the offer of sal- vation to those sinners would be a repetition of the absurdity. The sufficiency of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of all the world is the only doctrine which harmonizes with the commission of Christ to the apostles : “ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature : he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Mark xvi. 15, 16. According to this commission, salvation is to be offered to the whole human family. Language could be neither more general nor more specific — “ into all the world,” “to every creature.” But the fearful intimation is that some will not believe, and through unbelief will incur damnation. It must then be the duty of all to believe. Believe what? The gospel. And what is it to believe the gospel ? It is so to credit its facts and its truths as to trust in Christ for salvation. Faith is said to be “ in his blood ;” that is, it involves reliance on the atonement made by his blood. If, then, it is the duty of all men to believe, and if faith implies reliance on the atone- ment, and if the atonement was made for a part of the 1 Works , ^ ol. ii. pp 691, 692, American Baptist Publication Society’s edition. THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST 245 race only, it follows that it is the duty of those for whom no atonement was made to rely on that which has no existence. This is an absurdity. The more the point is considered, the more evident it will appear that the duty of all men to believe the gospel is inseparable from the “ objective fulness ” of the provisions of the atonement for the salvation of all men. Again, in believing in Christ w'e not only believe, primarily, that he died for sinners, but, secondarily, that he died for us as included among sinners. The latter belief is by no means to be made so prominent as the former, but it is essential to a joyous appropriation of the blessings of salvation. Now, if Christ did not die for all, and if it is the duty of all to believe in him, it is the duty of some — those for whom he did not die — to believe an untruth. This also reduces the matter to an absurdity, for it cannot be the duty of any one to believe what is not true. We must either give up the position that it is the duty of all men to believe the gospel, or admit that the atonement of Christ has reference to all men. Much more might be said on this point, but there is not room for more in the narrow limits of a com- pendium of theology. Such is the extent of the atone- ment, that salvation is offered to all men ; nor dare we question God’s sincerity in making the offer. While the atoning merit of the blood of Christ is infinite, its saving efficacy is restricted to its application. We may therefore say of the atonement that it is so general that all are saved who “ come to God ” by Christ, and so limited that none are saved who do not “come to God ” through the Media- tor, “ the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransom for all.” 1 Tim. ii. 5, 6. 21 * CHAPTER XVII. THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. Atonement by sacrifice, being the first branch of the priestly office of Christ, is appropriately followed by In- tercession, which is the second part of the same office. A.s the literal meaning of intercession is “ going between,” it will be seen that in this sense it might be used as syn- onymous with mediation, since Christ in the whole of his mediatorial work occupies a position between God and men. The Scriptures, however, employ the term in a more limited sense, not as including the atonement, but as re- lated to it and founded on it. This is the import of the word in theological writings. In treating of the inter- cession of Christ it will be well to consider the follow- ing points: 1. The fact of his intercession . Proof of this fact is found in such passages as these : “ It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Rom. viii. 34) ; “ Wherefore he is able also to save them to the utter- most that come unto God -by him, seeing he ever livetli to make intercession for them ” (Heb. vii. 25) ; “ My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” 1 John ii. 1. In the first two of these passages it is affirmed that 246 THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 247 Christ makes intercession. Wj are not left to infer that he intercedes, but the assertion is positive that he does. In the last passage he is termed “ an Advocate with the Father.” His advocacy is his intercession. Let us accept with gratitude the blessed fact that Christ intercedes, and notice — 2. Where he intercedes. The place is heaven. I do not mean that his prayer as recorded in the Gospel of John (chap, xvii.) is not properly termed his intercessory prayer, but that heaven is emphatically the place in which he makes intercession. “ For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” Heb. ix. 24. There is here reference to the entrance of the Jewish high priest every year into the holy place, or rather the most holy place, of the tabernacle or temple. As the high priest was a type of Christ, so the most holy place was a type of heaven. The high priest, entered within the veil by the blood of a slain animal, but of Christ it is said by his own blood “he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Heb. ix. 12. Peter says of Jesus, “ Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God.”-l Pet. iii. 22. Heaven is the place in which Christ ever lives to intercede, “a high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.’ Heb. vi. 20. 3. The basis of his intercession. This is manifestly his own atoning death. The plea which he urges in the presence of God for us cannot rest on our merit, for we have no merit. It cannot recognize our worthiness, for there is no worthiness in us. Nor does our helpless wretchedness furnish the reason w T hich our Intercessor urges in our favor. This wretchedness, brought on us by our own sin, rather suggests that we be left to ourselves. There are no 248 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. considerations personal to ourselves which our great High Priest can plead in our behalf. His atoning death on Calvary is his plea. He died, and therefore pleads that those for whom he died may live. All the reasons con- nected with their salvation sustain a vital relation to his death. He intercedes in heaven, because he died on earth The heavenly intercession was preceded by the earthly sacrifice, and the value of the sacrifice makes the inter- cession efficacious. It is said that “ Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacri- fice to God for a sweet-smelling savor.” Eph. v. 2. This language denotes that the sacrifice is acceptable to the Father, and for this reason the intercession of the Son is also acceptable. The words heard more than once from the excellent glory, “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” are full of meaning. They are sugges- tive of the idea that, as God is well pleased with his Son, he is well pleased with his atonement, and therefore well pleased to grant, through the atonement, the requests presented by his interceding Son. Hence, when we are told that u we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” we are told also that “ he is the pro- pitiation for our sins.” 1 John ii. 1, 2. Thus the advocacy of Christ is inseparable from his atonement, for his inter- cession is the outgrowth of his sacrificial death. 4. His qualifications as Intercessor. Of these I shall refer only to the more prominent : (a) He has authority to intercede. In referring to the Jewish priesthood the writer of the Epistle to the He- brews says : “ And no man taketh this honor unto him- self, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest : but he [glorified him] that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to-day have I begotten thee.” Heb. v. 4, 5. It is true THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 249 that this language is as applicable to Christ in his work of sacrifice as in that of intercession ; but the latter topic is now under consideration. Christ has the right to in- tercede, and his intercession is therefore authoritative. He does not appear as an intruder in the court of heaven. He has rightfully entered within the veil, for his own atoning blood has given him the right of entrance. He u appears in the presence of God for us,” and he docs so in pursuance of the provisions of the covenant of redemp- tion. As already said in substance, he bases his inter- cessory pleas on his atonement, made by appointment and approval of the Father, and therefore his presence as Intercessor in heaven is in accordance with the Father’s good pleasure. Christ intercedes with rightful authority. (6) The righteousness of his character. This differs from rightful authority. A king may have rightful au- thority, his occupancy of the throne may be constitu- tional, yet he may be an unrighteous man. Historical illustrations of this truth are without number. The cha- racter of Christ is perfect. It is the bright focus in which all the rays of glory meet. Eulogy is exhausted when it is said of him that he is “holy, harmless, undefiled, sep- arate from sinners.” Heb. vii. 26. In the same connec- tion we are told that “ such an high priest became us ” — that is, was suitable for us. This truth we are obliged to accept, for it is self-evident that an intercessor of unright- eous character could not be permitted to plead our cause in the presence of a God whose name is The Holy One . He who mediates between a righteous God anil sinful men must himself be righteous. Any defect of character would be a fatal disqualification. Sin has so disgraced and degraded us that it cannot comport with his maj- esty for God to permit us in person to approach him. 250 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. W r e dare not personally draw near to him. Every at tempt to do so would be repelled. We must approach him in the name of an Advocate. We must appear be- fore him by Attorney. Jesus is our Attorney, and in connection with his advocacy he is termed “ the right • eous .” It is certain, therefore, that in his intercessions there is an inflexible adherence to the principles of right- eousness. There is no connivance at sin, but a decided condemnation of it, and at the same time a plea for its pardon through the blood of the cross. It is a most en- couraging fact that our Advocate in the court of heaven is Jesus Christ the righteous. (c) He is full of sympathy. This qualification may be properly considered in connection with the preceding. While the righteous element in the character of our In- tercessor makes it certain that he will properly respect and guard the interests of the divine government, his sympathy for the subjects of his intercession leads him to pity them and to make all necessary allowances for them. What says an inspired writer on this important point? — u Seeing, then, that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens [rather, through the heavens , as Jewish high priests passed through the veil], Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feel- ing of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Heb. iv. 14-16. Some in apostolic times may have been tempted to believe that the exaltation of the Son of God to the throne of glory precluded sympathy for men. But the sacred writer gives assurance of Christ’s sympathy, and gives the best reason THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST 251 for its exercise: “For we have not rn high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities.” This double negative is equivalent to an affirmative, and the truth taught is that our High Priest is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. It is worthy of remark that in the Greek we have the word from which we de- rive our word “sympathize,” and the literal rendering would be “to sympathize with our infirmities;” but who can give up the strong phrase, “ touched with the feeling of”? Christ is a sympathizing Intercessor. His heart is full of compassion — as full of compassion now as when it throbbed and bled with anguish on the cross. But why is Christ touched with the feeling of our in- firmities? The reason assigned is that he “was in all points tempted like as we are.” During his humiliation on earth he experienced temptation in all its power- and in all its variety. We may not be able to understand how he could be tempted in every respect as we are, but we have the inspired words, “ in all points tempted like as we are.” The scriptural teaching is that by personal ex- perience of temptation he acquired the habit of sympa- thizing with his followers in their temptations, and that having “ suffered, being tempted, he is able to succor those that are tempted.” Heb. ii. 18. Tn view, therefore, of the sympathy of Christ and of the reason for its exercise, there is abundant encouragement to come to the throne of grace. The intercession of a compassionate Saviour in heaven may well call forth the earnest prayers of the saints on earth. There is no fact better adapted to excite the spirit of prayer and suppli- cation. 5. For whom does Christ intercede ? I shall not take it on myself to affirm that there is not a sense in which Christ may be said co intercede for those who will not be finally 252 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . saved, even as be offers them salvation in the gospel. Be this as it may, all will admit that Christ intercedes spe- cially for his people, those given him by the Father. If we wish to know what blessings he asks in behalf of his disciples, we need only refer to his intercessory prayer as recorded by the evangelist John, chap. xvii. There is nothing to forbid the belief that this prayer was a speci- men and an anticipation of his intercession in heaven. He says of his disciples, “ I pray for them,” and his prayer expanded itself into four prominent petitions, as follows : (a) Their preservation from evil. He said, “ I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” John xvii. 15. Some suppose that “ the evil ” here referred to means the evil one — that is, Satan — but the more satisfactory view is that evil in general, evil in its connection with the world, is meant. It must be admitted, however, that Satan has much to do with evil in all its forms. Paul speaks of £ ‘ this present evil world.” Gal. i. 4. The world is full of evil. We see evil everywhere and in all circum- stances. It is to be found in unsanctified prosperity and in unsanctified adversity. It is to be seen in boasting wealth and in complaining poverty, nor is a competency a shield from it. No situation in life protects from the in- cursions of evil. The world is a foe to grace, and this truth Christians learn to their sorrow. They are in dan- ger from its fascinating smiles, from its disparaging ridi- cule, and from its intimidating frowns. Can they in their )wn strength preserve themselves from the evil to which they are exposed? As well may we ask whether the chaff of the threshing-floor can resist the victorious progress of the storm. There is absolutely no hope for the preserva- tion of Christians from evil, unless they are “ kept by the THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 253 power of God through faith unto salvation.” 1 Pet. i. 5. That they may be thus kept is one of the purposes which Christ has in view in his intercession. He intercedes for his disciples, and asks of the Father that they may he preserved from the evil which surrounds them. The words of Jesus to Peter are very suggestive: “ Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” Luke xxii. 31, 32. We may well con- sole ourselves with the thought that our Intercessor in heaven pra}^s for all his followers that their faith fail not, and that through their faith they may be preserved from all the phases of worldly evil. Christians themselves pray for the accomplishment of these objects, and their prayers have a blessed connection with the incense of Christ’s intercession, as we are probably taught in Rev. viii. 3. (b) Their sanctification through the truth. Jesus said, Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is truth.” John xvii. 17. This is a matter of vital importance, but as the subject of Sanctification is considered elsewdiere, 1 it is not dwelt upon here. I only ask the reader to re- member that Jesus intercedes for his disciples that they may be sanctified. (c) Their unity. “ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us : that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” John xvii. 20, 21. In these precious words the first thing that strikes us is the comprehensiveness of this prayer, which em- braces all believers, all who shall believe in Christ through the word of the apostles. It is delightful for 1 See Chapter XXI 22 254 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. the saints in all generations and in all climes to know that Jesus prayed for them on earth and intercedes for them in heaven. In the verses just quoted Christ prays for the oneness of his followers — “ that they all may be one.” It seems most reasonable that there should be unity among those who have the same faith in the same Saviour. There was for a time in the church at Jeru- salem an exemplification of this unity, fcr it is said that “ the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” Acts iv. 32. Christ recognizes, as the model of the union for which he prays, the oneness be- tween the Father and himself — “ as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, tha‘t they also may be one in us.” John xvii. 21. He refers also to the effect which unity among his disciples would have upon the w T orld — “ that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” How important to the best interests of the world is unity among those who believe in Christ! For this unity, Christ intercedes in heaven, and we look for the day when' his people shall be one — one in their loyalty to truth, one in faith, one in love, one in hope, and one in consecration to the work of the Lord. ( d ) Their admittance into heaven. “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am ; that they may behold my glory.” John xvii. 24. This, so far as we know, is the last petition offered on earth by Christ for his disciples, and it is doubtless repeated in his intercessions in heaven. When this request is granted the work of intercession will cease, or, at any rate, we can see no reason for its continuance. Christ does not in so many words pray that those given him by the Father shall be glorified in heaven, but he says that which is in substance the same — “ be with me THE INTERCESSION OF CHRIST. 255 where I am.” What heaven other than that created by the presence of Christ can the saints desire? Was not this Paul’s leading conception of heaven ? He wrote, “ ab- sent from the body, and present with the Lord ” (2 Cor. yr. 8) ; “ having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ ; which is far better.” Phil. i. 23. The same apostle, refer- ring to glorified saints after the resurrection, and including himself among them, says, “ And so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 1 Thess. iv. 17. Christ so loves those who believe in him that he desires to have them with him. He will never see of the travail of his soul, so as to be satisfied, till they are in his immediate presence. His intercession based on his death will secure their admit- tance into glory. “ For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Rom. v. 10. Yes, “ saved by his life,” for he lives to inter- cede, lives to carry into full accomplishment the purposes of his death. Prominent among these purposes was the glorification of his saints in the presence of his 'Father. He said to his first disciples, and through them to all his disciples, “ I go to prepare a place for you. And if I gc and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself ; that where I am, there ye may be also.” John xiv. 2, 3. The preparation of this place is, doubtless, connected with the intercession of Christ. What a place it will be ! Bright with glory, with what Christ calls, “my glory;” and it is his will that those ransomed by his blood shall behold this glory and exult in its splendors for evermore, CHAPTER XVIII. REGENERATION \ WITH ITS A T TEN DA N TS, REPEAT. ANCE AND FAITH It is evident that the Scriptures refer to a great change in all who become Christians — a change denoted by such forms of expression as the following: “ Bo rn agai n ” (John iii. 3) ; “ Rom ” (John iii. 5) ; “Born of God” (John i. 13); “Created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. ii. 10); “Quickened together with Christ” (Eph. ii. 5)°, “A new creature ” (2 Cor. v. 17); “Renewed after the im^e of him that created him ” (Col. iii. 10) ; “Dead unto sint'TT: alive untooGod.” Rom. vi. 11. This change is, in theological writings, usually called Regeneration, and it is inseparable from “ repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.jfActs xx. 21. For this reason the heading of this chapter has been selected, and I purposely present in closest connection Regeneration, Repentance, and Faith. Nor is it my intention to dwell on what has been termed “ the order of time.” Indeed, if the view of Calvin and Jonathan Edwards is correct, regeneration and repentance are in substance the same so that the question as to the order of time is ruled out. Calvin says : “ In one word, I apprehend repentance to be regenera- tion, the end of which is the restoration of the divine image within us; which was defaced, and almost oblitei- REGENERATION, REPENTANCE, FAITH. 257 ated by the transgression of Adam.” 1 The words of Edwards are these: “Ii we compare one scripture with another, it will be suffieiently manifest that by regene* ration, or being begotten or born again, the same change in the state of the mind is signified with that which the Scripture speaks of as effected by true repentance and conversion. I put repentance and conversion together, because the Scripture puts them together (Acts iii. 19), and because they plainly signify much the same thing.” 2 Without fully endorsing the view of these great men, I may say that if regeneration and repentance are not identical, they are so closely connected that it is not worth while to inquire whether the one precedes or fol- lows the other. As to regeneration and faitk, a plausible argument may be made in favor of the priority of either. For example, if we turn to John i. 12, 13 it seems nat- ural to suppose that those who believed in Christ were those who had been born of God. So also according to the correct rendering of 1 John v. 1, “ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is [has been] born of God.” Some use this passage as it reads in the Common Version, “ is born of God,” to prove that faith is prior to regeneration, because the means of it ; but the argument fails in view jf the fact that not the present, but the perfect, tense is used in the original — “ has been born of God.” But if we turn to Galatians iii. 26, “ For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus,” the obvious view is that we become God’s children by faith, or, in other words, that faith is instrumental in effecting regeneration. We see, therefore, that there may be a plausible argument on either side of the question. It is, perhaps, in view of this 1 Institutes, vol. i. p. 541, edition of Presbyterian Board of Pul*' lication. 2 Works, edition of 1809, vol. vi. p. 410. 258 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. fact, wisest and safest to consider regeneration and faith simultaneous, or so nearly so that the question of prece- dence should not be considered at all. The adoption of this theory will save us from perplexities which will otherwise annoy. For instance, those insisting on the precedence of regeneration are not a little perplexed when asked if there can he a regenerate unbeliever, and those taking the opposite view are equally perplexed when asked if there can be an unregenerate believer. That regeneration and faith are not separable in point of time is, all things considered, the most satisfactory posi- tion. One thing is certain — wherever we see a regenerate person, we see a believer in Christ; and wherever we see a believer in Christ, we see a regenerate person. After these explanatory matters I proceed to a dis- cussion of the subject of regeneration in the following order : 1. The nature of regeneration. The change which the term implies dogs ■.not pertain primarily to the physical nor to the intellectual faculties. } The regenerated man has the same bodily conformation after this change as before, and his mental peculiarities remain. The intellect, like the body, is affected only so far as the moral powers exert an influence over it. This leads me to say that regene- ration is a spiritual change. I call it a spiritual change, not only because it is produced by the Spirit of God, as will be shown, but because it takes place in the spirit of the subject. The heart is the theatre of the operation, and the change is in the disposition of the heart. This disposition, I suppose, lies below or back of the affections and the will, controlling the exercise of the affections and the choice of the will . J That is to say, -the affections love as they do, and the will chooses as it does, because of the state of the heart, hi will not enlarge, lest I become meta- 2d 9 REGENERATION, REPENTANCE , FAITH. physical. ^Regeneration involves the illumination of the un- derstanding, tli e consecration of the affections, and the rec- tification of the wilL} To use Paul’s language, “ Ye were once darkness, bufTnow are ye light in the Lord.” Eph. v. 8. The affections of the unrenewed soul are placed on unworthy objects, and cleave to them with the greatest tenacity. There is no relish for things spiritual and divine, no appreciation of moral excellence, no love of holiness and of God. Regeneration recalls the affections from unworthy objects, and places them supremely on the ever-blessed Jehovah — enshrines them in his infinitely perfect character. It is therefore written, “ Every one that loveth is born of God.” 1 John iv. 7. The will of the unregenerate man is perverse, for it conflicts with the will of God. It chooses cursing and death rather than blessing and life^ In regeneration its obliquity is over- come and rectified, its perverted action is arrested and changed. “ Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power.” Ps. cx. 3. The will of the regenerate, being conformed to the divine will, gladly chooses the objects on which the consecrated affections are placed.^ The definition to be given of regeneration must depend on the point of moral observation we occupy. If, for ex- ample, we contemplate the sinner as the enemy of God, regeneration is the removal of his enmity and the creation of love in its stead. If we consider the sinner the “ child of the devil,” regeneration is the change which makes him the u child of God.” If we regard the unregenerate as totally destitute of the moral image of God, regenera tion consists in stamping that image upon them. Or if we view them as “ dead in trespasses and sins ” (Eph. ii. 1), regeneration is the beginning of divine life in theii souls. It is what Paul means by being “ quickened to- gether with Christ” (Eph. ii. 5) — that is, made spiritually 260 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. alive in union with Christ. Thus various definitions, not conflicting but harmonious, may be given of regeneration, according to the points of moral observation of which we avail ourselves. 2. The necessity of regeneration. This part of the subject has been somew r hat anticipated in what has been said of the depravity of our nature^ for it is depravity that rer ders regeneration necessary. /Depravity has sundered man from God, so that, imHh^oxpres&ivo -language of Scrbp- -ture,^ie is “alienated from the life of God.” Eph. iv. 18. "HiTvris a reunion to be brought abm'rtr? There must be a reunion if man is to be saved ; and as the two parties, God and man, are at variance, a change must take place in one or both of the parties before there can be recon- ciliation. But God is unchangeable, and the change, if it takes place at all, must take place in man. We therefore clearly see the necessity of regeneration. ItTfe^s neces- sary as the salvation of the soul is desirable, for there can be no salvation without reconciliation with , God. The necessity of regeneration appears also in the fact that without it we cannot become the children of God. Those who are new creatures in Christ Jesus have been “ born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” John i. 13. Being born of God is necessary to our partaking of his nature, and this participation of his nature is implied in our being his children. “That which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John. iii. 6)— that is, partakes of the nature of its Author. If we cannot become the children of God without it, how important is regeneration ! No langui ge can adequately s et f orth its ii^portan^e^. / The necessity of regeneration is likewise apparent, be- cause the unregenerate cannot enter heaven ; and if they could, they would be miserable there. It is one of the fun- REGENERATION, REPENTANCE, FAITH. 261 damental laws of social existence that we enjoy the socie- ty of those only whose dispositions are similar to our own. On the other hand, social enjoyment results from conge- nial taste and feeling. We see this principle illustrated every day. We see it in the gay assemblies of the lovers of pleasure, in the vulgar carousals of the dissipated, in the associations of the educated and the intellectual, and in the companies of the saints who take “ sweet counsel together.” In all these there is similarity of feeling, con- geniality of disposition. Now, suppose unregenerate sin- ners were admitted into heaven and required to join in the devotions of the sanctified. Would they be happy in the presence of a God they do not love? Would they be happy in rendering reluctant ascriptions of praise to his name ? Would they be happy in mingling in society for which they feel no partiality? Surely not. Jesus labored under no mistake when he said, “ Ye must be born again.” John iii. 7. It has been well said, that u heaven is a pre- pared place for a prepared people.” ft«g^^ration fur nishes the moral preparation to relish and enjoy the bliss of heaven. This of itself is sufficient to show its great n aoc'oai tr* . 3. The Author of regeneration. Who accomplishes this work? It is efiected by divine agency. The phrase “ born of God ” is of frequent occurrence in the New Tes- tament. We have also the expression “ born of the Spir- it.” No language could more clearly indicate the agency employed in rpgp.nprfitia^ The Spirit of God alone can renew the soul. H r is his ' p rerogative to quicken, to give life. All is death in the moral world without his influ- ence. What air or breath is to animal life, that his opera- tion is to spiritual life. “ It is the Spirit that quicken- eth.” John vi. 63. Paul says of the Corinthians, “ Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered 262 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” 2 Cor. iii. 3. The -oaiirruapostle , affeer telling us tha4 those who are “in Christ are new creatures,” that “ old things are passed away,” and “ all things are become new,” immediately adds, “ and all things are of God.” 2 Cor. v. 17, 18. Regeneration, in several passages of Scripture, is referred to under the imagery of creation. Who but God possesses creative power, the power to bring something out of nothing?^ To create is his inalienable prerogative, and it is algo his inalienable prerogative to regene rate. ^Ie says himself, “ A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you : and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.” Ezek. xxxvi. 26. In the provisions of the new covenant he says, “ I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.” 4. The means of regeneration . The instrumentality em- ployed is the gospel, the word of God. This is a con- troverted point. Some argue that God renews the soul without the intervention of means. Others suppose that the term “ regeneration ” may be used both in a limited and in an enlarged sense. They concede that in the lat- ter sense the word of God is the means of regeneration. Without dwelling on these different views, I quote the following passages in proof of the instrumentality of di vine truth in regeneration: “In Christ Jesus I have be- gotten you through the gospel ” (1 Cor. iv. 15) ; “ Of his owr. will begat he us with the word of truth ” (James i. 18); “ Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- ruptible, by the v^ord of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” 1 Pet. i. 23. There is, as we have seen, a sense in which we are born of the Spirit ; and these passages teach REGENERATION, REPENTANCE , FAITH 263 that there is a sense in which we are begotten or born of the word of God. I know of no way of harmonizing the two views but by attributing regeneration to the agency of the Spirit and the instrumentality of the truth. God uses means in the natural world, and why should lie act on a different principle in the moral world? He does not. The gift of the Bible and the institution of Christian churches with a gospel ministry prove that he does not. I suppose that the Spirit of God, in regenerat- ing the heart, makes use of scriptural truth previously lodged in the understanding. But if I am asked how truth can influence and instrum entally change a heart that does not love it, I answer I do not know. If asked how the Spirit operates on the heart so as to change it, either with or without the word of truth, I must still say I do not know. I can give no other answer while I re- member what Jesus said to Nicodemus: “ The wind blow- eth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither, it goeth: go is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John iii. 8. Spiritual birth is a blessed reality, but the processes of this birth are among “ the secret things ” that “ belong unto the Lord our God.” Deut. xxix. 29. We must re- member, however, that its importance justifies the start- ling words, “ To be born is an everlasting calamity unless we are born again.” Repentance. No one can attentively read the New Testament without receiving the impression that great importance is attached to repentance. When John the Baptist came “preaching in the wilderness of Judea,” the burden of his message was, “ Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ” Matt. iii. 1, 2. When Jesus entered on his ministry he said, 264 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES “ The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.” Mark i. 15. The twelve disciples, in obedience to the command of the Lord Jesus, “went out, and preached that men should repent.” Maik vi. 12. After the resurrection of Christ, Peter preached repentance at Jerusalem, and Paul dwelt upon it in his one discourse at Athens and in his many discourses at Ephesus. (See Acts ii. 38 ; iii. 19 ; xvii. 30 ; xx. 21.) It is, then, a question of great importance, What is re- pentance? The word of which it is a translation in the New Testament has as its primary meaning after-thought, and as its secondary meaning a change of mind. It is easy to see how the secondary followed the primary sig- nification, for in all ages after-thought has discovered rea- sons for a change of mind . The discovery has had a close connection with the depravity of human nature and the fallibility of human opinions. Alas, how frequent have been the occasions for a change of mind ! In this change of mind, so far as scriptural repentance is concerned, a great deal is involved, as we shall see ; but I wish first to show that repentance is internal. I mean by this that it is a change of the mind, the heart, and not of the life, except so far as a change of life results from a change of mind or heart. Dr. George Campbell and others have not been happy in substituting “ reform ” and “ reforma- tion ” for “ repent ” and “repentance.” John the Baptist made a clear distinction between “ repentance ” and “fruits meet for repentance;” and by the “fruits meet” he meant reformation of life. Repentance is the tree, and reformation the fruit it bears. Paul too, as well as John, distinguished between “ repentance ” and “ works meet for repentance.” Acts xxvi. 20. Repentance belongs to the sphere of the mind, and reformation to the sphere of the life; or, in other words, the former is inward, and REGENERATION, REPENTANCE, FAITH. 265 the latter is outward. Let no one, therefore, suppose that the command to 11 repent” is obeyed by a reformation of life ; and let no one think his repentance genuine, unless it leads to reformation of life. I trust I have made this important distinction plain. There are in Greek authors many instances of the use of the words translated in the New Testament repent and repentance. Dr. Conant gives several examples in his notes on Matt. iii. 2, in his revised version. It is evident from these examples that the Greeks knew what it was to exercise after-thought , so as to change their minds and in- dulge sorrow of heart. There was, however, in their af- ter-thought, change of mind, and sorrow of heart, no con- sciousness of the evil of sin as committed against God. Nor is this strange, as they enjo} r ed not the light of di- vine revelation. Of the repentance enjoined in the gospel, the following things may be said — namely, that it involves — 1. A consciousness of personal sin. It is a state of mind that cannot exist without conviction of sin. Of what are persons to repent if they are not sinners? The angels in heaven cannot repent, for they have never sinned. Nor could Adam and Eve repent in their state of innocence. Sin precedes repentance, and not only sin, but a con- sciousness of it. A sense of sin must take hold of the soul and pervade all its faculties. I have used the epi- thet personal , and by it I mean that the individual sin- ner must repent of his own sins. I mean that one man cannot repent for another, but that each man must repent for himself. I suppose, therefore, that those persons labor under a mistake who say that they have repented of Adam’s sin. They may deeply regret the apostasy of Adam, and bitterly deplore the miseries in which his race is involved, but in strictness of speech they cannot 23 266 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. be said to repent of his sin. They cannot have a person- al consciousness of his sin : they can only have such a consciousness of their own, and without personal con- sciousness of sin there is no repentance. 2. That sin is a great evil committed against God , for which there is no excuse. All sin is committed against God, against his nature, his will, his authority, his law, his justice, his goodness ; and the evil of sin arises chiefly from the fact that it is opposed to God, and out of harmony with his character. Truth does not require me to say, and I do not say, that the repenting sinner has no fear of the con- sequences of sin ; but I do affirm that the evil of sin as committed against God is the thing which gives the true penitent special anxiety and trouble. He justifies God and condemns himself. He makes David’s words his own : “ Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.” Ps. li. 4. David had committed atrocious sins against his fellow-creatures, but the thing which absorbed his thoughts and. broke his heart was the fact that he had sinned against God. The repenting sinner does not regard his sin as a misfortune merely, but as a crime, involving deep, personal blameworthiness. He knows that Satan has tempted him, but he does not lay his sins to the charge of Satan, so as to excuse himself. No, he feels that he has sinned without cause and deserves to die without mercy. There is a deep sense of shame, arising from a consciousness of guilt and ill-desert. 3. Hatred of sin. This is an essential element in repent- ance. The hatred is inseparable from the change of mind already referred to. The change of mind is in view of sin, and the mind undergoes the change, because sin js seen to be a great evil. Regarded in this light, it becomes EE GENERA TION y REPENTANCE, FAITH. 267 an object of abhorrence. At this point, repentance and regeneration coincide. Hatred of sin is among the pri- mary impulses of regeneration, and it cannot be abstract- ed from repentance without changing its character. The repenting sinner hates the sin and the sins of which he repents. I use the singular and the plural with a pur- pose, meaning by sin depravity, corruption of nature, and by sins actual transgressions prompted by a sinful nature. There is hatred of sin as it inheres in the nature ; there is self-loathing on account of it; and there is hatred of sins committed in heart and life. The salvation of the gospel consists chiefly in deliverance from sin ; nor can we con- ceive how God can save his creatures from their sins without saving them from the love of sin — without in- spiring in them such hatred of sin as will lead them to turn from it. Penitential hatred of sin may be said to be both general and specific: it is general in the sense that it embraces all sins, and it is specific in the sense that it embraces every sin. Sin is not really hated unless it is hated in all its forms — hated in its inward workings and in its outward manifestations. Sin is the abominable thing which God hates, and it is the object of the repent- ing sinner’s hatred. 4. Sorrow for sin. This accompanies the hatred. He who repents hates the sins he is sorry for, and is sorry for the sins he hates. The hatred and the sorrow are reciprocal. Indeed, each may be regarded as either the cause or the effect of the other, so close is their relation. Those who would substitute the term “ reformation ” for repentance virtually exclude the element of sorrow, or at least they give it no prominent place in the change de- noted by their favorite word. There is one fact which prove? beyond doubt that repentance involves sorrow for 268 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. Bin. That fact is found in the words of Jesus . “ Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! fox if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented .long ago in sackcloth and ashes.” Matt. xi. 20, 21. u Sackcloth and ashes ” are scriptural symbols of sor- row, and of no common sorrow. They certainly signi- fied deep contrition and grief in the Ninevites. (See Jon. iii. 5, 6.) History, profane as well as sacred, refers to them as emblems of mourning. Now, that Jesus mentioned “ sackcloth and ashes ” in connection with repentance for ever settles the question that sorrow . enters into it as its central element. This fact was so significant in the view of Dr. George Campbell, that he could not venture, in his Translation of the Gospels , to substitute in the above passage reformed for repented , but left the latter word as in the Common Version. It is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural to suppose that there is not sorrow in the change of mind denoted by repentance. How and why does the mind change at all in regard to sin, unless there is in it something to excite sorrow? Whatever calls for a change of mind concerning sin calls for sorrow on account of sin. The heart of the true penitent is a broken and a crushed heart — broken with sorrow and crushed with grief. How can it be otherwise when sin is looked at in conti ast with the purity of the divine character, and its turpi- tude is seen in the light which shines from the cross on Calvary? 5. A purpose to forsake sin. This purpose is, of course, internal, and repentance is internal. He in whom is exemplified the four preceding things is obliged to form REGENERATION, REPENTANCE , FAITH. 269 this purpose. It is a necessity of his moral constitution. The execution of the purpose is reformation, but the purpose itself is a part of repentance. It is not necessary to elaborate a point so plain as this, for no one can feel hatred and sorrow for sin without forming the resolution to abandon it. In dismissing the subject of repentance, I may say that it is a reasonable, important, universal, and immedi- ate duty. “ God commands all men everywhere to re- pent,” and all men should have that change of mind in regard to sin which repentance implies. Faith. Faith, as well as repentance, accompanies regeneration. But what is faith ? The term is used in the Scriptures in more senses than one. For example, an apostle says, “ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man may say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” James ii. 14. In the last clause the insertion of the definite article is required by the original Greek — ‘‘can the faith save him?” That is, the faith which is not productive of works. There is a faith, then, which is fatally defective as to the matter of salvation ; for the question, “ Can the faith save him ?” is a strong denial of the power of such faith to save. The apostle further says, “ Thou believest that there is one God ; thou doest 'well : the demons also believe, and tremble.” ver. 19. Here we see that faith in the unity of God is com- mended, but this faith does not save ; and the proof that it does not is seen in the fact that demons, while they believe this great truth and tremble under what it implies, remain unsaved. In the last verse of the same chapter the apostle gives an impressive illustration of what he means by a “ faith, without works :” “ For as the body 23 * 270 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” This illustration all can understand, for all know that when the spirit leaves the body nothing remains but a mass of inanimate clay. There is no life ; the vital principle is gone. So faith which is without works is worthless, for it lias in it no saving quality. Such faith is a mere intellectual assent to the truth, or rather to some parts of the truth, leaving the heart unmoved, and therefore creating no motives to acticn. Alas, there are many who have this faith, and who’ have no other faith ! Jesus, in explaining the parable of The Sower, says t “ They on the rock are they which, when they hear, re- ceive the word with joy ; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.” Luke viii. 13. Here the reference is to a temporary faith, embracing not only the assent of the intellect, but exciting superficially the feelings of the heart. Who has not seen persons fjtly represented by the seed that fell on the rock thinly covered with soil? The faith of such persons has fatal defects, and therefore it is transient. They “for a while believe,” but they do not believe with the whole heart. “ They draw back unto perdition,” and do not “believe to the saving of the soul.” Heb. x. 39. In view of the considerations now presented, it is mani- fest that there may be a faith that has no connection with salvation. It therefore becomes a question of the greatest : mportance, What is the faith of the gospel, the faith which secures the salvation of the believer? There is but one answer: It is faith in Jesus Christ. This differs very widely from a belief in the existence of God and in the historical truth of the Bible. Many believe both of these facts who do not believe in Christ, do not accept him as the Saviour. Christ is emphatically the object of REGENERATION, REPENTANCE \ FAITH. 271 faith. He so represented himself during his earthly min- istry, as we may see from his words : “ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up : that whoso- ever belie veth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only- begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. . . . He that believeth on him is not condemned ” (John iii. 14-18) ; “ He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst ” (vi. 35) ; “ He that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live : and whoso- ever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.” bu. 25, 26. It is needless to multiply quotations from our Lord’s sayings. The foregoing show him to be the object of faith in such a sense that those who believe in him are saved from perishing and put into possession of everlast- ing life. It is also supremely worthy of notice that un- belief, which is a rejection of Christ as the Saviour, is the great sin of which the Holy Spirit convinces men. “ He will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they believe not on me.” John xvi. 8, 9. This language of Christ teaches the greatness of the sin of unbelief. This sin is the opposite of faith, and as faith receives Christ, unbelief rej-ects him. As we read of “an evil heart of unbelief” (Heb. iii. 12), we know that faith has to do with the heart as well as the intellect. I have referred to Christ as the object of faith ; and as illustrative of this point there is one passage of Scripture worthy of special consideration : “ Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeksffrepentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” Acts xx. 21. The 272 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. terms “ repentance ” and “ faith ” are just where they should be. Repentance is toward God — that is, it has reference to God as a Lawgiver whose law has been broken; but faith is toward our Lord Jesus Christ — that is, it has reference to him as the Saviour. The reason is obvious : Christ by his obedience and death has satisfied the claims of the law, so that the Lawgiver can consist- ently pardon sinners who by faith receive Christ as the Saviour. Indeed, it is God the Lawgiver who offers his Son to guilty men as the only Saviour, and faith is the heart’s response to that offer. In other words, the be- liever accepts the offer, accepts Christ, who is made to him “ wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” 1 Cor. i. 30. In ascertaining the exact import of faith in Christ, it is well to remember that the word commonly translated u believe ” in the New Testament is, in several passages, rendered “ commit.” (See Luke xvi. 11 ; John ii. 24; Rom. iii. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 17; Gal. ii. 7 ; 1 Tim. i. 11; Tit. i. 3.) Everybody knows the meaning of commit , and those who believe in Christ commit themselves to him to be saved by him — commit all the interests of their salvation into his hands. There is nothing kept back ; the surrender to Christ is unconditional and entire. As in the gospel he is offered as the only Saviour, he is received as he is of- fered, and relied on as the only Saviour. When Paul in 1 Thess. ii. 4 says, “ But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel,” he uses the same verb, in the passive voice, which is usually translated “believe.” Paul was put in trust with the gospel — that is, the gospel was entrusted to him ; so Christ is put in trust with the salvation of the believer — that is, the believer trusts in him. I know of no word in our language which ex- presses more fully than the term “ trust ” the centra] REGENERATION , REPENTANCE, FAITH. 278 idea of the word “faith. ’ According to the gospel, faith is personal trust in a personal Saviour. No act can he more personal than the act of faith. It is as personal as dying. As every human being dies for himself, so every man must believe for himself — must trust in Christ for himself. I know of no better definition of gospel faith than this: It is a trustful reception of the Lord Jesus as *he only Saviour. When the trembling jailer said to Faul and Silas, “ What must I do to be saved ?” they said, “ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ” Acts xvi. 30, 31. They gave the only answer that could be given to the question. It is faith in Christ that puts the soul in possession of the benefits of redemption. “ To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins ” (Acts x. 43) ; “ He that believeth on the Son h^th everlasting life.” John iii. 36. As the subject of Faith will be referred to in connection with Justification, it is not deemed necessary to dwell Chapter XVIII. 332 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . it migLl affect the interests, but not the being , of a ch arch. It has been well said that “although officers are not necessary to the being of a church, they are necessary to its well-being .” Paul, refering to Christ’s ascension gifts, says: “And he gave some, apostles ; and some* prophets ; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the minis- try, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Eph. iv. 11, 12. Apostles, prophets, and evangelists filled extraordi- nary and temporary offices. There are no such offices now. Pastors and teachers, the same men, are the ordi- nary and permanent spiritual officers of the churches, while the office of deacon has special reference to the sec- ular interests of the churches. Of these two offices, the following things may be said : 1. Pastors. — This term was first applied to ministers having oversight of churches. The reason, no doubt, was in the resemblance between the work of a pastor and that of a literal shepherd. A shepherd has under his charge a flock, for which he must care and for whose wants he must provide. The sheep and the lambs must be looked after. The Lord Jesus, “ that great Shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. xiii. 20), virtually says to all his under- shepherds, as he did to Peter, “ Feed my lambs,” “ Feed my sheep.” John xxi. 15, 16. It is worthy of remark that this language was not addressed to Peter until the Saviour had obtained from him an affirmative answer to the question, “ Lovest thou me?” As if he had said. “ I love my spiritual flock so well that I cannot entrust the sheep and lambs composing it to any man who does not love me.” Love to Christ must be regarded in all ages and in all places as the pastor’s supreme qualification. All other jualifications are worthless if this is absent) Talent and learning are not to be undervalued, but they THE CHUECTI. 333 must be kept under the control of piety and receive its sanctifying impress. The work of pastors is referred to b} 7 Paul when he says, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.” 1 Tim. iii. 1. It is indeed a good work — the best work on earth — but a work. The term bishop must not be suffered to suggest any such idea as its mod- ern acceptation implies. In apostolic times there were no bishops having charge of the churches in a district of country, in a province, or a kingdom. A bishop was the pastor of a church, and the New Testament, so far from encouraging a plurality of churches under one pastor, refers in two instances at least to a plurality of pastors in one church. (See Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1.) In the former passage the elders of the church of Ephesus are called overseers , and the word thus translated is the same rendered bishop in Phil. i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; Tit. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. ii. 25. Thus does it appear that pastor, bishop, and elder are three terms designating the same office. This view is further confirmed by a reference to 1 Pet. v. 1, 2, where elders are exhorted to “feed the flock of God ' — that is, to perform the office of pastor — “ taking the oversight thereof;” that is, acting the part of bishops, or overseers. For the word translated “ taking the over- sight ” belongs to the same family of words as the term rendered u bishop ” in the passages cited. It is plain, there- fore, that a pastor’s work is the spin tual oversight of the flock, the church he serves. Like a good literal shep- herd, he must care for the feeble and the sick as well as for the healthy and the vigorous. Some he can feed with u strong meat,” while others can digest nothing but “milk.” He must exercise a sanctified discret’on, and “study to show ” himself “approved unto God, a work- man that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing 334 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. the word of truth.” 2 Tim. ii. 15. Much depends on dividing the word of truth rightly ; hence the necessity of study, prayerful study, imbued with the Spirit of the Master. The administration of the ordinances — which are two, baptism and the Lord’s Supper — as well as the preaching of the word, is the proper business of the pastor. As it does not accord with the plan of this volume to elaborate any topic, the work of the pastor cannot be enlarged on, nor is there room to present the many motives to pastoral fidelity. The mention of two must suffice : The church over whose interests the pastor watches has been bought with “the precious blood of Christ,” and the faithful pastor will, when “ the chief Shepherd ” comes, “ receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” 1 Pet. v. 4. What motives to diligence and faithfulness could possess more exhaustless power? 2. Deacons. — The office of deacon originated in a state of things referred to in the sixth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. It is said, that “when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows w 7 ere neglected in the daily ministration.” The “ Gre- cians ” were Jews as well as the Hebrews, but they spoke the Greek language, and were probably not natives of Palestine. The members of the church at Jerusalem “had all things in common,” and a distribution w r as made out of the common stock “as every man had need.’ ; Acts iv. 35. This seems to have been done at first under the immediate direction of the apostles; and the inti- mation is that the large increase of the church interfered with an impartial distribution of supplies. The apostles saw T that if they made it their business to “ serve tables,” it would greatly hinder their work in its spiritual aspects. THE CHURCH 335 Thev said, “ It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint os^er this business. But we will give ourselves contin- ual] y to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” Acts vi. 3, 4. Thus the creation of the office of deacon recognizes the fact that the duties of pastors are pre-eminently spiritual, and that they should not be burdened with the secular interests of the churches. The words “men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” applied to the first deacons, indicate that they were men of unblemished reputation, ardent piety, and good common sense. The phrase “full of the Holy Ghost ” is an admirable definition of fervent, ele- vated piety ; and in the selection of deacons their spir- ituality must be regarded, for their duties are not exclu- sively secular. Their secular duties, however, should be performed in a spiritual frame of mind, and in this way they “ purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 1 Tim. iii. 13. In visiting the poor to distribute the charities of the church, deacons must not perform the duty in a formal manner, but must inquire into the spiritual as well as the worldly circumstances of the recipients of the church’s bounty. They will often witness such an exhibition of faith, patience, gratitude, and resignation as will richly repay them for their labor of love. As occasion may re- quire, they should report to the pastor such cases as need his special attention, and thus they will become a con- necting link between the pastor and the needy ones of the church. As deacons were first appointed “ to serve tal les,” it 336 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. may be well to say that there are three tables for them to serve: 1. The table of the poor ; 2. The table of the Lord ; 3. The table of the pastor. The pecuniary supplies to enable them to serve these tables must be furnished by the church. The custom of taking a u collection ” for the poor after the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a good one. It is suitable at the close of the solemn service to think of the pious poor whom sickness or some other misfortune may have kept from the sacred feast. As some pecuniary expenditure is necessary in furnish- ing the table of the Lord, this should be made through the deacons ; and it is eminently proper, though not in- dispensable, for them to wait on the communicants in the distribution of the elements. Deacons should serve the pastor’s table. It is not for them to decide how liberally or scantily it shall be sup- plied. The church must make the decision, and enlarged views should be taken w T hen it is made, for the energies of hundreds of pastors are greatly impaired by an incompe- tent support. The pastor’s compensation having been agreed on by the church, the deacons must see that it is raised and paid over. They may appoint one of* their number acting treasurer, who shall receive and pay out funds ; but it should never be forgotten that deacons were originally, by virtue of their office, the treasurers of the church. As all pecuniary expenditures are to be made through deacons, they should at the end of every year make a re- port to the church of what moneys they have received dur- ing the year, and how they have been expended. This will keep everything straight and plain, while it will do very much for the promotion of a church’s influence and efficiency. THE CHURCH 337 Deacons as well as pastora should be ordained to office by prayer and the laying on of hands. Ciiurch Government. In the language of theolog}q and in popular language too, there are three forms of church government, knowm by the terms Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and Inde- pendency. Episcopacy recognizes the right of bishops to preside over districts of country, and one of its fundamental doctrines is that a bishop is officially superior to other ministers. Of course, a modern bishop has under his charge the “inferior clergy,” for it is insisted that the “ ordaining power ” and “ the right to rule ” belong to the episcopal office. The modern application of the term “ bishop ” to a man who has under his charge a dis- trict of country is very objectionable. It has almost banished from Christendom the idea originally attached to the word. In apostolic times, as we have seen, “ bishop,” “ pastor,” and “ elder ” were terms of equiva- lent import. Presbyterianism recognizes two classes of elders— ’preaching and ruling elders. The pastor and ruling elders of a congregation constitute what is called “ the session of the church.” The “ session ” transacts the business of the church, receives, dismisses, and excludes members. From the decisions of a session there is an appeal to the Presbytery, from the action of the Presby- tery an appeal to the Synod, and from the action of the Synod an appeal to the General Assembly, whose adjudi- cations are final and irresistible. Independency is in irreconcilable conflict with Epis- copacy and Presbyterianism, and distinctly affirms these three truths : 29 338 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. 1. That the governmental power is in the hands yf the mem* bers of a church. It resides with the members in contra- distinction from bishops or elders; that is to say, bish- ops, or elders, can do nothing strictly and properly eccle- siastical without the concurrence of the members. 2. The right of a majority of the members of a church to rule in accordance with the law of Christ. The will of the ma- jority having been expressed, it becomes the minority to submit. 3. That the power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated , and that church action is final. The power of a church cannot be delegated. There may be messengers of a church, but there cannot be, in the proper use of the term, delegates. These are highly important principles ; and while the existence of the independent form of church government depends on their recognition and application, it is an in- quiry of vital moment, Does the New Testament inculcate these principles? For if it does not, whatever may be said in commendation of them, they possess no obligatory force. Does the New Testament, then, inculcate the foun- dation-principle of Independency — namely, that the gov- ernmental power of a church is, under Christ, with the members? Let us see. It was the province of the apostolic churches to admit members into their communion. In Rom. xiv. 1, it is written : “ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” The import of this language is, “ Receive into your fellowship and treat as a Christian him who is weak in faith.” There is a command : “ receive ye.” To whom is this command addressed ? Not to bishops, not to the pastor and “ rul- ing elders,” but to the church, for the Epistle was written “to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be eaints.” THE CHURCH. 339 New Testament churches had the right to exclude un- worthy members, and they exercised the right. Paul, in referring to “ the incestuous man ” at Corinth, says to the church : “ In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved ir. the day of the Lord Jesus.” 1 Cor. v. 4, 5. It is worthy of remark that while Paul “ judged ” that the guilty man should be excluded from the church, he did not exclude him. He did not claim the right to do so ; and when he said to the “ churches of Galatia,” “ I would they were even cut off who trouble you,” he did not cut them off, though he desired that it should be done. With regard to “the incestuous man,” Paul said, “ Put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” 1 Cor. v. 13. Here is a command, given by an inspired man, requiring the exclusion of an unworthy member from the church at Corinth. To whom was the command addressed ? “Unto the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.” 1 Cor. v 1. The right of a church to exclude unworthy members is taught in Matt, xvii, 17 ; 2 Thess. iii. 6, and in other places. The apostolic churches had the power and the right to restore to fellowship excluded members who gave satis- factory evidence of penitence. In 2 Cor. ii. 6-8 “ the in- cestuous man” is again mentioned as follows: “Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, T\hich was inflicted of many. . . . Wherefore I beseech you that ye would con- firm your love toward him.” Paul could no more restore him than he could expel him in the first ir. stance, but he says, “ I beseech you.” The great apostle bowed to the majesty of the doctrine of church independence. He virtually admitted that nothing could be done unless the 340 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. church chose to act. Now, if the New Testament churches had the right to receive, exclude, and restore members, they must have had the right to transact any other busi- ness coming before them. There surely can be nothing more vital to the interests of a church than the reception, exclusion, and restoration of members. Here I rest the argument for the foundation-principle of church inde- pendency, though many other passages might be adduced in favor of it. A second principle of Independency, already announced, is the right of a majority of the members of a church to rule in accordance with the law of Christ. I refer again to 2 Cor. ii. 6 : “ Sufficient to such a man is this punish- ment, which was inflicted of many.” A literal transla- tion of the words rendered “ of many ” would be “ by the more ” — that is, by the majority. Dr. MacKnight’s trans- lation is, “ by the greater number.” If, as has been shown, the governmental power of a church is with the members, it follows that a majority must rule. This is so plain a principle of Independency and of common sense, that it is needless to dwell upon it. A third truth involved in the independent form of church government is, that the power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated, and that church action is final. The church at Corinth could not transfer her power to the church at Philippi, nor could the church at Antioch convey her authority to the church of Ephe- sus. Neither could all the apostolic churches combined delegate their power to an association or synod or con- vention. That church power is inalienable results from the foundation-principle of Independency — namely, that this power is in the hands of the people, the membership. Tf the power of a church cannot be transferred, church action is final. That there is no tribunal higher than a THE ci/uncir. 341 church is evident from Matt, xviii. 15-17. The Saviour layn down a rule for the adjustment of private differences among brethren: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and toll hirn his fault.” If the offender, when told of his fault, does not give satisfaction, the offended brother is to take with him “one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be es- tablished.” But if the offender “shall neglect to hear them,” what is to be done? Tell it to the church. What church? Evidently the particular congregation to which the parties belong. If the offender does not hear the church, what then ? “ Let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican.” But can there be no appeal to an association or presbytery or conference or convention? No; there is no appeal. Shall any kind of organization put the offender back in church fellowship when the church by its action classed him with heathen men and publicans? This is too absurd. What sort of fellowship would it be? 1 1 It wax rn y dwign to present the subject of church discipline in thin connection, but, finding that, I cannot do ho without making this chap- ter too long, I abandon my purpone. The topic i« very important, and I take the liberty of referring the reader to chapter vi. of my Church Manual, whe c thin subject i« discussed at Home length. (Bee pp. 118 H7.) »• CHAPTER XXV. BAPTISM. If, as has been stated in the preceding chapter, a church is a congregation of Christ's baptized disciples, then we must consider two important questions, What is baptism? and Who are to be baptized? In other words, What is the act of baptism ? and who are subjects of the ordinance? These two points now claim consideration. I. The Act of Baptism. Baptism is the immersion in water, by a proper admin- istrator, of a believer in Christ, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Immer- sion is so exclusively the baptismal act that without it there is no baptism; and a believer in Christ is so exclusively the subject of baptism that without such a subject there is no baptism. 1 That immersion alone is the baptismal act may be shown by the Allowing considerations : 1. Greek lexicons give immerse , dip , or plunge , as the primary and ordinary meaning of baptizoj Here it is proper to say that baptizo and baptisma , being Greek words, are, 1 In these two statements all Baptists agree. As to a proper adminis- trator, there is some difference of opinion, f By a proper administrator^) in the above definition, (is meant a person who has received authority from a scriptural church to administer baptism. It does not comport with my design to enlarge on this pomt. 342 BAPTISM . 343 in the Common Version of the Scriptures, anglicized , but not translated. By this it is meant that their termination is made to correspond with the termination of English words. In baptizo, the final letter is changed into e; and in baptism, a, the last letter is dropped altogether. To make this matter of anglicism plain, it is only necessary to say that if the Greek verb rantizo had been anglicized, we should have rantize in the New Testament where we now have sprinkle p King James I. of England, by whose order the Common Version was made in the year 1611, virtually forbade the translation of baptize and baptism . This has been sometimes denied, but it is susceptible of conclusive proof. The king’s third instruction to his translators reads thus: “ The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church not to be translated ‘ congrega- tion.’ ” It is absurd to say that this rule had exclusive reference to the word “ church,” for this term is plainly given as a specimen of u old ecclesiastical words.” Why should plurality of idea be conveyed by the phrase “ ecclesiastical words” if the rule had respect to but one word? The question, then, is, Are baptism and baptize “ old ecclesiastical words”? They were words when the Bible was translated or they would ndt be found in it. They had been used by church historians and by writers on ecclesiastical law, and were therefore ecclesiastical. They had been in use a long time, and were consequently old. They were “ old ecclesiastical words.” Such words the king commanded “to be kept,” “not translated.” It is worthy of remark, too, that the Bishop of London at the king’s instance, wrote to the translators, reminding them that His Majesty “ wished his third and fourth rule to be specially observed.” This circumstance must liave called special attention to the rule under consideration. In view of these facts, it may, surely, be said that the 344 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. translators knew what were “old ecclesiastical v*ords.” Let their testimony, then, be adduced : In their “ Preface to the Reader ” they say that they had, “ on the one side, avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who left the old ecclesiastical %vords and betook them to other, as when they put washing for baptism , and congregation for church ; and, on the other hand, had shunned the obscurity of the Papists.” Is not this enough ? Here there is* not only an admission that baptism was an old ecclesiastical word, but this admission is made by the translators themselves — made most cheerfully — for it was made in condemnation of the Puritans and in commendation of themselves. The king’s fourth rule was this : “ When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogy of faith.” Baptizo is not a word of divers significations ; but if it were, the king’s translators, if they had translated it at all, would have been compelled by the fourth rule to render it immerse ; for every man of ordinary intelligence knows that it was “ most commonly used ” in this sense “ by the most eminent Fathers.” But it will be seen that the king’s third rule makes inoperative the fourth , so far as old ecclesiastical words are concerned. Whether such words have one meaning or a thousand meanings, they are “ to be kept,” “ not translated.” The transla- tors were not at liberty to refer to the signification always attached by the Greeks to baptizo — a signification which received the cordial endorsement of “ the most eminent Fathers.” They might have examined the endorsement if the royal decree had not said, “ Hitherto, but no far- ther” — “the old ecclesiastical words to be kept.” BAPTISM. 345 Some Baptist authors have expressed themselves as if King James had a special antipathy to immersion, and forbade the translation of baptize and baptism with a view to encourage sprinkling , which had been introduced from Geneva into Scotland in the reign of Elizabeth, and was in the early part of the seventeenth century making its way into England. There is, so far as I know, no historical evidence that the king was opposed to immersion; but he was bitterly opposed to the “ Genevan Version” of the Bible, in which baptism was rendered washing. Most probably his dislike of this version led him to give his third rule. The Genevan Version was made by exiles from Scotland, who during the reign of “ Bloody Mary ” fled to Geneva and became acquainted with John Calvin. 1 The fact that baptize is an anglicized, and not a trans- lated, word makes an appeal to Greek lexicons necessary in ascertaining its meaning. Lexicons do not constitute the ultimate authority, but their testimony is very valu- able. There is a remarkable unanimity among them in representing immerse , or its equivalent, as the primary and ordinary meaning of the word. On this point Pro- fessor Moses Stuart, for many years the chief glory of the Andover Theological Seminary, shall speak. In his trea- tise on the Mode of Baptism , page 14, he says : u Bapto and baptizo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into anything liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this.” This quotation is made to supersede the necessity of giving the meaning of baptizo as furnished by Greek lexicons, of which there is a large number. Pro- fessor Stuart’s testimony will be received. 2. Distinguished Pedobaptist theologians concede that baptizo 1 The extracts I have made concerning the king’s rules, etc. may be verified by reference to Lewis’ History of Translations , pp. 317, 319, 326. 346 CHIU ST I A N DOCTRINES. means to immerse. John Calvin, in his Institutes , says : “ But whether the person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled upon him, is of no importance ; cl lurches ought to be left at liberty, in this respect, to act according to the difference of countries. |fThe very word baptize , however, signifies to immerse ; j and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church.” 1 We have here some of Calvin’s opinions, but what con- cerns us is his positive testimony as to the meaning of baptize. Dr. George Campbell, a distinguished Presbyterian of Scotland, in his notes on Matt. iii. 11, says : “ The word baptizein [infinitive mode of baptizo\ both in sacred au- thors and in classical, signifies to dip , to plunge , to immerse , and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin Fathers, tingere , the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this meaning.” Dr. Chalmers, in his Lectures on Romans , says : “ The original meaning of the word baptism is immersion ; and though w T e regard it as a point of indifferency whether the ordinance so named be performed in this way or by sprinkling, yet we doubt not that the prevalent style of the administration in the apostles’ days w T as by an actual submerging of the whole body under water. W e advert to this for the purpose of throwing light on the analogy that is instituted in these verses. Jesus Christ, by death, underwent this sort of baptism — even immersion undei the surface of the ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection. We by being baptized into his death are conceived to have made a similar translation.” 2 1 Vol. ii. *«). 491, edition of Presbyterian Board of Publication. ? Lectur xxx., on chap. vi. 3-7. BAPTISM lved, and one in the subjects of the action. I can see it in no other light. CHAPTER XXVI. THE LORD'S SUPPER . What Paul says of the institution and design cf the Lord’s Supper is the substance of what the evangelists had recorded. These are his words : u For I have re- ceived of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was be- trayed took bread : and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat : this is my body which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This is the new testament in my blood : this do ye, as often as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” 1 Cor. xi. 23-26. From this inspired account of the origin of the Lord’s Supper it is plainly a commemorative ordinance. It is a memorial service. It commemorates the death of Christ, and nothing else. “Ye do show the Lord’s death.” We do not show the birth or baptism or burial or resurrection or ascension of our Redeemer, but his death . If ever the tragedy of Calvary should engross the thoughts of the Christian to the exclusion of every other topic, it is when he sits at the table of the Lord. Then the death of his Saviour should occupy all his thoughts, monopolize all the power of his memory. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 359 Some will perhaps say that in the Lord’s Supper we express our Christian fellowship for our fellow-communi- cants. This is done only in an indirect and incidental manner. /^Our communion, according to the teaching of Paul, is the communion of the body and the blood of Christ. It is a solemn celebration of his atoning death The broken bread is the emblem of the Saviour’s broken body; for he said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” He manifestly used language as he had done in his ministry. He had said, in explaining the parable of the Sower, “The seed is the word of God” (Luke viii. 11); and in inter- preting the parable of the Wheat and Tares, “ The field is the world.” Matt. xiii. 38. He meant, “ The seed represents the word of God ” — “ The field represents the world.” So when he said of the bread which he held in his hands, “ This is my body,” he meant, “ This represents my bodyJJ' The Romish view, that the bread and wine are changed into the real body and blood of Christ, is utterly indefen- sible ; as is also the Lutheran view, that “ the body and blood of Christ are materially present in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, though in an incomprehensible manner.” The Romish theory is called “ transubstantiation,” and the Lutheran dogma is styled “ consubstantiation,” neither of which has a rational claim to credence. The bread used in the supper of the Lord is bread before it is put on his table, it is bread while on the table, and it is bread when eaten. There is no sense in which it is the body of Christ, except the figurative sense in which it represents his body. So also of the wine which represents his blood. The bread and the wine are impressive, striking emblems, but they are only emblems. They are solemn mementos of the Saviour’s crucified body and of his shed blood. They are memorials of his death, designed to perpetuate 360 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES a remembrance of the greatest event which has ever taken place in the universe. It is to be deeply regretted that many persons entertain view T s of the Lord’s Supper which, to say the least, do in a great degree ignore the purpose of its original appointment. It seems to be regarded as a suitable way for Christians to express their opinion of each other’s piety. Some appear even to think that the Lord’s Table is the proper place for those to come together who are allied by ties of blood or ties of mar- riage. Alas, that opinions so dishonorable to Christ should be held by any who profess to be his disciples! The important truth should echo and re-echo throughout Christendom, that the Lord’s Supper is a memorial ser- vice — that the central idea in its observance is the commemoration of Christ’s death. This must never be forgotten. By whom is the Lord’s Supper to be observed ? We answer, the members of a visible church of Christ. That is to say, it is a church ordinance. It cannot be properly administered to persons in their individual capacity — for example, to the sick at their homes. The meeting of a church is indispensable to a scriptural obser- vance of the solemn rite. As none can be members of a visible church without baptism, it follows that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Table. It will be seen from this statement of the case that baptism is a pre- requisite to the Lord’s Supper, because it is a prerequisite to church membership. It is a condition precedent, in the sense that it precedes, and is essential to, church mem- bership It would be well for Baptists to make this view more prominent. Let them not say less of baptism, but more of church membership. In Acts ii. 41 it is said, u Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there wera added to them about three THE LORD’S SUPPER, 361 thousand souls.” The three thousand were, no doubt, added to the church, “ the hundred and twenty disciples,” mentioned in the preceding chapter; for in the last verse of the second chapter it is written, “ And the Lord added to the church daily the saved.” The adding in the two verses was the same in kind ; that is, it was an adding to the church. It will be perceived that the baptized were added to the church, and that this was done before the u breaking of bread ” — a phrase descriptive of the Lord’s Supper. A refusal on the part o/ Baptists to unite in the Lord’s Supper w r ith Pedobaptists grows out of the fact that the latter have ever been considered by the former as unbaptized, and consequently without a scriptural church membership. Even the celebrated Robert Hall, w r ho advocated the joint participation of Baptists and Pedobaptists with an eloquence and an energy of argumentation rarely to be found in the annals of controversy, does not hesitate to express the opinion that Pedobaptists are unbaptized. He says : “We certainly make no scruple of informing a Pedo- baptist candidate that we consider him as unbaptized, and disdain all concealment on the subject.” Again, “ If we join with those whom we are obliged to consider as unbaptized, the}^ unite with persons who, in their judg- ment, repeat an ordinance which ought not to be performed but once, nullify a Christian institute, and deprive their children of the benefit of a salutary nte.” 1 But while Mr. Hall considered Pedobaptists unbaptized, he insisted on their right as unbaptized persons to come to the Lord’s Table. He did not admit baptism to be a pre- requisite to the Lord’s Table. Had he conceded this,— a 1 Works , vol. i. pp. 455, 456. 31 362 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. point almost universally conceded by Baptists and Pedo* baptists, — he would not have written his Terms of Com* munion at all. To give a summary answer to all that Robert Hall ever wrote in favor of “mixed communion,” it is only neces- sary to show the scriptural priority of baptism to the Lord’s Supper, It surely is not difficult to do this. That baptism was first instituted is a significant fact. No one will deny that John, the harbinger of Christ, baptized multitudes, and that J&sus through his disciples (John iv. 1, 2) baptized before the institution of the Lord’s Supper. It is morally certain that those present at its institution, the night of the betrayal, had been baptized. Jesus himself had been baptized, and it is too much for credulity itself to believe that he selected unbaptized per- sons as his apostles. Does the subsequence of the Lord’s Supper, in its original appointment, to baptism mean nothing? But it was said by Mr. Hall, that “John’s baptism was not Christian.” It was gospel baptism. It was not an ordinance of the Mosaic economy. John certainly introduced the gospel dispensation. His preaching was “ the beginning of the gospel ” (Mark i. 1), and “the law and the prophets were until John.” Luke xvi. 16. If any one chooses to deny that his bap- tism w r as Christian because it is not so termed, the denial may be so enlarged as to embrace all the baptisms of the New Testament; for tne epithet “Christian” is not ap- plied to any of them. But while firmly believing that John’s was a gospel ministry and a gospel baptism, all this might be waived by Baptists for argument’s sake, and then they can show the unavoidable priority of baptism to the Lord’s Supper. Let them go at once to Christ’s last commission : “ Go, teach all nations, bap- tizing them/’ Matt, xxviii. 19. Every scholar knows THE LORD'S SUPPER. 363 tlmt the Greek word translated “teach ’ means disciple. or make disciples. Disciples to Christ were to be made through the preaching and teaching of the apostle^. This is plain. The discipling process was first, and then the baptismal act was to be performed. “ Go, dis- ciple all nations, baptizing them.” Now, according to this commission, it is evident that the process of disci- pleship is to be followed so immediately by the admin- istration of baptism as to leave no room for an observ- ance of the Lord’s Supper to intervene. Baptism is the first thing after a person is discipled to Christ. It is the believer’s first public duty. It is an open avowal of faith in Christ and of allegiance to him. It is, therefore, inev- itably prior to the Lord’s Supper, an observance of which is no doubt included in the expression, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” Matt, xxviii. 20. The baptized disciples of Christ are to be taught to observe all things which he has commanded, and under his commission his ministers are not required to say anything to the unbaptized about the Lord’s Sup- per. The baptized disciples are to be instructed. How, then, can the Lord’s Supper precede baptism when the commission enjoins the mention of it only to the bap- tized ? But how did the apostles understand and carry into effect this commission? This is a question of capital importance in this discussion. On the day of Pentecost, Peter said to the convicted Jews, “ Repent, and be bap- tized.” Acts ii. 38. The baptism was to succeed the re- pentance. There is no intimation that the Lord’s Sup- per was to come between ; and it is added, that the bap- tized “ continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” Acts ii. 42. The breaking of bread — the Lord’s Suppei 364 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . —was preceded by baptism. When Philip went down to Samaria and preached, the people believed and were baptized both men and women.” Acts viii. 12. The narrative plainly indicates that baptism, and not the Lord’s Supper, immediately followed a belief of Philip’s preaching. When the Ethiopian eunuch avowed his faith in Christ, Philip at once baptized him. There was no celebration of the Lord’s Supper before they left the chariot and “went down both into the water.” Acts viii. 38. When Cornelius and his family received the Holy Spirit, Peter did not ask, “ Who can forbid their coming to the Lord’s Table ?” but “ Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?” Acts x. 47. When Paul and Silas, at the hour of midnight, preached to the jailer and his house, and they believed, what was then done? Did they come to the Lord’s Table? No, but “he was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” Acts xvi. 33. * Thus does it appear that the men who first acted under the commission of Christ understood it as enjoining bap- tism before the Lord’s Supper. They have left an instruc- tive example, which we are not at liberty to disregard. In view of this example it may be boldly affirmed that the whole tenor of the New Testament indicates the priority of baptism to the commemoration of the Redeemer’s death at his table. Nothing is plainer. Pedobaptists concede the precedence of baptism to the Lord’s Supper. Indeed, their practice of infant baptism extorts the concession from them. Dr. Wall, of the Church of England, expresses himself in strong terms as follows : “ No church ever gave the communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any per* THE LORE'S SUPPER. 365 sons should partake of the communion before they were baptized.” 1 Dr. Doddridge, Independent, remarks : “It is certain that Christians in general have always oeen spoken of b}* the most ancient Fathers as baptized persons. And it is also certain that, as far as our know- ledge of primitive antiquity extends, no unbaptized per- son received the Lord’s Supper .” 2 Dr. Dwight, Congregation alist, says : “ It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible church of Christ in full standing. By this I in- tend that he shall be such a member of the church as I have formerly described — to wit, that he should be a per- son of piety, that he should have made a public profes- sion of religion, and that he should have been bap- tized .” 3 Dr. John Dick, Presbyterian, uses this language: u An uncircumcised man was not permitted to eat the Passover, and an unbaptized man should not be permit- ted to partake of the Eucharist .” 4 Dr. Hibbard, Methodist, expresses himself thus : “ It is but just to remark that in one principle the Bap- tist and the Pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from communion at the table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church-fellowship to, all who have not been baptized. Valid baptism they consider as essen- tial to constitute visible church membership. This, also, we hold. The only question, then, that here divides us is, What is essential to valid baptism? The Baptists, in passing a sweeping sentence of disfranchisement upon all 1 History of Infant Baptism , Part ii. chap. ix. 2 Miscellaneous Works , p. 510. 1 l?^eology, Sermon 160. 4 Lectures on Theology , Lecture 92. 31 * 366 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. other Christian churches, have only acted upon a princi- ple held in common with all other churches — viz., that baptism is essential to church membership. ... Of course, they must be their own judges as to what bap- tism is. It is evident that, according to our views, we can admit them to our communion, but with their views of baptism it is equally evident they can never recipro- cate the courtesy ; and the charge of close communion is no more applicable to the Baptists than to us, inasmuch as the question of church membership is determined bv as liberal principles as it is with any other Protestant churches — so far, I mean, as the present subject is con- cerned; that is, it is determined by valid baptism .” 1 This extract from Dr. Hibbard exhibits a spirit of con- troversial candor and fairness not often witnessed in the discussion of the qualifications for participating in the Lord’s Supper. It explodes the charge of u Baptist big- otry and exclusiveness,” and establishes the fact that the point in dispute between Baptists and others is not about so-called “ close communion ,” but about “ close baptism .” The controversy is supremely and intensely baptismal. Every visible church of Christ may be considered a sacred enclosure that can be entered only in one way. In that enclosure is set the table of the Lord. The Lord of the table has prescribed the terms of admittance into that enclosure. Those who have complied with the terms, and have entered in, are the guardians of the table. They must see that it is approached only in the way which the Lord of the enclosure has specified. If they are appealed to to change the way of entrance, or to make a new way, or to allow those without to make ways of entrance to suit themselves, they must say with strongest emphasis, 1 Christian Baptism , pp. 171, 175. THE LORD’S SUPPER . 367 “There is one Lawgiver” — “We have no such custom, NEITHER THE CHURCHES OF GOD.” It will be said — for it has been said no one knows how often — the table is the Lord’s. This all will concede. But how different are the reasonings based on this concession ! Pedobaptists say, that, as it is the Lord’s Table, they have a right to approach it ; that, as it is not the table of Bap- tists, the Baptists ought to place no obstructions in the way of their approach. Baptists say, that, as it is the Lord’s Table, it must be approached in the way he di- rects ; that his proprietorship of the table furnishes the reason of their course; that if it was their table, they would have discretionary authority, whereas they now have none ; that they do not place obstructions in the way of Pedobaptists, but that the Lord of the table has done it. This is a specimen of the reasoning employed by the two parties in the controversy. Which species of reasoning indicates greater loyalty to Christ, the reader may determine. Did space permit, I should be glad to argue the pre- cedence of baptism to the Lord’s Supper from the sym- bolic import of the two ordinances. What the argument would be I indicate as follows : Baptism symbolizes spirit- ual birth — the beginning of spiritual life in the soul ; the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the nourishment and support of that life by union with Christ in his death. Life in its manifested form is preceded by birth. As we are born once, we are baptized once; but as we need food continuously to sustain life, we observe the Lord’s Sup- per continuously so long as we are in the body. Thus does it appear that the symbolism of the two ordi- nances inexorably demands that baptism shall precede the Lord’s Supper CHAPTER XXVII. DEATH 01 CHRISTIANS, AND THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. Precious and numerous as are the blessings of the cov- enant of salvation, exemption from natural death is not included among them. The saints of all generations — with the two notable exceptions of Enoch and Elijah — have passed through the gate of death into the eternal world. Christians still die, and the stroke of mortality ^J^will, doubtless, fall on believers as w r ell as on unbelievers till Christ comes “ the second time.” We need not curiously inquire why the saints are sub- ject to death. It is more becoming to us to accept the fact, and be silent as to the philosophy of it. When, however, we remember that Jesus died and was buried, we almost involuntarily exclaim, “ Where should the dying members rest But with their dying Head?” As God is with his people during the pilgrimage of life, so he is with them in the hour of death ; and, as it is their great business to glorify him in life, they should also gnrify him in death. When Jesus, after his resurrection, told Peter of certain things connected with the martyr- death before him, it is added, “This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.” John xxi. 19. ^Glorifying God in death is a topic wh/ch may well en- 368 DEATH , ; AND THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 369 gage the attention of Christians. How may they thus I. Hy their preparation for the dying hour. All men must die, yet none by Nature are prepared to die. How is prep- aration to be secured ? How may an exit from earth be rendered safe and happy? These questions, Nature cannot answer. We may interrogate her ever so rigidly, catechise her ever so earnestly, entreat her ever so im- ploringly, and she maintains an unbroken silence. All inquiries, instituted in whatever department of Nature, concerning preparation for death, are instituted in vain and prosecuted in vain.j^ Nor can reason and philosophy tell how a sinner can be pardoned, sanctified, prepared for death and heaven. Among their many utterances, there is not one on the sub- ject of salvation. Their realm is a wide one, but it does not embrace the science of redemption. The grave is not more silent than they as to the way of a sinner’s restora- tion to the divine favor. The gospel does what Nature cannot do, what reason and philosophy cannot do. It answers every perplexing question as to a sinner’s justification, sanctification, prep- aration for death, and fitness for heaven. One passage of Scripture makes this plain : “ The sting of death is sin ; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!” 1 Cor. xv. 56, 57. Here we learn that every- thing fearful in death is ascribed to sin. Sin furnishes death with its dreadful sting. But the strength of sin i3 the law ; and why ? Because, as sin is the transgression of the law, it follows that the law gives sin its power to con- demn. But God has sent his Son into the world on an errand of saving mercy. Jesus has “ magnified the law” — has sustained its dignity and honored its claims— answer 370 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. by obeying its precepts and bearing its penalty. Sin , therefore, can be pardoned consistently with law. C^fow, when the guilt of sin is cancelled by the blood of atone- ment, and the soul is purified from its moral pollution by “ the sanctification of the Spirit,” there is in death noth- ing to excite alarm, for there is nothing which can do real injury. The removal of sin is the extraction of the sting of death. Believers in Christ can, therefore, die safely, peace- fully, and even triumphantly. God gives them the victory through the Lord Jesus Christ. No process of philosophical discipline gives it. Reliance on self-righteousness does not give it. Dependence on morality does not give it. God gives it. His grace alone prepares for the dying hour. The dying Christian’s preparation for death is so mani- festly the work of God that he is glorified thereby. All the glory redounding from the preparation is the Lord’s; and he so presides over the death of his people as to glorify his own name. 2. By bearing testimony to the power of Christianity to sus- tain them in the dying hour . This testimony has been of- ten borne. It has been no uncommon thing for the dying saint to say, “ God is with me, and I fear not.” The doctrine of the Scriptures is, that divine grace is suf- ficient for the saints in all circumstances. Whether it is sufficient in death must be tested when death comes. Let the dying pilgrim testify that he who has been with him along the journey of life is with him at its close — that his promises support, that his grace sustains, that his presence cheers ; and then God is glorified. In the dying chamber of the saint it sometimes occurs that men as wicked as Balaam adopt Balaam’s words : “ Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like his.” Num. xxi ; i. 10. Infidelity trembles, turns pale, wonders, and renders a reluctant tribute of admiration DEATH, AND THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 371 to the majesty of the religion of Jesus. The votaries of Christianity may well felicitate themselves that they “have not followed cunningly-devised fables,” but have embraced a system of religion all divine. According to the teachings of this system, “ to die is gain,” and “ bless- ed are the dead which die in the Lord.” Phil. i. 21 ; Rev xiv. 13. In the sublime inventory of the Christian’s pos- sessions, as made out by Paul, “death ” has a place: “All things are yours : whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come : all are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” 1 Cor. iii. 21-23. That Christianity can sustain when “flesh and heart fail” has been proved in number- less instances. It has been proved at home and abroad, in civilized and savage lands, in the palaces of the rich and the cottages of the poor, on the land and on the sea, in the dungeon and at the stake. Whether the religion of the Bible can support in death is no longer a debata- ble question. It has been long settled, and settled to the consolation of living Christians, who know full well that they must soon fall into the arms of death. As to the physical act of dying, there is in it nothing desirable. Nature recoils from the dissolution of soul and body. Even the grace of God does not make death welcome for its own sake, but for the sake of the blessed results that follow it. “ To die is gain.” Something is gained when the expiring struggle is over, and the strug- gle is willingly encountered because of the advantages that succeed it. This directs our attention to what has been called The Intermediate State. By this state is meant the period that intervenes be- tween the death and the resurrection of the body. All, 372 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . therefore, who believe in the resurrection believe in such a state, but there are differences of opinion in regard to it. The differences do not pertain to the body, but to the disembodied spirit. All agree that the body will remain in the grave till Christ appears “ the second time without sin unto salvation.” Heb. ix. 28. The three leading views concerning the separate spirits of the pious dead are the following : 1. That the soul is unconscious from the death to the resur- rection of the body. Those who hold this view have been led to embrace it by supposing that, as the soul now acts through the body, it is restricted to this method of action. It is inferred that upon its exit from the body it falls into a state of inactivity and unconsciousness, from which it cannot awake till the body is raised from the dead. Even Archbishop Whately, in his volume on the Future State , evidently inclines to this theory. His reasoning, however, is by no means conclusive. He does not posi- tively deny the activity of the soul during the interval between the death and the resurrection of the body, but he insists that if the soul is active, it cannot act as it does while connected with the body. This may be granted — indeed, no one will deny it — but what then ? Will any one say, that the soul’s activity and consciousness are so dependent on its connection with the body as to be de- stroyed when that connection is broken ? This would be assuming the very point in question. It surely does not follow that the action of the soul is to be stamped w T ith unvarying uniformity in all the states of its being. Why may not the disembodied soulo of the redeemed be as conscious and as active as are angelic spirits ? The lat- ter have no bodies, yet 1 ow intense their consciousness, how unwearied their activity ! They hold intercourse with kindred intelligences, and enjoy the most exquisite DEATH , AND THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 373 social bliss. Why may t not be so with the spirits of departed saints? ^Stephen, when dying a martyr’s death, prayed, “ Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Did he ask his Lord to receive an unconscious spirit ?l Or did he labor under a mistake? Strange time to mate a mistake, when he saw heaven opened and the glory of God shining brighter than ten thousand suns, while Jesus stood wait- ing to receive his spirit ! Did it enter into the thoughts :>f the stoned martyr that the Lord Jesus in receiving his spirit would receive an unconscious thing ? This is ut- terly incredible. The account given in Luke xvi. 19-31 of “ the rich man and Lazarus ” defies interpretation if the spirits of both good and bad men are not intensely conscious after they leave the bodies in which they dwelt on earth. The body of the rich man was buried, but after the burial there was something belonging to him tha was susceptible of torment. So Lazarus «is said to have been conveyed to Abraham’s bosom, and to have been “ comforted ” there. This was after the death of his af- flicted body, which no one supposes was “carried to Abraham’s bosom.” If any one shall say, that this nar- rative is a parable and full of terms used figuratively, I answer, What if it be so? Did not Jesus teach some- thing by all his parables? What does he teach here if not the consciousness of the soul after the death of the body ? As to words used figuratively, why is there force in them? Plainly, because there is meaning in them when used literally. With regard to those passages of the divine word which refer to death under the imagery of sleep , I need say but little. The sleep is clearly the repose of the body, and cannot be identified with the unconsciousness of the soul. I think that, in view of the teachings of Scripture, it may be safely said, that there is no evidence to justify the be- 32 374 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . lief that the soul is unconscious from the death to the resurrection of the body. We should thank God that the gloomy theory has no scriptural support. 2. That the soul goes to paradise , there to abide till the resur- rection of the body. Many theologians entertain this opinion. They think that the redeemed will not enter into heaven till after the judgment. This is by no means a satisfac- tory theory, and the arguments relied on for its support are not conclusive. It is said, that the soul will be happy, that all its powers will be actively employed, but that it will not be in heaven. Paradise, it is argued, will be the abode of happy spirits till the consummation of all things, but that paradise and heaven are not identical. All that can be said in favor of this view proceeds on the supposi- tion that paradise is not heaven. What does Paul say ? — u I knew" a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell, or whether out of the body, I cannot tell : God knoweth) ; such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) ; how that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” 2 Cor. xii. 2-4. It is manifest from this language that the third heaven and paradise are the same place. This is so undeniable that even Dean Alford, who might have been expected to take the oppo- site view, says in his commentary, “ The paradise here spoken of cannot be the Jewish paradise, . . . where the spirits of the just awaited the resurrection, . . . but the paradise of which our Lord spoke on the cross — the place of happiness into which he at his death introduced the spirits of the just.” In reply to this it may be said that the word paradise is used but three times in the New Testament (Luke xxiii. 43 ; 2 Cor. xii. 4 ; Rev. ii. 7), and DEATH, AND THE INTERMEDIATE STATE 375 that it is gratuitous to assume that it has different mean- ings. If it has, let it be shown, for it has not yet been done. Paul was a Jew, and he expressed himself in accordance with the prevalent opinion of his nation. The Jews believed in three heavens, the atmosphere con- stituting the first. Hence we read of the birds of heaven. The apparent abode of the sun and stars they considered the second heaven. Far above the sun and stars ihey supposed the throne of God to be established. This they regarded as the third heaven. The Jewish opinion sheds light on such scriptural phrases as “ heaven of heavens,” “ above all heavens.” It was to the third heaven, the highest heaven, even into paradise, that Paul was caught up. There is in the term paradise, as used in the New Tes- tament, nothing that requires us to believe it a place dis- tinct from heaven. With this view there is no objection to the belief that the souls of the pious dead go to para- dise ; but if by paradise is meant a place different from heaven, a place lik^the elysium of the ancient heath eji, there are insuperable objections to the. doctrine. I now refer to ano Christ, while blessing his disciples, “ was parted from them and carried up into heaven.” Luke xxiv. 51. Peter, in Acts iii. 21, says of Christ, “ Whom the heaven must re- ceive until the times of restitution of all things ;” and in his First Epistle (iii. 22), “ Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God.” Surely, if Christ is on the right hand of God, he is in heaven. Now, Paul taught that Christians have a home in heaven. He says, “ For which I re£ one : 3. That tl of Christ in heaven. S 376 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” 2 Cor. v. 1. The “ earthly house of this tabernacle ” refers, of course, to the body, and it is the earthly abode of the soul. This house is contrasted with the heayenly ; house. The former is a temporary, the latter an everlasting, habitation. The natural inference from the apostle’s- words is, that as soon as the spirit leaves its earthly house it enters its heavenly dwelling-place. This point is made even clearer in verses 6,7, 8 of the same chapter: “Therefore we are always confident, knowing that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight) : we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.” The apostle assumes that there is in Christians some- thing different from the body, something which he calls “ we ” — “ while we are in the body.” The reference is to the spirit, for “ the body without the spirit is dead.” James ii.. 26. We are plainly taught that the spirit’s abode in the body is the period of its absence from the Lord. “ At home in the body,” “ absent from the Lord,” are expressions Equivalent in duration, however much they differ in other respects. When Paul says, “We are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord,” the irresistible inference is, that just as soon as the spirit makes its exit from the body, so as to be absent from it, just so soon is it in the presence of the Lord. The glorious presence of the Lord is doubt- less referred to, and this is enjoyed only in heaven. The language of Paul in Phil. i. 23 deserves special notice : “Plaving a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better.” Here we see that the departure, including DEATH , , AND THE INTERMEDIATE STATE 377 death, was to precede introduction into the presence of Christ. If Paul had believed in the soul’s unconscious- ness from the death to the resurrection of the body, could he have said anything of being “with Christ”? Or if so, could he have thought it “ far better ” for his spirit to be with him in an unconscious state, than to enjoy the sacred pleasures of piety in its earthly tene- ment? We cannot for a moment suppose it. Nor could Paul, knowing Christ to be in heaven, desire to go to paradise without believing it to be identical with heaven. The glorified body of Jesus is in heaven, and therefore heaven is a place. To this glorious place, Paul desired to go, and restrained his desire only by considerations of usefulness on earth. It is perfectly consistent with the foregoing views to believe that the saints will receive, at the resurrection, large accessions of bliss. The thing insisted on is, that the separate spirits of believers in Christ will enjoy unspeakable happiness while the bodies they have left are sleeping in the grave. I close this chapter with the precious words, “ A bsent from the body — present with the Lord ” CHAPTER XXVIII. THE RESURRECTION. Though, m the preceding chapter, the death of Chris- dans has been specially referred to, it is not to be for- gotten that all men die : “ It is appointed unto men once to die.” Heb. ix. 27. This appointment is of God. It is universal and inevitable. The stroke of death falls on all the human race. As the body is a part of the complex nature of man, it is a matter of no little interest to inquire what becomes of it after death, and what is to be its final destiny. What becomes of it we learn from Eccles. xii. 7 : u Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was.” This takes place in fulfilment of the sentence, “ Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Gen. iii. 19. The body, having been made “ of the dust of the ground,” is resolved into its original elements. The work of disor- ganization is complete in the grave. But will the body remain evermore in the grave? The ancient heathen philosophers and people, would have answered in the affirmative. They had some confused notions of the im- mortality of the soul, but of the resurrection of the body they had no conception. They did not believe that any or all of their gods had power sufficient to raise the dust of mortality from the cold embraces of the tomb. Hence when Paul at Athens preached “ the resurrection of the dead, some mocked.” Acts xiii. 32. Indeed, apart from 378 THE RESURRECTION . 379 the teachings of the Bible, the resurrection of the body is incredible. Rev. Dr. Richard Fuller has well said : . “ I am not unmindful of certain analogies as to which poets and philosophers have discoursed with great beauty. I remember the butterfly rising from the chrysalis and spreading its gaudy wings to the sun ; but was there any death there ? This is nothing but a new form of exist- ence. And so, too, as to the coming forth of bud and leaf and flower in spring-time ; vegetation never was dead, it only slept. The vernal rays pour no life into the trunk which is hewn or decayed. They cannot give it vital growth again. “ The resurrection of the body is no such renewal of suspended vitality ; it is the re-infusion of life into a corpse, and these fancies only mock the earnest soul seeking anxiously for truth.” 1 The body in the grave is dead , and how is it to live again? There is nothing in the wide realm of nature and reason which intimates the possibility of its living again. Paul's question, in his defence before King Agrippa, is full of meaning : “ Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead ?” Acts xxvi. 8. The apostle does not suggest, as on another subject (1 Cor. xi. 14), that “ nature itself” teaches something. No, the point he makes is, that God can raise the dead, and therefore the doctrine of the resurrection is perfectly credible. The power of God is specially concerned in the resurrection, and this is the reason why Jesus said to the Sadducees, “ Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” Matt. xxii. 29. It was not only their ignorance of the Scriptures, but their inadequate idea of the power of God, that led them to deny the resurrec- tion. The Spirit of inspiration seems to have anticipated 1 Syrmon on The Incredulity of Thomas. 380 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . and obviated all objections to the doctrine of the resurrec- tion in these words: “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, ac- cording to the working [energy] whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” Phil. iii. 21. The energy, the power which can “ subdue all things,” can raise the dead. “ The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” Luke xviii. 27. The term “resurrection ” literally means rising again. This implies that the body which rises again had fallen. It is need- less to discuss the question of the identity of the body, for the fact of the resurrection irresistibly implies it. The same body which dies and is buried is raised up in pos- session of all the properties essential to its identity. The same spirit which had left it at its death re-enters it, and thus the complete personality will be preserved for ever. So true will it be that “ whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Gal. vi. 7. The same man who sows in time shall reap in eternity. As to the period of the resurrection, the whole tenor of Scripture indicates that it will take place at the end of the world, at the second coming of Christ, and as preparatory to the general judgment. It is supposed by many that there will be two resurrections — the one of the righteous, preceding and introducing the millennium ; the other of the wicked, following the millennium and in immediate connection with the last judgment. The two passages of Scripture chiefly relied on in support of this view are 1 Thess. iv. 16 ; Rev. xx. 6. In the first of these passages — ■ that is to say, in the words, “The dead in Christ shall rise first ” — there is obviously no reference to the wicked. The apostle teaches that when the Lord descends from heaver, the dead saints will rise first ; that is, before the living saints are transformed and “ caught up with them to meet HIE RESURRECTION. 381 the Lord in the air.” As to the second passage, it may be said, that while there are great and good men who under- stand it to teach a literal resurrection, there are weighty objections to this view. If it is correct, it seems quite plain that all the righteous will not rise at the same time. John in his wonderful vision saw “the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God.” The reference is to the noble army of martyrs, and if the resurrection is literal, it must be pestricted to martyrs, for of them it is said, that they “reigned with Christ a thousand years.” What is to become of the millions of the righteous who were not “ beheaded for the witness of Jesus”? Will there be a distinct resurrection for them? or will their resurrection be postponed until the wicked are raised? Again, if in the passage under consideration a literal resurrection is referred to, it is passing strange that John did not see the bodies , but “the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus.” Rev. xx. 4. It is to be remembered that the book of Revelation abounds in figurative language. Many of its figures are very bold and strong. It cannot be said that the import of the “ first resurrection ” is clear beyond a doubt, for men differ in opinion concerning it. This being the case, it is not consistent with the rules of sound interpretation to make Rev. xx. 6 the basis of a theory in conflict with other plain passages of the divine word. That the obscure must yield to the clear, and the indistinct to the luminous, should be regarded an axiom in exposition. How, then, are we to interpret what is said of the “ first resurrection ” ? Our interpretation must ac- cord with passages on which there rests no obscurity. Adopting this method, we shall be obliged to den} 7 that the “ first resurrection ” is a literal resurrection, and to in- sist that there will be one simultaneous resurrection of the 382 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. righteous and the wicked. The following Scriptures utter no uncertain sound : “ For the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation” (John v. 28,29); “That there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” Acts xxiv. 15. “ All thaf are in the graves ” are all the dead, and the natural construction of the language is, that they all will at the same time hear the voice of the Son of God, and at the same time come forth. That saints and sinners are included is manifest from the connection of the res- urrection with “ life ” and also with “ damnation.” So likewise when Paul says, that there shall be a resurrec- tion of the just and of the unjust, every one who has no preconceived theory to maintain must understand him as teaching that the just and the unjust will rise together. It will be after the resurrection that “the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gathewout of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity.” Matt. xiii. 41. The language of 2 Thess. i. 7- 10 has an important bearing on this point : “ And to you, who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting de- struction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power ; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.” These words are full of meaning, and they teach, among other things, that the Lord Jesus will come to punish sinners when he comes to be glorified in his saints. THE RESURRECTION . 383 There will not be two comings, bill one coming for two purposes. In view of the considerations now presented, 1 must, of course, understand the words “ first resurrection ” in a figurative sense, as denoting a revival of the principles of piety exemplified in the martyrs of Jesus who laid down their lives for his sake. Andrew Fuller observes : “The ‘first resurrection’ appears to me to be no other than the millennium itself, to which all that is said of it will well apply. During this glorious period the church will have its Pauls and Peters and Johns over again. Men will be raised up who will go forth in the spirit and power of those worthies, as much as John the Baptist did in the spirit and power of Elias. Thus the apostles and martyrs will, as it were, be raised from their graves and live again upon the earth.” 1 The thoughtful reader will see that the view any one may hold concerning the “ first resurrection ” determines his view of the millennium. That there will be a period when truth and righteousness shall be prevalent through- out the world, when “earth shall keep jubilee a thousand years,” is one of the articles of the common faith, but whether that blessed period shall precede or follow the personal coming of Christ is the point on which good men differ. It does not accord with the purpose of this volume to go at any length into a discussion of this ques- tion. My belief that the millennium will precede the per- sonal coming of Christ has been sufficiently indicated. 2 1 Works , vol. iii. p. 295. 2 While holding this view, I admit that there are some plausible ar- guments on the other side of the question — arguments which it is not a very easy task to refute. Still, taking into account the teachings of all the Scriptures bearing on the point, I am obliged to believe that the millennium will precede the second coming of Christ. The “ binding 384 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. * To return to the subject of the resurrection. The com- ing of Christ to raise the dead will be a magnificent and glorious spectacle. “ When the Son of man shall comf in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory” (Matt. xxv. 31); “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God ” (1 Thess. iv. 16) ; “ For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” 1 Cor. xv. 52. The second coming of our Lord will be heralded by the resurrection trumpet, which will be heard in every grave and will break the sleep of all the centuries. From Eu- rope, Asia, Africa, America, and the isles of the sea the dead will come forth. The wide empire of the grave will be depopulated, for the sea, as well as the land, will give up its dead. Millions have found their sepulchres in the deep waters, and old Ocean has chanted its stormy dirge over them for ages, but they will hear the sound of the last trumpet and live again. The day of the res- urrection will be a great day — a day of wonders and a day replete with glory. Well has a poet said — “ Ye heavens, great archway of the universe, Put sackcloth on ; and, ocean, clothe thyself In garb of widowhood, and gather all Thy waves into a groan, and utter it, Long, loud, deep, piercing, dolorous, immense : The occasion asks it! Nature dies, and God And angels come to lay her in the grave !” 1 It is a fact, to which I only advert, that little or nothing is said of the appearance of the wicked after their resur- of Satan ” — that is, the remarkable restraint that will be imposed on his influence — will introduce the blessed era. 1 Pollok’s Course of Time , book vi. THE RESURRECTION . 385 rection. One passage of Scripture (Dan. xii. 2) teaches that they will rise “ to shame and everlasting contempt.’' Possibly, they will not only feel shame and self-contempt in contemplating their characters, but in beholding their personal appearance. It may be that the bodies of the wicked at the resurrection w T ill be such objects of physical^ deformity and repulsiveness as we now have no concep- tion of. I leave the fearful subject. With regard to the saints, w r e are explicitly told, that as they have borne the image of the earthy — that is, Adam formed out of the earth — so also shall they bear the image of the heavenly — that is, the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor. xv. 49. We have likewise the w r ords, “ Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body ” (Phil. iii. 21); “We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him ; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John iii. 2. I suppose that the likeness here referred to will embrace both soul and body. The last stain of sin will have been washed from the souls of the redeemed, and they will be like Christ in holiness, while their bodies will be changed into a complete resem- blance of his. Without doubt, the glorified body of Jesus is the highest specimen of physical beauty and perfec- tion in the universe, and the bodies of the saints are to be made just like it. The conformity will be so com- plete that the image of Christ will shine forth in the redeemed with resplendent glory through everlasting ages. From Paul’s majestic argument on the resurrection, as recorded in the fifteeenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, we may learn the following truths concerning the reanimated bodies of the saints : 1. They will be raised in incorruption . They are committed to the grave in a corruptible state. They are capable 33 386 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . of decomposition, and are consigned to putrefaction and worms and dust. The processes that go on in the grave are processes of disorganization. The body, like a Jewish house infected with leprosy, is totally demolished. Not only do the bodily organs cease to perform their functions, *but there is an entire dissolution of the bodily organism itself. All this is implied when it is said of the body, that “ it is sown” — or committed to the grave — “ in corruption-” But the same body which is buried a corruptible one will be raised “ in incorruption.” There will be no liability to the wasting influence of disease, no tendency to decay, no possibility of dissolution. When it is said, that “ flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God ” (1 Cor. xv. 50), the meaning is that the bodies of the saints, as at pres- ent organized, are so unfitted for heaven that they cannot be admitted into its sacred mansions. These bodies must be reconstructed, and in their reconstruction every ele- ment of corruption will be left out. They will therefore rise from the grave clothed with all the glory of incorrup- tion. An incorruptible body is an immortal body — im- mortal as the spirit inhabiting it. When the saints are raised from the dead the sublime words of Jesus will be true of them : “ Neither can they die any more.” Luke xx. 36. To die will be a blessed impossibility. 2. They will be raised in glory . This glory is the opposite of the “ dishonor ” connected with burial in the grave. Who does not know something of this dishonor? The bodies of the best Christians can be seen for only a short time after death. Friendship and love will not permit them to be long visible. The beginning of the putrefy* ing process renders them offensive, and they are put out of sight. When Abraham was making arrangements for the burial of Sarah, who had been so beautiful, he said, “that I should bury my dead out of my sight.” Gen. THE RESURRECTION. 387 xxiii. 8. Alas ! how manifest the dishonor resting on the body when committed to the custody of the grave ! The dishonor, too, will continue until the resurrection-day ; for had there been no sin, there would have been no graves. Ignominy is inseparable from imprisonment in the grave, but the end of the imprisonment will be then end of the ignominy. The dishonor of the sepulchre will be removed. The bodies of the saints will be raised in glory, and the glory will be heightened by its striking contrast with the previous dishonor. They will be glo- rious bodies, perfectly suited to the world of glory, con- formed to Christ’s “ glorious body ;” and when they re- ceive them, “ then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” Matt. xiii. 43. What words are these ! — “ shine forth as the sun.” Doubt- less, there will be a glory reflected from the incorruptible bodies of the saints like that which clothed the body of Jesus amid the wonders of the Transfiguration. Who can tell how much is implied in the transporting words “ raised in glory ” ? 3. They will be raised in power . This does not mean that they will be raised by the power of God, however true that may be. To be raised in power from the grave is the opposite of being committed to the grave “ in weakness.” The powers of the body are comparatively feeble in health, they become feebler still in sickness, and they utterly cease at death. A dead body is a powerless thing. Who in looking at a corpse is not reminded of this ? It puts forth no act of resistance. The feet walk not, the eyes see not, the hands move not. It makes no protest against being put into a coffin and conveyed to its resting-place in the grave. Truly, Paul labored under no mistake when he said of the body, “It is sown in weakness.” But the bodies of the saints will be raised in power. This power 388 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . will include everything which is in antagonism with the weakness referred to. Fatigue follows exertion now, ac- tivity induces weariness, and disease exhausts the strength of the mortal frame. The resurrection bodies of the re- deemed will be endued with such vital energy and vigor 4^is will for ever preclude the necessity of rest. There will be no feeling of weakness or fatigue, but the body “ raised in power ” will be a suitable vehicle for the active, immor- tal spirit. The saints in their complete persons will “ rest not day nor night.” 4. They will have spiritual bodies . “ It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” We know what the natural body is. It is the present habitation of the soul, and is adapted to the present constitution of things. It therefore needs food to sustain its life, sleep to refresh it when weary, and medicine to heal its diseases. In short, it is subject to the laws which control the economy under which it now acts. But the spiritual bodies of the saints after the resurrection will be free from these laws. They will not be flesh and blood. They will not be animal bodies. They will, of course, be material bodies, for otherwise they would not be bodies at all. It seems, how- ever, that the matter of which they are formed will be so refined and purified that it will resemble spiritual sub- stances. But our conceptions of spirit are indistinct and imperfect. How little we know ! A thousand things that we “ know not now we shall know hereafter.” Of these things we may be certain — that the spiritual bodies of the redeemed will be like the glorified body of Christ, and that they will answer all the high and holy purposes of companionship with the spirits indissolubly united to them. Every saint will, in his complete personality, en- joy everlasting life in the kingdom of God. CHAPTER XXIX. T THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. That thei 3 will be a day of judgment, when all the na- tions of the earth shall stand before the tribunal of Jesus Christ, is plain from the following passages of the word of God: “ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory : and before him shall be gathered all nations : and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. . . . Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eter- nal” (Matt. xxv. 31-46) ; “And the times of this igno- rance God winked at; but now commandetli all men everywhere to repent : because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead” (Acts xvii. 30, 31); “For we must all ap- 33 * 389 390 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. pear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad ” (2 Cor. v. 10) ; “ And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books were opened : and another book was open- ed, which is the book of life ; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, ac- cording to their works.” Rev. xx. 12. These are a few of the passages in the New Testament which teach the doctrine of the general judgment, and the same doctrine is taught in the Old, where it is said : “ For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccles. xii. 14. The point is settled that the world will be judged; and to forbid the supposition on the part of any individual that he will be absorbed in the aggregate of the world’s population, it is written: “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Rom. xiv. 12. It is this personal account that adds to the so- lemnity of the great day. Some have virtually called in question the propri ety and necessity of a day of general judgment. Their view seems to be about this : that as there is at death a determination of the final state of every man, it is need less to have a general judgment. The reasoning is more plausible than conclusive, for while character and destiny are unchangeable after death, it may answer important purposes for character to be fully revealed and for the ground of destiny to be fully known. It will be admitted by all that God might, if he chose to do so, administer his government in perfect secrecy, concealing the reasons of his acts from all men and all angels. With an impene- trable veil thrown over the divine proceedings, they would still be in accordance with the principles of per- THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 391 feet justice, for a just God cannot deviate from these prin- ciples. But we must remember that God, in the adminis- tration of his government, is not only just, but that he in- tends that his justice shall be seen and acknowledged by all his intelligent creatures. This is, doubtless, one of the purposes to be accomplished by the final judgment. Its disclosures will be the fullest vindication of the divine character and the divine government. Whatever suspi- cions may have rested on either will be for ever removed ; God’s infinite justice as well as his infinite wisdom and goodness will be fully recognized. Thus the judgment will “ assert eternal Providence, And justify the ways of God to men.” It is supremely worthy of remark that Jesus Christ will be the Judge of the world. Peter said to Cornelius, “ It is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.” Acts x. 42. Paul said of Jesus, “ Who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.” 2 Tim. iv. 1. Jesus himself said, “ For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. . . . And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.” John v. 22, 27. As the reward of his hu- miliation and death, the Son of man, the Mediator, ha;.> been invested with universal authority, that “ at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” Phil. ii. It. The ad- ministration of the divine government is in his hands, and is a mediatorial administration. The last act of this administration, so far as we know, will be judging the world, after which it seems that there will be a delivery of “the kingdom to God even the Father, . . . that God may be all in all.” 1 Cor. xv. 24, 28. That the office of 392 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . Judge of the human race is fitly devolved on Jesus Christ appears in the fact that he is God-man. Uniting in his person divmity and humanity, it is morally certain that, while he sacredly protects the honor and the majesty of the divine government, he will make all necessary allow- ances for those he judges. As the God-man he will re- member his experiences during his sojourn on earth. What more eminently proper than that he through whose blood countless millions are saved shall appoint them places in the heavenly mansions? What more appropriate than that the Friend of sinners shall con- sign to perdition those who rejected the salvation of- fered in his name? As to the judicial process : We are told concerning it, that “the books were opened: and another book was opened which is the book of life.” Rev. xx. 12. This language is, no doubt, figurative, for there will be no literal opening of books. The imagery employed, how- ever, is very suggestive. It implies that everything neces- sary to a perfect judicial decision will be known, even as a knowledge of matters committed to books of record is safely preserved. There will be no need of witnesses to testify, for the Judge, being omniscient, will be perfectly acquainted with the characters of those whom he judges. With our finite minds we are overwhelmed with this thought. How can we conceive that our final Judge will know every individual of the multiplied millions before him, all the works performed by each one, all the words spoken, and all the thoughts indulged? There will be a perfect acquaintance with all the elements that have entered into the formation of moral character, while the charac ter formed will be, in every case, prophetic and de- cisive of destiny. Works will be brought to light, even deeds of darkness, as well as deeds of mercy, performed THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 393 go secretly that “the left hand has not known what was done by the right.” It is plainly written that “God will bring every work into judgment.” All the words that have been spoken will be, in effect, reproduced, “ for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou slialt be condemned.” Matt. xii. 37. The thoughts of all hearts will be revealed, because it is said that when the Lord comes he “ will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.” 1 Cor. iv. 5. 1. The righteous will he judged. In proof of this I need only state that when the Judge shall say to them, “ Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world,” he will add these words : “For I was an-hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in : naked, and ye clothed me : I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.” Matt. xxv. 35, 36. It is evident that these good works will be referred to, not as creating a title to the heavenly kingdom, but as showing it or mak- ing it manifest. Believers are justified by grace through faith, but good works are fruits of faith and proofs of justification. They are evidences of Christian character, and will be so recognized at the judgment. It is there- fore to be remembered that the doctrine of salvation by grace, so far from being unfriendly to practical piety, is promotive of good works. It will, no doubt, be made known on the judgment-day that the righteous have been made righteous in Christ, not having their “ own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.” Phil. iii. 9. It will be seen that from first to last their salvation has been of grace — that God was just in justifying them through the atoning sacrifice 394 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. of the cross ; and thus the honors of justice as well as the riches of mercy will be illustrated in their acquittal on the great day. Having been acquitted and pro- nounced heirs of the heavenly kingdom, the saints, as it may be inferred from 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3, will be appointed assessors with Christ in the remaining part of the adjudi- cations that will be made : “ Do ye hot know that the saints shall judge the world ? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that ye shall judge angels?” 2. The wicked will be judged. We read of the “revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” and this “revelation ” is connected with what is called “ the day of wrath.” Rom. ii. 5. There will be the strictest adherence to the principles of justice when the wicked are judged. Noth- ing will be done arbitrarily, but all will be in perfect accordance with righteousness. The judgment will ex- hibit in the wicked different degrees of guilt. They w T ill be held responsible for the improvement of all the light they may have had. This is the teaching of Christ, wno says, “ For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” Luke xii. 48. Responsibility is in proportion to blessings received and opportunities enjoyed. (a) Heathen nations will be judged by the light of nature. Paul refers to them in these words : “ For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead ; so that they are without excuse.” Rom. i. 20. The argument of the apostle is, that men may and must infer the existence of God from the works of creation, and that their con- ception of a Supreme Being renders idolatry inexcusable. If, then, idolaters are without excuse, they must stand THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 395 guilty before the judgment-seat. How much men may know of God without the Bible is not now the subject of discussion. The point is, that the heathen, because they can infer the being of God from his works, are without excuse. This being the case, the} r must be adjudged guilty and incur the consequences of their guilt. If they are without excuse, justice demands that a sentence of condemnation be pronounced on them. The compara- tive severity of this sentence we may not know, but of its certainty we are fully assured. It is written, “ For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish with- out law. ... In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Rom. ii. 12, 16. (6) Those living under the written law of the Old Testament will be judged by it. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus we have strong testimony as to the value of the Old Testament Scriptures. The rich man is represented as entreating Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his “ five brethren,” insisting that if one should go to them from the dead, they would repent. Abraham’s answer is full of meaning : “ If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Luke xvi. 31. It is plain from these words that those who lived under the light of the Old Testament economy enjoyed advantages unspeak- ably greater than did surrounding heathen nations, who were, nevertheless, without excuse. “As many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” Rom. ii. 12. A fearful condemnation awaits those who would not “ hear Moses and the prophets.” If the heathen are without excuse, much more inexcusable are those whc neglected Old Testament advantages. The day of judg ment will be to them a terrible day. 396 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. (7?) Those living under the Christian economy will be judged by the gospel. Jesus said, “ He that rejectetn me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” John xii. 48. I have referred to the judg- ment as bringing to light different degrees of guilt, but the highest degree will be exhibited in connection with the abuse of gospel privileges. The language of Christ con- cerning Chorazin and Bethsaida justifies this view : “ But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for T}^re and Sidon at the day of judgment than for you.” Of Caper- naum he said, “ But I say unto you. That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the da} r of judgment, than for thee.” Matt. xi. 22, 24. In perfect accordance with the spirit of these passages it is written : “ He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses : of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God !” etc. Heb. x. 28, 29. The sentence of condemnation pronounced at the judgment on the rejecters of Christ will be supremely fearful. It is writ- ten, “ If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha [accursed, the Lord cometh].” 1 Cor. xvi. 22. As Paul wrote under divine inspiration, the intimation here clearly is, that those who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ will be accursed in the day of his coming. Alas for them when the curse of God falls upon them, comprehending, as it will do, “the wrath of the Lamb ” ! Rev. vi. 16. What a startling collocation of words ! Who knows how much is meant by “ the wrath of the Lamb”? The Lamb of God, the Lamb that was slain, the Sufferer of Calvary, will be the Judge, and when he pronounces on those who have rejected him the sentence, “ Depart, ye cursed,” the scene wfill be incon- THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 397 reivably awful. Good were it for those whom Jesus condemns had they never been born. Through the ages of eternity there will be heard no words more terrific than these : “ The wrath of the Lamb ” ! The judicial decisions of the last day will fix in their final state all the millions of Adam’s race. The wicked, we are told, “ shall go away into everlasting punishment : but the righteous into life eternal.” Matt. xxv. 46. 3. Fallen angels will be judged. In this topic we * cannot feel so deep an interest as in the topics which have just engaged bur attention. That is to say, matters pertaining to the human race are more important to us than those which concern angelic beings. Still, the teachings of Scripture are not to be ignored, and from them we learn, that “ God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;” and that “the angels who kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6. Here two leading truths are stated: that these angels sinned, and that they are kept in custody to the day of judgment. To the latter truth, there seems to be reference when certain demons said to Jesus, “Art thou come hither to torment us before the time ?” Matt, viii. 29. The natural inference from this question is that these evil spirits were looking for a period of augmented torment, but did not suppose that it would come so soon. It will enhance the awful greatness of the judgment- day for the case of the sinning angels to be adjudicated. There have been many useless conjectures as to the origin of sin among them, the reasons of their revolt from the divine government, the circumstances connected with the revolt, and the number engaged in it. All the facts bear- 34 398 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. ing on the subject will be brought to light at the judg- ment, and the intelligent moral universe will see that God was righteous in his dealings with them — righteous in holding them as prisoners of his justice for many cen- turies, reserving their formal trial and public condemna- tion to the judgment of the great day. When it is said, that the 44 saints shall judge angels,” we are only to un- derstand that they will concur in and approve the sen- tence which the Judge pronounces. The fallen angels will, like ungodly men,' know the justice of their doom, and sink in self-accusing agony to hell, to suffer the con- sequences of their rebellion. The more we contemplate the transactions of the day of judgment, the more shall we be assured that of all days it deserves to be called “the great day.” God grant that he who writes and those who read these pages 4 may find mercy of the Lord in that day ” ! CHAPTER XXX. HE A VEN AND - HET r It is evident, from considerations already presented, that the decisions of the judgment will be final and unchangeable. In accordance with these decisions, the righteous, in their complete glorified persons, will be ad- mitted into heaven, and the wicked will be cast into hell. These two places will be the ultimate receptacles of all the human race. Heaven. It is everywhere assumed in the Scriptures, and spe- cially in the New Testament, that there is a heaven. Jesus referred to himself as having “come down from heaven,” and when he ascended it is said, that he was “carried up into heaven.” John vi. 38; Luke xxiv. 51. During his ministry he said in his Sermon on the Mount, “ Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” Matt. vi. 20. At another time he spoke of the enrolment of the names of his disciples “ in heaven ” as the source of their highest joy. Luke x. 20. .Paul in writing to the Colos- sians (i. 5) uses the words, “ the hope which is laid up for you in heaven.” In addition to this use of the term “heaven,” there are many other terms and phrases equiv- alent to it in import, but to these I shall not refer particu- larly. 400 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. Some have considered it a debatable question whether heaven is a state or a place. I see no objection to the union of the two views. We may regard heaven as a state most exalted and glorious, but it is also a place. Jesus said to his* disciples, “ In my Father’s house are many mansions : if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto my- self; that where I am, there ye may be also.” John xiv. 2, 3. Christ has gone to prepare for his followers a place in the many apartments of his Father’s house. There is one truth which for ever settles the point that heaven is a place. That truth is, that the glorified body of Jesus is in heaven. His body is, of course, a material body, com- posed of matter, however refined, for otherwise it w T ould not be a body. But whatever is material is local, has re- lation to place. The two ideas of the material and the local are inseparable. Heaven as a place is the most glo- rious of all places, the select locality in the wide realm of the universe. Its attractions are unspeakably great, and the following are some of them : 1. It is a place of enlarged knowledge. “ That the soul be wuthout knowledge, it is not good.” Prov. xix. 2. This is said of knowledge in this world. A thirst for knowledge is one of the things which distinguish men from the beasts that perish. The knowledge pertaining to this world answers important purposes, but “the excellency of knowledge” has to do with Christ and salvation. Phil, iii. 6. Saints on earth, as compared with sinners, know much ; yet, as compared with saints in heaven, they know but little. There are many Scriptures which indicate the imperfect knowledge of Christians in the present state They are said to “ know in part,” and not to know now what they shall know hereafter, while the assurance is HEAVEN AND HELL . 401 given that “it doth not yet appear what we shall be.” 1 Cor. xiii. 12, John xiii. 7 ; 1 John iii. 2. Limitations are imposed on the attainment of know- ledge on earth which will be removed in heaven. The intellect will no longer be fettered in its action by the body, for the latter, as we have seen, will be made spir- itual and incorruptible. The acquisition of knowledge in heaven will be amazing. The saints in their ignorance now cannot conceive how much they will know then. When Paul says, in a passage just referred to, “Now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known,” it is difficult to imagine how he could have ex- pressed more fully the vast extent of his future know- ledge. To know as he is known seems to be as much as even Gabriel or Michael can say. The saints in heaven will know a thousand times more about the works and ways of God than they can know in this life. As the light of eternity falls on these works and ways, now in great part obscured, how often will be heard the exclamation, “ Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints”! Rev. xv. 3. In heaven the many per- plexing problems now connected with dark providences will receive solutions so satisfactory, so brilliant, as to call forth the most rapturous hallelujahs. There will be a constantly increasing knowledge of the wonders of re- demption, for the subject of salvation is inexhaustible. It will be fresh when a million centuries have passed away, and fresh to endless ages. “ The cross, the manger, and the throne Are big with wonders yet unknown.” Truly, heaven is a place of enlarged knowledge. 2. It is a place of perfect holiness . Earth is full of sin. 34 * 402 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. The effects of sin are seen everywhere, and will be seen till the earth is destroyed by fire, when from the burning mass will emerge, according to the promise of God, “ a new earth ” more beauteous than Eden in its primeval glory. But this blessed change is in the future. Sin is in the w r orld now. It has dominion over the impenitent. In the regenerate its power is broken, but how bitterly they often have to deplore its polluting presence in their hearts ! Sin is their worst enemy. In heaven there will be no sin. It is a holy place. The angels are holy. The redeemed are without fault before the throne. Ihe holi- ness of heaven is one of its most powerful attractions. How deeply are we impressed with the purity of the place when we remember that our souls cannot enter into it till the last stain of sin is washed from them, and that our bodies must be resolved into dust, and then be recon- structed without a taint of sin, before they can inherit the kingdom of God ! However much Christians may now be annoyed and distressed by sin, when they enter heaven they will be troubled by it no more. They will dwell for ever in the realms of perfect purity. 3. It is a place of holy love. In this respect, how greatly it differs from earth ! Here hatred often prevails among na- tions and individuals. Injustice in its many forms may be traced to it. “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- self ” is a command the violation of which it has been the chief business of history to record. Feelings of hatred rankling in the human breast have too often made earth an Aceldama — “ a field of blood.” Nor can it be said that the passion of hatred is entirely extinct in the regene- rate people of God. Who has not seen proofs of its ex- istence in various forms of envy, jealousy, and evil-speak- ing? Alas ! love among brethren is by no means perfect on earth. But in heaven there is an undisturbed reign of HEAVES AND HELL. 103 holy love. All the inhabitants of that bright world love God supremely and love one another subordinately. Every saint can there say, “ I love every one of these saints, and every one of them loves me.” The satisfaction arising from this consciousness will never be disturbed by a single doubt or a solitary suspicion. I do not wonder that Row- land Hill said, “ My chief conception of heaven is that it is a place of love.” 4. It is a place of perfect rest and endless joy . Earth is the place for labor, toil, fatigue, but there “remaineth a rest to the people of God.” Heb. iv. 9. John, listening to a voice from heaven, wrote, “ Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth. Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors.” Rev. xiv. 13. “ In heaven there’s rest : that thought hath a power To scatter the shades of life’s dreariest hour.” Baxter well said, “0 glorious rest! where they rest not day nor night, crying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Al- mighty !” The joy of heaven will be fulness of joy. All the faculties of glorified saints will be filled with it. There 'will be a rich plenitude of bliss. The joy of heaven will be endless. The joy of earth is imperfect while it lasts, and soon passes away. The joy of heaven is perpetual. Through the long cycle of everlasting years it will con- tinue, ever increasing as the capacity of the saints to en- joy will increase. The blessedness of heaven depends much on the eternity of its joy. Tnat blessedness would be greatly impaired if the joy were to end when ten thousand times ten thousand centuries pass away. Truly has it been said, “ Perpetuity of bliss is bliss.” 5. It is a place of blessed, companionships . We are made 404 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. for society, Christianity does not destroy the social prin- ciple, but sanctifies it on earth, and will perfectly sanctify it in heaven. There are many allusions in the Scriptures to the social enjoyments of the heavenly state. The select society of the universe is in heaven. We read of angels, principalities, powers, cherubim, seraphim. These terms most probably denote the various orders of heavenly in- telligences. But in addition to these there will be a multitude of the redeemed which no man can number. How blessed will be the associations of heaven ! How delightful for the saints to cultivate an acquaintance with the very angels who rejoiced over the beginning of their saintship in their repentance ! The social inter- course of the redeemed with one another will be pro- ductive of exquisite enjoyment. They will renew their acquaintance with those whom they have known on earth, and of whom the}^ have heard and read, while they will form new acquaintances among the millions of unknown ones, to whom they will be drawn by the fact that they were all redeemed by the precious blood of a common Mediator. How blessed will be the com- panionships of heaven ! 6. It is the place in which the divine glory is displayed in the highest degree . The glory of God is a manifestation of his perfections, or rather it is the splendor resulting from the manifestation. Hence it is said, “ The heavens de- clare the glory of God that is, they exhibit such per- fections as his wisdom and power. In the plan of re- demption there is a much brighter display of the glory of God than is to be seen in the firmament, which is the work of his hands. There is an exhibition of moral per- fections, which must ever eclipse a manifestation of nat- ural attributes. We therefore read of “the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” 2 Cor. iv. 6. It is such an HE A YEN AND HELL. 405 exhibition as the universe never saw before — the glory of God in the face of the crucified Christ. Now, in heaven there is a still fuller and brighter manifestation of the divine perfections. This is often called glory — the glory of God. Christians are said to rejoice “ in hope of the glory of God.” Rom. v. 2. Jesus prayed for his disciples, saying , u Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I am ; that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me.” John xvii. 24. It is plain, therefore, that heaven is a place in which the divine glory is supremely displayed — the glory .of God, the glory of Christ, who is God. It is manifest, too, that the inhab- itants of heaven will ever find their highest happiness in beholding the exhibitions of this glory. That is what the “ old theologians ” properly termed “ the beatific vision.” It will be productive of such happiness as language has never described nor imagination con- ceived. Hell. While it is a delightful privilege to refer to heaven as the abode of the righteous, it is a solemn duty to recog- nize the teachings of the Bible concerning hell as the place in which the wicked will be punished. The proper tendency of the doctrine of future punishment is to deter from sin, even as the doctrine of future blessedness in heaven should stimulate and allure to holiness. Ob- viously, all that can be known of hell as & “ place of tor- ment” must be ascertained from the Scriptures. Our own unaided reasonings are not trustworthy, and those who die in their sins come not back from the eternal world to tell us of their experiences there. That there is a hell is undeniable in view of the follow ing scriptures : “ For it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body 406 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. should be cast into hell ;” “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell;” “ Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?” (Matt. v. 29 ; x. 28 ; xxiii. 33) ; “And if thy hand offend [ensnare] thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched ” (Mark ix. 43) ; “ Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.” Luke xii. 5. These passages prove beyond doubt that there is a hell, and that it is an inexpressibly dreadful place ; for we are taught that it is the part of wisdom to avoid it at the ex- pense of the mutilation, or even the killing, of the body. That it is a place of excruciating pain is clear, because it is described as “the fire that shall never be quenched.” Here, as well as anywhere, I may notice the oft-repeated assertion, that what Christ says of unquenchable fire is to be understood, not literally, but figuratively. Suppose this is conceded ; and I do concede it — that is to say, I dc not think that Jesus referred either to literal “ fire ” or a literal “ worm.” But what follows? That the pun- ishment of the wicked will be less dreadful than if they should be cast into literal, material fire ? By no means The philosophy of language rather prompts us to inquire, If the symbol of punishment be so fearful, what must the reality be? Worse, far worse. It is impossible for any symbol to exaggerate the idea of pain which Christ in- tended to convey. Satan may try to delude men, and men may try to delude themselves, into the belief that there is nothing alarming in the miseries of hell ; but it is tremendously true that these miseries defy description and surpass adequate conception. It is specially worthy HEA YEN AND HELL. 407 of notice that the most awful things in the Bible concern- ing the punishment of the wicked are the words of Jesus, He was love incarnate, but he spoke of “ outer darkness,” “ weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth,” a “ place of torment,” “the worm that dieth not,” “the fire that is not quenched,” “everlasting punishment,” “eternal dam- nation.” Matt. viii. 12; Luke xvi. 28; Mark ix. 44; Matt, xxv. 46 ; Mark iii. 29. These are expressions of startling significance. Indeed, the future retribution of the wicked is a most copious as w 7 ell as awful subject, which I shall discuss only so far as to refer briefly to the words of Christ as recorded in Matt. xxv. 46: “These shall go aw r ay into everlasting punishment.” Here two points claim attention : 1. The wicked will he punished. What is punishment? It is the infliction of pain for disobedience. Thus a father punishes a disobedient child. Pain inflicted with- out regard to disobedience would be calamity, and not punishment. Punishment has reference to sin, and under the government of God it is the executed penalty of his law'. It is God who executes this penalty, which is death, eternal death. Strange views on this subject are held by some, for they think that the wicked will only be punished by painful memories, remorse of conscience, agony of despair. No doubt, memory has to do with the miseries of the lost, but an operation of memory is not the penalty of the divine law. Remorse of conscience is inseparable from the penalty, but it is not the penalty. Has a murderer’s remorse of conscience ever exhausted the penalty of the law of murder? Never. The thing is impossible. Nor is the despair w'hich lost sinners feel the penalty of God’s law r . How can despair as to a change in their doom satisfy the law, a violation of which deter- mined their doom? The thing cannot be. All tlies^ 408 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES . views fail to meet the point. The truth is, that the penalty of God’s law is death. “The wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. vi. 23. That eternal death is referred to is evident from its contrast with eternal life. There :an be no consistent interpretation of the passage which does not make the death and the life equal in duration. God executes the penalty of his law. He inflicts on his incorrigible enemies the punishment they deserve. He punishes them because they deserve to be punished. This is the only true philosophy of punish- ment. Incidental effects may result from punishment, but the supreme reason why sinners are punished is that, because of their sins, they deserve punishment. God as moral Governor of the universe executes the penalty of his law. This fact enables us to understand what is meant by “the wrath of God.” This is a scriptural phrase, and it denotes God’s just and holy indignation against sin. This indignation arises from the fact that sin is a transgression of his law ; and therefore his jus- tice and holiness — yes, and his goodness too — impera- tively require that incorrigible sinners be punished. Ac- cording to the teaching of the Scriptures, they will be punished as their demerits require. This shows that punishment will be graduated by the degree of ill-desert — graduated in intensity, though not in duration ; foi the second point claiming attention is — 2. The punishment will be everlasting . The words of Jesus are, “These shall go away into everlasting punish- ment.” Matt. xxv. 46. Of the wicked, Paul says, “ Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.” 2 Thess. i. 9. The destruction referred to is not annihila- tion, for it is everlasting destruction. The process of HEAVEN AND HELL. 409 destruction will go on for ever. It is scarcely necessary to refer to the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked, for it has no scriptural support. Its advocates can give no example of annihilation in the world of matter; and to suppose that mind or spirit will cease to be, is as con- trary to philosophy as it is to the word of God. When Jesus says, “ These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal,” he employs one and the same word, which in the Common Version of the Bible is translated “everlasting” and “ eternal.” The same word is used in Rom. xvi. 26, where the apostle speaks of the “ everlasting God,” while in passages too numerous to quote it is, in its application to the future life of the saints, translated “ everlasting ” and “ eternal.” Now the question is this : Does a word which, when applied to God and to the future life of the saints, denotes endless duration, as all admit, indicate limited duration when it is applied to the punishment of the wicked? He who answers this question affirmatively must do so in conflict w T ith Scrip- ture, reason, and common sense. Interpretation of language is not a matter of feeling. Sound exegesis does not permit us to consider what we may wish any passage of Scripture to mean, but it re- stricts our attention to the question, What does it mean? what is the import of its words? Much that is now (1878) said and . written against the doctrine of endless punishment is a vain attempt to magnify God’s goodness at the expense of his justice and truth ; whereas God would cease to be good if he should cease to be just and true. In other words, his justice and truth cannot be severed from his goodness. Alas for those who, under the frown of God, sink to hell! They come not out of the prison, the gloom} 7 prison of despair. They “ will be 35 410 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power.” What fearful words are these ! Away from the presence of the Lord, his glorious presence, in which the saints will rejoice for ever ! — “ As far from God and light of heaven As far from the centre thrice :o the utmost pole.” There is no probation after death. He that dies in hia sins remains in his sins for ever. Moral character is un- changeable in eternity. The righteous continue righteous, the wicked continue wicked. What is the conclusion of the whole matter ? Jesus taught, by solemn affirmation and solemn negation, the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked, saying, “ These shall go away into everlasting punishment,” they “ shall not see life,” “ their worm dieth not,” “ the fire is not quenched.” These are the words of the benevolent Son of God and Son of man. u Come, sinners, seek his grace Whose wrath ye cannot bear ; Fly to the shelter of his cross, And find salvation there.” General Index INDEX OF SUBJECTS. A. Abel, 104, 169. Abraham, 37, 44, 104, 142. justified by faith, 283. Absalom, 142. Activity of angels, 144. Adam, all sinned in, 169. and Eve sinned first in heart, 166. and Eve died spiritual death when they sinned, 168. head of all nations, 171. judgment on, 167. representative of his race, 171. Saviour promised to, 186. sinned intelligently and volunta- rily, 165. the first brings ruin, the last brings salvation, 170. type of Christ, 173. why his descendants suffer in him, 172. Adoption, civil and spiritual, resem- blances and difference be- tween, 291, 292. civil, practised by the an- cients, 290. of Esther and of Moses, 291. privileges of, 292-297. Ananias, 92. Angel, meaning of the word, 138. Angels, holy, 138. activity and power of, 144. are spirits, 139. convey spirits of saints to heaven, 150. goodness of God to, 53. great knowledge of, 142. guard the steps of saints, 149. immortality of, 141. increase in knowledge, 143. ministry of, 148. minister to saints at Christ’s second coming, 150. refuse worship, 89. sinless obedience of, 146. sinful, 151. Angels, sinful, shall be judged, 156. Annihilation of the wicked, no scrij* tural support, 409. Annotated Paragraph Bible, 189. Antony, Mark, 169. Aquila, 330. Arius, doctrine of, 73. Artaxerxes, 191. Atonement, antitype and consummation of all sacrifices, 238. appointed by God, 239. believers receive benefit of, 221 . by animal sacrifices, cere- monial, 240. by Christ, real, 240. cannot be offered to fallen angels, 244. Christ assumes sinner’s place in, 226. Christ, deity of, essential to, 241. expiation for sin, 224. extent of, 241. faith involves reliance on, 244. four centuries of preparation for, 239. Fuller, Andrew, on, 242. God pleased with, 248. gospel imitations rest on, 242. Hall, Robert, on, 242. involves «”bstitution, 227. Lawgiver receives it, 221. love of God originating * cause of, 229. made for man, 244. man’s unwillingness the only obstacle to, 243. meaning of, 221. measure above law, 223. necessity of, 228. how it originates, 229. trace to nature of God, 230. what it means, 229. 411 412 GENERAL INDEX. Atonen ent offered to all the world, 244. refers to both God and man, 233. sufficiency of, undoubted, 242. use of word by Junius, 222. use of word by Shakespeare, 221 . used only once in New Tes- tament, 221. value of, 238, 241. proved by dignity of the person, 240. what it accomplishes, 230. Attractions of heaven, 400-404. Attribute, meaning of, 42. Attributes of God, co-operate in salvation of sinners, 230. moral — goodness, 53. holiness, 61. justice, 56. veracity, 58. wisdom, 60. natural — eternity, 44. immutability, 46. omnipotence, 49. omnipresence, 48. omniscience, 51. self-existence, 43. unity, 45. Augustus, decree of, 193. B, Baptism, 342. a burial, 348, 351. act of, 342. avowal of allegiance, 93. commemorates the resurrec- tion, 349, 350. connected with the Trinity, 66, 67, 71. first public duty of a believer, 363. household, 355. immersion essential to, 351. John's, 362. Mode of, by Dr. Moses Stuart, 347. profession of faith in Christ, 219. should precede the Lord’s Sup- per, 363. subjects of, 351. symbolism of, 348-351. token of submission to Christ, 219. Baptist Quarterly , 207. Baplizo, anglicized, 343. as used in classics, 347. Con ant’s, Dr., investigation of, 347, meaning of, 342. means same in New Testament as in classics, 348. Barnabas refuses worship, 88. Beersheba, 44. Bethlehem-Ephratah, 80, 81. Bethlehem-Ephratah, birthplace of Christ, 192. Bible, Annotated Paragraph, 189. authority of, cannot be questioned 41. deists’ opinion of, 24. doctrine of Trinity taught in, 64. doctrines in it that the human in- tellect cannot grasp, 32. enemies of, 23. human heart would not prompt tc its production, 34. hi man intellect could not produce, 31, 35. if a revelation, must be 'nspir^d, 39, 41. necessity of revelation in, 25. rationalist opinion of, 24. reveals the character of God 25. revelation from God, 25, 31, 36. revelation of Christ, 36. word “Trinity” not found in, 66. Bishop, use of word in New Testament, 337. originally synonymous with pas- tor and elder, 337. Blind man cured through faith, 285. Body disorganized in the grave, 378. left by spirit at death, 376. made of dust, 378. same which dies shall rise again, 380. the immortal, 386-388. Boyce, Rev. Dr. James P., on the dual nature of Christ, 206. Burial commemorated in baptism, 349. no baptism without, 351. c. Calvin on repentance and regeneration 256. Campbell, Dr. George, on repentance, 264, 268. Cain, 104, 169. Cause and effect, belief of, inherent, 12. the first, .13. Caesar, Julius, 169. on death, 27. Chalmers, Dr. Thomas view of the cit- ation, 124 Chance, doctrine of, 20 Channing, Dr., 65. Christ, agony of, when forsaken of God, 236. all sacrifices types of the death of, 238. all things created for, 126 alone can mediate between God and man, 208. answer to the Tempter, 87. Arian doctrine of, 73. as mediator must be capable of death, 210. as prophet approved by the Fath- er, 214. as prophet teaches the world con cerning God, 213. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 413 Cb’ist assumes humanity to accomplish redemption, 207. atonement ottered to all by, 244. Author of eternal life, 80. authority of, to intercede, 248. authority of teachings of, 214. avows his kingly office before Pilate, 215. basis of intercession of, 247. Boyce, Dr. James P., on the two natures of, 206. character of, 37. chief functions of priestly office of, 221. church of, 218. commands his disciples to bap- tize, 219. commands to observe what he has taught, 219. Creator, 85. death of, consummation of all sacrifices, 239. display of divine justice, 57. display of divine wisdom, 61. shows the evil of sin, 288. Socinians and Unitarians on, 227. dead will be raised by, 86. deity of, 72. gives value to atonement, 241. New Testament concerning, 77. owned by Thomas, 241. proved by salvation of sin- ners, 72-74. died in our stead, 227. divine attributes of, 80-84. divine names given to, 75. divine works performed by, 84. doctrine of Trinity taught by, 66. Elder Brother, 293. eternity of, 80. expounded scriptures concern- ing himself, 188. foretold by Moses, 212. for whom he intercedes, 251. foundation of hope, 303. God and man inseparable in, 198. holiness essential to mediation of, 209. human soul of, 200, 201. if not God, the worst of men, 89. immutability of, 84. inconceivable to mortals, 38. increase in wisdom of, 203. intercedes in heaven, 247. intercession of, 246. intercessory prayer of, 252. Jewish high priest, type of, 247. a King, 215. kingdom of, not of this world, 215.* kingly authority of, over his church, 217. Lamb of God, 239. last petition for disci pies by, 254. Lawgiver, 220. Christ, mediatorial kingdom of, 215. mediatorial office of, 208. Moses and Elijah render homage to, 213. mysterious person of, 208. not personally guilty, but legally answerable, 226. object of worship, 86. official perfection of, through sufferings, 227. omnipotence of, 83. our heirship with, 296. our sins laid on, 225. person of, 36, 198, 208. power of, to save, 87. Preserver, 85. Priest, 214. promise of God given in, 59. Prophet, 212. propitiation for our sins, 248. qualifications of, as Intercessor, 248. received through faith, 284. repentance preached by, 264. righteousness of character of, 249. righteousness of, imputed to sin- ners, 280. self-disposal essential to media- tion of, 209. silence of, under bodily sufferings, 236. sinlessness of, 38. submission required by, 219. subordination of, to the Father, 216. sufferings of, determined before the world began, 236. sympathy of, 250, 251. testimony of Old and New Testa- ments concerning, 75. two natures, but one person, 203. typified in Adam, 173. typified by the brazen serpent; 271. union with, 324. unity between the Father and, 254. was only the appearance of man assumed by? 200. Word, 213. worshipped by angels, 88. Christian character, graces of, 302. Christians, death of, 368. may glorify God in death, 369-371. sealed or set apart, 326. Church, a, has the right to receive, ex- clude, and restore members, 338-340. action of, final, 338, 340. discipline of, 341. first mention of, in New lesta- ment, 217. government, three forms of, 337. governmental power of, with members, 338. meaning of word, 218, 329. 414 GENERAL INDEX . Church, nature of, determined by Christ, 220 . officers of, 331. qualifications for membership, 331. Churches, 330. Cicero, 28. Classic authors on meaning of baplizo , 347. Comforter, the, Holy Spirit, 91. Conant, Dr. T. J., 125, 326. on repentance, 265. Consubstantiation, 359. Cornelius, 88. Peter preaching to, 355. Creator known by his creations, 13. Creation ascribed to Christ, 85. centres around the cross of Christ, 126. explained by the Bible only, 116. g ives the right of control, 130. reek and Roman philosophers on, 115. incomprehensible to man, 116. of dry land, 119. of the firmament, 119. of light, 118. of living creatures, 121. of man, 123. of sun, moon, and stars, 120. Mosaic account of, 117. necessary to execution of God’s purposes, 115. preservation inseparable from, 129. promotes the glory of God, 126. proof of the omnipotence of God, 50. time occupied in, 124. understood by faith, 117. what is ? 115. Crispus, his family, 356. Cross, all creation centres around the, 126. the, foretold by prophets, 195. Crucifixion, not a Jewish punishment, 195. Cyrus, 191. D. Dagg’s, Dr. John L., Theology , 63. Darius, 191. David, 15, 32, 40, 49, 60, 142, 145, 147. Messiah descended from family of, 190. repentance of, 266. Deacons, character of, 336. office of, 335. work of, 336. Death of Christians, 368. everything fearful in, comes from sin, 369. how believers may glorify God in, 369-371. how sting of, is removed, 370. penalty of sin, 167. spiritual, 167. Demon, 153. Desire of all nations, the, 191. Deyil, the, cannot compel men to sin 155. great influence of, 154. translation of the word, 153. Dick, Dr. John, his Theology , 58. on baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 365. Differences, private, how to adjust in churches, 341. Discipline, church, 341. Divine Government , McCosh on, 132. Divine soul ascribed to Christ, 201. Doddridge, Dr., 153. on baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 365. Duty to men grows out of duty to God, 26. Dwight, Dr., on baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 365. E. Eden closed to man, 168. Edwards, Jonathan, on repentance and regeneration, 257. Elder, 337. originally synonymous with bish- op and pastor, 334, 337. rights of, 337. Election, Arminian view of, 108. does not imply rejection, 106. eternal, 107. faith and good works not the ground of, 107. not arbitrary, 108. personal, 106. purpose of, irreversible, 108. Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, 213 Elisha, 150. Epicurus, 128. Episcopacy, 337. Esther, adoption of, 291. Eternity of God, 44, 80. proves his unity, 46; Eve, 152. deceived by the serpent, 165. Exclusion of members, the right of New Testament churches, 339. Existence of God antedates that of angels, men, or worlds, 20. explains man and the universe, 11. i explains the indications of design in the world, 21 . key to unlock othef mysteries, 12. mystery of, 12. taken for granted, 11. Ezra restores Jerusalem, 191. F. Faith, 257. Abraham’s, 283. blind man cured through, 285. capability of growth of, 302. Christ received through, 284. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 415 Faith, connection between works and, 286. expressed by trust, 272. grace and, go together, 286. m Christ, 270. means surrender to Christ, 272. in the existence of Christ alone does not save, 269. is toward Christ, 272. James on, 283. justification through, 283. lack of, siu, 271. manifested through obedience, 283. necessary tc comprehension of creation, 117. of demons, 269. of Thessalonian church, 302. prompts to holy life, 289. requires works, 270. what is, 269. what it involves, 244, 245. words of Christ concerning, 271. Faithfulness of God, 59. Fuller, Andrew, 62, 104. on atonement, 242. on first resurrection, 383. Fuller, Dr. Richard, on resurrection of the body, 379. Gr. Gabriel, 67, 145. Galilee, Christ not born in, 193. General Assembly, 337. General Judgment, 390-398. fallen angels judged at, 397. righteous judged at, 393. wicked judged at, 394. Gethsemane, 145. Glorification of the redeemed, 323. God, adopted ones recognized by, 297. attributes of, 42. character of, only known through revelation, 25. chastises wisely and lovingly, 295. eternal power of, 14. eternity of, 44. existence of, 11-21. faithfulness of, 59. Father and Lawgiver, 235. First Cause, 13. goodness of, 53. grace of, 55. holiness of, 61. immutability of, 46. 'ustice of, 56. ove of, 304. manifest in the flesh, 78. mercy of, 55. not the author of sin, 102. not the soul of the universe, but the mover of it, 17. omnipotence of, 49. omnipresence of, 48. omniscience of, 51. orders all events of life, 132. God, personality of, 14. protection of his children by, 294. providence of, 128. purposes of, 97. required Christ to suffer for sinner* 235. self-existence of, 19, 43. Source of all power, 19. union with, the life of the soul, 167. unity of, 45. veracity of, 58. well pleased with his Son, 248. with the atonement of his Son, 248. will of, 305. wills his people shall be holy, 295. wisdom of, 60. worship of, 26. wrath of, only excited by sin, 234. Good works, must be accompanied by prayer, 320. nature of, 313, 316. necessity of love with, 314. of Scribes and Pharisees, 314. Paul concerning, 312. Peter concerning, 313. pertaining to the body, 316. pertaining to the soul, 317. refer to outward acts, 313. what is meant by, 312. Goodness of God, 53. to angels, 53. to men, 54. Gospel, duty of all to believe, 244. command of Jesus concerning, 319. necessity to preach, 318. what is belief of the? 244. Grace of God to men, 55. Great commission, determines the sub- jects of baptism, 351. forbids, in effect, the baptism of unbe- lievers, 353. how understood in apostolic times, 354, 363. makes baptism pre- cede the Lord’s Supper, 362-364. requires the baptism of believers, 356. Greek authors, use of word repentance by, 265. H. Haggai, prophecy concerning second temple, 191. Hall, P.obert, 15. on atonement, 242. considered Pedobaptists as unbaptized, 361. Terms of Communion of, 362. would admit unbaptized tc Lord’s Supper, 361. 416 GENERAL INDEX. Happiness, meaning of term, 53. Heathen, God known by the, 13. nations at the judgment, 394. standard of right, 30. Heaven, 399-405. both a place and a state, 400. do departing believers go thith- er? 375. is it different from paradise? 375. what its attractions are, 400- 404. Hell, 405-410. place of punishment for the wick- ed, 405. proofs of its existence, 405, 406. Herod, 192. Hexapla of Mystery , the, 79. Hibbard, Dr., on baptism and the Lord’s Supper, 365. Hodge, Dr. A. A., 63. Holiness, absence of, in unregenerate heart. 299. of God, 61. combines all his other attri- butes, 62. under Mosaic and Christian dispensations, 299. Holy, why used before the name of the Spirit, 95. Holy Spirit, acts of, 92. blasphemy against, 94. called God, 92 Comforter, 91 , 293. deity of, 92. divine perfections of, 93. in baptism, 92. not an influence or energy, 67. not translated Holy Ghost in Old Testament, 95. personality of, 91. sent by Father and Son, 69. “seven spirits” represent, 68 . teaches the inspired writers, 40. work of, 326. works miracles, 94. Hope, Christ the foundation of, 303. increase of, 303. sanctifying tendency of, 303. Household baptisms, 355. I. Immensity of God, 48. Immersion, Calvin’s testimony to, 346. Campbell, George, testimony to, 346. Chalmers’ testimony to, 346. essential to baptism, 351. the “practice of the early church,” 346. Stuart, Dr. Moses, testimony to, 34o. symbolic import of baptis- mal form, 348 Immortality of angels, 141. of the soul, 28. Immutability, of Christ, 84. of God, 46, 84. Independency, 337. what truths it affirms, 337 Infants not saved through their faith, 354 Inspired writers, diversity of style in, 40. Inspiration, degrees of, 39. differs from revelation, 40. Instinct, 158. Intellect and morality not necessarily connected, 27. Intercessor, qualifications of Christ as, 248. Intercession, meaning of, 246. of Christ, 246. authoritative, 249. basis of, 247. for his disciples, 252, 253. objects of, 251. sympathetic, 250. typified by Jewish high priest, 247. where made, 247. of Jewish high priest, 247. Intermediate state, 371. three leading views of, 371-377. Isaac, offering of, 283. Isaiah, 19, 40. sense of unworthiness of, 307. vision of, 76. J. Jacob, 137. James, 37. Jehovah, the name of Jesus, 77. Jeremiah, 32, 40. Jerusalem, 40. Jesus, death of, corresponds to the prophecies, 195. Jehovah in the Old Testament, 77. owned by Thomas, 77. prophecies concerning the Mes- siah ail fulfilled in, 189, 196. teaches the self-existence of God. 43. the Word, 77. treatment received by, 194. Joab, 142. Job, 10, 37. self-righteousness of, rebuked, 306. John the Baptist, 76. denies that he is the predicted prophet, 212 . on repentance, 263, 264 John the Evangelist, 37, 40, 88. Jordan, 40. Joseph, 104, 137. Joshua, 59. Judah, the Messiah descended from tribe of, 189. Judea, 40. Judgment, the General, 390-398. INDEX OF SUBJECTS. 417 Judgment, in the Old and in the New Testament, 390. its necessity and propriety, 390. who judged at, 393-398. Judgment-day will vindicate the ways of God, 56. Junius, use of word “atone,” 222. Justice of God, 56. Justification, as used by Ovid, 275. as used by Solomon, 275. by faith in Christ, 283. by faith meets our necessi- ties, 287. precedes all ceremo- nies, 288. prompts to holy life, 289. shows the beauty of holiness, 288. shows the evil of sin, 288. by faith, not for faith, 284. by man impossible, 277. declares the sinner inno- cent, 275. does not make holy, 274. does not make just, 275. does not regenerate, 274. importance of, 274. impossible by works, 276. not by repentance, 278. of Abraham, 283. prerogative of God, 287. Roman Catholic doctrine of, 274. teaching of Scripture con- cerning, 280. through Christ alone, 279. when it takes place, 282. K. Kendrick, Prof. A. C., D. D., 44. Kingdom of Christ, 215. mediatorial, 216. parables concern- ing, 217, L. Lamb of God, Christ the, 239. Lawgiver, Christ the, 220. Lazarus, 150. Lewis’s History of Translations , 345. Limits of human knowledge, 51. Lord’s Supper, 349. a church ordinance, 353. a commemorative ordi- nance, 358. by whom to be observed, 360. Lutheran view of, 359. origin of, 358. Romish theory of, 359. symbolic import shows it follows baptism, 367. Love, essential to worship, 26. greatest of Christian graces, 304. increases likeness to God, 304. must increase, 304. to God inspires love to men, 27. prompts to good works, 313. Lydia, baptism of her household, 355. M. Macknight, translation by, 340. Majority, its rights in a church, 338, 340. Man, act of, cannot have retrospective bearing, 277. can do no more than his duty, 277. can do nothing to remit his pen- alty, 179. can not lessen his penalty by su/ fering, 181. capacity of, to recognize God, 13. condemnation of just, 179. condition as a sinner, 177. condition in Eden, 161. created a holy being, 160. created a rational being, 158. created in the image of God, 123. death of, 167. depravity of, 178, 182. disgraced by sin, 249. does not wish his depravity re- moved, 183. driven from Eden, 168. existence of, explained, 11. fall of, 162. fallen condition of, 174. first state of, 157. free agent, 104. immortality of soul of, 205. Jesus the Advocate for, 250. liable to disease and death, 171. made in the image of God, 158. mortality of his body, 205. needs a Saviour, 177, 184. present state of, 169. repelled from God, 250. sin of, 165. subject to sorrow, 170. temptation of, 164. Matter the instrument of mind, 17. Matthew, 40. McCosh on Divine Government , 132, Mediator, all saints from Adam to Chrtsi saved by prospective death of, 211. capability of death, 210. holiness essential to, 200. includes offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, 212. one who interposes, 208. self-disposal of, 209. Mercy of God to men, 55. Messiah, 81. to come during the existence o / second temple, 192. Desire of all nations, 191. foretold by Daniel, 191. forsaken by God, 195. Jewish opinion of, 188, ••••• PSALMS. 1 : 2 309 2 : 6 .. 216 14 : 2, 3 ,175, 276 17 : 15 19 : 8-10 22 : 16 23 : 1, 2 33 : 6-9 83 : 9 33: 11 36 : 6 45 : 6 51 : 4 62 : 11 73 : 13 77 : 19 136 84 : 11 86 : 10 90 : 2 91 : 11, 12 97 : 2 102 : 27 47 103 : 13 294 103 : 15 103 : 20 104 : 24 104 : 27, 28 110 : 3 259 132 : 11 139 : 6 51 139 : 7 94 139 : 7-10 139 : 7-12 145 : 3 145 : 9 55 145:15, 16 145 : 17 147 : 5 147 : 9 129 PROVERBS. 11 : 30 16 : 4 19 : 2 ECCLESIASTES. 7 : 29 ...123, 160 11 : 7 54 12:7 ..172, 378 12 : 14 390 ISAIAH. 6 : 3 ....62, 14€ 6 : 3-5 422 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES. 423 6 : 8 66 9 : 6 83, 205 1 4 : 24 102 28 : 17 56 37 : 36 146 40 : 3 76 40 : 13, 14 100 42 : 8 126 42 : 21 224 44 : 8 46 45 : 22 46 46 : 9, 10 52 46 : 10 102 53 : — 194 53 :c, 6 72, 224 53 : 10 236 53 : 11 225 53 : 12 203 54 : 10 48 JEREMIAH. 2 : 19 168 12 : 1 137 23 : 23, 24 32 B2 : 17 51 EZEKIEL. 56 : 26 262 DANIEL. 4 : 35 104, 135 9 : 21 145 9 : 25, 26 191 12 : 2 385 JONAH. 3 : 5, 6 268 MIC AH. 5 : 2 80, 192 HAGGAI. 2 : 7-9 191 2 : 8 319 ZECHARIAH. 4 : 6 320 13 : 7 ....201, 236 MALACHI. 3 : 1 76 3 : 6 47, 84, 102 MATTHEW. 2 : 6 .... 81 2 : 23 194 3:1, 2 263 3 : 2 265 3 : 11 346 4 : 10 87 5 : 16 312 5 : 29 406 C : 10 147, 305 6 : 20 399 8:12 407 8 : 28, 29 156 8 : 29 397 10 : 22 327 10 : 28 406 10 : 37 89 11 : 19 194 11 : 20, 21 268 11 : 22 24 11 : 26 53 11 : 27 11 : 28 219 11 : 29 12 : 18 70 12 : 24 12 : 28 94 12 : 37 393 13 : 38 13 : 41 ..151, 217, 382 13 : 43 387 16 : 18 217 17 : 5 17:17 339 18 : 10 18 : 15-17 341 18 : 18-20 352 18 : 20 83 19 : 26 20 : 28 21 : 9 190 21 : 10, 11 22 : 29 22 : 37 313 22 : 42 23 : 33 406 24 : 31 151 25 : 31 384 25 : 31-46 389 25 : 34 97 25 : 35, 36 393 25 : 35-40 316 25 : 46 ...397,407, 408 26 : 11 317 26 : 38 203 26 : 53 27 : 35 196 27 : 46 236 28 : 19 66, 362 28 : 19-20 219 28 : 20 MARK. 1 ; 1 362 1 : 2, 3 1 : 15 3 : 28-30 95 3 : 29 6 : 12 264 7 : 21-23 178 9 : 43 9 : 44 10 : 51, 52 285 12: 29.... 46 12 : 30 ...74, 180, 277 16 : 15, 16 LUKE. 1 : 26, 27 2:4 193 2 : 10, 11 2 : 14 143 2 : 52 203 7 : 24 138 8: 11 8 : 12 8 : 13 10 : 20 11:42 12 : 5 12 : 33 154 399 296 12 : 48 13 : 3... 14 : 10 .. ! 14 : 26 15 : 10 139, 149 16 : 11 16 : 16 16 : 19-31 16 : 22 150 16 : 28 16 : 31 395 17 : 10 18 : 27 .’. .’.380 20 : 36 22 : 31, 32 253 22 : 32 325 23 : 43 24 : 26 24 : 27 24 : 39 24 : 46, 47 24 : 47 24 : 51 375, 399 JOHN. ' 1:1 1 : 1, 2 77 1 : 3 1 : 8 1 : 13 256, 260 1 : 18 213 1 : 21 1 : 23 76 1 : 29 1 : 46 !.194 2 : 24 272 3:3 956 3 : 5 3 : 6 260 3 : 7 261 3:8 .. 263 3 : 13 82 3 : 14-18 271 3: 16 3 : 18 283 3 : 35 3 : 36 234 27? 4 : 1, 2 ........ ~.....262 5 : 22-27 391 5 : 23 87 5 : 26 43 5 : 28, 29 86, 382 5 : 39 188 6 : 27 239, 326 6 : 35 271 6 : 38 6 : 42 182 6 : 63 261 7 : 24 215 7 : 46 214 7 : 52 193 8 : 40 200, 201 424 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES . 8 : 44 182 8 : 46 209 8 : 51 168 8 : 56 187 10 • 11 73 10 : 18 10 : 27-29 325 10 : 28, 29 10 : 32 11 : 25, 26 271 V2 : 41 76 12 : 48 396 13 : 7 136, 401 14 : 2,3 255, 400 14: 16 91 14 : 19 325 14 : 26 . 69, 91 14 : 30 38 15 : 1, 5 324 15 : 26 69, 92 16 : 8, 9 271 16 : 14 69, 92 17 : — 247, 252 17 : 3 46 17 : 5 77, 81 17 : 15 252 17 : 17 58, 253, 308 17 : 21 254 17 : 24 254, 405 18 : 11 236 18 : 36, 37 215 20 : 28 77, 241 21 : 15, 16 21 : 17 21 : 19 368 ACTS. 1 : : 24 2 : : 23 104 2 : 36 2 : : 38 .264, 350, 363 2: : 41 2: : 42 363 3 : : 19 112, , 149, 257, 264 3 : : 21 3 : : 22 4 : : 32 4 : : 35 5 : : 3, 4 5 : : 30 6 : : 3, 4 335 7 : : 59 8 : : 12 355, 364 9 : : 36 10: : 2 355 10: : 26 10: : 38 10 : : 42 391 10 : : 43 10 : : 47 13 : : 39 13: : 48 14: : 14 18 15: : 8 82 15: : 9 16 : 30, 31 273 16 : : 32, 34 16 : 33 16:40 355 8 : 30 17 : 26 169 8 : 33 17 : 28 8 : 33, 34 17 : 30 264 8 : 34 17 : 30, 31 9 : 5 17 : 31 10 : 4 280 17 : 32 378 10 : 10 18 : 8 ,355, 356 10 : 13 19 : 32, 39, 41.. 329 11 : 33 .52, 61, 99 20 : 21 264, 271 11 : 34 100 20 : 28 333 11 : 36 22 : 16 350 13 : 3 312 24 : 15 14 : 1 26 : 8 14 : 12 390 26 : 18 302 14 : 17 , 217 26 : 20 15 : 13 16 : 13 106 ROMANS. 16 : 16 1 : 3 16 : 26 409 1 : 18 234 1 : 19, 20 13 1 CORINTHIANS. 1 : 20 ........394 1 : 2 87 1 : 28 1 : 16 2:5 394 1 : 30 272 2 : 12 395 2 : 10 93 2 : 12 16 2 : 16 100 2 : 14,' 15 30 3: 1 299 3 : 2 3 : 11 324 3 : 9, 19 177 3 : 16 93 3 : 10 276 3 : 21-23 371 3 : 20 ..180, 277, 278 4 : 5 393 3 : 23 .276,305 4 : 15 262 3 : 24 280, 286 5:1 339 3 : 25 239 5:4 5 339 3 : 25, 26 224 5 : 13 3 : 26 228 280 6 : 2, 3 394 4 : 2-5 6 : 19 93 4:6-8 282 9 : 14 4 : 11 283 9 : 17 4 : 16 10 : 31 126 4 : 25 11 : 14 379 5 : 1 11 : 23-26 357 5 : 2 12 : 8-10 94 5 : 8 12 : 11 5 : 9* 280 13 : 9 136 5 : 10 13 : 12 401 5 : 11 .221, 222 13 : 13 5 : 12 .165, 173 15 : 3, 4 349 5 : 13 15 : 22 165 5 : 16 173 15 : 24-28 ...216, 391 5 : 19 15 : 29 5 : 21 287 15 : 47 6 : 2 15 : 49 385 6 : 3-5 15 : 50 6:4 15 : 52 6 : 11 .256, 356 15 : 56, 57 369 6 : 23 181 408 16 • 15 356 7 : 12 16 : 19 7 : 13 16 : 22 7 : 14-25 8 : 11 2 CORINTHIANS. 8 : 13 1 : 20 8 : 15 292 1 : 22 ..326 8 : 16 293 2 : 6-8 8 : 17 296 3:3 262 8 : 27 4 : 4 154 8 : 28 .136 295 4 ; 6 404 8 : 29 .108! 293 4 : 17 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES . 425 5 : 1 376 5 : 6-8 376 5 : 8 255 5 : 10 390 5 : 17 256 5 : 17, 18 262 5 : 21 280 6 : 18 291 8 . 9 200 12 : 2-4 374 12 : 4 374 13 : 14 67 GALATIANS. 1 : 4 252 2 : 7 272 3 : 13 73 3 : 16 1S7 3 : 26 257 g . 27 35(5 4 : 4, 5.'. 33* * 7 5, 21 0 , *224, 280 4 : 4-6 293 5 : 17 300 6 : 7 380 6 : 8 - 327 EPHESIANS. 1 : 4 98, 107 1 : 5 293 1 : 6 285 1 : 8 61 2 : 1 259 2 : 1-3 174 2 : 3 177 2 : 5 256, 259 2 : 8 283 2 : 10 Ill, 256, 314, 327 2 : 11, 12 153 2 : 18 68 3 : 8 307 3 : 9-11 98 3 : 10 99 4 : 5 356 4 : 11, 12 332 4 : 13 299 4 : 18 260 4 : 24 123, 160 4 : 30 92, 326 5 : 2 248 5 : 4 81 5 : 6 234 5 : 8 259 5 : 23 314 5 : 24 219 6 : 25-27 329 5 : 27 218 PHILIPPIANS. l : 1 333 1 : 21 371 1 : 23 255, 376 2 : 7 200 2 : 9-11 216 2 . 10 391 3 : 6 400 1:9 280, 393 3 : 13 306 3 : 21. 4 : 19 . 86 , 380, 384 294 COLOSSIANS. 1 : 5 399 1 : 12 323 1 : 13 217 1 : 16 85, 126 1 : 17 50, 85 2 : 5 , 217 2 : 12 348 3 : 1-4 310 3 : 10 123, 161, 256 4 : 15 330 1 THESSALONIANS. 1 : 4 112 1 : 10 234 2 : 4 272 3:12. 13 304 4 : 16 . 380, 384 4 : 17 255 5 : 10 227 2 THESSALONIANS. 1 : 3 302 1 : 7 146 1 : 7-9 60 1 : 7-10 382 1 : 9 408 2 : 13 106, 107, 111 3 : 6 339 1 TIMOTHY. 1 : 11 272 1 : 15 185 1 : 17 44 2 : 5 46, 209 2:5, 6 245 2 : 6 227 165 333 333 152 ......335 78 313 2: 14 3:1.. 3:2.. 3:6 3 : IS 3 : 16 5 : 10 6 : 16 141 6 : 18 313 2 TIMOTHY. 1 : 9 98, 107 2 : 10 Ill 2 : 15 334 2 : 26 154 4 : 1 391 4 : 7, 8 328 TITUS. 1:3.. 1:7.. 2:7.. 2 : 14 3:8.. .272 .333 .313 .227 .320 PHILEMON. Verse 18. HEBREWS. 1 : 3 50, 83 1 : 6 88 1 : 7 14C 1 : 8 76 1 : 10-12 22, 84 1 : 14 148 2 : 9, 10 32 2 : 10 226 2 : 11 293 2 : 14 200 2 : 18 251 3 : 12 271 4 : 9 403 4 : 13 52 4 : 14-16 250 4 : 15 38, 209 4 : 16 .‘ 292 5 : 4, 5 248 5 : 9 227 6 : 17, 18 109 6 : 20 247 7 : 14 190 7 : 25 246 7 : 26 209, 249 8 : 10 262 9 : 12 247 9 : 14 93 9 : 15-17 211 9 : 24 247 9 : 26 224, 228, 235, 238 9 : 27 134, 378 9 : 28 151. 225, 326, 372 10 : 4 240 10 : 24 313 10 : 28, 29 396 10 : 39 270 11 : 3 116 11 : 10 310 12 : 3 195 12 : 10 295 12 : 22 147 13 : 8 84 13 : 20 332 JAMES. 1 : 13 103 1 : 17 47, 102 1 : 18 262 1 : 27 317 2 : 14 .. 269 2 : 19 46, 269 2 : 26 289, 376 3 : 9 54, 159 1 PETER. 1 : 2 Ill 1 : 3, 4 296 1 : 5 253, 322, 325 1 : 10 , 11 188 1 : 12 .. 142 1 : 15, 16 295 1 : 16 62 1 : 18-20 322 1 : 20 98 1 . 23 262 2 : 2 309 2:5 324 426 INDEX OF SCRIPTURES . 2 : 7 324 2 : 12 313 2 24 225, 281 2 ; 25 333 3 : 18 94, 196, 209 3 : 21 348, 356 3 : 22 139, 247, 375 5 : 1, 2 333 5 : 4 334 2 PETER. 112 41 36, 213 152, 156, 397 44 1 JOHN. 1 : 1 200 1:2 - 80 8:1 .246 1 : 10 1 : 16 1 : 21 2:4.. 4:8. 248 303 294 .385, 401 303 300 2 : 23 52, 82 4 : 8 44 4 : 11 124 5 : 9 88, 106 5 : 12 88 6 : 10 .. 137 2 : 1 , 2 . 2 : 25 .. 3 : 1, 2. 3 : 2.... 3 : 3... 3 : 9 .... 3 : 20 52, 82 4 : 7 259, 314 4 : 10 55, 225 4 : 16 305 5 : 1 257 5 : 5 303 5 : 20 79 JUDE. Verse 6 152, 156, 397 REVELATION. 1 : 4, 5 68 1 : 5 350 2:7 374 6 : 16.... 8:3 12 : 9 163 14 : 13 15 : 3 15 : 4 18 : 1 19 : 6 20 : 2 20 : 4 20 : 6 20 : 12.... 390, 392 21 : 7 22: 9 22 16 190, 211 *