LECTURES

HRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

BY

GEOEGE CHEISTIAN KNAPP, D.D.
PROFESSOR OF IHEOLOaY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE.

TRANSLATED BY r
LEONARD WOODS, JUN. D.D.
PRESIDENT OF BOWDOIN COLLEGE, BEUNSWICK, JIAIHB.

SEVENTH AMERICAN EDITION.
REPRINTED FROM THE LAST LONDON EDITION.

PHILADELPHIA:
J. W. MOORE, 533 CHESTNUT STREET,
1858.

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1 845, "by Thomas Wardle, in the clerk's office of the
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

CONTENTS.

Translator's Preface  p. 9
INTRODUCTION.
BECT. PAGE
1. Of Religion and Theology, and the difference be
tween them  23
2. Of religion as the means of the moral improve
ment and perfection of men  27
3. Of natural and revealed religion  28
4. Is the knowledge of God innate %  32
5. Of the articles of faith, and the analogy of faith 33
6. Of the mysteries of religion  35
7. General observations on the use of the holy scrip
tures, reason, and tradition, as sources of
Christian doctrines  37
8. Of the object, different degrees, principal periods,
and biblical appellations of divine revelation 40
9. Of the scientific treatment of Christian theology 43
ARTICLE- I.
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES AS THE SOURCE OF OUR
KNOWLEDGE IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.
I. Names and divisions of the books belonging to
the holy scriptures  47
2. Of the authenticity or genuineness of the books
of the New Testament  47

SECT. PAGE
3. Of the authenticity of the books of the Old Tes
tament  48
4. Of the canon of the Old Testament, or the collec
tion of the books of the Old Testament into a
whole  '50
5. Of the canon of the New Testament, or the col
lection of the books of the New Testament
into a whole  53
6. Of the unadulterated correctness and integrity of
the Old and New Testament scriptures. ... 50
7. Of the truth and divinity of the doctrines taught
by Christ and his apostles  57
8. Of the inspiration of the scriptures of the Old
and New Testament, or the higher divine in
fluence enjoyed by the sacred writers .... 62
9. Historical observations comparing the concep
tions and expressions of the ancient world
respecting immediate divine influence .... 66
10. Of the various theories respecting the manner
and the degrees of inspiration  68
11. Of some of the principal attributes of the holy
scriptures  71
12. Of tlie use of the Bible as the source of the doc
trines of revelation  74
13. Of the reading of the holy scriptures  78

BOOK I.— DOCTRINE OF GOD.

PART I.
THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
ARTICLE II.
THE EXISTENCE AND THE NOTION OF GOD.
SECT. Tli.DE
14. Of the notion of God  85
15. Of the proofs of the divine existence  80
16. Of the unity of God  90
17 Of the scriptural names of God  93
ARTICLE III.
THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
18. Introduction to the doctrine respecting the na
ture and attributes of God  94
19. Of the spirituality of God  98

SECT. PAGE
20. Of the eternity and immutability of God .... 99
21. The omnipotence of God  101
22. Of the omniscience of God  102
23. Of the omnipresence of God  105
24. The wisdom of God  108
25. Introductory remarks respecting the nature and
perfections of the divine will  109
26. Of the freedom, immutability, and efficacy of the
divine will  HI
27. General remarks on the moral attributes of the
divine will  113
28. Of the veracity and the goodness of God .. .. 114
29. Of the holiness of God  116
30. Of the justice of God  H7
31. Of the justice of God (continued)  120
32. Of the decrees of God (Appendix)  121
3

CONTENTS.

ARTICLE IV
DOCTRINE OF FATHER, S0NrAN9 HOLY GHOST.

SECT. 33. Introductory remarks

page
. 130

CHAP. I.
BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
34. Is this doctrine taught in the Old Testament? 131
35. Of those texts in the New Testament in which
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned
in connection  133
30. Of those texts in which the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost are separately mentioned, and in
which their nature and mutual relation are
taught  135
37. Of the texts in which divine names are given
to Christ  136
38. Of the texts in which divine attributes and
works %re ascribed to Christ, and in which
divine honour is required for him  138
39. Of the Holy Spirit, and his personality . . . . 140
40. Of the divinity of the Holy Spirit  142
CHAP. II.
HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
41. Are there in Jewish or heathen writings any
traces of the doctrine of the Trinity which
were not derived from Christian sources? .. 144
42. History of the doctrine of the Trinity during the
second and third centuries, before the Nicene
Council  148
43. History of the doctrine of the Trinity during
the fourth century, and of the distinctions
established at the Nicene Council, and since
adopted in the orthodox church  152
44. History of the doctrine of the Trinity since the
time of the Reformation  158

PART n.
THE WORKS OF GOD.

ARTICLE V.
OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
45. Of the meaning of the word " World" and of
synonymous words  161
46. What we mean when we speak of the creation
of the world ; the proof of a creation ; the
material from which it was made; with a
sketch of the various opinions entertained
on this subject  163
47. The doctrine and language of the Biblical
writers respecting the creation in general,
and how they are to be understood  160
48. The work of creation twofnld; different classes
of creatures; our knowledge of them; and
of God in the creation of the world; the beBt
world  169
49. Of the Mosaic account of the creation; its ob
ject; and the various hypotheses adopted to
explain it  171
50. Explanation of the Mosaic history of the creation 176

ARTICLE VI.
CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION OF MAW.
SECT. PAGB
51. Of the nature of man, especially of the soul of
man, and of his destination  180
52, Of the Mosaic account of the origin of the hu
man race  184
53. Of the image of God in which man was created 189
54. Of the primitive state of man ; his mental and
moral perfections  19°
55. Of the primitive state of man; his bodily excel
lences, and speech  195
56. Of the primitive state of man; his external ad
vantages ; and the notion of a golden age . . 197
57. Of the propagation of the human race  200

ARTICLE VII.
THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING ANGELS.
58. Of the importance of the doctrine concerning
angels, and some introductory historical re
marks  ,  202
59. Of the appellations of angels ; their nature ;
proofs of their existence ; their creation and
original state ; and the classes into which
they are divided  207
CHAP. I.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY ANGELS.
60. Of the present state and employment of holy
angels  209
61. Of the classes of good angels; their names ; and
the worship rendered them  212
CHAP. II.
THE FALLEN ANGELS, OR EVIL SPIRITS.
62. Of the existence of evil spirits, and their apos
tasy  215
63. Of the nature arid attributes of evil spirits ;
their present and future condition ; their
number, classes, and names  219
64. Of the employments and the effects of evil spirits 222
APPENDIX.
POWER OF SATAN OVER THE HUMAN BODY AND THE
MATERIAL WORLD.
65. Of the bodily possessions recorded in the New*
Testament  226
66. Of magic and spectres  231
ARTICLE VIII.
THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING DIVINE PROVIDENCE.
67. What is meant by the providence of God, and
historical remarks respecting this doctrine! 235
68. Of the proof of the doctrine of divine provi
dence, and of the divisions under which it
has been treated  238
69. Of the preservation of the existence and of the
powers of created beings and things . . , . 241
70. Of the government of God  245
71. The government of God in relation to the free
dom of man, and to the evil existing in the
world  247
72, Of the nature and attributes of Divine Provi
dence  tm 252

CONTENTS.

BOOK II.— THE DOCTRINE OF MAN.

PART I.
STATE INTO "WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY
THE FALL.

ARTICLE IX.

OF SIN) AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN.

73. What is meant by sin; the different words used
in the Bible to denote sin, and the meaning
of them  259
74. What does reason, without the use of the Bible,
teach us respecting the sinful state of man,
and the origin of it? And how far do the
results of reason on this subject agree with
the Bible ?  261
75. Mosaic account of the sin of our first parents . . 260
76. Of the imputation of the sin of our first parents 273
77. In what the natural depravity of man consists ;
its appellations in the Bible; when it has
its principal seat in man; and how its ex
istence may be proved from the holy scrip
tures  277
78. Of the nature and attributes of this corruption ;
its propagation ; its punishableness ; also of
the origin of sinful desires among men, and
their punishableness  284
79. Of the representations of the ancient church-
fathers respecting human depravity, and the
manner in which the ecclesiastical phrase
ology on this subject and the various forms
of doctrine were gradually developed . .
80. Results of the foregoing discussion respecting
the doctrine of natural depravity, and ob
servations on the mode of teaching this doc
trine 
81. Explanation of the idea which is commonly
connected in theology with the expression
"Actual Sins," and of the different degrees
of sin 

PART II.
STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY
THE REDEMPTION.

ARTICLE X.
OF JESUS CHRIST.
CHAP. I.
OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOR THE RESTORATION OF
MEN, IN A GENERAL VIEW; THE EXPECTATIONS, PRE
DICTIONS, AND TYPES OF THE MESSIAH, AND THEIR
FULFILMENT IN JESUS OF NAZARETH.

SECT.

PA OB

82. Divisions of sin in respect to the law, to the
knowledge and purpose of him who commits
it, and to the action itself 
83. Of some other divisions of sin, and sins of par
ticipation 
84, Of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or the
sin against the Holy Ghost  .
85. Of the state into which men are brought by the
commission of sin, and the different kinds
and names Of it 
86. What punishment is, and what is the object of
it; how the divine punishments are named
in the Bible, and what we. are there taught
respecting their nature; also the various di
visions of the divine punishments 
87. Some remarks on positive divine punishments

311314

88. Of the institutions established by God for the
moral recovery and the salvation of the
human race, in a general view; the scrip
tural doctrines and representations on this
subject; as a general introduction to what
follows  317
B9. Formation and development of the idea of Mes
siah among the ancient and modern Jews
their opinions respecting him; and the proof
that Jesus was the Messiah  * 321
90. Of the principles on which we are to interpret
the literal and figurative predictions con
tained in the Old Testament respecting the
Messiah, and the new institute founded by
him  325
91. Of the successive degrees of the revelations and
predictions contained in the Old Testament
respecting the Messiah  328
CHAP. II.
HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES OF HUMILIATION
AND EXALTATION.
92. The scriptural representation of the two prin
cipal periods in the life of .TeBus ; the scrip
tural names of these periods ; the proof texts ;
and some conclusions  331
*^3. Of the origin, conception, birth, and youth of
Jesus ; his true humanity, and the excel
lences of it  334
94. Of the doctrine of Jesus, and his office as
teacher  337
95. Of the hardships and sufferings of Jesus . . . . 341
96. Of Christ's descent into hell  343
97. History of Christ considered as a man, in his
state of exaltation  346
98. Wherein the heavenly glory or majesty of Christ,
as a man, consists; and the scriptural idea
of this kingdom and dominion of Christ. . . . 350
99. Remarks on the form and sense of the scrip
tural representation respecting the kingdom
of God and of Christ; and on the signification
of the phrase, to sit on the right hand of God,
as applied to Christ  .. 352
a2

CONTENTS.

CHAP. III.
DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

100. The higher nature of Christ, and how it is
proved  355
101. Of the connection between the deity and huma
nity of Christ according to what the Bible
directly teaches, and the consequences which
may be deduced from its instructions . . . . 357
102. Historical observations explanatory of the origin
and progressive development of the eccle
siastical system respecting the person and
the two natures of Christ, until the eighth
century  . • 361
103. Historical observations continued; the ancient
terminology respecting this doctrine ex
plained  . . ' 366
104. A brief exhibition of the ecclesiastical system
respecting the person and the two natures
of Christ ; an explanation of the ecclesias
tical phraseology now in use in the doctrine
de communication idiomatum ; and a critical
judgment upon the same  369
t CHAP. IV.
THE WORK OF CHRIST, AND WHAT HAS BEEN
EFFECTED BY IT.
105. Scriptural names and descriptions of the works
of Christ, and their salutary effects; also,
the names of Christ as the Saviour of the
world  372
106. What is considered in the scriptures as properly
belonging to the work which Christ per
formed for the good of men ; explanation of
the word " redemption," as used in the
Bible ; and what is the most convenient and
natural order and connection for exhibiting
the doctrine of the entire merits of Christ . . 374
107. Of the method formerly adopted of considering
the work of Christ as consisting of the pro
phetic, priestly, and kingly offices . . . .-% . . 377

PART I. OF CHAP. IT.
On redemption from the punishment of sin ; or, the
Atonement of Christ, and the Justification of Men
before God, — the Consequence of the Atonement.
108. Of the various opinions respecting the forgive
ness by God, and the conditions on which
forgiveness may be granted; and an applica
tion of this to the scriptural doctrine of the
atonement  380
109. Scriptural doctrine respecting the necessity of
the forgiveness of sin; what is meant by
forgiveness, pardon, justification; and the
scriptural terms by which they are desig
nated  385
110. Illustration of the scriptural statemont, that
men owe it to Christ alone that God justifies
them or forgives their sins  388
111. Of the sufferings and death of Christ ; how far
we are indebted to Ihein for our justification
or pardon ; together with observations on
some of the principal attributes (affections)
of the death of Christ  390
112. Of the influence which the resurrection of Christ,
and his subsequent exaltation and inter
cession, have upon our forgiveness or Justifi
cation  395

SECT. PAGE
113. The scripture doctrine of pardon or justification
through Christ, as an universal and unmerited
favour of God  397
114. Of the various theories respecting the nature and
manner of the atonement of 'Christ; and a
notice of some of the most important works
on atonement and justification  400
115. Of the active obedience of Christ  405
PART II. OF CHAP. IV.
On Redemption from the Power or Dominion of Sin.
116. Of the importance of this doctrine; its con
formity with scripture, and the manner in
which we are freed from sin through Christ 408
117. Of the deliverance from the power and dominion
of sin, for which we are indebted, under di
vine assistance, to the instruction and ex
ample of Christ  ¦ .. 410
PART III. OF CHAP. IV.
On the present and future consequences of the work
of Christ.
118. Scriptural titles of the salvation procured by
Christ for men; its general nature ; the doc
trine of the New Testament respecting the
abolition of the Old Testament dispensation
by Christianity, and the advantages resulting
from it to the world  412
T19. The happiness which Christians obtain in this
life from Christ  415
120. The happiness which Christians obtain through
Christ in the future life  418
ARTICLE XI.
DOCTRINE OF THE CONDITIONS OF SALVATION.
121. Of the Christian doctrine of faith, as the only
condition of salvation, together with remarks
respecting the salvation of the heathen and
of infants  420
122. Of the various significations of the word "faith"
as used in the Bible; some of the principal
passages relating to faith; the parts of which
faith is made up; and some of the most im
portant theological divisions of faith . . . . 423
123. Of the different objects of Christian doctrine to
which faith refers; and the relation of faith
to the same  427
124. Of the connection of the parts of which faith is
composed; the characteristics and degrees
of faith ; and the conditions on which it is
saving  431
lK5. Of the nature of Christian good works or virtues ;
the relation in which they stand to salvation ;
and their meritoriousness  435
120. Explanation of the terms which are used in the
scriptures to denote both the external pro
fession of Christianity (fides externa) and
internal moral improvement and sanctifi-
cation  439
127. Statement of the doctrine of moral reformation;
Its commencement ; on putting off repent
ance, and on late conversions  442
128. Remarks on the false opinions and perversions
concerning the doctrine of repentance, which
have been gradually adopted in the Christian
church  447

CONTENTS.

ARTICLE XII.
THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE J OR THE DIVINE INSTITU
TIONS FOR PROMOTING REPENTANCE AND FAITH.
SECT. PAGE
129. Explanation of the terms "grace," "operations
of grace," " means of grace," and other
phrases employed in theology on this sub
ject; and the connection of this doctrine with
the preceding  449
130. What are the operations of divine grace for pro
moting the repentance and salvation of those
who 1 ive in Christian lands ; and what means
does God employ in exerting these influences
on their hearts?  451
131. now is the divine origin of these gracious renew
ing influences proved from the holy scrip
tures? and remarks in explanation of the
scriptural phraseology on this subject . . . . 454
132. A sketch of some of the principal theories re
specting the operations of divine grace, and
the freedom (or ability) of man in spiritual
things ; and the controversies on this subject
in the Christian Church  458
133. Exhibition of the modern theory respecting the
divinity of the operations of grace, and the
power of the word of God  462
APPENDIX.
Of prayer as a means of grace  467
ARTICLE XIII.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY OR
CHURCH.
134. What is meant by the Christian church ; its ob
ject; its names; and the divisions of the
church common in theology  469
135. Attributes of the Christian church ; the ecclesi
astical terms commonly employed to desig
nate them, and their signification  472
136. Of the head of the Christian church; and of the
institutions established to maintain and ex
tend it, especially through the office of public
teaching  475
ARTICLE XIV.
THE TWO SACRAMENTS — BAPTISM AND THE
LORD'S SUPPER.
137. The sacraments in general  479
CHAP. I.
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
138. Names, institution, and origin of Christian
baptism; with observations on John the
Baptist and the Jewish baptism of prose
lytes  483
139. How and by whom baptism is to be adminis
tered; and respecting the optional and un
essential things attending the observance of
this rite  ^485
140. Object, uses, and effects of Christian baptism . . 488
141. The necessity of baptism, and whether it may be
repeated  491
142. The baptism of infants  494

CHAP. II.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD*S SUPPER.
SECT. PAGE
143. The names of the Lord's Supper; and the oc
casion and objects of its institution  496
144. The distinction between what is essential and
unessential in the celebration of the ordi
nance of the Supper  500
145. The uses and efficacy of the Lord's Supper; and
inferences from these  505
146. The various opinions and forms of doctrine re
specting the presence of the body and blood
of Christ in the Lord's Supper, historically
explained, and also a critique respecting them 508
ARTICLE XV.
ON DEATH, AND THE CONTINUANCE AND DESTINY OF
MEN AFTER DEATH; OR THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING
THE LAST THINGS.
147. Death  514
148. The Christian doctrine of the continuance of the
human soul, and its state after death . . . . 516
149. Historical illustrations of the various opinions
which have prevailed in ancient and modern
times respecting the continuance of the soul
after death ; and the proofs drawn from rea
son in favour of it  519
150. Some of the most important of the various
opinions respecting the place of departed
souls, and their condition there  523
151. What is understood by the resurrection of the
dead; the meaning of the word "resurrec
tion ;" and what is taught respecting it by
the Jews  527
152. The Christian doctrine respecting the resurrec
tion of the body  531
153. Doctrincof the New Testament respecting the
nature of the body which we shall receive at
the resurrection; and the opinions of theolo
gians on this point  534
154. The last appearing of Christ before the end of the
world ; the various opinions on this subject ;
also respecting the Millennial kingdom, and
the universal conversion of Jews and Gentiles 538
155. The general judgment, and the end of the pre
sent constitution of the world  541
156. The punishments ofhell, or eternal condemnation 545
157. Duration of future punishments ; reasons for and
against their eternal duration  549
358. Result drawn from comparing and examining
the different arguments for and against the
eternal duration of future punishment; and
a sketch of the history of this doctrine .. .. 552

ON ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS.
159. Introduction to this doctrine; and explanation
of the Bcriptural phraseology with regard
to it  555
160. What do reason and scripture teach, and lead us
to expect, in a general view, as to the real
nature of future blessedness  558

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

AM happy in being able to
present to the friends of bibli
cal theology the translation of
Dr. Knapp's Lectures. The
prevailing preference of the
method adopted by this author
above other methods of pur
suing theological study, leads me to
hope that this work will be an accept
able offering to the public. It was the
ultimate object of that eminent servant
of Christ who composed these lectures,
to promote vital piety and practical religion
even by his more theoretical writings. If the
translation of these lectures may conduce to the
same end, the translator will feel abundantly
rewarded for his labour.
On opening a book we naturally feel a desire
to know something of the author; and if he
treats on controverted points, to know on what
principles he wrote, and with whom he stood
connected. I shall endeavour to satisfy this cu
riosity, hy giving some account of the school of
Biblical Theology in Germany, to which our
author belonged, together with an outline of his
life and character. I cannot expect, however,
within the narrow limits of a preface, to do full
justice to either of these subjects.
The school of Biblical Theology was esta
blished by Spener at Halle, in 1694, for the
avowed purpose of having theology taught in a
different manner from that common in the Ger
man universities. Spener states thatit was usual
for persons to spend five or six years at the uni
versities without hearing, or caring to hear, a
single book, chapter, or verse of the Bible ex
plained. In the few cases where exegetical
lectures were commenced by such teachers as
Olearius and Carpzov, they were soon aban
doned. The Bible was perhaps less used before
the time of Spener in Protestant universities than
it had been, under penalty of excommunication,
by pious Catholics before the Reformation. In
place of the Scriptures, the different symbols
established by the Protestant church were taught
and studied. The minutest distinctions esta
blished by them were contended for with the
greatest zeal, and the least deviation from them
¦was pronounced heresy as decidedly as if they
had been given by inspiration of God, and was
2

punished accordingly with the greatest severity.
The spirit of Protestantism seemed to have
thrown off the hierarchal yoke, only to assume
another and perhaps a more degrading form of
bondage. In explaining and defending these
symbols, the Aristotelian dialectics were em
ployed, and in the use of them the students were
thoroughly exercised. As to the practical effect
which the doctrines of Christianity should have
upon their own hearts, and the manner in' which
they should exhibit them for the benefit of others,
nothing was said to them by their teachers.
Thus disciplined, they went forth to repeat from
the pulpit what they had learned at the university,
and fought over their idle battles, in which theii
own learning and skill were carefully displayed,
to the neglect of every thing which might arouse
the careless, persuade the doubting, or satisfy
the deep desires and assuage the sorrows of the
heart. This was a state of things which Spener de
plored. Others before him, especially pious lay
men, had noticed these evils, but had withdrawn,
like the mystics of a former period, and sought
in private contemplation that satisfaction of their
spiritual, wants which they could not obtain from
the learned jargon of the pulpit; or if, like An
dreas and Arndt, they had lifted up a voice of
remonstrance against the prevailing disorders, it
had been drowned in the noise of angry pole
mics. But the reputation and influence of Spener
were too great to allow his remonstrances to
pass unnoticed. Without aiming at the name,
he performed the work of a reformer. In the
unpretending form of a preface to an edition of
Arndt's Sermons, he published in 1675 his Pia
Besideria, in which he urged the necessity of
amending the prevailing mode of instruction
and preaching. It was his great object to divert
attention from the symbols, and direct it to the
scriptures. He wished every student to derive
his system for himself directly from the Bible ;
and to feel and enjoy the truths thus learned,
rather than contend about them ; and especially
he wished the teachers in the universities, and
the preachers in the desk, abandoning for ever
their foolish questions and subtle dialectics, to
labour to promote the solid instruction and the
true piety of those committed to their charge.
This was the object which more and more en
9

10

PREFACE.

grossed his attention, as he saw more of the
deadening influence of scholastic theology ; and
he at length pursued it with such zeal that
he awakened the jealousy and hatred of those
who loved the letter more than the spirit, the
form of godliness more than its power. After
removing from place to place, and being at
length driven from Dresden by the violence of
the opposition against him, he found refuge and
rest in Berlin. He there exerted his influence
with Frederick III. to procure the establishment
of a new university at Halle. For various rea
sons, political and religious, his proposal was
adopted, and to Spener was committed the or
ganization of the Theological Faculty. He
selected for this purpose Anton, Breithaupt, and
Franke, men of congenial spirit with himself,
who had visited him in Berlin, imbibed his
views, and were then labouring in different
places, and under great discouragements, to
promote the revival of scriptural knowledge and
practical Christianity. They were now united
in the new university at Halle; and though de
nounced by the theologians of the sister univer
sities, and especially those of Wittemberg, as
pietists, innovators, and heretics, they were not
to be hindered from appointing a new course of
studies, nor from pursuing a new method in
teaching. The establishment of the Theological Faculty
at Halle forms an epoch in the history of theo
logical science ; and to those who founded and
composed it, especially to Spener and Franke,
are Protestants indebted for the revival and per
petration of the spirit of the Reformation. They
entered a new protest against the reign of eccle
siastical authority, and asserted anew the right
of Christians in matters of faith. That we are
free to judge for ourselves as to what we shall
believe, in opposition to the decretals of Popes
or Councils, whether Catholic or Protestant ;
that the holy scriptures are the pure source
whence we must draw our religious knowledge,
and not symbols, confessions, or systems framed
and established by men; and that the doctrines
of the Bible are to be used, by the learned as
well as the unlearned, to promote holiness of
heart and life, rather than merely as objects of
speculation, — these were the great principles
upon which Luther and Melancthon, Spener
and Franke, alike proceeded.
It is not uncommon to see the founders of this
school classed with those narrow-minded and
bigoted enthusiasts who regard learning and
science with hatred and contempt, and presume
upon a miraculous illumination, superseding the
necessity of studying divine truth. But to this
class Spener and Franke did not belong; and
decided as was the stand which they took
against the scholastic learning of the times in
which they lived, they were far from falling

into the opposite and equally dangerous extreme.
Their principles respecting the study of theo
logy are so often misstated that I feel inducedi
after a perusal of some of their own writings,
to exhibit them here more at length.
I. They believed that God had revealed him
self directly to men, and that this revelation is
contained in the books of the Old and New Tes
tament, which are the only source of our reli
gious knowledge, to the exclusion of those pre
tended revelations of which theosophy boasts.
To obtain the meaning of these scriptures they
made therefore the first duty of the theological
Student. In scripturis theologus nascitur, was-
their constant maxim. They did not, like their
contemporaries in the other universities, suffer
the student to rely indolently on the traditionary
interpretation of the word of God, nor to adduce,
without examination, exactly the same proof-
texts, neither more nor less, as had been used
in every preceding system ; nor did they suffer
him to expect, like some ancient and modern
visionaries, that a culpable ignorance would be
removed by supernatural illumination. On the
contrary, they insisted upon the importance of
his becoming acquainted with the original lan
guages in which the holy scriptures were writ
ten, and diligently using the whole apparatus
of hermeneutical helps, (then indeed compara
tively small,) in order to ascertain the very sense
in the mind of the inspired writer.
II. By these means, however, important as
they are, the student attains only to what they
called a natural, human, and literal knowledge,
in distinction from a spiritual and divine percep
tion of the doctrines of revelation. The sacred
writers did not invent new words and expressions
to designate the new relations to God into which
men were brought by Christianity, and the feel
ings belonging to those relations; but rather
employed language used to designate relations
and feelings previously known, analogous to
those intended. To every man, therefore, their
language, even with respect to the peculiar
states of which the Christian is conscious, con
veys a general meaning — viz., the notion of
something in the thing intended, answering to
something in the analogous relation or feeling
from which the representation is taken. But
what is the very thing, among the many things
in this new relation, which would justify the
metaphor, — what is the very thing intended by
the evangelist or the apostle in the use of it, can
be understood only by one who has in reality
been brought into this new relation, and expe
rienced the feelings belonging to it. To be more
definite: the new relation instituted by Chris
tianity is most frequently denoted in the sacred
writings by the words souship, adoption, and
those of a similar import, which clearly convey
to every reader a general notion of what this

PREFACE.

I!

new relation is ; and this general notion is the
literal knowledge of the subject which the na
tural man may possess. But there are many
things in the human relation of a son to a father
.which might be the foundation of the metaphor
employed. Resemblance, imitation, obedience,'
love, or actual descent and possession of the
same nature, and many other things which
might be mentioned, would furnish a proper
foundation for the metaphor of sonship and
adoption. And so these have all been made by
different commentators the point of analogy be
tween this common and this Christian relation.
But what is the very thing in this new relation
which the evangelists and apostles had in view
when they called it sonship, he only can under
stand who, by believing in Christ, has had the
power given him to become a son of God. And
even he will understand it better in proportion
to the depth and liveliness of his Christian ex
perience, and then only attain to its full import
when, in the world of glory, what is here begun
in him shall be perfected. This is the spiritual
perception spoken of, arising from the personal
experience of the things signified in the holy
scriptures ; and this experience results from
faith, which receives the doctrines of revelation
in their sanctifying and enlightening power.
Faith, therefore, has the same relation to divine
things that sense has to natural things ; and it is
equally true in one case as in the other, that
sense or experience is the only foundation of
knowledge, — sensus est principium cognoscendi.
This seems to be the meaning of Spener and
Franke when they say so often that the Holy
Spirit is indispensable to the study of theology.
That this personal experience, or feeling percep
tion, must precede all true knowledge of the
things of revelation, — in other words, that the
doctrines of the Bible must be felt, in order to
be truly understood, have root in the heart before
they can be rightly apprehended by the under
standing, — though often deemed an exploded
proposition, and in the ears of many perfectly
paradoxical, is yet as philosophically just as it
is conformed to scripture. This view cannot
be better expressed than in the following re
markable words of Pascal: — " Les verites di
vines sont infiniment au-dessus de la nature.
Dieu seul peut les mettre dans l'ame. II a
• voulu qu'ils entrent du cceur dans l'esprit, et
non pas de l'esprit daris le cceur. Par cette
raison, s'il faut connaitre les choses humaines,
pour pouvoir les aimer, il faut aimer les choses
divines, pour pouvoir les connaitre.'''' "Divine
things are infinitely above nature, and God only
can place them in the soul. He has designed
that they should pass from the heart into the
head, and not from the head into the heart;
and so, as it is necessary to know human
thino-s in order to love them, it is necessary to

love divine things in order to know them." Let
not the student, then, who would penetrate into
the real meaning of the sacred text, rely upon
the Grammar and the Lexicon, upon Commen
taries and Institutes of Interpretation, which
cannot lead beyond the letter. All true know
ledge of the scripture must proceed from the life
of faith ; we must believe in order to experience,
and experience in order to understand. Such is
the import of the following words of Anselmus,
which have been chosen by Schleiermacher, one
of the profoundest theologians in Germany, for
his motto, and which deserve to be engraven on
the memory of every student in theology: —
" Non enim qusero intelligere ut credam, sed
credo ut intelligam. Nam qui non crediderit,
non experietur, et qui expertus non fuerit, non
intelliget." III. When the literal sense of scripture has
been ascertained by grammatical and historical
interpretation, and when the hidden meaning of
the sacred hieroglyphics has been unlocked by
a believing experience of the things signified,
then are the materials provided for theological
science ; as yet, however, confused and disor
ganized. With these insulated experiences, and
the direct processes of the spiritual life, many
would have us remain contented, and are jealous
of the reflective and systematizing acts of the
mind. This is the mistake of the Myslici im-
puri, and of many sincerely pious, but less en
lightened Christians in modem times. They
justly ascribe much of the coldness, contention,.
and heresy that has disturbed and corrupted the
church, to the influence of speculative reason,
and would gladly exclude it wholly from the
province of faith. But they overlook the im
perfections of religion when it exists merely as
feeling, and the darkness, confusion, and extra
vagance which result from the want of strict
science in the doctrines of Christianity. These
evils are not merely incidental to simple faith,
but almost inseparable from it; for what can
prevent that exaggeration of its particular ob
jects, to which feeling always tends, and give
to each its due importance, but that view of the
whole which science alone can furnish 1 These
evils were not overlooked by Spener ; and he
contended for the proper use of system and
science in religion with a zeal only inferior to
that with which he contended against their
abuse. He held the just medium between the
pious enthusiast and the cold speculator; and
wished that the system might proceed from a
living faith and be pervaded by it, and that faith
might be regulated and rectified by thorough
system ; and he thus aimed to secure to Chris
tianity, what it may justly claim, the whole man;
the powers of the understanding and the feelings
of the heart.
The effort to attain to an insight into the in

12

PREFACE.

ternal connection of the various objects of our
experience, to attain to the one principle under
which the phenomena we witness may be class
ed, — the effort, in short, which lies at the foun
dation of science in every department, is one of
the original and higher efforts or instincts of the
human soul ; and though in some periods, and
in individual minds, it is less predominant, at
other times, and in other minds, it is wholly
irrepressible. Its utility in- reducing to order
the disconnected elements of human knowledge,
and in constructing from them an organized
whole, cannot be questioned ; and why should
not this systematizing, organific instinct of the
mind be suffered to employ itself upon the no
bler elements of religious knowledge, scattered
over the page of re /elation and of experience,
collecting and classifying them, and from them
constructing an harmonious system of religious
truth ?
Here it must be remarked, that a believing
.experience is equally essential to a truly scien
tific combination of all the doctrines of Chris
tianity as to an adequate understanding of each
particular one. In every scientific system, the
parts should have a real relation to one great
object, for which the whole is constructed ; and
if we would have it a living, and not a lifeless
organization, we must have this great object
within ourselves. The name of science cannot
justly be applied to a mere artificial collocation
of particulars, wanting internal unity, and desti
tute of a pervading soul. Hence it may be safely
affirmed, that true theological science is possible
only on condition of personal Christian expe
rience; this alone can furnish the last end, the
point of unity, the living spirit of sthe whole.
Where this does not exist, combining the re
sults of the mere philological study of the Bible
furnishes at best a piece of lifeless mechanism,
where the parts cohere, as the cards in the pup
pet, and not as the limbs in the body. It was
from the exegetical school in Asia Minor, and
from the feet of the philologist Lucian, that the
heresiarch Arius proceeded ; and his error arose,
in a great measure, from his making the Bible
grammatically interpreted, separately from the
light of experience, the foundation of theology.*
The elements of theological science should not,
therefore, be drawn solely from the written page
of revelation ; the contents of this page must be
first transferred to the tablets of the heart; these
inward tablets must then be studied, and strictly
compared with the outward letter ; and from this
faithful and living transcript, corresponding
with the original revelation, and from this reve
lation thus transferred to the heart, the elements
of the system must be derived. The direction
here given, to make the results of Christian ex-
* Vide Neander, Allgem. Kirchengesohiclite, b.
ii. Abth. 2, s>. 770.

perience, derived from and regulated by the
written word, rather than the mere fruits of the
exegetical study of the Bible, the elements of
theological science, is, I believe, in the spirit
of the founders of this school of biblical and
practical Christianity. Theological study is
happily turning more and more to the inward
scroll of experience ; and instances might easily
be mentioned, did my limits permit, in which
the established ecclesiastical system has been
rectified, by being made to answer more entirely
to the demands of pious feeling.* When Chris
tian faith shall receive and hold the pure and
unadulterated truths of revelation, and Christian
theology shall wholly correspond to Christian
faith, then will the science of Christianity attain
its highest perfection.
IV. The system of truth which was adopted
by the founders of this school agreed substan
tially with that of their contemporaries, although
the eagle-eyed malignity of Deutschmann of
Wittemberg espied no less than two hundred
and sixty heresies in a single writing of Spener.
The latter, however, andhis associates, professed
to hold the doctrines contained in the established
symbols, and differed from the theologians of
the other universities only with respect to the
grounds on which they believed them, and the
ends for which they employed them. While
their contemporaries believed in these doctrines
because they were contained in the symbols, the
theologians of Halle believed them because,
after independent investigation, they found them
contained in the word of God, and confirmed by
their own experience. And while their con
temporaries employed these doctrines for no
other purposes than speculation and contention,
they insisted that the doctrines of revelation shottld
be taught in the universities, as well as exhibited
in the pulpit, with the ultimate design of promot
ing personal piety. This was their fourth gene
ral principle respecting the study of theology,
and that which procured for their school the
honourable distinction of a school of practical
theology. They regarded it as almost certain
that students in theology would treat the doc
trines of Christianity as public teachers very
much as they had been accustomed to hear them
treated at the university, — that if they had been
taught theology in a scholastic method, they
would probably fall into the same method in
preaching. Such had really been the effect of
the speculative turn given to theological instruc
tion. Students of theology had come from the
university expert and disputatious metaphysi
cians, rather than evangelical pastors, well
qualified by their own experience of divine truth
to impart it with sincerity and earnestness to
others ; and the piety of the church wanting its

* Vide Schleiermacher, in the last article in his
" Zeitschrift," s. 29, and especially s. 299 — 304.

PREFACE.

13

proper nutriment, the simple truth of the gospel
had long been declining. The first theologians
at Halle sought to remedy these evils at their
very source, to apply the do'ctrines of salvation
to their own case, and keep their own hearts
alive to the practical influence of revealed truth ;
and then to induce their hearers to abstain from
useless questions, and see to it that they them
selves were builded upon that foundation, which
it would be their duty to point out to others, and
to show them how the doctrines of the Bible
should be exhibited in order to answer the ends
for which they were given — the conviction and
conversion of sinners, and the consolation and
encouragement of believers. It was in pursu
ance of these objects that Franke delivered his
" Lectiones Paraeneticas," which were followed
by more real and lasting benefit than any other
part of his academical labours. They were first
delivered by him in his own study, and after
wards in the public hall of the theological fa
culty, one hour a week — viz., from 10 to 11
o'clock on Thursday, when other exercises were
suspended, that all the students in the theologi
cal department might be at liberty to attend.
In the preface to the first collection of these
lectures, Franke gives the following account of
them : — " I have not been accustomed to follow
any particular method in these lectures, but
have made it my rule to say on each occasion
what I saw then to be most necessary to the
students in theology, either to promote their
thorough conversion and Christian walk, or the
wise and orderly prosecution of their studies,
that they might be at length sent forth as faith
ful, wise, and useful labourers in the vineyard
of the Lord, each according to the gift granted
to him by God."
Such were the principles of the founders of
the university at Halle respecting the studyof
theology; and it deserves to be remarked that
on these principles, and these alone, theology is
a distinct and independent science. On these
principles, it is the science of truths revealed by
God and received by faith, and is thus, in a two
fold sense, divine — viz., as to the original source
of its truths, and the organ through which they
are transmitted to the reflecting mind ; that faith
which the Holy Spirit produces in the heart.
It is in this way distinguished from all human
sciences ; not that the scientific effort of the
mind (the effort to bring connexion and unity
into our various experiences) is different in the
two cases, for this is not supposed ; but that the
materials about which this scientific effort is
employed are different in theology and in human
sciences. This is a distinction which the im
mortal Bacon acknowledges in a passage which
deserves careful consideration at the present
time: — "Scientiaaquarum similis est; aquarum
aliee descendunt coelitus, alia; emanant e terra.

Etiam seientiarum primaria partitio sumenda est
ex fontibus suis; horum alii in alto siti sunt;
alii hie infra. Omnis enim scientia duplicem
sortitur informationem. Una inspiratur divini-
tus; aliter oritur a sensu. Partiemur igitur
scientiam in theologiam et philosophiam. Theo-
logiam hie intelligimus inspiralam, non natura-
lem."* By this division of the sciences accord
ing to their sources, a perfect independence of
all others is secured to theology. The believer
in revelation draws the doctrines of his creed
from a higher source, and so holds them with
perfect certainty, without waiting for the results
which may be attained in the lower sphere of
philosophy. Indeed, he considers them not only
as true, but as the test and standard of all truth,
and so he looks without fear for the stability of
his faith upon the highest advances of light and
knowledge. Are any discoveries alleged, or
any hypotheses maintained in opposition to the
truths of revealed religion, he presupposes the
latter to be true, and concludes that the former,
however plausibly supported, are false. In short,
he acknowledges the correctness of the princi
ples of science and philosophy only so far as
they admit a source and order of truth above
their measure; and the validity of their results
only so far as they illustrate and confirm, or at
least are consistent with, the doctrines and facts
of revelation. This is indeed an elevated stand,
but one which the believer in revelation is en
titled to assume, and has always been able to
maintain. Where is the declaration of Scripture
which has been fairly disproved by philosophy,
or by any of the sciences, most of which have
begun to exist since the Bible was written? On
the other hand, how universally have the theo
ries and alleged discoveries, which were ^up-
posed to invalidate the Scriptures, proved in the
end false and imaginary. From every attack
of an infidel philosophy the truth of revelation
has come off triumphant, justifying the confi
dence of those who implicitly receive it, and
putting to shame the exultation of unbelievers.
So far from bringing up the rear, the science of
revelation has led the van in this general march
of knowledge and improvement, and has in many
cases from the first held forth truths which phi
losophy afterwards adopted when it became
more enlightened. j-
How unworthy, then, of the dignity and inde
pendence of the true theologian is the procedure
of some of the modern professors of theological
science, who are ready to relinquish the clearest
doctrines of the Bible on the first semblance of
discrepancy between them and a philosophy
which acknowledges no revelation. There are
* De dignit. et augm. Scientia. 1. iii. cap. 1.
t Consider — e. g., the doctrine of creation from
nothing, long a doctrine of theology, but only lately
of philosophy. B

14

PREFACE.

many styled theologians who do not hesitate
to abandon such truths as the creation of the
world, the fall of man, native corruption, vica
rious atonement, future resurrection, heaven and
hell, on the first flourish of arms from the corps
of infidel dilettanti. But they forget that geo
logy, anthropology, and the kindred sciences,
which they seem to consider infallible, are from
their very nature as experimental, incomplete,
and cumulative, continually leaving earlier re
sults behind. They forget that there are other
hypotheses equally supported which tend to
confirm revelation, and that what God has spo
ken — the firm prophetic and apostolic word — is
not subject to human revision. By their gra
tuitous concessions to philosophy and science,
they deprive Christian theology of its proper
elements, and Christian faith of the ground of
its reliance. They make the great truths upon
which the heart must rest for consolation and
hope, dependent upon the advances of the expe
rimental sciences. We are thus left to drift
about on this dangerous sea, while the holy
heights to which we once lifted our eyes, and
beheld them kindled with the revealed glory of
heaven to guide us on our passage thither, now
burn only with the uncertain fires of this modern
illumination. These are, indeed, unhappy con
sequences, but we are told they are inevitable.
Theologians, it is said, have no choice left them,
and must adopt the splendid results which are
every day disclosed in all departments of know
ledge; and if they would not suffer theology to
fall into contempt, must admit some compromise
between its antiquated, doctrines and the rapid
progress of light. To effect this compromise is
the office assigned to modern rationalism by
one of its ablest apologists. Rationalism, says
Bretschneider,* designs to restore the interrupt
ed harmony between theology and human sci
ences, and is the necessary product of the scien
tific cultivation of modern times. But whence
the necessity of this compromise ? It is a ne
cessity with which the believer in revelation
can never be pressed, and which certainly was
was not felt by theologians of the old stamp.
They had not asserted their independence of the
pope and the schoolmen only to yield it again
to the empiric; and as to the advantages of this
compromise, what has really been accomplished
by this far-famed rationalism after all its pro
mises'! It professed friendship for Christianity,
but has proved its deadly foe ; standing within
the pale of the church, it has been in league
with the enemy without, and has readily adopt
ed every thing which infidelity could engender,
and as studiously rejected every thing which true
philosophy has done to confirm the truths of re
velation. It promised to save theology from

Vide his " Sendschreiben," s. 78.

contempt; and how has this promise been per
formed ? In the days of Spener, theology was
the queen of sciences, so acknowledged by the
mouth of Bacon, Leibnitz, Bailer, and others,
their chosen oracles. She wore the insignia of
divinity, and " filled her odorous lamp" at the
very original'fountain of light; but, in an evil
hour, she took this flattering rationalism to her
bosom. Now, stripped of every mark of divi
nity, cut off from her native sources of light, and
thrust out into the dark, this foolish virgin is
compelled to say to her sister sciences, " Give
me of your oil, for my lamp has gone out."
The establishment of the school of theology
at Halle forms, as was above remarked, an epoch
in the history of this science. It gave an im-
pulsewhich is still felt both for good and for evil,
and which will probably be still felt for many
ages to come. To the direct influence of this
school, considered as reviving and perpetuating
the spirit of the Reformation, may be attributed
all the favourable results of free and unshackled
inquiry in matters of faith. To its indirect in
fluence — to the abuse of the principles upon
which it was established — must be ascribed
those unprecedented evils which have been
lately inflicted upon the German church. In one
way or another, this school stands connected
with those great diverging tendencies, whosa
violent conflict have made the last period of
theological development more interesting and
important than any which have preceded. The
principles of Spener, made effective by the la
bours of his faculty at Halle, are the secret
leaven which has wrought all this commotion in
the once lifeless mass of -orthodoxy. It would
be highly interesting to follow down the history
of this school, and trace minutely the salutary
influence of its principles, as far as they have
been observed, and the evils resulting from the
abuse of them. My narrow limits, however,
will permit me only to describe very briefly the
issues of these principles in pietism on the one
hand, and rationalism on the other, and to show
in what points these two opposing directions
deviate from the just medium of this Protestant
school of biblical and practical theology, to
which they both claim to belong.
We have seen, that according to the principles
of this school, faith and science, Ttoett; and yva-
B15, are made essential to the theologian. And
in the early teachers of this school, and some
of their immediate successors, we have fine ex
amples of the just balance and mutual influence
of piety and learning. Their piety was 'regular,
enlightened, and uniform, through the influence
of their knowledge of religious truth ; while
their knowledge was humble, vital, and sound,
through the influence of faith and piety. But
one acquainted with the imperfection of human
nature, and with the history of the church, coul

PREFACE.

15

hardly expect that this happy combination
would long continue. Piety, which has its seat
in the feelings, has ever tended to shun the
restraints and regulations which reflection and
system i mpose ; and speculation has beenequally
ptone to dissociate itself from piety, and to
abandon the Word of God and Christian faith
as the only foundation of religious knowledge.
At an early period of the church, we see the
practical and theoretical spirit in violent oppo
sition, under the peculiar forms and names of
montanism and gnosticism. At a later period in
the western church, the elements of ritai is and
yvuxsit were again separated and in conflict,
assuming the new type of mysticism and scholas
ticism. And in the period now under conside
ration, the same contention again exists, under
the still different aspect of ascetic pietism and
rationalism. The practical tendency of the
founders of this school, being unaccompanied
in some of their successors by the theoretical
tendency, degenerated into a dark, ascetic,
bigoted pietism. Their theoretical tendency,
being in others of their successors separated
from the practical, — the head divorced from the
heart, degenerated into that cold and malignant
form of speculation known by the name of ra
tionalism. The first instance in the latter period in which
we discover the incipient alienation of the prac
tical from the theoretical direction of mind, is
the opposition which arose at Halle to the phi
losophy of Wolf. It was very natural for theo
logians to feel, that Wolf allowed too much
scope to speculative reason when he attempted
to'' demonstrate the highest problems of meta
physics, tl\e existence of God, the immortality
of the soul, the freedom of the will, &c, with
mathematical precision and certainty. And in
condemning these assumptions of reason re
specting matters of faith, the theologians of
Halle only anticipated the sentence which Kant
and his followers afterwards pronounced upon
the dogmatism' of the earlier philosophy. The
jealousy in guarding the province of faith against
the invasions of speculative reason thus excited,
was heightened by the writings of the English
and French deists and free-thinkers, then begin
ning to be known and circulated in Germany.
Upon these writings they looked with abhor
rence ; and at length the thought naturally arose,
that if such were the results of philosophy, it
was the foe of religion, and should be wholly
discarded. But when they arrived at this partial
and rash conclusion, and acted according to it,
they fell into the excesses with which the same
mistake has always been attended. From the
neglect and contempt of scientific cultivation,
their views of divine truth soon became super
ficial. Their piety became more and more a
matter of mere feeling, and, wanting the re

straints of reflection, degenerated into wild en
thusiasm, or dark, severe, and ostentatious
bigotry. These results have almost invariably
followed an undue jealousy of learning in mat
ters of faith, and teach, in a language too loud
and distinct to be disregarded, the importance
of a thorough acquaintance with systematic the
ology. Too much practical religion we cannot
have; but that the highest purity and safety of
the church demand more attention than is usu
ally paid in this country to the science of the
Christian religion, can hardly be questioned.
It should be remembered* that it was upon this
degenerate and corrupt pietism, which began to
infect the body of the church when the science
of religion was neglected, that the corrosive
poison of infidelity first seized and fed. Had
the ardent and practical piety of all the succes
sors of the first teachers at Halle been associated
with the theoretical spirit, as it was in Freyling-
hausen, Baumgarten, and a few others, infidelity
could never have made such ravages in the
church. Far more fatal, however, is the other of the
above-named divergences from the principles of
the biblical school of theology. Speculation on
the subject of religion, where living faith is not
associated with it, is attended with a twofold
danger. The true spiritual understanding of the
truths of religion being dependent upon the
principle of faith, where this does not exist, error
in doctrine is almost inevitable. But, what is
more important to be considered, the only anti
dote to the pride and blindness of natural reason
is the corrective, sanctifying influence of faith
as a living principle in the heart. Where reason
is unhumb'led, and its disorders are unrectified
by the pervading influence of true piety, its ex
ercise on the subjects of religion cannot be salu
tary, or even safe. The unbeliever is therefore
doubly disqualified for forming a right judgment
upon the particular doctrines of religion, and for
combining them into a correct system ; he wants
that experience by which alone he can truly un
derstand them, and that humility and reverence
for the deep things of God, which is the only
spirit of inquiry congenial with the truths of the
gospel. The nature and effects of rationalism, the
great object of which is, to deny that the Holy
Scriptures and Christian faith are the only and
essential foundation of religious science, and to
proclaim the reason of man as the source and
arbiter of the truths of religion, has been already
briefly described. A few words in addition, re
specting its relation to this protestant school of
theology, will be sufficient for my present object.
It is well known that rationalists profess to act
in accordance with the principles of protestant
ism, when they carry their freedom of investi
gation even to the point of denying alike the

16

PREFACE.

fact and the possibility of revelation. But this
freedom is entirely different from that for which
the protestants contended. In performing their
work as protestants, they assumed both the fact
and authority of revelation. They had, indeed,
in the legitimate use of reason, well investigated
these points, and did not receive the Scriptures
as the word of God without conclusive evidence.
But they contended only for entire freedom from
ecclesiastical authority in determining what the
Scriptures, admitted to be a revelation from God,
really taught to men. They asserted the right
of the Christian believer to derive the truths of
Christianity from revelation itself, in contradis
tinction to the authority of any uninspired men ;
but by no means the right of any man to receive
or reject at option the fact or the authority of a
revelation. This right, by whomsoever claimed,
is not the right which Luther or Spener advo
cated. In performing their work as reformers,
they thus assumed the principles which ration
alists deny. They came forward appealing to
the testimony of Christ, of prophets and apos
tles, against the errors and abuses of the church.
Rationalists claim fellowship with them, while
they question and deny the validity of this very
testimony. The protestants did not undertake
to lay another foundation than that which is laid;
and wished only to prove the work of every man
who builds thereon. But rationalists strike at
the foundation itself; they set aside the whole
historic basis of Christianity, and would sub
stitute for the unerring word of God and Chris
tian faith, which are the same in every age, the
fallible, unsanctified, and changing reason of
man. The protestants were reformers only, but
rationalists are innovators and revolutionizes,
aiming to overturn the whole Christian system.
The protestants, in short, protested against the
errors of the Romish church ; rationalists, against
the truth of the gospel. It must be obvious,
then, that rationalism can claim but little kin
dred with the true spirit of protestantism, and
bears a much nearer affinity to that wild, revo
lutionary, infidel spirit, which arose at nearly
the same time in France, and swept over the
face of Europe.
It would be a mistake also to suppose, that
rationalism, like the Alexandrine Gnosis, or the
scholasticism of the middle ages, is objection
able only in the excess to which it carries spe
culation on subjects of faith. This excess is
indeed contrary to the maxims which we have
been considering, which require a just propor
tion between faith and knowledge. It is not so
much, however, the quantity as the quality of
speculation, which constitutes the malignity of
rationalism. It is speculation without the cor
rective influence of a sanctified heart ; it is rea
son in all its natural pride and darkness, un-
humbled and unenlightened, by divine influence;

it is science wanting that heavenly chabitas,
cujus mixtio, says Bacon, temperat scientiam,
eamque saluberrimam efficit, and without which,
omnis scientia malignum quid habet venenosum-
que, flatuosis symptomatibus plenissimum ; it is
this character and quality of speculative reason,
and not its mere excess, which makes rational
ism the terror and abhorrence of religion. -
These diverging tendencies had already be
come distinct when our author appeared upon'
the stage, and the theologians of Halle were
then divided into different schools, according as
they adhered more closely to the principles of
Spener and Franke, or fell in either with the
more ascetic or the more free and liberal princi
ples then prevailing. His father had been elect
ed in 1737 to the theological faculty at Halle,
and was associated with the younger Franke in
the direction of those institutes of learning and
charity which are generally known by the name
of the Orphan House. He had seen the exam
ple, and heard the instructions, of the founders
of the university, and was one of the few who
had walked in their footsteps. He laboured,
though with a mildness and moderation which
won the praises even of his opponents, to pro
mote practical Christianity, in opposition to the
bold and reckless speculations of some of his
colleagues. His only son, the author of these
lectures, George Christian Knapp, was born in
the Orphan House at Glaucha in Halle on the
17th of Sept., 1753, and received his early educa
tion in the Royal Predagogium, one of the cluster
of institutes there established by Franke.* In a
brief account which he himself has given of his
early life, he mentions a fact not a little credit
able to the personal character of his father.
" Nee tamen acquievit pater," says he, " in pub-
lica ilia, qua in scholis fruebar institutione ; sed
ubi vacuus a negotiis erat, ipse me instituit; et
quid in schola profecissem percunctando cogno
vit, variis que exercitationibus, ingenium exci-
tare et judicium acuere studuit."
He entered the university at Halle, Sept. 1770,
in the 17th year of his age, and there attended
the lectures of Semler, the first herald of the
false illumination then breaking upon the world,
and of Noesselt, Gruner, and others, who were
one in feeling and action with Semler. During
the first year of his course, he sustained a great
loss in the death of his father. But in pursuance
of his counsels, and in the very spirit of those
early teachers at Halle whom he had been
taught from his youth to venerate, he devoted
himself to the study of the original Scriptures;
and made it his great object to become thorough
ly acquainted with the language, the facts, and
the doctrines of the Bible. With what unusual
success he prosecuted these exegetical studies,

* For an account of these institutes, vide Biblical
Repository, vol. i. No. I. p. 30.

PREFACE.

17

maybe inferred from his programm, "Ad Vatici-
nium Jacqbi," Genesis, xlix. 1 — 27, and from
his disputation, " De Versione Alexandrina,"
both contained in his " Scripta Varii Argumen-
ti ;" and also from his translation of the Psalms,
all of which were composed and published,
either during his pupilage at Halle, or shortly
after its completion.
While at the university he also pursued the
study of the Latin and Greek classics with great
zeal. Of the value of this study to the theolo
gian there can be little doubt. It not only pre
pares him to understand the language, and relish
the beauties of the sacred classics, but furnishes
him with those analogies of feeling and opinion
which are highly important in the illustration of
revealed truth. The writings of Dr. Knapp are
•everywhere enriched by the various illustrations
»f scriptural ideas, which he draws from Grecian
and Roman literature.
He completed his studies at Halle, in April,
1774 ; and after an absence of a few months,
which he spent in study at Gottingen, in visit
ing the most celebrated cities in Germany, and
forming acquaintances with the most distin
guished men, he returned, and in 1775 began to
lecture upon Cicero, and also upon the New
Testament, and some of the more difficult por
tions of the Old. He was at that time in feeble
health, and probably could hardly have believed
that he should be continued half a century in
the employment which he then commenced.
The unusual approbation with which he was
heard in these courses obtained for him the
appointment, first of Professor Extraordinary
(1777),andthenofProfessorOrdinary(inl782).In addition to his exegetical courses, he now
lectured on church history and Jewish and
Christian antiquities. But he was not, like the
great majority of the professors in the German
universities, employed merely in academical
labours. OnthedeathofFreylinghausen(1785),
he and Niemeyer were appointed Directors of
Franke's Institutes, and continued jointly to
superintend these noble and extensive establish
ments for more than forty years. In the division
of duties, the oversight of the Bible and mis
sionary establishment fell to Dr. Knapp, and
he was thus brought into connection with the
Moravian brethren,
It was in the summer of the same year in
which he received this appointment, and after
..e had often lectured on subsidiary branches,
that he commenced the composition of the lec
tures on theology now presented to the public.
As he continued his regular courses in exegesis
and history, was occupied partly in the concerns
of the institutes, and was moreover often inter
rupted in his studies by severe illness, he did
not complete them before the summer of 1789,
when he first read them before a class of 186.
3

After this time he continued to lecture on theo
logy (though latterly in shorter courses) until
near his death, and always to numerous audir
tories. But while his life passed away in these pur
suits so congenial to his taste, he was not freed
from those pains and sorrows which are the
common lot of man. His peaceful professional
career was frequently interrupted by the poli
tical disorders of the times, and the repeated
occupation of Halle by foreign troops. His do
mestic peace was also invaded by the long-con
tinued illness of his wife, and by the violent
sickness with which he himself was often at
tacked, and the constant infirmity under which
he laboured. These evils, however, great as
they might be, must have appeared trivial in
comparison with those with which he saw the
church afflicted. He was called to behold new
principles, which he regarded as false and dan
gerous, rapidly supplanting those in which he
had been educated, and to which, from his own
conviction, he was attached. He was compelled
to hear the truths which he held most sacred
and precious treated with profane levity. He
found himself, at last, the pnly decided advocate
of evangelical religion among the professors at
Halle, and exposed to ridicule and contempt for
teaching the very doctrines in which Spener
and Franke had most gloried. These were trials
under which his natural firmness and composure
must have failed him, and in which he could be
supported only by a pious confidence in God.
He cherished this confidence, and through its
influence remained unmoved during times of
unparalleled darkness and danger. Nor was his
confidence misplaced. Towards the close of his
life the prospect seemed to brighten. The better
times which Spenor thought so near, but which
had been long delayed, seemed again approach
ing, and it was not difficult to discern the signs
of a new epoch at hand. On the third centennial
festival in commemoration of the Reformation,
which occurred in the year 1817, the slumber
ing spirit of the evangelical churches was
awakened. In a programm which our author
delivered on that occasion, and which is inserted
in his "Scripta Varii Argumenti," he poured
forth his pious supplications in behalf of the
German church and his beloved university in a
strain t'f unusual eloquence. From that time
he had the joy of beholding the cause which he
held most dear gradually gaining ground. His
own reputation, too, increased with his declining
years. And among the most cheerful passages
in his life, is that which occurred just before its
close. On the first of May, 1825, he had been
fifty yeurs connected with the theological faculty
of the u ni versi ty , and , according to an established
custom, a jubilee festival was then held in his
honour; and many were the marks of personal
b2

18

PREFACE.

affection and esteem, as well as the civic and
academic honours, then heaped upon the vene
rable and happy jubilar.
Not long after this, while he was continuing
his summer course of theology, he was seized
with a violent illness, from which he never re-
eovered. He died in peace and Christian con
fidence, on the 14th day of October, 1825, in the
73d year of his age. According to his particular
direction, his remains were interred privately,
early on the third morning after his decease, in
his family tomb, by the side of his wife, who
had died eight years before. He requested, with
that genuine modesty for which he was always
distinguished, that in the public notices of his
death nothing should be said to his honour, and
that it should only be witnessed of him that he
lived by faith in the words, " I know that my
Redeemer liveth."
Few are the men whose lives are so uniform,
happy, and useful. Born and educated in the
midst of those noble institutes which stand a
living monument of the faith of their founder —
blessed with the example and instructions of a
father, high in office and eminent for excellence
and learning, — the inheritor of his virtues, and
called afterwards by Providence to succeed him
both as director of Franke's Institutes and as
theological professor, — richly provided with the
means of improvement, and freed from the em
barrassments with which the acquisition of
learning is often attended, — received with fa
vour at the very commencement of his profes
sional duties, and through all the variations of
public opinion and feeling thronged by pupils
who loved and revered him, — encircled in his
family with children and friends, byvwhom he
was fondly cherished, — in his old age permitted
to witness the brightening prospects of the cause
which was nearest his heart, and honoured with
•every mark of public confidence and esteem ; —
he was indeed signally favoured of God. He
was faithful in the trust committed to him, and
found God faithful to his promises. His labour
was not in vain in the Lord; he was blessed
during his life, and in death his remembrance
does not perish. "Wherever the news shall
reach," says Niemeyer, his colleague and eulo
gist, " that this gifted teacher is for ever re
moved from the sphere of his labours, there will
witnesses arise who will acknowledge how much
they owe to his instructions ; and even beyond
the sea his memory will be cherished and his
name not forgotten."
I shall close these prefatory remarks with a
general view of the character of Dr. Knapp, and
with some more particular information respect
ing the Lectures now offered to the public.
His bodily constitution was frail and sickly,
even from his childhood. He had a complica
tion of disorders, which would have consigned

one less zealous for a life of usefulness, and less
resolute in adopting and pursuing the means
necessary to attain it, to an indolent and unpro
fitable existence, or to an early grave. That
sickness and bodily infirmity had not this effect
upon him, must be attributed to the exact course
of discipline which he pursued. In all things he
practised the most rigid temperance, and daily
took bodily exercise in the open air, measured
almost by the minute, and uninterrupted by any
severity of weather. " We could hardly have
thought," says Niemeyer, in his funeral address,
" when we saw him, weak and exhausted, con
tending with the rude elements, supported by
his pilgrim staff, that his frail earthly tabernacle
could endure so long." Such was the effect,
however, of the rigid discipline which he main
tained, that he reached an advanced age, in the
midst of arduous public duties, in which he was
rarely interrupted, and died at length without
having kept his bed for a single day — an exam
ple worthy of the consideration of the irresolute
hypochondriac who broods over his ailings, and
lives a burden to himself and those about him.
In his personal character he was rather amia
ble than commanding. He possessed in an
unusual degree that mildness, benignity, and
gentleness of disposition which wins affection,
and that integrity, guilelessness, and perfect
simplicity of heart which secures confidence.
In his intercourse with others he was unassum
ing, and entirely free from suspicion and jea
lousy. He was distinguished for punctuality
in the fulfilment of all his engagements, and
was one of the few men who do every part of
duty in its proper time and place. His personal
faults were those which almost invariably ac
company the excellent attributes of character for
which he was distinguished — a degree of timid
ity, too great desire to please, and fear to offend,
and pliability in trying emergencies, where the
highest degree of energy is required.
As to the religious character of Dr. Knapp,
the evidence in favour of his strictly evangelical
piety is clear and decisive. There is no proof of
any sudden alteration in his views and feelings
on the subject of personal religion, and there are
no means, therefore, of ascertaining the precise
period when his spiritual life commenced. His
is one of the thousand cases in which early pa
rental instruction, by exciting the religious sen
sibilities of the soul, prepares the way, through
the divine blessing, for the higher life of faith.
The influence of these early parental instructions,
in restraining from hardening vices, and in awa
kening the moral impulses of the soul, cannot
be better described than by his own words :—
" Vita; morumque praecepta, quae mihi puero et
juveni a. b. parente graviterquidem, sed tamen
peramanter, inculcabantur, crebrasque exhorta-
tiones ad studinm pietatis in Deum ac veri

PREFACE.

19

rectique amorem, menti meae tam alte infixae
haeserunt, nt earum memoria nunquam deleri
poterit. Nam post ejus obitum quoque, si forte
adessent peccandi illecebrae, quibus tentari ju
venilis astas solet, statim ejus imago animo meo
obversabatur, simulque in memoriam revocaham
cohortationesomnemqueinstitutionempaternam, qua juvenilis animus mature erat imbutus. Hac
cura ac diligentia parentum effectual est unice,
ut varia pericnla atque incitamenta ad peccan-
dum, quibus multos aequalium, optimae spei ju-
venis, in academia praesertim, succumbere vidi,
feliciter superarem."
The good effect of these pious counsels was
in some degree counteracted for a time by the
extremely dangerous circumstances in which he
was placed at the university, and especially by
the instructions of the neological professors,
which were as unfavourable to vital piety as
they were to sound doctrine. He was naturally
somewhat affected by the spirit of the times,
though he was never carried so far as to lose his
confidence in the authority of the Scriptures, or
to join with the scoffers by whom he was sur
rounded in deriding things sacred. Through
the blessing of God he was speedily recovered
from this temporary aberration, and became
more and more in earnest about his salvation.
About the time he was chosen ordinary profes
sor, he began to keep a diary, on the first leaf
of which he wrote as follows: — "I have re
solved to-day, with the help of God, to write
something from time to time respecting my spi
ritual condition. It is my hope that by this
means I shall render myself more observant of
m}' whole character and conduct than, as I must
Confess to my shame, I have hitherto been. If
by the grace of God I succeed in this, oh, how
shall I bless this day !" It was not, however,
until eight or ten years after this period that he
gave that clear evidence of evangelical piety
which he exhibited during the latter part of his
life. In 1794 he became more decided in oppo
sition to the prevailing unbelief, and in the love
and defence of truth ; and it is at this period that
one of his eulogists* dates his conversion. The
fact, however, probably was, that at the time
specified the inward life of God in his soul,
before hidden, and by adverse influences almost
extinct, became more evident and vigorous. As
the ways of God in leading men to Christ are
often secret and unknown, so too is the operation
of the Spirit dwelling in believers. Its presence
is often undiscovered ; and while it secretly
works the mortification of sinful nature and con
formity to Christ, the believer himself may be
unconscious of the inward mystery of grace;
and to others certainly it is wholly impercepti
ble. * Dr. Scheibel, of Breslau.

The (Question when his spiritual life com
menced is, however, of little interest compared
with the question, how it was exhibited, — what
were its principal characteristics? It has been al
ready remarked, that in place of the enlightened
and scriptural piety of the first teachers of theo
logy at Halle, some of their successors exhibited
a gloomy, exclusive, pharisaical religion, the
principal marks of which were an ostentatious
display of sanctity, and total abstinence from the
innocent enjoyments of life. Very far from this
was the character of Knapp's piety. With the
deep feeling of his own unworthiness he always
associated the genuine evangelical enjoyment
arising from the consciousness o*f the Divine
forgiveness and favour. This consciousness
diffused a peace and composure within which
influenced his external deportment, and made
his religion attractive to beholders. Nor was
the piety of Knapp of that high-toned mystical
cast which appears in many of the speculative
theologians of modern Germany. So intense is
the process of sublimation to which they some
times subject their religious feelings, that the
solid substance of their piety seems the while
to be quite evaporated. To any thing like this,
Knapp was wholly indisposed by the natural
plainness and simplicity of his character.
Among the most prominent characteristics of
that piety which he exhibited is the sense of
unworthiness, and of dependence on the grace
of God. When on the day of his jubilee his
merits were largely recounted, he frequently
spoke of what he had omitted to do, and was
prone to confess himself an unprofitable servant.
He gratefully ascribed his success in whatever
he underto'ok to the blessing of God, and espe
cially acknowledged him as the author of every
good thought, word, and work. His piety was
in a high degree active ; he was unwearied in
his efforts to promote the prosperity and en
largement of the kingdom of Christ. By his
practical writings he contributed much to revive
the declining flame of piety in the German
church, and by his exertions in behalf of mis
sions to spread the gospel over the earth. In
the severe pains and heavy afflictions which he
was called to endure, he honoured religion by
his quiet submission to the will of God. His
private walk was strictly conformed to the pre
cepts of the gospel; and to all with whom he
was associated it was evident that his conver
sation was in heaven; and this it was which
gave to his explanations of the Bible, his lec
tures on theology, and all his religious instruc
tions, an energy and effect unknown in the la
bours of those whose lives do not bear witness
to their sincerity.
But we are here concerned with Dr. Knapp
principally as a teacher and theological profes
sor. For this office he was eminently qualified,

so

PREFACE.

both by the natural endowments of his mind
and by his acquisitions. His thoughts on the
different subjects to which he turned his atten
tion were plain, natural, and solid. His know
ledge was deep and thorough ; and he always
cautioned his pupils against whatever was
showy or superficial in their attainments, as
tending to foster that pride of learning which
from his very soul lie abhorred. To know a
little well, rather than a great deal imperfectly,
was his invariable direction. The clearness and
distinctness of his conceptions rendered his style
uncommonly lucid and perspicuous. His hear
ers were never left in doubt as to his meaning
by any vagueness or indefiniteness in his ex
pressions. These were the qualities which
made him so highly popular as a teacher. Al
though he by no means fell in with the prevail
ing taste of theological study, his lecture-room
was always thronged. Students who are really
in pursuit of the truth prefer to follow the slow,
but certain steps of a teacher, who proceeds
in the orderly demonstrative method, rather
than of one who is hasty and headlong in his
decisions. No teacher was ever more popular
in Germany than Baumgarten, arad none ever
more logical, or painfully slow and moderate in
his delivery. In judging of the opinions of
others, Knapp was distinguished for fairness and
candour. He allowed the full weight of their
arguments ; and while he never spared that pro
fane trifling and contempt with which the doc
trines of religion were treated by many of his
contemporaries, he did not assume to condemn
those who differed from him merely in opinion.
Through the exercise of this Christian candour
and charity, he was enabled to live- in perfect
harmony with colleagues whose system of be
lief and manner of instruction were directly op
posite to his own.
The Lectures on Theology now offered to the
public were composed, as has been already re
marked, between the years 1785 and '89, and
first publicly read during the latter year. Al
though often repeated after that time, and at
each reading corrected in minor particulars,
they remained, in all their essential features, the
same as when first written. This will appear
less strange, when it is considered that the au
thor came to the composition of them well versed
in all the branches of subsidiary theology. But
there is another reason which will perfectly
account for the stability of Knapp's theological
system, during a period distinguished above all
others for rapid fluctuations of opinion, and the
rise and fall of philosophical theories. It was
built on the sure foundation of the Holy Scriptures,
and therefore fell not, though the rains descend
ed, and the floods came, and the winds blew.
He assumed at the very outset of his theological
course, the principle, that lead where they may,

the decisions of inspiration are to he fearlessly:
followed. In the truth of this principle he be
came more and more confirmed, the more he
saw of the uncertainty, pride, and blipdness of
human reason, in the speculations of contempo
rary philosophers. And most of the few changes
which he made in his lectures were owing to
the stricter application of this essential principle
in cases where he had before hesitated to apply
it, under the influence of the very different prin
ciples respecting the word of God which he had
learned in the school of Semler. In his earlier
statements respecting the doctrines of the Tri
nity, demoniacal possessions, the prophecies
relating to the Messiah, the endlessness of future
punishments, &c, as they are given by his •
German editor Thilo, he was more conformed to
the loose and arbitrary principles of his neolo-
gian associates, than in his later statements,
which the reader will find in the following pages.
In the composition of these lectures, Dr. Knapp
followed strictly the principles of the school of
Spener and Franke. The Holy Scriptures and
Christian experience were the source from which
he derived the elements of his system. He en
deavoured to illustrate the doctrines of revelation
by analogies from classical writers, by showing
to what ideas in the human mind they corre
spond, and what wants of our nature they are
intended to meet, and by giving a history of the
opinions entertained, and the various learned
distinctions adopted respecting them in ancient
and modern times. He then endeavoured to
combine these doctrines, thus illustrated, into a
thorough system. The philosophy which he
adopted, and by which he was influenced as far
as by any, is that popular eclectic system which
prevailed between the downfall of Wolf and the
ascendency of Kant. But he was especially
faithful to the requisition, that the practical effect
of the doctrines of revelation should be ever kept
in view by theological teachers. Under each
of the important doctrines he gave directions
respecting the best mode of presenting them in
popular discourse ; and these directions consti
tute a very considerable part of the value of this
work. I will only add a word respecting the transla
tion of these Lectures. I undertook it at the
commencement of my theological studies, at the
suggestion and with the approbation of my in
structed, and soon completed a hasty translation
of most of the Articles. In correcting the copy
and preparing it for the press, I felt myself
tempted to relieve the tediousness of simple re
vision by entering upon the wide field of theo
logical investigation to which I was pointed by '
the references of the author, and for which the
library in this seminary furnishes ample means.
This was in many cases necessary to enable me
to understand fully the meaning of the author

PREFACE.

21

These collateral studies have occasioned an un
expected delay in the publication of this work,
though I hope they will contribute to render it
more complete. I have endeavoured to bring
down the literature of the more important Arti
cles to the present time, and in doing this have
made use of the excellent Manual of Hahn of
Leipsic, and of Bretschneider's " Dogmatik."
I have frequently introduced important passages
from authors referred to by Knapp, but not ac
cessible to readers in general. In some cases
in which Knapp differs from the opinion com
monly received by theologians in this country,
as in the doctrine of decrees ; or in which his
statements have been corrected or mended by
later investigations, as in some portions of the
history of the Trinity; I have either stated the
opposite opinion, with the reasons for it, or re
ferred to authors where different statements can
be found. It must not be inferred, however,
that whenever this is not done, the author's
opinions are considered to be unexceptionable.
It should be distinctly stated, that neither the
translator nor the gentlemen by whose advice
this work was undertaken, are vouchers for the
exact truth of all its doctrines. Of its general
correctness they are well satisfied, and this is
all for which they are respons U e
The additions made by the translator are in

cluded in brackets, and are sometimes printed
uniformly with the text, though more generally
thrown into notes; they are in most cases,
though not always, designated by the abbrevia
tion Tr.
The translation which I have given will be
found, if compared with the original, to be some
what free. I have endeavoured to express the
meaning of the author, as he himself would have
expressed it in English, rather than to follow
the German, to the violation of the purity of our
own language. The imperfect state of the ori
ginal text justifies a greater freedom of version
than would otherwise be allowable. These
lectures were published after the death of their
author, without any alteration, from manuscripts
which he had never prepared for the press.
Many passages are therefore quite incomplete,
and could be intelligibly rendered only by a
copious paraphrase.
I embrace this opportunity to express my
thanks to the gentlemen who have rendered me
assistance; and especially to my honoured
father, to whose careful revision much of the
correctness of this work is to be attributed.
Leonard Woods, Jun.
Theological Seminary, Andover,
Sept. 26, 1831.

INTRODUCTION

ss

INTRODUCTION.

SECTION I.
of religion and theology ; AND the differ
ence BETWEEN THEM.
I. Of Religion.
| ELIGION, understood sub
jectively, and in the widest
sense, is commonly defined,
reverence for God, or piety to
him. The objection which
Stiiudlinand some other mod
ern writers have urged against
this definition is not important enough
to require us to abandon it. We say
of one who performs what he acknow-
3W ledges to be agreeable to the will of
H God, that he reverences God, or is pious,
(colere deum, cultus dei.) Thus Kant defines
religion to be, the acknowledgment of our duties
as divine commands. It is clear that two things
are essential to piety to God — viz., (1) The
knowledge of God, as to his nature, attributes,
&c. ; of his relation to men, and his disposition
towards them ; and also of his will. (2) Affec
tions and conduct correspondent with this know
ledge; or the application of this knowledge.
The science of religioni then, is that science
which comprises every thing relative to the
knowledge and reverence of God. The hu
man understanding is employed about the for
mer, which is called the theoretic part of reli
gion, (yvijffts, Ttiatif, ttb jtifftfEiieM*.) The hu
man will is employed about the latter, which is
called the practical part of religion, (fa 'ipya, to
Aoniv.) These two parts must coexist. One
is equally essential with the other. They are,
therefore, always connected in the discourses of
Christ and the writings of the apostles. Vide
John, xiii. 17; Titus, i. 1; Jas. i. 22—27.
Vide Morus, p. 2, biblica nomina religionis,
$o/3os ®tov, x. 4. %.
The correctness of this knowledge of God is
very important in regard to our conduct. The
human mind is compelled to conceive of God as
the great ideal of moral perfection, and conse
quently, to make him the pattern for imitation.
False notions, therefore, respecting his nature,
attributes, and commands, are in the highest
degree injurious to morality.
But religion is often used in a more limited
sense, denoting either the theoretic or the prac
tical part merely. And in either of these re

spects a man is called religious. Religion is a
name which is also very frequently given to the
external rites of divine service. And thus a man
who lives devoutly, frequents public worship,
and observes the ordinances, is called a religious
man. But this is a perversion of the word,
which has bad consequences. Vide Morus, s. 2,
not. extra.
Thus far we have considered religion subjec
tively — i. e., in respect to those who possess it.
But, (6) The word religion is often used objectively,
to designate the whole sum <f doctrines respecting
God and his will. But since the notions of men
respecting God, and accordingly their piety to
him, are very different, religion frequently sig
nifies in common language the manner in which
God is regarded, according to these preconceived
opinions. Thus we speak of the Christian,
heathen, and Mahommedan religion — i. e., the
manner in which God is regarded according to
the ideas of Christians, heathen, and Mahomme-
dans. We also speak of changing, professing,
denying, embracing, renouncing one's religion,
using religion in the same sense.
Note. — The Latin word religio is derived from
the old word rettgere, and from the derivative re-
ligens, synonymous with diligens, careful, strict.
Cic. De Nat. Deor. II. 28, and Gell. Noct. Att.
IV. 9. It signifies, literally, strictness, punctual
care, conscientiousness. Those who exhibited
zeal and earnestness in the service of God, as the
most important concern, were therefore called
ra*' ijiozrjv, religiosi; and their conduct was
called religio (the name of the Deity being fre
quently annexed) dei, or erga deum. The word
religio, however, and especially the plural reli-
giones, was most commonly used in reference to
external worship, rites, and ceremonies. Vide
Jerusalem, Betrachtungen ilber die Wahrheiten
der Religion, Th. I. Vide especially, die achte
Betrachtung. II. Of Theology.
Theology is properly ^oyoj jtrpt ©so£, (like
autpoTioyio,) and this is either narratio de deo,
or doctrina de deo. The most ancient heathen
Greeks used it in the first sense. Those who
wrote the history of the gods, their works (e. g.,
cosmogony) and exploits, in short, the mytho-
logists, were called $s6%oy<,a. Pherecydes of
Scyros, who wrote a work entitled §to%oyla, was
C 25

26

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

the first who was so called. Homer and Hesiod,
too, were theologians in this sense. Moses is
said by Philo ^tca.oy«y, when he gives the his
tory of the creation. The fathers of the church
use the same word, sometimes in reference to
the doctrine concerning God as a part of all re
ligion^ and sometimes in reference to the doc
trine of the divine nature of Christ, in opposition
to oixovofiia, the doctrine of his human nature.
Whence the phrase, $io%oysiv Xptatov or nvsv-
pa aytcw — i. e., to acknowledge Christ or the
Holy Spirit as God. Vide Suicer, Thes. Eccles.
in verb.
But in the twelfth century, Peter Abelard
began to employ this word to denote, particu
larly learned and scientific instruction in reli
gion. He wrote a system which he called theo
logia; in which respect he was followed by
most of the schoolmen. This use was preserved
by most of the succeeding theologians. In the
seventeenth century, many in the protestant
church varied from it, and gave the name theo
logia to any knowledge respecting God and
divine things, using the word in its etymologi
cal sense. So Musaeus, Baier, and others. But
/ in later times, Mosheim, Semler, and others,
have endeavoured to revive the ancient use of
the schoolmen. Accordingly, when theology
is taken in abstracto, as synonymous with divi
nity, we understand by it learned or scientific
instruction respecting God, subtilior modus dis-
cendi doctrinam de deo. Morus, p. 11.
In general, therefore, theology is the know
ledge of God carried to the highest degree of
perfection in respect to correctness, clearness,
and evidence of w hich it is susceptible in this
world. And a theologian or divine is one who
not only understands himself the doctrines of
religion, but is able thoroughly to explain, prove,
and defend them, and teach them to others.
There is nothing in itself objectionable in
using theology and divinity (Gottesgelehrsam-
keit) as synonymous. But, as Morus observes,
p. 11, s. 1, it is inconvenient, to say the least, to
oppose theology to religion, and to understand
by the latter, as many modern writers do, a
knowledge of God which is not learned and
scientific. Theology is employed about religion,
and has the truths of religion for its object. The
ology, then, should not be opposed to religion;
but theological instruction and the theological
knowledge of religion, to the popular or catecheti
cal instruction and knowledge of religion. The
latter is suited to men at large ; the former, only
to the learned, or those wishing to become so.
What we call divinity was frequently called
by the fathers yvutsis, who accordingly called
divines yvaxstixoL Morus, p. 11, n. 2. Divinity
is also called theologia scholastica, because it is
designed for the school, or for learned instruc
tion ; also, theologia acroamatica, or academiea,

in opposition to popularis and calechetica, reli
gious instruction suited to the comprehension
of common people. In the latter, the language
of the school and of the science must be avoided;
but it cannot be in the former without the sacri
fice of thoroughness and distinctness. The
terminology of this science and the mode of
treating it have always been influenced by the
prevailing character of the age, and the current
philosophy. Vide s. 9. In the present state of
the church a systematic knowledge of religion
is indispensable even to the popular teacher.
Morus, p. 12, s. 2, and Praef. ad Mori Epit.
especially p. xiv. seq. He needs it, as an edu
cated man, for the establishment and confirma
tion of his own faith, and for the instruction of
others. He should only be careful to avoid the
systematic or scientific tone in the instruction
of the common people and of the young, and to
speak in an intelligible, catechetical, and popu
lar manner. The various abuses of the scien
tific language of theology do not disprove its
utility, or decide against its proper use. Vide
Steinbart, Griinde fur die ganzliche Abschaffung
der Schulsprache in der Theologie, 1776, 8vo;
and the answer, Brackmann, Apologie der
theologischen Systemsprache ; Braunschweig,
1778, 8vo.
Theological or scientific religion consists, as
well as popular religion, of two principal parts:
viz. (1) The theoretic part, or theoretic theology,
(Glaubenslehre,) because it proposes dogmas,
^cu^pata, theses, propoiitiones de religione,
which are discovered and established by reflec
tion and investigation. Vide Morus, Praef. p. v.
seq. It is also called theologia dogmatica, (dog-
matik.) For the explanation of this term, let
it be observed that Soy^a has various significa
tions — viz., a resolve, decree, determination, or
dinance; then, in the philosophic sense, (a) on
opinion which we have respecting any doctrine
or principle, Col. ii. 14; (b) theprinciple or doc
trine (doctrina) itself. Hence Pliny expresses
it by placitum, and Cicero by decretum; as, de-
creta philosophorum, Acad. II. 9. Many of the
old fathers, as Origen, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem,
employed Soyua in this sense — viz., to desig
nate not merely an opinion respecting certain
principles and theoretic doctrines; but these
principles and doctrines themselves. Used in the
former sense, theologia dogmatica is properly
theologia historica, a relation or exhibition of the
opinions of theologians respecting particular
doctrines. So, for the most part, it was used
in the Romish church. Thus we have Petavii
opus de dogmatibus theologorum — i. e., concern
ing the opinions of the fathers, &c. In this
sense, too, it was commonly employed by pro
testants until the commencement of the eigh-
, teenth century. Employed in the latter sense,
| theologia dogmatica is the same as ''heoretic, in

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

27

opposition to practical or moral theology. In
the same way, Seneca, Ep. 95, and others of the
ancient stoics, divided philosophy into theoretic
(dogmatica) and practical (paraenetica). This
name of the theoretic part of theology was intro
duced into the protestant church principally by
PfaffandBuddeus, who, in 1721 — 23, published
their manuals under the title, Theologia dogma
tica et moralis. Vide Stange, Symmicta, I. 156.
(2) The practical part, morals, ethics. This was
formerly always united, even in scientific in
struction, with the theoretic part of religion. So
it was in Melancthon, (Loc. Theol.,) in Chem
nitz, and in all the systems of the sixteenth
century. These two connected sciences were
called theologia thetica, and the doctrines con
tained in them, theses, in opposition to theologia
antilhetica,* or polemica, (critical theology.) Ca-
lixtus of Helmstadt, in the seventeenth century,
was the 'first who undertook to separate doctrinal
from moral theology in scientific instruction.
Since his time this division has remained.
Cf. Morus, Epitome Theologiae Christianas,
p. 1—3, s. 1 — 4. SECTION II.
OF RELIGION, AS THE MEANS OF THE MORAL
IMPROVEMENT AND PERFECTION OF MEN.
1. It is an established point that men can
become morally better than they actually are.
Each individual must acknowledge that he him
self can become morally better than he actually
is. He thus confesses that there is a possibility,
an internal capacity (Anlage) in his nature for.
becoming better than he is. Now this capacity
of human nature for moral advancement is an
incontrovertible proof that man "is designed for
a higher moral perfection than he commonly
possesses or attains ; for, from the internal
capacity which we perceive in a thing we al
ways must determine its destination. From the
nature of the seed, we conclude that it was de
signed to develope the germ; from the nature
and properties of the foot, that it was designed
for walking, &c. It is exactly the same in re
spect to the whole intellectual constitution.
Man was designed for all that for which he has
an original capacity, and God can require of
him no less perfection than that for which he
has designed him.
Note.— The true destination of man, as,a rea
sonable being, is, ever progressive moral perfec
tion, (holiness, as the Bible calls it,) and the
happiness proportionately connected with it. The

* Refutation (antithetik) is called in the Scrip
tures ihtyX't, 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; Tit. i. 9. Hence the
phrase theologia elenctica, s\synTOui, (elenktik,)
which Turretin uses. Friedmann Bechmann, a
theologian of Jena, in the seventeenth century,
first used the phrase, theologia polemica, and wrote
a book under that title. Stange, ubi supra, p. 161.

moral feeling by which we determine what is
right or wrong, morally good or evil, is essen
tially founded in our very natures. Every thing
which opposes the great end of man, or inter
feres with his higher destination, is morally
evil ; and every thing which promotes this des
tination, or leads to this end, is morally good.
Vide infra, sec. 51. II.
2. Many, however, do not attain that moral
perfection for which they were designed by God
in the constitution which he has given them.
In all men, without exception, in their natural
state, we find bodily appetite predominant, and
far more strong than moral principle. Men are
either deficient in the power requisite to govern
their appetites, and to perform what is good, or
they do not properly employ the power which
they possess. In either case the result is the
same ; for if the powers which man possesses
sleep unemployed, a new power is necessary to
move, animate, and strengthen them.
3. But man must be able to attain to that for
whioh God has designed him. His destination,
as learned from his constitution, is to increase
continually in moral perfection. He must then
be able to attain to this end. But man has not
the power in himself of increasing in moral
worth; he must consequently obtain it else
where. God must have appointed a means, the
employment of which has an efficacy in promot
ing the moral improvement of men, since he
cannot be supposed to have designed them for
an end which is absolutely unattainable.
4. It might seem, perhaps, that this means
should be sought in a merely philosophical
knowledge and belief of the duties which natu
ral law prescribes, or in the clear and lively
perception of moral truths. Many have held
that man could in this way be made morally
perfect and virtuous without religious motives.
When men, they say, are convinced of the ne
cessity of obedience to the precepts of natural
law, and believe that rewards and happiness are
inseparably connected with obedience, they will
find this conviction, and this hope of the reward
which virtue always bestows, sufficient to impel
and empower them to the practice of goodness.
This theory might be true in application to a
being purely rational, such as man is not. But
it is wholly untrue in application to a being
composed, as we are, of reason and sense. This
philosophical reward of virtue, and consequently,
this merely philosophical conviction, are insuf
ficient to prompt the more noble virtues, such
as the sacrifice of one's own interest to the
happiness and advantage of others.
Experience, too, speaks clearly against the
sufficiency of this means. It teaches that the
fullest conviction of duty is far from giving men
the power to overcome their sinful inclinations
and desires. Let every one question himself on

28

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

this particular. Let him carefully examine one
single day of his life. Besides, does it appear
that the great multitude of the philosophical
teachers of morals,, in Christian and heathen
lands, at present and formerly, are actually
better and more virtuous, with all their clear
light and conviction, than the great mass of
. other men ? Vide Flatt, Magazin fur Dogm. und
Moral. St. I. s. 240. f. Tubing. 1796.
As this means, considered separately, is in
sufficient, it cannot be the only one appointed
by God. For God cannot be supposed to have
indicated to men an insufficient means. The
knowledge and belief of the requisitions of na
tural law and of moral truths are, in themselves,
very good and necessary. But from what has
been said, it follows that some quickening power
is needed to give this knowledge an influence
upon the human will, and a power to overcome
the appetites of our animal nature.
5. This power to overcome moral evil, and to
perform what is morally good, is to be sought
and found only in religion, or in our relation to
God, or in belief in God as bur supreme govern
or, lawgiver, and judge. This power operates
by means of that lively conviction and assurance
which religion imparts respecting the will of
the supreme lawgiver, and the reward of virtue
and punishment of vice, depending upon him.
We neither possess, nor are acquainted with,
any stronger power than this for promoting the
mora] perfection of the human race. This, then,
must be the divinely appointed means, in the
use of which men may obtain the strength which
they need..
In respect to religion, wc find that the whole
human race proceed in one and the same path.
Some, indeed, deviate from it for a time, but,
in adverse circumstances, in those hours when
they need consolation for themselves and others,
they soon feel the necessity of returning. It
must, then, be according to the nature of man, of
which God is the author, to proceed in this path.
Let hot the great variety of religions which
frequently stand in opposition to one another,
be objected against us. Subtracting from all
these different religions whatever in them is
false or incidental, there will always be left the
idea of piety to God, and of a righteous retribu
tion to be expected from him, as supreme law
giver and judge. This idea appears among all
people and nations, as soon as they begin to
exercise their reason. It is, indeed, very differ
ently modified and developed, according to the
difference of the circumstances and of the intel
lectual and moral capacity of each. But, as to
all which is essential, the whole human race are
agreed. And it is just this essential part of re
ligion which is the very best spring of real or
supposed virtues, and therefore the means ap
pointed by God for the moral improvement of

men. And since religion is appointed to man
as the means of fulfilling his destiny, it must
have truth for its foundation ; for it caimot be
supposed that God would deceive man by the
appointment of a false and unsuitable means.
Cf. Morus, s. 4, et passim.
SECTION III.
OF NATURAL AND REVEALED RELIGION.
The knowledge of God, his moral govern
ment over the world, and his will, can be ob
tained in two ways. First, by means olnalwe.'
Vide Morus, p. 3, 4. S. 5, 6. This is a source
of knowledge which even the heathen possess*
and for the neglect of which even they have no
excuse, Rom. i. 20. Secondly, by means of an
immediate ot direct revelation from God. Vide
Morus, p. 7, seq. In reference to this twofold
source of knowledge, religion has been divided
into natural and revealed. This distinction is
made by Paul, Rom. ii. 12, seq., coll. i. 19, seq.
He calls the direct divine revelation j/ofioj; and
those who do not enjoy it, and know God mere
ly from nature, aVojuot and vopov pq t%ovtis. Cf.
Ps.xix. 1 — 6. Here belongs Acts, xiv. 16, seq.,
coll. xvii. 26, seq.
But when nature is spoken of as a source of
the knowledge of God, external nature alone is
not meant, as is often supposed ; but also our
internal, moral nature, our moral consciousness.
Every man capable of reflection finds (1) one
source of the knowledge of God in surrounding
nature, which, when he reflects upon it, invites
and conducts him \o a knowledge of its author,
Ps. xix. 1—6; Rom. i. 20; Acts, xiv. 17; coll.
xvii. 24, seq. He finds (2) another source of
the knowledge of God in himself, in his own con
science, which distinctly acquaints him with a
supreme and invisible judge of his thoughts and
actions, Rom. ii. 12 — 16; Acts, xvii. 27 — 31.
The following remarks may serve to illustrate
this division : —
1. We have before proved that the strong
belief and assurance of the will of God, the
supreme lawgiver, and of a retribution to be
expected from him as governor and judge, are
the means of our moral perfection. Vide s. 2,
No. 5. We might hence conclude that God
would give certainty to both of these particu
lars by a direct revelation. The results to which
natural religion leads the few who have oppor
tunity and ability to understand it in its best
state, are indeed important, in themselves con
sidered. Yet even the natural knowledge of
God of this purer kind, leaves men in perplexing
doubt on many very important points, as soon
as they begin rightly to feel their wants. It
cannot, therefore, afford them all that assistance
which they need for their moral improvement
and perfection. What Pliny said (Hist. Nat.

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

29

XXX. 1) of his own and earlier times still holds
true — ad religionem maximd etiamnum caligat
humanum genus. Gesneri Chr. Plin. 757. 5,
cf. 760, not. We should therefore naturally
expect that God would supply these defects in
natural religion by means of direct revelation.
We must not, however, found our belief in a
direct revelation upon an d priori demonstration.
The simple question is, Has a revelation actually
been made ? This is a question of fact, the an
swer to which must, of course, be sought from
history. That a revelation has not been made,
or is not possible, can by no means be proved d
priori. If the fact can be historically proved,
allteasoning to the contrary amounts to nothing.
Now, Christians believe that the holy scriptures
of the Old and New Testament are the records
of the true divine revelation. In the article on
the holy scriptures we shall inquire whether this
opinion is historically true. In the remarks
which here follow we shall discuss some sub
jects by way of introduction to this inquiry. Cf.
Jani, Versuch einer Beantwortung der Frage:
Ob eine allgemeine reine Vernunftreligion in
dieser Welt moglich, und von der Umschaffung
oder Abschaffung der christlichen Religion zu
erwarten sey? Berlin, 1804, 8vo.
2. All'history shows that men have deeply
telt the necessity of a direct revelation. Those
institutors of religion who have pretended that
their whole system was revealed from heaven
and positively prescribed, have always been the
best received, and have succeeded best in their
object. Some pretended, deceitfully, that they
were the confidants of God; others doubtless
believed themselves to be such, and supposed
that God spake and taught by their instrumen
tality. It does not concern our present purpose
to determine whether they were in the right or
wrong, but only how it happened that their
claims were so readily and willingly admitted
by their hearers. It was because they answered
the wishes and expectations, and satisfied the
wants, of the multitude.
Besides, nothing but positive injunction and
prohibition produces a deep and lasting impres
sion on the great mass of mankind. The voice
of natural law alone is altogether too feeble to
control the most numerous class of society. Na
tural law does not sufficiently compel the atten
tion of men when left to themselves. And even
if they should reflect upon it, they would find it
destitute, in many cases, of that evidence and
certainty which quiets the mind. They will find,
therefore, positive commands, which give them
this certainty after which they long, in the
highest degree welcome. The conviction of
having the authority and direct command of God
for any course of conduct has more effect than
the strongest arguments on the duty and end of
man which the greatest sage could offer. For but

few are capable of understanding the grounds
of moral reasoning ; and they will often at least
suspect that the truth may be different from
their system, and perhaps will discover solid
objections to their own views. But one who is
firmly convinced that God has directly com
manded a certain course of conduct, will obey
the requisition, although he may not understand
the reason and internal necessity of it; he will
comply with the requisition because it comes
from God, and therefore must be right and good.
Experience, too, teaches that a merely natural
religion is not suited to be the religion of the
people at large. It has far too little evidence and
power, and soon becomes corrupt, even among
civilized nations. Let a merely natural religion,
independent of authority, once become the reli
gion of the great mass of mankind, and social
order and morality are at an end.
Since the. necessity of a direct revelation is
felt so universally, the bestowment of it by God,
in condescension to our wants, cannot appear to
the unprejudiced inquirer either inconsistent or
incredible. We shall hereafter inquire whether
there is one, among all the pretended revelations,
which is really of divine origin. This is a
question of fact. In the mean time, so much
we may boldly as6ert, that the scriptures of the
Old and New Testament have a decided prefer
ence to the sacred books of all other nations and
religions. The best among these is the Koran,
to which our scriptures are certainly superior.
We may therefore establish this as an axiom :
if a divine revelation has ever been committed to
writing, it is contained in our holy scriptures.
3. All will admit that God has, as a matter
of fact, made use of the doctrines contained in
the holy scriptures, and of the holy scriptures
themselves, in the benevolent work in which he
is engaged of extending the knowledge of truth,
and of diffusing over the earth just ideas respect
ing his character and our destination. Many of
the truths contained in these books are, indeed,
perfectly discoverable and demonstrable from
nature. But these same truths were discovered
sooner, and were diffused more rapidly, than
they would otherwise have been, by means of
these books, possessing, as they do, the autho
rity of a divine revelation. This is proved by
the example of nations unacquainted with these
books and the doctrines contained in them.
How ignorant and unenlightened on religious
subjects were the Egyptians, Greeks, and Ro
mans, in the midst of all their intellectual cul
tivation ! The peculiar privilege of the Israel
ites — that which made them, in an eminent
sense, the people of God — is represented by
Moses and the prophets to be this : that God had
taught them his word, his statutes, and judg
ments, as he had not taught any other people at
that time, Deut. iv. 7, 8; Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20.
c2

30

So the New Testament everywhere ; as Rom.
iii. 2; coll. ix. 4; and i. 19, 32; which shows
how the light of nature given to the heathen
had been misimproved by them.
The studious and learned among the Greeks
and Romans retained almost the sole possession
of all that was valuable in the schools and in
the writings of the enlightened philosophers.
Resting, as their doctrines did, upon long, arti
ficial, speculative, and abstruse reasonings, they
accomplished very little for the religious and
moral improvement of the most numerous class
of society; though this class stood most in need
of instruction. Add to this the observation, that
it is easier to find proofs for a truth when once
discovered than to discover the truth itself in
the first instance. The nations of Europe and
other parts of the world were destitute of just
ideas of religion before they embraced Christi
anity; but no sooner had they learned the truths
of religion from Christianity than they began to
prove and establish them by reason, which they
could now do in a more convincing manner than
any of their predecessors could have done with
out the light of revelation. Hume said, very
justly, that the true philosophy respecting God
was only eighteen hundred years old. Respect
ing the partial diffusion of divine revelation,
vide s. 121. Cf. Morus, s. 8, seq. p. 4—6.
Vide Reimarus, Abhandlung von den vornehm-
sten Wahrheiten der naturlichen Religion ; Zieg-
ler, Theol. Abhand. Num. I., iiber Naturalis-
mus und positive Religion, Gott. 1791, 8vo;
and Staudlin, Ideen zu einer Kritik des Systems
der christliehen Religion, Gott. 1791, 8vo.
4. But although natural religion must appear,
from what has been said, to be defective and
imperfect, it should not be despised or under
valued. Notwithstanding all its imperfections,
it is, in itself considered, a true religion. As
Paul teaches us, Rom. i. 20, we acquire even
from nature a knowledge of the invisible things
of God. In ver. 19 of the same chapter, he
says, God has revealed himself even in nature —
i. e., in the wise constitution which he, as Cre
ator, has given to our minds and to the external
world. Vide supra, No. 1. Through this wise
constitution, according to the express testimony
of scripture, God addresses himself to all men,
from without and from within. He is not far
from any one of them, and leaves himself with
out a witness in none, Acts, xvii. 27; coll. xiv.17.
Genuine and pure natural religion can there
fore never contradict revealed religion. Such a
contradiction would prove clearly that the reli
gion pretending to be revealed was not so in
reality. God cannot contradict himself, nor
exhibit himself in one light in nature, and in an
entirely different light in revelation. The know
ledge of God acquired from nature is recom
mended and honourably mentioned in the Bible.

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. Vide Psalm xix., where ver. 1 — 6 treat of the
knowledge of God derived from nature; ver.

7  1 1 , of that derived from revelation. Cf. Acts,
xiv. 17; Rom. i. 19, seq.; coll. ii. 12, seq.
5. It pleased God, as the Bible represents, to
give men, from time to time, such direct instruc
tion as they needed. He taught them in this
way many things which they might never have
discovered of themselves, and which they would
not, at best, have discovered for a longtime; and
many things in which, perhaps, they had already
erred. By this immediate revelation he con
firmed, illustrated, and perfected that revelation
of himself, as the invisible creator, preserver,
and judge, which he had already made in the
external world, and in the conscience of man.
By this immediate revelation, he thus causes
the revelation of himself in nature, which is
commonly too little regarded, and often wholly
neglected, (Rom. i. 21 ; Acts, xiv. 16,) to be
come intelligible, impressive, useful, and wel
come to man. Ps. xix. 7 — 14.
Instruction given by God to men on subjects
of which they are ignorant and incapable of dis
covering the truth by reasoning, is called positive
(arbitraria) instruction ; by which is meant sim
ply, that we cannot show the necessity of the
truth revealed by the principles of our own rea
son, and not that God proceeds capriciously and
unreasonably in this case, which is not suppos-
able. Morus, p. 7, s. 1. When God thus im
parts to men the knowledge of those religious
truths of which they are and must remain igno
rant if left to their own reason, he is said in the
scriptures to reveal the mystery of his will, the
deep things of the Deity. Morus, p. 8, s. 3.
But revelation (ijicwlposis, tLytoxaXv^if) is used,
even in the Bible,.in a wider, and in a more
limited sense. Morus, p. 9, s. 4. (I) In the
wider sense it is the annunciation of such truths
as were, indeed, unknown to men, but at the
same time within the reach of their minds.
Thus $ai/fpoii> is used in respect to the know
ledge of God derived from nature, (Rom. i. 19,)
and aitoxa.Xv7t*£i.v, Phil. iii. 15. (2) In the nar
rower sense, it is instruction respecting things
which are not only unknown, but undiscover-
able by the human mind. (3) In the narrow
est sense, it is divine instruction on the truths
of religion concerning the salvation of men,
which neither have been, nor can be, taught by
natural religion, and which cannot be derived
from reasoning on the nature of things.
Revealed religion, then, is not opposed, but
added, to natural religion. It repeats, confirms,
and illustrates many of the precepts of natural
religion, and at the same time brings to light
much that was before unknown.
All this admits of an easy application to the
Christian religion. Although the doctrines of
the Christian religion must not be contradictory

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

31

ta reason, they need not be precisely the same
as the doctrines of natural religion, as many at
the present day contend. Although the Chris
tian religion is perfectly reasonable, it is still a
positive religion, because it rests on positive in
struction. That it is a revealed religion cannot
be doubted, as long as the yet uninvalidated
miracles of Jesus, and other proofs, are sure
evidence of his immediate divine mission. To
exhibit the great and peculiar doctrines of Chris
tianity as constituting a system of revealed truth,
is the object of the present work.
Note. — It is false to conclude, that because
positive religion must be consistent with reason,
it can contain only such truths as are deducible
from reason. Positive religion must indeed em
brace such doctrines, and such only, as we are
capable of understanding, and as correspond
with the laws of our minds. But from tliisit
does not follow that it can ernbrace only such
truths as unaided reason clearly teaches. The
works and the will of God contain mysteries
which men are incompetent, of themselves, to
explore. Vide Ernesti, Opuscula, Vindiciae
arbitrii divini in constituenda religione.
The positive part of religion promotes the
moral part of it, as much as religion in general
promotes morality.
The positive part of religion is that which
contains the instructions which God has given
us respecting those subjects in religion which
are not demonstrable, or which cannot be rea
soned out and made evident by argument. Posi
tive doctrines require belief and assent ; but they
do not require an acknowledgment or proof of
their essential truth from principles of reason.
The doctrines that there is a God, and that he
loves men, and the other doctrines of natural
religion, are not positive ; but the doctrine that
God has revealed himself to us through Jesus
Christ, in and through whom he will bless us,
is positive; for it cannot be proved from the
common principles of reason.
What is positive (positivum, ^e-tixov) is that
quod ponitwr, sive docetur sic esse ; non quod de
monstrator geometricd. The following is the
origin of this term : — The Greeks say, tiopovi
¦tiQivai — i. e., prscscribere, prsecipere ; for a law
is laid down and imposed, and not demonstrated.
This phraseology was transferred to doctrines
(dogmata) which were prescribed or established
without being improved.
6. Any one who would attain to a settled
assurance of the divine origin of the Christian
religirn must begin his examination with the
moral system of Jesus. He will find, on an
unprejudiced inquiry, that. this system is more
exalted and reasonable, and more decidedly use
ful, than any other system of morals. But when
he comes to put it into practice, he will soon
find that he is no more able to obey its require

ments, although he acknowledges their excel
lence, than he is to obey the requirements of a
merely philosophical system of morals. Vide s. 2,
No. 4. In short, he will experience the same
difficulties which Paul did ; and find the account,
Romans, vii. 7 — 25, copied as it were from his
own soul.
How, then, can we, who are so weak, attain
the strength which is requisite for the practice
of virtue 1 Jesus and the writers of the New
Testament everywhere answer, By believing on
the person and whole doctrine of Jesus Christ ; and
in no other way. But those only really believe
on him who are convinced that he is the very
person which the Bible represents him, and
which he himself everywhere claims to be.
Now the Bible represents him as a direct
messenger from God to men ; as the greatest
among all who have been sent by heaven to
earth ; as the Saviour, — the Christ. If we are
convinced of this, we shall (a) believe that
Christ and his doctrines are the means appointed
by God for the moral improvement and happi
ness of men ; and shall (6) make use of these
means for the purpose for which they were given,
and in the manner prescribed by Christ. Doing
this, we shall not want strength to practise the
moral system of Jesus.
We see here what an intimate and necessary
Connection there is between Christian morals
and Christian doctrines, or theology, and what
a mistake it is to separate them. Christian
morals are supported by Christian doctrines.
Christian theology teaches us where we can ob
tain the strength which we need in order to obey
the moral precepts of Christianity. Whoever,
then, preaches the morals without the doctrines
of Christianity, preaches not the gospel of Christ,
and preaches Christ in vain. When any are
convinced that Christ is a messenger sent from
God, and their moral lawgiver and judge, but
are at the same time conscious that they are
unable to obey his moral requirements, their
duty obviously is to follow the directions which
he has given them, and to proceed in the man
ner which he has prescribed, in order to attain
to a full certainty that he "and his doctrine are
the means appointed by God for the real moraf
perfection and consequent salvation of men.
Vide John, vii. 17; xiv. 6. Now these direc
tions are fully exhibited in Christian theology.
Note. — The division of religion into natural
and revealed is entirely rejected by Socinus,
Ferguson, Gruner, and some other theologians.
Vide Gruner, Theol. Dogm. p. 9, and Diss.
censura divisionis religionis et theologiae in na-
turalem et Tevelatam, Hal. 1770. These main
tain that we owe all our knowledge of God,
originally, to divine revelation, such as our first
parents received in paradise, and thence trans
mitted to their descendants. They deny that

32

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

we have any knowledge of God-, which, as to
its origin, is natural.
The scriptures do indeed teach that God re
vealed himself to men even in the earliest ages
of the world ; and much of this original revela
tion has doubtless been transmitted from age to
age until the present time. But still this di
vision is not to be rejected. For (a) many reli
gious truths which have been revealed are dis
coverable, and have actually been discovered,
by reason and the light of nature. In this di
vision, then, we have respect, not to the actual
source of our knowledge of these truths, but to
the ground on which we rest our knowledge of
them. (6) The elements only of many revealed
truths were communicated to our first parents.
Men were left to examine, in the diligent use
of their powers, the grounds of the revelatipn
given them ; to build higher upon the founda
tion already laid ; and to deduce the proper
consequences from what had been already
taught. They obtained this additional know
ledge by the study and contemplation of na
ture ; and why may not this religious science,
thus derived from nature, be called natural
religion ? SECTION IV.
IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD INNATE f
The natural knowledge of God has been di
vided, especially by the ancients, into innate
(insita, congenita, \p$vta() and acquired, (ac-
quisita, irftWjjtfos.) The acquired knowledge
of God is that which we obtain by the use of
reason and by the observation and study of the
world. By the innate knowledge of God the
ancients understood an idea of God actually
innate in all men, brought directly into the
world with them, and obtained neither by in
struction nor reflection. Pythagoras, the Pla-
tonists, and many ancient philosophers, believed
in these innate ideas, (anteceptse animo notiones.)
Vide Cic. De Nat. Deor. I. 11, seq.; Seneca,
Epist. 117. This opinion was connected by
Plato with his theory respecting the existence
of the human soul before its union with the
body. He taught that all our ideas previously
existed in our minds; and that learning was
only the recollection of what belonged to our
former condition. Des Cartes also advocated
this innate knowledge; and many theologians
considered it as a remnant of the Divine image
in man.
This opinion doubtless arose from the known
fact, that the belief of the Divine existence al
ways precedes the knowledge of any theoretic
proof of it. The conclusion then was, that be
cause men dp not derive their belief in God
from speculation, the idea of God must be innate.
But the mind possesses no such innate ideas.
It obtains all its ideas by the use of its natural

faculties. Vide Locke, Essay on Human Un
derstanding. The soul may be compared in
this respect, according to Aristotle, to an un
written leaf, (tabula rasa,) upon which any
thing of which it is naturally susceptible may
be written. The mistake on this subject origir
nates in this way : The belief in the existence,
nature, and attributes of God does not depend
upon speculation, of which but few men are
capable ; the idea of God is not admitted to be
true, because it is proved by theoretic, specula
tive reason, but rather because it perfectly agrees
with the principles of moral reason, wjth moral
consciousness, or conscience; and because it is
demanded by these principles, as has been
abundantly shown by Kant, Kritik der reinen
Vernunft, and elsewhere. This is the reason
that the belief in the Divine existence always
precedes the knowledge of any theoretic proof
of it. Speculative reasoning must be awakened
and improved before we shall begin to inquire
for the theoretic proof of the truths already
made known to us by practical reason, or con
science. Experience, too, stands in the way of the ber
lief that the idea of God is innate. The most
uncultivated men, those in whom practical rea
son has not yet been sufficiently exercised and
developed, have no idea of God and religion,
and of course no words standing for these ideas.
Vide Robinson, History of America ; Steller,
Beschreibung von Kamtschatka, s. 268 ; Olden-
dorp, Geschichte der Mission auf den Carai-
bischen Inseln, s. 64. The same has been
found true of individuals who have grown up
in the woods, entirely separated from the society
of their fellow-men.
If the innate knowledge of God means what
Musaeus, Buddeus, and others, understood by
it, a natural capacity of the mind, (potentia pro-
pinqua,) by means of which the knowledge of
God is easily attained, then, indeed, we possess
such innate knowledge. This natural capacity
consists in the practical reason, which begins to
act before the other powers of the mind. This
natural capacity, however, is very improperly
called cognitio insita.
Some have endeavoured to prove this innate
knowledge from the writings of Paul. But
they mistake his meaning. The doctrine of
Paul, contained in the two passages referred to,
entirely agrees with the theory just stated.
1. Rom. ii. 14, 15. The subject of this pas
sage is the moral sense or feeling which appears
in all men, even in childhood, as soon indeed
as the practical reason is developed. This
feeling renders it impossible for men, whether
extremely barbarous or highly cultivated, when
free from prejudice and passion, to withhold
approbation of right and admiration of virtue.
But this moral feeling, as was remarked above,

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

S3

stands in close connection with the idea of God,
and leads directly to it. Paul says that even
the heathen (jimj vbpav czokt'cs) have this feeling
They, indeed, have no direct revelation (vo^ox) ;
but they know from their own nature (^lissi.)
that the same things are right and wrong which
revelation declares to be so, and they act accord
ingly. In ver. 27 he presents the same con
trast, and in ver. 15 he explains his meaning.
They show (ivSiUvvvtai) by their judgments
and actions that the precepts of the law lib tpyoi/
tov vofiov, what the moral law commands to be
done or avoided) are written upon their hearts.
This last expression is frequently cited in
proof of innate knowledge; but it denotes
merely an acquaintance with a subject so fixed
and thorough that it cannot be obscured or ob
literated from the mind. So, Heb. viii. 10, God
wrote his commands in the hearts of the Israel
ites; and Cic. Acad. IV. 1, Res in animo suo
insculptas habere. Vide Wetstein, ad h. 1.
" Their conscience condemns them when they
do wrong, and acquits them when they do right.
They cannot, therefore, be destitute of the cer
tain knowledge of right and wrong."
2. Rom. i. 19, 20. The doctrine1 advanced is,
that the heathen are as liable to punishment,
when they transgress the law of nature, as the
Jews when they transgress the precepts of re
velation : for the knowledge of God (^6 yvuotbv
tov ®£ov for yvtaaif ©soil) is attainable even by
the heathen. It is evident even to them, ($o-
vf por iatw iv omtols for witoi; ;) for God has re
vealed it to them — i. e., has given them the
means of attaining it in the natural world. So
that even they (passing to the last clause in
ver. 20) cannot excuse themselves with the plea
of ignorance, (si; to clvat aitovs avartolwyritovi.)
The words ta yap  §ci.6tr]s are paren
thetical, and explanatory of the declaration that
God had revealed himself to the heathen, Ver.
19. They show in what manner this revelation
was made. The attributes of God, in them
selves invisible and inscrutable, (oopo? a oAitoi,)
his omnipotence and other divine perfections
($uotrji), can be discovered, since the creation
of the world, («to xtiaiu; xosuov, while the world
stands, cf. Luke, xi. 50,) by the observation of
the things that are made, (rtoMjuatrt, by reflection
upon the works of God.) The knowledge here
spoken of is, therefore, acquired knowledge, (cog-
r.itio acquisita.)
The first of these passages treats, then, of the
moral sense which the heathen, the civilized,
and the savage, alike possess. The second treats
of the knowledge of God acquired from the crea
tion; such knowledge as the enlightened hea
then philosophers had obtained by the study of
the natural world ; for with these had Paul, and
his readers at Rome, at that time, to deal, and of
these, therefore, he here principally speaks.
5

SECTION V.

OF THE ARTICLES OF FAITH ; AND THE ANALOGY
OF FAITH.
1 . Of the Divisions of the Doctrines.
The particular parts which compose the sys ¦
tem of theoretic religion are called doctrines of
faith, (articuli fidei, capita fidei Christianae :)
also, loci, from the sections and rubrics into
which they are collected ; whence the phrase
loci theologici. The whole sum of the truths
of theoretic or doctrinal religion, exhibited in
their proper order and connection, constitutes a
system of doctrines, or a system of theoretic
theology. The articles of faith are divided —
1. Into pure and mixed, in respect to the
ground upon which our knowledge of them rests.
Pure, are those truths which we learn wholly
from the holy scriptures ; mixed, are those which
we not only learn from the scriptures, but which
we can discover and demonstrate by reason.
Morus, p. 10, ad finem.
2. Into fundamental or essential, and unessential
or less essential, in respect to their internal im
portance, and their connection with the whole
system of Christian truth. Vide Morus, p. 12,
s. 3, 4. This division has been rendered more
accurate by the controversies which have arisen
in relation to the different doctrines of theology.
The fundamental doctrines are those without
which the system taught in the Bible is un
founded, and with which it must stand or fall.
Such are the doctrines enumerated by Morqs,
p. 8. They may also be defined to be those
which cannot be denied or contested without
subverting the ground of Christian faith and
hope. The unessential doctrines are those which
do not concern the vitals of religion, and which
we are not required to believe in order to sal
vation. Vide s. 4. The fundamental doctrines
are subdivided into primary and secondary.
We subjoin the following remarks to this im
portant division of the doctrines into essential
and unessential : —
(a) This division was first distinctly stated
in the first half of the seventeenth century, by
Nic. Hunnius. It was afterwards adopted by'
Calovius, Musasus, Baier, and others.
(i) The term fundamental is taken from
1 Cor. iii. 10, 11. Paul here compares himself
and other Christian teachers to architects ; the
Christian community to a building; the doc
trines of Christianity to the materials for build
ing. The elementary truths of Christianity,
which Paul and other teachers preached at the
establishment of churches, are here called the
foundation, in opposition to the superstructure,
which some other one at Corinth had built upon
this foundation, (IrtoweoSoftw, and ver. 6, 7.) Cf.
Eph. ii. 20, where the same comparison is fowDA

34

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Paul calls the instruction which he had given
in the elements of Christianity, yoaa, 1 Cor.
iii. 2 ; Heb. v. 12 ; also, %ayo$ tijs dpz^j toi
Xpistoi, Heb. vi. 1. Fundamental doctrines,
then, in the sense of Paul, are those elementary
truths which should be communicated to such
as wish to understand and embrace the Christian
religion. These elementary doctrines, as well
as the higher truths suited to those who are
more advanced, should all be related and never
opposed to the great doctrines respecting Christ
as the saviour of the world. 1 Cor. iii. 11.
It is not, in reality, a difficult thing to deter
mine what doctrines the apostles regarded as
essential to Christianity, since they themselves
have so often and so distinctly informed us.
We only need to pursue the historical method ;
and to follow the same principles as when we
inquire what doctrines were considered essential
by the founder and first teachers of the Mahom-
medan or any other positive religion. The the
ologians of different sects have, however, been
always at variance on this subject. They look
at the doctrines of religion from points of view
entirely different from that of the early Chris
tian teachers, and, of course, differ widely from
the latter in their estimate of these doctrines.
How, for example, can a theologian who denies
that Christ is, what he is declared to be in
every page of the New Testament, a messenger
sent from God, agree in opinion with the first
Christian teachers respecting him, his doctrine,
and the essentials of his religion ! Now the
theologian whose belief on this point does not
accord with that of the apostles, is bound in
honour to say so. He ought not to pervert their
language in order to adapt it to his own system.
Many decide on philosophical principles what
the religion of Christ and the object of his mis
sion should be, and then interpret the scriptures
according to their preconceived opinions.
If we would determine what doctrines were
regarded by the apostles as essential to Chris
tianity, and were preached by them as such to
Jews and Gentiles, we must consult those pas
sages in which Christ and his disciples inten
tionally introduce the elementary truths in which
all were instructed. Such passages are those
in Acts, which describe the founding of new
churches by the apostles, that in Matt, xxviii.,
which contains the commission given by Christ
to his disciples ; and those in which the writers
distinctly profess to give the fundamental doc
trines of Christianity. Cf. 1 Cor. ; iii. 1 Thess.
i. 8 — 10 ; Heb.- vi. 1, seq. The following doc
trines are in this way ascertained to be funda
mental. 1. The doctrine of the divine unity, in oppo
sition to the polytheism, and other connected
errors of the heathen world. This one God,
revealed as Father, Soir^ jai Holy Ghost; vtas

represented by the apostles as the author, pie-
server, and governor of all things.
2. The doctrine respecting Jesus, (a) He is
the Messiah, the Saviour, (Sutfijp) the Son of
God, predicted by the prophets, and attested by
miracles. In this character he possesses an
authority to which no other prophet could pre
tend. This is a point upon which Christ and
the apostles always insist, as the peculiar and
distinctive doctrine of Christianity, 1 Cor. iii. 1 1 .
And no teacher of religion who sets aside this
authority of Christ can be called a Christian
teacher, however true and useful his instructions
may be in other respects. This doctrine, that
Jesus is the Christ, is, as Paul says, the founda
tion upon which all the other great truths of
Christianity are built. Vide Storr, Ueber den
Geist des Christenthums, in Flatt's Magazin fur
Dogmatik und Moral, St. I. s. 103, f. Tub. 1796.
( 6) He became man, died, and rose again. He
is now gone into the heavens, where he is ex
alted over all, and enjoys that divine glory which
is his due, and whence he will come on a future
day to be our judge. ( c) He not only gave us
ample instruction respecting our duty, but pro
cured us forgiveness with God, and freedom from
the punishment of sin through his sufferings and
death (alfta), the remembrance of which is so
lemnly renewed in the Lord's supper. These
truths respecting Christ are always represented
as fundamental.
3. The doctrine of the depravity and moral
degeneracy of man is always presupposed and
frequently stated in the strongest terms.
4. The doctrine of a special divine instruc
tion and guidance, (itvtvpa dywv, ^apiffua-ro
rtvEvfiatos.} These were afforded in various
ways, naturally and supernaturally, to Chris
tians of that period, and promised to those who
should follow.
5. The doctrines of the immortality of the
soul, of future retribution, and of the resurrec
tion of the dead. The latter doctrine was
taught in opposition to the heathen and to the
Sadducees. 6. The doctrine of the destination of man.
This is holiness, and the happiness proportion
ately connected with it. He only who has ex
perienced a true change of heart, and who lives
according to the precepts of Christ, can share
ih the rights and blessings which belong to
Christians in this life, and the life to come.
7. The doctrine of gratuitous forgiveness
Men cannot merit forgiveness and salvation by
obedience, either to the civil or ecclesiastical
law of Moses, or to the universal moral law,
although obedience to the latter is their indis
pensable duty. Paul argues this point against
the Jews, who held the opposite opinion ; he
also shows that the law of Moses is no longer
obligatory upon Christians.

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

35

8. The doctrine of baptism. By this ordi
nance Christian rights are imparted and assured
to all who are admitted into the Christian
church. These are the fundamental doctrines which
were taught by the apostles.
Note. — The whole Mosaic dispensation, as all
will admit, rested on the principles of theocracy.
But it is equally clear from the New Testament,
that the new or Christian dispensation rests
on principles of theocracy and Christocracy.
Christ is not merely a teacher, now deceased,
like Socrates and Plato, and other sages of an
tiquity, who live indeed in remembrance, but
who now no longer exert a personal influence
upon men. He is now, as he was formerly,
and will always continue to be, a true and living
king (xvpioj) and judge, (xprtijs £avtat> xai
raaepwv.) Christianity, then, in the purely scriptural
view of it, is no more an institute for mere in
struction than the ancient Mosaic dispensation.
It does no,t rest its precepts upon the weight of
the reasons by which they might be supported.
It is a divinely constituted government, in which
Christ is king, legislator, and judge. To his
will, in furtherance of their improvement and
blessedness in time and in eternity, the hearts
of men should be united. To his authority, as
lawgiver and king, God has given abundant tes
timony. His will and command are therefore
the only ground which the Bible offers for the
unconditional obedience to him which it requires
of all the subjects of his rule. Christ does not
indeed omit, as our teacher, to give us reasons
for his precepts ; but, at the same time, as our
Lord and judge, he requires obedience to his
simple authority. These views might be proved
from the writings of the apostles and the dis-
sourses of Jesus. Vide Matt, v., seq.
II. Of the Analogy of Faith and cf Scripture.
The analogy of faith is the connection which
subsists between the doctrines of the Christian
religion and the relation, arising from this con
nection, of these doctrines to one another and
to the whole system. Intimately connected
with this is the analogy of Scripture, which is
the connection and agreement which subsists
between all the truths contained in the holy
scriptures. The analogy of scripture lies at the
foundation of the analogy of faith, since the
scriptures are the ground of the doctrines of
faith. This agreement should subsist in every
system ; the parts should conspire harmoniously
to one end. The propositions should be con
nected together into a complete whole, without
chasms; and follow, one after another, in natu
ral order, without contradiction. But this is
eminently important in the Christian system.
The phrase aimiogy of faith is borrowed from

Rom. xii. 6. But there wiaTjoyia tfjjj rtUtsos is
the proportion or degree of theoretical and prac
tical faith or Christianity ; like pktoov ttiattas,
ver. 3. The meaning is. Christians should de
vote the different degiees of knowledge and
experience in religion which they may possess
to the general good of the church. Those, for
example, possessing the gift of prophecy, should
be content with this gift, and employ it, accord
ing to the best of their ability, for the good of
others. But although this term, as used in this pas
sage, has a different sense from that attached to
it by theological writers, the thing itself which
they mean to designate by it is just and import
ant. The analogy of faith, as they use it,
implies, 1. That no one doctrine of faith may contra
dict the other doctrines of the system ; and that
all must conspire to promote the one great end
— the moral improvement and perfection of men.
The doctrine of the divine justice, for example,
must be explained in such a way as to be con
sistent with the doctrine of the divine goodness,
and as to be promotive, and not destructive, of
the improvement of men. Vide Morus, s. 6.
2. That the doctrines of faith should mutually
explain and illustrate each other, and be drawn
from one another by fair conclusion. Any doc
trines may belong to the system of faith which
may be derived, by just consequence, from the
holy scriptures, although not contained in them
in so many words ; and all the doctrines should
be carefully preserved in the relations which
they bear to each other. When isolated and
viewed by itself, alone, a doctrine is apt to ap
pear in a false light. This is the case with the
doctrine of the divine attributes, and with much
of the doctrine respecting Christ.
3. That the particular doctrines of the system
should be exhibited in a natural connection, in
a proper place, and a regular order. No one
determinate method can be prescribed ; and yet
some fixed plan should be followed through
the whole, and into all the particulars. The
doctrines in which other doctrines are presup
posed should not hold the first place. It would
be absurd, for example, to begin a system with
the doctrine respecting death, the Lord's supper,
or baptism, since these doctrines presuppose
others, without which they cannot be understood
and thoroughly explained. Cf. Morus, p.14, s. 5
SECTION VI.
OF THE MYSTERIES OF RELIGION.
1 . The Greek uvstripum is commonly rendered
mystery. It answers to the Hebrew "inpp, and
signifies in general anything concealed, hidden,
unknown. In the New Testament it generally
signifies doctrines which are concealed from men,

36

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

either because they were never before published ,
(in which sense every unknown doctrine is
mysterious,) or because they surpass human
comprehension. Some doctrines are said to be
mysterious for both of these reasons, but more
frequently doctrines which are simply unknown
are called by this name. Mvgtrjpw signifies,
therefore, in its biblical use, (1) Christianity in
its whole extent, because it was unknown before
its publication — e. g. pvatripiov Ttlattas, 1 Tim.
iii. 9 ; (2) Particular truths of the Christian
revelation — e. g. 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; xv. 51, and espe
cially in the writings of Paul ; (3) The doctrine
that the divine grace in Christ extends, without
distinction, to Gentiles as well as Jews, because
this doctrine was so new to the Jews, and so
foreign to their feelings — e. g. Eph. i. 9 ; iii. 3 ;
Coll. v. 6, seq. &c.
2. The word mystery is now commonly used
in theology in a more limited sense. Here it
signifies a doctrine revealed in the holy scrip
tures, the mode of which is inscrutable to the
human understanding. A doctrine, in order to
be a mystery in the theological sense, must be
shown to be (<z) a doctrine really contained in
the holy scriptures; and (i) a doctrine of such
a nature as to transcend though not contradict
the powers of the human understanding. Of
this nature are the doctrines respecting Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost — the union of two natures
in Christ — the atonement, &c.
To the above definitions we subjoin the fol
lowing observations : —
(1) Whether such religious mysteries are
really contained in the holy scriptures can be
determined only by the principles of hermeneu-
tics. The mysteries which, through ignorance
of the original languages of the Bible, were
supposed to be contained in many texts, disap
pear on a fair interpretation. They were greatly
multiplied by the fathers of the church, since
mysteries were in great request in their day,
and in high esteem' even among the heathen;
they were accordingly attributed in great abun
dance to the Christian system. There is ground,
therefore, for the caution given by Morus, p. 41,
s. 32, n. 3, not to seek to increase the number
of mysteries. But this caution is unnecessary
at the present day, when many theologians, in
consequence of their philosophical objections
against mysteries, banish them wholly from
their theories ; and, not content with this, seem
bent to exclude them, by a violent interpretation,
even from the holy scriptures.
(2) Since we' are unable to decide, before
hand, what a divine revelation will contain, we
should not undertake to say that it must neces
sarily contain mysteries. Mystery is not, in
'tself considered, an essential mark and requisite
of revelation. But, on the other hand, we should

not undertake to say beforehand that a revelation
cannot contain mysteries. Whether the reve
lation which God has given us contains myste
ries or not is a question of fact ,¦ and in such
questions, demonstrations dpriori have no place.
(3) The great object of divine revelation is
the promotion of the moral improvement of men.
Those dark and unintelligible doctrines, which
are either themselves subversive of this end, or
are wholly disconnected with the practical truths
which tend to promote it, do not belong, we may
be sure, to the system of revealed religion. But
of such a character are not the mysteries of the
Christian religion ! They stand throughout in
so close a connection with the most clear and
practical truths, that removing them would ren
der these truths very different from what they
are exhibited to be in the holy scriptures. The
mystery of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for ex
ample, stands in close connection with what we
are taught respecting Christ, and respecting our
duties and relations to God ; and to remove this
mystery would render our duties and relations
to God essentially different from what they are
represented in the New Testament. This sug
gests the important rule : to consider the myste
ries of the Christian religion not as solitary and
isolated, but as connected with the other truths re
vealed in the holy scriptures.
(4) The reason of the mystery and obscurity
which covers many of the doctrines revealed in
the Bible is, that the great first principles upon
which these doctrines rest lie beyond the circle
of our vision, in the sphere of spirit, with which
we have only a very imperfect acquaintance.
This is the case with the mysteries of the work
of redemption, — God and man united in one
person, — God reconciled with man through the
innocent death of his own Son, &c. Could we
rise above the sphere of sense, and understand
the great principles upon which these doctrines
rest, we should doubtless find them clear, con
sistent, and connected, and lose all our suspi
cions concerning them. Even among the objects
of our senses there are many things of which we
cannot see the reason, and yet cannot doubt the
reality. How many more, then, in the world of
spirits, which is almost inaccessible to us in our
present state !
(5) Since these objects lie so wholly beyond
the conceptions of our minds, confined as they
are within the horizon of sense ; the human un
derstanding, in its present circumstances, should
abstain from anxious inquiry after their internal
and essential nature. On these subjects it be
comes us to be modest, and to remain contented
with the information which the holy scriptures
have given us. A proud and inquisitive spirit,
on subjects like these, always leads to hurtful
results. We are taught by the Bible, that we

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

37

can never fully comprehend the objects which
lie beyond the circle of our bodily vision, and
that yet we must believe in them, notwithstand
ing all objections, as far as they are found by
experience to be effectual means of promoting our
holiness or moral improvement. We must be
lieve in Christ, as Redeemer and Saviour; in
God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and we
must make a practical use of these doctrines for
the end and in the manner prescribed by Christ,
however unable we may be to understand their
grounds and internal connection.
(6) Religion, as we may conclude from all
that has been said, is a necessary result from the
principles of human reason. It therefore rests
upon a faith, which is grounded on these prin
ciples of reason ; otherwise it would be super
stition. The great inquiry, then, on this subject,
is, whether this faith is rational, conformed to
the laws of our thinking nature, and such that
we can justify it to ourselves and others. And
this faith will be rational, if it is not contradic
tory to reason and morals. If it be contradic
tory to either of these, we can neither justify it
to ourselves nor find grounds on which to com
mend it to others. This faith, then, may be ra
tional, whether the doctrines to be believed are
comprehensible or not. This is a point not at all
essential to the reasonableness of faith ; becanse
the objects of this religious faith belong to the
spiritual world, and are, therefore, from the very
nature of the case, incomprehensible to man.
The comprehensibleness of the doctrines of reli
gion cannot therefore be made the criterion by
which their truth is to be determined, as has been
done erroneously by many modern philosophers
and theologians. Proceeding on the principle,
that every thing in the doctrines of rel igion which
was incomprehensible must be explained away or
rejected, they came at last, in order to be con
sistent with themselves, to renounce all religion,
natural as well as revealed ; or, at best, to leave
only the name of it behind. The nature of God
is, and must ever remain, wholly incomprehen
sible. We know not what he is in himself, nor
the manner in which he acts. And we may say
the same even with respect to our own souls. If
we consider this, we shall easily see that we
must either give up the comprehensibleness of the
doctrines of religion as the criterion of their truth,
or wholly renounce religion. As we have in
timated above, religion is a product of our moral
nature. It is eminently a concern of the heart;
and we believe in its truths because they influ
ence our hearts. If we withheld our assent to
\he truths of religion till we could comprehend
them, we should never believe; but, as human
nature is constituted, we firmly believe, not be
cause we fully understand, but because we deep
ly feel.
Cf. Morus, p. 41, 42 ; s. 32, 33.

SECTION VII.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE USE OF THB
. SCRIPTURES, REASON, AND TRADITION, AS
SOURCES OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES.
I. Of the Use of the Holy Scriptures.
The Bible is the proper source of our know
ledge of those truths of religion which Christians
receive as revealed. The New Testament is the
more immediate source of the Christian system ;
not exclusively, however, of the Old Testament,
to which constant reference is made, and which
is always presupposed, in the New.
If any teacher who lived before our own times
left written monuments behind, these are the
surest sources from which we can learn what his
opinions and doctrines were. If he himself
wrote nothing, the writings of his disciples and
familiar friends are our best authority. Our
knowledge will be more easy and sure, in pro
portion to the number and completeness of these
written records. The writings of disciples who
were contemporary with their teacher, and his
personal friends, are far more important in ascer
taining his principles than the writings of later
followers, who are apt to introduce opinions
foreign to the system which they undertake to
exhibit. Socrates wrote nothing himself; but
Plato, Xenophon, and others of his early dis
ciples, wrote abundantly respecting him and his
doctrine. The disciples of these men styled
themselves, still, the followers of Socrates, and
continued to expound hjs system, but they as
cribed to him many opinions which he did not
profess. All this is applicable to the New Tes
tament. Jesus wrote nothing himself: but
many of his early disciples left records respect
ing him which are collected in the New Tes
tament. If these records are truly the produc
tions of those disciples of Jesus whose names
they bear (the proof of which will be given in
the Article on the holy scriptures), they furnish,
doubtless, the most authentic information which
we can possess respecting the doctrines which
Jesus himself taught, and wished his disciples
to teach. The writings of the apostolical fa
thers, the followers of the first disciples of
Christ, are of inferior authority ; and still less
authentic are the traditions transmitted orally
in the church.
If it is true that Jesus is, what these writings
affirm him to be, a teacher divinely commis
sioned, and the greatest among all whom God
has sent into the world; and if the books of the
New Testament were composed under that pe
culiar divine guidance, called inspiration, then
we must admit that the doctrines of Christ and
the apostles contained in them are true and
divine. These two suppositions are.the ground
of the doctrine of the symbols of the protestant
D

38

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

church, that the holy scriptures, and especially
the New Testament, are the only sure source of
Christian truth, and, consequently, the only, rule
of Christian faith and practice, exclusively of
all commandments and traditions of merely
human origin.
Our system of faith and morals depends,
therefore, solely upon the authority of Christ
and his apostles, regarded as teachers commis
sioned "by God. If any one does not regard
them as such, he cannot hold himself bound to
believe their doctrines solely on their authority ;
he must demand that his reason should be con
vinced by rational proofs. He may, indeed,
hold the memory of Christ and the apostles, as
he does of Socrates and Epictetus, in high re
spect, as worthy teachers; but he cannot feel
himself obliged to believe on their word. We
here see the cause of the real importance of the
controversy which has existed on the question,
Whether, in matters of faith, the Bible or reason
is the true principium cognoscendi.
i II. Of the Use of Reason.
The frequent abuses of reason, when applied
to matters of faith, led Luther and many of the
older theologians to express themselves severely
respecting the use of reason on these subjects.
Their objections, however, were directed only
against the arrogance and perversion of reason,
and especially against the Aristotelian philoso
phy, then prevalent in the schools. Paul object
ed in the same way to fcXoao^la, (Col. ii. 8 ;)
or yvutsi,; ^avSJivvp-oi, 1 Tim. vi. 20. All these
Writers have, in other passages, done full justice
to reason in itself, as the noblest gift of God.
Reason (Vernunft) is that power which guides
and regulates, by its spontaneous action, the
other faculties of our minds in the acquisition
of knowledge; it constitutes the peculiar cha
racteristic of humanity, and is that by which
alone we are capable of religion. Reason alone
can acknowledge and receive the truths of either
natural or revealed religion, and give them an
influence upon the human will. Vide s. 6, No. 6.
It is therefore always mentioned with respect in
the Bible ; and the use of it, in the study and
examination of religious truth, always recom
mended. Cf. Rom. i. 20; Psalm xix.; Isaiah,
xl. xli. Indeed, the use of reason is presup
posed in a revelation; since without the use of
reason we should be incapable of enjoying a
revelation. It is the object of revelation to sup
ply the deficiencies of the knowledge which we
acquire in the use of unaided reason; and this
very revelation cautions us against the two ex
tremes, of relying wholly upon reason for our
knowledge, and of neglecting the use of it alto
gether. Human reason, as the Bible teaches, is not

the only source of the truths of religion ; which
are not, therefore, to be deduced from nature
alone. None but the rationalist would pretend,
that the only sources of our religious knowledge
were the nature of our own minds, and of the
external, world. The Bible teaches us that, in
respect to objects of the spiritual world, which
lie beyond the sphere of sense, and which
could not be known except from revelation or
history ; reason is merely the instrument of our
knowledge. But we are not at liberty to neglect
to use reason as the instrument of our know
ledge of the objects of revelation. On the con
trary, we are sacredly bound to employ our
reason in examining the credibility of the his
tory of revelation, and the correctness of the
facts gathered by experience, and in discovering
and estimating the suitableness and sacredness
of the duties imposed upon us.
Reason may properly be used, as the instru
ment of our knowledge of revealed truth, in the
following particulars : — viz.,
1 . In the discovery and arrangement of argu
ments in support of these truths, and of results
flowing from them, (a) The proof of many
doctrines which are clearly revealed is not dis
tinctly stated in the Bible, but thrown upon
reason. The proof of the divine existence, for
example, is not drawn out in the Bible, but is
presupposed, (i) Proofs, auxiliary to those
given in the scriptures, may be suggested by
reason in favour of the articuli mixti ; the pro
vidence of God, &c. (c) Without the use of
reason we cannot ascertain the truth of Chris
tianity, the credibility of the history of the sa
cred books, their divine authority, or the rules
by which they should be interpreted, (d) We
must, employ our reason in developing such
doctrines as are not distinctly expressed, but
only implied, in the holy scriptures. Reason
may be further employed.
2. In the exhibition and statement of the truths
of revelation. We find the truths of religion
brought together in the Bible in a loose and dis
connected manner, and must therefore make a
diligent use of our reason in collecting, arrang
ing, and uniting them into such a system as
shall suit our own convenience or the advantage
of others. We must also illustrate the truth,
excellence, and fitness of the particular parts of
the system of revealed religion, by analogies
drawn from human things, by the observation
of human nature, by historical illustrations, and
in many other ways which call reason into
exercise. 3. In the defence of revealed religion, and o^
the particular doctrines which it embraces (usus
ratioriis humanae apolegeticus). Hovf much
reason is needed in this particular must appear
sufficiently from the preceding remarks.

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

39

HI. Of the use of Tradition.
The words rtopaSocrtj and tradiiio are used by
She older ecclesiastical fathers, to denote any
instruction which one gives to another, whether
vral or written. In the New Testament also, and
in the classical writers, jtapa&ovvat. and tradere
signify, in general, to teach, to instruct. Tradi
tion in this wider sense was divided into scripta,
and non scripta sive oralis. The latter, tradiiio
oralis, was, however, frequently called tradiiio
by way of eminence. This oral tradition was
often appealed to by Irenaeus, Clemens of Alex
andria, Tertullian, (De Praeser. cap. 7,) and
others of the ancient fathers, as a test by which
to try the doctrines of contemporary teachers,
and by which to confute the errors of the here
tics. They describe it as being instruction re
ceived from the mouth of the apostles by the first
Christian churches, transmitted from the apos
tolical age, and preserved in purity until their
own times. Tertullian, in the passage above
referred to, says, that an appeal to tradition is
the most direct way of confuting heretics, who
will often evade the force of an appeal to texts
of scripture by misinterpreting them. This
tradition is called by Origen xripvypo, lxx%q-
eiaatixov, and by the Latin Fathers regula fidei
(i. e. doctrinae Christianae) sive veritatis. The
latter title was given by them, more specifically,
to the ancient symbols, which contained the in
struction received from the apostles, and trans
mitted and preserved in the church.
Oral tradition is still regarded by the Romish
church as zprincipium cognoscendi in theology.
" Sacrosancta cecumenica synodus  hoc
sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, ut, sublatis
erroribus, puritas ipsa evangelii in ecclesia con-
servetur, .... perspiciertsqne hanc veritatem
et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine
scripto traditionibus, quse ex ipsius Christi ore ab
apostolis acceptse, ab ipsius apostolis, spiritu sancio
dictante, quasi per manus traditse, ad nos usque
pervenerunt: orthodoxorum patrum exempla
secuta, omnes Iibros tam veteris quam novi tes-
tamenti, cum unus Deus sit auctor, nee non
traditiones ipsas, turn adfidem turn ad mores per-
tinentes, tamquam vel oretenus a Christo vel a
spiritu sancto dictatas et continua successione in
ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu
ac reverentia, suscipit ac veneratur  Si
quisautem  traditiones praedictas sciens
et. prudens contemserit, anathema sit." Concil.
Trident. Sess. IV. Deer. 1.
Note. — The ancient Latin writers use the word
tradiiio in the sense of delivery or surrender —
e. g. of a person or thing into the hands of
another. What we mean by tradition, in the
ecclesiastical sense, Livy or Sallust would ex
press by the phrase res, doctrina, or historiaper
manus tradita, — voce, if the tradition were oral,
scripto or Uteris, if it were written.

Observations on the merits of the question
respecting doctrinal tradition (traditio oralis
dogmatica). In coming to a decision on this
subject, every thing depends upon making the
proper distinctions with regard to time.
1. In the first period of Christianity, the au
thority of the apostles was so great that all their
doctrines and ordinances Were strictly and
punctually observed by the churches which they
had planted. And the doctrine and discipline
which prevailed in these apostolical churches
were, at that time, justly considered by others
to be purely such as the apostles themselves had
taught and established. This was the more
common, as the books of the New Testament
had not, as yet, come into general use among
Christians. Nor was it, in that early period,
attended with any special liability to mistake.
In this way we can account for it, that the Chris
tian teachers of the second and third centuries
appeal so frequently to oral tradition.
2. But in later periods of the church, the cir
cumstances were far different. After the com
mencement of the third century, when the first
teachers of the apostolical churches and their
immediate successors had passed away, and
another race came on, other doctrines and forms
were gradually introduced, which differed in
many respects from apostolical simplicity. And
now these innovators appealed, more frequently
than had ever been done before, to aposto
lical tradition, in order to give currency to their
own opinions and regulations. Many at this
time did not hesitate, as we find, to plead apos
tolical tradition for many things, at variance not
only with other traditions, but with the very
writings of the apostles, which they had in their
hands. From this time forward, tradition be
came, naturally, more and more uncertain and
suspicious. And especially after the commence
ment of the fourth century, the more judicious
and conscientious teachers referred more to the
Bible, and less to tradition. Augustine estab
lished the maxim, that tradition could not be
relied upon, in the ever-increasing distance from
the age of the apostles, except when it was uni
versal and perfectly consistent with itself. And
long before him, Irenaeus had remarked, that no
tradition should be received as apostolical, un
less founded in the holy scriptures, and confor
mable to them. Adv. Hsr. IV. 36.
3. From these remarks, we can easily deter
mine the value of doctrinal tradition in our own
times. We have but little credible information
respecting the first Christian churches, of as
early a date as the first or second century, beside
that which the New Testament gives us. And
the information respecting them of a later origin
is so intermingled with rumours and fables as
to be quite uncertain. We cannot hope, there
fore, to obtain by oral tradition any information

40

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

respecting the doctrines held in the first Chris
tian churches, beyond what we obtain from the
books of the New Testament, the only genuine
records of the early period of Christianity. Les-
sing affirmed, indeed, that the Christian religion
would have been handed down from age to age,
even if the writings of the New Testament had
never existed. And true it is, that by oral tra
dition, by writings of a later origin, by baptism,
the Lord's supper, and other Christian rites,
much of Christianity might have been preserved
to our own times, without the aid of the sacred
books of our religion. But it is equally true,
that without the New Testament any certainty
with regard to the doctrines of Christianity
would be impossible; the sure, historical basis
of the system would be removed, and Chris
tianity soon become greatly disfigured ; as may
be learned from the example of the Romish
church, where the use of the Bible was limited.
Christianity did, indeed, exist for some time
before the books of the New Testament were
written. And during that early period, while
the apostles and their immediate successors still
lived and taught, these books might be dispensed
with by Christians without serious injury. But
not so in after times.
The reformers, therefore, justly held, that tra
dition" is not (certainly for «s) a sure source of
knowledge respecting the doctrines of theology ;
and that the holy scriptures are to be received
as the only principium cognoscendi. Cf. Walch,
Untersuchung vom Gebrauche der heiligen
Schrift unter den Christen in den vier ersten
Jahrhunderten, Leipzig, 1779, 8vo; a work
which appeared on occasion of the controversy
with Lessing.
Note. — On all the subjects which have been
thus far introduced and briefly considered, the
student will find very full, thorough, and in
structive discussions in Miiller, Theophil, oder
Unterhaltungen iiber die christliche Religion
mit Jiinglingen von reiferem Alter, Th. I. Ziirch,
1801, 8vo; a work which deserves to be highly
recommended to the student in theology.
SECTION VUI.
OF THE OBJECT, DIFFERENT DEGREES, PRINCIPAL
PERIODS, AND BIBLICAL APPELLATIONS OF THE
DIVINE REVELATIONS.
I. Of the Object of Revelation.
When man is in the savage state, and left en
tirely to himself, he follows his appetites and
passions, and leaves his moral powers unexer
cised. Instead of allowing his will to be go
verned by the moral law, he chooses animal
propensity (das sinnliche princip) as its de
termining motive. He thus constantly re
cedes from that holiness and happiness for
which he was made. Now to show man the

true way of fulfilling his.destination, from which
he is thus wandering, is the chief object of all
direct revelations. Cf. sec. 2, 3. So even rea
son decides. Vide Fichte, Versuch einer Kritik
aller Offenbarung, Konigsberg, 1793.
To enable man to attain his destination, it was
requisite (1) that he should be instructed by
God respecting the means to be employed by a
divine revelation, or in some superhuman way ;
since left to himself, he could never have disco
vered these means ; and (2) that his moral power
should be so strengthened and supported as to
enable him to control his stronger animal pro
pensities. These two things are absolutely and
equally requisite. For the mere knowledge of
the divine will does not impart to man ihepower
which he needs in order to obey it, his bodily
desires having already the preponderance over
his moral faculties. Cf. sec. 2, 3. Now to
these two points — to show man his destination,
and to enable him to attain it — we may reduce
all the objects which the scriptures ascribe to
God in the revelations he has made to man.
II. Of the different Degrees of Revelation.
Although the plan of God in leading men to
their destination was always the same, yet the
manner in which he imparted instruction through
direct revelation, and the whole method which
he pursued in the education of the human race,
were very different. We are led by reason to
this result, which is confirmed by the history of
revelation contained in the holy scriptures.
The instruction given to men must, of course,
be adapted to their wants and capacities, which
differ at different times. Hence Paul remarks,
very justly, (Heb. i. 1,) that God revealed him
self to men in ancient times in various ways
(rtoUirpoTtus). Nor did this difference concern
solely the form and costume of the divine in
structions; it extended even to the doctrines
which were taught. Vide Gal. iii. 20, seq. et
alibi. God treated the human race as human instruct
ors treat their pupils. There is a great deal of
knowledge which is useful, and indeed indispen
sable to a person of mature age, which would be
altogether useless, unintelligible, and Derhape
hurtful, to one in childhood. Now the wise
teacher will withhold this knowledge from the
child, or communicate it to him only so far as it
will be serviceable to him, and in such a way as
will be most intelligible, proceeding from the
known to the unknown, and from the easy to the
difficult. And this is the manner in which God
proceeds in the instruction and education of men.
He cannot, therefore, at any time have revealed
such things as were unnecessary, or would have
been useless, to the people to whom the revelation
was given. He must also have so planned the
instrubtion to be communicated by direct revela-

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

41

tion as to produce a growing conviction in the
minds of men of the necessity of a more perfect
instruction and a more effectual assistance before
they could hope to succeed in controlling their
natural desires. Such a course is the only one
adapted to the nature of the human mind, of
which God is the author. Accordingly, God so
regulated his instructions from the beginning as
to make men sensible of their wants, and then
to supply them ; for until men have been brought,
by some elementary instruction, to be deeply
conscious of their need of something further,
they will never inquire with earnestness for a
more perfect instruction.
ITJ. Of the Principal Periods of Revelation.
The sacred records contain u, history of the
divine revelations. This history will be found
to confirm the general remarks which have just
been made.
1. The great doctrine which we find exhibited
in the earliest revelations recorded. in the holy-
scriptures is this : those who obey the laws which
God has revealed shall be rewarded, those who
disobey shall be punished. This assurance from
God, sometimes expressed in plain language,
sometimes represented by images, ceremonies,
and examples, and in various other ways, was
^alculated to strengthen and encourage men to
obtain their mastery over their passions with
which the divine favour, guidance, and support
were connected.
This first period of revealed religiofi, the ac
count of which is given by Moses, is called the
patriarchal period (ceconomia patriarchalis), and
is divided into antediluvian and postdiluvian.
Revealed religion was at that time extremely
simple, suited to the wants of the infancy of the
world, and'highly practical. All the institutions
of religion had the benevolent end of preserving
among men the knowledge of the one living and
true God, and of leading them to exercise to
wards him that love and confidence upon which
the scriptures everywhere set so high a value.
The more to exercise and strengthen this pious
confidence they were made acquainted from time
to time with their own future destiny and that of
their descendants, and with the great divine eco
nomy for the welfare of the human race at some
distant time ; as yet, however, as Paul expresses
;t, (Heb. xi. 13,) they only saw the promised
Dlessings/?-om afar (rtojiliattev iSovtsij.
2. Next followed the civil and religious institute
of Moses ; and here again the same divine assur
ance was at the foundation of the whole. But in
this infancy of the world God found it necessary
to confine his promises for tho most part to tem
poral good, and his threatenings to temporalevi] ;
because such promises and threatenings were
best adapted to influence a people who were as
yet extremely rude, and who derived their pains
6

and pleasures from the objects of the present life.
Intimations, however, of the destiny of man be
yond the grave were by no means withheld from
those who were cultivated to such a degree as to
be able to understand them. But in general, so
much only of these higher truths could at that
time be made known as would be intelligible to
the people at large. And even this small portion
of spiritual truth needed to beimbodied,asfaras
possible, in sensible representations, before it
could gain access to the uncultivated mind.
In accordance with these principles, the New
Testament teaches that the Mosaic institute was
indeed (ix) of divine origin, (Moses being always
regarded by Christ and the apostles as a prophet
sent by God,) but that still this institute, in com
parison with the Christian, was (b) very imper
fect, and indeed could not well.have been other
wise, considering the times and the men it was
designed for, Gal. iv. 3, 9 (cwotzEta) ; Col. ii.
8, 20, et alibi ; and therefore it was (c) only a
temporary religion, designed by God to continue
only for a time, and then to give place to a
higher and more perfect scheme, 2-Cor. iii. 11,
seq. ; Gal. iv. 1 — 5 ; Heb. viii. 6, et alibi.
But God excited in the minds of the very
people who enjoyed this preparatory revelation,
a sense of their need of one more full and perfect.
And in, various ways he deepened this impres
sion : (1) by such instruction respecting the de
sign of the sacrifices and rites of the Mosaic in
stitute as should turn their attention from the
mere external ceremonies of religion, and lead
them gradually to a more pure and spiritual wor
ship. Vide Ps. 1. Isaiah, lviii.,lx., seq. (2)By
prophecy respecting that great economy for the
moral perfection and welfare of the human race
which God would at some future time establish.
These prophecies were at first only distant and
obscure intimations, but they became gradually
more clear and intelligible as men became more
convinced, by a long trial and experience, that
such a new economy was absolutely necessary.
And this conviction of the necessity of some new
economy became stronger the more men learned
by experience that the mere knowledge of the
divine will, connected though it might be with
the certainty of rewards and punishments, was
insufficient to enable them to lead a life of virtue
and self-government. Accordingly, the prophe
cies respecting the Messiah, and the new econo
my which he would introduce, became more and
more clear and distinct, especially from the time
of David until shortly after the Babylonian exile.
The prophets now plainly predicted that the
economy under which they lived would come to
an end, and that a new economy would com
mence, which would bring relief to the wants of
men, Jer. xxxi. 31 — 36, coll. Heb. viii. 7, seq.
Note. — A revelation of the truths of religion,
in order to convince men that it actually pro-
d2

42

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ceeds from God and should be obeyed as his
will, must be attended with such events as prove
its author to be their lord and creator, and the
creator, proprietor, and governor of the world.
Accordingly, the divine revelations have always
been attended with events in the natural world
of such a miraculous kind, as could seem to the
most savage and unlettered mind to proceed from
none other than the author and governor of na
ture. But the Bible claims not only that its
doctrines should be received as divine, but that
the teachers by whom they are published should
be acknowledged to be sent by God, as is im
plied in the word prophet — the title commonly
given them. Now in order to establish this ex
traordinary claim, it is natural that the Old and
New Testaments should narrate extraordinary
events. And these narrations, when given, must
not be explained away, but taken as they stand,
according to the obvious intention of the narra
tor; for the extraordinary mission which the
Bible claims for Moses, Christ, and other teach
ers, could be confirmed in no other way than by
extraordinary events. Those, therefore, who,
like Eck, in his Inquiry, explain away the mira
cles of the Bible by a violent and arbitrary in
terpretation, counteract their own purpose. In
stead of vindicating the Bible in this way from
objection and reproach, they render it a very in
consistent book.
3. After all these preparatory revelations, cal
culated to produce in the minds of men a sense
of their need of more complete instruction, God
founded a new institute, which, without in
fringing the liberty of man, exerted a more
powerful influence than any. which had pre
ceded, and Embodied, in the most perfect man
ner, every means of holiness and happiness.
This was the Christian institute. Its object suf
ficiently appears from its nature and influence;
its authority, like that of the ancient economy,'
was abundantly confirmed. We shall hereafter
treat of its divine origin, its internal excellence,
&c. In this connection we shall notice only two
of its principal advantages, which are often men
tioned in the New Testament.
(a) Its universality. By Uhis we mean that
the Christian religion is adapted, in its whole
constitution, to be the -religion of all men. Its
precepts are not confined to any one nation or
country, butareapplicable to all people, in what
ever climate and under whatever form of go
vernment they may live. Accordingly, Christ
commands (Mark, xvi. 15) that his religion
should be preached to all men without distinc
tion, (rtagri ty xtUti ;) for he is the Saviour of
all men, of jews and Gentiles, of the world,
(Swtfijp toi scoff/nou.) Vide John, x. 16; Rom.
i. 16, seq. ; Ephes. ii. 11—18, et al. And ex
perience has shown, both in ancient and modern
times, that the truths of the gospel, when exhi

bited in the native simplicity in which they ap
pear in the New Testament, produce the same
effects in all ages and upon all classes of men.
They have thus proved themselves to be the
power of God unto salvation to all those who be
lieve in them, Rom. i. 16; lCor.i But Christ
and his apostles never laboured to make converts
in great multitudes, or to bring whole nations to
an external profession of Christianity ; nor has a
whole people, as a matter of fact, been ever tho
roughly reformed by the Christian religion. Ma
ny thousand individuals, however, in different
nations, have been reformed by it, and have by
their example exhibited to others the advantages
of obedience to the precepts of Christ ; and so
it will always be in Christian communities.
The tares and the wheat will always grow to
gether, though in different proportions at differ
ent times, according to the prediction of Christ,
Matt. xiii.
(4) Its perpetuity, (perennitas.) Jesus and
the apostles assure us that we can expect no
farther revelations of religious truth after the
full disclosures which Christ has made. Vide
Matt. xvi. 18; 1 Cor. xv. 24. The institute
founded by Christ, unlike other religions, and
unlike the schools of philosophy, which soon
pass away, will continue to the end of the world.
Hence the Christian ministry is called to pivov,
in opposition to the Jewish ministry, which is
called to xarcipyovpevov, 2 Cor. iii. 11; cf. Heb.
xii.'27. ^This contradicts the opinion of some
ancient and modern writers, that a still more
perfect religion will hereafter arise, to which
Christianity in its turn will give place. Mon-
tanus in the second century, and many fanatics
in succeeding ages, adopted the notion that this
more perfect religion would be founded in anew
revelation; but some modern philosophers and
theologians suppose that the religion of reason
is the only perfect religion, and is destined to
become universal, after gradually abolishing all
positive religions, and the Christian among the
rest. This is a favourite idea of Lessing, Er-
ziehungdes Menschengeschlechts, and of Krug,
Briefe iiber die Perfectibilitat der geoffenbarten
Religion, Jena, 1795. Vide Meyer's prize es
say, Beytrag zur endlichen Entscheidung der
Frage: In wie fern habendie Lehren und°Vor-
schriften des N. T. bloss eine locale und tempo-
relle Bestimmung, und in wie fern sind diesel-
ben von einem allgemeinen und stets gultigen
Ansehen? Hanover, 1806, 8vo.
Note.— Biblical names of revealed religion
and of a religious institute. Some of the most
important are the following:  viz.
rnim, vouos. This name is frequently given,
by way of eminence, to the Mosaic religion, in
opposition to the Christian. Sometimes, how
ever, it denotes the precepts of revealed religion
in general, as Rom. ii. 14, vdjuox pj %E[„

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

43

iva, Sut^xfj. When God made a law, or
published his will, he was said to enter into a
covenant or league with men. He promised, on
his part, to bestow blessings upon men if they
were obedient to his law ; and they promised, on
their part, to do his will. Accordingly, Sna^rjxri
signifies a law with a promise, and also the whole
economy founded on the law and promise. It is
applied sometimes to the ancient Jewish econo
my and sometimes to the new Christian econo
my, and sometimes to both without distinction.
Vide Gal. iv. 24; 2 Cor. iii. 6.
The Christian economy is called jtCotis Xp«r-
tfoi, tojuo; Xpiotov, vofio; rtidtia;, TtvBvun, (in
reference to its divine origin and perfection,) and
especially evoyyiinov. The last term was origi
nally the name of the joyful promises which
Christianity contains ; but it is frequently used
in the New Testament in a wider sense, to de
note the whole Christian economy, as containing
not only promises but precepts as conditions of
those promises. In this sense it may be applied
to the whole of Christ's sermon on the mount,
which is for the most part of a preceptive nature.
It is also adapted to particular doctrines of
Christianity. SECTION IX.
OF THE SCIENTIFIC TREATMENT OF CHRISTIAN
THEOLOGY.
1. In the apostolical church the Christian re
ligion was not taught in a scientific manner.
All Christian instruction, as we may see from
the Acts of the apostles, and the epistles, was
then popular, practical, and hortatory. This
appears from the terms liupax'urfii;, rtapaxaXilv,
rtapauv&ia^ai, which are used in reference to
the teaching of Christianity, (xripvy/j-a.) Nei
ther in the times of the apostles, nor shortly
after, did Christianity need the aid of science
and learning; and among the first Christians
there were no learned men, except Paul, Apollos,
and a few others, who were versed in the Jewish
law. 2. In the third century, many heathen who
were versed in science and philosophy became
members of the Christian church. At the same
time learned men arose among the heathen in
opposition to Christianity, and heretics, among
Christians themselves, in opposition to the ori
ginal principles and doctrines of the apostolical
churches, from which they wished to advance to
something more elevated and perfect. In order
to this, they misinterpreted the writings of the
apostles, parts of which, at this distance of time,
had become obscure. In consequence of these
circumstances, learning was soon needed in the
statement and defence of Christianity. The
learned men who had been converted from hea
thenism now applied the doctrines and terms of

their philosophy to the truths of the Christian
religion. This they did partly from the influence
of habit, and partly from the desire of rendering
Christianity in this way more popular. They
had also the example of the Grecian Jews, who
frequently at that time treated the Jewish reli
gion in the same way. This was done by Justin
the Martyr ; and also by Pantaenus, Clemens, and
Origen, the teachers of the catechetical school
at Alexandria. They supposed that this was
the best way to defend Christianity, not only
against their learned heathen opponents, but also
against the heretics. For the interpretation of
the New Testament, also, literary knowledge
was now becoming more requisite than formerly,
since the language, customs, and whole mode of
thinking, had gradually changed since it was
written. This department of learning was cul
tivated with great success, in the third century,
by Origen, who gave the tone to the scientific
interpretation of the scriptures.
3. From that time forward the reigning philo
sophy of every successive age has been con
nected, and indeed wholly incorporated by the
learned with Christian theology and morals.
The theology, of course, of each successive
period has, with few exceptions, received the
form and colour of the contemporary philosophy.
The Grecian church, after the second century,
began with the Platonic philosophy ; it next
adopted the Aristotelian, in which it was fol
lowed by the western church. Through the
influence of the schoolmen, the Aristotelian
philosophy, after the eleventh century, became
universal in the western church. This philo
sophy had the longest reign. The reformers of
the sixteenth century did indeed banish it from
the theology of the protestant church ; but the
theologians of the latter part of the sixteenth,
and of the seventeenth century, readmitted it.
Then followed the systems of Des Cartes, Tho-
masius, Leibnitz, Wolf, Crusius, Kant, Fichte,
Schelling, and others, which first supplanted the
school of Aristotle, and have since kept up a
constant warfare among themselves. In this
contest the theologians have ever taken a lively
interest; and, whaTt is worthy of remark, they
have always been able, however opposite their
theological systems might be, to find argu
ments for their own support, and for the refuta
tion of their opponents, by a peculiar and subtle
application of the very same principles of the
contemporary schools of philosophy. Thus
both Clemens of Alexandria and Porphyry drew
arguments from the philosophy of Plato; and
thus, in every succeeding age, the friends and
enemies of Christianity — the advocates and op
ponents of particular doctrines of Christianity
— have alike furnished themselves with weapons
from the philosophy of Aristotle, Leibnitz, Kant,
and others, down to our own times.

44

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

From these facts we should learn that philo
sophy can never afford a permanent basis for
theology, and should never be relied upon as a
sure pillar of a theological system. Those who
found their belief upon philosophy never have
any thing firm and abiding. As soon as the
system which they had adopted gives place to
another, the opinions which they before regarded
as true have no longer any evidence, and their
faith founders like a ship which the storm has
torn from its anchor. The belief which rested
upon the philosophy of Wolf till the year seven
teen hundred and eighty was undermined when
Kant prevailed; and the belief which rested
upon the philosophy of Kant till the year eigh
teen hundred, was undermined when Fichte and
Schelling prevailed. The same fate will, doubt
less, hereafter attend every belief which rests
upon a merely philosophical basis.
4. Particular portions of theology had been
discussed in a scientific manner, from time to
time, ever since the second century; so that
abundant materials were' soon furnished for the
composition of a complete system of theology :
they only needed to be collected, arranged, and
brought into a perfect whole. This was first
attempted, in the sixth century, by Isidorus of
Sevilla, in his work, Libri tres Sententiarum.
It was accomplished much more successfully, in
the eighth century, by John of Damascus, in his
HxSotU; twcptfiij; trfi bp^oib%ov jtlatia;. We do not
mention the books of Origen, rtipi ap%Ziv, in this
connection, because they contain a scientific
statement of only some particular doctrines in
theology. After the twelfth century, many such
systems were published by the schoolmen in the
western church. The principal among these
were, Theologia Christiana, by Abelard, and
Libri quatuor Sententiarum, by Peter of Lom-
bardy. The doctrines (sententiae) of these sys
tems were taken from Augustine and other
fathers of the church, and connected and illus
trated in the method and phraseology of Aris
totle. 5. The application of learning to religion is
so far from being objectionable in itself consi
dered, that it has become absolutely indispen
sable to the teachers of religion. But they have
been at variance on this subject from the first;
since there were always some to whom this ne
cessity was not very obvious, and who perceived,
on the other hand, that learning was often and
greatly abused in religious instruction.
(<z) There always were learned theologians
who treated the truths of religion as if they were
given for no other purpose than speculation, and
who, directly or indirectly, turned away the at
tention of their pupils from the great object to
which it should have been directed — the prac
tical influence of the doctrines of the Bible.
They taught their pupils to acquire knowledge,

as Seneca says, not for life, but for the schooU
and, consequently, many even of those who were
designed to teach the common people and the
young in the duties of religion acquired an aver
sion to every thing practical. That such should
be the result of this course must appear almost
inevitable, if we consider how common a fault it
is with young men of liberal education to feel a
distaste for whatever is merely practical, and a
strong inclination to speculation. If academical
teachers live in mere speculation, as too many
of them do, they will infuse this disposition into
their hearers and readers, who will again infuse
it into others, to the great disadvantage of the
common people. It was common for those who
had been educated in this way to assume an ex
tremely authoritative and dogmatical tone ; for
there is no other pride which can compare with
the pedant's pride of reason. These theological
teachers, in their devotion to the philosophy to
which they had once pledged themselves, either
wholly neglected the scriptures, or so inter'
preted them as to render them consistent, if pos
sible, with their own preconceived philosophical
opinions. This fault is chargeable upon the
schoolmen of former times, and upon too many
teachers of religion at the present day.
(J) In opposition to such theologians, who
composed what may be called the scholastic party,
there always were others, who composed what
may be called the ascetic party. They insisted
upon the personal application of known truths for
the purposes of piety, rejected every thing which
interfered with practical religion, and regarded
theological study as important only so far as it
contributed to this end. But some among them
fell into extravagant and fanatical notions, and
pronounced an unconditional sentence against
all learning of whatever kind. Such were some
of the mystics, as they are called, who appeared,
even in the western church, especially after the
eleventh century, in opposition to the schoolmen.
The mystics have been divided, in consequence
of this difference of opinion among them, into
puri and mixti. The mystici puri, as the more-
moderate and unprejudiced of the ascetic party
were called, blamed only the abuse of philosophy
and learning, and wished to have them regarded,
not as an end in themselves, but as the meansof
a more important end. To this class belonged
the Waldenses, Wickliffites, and the Bohemian
and Moravian Brethren; and, in more modern
times, the German and Swiss reformers of the
sixteenth century, and in the protestant church,
at the end of the seventeenth and com mencement
of the eighteenth century, Spener, and the first
theologians of Halle, who were of his school.
The state of theology during particular pe
riods, and especially in modern times, is exhi
bited in ecclesiastical history.
6. The course of theological study to be pur-

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

45

sued by the student, with special reference to
the circumstances of our own times.
(1) Since the holy scriptures are the true
ground of our knowledge of the truths of Chris
tianity, so far as they are of a positive nature,
(vide s. 7,) the study of theology must com
mence with the Bible. The truth of the maxim,
theologus in scripturis nascitur, cannot be contro
verted. The first business of the theologian is,
to search and discover, in the use of his exege
tical helps, the sense of the passages upon
which the proof of any doctrine depends. He
should then faithfully exhibit the doctrine itself,
as drawn from these texts, without any addition
or diminution. He should entirely forget, while
thus engaged, what ancient and modern teachers
have said respecting the doctrine in question,
and endeavour to come to a result which shall be
purely scriptural.
(2) When he has done this, he may arrange
the doctrines which he has thus discovered in
such an order as shall suit his main design, and
defend, confirm, and illustrate them by what
ever he can draw for this purpose from philo
sophy, history, or other departments of learning.
Proceeding in this way, the theologian will al
ways be able to ascertain how much of any doc
trine is expressly taught in the holy scriptures,
and how much of it is merely derived from them
by inference, or added by men for the purposes
of defence or illustration.
(3) The theologian should always be careful
to notice the practical influence of the several
doctrines of theology, and of the particular pro
positions of which they are composed. He
should also, as far as possible, suggest advice,
in passing, respecting the proper manner of ex
hibiting the truths of religion before a popular
assembly ; for those who are to be the religious
teachers of the people need to be taught how
they may enter into the views and understand
the wants of hearers of a far different intellec
tual culture from their own. A modern theolo
gian has wtell remarked, that most of the stu
dents of theology know no better than to address
a promiscuous audience on the various subjects
of religion in the same way in which they them
selves, as educated men, have been addressed
for their own conviction by their theological in
structor. The necessity of such advice to po
pular teachers of religion is apparent, from con
sidering that they are often wholly destitute of
a deep internal conviction and personal experi
ence of the truths which they are expected to
teach to others. It cannot be said with respect
to them, pectus est quod disertos facit. The want
of this personal experience cannot be made good
by any thing else; the teacher of religion can
never be qualified for his office if he has not felt,
with joy in his own heart, the truth of the doc
trines to which his understanding has assented.

(4) It is now very generally admitted, that
the circumstances of our age require that the
history of doctrines should be connected with the
study of theology. Many attempts have accord
ingly been made to produce a complete history
of doctrines, which, however, must prove un
successful until the particular portions of which
such a history is composed have been more tho
roughly studied. The latest works in this de
partment are those of Lange, Miinscher, Miinter,
and Augusti. The historical method of treating
the subject of theology has indeed been abused ;
but when properly employed, it possesses great
advantages. It is useful in the following re
spects : —
(o) It presents us with different views of these
most important subjects of knowledge, makes
us acquainted with the opinions of others re
specting them, and shows us briefly the causes
which led to these different views, and the ar
guments for and against them. In this way it
serves to quicken the judgment of the teacher
of religion, to confirm and settle his own con
victions, and to preserve him from illiberality in
his estimate of others. He is often enabled by
a simple historical view to decide upon the va
lidity or invalidity of the different arguments by
which a doctrine may be supported.
(b) In the established system of our churches,
of which no teacher of the church should remain
ignorant, there are many philosophical and tech
nical phrases, which have been introduced in
consequence of the various errors and contro
versies which have existed. These phrases
cannot be understood and properly estimated
unless we are acquainted with the time and man
ner in which they originated. And this we learn
from the history of doctrines.
(c) There is another very important point of
view with respect to the history of doctrines,
which is too often overlooked.
There is a certain universal analogy in the
knowledge and opinions of men on the subject
of religion; like the analogy existing, for ex
ample, among human languages. This analogy
may be often used by the theologian to greater
effect than many logical demonstrations. The
opinions and conceptions of men respecting God
and divine things are indeed very different; and
so are their languages. But in the midst of all
this variety, both of religion and language, we
find a striking similarity in some principal.
points ; and this similarity leads us at last to
the result, that even on the subject of religion
men proceed everywhere on certain universal
principles, which must have their ground in the
original constitution which God himself has
given us. Cf. s. 2, 3. The thousand -different
modifications of these principles and modes of
conception are owing to the different degrees of
intellectual and moral culture, and to other ex-

46

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ternal circumstances by which men are affected.
And it is for this reason that the analogy of
human opinions on the subject of religion is
most visible and striking in the infancy of
society. Knowing now these universal ideas, and
modes of conception and expression on the sub
ject of religion, we may safely presume, that if
God has actually given a direct revelation to
men, he has adapted it to these ideas and con
ceptions, founded as they are in the original
constitution of the human mind. This is de
manded by the nature of man ; and this is found
to be actually the case in the divine revelations
which we enjoy.
These ideas and conceptions, which belong
essentially to the nature of man, give us the
thread, as it were, by which we may traverse
the labyrinth of religious opinions, and ascend
up to their very origin. They illustrate the
doctrine of divine revelation, and render the
wisdom of the divine plan in the different de
grees of revelation (vide s. 8) everywhere con
spicuous. The theologian, therefore, who would cast the
light of history upon the doctrines of revelation,
must acquire, from all the sources of informa
tion within his reach, both of ancient and mo
dern date, a comprehensive knowledge of the
religious opinions and conceptions of different
nations, especially in the infancy of their exist
ence, and from all these various sentiments de
duce some universal results. In this inquiry,
he will find the careful study of the Old Testa
ment peculiarly important and instructive. For
here he will discover the germs which were
afterwards developed in the religions of the
Jews, Christians, and other nations. With the
sacred books of the Jews he should compare the
writings of other nations, especially those which
belong to their early history. Among all the
writings of the people of the ancient world, none
are so important as those of the Greeks, parti
cularly the poems of Homer. They contain
those fundamental ideas which, in all their va
rious modifications among the later Greeks,
disclose their common origin in the essential
nature of man. The passages which exhibit
these fundamental ideas should therefore be fre
quently cited, in order to render this analogy of
principles obvious, in cases where important
results are depending upon it.
Note. — In the study of theology, the follow
ing works may be read with profit, and used as
^manuals. (1) Morus, Commentarius Exegetico-
historicus, in suam Theologia? Christianae Epi-
tomen, Tom. 2, edited by M. Hempel, Halle,
1797—98, 8vo. (2) Reinhard, Vorlesungen fiber
die Dogmatik, edited with literary additions by
Berger, Amberg, and Sultzbach, 1801, 8vo.
(3) Storr, Doctrlnae Christianae pars theoretica

e s. Uteris repetita, ed. 2, ex MS. auctoris emen-
data, 1808. (4) Storr, Lehrbuch der christlichen
Dogmatik, with additions by Flatt, Stuttgard,
1803, 8vo.
The manuals of Ammon, Schmidt, Staudlin,
and others, may be recommended, in many re
spects, to the more advanced student, who can
examine for himself. The work of Storr de
serves special recommendation, as a very tho
rough system of biblical theology. The works
which give a merely historical view of the vari
ous theological opinions are less suitable for be
ginners. One of the best among the works of
this kind is Beck, Commentarii historici decreto-
rum religionis Christianae et formulae Lutherias,
Lips. 1801, 8vo. The work of Augusti, above
mentioned, gives a briefer sketch. Another
work of the same author, System der christ
lichen Dogmatik, nach den Grundsatzen der
lutherischen Kirche, im Grundrisse dargestellt,
Leipzig, 1809, 8vo, contains much that is
valuable.

ARTICLE I.
OF THE HOLT SCRIPTURES AS THE SOURCE OF
OUR KNOWLEDGE IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

SECTION I.
NAMES AND DIVISIONS OF THE BOOKS BELONGING
TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
The holy scriptures are a collection of the
productions of the prophets, evangelists, and
apostles, containing the doctrines and the his
tory of revealed religion. They are the archives
of the records of revealed religion, and of its
history. They consist of two principal parts :
the Old Testament, or the sacred national books
of the Israelites ; and the New Testament, or
the sacred books of Christians. Aia^r^ and
nna denote laws, religion, and religious writ
ings ; also the books, or the collection of the books,
which embody all the precepts of religion. Bij3-
%iov Sia&jxris is used in the latter sense, 1 Mac.
i. 57, and TtaXaia Sia^rjxtj, 2 Cor. iii. 14. The
sacred books of Christians are called, in distinc
tion, xaivrj Siairx/;.
The books of the New Testament have been
differently divided. At a very early period they
were divided into to svayyi},MV and 5 aniatoxos,
of which we shall speak hereafter. They have
also been divided into the historical part, con
taining the gospels and the Acts of the apostles ;
the doctrinal part containing the epistles, and
the prophetical part, the Apocalypse. The his
tory of the remarkable events of the life of Jesus
stands first in the collection ; because the d'.vine

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

47

revelation contained in the New Testament de
pends upon events, and upon the divine autho
rity of Jesus, which was confirmed by these
events. For the same reason, the history of the
remarkable events of the life of Moses, and of
his times, stands first in the Old Testament.
The Old Testament was divided by the Jews
into three parts : (1) mm, the law, containing
the five books of Moses (TLsvta.tev%os) ; (2) d^noj,
the prophets ; subdivided into ow'M D'Jlisfcn, pri-
ores, containing the books of Joshua, Judges,
Samuel, and Kings, and D'jnnx aw?!, posteriores,
containing the prophets, properly so called ;
(3) Doma, Hagiographa, containing Job, Psalms,
Proverbs, and the remaining books.
This division of the books of the Old Testa
ment, at least the division into jiofios xai rtpofij-
tai, occurs in the prologue of Jesus Sirach, and
in the New Testament, Luke xvi. 16; and vo-
po; rtpof ijtai, xai -^olKfioi (libri poetici), in Luke,
xxiv. 44, in Josephus, and very frequently in
the Talmud. All the books of the Old Testa
ment are sometimes designated in the Newby
the word vouos. They are also called tspi ypdu-
pata, ypa$ai* ayiat, and simply ypa$^. They
are sometimes called by the Jews njo-TNi Dntoj,;,
> the four and twenty books.
The holy scriptures are frequently called the
Word of God; especially since the time of
Hutter, who gave them this name. Tollner,
Semler, and others, object to thisvphrase, as in
convenient and liable to mistake. It may be
allowed, however, if it is properly explained.
This phrase, as used in the Bible, does not de
note the sacred books; but (1) oracles, predic
tions, and other divine declarations ; and (2) the
doctrines and precepts of religion. So Rom.
iii. 2 ;* Acts vii. 38. The Word of God may
therefore be distinguished' from the holy scrip
tures, of which, strictly speaking, it composes
only a, part. It cannot, therefore, in strict pro
priety of language, be used to signify the books
belonging to the Bible.
Cf. Morus, p. 16, s. 1.
SECTION II.
OF THE AUTHENTICITY OR GENUINENESS OF THE
BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
The word ai^Evtia properly denotes the cre
dibility (dliorttST'ta, Gloss. Vet.) of a work in
respect to its author. In investigating the au
thenticity of the books of the Bible, we inquire,
therefore, whether the opinion that they are the
productions of the authors to whom they are
ascribed is worthy of credit.
We shall first exhibit the evidence of the
genuineness of the books of the New Testa
ment ; after which the genuineness of the books
of the Old Testament can be more easily and
satisfactorily proved. The proofs for the genu

ineness of the books of the New Testament may
be divided into internal and external.
I. Internal proofs of the Genuineness of the Rooks
of the New Testament.
1. Their contents. They contain nothing to
awaken the suspicion that they were composed
in another age, or by other authors, than are
commonly supposed. They agree in every re
spect with what we know from other sources of
the history and circumstances of the age in
which they are supposed to be written, and ex
hibit no traces of a later composition ; facts
which, considering the variety of subjects in
troduced, are wholly inconsistent with the sup
position that they are spurious.
2. Their dialect. It is clear from the dialect
in which the books of the New Testament are
written, that they are the productions of native
Jews of the first century; for all the Jewish
writers of the first century who made use of the
Greek language employed exactly that Hebra
istic Greek in which the New Testament is
written ; but after the second century, this dia*
leet was no longer employed by Christian
writers, who then wrote in an entirely different
manner. Now if these books are supposititious,
they must have been forged during the second
century, when the dialect in which they are
written was fallen into disuse among Christian
writers. Besides, a very extraordinary and in
credible skill would have been requisite to in
vent for each of the writers of the New Testa
ment such a peculiarity of style as appears in
the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,
Peter, Paul and the rest; and still more, to
carry through successfully a fiction like this.
II. External proof s of the Authenticity of the Boolcs
of the New Testament.
1. The testimony of Christian writers of (he
first three centuries. We necessarily derive our
earliest evidences of the existence of these books
from those who read and used them — from Chris
tian writers. Now we know that the fathers of
the first three centuries possessed these books,
and considered them to be the genuine produc
tions of those whose names they bear. The tes
timony of the early Christain fathers on this
subject has been carefully collected by Euse-
bius, Hist. Eccles. III. 25; VI. 25; and De-
monstratio Evangelica. This whole subject has
been ably and accurately investigated in modern
times by Lardner, Credibility of the Gospel
History. A more brief survey is taken by
Storr, Doctrinae Christianae pars theoretica e
sacris Uteris repetita, Stuttgard, 1795, 8vo. Ha
has executed the article, De sacrarum litera-
rum auctoritate, pages 1 — 82, with great dili
gence, acuteness, and accuracy. Cf. the Intro
ductions of Michaelis, Hug, and others.

43

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

2. The assent of the heretics of the first cen
turies. The Gnostics, who were the heretics
of the first period of the church, never ques
tioned the credibility of the books of the New
Testament. They even received some books
as genuine which, from regard to their philo
sophical views, they could not admit to be
inspired. From this quarter, therefore, no rea
sonable doubt can arise with respect to the
authenticity of the books of the New Testa
ment. Vide Storr, ubi supra, p. 1 — 4.
3. The evidence from heathen writers. Cel-
«us, Porphyry, Lucian, Julian, and other hea
then writers, who attacked the doctrines con
tained in these books, confirm their genuine
ness. Vide Storr, ubi supra, p. 1 — 4.
4. The evidence from the ancient versions.
The books of the New Testament were trans
lated as early as the second century into Syriac
and Latin, and during the third and fourth cen
turies into jEthiopie and Gothic.
Note. — From the foregoing remarks we may
conclude that since no important objection can
be urged' against the authenticity of the books
of the New Testament as a whole, they are
therefore genuine; and even intelligent deists
will now universally admit that no valid his
torical arguments can be urged against the au
thenticity of most of these books.
The genuineness of some of the books which
belong to this collection was indeed doubted in
ancient times by some Christians. This, how
ever, so far from disproving the genuineness of
the rest, is a strong argument in its favour. It
shews how cautiously the early Christians pro
ceeded in distinguishing the true from the false.
Besides, their doubts respecting the authenticity
of the Apocalypse, the general epistles, and some
other books, arose very obviously from the doc
trines contained in them, and not from any defi
ciency in the historical evidence by which they
were supported.
The books of the New Testament were divided
in consequence of the doubts respecting their
authenticity, into' (1) buoXoyovpwa, the books
whose authenticity was never doubted by the
orthodox or catholic church, Morus, p. 28; (2)
avta.syo/j.svoi, the books whose authenticity was
doubted, by some, although, according to Euse-
bius, it was admitted by most — viz., James,
Jude, the second epistle of Peter, and the se
cond and third epistles of John ; (3) y&a, the
books which, although received by the unin
formed as genuine, were' doubtless spurious —
viz., the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of
Hermas, &c. This division occurs first in Ori
gen, and afterwards in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles.
III. 25. It has been adopted in part by some
modern theologians, who, however, have altered
the terms, calling the o/iotooyovuiva, protoca-
nonici, and the avtCteyopiva,, deuterocanonicu

SECTION III.
OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOKS OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT.
The proof of the authenticity of the books of
the Old Testament is attended, indeed, with
some difficulty, and is destitute of that degree
of evidence, with respect to particular parts,
which belongs to the proof of the authenticity
of the New Testament. The reasons of this are
very easily understood. We are wholly igno
rant of the authors of many of these books, and
of the age in which they were composed ; and
in general, so high is their antiquity, and so
few are the written accounts transmitted from
that early age, that we are very deficient in sure,
historical information concerning them, and are,
of course, unable to decide correctly in every
case on the question of their authenticity. How
ever, it can be shewn, from many combined
reasons, that with respect to most of thesebooks,
either the whole of them or their most important
parts were composed in the ages to which they
are assigned.
I. Internal Proofs of the Genuineness of the Books
of the Old Testament.
1. The language, style, costume, and the
whole mode of representation in the Hebrew
scriptures, are in the spirit of the times in which
they were written. In the earlier books, the
ideas, expressions, and in short everything
about them, is such as it naturally would be in
the infancy of the world. Now, if Ezra, or any
number of Jews living at the time of the exile,
or afterwards, had composed these books, as
some have supposed, they could hardly have
avoided allusions to the language, manners, or
history of their own age, by which the decep
tion would have been betrayed. Consider, too,
that notwithstanding the general agreement of
the sacred writers of the Hebrews in language,
style, and the mode of thought and representa
tion, each has some peculiarity which plainly
distinguishes him from all the rest. Vide the
Notes of Michaelis to his Bible ; also the Intro
ductions of Eichhorn and Michaelis.
2. The accounts which the sacred writers
give us of the history, polity, customs, and in- '
stitutions of the oldest nations of the world
agree exactly with those which we obtain from
other sources. The accounts which Moses gives
us of Egypt, for example, agree with those
which we obtain from oriental and Grecian
writers. And it is quite incredible that impostor*
of a late age should have given a description
like this, which is true even to the slightest
characteristic shades. They must have com
mitted anachronisms and historical mistakes;
especially considering how much. the critical
study of antiquity and of general history wan

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

49

neglected by the ancients. Jerusalem, Briefe
uber die Mosaischen Schriften und Philosophie,
Braunschweig, 1762, 8vo. C. Gottlob Lang,
Versuch einer Harmonie der heiligen und Pro-
fanschreibenten, 1775.
II. External Proofs of the Authenticity of the Books
of the Old Testament.
1. TLese books are full of allusions to each
other. Not only are the events which are re
corded in the earlier writings often mentioned
in the later books, as Psalms lxxviii., cv., cvi. ;
1 Samuel, xii. 8—12; but the earlier writers
themselves are often afterwards cited by name
— David, e. g., in 2 Chron. xxiii. 18; Moses,
Josh. viii. 31 ; and Jeremiah, Dan. ix. 2. That
the authenticity of these books cannot be proved
from a large number of contemporary witnesses
is nothing strange ; the case is the same with all
the writings of the ancient world. In those early
times little was written, and still less is pre
served. All the evidence which we can rea
sonably ask of the authenticity of such ancient
works is, that they possess internal marks of
truth, which are not invalidated by any external
testimony to the contrary. There is no contem
porary testimony for the poems of Homer or the
history of Herodotus ; but since they possess
sufficient internal credibility, and there is no
external testimony against them, their antiquity
and genuineness are universally admitted.
2. The written records of the Jewish nation
were preserved from the earliest times with the
greatest care. The law of Moses was depo
sited among the sacred things in the temple
(Deut. xxxi.), and with it, from time to time,
other public documents which the Jews wished
to preserve with special care, or to which they
wished to give a solemn sanction, Josh. xxiv.
2S ; 1 Sam. x. 25. Thus a kind of sacred libra
ry was gradually formed in the temple, from
which our present collection of the books of the
Old Testament was taken., Josephus mentions,
Antiq. V. 1, avaxtiutva iv ta trpu ypdp.pi.ata.
3. The Greek translation, called the Septua-
gint or Alexandrine version, is a proof that the
Jews, at a very early period, acknowledged the
books of the Old Testament to be genuine. This
translation was commenced, beginning with the
Pentateuch, in the reign of the Egyptian king
Ptolemy Philadelphus, and completed a consi
derable time, certainly a century, before the
birth of Christ.
4. The Jews who lived at the time of Christ,
and in the centuries immediately preceding and
following, were all united in the opinion that
these hocks were authentic and credible. The
Grecian Jews agreed with those of Palestine on
this point. Vide the catalogue of the wise and
distinguished men of the Jewish nation, Sirach,
¦sHy. — xlix. The testimony of Philo on this
7

subject is very important ; and also that of Jo
sephus, (Contra Apionem, I. 8,) whose opi
nions were always remarkably candid^ The
old Jewish rabbins, whose testimony is collect
ed in the Talmud, agree with the writers above
mentioned in supporting the authenticity of the
books of the Old Testament.
5. The testimony of Christ and his apostles
confirms that which has already been adduced.
They frequently quote passages from Moses, the
prophets, and the historical books, thus admit
ting their authenticity, Morus, p. 23, s. 13, and
Storr, p. 61 — 70. Even Paul, who was so in
tent on the subversion of Judaism, and who
always gave his opinion against it without any
reserve, never expressed the most distant doubt
respecting the authenticity of the sacred books
of the Jews, or the credibility of the Jewish
history. Jesus, Paul, and the other apostles
did not indeed themselves institute critical ex
aminations and inquiries respecting these books ;
nor was it necessary that they should. On sup
position that they were inspired teachers, their
mere word is sufficient security for the truth of
what they uttered ; and since the authenticity
of the books of the Old Testament was admitted
by them, it must also be admitted by all who
consider them to be inspired. This considera
tion alone is sufficient to support the faith of the
Christian, when attacked with specious objec
tions which he is unable to answer.
Note. — Some additions have indeed been
i made in later times to the oldest writings of the
Israelites ; but these interpolations can gene
rally be distinguished' from the original. Nor
have the scriptures of the Old Testament fared
worse in this respect than the writings of Ho
mer, and indeed most of the written records
composed at an early period. These additions
inserted in the books of Moses consist of names
of towns and countries, which were not given
to them till after his time — the account of his
death and burial, Deut. xxxiv., &c. Here the
nature of the case and the alteration of style
sufficiently indicate another hand.
Note 2. — At this distance of time it cannot be
determined with entire accuracy whether the
authors to whom the several books of the Old
Testament are ascribed, gave them the very
form which they now have, or only furnished
the material, which others have brought into
the shape in which they now appear. But even
on the latter supposition, the credibility of these
books is not at all diminished. Rhapsodies and
disconnected compositions are frequently col
lected and arranged, for the first time, by some
compiler living a long time after the original
author. Many of the prophetical books — for
example, the book of Isaiah, and most of the
historical books, and perhaps even those of
Moses — were composed in this way. But al-
E

50

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

though Moses, for example, may not have writ
ten his books exactly in the manner in which
they appear at present, he may still be said to
have written them ; and Jesus properly speaks
of what Moses wrote. The books which bear
his name are undoubtedly composed from very
ancient, credible, and authentic narratives,
which breathe everywhere the very spirit of the
ancient world. They are his writings, although
they may have been arranged, and sometimes
perhaps newly modelled, by another hand. The
same may be said with respect to the writings
of Homer, and many others. They were col
lected and modelled anew, some time after they
were originally composed, and yet their authen
ticity as a whole remains unimpaired. Vide
Wolf, Prolegg. ad Homerum.
SECTION IV.
OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, OR THE
COLLECTION OF THE BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTA
MENT INTO A WHOLE.
Introductory Remarks.
This section and the following comprise all
the topics which are usually introduced under
the title of the canon of the holy scriptures. The
word canon, which is often misunderstood,
means anything determined according to a fixed
measure, rule, or law ; hence, a list or catalogue
made by a law — e. g., canon martyrum.
But the phrase canonical books has not always
Seen used in the same sense in the Christian
church. (1) The canonical books were origin
ally those which Christians commonly used,
according to the appointment of the church, in
their public assemblies for divine worship ; so
that, undei this name, many books were for
merly included which did not belong to the
authorized collection of the Old and New Tes
tament scriptures, while many books whose
divine authority was undoubted were hot re
garded as canonical — that is, were not read in
the churches. (2) But after the fourth century
the phrase libri canonici was taken in a more
limited sense, and became synonymous with the
term ej/Suj^jcog, which was common among the
ancient Greek fathers. Libri canonici, in this
sense, were the books belonging to the author
ized collection of the Old and New Testament
scriptures, and containing, as such, the rules of
our faith and practice. In this sense the word
canonical was formerly used by Augustine, and
is still used by theological writers at the pre
sent day.
In contradistinction to the canonical are the
apocryphal books. And the latter term, as well
as the former, has been used in a wider and a
more limited sense, (a) The apocryphal writ
ings were originally those books which were

not publicly used in the Christian assemblies,
which were laid aside, or shut up, the public
use of which was forbidden, ((3i)3*.ia aitoxpvipa,
d\mjj.) A book therefore of the Old or New
Testament, whose divine original and authority
were undoubted, might be apocryphal in this
sense. But (b) after the fourth century the
apocryphal books were understood to be those
which did not in reality belong to the collection
of the Old and New Testament scriptures, al
though frequently placed in it by the uninformed,
and esteemed by them of equal authority with
the inspired books. This is the sense in which
the word apocrypha! is now used by theologicaj
writers. The history of the canon of the Old-Testament
scriptures is obscure, from the deficiency in an
cient records. Still there are some historical
fragments and data from which it may be com
posed ; though, after all, it must remain imper
fect.I. The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament
before the Babylonian Exile.
Most of the books of the Old Testament were
composed, and some of them (a considerable
number of the Psalms, to say the least) collected
and arranged, before the lime of Ezra, or tho
Babylonian exile. The books of Moses had
been collected and arranged in the order in
which they now stand before the ten tribes were
carried captive by the Assyrians. They were
therefore adopted by the Samaritans. The book
of the law was kept in the sanctuary of the tem
ple,, in order (1) to secure it more effectually
from injury, and (2) to give it a more solemn
sanction. Vide s. 3, II. 2. The oracles, sacred
songs, and various other compositions of Isaiah,
Hosea, and other prophets and teachers of reli
gion, were afterwards preserved in the same
manner, and doubtless with the same intention.
But it does not appear that before the exile any
complete and perfect collections were made of
all the oracles of any one prophet, or of all the
Psalms or Proverbs. And even supposing such
collections to have been made, they did not agree
throughout with the collections which we now
possess, which were made and introduced soon
after the exile. The original collection of the
Psalms, for example, has been enriched by the
addition of many, which were not composed till
after the captivity. The other original collec
tions have been altered and improved in a simi
lar manner.
Note.— It is usually the case, that as soon aa
a nation comes to the possession of many works
which have different degrees of merit, ^r which
are in danger of being corrupted or neglected, oi
which perhaps have already experienced this
fate, persons appear who are versed in literature
and who interest themselves in these works

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

51

They take pains to preserve their text, or to re
store it when it has become corrupt ; they shew
the distinction between genuine and spurious
Writings, and they make collections, or lists,
comprising only those which are genuine, and
among these only the more eminent and distin
guished. Such persons appeared anciently
among the Israelites, and afterwards among
Christians. And such among the Greeks were
the grammarians of Alexandria, under the Ptole
mies. They distinguished between the genuine
and spurious works of Grecian literature, and
composed catalogues (canones) of the best
among the former. The books admitted into
their canon were called lyxpwoptvoi (classici),
and the books excluded, ixxpwoptvot,. The ex
cluded writings were of course less used, and
have since mostly perished. Vide Ruhnken,
Historia Oratorum Graecorum critica, p. xcvi.
Quintillian, (I. O.) I. 4, s. 3, and Spalding, ad
h. 1. These remarks illustrate the origin of the
collection of the holy scriptures.
IL The Completion of the Canon of the Old Testa
ment after the Babylonian Exile.
It is a current tradition among the Jews that
the complete collection of their sacred books was
made by Ezra. Another tradition, however,
ascribes the establishment of the canon to Nehe-
miah, 2 Mace. ii. 13. But neither of'these tra
ditions is supported by sure historical evidence.
It cannot be doubted, however, that in so im
portant a work as the collection and arrange
ment of their sacred books, the priests, and
lawyers, and all the leading men of the nation,
must have been unitedly engaged, as the gram
marians of Alexandria were, in determining the
Greek classics. And it is very probable that
both of the distinguished men above mentioned
may have had a principal share in this under
taking. Our collection of the Old-Testament scrip
tures appears to have originated somewhat in
the following manneT : — When the Jews return
ed from captivity, and re-established divine
worship, they collected the sacred books which
they still possessed, and commenced with them
a sacred library, as they had done before with
the book of the law. To this collection they
afterwards added the writings of Zachariah, Ma-
lachi, and other distinguished prophets and
priests, who wrote during the captivity, or
shortly after ; and also the books of Kings,
Chronicles, and other historical writings, which
had been compiled from the ancient records of
the nation.
The collection thus made was ever after con
sidered complete ; and the books composing it
were called The Holy Scriptures, the Law
aw the Prophets, &c. It was now circulated
by oieans of transcripts, and came gradually into

common use. The canon of the Old Testament
was closed as soon, certainly, as the reign of the
Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, and proba
bly somewhat before. After this time the spirit
of prophecy ceased, and no new writings were
added to the approved collection. What was
done by the Grecian grammarians under Ptole
my, towards securing' the existence and literary
authority of Grecian works, by the establish
ment of the canon of the Greek classics, was
done by the Jews, after their return from exile,
towards securing the existence and religious
authority of Hebrew books, by the establish
ment of the canon of the Hebrew scriptures.
The books belonging to this collection were
the only ones translated as sacred national books
by the first translators of the Old Testament, the
authors of the Septuagint. But to some manu
scripts of this version, other books, apocryphal,
as they are called, were found appended. From
this circumstance some have supposed that the
Egyptian Jews had a different canon from those
of Palestine, and included in it the apocryphal
books, as of equal authority with the rest. This
was the opinion of Semler; but it cannot be
shewn from Josephus or Philo that the Egyptian
Jews, though they held the apocryphal books in
high esteem, both before and after the com
mencement of the Christian era, ever thought
them of equal authority with the canonical
books. Philo, in the first century, does not
once mention them, although Sirach wrote about
237 years before the birth of Christ. They can- ,
not, therefore, have been counted, even by the
Egyptian Jews of the first century, among the
books of the Old Testament. Besides, they
were never cited by the apostles, who, however,
always follow the Septuagint. During the se
cond century, Sirach was held in high esteem
among the fathers ; and gradually he and the
other apocryphal writers obtained great autho
rity in the churches. At a still later period they
were admitted into the canon by Christian
writers, who mistook their high reputation for
divine authority. Vide No. III. Cf. Eichhorn,
Einleitung in das A. T. Th. I., and also in die
apokryphischen Schriften des A. T. Leipzig,
1795 ; Storr, in the work above mentioned, p
71, ff. ; especially Jahn, Einleitung in die
gottlichen Schriften des alten Bundes, Wien,
1802. The latter work contains a full examina
tion of the latest objections.
Can it be shewn by historical evidence thai
all the books which now stand in this collection
belonged to it originally? Of most of these
books this can be satisfactorily shewn ; but re
specting some particular books it cannot be
ascertained from historical records, either that
they belonged to the collection originally, or at
what time they were received as canonical ; for
no complete list of all our canonical books can

52

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

be gathered from the works of the oldest Jewish
writers. The following observations, however, may
enable us to 'come to some conclusion: — (1)
We see from Sirach, xiv. — xlix., that most of
these books belonged to his canon. (2) The
citations which Philo, in the first century, makes
from the Old Testament, shew that most of these
books belonged also to his collection. (3) But
Josephus has left a list of the books, of which,
at his time, the collection was composed ; but
there is some obscurity attending the passage,
Contra Apionem, I. 8, in which this catalogue
is contained. We cannot be certain from this
passage that Josephus intended to include the
books of Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and Nehe-
miah, in his catalogue ; though the probability
is that he did. Vide Eichhorn, Einleitung, Th.
I. s. 113. (4) The frequent citations which
the evangelists and prophets made from these
books render it certain that most of them be
longed to the canon at the time of Christ. The
passage, Matt, xxiii. 35, coll, Luke, xi. 51, de
serves to be specially noticed. Christ here de
clares that the Jews should be punished for the
murder of all the just men who had been slain
from Abel (Gen. iv. 8) to Zachariah, 2 Chron.
xxiv. 21, 22. From this passage we are led to
conclude that the disputed book of Chronicles
not only belonged to the canon of the Old Tes
tament at the time of Christ, but that it was
then, as it is now, placed last in the collection.
(5) Add to this, that these disputed books are
•contained, as belonging to the canon, in the
Alexandrine version.
Note. — Since the free inquiry respecting some
of the books of the Old Testament, which Oeder
published at Halle, 1771, many protestant theo-,
logians have employed themselves in suggest
ing doubts respecting the genuineness of some
of the canonical Hebrew scriptures, and in at
tempting to prove them to be either spurious,
uncertain, or adulterated. Among these theolo
gians, De Wette is the latest. They commenced
the attack upon the books of Esther, Chroni
cles, Ezra, and Nehemiah ; proceeded to Isaiah
(xl. — Ix.) and other prophets, and then to the
books of Moses ; against the genuineness of all
of which they arrayed specious objections, and
finally endeavoured to subvert the foundation of
the whole canon of the Old Testament. The
student can become acquainted with the princi
pal modern writers who have either assailed or
advocated the canon of the Old Testament, and
with the principal arguments used on both sides,
fiom Jahn's Introduction to the Old Testament,
and the theological work of Storr and Flatt,
which notice all, except perhaps a few of the
very latest objections.
To all these objections but few Christians are
able to give a satisfactory answer. But if they

allow to Christ the authority which he claimed
for himself, and which the apostles ascribed to
him, they can relieve their minds from doubts
by the considerations already suggested in s. 3,
II. 5, and by those which here follow.
III. The Reception of this Canon by Christians.
Since the primitive Christians received the
books of the Old Testament from the Israelites,
they may naturally be supposed to have admit
ted into their collection all the books which be
longed to the canon of the contemporary Jews.
It has been always said, from the earliest times
of the church, that Christians received the books
of the Old Testament on the simple testimony
of Christ and his apostles ; and whatever some
Christians may think of the authority of this
testimony, they must allow that it is at least
important in ascertaining the canon of the He
brew scriptures. But to this testimony it has
been objected, especially in modern times, (a)
that it did not extend to all the books of the Old
Testament; for example, to the books of, Esther,
Nehemiah, &c. ; and (6) that it cannot be re
garded as decisive, because Christ and his apos
tles made it no part of their object to examine
critically the history of the Hebrew scriptures;
and made the Old Testament the basis of their
own instructions only because it was regarded
as the source of religious knowledge by the
Jews among whom they taught.
But it appears from No. II. that the whole
collection existed at the time of Christ and his
apostles, and indeed for some time previous,
and that it was approved by them. Whoever,
therefore, acknowledges them to be divine teach
ers, must receive the books of the Old Testa
ment on their authority. If he refuses to do
this, he is either inconsistent in rejecting the
Authority of those whom he acknowledges to be
divine teachers, or dishonest in acknowledging
Christ and his apostles to be divine teachers,
while he really does not believe them to be
such. After the times of the apostles, the fathers of
the church disagreed with respect to the books
belonging to the canon of the Old-Testament
scriptures. (1 ) The fathers of Palestine, their
disciples, and others who were acquainted with
the original Hebrew, or the tradition of the Jews,
composed catalogues containing all the books
which belong to our Bible. This was done in
the second century, by Melito, bishop of Sardis,
cited in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. IV. 26; by
Origen, cited VI. 25 of the same history ; by
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. IV. ; by Gregory
Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Epiphanius. (2)
But some of the fathers included the apocrypha.
writings, which are usually appended to the
Alexandrine version, among the canonical books.
They, at least, ascribed to these writings a great

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

53

authority, and called them ^eJoc although they
were never considered ,as divine by the Jews,
who lived either before or at the time of Christ,
and were never quoted by the writers of the
New Testament or by Philo. Vide No. II.
These fathers believed the fable of the inspira
tion of the Septuagint ; and finding the apocry
phal books appended to this version, and in
high repute among the Egyptian Jews of the
second century, they considered them, at length,
as divine, and placed them on a level with the
canonical books. The Egyptian fathers, Cle
mens of Alexandria and Irenaeus, first adopted
this opinion, in which, as in many other things,
they were followed by the Latin fathers. At
the council at Hippo, in the year 393, in can.
36, and at the third council at Carthage, in the
year 397, can. 47, the apocryphal books were,
for the first time, expressly included inter scrip-
turas canonicas. This decision was then re
ceived by the African fathers, and generally in
the western church.
But there were some of the fathers of the
Latin church who carefully distinguished the
apocryphal from the canonical books. Hiero-
nymus, in his Prologus Galeatus, says respect
ing the Book of Wisdom, &c, non sunt in ca-
none. In his Prasf. in libros Salomonis, he says,
" Haec duo volumina (ecclesiasticum et sapien-
tiam) legat ecclesia ad aedificationem plebis,
non ad auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum
confirrnandam." Hence the books properly
belonging to the Old Testament were called
libri canonici, and the apocryphal books, libri
ecclesiastici. Rufinus, Expositio Sy mboli Apost.,
after enumerating the canonical books of the
Old Testament, says, " Haec sunt quae patres
intra canonem concluserunt, et ex quibus fidei
nostras assertiones constare voluerunt .- sciendum
tamen est, quod et alii libri sunt, qui non sunt
canonici, sed ecclesiastici a majoribus appellati."
He then enumerates them, and adds, " Quae
omnia legi quidem in ecclesia voluerunt, non
tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fidei con
firrnandam.'''' But after all, the Romish church, through ig
norance of the subject, placed the apocryphal
books on a level with the canonical, and even
appealed to them as authority on the doctrines
jf the Bible. They were induced to do this
the more, from the consideration that some of
the peculiar doctrines of their church were' fa
voured by some passages in these books ; inter
cession for the dead, for example, by the passage
2 Mace. xii. 43—45. Accordingly the council
at Trent, in the sixteenth century, set aside the
distinction between the canonical and apocry
phal books, and closed its decretal by saying,
"Si quis autem libros ipsos integros, cum omni
bus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia calholiea legi
tonsueverunt, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione

habentur, pro sacris et canonicis non susciperit,
et traditiones praedictas, sciens et prudens con-
temserit, anathema sit." Sess. IV. Deer. I.
The more candid and enlightened theologians
of the Romish church have, however, never al
lowed quite the same authority to the apocryphal
as to the canonical scriptures ; and have adopt
ed the convenient division of the books into pro-
tocanonici and deuterocanonici, in the latter of
which they place the apocryphal writings.
Cf. Morus, p. 38.
SECTION V.
OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, OR THE
COLLECTION OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TES
TAMENT INTO A WHOLE.
I. Origin of this Collection.
It was natural that the first Christians, who
had been in the habit of using a collection of
the sacred books of the Jews, should feel in
duced to institute a similar collection of their
own sacred books. This was the more neces
sary, as many spurious writings, which were
ascribed to the apostles, were in circulation,
and even publicly read and used in the churches.
Even during the life of the apostles, such spu
rious writings were palmed upon them by impos
tors, 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Col. iii. 17. In consequence
of these circumstances, Christians were induced
very early to commence the collection of their
sacred books into a complete whole, with par
ticular reference to Christian posterity, which
otherwise would have had a very groundless
and disfigured Christianity. Vide Introduction,
s. 7, ad finem. Into this collection only such
writings were admitted as were considered to be
'the genuine productions of the apostles and first
disciples of Christ; although many other books
were still regarded as canonical, in the old ec
clesiastical sense of the word, and were still
publicly read in Christian assemblies. Euse
bius, Hist. Eccles. III. 3, and others of the an
cient fathers, said expressly that many books
were wi/aywaaxofiBvoi,, which were not IvSw&jxoi
(lyxpivo/j-tvoi..) Thus the epistle of Barnabas,
the Shepherd ofHermas, and the sermon of Peter,
were used in Egypt; and even in the fifth cen
tury, the revelation of Peter, in Palestine.
But with respect to the manner in which this
collection originated, and with respect to those
who were chiefly instrumental in forming it, we
can obtain only very disconnected and imperfect
information from the history of the church dur
ing the first centuries. The information which
we possess on these points is, however, more
complete than that which relates to the canon of
the Old Testament; and indeed amounts to a
satisfactory degree of evidence.
In order to confirm the credibility and genu
ineness of the collection, it was formerly sup-
e2

54

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

posed that some inspired man must have either
made or approved it ; and because John outlived
the other apostles, he was fixed upon as the in
dividual ; just as Ezra was, by the Jews, for the
compilation of the Old-Testament scriptures.
In this supposition there is a mixture of truth
and error. We have no historical evidence for
believing that John either made or approved the
whoie collection. In order to arrive at the truth
on this subject, we must consider the collection
divided into its two principal parts, tvayyhMv
and (Mtoffi'oAos.
1. It was commonly reported in the early
ages of the church, that John was acquainted
with the first three gospels', that he sanctioned
them by his authority, and completed the his
tory of Jesus which they contain, by his own
gospel. Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. III. 24. And
this report appears to be true, on a moment's
reflection. Vide Michaelis, Herder, and Storr.
John either wholly omits to mention, or at most
only briefly notices, for the sake of connexion,
even such important events as the baptism and
the ascension of Christ, and the institution of
the Lord's supper, if they have been fully de
scribed by the other evangelists. On the other
hand, he relates many things which the others
omit. He enlarges, for example, on the inci
dents and discourses v/hiah preceded jmA followed
the supper, the passion, the resurrection, and
other events, the histories of which are given
by the other evangelists. He may therefore be
f supposed to have known and sanctioned the first
three gospels, which, in connexion with his own,
were of course received by the Christian church.
2. But it cannot be shewn from historical tes
timony, or any other evidence, that John either
made the collection of the other books (arfocj-
to%oi) now belonging to the New Testament, or
sanctioned it by his authority, when made. This
supposition is, on the contrary, extremely im
probable. If John had sanctioned the entire col
lection of our New Testament scriptures, how
could doubts have arisen respecting his second
and third epistles, the Apocalypse, and some
other writings, even in the midst of the Asiatic
church, where he himself lived ? His decision
would have for ever settled the question as to
the sacred canon.
It is evident from the historical information
which we possess, that this collection was not
finished at once, but was commenced a consi
derable time before it was made complete. It
was divided into two parts, to tbayyixuw, and
6 ajioetoXo; or to artoatofaxov.
(1) As to the gospels, the genuine and the
spurious were early distinguished from each
other. Justin the Martyr distinctly speaks of
the gospels as productions of the apostles. Ire
naeus, Contra Haeres, III. 11, cites the gospels
of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as those

which he knew to be genuine. The same waa
done by Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian.
Vide Storr, s. 12. Tatian, at the end of the se*
cond century, and Ammonius, at the beginning
of the third, composed harmonies of the foui
gospels, and Origen wrote a copious commen
tary oh Matthew and John. The gospels were,
therefore, collected as early as the second cen
tury ; and in the third and fourth centuries were
regarded as of undoubted authority throughout
the Christian church. They were prefixed to
the other books of the New Testament ; because
the history of Jesus was considered, at that early
period, as the basis of Christian truth, and was
taught wherever the gospel was preached, (John,
xx. 31 ;) just as the historical books, especially
the writings of Moses, were prefixed to the
Old Testament, as the basis of the Mosaic
economy. (2) As to the epistles, a collection of them
was commenced at a very early period, and was
gradually enlarged and completed. It appears,
indeed, to be of somewhat later origin than the
collection of the gospels; but both of them must
have existed soon after the commencement of
the second century ; for Ignatius, Ep. ad. Phi-
ladelph. cap. 5, speaks of the gospels, and of the
apostolical writings. The apostolical epistles
were first sent to the churches, for which they
were principally written. They were then
communicated by these churches, either in the
original or in transcript, to other connected
churches, (Col. iv. 16;) and each church col
lected as many as it could obtain. From such
small, imperfect beginnings, our present collec
tion was formed. It is probable that some cele
brated teacher, who possessed more epistles than
any other man, or perhaps some distinguished
church, first instituted this collection in the se
cond century ; and that it was afterwards adopted
by others, in deference to this authority. The
place where this collection was first made, is
unknown. Mill supposes it was Rome; but
without sufficient reason.
This collecton of the epistles was designed to
include only those which were most distin
guished, and whose authenticity was univer
sally allowed. The MoatoXixov, therefore, ori
ginally contained only the thirteen epistles of
Paul, and the first epistles of Peter and John;
since these only were considered by the oldest
fathers as belonging to the hhvi^rjxoi. But
afterwards the avtCkiybfitva were gradually ad
mitted into the canon. And as early as the third
century, most of the copies of the collection con
tained all the books which now belong to it, the
avtiXcyouiva not excepted ; as appears from the
catalogue of Origen cited by Eusebius, Hist.
Eccles. VI. 25 ; and from that of Eusebius him
self, Hist. Eccles. III. 25, where he appeals tofV
xtyaiaatixr) rtapagostj, and excludes the Apocry-

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

55

pha from the iv&w&jxot. Yide Griesbach, Hist.
epp. Paiill. Jense, 1777, 4to. The catalogues
of Cyril of Jerusalem and of Gregory Nazian-
zen agree with these, except that the Apoca
lypse is wholly omitted by the former, and is
mentioned by the latter as doubtful.
II. The Principles on which this Collection was
made, and the Authority which it possesses.
We discover these principles from the writ
ings of the fathers of the early ages of the church.
1. It was a rule to admit only such books
into the canon as could be proved to be the pro
ductions of the apostles themselves, or of their
first assistants in office. Those only, therefore,
were allowed to be ivSod&ixoi, which had credible
testimony in their favour from the earliest times.
The gospels of Peter, Thomas, and others, were
on this principle rejected by Origen and Euse
bius. 2. The doctrines taught in a book were also
examined before it was admitted into the canon.
If any book disagreed with the doctrines which
the apostles taught, or with the regulations
which the apostles established, it was excluded
from the canon as clearly spurious. This rule
was needed even at that early period ; for many
books written in support of error had from the
first been ascribed to the apostles, in order to
procure more influence and currency.
3. The custom and example of otherchurches,
hich might reasonably be supposed to have
judged on good and solid grounds, and which
were free from the suspicion of credulity or care
lessness, were in some cases referred to in de
termining whether a book should be admitted
into the canon. So Hieronymus (Catal. Script.
Eccles.), when speaking of the book of Jiide,
says that it had indeed been doubted and reject
ed by some, but auctoritatem jam veiustate et usu
meruit. The question upon what the canonical autho
rity of the books of the New Testament depends
may now be easily answered. It depends prin
cipally upon the decision of the first Christian
teachers and* churches; as the authority of the
Greek classics depends upon the decision of the
grammarians of Alexandria. Their decision,
however, was not arbitrary, but founded on sober
examination of the authenticity of these books.
No public and universal law was ever passed
in the ancient church, determining that all and
each of the books of the New Testament should
be adopted without further examination and in
quiry. The learned always were, and always
must be, free to inquire on this subject. If we
are convinced at all, it must be by reason and
not by authority. We should not, therefore,
blindly credit the testimony of the ancients, whe
ther given by particular churches or by distin
guished individuals ; nor, on the contrary , should

we blindly reject their testimony. We ought
rather to examine the evidence upon which they
decided, and then believe according to our own
sincere conviction. The authenticity of some of
the books (the avtiXtyopsva) which stand in our
present collection was disputed even in ancient
times; and the decision respecting them was
very different, even in the ancient orthodox
church. The canonical books were indeed, as we find,
in some cases determined by formal decrees,
which seem to cut off and discountenance all
further inquiry, as in the Canones Jpostolici,
which, however, are spurious ; also in can. 60
of the council at Laodicea, about the year 360,
in which only the Apocalypse is omitted. But
this council was composed of only a few bi
shops, and its determinations were not adopted
by the other churches ; besides, the sixtieth canon
is probably spurious. Vide Spittler, Kritische
Untersuchung des sechzigsten Laodic. Ca
nons, Bremen, 1777, 8vo. The council at Hippo,
in the year 393, and at Carthage, in the year
397, also established similar catalogues. But
neither of these councils was general. Many
other enactments were made on the subject of
the canon in the Romish church at a later pe
riod ; but the council of Trent, in the sixteenth
century, for the first time established the canon
for the Romish church by a general and formal
decree. But the protestant church has never acqui
esced in those decrees which preclude or pro
hibit further investigation. Luther considered
it allowable to call in question the authenticity
of the Apocalypse and the epistles of James ; and
he was followed in this opinion by many theo
logians of the sixteenth century. And other
protestant theologians have doubted respecting
other books of the avtfaiyousva.
Note 1. — Even if we should allow that the
avtiXiyofisva are spurious, and cannot be relied
upon in proof of the Christian system, we should
not be compelled either to relinquish or to alter
a single doctrine. For the books whose genu
ineness is undisputed contain all that is neces
sary for a complete knowledge of Christian faith
and duty.
Note 2  If we examine the reasons which led
some of the ancients to doubt the authenticity
of the avtiXsyouiva, we shall find that they were
derived rather from the doctrines taught in these
books than from any historical evidence against
them. Such were Luther's objections. But
none of the objections of this nature which are
alleged are, in my view, sufficiently weighty to
justify us in considering any one of these books
as doubtful, not even the Apocalypse, as most
at present acknowledge. In the following work,
therefore, the doctrines of the Christian religion
will be supported by texts taken from the differ-

IS

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

sat books of the New Testament, without any
reference to this distinction.
Works to be consulted : — Gerh. de Mastricht,
Canon SS. secundum seriem seculor. N. T.
collectus et notis illustrates, Jenae, 1725. This
work contains the opinions of the fathers, cata
logues of the canon extracted from their writ
ings, and the decrees of the councils. Stosch,
De librorum V. T. canone, Frankfort an dem
Oder, 1755, 8vo. Semler, Abhandlungen von
freyer Untersuchung des Canons, 4 Theile,
Halle, 1771 — 75, 8vo. Weber, Beytrage zur
Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Canons,
Tubingen, 1791. Corrodi, Versuch einer Be-
leuchtung der Geschichte des jildishen und
christlichen Bibelcanons, 2 Bande, Halle, 1792.
Other works are referred to in Jahn, and in the
Elements of Storr and Flatt.
SECTION VI.
ON THE UNADULTERATED CORRECTNESS AND IN
TEGRITY OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT
SCRIPTURES.
The integrity of the holy scriptures implies
(1) that none of the books which formerly be
longed to the canon are now wanting (integritas
totalis ;) (2) that these scriptures are transmitted
to us in such a state as still to promote the ob-.
ject for which they were originally written, (in
tegritas partium, or partialis.)
I. Integritas Totalis.
If some of the scriptures which formerly be
longed to the canon had perished, the loss would
not be very essential. If those that are left give
us all the information which we need respecting
the Jewish and Christian economy, no other
books are necessary. That any books, how
ever, have ever belonged to the canon of the
Jewish or Christian scriptures, which do not
now belong to it, cannot be proved. It is true,
indeed, that the apostles and prophets wrote
many books which have not come down to us —
books, too, which were inspired. For if inspi
ration is conceded to those books of theirs which
were admitted into the canon of the Old and
New Testament, and which are therefore pre
served, it must also be conceded to those which
were not admitted into the canon, and have
therefore perished. The oral discourses of Jesus
and the apostles were doubtless inspired, and yet
many of these discourses are lost; and even of
those which were committed to writing, only
extracts of the more important parts were in
many cases preserved. There is nothing incon
sistent, therefore, in the supposition that God
should suffer even an inspired book to be left
out of this collection, and consequently to be
lost to posterity. But there is no evidence that
any of the books which are lost ever belong

ed to the canon. Paul wrote, as we see from
his epistles, at least one letter to the Corinthi
ans more than we have at present. Many me
moirs of Jesus, as we find from Luke, i. 1, were
written at a very early period. The historical
books of the Old Testament were extracted from
larger historical works, which are often cited
in the books compiled from them, but which
are now lost. Other collections of songs are
mentioned ; as, iis>in iod, Joshua, x. 13. Writ
ings of the prophet's Gad, Nathan, Semaja, and
Jehu, are mentioned in Chronicles ; but none of
these ever belonged to the collection of the Old
and New Testament scriptures. Cf. Jahn,
Einleitung. II. Integritas Partialis.
The integrity of a book is not affected by
variations of the text, and by false readings.
These could not have been avoided, except by
miracle, in the numerous transcripts which have
been made of these ancient scriptures. The in
tegrity of a book requires only that its text be
in such a state that the object for which the
book was written is fully answered. When we.
assert the integrity of the Bible, therefore, we
do not pretend that every letter, word, and ex
pression in our present copies exactly answers
to the original text, but that the general contents,
the doctrines of the Bible, are taught in it with
uncorrupted correctness and certainty.
The variations of the text of the New Testa
ment amounted, according to the estimate of
Wetstein, to sixty thousand; and of the text of
the Old Testament to a still greater number.
But by all these variations no doctrine of any
importance is undermined or altered, and no
history of any interest is disfigured or changed.
A few of the texts by which some doctrines
were supported have, indeed, been discarded —
e. g., 1 John, v. 7 ; but there are other texts which
afford to each of these doctrines an ample proof;
so that the doctrines themselves remain unal
tered. Besides, the most important variations,
those which affect the sense most materially, do
not concern the doctrines of religion or the ob
jects of faith, but some indifferent circumstances,
trifling historical minutiae, &c. Without giving
up the integrity of the Bible, then, we may freely
concede that in some few places the true reading
is lost beyond recovery.
The Text of the Holy Scriptures is not so corrupt
as to prevent the attainment of the object for
which they were written.
1. Of the text of the New Testament. The
supposition that the text in all the manuscripts
of the New Testament has been intentionally
and generally falsified cannot possibly be made.
Any falsifications must have been made either
by the reigning ecclesiastical body (catholici)

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

57

or by some of the sects (haeretici) during the
first three centuries. But among the former,
there was no man during this period of sufficient
authority to cause the alterations which he
might have made to be generally adopted. The
jealousy existing among individual churches
and teachers was far too great, and the use of
the Christian scriptures far too general, to allow
an intentional falsification to be made. These
scriptures were publicly read, and were there
fore familiar to every Christian. This was the
case certainly with those more important parts,
which, if any, would have been falsified. There
were also many translations made from the va
rious manuscripts of the original Greek, the
text of which still agrees in every important
particular with our own.
The text of the New Testament was, indeed,
intentionally altered and corrupted by some of
the heretics — e. g. Marcion; but those altera
tions were immediately -discovered and con
demned by the orthodox churches. In fact,
these heretics freely acknowledged that they
themselves had fabricated them, and did not
pretend to follow the original text.
2. Of the text of the Old Testament. The
opinions which formerly prevailed respecting
the integrity of the text of the Old Testament
were much more extravagant than respecting
that of the New. These opinions were founded
on the exaggerated accounts which were given
by the later Jews respecting the pains which
their ancestors, especially the Masorites, had
taken to preserve the sacred text unaltered.
They went so far as to say, that in consequence
of this caution, not a single mistake or false
reading had been able to creep into the original
Hebrew text. And they extended the same re
mark even to the accents and vowel points.
John Buxtorf, father and son, professors of the
Hebrew language at Basel, during the last part
of the seventeenth century, adopted these fabu
lous Jewish opinions and stories, and advocated
them with great zeal. Through their influence
and that of their disciples, as the principal
cause, these opinions became very prevalent
among the Swiss, and even Lutheran, theolo
gians at the end of the seventeenth and the be
ginning of the eighteenth century. In Switzer
land they were regarded as essential points of
orthodoxy, and placed as such in the Formula
consensus Helvitici. But,
(I ) The exactest agreement of all our present
manuscripts would not prove the present text to
be throughout true, for all our present Hebrew
manuscripts follow the same Masoretic recen
sion; and their agreement would only prove
that this recension had suffered no corruption.
(2) This supposed agreement has, however,
been disproved since our manuscripts have been
compared. They differ widely from one another,
8

as appears from the vast number of various read
ings collected by Kennicott and De Rossi.
(3) The Hebrew manuscripts from which
the ancient versions — for example, the Septua
gint — were made differed still more widely ; and
in some instances quite another recension of the
Hebrew text was at the foundation of these ver
sions. But however great may be the corruptions
which are found in particular books or passages
of the Old Testament, they do not materially
affect the Christian religion, which does not
stand in such an intimate connexion with any
parts of the Jewish scriptures that it must stand
or fall with them. But the same is true on this
subject with respect to the Old Testament as
was remarked above with respect to the New.
Not a single doctrine is undermined or weak
ened by all these various readings. Nor can it
be proved that the text has in a single instance
been intentionally corrupted in favour of parti
cular doctrinal prejudices. Even the Samaritan
text of the five books of Moses, the most im
portant of the Hebrew scriptures, exhibits their
contents with entire fidelity, and in entire ac
cordance with the texts of our common Hebrew
manuscripts. Cf. Rich. Simon, Hist, critique du V. T.,
Rotterdam, 1685, 4to. Capellus, Critica Sacra,
Paris, 1650. Eichhorn, Einleitung ins alte
Testament, Th. I. Cap. II. Lichtenstein, Pa-
ralipomena critica circa textum Vet. Testamenti,
Helmstadt, 1799, 4to. Jahn, Einleitung. Also
the writings of Kennicott and De Rossi.
SECTION VII.
OF THE TRUTH AND DIVINITY OF THE DOCTRINES
TAUGHT BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES.
The truth and divinity of the doctrines con
tained in the Christian scriptures must be con
sidered before the divinity of these scriptures
themselves. The principal proofs which Jesus himself and
his apostles produced in favour of the divinity
of their doctrines are the following:
I. Proof from the Claims which Jesus himself made.
Jesus frequently called himself an immediate
divine messenger. He declared that he taught
his religion by the express command of God,
and as his deputed ambassador, Matt. xxvi. 63 ;
John, v. 43 ; xvi. 27, 28, et passim. This de
claration of Jesus, so often repeated, is, in itself
considered, of great weight. The same preten
sions have, indeed, sometimes been made by im
postors and enthusiasts ; but the whole charac
ter and conduct of Jesus were such as to free
him from the imputation of being either an ho
nest enthusiast or a crafty impostor. He is the
very opposite of what impostors and enthusiasts,

58

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

even of the best description, usually are; he
practised none of the arts of deception, and he
appealed confidently and unreservedly to his in
nocence, even in presence of his enemies ; and
challenged them to convict him, if they were
able, of a single act of dishonesty, John, viii.
46, seq.
This proof has been carefully stated by Storr,
Doctrina Christiana, p. 28 — 34, and by Dr.
Hensler, Die Wahrheit und Gottlichkeit der
christlichen Religion in der Kiirze dargestellt,
p. 26—32, Hamburg, 1803, 8vo.
II. Proof from the Excellence, Suitableness, and Be
neficial Tendency of this Religion.
This proof is called argumentum internum
pro veritate et divinitate religionis Christians.
Jesus himself makes use of this argument, John,
vii. 17. It is also employed by the apostles,
and by the ancient apologists of Christianity,
Justin, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Clemens
of Alexandria. That the Christian religion is
surpassed by no other in the purity, simplicity,
and practical utility of its doctrines, is perfectly
obvious, and, even at the present day, is gene
rally acknowledged. No sage or moralist, of
ancient or modern times, has accomplished so
great a work as has been done by Christ; has
taught such salutary doctrines — doctrines which
exert so benign an influence in comforting and
renovating the heart of man. And this every
one may know from his own experience who
makes a personal application of these doctrines
in the manner which Christ has prescribed.
Vide Introduction, s. 3, ad finem.
The religion which, by its doctrine and disci
pline, accomplishes all this, and which is so
taught as to effect what had never before been
lone by man, deserves to be called divine ; and
must be acknowledged, even by the rationalist,
to be, on this account, at least important and
worthy of respect. But the internal excellence
of the Christian religion does not, in itself con
sidered, satisfactorily prove that this religion is,
as a. matter of fact, derived immediately from
God ; the utility and benevolent tendency of a
doctrine prove only that it is worthy of God, and
not the fact that it is derived from him. As this
is a question of fact, it can be proved only by
other facts. Vide Introduction, s. 8. III. 2, note.
Hence it is that this proof from the internal ex
cellence of the Christian religion is always in
sisted upon, to the exclusion of the proof from
miracles, by those who deny any immediate di
vine revelation in the higher sense. That di
vine revelation in this sense cannot be suffi
ciently established by this internal argument
may be seen from the Introduction, s. 7, I. ad
finem. But although this internal argument does not,
separately considered, satisfactorily prove the

immediate divine origin of the Christian religion,
it is still of great importance —
1. To the sincere inquirer. A conviction of
the inherent excellence^ the Christian religion,
and of its benevolent tendencies, is of the great
est importance to the candid inquirer in seriously
examining the other proofs by which the divi
nity of our religion is supported. It prepares
his mind to receive them, and predisposes him
to believe any evidence that may be offered, or
any declarations that may be made, by one wh)
gave such excellent precepts, and lived himself
in a manner so conformed to them, as Jesus did.
Jesus declared that his instructions were derived
immediately from God. Vide No I. Now if
the inquirer finds that the religion of Christ ac
complishes what might be reasonably expected
of a religion of divine origin ; if he finds that its
founder possessed a pure moral character, and
was neither an impostor nor a deluded enthusi
ast; he will give credit to his pretensions, and
feel himself bound to admit the evidence that
may be offered of his divine mission.
2. To the practical Christian. The belief of
the truth and divinity of the Christian religion
arising from its internal excellence and its bene
ficial effects, is in the highest degree important
to every practical Christian. His whole estima
tion of this religion depends upon his having
felt this excellence, and joyfully experienced
these benefits, in his own heart. These experi
ences produce a firm conviction in his mind of
the truth of this religion, which no theoretic
doubts are able to shake.
These feelings arising in the heart of the true
Christian, as he studies, applies, and practises
the instructions of his religion, and the firm con
viction of the truth and divinity of his religion,
arising from these feelings, is called testimonium
spiritus sancti internum — i. e., a conviction of
the divinity of the Christian religion produced
in the mind of man by the Spirit of God. This
conviction is not a conclusion, but a feeliug, from
which the truth is inferred. Vide Morus, p. 39,
40. The term testimonium (ftapripia), taken
from Rom. viii. 16, and 1 John, v. 6, was ap
plied to this inward persuasion, in contradistinc
tion to the namei testimonium externum spiritus
sancti, taken from Heb. ii. 4, which was given
to the proof afforded by miracles.
The internal witness of the Spirit denotes those
pious feelings and dispositions which God or
the Holy Spirit awakens in us by means of the
Christian doctrine, and which are the evidence,
the internal proof, to us, that this doctrine is
true. " Ultima ratio, sub qua et propter quam
fide divina et infallibili credimus, verbum Dei,
esse verbum Dei, est, ipsa intrinseca vis el effica-
cia verbi divini, et spiritus sancti in scriptura lo-
quentis testificatio et obsignate," Quenstedt,
Systema, I. p. 140.

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

59

This intimate persuasion is perfectly rational,
and by no means visionary. It is not produced
in us in a miraculous manner, by direct divine
agency, but it results from the truths which we
have understood and obeyed. We are conscious
in our inmost souls that since we have embraced
this heavenly religion, and have faithfully obey
ed its precepts, we have had more peace and
happiness, and more strength to execute our vir
tuous resolutions, than ever before. In this way
we are brought to the conviction that the Chris
tian religion is the true and only means of pro
moting our happiness, and of imparting that
quiet of mind, and that strength for virtue, which
we need. And from this conviction we pass to
the conclusion, that the Christian religion is true
and divine, and that Jesus and his apostles are
to be believed when they declare it to be such.
We have found this doctrine to be possessed of
higher excellences and of a greater efficacy than
any other with which we have been acquainted,
and hence conclude that it is the very means
which God himself has appointed for our good.
This proof of the divine origin of the Chris
tian religion, derived from its happy effects, is
often urged by Christ, John, vii. 15 — 17, coll.
viii. 47 ; and also by the apostles, 1 Thess. ii.
13 ; 2 Cor. iii. 1 — 4 ; Acts, ii. 14 — 37 ; and par
ticularly from the effect of the discourses of
Jesus, Matt. vii. 28, 29 ; Luke, xxiv. 32. This
proof, explained in this way, is conformed both
to reason and , observation ; and the feelings
upon which it rests must have been experienced
by every true Christian. Cf. s. 124, II.;
Nosselt, Diss, inaug. de interno testimonio spi
ritus sancti, Halle, 1767. Gehe (Superintendant
at Oschatz), Diss, inaug. de argumento, quod
pro divinitate religionis Christianae ab experi-
entia ducitur, Gottingen, 1796. Morus, p. 40.
HI. Proof from Miracles.
In this place we shall consider only what we
are taught on this subject by the writers of the
Old and New Testaments, and the point of view
in which they regarded it ; adding a few obser
vations for the purpose of illustration. Here
after, in the Article on Divine Providence, s. 72,
we shall consider the arguments. and objections
of a philosophical nature.
1. The following names are given to miracles
by the sacred writers, and by Jesus himself: —
muJ, nnui, correspondent to which in the Sep
tuagint, and in tbe New Testament, are the
words Surufuf, Svvdpsif, because miracles are
proofs of the divine power. nSb, Savudeia,
Snvfiata, something extraordinary, which ex
cites wonder. noiD, rlpa;, tipata, prodigia, por-
tenta, something monstrous, which excites the
idea of a tremendous force, nix, arip.da, ostenta,
because miracles are signs or evidences of di
vine interposition; whence they are also called

the hand of God, the finger of God. v niSysc, ?pyo
toi ©ecu. The miracles of Christ are frequently
called epyo, by way of eminence. The divine
power by which miracles were wrought was
called nn, tsTnp nn, rtvevpa ayum, rtviipa ©ecu,
rtvsvpu. 2. These biblical names of miracles clearly
shew that the sacred writers considered miracles
to be events effected by divine power, unlike
those which commonly occur in the known
order of nature, established by God, and inex
plicable to us by the laws of nature, and there
fore calculated to excite surprise and wonder.
Such events are not necessary for the establish
ment of a natural religion ; but they are indis
pensable to the establishment of any religion
which announces itself as revealed from God in
any other way than through the reason of man, —
of a religion, in short, like the Christian, which
is a positive religion, and in which Christ ap
pears in the character of a divine messenger to
disclose the mind of God. The peculiar doc
trines of this religion are not cognizable from
the nature of things, but are taught us by per
sons who assert that they themselves were
taught by God. Now if they would obtain cre
dit in this assertion, they must be able to prove
their divine mission by proper evidence. They
cannot do this by proofs drawn from reason ;
they therefore resort to miracles.
Properly speaking, these miracles are wrought
by God. In performing them, he does not alter
or disturb the course of things which he himself
directs, or counteract the laws which he himself
has established ; but he accomplishes, by means
of nature, which he has thus constituted and
which he governs, something more than is com
mon, and in connexion with unusual circum
stances. [Note. — This is here maintained in opposition
to some theologians of former times, who held
that in case of a real miracle the course of na
ture was disturbed, or the laws of nature coun
teracted. "Miracula vera etproprie dicta sunt,
quae contra vim rebus naturalibus a Deo inditam,
cursumque naturalem, sive per extraordinariam
Dei potentiam efficiuntur ; ut cum . . . aqua in vi
num convertitur, mortui suscitantur," &c. Quen-
stedt, Sy sterna, P. I. et II. p. 471, Vitebergae,
1685, fol. The same opinion is expressed by
Buddeus. Miracles, he says, are " operationes
quibus naturae leges ad ordinem et conserva-
tionem totius hujus universi spectantes, re vera
suspenduntur." Instit. theol. dogm. p. 245.
They are likewise defined by Wegscheider as
" eventus insoliti ad mirationem excitantes ; ideo-
que a cooperatione causae, humanas vires super-
antis, et rerum natural cursum consuetum, leges-
que in efftciendo ejusmodi eventu tollentis, ple-
rumque repetiti." Institutiones, p. 173, s. 46.
But with respect to this opinion, Augustine pro-

et

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

perly asked, " Quomodo est contra naturam,
quod est voluntate Dei, quum voluntas tanti
utique creatoris, conditae rei cujuslibet natura
sit." De Civ. Dei, XXI. 8. This opinion led
to the supposition that in connexion with every
miracle there was a miraculum restitutionis, by
which the confusion occasioned was obviated,
and the proper order restored. Vide J. Jac.
Ebert, Dubitationes contra miracula restitu
tionis. The following remarks on this subject are
from Tieftrunk, Censurdes chr. protest. Lehrbe-
griffs, s. 263 — 265: "The efficient supersen
sible Being may not suspend the laws, or disar
range the course of nature; but must employ
nature as the means of producing the designed
result. What is miraculous is not therefore
contrary to nature (widernatiirlich), but extraor
dinary, preternatural, (aussernatiirlich.) The
wonder-working Being produces in the sphere
of sense, and by the laws which govern this
sphere, such an effect as does not occur in the
ordinary course of things, and could not be pro
duced by the mere powers of nature. A miracu
lous event seems to encroach upon the course of
nature, without disturbing or displacing it. But
this encroachment cannot be accounted for by
any natural causality, and must be ascribed to a
higher power working according to the laws of
sensible nature. But we must not suppose that
this supersensible cause acts in a lawless man
ner in working miracles; for although we are
unacquainted with the laws which prevail in the
sphere of spirit, we must still believe that some
laws are there in force; and if we knew what
they were, we should consider the same events
which now appear miraculous as perfectly na
tural." Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch des christlichen
Glaubens, s. 24, Leipzig, 1828.]
In this extraordinary exertion of his power,
God has ever some great moral end in view ;
since it is inconsistent with reason and scripture
to suppose that he acts without respect to an
end. Now the end for which miracles are per
formed is clearly revealed. They are the cre
dentials of the divine messengers, and invest
with a divine authority their precepts, promises,
threatenings, and whatever else they may de
clare ; for no teacher ever did or can work a
miracle by his own power : he can only act as
the instrument in the hand of God, the author
and governor of nature. When God, therefore,
raises the dead, or performs any other miracle,
through the instrumentality of a teacher, he thus
declares that this teacher is divinely commis
sioned, that through him he shall speak, and
act, and accomplish his purposes. He thus fur
nishes his ambassador with credentials, secures
him the attention of his fellow men, calls upon
them to acknowledge the divinity of his mission,
and to receive his heavenly doctrine. This,

then, as we are taught by the Bible, is the end
for which miracles were wrought. True mira
cles are the credentials which God gives his
ambassador of their divine mission; and every
teacher who performs them should be received
as a messenger sent from God. For it cannot
be supposed that the God of truth would enable
an enthusiast, or a crafty impostor, or any false
teacher, to perform real miracles, since he would
thus set his own seal to a falsehood. Hence
we may safely argue the falsity of all the al
leged miracles which are wrought for the con
firmation of doctrines and declarations which are
demonstrably untrue, and therefore not of God,—
such, for example, as were wrought by the false
prophets in ancient times, and which are de
clared in the Bible to be deceptive.
On these principles, Christ and his apostles
prove the divinity of their mission and doctrine,
by the miracles which they performed in view
of their contemporaries, Matt. xi. 3, seq. John,
xiv. 11. Vide Scripta Varii argument!, ed. 2,
p. 187. And in consequence of the miracles
which he wrought, Jesus was received by many
of his contemporaries as a teacher sent from
God, John, iii. 2; ix. 35—38. This belief in
his character arising from his miracles, was ap
proved by Jesus himself, Matt. xi. 2 — 6, 20 — 24.
Sometimes, however, he justly blamed the Jews
for seeking constantly after signs and wonders.
As to the object of the miracles which he per
formed, he distinctly declared, that they should
be considered as proof (oqpiiov) that he, as a
man, did not teach his own wisdom, nor act
from his own will, but as the organ of God, the
creator and governor of the universe; and that
his instructions should therefore be considered as
divine instructions (a.oyot), and received and
obeyed as coming from God. Vide John, iii.,
v., vi„ viii., xii., xiv., xvi. ; Acts, ii. 22 ; x. 38.
Miracles are regarded by Christ and the apos
tles as always intended by God to promote the
success (awEpystc&at.) and confirm the authority
()3e)3aiow) of the doctrine taught by the one
through whom they, were performed. Mark,
xvi. 20. The apostles refer, in the Acts and in
the epistles, to three kinds of miracles — vlz.v
(1) those wrought upon Jesus, to prove his au
thority, especially his resurrection from the
dead ; (2) those wrought by him ; and (3) those
which tlrey themselves performed.
The proof from miracles, impressing, as they
do, the bodily senses, often produces a strong
conviction, and is especially adapted to those
who are insensible to the proof drawn from the
internal excellence of the Christian religion,
and the effects which it produces on the hearts
of men.
3. How far is the proof from miracles still
valid? May it be urged at the present day? It
has been rejected, in modern times, as wholly

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

61

destitute of evidence, by Rousseau, Hume, and
all the rationalist theologians. Hume main
tained, that however strong might be the evi
dence in favour of any miracle, there was always
stronger evidence against it; and -that every
miracle was contradictory to the reason and ex
perience of all ages. In order to render the mi
racles of the Bible suspicious, he collected all
manner of marvellous histories, and endeavoured
to shew that the miracles of the Bible had less
evidence to support them than many of these
pretended miracles, which were universally
allowed to be false. The proof from miracles
was also abundantly canvassed in the contro
versies with Lessing.
We may freely concede, (a) that this proof
must have carried a stronger and more resistless
evidence to the minds of those Who themselves
saw the miracles with their own eyes, than to
the minds of others living at a distance from the
scene, or after the time in which they were per
formed ; and (6) that Christ and his apostles in
tended their miracles primarily for their contem
poraries, who expected and demanded evidence
of this nature, and who would receive the true
religion more readily, and believe it more firmly,
if it came to them supported by such evidence
as was conformed to their previous opinions and
expectations ; and that this proof may so far be
said to be temporary. But (c) it can by no
means be said to be destitute of evidence for all
who were not the contemporaries of Christ and
the apostles. If any at the present day are con
vinced of the historical truth of the miracles
wrought by Christ, to them Jhe proof derived
from miracles must still be perfectly valid. For
to attempt, to prove a priori, as is usually done,
that miracles are impossible, is the height of folly
and presumption. Moreover (d) the system of
truth which was taught by Jesus, the apostles,
and prophets, is consistent with itself only on
the supposition that it was corroborated by mi
racles. They laid claim to the character of ex
traordinary divine messengers — a claim which
could not be supported except by extraordinary
events. Vide Introduction, s. 7, 8. The rea
son, now, that so many deny the evidence of mi
racles is, that they are unwilling to admit this
extraordinary claim, which miracles are intended
to establish.
The historical credibility of the miracles of
Christ may be proved in two ways :
(1.) From the testimony of the apostles them
selves. We reason thus : (a) they were able to
know the truth. They were contemporaries of
Christ, and eye-witnesses of his works. They
enjoyed the best opportunity for examining and
scrutinizing everything which hedid. Nor were
they credulous ; but, on the contrary, slow to be
lieve, as Christ himself says, Mark, xvi. 14.
They perfectly agree in their testimony, and in

open court refer to the miracles of Christ as uj
undisputed facts, known to the world, Acts, ii.
22. (6) They intended to speak the truth. Theii
whole character is such as to free them from the
suspicion of intentional deception. If they had
been influenced by considerations of wordly
interest they would not have embraced Christi
anity, from which they had little to hope, and
everything to fear, as to their temporal prospects.
Besides, the style of their narratives is so sim
ple, artless, and unaffected, that every unpreju
diced reader must feel himself compelled to ac
knowledge that they understood and believed
what they wrote, and had no intention of deceiv
ing their readers. 1 John, i. 1, seq. Cf. Morus,
p. 16—20.
(2) From the testimony of those who were
not followers of Christ, and even of those who
were opposed to his religion. The Jews who
were contemporary with Christ allowed that he
had wrought miracles, (John, xi. 47,) and did
not venture to accuse him, before a judicial tri
bunal, of deception in performing them. Even
the Talmud makes mention of his miracles, and
allows their historical truth, although it under
takes to account for them in different ways.
And so the pharisees, when they were unable
to deny the reality of the miracles of Christ, pre
tended, as a last resort, that they were the work
of the devil. And even the apostate Judas, who
lived on terms of perfect intimacy with his Mas
ter, could not bring against him the charge of
deception, and confesses at last, in despair, that
he had betrayed innocent blood; whereas, if he
had known or suspected any dishonesty, he
would surely have justified his crime. And if
he did not know of any dishonesty, we may
safely conclude that there was none ; since the
imposture could not have been executed without
pecuniary means, which were placed in the hands
of Judas. Matt, xxvii. 4, seq. Those who op
posed Christianity during the first periods of its
existence — namely, Celsus, Hierocles, and Ju
lian, did not doubt the historical truth of the mi
racles of Christ, although they ascribed them to
magical arts. Morus, p. 26, 27.
IV. Proof from the fulfilment of Ancient Prophecies
in Christ.
In urging this proof, Jesus and his apostles
had primary, though by no means exclusive, re
ference to the Jews, in whose sacred books these
predictions respecting the Messiah were contain
ed. This proof will be particularly considered
in connexion with the office of Messiah, s. 89,
90, in the Article on Christ.
V. Proof from the Prophecies of Christ himself.
Every prediction of future incidents may pro
perly be regarded as a miracle. All which was
said, therefore, respecting the proof from mira-
F

62

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

cles, may be applied to this proof and the one
preceding, both of which are parts of the gene
ral proof from miracles.
With respect to the proof from prophecy, we
remark now more particularly, that in order to
its validity, (1) The prediction must be histori
cally true — i. e., must have been actually made
before the events to which it relates, and not
fabricated afterwards, nor even enriched by the
addition of any circumstances which may have
occurred in connexion with the fulfilment of the
original prophecy. (2) It must not, like most of
the oracles of the ancient heathen world, hide its
meaning under an artful ambiguity of expression.
(3) The exact and perfect fulfilment of the pre
diction must be capable of proof from history.
If any prediction answers these conditions, it
must be allowed to come from God, and to be of
the nature of a miracle, 2 Pet. i. 19.
God only can foresee future and fortuitous
events. When a man therefore foretells events
of this nature, he proves that he is instructed
and commissioned by God. The Jewish pro
phets who laid claim to the title of divine am
bassadors were required, therefore, in proof of
their pretensions, to foretell the future. Christ
himself made use of this proof to support his
own claims, John, xiii. 19; xiv. 29. He fore
told, in the most distinct and accurate manner,
his own impending fate, (Matt. xvi. 21, seq.
Luke, xviii. 31 — 33 ;) and also that of his dis
ciples, Matt. x. 18, seq. He predicted that his
religion would prevail upon the earth, and con
tinue to the end of the world ; and this, too, at a
time when its destruction must have appeared
to every one in the highest degree probable.
He predicted the destruction of the temple, and
the overthrow of the Jewish state by the Romans,
Matt. xxrv. ; Luke, xxi. This latter prediction
was very minute, and was fulfilled, according
to the testimony of Josephus, in every particu
lar. Cf. the valuable treatises on the prophecies,
collected by Hurd and Halifax. Thomas New
ton, Treatise on the prophecies which have
been remarkably fulfilled. Less, Wahrheit der
christlichen Religion, s. 472, ff. Gottingen,
1785. Morus, p. 24, seq., s. 14, seq.
Note. — It thus appears, that in investigating
the truth of Christianity we must proceed as
we do when we investigate any subjects of an
historical nature. We must believe what we are
taught in the holy scriptures, upon the authority
of the testimony by which it is supported. We
are indeed gratified to find other reasons, beside
positive divine testimony, on which to found our
belief in the truths of religion; but these addi
tional reasons are not essential to our belief.
And in cases where we are unable to discover
them, we may believe upon the simple divine
testimony. Nor are we chargeable with credu

lity in so doing, any more than when we be
lieve, on credible testimony, any fact which may
for a time be incomprehensible.
Cf. Joh. Friedr. Kleuker, Neue Prufung und
Erklariing der vorzuglichsten Beweise fiir die
Wahrheit und den gottlichen Ursprung des
Christenthums, wie der Offenbarungiiberhaupt,
3 Bde, Riga, 1787—94, 8vo. Koppen, Die
Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit, Ausg.
2, Rostock and Leipzig, 1797-8, 8vo. Storr,
Doctrina; Christianae, &c, p. 21, seq. Siiskind
(Prof, of theology at Stuttgard), Eine histo-
risch — exegetische Untersuchung, In welchem
Sinne hat Jesus die Gottlichkeit seiner Religion
und Sittenlehre behauptet? Tubingen, 1802,
8vo. Hensler, Die Wahrheit und Gottlichkeit
der christlichen Religion, in der Kiirze darge-
stellt, s. 33 — 48. SECTION VIII.
OF THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES OF THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, OR THE HIGHER
DIVINE INFLUENCE ENJOYED BY THE SACRED
WRITERS. Introductory Remarks.
1. The two following positions — viz., the doc
trines taught in the books of the Bible are of di
vine origin, and these books themselves are given
by God, are by no means the same, and need to
be carefully distinguished. The divinity of the
doctrines of the Bible was considered in s. 7 ; but
this does not necessarily involve the divinity of
the Bible itself. The doctrines of revelation
are frequently contained in books of devotion,
for example, but it is not pretended that on this
account these books are of divine origin. The
truth and divinity of the Christian religion might
be satisfactorily proved if the books of the New
Testament were acknowledged to be merely ge
nuine, and the authors of them merely credible;
so that the divinity of the Christian religion need
not be considered as depending on the divinity
of the holy scriptures. The two things were dis
tinguished from each other as early as the time
of Melancthon.
Religion, therefore, is more concerned, as
Michaelis has justly observed, in having proot
for the authenticity and genuineness than for the
inspiration of the sacred volume. Still the sin
cere friend of truth will surely be rejoiced in
finding reason to believe in the immediate divine
origin of the books of our religion. If this higher
divine influence, called inspiration, were not en
joyed by the apostles in those instructions which
they have left us, how easily could we be dis
turbed by the suspicion that they misunderstood
some of the doctrines of Christianity, or failed
to exhibit them in a proper manner! They
were liable, we might then say, from their de
voted attachment to the person of Christ, and

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

63

their high esteem for his character, to adopt
false and exaggerated opinions respecting his
nature, and his future exaltation. In this way,
if these books were not believed to be given by
inspiration of God, the most important positive
doctrines of Christianity might be considered
doubtful ; as has been done, in fact, in modern
times, by those who deny the inspiration of the
scriptures. 2. Inspiration has' been defined in different
ways. Cf. the historical sketch, s. 9, 10. It
may be best defined, according to the representa
tions of the scriptures themselves, to be an ex
traordinary divine influence by which the teachers
of religion were instructed what and how they
should write or speak, while discharging the duties
of their office. There is no need of any distinc
tion, betwen their oral and written discourses.
Morus, p. 30, s. 24. The correctness of
this definition will hereafter appear from the
texts which will be cited from the New Testa
ment. Note. — It may be regarded as a settled point
that inspiration is not impossible, and that no
argument a priori can be urged against the his
torical evidence of the fact. This was truly
remarked by Kant, Religion innerhalb der Gran-
zen der reinen Vernunft, 2 Ausg. Konigsberg,
1793, 8vo; and also by Fichte, Versuch einer
Kritik aller Offenbarung, 2 Ausg. Konigsberg,
1793, 8vo. I. Inspiration of the New Testament.
I. This cannot be proved from the testimony
of the fathers. They can command belief only
when they testify respecting things which could
be known by observation ; such as the authen
ticity of a book, or the age of the writer. Nor
can the divine origin of the Bible be proved by
the argument by which we prove the divine
origin of the doctrines it contains — viz., the in
ternal witness of the Holy Spirit, s. 7. Still less
can it be proved from the miracles which the
sacred writers performed. These arguments for
the inspiration of the Bible were unknown to the
ancients, and were first employed in the seven
teenth century by the theologians of Helmstadt,
who succeeded Calixtus.
2. The great argument upon which protest
ants rely in proving the inspiration of the scrip
tures presupposes only the genuineness of the
books, and the credibility of* the authors of the
New Testament. Vide s. 7; cf. Morus, p. 17 —
20, s. 3—9, and p. 32, s. 28. We hold that
every book of the New Testament which is ge
nuine, and which was really written by an apos
tle, is inspired, or written under a special divine
influence. In proof of this point, we rely upon
the express testimony of Jesus, who explicitly
and solemnly promised to his disciples a peculiar
divine assistance whenever they should be call

ed upon to teach, confirm, or defend his reli
gion, to the service of which he had consecrated
them. Christ promised his disciples this peculiar
divine assistance on four different occasions : —
(a) when he first sent them forth, Matt. jl. 19,
20 ; (6) in a discourse in which he commis
sions them to publish his religion, Luke, xii.
11, 12; (c) when he predicted the destruction
of Jerusalem, Mark, xiii. 11; Luke, xxi. 14;
(d) in his last address to his disciples, John,
xiv. — xvi. On these occasions he promised
them tb itvtvpa aywv, an extraordinary divine
influence to attend them constantly, and secure
them against error. He said to them in Mark,
that when they spoke under this divine impulse,
it would not be they who spoke, but the Holy
Spirit, (ovx tats vpsi$ ol XaT&vvtes, 6xko\ to
7ivivjia tb oyww.) He forbade them to pre
meditate what they should say before judicial
tribunals, since they should then be taught by
the Divine Spirit, not only what but how they
should speak, (jmJ fiipipi.vriarjtt rtwj r) ti tetoj-
arjts' So^flEfttQ yap vplv x. t. ft,.) The object
of the apostles, in those discourses in which
the divine assistance was promised, was not
only to defend themselves, but to give instruc
tion in Christianity.
Now, if the apostles were assisted in this
manner in their discourses, which, were merely
oral, and of course of a very temporary and li
mited advantage, how much. more should they
be assisted in their written instructions, which
were destined to exert a more lasting and extend
ed influence ! " Est enim scriptural etprsedica-
tionis par ratio. Quae enim voce praedicabatur
doctrina, ea postea juvandaa memorial causa con-
signabatur Uteris, et quas causa erat cur praedi-
cationem ex divina inspiratione oporteret peragi,
ea militabatpro scriptione eo magis, quod scrip-
tura deberet esse medium doctrina? ejusdem in1
corrupte ad finem mundi usque conservandae, et
ad posteritatem propaganda;." Joh. Musaeus
in Spinosismo, p. 69. Divine assistance was
promised to the apostles, in general terms, in
the discharge of their duties as teachers, whe
ther they spake or wrote ; and the words %.atew
and rtapaxaXnv are applied with equal propriety
to speaking and writing. According to John,
xiv. — xvi., Christ promised his disciples that so
often as the circumstances of time and place
might require, they should enjoy the constant,
uninterrupted assistance of the Holy Spirit, as
their Paracletus, their counsellor, and assistant.
According to John, xvi. 7 — 11, the Holy Spirit
would convince the world through them^ (by
their writing, therefore, as well as speaking,')
And finally, the apostles and evangelists them
selves ascribe the same authority to their writ
ings as to their oral instructions, John, xx. 31 ;
1 John, i. 1 — 4; 2 Thess. ii. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 1,

64

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

coll. n. 13; Ephes. iii. 3, seq.; Acts, xv. 23,
seq. The Holy Spirit, beside the general assistance
which he would render the apostles, should, ac
cording to the promise of Christ, reveal to them
many things of which Christ had not spoken,
John, xvi. 12 — 15. That in their teaching they
might be secure from mistake, even with respect
to knowledge which they might have acquired
in the unaided use of their own faculties, he
should remind them (y7touvri<sei,) of all that Christ
had taught them ; and himself instruct them in
everything (SiScfeit, itavta) necessary for the
discharge of the duties of their office, John, xiv.
26. He should reveal to them future events,
John, xvi. 13 ; endow them, when necessary,
with miraculous powers, Mark, xvi. 17 ; correct
their mistakes, and impart to them new instruc
tions whenever they were called for, John, xvi.
12; xiv. 26. So that whatever the apostles
taught might be regarded as coming from God.
This testimony of Christ is the foundation of
the doctrine of the inspiration of the New Tes
tament. And from this testimony we see clearly
the propriety of the definition of inspiration
given in the introductory remarks. In order to
shew in what estimation the apostles held their
own writings and those of their fellow-labour
ers, it deserves to be mentioned, that the epis
tles of Paul were placed, by Peter on a level
with the scriptures of the Old Testament, which
were then regarded by both Jews and Christians
|i as divine, 2 Pet. iii. 16.
These promises of special divine assistance
were not, indeed, originally made to Mark and
Luke, who were not apostles. But each of them
was the disciple and assistant of an apostle.
"Mapxo; pa$ntri$ xai tpusvsvtvis TLttpov, xai
wvtb$ ta VTib Jiitpov X7jpvtsa6fisva iyypafyui; rjpt.lv
itapiSuxE," Irenaeus, Adversus Haeres. III. 1.
Luke stood in a similar relation to Paul, by
v whom his writings were supposed to be sanc
tioned. " Lucae digestum Paulo adscribere
solent," Tertullian, Adversus Marc. IV. 5.
The writings of Mark and Luke, therefore, being
either dictated or sanctioned by inspired apos
tles, must be regarded as possessing divine au
thority. " Potest magistrorum videri, quae dis-
cipuli promulgarint," Tertullian, ubi supra, IV.
5. Besides, as they were the companions and
fellow-labourers of the apostles, they may be
supposed to have been endowed, as such, with
the higher gifts of teaching, to have enjoyed the
same divine influence when they wrote and
spake, and therefore to be entitled to equal cre
dit with the others in what they teach. Nor
were these promises originally made even to
Paul, who was not, like the other apostles, a
companion of Jesus ; but they were afterwards
extended to him, since he was appointed an

apostle by Jesus himself, and enjoyed all the
privileges of an apostle, and was acknowledged
by the others as one of their own number
Morus, p. 19, s. 7.
II. The Inspiration of the Old Testament.
The Jews at the time of Christ generally con
sidered the books of the Old Testament to be in
spired ; by which they did not mean, merely,
that the doctrines contained in them were of di
vine origin, but that the books themselves were
divine, being the productions of inspired pro
phets. Vide Josephus, Contra Apionem, I. 7.
They all agreed in this point, although they had
different opinions respecting the mode and the
degrees of inspiration. It is not enough to say
that Christ and the apostles did not disclaim this
prevailing opinion of the Jews ; they assented to
it, and presupposed and confirmed its truth.
They received the Old Testament, in all its
parts, as divine. The texts in which the several
books of the Old Testament are cited, are enu
merated by Storr, Biblical Theology, -vol. 1, s.
13, 14 (of the translation.)* Now if Christ and
his apostles were inspired men, as has been
shewn, No. 1, their testimony with respect to
the inspiration of the ancient scriptures is deci
sive. And this testimony affords the most brief
and convincing proof which can be offered for
the inspiration of the Old Testament. Vide
Morus, p. 23, s. 13.
It is worthy of remark, that though Christ
and his apostles laboured to subvert the Jewish
dispensation, and to establish a more perfect one
in its place ; they still regarded the Mosaic doc
trine, institute, and writings, notwithstanding
their imperfections, as divine. These imperfec
tions were inevitable to the ancient economy,
which was designed for the world while yet in
its infancy, and incapable of a higher instruc
tion. That the apostles assented to the Jewish opi
nion respecting the inspiration of the Old Tes
tament, is abundantly evident from various and
explicit passages in their writings. Their opi
nions on this subject are exhibited with most
clearness in the two following texts : —
1. 2 Tim. iii. 14—17. In this passage, Paul
exhorts Timothy to hold fast the doctrine which
was taught by the apostles, because they were
inspired teachers, and because their doctrine was
accordant with the ancient scriptures. In ver.
14, he mentions the first reason: "Continue
thou in the things which thou hast learned
EtSiij rtopa tlvos tuo$ts." In ver. 15 he men
tions the second reason : Continue thou in the
things which thou .hast learned (for this is the

¦1.7* Pa,geS 66~72' in the edition forming part or
Ward s Lidbaky oi Standard Divinitt.

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

65

force of xai,) because thou hast from a child known
the holy scriptures (of the Old Testament,) -ra
ovrduivu BE aopCaai. bis Gotnplav Svi rtCstcos trjs iv
Xpiatip 'lr;aoi, which can instruct you in the
knowledge of that salvation which we obtain by
the Christian doctrine. Here Paul expresses his
opinion that the Old Testament leads to Christ,
and is preparatory to Christianity. In ver. 16,
he proceeds to say, Ilaaa ypacpi; ^soitvcvatos (for
J^EortvEDOfos oiiffa, according to Clemens of Alex
andria, Theodoret, the Syriac version, the Vul
gate, and nearly all the theologians of the six
teenth century ; otherwise the article must be
inserted before ypatyrj, and the comma after it be
retained,) xai uttysfapos rtpbs1 biba^xa'kio.v, rtpbs
t%sy%ov, rtpbs irfttvoplkosw, rtpoj rtaiStlav tr\v iv
hixawavvft. Ml inspired scripture (no part of it
excepted ) is also profitable for instruction (in the
Christian religion), for conviction (confutation
of errors, &c.),/or improvement, and for disci
pline in virtue or piety. Ver. 17, "I»a aptios
ij> o toy ©eoij av^ptartos, rtpoj 7tav tpyov dyc£6v
i%natusp.ivos, By means of the Old-Testament scrip-
lures the servant of God (Christian teacher) may
become fitted, and truly qualified for his import
ant work. In this passage, therefore, Paul ex
presses the opinion, that the books of the Old
Testament are inspired, and that, when rightly
employed, they are useful even in Christian in
struction. 2. 2 Pet. i. 19, 20. Vide Scripta Varii Argu-
menti, t. i. p. 1, seq. In this passage, Paul
shews, in opposition to Jews and judaizing he
retics, that Jesus was the true Messiah. In
shewing this, he now appeals to those predic
tions of the Jewish prophets which had been
fulfilled in him. Ver. 19, " We (apostles) find
the oracles of the prophets (respecting Christ)
much more convincing now (sinoe they have
been fulfilled ;) and ye will do well to attend to
them. Formerly, before their fulfilment, they
were obscure, like a lantern shining feebly on a
dark path, until the appearance of Christ upon
the earth, from which event a clearer light now
proceeds, and we can better understand the pro
phecies." Ver. 20, "Nor could the prophets
themselves of the Old Testament give a clear
explanation (irtCKveis from irti%mw, explicare,
Mark, iv. 34,) of their own oracles, because
they had only indistinct conceptions of the sub
jects on which they spake, and knew only so
much as was communicated to them, from time
to time, by divine revelation." (This is the
context of ver. 21 ; and what is here said agrees
with the passage, 1 Pet. i. 10 — 12.) Ver. 21,
Ov yap Sshripati, (ifin, yen) cw^pu7iov rjvsz&j
riot's ttpofyrjttia, d%%' irtb rtvcvuatos ayiov (divine
impulse and guidance) typopivoi {toipta'&ai, mo-
veri, agitari, — the word by which the Greeks
commonly described the inspiration of their
9

minstrels, prophets, soothsayers of the temple
of Apollo, &c. ; vide s. 9 ;) i%dx^aav aywi ©Eoi
av^puriot, (the prophets of the Old Testament,)
for no oracle was delivered from the mere will of
man, (i. e., whether they should speak, and
what and how they should speak, did not depend
on the will of the prophets ;) but the ancient pro
phets spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The prophets themselves acknowledged, that
whatever they taught, whether by speaking or
writing, was dictated to them by God, or the
Divine Spirit, and was published by his com
mand, Ex. iv. 12, 15, 16; Deut. xviii. 18; Jer.
i. 6, seq. ; Amos, iii. 7 ; Is. Ixi. 1 ; Cf. Morus,
p. 20, seq.
This passage from Peter proves the inspira
tion only of the prophetical part of the Old Tes
tament, and not, strictly speaking, of the rest.
But from the two passages taken together, it is
obvious that the apostles believed the Old Tes
tament, as a whole, to be inspired. We can find
no evidence in all the New Testament that
Christ and his apostles dissented in the least
from the opinion commonly received among the
Jews on this subject. But the Jews regarded
the entire collection of the Old-Testament scrip
tures as divine. They were frequently called
by Josephus and Philo, &iai ypa^at, tspa ypdp-
fiata, and always mentioned with the greatest
veneration. Divine inspiration (irtlrtvoia ®soi)
is expressly conceded by Josephus to the pro
phets .¦ and as none but prophets were permitted
by the Jews to write their national history, and
none but priests to transcribe it, (as appears
from the same author ;) we conclude that inspi
ration was also conceded by him and his con
temporaries to their historical books. Josephus,
Contra Apionem, I. 6, 7, 8. Cf. Morus, p. 20.
Such were the prevailing opinions of the Jews
of the first and second centuries, and long be
fore the birth of Christ; and to these opinions
Christ and his apostles plainly assented ; they
must, therefore, be adopted by all who allow
Christ and his apostles to be divine teachers.
The contemptuous expressions which many have
permitted themselves to use with regard to the
Old Testament are, as Morus justly observed,
Epitome, p. 24, Christiana indignx voces.
The doubt may arise whether some of the his
torical books can be considered as the produc
tions of prophets, as they were compiled from
other works after the Babylonian exile. But no
essential difference is made, even if what is sup
posed be true ; since the most important parts
of these historical books were extracted from
larger histories, and ascribed to the prophets by
whom they were originally written. So the ex
tracts made in the books of Kings and Chroni
cles, from a larger history of Jewish kings, ar«
ascribed to Isaiah.
r2

66

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

SECTION IX.
HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS, COMPARING THE CON
CEPTIONS AND EXPRESSIONS OF THE ANCIENT
WORLD RESPECTING IMMEDIATE DIVINE INFLU
ENCE. I. The Idea of Inspiration Universal.
We find that every nation of the ancient
world believed in immediate divine influences,
although the particular conceptions which they
entertained on this subject varied with their
local circumstances, and the different degrees of
their intellectual culture : but in consequence of
the prevalence of a strict and scholastic philoso
phy in modern times, our own conceptions on
this subject have become widely different from
those which formerly prevailed, and can hardly
be brought into agreement with them. The at
tempt has frequently been made to reconcile the
modes of thinking and speaking respecting di
vine influences, which were common in all an
tiquity, with the philosophical principles of our
own day. But this attempt has not been very
successful; and the entirely different methods
which have been adopted by writers to effect
this reconciliation are a sufficient proof of the
difficulty of the undertaking.
From the above remarks we may conclude —
1. That since these conceptions are found to
exist among all people, and to be everywhere
very much alike, especially in the early stages
of cultivation, they must be natural to the hu
man mind, and result directly from its original
constitution. 2. That if God has seen fit to make a direct
revelation to any particular man or nation, he
has accommodated himself in so doing to these
original conceptions of the mind, and has, as it
were, met them on the way in which they were
coming towards him. This might be reason
ably expected from the Divine wisdom and good
ness ; for how should a wise and good father
deem it improper to adapt the instructions which
he gives to his children in their education to
their natural expectations, and to answer the de
mands of their minds ? This shews us the rea
son why true inspiration, such as the apostles
and prophets enjoyed, resembles so much in its
external signs, how wide soever the internal dif
ference may be, the false and imaginary inspira
tion to which the prophets and teachers of the
heathen world pretended. The reason of this
resemblance between real and pretended inspi
ration should be carefully noted, because the
comparison of the two has been frequently turn
ed to bad account.
3. That the explanations which are frequently
given of those passages of the Bible which treat
of inspiration cannot be true. Some modern
writers explain away the sense of these passages
till nothing seems to be left of literal inspira

tion, and everything accords with their philo
sophical system. But by applying these his
torical observations to these passages, we find
that the sacred writers intended to teach a lite
ral inspiration in the proper sense, and were so
understood by their contemporary hearers and
readers.
II. Rude Nations believed Great Men to be Inspired.
Nations in the first stages of improvement
believe that everything which is great, which
excites their wonder, or surpasses their compre
hension, is the result of immediate divine
ao-ency, and overlook the second causes to which
these effects are to be ascribed. Accordingly,
they regard useful inventions, laws, and reli
gious institutions, as gifts bestowed directly by
God, and the distinguished men through whom
these blessings are bestowed as the favourites
and messengers of God, and therefore entitled
to the highest reverence. This statement is
abundantly proved from the mythology of the
ancient nations, and especially of Greece.
Through these men God was supposed to speak ;
and what they said was regarded as the word of
God, and they themselves as holy or consecrated,
as is implied in all the ancient languages. Thus
minstrels and prophets were called by the an
cient Greeks ayua and "^ekm,, by the sacred
writers o^tftip, D'rfwn b^n, 2 Kings, i. 9, aym
®eoi w/Spurtot,, 2 Pet. i. 21 ; also d-n^j, which,
according to its Arabic etymology, would denote
messengers, ambassadors, (of God.) The term
JMrtportoj (Homer, Iliad, XII. 228) signifies
one who speaks in the place of God, votes. Cicero,
Pro Archia Poeta, VIII., says that poets were
supposed divina quodam spiritu inflari, and that
they were called sancti, quod quasi deorum
aliquo dono atque munere commendati nobis esse
videantur ; and XII., that they semper apud
omnes sancti sunt habiti atque dicti. Cf. Dresde,
Proluss. duo de notione prophetae in codice
sacro, Wittenberg, 1788 — 89. Morus, p
20, 21.
III. Great Men believed themselves to be Inspired.
Those who felt themselves urged on to great
and noble deeds, or irresistibly compelled to
communicate their feelings to others, believed
the impulses by which they were actuated to be
supernatural, and that they were the organs
through whom the Deity spake and acted.
Many of the sages and philosophers of early an
tiquity expressed this belief respecting them
selves; and to doubt their sincerity, or to sup
pose that they made such pretensions, as artful
politicians, for the purpose of deceiving theii
contemporaries, would betray great ignorance
of the history of mankind. The minstrels and
prophets among the ancient Greeks believed no
less firmly than their hearers or readers that they

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

67

Were actuated by a divine impulse. This ap
pears evident from the writings of Homer.
What Cicero said, Dc Natura Deorum. II. 66,
Nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino un-
quamfuit, was universally believed in all anti
quity. Accordingly, everything great and noble
in the thoughts or actions of the ancient heroes,
commanders, kings, and sages, all their great
undertakings, their wars and victories, were
ascribed to the Deity working in them as instru
ments of its own purposes.
It appears, then, from Nos. II. III., that the
teachers and prophets of the heathen world, as
well as those of the Bible, both believed them
selves and were believed by others to be in
spired. And the question here naturally arises,
whether the inspiration of the latter as well as
that of the former may not have been feigned or
imaginary. This question may be firmly an
swered in the negative, with reasons which are
perfectly satisfactory to the unprejudiced in
quirer. The teachers and prophets of the Bible
were enabled, through the divine wisdom and
goodness, to give such proof of the reality of
their inspiration as those of the heathen world
could never offer.
IV. Different Nations agree in their Representations
and Ideas of Inspiration.
The conceptions formed of the Deity in the
early ages were extremely gross and sensual.
Men in the savage state have always supposed
God to possess a body, and every way to resem
ble themselves. Their conceptions respecting
his influence would not, of course, be more re
fined than respecting his nature. In this parti
cular, as well as in many others, the ideas
which the human mind has entertained have
been everywhere very much the same, as is
proved by the' agreement of various languages.
Almost all the ancient nations ascribed the di
vine influence, by which the confidents of hea
ven were inspired to speak or act, to the word
or mouth of God, or to the breath proceeding out
of his mouth ; and they accordingly regarded this
divine influence itself as literally inspiration.
All this is shewn by the language employed to
designate their ideas. Vide John, xx. 22. The
oracles of the prophets were called among the
Hebrews nirp ^b, nirv; n:n, iji ; amoflg the Greeks,
tyrjpr}, <fdats, Xoywv and among the Romans, ora-
eula, derived, according to Cicero, from ore sive
oratione Deorum, And these divine influences
are expressed in all the ancient languages by
terms which literally designate blowing, breath
ing, breathing upon, &c. ; in the Hebrew,
pin, DiriSx rvn, iynpT rvn, mrp no nn ;¦ in the Greek,
itvia, ip,7tviu, rtvivpa (ayuw or ©eov,) eprtvtvtlis,
Irtlrtvoia, Osou, also ^EortvEvafo;, 2 Tim. iii. 16,
(vide s. 8 ;) sometimes, xaxiiv iv rtvcvpovet, ©sou
for ^lottvcvatov tlva*, or irtlrtvoiav ©eov * %a.v in

the Latin, inspiratio, inspiratus, (a spirando,)
and spiritu divino inslinctum esse, Livy , V. ¦ 5,
afflatus Dei, afflatum esse n'umine, infiari divino
spiritu, Cicero, Pro Archia Poeta, VIII. From
this agreement in the terms by which the an
cient nations designated inspiration, we argue
the agreement of their original ideas respecting
it; and we conclude that these terms, when
used in the Bible, must be understood to denote
immediate divine influences, since this is the
only sense in which they were used in the an
cient world. Cf. s. 19, II., and s. 39, 1.
V. Inspired Men often spake what they did not
understand.
The ancient nations believed that one whose
words and actions were thus under the divine
influences, was himself, at the time of inspira
tion, merely passive. Mentes declares to Tele-
machus, Odyssey, I. 200, 201 —
iyu itavTEVtrOfiat, as iv\ Svjm
'ASapaioi @aX\owt.
Cf. Odyssey, XV. 172. They also believed
that the soothsayer or minstrel did not himself
understand, and could not explain to others, what
he spake, or rather, what God spake through
him, while he was inspired. This opinion was
a natural consequence of the former. In con
formity with this general belief was the opinion
of the Jews, as expressed in the Talmud; the
prophets themselves did not, in many cases, under
stand the import of what they predicted. The
same opinion is expressed by Josephus and
Philo ; and Peter says, 2 Pet. i. 20, rtpotyitita
l&ias irUXwias oi yivttat,. Vide s. 8. We find
the same thing expressed in innumerable pas
sages of the Grecian writers. Plato, in his dia
logue rtspi *IXid$os ("La*), puts the prevailing
notion of the Greeks into the mouth of Socra
tes : — "Kovipov zpqpa itovyptrfi ititi, xai rttrptbv, xai
tspov xai ov rtpotspov oXoatE rtoitiv riplv av ej&eoj
te yivrptai, xai exfypav, xai 6 wii$ pnxiti iv avtqt
ivy. ecoj 8' av tovti £%% to xtyjpa, aSvvatos rtav
rtobEtp iativ ai&pwrfoj, xai XpntSpcpb'Eiv . . . . ov
yap ti%vn taita xiyovaw, aftAa ^Eta Swofiti . . .
6 "Ve6{, i^aipovfttvos tovtutv vovv, tovtoif xprjto*
vrtrfpitais, xai tols xpj/ff/tcjSots, Xai tols pd.vttot
tols knots' iiva Mtfits ot, axovovtES Et&HipEv bti ov%
ovtoi siaiv ol tavta XeyovtsSi avtvi TioXXov a|&a,
ois votjj pv\ Ttdpiatw, aXX 6 "*eoj iotw o xiyav.
Sia tovtuv Se q&iyyEtai jtpbs f/uds. " The poet
cannot compose, nor the soothsayer prophesy,
unless he is inspired by the Deity, and trans
ported, as it were, beyond himself. He then
loses sight of the rules of art, and is borne away
by the divine impulse. The Deity deprives
him of his own consciousness and reflection.
and employs him as an ambassador. It is not
he who speaks, but God who speaks through him."
True inspiration is described in very much the

68

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

same way, Mark, xiii. 11. Again, Plato says
in his dialogue rtspl 'Apstrjs (Mivuv), 'Op^ujf av
xaXolpEV $eiovs, oitWES vovv p.?j Ezovtss, TtoXXa
xai UEydxa xatop§ois<4i <Sv rtpdttovBi xai xiyovai,
"poets and prophets are justly called divine,
because while they declare important things,
they themselves do not understand what they
say." In the Odyssey, I. 347—350, Telema-
chus thus checks Penelope in attempting to
control the bard,
W)TEp kfih, rl T dp* dv tpSovki; Ipiripov dotUv
TspnEW Simp ol v6os Spitvrai ; oil vv r' dot Sol
Aitioi, <iXX<£ tto&i Zevs airtos, h te di&ttiaiv
'AvSp&aiv dXtpriargtriv Bttois ^SeYijihjv EKaarbi.
Phemius declares, Odyssey, xxh. 346,
AvTotii&aKTOs b" ei/jLt' &£dj 6e fiot h tppsoiv otpas
XlavTOtas Evtyvo-Bv.
In the Sybilline Oracles, an inspired speaker
says, ovte yb:p o75a,
'O tl \syoi, KEXsrai 6' b Ss&s ra 'ekogt' dyopEvstv.
So it is said respecting Balaam, (Num. xxiii.
5,) that the Lord put words into his mouth. The
ancient minstrels and poets, in whose produc
tions art had as yet no share, were called simply
ooicW and Slot. aoiSol. So they are always called
in Homer. The word Ttoirjtris is of later origin,
and was unknown until poetry had become an
art. Cf. Scripta Varii argumenti, p. 28, 29,
ed. 2.
VII. Inspiration described by terms indicating
Violence.
The impulse which is felt by those who are
inspired is commonly very strong and irresist
ible. They often betray their emotion by an
unusual strength of voice, and very violent bo
dily movements ; hence, in all the ancient lan
guages the terms which designate the words and
actions of those who are inspired convey the
idea of violence of mental feeling and bodily ac
tion — e. g., opprj (impetus), upfiaopai,. Those
who were inspired were said, corripi, agitari
Deo, xati%EB$atf ix ©eoJ, tyEpsoSat,, (2 Pet. i. 21),
pati Deum ; and inspiration itself was called
furor divinus, pavia (jiaivia%ai.) Accordingly,
the words which in the ancient languages signi
fy to predict, generally signify too, to rage, to
act like a madman, insanire—e. g., vaticinari in
Latin, and in Hebrew Minn, 1 Sam. xviii. 10.
The impulses attending inspiration were like
wise represented in the writings of the Asiatics
as a spiritual and sacred intoxication ,- because
they transported a man beyond himself, and
strained and elevated all the powers of his soul.
Hence the figurative language employed, Luke,
i. 15; Ephes. v. 18.. The ancient prophets and
poets, as we see from Homer, were accustomed

to employ music and song as a means of exciting
and increasing inspiration. Elisha did the same,
2 Kings, iii. 15. And the members of the
schools of the prophets were ever engaged in
these exercises, 1 Sam. x. 5, seq.
SECTION X.
OF THE VARIOUS THEORIES RESPECTING THE MAN
NER AND DEGREES OF INSPIRATION.
I. The Theory that Inspiration in the highest sense
was extended equally to all Scripture.
The theory that the divine assistance which
the sacred writers experienced extended to every
thing which they wrote, words and letters not
excepted, is doubtless one of the oldest in the
Christian church. In this view of the subject,
the sacred writers were merely the scribes or
amanuenses, of the Holy Spirit; and were often
compared by the ancients to flutes, upon which
the Spirit of God played. This comparison is
found in the writings of Justin, Athenagoras,
Macarius, and other fathers ; and also of the
modern theologians, Musaeus, Baier, Quenstedt,
and even of Schubert, in the middle of the eigh
teenth century.
This theory accords very well in many re
spects with the mode of thought and conception
which prevailed in the ancient world, (vide s.
9 ;) but it is very unlike the ideas which are
entertained on the subject of inspiration at the
present day. But it is still more important to
remark respecting it, that the sacred writers
themselves never profess to have enjoyed, while
writing, inspiration of such a nature. And that
they were not in reality the mere organs of the
Divi ne Spirit, whatever may have been supposed
by their contemporaries, must appear from a mo
ment's observation. For (1) we find that each
of the writers of the Bible has his own peculiar
style, which perfectly distinguishes him from
all the rest. It has indeed been said, that the
Holy Spiritaccommodated himself to the style of
each particular writer ; but the one who dictates
is not wont to accommodate himself to the style
of the amanuensis. (2) The manner in which
the sacred writers treat the subjects which they
introduce, — the costume with which they invest
them, is often, notwithstanding the dignity and
excellence of the subjects themselves, rude and
unpolished, and such as might be expected from
illiterate and uncultivated writers. This trait,
at least in their writings, must be ascribed to
their own agency. (3) In many cases the in
spired writers evidently made use of the pro
ductions of others : the evangelists composed
their histories in part from the previous accounts
of the life of Jesus; the later prophets, Ezekiel
and Jeremiah, frequently borrowed from the

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

69

oracles of Isaiah, &c. (4) The sacred histo
rians frequently appealed to the evidence of
their own senses for the facts which they relate,
to the testimony of others, to the records from
which they derived their information, and to
their own investigations, (Luke, i. 1 ;) from all
which it appears that they were not passive
under the divine influences, and that they were
not miraculously endowed with any knowledge
which they could obtain in the diligent use of
their own intellectual powers, since God does
not work miracles when they are unnecessary.
(5) They frequently speak in their own names,
send greetings, mention their private affairs (2
Tim. iv. 13, seq.), &c. (6) In some cases they
themselves make a distinction between their
own advice and the express command of God,
or of Christ, 1 Cor. vii. 25, coll. v. 40 ; 2 Cor.
viii. 10.
According to the conceptions of the ancient
world, (vide s. 9,) the very words employed
were in some cases, though not always, inspired ;
and by many writers, both of ancient and mo
dern times, the inspiration of the Bible has
been thought to extend even to the words in
which it was written. This opinion is advo
cated by Ernesti, Neue Theol. Bibliothek, b. iii.
b. 468, ff. The argument which he used, and
which is commonly urged, is this: thoughts
cannot be clearly communicated to the mind
without words; and therefore the latter, as well
as the former, must have been given to the in
spired writers by the Holy Spirit. But I may
obtain a person to write a book under my super
intendence and direction ; I may communicate
to him the ideas to be expressed, furnish him
with all the materials of the composition, and
suggest, whenever it is necessary, particular
words; and all this without dictating to him
every syllable and letter to be employed : I may
leave him, under my close supervision, to exe
cute the work in his own way. So Paul might
have been left by the Spirit to pursue his own
method in shewing that the Mosaic institute
must be abolished. But in other cases it seems
to be necessary that the Holy Spirit should
have communicated the- very words in which
the things revealed should be expressed ; as, for
example, in certain numbers, or names of persons
and places, which could not have *been known
except from revelation. Vide Morus, p. 35, n.
6. Considerations like these prepared the way
for the views which follow.
II. The Theory that Inspiration was extended in dif
ferent degrees to different portions of Scripture.
This theory was adopted in order to avoid the
difficulties resulting from the former. In this
view of the subject, the degrees of inspiration
vary with the character of the writer and the
i<iture of the subject. This was believed by

some of the ancients ; but theologians have never
been able to agree in deciding how many de
grees of inspiration there were, or in what way
they should be defined ; nor is it probable that,
on these points, they will ever perfectly agree,
since the inspired writers have left them unde
cided, and we are unable to determine with re
spect to objects which lie so wholly beyond the
circle of our experience. The following are
some of the principal attempts that have been
made to determine the manner and degrees of
inspiration : —
1. Some theologians are contented with the
general position, that there are different degrees
of inspiration, and do not think proper to deter
mine under what particular degree any given
passage was written. They go no further than
to say, that in writing on subjects of the first
importance, in communicating facts which could
have been learned only from revelation, and in
cases where there was peculiar liability to mis
take, the sacred writers enjoyed the highest de
gree of divine influence — the inspiration of words
(inspiratio verbalis) ; but that in treating of sub
jects of inferior interest — for example, of those
of a merely historical nature — they enjoyed no
higher assistance than was necessary to secure
them against error, to refresh their recollection
with the knowledge which they had before ac
quired, or perhaps to give the first impulse to
speak or write. These views of inspiration
were entertained by Michaelis, Doderlein, and
others. Calixtus thought that it was sufficient
to say, in general terms, that the sacred writers
were secured by divine influence against the
possibility of mistake. Cf. Morus, p. 36, s.
29, ii. 7. But considering that we are unable,
at the present time, to determine how much the
sacred writers knew respecting the several sub
jects of which they have treated, from their own
unaided study, and how much from the direct
teaching of the Holy Spirit, none of the theolo
gians above mentioned have attempted to define
accurately the degree of inspiration under which
particular portions of holy writ were composed.
2. Other theologians have denied that all the
books of the Bible Were inspired, or that the
whole of the inspired books was written under
special divine assistance. Those who have en
tertained this opinion may be subdivided into
different classes. Some go so far as to say,
that some parts of a book may be of divine ori
gin, while other parts of the same book are ol
human origin only, and must therefore be care
fully distinguished from the former.
If we ask, now, which parts — of the epistle
to the Romans, for example — are divine and
which human, we shall receive various answers.
Henry Holden, as cited by Richard Simon,
would say, that only those parts were to be re
ceived as inspired which the sacred writer*

70

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

themselves expressly declared were spoken by
God; and that the other parts, whether they
related to history or doctrine, were to be re
garded as human. Others would say, that what
ever related to the doctrines of religion was in
spired. Semler, in his Treatise on the Canon,
and likewise Kant, maintained that the general
moral utility of a work was the only criterion
by which its inspiration could be judged; that
an inspired book must therefore be calculated
to promote the moral improvement of all men
in all ages ; and that consequently those parts
only of our scriptures which had this tendency
were inspired.
According to the last opinion, some parts of a
book — those of universal application, and of ge
neral moral utility — are inspired, while other
parts of one and the same book, not possessing
these marks of divinity, are merely human.
To this view it may be objected, (I) that by
subjecting inspiration to the criterion of utility
it does the same as to deny it altogether; since
what might be received as divine by one, from
the general utility which he might suppose it to
possess, might be denied this character by an
other, as wanting, in his view, this mark of
inspiration. (2) It is chargeable with the error
of reasoning a priori upon a question of fact —
an error which cannot be justified; for if God
has seen fit to give special divine aids to any
individual, we are not to determine by our rea
sonings, and prescribe as it were to God, what
and how great they may or must have been.
(3) It does not correspond with the view of the
inspiration and divinity of a book entertained
by the ancient world, and of course by the
sacred writers. Vide s. 9. It is easy to see,
that while those who hold this opinion retain
the ancient words inspiration and divinity, they
endeavour to use them in such a sense as will
accord with the prevailing conceptions of our
own age, and with the principles of their philo
sophy. This opinion is not of recent origin. Tertul
lian says, "A nobis nihil omnino rejiciendum
est, quod pertinet ad nos : et legimus, omnem
scripturam sedificationi habilem divinitus inspi-
rari." De habitu mulierum, c. 3. He says
-this in order to defend the book of Enoch.
Note. — We may indeed decide that a divine
revelation cannot contain any doctrines subver
sive of the moral improvement and happiness
of men, which we have before shewn (Intro
duction, s. 3, 6) to be the great objects for which
a revelation was made. And we may conse
quently determine, that no book which contains
such hurtful doctrines can be inspired. So far
Kant, Fichte, and others, are right. But when
they undertake to prescribe to Supreme Wisdom
the means by which this end is to be attained,
they transcd.id their proper limits. These

means, it is obvious to every one, must vary
with the age, character, arid other circumstances
of those for whom they are intended. And
who can say, that positive religion may not be
a means of moral improvement, by giving effi
cacy to moral religion, and hence be revealed
and inspired? If positive doctrines were not
contained in the Bible, philosophers would soon
demonstrate that they must be contained in a
revelation made from God.
3. The great body of modern theologians,
both of the Romish and protestant churches,'
prefer a middle course between the theory first
mentioned and the opinions last cited. They
adopt, for the most part, the theory of Claude
Frassen, a' Franciscan monk and a scholastic
theologian of the seventeenth century, and sup
pose three degrees of inspiration.
(o) The first and highest degree of inspira
tion is, the revelation of things before unknown
to the sacred writers. This is called by Frassen,
inspiratio antecedens, but commonly by othei
writers, revelation ; who thus make a distinction
between inspiration and revelation, and hold that
revelation is indeed always attended by inspira
tion, but that inspiration is not, in every case,
preceded by revelation. Everything in the sa
cred scriptures, they say, is inspired, but every
thing there is not revealed; for much which is
contained in the Bible was known to the sacred
writers from their own reflection.
(b) The second degree of inspiration is, the '
security against error which God affords the sa
cred writers in the exhibition of doctrines or
facts with which they are already acquainted,
the care which he takes in the selection, truth,
and intelligibleness of the subjects introduced,
and the words by which tbey are expressed,
&c. This is called by Frassen, inspiratio con-
comitans. (c) The third degree of inspiration is, the
divine authority stamped upon writings, origin
ally composed without inspiration, by the ap
probation of inspired men, and is called inspira
tio consequens. This degree of inspiration is pre
dicated of the historical books of the Old Tes
tament, which were approved by Jesus and the
apostles; and of the gospels Mark and Luke,
which were approved by Peter and Paul, and
afterwards by John.
This theory is developed by Doddridge, and
still more fully by Tollner; the latter of whom
endeavours to shew, that the authority of the
holy scriptures as the source of our knowledge
in matters of faith is perfectly secured, even in
cases where only the lowest degree of inspira
tion is admitted. Vide Tollner, Die gottliche
Eingebung der heiligen Schrift.
4. Other theologians deem it sufficient to
shew that the prophets and apostles enjoyed a
higher divine assistance and support. Vide s.

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

71

8. They were induced in various ways, some
times by natural means, and sometimes by im
mediate divine direction, to write the sacred
books. They always wrote, as well as spoke,
as persons enjoying the influence of the Spirit
of God. This is the light in which inspiration
is regarded by Morus, p. 32, seq. s. 27, 28. He
did not think necessary to determine what par
ticular actus §E07tvivstlas was exerted in each
particular actus scribendi.
It may be well to remark the striking contrast
between the meagre productions of the fathers
of the first century and the rich and instructive
writings of the apostles, most of whom were
illiterate men. But how, the unprejudiced in
quirer will be compelled to ask, could the latter
have written in such a widely different manner,
and one so superior to that of the fathers, if they
had not enjoyed a higher divine assistance?
Note. — The following works on this subject
may be recommended to the attention of the stu
dent. Rich. Simon, Histoire Critique du V.
T., especially ch. 23 — 25 ; and the Letters of a
Dutch divine on the critical History of Simon,
edited by Le Clerc. The opinions contained in
this work, some of which are true, and others
false and partial, have been developed by mo
dern theologians. Among modern works, the
following are most distinguished : — (1) Semler,
Abhandlung von freyer Untersuchung des Ca
nons, 4 Thle, Halle, 1771—75, 8vo. The dif
ferent theories are here illustrated and examined.
This work induced Schmid, Muller, Pittiscus,
and others, to undertake the defence of the com
mon doctrine. (2) Tollner, Die gottliche
Eingebung der heiligen Schrift, Mitau und
Leipzig, 1782, 8vo. (3) Koppen, Die Bibel
ein Werk der gottlichen Weisheit. This book
contains many excellent observations on the
origin and collection of the different parts of the
Bible. (4) Fichte, Versuch einer Kritik ajler
Offenbarung, Konigsberg, 1793, 8vo — a pro
found inquiry respecting the possibility of direct
revelation, and the criteria by which it is to be
judged. (5) Sonntag, Doctrina inspirationis,
ejusque ratio, historia, et usus popularis, Hei
delberg, 1810, 8vo.
Note 2. — The teacher of religion should not
trouble the common people and the young with
the recondite investigations of ancient and mo
dern theologians respecting the nature, manner,
and degrees of inspiration, or respecting the an
cient mode of thought and expression on this
subject. In his public instructions he should
confine himself to the scriptural view of inspira
tion exhibited in s. 8. He should, as Calixtus
and Morus have done, give prominence to the
truth, that the sacred writers were, by divine
aid, perfectly secured against error. He should
explain to bis hearers the promises of assistance
whieh Christ gave his disciples. In doing this,

he will sufficiently establish and confirm their
faith. But he ought not by any means to with
hold this doctrine from those whom he is ap
pointed to teach, since it is a doctrine taught in
the Bible, and is calculated, as there exhibited,
to produce a deep and happy persuasion of the
truths of revealed religion. Nor should he at
tempt to modernize this doctrine, but should
rather labour to restore it to its early simpli
city. SECTION XI.
OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL ATTRIBUTES OF
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Since the sixteenth century, the theologians
of the protestant church have endeavoured to ob
viate various opinions, respecting the nature and
use of the Bible, which appeared to them erro
neous, by treating in their systems of the attri
butes of the holy scriptures. Most of what they
say on this subject is aimed against the doc
trines of the Romish church. The following are
the principal attributes of the Bible : —
I. Tlie Intelligibleness of the Holy Scriptures.
The protestant church has maintained from
the first, in opposition to the Romish, that the
holy scriptures are intelligible. The popes have
always been anxious to crush a spirit of free in
quiry in the members of their church, to subject
belief to human authority, and to arrogate try
themselves a judicial power, even in matters of
faith. But they saw, at once, that the free use
of the Bible would be very much in the way of
the success oftheir designs ; and therefore either
wholly interdicted, or at least encumbered the
common use of it, under the pretence that it was
full of obscurities, calculated to mislead or con
found the faith of the laity, which ought to de
pend upon tradition or ecclesiastical authority.
Vide Introduction, s. 7, III. and Art. I. s. 13.
This extravagant opinion, however, is only re
ceived by the more zealous adherents of the
papal see, and is rar,ely entertained by the theo
logians of the Gallican church.
On the other hand, many protestant theolo
gians have entertained opinions respecting the
intelligibleness of the Bible which are equally
extravagant. The truth on this subject may,
perhaps, be best expressed as follows : — The
holy scriptures are so written, that the first read
ers, for whom they were especially designed,
could understand the greater part of them with
out the necessity of laborious interpretation, and
that even we can obtain from them a clear ac
quaintance with those doctrines of religion whic^
are essential to our improvement, comfort, and
salvation. There is no need of proving more
than this. The following remarks will illustrate
the view here expressed ¦ —

72

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

1. Many parts of these books must have been
unavoidably obscure even to the contemporaries
of the sacred writers, from the nature of the sub
jects of revelation. Many of the subjects
brought to view in the epistles of Paul were
hard to be understood, even at his own time, 2
Pet. iii. 16. And much that was written under
divine influence was unintelligible even to the
sacred writers themselves. Vide s. 9, V. But
as Buddeus justly observes, " alia est perspi-
cuitas rerum, alia verborum."
2. The writers of the Bible employed the lan
guage and style which were common in the age
in which they lived, and understood by the
public for which they wrote ; they expressed
themselves in conformity with the modes of
speech and thought then prevalent : of course,
their writings must have been, for the most part,
intelligible to their contemporaries, to whom
they had always primary reference in what they
wrote. 3. But in consequence of this very circum
stance, much which was then perfectly intelli
gible is so no longer. Our language is wholly
unlike the Hebrew or Hebraistic Greek in which
they wrote. And our manners, customs, opi
nions, and modes of thinking, are equally
changed. If we were able to place ourselves in
the circumstances and enter into the feelings of
the inspired authors, we should find their writ
ings comparatively easy and intelligible. But
common Christians cannot do this ; and even the
most learned will find passages in the Old and
New Testaments which, after all their efforts,
will remain doubtful and obscure. If, however,
we set aside all passages of this nature, we shall
find enough left to give us a clear and sure
knowledge of the essential doctrines of religion.
These difficult and obscure passages commonly
have no bearing, or, at most, a very remote one,
upon the truths of salvation. And it is fre
quently the case, that when an important doc
trine or duty is expressed with apparent obscu
rity in one place, it is exhibited elsewhere with
so much the greater clearness. Experience
shews, that people in common life have been
able to acquire, by the exercise of a sound under
standing, and by the aids of the divine Spirit, a
fund of useful knowledge and of important prin
ciples, even from very defective translations of
the Bible. Indeed, an illiterate man, who pos
sesses a sound understanding and good charac
ter, and studies the Bible without prejudice, will
often understand it better, and with more ease,
than the scholar, who first adopts his opinions
and then endeavours to find them in the Bible.
The latter looks upon all the doctrines of the
Bible through a discoloured medium. The holy
scriptures were not written for the scholar, as
such ; nor were they intended to afford materials
for speculation, but rather enjoyment for the

heart. Hence they are often misunderstood anc
despised by those whose feelings are deadened,
and who have little taste for anything but spe
culation. Most of the writers of the Bible were
themselves illiterate men, and lived in familiar
intercourse with common people. They there
fore meet the wants of this class of society, and
agree with the common mode of thought and
expression better than the learned commonly do.:
This consideration is overlooked by those who
would take the Bible from the hands of the com
mon people. It is truly remarked by Thomas a,
Kempis, that the holy scriptures must be read
with the assistance of the same Spirit by which
they were inspired. Now this may be enjoyed
-by all — by the unlearned as well as the learned,
if they only sincerely wish to obtain it.
It should be remembered, too, that the very
difficulties and obscurities which occur in the
Bible have been very beneficial to the human
race by exercising, and of course strengthening,
the powers of the mind. If the scriptures were
so plain that all parts of them could be under
stood without study, they would not furnish
nourishment and employment for the spirit of
inquiry. Lessing made the bold assertion, that
the human race had not been benefited so much
by the doctrines taught in the Bible as by the
inquiries and investigations to which the Bible
had given occasiou.
Some have attempted to prove the intelligible
ness of the Bible from texts of scripture ; but an
opponent would not allow the testimony of a
writer in his own behalf to be valid proof; nor
do these texts (such, for example, as compare
scripture with a light, enlightening men, and
shewing them the way to true happiness, Psa.
xix. 8; cxix. 105) apply so much to the scrip
tures themselves as to the doctrines which they
contain. II. The Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures.
When we say the holy scriptures have an effi
cacy, we use figurative language ; forthis efficacy
belongs rather to the doctrines and principles
contained in the scriptures. Theologians have
been led to adopt many fine distinctions on this
point, by the controversies which have existed
respecting the means of grace. We shall con
sider these distinctions in connexion with the
means of grace, s. 133, II.
III. The Infallibility of the Holy Scriptures.
When we assert the infallibility of the holy
scriptures, we mean to say, that if any doctrine
of religion can be clearly shewn to be taught in
them, it must be received as true, and needs no
further evidence; according to the maxim, sen-
sus hermeneutice verus, est etiam dogmatice verus.
This position is grounded on the" fact, that the
authors of the Bible were rendered infallible by

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

73

divine influence, according to the promise of
Christ, John, xiv. 26. It is taken in opposition
to those who rely unduly upon unaided reason
in matters of faith. Vide Introduction, s. 7, II.
and s. 8, 9. But before we can prove that any
doctrine is taught in the holy scriptures, we
must be sure of the uncorruptedness of the sa
cred text, and of the justice of our interpretation
of it; and as both ,of these points are sometimes
attended with difficulties, we cannot apply this
maxim to much purpose in particular cases, al
though, abstractly considered, it is perfectly
true. IV. The Authority of the Holy Scriptures.
1. Auctoritas normativa. By this is meant
the authority of the Bible to bind men to believe
and do what it teaches and prescribes. This is
likewise called auctoritas canonica (petito voca-
bulo ex Gal. vi. 16.) Vide Morus, p. 37. This
authority depends upon the infallibility of the
scriptures, and also upon their divine origin.
Moreover, the writers of the New Testament re
quire that every doctrine should be examined
by the instructions of Jesus and his apostles,
and should be received as obligatory, if found
to agree, but otherwise, should be rejected, 1
John, iv. 1, coll. 2 John, v. 10; Gal. i. 8. Paul
exhorts Timothy to hold fast the doctrines of
true Christianity (yyiaivovtEs Aoyot), the sum of
which (yrtotvrtaais, what we now find in the
writings of the apostles) he had taught him with
his own mouth, 2 Tim. i. 13. Jesus himself
required that the doctrines which he taught
should be received on his mere authority, and
frequently brought no other proof than the sim
ple assertion, 'Eyii &e xiya iulv.' He gave Ni-
codemus to understand that he acted very incon
sistently in acknowledging his divine authority,
and yet questioning the truth of his assertions.
The question which Nicodemus asked, " How
can these things be ?" was indeed very natural ;
and the serious inquirer after truth will always
rejoice to have it answered. But if it cannot be
answered, he must be content with the mere as
sertion of a teacher whose divine authority he
must acknowledge : he must say with respect
to Christ, as Pliny the younger said of a certain
wise man, tua mihi auctoritas pro ratione sufficit.
2. Auctoritas judicialis. By this is meant,
that the scriptures are the final appeal in mat
ters of faith and practice. No doctrines opposed
to the Bible can be admitted as true by those
who receive it as an inspired book. Christ and
the apostles everywhere appeal to the Old Tes
tament, and thus shew that they, and the Jews
generally, regarded it as divine, John, v. 39 ;
Matt. xxii. 44; Acts, xv. 15. But in applying
the judicial authority of scripture to particular
cases, everything depends upon the justice of
the interpretation ; and we must frequently say,
10

that it is rather the interpretei than the scripture
which decides. Most theological controversies
owe their origin to the different interpretations
of the Bible ; and every theologian pleads the
auctoritas judicialis of scripture in behalf of his
own opinion, because he regards one particular
sense of the words as true. The question is,
how he proves that this sense is the true one,
and whether he interprets the Bible on just prin
ciples ?
The text, Heb. iv. 12, 13, where the word of
God is said to be xpvtixbs iv^vpurjUcuv xai ivvaiZiv
scopo'taj, is often cited in this connexion. But
the phrase xbyos ©eotj here signifies the divine
threatenings against sinners and apostates. The
meaning of the text is, the threatenings of God
relate not merely to the outward actions,ibut to
the most secret purposes of evil.
V. The Sufficiency or Completeness of the , Holy
Scriptures.
1. The sufficiency of the doctrines of the Bible.
All the doctrines affecting the improvement,
comfort, and salvation of men, which were
taught by Jesus, the apostles, and prophets, are
contained in the holy scriptures, without any
omission. This completeness (plenitudo) of
the scriptures is called by Paul, Acts, xx. 27,
rtavav fiovXrjv toi ®soi, the whole divine plan of
salvation. This attribute of scripture is main
tained in opposition both to those who receive
from tradition some doctrines of faith which are
not found in the Bible, and to those who, under
the influence of enthusiasm, would make addi
tions from new, pretended revelations to the doc
trines really revealed. In opposition to both of
these classes, this attribute may be truly predi
cated of the holy scriptures ; for the instructions
which the Bible contains respecting the way of
real happiness here and hereafter are so com
plete that we have no occasion to resort either
to the dark sources of tradition or the assevera
tions of fanatics. But, on the other hand, when
we affirm the sufficiency of the scriptures we
must not be understood to mean that the Bible
is a repertory of information respecting the arts,
sciences, literature, and every object of human
knowledge. These things do not fall within
the scope of the sacred writers, because they do
not stand immediately connected with the great
end of man. The instructions contained in the
Old and New Testaments were adapted to the
comprehension and wants of those for whom
they were primarily written. But we are per
mitted, according to the example of Jesus and
his apostles, yea, we are required, to adapt these
instructions to our own wants, and, by the help
of these scriptures, to make constant progress
in spiritual knowledge and experience. This
progress, however, must still accord with the
Bible, and be regulated by the principles of
G

74

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Christianity. The Bible, from which these
principles are learned, must be the star by which
we are guided in all our advances. In this view,
Paul recommends the use of the Old Testament,
even to Christian teachers, 2 Tim. iii. 15. Vide
Introduction, s. 5. I.
2. The sufficiency of the books. This implies,
that our canon contains books enough to furnish
'the Christian with all necessary knowledge of
the truths of religion. This cannot be proved
from the sacred writers themselves; for the
canon must have been incomplete while any
one of them was as yet writing. The passage
Rev. xxii. 18, 19, idv tts Ertb&ij eV avtd, *. t. X.
was formerly cited in proof of the sufficiency of
the books of the Bible, by Tertullian, Adv.
Herm. c. 22, and has since been frequently
called, as well as the whole book in which it
stands, sigillum canonis. But the prohibition
here expressed strictly relates only to the Apo
calypse. So much, however, is beyond dispute,
that the great truths of salvation are repeated so
often in the Bible, that they might all be learned
from a much smaller collection of bo.oks than
we have at present. If therefore some part of
the canon should be rejected as spurious, the
completeness of the holy scriptures would be
unaffected, and the system of divine truth re
main entire. SECTION XII.
OF THE USE OF THE BIBLE AS THE SOURCE OF THE
DOCTRINES OF REVELATION.
I. The Use of the New Testament.
From the remarks already made, it appears
that the scriptures of the New Testament are to
be regarded as the source from which we are to
derive the knowledge of the principal doctrines
of the Christian religion. But in deriving the
doctrines of Christianity from the New Testa
ment, we must be governed by the following
considerations : —
1. The authors of the New Testament had
their contemporaries principally in view in what
they wrote. Paul, for example, in his epistle
to the Romans, had primary and principal refer
ence to the church then existing at Rome, and
not to the Christian church in succeeding ages.
These scriptures would have been very differ
ently composed if they had been throughout in
tended for all ages of the world. Instead of
containing salutations, allusions to local inte
rests, and temporary disputes and errors, and a
disconnected view of the doctrines of revelation,
they would have exhibited a complete, connected
system of religious truth. Those texts of the
Bible, then, which relate merely to circum
stances then existing, but never afterwards, can
not be regarded as sources of Christian doctrine.

Such texts are indeed useful, in making us ac
quainted with the history of the times in which
they were written, and in furnishing examples
for imitation, if similar circumstances should
recur ; but in themselves they have no binding
authority at the present time. Texts of this na
ture are those in the Acts of the Apostles, and
in the epistles to Timothy, which relate to the
constitution of the apostolical church. For these
texts the sacred writers do not claim an univer
sal and perpetual authority, still less do they
claim this for all parts of their writings without
exception, although they do distinctly for the
Christian doctrines which they teach. Vide
Introduction, s. 5, 1, and s. 8, III. 3, b.
2. Since the scriptures of the New Testament
were originally adapted to the age in which they
were written, and always presuppose the oral
instructions which were given by the apostles,
we cannot expect that all the doctrines of faith
should be taught in them with equal fulness and.
clearness. The slight and unfrequent mention
of a doctrine in. our sacred writings does not
prove its unimportance, since the authors of the
Bible might have known that it was already
sufficiently understood and duly regarded by
those for whom they wrote. Nor does the fre
quent and extended discussion of any subject in
the Bible prove its internal and lasting import
ance, since the local circumstances of some
churches, or the character of certain individuals,
may have required a more repeated and urgent
inculcation of particular doctrines than would be
otherwise advisable. Thus the circumstances
of the church at the time when the apostles
wrote led them to insist more frequently and
strongly upon the abolition of the Mosaic insti
tute than they would have done in other circum
stances. 3. The case is exactly the same with the
manner in which the apostles taught the doc
trines of religion. Their manner was adapted
to the conceptions, views, and capacities of their
contemporary hearers and readers, and is often
wholly inappropriate to other persons in other
circumstances. In bringing the instructions of
Christ and his apostles in proof of any doctrine
of religion, we must therefore, in many cases,
pay more regard to the truth itself which they
teach, than to the manner in which they illus
trate it. For many of the proofs and illustra
tions employed successfully by the first teachers
of Christianity have now lost their force and
evidence. It is frequently true, that those very
considerations which must have made the
strongest impression on the contemporaries of
the apostles, are least of all convincing to us;
while, on the contrary, the proofs by which we
are most influenced would have been scarcely
intelligible to them. The proofs which Jesus
adduced from the Old Testament in behalf of

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

75

manyof his doctrines were far more convincing
to the Jews than the most powerful arguments
which could be drawn from human reason. The
same may be said of many of the illustrations
contained in the epistles to the Hebrews and
Galatians. The doctrines of the Bible are un
alterably true, and intended for all ages of the
world ; but the method in which they are taught,
the costume in which they are invested, the ar
guments by which they are proved, were all de
signed primarily for the Jews, and are therefore
by no means obligatory on the present teachers
of religion.
We may therefore affirm, that while it was
the design of God that religious knowledge
should be communicated by means of these books
to all the successive ages of the world, this was
not the design which the authors of the Bible had
in view, in a great portion of what they wrote.
But for the very reason that these sacred books
were designed for the good of all succeeding
ages, each particular portion of them could not
possibly be designed for each successive age.
What is most useful and necessary for one
period is not equally so for another. But we
should expect, that the wants of the present and
future would be alike provided for in the codex
of revelation ; and this we find to be done in the
Bible. Many parts of it, which seem hardly to
answer the demands of the present day, were
perfectly adequate to the wants of a former
period ; and the reverse : and many parts which
were once in the highest degree useful, and
have ceased to be so now, may perhaps, in after
times, become as useful and important as ever.
4. Those texts of the Old and New Testa
ments which exhibit particular doctrines with
the most fulness and clearness, and are therefore
most frequently cited for proof or illustration, are
called sedes doctrinarum, dicta probantia ; more
frequently loca classica — i.e., primaria, praestan-
tissima ,- like auctores classic/', first used by Gel-
lius, XIX. 8 ; and cives classici, the name given
to those belonging to the first class of Roman
citizens, into which such only were admitted as
possessed a certain amount of property, decided
by law.
In using these proof-texts many of the ancient
systems followed a kind of doctrinal or herme-
neutical tradition, employing such texts only as
had been adduced by the authors of the sym
bols, who, on their part, had employed those
mostly which had been previously adduced by
the ecclesiastical fathers, and the theologians
of the Romish church. As the theologians of
former times strictly followed the doctrines of
the symbolical books, they were inclined to
adopt the arguments and proof-texts by which
these doctrines were there supported. Hence
we find almost the same proof-texts, explained
in the same way, constantly recurring, with

very slight alterations in the theological sys
tems, as late as the middle of the eighteenth
century. Some of these traditionary texts had
no bearing on the point which they were in
tended to prove, or at best were doubtful and
obscure; while on the other hand, some of the
most direct and pertinent texts were never cited.
In making use of these texts we should never
lose sight of the above remarks. As Luther
well observes, we must treat the Bible cau
tiously, and inquire not only whether any par
ticular truth is taught in the word of God, but
whether it concerns us or others. " Man muss
mit der Schrift sauberlich handeln und fahren.
Man muss nicht allein ansehen ob es Gottes
wort sey; sondern vielmehr zu wem es geredet
sey, ob es dich ireffe, oder einen andern. Den
Unterschied sollen wohl merken, fassen, und
zu herzen nehmen die Prediger, ja alle Chris
ten," Luther, Unterricht wie man sich in Mosen
schicken soil. We should also carefully dis
tinguish between the truth itself which is taught
in these passages, and the manner in which
this truth is illustrated.
II. The Use of the Old Testament.
1. Christianity and the Jewish institute are
not so nearly related that they must stand or fall
together. It is possible that one who knew no
thing of the Jewish religion, and had never read
the Jewish scriptures, might believe on Jesus
as the Saviour of the world. And we find, ac
cordingly, that when the apostles were called to
teach the principles of the Christian religion to
those who were unacquainted with Judaism,
they rarely alluded to the Old Testament.
Christ and the apostles regarded the divine re
velations as gradual, and the instruction given
in the Old Testament as elementary, adapted to
the state of society while yet in the infancy of
improvement, and calculated to deepen the sense
of the higher and more spiritual wants of the
mind. Vide Introduction, s. 8, II. In this
light is Judaism regarded by Paul, who com
pares the ritual of the former institute with a
schoolmaster (rtatooyttyds) who is deserted by
the children, as they approach towards manhood,
Gal. iii. 24 ; iv. 1, 9. The books therefore con
taining the principles of the Jewish religion,
taken by themselves, cannot be regarded as a
principal source of our knowledge of the Chris
tian system, although they are of essential ser
vice, and indeed often indispensable. They
are recommended in the New Testament to our
careful study ; but always in connexion with
Christian instructions. For we, as Christians.
are no longer bound by many things which are
commanded in the Old Testament; and must
learn from Christian instructions what these
things are, and why their obligation has ceased
2. The books of the Old Testament may be

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

used for various purposes, which differ very
much, according to time and circumstances.
(1) Usus polemicus or elencticus. The Old
Testament may be employed to prove the truth
and divinity of the Christian religion against
Jews and infidels. From these ancient books
we can shew that the Christian institute was
promised and expected from the earliest times ;
and can correct many of the mistakes which
have prevailed among the Jews and other
nations. For this purpose they were used by
Christ and his apostles, and sometimes in the
instruction even of the heathen, but more fre
quently when Jews were to be convinced. We
may see the different method in which they
addressed Jews and heathen, by comparing the
discourses of Paul contained in the Acts, and
also his epistles to the Hebrews and Galatians,
with those to the Thessalonians.
When Christ wished to convince the Jews of
the truth of his religion, and the divinity of his
mission, he exhorted them to study their own
scriptures, in which he was predicted. But al
though this advice of Christ was first given to
the Jews, it must apply in full force to all who
allow the authority of Christ, and acknowledge
that the Old Testament contains predictions re
specting him. Christ thus addresses the Pha
risees, (John, v. 39,) 'EpEwoVs (indicative, noti
imperative, as many suppose) tas ypa^as, bti
iipiEcs SoxEiti iv avtais ^r[v ai&viov %%ew x ai
ix£ivat> e i 0 i v ah uaptvpovoac rtEpi
ipoi, "Ye search the scriptures (of the Old
Testament), because ye suppose that ye shall
find in them the means of attaining salvation ;
and these very scriptures testify of me — i. e., of
the Messiah, the character which I sustain, and
of the way of salvation through me." In 2 Ti m .
iii. 14 — 17, Paul distinctly states that Timothy
(even as a Christian and Christian teacher, verse
17) would find the Old Testament very useful
in connexion with the Christian instruction
which he had received (ver. 14), in acquainting
himself with the way of salvation (ver.,15), in
teaching this way to others (rtpo; &t,Saaxaxiav,
ver. 16), and in refuting the objections of the
Jews and other enemies of Christianity, (jtpos
Ixiyxov, ver. 16.) Cf. s. 8, II. 1. 2 Peter, i.
19, "The predictions of the Old Testament
respecting Christ, are now, since their fulfilment,
much more certain than formerly; and ye (con
verts from Judaism, who are accustomed to read
the Jewish scriptures) will do well to attend to
them." In this very connexion, however, Peter
likens the Old Testamem to a lantern, casting
a feeble light, when compared with the day
which had risen, since Christ had' appeared,
upon those who had embraced his religion. Cf.
s. 8, II. 2.
Note. — However imperfect the Jewish insti
tute may be in comparison with the Christian,

it must not be despised orundeivalued. Moru»,
p. 24, note. It was -perfectly adapted to the agv
for which it was intended, and to the country
where it was established, and could not havu
been different in any respect. It betrays a poor
judgment to blame a teacher for not introducing
into his book of elements everything which is
found in a complete system, or for pursuing a
different method in the instruction of little chil
dren and advanced scholars. This, so far from
deserving blame, constitutes the highest merit
of the teacher. The instructions given by God
in the Old Testament are regarded in this light
by Christ and the apostles, and are highly es
teemed as adapted to the age for which they
were given. Vide s. 8, II. ad finem.
(2) Usus dogmaticus and historicus. The Old'
Testament is of use in ascertaining the doctrines
of Christianity, inasmuch as it is very full upon
many doctrines presupposed in the New Testa
ment, and gives intimations on many doctrines
on which the latter enlarges, (a) As the primi--
tive Christians were for the most part native
Jews, they were naturally supposed to have
known from the Old Testament many of the
most important truths of religion. Accordingly
we find that the instructions given them in the
New Testament respecting the nature, attri
butes, and providence of God, the creation of
the world, and the fall of man, are less full and
explicit than those contained in the Old. (A)
The Old Testament also contains traces, inti
mations, and, as it were, the germs of many
doctrines which were afterwards followed out
and developed by Christ and the apostles.
This is exactly as it should be in a book of
elementary instruction. The Old Testament
pointed to the distant blessings which were
promised. The passages of the Old Testament
which treat of the Messiah, the life beyond the
grave, and subjects of the same kind, are useful
in shewing that these ideas have been brought
to light and developed by Christ (usus histori
cus), and that all the divine revelations compose
one complete system.
The false opinions which were formerly en-
tertained respecting the use of the Old Testa
ment and its relation to Christianity led many
writers to attribute too many Christian ideas to
the ancient Jewish prophets, and to carry back,
without any distinction of time, all the light of
the New Testament into the Old. That the
light enjoyed under the former dispensation was
inferior to that which Christians enjoy appears
from the declarations of an apostle, 2 Peter, i.
19, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 10, seq. Christ himself says,
Matt. xi. 11, that among those who had been
born of women there had not been a greater
prophet than John, his precursor ; but that the
least who enjoyed Christian instruction, and
had kindled his torch by the Christian light,

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

77

was better acquainted with the peculiar doctrines
»f the Christian religion than John.
(3) Usus hermeneuticus. As Christ and the
apostles were native Jews, and had their own
jountrymen for their first hearers, they con
formed, as far as they could consistently with
luty, to the manners and opinions, to the mode
of thought and expression, common among those
with whom they were conversant. It is there
fore impossible for any one who is ignorant of
this prevailing mode of thought and expression
to understand fully their instructions. And this
knowledge, which is so essential to the right
understanding of the Christian doctrine, can be
obtained only from the Old Testament. The
service which it renders us in this respect is of
the greatest importance. How many mistakes
respecting the doctrines of faith, and how much
confusion would have been avoided, if theo
logians had brought to the study of the Chris
tian scriptures a thorough acquaintance with the
Old Testament !
(4) Usus moralis. The books of Moses, the
Psalms, Proverbs, and other portions of the Old
Testament, are full of precepts relating to the
wise conduct of human life, and calculated to
awaken religious and pious sentiments. Even
the historical portions of the Old Testament are
highly useful in this view, and should be em
ployed by religious teachers, and especially the
teachers of youth, for the promotion of virtue
and piety, more than is commonly done. It was
the manner of Moses, and of all the ancient Jew
ish teachers, to give instruction by means of
history — a manner which is always interesting,
and which was imitated by the first Christian
teachers, who always built their instructions
upon the history of the Old Testament and of
Christ. Cautions to be observed in the use of the
Old Testament for moral instruction.
(<z) All the precepts contained in the Old Tes
tament are not of universal obligation ; some of
them are applicable only to those living under
the peculiar constitution of the Jewish nation.
Christians commit a great mistake when they
apply to themselves the promises of temporal
good and the threatenings of temporal evil which
are contained in the Old Testament, but which
are valid only under a theocraticalform of govern
ment. Christians can make application to them
selves of such only of these precepts as relate to
all men in every age. By.neglecting this distinc
tion, and applying to the present time what
has long since ceased to be valid, the teacher of
religion frequently draws contempt upon him
self and his doctrine, and awakens unnecessary
suspicion of the truth of what he utters. Every
act of disobedience to the divine law will indeed
be punished, and every act of obedience reward
ed. But that this will be visibly accomplished

in the present life is nowhere taught in the
Christian system, but rather the contrary.
Temporal rewards and punishments are peculiar
to a theocratic constitution, and ought not to
be expected under a different divine dispensa
tion. (b) The rudeness of the early ages, and the
degeneracy of the Jewish nation, called for a
strictness of discipline from which Christianity
has now released us. The spirit of Christianity
is in many respects essentially different from
that of Judaism. The latter terrified by punish
ments those who were too depraved to be in
fluenced by love ; the former teaches us to love
God as our father and benefactor, and moves us
by mildness and benevolence. Rom. viii. 15,
"Ye (true Christians) have not received (by
Christianity) a slavish spirit, leading you still
(rtdxiv, as Christians) to tremble before God;
but ye have a filial, confiding disposition
(rtvEvpa vlo^Esia;) produced in your minds by
God, under the influence of which you can sup
plicate him in all circumstances as your beloved
Father." Cf. Heb. xii. 18—24 ; Gal. iv. 1—4.
When, therefore, as Christians, we obey any
part of the law of Moses, or of the precepts of
the Old Testament, we yield this obedience, not
because it is required by the law of Moses or
the Old Testament, but partly because it is com
manded by the universal moral law, and chiefly
because it is commanded by Christ. For Christ
did not come, as he himself said, to annul the
moral law of the Old Testament, but to fulfil and
enforce it, Matt. v. 17, seq. So depraved were
the Jews at the time of Moses, and long after
wards, that he was compelled to proceed with
them as a teacher does with ignorant, rude, and
untractable pupils. The first measures which the
teacher takes in the education of such pupils are,
to separate them from others of the same' charac
ter with themselves, to impose compulsatory re
straints, to awe them with threatenings, and to
make to them such sensible representations as
are most calculated to produce an effect. And
these are the measures which Moses adopted
Those for whom his institute was intended were,
in a great measure, incapable of any higher re
ligious knowledge, which was not therefore
given them, except in such obscure intimations
as were proper in elementary instructions.
Vide Introduction, s. 8, II. Cf. Gal. iv. 3
Col. ii. 8, 20. Warburton, Divine Legation of
Moses. (c) Christians ought not to adopt, without
some limitation, the life and example of the per
sons described in the Old Testament, even of
those there mentioned with approbation, as mo
dels for their own imitation ; for, in consequence
of their better instruction, Christians are now in
many respects far advanced beyond the best of
former times. In those ages of ignorance many
g2

78

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

things were allowed or palliated which, in this
period of higher illumination and improvement,
would be without excuse. Many events in the
histories of David, Samson, and others, for
which they might perhaps have been excul
pated, cannot be adopted by Christians as mo
dels for their imitation. These remarks are suf
ficient to shew the necessity of caution in the
use of the characters of Old-Testament history,
in recommending moral duties, and in popular
instruction. Vide Joh. Aug. Wolf, Diss, duo
de exemplis biblicis in theologia morali caute
adhibendis, Lipsiae, 1786, 4to. Christian teach
ers would do well to follow in this respect the
example of the writers of the New Testament.
They never deal in indiscriminate praises and
encomiums of the characters of the Old Testa
ment, but always select those parts of their ex
ample which are worthy of commendation, and
of the imitation of Christians; such as the piety
and faith of Abraham, and others mentioned,
Heb. xi. SECTION XIII.
OF THE READING OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
I. History of the Dispute respecting the Reading of
the Bible.
That the holy scriptures were less read by the
the ancient Jews and primitive Christians than
at the present day is beyond dispute. Books
were formerly very rare and costly, and the read
ing public was extremely small. Even in
Europe it was not so large by half, a century
ago, as now. The great body of society, in for
mer times, had little taste for reading, or indeed
ability, as a general thing, either to read or to
write. .They were not therefore required, by
any precepts of the Bible, to read the scriptures
themselves. This was made the duty of the
teachers of religion, who were then required to
read the scriptures before the people. Thus the
sons of Levi were required to read the law of
Moses in the hearing of the people, Deut. xxxi.
11, 12 ; and Timothy was required to study the
scriptures in order to qualify himself to teach
others, 2 Tim. iii. 15. The passage, John, v.
39, is also addressed to the teachers of religion.
In consequence of the fact, that, in ancient times,
the great body of mankind -received instruction
more by hearing than by their own reading, the
learner was called axpoatyst and instruction,
njiDt?*, axorj, Rom. x. 15.
But, on the other hand, the common people
and the ignorant are nowhere forbidden, in the
Old or New Testament, to read the scriptures ;
but were rather encouraged to instruct them
selves by their own study of the Word of God,
if they had sufficient leisure and ability. The
>tters of the apostles were addressed to the

whole church, and were publicly read in the
hearing of all, Col. iv. 16. Now, if the apostles
did not fear any harm from having their epistles
read in public, in the hearing of all, they could
have no reason to apprehend danger from having
them perused in private. Trie Jews also were
always permitted the free use of their scriptures;
cf. Acts, viii. 28 ; nor is there a passage in all
the Old Testament in which this is prohibited.
In the early Christian church, too, the reading
of the Bible was universally allowed, and, in
deed, encouraged and facilitated by frequent
versions. As early as the second century the
Bible had been rendered into Syriac and Latin,
and was accessible in these versions to as many
as wished to own or study them. Hieronymus
commends Pamphilus, "quod scripturas quoque
sanctas, non ad legendum tantum, sed ad haben
dum tribuebat promptissime, non solum viris sed
etiam feminis, quas vidisset leetioni deditas,"
Apol. I. Contra Ruffinum. Julian objected to
Christians, " quod mulieres puerosque pateren-
tur scripturas legere," Cyril. Alex. Contra Jul.
VI. 9. Cyprian recommended the study of the
Bible to Christians : " Scripturis inquam sacris
incumbat christianus fide lis, et ibi inveniet
condigna fidei spectacula," Cyprian, De Spec-
tac. p. 342. From all this it appears, that at
this period of the church the use of the holy
scriptures was unincumbered. Vide Walch,
Vom Gebrauch der heiligen Schrift unter den
alten Christen, Leipzig, 1779, 8vo.
At a later period the great decline of learn
ing commenced. And to such a point of dark
ness did western Europe arrive, that the whole
learning of the clergy of the middle ages often
consisted in their being able to read. In a state
of things like this, the Bible was not, of course,
much read by the laity, if, indeed, they were able
to read at all. And as the Latin version was
retained, although the Latin language had
ceased to be vernacular after the seventh centu
ry, the common people became more and more
ignorant of its contents.
In the midst of this darkness the pope and
clergy established many doctrines, which were
as promotive of their own interests as they were
contrary to the Bible. These innovations and
errors were soon discovered and opposed by
some of the more intelligent and inquisitive
even among the laity. Hence, to take the Bible
from their hands was the obvious policy of the
clergy. Accordingly, Pope Gregory VII., of
the eleventh century, declared himself against
the free and general use of the scriptures. But
as many of the laity, who had obtained more
enlightened views from the use of the Bible,
opposed themselves to the designs of the pope,
the prohibition was repeated by Innocent 111.,
at the commencement of the thirteenth century.
The use of the Bible was again forbidden the

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

79

laity, on account of the Waldenses, by the
council held at Toulouse, in the year 1229.
"Prohibemus, ne libros V. T. aut N. laicis per-
mittatur habere; riisi forte Psalterium vel Bre-
viarium pro divinis officiis ac Horas Beatae Vir-
ginis aliquis ex devotione habere velit; sed, ne
praemissos libros habeant in vulgari translations,
«rctissime inhibemus," Concilium Tolosanum,
Can. XII. At a synod at Beziers, in the year
1233, the laity were forbidden to possess any
books of theology in the Latin language, and
both clergy and laity to possess any in the ver
nacular. In the year 1338, John. Wickliff was
declared a heretic by a synod at Oxford for pub
lishing an English translation of the Bible; and
in the year 1408, the third synod at the same
place ordained, " ne quis textum aliquem ex
scriptura transferat in linguam Anglicanam, nisi
a Dioecesano vel Concilio provinciali translatio
approbate sit."
Still there were many among the different
sects, and some even of the catholic church, who
read the Bible for themselves. And by com
paring the existing state of faith and practice
with the Bible, they were soon convinced of
the errors and corruptions of the church. At
last, in the sixteenth century, Luther and the
Swiss reformers appeared, and restored the free
use of the Bible. Luther especially very much
promoted the general circulation of the scrip
tures by his German translation, which was the
principal means of the Reformation. The coun
cil at Trent did not now venture to renew the
prohibition of the Bible, and undertook only to
establish the Vulgate edition as alone authen
tic. But afterwards, Pope Pius IV. issued an
Index librorum prohibitorum, in the preface to
which he writes, " Cum experimento manifes-
tum sit si sacra Biblia vulgari lingua passim
sine discrimine permittantur, plus inde ob ho-
minum temeritatem detrimenti quam utilitatis
oriri ; hac in parte judicio Episcopi sive Inqui-
sitoris stetur, ut cum consilio parochi vel Con-
fessarii Bibliorum a catholicis auctoribus ver-
sorum lectionem in vulgari lingua eis concedere
possint, quos intellexerunt ex hujusmodi lec-
tione non damnum, sed fidei atque pietatis
augmentum capere posse ; quam facultatem in
scriptis habeant. Qui autem absque tali facul-
tate ea legere sive habere praesumserit, nisi prius
Bibliis ordinario redditis, peccatorum absolu-
tionem percipere non possit." But even this
permission was afterwards limited by Clement
VIII., who declared that by this indulgence of
Pius IV., "nullam de novo tribui facultatem
Episcopis vel Inquisitoribus aut Regularium
Superioribus concedendi licentiam emendi,
.egendi, aut retinendi Biblia, vulgari lingua
edita, cum hactenus mandato et usu sanctae ro-
manse et universalis Inquisitionis sublata cisfuerit

facultas . concedendi hujusmodi licentioA legendi
vel retinendi Biblia vulgaria, aut alias sanctae
scriptural tarn Novi quam Veteris Teslamenti
partes, quavis vulgari lingua editas ; ac insuper
summaria et compendia etiam historica eorun-
dem Bibliorum,' seu librorum sanctae scriptural,
quocunque vulgari idiomate conscripta ; quod qni-
dem inviolate servandum est." And at last this
permission was wholly withdrawn by Gregory
XV., who says, " De plenitudine apostolicae po-
testatis et ex certa scientia, ac matura delibera-
tione revocamus, cassamus, et ' annullamus
omnes et singulas licentias legendi et habendi
biblios quoscunque prohibitos."
It is injustice, however, to the catholic church.
to suppose that this prohibition of the free and
general use of the Bible was ever universally
approved. There have always been theolo
gians, especially in the Gallican church, who
have advocated the lawfulness and necessity of
the unlimited use of the scriptures. PaschasiuS
Quesnel published at Paris, 1687, and Brussels,
1702, a French translation of the New Testa
ment, (Le Nouveau Testament, avec des reflex
ions morales sur chaque verset,) from which a
hundred and one propositions were extracted at
the instigation of the Jesuits, and condemned by
the pope in the bull Unigenitus, 1713. Among
these propositions were the following : — " Lec
tio sacrae scripturae est pro omnibus." " Ob-
sciiritas sancti verbi Dei non est Laicis ratio
dispensandi se ipsos ab ejus lectione." " Abri-
pere e Christianorum manibus Novum Testa-
mentum, sive eis illud clausum tenere, auferendo
eis modum illud intelligendi, est illis Christi os
obturbare." " Interdicere Christianis lectionem
sacras scripturae, praesertim Evangelii, est inter
dicere usum luminis filiis lucis, et facere ut pa-
tiantur speciem quandam excommunicationis."
It should be remarked, too, that the use of the
Bible has never been prohibited without some
limitation ; so that it is not unfrequent in our
day for the most distinguished theologians of
the Romish church to advocate the general use
of the scriptures; while there are still many
Jesuites, or Exjesuites, who hold to the prohi
bition of the Bible. Vide Hegel meier, Ges
chichte des Bibelverbots, Ulm, 1783, 8vo.
[Note. — The following passage from the his
torian Olaus Magnus, will shew on what pre
tences the court of Rome has sometimes pro
ceeded in forbidding the translation and circula
tion of the holy scriptures. " Gregorius VII. ,
Vratislao (a Bohemian nobleman) scripsit (2
Jan. 1080) ac prohibuit, ne, ut optavit, scriptura
sancta verteretur in linguam vulgarem ; quoniam
tam secreta majestas in ea est, ut difficulter
translatae sensus secretorum Dei poterit in ea
postmodum deprehendi; immo nunquam devotior
fieret populus, quando sciens facilitatem, in con-

80

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

temptum verteret, quod in reverentia consueverat
admirari et jam in cerevisiaria taberna irrisorie
decantatur," Hist. Lib. XVI. c. 39.
At the time of the Reformation, the Bible was
translated by many catholic theologians, in order
to prevent the use of the " heretical" Bible by
the members of their communion. The New
Testament was translated by Hieron. Emser,
in 1527, and by J. Dietenberger, in 1533; and
the whole Bible by J. Eck, Casp. Uhlenberg,
and others.
The condemnation of the maxims of Father
Quesnel by Clement XI. occasioned a contro
versy in the catholic church, which resulted in
larger views respecting the use of the scriptures.
These views were patronised by Benedict XIII.,
in the synod held at the palace of the Lateran,
and afterwards more successfully by Maria The
resa and Joseph II., of Austria.
Since the commencement of the present cen
tury, the Bible Society has found patrons in
many distinguished members of the catholic
church. The Archbishops of Mohileff and of
Gnesne sanctioned a Polish version of the scrip
tures, and promoted its circulation in their dio
ceses; for which, however, they were severely
reprimanded by Pius VII., in his brief of June
29, 1816. Among the distinguished catholics
who have made common cause with the protes
tants in tire circulation of the Bible, in opposi
tion both to papal authority and the active jea
lousy of the Ultra-montanists, the names of Van
Ess, Gossner, and De Sacy, deserve to be parti
cularly mentioned. In our own country, the
" bishops of the church" are content with "ear
nestly cautioning the laity against the indiscri
minate use of the unauthorized and extremely
defective and erroneous versions which are
placed within their reach," and with recommend
ing "the Douay translation from the Vulgate of
the Old Testament, and the Rhemish translation
of the New Testament." Vide Pastoral Letter
of the Prelates of the catholic church, Baltimore,
1829. While these more liberal views are obtaining
in the Romish church, it is worthy of remark
that many protestant divines have so far desert
ed the principles of the Reformation as wholly
to disapprove of the general reading of the
Bible, or at least to allow it only under very
narrow restrictions. Several bishops of the
episcopal church, both in England and America,
have publicly avowed their hostility to the Bible
Society, pretending that its exertions menaced
the safety of the established church. Vide
Christian Observer, vol. xx. p. 28. The same
hostility to the unrestricted use of the Bible has
been manifested by several German theologians.
Vide Lessing, Theol. Nachlass, Berlin, 1784.
J. G. Becker, Tract, ad qua&stionem, utrum lec
tio literarum sacraj scripturae omnibus omnino

Christianis, maxime imperitae multitudmi. valde
sitcommendanda, Rostochii, 1793, 4to. yoigt-
lander, Die Bibel kein Erbauungsbuch, in the
Predigerjournal fiir Sachsen, November, 1809.
Voeckler, De eo, an bene actum sit, scripta Ve-
teris et Novi Testamenti omnia ac singula cum
imperitorum multitudine communicandi, Lipsiae,
1823, 8vo. Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch des christ.
Glaubens, Leipzig, 1828.]
II. How may the Bible be best adapted to common
use?
It appears from the preceding historical sketch
that religion has always suffered from the prohi
bition or restriction of the use of the scriptures ;
and, on the contrary, has always gained from
their free and unrestricted use. To establish
this declaration, we need only appeal to the time
of the Reformation. The most direct way to
render Christianity obsolete is to take the Bible
from the hands of the common people. And
already have we begun to experience the evils
resulting from the efforts of some modern teach
ers to banish the Teading of the scriptures, espe
cially of the Old Testament, from our schools,
or at least to diminish the degree of attention
formerly paid to them.
But however useful the simple perusal of the
scriptures in the common method may be to
common people of no education, it may doubt
less be rendered in different ways more useful
and less objectionable. The following are the
principal methods adopted to promote the gene
ral utility of the Bible : —
1. New translations. Before the perusal of
the scriptures can be instructive and edifying to
the common people, they must be able to obtain
clear and definite conceptions of what they read;
and they can do this only by means of good and
intelligible translations. It were, indeed, desir
able that the established version, which has a
classical authority with the great body of society,
should be gradually improved, if circumstances
were such as to allow this to be done. Consi
dering the period at which this version was
made, it is a masterpiece in its kind, and is in
many respects worthy of the study and imitation
of the modern translator. But since that period
we have made great advances in the art of inter
pretation, and have many exegetical helps, which
were not then enjoyed. Our language, too, has
undergone great alterations since this translation
was written ; and many of the words and phrases
which are used in it, and which were then com
mon, are now obsolete and unintelligible ; but
the period has not yet arrived, either for intro
ducing a new version into the protestant church
or for making considerable improvements in tht
one now established. Indeed, to attempt thi
at the present crisis of the affairs of religion, anc
while opposing sects are inflamed with such

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

81

zeal against each other, would be extremely dan
gerous. In these circumstances we could hardly
expect that any one plan of improvement would
gain the assent of all parties. Since, therefore,
neither a new version can at present be author
ized, nor any considerable improvements be
made in the old, we can do nothing better to
excite the interest and enlist the feelings of the
common people in the reading of the Bible, than
to recommend to them new translations and
practical expositions, to be used in connexion
with the established version.
2. Allegorical interpretation and compends.
Every part of the Bible was not intended for all
ages or for all classes of readers. Considerable
portions both of the Old and New Testaments
have no immediate connexion with the Christian
religion and the truths of salvation, and contri
bute little to the instruction and edification of
believers, and are therefore of service merely to
the scholar. Vide s. 12. In order now to Ten
der the reading of the scriptures truly profitable
to common people, and to save them from wast
ing their time upon subjects which lie beyond
their sphere, and from which they can derive no
profit, their attention should be directed to such
passages as exhibit the great truths of Christian
faith and practice, and especially to the instruc
tive narratives of the Bible. The inconveni
ences resulting to the greater portion of readers
from the indiscriminate and unaided perusal
of the Bible, and the necessity of doing some
thing to adapt it better to their spiritual profit,
have been for a long time perceived and felt ;
and, accordingly, two methods have been taken
to obviate these inconveniences, and to render
the perusal of the Bible more useful to common
readers. (a) A mystical and allegorical mode of inter
pretation has been applied to the historical parts
of the Old Testament, and to other parts of the
Bible, which have no immediate bearing on the
doctrines of salvation, or the moral improvement
of men ; and in this way a new sense has been
ascribed to these passages better calculated to
instruct and edify. This method was formerly
adopted by Philo and other Jews, who were fol
lowed in this respect by many of the Christian
fathers, especially by Clemens of Alexandria,
Origen, and others of the Egyptian church.
This method has also been adopted in modern
times. It has doubtless been the means of good
in some former periods, and to certain classes of
readers ; but it involves so many inconveniences,
and gives occasion to so many errors, that the
revival of it at the present day can hardly seem
desirable. It has'lately, however, though under
the different name of moral interpretation, re
ceived the sanction of Kant. Vide Nosselt,
Progr. Animadversiones in sensum sacrorum
librorum moralem, Halle, 1795.
11

[Note. — Those who apply this mode of inter
pretation suppose that every passage of the Bible
contains a concealed, spiritual, and higher sense,
either in connexion with or under its literal and
grammatical sense ; and that the Holy Ghost
thus gave two or more senses to the words
which he inspired. The catholic church held
tq a fourfold sense of the Bible-^viz., (1) gram-
maticus, (2) mysticus, subdivided into (a)
trupologicus, s.moralis (1 Cor. ix. 8, seq.), (6)
allegoricus (Gal. iv. 21, seq.), (c) anagogicus.
This theory of catholic hermeneutics was ex
pressed in the fpllowlng distich : —
Litera gesta docet; quid credas, allegoria;
Moralis, quid agas; quid speres, anagogia.
Tirinus, a Jesuit, thus writes : — " Sub unis,
iisdemque sacras scripturae verbis, praeter sensum
literalem, primario a spiritu sancto intentum,
latere subinde etiam alium, sensum mysticum
sive spiritualem, secundario a spiritu sancto in
tentum, patet ex John, iii. 14, ubi per exalta-
tionem serpentis Mosaici, Christus suam cruci-
fixionem ; ex Matt. xii. 20, ubi per occultationem
Jonas in ventre cell, suam sepulturam desig-
nat," &c.
In opposition to this, Sam. Maresius, of the
reformed church, writes — "Absit a nobis ut
Deum faciamus SlyXvttov, aut multiplices sen
sus affingamus ipsius verbo, in quo potius, tam-
quam in speculo limpidissimo, sui autoris sim-
plicitatem contemplari debemus, Ps. xii. 6 ; xix.
8, Unicus ergo sensus scripturae nempe gram-
maticus, est admittendus, quibuscunque demum
terminis, vel propriis vel tropicis et figuratis ex-
primatur. Sed cum res illo sensu grammatico
express*, (sunt enim verba rerum imagines)
saepe sint typicsj, hinc fit, ut sensus ille unicus
et simplex debeat extendi non solum ad typum,
sed etiam ad prototypum,cui prafigurando typus
ille a Deo destinatur ; quo spectant pleraque ex
empla hie Tirino citata, et in quibus sensum
hactenus mysticum agnoscimus, quatenus res
ipsae mysti.cam habuemnt significationem."
Such was the opinion of the reformers, and
of most of the older evangelical theologians;
but Musaeus, Calovius, Quenstedt, Hollaz, Car-
povius, Mosheim, and others, contended for a
mystical sense, besides the literal, sense disco
vered and determined by the usus loquendi and
the context. By this mystical sense they meant,
however, only a spiritual application of the lite
ral 'sense. On the contrary, Baier, Buddeus,
Baumgarten, and others, maintained that this
spiritual, hidden, second, remote, sense of the
scriptures was the one intended by the Holy
Spirit. In later times, Dr. Olshausen distin
guishes between the literal sense of the Bible
and a deeper sense (yrtovoia, Untersinn), which
he calls spiritual. Vide Olshausen, Ein Wort
fiber tiefern Schriftsinn, Konigsberg, 1824, 8vo.

82

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Hahn, Lehrbuch des christlichen Glaubens,
Leipzig, 1828.]
(b) Another means of rendering the Bible
more useful to all classes of people — a means
far better than the former, and more adapted to
the present time, is that of making compends,
containing the most important, instructive, and
practical portions of the scriptures. The idea
of making extracts from the'Bible is not of re
cent origin. ' Soon after the Babylonian exile,
the Jews made selections from the various his
torical works of their prophets. The books of
Kings, Chronicles, &c, are compends, com
posed from larger historical works therein
named. Compends of the same kind were early
attempted among Christians. According to
Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. IV. 26, Melito of Sardis,
in the third century, composed a Synopsis Vete-
ris Testamenti, which, however, is now lost.
And we learn from a catalogue of the writings
of Augustine, given by Possidonius, an African
bishop of the fifth century, and a disciple of
Augustine, that he also made a selection of such
portions of the Old Testament as were interest
ing and instructive to Christians, to which he
gives the title of Speculum.
These compends of the scriptures may be
constructed on different plans, according to the
various ends for which they are composed.
But we are speaking here of that kind only
which is intended for the instruction and edifi
cation of the common people and of the young.
During the last twenty or thirty years many
compends of this nature have be,en composed in
the protestant church. Some theologians of
that party which would banish from religion
everything^jostfe're have made use of this method,
in order to give a direction to the religious in
struction of the common people and of the young,
conformably to their own maxims. They have
selected such portions only of the Bible as incul
cate the truths of natural religion, or exhibit the
the general precepts of morality, and have either
wholly omitted or very slightly noticed the posi
tive doctrines of the Christian faith. Many of
them have gone so far as to insist that such com
pends should be used in the schools instead of
the Bible, and have boldly declared that they
might be made gradually to supersede wholly

the original scriptures ; as in very many cases
the extracts made from a work have led to an
entire neglect of the original from which they
were taken.
If we consider these abuses, and the present
very doubtful tendency of this method, we can
not deny that there are weighty objections to
the regular use of compends of the Bible in po
pular religious instruction. Indeed, Eichhorn
(Bibl. der bihl. Lit. Th. I. s. 828, f.) and
many other neologists have declared themselves
against this method.
If, however, these compends are properly
constructed and rightly used they may be very
useful. In order to avoid the mistakes just men
tioned, and to answer the ends for which these
selections should be designed, they should be
composed in view of the following considera
tions : (1) Theauthorof the compendium and the
teachers who use it must carefully guard against
the appearance of undervaluing the Bible itself,
or of wishing to supersede it by their selections.
(2) They must rather labour to prepare those
whom they teach by means of these extracts to
read the Bible itself with understanding and
profit. In short, a compend of the Bible should
be made a practical introduction to the Bible
itself, and should be calculated to awaken the
desire of reading the original from which it is
taken. (4) The historical portions of the Bible
should be carefully retained, and the attention
of the reader should be directed to their practi
cal use. (5) The author should especially la
bour to render everything clear and intelligible,
preserving, however, as far as may be, the lan
guage of the Bible itself, and indeed, for the
most part, that of the authorized version, to
which the readers have been accustomed from
their youth. Cf. Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk
der gottlichen Weisheit, Th. II. s. 737. Some
of the best compends are those of Trinius,
Bahrdt, Seiler, Hufnagel, Schneider, Treumann,
Risler, and others mentioned in Noesselt's Bu-
cherkenntniss. One of the latest compends is
that of Zerrenner, which, however, does not
answer all the conditions above stated. The
student will find a number of essays for and
against compends of the Bible in some of the
volumes of the Predigerjournal.

BOOK I.

DOCTRINE OF GOD

(83)

Thus Book comprises what may be called theology in the strict sense of the
terna. The several doctrines belonging to it will be considered in the following
order : — PART I.
OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
1. Of the existence and the notion of God  Art. n.
2. Of the nature and attributes of God   Art. III.
3. Of the doctrine of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ....... Art. IV.
PART II.
OF THE WORKS OF GOD.
1. Of the creation of the world :
(a) The creation of the world in general, and of the earth . . Art. V.
(6) The creation, and original condition of man  Art. VI.
(c) The doctrine of angels  Art. VII.
2. Of Divine Providence and the preservation of the world .... Art. VIII.

(84)

BOOK I.

DOCTRINE OF GOD.

PART I.— NAIJRE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.

ARTICLE II.
OF THE EXISTENCE AND THE NOTION OF GOD.
SECTION XIV.
OF THE NOTION OF GOD.
I. Can God be defined?
t" 0 this question, which was
frequently asked by the
schoolmen, some writers
have returned a negative
answer, for the reason that
no definition can perfectly
exhaust the idea in ques
tion. And if the definition of a thing
must necessarily contain a complete de
scription of its whole nature and all
its attributes, a definition of God is
indeed impossible. But all which is
necessary in a definition is, that it should give
us so many of the characteristics of the thing de
fined as to enable us to distinguish it from all
other things. And in this sense God can cer
tainly be defined.
II. What is the best definition of God ?
The difference between the various defini
tions which philosophers have given of God is,
for the most part, merely verbal. Some of the
metaphysical definitions are obscure and other
wise objectionable. This is the case with the
definition given by Wolf: "God is a self-ex
istent being, in whom the ground of the reality
of the world is to be found," or, " God is a
being who has the ground of his existence in
nimself." Others define God to be an inde
pendent being, or an independent spirit, or an
infinite, necessary, eternal being. By these
definitions, which enumerate particular divine
attributes, God is distinguished from all other

beings. As a general thing, all the divine at
tributes may be derived by inference from any
one ; which may, therefore, be made the ground
of the definition of the Divine Being. This
was done by the ancient philosophers, who de
fined God to be rtdvtuv altwv, to bWcoj ov, ovala
aiSu>s, a^dvatos, aitdpxrjs, x. t.X.
But the best definition of God — the one in
which all the others are comprehended — is the
following : God is the most perfect being, and is
the cause of all other beings, (a) The first
clause of this definition is comprehensive of all
the particular attributes by which God is dis
tinguished from other beings, such as eternity,
necessity, independence, freedom, and perfec
tion of will, &c. This definition may be ex
pressed in more popular and scriptural lan
guage, by saying, God is the Supreme Being,
the Most High (ytyotos), exalted over all, to
whom none can be compared, (b) The second
clause of this definition is added, because the
contemplation of all other beings, the aggregate
of which is the world, facilitates the knowledge
of this most perfect being by rendering it obvi
ous that no other beings possess all the perfec
tions which are united in him. In this view,
God is regarded not only as he is in himself,
but also in relation to other existing things.
But Kant has pronounced this definition of God,
and all the common definitions, defective, be
cause they make no express mention of moral
perfection, which, in the description of a being
like God, should be far more prominent than
mere metaphysical perfection. He would there
fore connect with the idea of the most perfect
being that of a free being, provided with a pure
moral will. But the latter idea being implied
in the former does not require to be expressly
mentioned in a general definition.
But the first clause of the definition above
given, however intelligible it may be to the
learned, who are accustomed to abstract ideas,
is too transcendental and metaphysical for an-
H (85)

86

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

educated people. And as the principal part of our
knowledge of God is derived from the contem
plation of the natural world, and the conclusions
to which we arrive from this contemplation ; the
second clause of this definition will be far more
generally intelligible than the first. In popular
instruction we should therefore define God to be
the creator, preserver, and governor of all things ;
for we always conceive of God principally in
relation to ourselves and the world around us,
and without the contemplation of the world we
should not have come to the knowledge of God
as the most perfect being ; so that the first part
of the definition is a consequence of the last.
This is the light in which God is presented
to us in the Bible, Gen. i. 1 ; Jer. x. 10 — 16;
Amos, v. 8 ; Acts, xvii. 24, coll. Psalm clxvi.
6 ; Isa. xlii. 5 ; xiv. 6, seq. ; Matt. xi. 25. Vide
Morus, p. 44. And this, too, is the view of God
which is most calculated to inspire the minds
of men with reverence for his character, which
is the great object of all religious instruction.
Vide Morus, pages 43, 44.
SECTION XV.
OF THE PROOFS OF THE DIVINE EXISTENCE.
L Statement of the Proofs of the Existence of God.
The belief in the divine existence is always
presupposed in the Bible, and the truth of this
belief is not, therefore, formally proved, although
it is supported by many convincing arguments,
Rom. i. 19. On this account Baier and some
other theologians contended that the divine ex
istence should be presupposed in Christian theo
logy, and that the proofs of it should be wholly
omitted ; and it must be confessed that the full
and scientific statement of these proofs belongs
rather to metaphysics and natural theology than
here. The proofs of the divine existence may
be divided into two principal classes..
1. Proofs a priori. The most celebrated of
these is that derived from the idea of the most
perfect being, and called the ontological or Carte
sian proof. It was first used by Anselmus, and
often repeated by the schoolmen who succeeded
him, and only renewed by Des Cartes. It was
afterwards improved by Leibnitz, Wolf, and
Baumgarten. It may be briefly stated thus :
The most perfect being is possible, and therefore
actually exists ;for existence is a reality or perfec
tion, and necessary existence is the highest perfec
tion. Consequently necessary existence must be
predicated of the most perfect being. The vali
dity of this argument was disputed by the monk
Gaunilo, a contemporary of Anselmus, and by
many others in succeeding ages. In modern
times it has at last been proved by Kant to be
entirely futile. The mere supposableness or
logical possibility of a perfect being is no proof

of the objective or real possibility of such a
being ; and existence cannot be inferred from a
mere idea. This proof a priori entirely sur
passes the comprehension of common minds.
2. Proofs a posteriori, or from experience.
(<z) From the contingency of the world. We
perceive a constant motion and change in the
objects around us, from which we conclude that
they are contingent. These contingent things
must have some ground for their existence and
change extrinsic to themselves. And this
ground must be a necessary being, one who has
the ground of his existence in himself; and this
being is God. Otherwise we must make the
absurd supposition that effects exist without
their causes, or that there is an infinite series of
contingent causes (progressum causarum in infi
nitum), which is equally absurd. This proof,
when stated in connexion with others, and espe
cially with the moral proof, is well calculated
to produce conviction. The Bible frequently
contrasts the eternity and immutability of God
with the perishable nature of the material world,
Psalm xc. ; cii. 26 — 28 ; Heb. i. 10, seq. And
this proof, when exhibited in this way, is highly
adapted to produce impression even on the com
mon mind. [It is commonly called the cosmolo-
gical proof.]
Note. This argument, in' its scientific form
and development, has been ascribed by many.
from their ignorance of ancient philosophy, to
Thomas Aquinas. It was used, however, by
Carneades in opposition to the stoics, who
ascribed divinity to the world ; according to the
testimony of Cicero, De Natura Deor. III. 12.
It was also used by many of the ecclesiastical
fathers. Vide Petavius, Dogm. Theol. 1. i.
c. 2.
(6) The proofs from finalcauses. These may
be stated in a very popular and intelligible man
ner, and are therefore best adapted to the instruc
tion of the common people and of the young.
They are called by the schoolmen argumenta
physica. In these, however, the proof from the
contingency of the world is presupposed. The
argument stands thus: If the tilings of the
world stand connected as means and ends, and
follow one after another in this relation, they
must be ordered by an intelligence, a being of
reason and supreme wisdom. Now the things
of the world are found actually to exist in this
relation and order, so that we are compelled to
believe that the world has sprung from an intel
ligent author.
The full evidence of this conclusion depends
upon the following particulars. (1) The world
exhibits the most astonishing marks of order,
perfection, and design. Although we are unable
to survey the boundless extent of the universe,
we find abundant proof of this in the animate
and inanimate creation which surrounds us.

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

87

(2) The order and design exhibited in the world
are not the effect of blind chance. This cannot
\b supposed without contradicting the most fun
damental principles of the human mind. (3)
This order, so observable in the material crea
tion, is continge/it. We may be very easily
satisfied that it does not result from anything
existing in the world itself. From all this we
conclude that the order exhibited in the material
world must have a ground beyond the world
itself; and that the author of the visible creation
must be an intelligent being, who proposes to
himself certain ends to be attained in the produc
tion and wise arrangement of contingent things.
The science by which we attain the know
ledge of the existence and attributes of the Di
vine Being from the wfsdom displayed in the
constitution of the natural world, is called phy-
sico-theology ,- and that which develops the ends
or final causes of this constitution, teleology.
[Hence this proof of the divineexistence is com
monly called the physico-theological or ideolo
gical. '
This argument, so well adapted to common
apprehension, was employed more frequently
than any other by the ancient writers. Cf.
Xenophon, Memorabilia, I. 4. IV. 3. Plato,
De Legg. X. 68. XII. 229. Galen, De usu
partium. Philebus, 244. Cicero, De Nat. Deor.
II. 2, 38, seq. Quaest. Tusc. I. 28, 29. It was
likewise often employed by the Christian fa
thers. Vide Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 28.
Gregory of Nyssa, De opificio hominis. Lac-
tantius, De opificio hominis. Theophilus, Ad
Autolychum, I. 23. Cf. Athanasius, John of
Damascus, and others. The best modern
writers on the general subject of physico-theo-
' logy are, Fenelon, Van Nieuwentyt, Derham,
Wolf, Scheuchzer, Bonnet, and Sander. Par
ticular branches of physico-theology have also
been frequently laboured in modern times.
Cf. Frabicius, Hydrotheologie. Lesser, Litho-
theologie. Derham, Astrotheologie. Bode, An-
leitung zur Kenntniss des gestemten Himmels.
Reimarus, Ueber die Triebe derThiere. Lesser,
Insektotheologie, &c. This general argument
is often exhibited in the holy scriptures. Vide
Ps. viii. xix. civ. ; Is. xl. 21 — 26 ; Job, xxxvii.
xii. ; Matt. vi. 25, seq. ; Acts, xiv. 15, seq. xvii.
24—28; Rom. i. 19.
(c) The moral argument, lately elucidated by
Kant. Vide No. II.
(d) The historical proof, drawn from the
agreement of all, even the most uncultivated
nations, in the belief of the divine existence.
Against this proof it has been objected, (1) that
the fact of this agreement could not be satisfac
torily proved from history ; vide Introduction,
s. 4 ; (2) that this agreement, even if it could
be satisfactorily established, would not prove
this belief to be true ; since many acknowledged

errors and superstitions have been universally
believed. But notwithstanding these objec
tions, this almost universal agreement of men
with regard to the divine existence must be ac
knowledged to furnish an argument of some
weight. It shews that the common sense of
mankind, on a little reflection, leads to the idea
of God, and that the conclusion from these ef
fects to such a cause is very obvious and natu
ral to the human mind. Acts, xvii. 27. It
should be here remarked, however, that the be
lief of the divine existence precedes the know
ledge of any theoretic proof of it. Vide Intro
duction, s. 4, and infra No. II.
[This argument was used by the ancient phi
losophers. JldvtES aV^pwrtot 7ispi ^Etov Xxovoiv
irtoXtj^iv, Aristotle, De Caelo, I. 3. "Artavtes
d^purtot bxe&ov "Exxtjvis tE xai (3ap/3opoi, vopi-
^ovaiv tlmt, to §tlov, Sextus Empiricus, Adv.
Mathern. I. 8. The same writer mentions as
one of four proofs of the divine existence, r/
rtopa rtdniv av^p&rtois csvpifyutvia, Adv. Mathem.
IX. 60. 'Kv f3apJ3apot£ ovSees ioti tbv ^tovayvoiov,
Maximus Tyrius, Dissert. 38. Cf. Cicero, De
Nat. Deor. I. 17, 23. Seneca, Epist. 117.
(e) The proof of the divine existence from'
miracles. The miracles recorded in the Old and
New Testaments must have afforded to those
who saw them irresistible proof of the existence
and perfections of God. They were accordingly
employed by Moses, and the other ancient pro
phets, to convince the Jews and Egpytians not
only that God existed, but that Jehovah was
the only true and the almighty sovereign of the
universe. And these miracles are calculated to
produce the same conviction in us, although we
have not seen them with our own eyes, if we
Relieve the truth of the Bible in which they are
recorded. Vide Storr and Flatt, Elements of
Biblical Theology, vol. i. p. 309, of the trans
lation. II. Observations on the Use of the Proof of the
Divine Existence.
1. The proofs of the divine existence have
been the subject of much controversy among
the philosophers of modern times. Kant has
endeavoured to shew, in his Kritik der reinen
Vernunft, der Urtheilskraft, and other works,
that all the theoretic proofs of the divine exist
ence are imperfect, and that we do not hold the
notion of God to be true on the ground of spe
culative reason, but because it perfectly agrees
with the principles of our moral nature. And
he would therefore have our belief in the exist
ence of God to depend solely upon the moral
proof, which may be briefly stated as follows :—
There is a moral order of things in the world, —
all things are connected together as means for
the attainment of moral ends. To this moral
order we ourselves belong, as we learn from th

88

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

moral feeling which we all possess, and which
is exerted in the conscience. Now we are led
\y our practical reason to conclude, that there
txists some cause, by which alone this order
could be established — i. e., that there is a God.
Vide Jacobi, Priifung der Mendelssohn'schen
Morgenstunden, oder aller speculativen Be
weise fiir das Daseyn Gottes, Leipzig, 1786,
8vo. Cf. Jacobi, Ueber den moralischen Be-
weis vom Daseyn Gottes, Libau, 1791, 8vo.
[This argument will be placed in a clearer
light by the following passage from Kant him
self. "The highest good of man consists of
two parts, the greatest possible morality and
happiness. The former is the demand of his
spiritual, the latter of his animal nature. The
former only, his morality, is within his own
power; and while, by persevering virtue, he
makes this his personal character, he is often
Compelled to sacrifice his happiness. But since
the desire of happiness is neither irrational nor
unnatural, he justly concludes, either that there
is a supreme being who will so guide the course
of things (the natural world not of itself subject
to moral laws) as to render his holiness and
happiness equal, or that the dictates of his con
science are unjust and irrational. But the lat
ter supposition is morally impossible ; and he is
compelled, therefore, to receive the former as
true." Kritik der reinen Vernunft, s. 620, f.]
2. An impartial examination of this contro
versy leads us to the following general re
sult: —
(a) The metaphysical proofs of the divine
existence are imperfect, as well as all proofs of
this nature, to whatever subject they may relate.
But they are not requisite for the establishment
of our faith. If we should begin with the prin
ciple of believing only what we could prove on
speculative grounds, we should end with doubt
ing many of the most established truths, and our
own existence among the rest. The demonstra
tion which Spinoza has given of pantheism is
inconclusive, because it is founded on merely
speculative grounds, as Kant has shewn beyond
all dispute. The person who hopes to attain to
certainty in the way of metaphysical speculation,
will be disappointed, and will fall into the depths
of cheerless scepticism.
(6) It is an established fact, that all who be
lieve in the divine existence, are convinced of it
before they come to the knowledge of any theo
retic argument by which it might be proved.
Men in general admit the idea of God to be true,
because it perfectly agrees with the principles
of their moral nature, and is demanded by these
,_ principles ; and not because it is proved by spe
culative reason. Vide Introduction, s. 4.
(c) This moral proof is therefore very true
and just; and we shall do well if we search for
the grounds of it in our own minds, in order to

establish our own personal conviction. This
proof should likewise be used, divested however
of technical language, in popular instruction;
for so it is actually employed in the holy scrip
tures. (d) As soon, however, as the speculative rea
son is awakened, and in some measure culti
vated, the mind, agreeably to its nature and its
usual course, searches for the theoretic proofs
of the same truths with which it had become
previously acquainted from practical reason.
But the man deceives himself who supposes that
these theoretic proofs alone would have ever led
him to conviction. They are not, however, by
any means to be rejected ; since they result di
rectly from the very constitution of the specula
tive reason, and serve to confirm our belief in
truths which were before made known to us in
another way. If with these views we find im
perfection and inconclusiveness in these theoretic
proofs, we shall not be wavered in our faith,
knowing that it depends upon other grounds
than these. In connexion, therefore, with the
moral proof, the physico-theological and teleolo-
gical should also be used. What God, the au
thor of our nature, has joined together in the
very constitution which he has given us, let not
the philosopher or religious teacher put asunder.
3. The use to be made of these remarks in
popular instruction. If the human mind comes
to the knowledge of God in the manner just
described, we must conform ourselves in our in
structions to this natural progress, if we would
compass our object. In so doing, we shall fol
low the example of the sacred writers, who al
ways proceed in this way. We must accord
ingly inculcate upon our hearers the truth, that
the conscience of man is the ground of all our
knowledge of God, and the source of all true
religion. Every man has a law within his own
bosom, by which he judges his feelings, actions,
and his whole moral character. This law com
mands his obedience so imperatively, that he is
compelled to regard it as the standard, to which
alone his conduct must be brought, and where
it must be tried independently of human opi
nions. And he acquits or condemns himself,
according to this law, as if he stood before a ju
dicial tribunal, Rom. ii. 12 — 16; Acts, xvii.
27—31 ; Rom. i. 19, 20, 32 ; Cf. Introduction,
s. 4. Now when a person acknowledges this
law, he at the same time acknowledges, that
there is an invisible lawgiver and judge, who
annexes rewards to what is morally good, and
punishment to what is morally evil, to whom
therefore homage and obedience is due from us
his subjects. Vide loc. sup. cit. In this way
does man come to the knowledge of a moral
order of things, to which he himself is conscious
of belonging in the nobler portion of his nature,
and from which he cannot but infer the exist

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

i'i

imce of a cause upon which this order de
pends — i. e., of a free and moral being. In
short, the conscience of man distinctly utters the
voice of an invisible and supreme judge of our
thoughts and actions.
But we do not stop at this point. Though
this judge of our hearts is invisible, he is yet the
object of our knowledge. His existence is made
known to us by his works, which we see with
our eyes, and perceive by all our bodily senses,
(voovuiva xaSopatai, Rom. i. 20 ;) for as long as
the world exists (artb xtiasas xaopov) we may
find proof of the divine existence, and revelation
of the divine attributes, in the works of his hand.
Here, then, according to the example of the sa
cred writers, we may introduce the proofs from
the contingency of the world, and the marks of
design which it exhibits, in all their force.
If we impart religious instruction in this man
ner, we shall proceed both psychologically and
scripturally ; for conscience within, and nature
without us, furnish a twofold source of the know
ledge of God. But if we follow the example of
the Bible, we shall connect with these truths,
derived immediately from the human conscience,
the more peculiar doctrines of the Christian
system ; such, for example, as the doctrine that
Christ will, at a future day, sit in judgment upon
all the actions of our lives, Rom. ii. 16. It fol
lows from the views here expressed, that we
should begin to instruct children in the know
ledge of God at a very early .period ; as soon,
indeed, as they shew the movings of moral feel
ing, or begin to reflect upon the things which
surround them, or to reason from effect to cause.
Vide Jacobi, Leichter und iiberzeugender Be-
weis von Gott, und von der Wahrheit der christ
lichen Religion ; also, Versuch eines Beweises
eines in der menschlichen Seele von Natur
liegenden Eindrucks von Gott, und einem Leben
nach dem Tode. III. Of Atheism.
The error of those who deny the existence of
God is called atheism. Atheists are such either
theoretically or practically. Practical atheists
are those who derive the motives of their con
duct from the denial of the divine existence. In
the common sense, however, they are those who,
while they profess religion, live in reality like
atheists. It is of such that the Bible speaks,
Psa. xiv. 1 ; Ephes. ii. 12. But we shall here
treat only of theoretic atheism. Some have de
nied that theoretic atheism is possible. This
opinion, so contradictory to all experience and
history, is generally entertained by those who
believe in innate ideas, or who would prove the
existence of God from the common consent of
all mankind ; but notwithstanding this opinion,
there have always been those who have denied
the being of God. Some, like Sextus the Em-
12

piric, and Hume, are sceptical atheists, arid con
sider the evidence against the divine existence
as equivalent to that in its favour, and therefore
leave the question undecided. Others are de
cided, dogmatical atheists, and think the argu
ments against the divine existence prepon
derate. But we must here notice a species of atheism
which is more refined, and which has been bet
ter received, than any other. God, as we con
ceive of him, is the most perfect being distinct
from the world which is dependent on him.
Whoever, therefore, believes that the world
itself, or any part or power of it, is God, is an
atheist. But there have always been some phi
losophers who have held that the world itself,
or that the air or fire, or some other portion, or
that the power of motion, (which was the opi
nion of many of the Stoics and Epicureans),
was God himself. But this atheism was for
the first time thoroughly systematized by Bene
dict Spinoza, in his Ethics, published among
his posthumous works in 1677. According to
him, there is but one substance, which, however,
is variously modified. It has two principal at
tributes, infinite extension (matter) and infinite
thought (intelligence.) Spinoza speaks indeed
of God; his God, however, is not personally
distinguished from the world, but is the uni
verse itself, to rtav. Hence the name of no*.
theism, which is given to his system. He i»
commonly supposed to have derived his views
from Xenophanes of Colophon, and from Parme-
nides and Zeno of Elea. He did not, however,
agree so well with the principles of that school
as with the ideas of the system of emanation,
which he enlarged, refined, and adapted to his
own theory. The weakness and inconclusive-
ness of the reasoning of Spinoza has been ex
posed with great sagacity by Kant. The
whole subject is fully considered in the writings
of Jacobi, Heydenreich, and Herder, respecting
Spinoza. Very similar to the system of Spinoza is that
of many theosophists. Pantheism has likewise
been received into favour, in modern times, by
many philosophers in Italy and France ; and in
Germany, the visible tendency of many of the
adherents of the critical philosophy is to derive
atheism from the ideas of Kant, and thus esta
blish it on a new foundation. This appears to
be the case particularly with Fichte, Nietham-
mer, Forberg, and Schelling. Vide Fichte's
and Niethammer's Philosophisches Journal, St.
I. Fichte is very unwilling to be thought an
atheist; and, to be sure, he speaks of God; but
he cannot speak of him in the sense in which
others do, for he denies the existence of a being
who is self-existent and independent of our con
ceptions; and such a being is intended by every
one who speaks of God. The term God, accord-
h2

90

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ing to Fichte, means nothing more than the
moral order of things; and this order, according
to his system, exists only in relation to us, and
as belonging to ourselves, and not at all inde
pendent of our conceptions. Vide the Essay,
Ueber Fichte's Lehre vbn Gott, und der gott
lichen Weltregierung, in Flatt's Magazin fur
christliche Dogmatik und Moral, St. 5, s. 1 — 83,
and 174—239; and Briefe uber Kant's, For-
berg's und Fichte's Religionslehre, St. 6, s.
184—210. Cf. the Essays of Dr. Vogel, in the
Neue Theol. Journal, 1799 and 1800. Also two
treatises in Siiskind's Magazin, St. 11, 12, No.
3, Ueber die Grunde des Glaubens an eine
Gottheit als ausserweltliche und fiir sich beste-
hende Intelligenz; and No. 9, Ueber das Fun
dament des Glaubens an die Gottheit. For
remarks respecting Schelling's doctrine of reli
gion, vide Dr. Vogel's Essay in Gabler's Jour
nal fiir auserlesene theol. Litteratur, Bd. V. St. i
1, s. 1, ff., and Siiskind's Magazin, St. 17.
[Note. — The name atheism would seem to be
improperly given to the error of those who in
any way allow the idea of God, however much
their conceptions of him may vary from, the
truth. These different conceptions may be de
signated by names more appropriate and less in
jurious than that of atheism. Thus the doctrine
of Fichte, who allows the subjective validity of
the idea of God, though he denies its objective
reality, is properly called idealism; the doctrine
of Spinoza, who removes the individual exist
ence of nature, and transfers it to God, while
he retains unaltered the idea of God as a self-
conscious individual, would be properly called
ideal pantheism; and that of Schelling, who
transfers the individual being of God into na
ture, natural pantheism. These remarks are
confirmed by the following quotation from
Henke : —
" Summa injuria omnes illi Atheorum numero
accensentur, qui summum numen ab hoc nni-
verso secretum ac disperatum cogitare nesciunt,
maluntque Deum rerum omnium causam imma-
nentem, quam transeuntem, dici, nee tamen id
quod perpetuo est, commiscent cum illo quod
perpetuo fit : quorum error, profecto magis fana-
ticus quam impius, Pantheismus et Spinosismus
vocatur." Lineam. Inst, fidei Christ., p. 54.
Among the ancient Greek philosophers to
whom the name of atheist would truly apply,
we may mention, Leucippus, Diagorasof Melos,
Protagoras of Abdera, Critias of Athens, Prodi-
cus, and Theodoras of Cyrene; among the
Romans, Lucretius; among modern writers, De
la Mettrie, Von Holbach, or La Grange, (the
author of the System of Nature), Helvetius,
Diderot, and D'Alembert, (the authors of the
French Encyclopaedia,) and Joseph Priestly.
Mandeville, Edelmann, and Voltaire, appear to

have been rather promoters of atheistical princi
pies than themselves decided atheists.]
SECTION XVI.
OF THE UNITY OF GOD.
I. Proof of the Divine Unity.
1. The unity of God is proved from the
idea of absolute perfection, .which cannot be
conceived as divided, or as residing in different
subjects. This proof was sometimes employed
by the ecclesiastical fathers — e. g., Tertullian,
Contra Marcionem, I. 3.
2. From the unity of the world. All the ob
jects existing extrinsically to God himself com
pose one great whole. And since the most
perfect being affords sufficient ground for the
existence of the world, the supposition of an
other being is unnecessary. This metaphysical
proof was used by Ambrosius, De fide, I. 1.
3. From the creation and preservali n of the
world. This proof may be stated in the most
popular manner. If many deities participated
in the creation and preservation of the world,
we must suppose, (a) either that they divided
the powers among themselves, one possessing
one power, and another a different power, — to
which it might be said that the supposition of a
God with only one power is a contradicticn, —
or (6) that one among them possessed more
power than the rest; in which case he alone is
worthy of the name of God, and the others are
unnecessary, or at most are only subservient to
the supreme God ; or (c) that they all possessed
equal powers and perfections; in which case,
either one among them created the world, and
is, therefore, alone entitled to the name of God;
or they all united their powers in the work of
creation, which implies that their single powers
were insufficient, and that their united powers
alone constitute God, and thus leads us back to
unity, (povas.) On the supposition that many
different gods participate in the goverment of the
world we could hardly avoid the conclusion that
they would disagree in their views and plans,
and thus introduce disorder and confusion into
the world. This argument was formerly em
ployed by Abelard.
For a more full discussion of the proofs of the
unity of God the student may consult the fol
lowing works: Tollner, Versach eines neuen
strengen Beweises von der Eiaheit Gottes, in
his Vermischten Aufsatzen, Samml. I. Num 3,
1766. Just. Christ. Henning, Die Einigkeit
Gottes, nach verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten
gepriift; Altenburg, 1779, 8vo. Platner, Phi-
losophische Aphorismen, th. i.
The doctrine of the unity of God is taught in
the most clear and explicit manner in the Ok

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

91

and New Testaments. " Jehovah is God, Jeho
vah is one" (-htn) — i. e., one God, Deut. vi. 4;,
iv. 35, 39 ; xxxii. 39. " I am God, and there is
none else," Isaiah, xiv. 5, 21, 22; Ps. lxxxvi.
10. The doctrine cf the unity of God was at
the foundation of the whole Mosaic religion
and institute, and also of the Christian religion.
" And this is eternal life, that they might know
thee," tbv pnvov aXifewbv ®ibv, John, xvii. 3.
"Hplv eXs ®eos b 7tatrjp, " we believe in one God,"
1 Cor. viii. 4 — 6 ; James, ii. 19, seq.
II. Historical Illustrations of the Doctrine of
the Divine Unity.
1. The error of those who maintain that the
universe was created, and is sustained and go
verned by more than one God, is called poly
theism. And those who had fallen into this
error being the great body of the nations of the
ancient world, were called by the Jews, dmj (to,
e^vx, gentes) ; rendered by Luther, Heiden (lit.
Volker) and by our translators, heathen, (lit.
gentiles, pagans.) Hence polytheism is called
by Luther Heidenthum, and by our translators,
heathenism, 2. The notion of the unity of God is com
monly supposed to be very obvious to the mind
of every one. But if it is as clear and compre
hensible to the human understanding as the
idea of the divine existence, for example, how
comes it to pass that so many nations, even
those who must be allowed to have possessed
the highest mental cultivation, should have been
from the first so decidedly inclined, and so ob
stinately attached, to polytheism? The Israel
ites themselves, who in the times of the patri
archs had been taught the truth on this subject
by immediate revelation, relapsed afterwards
into the errors of the surrounding nations. The
idea of the unity of God cannot, therefore, as
Grotius justly observed (De jure belli et pacis),
be so obvious to the mind as is commonly sup
posed. In fact, it presupposes an acquaintance
with many subjects far too abstract and trans
cendental for the uncultivated mind. But if
this necessary knowledge is previously acquired,
this idea results very naturally, and when it is
once obtained it is not easily surrendered. This
point has been ably illustrated by Meiners, His-
toria doctrinae de deo vero ; Lemgo, 8vo.
Note. — The remarks just made strikingly
confirm the observation, that it is very easy to
establish by proofs drawn from reason any truth
which is once made known, but often very dif
ficult to discove* in the first instance even the
most simple truth. When we consider that the
writers of the Old Testament taught the doc
trine of the unity of God at a time when all the
nations of the world were sunken in polytheism,
we must regard them with great veneration.
Could they, in the situation in which they were

placed, have obtained this truth by their own
reflection ? The neglected writers of the Old
Testament speak on this subject with more
truth and clearness than the enlightened philo
sophers of Greece and Rome. And to whom
are we indebted for our just apprehensions on
this subject? Our conduct with respect to the
Bible, to which we owe so much, resembles
that of ungrateful children and scholars with
respect to their parents and instructors.
3: But the idea of the unity of God which
the great multitude of the Jews entertained be
fore the Babylonian exile was very imperfect,
which accounts for their inclination to idolatry.
They regarded Jehovah as merely the first and
greatest among the gods, as their God, and the
God of their fathers and their country. They
admitted the real existence of the deities of the
heathen, and only claimed for their God a pre
cedence over the rest. Such, doubtless, were
the conceptions of the great multitude of the
Jews, although Abraham, Moses, the prophets,
and the more enlightened part of the nation,
were in possession of better views. Vide No.
J. ad finem. If it were not so, how could they
have revolted so frequently from the worship
of the true God to idolatry, in order to make
trial as it were of another god who might please
them better? Jacob himself appears to have
entertained opinions like this at first, (Genesis,
xxviii. 16;) and his family were therefore, for
a long time, in the practice of idolatry. He at
least permitted it in his wives. And Moses
was compelled to ask God for the name by
which he would be known to the Israelites, so
imperfect were their conceptions with respect
to his unity, Exodus, iii. 13. Solomon, too,
permitted his concubines to practise idolatry
even in the holy land, not, however, so much
from the want of sufficient theoretical know
ledge on this subject as from a false toleration,
resulting from weakness and a misplaced plia
bility. But it was not till after the Babylonian exile
that the Jews became the zealous professors
and stanch advocates of this doctrine. Then,
however, and especially after they came under
the yoke of the Persians, who were at that time
the avowed haters of polytheism, the unity of
God became the prevailing belief of the Jewish
nation. But the establishment and diffusion of
Christianity has done more than anything else
to propagate this doctrine, which is now re
ceived by a great majority of mankind. To
this result the spread of the Mahommedan re
ligion has contributed not a little ; for Moham
med was one of the most zealous advocates of
the unity of God. He, however, was indebted
for his purest views on religion to Judaism and
Christianity. 4. The question has been asked whether

92

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

there were any among the heathen nations who
entertained just conceptions respecting the unity
of God?— to which various and contradictory
answers have been given. Tile following ob
servations may be of use in deciding the contro
versy :
(a) Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle,
and other sages of the heathen world, either ex
pressly asserted the doctrine of the unity of
God, or (which is the case with most of them)
regarded it as highly probable. Vide Hennings,
Die Einigkeit Gottes nach verscheidenen
Gesichtspunkten gepriift, Altenburg, 1779, 8vo.
Some of them, however, — the philosophers of
Elea for example, — formed different conceptions
of the unity of God from those which we deriv,e
from the Bible, and were rather inclined to pan
theism than to monotheism.
(6) There have always been various systems
of polytheism among the heathen nations ; and
in judging of them, two extremes should be
avoided. They should not be so much depre
ciated as they sometimes are by modern writers,
nor should they, on the other hand, be so much
extolled as they were by many of the church
fathers, (Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, Cle
mens of Alexandria, and others,) who supposed
that by giving such favourable representations
of the established religions of the heathen, they
might induce them the more easily to embrace
Christianity. Cudworth, in modern times, has
fallen into the same extreme.
It is doubtless true that many heathen nations
acknowledged a supreme God. But besides
him, they believed in many subordinate deities,
to whom the government of the world was com
mitted. Such we find was the belief of most
of the oriental nations. They supposed that the
supreme God lived in rest and inaction, uncon
cerned with the affairs of the world, and in air
respects like an eastern despot, and who, as for
any influence beyond himself, might as well
cease to exist. This being they conceived to
be one, and yet material. And in general, the
pure idea of spirit is far too transcendental for
the infancy of the world, and we see from the
description of God in all the ancient languages,
the Hebrew not excepted, that he was supposed
to exist as a subtile, corporeal essence.
The manner in which these unjust concep
tions originated may be best explained as fol-
lpws : — When man is in a savage state and ig
norant of the powers of nature, he ascribes every
effect, the cause of which is unknown to him,
to some invisible being like himself, whom he
imagines to be more or less powerful, good or
bad, according to the nature of the effect which
which he witnesses. In every body there is a
superior being, from which its motion and ex
istence depend. This led naturally to the wor
ship of this being; and hence philosophy, when

it afterwards arose, abstracted the system of
emanation ; which, accordingly, is one of the
oldest philosophical systems. Vide Meiners'
Essay concerning the origin and differences; of
false religions, in Comment. Soc. scient. Got-
ting. vol. vii. page 58, seq. 1784 — 85. Cf.
Kleuker's Zend-Avesta,
[Note. — The following quotations from Lac-
tanlius shew the manner in which this subject
was treated by the Christian fathers in their con
troversies with the early enemies of Christianity.
In defending the monotheism of Christians
against the polytheism of the heathen world, he
says, " Sed omittamus sane festimbnia prophe-
tarum — et eos ipsos ad probationem veri testes
citemus, quibus contra nos uti solent, ^joefas dico
et philosophos. Poetae igitur, quamvis Deos
earminibus ornaverint, et eorum res gestas am-
plificaverint summis laudibus, saepissime tamen
confitentur, spiritu velmente una contiheriregique
omnia.'" He then passes to the philosophers,
" quorum gravior est auctoritas certiusque judi
cium," and after enumerating several who had
given intimations of the doctrine of the unity of
God, adds, " Nunc satis est demonstrare, sum-
mo ingenio viros altigisse veritatem et prope te-
nuisse," Institutt. 1. i. c. 5. In a similar man
ner, M. Minuc. Felix concludes his defence of
Christian monotheism by the somewhat extra
vagant result, " aut nunc Christianos philosophos
esse, aut philosophos fuisse jam tunc Christianas,"
Cap. XX.]
5. Some sects even of the Christian church
have been accused of receiving a number of
gods, and especially of believing in a good and
an evil being, or the doctrine of dualism, which
Was held in the second and third centuries by
many Persian and other oriental phiosophers.
Such was the doctrine of Carpocrates, Marcion,
and many other Gnostics, and especially of
Manes and his followers in the third and fourth
centuries. These sects, however, according to
the testimony of Beausobre, did not suppose that
these beings were themselves the supreme God,
but that they were dependent upon him, and
that the evil principle could not in any sense be
properly denominated God. In fine, Christians
in general have been charged by Jews and Ma-
hommedans with believing in a tritheism. And
it must be confessed that too much ground for
this charge has been afforded by the incautious
expressions with regard to the doctrine of the
Trinity which were common, especially among
the ancient teachers of Christianity. And even
at the present day there are many common and
unenlightened Christians who fall into the same
error. They make profession with their mouth
of their faith in one God, while at the same
time they conoeive of him in their minds aa
three. Morus, s. 5, p. 44.

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

93

SECTION XVII.
OF THE SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF GOD.
There is no way so good for ascertaining the
manner in which anything is regarded as by
considering the names by which it is called.
We may, accordingly, find in what light God
was regarded by the Hebrews by examining
the names by which they called him. In this
view,, the subject of the present section is very
important. It shews how proper, worthy, and
elevated, were the ideas which the Jews enter
tained of God.
I. General names applied to Deity, without distinc
tion of true or false,
1. hiSn, augustus, the one to be revered, syno
nymous with BJnjj. It is derived from the
Arabic i!l, colere, venerari, which is still ex
tant. Hence it comes to pass that it is fre
quently applied to kings, magistrates, judges,
and others to whom reverence is shewn, and
who are regarded as representatives of the Deity
upon earth. Vide Psalm lxxxii. 6; Exodus,
vii. 1. It is almost always rendered in the
Sept. version, even when it occurs in the plural,
by the words ©eos, ®Eoi, which are also applied
by the Grecian Jews to other subjects besides
the supreme God. Vide John, x. 34 — 36. The
plural of this word, D>rrjN, although it denotes
but one subject, is appropriately used to desig
nate Jehovah by way of eminence. In this fact,
many theologians have thought they perceived
an allusion to the doctrine of the Trinity, though
they have no sufficient ground for supposing that
this doctrine was known at so early a period.
And without resorting to this supposition, the
application of this plural name to a singular
subject may be explained from an idiom of the
ancient oriental and some other languages, by
which anything great or eminent was expressed
in the plural number, (pluralis dignitatis, or ma-
jestaticus.) Vide Glass, Philol. Sacra, p. 58,
set}, ed Dathe. Accordingly niSs, augustus, may
be considered as the positive degree, of which
nirtbK, augustissimus, is the superlative. Cf.
Genesis, xxix. 3; Exodus, xxi. 4, 9.
2. Sn, ©sot, sometimes literally rendered in
the Septuagint and in the version of Aquila,
o laxvpos, the Almighty.
3. J11N, &EBrt6tns> xilpio;, dominus. This is a
name of dignity, applied to rulers, leaders, and
persons of distinction, and, like the word, Sya,
sometimes given even to heathen deities. Psalm
cxxxvi. 3; Numbers, xxxii. 25, 27, coll. 1 Cor.
viii. 5. The form wn, nowever, is the appro
priate designation of the supreme God. It is an
ancient form of the plural found in several other
Hebrew words, arid still preserved in the Syriac.
Here, as in the case of D<rvw, the plural ims is

doubtless superlative, and signifies lord of lords,
or supreme lord.
H. Names given to the true God by way of
distinction.
1. The most ancient name, by which the su
preme God was distinguished from the gods of
the heathen, is, 'its' Sn, which first occurs in the
history of Abraham, (Gen. xvii. 1 ;) and after
wards in Exodus, vi. 3, where God expressly
says-, " I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac,
and unto Jacob, by the narne nif Stt." From a
false etymology this title has been supposed to
signify the All-sufficient, But, it is derived from
the Arabic AJAui, robustus, poiens esse, and in
the plural signifies, potentissimus, and is there
fore rendered in the Septuagint, rtavtoxpdtap,
omnipotens, 2. nfr;. When the Israelites lived in Egypt,
in the midst of an idolatrous people, to whose
practices they themselves were inclined, Moses
was commanded (Exodus, iii. 13, seq.) to an
nounce to them the true God as the same Being
who had been worshipped by Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and who would prove himself equally
powerful and gracious to the children as to the
fathers. God therefore called himself nvix, /
will be — namely, the God of the Jews as well
as of their ancestors ; and directed Moses, when
he addressed the Israelites, to call him mrp, — i.
e., he shall be, from rt<n, or rather, nin, fait,
according to a form which afterwards became
obsolete in Hebrew, but which was preserved,
and in common use in Chaldaic. Such was the
origin and occasion of this appellation.
With respect to the manner in which it was
pronounced, as it is the third person future, it
would be uttered, according to grammatical ana
logy) ".:!?. °r nin. Accordingly, the Samari
tans, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, pronounced it
Jave. But the Jews believed that this name
was not to be uttered, and Josephus said, Antiq.
II. 12, that he dared not to communicate it. In
place of it, the Jews were accustomed to enun
ciate D'frjN or ij-w; from the latter of which its
common punctuation is borrowed. It is always
rendered by the Alexandrine translators by the
word Kiiptoj. The Talmud says that the angels
themselves dared not to utter it, and denounces
all who should be so presumptuous with fright
ful curses. The Jews went so far as to believe
that it could not be uttered by man, or that one
who might speak it would be able, by its enun
ciation, to work miracles. Such a superstitious
regard for this name does not seem to have ex
isted before the Babylonian exile, for we meet
with the names Jehoiakim, Jehoiadah, Jeho-
zadak, &c, in which the word nw evidently
makes a part of the composite proper noun. But

94

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

these names were afterwards altered, in conform
ity with this superstition, into Eliakim, &c.
And in Daniel, Esther, and other of the latest
books of the Old Testament, this name is wholly
omitted. For this mystery, as well as many
others relating to divine things, the Jews are
indebted to the Chaldeans. Vide Reland, Diss.
de vera pronuntiatione nominis Jehovah; Ultra-
jecti, 1705, 8vo.
This name is appropriated to the supreme God,
and is never applied to the gods of the heathen.
Videl Kingsxviii.21,24; Isa.xlii.8; xliii.ll.
It has been asserted, however, that this name
was sometimes given, by way of metonomy, to
such things as were consecrated to the service
of God, and especially to the ark of the covenant.
This was urged by Socinus and his followers,
and has been repeated in modern times as an
answer to the argument for the divinity of Christ,
drawn from the application to him of the name
nttr. They refer to the passage, Numbers, x.
3*5, 36, " When the ark set forward, Moses said,
Rise up, Jehovah ! And when it rested, he
said, Return, Jehovah." Cf. Ps. lxviii. 1 ;
cxxxii. 8. But in this passage Moses does not
address the ark, but God himself, who was sup
posed to dwell or sit upon it.
3. ;t. This name occurs only in the poetical
portions of the Bible, and is frequently ren
dered in the Septuagint by the word Kiiptoj. It
is derived by many from n>s\ decuit, (Jeremiah,
x. 7,) and thus signifies, the magnificent, the
majestic ; but this derivation is contrary to ana
logy, and the word, more probably, is a mere
abbreviation of the name, nin1..
4. ji'Sy, from nSy, 6 vfyatos, Luke, i. 35,)
Deus supremus, the Most High. God was sup
posed to dwell in the highest heaven, which
was called diid, ta v^iata. Hence the name
d^de? is sometimes given to God himself, Luke,
xv.'l8, 21.
5. n*ttx njrr>, x TiSs, xipios ffaj3au^, itavto-
xpdtap, x. t. x. This title is explained in va
rious ways. Some translate it God of gods,
others, God of hosts, (the stars of heaven;)
others still, and with more probability, Lord of
the universe, and Governor of the world, itavto-
xpdtap ; since tai frequently denotes all crea
tures, so far as they are employed by God in
his service, Psalm ciii. 21. Cf. s. 45.
6. Several other titles, which will be hereaf
ter enumerated in connexion with the subject of
the divine attributes, Art. III., are used by the
sacred writers to distinguish the true God from
the imaginary deities of the heathen world.
Among these we may mention the title in Sn,
©eoj o ?u»i o povos aXrj&vbs ©eoj, the living and
true God, in opposition to the gods of the hea
then, who are called pdtatoi,, slSuXa.

ARTICLE III.
OP THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD.
SECTION XVIII.
introduction to the doctrine respecting
the nature and attributes of god.
I. What is meant by the Nature and Attributes of
God.
The nature of God is the sum of all the di
vine perfections ; the attributes of God are the
particular distinct perfections or realities which
are predicable of the divine nature, (praedicata
dei necessaria, ob essentiam ei tribuenda, Mo
rus, p. 58, note 1.) The divine attributes do
not therefore differ materialiter from the divine
nature, but only formaliter, [i. e., the difference
between nature and attribute is not objective, or
does not appertain to God himself; but is sub
jective, formal, or, as the older theologians say,
secundum nostrum concipiendi modum.~\ The
attributes of God are merely our notions of the
particular distinctions which, taken together,
compose the divine nature. We are unable to
take in the whole object at a single glance, and
are compelled, in order to accommodate the
weakness of our understanding, to consider it
in separate portions. It should be remarked,
mereever, that from any pne pf the divine attri
butes all the rest may be derived. Vide s. 14.
Note — (1) Cf. Merus, p. 57, s. 22. The
attributes pf God were called by the Jews
de?, niDEj, nomina dei ; fer a thing is usually
named frem the attributes which it is seen to
pessess. (2) The divine attributes are called
by the Greeks apEtal, (1 Pet. ii. 9,) answering
to the Latin virtutes, and the Hebrew pvjnn,
(Isaiah, xlii. 8; xliii. 21,) laudes dei, rendered
apEtai in the Septuagint. They are called by
the ecclesiastical fathers (e. g., by Cyrill of
Alexandria), dfuu, dlnifiara, also evvoioa,, lid-
mat, voripata, whence the Latins have their
conceptus. In the western church they are
called virtutes, attributa, proprictates, qualitates.
(3) The whole sum of the divine attributes is
called by the Hebrews mlr -nap, Sojja ©sou, inas
much as they are admired and revered by men,
Psa. xix. 1; cxlviii. 13. The phrase, to do
anything for the glory of God, often means
therefore nothing more than to live in such a
manner as to testify the reverence we owe to
God and his glorious perfections, Phil. ii. 11.
And hence the phrase, / will not give mine ho
nour to another, (Isa. xlviii. 11; xlii. 8,) con
veys the idea, I will not permit that other gods
should be regarded with as much reverence, or
supposed to possess the same attributes, as be-

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

95

long to me. -Accordingly, the terms noa, « de'
nin', Soda ©eo«, majestas Dei, are mere peri
phrases for God, or the nature of God, which
Paul expresses by ^eioVijs, Rom. i. 20. Some
times the term 86£a is used in a more limited
sense ; as, Rom. vi. 4, ~X.pi.atbs ijyspety Sm $6%qs
tov 7tatp6{, x. t. X., where 5o|a signifies power.
11. What we know respecting the Nature and At
tributes of God, and whence we derive our In
formation. 1 . The nature cf our knowledge respecting God.
On a subject of this kind it is impossible that
we should have perfectly clear and distinct no
tions. For,
(a) All our notions are sensible, and therefore
inadequate. We indeed acknowledge that when
we conceive of God we must abstract everything
sensible from our notions ; but to do this is very
difficult, and often quite impossible. And after
all our attempts at abstraction, our knowledge
of God will ever remain anthropopathic and an
thropomorphic, as the philosophers and theolo
gians say — i. e., we shall ever transfer to God
the notions and expressions which we derive
from human things, attributes, actions, &c.
These expressions, borrowed from human
things, very naturally give rise to gross con
ceptions of God, especially among those who
have but few words to express abstract ideas,
r but few ideas of this nature to be expressed.
This was the case with the language of all the
sacred writers, and especially those of the Old
Testament; and this observation should always
be kept in mind by those who undertake to ex
plain their meaning. In order to be intelligible,
they must needs have adopted the language of
the rude and uncultivated people whom they
were called to address; and in the first place
must have condescended to the capacity of their
hearers, in order to raise them gradually to their
own level. But in this1 more improved period
we must understand the gross expressions which
the sacred writers were thus compelled to use,
in the purer and more correct sense which they
themselves attached to their language. Hence
the rule laid down by the older theologians,
Dicta anlhropopaihica et anthropomorphica Deo
digne (^EOrtpErtiij) sunt explicanda. Vide Morus,
p. 45, s. 7, n. 4.
Note. — In popular instruction, the terms em
ployed should be neither wholly anthropopathic
and anthropomorphic, nor, on the other hand,
wholly proper and literal, but, according to the
example of the Bible, should be wisely selected
from both of these classes, as the circumstances
of those to be instructed may require. In for
mer times, the teachers of religion inclined too
much to the use of figurative expressions, which
they employed without any explanation ; kiut at
the present day the reverse of this is true. The

modern teachers of religion carefully avoid every
figurative expression, in the hope of rendering
their discourse very clear and interesting to their
hearers, while, in fact, they make it in this way
extremely dry and powerless. The same may
be said respecting many of the sacred songs of
modern composition, which, for the same reason,
are far less interesting, and far more obscure, to
the common people, than those formerly used.
God, as he appears in the discourses of many
modern teachers, is a mere metaphysical being,
who, in all his intercourse with men, acts in a
manner wholly unlike anything which we wit
ness among ourselves. How, then, is it possible
that men should feel love for him, or confidence
in him ? Such a mode of expression and repre
sentation is extremely adverse to the interests'
of the common people and of the young. It
gives rise to doubts respecting the providence
of God, the hearing of prayer, and other con
soling truths of religion, which should be ex
hibited in a manner consisting indeed with the
perfections of God, and yet figuratively, and ac
cording to the analogy of human affairs, or their
whole effect will be lost. On this subject the
teacher of religion may learn a useful lesson
from tljat neglected book — the Bible. He will
there find nothing of this abstraction, but an ex
ample of the only correct and of the most ap
proved method of practical instruction. The
sermon on the mount, the parables, and other
discourses of Christ, should be particularly stu
died with reference to this subject.
(i) We reason mostly from the "Constitution
of the world to the nature and attributes of God ;
but in ourselves, in the first instance, do we ob
serve the perfections which we ascribe to him,
nor can we form any conception, or even ima
gine the existence, of any attribute or perfection
which we ourselves do not to a certain extent
possess. A man who had never seen could form
no conception of the sense of sight, nor would
he ever suppose that there was such a sense,
unless informed of it by others. The case is
the same with regard to the divine perfections.
We can form no conception of .any attributes
belonging to the Divine Being for which we
cannot find at least some analogy in ourselves.
We must therefore give the same names to the
divine perfections which we are accustomed to
give to those of which we ourselves are con
scious, in some humble degree; but for this very
reason our views of the divine nature must be
extremely poor and imperfect. We may indeed
have some right apprehensions with regard to
the quality of some perfections of God, — such
as his goodness and wisdom; but our concep
tions as to their quantity — their extent and
greatness — ever remain in the highest degree
imperfect and infantile. The ideas which the
child forms of the sun and its attributes are just

96

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

os to quality, inasmuch as he conceives of it as
a round, luminous, and hot body; but-they are
incorrect as to quantity, inasmuch as he sup
poses that its size is less than it actually is, its
light no clearer than he beholds it, and its heat
no more intense than he feels it.
In conformity with these views are the pas
sages, Prov. xxx. 3 ; Is. xl. 22, xlvi. 5. When
speaking of this pure knowledge of God, David
says, Psalm cxxxix. 6, " it is high, I cannot at
tain unto it." And Paul says, 1 Tim. vi. 16,
that God dwells in light inaccessible, {pus ajipaav-
•zov,) — i. e., the infinite and perfect God is ex
alted above the comprehension of our feeble and
limited faculties. Parallel with these passages
is that in John, i. 18, " ©gov ovSeIs IwpaxE rtititatE,
but the Messiah has revealed to us as much of
him as it is necessary for us to know."
With respect to the true nature of the objects
even of the visible world, we can have no dis
tinct knowledge, owing to the inadequacy of our
senses ; and in regard to the nature of the human
soul, we are in equal ignorance. We may
therefore, with Simonides, reasonably decline
to give an answer to the question concerning
the true nature of the Divine Being. When he
was asked, Quid aut quale sit Deus ? he replied,
quanto diutius considero, tanto mihi res videtur
obscurior. Cicero, De Nat. Deor. I. 21. Con
siderations like these should not, however, deter
us from the investigation of truth, but only ren
der us humble and cautious. In the exercise
of this temper, it is our duty to make constant
advances in divine knowledge, and to render
our conceptions of God as pure and just as pos
sible. Note. — The representations which were com
mon in any particular nation respecting the cha
racter and employments of their gods, discover
the degree of cultivation and of moral improve
ment to which that nation had attained at the
time when these representations prevailed. -The
mythology of the Greeks, the histories in which
their gods are described as licentious, violent,
and deceitful, originated among them at a time
when the practical reason was as yet but imper
fectly developed, and when the morals of the
nation agreed perfectly with these representa
tions. At a later and more improved period, a
new meaning was given to these ancient histo
ries by means of allegorical interpretation.
2. Sources of our knowledge respecting the na
ture and attributes of God.
(a) The instructions of the holy scriptures.
God is described in the Bible in different ways.
He is sometimes described in plain and literal
language, without, tropes or figures ; or (as these
are sometimes unavoidable both in popular and
scientific discourse) at least by such as are level
to the common capacity. Of this kind are the
descriptions of the immutability of God con

tained in Psalm xc, cii., cxxxix._; Job xxxvii.
In the New Testament, the figures employed
in the description of God are still more intelli
gible, and still better adapted to general use.
But God is also sometimes described in the Bi
ble in a symbolical or typical manner, the sym
bols and types employed being in a good mea
sure derived from the taste and mode of thinking
peculiar to the early age and the oriental coun
tries in which the sacred writers lived. But
these symbolical representations, howeverim-
portant they may be in the history of the mode
of thought and representation common in, early
ages, are of very little importance in elucidating
the ideas themselves which we entertain of the
Divine Being. Among these symbols we may
mention that of fire (Ex. iii. 2, seq.), of a gen
tle wind (1 Kings, xix. 12), of an eastern ruler,
and judge (Is. vi. 1), and those exhibited in
Ezek. i. coll. Rev. i. These are all symbolical
representations, shadowing forth some real per
fections of the Divine Being, and should there
fore be explained by the teacher of religion. He
must not be content with saying that these, are
symbols, but must also shew what attributes of
God they are intended to represent. He should
shew, for example, that by the symbol of fire,
the activity of God, his power to restore and
destroy, the moral purity of his dispositions, are
exhibited ; by the symbol of a gentle wind, his
goodness and mildness ; by the symbol of&prince
or ruler, his supremacy and power, and his jus
tice in bestowing rewards and punishments.
(A) Nature Is another source of our know
ledge of God. (1) Internal, moral nature. In,
s. 15, IL, we have shewn how the idea of the
character and law of God is derived from the
conscience of man. (2) External nature, or the
sensible world. Here we argue from the effect
to the cause, from the attributes of the creature
to those of the Creator ; and for so doing, we
have the authority of the Bible. Vide s. 15, 1.
II. A very important passage in this^ connex
ion is Psalm xix., in the former part of which
the visible creation is commended as a source
of the knowledge of God ; and in the latter part,
direct revelation. Cf. Ps. civ. ; Job, xxxvii. ;
Is. xl. ; Matt. vi. 26, and especially Rom. i. 20,
21. There are three methods of arriving at the
knowledge of the divine attributes from the
contemplation of nature. Vide Morus, p. 43,
s. 2, note 2. (a) We abstract all defects,
weaknesses, and imperfections, from the attri
butes which we ascribe to God. In this way
we pass from the imperfect degrees of power
and wisdom which we possess to the omnipo-i
tence and omniscience of God ; from the frail,
and perishing nature, of man, and of all created
things, to the eternity and immutability of God.
Cf. Ps. cii. 25—28. This method is denomi
nated by the schoolmen wo. negationis, and bv

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

97

Dionysius the Areopagite, ^Eoxoytd a^otpEtfuaj.
(J3) We conclude that God must possess, in a
peculiar and extraordinary degree, all the per
fections which we perceive in ourselves or in
other creatures. Here we employ the argument
o minori ad majus. By this mode of reasoning
especially do we obtain our notions of the moral
attributes of God, his justice, wisdom, and good
ness. Of. Ps. xciv. 9. This is called by the
schoolmen via eminentiae. (y) There is a third
method of reasoning : since the production of
certain effects can be accounted for only by
ascribing certain attributes to their cause, these
attributes must truly belong to this cause.
Thus we conclude that the author of the world
possesses supreme power, wisdom, and know
ledge, because these attributes are requisite for
the production and government of the world.
This mode of reasoning is called via causalitatis,
or causae. It might also be called via positiva,
in opposition to via negativa, because we thus
obtain positive ideas and direct knowledge of
the divine attributes. Thus it appears that all
our knowledge of God is drawn from analogy.
We ascribe to God the perfections which we
observe in ourselves, after abstracting from
them whatever of limitation or imperfection they
may possess, as existing in us. Cf. No. I.
III. Division of the Divine Attributes.
All the divisions of the attributes of God,
which have been adopted by philosophers and
theologians, are in some respects imperfect and
inconvenient, but not equally so. The follow
ing are some of the most common : —
1. Negative, and positive or affirmative. The
negative attributes are those by which we re
move from God certain imperfections of which
we are conscious. Thus we ascribe to God
infinity, independence, eternity, in opposition
to the limitations of our own being. The posi
tive attributes, on the contrary, are those divine
perfections for which we find some analogy in
ourselves — e. g., holiness, justice, wisdom. We
derive our knowledge of the negative attributes,
via negationis ; of the positive, via causalitatis et
eminentiae. The ground of this division, how
ever, does not exist in God himself, (for all his
attributes are positive,) but in the imperfection
of our conceptions.
2. Active (attribute operativa, or transeuntia,
ivEpytjtixd,) and passive, (quiescentia, or imma-
nentia, avEVEpyrjtt.xd.) The active attributes are
those which involve the idea of action; the qui
escent are those which imply rest and inaction.
Omnipotence, justice, and goodness, belong to
the former class ; immensity, eternity, &c, to
the latter. But frem this divisipn mistaken ne-
tions respecting God might easily result. For
rest, properly speaking, cannot be predicated
of God. Besides the passive attributes are,

for the most part, only the modes in which the
active attributes exist. Thus infinity and im
mensity are only the maniere d'etre of the om
nipotence, wisdom, holiness, and other attri
butes of God.
3. Physical or natural, and moral. We are
conscious of two principal powers, understand
ing and will; and accordingly we ascribe
these to the Supreme Being. But whatever
analogy may subsist between the divine and
human intelligence, the former is infinitely dif
ferent from the latter. Now the attributes
which we conceive to be connected with the
divine will are called by theologians moral;
the others, standing in no connexion with the
will, but belonging to the understanding and to
the power of God as a spirit, natural or physical.
These terms are indeed inconvenient, since the
moral attributes of God belong to his nature.
Still there is ground for the division itself,
where it is correctly stated ; which may be done
by substituting the phrase not moral for natural.
The natural attributes of God are beyond the
reach of our attainment; but we may be con
formed to his moral character. And this is the
conformity which the Bible intends when it re
quires us to resemble God, Matt. v. 45, 48 ; Col.
iii. 10. Through this moral perfection it is that
we are as it were related to him, Acts, xvii. 28 ;
and by which we first obtain our idea of him.
Vide s. 14, and s. 15, II. He is a free being,
possessed of the purest moral will.
Morus (p. 45, s. 7) adopts this third division
of the divine attributes as the most useful. To
this opiniqn we assent, and shall accordingly
treat (1) of the spirituality of God, (for most
of his physical and moral attributes are founded
in this,) s. 19 ; (2) of his eternity and immuta
bility, s. 20; (3) of his omnipotence, s. 21;
(4) his omniscience, s. 22 ; (5) omnipresence,
s. 23 ; (6) supreme wisdom, (though perhaps
this attribute should be ascribed to the divine
will, as has sometimes been done,) s. 24; (7)
the nature and the perfections of the divine will,
Introduction, s. 25 ; its freedom, immutability,
and efficiency, s. 26. In connexion with the
divine will are the following moral attributes,
which are cursorily described in s. 27 — viz.,
(8) truth, and (9) goodness, s. 28; (10) holi
ness, s. 29; (11) justice, s. 30, 31. The Ap
pendix, s. 32, exhibits the doctrine of divine,
decrees, (de decretis divinis, sive predestina-
tione,) which is directly derived from the attri
butes of the divine will.
¦Morus, p. 58, note, extr.
SECTION XIX.
OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF GOD.
I.- Statement of the Doctrine.
By the word spirit we mean to denote a na
ture possessed of intelligence and a free moral
I

38

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

«ii7/.(natura intelligens et moralis.) A mate
rial or corporeal substance acts only by motiqn;
a spiritual substance, en the contrary, by thought,
or free will. Now, as we, perceive, that God
possesses, and that too in the highest perfection,
those qualities of intelligence and will which
constitute a spiritual existence, we justly cpn-
clude that he is a Spirit. Hence it follows,
that all the attributes which he possesses as a
Spirit are connected either with his understand
ing or his will. And as he possesses these at
tributes in the highest perfection, he is the most
perfect Spirit. Among the attributes which be
long to God as a Spirit, the following may be
enumerated : —
1. Simplicity, (simplicitas, immaterialitas.)
Nothing of a material or bodily nature can ap
pertain to spirit. Matter possesses no power
of thought or will, and is governed by laws en
tirely different from those which prevail in the
sphere of spirit. The former is governed by the
law of necessity, the latter by that of freedom.
If this is so, and spirit is so wholly unlike
matter, it cannot be compounded, and is there
fore simple. The Grecian philosophers call
God artXovs stoi aiiXov, expers material ; and with
this description the sacred writers perfectly
agree. John, iv. 24, ILvEvua 6 ©eoj. Here be
long those texts which teach that God cannot
be represented, Isa. xl. 25; Exod. xx. 4.
2. Invisibility. Whatever is immaterial is
also invisible, for our bodily sight acquaints us
only with the objects of the material world.
Accordingly, God is called by the sacred writers
aopatos, Col. i. 15 ; Rom, i. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17.
We are indeed told in the Bible that we shall see
God. But by this phrase we are to understand
merely that we shall know God, or that he will
honour us with his favour and intimacy. Thus
Moses was said to have seen God face to face,
and the righteous are promised as their reward
in eternal life that they shall see God — ei g.,
1 John, iii. 2. This figure is taken from a cus
tom of eastern courts, in which it was regarded
as a great privilege to stand in the presence, or
enjoy the intimacy, of the king. Cf. Matt. v.
8; xviii. 10; Heb. xii. 14.
3. Indestructibility. Whatever is composed
of divisible parts may be destroyed ; but spirit,
which is uncompounded and simple, cannot
be divided or destroyed. Hence the attribute
d^opffta is ascribed to God, and he is called
d^opT'of, 1 Tim. i. 17, and dip^optfo} ©eos, in op
position to 4#aptf6s av$puitos, Rom. i. 23.
From these attributes which belong to God
as a Spirit we may deduce the following con
clusions — viz. : *
(a) God cannot be represented, since he is
both immaterial and incorporeal. The attempt
to exhibit him by means of sensible images
always leads to gross and unworthy conceptions

of his nature. For this reason Moses forbad*
the Israelites to make any images of God,
Exod. xx. 4; and with this prohibition all the
sacred writers agree, Isa. xlvi. 5 ; Acts, xvii.
29 ; Rom. i. 23, &c. The worship of images
is not necessarily connected with that of idols.
The Israelites in the wilderness worshipped
their own God, Jehovah, under the image of a
golden calf; and this, properly speaking, was
not idolatry; but experience shews that the
transition is easy from the worship of images to
idolatry ; and such was the case even with the
Israelites. The fact that Moses and other
writers of the Old Testament, notwithstanding.
their zeal against the gross representations of
God, still described him in terms which were
highly figurative, may be accounted for by the
consideration that the Jews, as a nation, were
extremely rude and uncultivated, and had no
words in their language for the expression of
abstract ideas and spiritual things. The sacred
writers accordingly, in speaking to them of God
and divine things, were compelled to use terms
which had before been applied only to material
objects in a metaphorical sense; and these
terms, whenever they occur in the Bible, must
therefore be interpreted ^Eo?tpE?tus. Vide s. 18.
When we undertake to speak of God to uncul
tivated men, we can make ourselves understood
in no other way than by the use of the words
descriptive of the organs which men employ in
their affairs, or by which they exhibit their va
rious powers. To denote the commandment of
God, we must speak of his mouth ,- to denote
his knowledge of the actions of men, we must
speak of his eyes and ears ; we must describe
his power by speaking of his hand; his dispo
sition and feelings by speaking of his heart, &c
(6) A merely external and bodily service is
of no avail with God, who is a Spirit, So we
are taught by Christ himself, John, iv. 21 — 24,
One reason why so many believe that God will
be satisfied with an outward form of worship is,
that they entertain low conceptions of his na
ture, and regard him as like themselves.
II. Historical Sketch of this Doctrine.
1. It is « great mistake to. suppose that the
same pure and abstract ideas which are attached
to the word spirit in our metaphysics were as
sociated with it in the minds of the ancient Is
raelites. Ideas of such a nature were far too
high and transcendental for so early a period..
The Hebrew word nn, which is translated spi
rit, signified, properly and originally, wind,
breath, (and so speech,) and life. Vide s. 9.,
The power of the wind is great, and yet the
wind itself is invisible. Hence in nearly all
the ancient languages every power which was
at the same time great and invisible was de
noted by some word which in its literal signifi*

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

cation stood for the wind, — e. g., nn, ttvsvua,
spiritus. That invisible power which moves
and animates our bodies is indicated by the mo
tion of the air, or breath, and thence derives its
name ; for as soon as we cease to inhale the
air, we cease to move and to live. Hence even
this invisible power, which gives motion and
life to our bodies, is also called rivi; cf. Eccles.
viii. 8 ; xii. 7. The body, which serves as the
organ through which this power acts, is called
-lira, and is thus widely distinguished from the
power itself by which it is moved. In this
way, rvn and ifc>a are always opposed one to the
other. According'to this analogy, the Hebrews
gave the name irn to all the invisible powers,
whether physical or moral, which they saw in
operation in the universe, and consequently to
God himself, who is possessed of all conceiva
ble powers in the highest possible degree.
Thus mi and nw nil came to sigriify (a) the
nature of God in general ; (J) his invisible
power, as exercised both in the material world,
in its creation (Gen. i. 2), &c, and in the soul
of man, in promoting its moral improvement, in
the act of inspiration, and in various other ways.
Vide 2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2 ; cf. s. 9. But the an
cient Hebrews justly ascribed thought and will
to the same principle which moves and animates
us, and so denominated them nn, itvEvpa- which
term they then applied, by way of analogy, to
the divine intelligence arid will. Now, since
the body, when destitute of this animating prin
ciple, is incapable of will and 'action, the term
ifea was made to stand for whatever is weak
and powerless, and the term nn, for whatever is
great and strong, both in the material and moral
world. Vide Isa. xxxi. 3. Hence it appears
that the Hebrews made sufficient distinction be
tween spirit and body, although in their notions
respecting spirit they may not have agreed ex
actly with modern metaphysics. Their views
on this point were sufficiently distinct for all
practical purposes ; and of anything more — of
whatever possesses a merely speculative inte
rest — they were as well ignorant as are the com
mon people of our own day. Many among
them did indeed suppose that God, like man,
was of a corporeal as well as spiritual nature,
as appears from many of the ancient terms em
ployed in their language; and this accounts, in
sprrie measure, for their strong and invincible
propensity to the worship of images. The same
thing is found to be true in regard to other nations
who have worshipped God under some human
resemblance, respecting which there is a remark
able passage in Cicero, Nat. Deor. I. 27, seq.
2. But even among Christians there have
been some who have conceived of God as mate
rial and corporeal. The Ebionites of the second
century, Audaeus the Syrian, and a great part of
the Egyptian monks of that period, are accused

of entertaining this error. Even some of the
fathers, as we find, ascribed somewhat corpo
real to God. Tertullian asks, Quis negabit
Deum corpus esse, etsi Dais spiritus est ? Me-
lito and many others expressed the same opi
nions. They were opposed, however, by Ori
gen and others, who earnestly contended for
the truth, that God is oow/totfoj. In the seven
teenth century, Hobbes, and iii the eighteenth,
Priestley, contended that God possessed a body,
as otherwise he could stand in no relation to
bodily things. Accordingly they ascribed to
him the attribute of extension.
This opinion may be traced to various causes.
(1) With some it was mere ignprance, or the
use of unguarded expressions, like those em
ployed by illiterate people at the present day.
This was probably the case with the Ebionites,
Audaeus, and some of the fathers. (2) Others
seem to assert these views when they do not in
reality entertain them, the mistake arising from
the different use of language. Such is the case
with Tertullian, who meant to denete by the
word corpus' nothing more than substance and
individuality. He, however, believed extension
to be an attribute of spirit. (3) Others still are
gross' materialists, and deny the possibility of
simple substances. Such are Hobbes, Priest
ley, and others. (4) Some of the mystics ascribe
extension to God, and consequently somewhat
of a material nature. This may be said of the
Egyptian monks ; and, as a general thing, the
¦mystici impuri have been very much inclined to
pantheism. Morus, p. 45, s. 7, extr. et not. 4.
SECTION XX.
OF THE ETERNITY AND IMMUTABILITY OF GPD.
I. What Eternity is, and upon what it depends.
The wprd eternity is used, as philosophers
observe, in a figurative and a literal sense. In
the figurative or popular sense it denotes an ex
istence which may indeed have had a beginning,
but will have no end ; like that of the angels,
of the human soul, &c. Instead of eternity in
this sense, the shoplmen use the words aeviter-
nitas, sempilerniias. In the literal sense it de
notes an existence which has neither beginning
nor end, like that of God. The eternity of God,
considered as without beginning, is called by
the schoolmen xternitas a parte ante, or a priori,
and sometimes primitas Dei; considered as
without end, it is called aeternitas o parte post,
or a posteriori, more commonly called immor
tality, a$^opffi.'a, aSravaeia, This immortality of
God, however, unlike that of created spirits, is
necessary ; with him there is necessitas absoluta
vivendi ; nor can he, like the creatures of his
power, ever cease to exist.

'00

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

The eternity of God depends upon the neces
sity of his existence ; since we cannot suppose
that there ever was, or will be, a period in
which a necessary being did not or will not
exist. To suppose this would be contradictory,
and equivalent to saying that a necessary being
is not necessary. Such was the reasoning of
Plato in Timaeus; of Proclus in his Commen
tary on the same ; of Parmenides and Plotinus.
The question is sometimes asked in this con
nexion, whether the notion of the eternity of
God implies the exclusion of all succession of
time in his existence, so that in him the past,
present, and future are indistinguishable. Cle-
ricus and other Socinian and Arminian theolo
gians, and some philosophers, have contended
for a succession of time in God. This subject
lies so wholly beyond the circle of our know
ledge, and is so little analogous to anything
with which we are acquainted, that at first sight
it might seem not to admit of a definite determi
nation. At least, we are incapable of forming
any conception on this subject, as we can never
contemplate an object as without time and space.
In everything in the material world around us,
and even in ourselves, there is a constant suc
cession of time ; and however much we may
strive to lift our minds above this necessity, we
shall still find ourselves compelled to conceive
of any event — for example, the creation of the
world — which with us is past, as past also with
God, and as future with him before it took
place. Most writers, however, will admit of no
succession of time in God; they justly consi
der that this succession as it exists in us in
volves imperfections of various kinds, and espe
cially dependence and limitation, and cannot
therefore be admitted to have existence in the
divine nature. But it is best to pass by this
metaphysical subtlety, and to represent God to
our minds as existing without beginning or
end, as coeval through all time, past, present,
and future, with all the creatures of his hand.
In intimate connexion with this doctrine is that
of— II. The Immutability of God.
Since the existence of God is necessary, we
cannot suppose that his nature possesses any
attribute at one time of which it is destitute at
another. If he changes, it must be for the bet
ter or for the worse ; neither of which can be
supposed with regard to him. Accordingly, his
relation to his creatures, which first arose on the
creation of the world, can have produced no al
teration in God himself; he continues the same
amidst all the changes of created things. To
doubt this truth would involve us at once in
contradiction. We must therefore believe it,
although we have no analogy for it, and of
oourse cannot form any clear conception of it.

This immutability relates to the decrees and the
actions, as well as to the nature, of God. Cf.
Morus, p. 53, s. 15, n. 1. The immutability of
God in respect to his actions is most frequently
mentioned in the Bible; nor is this attribute
denied by those passages which affirm that
God repents, &c. When God appears to be
displeased with anything, or orders it differ
ently from what we expected, we say, after the
manner of men, that he repents. That this is
the 'meaning is plain from other texts, in which
the immutability of the divine decrees is ex
pressly asserted. Vide s. 25, which treats of
the will of God, and Morus, p. 45, n. 5.
In these attributes which have just been
named, two others are involved — viz., self-exist
ence (aseitas), by which is meant that God has
the ground of his existence in no other being
than himself; and independence, by which is
meant that God cannot be determined or con
trolled, either as to his existence, his will, or
his actions, by any other being. Morus, p. 45,
s. 8.
III. The Biblical representation of these Attributes.
The pure idea of eternity is too abstract to
have been conceived in the early ages of the
world, and is not accordingly found expressed
by any word in the ancient languages. But as
cultivation advanced, and this idea was more
distinctly developed, it became necessary, in
order to express it, either to invent new words,
or to employ old words in a new sense, as was
done with the words seternitas, perennitas, &c.
The Hebrews, like other nations, were destitute
of any single word to express the idea of eter
nity. The word oSiy, like aiav and aiumms, sig
nifies any duration, especially a long period,
whether past, present, or future. They were
compelled, therefore, to have recourse to circum
locution. To express seternitas a parte ante,
they said, before the world was; seternitas a
parte post, when the world shall be no more.
Some of the principal texts of scripture re
specting these attributes.
1. Respecting the eternity of God. God is
said to be the first and the last — i. e., the being
who existed before the world began, and who
will continue when it shall be destroyed, Isaiah,
xliv. 6, coll. xii. 4. The same meaning is con
veyed when God is said to be A xai n, apxij xai
tEXos, Rev. i. 8 ; or, as the Rabbins say, from
N to n — i. e., ab initio usque ad extremum. In
Psalm xc. the eternity of God is described in a
very sublime manner. The length of human
life, which had previously been from one hun
dred and twenty to one hundred and thirty
years, had been suddenly abridged in the desert
to seventy or eighty years. Moses hence takes
occasion to compare the perishable nature of
man with the eternal nature of God. The

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

101

phrase "before the mountains were brought
forth" is a periphrasis for seternitas a parte ante,
like rtpo xara/3ox>j; xospov, John, xvii. 24. In
the phrase nSiy i? aSiyp, the former word denotes
past, the latter, future time ; like art' aiu>vu>v, eis
tovs aiuvas, in the New Testament, John, vi.
51, seq. The meaning of the Psalmist, ver. 3,
seq., is briefly this : short and transitory is the
life of man ; but it is otherwise with God : the
being who made us mortal is himself immortal.
Of the same import is the passage, Ps. cii.
24 — 28. ' "Thy years are throughout all gene
rations (Dnn -vna)." "Of old (ai:aS)'hast thou
laid the foundations of the earth" — i. e., God
existed before the creation of the world. Verse
27, " Thou art the same" — i. e., God himself is
immutable amidst the alterations of the world ;
he changes not with the changing universe.
"Thy years shall have no end" — i. e., God is
immortal — a periphrasis for seternitas a parte
post. So Paul describes God, 1 Tim. vi. 16,
as o povos i'xiov a^availav — i. e., immortal in
a peculiar sense, necessarily so — a being who
can have no end. Cf. 1 Tim. i. 17. The pas
sage, Rom. i. 20, aiSios aitoi Svvapisxai Ssiotrjs,
belongs in this connexion.
2. Respecting the immutability of God. This
attribute is described by the text before quoted,
Ps. cii. 28, (Nin nns, avtos, semper idem.) It is
also implied in the names n™ -mfa n;nx, and
aw in the Pentateuch. Vide s. 17. In Ps. xc.
4, it is expressly said, that time produces no
alteration in God, as it does in creatures : " A
thousand years pass away before thee like yes
terday, or like a watch in the night." Vide
Uebersetzung der Psalmen. Parallel with these
texts is that in 2 Pet. iii. 8, 9, " 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." If it appears (ver. 9) that God does
not immediately accomplish his promises and
threats, we may yet be certain that he will not
forget to accomplish them. For (ver. 8) he is
not mutable. Length of time makes no altera
tion in him, that he should forget anything, as
we do. What took place a thousand years ago,
is as new and as present to him as what takes
place to-day. This is the proper practical view
of this subject. In other texts the immutability
of the divine decrees is spoken of, and they are
called apiEtapEXrjta, Rom. xi. 29 ; also, to apitd-
$stov trfi $wXris avtov, Heb. vi. 17, 18 ; Mai.
iii. 6; Ps. xxxiii. 10, 11. The passage, James,
i. 17, may be connected with these, as it does
not properly treat of the immutability of the na
ture, but of the purposes and dispositions of
God. He is there said to be the creator and
preserver, of the lights of heaven, (rfo-rtjp tuv
tyoytuw,) with whom is no variableness (itapaX-
%ayr\,) nor shadow of alteration (tpoitrjs aitoaxl-
atyta) — i. e., his favour is not changeable, like

that of a prince, but he is always equally gra
cious to men.
3. Respecting the self-existence of God. The
passages Ps. xc. cii. &c, which speak of the
eternity of God, teach this attribute implicitly,
and by way of consequence. Vide also Acts,
xvii. 24, 25. Cf. Philo, De Opif. mundi, p. 28,
ed. Pf. MjjJevos 7tpoaSE6uivos o»Aoi>.
4. Respecting the independence of God. Here
belongs the text just quoted from Acts. This
attribute is also exhibited very intelligibly and
plainly in Rom. xi. 33 — 36. Ti's avpfSovXos
avtov lysvEto ', 97 t^s TtpolSuxEV avta, xai avtaito-
So&jaEtai. aittp. Cf. Isaiah, xl. ; 13, seq. Mo
rus, p. 46, note.
Morus, p. 44, s. 6, coll. p. 53, s. 15.
SECTION XXI.
THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD.
I. Definition, Ground, and Proof of this Attribute.
The omnipotence of God, defined in philoso
phical language, is that attribute by which he
can bring to pass everything which is possible.
It is, then, nothing else than an exertion of the
divine will. But since its object is rather phy
sical than moral good, it is here placed among
the physical attributes of God. The ground of
this attribute lies in the supreme perfection and
infinity of the divine nature. Since God is in
finite, his power cannot admit of bounds or
limitations. But that God can do only what is
possible, as they say in the schools, is still true in
itself, and perfectly consistent with his infinity.
For an impossibility, in the philosophical sense
of the word, is something which implies a con
tradiction, and is a nonentity. One who should
contend that God could perform what is impos
sible, would contend that he could act contra
dictorily, which would be an imperfection not
ascribable to the most perfect being. This
metaphysical definition should, however, never
be used in popular instruction, since it can never
be made sufficiently intelligible; and the words
possible and impossible are not used in the same
sense in common life, and in the schools of phi
losophers. Common people, who are unaccus
tomed to reflection, will always find difficulty
in the assertion, that God can do only what is
possible. To them, therefore, this attribute
should be described, according to the language
of scripture, to be that by which God can do
everything which he will. This definition com
prehends the whole, since God can never will
anything which is impossible.
In proof of the unlimited power of God, we
may here mention the greatness of his works.
Vide Rom. i. 20; Job, xl. 41.
The omnipotence of God is divided, in the
philosophical .and theological schools, into ab-
i2

^02

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

sofoa.and ordinata. .The absolute omnipotence
of God is that immediate, miraculous exertion
of , his power, which is seen in the creation of
the world, &c. His omnipotentia ordinata is
that common, regular exercise of his power, by
which he makes use pf the course of nature,
whiph he himself has established for the promo
tion of his own designs. Thus he'produces :the
warrrith of the atmosphere, not per potentiam ab-
solutam,b\it ordinatam, in causing the sun to
shine. The same thing is expressed, by saying,
he acts per causas secundas.
II. The Biblical Representations of the Omnipotence
of God.
1. The common literal representations which
the Bible gives of the omnipotence of God, are;
nia and moi, ivipyna, Svvapus, pbvos, Svvdsttj{,:
the Almighty. Jer. x. 12, " He created the earth;
by his power (nia)." The plural nnoi is ap
plied to the actual exertions of the divine power,!
and so, like SwdpiEis, signifies miracles.
2. Besides these literal, there are many figu-<
ralipe, anthropomorphical representations of the;
divine power contained in the Bible. Among;
these are the following: the hand, strong Iiqnd,
right hand, of God; also, the arm, the long arm
(uaxpoxup), of God, in opposition to a short arm,.
the index of weakness, &c. Vide Deut. xxxii.
39; Isa. lix. 1, seq. The representatiqn thatj
God works by speaking, by his word, or his
command, is also figurative. Vide the history
of the creation, Gen. i. 3, seq. In Ps. xxxiii.
6, it is said, " by the word of the Lord the hea
vens were formed;" and in ver. 9, "He spake,
and it was done; he commanded, and it stood,
fast." In this sense [y>jpi.a ®eov is used, Heb. xi.;
3 ; and ^7Jpia Swdpiscos (Svvatov) avtov, the word:
of his power, his command, Heb. i. 3. All these
are figurative expressions, intended to shew the ;
ease and certainty with which God performs his;
works and executes his will. He is represent
ed by this image as a powerful ruler, to whose j
mere word and command everything is subject. '
He does not need to give his own hand to the
work : it costs him only a word. In other pas-,
sages, we find that what is done is ascribed more \
directly to the will of God (for the language of :
the Bible is wisely varied) — e. g., Rev. iv. 11,
" Thou hast created all things, xai Sm to ^tX^ud
gov fyav," i. e., they owe their existence to thy <
mere will.
3. The following are some of the texts in
which unlimited power is ascribed to God in the
clearest manner : Ps. cxv. 3, " Our God is in
hefaven; he does whatsoever he will." Rom.
iv. 17, KaXoiftos ta firj bvta, ws bvta, he called
them from nothing; he created what did not
exist. Jer. xxxii. 17, "Thou hast made the
heaven and the earth with thy great power, and

thine outstretched arm." In Ephes. iii. 2.0, Paul
describes, the infinity of the divine power by
saying that God is able vrtsa rtdvta lio^em, isitp
ix rtEpiaaov iki vooiptv — i.e., to do infinitely more
than all that we imagine. In Ephes. i. 19, he
speaks of VTiipfidxXov piye^os Syvdusuis aitoy.
The phrase aixaSvvat^sei. rfapa tfip ©scji itavpijpa)
Luke, i. 37, is to be classed among the preceding.
It is a proverbial phrase, which conveys the
meaning that God can perform what may ap
pear to us impossible, or rather, that God js
never unable to fulfil his promise, Qij/ia -m.)
Cf. Gen. xviii. 14, whence these words are
taken. Morus, p. 50,,s. 13.
SECTION XXII.
OF THE OMNISCIENCE OF GOD.
This attribute is ascribed to God, to denote
that he possesses the most perfect knowledge.
That it is rightly ascribed to him may be easily
shewn, even by reasoning a priori. Since God
is a Spirit, he possesses cognitive power, and
of course knowledge. And since he is the most
perfect Spirit, he possesses the most perfect in
tellect and intellection, which is called omni
science. I. The Extent, or the Objects of the Divine
Knowledge.
How the divine intelligence can comprehend
and survey so vast a number and exhaustless a
variety of objects, is quite inconceivable to out
finite and feeble capacities. Paul speaks of the
jSc&oj yvuaEus ©Eoi, Rom. xi. 33. The Bible
often says, " there is no searching of his under
standing," Is. xl. 28 ; " his understanding is in
finite," Ps. cxlvii. 5. The ancient Grecian
philosophers frequently express very just and
pure conceptions of the omniscience of God.
When Thales was asked if some of the actions
of men were not unknown to God, he answered,
" Not even their thoughts." Xenophon records
similar sentiments of Socrates, which are re
peated by Plato in Parmenides. The objects
of the divine knowledge have sometimes been
divided, in accommodation to the weakness of
human understanding, into several classes.
1. His own nature is one object of the know
ledge of God. And from this knowledge it re
sults that he must have had from all eternity the
ideas of the things which he has made, and
which were then only possible. This know
ledge is called by theologians cognitio natura-
Hs—(i. e., naturae sua?.) It is this of which
Paul speaks in 1 Cor. ii. 11, "No man know-
eth the thoughts of a man, but the spirit of a man
which is in him. OoiTw xai ta to£ ®sov ovSeii
btSsv, si pri to rtvEijiia toi ©Eoi."

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

103

2. All objects extrinsic to himself are also iri-i
eluded in the knowledge of God. These may
be divided into
(a) Possible things, which are known by God,
although they may never become real. The:
Knowledge which respects these subjects is
called scientia simplicis inielligentiae, because it
remains in the mind of God, without calling
forth the exercise of his will. In close con-;
nexion with this knowledge is what is called1
scientia Dei media, or conditiondta, or scientia de
futuro condiiionato, the knowledge of what is
conditionally possible — i. e., the knowledge ef
those things which, although they have never
come to pass, might have taken place under
certain presupposed possible conditions. For
example : God foresees that this youth, if he had
lived to a certain age, would have become, under
particular circumstances and in a particular situ
ation, a very, bad man. He therefore takes him
from life at an early period, or brings him into
a situation in which he is unable to do the in
jury foreseen. This injury, therefore, never
beepmes real; but God foresaw it per scientiam
mediam, and prevented it from taking place.
This scientia media must necessarily be ascribed
to God, since many other divine attributes de
pend upon it — e. g., the wisdom of God, which
consists in his determining which is the best
among many possible things, and his choosing
according to this determination. Examples of
the exercise of this scientia media are furnished
in the Bible, Jer. xxxviii. 17 — 20; 1 Sam. xxiii.
5—14 ; Matt. xi. 21—23. The term media was
first employed by Fonseca, a Portuguese Jesuit,
and an Aristotelian, of the sixteenth century.
But its use in theology was principally author
ized by Lud. Molina, a Spanish Jesuit of the
seventeenth century, and a disciple of Fonseca,
in his book, De concordia gratiae et liberi arbitrii.
He intended, by the introduction of this term,
to obviate the objections which had arisen to the
doctrine of Augustine concerning predestination.
The thing itself, however, which is designated
by this term, did riot originate with him, but is
found in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa,
Augustine, (De dono perseverentias, c. 9,) and
other of the ecclesiastical fathers.
(J) Real things. God, accordingly, knows
the nature of all things, anifnifte and inanimate,
physical and moral. He knows the thoughts
and desires of the human heaTt. This know
ledge is called scientia libera, or visionis — im
mediate, intuitive knowledge. It is involved
in the idea of the most perfect being; it was re
quisite in the creation of the world, and is essen
tial to the rule and providence which God exer
cises over the works of his hand. He who cre
ated, constructed, and preserves the universe,
must necessarily understand it perfectly; and
especially the moral Governor of the world must

perfectly understand the moral character of his
subjects, in order to the just distribution of re
wards arid punishments. This doctrine is one,
therefore, of the highest practical importance.
It is calculated, on theene hand, to impart con-
sblafipn to the pious, and, on the other, to
awaken a salutary drea'd in the thoughtless and
impure, and to urge them to repentance. On this
account it is often exhibited in the holy scrip
tures. We read in 1 John, iii. 20, ®6bs ywuxsxEt,
rtdvta, and in Heb. iv. 13, itdvia'Si yvptva xai
tstpax^Xiffplva iols o^aXpms 'avtov. The Bible
frequently eriters into a specific enumeration of
*he different classes of objects which are com
prehended in the knowledge of God. He knows
things animate arid inanimate, Matt. vi. 26 ; x.
29 ; the destinies of men, Matt. vi. 32 ; their
thoughts and secret purposes, Jer. xi. 18 — 20 ;
Psa. xciv. 1 1 ; their sufferings and sorrows, Psa.
lvi.'8 ; their virtues arid vices, 1 Pet. iii. 12, &c.
One of the most sublime descriptions of the
knowledge of God is contained in Psa. exxxix.
But in consequence of the form of time which
is inherent in bur constitution, we are compelled
to regard objects as past, present, arid future;
and, the same being transferred to God, his
knowledge has been differently denominated, as
it respects the first, second, or third of these
classes, reminiscentia, rfsio, ',!ahd prxscientia.
That God should possess recollection and vision,
we may easily understand, from the analogy
which we find for these attributes in our own
minds. But he also possesses prescience, and
this relates to future objects of three different
classes. (1) Futura necessaria— -those things
which result from the established course of na
ture, or from a fixed divine decree ; (2) futura
conditionatd — those thirigs which will take place
only On certain conditions, — the evil or good
that will be done by a person under given cir
cumstances ; (3) futura cdntingentid — those
events which depend on the free will of man,
or other rational beings, and therefore may or
may not come to pass. The knowledge of God
relating to the last of these classes is called stor'
lioxrp, his prescience.
This divine foreknowledge of the events de
pending upon the free will was denied by some
of the ancient philosophers. [Cicero uses the
following argument: — " Si praescita sunt omnia
futura, hoc ordine venient, quo ventura esse
praescita sunt. Et si hoc ordine venient, certus
est ordo rerum praescieriti Deo. Et si est certus
ordo rerum, est c'ertuSordo causarum ; non enim
aliquid fieri potest, quod non aliqua efficiens
causa praecesserit. Si autem certus est ordo
causarum, quo fit omne quod fit, fato fiunt om
nia, quae fiunt. Quod si ita est, nihil est in
nostra potestate, nullumque est arbitrium volun
tatis." De Divinatione, II. 5 — 7.] The same
ground is taken by some of the schoolmen, and

104

HRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

by Socinus and his followers. [Socinus says :
— "Animadvertendum est, infallibilem istam Dei
prae notionem a nobis non admitti, nisi prius
probetur." — " Quaedam sunt quae Deus scire
nulla ratiorie dici potest, nee tamen ipsius omni-
scientias quidquam derogatur." — "De futuris
contingentibus non est determinata Veritas."
Praelec. Theol. c. 8 — 11.] The common argu
ment is briefly this : the foreknowledge of God,
which is contended for, invades the freedom of
the will in man and other moral beings. For
if God foreknows all things, and is infallible in
his knowledge, whatever he foreknows must
take place, is therefore necessary, and no longe*
dependent on the freedom of man.
But this reasoning is fallacious ; for man does
not perform one action or another because it was
foreknown by God ; but God foreknew the ac
tion, because man, in the exercise of his free will,
would perform it. Our own knowledge of the
future bears some analogy with this, since it is
always founded upon a knowledge of the past
and present. But on account of the imperfection
and limitation of our view, the future is to us
only probable, and our knowledge of it only
conjectural ; while to God the future is certain,
and his knowledge with respect to it infallible.
[The same answer, in substance, was given by,
Augustine to the passage above cited from Ci
cero: "Non est consequens, ut si Deo certus
est omnium ordo causarum, ideo nihil sit in nos
tras voluntatis arbitrio; et ipsx quippe voluntales
nostrx in causarum ordine sunt, qui certus est
Deo, ejusque praescientia continetur, quoniam
et humanae voluntates humanorum operum cau
sae sunt. Atque ita, qui omnes rerum causas
praescivit, profecto in iis causis etiam nostras
voluntates ignorare non potuit. Interim nullo
modo cogimur, aut praescientil Dei retentd. tol-
lere voluntatis arbitrium, aut retento voluntatis
arbitrio Deum negare praescium futurorum, sed
utrumque amplectimur, illud, ut bene credamus,
hoc, ut bene vivamus." Augustine, De Civ. D.
V. c. 9, 10. The same distinction between
foreknowing and foreordaining is also suggested
Dy John of Damascus: "Xpij ywixsxuv, its
itdvta uiv itpoywaaxEt b ©eoj, oil itdvta be itpoopi-
£ei. ITpoytvwtfxEt yap xai ta Itp' yulv, ov rtpoopl^Ei
bk a-Ora, ov yap ^eXeo tr[V xaxLOv, ytvEff^at, oiiSe
/3ta£Wat trjv ap£tr[V utOtE trfi $Eias rtpoyvtoati.xrjs
XiXivatas tpyov istiv b rtpoopie/ibs. llpoopi^Ei 0°£
ta ovx ity tj/ALv xata tr[v rtpoyvaow avtov' rjbrj
yap xata tnv lipoyvuxjiv aaJT-oil itpoixpivs rtdvta 6
©Eos xata tr\v dya^birita xai tr\v bixavaavvrp
avtoi." "ExSoffi,; &jcpi./3jjs, x. t. X. L. ii. c. 30.]
Besides, the free actions of men are never
wholly arbitrary, but, on the contrary, are per
formed in view of some motive, which, however
concealed it may be from our short-sighted eyes,
is visible to God, who knows intuitively the
whole extent of the present and future ; who is

the author of the laws by which we act; and
who, without this knowledge, would be incom- '
petent to the government of the world, which
must then be abandoned, in a great measure, to
the control of chance. [This appears to be the
most perfect solution of the difficulty in question.
So long as liberty was supposed to consist in a
choice undetermined by motives, there remained
an irreconcilable disagreement between the di
vine prescience and human freedom ; and con
sistent writers saw themselves compelled to re
ject the one or the other. But when freedom
came to be considered more justly, as the power
which we possess of determining our actions by
the ideas of reason, this disagreement was re
moved. Cf. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. i. s.
406; Leipzig, 1828.]
This doctrine must therefore be admitted to
be true, although the mode of it must be for ever
unintelligible to us, who look at everything un
der the limitations of time and space. The mis
takes into which we fall on this subject are owing
to the words which we employ, and to the po
verty of our conceptions. The terms chance and
contingent may facilitate, to our minds, the under
standing of certain ideas, and are intended for
the illustration of certain attributes of things;
but to the divine intelligence, in which there
is no succession of time, and by which the past,
present, and future are immediately compre
hended, nothing can appear contingent. Since
every event takes place according to fixed laws,
the infinite intelligence must perceive what is
free and contingent to be as certain in the course
of future events as what is necessary or less con
tingent. The Stoics were accustomed to say
that the actions of men were rendered certain,
but not necessary, by the divine foreknowledge.
[On this subject Augustine inquires, "Quid
est praescientia, nisi scientia futurorum ? Quid
zalem futurum est Deo, qui omnia supergreditur
tempora ? Si enim scientia Dei, res ipsas habet,
non sunt e\futurse sed prassentes ; ac per hoc non
jam prasscientia, sed tantutn scientia dici po
test," De diversis quaest. 1. ii. Cf. Boethius,
De consol. philos, 1. v. pr. 6. " Scientia Dei
omnem temporis supergressa motionem, in subs
manet simplicitate presentiae, infinitaque prae-
teriti ac fnturi spatia complectens, omnia quasi
jam gerantur in.sua simplici cognitione consi-
derat. Itaque si praescientiam pensare velis,
quS, cuncta dignoscit, non esse praescientiam
quasi futuri, sed scientiam nunquam deficientis
instantias, rectius eestimabis. Unde non prse-
videntia, sed providentia potius dicitur, quod
porro ab rebus infimis constitute, quasi ab
excelso rerum cacumine cuncta prospiciat."]
Vide Leibnitz, Theodicee, under the titles, pre
vision and science de Dieu. Cf. Eberhard, Ver
mischte Schriften, Num. 5, Verschiedem Jufsdtzi
iiber die Freyheitdes Willens; Halle, 1778, 8vo.

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

.05

Callisen, Beytrag die Lehre von der Allwissen-
heit Gottes, und die Lehre von der menschlichen
Freiheit in Harmonie zu bringen, in Schmidt's
Bibliothek der theologischen Literatur, b. viii.
s. 247; Giessen, 1805, 8vo.
We can therefore bring no objection against
the Bible, when it ascribes to God this scientia
futurorum contingentium. Vide Psalm cxxxix.
16, " Thou knewest the whole course of my life,
when thou sawest me in the first stages of ex
istence." Cf. v. 2, "Thou understandest my
thought afar off," — i. e., before I myself think
it. Isai ah adduces it as a proof of the greatness
of God, that he foresees and announces to his
prophets those future contingent things which
are beyond the reach of the human understand
ing, ch. xii. 26 ; xii v. 8 ; xlviii. 4 — 8.
II. The Mode of the Divine Knowledge.
The faculties which we possess for the acqui
sition of knowledge are very limited, and the
knowledge which we acquire in the use of them
is very imperfect. In forming conceptions,
therefore, of the divine intelligence, we must ab-
stract'all those limitations which relate to time
and space ; and in this way we obtain, for the
most part, merely negative ideas. The difference
between our understanding and that of God may
be rendered evident by the following particu
lars : —
1. Our knowledge is mostly derived from sen
sation, from which wc obtain, either directly or
indirectly, all our ideas. This is a limit beyond
which we cannot pass ; and being such, it is
wholly inapplicable to the mind of God. Our
souls, in the present life, act and feel through
the body and its senses. But as these do not
belong to God, he cannot be supposed to have
either sensation or passions. Vide Morus, p.
54, s. 15, not. extr.
2. Our knowledge is obtained gradually. We
first receive our notions from sensation; we
then treasure them in our memory; and after
wards compare them with one another, and form
judgments concerning them. We then proceed
gradually, by means of the conclusions to which
we have arrived, from one truth to another, at
taining sometimes to a probability in our know
ledge, but remaining often uncertain and wholly
uninformed. But this process of acquisition is
in various ways imperfect, and cannot, therefore,
be attributed to God. He does not recollect
what is past, nor form images or symbols in his
mind, nor come to the conclusions of Teason.
He does not form abstract ideas ; for to his mind
each particular thing is equally present; he re
gards all things with immediate intuition ; and
is independent of the aid of memory. Every
thing like succession in knowledge must be
absolutely excluded from the knowledge of God.
This is jailed scientia simultanea ; and God is
14.

said by the schoolmen to know immediate, sine
discursu,uno actu. Vide Castner, Wie die allge-
meinen Begriffe im gottlichen Verstande sind ;
Altenburg, 1768.
When every imperfection is abstracted from
the divine understanding, it appears, from what
has been said, to surpass human understanding
in the following respects: — (o) It is simulta
neous, — God knows by one act ; (6) most true,
without error or mistake ; (c) most clear, — with
out darkness or confusion; (d) most certain, —
without doubt or ambiguity. \
But those who live in the sphere of sense,
and are limited by time and space, are unable to
form distinct conceptions of the perfection and
immeasurableness of the divine understanding.
There is, therefore, in all the languages of men,
especially the more ancient, an entire destitution
of terms which literally express these ideas ;
and even had such terms existed in former
times, they would have been unintelligible.
There is no way, therefore, when this subject is
mentioned, but to take language borrowed from
the objects of sense, and to employ it with a
purer and more refined meaning. This is the
method of the Bible. It speaks of God as re
membering either in a good sense, meaning that
he bestows favours after he has for a long time
inflicted punishments, (e. g., Gen. viii. 1 ; Acts,
x. 4 ;) or in a bad sense, meaning that he calls
to mind — i. e., punishes, the sins of men, (e. g.,
Psalm xxv. 7 ; ciii. 9.) In the same manner it
speaks of God as forgetting — i. e., leaving men
without help, orsuffering their sins to pass un
punished. It speaks too of his hoping and ex
pecting, and finding his hope and expectation,
as it seems to us, disappointed. On the same
principle, the terms taken from the bodily or
gans, through which we obtain all our know
ledge, are applied to God — e. g., rep, ycuj, ISeIv,
oxoiJem', which are synonymous with yv, ywuff-
xeiv, ipri, ipEvvav, &c.
Morus, p. 46, s. 10.
SECTION XXIII.
OF THE PMNIPRESENCE OF GOD.
I. Statement of the Doctrine.
The omnipresence of God is that power by
which he is able to act everywhere. This attri
bute, when correctly viewed, cannot be distin
guished from the divine omnipotence and omni
science taken in connexion; and so it is exhibit
ed by Morus. We justly conclude, that he who
knows all things (s. 22), and whose power is
so unlimited, that he does whatsoever he will
(s. 21), must be present in all things, and can
not be separated from them by time or space.
In thinking on this subject, we have need to
guard against gross conceptions, and especially

106

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

against the danger of predicating of God what
can only be said of the presence of body. This
caution is particularly necessary here, since we
are apt to transfer the forms of time and space,
which are applicable only to the sphere of sensed
into the world of spirits; and in so doing, to
come to conclusions which are false and contra
dictory, and dishonourable to the purely spi
ritual nature of God. Vide s. 20, I. The fol
lowing points should be considered in reference
to this subject : —
1. Extension is not predicable of God, who
is a Spirit. To say, therefore, that he is in infi
nite space, or, with Philo, the Cabbalists, and
many modern writers, that he is himself infinite
space, is altogether erroneous. Such expres
sions necessarily involve a material and limite'd
nature. Space is a mode of thought, in which,
as in a frame, we must range everything which
belongs to the sphere of sense, but within which
nothing relating to the spiritual or moral world'
can be brought. The omnipresence of God was
often mentioned by the ancient philosophers!
who ascribed to him a corporeal nature, or who
regarded him and the world as composing one
whole. He was called by Novatianus and
other Grecian writers, tbitos tuv bxav, or tov
bxav, locus omnium rerum ; and by the Rabbins,
aipn, spatium universale. But this is an incor
rect notion of the divine omnipresence. Baier
and many of xiv older theologians spoke of the
omnipresence or God as substantialis, or essen-
tialis, in opposition to that which was merely
operativa, or actualis. This substantial presence
of God they called dbiaetaola, or in Latin, in-
distantia, or adessentia substantix divinx. These
expressions, however, convey no distinct idea,
and often lead to erroneous conceptions.
[Note. — Some of the older theologians enter
tained the more scriptural opinion, that both the
substantial and efficient presence of God were.
involved in his omnipresence. Thus Calovius
defines the omnipresence of God to be that attri
bute, " vi cujus ille, non tantum substantiae pro-
pinquitate, sed etiam efficacia ac operatione,
adest creaturis omnibus." System, torn. ii. p.
612. He adds, p. 613, "Omniprasentia Dei
est attributum IvEpyrrtixbv, nee solum aSiaata-
ei,av, indistantiam adessentix, sed etiam ivipyEiav,
operationem prxsentis Dei, subinfert." In this ¦
view of the subject Calovius was followed by
Quenstedt, who writes that this attribute, "non
solum essentiae divinae propinquitatem, sive
adessentiam Dei ad creatnras, sed etiam opera
tionem quandam, importer.." He therefore dis
tinguishes between the immensity and the omni
presence of God, the former of which he supposes
to be absolute and eternal, the latter relative,
And coeval only with the creation.
Hahn remarks, that from the history of the

various opinions which have prevailed respect
ing the omnipresence of God, it appears that
most of the errors have arisen from confound
ing the adeas of- body and substance. In doing
this, our author has followed the example
of Reinhard, Morus, Doederlein, and others,
who adopted the philosophy of Leibnitz and
Wolf. In denying to God a body, and thus
avoiding the errors of pantheism, they seemed
at the same time unconsciously to deny him
substance, and to transmute him into an unessen
tial thought, and then to locate him somewhere
beyond the limits of the universe, from whence
he looks forth, and exerts his power upon all
his works ; in which, therefore, he is no other
wise present than by his knowledge and agency."]
2. By the presence of a spiritual being with
us, we mean, that he thinks of us, and in this
way acts upon us. But in order to this, we need
not suppose his local presence, or the approxima
tion of the spiritual substance. We are present
in spirit with an absent friend, when we think
of him, and thus act upon him. Paul says, I
Cor. V. 3, aiiuv tfqa ts&pati, rtopkii' 8e tip rtvEvpiaii,
cf. v. 4. We see thus that our minds have an
agency, and an agency different from that of
matter, though we are ignorant of the mode of
their operation. How, then, can we hope to
understand the manner in which God acts?
From what we observe of the operation of our
own minds, we may, however, reason with re
spect to God, if we are on our guard against
transferring to him the imperfection and limita
tions which we perceive in ourselves. He sees
and knows all things ; nor is he removed from
objects extrinsic to himself in respect either of
time or space, as we are, the operation even of
whose minds is limited by the sphere of sense,
to which we are chained by our connexion with
our bodies. The power of his Spirit, or rather,
the power of him, as the most perfect Spirit, is
infinite; that of our spirits, finite. He therefore
understands and controls all things; which is
the same as to say, he is present in all things.
If we attempt to go beyond this, we fall at once
into fruitless subtilties. We should be content
to say with Morus, Deus rebus prxsens, est Devs
in res agens. II. The Scriptural Representations.
These are accordant with the views which we
have here expressed. The Bible exhibits this
attribute of God in such a manner as to lead us
to reverence his character, to place our confi
dence in him, and to walk circumspectly before
him. And it accomplishes this practical end
without the aid of metaphysical subtilties. In
Psalm exxxix. 7—10, the knowledge and power
of God are mentioned in close and inseparable
connexion with his presence — » Whither shall

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

107

I go from thy spirit ? If I ascend up into Jhea-.
ven, thou art there ; if I dwell in the uttermost
parts of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead!
me, and thy right hand shall hold me." Thej
omniscience and omnipresence of God are con
nected in the same manner in Jer. xxiii. 23, 24,
" Am I a God who is near, and far. from no one ;
and can any hide himself in secret places that I
shall hot see him ?" For other passages, cf.
Morus, p. 52, and Hahn, S. 188, s. 43.
The Bible contains some figurative represen
tations of the omnipresence of God, which are
indeed perfectly adapted to popular discourse,
but which seem, if not properly understood, to
contradict the true idea of this attribute. Among
these representations we may mention the fol
lowing : —
1. God fills Qhp) heaven and earth — i. e., the
universe. Vide Jer. xxiii. 24. This representa
tion does not involve the notion of that spiritual
extension of which the Rabbins and some of the
schoolmen speak, but is intended to expose the
error then prevalent in the east, that God dwelt
in heaven, removed from the affairs of the world,
and unconcerned in what might befal the chil
dren of men.
2. He dwells in heaven, or in his temple. We
find it very difficult to conceive that it should
be otherwise with the presence of God than with
our bodily presence. We cannot understand
how it is, that his presence should not bear
some relation to a particular place, or how it
should be possible for him to be at the same
time in different places. We are under the neces
sity of using expressions borrowed from space,
because it is a form cf thought inherent in our
minds. But we should always remember that
these expressions, in application to God and
divine things, are figurative. Accordingly,
we represent God, in general, as at least more
present in one place than in another ; we make
him in our apprehensions to resemble ourselves ;
and are unable to conceive that he should act
upon nature, when at a great remove, or that he
should not be materially present, although invi
sible, wherever his power is exerted. We
therefore assign to him an abode, where he is
at least eminently present.
(a) He dwells in heaven. There he gives
the most awful displays of his power, in the
lightnings and flying tempests, and thence he
sends down the most visible marks of his favour
in the light and vital warmth of the sun. The
heavens are therefore called thepalace, throne, or
temple of God; and the earth, in contradistinction,
his footstool. For this reason, the face and hands
were directed heavenwards in prayer, and the
temples and altars of God were built upon
mountains and hills. What is intended by these
figurative representations may be literary ex

pressed after the example whch is given even
in the scriptures, by the phrase, God is exalted
over all. We sometimes find the phrase, he dwells
on high, instead of the phrase, he dwells in hea
ven. Vide Psalm cxv.i3 ; Job, xvi. 19.
(b).He dwells in his temple, which is some
times called hjs dwelling-place. The Jews be
lieved that prayer offered there, where they sup
posed, God to be specially present among his
worshippers, would be more certainly heard
than when offered elsewhere; and they there
fore turned their faces and hands thitherward
when absent from Jerusalem. They represent
ed God as sitting on a throne above the ark of
the covenant, and placing his feet upon its lid.
This representation, which occurs frequently in
the Bible, and especially in the Old Testament,
was doubtless believed literally by some of the
Jews. The prophets, however, improved every
opportunity of teaching them to raise their
thoughts above the mere sensible representation,
and to connect with these figures those just and
worthy apprehensions of God which they were
intended to convey. At the consecration of the
temple, (1 Kings, viii. 27,) Solomon inquires,
" But will God indeed dwell on the earth ? Be
hold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot
contain thee ; how much less this house that I
have builded ?" Cf. Is. lxvi. 1, and Acts, xvii.
24, ovx iv 2Etpoj(oMji,ot$ vaols xatoixEl. Even
Homer appears to have had some just views of
the presence of God. In II. xvi. 515, Glaucus
thus addresses Apollo :
KAfi&t, ava^, °S nov AWi/j Iv irtovi 6fjp.a> *
Eis, 3) svi Tponp ivvaaat is ov udvros aKoiEtv.
The opinion of some of the Jews that God
could be rightly worshipped only at Jerusalem,
which was contradicted by Christ, (John, iv.
20 — 24,) originated partly from their erroneous
views of the presence of God, and partly from
that prejudice so dishonourable to him, that they
alone had any title to his love and favour.
3. He approaches his people, or withdraws
from them. These also are figurative expres
sions, adapted to popular discourse. When they
wished to describe God as knowing anything
perfectly, they said, he drew near, and closely in
spected it. The representation that God draws
near to any one, or dwells with him, is also used
to designate the support, love, and special
favour of God, Psalm xci. 15 ; Matt, xxviii. 20 ;
John, xiv. 23, 24. It likewise denotes the
hearing of prayer, Matt, xviii. 20. On the
other hand, when God is said to withdraw from
his people, and to be far off, the meaning is,
that he withholds his assistance and support,
and leaves them helpless. Cf. s. 22, ad finem,
and Morus, p. 52, note 4. Cf. Morus, p. 51,
seq. s. 14.

103

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

SECTION XXIV.
THE wisdom of god.
I. Statement of the Doctrine.
This attribute of God, as well as his omni
presence, stands in the closet connexion with
his omniscience, and can be directly derived
from it. The omniscience of God implies that
he possesses the clearest knowledge of the con
nexion of all things, and therefore of their rela
tions as means and ends, and this knowledge is
commonly called wisdom. And because God pos
sesses the most perfect knowledge of this kind
he is said to possess supreme wisdom. He is ac
cordingly styled by Paul, (1 Tim. i. 17), povds
craij>ds, the all-wise, sapientissimus ; cf. Jude, v.
25. The wisdom of God implies two things : —
1. God proposes to himself the best ends
(fines, consilia.) The question is here asked,
what is the end of God in the creation and pre
servation of the world ? The earlier theologians
generally assign the glory and majesty of God as
the final cause of the creation, and refer to the
texts which speak of him as doing everything
for his own glory — i. e., that it might be seen
and acknowledged. And we may say, indeed,
that in relation to men and other rational beings,
who are bound to acknowledge the glory of God,
this is one end of the creation. But glory, in
itself considered, cannot be looked upon as the
sole, universal end, for which the world exists.
For God himself can be in nothing dependent
on the glory which others ascribe to him, nor
can he receive any increase of honour from their
praises. Other theologians, therefore, say that
the welfare of men was the object of God in the
creation of the world. This'may be true, if it
is not understood to mean that God created
everything solely for this object. It were judg
ing very proudly concerning ourselves and very
poorly concerning God to suppose that he pro
posed to himself no other object than this, and
had created everything for our sake who consti
tute so small a part of the boundless universe.
We prefer the following answer to this ques
tion: The end of God in the creation of the world
was to impart to all his creatures that degree of
perfection of which they are severally suscepti
ble; in accomplishing this end he employs the
most suitable means, and thus displays before
our eyes his wisdom, power, and goodness.
This is what is meant when it is said in the
scriptures, he made every thing for his own glory.
We should learn the majesty and glorious attri
butes of the Creator from the creatures of his
hand. But this can be done only by moral
beings like ourselves. Vide Psalm xix., et
alibi. Cf. s. 18, I. Note. Also s. 48, IV.
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 271. Bretschneider, Hand-
buch, band. i. s. 584.

2. He chooses the best means (media, instru-
menta) for the attainment of these ends. Hn
not only knows, as omniscient, what the best
means are, but is able, as omnipotent, to employ
them. In the choice of means he cannot be de
ceived, since he is omniscient, and consequently
infallible. Hence he will never choose unsuit.
able, ineffective, or injurious means; nor will
he employ means which are superfluous,, or
more than are necessary for the attainment of
his object in the shortest way. To suppose this
would be to impeach his omniscience. This is
sometimes expressed as follows : God acts by
the rule of economy, (ex lege aeconomiae ;) Deum
ire via brevissimd; according to the axiom:
Quod fieri potest per pauca, non debet fieri per
plura. That God acts upon this maxim, both
in the material and moral world, we see from
innumerable observations. But since we are
unable to survey the whole system of things we
cannot and should not presume to decide in
given cases what might be the shortest way and
what might be the best means for attaining the
divine ends. Many things appear to us useless,
unsuitable, or superfluous. The observation of
Paul, (1 Corinthians, i. 25,) that even those
actions and works of God which appear to us
foolish and unwise far surpass all human wis
dom is abundantly confirmed both in the physi
cal and moral world. Vide Reimarus, Abhand-
lungen uber die Wahrheiten der naturlichen
Religion, s. 206 ; and Jacobi, Betrachtungen
uber die weisen Absichten Gottes, 4 thle. Hano
ver, 1765, 8vo. The science in which the ends
and objects of God are investigated is called
teleology. Vide s. 15, 68, ad finem.
II. Scriptural Representations.
The doctrine of the wisdom of God is in a
high degree practical. It is calculated to inspire
our hearts with pious, thankful, and reverential
feelings towards God. It offers to us an unfail
ing source of consolation and peace in the
midst of our cares and sufferings, and is there
fore frequently exhibited by the sacred writers.
The most important texts relating to this attri
bute may be divided into two classes.
1. The texts which treat of our knowledge
of the wisdom of God derived from the creation
and preservation of the physical world. These
are, Psalm civ., especially ver. 24 ; Prov. iii.
19, seq.; Is. xl. 13, seq.; also Prov. viii.
22 — 30, where the wisdom of God is personi
fied, and in which Solomon bestows upon it all
possible praises, and shews that it is that attri
bute by which God so especially glorifies him
self in the creation and preservation of the
world. In the preceding and succeeding con
text he describes folly and ignorance by way of
contrast. 2. The texts which treat of the wisdom 61

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

109

God as displayed in the various institutions of
the moral world, especially those which he has
established to promote the moral perfection and
happiness of the human race. For moral per
fection, and the happiness which stands in an
immediate connexion with it, are the ultimate
destination of men and of all moral creatures."
The writers of the New Testament especially
love to dwell upon these great plans of God.
Christ says, (Matt. xi. 19,) t) eotyla (®eo5) ISi-
xaiufrj artb tuv tsxvav avtys — i» e., the wisdom
of God (as displayed in the calling and prepara
tion of teachers, and in the publication of their
doctrines) is approved by all the wise. Paul
says the same respecting the wisdom of God as
displayed in the Christian doctrine so generally
condemned at that time, 1 Cor. i. ii. Those
very doctrines which appeared the most revolt
ing to Jews and heathen contained, in his
view, the greatest proof of the divine wisdom.
He calls the doctrine of redemption aotyta, by
way of eminence, (1 Cor. 1. 25, seq. coll. Rom.
xi. 33 ;) although it appeared foolishness to men.
Morus, p. 47, note 7. A taste for these moral
subjects, and a perception of the wisdom*of God
in the provisions he has made for the moral
improvement and for the recovery of our race,
is, as it were, the test by which we can judge
of the degree of moral improvement to which
any one has attained. He who has no taste for
these objects has made as yet but little pro
gress; for the Bible assures us that the most
pure and perfect of the moral creatures of God
— the angels in heaven, admire the wisdom dis
played in his plan for the redemption of men,
and ponder them with delight, arid inquire into
them with earnestness, Ephes. iii. 10; 1 Pet.
i. 12. In Col. ii. 3, Paul says that in this plan
lie concealed all the treasures of the wisdom of
God. Note. — The Hebrew nan, and the Greek «o$as,
signified originally, skilful, expert, and were
applied especially to artificers; cf. Ex. xxxi. 3 ;
Homer. II. xv. 412. They signified, seconda
rily, able and knowing in any way. Thus
D'nan are docli, Eccl. i. 18 ; Is. xix. 11; 1 Cor.
i. 20, (rfoi aofybs ; itov ypaupattvs-) They came
gradually to have that more general significa
tion which belongs to them in all the ancient
languages. The same is true of the correspbnd-
ing substantives ncan, and eo$Ca.
SECTION XXV.
introductory remarks respecting the na
ture AND PERFECTIONS OF THE DIVINE WILL.
I. What is meant by the Will of God.
We derive our notions and expressions re
specting this divine attribute, as well as the
others, from what we know of the human soul ;

rejecting here, as before, all imperfection.
This is the only way in which we can come to
a laiowledge of God. Vide s. 18, ad finem.
Now we ascribe to the human soul two powers,
or rather, a twofold modification and exercise of
its power — viz., thinking and choosing, or intel
ligence and will. And we call the attributes of
God which are analogous to these by the same
name. Of the understanding of God, and of
the attributes in which it is principally deve
loped, we have before treated. We now come
to speak of the divine will, and the attributes
which belong to it. The will with us is de
pendent upon the understanding. We are said
to will, when we feel an inclination for any
thing which appears agreeable, and disinclina
tion for anything which appears disagreeable.
And it is the same with God. What the will
either of men or of God is, must be learned
from its effects, or by the actions.
The following words are used in the Bible to
designate the will of God. sen and the sub
stantive Xfln; also nm, and the substantive )isi.
The former words are translated in the Septua
gint by $b.u, [SovXo/iai,, ^ixr/pia, fSoutoj, and the
latter by ev&oxeIv and siboxia. The last word
often denotes the sovereignty, or rather, the
freedom of the divine will (run; ray) These
are the senses, therefore, in which these words
are used by the Hellenistic Jews, and the
writers of the New Testament. Cf. Ephes. i.
11; Ps. cxv. 3. These words, moreover, often
designate the thing itself which God reveals as
his will, or which he commands by his pre
cepts ; as, yEvrfcrjtto to ^rixijpd gov, Luke, xi. 2.
Cf. Ephes. v. 17 ; Romans, xii. 2. BoiAij @tov
(nin? sen, Is. liii. 10,) means the decree of God,
or his plan for the gopd pf men ; and se denetes,
by way of eminence, the dispensation of grace
through Christ, Acts, xx. 27, coll. ver. 20. Con
nected with this, there is one more 'signification
of these words, which deserves to be noticed.
When the verbs volendi and eligendi are con
strued, in Hebrew with a, or in Greek with iv
or eis, (as fl a son or ina, and evSoxeIv Iv two,)
they signify, to be well-disposed towards any one,
to love him, to shew him favour ; i. q., bene cupere,
velle, to wish well; also, to like to dt anything ;
in short, i. q., $iXeIv. Indeed, the latter word
is used in Luke, xx. 46; instead of ^s\ew, which
occurs in the parallel text, Mark, xii. 38. The
same meaning, to love, to havepleasure in a thing,
belongs also to ^ixsw with the accusative, Matt.
xxvii. 43. Hence SeXrjpa, j3ovX^, siSSossia, often
signify the gracious will of God, his 'benevolence,
the proofs which he gives us of his friendship.
II. Divisions of the Will of God, and Divine
Decrees.
The will of God that anything exterior to him
self should take place, is called his determina-
K

110

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

tion; or decree. Morus, p. 51 j note. The ob
jects of the divine will are as many and various
as the objects of the divine knowledge. Cf. s.
22, 1. For God, like all rational beings, chooses
only such things as are perceived by his under
standing to be good. His will, therefore, as well
as that of others, depends always upon his know
ledge. And he chooses orrejects, as the objects
which are presented to his mind appear in his
judgment desirable or otherwise. Since now
his knowledge is the most perfect, his will must
be the best.
God is frequently represented in the Bible as
favourably inclined towards all men, and as de
siring their happiness. But in some passages
it seems to be intimated that he does not desire
the welfare of some men, but,.on the contrary,
their condemnation. Now, many things which
we, in our philosophical style, should say took
place under the divine permission, or with the
distant concurrence of his will, were ascribed
by the ancient world to the immediate agency
and express decree of God. Traces of this com
mon opinion appear in Homer and other ancient
writers. Passages occur which exhibit the most
exalted and worthy conceptions of the Deity,
while other passages ascribe to him the design
ing and performance of such actions as are in
consistent with his perfections. Those of the
latter kind, which" occur in the holy scriptures,
being taken by themselves, and considered by
those who were unacquainted with this ancient'
mode of thinking and' speaking, were made to
contain a sense which was never intended by
the original writers. This mistake gave rise to
the vehement controversies res pectin ^predesti
nation, which continued in the Romish' church
from the fifth even to the eighteenth century,
and which raged with great violence between
the Lutheran and Reformed churches, especially
during the seventeenth century. In the progress
of these controversies it was found convenient,
in order to remove the apparent contradiction in
these texts, and to render the whole subject more
intelligible, to introduce various divisions into
the divine will. The following are the most
common : —
1. Antecedens and consequens. Voluntas ante-
cedens is also called prima, or primitiva; and
voluntas consequens is called secunda,finalis, or
decretoria. This division is very ancierit, and
occurs not only in John of Damascus, in the
eighth century, (since whose time it has been
always preserved by the schoolmen,) but even
in'Chrysostom, in the fourth century, who dis
tinguishes between ^ixtjua rtpiatov and ZtvtEpw,
Ttporjyovfisvov and EitouEvov, (Home!, I., in
Ephes.,) and who is said by Semler to have de
rived it from Plato. This division is derived
from the analogy of the human mind. We pos
sess a certain original bias, or impulse, which,

as long as it is not directed to any particular ob
ject, is called voluntas antecedehs animi humdni'f^
but as soon as it is directed to definite objects;
is called voluntas consequens. Thus1 love and
hate, while not directed to particular objects,
belting to the former; when so directed, to the:
latter. If we apply this to God, we say that he'
wills the happiness and' perfection of all his
creatures by his voluntas antecedens; and that
he makes application of this general will to
particular objects, by his voluntas cohsequins?'*
Now when God bestows upon any individual'
all the good of which he is susceptible, he is
said to treat him according' to his consequent or
determining will. This voluntas consequens is
therefore principally exhibited in the decrees of
God. These two volitions thus often differ in
their results, although they do not clash among
themselves ; although there may be succession
in the objects of the divine will, there can be no
succession in his will itself; for aff God knows,
so he wills everything instantaneously. Now,
if I say God wills to make all men happy, (1
Tim. ii. 4,) this is, in the language of "the
schools, the voluntas antecedens Dei — the end or
object of God ; but if I add the distinction, that
he' actually bestows this happiness only on the
pious, they alone being susceptible of it, (Mark,
xvi. 16,) this is the voluntas consequens. God,
then, ex voluntate anlecedente, wills the happiness
of all men, without exception ; but, ex voluntate
consequente, he wills the condemnation of1 the
wicked. With regard to the propriety of this division
we would say, that so far as it helps us to under
stand and express many things relating to the
attributes, decrees, and providence of God,' it
may be allowed, if what is intended by it be
considered, and not the form of expression.
For the language in which it is expressed is very
inconvenient, and conveys the idea of succes
sion and mutability in the divine decrees.
Literally understood it involves a contradiction;
for God never, in fact, willed a thingwhich he
is said to have willed antecedenter, but which
has never taken place consequenter ; since he has
no ends which he does not attain. This lan
guage must be understood, therefore, to represent
this thing as it appears to us. Vide Tollner,
Vermischte Aufsatze, Samml. IL, No. I. Kann
Gott Endzwecke haben, die er nicht erreicht?
2. Voluntas absoluta, and canditionata or ordi
nate. This division relates principally to the
will of God in regard to moral beings. He is
said to will absolutely when he determines any
thing without connecting it with a condition;
or, which is the same thing, without having re-
spect to the free actions of moral beings. Thus,
fpr example, he frequently allots the external
condition of particular men, or of whoie nations,
without reference to their moral worth.' Vide

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

Ill

Rom. ix. On trie other hand he wills condition
ally when he determines anything on certain
conditions, or in respect to the free actions of
moral beings. Thus he declares o itiatEvoas
Ha^rjdEtai- o b" aitvBtrjSas xataxpi^ijffEi'ai, Mark,
xvi. 16. When the annexed condition is ful
filled on our part, and the will of God thus ac
complished, his will is said to be efficacious
(efiicax); when the condition is not fulfilled,
and the-thing falls out differently from what
God appeared to have designed, his will is said
to be ineffectual (non efficax.) Here again the
language employed is very inconvenient; for
God always willed that which he foresaw would
take place, and never willed that which he fore
saw would not take plaice. Many other divi
sions have been adopted by theologians, to all
of which the remarks made at the close of the
first division may be applied. Vide Morus, p.
47, s. 11, p. 51, s. 13, note.
SECTION XXVI.
OF THE FREEDOM, IMMUTABILITY, AND EFFICACY
OF THE DIVINE WILL.
I. The Freedom of the Divine Will.
1. What is meant by the freedom of the di
vine will (libertas voluntatis,-a?-&e>!um Dei),
and why is this attribute ascribed to God ?
To us in our present circumstances, as related
to the two spheres of sense. and spirit, this subr
ject is encompassed with difficulties. To in
vestigate and remove these difficulties is not,
however, so much the province of theology as
of philosophy. The latter has of late done much
towards clearing up the ground, by the inqui
ries instituted in the critical school. If by free
dom is meant a power of choosing between dif
ferent objects presented to the mind, without
any motive for the choice of one rather than an
other, then the will' of -God is not free. But
freedom is not such a power, and to act in this
way is not to actfreely but arbitrarily, pro lubitu,
arbitrio, ut stet pro ratione voluntas; and to sup
pose this of God is to ascribe to him the greatest
imperfection, and to transform him into a fearful
tyrant, who pardons or condemns without reason,
and may tfwismake the pious eternally misera
ble, and the wicked eternally happy. The
freedom of a moral being consists rather in his
being able to choose and to act according to his
views, without being forfied to do otherwise,
either from an internal or external necessity;
but he cannot choose without having a motive
for his choice. For every act of the will in a
moral being there must be some ground, and
this ground is to be sought in the understanding.
The understanding discerns what is good and
bad ; this knowledge awakens affection or aver-
s-»n ; this, in its turn, moves the will to elect or

reject; and the will then determines itself to act
accordingly. Whenever, then, any one has
chosen according to the dictates of his under
standing, without feeling compulsion from with
in or from without, he has willed freely ; and if
under the same circumstances he has acted, he
has then acted freely. But, on the contrary,
when, he has been compelled to choose or to act
by passions from within, or by unconquerable
difficulties or irresistible power from without,
he has not 'willed or acted freely.
Freedom of will and action, thus explained,
must necessarily and in the highest degree be
long to God, as a pure moral being; in such a
manner, however, as not to imply any succession
of acts in his-mind, s. 25. This freedom must
be ascribed to him, (1) because he is a spiritual
being, and possessed of the purest moral will.
Vide s. 19. We regard it as the greatest per
fection that we and other moral beings are able
to choose and act freely, and as the greatest im
perfection to be compelled to choice and action
either from within or from without. We there-,
fore justly conclude, viA eminentix, that Gcd
must choose and act with the highest degree of
freedom. (2) Because' he is perfectly inde
pendent, which he could not be without freedom.
Throughout the sphere of sense the law of ne
cessity prevails; but in the moral world, the
law of freedom. In the former, everything is
limited, conditioned, and subjected to the vicis
situdes of time and space ; but everything in the
latter is unlimited, free, and independent of time
and space.' Of this moral world we ourselves
are members in the better portion of our nature,
and as such we are possessed of freedom and
are capable of understanding what it is, although
pur connexion with the bodily world makes it
difficult for us not only to exercise it, but even
to obtain any clear conception of its nature.
(3) Because he is the creator, preserver, and
wise ruler of the world, which character he could
not sustain unless he were possessed of freedom.
He has so constituted and ordered the world
that none of his creatures are able to disturb or
destroy it with all their skill or power. Cf.
what was said respecting the omnipotence and
the wisdom of God, s. 21, 24.
Against this view of the subject the objection
has sQmetimes been made, that God never can
act otherwise than from a regard to the ends
which he has in view, and can only choose what
is the best; that he thus acts and chooses neces
sarily, and that necessity therefore must be
predicated of him instead of freedom. But there
is a fallacy in this argument, arising from the
improper use of words. That is here supposed
to be necessary which has its' ground in the es
sential and infallible knowledge of God. He,
like every other rational spirit, chooses only
what his understanding acknowledges as good.

113

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Since now his understanding is infallible, and
he sees everything as it actually is, his choice
is called necessary, and not at all because it re
sults from any compulsion. The human under
standing is subject to mistake, and our choice
is frequently free only in appearance ; but always
to will and to do that which the understanding
discerns as best is the highest degree of freedom
in a moral being.
2. The doctrine of the Bible respecting the free
dom of the divine will.
This rests upon the principles above stated,
and is to be explained in the same way ; espe
cially as far as it relates to the freedom with
which God bestows or withholds his favours.
In the ancient languages, however, there were
no definite terms answering to the pure idea of
freedom ; and if there had been such terms in
vented for the use of the schools of philosophy,
they would have been ill adapted to popular in
struction. But they had not learned, at that
early period, to discriminate with sufficient ac
curacy between their ideas, and they therefore
often employed words which indicate caprice to
express the idea of freedom. We observe, how
ever, that just conceptions on this subject are
found everywhere in the Bible, although they
are expressed in popular rather than in philoso
phical language. So, when God is said in the
Bible to bestow blessings when he will, and to
be severe when he will, the meaning is, not that
he acts like a tyrant, in passion, or according to
blind caprice, but that he does that which in his
infinite^isdom he sees to be best. Thus 1 Cor.
xii. 11 ; Isaiah, xiv. 9, 10. We regard human
rulers as happy on account of the great freedom
they possess, and their independence of external
control ; they possess the right of pardoning, of.
condemning, &c. Now the popular language
of the Bible ascribes to God this unlimited use
of freedom, which we consider as the prerogative
of earthly princes and rulers. But this language
must be interpreted in such a way as not to in
volve those imperfections which belong only to
men. From this language it must not be sup
posed that when God pardons or condemns ac
cording to his own will, he acts, as human rulers
often do, from passion or caprice ; for there is no
true freedom where the will is not obedient to
the understanding. When Godi therefore, pros
pers and exalts one particular individual or a
whole nation, and afflicts and depresses another,
in so doing he acts freely — i. e., for wise reasons,
though they may be inscrutable to us, and not
from wilfulness or caprice. But from the fact
that we cannot see the reasons for what God
dpes, we are sometimes disposed to think that
he has none in his own mind, and that he acts
in an arbitrary manner; and as we think we
usually express ourselves. The popular lan
guage, therefore, which seems to affirm that God

decides and acts in an arbitrary manner, often
means no more than that we are ignorant of the
reasons which influence his decisions and con
duct. Vide Morus, p. 51, note. And in this
sense God's government, even in the intellectual
and moral world, is free ; to one people he gives
more religious knowledge and more advantages
for mental improvement, to another less; and
what he bestows at one time he takes away at
another. Cf. Ephes. i. 4—14. To us short
sighted beings there often appears to be some
thing unjust, contradictory, and inexplicable in
all this. At such times there is nothing more
quieting than the firm conviction that God wills
and acts with the most perfect freedom — i. e.,
according to the views of his understanding, by
which he always knows infallibly what is best.
The passage Rom. ix. is one of the most im
portant in relation to this subject. Paul here
contends against the error of the Jews, that God
preferred their nation to all others, and looked
upon them with exclusive favour. The Jews be
lieved that God could not reject them, and could
not transfer to others the blessings he had be
stowed upon them. Paul undertakes to shew
that, on the contrary, God proceeded freely in
the dispensation of his benefits ; that he did not
govern himself by the supposed deserts or the
personal efforts of men ; and that men could not
presume in this matter to prescribe to him, or
to complain of .his government. Verse 11, lm
ij xat' IxXoyfjV TtpoS-f crij tov ©Eoii pEry — i. e., the
will of God (ixXoyri, libertas in eligendo, as Jo
sephus uses it) must be acknowledged to be
free. (Cf. the phrase EvSoxia ^EXr^atos, Eph.
i. 5, 11,) Ver. 7, seq., Abraham had many chil
dren, but Isaac only received the promise. Ver.
10, seq., Isaac had' two sons, Jacob and Esau,
born at the same time. God made the posterity
of the one to be subject to that of the other.
From these and other examples Paul now con-
eludes, ver. 18, that God ov ^eXei, IxeeI- ov Si
&XEI, sxXvpvvEt,, (Job, xxxix. 16.) Cf. ver. 15,
EXEVjaut ov av eXeu, xai oixtEipyGta bv av otxtfEtpu,
quoted from Exod. xxxiii. 19, I bestow bless
ings at pleasure (pro lubitu), on whomsoever I
will, according to my infallible wisdom. Paul
afterwards, ver. 22, mentions some reasons why
God frequently proceeds in this way. He does
so sometimes,1;o deter men from wickedness, by
a display of his anger, or in some manner to pro
mote the general good ; but should we in any
case be unable to discover these reasons, we
must humbly acquiesce in the divine will, ver.
20, 21. This passage, therefore, does not treat
of the predestination of particular men to happi
ness or misery by an absolute decree. This pre
destination is not absolute, but dependent on the
fulfilment of certain conditions on the part of
man. In this passage Paul is speaking of the
general government of the world, and of the oi-

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

113

dering of tne external circumstances of indivi
duals and nations ; and he says that in this mat
ter God is not confined to those rules by which
we might think his conduct should be regulated.
He acts on principles and maxims which, though
perfectly wise, are often wholly beyond our com
prehension. Vide Noesselt, Opusc. ad Inter.
S.S. — Interpr. Gramm. c. ix. ep. ad Rom. —
Fasc. 1, p. 125, seq. -
II. Immutability of the Divine Will.
The immutability of the will of God results
from that of his nature ; vide s. 20, ad finem.
Since his will is always founded upon his per
fect knowledge, and his judgment is infallible
with regard to whatever it may relate, he cannot
be supposed to fluctuate in his choice. The mu
tability of the human will is owing to the un
certainty and defectiveness of human knowledge.
The Bible often speaks of the unchangeableness,
of the divine will. Psalm xxxiii. 10, 11, " Je
hovah bringeth the counsel of the heathen to
nought; but his counsel standeth for ever."
Ps. cxix. 89 — 91, Rom. xi. 29, auEtapixnta
xapiapata ©eoiI. 1 Sam. xv. 29, " He is not a
man, that he should repent ;" coll. s. 20. When
therefore we meet with texts in which God is
said to lepent, (as Gen. vi. 7,) or in which he is
said to have done differently from his intentions,
(as Isa. xxxviii. 1, seq. ; Jonah, iii. 9,) we must
interpret them so as to be consistent with his per
fections; for Moses and the prophets well knew
that God was not a man, that he should repent, Num.
xxiii. 19. These representations become consist
ent when we consider that whenever an event
occurred otherwise than had been expected, or af
fairs took a turn, under the divine government or
permission, different from what had been com
mon in human experience, then, in the customary
dialect of antiquity, God was said to repent and
alter his purpose. III. Efficacy of the Divine Will.
Whatever God wills, that he can accomplish ;
and his power has no limitations. And this is
his omnipotence, which, as a necessary attribute
of the divine nature, was considered in s. 21.
•SECTION XXVII.
GENERAL REMARKS ON THE MORAL ATTRIBUTES
OF THE DIVINE WILL.
1. We ascribe truth or veracity to God, so far
as whatever he reveals or declares, directly or
indirectly, is true and certain, s. 28.
2. We ascribe goodness or benevolence to God,
so far as he is disposed to bestow upon his crea
tures all that happiness of which they are sus
ceptible; s. 28.
3. We ascribe holiness to God, so far as he
possesses all moral perfections, and consequent
ly

ly loves what is good, and hates what is evil ;
s. 29.
4. We ascribe justice to God, so far as he ex
hibits his love of goodness and hatred of wick
edness, in his dealings with his creatures; s.
30, 31.
Note. — Leibnitz, in his Theodicee, (p. ii. s.
101,) considers the holiness of God as nothing
else than his supreme goodness, or benevolence.
In the same manner he explains the justice of
God, and in this respect is followed by Wolf,
Baurngarten, Eberhard, and many other modern
philosophers and theologians, especially those
belonging to the school of Wolf. The last-men
tioned writer, following the example of Leib
nitz, defines- the justice of God, benignitas ad
leges sapientix temperata ; others define it still
more briefly, the relative goodness of God.
These philosophers were led thus to refine
upon the idea of justice, by the desire to obviate
the objections to which the common idea of it
appeared to be exposed. There can be no doubt
of the truth which they affirm, that the goodness
of God is relative; and whenever we speak of
the divine holiness or justice, we must proceed
on the principle, that the goodness . of God is
always directed by his wisdom, and is always
and wholly relative, since he bestows blessings'
upon his creatures in exact proportion to their
susceptibility for receiving them. But while
this is true, the definition of divine justice given
by Leibnitz is not, considered as a definition,
sufficiently precise and accurate, as Kant has
shewn. Without going at large into the objec
tions which might be urged against it, it will be
enough for our present purpose to observe, in the
first place, that it is not sufficiently intelligible,
and cannot be conveniently used, at least in
popular instruction ; and, in the second place,
that it does not exhibit the common idea con
nected with this term, which is of itself proof
enough that it is not just as a definition. We
feel at once, on hearing this definition, that there
is something wanting to complete the idea.
When we are contemplating the nature of God,
we consider it, after the analogy of human be
ings, as different according to the different ob
jects about which it is employed. On this com
mon mode of conception the common use of lan
guage is built, and in conformity with this usage
we must make a distinction between the good
ness, holiness, aud justice of God, especially as
the scripture follows this common usage. Now
the object of the holiness of God is, general, uni
versal good; of his justice and benevolence, the
welfare of his creatures. We here see how
closely connected these ideas are, and wha in
duced Leibnitz to define them as he did. But,
following the general usage, we make the fol
lowing distinction in the employment of these
terms : one is called good or benevolent who. is
k2

114

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

inclined to benefit another, qui bene cupit, milt;
one is called holy, in respect to the purity and
blamelessness of his disposition, — 'one who loves
what is good, and hates what is evil, qui recti,
sentit, sand us est ; just, who acts according to
this disposition, qui recti agit, and who there
fore actively exhibits his pleasure in what is
good, and displeasure at what is evil. But
since God has no other end but to promote the
welfare of his creatures, he acts, even when he
proceeds with justice, at the same time benevo
lently ; and even those things which we call evils
and punishments, from the manner in which they
affect us, are only so many results and proofs
of the divine goodness, as we shall shew here
after. SECTION XXVIII.
OF THE VERACITY AND THE GOODNESS OF GOD.
I. The Truth or Veracity of God.
This attribute of God is sometimes divided
into metaphysical (interna) "and moral (externa).
By the former is meant merely that he is the
true God, in opposition to false, imaginary dei
ties ; and in this sense he is called nw Ss, pns Sx,
Is. xiv. 21 ; ©eo; dxrfeivos, 1 John, v. 20; John,
xvii. 3. But we here speak of the truth of God
in the moral sense ; and by this is meant that he
is true in all which he declares or reveals, and
that he does not alter from what he has once
spoken ; dbvvatov ^Evaad^ai, ©e6v, says Paul,
Heb. vi. 18. This attribute is also designated
in the Bible by the words iw, ruins, ,-ns, -w\
dxrfetia- and opposed to it is falsehood, varia
bleness in speech, trustlessness, y>o, nib*, nD-ip,
4-eJSos, x. t. x. This attribute implies,
1. That the instruction which God oives us
contains no untruths or contradictions. Hence
it is called in the scriptures, xat' i%oxi\v, nnx,
aXrgrtia- and Christ says, John, xvii, 17, 6 Xoyos
o sbs axfasm iati. Cf. Ps. xix. 8 ; cxix. 75, 138.
2. That all the divine promises and commi-
nations are sure, and will be accomplished with
out fail. Since the will of God is immutable,
(s. 26, No. II.), whatever he has once an
nounced as his will must inevitably take place.
So far as he fulfils his promise or threatening,
he is called rtiatos, fat), and truth nw, naiDN,
itiatis, is ascribed to him. Ps. xxxiii. 4, "The
promise of the Lord is faithful, and everything
which he does is truth." 2 Cor. i. 18, iuatbsb
©eos, and ver. 20, " the divine promises which
are given through Jesus Christ (iv avt$, sc.
Xpttfi'ip, ver. 19), are to vai, xai to ap^v — i. e.,
firm, sure, TLlotis ®eov is opposed to the artustla
avSpuvtav, Rom. iii. 3. An important passage
in this connexion is found in Ps. cxix. 89  9i.
This passage contains a proof of the certainty
of the divine promise, and the immutability of

the divine laws drawn from a comparison;., of
them with the laws of the natural world. Sure
and immutable as are the laws of the material
world, so sure are those laws by which God
proceeds in fulfilling his declarations, in reward
ing virtue and punishing vice ; and foolish as it
would be to blame the former, equally foolish
is it to blame the latter. Cf. Prov. viii. 22-^-26.
The Bible gives great prominence to this at
tribute of God, and justly, considering the in
fluence which a belief in it must have in pro
moting piety and godliness. Vide Heb. xi. 6,
seq. ; Rom. iv. 3. This conviction, and the
confidence flowing from it, is called by the very
same name as the attribute itself, — viz., ultstis-
the opposite of which is ditustla. But the Bible
represents God as faithful in fulfilling his threats
as well as his promises. Heb. iv. 12, is a class
ical text upon this subject. ZCiv yap b Xoybstoi
.©eoD, xai ivEpyris, xai tofuotipos irtip rtdaav udxoi-
pa* hlatopav, x. t. X., xai xpitixbs Ev^vprflttw xai
ivvoiiov xapSias, "The theatening of God, (iuiyo;
toi ©£oi) is active and efficacious, (guv xai
E'i/Epyjj{, not vain and empty,) and sharper than
any two edged sword, &c. ; and he sits in judg
ment on the thoughts and purposes of the heart."
The gospel is not more full and explicit in its
promises to those who comply with its condi
tions, than in its threatenings against those who
reject them.
Note — Some passages of the Bible seem, at
first view, to be inconsistent with the veracity
of God. On this point we may remark that
there are some truths which are not intended for
all men of all ages, and which would do more
hurt than good if exhibited indiscriminately,
without regard to the circumstances of those to
whom they may be addressed. The question
therefore arises, whenever we undertake to in
struct our fellow-men, whether this or that
truth will be useful to them ; whether they are
able to bear it ; or whether, considering their
circumstances, it may not do them more hurt
than good ? To teach men those truths which
they are not prepared to receive, is like putting
useful instruments into the hands of a child,
who can turn them to no account, and may per
haps injure himself by using them, and is there
fore inconsistent with true prudence, and with
an enlightened regard for their welfare. This
is a maxim which must be adopted by all who
engage in the work of instruction and educa
tion, or who are in any way conversant with
men. It is indeed liable to abuse, and has been
abused by human teachers, but it is true not
withstanding ; and we are warranted by all the
divine perfections to believe that it will not be
abused by God, while, at the same time, we
believe that his wisdom and goodness must lead
him to proceed in accordance with it, in his deal
ings with men. And so we find, that God has

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

115

sometimes withheld particular truths from men,
or has indulged them in particular prejudices
and errors, and this in perfect consistency with
his veracity ; since it would have been attended
with injury for him, considering the circum
stances of men at that particular period of the
world, to have substituted better views in place
of those which prevailed among them. The
Old Testament furnishes many instances in
which prevailing prejudices were indulged, and
many truths were left for a time in comparative
obscurity, and a more clear revelation was de
ferred to a distant period, when men should be
come more capable of receiving it. Thus God
sometimes exhibits in his dealings with men
what the Grecian philosophers call avyxatdpaois,
a condescension to the views and capacities of
men, which is as indispensable in the education
of nations, and of the whole human race, as in
that of individuals. Vide Dr. Senff, Von der
Herablassung Gottes.
As an instance of this condescension, we may
mention the fact, that God sometimes appears
to remit something of the severity of his threat
enings. And this he does in accommodation to
our views of his character ; somewhat, in this
case, as the father remits the severity of the
punishment which is due to his child, in order
to inspire him with more confidence, and to con
vince him, in an unexpected manner, of his entire
affection. Cf. Jonah, iii. 4, coll. ver. 9, 10, and
iv. 2,. 9 — 11. Add to this, that while some of
the promises and threatenings of God are uncon
ditional and absolute, (such as the promise of a
numerous posterity to Abraham, and the threat
ening of the servitude of the posterity of Esau,)
most of them are conditional, and depend upon
the obedience or disobedience of those to whom
they are addressed ; but that this condition is
sometimes so pbvipus from the nature of the
case, or in some other way so well known, that
it is not expressed in words, but only tacitly
implied — e. g., Jonah, iii. iv. Anpther example
which must be explairied on this principle of
the condescension of God to the views of men,
and the conceptions prevailing in any parti
cular age, is the sacrifice which Abraham was
required to make of his son Isaac, Gen. xxii.
2, seq. Morus, p. 54. Still another instance
of the condescension of God to human opinions
and customs : men are accustomed to regard an
oath as preeminently sacred ; God, therefore, in
order to shew that his declarations agree per
fectly with his mind and will, swears that they
are true, Heb. vi. 13, seq.
It may be remarked, in general, that the more
any one is acquainted with the history of men,
and with the mode in which they expressed
themselves in ancient times, and which still pre
vails among the common people at the present
day, the less will the phraseology of the Bible

appear obscure, strange, or revolting. In this
view the study of Homer may be highly recom
mended to theologians. For they are peculiarly
liable, from their familiarity with technical and
philosophical phraseology, to misunderstand
such representations as those under considera
tion, and which are perfectly intelligible to plain
and practical men. The latter find little diffi
culty in understanding the most figurative re
presentations of the Bible, and in entering into
their full spirit, because they are familiar with
such representations; whereas men ef learned
pursuits find great difficulty even in ebtaining
the meaning ef a figurative and popular phrase-
ology, and greater still in making use of it in
their instructions. They have too little inter
course with men in the common walks of life.
This is a common fault with us all.
II. The Goodness or Love of God.
This attribute consists in the determination
or inclination of the will of God to bestow upon
his creatures all the good of which they are sus
ceptible. It is ascribed to God, because it
forms an essential part of that character which
we must ascribe to him as the most perfect be
ing. It is proved in the clearest manner by the
fact, that God has so created and constituted the
universe, that the whole, and each particular
portion, possesses that degree of perfection and
well-being of which it is susceptible. It is also
proved in the preservation and government of
the world, in a manner which must be perfectly
satisfactory to every rational being. The proof
of the divine goodness derived from the benevo
lent constitution of nature may be exhibited in
a very intelligible and practical manner, and on
this account is frequently employed in the holy
scriptures. The passage in which this proof is
exhibited most fully and distinctly is Psalm
civ., a good commentary on which may be
found in Cicero, Nat. Deor. ii. 39. Cicero
says, very truly, (Nat. Deor. i. 44,) that all re
ligious and pious feeling would cease, if love
and benevolence were. denied to God. If we
would excite the heart to affection, obedience,
and gratitude towards God, and warm it with
religious sentiments, we must bring to view the
divine benevolence. John therefore declares, in
his first epistle, iv. 8, 16, ©eoj ^ ayditn, and
Plato says, God is beauty and love itself. But
in order that this truth may have its full effect,
every one should consider how much goodneBs
God has shewn to him as an individual. The
Bible directs our attention particularly to those
proofs of the divine benevolence, commonly less
regarded, which appear in all which God has
done, from time to time, to bring men to happi
ness, in his great plan of instruction and salva
tion. The texts which treat of the blessings
conferred by Christianity belong to this con-

116

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

nexion — viz., John, iii. 16; 1 John, iv. 9, 10;
Rom. v. 6—12; Tit. ii. 11—14. This great
proof of the love of God is called, by way of
eminence, jj aydrtri, zapts. Morus, p. 56, n. 7.
For a further discussion of this subject, vide the
Articles concerning Divine Providence, and con-'
cerning Christ.
The love of God has different names given it
in the Bible, according to the different ways in
which it is expressed, and the different relations
which it bears to his creatures, and their condi
tion. ipn \r\, #api,;, eXeos, axe very common
names, signifying unmerited love or goodness,
and implying God's greatness, and our unwor
thiness. p-i! is another common name for this
attribute ; whence Sixawavvn in the New Testa
ment often signifies benevolence. These He
brew words are sometimes rendered by oya^o-
aivtj and xp^atbttis- So far as the love of God
has respect to men in general, it is called phi
lanthropy, ^fixav^portla ®eov, Tit. iii. 4 ; and
from the possession of it, God is called the
father of men. The texts in which this is done
are cited in Morus, p. 55, n. 1. So far as the
love of God has respect to the miserable and the
suffering, it is called pity and compassion, mise-
ricordia, benevolentia erga miseros, O^prn, ta
aitxdyxva ®eov, eXeos. Men in this condition
have the promise given them that God will pro
tect and comfort them, and provide a way for
their deliverance where they could see none.
And to such persons it must be an inexpressible
consolation that God has not merely enabled
them to attain a hope, in the use of their reason,
that he would assist and stand by them, but has
expressly promised them that he will certainly
do this. To the afflicted nothing can be more
consoling than the sure promise of God ; and
of this the religious teacher should be mindful
in his instructions. So far as the love of God
is exercised in deferring or abating deserved
punishments, it is called forbearance, long-suf
fering, patience, indulgence, oy» ^tn, paxpc&v-
uia, dvoxri, Psa. ciii. 8, seq. ; Rom. ii. 4 ; ix. 22.
The love of God is described in the scrip
tures as,
1. Universal and impartial. God bestows
upon each of his creatures as much good as he
is capable of receiving. Philo says, Ov rtpbs to
flE'yE^Of EVEpyEtEi (6 ®EO() tuv a/itov ^opiVioj/ —
itpos bk tas tZiv EVEpyEtovfiivuv SvvdpEif ov yap
<I>S rtEfvxtv 6 ©tos sv rtoislv, ovtu xai to yE^o^Evov
ev rtdoxEw, x. t. x. De Opif. Mundi, p. 13, ed.
Pf. This is the great principle upon which
God proceeds in the distribution of his favours,
whether greater or smaller, more or less fre
quent. Psa. cxlv. 9, " The Lord is good to all ;
and his tender mercies are over all his works."
Cf. Psa. xxxvi. 7; ciii. 11 — 13, "For as the
heaven is high above the earth, so great is his
mercy toward them that fear him," &c. This

doctrine of the universal and impartial love of
God, though it was believed and taught by the
prophets of the Old Testament, was for the first
time exhibited in its true light and in its whole
extent in the New Testament, in opposition to
the prejudices of the Jews, which very much
limited the divine goodness. To assert, how
ever, that the teachers of the Old Testament,
and especially Meses, were whelly destitute of
cerrect ideas respecting the leve ef Gpd, is very
untrue ; and the centrary may be proved from
innumerable passages of scripture. Vide, e. g., '
Exodus, xxxiv. 6, 7; Num. xiv. 17, 18. The
blame of their mistaken views of this subject
rested upon the great body of the Jewish natian,
and not upon their teachers. The moral percep
tions of the Jews were so perverted that they
misunderstood what they were taught respecting
the moral attributes, of God.
2. Unmerited, gratuitous. And in this re
spect, particularly, the love of God is called
xdpisi tni Rom. iv. 4, seq. ; xi. 5. There is no
opinion more prejudicial to the interests of true
morality than the opinion so prevalent among
the Jews at the time of Christ, and recurring
under different forms in every age of the church,
that the love of God can be merited or procured
by men; and accordingly there is no opinion
which was more opposed by the writers of the
New Testament. It is impossible that desert
of any kind should come into consideration with
love, as such ; for wherever desert is regarded,
love must be exchanged for obligation, Rom. iv.
4, seq. The free goodness of God is never ex
ercised, however, inconsistently with his wis-'
dom and justice. Hence the pious may always
be sure that rewards will be bestowed upon
them by God ; while the wicked can have no
such expectation, Rom. ii. 4, 5. Cf. Thomas
Balguy, Divine Benevolence Asserted, trans
lated into German by J. A. Eberhard.
SECTION XXIX.
OF THE HOLINESS OF GOD.
The holiness of God, in the general notion of
it, is his moral perfection — that attribute by
which all moral imperfection is removed from
his nature. The holiness of the will of God is
that, therefore, by which he chooses, necessa
rily and invariably, what is morally good, and
refuses what is morally evil. The holiness and
justice of God are, in reality, one and the same
thing; the distinction consists in this only, that
holiness denotes the internal inclination of the
divine will— the disposition of God; and jus
tice, the expression of the same by actions.
Vide s. 27, ad finem. This attribute implies,
1. That no sinful or wicked inclination can
be found in God. Hence he is said, James, i.
13, coll. 17, to be drtEipooroj xaxiiv, incapable

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

117

of being tempted to evil, (not in the active sense,
as it is rendered by the Vulgate and Luther;)
and in 1 John, i. 5, to be light, and without dark
ness — i. e., holy, and without sin. In this sense
he is called niro, xa^apoj ayvos, 1 John, iii. 3 ;
also D'Dfi, artXms, integer, Psa. xviii. 31. The
older writers described this by the word dva-
pdstijtos, impeccabilis, [The sinlessness of God
is also designated in the New Testament by the
words tixtws, Matt. v. 48; and bau>s, Rev.
xvi. 5.]
2. That he never chooses what is false and
deceitful, but only what is truly good — what
his perfect intelligence recognises as such ; and
that he is therefore the most perfect teacher,
and the highest exemplar of moral goodness.
Hence the Bible declares that he looks with
displeasure upon wicked, deceitful courses, Psa.
1. 16, seq. ; v. 5, (Thou hatest all workers of
iniquity ;) but that, on the contrary, he regards
the pious with favour, Psa. y. 7, 8 ; xv. 1, seq. ;
xviii. 26, seq. ; xxxiii. 18. Cf. the texts cited
by Morus, p. 47, s. 11, note 3 — 5. The ground,
therefore, of the holiness God is in his under
standing and the freedom of his will. Vide
s. 26.
As to the use of the words E*-hp and ayws,
some philologists (particularly Zacharia, Bi-
blische Theologia, th. i. s. 240, f.) remark, that
they are never used in the scriptures, with
reference to God, in the sense here ascribed
to them, but rather describe him as the object
of awe and veneration. And it is true that this
is their prevailing meaning — e. g., Isa. vi. 9;
John, xvii. 11, (oyie rtdtsp ;) and that according
ly dy«££'£c&a& signifies, to be esteemed venerable, to
be reverenced. Still these words are in many
passages applied to God undeniably in a moral
sense — e. g., Lev. xix. 2, " Be ye holy, for I am
holy ;" cf. 1 Pet. i. 14 — 16. Thus also boibtns
Eph. iv. 24,, and ayunsvvn, ayuuspbs, by which
all moral perfection is so frequently designated,
especially in the New Testament. The differ
ent meanings of the words E>np and oytoj stand
connected clearly in the following manner (cf.
s. 126) — viz. these words signify (a) the being
externally pure — e. g., 2 Sam. xi. 4; Lev. xi.
43, 44 ; xx. 7, 25, 26, &c. ; (6) the being sepa
rate, since we are accustomed to divide what is
pure from what is impure, and to cast away the
latter ; and therefore (c) the possessing of any
kind of external advantage, distinction, or worth ;
&o the Jews were said to be holy to God, in op
position to others, who were xowoL, profane,
zommon, unconsecrated. Then everything which
was without imperfection, disgrace, or blemish,
was called holy ,• and E>np, oyios, sacrosanctus,
same thus to signify what was inviolable, Isa.
iv. 3 ; 1 Cor. iii. 17, (hence rhpc, asylum.)
They were then used in the more limited sense
»f chaste, (like the Latin sanciitas) — a sense in

which they are sometimes used in the New
Testament— e.g., 1 Thess. iv. 3, 7, (cf. Wolf,
in loc. ;) but not always, as Stange supposes,
(Symmikta, II. 268, f.) They then came to
denote any or all internal, moral perfection;
and finally, perfection, in the general notion of
it, as exclusive of all imperfection. Cf. MoruS,
p. 47, s. 11. SECTION XXX.
OF THE JUSTICE OF GOD.
The justice of God is that attribute by which
he actively exhibits his approbation of what is
good, and his disapprobation of what is evil.
It is therefore the same in essence with his holi
ness, vide s. 29. So far as God has compla
cency in what is good he is called holy ; so far
as he exhibits this complacency in his actual
procedure in the government of the world he is
called just. The word holiness, accordingly,
refers rather to the internal disposition of God ;
and justice, to the display or outward manifesta
tion of this disposition in his actual government.
Both of these attributes stand in close connex
ion with the divine benevolence; they may be
deduced from it, and indeed must be regarded
as expressions of it. Cf. the remarks made on
this subject and on the definition of Leibnitz, s.
27, note.
Respecting the biblical use of the words pns,
p-ix, and fiiseatos. In its primary, original mean
ing, p-nx doubtless denotes what is fit, suited,
adapted to a particular end, appropriate, right.
The Greek Slxaios has the same signification as
Sweatos liirtos, bi.xai.ov apfia, k. t. X., also the
Latin Justus, the German gerecht, and the Eng
lish right. These words came afterwards to
denote one who acts justly and rightly, a virtuous
man in the moral sense. Accordingly pis, and
bixaioBvvr] (both in the Septuagint and in the
New Testament) signify virtue, piety, also
truth, (Isaiah, xlii. 6,) veracity, fidelity, honesty,
goodness, beneficence, alms, and then what is
more properly called justice, as exercised in
courts. Hence pnxn, bixoiovv, signify, to acquit,
pronounce innocent, pardon, and in general, to
favour. The proper meaning must in each case
be determined by the connexion.
God exhibits to men his complacency in what
is good and useful, and his disapprobation of
what is evil and injurious, in two ways : — (1)
By laws and various institutes, which are in
tended to teach us, on the one hand, what is
good and salutary, and on the other, what is
evil and injurious, in order that we may know-
how to regulate our feelings and our conduct.
This is called legislative justice (justilia legisla-
toria, sive antecedens, sive dispositiva.) (2) By
actions, in which he manifests his approbation
of what is good, and of those who practise it;

118

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

and his disapprobation of what is evil, and of
those who live wickedly. This is called retri
butive justice, (justitia retributiva, judiciaria,
rec-.'«n'a, distributiva, compensatrix, consequens.)
Since this division, which has long been com
mon in the schools of theology and philosophy,
is founded in truth, we shall here adopt it, after
the example of Moms. The same thing may
be expressed in other words, as follows : — God,
as he is holy, accurately estimates the distinc
tion between what is morally good and evil,
and accordingly between the good and evil ac
tions of men ; he has made known to men this
distinction by means of his laws, (to a know
ledge of which we are led by reason, scripture,
and experience,) and upon this he insists ; and
that men may not only know the difference be
tween good and evil, but experience and feel it,
he has inseparably cennected certain necessary
advantages (rewards) with what is good, and
disadvantages (punishments) with what is evil.
We proceed, therefore, to treat,
I. The Legislative Justice of God.
All the divine laws have respect to the true
welfare of men, since they prescribe what is
good and useful, and forbid the contrary. Vide
Psalm xix. 8 — 12 ; Rom. xii. 2, QiXfjua ©eoJ to
ayo&bv xai Evapsatov xai tEXEiov, The divine
laws are commonly divided into —
1. Natural — i. e., such as necessarily flow
from the constitution of human nature. They
may be learned from human reason and con
science, and are constantly alluded to, repeated,
explained, and enlarged by the Bible. Cf.
Introduction, s. 3.
2. Arbitrary, or positive. Such are those
which stand in no necessary connexion with
human nature, and cannot therefore be discover
ed or demonstrated by reason, but depend mere
ly upon the express command of God. They
are not written upon the human heart, but made
known to us by God from without. Among
positive laws may be counted those which con
cern the institution of public worship and the
ritual, also the political precepts of Moses, and
many other precepts and doctrines of religion
contained in the scriptures of the Old and New
Testament. The common belief is, that such positive pre
cepts have been given by God both to Jews and
Christians. And this belief is justified by the
following reasons: — (1) Positive precepts are
useful as affording to men an exercise of obedi
ence, piety, and devotion, A father often im
poses upon a child an arbitrary rule in order
to accustom it to obedience, or with some other
wise intent; but always with the good of the
child in view, although the child may not be
able to understand the why and the wherefore.
Positive preoepts should therefore always be

obeyed, although they may not appear to us to
have any natural or obvious connexion with our
welfare ; for they are given by God, who can
not command anything without reference to our
good. (2) All experience shews that even the
most cultivated men, when left to themselves,
fall into absurd religious observances and forms
of worship. It cannot, therefore, be improper
for God to prescribe even arbitrary services,
and to give positive laws and doctrines re
lating to religion. (3) By being expressly
revealed and positively prescribed, even natu
ral laws may obtain a positive autherity, re
ceive a mere solemn sanction, and thus exert
a better influence. They may be explained,
confirmed, enlarged, and enforced by positive
precepts. But since positive precepts are de
signed in many cases to promote particular ob
jects, which cannot be known from the nature
of things, they are not necessarily universal and
unalterable, unless they are declared to be so by
God ; nor are they binding upon persons who,
without any fault of their own, remain unac
quainted with them.
Many, on the contrary, deny that God has
given any positive precepts, and consider them
all as of human origin. They pretend, that
much harm has been and will be done in human
society by pleading a divine origin for positive
precepts and doctrines. So though t Tindal, and
many of the English rationalists, and the same
opinion has lately been expressed by Dr. Stein-
bart in his System der reinen Gluckseligkeits-
lehre, s. 62—71, 130, ff. Many of the ancient
Grecian philosophers, too, believed that the
supposition that God had given positive precepts
was merely a popular error, since all which were
affirmed to be such were obviously contrived by
men, and promulgated under the divine authori
ty. In opposition to this argument, Ernesti
wrote his Vindiciae arbitrii divini in religione
constituenda, Opusc. Theol., p. 187, seq. He
was strongly opposed by Tollner, in his In
quiry, Utrum Deus ex mero arbitrio potesta-
tem suam legislatoriam exerceat ; also by Eber-
hard in his Apologie des Sokrates, th. i. But
no objections which are merely a priori can dis
prove the existence of positive precepts.
The following arguments have been used to
render the objection to positive laws somewhat
plausible : — (l) It is thought that experience
proves that the promulgation of positive laws
which are received as of divine origin, exposes
natural laws to be neglected and transgressed,
and in proof of this the example of the Israelites
and Christians is adduced. To this it is justly
replied, that the abuse of a thing does not pre
vent its proper use. The fact that many have
made an improper use of positive precepts can
not prove that they are without use, injurious,
and reprehensible, and that they cannot be of

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

119

divine origin. The most useful objects and the
most benevolent arrangements in the natural
world have often been abused by men; but this
is no proof that they were not made and appoint
ed by God. (2) Oppressive burdens and severe
and intolerable laws, it is said, will be imposed
upon men, on pretence of divine authority,
wherever the existence of positive laws is ad
mitted; and in proof of this, the history of the
Jews is again referred to. To this it may be re
plied, that these very pretended divine laws have
made it so much the more necessary for God to
interpose in our behalf by his own positive com
mands. Again : the evil consequences spoken
of do not flow from positive divine ordinances,
but from arbitrary human ordinances, which
men have falsely pretended to be divine. In
reply, it is said that both experience and his
tory teach that it must be difficult to distin
guish between those laws which are really of
divine origin and those which are only pretended
to be such. (3) God founded and arranged
everything so wisely in the beginning that no
alterations or additions in the established natural
laws are necessary ; and that he should do what
is unnecessary cannot, it is said, be supposed.
To this it may be replied, that positive divine
precepts do not alter, contradict, annul, or in
any way repeal, the natural laws. To prove,
a priori, either that positive laws do not exist or
are unnecessary, is quite impossible. Whether
there are or are not positive laws is a question
of fact; and if it can be shewn that positive di
vine precepts actually exist, all reasoning to the
contrary, a priori, is of no avail. If no evil ex
isted in the world, our philosophers would prove
apriori, from all the attributes of God, that a
world in which evil should exist was utterly
impossible. But since the existence of evil is
beyond a doubt, they must be content to shew
how it is reconcilable with the divine attributes.
Cf. Morus, p. 48—50, s. 12.
Note. — The following remarks shall suffice
us, without going further into the philosophical
investigation of this disputed point. The his
tory of man in all ages shews that the natural
obligatipn to perform certain duties cannot be
made intelligible to the greater part of mankind
by merely rational considerations and proofs.
They depend upon authority ; and if authority
be wisely employed, more influence over their
minds is obtained than in any other way. Nor
is this the case with the ignorant and illiterate
only, but almost equally with the learned and
educated, though they are unwilling to acknow
ledge or believe it. The authority of God must,
of course, exert a more powerful influence over
the mind than any other authority. Hence from
the earliest times, and even among the heathen
nations, the natural law has been promulged, as
if expressly and orally given by God. Men felt

the necessity of having positive divine precepts.
They must also of necessity have some external
rites and ceremonies addressed to vhe senses in
their worship of Cod. But to secure to these
rites and ceremonies (so necessary and beneficial
to men) the needful authority, and a truly so
lemn sanction, they were prescribed even among
the heathen, by those who contrived them, as
coming directly from God. The ancient legis
lators published even their civil laws in the same
way, and with a similar intention. Hence
among the Grecians, Romans, and Mahom-
medans, as well as the Israelites, the civil and
religious laws were interwoven and united.
Can it now appear surprising, inconsistent, or
contrary to the natural expectations of men, for
God to publish positive laws among the Israel
ites, under his own authority, by Moses and the
prophets ? By his doing so, the Jews might be
preserved from all the positive laws which men
would otherwise have imposed upon them. If
it is once conceded that authority is necessary
for men, and that the authority of God has and
must have greater weight than any other, then
for God to publish laws on his own authority
must be considered as highly beneficial. Whe
ther he has actually done so, by means of im
mediate revelation; whether universally or to a
particular people ; are questions of fact which
depend upon testimony, and cannot be deter
mined a priori. Vide Introduction, s. 2, 3.
The writers of the Old and New Testament
consider the fact, that God made known his will
to the Israelites, and gave them laws, as one of
their principal advantages over other people,
Psalm cxlvii. 20 ; Rom. iii. 2. But the positive
la\%3 given to the Israelites are, in part, of such
a nature, that they cannot and ought not to be
universally observed. They were mostly in
tended only for a particular age, a single people,
country, and climate. By degrees, as circum
stances changed, they were found deficient and
inadequate, and gave occasion to various abuses.
At this juncture Christianity appeared. It pro
mulgated the law of nature on divine authority,
as had been done in the former dispensation.
But with this, its founder enacted various posi
tive religious precepts and laws, which, how
ever, were few in number, and of a nature to be
easily and universally obeyed. He then de
clared men free from all thpse positive laws of
the Mosaic dispensation which had not at the
same time a natural obligation, or were not
again enacted by himself. The ceremonial law
had now performed its service. It was not in
tended to be of perpetual and universal obliga
tion. But during that state of ignorance and
superstition into which Europe relapsed, this
religion, which was simple in its nature and be
nign in its influence, as established by Christ,
became so overloaded and corrupted by positive

no

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

precepts, for which divine authority was pre
tended, that Christian nations were in a state
little better than that of the Jews at the coming
of Christ. This fact, however, so far from dis
proving the claims of Christianity to be regarded
as given by God, proves only the perversions
of those to whom it was entrusted. The best
gifts of Heaven have been abused by men ; but
this abuse does not disprove their divine ori
ginal. SECTION XXXI.
OF THE JUSTICE OF god — (continued.}
II. The Retributive Justice of God.
When God exhibits his approbation of such
actions as correspond with his laws, and his
displeasure at such actions as he has forbidden,
we see his retributive justice. This approbation
which he expresses of what is morally good, is
called reward; his disapprobation expressed
against what is evil, punishment. The former
is frequently called in the Bible by the figure
synecdoche, dydrtri ®eov, and the latter, opyjj
®eov, in, 'nn, ui, Rom. i. 18 ; ii. 8. Those who
believe in the existence of God will generally
allow that he is not only the supreme ruler, but
also the disposer of our destiny ; that our happi
ness and misery are in his power. And since
we find, both by experience and observation,
that obedience to the divine commands has
happy consequences, and disobedience unhappy
consequences, we conclude that God rewards
virtue and punishes vice ; that happiness is a
proof of his love, and misery a proof of his dis
pleasure and anger. According to this siqnple
notion, by which God is represented as acting
after the manner of men, the language of the
Bible on this subject is to be understood and
explained. This notion which we form of God,
as acting after the manner of men, and which
we express in the language common to men,
gives rise to the scholastic division of the di
vine justice, into remuneratoria and punitiva.
We shall here exhibit only the general princi
ples upon which we shall proceed in the further
discussion of this subject in the Article on Sin,
s. 86, 87, where a history of this doctrine will
be given.
1 . Remunerative justice.
When God rewards good actions by favours
immediately bestowed or promised hereafter, he
exercises his remunerative justice. From these
blessings bestowed upon us as rewards, we
justly conclude that our actions agree with the
divine will, and that God loves and approves us;
and by these blessings we are thus induced to
regulate our conduct according to the divine
commands: this, then, we may suppose to be
the object which God has in view in the bestow-

ment of these rewards. Here belong the follow
ing texts of scripture : Ps. xxxvii. 37 ; lxxiii. 24,
seq.; Rom. ii. 6 — 10; 1 Cor. iii. 8; Hebrews,
vi. 10 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8, &c. The rewards bestow
ed by God are commonly divided into natural
and positive. iVaiura/ rewards may be explained
as follows : — God has so wisely constituted the
natural world, that good actions have happy
consequences; that there is a nexus commoM
necessarii cum bono, sive rede facto, as Morus
expresses it. The advantages spoken of have
their ground in the wise constitution which God
himself has given to the natural world, and are
therefore called prxmia naturalia, sive ordinaria.
Among these natural rewards may be enume
rated, peace and tranquillity of mind, the appro
bation of the good, the enjoyment of external
advantages, bodily strength and health, increase
of possessions, &c. Vide Ps. xxxvii. 16 — 40;
cxii. This is what is meant by saying, Virtue
rewards itself. Positive reward s are those which
stand in no necessary connexion with the actions
of men, but are conferred by an express and
particular divine appointment, constituting what
Morus calls the nexus commodi non necessarii
cum bono, sive rede facto. The question is here
asked, if positive- rewards are ever conferred
during the present life ; and if so, what they are!
To this we may answer, that in the Christian
dispensation positive rewards during the present
life are not universally promised, as in the an
cient dispensation ; and that it is impossible to
determine, in any particular cases, whether a
reward is positive or natural. The texts com
monly cited in proof of present positive rewards
refer either to the natural consequences of virtue,
(e. g., 1 Tim. iv. 8 ; Mark, x. 29, -30 ; Prov. iii.
2, seq.,) or to the particular promises made to
the Jews, which are no longer valid, (e. g.,
Num. xxviii. 5, 29; Exod. x. 23; Ephes. vi.
2.) But when speaking of the rewards of the
future world, the writers of the New Testament
plainly declare, that besides the natural conse
quences of good actions which the righteous
will enjoy, God will bestow upon them positive
rewards, which cannot be considered as the na
tural consequences of virtue. Vide Article xv,
This remunerative justice of God may be farther
described as universal ; the smallest virtues of
every individual man will be rewarded, for they
are all known to God, Matt. x. 42 ; 1 Cor. iv.
5; Heb. vi. 10. It is also impartial. This is
called in the Bible, drtposaitoXtj^la ®eov, Rom.
ii. 10, 11. Unlike human judges, who are often
deceived by external appearances, God rewards
actions according to their moral worth, and
real, internal excellence. The full display of
the divine justice, either in rewards or punish
ments, is not seen in the present life; but is re
served, as we are taught in the Bible, for the
future world. In the Bible we are also taught

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

121

that our present life is but the feeble commence
ment of our being ; and that by far the largest
und most important part of our existence — our
vita vere vitalis — will hereafter commence ; and
we are thus enabled to comprehend what would
otherwise be inscrutable, how it is consistent
with the justice of God to appoint affliction to
the righteous and prosperity to the wicked, as
he often does in the present world. Vide the
excellent parable of the tares among the wheat,
Matt. xiii. 24—30, coll. ver. 36—40; Cf. Rom.
ii. 5— 12; 2 Thess. i. 4—12; Luke, iv. 13, 14.
2. Penal Justice.
When we say the justice of God is exhibited
in punishment, it is as much as to say that he
causes unhappiness to follow upon moral evil,
in order to convince men that he disapproves of
disobedience to his commands. Neclit commoda
bono, sive rectefactis ,- incommodo malo, sive male
fadis, 1. The ends of God in punishing.
God punishes, (a) in order to prevent or di
minish moral evil, with reference therefore to
the good of the whole, and of particular indivi
duals. 1 Cor. xi. 32, Kpivofxtvoi. vrtb Kvptou
rtaibzvot.it £ia, i'va prj cvv 1 9 xoepcp xataxpi&upsv —
i. e., the divine punishments suspended over us
are intended for our improvement, and unless,
warned by them, we Teally become better, we
shall fail of eternal blessedness, and share the
fate of the unbelieving world. Isaiah, xxvi. 9,
When thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabit
ants will learn righteousness. Ps. cxix. 67, Be
fore I was afflicted I went astray ; but now have
Ikept thy law, lest I should draw upon myself
additional afflictions. Ver. 71, It is good for me
that I have been afflicted, that I might learn thy
statutes. God punishes (b) in order to shew
that sin is displeasing to him, and that only the
truly obedient can count upon his approbation ;
in order, therefore, to preserve inviolate among
men the authority, of his benevolent laws, in
tended for their best good. And since nothing
can be more important or desirable to men than
the approbation of God, he is actuated by the
same benevolence in punishing with this intent
as with the former. The Bible teaches us that
God has this end in view in the punishments
which he inflicts, by saying, he will be sanctified
by means of his judgments, Lev. x. 3. This is
the same as to say that by punishing men he
designs to be seen and acknowledged by them
as a holy God, or as one who disapproves of
wickedness. The same thing is taught in Rom.
i. 18, 'ArtoxaXvritEtai bpyrj ®eov — Irti naaav
dcE^fiae xai dbix^av dv^tount^v. But the justice
of God also requires that as he rewards the good
which others do to us (s. 30), he should also
punish the evil which they bring upon us, (2
Thess- i. 6, 7; Ps. ix. 5, seq. ;"> and this is
16

called, in the popular language which the Bible
employs, his revenge, ixbix^ai,s, Rom. xii. 19.
Thus it appears that the true final cause of
the divine judgments upon men is their moral
improvement; and in this respect it may be
said, with entire truth, that the penal justice of
God is his goodness, wisely proportioned to the
capacity of its objects. But it is not the im
provement of those only whom he punishes
which God intends in the judgments which he
inflicts, but that of others also, who may take
warning from these examples. So that even
should God fail of his pbject in reforming the
offender himself, he would still benefit others
who might witness the punishments inflicted
upon him. Vide Ps. 1. 16, seq.; Iii. 6, seq.;
Rom. ii. 4—6; 2 Pet. ii. iii.; 1 Cor. x. 11,
Now all these punishments were inflicted upon the
Israelites as examples (tvrtoi, see ver. 6) to us,
who live in the latest period of the world, (in
New-Testament times.) Some think, with
Michaelis, (Gedanken uber die Lehre der heili-
gen Schrift von der Siinde, u. s. w. Gottirigen,
1779, 8vo,) that the final cause of the divine
judgments is not so much to benefit and reform
the offender, as to terrify and deter others from
the commission of crime. Michaelis does not
indeed deny that punishment might be made to
promote the reformation of those who are the
subjects of it; but he still thinks that the great
end which is contemplated by all judicatories
in the punishments which they inflict is to ter
rify and deter from crime, sometimes the male
factor himself, as well as others, but more
frequently others only, who may witness his
punishment. And this is indeed true with re
gard to human judicatories, which have no such
means of punishment within their power as are
calculated for the reformation of the culprit,
and can therefore only hold him forth as an ex
ample for the warning of others ; but this is an
imperfection which is inevitable to these judi
catories as human, and ought not therefore to be
transferred to the divine government. It is in
consequence of this imperfection incident to
human judicatories, by which they are driven
to consult for the good of the whole, exclusive
of that of the criminal, that they must often in
flict upon him severer penalties than his own
benefit would require, merely for the sake of
the salutary influence of his punishment on the
minds of others. That they are thus compelled
to sacrifice an individual to the general good
is certainly an evidence of imperfection. Just
at that point where punishment ceases to be
salutary to the person who endures it, however
salutary it may be to others as an example —
just at that point does it become an evidence
of the ignorance and imperfection of those by
whom it is inflicted. But how can we suppose

132

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

iiat God, who knows what kinds of punish-
men) \re necessary for the benefit of the offend
er, and who has every mode of punishment at
command, would ever punish any one more se
verely than was necessary for his own profit,
merely for the sake of making him a terrible
example to others? None upon whom he
inflicts punishment, with their good in view,
will fail of being benefited by it, unless, through
their own fault; for he employs those means
only which are calculated to produce this effect,
and is liable in the choice of means to none of
those mistakes and imperfections to which
human judicatories are subject. We cannot,
therefore, make these human judicatories our
standard of judging respecting the divine go
vernment. The judicial authority of God does
not rest on the same basis as that of human
rulers; and, in the judgments which he inflicts
none of the imperfections of human judgments
appear. We should avoid many mistakes if,
when we speak even of the justice of God, we
should represent him less under the image of a
judge than of a father, who, as we are taught
in the Bible, is " good even in his judgments,"
Ps. cxix. 39. The benevolence by which God
is actuated in his severest inflictions is implied
in the very words by which his chastisement is
denoted — e. g., rtaibiia, Hebrews, xii. 5 — 11;
and dnotoula, Rom. xi. 22. The representation
of God under the image of a judge is not, how
ever, in itself objectionable, but only on account
of its liability to abuse. It is very natural to
men, as we see from the present example, to
transfer to God the extremely defective ideal
which they have derived from human rulers ;
and it will therefore be wiser for religious
teachers to represent God under the image of a
father, at least to those who ar.e virtuous, and of
a nature to be influenced by kindness and love,
and to reserve the image of a severe and right
eous judge for rude and intractable men, who
are incapable of being influenced by anything
but terror.
Note 1. — Persons cannot be said to be punish
ed when they suffer without any fault of their
own, but only when they suffer in consequence
of their wickedness. The wretchedness which
the prodigal son brought upon himself (Luke,
xv.) is properly called punishment ; while the
same wretchedness befalling an innocent person
would properly be denominated calamity. The
Bible teaches us very justly and satisfactorily
how such evils and sufferings as befall the vir
tuous must be understood and improved by them
and by others. The wise father, in the educa
tion of his children, often finds it necessary to
treat even the dutiful with severity, in order to
promote their present advantage and real per
manent welfare. In the same manner does God
often see it necessary, for wise reasons, to exer

cise severity towards those whom he is edu
cating, and to impose sufferings upon them. Hi)
sees that afflictions will tend to promote their
holiness, strengthen their faith, and restrain theii
sinful propensities. Habent taUa vim discipline^
Morus, p. 50. This is the view of the chastise
ment we receive from God, which is given us
by Paul in that excellent passage, Heb. xii.
5 — 11. He there calls the discipline which we
receive, tColSeeov, fatherly correction, and com
pares the conduct of God towards men, with
that of a father. Ver. 6, "Ov ayaita Kiipw;,
rtaiOEWi. Ver. 7, Tt's iatw vlbs, ov ov naiSevit.
Ttatrjp. In ver. 10 the apostle teaches thai
God punishes irti to avpfipov and proceeds,
ver. 11, to say, rfouWa ov SoxeI aiopos shot,
vtStEpov Of xapiibv slpvvixbv drco&ibiaoi, x. t. X.
The goodness and justice of God which appear
in the allotment of such evils to men, is hence
called by some theologians, justiiia pxdeutica,
or pxdagogica. The justice of God, when
thus exercised, has the same object with his
penal justice — viz., the improvement and moral
perfection of men ; but it differs from that in its
internal nature and character, as appears from
what has been said. There is an endless diver
sity in the characters of men ; and in his treat
ment of them God governs himself according to
this difference of their characters, and guides
them to happiness through different ways, and
by different means ; and in doing this he clearly
exhibits his wisdom and goodness. This truth
is strikingly illustrated in Isa. xxviii. 23 — 29.
As the husbandman cannot treat all his lands
and all his fruits in the same manner, so neither
can God treat all men alike ; but while he seeks
for the improvement of all, he promotes it in one
by prosperity, in another by adversity.
[Note 2. — The causes for which God does
anything, and also the ends which he would at
tain, may be sought either tn himself or without
himself, in the world which- he has made; in
other words, they are either subjective or objec
tive. But because he is entirely independent
and absolutely perfect, the highest and last
grounds of what he does must be sought in his
own nature ; and to these the objective reasons
of his conduct must be subordinate. And so,
when we inquire for the final cause of the re
wards and punishments which God distributes
in the exercise of his retributive justice, we must
look for it in God himself; and to this we must
subordinate any ends for this exercise which
may be derived from the world which God has
created. Now the nature of God, in which the
last ground of his retributive justice is to be
sought, has infinite moral perfection; for this
perfect moral excellence residing in his nature
God must have supreme regard and absolute
love, and consequently he must feel an absolute
pleasure in what is morally good, and displea-

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

123

sure in what is morally evil. This necessary
love to what is morally perfect is, then, the last
ground of the divine justice. But in order to
be consistent, he must act according to this love,
and exhibit to the view of his moral creatures
his approbation of good and disapprobation of
evil ; and this is the last end of the retribution
which he awards. And if there were no refor
mation of the individual offender, no warning
of others, or any objective ground for the exer
cise of retributive justice, there would be suffi
cient ground for all that God does either to
punish or reward, in his own absolute love of
moral good and hatred of moral evil. The re
presentations of the Bible would certainly lead
us to think that the feelings which prompt him
in the punishment of the wicked are, his holy
disapprobation of their conduct — his necessary
hatred of their moral character. And when we
enter into the feelings of the guilty subject of
the divine judgments, does he not find reason
enough in his own ill-desert for all which God
inflicts upon him ; and would not all which he
endures be sufficiently understood by him, if no
advantage to himself or others occurred to his
mind ? The justice of God is an absolute attri
bute, and demands itself to be satisfied ; and mo
ral evil has a real, intrinsic ill-desert, and ought
to be punished. That God has sometimes the
reformation of the offender in view in the pu
nishment which he inflicts, and that he seeks
the moral perfection of men in the displays of
his attributes, is perfectly true ; these ends, how
ever, so far from being the only or the highest
reasons of retribution, are subordinate to the sa
tisfaction of divine justice. — Tr.]
2. The different kinds of punishment which
God inflicts.
(a) Natural — i. e., such unhappy conse
quences as flow from the internal nature of sin
ful actions; incommoda necessaria malo, sive
male factis, nexa, as Morus describes them.
These, like natural rewards, have their ground
in the wise constitution which God himself has
given to the natural world. That natural pu
nishments are really inflicted is shewn by daily
experience. Sin everywhere draws upon itself
remoTse, disgrace, bodily disease, &c. And
these natural consequences of sin, like the na
tural consequences of virtue, are greater than is
commonly supposed, and often unlimited in their
extent, as will be hereafter shewn in connexion
with the doctrine of endless future punishment.
" Sin punishes itself."
(b) Positive, arbitrary — i. e., such as stand
in no natural and necessary connexion with the
sinful actions of men, or which do not flow
from the internal nature of such actions, but are
connected with them by the mere will of the
legislator, and are additional to the natural con
sequences of sin. According to the common

theory on this subject, with which the Bible
agrees, such positive divine judgments are in
flicted by God, on account of the inadequacy of
natural judgments alone to effect the moral im
provement of men, and to deter them from sin.
In order, therefore, to preserve inviolate the
authority of his law, he connected positive judg
ments with the natural consequences of sin,
which alone were insufficient for this purpose.
In the infliction of these arbitrary sufferings, he
is governed by the rules of infinite wisdom and
love, and not by blind caprice.
Positive punishments are divided into present
and future. The present are those which take
place in this life ; and in proof of them we may
refer to the passages of the Old Testament
where they are threatened to the disobedient Is
raelites — e. g., 2 Sam. xii. 10, 11, 14; Acts, v
5, 9 ; 1 Cor. vi. 3—5.
Future positive punishments are those which
are threatened in the next world. From many
expressions of the New Testament we are un
doubtedly led to expect positive punishments in
the future world. Cf. Art. xv. It must cer
tainly be considered inconsistent for any one to
object to positive punishments in another world
who expects positive rewards. Such an one
has certainly very much the appearance of con
forming his belief to his wishes, and of admit
ting positive rewards because he desires them,
and denying positive punishments because he
fears them.
It was with reference to the positive punish
ments of sin that the atonement of Christ was
principally made ; for the natural consequences
of sin are not wholly removed by virtue of his
death. The bodily disorders incurred by the
sinner in consequence of his vices do not wholly
cease, though they may indeed be abated and
alleviated by his becoming a sincere believer in
Christ as the Saviour of the world. Those who
deny the existence of positive punishments
hereafter consider that Christ by his atonement
has freed us merely from the fear of punish
ment — a notion which is inconsistent with the
declarations of the New Testament, as will be
shewn in the Article respecting Christ.
In speaking of the positive divine judgments
which take place in this life, the teacher of reli
gion is liable to do injury, and should therefore
wisely consider his words. It is true, doubt
less, that positive punishments do take place in
the present world ; but it is also true that we are
unable, in given cases, to determine decisively
whether the sufferings which we witness are, or
are not, positive judgments from the hand of
God. To consider plague, famine, and physical
evils of every sort befalling an individual or
nation as in every case the consequence of moral
evil, is an error to which the multitude is much
inclined. They frequently refer in these cases

124

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

to the very sins which have occasioned these
divine judgments, as they denominate the cala
mities which befall their fellow men. And this
injurious prejudice has been not a little strength
ened by the incautious manner in which the
teachers of religion have sometimes spoken on
this subject. It is perfectly right to consider
pestilence in general as a divine judgment, and
for the religious teacher, during such visitations
from God, to remind men of their sins ; but it is
not right to pronounce, as it were, a definite
judicial sentence upon the guilt of a particular
person or country visited in such a manner.
Experience and scripture- both disapprove of
this ; for we often see that these calamities cease
before the alleged cause of them is removed ;
and they befall the good and bad equally, and
without distinction. As God causes the sun to
shine and the rain to descend upon the evil and
the good, so he sends tempest, flood, and con
flagration, upon one as well as the other. In
deed, the best men often suffer, while the worst
prosper; from which the fair conclusion is, that
nothing can be determined concerning the moral
character of men from the allotment of their ex
ternal circumstances. Vide No. I. of this sec
tion. The sacred writers concur entirely in these
views. The friends of Job concluded from, his
bodily ills that he must have committed great
sins ; but Job shews (v. 10, 12) that God often
visits persons with sufferings which are not
occasioned by their sins. • Christ says, Luke,
xiii. 2, 4, that the Galileans whom Pilate had
caused to be executed at Jerusalem, and the
eighteen men upon whom a tower had fallen,
were not sinners more than others because they
had suffered these things. He corrected his
disciples when they ascribed the misfortune of
the man born blind to the sin of his parents,
and taught them that they ought not to conclude
that particular misfortunes were the sure conse
quence of particular crimes, John, ix. 3. Those
who advocate the practice to which allusion has
been made cannot justly plead in their defence
the passages in the Old Testament, where pest,
famine, failure of the harvest, destruction by
enemies, and various other positive punishments
in this life are frequently threatened for certain
definite transgressions of the divine commands ;
for we have now no prophets to come forth among
us,as among the Israeli tes,as the messengers and
authorized ambassadors of God. The civil go
vernment of the Israelites was theocratic — i. e.,
God was acknowledged by the Israelites to be
their civil ruler ; and the leaders of their armies,
their earthly kings, their priests and prophets,
were considered by them as his authorized ser-
' vants. Hence all their laws were published in
the name of God — i. e., at the divine command,
and under the divine authority. And in the
same manner the temporal rewards connected

with obedience, and the temporal punishfnente
connected with disobedience, were announced
as coming from him. From what has been
said, we draw the conclusion, that external
blessings or calamities are not to be considered
in particular cases as the reward of good actions,'
or the punishment of bad, except where God has
expressly declared that these very blessings, or
these very calamities, are allotted to this indivi
dual person, on account of the good or bad ac
tion specified ; as Lev. xxvi., Deut. xxviii., Re
velation, ii. 22, 23. Additional remarks con
cerning natural and positive punishments will
be made in the Article on Sin, s. 86, 87.

APPENDIX. SECT. XXXII.
OF THE DECREES OF GOD.
The doctrine of the divine decrees depends
upon the freedom of the will of God, and upon
his wisdom, goodness, and justice. It may
therefore properly succeed the discussion of
these subjects in the foregoing sections.
I. General Statement, and Scholastic Divisions.
1. Definition of the decrees of God. By these
we mean, the will of God that anything should
come into existence, or be accomplished, (Morus,
p. 51,) or, the free determinations of God re
specting the existence of any object extrinsic to
himself. 2. The nature and attributes of the divine de
crees. These are the same as were ascribed to
the divine will, because the decrees of God are
only expressions of his will. The decrees of
God are, properly speaking, (a) only one single
decree. They were all made at one and the
same time. Before we can come to a determina
tion of the will, it is often necessary for us to
institute laborious investigations and inquiries,
since we cannot survey all the reasons on both
sides of a subject at a single glance. And it is
on account of this limitation of our understand
ings that all our determinations are successive.
But no such succession takes place in the mind
of God ; he knows all things at once. Vide s.
22. And so, properly speaking, the decree to
make the world, and every single decree re
specting everything which exists, or has been
done in it from the beginning, are only one en
tire decree. But we represent to our minds as
many different decrees as \here are particulars
comprehended in this one universal decree, (b)
The divine decrees arefree. Nothing can com
pel God to decree what is contrary to his
will or understanding. His decrees, however,
though free, are never blind and groundless.

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

125

Vide s. 26. Cf. Ephes. i. 5 ; 2 Tim. i. 9. (c)
They are benevolent, always intended for the
good of the creatures of God, Ephes. i., Rom.
viii., ix. That they are so follows from the
goodness, holiness, and justice of God ; s.
28 — 31 inclusive, (d) Eternal and unalterable'.
Vide s. 20, and especially s. 26, ad finem. Cf.
Morus, p. 53, s. 15. Whence the Bible often
says, God determined such a thing, jtp6 xata-
PoXrjs xaapov, Ephes. i. 4; art or itpb aiuvuv.
ITpo, in rtpoyifVutoxElv, rtpoopi^Eiv, x. t. X., denotes
the same thing. God existed from eternity;
and as he exists without succession of time, all
of his decrees must be as eternal as himself,
and as immutable as his«own nature. Rom.
xi. 29, duEtauEXrrta. Heb. vi. 17, to dpEtd^Etov
tfjs $ovXr[S ©eov. (e) Unsearchable, dvE^EpEvvrta,
kvE^ixviarsto., Romans, xi. 33 — 36 ; ^d^n ©eov,
1 Cor. ii. 10 ; Isaiah, lv. 8. Cf. Morus, p. 46,
s. 10, note 4. We see but a small part of the
immeasurable whole which God surveys at a
glance, and are incapable, therefore, of compre
hending, in its whole extent, the immeasurable
and eternal plan of God, or of determining a
priori what he ought to have decreed. The
attempt to decide what God has determined to
be done by conclusions drawn from particular
attributes of his nature, of which we have such
imperfect notions in our present state, is attend
ed with the greatest danger of mistake. For us
to undertake to say that this and the other thing
is good and desirable, and therefore must be,
or has been, done by God, is what the Bible
calls wishing to teach God, 1 Cor. ii. 16. We
can learn what God has actually decreed only
from seeing what events have actually taken
place. From the existence of the world, we
conclude that God decreed to create it ; from the
existence of evil, we conclude that God decreed
to permit it, &c. And although we are taught
expressly in the Bible that God decreed to send
Christ into the world, (1 Cor. ii. 9, seq.,) we
are also taught to note the event, the effects of his
mission, and from thence to conclude what the
will and purpose of God is.
¦ 3. Division of the divine decrees. They are
divided, as far as they relate to moral beings,
into absolute and conditional, like the divine
will. Vide s. 25, II. 2.
(a) Absolute decrees are not such as are made
without reason in the exercise of arbitrary
ppwer, but such as are made withcut reference
to the free actions of moral beings, or without
being dependent for their accomplishment upon
a condition. The decrees of God to create the
world, to send Christ to redeem it, to bestow
external prosperity, advantages for intellectual
improvement, or the knowledge of the gospel,
upon one people or individual, and to deny them
to another, and all his determinations of this
nature, are called absolute decrees; because,

though made in view of wise and good reasons,
they do not depend for their accomplishment
upon the free actions and the true character of
moral beings. In the allotment of temporal or
earthly good, riches, honour, health, &c, the
rule by which God proceeds is not always the
worthiness of men. We do not mean that virtue
always and necessarily induces suffering and
persecution, (as some have concluded, from a
false interpretation of such texts as Malt. v. 10,
seq. ; 2 Tim. iii. 12, &c.) Pure Christian vir
tue, on the contrary, often brings along with it
great temporal advantages, Rom. xii. 17, seq.
We simply mean, that in imparting these exter
nal advantages, God is often governed by other
principles than regard to the obedience or dis
obedience of his moral creatures.
(b) Conditional decrees are those in making
which God has respect to the free actions of
moral beings. These conditional decrees are
founded upon that fore-knowledge of the free
actions of men which we are compelled to as
cribe to God. Vide s. 22. God foresaw from
eternity how every man would act, and whether
he would comply with the conditions under
which the designs of God concerning him would
take effect, or would reject them ; and upon this
fore-knowledge he founded his decree. Of this
class are the decrees of God respecting ( the
spiritual and eternal welfare of men. They are
always founded upon the free conduct of men,
and are never absolute, but always conditional.
We are not, however, to regard these spiritual
gifts as in any sense deserved by the moral
agent, when he complies with the prescribed
conditions ; Luke, xvii. 10. The decree re
specting the eternal welfare of men is called, by
way of eminence, predestination, in the limited
sense; for all God's eternal decrees are called
predestination in the larger sense. This name
has been used, in this more limited sense espe
cially, since the time of Augustine ; from the
fact that the word prxdestinare was employed
by the Vulgate to render the Greek rtpoopi£W,
in Rom. viii. 29, 30, which was then referred
to the decrees of God respecting the salvation
and condemnation of men. The decree of God
respecting the eternal blessedness of the pious,
was then called eledio, decretum electionis, pre-
destinatio ad vitam. The decree respecting the
punishment of sinners in the future world was
called reprobatio, decretum reprobaiionis, prcdes-
tinatio ad mortem. These words too are de
rived from the New Testament, especially from
Rom. viii. ; where, however, they are used in a
different sense. The election, ixxoyr/, there
spoken of, is the gracious reception of Jews and
heathen into the Christian society ; and the re
jection is the denial or withdrawment of this
and other divine blessings, as will appear from
No. II. l2

126

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

II. Scriptural Representation, and the Errors occa
sioned by False Interpretation.
1. Scriptural representation.
The following are the principal expressions
employed in the Bible in relation to the decrees
of God. (a) All the words which signify to
say, speak, command. The phrase, God says,
often means, he vrills, he decrees, Ps. xxxiii. 9.
So frequently -ia-t, nixo, iji. (6) The words
which signify to think, are often used to denote
the divine decrees; as nDip, niaiyrvn, foaXoyiepoi,
Ps. xxxiii. 10, 11 ; Is. Iv! 8. Hence the phrases,
to speak with one's self, to say in one's heart, often
mean, to consider, determine. Saying in his
heart, was the manner in which the Hebrew de
noted thinking — an instance of the ancient sim
plicity of language, corresponding with the
phrase of the Otaheitans, speaking in one's belly.
(c) 'K.plua, vztra, sentence ; representing God as
a judge or ruler, who publishes edicts and pro
nounces sentence ; Ps. xxxvi. 6, 7 ; Rom. xi.
33. (d) 'Obos, -pi, way. The way of God sig
nifies his manner of thinking or acting, his con
duct ; Ps. cxlv. 17, " Gracious is Jehovah in all
his ways" — i. c, decrees; Rom. xi. 33, bboi
(tsov dvE^xviadtoi.
(e) The following occur more frequently in
the New Testament : ®EXnua, Evboxla, in He
brew, fsn, jisn, used particularly to denote God's
gracious purpose. Vide s. 25. IIpo^Effis, Ephes.
i. 11, where it is synonymous with fiovXrj ^stoj-
uatos, 2 Tim. i. 9, seq., and Rom. ix. 11, (Va jj
toi ©eov rtpo^Eais xat' IxXoyrjV pEvrj — i. e., so
that the divine purpose must remain free, must
be acknowledged to be according to his own
choice. HpoyivuaxEiv. This verb, like the He
brew jni, and ywim and Eibivai, very frequently
signifies to decree, (metonymia caussae pro
effectu.) In this sense it is often used by Philo.
In Acts, ii. 23, it is used to denote the purpose
of God, that Christ should suffer and die.
Now since the verba cognoscendi frequently sig
nify, among the Hebrews, to love, to wish well,
itpoyvaais very often signifies, by way of emi
nence, the gracious and benevolent purpose of
God, which he entertained from eternity for the
welfare of men. Thus itpbyvaais in 1 Pet. i. 2,
denotes the gracious purpose of God respecting
the admission of men to the privileges of the
Christian church; Rom. viii. 29, o<fis rtpoEyvu,
his beloved, those whose welfare he seeks ; Rom.
xi. 2. 'Opi^Etv and jtpoopi^Ew, commonly ren
dered in the Vulgate prxdestinare. 'Opi^Eiv is
to determine, in the general sense ; and in this
sense it is said, Acts, xi. 29, that the apostles
uipwoi' x. t. x. The divine purpose is therefore
called iipisuevrj ]3oiAjJ, decretum voluntatis divinx,
Acts, ii. 23. In the classics, bpiauos is purpose,
determination. ITpoopifEW is properly decernere
antequam existat ; because the decrees of God
are eternal, as, Acts, iv. 28, the Jews conspired

to do " whatever thy counsel rtpouipiSE yEvk^aii,
before determined to be done." The word npoopi-.
£eiv, when used in reference to men, "never de
notes exclusively the divine purpose respecting
their eternal salvation or condemnation, but rather
respecting their admission to the Christian
church, to partake both of the rights and privi
leges, and also of the sorrows and sufferings of
Christians. So it is used, Ephes. i. 5, ripoopiiraj
ijuds tts vld^Ealav bid 'Inaov XptoYov— i. e., he
purposed to bring us into the Christian church,
and thus to make us his children — his beloved
friends. That this is the meaning of the apos
tle appears from verses 11, 12. The same is
true of the passage,- Romans, ix., which does,
not treat of the eternal salvation or condemnation
of men, but of the temporal benefits, and the ex
ternal civil and church privileges, which God
confers upon particular persons and nations in
preference to others. Vide s. 26. The passage,
Rom. viii. 28, 29, seq., so often and entirely
misunderstood, must be interpreted in a similar
manner. Paul had spoken, verses 19, 20, seq.,
of the sufferings and persecutions which Chris
tians were at that time called to endure. He
endeavours to console them in the midst of their
distresses, and to shew the blessedness in
which their afflictions might result. " We are
confident that all things (even afflictions and
persecutions) will conspire for the good of those
who love God, and are called, in pursuances!
the purpose of God, to partake of Christian pri
vileges, (tols xata rtpo^iEaiv xXrjtols ovaiv.) For
he has predestinated (rfpoiipwjE) us, whom he
thus graciously regarded from eternity (rtpoiym),
to be conformed to the example of his Son,
(viz., as in suffering, so in reward,) whom God
has designed to be the forerunner (rfponkoxiw)
of his many brethren, (first in suffering, then in
reward.) But those whom he thus destined
(to a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ) he
adopts as members of the Christian church
(tovtovs ixaXEes), and alleviates the sorrows
which they endure (for the sake of Christ) by
granting forgiveness of their sins, and the hope
of that future glory, (which Christ their fore
runner has received, and to which he will raise
them.)" This passage, therefore, does not teach
that God elects men to sal vationl' or dooms them
to destruction, without respect to their moral
conduct, but that the present sufferings of Chris
tians are alleviated by the external advantages
which they enjoy as members of Christian so
ciety. Vide No. I.
In the bestowment of spiritual and eternal
blessings, it is absolutely essential that God
should be governed solely by the moral conduc.
of men. His goodness, justice, indeed, all his
moral perfections, are infringed by the contrary
supposition. We are taught also by the express
assurances of scripture, standing on almost every

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

127

page of the New Testament, and especially of!
the epistles of Paul, that God will reward and
punish every man according to his works, Rom.
ii. 6—1 1 ; Matt. xvi. 27 ; 2 Cor. v. 19. The de
crees of election and reprobation, then, according
to the doctrine of scripture, are not absolute, but
conditional, Mark, xvi. 16.
The terms commonly employed in the schools
respecting the decrees of God may be illustrated
by the following syllogism : — Major : whoever
believes in Christ to the end of his life, shall be
saved, (this is rtpc&sdj, or ixXoyri, the voluntas
Dei antecedens.) Minor : Paul will believe to
the end of his life (this is nabyvuGif, prxvisio.)
Conclusion : Therefore Paul will be saved, (this
is Ttpoopieabs, voluntas Dei consequens, decretum.)
Since, now, the major term is here an universal
proposition, but the minor particular, it is easily
seen in what sense the grace pf God can be
scripturally denominated universal and particu
lar. It is the same with the decree of reproba
tion. 2. Errors occasioned principally by false inter
pretation. The opinion has long existed in the church,
that the decrees of election and reprobation were
absolute — i. e., that without respect to their mo
ral character, God selected from the human race
a certain number, (many say very few,) and
destined them to eternal happiness ; and, on the
other hand, rejected others (by far the greater
part of the human race, — seven perhaps in ten)
in the same arbitrary manner, and destined them
to eternal condemnation. This error is called
predestination, and the advocates of it predestina-
tionists, or particularists. This doctrine, it has
been justly remarked, if carried out into all its
logicajl consequences, would destroy the freedom
of the human will, and thus undermine the foun
dations of morality. But it has not been carried
out to its legitimate consequences, in theory or
practice, by those who have professed it. And
many of the soundest moralists and most vir
tuous men are found, by a happy inconsistency,
among the advocates of this doctrine.
The principal sources of this error are the fol
lowing: (a) False opinions respecting the free
dom of the divine will, by which it is represented
as a blind caprice, in the exercise of which God
pardons or condemns without reason, like a hu
man despot, (vide s. 26,) and in connexion with
these, false conceptions of the goodness, justice,
and other moral attributes of God, and of their
connexion with his natural attributes, (b) The
want of discrimination between the decrees of
God respecting the allotment of temporal and
earthly good, and those respecting the gift of
spiritual blessings and eternal life. But more
than all, (c) the misinterpretation of Rom. viii.
9, by which these passages are made to relate
to eternal salvation and condemnation, instead

of temporal privileges. This Interpretation was
introduced by Augustine, who, however excel
lent in other respects, was deficient in his ac
quaintance with the language of scripture, and
therefore exhibits here none of his usual ability.
Vide s. 26. (d) A similar misunderstanding
of other texts of scripture, especially of the de
claration of Christ, Matt. xx. 16, rtoxxoi tUn
xXritoi, bxiyoi bi ixXExtot.- This has been sup
posed to mean, that there are many who are
nominally and externally Christians, but few
only whp are chosen to eternal salvation. But
the ixXExtol axe here only the more eminent,
select saints, (the Hebrew o^na.) Thus the
passage would mean : among the many who are
externally Christians, (admitted into the Chris
tian church,) there are only a few whom God
counts as his peculiar people — i. e., few who live
conformably to the precepts of Christianity, and
are in all respects such as they should be. That
this is the true sense of these words appears
from the parable, Matt. xxii. 2 — 13, at the end
of which (ver. 14) they are repeated.
Again : the text, Acts, xiii. 48, has been ap
pealed to in proof of this doctrine, from igno
rance of the usus loquendi of the Bible ; xai
irtlotEVCav 6'croc j^/yav tEtaypivoi eIs ^to7jv aiutvwv.
Those who believed are here opposed to thpse
who (ver. 46) made themselves unworthy ofetet-
nallife — (viz. by unbelief.) The phrase is syno
nymous with oi savtovs t d%avt£S eis K^v aiiovwv,
those who prepared themselves fur eternal life— the
pious, virtuous. The Greeks frequently express
reciprocal action by passive verbs, especially in
the preter. The meaning here becomes suffi
ciently evident by a comparison of ver. 46.
Brief history of the doctrine of unconditional
decrees. The controversy in which Augustine engaged
with the Pelagians led him to maintain the doc
trine of absolute decrees. In contending against
the errors of his opponents he fell into the oppo
site extreme, and asserted the doctrine of uncon
ditional decrees concerning salvation and con
demnation, and then his doctrine de gratia
particulari et irresistibili, (s. 132.) In conse
quence of the high authority of Augustine, this
doctrine prevailed extensively in the African and
Latin churches during the fifth and sixth centu
ries. During the former part of this period,
particularly, it was urged against the doctrine
of the Pelagians by Prosper of Aquitania and
Lucidus, presbyter in France. And indeed it
was alternately defended and opposed in the
western church during the whole of this and
the following century.
This doctrine was again maintained in the
ninth century by Gottschalk, a monk at Orbais,
in France, and a zealous follower of Augustine.
It became the subject of vehement discussion,
and was at length condemned as heretical by a

128

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

council at Gniersy, in the year 849. But this
decision was not universally accepted ; and the
doctrine of predestination still had many advo
cates, among whom were Thomas Aquinas, in
the thirteenth century, and his followers, the
Dominicans and other Thomists.
This controversy was renewed with great
vehemence in the Romish church during the
seventeenth century, on occasion of the writings
of Jansenius, Bishop at Ypern, in the Nether
lands. The Jesuits and the Pope took sides
against the doctrine of absolute decrees. But
the Dominicans, and other warm admirers of
Augustine, agreed with Jansenius, and there are
many stanch Jansenists in France at the pre
sent day.
This doctrine, which owes its origin to Angus-
tine, was adopted again in the sixteenth century
by Calvin and Beza, the Swiss reformers, and
by them disseminated through their church.
[The symbols of the reformed church, in which
the doctrine of Calvin is acknowledged, are,
the Concensus pastorum eccl. Genev., (1551 an
1554,)— Conf. Galicana, Art. xi., (1559,)—
Conf. Belgica, Art. xvi., — Catechismus Heidelr
bergensis, (1562 and 1563.)] At first, this doc
trine was at least partially believed even by
Luther and Melancthon, but there is no trace of
it in the writings of Zuingle.
It was not without controversy, however, that
the doctrine of Calvin prevailed in the reformed
church. During the seventeenth century it was
opposed by Arminius and his followers. But it
was at length established as an article of faith
in the reformed church by the national synod at
Dordrecht, in the years 1618, 1619, and the Ar-
minians were placed beyond the pale of the
church. By degrees, however, this severe doc
trine has been abandoned even in the reformed
church, its hardest features being first softened
down through the influence of the doctrine of
universal redemption. It was maintained for the
longest time in the Netherlands and in Switzer
land ; though it has but few advocates in the Ne
therlands at the present day. In England the
number of its friends is still considerable. Cf.
the history of the doctrine of grace, s. 132.
Note. — In the above statement of the Lutheran
view of the doctrine of divine decrees, there is of
course much which must be objectionable to a
Calvinist; far less, however, than in the state
ment of this subject usually made by Lutheran
writers. Our author treats the doctrine of his
Calvinistic opponents with a justice and mild
ness quite unusual with the theologians of his
church. In general, there are no epithets too vio
lent for them to heap upon the doctrine of abso
lute decrees, and no evasions too weak for them
to employ to escape the force of the arguments
by which it is supported. That the Calvinistic
doctrine >l decrees should be rejected and ca

lumniated by men who reject those script(ift»
truths upon which it depends, might be expected;
but that it should be thus treated by those who
hold, in oommon with its advocates, those doc
trines of grace from which it inevitably results,
is somewhat surprising. After taking the li-
berty to make a few general remarks upon some
particular representations of our author, I shall
endeavour to shew, that the Lutherans are charge
able with obvious inconsistency in opposing the
Calvinistic theory cf decrees, while they adhere to
the standard confession of their church. With re
gard to the representations of Dr. Knapp, it may
be remarked,
First. That he is not exactly just in describ
ing the theory of absolute decrees as involving
the election and reprobation of men without re
spect to conditions. The advocates of this theory
insist, equally with others, that men must be
lieve in order to be saved ; and the question be
tween them and their opponents is, In what re
lation this faith, which is essential to salvation,
stands to the purpose cf God?
Secondly. When he describes the called,
chosen, elect, so often mentioned in the New
Testament as those who were made partakers
only of the external privileges of Christianity,
and not those who were heirs of future happi
ness, does he not violate the whole spirit and
usage of the New Testament, without yet avoid
ing the difficulty ? If the intimate connexion be
tween the enjoyment of the external privileges of
Christianity and securing its spiritual and ever
lasting blessings is considered, will there not be
the same objections to the sovereign appointment
of men to one as to the other?
Thirdly. Instead of saying that predestina-
tionists are distinguished for depth of religious
sentiment and strictness of moral practice not
withstanding their principles, as our auther and
others generously concede, is it not apparent
that they are so inconsequence of their principles!
The perfect safety of their theory of election has
been often satisfactorily proved by reformed the
ologians in answer to the objections urged against
its moral tendencies. But its direct bearing
upon the religious life has not been so often ex
hibited. It is therefore the more worthy of no
tice, that Tholuck (whose Commentary on the
ninth of Romans will sufficiently free him from
any suspicion of leaning towards Calvinism)
concedes, in his Treatise on Oriental Mysticism,
that the doctrine of predestination, so far from
producing the despondency and inaction often
ascribed to it, on the contrary, moves and excites
the inmost soul, by the self-surrender which it
demands to the all-prevailing will of God. To
the influence of this doctrine he attributes what
ever of religious life there exists among those
who receive the sensual dogmas of the Koran.
| Every one, he says, acquainted with eastern lite-

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

129

rature, knows that the most strong and vivid
religious experiences are connected with and
arise from the belief in predestination. And
Calvinism, he allows, is incomparably more fa
vourable to the deeper religious life than that
doctrine by which the will of God is limited or
conditioned by the human will — i. e., the syn
cretism of the Lutheran church.
Fourthly. The suggestion of Dr. Knapp, that
Augustine was first induced to adopt his theory
oi election by his controversy with Pelagius,
contains the implication that this theory owes
its origin to polemical excitement, and was
adopted by its author in order to extricate him
self from some embarrassments, or as the oppo
site extreme of the theory against which he con
tended. But this is notonly wantingin historical
evidence, but is in itself improbable. The De-
cretumAbsolutum of Augustine is the direct result
of his views of the natural character of man, and
is necessary to complete that system of truth
which he adopted. To the belief of this doc
trine he would naturally be led by the cool deli
beration of the closet, and it therefore more pro
bably belonged to those original convictions
which impelled him to the controversy with Pe
lagius, and animated him in prosecuting it, than
to any after convictions to which he might have
been driven by opposition. Which now, it may
be asked, looks most like the offspring of the
contrivance and heat of controversy, the theory
of Augustine, coming forward with direct affirm
ations, and belonging essentially to his system,
or the opposite theory, consisting mostly of eva
sions, negations, and limitations? To assert
the doctrine of the divine sovereignty and of the
all-controlling will of God would seem to be the
part of the consistent, philosophical theologian ;
to deny it, the business of a timorous modera
tion, of a time-serving policy, or of the native
pride and self-sufficiency of man.
The inconsistency chargeable upon the Lu
theran theologians who oppose the Calvinistic
theory of decrees may be briefly stated thus:
According to their theory, God ordains to salva
tion those of whom he foresees that they will
believe; but according to the Augsburg Con
fession, it is the Holy Spirit qui efficit fidem,
quando et ubi visum est Deo, who produces faith
when and where it seems good to God; both com
bined, therefore, furnish us the doctrine that God
ordains to salvation those if whom he foresees that
he who causes faith to exist when and where it
seems good to him, will give them the Holy Spirit
to produce faith in their hearts, which is the Sal-
vinistic doctrine so often opposed and denounced
by the Lutherans. They join together, in their
Book of Concord, the Augsburg Confession, in
which man's moral inability and entire depend
ence on divine grace are strongly asserted, and
their Declaration, in which the absolute decrees
17

of God — an inevitable consequence of these doc
trines — is denounced as unscriptural and dan
gerous. Surely here Concordia is discors.
This discrepancy could not long remain unno
ticed in a country where theological opinions are
subjected to so rigid a scrutiny. The Lutheran
theologians appear, however, to have imagined,
for a time, that they could reconcile the opposing
tendencies of their system, and attempted so to
modify the doctrine of man's moral inability as
to guard against any approach to Calvinism.
The best attempt of this nature is exhibited by
Sterr, in his Biblical Theology ; but it cannot
be thought successful. To many it soon became
evident that they were reduced to the alternative
of retaining the Augsburg Confession and the
doctrine of man's moral inability, and then ad
mitting, as its inevitable consequence, the Cal
vinistic doctrine of election, or of rejecting the
Augsburg Confession, and thus escaping the
necessity of Calvinism.
During the recent attempt to unite the Lu
theran and reformed churches, their doctrinal dif
ferences came of course into new consideration ;
and Dr. Bretschneider, in his Aphorisms pub
lished on that occasion, frankly acknowledged,
what had not been done before, the inconsistency
now charged upon the theologians of his church ;
and being himself somewhat inclined towards
Pelagianism, unhesitatingly chose the second
of the two courses above stated, and, in order
to avoid Calvinism, willingly surrendered the
Augsburg Confession, with the doctrine of man's
inability and entire dependence on divine grace.
But the Augsburg Confession had long been es
teemed the palladium of the Lutheran church ;
and the doctrine of man's inability and depend
ence was dearer than almost any other to the
heart of Luther, and was too firmly believed by
the most distinguished theologians of his church,
and had become too thoroughly interwoven with
their system of faith, to be thus easily aban
doned. The only course remaining for those
who wished to be consistent seemed therefore
to be, to hold fast to the Augsburg Confession
and its Anti-Pelagian doctrines, and to admit
the Calvinistic theory of election as their natu
ral consequence. And this course was boldly
adopted by Schleiermacher, one of the pro-
foundest theologians of his church, and strenu
ously recommended by him in the first article
of his " Theologische Zeitschrift." He there
acknowledges that he had long been unable to
sympathize with most of his contemporaries in
condemning the theory of Augustine and Calvin
as irrational and unscriptural.
This unexpected publication gave a new im
pulse to the discussion of this doctrine, and some
of the most distinguished theologians of Ger
many have been enlisted as d isputants. Whether
under the auspices of Schleiermacher tliip doe-

130

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

trine will fare better than under Gottschalk and
Jansenius cannot be foretold. Long established
prejudice may yet prevail over the love of truth
and consistency. But whatever may be the re
sult of this local controversy, the doctrine has
nothing to fear, being based on the triple found
ation of sound reason, Christian experience, and
the word of God.— Tr.]

ARTICLE IV.
OF THE DOCTRINE OF FATHER, SON, AND
HOLY GHOST.

SECTION XXXIII.
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
1. It is an established truth, that there are
many things in the divine nature which are un
like anything which belongs to us, and of which,
therefore, we have no knowledge. For, as has
been already shewn, 5. 18, IL, it is impossible
for us to form a distinct notion of any attributes
or perfections which we ourselves do not pos
sess, 01 even to see at all how such attributes
can exist. To conclude, therefore, that any par
ticular attribute could not belong to the Divine
Being, simply because we might be unable to
understand it wholly, or perhaps at all, would be
extremly foolish. Vide Introduction, s. 6, ad
finem. If the Bible contains ,a more particular
revelation of God, and if this revelation, in a clear
and incontrovertible manner, proposes u. doctrine
of faith, then must such doctrine, however incom
prehensible and inexplicable, be received by us as
true. That the Bible does contain such a reve
lation has already been maintained in the Intro
duction, and in the Article on the Holy Scrip
tures; that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught
in this revelation remains now to be proved ; and
upon the truth of these two propositions the
whole subject depends.
2. The doctrine of a Trinity in the godhead
includes the three following particulars, (vide
Morus, p. 69, s. 13,) — viz., (a) There is only
one God, one divine nature, s. 16 ; (b) but in this
divine nature there is the distinction of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, as three, (called subjects,
persons, and other names of similar import in
the language of the schools ;) and (c) these three
have equally, and in common with one another,
the nature and perfections of supreme divinity.
This is the true, simple doctrine of the Trinity,
when stripped of refined and learned distinctions.
According to this doctrine there are in the divine
nature three, inseparably connected with one
another, possessing equal glory, but making
unitedly only one God.

This doctrine thus exhibited is called a mys
tery (in the theological sense), because there is
much in the mode and manner of it which ie
unintelligible. The obscurity and mystery ot
this subject arise from our inability to answe:
the question, In what sense and in what manner
do these three so share the divine nature as to make
only one God? But as the learned employed
themselves in attempting to answer this ques
tion, and endeavoured, by the help of philosophy,
to establish certain distinctions, they fell, of
course, into explanations more or less opposed,
and from this diversity of opinion, into strife and
contention. They began to persecute those who
dissented from some learned distinctions which
they regarded as true, to denounce them as he-
rectics, and to exclude them from salvation.
In their zeal for their philosophical theories,
they neglected to inculcate the practical conse
quences of this doctrine, and instead of joyfully
partaking of the undeserved benefits which are
bestowed by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
they disputed respecting the manner of the
union of three persons in one God.
Jesus requires that all his followers should
profess their belief in the Father, Son, and Holy
Spir't, (Matt, xxviii. 19;) and by so doing, he
places this doctrine among the first and most es
sential doctrines of his religion. That it is sc
is proved from many other declarations both of
Jesus and his apostles. The doctrine is, more
over, intimately connected with the whole exhi
bition of Christian truth. It is not, therefore, a
doctrine which any one may set aside at plea
sure, as if it were unessential, and wholly dis
connected with the. system of Christianity. But
while Jesus requires us to believe in the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, he has nowhere taught ns
or required us to believe the learned distinctions
respecting this doctrine which have been intro
duced since the fourth century. The unde
served benefits which they had receiyed from
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, were the
great subjects to which Jesus pointed his fol
lowers in the passage above cited, and in
others; that they were now able to understand
and worship God in a more perfect manner,
to approach him as their father and benefactor
in spirit and in truth; that their minds were
now enlightened by the instructions given
them by the Son of God, who had been sent
into the world to be their teacher, and that their
souls were redeemed by his death ; that in con
sequence of what Christ had already done, and
would yet do, they might be advanced in moral
perfection, and made holy — a work specially
ascribed to the aids and influence of the Holy
Spirit; these are the great truths which Jesus
requires his followers to believe from the heart,
in being baptized in the name of the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost. He did not reveal this

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

131

doctrine to men to furnish them with matter for
speculation and dispute, and did not, therefore,
prescribe any formulas by which the one or the
other could have been excited. The same is
true of this doctrine as of the Lord's supper.
Those who partake of this ordinance in the man
ner which Christ commanded, answer the ends
for which it was instituted, and secure their
spiritual profit, however much their views may
differ with regard to the manner of Christ's pre
sence in the symbols.
Besides, it is certain that no particular distinc
tions respecting this doctrine were enforced by
the church as necessary conditions of commu
nion during the first three centuries. And ac
cordingly we find that Justin the Martyr, Cle
ment of Alexandria, Origen, and other distin
guished men of the catholic party, made use of
expressions and representations on this subject
which are both discordant with each other, and
which differ totally from those which were
afterwards established in the fourth century.
Then for the first time, at the Nicene Council,
under the influence of Athanasius, and in oppo
sition to the Arians, were those learned and
philosophical formulas, which have since been
retained in the system of the church, established
and enforced.. That a belief in these formulas
should be declared essential to salvation, as is
done in the. Athanasian creed, cannot but be
disapproved. This creed, however, was not
composed by Athanasius nor was it even
ascribed to him before the seventh century,
though it was probably composed in the fifth.
The principle that any one who holds different
views respecting the Trinity, salvus esse non
poterit, (to use the language of this symbol,)
would lead us to exclude from salvation the
great majority even of those Christians who re
ceive the doctrine and language of the Council
of Nice; for common Christians, after all the
efforts of their teachers, will not unfrequently
conceive of three Gods in the three persons of the
G odhead, and thus entertain an opinion which
the creed condemns. But if the many pious
believers in common life who entertain this
theoretical error may yet be saved, then others
who believe in Christ from, the heart, and obey
his precepts, who have a personal experience
of the practical effects of this doctrine may
also be saved, though they may adopt other
particular theories and formulas respecting
the Trinity different from that commonly re
ceived. These particular formulas and theo
ries, however much they may be regarded and
insisted upon, have nothing to do with salva
tion. And this leads us to remark, that learned
hypotheses, refined distinctions, and technical
phrases, should never be introduced into popu
lar instruction. They will never be intelligible
to a common audience, and will involve the

minds of the common people and of the young
in the greatest perplexity and confusion. So
judged at one time the Emperor Constantine:
ov bsl tolas ^T^CEts vo^itov twos dvayxw rtpootdt-
tstv, ovbk tals lidvtmv dxoals drtpovoritios rtiatEVEW,
Epi'st. ad Arium, Ap. Socr. i. 7. Would that
he himself had afterwards remained true to
these principles ! [Vide Neander, Allg. Gesch.
Christ, Rel., b. i. Abth. 2. s. 616.]
Plan pursued in this Article.
The theologians of former times generally
blended their own speculations and those of
others on the subject of the Trinity with the
statement of the doctrine of the Bible. Within
a few years a better plan has been adopted,
which is, to exhibit first the simple doctrine of
the Bible, and afterwards, in a separate part,
the speculations of the learned respecting it.
In pursuance of this plan we shall divide the
present Article into two chapters, of which the
first will contain the Biblical Doctrine of the
Trinity, and the second, the History of this
Doctrine, of all the changes it has undergone,
and of the distinctions and hypotheses by which .
the learned in different ages have endeavoured
to define and illustrate it.

CHAPTER I.
BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
SECTION XXXIV.
IS THIS DOCTRINE TAUGHT IN THE OLD
TESTAMENT ?
It has always been allowed that the doctrine
of the Trinity was not fully revealed before the
time of Christ, and is clearly taught only in the
New Testament. But, at the same time, it was
supposed from some passages in the Old Testa
ment that this doctrine was to a greater or less
degree known to the Israelites at the time when
the New Testament was written, at least that a
plurality in the godhead was believed by them,
although perhaps not exactly a Trinity. In
proof of this opinion, such passages as Gen. i.
26 were cited by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Theodoret, Gre
gory of Nyssa, Basil, and other ecclesiastical
fathers. Vide Mangey on Philo, De Opif.
mundi, p. 17.
This opinion was universal in the protestant
church during the sixteenth century, and at the
beginning of the seventeenth. The first who
questiened it was G. Calixtus, pf Helmstadt,
who in 1645 published an Essay, De Trinitate,
and in 1649, another, De myster. Trinitatis, an

.32

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ex solius V. T. libris possit demonstrari? He
was, however, vehemently opposed by Abr.
Calovius, and others. And the opinion for
merly held by the theologians continued to
prevail even into the eighteenth century. But
the opinion of Calixtus has since been revived,
and has gradually obtained the approbation of
most theologians of the present time, although
there are still some who declare themselves .in
favour of the ancient opinion.
The truth on this subject will probably be
found in a medium between the extreme to
which writers on both sides have frequently
gone. (1) It is true, that if the New Testa
ment did not exist we could not derive the
doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Testament
alone. But (2) it is equally true, that by the
manner in which God revealed himself in the Old
Testament, the way was prepared for the more
full disclosure of his nature that was afterwards
made. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are
frequently mentioned in the Old Testament,
and the Son is represented as one through
whom God will bestow blessings upon men,
and the Holy Spirit is said to be granted to
them for their sanctification. Vide Morus, p.
59, a. 1, note 1, 2. But (3) respecting the in
timate connexion of these persons, or respecting
other distinctions which belong to the doctrine
of the Trinity, there is nothing said in the Old
Testament. Many objections may be made against each
particular text of the Old Testament, in which
an allusion is perceived to a trinity or plurality
in God. But these texts are so many in num
ber and so various in kind, that they impress
an unprejudiced person, who considers thern
all in connexion, with the opinion that such a
plurality in God is indicated in the Old Testa
ment, though it was not fully developed or
clearly defined before the Christian revela
tion. These texts may be arranged in the following
classes : —
1. Those in which the names of God have
the form of the plural, and in which, therefore,
a plurality in his nature seems to be indicated.
The names Din'Stt, 'J'ts,. on^l-ip, iJi, are cited as
examples ; but they afford no certain proof, as
they may be only the pluralis majestaticus of the
Oriental languages. Vide s. 17.
2. Texts in which God speaks of himself as
many. But the plural in many of these cases
can be accounted for from the use of the plural
nouns dti^, ••iy., \x\. Philo thinks, (De Opif.
Mundi, p. 17, ed. Mangey,) that in the pas
sage, Gen. i. 26, Let us make man, God ad
dresses the angels. Maimonides thinks the
same of the passage, Gen. xi. 7, Let us go down
and confound their language. Vide Mangey,
in loc. It is not uncommon in Hebrew for

kings to speak of themselves in the plural—
e. g., 1 Kings, xii. 9 ; 2 Chron. x. 9 ; Ezra, iv
18. In Isaiah, vi. 8, God asks, who will go for
us (uV)? where the plural form may be explain
ed either as the pluralis majestaticus, or as de
noting an assembly for consultation. The
chiefs of heaven (o^J?) are described as there
collected ; and God puts to them the question,
whom shall we make our messenger ? as 1 Kings,
xxii. 20, seq.
3. Texts in which nvv is distinguished from
nini, and dt/tx from o\-r»t. Jehovah rained brim
stone and fire from Jehovah, Gen. xix. 24. 0
our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, for the
Lord's (Christ's ?) sake, Dan. ix. 17. But these
texts, by themselves, do not furnish any deci
sive proof; for in the simplicity of ancient style
the noun is often repeated instead of using the
pronoun; and so, from Jehovah may mean from
himself; and for the Lord's sake may mean for
thine own sake — i. e., on account of thy promise.
Many other texts maybe explained in the same
way; as Hosea, i. 7; Zach. x. 12. In this con
nexion the passage, Ps. xiv. 7, is often cited:
therefore, 0 God (Messiah ?), thy God (the Fa
ther) hath anointed thee. But the name otTtn is
sometimes given to earthly kings. It does not,
therefore, necessarily prove that the person to
whom it is here given must be of the divine na
ture. The passage, Ps. ex. 1, ij-kS mrp dnj,
" Jehovah said to my Lord," &c. is also cited.
But y'-w (Messiah) is here distinguished from
Jehovah, and is not described as participating
in the divine nature, but only in the divine go
vernment, as far as he was constituted Messiah
by God.
4. Texts in which express mention is made
of the Son of God, and of the Holy Spirit.
(a) Of the Son of God. The principal text
in this class is Ps. ii. 7, Thou art my Son; this
day have I begotten thee, coll. Psalm lxxii. I;
lxxxix. 27. This Psalm was always under.
stood by the Jews, and by the writers of the
New Testament, to relate to the Messiah. But
he is here represented under the image of a
king, to whose government, according to the
will of God, all must "submit. And it is the
dignity of this office of king, or Messiah, of
which the Psalmist appears here to speak. The
name Son of God was not unfrequently given to
kings ; it is not, therefore, nomen essentix, but
dignitatis messianx. The passage would then
mean, Thou art the king (Messiah) of my ap
pointment.- this day have I solemnly declared
thee such. That the phrase to-day alludes to the
resurrection of Christ is proved by a reference
to Acts, xiii. 30—34. The writers of the New
Testament everywhere teach that Christ was
proved to be the Messiah by his resurrection
from the dead. Cf. Rom. i. 3, 4. In this
Psalm, therefore, the Messiah is rather exhibited

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

133

as iting, divinely-appointed ruler, and head of
the church, than as belonging to the divine
nature. (i) Of the Holy Spirit. There are many texts
of this class, but none from which, taken by
themselves, the personality of the Holy Spirit
can be proved, as it can easily he from passages
in the New Testament. The term Holy Spirit
may mean, in these texts, (1) The divine nature
in general ; (2) particular divine attributes, as
omnipotence, knowledge, or omniscience ; (3)
the divine agency, which is its more common
meaning. Vide s. 19, II. The principal pas
sage here cited is Isaiah, xlviii. 16, where the
whole doctrine of the Trinity is supposed to be
taught; mm iirhtf nirp. 'tin nnjn, And now Jehovah
(the Father) and his Spirit (the Holy Ghost)
hath sent me (the Messiah), tin has usually
been rendered- as if it were in the accusative ;
but it is more properly rendered as a nominative
in the Septuagint, the Syriac Version, also by
Luther, and the English translators. It means
here, as it always does when used by the pro
phets in this connexion, the direct, immediate,
command of God. Cf. Acts, xiii. 2, 4. To say,
then, the Lord and his Spirit hath sent me, is
the same as to say, the Lord hath sent me by a
direct, immediate command.
5. Texts in which three persons are expressly
mentioned, or in which there is a clear reference
io the number three. In this class the text, Ps.
xxxiii. 6, was formerly placed : the heavens were
made by the word (Aoyos, Messiah) of Jehovah
(the Father) ; and all the host of them by the
spirit of his mouth. But by the word of the Lord,
and the spirit of his mouth, nothing more is
meant than by his command, will, as appears
from the account of the creation. Cf. verse 9,
"He spake and it was done; he commanded,
and it stood fast." The threefold repetition of
the name Jehovah in the benediction of the high
priest, Num. vi. 24, is more remarkable : Jeho
vah bless thee, and keep thee ,- Jehovah be gracious
to thee ; Jehovah give thee peace. But the know
ledge of the Trinity at that early period cannot
be concluded from a mere threefold repetition
of the name of Jehovah, unless it is elsewhere
exhibited in the writings of the same author.
Of the same nature is the threefold repetition of
the word holy by the seraphs, the invisible ser
vants of God, Isa. vi. 3. To account for this
repetition we might suppose there were three
heavenly choirs; but the question might then
be asked, why these choirs were exactly three ?
It is certainly not impossible that the idea of a
trinity in the godhead may be here presupposed,
and also in the threefold benediction of the high
priest. These choirs are represented in the com
mencement of the verse as singing one after
another, in alternate response, nrVx ni tnp. The
word vlrip might have been sung by each choir

separately, and the last words, the whole earth
is full of fay glory, by the three choirs united.
Thus it appears that no one of the passages
cited from the Old Testament in proof of the
Trinity is conclusive, when taken by itself; but,
as was before stated, when they are all taken
together, they convey the impression that at
least a plurality in the godhead was obscurely
indicated in the Jewish scriptures.
SECTION XXXV.
OF THOSE TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN
WHICH FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE
MENTIPNED IN CPNNEXIPN.
Since the Old Testament proves nothing
clearly or decidedly upon this subject, we must
now turn to the New Testament. The texts
from the New Testament which relate to the
doctrine in question may be divided into two
principal classes : (a) Those in which Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned in connexion ;
(b) Those in which these three subjects are men
tioned separately, and in which their nature and
mutual relation is more particularly described.
In this section we shall treat only of the first
class. But the student will need to be on his
guard here, lest he should deduce more from
these texts, separately considered, than they
actually teach. The doctrine of the Trinity
in all its extent and in all its modifications is
taught in no single passages in the New Testa
ment. The writings of the apostles always
presuppose the' oral instructions which they had
given to the Christians whom they addressed,
and do not therefore exhibit any regular and
formal system of doctrines. Hence, in order
to ascertain what the doctrines of the gospel
are, we must compare different texts, and form
our conclusion from the whole. The first class
of texts, taken by itself, proves only that there
are the three subjects above named, and that
there is a difference between them ; that the
Father in certain respects differs from the Son,
&c. ; but it does not prove, by itself, that all the
three belong necessarily to the divine nature,
and possess equal divine honour. In proof of
this, the second class of texts must be adduced.
The following texts are placed in this class : —
1 Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20. While Jesus con
tinued in the world, he, and his disciples by his
direction, had preached the gospel only among
the Jews, Matt. x. 5. But now, as he is about
to leave the earth, he commissions' them to pub
lish his religion everywhere, without any dis
tinction of nation. He had received authority
from God to establish a new church, to receive
all men into it, and to exhibit himself as Lord of
all, ver. 18 ; cf. John, xvii. 2, ij-ovsia rtaoi/s
eapxos. Wherefore he requires his disciples,
ver. 19, to go forth and proselyte all nations,
M

134

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

(ua&itEvdats itdvta td i&vq.) They were to
do this in twp ways, — viz., by baptizing (pait-
ti£ovtEs, ver. 19), and by instructing, (bibdexov-
tss, ver. 20.) They were required to baptize
their ccnveits, eis to bvopa (ok/3) toi LXcwipoj xai
tdi Tloi, xai toi dyt'oxi HvEvpatos — i. e., eis tbv
LTora'pa, x. t. X. To baptize in the name of a
person or thing, means, acccrding to the usus
loquendi of the Jews, to bind one by baptism to
profess his belief, or give his assent, or yield obe
dience, to a certain person or thing. The Tal-
mudists say, the Samaritans circumcise their
children in the name of Mount Gerizim, and
Christians are asked, 1 Cor. i. 13, 15, were ye
baptized in the name of Paul? In 1 Cor. x. 3,
it is said, itdvtss (itatipEs) ifSaittloavto Ets
MUSJJK, and in Acts, xix. 4, that John the Bap
tist Ifidittias eis tbv ipxipsvov. This text, taken
by itself, would not prove decisively either the
personality of the three subjects mentiened, nr
their equality, er divinity. Fpr (a) the subject
into which one is baptized is not necessarily a
person, but may be a doctrine, or religion ; as,
to circumcise in the name of Mount Gerizim.
(b) The person in whom one is baptized is not
necessarily God, asj}aitt%Eiv eis Mwsjjv, IlauJiox,
x. t. x. (c) The connexion of these three sub
jects does not prove their personality or equality.
A subject may swear fealty to his king, to the
officer under whose immediate government he is
placed, and to the laws of the land. But does
this prove that the king, officer, and laws are
three persons, and equal to one another? And
so, the ebjecter might say, the cenverts te
Christianity might be required te profess by
baptism theiracknpwledgment ef theFather, (the
auther pf the great plan ef salvatipn ;) ef the Son,
(who had executed it;) and of the doctrines re
vealed by God (itvEv/ia dyiov), for the knowledge
of which they were indebted to both the Father
and the Son. But let it be once shewn from other
texts that these subjects here mentioned are
persons, and that they are equal to one another,
and this construction is inadmissible. One
thing, however, is evident from this text — viz.,
that Christ considered the doctrine respecting
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as a fundamental
doctrine of his religion, because he requires all
his followers to be bound to a profession of
it immediately on their being admitted as mem
bers of his church, by the initiatory rite of bap
tism. Vide Morus, p. 59, s. 2.
2. 1 Pet. i. 2. Peter sends his salutations
to Christians, and says to them, that they were
admitted into the Christian church xata itpb-
yvuow ®tov rtatpbs, (i. e., according to the gra
cious decree of God,) iv dyian^c? (for fi's dyias-
^.oV) rtvEvuatos, sis vitaxor)v xai (eJj) pavtwiMv
ailpatos 'Inaov Xpustov, plainly referring to the
above-mentioned Obligations assumed by Chris
tians at baptism. The sense is, Ye are become

Christians according to the eternal, decree of Got
the Father, to the intent that ye should be made
holy (morally perfect) through the Holy Spirit;
and that ye shouldobey Jesus Christ, and obtain
forgiveness through faith in his blood. But from
what is here said of the Holy Spirit, it does not
necessarily follow that he is a personal subject;
nor from the predicates here ascribed to Christ,
that he is necessarily divine ; and so this pas
sage also, taken by itself, is insufficient.
3. 2 Cor. xiii. 14, The grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the
Holy Spirit, be with you all. From the paral
lelism of the third member of this passage with
the two former, we might perhaps infer the
personality of the Holy Spirit. But from the
mere collocation of the names of these persons,
we could not justly infer that they possessed
equal authority, or the same nature.
4. John, xiv. 26. Here are three different
personal subjects, — viz., 6 UapdxXvtos,
rt»fj/ia to aytov, 6 rtip^Ei b Tlatijpiv
*9 bvopatl pov (Xpwtoi). But that these
three subjects have equal divine honour, and be
long to one divine nature, is not sufficiently
proved from this passage, and can be argued
with certainty only from texts of the second
class. 5. Matt. iii. 16, 17, where the baptism of
Jesus by John is narrated, has been considered
as a locus classicus upon this subject. So the
ecclesiastical fathers considered it. Whence
the celebrated formula, I ad Jordanam, et ride-
bis Trinitatem. This text was called by the
ancients ^so^avEia. Three personal subjects
are indeed here mentioned — viz., the voice of
the Father, the symbol of the Holy Spirit
(rt£p«r*Epa), and Christ; but nothing is here
said respecting their nature; and the phrase,
Tios ©eov (ver. 17) does not always indicate the
divine nature of Christ. This passage then,
taken by itself, does not contain the whole doc
trine of the Trinity.
But the sense of all these texts can be fully
determined by the texts of the second class.
As to the passage 1 John, v. 7, 8; — the words
from iv tc, ovpavc-;, to iv'ty yjj, must be allowed,
on all critical principles,' to' be spurious. But
even allowing the text to be genuine, it would
afford no strong proof of the entire doctrine of
the Trinity. Three subjects are indeed enume
rated, 6 IIaf»jp, o Aoyos, and to oiyiov TlvEVfia-
but their nature and essential connexion are not
determined ; for the expression, oitoi ol tpsls h
siai, at the end of ver. 7, does not refer ad uni-
tatem essentix, and thus signify that they make
together one divine being ; but ad unitatem vo
luntatis, and so means, as appears from the con
text, that they are agreed, unanimous, idem con
formant. This is the meaning at the end of ver.
8, as all are compelled to admit, and it is the

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

135

meaning of 'iv eIvoa, whenever it occurs in the
writings of John, as John, x. 30; xvii. 11, &c.
Ci. on these verses : Sernler, Historische und
kritische Sammlungen uber die sogenannten
Beweisstellen der Dogmatik, Erstes Stuck ;
Halle, 1764, 8vo ; also his Vertheidigung und
Zusatze, 2n St. 1768. Michaelis, Einleit. ins
N. T., th. ii. ; and especially Griesbach, Dia
tribe in loc. 1 John, v. Appendix, N. T. Ed. ii.
SECTION XXXVI.
OF THOSE TEXTS IN WHICH THE FATHER, SON,
AND HOLY GHOST ARE SEPARATELY MENTIONED,
AND IN WHICH THEIR NATURE AND MUTUAL
RELATION ARE TAUGHT.
These texts form the second class above men
tioned, s. 35 ; and they shew how the texts of
the first class are to be understood. They prove
(a) that the Son and Holy Spirit, according to
the doctrine of the New Testament, are divine,
or belong to the one divine nature ; and (b) that
the three subjects are personal and equal. In
popular instruction it will be fcund best to ex
hibit this class of texts before the other. In
examining these texts we shall exhibit (1) those
which teach the divinity of the Father; (2) of
the Son; (3) of the Holy Ghost.
The Deity of the Father.
When the term Father is applied to God it
often designates the whole godhead, or the whole
divine nature ; as ©eo$ 6 Ilar^p, 1 Cor. viii.
4 — 6 ; John, xvii. 1 — 3. He is often called ©eoj
xai Hartjp — i. e., ©eos o LTatfijp, or ©eo$ 6s leti
Ila-r^p, as Gal. i. 4, (a Hebraism, like the use
of l for the relative iBfx.) All the arguments,
therefore, which prove the existence of God (vide
s. 15 — 17), prove also the deity of the Father.
In the scriptures God is called Father,
1. Inasmuch as he is the creator and preserver.
Deut. xxxii. 6, Is he not thy Father, who hath
made thee and established thee? 1 Cor. viii. 6,
3e6$ 6 notfoyp e"| ov ta itdvta, Ephes. iv. 6, 6
Watr\p itdvtav. The Hebrews call the author,
inventor, teacher of anything, the father of it ;
as Gen. iv. 20—22, Jubal, the father of all who
play on the harp, &c. ; Job, xxxviii. 28, God, the
Father of rain.
2. Inasmuch as he is the benefactor, guardian,
and guide of men. Psalm Ixviii. 5, The father
cf the fatherless. Job says of himself, (xxix. 16,)
I was the father of the poor. Isaiah, lxiii. 16,
"Thou (God) art our father and redeemer."
Psalm ciii. 13, " As a father pitieth his children,
so the Lord pitieth them that fear him." It was
a great object with Christ to diffuse just appre
hensions respecting the universal paternal love
of God to men. Cf. Romans, viii. 15, 16, also
s. 28, 30, 31. Hence he frequently calls God,
Father, heavenly Father, &c. The name chil

dren of God sometimes denotes his favourites,
those beloved by him ,- sometimes those who en
deavour to resemble him, especially in purity,
love, and beneficence; sometimes both those
who love and follow him as children a father,
and those whom he loves as a father does duti
ful children. In this respect, too, God is often
called the Father of men — i. e., their example,
pattern, the being whom they imitate. When
the name Father is applied to God in either of
these respects, as creator or as benefactor, the
whole godhead is intended.
3. God is frequently called in the New Tes
tament, 6 ©eos xai Haf ^p toi Kvpiov 'I^aov Xpw-
tov, Romans, xv. 6; 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; Ephes. i. 3,
&c. This expression in many texts indicates,
(a) The relation in which Christ, as the Sa
viour of men, stands to God ; in which relation
he is frequently called the Son of God, s. 37.
God is represented in the Bible as properly the
author and' institutor (Xiatrip) of Christianity ;
and also as the father of Christ, in that he sent
him into the world, and commissioned him as a
man to instruct and to redeem our race. It is
clear from John that Christ himself often calls
God his father, in reference to this charge and
commission which God had given him. John,
xvii. 1 — 3, LtatfEp, — bo^aaov eov tbv Tlbv — ibaxas
avttp i^ovaiav itdorjs oapxbs iva yivtimx^Oi ffi, tbv
povov aX7j^ivbv ©eov, xai ov aitiutEiXas, 'lyaovv
Xpwfw. This is quite accordant with that
scriptural usage before specified, by which the
author of a thing is called its father. And be
sides, teachers were called by the Jews fathers,
and those taught by them, children. 2 Kings,
ii. 12; vi. 21. Christ says to his disciples,
Matt, xxiii. 9, Let none call you father (as
teachers are called), for one is your Father,
(teacher, instructor,) who is in heaven.
(6) This phrase, the Father of Jesus Christ, in
many passages, undoubtedly indicates a certain
internal relation existing in the godhead of the
deity of Christ to the deity of the Father, the
peculiar nature of which relation is nowhere dis
closed in the Bible, and probably cannot be
clearly understood by men. We know, how
ever, that while Christ always acknowledged
that he derived everything from the Father, he
made himself equal to him. Vide Morus, p.
63, s. 8. In this sense, Christ uses the phrase
in many passages, and among others, in his
discourse, John, v. This even the Jews noticed,
and accused him of blasphemy, because he
called God Tlatipa ISaiv, and so made himself
equal to God, (ver. 18.) Nor does Christ blame
them, in his answer, for understanding him i-
this way ; but, on the contrary, goes on to say,
ver. 23, that all should honour the Son even as
they honour the Father. Cf. John, x. 30, seq. ;
Luke, ii. 49. Theologians therefore say : Pater
dicitur duplicitcr ; (a) iitoatatixusi personaliter

136

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

incommunicabiliter, (de prima persona ;) (b)
oisuoSus, essentialiter ; sic iribus personis esse
commune. Morus, p. 60, note ad. s. 4.
SECTION XXXVII.
of the texts in which divine names are
given to christ.
The deity of Christ is proved from three
elasses of texts. Morus, p. 60, seq. s. 5 — 9.
(a) Texts in which divine names are ascribed to
him, s. 37. But from most of these texts, in
themselves considered, we can derive no very
strong argument for the supreme or essential
deity of Christ. They rather prove his divine-
ness than his deity. In order to prove the deity
of Christ, we depend upon (b) texts in which
divine attributes and works, and (c) divine honour
or worship (cultus divinus) are ascribed to him.
Both of these classes will be considered in s.
38, coll. s. 100. From all these texts in con
junction the result is, that Christ is called God
on account of his divine attributes and works.
Morus, p. 63.
Note 1. Works in defence of the deity of
Christ. Among the more ancient writers, Ca-
lixtus, Whitby, Spener, Venema, defended this
doctrine. Among the more modern, G. F. Seiler
has written, and with reference to the present
controversies, Ueber die Gottheit Christi ; Leip
zig, 1775, 8vo. Semler, Ueber die Beweisstellen
u. s. w. 1772, 4to; particularly his historical
notes. "Gottheit Christi, 1st sie wohl aus
seinen eignen Reden zu erweisen?" (printed
without name of the place, 1790, 8vo.) In the
year 1786, the King of England gave, as the
subject of a premium-essay, the proof of the divi
nity of Christ (in the sense of the Lutheran
church), and appointed the theological faculty
at Gottingen to award the prize, (a medal, worth
50 ducats.) This gave occasion to the follow
ing work of Semler, Vorbereitung auf die
Konigl. Grossbrit. Preisfrage von der Gottheit
Christi ; Halle, 1787, 8vo. From twenty-seven
essays that were offered, none were judged wor
thy of the prize. The faculty, however, pub
lished the following essay as the best : Jo. Frid.
Flatt, Commentatio, in qua symbolica ecclesiae
nostras dei deitate Christi sententia probatnr et
Yindicatur; Gottingae, 1788, 8vo. The follow
ing able and intelligent letters, written under
fictitious names, owed their origin to this prize :
lo. Aspontani ad Rud. Plimmelium, de deitate
Jesu Christi, epistolae quatuor; Lips. 1789,
8vo. Martini, Versuch einer pragmatischen
Geschichte des Dogma von der Gottheit Christi,
in den vier ersten Jahrhunderten ; Rostock und
Leipzig, 1800.
Note 2. Morus, p. 65, s. 9, makes the follow
ing just observation • Christ has laid the human

race under infinite obligations, by the *jpeciai
blessings relating to our salvation, which he
has bestowed upon us. But these benefits de
rive an additional value from the exalted cha
racter of the person to whom we owe them.
And the gratitude which we shall feel towards
him, and our willingness to obey his preceptor
and to believe his doctrine, will therefore proba
bly be in proportion to the idea we form of his.
character. It is not then, as many would have
us suppose, a matter of no consequence to un
dervalue the character of Christ, or degrade him
to the level of a man. The truth of this obser
vation is abundantly confirmed both by scripture
and experience ; and it should be seriously pon
dered by every teacher of religion.
The following are the principal texts in which
the names of deity are given to Christ; —
1. John, i. 1, 2. Christ is here called &
xbyos- Morus, p. 71, note. John is the only
one of the New-Testament writers who applies
this name to Christ. He wrote among the
Grecian Jews, and for the Hellenistic Chris
tians, among whom probably this appellation
of Christ must at that time have been very com
mon ; which is the reason why he does not more
fully explain it. It signifies among the Jews
and other ancient people, when applied to God,
everything by which God reveals himself to men,
and makes known to them his will. Hence those
who made known the divine will to men were
called by the Hellenists ».oyoi., otherwise oyyEXot,
Sou^ot ©eou- as, ©e6s xp^tai xbyois, Philo, Migrat.
Abrah. Vide Book of Wisdom, xviii. 15, on
which cf. Grotius. Now this word was proba
bly applied to the Messiah, by way of eminence,
because he was considered as the greatest divine
messenger; Rev. xix. 13.
The Hellenists, however, frequently asso
ciated very erroneous ideas with this word ; and
on this account John undertakes here to correct
their mistakes respecting it, and gives it a veTy
elevated meaning. He says : o Aoyos (the de
clarer, rcvcaler of God) existed iv dpzw — viz., tfoii
xob^.ov (n'Eisia, Gen. i. 1 — i. e., ab xterno.)
Did he exist before the creation of the world, he
must be God; for before the creation nothing
but God himself existed. This pre-existence
of Christ is also taught in his discourses, John,
viii. 58 ; xvii. 5, 24. And the Aoyos was vjith
God — viz., before he revealed himself to men.
Kail ©eos ij» 6 Aoyos, propositio inversa, as in
John, iv. 24. 'O Aoyos is the subject ; the Logos
was God. Crell's conjectural reading, ©eov fy
b Xoyos, must be rejected at once, since all the
MSS. agree in the common reading, which is
undoubtedly correct. Vide s. 100. In this
passage the principal proof does not lie in the
word Xoyos, nor even in the word £eos, which in
a larger sense is often applied to kings and

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

137

earthly rulers, but to what is predicated of the
A^yos — viz., that he existed from eternity with
God ; that the world was made by him, &c. This
text belongs, therefore, to the follpwing general
sss, as well as to this.
2. John, xx. 28. Here Thomas, at last con
vinced that Christ was actually risen from the
dead, thus addresses him : 6 Kvpids pov xai b ©eos
pov. The nominative instead of the vocative.
13 gv, or some similar phrase, must be supplied,
in order to complete the sense: "Thou art truly
he, my Lord and my God." It is not an ex
clamation of wonder, as some have understood
it; for it is preceded by the phrase eIhev avt<j>,
he said this to him; addressed him in these
words. In the same manner the Romans, after
the time of Tiberius, used the expression Domi-
nus ac Deus noster, in relation to the emperors,
whom they deified. Thomas probably remem
bered what Jesus had often said respecting his
superhuman origin, John, v. 8, 10, 17, seq. ; and
he now saw it all confirmed by his resurrection
from the dead. Christ seems to have approved
of the manner in which he was addressed by
Thomas. 3. Philip, ii. 6, where it is said of Christ that
he is lad ©s<p, Deo mqualis; not bpoios ©eu, dv-
ti&os, ^EOEi'xE^osi similis Deo — terms applied by
Homer to kings and heroes. The term laos
©e^, or the contrary, is never applied to a finite
or created being. Hence the Jews, John, v.
18, considered it as blasphemy in Christ to make
himself laov ®ecj> Vide s. 38.
4. Rom. ix. 5. Paul is speaking of the privi
leges of the Jewish nation, and mentions among
others the circumstance, that Christ was derived
from them, as to his bodily nature, i% dtv b Xpuy-
tbs to xata cdpxa- and then adds, 6 u>v iiti itdv
tav ©eos, EvXoyqtbs sis tovs aiavas • If this re
fers to Christ, it is a very strong proof of his
divinity. For the phrase ©eos EvXoyrjtbs is ap
plied only to the supreme God, Romans, i. 25 ;
Mark, xiv. 61. Besides d uv is used for bs teti,
which usually relates to the immediate antece
dent. But the passage is sometimes differently
pointed, a full stop being placed after adpxa,
and then this whole proposition is referred to
the Father. So Origen, Eusebius, and many
of the ecclesiastical fathers; vide Wetstein and
Semler. But (a) it must then read, according
to the wsms loquendi of the Greeks : b iiti itdvtav,
without av or d ©eos, b iiti itdvtav (av) ; though
in answer to this, it might indeed be said that
Paul was little versed in the Grecian idiom,
and has many ungrammatical constructions.
But an ungrammatical construction of such a na
ture is found nowhere else, either in Paul, or
the other writers of the New Testament, (b)
In all the passages, without exception, in which
18

these words are used as a doxology, Evxoyvtbc
(^na) stands first in the clause ; accordingly, if
it referred to the Father, it would read svXoytjtos
d ©eo; 6 irti itdvtav. This usage is as fixed and
invariable in Greek, as in German to say Gott-
lob I instead of Lobgott ! (c) Since Paul has
elsewhere ascribed divine perfection to Christ
in the distinctest manner, as will be proved s.
38, there is no reason why the natural meaning
of his language in this passage should be per
verted. And if this passage were read in an
unprejudiced manner, it would undoubtedly be
referred by every one to Christ.
5. John, X. 28 — 30, iyd xai b Ilatf^p iv Etspiv.
These words are not to be understood to denote
so much an equality of nature, as unanimity of
feeling and purpose; s. 35, note, ad finem. Still
the passage is quite remarkable ; because Christ
professes to do his work in common with his
Father; and this is more than any man, pro
phet, or even angel, is ever said in the Bible to
do. These perform their works through God,
and by his assistance. Indeed, they do nothing
themselves, and God does everything. That
being one with God, therefore, which Jesus here
asserts for himself, is something peculiar, and
which belongs to him only as he is a being of a
higher nature. Cf. John, v. 18, seq.
6. Some of the texts in which Christ is called
the Son of God. It is evident that this name is
given in the New Testament to Christ in more
than one relation, and consequently is used in
more than one signification ; vide s. 36, ad
finem. Morus, p. 63, note 2. Three different
senses of this name may be distinguished.
(a) In many passages it is synonymous with
xpwtbs, Messiah, or king. In the oriental lan
guages, kings are commonly called the sons
of God, by way of eminence, (so in Greek
bwysvEis and biotpEfysls ',) and the most distin
guished among them his first-born, Ps. Ixxxix.
27. ' They were considered as the vicegerents
of God upon earth, — as his representatives,
bearing his image, and entrusted with his autho
rity, Ps. Ixxii. 2. The idea of a king, there
fore, is frequently implied in the appellation
Sod of God, applied to Christ; which then is
synonymous with niKto, Xpwtfds, Xptstds ©eov,.
This title was very commonly given to the Mes
siah by the Jews; vide Matt. xvi. 16; Luke,
ix. 20; Matt, xxvii. 40; Luke, xxiii. 35; also,
the Talmud and Rabbins. It was undoubtedly
taken originally from Ps. ii. 7, and 2 Sam. vii.
14, both of which texts were referred by the
Jews to the Messiah. If this title is understood
in this way, it is easy to see how Paul can say,
1 Cor. xv. 28, that hereafter, when the church
on earth shall cease, the Son of God will lay
down his fiaaiXElav, and as Ttds become subject
to the Father. In this same sense — namely, to
m2

138

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

denote his Messiahship — Jesus also sometimes
appropriates this name to himself. He says,
Mark, xiii. 32, that he himself, as Tibs, knew not
the time of ths judgment of Jerusalem. To con
tend, therefore, that this appellation always de
notes the divine nature of Christ, would involve
us in unnecessary difficulty. But the meanfin-g
which we have now given will by no means
apply in all the cases in which this appellation
occurs. It sometimes denotes,
(4) The higher nature of Christ — e. g., Rom.
i. 3, 4. Christ is here spoken of in two re
spects : first, xata adpxa, in his inferior nature,
his humanity, and in this he is called Tibs
AaviS : secondly, xata itvEvua dyiaaivijs, as to
his higher, more perfect nature, tb $tiov, and in
this he is called Tibs ©eov, and solemnly de
clared to be such by God in his resurrection
from the dead. Jesus, moreover, uses this title
of himself in this sense, John, v. 17, seq. ; and
the Jews well understood that by thus using it
he made himself equal to God; cf. x. 30, 33.
Nor did Christ charge them with misunder
standing him, but, on the contrary, admitted the
sense they had put upon his words ; cf. ver. 18,
23 ; and x. 34. Again, the predicates connected
with this appellation, John, i. and Heb. i. ii.,
are such as are never used in respect to any
man, or any created spirit. Thus Christ is
called jiovoyEvris. Moreover, "Kpustos is often
distinguished from Tibs ©eov. Thus, Matt. xvi.
16, where Peter answers a question of Jesus,
by saying, thou art the Christ, the Son of God.-
cf. John, xx. 31.
(c) He is ahso called Son of God, Luke, i. 35,
to designate the immediate power of God in the
miraculous production of his human nature. In
the same sense, Adam, who was immediately
created by God, is called the Son of God, Luke,
iii. 38.
7. Tit. ii. 13, We expect the glorious appear
ance, the iititydvEiav trjs bo^rjs t ov psydxov
®eov xai datijpos rjp.wv 'Ijjtfov Xpiotov. Here
it is objected, that if ©eos piyas related to Christ,
the xai would be omitted. But since fov is
omitted before gatijpos, both psydxov ©eov and
eatijpos must be construed as in apposition with
'Iijsov XpKftfov, according to a known usage of
the Greek language; and so they are construed
by many of the ancient writers. Besides, Irti-
fydvsia is the word by which the solemn coming
of Christ is appropriately designated. The pas
sage therefore, is regarded, even by Henke, as
referring to Christ.
These are the most important texts of this
class. Other texts are sometimes placed in con
nexion with these, which are less capable of de
fence, either on critical or philological grounds.
Such are 1 John, v. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Acts,
xx. 28.

SECTION XXXVIII.
OF THE TEXTS IN WHICH DIVINE ATTRIBUTES
AND WORKS ARE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST ; AND in
WHICH DIVINE HONOUR IS REQUIRED FOB HIM.
I. Texts in which Divine Attributes and Works an
ascribed to Christ.
This is the second class of the division men
tioned in the first part of s. 37. Many doubtful
texts are often placed in this class, in order to
make out the proof, that all the divine attribute's
are ascribed to Christ in the Bible. But the
proof of this is not at all important. For if it
be allowed that one single divine attribute is
ascribed to Christ in the Bible, the conclusion ft
inevitable, that he must possess all the rest
The divine attributes cannot be separated or
disjoined ; where one of them exists, all of
them must be found. And the truth of this
cannot be disputed. Vide s. 18. The follow
ing divine attributes and works are distinctly
ascribed to Christ in the scriptures — viz.,
1. Eternity. Cf. Morus, p. 60, 61, s. 6.
This attribute is ascribed to him in those texts
in which he is said to have existed before th
foundation of the world ; for this is the way in
which eternity a parte ante is always described.
Vide s. 20. Here belongs the text, John, i. 1
(s. 37) ; and also John, xvii. 5, Glorify me
with that glory which I had with thee itpb tfoi
tbv xoaaov shot,. The glory here spoken of
could not be that derived from the government
of the kingdom of God, or of the church; be
cause neither of them existed before the crea
tion of the world ; it can therefore be nothing
else than divine glory. Here, two, belongs the
passage, John, viii. 58, where Christ describes
his higher nature, by saying, Before Abraham
was, I am (slpl) ; for by this same verb, in the
present tense, does God describe his own un
changeable being. Accordingly the Jews un
derstood him to assert for himself a divine attri
bute, and therefore charged him with blasphemy,
and sought to stone him, (ver. 59.) And so fre
quently, according to the testimony of John and
the other evangelists, Christ spoke of himself,
in a manner in which it would have been pre
sumption and blasphemy for a prophet or any
created being to speak.
2. The creation and preservation of the world.
This is ascribed to him, John, i. 1 — 3, Xldrta,
Si avtov iyivtto, xai xapif avtov lysvEto ov6"! £»i
d ys'yovEX. Ver. 10, 'O xoa/ios 6V avfov Eys'wro.
Col. i. 15 — 17, n.pui'd*oxos itdarjs xtlesas, not,
primus inter res creatas, which would be incon
sistent with the context, ver. 16, where the rea
son is given why he was itpatotoxos- but, rex,
the ruler or governor (itputsvav iv ttdaiv, princi<-
patum ienens, Col. i. 18) ; in which sense

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

139

Christ is also called itpatotoxos in Heb. i. 6, and
°WJ ('• e-> opjKu») tijs xtlasas ©eov, Rev. iii. 14.
By him were all things in the universe created,
(iv aita> ixtio&i fa itdvta ta iv toi; ovpavols xai
iiti trjs y»jsi) tke material and spiritual world,
(fa bpatd xai adpara ,-) everything which is ele
vated, great, and powerful, ($povot, xvptotntss,
apzai, x. t. X. ;) all things were created by him
(Si ovf ov) and on his account, or for his service
(si< avtov). He exists from eternity (itpb itdv
tav), and from him everything derives its exist
ence (ta itdvta iv an/tip gwigtyxs). Philo and
Josephus often speak of God, the Creator, in
the same way. Heb. i. 2, 3. Christ is here
described as ^a'pui/, (i. e., conservans ; cf. **:, Is.
xlvi. 3 ; and the phrase Saa tftiy applied to God)
ta itdvta f 9 brjpati fjjs Svvdpsas avtov' i. e., by
his almighty will or command. That in the
clause, Si' en! xai fovs alavas iitoiijgsv, the word
Sid may denote not merely the instrumental, but
also the efficient cause, is evident from many
texts— -e. g., John, iii. 17 ; Romans, i. 5 ; 1 Cor.
i. 9 ; and especially from Heb. ii. 10, where
the same word is used in reference to the Fa
ther, St ol fa itdvta. And that the meaning of
Paul was, that the Son himself was the creator
of the universe, is placed beyond a doubt from
the text, Heb. i. 10, where Ps. cii. 26 (Thou,
Lord, hast founded the earth ,- the heavens are the
work of thy hands,) is quoted and applied to
Christ. Therefore inasmuch as the eternal
power and majesty of the Father are declared
by the creation, so far as it is his work (Rom.
i. 20) ; the eternal power and majesty of the
Son are declared by this same creation, so far
as it is his work. For further remarks respect-
ing the creation of the world by the Son, vide
S. 47.
3. Omnipotence is ascribed to Christ, Phil. iii.
21 ; omniscience, Matt. xi. 27. John, vi. 46,
He only, JiipaxE tbv itatipa. John, ii. 24, 25.
He is also described as the searcher of hearts,
who knows and will bring to light the most hid
den things, 1 Cor. iv. 5. Indeed, it follows of
course, that if Christ has created, governs, and
preserves all things, he must possess omnipo
tence and omniscience. Here it is objected,
that from other texts it is clear that Christ re
ceived both his doctrine and his power from the
Father — e, g., Matt. xi. 27, itdvta poi itapsSo^v
into toi itatpbs. John, viii. 26 ; xii. 49 ; Matt.
xxviii. 18, all power in heaven and in earth is
given me. John, iii. 35 ; v. 26 ; the Father hath
given power to the Son to raise the dead, &c.
But in these passages Christ is spoken of as
Messiah, or as an ambassador appointed by
God. And here it is evident, that he is consi
dered in the New Testament both as God, and
as God united with man. Vide s. 100, seq.
Note. — The passage Col. ii. 9, sv ait 9 xatoixsl
rtdv to itXrjpapa f »js "§sbt ijt oj gupatixus, is quoted

to prove that Christ possesses all divine perfec
tions. But the text must be explained by the
parallel texts, Col. i. 19, iv avt$ svboxrjgs itdv
to itxrjpupa xatoixvjsaj,, and Ephes. iii. 19, where
the phrase itXrjpapa ©eov occurs instead of
itXrjpapa $s6t ijtos, so that ^fdf 97s is abstract for
concrete, like xvpiofj^s instead of Kilpios. rix^-
papa means multitude, collection ; as itXrjpava
tav i%vav, Rom. xi. 25. By the phrase, then,
rtdv to itXrjpapa fijs ^sbtntos, the whole multi
tude of men living under the divine government
are intended, and when of these it is said, that
they iv ovf 9 (Xpurf 9) xatoixsl, it is the same as
to say, All men without distinction, whether
Jews or Greeks, have citizenship in the Chris
tian church, — all are the people of God. Sapa-
tixus is equivalent to us gapa, and must be ex
plained by the parallel texts, Col. i. 18 ; Ephes.
i. 22 ; iv. 15; according to which the meaning
of the phrase is, they composethe body, or church,
of which Christ is the head (xstyax^.) Ncesselt,
in his Weihnachts programm. of 1785, gives
another explanation. He supposes the allu
sion is to the perfect divine instruction which
is given by Christ, and that in a reaZ and dis
tinct manner (gapatixas) ; and not in symbols
and images, as in the Mosaic religion.
II. Texts in which Divine Honour is required for
Christ.
This is the third class of texts in proof of the
divinity of Christ. Christ and his apostles ex
pressly teach that divine honour and worship
must be paid to God only. Vide Matt. iv. 10,
coll. Deut. vi. 13; Rev. xix. 10. And in this
they agree entirely with the prophets of the Old .
Testament. Vide Isa. xlii. 8 ; xlviii. 11. Hence
it is just to conclude, that when Christ himself
and his apostles require that divine worship
should be paid to him, they acknowledge that
he is Gpd ; otherwise they would require what,
according to their own principles, would be
blasphemy. The following are the principal
texts of this class : —
1 . John, v. 23, All should honour the Son, even
as they honour the Father ; whoso honours not the
Son, honours not the Father who hath sent him.
We reason thus: — If the worship due to the
Father should be paid to ihe Son, and if he who
withholds from the Son such worship as is due
to the Father, is regarded as if he honoured not
the Father, it follows that equal honour is due
to the Son with the Father. Bgt Christ, ac
cording to his own maxims, could have laid no
claim to this honour if he were less than the
Father, or, which is the same thing, were not
God. Now the Son is honoured as the Father,
his instructions and precepts are embraced and
obeyed as those of the Father ; when the same
unlimited confidence is placed in him as is
placed in the Father ; when all our salvation is

140

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

expected from him as it is from the Father : and
this is what Jesus requires of his disciples.
2. That the apostles and primitive Christians
must have understood and explained these and
similar expressions of Christ in this manner,
appears from their example. For (a) the apos
tles and first Christians directed their prayers
to Christ — e.' g., in the choice of an apostle,
Acts, i. 24 : Sv, Kvpu, xapSu>yvaata itdvtav,
coll. v. 21, where Jesus is called Kvpws. The
6 Kvptos, whom Paul invoked, 2 Cor. xii. 8, was
Christ; for it was that the power of Christ
(Svvafus Xpurfov) might be manifested in sup
porting him that he was wijling to suffer; cf.
Acts, vii. 59. Besides, in the early ages of
Christianity, it was well known even among
the heathen, that Christians worshipped Christ
as a God. Pliny (X. Epist. 97) says, he was
assured that in their meetings, carmen Christo
quasi Deo soliti essent dicerc secum invicem. (b)
The apostles frequently refer to Christ the texts
of the Old Testament which speak of the honour
and worship of God — e. g., Heb. i. 6, Let all
the angels of God worship him, from Psalm
xcvii. 7; also Rom. xiv. 11, from Is. xiv. 3.
3. Phil. ii. 10, At the name, of Jesus (i. e.,
when they hear the name of Jesus, d Kvpw>s, the
Lord over all, ver. 9, 11,) every knee should bow,
of angels, (or the inhabitants of heaven,) of the
inhabitants of earth, and the inhabitants of the
kingdom of the dead, (xatax^bvia ;) in short, all
in the universe, without exception. Should it
be objected here that these words do not require
that divine honour should be given to Jesus, but
that adoration only which is due to him as king,
Messiah, head of the church, (since in ver. 9, 11,
he is spoken of in the latter character, and not
as God,) it might be replied, that in the pre
ceding context he is expressly described as Isa
©£9. So that Paul here requires that same di
vine honour to be paid to Christ which he re
quires elsewhere, and which he himself ren
dered: All should worship as God this equal of
God (ver. 6), whenever they heard his name,
which is above every other.
4. Here belong also the texts in which the
apostles shew that they place their whole reli
ance on Christ; looked to him for all temporal
and spiritual blessings, those relating to time
and to eternity; and in which they exhort all
Christians to do the same ; and this reliance on
Christ is expressed by them in the same lan
guage in whfch they speak elsewhere of their
confidence in God and his providence, and
which is never employed in reference to men or
angels; 2 Cor. v. 8—11; 2 Tim. iv. 17, 18.
The texts in which the apostles profess to work
miracles iv bvbfiati Xpieifov, as his messengers,
and by his power, are to be reckoned among the
foregoing proofs— e. g., Acts, iii. 6, seq. &c. ;

also the oaths and protestations which the apqa-
tles uttered by Christ, since, according to Chris.
tian rules, they could swear by God alone>-
e. g., Rom. ix. 1, iv XpKJf<p, by Christ! 2,Tim,
ii. 7 ; finally, the texts in which the apostles
supplicate grace from Christ, as well as frpin
the Father, for all Christians. : ,
We see, then, from all these texts, that while
the Bible always teaches that Christ receives
all his endowments from the Father, (vide Mo.
rus, p. 63, s. 8,) and that the Father gets
through him ; and bestews all good through
him; it still describes him as literally God, and
equal with the Father. And this is sufficient
to establish our faith ; and further than this we
should not attempt to go.
SECTION XXXIX.
OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND HIS PERSONALITY,
I. Meaning of the term Holy Spirit.
One of the principal difficulties in the discus
sion of this doctrine arises from the various
meanings of the words nn and itvsvpa, and of
the compounds isn-ip nn, dtiSn nn, isi, n«nyu
dymv, Tlvsvpa ©sov, x. t. X. These meanings,
however, are needlessly multiplied by the sub
tleties of interpreters and lexicographers. It
may also be remarked that the terms wipnn
and Dvrw nn, Ilvsvpa dyu>v and n.vsv/ia &ioi, are
interchanged as synonymous, since dyiov, ztaj),
signify what is reverenced, venerable, and then
more specifically what is divine. Hence the
expression occurring 1 Pet. iv. 14, to tr/s ootqj,
(1. e., EvSo%av or cvyuiv) xai (i. e.) to toi 6eov
rfvEVjUa. In order to understand thoroughly the ground
of the various significations of this term as used
in the Bible, and especially in the New Testa
ment, the reader must consult the general re
marks respecting the use of these words, and
respecting the derivations of their significations
contained in s. 19, II. ; col. s. 9, III. IV. In
continuation of what is there said, (supposing
it now to be understood by the student,) the fol
lowing remarks, relating particularly to theNew
Testament, are here added.
E>np nn frequently signifies, the divine nature,
or God himself; but it also denotes the diviru
power, as displayed both in the material and
spiritual world ; also the divine understanamg
and knowledge, and the communication of it to
men. But in speaking of the effects of the di
vine power, there was not in ancient times that
nice distinction which is now made between
what is mediately and immediately done by God,
since his agency is not less real in one case than
in the other. This distinction is not therefore
found in the holy scriptures ; no practical pur-

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

141

pose could have been answered by introducing
it; and indeed, to have made it would often have
been injurious.
Accordingly, throughout the Old Testament,
the eh-ip nn, or D*rr»t nn, is represented as
having an agency, sometimes mediate, some
times immediate, in everything which is done;
and to it everything great and elevated — know
ledge, talents, discoveries, arts, great actions,
good governments, exemplary virtue and piety,
&c, are uniformly ascribed. Vide s. 9, III.
The same mode of expression and representa
tion is adopted in the New Testament, and was
common among the first Christians. As the
people of God, they were bound to distinguish
themselves from other men by their knewledge
of the sacred truths of religion; they were
bound to live in a virtuous and truly pious man
ner; to place their confidence in God and in
Jesus Christ; with the promise that thus they
should enjoy in an eminent degree the blessing
of God and the grace of Christ, and be greatly
prospered in their endeavours for the promotion
of Christianity. Now all this knowledge, holi
ness, faith, and success in their undertakings
was ascribed by them Xlvsiuatt, dynp or 6eov.
Vide 1 Cor. xii. 3, seq.; from which passage
we also learn that the influences and operations
of this divine Spirit were different, according to
the difference found in individual Christians.
(a) It was the duty of all Christians to possess
a fundamental knowledge, and a firm and un
wavering belief of the principal truths of Chris
tianity; to live in a manner corresponding to
this knowledge ; to have a faith in God and in
Jesus Christ, made active by love. And so this
knowledge of the truths of religion, and this
correspondent Christian temper and disposition,
were ascribed to the Holy Spirit, and were called
rivEV/ta dyiov, Ilvsiva Qsov, Xpttffov, or Ttov.
Vide Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. v. 16, 22, 23 ; vi. 8.
The gospel itself, or Christianity, was also called
by the same name, it being the most perfect, and
a divinely instituted religion.
(6) But some Christians were distinguished
from the rest by eminent abilities, talents, gifts,
and capacities; by zeal, activity, &c. These
were made teachers and other officers of the
church, accerding to their various gifts and abi
lities. Now all these various gifts, abilities,
and talents, of whatever sort, by which such
persons became useful to the church, were
ascribed to the Holy Spirit, derived and named
from him ; for in these various endowments the
agency of this divine co-operating power was
unusually conspicuous. These extraordinary
qualifications are commonly called miraculous
gifts — the gift of teaching, of tongues, of healing,
of working miracles, &c, — all of which pro
moted the glory and ad vancement of Christianity.
Vide Matt. iii. II." * Cor. xiv. 12; 1 Thess. v.

19. On this account it is that all who oppose
the truth of God, or persecute the prophets who
teach it, even those who put hindrances in the
way of the influence of religion over themselves
or others, are said to resist the Holy Spirit, to
afflict, to grieve it, &c. Isa. lxiii. 10 ; Ephes.
iv. 30; Acts, vii. 51.
Since now the §acred writers, like all others,
make use of the figure prosopopeia,' and personify
these divine influences — speaking of them as
the Holy' Spirit, as they often do of the wisdom
and other attributes of God — we should be cau
tious in the selection of texts from which the
personality of the Holy Spirit is to be proved.
We should rest content with those which are
most clear and explicit ; for nothing is gained by
collecting a large number.
Cf. Lang, Zur Beforderung des richtigen Ge-
brauchs des Teller'schen Worterbuchs liber das
N. T. unter dem Worte Geist. Schleusner. Diss.
de vocabuli itvsvpa in libris N. T. vario usu,
Goltingae, 1791, 4to. Scripta Varii Argumenti,
No. IV., De Spiritu Sancto et Christo paracletis ;
Halse, 1790. II. Personality of the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is represented in the New
Testament, not only as different from the Father
and Son, and not merely as the personification
of some attribute of God, or of some effect which
he has produced, but as a literal person. Vide
Semler, Disp. Spiritum Sanctum recte describi
personam. The proof of this is thus made out
from the following texts : —
1. From the texts, John, xiv. 16, 17, 26; xv.
26. The Holy Spirit is here called itapdxxrjtos,
not comforter, advocate, nor even merely teacher,
as Ernesti renders it, but helper, assistant, coun
sellor, in which sense it is used by Philo, when
he says, God needs no itapdxxrjtos, (monitor.)
Of the Paraclelus Christ says, that the Father
will send him in his (Christ's) name, (i. e., in
his place,) to instruct his disciples. To these
three subjects similar personal predicates are
here equally applied ; and the Paracletus is not
designated by the abstract word auxilium, but
by the concrete auxiliator ,- so that we have the
Father, who sent him ; the Son, in whose place
he comes ; and the Holy Spirit, who is sent.
His office is to carry forward the great work of
teaching and saving men, which Christ com
menced, and to be to the disciples of Christ what
Christ himself was while he continued upon
the earth. John, xv. 26, When the Paracletus
shall come, whom I will send to you from the Fa
ther, (Imean, the Spirit — i. e., teacher — of truth,
who proceeds from the Father), he will instruct
you further in my religion ; where it should be
remarked, that the phrase ixitopEvsg^at itapd
Ilofpds means to be sent or commissioned by the
Father. Cf. John, xiv. 16, (Sagsi iplv fjof^p,)

142

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

and xvi. 28, (i%ijx§ov itapd Ilafpos, missus sum,)
and *re< in Hebrew. This procession of the
Holy Spirit from the Father does not imply,
then, as it is used in the Bible, the communi
cation of the divine nature t6 the Spirit, or his
internal connexion with the Father. Vide
s.43. 2. 1 Cor. xii, 4 — 11, There<mre various gifts
(xapigfiata) , but there is one and the same Spirit
(to avto LTj/Evfta), from whom they all proceed.
Here the xapiguata are expressly distinguished
from the Spirit, who is the author of them. In
ver. 5, this same person is distinguished from
Christ (d Kvpws), and in ver. 6, from d ©eos. In
ver. 11 it is said, all these (various gifts) work-
eth one and the selfsame Spirit, who imparteth to
every man his own, as he will (xa&as fSovXstai).
3. Those texts in which such attributes and
works are ascribed to the Holy Spirit as can be
predicated of no other than a personal subject.
In John, xvi. 13, seq., he is said xaXslv, dxnvEiv,
Xapfidvsiv, x. t. X. 1 Cor. ii. 10, God hath re
vealed the doctrines of Christianity to us by his
spirit, (the itapdxXntos before mentioned, who
was sent to give us this more perfect instruction.)
And this Spirit searches (sptvva) all things, even
the most secret divine purposes, (fSd&j ©eov, cf.
Rom. xi. 33. seq. ;) in his instruction, therefore,
we may safely confide. The expressions, the
Holy Spirit speaks, sends any one, appoints any
one for a particular purpose, and others, which
occur so frequently in the Acts and elsewhere,
shew that the Holy Spirit was understood by the
early Christians to be a personal agent. Acts,
xiii. 2, 4; xx. 28; xxi. 11, seq.
4. The formula of baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19,
and other similar texts, such as 2 Cor. xiii. 14,
where Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are men
tioned in distinction, (s. 35,) may now be used
in proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit,
since the other texts upon which the meaning
of these depends have already been cited. We
may now safely conclude that the Holy Spirit
mentioned in these texts was understood by the
early Christians to be a person; although this
could not be proved from this class of texts se
parately considered. Vide s. 35, I.
From all these texts taken together, we may
form the following result : — The Holy Spirit is
represented in the Bible as a personal subject,
and as such is distinguished from the Father
and the Son. In relation to the human race he
is described as sent and commissioned by the
Father and the Son, and as occupying the place
which Christ, who preceded him, held. In this
respect he depends (to speak after the manner
of men) upon the Father (John, xiv. 16) and
opon the Son, (John, xiv. 16, 26, also xvi. 14,
ix t ov l/toi Xijtyst at, ;) and in this sense he pro
ceeds from them both, or is sent by them both.
This may be expressed more literally as fol

lows : — The great work of converting, sanctify.
ing, and saving men, which the Father com
menced through the Son, will be carried on by
the Father and Son, through the Holy Spirit.
Note. — The objectors to this doctrine fre
quently say, that the imaginative orientalists
were accustomed to represent many things as
personal subjects, and to introduce them as
speaking and acting, which, however, they
themselves did not consider as persons, and did
not intend to have so considered by others.
And to this oriental usage they think that Christ
and his apostles might here, as in other caseg,
have conformed. But whenever Christ and his
apostles spoke in figurative language, they al
ways shewed, by the explanations which they
gave, that they did not intend to be understood
literally. But they have given no such expla-
nation of the language which they employ with
regard to the Holy Spirit. We therefore fairly
conclude that they intended that their language
should be understood literally; otherwise they
would have led their readers and hearers into
error ; and the more so, as they well knew that
their readers and hearers were accustomed to
personifications. SECTION XL.
OF THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.
We shall now offer the texts from which the
proof is drawn that the Holy Spirit is God ; oi
that the personal subject, called Tlvsiua dyim,
possesses the same divine perfections which are
ascribed to the Father and the Son. Morns, p.
65, 66, s. 10. These texts may be divided into
those which are more important, and those which
are less convincing, or which, though frequently
cited, have no relation to this subject.
I. Texts in which Divine Attributes, <rc, are
ascribed to the Holy Spirit.
On this subject we reason as follows : — If the
texts in which the Holy Spirit is distinguished
from the Father and the Son, and in which he
is spoken of as a personal subject, also ascribe
to him, as well as to them, divine attributes and
perfections, it is just to conclude that he is God
in the same sense in which the Father and the
Son are so. On account of the various mean
ings of the word itvsiua, we may not be able,
nor can it be at all necessary, to offer a great
multitude of texts in proof of the divinity of the
Holy Spirit. If one divine attribute is in any
passage clearly ascribed to him, his divinity is
as firmly established as if it were proved from a
great variety of texts that all the divine perfec
tions belong to him ; for the divine perfections
are inseparably connected, and the possession
of one of them involves the possession of all
the rest. Vide s. 18, 38.

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

143

1 Cor. ii. 9—13, Ylvsvpa ipswa ta fSaJJjj ©eov,
where omniscience is evidently ascribed to the
Spirit. Vide s. 39 ; John, xvi. 13 ; where he is
said to know future events, (futura contingen-
tia,) which are concealed from every created
being, and known to God only, (iv yowatu j(w
xEirai, Horn.,) except so far as he reveals this
knowledge to men. The Holy Spirit, then, to
whom they are known, and who himself reveals
them to others, must be God. 1 Cor. xii. 4, 11.
Omnipotence and omniscience necessarily belong
to an agent, who, according to his own good
pleasure, imparts such various gifts, and does
all which is here ascribed to the spirit of God.
The revealing of divine truth to the minds of
prophets and apostles; their inspiration; the mi
racles wrought through their instrumentality , and
other things often spoken of as the peculiar work
of Gpd, are elsewhere ascribed te the Holy Spirit
as the efficient agent, and considered as his
proper work; from which it justly follows, that
the Holy Spirit was regarded as God. Cf.
John, xiv. 17 ; 1 Cor. xii. ; 1 Pet. i. 21, seq. The
improvement of the moral character is described
as the work of the Holy Spirit, John, iii. 5, seq.,
and often elsewhere as the work of God, on ac
count of the difficulties and obstacles with which
it is attended, and which are so great as to prove
wholly insurmountable by the unassisted efforts
of man.
The proof that divine worship was paid to the
Holy Spirit is not so abundant and satisfactory
as that adduced to prove that divine worship
was rendered to Chrtet, s. 38. Still, however,
it is sufficient, when taken in connexion with
what has already been offered in proof of his
divinity. In Rom. ix. 1, Paul swears by. the
Holy Spirit, iv Tlvsvpati dyia, as he does by
Christ in the same passage. This must be con
sidered an act of divine worship, since both
Mosaic and Christian rules forbid swearing by
any but the supreme God, Matt. v. 33 — 36.
To swear by God, and to honour or worship him,
were synonymous terms in the Old Testament.
In Matt. xii. 31, to speak against the Holy Spirit
is represented by Christ as blasphemy.
We are not destitute, then, of passages which
distinctly ascribe divine attributes and works to
the Holy Spirit, although these texts are not so
many nor so clear as those which relate to the
divinity of the Son. Some have taken occasion
from this fact to represent the doctrine of the
divinity of the Holy Spirit as doubtful or unim
portant; but —
(a) In this connexion we would repeat the
observation before made, s. 12 — viz., that we
can conclude nothing respecting the internal
importance of a doctrine from the more or less
frequent mention of it in the New Testament.
The books of the New Testament were written
wi'h primary reference to the owdition of men

at the time when they were written, and always
presuppose a more full oral instruction.
(6) The most important consideration, how
ever, is this: that by the TLvsipa ayio*,
something divine (ti $siov) was always under
stood by the Jews and Christians of ancient
times. So soon, therefore, as the early Chris
tians understoodHhat the Tlvsipa dyiov was a
person, they immediately regarded him as God —
a subject belonging-to the godhead. It was not
necessary, therefore,in the first Christian instruc
tion, to speak often and expressly of his divine
nature and attributes. These were very easily
understood from the ideas commonly entertained
in ancient times respecting the divine Spirit.
Vide Morus, p. 66, Note 5. The case was dif
ferent with respect to Christ, since the Jews
did not commonly suppose that the Messiah was
divine, as appears from Matt. xxii. 43 — 46.
They understood his title, Son of God, in the
general sense of a great king, s. 37.
II. Texts in which the Holy Spirit is called
God, HfC.
These are sometimes used to prove trie divi
nity of the Holy Spirit, but are either inferior to
the former in evidence, or have no bearing upon
the subject. The observations just made, No.
I. (a) of this section, have not always been duly
regarded. Writers have thought too much of
the number of texts, and have collected indiscri
minately many which have only an apparent
relation to the subject. Especially they have
endeavoured to search out a multitude of texts
in which the Holy Spirit is expressly called God.
But (a) the simple appellation 6?od, is not of
itself sufficient to prove the supreme divinity of
the subject to whom it is given, as Christ him
self declared, John, x. 34, 35, coll. s. 37. The
texts therefore which ascribe divine attributes
and works to the Spirit are far more important
than texts of this class, and prove all that is
essential, (b) It is doubtful in many of these
texts, in which the predicate God is used, whe
ther the Holy Spirit as a person is intended.
Many of them, at least, may be explained with
out necessarily supposing a personal subject, ac
cording to the analogy of the texts mentioned,
s. 39, 1.
The following texts are often quoted : — Acts,
v. 3, 4. Peter tells Ananias (ver. 3) that Satan
had induced him ^Fvaars^cu 1 6 Ttvsifia dyiov, and
afterwards (ver. 4) aix i^cvaa dv^paitois, aM.a
ta ®sa. The same subject who is called the
Holy Spirit in one place is called God in the
other. But from the comparison of other pas
sages, it might be thought that the Hvsvpa oyto*
was here to be understood in the subjective sense,
and denoted the Spirit dwelling in the apostles;
the higher knowledge and gifts with which they
were endowed ; their miraculous powers, as in

144

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ver. SS and the passage could accordingly be
explained thus : your crime is not to be considered
as if you had intended to deceive mere men, be
cause you knew that God had endowed us with
supernatural knowledge. This explanation is
confirmed by the very clear text, 1 Thess. iv. 8,
He who despises us, despises not men', but God,
tbv bbvta to HvEvua avtov to dyiov sis qpas-
Cf. Ex. xvi., where it is said, ver. 2, that the
Israelites rebelled against Moses and Aaron; but
Moses tells them, ver. 8, your rebellion is not
against us, but against God, whose messengers
we are. Does this prove that Moses and Aaron
belong to the godhead ? But when it is proved
from other texts that Christ, the apostles, and the
early Christians, understood theUvsifia dyiov to
be a personal subject, belonging to the godhead,
(as those concerned in this event undoubtedly
did,) then this text and many of the following
may be regarded as satisfactory proof of the divi
nity of this Spirit. But when introduced before
these texts, by which their meaning is deter
mined, or out of their relation to them, they prove
nothing. The sense of the text in Acts, as deter
mined by the preceding texts, is plainly this :
for you to intend to deceive us who are apos
tles — us, whom you knew to be under the spe
cial influence of the Holy Spirit — is to be con
sidered the same as if you had intended to deceive
God ; for you knew that he from' whom this
influence proceeds is regarded by us as God.
The same may be said with respect to the for
mula of baptism, Matt, xxviii. 19. It cannot, in
itself considered, be used as a proof-text, be
cause the mere collocation of the name Holy
Spirit with that of the Father and Son does not
prove that he possesses divine nature in com
mon with them. Vide s. 35. But when his
divinity has been proved by other texts, then this
also may be cited ; because from the former we
learn how the latter must be understood, and
was actually understood in the first ages of the
church. The passage, 2 Cor. iii. 17, 'O bs Kvpw>s
rd IS.vsv/id igti has sometimes been translated,
the Spirit is Jehovah himself. But the meaning
is, Christ is the true Spirit of the Old Testa
ment — i. b., the Old Testament contains essen
tially the same doctrine which Christ taught —
viz., the necessity of the renewal of the heart,
and inward piety. Some have endeavoured to
prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit from a
comparison of different texts; but in doing this
they have often resorted to forced and unnatural
interpretations. An instance of this may be
seen in the comparison of the texts Isa. vii.
8—10 and Acts, xxviii. 26, 27. In the former
of these we read, Jehovah said, Go to this people,
&c. ; but in the latter, n v s i u a t b dyiov ixdxngs
Sid Hcrai'ov — xiyov, x. t. x. Here the same per
son who in the former text is called nin', in the
latter is called Tlvsifia aytov,

may be used in its more general sense for the
Deity, and does not here necessarily designate
the person of the Hely Ghpst. Vide s. 39, 1,
and s. 19, II.
We have new cnnsidered seme ef the most
impprtant texts ef scripture in which we are
taught the doctrine that (1) there is onlyow
God; but that (2) in this one divine nature
there are also three, described as personal sub
jects, and called Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,;
and that (3) these three possess in commonthe
divine nature. Respecting the manner in
which these three make one God, we are taught
nothing in the Bible, since the subject is of sack
a nature as not to admit of its being explained
to us. Vide s. 33. It is not therefore strange
that in their attempts to illustrate it theologians
should have pursued such different methods; that
in endeavouring to explain what is inexplicable}*
they should have been compelled to call in the
aids of human philosophy; and that, for the
very reason that the whole subject is beyond'
their reach, they should have differed so widely
from each other in the opinions which they
have entertained respecting it. We should here
therefore refer to the remarks made upon this
subject, s. 33. A general view of the whole
will be given at the end of Chapter Second, to
which we now proceed.

CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.
SECTION XLI.
ARE THERE IN JEWISH OR HEATHEN WRITIN8S
ANY TRACES OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
WHICH WERE NOT DERIVED FROM CHRISTIAN
SOURCES?

I. Traces of this Doctrine in the Old Testament, tk
Apocrypha, and the Chaldaic Paraphrases.
Some have endeavoured to prove that the
Jews had some knowledge of the Trinity, or at
least of a plurality of persons in the godhead,
from all these sources. But (a) the texts cited
from the Old Testament in proof of this point do
not by themselves perfectly establish it, as has
been shown, s. 34. Neither (b) are the texts
cited from the Apocrypha altogether satisfactory.*
The appellation Jidyos ©eov, which occurs fre
quently in the Book of Wisdpm and in Sirach,
cannot be clearly proved in any one instance to
designate a person of the godhead, but signifies
either the divine oracles and revelations, as Sir. i.
5, or the divine decrees and will, as Sir. xliii. 26,
iv Xby9 avfw ffvyseswow itdvta. Book of Wis*
But n^v/ia dyu>v \ dom, xviii. 15, *dyos ®sov itavtoSvvapos, coll. ix.

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

145

T, xvi. 12. Nor does the appellation Son of
God, in the Book of Wisdom, ii. 13 — 20, desig
nate the Messiah, but, in a more general sense,
a favourite of God, one approved by Heaven, a
righteous person. The phrase Holy Spirit, used
in the same book, (chap. ix. 17, 18,) there
means only a holy temper, virtue, temperance,
continence, sanciitas animi; cf. ix. 4, 10. (c)
The terms « n two, Dir/w N-ipip are used very
frequently in the Chaldaic paraphrases, and
seem, as there employed, to designate a person,
and have therefore been compared with the ap
pellation xbyos ®soi, and considered as indi
cating the doctrine of the Trinity. This is a
very important argument. It is doubtful,
however, whether these terms were understood
by the Jews contemporary with the paraphrasts
as titles of the Messiah, or whether, as many sup
pose, they were regarded as synonymous with
numen, majestas divina. The whole subject
needs a new investigation. Vide Paulus, Zum
Anf. des. Evang. Johannis.
[Note. — Whatever may be said of the use of
the term a,dyos in the Apocryphal writings, it
cannot be doubted that the term go$ia, in the
Book of Wisdom, an jEgyptico-Jewish produc
tion, is used hypostatically. Wisdom is there
represented as a being of the purest light, pro
ceeding before the creation from the substance
of God, as his perfect image, and the creator
and governor of the world. Cf. i. 6; vii.
22—27; viii. 1, 3; ix. 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 18, x.
The writer of this book had before him the per
sonification of this divine attribute in the Old
Testament, the ncan of Prov. viii. xi. ; but his
representations very much surpass that in bold-.
ness; and this must be ascribed to the influence
of that extravagant philosophy, strangely com
posed of priental and Platonic ideas, which
then prevailed at Alexandria, and which, net
content with personifying, distinctly hyposta-
tized the divine attributes. The influence ef
this philosophy was more strongly exhibited in
the hypostases of Philo and the Cabbalists, and
afterwards, in the peculiar modifications of some
Christian doctrines, adopted by the Alexandrine
catechists. These different systems of inde
pendent powers, proceeding from the source of
all being, formed, as they were, upon these
hints in the Old Testament, under the influence
of a foreign and/corrupting philosophy, bear but
little resemblance, indeed, to the Trinity of the
New Testament. And notwithstanding all
these presentiments of the truth found in unin
spired writers before the Christian era, the doc
trine of the Trinity must be regarded as alto
gether an drticulus purus. — Tr.]
II. Traces of this Doctrine in the Writings of Plato,
the New Platonists, Philo, the Cabbalists, 6}c.
We find clear evidence of a belief in a certain
19

sort of trinity in all these writers, although they
differ in the mode of explaining it, and under
stand by it something very different from the
Trinity of the Bible. This evidence is as fol
lows: — /
1. Plato believed in a supreme being existing
from eternity, but he also believed in an un
created, eternal matter, the former the source of
all good, the latter, of all evil. The origin of
the visible world, its relation to God, and his
influence upon it, were explained by him from
the principles of the system of emanation — a
system which the mind naturally adopts when
it begins to speculate on subjects of this nature,
and which is, accordingly, more ancient and
universal than any other system of philosophy.
(It is probable that, in conformity with the ge-.
neral principles of this philosophy, the ideas of
which Plato spake were material ; though this
is disputed. V.jde Pleasing, Versuche zur Auf-
klarung der Philosophie des altesten Alter-
thums; Leipzig, 1788, 8vo.) The system of
Plato may be thus stated: God first produced
the ideal world — i. e., his infinite understanding
conceived of the existence of the worid, and
formed, as it were, the plan of the creation.
The real world was then formed after this ideal
world, as its model; and this was done by
uniting the soul of the world, which proceeded
from the Divine Being, with matter, by which
the world became an animated, sensitive, ra
tional creature, guided, pervaded, and held to
gether by this rational soul. The three princi
ples of Plato were thus, (a) the supreme God,
whom he calls Hat r\p ', (b) the divine understand
ing, which he calls, vovs, Snuiovpybs, Xbyos, aatrjp,
gotyia, x. t. X.; and (c) the soul of the world.
He indeed distinguished the two last principles,
in some respects, from the supreme,.God, but
still accounted them as belonging by derivation
to the divine nature. These views are fully
developed in his Timaeus, and elsewhere. It
appears, then, that Plato believed in a Trinity,
or three principles in the Divine Being; but
whether he actually hyDostasized these princi
ples is doubtful, though i. is affirmed by the
New Platonists.
A somewhat different statement of the Pla
tonic system is given by Oelrich, in his " Com-
mentatio de doctrina Platonica de Deo," &c.
According to him, Plato divided all things into
twoclasses — that which is real, unproduced, im
mutable, capable of being discerned only by the
reason, (vontbs, intelligibilis ;) and opposed to
this, that which is produced, mutable, material,
and cognizable by the senses, aigfrjtos, sensibi-
lis.) The latter must have a cause of its exist
ence; and this cause is the Creator of the
world, who, in imitation of the perfect ideal in
his understanding, in which all the reality, sub
stance, and true being of things was contained,
N

146

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

wrought rude matter into the present sensible
world. But since what is animated is more per
fect than what is inanimate, and God, as the
most perfect being, could not make anything
otherwise than perfect, he imparted a soul to
this sensible world. But this soul of the world
is not a self-existing divine principle, since its
nature participates in what is material and mu
table, as well as in what is real and immutable,
and consequently is neither one thing nor the
other, but an intermediate being composed of
the two. According to this statement, Plato
did not conceive of a number of hypostases in
the Deity ; for the divine understanding (A.dyos)
could not be imagined to be different from God
himself, and the soul of the world belonged nei
ther to the being of God, nor was regarded as a
self-subsistent principle. Many passages in his
writings, however, were so perverted and mis
applied by the New Platonists, tiiat they seem
ed to afford ground for their assertion that he,
really distinguished a number of hypostases in
the Divine Being. Hence the strange and
manifold form in which the Platonic doctrine of
God was exhibited by Numenius, Plotinus,
Porphyry, Jamblicus, Proclus, Chalcidius, Ma-
crobius, and other New Platonists, and also by
the Christian fathers of the second and third
century. [Note — In favour of the alleged Triad of
Plato, cf. Souverain, Le Platonisme devoile,
translated by Loffler into the German, under
the title Versuch uber den Platonismus der
Kirchenvater. Ben. Carpzov, Trinitas Pla-
tonis, &c. ; Lipsias, 1693. Cud worth, Systema
intellectuale hujus universi. In opposition to
the Triad of Plato, cf. Tiedemann, Geist der
speculativen Philosophie, 2 bd. s. 118, ff.
Tennemann, System der Platon. Philosophie,
3 bd. s. 149. Geschichte der Philosophie, 2
bd. s. 387; Paulus, Memorabilien, an Essay,
Ueber den gottlichen Verstand aus der Platon.
Philosophie  Tr.]
2. The New Platonists eagerly embraced
these ideas of Plato, and during the second and
third centuries after the birth of Christ, seemed
to labour to outdo one another in explaining,
defending, and more fully developing them.
We have, for example, a work of Plotinus, itspi
'av tptav apajiixiov vitogt auEuv — (i. e., Deus su-
premus, mens, anlma mundi.) These New
Platonists, however, not only differ widely from
Plato, but often disagree among themselves
in their mode of thinking, and in their phraseo
logy. 3. The learned Jews, who lived beyond the
bounds of Palestine, especially those who re-
aided in Egypt, and in the other Grecian pro
vinces, had imbibed, at an early period, (doubt
less a considerable time before the coming of

Christ,) many of, the principles of the philoso
phy prevailing in the regions where they re
sided, and had connected, and as it were incor
porated them with their previous opinions, and
with their established religious system. They
first received the principles of the Grecian, and
especially of the Platonic philosophy, as the,n.
taught, into their own belief; and afterward^,
as is common with theologians, endeavoured
to find them in the ancient sacred hooks of their
own nation; and in order to this, they inter
preted many expressions of their sacred books
in accordance with their newfangled notions.
They were encouraged to do this the more,
from the opinion which they entertained, that
Plato had derived many of his ideas from
Moses and other Hebrew writers. These fo
reign learned Jews seem also to have been in
fluenced in their speculations by the principles
of the theory of emanation. This oriental ele
ment may have been introduced in different
ways into the later Jewish philosophy. The
Jews must have become acquainted with this
system during their residence in Chaldaea, where
it appears to have formerly prevailed ; and they
probably brought many of its principles with
them on their return to Judea; and in this way
it may have passed into the system of the later
philosophizing Jews. They must also have re
ceived a large portion of this orientalism, when
they adopted the Platonic, ot rather New Pla
tonic philosophy, since the latter is wholly based
upon the system of emanation. But, from
whatever source derived, this system is found
in the oldest writings of the Cabbalists, — those
of the second century; and from these writings
it is obvious that it was not of recent origin, but
had been received by many learned Jews, before
and at the Christian era. Vide Joh. Fr. Kleuker,
Ueber die Natur und den Ursprung der Emana-
tionslehre bey den Kabbalisten; Riga, 178ft.
8vo. These principles were indeed wholly un
known to most of the Jews who livpd within
the bounds of Palestine during the lifetime of
Christ, and afterwards. They were satisfied
with their Pharisao-rabbinic theology, and look
ed for the Messiah as a religious reformer, and
a temporal king. This was not the case, how
ever, with the Jews who lived beyond the bounds
of Palestine, and who were educated under the
influence of the Grecian philosophy; they for
the most part abandoned the expectation of a
future Messiah, or regarded his kingdom as en
tirely of a moral nature. It is among these v
learned Jews out pf Palestine that the theory of
the Aoyos is found as early as the first century.
They regarded the xbyos as existing before the
creation of the world, and as the instrument
through whom God made all things. They
entertained also the same notions respecting the

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

147

spiritual world and the emanation of spiritual
substances, or aeons, from the divine nature,
&c, as are found among the Platonists pf that
day. And entertaining these views, derived
from the Platonists, they endeavoured to find
them in the Old Testament ; and, as appears from
the example of Philo, carried all their precen-
ceived epinipns, by means ef allegorical inter
pretation, into their ancient books. Philo speaks
often in the Platonic manner of the Aoyos, call
ing him the Son of God, the first-born Son of
God, (in distinction from the world, which was
thfe younger son,) the first servant of God,
Savfspos ©eos, *• *• »¦• The Cabbalists fre
quently speak in their writings of Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit ,- and there are many passages
in the books of Philo in which a kind of trinity
is taught, and in which his Platonic ideas are
clothed in Biblical language. Thus, for exam
ple, in his work "De opificic Mundi," there is
mention pf a snpreme God, and of one begotten
of him, (elsewhere called rtpufofoxos, Aoyos,
vovs, x. t. X.,) who was fullfov ©ei,ov LTvEv^cafos.
Vide Carpzov, Philoniana, p. 157.
4. When now, at a later period, the Christian
doctrine became known to these Grecian Jews,
and was embraced by them, they began to con
nect with it the philosophical notions then pre
valent respecting the invisible world, the gra
dation of spirits, the superior aeon, who was of
divine origin, &c. They affirmed that the Son
of God existed long before the man Jesus, and
that in process of time he united himself with
this man, in order that he might be better able
to benefit men by his instructions, to exert his
influence upon spirits, and to weaken the power
which evil beings exercised to the injury of our
race. They regarded the Holy Spirit as the all-
enlivening and ever-active power, which flows
forth from God, and is equally efficient in the
physical and moral world. These opinions, de
rived partly from Grecian philosophy, and partly
from Jewish and Christian theology, grew gra
dually in favour with the more learned Chris
tians ; they were variously developed and modi
fied by the different parties of the early Chris
tian church; until at length, in the fourth cen
tury, one party obtained ascendancy for its own
peculiar theory and phraseology, to the exclusion
of all the rest.
From the foregoing statements we arrive at
the following conclusion : — viz., (a) It cannot
be denied that many of the ancient heathen phi
losophers (e. g., the Platonists) believed in a
trinity in the divine nature; and that they were
led to entertain that belief by the principles of
the theory of emanation, which they had first
adopted. From this source many learned Jews,
who lived beyond the bounds of Palestine, drew
their opinions— e. g., the Alexandrine Jews,

Philo, and the Cabbalists. These Grecian
Jews did not, however, simply adopt the pure
ideas of Plato, which were variously represented:
even by the New Platonists, but they mixed
and incorporated them with their own national
opinions and their own religious principles, and
thus endeavoured to reconcile Platonism with
the language and doctrines of the Bible. That
a trinity, in this sense, was known and professed
by philosophers and Jews who were not Chris
tians, is admitted. But (ft) the representations
of this subject which are found in the writings
of Plato and his followers, whether pagans or
Jews, by no means agree with the simple repre
sentations of the Trinity contained in the word
of God, nor even with those which prevailed
among Christians throughout the Roman em
pire, after the Nicene Council in the fourth cen
tury. For, according to the Platonists, the
second and third principles belonging to the
Deity were widely distinguished from the su
preme God ; they were produced from him, were
subordinate to him, and altogether less than he ;
though yet, from their derivatien, they were re
garded as belonging to the Divine Being, and
were often, indeed, called God. Such, however,
is not the representation of the Trinity contained
in the Bible, or in the distinctions established at
the Nicene Council. But although the Platonic
trinity differs thus widely from the scriptural
doctrine, and also from the established theory
of the church, it is yet possible that the scho
lastic and technical language in use on this
subject was originally borrowed by Christians
from the Platonic theology.
[Note. — Besides these traces of a trinity in
the godhead found among the Platonists, Alex
andrine Jews, Cabbalists, &c, we may mention
those found among the Indians in their trimurti
(triad), composed of three spirits, Brahma,
Vischnu, and Schiva, produced from the su
preme Deity. For a fuller account of this, cf.
Fr. v. Schlegel, Weisheit der Indier, s. 108;
Heidelberg, 1808, 8vo. J. K. F. Schlegel,
Ueber den Geist der Religiesitat aller Zeiten
und Volker, 2 th. s. 7, f.; Hanever, 1814, 8vo.
Maurice, Indian Antiquities; London, 1796.
In vols. iv. v. the oriental triads are extensively
investigated. The author finds " the holy Tri
nity'''' in all his travels in the East. The
Egyptians also have a trinity, consisting of
Knuph, the eternal, all-pervading soul of the
world, connected with Phtha (original light)
and Neith (Wisdom.) For an account of this,
cf. besides the above-named work Of J. K. F.
Schlegel, 1 th., s. 192, Fr. Kreuzer, Symbolik
und Mythologie der alten Volker, s. 78, f. of
Moser's abridgment. On the genpral subject,
cf. Tholuck, Die speculative Trinitatslehre dei
I neuern Orientalen; Berlin, 1826, 8vo— Tb.]

143

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

SECTION XLII.
HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DUR
ING THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES BEFORE
THE NICENE COUNCIL.
Notice of some of the works which cast light on this
portion of Dogmatic History.
Vol. ii. of the work of Dionysius Petavius,
the Jesuit, — "De Theologicis Dogmatibus,"
Ed. 2, 6 vols. ; Antwerpiae, 1700, fol. — contains
a collection of passages from the early fathers
relating to the doctrine of the Trinity ; but should
be consulted rather for the passages themselves
than for the compiler's exposition of them.
Book ii. of the work of Jo. Forbesius, a Corse,
" Institutiones historico-theologicae;" Amstel.
1645. Both of these writers endeavour to prove
the agreement of the earliest Christian writers
with the compnon orthodox doctrine as esta
blished in the fourth century. But this agree
ment of the ante and post Nicene writers cannot
be proved merely from their having used the
same words and phrases, as has often been very
plausibly contended ; for the earlier writers often
used these words and phrases in an entirely dif
ferent sense from that in which they have been
employed since the fourth century. This re
mark must be kept in mind in forming an esti
mate of those works which were written with
the professed object of proving the entire agree
ment of the doctrine of the Trinity as held by
the earliest Christian fathers and as established
in the fourth century at the council of Nice — e.
g., G. Bull, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, 2 vols. ;
Londini, 1703. Burscher, Scriptorum antiquis-
simorum Doctrina de DeoTriuno et J. Christo;
Lipsias, 1780, 8vo.
The fpllpwing wprks are cemppsed with great
critical accuracy, and with a careful regard to
the peculiarities of the writers of different pe
riods — viz., Dr. Semler, Einleitung in die
Geschichte der christlichen Glaubenslehre, pre
fixed to the three parts of Baumgarten's Po-
lemik ; also his Sammlung uber die Beweisstel-
len in der Dogmatik, th. ii. s. 1 ; Halle, 1768,
8vo. Souverain, Platonisme devoile, 1700 ;
translated into German, under the title, Versuch
liber den Platonismus der Kirchenvater, with
notes and a preface by Loftier, 1782, 8vo; re
published with an additional Essay by Loffler,
Ueber das Entstehen der Dreyeinigkeitslehre
unter den Christen, Zullichau, 1792, 8vo. Cf.
the Review of this work in the Lit. Zeit. Nr.'
295—297, 1793. C. F. Rossler, Lehrbegriff
der christlichen Kirche in den drey ersten
Jahrhunderten; Frankfort am Main, 1775; also
his greater work, Bibliothek der Kirchenvater,
10 thle; Leipzig, 1776—86, 8vo ; in which he
gives extracts from the doctrinal writings of the
ecclesiastical fathers. The works of Meiners

and Oelrichs on Platonism must be noticed here,
though referred to more particularly under an
other division of this section. The new works
of Lange, Muenscher, and Augusti, on dogmatic
history, must also be here cited.
[Note. — The latest and most distinguished
investigators of this difficult portion of dogmatic
history are, Neander, Gieseler, and Schleierma
cher. The first of these, in that portion of his
Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion
und Kirche, devoted to the history of doctrines,
is thought to have given the best history of this
doctrine yet offered to the public. The Kirchen-
Geschichte of Gieseler is principally valuable
for a full and excellent selection of extracts from
the fathers. Schleiermacher has entered upon
an investigation of the opposition between the
Sabellian and Athanasian theories — a sphere of
inquiry which had been nearly overlooked in the
zeal and diligence with which every ramification
of the more urgent and threatening heresy of
Alius had long been examined.
The results to which these writers have come,
while they confirm the general view of the his
tory of this doctrine given by Dr. Knapp, differ,
however, in several important particulars. Some
of these different results the translator had in
tended to introduce as notes, in their appropriate
places, and thus to render this history more
complete, and in some parts more correct. But
he found this undertaking attended with great
inconveniences, and that it would swell this
chapter, already very much extended, to an im
moderate length. He therefore concluded to
publish this history as given by Dr. Knapp, with
only an occasional reference to the authors where
other views may be found, and with here and
there a brief additional statement. It may, how
ever, be hoped that some fruits of the labours of
Neander, Gieseler, and Schleiermacher, will be
reaped ere long by the American public. — Tb..]
I. Doctrine of the Trinity as held by Primitive
Christians.
Christians from the earliest times were re
quired, agreeably to the command of Jesus, to
profess their belief in the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, at the time of their baptism ; and these
names were often used on other occasions, and
were introduced, as appears from the New Tes
tament, as opportunity presented, in all the dis
courses intended for Christian instruction and
edification. It will of course be presumed that
the first teachers of Christianity did not merely
repeat these names before those to whom they
ad ministered the ordinance of baptism ; they must
also have exhibited the ideas to be connected
with these names, and have explained the whole
purport of that profession which was required
What this instruction was we cannot learn ex
actly, since, beside the New Testament, we have

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

149

no credible written recerds pf the first century
containing information on this point. From the
New Testament, however, and from the frag
ments of the oldest symbols, (collected by
Walch in his Bibliotheca symbolica vetus;
Lerngc, 1770, 8vo,) we may be satisfied thus
far, that this instruction was short and simple,
and wholly free from subtle and learned dis
tinctions. The early teachers of Christianity
were satisfied with instructing the people re
specting the works of God (ceconomicis operi-
bus), and in pointing out to them the various
and undeserved benefits for which they were
indebted either to the Father, Son, or Holy Spi
rit, according to the nature of these benefits ;
and they abstained in their instructions from re
fined and scholastic distinctions. This is evi
dent from the writings of the oldest church
fathers, Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertul
lian. Justin the Martyr, for example, says that
Christians bound themselves to believe in the
Father, as the supreme God and the Governor
of the world ; in Jesus, as the Messiah (Xp«rf ds)
and Saviour (tatrjp), who had died for them;
and in the Holy Spirit, who foretold by the pro
phets everything relating to Christ, and who
counsels and guides those who believe in him.
These ancient symbols were gradually enlarged
by various additions intended to oppose the va
rious errors which from time to time arose.
Such, however, as has been represented, was
the simplicity with which this doctrine was at
first taught. And even Origen, in his Books
itspl dp^uu', states the sum of the doctrines for
merly taught to the people to be, the doctrine
of the Father, as creator and preserver ; of the
Son, as the highest ambassador of God, and
himself both God and man; and of the Holy
Spirit, as holding a place beside the Father and
the Son, and entitled to equal honour. As these
primitive Christians were not, as a general
thing, scientifically educated, were wholly un
accustomed to speculate on religious subjects,
and contented with those practical views which
they obtained from their teachers, and which
they found most conducive- to their comfort and
edification ; so their teachers were contented to
present the simple truths of religion without any
minute and philosophical distinctions : and this
was the right course, and they found the advan
tage of pursuing it.
II. Doctrine of the Trinity as held in the Second
and Third Centuries.
Towards the end of the first century, and
during the second, many learned men Came over
both from Judaism and paganism to Christi
anity. At that period the New Platonic philo
sophy was becoming more and more prevalent
in the Grecian provinces, and especially in
Egypt, and indeed had been embraced before

this, in the first century, by many of the learned
Grecian Jews. Vide s. 41 ; and Meiners,
Beitrag zur Geschichte der Denkart der ersten
Jahrhunderte nach Christi Geburt, in einigen
Betrachtungen uber die neuplatonische Philo
sophie ; Leipzig, 1782, 8vo ; and Jo. Jac. Oel-
richs, Comment, de doctrina Platonica de Deo,
&c. ; Marburg, 1788, 8vo — an able and funda
mental work. These learned Jews and pagans
brought over with them into the Christian
schools of theology their Platonic ideas and
phraseology, and they especially borrowed from
the philosophical writings of Philo. And as
they found in the religious dialect of the New
Testament some expressions which apparently
resembled those to which they had been before
accustomed in their philosophical dialect, it was
no difficult matter for them to annex their pre
conceived philosophical notions to the language
of scripture, and thus to carry their whole philo
sophical system into the Bible ; exactly as
Philo had before carried his peculiar system
into the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testament-
Vide s. 41.
But we find that those learned Christians of
the second century confined themselves, in their
philosophizing respecting the Trinity, princi
pally to the Logos; and this was very natural,
since the name Aoyos is applied even in the New
Testament to Christ, and since so much had
been said and writtefh respecting him by the Pla
tonists. These philosophizing Christians con
nected in general the same ideas with the name
Aoyos, as had been done before by Philo and
other Platonists, (vide s. 41 ;) and differed only
in this, that they referred the whole to the person
of Christ, and endeavoured to associate their
philosophical speculations with Christian truth.
Such in general is the fact with respect to the
earliest ecclesiastical fathers — e. g., Justin the
Marty, (Dial. cum. Tryph. Iud. c. 61,) Tatian,
Athenagoras, (in his Apology,) and Tertullian,
(Adv. Praxeas, c. 2, seq.;) the latter of whom
in this respect follows the example of the Gre
cian fathers. On several smaller points these
writers indeed differ from one another ; but in the
following general views, all of which are based
upon the Platonic system, they perfectly agree —
viz., The Logos existed before the creation of
the world; he was begotten, however, by God,
and sent forth from him. By this Logos, the
New Platonists understood the infinite under
standing of God, which they conceived to be,
as it were, j. substance which emanated, with
its functions, from God. They supposed that
it belonged from eternity to his nature as a power,
but that, agreeably to the divine will, (povxtjuat i
©eov, as Justin expresses it, in the passage above
cited,) it began to exist out of the divine nature,
and is therefore different from God its creator
and father, and yet, as begotten of him, is en-
n2

150

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

tirely divine. Hence the Logos is-denominated
by Athenagoras itpaiov yivvnpa, the first-begot
ten; and Justin, in the passage above cited, says,
©eos ysysvvijxsv i§ sovfov o"vva/itv ttva Ao-
y t, x «} v, which was sometimes cal led Soda Kvptov,
sometimes Tibs, gofia, ayyaAos, and sometimes
©eos, Kvptos, and Aoyos. By means of this
Logos they supposed that God at first created,
and now preserves and governs the universe.
The Holy Spirit was more rarely mentioned
by these early fathers, and their views respect
ing him are far less clearly expressed than con
cerning the Son. Most of them, however, agreed
in considering him a substance (the terra used
by Tertullian) emanating from the Father and
the Son, to whom, on this account, divinity
must be ascribed. Tertullian says, Est Spiritus
a Patreper Filium. [Vide Neander, b. i. Abth.
3. s. 1039, ff.]
Respecting these three, the early fathers con
tended that they were one. Athenagoras says,
that with these three there was svagis iv Svudpsi,
but Iv ty td%si biaCpsgis- Origen and Novatian
make exactly the same representation in the
third century. It is obvious, however, that the
unity (svaeis, unites) of which many pf these
philesophical fathers speak is nothing more than
unanimity, agreement, correspondence infeelings,
consent in will, in power, and in the application
of power to particular objects. They do not
mean, by the use of this word, to signify that
the Son and Holy Spirit were God, in the full
meaning of the word, and in the same sense in
which the Father is God. In short, these phi
losophical Christians asserted rather the divine-
ness of the Son and Spirit, and their divine ori
gin, than their equal deity with the Father.
Justin the Martyr expressly declares that the
Son is in God what the understanding (vovs)
is in man, and that the Holy Spirit is that divine
power to act and execute which Plato calls dpstrj.
With thisrepresentation, Theophilus of Antioch,
Clemens of Alexandria, and Origen, substan
tially agree. The name Father is used , according
to them, in relation to all existing things; the
name Aoyos to Aoytxa, and Holy Spirit to moral
perfections. According to Tertullian, the per
sons of the Trinity are gradus, fornix, species
unius Dei. Thus it is obvious that these philo
sophical fathers of the church entertained far
different views of the divinity of the Son and
Spirit, of which they often speak, than we do
at the present time; and this because they were
more influenced by their Platonic ideas than by
the declarations of the holy scriptures.
But when, in after ages, the learned were no
longer familiar with the Platonic ideas by which
these early fathers were influenced, they very
naturally misunderstood their writings, and, de
ceived by some resemblance of phraseology,
ibuted to them that system of belief which

was afterwards established as orthodox. Intc
this mistake, Bull, Burscher, and many others,
have fallen. Various causes conspired to give
the opinions on the subject of the Logos, which
have now been described, an extensive influence
among Christians of a learned and philosophical
cast, during the second and third centuries:
these opinions were advocated by the most dis
tinguished teachers of that period ; and espe
cially they were in entire agreement with the
principles of the Emanation and Platonic phi
losophies, which were then so universally preva
lent. It thus becomes evident that Arianism
existed in the church long before the time of
Arius ; and that he was only the means of bring
ing to a more full development, and to a more
consistent and systematic form, a doctrine which
had arisen in a much earlier period. Indeed,
the belief in the subordination of the Son to the
Father, for which Arianism is the later name,
flowing as it did directly from Platonic prin
ciples, was commonly adopted by most of those
fathers of the second and third centuries who
assented in general to the philosophy of Plato.
And had not Divine Providence interposed in a
special manner, there is reason to think it would
have been the established doctrine of the church.
But there was another class of learned, philo
sophizing Christians, who either rejected the
principles of the Platonic philosophy, or applied
them differently from the orthodox fathers; and
these substituted another theory in place of that
which had prevailed on the subject of the Tri
nity, which however,.no less than the one which
they rejected, was formed rather from their philo
sophical ideas than from the instructions of the
Bible. Among the writers of this class was
Praxeas, of the second century, to the confuta
tion of whose errors Tertullian devoted an en
tire book. Praxeas contended that the Father,
Son, and Spirit were not distinguished from
each other as individual subjects; but that God
was called Father, so far as he was the creator
and governor of the world ; Son (Aoyos) so far
as he had endowed the man Jesus with extra
ordinary powers, and enabled him to teach and
to suffer for the good of the world, &c. In ac
cordance with this view, Theodotus denied any
higher, pre-existing nature in Christ; and with
him Artemon agreed, and in the third century
Noetus and Beryllus of Bostra. They agreed
in rejecting the existence of the Logos, as a
particular subject in God, before the birth of
Jesus; and supposed that what was extraordi
nary in the person of Christ was merely the
divine influence of the Father, (called Son,
Logos, &c.,) which dwelt in Jesus, and acted
through him. But among these opinions, which
arose in opposition to the general doctrine of the
orthodox fathers, the theory of Sabellius, who
flourished in the third century, was the most

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

151

celebrated. Sabellius regarded the terms Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, as merely describing dif
ferent divine works, and various modes of divine
revelation. According to him there is only one
divine person (pin vTiooYacfis), but a threefold
divine work, or three forms (tpia itpogarid), in
which God has revealed himself to men. With
Sabellius agreed, for the most part, Paul of Sa--
mosata, who also flourished in the third century.
He rejected the personal distinction in the god
head, and in opposition to it, contended that the
Son was dfioo-uffto; or gvvovgtos f $ LTofpi — i. e.,
unum idemque cum Patre. It was in this sense
of the word bpoovgtosi as involving the denial of
a personal distinction in the godhead, that it was
condemned by the third council held at Antioch.
In opposition to these theories, the disciples of
the Alexandrine school contended with great
zeal for the i&idviitogtagiv, the proper personality
of the Logos.
[iVofe.— The seceders from the catholic faith
here described were in the early ages commonly
denominated Monarchians, because they insisted
upon the unity of God, which they supposed in
fringed by the common doctrine which placed
three eternal persons in the divine nature. Mo-
narchiam tenemus, they said often, when compar
ing themselves with the orthodox fathers. But
this general class comprehended many who dif
fered more from each other than they did even
from those reputed orthodox, and who indeed
had nothing in common but a great zeal for
monotheism, and a feat lest the unity of God
should be endangered by the hypostases of the
Alexandrine fathers. Without any regard, how
ever, to these essential differences, all who, in
nehalf of the divine unity, in the first centuries,
rejected the doctrine of distinct persons in the
Deity, are here thrown promiscuously together,
as they have commonly been. Arid TheddotuSj
Artemon, and Paul of Sarnosata, are placed by
the side of Praxeas, Noetns, Beryllus of Bos-
tra, and Sabellius, between whom and them
selves, on every essential point of Christian
doctrine, there was a total opposition. They
agreed only in denying that the prophoric Lo
gos, whom they admitted as a power or ma
nifestation of the Deity, existed before his in
carnation as a distinct person ; while with re
gard to the manner .of his being in Christ they
differed as widely as possible. Theodotus and
his followers supposed this divine energy to be
in Christ merely as influence exerted upon him,
in the same way as upoh the ancient prophets,
though in a higher degree. They thus regarded
Christ as a man inspired and commissioned by
God ; and differed but little in opinion respecting
him from the ancient Ebionites, or from modern
Unitarians, Praxeas, on the contrary, and those
of his school, supposed that this divine, though
impersonal energy, or God himself, was in

Christ, in a manner altogether new and peculiar,
not acting upon, but dwelling in and forming
one with him. In Christ, then, they saw a full
and complete representation of the Deity, and
went beyond even the catholic fathers in the
views which they entertained of his divinity ;
so that, in answer to the objections urged against
his doctrines, Praxeas is said to have asked his
opponents, ti xaxbv itoia So$d£av "Xpigtov ; It
was on account of this intimate union, and
almost identity, for which they contended, be
tween Ged and Christ, that they were charged
by their opponents with teaching that the Father
hirhself suffered in the passion of Christ, and
were hence called ^soitaaxltai, patripassiani,
patripassians. There is plainly, therefore, oc
casion for a subdivision among those Who agree
in rejecting the previous hypostatical existence
of the Logos.
In the following table the writers of the three
first centuries on the subject of the Trinity are
ranged according to their opinions.

Catholtc.
1. Justin the Martyr
2. Thcophilus of Antioch
3. Athenagoras
4. Irenaeus
5. Clemens Alexandrinus
6. Tertullian
7. Origen
8. Dionysius Alexandrinus
9. Cyprian
10. Novatian
11. Dionysius Komanus.

Moitaiichians.
(n) Unitarians.
1. Theodotus
2. Artemon
3. Paul of Sarnosata.
(a) Patripassians.
1. Praxsas
2. Ndetu's
3. Beryllus of Bostra
4. Sabellius. Tb.)

III. Terms employed in the Discussion of this Doc
trine during the Second and Third Centuries.
The theologians of this period, in the learned
discussion and the scientific statement of this
doctrine, made use of some peculiar and appro
priate terms, which they found convenient, as
concerted watchwords, to distinguish those of
their owri party from others who differed from
them. Vide Morus, p. 67, 68, s. 12. The
more the prevailing theory was controverted,
the greater was the number of new terms in
vented by the different parties, who laboured to
state their opinions as clearly and distinctly as
possible, and thus to secure their systeih from
contradiction. These new modes of expression
were first employed in the Oriental church, and
were introduced into it from schools of heathen
philosophy ; indeed, they can most of them now
be found in the writings of Plotinus, Porphyry,
Proclus, and other Platonists of that age; and
even those which do not seem to be directly
borrowed from this foreign dialect, are yet ana-
logous to the terms employed by these Platonic
philosophers, and are used in the same sense
and spirit which they give to their terms. This
newly-invented phraseology was afterwards in

152

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

troduced from the Grecian church into the Latin,
by Tertullian, who enlarged it by some terms
of his own. He therefore must be regarded as
the principal author of that ecclesiastical dialect
on the doctrine of the Trinity, (as well as on
the other doctrines,) which was first adopted in
the African church, and afterwards generally
throughout the Latin church, and which has
come down to us improved and extended by his
successors. Among the terms which were em
ployed in the discussion of the doctrine of the
Trinity during the second and third centuries,
the following are the most common — viz. :
1. Tpt'as. This term is among those which
were employed by the Platonic philosophers,
Plotinus, Proclus, &c, who spoke of many tri
ads in the Deity. It was first introduced into
the discussion of the Trinity among Christians,
as far as we can learn, by Theophilus of Anti
och, of the second century ; and was afterwards
often used by Origen in the third century. It
was translated into the Latin by Tertullian, by
the word trinitas; and the phrase trinitatis
unitas, answering to the svagis of Athenagoras,
occurs in'his book, Adver. Praxeam, c. 2, 3, &c.
[Of this word the English trinity is the exact
translation.] It is less correctly rendered in
German by the word Dreyeinigkeit [the usual
term for denoting the Trinity among German
theologians; less accurate, however, than the
word trinity, because it expresses agreement of
affection and will merely, and therefore seems
to lean towards tritheism. It contains the same
implication as would be expressed in the Eng
lish word trianimity, if such a word may be
supposed.] It was at first rendered into German
by the word Dreyfaltigkeit [Anglice, triplicity],
which, however, was opposed by Luther, as fa
vouring the Sabellian view of the divine nature.
Basedow recommends that the word Dreyeinheil
[triunity] be used to denote this doctrine, and
to render the Latin trinitas; And this word, it
must be confessed, would better express the
scriptural doctrine and the theory of the church
at the present day than the term commonly
employed. It is less proper, however, than
Dreyeinigkeit, to express what was intended in
the second and third centuries by the terms
tpias, trinitas, trinitatis unitas, which was not
so much the unity and perfect equality of nature
as simple agreement of will, which is exactly
rendered by the word Dreyeinigkeit. The lat
ter word, on the other hand, taken in its common
and literal acceptation, does not express the
doctrine of the Bible and of the church at the
present day, so well as the term Dreyeinheil
[triunity.] If we wished to designate this
doctrine by a German word as various and com
prehensive in its meaning as the Latin trinitas,
[English, trinity,'] the word Dreyheil would be
the best; but if we wished to express more ex

actly the doctrine of the Bible, and the present
belief of the church, we must prefer the word-
which Basedow, has recommended — viz., Drey
einheil [triunity.']
2. Ovffi'a iitogtagis. These terms were not
sufficiently distinguished from each other, by
the Greek fathers of the second and third cen
turies, and were often used by them as entirejj
synonymous. Tertullian translates ov<jio„by
substantia, and affirms substantia; uniiatem in the
Trinity. By the word vitogt agis the older Greek
fathers understood only a really existing subject,
in opposition to a nonentity, or to a merelyiideal,
existence ; in which sense they also not unfra-
quently used the word oigla. Thus, according
to the Platonists, the Adyoj existed in God even
from eternity, but at first as an impersonal idea,
and became an hypostasis only shortly before the
creation of the world, in order that the world
might be created by him. The New Platonists
employed the word vfyigtdvat, in reference to the
deity in itself, and called their triads iitoetdgitf,
or fa ipustapsva. Vide Proclus, Tim. p. 131,
177. But the meaning of this word has gradu
ally been altered in later times, especially since
the fourth century. Vide s. 43, II. 2.
3. Persona. This word was first employed by
Tertullian, in the passage above cited; and by
it he means, an individual, (subjectum intelli-
gens,) a single being, distinguished from others
by certain peculiar qualities, attributes, and re
lations ; and so he calls Pater, FiUus, Spiritus
Sanctus, ires persome, at the same time that he
ascribes to them unitas substantix, because they
belong to the divine nature (oigla) existing from
eternity. He asserts this in opposition to Prax
eas, who would allow of no distinction between
Father, Son, and Spirit. Among the Greeks,
Origen is the first who used the word iitogtami
in a sense like that which Tertullian connects
with persona ; and he accordingly says, We be
lieve in three vitogtdasis, Ilaf c'pa, Tlbv, xai Hvev-
ua dyiov. ECTION XLIII.
HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY DUR
ING THE FOURTH CENTURY J AND OF THE DIS
TINCTIONS ESTABLISHED AT THE NICENE COUN
CIL, AND SINCE ADOPTED IN THE ORTHODOX
CHURCH.
I. The Trinity, as held in the Fourth Century.
It had already been settled by many councils
held during the third century, and in the sym
hols which they had adopted in opposition to
Sabellius and Paul of Samosata, that the Father
must be regarded as really distinguished from
the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinguished.
from both. But there had been as yet no con
troversy among the learned respecting the mu-

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

153

tual relation of the three persons of the Trinity,
or respecting the question in what the distinction
between them properly consists ; and these sub-
jets were accordingly left as yet undetermined
by the decisions of councils and symbols. Vide
s. 42. The learned men of this period, there
fore, entertained different opinions on these sub
jects, and were at liberty to express themselves
according to their own convictions. At length,
however, one of these opinions prevailed over
the rest, and through the influence of those
fathers by whom it was advocated, and through
the' patronage of the imperial court, was adopted
by the Nicene Council, and authoritatively pre
scribed as* a rule of faith of universal obligation.
Origen and his followers had maintained
against the Sabellians that there were in God
f pf Is vitogtdgEis, (tres personae,) but piav ovgiav,
(una substantia,) which was common to the
three. They had not, however, or at least but
few of them, as yet taught, that these three per
sons were entirely equal to one another ; but, on
the contrary, had allowed, in accordance with
their Platonic principles, that the Son, though
belonging to the divine nature, was yet subor
dinate to the Father. But at length, in the be
ginning of the fourth century, Alexander, Bishop
of Alexandria, and Athanasius, his successor,
attempted to unite the hypotheses of Origen and
Sabellius, thinking that the truth lay between
the two extremes, and that the subordinate per
sons of Origen, or the one undistinguished na
ture of Sabellius, were alike inconsistent with
the representations of the Bible. In forming
his theory, Athanasius exhibited great sagacity
and penetration, and it must be allowed to have
a decided superiority over the partial and un
scriptural theory of Arius. _ He stated the per
sonal distinction of the Father and the Son to
be, that the former was without beginning and
tmbegotten, (dvapxos, dysvvtjtos,) while the latter
was eternally begotten (yEvvntos) by the Father,
and equally eternal with the Father and the
Spirit. The Arian controversy began about the year
320. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, had
taught the doctrine iv tptdSi povdba shai. This
doctrine was disputed by Arius, a presbyter of
Alexandria, who affirmed that it was inconsist
ent with the personal distinction in the Deity,
and therefore favoured the Sabellian theory. As
the controversy proceeded, the breach widened,
and Arius at last distinctly affirmed, in opposi
tion to the Sabellians, that there were not only
three persons in God, but that they were unequal
in glory (bo^ais oix oaotai) ; — that the Father
alone was the supreme God (dyivvvtos), and
God in a higher sense than the Son; — that the
Son derived his divinity from the Father before
the creation of the world, and that he owed his
existence to the divine will (psxrtpat i ©eov itpb
20

Xpovav xai itpb aiavav xtig^sis) ', — and that the
Holy Spirit was likewise divine in a sense in
ferior to that in which the Father is so. These
doctrines were not in reality different from those
entertained by the early Christian fathers, who
had come under the influence of the New Pla
tonic Philosophy. They were, however, carried
out by Arius to all their legitimate consequences,
and stated by him in a more distinct form than
had been done by any who preceded him. [For
a more particular statement of the system of
Arius, from his own writings, vide Hahn, Lehr
buch des christ. Glaubens, s. 242 ; Gieseler,
b. i. s. 334. Cf. Neander, Allg. Gesch. b. ii.
Abth. 2, s. 770.]
It was not long, however, before different
parties arose among the followers of Arius, who
adopted different modes of expression. Some
maintained that the Son is in all respects unlike
the Father, (xata itdvta dwd/uoi;.) [These are
called by different names, descriptive of their
doctrine — viz., dvbpoioi,, Anomoians, also Hete-
rousians ; and also after their leaders, Aetius,
Bishop at Alexandria, 362; Eunomius, Bishop
at Cyzicus, 392; Acacius, Eudoxius, &c.
This party prevailed at a council held av Sir-
mium, 357, and their confession of faith is con
tained in the Formula Synodi Sirmiensis. — Tr.]
Others contended that the Son, though not of
the same, was yet of a similar nature with the
Father, (bfioioigu>s *<? itatpl.) [These were
called bpoiovgidgtai, 'Jiuidpsioi, Semi-Arians,
also Eusebians, from Eusebius, Bishop of Nico-
media, who endeavoured to reconcile the ad
herents of Arius and Athanasius. At first, this
party was outnumbered by the stricter Arians
in the council above mentioned, held at Sir-
mium, 357. But under their leaders, Basilius,
Bishop of Ancyra, and Georgius, Bishop of
Laodicea, they united the year following in a
synod at Ancyra, where they rejected alike the
Arian and Nicene formulas, and anathematized
alike those that held that the Son is dvbiioiov
xat' ovgiav f 9 itatpl, or that he is bfiooigiov i\
tavtoovaiov tip itatpl. — Tr.] All the Arians,
of whatever party, agreed in rejecting the term
buoaigios, because, in their view, it set aside the
personal distinction in the Deity, and made the
Son unum idemque cum Patre. For the same
reason, the orthodox of the third century had
condemned it in Paul of Samosata. Vide s. 42.
But in opposing the Arians, some of the
teachers of this period fell into the opposite ex
treme, and professed a scheme substantially the
same with that of Sabellius. Of this class were
Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, and Photinus,
Bishop of Sirmium. [The former of these was
a zealous advocate of the Nicene formula, and
was probably betrayed by his zeal for the
d/toovsios, unconsciously, into the error of Sa
bellius. Though condemned by the Arians and

154

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Semi- Arians in a council held at Constantinople,
(336,) he was approved by the Council held at
Sardica, and was favourably regarded by Atha
nasius, and generally in the Western church.
Vide Neander, b. ii. Abth. 3, s. 841. Photi-
pus, on the other hand, boldly and deliberately
advocated Sabellianism, and was condemned
not only by the Eusebians^ in the second Coun
cil at Antioch, (343,) but also by the Western
church in the Council at Milan, (346.) The
opposition of the Arians and Semi-Arians
against these men, in the council at Sirmiam,
very much conduced to the union of all anti-
Athanasians. — Tr.]
In opposition to all these, and various other
theories, Athanasius and his adherents contended
with great zeal. Their great object was to find
the true medium between Arianism and Sabel
lianism, and to establish certain formulas in op
position to both. And in this they succeeded ;
and at a general council at Nice, in the year 325,
a symbol was adopted, which was designed to
be thenceforward the only standard of orthodoxy.
[The Nicene symbol is as follows : — " liigt ev-
o,u.eV eis iva ©tdv, Ilof ipa ytavfoxpafopa, itwvtav
bpdtav ts xai abpdtav Itovqtnv. Kat £ts sva
Kvpiov 'lrjgovv Xptfff dv, tbv Tvbv tov ®sov, ysv-
v/j^ivta ix tov LTafpds, uovoysvrj, tovtigtiv, ix
tr\s ovat'as tov TLatpbqZ®sbv ix ©Eov, $ws ex tyatos,
®sbv dxrj&wbv ix ®soi dXr^ivoi, ysvvrj^Evta, ov
itoLrfeivta, bfioovgiov f 9 Ilafpt, 6V ov fa itdvta
iyivEto, ta ts iv 1 9 ovpavq xai fa iv tvj yvj, tbv
81 rjuas tovs dv$paitavs xai Sid tijv qfistspav gatrj-
plwv xatsX^ovta, xai eapxu&Evtn, xai ivav^tpaitrj-
gavta, ita&yvta xai dvagtdvta tvi tpitvj qpipa,
avsX^ovta eis tovs ovpavovs, xai Ipxopsvov xp&yat,
£avtas xai vsxpovs. Kat sis tb dyiov IlvEVua.
Tovs 8e Xsyovtas, of i rpi itots of e ovx fyv, xai itpiv
ysvv^Yjvai ovx rjv, xai of & e| ovx bvtav iysvsto, rj
65 If ipas vrtocrfaffEcos rj ovglas fydgxovtas eIvoi, rj
xtigtbv, tptittbv, rj aXXoiatbv tbv Tlbv tov ©eov,
nva&Euat 1£ei i] xa^oXixrj ixxXnala."] This sym
bol was confirmed at the council held at Con
stantinople in the year 381, under Theodosius
the Great, and so enlarged as to meet certain
heresies which had in the meantime arisen. [A
sect Called itvEvuatoudxoi, Pneumatomachians,
who agreed generally in opinion with the Semi-
Arians, maintained that the Holy Spirit has not
the same relation to the Father which tho Son
has, but derives his existence directly from the
Son. Those of this sect were afterwards called
Macedonians, in honour of Macedonius, who
was deposed from office by the stricter Arians
on account of his adherence to this doctrine.
In opposition to this doctrine it was that the fol
lowing addition was made to the Nicene formula
respecting the Holy Spirit :—niativousv sis tb
dyiov Ilvivua, (to Kiiptov, f 0 fioortoidi/, tb ix
tov Xlatpbs ixitopEvQ/Asvov, tb gvv Jlatpi
xai Xt9 gvpitpogxvvovpsvov xai gvvSo^a^opsvov, to

AaAJjo'aj' Sia tav itpofyntuv-.) Respecting the
clause f d ix toi Hatpbs ixitopsvopsvov, a serious
difference afterwards arose, which ended'aat
length, in the eleventh century, in the entire
division of the Eastern and Western churches
which still subsists. Vide No. III. I. M
Third, of this section.— Tr.]
The distinctions established at the Councils
of Nice and Constantinople were often re-en
acted at various councils during the succeeding
ages. To the Arians, however, and to many
who were not Arians, they still appeared to be
not only unfounded but injurieus. They in»
sisted that tritheism was the inevitable conse
quence nf the admission of these distinctions,
though Athanasius strongly protested against
this conclusion. Some were actually accused
of tritheism during the sixth century, though
they probably were chargeable with no other
fault thah an unguarded use of language. [The
principal writers who fell under suspicion of
tritheism were John Ascosnages, a learned
Syrian, and teacher of philosophy at Constan
tinople, A. D. 565; and his disciple, John Phi-
loponus, a celebrated grammarian of Alexandria,
A. D. 641. Among the schoolmen, Roscellinns,
Gilbert de la Porree, Peter AbellaTd, and Jo
achim of Flora, were condemned on account of
tritheism. — Tr.]
Notwithstanding all opposition, however, the
distinctions adopted in the Council at Nice re
mained in force; and so carefully were they
guarded, that during the whole period between
the fourth and the sixteenth centuries but few
were found bold enough to dissent, or to broach
any novelties; and those few feund scarcely any
adherents. Even the schoolmen, who were so
much addicted to speculate and refine on other
subjects, remained faithful, as a body, to the
distinctions once -established on the subject of
the Trinity.
II. Terms employed in the Discussion of this Doc
trine since the Nicene Council.
1. Ovbio, substantia. This term, like all the
others in common use in the discussion of this
doctrine, is in itself very ambiguous, and was
employed in various senses even by the ecclesi
astical fathers of this period. It was used to
signify (a) whatever really exists, in opposition
to what has no existence, or exists merely in
imagination. Vide s. 42. (6) Whatever exists
for itself has personal self-subsistence, in short, fl
person. Hence some, in opposition to Sabellius,
spake of fpEts overtai iv ©eq. (c) The entire sum
of the attributes which belong to a thing, its na
ture. In this sense it was employed when it
was said that three persons belonged to the
ovuia ©?ov. Hence the phrase djaooveftos, con-
substantialis. 2. "Vitbotagis and itpbgaitov. The former

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

155

of these words gave occasion to much contro
versy on account of its ambiguity, some con
tending for plav vrtdgtagw, others for t psls iito- :
gtdgsis- Before the Nicene Council, as we
have seen, s. 42, vitogtagis and ovgla were em
ployed by the ecclesiastical fathers as synony
mous ; even in the Nicene symbol they appear
as interchangeable words, (iitogt 00*15 ij oigla ;)
and Hierony in us, still later, contended for unam
hypostasin (i. e., ovgiav) in God. But, as we
before said, Origen had previously contended
that there were tpsic vitogtdgsis and pla oigia
in God, making a distinction between these
words. In this he was followed by many
writers ; and at length this distinction which he
had introduced was established by ecclesiastical
authority in opposition to the Arians ; although
many still continued, according to the ancient
custom, to use iitogtagis and oigla one for the
other. In order te pbviate the perplexity thus
occasioned, and to put an end to the strife about
words, many writers in the Greek church be
gan, shortly after the Nicene Council, to use
the word itpogartov instead of. wtdcrfaffts. The
former of these is an exact translation of the
persona, which had been before introduced into
the Latin church by Tertullian. But neither
was this word free from ambiguity ; and it was
objected to by many, because it seemed to fa
vour the theory of Sabellius, who was willing
to admit that in the divine nature there were
three itpbaaita, meaning by the word different
aspects or forms in which God revealed himself
to men. The orthodox, however, employed this
term in the sense in which it had been used by
Tertullian, and afterwards by Augustine and :
others. Vide s. 42. The sense they intended
to convey by it was, that the three subjects
spoken of were truly distinguished from each
other, and acted each for himself, eos esse a se
inmicem sic distinctos, ut singulis sua intelligenlia
et sua actio ttibuenda sit, Morus, p. 67, s. 12.
And that this is a truth taught in the Bible must
be evident to all who impartially examine its
instructions. It was with a particular reference
to the Sabellian theory that this word was
adopted by the fathers. In opposition to this
theory they also sometimes said, the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit were dxxosxai uAAos — i. e.,
different subjects, though not aAAo xai aAAo — i.
e., of different nature, as the Arians affirmed.
3. 'Opoovdws, consubslantialis, Morus, p. 69,
s. 13, No. 2 — one of the most difficult and con
troverted of all the terms employed on this doc
trine. According to the oldest Greek usage it
signifies, what belongs to the same species, or has
the same nature, being, properties, with another
thing. Thus Aristotle says, itdvta fa dcfpa
bfiooiiaia, and Plato says, respecting souls, that
they are upoovauu ^£9. Thus, too, Chrysostom
says, Adam was bpoovgios with Eve, and re

specting Jupiter and Neptune, Homer says,
dptyotipoigiv bpbv ysvos, both were of one race,
born of one father, II. xiii. 354, seq. This terra
had been used by the Sabellians and Paul of
Samosata, in the third century, to signify an en
tire indentity of nature; and when they said the
Son was bpoovsios f 9 itatpl, they meant that he
was unum idemque, so that no personal distinc
tion existed between them. Hence this term
was rejected by the orthodox of that period.
Vide s. 42. But when, in the fourth century,
at the Nicene Council, the Arians too rejected
it, supposing it to mean, what they denied, that
the nature of the Son was the same with that of
the Father; the orthodox then adopted it, ex
pressly guarding, however, against the Sabel
lian misinterpretation. They explained them
selves thus : — The Son was not created (xtig-
§sls, itouj^sls), but eternally generated (y£vvn-
§sls) from the nature of the Father, (oitsia
LTafpds,) and is therefore in all respects equal to
him, and no more different, as to nature, from
God than a human son is from his father, and
so cannot be separated from the Father. In this
way was the term bpooigios defined by the ortho
dox fathers, so as to guard alike against the
Arians and Sabellians. What the relation de
signated by this term is they never positively
explained ; nor could they do so, since we are
unable to form any ideas respecting the internal
connexion in the godhead. All that they meant
to teach by the use of this word was, that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit had the divine na
ture and divine perfections so in common that
one did not possess more and another less;
without asserting, however, that there were
three Gods ; in short, that in the godhead there
were tres distincti, unitate essentix conjuneti.
This is the doctrine contained in the creeds of
the Lutheran church. It admits of a simple
and intelligible explanation, and in the manner
now pointed out may be kept clear from refine
ment and subtlety. Vide Morus, p. 69, 70, s.
13, extr. n. 2. Moreover, it is a doctrine which
is taught in the Bible, as we have seen in chap
ter first of this article.
III. The characteristics by which these persons may
be distinguished from one another.
If these three supposita are really distinguished
from one another, there must be some signs by
which this distinction can be recognised ; and
these signs must be of such a nature as to indi
cate a real personal distinction. In short, we
must be able by these signs to distinguish these
subjects, not merely as different names or attri
butes of God, or as different modes by which he
has revealed himself to men, but as really dis
tinct persons. Now there are two classes of
signs (charaderes personates, sive hypostatic;
yvuplgpata ISiapata g%stixd) by which theol 0-

156

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

gians undertake to distinguish these persons
from one another.
1. Internal, characteres interni. These are
distinctive signs which arise from the internal
relation of the three persons in the godhead to
each other, and which indicate the mode of the
divine existence, (peculiaris subsistendi modus,
tpoitos vitdp%£as.) They are also called proprie-
tates personates. To discover and explain what
is this internal relation which exists in the god
head is indeed a difficult task, since we have no
definite notions respecting the internal nature
of the Divine Being. But rather than pass the
subject in silence, theologians have laid down
the following distinctions, which they derive
from the names Father, Son, and Spirit, and
from some other Biblical phraseology.
(a) The Father generates the Son, and emits
the Holy Spirit, general Filium, spirat Spiritum
Sanctum ; and possesses, therefore, as his per
sonal attributes, generatio acliva and spiratio
activa. By these representations nothing more
is intended than that the divine nature was com
municated from eternity to the Son and Holy
Spirit, and that there is a certain internal, ne
cessary, and eternal relation between the Father,
Son, and Spirit, which, however, we are not able
fully to explain. This personal characteristic
of the Father was called by the early writers
wysvvrjgla, dj-op^ia, paternitas. "ISiov tov LTafpds
dyEj-j/jjfft'a, said Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 31.
" Patris est gf.nerare, non generari." Ac
cordingly, the Father was said to be aVap^os
ayEvvrjtos, aitvsvetos. avfd^fos, itvyrj, altla,fons,
radix, prinepium divinitalis.
(b) The Son is generated by the Father ; Filii
est GENERARI, 71071 GENERARE ; ISlOV fov Tlov ij
ysvvngis, according to Gregory, in the passage
above cited. So that the Son possesses as his
personal attributes, yswrjala, filialio generatio
passiva, and also, as he is supposed to emit the
Spirit in conjunction with the Father, spiratio
activa ,- with regard to the latter characteristic,
however, there was dispute between the Eastern
and Western church, of which we shall shortly
speak. (c) The Holy Spirit neither generates nor is
generated, but proceeds from the Father and Son;
Spiritus Sancti est, nee generare nee generari, sed
procedure ; ISiov tov llvsvudtos ») EXIttptyc,
said Gregory, as above. What he calls txittptys
is called by other Greek writers, itvorj, itpofioXri,
and by Basilius, jtpdodos e'x ©eov.
Respecting these attempts to determine ex
actly in what the internal distinction between
the persons in the godhead consists, we have to
remark, First, that they were wholly unknown to the
oldest writers, both of the Greek and Latin
church, and were first made by the catholic partv
of tike fourth century, when they wished to draw

the line of distinction between themgelves?aiitl
the Arians on the one hand, and the Sabellians
on the other, as finely as possible, as we hare
already seen in No. I. aiii
Secondly. In 'staling these internal persoial
characteristics of the three persons in the gq&
head, theologians have indeed selected terms
which occur iri the Bible, (such as beget, proceed,
&c.,) and would seem to have drawn iheir whole
phraseology on this subject directly from themeS
But even if we should allow that these terms are
always used in the Bible to denote the internal
relation existing between these divine persons^
we should not be at all advanced by them in om
knowledge of what this relation is, since we am
wholly unable to detect that secret meanin»
which lies concealed beneath them, and which
God has not seen fit to reveal. We cannot con
cede, however, that all these terms are used in
the Bible to denote the communication of the
divine nature and the internal relation existing
between the persons of the Trinity; certainly
not, that they are always so used. The terra to
beget, for example, denotes in many passages,
not the communication of the divine nature to the
Son of God, but his appointment to the kingly
office, or the Messiahship. Thus the passage,
Psa. ii. 7, Thou art my Son, this day have I be
gotten tUee, though often cited in the New Tes
tament, is never brought to prove the divine na
ture of the Son of God, but is always supposed
to refer to the confirmation of his Messiahship
by his resurrection from the dead. The same
might be said of many other passages in which
similar phraseology is used. Vide s. 34, No.
4 ; s. 37, ad finem ; and Morus, p. 64, n. 2.
The name Son of God is indeed, in some pas
sages, given to Christ, in designation of his
higher nature, his equality with the Father, and
his internal relation to him ; though even thenit
does not enable us to understand what this re
lation is, which we have reason to think lies
beyond the reach of our knowledge. All the
idea which we are justified in deriving from this
name is, that Christ as truly participates in the
divine nature as the Father, Iga ©£9 LTofpt, just
as, among men, the son as truly participates in
human nature as the father, Iga LTafpi ow^puity.
Again, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the
Father, which is spoken of, John xv. 26, denotes
merely his being sent and commissioned, and by
no means his divine nature and internal relation
to the Father and the Son. Vide s. 39, II. 1 1
and Morns, p. 67, note.
Thirdly. With regard to the Holy Spirit more
particularly, we may remark, that during the
first three centuries of the Christian era there
was nothing decided by ecclesiastical authority
respecting his nature, the characteristics of his
person, or his relation to the Father and the Son.
The learned men of this period, therefore, being

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

157

left unshackled by authority, indulged them
selves freely in philosophizing upon this subject,
and adopted very different theories ; as we find
in the writings of Justin the Martyr, Origen, and
others. Cf. s. 42, Nor was anything more
definite with regard to his nature and his rela
tion to the other persons of the Trinity than what
has already been stated, established by the
council at Nice, or even by that at Constantino
ple. Te believe in the Hely Spirit, fd gvv
LTafpi xai T19 gvuitpogxvvoipsvov, and ix f ov
Ilafpos IxitopEvbasvov, was all that was
required in the symbol there adopted. It was
not leng, hpwever, before dissension arose with
regard to the latter phrase between the Greek
and Latin church. The Greek fathers adhered
for the most part to this formula, without going
into any more minute distinctions ; so Basilius,
Gregory of Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria, and
others ; though Epiphanius added to the formula,
ix tov LTofpos ixitopEvbpEvov, the explanatory
clause, ix tov Tloi xdpfiavov, according to John,
xvi. 15; and John of Damascus, in the eighth
century, represented that the Spirit did not pro
ceed from the Son, but from the Father through
the Son — a representation which had before been
made by Novatian, (Spiritum Sanctum a Patre
per Filium procedere,) and which undoubtedly
was derived from John, xv. 26, 1 will send you
the Comforter from the Father. With this modi
fication the formula adopted by the Council at
Constantinople, and appended to the Nicene
symbol, was retained in the Greek church. But
there were many, especially in the Latin church,
who maintained that the Holy Spirit did not
proceed from the Father only, but also from the
Son. They appealed to John, xvi. 13, and to
the texts where the Holy Spirit is called the
Spirit of Christ — e. g., Rom. viii. 9, seq. To
this doctrine the Greeks were. for the most part
opposed, because they did not find that the Spirit
was ever expressly said in the New Testament
to proceed from the Son. Itprevailed, however,
more and more in the Latin church ; and when,
in the fifth and sixth centuries, the Arians, who
then prevailed very much in Spain, urged it as
an argument against the equality of Christ with
the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeded from
the Father only, and not from the Son, the ca
tholic churches of that region began to hold more
decidedly that the Holy Spirit proceeded from
both, (ab utroque,) and to insert the adjunct Fi-
lioque after Patre in the Symbolum Nicxno-Con-
stantinopolitanum. In this the churches of Spain
were followed, first by those of France, and at a
later period by nearly all the Western churches.
But as the Eastern church still adhered substan
tially to the more ancient formula, it accused the
Western church of falsifying the Nicene sym
bol; and thus at different periods, and especially
>n the seventh and ninth centuries, violent con

troversies arose between them. The true causes
of these unhappy dissensions were, however,
very different from those which were alleged ;
and we have reason to suspect that they were
less animated by zeal for the truth than by the
mutual jealousies of the Roman and Byzantine
bishops. But to whatever cause they are to be
ascribed, these disputes terminated in the ele
venth century in that entire separation of the
Eastern and Western churches which continues
to the present time. Cf. Morus, p. 67, s. 11,
note. Walch, Historia Controversies Graecorum
Latinorumque de processione Spiritus Sancti;
Jenae, 1751, 8vo. Ziegler, Geschichtsentwicke-
lung des Dogma vom heiligen Geist, th.. i.
Num. 2 of his "Theologische Abhandlungen,"
where he gives an historical account of the doc
trine of the Holy Spirit from the time of Justin
the Martyr. Cf. especially s. 204, ff. of this
essay. [Respecting the controversy in the
Eastern and Western church concerning the
Holy Spirit, cf. also Neander, b. ii. Abth. 2, s.
891 ; and Hahn, Lehrbuch, &c, s. 247, s. 57.]
Note. — Since these ecclesiastical terms de cha-
raderibus personalibus internis have now become
common, they cannot be entirely omitted in the
religious instruction of the people. Let the doc
trine, therefore, (according to the advice of
Morus, p. 64, No. 2, and p. 67, Note extr.) be
first expressed plainly and scripturally thus:
The Son is equal to the Father, and has the same
nature with him ; but has this from eternity
through the Father. It may then be remarked,
that this doctrine is briefly expressed by the
words, the Son is generated by the Father. Re
specting the Holy Spirit, let it be said, That he
is equal to the Father and Son, and possesses
the same nature with them ; and it may then be
added, that this is commonly expressed by the
words, he proceeds from the Father and from the
Son. 2. External, characteres exlerni. Morus, p.
68. Note 3. These are characteristics of the
persons of the Trinity arising from the works ol
the Deity relating to objects extrinsic to itself,
and called opera externa, sive, ad extra. They
are twofold :
(a) Opera Dei xconomica, those institutions
which God has founded for the salvation of the
human race. They are the following: — The
Father sent the- Son to redeem men, John, iii.
16, 17. He also gives or sends the Holy Spirit,
John, xiv. 26. The Son is sent from the Father
to accomplish the work of redemption, and sends
the Holy Spirit from the Father, John, xv. 26.
The Holy Spirit formed the human nature of
Christ, Luke, i. 35, and anointed it, (unxit, Acts,
x. 38,) i. e., endowed it with gifts; and is sent
into the hearts of men, and carries them forward
towards moral perfection.
(b) Opera Dei attributiva, such divine works
O

158

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

as are common to the three persons, and are
sometimes predicated of them all; but which
still are frequently ascribed (attributive) to one
of the three. Theologians, therefore, have the
rule, Opera ad extra (attributiva), tribus personis
sunt communia. To the Father is ascribed the
decree to create the world, the actual creation,
and the preservation of it. To the Son also, the
creation, preservation, and government of the
world is ascribed ; also the raising of the dead
and sitting in judgment. To the Holy Spirit is
ascribed the immediate revelation of the divine
will to the prophets, the continuation of the
great work of salvation commenced by Christ,
and the communication and application to men
of the means of grace. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch,
s. 238.] SECTION XLIV.
HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY
SINCE THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION.
If we consider how obscure and full of diffi
culties the doctrine of the Trinity must have
been, as commonly taught after the Nicene
Council, we shall not wonder, that when, in the
sixteenth century, the spirit of inquiry and spe
culation revived in the West, many attempts
should have been made to illustrate and explain
the prevailing theory, to rectify its mistakes, or
wholly to abandon it for another more rational
and scriptural. Many of the writers, whose in
tention it was to explain and vindicate the an
cient theory adopted at the Council of Nice,
unconsciously deviated from it, and thus placed
themselves in the ranksof the heretics. None,
however, of the very numerous attempts which
have been made since the sixteenth century to
illustrate this doctrine, and vindicate it against
the objections of reason, can lay claim to entire
originality. The germ, at least, of many mo
dern hypotheses may be found in the writings
which belong to the period between the second
and fourth centuries; and after all the inquiries
then made, and the theories then published, it
is not probable that much remains to be said.
Nearly all, therefore, of those who have written
on this subject since the Reformation, belong to
some one of the general classes which have been
before mentioned ; though it needs to be re
marked, that those who bear a common name
often belong to very different classes. This
was the case with those who spread from Italy
in such numbers in the sixteenth century, under
the general name of Unitarians.
1. Some have attempted to illustrate and ex
plain this doctrine by philosophy ; and not a few
have gone so far as to think that they could
prove the Trinity a priori, and that reason alone
f-irnishe3 sufficient arguments for its truth ;
th >ugh others of this class have looked to reason

for npthing more than an illustration of this fact
with regard to the divine existence, for the know
ledge of which they believed man indebted'!*
revelation alone. In the latter class we may
place Philip Melancthon, who, in his "Loci
Theologiei," explained the Trinity in the fol
lowing somewhat Platonic manner : — God, from
his infinite understanding, produces thought,
which is the image of himself. Our minds, too,
produce thoughts, which are the images of
things; but we are not able to impart perform
existence to our thoughts; to his thought, how.
exer, God can do this ; and this his thought
bears the impress of the Father, is his likeness
and resemblance, and is hence called by John,
Adyos. This illustration of the Trinity was re-
received without offence or suspicion, until the
heresy which lurks beneath it was detected and
exposed by Flacius. In connexion' with this
illustration, we may mention those drawn from
nature. Many such are found in the writings
of the fathers. Take, for example, that of Au
gustine, drawn from the human soul, which, he
says, is one substance, with three principal pow
ers, memory, understanding, and will; respect
ing which it may be remarked, that it is hard to
see why many other powers might not have been
named as well as these. Vide Semler, Inst. ad
doctrinam Christianam, 305. Or take, as an-
I other example, that illustration of the Trinity
given at an earlier period by Lactantius, who
compares it with light, which unites in itself
fire, splendour, and heat. In all illustrations
of this nature the fault is, that the mere powers
and qualities of things which have no personal
existence are used to represent the subsistence
of a trinity in unity. Hence such illustrations
are more favourable to the theory of Sabellius
than to the doctrine of the Trinity drawn from
the Bible, and established at the Council at Nice.
The latest attempt to explain the Trinity in this
manner may be found in the September number
of the " Berliner Monatschrift," for the year
1790, ». 280, where there is an article entitled,
" Neues Gleichniss von der Dreyeinigkeit,"
written by Schwab, counsellor, and professor
at Stuttgard. Space, he says, cannot be seen,
felt, or recognised by any of our senses, and yet
must be regarded, he thinks, as something sub
stantial. It is, indeed, extended, and still one.
This one substance has, however, three distinct
dimensions, which are not arbitrarily assumed,
and which cannot be considered merely as parti
or accidents of space, but which belong essen
tially to it — viz., length, breadth, and thickness.
Some chemists and theosophists suppose that
there is, throughout the whole kingdom of na
ture, and even in material bodies, a threefold
elementary principle, (as to the nature of which,
however, they are not agreed,) and they refer to
this as an illustration of the Trinity.

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

159

.But, as we have said, there were others who
supposed that the Trinity could not only be
illustrated by reason, but mathematically proved
& priori. Among these were Bartholomew Kec-
kermann, who wrote a " SystemaTheologicura,"
Peter Poiret, and Daries, who published an Es
say, " in qua pluralitas personarum in Deitate e
solis rationis principiis, methodo Mathemati-
corum, demonstratur;" Leovardiae, 1735, 8vo,
The attempt of this kind whioh deserves most
attention is that made by Reusch, a celebrated
theologian and philosopher of Jena, in his " In-
treductio in theologiam revelatam," — an attempt
which was regarded by the late Dr. Gruner as
entirely successful, and was adopted by him
substantially in his " Institutiohes theol. dog-
mat," 1. i. c. 5. This demonstration is very
much as follows: — In the divine understanding
there are three acts : (a) God comprehends in
his understanding the ideas of all things which
can be Conceived, and so far as. he does this he
is called Father; (b) he connects these ideas
as means to an end, and devises all possible
schemes or connexions of things in the possible
world, and so far he is called Son; (c) from all
these possible schemes, he selects, by his infi
nite wisdom, that which is best, and so far is
called Holy Spirit. These acts of the divine
understanding, in each of which there must have
been a special exercise of the divine will, must
be supposed distinct from each other; and yet,
being in God, they cannpt have been successive ;
and, finally, they must be regarded as personal,
or as actus hypostatici, and be designated by
particular personal names. But how this last
consequence follows, it is hard to see ; and where
is the text from which it can be made to appear
that any one of the inspired writers connected
any such ideas with the names Father, Son, and
Spirit? Another metaphysical demonstration
has been proposed by Dr. Cludius, in his inau
gural disputation, Philosophica expositio et de-
fensio dogmatis orthodoxi de.Trinitate; Gottin-
gae, 1788.
2. There have also been some in modern times
who have expressed themselves so boldly on the
subject of the. Trinity that they have seemed to
approximate towards tritheism, like those whom
we have already mentioned in the sixth century.
Vide s. 43, I. ad finem. To pass by those who
have merely been unguarded in the manner in
which they have defended and interpreted the
Athanasian theory , we may mention in this class,
Matthew Gribaldus, a Jurist of Padua, who flou
rished in the sixteenth century, and was for
some time professor at Tubingen. He main
tained that the divine nature consisted of three
equaly eternal spirit?, between whom, however,
he aamitted a distinction in respect to rank and
perfections. [H jnry Nicolai, William Sher
lock, and Pierre Faydit, belong to this class.]

3. Other modern writers have inclined to
adopt the Sabellian theory as the ground of their
views on the Trinity. Among these is Michael
Serveto, or Servetus, a native of Spain in the
sixteenth century, who published his views in
seven hooks, "De trinitatis erroribus," and in
his Dialogues, "DeTrinitate." He taught that
there is one God, who, however, has made known
his will to men in two personates representaUoncs
— i. e., personal, or personified modes of reve
lation, called Aoyos and Hvsvpa oyww. For these
opinions he was brought to the stake by Calvin,
at Geneva, 1553. Vide Mosheim, Leben Ser-
vet's; Helmstadt, 1748, 8vo, republished with
additions at the same place, 1750. The repre
sentation of the Trinity which Grotius gives in
his "Silvae Sacrae" leans towards Sabelli-anism,
and agrees substantially with the theory ad
vanced by Stephen Nye, an Englishman, in his
"Doctrine of the Trinity;" London, 1701.
God, he said, is a being who knew and loved
himself from eternity ; and his understanding is
the Son, and his affection the Holy Spirit. [For
a more full statement of this supposed demon
stration of the Trinity, vide Lessing, Das Chris-
tenthum und die Vernunft; Berlin, 1784, 8vo.
Mich. Sailer, Theorie des weisen ; Spottes,
1781, 8vo. Marheinecke, Grundlehren der
christ. Dogmatik, s. 129, 370, seq.; Berlin,
1819. Leibnitz, Defensio logica Trinitatis.]
In this class we must place the hypothesis of
Le Clerc, who supposes that the terms Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, designate the different
modifications of the divine understanding, and
the plans which God forms. God is called the
Father, so far as his understanding comprehends
all things and surveys them at once ; Son and
Holy Spirit, so far as he produces and executes
a particular thought. Of the same nature is the
view of the Trinity which Dr. Loffler has ap
pended to his translation of Souverain. In God,
he says, according to the New Testament, there
is but one subject; the Logos and Spirit are his
attributes, powers, relations, or modes of opera
tion, and the term, Son of God, so far as it de
notes a personal subject, is applicable only to
the man Jesus. Among the Arminians, and
even among the Puritans of England, there have
always been many who have inclined towards
Sahellianism. [This is the error into which
Weigel and Jacob Boehmen fell, and which has
always proved more seductive than any other to
mystics and pietists, and persons who have
mingled feeling and imagination with philoso
phical investigation. In this divergency from
the established creed of the church, by far a
greater proportion of the modern theologians
and philosophers of Germany are found than in
the Arian heresy, which was formerly so much
more prevalent. They have so explained the
Trinity as to lose the idea of three divine persons

160

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

in the godhead, for which they have substituted
either three distinct powers or attributes,- (as
Meier, Seiler, Cludius, and Tollner,) or a three
fold agency in God — three eternal actions dis
tinct from each other, as S. G. Schlegel, Kant,
Tieftrunk, Daub, Schelling, De Wette, and
Fessler. Among these Sabellian hypotheses,
the one which is less devious from scriptural
truth, and which is defended with the most so
ber argument, is that of Schleiermacher, who
supposes that the established doctrine of the
Trinity is a proposition which connects what
we are taught in the scripture as to the three
fold mode of the divine existence — viz., the
being of God in himself, absolutely considered ;
his being in Christ(the Son,) and his being in
the Christian church (the Spirit.) To this view
Neander appears inclined, from his general re
marks pipfixed to his history of this doctrine,
and also Tholuck, from various passages in his
Commentary on John. For a more full state
ment of these modern Sabellian hypotheses, cf.
Hahn, s. 57, Anm. 3, a. ; and s. 58, Anm.
2, /. ,- Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 68,
82.— Tr.]
4i The Arian theory (which, however, we
have shewn, s. 43, to be in every important re
spect older than Arius) has also found advocates
among protestant theologians, especially those
of the eighteenth century. Some, especially in
England, embraced and zealously defended the
entire system of the high Arians of former times
— e. g., Whiston, Harwood, and even Wetstein.
But the system which has met with the most
approbation is that more refined subordinationism
taught by Sam. Clark, in his " Scripture Doc
trine of the Trinity ;" London, 1712; which was
translated into German, and published with a
preface by Semler, Leipzig, 1774. Vide Morus,
p. 69, s. 15, note 1. It had not a few advocates
among the English, especially of the presbyte-
rian order, and among the Armenian theolo
gians of Holland, as well as among protestants
elsewhere. The names of Whitby, Benson,
and (Priestley?) are found on the list of its de
fenders in England. This theory is as fol
lows : — God is the author of all things. With
him existed from the beginning (so indefinite
is the statement of Clark) the Logos and the
Spirit, both as personal subjects. What their
real internal nature and connexion is cannot
indeed be known, but so much the scrip
ture reveals, that the' Father alone is self-ex
istent ovfoovcuos) and the source and author
of all the works and agency of the Son and
Holy Spirit. How the Son received his be
ing before the creation of the world cannot be
determined; but he has in fact received, com
municated to him from the Father, all the com
municable divine perfections. He is not to be

regarded as himself the creator of the world, but
was employed by the Father as his organ in
this work. Though subordinate to the Father,
he yet claims from us diviae honour. The
Holy Spirit derives his origin from the Father,
is dependent upon the Father and the Son, and
subordinate to them ; he yet has a nature supe
rior to that of angels, and is intermediate, as it
were, between them and the Son. The subor
dination of persons taught in this theory, thougH
subtile, is yet so evident that its advocates are
justly called subordinationists. This mode of
representation is by no means new, and, as we
have shewn, s. 42, 43, was common in the se
cond and third centuries, long before Arius ap
peared. It resulted naturally from the applica
tion of the principles of the Platonic philosophy
to the declarations of the Bible. The hypothe
sis of Paul Rlaty, a Netherlander, in some re
spects resembles this. According to him there
are three persons in the godhead, distinct from
each other. The first is the entire Deity, who
created and governs all things, and is called the
Father. This God, before the creation of the
world, produced two finite beings, with whom
he entered into a most intimate connexion, in
such a way that he with them composes three
persons, somewhat in the same manner as the
divine nature in Christ is connected with the
human. So that the union between the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit may be called a personal
union. According to this theory, the only union
which exists between the persons of the Trinity
is an unio moralis, and the whole representation
is very similar to that which was adopted by
the Council at Antioch, 343. But it wants the
support of scripture, and fails, as much as any
other theory, of shewing any ground or neces
sity for this union of persons. There is nothing
in reality either illustrated or explained by it.
Note. — The real source of the Arian hypothe
sis is the New Platonic philosophy, to which
it can be traced much more directly than to the
holy scriptures. One strong objection to this
theory is, that it presents to view a plurality of
unequal gods, thus encourages the worship of
higher spirits, and so leads on to the most mul
tiform superstition. In this point, as well as
in others, the doctrine of the numerical unity of
the divine nature has greatly the advantage over
Arianism. 5. Still another class of modern sectarians
remains to be mentioned — the Socinians, some
times called Photinians, because they agree in
the main with Photinus, who flourished in the
fourth century, and whose scheme was noticed*
s. 43. The founders of this sect were Loelius
Socinus and his nephew Faustus Socinus, both
of whom flourished in the sixteenth century.
They maintained that the Nicene theory lead*

DIVINE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES.

161

o. tritheism, and on account of the uncommon
purity in which they supposed themselves to
hold the doctrine of the divine unity, called
themselves Unitarians. They brought over con
siderable numbers to their doctrine in Poland
and Transylvania, whom they formed into sepa-
»ate societies ; and since their death their sys
tem has prevailed to some extent both in Eng
land and Germany. The Socinian theory is
briefly as follows : — The Father is the only true
God. Christ is the son of Mary, and a man
like ourselves, though produced by a miracu
lous divine influence. When, therefore, he is
called God, it cannot be in the same sense in
which the Father is so called. He was endow
ed by God with very unusual gifts and qualifi
cations, and after his ascension to heaven was
promoted above all other created beings, and
exalted to divine honour. The Holy Ghost is
not a person, but merely an attribute of God, or
a mode of divine operation. On the question,
whether divine worship should be paid to Christ,
they were not themselves agreed ; and although
most of them answered in the affirmative, it was
not without dissent from others of their number.
With regard to this theory, it may be remarked
that it stands in direct opposition to the most
express declarations of the writers of the New
Testament, and especially of John and Paul,
much of whose writings cannot be recpnciled
with it withcut great violence. Nor is it at all
more capable of being reconciled with sound
philospphy, which rejects at once the idea of a
deified man — a deus factitius.
6. A new theory on the Trinity was proposed
by Dr. Urlsperger, in a number of essays, the
views of which were condensed by himself into
a work entitled, " Kurzgefasstes System seines
Vortrags von Gottes Dreyeinigkeit," published
at Augsburg, where he was then pastor, 1777,
8vo. His theory bears a general resemblance
to that of Marcellus of Ancyra, and, like that,
was condemned by many as favouring Sabel-
lianism. In this, however, they were manifestly
unjust; since his object was to unite the three
principal ancient theories — the Arian, Sabellian,
and Nicene, making the latter the foundation of
his system. He endeavoured to effect this com
bination by making a distinction between tri
nitas essentialis, the internal threefold distinction
necessarily belonging to the divine nature ; and
trinitas ceconomica, the three persons revealed to
us in the work of redemption. But this theory
derives no support from the scriptures. Vide
Revision der deutsch. Lit. lte St. for the year
1776. [Cf. Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s.
474.] Concluding Remarks.
From all that has now been said, the conclu-
21

sion is obvious, that while we are taught by the
scriptures to believe in three equal subjects in the
godhead, who are described as persons, we are still
unable, after all that has been done by theologians
and interpreters, to determine in what manner
pr in what sense these three have the divine na
ture so in common that there is only one God.
Vide s. 33. It must, therefore be unwise for the
religious teacher to enlarge in his public instruc
tions upon those points where the scriptures are
silent; and he will do well to confine himself to
what is clearly taught in the Bible, and has a
practical influence upon the feelings and con
duct; for this doctrine was not given us to em
ploy our understanding in speculating upon it,
but to encourage our hearts by the disclosures
which it makes of the Divine Being, to incite
us to a grateful remembrance of the benefits
which the Father, Son, and Spirit bestow upon
us, and to lead us to avail ourselves of these
benefits. Instead, then, of perplexing his hear
ers with learned speculations, let the minister
of the gospel content himself with teaching the
doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as
represented in the holy scriptures, describing
them as three distinct subjects, designating the
distinction between them by the word person,
shewing that to three, and to one as much as
another, divinity and equal divine perfections
belong, while still there is only one God ; and
especially insisting upon the benefits which
these persons confer upon men, the opera
ad extra which we mentioned in the last sec
tion. As Christians, we should repose our confi
dence in the Father, as the author and giver of
all good, and especially as the author of salva
tion. He bestows this good and these blessings
upon us (a) through the Son, to whom we are
indebted for making known the way of salvation
for the remission of sins, on condition of faith
in his sufferings and death, and for eternal bless
edness; and (b) through the Holy Spirit, who
continues the great work of enlightening and
saving men, which Christ began, and who, in
the use of appointed means, carries us forward
from one stage to another of moral improvement.
If such is the light in which we regard this doc
trine, (and such is the light in which it is pre
sented in the scriptures,) we then yield the
Father, Son, and Spirit the religious worship
required, and receive the favours which they be
stow as divine favours, for which we are indebt
ed to none but God himself. Whatever more
than this it may be necessary for others to know
with regard to this doctrine, the Christian, as
such, needs to know nothing more; he can dis
pense with the learned subtleties with which .
many are chiefly employed. He does not wish
to know this truth, merely for its own sake, but
o2

162

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

for that higher end for which all religious know
ledge should be sought — viz., that he may con
form in feeling and practice to the truth which
is known. When this is the case with Chris

tians, and not till then, the great doctrines of je-
ligion will exert their proper influence upon the
heart and the life. Vide Morus, p. 70, s. 14;
and Griesbach, Praktische Dogmatik,' s. 62.

PART II.-THE WORKS OF GOD.

ARTICLE V.
OF THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.
SECTION XLV.
or the meaning of the word "world," and
OF SYNONYMOUS WORDS.
' HE attentive study and con
templation of the visible
world leads us to the know
ledge of the Divine Being
and of his glorious attri
butes. Paul well says,
Rom. i. 20, that the attri
butes of God, which are in themselves
invisible, are brought within the sight
and cognizance of man since the world
has been created. The Bible accord
ingly earnestly recommends this source
of divine knowledge, (vide Ps. viii. 1; xix.
1 — 6, coll. s. 15 ;) and it should therefore be
ranked among the first and most essential
parts of religious instruction. The practical
import of this doctrine is exhibited by Morus,
p. 74, s. 4, 5. The first of these works of God
is the creation of the world; and to the consi
deration of this we shall now proceed.
Meaning of the word "World," and of other
Synonymous Words.
World, in the strict, philosophical sense,
means everything extrinsic to God — the animate
and inanimate, rational and irrational creation.
Rude and uncultivated nations do not commonly
have any idea of a world; certainly they do not
concern themselves with the question how it
originated, or perhaps believe that only particu
lar parts of it were created. The Caffres have
no idea of a creation ; they believe that the world
always existed, and will always continue as it
is. Vide Le Vaillant, Reise ins Innere Afrika's,
s. 365, translated by Forster, in his " Magazin
von merkwiirdigen neuen Reisebeschreibun-
gen," th. ii. But when the first early inquirers
into nature attained to the principle that every
thing which exists must have a beginning, they
unconsciously fell into the belief that chance or
necessity was the cause of all things. Vide Mei-

! ners, Historia doctrines de vero Deo, p. i. It
was only by slow degrees that they proceeded
to those higher inquiries which are indicated in
s. 46. Their gradual progress in the knowledge
of this subject is strikingly exhibited in the
terms which at different periods they employed
to designate the general notion they had of the
world ; on these terms, therefore, we shall offer
a few remarks.
1. When men first began to reflect upon the
objects which surrounded them, they naturally
divided the whole universe into two great por
tions — viz., the- earth, upon which they dwelt,
and the heavens, which they saw above them.
Accordingly, we find that in most of the ancient
languages the general notion of the universe is
expressed by the simple and original phrase, the
heavens and earth. So we find it frequently
among the Hebrews. Gen. i. 1 ; ii. 1 ; Psalm
cxv. 15. The nations who inhabited the sea-
coasts, and beheld the boundless expanse of the
ocean, frequently divided the universe into three
portions — heaven, earth, and sea. So too the He
brews, Ps. cxlvi. 6 ; Acts, xvii. 24. This was
the most ancient mode of describing the universe
even among the Greeks. Homer conceived of
the universe as divided into these three por
tions — heaven, earth, and sea. Odys. i. 52 — 54,
coll. II. xv.. 189, seq. This ancient phraseology
is the ground of Aristotle's definition of the
world, Kos/m>s igti gvgtnpa i% ovpavov xai yjjSi
xai tav iv f ovf ots itspisxopsvav fyvgsav, De Mun-
do, c. 1.
2. But in process of time other terms were
introduced into the various languages, by which
this idea was expressed more briefly and dis
tinctly. These terms were derived from various
sources ; most of them from certain obvious at
tributes, whether perfections or imperfections,
of the world. The following may be here stated
as those best known ; —
(a) The Hebrews, Chaldaeans, and Syrians
called the world oSip, d<dVs>, to which correspond
the aiav, alavss, of the Grecian Jews. This
term was derived from the duration and age -of
the world. Cf. s. 20, III. No passage, how
ever, occurs in the books written before the Ba
bylonian exile, in which these words are clearly
used in the sense now ascribed to them. In
the earlier books they stand simply for the ideas

WORKS OF GOD.

163

of continuance, duration, age. The word -iSn,
which occurs in Ps. xlix. 2, is of similar origin,
being derived from iSn ; although in this pas
sage it rather means the earth than the world.
Vide Anmerk zu Ps. xvii. 14. The word b?n,
on the contrary, which occurs, Isaiah, xxxviii.
11, in the sense of world, or earth, is of exactly
an opposite origin, the mutability and perishable-
ness of the world being the foundation of this
appellation, although some consider the reading
incorrect, and wish to substitute -iSn. Corres
ponding with the former appellation of the
world, taken from its long duration, is the Ger
man word Welt, or, as it is always written in
the old books, Werelt, and in the Danish Werel,
which is derived from the word wdhren, to con
tinue, endure ; though, according to others, it is
abbreviated from Werld, and so derived from
werlen, to revolve, turn round, the earth being
considered as an oval surface. On the latter
supposition this term would resemble the Latin
orbis terrarum, and the English world.
(b) From the beautiful and wonderful order
and arrangement of all parts of the world, the
Greeks called it d xogpqs, and the Latins, mun-
dus, which is a mere translation of the Greek
xbgpos. This term, however, does not occur in
Homer ; nor indeed is the notion of world ever
expressed by a single word either in Homer or
Moses. The word xbgpos was employed by the
oldest Grecian writers, to denote merely the
starry firmament, from its beauty and splendour.
And in a similar limitation the word mundus
was frequently used by Lucretius and other
Latin poets, and even by Seneca. Afterwards
the Sophists — i. e., the learned, or the philoso
phers, began to apply this word to the whole
universe, as was the case with Socrates as cited
by Xenophon. When, therefore, Xenophon
employs the term in this sense, he is careful to
say, d vitb tav gotylgtav xaXoiusvos xosftos. After
his time it gradually passed in this sense into
the language of common life. Pythagoras is
usually esteemed the first who employed the
term xogpos to denote the whole universe. Cf.
Scr. var. arg. p. 532, seq. This word was
afterwards used in various other significations
which occur in the writings of the Grecian Jews,
and in the New Testament. Among these is
the sense of the earth, olxovpsvr/, San; and also of
particular provinces of it — a meaning which be
longs te the werds just mentioned, and to the
Latin orbis terrarum. THagpos was also used in
the sense of the world of men, the whole human
race, and then, the wicked as a whole, the heathen.
By Christian writers it was sometimes used to
denote the Jewish world. Finally, xbgpos was
used to denote visible, perishable, earthly things
and possessions, (res terrenx, externx, ad corpus
perlinentes,) in opposition to things invisible,
heavenly, and divine.

(«) Metaphorical appellations of the world,
like those of the Greeks and Latins, occur also
among the Jews. The Hebrews called the stars
the host, kxs, host of heaven, host of God, Judges.
v. 20. But afterwards they called all created
things the host of God, which they represented
as standing in his service and accomplishing his
will, Ps. ciii. 21, coll. ver. 20, 22 ; also Gen. ii.
1 . The heavens and the earth, and all the host of
them, dsox hin. Hence the supreme God is call
ed nwas rum, Lord of hosts — i. e., of the world.
Cf. s. 17. This term resembles the xbguas of
the Greeks, in that it was originally applied to
the heavens only, and afterwards so extended
in its signification as to embrace all created ob
jects. (d) After the belief in spirits and demons be
came common among the Israelites, the phrase
fa dpaf a xai adpat a was employed to designate
the sum of created objects, and occurs in this
sense, Col. i. 16.
The Greek term, fd itdv (universum), is the
appropriate philosophical appellation of the
world, and does not occur in the New Testa
ment, except indeed in the plural, fa itdvta.
SECTION XLVI.
WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE SPEAK OF THE CREA
TION OF THE WORLD i THE PROOF OF A CREA
TION ; THE MATERIAL FROM WHICH IT WAS
MADE ; WITH A SKETCH OF THE VARIOUS OPI
NIONS ENTERTAINED ON THIS SUBJECT.
I. Definition and Proof 'of 'the Creation of the World.
By creation we understand that act of God by
which he gave existence to the world, or to things
exterior to himself; or, as it is commonly ex
pressed, by which he made the world out of no
thing ; which last definition will be considered
at length in No. II. The proof of the position
that the world derives its ' existence from God,
is made out from reason, by the very same argu
ments by which we prove from nature that there
is a God; respecting whioh, vide s. 15. For
from the very reason that the world could not
produce itself, we cenclude that there must be a
God who produced it. Vide ubi supra. We
proceed, therefore, to the more important inquiry
respecting —
II. TAe Material from which the World was formed,
and the Various Opinions entertained upon this
subject. I. Philosophers have always allowed the ex
istence of a first material, since otherwise they
would be compelled to admit a progressio caus-
sarum in infinitum, which is not supposable.
But, 2. The ancients found great difficulty in ex
plaining the origin of this first material. The

164

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Grecian philosophers and other ancient writers
insisted upon the principle, ex nihilo nihil fit;
and could not admit, therefore, that it was even
possible for God to create the world out of no
thing. Accordingly, they believed almost uni
versally in two eternal, original principles — viz.,
God, and self-existent matter, neither of which is
the ground of the other. The former they sup
posed to be a rational and thinking principle,
and the author of all good ; the other, irrational
and unintelligent, and the author of all evil.
As to the question, how the world arose from
this pre-existing matter, the opinions of the an
cients were very various. Plato taught, that
God, of his own will, united himself with matter,
and produced the world from it; so that he could
say that the world was not eternal and uncre
ated, although matter might be so. Aristotle,
the peripatetic, and Zeno, the stoic, taught that
this union of God with the world was necessary ,-
and accordingly they affirmed the eternity of the
world, (Cic. Qu. Acad. iv. 38,) although they
differed from one another in explaining the man
ner of this connexion. Epicurus separated God
entirely from the world, and taught that matter
consists of innumerable small atoms, which from
eternity had floated about, like dust on the water
or in the air, until at last they assumed the form
of the present world. This ancient opinion of
the eternity of matter found an advocate in mo
dern times in Bayle, who was of opinion that it
resulted necessarily from the principle, which
cannot be disputed, ex nihilo nihil fit. But as
we have before shewn, s. 15, IL, the doctrine,
that matter is eternal and necessary, is the foun
dation of a theoretical atheism.
If we follow the principles of philosophy in
its present improved state, or rather, if we fol
low the Bible, to which alone our modern phi
losophy is indebted, for its improvement, we
shall be unable to admit the validity of the
maxim ex nihilo nihil fit, in opposition to the
doctrine of creation from nothing. This maxim
is indeed incontrovertibly true when applied to
the causa materialis ; for there must be in every
case a ground — a prima materia — from which
whatever exists proceeds. But it is not true if
understood of the causa efficiens, to which omni
potence is ascribed. Consequently, if nur theery
respecting God and his attributes is well esta
blished, this principle applied to him as the effi
cient cause must be regarded as false; foT if God
is omnipotent, he can of course from nothing
produce something, or bring into existence what
did not exist before. If he could not do this, he
would not be omnipotent. Moreover, if it is true
that matter is not necessary, (vide s. 15,) it can
not exist of itself, but must derive its existence
from God, or depend upon God, who at first cre
ated it out of nothing.
The greatest philosophers of antiquity appear

therefore to have stopped short of the truth, and
to have been inconsistent, when they worshipped
God as the creator of the world, indeed, but not
of matter. They admitted merely a creatio me-
diata, ex prxexistente materia, and not imme-
diata — i. e., they did not believe in the produc-
'tion of matter itself from nothing. God, with
them, was merely the builder, and not the cre
ator, of the world.
The ancient Greeks, as we perceive, reasoned
upon this subject from principles entirely dif
ferent from those which we at present adopt;
and not one of them ever advanced to the dis
tinct conception of a creation from nothing. It
is no valid objection, however, against the posi
tion that God made matter from nothing, that
we cannot conceive how what is possible should
become rea/, through the mere will of God; for
this is a matter of which we have never had any
experience ; and yet experience assures us of the
reality of many events, the manner of whose
occurrence is incomprehensible to the human
understanding. How much less, then, are we
capable of judging respecting things of which
we have had and can have no experience!
The truth, that everything which exists was
created by God from nothing, is the iini&rm
doctrine of the Bible — of the old Jewish pro
phets, and of the Christian teachers. In respect
to this important doctrine of religion they were
far in advance of the other cultivated nations of
antiquity, though confessedly behind theni in
general intellectual improvement. This sublime
truth, which appears to us so simple, since we
have been taught it, was unknown to the an
cient philosophers, long after it had been taught
by the writers of the neglected Jewish scrip
tures ; and indeed it is from these that our mo
dern philosophers have derived, however un
willingly, all their better views on this subject.
To the sacred writers we owe the doctrine that
God gave existence to what was not. They do
not, indeed, dwell so much on the theoretical
ground of this truth as notice its practical con
sequences; they were, however, the first who
established the position itself. Philosophers
have only reinvestigated the doctrine which
they established, and developed the reasons of
the truth which they taught.
But it may be asked — Is then the doctrine k
creatione ex nihilo really so important? is it not
rather a doctrine interesting only to speculative
philosophers? To these questions we must
answer, that this doctrine is, on the contrary,
one of great practical importance, which is the
reason why the holy scriptures so frequently
and urgently inculcate it. For (a) if matter
was created by God from nothing, it follows
that he must fully understand it in all its parts;
he must have wisely assigned to everything
its definite position in space, and have pre-

WORKS OF GOD.

163

serveu it as he originally created it. But in
case he were not the creator, but only the
former of the world, according to the opinion
of the ancients, it would then be necessary
for him to acquaint himself with this mat
ter, which he himself had not produced, and
which was foreign to his own nature. But we
may confidently affirm, that he never would have
become acquainted with matter if he had not
himself made it, (as even' Malebranche con
cludes;) because he derives all his knowledge
from himself alone, and nothing exterior to him
self can either add to his information, or in any
way exert an influenee upon him. (6) A mere
builder may leave his building, when it is once
completed, and concern himself no further about
it, except perhaps in certain extraordinary cases.
And considering that almost all of the philoso
phers and religious teachers of the heathen world
proceeded upon the notion that God was the
former only, or builder of the world, and not its
creator, it is not strange that their ideas of Pro
vidence were no more pure and consonant to the
divine nature. They generally believed, either
that God concerned himself not at all with the
world, or, at least, that his providence did not
extend to small and minute affairs. When once
Phaeton had misguided the chariot of the sun,
Jupiter indeed found it necessary to see whether
the firmament had been shattered ; but except in
such extraordinary cases, he remained uncon
cerned with the affairs of the world, and every
thing here below was supposed to be left to go
on, like a clock, when it has been once wound
up. Thus it appears, that the belief that the world
was created from nothing has an important in
fluence on the doctrine concerning providence,
and so is of great practical consequence. This
belief alone excites in us ideas of providence
which do honour to God, and are consonant with
his character. If God is the creator of the world,
we may be sure that he not only understands
and provides for the whole, but that his know
ledge and providence extend to every particular
part of the universe, though ever so small. The
schoolmen, with entire truth, called the pre
servation of the world a continued creation. And
the Bible frequently argues from the fact that
God created all things in the universe, that he
must be perfectly acquainted with them, and that
they depend for their preservation solely upon
his will. Vide Psa. xciv. 8 — 1 1 ; cxxxix. Cf.
Kastner, Ueber die Lehre der Schopfung aus
Niehts, und deren praktische Wichtigkeit;
Gottingen, 1770, 4to. Heydenreich, Progr.
Num ratio humana sua vi, et sponte contingere
possit notionem creationis ex nihilo? Lips. 1790.
He shews that this is the only reasonable opi
nion respecting the origin of the world. [Re
specting the- practical importance of this doc
trine, cf. also, Neander, Allgem. Gesch. der

Christ. Rel., b. i. abth. 3, s. 974. Also Hahn,
Lehrbuch, s. 271.]
Note. — The phrase itself, to create from no
thing, does not occur in the canonical books of
the Bible, although the idea is scriptural. The
phrase is taken from 2 Mace. vii. 28; in the
Vulgate, ex nihilo fecit Deus cmlum et terram, in
the Greek, it ovx bvtav. The phrase fa py
qawbpsva, which occurs, Heb. xi. 3, is of the
same import. Morus (p. 72) and some others
have rejected the phrase, creation from nothing,
because it seems to imply that nothing is the
material from which the world was made. But
this subtilty is unnecessary, since the same lan
guage is used in other cases, and is never mis
understood. When we say, for example, there
is nothing in the chest, there is nobody there, we
do not mean to imply that there is in the first
case a material substance, and, in the second,
a person existing in the places intended.
III. The Nature of the First Material.
The idea of chaos resulted very naturally from
the opinion of the ancient Greeks that matter is
eternal and uncreated, and that God merely ar
ranged and combined the materials which he, as
the great architect, found furnished for his use.
The word a;ads is derived by some from j;dio,
hio, vacuus sum ,- by others from x^a,fundo, be
cause they imagine chaos to be something mov
able and fluid. The corresponding Latin word is
silva, which denotes what is confused, unar-
ranged, and then, unorganized material from
which anything is made ; as, silva rerum, sen
tentiarum, Cicero; silva medicinx, Pliny. The
Greek word which is used by Plato and other
philosophers is, vXrj, which signifies both silva
and materia. The ancients imagined that these
primordid— the unorganized elements of things
— were of the nature of a thin air, or a subtle
ether, fluid and movable, without order or con
nexion, rudis indigestaque moles. Vide Ovid,
Met. i. 7, seq. But the whole conception of
chaos is rather poetical than philosophical — the
progeny of fancy, and not of reason. The phi
losopher can see no satisfactory reason for be
lieving that disorder must have preceded the
present system. The poet, however, fancies a
state before the world was formed, like that
which would appear if all the objects of the pre
sent world were torn to pieces, dissolved, and
thrown together ; and this state he calls chaos,
and supposes that there the elements of things
conflicted with one another, until the Deity at
length interposed to end the strife. The Greeks
now supposed that the universe proceeded from
this state, as from a fluid and fermenting mass ;
the Hebrews, on the contrary, represented the
origin of the world under the image of a build
ing, of the materials of which, as well as of the
structure itself, God was the author. Cf. the

106

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Essay of Paulus, Das ChaoS eine Dichtung,
nicht ein Gesetz fur physische Kosmologie
(Kosmogenie ?), in his " Memorabilien," No.
III. Stuck 4; Leipzig, 1793, 8vo. Some have
thought they perceived a description of chaos in
the w'ai inn of the Mosaic account of the crea
tion, Gen. i. 2. But Moses says this merely of
the earth. After God had created the universe,
(the heavens and the earth,) the earth was still
waste, empty, and unfinished. There is nothing
in the Mosaic account to justify the idea of the
Grecian chaos, in which everything in the uni
verse lay together in a promiscuous and disor
derly mass, of which God was no more the cre
ator than the architect is of the pile of stones
from which he forms his edifice.
The history of the opinions of ancient and
modern philosophers respecting the nature of the
first material of the universe belongs appropri
ately to the history of philosophy. The follow
ing remarks must suffice for this place.
We cannot form any distinct notion of the ele
ments, and of the primitive, essential, and con
stituent parts of the bodies which now exist,
since our senses are not adapted to take cog
nizance of them. That such elements actually
exist, however, there is no doubt; and that each
of these particles has properties which distin
guish it from every other — its peculiar use, size,
shape, &o. — is equally clear ; for otherwise there
could be no distinction, variety, or alteration
in the world. Pythagoras proceeded on this
ground, when he taught that the povds was the
origin and ground of all things. For as num
bers consist of their units, as constituent parts,
so he supposed the world was composed of many
such units or monades. This thought led Leib
nitz to his theory of monades. According to
this theory, these monades are what God ori
ginally produced from nothing; and all the va
riety of things, the world itself, has arisen from
their original difference, and their various com
binations. This theory, therefore, clearly in
volves the doctrine of a Creation from nothing.
But what is the nature, and what are the quali
ties of these first productions of creative power,
we cannot know, because our senses do notreach
so far. And when the atomic system, or mona-
dology, is extended to inquiries like these, it
becomes, as Kant has well shewn, merely hy
pothetical, and without any practical interest.
The science which has for its object the powers
and forces which act in the world — dynamics, as
it is called—is more important to us than the
science which, relates merely to the minute
atoms or particles of which bodies are composed,
Whether they are called monades or any other
name. In this whole Subject we must guard against
the supposition of any successive acts in God ;
as if he had first created the materials, and then

formed them by degrees into the bodies which
constitute the universe, proceeding in his work
step by step, like a human artist. Vide s. 28,
respecting the immutability of God. In God,
thought and execution are one and the same act.
He speaks, and it is done, Ps. xxxiii. 9. He says,
Let there be light, and there is light, Gen. i. 3.
Nor is any alteration produced in God by the
creation of the world. He designed from eter
nity that the world should exist at a certain time.
Morus expresses this differently, p. 72, s. 2.
Cf. on this particular point, and on the general
subject, Ziegler, Kritik fiber den Artikel von
der Schopfung, nach unserer gewohnlichen
Dogmatik, in Henke's " Magazin fur Religions-
philosophie," b. ii. st. 1, Abhandl. 1.
SECTION XLVII.
THE DOCTRINE AND LANGUAGE OF THE BIBL1CA1
WRITERS RESPECTING THE CREATION IN GEKE-
RAL, AND HOW THEY ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
I. Respeding the Eternity of Matter.
The holy scriptures constantly describe God
as the author and creator of the world ; not mere
ly of the form which it now has, as the ancient
philosophers supposed, but of the materials
themselves from which it is formed. With this
fundamental principle Moses begins his geo-
gony, Gen. i. 1. We find this mentioned as the
principal characteristic of the true God, through
out the Bible ; Is. xlii. 5 ; Ps. cxv. 3, seq. ; Acts,
Xvii. 24; and the other passages cited s. 14, ad
finem, and Morus, p. 72, s. 2, note 1. It may
be considered as an established point, that tht
eternity of the world is nowhere affirmed in the
Bible. Vide Ps. xc. 2 ; cii. 26, coll. s. 20.
But notwithstanding this, there have always
been philosophers and theologians, even among
Christians, who have advocated the eternity of
the world, or at least of matter. The Platonists
among the first Christians very naturally fol
lowed Plato, who believed in the eternity of
matter, though not of the world. Vide s. 46.
Thus Justin the Martyr affirmed, that God
formed the worid from an eternal, misshapen,
unorganized material, Apol. i. 39; though in
other parts of his writings he appears to derive
matter originally from God as its author, and
thus to differ from Plato.
The schoolmen, who followed Aristotle, and
wished to defend his opinion respecting the eter
nity of the world (s. 46), taught that we might
say, God had created the world from eternity**
a statement in whioh its dependence upon God
would be vindicated at the same time that its
eternity was maintained. This opinion was
expressed by Boethius as early as the fifth and
beginning of the sixth century. Others, how
ever, only wished that the possibility of this sup-

WORKS OF GOD.

167

position should be granted. The schoolmen
made this distinction : — Deus est aternus ;
mundus est ab jeterno, sc. productus a Deo.
For God, they said, had the power to act from
eternity, and we can see no reason why he
should not have exerted this power.
Some protestant theologians of modern times
have also asserted the possibility of the eternity
of the world. Some have theught it tu be a con
tradiction to speak of an eternal God who is not
an eternal creator. Even Wolf, in his metaphy
sics, affirmed that it could not be shewn from
philosophy that the world and the human race
have had a beginning. But even if the world
had been produced from eternity by God, it
would not therefore be eternal in the same sense
as God is. It would only have existed through
infinite time, while God is anterior to, and inde
pendent of time. It would perhaps be better to
say, that eternity (a parte ante) is a necessary
attribute of God, but not of the world : the world
is eternal because God willed its existence from
the first ; and not from an internal necessity of
its existence, as there is of the existence of God.
The followers of Wolf, Ribbow, and others,
held the same opinion. Others contend, that
this opinion does violence to the laws of the
human understanding. If the word eternity is
understood in the proper sense, in which it ex
cludes time (s. 20), it is hard to see how it can
be said, with propriety, that the world was Cre
ated by God from eternity. For as soon as we
suppose that the world was created, we neces
sarily admit that it had a beginning; and if it
had a beginning, it exists in time ; and time ex
cludes eternity. We may imagine, if we please,
an eternal series of created things ; but such a
series can have no real existence ; for a series
consisting of. things which have a beginning
cannot be without a beginning.
But the reason why we never obtain satisfac
tion, after all our philosophizing, upon this sub
ject, and why we find so many difficulties attend
ing any suppositipn we may make respecting
the eternity ef the wprld, is this, that the whole
subject far transcends our limited capacities. The
forms of time and space, which are inherent in
our mental constitution, so limit our minds that
we cannot conceive of anything as existing
without them. Vide s. 20, 1. Time takes its
origin from the succession of one thing after
another. It is a notion of finite beings, who can
think of only one thing at a time, in whom,
therefore, one idea must succeed another ; and
is not a quality of external objects. Vide Io.
Ernesti Schubert, Diss, de impossibilitate mun
di seterni ; Jense, 1741. Kant, Kritik der reinen
Vernunft. When Augustine was asked the
question what God had done before the creation
of the world ? he replied, Nescio, quod nescio.

The simple doctrine of the Bible is, that God
had an eternal purpose to make the world ; it
does not teach us that he did create it from eter
nity ; but rather the contrary. Vide the texts
cited in Morus, p. 72, s. 2, Note 1.
II. Respecting Creation from Nothing.
1. The importance of the doctrine of creation
from nothing, its philosophical proof, its scrip
tural ground, &c, have been already exhibited,
s. 46. It only rernains to cite the most import
ant texts relating to this subject. But before
proceeding to do this, it is important to repeat
the remark, that the Bible makes no mention of
a chaos, in the sense of the Grecian fabulists
and philosophers. Moses, in his first book, and
the other sacred writers, always exhibit the
simple, great idea, that God by his mere will
brought into existence the world, which did not
before exist — i. e., in other words, that he cre
ated it from nothing ; that he willed that what
was not should be, and it was ; Morus, p. 72.
So Paul says, Heb. xi. 3, By faith in God (i. e.,
his declaration, assurance in the scriptures) we
are certain that the world (aiavas) was created
(xat*iptlg$ai, J13), by the decree or will Qir\jiati)
of God; so that what we see (fauvopEva and |3Ae-
itousva, what appears or exists,) was made out
of nothing, (fa pr) fyawousva.) The phrase fa
prj fyawousva is here synonymous with fa ovx
bvta, which occurs in 2 Mace. vii. 28, God made
heaven and earth, 1% ovx bvtav. Here too the
text, Rom. iv. 17, is cited: Abraham trusted in
God tov <£aoitoiovvtos tovs vsxpovs xai x a X o v v-
tos (creantis) fa ur[ bvta ws bvta. The phrase
ology in this text is, indeed, derived from that
used to describe the creation from nothing; but
it is here figuratively applied to the numerous
posterity of Abraham, which did not yet exist,
and of which there was no probability; but
which was afterwards brought into being. The
word xaxslv here answers to the word tt\>, Isa.
xii. 4 ; xliv. 7, and signifies creare, produeere.
So Philo says, fa urj bvta Ixdxsgsv eis to slvai.
Vide Carpzov on Heb. xi. 3. The doctrine that
God made the world from nothing, is also im
plied, where it is said that he created the world
by his word, his decree, or by the breath which
proceeded out of his mouth. Vide Ps. xxxiii.
6, 9. Gen. i. " He spake, and it was done,"
&c. Cf. s. 34, No. 5. It is said in Rev. iv. 11,
gv sxtigas itdvta, xai Sid tb §EXi)ud (lliro,
Daniel, viii. 4; xi. 3, 16) aov eiBi.', "Thou hast
made all things, and they depend for existence
upon thy will."
2. Nothing can be determined from the Bible
respecting the particular manner in which God,
by his mere will, created the world from no
thing; and we are unable even to form any con
ception of the subject, as we have nothing ana-

168

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

logous to wmch we can compare it. The New
Testament usually ascribes the work of creation
to the Father ,- and God is called Fatlier, (flat »)p
itdvtav,) so far as he is creator and preserver of
all things. Theologians say, Creatio est opus
Dei ad extra, quod Patri adscribitur appropria-
tive sive terminative, Morus, p. 72, note 1.
But creation is also ascribed to the Son, or to
the Adyos (vide s. 38, 1. 2) ; as John, i. 3, Itdvta
Si avfov (Aoyou, ver. 1, 2) iyivsto, x. t. X. ; and
again, in ver. 10, d xog/ios dV avfov Iyivsto. It
is the object of this passage to describe the rela
tion of the Logos to the world and created things.
The particle Sla with the genitive frequently, in
deed, denotes merely the causa instrumentalis ;
(so Luke, i. 70;) but it also denotes the causa
efficiens; as Rom. i. 5, and 1 Cor. i. 9, (©eos, fit'
oJ ixXr^jtE,) and Hebrews, ii. 10, (©eos Si ov
fa itdvta.) That it is used in this sense here
may be shewn from the analogy of other pas
sages — e. g., Col. i. 15 — 17, and Heb. ii., where
it is expressly said that everything in the uni
verse was created by the Son. Cf. the texts
cited in s. 38. But some theologians have en
deavoured to explain all these passages as figu
rative, and as exhibiting a mere personification
of the divine understanding, and of its plan exe
cuted in the creation; somewhat as Wisdom is
said in Prov. viii. to have assisted God in the
creation, and to have been the instrument by
which he made the world. Vide s. 37, and s.
41, II. This interpretation is embraced by those
who favour the Sabellian theory; but certainly
it is not scriptural. The most just, scriptural,
and at the same time simple view, is perhaps
the following. Since the New Testament
makes the Son of God equal (Iga) with the Fa
ther, it designs to teach in all texts of this kind
that he stands in the very same relation to the
world, and to all created objects, as the Father
does, and that whatever is said of the Father is
true also of the Son. Hence theologians have
the canon, Opera Dei ad extra (attributiva) sunt
tribus personis communia ; intending thereby to
intimate their equality with one another. Vide
s. 43, ad finem. Those who are inclined to
Arianism have often referred, in behalf of their
hypothesis, to Heb. i. 2, where it is said, " God
appointed his Son Lord (xXnpovbfiov) over all,
St' ov xai fois aiavas iitolrjgsv : the meaning of
which they suppose to be summed up, and ex
pressed in ver. 3, " He (the Son) upholds all
things (ipspav ta itdvta) by his power, (pr/uati
Swd/tsas.)" The phrase, the Father created
the world through the Son, occurs onlv this once
in the New Testament, for which reason Dr.
Griesbach advises to alter the reading, and to
substitute Sibti xai for Si' ov xai, Progr. De
mundo a Deo Patre condito per Filium ; Jenae,
1781, But no sufficient reason can be given for

this alteration ; and, as theologians have justly
remarked, it does not follow from this phrase
ology that the Son is less than the Father, as the
Arians and Subordinationists (e. g., Dr. Clark)
have concluded. For the person through whom
I accomplish anything, so far from being neces
sarily inferior to myself, may be equal or even
greater. I may, for example, secure a favour to
any one from the king, through the influence of
the minister. Some of the old theologians; at
tempted to prove from Gen. i. 2, that a share in
creation was expressly ascribed to the Holy
Spirit, considered as a person. But it is at least
doubtful whether in this text the person of the
Holy Spirit is spoken of. Ps. xxxiii. 6 has no
relation to this subject. Vide s. 50, I.
3. The following are the principal words and
phrases used in the Bible in respect to the crea
tion of the world, and of the earth.
(a) N73, to create, produce, Gen. i. 1, et passimi
This word, however, by itself, does not signify
to create /t-o?» nothing. It frequently denotes
the formation of a thing from a pre-existing ma
terial, and answers to xtl^siv. So in Gen. i.
27, it is used in relation to the formation of man
from the earth ; and hence to denote his being
born and begotten ; so Ps. civ. 30. It often
signifies, too, parare, condere, facere, reddere;
so Is. xliii. 7; Num. xvi. 30, seq. Cf. s.
48, I.
(b) All the words which signify to make, ta
prepare, to form ; as ni?y, (hence nirp, « work,
created thing, itolrjaa, EpyoK,) -ix>, to form; p,
xatapt%siv, to prepare, to arrange, Ps. viii. 4;
xxxviii. 18. The corresponding verb and the
derivate substantive have the same meaning in
Arabic. (c) All the words which relate to building, to
the erecting of the superstructure, or the laying
of the foundation, ip;, $spsXi6a, to found, to
establish, is applied, particularly in poetic lan
guage, to the creation of the earth ; Ps. cii. 26.
Hence the Hellenistic phrase xaf a,3oAiji xbdfm,
John, xvii. 24, coll. ver. 5, and Eph. i. 4. The
Hebrews considered the earth as being in the
centre of the universe, and represented the hea
vens as a tent spread over it, according to their
natural appearance ; and to these popular no
tions the sacred writers everywhere conform;
and so because the earth is firm, and undeviating
in its course, they represented it as established
upon pillars ; Ps. civ. 5. rua, to build, &c. ; but
it also signifies to propagate the race, to acquire
posterity, Gen. xvi. 2 ; hence >a, son, (the builder
of the family.)
(d) The words which signify to say, speak,
call, (call forth,) command ; as, ids*, N-p, respect
ing which, cf. No. I. These "are 'the words
more commonly employed to designate creation
from nothing.

WORKS OF GOD.

169

SECTION XL VIII.
rue work of creation twofold; different
classes of creatures; our knowledge of
them ; end of god in the creation of the
world ; the best world.
I. The Work of Creation twofold.
Creation is divided into^jrome or immediaia,
and secunda or mediate. The immediate creation
is that which took place when God first gave
existence to all this variety of things, when be
fore there was nothing. The mediate creation is
that which is seen since the original creation was
completed, in the production of plants, the ge
neration of animate creatures, and the whole na
tural propagation of the various kinds of beings.
God. works, since the creation is completed, not
immediately, but generally, by means of the
powers of nature which he himself has bestowed
and regulated. It is not uncommon to speak of
God's having left the world to the powers cf na
ture. But such phraseelpgy shpuld be carefully
avoided in religious instruction. It seems to
remove God to a distance from us, and very na
turally suggests the idea that he has given up
the world, and concerns himself no more about
it. More injury is done by such expressions,
especially in an age that forgets God, than is
ever supposed. Instead of such language it
would be better, therefore, to say, God worksby
means of nature, or, by means cf the powers which
he has bestowed upon nature, or with which he has
furnished his creatures. Even Moses says ex
pressly, Gen. i. 22, 28, that God gave his crea
tures the ability to preserve and propagate their
own kind. Still, however, all creatures, both
animate and inanimate, which are thus mediately
produced, are called, with perfect truth, crea
tures of God, considering that God first esta
blished and upholds this natural constitution by
means of which they come into being. Vide
Job, x. 8 ; xxxiii. 4 ; Ps. cxxxix. 13 — 16. The
word *na and the derivative noun are used in
both of these senses ; in the first, that of imme
diate creation, Gen. i. 1, 27 ; ii. 2, seq. ; Is. xiv.
18; Ps. cxlviii. 5; in the second, that of me
diate creation, Psalm civ. 30, "They (men) are
created"'' — i. e., born. Hence Nia and -hi are
interchanged as synonymous : as, n-oj op, popu
lus creandus\ Psalm cii. 1 9 ; and iSu oy, populus
nascendus, Psalm xxii. 32. Hence to create,
signifies metaphorically, in the scriptures, to re
new, to found, to be the author of anything ; Is.
xlviii. 7 ; Ps. Ii. 12. The same is true ofxtl^siv
and xfJcfts, Eph. ii. 10, 15; iii. 9 ; and also of
the Latin crcare ; as, " Romulus creator urbis."
" Terra creavit genus humanum," Lucretius.
Creare regem, magistratum, &c.
Every good, therefore, which we derive from
any of the creatures of Gpd, is truly a gift and
22

favpur pf God himself, who gave to his creatures
all their various powers with the intention of
making them useful to otheTS. Cf. Hos. ii. 21,
seq. ; Matt. vi. 25, seq. ; Acts, xvii. 25, seq.
Consequently we are under obligation to be
thankful to God himself for these advantages,
which we derive from his creatures. Vide
Psalm civ. 1, seq;, and other texts of the New
Testament. IT. Different Classes of Creatures.
The kingdom of God is so vast, and compre
hends such an innumerable host, (to use a scrip
tural term,) that we are able to survey but a
very small portion of it at once, and are wholly
inadequate suitably to estimate the perfection,
beauty, and harmony of the whole. What,
then, we cannot survey at once, we must exa
mine in separate portions, and by this partition
we may relieve the weakness of our under
standing; and this course is both reasonable ia
itself and according to the example of scripture.
The ancient Hebrews divided the universe
into heaven, earth, and sea, (s. 45,) which are
properly styled the provinces (nicpn) of the
kingdom of God by the author of Psalm ciii. ;
arid this is the division according to which the
ancient Hebrew prophets always proceed in the
classification of the works of God. Vide
Psalm civ., cxlviii. The former of these
Psalms is an admirable ode on the creation and
the wise constitution of the world. The various
objects in heaven, on the earth, and in the
waters, are there mentioned in their natural
order; their dependence on God is shewn, and
their uses, and the ends for which they were
made, is described. The sublime descriptions
in Job, xxxvi. and xii., may be cited in this
connexion. Cf. Ps. cxlv. cxlvii.
The Bible always gives the preference to ani
mate creatures (creatures who have breath; in
whom is the breath of life, as Moses says) over
the inanimate creation. It justly considers
them as the more noble, exalted, and perfect
work of God ; and it assigns to man a pre-emi
nence among the creatures which belong to the
earth. Vide Gen. i. 26, seq., and Ps. viii.,
which treat of the dignity of man, and of his
superiority to the other creatures of the earth, es
pecially ver. 4 — 9. This passage may be consi
dered as a comment upon Gen. i. 26, seq.
There it is said that God made man in his own
image, and placed him over the rest of the
creation. This pre-eminence consists in the ra
tional and moral nature, and the freedom of will
which man alone possesses among all the crea
tures by which he is surrounded.
Respecting the division of creatures into
visible (corporeal) and invisible, (immaterial,
spiritual,) which occurs, Col. i. 16, vide s. 45,
ad finem. Angels and the human soui belong

170

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

to the second class ; but the whole man belongs
alike to the corporeal and spiritual kingdom.
III. The Knowledge of the Works of God.
The ancients had a very imperfect acquaint
ance with natural science. They remained con
tented for the most part with the first impres
sions which were made upon their senses, with
out being able to penetrate into the internal na
ture of the objects around them. We cannot,
therefore, expect te find any very thorough and
accurate acquaintance with natural science in
the writings of a nation in so early a stage of
improvement as the ancient Hebrews were.
They were wholly incapable of a high degree
of the knowledge of nature. And although
some have thought they discovered it in the
geogony of Moses, they have done so only by
ascribing their own thoughts to his words, and
embodying their own information in his account.
The ancient hearers and readers of this history
had no taste for all this, and would not have
understood it.
The more cultivated nations of antiquity, es
pecially the Greeks, and their disciples the Ro
mans, advanced indeed much beyond the He
brews in natural science. But they too were
destitute of the requisite instruments and helps,
and often trusted more to reasoning a priori
than to experiment; and consequently their
knowledge of nature, as a whole, bears no com
parison with ours, though in particular depart
ments they did much, considering the age in
which they lived ; as appears from the works
of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Hippocrates, Galen,
Pliny, Seneca, and others. More considerable
advances, however, have been made by Euro
peans in modern times, especially since the fif
teenth century, by means of the telescope, mi
croscope, and other newly invented philosophi
cal instruments, by which the secrets of nature
have been disclosed.
We have made these observations upon the
study of nature in this place, not only because
this study, and the general prevalence of correct
natural science, contribute greatly to intellectual
improvement, and in many respects to the en
nobling of man, but especially because they
stand in intimate connexion with religion. On
these accounts it must appear to be the duty of
every man of education, and especially of the
religious teacher, to acquaint himself with
natural science, and also to give instruction to
the common people and the young in those
parts of it which they are capable of learning —
always employing it, however, for religious
purposes. This knowledge can and should be
used —
1. As a very easy and practical means of at
taining to the knowledge of the existence and
attributes of God, and as well adapted to pro

mote a disposition and conduct corresponding ta
such knowledge, vide s. 15, I., where some
physico-theological works are mentioned ; also,
Morus, p. 74, s. 4, 5.
2. As a preventive of superstition, and a re
medy for its evil consequences. The supersti-
tious are those who believe things to be ?-ea/,of
whose reality they have no evidence, and who
expect things will come to pass without the
least reason for so doing. This is their pecu
liar infirmity; and the only suitable remedy is,
for them to learn to judge correctly respecting
the reality of things; to observe closely and
examine properly the evidence of what they be
lieve, and then to believe only so far as their
observation and evidence will warrant. The
superstitious easily believe that an event ac
complished by natural means is accomplished
by direct supernatural agency, and thus allow
themselves to be deceived by tricks and artifices
These false views cannot be proved to them to
be groundless in any way so clearly and effec
tually as by giving them a thorough knowledge
of nature ; since by this we can shew them that
an event which they had regarded as superna
tural was entirely in the usual course. This
will have more influence than all the laws
which could be enacted against superstitious
practices, magic, and fortune-telling, and more
than all the punishments which could be inflict
ed upon magicians and fortune-tellers. The best
laws and regulations of this kind are of little
use, if the first source of such superstitious no
tions cannot be discovered and removed by
proper instruction. This is the reason why
even the wise regulations of Moses upon this
subject were ineffectual among the Israelites.
Natural science ought, therefore, by no means
to be neglected in the instruction of the common
people and of the young; since it contributes so
much to mental and moral improvement, to ge
nuine religion, and to the whole happiness of
man. Cicero has an excellent remark upon this
subject: Omnium rerum naturd cognitd levamur
supersfitione, — non conturbamur ignoratione re
rum, e qua ipsa horribiles sxpe existunt formi-
dines ; denique etiam morati melius erimus, De
Fin. i. 19. Bayle's work on comets should be
read, as a thorough antidote to superstition.
Cf. Wiegleb, Naturliche Magie, continued by
Rosenthal, which explains by natural causes
many things considered by the common people
as supernatural.
In giving this instruction in natural science
which has now been recommended, the religious
teacher must carefully avoid all learned specula
tions and hypotheses, and introduce only that
which can be made intelligible to the least im
proved understanding. He must not come for
ward in the character of a naturalist, for the
purpose of merely instructing his people id

WORKS OF GOD.

171

natural science. This is not his calling. He
must give this instruction only as a means of
inspiring his people with reverence for God, of
promoting their piety towards him and confi
dence in him, and of making them more happy
and contented in their condition. He should
exhibit it in connexion with the positive truths
of Christianity, and in such a way that it will
have no tendency to produce doubts and scepti
cism with regard to our holy religion. Cf.
Flatt's Magazin, Ueber den Inhalt offentlioher
Religionsvortrage an erwachsene Christen, St.
i. Num. 7, and St. v. Num. 3.
IV. End of God in the Creation.
The scriptures declare expressly, that every
thing which God has made is good — i. e., ac
complishes exactly the purpose for which he
made it. Moses represents God as testifying
his pleasure in all that he had done, when the
creation was completed, Gen. i. 31. The truth
of the principle, that God has given to all his
creatures the highest possible degree of per
fection, is evident both from his wisdom and
his goodness. Vide s. 24, 28. Either our
former theory respecting these attributes is
untrue, (quod non potest esse,) or this principle
is true. Acting under the guidance of infinite
wisdom, and under the impulse of infinite good
ness, God could not but choose what is best.
Upon this principle rests the doctrine of the
test world, or optimism, which is found even in
Plato, the stoics, and other ancient writers.
According to Seneca, (Ep. 65,) Plato said,
thus mundum fecit quam optimum pntuit. In
modern times, this doctrine has found a decided
advocate in Leibnitz, in his Theodicee, th. i.
cap. 8. Wolf, in his Metaphysik, and ethers
after him, have more fully developed it. If we
presuppose that God could have conceived of
many worlds as possible, the present world,
Which he preferred to the others, and to which
therefore he gave existence, must be the best.
If not, then God might prefer the worse and
less perfect to the best and most perfect; which
would bespeak an imperfection both of intelli
gence and will. When God created the world,
he foresaw, most clearly and infallibly, all his
creatures — their nature, actions, and their con
nexion with the whole system. He must also
be supposed to have had the best end in view
in the creation of the world, and to have been
able to apply the best means for the attainment
of it; s. 24, 28. Moreover, his power is so
unlimited that nothing could prevent him from
giving the world a different constitution from
that which it now has ; or, which is same thing,
from creating a different world from that which
now exists. Now since he has created the pre
sent world, it follows that no other werld is sp
well adapted to the attainment of the divine

purposes as this. We are, indeed, unacquaint
ed with his designs, or with the final cause of
the creaticn of the world. God, doubtless, had
many ends in view, which we do not know, and
of which we do not even think. Vide Morus,
p. 75, s. 6. So far, however, as we consider
the designs of God in respect to his creatures,
(and in this respect alone can we consider
them,) it was his object to give them indivi
dually that degree of perfection and of well-
being of which they might be susceptible.
This what is meant in the Bible, when it is said,
He created everything for his own glory, (rather,
glorification,) in reference to us rational beings,
who are to learn his majesty and his glorious
perfections from the works of his hand. This
is enough for us to know in order to make a
wise use of the world. The theological doc
trine, that God had his own glory as his highest
object in the creation of the world, when thus
explained, is just and scriptural. Cf. s. 24, 1 ;
s. 18, 1. Note.
Now if optimism be thus defined, and if the
supposition that many worlds were possible is
admitted, it is a true doctrine. When, however,
Leibnitz and- Wolf maintained that the best
world could not exist without imperfection, evil,
and sin, (which will be farther considered in
the articles on Providence and the Apostasy,)
the theologians of that age were unable to re
concile it with their common theories and modes
of expression, and supposed that by this doc
trine God was made the author of sin. This
was the case with Buddeus, Lange, Weismann,
and others. Vide Baumeister, Historia doc-
trinae recentius controversae de mundo optimo ;
Gorlit. 1741.
The philosophy of Kant sets aside the theory
of pptimism as incapable cf propf, and resting
upnn arbitrary notions of the moral attributes
of God. Kant's objections against this doc
trine, or rather, against the abuse of it, may be
found in his Kritik der Urtheilskraft ; Berlin,
1790, 8vo; and in Rehberg, Verhaltniss der
Metaphysik zur Religion, Abschn. 5, 6. [Cf.
Hahn, s. 60, Anmerk. 4, 5. Bretschneider, b.
i. s. 584.] SECTION XLIX.
OF THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION,
ITS OBJECT, AND THE VARIOUS HYPOTHESES
ADOFTED TO EXPLAIN IT.
I. Object of this Narration, and whence it was
derived.
These points must be determined before we
can attain a position from which we can survey
the whole subject in all its bearings. Moses
wrote primarily for his own nation, the Israel
ites. And the surest way to determine what

172

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

end he had in view in writing this narrative, is
to consider the circumstances and wants of the
Jews at the time he wrote ; and these are best
learned from his own books.
1. One principal object which Moses had in
view in this account, was to shew thai the God
whom the Israelites worshipped was the being
from whom all things derived their existence, and
that, consequently, their national God was the
God and Lord of the whole universe, and not a
being of so limited a nature as the national dei
ties at that time were usually imagined. The
Israelites had a very strong propensity to the
polytheism then prevalent. Even many among
them, who worshipped Jehovah as their national
God, still considered the heathen idols as dei
ties having rule over other nations and coun
tries. And so they frequently regarded Jehovah
as the God of their own nation only, and their
own land ; and not of the whole earth, or world.
Vide s. 16. And as they had seen image-wor
ship in Egypt, they frequently worshipped their
own God under various forms — e. g. that of a
golden calf, Ex. xxxii. This tendency among
the Jews gave rise to those severe laws which
Moses enacted against image and idol worship,
Ex. xx. 4; Deut. iv. 15 — 17. Many of the Is
raelites worshipped the stars. Vide the texts
above cited.
Now this history of the creation clearly shews
that the God whom the Israelites worshipped is
the Creator and Lord of the whole universe;
that the firmament and the stars, as well as the
earth and its inhabitants, are his work, and his
alone; that there are not many gods, but one
only, the author of all things ; that these things
were cre.ited by God for the good, advantage,
and service of man, and not to be worshipped
liy him, and that, on the contrary, he himself is
appointed by God to be the lord and ruler of the
earth, and of all the inferior creatures that in
habit it.
Such a history was the more necessary, from
the fact that almost all the ancient books of le
gislation and religion began with cosmogonies.
This was the case with the books of the Pheni-
eians, Greeks, &c. The same might therefore
have been expected from Moses by his country
men, especially as many of the cosmogonies of
other nations were false, and needed to be cor
rected. 2. Moses intended, also, by this account, to
confirm, impress, and solemnize many of his
positive institutions and laws. Thus what he
says, in the account of the work of the fourth
day, (ver. 14,) respecting the use of the sun and
moon in the reckoning of time, was designed to
recommend the custom which he had instituted
among the Israelites of reckoning time, and ob
serving feasts and public solemnities, according
to moons and lunar years. And thus, especially

in the account which he gives of the seventh day
(ii. 2, 3), on which God rested when his labours
were done, he has an obvious reference to the
institution of the Sabbath. This becomes still
more evident on a comparison of these verses
with Ex. xx. 8 — 11; for it is there expressly
said respecting the Mosaic institution of the
Sabbath, " that no labour should be done in it,
because God laboured only six days, as it were,
and rested on the seventh day ; wherefore God
consecrated ("pa) the seventh day, and appoint
ed it for a festival (inEhjr)." In what way,
now, could this solemn festival of the Jewish
nation have received a higher sanction and inte
rest, than from such a consideration as this? The
Sabbath was thus consecrated as a solemn festi
val in remembrance of the creation, and in it the
Jews were required to rest from their labour in
honour of God, their creator and the creator of the
world, and to employ this rest in religious me
ditation, and in celebrating his perfections.
Hence the Hebrew psalms intended for the Sab
bath day were hymns of praise to God for his
greatness, as manifested in his works — e. g.,
Ps. xcii. 1, seq. This reference of Moses to
the institution of the Sabbath in what he says
of the consecration of the seventh day in his
history of the creation, is so evident, that itwas
perceived by many of the ecclesiastical fathers
— e. g., Philoponus, in the sixth century, in bis
Hexaemer, 1'. i. c. 3.
Eichhorn, in his " Urgeschichte," has endea
voured, very ingeniously, to carry out this idea
respecting the object for which Moses wrote.
Vide Repertor. fur bibl. Lit. th. iv. s. 129—172;
Leipzig, 1779; and, Eichhorn's Urgeschichte,
herausgegeben mit Einleitung und Aninerkun-
gen, von Dr. Joh. Phil. Gabler, 1 th. Altorf und
Nurenberg, 1790, 8vo, and lte Abth. des 2n th.,
at the same place, 1791. Cf. Gabler, Neuer
Versuch uber die Mosaische Schopfungsges-
chichte aus der hohern Kritik; Altorf, 1795,
8vo ; and, Vater, in his " Commentar zu dem
Pentateuch," th. iii. Eichhorn, however, main
tains that Moses fabricated this whole history
of the creation, for the mere purpose of esta
blishing some truth, or of sanctioning some of
his religious institutions. But this opinion
cannot be proved, and only involves us in new
difficulties. There is no reason to regard this
history as a fabrication of Moses himself, be
cause he is not known in any other case to have
invented fables to recommend his most import
ant laws and institutions. Others are of opi
nion, that he found this history previously ex
isting, and applied it to the confirmation of his'
institutions. That such was the case cannot,
however, be proved, as he himself is silent upon
the subject. Such might have been the case;
and the supposition detracts nothing from the
author of the book of Genesis. This opinio

WORKS OF GOD.

173

was maintained long since by Astriic in his
*' Conjectures sur les memoires originaux dont
il paroit que Moses s'est servi pour composer le
livre de la Genese," (Bruxelles, 1753, 8vo,) and
by Jerusalem, in his "Briefe ueber die Mosa-
ische Schrift und Philosophie," (Braunschw.
1762, 8vo;) who endeavoured to shew, that
Moses, in his first book, made use of ancient
narratives' orally transmitted, and of written me
morials, derived in part from the antediluvian
world. The design, then, of Moses, (as the
following chapters of his first book shew,) was
to preserve in Genesis such venerable remnants
of antiquity as had been handed down from the
patriarchal age. Now if it is apparent, as even
Eichhorn allows, that Moses made use of. such
fragments in the composition of the second and
third chapters, it is hard to see why he should
be supposed to have fabricated the whole narra
tive in the first chapter. Besides, it is common
for the ancient traditions and religious memo
rials of a nation to begin with cosmogonies.
And it is therefore probable, that an ancient ac
count of the creation had been transmitted,
which Moses either inserted as he found it, or
remodelled to suit his own purpose. All this,
however, is mere hypothesis and ingenious con
jecture. The number seven has been a sacred number
in all the East from the earliest times. Here,
say some, is the ground of the representation
that the creation lasted to the seventh day.
But how can this be proved? With as much
reason one might reverse the statement, and
say, this account of the creation, which was
widely circulated in the ages before and after
the deluge, was the reason why the number
seven was adopted as the sacred number. And
no one is able to disprove this. Such hypothe
ses never lead to a certain result.
As respects the Sabbath, it was not first in
stituted by Moses, but was an ancient usage, as
Michaelis has shewn in his "Mosaisches Recht,"
and others after him, with much reason. Moses,
however, found it necessary to enact new laws
for the observance of this ancient institution.
Eichhorn, indeed, considers this opinion un
founded, though without sufficient reason. For
we find this day hallowed as a day of rest among
the Israelites, even before the legislation of Moses
commenced. Vide Ex. xvi. 23. The Sabbath
is there called a day of holy rest in honour of
Jehovah. Cf. J. W. Rau, Progr. de fictione
Mosaica, falso adserta; Erlang. 1779. Beck,
De fontibus sententiarum de creatione ; Lipsae,
' 1782, 4to. Paulus, Abhandlung ueber die An
lage und den Zweck des ersten und zweyten
Fragments der altesten Mosaischen Menschen-
geschichte, in his Neu. Reper. fiir bibl. und
morgendland. Lit. th. ii. Num. 5; Jena, 1790,
8vo. He considers the first chapter of Genesis

as an ancient Sabbath-hymn, which owes its
whole form and structure to the division of time
into six days for labour, and a day of rest.
II. Consequences from these General Remarks.
If the remarks made in No. I. are true, the
following rules and principles must be adopted
in the interpretation of the history of the crea-
tion: —
1. Moses did not write as a naturalist or phi
losopher, intending to make his account the basis
of a scientific physiology. Vide Morus, p. 73,
s. 3, Num. 2. He did not design to shew, as a
naturalist would have done, the manner in which
particular things were created. The opinion was
formerly very prevalent, especially among the
Jews, that the Bible was a general repository of
every kind of knowledge, as well as of the doc
trines of faith and morality, or at least that it
contained the first germ of all the sciences; and
as improvements were gradually made in natural
science, they were supposed to be contained in
the Bible, and from the general and comprehen
sive nature of scriptural language, often with
great appearance of truth. But in this attempt
the true object of the Bible was overlooked ;
which was the reason, also, that allegorical in
terpretation found so much approbation for
merly. The writings of Homer met with the same
fate among the Greeks which those of Moses
have experienced among the Jews and Chris
tians. Everybody forced his own system upon
these writings, and found it confirmed by them,
without ever thinking that learned sciences did
not exist at so early an age of the world, and
that they are unsuitable to the common people
of any age. They could not have been pos
sessed by the writers to whom they are attri
buted, nor could they have been understood by
their contemporaries.
The whole representation which Moses has
given of the creation of the world is as simple
as possible, and such as doubtless was perfectly
intelligible to those who lived in that infant age
of the world, and is still so to men in common
life. The more familiar one becomes with the
views and wants of men at large — the more he
is able to place himself in their condition, the
more justly will he be able to explain this pas
sage, and the more fully will he enter into the
spirit of its author. In the Bible, God speaks
with men after the manner of men, and not in a
language which is beyond the comprehension
of most of them, as the learned would fain make
it to be. Well, indeed, is it for the great mass
of mankind that the learned were not consulted
respecting the manner in which the Bible should
be written !
When the study of nature became more pre
valent in the seventeenth century, it was very
p2

174

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

common among Christian interpreters, who at
that time adopted theiprinciple before stated,
either to derive their systems of physiology from
the writings of Moses, or to force them upon
him. The first fault was committed, though
with the best intentions, by the otherwise very
deserving Joh. Amos Comenius, in his " Synopsi
physices ad lumen divinum reformats." He
had many followers. The latter fault was first
committed by some adherents of the Cartesian
philosophy. They believed that they found
many of the peculiar doctrines of Des Cartes
very clearly exhibited in the writings of Moses.
Des Cartes himself appeared to be of this opi
nion. Vide, e. g., Joh. Amerpoel (Cartesius
Mosaizans), Beaufort, Rambert, and others.
The same was done in the eighteenth century,
and in still more modern times. There have
always been some who have believed that they
found the various philosophical systems of'New-
ton, Wolf, Buffon, and Bergmann in the writings
of Moses, or at least that they could reconcile
these philosophers with him. But Moses will
as little confirm the theories of one philosopher
as he will contradict those of another. All the
attempts made by different philosophers to an
swer objections to their own theory drawn from
the Mosaic geogony, or to draw arguments from
it to confute the theories of others, are labour
thrown away. Cf. Silberschlag, Geogonie, oder,
Erklarung der Mosaischen Erderschaffung nach
physikalischen und mathematischen Grundsat-
zen, 3 thle; Berlin, 1780 — 83, a work which
contains much of the sort above mentioned. Cf.
the "Neue Theorie der Erde," by the same
author, containing many very good scientific
observations, but also many rash and untenable
positions. Vide also, De Luc, Lettres phy
siques et morales sur l'histoire de la terre et de
l'homme, a, la Haye, 6 torn. 1779, 8vo. Dr. Ro-
senmuller, Antiquiss. telluris Historia ; Ulmae,
1776, 8vo, is veTy useful as a collection of ma
terials for a history of opinions, &c.
2. In this description of the creation regard is
shewn to the comprehension of common men,
especially of men in that early age ; and it is
not improbable, as remarked before, that it may
have been composed by Moses from ancient
written records.
The general subject of this passage is indi
cated in ver. 1. This is then enlarged upon in
the following verses, not to gratify the curiosity
of scientific men, but to meet the wants of those
who lived in the age in which it was written,
and of common men in aM ages. This amplifi
cation is entirely simple and popular ; and when
the work of creation is here represented as a six-
days1 work, it is to be considered as apicture, in
which God. appears as a human workman, who
accomplishes what he undertakes only by piece
meal, and on each successive day lays nut and

performs a separate portion pf hisbusinesv By
such a representation the notion of the creation
is made easy to every mind ; and common pec,
pie, seeing it so distinctly portrayed, can form
some clear conceptions concerning it, and read
or hear the account of it with interest.
Many modern writers (e. g., Paulus) are of
opinion that Moses, nr the author of this history,
whoever he may be, designed this description
merely as a philosopheme respecting the manner
in which the creation might have taken place,
not intending that it should be understood as
literal fact. And it cannot be denied that we
find many difficulties in the whole narration con
sidered as literally troe. These difficulties, how
ever, do not justify us in affirming that Moses
did not design to represent these events as ac
tually taking place. On the contrary, it clearly
appears from many other texts in his writings
that he did intend to relate these events as literal
facts. He himself elsewhere alludes to the
creation, as Morus justly remarks, (p. 73, s. 3,
n. 2,) as to res in facto posita; as Ex. xx, 11;
xxxi. 17.
This Mosaic history of the creation teaches us
the, three following truths: (a) that the world
began to exist, and that God was its author,
(Gen. i. 1 ;) and that the world therefore is not
eternal, and God is wholly -distinct from the
world. (6) That the constitution, connexion,
and final destination of all existing things are
from God alone, ver. 2, seq. (c) That the uni
verse, and especially our earth, was not brought
at once by the hand of its Creator into the form
and state in which we now see it ; but yet within
a moderately short time.
Herder's " Aelteste Urkunde des Menschen
geschlechts" contains many very valuable re
marks which may assist one in placing this his
tory in its proper light. His statements, how
ever, are frequently obscure and enigmatical,
and built in a great measure upon hypothesis.
Vide a review of this work in the " Allgem.
deutschen Bibl.," thle. 25, 30. But the "Ur
geschichte" of Eichhorn is the most important
work on this subject. It was first published in
the"Repert. fiir bibl. Liter." th. 4; Leipzig,
1779 ; and edited with notes, by Gabler ; Altorf,
1790. These are also a number of essays on
this subject by Dr. Paulus and others, in his Re-
pertorium, Memorabilien, and Theological Jour
nal. Cf. Ilgen, Urkunde des Jerusalem'schen
Tempelarchivs, and Vater, Commentar uber
den Pentateuch.
3. From this history of the creation it follows,
that our globe, and the race of men that now
dwells upon it, is about six thousand years'old.
I say, about six thousand years. For Moses
does not give us an exact chronology, and time
cannot be reckoned with certainty from the ge
nealogies of the patriarchs, because only the

WORKS OF GOD.

175

most remarkable men and their families are
mentioned, while less distinguished names and
generations are omitted. This is the common
custom in oriental genealogies ; and is the case
in the first of Matthew. Besides, there is a
great difference between our present Hebrew
text and the Cod. Sam. and the LXX., in respect
to the number of years ; although the readings
of our texts, on the whole, are far better sup
ported than the others.
The human race is much older than this, ac
cording to the belief of some other nations —
e. g., the Chinese and Indian. The whole sub
ject, indeed, presents many difficulties; it is,
however, strange, that Voltaire and other ene
mies of the Bible should have embraced in such
a credulous and partial manner the monstrous
and unfounded calculations of the Chinese and
Indians in preference to the evidence which may
be derived from Moses. Some have endeavoured
to confirm the truth of the Mosaic account of the
later origin of the human race from the more
recent origin of the arts and sciences among men
than would be consistent with the theories be
fore mentioned, and from many other considera
tions ; which, however, in themselves, are not
satisfactory. One important question in relation to this sub
ject remains to be investigated: Does Moses
speak in the first chapter of the first creation of
the globe, or only of a new creation, a remodel
ling of it, and planting it with a new race ? Cf.
Morus, p. 73, n. 6. Many modern naturalists
affirm that the earth must have existed much
earlier than the time of which Moses speaks,
perhaps a thousand years ; and that during this
earliest period it must have undergone astonish
ing revolutions, to which, however, no history
can of course extend, as they took place before
the existence of the present race of men. They
think these tremendous revolutions are proved
by the sea-animals which are found, sometimes
singly and sometimes in whole layers, upon the
highest mountains and in the deepest clefts
of the earth, far distant from the present bed
of the ocean; by the remnants of plants and
beasts found in climates entirely different from
those in which they are native — e. g., the bones
of the elephant found in Liberia, &c. ; by the pe
trifactions which are found deep in the interior
of the earth, &c. All these appearances are con
sidered by some as proof that great alterations
have taken place in the earth which lie far be
yond the reach of our history. Vide Buffon and
Justi, Geschichte des Erdbodens aus seinen
• innerlichen und ausserlichen Bescbaffenheiten
hergeleitet und erwiesen; Berlin, 1771, 8vo;
Bergmann, Physikalische Beschreibung der
Erdkugel; Greifswald, 1769. Other great na
turalists, however, even Linneus, Haller, De
Luc, and Silbersc hlag, do not think these facts

are incontrovertible proof of what many have so
confidently deduced from them.
Many modern interpreters and theologians
have supposed, in order to reconcile more easily
the account of Moses with the assertions and
hypotheses of modern naturalists, that Moses
speaks of the creation of the, whole universe in
the first verse only ; and that from ver. 2 on
wards he turns exclusively to the earth, and then
describes, not its first creation, but only a re
formation and new constitution of it. They sup
pose, accordingly, that in the first verse he in
tends to say simply, God created the whole
universe, without determining when, and that in
the following verses he has particular reference
to the earth, and describes its present formation,
without determining whether it took place at the
very time when God created the universe or a
thousand years afterwards, when the earth may
have been already once or many times inhabited
by different races of beings. They have endea
voured once to establish this hypothesis even by
other texts of scripture, as Ps. civ. 6 — 9, which
indeed is an amplification of the Mosaic account
of the creation, but which gives no information
respecting the time or the duration of this revolu
tion, and none respecting a race of creatures
previously existing upon the earth. The pas
sage, 2 Pet. iii. 6, is cited with still less propriety
in support of this hypothesis. The d fdfa xas-
ubs refers undoubtedly to the men who lived be
fore the flood ; as appears from chap. ii. 5.
The following remarks may enable us to de
cide with regard to this hypothesis :
It is true that, from ver. 2 onwards, Moses
confines himself principally to our globe, though
still, in ver. 14 — 19, he describes the creation
of the heavenly bodies; which description, ac
cording to this hypothesis, must be considered
as merely optical, intended to convey the idea
that these bodies then for the first time became
visible from the newly-formed earth. But it
cannot be proved that Moses intended from ver.
2 to describe only a new formation of the earth.
1. He always distinctly connects the creation
of the earth with that of the rest of the universe,
and he uses expressions so entirely similar re
specting the two that open violence must be done
to his words before they can be understood to
refer at one time to a re-formation of the earth,
and at another to its original creation, according
to this modern hypothesis — e. g., Gen. ii. 1,
"Thus the heavens and the earth were com
pleted, and all the host of them" — i. e., all crea
tures. Ex. xx. 11, "In six days, God made
heaven and earth and sea, and all which there
in is."
2. Those who consider this history of the
creation as a mere human production, as is very
common at the present day, cannot consistently
admit that Moses intended to describe only a

176

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

remodelling of the earth. For this notion is too
little in the spirit of the ancient world, and too
nicely adjusted to our present physiological and
astronomical knowledge, to have occurred to an
uninspired historian. The ancients always sup
posed the earth to be the centre of the universe,
and the author of this history, living at that early
period, and left to himself, could hardly have
conjectured thatit had previously undergone any
such revolutions and changes as are spoken of.
Cf. s. 48, II. An uninspired author, writing in
ancient times, could scarcely have conceived
that the earth should have been created later
than the other heavenly bodies, since they were
supposed to exist principally for the sake of the
earth. Thus, on the supposition that this record
is a mere human production, and that Moses,
without any divine influence, inserted it in the
book of Genesis, we may draw an argument xaf'
dv$paitov against the truth of the above expla
nation. We must therefore rest in the belief that it
was the real opinion of Moses that God created
and finished the whole material world, the whole
visible universe, together; and, indeed, in that
order and connexion which he describes in the
first chapter of Genesis.
The hypotheses of modern naturalists respect
ing the material of our globe can neither be con
firmed nor refuted from the writings of Moses.
Which of all those that have been suggested
is true ? that of Whiston, who supposes the
earth to be formed from a comet; that of Leib
nitz, who makes it a sunburnt out; that of Buf-
fon, according to whom all the heavenly bodies
are fragments broken off from the body of the
sun by the concussion of a comet; or that of
Wideburg, who supposes the earth to have been
originally a spot on the sun; must be determined
on other grounds than the testimony of Moses.
Vide Silberschlag's " Geogonie" for an account
of these and other systems. He justly rejects
the opinion that Moses speaks in this passage
only of a revolution or remodelling of the earth.
All these learned speculations and inquiries
respecting the material of the earth &c. lie be
yond the object and sphere of Moses. And any
of these hypotheses of the naturalists may be
adopted or rejected, the Mosaic geogony not
withstanding. Nor can the authority of Moses
be brought to decide the question, whether the
whole globe, or only the higher regions of Asia,
received at first their full and complete forma
tion and present structure. Herder and Doeder-
lem suppose the latter; but the author of this
record appears rather to favour the former. He
speaks in general terms of the earth— that is,
so far as it was known to him. Still nothing
can be determined upon this subject from his
authority. Note — The question has been asked, At what

time in the year was the world created? Th(
Jews commonly answer, according to the Chal-
daic paraphrasts and the cabalists, that the world
was created in autumn. They found their opi
nion principally upon the supposed fact, that the
patriarchs in the most ancient times commenced
their year in autumn; but of this there is node-
finite proof. Others say, in the spring; with
which opinion many of the fathers and most mo
dern Christian writers agree. Scaliger, in the
first edition of his work, " De emendat. tempp.,"
advocated the latter opinion; but in the second
edition, the former. In favour of this opinion,
Gen. i. 11 is cited, " Let the earth bring forth
grass and herb ;" which suits better with spring
than harvest. • Exod. xii. 2 is also cited, where
it is said that the month Nisan (April) shall be
the first in the year of the Jews, &c. Accord
ing to Solinus and Macrobius, the Egyptians
gave out the summer as the first season of the
year. The whole inquiry is fruitless and idle;
for the season can only be relatively determined
in respect to the situation of the country in
which our first parents lived. For the time of
the seasons is not everywhere the same ; when
it is summer in one place, it is winter in an
other. SECTION L.
EXPLANATION OF THE MOSAIC HISTORY OF
THE CREATION.
I. General Account of the Creation of the World.
n'Ekna — i. e., the first of all the events in the
world, that with which the history of all things
commenced, was the creation of the universe
(heaven and earth, s. 45) by God. Philo says,
To- iv apxy sitoiygEv, Igov sgt i f 9- itplrtui
iitolrjgs tbv ovpavbv, De Opif. Mundi, p. 16, Pf.
And so Cicero says, "A pbincipio omnia facta
a diis et constituta sunt," De Officiis, i. 4, coll.
De Natura Deorum, i. 12. Before this, God
alone existed ; and he gave existence to every
thing which is exterior to himself. In the same
way we must explain iv apa-j ijv b Adyoj,
John, i. 1. "'Ef dp^s," (ab initio mundi,)
Hesiod, Theog. v. 45.
After prefixing this general statement, Moses
now (ver. 2) proceeds to describe the creation
of the earth; vide s. 49. "The earth was
waste (inn is applied by the Hebrews and Ara
bians to deserts and wasted towns) and empty,
(ina, void, unoccupied, like a chamber without
furniture; so in Arabic") Both terms occur
in Isaiah, xxxiv. 11. The earth is thus repre
sented as a rude, formless mass, which, toge
ther with the rest of the material world, is now,
framed by the artificer in the space of six days,
and which gradually receives its full perfection.
The whole description is after the manner of

WORKS OF GQD.

177

men, and is adapted to common apprehension.
The same may be said of the description of the
creation of man in the second chapter ; he was
made gradually, and was formed like any other
work of art.
"And darkness was upon the deep waters."
awn is rendered by Luther, die Tiefe, the deep;
dpvtfsos by the LXX ; but is also deep waters,
profundum,profundumpelagus ; so frequently in
the scriptures, the sea — e. g., Gen. xlix. 25 ; Psa.
cvi. 9. The meaning here is, the earth, which
was then overflowed with water, was in dark
ness. Moses and the ancient Hebrew prophets
always describe the original oondition of the
earth in this way. It was all an open sea, dark
and dreadful. The water gradually subsided;
the higher regions first became visible, and then
the low lands ; and they were covered with light,
as is described below. A fuller delineation, and
a poetic comment on this passage, is contained
in Psa. civ. 5 — 9. Moses calls the mountains,
the eldest sons of the earth — those which the earth
first produced, Psa. xc. 2, because the mountains
first rose from the water, and became visible.
Similar opinions respecting the original con
dition and primitive form of the earth are found
among other nations — e. g., the Egyptians
(Diod. Sicul. i. 7) and the Phenicians, (Euse
bius, Praep. Evan. i. 10, taken from Sanchuni-
athon.) They supposed that in the. beginning
all was confused, gloomy, and dark. So the
Orphean Hymns represent. And this supposition
is in itself very natural ; for darkness commonly
precedes light; disorder, order; and emptiness,
fulness. The overflowing of water is still the
occasion of the most wide-spread desolation, and
even of great alterations on the surface of the
earth. According to Homer, 'Qxeovos was the
eldest progenitor of all the gods ; and from him
everything proceeded, II. xiv. 201, 246; xv.
187, seq. Many modern naturalists suppose that
the bottom of the sea was pressed up .by subter
ranean fire, and that in this way the mountains
and firm land arose above the waters. On this
supposition the sea-products found upon moun
tains are explained. Vide Silberschlag's " Ge-
ogonie." Moses does not contradict this opi
nion ; but neither, on the other hand, have we
reason to believe that he intended to teach it.
He only relates the fact that the dry land ap
peared, without determining how this was
brought about, whether from the subsidence of
the waters, from the 'action of internal fire, or
some other cause.
aw ij-p-bj; ngrrnj dt/w nn. What is here
called D'n'Sx nn, is elsewhere called otiSk nrjtfJ,
Gen. ii. 7; Psa. civ. 30; the spirit, the breath
of God, which vivifies everything — i. e., the ef
ficient, all-animating, all-creative power of God.
On the word nn, vide s. 9, and s. 19, IL tfn
23

is variously explained.; The LXX. and other
Greek interpreters render it EitEfyspsto, moved
qver the waters. The Chaldaic, Samaritan,
and both the Arabic versions, render it blew over
the waters. Others render it, to make warm,
calefacere, (to vivify ;) because it is applied to
the hatching of eggs by warmth, Deut. xxxii.
11. Michaelis translates it from the Syriac, to
descend, let one's self down, se demittere. In
whatever way it is translated, the main idea re
mains the same — the effect and motion produced
by the almighty power of God.
II. The Six-days' Work,- ver. 3, seq.
1. Introductory remarks upon the question,
What is here meant by days? and respecting
some difficulties which occur in relation to the
whole description, and the manner of obviating
them. It appears from the preceding sections, that
God may be supposed either to have created at
once the whole system of things, as it now ex
ists, or to have first produced the material from
which all things were formed, with the power
to develop itself gradually, and that he may
have caused this further development to proceed
by means of these natural powers, himself ex
erting a direct influence only where they were
insufficient. The latter is the scriptural idea.
The objeet of exhibiting the creation as a six-
days' work has been shewn to be, to render the
subject perspicuous and intelligible to men; to
depict before their eyes the manner in which
each thing in succession was accomplished, and
the whole gradually finished under. divine influ
ence and direction.
By days Moses appears to have meant com
mon days of twenty-four hours. For (a) their
limits are always determined by morning and
evening, which being understood literally, the
day must be literal also, (b) In all other texts
where Moses alludes to the account of the crea
tion, literal days are always clearly presup
posed — e. g., Exod. xx. 11, where the institu
tion of the Sabbath in described ; and chap.
xxxi. 17. But interpreters find various diffi
culties in this supposition. How, they ask,
could so much be done in one day, without
heaping together too many miracles? or, how
could Moses speak of days, in ver. 5, 8, 13, be
fore the sun as yet existed, which, according to
ver. 16, seq., was not until the fourth day? and
many more questions of the same kind. To
avoid these difficulties various other hypotheses
are invented. Some say the three first days
were periods of indefinite length, but the three
last, ordinary days of twenty-four hours; so
Michaelis. Others understand by 01s», through
the whole description, periods of indefinite
length ; or they prolong each day into a mon

178

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

strous duration. According to Des Cartes, each
day was a thousand years ; six thousand years,
therefore, were occupied in forming the earth!
According to Whiston, each day , is one year
only. But such conjectures, as everybody sees,
are arbitrary and groundless.
If we would form a clear and distinct notion
of this whole description of the creation, we
must conceive of six separate pictures, in which
this great work is represented in each succes
sive stage of its progress towards completion.
And as the performance of the painter, though
it must have natural truth as its foundation,
must not be considered or judged of as a deli
neation of mathematical or scientific accuracy,
so neither must this pictorial representation of
the creation be regarded as literally and exactly
true. First picture ; ver. 3 — 5. The earth, before
dark and invisible, is enlightened, that the spec
tator may be able to see it, and that the builder
may be able to mould and fashion the materials
upon which he is to work.' This light is of pe
riodical succession, causing day and night, be
cause the whole is divided into days' works.
Whence this light proceeds is a question which
cannot properly be proposed here ; it is sufficient
to say that there must have been light enough
to enable the spectator in some measure to dis
cern the objects as they were formed. We
cannot conclude, that because the light of day
at present proceeds from the sun, there could
have been no light before the sun existed. In
deed, there are other luminous bodies besides
our sun, which shine with unborrowed light.
The sun itself was not created until the fourth
day. At present it is sufficient that it is alter
nately clear and obscure, and that there is light
both for the artificer and the spectator. Proba
bly, however, it was only a glimmering and
obscure light, like the morning or evening twi
light. Second picture ; ver. 6 — 8. Though light has
dawned upon the earth, an ocean still encircles
the globe, and cloud and vapour float over the
waters. The upper water is now separated from
the under; so that, as the Egyptians say, hea
ven and earth may no more be commingled and
united in one mass, (Diod. Sic. 1, 7,) as they
were on the first day. This is the second day's
work. Third picture ; Ver. 9 — 13. After this great
division, the other great movements can now
proceed without hindrance. The builder first
applies his hand to the inferior portion. He
causes the dry land to rise from the lower waters,
and separates it from the ocean, and from the
smaller collections and currents of water, which
now flow into the lower regions of the earth.
This land is next furnished with plants of every

kind. The naturalist may indeed object, that it
is incredible that plants should spring from the
earth before the appearance of the sun ; but it
does not follow that, because such is the uni
form course since the universe and the earth are
finished, therefore such must have been the case
in this incipient state. Besides, it seems that
the plants were only created on the third day,
and grew and increased immediately on the ap
pearance of the sun on the following day. On
this third day the earth was sowed and planted
for the first time by Him who created the seeds
and -plants. And as we frequently sow and
plant to-day because we expect that to-morrow
and on the succeeding days there will be wea
ther favourable to the growth and germination
of the seeds ; so may God have now sowed and '
planted the earth, in prospect of the sun which
on the morrow he should place in the heavens.
Fourth picture; ver. 14 — 19. The superior
portion is now to be fashioned — the upper
waters, or the atmosphere. Here now the ob
server discovers the sun, moon, and stars appa
rently floating in a high and immeasurable dis
tance above the clouds. These henceforth en
lighten the earth and shed their influence upon
it. The little moon is represented as, next to
the sun, the greatest light, because it appears so
to us. A painter would justly be accused of a
fault, if he should otherwise represent it. He
must represent it as it appears to the eye.
Fifth picture ; ver. 20 — 23. The upper and
lower waters are peopled with inhabitants-
birds, fishes, and other creatures of the sea.
The supposition sometimes made, that Moses
describes the birds as formed from the waters,
is without foundation.
Sixth picture ; ver. 24 — 31. The inhabitants
of the dry land are now produced, after every
thing is properly prepared for them, and provi
sion made for their sustenance — all the beasts
of the field, quadrupeds, and reptiles; and,
lastly, man himself, the lord of this lower cre
ation. He is not introduced into his dwelling
before it is entirely ready. The house is first
built, and then the occupant enters. Vide the
Article on the creation of man.
At the end of the sixth day the builder once
more reviews his whole work—" He considered
everything which he had made, and behold! it
was very good." The same formula of appro
bation occurs at the end of the several days'
works, with only two exceptions — viz., (a) It
is entirely wanting at the end of the second day's
work, (ver. 8.) In some MSS. of the Septua
gint, the formula is here introduced, but it is
wanting in others. Zacharia conjectures (Bibl.
th. ii. s. 34, f.) that the words, "And the even
ing and the morning were the second day,"
which now stand at the end of ver. 8, should be

WORKS OF GOD.

179

first introduced at the end of ver. 10, before the
words, " and God saw that it was good ;" mak
ing what is now the beginning of the third day's
work a part of the second. But this transposi
tion is unnecessary. The use of this formula
of approbation appears not to be regulated by
the division of days, but by the completion of
the larger portions of the creation. All the
changes which the water was to undergo were
not finished at the erid of the second day — they
continue even into the third ; and this appears
to be the reason why the formula of approbation
is omitted at the end of the second day. (b)
This formula stands in the middle of the de
scription of the work of the sixth day, imme
diately after the mention of the creation of the
beasts in ver. 26. Michaelis and Eichhorn well
observe here, that it answers the purpose of a
pause, before the transition is made from the in
ferior creation, here completed, to the production
cf man, the noblest creature of the earth.
2. Explanation of some obscure terms which
occur in the description of the six days' work.
Ver. 3. For the meaning of the term to speak,
as used here and in the rest of the history of the
creation, vide s. 47, II. 1.
Ver. 6. pfn is translated by Luther, Veste,
because the Vulgate has firmamentum, which is
a translation of the gt spia/ia of the LXX. p;vi,
the root of this word, signifies, to stamp (with
the feet), Ezek. vi. 11 ; xxv. 6 ; and hence, to
spread out, to expand, to hammer out, to tread
out, (calcando expandere.) Moses and the other
sacred writers always use this term to denote the
heavens — das Gewolbe, fornix, camera — the wel
kin, the expanse over our heads; elsewhere, the lent
of the heavens. The origin of the term, and of
the idea from which it is derived, can be best
learned from Ezekiel's vision, i. 22, 23, 26 ; x.
1. jr>jn there denotes the floor of the throne of
God in heaven. God, the Ruler and Judge,
was imagined by the Jews as sitting upon a
throne in heaven. Other nations had the same
conception. According to Homer, the gods sat
with Jupiter, xpvgsq iv SaitiSa, (upon a golden
floor;) II. iv. 2. The upper sanctuary and the
throne of God, then, is above the expanse of the
heavens. This expanse is the floor upon which
he places his feet, and over which he rides in
his chariot of thunder. Vide the texts cited
from Ezekiel. Hence the whole earth, which
has this jppn for a covering, is frequently called
the footstool of God. By ppn is meant (a) the
atmosphere, which bears the rainy and stormy
clouds : also (b) whatever is still above them —
all that the eye can see over us in the heavens.
In the immeasurable distance of the blue sky,
high above the region of the clouds, float the
Bun, moon, and stars, as it appears to the eye.
For this reason they are placed in the firma

ment, ver. 15, 17. When it is said, ver. 8,
" God called the ypn, heaven," it is as much as
to say, what we call heaven is God's footstool;
what we behold high over our hfeads is under
his feet. So in Homer it is said, " Men call it
so; the gods call it differently." The Deity
sees everything in a different light from what
we do, and therefore names everything differ
ently, to speak after the manner of men.
Ver. 11, 12. NEh is the generic name for
everything which grows out of the earth — the
green plant, yy is the specific name for trees
and arboreous plants, afcy stands for the herb
and lesser plants, jnt is used in Hebrew in re
ference both to sowing and planting, like the
Latin serere, and denotes therefore here every
kind of propagation.
Ver. 14. The usefulness of the heavenly bo
dies to the earth and.to men is here stated. The
word nw, sign, signifies a mark for the division
of time. The sun and stars are intended to de
termine the times, (nnjnn,) the days, and the
years. DnyiD are not so much the four revolv
ing seasons of the year, as months. For (a) they
are connected with years and days. (6) In Ps.
civ. 19, the Dnyin are said to be cfetermined by
the moon, because they are defined by her mo
tion : — " He created the moon for the computa
tion of time."
Ver. 20. r-ity, webende Thiere, (moving crea
tures,) Luther, v-va signifies, to swarm. It
denotes, literally, the lively, rapid motion of
beasts who are collected in great multitudes.
Hence it is used in reference to fishes, birds,
and other animals — e. g., Exod. i. 7. Here
it is applied to sea animals. Cf. Ps. civ. 25.
own ip^Tj, not supra caelum, but to heaven, to
wards heaven, heavenwards ; as the flight of birds
appears to the eye.
Ver. 21. D'wn, Wallfische (whales), Luther,
because the LXX. have xrjtw, and the Vulgate
ceti. But these words signify all great fishes,
pisces cetacei. The Hebrew word is used for all
the beasts of the sea of the greater kind, as
Psalm civ. 26 ; for the crocodile, Ezek. xxix. 3 ;
xxxii. 2 ; also for great serpents, iren is the
name for all creatures which move upon the
belly; hence, the worm. It is applied, how
ever, sometimes to creatures that swim, and
even to quadrupeds who do not go upright, like
man. Ver. 22. 'n-ia denotes here, as frequently, the
propagation of the species, or the bestowment
of the power to propagate the race ; as ver. 28 ;
Gen. xxiv. 60 ; Ps. cxxviii. 3, 4.
Ver. 24. A division of land-animals; (a)
nena, the larger kind of tame, domestic ani
mals, when opposed to mn. (4) fsrcn, the smallei
kind of tame animals, (c) y-Tfprpn, the wild
beast.

180

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ARTICLE VI.
OF THE CREATION AND ORIGINAL CONDITION
OF MAN.

SECTION LI.
OF THE NATURE OF MAN, ESPECIALLY OF THE
SOUL PF MAN, AND OF HIS DESTINATION.
With this subject it will be most convenient
to commence this Article. After this, we shall
consider the Mosaic account of the creation of
man ; then, his happy original condition, not only
as described by the Bible and by Christian
writers, but also by those who have not enjoyed
the light of revelation ; and lastly, the^7-ese?-jxz-
tion and propagation of the human race.
I. The Nature of Man.
1. Of how many parts does man consist ? The
holy scriptures, and even those of the Old Tes
tament, constantly teach that man consists of
two parts, body and soul — e. g., Eccl. xii. 7,
" The dust returns again to the earth, of which
it is a part; the spirit returns -to God, who gave
it;" Matt. x. 28, "Fear not those who kill the
body, but cannot kill the soul;" &c. Nor can
we suppress the conviction that there is within
us a nature different from the body, and superior
to it — an enlivening and quickening principle,
through which we possess the power of feeling,
thinking, willing, and acting. But notwith
standing this conviction, there have always been
different opinions with regard to the constituent
parts of human nature. Some have maintained
that either the soul or the body is the only es
sential part of man ; while others have main
tained that he consists of three essential parts,
body, soul, and spirit. This opinion had its ori
gin in the cabalistic and Platonic philosophy.
The cabalists divided the human soul into E'BJ
(life, anima vegetiva), nn (the sensitive soul,
anima sensitiva), and new, (the rational soul,
anima rationalist) By this division, however,
they did not mean to teach that there are three
different substances, but three different powers of
one substance. Plato, too, as appears from the
history of philosophy, ascribed to man a two
fold or threefold soul, but neither did he pretend
that man consists of three parts. Some modern
philosophers, who have lived since the time of
the schoolmen, have also adopted the opinion of
the cabalists, and divide the seul into three parts ;
while ethers defend the opinion that the soul is
twofold, arid divide the whole man into three
parts. But they express themselves so obscurely
and ambiguously that it is often doubtful yvhe-
ther by these divisions they understand different
si.bstances, or only various powers of one and

the same substance. The Christian theologians
and philosophers who believe that man consists
of three essential parts differing from each/other,
sometimes appeal to scripture in behalf of their
opinion. They quote the texts, Luke, i. 46,
47: "My soul magnifies the Lord; my spirit
rejoices in God," &c. Is. xxvi. 9, and espe*
cially 1 Thess. v. 23, "That your spirit and
soul and body may be preserved blameless to the
coming of Christ;" also Heb. iv. 12. The first
who asserted this opininn in mpdern times was
Theophrastus Paracelsus, who was followed by
Jacob Boehmen, Weigel, and other theosophists;
also by Andr. Riidiger in his Physica Divirn.
Luther likewise adopted this division, though
it is very clear that he did not consider spirit
and soul as different substances, but only as
different attributes and operations of the same
spiritual essence. Respecting the texts of scrip
ture above cited, it may be remarked, (a) That
in most of those cited, itvEVfua and tyvxrt are ST"
nonymous ; as in Isaiah and Luke; also in Heb.
iv. 12, where they may be rendered either life
or soul, as the passage refers to death, or the
separation of the soul or life from the body.
(b) The passage in the epistle to the Thessalo-
nians may be explained in two ways. As Paul
evidently here writes in strong excitement, he
may have heaped these words together, though
they do not differ in meaning, in order to give
his admonition more effect. So Augustine sup
posed, (De Anima, iv. 21.) But the probability
is, that he meant to distinguish itvsipa and 4vgiji
not meaning, however, by any means, to imply
that man consists of three essential parts; but
only to distinguish itvsvua and tyvxy as two
different powers of one substance. This the
Hebrews and Grecian Jews frequently did.
By itvsvp-a and nn, they often meant, the supe
rior faculties of the soul, the reason ; and by tyxk
and e'bj the sensual part, which we possess in
common with the brutes — tlie desires, SinnUeh-
keit ; Ps. cxxxi. 2, seq. Jbsephus says, Arch.
1. 1,, EitXagsv d ©eos dv^paitov, xavv diib lift
yris Aa^wv, xai itvE-vua ivrjxsv avf 9 xai tyv%rp>'
Philp and the New-Testament writers frequent
ly use ^vxn and ^vx^bs in this sense. Vide
Jude, ver. 19.
[Note. — The theory according to which man
is divided into two parts is called dichotomy;
that by which he is divided into tliree parts, tri
chotomy. The latter of these, so rare at the pre
sent day, was the prevailing theory with the
early fathers. Vide Tatian, Orat. ad Graecos, p.
151, seq. ; Irenaeus, Adv. Hajres. v. 6, 7, 9 ; Ori
gen, TtEpt dp^uf, iii. 4 ; Nemesius, De Nat. Horn.
c. 1. It was indeed opposed by Tertullian, and
other writers of the Western church; but itwas
still believed by many distinguished Christian
teachers. Trichotomy is chargeable not only
upon Paracelsus, Boehmen, Weigel, and other

WORKS OF GOD

18!

theospphists, but also uppn Spener, and ether
se-called Pietists ef the seventeenth century.
It seems to have been generally believed by
these ef a more deep and spiritual religion, and
is at present the doctrine of the more evangeli
cal part of the Lutheran church. Hahn gives
the following scheme of the nature of man : —
(d sga dv^paitos) (b e£<o av$paitos)
1. 2. j 3.
Spirit,- (Geist, n^sSfia) Soux, (tpvxfi) . Bod y, (nS/xa)

Peculiar to man, with Common both to man and
brute, with the
(a) Reason (a) Under- same properties
(6) Will standing as other matter,
(c) Conscience (b) Desire and the exter-
(c) Feeling nal senses,
\   1
as principal attributes.
Those who make this division must hold, ac
cordingly, that man has not only, in a higher
degree, that same understanding, feeling, and
desiring soul which is seen in brute creatures ;
but that he possesses also a nature different in
kind from theirs, and by which he is raised
above them to the rank of a moral being. — Tr.]
¦ 2. The notion of soul is expressed in all the
ancient languages by terms which originally
signify wind, air, breath. And from this fact
we can learn what were the notions originally
entertained respecting the soul. However ob
scure and indefinite they might have been in
some respects, the soul was always conceived
to be that invisible power or being from which
the body derives its life and activity; and this
may be sufficient for practical purposes. Now
a man lives and moves only so long a§-he
breathes. Breath is that mark of life which is
most obvious to the senses. Hence such terms
as literally Signify breath, were naturally em
ployed to denote the life and the soul of man.
Thus the Hebrew words nn and nwj, and the
Greek words, 4vj<i) and itvsvpa, stand for the
soul. Cf. s. 9, and especially s. 19, II. The
word WB3, from vjsi, signifies primarily, spiracu-
lum, anhelitus; next vita, as Ps. xlix. 9, 16;
then animus, as Ps. xvi. 10; also what takes
place in the soul, feelings, desires, &c. The
same is true of the Latin word spiritus, and of
the words animus and anima, both of which
originally signify aura, flatus, halitus, and seem
to be the same word as the Greek dvspos.
3. The question respecting the internal nature
and the quality of the human soul, is one of
those difficult and obscure questions which can
never be satisfactorily answered in this life.
It cannot certainly be decided by anything in
the Bible. The soul is there merely contrasted
with the body (ifra). The latter, we are in
formed, will return to the earth from which God
created it, while the former will return to God,

who gave it, — l. e produced it in a difl'erent
way from the body, Eccles. xii. 7. This is
said in plain allusion to the account, Gen. i.,
respecting which vide s. 52. So much is per
fectly evident that the Bible always distin
guishes between soul and body as different
substances, and ascribes to each peculiar pro
perties and operations ; and this is in full accord
ance with the manner in which this subject was
understood and represented in all the ancient
world. We should mistake very much, however, if
we should suppose that the ancient Israelites,
merely because they distinguished widely be
tween soul and body, possessed those strict,
metaphysical ideas of the spirituality or imma
teriality of the soul, which are prevalent in the
modern schools of philosophy. Such ideas are
by far too refined and transcendent to belong to
that age ; as also are the pure metaphysical
ideas of the spirituality of God which now pre
vail. The whole ancient world, Jews and
Greeks, (as likewise the savage nations of the
present day,) supposed everything which moved
to be animated by a spirit, and this spirit to be a
substance, different indeed from grosser matter,
but still somewhat corporeal — a subtle, material
essence, like the wind, air, or breath. This is
proved by the ancient languages. Vide No. 2,
and the remarks on the spirituality of God, s. 19,
II. See the remarks on this subject in the
Progr. " Orig. opinionum de immortalitate
animi apud nationes barbaras," in Scripta Varii
argumenti, No. iii.
From what has been said, it is evident,
(a) That the Bible does in no way support,
and indeed that it directly contradicts, that
gross materialism which denies all substan
tiality to the soul, considering it a mere acci
dent of matter or of the body. Such an opinion
respecting the soul was advocated among the
Jews by the Sadducees, (Acts, xxiii. 8,) and
among the Greek philosophers originally by
Dieaearchus, who entirely denied the existence
of the soul as a substance distinct from the
body ; Cicero, Tusc. i. 10. This same doctrine
has been advocated, as is well known, in mo
dern times, by Hobbes, Toland, De la Mettrie,
the author of the "Systeme de la Nature," and
others. Indeed, an attempt was made, unsuc
cessfully it need not be said, to reconcile this
gross materialism with the holy scriptures, by
William Coward, an English physician, in his
" Thoughts on the Soul," London, 1704. Priest
ley, too, made a vain attempt to prove from the
Bible his ideas respecting the soul, which lead
so decidedly to materialism. But from what
has been said, it is equally evident,
(b) That the Bible does not support the mo
dern, fine-spun, metaphysical theories respect
ing the perfect spirituality and immateriality of
Q

18a

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

the soul. The notion of the ancient world re
specting spirit was by no means the same with
that of our modern metaphysicians. And if the
question of the perfect immateriality of the soul
had been left to them, and theologians had stop
ped where the Bible does, and omitted these in
quiries, the object of which lies far beyond their
sphere, they would have done wisely. This
doctrine respecting the immateriality of the soul,
in the strict philosophical sense of the term, is
of far less consequence to religion than is com
monly supposed. The reason why so much
importance has been supposed to attach to this
doctrine is, that it was considered as essential
to the metaphysical proof of the immortality of
the soul. But since the immateriality of the
soul, in the strictest sense, can never be made
fully and obviously certain, whatever philoso
phical arguments' may be urged in its favour,
the proof of immortality should not be built upon
it. Nor were the fine-spun theories of immate-
rialism ever resorted to by theologians to prove
the immortality of the soul, or ascribed by them
to the Bible, until Hobbes, Toland, De la Met-
trie, and other materialists, had so perverted
the doctrine of materialism as to deduce from it
the destructibility of the soul, or its annihila
tion at the death of the body. But, in truth,
the immortality of the soul does neither depend
for proof upon its immateriality, nor can be cer
tainly deduced from it. It is possible for one
to doubt whether the strict immateriality of the
soul can be proved, and yet to be convinced of
its immortality. The strongest advocates of im
materiality must allow that God might annihi
late a spirit, however simple its nature may be.
Why, then, on the other hand, might he not
make a substance not entirely simple immortal ?
The immortality of the soul will be examined in
Book II. a. 149 ; its origin will be investigated
in this Article, s. 57.
l
II. The Destination of Man.
The question, What is the destination of man?
is equivalent to the inquiry, What am I, as a
man ? What have I as a man to do and expect ?
Or, more definitely: Whither lead those tenden
cies by which, without my own choice, I feel my
self impelled ? What have I to do, in conformity
with those more deep and essential powers and ca--
pacifies of my nature which cannot be overlooked
or effaced? and. When I have acted in conformity
with them, what am I to expect ?
A feeling of morality — the sentiment of an in
delible distinction between right and wrong —
lies deep in the soul of every man. There is a
principle implanted in our very nature, by which
we approve that disposition which corresponds
to right, and disapprove that which is opposed
to it. This regard for a moral law is deeply
iuwrought into the heart. Nor is there any

thing more fundamental in our constitution than
this; and we may presume that the good to
which this our moral nature points us is the
l ery highest good ; and it consists in moral per
fection, and that well-being which, is connected
with, and dependent upon, holiness. Increasing
holiness, then, and the happiness connected with
it, are the destination of man. Without moral
excellence no one can be happy ; and to seek
for happiness without it is mean and base. This
is the doctrine of the scriptures both of the Old
and New Testament — e. g., Lev. xi. 44; xix.
2; 1 Thess. iv. 3, 7; 2 Cor. vii. 1; Heb. xii.
10, 14, seq. In the creation of the world, God
must have designed to impart to every creature
that degree of perfection and of well-being of
which it should be susceptible. For the attain
ment of this great end he employs the most suit
able means. This results inevitably from his
wisdom ; vide s. 24, I. Now, since man is by
far the noblest of all the living creatures who
inhabit the earth, and possesses the most supe
rior powers, especially of an intellectual kind,
he must have been created by God for a more
exalted end, and with a higher destination, than
that of other creatures. In consequence of the
greater perfections with which he is endowed,
he is capable of a higher degree of happiness,
for the attainment of which he is incited to strive
by the obligations arising from his moral nature.
1. The destination of man inthislife embraces
the following particulars : —
(a) Man possesses the right and the power
to make use of the other creatures of the earth
for his own advantage. He is dominus in res
creatas, Gen. i. 26, seq. ; Psa. viii. This right
he possesses by virtue of the rational and moral
nature which God has given him.
(b) As lord of the other creatures, man accom
plishes the design of God, or his own destina
tion, when, together with his concern for his
own welfare, he promotes in every possible way
the comfort and welfare of all his fellow-crea
tures, and especially the happiness of his fel
low-men, with whom, according to the design
of God, he stands in the closest and most inti
mate relation. Cf. Acts, xvii. 26. To this he
is also obliged by the divine law, which, whe
ther externally revealed, or written on his heart,
requires him to love his neighbour as himself.
(c) God must have designed, in endowing
man with such noble capacities and powers
that he should cultivate and exercise them ah,
and employ them for his own advantage and
that of his fellow-creatures. The more diligen'-
ly and actively, then, we employ the powers
with which we are gifted by God for the good
of ourselves and others, — the more we seek to
develop, cultivate, and by constant exercise to'
strengthen our moral, and indeed our whole na
ture, the more conformably shall we live to the

WORKS OF GOD.

183

end for which we were made. Diligence, la
bour, and activity, are indispensably requisite to
the fulfilment of our destination. Even the life
of paradise is not described by Moses as idle
and inactive. Man was there to be employed
in " tilling the ground," Gen. ii. 5, 15. The
improvement of all our powers and capacities is
the end of our rational nature ; and all the care
and effort which we may nowbestowupon the im
provement of our powers will prepare us richly
for whatever we are to be or to do hereafter.
To cultivate and improve our whole nature is
the duty daily allotted us by God.
(d) But man should be especially attentive to
the improvement of his higher nature — his spi
rit. Man alone, of all the creatures on the
earth, possesses the distinguishing excellence
of a rational soul, and of freedom of will. This
is all which gives his existence an absolute
worth ; this is that true inborn nobility which
essentially raises him above the rank of all his
fellow-creatures upon the earth. By the pro
per use of his reason, and of all the higher
powers of his spirit, man becomes capable of
a happiness of which no other creature on
the earth is capable. This higher happiness
is founded upon the knowledge of truth and
moral good, and especially upon religion, or
the knowledge and reverential love of God, of
which man alone is capable, and which is the
most powerful means of promoting holiness.
Vide Introduction, s. 2. seq. Now it is a law of
reason, and so the design and will of God, who
has given us our reason, that the moral powers
and faculties of our nature should be developed
and strengthened by exercise. Consequently, to
exercise these powers — to do justly, and shew
mercy, in all the circumstances in which we are
placed — is the way for ns to discharge our pre
sent duty, and to testify our love to God. And
every instance in which we neglect to improve
the opportunities afforded us of exercising and
improving our moral powers is a failure in duty,
which is always attended with hurtful conse
quences. The bopk pf Ecclesiastes ccntains many ex
cellent rules for the accomplishment of our des-
tination-upon the earth, most of them in the form
of proverbs ; as ii. 24 ; iii. 12, seq. ; v. 17 ; ix. 9.
They may be briefly expressed as follows : —
Man is happy, and lives according to the end for
which he was made, "when he wisely enjoys
the present; when in the right way he seeks for
peacefulness of soul, cheerfulness, and serenity
of mind ; when he fulfils his social duties ; when
he loves and serves God, and is active and dili
gent in the employment of his powers ; remem
bering that he does not exist merely for himself
and for the sake of selfish enjoyment, but for the
sake of benefiting others, as far as he is able."
2. The destination of man beyond the grave.

That man was not made for the present life alone
is a doctrine which, although by no means un
known before the time of Christ, had not as yet
been clearly and distinctly revealed. But Christ
and his apostles inculcated this encouraging and
consoling truth with great earnestness, and made
it the basis of all their exhortations. Vide 2
Cor.iv. 18; Phil. iii. 20; Col. iii. 1—4. It may
be adopted as a first principle, that the right en
joyment and the proper use of the present life is
the best preparation for happiness in the life to
come ; and, on the other hand, constant and ear
nest effort to prepare for happiness in the future
world is the best way to be happy here. Cf. 1
John, iii. 2, seq. In order that we may be pre
pared for future happiness, and capable of en
joying it, we must be holy. " Without holiness
no man can see the Lord," Heb. xii. 14. And
the greater the advances we make in holiness, \
knowledge, and the practice of known truth in
the present life, the greater will be our happiness
in the life to come. There is, and must be, a
close and unalterable connexion between our
holiness here and our happiness hereafter.
Note. — From these observations, which we
think just and scriptural, we conclude that man
is placed in the present life, principally, indeed,
to prepare for the next, but not solely for this
purpose. And he, it must be allowed, fails of
fulfilling the whole end of his being, who forgets
the present in the hope of the future, or who la
bours in such a way to prepare for the life to
come as to render himself inactive and useless
in this. Future blessedness is only the conti
nuation and perfection of that which begins here.
And we must now begin to be active, hply, and
happy, that we may continue to be so in a more
perfect manner hereafter. The present is the
time to'sow; the harvest will come in the future
world. He therefore who does not sow here
cannot expect to reap beyond the grave. It is
a part of the end of our being to be happy even
in the present life, however inferior may be the
happiness we can obtain here to that which we
hope for in heaven. Our life upon the earth is
an end as well as a means. And if we earnestly
seek to do the will of God, the.present life, even
in itself considered, is not worthless, though its
value is infinitely raised by the certainty of a
future life. In regard to the proper use of the
time now allotted us, we have a pattern in the
example of those pious men who are recom
mended in the Bible for our imitation ; and espe
cially in the example of Jesus, which, even in
this respect, is the most perfect of all. These
hints on the destination of man are carried out
in Spalding's " Bestimmung des Menschen;"
Leipzig, 1794 ; and in the Essay of Tollner,
" 1st das gegenwartige Leben nur eine Prii-
fungszeit?" in his " Theologishen Untersu-
chungen," th. i. s. 402, f. Cicero, in his Book,

184

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

" De finibus bonorum et malorum," states the
theories of the various schools among the Greeks
respecting the summum bonum, or the finis bono
rum. Seneca calls the destination of a thing,
or of a man, finis naturx sux, suum cujusque
(rei sive hominis) bonum. To attain or fulfil
one's destiny, he calls, ad finem naturx suxper-
venire. Sive, attingere finem naturx sux, Ep. 76.
SECTION LII.
OF THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE
HUMAN RACE.
I. General Remarks.
Most nations have some ancient traditions re
specting the. origin of the human race, which,
however, differ widely from each other. Many
of the heathen nations believed that their fore
fathers, or the human race, sprung originally
either from the earth, rocks, trees, eggs, teeth,
or other inanimate things, or that they were
produced by wild beasts. Vide the passages
cited in Meiners' " Geschichte der Menschheit,"
s. 245. There were comparatively few of the
ancient heathen nations who supposed that the
human race, or particular nations, were derived
from gods, heroes, or giants ; and even these
differed very much from one another in their ac
counts ; some supposing that the first men were
brought forth in the way of natural generation
by these superior beings ; and others, that they
were only formed by the gods from some inani
mate material, earth, stones, &c, and then en
dowed with life.
In the first and second chapters of Genesis,
Moses has preserved the ancient traditions of
the Hebrew nation with respect to the origin of
man. These traditions are substantially the
same with those of other oriental nations, and
they are uniformly followed by the other sacred
writers. As here recorded by Moses, they
breathe the very spirit of the ancient world, al
though they exhibit more truth, completeness,
and connexion, than are found in the traditions
and fables of other nations respecting the origin
of our race.
According to the Mosaic account, the whole
human race is derived from one stock, as Paul
expresses it, 1% ivbs atyiafos itdv s^vos dv^paitov,
Acts, xvii. 26. The first man, Adam, was
formed from the earth, Gen. ii. and iii. ; Eccles.
xii. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 47; d rtpatos ai&pwtos ix yjjj,
xo'ixbs. Eve was formed afterwards, and from
Adam, Genesis, ii. 18, seq.; 1 Cor. xi. 8, yvvrj
ii, dvbpbs. Some modern investigators of nature
have supposed that the distinction found between
the races of men cannot be accounted for on the
supposition that they all have proceeded from
one stock. They have conjectured, accordingly,
tbat many different pairs of men were originally

made. That climate, manner of life, means of
subsistence, &c, could have produced all the
variety which is perceived among the different
races of men is what they will not allow. Bnt
others affirm that all the arguments adduced in
support of this hypothesis are unsatisfactory;
and contend, with strong reasons, for a contrary
opinion. Among these is Forster. Cf. his
" Bemerkungen auf seinen Reise um die Welt,"
s. 226—254; Berlin, 1783. Also Kant, Ueber
die verschiedenen Racen der Menschen; Ko
nigsberg, 1775, 4to; Blumenbach, De generis
humani varietate nativa; Gottingae, 1776, 8vo,
Other nations beside the Hebrews have believed
that the human race descended from one original
pair. Nor is it necessary to suppose that they
derived their belief on this point from the ac
count of Moses. The supposition that the whole
human race has descended from one pair might
naturally arise from various circumstances—
from the gradual peopling of countries round
about — from the old family tradition, that for
merly the number of the human race was com
paratively small — and from the observation of
the large and rapid increase of single families.
Besides, these other nations might have derived
much of what they belied respecting the ori
gin of man by direct oral tradition from the
earliest times.
[Note. — The question so much discussed
among anthropologists respecting the different
races of men, and their descent from one ori
ginal pair, is of very considerable interest both
to the theologian and the philanthropist. It has
an essentia] bearing upon the doctrines of in
herited corruption, and of the atonement. But
its most important bearing is upon our duty to
a very numerous race, who have long been ex
eluded from the rights and privileges of frater
nity in the human family. Lactantius has well
said, (Div. Inst. v. 10,) St ab uno homine, quern
Deus finxit, omnes orimur, certe consanguikei
sumus; et idea maximum scelus putandum est,
odisse hominem vel nocentem. And this prac
tical influence of the Christian doctrine of the
consanguinity of all nations may be seen in the
extensive abolition of negro slavery by Chris
tian nations. *
It deserves to be noticed that this scriptural
doctrine, which is so connected with the highest
interests of humanity, has been successfully vin
dicated on the ground of physiology against the
ingenious and plausible attacks of those who
make equal opposition to the Christian scriptu'res
and to African freedom. In addition to the
works recommended by our author, we may
mention that of H.F. Link, "Die Urweltund
das Alterthum ;" Berlin, 1821. There is one
physiological argument, which, it would seem,
must be conclusive against the supposition that
the negro belongs wholly to ? lifferent kind from

WORKS OF GOD.

185

the white— viz., the offspring of the mixture of
different genera cannot propagate their own spe
cies. We know this is not the case with regard
to the children which are born from the min
gling of the white and negro races. The essen
tial characteristic marks of the human kind are
the rational and moral powers with which man
is endowed ; and those in whom we can find the
least traces of these are to be regarded by us
as brethren, bearing with, us something of the
imaga of God, however low the degree in which
they may possess these powers, and however
widely they may differ from us in the incidental
circumstances of colour, feature, and tempera
ment. — Tr.]
We. must here notice the opinion that men
existed before Adam, who is spoken of in the
Mosaic account. The belief in Praeadamites
has been embraced for various reasons; partly
to escape some supposed natural difficulties of
the kind just mentioned, partly in support of
various theological and historical hypotheses,
and sometimes for both reasons united. Most
of those who have entertained this opinion,
however different their views respecting the
Praeadamites themselves, have appealed to
Moses and other sacred writers for support, or
at least have endeavoured to shew that they be
lieved in nothing inconsistent with the scriptural
account. But they evidently do the greatest
violence to the passages which they cite. The
plain, scriptural representation is that which we
have given. This hypothesis was first raised to
notice by Isaac Peyrere, who in 1655 published
his book styled " Frxadamitx." He pretended
to find his Praeadamites in Rom. v. 12 — 14. The
heathen, according to him, are the Praeadamites,
being, as he supposed, created on the same day
with the beasts, and those whose creation is
mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis. Adam,
the father of the Jews, was not created until a
century later, and is the one who is mentioned
in the second chapter. Cf. the works cited by
Morus, p. 95, s. 1, note 1. Since the time of
Peyrere, this hypothesis has been exhibited more
connectedly; and has been asserted independ
ently of the authority of Moses ; or, in other
words, it has been asserted that the human race
is older than Moses represents it. Vide Irwing,
" Versuche uber den Ursprung der Erkenntniss
der Wahrheit und. der Wissenschaften ;" Ber
lin, 1781, 8vo. Cf. Brun, " Vefgleichung der
griechischen und romischen Nachrichten von
dem altesten Zustande der Menschen mit den
hebraischen," in Gabler's "Theol'ogischen
Journal," b. v. St. 1, s. 50. u. f.
II. The Mosaic Account.
There are two accounts of the creation of man
recorded by Moses. The first is very brief,
given in general terms, in connexion with the
24

history of the creation of the world, on the sixth
day of which man was formed, Gen. i. 26 — 30.
The second account is more full, and stands by
itself, Gen. ii. 4, seq. In this second account,
the creation of the world and the state of the
earth before man was placed upon it, are again
cursorily mentioned, while in ver. 7 the creation
of man himself is more fully detailed. It is not
improbable that in the composition of these first
chapters of Genesis, Moses may have had be
fore him some written records handed down
from the patriarchal age, and he may perhaps
have inserted them, word for word, in his own
history. Vide s. 49, I. According to this sup
position, we have here inserted one of these ori
ginal records, extending from Gen. ii. 4 to iii.
24, and forming a complete whole, which is se
parated from what precedes by the appropriate
title, "This is the history of the -heavens and
the earth," ver. 4. What favours the supposi
tion that Moses drew from written records in
composing the first part of Genesis, and that he
even preserved them in the very language in
which they were written, is the fact, that in
each of these distinct fragments the Supreme
Being is uniformly designated by a different
title, — in orie, by the name wrhx, in another, by
the name nw, and in a third,' by the combined
name D'nSs nff. This was first observed by
Astriic and Michaelis, and is often made use of
by Eichhorn in his " Urgeschichte." Cf. s. 49,
and the works of Herder, Eichhorn, Gabler,
Paulus, Ilgen, Vater, and others. But Eich
horn and Ilgen have spoken with far too much
confidence respecting the sources from which
Moses drew. The subject is not so well under
stood as to allow of so much confidence. Vide
Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk der gottlichen
Weisheit, th. ii. s. 456, 2te Ausg. These ac
counts must now be separately considered.
Vide Moras, p. 96, s. 4.
1. Observations on the first account, Genesis,
i. 26—30. Here, and in other parts of the history of the
creation, God is said to speak. This is a repre
sentation by which the exertion of the divine
will, or the determination of God, is intelligibly
expressed, and corresponds with the whole pic
torial nature of the account. Cf. Genesis, vi.
5 ; xi. 6, 7. After the production of so many
creatures of the earth, God at length created
man, the noblest and most excellent of them
all — the lord of the lower creation.
. d-in, in the first chapter, is not a proper, but a
collective noun — man. We might suppose, from
this passage, if the account in the second chap
ter were not more explicit, that the first human
pair were created at the same time. The words,
uninia upSsa, should not be distinguished as
they have sometimes been. The two words
thus collocated signify, an exact or a very similar
9.2

n

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

image,- as chap. v. 1, 3. The primary sig
nification of dSx is, a shadow, as Psalm xxxix.
7 ; then, a shadowy image, a likeness. In what
this divine likeness consists, — whether simply
in the dominion over the rest of the creation,
mentioned immediately after, or in the posses
sion of higher faculties, will be investigated, s.
53. The dominion of man over animals here
spoken of denotes merely his right to use and
employ them for his own advantage. The
phrase, God blessed them, (ver. 28,) is to be un
derstood as above, in ver. 22; he gave them
fruitfulness, the power to propagate their species.
The fruits of the tree and of the field, and not
the flesh of animals, constituted the original food
of man as well as of beast. Vide ver. 29, 30,
where it is said that God gave to them the pro
duce of the earth for food. Cf. ii. 16. Many
reasons may be given for this. Had it not been
so, there would have been ground to apprehend
that man might have destroyed whole species
of animals, while they were yet few in number,
&c Vide Michaelis, in loc. The fact that
man at first fed upon fruits and herbs is con
firmed by the traditions of other ancient nations.
They uniformly represent the practice of taking-
the life and shedding the blood of living crea
tures as a cruel and frightful practice, which
could not have existed in paradise, or in the
golden age of the youthful world, when univer
sal friendship and happy concord reigned among
the creatures of God. Hence, in the prophetic de
scriptions of that happy age which should again
return to the world, it is expressly said that one
beast shall not destroy another ; " the lion shall
eat straw like the ox," Isa. xi. 7, coll. ver. 6 —
9. The same trait recurs in the description
which the Greeks give of the Saturnian age.
Vide Plutarch, itspi aapxocfaytas. Ovid, too, de
scribes the vetus aurea xtas as happy fcetibus
arboreis et herbis ; necpolluit ora cruore. Met. xv.
96, seq. Vide Clerici Comment, in Genesin.
We find, therefore, no intimation that beasts
were slain until after man had forfeited paradise,
Genesis, iii. 21. Shortly after, they appear to
have been offered by men in sacrifice to God,
Gen. iv. 4: Noah was the first who received
a distinct command to use flesh as well as vege
tables for his sustenance, Gen. ix. 3. And it is
in general true, that rude nations eat for a long
time only herbs and fruits, and come slowly
into the use of animals for food, even after they
have been in the habit of slaying them, and
using their skins for clothing. This can be
easily accounted for, when we consider that ani
mal food, as then prepared, before fire and salt
came into common use, must have been ex
tremely coarse and disgusting. We gather from
Homer, that the use of salt on flesh could not
have been very common in his day, since he
always gives it the epithet divine, and describes

it as a gift of the gods. The CaribeanS at the
present day eat flesh without salt.
2. Observations on the second account,. Genesis
ii. 4—24.
(a) After the mention, in ver. 5, 6, of the
means of subsistence which God had provided
for man from the vegetable kingdom, the writer
passes now, in ver. 7, to the creation of man
himself. " God formed man from the dust of
the earth," nniwpp lay — a very natural idea,
readily suggested by analogy, and in itself pro-
bable. The decay of man, and the mouldering
of his body to dust and earth, gave rise to the
phrase, to become dust and earth. And so dust
and earth were naturally regarded as the ele
ments of the human body ; and to describe death
they said, ij? aw isp, to return to the dust, from
which we were taken; Psalm civ. 29; Genesis,
iii. 19 ; Job, x. 9 ; Eccles. xii. 7. Cf. Job,
xxxiii. 6. The body of the first man, which
God had formed from the earth, was entirely
finished before it was endowed with life. Here
again the description is rendered natural and
probable from the analogy of the human body
when first deprived of life. The form and
structure remain complete after life has depart
ed ; and the body moulders slowly into dust and
clay. Thus, on the other hand, the body firs*
was formed under the plastic hand of the Artist;
and the breath of life was not imbreathed until
it was finished. In these two respects there it
a great resemblance between this account and
the Grecian fable of Prometheus, who first
formed a man from earth and water, and after
wards endowed it with life through the coope
ration of the Deity. Vide Ovid, Met. i. 82.
The d-in is here not only the common appel
lative for man, but also the proper distinguish
ing name of the first man. The first man is
called, by way of eminence, the man. The
word is not derived from din, red, (supposed by
some to refer to the red colour of trie counte
nance, or to the red earth, from which man was
formed, as the Rabbins and Josephus (Antiq. i.
1) suggest.) It is rather derived from nDiti,fe
earth, and so describes man as earthbom,yi;yivrfi.
Plato says, in his Politicus, 'Ex yr,s yap okSmf-
xovto itdvtES.
" And he breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life," D"n ncc'j ™ n?»i. God vivified the pre
viously lifeless body of man. Breath is the most
obvious and certain indication of life, and breath
ing is performed principally through the nose;
and hence this whole figurative representation
When God gives life to his creatures he is sail
to breath out his breath, or to breathe it into them
When he causes them to die, he is said to tak.
away their breath; as Ps. civ. 29, 30.
Nothing is expressly said in this passage re
specting the rational soul, its indivisibility, and
immortality. That only which is obvious, and

WORKS OF GOD.

187

perceptible by the external senses, is here de
scribed ; as it is in general the object of Moses
in "this passage to describe the origin of the
world only as far as it falls under the cogni
zance ef the senses. Cf. the remarks en nn, s.
51, 1. n>n vbi, is, a living creature, or being.
(6) In ver. 9, and ver. 16, 17, the writer
speaks pf the means of subsistence appointed
for man, from the vegetable kingdom, (Vide No.
I.,) and particularly the tree of life, and the tree
of knowledge of good and evil, or of the distinc
tion of good and evil; which were found in the
midst of the garden, (jan 7|ina.) They are men
tioned here to prepare the way for what follows
in the third chapter. Trees of life denote with
the Hebrews such trees as possess a healing,
life-giving power, arbores salutares, whether the
virtue belongs to the fruit, leaf, bark, or root ;
as Prov. iii. 18. We say, officinal herbs or trees.
The design of the tree of life was, to perpetuate
human life, Gen. iii. 22. While man continued
in paradise, his body was endued with immor
tality, which, however, was not effected in an
immediate and miraculous way, but by a natural
means, divinely appointed — viz., the fruit of a
tree, in partaking of which human life might be
prolonged. Hence the tree of life is described
as planted in heaven, the abode of immortality,
Rev. xxii. 2 ; ii. 7. The Greeks, too, speak of
food of which no mortal can taste, and which
the immortals alone enjoy. Homer, Odys. v.
197, 199 ; II. xix. 38, 39.
The description which Moses gives of the
tree of life would naturally lead to the conclusion
that the other tree which stood opposite was a
hurtful, poisonous tree, destructive of life ; and
this is confirmed from ver. 17, " The day thou
eatest of it thou shalt die." Cf. chap. iii. This
account too, as well as those which have pre
ceded it, is very probable and natural. There
are injurious plants and poisonous trees by which
we are made sick and destroyed ; there are also
useful trees, which impart health and prolong
life. Such trees there were in the age of para
dise, conferring perpetual health and immor
tality; and also a single poisonous tree, placed
in the garden for the trial of man. Cf. Gen. iii.
3. But why is it called the tree of the know
ledge of good and evil? Because by means of
this tree man was te learn prudence, te be made
cauticus and circumspect; and because it was
intended to put his wisdom to the test. Cf.
Morus, p. 97, s. 6. If he did not eat of the
tree it would be well for him, and he would act
wisely and circumspectly; if he ate of the fruit
of the tree, it would be to his hurt; and by the
evil he would suffer he would become wise, and
learn in future to be more circumspect ; he would
then know from his experience the unhappy
consequences resulting from transgression of

the divine command. Cf. Gen. iii. 22. The
phrase, to know, or to distinguish good and evil,
(or, as Horace expresses it, curvo posse digno-
scere rectum, Ep. ii. 2, 44,) always signifies \n
the ancient languages to be or become wise, to
acquire judgment. So frequently in Homer — e.
g., Odys. xviii. 227, 228; xx. 309, 310. Cf.
Book ii. s. 75.
(c) In ver. 19, 20, we have the following
points — viz.,
(a) Adam lived at first among the beasts ; and
they were, so to speak, brought before him by
God. They were more nearly related to him
than any other part of the material creation by
which he was surrounded. He had more in
common with them than with inanimate things.
In paradise the beasts were not timid and wild,
but lived with man in familiarity and confidence.
Cf. Isaiah, xi. 6 — 9. Nor is this representation
of the original state of man confined to the Jews ;
it is found among other nations, and is more
over confirmed to our present observation. We
find even now, that in regions entirely uninha
bited by man, and where his persecutions have
never been felt by beasts and birds, they are
tame and unsuspicious, though elsewhere known
as wild and timid. Cook describes the tropical
birds which he saw in the uninhabited islands
of the South Sea — the man of war, and other
birds which are commonly very shy — as so
tame that they could be caught by the hand.
When the traveller passes through the wilds of
South American which are seldom trodden by
human footsteps,, he is not shunned by the most
timid birds, and can catch even partridges as he
passes along by a mere noose fastened upon the
end of a stick. Cf. the work, "Zur Kunde
fremder Lander und Volker," b. ii. s. 152, ex
tracted from the " Lettres Edifiantes."
(3) As man was conversant with the animals
about him, and was soon able to distinguish
them one from another, he gave them names,
which appear to have been the sounds by which
he called them around him, and sometimes in
imitation of the sounds which they themselves
made. In this way it is easy to account for the
transition of man from his original speechless
ness to the first use of language. We notice
the same process in children. Plato observes,
very justly, in his Politicus, ','that in the Satur
nian age men were very familiar with animals,
and even conversed with them, (as appears in
Gen. iii., and as is seen in children ;) and that in
this intercourse they learned much wisdom ; and
by giving attention to their nature and habitudes
saw much which they could turn to their own
advantage." Hence the great influence which
the fables-of iEsop had in ancient times, and the
deep impression which they still make upon
children.

188

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

(y) But although every animal had its mate,
roan did not find among them all a companion
for himself. His innate propensity to the social
and conjugal state was thus more strongly ex
cited ; ver. 18, 20, ad finem. " Man only," it is
said, " had' not as yet n.^a -p." nru signifies,
properly, an assistant, companion ; as Ezekiel,
xii. 14. 11JJ3 is rendered by Luther, die um ihn
ware; in English version, meet for him ,- Sept.
xaf ' ait bv and buoios ait 9.
(d) Creation of the wife of Adam, ver. 21 — 24.
This passage has greatly perplexed com
mentators, who have undertaken to reconcile it
with the notions of modern times, with which
it does not at all agree. Eichhorn (p. 182, 183
of the work above cited) explains it in this
way — " Adam and his wife were created at the
same time, but at first lived apart. The conju
gal impulse of Adam was excited ; he fell into
a sleep, and dreamed that he was divided into
halves. When he awoke, Eve stood before
him." The same explanation in substance is
given by Zacharia, in his Bib. Theol. th. ii. s.
120. But what unprejudiced reader can see any
foundation for all this in the Mosaic account ?
Moses evidently teaches that Eve was created
after Adam, and taken by God from Adam ; and
, Paul says, " Adam was first formed, and then
Eve," 1 Tim. ii. 13. For this part of the Mo
saic narrative, as well as for the former parts,
there is some analogy, which, however, must be
more evident to the orientalist than to us, since
the subserviency of the woman to the man is
more acknowledged in the East than in the
West. The orientalist believes the woman to
be indeed of his own nature, but still secondary
and subject to him ; though this place by no
means teaches her subjection as a slave, as
afterwards, when the age of paradise was over,
Gen. iii. 16^ — a supposition inconsistent with
the idea of the golden age. Now, because the
woman is of the same nature as man, she is de
scribed as taken from him. Hence the deep
love he feels for her, and the intimate union be-
tween man and Wife. Hence, too, (viz., from
the fact that she was taken from him,) the supe
riority of the man over the woman. That this-
explanation is entirely in the spirit of the Bible
is clear from the argurnent which Paul deduces
from this place — '*For the rhan is not of the wo
man; but the woman of the man. Neither was
the man created for the woman; but the woman
for the man," 1 Cor. xi. 8, 9. This truth, then,
that husband and wife stand in the closest con
nexion with ench other, while still the wife is
necessarily dependent upon her husband, could
not be made more intelligible and impressive
than by the account here given, which repre
sents the woman as created after man, taken
from him, and madp out of his side. yVs in this

place does not signify rib, but side, half, as com
monly in Hebrew and Arabic — e. g., Exod.
xxvi. 26, 27, 35, seq. Sept, nxsvpd— " Theplaee
was closed up with flesh" — i. e.^the body was
healed and made whole. As pain was not knbwii
in paradise, it was necessary that Adam should
be put into a deep sleep (ver. 21) while all this
took place — in such a way, however, as to al
low him an obscure consciousness of what was
done, (ver. 23.) It is frequently the case, when
something befals us in sleep which makes'a
deep impression on the senses, that, without
waking at the time, we have a sort of percep
tion, which we obscurely recollect when after
wards awake, ay-ri mi, this' time. "Now I
see at last a being like myself, one of my own
species," referring to ver. 20, ad finem. Adam
now gives to his companion a name, as he had
formerly done to the beasts — viz., rax (like the
vira of the ancient Latins,) because she was
formed from man, (tf'X.) When afterwards
she had borne a child, he called her name mi,
because she then became the mother of the hunian
race, (ttSs dn ;) Gen. iii. 20. In ver. 24, it is
not Adam who speaks ; for he knew nothing as
yet about father and mother. The historian
here deduces a practical inference from. what
had been said. In Matt. xix. 5, where ?} ypa^
is to be supplied before slits, this passage is
cited : " The relation between husband and wife
is the most intimate which can exist, and, ac
cording to the design of God, indissoluble. It
is more irrefragable than the relation between
parents and children ; whence (so Christ con
cludes) to separate from one's wife is a crime
of worse desert than to renounce father and mo
ther." The particular truths and inferences to
be drawn from the whole Mosaic narrative are
well exhibited by Morus, p. 96 — 98, s. 4—8.
Cf. Matt. xix. ; 1 Cor. xi. When it is said(%
shall be one flesh, it means, they shall be regarded
as one body, one person.
Note. — The first abode of men is commonly
called paradise, itapdSsiaos, (cf. Morus, p. 96, s.
4, n. 1,) because the LXX. thus translate the
Hebrew p, which is used in ver. 8 of thisnarra;
tive, and in other parts of the Bible, and are fol
lowed in this by the Latin versions. The word
is of Persian origin, (in the Hebrew form
D-iip,) and signifies, in Eccl.ii. 5, and in other
texts where it occurs, not any small garden, but
a large portion of land, « park, furnished with
trees, and wild beasts, and water, for the pur
poses of hunting and fishing; as Xenophon de
scribes it, QUcon. iv. 13. The name of paradise.
was afterwards given to the abode of the bless
ed ; but the original abode of man was called
by this name, by way of eminence, after the
example of the LXX., by Sirach, Josephus,
Philo sind other Grecian Jews.

WORKS OF GOD.

189

The description of the garden is given, Gen.
ii. 8 — 15. Eden was not the name of paradise
itself, but paradise was a spot in the extensive
territo'v of Eden. Vide ver. 8, coll. ver. 10.
If the situation of the territory of Eden is to be
determined by the names of the four rivers men
tioned in the Mosaic account, and if by these ri
vers we are to understand those to which the same
names were anciently given, and some of which
retain them to the present day, we may fix upon
the region where Armenia, Ghilan, Dailem, and
Chorasan now lie. There are no means, how
ever, by which we can determine the particular
spot in this region where the garden of delights
was situated. Eden then comprehended all the
countries which extend from Euphrates (nip)
and Tigris (Spin) to Aras or Araxes, (iiiy's,
which rises in Armenia and flows into the Cas
pian Sea,) and Oxus (jm^), on the east of the
Caspian. The fables and traditions of the Asiatic na
tions agree very generally in placing the first
habitation of men, and the cradle of the human
race, in the neighbourhood of Caucasus and the
Caspian sea, and the valleys which extend side
ways from Caucasus, though they differ very
much in assigning more definitely the particular
spot where man first dwelt. Vide Zimmerman,
Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, band
iii. s. 250, and Meiners, Geschichte der Mensch-
heit, s. 7. Some learned men, however, re
lying upon other Asiatic traditions, not in the
least supported by the Bible, suppose that the
earth was first peopled from Southern Asia ; and
so they fix upon other rivers more favourable to
their hypotheses than those before mentioned,
to water their territory of Eden, although they
nearly all allow the river Euphrates to be one
intended. Buttman sided with these in his
"Aeltesten Erdkunde (des Morgenliinders ;"
Berlin, 1803, 8vo. In this work he represents, as
is common at the present time, the whole nar
rative of Moses as fabulous. He endeavours to
render it probable that the whole territory ex
tending from the Persian Gulf eastwards to the
Peninsula of Malacca, was the region intended
by Eden ; that the Ganges was one of the four
rivers, and that these original habitations were
afterwards placed by the Hebrews more in their
own vicinity. Among the older works on this
subject, cf. Reland, De situ paradisi, in his
"Diss. Miscell." t. i. Bochart, Geog. Sacra,
and Michaelis, Spiceleg. t. ii. In the seven
teenth century, Olaus Rudbeck, a Swede, wrote
a book called " Atlantica," in which he placed
paradise in Sweden. In the nineteenth century,
Dr. Hasse, in his " Entdeckung im Felde der
iiltesten Erd-und Menschengeschichte," endea
voured to prove that Eden was the north of Eu
rope, and that paradise was Prussia.

SECTION LIII.
OF THE IMAGE OF GOD IN WHICH MAN WAS
CREATED.
I. History of opinions respeding the Image of
God.
No one doubts that the image of God denotes
in general a likeness of God, (s. 52.) But the
opinions of theologians have always been differ
ent respecting the particular points of resem
blance which Moses intended to express by this
phrase. And this is not' strange, since Moses
does not explain what he means by it, and it is
used in very different significations in the Bible ;
which is a fact that, has not been sufficiently
noticed. The common opinion is, that this
phrase denotes certain excellences which man
originally possessed, but which he lost, in part
at least, by the fall. The principal texts which
are cited in behalf of this opinion are, Gen. i.
26, coll. ii. 15, seq. ; and from the New Testa
ment, Col. iii. 10, coll. Ephes. iv. 24, where a
renewal after the image of God is mentioned ;
which is understood to mean a restoration of this
image, implying that man must have lost i t ; alsp
2 Cpr. xi. 3. Against this cnmmon opinion it
may be objected, that the image of God is de
scribed in many passages as existing after the
fall, and as still discoverable in men ; as Gen.
ix. 6, "Whoso sheddeth man's bipod, by man
shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God
made he man ;" also James, iii. 9, " With the
tongue we curse men, who are made after the si
militude of God;,J also 1 Cor. xi. 6. 7, dvia —
Eixdv — ©eov vitdpxav. Here also belongs the
passage often cited in behalf of the opposite opi
nion, Gen. v. 1 — 3, where it is said, that Goi
created man in his own image ; and that Adam
begot a son in his own likeness, and after hia
image; from which it must appear, that Seth.
being made in the likeness of Adam, must havt
had the same image of God, whatever it was,
which Adam possessed. 1"his phrase, then.
evidently, is not always used in the same senso
in the Bible. And the fault of interpreters ana
theologians has been, that they have overiooVuri
the different meanings In which this phrase 13
used, and have selected one only, wriich truy
have endeavoured to elicit from ail the texts In
which the phrase occurs.
As to the question, in wliat consists that ex
cellence of man, denoted oy the phrase, the
image of God, we find,
1. Even the eldest Christian writers, the ec
clesiastical fathers, were very much divided.
This is acknewledged by Gregory of Nyssa, in
an Essay devoted to this subject. Theodoret
confesses, that he is not able to determine ex
actly in what this image consisted, Quaest. xx.

190

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

in Genesin. Epiphanius thinks that the thing
cannot be determined, Haeres. 30. Tertullian
placed it in the innate powers and faculties of the
human soul, especially in the freedom of choice
between good and evil, Adv. Marc. ii. 5, 6.
Philo placed it in the vois, the rational soul, and
associated with this phrase his Platonic notions
respecting the original ideas in the divine mind
(Aoyos), of which the visible man is a copy, De
Opif. Mundi. The human race, according to
him, is indeed degenerate, but yet has traces of
its relationship with the Father of all; for itds
¦Lv&paitos xat a piv trjv SiMoio* ipxsiat at ®sla
Aoyoj, 1 5js fiaxaplas tyvgsas ixfiaysiov, 7} aitogitagua
v\ aitavyagfxa ysyovas. Origen, (IlEpfc' ap^uiv,
iii. 6,) Gregory of Nyssa, and Leo the Great,
were of the same general opinion on this sub
ject as Tertullian. According to these ecclesi
astical fathers, this image of God consists prin
cipally in the rectitude and freedom of the will,
and in the due subordination of the inferior
powers of the soul to the superior. The im
mortality of the body is also included by Leo
and many others. Epiphanius blames Origen
for teaching, that Adam lost the image of God,
which, he says, the Bible does not affirm. He
knows and believes, " quod in cundis hominibus
imago Dei permaneat," Ep. ad Joannera, in
Opp. Hieronymi, t. i. Most of the Grecian and
Latin fathers distinguish between imago and
similitudo Dei. By the image of God, they
say, is meant the original constitution (Anlage)
— the innate powers and faculties (potentia na-
turalis, Scholast.) of the human soul. By the
similitude of God, is meant, that actual resem
blance to him which is acquired by the exercise
of these powers. I shall not dwell upon the
subtleties of the schoolmen, which are still pre
valent to some degree in the Romish church.
Vide Petavius. [For an account of these, vide
also Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 76.]
2. Nor are modern theologians at all more
unanimous. The most important opinions enter
tained on this subject in modern times admit of
,fhe following classification — viz.,
(a) Some find this image in the rational soul ;
like Philo, who, as before remarked, supposed
it to consist, not in bodily advantages, but in
the »<ovs, the higher reason alone, De Opif.
Mundi, p. 15, 45; and like many of the fathers.
To be sure, this higher rational and moral nature
of man lies at the foundation of all his other ex
cellences, and indeed is essential to their very
existence. But, according to the representation
of the Bible, this rational soul is not so much
itself this image of God, as the foundation or
source of those excellences in which it does
more properly consist.
(6) Others find it in the dominion of man over
all the creatures of the earth; because this do
minion is mentioned in immediate connexion

with the image of God in Gen. i. 26. So think
Socinus and his followers, and also many Anni.
nians. According to both of these theories, the
image of God must be allowed still to exist in
man. This will be farther considered hereafter,
(c) Others find it in the moral perfections of
our nature which we have lost by the fall. These
writers refer to the texts in the epistles to the Co-
lossians and Ephesians, and in accordance with
these explain the passages in Genesis relating
to this subject. This is the most common the
ory. In the language of the Apbl. Conf. Augs.,
the image of God consists in certior notitiaDei
el probitas. Theologians define it, justilia ori-
ginalis sive sanctitas, original uprightness or
holiness. (d) Those who find difficulties with all these
opinions, endeavour to relieve the subject by di
viding the image of God into a physical and a
moral image ; or into an essential and an inci
dental image. The latter, they suppose, is now
lost, or exists in a less degree ; the former is still
possessed by man.
II. Biblicaluses ofthephrase, " The Imageof God"
1. We cannot expect to find any strict or de
finite notion attached to this phrase in the an
cient Mosaic account. The general idea of di
vinity, greatness, precedence, is all that Moses
intends to express when he uses it; insignis
dignitas ac prxstantia liominis. Morus, p. 103,
s. 18. Any one who possesses excellence and
dignity superior to other men, is said, in this
widest sense, to bear the image of God, as 1 Cor.
xi. 7 ; ' Ps. lxxxii. 6. Moses, however, places
it principally and prominently in that part of
this superiority which is most obvious to the
senses — viz., the superiority of man over irra
tional creatures, and his dominion over the
earth. By this limitation, however, the other
excellences of our nature are not excluded ; but,
on the contrary, those powers and faculties
from which this more obvious superiority re
sults must be included in the idea of Moses.
But while Moses, in the use of this phrase, had
in his eye that superior excellence of man by
which he is lord of the earth, he does not teach
anywhere that man lost this entirely by the fall;
but, on the contrary, implies that he afterwaris
possessed it. Vide No. I. Princes and juigu
are called by Moses gods, and sons of God, on
account of the superiority and dominion which
they possess. Vide s. 17. For the same rea
son man is king and god of this lower cres
tion, which honours him as the image of Goo.
David probably used the phrase in this wider
sense in Ps. viii. 6 — 9, where he explains and
paraphrases Gen. i. 26, seq. Cf. 1 Cor. xi. d
7 ; James, iii. 9. Chrysostom, .Theodoret, and
even Augustine, explained the words of Mow*
in this wav.

WORKS OF GOT).

191

2. The later Jews appear te have used this
phrase in different senses, as we learn from the
Book of Wisdom and Sirach. They included in
its meaning,
(a) The immortality of the body, d^opfft'a.
"Of & b ®£OS ixtigs tbv dv^paitov iit' d$iap5ia, xai
sixbva tr\s tfitas ISibtrjtos iiioingsv avtov. €,^oi'9
8e SiafioXov ^a»af os sigrjX^EV sis tbv xbguov itsipd-
£ovgi Ss a/itbv ol tqs ExEtVov psplSos bvtss, Book
of Wisdom, ii. 23, 24. In this respect, there
fore, according to this writer, we have lost the
image of God. Vide ver. 24, where he consi
ders death as the consequence of sin, and attri
butes it to the devil. This immortality was re
garded by the whole ancient world as something
divine and godlike, and is made by Homer the
principal mark and characteristic of his deities.
Gods and d&oi/ofot are always synonymous in
his writings.
(b) Dominion over the earth, Book of Wis
dom, ix. 2, 3; Sirach, xvii. 3, 4. The domi
nion of man over the inferior creation is regard
ed, even by Philo, as a remnant of his original
perfection and power, 'De Opif. Mundi, p. 100,
ed. Pf. Sirach, in the passage cited, seems to
include in this image, together with dominion
over the earth, reason, speech, and the other
perfections mentioned in ver. 5, seq. In this re
spect we still retain the image of God.
(c) The moral state, Book of Wisdom, ix. 3,
where mention is made of the dsidfjjsxai fiixaio-
gvvn xai si^vtrs tyoxw m which the first men'
lived upon the earth and ruled pver it. These
meral excellences we de not any longer possess ;
certainly not in the same degree as formerly.
3. The same significations of the phrase,
image of God, which were noticed No. 2, were
common among the Jews at the time of Christ,
and were accordingly adopted by the apostles.
They use this phrase,
(a) In reference to the general exaltation,
dignity, and dominion of man: — e. g., 1 Cor.
xi. 7; James, iii. 9. (6) In reference to the
moral perfections of man, exactly as it is used
by the author of the Book of Wisdom — e. g.,
Col. iii. 10, cell. Ephes. iv. 23, 24. Beth pf
these epistles were written at the same time;
they are entirely similar in phraseelpgy, and
perfectly parallel in these passages. Christians,
especially cenverts from heathenism, are here
exhorted to renounce altogether their former sin
ful propensities, and the wicked life which they
had previously led, (itaXaibs av^panos;) and to
put on the new man — i. e., to be wholly reno
vated, to embrace new principles, and to lead a
new life correspondent to their principles. Now
this new man is said to be dvaxaivovixcvos, renew
ed — l. e., new created, or remodelled by God,
Ephes. iv. 23; and hence the phrase, the re
newal or restoration pf the divine image. Eis
iitlyvuaiv sheuld be censtrued with xtlgavtos

avtov, to- the knowledge of God — i. e., this dis
position is produced in you to enable you to at
tain to the knowledge of God and of his will 
a living and saving knowledge. Ktl^siv. to cre
ate anew, transform — i. e., entirely to chance
and improve ; continuing the figure derived from
the new man. Kof ' sixbva ®soi — i. e., accord
ing to Ephes. iv. 24, xaf a ©eov, after the pattern
or likeness of God — i. e., that you should be
come again like unto God. Paul here makes
this likeness of God to consist in a moral re
semblance — that holiness and uprightness, to
the attainrrient of which Christ teaches us the
means, and gives us the power. This' is clear
from what precedes, and also from Ephes. iv.
24, where Paul says that this reformed charac
ter, bearing the divine likeness, consists iv
Si.xatogvvvj (piety), xai bgtotijti trjs dxyf&sias —
(i. e., dxipivrj,) honest, sincere integrity. The
same words are employed in the passage cited
from the Book of Wisdom. John, in his epis
tles, frequently urges the duty of striving to be
come like to God,-(filii Dei,) although he does
not use the phrase, image of God. Plato says,
that likeness (bpoiagis) to God is, "fitxat-ov xai
bgiov fistd typovrjgsas ysvsg^ai." Cicero makes
our likeness to God both a physical and moral
resemblance. God, he says, animated the
human body, "utessent qui terram tuerentur,
quique ccelestium ordinem contemplantesimita-
rentur cum vita; modo et constantia."
III. Concluding Remarks.
We draw the following general conclusion
from these historical and exegetical observations
— viz., the phrase, the image of God, is very
comprehensive, and used in the Bible in more
than one sense ; and many unnecessary disputes
would have been avoided, if it had not been
adopted in systematic theology as the title of a
particular article. One may say, without at all
denying a primitive state of innocence, that the
image of God in which man was created did not
consist in this state, and that it still continues
after the fall. If we believe the scriptures, we
shall believe in the primitive innocence of man ;
but there is no necessity for us to call it the
image of God. It would be far better to aban
don the phrase, image of God, in speaking sci
entifically on the original perfections of man,
and to adopt in its place the more comprehensive
title, the state of innocence. The latter phrase is
derived from 2 Cor. xi. 3, where Paul says, he
fears that, as Eve was beguiled by the serpent,
Christians may be beguiled (by false teachers)
from the cutAdrwfos tfts sis "Kpigtov — i. e., sim-
plicitas, sincerity, purity ; here, pure love to
Christ, true and sincere dependence upon him
like what innocent children feel towards their
parents and benefactors.
Again ; we compare men with God in respect

192

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

to all the excellences which we observe in them,
and which we conceive that he also ppssesses,
only in a higher and more perfect degree. We
may say of men, therefore, that, ' in respect to
all these excellences, they bear the image of God,
or are like him. Now we still possess, as we
are taught in the scriptures, many of these no
bler powers with which our nature was endued,
though in a far less degree than God ; such are
reason, dominion over the earth, &c. Other of
these excellences, according to the constant
doctrine of the Bible, we have lost by the fall,
or possess at present in a far less degree than
our first parents before the fall. Among the
latter are (a) that degree of bodily strength and
health which laid the foundation for the immor
tality of the body; and (J) more especially
moral perfections. Thus we see that the Bible
will support us in saying, both that we still
possess the image of God, and that we possess
it no longer, according as we use this phrase in
a wider or narrower sense. So far as the pos
terity of Adam still possesses reason and power
over irrational creatures, they still possess the
image of God, Deo sunt similes. So far as they
have ceased to be righteous and holy as man
was in his state of innocence, and so far as their
bodies are now become' mortal, they have lost
the image of God. But so far as they regain
this original moral rectitude, and a happy im
mortality, they again become like God, and his
image is renewed in their souls. This whole
subject is discussed by Morus, p.. 105, s. 23, in
a manner worthy of imitation, especially in the
practical turn which he has given it.
Note. — Theologians have invented various
divisions and technical phrases, in order to de
termine more accurately the nature and kind of
those excellences and. perfections which were
bestowed by God upon man at the creation.
But these divisions have given rise to many er
roneous views of this subject. The following
distinctions deserve to be particularly noticed : —
1. These original endowments of man are
not to be understood as excellences which he
possessed in actual exercise (habitus, Scholast.
habitus infusi ,-) but only as capacities and fa-
lulties for those excellences which, by practice
and exercise, he may come to possess. The
human soul resembles in this respect an unwrit
ten leaf, (the tabula rasa of Aristotle,) upon
which everything can be written for which it
has a natural fitness and susceptibility. Vide
Introduction, s. 4.
2. Tliey^ are naturales ,- united with human
nature, and wrought into it by God ; and op
posed (a) to perfectiones essentiales, because man
can be conceived to exist without them, and
would remain man though destitute of them ;
and (&1 to perfectiones superadditi per gratiam.

This last point was affirmed in opposition to
many theologians of the Romish church, who
placed these excellences in a high degree of wig.
dom, justice, and holiness, imparted by GorJ to
men on creation in a supernatural manner, and
in addition to the original endowments of his
nature. They regarded the sindlituda cunj,Iieo
as opposed to the status purorum naturalium in
which man was without the knowledge or.ipye
of God ; and therefore as a donum supernatvfale
which could be lost without altering the essen
tial nature of man.
3 . Perfectiones propagibiles. It was the inten
tion of God that these perfections should "]Se
transmitted to the posterity of our first parents
so long as the conditions- prescribed by God
should be fulfilled. SECTION LIV.
OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN ; HIS MEKTAL
AND MORAL PERFECTIONS.
The excellences which man possessed in his
original condition are generally divided into two
classes ; (a) Internal, such as belong to the es
sential constitution of human nature, as esta
blished by God himself, including all his ori
ginal perfections both of soul and body; s. 54,
55. (b) External, such advantages as man
possessed from the relation to the rest of the
creation in which he was placed by God;,, hi?
dominion over the other creatures of the earth,
his title to use them for his own advantage,
&c — imago Dei sensu latiori ; s. 56. We shall
first treat of the internal excellences of man;
in this section, of the original perfections of his
soul; in the follpwing, of those of his body. The
excellences which originally belonged to the
soul of man will now be considered in reference
to its two principal powers — understanding and
will. I. Original Excellences of the Human Under
standing.
Reason and the intellectual powers are the
noblest gifts which we have receiyed from God,
without which we could not be moral beings.
We cannot suppose, then, that these powers
should have remained idle and unemployed dur
ing the happy state of innocence in which our
first parents lived. Paul, therefore, with entire
truth, makes litlyvasis one of the things in which
our likeness to God consisted; Col. iii. 10, cf.
s. 53 ; since holiness and blamelessness, the
other things mentioned as constituting it, could
not exist, without some knowledge of good and
evil. This knowledge, however, was not itself
directly imparted to man at his creation, but
only the power of obtaining knowledge. Vide
s. 53, ad finem.

WORKS OF GOD.

193

In what the knowledge of our first parents
consisted neither Moses nor any other sacred
writer has particularly informed us. Their
state with respect to knowledge is doubtless
justly described as a state of infancy ; in the
sense, however, in which we speak of the in
fancy of nations ; for Moses does not represent
Adam as in all respects resembling a newborn
child. As to actual knowledge, he was, indeed,
at the moment when God created him, exactly
in the condition of a new-born child, and quite
as destitute of innate ideas. But in another re
spect he was very unlike a new-born child ; in
this, namely, that he was able to exercise his
reason immediately, which a child is not. God
created man, according to the Mosaic account,
not only endued with reason, but able to exercise
it on his first entrance into the world. And if
he had immediately the full use of his intellec
tual powers, he must very soon have acquired
from the objects by which he was surrounded a
great variety of ideas, and a large stock of know
ledge; and he would advance in knowledge the
more rapidly and easily, as his mind was not as
yet swayed by those inordinate bodily appe
tites, nor darkened by those prejudices, nor
confirmed in those bad habits, by which all
others who have attained to maturity are so
effectually hindered in the acquisition of know
ledge. The means by which God called the intel
lectual powers of man into exercise, and brought
them to a full development, were, according to
Moses, of two kinds.
(a) Indirect, — the external objects by which
man was surrounded. Animate creatures, being
more nearly related to him than the inanimate
creation, were the first objects which attracted
his attention and excited his curiosity. That
this was so we may conclude, both from what
we observe every day among children, and from
the express declaration of Moses. The living
creatures with which man was conversant first
employed his thoughts; and in giving them
names, he first exercised the faculty of speech.
Cf. s. 52, II. It was not until afterwards, and
only in an inferior degree, that the inanimate
creation also administered to his instruction by
the various objects which it presented to his at
tention. (6) Direct, — therevelations made immediately
to man. The Mosaic history throughout repre
sents God as familiarly and directly conversant
with our first parents; and as speaking with
them ; Gen. ii. 16, 17 ; i. 29, 30. And the his
tory of the fall (chap, iii.) presupposes in our
first parents an acquaintance with some direct
divine instruction, and with positive divine pre
cepts; and this corresponds entirely with the
notions which even heathen nations have always
25

had of the original condition of man. In the
early and infant age of the world, the Deity,
they supposed, walked familiarly among men,
and revealed himself to them directly, by word3,
dreams, visions, and in other ways.
The knewledge of our first parents, so far as
it was derived from natural sources, must have
been confined to the objects by which they were
immediately surrounded ; and even with regard
to these, they knew only as much as was neces
sary for them in the circumstances in which they
were placed. In comparison with the know
ledge which we possess at present, it must have
been very small, as their wants were compara
tively very few. The Mosaic history does not
afford the remotest support to the fabulous sto
ries which we find in the rabbins, ecclesiastical
fathers, and other writers, who have followed the
later Jewish teachers, respecting the extensive
physiological, scientific, and literary knowledge
of Adam. These Jewish fables are connected
with the notion that the language which Adam
spoke was Hebrew, which is supposed by the
Jews to be a holy language, inspired by God — a
pretension which has been ably refuted by
Schultens. The Jews think they can discover
proof of the thorough knowledge of nature which
Adam possessed, in the Hebrew names which
they suppose him to have given to the various
animals, and from the etymologies of these
names. We should not expect to find thorough know
ledge or extensive learning in our first parents,
for the following reasons : — viz., (a) With their
few wants they could derive no advantage from
such knowledge, and could make no use of it.
(J) As to religion, the knowledge which they
needed both of its theoretical and practical truths
could be comprised in a few simple and intelli
gible points. Of any higher or more extended
knowledge of this subject they were at first.
wholly incapable, (c) It will nut be denied that
the language of our first parents must have been
simple and scanty. Vide s. 55. But it is well
known from experience, that without words, and
indeed without a great copiousness and richness
of language, neither distinct and definite ideas,
nor, in general, accurate knowledge, can exist.
(d) When men first begin to collect in society,
even supposing them endued with the most no
ble faculties and intellectual powers, they cannot
be instructed by philosophy, like learned and
cultivated people. They must first be instructed
by what is sensible ; and have everything ren
dered as obvious to the senses as possible ; ex
actly as it is represented, Gen. ii. 1 9, 20. If the
representation there made were different, and
such as many modern scholars would have us
believe, it would be highly improbable, and the
whole narrative would become suspicious. This
R

194

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

very simplicity gives it the stamp of internal
truth, (e) Our first parents are represented in
chap. iii. as in fact credulous and easily be
guiled. And how can this be reconciled with
the supposition that they possessed that deep
and extensive knowledge and those great per
fections sometimes ascribed to them? The
knowledge of Adam, then, cannot be compared
with that of any advanced and mature race of
men. The same standard of judging cannot be
employed in the two cases. It may be readily
conceded, however, that the powers and faculties
of our first parents, as long as the gdp% and
livsipia, sense and reason, remained in proper ba
lance, were greater than those of their posterity,
in/whom the case is otherwise. Vide Dr. Junge,
',' Volekommenheiten der ersten Menschen,"
Stiick 1, of his philosophical and theological
Essays ; Niirnberg, 1779, 8vo.
II. Original Excellences of the Human Witt.
They consist chiefly in the order and regu
larity of our bodily desires. Our first parents
in their state of innocence were blameless and
sinless. They had sincere love for God and re
gard for his commandments, and did everything
which was agreeable to him with the greatest
readiness, out of pure love, as virtuous children
do the will of an earthly parent. In short, if
their piety was childlike in respect to the know
ledge upon which it was founded, it was also so
in respect to its purity and simplicity. And this
disposition is that which will be revived in those
in whom the image ,of God is renewed. Hence
Christ recommends us so earnestly to become
like children. Our first parents obeyed from
grateful love ; and it is the object of Christianity,
in designing to renew the image of God, to bring
us to render obedience to God and Christ from
motives of grateful love. But this rectitude of
our first parents consisted only in the subjection
of their bodily appetites to the law of reason.
Both scripture and experience teach us that our
depravity and moral degeneracy arise principally
from the dominion of sense (ffopi) over reason
(itvsvp-a.) Such was not the case with man in
his state of innocence ; he then suffered his ap
petites to be controlled by rational considera
tions ; he fixed his choice only upon what was
good, and his desires being virtuous, his actions
were the same. Hence this original rectitude
of man is called sinlessness {dvaaapt ngla.) The
representation now given of the original recti
tude of man depends principally upon the pas
sages, Col. iii. and Ephes. iv. Vide s. 53.- In
these passages, righteousness (uprightness) and
.holiness (mpral perfecticn) are ascribed by Paul
to the will of man as first created, and as re
newed. This rectitude of the will is called by
theologians imaginem Dei stride sic didam, also

justitiam originalem, the last of which is used
in the Apol. Augsb. Confession. Vide Morus,
p. 105, Not. ad. s. 23- Of the same import is
the phrase Ev^vfiys -^vxyft which occurs, Book of
Wisdom, ix. 3 (s. 53) ; and also bgiottjs and
ditxatrs, 2 Cor., xi. 3. Ev^iis corresponds with
the Hebrew "ie><, honest, upright, virtuous; and
is used with particular reference to the text,
Eccles. vii. 29, "God made man upright; but
he sought out many inventions (wrong ways)."
The meaning is :. man had a natural capacity for
virtue, but he abandoned nature, and decline^ to
evil, notwithstanding his noble capacities..'
The opinions which many form of the per
fections of the will of our first parents, and of the
virtues of their character, are frequently very
extravagant. This is a fault which shoulj'lTe
guarded against. Man was created with the
amplest capacity for moral excellency; but it
cannot be said that he had attained to the actual
possession of this excellence in a very high
degree. High and confirmed virtue can only be
attained by a long course of moral action; and
at that early period opportunities for this action
must have been very rare. God, however, did
not require more -from man than he had given
to him. But the understanding of man in his
primitive state, though indeed sufficient for the
situation in which he was placed, was still very
small, and his actual knowledge very limited;
but the more feeble and imperfect these are, the
more imperfect, necessarily, must be that virtue
which depends upon them. There is a great
difference between the innocence of childhood,
and the virtue which is grounded upon the more
perfect and mature knowledge and experience
of a riper and more advanced age. If our first
parents had possessed so preponderating a bias
to good as many have supposed, it is hard to
see how they could have been so easily seduced.
We behold them yielding to temptations which
would have in vain assailed many of those
among their descendants, in whom, according
to the language of scripture, the image of God
is renewed.
They, hpwever,,were net destitute of a know
ledge of their duty sufficient for their situation;
for so much Gpd had provided, Genesis, iii. 2,
3. Accerdingly, their neglect ef duty and the'r
transgressien of the divine command could be
imputed to them. We should avoid, therefore,
the other mistake of representing them as en
tirely ignorant. Vide Morus, s. 8, 22. If they
had been faithful in the use of the knowledge
which they possessed, they would have attained
to a greater measure of it, and to a. more fixed
habit of goodness, as is the case among those
in whom the image of God is renewed. Cf.
Matt. xiii. 12, and the texts cited from the epis
tles to the Ephesians and Colossians.

WORKS OF GOD.

195

SECTION LV.
OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN ; HIS BODILY
EXCELLENCES, AND SPEECH.
I. Original Excellences of the Human Body,
1. The superiority of our first parents over
their posterity in this respect cannot be accu
rately and particularly determined from the
Mosaic account. So much, however, is clear
from this account, that the body of man was then
perfectly healthy, strong, and vigorous, and that
it would have enjoyed a never-failing youth if
man had continued in that happy condition in
which he was first placed. And this account
agrees perfectly with the representations which
we find among other nations of the animal cheer
fulness, the bodily health and strength of man
in the golden age, and even down into the hero-
ical age. Homerfrequently speaks of the strong
bodily powers of the men of an earlier period,
in comparison with the feebleness of those who
lived in his own age. The blooming health and
bodily vigour of our first parents contributed to
the health and strength of the soul ; its powers
were not disordered or weakened by sickness ;
the passions and appetites, which so often de
stroy both body and soul, were as yet moderate
and regular. On this subject, as well as with
regard to the original mental and moral excel
lences of man, the fancy of the later Jews was
very active; and they invented innumerable
fables, with which their writings are filled,
respecting the beauty, the gigantic size and
strength, of the first man.
The immortality of the body is expressly men
tioned in the Mosaic account, as one of the pe
culiar distinguishing advantages which our first
parents enjoyed, Gen. ii. 17, but which we have
lost by the fall, Gen. iii. 3, 19. The same is
also everywhere taught by the later Jewish
writers, who always regarded the immortality
of the body as a part of the image of God. Vide
Book of Wisdom, ii. 23, seq., (s. 53, II. 2.)
So also the first Christian teachers — e. g., Ro
mans, v. 12; vi. 23; 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22; where
the same views are given as in the texts cited
from the Book of Wisdom. This doctrine of
the immortality of the body does not imply that
man in his nature was so unalterable that he
absolutely could not die. An impossibilitas ma
nendi, or immortalitas absoluta, is not pretended ;
but only the absentia necessitatis naturalis mori-
endi, or immortalitas hypothetica, the condition
proposed being obedience to the command of
God, and the enjeyment ef the tree ef life being
permitted to them enly sp long as they should
fulfil this condition. Morus, p. 98, s. 9, note.
Nor is this immortality represented even by
Moses as a necessary consequence resulting
from the incorruptible nature of the human body,

but as a favour promised to man by God, and
depending upon the constantly-repeated use of
the tree of life. Gen. ii. 9, coll. iii. 22, 24. Cf.
s. 52, II. Something similar to this is found in
the Grecian mythology, which represents the
gods as partaking of nectar and ambrosia, in order
to preserve and invigorate their bodies ; while
mortal men were not allowed to participate of
this heavenly food, even when they ate with the
gods. Horn. Od. v. 197, 199.
The question is frequently asked , whether man
would have always remained upon the earth if he
had not fallen? The Mosaic history furnishes
no reply to this question ; but the answer com
monly given by theologians is, that man would
not always have remained here below, but that,
by some unknown transformation,without death,
or the separation of the soul from the body, he
would have been raised to a higher happiness
in heaven. To this opinion Morus assents. It
is grounded principally upon the New-Testa
ment doctrine, that those men who should still
be alive at the day of judgment would not die,
but be changed — i. c, their grosser bodies would
pass, without the painful sensation of death, into
those more refined and perfect bodies which all
will possess in the abodes of the blessed, 1 Cor.
xv. 51, seq. This representation is supposed
to furnish some evidence with regard to the ori
ginal destination of the human body ; and this
is rendered more probable by what Paul says,
ver. 47, "aj&purtos ix yrjs X°'ixbs (soti)." But
we cannot attain to certainly upon this sub
ject, because the holy scriptures leave it un
decided. 2. It was not intended, however, by the Crea
tor, that our first parents, while living in their
state of innocence, should leave their bodily
powers unemployed and unexercised. Morus,
s. 4. The life which they were to lead was
not one of indolent ease and animal enjoyment,
although such is the notion almost universally
entertained respecting the life in the golden age.
Our first parents, on the contrary, were required
to labour, and in that way still further to de
velop and perfect their bodily and intellectual
powers. Vide s. 51.11. The very idea, how
ever, of this happy age, excludes the notion of
pain and hardship, the frequent attendants of
labour. Vide Genesis, ii. 5 ; iii. 17 — 19. Agri
culture is mentioned, in the passages before
cited, as the first employment appointed for man.
The taming, or rather domestication and em
ployment of animals is mentioned in Gen. i. 28.
By describing agriculture as the first employ
ment of man, Moses obviates the false opinion
that our first parents were originally in a savage
state. A degree of cultivation which savages
do not possess is implied in agricultural employ
ments ; and they lead faster than any other to
progressive improvement.

196

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

II. Original Language of Man.
Speech is the great characteristic excellence
of man, without which he would hardly be able
to employ his rational powers, or to exist in so
cial connexion with his fellow-men. Of this
distinguishing faculty of man Moses makes ex
press mention, Gen. ii. 19 ; cf. s. 52, II. There
have always been very various opinions respect
ing the origin of human language. For the
opinions of the ancient Greeks, vide Puffendorf,
Jus naturae et gentium, 1. iv. c. 1, s. 3, and Miil-
ler, Positiones, historico-philosoph. de origine
sermonis ; Argentorati, 1777. This subject has
been often discussed in modern times, and has
caused much controversy both among philoso
phers and theologians ; and as it is usually made
a topic of discussion in modern systematic the
ology, and can be more naturally introduced into
this department than any other, we shall treat
of it briefly in this place. Writers on this sub
ject are divided into two principal classes — viz.,
1. Some have maintained, that an articulate
language, consisting of arbitrary sounds, was
imparted to man at his creation, and that he was
able immediately to speak it; and moreover, that
this original language was very copious and in
the highest degree perfect. Man, they assert,
not only did not, as a matter of fact, invent the
language which he spake, but never could have
done it; and so they suppose that speech was
originally as special and miraculous an endow
ment as the gift of tongues to the apostles. The
principal advocate of this opinion in modern
times is Joh. Pet. Sussmilch, who has attempt
ed, with no common sagacity, to prove that the
origin of language is not to be traced to man,
but directly to God. Vide his Essay on this
subject, published at Berlin, 1766, 8vo. But,
(a) The nature of language itself, and the
most ancient history of it, furnish conclusive
evidence that man not only can invent, but has
actually invented, articulated language, consist
ing of arbitrary sounds. All languages in their
incipient state are indescribably simple, consist
ing of very few and short words and phrases,
which are so insufficient for the communication
of thought, that looks and gestures are called in
to their aid. Such we observe to be the case
still with children, who have more thoughts
and feelings than words in which to express
them. The same is true of savages, and gene
rally of all who have but few words. Now, if
God had communicated language in some such
miraculous manner as is supposed to our first
parents, it is hard to see why he should have
suffered this language to be afterwards lost, and
how it should have come to pass that all the
nations springing from Adam should have begun
back with the very elements of speech, and pro
ceeding from these, have formed so many and

such different languages. According to this
supposition, then, a great miracle would have
been wrought in behalf of our first parents, from
which none of their posterity had • reaped the
least advantage. This is not according to'tlw
manner of God in his other works. '• ¦•»
(b) The supposition that the original lan
guage of man was copious and finished, over
looks the fact that language cannot be'such
where objects and ideas are still scanty and im
perfect. Ideas arise from the perception of ob
jects; and the number, clearness, and distinct
ness of our ideas is in proportion to the number
of objects which we behold, either simply or in
connexion with others. But language contains
the signs and symbols by which we express
our ideas of things, and communicate them to
others. How, then, could there be a perfect
language in that simplicity of human lift in
which there were but few objects to be seen Or
compared? The advocates of this supposition
are driven to the absurdity of saying that man
could have spoken of things which he had never
seen or thought of. It was remarked by Samoel
Werenfels, very truly, that if one should look
through the most comprehensive and complete
dictionary, he would find but few words which
cduld have belonged to the language of Adam.
(c) Again ; of what use could a rich and cul
tivated language have been to our first parents!
And if of none, how can the supposition that
such a language was miraculously given them
be reconciled with divine wisdom, which does
not work miracles except for some important
object? Now it is perfectly obvious that to
them, in their peaceful and simple life, when
they had but few wants, and those easily satis
fied, such a language would have been of no
utility. They had as yet no ideas of innume-
rable things which became afterwards known
as improvement advanced ; and for such things,
of course, they had no words in their language,
The language of our first parents, in its incipient
state, could not naturally have been-more copi
ous or perfect than the language of nations ge
nerally while they are still in their infancy and
possess but few ideas, and of course have, and
need to have, but few words to express them.
(d) We justly conclude, from what we see of
the wisdom of God in all his other works, that
he did not endow man, on his creation, with any
advantage which he himself could attain in the
diligent use of the powers and faculties of his
nature. So we conclude that man has no innate
ideas, because he can easily obtain the ideas he
possesses by the use of his intellectual powers.
And with still more reason may we conclude,
on the same ground, that man has no imagwts
innatas, sive signa innata idearum de reh*
The Bible makes no mention of any such ; on
the contrary, it teaches that one way in which

WORKS OF GOD.

197

our first parents learned language was from
their intercourse with irrational creatures, in
giving names to which they first exercised the
faculty of speech.
2. The second class affirm that God did not
bestow language itself upon man at his creation,
but gave him powers and faculties which would
enable him to form a language for himself, and
gradually to refine and enrich it as his circum
stances might require. Those who hold this
opinion may have as sincere admiration for the
wisdom of God and gratitude for his goodness
as the advocates of the other theory. Among
the ancients, Epicurus, (vide Lucretius,) and
among the fathers, Tertullian and Gregory of
Nyssa, assented to this opinion; and it was
considered even by Quenstadt as entirely unob
jectionable. These writers, however, differ among them
selves respecting the manner in which man pro
ceeded in the development and improvement of
his faculties of speech. The strangest conjecture
on this point is that of Maupertius, that language
was formed by a session of learned societies,
assembled for the purpose ! The theory which
derives the most support from history is, that
the roots, the primitive radical words of articu
late and conventional language, were originally
made in imitation of the sounds which we hear
from the different objects in the natural world,
and that, these original sounds, in imitation of
which language is first formed, become less and
less discernible in these languages in proportion
as they are improved and enlarged, and the ra
dical words are subjected to various alterations
and inflexions. Vide Herder, Ueber den Ur-
sprung der Sprache, (a prize Essay;) Berlin,
1772 ; 2nd ed. 1778 ; 3rd, 1789. Cf. the works
of Tetens and Tiedemann on this subject; also
Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. s. 134, f.
These views respecting the origin of language
are entirely consistent with the very natural re
presentation which Moses gives, Gen. ii. 19,
20, of the. naming of the animals. Vide s. 52,
II. These were the first objects to which man
directed his attention, and to these he gave
names, sometimes derived from his calls to them,
and sometimes from voices and sounds which
they themselves made. I* this way, then, man
was first led to exercise his powers of speech ;
and it was perfectly natural for him to begin to
speak by giving names to animals, as they are
more interesting to him, and more nearly related
to him, than the inanimate creation.
Now, when our first parents were to be in
structed in moral objects, which could not be
recognised by their senses, it must necessarily
be done by images drawn from nature, and es
pecially from animals, and so their names and
the names of their actions were figuratively ap
plied, in the poverty of the then existing lan

guage, to designate moral objects. In conform
ity with these views, we must interpret what
God says, Genesis, iii., iv., which would have
been unintelligible to our first parents if it had
been expressed in such language and phraseo
logy as is now common among us; but which,
being expressed in a figurative manner, was
level to their comprehension. This is the way
in which missionaries are now compelled to pro
ceed, when they have to do with men who have
no ideas on religious and spiritual subjects, and
of course no words answering to them in their
language. Instruction intended for children,
also, must be conveyed in the same figurative
language and style; and they are always found
to be most interested in allegories and fables,
like those of jEsop. Those who object to this
mode of instruction only prove, then, their own
ignorance. Instruction imparted to uncultivated
men must of necessity be given in a figurative
manner, because they not only speak, but even
think, in figures. From abstract expressions
they derive but faint conceptions. The case is
entirely different among cultivated men.
SECTION LVI.
OF THE PRIMITIVE STATE OF MAN ; HIS EXTERNAL
ADVANTAGES ; AND THE NOTION OF A GOLDEN
AGE. I. Original External Advantages of Man.
This is the second class of the distinguishing
advantages of our first parents, as divided in the
beginning of s. 54. They have their ground in
the external relation of man to the other crea
tures of the earth ; but they presuppose in him
the possession of those internal excellences de
scribed s. 54, 55. These advantages are com
prehended under the general description, the
dominion of man over the earth, or over the crea
tures of the earth, Morus, p. 104, s. 21 ; and
this is taken from Gen. i. 26, seq. coll. Gen.
ix. 2. This dominion implies nothing more
than that man possesses (a) the right and title
to make all the creatures of the earth contribute
to his own advantage, to the supply of his
wants, and to the convenience of his life ; and
(4) that he possesses both the power and skill
to compel them to that subservience to which
their nature is adapted. Cf. s. 52, II. It is
said by Plato, in a passage in Timaeus respect
ing the creation of men, as translated by Cicero,
" Tales creantur, ut Deorum immortalium quau
gentiles esse debeant, divini generis appellentur,
(cf. Acts, xvii. 28, from Aratus, fov yap xai.
y'svas iait-sv,) ieneantque omnium animantium
principatum." God has placed man, as lord,
at the head of the animate creation ; made him
his image upon the earth — a subordinate god —
a representative of the Deity. And the irra
r2

If3

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

tional creatures, whose knowledge cannot ex
tend beyond what they can recognise by their
senses, can conceive of nothing superior to man.
Of God and of spiritual things they know no
thing, and so can have no duties to perform to
him. Their business is, to submit to man, as
their lord and ruler ; and God has given to man
the means to compel them to this obedience, for
which they were made. With many animals,
even since the fall, this subjection to man seems
to be natural and easy; they are inclined to his
service of their own accord, or are readily pre
vailed upon by favours or chastisements to en
gage in it.
This dominion which was conferred upon
man over the animate and the inanimate crea
tion he still retains, at least in a good measure.
It is represented as still the prerogative of man
in Psalm viii. 6 — 9, the whole of which passage
is a paraphrase of Genesis, i. 26, seq. (On the
question, whether this dominion is only a part,
or the whole ef what is intended, when it is
said that man was made in the image of God,
cf. s. 53, I. II.) Theologians, however, fre
quently assert, that since the fall man does not
possess this dominion over the inferior creation
in its fall extent ; and it does not follow from
the words of Moses, considered by themselves,
that he ever did. Moses, however, and other
sacred writers, clearly teach, that such wild, in
tractable, and cruel beasts, as are now found
upon the earth, were unknown to man in his
original condition, where they were all tame
and subject to his will. This is clear, too, from
the figurative description which the prophets
give of the return of that happy age — e. g., Isa.
xi. 6'; lxv. 25. The same opinions respecting
that happy age of innocence in the youth of
the world are found among the Greeks, Romans,
(cf. Virg. Eel. iv.,) and almost all nations.
From the relation which man holds to irra
tional creatures, as their master and ruler, he
owes them several important duties; the consi
deration of which belongs, however, rather to
the department of morals than of theology.
II. The Notion of a Golden Age.
1. The notion of a golden age of the world is
almost universal ; and, although somewhat mo
dified by the peculiar opinions and customs of
each people, it is yet found diffused through all
ages and nations, as far as history extends, and
is everywhere substantially the same. All na
tions believe that the original state of the earth
and of the human race was far more happy and
cheerful, and in every respect better, than the
present ; and that either at once or more gradu
ally the world degenerated. The notions which
the Grecians, and the nations which adopted
their mythology, the Romans and others, enter-
-ained respecting the different ages, — the golden,

silver, &c, — are generally known. Cf. LBi,i»%
"Epy. xai rju. verses 109 — 201. Ovid, Met„I,
89 — 162. Virgil, Eel. iv., and the selectipgs '
from Plato and Diodorus in Euseb. Piaep. Eyajft
i. 7 ; xii. 13. [Cf. Lucretius, De rerum nat.ii,
332, seq. Tibullus, i. 3, 35, seq. Seneca,
Hipp. v. 524.] The same opinions substan
tially are found among rude and savage, na-
tbns — the inhabitants of Kamschatka, Tartary,
the Indians in North and South America, the
South-Sea Islands, &-c.
2. What is the source of these ideas, which,
are so universally diffused ?
(a) It was formerly supposed very generally
that all these mythological fables were only tra
ditionary relics and fragments of a direct divine
revelation. The Mosaic history was regarded
as the only source from which these various
and wide-spread ideas were derived; and. to
shew how they were handed down from one
age to another, and transmitted from the He
brews to the Greeks, Romans, and others, has
been very often attempted. But the arguments
employed in support of this opinion have been
generally far-fetched, and unsupported by his
tory; as, indeed, all arguments must be which
are adduced in support of the opinion, that the
scriptures are the only source from which the
ideas of the Greeks, Romans, and others, re
specting the original state of man, are derived,
and that these ideas have been only corrupted
in being transmitted by the intermixture of fa
ble. This opinion was advocated by Huetius,
in his " Demonstratio Evangelica, where he en
deavoured to shew that the scripture history
was at the foundation of the whole Grecian
mythology. But his theory is inconsistent
with facts, as is very generally acknowledged
at the present day. Much, indeed, of the scrip
tural account respecting the original condition
of man may have been preserved and diffused
among the nations of the earth. But it cannot
be historically proved that our sacred history is
the only ground of these ideas of a golden pe
riod, in which all nations agree. These uni
versal ideas on this subject may have arisen
partly from other sources. Men are everywhere
alike in all the essential parts of human nature.
And hence there pre\^ails among them a certain
universal analogy in respect to language, man
ners, modes of thought and opinion; and from
this analogy their agreement on many points
may be explained, without supposing them to
have learned or borrowed from one another.
Vide Introduction, s. 9, No. 6.
(b) One cause of this notion of a golden age
so widely diffused among heathen nations is the
disposition, which may be seen in all men, i'i
think the past better and more happy than thk
present. This disposition has its origin in a
certain urgent feeling of our natures, of whicn.

WORKS OF GOD.

199

we shall in a moment say more. We shall
here speak only of the disposition itself, as it is
seen among men. And in accordance with it,
the higher one ascends into antiquity the more
happy and charming does the world become to
his view ; the nearer he approaches the times in
which he lives, the more imperfect and dismal
docs everything appear. It was the same with
men in respect to their views of the past a thou
sand years ago. And had the world actually
degenerated, physically and morally, a thousand
years ago as much as the old men, laudatores
temporis acti, doubtless then thought and said,
and had each successive generation of men since
proved, according to the expression of Horace,
progenies vitiosior, then the world by this time
would have become a mere waste, and the whole
human race would have long since perished !
This prevalent belief that the world from the
first had been constantly deteriorating was
now clothed in an historical form, and taught
as actual truth ; and the fables thus invented
respecting the early state of man, though they
differ in some particulars, are yet everywhere
essentially the same.
The manner in which the ideas of a golden
age may have originated, and have been gradu
ally developed into those mythological descrip
tions which are found in all nations, may be
shewn by the following remarks, founded upon
experience : — When we have arrived at mature
years, and especially when we are in the decline
of life, the period of our youth appears to us far
better than thepresent. We were then more free
from anxiety than ever after; our susceptibi
lity of pleasurable emotions had not then been
blunted ; our heart was open to the enjoyments
of life. And when we look around, and every
thing seems to us to have degenerated since we
were young, it is not unnatural to conclude that
the same has been true in every age; that at a
very early period, in the infancy of the world, it
was full of peace and happiness, and from that
time to the present has been gradually growing
worse and worse. And we are strengthened in
this conclusion by hearing our parents and
grandparents speak in the same way respect
ing the times which they have lived through.
Thus at length we come to the conviction that
old times were better than the present, and that
the farther back we go, the more delightful,
happy, and perfect we shall find the state of the
world. We then proceed to fill up this general
.outline which we have formed of a happy age.
And this we do by carefully removing from that
golden period all the ills and imperfections of*
of our present state, the physical sufferings
which we now endure, and also the evils arising
from our social connexion, and from the progress
of refinement. Then we suppose there was no
need of clothing, there was no rough and uncom

fortable weather, there were no harmful beasts,
and men were not as yet unjust and cruel.
Such is the picture of the primitive state of the
earth and of the human race, in which the an
cient fables of almost all nations agree. It de
serves, however, to be remarked, that Moses
dissents from nearly all the heathen mytholo-
gists who have described the original state of
man as one of indolence and perfect rest, and,
on the contrary, makes it a state of activity and
labour. These mythological descriptions have, no
doubt, an historical basis, but whatever of truth
there is in them has been enhanced and beauti
fied by the imagination in its attempt to bring
up the golden age to its own ideal of perfection.
For, in reality, that happy state of man of
which so many dream, and which is depicted in
heathen mythologies, is nothing more than the
state of barbarism with its best side turned to
the beholder, beautified by the imagination, and
placed in that same magic and enchanting light
with which we have seen the entire absence cf
cultivation covered over by the genius of Rous
seau. Vide his " Discours sur l'origine et les
fondements de l'inegalite parmi les hommes."
If the worst side of this state should be exhibit
ed, instead of pleasing it would shock and dis
gust all who have ever enjoyed the blessings
of civilization and refinement."
In this way we can account for the origin of
these universal ideas respecting the original
state of man, without supposing that they were
altogether derived from the Mosaic record.
(c) These remarks respecting the manner in
which the opinions and ideas of men respecting
a golden age first originated and are gradually
developed are so obvious, arid have so much in
ternal truth, that they occur of themselves to
every observer of the world and of mankind.
But for this very reason, that the universal ideas
respecting the primitive state of man can be so
easily accounted for, without supposing an his
torical foundation for them, the Mosaic history
of this original state has, like the rest, been re
garded by many as fabulous. But those who
have taken this view of the Mosaic history have
overlooked other very important aspects of the
subject, and have but a very partial acquaint
ance with it. Should they look at this subject
on all sides they would see the necessity of ad
mitting some real truth as the basis of these
wide-spread conceptions, and that the claims
of the Mesaic account to our credence are
greatly superior to those of heathen mythologies.
This will 'be evident from the following consi
derations : —
(a) The general disposition of all nations to
regard the original condition of mankind as
eminently happy, proves, beyond dispute, that
they have felt a certain pressing necessity to

200

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

believe that God, who is supremely wise and
good, would have created the human race in a
better condition than that in which it is now
found. This feeling is universal among men.
Most of the ancient philosophers acknowledged
it, nor have modern philosophers been able en
tirely to suppress it. Vide the writings of
Kant. But to mere philosophers there has
always been a riddle here, which they have
endeavoured, but have never been able, satis
factorily to solve. This riddle, so inexplicable
to them, has been perfectly solved by the
Bible, in the account which it gives of the fall
of man from a state of innocence and happiness.
(|3) That something must have taken place
to corrupt the human race must seem at least
probable, from the mere necessity of believing
that it was once better than now. But if a
book, accredited as a divine revelation, gives
historical information respecting both the ori
ginal happy condition and the commencement
of the degeneracy of our race, we are no longer
left in uncertainty with regard to the fact.
' (y) The Mosaic history of the state of inno
cence, although it agrees in some respects with
the fables of the heathen respecting the golden
age, in other respects differs widely from them.
The extravagant, and plainly false and fabulous
representations which are found in the writings
of Hesiod, Ovid, and Plato, who describe the
happy state as one of ease and indolence, do not
occur in the writings of Moses. This circum
stance alone would lead us to conclude that his
record is of wholly different origin from theirs,
and that it is not a mere fiction, but founded on
historical facts. Moreover, it is more ancient
than any other account which we have of the
first age of the world.
SECTION LVII.
OF THE PROPAGATIPN PF THE HUMAN RACE.
The Mosaic history informs us, with a sim
plicity which is characteristic of the age in
which it was written, that God designed that
the human race should be propagated, and
should extend itself over the earth ; and that he
gave to man, as well as to other living crea
tures, the power to propagate his own species.
Gen. i. 28, coll. v. 02. But as man consists of
two essential parts, body and soul, the origin of
both these in the posterity of Adam must be
considered. I. Origin of the Human Body.
The Hebrews generally describe the human
body as derived directly from parents, as appears
from the phrases, to come from the loins cf the
father, to be in his loins, &c. Gen. xlvi. 26 ;
Ileb. vii. 5, 10, seq. Sometimes, however, they
speak of it, as taken out if the earth, from the

earth, or dust ,- and so as returning to the earth,
to the dust, &c. Vide s. 52, II. 2. The pas
sage, Ps. cxxxix. 15, 16, may perhaps be most
easily explained in this way. The human body
is there represented as being in a dark pit before
its birth, and as formed in the depths qftheearth,
from lime and earth. The phrase y-w nunnn, is
in other places entirely synonymous with W.
Both Greeks and Hebrews represented the state
of man before his birth as similar to that in
which he will be after his death, and comprised5'
both conditions under the words S*iz> and SoW.
Moses describes man as coming from the earth,
and as returning to it. And so, according to the
notions of the Hebrews, man is in the earth, as
well before his birth as after his death; and
comes forth into the material world from that
same vast, subterranean, invisible kingdom,'to
which he again returns. Job, i. 21 ; x. 9 ;
xxxiii. 6. Eccl. xii. 7. Book of Wisdom, xv. 8.
II. The Origin of the Human Soul.
Respecting the manner of the propagation of
the soul among the posterity of Adam, the sacred
writers say nothing. The text, Eccl. xii. 7,
gives us, indeed, clearly to understand that the
soul comes from God in a different manner from
the body (vide s. 51, 1.) ; but what this manner
is, it does not inform us. The texts, Is. xlii. 5,
and Job, xii. 10, which are frequently cited in
this connexion, merely teach, that God gave to
man breath and life, and so do not relate to this
subject. Nor can anything respecting the man
ner of the propagation of the soul be determined
from the appellation, Father of spirits, which was
commonly given to God among the Jews, and
which occurs, Heb. xii. 9. Vide Wetstein, in
loc. This appellation implies nothing more than
that, as man is the father of an offspring of the
same nature with himself, so God, who is a
Spirit, produces spirits. It is doubtless founded
upon the description of God, Num. xvi. 22, as
" the God of the spirits of all flesh." The whole
inquiry, therefore, with regard to the origin of
human souls, is exclusively philosophical; and
scriptural authority can be adduced neither for
nor against any theory which we may choose to
adopt. But notwithstanding the philosophical
nature of this subject, it cannot be wholly passed
by in systematic theology, considering the in
fluence which it has upon the statement of the
doctrine of original sin. It is on account of its
connexion with this single doctrine (for it is not
immediately connected with any other) that it
has been so much agitated by theologians, espe
cially since the time of Augustine. They have
usually adopted that theory respecting the origin
of the soul which was most favourable to the
views which they entertained respecting the na
tive character of man. And hence the followers
of Augustine and of Pelagius, the advocates and

WORKS OF GOD.

201

opponents of the doctrine of native depravity, are
uniformly ranged on opposite sides of the ques-
tion concerning the origin of the soul.
There have been three principal hypotheses
on this subject, which will now be stated.
1. The hypothesis of the pre-existence of souls.
Those who support this hyppthesis, called Prx-
existiani, affirm' that God, at the beginning of
the world, created the souls of all men, which,
however, are not united with the body before
man is begotten or born into the world. This
was the opinion of Pythagoras, Plato, and his
followers, and of the cabalists among the Jews.
Among these, however, there is a difference of
opinion, some believing that the soul was ori
ginally destined for the body, and unites with it
of its own accord ; others, with Plato, that it
pertained originally to the divine nature, and is
incarcerated in the body as a punishment for the
sins which it committed in its heavenly state.
This hypothesis found advocates in the ancient
Christian church. Some Christians adopted the
entire system of the Platonists, and held that
the soul was a part of the divine nature, &c.
Priscillianus and his followers either held these
views, or were accused of holding them by Au
gustine, De Haeres. c. 70. All who professed
to believe the pre-existence of the soul cannot
be proved to have believed that it was a part of
the divine nature. This is true of Origen, who
agreed with the Platonists in saying, that souls
sinned before they were united with a body, in
which they were imprisoned as a punishment
for their sins. Vide Huetius, in his " Origeni-
anae," 1. ii. c. 2, quaest. 6. The pre-existence
of the soul was early taught by Justin the Mar
tyr, Dial, cum Try phone Jud. This has been
the common opinion of Christian mystics of an
cient and modern times. They usually adhere
to the Platonic theory, and regard the soul as a
part of the divine nature, from which it proceeds,
and to which it will again return. This doctrine
of the pre-existenpe of the soul is, however, al
most entirely abandoned, because it is supposed
irreconcilable with the doctrine of original sin.
And, if the mystics be excepted, it has been left
almost without an advocate ever since the time
of Augustine.
2. The hypothesis of the creation of the soul.
The advocates of this theory, called Crcaiiani,
believe that the soul is immediately created by
God whenever the body is begotten. A passage
in Aristotle, De Gener. ii. 3, was supposed to
contain this doctrine, at least, it was so under
stood by the schoolmen; and in truth, Aristotle
appears not to be far removed from the opinion
ascribed to him. Cyril of Alexandria, and Theo-
doret among the fathers in the Grecian church,
were of this opinion; and Ambrose, Hilarius,
and Hieronymus, in the Latin church. The
schoplmen almost universally professed this doc-
26

trine, and generally the follpwers ef Pelagius,
with whom the schoplmen for the most part
agreed in their views with regard to the native
character of man. For these views derived a
very plausible vindication from the hypothesis
that the soul was immediately created by God
when it was connected with the body. The
argument was this : — If God created the souls
of men, he must have made them either pure
and holy, or impure and sinful. The latter sup
position is inconsistent with the holiness of God,
and consequently, the doctrine of the native de
pravity of the heart must be rejected. To affirm
that God made the heart depraved, would be to
avow the blasphemous doctrine, that God is the
author of sin. The theory of the Creatiani was
at first favoured by Augustine ; but he rejected
it as soon as he saw how it was employed by
the Pelagians. It has continued, however, to
the present time, to be the common doctrine of
the theologians of the Romish church, who in
this follow after the schoolmen, like them,
making little of native depravity, and much of
the freedom of man in spiritual things. Among
the protestant teachers, Melancthon was inclined
to the hypothesis of the Creatiani; although,
after the time of Luther, another hypothesis,
which will shortly be noticed, was received with
most approbation by protestants. Still many
distinguished Lutheran teachers of the seven
teenth century followed Melancthon in his views
concerning this doctrine — e. g., G. Calixtus.
In the reformed church, the hypothesis which
we are now considering has had far more advo
cates than any other, though even they have not
agreed in the manner of exhibiting it. Luther
would have this subject left without being de
termined, and many of his contemporaries were
of the same opinion.
3. The hypothesis of the propagation of the
soul. According to this theory, the souls of
children, as well as their bodies, are propagated
from their parents. These two suppositions
may be made: — Either the souls of children
exist in their parents as real beings, (entia,) —
like the seed in plants, and so have been propa
gated from Adam through successive genera
tions, which is the opinion of Leibnitz, in his
"Theodicee," p. i. s. 91, — or they' exist in their
parents merely potentially, and come from them
per propaginem, or traducem. Hence those
who hold this opinion are called Traduciani.
This opinion agrees with what Epicurus says of
human seed, that it is "swrtafos ts xai ^vxijs
ditogitaaua." This hypothesis formerly pre
vailed in the ancient western church. Accord
ing to Hieronymus, both Tertullian and Apolli-
naris were advocates of this opinion, and even
"maxima pars Occidentalium." Vide Epist.
ad Marcellin. Tertullian entered very minutely
into the discussion of this subject in his wor*

202

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

','De anima," c. 25, seq., where he often uses
the word traditx ,- but he is very obscure in what
he has said. This is the hypothesis to which
the opponents cf the Pelagians have been most
generally inclined, (vide. No. 2,) though many
who were rigorously orthpdpx wpuld have no
thing definitely settled upon this subject. Even
Augustine, who in some passages favoured the
Creatiani, affirmed in his book "De origine
animae," nullum (sententiam) temere affirmare
oportebit. Since the reformation this theory has
been more approved than any other, not only by
philosophers and naturalists, but also by the
Lutheran church. Luther himself appeared
much inclined towards it, although he did not
declare himself distinctly in its favour. But in
the "Formula Concordiae" it was distinctly
taught that the soul, as well as the body, was
propagated by parents in- ordinary generation.
The reason why this theory is so much prefer
red by theologians is, that it affords the easiest
solution of the doctrine of native depravity. If
in the souls of our first progenitors the souls of
all their posterity existed potentially, and the
souls of the former were polluted and sinful,
those of the latter must be so too. This hypo
thesis is not, however, free from objections ; and
it is very difficult to reconcile it with some phi
losophical opinions which are universally re
ceived. We cannot, for example, easily conceive
how generation and propagation can take place
without extension; but we cannot predicate ex
tension of the soul without making it a material
substance. Tertullian and other of the fathers
affirm, indeed, that the soul of man, and that
spirit in general, is not perfectly pure and sim
ple, but of a refined material nature, of which,
consequently, extension may be predicated.
Vide s. 19, ad finem, and s. 51, I. ad finem.
And with these opinions the theory of the pro
pagation of the soul agrees perfectly well, cer
tainly far better, than with the opinions which
we entertain respecting the nature of spirit ; al
though even with these opinions we cannot be
sure that a spiritual generation and propagation
is impossible ; for we do not understand the
true nature of spirit, and cannot therefore deter
mine with certainty what is or is not possible
respecting it. There are some psychological
phenomena which seem to favour the theory
now under consideration; and hence it has al
ways been the favourite theory of psychologists
and physicians. The natural disposition of
children not unf'requently resembles that of their
parents ; and the mental excellences and imper
fections of parents are inherited nearly as often
by their children as any bodily attributes.
Again; the powers of the soul, like those of the
body, are at first weak, and attain their full de
velopment and perfection only by slow degrees.
Many more phenomena of the same sort might

be mentioned. But after. all that may be said,
we must remain in uncertainty with regard to
the origin of the human soul. Important objec.
tions can be urged against these arguments, and
any others that might be offered. And if the
metaphysical theory of the entire simplicity of
the human soul be admitted, the whole subject
remains involved in total darkness.

ARTICLE VII.

OF THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING ANGELS.

SECTION LVIII.
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE CONCERJT-
ING ANGELS, AND SOME INTRODUCTORY HISTO
RICAL REMARKS.
I. The Importance of this Doctrine.
1. Its practical importance. By one class
of theologians the practical importance of this
doctrine has been very much exaggerated ; while
others, who are mostly modern writers, have
denied it all practical utility, and have gone so
far as to insist that it should be entirely omitted
in common religious instruction. To these views
we can by no means assent, if we make the
Bible the source of our knowledge and the
foundation of our belief in religious truth. Nor
should we allow ourselves to entertain exagge
rated views of this subject, the tendency of
which must be injurious. In the manner in
which this doctrine is now generally held among
Christians, we see the effect of the levity and
irreverence with which the doctrines of the Bible
have often been treated in late years by theolo
gical writers. The contempt with which the
belief in angels is often spoken of among com
mon Christians is not to be wondered at, when
we consider how it has been treated by the
teachers of religion in our schools, universities,
and pulpits. Those who are preparing to be
teachers of religion should take warning from
the evils which they see produced by the light
and irreverent manner in which the doctrines of
the Bible have been lately Wiibited. Vide Rein-
hard's excellent sermon, " Wie sich Christen
bey so mannichfachen Meinungen uber die
Geisterwelt zu erhalten haben," published in
the collection for the year 1795.
Angels belong to that invisible world of which
we, who are composed of body and spirit, can
form only very obscure and imperfect notions.
Their existence, and their influence on the ma
terial world and human affairs, are not within
the cognizance of our senses, and can be known
to us only by revelation. They are not men-

WORKS OF GOD.

203

tioned by Moses in his cosmogony, (though he
appears from many passages to have believed
in them;) because he confines himself in that
account strictly to the visible world. And so
he mentions only the breath, of life in man, al
though he believed beyond dispute that he pos
sessed also a reasonable soul.
2. Its theoretical importance. To the theol o-
' gian, the interpreter, and the student of the his
tory of the human mind, this doctrine is of great
interest and importance. For (a) angels are
very frequently introduced in the sacred books
of the Jews and Christians. They, are repre
sented as standing in various relations to men,
and as actively employed in our affairs. To
deny, therefore, the existence and agency of
good and bad angels, is plainly contrary to the
holy scriptures. The opinion of the Sadducees,
that "there is neither angel nor spirit," (Acts,
xxiii. 8,) is always rejected as false and un
scriptural by the writers of the New Testament..
Notwithstanding, then, the disagreeableness of
the doctrine concerning angels to the taste of
the age, it must be exhibited by the religious
teacher, whose invariable duty it is to conform
his instructions to the word of God. (6) Many
texts of the Bible which relate to this doctrine,
By being misunderstepd, have led the great mul
titude into opinipns respecting the power and
agency of angels, which are inconsistent with
the character of God, and of an immoral ten
dency, by enabling men to shift the guilt of their
actions from themselves to others. And these
mistaken and hurtful opinions have been fos
tered by the incautious and indefinite manner
in which the teachers of religion have some
times spoken.
3. Some important doctrines are exhibited in
the Bible as standing in close connexion with
the doctrines respecting angels; and for this
reason, if for no other, an accurate knowledge
of it, and of the manner in which it is taught
in the scriptures, is indispensable. The doc
trine respecting sin, and the origin of it ; the
temptation of our first parents ; the providence
of God; the state of men hereafter, when they
will be brought into still closer connexion with
spirits ; these and other subjects are neariy re
lated to the doctrine under consideration.
4. A critical investigation of this subject, in
which the declarations of the holy scriptures
should be made the chief object of attention,
would tend to free men from many superstitions
which are in the highest degree injurious. In
this view, this doctrine deserves the special at
tention of the teacher of religion. For the
mistakes which have prevailed with regard to
the agency of angels, and especially of bad an
gels, have been a most fruitful source of super
stitions destructive of the happiness, virtue, and
piety of mankind. ' To correct these supersti

tious mistakes, and at the same time to teach
with wisdom and judgment what we are taught
in the Bible with regard to the agency of angels,
is the duty of the Christian minister.
II. Introductory Historical Remarks.
The idea that there are certain spirits inter
mediate between God and the human soul, and
employed as the instruments of Divine Provi
dence, is. very widely diffused among men, and
has often attracted the attention and elicited the
inquiries even of philosophers. The opinions
of the Hebrews upon this subject are the prin
cipal object of our present attention ; still, as
the opinions both of Jews and Christians may
be illustrated by those of other nations, we shall
bestow some attention upon the latter. From
the writings of Moses we are justified in con
cluding that the early ancestors of the Israel
ites — the patriarchs, received by revelation some
more full and particular knowledge respecting
angels, which they transmitted to their descend
ants. But the conceptions which they formed
en this subject — tlie images under which they,
represented angels te their own minds, as well
as the expressions which they emplcyed te de
signate their ideas — were influenced by the cir
cumstance ef time and place in which they found
themselves, and by their whole external condi
tion. To such circumstances the providence of
God evermore conforms. God treats and go
verns men more humano, and adapts the revela
tions which he makes to their comprehension
and mode of thinking. Hence the variety in
the manner in which the divine revelations are
made. To illustrate the terms employed in the
Bible on this subject, and some of the figurative
representations which it uses, is the object of
the following remarks.
Jehovah was worshipped by the ancestors of
the Israelites as a household god. They naturally
conceived of him at that early age as resembling
themselves. Vide s. 18. Whenever he acted,
he conformed to the manner in which men act.
He was not visibly present, but he knew all
things, interested himself in the affairs of men,
and employed himself actively among them.
In pursuance of his purposes he also employed
his servants, who according to the analogy above
stated, were conceived of as household servants,
belonging to the father of a family, and engaged
in the execution of his commands. They fre
quently acted in his name, as his ambassadors,
and had committed to them the oversight, care,
and guardianship of men. This notion of them
is discerned in all the ancient names by which
they were called — viz., nvp tjnSp, (messenger,
ambassador,) « T^i?, W'xn 'i?y, Ps. ciii. 20, 21 •
Ps. civ. 4. They are commonly invisible, as
God is; although, like him, when occasion re
quires, they can appear to men. Hence they

204

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

were regarded as spirits, though not at that
early period, in the strict and purely metaphy
sical sense of this term. Vide s. 19, II.
Such conceptions as these respecting spiritual
agents being very familiar and deeply interest/
ing to those at that age, would very naturally
occur to them in their dreams. Now dreams
were regarded by the whole ancient world as of
divine origin, and as the vehicles of the divine
communications to men. By seeing angels in
their dreams, the belief of men in their existence
was therefore still more strengthened. So in
Homer, (Iliad, xxiii. 103, seq.,) Achilles was
first convinced of the real existence of the souls
of the departed in the under world by the appa
rition of the spirit of his friend Patroclus in a
dream. And it was perhaps in compliance with
the prevailing belief that dreams were sent by
God to instruct mankind, that he actually made
use of them as one vehicle of his revelations to
Abraham, Jacob, and the other patriarchs. Vide
Gen. xxviii. 12, &c.
When the notion of angels had once become
definite, and the belief of their existence con
firmed, their agency in human affairs-was very
naturally and easily determined. Everything
which took place in such a way that the relation
between cause and effect was not seen — every
thing which could not be assigned to a natural
Cause, was ascribed to the immediate agency of
God, and of these his invisible servants. When
God afforded assistance, especially in an un
usual, unexpected, and unhoped-for manner, he
was supposed to do it through the instrument
ality of angels ; and in general, when anything
took place under the divine agency or permis
sion, the mediate causes of which were conceal
ed, angels were regarded as the agents. In
short, they were regarded as spirits engaged in
the service of God, and employed as the instru
ments of his providence. And this is an opinion
which the sacred writers do not merely record
as having been held by others, and which they
leave to depend upon its own merits, but which
they themselves adopt as their own, and sanction
with their own authority. Vide Gen. xvi. 7 —
12; 2 Kings, xix. 35 (the destruction in the
Assyrian camp); Psalm xxxiv. 7; xci. 11, 12;
Luke, xvi. 22 ; i. 13, 28 ; Heb. i. 14.
But various objects in the material world, and
even inanimate things, were also sometimes
called the angels of God, because they were em
ployed by him in the execution of his purposes.
This appellation will appear more natural, if
we consider that inanimate things, in which
there appeared to be motion and a kind of self-
actuating power, were regarded by the ancient
world as really possessing life and animation.
Thus perhaps we may account for it that the
appellation angel is so often figuratively applied
to things of the material world by the Hebrews,

especially in their poetic writings.' Vide TV
Ixxviii. 49 ; ci v. 4 (wind and lightning), colli Ps.
cxlviii. 8, (cf. Morus, p. 89, Not. ad. s. 6;) 1
Chronicles, xxi. 14 — 16; Acts, xii. 23.
The dwelling-place or principal residence of
the angels was always represented as with God
in heaven, the abode of the blessed. HenceMn
the scriptural division of the creatures of God
into those in heaven and those on earth; angels '
are always enumerated with the stars, as belong
ing to the former class. So Ps. cxlviii.^l — 6,
coll. ver. 7—13.
2. When the Hebrews became acquainted
with more powerful rulers than the heads of
their families, and began to abandon their early
patriarchal mode of life, they looked upon God
in a different manner from what they had done
before, and thought of him under the imaggiof
a mighty oriental monarch, and compareJlhis
dwelling and his providence with the palace,
court, and government of a powerful earthly
ruler. The terms which they now used, and
the figures which they employed, were all bor
rowed from this comparison. It is natural foi
men to compare God with the most elevated
and powerful beings whom they see on the earth,
and to pay to him those external services of
reverence and homage which are paid to royal
personages. Hence the name ^>d, and other
royal predicates, were now given to God. He
was represented as the universal Lord and Judge;
seated upon a throne, surrounded by hosts of
angels and servants, ready to execute his com
mands, and standing before him in different
offices, divisions, and ranks, distinguished
among themselves, like other beings, in dignity
and employment. This conception of the an
gels as standing in different ranks and offices
is at the foundation of many of the figurative
representations in the Bible; which representa
tions, however, though figurative, are intended
to teach the truth that there are differences of
rank and dignity among the angels, and that
some have nearer access to God than others.
Vide 1 Kings, xxii. 19 ; Isa. vi. 2 ; Dan. vii. 10;
Luke, i. 19 ; Matt, xviii. 10. The same altera
tion took place in the external rites of divine
service, which now became more complex and
magnificent; and doubtless much of the in
creased splendour of the Jewish ritual maybe
traced to the influence of this comparison of God
with an earthly king. In the matter of external
service, God conformed, as far as he could do so
without injury to the truth, to their conceptions
and feelings. An earthly prince bears some
resemblance to God, and the servants of Divine
Providence to the servants and agents of a prince.
A useful work on this subject is Paulsen's
"Regierung der Morgenlander ;" Altona, 175C,
4to. 3. The servants of princes are accustomed to

WORKS OF GOD.

205

give account to their superiors of the state of
the provinces over which they have charge, and
of the good or ill conduct cf those placed under
their government, and are then employed by
their superiors, in return, to dispense rewards
and punishments. Now from the resemblance
above noticed between a king and his servants
and God and his angels, whatever was said in re
spect to the former was very naturally transferred
to the latter. And so God is described as sending
forth his messengers, bearing good or evil, pro
sperity or adversity, reward or punishment, to
men, according to their deserts. Vide Ps.
lxxviii. 49. Hence we may explain the fact
that sickness and other calamities inflicted by
God are ascribed in the scriptures to the angels,
through whom, as his ministers, he inflicts
them. Vide Ps. lxxviii. 49 ; xxxiv. 8 ; 2 Kings,
vi. 16, 17. The angel of God is representod as
the author of the pestilence in David's time ; 2
Sam. xxiv. 16; coll. Exod. xii. 13, 23.
It should be remarked here that in what is
now extant of the writings of the Hebrews be
fore the Babylonian captivity, the title evil an
gels does not properly denote beings who are
morally bad in their own nature; but, on the
contrary, spirits whose nature is good, and who
on this very account are employed by God, and
who, in whatever they perform, act under his
will and direction. The reason of this title is
to be found, therefore, not in themselves, but in
the nature of the work in which they are em
ployed ; and the very same angel is called evil
or good, according as he has it in commisoion
to dispense prosperity or adversity, rewards
or punishments. So in Homer, when the deity
inflicts misfortune, he is called xaxcs Sai/j.av,
Odys. x. 64, coll. II. xi. 61, xx. 87. Some
have, indeed, attempted to shew that the Satan
mentioned in Job, i. and ii., was an evil spirit
in his own nature ; but this is uncertain. He
is not represented as being himself wicked and
opposed to the designs cf God, but rather as a
complainant or accuser. The whole representa
tion contained in these chapters seems to be
taken from a human court and transferred to
heaven. Vide Michaelis, in loc.
It is not until the time of the exile, or shortly
after it, that we find distinct traces of the doc
trine that there are angels who were once good,
but who revolted from God, and are now become
wicked themselves, and the authors of evil in
the world. The probability is, therefore, that this
doctrine was first developed among the Jews
during their residence at Chaldea and shortly
afterwards. The same thing is true ef many
other doctrines of the Bible which were not re
vealed at first, but were gradually made known
by means of the prophets at later periods. We
cannot, however, certainly prove that this doc
trine was wholly unknown to the Jews pre

viously to the captivity. It is enough for us to
know that after this time the Jewish prophets,
as acknowledged messengers and ambassadors
of God, themselves authorized it, and taught it
in their addresses and writings ; and that it is
accordingly now to be received by us as a doc
trine of the ancient Jewish revelation. In bring
ing the doctrine concerning angels to a fuller
development, the following circumstances were
made use of by Divine Providence.
The Persians, and perhaps also the Chal
deans, (though this is more doubtful,) held the
doctrine of dualism, which afterwards prevailed
so widely in the East. This doctrine is, that
there are two coeternal and independent beings,
from the one of whom all good, and from the
other, all evil proceeds. Now the doctrine of
the Hebrews respecting good and bad angels,
though it appears at first sight to resemble this,
is essentially different, and cannot therefore have
been derived from it. But when the Hebrews
were brought under the dominion of the Persians
it became necessary, in order to prevent them
from falling into the wide-spread doctrine of
their masters, that they should be instructed
more minutely than they had previously been,
or needed to be, with regard to good and bad
angels. And so the later prophets brought to
light the agency of good and bad angels in
many events of the early Jewish history, with
which angels had never been known to have
had any connexion. The fall of man — e. g.,
had not been ascribed by Moses to the agency
of an evil spirit ; but this event was afterwards
ascribed to the influence of Satan, and of this
Christ himself approves in John, viii. Again;
the numbering ef the peeple by David is de
scribed in 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, as a crime to which
he was given up by God, in anger against him ;
but this same thing is afterwards ascribed in
1 Chron. xxi. 1, to the direct influence of Sa
tan. In the same way many events were after
wards ascribed to good angels, whose agency
in them had not before been known. Thus the
giving of the law was not ascribed by Moses to
the ministry of angels ; and this fact is first in
timated in Psalm Ixviii. 17, and afterwards
more clearly taught in the New Testament.
Some periods of Jewish history were more
remarkable than others for the appearance and
agency of angels. The patriarchal age is de
scribed in the books written before the captivity
as most distinguished for the visible appearance
of angels among men, both with and without
dreams and visions. During the age of Moses
and Joshua, although angels are mentioned,
they do not seem to have appeared. The com
munications of God to men were at that time
made mostly through the oracles of the pro
phets. Angels again appear during the period
of the Judges. But after the time of Samuel
S

206

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

they do not again appear in the history of the
Jews before the Babylonian exile ; at which
time, and shortly afterwards, they are once
more introduced. Shortly before the birth of
John the Baptist, angels were again very fre
quently seen, and many communications were
made through their instrumentality. But the
age of Christ and the apostles is distinguished
above all others for the frequent appearance and
interposition of angels; and especially for the
agency of evil spirits upon the minds and bodies
of men. In view of the whole we may say,
with regard to the appearance of angels, what
Paul said, Heb. i. 1, with regard to revelations
in general, that they wefe itoXvuspas xai itoXv-
tpbitas. 4. Other nations, ancient and modern, have
entertained opinions respecting some interme
diate spirits, and their influence on the world and
on man, somewhat resembling those of the
Israelites, though not necessarily derived from
them. Such were the opinions of the Egyp
tians, according to the testimony of Diodorus
Siculus, and also of the Greeks. The latter,
however, do not appear in the early stages of
their history to have had the idea of interme
diate spirits or angels. The Salpavss of Homer
are only $sol under a different name, though, in
deed, the offices assigned to them and to many
of the gods by the Greeks are not more elevated
than those assigned by the Hebrews and other
nations to their angels or intermediate spirits.
The Grecian philosophers, however, for the most
part, believed that besides God and the human
soul, and intermediate between them, there were
other spiritual existences. They proceeded on
the supposition, confirmed by so many experi
ments and observations, that there is in nature
a general connexion or chain (ffEtpd), by which
all creatures are most intimately united together ;
that each class of beings borders upon and runs
into others ; so that there is no break in the de
scending scale frem the highest to the lewest.
When, therefore, they censidered the immense
interval between God and their ewn snuls, they
naturally concluded that it must be occupied by
intermediate beings, subordinate to God, but.
superior to man; and that these beings must
themselves existin various degrees of perfectien.
Such appear to have been the opinions of Py
thagoras. According to the " Carmina Aurea,"
and Diogenes Laert. viii. segm. 23, he believed
that besides the Supreme Being there were four
orders of intelligences — viz., gods, demons, he
roes, and men. To the first three he ascribed
about the same offices as were ascribed by the
Hebrews to their angels; so that his theory
really seems somewhat to resemble the Biblical
doctrine. Considerably different from these are
the views of Plato. Spme have indeed thought
that they ceuld see in the Phaedrus ef Plato, in

his bppk "De legibus," arid in seme other writ
ings ef his, the traces ef a distinctinn between
good arid bad demons. But this distinction; as
Ficinus justly remarks, was first made by the
followers of Plato, and especially by the Jews
and Christians, who philosophized according to
the principles of the new Platonic school," and
was then ascribed by them to their great master.
The learned Jews of the first and second" centu
ries of the Christian era, being conversant with
the Grecian, and especially with the Platonic
philosophy, adopted the doctrines of these dif
ferent schools, and connected them with the
doctrines of the Jewish religion; and many
Christian teachers proceeded in the same way,
and connected the principles of the Platonic
school, with regard to the doctrine of angels
among others, with what they were taught from
the Bible, and indeed endeavoured to interpret
the Bible in .accordance with these Platonic
principles. Aristotle likewise admitted certain
intelligences as intermediate beings between
God and men, and his theory on this subject was
adopted by the schoolmen. The stoics, too,
allowed of some intermediate spirits. Epicurus,
on the contrary, denied the existence of angels
altogether; and in this he was consistent with
himself, since he denied the providence of God,
whose instruments these intermediate beings
were supposed to be by other philosophers.
Among the Jews, the Sadducees denied the ex
istence of angels. Vide Acts, xxiii. 8. They
seem to have regarded the passages of the Old
Testament in which angels are spoken of as
figurative, and the whole account of them as
mythological. [The existence of angels has
been wholly denied in modern times by HobbeS;
Spinoza, and Edelmann.]
Note. — We have no great abundance of useful
works on the general history of the doctrine of
angels. Most of them take too confined and
narrow a view of the subject. They merelyre-
cord the opinions of Jews and Christians, with
out she wing i n what manner these opinions were
developed and modified. Among these works
are the following : Dr. Joach. Oporin, Erlaiiterte
Lehre von den Engeln; Hamburg, 1735, 8vo.
Jac. Ode, De Angelis, Trajecti ad Rhennm,
1739, 4to, (a book in Which everything relative
to this subject is brought together, but without
judgment or discrimination.) Jo. Fr. Cotta,
Diss. ii. historiam succinctam doctrinae de an
gelis exhibentes; Tubingee, 1765—67, 4tb.
Also, Petavius, Theol. Dogm. torn, iii., arid
Cudworth, Syst. Intellectuale, c. 5, with the
notes of Mosheim. There are some treatises of
very unequal value in Eichhorn's "Bibliothek
der bib. Lit." and in Henke's " Magazin fur
Exeg. Kirchengesch, u. s. w." The treatise of
Ewald, entitled "Die Bibellehre von gutori and
bosen Engeln," published in his " ChristliohWo

WORKS OF GOD.

207

Monatschrift," for the year 1800, s. 326, f. and
395, f., deserves to be recommended to the pe
rusal of the Christian teacher.
SECTION LIX.
r THE APPELLATIONS OF ANGELS ; THEIR NA
TURE; PROOFS OF THEIR EXISTENCE; THEIR
CREATION AND ORIGINAL STATE ; AND THE
CLASSES INTO WHICH THEY ARE DIVIDED.
I. Appellations of Angels.
The most common appellation given them is,
yphn, d-onSd. The correspondent term in Hel
lenistic Greek is ayyEAos, messenger, servant,
envoy, ambassador. This name is sometimes
given to men who are engaged in any offices in
the employ of others. Est nomen muneris, tioti
naturx, as is justly remarked by Morus, p. 86.
Vide Num. xx. 14, 16; Josh. vi. 17; James,
ii. 25. Hence oyyfAoi, IxxXnglas, in the Apo
calypse, and af&j oVyyE'Aois, (the disciples of
Christ, the apostles,) in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The
analogy upon which these names are founded
has already been exhibited, s. 58, II. 1.
Another name given to angels, besides these
and others which are derived from their office
and employment,, is, oviSn \:a, children if God;
Job, xxxviii. 7, " Where wast thou when I laid
the foundations of the earth — when the morning
stars sang together, and the sons of God shouted
for joy?" Here, indeed, it may be objected,
that sons of God may be a poetic expression sy
nonymous with morning stars, with which it is
parallel in the construction. But no such objec
tion lies against the passage, Job, i. 6, where a
solemn assembly of the sotis ef God is described.
And since even earthly kings were sometimes
called sons of God, there can be no doubt that the
Hebrew idiom would permit the application of
this name to angels, the inhabitants of heaven.
Hence they were called by the Jewsfamilia Dei
cxleslis. Cf. Ephes. iii. 15, and Heb. xii. 22,
23, where the souls of the pious dead are in
cluded in this heavenly family.
Still another title, which, in the opinion of
many, is given to angels, is oirrw. That this
title may be given them is certain ; since it is
given even to rulers, judges, and all those who
act as the vicegerents of God upon the earth.
But the argument to prove that this title is ac
tually given to angels is mostly founded on the
fact that the LXX. render the word ot6n, by
ayysXoi^ in some texts of the Old Testament,
where, however, the context does not make this
rendering absolutely necessary. The text? rited
are Ps. viii. 6, and xcvii. 7, in both of which the
original D^rbx is rendered by the LXX. oyyEAot —
a rendering which is approved and retained by
Paul, Heb. i. 6, and ii. 7. I arn at present in
clined to believe that even the original writer

intended to denote angels by this title in both
places, and especially in Psalm viii.
II. The Nature of Angels.
The only conception which we form of angels
is, that they are spirits of a higher nature and
nobler endowments than men possess. They are
described by Morus (p. 94, s. 14) as spiritus deo
inferiores, hominibus superiores. In making our
estimate of them, we must compare them with
the human soul as the measure. The human
soul possesses understanding and free will, or* a
rational and moral nature. Hence we conclude,
via eminentix, that other spirits — angels and God
himself — must possess the same; angels, in a
far higher degree than men, and God, in the
highest .possible perfection. With respect to
the nature of angels, we are informed in the
Bible (a) that they far excel us in powers and
perfections, Matt. xxii. 30, seq.; 2 Pet. ii. 11.
(6) They are expressly called spirits (livsv/iata ;)
Heb. i. 14, itvsvpata Xsitovpyixd. And the at
tributes which belong to spirits — understanding
and will, are frequently ascribed to them — e. g.,
Luke, xv. 10; James, ii. 19.
Note. — The question, whether angels have a
body, (more refined, indeed, than the human
body,) is left undecided in the Bible. And the
texts by which it has been supposed to be an
swered (Ps. civ. 4, and others) have no relation
to this question. Still it is not improbable, from
the prevailing opinions of the ancient world, that
the sacred writers believed that angels some
times assumed a body in which they became
visible to men. Vide Morus, p. 88, n. 2, supra.
The arguments a priori which are frequently
adduced in behalf of this opinion are ansatisfac-
tory. Thus it is said, that as spirits angels
could not act upon the material world without
assuming a body. But if God, as a Spirit, may
act on matter without a body, why may not other
spirits do the same? We cannot in any case
determine, apriori, what can or cannot be done
by spiritual beings. This question is therefore
generally dismissed by modern theologians with
the remark, that the body of angels, if they have
one, must be very unlike the human body.
The Christian fathers of the Platonic school
ascribed to all spirits, the supreme God alone ex
cepted, a subtile body, so subtile as to be invi
sible to us, and imperceptible by any of our
senses. So Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, Athen
agoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and
Augustine. They appear to have entertained
about the same notion of the bodies of angels
as the Greeks had of the bodies of their gods.
Vide Homer, II. v. 339—342. Justin the Mar
tyr, (Dial, cum Tryph. Jud. c 57,) and somu
others, believed that angels partook of heavenly
nourishment, as the gods of the Greeks partook
of nectar and ambrosia ; that, like them, the y

208

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

could at choice become visible or invisible to
«ien, &c The latter opinion is quite ancient,
as appears from the account of Balaam in Num.
xxii. 22 — 34, and from the representation of
Homer, in the Odyss. xvi. 160, seq., where
Minerva is visible to Ulysses, and not to Tele-
machus —
Ou yap nu ttclvtzooi Ssoi fyalvovrai evapysis.
The ass, however, in the one case, and the
dogs in the other, perceived the apparition, and
were frightened. So again in the Iliad, i. 198,
Achilles beheld Minerva, who stood before him,
t av 5' aXXav ovtis dpaf o.
At the second Nicene Council, in the year
787, it was established as a doctrine of the ca
tholic church, that angels have a thin body of
fire or air. Afterwards, however, Peter of Lom-
bardy, (Sent. 1. ii. dist. 8,) and many other
schoolmen, maintained the opposite opinion,
and held that angels had no body of their own,
(corpus proprium,) but could assume one in
order to become visible. So Gassendus repre
sents that they assume corpora extraordinaria,
when they design to act upon the material
.world. This opinion of the schoolmen respect
ing angels was founded upon the philosophy of
their great master, Aristotle, who makes his in
telligences entirely incorporeal. Vide s. 58, ad
finem. III. Proofs of the Existence of Angels.
1. Some theologians and philosophers have
undertaken to prove the existence of angels by
aguments a priori. Their most plausible argu
ment is that derived from the unbroken grada
tion and chain in which all beings are seen to
exist — an argument which was employed by
many even of the ancient heathen philosophers.
Vide s. 58, II. 4. But although the possibility
of the existence of angels cannot be disproved
by any valid arguments a priori, so neither can
the reality of their existence be proved satisfac
torily by arguments of this nature. All that
such arguments can do is, to render probable
that which must depend for proof on different
evidence; but to deny the existence of angels
on the ground of arguments a priori, is ex
tremely absurd. Cf. Morus, p. 86, s. 3. These
proofs are stated, after the method of Wolf, by
Reinbeck, in his" Betrachtungen uber die Augs.
Conf." th. i. s. 298; and also by Ewald, in a
treatise on this subject.
2. The sacred writers affirmed the existence
of angels so clearly that it is hardly credible
that any one should seriously doubt their opi
nions on this subject. He might as well doubt
whether Homer, who speaks of the gods on
every page, really believed in them. Jesus and
the apostles rejected the doctrine of the Saddu-
-.ees, that there are no angels, as a gross error,

Acts, xxiii. 8. The Pharisees believed in the
existence of angels, and contributed by thejr
influence to render this doctrine almost univer
sally prevalent among the Jews. In this parti
cular, Jesus and the apostles agreed fully with
the Pharisees, as appears from innumerable
texts in the New Testament. In Matt. xxii. 3o
Christ expressly and designedly professes his
belief in the existence of angels, in the presence
of the Sadducees; also in Matt. viii. 28—34,
Paul, too, as is very clear from his writings
believed in the real existence of angels, and re-
tained and sanctioned, as a Christian and an
apostle, many opinions on this subject which
he had learned in the schools of the Pharisees.
Thus, for example, both he and Stephen (Acts,
vii. 53) held, in common with the Pharisees
that the Mosaic law was given through the
ministry of angels, Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 1
And he labours through the whole of the first
two chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews to
prove that Jesus Christ was superior to the an
gels, and a messenger of God of a more exalted
character than they. His meaning cannot be,
as some have strangely supposed, that Christ
was superior to beings whom he supposed to
exist merely in the fancy of the Jews. He has
so interwoven the theory of the Pharisees with
his own instructions on this subject, as plainly
to shew that while he did not countenance
those fabulous representations, with which he
must certainly have been acquainted, in their
schools, he yet regarded their doctrine as essen
tially true.
IV. The Creation of Angels,- their Perfections,
and Number.
1. The Bible teaches us nothing definitely
respecting the origin of angels. But when it
represents all things as coming from God, it
must clearly be understood to imply that angels
also derive their existence from him. Paul says
expressly, Col. i. 16, "God made all things,
visible and invisible." Their creation is not,
indeed, mentioned by Moses in his account of
the creation. And as he undertakes to describe
the creation of only the visible world, their crea
tion did not come within the compass of his
plan. ' Vide s. 49.
The question has been asked, On which day
of the creation were the angels made? and at
least an historical view of the opinions enter
tained on this subject must here be exhibited.
(a) Some have held, that the angels ^vere cre
ated before the visible werld, and that this is
the reason why Moses does not mention them.
Of this opinion were Origen, Chrysostom, Hie
ronymus, John of Damascus, and others, among
the ancients; and among the moderns, Heil-
mann, Michaelis, and others. (6) Others held
that angels were created after man, because the

WORKS OF GOD.

209

Creator proceeded in his work from the lower
to the higher; and so, as his last upon the earth,
created man. So Gennadius, in the fifth cen
tury. But this opinion was opposed by Augus
tine. ' It has been adyocated in modern times
by Schubert of Helmstadt. (c) Others still
maintain that angels were created on the first
of the six days, when, as they suppose, the hu
man soul and . other simple and incorporeal
beings were made, and were stationed as spec
tators, o employed as assistants, of the remain
ing work So Theodoret of Mopsvestia, Augus
tine, Peter of Lombardy, and others ; and in
modern times, Calovius, who appealed to Job,
xxxviii. 7, (vide No. I.,) Seiler, and others.
Some hold that they were created on. the fourth
day, because the sun, moon; and stars were then
created, in connexion with which angelic spirits
are always enumerated.
2. The perfections with which angels were
endued can be ascertained only from the analogy
of those of the human soul. Vide No II. and
Morus, p. 88, ». 9. Their intellectual powers
must be greater than our own; they must pos
sess more strength of thought and clearness of
conception. Their moral powers, the perfections
of their will, must also be greater than ours.
For them, therefore, to persevere in holiness,
must accordingly be easier than for men ; and
hence the guilt incurred by them in their fall is
represented as far greater than that incurred by
men in their apostasy. We are unable, however,
to determine the exact measure of angelic
powers and excellences. From the fact that
men have a state of probation (status gratix)
allowed them, in which their virtue may be ex
ercised and confirmed, and from which they
pass to a state of perfection, enjoyment, and re
ward, (status glorix,) we conclude, that the
aase is the same with regard to angels. The
New Testament says nothing expressly respect
ing the perfections of angels, except that they
possess greater strength and power than men;
2 Pet. ii. 11, Igxv'C xai Svvdpst psl^ovss. Hence
the phrase oyyEAot Svvdpsas, 2' Thess. i. 7.
Hence also the word ayyEAos is used adjectively,
like ©ads, to denote the excellence of a thing;
2 Sam. xiv. 17, 20, the wisdom of angels; Ps.
lxxviii. 25, the food of angels; Acts, vi. 15,
the face of angels.
3. The number of the angels is by some re
presented as very great; and they justify this
representatien by arguments a priori. God has
made, they say, a great number of creatures of
all the different kinds, even in the material
world ; and it is therefore just to suppose that
in the more exalted sphere of spirit the creatures
of his power are still more numerous. And,
indeed, the Bible always describes God as sur
rounded by a great multitude of .heavenly ser
vants. Vide Dan. vii. 10; Ps. Ixviii. 17 ; Jude,
27

ver. 14; Matt. xxvi. 53. Cf. s. 58, and Morus,
p. 89, note. V. Division of Angels.
Angels are divided into good and evil in refer
ence to their moral condition. There is no dis
tinct mention of apostate angels in the Bible be
fore the Babylonian captivity; though from this
silence it does not follow that the idea of them
was wholly unknown to the ancient Hebrews.
Vide s. 58, II. 3. This idea, however, even if
it had before existed, was more distinctly re
vealed and developed at the time of the exile,
and afterwards. It was sanctioned by Christ
and the apostles, and constituted a part of their
faith, as really as it did of the faith of the Jews
who were contemporary with them. The name,
evil or iad angels, was taken from Ps. lxxviii.
49, the only passage in which it oceurs in the
Bible; though even in this passage it does not
denote disobedient angels, evil in a moral re
spect; for in this sense the phrase evil angels is
never used in the Bible ; nor, on the contrary,
is the phrase good angels ever, used to denote
those who are morally gbod, thpugh indeed they
are sometimes called holy in this sense. But
although this term is not derived from the
sacred writers, but from the schoolmen, it should
unquestionably be retained, since the meaning
it conveys is wholly accordant with the doctrine
of the Bible. The term angel is applied in the
Bible to evil spirits only in reference to their
former state, when they were still the servants
of God. Vide 2 Pet. ii. 4. Since they have
apostatized, they can no more, strictly speaking,
be denominated his angels— i. e., servants, mes
sengers. On the contrary, they are called in
the Bible, dyysXoi toi fitaj3oAov, or fov Xatava,
Matt. xxv. 41, Rev. xii. 9. The phrase, 6ad or
unclean spirits (not angels,) occurs frequently in
the New Testament, especially in the writings
of Luke. Paul, too, uses the phrase itvsvfiatixd
trjs itovnplas, Eph. vi. 12. Whenever the term
ol dyysXoi occurs in the New Testament without
qualification, good spirits or holy angels are al
ways intended ; as Matt. iv. 11, where it is op
posed to fitajSoAos. We proceed now to consider
these two classes more particularly.

CHAPTER I.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY ANGELS.
SECTION LX.
OF THE PRESENT STATE AND EMPLOYMENT OF
HOLY ANGELS.
I. Their Present State.
1. Angels are properly regarded, according
to the general remarks, s. 59, IV. 2, as beings
possessing great intellectual excellence — intelli-
s2

210

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

geuce, knowledge, and experience. Hence,
whatever is great and excellent is in the Bible
compared with them; great wisdom is called
the wisdom of angels; excellent food, the food
of angels; beautiful appearance, the appearance
of angels. Their advice is accordingly said to
be asked for by God ; they are summoned into
council before him, and compose, as it were,
his senate or divan. Cf. Job, i. and ii. This
does not imply that God needed their council ;
but rather, that he wished to instruct and em
ploy them.
We should beware, however, of exaggerated
conceptions of their knowledge, and should
never ascribe to them anything like divine in
telligence and wisdom. We should not sup
pose, for example, that they are acquainted with
the thoughts of men, or that they have a know
ledge which borders on omniscience. The
Bible, while it describes their great superiority
over us, still represents their knowledge as very
limited and defective in comparison with the
knowledge of God, and as capable of great in
crease. In Job, iv. 18, God is said to charge
his angels with folly. In Mark, xiii. 32, the
angels of God are said not to know the hour of
the destruction of Jerusalem. 1 Pet. i. 12, sis
a EitiSvpavgw ayysyoi itapaxv^ai.
2. They are also described as possessing
great moral perfection, which is called their holi
ness. Thus they are scmetimes called dyioi, in
cpppsitipn to axGt&opfof also IxXsxtol, Deo pro-
bati, elect, 1 Tim. v. 21. Hence they take their
greatest pleasure in witnessing and promoting
integrity and virtue. In Luke, xv. 10, they are
said to rejoice over the repentance of sinners.
It is in general true, that the more advanced in
holiness one is himself, the more pleasure he
takes in that of others, the more interested is he
in the diffusion of morality and piety, and the
more distressed at the prevalence of vice. And
if this is the case with man, how much more
with spirits of a higher order ! We see here,
why the plan of redemption engages the interest
of the whole spiritual world, and fills angels
with delight and wonder when they contemplate
it, as is represented in the New Testament;
1 Pet. i. xii. ; Eph. iii. 10. The angels are de
scribed as very actively engaged before and at
the birth of Christ, Luke, i. They sung praises
to God on this occasion, and announced his ad
vent to men, Luke, ii. With equal activity and
interest they attended him during his life, mi
nistered to his wants, witnessed his passion and
resurrection, and were interested in whatever
concerned him. The union of so many natural
and moral excellences in the angels is the rea
son why great wisdom is also ascribed to them.
3. From what has now been said, we may
determine what, in a general view, is their con
dition. It is always described as one of the

greatest happiness; for of this, their holiness,
which is the essential condition of happiness in
moral beings, renders them eminently suscepti-
ble. Vide s. 51, II. They are said in the
Bible to stand in the most intimate connexion
with God, and to behold his countenance conti
nually. Matt, xviii. 10. When the sacred
writers would describe the blessedness of which
we shall hereafter be partakers, they do it by
saying, that we shall then be like the angels of
God ; IgdyysXoi., Luke, xx. 36. It is sometimes
said, that the angels are now so confirmed in
goodness that they cannot sin. We cannot sup
pose, however, that there is any absolute impos
sibility of their sinning; for this would be in
consistent with their freedom. It is true, in
deed, that they never will intentionally and
deliberately commit sin, or wish to do so. Still
to sin must be possible to them, and to all finite
beings, in short, to all but God himself.
Note. — The schoolmen, like the Rabbins be
fore them, proppsed many questiens on this
subject which were wholly unanswerable; and
many, top, which were extremely frivolous,
which may also be justly said of the answers
which they gave. Vide Morus, p. 88, u. 5.
Among these questions were the following;—
Whether an angel could be in more than one
place at the same time ? Whether more than
one angel could be in the same place at the same
time? Whether they spake the Hebrew lan
guage, or what language was meant by the
yXaagai dyyEAwv, spoken of 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ?
II. The Employments of Holy Angels.
They are represented in the Bible as the ser
vants of Divine Providence, and as chiefly em
ployed in promoting the good of men. The
text, Heb. i. 14, teaches explicitly that they are
all spirits, engaged in the service of God, and
employed by him for the good of those whom
he will save. In Matt. xxvi. 53, we read that
God could have sent more than twelve legions
of angels to the service of Christ. Cf. Matt
xviii. 10; and also Psa. xxxiv. 7, and xci. 11,
where it is said that they encamp about the
righteous, and bear them up in their hands, both
of which are proverbial phrases. These are the
general representations contained in the Bible
respecting the employments of angels ; and be
yond these the teacher of religion should not at
tempt to go in the instructions which he gives.
There are two cautions which it may be well for
him to suggest in connexion with this subject,
(a) We are unable, in any particular cases
of providential protection or deliverance which
may occur at the present time, to determine
whether the ministration of angels has been em
ployed, or how far their intervention has extend
ed. It is sufficient for us to know that we are
watched over and provided for by the providenCv

WORKS OF GOD.

211

of God, and that his angels are employed in
our behalf; and it is of no importance to us to
be informed of the particular cases in which
their agency is exerted. If we may believe that
God is not confined to the established course of
nature, that he may sometimes turn aside and
afford us special and extraordinary assistance,
protection, deliverance, and instruction, through
the instrumentality of his angels, as we are
clearly taught to believe in the Bible, this surely
must be sufficient to comfort and encourage us
during the dangers and difficulties of life, even
if may not know when and how these services
are performed.
(6) We are not to conclude that because ex
traordinary appearances and interpositions of
angels are recorded in the holy scriptures as
having taken place in former times, similar oc
currences are to be expected at the present day.
The events described in such passages as Matt.
i. 24; ii. 13; Luke, i. 11,26; ii. 9; xxii. 43;
Acts, xxvii. 23 ; should be exhibited by the re
ligious teacher, as real occurrences, indeed, but
as peculiar to that day. This is far better than
to attempt to explain away the obvious meaning
of these passages, as has often been done, to the
great injury of the interests of truth.
Moreover, the Bible does not teach that an
gels are present with men at all times and under
all circumstances, and that they are conversant
uninterruptedly with our affairs. On the con
trary, they are generally represented as present
and active only in extraordinary cases, in unex
pected events, the occurrence of which cannot
easily be explained without supposing their
agency. Vide Isaiah, xxxvii. 36 ; Acts, xii. 7.
Cf. s. 58, and Morus, p. 89. Hence we find them
employed at the giving of the law, the last judg
ment, and other great events of this nature, as
even the Jews supposed. Vide Matt. xiii. 39,
41 ; xvi. 27 ; xxv. 31 ; 2 Thess. i. 7. They are
frequently exhibited, especially in the prophetic
writings, in a symbolical and parabolical man
ner ; and much which is there said concerning
them must be understood as merely figurative
representations — e. g., Isa. vi. 1, seq. ; Dan. x.
13; Zac iii. 1; Luke, xvi. 22. But at the
ground of all these figurative and parabolical
representations lies the truth, that angels are
actively employed for the good of men. The
source of the imagery contained in these pas
sages has already been pointed out in s. 58.
We cannot, however, leave this subject without
considering more fully the opinions which have
been entertained respecting two particular of
fices or works ascribed to angels.
1. One of these offices is that of guardian
angels. The general notion of them is, that they
are appointed to superintend particular countries
and provinces of the earth, and alse to watch
over individual men, and administer their con

cerns. We find no clear evidence that this doc
trine was held by the Jews before the Babylo
nian exile ; and many suppose that they adopted •
it for the first time in Chaldea. The origin of
this opinion at that time is accounted for on the
supposition that angels were compared with the
viceroys who ruled over the provinces of the
vast oriental kingdoms. We find, indeed, the
doctrine that angels were guardian spirits, in a
general sense, developed in the earlier books of
the Old Testament ; but not so clearly the opi
nion that each particular man and country had
an angel as an appropriate and permanent guar
dian. The guardian spirit (fhv 3n?d) men
tioned Job, xxxiii. 23, as promoting the virtue
of man, and interceding for him when he lies
desperately sick, does not seem to be one among
many of the same kind, but altogether extraor
dinary. He is supposed by some to be a man.
Vide Dathe and Schultens, in loc. Those,
however, who are spoken of in Dan. x. 13, 20,
are unquestionably guardian angels over parti
cular countries and people. Daniel, in a vision,
beholds Michael, the guardian angel of the Jews,
contending with the guardian angel of the Per
sian empire. In whatever way this passage
may be interpreted, it discloses the idea that
angels were intrusted with the charge of parti
cular countries and people. This idea was so
familiar to the Seventy, and so important in their
view, that they introduced it surreptitiously even
into their version of the Pentateuch, and thus
contributed to its wider diffusion — e. g., they
rendered the passage, Deut. xxxii. 8, 9, xof a
dpi^pbv dyyixav ©eov. And DnSN-\ia, Tloi ®eov,
Gen. vi. 2, is rendered by Philo and Josephus
dyysXoi ©eov. Cf. Gen. xi. 1,2, 5, 9. They
supposed that evil spirits reigned over heathen
countries — an opinion respecting which we shall
say more hereafter. The Rabbins held, that
there are seventy people and as many languages,
over which seventy angels preside. Vide the
paraphrase of Jonathan on Gen. xi. and Deut.
xxxii. This idea was the source of many other
representations. Every star, element, plant,
and especially every man, was now supposed to
have an appropriate angel for a guardian.
We find some traces of the latter opinion —
viz., that every man had his own guardian an
gel, even in the New Testament. In Acts, xii.
15, when they could not believe that it was
Peter himself who appeared, they said, d oyysAos
avfov igtiv. But Luke merely narrates the
words of another, without assenting to the opi
nion expressed. Vide Wetstein, in loc. Some
suppose that in Matt, xviii. 10, Christ himself
utters and sanctions the opinion in question:
"Their (pixpuv) angels behold the face of my
Father." But neither does this passage author
ize the opinion that each particular man has his
appropriate guardian angel. Their angels mav

212

CHRISTIAN THEOL.OGY.

mean, those who guard and preserve them when
ever and wherever occasion might require; ac
cording to Heb. i. 14 ; John, i. 51. It does not
necessarily imply that there is a particular angel
appointed to guard each individual man and to be
his constant attendant. The word uixpol, which
primarily signifies children, means also those who
have the disposition of children, and are therefore
liable to be despised and abused. Vide ver. 14
and Matt. xi. 11. The meaning of the whole
passage may be thus expressed : — As we are
very careful not to offend the favourites of those
who stand high in favour with earthly kings,
we should be still more careful not to offend the
favourites of Divine Providence — the humble
pious — who are intrusted to the special care of
those who stand high in the favour of God, (who
behold his face.)
The Jews believed, moreover, that angels ad
ministered the affairs of men before God, brought
their supplications and complaints to him, &c
Many of these opinions afterwards prevailed in
the Christian church, and are found in the writ
ings of the earlier Christian teachers. Much is
said respecting the care of angels over particular
kingdoms of the earth by Clement of Alexandria,
(Strom, b. 7,) Origen, (Contra Cels. b. 4 and
8; also b. 5, 10, 26, 30, 31; Homilia 11 in Nu-
meros ; and in Gen. homil. 9,) and Eusebius,
(Demonstr. Evang. iv. 7, seq.) The latter
speaks of the care of angels over seas, fruits, &c
The angel of fire is spoken of, in conformity
with the opinions of the Jews, in Rev. xiv. 18 ;
the angel of water, Rev. xvi. 5; John, v. 4.
Similar passages respecting the guardian angels
of particular countries and people occur in the
writings of the Platonists, Jamblicus, Julian,
and others. Vide the work of Ode, before cited,
s. 779, ff. Much is said respecting the guardian
angels of particular men, by Hermas, Pastor, b.
ii., and Origen, who says, among other things,
(Adv. Celsum, i. 8,) that the angels bring the
prayers of men to God, according to the opinion
of the Jews. So say Eusebius, Basilius, Hiero
nymus, Augustine, Chrysostom, and most of
the schoolmen; and among protestant theolo
gians, Baier, Er. Schmidt, Gerhard, and others.
This idea of guardian spirits was likewise
widely diffused among the ancient Greeks and
Romans. It is found in the writings of Hesiod,
though not in Homer. It was received, and
philosophically discussed by Socrates, and by
Plato in various of his works. Plotinus, Por
phyry, Jamblicus, and Proclus, taught it in the
manner peculiar to the new Platonists. It was
likewise taught in a similar manner at Alexan
dria and the other schools of Christian philoso
phy, where the maxims of the new Platonists
were adopted. Thus this opinion was rapidly
and widely diffused.
2. The assistance of angels at the giving of

the law. They are said to have been present
on this solemn occasion, and to have been em
ployed as the instruments through whom the
law was given. Moses says nothing which
either proves or disproves this opinion. But
we find, in Ps. Ixviii. 17, that Jehovah was on
Sinai with thousands of angels. We find also
in the Septuagint version of Deut.' xxxiii. 2,
that God appeared at the giving of the law m
p.vpidai — ex 8s$iav avfov dyysXoi ust owifoi;.
This opinion was universally received both
among Jews and Christians at the time of the
apostles, and sometimes occurs in the New
Testament. Heb. ii. 2, Si ayysAaw Aoajj&ij
Ao'yos, (i. e., vopos.) Acts, vii. 53 ; Gal. iii. 19,
Siat aysis So dyyixav. Now, because God em
ployed angels as his servants at the giving of
the law, and published it through them, and, m
the Jews supposed, governed the world, and
especially the Jewish church, by them, Paul
says, Heb. ii. 5, that the former world was sub
ject to angels, but the times of the New Testa
ment to Christ alone. The same opinion re
specting the giving of the law by angels is
found in Josephus, Antiq. xv. 5. The Israel
ites, he says, received the law St' oyys'Auv Haifa.
©eov. It is also found in the writings of the
later Rabbins. Vide Wetstein on Gal. iii. 19.
Cf. s. 58.
Note. — The manner in which this whole sub
ject should be treated in practical discourse is
well exhibited by Morus, p. 87, s. 3. The
great principle which should be first of all in
culcated is, that Divine Providence aids those de
pendent on its care in various ways, and fre
quently in a way wholly unknown and inexpli
cable to us. This should be shewn by examples.
Among other means, angels are employed, as
we are taught in the Bible, for the good and
safety of man. And since this is so, it is alike
our duty and privilege to live quietly and peace
fully, with trust in that Providence which em
ploys so many means, both of an ordinary and
extraordinary nature, for the good of those who
comply with the conditions prescribed in the
gospel. We need not be distressed even in
view of death ; but may go with a cheerful heart
from this world into the next, knowing that we
are attended by the angels of God, and shall be
borne by them into the bosom of Abraham.
Vide Luke, xvi. 22.
SECTION LXI.
OF THE CLASSES OF GOOD ANGELS ; THEIR NAMES!
AND THE WORSHIP RENDERED THEM.
I. Classes of Good Angels.
Angels are described as existing in a society
composed of membjers of unequal dignity,
power, and excellence; as having chiefs and

WORKS OF GOD.

213

rulers, and, in short, as exhibiting all those dif
ferences of rank and order which appear in
human society, and among the courtiers and
ministers of earthly kings. It is hardly conceiv
able that a great society should exist without
higher orders, and those of a lower and sub
ordinate grade. Hence the Biblical represen
tations that angels are divided into various
classes (ordines), over which chiefs are placed,
and to which appropriate employments are as
signed. The conception is not clearly expressed in
the books written before the Babylonian capti
vity, (vide s. 58;) but it is developed in the
books written during the exile and afterwards,
especially in the writings of Daniel and Zecha-
riah. In Zech. i. 11, an angel of the higher
order, one who stands before God, appears in
contrast with angels of an inferior class, whom
he employs as his messengers and agents. Cf.
iii. 7. In Dan. x. 13, the appellations \<xhnr\ -*>,
and in xii. 1, bi'-uri -\b>, are given to Michael.
The Grecian Jews rendered this appellation by
the term ap^oyyEAos, which occurs in the New
Testament, Jude, ver. 9, and 1 Thess. iv. 16,
where we are taught that Christ will appear to
judge the world iv ^ovy dpxayyixov. This term
denotes, as the very analogy of language teaches,
a chief of the angels, one superior to the other
angels ; like dp^iEpEvs, dpxigtpdti\yos, dp^tjv-
vdyayos. The opinion, therefore, that there are
various orders of angels was not peculiar to the
Jews; but was held by Christians at the time\
of the apostles, and sanctioned by the apostles
themselves. These distinct divisions in which angels are
arranged according to their rank in the writings
of the Jews of later times, were, however, either
almost or wholly unknown to the Jews contem
porary with the apostles ; in proof of which it
may be mentioned, among other things, that
Philo, who has much to say respecting angels,
takes no notice of any such divisions. The ap
pellations, apxal, i^ovalai, Swdusis, ^pdxot, xv-
pibtntss, are indeed applied in Ephes. i. 21, Col.
i. 16, and other parallel texts, as they often are
in the writings of the Jews to the angels ; but
not to them exclusively, and with the intention
of denoting their particular classes; but to them
in common with all beings possessed of might
and power, those visible as well as invisible, on
earth as well as in heaven. The same is true
of 1 Peter, iii. 22. A general division of angels
into chiefs and subjects is indicated in Rev. xii.
7, d Mi^aTjA xai ol dyysXoi avtov, those that be
longed to his train, and were subject to him. But
these general classes were greatly subdivided by
the later Jews. The fathers, too, under the in
fluence of their Platonic ideas, went far beyond
the instructions of tho Bible in classifying the
angels. An example of this may be seen in the

Work, De Hierarchia Coelesti, which appeared
about the fifth century, and was falsely ascribed
to Dionysius Areopagita — a work full of the
most extravagant fictions and conceits. This
work was in high repute with Peter of Lom-
bardy, Thomas Aquinas, and other schoolmen,
who adopted its division of the angels into nine

The Cherubim (o^ana) and Seraphim(a'£nfc>)
mentioned in the Old Testament have been con
sidered by some as forming classes of angels.
Vide Morus, p. 87, s. 4. But (a) Cherubim are
not, properly speaking, angels, but originally
hieroglyphical figures in the form of beasts ; like
the sphynx of the Egyptians, the bird-griffin,
&c. They are represented as bearing God when
he rides over the heavens, in order to shoot his
lightnings, and hence are always mentioned
when tempests are described, Psalm xcix. 1 ;
Genesis, iii. 24. They thus came to be used as
symbols of the divine majesty and power, and
as such were placed over the ark of the cove
nant, as pillars of the throne, and engraven on
the walls of the temple. They were variously
composed of forms of men and beasts, (|wa
itoxipoptya.) Vide Ezek. i. 5, seq. ; Michaelis,
De Cherubis, equis tonantibus Hebraeorum,
Commentar. Soc Scient. Gottingae, t. i. p. 157,
seq. The four beasts (t fcrffopa £wa) in the Apo
calypse (which in their form resemble the Che
rubim) are represented indeed as endowed with
speech and reason, and as serving before the
throne of God ; and yet as distinct from the an
gels. Vide Rev. iv. 6, seq.; v. 8 — 14; vi. 1,
seq.; vii., xiv., xix. (6) The Seraphim appear
only in the prophetic vision, (Isaiah, vi. 2, 6,)
and there, judging from the analogy of other
passages, would seem indeed to be angels who
surround the throne of God; not, however, a
particular class or order of angels; but in gene
ral, the nobles and princes of heaven; the name
being derived from the Arabic ¦ « *-j to be
noble, excellent. Cf. Job. i. and ii.
II. Names of Good Angels.
Wherever there are many of the same kind it
becomes necessary to make use of appropriate
names to distinguish one individual from an
other; and so it was with regard to the angels.
Particular names are given to some of thern in
the Bible, by which we are able to distinguish
between them, and by which also, as some Jews
and Christians have supposed, they are actually
denominated in heaven. We find no names
given to particular angels in the books of the
Old Testament written before the Babylonian
exile ; they occur for the first time in the books
written during the captivity and afterwards; in
Daniel, and the Jewish and Christian apocryphal
writings. These names are, Michael, Gabriel,

214

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Raphael, Uriel, Jeremiel, Sealthiel, &c. The first
two only, Michael and Gabriel, are found in our
canonical books. Vide Dan. viii. — xii. ; Luke,
». 19, 26; Jude, ver. 9 ; Rev. xii. 7.
III. Worship of Good Angels
It is well known to be a doctrine which still
Belongs to the creed of the Roman, and, to some
extent, of the Grecian church, that angels, and
indeed the souls of the pious dead, should be
worshipped and invoked. The teachers of these
churches, however, always protest decidedly
against paying divine worship to angels, and
contend that a merely civil homage should be
rendered them, and that they should be suppli
cated to intercede for us with God. This, in
itself considered, is not sinful, as has been some
times unjustly asserted. It is not improper for
me to request even a pious man now living to
intercede with God for me, any more than it is
improper for one to request a favourite at court
to intercede for him with the king. The prac
tice of invoking the aid and intercession of an
gels proceeds on the supposition that they are
intimately acquainted with the affairs of men,
and hear the prayers offered up to them. But
this supposition is unfounded; for angels are
neither omniscient nor omnipresent. Vide s.
60, II. To invoke their aid, therefore, before
we know that they will hear our prayer, is as
absurd as it would be for a subject at a great
distance from court, and in the retirement of his
own house, to supplicate the aid and assistance
of the prince or minister, believing that his re
quest would be regarded. Hence it must appear
that supplication to angels and saints is not so
sinful as it is irrational. To these considera
tions we may add the following: —
1. The Bible furnishes us with no example
of the invocation of an absent angel. On the
contrary, even a present angel is represented in
Rev. xix. 10 ; xxii. 9, as seriously displeased
with John, who fell down before him, because
he was his brother, and, like him, employed in
the service of God, (svvfiovAos.) Again; Paul
teaches (Heb. ii. 5) that the Christian dispen
sation is not placed under the control of angels.
We are instructed by the example of Jesus and
the apostles to address our prayers directly to
God and to Christ, and that we do not need the
intercession and mediation of other beings. Re
specting the passage, Job, xxxiii. 23, seq., vide
s. 60, II.
2. The propriety of this practice must like
wise be rendered very suspicious by the fact,
which experience has abundantly established,
that wherever the invocation of saints and angels
is allowed, the great mass of mankind, notwith
standing all the protestations of their teachers,
do actually render them, not merely civil ho
mage, but divine worship, and regard them very

much as the heathen do their gods. This has
been seen ever since the worship of saints and
images was introduced in the fifth and sixth
centuries. The following remarks will shew how the
worship of angels came to be authorized and
established in the church. It was an ancient
Jewish opinion that angels were intermediate
persons between God and men, that they con
ducted our affairs with God, and carried our de
sires and prayers before him. This opinion is
found in the apocryphal writings, Tob. xii.
12 — 15 ; also in the book of Enoch, and is al
luded to, Rev. viii. 3, 4. We do not find, how
ever, that the Jews at the time of Christ and the
apostles ever worshipped the angels or invoked
their aid. Some indeed thought (and so Peirce
and Michaelis) that they found an allusion to
the worship of angels in Col. ii. 18, 19, where
Paul warns his readers against the taittwofyfo-
gvvr\, and the $pijgxEia dyyixav of some seditious
persons of Jewish feelings. But t aitsivotyposwri
and Spngxsia dyyixav here signify humility and
worship, like that of angels, to which these per
sons pretended ; like gofla dyyixav. Vide s.
59, iv. 2, ad finem. It is synonymous with
£>£Ao^p?7(rx£!.'a, ver. 23. What the Jews believed
with regard to their angels, the Grecians, and
especially the Platonists, believed with regard
to their demons — viz., that they conducted the
affairs of men with God, and laid our prayers
and offerings before him. Hence this idea be
came more and more prevalent among the Gre
cian Jews and Christian teachers. It occurs in
the writings of the fathers of the second and
third centuries — e. g., in Origen, (Contra Cel-
sum, viii. 36,) who says, in cap. 57 of the same
work, that angels deserve honour and thanks
from men. The Valentinians and other Gnos
tics are said by the ancients to have gone fur
ther, and to have rendered a kind of divine
worship to the angels. But this was always
very much disapproved by the catholic fathers,
until the fifth and sixth centuries; as we see
from the writings of Clement of Alexandria,
Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Augustine, and
Theodoret, and by the acts of the Council at
Laodicea, about the year 360, Can. 35. But
when at length the worship of images and saints
came in vogue in the fifth and sixth centuries,
we find that not only the great mass of the peo
ple rendered religious homage to saints and an
gels as to deities, but that even many Christian
teachers expressed themselves in such an incau
tious manner as to justify this practice. Not a
single respectable theologian, however, has ever
directly defended it, nor is it now defended in
the Romish church. The Trent Catechism con
tains the doctrine, Angelas pro iis provinciis pre-
ces fundere quibus prxsunt ,- and the Romish
church teaches, that it is proper to pray to angels

WORKS OF GOD.

215

for holiness, and to seek their intercession in
articulo mortis. Vide Jo. Himmelius, De Na-
tura Verae ac Religiosae Invpcaticnis, Contra
Barthold. ; Nihusium, 1624. Protestant theo
logians — e. g., Brochmand and Baumgarten —
have allowed that angels may give good coun
sel, awaken pious thoughts, and produce plea
surable emotions.

CHAPTER II.
OF THE FALLEN ANGELS, OE EVIL SPIRITS.
SECTION LXII.
OF THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL SPIRITS ; AND THEIR
APOSTASY.
In addition to the works of Ode, Cotta, and
others, mentioned s. 58, note, the student should
consult the following, in reference to the history
of this doctrine. J. G. Mayer, Historia Diaboli,
&c, Ed. 2; Tubingae, 1780, 8vo — a work in
which the existence, condition, power, agency,
&c, of evil spirits are considered, and in which
the common doctrine is defended ; and, on the
other side, the work "Versuch einer biblischen
Damonologie, oder Untersuchung der Lehre
vom Teufel und seiner Macht," with a preface
and appendix by Semler; Halle, 1776, 8vo; in
which the agency of the devil is denied. Cf.
the work of Ewald, above cited. Other works
relating to some particular points in this doc
trine will be noticed, s. 65. [A complete view
of the literature of this doctrine is contained in
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 67.]
I. The Existence of Evil Spirits.
It is undoubtedly true, as has been often con
tended, that the more savage and ignorant men
are, the more slavish is their fear of such invi
sible beings, whether gods, angels, or of some
other name, as are supposed to be evil and ma
lignant ; and also that the belief in the existence
and influence of such beings commonly de
creases as science and civilization advance.
. Some of the ancient nations believed in only
one evil spirit, while others conceived of many
such, under the government of one head. These
were regarded as the authors of every description
of evil, natural and moral, and to them were
attributed all the diseases and calamities with
which men are visited. The doctrine of the
Jews respecting evil spirits, which has a general
resemblance to that of other nations, though in
many points it is entirely different, was not fully
developed, as has been already remarked (s. 58,
II. 3), until the time of the captivity.
The existence of any such evil spirits as are

exhibited in the Jewish and Christian scriptures
has been either doubted or wholly denied by
some philosophers in every age. The principal
objections urged by them against the existence
of evil spirits are the following: —
1. The idea of a spirit, by nature wise and in
telligent, and yet opposed to God, seems, they
think, to involve a contradiction. But if this
objection were valid with regard to angels, it
must also hold true with regard to men ; and it
would be impossible to find a man highly intel
ligent and sagacious, and yet wicked. [This
is the principal objection upon which Schleier
macher rests his rejection of the common doc
trine respecting evil angels. If Satan were ac
quainted with God, and knew his power, he
could not hope to succeed in opposing him ;
with all the high intelligence ascribed to him
he must see the folly and ruin of wickedness, and
repent, otherwise his understanding and his will
would remain in fixed opposition ; whereas the
functions belonging to any real existence must
be harmonious. Hence the conclusion is, that
the idea of Satan, as a being possessed of high
intelligence and yet opposed to God, contains
logical contradictions, and cannot therefore be
received. But if the existence of a depraved
will be not inconsistent with the highest degree
of intelligence with which we are acquainted in
human beings, how can we tell that it may not
be consistent with a far higher, and indeed the
very highest, degree of finite intelligence? Be
sides, in a moral apostasy, though the defection
of the will must precede the error of the under
standing, yet the error of the understanding is
sure to follow ; and the higher intelligence
which angels by nature possess may have be
come perverted by their fall, as is the case with
men. — Tr.]
2. There is no trace of a belief in the exist
ence of evil spirits, even among the Jews, until
the time of the Babylonian captivity. [But if,
as has been shewn in a previous section, there
was no necessity for the revelation of this doc
trine before that time, and then it became neces
sary, the fact of its being previously unknown
cannot, surely, be an argument against its truth
when revealed. It is enough that it was at any
time taught by inspired prophets. — Tr.]
[3. Connected with the foregoing objection,
and perhaps implied in it, is another, which
needs to be more fully stated. It is said, that
the Biblical doctrine of a Satan is derived from
the system of dualism so prevalent in the East,
and is liable to the objections to which that sys
tem is exposed. This objection is' urged by
Henke, Eckermann, and others of the same
school. But in answer to this it may be said,
that even supposing the Biblical doctrine re
specting Satan to agree with oriental dualism,
it does not follow that the former is untrue.

216

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

If it is taught by inspired writers, it certainly
does not become less true by having been taught
by Zoroaster, and believed by the Persians, any
more than the doctrines of God and divine pro
vidence are to be discarded because universally
believed . B ut there are, it must be remembered ,
very obvious differences between the demonolo-
^y of the sacred writers and of the Eastern phi
losophers. According to the latter, the two
principles of good and evil are co-eternal and in
every respect equal ; and it is from this repre
sentation that all the evils connected with ori
ental dualism result; and it is in this very point
that it differs from the Biblical doctrine. Ac
cording to this, Satan himself, and all his le
gions, are creatures of God, dependent upon
him, and trembling before him. Thus, although
possessed of vast power, they are still under the
entire control of the Ruler of the universe ; and
so our trust in him remains unshaken. — Tr.]
4. Belief in evil spirits is confined, it is said,
to rude and uncultivated men, and disappears
as science and civilization advance, and ought
therefore, in these enlightened times, to be
wholly discarded. But it should be remembered
that learned men in enlightened periods some
times fall into errors, as well as ignorant men
in barbarous ages, and that an opinion is not
true merely because believed by the one, nor
false because believed by the other.
Those who deny the existence of evil spirits
are called Ademonists. Many of these, who are
hardly prepared flatly to oppose the authority
of the inspired writers and to set aside their in
structions, undertake the useless labour of ex
plaining away the doctrine of the devil from the
Bible, and in doing this resort to the most forced
and unauthorized modes of interpretation. Vide
Morus, p. 93, s. 13.
[The modes of interpretation here alluded to
were practised long since by the Rationalists
of the seventeenth century — the Cartesians, Spi
noza, and his friends. A good specimen of the
manner in which these fathers of modern Ra
tionalism disposed of the instructions of the Bi
ble upon the subject of evil spirits is given by
Stosch, in his " Concordia rationis et fidei," p.
8, s. 17: "Quae de angelis et dsemonibus tarn
in s. scriptura quam his'toria humana traduntur,
sunt partim sOmnia, partim visiones et appari-
tiones, partim phantasmata, partim morbi, par
tim figmenta et illusiones." But the most plau
sible of all the systems of Ademonism is that
by which Satan is made to denote, not a real
existence, but some mode of moral evil. This
system is well expressed by Ammon when he
says, " Acquiescamus non tam in exist cntia et
faclis, quam notionc Satanae," Sum. Theol.
Christ, p. 105. The particular form of moral
evil denoted by the word Satan is very various
according to different authors, each of whom

modifies it to suit his own philosophical system.
Thus, according to one, it is that disposition
which pursues evil for its own sake, and not for
any advantages with which it rriay be connect
ed — pertinacia in damnum proprium velaliemm
agendi, absque illecebris carnis, vel munii^ sive
glorix vanse. In the school of Kant, SatarHs
the idea of what is absolutely displeasing in the
sight of God, and so is the direct opposite of the
Son cf God, who, according to Kant, is the idea
of what is absolutely well-pleasing with God.
Thus in each different system does Satan, at the
option of the framer, assume a different form,
and act a different part. — Tr.]
Our modern theologians have often chosen a
middle course, and endeavoured to unite the
opinions of those who totally deny the existence
of demons, and of those who contend strongly
for their existence and agency ; but, as is usual
with those who endeavour to please opposite
parties, they have given satisfaction to neither.
In order to prevent the appearance of rejecting
the authority of the holy scriptures, they admit
the existence of evil spirits, while, in order to
avoid the difficulties to which the common doc
trine is liable, and to conform to the prevailing
notions of the day, they deny that the devil can
exert any power on men, at least at the present
time, (a very necessary limitation for them to
make ;) that to us, therefore, it is all the same
as if he did not exist ; and that when Christ and
the apostles spoke of the agency of the devil,
they merely accommodated themselves to the
popular superstitions of the Jews, while they
themselves neither believed in demoniacal in
fluence, nor even, as some will go so far as to
say, in the existence of a devil. (Of this num
ber, the most distinguished perhaps is Wegschei-
der, who thus gives his views in his "Institu-
tiones," s. 106: "Verisimile est magistrum
ilium divinum rectius quidem de demonologia
Judaeorum cogitantem, at formulis quibusdam
usum symbolicis, regnum divinum regno dia-
bolico oppositum adumbrantibus, quae apud Ju-
daeos tunc temporis pervulgatae erant, a disci-
pulis suis non satis intellectum fuisse, et ipsam
providentiam divinam posteritati doctrinam
istam emendendam tradi voluisse." Cf. De
Wette, Bib. Dogm. s. 241. — Tr.]
But these views are liable to very weighty
objections; for,
(a) Since it was a great object with Jesus
to free mankind from hurtful prejudices, and
especially, during his earthly ministry, to era
dicate the errors which prevailed among the
Jews, we may be very certain that he would not
have spared their belief in the existence and
agency of the devil, if he had regarded it as false
It "is said, indeed, that it was necessary for him
to indulge those prejudices of the Jews which
he could not at once eradicate, and that when

WORKS OF GOD.

217

he spoke of the influences of Satan it was merely
in condescension to those deep-rooted Jewish
prejudices. But an examination of his words,
in the connexion in which they stand, will con
vince us that this' was not the case. Christ
does not merely forbear to contradict this prevail
ing doctrine, or merely allude to it incidentally,
but he frequently brings it directly forward, and
expressly teaches the existence of the devil and
his agency upon men. Thus, for example, in
John, viii. 38, 44, he speaks of the devil, with
out having the least inducement on the part of
his hearers for so doing, and this in the very
same discourse in which he demands from them
implicit faith in everything which he says, on
nis simple word, and in which he declares his
utter abhorrence of all falsehood and deception.
Vide ver. 38 — 47. And he frequently mentions
this doctrine in his discourses, when he could
have had no motive for doing so from a desire
of pleasing his hearers, and siding with their
prejudices. Vide Matt. xii. 22—31, 43—45;
xiii. 39. Had not Christ himself believed this
doctrine he would have introduced it as seldom
as possible into his discourses, and would have
thrown out hints here and there, by which the
more discerning would have discovered that he
himself entertained different opinions on the
subject. It could not certainly have been
through fear of any consequences injurious to
himself attending the denial of this doctrine,
that he was induced to indulge and authorize it ;
since the Sadducees had before renounced it
without experiencing persecution; and since
Christ was never known in other cases to give
way to any false or dangerous opinions, how
much soever the Pharisees and the Jewish peo
ple might have been attached to them. Thus,
for example, he fearlessly opposed their doctrine
respecting traditions, though this was far more
important in their view than the doctrine re
specting angels.
(b) Christ himself informs us, that during
his life on earth he privately taught his disci
ples many things which were not to be pub
lished by them till after his ascension, (Matt.
x. 26, 27;) and that much which he could not
teach them, because they were unable to bear
it, would be communicated to them by the Pa
racletus, John, xvi. 12, 13. But we do not
find that among these more familiar instruc
tions the disciples were taught that there is no
devil, or that he is not the author of evil, or that
he is destitute of all power. On the contrary,
Christ expressly and particularly sanctions a
belief in evil spirits, in presence of his disci
ples, (Matthew, xiii. 39, seq.; Luke, xxii. 31;)
and even mentions the fact that the prince of
this world is judged, (not that there is no Satan,)
as one of those things of which the Holy Ghost
would convince the world through their instru-
28

mentality. After the ascension of Jesus, the
apostles made use of the same expressions and
representations with regard to evil spirits which
he himself had employed ; as, 1 John, iii. 8 ;
1 Pet. v. 8 ; and often in the Acts. With what
freedom and fearlessness does Paul often attack
the prevailing prejudices and superstitions of
the Jews and Greeks ! But so far is he from
either opposing this doctrine, or merely passing
it by unnoticed, that he expresses his own be
lief in all the essentials of the Jewish demon-
ology; Ephes. ii. 1, 2, seq.; vi. 11, seq. et
paSsim. The apostles, indeed, held this doc
trine in a manner somewhat different from that
in which it was held by the Jews, and discard
ed many of their gross and fabulous representa
tions ; but yet, as it must appear from what has
been said, they themselves really believed it.
Our modern philosophers are at liberty to follow
their own convictions upon this subject, and to
reason upon their own principles; but they are
not at liberty to ascribe their hypothesis to
Christ and the apostles, nor to impose upon the
common people this boasted wisdom, which
they will never relish, and by which they will
be rather confounded than enlightened.
Our belief of this doctrine must rest ulti
mately on our conviction of the divine mission
of Christ in its most full and proper sense. If
we receive him as a divinely-commissioned
teacher, we must abide by his decision on this
subject as well as on all others, whatever diffi
culty we may find in the way. Otherwise, we are
driven to the alternative of saying either that
Christ did himself believe and teach the exist
ence of evil spirits, though they do not exist,-*-
in which case he is not an infallible teacher, —
or, that Christ did not himself believe, but yet
taught the existence of evil spirits, in which
case his moral character is impeached. The
same is true in regard to the apostles.
[Note 1. — In confirmation of the remark of
the author, that our belief of this doctrine must
depend ultimately on the testimony of Christ, it
may be said that the attempts which have been
made to prove the existence of evil spirits by
arguments hpriori, have proved as unsuccess
ful as the attempts to disprove it by arguments
of the same nature. The most noted attempt of
this kind is, perhaps, that made by Heinroth, in
the last chapter of his late work, " Ueber die
Wahrheit." He there endeavours to demon
strate the existence of evil spirits from the apos
tasy of man, which he thinks can be accounted
for only on the supposition that he was tempted
by a being who had previously fallen. Man
was made pure and holy, and could therefore
find no inducement to disobedience from any
thing in his own nature. The inducement to
sin must therefore have come to him from with
out; and as hs acts only in view of seeming
T

218

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

good, he must have been made to believe that
transgression would conduce to his advantage ;
in short, he must have been deceived. But he
could not have been deceived by God, nor any
thing in the world in which he was placed,
which is a work and revelation of God ; and if
deceived at all, therefore, it must have been by
an older apostate, a spirit of evil, a father of lies ,-
and only on the admission of such a spirit can
the incontrovertible fact of the fall of our race
be in any way accounted for. But, in the first
place, this temptation does by no means account
for that moral act in which the essence of the apos
tasy consisted. A change in man's moral charac
ter must have already taken place, before trans
gression could have been made alluring. With
out this previous defection of his will from God,
and the consequent disorder of his powers and
darkness of his mind, he could have seen no at
traction in what was forbidden, and. could have
looked upon the inducements to it, as Christ
did, only with abhorrence, and certainly never
would have preferred them to the infinitely
stronger inducements which the government of
God holds out to the obedient; and even if,
without this change, he had yielded to the in
fluence of some delusion from without to which
he had been subjected, he would have been
chargeable with mistake only, and not have been
guilty of sin. And, in the second place, the
agency of a tempter, though employed as a mat
ter of fact in the apostasy of man, is not abso
lutely necessary to account for it. If the fall
of Adam cannot be accounted for except by the
influence of temptation, neither can that of
Satan ; and the tempter himself must have been
before tempted and deceived. But if Satan — a
spiritual existence, and stationed near the
throne of God — could have apostatized without
having been drawn away by an older apostate,
certainly this may be supposed of Adam, in
whom, both from his nature and his circum
stances, apostasy must have been more proba
ble. The argument of Heinroth is liable,
therefore, to the twofold objection, that the
agency of a tempter does not fully account for
the apostasy of Adam, and that it is not neces
sary to account for it, since the tempter him
self fell without any such agency, though pos
sessed of a nature and placed in circumstances
far more favourable to obedience  Tr.]
Note 2. — Since demons and their influence
are mentioned so frequently in the New Testa
ment, the doctrine which relates to them ought
not to be omitted in popular instruction. If it is
passed by, the common people will fall into
very erroneous and superstitious notions with
regard to evil spirits. The truth ought there
fore to be exhibited with wise caution, in such
a way as to obviate both unbelief and supersti
tion, to rectify false views, and yet so as to

leave the authority of the Bible uninfringed
and the whole sense of scripture unperverted.
The following is the simple scriptural view of
this subject which the religious teacher
exhibit: — (a) Christ, by his death and
gracious dispensation which he administers, has
taken away from the devil the power' of injur
ing his true followers; those, therefore, who
are sincerely pious towards God, and believers
in Christ, and followers of his instructions, have
nothing to fear, (b) The existence of demons
and their influence may, however, furnish us
with motives to piety and virtue, and serve to
deter us from vice and corruption If we are
pious, we are citizens of the kingdom of God;
if wicked, citizens of the kingdom of Saten— re
presentations by which the states of moral good
ness and badness are figuratively described.
Vide Morus, p. 90, s. 8, seq. [Cf. Bretschneider,
Handbuch, b. i. s. 723.]
II. Apostasy of Evil Spirits.
All the angels, according to the Jews and the
writers of the New Testament, were placed ori
ginally in a state of innocence and holiness;
some of them afterwards sinned, apostatized from
God, and were consequently punished. Respect
ing the time at which this apostasy took place,
or in what the sin of the fallen angels consisted,
we are not clearly informed in the scriptures;
hence very different opinions have been enter
tained on these subjects.
1. Some suppose that the first sin of the
apostate angels was the temptation which they
offered to the progenitors of the human race.
This opinion has been advocated in modern
times by Cocceius, Vitringa, Heilmann, Schraid
of Wittenberg, and others. The devil is not in
deed expressly mentioned in the narrative in
Gen. iii. ; but after the Israelites were made bet
ter acquainted with the nature and influence of
evil spirits (s. 58), they always supposed that
they were intended in this passage, and that
death and sin had come into the world by Satan.
So the Book of Wisdom, ii. 24, and the New
Testament everywhere. They accordingly re
garded the devil as the tempter; but it does not
appear that they regarded the temptation as his
first offence, that by which he first rebelled
against God. On the contrary, they seem to
presuppose that he was previously wicked. The
passage, John, viii. 44, cannot therefore be em
ployed, as Heilmann has employed it, in support
of this opinion. The sense of this passage may
be thus given : — " You resemble the devil in
your dispositions and conduct, (Ix tov jtovrpds
fov SiaJSoAov igts ;) he was a murderer from tho
beginning, (av^paitoxtovos ait' dpxrjs, alluding to
the murder of Abel by Cain, Gen. iii.; 1 John,
iii. 12, and other events,) and remained not in
the truth, (the knowledge and worship of God,

WORKS OF GOD.

?19

si moral rectitude, or both united ;) the love of
truth and integrity is not in him ; it is his plea
sure to speak and propagate fal sehood and error,
(*d tyiSos, Rev. xxi. 27 ; xxii. 15 ;) for he is
the author (jtof *jp) and patron of falsehood and
error, (unbelief, superstition, and immorality, of
which he is always represented as the founder.)"
This passage certainly does not teach that this
was the first instance in which Satan revolted
from God.
2. Others place the chief offence of the evil
spirits in pride, which was shewn, according to
some, in one way, according to others, in an
other. So Athanasius, Hieronymus, Augustine,
and others, particularly the Latin fathers, who
were followed by many of the schoolmen, and
in modern times by Luther, Buddeus, Mosheim,
Cotta, and others. They refer to the passage 1
Tim. iii. 6, (which, however, admits of another
interpretation,) and also to the proud expressions
which are ascribed to the seducer of men in the
holy scriptures, Gen. iii. 5 ; Matt. iv. 9. This
view is partially correct ; but the first sin of the
fallen angels may be ascertained still more de
finitely. 3. We are led to believe by the writings of
the apostles that in many particulars they agreed
with the Jewish teachers of their own day re
specting the first transgression of fallen spirits.
We may accordingly consider the Jewish opi
nions, in these particulars, as sanctioned by the
assent of the apostles. Now the Jews held,
especially after the Babylonian captivity, that
God entrusted to angels, as overseers or govern
ors, particular provinces of the earth, and also
the heavenly bodies (cf. s. 60, IL), while their
more proper home and abode was heaven. The
Jews further held that some of these angels
were discontented with their lot, and entered
into a rebellious concert among themselves.
They proudly aspired to higher posts than those
assigned them, revolted from God, and deserted
heaven ; and then, for their punishment, were
thrust by God into Tartarus, like the giants or
Titans, who, according to the Grecian mytho
logy, were cast as rebels out of heaven. Tarta
rus is now their proper abode, as heaven was
formerly ; and from thence they exert, under the
the Divine permission, an influence upon the
world. They seduced our first parents, and
brought sin and death into the world ; they reign
over heathen nations, whom they led into idol
atry; they also rule wicked men- — i. e., exert
a controlling influence over them ; but, together
with those over whom they have ruled, they
will be punished in Tartarus after the day of
judgment. With this account the Jews min
gled many fabulous and unscriptural representa
tions, which were adopted even by many of the
Christian fathers ; but the general account above
given is ver«" clearly authorized even in the

New Testament, especially in the passages 2
Pet. ii. 4, and Jude, ver. 6, 7. The first passage i
teaches, that we cannot expect that God will
leave transgression unpunished ; " for he spared
not the angels that sinned, but cast them down
to hell (fopfapusas), where he keeps them in
reserve for future punishment, (sis xplgiv.)"
Still clearer is the parallel text, Jude, ver. 6,
where we are taught that God keeps enchained
(vitb fd$oi>) in Tartarus, reserved for the judg
ment of the great day, the angels tovs py ttjprj-
gavtas ti[V savtav op£7jv, aAAa ditoXiiibvtas tb
ISiov olxtrjpiov. 'Ap#»} does not here signify,
their original state, but the dominion entrusted
to them as governors. Tqpslv is tueri, conservare,
to retain, and the latter clause is not a descrip
tion of their punishment, but of their crime.
Thus Jude and Peter, though they by no means
take part in all the Jewish notions with regard
to the apostasy of the fallen angels, clearly
authorize the general doctrine of the Jewish
teachers, as given above.
Note. — The question has been asked, how it
can appear probable, or even possible, that such
perfect beings as angels are represented to be,
with all their intelligence and knowledge, could
have fallen in this manner, and so foolishly have
rebelled against God, with whom they must have
been acquainted ? It might be asked, with equal
plausibility, how it is possible that men can act
so frequently as they do against the clearest
knowledge and strongest convictions of duty ?
We often find men, endued with the greatest ta
lents, and possessing the clearest discernment,
who are yet grossly vicious, and act in a man
ner unaccountably foolish and unadvised. Emi
nent intellectual endowments are not unfre-
quently attended by eminent virtues, and then
are eminently useful; but they are also fre
quently accompanied by vices, and then are to the
last degree hurtful. But were it not that expe
rience justifies this remark, it would be easy to
demonstrate, o priori, that high intelligence and
moral depravity could not possibly go together.
Demonstrations a priori on such subjects are
therefore wholly inadmissible.
SECTION LXIII.
OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF EVIL SPI
RITS ; THEIR PRESENT AND FUTURE CONDITION ;
THEIR NUMBER, CLASSES, AND NAMES.
I. Their Nature and Attributes.
The essential constitution of human nature is
not altered by the depravity of the heart. Man
continues to possess the inborn excellences and
perfections of his nature, however depraved he
may be as to his moral condition. The case is
the same with evil spirits, as they are represent
ed in the Bible. In common, then, with good
angels, they are still spiritual beings, and even

220

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

in their present state possess the excellences
and perfections which are peculiar to spiritual
existences — great intellectual powers, internal
energy and activity. Vide s. 59, II. And if
good angels are invested with a body, or can
assume one as occasion requires, the same must
be supposed with respect to evil spirits. Vide
ubi supra. But their moral state, their will and
affections, are described as very depraved and
evil. They therefore employ their intellectual
powers in behalf of evil and not of good ; they
act in opposition to the divine purposes, and are
the enemies of truth and righteousness, John,
viii. 44. The gafyla ava^sv xatspxopEvn is con
trasted with cfo^ta SaiuoviaStis, James, iii. 15;
and men are warned of the ps^oSslai toi Siajib-
Xov, Eph. vi. 11 ; ii. 2. 1 Pet. v. 8. Matt.
xiii. 39. II. Their Present and Future State.
Their condition is, described as extremely un
happy. Vide Matt. xxv. 41. Even the natu
ral consequences of sin — the power and domi
nion of the passions, the remembrance of their
former happy condition, the frustration of their
wishes and plans, remorse of conscience, &c,
would be enough to render them miserable.
But these are not all which they endure ; since
positive punishments, as we are taught in the
scriptures, are inflicted on them, and will be
more especially after the day of judgment. We
are not able to determine accurately, from the
language of the Bible, which is for the most part
figurative, in what these punishments consist.
The principal texts relating to this point, besides
that already cited in Matt. xxv. 41, 46, are 2
Pet. ii. 4, and Jude, ver. 6. Tapfapow, or, as
the Greeks otherwise write it, xofofapfopow,
signifies, in Tartarum dejicere, (e coelo.) Tar
tarus, in the Grecian mythology, is the place
of punishment and condemnation. Hesiod, in
his Theogony, and Plato, in his Gorgias, repre
sent it as the prison of the Titans. But at a
later period it came to signify the general place
of suffering. It is that part nf afir/s where the
wicked were confined, and is represented as
dark, and deep under the earth. The place of
punishment was more commonly described by
the Jews as djh wj, yssvva, and eternal fire. But
as their notion of yfE'wa correspended perfectly
with the Grecian idea of Tartarus, they adopted
the latter term into their own dialect, as in many
other cases. In this place condemned men and
spirits are confined ; and hence the latter are
said to suffer such judgments and dreadful tor
ment as will constitute the punishment of wick
ed men after this life. Such is the representa
tion, Matt. xxv. 41,46, "Depart into everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." The
phrase, gnpals fdcpov itapsSaxs (he bound thorn
in dismal Tartarus with chains), describes their

misery as unavoidable and remediless/. Great
wretchedness is often described by the Hebrews
under the image of captives bound in a dark pri
son. The evil spirits are not as yet, however,
chained for ever in Tartarus — i. e., theyare not
now confined to this single place of misery.
They sometimes, under divine permission, roam
beyond their prison, and exert their influence
upon men. Vide Revelation, arid Luke, viii,
31, &c. But a more strict confinement and a
higher degree of punishment are impending
over them, as over wicked men, and will fall
upon them at the last day : sis xplgw ir,poivttu,,
cf. ver. 9, and Jude, ver. 6, sis xplaiv /tfyi^
rjaspas. Cf. Matt. xxv. 41. The question of
the demon, Matt. viii. 29, j^a^es <55e itpb xai-
pov flagavlaai %p.as, alludes to this impending
punishment. Cf. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Hence the evil
spirits are described as fearing God, and trem
bling before him as their Judge; James, ii. 19,
Saipbvia typiggovgi.
Note. — Will evil spirits repent, obtain forgive
ness, and be restored to happiness? These are
questions which have often been asked in mo
dern times, and to which various answers have
been given. Origen was the first among Chris
tian teachers who distinctly avowed the opinion
that evil spirits would repent, and be restored
to happiness. Vide Augustine, Con. Jul. v. 47,
and vi. 10. This opinion has been adopted in
modern times by theologians of the most differ
ent parties; by Eberhard,in his " Apologiedes
Sokrates," th. i., by Lavater, in his "Aussicht
in die Evvigkeit," th. iii., [Bretschneider, in his
Handbuch, b. i. s. 691,] and others.
If we had nothing but reason to guide us in
our inquiries on this subject, we should proba
bly argue thus: — (a) If wicked men truly re
pent, reform, and comply with the other condi
tions prescribed, God will fotgive them, and
remove the punishment of their sins. But con
sidering that these spirits are in the highest de
gree depraved, that their vicious propensities, so
long cherished, must have taken deep root, and
that the habit of sin must have become confirmed,
we must conclude, from all human analogy, that
their repentance and reformation must be ex
tremely difficult, though we might not be able
to pronounce it absolutely impossible, (b) But
should they from the heart repent of their sins,
and were it possible for them to fulfil the other
conditions prescribed, it is probable that God,
who is perfect goodness, and who is ready to
forgive men on certain conditions, and who de
sires the salvation and happiness of all his crea
tures, would also forgive them, and restore them
to bis favour; or at least, he might perhaps re
move the positive punishments inflicted on them,
should they comply with the conditions pre
scribed ; if indeed we can suppose their situa
tion such that conditions could be offered them-

WORKS OF GOD.

221

a point which we are unabie to determine. But
(c) since every good action has its natural and
permanent good consequences, and every evil
action its natural and permanent evil conse
quences, it is certain that the happiness of such
repentant angels must always be less in amount
than the happiness of those who never sinned,
and have persevered in obedience. The former
must always take a lower stand, in point of
happiness and character, than the latter ; and in
this sense we may affirm, even on principles of
reason, that their punishment will be eternal.
But if we inquire what Christ and the apos
tles teach on this subject, we can find nothing to
justify the hope that the fallen angels will be re
stored. Their punishments are described as
Ssgpoi o.i5ioc, Jude, ver. 6 ; as itvp alaviov, xdAoo'cs
aiavios, Matt. xxv. 41, 46. These expressions
do not, indeed, necessarily denote positive pu
nishments, although it cannot be shewn that
natural punishments are here exclusively in
tended. There is some plausibility in the argu
ment that the words aiavios and diSios, like the
Hebrew D^iy, do not denote eternity, in the strict
philosophical sense, but only a long and inde
terminate duration. Vide s. 20, III. But while
this remark is doubtless true in itself, yet in the
passage cited, Matt. xxv. 46, xoAa<»s aiavios
and fuTj aiavios are contrasted, and if in the lat
ter case aiavu>s is allowed to denote absolute
eternity, what right have we to use it in the
former case, in a less strict sense ? From these
words, therefore, no argument can be drawn in
behalf of the cessation of the punishments of
fallen spirits ; nor can it be shewn that these
punishments are merely natural. The argu
ment for restoration is therefore left by the
scriptures very doubtful. The consideration of
the question will be resumed, s. 157, 158.
[However hesitating and undecided the theolo
gians of the Lutheran church may be with re
gard to the endless punishment of the fallen
angels, the doctrinal standards of their church
express no doubts; and the Augsburg Confes
sion (Art. xvii.) expressly condemns those,
" qui sentiunt, hominibus damnatis ac diabolis
finem pasnarum futurum esse." Neander sug
gests, that the doctrine of the final and perfect
restoration of all things (ditoxatdgtagis itdvtav),
which is ascribed to Origen as its author, was
the result of the principles of the Alexandrine
Gnosis, and was abandoned by him at a later
period of his life. Allg. Kirchengesch, b. i.
abth. 3, s. 1098.— Tr.] '
III. Number and Classes of Evil Spirits.
The New Testament gives us no definite in
formation with respect to the number of evil
spirits ; but they were supposed by the Jews to
be very many (Luke, viii. 30), and indeed are
often mentioned in the New Testament in the

plural. We are likewise informed that evil
spirits compose a kingdom, and exist in a social
relation ; and hence the phrase rj [SaaiXfla tov
Xatavd, Matt. xii. 26. This representation
must be understood in the same way, as that in
reference to good angels. Vide s. 61,11. They
have a leader, prince, or commander, (d dpzav
tav Saiuovlav, Matt. xii. 24,) represented often
as a fallen archangel, and called Beelzebub (vide
No. iv.), also, by way of eminence, Sidfloxos,
Sof ai>as, x. t. x. In Rev. xii. 7, 9, in opposi
tion to the good angels who fought on the side
of Michael, the angels of Satan are called ol
dyysXoi avtov. The names devil and Satan
are not used in the Bible in the plural, and are
applied only to the dpxav tav Saiuovlav. It is
not therefore according to scriptural usage to
speak of devils in the plural.
IV. Names of Evil Spirits.
Respecting the title evil angel, vide s. 59, V.
[Cf. Bretschneider," Handbuch, b. i. s. 627;
Hahn, Glaubenslehre, s. 294, Anm.]
1. General appellations of evil spirits as a body.
(a) ILvsvpata dxd^apta — i. e., morally impure
and evil ; Luke, xi. 24, et passim. Synony
mous with this is (6) itvsvaata itovnpd, Luke,
vii. 21 ; Ephes. vi. 12, fa itvsvaatixd tijs itovn-
plas. (c) Aalpovss or Saiubvoa. The etymology
of this word is quite uncertain. In Homer and
all the most ancient Grecian writers it means
neither more nor less than gods, (§sol.) And
although, in process of time, it acquired various
additional meanings, it always retained this. It
is accordingly used by the LXX. to denote the
heathen gods (diSiSn,) and also in 1 Cor. x. 20,
21, and Rev. ix. 20, where fiat^dna and slSaXa
are connected. It was very commonly used in
this sense by the Attic writers ; and so, when
Paul was at Athens, (Acts, xvii. 18,) some be
lieved that he wished to introduce £E'ra Satpovia,
foreign deities. But the name Saluovss was
afterwards given by the Greeks to those invi
sible beings whom they supposed, in connexion
with their deities, to exert an agency in the
world. Hence Salpovss, is the name given by
Pythagoras, Plato, and others, to the human
soul, even when connected with the body, but
especially when separated from it. The inter
mediate spirits between God and our race —
deified men, and heroes, were also called de
mons. And lastly, the internal spring, impulse,
the foreboding or presentiment of the mind, which
appeared so inexplicable to Socrates, and which
he therefore personified and deified, was called
by him his Saiuovtov. Whenever this invisible
agent was the cause of good to men, it was
called dya^oSaliiav or siSaluav; and when the
cause of eyil, xaxoSalpav, At the time of
Christ and the apostles, Salpav was a common
appellation given by the Grecian Jews to evil
t2

322

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

those morally so, and indeed by the
Apocryphal writers also. Vide Tob. iii. 8,
itovripbv Saiuoviov. In the evangelists, the
phrases itvsvpata dxd^apta and itovnpd are in
terchanged, times without number, with Sal-
povss and itvsvua Saiuoviov axa^apf ov. In Matt.
xii. 24, Saluovss are distinctly mentioned as be
longing to the kingdom of the devil. The
woman who is described in Luke, xiii. 11, as
itvEVfia sxovga da^tsvslas, is said (ver. 16) to be
one rjv sSqasv b Xatavds. Vide s. 64, I. 2. The
opinion of Farmer, therefore, in his " Essay on
Demoniacs," that other spirits — gods, departed
souls, &c, and not devils — were intended in the
New Testament by this appellation is unfound
ed. In James, ii. 19, Saiabvia has clearly the
signification above given. But how came Sal
uovss to have this peculiar signification among
the Grecian Jews ? The LXX. usually rendered
the Hebrew words which signify idols by the
word Saluovss, and the Greeks called their gods
by this name. Now the Jews connected with
this name their idea that evil spirits ruled in the
heathen world, and caused themselves to be
worshipped as gods, under the names of Jupiter,
Mercury, &c, and had seduced the heathen into
this idolatry. Hence Saluovss and evil spirits
came to be regarded by them as synonymous
terms. 2. But one of the evil spirits is represented
as their prince, leader, commander. Vide No.
iii., and Morus, p. 91, s. 10. He is called by
various names, (a) Satan, pu>, "Satavds, lite
rally, enemy, fiend, accuser, Ps. cix. 6 ; Job, ii.
(s. 58) ; Matt. xvi. 23 ; and hence, by way of
eminence, princeps dxmonum, because he is re
presented as the greatest enemy of man, and of
the kingdom of truth and holiness. Synony
mous with this title are the names d ixSpos and
d avtiSixo;. (b) 'O itovrjpos, malignus, noxious,
the foe of man. This name is frequently given
him by John; as 1 John, ii. 13, 14. (c) Am»-
|3oAos is the most common Grecian name of the
devil ; and from this word our devil and the
German Teufel are derived. It signifies fiend,
destroyer of peace, calumniator. The LXX. ren
dered the Hebrew ]B* by Sh£/3oAos, Job, i. 6 ; Ps.
cix. 6. This name was sometimes applied to
men, 1 Tim. iii. 11 ; Tit. ii. 3. (d) BfAtaA or
'Bsxlap, 2 Cor. vi. 15, from VSa, compounded
of -hs, not, and Sy% high — i. e., low, abject. It
has different senses. In the Old Testament it
sometimes signified the under world, the king
dom of the dead, Psalm xviii. 5 ; and sometimes
unworthy men, abject principles, Deut. xiii. 13.
After the Babylonian exile it was frequently
used as the name of the devil, and occurs once
in this sense in the New Testament, 2 Cor. vi.
15, "What concord hath Christ with Belial?"
— i. e., How can the worship of Christ con
sist with the worship of the devil (idolatry) ?

(e) B£sA?eJ3ov/3, or Bssa££J3ovA, who is expressly
called dpxav tav Saipovlav, Matt. xii. 24. This
was an appellation very common among'the
Jews at the time of Christ. In 2 Kings, i. %
Beelzebub appears as a god of the Philistines.-
The name when written with final J3, is derived
from aia; Sya. It most probably means, God of
the flies, Fly-Baal, Deus averruncus muscarum,
whose office it was to protect his worshippers
from the flies, which were among the greatest
plagues of Egypt and Philistia. [It corres
ponds with the Greek Zsvs ditouvios-] Accord
ing to the later Jews, it means dominus crimi-
nationis, accuser, complainant, and is synony
mous with SuxfioXos and Saf avds, from the Sy-
riac aai, which signifies criminari. The other
form, Be£a£eJ3ovA, is derived from Siar bp, and is
either an intentional alteration of the word into
an epithet of disgrace, and so signifies deus ster-
coris (Mistgott), from Sat, stercus; or signifies,
deus, or prxfectus sepulcri, (as but signifies in
Chaldaic and Syriac,) dominus inferni, or infc-
rorum, b xpdtos ixav tov Savdtov, Heb. ii. 14,
It was at first, then, the name of the angclif
death, and afterwards of the devil, when he was
supposed to be the same person. (/) '0 Sfimt
b asyas, and d btyis d dpxalos, Rev. xii. 9, 13.
This appellation might have been given to him
from his general character for cunning and de
ceit, (d itxavav tr\v olxovpsvnv.) But the word
dpxalos evidently alludes to Gen. iii., since the
agency of the devil in the occurrence there de
scribed was doubtless believed by the Jews at
the time of Christ.
3. The Jews gave particular names to ei»7as
well as to good spirits. Among these is 'Atfp-
Salos, Asmodi, mentioned in the book of Tobias,
iii. 8, also Samael, Azazel, &c But none of
these proper names of evil spirits occur in the
New Testament, unless the name of the angel
of destruction, 'Af3aS8ui> — i. q., 'AitoXXiav,— J
dyysAos tij; dfiiggov, Rev. ix. 11, be considered
as such.

SECTION LXIV.
OF THE EMPLOYMENTS AND THE EFFECTS OF
EVIL SPIRITS.
I. Objections to the common theory.
The power of Satan and his influence upon
men were formerly stated in a very exaggerated
manner, and represented as excessively great
and fearful ; and this view was the more plausi
ble, as it seemed to be supported by many pas
sages in the New Testament. But this mistake
would have been avoided if the true spirit of the
Bible had been more justly apprehended, and
the true meaning of its language better under
stood. Vide No. ii. According to the common
theory, evil spirits were supposed to be actively

WORKS OF GOD.

223

employed at their own pleasure all over the
earth, to have immediate influence on the souls
of men; to inspire wicked thoughts, doubts, and
anxieties ; to intrude themselves into all societies
and mysteries ; and to rule in the air, and over
the whole material world. Such are the opinions
which formerly prevailed to a great extent, and
which are often found in the older ecclesiastical
writers. They were long preserved, and trans
mitted from one age to another with more or less
of exaggeration. And many theologians of the
protestant church, even in the sixteenth centnry,
held opinions on this Subject which were more
conformed to the prevailing superstitious ideas
of that age than to reason or scripture. Luther
and Melancthon were inclined to the belief that
good and evil spirits were at all times present in
the world, and stood in a very intimate relation
to men. In the symbols of the Lutheran church,
however, the connexion of superior spirits with
the world is not very minutely determined, and
the doctrine of demons is exhibited in the gene
ral Biblical phraseology. Thus, in the Augs
burg Confession many texts of scripture are
cited, but no definite meaning is affixed to them.
Many of the ideas formerly prevalent on this
subject are either wholly without foundation, or
are carried beyond the bounds of truth. For,
1. It is contradictory to the ideas of the power,
wisdom, holiness, and goodness of God which
we derive from the Bible and from reason, to
ascribe to the devil such vast and almost infinite
power. Nor can we see any rational way of
accounting for it that God should permit so great
and injurious an influence to be exerted in the
world. 2. The opinion maintained by some that evil
spirits can produce wicked thoughts in the minds
of men by an immediate influence is incapable
of proof. The evil influences exerted on the
human mind have by some been supposed to be
as immediate and efficient as the divine influ
ences ; and as God infuses good thoughts, as he
inspired prophets and apostles, so does Satan, it
is supposed, directly infuse evil thoughts into
the minds of the wicked, and into the minds of
the good also, when he is permitted so to do by
God. That these inspirations of the devil can
be distinguished by any certain signs from
thoughts and desires which arise in the mind
from other sources is not pretended ; this opi
nion, therefore, cannot be established by expe
rience, and certainly it cannot be derived from
scripture ; at least, the opinion that evil spirits
lo always, or commonly exert an immediate in
fluence of this kind cannot be proved from the
Bible. 3. This theory, when carried to the length to
which it has sometimes been carried, is incon
sistent with human/reedom. If the agency of
Satan was of the nature often believed, man

would not be the agent of the wicked actions he
seems to perform, but merely the instrument of
the irresistible influence of Satan ; and thus an
excuse for sin would be furnished.
4. In many texts in the New Testament in
which the common origin of particular sins is
described, Satan is not mentioned, but their ex
istence is accounted for in another way, agree
able alike to reason and experience. Cf. espe
cially James, i. 13 — 15, " Let no man say, when
he is tempted, I am tempted of God. Every man
is tempted when he is drawn away of his own
lust, and enticed, when he gives indulgence to
rising desires, which is internal sin. When lust
hath conceived it bringeth forth sin, (it breaks
forth in sinful words and works, which is exter
nal sin;) and sin, when it is brought into the
world, bringeth forth death, (its uniform conse
quence is misery.)" Cf. Matthew, xv. 19 ; Gal.
v. 16 — 21 ; Rom. vii. 5, 8, seq.
From these texts, however, we cannot con-.
elude, as some have done, that the Bible excludes
the agency of Satan in the sins of men. This
would be an extreme equally contrary to the
scriptures with the other, for the Bible expressly
teaches (a) that Satan is hostile to man, and is
active in promoting wickedness, Eph. ii. 2, vi.
11, seq., &c. Morus, p. 92, 93, n. i. (6) That
he contributes something to the sins which pre
vail among men — e. g., 1 Cor. vii. 5, where
Satan is distinguished from dxpagla, incontinence,
to which he is said to tempt men ; from which
it is clear, as Morus justly observes, that Satan
is not used in the scriptures to denote merely an
abstract idea, and moral evil. Vide ubi supra,
n. 2. (c) That he opposes goodness; Luke,
viii. 12; John, viii. 44; and is therefore the
enemy of Christianity and morality. Vide ubi
supra, n. 3. This is what the Bible teaches ;
still it does not deny that the ignorance of man,
his sinful passions, and other causes, have a
tendency to lead him to sin; nor does it under
take to determine the manner in which Satan
does what is ascribed to him ; nor does it justify
us in deciding in particular cases whether Satan
has had any agency in the crimes committed, or
what and how much it may have been. So
thought Origen (itspi ap^wv, iii.) and manyof
the ecclesiastical fathers, who endeavoured to
rectify the unscriptural notions respecting the
power of the devil which were entertained by
many of their contemporaries.
The extravagant opinions which formerly pre
vailed on this subject were the means of much
injury, as appears from experience, (a) They
led the common people to what was, in effect, a
belief in two gods — a good and an evil deity ;
and also to entertain false conceptions of the at
tributes of the true God, which could not have
been without a practical influence on the life.
()3) They often furnished a real hindrance to

iai

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

moral improvement; for instead of seeking for
the origin of sin in themselves, and endeavour
ing to stop its sources, — instead of becoming
acquainted with, and avoiding the external oc
casions of sin, — they laid the whole blame of it
upon Satan, and when they had made him guilty,
held themselves sufficiently justified and excul
pated, (y) They gave rise to many other false
opinions and superstitious practices, similar to
some already existing among the Jews. Ori
gen, Eusebius, and Augustine, represent demons
as fluttering about in the air, from the misun
derstanding of Eph. ii. 2. Vide No. ii. Euse
bius speaks of them as present at pagan sacri
fices, regaling themselves with the sweet savour,
according to an opinion which prevailed both
among the Jews and Greeks respecting their
gods. Sometimes they are represented as
speaking in the heathen oracles, and plotting
evil against men at prayer ; to secure themselves
against which, the ancient saints, as appears
from the fabulous histories of their lives, were
accustomed to make use of the sign of the cross.
They were supposed to keep themselves in de
serts, swamps, and subterranean caves, Is.
xxxiv. 13, 14; Matt. iv. 1; Luke, xi. 24; 1
Sam. xviii.; and also to dwell in men before
their baptism, even in the children of Christian
parents, and not merely in the heathen, as was
at first supposed ; and this gave origin to the rite
of exorcism. Vide Doderlein, Disp. de redemp-
tione a potestate diaboli; Altorf, 1774, 4to; also
in his " OpusculaTheologica;" Jenae, 1789, 8vo.
Tollner, Theol. Untersuchungen, th. i. st. 2,
" Die Lehre von den Versuchungen des Teufels
ist nicht praktisch." Runge, Man muss auch
dem Teufel nicht zu viel aufburden ; Bremen,
1776, 8vo.
In opposing these false and superstitious no
tions, many, however, fell into an opposite
fault, and wholly denied the power and influ
ence cf evil spirits, and explained the passages
ef the Bible relating to this subject in an arbi
trary manner, in order to make them agree with
their own previously established theories. It
was with the texts relating to this doctrine that
the Rationalists began, about the middle of the
eighteenth century, to indulge themselves in
that arbitrary mode of interpretation which they
have since applied to such other doctrines of the
Bible as they have wished to reject.
II. Remarks on some texts relating to this subject.
The general notion which formerly prevailed
among the Jews respecting evil spirits, and
which has been adopted and authorized by the
writers of the New Testament, is, that they are
the authors and promoters of evil among men,
John, viii. 44. The following general doctrines
are at the basis of the Biblical representations
of this subject.

1 . God is indeed the governor of all mankind •
but he is especially the kind father, benefactor,
and protector of those who truly reverenc'ejhjs
authority, obey his precepts, and in their conduct
endeavour te imitate him. Of these his kingdom
is comppsed ; they are citizens ef it, children of
God; by which appellation is meant, that they
are those who honour, love, and obey him, as
dutiful children do their father; and whom,
therefore, he loves in return, as a good father
does his dutiful children. Now as the Israelites
were in ancient times selected by God as the
means of diffusing the true knowledge of him
self and pure morals, and for the accomplish
ment of other great designs, they are called, in
an eminent sense, his people, his children, and
he, their king and father. These titles are pro
perly transferred by the writers of the New
Testament to Christians, who take the place of
the Israelites, and succeed them in all theii
rights. Christians now constitute the kingdom
of God; they are his house, his family; he is
their father and counsellor; and he employs in
their behalf the good angels, who are the invi
sible instruments of his providence. After tho
same manner, the great mass of mankind— the
xagjws, (as the heathen world is called, from the
multitude of which it is composed,) and the
cxdfo;, (as it is also called, from the ignorance
and moral corruption that prevails over it)— has
also its invisible head. It is governed by the
spirits who are at enmity with God, and by their
prince the devil. To whomsoever men yield
obedience, his children they are, and to his
kingdom they belong, John, viii. 44. And thus
all those who follow their sinful passions and
desires, who are the servants of sin, and resist
the will of God, are said to obey the devil, or to
stand under his dominion, because they act ac
cording to his will, and imitate him. And so
the heathen, who have no true knowledge of
God, and whose moral character is debased, are
said to belong to his kingdom. The supremacy
here spoken of is, then, of a moral nature, found
ed upon resemblance in conduct, moral charac
ter, and opinion.
2. There is another doctrine intimately con
nected with this. As Satan opposes the designs
of God, and does only evil, he is represented as
th e seducer of our first parents, and so the author
of sin among men, and of all its evil conse
quences. Vide Book of Wisdom, ii. 24. He is
generally described as the great enemy of man,
d f^pds, ai£pwn:oxfdi/os. Vide Morus, p. 92,
sec 11. .According to this view, the events
narrated in Gen. iii. were referred to Satan by
the Jews, in which they were followed by the
New-Testament writers, John, viii. 44 ; 1 John,
iii. 8 ; Rev. xii. 9. Since the time of the first
apostasy, men are born with a strong and pre
dominant bias and propensity to sin, Rom. vii.

WORKS OF GOD.

225

23, coll. v. 12, 19. This now, and everything
regarded as a consequence of the apostasy to
which Satan tempted our first parents, is con
sidered as belonging to his kingdom, and is
ascribed to his influence, even in those cases in
which he himself may not have been imme
diately engaged. Thus all errors, especially
those in religion, all wickedness, deceitfulness,
and whatever else is offensive to God, are
ascribed to him, even when he himself has not
been personally or immediately active in pro
moting them ; and this, because he is the first
cause of all this evil which has followed ; just
as, on the contrary, all the good which is op
posed to this evil is ascribed to God, even in
those cases where he has not immediately pro
duced it, only because it is according to his
will, and results from the wise institutes which
he has founded. And so everything connected
with moral evil, as cause or as consequence,
and all wicked men, (d xbgaos, b gxbtos,) belong
to the kingdom of Satan, (vide Morus, p. 91,
Num. 1;) while, on the contrary, all the pious,
and all moral goodness, with its causes and con
sequences, belong to the kingdom of light — the
kingdom of God, or of Jesus Christ. Vide the
texts referred to, ubi supra. From what has
now been said, light is cast upon the following
Biblical representations and expressions : — "
(a) The prevalence of immorality and the
diffusion of false religious observances are
striking proofs of the great corruption of human
nature; they are accordingly ascribed in a pe
culiar sense to the influence of evil spirits, who
are hence called the gods or rulers of this world.
Eph. H. 2, ap^wv trfi £%ovglas tov dspos, prince
if the power of darkness, (dijp, tenebrx, Homer,
Od. ix. 144; Virgil, acre sepsii) — i. e., of the
heathen world, darkened by ignorance and error.
Cf. Eph. vi. 12, ol xoguoxpdtopas toi gxbtovs
tov aiuvos toitov. To the former passage the
apostle subjoins the declaration that evil spirits
were eVspyowfEs iv viols fijs aitei^slas, and in
ver. 3 mentions al imSvplai trjs oapxbs, the de
sires which spring from our bodily nature, and
which lead to immorality. Satan is called in
the same sense d ^eos foii aiavos toitov, who
blinds the understanding of the unbelieving, 2
Cor. iv. 4; also op#uj> fov xogpov, John, xii.
31 ; xvi. 11 ; and paganism, irreligion, and im
morality, are called E'jjovca'a fov "Satavd, Acts,
xxvi. 18 ; while the Christian church, the object
of which is to make men pious, and to prepare
them to become citizens of the society of the
blessed above, is called fiagtXsla tov Tlov ©eov,
Col. i. 13
(b) Clirist came into the world in order to re
move the misery and disorder arising from the
Beduction of our first parents by the devil, and
to shew us the way te true heliness and happi
ness. 1 John, iii. 8, ifyavspa&i — i'ra xigy ta
29

Epya f ov Siaj3dAov, and according to Col. ii. 15,
Christ prevailed and triumphed over Satan.
The works of the devil are sin, and everything
by which sin and unbelief are occasioned.
Where sin, and misery as its consequence, pre
vail, there Satan rules. John says, in the pas
sage above cited, d itoiav tr\v daaptlav, ix tov
Swt/JoAov igtlv. Thus he rules over unbelieving
Jews and Christians, as well as over the hea
then, John, viii. 44.
(c) All the hindrances to the spread of Chris
tianity, and to the prevalence of that piety and
holiness which Christianity is intended to pro
mote — all the temptations and persecutions
which Christians are called to endure; — in
short, the whole system of efforts opposed to
Christianity, are regarded as the works of Satan,
and the enemies of Christianity as his instru
ments. Morus, p. 91, s. 9, note. Hence, when
Judas formed the infernal purpose (as we should
say) of betraying Christ, it is said, the devil en
tered into him — i. e., took possession of him,
John, xiii. 2, 27, coll. Acts, v. 3. By the
wiles of the devil, Eph. vi. 11, seq., the persecu
tions which Christians were called to endure,
and the efforts made to turn them aside from the
truth, are principally intended. Cf. 1. Pet. v.
8, 9, where ita&ipat a are expressly mentioned.
The enemies of Christians are the instruments
by which he brings suffering upon them, in
order to injure them and lead them to apostasy
and unbelief. He has a hand also in the
schisms, controversies, and heresies which arise
among Christians themselves, 2 Cor. ii. 11 ; xi.
14, 15, Sidxovoi Xatavd. Unbelief in particular
individuals is also ascribed to him, Luke, xxii.
31, as are all gross vices and crimes.
(d) Death, and every other evil which may
be regarded as the punishment of sin, is also
ascribed to the devil, and is said to have come
into the world through him ; Book of Wisdom,
ii. 4; John, viii. 44; Heb.ii. 14. In the last pas
sage he is described as the one who has power over
death, tb xpdtos ixav toi ^avdtov, which is taken
from the image of the angel of death, Asmodi,
or Samael. And as sickness may also be re
garded as the punishment of sin, they too are
often represented as the works of the devil.
We are prevented, however, from considering
Satan as the sole and independent cause of the
death of men, by those texts in which the power
over life and death, and the whole disposal of
the destinies of man, is ascribed to God alone.
The representation, therefore, that Satan is the
author of death and misery, is to be understood
figuratively ; for he is such to individuals only
as be was the first cause of that apostasy of man
which brought death and misery upon our race.
Still we are taught in the Bible, that for the
same wise reasons which lead him to permit
other evils, for the attainment of certain good

226

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ends, not otherwise attainable, God allows more
power to evil spirits; in particular cases and at
certain times, than they commonly possess.
(e) But evil spirits, according to the doctrine
of the Bible, cannot, with all their efforts, do
us harm, unless we resemble them in our dis
position, and are ourselves devoted to sin; 1
John, v. 18; iii. 8; John, viii. 44. Christ has
robbed evil spirits of their pewer, has cenquered
them — i. e., has rendered them harmless te those
who believe in him ; and this he has done,, partly
by delivering us from the punishment of sin,
and partly by freeing us from its power and
dominion, — the one, by his sufferings and death,
the other, by his instructions and example. All
those, therefore, who, in compliance with his
precepts, and in conformity with his example,
keep themselves from sin, or are pardoned for
sins already committed, are secured against the
temptations and wiles of evil spirits, 1 John, v.
18. Prayer, faith in Christ, the wholesome use
of his precepts, watchfulness, in short, the means
prescribed in the Bible for security against vice
and sin, — these, and only these, are the means
appointed for security against evil spirits; Eph.
vi. 11 — 18; 1 Peter, v. 8, seq. ; James, i. 14;
iv. 7. Morus, p. 93, n. 6. The excuse, there
fore, that one has been tempted of the devil, and
is on that account exculpated, is always un
founded, even in those cases, if such occur, in
which it is capable of proof that the inducement
to sin was really offered by the devil ; for he
could not, according to the doctrine of the Bible,
have found this opportunity unless the nature
of our hearts had been depraved, 1 Cor. vii. 5.
In those cases only in which men indulge the
sinful desires of their own hearts (James, i. 14)
are they liable to temptations either from the
devil or any other quarter; they themselves,
In such cases, are always in fault.

APPENDIX.
POWER OF SATAN OVER THE HUMAN BODY
AND THE MATERIAL WORLD.

SECTION LXV.
OF THE BODILY POSSESSIONS RECORDED IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
I. Meaning of the term "Possession."
Originally it was doubtless supposed to de
note a real indwelling in the human body. An
agent, in order to exert an influence on the hu
man body, must, it was thought, be near to it,
and substantially dwell in it, as the soul dwells
in the body. Such was at first the general, in
determinate notion. But it was afterwards re

fined upon, and the belief in a literal, substantial
indwelling of the devil was abandoned, and the
term possession was understood to indicate
merely the powerful influence which Satan
sometimes exerted in controlling and abusing
the bodies of men said to be possessed. In the
New Testament we do indeed sometimes meet
with a phrase like the following, Swaraj
sigrjxSsv sis *wo ('iovfiW), John, xiii. 27;
but by this phrase nothing more than an obsema
spiritualis, an influence upon the mind, is intend
ed ; arid the common expressions are, sxsai j«-
uoviov, Saipovt£sg$ai, x.t.X. The term posses
sion is not used in the New Testament, although
Josephus speaks of itovqpd itvsvpata xai Stum-
wa iyxa$s£6psva (insidentia), Ant. vi. 11; and
of itvsvaata ivSvbpsva, (induentes se, sive,in-
gredientes,) Bell. Jud. vii. 6. The words to
possess, and possession, are exact translations of
the Latin words possidere, obsidere, possessio,ob-
sessio, which were first used in relation to this
subject by the Latin fathers and schoolmen.
Obsidere is synonymous with occupare, impkre,
and is so employed by Cicero, where he says,
corporibus omnis obsidetur locus. It was then
spoken figuratively of the orator, who possesses
himself of his hearers, and gains them over to
his own views, obsidel ac tend auditorem, Ci
cero, De Orat. 62. Possidere is also sometimes
used for tenere, in potestate sua habere. So Pliny,
Hist. Nat. xxx. 1, says, with regard to magic,
possideri ea hominum, sensus vinculis, the senses
of men were controlled by magic as by chains,
were held absolutely under its power; and in
the same place, Gallias possedit magia, because
it was very prevalent and deeply rooted in Gaul.
Hence when one was afflicted with an obstinate
and fixed disease, he was said possessum esse:
so Aurelian, a physician in Africa, near the
close of the second century, says of one who
was afflicted with epilepsy, passions possessum
esse. This phraseology was now applied par
ticularly to those diseases which were ascribed
to the immediate agency of demons. The Bi
blical terms which have the nearest resemblance
to this phraseology are those which are found
in Luke, xiii. 16, where Satan is said to have
bound (sSvgs) a sick woman; and in Acts, x,
38, where some are described as xof ofiwooww-
psroi iitb toi SiaSoXav.
II. History of this Doctrine.
I. Among the Greeks. The belief of this doc
trine is found among many heathen nations both
of ancient and modern times. The general ori
gin of this idea is to be sought in the fact that
uncultivated men are in the habit of ascribing
everything, the immediate cause of which they
do not perceive, (especially if the thing is in
any degree extraordinary,) to the direct influ
ence of the Deity, or of some other spiritual

WORKS OF GOD.

227

agent more powerful than man. Whatever of
this kind is good or desirable they regard as an
effect proceeding immediately from good spirits ;
and the opposite, from evil spirits. Cf. s. 58,
II. Thus it came to pass that evil spirits were
considered often as the authors of all kinds of
sickness, and especially of those diseases which
were attended with unusual and inexplicable
phenomena. For the cure of such diseases, which
were supposed to be miraculously inflicted by a
malignant deity, or by demons, and therefore
to be beyond the reach of human art, resort was
had to miraoulous remedies. The diseases which
have commonly been regarded by different na
tions as of this miraculous nature are, melan
choly, madness ; also such nervous diseases as are
attended with the more frightful appearances —
cramp, epilepsy, lunacy, &c. These general
opinions prevailed among the Greeks, as ap
pears from the writings of some of their oldest
physicians — e. g., Hippocrates, who lived 400
years before Christ, and wrote nspl fijs «pijs,
vbgov, also Galen, and Aretaeus of Cappadocia,
who is quoted by Wetstein, Nov. Test. torn. i.
p. 282, seq. Hence it was common among the
Greeks to use the phrases Saipovyv, xaxoSaipo-
v$v, and Saiuoviov fpm, as synonymous with
palvsg^ai. This is seen in the writings of Xe
nophon, Aristophanes, and others ; and also in
the New Testament, as John, vii. 20 ; x. 20,
21. In the earliest ages, the Greeks ascribed
such diseases as those above mentioned to some
malignant deity. Thus it is said even in Homer,
Odyssey, v. 396— expat cTVyspds &aiv.<itv.
But when, at a later period, the doctrine of in
termediate spirits was received ameng the
Greeks, and these spirits were called Salpovss,
(demigods, heroes, and the souls of the depart
ed ;) they were now censidered as the authors
of these evils ; and this not by the people only,
but by many of the philosophers, whe adppted
these ideas into their systems, and formed theo
ries respecting them, as was the case with the
New Pythagoreans and the New Platonists, es
pecially in Egypt, both before and after the birth
of Christ. But Hippocrates, Galen, and some
other Greek physicians, who supposed they
could explain these diseases in part from natu
ral causes, rejected this prevailing opinion as
superstitious ; and in this many of the philoso
phers agreed with them. Origen remarks, in
his Commentary en Matt, xvii., that the physi
cians in his day did not believe in possessions.
They, however, retained the expressions which
were in common use among the people on this
Subject; Such as8aipOvl£sg%ai, oaipiav sigipxstai,
iiipxstai, ixpaXXstai, $clai vbeoi.
2. Among the Jews.
(a) There is no mention made of possessions

in any part of the Old Testament, either in the
older books, or iivthose comppsed after the Ba-
bylpnian exile. It is indeed eften said that par
ticular diseases, er deaths, were inflicted by
God, or by his angels, even by evil angels
(messengers of evil) sent by him. Vide s. 58.
But this does not at all correspond with the idea
of demoniacal possessions entertained at a later
period by the Jews. There is one passage,
however, 1 Sam. xvi. 14 — 23, where an evil
spirit is said to come upon Saul, which has
scmetimes been appealed te pn this subject.
But the evil spirit here mentiened was net one
whose moral character was evil ; and in this re
spect, therefore, the case of Saul is distinguish
ed from the cases of bodily possession in the
New Testament. The evil spirit here mention
ed is an evil spirit from Jehovah, in oppositipn
tP the good spirit which came from Jehovah
upon David, ver. 13, and previously upon Saul
himself, 1 Sam. x. 10. This good spirit in
spired him with a high and kingly disposition,
and with resolution for great and good deeds;
but the other spirit was to him the messenger
of evil, and harassed him with anxiety and me
lancholy, which ended in total madness. Nor
is there any mention of bodily possessions in
the Grecian apocryphal books which were writ
ten before the coming of Christ ; in short, no
trace of this opinion can be found among the
Jews before the Christian era.
(6) But the age of Christ and his apostles is
altogether remarkable in this respect. There
were then in Judaea and Galilee many sick per
sons, whose diseases were considered by the
great body of the Jews (the Sadducees; perhaps,
only excepted) as the effects of the agency of
evii spirits. It is worthy of notice that this is
not found to be the case at all in the age pre
ceding that of Christ, nor, at least in the same
degree, in those which followed it. We see
from the New Testament that Jesus, and after
him the apostles, healed many of these diseases ;
nor do we anywhere find that Jesus assigned
other causes for these diseases than those to
which they were supposed to be owing by the
contemporary Jews ; nor that on this subject
more than on others the apostles and evangelists
undertook to go farther than their Master. We
see also, from the New Testament, that the
Pharisees interested themselves in this subject,
and at least attempted the cure of some of these
diseases. Cf. Matt. xii. 27. The truth of
these facts — viz., that there were at that time
sick persons of this description in Palestine and
its vicinity — that they were there almost univer
sally regarded as possessed of evil spirits, and
that many, especially from among the-Pharisees,
appeared as exorcists, is confirmed by the testi
mony of Jpsephus, Ant. viii. 2. A few only of
the Jews, who pretended to be more liberal and

228

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

enlightened than the rest, either wholly rejected
the belief of possessions, and indeed of the ex
istence of evil spirits, (as was done by the Sad-
ducees in Palestine,) or adopted the opinion of
the later Greeks, according to which demons
were regarded, not as evil angels, but as a sort
of intermediate spirits — the souls of the de
ceased, &c, as was done by some of the more
learned Jews, who wished to conform to the
philosophy of the age. Of this class was Jose
phus, who says, Bel. Jud. vii. 6, fa xaXovusva.
6ataoi'ta — liovnpav igti dv^paitav itvsvpata.
(c) The Jews of later times, after the second
century, believed very generally, not only that
there had been possessions formerly, but that
instances of the same kind sometimes occurred
even in their own day. The latter opinipn was,
however, denied by Maimonides and some other
Rabbins ; while others, with the Sadducees, re
jected the whole doctrine of evil spirits, and
declared themselves decidedly for a'dxmonism..
Vide Wetstein, ubi supra.
3. Among Christians since the second century .
(a) The early Christian teachers since the
second century are united in the opinion that
the so called demoniacs of the New Testament
were truly possessed by the devil, because
Christ expressly declared them to be so. This
was the opinion of Origen himself. They
inoreover believed that there might be, and ac
tually were, demoniacs in their own day ; al
though we have not sufficient evidence to con
vince us that those whom they regarded as pos
sessed were so in truth. But as this was
believed by the Christians of that day, exorcists
soon appeared among them, who adjured the
demons in the name of Jesus to depart, and who
were afterwards in many places established as
regular officers of the church, and placed in the
same rank with the clergy. Among these Chris
tian teachers of the second and third centuries
there were many New Platonists, who contri
buted much to the diffusion of the belief that
possessions continued beyond the first ages of
the ckurch, and who, in full accordance with
the philosophic theory which they had adopt
ed, understood by the demons supposed to
occupy the body, not evil spirits, but tyuxal
ditol,avovtav — the opinion of Josephus, as
stated above, No. i. Such is the doctrine
expressed by Justin the Martyr, Apoll. ii.
This latter opinion, however, was not univer
sal, and gradually disappeared, as the influ
ence of the New Platonic philosophy ceased ;
though a belief in the continuance of real pos
sessions still prevailed both in the Eastern and
Western church, and in the latter was retained
even by the schoolmen. At no time, however,
was the belief that evil spirits have power to
possess the "bodies of men, even since the age

of Christ, more prevalent in the Western church
than from the end of the fifteenth to the middlo
of the seventeenth century. Hence we findtliM
this belief was received even by Luther and
Melancthon, and other theologians of both the
protestant churches, and was transmitted by
their disciples tn those who came after them.
(b) But about the middle of the seventeenth
century some doubts arose with regard to demo
niacal possessions, and in general with respect
to the whole notion that the power of evil spi
rits, especially over the material world, still
continued. These doubts were engendered at
first by the prevalence of the principles of the
Cartesian philosophy. The first public attack
was made upon this doctrine in England, about
the year 1676, and was shortly followed up in
France. But a new epoch in the history of this
doctrine was made by Balthasar Becker, a Car
tesian philosopher, and a preacher at Amster
dam, who in 1690 published at Leuwarden a
quarto volume, entitled, The Enchanted World,
afterwards translated into German by Schwager,
and published at Leipsic, 1781-82, with a pre-
face and notes by Semler. This work attracted
great notice, and the author of it was severely
persecuted. He did not deny the existence of
evil spirits, but only their influence upon men,
and, of course, all demoniacal possessions, even
those mentioned in the New Testament. His
opinions met with great approbation at the be
ginning of the eighteenth century in England
and the Netherlands, and were adopted and ad
vocated by Wetstein, Le Clerc, arid many other
Arminian theologians; but in Germany and
Holland these opinions were uniformly reject
ed by the protestant theologians during the
first half of the eighteenth century; nor did
even Thomasius agree with Becker on this sub
ject. Semler was the first among the pro
testant theologians of Germany who adopted,
with some modifications, the opinions of Becker,
and supposed that the demoniacs of the New
Testament were people afflicted with common
and natural diseases. He first published an es
say, De daemoniacis quorum in Nov. Test, fit
mentio; Halle, 1760; and afterwards his larger
work, Untersuchung der damonischen Leute;
Halle, 1762 ; which were followed by still other
writings on the same subject. This opinion at
first excited great attention, and had to encoun
ter strong opposition, but it gradually gained
ground, until it has now become almost the
prevailing opinion among the learned theologians
of the protestant church. Some, however, even
of modern times, have declared their opinion that
the question is not altogether settled, and that
there remains something to be said upon the
other side. In the English church the opinion
pf Semler has found many advncat'es, among

WORKS OF GOD.

229

whom Hugo Farmer, the author of an Essay on
Demoniacs, is distinguished. In the Romish
church, the old doctrine that the so called de
moniacs of the New Testament were really pos
sessed of devils, and that these possessions were
not confined to that particular age, remained the
common and professed belief during the greatest'
part of the eighteenth century. But during the
last few years, many of the theologians, even
of this church, have come over to the opinions
prevailing among protestants. The interest on
this subject was revived in the protestant and
catholic churches in Germany by the practices
of the celebrated conjurers, Schropfer and Gess-
ner, who appeared in the latter half of the
eighteenth century. As the difference of opi
nion was very great, (some protestant theolo
gians — e. g., Crusius and Lavater, maintaining
not only that there might possibly be posses
sions and conjurations at the present day, but
that such were sometimes actually known,)
many works were written on both sides of the
question. The result of this discussion in the
minds of the more unprejudiced and moderate
was, that although God, for particular reasons,
and for the sake of certain ends, might formerly
have permitted demoniacal possessions, there is
no proof that there are any such at the present
day; and there are no infallible signs by which
these alleged possessions can be certainly distin
guished at the present day from diseases merely
natural. III. Remarks on the Possessions recorded in the
New Testament.
1. The common opinion at the present time
is, that all these disorders are to be explained by
merely natural causes ; and that when Jesus and
the apostles attributed them to the influence of
evil spirits, they spoke in accommodation to the
prevailing error of their contemporaries. The
ancients, it is said, from their want of patholo
gical science, referred many diseases which were
purely natural to demoniacal influence ; and this
was the case with regard to the diseases men
tioned in the New Testairient. Christ and his
apostles did not appear in the character of theo
retic physicians, and were not required by their
calling to give instruction concerning the true
causes of human diseases. Such is the reason
ing often employed at the present day ; and in
this way do some attempt to escape from diffi
culties, and to free Christ from the charge of
entertaining the superstitious opinions of his
countrymen ; but, as we shall see hereafter, they
thus involve themselves in greater difficulties
than they attempt to escape. The question re
specting the reality of the possessions recorded
in the New Testament is at least open to dis
cussion, and cannot be decided in' that authori

tative and peremptory tone which has of late
sometimes been assumed. That demoniaca"
possessions are impossible cannot be proved ; nor
can it be shewn from the fact of there being none
at the present time that there never were any. A
disease — e. g., epilepsy — which may be owing
at one time to a natural cause, may at another
be produced by the agency of an evil spirit ; noi
can the opposite, of this be proved. It is also
possible that Divine Providence may have suf
fered in a former period, for the attainment of
particular ends, what it no longer permits now
that those ends are obtained. Vide No. 3.
2. There are, indeed, difficulties attending the
doctrine of demoniacal possessions, and many
things about it are dark and inexplicable ; but,
great as these difficulties may be, those which
follow from rejecting this doctrine are still
greater. They who deny the reality of demoni
acal possessions will find it difficult either to
maintain the authority of Christ as a teacher,
especially as a divine teacher, and the highest
ambassador from God to man, (which he always
affirmed himself to be,) or even to vindicate his
moral character. This subject is commonly •
treated at the present day in altogether too par
tial a manner; and I regard it as the duty of the
Christian theologian, arising especially from the
wants of the age in which we live, boldly to re
sist all such partial views in matters of religion,
not concerned as to the judgment which may be
formed of him by the multitude, if he can but
succeed in gaining the minds of the more candid
and enlightened, which he may depend will,
sooner or later, be found on the side of truth.
In reference to this subject, two things are per
fectly undeniable — viz., (a) that Jesus himself
spoke of these diseases as effects produced by
evil spirits, and never gave the remotest occasion
to suppose that he believed they were anything
else, not even in his more confidential discourses
with his disciples, nor in those cases in which
he would have found it necessary te contradict
the prevailing opinion, if it had been different
from his own, Matthew, viii. 28 — 32 ; xvii. 19 —
21 ; Luke, x. 17—21 ; Matt. xii. 28, 29.
This being the case with Christ, it will not
be thought strange, (b) that his apostles and
other disciples should always have been of the
same mind ; and that the evangelists did regard
these sick persons as true demoniacs is obvious
at first sight. Cf. Matt. viii. 28, seq. If Christ
and the apostles had regarded this opinion as
erroneous they would not have hesitated to de
clare it so, even if their doing this had been at
tended with danger from the Jews; for where
truth was concerned, they were not accustomed
to be governed by regard to consequences. They
could not, however, have had any reason to ap
prehend serious disadvantages from denying the
U

230

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

reality of demoniacal possessions , for this was
done by the entire sect of the Sadducees, among
whom most of the rulers and great men in Pa
lestine were found, and who, although they
went sp far as to deny even the existence of good
and evil spirits, were left to the 'undisturbed en
joyment of their belief. That accommodating
policy which some have ascribed to Christ and
the apostles can hardly be reconciled with the
principles of that pure morality which they
themselves taught, and according to which, in
other cases similar to those now under consider
ation, they themselves unhesitatingly and inva
riably acted.
The whole dispute may be summed up in the
following points — viz., (a) Those who consider
Christ as merely a human teacher, and yet one
who acted on the highest moral principles, must
allow that he at least sincerely believed what he
so often asserted ; and in no other way can his
moral character be vindicated. Such persons
might still doubt, notwithstanding the declara
tion of Christ, whether this doctrine is true,
since they might suppose that he, like other
human teachers, might err from the imperfection
of his knowledge, and thus be the means of
leading others astray, or of confirming them in
their errors, (b) But those who regard Christ
as an infallible divine teacher, in the full and
proper sense of the word, and as he is declared
to be in the New Testament, must assent to his
decision on this, as on every other subject, and
they must have the courage to profess this,
however many difficulties they may find in the
way, and although philosophers 'and illuminati
should array themselves in opposition, and
scoffers should treat them with ridicule and
contempt, (c) In order to avoid the pressure
under which they feel themselves placed by the
above-mentioned alternative, many will say,
that while they would not deny that Jesus was
an upright man, and a teacher worthy of esteem,
they cannot yet receive him as a divine teacher,
in such a sense as to require them to believe a
doctrine like this on his mere authority. But if
they will be consistent, they will bring them
selves in this way into great straits. For Jesus
declared himself, on every occasion, and in the
most decisive manner, to be an infallible divine
teacher, whose words were true, and must be
believed on his mere authority. Now if Christ
was not such a teacher as he declared himself
to be, the following dilemma arises; either
Christ did not think himself such, although he
expressly affirmed it, and then he forfeited his
character for integrity; or he only imagined
himself to be such, and then, though a good
man, he must have been a weak and deluded
enthusiast, and thus he forfeited the character
which the New Testament gave him, and which

he claimed for himself, of a sure and venerabk
teacher, upon whose guidance and instruction
men might safely rely. Everything, therefore,
depends upon the belief of the divine mission and
authority of Christ ; and from this point, there
fore, which many would be glad to evade, the
discussion must proceed.
3. The following are the views and principles
respecting demoniacal possessions, and the de
sign with which they were permitted, which are
found, without intermixture of philosophy, an
cient or modern, in the New Testament, and
which therefore should be laid before his hearers
by the religious teacher, as far as they are capa
ble of being understood, (a) Satan and other
evil spirits feel a hatred to men, which is mani
fested in various ways. Vide loc. cit. s. 64, II.
(b) It was important that this hostility should
be rendered very clear and obvious to men, and
especially at the time of Christ, when a new era
commenced, which needed to be strongly dis
tinguished, at its very introduction, from every
other. For this reason, power was granted to
evil spirits to possess the bodies of men, or to
affect them with dreadful diseases — a power
which they had not possessed before, and of
which they have since been deprived. Vide
Matt. xii. 28; Luke, xiii. 16, coll. v. 11, and x.
17 — 20; John, xvi. 11 ; Acts, x. 38, seq. (c)
But, on the other hand, power was granted,,to
Jesus and his apostles to shew, in a manner
equally clear and striking, by the cure of the
diseases which demons inflicted, that the object
of the coming of Christ was to destroy the power
of evil spirits, to render their hostility to ournace
harmless, and to free all those who wished to
be freed from the evils ascribed to demoniacal
agency. Cf. loc. supra cit. and John, xvi. 11 ;
1 John, iii. 8, and those cited s. 64. The per
mission of these possessions, therefore, secured
an important moral end, which could not be as
well secured in any other way, at that particu
lar age of the world, (d) In no other way could
the great object for which Christ came into the
world, and to which he so often alludes, be
so strongly represented, or so deeply impressed,
as by these facts falling under the cognizance
of the senses. The mere teaching of this reli
gion, unaccompanied by any such facts, would
have produced on hearers like his a feeble im
pression, compared with that made by those
wonderful works which proved both the teacher
and his doctrine to be divine. Facts produce
always a greater effect upon men than abstract
instruction; and hence God so frequently em
ploys them, as we see both from the Bible and
from experience, in the instruction which he
gives to men, at least makes use of them to ren
der the instruction he has otherwise imparted
more impressive and certain.

WORKS OF GOD.

231

SECTION LXVI.
OF MAGIC AND SPECTRES.
I. Of Magic
I. We shall here present some historical ob
servations on the subject of magic, and then
some conclusions drawn from them ; for nothing
more is necessary for the refutation of magic
than that it be exposed to the light of history.
The existence of spiritual agents, either friendly
or hostile to our race, is here presupposed ; and
magic is founded on the belief of their influ
ence, and secret and invisible power. Wherever
this secret, invisible power of superior spirits
is granted to men, there is a foundation for
magic, whatever may be the nature of the spirits
by whom it is granted, whether they are gods,
or angels, or demons, or of some other denomi
nation. The many erroneous conceptions of
ignorant and uncultivated men with respect to
the influence of these spirits, and the custom
of ascribing to their agency everything which
cannot be easily explained on natural princi
ples, — these, with other things, furnish a suf
ficient ground for the propensity to magic which
is seen among so many persons, and in so many
nations. This superstition has indeed appeared
in different forms among different people ; but
as they all proceed from the same general ideas,
they bear a strong resemblance to each other in
all their diversities, and agree in the means
which they prescribe to propitiate or appease
these superior spirits, or to avert the threatened
evil. Magic, in its largest sense, is the art of
performing something which surpasses the na
tural powers of men, by the aid of superior spi
rits. And the less general cultivation one has,
the less knowledge he possesses of the powers
of nature and their effects, the more inclined
will he be to magic, and to all kinds of super
stition which relate to the natural world. The
question has sometimes been asked, In what na
tion was magic first practised ? and, Who was
its first inventor or teacher ? And in answer to
these questions, the Chaldeans and Persians
have been mentioned. Sine dubio, says Pliny
(xxx. 1), orta in Perside a Zoroasire, ut inter
audores constat. But this inquiry is useless,
since magic is practised by all savage nations,
and they would be led to it naturally by the su
perstitious ideas above mentioned, and need not
be supposed therefore to have derived it from
other sources. Vide Tiedemann, De Magia;
Marburg, 1787.
When rude and uncultivated man wishes in
any way to better his condition, or to accomplish
what appears to him difficult or impossible, he
resorts to magic, or the aid of spirits, (a) Those
who wished to be rich, or prosperous, to live
comfortably, to regain their own health, or to

procure health for others, were accustomed to
resort to supernatural assistance, to magic medi
cines, cures effected by incantation, alchymy,
philtres, &c. The more mysterious, dark, and
enigmatical the means prescribed by this art, the
more welcome were they, and the more effica
cious were they believed to be. Even the ef
fects produced by the natural virtues of herbs,
medicines, &c, were ascribed by some to the
influence of spirits; hence Pliny says (xxx. 1),
Natam primum (magiarn) e tnedicina nemo du-
bitat, ac specie salutari irrepsisse velut altiorem
sanclioremque medicinam. (b) Those who
wished secretly to injure others, or to be re
venged upon them, were wont to employ vari
ous herbs, roots, or formulas of speech, for the
purpose of bewitching or enchanting the objects
of their dislike ; and, on the other hand, resorted
to amulets, charms, &c, when they wished to
repel the injury to themselves from like prac
tices in others. Real injury has been done in
magical practices by the use of actual poisons,
though the operation even of these is ascribed
by many to spirits. Hence, veneficium (tpapua-
xsla) signifies both the mingling of poison'and
sorcery. So Pliny (xxx. 2), Hobet (magia)
quasdam veritatis umbras ,- sed in his veneficix
artes pollent, non magicx. (d) Those who
wished to acquire the knowledge of things un
known to them, (e. g., who their enemies were,
who stood in the way of their success, who had
stolen their property, &c,) or who wished to
learn their future destiny, supposed that by con
sulting spirits they could best obtain the desired
information. Pliny, in the passage above cited,
says, "Nullo (homine) non avido futura de se
sciendi, atque de ccelo verissime peti credente."
Hence divination, dreams, and apparitions, have
always been among the instruments of which
the magician has availed himself.
Among men entertaining the superstitious
opinions here described, the supposed confidant
of superior spirits would naturally command re
spect and influence. These magicians (for so
those were called who were supposed to possess
familiar spirits) were sometimes impostors,
sometimes themselves deluded, sometimes both
at once. The various practices to which they
resorted in ancient and modern times may be
easily explained from what has already beeii
said. The most common are the following —
viz., fascination by evil glances, by words, pray
ers, incantations, (carmina, formulas which
were sung,) Eccl. x. 11 ; Ps. lviii; 5, 6; Horn.
Odys. de Circe; Virgil, Eel. viii. 69, seq.;
Mn. iv. 487, seq. Necromancy, the art of ob
taining the secrets of the future by conjuring
up the dead ; Homer, Odys. xi., — a very com
mon practice in the East, and among the He
brews, who were addicted to idolatry. A male
practitioner of this art among the Hebrews was

232

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

called aix, and a female, (for it was practised by
females,) a-TK-nSja, a woman whohas a spirit of
necromancy; in the plural, rrlaiN, sorceresses. Lev.
xx. 27; Is. xxix. 4. Of this class was the
witch of Endor, whom Saul consulted, 1 Sa
muel, xxviii. Cf. Is. viii. 19. Enchantment by
magic herbs, ointments, medicines, and different
means of exciting the feelings and passions.
But the belief in the connexion between
wicked men and evil spirits or malignant dei
ties, and the injury to others which wizards of
this description could do with the assistance
afforded them, has been more frightful in its
consequences than any other. The magical
practices of such men were called by the Ara
bians the black art, in distinction from what was
done by those who had connexion with good
spirits, which was called by them white magics
(magia alba.) This form of magic existed also
among the Hebrews, who were addicted to
idolatry ; for the Canaanites, and other heathen
nations with whom they were connected, be
lieved in black deities, atri dii — i. e., harmful
gods, the authors of mischief, not morally wicked,
like the devils of the Jews after the captivity.
So we find r$}, (from the Arab, i o...\, obscu-
ravit, eclipsi affecit Deus solem, and synonymous
t'f
with i_JUm2»-, caliginavit oculos,) magic, black
art; and <]V>3p, a magician, practitioner of the
black art. Nah. iii. 4; Deut. xviii. 10. Great
mischief has been done by the professors of the
black art, who, under pretence of magical prac
tices, have not unfrequently committed murder,
or administered poison. Hence in many of the
ancient languages, the practice of magic and the
mingling of poison were denoted by the same
word ; in Greek, by ffapuaxsla, in Latin, by ve-
nefieium, venefica ; hence, too, the operations of
poison and of magic are confounded by savage
people — e. g., by the African negroes. Vide
Oldendorp's History of the Mission to the Ca
ribbean Islands, where the terrible consequences
of the belief in magic among barbarous men are
described. The practice of black magic was
therefore forbidden by many of the ancient legis
lators, and especially by Moses, Ex. xxii., Lev.
xx., Deut. xviii. The latter forbade the practice
of it by the Jews, partly from its intimate con
nexion with idolatry, and partly from the injury
done by magicians, as real murderers and poi
soners. Magic, however, remained in vogue
among the Jews. Before the exile, they sup
posed the supernatural power of magicians was
derived from the heathen idols; but after the
exile, when they wholly renounced idolatry,
th,ey supposed that black magic was performed
by the aid of evil angels. No traces of this opi
nion, however, are to be met with shortly after
the exile; but the Jews at the time of Christ

believed both in the connexion of men with good
spirits and in their fellowship and alliance with
devils ; and of this the Pharisees accused even
Jesus, Matt. xii. 24.
2. The source of modern scientific magic
which has prevailed so extensively even among
the civilized nations of Asia and Europe, must
be sought in the principles of the New Platonic
philosophy, which first flourished in Eygpt.
The enthusiastic adherents of this philosophy
during the second and third centuries brought
the ancient religion of the Greeks and the super
stitious opinions which prevailed among them
into a scientific form, and gave them a learned
aspect. Vide Meiner, Betrachtungen uber die
neuplatonische Philosophie ; Leipzig, 1782, 8vo,
Eberhard, Ueber , den Ursprung der wissen-
schaftlichen Magie, in Num. 7 of his " Neuen
vermischten Schriften;" Halle, 1788. They
gave out their own notions as purely Platonic,
and in order to secure them a more favourable
reception, invested them with the Platonic ideas
respecting demons, purification of souls, union
with the Deity, &c. They divided magic into
two parts :— (a) ©Eoupyt'a, ^sovpyixTj tsxviji ma
gia alba — i. e., the art of gaining over good dei
ties or good demons, and of procuring their as
sistance and cooperation by means of appointed
ceremonies, fasts, sacrifices, &c. This art was
also called ^sayayla, (^sayapla'i) the art of en
listing the gods on one's side ; $soittia, x. t. A.
(b) rorjtsla (from ybrjs, incantator,prxstigiator,)
prxstigix, magia atra, witchcraft, the art of se
curing the assistance of evil spirits. This divi
sion was made by Jamblicus, Proclus, Porphyry,
and other New Platonists.
When now the principles of the New Platonic
philosophy became prevalent among Christian
people, theurgy and witchcraft were adopted
among other doctrines, though in a form some
what modified, and intermingled with Jewish
and Christian ideas. Vide Lactantius, Institt,
Div. ii. 14, 16. The spread of these opinions
was also promoted by the enthusiastical writ
ings which were published in the fifth century
under the assumed name of Dionysius Areopa-
gita. It was the almost universal opinion of the
ecclesiastical fathers that oracles, auguries, and
the whole system of heathen divination, were
to be ascribed to the devil, and were a product
of this their so called yo-^tsla. Vide Lactan
tius, 1. 1. Van Dale, De Oraculis vett. ethni-
corum; Amsterdamiae, 1700. Among the Jews,
some adopted the opinions above described,
others adhered to their cabalistic dreams, and
pretended to work wonders with words and
phrases taken from the Bible, with the name
of God or angels, &c. ; all which ran into the
theurgy just noticed. Among the Saracens,
also, thenrgy was very much practised; and es
pecially in the twelfth century, they employed

WORKS OF GOD.

233

themselves very zealously in searching for the
philosopher's stone by the practices of white ma
gic; and transmitted their results to the Chris
tians both of Asia and Europe. It may be said
in general of Jewish and Christian teachers,
that while they condemned heathen theurgy,
they did not do this on account of its being a
superstitious practice, but because of the homage
rendered by it to strange gods ; for the gods and
demons of the heathen were regarded by Jews
and Christians as devils or fallen angels. But
while they condemned theurgy as involving
this homage, they retained the art itself, unal
tered except in its name. During the middle
ages, magic was indeed in many places ex
changed for astrology, in consequence of the in
troduction of the physics of Aristotle ; still
magic was not wholly exterminated, nor were
the different kinds of it (^Eovpyia and yojjfEi'a)
ever in more repute in the west than during the
sixteenth and a part of the seventeenth centuries,
shortly before and after the Reformation. The
heads of theologians, civilians, and common
people, were filled with the notion that there
were in reality alliances between wicked men
and wicked spirits, and not unfrequently, even
in the protestant church, have persons been con
demned as wizards and witches. By degrees,
however, the notions of some of the learned,
especially of the Cartesian school, became more
clear on this subject; and in England and the
Netherlands some ventured openly to avow
their own opinions, and publicly to express
their belief in the unreasonableness of the popu
lar superstitions. Among these writers, Becker
was foremost. He was followed in England
by Webster and others, and in protestant Ger
many by Christ, Thomasius", in his work
••Theses de crimine magiae ;" Halae, 1701 ; and
in other works, in which he further developed
the principles expressed in his Theses. His
opinions excited at first great opposition, which,
however, did not last long, so ashamed did the
princes, theologians, and common people of the
protestant church become of this superstition ;
the trials of the witches were abandoned, and
provision was made for the better instruction of
the people and the enlightening of the public
mind. But, after all, there is still in protestant
countries a deep-rooted belief in magic, which
is likely yet to continue. How many people
of all classes, even in the midst of enlightened
Germany, were deceived and led away by the
conjurer Schropfer, and afterwards by Cagli-
ostro! And by how many secret societies has
the belief in magic been industriously propa
gated among the high and the low ! Besides
the works of Becker, Thomasius, Semler,
Tiedemann, Meiner, and Eberhard, which have
been already cited, cf. Hauber, Bibliotheca Ma
gical torn.; Lemgov. 1735 — 41,8vo, where the

hurtfulness of these magical practices is shewn
from authority and history. Hennings, Das
Grab des Aberglaubens, 4 Samml. ; Frankfurt,
1777, 8vo. Vide Noesselt's " Biicherkennt-
niss." Note 1. — The act of producipg unusual and
striking effects by means of the known powers
of nature, is called magia naturalis, because
these effects, hewever marvellous and magical
they may appear to the ignorant, are yet really
produced by natural means. Such, for example,
were many of the effects produced by the magi
cians of Egypt ; Ex. vii. Vide Wiegleb, Na-
tiirliche Magie; Berlin, 1779, 8vo; ccntinued
afterwards by Rosenthal.
Note 2. — The philospphy pf many secret or-
ders, beth in ancient and mcdern times, relies
uppn magic for the attainment of its object. It
is built on the cahalistic theory, that man in his
original perfection was a very different being
froni man in his present state; that he possess
ed even more natural powers than he now does ;
in short, that he was in the image of Adam Kad-
mon, the original god-man, the first and purest
effluence of all the divine powers and attributes;
that he was immortal, the friend of superior spi
rits, lord of the invisible world, and master of
secret sciences and arts. To restore human na
ture to this its original perfection was the object
of philosophy; and the mysterious means by
which this end could be accomplished, (the phi
losopher's stone,) were supposed to have been
communicated to Adam by superior spirits, and
transmitted by tradition, hieroglyphics, and va
rious secret writings, through Seth, Enoch,
Noah, Moses, Solomon, Hermes Trismegistus,
Zoroaster, Orpheus, and others of the initiated.
This order was accessible to men of all reli
gions, and among its members we find the Ara •
bians Adfar and Avienna, Artesius, Raymund,
Lullus, Nic Flame], and Basil. Valentine.
This mystery was brought from the East into
Europe by Christ. Rosenkreutz, whe lived in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It was Call
ed the philosopher's stone, though it comprehend
ed more than mere alchymy, or the art of enno
bling metals, and the secret of preserving life
a thousand years. This mystery had for its
higher object the entire elevation of man, bodily
and spiritually; and this object it sought to ef
fect by means of magic, or a mysterious con
nexion with good spirits. In comparison with
this object, the mere making of gold was regard
ed as a very petty achievement by these adepts,
and was so insignificant in their view, as many
of them assure us, that rather than employ them
selves about it they would always remain poor.
II. Of Spectres.
A belief in spectres was formerly, and is still,
almost universal, and this, because it results
u2

234

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

immediately from certain feelings and ideas
<vhich are widely diffused among men. Spec
tres are called by the Greeks, slSaxa, apparitions,
visions, forms which can be seen, shadow-shapes ;
also ipdgpata (from $ati>u) and ipavtagpata
(from favtd£a,) phantoms, phantasms. Vide
Mark, vi. 49. They are called by the Latins
spectra, (from the obsolete specio, cerno ,-) also
momfa-a. What are spectres ? According to the concep
tions of the Greeks, Latins, Hebrews, Oriental
ists, and indeed of most nations, they are the
souls of the departed, returned again to the earth,
and rendered visible to men. The nations now
mentioned, and others less cultivated than these,
supposed, indeed, that departed souls (the ghosts
or manes of the dead) immediately after death
wandered down to Hades Qrmtt), (vide Homer,
and Isaiah, xiv. ;) and that they had definite
places appointed them there, secluded from the
upper world, to which they were not allowed to
return in ordinary cases. Vide 2 Sam. xii. 23 ;
Job, vii. 9, 10 ; Luke, xvi. 22, 23 ; Isa. xxxviii.
10, seq. But as the living sometimes saw the
deceased in their dreams, and as an excited
imagination often depicted before their waking
eyes the image of some departed friend, so that
they seemed to themselves to see and to hear
him, they naturally fell into the belief that the
shades sometimes ascend from Hades, and be
come visible to men, or in some other way
(perhaps by knecking) give signals ef their
presence. In conformity with these concep
tions, the rich man in Hades is said in the pa
rable to pray that one of the dead might be sent to
his father's house, Luke, xvi. 27, 30. These
ghosts in Hades were represented as beings
possessing fine, aerial bodies, in which, though
they were far less gross and palpable than the
flesh and bones of our earthly bodies, they yet
sometimes rendered themselves visible to men.
Vide s. 59, II.j s. 150. Traces of this opinion
are found among the Jews, and also among the
Latins and Greeks ; thus Homer speaks of /3po-
tav slSaxa xapovtav, and says of them,
Ov yap trri aapms r& Kai iaria ivej txovatv.
Cf. Luke, xxiv. 39, rtvsvpa gdpxa xai bgtia ovx
sxst. Vide texts from various writers cited by
Wetstein in his Com. on Luke, xxiv. 37. From
these prevailing conceptions, the passages,
Luke, xxiv. 37, and Mark, vi. 49, 50, may be
explained, and upon the existence of such su
perstitions the delusions of the ancient necro
mancers were founded— e. g., of the witch of
Endor, 1 Samuel, xxviii. 7, seq. It was with
these notions in his mind that Thomas took the
appearance of Jesus to be the apparition of a
departed spirit in a shadowy body, (jlSaXov,)
and was unwilling to believe that he had ap
peared to the other disciples in the true body

which he had upon the earth, John, xx. 25.
John relates (chap, xxi.) that Jesus ate with his
disciples after his resurrection, in order, it would
seem, to discountenance the idea that he appear
ed only with the airy body of a spectre. The
common opinion on this subject was adopted by
Plato in his Phaedon, and was afterwards fur
ther developed and remodelled to suit themselves
by the new Platonists. Vide Scripta Varii ar-
gumenti, Num. iii., Progr. super origine opini-
onis de immortalitate animorum; Hallae, 1790,
It was also adopted by many of the early Christ
tian teachers ; it is found in the writings of the
Greek and Latin fathers ; and was turned to
good account by the Romanists in their doctrine
of purgatory.
It would naturally occur to the minds of Jews
and Christians that the devil, and the demons
in subjection to him, might have some hand in
these apparitions. Some accordingly maintained
that it was the devil who, for various sinister
purposes, occasioned the return and appearance
of departed spirits ; while others asserted that
spectres were only illusions practised on us by
Satan, that the ghosts of the departed never ap
peared, and that there were no other than devil
ish spectres. Of this opinion were many of the
philosophers and theologians of the protestant
church, in opposition to those of the Romish.
Nor have there been wanting those who have
attempted to explain ghostly appearances from
physical causes. Cardanus and Jul. Caes. Ba-
nini contended that spectres were exhalations
from the wasting corpse, which, becoming con
densed during the more damp and silent air of
the night, assumed at length the external form of
the deceased. Of the philosophers who divided
man into three parts — body, soul, and spirit, (s.
51, I.,) some have supposed that it is the spirit
only which after death appears as a spectre.
This was the opinion of Paracelsus, in the six
teenth century, and in this he was followed by
many theosophists and astrologers. He called
this spectral spirit astral, because he supposed
that it was composed of the two upper elements,
air and fire, and was therefore longer in dissolv
ing after death than the material body, and
could float about in the atmosphere. He was
followed in this by Jacob Boehmen, and also
by Rob. Fludd, and others of the ancient Rose-
crucians. But these philosophers would have been bet
ter employed in inquiring, in the first place,
whether the stories of ghostly appearances
which they undertook to explain were real and
well-established facts. This inquiry, however.
they rarely made, and usually took for granted
the truth of what they had heard on this subject
But if we examine impartially the various
ghost-stories which are told, we shall be brought
to the conclusion that spectres are not, for the

WORKS OF GOD.

235

most part, real beings, but creatures of the ima
gination, which often exercises so irresistible a
control over men, that they think they perceive
with their external senses what has no exist
ence, or at least exists in an entirely different
way from that in which it appears to them.
And in these cases fear and terror usually pre
vent all further investigation. Besides, there
are some persons who are mischievous and
thoughtless enough to work upon the fear and
credulity of others, and who, merely for their
own interest or amusement, will terrify them
with frightful appearances. Again ; the super
stitious notions which are contracted by many
in early life become so deeply and firmly rooted
in their minds, that often they cannot be eradi
cated during their whole lives; and this fur
nishes a psychological explanation of the fact,
that even those philosophers who believe in no
thing of the kind are often not less agitated than
others with the superstitious fear of ghosts.
Still, however, no considerate and sober philo
sopher would allow himself to decide positively
that spectres are in all cases unreal ; for no one
can presume to maintain that the appearance of
disembodied spirits among the living is wholly
impossible, and can never take place. In addi
tion to the works cited s. 65, 66, cf. Hennings,
Von Ahndungen und Visionen ; Leipzig, 1782,
8vo; also his work, " Von Geistern und Geister-
sehern;" Leipzig, 1780, 8vo. Jung, Geister-
kunde; Nurnberg, 1808, 8vo, — an attempt to
furnish a scriptural answer to the question,
How far we are to believe in presentiments,
visions, dreams, apparitions, &c. ; containing,
however, nothing very satisfactory, though
written with the best intentions.

ARTICLE VIII.
OF THE DOCTRINE RESPECTING DIVINE
PROVIDENCE.

SECTION LXVII.
WHAT IS MEANT BY THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD;
AND HISTORICAL REMARKS RESPECTING THIS
DOCTRINE. I. Definition of Providence.
Providence, defined as to its inherent nature,
is the power which God exerts without interrup
tion in and upon all the works of his hands. The
•elation in which all things stand to God, and
-he influences which he exerts upon them, are
always represented in the Bible as depending
upon the creation. As the creator of all things,
God possesses the power and the right to use
them according to his own pleasure; and to

cause them, and all which is done by them, to
promote his own designs. Hence the provi
dence of God is justly denominated by the
schoolmen the second creation. Vide s. 46.
But, defined as to its external effect, and as far
as it is visible to the eyes of men, providence
may be said to be the government and preserva
tion of all things ,- or the constant care and over
sight of God for all his works ,- and this defini
tion, which is the one that Morus gives, is the
most easy and intelligible. Cf. Morus, p. 76,
s. 1, 2.
Note 1. — The word providence (Germ, vorse-
hung) is derived from the Latin procidentia, and
this from the Greek itpbvoia, which, however,
is not found in any of the canonical books,
though it occurs in the Book of Wisdom, xiv.
3 ; xvii. 2. The words itpovoslv and providere
properly signify to foresee, futura prospicere;
and itpbvoia and providentia, accordingly signify
foresight. But providere not pnly signifies to
foresee, but also to exercise forecast, prxcavere,
and thus, in a general sense, to watch over, to
care for, curare, procurare. In this sense it is
employed by Cicero, (Nat. Deor. ii. 65,) Non
universo generi hominum solum, sed etiam sin
gulis a dels consuli et provideri sold. Corres
ponding with providere are the following He
brew verbs — viz., jh1, ntn, and the other verba
videndi et adspiciendi, as to'an, Psalm xxxiii. 13,
(cf: ifyopav, Homer, Od. xiii. 214 ; Spav, II. xxiv.
29 1 ; and the phrase, Deus contemplans maria
et terras, Cicero, Nat. Deor. i. 20;) -iat ips,
Psa. viii. 5, (cf. dnopvdojjiai,, II. xxiv. 428 ;)
aETi, D'JB, Hfcj, Num. vi. 26 ; ibi ; and also the
following Greek verbs — viz., fpovslv, pixxsiv,
(1 Pet. v. 7; 1 Cor. ix. 9,) iitigxintsg^ai, eISe-
vai,, iitiywagxsiv. Corresponding with provi
dentia are the following Hebrew substantives —
viz., l\y\, vdvjb, nsy, ni'aBTO, nwra, nirp yij, ibi ;
and the following Greek substantives — viz.,
xpipata, bSoi, SiaXoyiguoi, x. t. X.
Note 2  The doctrine of divine providence
is of the very first importance, and contributes
greatly to the peace and happiness of human life.
Were it not that God maintained a constant and
watchful care over his works, all piety would
immediately cease. A god who did not concern
himself in the affairs of the world, and especially
in the actions of men, would be to us as good
as none at all. In that case, should men live in
a virtuous and pious manner, they would'have no
approbation to expect from him ; should they be
guilty of crimes, they would have' no punishment
to fear; were they persecuted, they could think
of God only as the idle witness of their wrongs ;
were they in circumstances of suffering and sor
row, they could find no consolation, if God were
unmindful of them. But if, on the other hand,
I am entitled to believe, that even in times of
the greatest adversity God careth for me as a

23tj

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

father, and will overrule all events for my great
est good, I may then be composed and unshaken,
and may rise above depression and despair.
II. History of Opinions respecting this Doctrine.
1. Rude and uncultivated nations have at first
no idea of the world as a whole ; they dp not
once think of its origin, of its internal con
nexion, or of the government which is exercised
over it. Vide sec. 45, Nos. 1, 2. And when
by degrees they have attained to the thought
that everything which exists must have a cause,
they unconsciously adept the netipn, that chance
pr necessity is the cause ef all things ; and with
this vague and indefinite notion remain for a
long time satisfied. Vide. Meiners, Historia
doctrinae de Deo vero, p. 1. Respecting the re
lation which exists between God and the world ;
respecting his power, and the influence which
he exerts upon the works of his hands, the con
ceptions of people in the first stages of improve
ment were of course very confined and imper
fect. Vide s. 46, II. They represented the
Deity to their minds as resembling themselves
as closely as possible ; they compared him to
earthly princes and rulers, possessing, like them,
though in a higher degree, power and influence ;
they considered him therefore as a being whose
protection was to be sought, and whose anger
was to be dreaded ; but at the same time they
ascribed to him many human weaknesses and
imperfections. Of many of his attributes they
appear to have had very elevated and worthy
conceptions ; and especially cf his pnwer, as is
evident frem the representatien of Homer, Zsis
Svvatai aitavta- and yet even of this attribute
their views were in some respects defective.
For as an earthly monarch, though possessed
of the greatest power, and of the best will, is
sometimes prevented from acting in the manner
which he approves and desires, by the occur
rence pf spme unforeseen events, or by the con
trol of necessity ; even so, they supposed, was
God himself, though possessed of a vastly supe
rior power, and acting in a sphere of vastly
greater extent, yet equally liable to be hindered
by contingent events, and equally subject to
that irresistible necessity (fatum, polpa), by
which gods and men were alike controlled.
And not only in the respect above mentioned
was God supposed to resemble human rulers,
but also in matters of mere propriety ; and as it
was reputed inconsistent with the dignity of a
•uler to concern himself in all the petty affairs
if his subjects, so it was supposed, a minute
inspection and particular care over all his works
would be inconsistent with the majesty of God.
Such were the popular no'jons respecting the
deities which preva;'ed among the ancient
Greeks, and which are expressed in Homer,
Hesiod, Pindar, and other early Grecian poets.

On the one hand, their conceptions of the pro
vidence of God, and his government over the
world, were very just and elevated; they consi
dered all events as depending upon his will;
dXX' ijrot p.lv ravra Seedy iv yovvatri Keirai,
II. xx. 435, and represented him as the witness
and judge of the conduct of men ;
Zevg aipeias. rinat^' iKCTfjotos, Sore xai SXXav?
ui/S/ji-Wovs hpopa, KaX.riyyTai, ootis b.y.apr^^
Od. xiii. 213. But, on the other hand, these
conceptions were mingled with others, which
appear to us extremely unworthy, and inconsist
ent with the divine, character.
Among the ancient nations, the Chaldeans
were distinguished by their belief in the doctrine
of fate, which they associated with their astro
logy ; hence the name fatum Chaldaicum, or as-
trologicum; though this doctrine was by no
means confined to them. Among the Greeks,
the philosophers mad« the popular notions re
specting the Deity the basis of their philoso
phical reasonings. From the belief which was
almost universally entertained of two original
and eternal principles — God and matter, neither
of which was the author of the other (vide s.
46, It.), their views respecting the agency of
God in the material world, and of his power
over itj and consequently respecting his provi
dence, must have been extremely defective and
erroneous. The first among the Greeian philo
sophers who advocated the doctrine of^rfe,from
whose control not even the Deity was excepted,
was Heraclitus. It was afterwards defended by
Parmenides, Democritus, and others; and even
by Aristotle, if the testimony of Cicero (De
Fato, c 17) is to be received, which is somewhat
doubtful. But as this doctrine involvedinadequate
conceptions of divine providence, and infringed
upon the freedom of God and of other rational
beings, it was remodelled by Plato, and so ex
plained by him as to be more easily reconciled
with other established truths ; though he does
I not always adhere to his own principles. The
stoics are known as strict fatalists, though the
precise sense in which they held this doctrine
is a subject of dispute among the learned. Lip-
sius maintained that the fate of the stoics was
nothing more than the so called rationalfate—
i. e., the order established by God, in the exer
cise of his freedom and wisdom, according to
which certain events must necessarily take
place. In the stoical fate, however, there
was always involved a physical necessity, al
though they represented it as a predetermina
tion which did not exclude the freedom of the
will, and which, while it secured the certainty of
particular events, did not make them necessary.
This is indeed contradictory; but it did not ap
pear so to them. Vide Tiedemann, System del

WORKS OF GOD.

237

stoischen Philosophie, th. ii. s. 129 — 142 ; Leip
zig, 1776, 8vo. According to the doctrine of
Epicurus, the Deity was wholly removed from
the world. In his system, as it is represented
Dy Diogenes, Laertius, and Seneca, the notion
of providence is absolutely denied. He supposed
that the peace ef the blessed geds wpuld be in
terrupted by the labeurs and cares incident tc
the government of the world.
2. This doctrine of an inevitable necessity
being found inconsistent with the scriptural re
presentations of the providence of God, and be
ing also liable to the greatest objections on philo
sophical grounds, has been justly abandoned and
rejected by Christian philosophers and theolo
gians. But in determining the manner in which
God governs the world, they have shewn a great
discrepancy in their opinions, and on account of
the bearing of this question on that concerning
the origin and causes of sin, have made it the
subject of great controversy. They may be
ranked, according to the systems which they
have adopted, in three classes, each of which
has its representatives even among the ancient
schoolmen. (a) The Occasionalists, who adopted the sys
tem of occasional causes (systema causarum oc-
casionalium), occasionalism. They maintained
that God is the immediate cause of the actions
of his creatures, and that they only furnish him
an occasion for what he does, and accordingly
are only passive instruments by which he abso
lutely and irresistibly accomplishes his own
designs. According to this system, what are
elsewhere called second causes are only occasiones
agendi. They are also called Prxdeterminanles,
because they supposed a prxdelerminatio, or
prxmotiorphysica. Of this class were many of
the schoolmen, particularly the Thomists and
Dominicans, among whom Gabriel Biel distin
guished himself as an advocate of this theory,
in the fifteenth century. The same notion re
specting the manner of God's agency in the
world* was adopted in the seventeenth century,
by many of the disciples of Des Cartes ; and
indeed his principles necessarily involved it,
Among theologians, the disciples of Cocceius,
and some Arminians, were the advocates of this
system. Its most zealous and acute defenders,
however, were Malebranche and Bayle, though
the latter dissented in many particulars from the
former. The names of Twiss, Maccov, and
Turretin, deserve to be mentioned in this class.
In the Romish church, the Dominicans still con
tinue the advocates of this theory. With regard
to this theory it must be said, that it is hard to
see its consistency with the freedom of the
human will; nor, indeed, is its inconsistency
denied by Bayle. Man is thus subjected to ne
cessity ; his good and bad actions are not im
putable to him, but to God, who acts through

him, as a mere instrument. But the law of ne
cessity, when applied to moral beings, or within
the world of spirits, is extended beyond its
proper sphere, which is the material wcrld.
This theery, therefore, which involves a neces
sity of acting, is utterly inapplicable to moral
beings, whose highest law of acting is freedom.
[Respecting the system of occasional causes,
the student may consult Hahn, Lehrbuch des
christlichen Glaubens, s. 73, s. 316, 320. Bret-
schneider, Handbuch der Dogmatik, b. i. s. 93, s.
610. Tennemann, Grundriss der Gesch. der
Philos. s. 373, 378  Tr.]
(6) Perceiving that this theory was untenable,
and injurious in its influence on morality, some
adopted one exactly opposite, and maintained
that the creatures of God acted immediately in
and through themselves, in the exercise of the
powers with which they had been once endowed
by the Creator, and independently of his assist
ance. They compared the movements and al
terations which appear in the creation to those
of a machine, (e, g., of a clock,) which, being
once made and wound up, goes for a time of
itself, without the further assistance of the artist,
and when he is no longer present. This theory
is called the system of mechanism, and was
proposed by Durandus, in the fourteenth cen.
tury, and by other schoolmen. Its first advocati
was Scotus, and it has been adopted by man\
of the modern mechanical philosophers, am-
even by Richard Baxter. Some have madt
use of Bonnet's System of development, in or
der to confirm and complete this theory. Bu'
this theory, as well as the one to which it is
opposed, is liable to great objections. It ex
hibits God in a light which is inconsistent
with his perfections. It represents him as an
artist who leaves his work, when he has com
pleted it, or idly beholds its operations. Nor
does this theory, less than the former, impinge
upon the doctrine of freedom and accountability.
If it isr consistently carried through, it removes
many of the most important motives which
ethics or religion can furnish ; for practical uses,
therefore, it is wholly unfit. Vide Jerusalem,
Betrachtungen, th. i. s. 114. Also the writings
of Kant, which contain many profound discus
sions on this subject. [Cf. De la Mettrie,
L'Homme machine, 1748, 4to. Coleridge, Aids
to Reflection, p. 243, Amer. Edition. — Tr.]'
(c) In consequence of the difficulties and ob
vious errors attending the theories above men
tioned, many of the schoolmen were led to adopt
a scheme which is intermediate between these
opposite extremes. They maintained that God
has indeed endowed his creatures with active
powers; but that still his own concurrent aid
(concursus) is essential to their exercise ; since
without it neither the thing itself which is sup
posed to act, nor its power of action, could for i

238

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

moment subsist ; so that, in all the actiorls of his
creatures, there is a joint, concurrent agency of
God. By this theory, most of the difficulties
attending this subject are obviated; it is also
found to be the most accordant with the, repre
sentations of the Bible, and to commend itself
more than any other to sound reason. It has
therefore been justly adopted, though with vari
ous modifications, by most of the modern philo
sophers and theologians. In the sequel of this
Article it will be more fully developed. [Cf.
Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. i. s. 92, s. 605.]
But after all that has been thought and writ
ten upon this subject, it still remains encom
passed with difficulties ; and this, for the reason
that it is impossible for men to form any distinct
conceptions respecting the proper, internal man
ner of the divine agency. In order to represent
it to our minds, we must liken it to the manner
in which men act; and thus our whole know
ledge of the subject is, from the necessity of the
case, symbolical, and greatly deficient. From
this historical sketch, however, and especially
from No. 1, one thing is clear — viz., that the
simple theory respecting the providence of God,
which is now almost universally received as
true, owes its origin neither to heathen mytho
logy or philosophy, but to the Bible, where it
was exhibited before it ever entered the mind
of any philosopher. Vide Staudlin, Materiafien
zu einer Geschichte der Lehre von Gottes
Fiirsehung, in his "Magazin fur Religions-
geschichte," b. iii. st. 1, s. 234, ff; Hanover,
1804, 8vo. SECTION LXVII.
OF THE PROOF OF THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE PROVI
DENCE ; AND OF THE DIVISIONS UNDER WHICH
IT HAS BEEN TREATED.
I. Proof of this Doctrine.
1. Proof from reason. This proof depends
upon the truth of the position that the world is
not self-existent, but was created by God; and
this preposition is proved by the same argu
ments by which the divine existence is proved.
Vide s. 15, 46. Presuming that this position
may now be considered as fully established, we
derive proof of the providence of God from two
sources — viz., from his own nature, and from
that of his works.
(a) From the nature and attributes of God.
That God is not only able, but willing to take
care of all his creatures, is demonstrable from
the idea of the most perfect being ; cf. s. 15.
That he is able to do this, appears from his om
niscience, by which he knows the circumstances
and wants of all his creatures ; from his mts-
oVi-'it, by which he understands in what manner
and by what means the world may be sustained

and governed ; and from his omnipotent bv
which he can accomplish everything which ho
desires. That he is willing to do this, follows
alike from his wisdom and his goodness. Vide s.
24, 28. If it is the design of God to advance
his creatures to that degree of perfection and
well-being of which they are susceptible, it
must also be his will to watch over thenij and
to exercise towards them his providential care,
to sustain them, and to promote their welfare
by means which his wisdom approves as best.
And his willing to do this is his actually doing
it; for to suppose God to will anything, the
attainment of which depends upon his abso
lute power, which yet he does not execute,
would be to ascribe to him weakness and im
perfection. This metaphysical proof, however,
when stated in its full extent, is not sufficiently
intelligible to be used in popular instruction.
(b) From the nature of created things. For
it is obvious that the creatures of God are no
more able to perpetuate their being than they
were to contribute at first to their own existence.
To sustain and perpetuate existence requires no
less power than to create. Besides, the wise,
orderly, and harmonious movement of all created
things, in conformity with the plan on which
they were adjusted, and for the promotion of the
ends for which they were made, which is every
where visible in the universe, sufficiently evinces
the care and government of an all-wise and al
mighty being. Cf. s. 69. To this it is object
ed that God might have so made the world that
it would preserve itself, and stand in no need
of the providence of its author; but from this
objection the system of mechanism (noticed s
67, II. b) immediately results; and this system,
as was remarked, excludes moral freedom, and
subjects everything to the law of necessity.
Cf. s. 26.
[Note. — Besides these proofs of the provi
dence of God, the theologians of the school of
Kant have proposed another, similar to that of
the divine existence, Art. ii. s. 15, II. It is
briefly this : we cannot recognise the law of
duty written upon our hearts as a divine com
mand, unless we believe that there is a moral
government which will, in the end, make the
happiness which, as sensitive beings, we natu
rally desire, proportionate to the morality of our
actions; we cannot derive the strength- which
is necessary to a course of undeviating virtue
amidst the temptations to which we are ex
posed, from anything but a faith in a holy go
vernor of the world, and disposer of the destinies
of men. And hence — viz., from the necessity
of believing in providence in order to virtuous
moral action— they argue the truth of this doc
trine, and call it a postulate of our practical rea
son. There is still another proof which deserves
a distinct mention — viz., that which may be de-

WORKS OF GOD.

239

rived from the great historic events which have
taken place in the world, — the giving and trans
mission of a divine revelation — the founding of
Teligious institutes, as the Mosaic and the Chris
tian — the raising up of prophets, apostles, and
defenders of the faith — the ordering of particu
lar events, such as the Reformation — the more
remarkable deliverances noticed in the lives of
those devoted te the gppd of the world, &c—
all of which indicate, the wise and benevolent
care of God over the human family, and toge
ther constitute what may be called the historic
proof of the providence of God. This proof is
exhibited in an interesting manner in the scrip
ture biography of Hess, in Niemeyer's Charac
teristics of the Bible, and works of a similar
kind  Tr.]
2. From the holy scriptures. Cf. Morus, p.
76, seq. s. 3. Many of the texts which might
be cited will be omitted here, and introduced in
their more appropriate places in the sections
which follow. Of the texts which treat of the
general subject of providence more at large, and
which exhibit many of the truths connected with
this doctrine, the following are the most import
ant: — Ps. viii. xix. xc. (s. 20, III.) xci. civ.
(vide Article on the Creation,) and cxxxix.
(s. 22, I. ;) in the New Testament, Matt. vi.
25—32; x. 29— 31; Acts, xvii. 24— 28.
In the texts above cited we are taught the
following truths : — (a) The preservation of the
existence cf all things depends on God alone.
(b) God is the ruler and proprietor of the uni
verse, his title in it being founded in his having
created it. (c) The state and circumstances of
all created things are determined by God ; he
needs nothing; but his creatures receive from
him the supply of all their wants, (d) No
thing is so insignificant as to be unworthy of
his notice ; his providence extends even to the
smallest objects, (e) Through his watchful
care all his creatures, in their several kinds, en
joy as much good as from their nature they are
susceptible of. (/) But his providence is most
conspicuous in reference to the human race,
both as a whole and as composed of individual
men. He preserves their lives, provides them
with food, clothing, and everything which they
need. Their actions and their destinies are un
der his guidance and at his disposal ; and their
race is preserved from generation to generation
through his care. The whole is comprised in
the words of Paul, Acts, xvii. 28, iv ait <j> f upjuev
xai xtvovtut$a xai igpiv.
These scriptural representations have many
practical uses. They furnish us with the means
of forming just notions of God, and with mo
tives to induce us to reverence and serve him,
Acts, xvii. 27. These considerations are cal
culated to inspire our minds with confidence in
God, and to teach us to regard him as a kind

and benevolent father. Cf. the texts cited from
Matthew, and Is. xl., ad finem. Indeed, the
whole object and tendency of this doctrine, as
exhibited in the sacred writings, is to excite
and cherish pious dispositions in our minds
It leads us te think, with regard to every passing
event, that God knows it ; to feel that it is ex
actly as he willed it, and in it to see his agency.
If we were duly influenced by what we are
taught in the Bible of the providence of God,
we should do all our works under a sense of his
presence, ivaitiov toi ©eov, and our constant
maxim would be ovfiEK dvtv ©eov. Vide Matt.
x. 29, &c. Morus, p. 76, s. 3, p. 78, Note.
Such exalted and worthy ccnceptions of the
providence of God as these, which occur every
where in the Bible, and which must accord with
the judgment and the feelings of every one who
is not wholly perverted, may be sought in vain
in the writings of the ancient philosophers, who
were unacquainted with the Bible. And it is
to the Bible alone that modern philosophers are
indebted for the rnore correct principles which
they inculcate upon this subject.
Note. — The work of providence and preserva
tion is usually ascribed in the Bible to the
Father, as is also the work of creation ; and it is
principally as the creator and preserver of the
world that he is called Father. Vide s. 36.
There are, however, some texts in the New
Testament, in which both the creation and pre
servation of the world are ascribed to the Son —
e. g., Heb. i. 3, tyipav itdvta prifiati Swdusas
avfov, and Col. i. 17, ta itdvta iv avf 9 gwEgtrpiE,
both of which have already been examined in
the article respecting the creation, s. 47, II. 2.
II. Scholastic Divisions.
1. The providence of God is divided, in rela
tion to its objects, into general (generalis), so far
as it extends to all existing things; specia,
(specialis), se far as it relates to moral beings —
to men and human affairs; and particular (spe-
cialissima), so far as it extends to the moral
beings, who fulfil the ends of their existence —
the pious and virtuous. Vide Morus, p. 78,
s. 4. Strictly speaking, however, God cannot
be said to care more or less for one class of his
creatures than for another. His providence, in
itself considered, is the same for all; but all
have not an equal capacity to receive the proofs
and benevolent expressions of his care : an irra
tional creature is not susceptible of the same
kind and degree of perfection and welfare as a
rational being; nor a vicious, as a virtuous
man. Hence it seems to us as if God had more
care for the animate than for the inanimate crea
tion; for men, than for beasts; for the pious,
than for the wicked ; though the real ground of
the d ifference in their condition lies in their own
greater or less capacity for the divine favour.

240

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Now the universe, so far as we know, consists
of the three classes — inanimate things, crea
tures endowed with life and activity but pos
sessing no rational and moral powers, and mo
ral beings. The latter are by far the most ex
alted and noble,, the nearest related, so to speak,
to their author, and those.in whom his designs [
mostly terminate. They are not placed, like
the lower orders of being, under the law of ne
cessity, and treated like machines ; which would
be inconsistent with the free nature which has
been given them. The highest aim which God
can be supposed to have had in view in the
creation and government of the world, is a
moral end; and to subserve this end, to which
all others are subordinate, he governs not only
the moral kingdom, but the whele material and
animal creation.
2. The particular manner in which God pre
serves and governs the world can no more be
understood by us than the manner in which he
first created it. Vide s. 46. But in order to
obtain some definite concepticns pf this subject,
we compare the operations of God to those of
men; though in doing this there is danger of
ascribing tb God the imperfections which belong
only to man. Now when men exercise care
over anything, there are two things which may
be considered — the care itself, as exercised by
them, and the effect or result of it.
(a) The ca?-e itself, (actio interna/) Since a
man, when he exercises care over others, must
have the knowledge of what they need, and un
derstand the means by which their wants can
be supplied ; must then come to a determination
to make use of the means approved as proper ;
and lastly, must carry his determination into
effect ; so it was supposed to be with God, in
the care Which he exercises over the world ; and
this gave rise to the scholastic division of the
providence of God into three acts — viz., rtpd-
yi/ioots (praescientia), the knowledge of God of
the wants of his creatures, and of the best
means of supplying them ; itpo^sgis (decretum),
his determination to make use of these means;
and Sidxijgis (executio, administratio), his actual
fulfilment of his determination. But here it
must be remembered that this can be said only
anthropopathically of God, since in his mind
there is no succession of acts.
(6) The effect of this care, (actio externa.)
In order to render the manner of this external
agency of God in his providence in some degree
intelligible, the schoolmen have assumed three
external acts of providence — viz., preservation
(conservatio), cooperation (concursus), and go
vernment (gubematio) ; and under these three
" heads the doctrine of divine providence is usual
ly treated, (a) Preservation (conservatio) is
that mighty and efficient agency of God by
which created things continue to exist, by which

the identity of their being is preserved} efficient
tla Dei, qua ipsx substantias pergunt esse. .It ex
tends to things already existing, and in this is
distinguished from the act of creation,; though,
in reality, the preservation of the world is
only a continuation of the act of creation, and is
therefore sometimes properly called, creatio con-
tinuata. (0) Cooperation (concursus) is that
act of God by which he preserves the powers
originally imparted to created things, qua vires
substantiarum durant. The term concursus, as
as used1 by the schoolmen, is synonymous with
auxilium ,- but it is a very inconvenient term,
and leads naturally to the inquiry, whether God
assists men and cooperates with them in their
wicked actions ? This division has been wholly
omitted by some modern theologians (e. g., by
Doederleiu), on the ground that the preservation
of the existence of a thing without the preserva
tion of its powers cannpt be conceived, and that
this division is therefore necessarily involved
in the preceding; which is indeed true, as to
fact, though the preservation of the simple sub
stance of a thing, and the preservation of its
powers of acting, may be made the subjects of
distinct consideration by the mind, (y) Go
vernment (gubematio, providentia stricte sic
dicta) is that act of God by which he so orders
all the changes which take place in the world,
and so guides all the actions of his creatures,
as to promote the highest possible good of the
whole, and of every part. According to the
usual method of theological writers we shall
proceed to treat of this doctrine under the three
foregoing heads ; in such a way, however, that
what is said respecting the first two divisions
(preservation and cooperation) will be con
nected together. Respecting the division of
providence into ordinata and miraculosa, vide s.
72, II.
Note. — Notice of some of the principal works
on the providence of God. The ancient heathen
philosophers said much on this subject which
was just and practically useful, though mingled
with much that was erroneous. Cf. Xenophon's
Memorabilia, the writings of Plato, and othei
disciples of Socrates. Cf. also the writings of
Marcus Aurelius, and of other stoics. The
work of Cicero, De Natur. Deor. ; and of Se
neca, De Providentia, deserve particular men
tion. Some of the early ecclesiastical fathers
devoted whole works to this subject. Chry-
sostom wrote a book on providence. Gregory
of Nazianzen treated of it in his discourses,
particularly the sixteenth. Theodoret wrote
" Sermones de Providentia." Salvianus Mas-
siliensis, a Latin father of the fifth century,
wrote a work entitled " De gubernatione Dei."
In modern times, the theory of this subject has
been ably discussed in the writings of Kant.
and other works on the philosophy of religion

WORKS OF GOD.

241

Werks of a more practical and popular cast are
the following: — Jacobi, Betrachtungen fiber die
weisen Absichten Gottes ; Hanover, 1765 — 66,
8vo; Jerusalem, Betrachtungen uber die wicht-
igsten Wahrheiten der Religien ; Sander, Ueber
die Versehung; Leipzig, 1780 — 81, 8vo; also
the work " Ffir Anbeter Gottes, 1780, by the
same author; Zollikofer, Betrachtungen fiber
das Uebel in der Welt; Leipzig, 1777, 8ve;
and many pf the Sermens pf this authpr ; Jacob,
Von der Religion ; Koppen, Die Bibel, ein
Werk der gottlichen, Weisheit, in which excel
lent work there are many fine and useful remarks
on this subject. SECTION LXIX.
OF THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTENCE AND
OF THE POWERS OF CREATED BEINGS AND
THINGS. I. Preservation of Creatures in General.
The great end which God has in view in his
providence over the World is the welfare of his
creatures. On him does their existence and
well-being every moment depend. The powers
which they possess from the beginnining of
their existence, and the laws by which these
powers are exercised, have their only ground in
the divine will. This will of God is the effi
cient cause of the existence of his creatures,
and of all the powers which they possess ; and
not only so, but of the continuance of these
creatures, with their powers and laws. These
laws, in conformity with which the powers of
created things develop themselves, are com
monly called the laws of nature. These pro
positions need to be farther illustrated and esta
blished. 1. The proof that God preserves the existence
and the powers of all created things is drawn
from the following sources : —
(a) From the contingency of the world. The
world does not necessarily exist; it has not the
ground of its existence in itself; but it is contin
gent, and depends upon the will of God. Vide
s. 15, 46. It must therefore continue to exist
through the same power which first gave it
being. The purpose of God to create the world
could not have been confined to the first instant
of its creation, but must have comprised its
whole future being and permanent existence.
Now this purpose of God is unalterable, and
cannot be hindered or turned aside by the inter
vention of any object; but must endure while
the creation continues. The continuance, there
fore, of the creation, through every moment of
its existence, is so intimately connected with the
purpose of God respecting its first existence, that
it can hardly be separated from it, even in
thought. Cf. the theory of the divine decrees,
s. 32' 31

(b) From experience and history. That God
preserves the works which he has created may
be rendered very obvious from a survey of the
world and a review of its past history. Cf. es
pecially the work of Sander above mentioned,
and the works on teleology noticed s. 15, I. 2,
ad finem. If we look no further than the phy
sical world, and confine our attention to its wise
adaptation to the ends which it^is made to an
swer, we shall be driven to the conviction
that it is not the work of chance or blind acci
dent, but that, on the contrary, it is Constituted
by an intelligence which, though invisible,
guides arid governs all things With infinite
wisdom. The following are examples of innu
merable teleological observations which might
be made. No single species of animals has pe
rished, notwithstanding all that has been done
to destroy them, and all the dangers to which
they have been expcsed from flppds, earthquakes,
&c; nor has any species undergone essential
alterations. The nature and qualities of the
horse, the lion, the crocodile, &c, are still the
same as they were described to be by Moses,
Homer, Aristotle, and other ancient writers.
Between the individuals also of the different
species, the same relations and proportions
which have always been observed still exist.
Wild and dangerous animals multiply less ra
pidly than tame and domestic ones. The short
lived animals, and particularly insects, propa
gate their kind in great numbers ; those that
live longer produce fewer young. Were the
ephemeral insects no more prolific than the lion
and the elephant, their race would be soon ex
tinct; and were the progeny of the lion and ele
phant as numerous as that of the insect tribes,
the earth would soon be insufficient to' support,
or even contain them, and other species of ani
mals would be driven out and destroyed before
them. In the material world there is a constant
ebb and flow; on the one hand, decay, death,
and destruction; on the other, life, and ever-
renewed activity and motion ; in short, through
out the world there are conflicting powers, by
which the things that belong to it are at one
time wasted and destroyed, at another revived
and animated; but yet, after all, everything
exists in the most just proportion and perfect
order ; and every apparent dissonance is resolved
at last intofan uninterrupted harmony. Every
sensitive being stands in such a relation to the
rest of the world that it finds what is necessary
for its support and welfare. And any one who
will consider all this with attention, will be led
to the conclusion that it results from the consti
tution of a Being who is supremely intelligent,
and who guides all things in such a way as to
promote his own purposes. What is so suitably
arranged, so wisely and accurately adapted to
its ends, and so perfectly adjusted tc all its rek
X

242

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

tions, cannot possibly be the work of blind
chance. Against such a suppositipn the reason
of man instantly revolts.
[Note. — The validity of this proof from expe
rience is denied by Staudlin, (Lehrb. s. 273,)
and also by Bretschneider, for the following rea
sons : — (1) Out experience is too young and top
limited te enable us te derive an argument from
it with certainty. (2) From experience it can
not be shewn that everything has been the same
from the beginning of the creation as it now is.
(3) Tile argument from experience is rendered
uncertain by the fact that several species of ani
mals — e. g., the mammoth — are wholly extinct,
and other facts of a similar nature. They
therefore rest the proof of the preservation of
the world by the agency of God, solely upon
the metaphysical and scriptural arguments. —
Tr.] (c) From the express declarations of the holy
scriptures, which coincide with what we are
taught by experience and history, and which
indeed, by their example, lead us to make the
observations and to draw the conclusinns just
stated. Ameng the most explicit of these decla
rations are those contained in Psalm civ. 8' — 16,
27, 28, and particularly ver. 29. "Thou takest
away their breath, they die, and return to their
dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are
created : and thou renewest the face of the earth."
Here also the words of Christ, which are so
useful as examples of proper instruction, should
be particularly mentioned, Matt. vi. 26, seq. ;
x. 29. According to these representations, not
a hair falls from the head of man, not a bird falls
to the ground, not a flower withers in the field,
without the notice and will of God. Hence
we, who were made for such higher purposes,
should confidently trust in God, and renounce all
painful solicitude and despondency, all doubt
and despair. For if God takes care of the less,
how much more will he of the greater! of us,
therefore, whose destination is so much more
exalted than that of his other creatures. Our life,
our activity, our whole existence, proceeds from
him ; and as a father, he constantly cares for us,
Acts, xvii. 28.
2. In considering the powers which God im
parts to his creatures, and the continuance of
which he secures, two things need especially to
be noticed — viz., their degree and their use.
(a) The degree (modus) of these powers.
And this again is either essential — i. e., necessa
rily requisite to the very existence of the thing,
so that, in defect of it, it would cease to be what
it is, or contingent, accidental, inasmuch as the
proportion of powers in different individuals be
longing to the same kind, may be, and actually
is, different. These contingent powers and ca
pacities are either innate or acquired, and in
creased and strengthened by discipline and ex

ercise. For example : it is essential to the ex
istence of a man that he possess reason, memory,
and imagination; these are vires essentiales, ) bat
one man surpasses another in these powers, and
this is what is contingent. One man has a na
tural and innate talent for poetry, music, paint
ing, or some other art or employment ; another
acquires skill in these things by effort and dili
gence. Now in this difference of degree in these
powers, and in the wise proportion and allotment
of them to animate and inanimate, rational and
irrational creatures, the wise providence of God
is clearly exhibited.
(b) The use of these powers is granted to the
creatures ef Gpd for their ewn advantage and
the goed pf the whole. This is very obvious in
the case of the natural instincts imparted to ani
mals. Vide Reimarus, Von den Triebeu, beson-
ders den Kunsttrieben der Thiere — an excellent
work. In this respect man is far inferior to the
lower orders of creatures. But in place of in
stinct he has reason and free will, by which he
is determined to action. Vide s. 26. 1. And in
this his great advantage over other creatures con
sists; by this, his moral nature, he resembles
God, and is more nearly related to him than other
creatures who inhabit the earth. And God has
enabled man so to use his powers that the free
dom of the human will shall not be at all in
fringed. * From what has now been said it appears (a)
that God is the first cause of all the powers
which his creatures possess, (b) That God
may be said in a certain sense to cooperate
(concurrere) with the free actions of men, since
he grants them the powers necessary to action,
even to free action, and continually preserves
the powers which he has given ; and moreover
is able to overrule their evil actions so as to
make them promote the greatest good. But (c)
since this language is liable to misapprehension,
and might be understood in such a sense as
would be inconsistent with the freedom of the
will, and would represent God as the author and
promoter of sin, it is better to make an accurate
distinction between the powers themselves
granted to moral beings, and the exercise of
these powers in free actions. The powers of
action come from God ; but he has left the use
and exercise of these powers to moral beings.
This is involved in the very idea of moral being,
which would cease to be moral if it were sub
jected to the control of necessity, and not suf
fered to choose and to do what it saw to be best,
according to the laws of freedom. Vides. 26, 1.
God is not, therefore, the efficient cause of the
free actions of moral beings. This distinction.
is thus expressed by the schoplmen: Deum con
currere ad materials adionis liberx — i. e., God
gives to men the powers of action, and preserves
these powers every moment, but npt ad formalb

WORKS OF GOD.

£43

eetionis libarx — i. e., he is not the efficient cause
of the free actions themselves. Thus, for ex
ample, when a man opens his mouth to lie, or
to forswear, God grants him the power at that
very moment to open his mouth and to speak
(concurrit ad materiale adionis;) but the use of
this poweT (formale adionis) is left to the man
himself, and he might open his mouth to speak
the truth, and to glorify God. The action,
therefore, whatever it is, is his own, and for it
he himself is accountable ; which could not be
the case if the action proceeded from another.
Note. — In contemplating the preservation of
the existence and of the powers of all created
beings, we find great occasion to recognise and
admire the divine wisdom and goodness, and also
a powerful motive to seek for true holiness.
This is the application which the sacred writers
made of this doctrine; and hence the ample in
struction on this subject which they give us is
so eminently calculated to produce a good prac
tical effect. Cf. s. 24 and s. 28, II. Also Ci
cero, De Natur. Deor. ii. 39, seq., and 47.
II. Preservation of Men.
1. Men are the only creatures of God upon the
earth who possess a moral nature, or who have
reason and freedom of will ; and as possessing
these, they are capable of a far higher degree of
perfection and happiness than the lower orders
of creation. Hence the care of God for them is
more apparent, and seems to be more active and
efficient, than for his other creatures. Matthew,
vi. 26, oix vpsts pdxxov SiatyspstE avtdv ; Acts,
xvii. 26, 28, y!w>$ ®sov igpsv. Of this watchful
care of God for the preservation of men we have
abundant proof in the history of our race. Vide
Sussmilch, Goettliche Ordnung in den Veran-
derungen des mensclichen Geschlechts ; Berlin,
1788, 8vo. But more particularly—
2. The life and all the powers of each indivi
dual of the human race depend upon God. Mo
rus, p. 77, n. 3.
(a) Our life depends upon God.
(a) As to its origin ; for although our parents,
as the instruments of God, are the means by
which we come into the world ; yet God is truly
our creator, and the author of our existence.
We are taught everywhere in the holy scriptures
that God formed us, &c; Job, x. 8, 11, 12;
Acts, xvii. 25, 27; Ps. cxxxix. 13 — 16; and
also that he secures the continuance of the life
which he imparts, orders all its changes, deter
mines the time, place, circumstances, and, in
short, everything respecting it, Psalm xc, xci.,
cxxxix. ; Acts, xvii. 24 ; Matthew, vi., x. The
Hebrews represented this truth in a very plain
and striking manner, by supposing God to keep
a book of fate and book of life, in which every
man is enrolled, and has, as it were, his own
portion assigned him, Ps. cxxxix. 16. Hence

to be blotted out from the book of life is the same
as to die, Exod. xxxii. 32; Ps. lxix. 28. The
meaning of the representation is this : — God de
termines the beginning and the end of our lives ;
he is perfectly acquainted with our whole des
tiny ; everything in our whole existence depends
upon him, and is under his control and govern
ment. (/3) As to its termination. However contin
gent the time of our death may appear, it is still
at the disposal of God ; Job, xiv. 5, "Thou hast
appointed his bounds which he cannot pass."
Ps. xc 3, "Thou turnest man to destruction,
and sayest, Return, ye children of men ;" Psalm
xxxi. 15; xxxix. 4, 5. These texts, however,
and others of a similar nature, have been often
erroneously supposed to imply an unconditional
decree of God respecting the life and death of
every man. Against this erroneous opinion of
an unconditional decree of God, determining ir
revocably the bounds of the life of man, the
Christian teacher should carefully guard his
hearers, since it is not unfrequently entertained
even by those who are cultivated and enlight
ened, as well as by those who are ignorant. It
may encourage the most rash and foolhardy un
dertakings ; and where it is thoroughly believed
and consistently carried out into action, it must
lead to the neglect of the proper means of reco
very from sickness, and of the necessary pre
cautions against approaching danger. For if the
fixed period of my life is now arrived, may one
say who is of this opinion, these remedies can
be of no service to me ; if it is not yet come, they
are wholly unnecessary. This error has been
for a long time widely diffused over the East;
and Mahommed himself was a strict fatalist and
predestinarian. He believed that every event
in the life and the very hour of the death of every
man was settled by an unalterable predetermi
nation. This doctrine has received the name
of fatum Turcicum among modern European
Christians, because among all the Mahomme-
dans by whom it is professed, the Turks are
those with whom the Europeans are most ac
quainted, and in whom they have seen the evil
influence of this doctrine most clearly displayed.
It would be more properly denominated fatum
Muhammedicum. The opinion that the bound
of human life is unalterably determined was also
adopted by those ancient philosophers who be
lieved in the doctrine of fate. Vide s. 67.
Hence the stoical dilemma of which mention is
made by Cicero, in his treatise, "De Fato;" Si
fatum tibi est, ex hoc morbo convalescere, sive
medicum adhibueris, sive non, convalesces; [and
the saying, Nisifatale xgro mori, facile evadet i
cuifatale mori, velpediculi morsu conficeretur.]
On this principle suicide might be justified, or
at least palliated, as has been actually done.
God does indeed, in every case, foresee and

244

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

know how long a man will live, and the result
will perfectly agree with this foreknowledge,
since the omniscient God cannot be mistaken in
what he knows. But to stop here would be to
take only a partial view of some of the divine
attributes, which would lead into error. God
has indeed formed a purpose respecting the
length of the life of every man ; but for the very
reason that he is omniscient, he has formed this
purpose only on consideration of natural and
moral causes ; his providence therefore does not
make it in itself unconditionally necessary that
any man should die at such a particular time.
The purpose of God is a conditional one, founded
upon a knowledge of all the circumstances into
which the individual who is the object of it
would come, and also upon the knowledge of all
his free actions. Vide s. 32, 1, ad finem. God
foresees how the body of every man will be con
stituted ; in what situation it will be placed ; of
what character his moral actions will be, and
what consequences will flow from them, &c
And from his foreknowledge of all these circum
stances respecting him, God forms his purpose,
fixing the termination of his life. The bodily
constitution which a man brings with him into
the world, and which is afterwards affected by
so many circumstances, perfectly known to God,
and under his control, is one of the conditions
upon which the purpose of God respecting the
end of human life is founded ; and this period,
so far as it depends upon our bodily constitution,
cannot be passed over. When the clock runs
down, it stops; when the flower blossoms, it
fades ; and man cannot give himself a new body,
nor can God, except by miracle. This period
of life, depending upon the natural constitution
of the body, and upon other natural circum
stances, is called the natural bound of human
life ; and this cannot be prolonged by man him
self. Now if a man dies earlier than he would
naturally have done, whether from his own fault
or that of others, or from some outward accident,
(the cause, however, of whatever kind, being
known to God, and under his providence and
control,) his death is said to be unnatural,
extraordinary, or sometimes C07jsej«e7is, in op
position to the other, which is called antece
dens. The cases here supposed are described
in the Bible by the phrases, to fulfil one's days,
(y& n>t ^m,) or not to fulfil them, Isa. lxv. 20.
And in this way are we to understand those pas
sages in which God is said to lengthen out, or to
abridge, the life of man. The meaning of these
terms is, that God so directs the course of nature
that a particular man lives longer than he would
naturally have lived, or than he was expected to
live. Hence it appears that man can do nothing
himself to prolong his life beyond the natural
limits of human existence; but that he may do
much to shorten it. To return now to the sto

ical dilemma. When a man is sick, he must
call for a physician, and make use of prescribed
remedies, because he cannot be certain that the
end of his life has now come. The purpose of
God respecting his life or his death is in this
case, as we must conceive it, merely conditional.
If he uses the proper means, he will recover; if
not, he will die; and God, as he is omniscient,
knows which of these courses he will pursue,
and therefore whether he will die or live. A
vehement controversy arose on this subject, in
the seventeenth century, between the reformed
philosophers and some theologians of the Ne
therlands, on occasion of the work of Beverovi-
cius, Quxstiones Epistolicse de vitx terminofatali ,-
Dprtrecht, 1634, 8vc; and enlarged, Leiden,
1636, 4te.
(b) Our powers depend upon God. These
powers are very various ; but they may be class
ed under two general divisions,, the powers of
soul and of body — spiritual and corporeal powers.
Now as man did not give himself these powers,
so neither can he retain possession of them by
his own strength or skill. Hence they are
justly described in the Bible as the gift of God.
Worldly respectability, mental endowments,
sound judgment, memory, learning — all are
given by God ; and that one man surpasses an
other in these respects is owing to his will and
his wise government, Exod. iv. 11; James, i.
17; 1 Cor. iv. 7. Those happy combinations
ef circumstances by which we are sometimes
enabled to accomplish with ease the enterprises
with regard to which we and others were ready
to despair, are to be ascribed to God, although
we are often disposed to consider them as the
effect of chance. We owe the success of all
our undertakings, not to our own wisdom and
skill, but solely to the wise and benevolent pro
vidence of God. To lead men to feel this, is a
great object with the sacred writers, who every
where recommend to them the exercise of these
pious and humble dispositions by which they
may be strengthened in their faith in God, and
preserved against pride and selfish blindness.
Hence they always ascribe the powers of man,
and his success in exercising them, directly to
God, as the first cause ; in such a way, however,
that second causes, which also depend upon him,
are not excluded. Morus, p. 77, n. 1, 2. In
this connexion, reference should be made to Ps
cxxvii., where we are taught that our mos
strenuous efforts will be in vain, unless Go&
grants us success.
Note. — Such meditations respecting the pre
servation of our existence, powers, and the
healthful and successful employment ef them,
are very instructive and practical. They are
calculated to fill our minds with peace and joy,
and to excite hearty gratitude to God. Christ
makes use of these considerations to shew us

WORKS OF GOD.

-45

that we should not be distrustful of God, and
should not trouble ourselves with anxious cares.
Since God takes so much care of the various
orders of being, of beasts, and even of inanimate
things, how much more will he care for us, to
whom he has given a destination by far more
npble than theirs ! Matt. vi. 25, seq. He espe
cially warns us against anxious cares as to our
bodily support, since they withdraw us from
more important concerns, and render us disqua
lified for religion, and divine instruction. Luke,
viii. 14, at jUEptjiti'ab fov /3tov gvpitviyovgt tbv
Aoyoi/, the cares of life prevent the efficacy of
divine truth upon our hearts.
SECTION LXX.
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD.
I. Statement of this Dodrine.
From what has already been said, it appears
that God is perfectly acquainted with all the
efficient causes which exist, both those which
are free in their agency and those that are other
wise ; that he knows every act of these causes^
and all the effects which they produce, and that
he guides and controls them all at his pleasure,
and makes them subservient to his own designs.
And it is in this his guiding and controlling all
the changes and all the actions of his creatures,
eo as to promote the highest good of the whole,
and of each part, that the government of God
consists. The good of the whole involves that
of all the parts of which it is made up, and one
cannot be secured exclusively of the other. The
sum of the good of all the individuals under the
government of God constitutes the good of the
whole. Hence the propriety of making the
good of each part an object of the government
of God.
In order to form a correct judgment respect
ing the good secured in the world under the go
vernment of God — a subject on which mistakes
are very common, the following principles should
be kept in mind.
1. The degree of perfection and happiness
attainable by different beings varies according
to their different relations. All beings are not
susceptible of an equal degree of good. The
beast, for example, seeks for nothing further
than the satisfaction of his hunger and thirst,
and the gratification of his other natural appe
tites. But moral beings require more than this
for their happiness; they have a higher destina
tion, and are capable of a higher good. And
even among men themselves, the external good
of which they are capable is different according
to the original constitution, the abilities, and
even the age, of different individuals. The good
which would be adapted to a child is not such
as would satisfy the desires of a man.

2. Such is the constitution which God has
given to the world, that the happiness of one is
often subordinate and must be sacrificed to the
happiness of another. This is clearly taught
by experience; though doubtless philosophers
would prove, if the testimony of experience
were not so explicit, that this could not be so.
We find, however, that many animals serve for
the nourishment of others, by whom they are
constantly devoured. And how many of them
are there which daily suffer from the free ac
tions of men ! For us, with all our short-sight
edness, to call in question the wisdem and jus
tice of what God thus ordains, or permits, and
to suppose that it could or should have been
otherwise, is unwarrantable presumption. It is
enough for us to know that such is the divine
plan, which we are unable fully to comprehend,
but which, for the very reason that God chose
it, is the wisest, best, and most adapted to its
ends. So we are taught by the holy scriptures,
and further than this, with all our speculative
philosophy, we cannot go. Vide s. 48, ad
finem, and s. 71, II.
3. Happiness is frequently connected with
certain conditions, on the fulfilment of which
our enjoyment of it depends. For example : the
enjoyment of good health depends in a great
measure upon temperance. If any one fails to
comply with these established conditions, the
loss of the good which he had hoped for is to
be ascribed to himself, and not to God.
These considerations are overlooked by the
great body of mankind ; and hence it is, that
when affairs do not take the turn which they
wish, they complain and murmur respecting the
divine government. The .mistakes most fre
quent on the subject of divine providence are
the following — viz., (a) Men are apt to consider
their whole happiness as placed in the enjoy
ment of a certain kind of advantages, perhaps
that very kind of which they are deprived ; per
haps, too, advantages which possess no intrin
sic value, which are transient and uncertain,
and which, if obtained, could not make the pos
sessor truly happy. The poor often desire,
most of all things, that they may be rich ; and
the sick, that they may enjoy good health. But
how undesirable is it often, both for their tem
poral and eternal welfare, that their wishes
should be gratified 1 (b) Men are prone to for
get that the good of the whole is to be consulted
for, and that individuals must often sacrifice to
the general welfare some private advantages,
for which, however, they are to receive an equi
valent in other ways, as they may confidently
expect, from the goodness of God, and as expe
rience even in the present world has often
proved, (c) Men are prone to regard dispro
portionately the present pain and unhappiness
which they experience, and to forget that under
x2

246

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

their sufferings and deprivations there may be
concealed the germ of a greater temporal and
eternal good, (d) Men are disposed to charge
God unjustly with denying them, or depriving
them of certain advantages, the loss of which
is wholly their own fault. How many of the
sick and the destitute complain of God as the
author of their sufferings, while their own con
sciences must assure them that they alone are
to blame ! II. Proof of this Doctrine.
1. From the natural constitution of the world,
(argumentum physicum,) it is impossible for
the human mind to conceive how the admirable
order and harmony which appear in the uni
verse, where all things are so intimately con
nected, run into, and depend upon one another,
like the links of a chain, should exist without
the superintendence and control of an infinitely
wise and almighty Being. Consider here the
influence of the atmosphere upon the growth of
plants, upon the life, health, and support of ani
mate beings. Reflect, too, that one country has
a surplus of certain useful productions, of which
another country is wholly destitute. The former
cannot use its surplus productions, the latter is
compelled to seek elsewhere what its own soil
does not produce, and to obtain it where it can
be found in the greatest abundance. This gives
rise to trade, activity, enterprise ; and these bring
in wealth, &c.
2. From experience, (argumentum histori-
cum.) This may be either personal or general,
and so is called by Morus duplicem provideniix
scholam, p. 83, s. 8. This proof, when rightly
exhibited, is very obyious and intelligible, even
to the unlearned. In the events which take
place around us, let the attention be directed to
the causes by which they are effected — to the
time, place, and other circumstances in which
these causes acted. By their slow and often
unnoticed combination, effects are produced at
which every one is astonished. The smallest
occurrences often lead to the greatest revolu
tions ; wicked actions are made the means of
good, and result in the advantage of those whom
they were designed to injure, so that many can
say, with Joseph, (Gen. 1. 20,) " Ye thought
evil against me, but God meant it for good."
Men who are to be the means of eminent good
to the world, or to perform some distinguished
service, must be called forth upon the stage of
action at exactly the most proper time, in ex
actly the most suitable place, and at precisely
the most favourable juncture of other circum
stances. When history is studied with these
considerations kept in mind, (and in the study
of history they sheuld never be omitted, as they
are now. alas! top frequently, by these whe

teach this branch to the young,) what to the
ignorant and thoughtless might appear to be
chance cr accident, exhibits clear marks of a
guiding Providence. And this is the high posi
tion, from which those who have the scriptures
in their hand can survey all the events recorded
in the history of the world. We may refer to
the history of Joseph, to the ancient history of
the Jews, that of the diffusion of Christianity,
of the Reformation, and the more important
events of our own times, as remarkable exam
ples, Vide Schroeckh, Disp. historia provi-
dentiam divinam, quando et quam clare loqua-
tur; Vitebergae, 1776. J. G. Muller, Briefe
fiber das Studium der Wissenschaften, beson-
deis der Geschichte; Zfirch, 1798, 8vo — a work
full of valuable remarks drawn from experience,
which deserve to be considered, especially
by the teachers of religion, and to be carefully
applied by them te practice. But we ought by
no means to confine our attention to the great
events which are recorded in the history of the
world. To one who is an attentive observer of
all the changes through which he himself passes.
his own life will furnish abundant materials for
the most interesting and useful observations
respecting the providence of God. And such
observations are uncommonly useful in populai
instruction. They tend to awaken and cherish
religious dispositions. If men suppose that God
exercises no care over them, they have no ground
or motive to love and worship him. But since
holiness is the true end for which we, as moral
beings, were made, and since our capacity for
happiness is in exact proportipn to pur holiness,
we ought to pay particular attention to those
dealings of Divine Providence with us by which
this great end is promoted. To every man
whose moral character is in any considerable
degree improved and advanced, whatever he has
experienced himself, or noticed in others, tending
to the promotion of holiness, possesses an inex
pressible interest; and any who are destitute of
feeling on this point, and can ridicule the spiri
tual experiences of pious Christians, and what
they communicate of their experiences to others,
either by writing or by oral relation, give mourn
ful proof that they themselves are as yet unre-
formed, and are turning aside from the true end
of their being. One who is taught in his youth
to refer everything in his own life to God, and
to search for the traces of divine providence in
what befals himself, will learn to look at the
lives of others and at the history of nations in
the same mannpr and with the same interes
and will of course be dissatisfied when he sees
that, in opposition to the example of the sacred
writers, God is wholly left out of the account
by so many historians. But, on the contrary,
he who himself lives in the world without God,

WORKS OF GOD.

247

may be content with a history in which the
hand of God is unnoticed, and indeed will be
displeased with any, other.
3. From the Bible. Morus, p. 79—81, s. 6.
That God is the creator, proprietor, and governor
of the world, that all things, even the small
est, depend upon him, and that with infinite
wisdom he overrules all for the highest good,
are principles everywhere assumed in the Bible.
The texts which relate to providence, in the more
general view of it, were cited s. 68, 1. 2. The
texts which relate more particularly to the divine
government may be divided into the following
classes : — (a) Those in which the guidance and
direction of all events, both small and great, are
expressly ascribed to God, Matt. vi. 31 ; Acts,
xvii. 25, 26 ; 1 Chronicles, xxix. (al. xxx.) 12.
(6) These in which particular changes and Re
currences, past, present, and te ccme, are referred
te Gpd as the auther; Isa. xliii. 12; Acts, iv.
28 ; Psa. xc. ; Prcv. xvi. 1, 33, "The lot is cast
into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is
of the Lord." (c) Those which contain divine
promises and threatenings, and which would be
without meaning on any supposition but that
God is the governor of the world and the dis
poser of the destinies of men; Exodus, xx. 12;
Psa. xc, xci., &c. (d) Those in which God
is entreated to avert calamities, to put an end
to distress, to bestow blessings, &c. ; or those
in which the granting of such requests is pro
mised, Psalm xxii. 5 ; exxviii. ; Matt. xxvi. 39 ;
1 Thess. iii. 10, 11. In order that this may be
correctly understood, it should be compared
with what was before said respecting the will
and the purposes of God, s. 20, 32.
Note. — It has been already frequently re
marked, that according to a mode of thinking
and speaking common among the ancients, many
things were represented as resulting immediately
from the agency of God, though they were in
reality effected through the instrumentality of
second causes, which perhaps were merely not
mentioned, perhaps were overlooked, or possibly,
at that early period of the world, not even known.
Vide s. 58, II. The mode of representation here
referred to, and expressions and narrations
founded upon it, occur frequently in the Bible,
in Homer, and the ancient writers. Thus, for
example, when we should say, it thunders, it
rains, there is an earthquake, the ancients said,
God thunders, &c, Psa. xxix. ; civ. 32. Gen.
xi. 7, 8 ; xix. 24, " God rained upon Sodom and
Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out
of heaven." Many events, therefore, which
would seem, from the manner in which they are
spoken ef, to be the results of the irnmediate
agency of God, and to be accomplished in an
extraordinary way, were really effected by na
tural causes. However, since these natural
causes depend upon the government of God, this

mode of speaking is in itself correct. And it is
because we, in the present age, have so little of
the religious feeling of the ancient world that
we misunderstand their more pious and religious
mode of expressing themselves, and even feel it
to be offensive. The teacher of religion should,
however, closely follow the example of the sa
cred writers in this respect, and ever imitate and
preserve this more religious phraseology which
they employ, and, like them, refer everything to
God. And if, in order to prevent superstition,
he should think it necessary to say that such an
event took place naturally, he must be careful
that he be not understood to mean that it took
place without God, and that he does not thus be
come the meajis of causing his hearers to forget
God, and to live at a distance from him. He
ought, on the contrary, in such cases, to shew
that although a particular event may have been
natural, it was not the less owing to the agency
of God ; that nature is only an instrument in the
hands of God ; and that nothing therefore takes
place which is not according to his will and
purpose. •
SECTION LXXI.
THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD IN RELATION TO THE
FREEDOM OF MAN, AND TO THE EVIL EXISTING
IN THE WORLD.
I. In Relation to the Freedom of Man.
On the one hand', the freedem pf the human
will is unimpaired by the gevernment of God ;
and, on the other, the government of God is un
obstructed and undisturbed by the free actions
of men. The freedom of man must at all events
be maintained, for morality and accountability
depend upen it. If he is net free to choose and
to act, he cannot be accountable for his actions ;
for they are not within his own power. We
have already established the position (s. 22, 1.),
that God/oresees those actions which result from
the freedom of man, and the consequences of
them, as well as those which are necessary, or
less contingent; but that the former do not cease
to be free because they are foreknown. This
principle must be assumed as true in reasoning
on this subject. We are not to expect, there
fore, that the government of God over moral
beings will be shewn by his compelling them to
perform good or bad actions. That men are free
in what they do is everywhere assumed in the
Bible, and must be presupposed in every system
of morals. Vide Luke, viii. 5 — 15 ; xiii. 6 — 9 ;
James/i. 13 — 15.
Still, however, the free actions of moral beings
are under the' most minute inspection and the
most perfect control of God. For these actions
are dependent (a) upon the powers which man
possesses, and for these powers he is indebted

248

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

to God alone. Vide s. 69. (b) Upon the laws
of his physical and moral nature — i. e., the laws
(in one case, of motion, and in the other, of
thought) according to which he exercises his
peculiar powers ; and these laws are given and
established by God. Vide ubi supra, (c) Upon
external circumstances — uppn things without the
man himself; and these things, as all ethers, are
under the control of God. Man, then, as a mo
ral being, is free to will, to resolve, and to act
according to his resolutions. God furnishes him
with occasions of acting in the external objects
around him ; he also gives him his powers of
action, and preserves to him their exercise; but
then permits him, though under his own guid
ance and supervision, to exert his powers ac
cording to his own will, and to perform his
actions freely. Vide s. 69, I. ad finem. How
this can be, we shall find it difficult to under
stand, however sagacious and fine-spun our
philosophical theories may be; but that thus it
is, that notwithstanding the providence of God
we remain free in our actions, must be firmly
maintained if we would not degrade ourselves
below the standard of moral beings, if we would
not falsify the dictates of that moral feeling so
deeply implanted by the Creator himself in our
hearts, and if we would not consequently over
turn the first and most important doctrines of
morality. Every man's own consciousness, the
clear dictates of his moral nature, convince him
that he is free, beyond the necessity, or even the
possibility, of a further demonstration. Cf. the
writings of the modern philosophers of the dif
ferent schools — Eberhard, Ueber die Freyheit;
and Jacob's clear and perspicuous treatise on the
same subject, according to the principles of the
Critical philosophy, contained in Kiesewetter's
work, " Ueber den ersten Grundsatz der Moral-
philosophie;" Leipzig und Halle, 1788, 8vo.
On account of the deficiencies and difficulties
attending metaphysical demonstrations of free
dom, and the perplexed and endless speculations
by which both sides of this question have been
iirgued, Kant rejected them all as insufficient,
and as leading into error ; and would have us
depend more upon experience, and believe and
hold fast the doctrine of human freedom, because
it is so indispensable in morals that without it
morality cannot be conceived to exist. [This
new of Kant, implying that freedom, while it
is a postulate of our practical reason, (i. e., ne
cessary to be assumed in order to moral action,)
is yet inconsistent with our theoretical reason,
(i. e., incapable of demonstration, and contrary
to the. conclusions to which the reflecting mind
arrives,) is pow very generally rejected. We
cannot admit a twofold and contradictory reason,
nor can we. adopt a principle for practice to
which our speculative reason is statedly op
posed. It is justly remarked by Bockshammer,

in his brief but comprehensive treatise pn the
Will, that even practical freedom cannot be ade
quately maintained, if, while we must deem our
selves free, we are yet left to suspect, by the
decisions of our speculative reason, that in real
ity we act from some concealed necessity, under
the laws of which our inmost being is placed.
Vide Bockshammer, Ueber die Freyheit des
mensch. Willens, s. 5, f. ; Stuttgart, 1821 
Tr.] The more full investigation of the whole
subject belongs rather to the department of mo
ral science than here.
The exhibition of this subject in popular in
struction should be kept as free as possible from
all philosophical subtleties; and it would be
well if the teachers pf religion, from regard to
their own peace and comfort, as well as that of
their hearers, would abide by the following
simple principles, which accord alike with scrip
ture and experience, (a) God, with a view to
the real welfare of man, gives him the means
and opportunities necessary to withhold him from
the choice cf evil, and te lead him to what is
right, (b) For many of our free actions, he
furnishes us with inducement and encourage
ment in the external circumstances in which he
has placed us ; and he so orders these circum
stances as to promote what we ourselves under
take, and to give it a "happy issue. He makes
use of these circumstances also as a warning to
us and others to abstain from such actions as
we find attended with unhappy consequences.
These encouragements and warnings may serve
as examples to shew the consistency between
the divine government and human freedom ; for
we are still at liberty, and have it still within
our power, to do that to which we are encour
aged, and to abstain from that from which we
are warned ; and in both cases we remain the
authors of our own free actions, (e) God re
wards men for their good actions, and punishes
them for those that are bad ; which he could not
do, were men not free in performing them.
Vide s. 31. (d) God frequently prevents
wicked actions, which men had intended and
resolved to perform. The brethren 'of Joseph,
for example, were not able to execute their de
signs against his life, Gen. xxxix. God, how
ever, does not always do this ; but, on the con
trary, sometimes permits the wicked actions of
men, since otherwise he would destroy their
freedom. But then these wicked actions are
overruled by him to be the means of good, Gen.
1. 20 ; Act's, ii. 36. If in any case, however,
they are wholly irreconcilable with the wise and
benevolent plan of his government, or, which is
the same thing, cannot be made to contribute to
the general good which he seeks to promote, he
then directly prevents them. What actions and
events belong to this class it is impossible fot
us to say, and can be known only to the omni-

WORKS OF GOD.

249

eeient God. (e) The result and issue of all ac
tions, good and bad, depend solely upon God.
Vide s. 70. Many a scheme, which appeared
in itself to be a masterpiece of human wisdom
and prudence, has failed of success, while the
most foolish and inconsiderate undertakings
have been prospered. Vide Eccles. ix. 11;
Prov. xvi. 1, seq. ; James, iv. 13 — 15. This
would be seen by us much more frequently if
we were not accustomed to look rather at the
result than at the intention and plan. If the re
sult is favourable, we judge favourably of the
design itself; and the reverse. Hence it is that
we find praise and blame so unjustly awarded
in history. When we think to benefit ourselves
or others by a particular course, of action, we
often injure both ourselves and others ; and the
reverse. Hence it is said, that while the free
dom of men and other moral beings is not de
stroyed by the divine government, it is yet con
fined and limited. Cf. Morus, p. 81, s. 3, 6,
Notes. [Also Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. i.
s. 644, s. 98, 6.]
II. In Relation to Evil.
1. The many evils which exist in the world,
and the calamities which befal the human race,
have from the earliest times been regarded as a
standing objection against the providence of
God. How they can consist with his wisdom
a.nd goodness, and consequently with his provi
dence, is a question which men at all times have
found it difficult to answer. These evils are
either physical or moral ; and the permission of
either of them has appeared to be subversive of
divine providence. The existence of evil was
brought forward as an argument against provi
dence by Epicurus. Vide Lucretius, De Rerum
Natura, 1. v. ; Cicero, De Nat. Deorum ; Lac-
tantius, De ira Dei, c 13. The stoics, on the
other hand, undertook to answer this objection.
Vide Seneca, De Beneficiis, iv. 4, seq. This
objection appeared so strong to Bayle, that, in
the article on Manicheism, in his Dictionary, he
pronounces it unanswerable. But Leibnitz, in
his "Theodicee," endeavoured to resolve the
doubts of Bayle, and to establish a correct phi
losophical theory respecting the existence of
evil.* An argument has sometimes been drawn
against providence from the complaints of the
sacred writers respecting the evil existing in the
world, and the unhappy fate of man, especially
those which occur in the book of Ecclesiastes.

[* Voltaire also opposed the doctrine of provi
dence in a poem on the destruction of Lisbon ; and
when this doctrine was ably defended by Rousseau,
in his Letter on Optimism, ho replied by a philoso
phical romance entitled " Candide," in which he
presents an appalling picture of tbe disorders of the
world, from which he takes occasion to deride the
notion of an overruling providence. — Th.]
32

But the object of the author of this bopk is nnt
sp much to arraign the providence of God, as to
shew, frcm the instability of fortune, and the
uncertainty of human schemes, that we should
learn true wisdom, and that since providence
affords us a sufficiency of good things, we should
study the art, so rarely understood, of making a
wise use of them, by which alone we can be
contented and happy, Eccles. iii. vii. ix.
In reply to these objections, it may be said,
that if the providence of God can be proved
from other arguments, the existence cf evil can
afford no reason to doubt or deny it. On the
contrary, we must conclude, that since God per
mits and suffers evil in the world, it must be
according to his wisdom, and be perfectly con
sistent with his providence, although we may
not be able to understand how it can be so, and
why he did not constitute a different order.
Vide Seneca, De providentia, sive quare bonis
viris mala accidant, cum sit providentia. The
will and the power of God may be regarded
either as exerted unconditionally, unconfined by
any established order, or as exerted in conform
ity with a certain established order of things.
In the exercise of his absolute, unconditional
power, God could remove evil out of the way ;
but he will not always do this, because it is
against the order which from his wisdom he
found it necessary to establish. He indeed
foresaw the existence of evil, and permits it,
(cf. Ps. Ixxxi. 12, 13; Acts, xiv. 16; Rom. i.
24 ;) but so far as it is evil, he can never have
pleasure in it, or himself promote or favour it;
James, i. 13 — 17. He has admitted it into his
general plan, because he can make it, in its con
nexion with other things, the means of a good,
which, without it, either could not be effected
at all, or at least not so well, as by its being
permitted. What Christ said, Matt. xiii. 29, is
very true, that if the tares were pulled up the
wheat would be pulled up with them ; and that.
to prevent this, the tares and the wheat must be
suffered to grow together. We are acquainted
with only a small part of what is embraced in
the universe of God ; and even this small part is
understood by us very imperfectly ; and as to
the true internal relation of things — the ends
for which they exist, and the consequences by
which they are followed, our knowledge is ex
tremely defective; we are therefore unable to
form a right judgment respecting the relation of
evil to good, and of the amount of evil to the
amount of gopd.
Seneca says, Centra, iv. 27, "Necessitas
magnum humana? felicitatis patrocinlum" — Ne
cessity is a great consolation in the sufferings of
men. If by necessity he meant that blind, in
evitable fate te which the geds themselves are
subject, then is it a peor consolation indeed ;
for what comfort would it be to a malefactor,

250

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

when carried towards the place of execution,
to be continually informed that he must die,
and there is ne escaping it. But if necessity
may be understcpd to mean the erder pf things
which God saw it necessary to constitute, then
the maxim above stated is perfectly true ; it is
accordant with the Christian spirit, and full of
consolation, although this necessity may involve
many things which are unintelligible and dis
agreeable to us. For if God, who is infinitely
wise and benevolent, has ccnstituted this order,
it must be good, and adapted to the end which
he has in view, hewever otherwise it may ap
pear te us.
Again; men who are dissatisfied with their
lot often complain that certain blessings are
denied them, without inquiring whether they
themselves are susceptible of these blessings,
and without remembering the many blessings
r/hich they already enjoy. Besides, the opinions
of men respecting happiness are so various,
and sometimes so foolish, that it would seem
impossible that their wishes should all be grati
fied. Things sometimes desired as the greatest
blessings would be, if possessed, the greatest
injury to both soul and body; and the good
ness of Providence is shewn in withholding
them. Cf. Zollikoffer, Betrachtungen fiber das
Uebel in der Welt. Jacobi, Ueber die Weisen
Absicbten Gottes. De Maree, Gottesverthei-
digung uber die Zulassung des Bosen.
2. Another argument against providence is,
that the ungodly often prosper in the world,
while the righteous suffer affliction. This is
thought to be indirectly inconsistent with the
wisdom and goodness of God, and therefore to
disprove a superintending providence. The
minds of reflecting persons have from the earli
est times been disturbed by this doubt; and the
advocates of providence have endeavoured in
various ways to solve it. It is frequently men
tioned in the Old Testament, and receives various
answers, according to the different aspects which
the subject-assumes — e. g., Psalm xxxvii. xxxix.
xlix., and especially lxxiii. ; Job, xvi. et passim.
Many also among the Grecian philosophers were
very much perplexed on this subject ; and Di
ogenes the Cynic declared, " that the prosperity
of the wicked disproved the power and wisdom
of the gods;" Cicero, De Nat. Deor. iii. 34.
Others, however, and particularly the stoics,
undertook to answer this objection ; and Seneca,
in his book "De Providentia," investigates the
question how the righteous can suffer, if there
is a divine providence? According to the opi
nion of Bayle this objection cannot be met by
any satisfactory answer. But,
(a) This objection results in a great measure
from ignorance, and from the low and false esti
mate put upon the real advantages which the
godly enjoy, and the true happiness which flows

from the possession of them. Most of those
who urge the objection, that the righteous suffer
adversity, while the wicked prosper in the
world, place happiness in external things, in tho
possession of wealth*, or in sensual indulgences;
and of course regard the poor man, who is little
thought of by the world, as unhappy. But in
this they mistake, overlooking the essential dis
tinction between true and only apparent good.
True advantages, such as health of body, know
ledge of the truth, holiness of heart, and others,
both of a physical and moral nature, make men
happy by their own proper tendency. These
are the true spiritual goods, the treasures in hea
ven, of which Christ speaks; by the possession
of which alone the soul is prepared for the true
happiness of moral beings. But besides these,
there are other things, such as riches, the enjoy
ments of sense, power, and honour, which may
become advantages by a wise and rational use
of them, but which otherwise are injurious, and
the occasions of unhappiness to men. They
are, however, regarded by many, even when
unwisely and improperly used, as real blessings,
because they excite sensations agreeable to the
carnal mind. But to those who form a right
judgment respecting them, they are, when im
properly used, only apparent blessings, because
the pleasure which they produce is transient,
and turns at last to pain. The writer of Psalm
xlix. very justly decides, therefore, that the life
of the profligate is only outwardly and in ap
pearance happy, and is often, in reality, only
splendid and shewy misery, te envy which
weuld be extremely foplish. In Psalm lxxiii.,
Asaph points to the end of the wicked, ana
shews that their prosperity, being unsubstantial,
is suddenly and in a moment lost. We cannot
certainly regard that as a good in reference to
another, or account him as happy, for the pos
session of anything which he himself does not
truly enjoy. But it is not unfrequently the case
that the things most esteemed by the world, so
far from making the possessor happy, are the
occasion of disquietude and misery. And so it
is often said in common life, that the fortune of
the rich and powerful is only shining misery ;
that they are not to be envied ; that we would
not exchange places with them, &c
(6) When this is considered, and the state
of the virtuous and the vicious is then compared,
that of the former, though replete with external
sufferings, must be pronounced to be more hap
py than that of the latter. For although the
good man may have no worldly honour, no
earthly riches, no superfluity of pleasures, he
has true, spiritual, good treasures in heaven,
which moth and rust do not corrupt, and which
are secure from thieves, (Matti vi. 19, 20;) and
although he were bowed down under externa!
afflictions, he would yet maintain his integrity

WORKS OF GOD.

251

of heart, and the reward which the favour of
God secures — the greatest of all the blessings
which men can enjoy. Vide Matt. xvi. 25. He
has cheerfulness and tranquillity of soul ; while
those who seek their good in external things are
constantly disquieted by passions, cares, and
disappointments. But this blessedness which
which the virtuous man enjoys makes but little
show in the world, and is hence so often under
valued by worldly men. They find it impos
sible to see or believe that there can be any
happiness in things for which they have so little
taste. This train of thought is much dwelt
upon by the stoical philosophers, and by the
sacred writers.
(c) It is a mistake, however, to suppose that
the virtuous always endure more external suf
ferings than the wicked ; for the righteous are
frequently prosperous, even in their worldly
affairs ; while the wicked are unsuccessful in
all their undertakings. But these cases are less
noticed, because they seem to follow in the na
tural course of things.
(d) Even good men often bring upon them
selves the sufferings which they endure by their
own fault ; they do not in all cases act according
to the law of duty and the rules of prudence ;
and in such cases they cannot justly ask to be
excepted from the common lot of faulty and in
judicious men, and must expect to endure the
unhappy consequences of their errors and follies.
Christ says, Luke, xvi. 8, " The children of this
world are wiser in their generation than the
children of light" — i. e., those whose affections
are fixed upon the world, the worldly-minded,
are often more wise with regard to the things of
time than those whose affections are fixed upon
heaven are with regard to their heavenly trea
sures. The former have more care for their
welfare in the present life than the latter for
their blessedness in the world to come. Should
pious and good men exhibit the same zeal and
prudence which worldly men exhibit in ma
naging their worldly affairs, how much would
they accomplish for their own advantage and
that of others ! But since they do not always
come up to this standard, they must suffer the
evil consequences of their delinquency.
(e) Nothing is more common than for us to
err in our estimate of the moral state and cha
racter of other men. All are not pious and vir
tuous who appear to be such, and are esteemed
such by their fellow men. And it is equally
true that all who are accounted ungodly are not
the gross criminals and offenders they are some
times supposed to be. Vide Luke, xviii. 10,
seq. The character of many a man is made
out, by those who look upon him with hatred
or envy, to be much worse than it really is.
One man commits some flagrant, out-breaking
crime, which brings hin into disgrace, and

draws upon him the contempt of the world ; but
he may be, at the same time, of a better dispo
sition, and less culpable in the sight of God than
many a reputed saint, who covers over his real
shame with the hypocritical pretence of virtue.
Vide John viii. 3, 7, 10, 11. And since this is
the case, and it is always difficult, and some
times impossible for us, who cannot search the
heart, to determine the true moral character of
men, and of their actions, we ought to be ex
tremely cautious in deciding, whether the good
or evil which befalls them is deserved or not.
In most cases, our judgments on this subject
are certainly very erroneous.
(/) The afflictions which good men endure
are beneficial to them and to others, and are pro
motive of their highest welfare. They often
prevent a greater evil which was threatening
them ; exercise and strengthen their piety, virtue,
and confidence in God; increase their zeal in
the pursuit of holiness, and consequently their
true happiness ; and thus verify the declaration
of Paul, Rom. viii. 28, "That all things work
together for the good of those who are friends
of God." Cf. Rom. v. 3 ; James, i. 2 ; Matt.
v. 10; Heb. xii. 5 — 13, especially, ver. 11,
which appears to be copied directly from the
heart of an afflicted saint. " No chastening for
the present seemeth joyous, but grievous ; ne
vertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable
fruits of righteousness to them who are exer
cised thereby." Hence the sufferings of good
men are sometimes called itsipaepoi, because by
means of them their characters are proved and
their faith is tried and strengthened.
(g) But there is one other consideration,
which may remove all our doubts, and make us
contented when we see the innocent oppressed
and suffering, and the wicked, who forget God,
in a prosperous condition — viz., that the present
life is only the first, imperfect stage of our exist
ence — a state of probation, in which we are to
prepare for another and more perfect state. This
consoling doctrine respecting the future life and
retribution beyond the grave, is one of the chief
doctrines of Christianity, from which everything
proceeds, and to which everything is referred;
and the writers of the New Testament con
stantly make use of it, and seek to comfort the
pious by the truth that divine justice will not
be fully exhibited until the future state shall
commence, and that then the righteous shall be
richly recompensed, by the exceeding greatness
of their future reward, for all the evil they have
suffered. Vide Rom. viii. 17 ; 1 Peter, iv.
12 — 14; 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18, and the parable of
Lazarus, Luke, xvi., especially ver. 25. But
of those who act here upon the earth from im
proper motives, even if they perform actions
which in themselves are good and praiseworthy,
Christ says, they have their reward — i. e., they

252

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

may indeed obtain temporal advantages, but
God will not reward them with the treasures of
the future world, Matt. vi. 2, 5, 15.
SECTION LXXII.
OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF DIVINE
PROVIDENCE.
I. It is Universal.
It extends to every creature and to every event
in the universe — to the small and insignificant,
as well as to the great and important. The
Bible everywhere teaches, that the purpose of
God extends not merely to the whole, and to the
connexion of all its parts, but to each and every
part, their relations and their alteratiens. His
knewledge must accerdingly cnmprehend the
smallest and most apparently insignificant cir
cumstances. This follows even from the scrip
tural idea of creation. Vide s. 46. Cf. Ps,
cxiii. 5, 6, " He dwelleth on high, and humbleth
himself to behold the things in heaven and
in the earth." Ps. cxxxviii. 6, "Though the
Lord be high, yet hath he respect unto the
lowly." Ps. xxxvi. 6; cxlviii. Matt. x. 29,
30, " Not a sparrow falls to the ground without
his notiee; he numbers the hairs of our heads."
The doctrine, that the providence of God ex
tends even to the minutest things, (providentia
circa minima,) leads us, when it is properly con
sidered, to entertain a very exalted idea of God
and his attributes, in that he thinks and cares
for every creature which he has made during
every moment of its existence, and in every situ
ation in which it is placed. But because the
manner in which the providence of God can ex
tend to all individuals is incomprehensible by
the human understanding, and because men are
prone to compare God with themselves, this
doctrine has been often either wholly misunder
stood or directly denied. Since it is supposed
inconsistent with the dignity of princes and the
great of the earth to concern themselves with
small affairs, the case is thought to be the same
with God ; and his honour, it is imagined, is as
serted, by denying that he cares for what is
small and insignificant. This doctrine was ac
cordingly either doubted or denied by most even
of the Grecian philosophers ; and indeed it could
not appear to them with that degree of clearness
in which it appears to us, considering that their
ideas respecting matter and the creation of the
world, and the relations in which matter and the
world stand to God, were so imperfect, and so
wholly unlike those which we have derived from
the Bible. Vide s. 45, 46. Aristotle main
tained that the providence of God extends to
heavenly things, but not to things on the earth
(according to Diogenes and Plutarch.) The
stoics, op *he contrary, believed in a providence

extending to individual things, in a sense, hirw
ever, somewhat different from that common with
us. Vide Seneca, De Providentia, and Cicero,
De Nat. Deor. ii. 65, 66 ; also Plato, De Rgp,
x., where this doctrine is ably defended. The
views entertained by some even of the Christian
fathers on this subjectwere extremely erroneons.
Such are those expressed by Hieronymus, in
his Commentary on Hab., where he says, "The
divine majesty cannot stoop so low as to interest
itself to know how many vermin are eaeh mo.
ment produced on the earth, and how many pe
rish ; how many flies, fleas, and gnats there are ;
how many fishes the sea contains ;" &c. Hi?
opinions, however, were opposed by Gregory of
Nazianzen, Orat. xvi., and by Chrysostom, in
his book " De Providentia ;" and very rational
and scriptural opinions on this subject were
expressed by many other of the ecclesiastical
fathers. In modern times, the Socinians have
been accused of denying that providence extends
to small things ; at least such was said to be the
epinipn expressed in the writings ef some of
the leaders ef this sect; but from the obscurity
of their language, the truth of the accusation
remains doubtful. Many of the modern scep
tics and free-thinkers in England, the Nether
lands, France, and Germany, have eitherdonbted
and denied the providence of God altogether, or
at least providentia circa minima. So Bayle,
De la Mettrie, Voltaire, the author of the Sys-
time de la Nature, and Frederic IL, in the
works of the philosopher of Sans souci, Letter
Seventh. The doctrine that the providence of God is
universal, and extends to every individual crea
ture, may be confirmed and illustrated by the
following observations : —
1. The division of the creatures of God into
classes and kinds answers no other purpose than
to assist the feebleness of the human understand
ing, which cannot at once survey all things in
their true connexion. We are therefore com
pelled to begin with particulars, and then pro
ceed to what is general ; to begin with what is
more easy, and proceed to what is more diffi
cult, in order to render the connexion of the
whole in some measure comprehensible to our
minds. But God knows all things immediately
and at once ; there is no succession in his
knowledge. Vide s. 22, II. This his know
ledge can occasion him, therefore, no trouble or
expense of time, in which, as is the case with
us, more important concerns must be neglected
or deferred. Employment about small things
is made an objection to men, because they are
prone to regard trifles as important, (which can
never be said of God,) and because, en account
nf them, they are prone te neglect what is of
mere value. This danger has been transferred
very inconsiderately to God. But as nothing

WORKS OF GOD

253

is too great for him, so nothing is too small.
He cannot therefore be distracted, as Frederic
II. supposed, by being employed about small
concerns. 2. The divine purpose must necessarily ex
tend to particular things; since otherwise his
knowledge must be as imperfect and fragmentary
as our own. From the theory of the omni
science and the decrees of God stated in s. 22,
32, and there proved to be according to scripture
and reason, it appears, that when God thinks
of men he does not think of them in general, but
in particular — of all men individually, and in
all the various circumstances and conditions in
which they exist every moment. In this way
does he think of the whole world, and of all its
separate parts, from eternity; and similar to
this is his decree respecting the universe, and
all its parts. No alteration, therefore, can be
made in the smallest portion of the world, which
he did not consider and embrace in his eternal
decree. 3. That a human ruler cannot devote equal
attention to all the objects which are under his
inspection, and that he is compelled to set some
of them aside as comparatively unimportant, and
to give himself little er no concern about them,
Is the consequence of human imperfection. The
greater the powers of his mind are, the more will
he be able to occupy himself with particular ob
jects, arid those of minor consequence ; and the
more he does this, the more just and impartial
an estimate will he he able to form of the whole,
and consequently the more wisely and prosper
ously will he be able to administer his govern
ment. Hence Plato justly remarked, that a per
fect ruler must have an equal care for all his
subjects, and all the offices of state, and allow
none of them to pass unregarded, lest the whole
should suffer injury from his neglect of a part.
Vide Cicero, De Officiis, i. 25. It is this rest
less activity, which seizes upon everything, even
things which would appear insignificant to men
of common minds, and turns them to its own ac
count, which is so universally admired and ap
plauded in Caesar, Frederic IL, and other distin
guished rulers of ancient and modern times. If
this is true with regard to human rulers, how
much more so with regard to God in administer
ing his government; since he is not wanting
either in the knowledge, power, or will, requisite
to the most particular providence. If God did
not exercise a watchful care over particular per
sons and things, how would he be able to secure
the good of the whole, which is composed of so
many parts, all intimately connected? The
whole is only the aggregate of many small
portions; and the smallest is as inseparably
connected with the largest, as the links are in a
chain, or the wheels in a clock. The greatest
revolutions which have taken place in the

World — wars, &c, have often proceeded from
the smallest causes ; from a small spark, great
conftagratipns, which have occasioned a wide
spread misery and destruction. In these cases,
what is small is inseparably connected with
what is great. The providence of God, there
fore, either extends to all things, even to those
which we denominate small, or there is no di
vine providence. From this alternative there is
no escape.
4. Men are accustomed to regard many things
as small, insignificant, useless, and even injuri
ous, because they are unable to see their use
and importance in the connexion of things.
This is therefore a proof of the weakness of the
human understanding, and of the great imper
fection of human knowledge. But as God
created all these things, and continually prolongs
their existence, he must regard them as useful
and necessary, and adapted to promote his ends,
in their connexion with the whole. How then
can it be inconsistent with his dignity to watch
over them, and to preserve them ! If it was
not dishonourable, for God to give them exist
ence, it cannot be dishonourable for him to pre
serve to them the existence he has given. And
indeed his wisdom, power, and goodness, are
at least as evident, and often more so, in his
least, as in his greatest works. Cf. Plato, De
Repub. x.
II. It is Benevolent, Wise, Unsearchable.
This follows incontrovertibly from what has
already been said, and is perfectly accordant
with the instructions of the Bible. Vide Ps.
Ixxiii. 16, civ. 24 ; Job, xxxvi. xxxvii., and espe
cially xxxviii.; Eccl. iii. 11, viii. 17, xi. 5;
Rom. xi. 33, 34; in which passages the wisdom
and unsearchableness of God are particularly
noticed. This benevolent and wise government
of God is administered in such a way as to
promote the highest, which is a moral good,
among all moral beings, in order to prepare
them to partake of that true and abiding happi
ness which can be attained only by holiness;
since it is principally for moral beings, who are
more nearly related to God than any other, that
he has created, preserves, and governs all
things. We must here attend to the question, In what
relation the miracles so often mentioned in the holy
scriptures stand to the government of God? We
must here presuppose what has already been said
respecting miracles, s. 7, III. ; and proceed there
fore directly to consider the philosopho-theolo-
gical theory respecting miracles, and to shew in
what manner the objections virged against it may
be answered.
1. The changes in the world ordinarily take
place under the divine government, according to
the laws or the course of nature, since they are
Y

254

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

effected through the powers which God has given
to his creatures, though not without his concur
rence, but, on the contrary, under his constant
guidance and inspection. Now if any thing takes
place which cannot be explained by these laws,
or which transcends them, it is extraordinary,
and is regarded as an immediate production of
God, (in distinction from what takes place ac
cording to the course of nature, which is said
to be a mediate production of God,) and is com
monly called a miracle. Since now both of
these effects are to be ascribed to the providence
of God, it is divided into ordinary and extraor
dinary ; and because these extraordinary effects
are produced both on the body and on the mind,
miracles are divided into those which take
place in the material world, and in the spiritual
world. Note. — Many things produced by the mediate
agency of God are ascribed to his immediate
agency, from ignorance of the second causes by
which his agency is exerted. Hence ignorant
and inexperienced men are accustomed to see
more miracles, and to believe in them more rea
dily,, than learned men, who are better able to
observe the natural causes by which these effects
are produced. And this it is which renders
learned and scientific men often incredulous and
sceptical upon the subject of miracles. But they
are apt to presume too much on their own know
ledge, and to think they can explain many things
which they really do not understand. It is
also a great fault, though a very common one,
to draw a general principle from what often
occurs, and to apply it to all cases. Because
many pretended miracles have been proved false,
Hume declares that all miracles, those of the
the Bible not excepted, are such, and thus re
jects the most credible testimony.
2. Thepossibility of such extraordinary effects
produced by God is proved in the following
manner — viz., (a) They are naturally possible —
i. e., God has power to produce such effects.
He is indeed himself the author of the laws of
nature, but he is not bound by them — i. e., he
is not so bound by them that he must necessa
rily act in every case in accordance with them ;
he can alter them, suspend them, or depart from
them; which, indeed, follows as a just conse
quence from his omnipotence, (b) They are
also morally possible — i. e., they are not incon
sistent with the divine wisdom, provided they
tend to promote some important end, which
could not, or at least could not so well, be se
cured in any other way; nor can it be shewn,
d priori, that such cases may not occur. Mira
cles cannot, then, be shewn to be either morally
or physically impossible, and to attempt to do
this is, as Kant, Fichte, and other modern phi
losophers have allowed, most unpardonable pre

sumption. Cf. the similar reasoning of the
stoics, in Cicero, De divin. i. 52, seq.
3. The proof of the reality of miracles depends
upon credible testimony. We, as Christians,
regard the testimony of the holy scriptures as
credible, the historical truth of the events related
in them being supposed already established, for
which cf. s. 7, III. The miracles mentioned in
the scriptures are all of such a nature as to prove
the divinity of the truths and doctrines which
are taught in them, to seal the divine mission of
Che teacher, in short, to promote various import
ant ends, especially those of a moral kind. At
the time when these miracles were performed,
when men would believe nothing without sums
and wonders, they were doubtless of special ser
vice, but their utility is by no means confined to
those particular times, but they must answer the
same great ends with all who are convinced of
their historical truth. For if miracles are true,
God proved by them his unlimited dominion
over the powers of nature ; and to a being who
proves this we are bound to yield assent and
render obedience.
4. Tindal, Hume, Morgan, Voltaire, and
others, who contend against miracles, bring for
ward the a priori objection that miracles would
presuppose an imperfecticn in the eriginal plan
pf Gpd. It wpuld be, they say, very unphiloso-
phical te represent Ged as a workman who had
not properly planned or executed his work, and
who is obliged, when the wheels of the machine
ry stop, or the house is ready to fall, himself to
interpose, and regulate andrectify whatis wrong.
Such ideas, they think, would suit well with
that early state of society in which Jupiter was
supposed to examine the vault of heaven, to see
if it were rent, but are entirely unsuited to our
enlightened and philosophical age. To this it
may be answered,
(a) That miracles, like everything else in the
world, formed a part of the original plan of God,
and were embraced in his eternal purpose re
specting the world and all its changes. Vide s.
32. In this purpose, it must have been deter
mined that in the course of ordinary events, in
particular places, and at certain times, miracles
should take place ; for God must have foreseen
that some of his plans would either wholly fail,
or could not be so well accomplished by the
ordinary course of events, as by his special in
terference. This answer was given by Leibnitz
and Wolf.
(6) The contradiction which the human under
standing appears to find in miracles is owingto
the fact that men, from the very constitution of
their minds, connect together the causes and ef
fects of the material world by the idea of neces
sity, and cannot do otherwise. But in the view
of God, who sees all things as they really are,

WORKS OF GOD.

255

there are no necessary effects, even in the mate
rial world ; but his will is in all things free, and
upon his will alone therefore does it depend to
produce any effect which may be conducive to
his designs. A miracle now is a new effect
aside from the usual chain of events, which can
not therefore, like ordinary effects, be ccnnected
with what has preceded and with what follows
by the law of a sufficient reason, and which we
are therefore led irresistibly to ascribe to a power
which has unlimited control over the material
world, and thus arises the idea of a miracle.
But still there is no real change in things them
selves, and as soon, as the miracle ceases they
proceed as they did before, and are still connect
ed together by the rules of the maxim of a suf
ficient reason. Thus we see that miracles are
possible, but we are unable te ccmprehend how
they can be performed ; just as we are unable to
understand how God could create a world from
nothing. 5. From these principles it also follows that
no miracles are wrought, in cases in which the
designs of God can be fully and in their whole
extent attained by natural means. And hence
we may concl ude, that miracles are of unfrequent
occurrence, and that their reality must be attested
by witnesses who cannot be justly suspected
either of intentional fraud, or of enthusiasm,
credulity, or any unintentional self-deception,
before we can be justified in believing them. It
cannot be said that God is more glorified by
miracles than by the common course of nature.
On the other hand, he is equally glorified, to say
the least, by the common course of nature, as by
miracles. In miracles his bare omnipotence be
comes more conspicuous, but in the course of na
ture, his infinite wisdom and power are alike
evidenced. The opinion here opposed arises
from the puerile notion, that it must be more
difficult and laborious for God to perform a mi
racle than to produce, in the ordinary way, the
natural changes which take place in the world,
and that the former therefore is more to his glory.
But to God nothing is difficult, and nothing
causes him labour. The production of the na
tural world, the constitution of its laws, and the
regulation of its changes, require, in themselves
considered, as great an exertion of power as the
working of miracles.
6. But although the remarks here made are
true, they by no means justify those interpreters
who endeavour to explain by natural principles
events expressly said in the scriptures to be
miraculous, performed for the attainment of im
portant moral ends not otherwise attainable.
For such an interpretation is inconsistent with
the authority of the Bible, and indeed, is a di
rect impeachment of its truth, and goes to prove
that the sacred writers, or those who performed
the pretended rr iracles, were either impostors,

or themselves deluded fanatics. The doctrine
of Christ and the apostles is only so far esta
blished, as they appeal to miracles. For they
gave themselves out as extraordinary and imme
diate ambassadors of God. But this claim could
not be proved merely by the internal excellence
of the doctrines which they taught, and they
could expect to be credited only when their ex
traordinary claims were supported by extraordi
nary facts. And it is on account of this intimate
connexion between the truth of their miracles
and their character as extraordinary teachers,
that many who are unwilling to concede the
latter are disposed to dispute the former. If
the proof from miracles be once allowed, it
follows directly that those who performed them
were extraordinary and immediate messengers
from God. Vide s. 7, and Introduction, s.7, 8.
7. The question is asked, Whether miracles
occur at the present time, and whether we, in
accordance with the promises of the New Testa
ment, may expect to perform miraculous cures,
and hope to possess the gifts of inspiration, di
vination, &c ? This has been believed by pre
tended thaumaturgists, prophets, and enthusiasts
of every kind, ancient and modern. And many
also, who cannot be accused of enthusiasm, have
assented to this opinion. Grotius, for example,
believed that Christian missionaries might hope
to perform miracles, and Lavater supposed, that
any Christian who could firmly believe that God
would work miracles through him, would be
able to do what he believed. But if history and
experience are consulted, we shall soon know
what to think of the pretended wonder-workers
since the times of the apostles, and be able to
put them down either as impostors or as deluded
fanatics. But does not the New Testament
afford reason to hope that miraculous powers
may be continued in the Christian church ? No !
For (a) these miraculous gifts-were by no means
prorhised by Christ to all his followers, at all
times, but only to the apostles and first teachers
of Christianity, to be used by them in proclaim
ing Christian truth, and in establishing the
Christian church, Mark, xvi. 17, 18, coll. ver.
15, 16, 20; John, xiv. 12, coll. ver. 11, 13, 14.
(b) In Eph. iv. 13, seq., Paul teaches what is
well worthy of notice, that these gifts were in
tended only for the first age of the church, and
would cease when the church had become tho
roughly established, when more clear knowledge
of the truth had been diffused, and the contro
versies between Jewish and heathen Christians
were ended. The same truth is taught in 1
Cor. xiii. 8; the gift of tongues, &c, it is there
said, will hereafter cease, (with some reference
to the present world, though principally to the
world to come, where these gifts will be wholly
useless,) but faith, hope, and charity will abide
(and that in the present world as well as in the

256

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

future) as long as the church shall continue.
(c) Add to these the consideration, that it can
not be proved that the power of conferring these
gifts was granted to any besides the apostles,
(cf. Acts, viii. 14 — 17,) and that after the death
of the apostles and their immediate successors
in the Christian church, these gifts would there
fore cease, as a matter of course.
On this subject, cf. Toellner, Vermishchte
Aufsatze, th. ii. Abhandl. 2, Warum Gott nicht
fibernatfirlich thut, was naturlich geschehen
kann. Amnion, De notione miraculi ; Gottingae,
1795, 4to. Also the work entitled, Betracht
ungen fiber den Endzweck der Wunderwerke,
und die Kraft des Wunderglaubens in unsern
Tagen ; Berlin, 1777, 8vo ; and the works occa
sioned by the opinion of Lavater and others ;
Middleton's Essay on Miraculous Gifts after
the Death of the Apostles ; F. T. Rjihl, Werth
der Behauptungen Jesu, und seiner Apostel ;
Leipzig, 1791, 8vo; Koppen, Die Bibel ein
Werk der gottlichen Weisheit. One of thelatest
works in opposition to miracles is entitled, De
miraculis enchiridion, a philosopho Theologis
exhibitum ; Zwickau, 1805, 8vo, — a prejudiced
and partial work. Vide the Review in the Jen.
Lit. Zeit. for 1806, No. 168.
Note. — In respect to its practical influence,
the doctrine of the providence of God is one of
the first importance. In addition to the parti
culars enumerated s. 67, 1., Note 2, the religious
teacher, in his practical instructions, should in
sist upon the following points, which are made
prominent in the holy scriptures, where we may
see an example of the proper mode of exhibit
ing them.
(a) He should shew, that we ought never to
stop with the second causes through which our
blessings come to us, or by which the effects
which we witness are accomplished, but should
always go back to God as the first cause, and
sincerely love and honour him, as the author of
every geod gift. Vide James, i. 17 ; iv. 13, 15.
Instead of dwelling upon the second causes by
which events are brought about, and wholly
overlppking the agency of God, (the common
method of modern historians,) the sacred his
torians refer everything to God, and hence they
so frequently clash with the views and feelings
of those who lopk upon the world from a dif
ferent and lower point of view. Vide s. 70,
II. 2.
(b) If we would enjoy the blessings, whether
temporal or spiritual, which are designed for us,
and promised to us by God, we must, on our
part, fulfil the conditions to the performance of
which he has annexed this enjoyment. Cf. s.
71, II. Morus, p. 83, s. 8.
(c) Natural evils and calamities are under the

control of an all-wise and benevolent Being, and
are intended to lead us to repent of our sins, and
lead holy lives, or to confirm and strengthen us
in holiness, and in every way to contribute to
our advantage. Cf. s. 71, II. 2.
(d) We should feel especially indebted to
God for any holiness or moral rectitude which
we may perceive in ourselves. By cherishing
the feeling that whatever is good in us is the
gift of God, we shall be kept from that selfish
blindness and pride which would spring from
the thought that we ourselves were the authors
of it. God gave us our moral nature, and to
him we owe all the powers which we possess,
and all the means, in the use of which we attain
to holiness. Our faults and crimes, on the con
trary, we must charge wholly to ourselves, and
never to God. Cf. James, i. 13 — 15; 1 Cor
iv. 7; 2 Cor. ix. 11 ; Phil. ii. 13.
(e) God employs all his creatures as instru
ments for the promotion of his own purposes,
and hence they are called (e. g., Ps. ciii.) his
servants, his messengers, who do his will. But
to none of the creatures who inhabit his foot
stool, has God assigned so large a sphere of
action, and none does he so much employ in the
accomplishment of his most important purposes,
as man, and man is what he is through the
moral nature which God has given him, and
which he constantly preserves in exercise. In
this his moral nature man resembles God, and
can continually become more and more like him,
yea, in this he is related to him, and partakes
of the divine nature. Every man, in every sta
tion and calling in life, is employed by God as
an instrument for the attainment of important
ends. The more faithfully a man performs all
the duties of his station, however inferior it may
be, and especially the more he labours after true
holiness, the more will his life be conformed to
the divine will, and answer the ends for which
he is employed. And one who fails to dis
charge these duties, and is unprofitable in the
service of God, proves that he mistakes his own
true worth and dignity. It is therefore our
highest duty te exert eurselves, te the utmost
ef pur ppwers, to dp gpod in all the relations in
which we stand under the gevernment of God,
and especially to promote holiness in ourselves
and others. Cf. s. 69, ad finem, and s. 70, II.
2. Morus, p. 78, s. 4.
As Christians, however, we should exercise
these feelings, and yield this obedience, not to
God only, but also to Jesus Christ, the Son of
God. He counsels and guides all who believe
in him ; they ought therefore to imitate and fol
low him. It is the peculiarity of the Christian
system to require of us that we should do every
thing iv bvbpati Xpiofov.

BOOK II

DOCTRINE OF MAN

S3

y2

(357)

ON THE PLAN, ORDER, AND SUCCESSION OF TOPICS
IN THE SECOND BOOK.

This Book is properly denominated, theological Anthropology, because it contains the
doctrine respecting man, and his relation to God. In respect to the order and succession
in whid' the various topics belonging to this doctrine are treated, there is a great
diversity n the systems of theology, both ancient and modern. The particular order in
which doctrines are treated is, indeed, of no great importance, provided only that those
doctrines are placed first which constitute the basis of those which follow, or which
contribute essentially to the illustration of them. To place the doctrine respecting
Christ — e. g. respecting his person, the redemption effected through him, &c. — at the
very introduction of the system, (as some have done,) is certainly very preposterous,
since a great deal in these doctrines cannot be placed in the proper light until the
scriptural doctrines of the depravity of man, of sin, and the punishment of sin, have
been previously illustrated. The plan adopted by Morus, of placing the latter doctrines
first, has therefore greatly the advantage over the other. Still, on any method Which
may be adopted, there will always be found difficulties and imperfections. Some have
made a merit of deviating from the method generally pursued in systems of theology,
of inventing a method wholly new, and especially of giving new titles to the various
divisions of the subject. But no new land is won for the science itself by means of
these innovations ; and, on the contrary, the study of it is rendered very perplexed to
beginners, and they are compelled, whenever they take a new system in hand, to begin
as it were anew, and to learn a new language.
We adopt the following order — viz., (a) Man may be considered in his former or
original condition — the state of innocence, and of this an account has already been given
in Book I. s. 53 — 57. Further, man may be considered (b) in his present state — that
in which he is, since the state of innocence has ceased. In this connexion belong the
doctrines respecting sin, its origin, the various kinds of sin, and its consequences ; Art.
ix. s. 73 — 87, inclusive. Finally, man may be considered (c) in that better state to
which he is restored. Here the whole doctrine respecting the redemption of the human
race belongs. (1) De gratia Dei salutari, — the gracious institutes which God has
established to promote the holiness and happiness of men, — especially those established
in and through Christ, — the different states of Christ, — his person, his work, and the
salutary consequences of it to the human race; Art. x. s. 88 — 120, inclusive. (2) On
the conditions (repentance and faith) on which we can obtain the blessedness promised
to Christians by God; Art. xi. s. 121 — 128, inclusive. (3) On the manner in which
God aids those who believe in Christ, and enables them to fulfil the prescribed condi
tions, or, respecting divine influences and the means of grace; Art. xii. s. 129 — 133,
inclusive. (4) On the Christian community, or the church; Art. xiii. s. 134 — 136.
(5) On Baptism and the Lord's Supper, or the sacraments ; Art. xiv. s. 137 — 146.
(6) On the passage of man to another world, and his state in it, — of death, the immor
tality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, the day of judgment, the end of the.
world, and future happiness and misery; Art. xv. s. 147 — 160.

(868)

BOOK II.

DOCTRINE OF MAN.

PART I.-STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT
BY THE FALL.

ARTICLE IX.
OF SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN.
SECTION LXXni.
WHAT IS MEANT BY SIN; THE DIFFERENT WORDS
USED IN THE BIBLE TO DENOTE SIN, AND THE
MEANING OF THEM.
I. Definition of Sin.
jIN, understood objectively,
and taken in its wider sense,
, is, any deviation from the law
of God, or, what is not right,
according to the divine law;
what is opposed to the law.
In the language of jurists, a
deviation from the law is called a
crime, (Germ. Verbrechen, crimen;)
in theology, and when the concerns
of religion are made the topics of dis
course — that is, when men are consi
dered in their relation to God, it is
called sin; and it is an advantage which the
German language [and also the English] pos
sesses, that it is able to designate this particu
lar form of transgression by an appropriate
word. Sin, therefore, properly speaking, is a
deviation from the divine law, or, according to
the scripture phraseology, what is not xata tb
$ixnpa tov ®soi. This word is always used
with reference to God, as Legislator; and be
cause the Bible, in entire conformity with ex
perience, regards all men in their present condi
tion as transgressors of the divine law, it calls
them sinners, Rom. iii. 9, 23, 24.
But would we define subjectively that act by
which one becomes a sinner, or punishable, we
might say, sin is a free act, which is opposed to

the divine law, or which deviates from it. Here
it must be remarked,
(a) That in order for an action to be imputed
to any one as sinful, it must be a free action ;
for whenever a man acts by compulsion, and it
does not depend upon himself either to perform
or omit the action, it cannot be imputed to him
as sin ; the consideration of which will be re
sumed in s. 81.
(6) Properly speaking, it is the law which
makes sin what it is. All morality proceeds
from the law; and where there is no divine
law, there is no sin. This is taught by Paul,
Rom. iv. 15, o v ovx sat i vbpos, ovSs itapdfiagis
(igtl). Were there no law given, the actions
now denominated sins (e. g., licentiousness,
theft, murder,) while they must still be regarded
as foolish and injurious, and be called evils,
(Germ. Uebel,) could no longer be denominated
sins. Wild beasts eften despeil and destroy
other beasts and human beings. This is an
evil, and has injurious consequences, even for
the beasts themselves; they are ensnared, and
hunted down. But what they do is not sin,
because they have no law given them ; and no
reasonable man would call such things in brutes
sins, or seriously affirm that a beast had sinned.
Nor is even the word crime applied to their out
rages, because they are exempt alike from hu
man and divine laws.
By law is meant, the precept of a ruler, accom
panied with comminations ; and by a ruler is
meant one who has the right to prescribe rules
of acting to others, and to connect these rules
with threatenings. Commands and laws are two
different things. In every law there is a com
mand, but every command is not a law. A
command must be rightfulin order to be a law ;
the preceptor must be entitled to give commands,
and those to whom they are given must be
bound to obey; and on these conditions only
(259)

860

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

¦ does a command become a law. Hence the de
mand of the robber to give him our property,
with the threat which he annexes, that he will
murder us if we refuse, is no law. The laws
of God are made known to us partly through
nature, and partly by immediate revelation
through the holy scriptures. The latter are de
signed to renew, impress, confirm, illustrate,
and enlarge or complete the law of nature. God
has thus, both by the works of nature and by
the doctrines contained in the holy scriptures,
given us information respecting his designs, as
his will respecting men and a rule for them, to
which they should continually have regard, and
according to which they should regulate their
conduct. Morus, p. 106, n. 3, 4.
II. Scriptural Terms for Sin.
1. The most common word for sin is the He
brew rum, generally rendered by the Grecian
Jews a/tapf la. Both of these words are used
in various senses.
(a) The Hebrew won signifies literally to de
viate from one's way, to slip aside — a meaning
which it has among the Arabians. Hence to
fail of one's end, to see his design frustrated, Job,
v. 24 ; Proverbs, x. 2. In the same way are
the words dlu.apfdj'£i.i< and d,itapf la employed by
the Greeks in reference to those whose expecta
tion is disappointed, who lose, or are deprived
of something, who miss their aim, and come
short. Thus, e. g., Xenophon speaks of those
duaptdvovtss trjs $ovX'i\gsas, whose counsel was
frustrated ; and even in Homer we find the
phrase d^opf TjoUtf^at t'vjs bitartijs, to be deprived
of sight. In the Iliad (xxiv. 68) he says, with
regard to Hector, that he never suffered the gods
to want for offerings worthy of their accept
ance — obA tpiXiiv fipaprave tupotv.
Hence (6) these words are used figuratively,
and are transferred to the soul, and denote the
faults and defects of the understanding and of
the will, and also of the actions; of the latter
more frequently, though sometimes of the for
mer — e. g., John, viii. 46, ixiyxsiv itspi d^ap-
tlas, erroris convincere, and John, xvi. 8, 9, where
dpaptla signifies, delusion, blindness of the under
standing. More commonly, however, it is used
with reference to the will and the actions, and
denotes every deviation from the divine law in
willing and acting. 'H duaptla, therefore, often
signifies, sometimes every transgression of a
grave character, and sometimes, in general, im
piety, profanitas, irreligion. Thus the heathen
were denominated by the Jews, dpaptaXol,
' own, in opposition to themselves, the gens
sanda. In Heb. x. 26, duaptdvsw signifies te
appstatize from the Christian faith. In Romans,
vii. 9, Paul uses dpaptla to denote the propen

sity to sin (Germ. Hang zur Siinde) which is
everywhere observed in man, and which is na
tural to him. [Cf. Usteri, Entwickelung des
Paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, Zweiter und Dritter
Theil.— Tr.]
(c) This, and all the words which signify
sin, are often used by the Hebrews and Hellen
ists to denote the punishment of sin — e. g.,
Isaiah, liii. ; 2 Kings, vii. 9, seq.
(d) They also signify a sin-offering — e. g,,
Ps. xl. 7 ; 2 Cor. v. 21, $vgla itspl duaptias.
2. Besides this word, there are many others
by which the idea of sin is expressed by the
Hebrews and Greeks. Among these are,
(a) In Hebrew, jiy, guilt (reatus), sin, Psalm
lix. 5; frequently rendered in the Septuagint
dSlxijaa, or dSixla. yEte, strictly, apostasy from
the true God, or rebellion against him. [The
word hid, from -iid, has the same signification.—
Tr.] Forsaking the worship of Jehovah for
that of idols, and every deliberate transgression
of the divine law, were justly regarded as rebel
lion 'against God, and so called by this name,
2 Kings, viii. 10 ; Jer. iii. 13. ytys is therefore
a stronger word than n>an. jiEh is used to de
note the injustice of judges, when they lose sight
of what is just (jrvs), and decide unjustly and
partially, Job, ix. 24 ; Ezek. vii. 11; hence ap
plied to any misdeed or wickedness, by which
the desert of punishment is incurred, Psa. v. 5.
Hence jiE'-i signifies, ojie guilty, (reus, damna-
tus,) sensuforensi. yEn is rendered in the Sep
tuagint by the words dSixla, dffE',3Ei.a, x. t. X.
am, guilt, guiltiness, nnv, or wiij, error, mis
take, transgression, Psa. xix. 13. Sept. rto-
pditta/ia. Classical Greek, itxavr;.
(b) In the New Testament, the words which
denote sin are mostly taken from the Septua
gint, where they are used interchangeably the
one for the other. Among these are itapaxor,,
Hebrews, ii. 2; — itapdfiagis, Romans, iv. 15;—
dSwa'a and dSlxqua, (like duaptla and duipttum,)
Romans, i. 18; vi. 13; — Sfslxripa, Matt. vi. 13.
(The Hebrews often represent sins under the
image of debts, which must either be remitted or
paid.) IlapdTtfUjita, Matt. vi. 14, also used to
signify apostasy from religion, Rom. xi. 12;
dyvbrjua, a sin committed through ignorance, er
ratum, Heb. ix. 7. (So Aquila renders iijl, Lev.
xxvi. 39, by dyvota- so also itxdvq. Aw/unf
illegality, transgression of the law, or sin, Matt.
vii. 23. It is also sometimes used in the sense
of irreligion, heathenism, since vbfios often sig
nifies the religion revealed by God. Hence the
heathen are called dvbaoi, Rom. ii. 12; vi. 19.
Cf. dasfisia, oo-eJSiJj. In the text, 1 John, iii. 4,
»? duaptla igtiv q avoula, it is not the intention
of the writer to give a logical definition of sin, but
rather to oppose those deceivers who maintained
that a sinful life was allowable. The meaning
of the text is as follows : " Whoever

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

261

ginful life, acts in opposition to the precepts of
the divine law ; for every sin is against the di
vine law, (which commands us to live holy and
without sin. Vide ver. 3.)"
In the discussion here following of the doc
trine respecting sin, this order will be observed
— viz., (1) The origin of sin among men, or the
sin of our first parents, and the moral corruption
of human nature, derived, according to the
scriptures, from them, will be first considered,
s. 74 — 80. (2) The origin and nature of the
particular sinful actions^ of men, which have
their ground in that moral depravity, together
with the different kinds and divisions of these
actions, s. 81 — 85. (3) The punishment of sin,
as learned from reason and revelation, s. 86, 87.
SECTION LXXIV.
WHAT DOES REASON, WITHOUT THE USE OF THE
BIBLE, TEACH US RESPECTING THE SINFUL
STATE OF MAN, AND THE ORIGIN OF IT ? AND
HOW FAR DO THE RESULTS OF REASON ON THIS
SUBJECT AGREE WITH THE BIBLE ?
I. Opinions of Heathen Philosophers.
The fact that human nature is imperfect, and
has a morally defective constitution, shewing
itself in the earliest youth, was observed and
conceded by most of the ancient heathen philo
sophers ; and the fact is so obvious, and so con
formed to experience, that it could hardly have
been otherwise. It.was formerly observed, as
it is now, that man has more inclination to im
morality and sin than to innocence, holiness,
and moral purity. A perpetual conflict was
seen to exist in man, from his youth up, between
reason and sense — a contest in which man
oftener sided with the latter than with the
former, and thus made himself unhappy. It
was seen that man, even when enjoying the best
moral instruction, and when possessed of a full
conviction of the justice of the requisitions of
the moral law, still often acted immorally; and
this, even when perfectly convinced that in so
doing he did wrong; and that he was thus in a
state extremely wretched. Vide Morus, p. 109,
s. 3. Now, if it was with man as it should be,
he would suffer his will to be at once determined
by what his understanding perceived to be true
and good, and would regulate his conduct ac
cordingly. That this is not so, experience suf
ficiently teaches. It is false, therefore, to assert
that everything depends upon instruction, and
that if the mind were only enlightened with re
gard to duty, the will would soon follow. So
it should be, but so it is not; and it is the great
est of all moral problems, how to render the will
obedient to the dictates of the understanding.
These things having been observed in ancient
times, the writings of the pagan philosuphe.-5 3.-3

full of complaints over the moral corruption of
man. Socrates is said by Plato (De Repub.) to
have complained that all nations, even the most
cultivated, and those advanced farthest in intel
ligence and knowledge, were yet so depraved
that no human discovery or art sufficed to remove
the disorder. The writings of Plato, Aristotle,
and Cicero, are full of expressions of the same
kind. Aristotle called this evil gvyysv'ss, Ethic.
ad Nicom. iii. 15. Plato says in his Meno, that
children by nature (tpigsi) are not good ; for in
that case, says he, ironically, it would only be
necessary to shut them up, in order to keep them
good. He saw that it was a mistake to suppose
that man is made wicked merely by education,
or that he becomes so merely by the imitation
of bad examples. Cicero says, in his Tusculan
Questions (iii. 1), Simulac ediii in lucem et sus-
cepti sumus, in omni continuo pravitaie, d in
summa opinionum perversitate, versamun ut
pcene cum lade nutriczs errorem suxisse vide-
amur. De Amicit. (c. 24,) Multis signis natura
declarat quid velit: obsurdescimus tamen nescio
quomodo ; nee ea qux ab ea monemur, audimus —
our will does not follow what our understanding
approves as right and good. In this connexion
we may cite the common declaration, Nitimur
in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata ,- and that
of Ovid, (Metam. vii. 18, seq.)
Si possem, sanior essem.
Sed trahit invitum nova vis ; aliudque cupido,
Mens aliud suadet. Video meliora proboque,
Deteriora sequor.
[Very remarkable are the words of Seneca, in
his work De dementia, 1. i. c. 6 : — " Quotus
quisque ex quaestoribus est, qui non ea ipsa lege
teneatur, qua quaerit ? Quotus quisque accusa-
tor, vacat culpa? Et nescio, an nemo ad dandam
veniam difficilior sit, quam qui illam petere sae-
pius meruit. Peccavimus omnes, alii gravia,
alii leviora; alii ex destinato, alii forte impulsi,
aut aliena nequitia ablati ; alii in bonis consiliis
parum fortiter stetimus, et innocentiam invite ac
renitentes perdidimus. Nee delinquimus tan-
tum, sed usque ad extremum aevi delinquemus."
Compare with this what he says in his Treatise
De Ira, (ii. 8,) " Omnia sceleribus ac vitiis plena
sunt. Plus committitur quam quod possit coer-
citione sanari. Certatur ingenti quodam nequi-
tiae certamine. Major quotidie peccandi cupi-
ditas, minor verecundia est. Nee furtiva jam
scelera sunt; praeter oculos eunt; adeoque in
publicum missa nequitia est, et in omnium pec-
toribus evaluit, ut innocentia non rara, sed nulla
sit." Cf. also the declaration of Sopater,
gvpipvtov dv^paitois tb apaptdvsiv. For numer
ous other passages of similar import, the student
may consult Tholuck, Lehre von der Siinde, s.
48, 49 ; 72, 73 ; and the works commended by
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 359. For the opinions of

£62

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

the later Jews, vide Eisennteriger; Entdecktes
Judenthum, theil. ii. s. 80, f. — Tr.]
All this is in perfect accordance with the de
clarations of the sacred writers, and especially
with that of Paul, Rom. vii. 15, " For that which
I do, I allow not; for what I would, that I do
not; but what I hate, that do I." It is also in
accordance with the experience of every indivi
dual. And yet there have been philosophers,
especially in modern times, who have denied
the truth of such representations, and have at
tempted to demonstrate the contrary, and who
have sought to found new systems of education
upon their peculiar views respecting the charac
ter of man.
As to the real causes of this depravity, which
was so universally seen and acknowledged, the
opinions were very various.
(1) Men in the earliest times, and among the
rude heathen nations, being left to themselves,
either neglected all reflection upon this subject,
or invented various philosophemes or narrations,
in order to facilitate to themselves the under
standing of the origin and diffusion of this evil.
In all of them, however, it was assumed that the
human race was originally better than after
wards, and that either by slow degrees, or sud
denly and at once, it became corrupt. As soon
as men begin to reflect upon God and them
selves, they exhibit almost universally the feel
ing, that it is necessary to suppose that mankind
was originally in a better condition ; nor can this
feeling be obliterated by any subtle reasoning.
Cf. s. 56.
(2) The ancient Grecian philosophers adopted
in part the fables and narratives which they
found already existing; but they also undertook
to investigate the first origin of evil more parti
cularly. In doing this, they soon came to the
result, (which indeed had been already observed
by the authors of those narratives,) that the de
fective constitution of man consisted in the un
due power of sense (Sinnlichkeit), and that this
had its seat in the body. Paul distinguishes in
man the vbp.os iv tols pixsgiv (i. e., iv gapxl, ver.
18), and the vbpos toi vobs. The former, he
says, dvtigtpatsvEtai vbua vobs, xai aixuaXatl^si
ps f9 vofiip tijs duaptlas, Rom. vii. 23. We
have thus a didamen sensuum, and a didamen
rationis. So Araspas in Xenophon distinguishes
in every man andya^tj and a jtoiojpd 4dj;»;, Cyrop.
vi. 21 ; and Plato makes mention of the toyMft? i-
xbv tijs tyvxijs and of the dkoytsf ixbv or iiti^vfin-
tixov. These Grecian philosophers proceeded
on the supposition, that there are two equally
eternal and original principles, God and matter.
The former they supposed to be the rational,
thinking principle, and the origin of all good,
physical and moral; the latter, the irrational
principle, and the cause of all evil. Vide s. 46,
II. To the former principle they supposed the

rational soul of- man belongs, and his- body to
the second ; and as his body consists of matter,
iso his soul is a part of the divine nature, and a
pure effluence from the same.
They were too prone, under the influence; of
these views, to overlook the advantages which-
the human soul derives from its connexion with.
the body — advantages which could not otherwise
exist, and to regard the body too much as a pri
son, in which the soul is impaled. So taught
the Persians, and most of the oriental. philoso
phers, [vide Neander's»account of the Gnostie
Systems;] so Pythagoras and Plato, especially
in Timaeus ; so Aristotle, the stoics, and theh
followers. In conformity with these views,
Socrates and Plato always gave the advice,
Xapl^siv as udxtota ditb tov gapatos tijv -^u^tJv.
They believed, however, that after death the
soul would be reunited with God, after having
undergone various degrees of cleansing and pu
rification from the matter cleaving to it; re
specting which, vide s. 150, II. [This purifi
cation was the intent of the transmigration of
souls (metempsychosis) — a doctrine held in all
the religions of the East, and in that also of an
cient Egypt. The soul, it was supposed, would
be purified by the sufferings endured in wander
ing through uncongenial matter, and be at length
prepared to merge into the pure fountain from
which it originally emanated. For some valu
able remarks on this, and other religious ideas
and observances in the East, vide Schlegel,
Philosophie der Geschichte. — Tr.]
(3) The account which the holy scriptures
give of the origin of sin is as follows: — "God
made man, not only as to his soul, but his body
also; and both pure and without sin; by a
daring transgression, however, the nature of
man is changed, and from being pure and im
mortal, has become defective and mortal. This,
however, is overruled by God, for our good, by
means of Jesus Christ, the Restorer of the
human race."
[Note. — The traditions of many of the Ori
ental nations correspond remarkably with the
narrative in Genesis, and confirm its truth.
This is the case, especially, with the doctrine
of Zoroaster, which so strikingly agrees with
that of Moses as to indicate a common source
in the historic fact of an original temptation and
fall. According to Zoroaster, the first human
pair were offered heaven on condition of virtue,
and of refraining fromhomage to the Dews— the
demons of the Persian mythology. For some
time they complied with these conditions; but
at length Ahriman (Satan) caused the thought
to be infused into their minds by a Dew, that he
was the creator of the world. They believed
this lie, and so became, like Ahriman, evil and
unhappy. On one occasion they went out upon
a hunting excursion, and found a wild goat, and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

263

tasted its milk, which was sweet to their taste,
and reviving, but injurious to their bodyJ The
Dew then offered them fruit, which they ate,
and in consequence were still more injured, and
stripped of their remaining blessings. Vide
Kleuker, Zend-Avesta, 3 thl. s. 84, ff. Cf.
Schlegel, Philos. der Geschichte, b. i.— Tr.]
II. Results of independent Reason and Observation.
If, in investigating the origin and causes of
this evil, we disregard all authority, even that
of the holy scriptures, and proceed solely from
those considerations to. which experience con
ducts us, we arrive at the following results,
which are not indeed entirely satisfactory, but
which yet somewhat illustrate this subject, and
therefore may be useful to those to whom the
instruction of the young is committed.
It may be remarked in general, that the phir
losopher, as such, can assign no other ground
than that man is a limited being, and conse
quently can err. The nature of this limitation
and liability to sin is now to be more closely
examined. Man has a twofold nature, one part
of which is rational and moral, (vois,) by means
of which he can act with reference to ends, and
possesses understanding and free-will ; the other
part of which is sensuous, (sinnlich,) and con
sists of desires and appetites, (ty>xv-) By the
former, he belongs to the world of spirit ; by the
latter, to that of sense. He is therefore to be
regarded as a being compounded of reason and
sense, (Germ, vernunftig-sinnliches Wesen.) In
this way, man is distinguished from the brute,
which has indeed sense, but no rational or moral
nature. This in man should be the ruling power,
the other subject to this; and then only is man
free when he acts independently of the impulses
of his lower nature, and obeys the voice of the
moral law, uttered so imperatively within him.
But in man in his present state we notice a con
tinual conflict between these two natures — a
conflict which cannot be explained away by any
subtleties. This conflict rests upon the dis
tinction between these two dissimilar natures
in man, and is the immediate result of their
connexion in human beings, according to their
present constitution.
Beyond this, the essential nature of man, the
mere philosopher cannot go, in his inquiries
after the, causes of sin ; and the fact of a parti
cular corruption of our nature, or of the invisible
agency of evil spirits, cannot be resorted to by
him to account for the existing evil. In short,
the mere philosopher who is unacquainted with
what the scriptures have taught on this subject,
or who will make no use of their instructions,
cannot proceed from fads, because these are
either unknown to him, or doubtful and uncer-
•rin. Hence the truth of what many of the old
theologians have said, that the fact of a better

state of human nature depends for its proof upon
the holy scriptures; and that neither that state,
nor the fall which succeeded it, can. be demon
strated from mere reason. But we are now ex
hibiting those results only tc which unassisted
reason would arrive.
In noticing the defects and imperfections
which result from the connexion of these two
natures in man, the many advantages which
also spring from.it ought not to be overlooked.
It should be remembered that man could never
have been what he is, if this constitution were
different. Many possesses various faculties,
which have their ground in this constitution,
which may indeed, and actually do, mislead
him into many faults and errors, but which are
in themselves good, and, when rightly culti
vated and employed, bring him great advantage.
Such are self-ldve, so deeply implanted in the
human breast, (hence the instinct for self-pre
servation and for personal improvement,) the
love of honour, the tendency to imitate, and others,
which are in themselves good, and only need to
be kept under the control of reason, and pro
perly directed to the ends for which they were
given. After these remarks, we come now to inquire
after the more immediate causes, from which
the prevailing power of sense, and the inability
of reason to control it, are to be explained. We
design in this place, to give only the result of
human observation and experience, which will
be very inadequate to the full explanation of this
subject. We shall afterwards exhibit the doc
trine of the scriptures, and. inquire how far it
agrees with these results. These causes are to
be found partly in the strength of the feelings
belonging to human nature, partly in the man
ner in which the powers of the human soul de
velop themselves, and partly in the external cir
cumstances in which this development proceeds.
(1) The feelings of man are much stronger
than those ideas of his mind which have their
foundation in his reason ; and the mere philo
sopher, who receives no light from revelation,
cannot tell that this has not always been the
fact with man. For he cannot conclude with
any certainty, from his mere reason, that human
nature was originally in a better state than that
in which he now finds it; he must take man as
he finds him, and on the supposition, which he
has no means of refuting, that he was always
the same. In general, the end of this constitu
tion of our nature would seem to be, to guard
against insensibility and inactivity. For the
mere motives of reason would act far too feebly
and slowly ; and except for this influence of the
feelings, many actions which are useful and ne
cessary for our own good and that of others
would remain undone. And so it is found, that
men of^i cold and phlegmatic temperament,

464

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

who have bit little feeling and excitability,
though they may have good heads and benevo
lent hearts, are generally indolent, irresolute,
and inactive, and accomplish very little. It is
often the case, indeed, that a man suffers him
self to be carried away by his feelings, and re
solves and acts without regard to consequences.
The advantages of this constitution must, how
ever, be greater than the disadvantages, because
it is so established by God. But on this sub
ject much may be said, Without leading to any
satisfactory conclusion. This visible inordi-
nateness of one portion of our nature can hardly
be made to harmonize with our conceptions of
the divine attributes. But beyond this the phi
losopher as such cannot go.
(2) In the earlier years of our life, before we
can rightly use our reason, we have no other
rule for desiring or avoiding anything than our
feelings. And on this account, that they have
no maturity of reason, children and minors can
not be left to themselves, but need to be guided
and governed by others. We thus become ac
customed from our youth up to desire those
things which excite agreeable sensations in us,
and to shun those things which have an oppo
site effect. Now the kind of agreeable sensa
tions with which man is earliest acquainted is
that which arises from the gratification of his
animal desires. For in the earliest years of his
life, man, having not yet attained the full use
of his rational faculties, has no taste for the
more pure and spiritual joys, which are above
sense, and which are attendant only on the
knowledge of the truth, and holiness of heart
and life. When now, after a long time, and by
slow degrees, man has attained to the full use
and the maturity of his rational faculties, he has
for a long time been habituated, even from his
youth, to will and act according to his feelings
and the impulses of sense, without duly consult
ing reason, and carefully weighing everything
by his understanding. This long practice has
produced in him a habit, and it is now hard for
him to break this habit, and to acquire, in place
of it, the habit of rational consideration before
action. Quo semel est imbuta recens servabit
odorem testa diu. Very true, therefore, is the
remark of Tacitus (Vita Agricol. c. iii.), "that
human weakness is of such a nature, that the
remedies do not act as efficiently as the dis
ease." From these remarks we draw the following
important inference : that we should endeavour,
as early as possible, to awaken, cherish, and
develop the moral sense in the youthful heart.
And there is no way for us to do this so suc
cessfully as by means of religion. Vide Intro
duction, s. 2. It is therefore one of the most
perverse and injurious maxims to say that young
children should not have religion taught them.

The evil effects resulting from this maxim have
been deeply felt in our age.
(3) The first knowledge of man is derived
from his senses ; at first, he can acquire infer
mation in no other way than from sensible ob
jects. The senses must, in all cases, serve as
the vehicle of knowledge ; and they are often
misemployed. Since now, from the nature of
the case, man must, from his earliest youth, be
so familiar with visible and sensible objects, it
is not strange that he should be too little affected
by the instructions given him respecting objects
not cognizable by the senses, and especially re
specting God, the Invisible ; and that he should
be so indifferent to the motive's to love him, and
from love to obey him. The remark, 1 John,
iv. 20, " he that loveth not his brother, whom
he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he
hath not seen," is therefore psychologically
true. If we see a man who has no true love
to his neighbour whom he hath seen, we may
safely conclude that he has no love for the
invisible God. Hence we may explain the
natural coldness of the carnal mind to God,
and everything which belongs to the moral
and spiritual world ; and hence too we may de
rive the duty of opposing this at the very ear
liest periods of life ; for the longer a man lives,
the more fixed and habitual does it become, and
the harder to be removed.
(4) Man brings with him into the world va
rious powers and faculties ; but, according to the
plan of God, these can be developed and brought
to a good end only by instruction and a wise
education. Man does not come into the world
with any inborn habits of action, or with any
thing which answers to the instincts of brutes,
the place of which must be supplied by instruc
tion. But this instruction in religion, morality,
and other useful things, which is so necessary
to the proper development of our powers, is en
joyed by very few, and some are wholly desti
tute of it. And the instruction given on these
subjects is often defective, and calculated to
mislead. It allows men to be satisfied with a
merely formal worship, in which the heart re
mains cold and unimproved ; it is generally
above the capacities of the young, and by taxing
the memory more than affecting the heart, it
often produces aversion and disgust. The
whole moral education, especially in the so
called higher circles of life, is often extremely
deficient; so that frequently the rude children
of nature, left to grow up by themselves, are in
a better condition than those who have been
reared in the midst of refinement and cultiva
tion. At least, they are not so perverted and
corrupted, although they may be wanting in
some of the artificial accomplishments which
the latter possess.
Evil example, too, has an indescribable effect

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

265

upon children and youth, and brings them to an
earlier acquaintance with vice, than with virtue.
It should be remarked that the outbreakings pf
many perverse inclinations and dispositions
which are perceived in children are the signs
and the censequences ef spme endewments ef
human nature in themselves good. The exhi
bitions of these dispositions are important hints
to the teacher and guardian of the young ; and
if he is wise and skilful, may receive such a
direction from him as will turn them to good
account in the ultimate character of those en
trusted to his charge. For example, selfwill
and obstinacy indicate firmness of character;
forwardness and inquisitiveness indicate a cu
rious and active mind.
(5) The social life of man, the gradual in
crease of cultivation, refinement, and luxury,
and the propensity to seek for the pleasures of
sense, while they are in some respects advan
tageous, are the cause of great evil and injury.
Cf. Rousseau, Sur Pinegalite des hommes. The
wants of men are greatly multiplied, their sen
sual appetites are greatly excited by the con
stant presentation of new objects, and their true
peace and contentment (avtapxla) are prevent
ed. They thus become continually more pas
sionate and insatiable, and more withdrawn
from invisible and spiritual objects.
Civilized man has, indeed, more means in his
power to resist the evils arising from the social
state; but these means are too little regarded
and employed. Luxury makes men selfish,
proud, and hard-hearted, and paves the way to
other vices ; and when self, which is so pam
pered by luxury, once gets firm possession of
the heart, morality and virtue are for ever ban
ished. The observation of the evils which
arise from the connexion of men in social life,
and from the progress of cultivation, suggested
to many even of the ancient heathen world the
thought that men were formerly in a better con
dition than at a later period. Vide s. 56. But
Philosophy, uninstructed by Revelation, can
never prove, a priori, that a change has taken
place in human nature, and that it is now differ
ent from what it was. At least, the philoso
pher can never attain to perfect certainty on this
subject, and will find many things enigmatical
and inexplicable.
Cf. on this subject the works from the differ
ent schools. Jerusalem, Betrachtungen fiber
die Wahrheiten der Religion, b. ii. th. ii. s. 731,
f. ; Junge, Philosophische und Theologische
Aufsatze, th. ii. s. 297, 367; Steinbart, System
der Glfickseligkeitslehre, cap. iii. s. 46, f. ;
Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates ; Tollner,
Theologische Untersuchungen, b. i. st. 2, s.
1 12, f. As, however, in some of these works,
especially in Steinbart, the depravity of man is
very inadeqately represented, and the present
34

state of man is placed in far too advantageous
and favourable a light, in contradiction both to
the Bible and to experience, we refer with plea
sure to the views of Michaelis on this subject,
expressed in his book, "Von der Sunde," s.
48—54, and in his "Moral," th.i. s. 105— 130;
also to Kant, "Ueber das radicale Uebel," first
essay in his " Religion innerhalb der Granzen
der blossen Vernunft;" and to Morus, "Theol.
Moral," and Reinhard's " Dogmatik" and " Mo
ral." [Cf. on this subject Bretschneider, Dogmatik,
b. ii. s. 17, s. 120, Ursprung der Sunde; also
Tholuck, Lehre von der Sunde. Coleridge,
Aids to Reflection, p. 154 — 178, especially 158;
Neander, Allg. Kirchengeschichte, b. i., Abth.
ii. s. 640 ; Hahn, s. 342, s. 77.— Tr.]
III. Could God have prevented Sin ?
The question here arises, How can God be
justified as the author of this constitution ? Could
he not have guarded against moral evil in the
world ? Might he not have constituted human
nature less weak, and less inclined to err and
sin ? It is not strange, considering how imper
fect is our knowledge of the eternal plan and of
the universal government of God, that reflecting
minds should have always been disturbed by
doubts on this subject, and that they should have
devised various means of relieving their doubts,
and of vindicating God, and that, after all, they
should have been unable, by mere philosophy,
to attain to satisfaction. A great portion of the
ancient philosophers endeavoured to relieve
themselves of this difficulty by supposing two
eternal principles. Vide No. I.
In philosophizing on this subject we make
the following general remarks: —
(1 ) It is an established point that to God all
evil, both physical and moral, as such, must be
displeasing; and that he seeks to prevent it,
wherever it may be done. But since there is
much imperfection, evil, and sin, actually exist
ing in the world, we must conclude that God has
effected and will effect more good by the per
mission of sin than could be effected if he had
not permitted it. He must have seen that he
would have prevented the good, if he had not
permitted the evil. Vide s. 48, ad finem ; and
s. 71, 1.. To shew this was the object of Leib
nitz in his "Theodicee."
(2) We must proceed on the same principles
in judging of moral evil and corruption, espe
cially among men. Hateful to God as this mpral
evil must have been, and punishable as it is in
itself, God yet must have seen that by means of
this constitution of human nature a greater
amount of good would be accomplished for the
human race as a whole, and for the world, than
if he had made man more perfect, had secured
him against every opportunity to sin, or had

26G

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

hindered his transgression by the immediate ex
ercise cf his power. The latter could not take
place, as God had given to man a moral nature,
which is placed under the law of freedom alone,
and to which compulsion and necessity, which
prevail in the material world, where everything
proceeds by mechanical laws, cannot be applied.
But as in every other case, so in this, God
knows how to overrule evil in such a way that
higher good shall result from it. Throughout
the world there is a constant successive develop
ment, and a struggle after an advancement and
improvement of condition ; and so it is with man.
Vide Rom. viii. 20 — 23. Sin itself may serve
for the promotion of good, and may contribute
to the perfection of man. Through his liability
to err, he may indeed pursue a retrograde course
with regard to virtue and moral perfection ; but
without this liability he could not make ad
vancement; and his virtue would cease to have
any worth, and would no longer deserve the
name if there were no possibility of wrong.
Neither morality nor happiness can be con
ceived to exist without freedom. So much
may be said on this subject in the way of phi
losophy ; it is, however, far from being satis
factory. SECTION LXXV.
MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST
PARENTS.
The moral depravity of the human race is
derived everywhere in the New Testament
from the disobedience of our first parents. This
universal corruption is denominated by theolo
gians, peccatum originatum, or originate, or ori-
ginis; the first transgression, peccatum origi-
nans. More frequently, however, is this trans
gression deneminated lapsus, fall, according to
the Hebrew usage, where the verba cadendi
signify to err, to sin, also to become unhappy ;
as Prov. xxiv. 16, 17; Rev. ii. 5, ixitlrttEiv.
In the same way is labi used in Latin instead
of peccare, errare ; and cadere, excidere, to be
miserable, to lose a thing. Moses in his narrative
first gives an account of the divine precept,
that Adam and Eve should not eat of the tree
of knowledge, &c, Genesis, ii. 15 — 17 ; (vide
s. 52, II. 2;) and then follows the account of
the transgression itself, Gen. iii. 1, seq. We
must therefore refer back to what has been
already remarked, in general, respecting the
creation of the world and of man ; s. 49, I. ;
and s. 52, II. We now proceed to explain this
account. I. Different ways in which this passage has been
explained.
The interpreters of this passage were formerly
divided into two general classes. Some have

regarded it as an allegory, and interpreted; it
metaphorically, admitting no real serpent, free,
&c. Others consider it as a. literal narrative of
events which actually occurred in the marine,
here recorded. To these two classes, a third
has been added in modern times, who hold thai
it. is merely a didactic f able. With respect to
the history of these various interpretations, cf.
Pfaff and Buddeus, in their systems of theo
logy ; also Ode, De Angelis, p. 498 ; M. J. 0.
Thiess, Variarum de cap. iii. Geneseos. recte
explicando specimen I.; Lubecse, 1788, 8vq.
[Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 345, f. s. 78. Bret-
schneider, Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 58, s. 125 — Tr.]
(1) The Allegorical interpretations. These
are very various, and proye by their variety that
no certain results can be attained by allegorical
interpretation. All the explanations of, this
kind are forced and artificial. To suppose an
allegory in this passage, which is preceded and
followed by plain and simple history, is alto
gether unnatural, and foreign to the spirit of
these ancient monuments. Nor is any hint or
key to such an interpretation given us by the
writer. This mode of interpreting this passage
was resorted to merely for the sake of avoiding
certain difficulties, some of which seem to
arise from the great simplicity of this narrative,
(for to the learned interpreter this simplicity
constitutes an objection,) and others, from the
great dissimilarity in the manner of thought
and expression of this narrative from that which
is found in this cultivated and refined age.
The interpreters of this passage thought it
necessary, therefore, to make the writer say
something of higher import, and more philoso
phical, than is contained in the simple words;
and proceeded with regard to Moses very much
as the later Grecian interpreters did with regard
to Homer.
The first attempts at\ allegorical interpretation
are found among the Grecian Jews, and princi-r
pally in Philo, De Opificio Mundi, p. 104, seq.
ed. Pfeif. He was followed by Origen in this
general principle of interpretation, though the
latter gave a different turn to the narrative ; and
Origen was again followed by Ambrose, in his
book, " De Paradiso," I. Some of their fol
lowers understand all the circumstances here
mentioned allegorically ; others, only some of
them — e. g., the serpent, and allow the rest to
stand as history. It is said by some, that the
whole is intended to teach, by allegory, how
unhappy man becomes by the indulgence of
violent passions, and the evil consequences
resulting from the prevalence of sense over rea
son. To this view of theisubject Morus is in
clined, p. 99, n. 2. He supposes that by the
serpent are intended, in general, the external
inducements to evil by which we are surprised
and overborne ; but that the very things which

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

267

constituted the original temptation are unknown
to us.(2) Literal interpretations. A large proportion
of the church' fathers, (e. g., Justin the Martyr,
Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian,
Augustine, and Theodoret,) and also most of
the older theologians even in the protestant
church, were united in the opinion that this
passage should not be explained as an allegory,
although they differed among themselves in the
interpretation of particular expressions. They
agreed, however, for the most part, in consider
ing the serpent as something else than a mere
natural serpent, as it was regarded by Josephus
and other Jewish interpreters. Some affirmed
that the serpent was simply the devil — an opi
nion justly controverted by Vitringa, on account
of the great difficulties by which it is encom
passed. Others, and the greater part of the
older Jewish and Christian interpreters, sup
posed that the serpent here spoken of was the
instrument which was employed by the evil
spirit to seduce mankind. So it is explained
by Augustine, who was followed in this by
Luther and Calvin ; and this, from their time,
was the prevailing opinion of protestant theolo
gians, until the middle of the eighteenth cen
tury. There is, indeed, nothjng said in the ori
ginal text respecting an evil spirit ; but as the
serpent is here introduced as acting and speak
ing after the manner of an intelligent, though
evil-disposed being, it was thought fair to con
clude that an evil being actually spoke through
the serpent; and so has it been understood even,
among modern critics — e. g., by Michaelis and
Zacharia. This exposition respecting the serpent is in
deed ancient; but still we can find no distinct
traces of it in the books of the Old Testament
written before the Babylonian exile; and we
are therefore alike unable to prove or disprove
that before that period this passage was so
understood. To suppose that the serpent in
this passage was the instrument of an invisible
being is certainly entirely in the spirit of the
most ancient people, who imagined that evil and
good spirits were everywhere active in all the
evil and good done in the world. After the
Babylonian exile, however, we find it expressly
said by the Jewish teachers, that in the tempta
tion an evil being was invisibly active through
the serpent. This point may therefore be one
of those (of which we find many relating to the
doctrine of spirits) which belong to the later
disclosures of the prophets. Vide s. 58. In
the Apocryphal books before Christ we find it
said that the devil deceived mankind, and
brought sin and death into the World — e. g.,
Book of Wisdom, i. 13, 14; and especially ii.
23, 24, (g&owp 8m»/3o'&ou, k. t, X.) This is con
ceded on all hands.

It is asserted, hewever, by many learned men,
that this idea dees net occur in the New Testa
ment, and they appeal to 2 Cor. xi. 3, where it
is said that the serpent deceived Eve, and no
mention is made of the devil ; and also to Rom.
v. 18, where Paul makes no allusion to the
devil, although he is treating of the origin of
evil. In answer to this it may be said, (a) that
considering how prevalent this explanation was
at the time of Christ, and that neither he nor his
apostles contradicted it, nor said anything in
consistent with it, the probability is; that they
also assented to it. Morus seems to admit this,
although in so doing' he cannot be altogether
consistent with himself. But (6) it deserves
also to be considered that there are many allu
sions and references in the New Testament, in
which this interpretation is presupposed, and
from which it appears that Christ and his apos
tles assented to it, and authorized it — *, g.,
John, viii. 44, av^paitbxt bvos dit' dp#ijs ; 1 John,
iii. 8, dit' dpxijs b StdfioXos dpaptdvsi; also the
titles in Revelation, Spdxav psyas, 6 bpis 6
dpxaibs, Rev. xii. 9, seq. From these texts we
can see how the text 2 Cor. xi; 3 is to be under
stood. The New-Testament writers therefore
assumed it as a fact, that in some way, not fur
ther deterniined, the devil was concerned in the
temptation of man. It is not, however, expressly
said in any one passage that the devil spoke
through the serpent.
The principal advocates of the interpretation
formerly adopted by theologians, and in opposi
tion to the allegorists and to the class of inter
preters to be hereafter mentioned, were, among
the more ancient, Aug. Pfeiffer, Dubia vexata,
cap. 6; among the more modern, Joh. Balth.
Liiderwald, Die allegorische Erklarung der drey
ersten Capitel Mosis, u. s. w. in ihrem Ungrund
vorgestellt; Helmstadt, 1781, 8vo; also Karl
Traugott Eifert, Untersuchung der Frage,
Konnte nicht die Mosaische Erzahlung vom
Fall buchstablich wahr, und durch den Fall ein
erbliches Verderben auf die Menschen gekom-
men seyn? Halle, 1781; especially Storr, De
Protevangelio ; TubingaS, 1789, (in his Opus-
cula, torn. ii. num. 7,) and Koppen, Die Bibel
u. s. w. th. ii. [To this class the great body of
American theologians belongs.]
(3) To the third class belong those interpret
ers who consider this narration as a mythus, or
a truth invested in a poetic form. According to
this idea, this passage has been interpreted in
modern times by Eichhorn, in his " Urgesch
ichte;" in such a way, however, that he al
lows some things in the account to be histori
cal and others allegorical.1 Such, in some re
spects, is also the interpretation of Rosenmuller,
(Repertor. th. i. s. 160,) who supposes that the
narrative in Genesis was taken from a hiero
glyphic picture— i, e., transferred from pictorial"

268

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

representation to alphabetic signs. These inter
preters have endeavoured to unite the historical
and the mythical or allegorical interpretations.
But this is inadmissible. If the mythical inter
pretation is adopted, the whole narrative, in all its
parts, must be considered as a mythus, like what
other nations had, in order to represent to them
selves, each in its own way, in a distinct and
vivid manner, the first sin of man, and its con
sequences. So Eichhorn, Paulus, Gabler, and
many others. One of two things must be ad
mitted; either this narrative throughout must
ae considered as a veritable history of events
which took place just as here related, (and this
agrees with the New Testament,) or it is wholly
a didactic or moral fiction. In both cases the
interpreter must proceed in the interpretation of
the particular portions of this account from the
same principles. It is undoubtedly the fact,
that Moses, or the writer from whom he took
this account, (vide s. 49,) understood these ex
pressions just as they stand, according to their
literal meaning ; and that these other ideas which
are attached to this narrative were ascribed to it
at a later period, in order to adapt it more to the
tastes and feelings of cultivated and speculative
minds. In confirmation of the internal truth and con
sistency of this narrative let the following things
be considered ; and they are equally deserving
of notice, whether this passage be literally or
historically understood. Conversation with ani
mals is something, which to man, in his natural
condition, and before the refinements of social
life, is perfectly common, and by no means
strange and incredible. How often is it the
case with children, (even with those, too, who
are somewhat grown up,) that they address
inanimate things, arid still more frequently
living creatures, imagining what they would
answer, and then replying to them in turn !
They will often, too, relate to others the conver
sations they have had with the animals around
them. Hence the fables of Mso\> were more
agreeable and impressive, and less strange and
startling, even to mature minds, in the ancient
world than now. Hence, too, the supposition
which once prevailed even in the heathen world,
that in the golden age beasts actually spake.
Again ; the author understood the speaking of
God, here mentioned, as real, articulate speech,
perhaps with a voice of thunder. For the idea
was very prevalent in the ancient world that the
Deity was, as it were, personally present, and
appeared to the men of early times in the most
free and familiar intercourse; somewhat as the
gods were supposed by the Greeks to have as
sociated with men in the heroic ages. Vide
s. 54, 1.
This whole representation, however, whether
it be fact or moral fiction, is entirely conformed

to the nature of the human soul, and describe!
in a manner perfectly true, the history of the
temptation and sin of man, as it is witnessed
every day, through the impression which sensi
ble objects make upon him. Here then, by the
example of our first parents, two things are
shewn : the way in which sin commonly arises,
and the way in which it actually first entered
the world. In this, however, there is a differ
ence, that in the case of our first parents they
had come to maturity without having yet sinned.
The first sin committed upon earth was one of
momentous consequences for themselves and
their posterity. In looking at this transaction,
we are again impressed with the idea that the
slate of innocence in which our first parents were
placed was a state of immaturity, of childhood,
and infantine simplicity; and that they then
had no very extended knowledge or experience.
They were deceived in nearly the same way as
an innocent and inexperienced child is now de
ceived. In this point of view this narrative has
been very justly apprehended, even by Morus,
p. 99, n. 1.
[Note. — There is an interesting essay on the
Mosaic account of the Fall in the Appendix to
Tholuck's " Lehre von der Sunde." While he
contends for the historic fact of the fall, he at the
same time regards the representation here given
of this fact as figurative, and finds insuperable
objections in the way of the literal, and very
plausible arguments in favour of the moral inter
pretation. He gives the following as the moral
import of the passage : " Man, who, in accord
ance with his destination, enjoyed a holy inno
cence, in which he knew no other will than that
of God, abandoned this state, became selfish
(autonomic), and would no longer acknowledge
the divine law of life as the highest;" s. 266,
of the work above mentioned. The views of the
German theologians on this subject are very vari
ous ; and though often fanciful, sometimes deep
ly interesting and profound. It will be suffi
cient to refer to some of the more important of
these, which the ardent student of theology,
who wishes to overstep the limit of merely tra
ditionary ideas, may consult at his leisure. Cf.
Schleiermacher, Christ. Glaub. b. ii. s. 59.
Schlegel, Philosophie der Geschichte, b. i. s.
42, 43. Herder, Geist der Ebra. Poesie, b. L
s. 155. To these we may add the speculations, ,
ingenious, and exciting, even when unfounded
and fanciful, of Coleridge. See his " Aids to
Reflection," notes, p. 324, 325; also p. 176,
177  Tr.]
n. Particular Expressions and Representations.
(1) Respecting the divine law, the transgres
sion of it, and the temptation, Genesis, ii. 17,
coll. ver. 9, and chap. iii. 1 — 6. For an account
of the name, tree of the knowledge of good and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

269

evil, vide s. 52, II. The question is here asked,
What design had God in view in giving this
precept? According to the opinion of many
theologians, this command was given by God
merely for the sake of putting the virtue of
Adam and Eve to the test, there being no inju
rious quality in the tree itself which should lead
him to forbid it; and so they suppose that the
punishment of death threatened and inflicted by
God had no natural connexion with the eating
of the forbidden fruit, but depended merely upon
the divine will. This is supposed by Ernesti,
Vindiciae arbitrii divini, in his " Opusc Theol."
p. 231 ; and among the ancients, by Theophilus,
Ad Autolyc. 1. ii. c 35. But against this sup
position there are many reasons, both of an in
ternal and external nature, which have been
well exhibited by Michaelis, Von der Sunde, s.
559. The fact that this forbidden tree is set
over against the tree cf life, would lead us to
think that it was in itself a poisonous tree, and
in its own nature destructive to man. And to
this opinion even Morus assents, p. 102, s. 16.
The writer here designs to shew by what natu
ral means the life of man was to have been pro
longed, according to the divine appointment,
in the state of innocence; and this means is
the tree of life, or life-giving tree; and after
wards, by what means death came into the
world — namely, by a poisonous tree. It is
against the latter, which bore an alluring, beau
tiful fruit, that God warns inexperienced man,
as a father cautions his child not to taste of a
pleasant poison which may lie in his way.
Since man entered his new abode as a stranger,
it was naturnal that he should receive all neces
sary instructions and cautions from the being
who prepared it for him, and introduced him to
it. Tasting of the fruit of this tree introduced
disorder into the human body, which, from that
time forward, was subject to disease and death.
In this way is God justified, as every one can
see, from the charge of being the author of human
misery ; just as a father is acquitted from blame
in the misfortune of his children if he had before
cautioned them against the poison. In this way,
too, every one can understand why God should
require obedience from man. The father requires
obedience of his children, because he knows
better than they do what is' best for them. For
the same reason should we unconditionally obey
God. Nor is the explanation now given, by
which the forbidden fruit is considered in its
own nature poisonous, a new explanation; it
is mentioned by Ohrysostom, although he re
jects it.
The propriety and consistency of the account
of the temptation by means of the serpent may
be illustrated by the following remarks. The
serpent was used by almost all the ancient na
tions as the symbol of prudence, adroitness, and

cunning. Vide Matt. x. 16 ; 2 Cor. xi. 3. Eve
sees a serpent upon this forbidden tree, and pro
bably eating of its fruits, which to a serpent
might not be harmful. And it is very natural
that this should be first observed by the woman,
that her interest and curiosity should have been
arrested by the sight, and that, with her greater
susceptibility to temptation, her desires should
have been first kindled, and she first seduced
from obedience. Paul mentions it as worthy
of notice, that the woman first sinned, 1 Tim-.
ii. 14, coll. Sir. xxv. 32, djt6 ywaixbs dpxri d/iap-
iias. We may compare with this part of the
narrative the Grecian mythus of Pandora. As
to what follows, we very naturally understand
that Eve reflected upon what she had seen, and
expressed her thoughts in words.- — "The ser
pent is a very lively and knowing animal, and
yet it eats of the fruit which is forbidden us.
This fruit cannot, therefore, be so hurtful, and
the prohibition may not have been meant in
earnest," &c — the same fallacies with which
men still deceive themselves when the objects
of sense entice and draw them away. The fact
which she observed, that the serpent ate the
fruit of the forbidden tree without harm, excited
the thought which in ver. 4, 5 are represented
as the words of the serpent, that it was worth
while to eat of this fruit. It did not seem to
occasion'death ; and, on the other hand, appeared
rather to impart health, vigour, and intelligence,
as was proved from the example of the serpent,
which remained after eating it well and wise.
" Consider me," the serpent might have seemed
to her to say, "how brisk, sound, and cunning
I am," &c. Now, as she knows of no being
who surpasses man in wisdom, excepting God
only, she supposes, in her simplicity, that if she
became wiser than she then was, she should
be like God. Meanwhile, the desire after that
which was forbidden became continually more
irresistible. She took of the fruit and ate. The
man, who, as is common, was weak and pliable
enough to yield to the solicitation of his wife,
received the fruit from her and ate with her.
All this may have been as now stated, even
on the supposition, so conformed to the spirit
of the ancient world, and fully authorized in
the New Testament, that the evil spirit had an
agency in this transaction. This supposition
can occasion no alteration in the verbal explana
tion of this record. Satan can be allowed to be
no otherwise concerned in this affair than as in
stigator and contriver ; somewhat after the man ¦
ner of a malicious and. crafty man, who might
secretly injure another, by tempting him, either
by words or in any other way, to taste of a poi
sonous article. Those to whom the real speakjr
ing of the serpent seems strange and incredible,
may understand it as above.
Now it was in this transgression of the divine
z2

870

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

law, which made. strict abstinence from the for
bidden tree binding upon them, that their sin is
placed ; and it is this which the apostle calls
jiapaxojj, Rom. v. 19. The rising desires which
pur first parents felt to eat the fruit were founded
in their nature, and were not imputed to them
as sin. Nor is the springing up of involuntary
desire in the heart of man ever considered in
scripture as sin; but merely the entertaining,
cherishing, and accomplishing of this desire.
Vide James, i. 14. The sin of our first parents,
then, properly,consisted in this — that they were
not implicitly obedient to God, as Paul remarks
in the passage just cited. This disobedience
to God is the greatest wrong, and draws after
itself inevitably the mostinjurious consequences,
whether it is shewn in greater or smaller in
stances. Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 23. They did what
God had forbidden, under the impression which
men are accustomed to have in such cases, that
it was something trifling, and of little import.
From this first act, there now arose in their
minds alienation from God, distrust of him, the
desire of independence of him, &c. They began
to say, " that God had not allowed them to be
like himself," &c. — thoughts from which they
should have shrunk with abhorrence, and ban
ished instantly from their hearts.
(2) The consequences of this transgression are
narrated, ver. 7, seq. The author does'not give
such a representation as would lead us to think
that all piety, virtue, and religion, ceased with
man immediately upon his first transgression.
For we see in the sequel, that the knowledge
and worship of God were perpetuated in the
family of Adam. We perceive too, that our
first parents felt repentance and shame after the
fall, and these feelings are sufficient proof that
morality and rectitude were not wholly oblite
rated by the fall. Some theologians maintain
that by the fall man lost the image of God, but
this is denied by others. And both may be true,
according as the image of God is understood in
a wider or more narrow sense. The whole dis
pute is more respecting words than things.
Vide s. 53, ad finem, and s. 54. The author
places the consequences of this transgression
in the following particulars — viz.,
(a) In the disturbed balance of the powers and
inclinations of man, and in the preponderance
which the impulses of sense now obtained over
reason. For this balance and harmony of powers
was that which constituted, according to the ac
count of Moses, the principal advantage of the
state of innocence. That this was the conse
quence of the first transgression is clearly taught
by Moses in the expression, " and they knew that
they were naked," which may be euphemistically
expressed as follows: "They felt the motions
of sense uncommonly strong, which they were
no longer able to control as heretofore, but by

which they were now governed, whence th»
feeling of shame arose in their minds;" as is
still the case with innocent youth, when it first
begins to have such desires. It is possible that
this may be considered as also the effect cf the
harmful fruit which had been eaten by them,
by which their nerves were strongly excited ;
for there are many peispnnus plants by which
violent excitement is imparted tc the nerves,
and by which great diserder is preduced both in
seul and hndy — spasmpdic affections, stupefac}
tion, and delirium ; such are belladonna, opium,
thorn-apple, and hemlock. This supposition
will at least serve to render the subject more
intelligible, and to explain how this effect may
have been propagated from Adam to his poste
rity, although it is by no means necessary to
understand this effect as a physical one; and at
all events this should not be brought into popu
lar instruction, as it is merely conjectural.*

* The views here expressed respecting the nature
of the forbidden fruit, and the consequences of eat
ing it upon our first parents, are the basis of our au
thor's ideas respecting the natural character of man ;
they ought therefore to be carefully examined here,
where they are first introduced. It is easy to see
how Dr. Knapp's love of plainness and simplicity of
interpretation, and bis aversion to the metaphysical
and speculative spirit of his times, should have in
clined him to sentiments like those which he has
here expressed respecting the narrative in Genesis.
Indeed, they may be said to result fairly from adopt
ing and carrying through the principle of literal in
terpretation in application to this passage. To the
same conclusion substantially were Michaelis and
Reinhard brought before him, by reasoning on the
same principles. But we ought to hesitate before
adopting principles which strip this opening page of
human history of its chief moral and religious inter
est, and substitute transactions so unimportant and
even trivial. To teach that the forbidden tree was
one of physical poison ; that on this account mainly,
and not for the purpose of testing their obedience,
our first parents were warned against it; that by
seeing a serpent feed on it with impunity, they
falsely concluded they might do so ; that having thus
by mistake been led to taste of it, their nerves were
excited, their passions inflamed, and reason weaken
ed ; and, lastly, that the propagation of this physical
disorder is the cause of the universal predominance
of sense over reason, in short, of human depravity;
these are propositions so strange that we must won
der how they could have been soberly propounded
by writers of such eminence.
To minds of a particular cast, which had been dis
gusted with the assumptions of philosophy, and
wearied with travelling through its thorny mazes, so
simple and easy a solution of the mysteries of our
present condition might naturally furnish repose.
But a just and unperverted critical taste must be of
fended with an interpretation so flatly and frigidly
ad literam as that which is here suggested.
If this narrative is to retain the least doctrinal in
terest, it must be regarded as exhibiting the trial of
man as to obedience to the divine will, and the un
happy issue of this trial. And if this meaning be
extracted from this history, it is not of so much con-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

271

(6) The consequences of the first transgres
sion are seen in still other evils. Physical evils
are usually regarded as the consequences of an
tecedent mcral faults, and experience shews
this to be correct, though mistakes are easily
made in applying this principle to particular:
cases. When man was more perfect, and lived .
in a state of innocence, he bore none of those
loads which he is now called to sustain ; he
was under no necessity of tilling the ground
with weariness ; he lived free from care, needed
no clothing, &c. Vide s. 56. All this now
ceased; and the evils which began to appear
were regarded as the consequences of the fall,
and as punishments inflicted by the Deity.
Hence it is related, ver. 8, that God sat in so
lemn judgment upon our first parents, and pro
nounced their sentence. And this was done in
a thunder storm, which topk place m>n nnS — i. e.,
at eventide, when the cppI evening wind began
to blow at sunset, as it does in the east. This
term is used in opposition to D«n on, meridies,
Gen. xviii. 1. Man hid himself; the natural
effect of the consciousness of having acted
wrong; and then comes the trial. All this is
perfectly natural, and like what we see every
day in the case of crime and of an evil con
science. Men, as here, fear the presence of
God, and wish to conceal themselves from him,
although they well know that this is impossi
ble. It is hard for them to acknowledge their
sins, repent of them, and confess them. They
seek vain excuses, and throw off the guilt from
themselves to others; Eve upon the serpent,
and Adam upon Eve. And indeed, in these
words — the woman which thou gavest me,
Adam seems to throw the guilt upon God, as
sequence whether it be by an allegorical or- literal
interpretation. But to make this the history of the
imprudent conduct of Adam and Eve in eating of a
fruit of whose fatal qualities they had been fore
warned, and thus poisoning themselves, is to empty
it of its high interest as the account of the birth of
sin, and to reduce it to a common-place story, un
worthy of its place at the head Of the history of man.
It was well said by Theophilus of Antioch, long ago,
" that it was not the tree, but the disobedience, which
had death in itself," Contra Autyl. Luther, too,
who in general followed the literal interpretation,
says, with regard to this passage, "Adam indeed
stuck his teeth into the apple; but he set them, too,
upon a thorn, which was, the law of God and dis
obedience against him ; and this was the proper
cause of his misery." Com. on Gen. ii. 5.
Some of the remoter consequences of Knapp's
view of the transgression of our first parents and its
influence on their posterity are not less singular than
the first appearance of his interpretation. If the re
sult of the fall to Adam was a physical disorder which
¦we inherit from him, then it would seem that, in
order that man might be restored, a physical cure
ought first to be effected, and the first step towards
his recovery should be a medical prescription. But
of this more hereafter. — Th.]

much as to say, " hadst not thou given ner to
me, this evil had not been done."
But the most distinct punishment for the
transgression of the divine law was this — that
they must die ; Gen. ii. 17, coll. iii. 19. In the
former of these texts the phrase is n»n run (best
rendered by Symmachus, Svrrtbs sgrf) ; in the
latter, thou shall return to the earth from whence
thou wast taken. In the latter passage, there
fore, it can be only mortality which is spoker.
of; and the theological distinction of spiri*j.al,
bodily, and eternal death has no connexion with
this passage. Some theologians assert even
that it does not relate to bodily death at all, but
only to spiritual and eternal. So Calovius,
Seb. Schmidt, Fecht, &c This mortality now
was the consequence of the harmful fruit they
had eaten, just as their immortality was de
scribed as what would be the consequence of
eating of the tree of life. And as men were
henceforward to be deprived of immortality,
they were no more permitted to eat of the tree
of life, and were therefore removed by God from
the garden, ver. 22, 24. In the same way that
their removal from the garden is represented as
an act of God, are we to understand the direc
tion that they should be clothed with the skins of
beasts, (" God made them coats of skins," as it
is said, ver. 21) — viz., as an instruction which
they received directly and immediately from
God ; for it was a common opinion throughout
the ancient world, that God had directly com
municated to men the knowledge of many use
ful inventions.
In the words, ver. 22, "Adam has become
like one of us, knowing good and evil," there
is something ironical, and they refer to ver. 5,
as much as to say, " we see now how it is, man
wished to become wise and like to God, but in
breaking the commandment of God he acted
like a fool." Others render these words, "Ae
was like one of us, but now is so no more."
With respect to the curse pronounced upon
the serpent, ver. 14, many difficulties are found.
How can the serpent, which, even supposing it
the instrument of the devil, was an innocent
cause of the temptation, have been punished ?
This certainly does not seem to agree with our
present ideas of punishment, and what consti
tutes capacity for it. But if we notice the con
duct of children, and of rude and uncultivated
•men, we shall find a solution. God deals with
men more humano, and condescends in his con
duct to their limited and infantine comprehen
sions. When children are injured by an animal,
or even by an inanimate thing, they often pro
ceed in the same way as they would with one
like themselves. The sense of the injury which
they have experienced, and the displeasure
which they naturally feel, leads them to wish
for recompence ; and they feel a kind of satis-

272

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

faction when the cause of the injury done them,
even if it be a lifeless object, is in their view
repaid. To these conceptions does God here
condescend, and designs to impress upon the
minds of our first parents, by this vivid repre
sentation, the idea that the tempter in this
transaction would not go unrewarded, and that
every tempter must expect to receive from him
unavoidable and severe punishment. This is
the doctrine which is taught them in this, so to
speak, sensible manner. The punishment in
flicted upon the invisible agent concerned in
this temptation could not be made obvious to
them ; it must therefore be made to fall upon the
instrument. Enough for them that they could
derive from the punishment of the serpent this
doctrine, which, in the state in which they then
were, could have been in no other way made so
obvious and impressive. Hence the fear and
dread of the serpent which is felt by man and
beast. It is the image of baseness, and cleaves
to the ground. To eat dust, is a figurative ex
pression, denoting to be levelled with the ground,
laid in the dust, Is. xlix. 23. So, to eat ashes,
Ps. cii. 1 0, and the phrase humum ore memordit,
used by Virgil with respect to one struck dead
to the earth. Cf.-Hom. Odyss. xxii. 269.
(3) -Ver. 15, 1 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, pit in the first case denotes the posterity
of the serpent — the serpent race ; in the second
case, either collectively, the posterity of Eve,
ysvv'/jtoi yuj/atxwv, Matt. xi. 11; or one of this
posterity, a descendant or son of Eve ; for in this
latter sense may jnj in the singular be taken,
according to the Hebrew idiom — e. g., Gen. iv.
25. Taken in this sense it is referred to the
Messiah, the second Adam, who even by the
later Jews was denominated jni, the descendant
sometimes of Adam and sometimes of Abraham.
Vide Gal. v. 16, and Wetstein ad. h. 1. These
words admit of a threefold construction, neither
of which is inconsistent with, or entirely ex
cludes the others, and either of which contains
instruction for those to whom these words were
first addressed, and to their posterity.
(a) If these words are referred to the serpent
here visible, the sense is, "It is my will that en
mity should exist between thee and the woman,
between thy breed and her descendants — i. e.,
there shall be a constant hatred between the
human and the serpent race. Men shall aim at
thy head, and thou at their heel — i. e., they
shall seek thy life, and thou shalt seek to injure
them by thy poisonous bite whenever thou
canst." Cf. Zacharia, Bibl. Theol., th. ii. s.
318, and Repert. iv. 250, f.
(b) Everything which took place here was
designed to give moral instruction to our first
parents. In this way it was intended to teach

them respecting the external occasions and ex
cilements to sin ; and by means of the serpent,
this lesson was made plain and obvious to their
senses. Hence we have in these words the fol
lowing maxim : " Thou and thy posterity (i. e.,
all men) will have from henceforward a constant
warfare against sin to maintain. The victory
of man over the tempter and his seductions will
be difficult and uncertain ; they will be in con
stant contention with each other, and men will
not come off uninjured, nor will they remain
hereafter unseduced, and must always feel the
injurious consequences of transgression."
(c) If pit in the second case denotes a single
individual among the descendants of Adam, it
refers to the Messiah, who has destroyed the
power of the tempter and of sin, and who has
also made it possible for all his followers to
overcome them. Vide 1 John, iii. 8. Our first
parents could not indeed have understood these
words as a distinct prophecy respecting the Mes
siah, for they were not able at that time to com
prehend the idea of a Messiah in all its extent;
nor is this text ever cited in the New Testament
as a prophecy respecting Christ. From these
words, however, they could easily deduce the
idea, that in this contest the human race might
and would come off finally victorious. The
Aead of the serpent would be bruised for its en
tire destruction, and the only revenge it could
take would be, to bite the heel; it could injure
less than it would itself be injured. Hence it
was here, as Paul says respecting the patriarchs,
Heb. xi. 13, they received the promise from
God, but saw that which was promised itopliu^iv.
Respecting the manner in which this promise
should be fulfilled, and the person through whom
it should be performed, more full revelations
were gradually given at a later period. So that
even although our first parents might not have
been able te refer this pit to pne particular de
scendant of Adam, they might yet find in these
words a consoling promise of God. And for
this reason we may justly call this passage, as
it has been called by some of the church fathers,
protevangelium, because it contains the first joy
ful promise ever given to our race. Vide Storr,
De Protevangelio ; Tubingae, 1781. [Hengsten-
berg, Christologie. Smith, Scripture Testimony
to the Messiah, vol. i. — Tr.]
Note. — In explaining the history of the fall to
the people, the teacher should dwell mostly
upon the internal truth and the practical instruc
tion contained in it. In conformity with the
remark at the latter part of No. I. of this section,
he must shew, from the example of the proge-.
nitors of our race, not only how sin first entered
into the world, but also how it is still accus'
tomed to arise. In doing this he can appeal tn
James, i. 13 — 15, and then illustrate the truth
by examples, such as daily occur. In this way

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

273

he may rescue this history from the contempt
sometimes thrown upon it, and teach those en
trusted to his care to regard it not as* a fable,
but seriously to reflect upon it in such a manner
as may be profitable to them. He must treat it
entirely as fact or history, in the same manner
as it is treated both in the Old and New Testa
ment. Let him by no means initiate his hear
ers into all the hypotheses and controversies of
the learned on this subject, since they are un
able to form a judgment respecting them, and
will be rather confounded than enlightened by
hearing them recited. And since in the New
Testament the devil is represented as having an
agency in this transaction, he must also be so
represented by the Christian teacher, who, how
ever, must not attempt to determine the manner
in which this agency was exerted, as on this
point the scripture says nothing.
[On the general subject of this section cf. the
authors before referred to, Tholuck, Lehre von
der Sfinde, Appendix, s. 264; Schleirmacher,
Glaubenslehre, b. ii. s. 59 ; Hahn, Lehrbuch, s.
345, s. 78; Bretschneider, Handbuch, b. ii. s.
58, s. 125 ; Herder, Geist der Ebrai. Poesie, b.
i. s. 136, ff.— Tr.]
SECTION LXXVI.
OF' THE IMPUTATION OF THE SIN OF OUR FIRST .
PARENTS.
It is taught in theology, that the transgres
sion of the progenitors of mankind had a two
fold influence upon their posterity — viz., a phy
sical influence in the propagation of sinful desires
and moral imperfection, and also a moral influ
ence, vhich is commonly considered as properly
imputationem peccati Adamilici. These two do
not necessarily belong together, although impu-
tatio and peccatum originate have been often
connected together by theologians. They may,
however, be distinguished ; and one may easily
affirm moral corruption while he denies imputa
tion, and the reverse. We shall therefore first
treat of imputation, and then show how, accord
ing to the scriptures, the two are united.
Now, whatever diversity there may exist in
the opinions of theologians respecting imputa
tion when they come to express their own views
definitely, they will yet, for the most part, agree
that the phrase, God imputes the sin of our pro
genitors to their posterity, means, that for the sin
committed by our progenitors God punishes their
descendants. The term to impute is used in dif
ferent senses, (a) It is said of a creditor, who
charges something to his debtor as debt ; like
3bti, and xoyll^opai and Ixxoyia — e. g., Philem.
ver. 18. (b) It is transferred to human judg
ment, when any one is punished, or declared
deserving of punishment. Crime is regarded
as a debt, which must be cancelled partly by
35

actual restitution and partly by punishment.
(c) This now is applied to God, who imputes
sin when he pronounces men guilty, and treats
them accordingly — i. e., when he actually pu
nishes the sin cf men, (rip 3K?n, >.oyif£5^ai dpap-
tlav, Ps. xxxii. 2.) The pne punished is called
p'P KfeJ, in epposition to one to whom np-ix1? jeti,
who is rewarded, Ps. cvi. 31 ; Rom. iv. 3.
In order to learn what is taught in the theo
logical schools on this subject, we must pursue
the historic method, or we shall grope in the
dark. 1. Opinions of the Jews.
The imputation of Adam's sin is not called
in the Mosaic narrative, or anywhere in the Old
Testament, by the name of imputation, although
the doctrine of imputation is contained in it, as
we shall soon see. But in the writings of the
Talmudists, and of the Rabbins, and still earlier
in the Chaldaic paraphrases on the Old Testa
ment, we find it asserted, in so many words,
that the posterity of Adam were p-jnished with
bodily death on account of his first sin, although
they themselves had never sinned. Cf. the
Chaldaic paraphrase on Ruth, iv. 22, "Because
Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, all the inhabitants
of the earth are subject to death." In this way
they accounted to themselves for the death of
the greatest saints, who, as they supposed, had
never themselves sinned. They taught, also,
.that in the person of Adam the whole multitude
or mass of his posterity had sinned. Vide the
Commentators on Rom. v., especially Wetstein
and Koppe. As early as the time of the apos
tles, this doctrine was widely prevalent among
the Jews. It is clearly taught by Paul, in Bom.
v. 12, 14, and is there placed by him in intimate
connexion with the more peculiar Christian doc
trines. In this passage he has employed ex
actly the same expressions which we find among
the Rabbins.
How was this doctrine developed and brought
to such clearness among the Jews? They pro
ceeded from the scriptural maxim, that man was
created immortal, and that the death of Adam
was a consequence of his transgression. And
since all the posterity of Adam die, although all
have not themselves sinned (e. g., children),
they concluded that these too must endure this
evil on account of Adam's transgression. Cf
Book of Wisdom, ii. 23, 24. Sirach, xxv. 32,
ditb ywaraos apx'h djiaptlas, xai 6V eHrtipi dito-
Sv/ioxo/iEV itdvtss- Farther than this, which is
evidently founded in the scriptures, they did not
go. In order to illustrate this doctrine and ren
der it plain, they probably resorted to some
analogies; such, for example, as the fact, that
children must often suffer for the crimes of their
parents, in which they had no share ; and that,
according to'the law of Moses, the iniquity of

274

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

parents was visited upon the children of the
third and fourth generation. In what way they
probably conceived of imputation, and formed
their conclusions about it, may be seen from the
remarkable passage, Heb. vii. 9, 10. The pa
triarch Levi (who, according to the Mosaic law,
receives the tithes) paid tithes to Melchisedec in
the person of Abraham — i. e., it is tb be consi
dered the same as if the Levites paid tithes to
Melchisedec when Abraham paid them, for Levi
was in the loins of his father Abraham when he
met Melchisedec — i. e., he already existed in
Abraham, although he was not yet born. What
Abraham did is to be considered as if it had
been done by his descendant; for had he lived
at that time he would have done the same that
Abraham then did.
II. Opinions of the New-Testament Writers.
This doctrine is .most clearly taught in Rom.
v. 12 — 14, a passage which is very variously ex
plained. It is also briefly exhibited in 1 Cor.xv.
21, 22. Vide Tollner, Theol. Untersuchungen,
Theil i. st. 2, s. 56. Modern philosophers and
theologians have found many things here incon
sistent with their philosophical systems. And
some of them have laboured so hard and long
upon this passage that they have at length ex
torted a sense from it, in which nothing of im
putation could any longer be discerned ; and this
is the case with Doderlein in his "Dogmatik."
They did not consider, however, that Paul here
makes use of the same words and phrases which
were then common among the Jews on the sub
ject of imputation, and that he could not there
fore have been otherwise understood by his con
temporary readers; and that Paul has also
reasoned in the same way on another subject,
Heb. vii. 9, 10. Cf. No. I.
Paul shews, in. substance, that all men are
regarded and punished by God as sinners, and
that the ground of this lies in the act of one
man ; as, on the contrary, deliverance from pu
nishment depends also upon one man, Jesus
Christ. If the words of Paul are not perverted,
it must be allowed, that in Rom. v. 12 — 14, he
thus reasons: "The cause of the universal mor
tality of the human race lies in Adam's trans
gression. He sinned, and so became mortal.
Other men are regarded and treated by God as
punishable, because they are the posterity of
Adam, the first transgressor, and consequently
they too are mortal. Should it now be objected,
that the men who lived from Adam to Moses
might themselves have personally sinned, and
so have been punished with death on their own
account, it might be answered, that those who
lived before the time of Moses had no express
and positive law which threatened the punish
ment of sin, like those who lived after Moses.
The positive law of Moses was not as yet given;

they could not, consequently, be punished on
account of their own transgressions, as no law
was as yet given to them ; ver. 14. Still they
must die, like Adam, who transgressed a posi
tive law. Hence their mortality must have an
other cause, and this is to be sought in the im
putation of Adam's transgression. And in the
same way, the ground of the justification of man
lies not in himself, but in Christ, the second
Adam." .,
Such is the argument of Paul in this passage.
But respecting eternal death, or the torments of
hell, he here says nothing, and is far from im
plying that on account of a sin committed by
another man long before their birth, God pu
nishes men with eternal hell torments. On the
contrary, he here speaks of bodily death merely,
as the consequence of the sin of Adam. And
herein the learned Jews agreed with him. And
in the passage 1 Cor. xv. 21, seq.*, Paul shews
that the resurrection to a blessed immortality
will be the best and highest proof of our entire
restoration through Jesus Christ, even as bodily
death is the first and most striking proof of our
degeneracy through Adam. [On this passage,
cf. Tboluck, Ccmm. fib. Rom. v.; Usteri, Ent-
wickel. d. paulin. Lehrbegriffs ; Edwards, Ori
ginal Sin, chap. iv. p. 352 ; Stuart's Comment
ary on Rom. v. and Excursus. — Tr.]
III. Hypotheses of Theologians.
The greatest difficulties with respect to this
doctrine have arisen from the fact that many
have treated what is said by Paul in the fifth of
Romans — a passage wholly popular, and any
thing hut formally exact and didactic — inalearn-
ed and philosophical manner, and have defined
terms used by him in a loose and popular way,
by logical and scholastic distinctions. We do
not find anywhere among the ancients, in their
popular discourses, an exact and philosophically
precise use of terms with respect to the conse
quences and the punishment of sin. They fre
quently use the word punishment in a wider
sense, in which it is here and elsewhere em
ployed by Paul. He and the Jewish teachers,
with whom in this particular he agrees, use^u^
nishmenl (xatdxpipa,) imputation of sin, &c, in
the same sense in which it is said respecting
children, for example, that they are punished on
account of the crimes of their ancestors, that the
crimes of their ancestors are imputed to them,
&c ; although they, in their own persons, had
no share in the guilt, and could not, therefore,
in the strictest philosophical and juridical sense,
be considered as the subjects of imputation and
punishment. The family of a traitor, whose
name is disgraced, and whose goods are confis
cated, are thus said to be punished on his ac
count. Respecting Louis XVI., who was so
unfortunate, and suffered so much in consequence

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

275

of the errors of his predecessors Louis XIV. and
XV., it would be commonly said, without hesi
tation, that he endured punishment on their ac
count, and had to atone for or expiate their
crimes. Here, what is merely the consequence
of the sin of another, is called, from some ana
logy between them, the punishment of one who
has no personal guilt in the matter. Just such
is the case here. Mortality was to Adam the
punishment of his sin, strictly speaking. His
posterity are also mortal, since a mortal cannot
beget those who are immortal. With them,
therefore, mortality is the natural consequence
of Adam's sin, but not their punishment, in the
proper juridico-philosophical sense of the word,
because they themselves had no share in the
first transgression. Imputation, therefore, of
the sin of Adam, in the strict sense of the word
imputation, does not exist with regard to us, his
posterity, since we only suffer the baleful con
sequences of the sin of the first man, of which
we ourselves were not, however, guilty, and for
which we cannot therefore be punished. Speak
ing, however, in a loose and popular way, we
may call what we endure, punishment and im
putation. By this observation, many difficulties in other
passages of scripture are obviated. So when
Moses says, " the iniquity of the father shall be
visited upon his posterity from generation to
generation," (cf. Ezek. xviii. 4, 20, coll. Jer.
xxxi. 29, 30,) he is to be understood as speak
ing in a popular way of the consequences which
should befal the posterity of the wicked without
any fault of their own. -When, on the other
hand, it is said, "the son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father," it is to be understood as
a maxim of justice, and to be taken in the literal
sense. Paul himself says, in other passages,
that man will be punished solely on his own
account. Rom. ii. 6, i. 18, seq.; Gal. vi. 5;
2 Cor. v. 10. In these he speaks sensu propria
etforensi. He also teaches expressly, that re
ward and punishment do not depend upon na
tural birth and derivation, Rom. ix. 11; and
Jesus rejects the opinion suggested by his dis
ciples, that the misfortune of the one born blind
was to be regarded as the imputation of the
guilt of his parents, John, ix. 2, 3.
But why is language used in such a manner
with regard to this subject in the scriptures?
The principal reason why the word punishment
is used in this connexion lies in the fact that
there is, in all the mortal descendants of Adam,
a preponderance of carnal appetites and pas
sions, and that they are invariably seduced by
these into actual sin, and so become punish
able. There_is not one upon earth who re
mains uncorrupted, and consequently all are
Tendered lirble to punishment. Vide Rom. v.
12; Ephes ii. 3. God would not treat all men

as sinners did they not in this respect resemble
Adam. We find, accordingly, that the passage in
Rom. v. was never understood in the ancient
Grecian church, down to the fourth century, to
teach imputation, in a strictly philosophical and
judicial sense; certainly Origen and the writers
imm-ediately succeeding him, exhibit nothing
of this opinion. They regard bodily death as a
eonsequence of the sin of Adam, and not as a
punishment, in the strict and proper sense of
this term. Thus Chrysostom says, upon Rom.
V. 12, 'Exeivov itsgovtos ('ASdp), xai ol pr\ tyd-
yovtss ditb tov %vXov, ysybvagw i% ixsivav $vrjtoi.
And Cyril (Adv. Anthropom. c. 8) says, oi ys-
yavoiss 1% avtov (ASdp), as ditb <p£apf ov, $^apfot
ysybvausv. The Latin church, on the other hand, was the
proper seat of the strict doctrine of imputation.
There they began to interpret the words of Paul,
as if he were a scholastic and logical writer.
One cause of their misapprehending so entirely
the spirit of this passage was, that the word im-
putare (a word in common use among civilians
and in judicial affairs) had been employed in the
Latin versions in rendering ver. 13 of Rom. v. ;
and that if' i5 (ver. 12) had been translated in
quo, and could refer, as they supposed, to nobody
but Adam. This ppinipn was then asseciated
with some peculiar philosophical ideas then pre
valent in the West, and from the whole a.doc-
trine de imputatione was formed, in a sense
wholly unknown to the Hebrews, to the New
Testament, and to the Grecian church. We may
hence see the reason of the fact, that the Gre
cian teachers — e. g., those in Palestine — took
sides with Pelagius against the teachers of the
African church.
The following are the principal theories which
have been adopted in the Western church, to
illustrate the mode of imputation, and to vindi
cate its justice.
(1) The oldest hypothesis is that which af
firmed that all the posterity of Adam were, in
the most literal sense, already in him, and sin
ned in him — in his person ; and that Adam's sin
is therefore justly imputed by God to all his pos
terity. This hypothesis has its ground in the
opinion that the souls of children have existed,
either in reality, or at least potentially, in their
parents, and this as far back as Adam ; and that
in this way the souls of all his posterity partici
pated in the actions done in his person, although
they themselves were never after conscious of
such action. Vide s. 57, II. 3. This was the
doctrine of the Traduciani, which Tertullian also
professed. And it was upon this ground prin
cipally that the strict doctrine of imputation was
maintained in the Latin church; even Ambro-
sius placed his defence of it upon this basis.
But this doctrine was argued with the greatest

276

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

zeal by Augustine, in opposition to Pelagius, and
after his time was generally received in the
Western church; although Augustine himself
was often doubtful in respect to Tradueianism.
What Paul had taught in a loose, popular way,
respecting the imputation of Adam's sin, was
now taken by Augustine and his followers in a
strict, philosophical, and legal sense. Ambro-
sius says, Omnes in prima homine (If' a) pecca-
vimus, et culpx successio ab una in omnes trans-
fusa est. Augustine says, In Adamo omnes pec-
carunt, in lumbis Adami erat genus humanum.
Also, Infantes ab eo trahunt peccati reatum, mor-
tisque supplicium. For a full collection of texts
on this controversy, vide Vossius, Historia Pe-
lagiana. [Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 80, An-
merk. 1, 2. — Tr.] In form, these declarations
have an apparent resemblance to the doctrine of
Paul; but the resemblance is only apparent.
Augustine understands in a strictly philosophical
sense what, as we have seen above, was said by
Paul in a popular manner.
In opposition to Augustine, Pelagius taught
that Adam hurt himself alone, and not his pos
terity, by his transgression, and that it would be
unjust for God to impute his guilt to his innocent
descendants — a doctrine evidently opposed to
that of Paul.
As the theory of Augustine rests upon a base
less hypothesis, it does not need a formal refuta
tion. It was the prevailing theory among the
schoolmen, and even throughout the sixteenth
century, and until about the middle of the seven
teenth, when it was contested by the French re
formed theologians, Joshua Placaeus, and Moses
Amyraldus, who, however, were violently op
posed. In England, too, it was contested by
Thomas Burnet. The advocates of this theory
endeavoured to defend it by means of the theory
of spermatic animalcules, which arose about the
middle of the eighteenth century. When, by
means of the magnifying glass, these spermatic
animalculae were observed, the thought occur
red that they were the cause of impregnation.
And some then affirmed that the souls of all men
were in Adam, had their seat in these invisible
animalculae, participated in everything which he
did, and consequently sinned with him. While,
therefore, the Biblical theologians of the protest
ant church have justly held fast the doctrine of
imputation, they have abandoned the theory of
Augustine, because this does not accord either
with reason or with scripture, and because it
furnishes no adequate vindication for God in this
procedure. In place of this theory, our theolo
gians have substituted others, either invented by
themselves or adopted from different authorities.
(2) Many have inferred the justice of imputa
tion from the supposition that Adam was not
only the natural or seminal, bnt also the moral
head of tne human race, or even its representative

and federal head. They suppose, accordingly,
that the sin of Adam is imputed to us, on the
same principle on which the doings of the head
of a family, or of the plenipotentiary of a state,
are imputed to his family or state, although they
had no personal agency in his doings. In the
same way, they suppose Christ took the place
of all men, and that what he did is imputed to
them. According to this theory, God entered
into a league or covenant with Adam, and so
Adam represented and toek the place of the
whole human race. This theory was invented
by some schoolmen, and has been adopted by
many in the Romish and protestant church since
the sixteenth century, and was defended even in
the eighteenth century by some Lutheran theolo
gians, as Pfaff of Tubingen, some of the follow
ers of Wolf, (e. g., Carpzov, in his " Coram, de
Imputations facti proprii d alieni") and Baum-
garten, in his Dogmatik, and disputation, "de
imputatione peccati Adamitici." But it was more
particularly favoured by the reformed theolo
gians, especially by the disciples of Cocoeius, at
the end of the seventeenth and commencement
pf the eighteenth century— e. g., by Witsius, in
his " GScoriomia fcederum." They appeal to
Hosea, vi. 7, "They transgressed the covenant,
like Adam" — i. e., broke the divine laws. But
where is it said that Adam was their federal head,
and that his transgression is imputed to them?
On this text Morus justly observes, "est mera
comparatio Judaeorum peccantium cum Adamo
peccante." Other texts are also cited in behalf
of this opinion.
But, for various reasons, this theory cannot be
correct. And, (a) The descendants of Adam
never empowered him to be their representative,
and to act in their name, (b) It cannot be shewn
from the Bible that Adam was informed that the
fate of all his posterity was involved in his own.
(c) If the transgression of Adam is imputed, by
right i of covenant, to all his posterity, then, in
justice, all their transgressions should be again
imputed to him as the guilty cause of all their
misery and sin. What a mass of guilt, then,
would come upon Adam ! But pf all this, no
thing is said in the scriptures, (d) The impu
tation of the righteousness of Christ cannot be
alleged in support of this theory. For this is
imputed to men only by their own will and
consent. This hypothesis has been opposed,
with good reason, by John Taylor, in his work
on original sin, which will be hereafter noticed.
(3) Others endeavour to deduce the doetrine
of imputation from the scientia media of God, ot
from his foreknowledge of what is conditionally
possible. The sin of Adam, they say, is im
puted to us, because God foresaw that each one
of us would have committed it if he had been
in Adam's stead, or placed in his circum
stances. Even Augustine says, that the sin of

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

277

Adam lS'!;mputed to us propter consensionem, or
eonsensum prxsumptum. This theory has been
advanced, in modern times, by Reuseh, in his
Introductio in Theologiam revelatam," and in
Brunquell's work, "Die gute Sache Gottes,
bey Zurechnung des Falls ;" Jena, 1749. But
it is a new sort of justice, which would allow
us to be punished for sins which we never
committed, or never designed to commit, but
only might possibly have committed under cer
tain circumstances. Think a moment, how
many sins we all should have committed if God
had suffered us to come into circumstances of
severe temptation. An innocent man might, by
this rule, be punished as a murderer, because,
had he lived at Paris on St. Bartholomew's
Night in 1572, he might, from mistaken zeal,
have killed a heretic.
(4) Since none of these hypotheses satisfac
torily explain the matter, the greater part of the
moderate and Biblical theologians of the pro
testant church are content with saying, what is
manifestly the doctrine of the Bible, that the
imputation of Adam's sin consists in the prevail
ing mortality of the human race,and that this is
not to be regarded as imputation in the strict
judicial sense, but rather as the consequence of
Adam's transgression, perhaps, as is thought by
some, the physical consequence of earing the
forbidden fruit, which may certainly be inferred
rom Gen. iii. The strict doctrine of immediate
mputation was by no means universal among
the protestant theologians of the sixteenth cen
tury, and, as is justly remarked by Pfaff, Weis-
mann, Burnet, and others, was to many of them
unknown even in name. The common theory,
de capite morali sive fosderali is not to be found
in the symbols.
For the purposes. of popular instruction let
therefore the following Biblical statement suf
fice : " Adam, on account of his transgression
of the divine law, was punished with death, and
from thenceforward became mortal ; and being
himself mortal, he could beget only mortal de
scendants. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 48 — 50, coll. Gen.
v. 3. Hence we and all men are mortal ; and the
ground of this mortality lies in our progenitors,
and this mortality is a consequence of their
transgression." In conformity with these views,
let the teacher explain the passage in Rom. v.,
and abstain from all subtleties and learned hy
potheses. Note  Works on Imputation and Original
Sin. (1) In opposition to imputation sensu
strictiori, and also the doctrine concerning ori
ginal sin. Of these there have been many
among the English theologians of the eighteenth
century. Vide especially Dan. Whitby, De
imputatione divina peccati Adamitici; Londini,
1711; translated into German, with notes, by
Semler, 1775; John Taylor, Scriptural Doc

trine of Original Sin, in three parts, also trans
lated into German. At a later period these doc
trines were investigated by the protestant di
vines and philosophers of Germany, and partly
opposed — e. g., by Tollner, Theol. Untersuch-
ungen, St. ii. fib. Rom. v.; Eberhard, Apologie
des Socrates, th. i. and ii. ; Steinbart, System
der Glfickseligkeitslehre; Jerusalem, Betracht
ungen, th. ii.
2. In deferibe of these doctrines, and in oppo
sition to the works above mentioned. Joh.
Andr. Cramer, Exercitationes de peccato origi-
nali ad versus Jo. Taylor; Kopenhagen, 1766-67.
Sixt, Priifung des Systems, u. s. w. st. i.
(in opposition to Steinbart.) The work enti
tled, "Freymfithige Priifung des Steinbart'shen
Christenthums" (1792), contains also many
excellent and just observations. Seiler, Von
der Erbsfinde, oder dem naturlichen Verderben
— a work directed in general against the ancient
and modern objections to this doctrine, especially
those of Eberhard and Steinbart; J. D. Michaelis,
Gedanken fiber die Lehre der Schrift von der
Sfinde und Genngthuung, Gottingen u. Bremen,
1779, 8vo, one of the most important works in
relation to this subject. He lay the doctrine of
the Bible at the foundation, and then endeavours
to shew its' agreement with reason and experi
ence, and to vindicate it against objections.
This work contains many very excellent and
ingenious observations. There are also valu
able remarks on this subject in Storr's work,
" Zweck des Todes Jesu," and in his Comment
ary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cf. Kant,
Vom radikalen Bosen. In illustration of the
history of this doctrine, cf. Walch, Historia
doctrinae de peccato originis ; Jenae, 1738 ; Sem
ler, Geschichte der Glaubenslehre, prefixed to
Baumgarten's "Polemik."
[The work of President Edwards "On Ori
ginal Sin" deserves mention among the most
celebrated works of European theologians on
this subject. Among the later and more tho
rough German writers on the subject of impu
tation are, Schleiermacher, Usteri, Tholuck,
Nitzch. The former of these has vindicated
some of the highest points of Calvinism by the
most profound reasoning. The others follow
more or less the general system which he has
developed. — Tr.]
SECTION LXXVII.
IN WHAT THE NATURAL DEPRAVITY OF MAN CON
SISTS ; ITS APPELLATIONS IN THE BIBLE ; WHERE
IT HAS ITS PRINCIPAL SEAT IN MAN ; AND HOW
ITS EXISTENCE MAY BE PROVED FROM THE HOLT
SCRIPTURES. I. In what Natural Depravity consists.
The descriptions given of it by theologians
are very different as to the words employed.
2A

278

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Melancthon describes the peccatum originis as
an inclination or disposition to all evil, which,
however, does not always manifest itself in the
same way,' or in the same degree, and which
does not appear at once, but gradually, and in
all men. Others describe it as that disposition
ol the soul by which evil desires have an exist
ence in it, or rather, spring up whenever occa
sion offers, &c But they all agree, at last, that
the essence of natural depravity isuhe disturbed
balance of the powers or inclinations of man,
or the preponderance of the carnal desires over
reason. It lies in the fact, that the lower nature
of man, made by God to obey, is not submissive
to the reason, as the power which should give
law, and govern. The following definition may
therefore be given of the moral depravity of
man, in conformity both with experience and
with scripture: it is that tendency to sinful pas
sions or unlawful propensities which is perceived
in man whenever objects of desire are placed before
him and laws are laid upon him, Rom. vii. This
want of harmony between the two natures being
but too clearly perceived, and being justly re
garded as an evil fraught with ruinous conse
quences to man, it was early maintained among
the Hebrews and other nations, that it could not
have existed in the original state of man. We
see everywhere that men have felt it necessary
to adopt this supposition. It is, moreover, in
accordance with the Bible. Vide s. 75, II. 2.
We have already considered (vide s. 74) how
far unaided reason can go in clearing up this
subject; we now come to examine what we are
taught respecting it by the scriptures.
Theologians remark here, by way of cau
tion, that we must carefully distinguish between
the essential and accidental deficiencies and im
perfections of our nature. Essential imperfec
tions would always have been seen in man,
owing to the limitation of his nature, even al
though he had not fallen. But these imperfec
tions would have implied no fault and no de
pravity. Depravity in any one presupposes a
better state, from which he has deteriorated.
Hence our essential imperfections cannot proper
ly be considered as belonging to our natural
depravity — e. g., man cannot be accounted de
praved in consequence of the ignorance in which
he is born, and the false judgments which spring
merely from that ignorance, nor for the pleasure
which he takes in objects of sense, when sim
ply considered; but only for the other class of
imperfections, those that are contingent. Among
these may be placed the violence of the pas
sions, their obvious preponderance over reason,
and the hindrances we meet with from this
source to the knowledge of the truth, and to our
progress in holiness. This is shewn by the
¦ixample of Eve. She was, even before her fall,

in many respects ignorant and inexperienced;
she judged incorrectly respecting God ; she felt
too the motions of sense ; but as yet she was
uncorrupted. But after she fell she was the
subject of those other accidental imperfections
which now constitute human depravity.
II. How Depravity is named in the Bible, and where
it is located in Man.
(1) The word <|&opd is used in scripture to
designate the entire corrupt constitution of man
in a moral respect. According to common usage
it denotes a constitution and state which is not
as it should be. Vide 2 Pet. ii. 19 ; Ephes. iv.
22; 1 Tim. vi. 5.
(2) This depravity (<}&opd) of man exerts a
powerful influence upon his soul, his under
standing, and will. Vide Rom. vi. 14—23;
Ephes. ii. 3. The body is, however, plainly the
principal seat of the carnal appetites and desires,
and hence the origin of this depravity is to be
sought chiefly in the body. Vide Rom. vii. 5,
23 ; vi. 12, seq. And all the ancient heathen
philosophers, who considered the preponderance
of this lower animal nature as the source of
human depravity, made the body the principal
seat of this evil, and in doing so were supported
by observations familiar to all.
(a) The ancient Grecian philosophers, Pytha-
goTas, Plato, Aristotle, the stoics, (vide s. 74,
I.,) considered matter, and the human body as
consisting of matter, to be the seat and source
of evil. With these writers, the Hellenistic
Jews agreed. Vide Book of Wisdom, ix. 15,
"The decaying body burdens the soul, and the
earthy tabernacle presses down the thinking
spirit." Of the same mind were most of the
early Christian fathers— e. g., Justin the Mar
tyr, Origen, (although some passages in his
works appear to contradict this,) Hilarius, and
Augustine himself. This doctrine was carried
to a great length and very much abused by some
heretics who sprang up in the Christian church,
particularly in the East. They regarded matter
as in itself an evil existence, not deriving its
being from God, nor depending upon him. So
the Gnostics and the Manicheans.
(b) The doctrine that the body of man is the
chief seat of human weaknesses and imperfec
tions, and also the germ of moral evil, was
widely diffused among the eastern nations in
the remotest antiquity, and was adopted by the
writers of the Old Testament, as may be clearly
seen from their use of the werd "ifc>a, (aapjj.)
This word signifies originally the human body,
then, me7» themselves, but always with the im
plied idea that they are frail, imperfect, and
mortal, or, in a moral respect, that they are la
clified to err and sin. Vide Gen. vi. 12; viii.
22; Isaiah, xl. 6, coll. Matt. xxvi. 41; John,

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

279

iii. 6. On the other hand the word nn (itvsipa)
denotes what is spiritual, moral, divine, perfect,
holy, &c
(c) This dcctrine, the first traces ef which
we find in the earlier Jewish bcpks, was gra
dually develeped, and was at last exhibited in
the New Testament with the greatest clearness.
Paul places trap! in epppsition to vovs pi itvsipa,
and depicts the ccntroversy between the two,
and the hindrances which the ffapt opposes to
the itvsipa in the knowledge of the truth, and
holiness of walk. Vide Rom. vii. 18, 23.
With him typovslv and itsputatslv xata gdpxa
mean tc indulge sinful desires, Rom. viii. 1, 5;
and ^ixtjpa, fpovr/pa, vovs ffapxdj, signify, the
corrupt, depraved disposition of human nature —
the propensity to sin, Gal. vi. 13 ; Ephes. ii. 3.
Cf. iitfevplat aopxixai, bodily, sensual desires,
1 Peter, ii. 11 ; also 6 gapxixbs (dv^partos.) In
Rom. vi. 6, 16, Paul says that the Christian
should deprive the gapa apaptlas of its power,
and not suffer himself to be subject iit&vulais
gauatos; and in Rom. vii. 18 — 25, still more
plainly ; he knew, he says, that in him (or rather
in his body, iv gapxl) the seat of moral good was
not to be found, (ovx oixsl dya^bv.) He was
not, indeed, wanting in gppd will to live righte
ously, but in power to perform his will. He
often could not accomplish the good which he
heartily approved from his inmost moral feel
ings; and, on the contrary, he often did the evil
which he disallowed. And thus he knew that
siii — i. e., a disposition to sin, sinful depravity —
dwelt in him. His spirit (vovs, o sga dv^paitos)
approved the divine law, and acknowledged it
good and useful ; but in his members (ivpixsgi —
i. e., iv gauati) there was another law, the law
of sin, (didamen sensuum,) which was cpppsed
to the law of God, and which ruled over him.
Hence he exclaims, " 0 miserable man that I
am, who shall deliver me from this mortal body,
' (gapa tov ^avdtos toitov.)" And at last he
thanks God that through Christ he has granted
him this deliverance, and that he was no more
under the necessity of yielding obedience to his
depraved appetites, although they still conti
nued, and often resumed their power.
The word tyvxlx°s, ^vxlx°i dv^paitos is also
often used in the scriptures, denoting that one
does not follow his reason, but is wholly under
the influence of his bodily appetites and desires,
and will give heed only to what he learns
through his senses, and so despises the instruc
tion which God has given respecting spiritual
things. Thus Jude, ver. 19 ; for tvei and tyvxr)
often signify the impulses, desires, and pro
pensities of our lower nature; and 1 Cor. ii, 14,
where ^zwosdi&pajtoj is one who scorns divine
instruction, and chooses rather sense, darkness,
and delusion; one who has no organ for what
s above sense, and no taste for divine instruc

tion, — the same with gapxixbs, 1 Cor. iii. 1,
The inordinate desires, those which are not as
they should be, are often called in scripture, by
way of eminence, iiti^vula, iiti^valai erapjtos, I
John, ii. 16, — commonly rendered in the Vul
gate concupiscentia ; hence this word is adopted
in ecclesiastical Latinity. Vide Morus, p. 107,
n. 3, 4.
(d) From the passages now cited, and from
the known sense in which the words above men
tioned were anciently used, it is plain that those
writers who make the soul the chief seat and
original Source of corruption very much mistake.
Into this error Buddeus has fallen, as appears
from his dissertation, " De anima sede peccati
originalis principale;" Jenae, 1725; and in this
error he is followed by Seiler. It is equally cer
tain, however, that this originally bodily disor
der has a powerful influence upon the soul, on
account of the intimate connexion between these
two essential parts of man. It acts (a) upon the
understanding, since by means of it the objects
of knowledge are placed before the mind in an
entirely false light, so that the understanding
holds that which is false for true, what is evil
for good, and the reverse. ((3) Upon the will
and the actions, so that what has been thus false
ly represented by the senses to the. understand
ing as good and right, is now desired and ac
complished. The evil consequences of this are,
that man prefers apparent to real good, that he
allows himself to be more governed by his
senses than by his understanding, and often
does that which he himself disapproves, and so
chooses and acts against his own principles and
his better views. Vide Rom. vii. 8, 19, 23 ; Gal.
v. 17, "Thf desire of the flesh is often opposed
to the desire of the spirit, so that man is often
unable to accomplish his good purposes." The
soul, as Paul teaches, is so far weak as the ani
mal propensities (itd&ifiata ffapxos) are strong;
and so feeble that it is the slave of these pro
pensities; and although it may have a better
conviction, is not able to carry it into effect, but
is so carried away that it must do what itself
disapproves. And this is the benefit of Christ
(xdpigpa), that he saves us from the power of
sin, as well as from its punishment.
Note 1. — Care must be taken here that the
doctrine of the injury which we sustain from the
body and the inordinate appetites of which it
is the seat, be not carried too far, as it has been
by Less, and other modern theologians. This
extreme in the doctrine very naturally leads to
dangerous perversions; and we might expect
that it would lead many to resort to suicide, in
order to free themselves from the burdensome
prison of the body. And indeed suicide was
justified on this ground by th'e stoics, and other
ancient philosophers. On this subject it is im
portant to bear in mind the great advantages

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

which, as we are taught in the scriptures, we
possess from the connexion of the rational soul
with the body in our present state. Vide s. 74.
The false idea of the ancient Pythagoreans and
Platonists that the body is a prison where the
soul is incarcerated for its punishment, was held
also by many of the mystics and Platonists
among the old Jews and Christians ; but it has
no foundation in the scriptures. The sacred
writers never require us, as Grecian philosophers
and Christian mystics often do, to eradicate our
bodily appetites and desires, (which, if it were
possible, would destroy the very nature of man,)
but only to control them and subject them to
reason. Christian morals therefore insists, not
that man should leave off particular sins, or
suppress particular outbreakings of unlawful
desire, but that a new turn should be given to
all the natural desires ; and this is the proper
tendency of Christian morals. It designs to
bring man from the love of the world to the love
of God ; from an improper self-love to the love
of others ; from a love to sensible and perishing
things to a love of spiritual and eternal good.
Such are the instructions which Christ every
where gives. Vide John, iii. 3 — 21. It is a false
assertion that the inculcation of the doctrine of
the natural propensity to evil has a tendency
to discourage men from the pursuit of good;
when properly exhibited, this doctrine has ex
actly the opposite effect, and excites to the vi
gorous employment of our powers. The great
point in this doctrine is, that the man who
would fulfil his destination must depart from
evil, and, not. content with merely cultivating
and developing his powers, must experience a
radical reformation.
[Note 2. — Does the depravity of our nature con
sist in the inordinateness of our bodily desires ?
From the views exhibited in this section it
appears that our author adopts the affirmative
of this question. He sees in man a conflict be
tween reason and those lower principles which
have their seat in the body, and thinks of no ul
terior or more radical evil. To such a concep
tion of human depravity he is necessarily brought
by his theory respecting the consequences of the
fall, making them to consist chiefly in the dis
arrangement of our bodily constitution. In be
half of these views he appeals, as the reader has
perceived, to the universal doctrine of pagan
philosophy on this subject, to the familiar ob
servation of the actual inordinateness of the
bodily appetites and their preponderance over
reason, but principally to the scriptural phrase
ology employed to designate the native charac
ter of man, and which, taken in its first etymo
logical sense, seems to indicate that the 6od»/ is
the ultimate cause and principal seat of human
depravity. This part of our author's system is of such

radical importance, and soimaterially affects the
views we must entertain of the other doctrines
of Christianity, and especially of the atonement,
that it ought not to pass without examination,
As to the first argument above mentioned, %\.
will be readily conceded that this view of our
natural character and state harmonizes well with
pagan philosophy. It has a general resemblance
even to the Indian and Persian religious sys
tems, as exhibited by the Schlegels and other
modern writers on the East. But it corresponds
more exactly with the Platonic system, which
fully recognises the conflict between the rational
principle, (the xoyixbv), and the irrational, ani
mal principle, (the dxoyov.) And while it re
sembles these systems, it must be said also that
it is liable to the same objection which has often
been urged against them — viz., that in some
way, by supposing either an eternal intelligent
principle of evil, or a blind destiny, or some de
fective bodily organization, or by some other
external necessity, they account for the origin
and prevalence of evil, instead of charging it
upon the perverted use of the moral powers of
men. But to all such conceptions of our moral
condition Christianity stands opposed, espe
cially in the doctrine of the atonement, which,
by is proffer of forgiveness, presupposes, not
misfortune merely, but guilt, on the part of man,
and which, in its whole bearing, aims at a spi
ritual and not a physical evil. It is in this way
that Christianity furnishes a new point of view
for observing the character of man, and discloses
the essential nature and deeper root of evil.
The fact alleged in the second argumentr-
viz., that there is a visible preponderance of
sense or of bodily appetites over reason, is also
readily conceded; but can we conclude from
this fact that this disorder is to be attributed tc
the body, and the affections having their seat in
it? Would not the just balance between the
higher and lower principles of our nature be
equally disturbed by altering the weight in
either scale? If in the original constitution of
our nature, the lower principles of the animal
life on one side were balanced on the other by
the higher principles of our intellectual life, not
by themselves, but in connexion with a communi
cated divine life, of which they are the organ,
(as we shall attempt to shew,) then the mere
loss or withdrawment of this divine life would
be followed of course by a loss of this original
equipoise, and the undue predominance of the
lower principles. Thus it can he conceived that
the inordinateness of the bodily appetites, in
which human depravity might seem at first view
to consist, so far from constituting its real es
sence, may be only the necessary result of an
ulterior cause, the defect of the higher princi
ples. Indeed, considering the nature of these
higher principles, and their rightful supremacy

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

how can their being drawn away and enslaved
by principles so inferior and subordinate be ac
counted for, except from some defect in the spi
ritual part, to say nothing of positively evil in
timations seated there ?
The argument derived from the use of the
scriptural terms -*>a and gdp%, and their syno-
nymes, is very plausible ; and when Paul calls
the vopos tijs oapaeos also a vopos iv tols psXsGi,
the question might seem to be decided. But if
this is difficult on one side, it is not less so on
the other, that pride, envy, and other feelings,
the most remote from the influence of the body,
are derived by Paul from gdp%, as its immediate
fruits. Cf. Gal. v. 19—22 ; Col. ii. 18. Other
reasons against the meaning assigned by our
author to these scriptural terms will appear in
the sequel of this note.
The following development of the scriptural
doctrine respecting the natural state of man is
offered for consideration, in the belief that it is
Augustinian and Edwardsean on the particular
points in which these systems differ from the
Pelagian and Arminian anthropologies.
In the first place ; that principle, state, or dis
position of human nature, whatever it may be,
by which it is designated as corrupt or evil, is
more usually denominated gdp%, one who is in
this state, efopxtxd; ; the living and acting in it
are described by the formulae, itepiitatslv iv gapxl,
xata gdpxa %ijv, fpovslv, x.t.x. The same state
is also described, though less commonly, by
other terms nearly synonymous with these.
Secondly. The most important clue to the
meaning of the term gdp%, upon which so much
depends, and which is so difficult of interpreta
tion, is the fact that it is placed in constant and
direct contrast to the term itvsvud, — so much so,
that it seems necessarily to imply a state exactly
opposite to that denoted by the latter term. The
opposition between these two principles is point
ed out in the following passages — viz., Rom.
vii. 25; viii. 1, seq.; 1 Cor. iii. 4; Gal. v. 19,
seq. Hence it is obvious, that in order to attain
distinct and specific conceptions of the meaning
of cap?, we must fully understand the import of
the term itvsipa, with which it is contrasted.
If itvsvua denotes merely the intelligent, ration
al principle, (the toyixdV,) then may gdp% desig
nate merely the irrational, bodily appetites and
desires, (the d^oyov.) But if itvsvua have a
higher import, then to suppose gdp% to be still
limited, as before, to the designation of merely
bodily appetites, would be to lose sight of the
direct and invariable opposition in which these
terms are placed.
Thirdly. It would be a very superficial view
of the import of itvsipa, and contrary to the
whole scriptural usage, to understand by it the
mere intelligence or reason of man ; on the con
trary it denotes this reason, considered as the or

gan of the higher divine life imparted to man, and
which is itself more properly the itvsipa, and
upon which the spirit, as a natural faculty with
which man is endowed, depends absolutely for
its exercise. This, it seems to us, is the gene
ric idea of the term itvsipa, although sometimes
it denotes more prominently the faculty of the
mind, and at others, the divine life itself of
which the mind is the recipient; just as^dxofoj
is used to denote either the natural or the spiri
tual part of the whole penalty of the law, of
which it is the generic name, according as the
one or the other of these is more prominently in
the mind of the writer. And so the itvsvpatixas ,
is one who not merely possesses reason and go- ]
verns his animal appetites by it, but one who
partakes of this higher, divine life, who stands
in living communion with God, receives the su
pernatural gifts of his grace, by which the na
tural principles of reason are strengthened and
enabled to maintain the proper mastery over the
lower principles of sense. Accordingly, gdp%
must indicate that state of man in which he is
destitute of this higher life, either having lost
it, or never attained to the possession of it, — in
which the principles of humanity, both the higher
and lower, are left to themselves; in short, the
state in which man is without the Spirit of God
— a state which, from this its privative charac-
rer, might be appropriately denominated unre-
generacy, or ungodliness. And the capjaxdj is
one who not merely has inordinate bodily appe
tites, and obeys the didamen sensuum, but one
whp dpes net receive and enjoy the presence of
the Spirit of God. And so Calvin, in his Comm.
on John, iii. 6, explains gdp% to mean tire whole
natural man, considered as without the new
birth, or the divine life; and well remarks, "7n-
sulse. theologastri ad partem quam vacant sen-
sualem restringunt."
Fourthly. The correctness of the account
here given of the import of gdp% is strikingly
confirmed by the manner in which its syno-
nymes are used throughout the New Testament.
Thus tyvx™°< is use<l (e- eT-i * Cor. ii. 14 and
Jude, ver. 19) to designate one. who has not the
Spirit, and receives not the things of the Spirit.
And in Eph. iv. 22, the itaXaibs dv^paitos, corrupt
according to the deceitful lusts, is opposed to
the being renewed. And so everywhere the
destitution of the supernatural grace of God and
of his life-giving Spirit is the prominent idea in
these and similar terms.
¦ Fifthly. But thus far we attain only a nega
tive conception on this subject. What positive
idea, then, shall we form of the State of man
destitute of the Divine Spirit, and estranged
from God ? An answer to this question will
bring us upon the highest dividing points be
tween the Augustinian and Pelagian anthropo
logies; for it was not in the doctrines which
2 a2

282

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

came most into discussion during the Pelagian
controversies that the first and essential differ
ences between these systems lay ; but in points
further back, adopted unconsciously by these
diverging tendencies, according to their differ
ent nature, and of which the doctrines in discus
sion were only the more remote results.
According to Pelagius, man was originally,
and is. still, endowed' by God with all the
powers and faculties requisite to the ends of his
being, and it depends only upon himself, in the
exercise of his free will, to practise all good and
fulfil his destination. In his system there is
therefore no necessity for any supernatural in
fluences of grace, and scarcely any place for
them ; certainly a destitution of them does not
necessarily imply the corruption of nature, since
without them man is adequate to holiness. But
according to Augustine it is far otherwise ; and
man stands in an absolute and constant depend
ence upon God, as the only source of truth and
good ; the faculties of reason and will with
which the Creator has endowed us are by no
means complete in themselves and self-suffi
cient to the purposes for which they were
given, but only organs to receive and reveal the
higher life communicated from God, to whom
they are related as the eye to the sun ; and this,
not merely through the contingency of the fall,
but originally and essentially ; so that the loss
of this imparted divine life must be followed by
[ the powerlessness of the higher principles of our
' nature, the predominance of the lower, and so
the corruption of the whole man. We have
thus a contrast between a state of grace and of
nature, between the spiritual and natural man, —
the former participating in divine life through
fellowship with God, and consequently superior
_ to the baser and lower principles ; the latter,
estranged from this life, and so fallen into en
tire disorder, inability to good, and moral cor
ruption. Such is the positive idea of gdp%, and
this is the being in the flesh, or being carnal, so
often spoken of in the New Testament.
The views of Edwards, which are exhibited
so lucidly and even beautifully in his work on
" Original Sin," (p. 330, and especially p. 427,
seq. Worces. ed.,) correspond entirely with
those of Augustine. "The case with man was
plainly this : — When God made man at first he
implanted in him two kinds of principles. There
was an inferior kind, which may be called natu
ral, being the principles of mere human nature ;
such as self-love, with those natural appetites
and passions which belong to the nature of man,
in which his love to his own liberty, honour,
and pleasure were exercised : these, when alone,
and left to themselves, are what the scriptures
sometimes cMfiesh. Besides these, there were
superior principles, that were spiritual, holy, and
divine, summarily comprehended in divine love.
t -.>. \> VV*

These principles may, in some sense, be called
supernatural, being (however concreated or con
nate, yet) such as are above those principles that
are essentially implied in, or necessarily result
ing from, and inseparably connected with, mere
human nature ; and being such as immediately
depend on man's union and communion with
God, or divine communications and influences
of God's Spirit. These superior principles
were given to possess the throne, and maintain
an absolute dominion in the heart; the other, to
be wholly subordinate and subservient. And
while things continued thus, all things were in
excellent order, peace, and beautiful harmony,
and in their proper and perfect state." Again
he says: "The withholding of special divine
influence to impart and maintain the good prin
ciples, leaving the common natural principles
to themselves, without the government of supe
rior divine principles, will certainly be followed
with the corruption, yea, the total corruption of
the heart. As light ceases in a room when the
candle is withdrawn, so man is left in a state
of darkness, woful corruption and ruin, nothing
but flesh without spirit, when the Holy Ghost,
that heavenly inhabitant, forsakes the house.
The inferior principles, given only to serve,
being alone, and left to themselves, of course
become reigning principles ; the immediate con
sequence of which is, a turning of all things
upside down. It were easy to shew, if here
were room for it, how every depraved disposi
tion would naturally arise from this privative
original." (Abridged.)
But we may attain to still more definite con
ceptions respecting the positive nature of 'the
flesh, by considering it in opposition to the
highest principle and spring of the spiritual
state. This latter is ascertained by all just rea
soning about the nature of holiness, and by the
first precept of the divine law, to be supreme
love to God. Hence selfishness is to be regarded
as constituting the central point of the natural
unregenerate life.
It will now be obvious how, in the catalogue
of the works of the^esA, there should stand such
feelings as have no conceivable connexion with
the body, and cannot possibly be derived from
its influence.
But it may be asked, why, then, if it is not
intended to exhibit the influence of the body,
should the term crap! and its synonymes be em
ployed to designate the natural unrenewed state
of man? To this question various answers
might be given. One reason is offered by Ed
wards, p. 321 of the work cited above. But
the reason suggested by Tholuck corresponds
best with the view which has been given of trfe
privative nature of the flesh. As the, body is
dead without the enlivening soul, so the spirit
of man is powerless and dead without the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL. 283

higher life derived from the Spirit of God. And
thus the mortal part of our animal nature is
taken for the designation of our intellectual and
moral being, as far as it is dead, powerless, and
corrupt, from its being destitute of its higher
spiritual life in God.
This view of human depravity, in opposition
to that which makes it consist in the inordinate
ness of bodily appetites, derives its principal in
terest and importance from its bearing on the
other doctrines of religion, and especially on the
doctrine of atonement. As was hinted in a pre
vious note, if the depravity of man results from
any physical disarrangement, then the remedy,
in order to meet the exact point of the disease,
and to reach its real- source, ought to be applied
to the physical, instead of the moral, nature of
man. It is only on the supposition that selfish
ness is the root of evil, and the central principle
of our natural life, and that man is dependent
for holiness and happiness upon an imparted
life, higher than that of reason, that the pro
visions of the atonement have any signifi
cance. — Tr.]
HI. How Native Depravity may be proved from
the Bible.
(1) In doing this, we should not employ,
without selection, all those texts which speak
of the moral depravity of man in general, or of
that of particular men or nations ; for in many
of these passages the sins and' vices actually
committed by men are the subjects of discourse,
and not the disposition to sin inherent in man
kind. It was the intention of the sacred writers,
in some of the examples which they have given
us of heinous transgressors, to shew to what sin
leads, by what terrible consequences it is fol
lowed, in order to deter men from committing
it, and not to teach that all men are the same,
or have actually sunk to the same depth of vile-
ness, although by reason of their inherent de
pravity they might all sink to the same depth.
Among texts of this nature we may mention
Psalm xiv. 3, seq., where the declaration, there
is none that doeth good, &c, relates to the god
less persons mentioned ver. 1. And so Paul,
Rom. iii. 10, proves from this passage that there
were formerly among the Israelites very wicked
men. And Job (chap. xiv. 4) alludes princi
pally to those actual transgressions by which
men are brought into that state in which none
can be guiltless in the sight of God. In Rom.
iii. 9, seq., the apostle shews that the Jewish
nation had no advantage over others in point of
holiness or moral purity, and that there had al
ways been in it corrupt and vicious men. Nor
can the text, Ps. Ii. 7, be cited in behalf of this
doctrine. The mention of natural depravity does
not harmonize with the context, and the phrase
to be bom in or with sin (i. e., to bring sin into

the world with one) relates, as is evident from
John, ix. 34, not to native depravity, which all
have, but to the fact that he had not sinned for
the first time in the particular crime of which he
had then been guilty, but from his youth up had
been a great sinner; for such is frequently the
meaning of the term pip. Cf. Job, xxxi. 18;
Ps. lviii. 4. It may also be said here that David
does not make an universal affirmation, but only
speaks of himself, designing to describe himself
as a great sinner.
(2) The proof that the doctrine of natural de
pravity and its propagation is founded in the
holy scriptures, is rather to be made out from
the comparison of many texts taken together, or
viewed in their connexion. The doctrine itself
is undoubtedly scriptural, although the Biblical
writers did not always express themselves re
specting it with equal clearness and distinct
ness, and did not adopt all the consequences
which have been since drawn from it by many
from its connexion with other doctrines. The
Bible speaks, as Musaeus and Morus justly ob
serve, far more frequently in the concrete than in
the abstract, respecting the sinful corruption of
man ; and in this respect it should be imitated
by preachers in their popular instruction. Men
will readily concede the general proposition,
esse perditam naturam humanam ; but they are
unwilling that this proposition should be ap
plied to themselves ,- while yet the effect of the
personal self-application of this doctrine is most
salutary to every individual. The scriptures
teach us how to bring this doctrine home to
every heart.
The course of thought on this subject which
the Hebrews followed, and which was gradually
developed and transmitted to Christians, is as
follows : — God created everything, and conse
quently the material from which the sensible
world has originated, and from which he formed
the human body. All this was good and per
fect in its kind — i. e., adapted to the attainment
of its end or destination ; Gen. i. The body of
man was sustained by the tree of life, and happy
and peaceful was his condition in the state of
innocence. This Mosaic narrative is at the
foundation of the whole. Men ate of the for
bidden tree of poison; its taste brought sickness
and death upon them, weakened their body, and
destroyed its harmony. Violent passions now
arose within them, and the just balance of the
human powers and inclinations was destroyed,
and sense obtained predominance over reason.
Vide s. 75. All this is indeed spoken in Gen.
ii. and iii. only respecting Adam and Eve, and
nothing is there expressly said of the propaga
tion of this evil. But their posterity died after
the same manner, and experienced the same
predominance of sense and inclination to sin,
from their youth up. Respecting the race of

234

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

man sprung from Adam before the flood, the
seripture saith, Gen. vi. 5, Their wickedness
Was great, and every imagination of the thoughts
of their heart (13S nae/no "isH?3> all the thoughts,
desires, resolves, arising within them, and car
ried ouf. into action ; — -w, nature, constitution,
Ps. ciii. 14, [rather,/)-ame, whatever is made by
an artificer, and so here the whole doing or ope
ration of the heart,]) i«as daily nothing but evil.
Nor did any change take place in those who
lived after the flood; but men were found to be
the same as before, and so God repeated the
same declaration respecting thern, Gen. viii. 22.
And the constant experience of later times con
firmed the same truth. It was therefore justly
concluded that this evil is transmitted from ge
neration to generation, and is the common here
ditary disease of the human race; especially as
this evil was seen to exist very early in all men,
even from their youth (japp), and so could not
have arisen merely from defect in education or
the influence of bad example. All the imper
fections, therefore, which were understood by
the Jews under the terms -ie»a and gdp% (viz.,
mortality, the predominance of sense, the bias
to sin, &c.) were universally regarded by them
as the melancholy consequences of the fall of
the first man. Vide No. I. 3. In this, there
fore, lay the germ of all the evil and moral cor
ruption among men. It is obviously to these
fundamental ideas that all the prophets refer
back, when they speak of the sin and corruption
so prevalent among men. And it is the same
with the later Jewish writers after the Babylo
nian exile until the time of Christ — e. g., the
writers of the Apocrypha. And so we find
many traces of this in the old Jewish transla
tions of the Hebrew scriptures; in the Chaldaic
Paraphrases, and in the Septuagint Version — e.
g., in Job, xiv. 4, where it is said, Tione is pure,
the Septuagint adds, even although he should live
but for a single day upon the earth.
On the same genera] views do Christ and the
apostles proceed ; and Paul especially teaches
this doctrine plainly and expressly, and im
proves it in order to set forth more conspicu
ously the high worth of Christianity, as that
system in which more efficacious and sure re
medies against this evil were provided than the
Jewish or any other religion ever possessed. In
this way does he humble the pride of man, and
describe the disorder of the soul in that cele
brated passage before cited, Rom. vii. 14, seq.
He calls this innate evil, ver. 1 7, q oixoiga iv
iuol dpaptla, ver. 23, stspos vbuos iv toll psXsgi
pov, ver. 25, j/ofio; d^opf las.
In the text Eph. ii. 3, the term tpvcft; is vari
ously explained. The explanation of Morns,
that it denotes the state of one who follows his
sensual desires, as all men are naturally prone
to do, is just, on aocount of the antithesis in ver.

5, 10. *vtfrs properly Signifies (a) origin,birth,-
from fva, nascor ,- sp in Gal. ii. 15, cjniffEi Ion,.
Salos, Jews by birth, native Jews ,- and sn too va
the classics, (b) It is alsc used both by the
Jews and classics to denote the original, inborn*
and peculiar properties, attributes, nature of a
thing or person, the naturalis indoles or affecUo ;
as Rom. xi. 21, 24, where the sense is, "even
we who are born Jeys, are, as to our nature—
i. e., that natural disposition which we have
exhibited from our youth up — equally deserving
of punishment with other men, — i. e., native:
heathen ; for all, Jews and Gentiles alike, ara
born with a dangerous predominance of sense,
and deserving of the punishment of all the sons
of Adam' — viz., death."
After these texts, the passage, John, iii. 6, is'
easily explained : what is born of the flesh is
flesh — i. e., from men who are weak, erring,
and sinful, men of the same character are born.
No pne attains, therefore, by his mere birth,
(e. g, as a Jew,) te any peculiar privileges from
God ; these he attains only by being born again,
by becoming a regenerate man, morally changed.
On principles like these do the sacred writers
always proceed- when they teach that all men,
without exception, are sinners; John, iii. 6;
Rom. iii. 9, 19.
SECTION LXXVIII.
OF THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF THIS COR
RUPTION ; ITS PROPAGATION ; ITS PINISHABLB-
NESS J ALSO OF THE ORIGIN OF SINFUL DESIRES
AMONG MEN, AND THEIR PUNISHABLENESS,
I. Nature of Human Depravity.
(1) It is universal. This implies, (a) that
no man is wholly exempt from it, however dif
ferent may be the degrees and modifications in
which it may exist. The universality of human
depravity is proved, partly from the experience
of all men and ages (vide s. 74), partly from
the testimony of the holy scriptures. Many
texts, indeed, treat of the sinful actions and
moral corruption of men of mature life ; but we
are taught by the Bible to look for the first
ground even of these in that human depravity
or bias to sin without which sin itself would
never have prevailed so universally ; s. 77, III.
ad finem.
The texts commonly referred to on this sub
ject are, Job, xiv. 4, (who can find a pure man?
none is unspotted,) Rom. iii. 23, where Paul
says, in order to humble the pride of the Jews,
that they were no better than the heathen, and
were, as well as they, vgtspovvtss tijs Sofys ®sov'
also Rom. v. 12—21; Eph. ii. 3; John, iii. 6.
No sopner does man begin to exercise his rea
son, and to distinguish between good and evil,
than this bias to sin shews itself in hiin. While

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

285

he must acknowledge the law as good and obli
gatory, he feels within himself a resistance to
it — an inclination to do that which is opposed
to it, and forbidden by it. Indeed, he is borne
away with such power by his lower appetites
and passions, that he often does that which he
himself knows to be injurious, and neglects that
which he knows to be salutary. Rom. vii. 8;
Eph. ii. 3; Gal. v. 17. Thus it is with all
men ; and each individual must confess that the
Bible truly describes his own history and ex
perience. Hence this evil is universal.
The universality of this corruption implies,
(b) that it can never be entirely eradicated, even
with the most sincere endeavours of the pious ;
that although, through divine assistance, an end
may be put to the dominion of sin, and its out-
breakings may be prevented, yet the root and
germ of evil will remain, and cease only with
death, or the laying aside of the body, in which
this sinful corruption has* its principal seat.
Vide Rom. vi. 12 ; vii. 17, 24 ; Gal. v. 16, 17 ;
1 John, i. 8. Every one, therefore, who has
been freed from the dominion of sin, has still to
contend against this propensity to sin, lest he
should again fall under its dominion. Rom.
viii. 13; vi. 12, seq. These remnants of de
pravity which are found even in the best men,
make their holiness and virtue very imperfect;
and the feeling that they are sinners continually
humbles them before God. The truly pious
man will never therefore glory in his holiness,
or be proud of his virtue, because he well knows
that it is imperfect. This is evident from every
page of the scriptures.
(2) It is natural and innate, (naturalis et
congenita sive insita vitiositas sive depravatio.)
The term natural is taken from Eph. ii. 3, fvasi
ttxva bpyijs- Vide s. 77, III. 1. Tertullian
seems to be the first among the church fathers
who used the term naturalis. Vide s. 79, No.
4. The use of this term, if it be rightly ex
plained, is unobjectionable. If natural be un
derstood in the sense of essential, it conveys a
false idea, and is the same as to say, that this
depravity is an essential part of man, that man
could not exist as man without it. Matt. Fla-
cius of Jena, in the sixteenth century, contended,
in his controversies with Victor Strigelius -about
Synergism, that peccatum originate esse non acci-
dens, sed ipsam substantiam hominis. But he
asserted this merely from ignorance of scholas
tic phraseology. He meant only to maintain
the entire corruption of man, and his incapacity
to all good. And although the authors of the
Formula cf Concord (Art. I.) nominally oppose
Flacianism, they maintain the same doctrine in
other words : peccatum originate cum natura et
substantia hominis intime conjunctum esse et com-
mixtum. The term natural is rather used in this doc

trine in opposition to what is acquired, or first
produced and occasioned by external circum
stances and causes. It denotes that for which
there is a foundation in man himself, although
it may be an accident, and may not belong es
sentially to his nature. In the same sense we
say, for example, that such a man possesses na
tural sagacity, that a disease is natural, to an
other, that he is by nature a poet, &c, because
the qualities here spoken of are not the result of
diligence, practice, or any external circum
stances. In the same way this depravity is
called natural, because it has its ground in man,
and is not in the first place acquired ; or, still
more plainly, because it does not first come to
man from without, through instruction or the
mere imitation of bad examples.
As the term natural, however, is ambiguous,
and liable to misconception, some prefer the
designation innate, (congenitum or insitum)— a
term which, as well as the other, is scriptural.
The word congenitus is used by the elder Pliny
in the sense of innate, and as opposed acquisito
sive aliunde illato, and is in substance the same
as natural. So Cicero (Orat. pro domo, c. 5,)
places nativum malum in opposition to that
which is aliunde allato. And it is with justice
that a quality, which has its origin at the same
time with man, which is found in him from his
earliest youth, and can be wholly eradicated by
no effort, is denominated* natural, (jaac, applied
to the good, Job, xxxi. 18 ; to the wicked, Ps.
lviii. 4, denoting anything which is deep-rooted,
and shews itself early in men.) In this sense
we speak at the present day of innate or heredi
tary faults, virtues, excellences, both in men
and beasts — e. g., of cunning, pride, magnani
mity, &c. So Kant speaks of radikale Base ;
and Sosipater, according to the testimony of
Stobaeus, wrote in one of his letters, iwosl Si,
as gvufvtov tb duaptdvsuv dv^paitois.
(3) It is hereditary. That this evil is trans
mitted from parents to children follows partly
from jts universality, and partly from its entire
sameness in all men. As it was in the parents,
so it is in the children, although it shews itself
in different degrees, according to the difference
in the organization, the temperament, and the
external circumstances and relations in which
they live. In the same way we judge that cer
tain faults, talents, and virtues, are inherited by
children, when we see a resemblance between
them and their parents in these respects. The
doctrine that this depravity is propagated among
men from parents to children, and on this very
account is universal, is clearly taught in the
holy scriptures, as Rom. v. 12, seq.; John, iii.
6, and other texts. Vide s. 77, III. 2.
Note. — Human depravity does not, however,
consist in definite inclinations directed to parti
cular objects, but rather in a general disposition

286

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

to inordinate and violent passions, which shews
itself now with regard to one object, and again
with regard to another, according to the differ
ence of organization, of temperament, and of
external circumstances ; but in all cases, what
ever may be the object of the passion, in such a
way that reason and conscience avail but little
against passion, or far less than they sheuld.
II. The manner in which Natural Depravity is
propagated.
(1) From what has been already said, it is
plain that a physical propagation of human de
pravity is affirmed in the scriptures, and it is in
this that what theologians call original sin
(Erbsiinde) principally consists. This may be
proved from the following principles, which are
undeniably taught in the Bible: (a) that human.
nature was unquestionably more perfect and
better formerly than it is at present; (b) that
our progenitors were corrupted, arid as it were
poisoned, by the fall ; (c) that the principal seat
of this depravity is to be found in the bedy, s.
77, II. Children derive their bodies from their
parents, and so back to the first human pair.
The attributes which belonged to the bodies of
our first parents after the fall, their excellences
as well as imperfections, belong also to their
posterity, and so are inherited by children from
their parents. Parents could not beget children
better or more perfect than they themselves
were. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 48, 49. After the fall
they had gdpxa, or gaua d^apfcaj and ^avdtov,
and consequently their posterity, begotten and
born after the fall, possessed the same. John,
iii. 6, tb ysysvvqvivov ix gapxbs tfdp| (gapxixbs)
igti. This is illustrated from the analogy of certain
diseases of mind and body, which are often pro
pagated through whole generations. It is a
matter of experience, that some qualities, intel
lectual and corporeal, are propagated from pa
rents to their offspring, although it is not the
case with all. The propagation of mural de
pravity is not, therefore, contrary to what is
known from experience, but rather in perfect
consistency with it, and this is enough.
Closely connected with this is the New-Tes
tament doctrine, that the man Jesus Christ was
not produced in the common eourse of nature,
like other men, but in an extraordinary manner,
by the immediate agency of God! Luke, i. 34 ;
Matt. i. 16 — 20, 25. It was necessary for him
to be without sin or depravity, (Heb. iv. 15,)
viliositalis expers, and like the first man in his
state of innocence, in order to restore the happi
ness which was squandered by him; hence he
is called o Ssitspos avgrpaitos, b sgxatos 'ASdu, 1
Cor. xv. 45, 47 ; also, 0 Tibs tov av^paitav, the
great Son of Adam, or of man.
It was an this acoount that, in the twelfth

century, some teachers in France, and Ansel
mus of Canterbury, in England, maintained the
unspotted conception of the mother of Jesus. To
this opinion Scotus acceded, and after him his
adherents, the entire bcdy pf the Franciscans,
and, at a later pericd, the Jesuits. But they
were epppsed by Thomas Aquinas and his fol
lowers, and by all the Dominicans. On this
point there was a violent dispute in the Romisb
church from the fifteenth to the seventeenth cen
turies, and the popes decided nothing respecting
it. This doctrine is wholly unsupported by the
holy scriptures.
When all which has now been said is taken
in connexion, it plainly appears that the doctrine
of the physical propagation of depravity fully
agrees with the other scriptural ideas. Any one,
therefore, who receives these representations re
specting the original and more perfect state of
man, respecting the sin and fall of Adam, &c.,
as true, and founded in the scriptures, proceeds
inconsistently when he denies the consequences
which flow from them, as many modern theolo
gians do.
In the times of the church fathers, during the
third and fourth centuries, this doctrine of the
physical propagation of human corruption was
often vindicated and illustrated by the doctrine
respecting the propagation of the soul per tra-
ducem; (vide s. 57, II. , and s. 79, No. 2 ;) butof
this there is nothing said in the Bible. The
manner in which this disposition is propagated
can be explained neither psychologically nor ana
tomically. The psychologist does not know the
soul as it is in itself, but only a part of its exer
cises. In like manner the interior of our corpo
real structure is a mystery impenetrable by our
senses. Into the inmost secrets of nature, whe
ther corporeal or spiritual, no created spirit can
pry. We cannot therefore either understand or
describe this disposition, which is so injurious to
morality, or its propagation, as they are in them
selves, but only according to the appearances
and effects which they exhibit in the gradual
development of man.
Note. — The universality of depravity (dpap
tla) and of death (^dvatos) depends, according
to the Bible, upon the derivation of all men from
one progenitor or father. Hence sin and death
are always derived from Adam, Rom. v. 14; 1
Cor. xv. 22; and not from Eve, although she,
according to Paul himself, (1 Tim. ii. 14,) first
sinned. If Eve only had sinned, she would have
removed her depravity from the world when she
died ; and sin would not through her have come
into the world in such a' way that sin, and death
through sin, should pass upon all men. Hence
Jesus, when it was necessary that he, as a man,
should he without sin, was born of a human mo
ther, but not begotten by a human father. Vide
Num. I.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

287

(2) There is also a moral propagation of this
depravity. In this are included,
; (a) The imputation of the sin of Adam, of
which we have treated, both doctrinally and his
torically, in s. 76. By this is understood the
universal mortality of man as a consequence of
the sin of our progenitors.
(b) The propagation of depravity through the
imitation of bad examples. The bias to evil
which lies in the human heart is in no way more
excited and strengthened than by bad examples,
which very soon obtain approbation and are imi
tated, whether the individual may have seen
them himself, or have heard of them from others,
or have read respecting them in books. The
influence exerted by this cause upon man in the
formation of his character is so indescribably
great, that many ancient writers regarded it as
the only cause of the propagation of human de
pravity, and either wholly denied or, at least in
a great measure, doubted the doctrine of its phy
sical propagation. They hence supposed that
this evil could be either wholly removed, or at
least much diminished, by means of a good edu
cation, and that the propensity to imitation could
receive such a direction that the good only should
be imitated, while the evil should be shunned.
So thought Pelagius, (vide s. 79, No. 3,) and at
a later period the Socinians and many Arminians.
This opinion has found advocates also among
some modern protestant theologians — e. g.,
Steinbart, System, s. 105, f. ; Eberhard, Apolp-
gie, ii. 339, f. ; Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii.
b. ii. s. 683, f.
That example and education contribute much
to the moral 'mproveinent or corruptipn cf man
cannot be dcubted ; but it is equally true, and
conformed to experience, that example and edu
cation are far from being the only and sufficient
cause of the prevailing wickedness, and that
with the best education man becomes bad much
easier than good, with all the pains taken to
make him so. Of this the cause lies in the
undue predominance of the animal appetites.
This accounts for it, that the bias to evil is so
much stronger and more active than the bias to
good. Were it otherwise, it would be unneces
sary to contend so strenuously against evil, and
to employ so many means to incite man to good
ness and to secure him against vice. And among
all the thousands who have lived upon the earth,
there would have been found some examples of
persons who had passed through their whole life
free from sin.
As man, therefore, has within himself a natural
adaptation to much which is good, he has also a
natural disposition and bias to much which is
evil, (malum radicale,) which soon strikes root,
spreads round, and chokes the good. It is abso
lutely inexplicable how the prependerance of
sense over reason, so visible in all men, could he

derived from mere imitation. Were this the
case, this preponderance ought to cease as soon
as man, in the full exercise of his understanding,
were taught better. The will, we should expect,
would then obey the dictates of reason. It is not
found, however, to be so in fact. The dominion
of sense still continues, as the experience of
every one proves. The ground of this mustthere-
fore lie deeper; and both experience and reason
confirm the account which scripture gives of it.
Vide s. 77.
III. The Imputation or Punishableness of Natural
Depravity.
This is the reatas or culpa vifiositatis, and was
asserted by Augustine and his followers. Vide
Morus, p. 120, s. 7, coll. s. 79,- No. 2. They
contended that all 'men, even before they had
committed any sinful actions, and barely on ac
count of this native depravity, were deserving of
temporal and eternal death, or of damnation.
Others have endeavoured in various ways to
mitigate the severity of this opinion. Some mo
dern theologians have taught, in imitation of
Augustine, the doctrine that peccatum originate
per se esse damnabile ; but that, for Christ's sake,
punishment was not actually inflicted.
But the assertion, that this corruption in and
of itself involves condemnation, cannot be
proved. For (a) it is irreconcilable with the
justice and goodness of God that he should
punish (in the proper sense of this term) an in
nocent person for the sins of another. Sin
cannot exist, certainly cannot be punished, un
less the action is free ; otherwise it ceases to be
sin. Vide s. 76, III. (b) In those texts of
the Old and New Testament which are com
monly cited in behalf of this opinion, the death
spoken of is not eternal death, or condemnation;
but temporal death, Gen. i. 2, 17; Rom. v. 12;
1 Cor. xv. 22. Vide s. 75, II. 2. (c) Even
bodily death is represented in the scriptures as,
indeed, the consequence of Adam's sin, but not as
a punishment, strictly speaking, for any beside
himself; for none but himself were guilty of his
sin. In conformity with this view, Rom. v. 12, 14,
is to be explained; also Rom. vi. 23, "idi/ofoj
b^avia apaptlas, or ver. 21, tsXos (xapitbs) apap-
tlas- so called because it followed upon Adam's
sin, and, as far as he was concerned, was a pu
nishment for it. Vide s. 76, III. The doctrine
of the Bible on this subject is the following;
"The bias of man to evil, and to do that which
is forbidden, is in itself bad, (Germ, fehlerhaftes,
esse in vitio, vitiosum,) Rom. vii. 5 ; xiii. 18 ; but
it cannot be imputed to man, or he be regarded
as punishable on account of it, unless he yields
himself to it, and indulges it. Vide Rom. vi.
12 ; Gen. iv. 7, coll. James, i. 15. This, how
ever, is the case with all men; no one has

288

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

lived upon the earth who has not been led by
this propensity into actual transgression, and
so has become deserving of punishment."
Truly, therefore, does the scripture affirm that
we are all subject to punishment, (tsxva bpyijs,
Ephes. ii. 3 ;) not, however, because we are
born with this disposition, (for this is not any
fault of ours,) but because we indulge it, give
an ear to our unlawful desires, and sosuffer our
selves to be led on to the commission of sin.
IV. The Source and Origin of Sinful Inclinations,
and their Punishableness.
From the preponderance of sense now ex
plained, particular sinful dispositions and pas
sions take their origin, and so are the result
and the proof of the sinful depravity of man.
But in order that we may rightly estimate the
sinfulness and punishableness of these desires,
we must attend to the following considera
tions : —
(1) The desires of man are not in themselves,
and abstractedly considered, sinful; for they are
deep laid in the constitution which God him
self has given to human nature; they arise in
man involuntarily, and so faT cannot certainly
be imputed to him. The essential constitution
of man makes it necessary that everything
which makes an agreeable impression on the
senses should inevitably awaken correspondent
desires. The poor man, who sees himself sur
rounded with the treasures of another, feels a
natural and involuntary desire to possess them.
The mere rising of this desire is no more pu
nishable in him than it was in Eve, when she
saw the tree, and felt an impulse to eat its beau
tiful fruit, which is never represented in the
Bible as her sin.
(2) The desires of man become sinful and
deserving of punishment then only when (a)
man, feeling desires after forbidden things, seeks
and finds pleasure in them, and delights himself
in them, and so (b) carefully cherishes and nou
rishes them in his heart, (c) When he seeks
occasions to awaken the desires after forbidden
things, and to entertain himself with them.
(d) When he gives audience and approbation to
these desires, and justifies, seeks, and performs
the sins to which he is inclined. This is fol
lowed by the twofold injury, that he not only
sins for this once, but that he gives his appetites
and passions the power of soliciting him a se
cond time more importunately, of becoming more
vehement and irresistible, so that he becomes
continually more disposed to sin, acquires a fixed
habit of sinning, and at last becomes the slave
of sin. Vide Michaelis, Ueber die Sunde, s.
365, f. But if a man repels and suppresses the
involuntary desire arising within him because it
is evil, he cannot certainly be punished merely
because, without any fault of his own, he felt this

desire. It were unjust to punish any one for be>
ing assailed by.an enemy, without any provoca
tion on his part.
(3) With this doctrine the holy scripture is
perfectly accordant. Even in his state of inno
cence man felt the rising of desire ; nor was this
in him accounted sin; Gen. iii. 6. Hence we
are never required, either in the Old Testament
or the New, to eradicate these desires, (which,
indeed, is a thing impossible, and would cause
a destruction of human nature itself,) but only
to keep them under control, and to suppress
those which fix upon forbidden things. Vide s.
77. In Rom. vi. 12, we are directed not to let
our sinful appetites rule, and not to obey the body
in the lusts thereof; here, therefore, it is presup
posed that these tempting lusts remain. Again,
in Gal. v. 24, we are charged to crucify the flesh,
with its affections and lusts. It is to those who
contend against their wicked passions that re
wards are promised, and not to those who have
never had these solicitations and allurements
to evil. The pretended virtue of such men
scarcely deserves the name, and is not capable,
of reward.
Some texts are indeed cited in which the pas
sions, in themselves considered, are forbidden,
as Rom. vii. 7, ovx ira^vp^gEis- Ex. xx. 17,
" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house,"
&c. Some also in which they are said to be
deserving of punishment from God, as Matt. v.
28. But in these texts, such desires are not
spoken of as arise involuntarily within us, and
for which we are not therefore culpable, but
such as man himself nourishes and entertains,
or by his own agency awakens within himself,
and which he aims to execute. And so in
Matt. v. Christ speaks of the actual intention
and design of man to commit adultery, if he
could ; and not of the passion arising in his
heart, which he himself disapproves, and imme-
d iately suppresses, because it is contrary to the
divine law.
(4) The manner in which man is borne away
by his passions to the commission of sin is de
scribed by James (i. 14, 15) in a way that cor
responds with the experience of every one; and
this text confirms all the preceding remarks.
When desires arise within us, we are in danger
of sinning. Some present enjoyment of sense
tempts us. Enticements to sin spring up. These
James calls temptations, (elsewhere called axiv
Sa>.a, Matt, xviii. 7, 8, h&x, Ezek. xvii. 19-)
For we look upon that which is represented to
us by our senses as charming and desirable, to
be a great gopd, the possession of which would
make us happy. This is expressed by e'£e?.-«>-
usvos and Ss%sa^b)/.svos. The image is here taken
from animals, which are ensnared by baits (fis-
Xsap) laid before them, in order to take them. To
these allurements all men are exposed, although

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

289

not in the same degree. Thus far there is no
sin — i. e., the man is not yet caught in the snare
under which the bait lies. But here he must
stop, and instead of indulging must suppress
these desires — must fly from the bait. Other
wise, hist conceives, (tm^vula ffi*?i.a|3oiJo'a,) i. e.,
these desires and passions are approved in the
heart, and the man begins to think he can satisfy
them. This is wrong and sinful. For this is
no longer involuntary, but, on the contrary, the
result of man's own will, and he is now deserv
ing of punishment. This is what is called pec
catum actuals internum. But finally, desire
bringsforth sin, the evil intent passes into ac
tion, and is accomplished. This is peccatum
actuate externum. Hence flows ^dvatos, misery,
unhappiness of every sort, as the consequence
and punishment of sin.
SECTION LXX1X.
OF THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE ANCIENT
CHURCH-FATHERS RESPECTING HUMAN DEPRA
VITY J AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EC
CLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY ON THIS SUBJECT
AND THE VARIOUS FORMS OF DOCTRINE WERE
GRADUALLY DEVELOPED.
(1) The oldest Christian teachers were mostly
agreed in considering death as a consequence
of Adam's sin. Vide s. 76. [It should be ob
served, however, that in these early writers the
term q$opd stands not only for mortality, but
also for depravity. Vide Neander, b. i; Abth.
iii. s. 1045. — Tr.] But we shall look in vain
through the writings of most of the Greek teach
ers to find the full scriptural idea of an innate
depravity ,- or, at least, it cannot be found exhi
bited with sufficient distinctness or clearness.
As there had been as yet no controversy on this
subject, nothing respecting it was determined
and settled on ecclesiastical authority. Still
they agree, for the most part, that the dispro
portion between sense and reason, or the corrup
tion of human nature, began after the fall of
Adam, and has been diffused as a universal dis
ease through the whole human race. That this
evil, however, in itself considered, is to be re
garded as actual sin, and as such is punished
by God, they do not teach ; but rather the con
trary. So Justin Martyr, Ap. i. 54, seq.; Ire
naeus, Adv. Haeres. iv. 37, seq. ; Athenagoras,
Legat. c 22; Clemens Alex. Strom, iii. (contra
Encratitas.) " No one," says the writer last
mentioned, "is wholly free from sin; but the
child, who has never personally trespassed,
cannot be subjected to the curse of Adam, (the
punishment of his sin.) Yet all who have the
use of their reason are led by this their moral
depravity to commit actual sin, and so become
liable to punishment." The same writer says,
in his Paedag. iii. 12, povos avapdptytos b Xbyos-
37

fo yap i^auaptdvEiv itdgiv spipvtov xai xoivdv.
Cyril of Alexandria, in his Commentary on
Isaiah, says, tyvgixbv iv dv^pariois ovx slvai xaxoV
and in his work " Contra Anthropomorph." c.
8, he says, " Adam's posterity are not punished
as those who with him had broken the law of
God." So also Origen, Preef. ad libros itspi
dp^ii1, and his followers, Basilius, and Theo
doras of Mopsevestia, who, according to the
testimony of Photius, wrote a book against those
who taught that man sinned tyigsi xai ov yvapn.
There were some, too, of the Greek fathers who
traced the origin of the evil passions and of the
actual sins arising from them to the mortality
of the body— e. g., Chrysostom and Theodoret.
This hypothesis has been revived in later times
by Whitby, who has attempted to carry it
through. Vide s. 76, note.
(2) The same representation is found in m-sny
of the fathers of the ancient Latin church, even
in Africa. They taught that death (depravity 1) *
is a consequence of Adam's sin, and yet that it
is not, in itself, to be regarded as sin, and pu
nished accordingly. Cyprian (Epist. Synod.
Cone. Carthag. iii.) says, " A new-born child
has not itself sinned, nisi quod secundum Adam
carnaliter natus, contagium mortis conlraxit."
In baptism, the sins of the child (which were
still not^i?-opria but aliena) were supposed to
be washed away. Ambrosius says, on Ps.
xlviii., "There is a bias to sin in all, but
this is not actual sin, and liability to punish
ment; God punishes us only for nostra peccaia,
and not for alienx (Adami) nequitix flagitia."
Even according to Tertullian, (detestim. animac,
c 3,) it is only to temporal death that we are
cendemned in consequence of the sin of Adam.
To this opinion, Hilarius and others acceded.
The African fathers before the time of Augus
tine, and even Tertullian, seem, however, to
have had less distinct and settled views on this
subject than even the Greeks, which arose from
their misunderstanding the seemingly obscure
phraseology of the New Testament, and espe
cially of the Latin version of it.
[The germs of the controversy which after
wards broke out between Augustine and Pela
gius can be discerned in this earlier period.
The Alexandrine teachers, and among these
principally Clement and Origen, took the side
of the human will, and its ability to good. They,
however, by no means carried this so far as was
afterwards done by Pelagius, and often express
ed themselves strongly respecting the entire de
pravity of man, and his dependence on the reno
vating influence of divine grace. Vide Clement,
Quis dives salv. c 21. The Eastern teachers
were led to vindicate thus strongly the powers
of the human will by their opposition to New
Platonism, and the Manichean iheosophy, by
which sin was attributed either to an eternal
2B

230

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

principle of evil, to a blind and resistless des
tiny, or to some necessity of nature, rather than
to the perversion of our own moral powers.
The teachers of the Western church, on the
other hand, and especially those of Africa, having
no such philosophy to oppose, recognised more
fully the peculiar Christian truths of the corrup
tion and inability of human nature, and the ne
cessity of divine grace ; but they also were far
from representing the grace of God as compul
sory and irresistible, as it was afterwards done
in the Pelagian controversies. This tendency
in the Western church is represented by Tertul
lian, Cyprian, Hilary, and/Ambrosius.
As yet, however, these opposing tendencies
had not come into open conflict, but awaited the
causes which brought them into direct collision
in the following period. — Tr.]
But Augustine carried the matter much fur
ther. He affirmed the doctrine de imputalione
peccati Adami in the strictest juridical sense,
teaching at the same time the entire depravity
of man, and his total inability to all good, in
such a sense as it is nowhere taught in the Bible.
He may have been led to this by having for
merly belonged to the sect of Manicheans, who
hold very strict sentiments on this point; hence
his doctrine de peccato originali was called by
Pelagius and Julian a Manichean- doctrine.*
He maintained that the consequence of Adam's
sin was not merely bodily death, but eternal,
(mors secunda, cujus non est finis ,-) and that to
this all men, even children, who had not them
selves thought or done either good or evil, were
subjected ; though yet the unmerited grace of
God delivered some from this punishment, (de
cretum absolutum.) He exhibits these doctrines
in his work, De civit'ate Dei, xiv. 1, and else-

*'[We subjoin the following remarks of Neander
with respect to the charge here, and often elsewhere,
brought against the system of Augustine. " The
anthropology of Augustine," he says, " is unjustly
supposed to be derived from the influence of Mani-
cheism. His doctrine respecting the moral depravity
of man was a very different thing from the dualism
of Mani, which was derived from tho philosophy of
nature. The system of Augustine did not, like that
of Mani, proceed from his confounding in his con
ceptions the natural and the moral, but from a pure
fact of moral consciousness. On the contrary, it
may be said, that while the hope of finding out, by
means of speculation, an explanation of the irrecon
cilable opposition between good and evil, of which
he had become early conscious in the depth of his
soul,' led him to Manicheism ; he was led from it
again by coming to apprehend this opposition more
and more in a moral light. Again ; it was in direct
opposition to Manicheism that he adopted the theory,
the first germs of'which he took from Platonism, that
evil is only a subjective deviation of created being
from the law of the supreme and only true Being,
and not, as taught by Mani, an independent, self-sub
sisting existence." Allg. Kirchengosch, b. ii. Abth.
iii. s. 1306.— Tr.]

where. Fulgentius Rusp. (De Fide, c. 29)
asserts that children who had lived merely in
their mother's womb, and yet died without bap
tism, must suffer eternal punishment in helj.
And so taught many of the schoolmen, according
to Peter of Lombardy, 1. ii. Even Augustine
attributed a certain kind of physical influence
to baptism, and confined the grace of God to
those to whom this ordinance was administered.
He held this doctrine, however, in common with
many of the Latin fathers before his time — atg.,
Cyprian. The adherents of Augustine were ac
customed to vindicate their views by the doc
trine of the propagation of the sovdper traducem,
though this is not true of all of them. On the
contrary, the adherents of Pelagius, for the most
part, denied this doctrine, and were creationists.
Vide s. 57, II.
(3) This severe doctrine of Augustine was
controverted by Pelagius, and many others who
followed him. But Pelagius, in his turn, went
too far on the other side, and maintained various
principles which obviously are unscriptural.
Here were, therefore, two extremes, between
which scriptural truth lay in the midst, having
both reason and experience on its side. In the
system of Augustine, on the one hand, there
is much opposed to reason and scripture; and
in that of Pelagius, on the other hand, there is
much opposed to scripture and experience. Pela
gius not only denied the imputation of Adam's
sin, but also the physical propagation of human
depravity. He taught that the moral nature of
man is unaltered, and that man is now entirely
in the same state in which Adam was created.
Weakness, imperfection, and death, were, in
his view, essential to man from the first, and he
is punished only for sinful actions. The pro
pagation of human depravity is not physically
and by birth, but morally only, from the imitation
of bad examples. The declaration that in Mam
all have sinned, does not relate, according to his
scheme, to any peccatum nascendi origine contrac-
turn; but to that acquired propter imitationem ex
empli. Vide in Libro de Natura, ap. August, ad
Rom. v. And Julian said, (ap. August, contra
Jul. ii. 54,) peccatum primum moribus, 7ion se-
minibus ad posterosfuisse devectum. Adam set
a bad example before his children, and they
again before theirs, and so on. In this sense
only did, Pelagius allow of a propagation of sin
from Adam. Vide s. 78, II. 2. The views of
Pelagius are very clearly exhibited in the work
De libero arbitrio (ap. August, de pecc. orig. c.
13) : Omne bonum aut malum, quo vel laudibiles
vel viluperabiles sumus, non nobiscum naseitur,
sed agitur a nobis; capaces utriusque rei, non
pleni nascimur, et ut sine virtute, sic sine vitio
procreamur. These views were totally diverse from those
of Augustine and other African teachers, and in

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

291

many points also from the plain doctrine of the
Bible. This deviation from the scriptures Au
gustine perceived and opposed. Through the
resistance of Pelagius hejbecame more zealous
and heated, and in his polemical zeal advanced
continually greater lengths in his positions.*
The theory of Augustine, or the African theory,
was, however, by no means universal in the
fourth century. In the East, and in Palestine
especially, Pelagius was received into favour
and protection with many who had agreed in
many points with Origen, and who therefore
saw little reprehensible in Pelagius. Much,
indeed, in his theory differed from that then pre
vailing through the Eastern church. But from
the indifference of so many Grecian bishops on
this subject, it is obvious that nothing can have
been at that time ecclesiastically determined re
specting it, and that the importance of the ques
tion by no means appeared to them at first.
And even in the Western church out of Africa,
there were many who looked upon the Pelagian
theory not unfavourably, and on this account it
was at first acquitted of the charges brought
against it even by Zosimus, the Roman bishop.
Through the efforts of the Africans, however,
and their connexion with the Anti-Origenistic
party, it was finally brought about that the doc
trines of Pelagius were formerly condemned as
heretical at the church councils, and that the
theory of Augustine, after the year 418, became
predominant, at least in the Occidental church.
Various attempts were made to unite the twP
parties, and many teok a middle course between
them, from whence originated, at a later period,
the so-called Semi-Pelagian party. Scotus, and
his followers among the schoolmen, very much
extenuated the natural depravity of roan ; in
which they have been followed by many of the
theologians of the Romish church — e. g., the
* [This remark respecting the theory of Augus
tine, though often made, may be shewn demonstra
bly to be Incorrect. Augustine had developed his
full system concerning the inability of man and the
doctrine of predestination resulting from it, as early
as the year 397, in a work directed to Simplician,
bishop at Mailand, some time before Pelagius ap
peared at Rome, and at least ten years before bis
doctrines had excited attention and controversy.
Neander says, — « Opposition to Pelagianism could
hare had no influence upon Augustine in forming
his system. It may rather be said, with more truth,
that Pelagius was excited and induced to develop his
own views, by opposition to the principles of Augus
tine respecting the natural depravity of man, and
grace and predestination not conditioned by the free
will," b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1215. We ought not readily
to attribute the opinions of such minds as Augus
tine's to external causes. Their own internal im
pulse, and their efl'ort after perfect consistency, often
carry them to extremes, to which others could be
driven only by the pressure of controversy. Cf. the
Note to the History of Decrees, vol. i. a. 32, p. 252,
Fourthlyr-Tn.]

Jesuits, who have been on this account often
accused of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianisrn.
Among the followers of Augustine, many ad
hered to his opinion, that even mere original
sin, in itself considered, is punished with eter
nal death, even in the case of children who die
before baptism, though they themselves have
never done any evil — e. g., Gregor. M. 1. ix.
Moral, c 16. Others, to whom this doctrine
seemed too severe, held only, that in conse
quence of original sin man is excluded from the
full joys of the blessed in heaven, but not mere
ly on that account cast into the pains of hell ; in
short, that he is placed in a middle state, in
which he is neither damned nor yet perfectly
happy. So Damasus : Pxna originalis peccati
est carenlia visionis Dei* The same representa
tion respecting children who die before baptism
is found also among some Greek writers — e. g.,
in Gregory of Nazianzen, who says respecting
them, (Orat. 40,) ptjts So$a<&rivai, prfls xoXae-
^Tjgsg^ai, x. t. X.
(4) Some additional historical illustrations of
the Augustinian and African theory respecting
natural depravity and respecting the term, pecca

tum ORIGINIS Sive ORIGINALE.

The depravity of human nature being, accord
ing to the Bible, propagated from Adam, and
communicated in the way of ordinary generation
to children, it was very natural to denominate it
original; and since, moreover, it is common to
all men, and, though not essential to human na
ture, yet properly belonging to it in its present
state, it is called natural, especially as the term
fyiesi is used in Ephes. ii. 3. Vide s. 78, 1. 2.
Both of these terms are found in the same pas
sage in Tertullian, (De Anima, c 41,) where
he calls depravity malum animx ex originis
vitio and naturale quodammodo. Upon this pas
sage it is important to observe, that he does not
use the term peccatum, but malum and vitium;
and again, that this is the first passage in the
Latin Fathers in which the term naturale is ap
plied to this subject. But because the Latin
word naturale is ambiguous, and might be un
derstood in the sense of essentiale, (a sense in
which Tertullian would not use it, and in which
even Cyril of Alexandria rejected the expres
sion tyvgixbv xaxdv, vide No. I.,) Tertullian adds
quodammodo. The term naturale, as used by
him, properly means nothing more than pro-
prium, adhxrens, non aliunde contradum. Vide
s. 78, 1. 2., Ambrosius, too, says, (Apol. David,
c. 11,) Antequam nascimur, maculamur conta-
gio, et ante usuram lucis originis ipsius excipi-
mus injuriam. Thus none of these fathers use
the term peccatum, or pretend that natural de
pravity in the abstract, or in itself, is imputed to
man as sin, or punished. Augustine is the very
first who uses the term peccatum originate.
quia vriginaKter traditur, as indeed he himself

292

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

says in "Opus imperf. contra Julianum," ii.
After this time, this term, which perhaps may
have been used by some Africans before Augus
tine, was repeated by some Latin teachers — e._g.,
by Hieronymus, on Psalm 1., and was finally
authorized by councils, and adopted into the
terminology of the Western church. It was
first publicly employed in the Acts (c. 2) of the
Milevitanic council, in the year 416 ; and those
who deny the doctrine de peccato originali, and
its punishment, which is removed by baptism,
were there denounced with an anathema.
But how came it to pass that the word pecca
tum should be employed to designate natural
depravity, since this depravity, in abstrado, and
by itself, is to be regarded as a disease or a sickly
moral disorder of man, and not as action; and
since man had no guilty agency in bringing it
upon himself? It came in this way : in Rom.
vii. 9, and elsewhere, Paul uses the term d^tap-
ft'a preference to the bias to sin found in all
men, or the disposition tp dp what is forbidden
by the divine law; and this is perfectly con
formed to the usus loquendi. For the Greek
dpaptla is employed not only with regard to
sinful actions, but any fault or defective state or
nature of a thing; like the Latin peccatum and
peccare. Vide s. 73, II. In this sense, then,
they might justly say peccatum originis, instead
of vitium, meaning simply defect, fault, evil.
Tertullian, however, did not use the word pecca
tum, probably on account of this ambiguity.
But when Augustine found the term peccatum
used in the Latin Bible in reference to this
natural bias to sin, he supposed that he might,
and indeed ought, to employ the same. But not
distinguishing sufficiently between the different
meanings of this word, he contended, that all
that must be true respecting this state, in itself
considered, which is true respecting sinful ac
tions, on the ground that the same word is used
respecting both in the Bible. He then argued
in this way; "All sin is punished, or it brings
men into a state of condemnation before God,
and consequently this natural depravity itself
because it is included under d^apfi'a, and is
called peccatum." Thus arose the scheme of
Augustine described in No. 2, although in this
he was not throughout consistent with himself.
Instead of employing this phraseology, it would
have been better for him to have said, The ten
dency to sin is indeed an evil, a moral disorder —
i. e., a wrong and defective constitution of our
nature in a moral respect, from which particular
actual sins result ; it cannot, therefore, be other
wise than displeasing to a perfectly holy God ;
nor can he, as the scriptures expressly teach,
be its author; but neither would God punish
men for this, in and of itself. For punishment
is first inflicted when man suffers himself to be
enticed to actual sin, or transgression of the

law ; and because none remain unperverted, so
all are sinners, and condemned in the sight of
God, although the degree of their guilt, and
consequently the degree of their punishment,
may be different.
After the time of Augustine, various attempts
were made to obviate the innumerable mistakes
•which attended this doctrine depeccato originali;
and among others, a distinction was made be
tween peccatum originate and peccata actualia-rr
a distinction which is first found in Joh. Cassi-
anus in the fifth century. Vide Coll. P. P.
Sceticor. xiii. 7. There were always, however, .
among the catholics, even those of ancient
times, not a few who disapproved of the appli
cation of the term peccatum to the corrupt, moral
condition of man, and wished it to be abolished.
And it happened to many, merely because they
rejected this word, to be counted among the Pe-.
lagians or Semi- Pelagians. Maay of the school
men, too, preferred not to use this term ; though
it is true, indeed, that among them there were
many actually inclined to Pelagianism. Vide
No. 3. The schoolmen rather chose to use the
term employed by Tertullian — viz., vitium ori
ginate or naturale; or vitiosilas, or depravatio
congenita, or naturalis.
As to the German word in use on this sub
ject, Erb-siinde, (hereditary sin,) it is still more
inconvenient than the Latin peccatum origi-
nale; for the latter admits, according to com
mon usage, of a correct interpretation, and so,
if it is properly explained, may be still retained.
But the German word Sunde (sin) is elsewhere
always used to denote an action, so far as it is
contrary to the divine law; but never a state.
Instead of this word, it would be better to use
the word Erbfehler, (hereditary defect,) or still
better, Erb-iibel, (hereditary evil,) or more defi
nitely, das sittliche Erb-iibel, (the moral heredi
tary evil.) Many of our protestant theologians
have therefore for a long time preferred to use
the term natural depravity. Vide s. 87, 1. 2, 3.
Dr. Teller proposed to use the word Tempera-
mcnts-sunde, (sin of the constitution or temper
ament;) this, however, is inappropriate, since
it bears another sense— viz., some kind of pre
vailing sin, to which a man is especially inclined
from his peculiar organization, or his individual
naturel. Cf. s. 75.
Note. — The term peccatum originate, as used
in the symbolic books of the Lutheran church,
comprises the following things: — (1) The defi
ciency in true holiness and piety which is found
in all men without exception, accompanied with
a deficiency in powers for attaining holiness by
their own exertions. This is just and scrip
tural ; for in order to be morally good andpiousj
it is necessary for us to become so ; we are not
born with this character ; we do not possess in
ourselves the powers requisite to this end, and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

293

are dependent on divine assistance. (2) The
inordinate passions and appetites which are
found in all men ; the bias within us to do what
is forbidden, and to leave undone what is re
quired ; of the truth of which every one's own
experience may convince him, and which is con
stantly insisted upon in the scriptures. Thus,
by peccatum originale, the symbolic books un
derstand a state of man which, morally consi
dered, is not, from the earliest period, what it
should be, or, what it originally was; and this
is certainly just and true, both according to
scripture and experience.
These two things taken together are what
the theologians of the Lutheran and reformed
ehurches mean when they say, man is born with
sin, or in sin — an expression which is taken
from Ps. Ii. 7. And although this expression
is liable to be misunderstood, and indeed in that
passage is used in a different sense, yet the thing
which they intend by the use of it is true and
conformed to the Bible. Vide Morus, p. 117,
118. It is a common, but very unworthy art of
many of the opponents of the doctrine of natu
ral depravity, to make the German word denot
ing this doctrine, Erb-siinde, (hereditary sin,)
which is acknowledged on all hands to be in
convenient, the object of ridicule, as if the
doctrine of the protestant church agreed with
the untenable positions in Augustine's theory.
While they confute this theory only, they as
sume the air of having overthrown the doctrine
of native depravity itself. The scriptural texts
which stand in their way are brought into
agreement with the most different modern phi
losophical schools, by the aid of that artificial
exegesis which' makes anything from every
thing; so that the scriptures must say just that,
and that only, which the authors of these philo
sophical systems require. Vide Teller's Wor-
terbuch, art. Siinde, and other attempts of the
theologians of the Kantian school.
SECTION LXXX.
RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION RESPECT
ING THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL DEPRAVITY,
AND OBSERVATIONS ON THE MODE OF TEACHING
THIS DOCTRINE.
I. Results of the foregoing Discussion.
(I) The doctrine of the holy scriptures, that
the native depravity which discloses itself in the
preponderance of sense overreason is to be found
in all men without exception, is confirmed by
the undeniable experience of all men of all
times ; and every individual may be convinced
of its truth by his own daily experience, and by
observation of those around him. Any one who
is in the habit of self-inspection will be compel

led to acknowledge that the confession of Paul,
Rom. vii. 18, seq., " To will is present with me,
but how to perform that which is gopd I find
nqt," is drawn, as it were, from his own spul.
Even the heathen natiens, and thnse ef their
chief philosophers, who did not employ them
selves with empty speculations, but who built
their views upon the observation of man and Pf
themselves, recegnised the existence cf this evil.
Vide s. 74.
(2) But altheugh philosophy must recognise
the actual existence of this evil, it can give no
satisfactory answer with regard to the origin of
it. Vide Kant, Vom radikalen Bosen. All the
philosophemes upon this subject, from Aristotle
down to Leibnitz, Kant, Fichte, and Schelling,
are full of gaps ; and in surveying them we meet
with one unanswerable question after another.
Vide s. 74. Cf. Michaelis, Moral, th. i. s. 127,
seq. But there appears in almost all nations a
pressing necessity to believe that God made the
human race in a more perfect state than that in
which it now exists. But they were still unable
to solve the riddle. Now this riddle is solved in
the holy scriptures more satisfactorily than by
all the philosophers. Vide s. 56, ad fin. s. 74,
75, &c And any one who understands the scrip
tural account of the fall of man as a mere fable,
or as anything beside a narrative of what actu
ally took place, and who is incautious enough
to teach these views to the common people and
the young, takes away that for which he can
give nothing in return; although he may not
design it, he lowers the authority of the Bible
in the view of his hearers, and does an injury
which he will not be able easily to repair.
There were two theories which were more
prominent among the Christian teachers of for
mer times, and which even now have their advo
cates — viz., the African, or Augustinian, and the
Pelagian. Vide s. 79. The latter, which nearly
accords with the views of the stoics, plainly dis
agrees with the doctrine of the Bible, and, more
over, has experience against it. Vide s. 79, No.
3. But since it wears, on the first view, a more
rational aspect, and since especially it is more
agreeable to the wishes of men, who had rather
view themselves in a favourable than an unfa
vourable light, it is not to be wondered at that,
in spite of experience, it should haire obtained,
and still possess, considerable currency. But
in Augustine's theory there are also innrrect
and untenable positions, and he deduces n.5iny
false conclusions from texts of scripture wrongly
understood. These misinterpretations were in
part occasioned, and in part promoted, by the
Latin established version, which Augustine fol
lowed, and to which he and his fellow teachers
were accustomed from their youth. Besides,
Augustine's views on the subject of interpreta
tion were deficient. The middle course between
2b2

294

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

these extremes is accordant with the Bible, with
experience, and the system of the protestant
church. Vide s. 77, 78.
The objection, that the scriptural doctrine of
native depravity is irreconcilable with the justice
and goodness of God, does not lie so much against
the scriptural doctrine itself as against certain
false and unscriptural notions which are some
times connected with it — e. g., against the Au
gustinian theory. Let the following things be
considered — viz.,
(a) It is incorrect te assert, as seme de, that
if Adam himself had maintained his eriginal
innpcence, no one of his posterity either weuld
pr could have sinned. This is nowhere taught
in the Bible. The possibility of erring and
sinning would have continued, both with Adam
himself and with his posterity, even if he had
not at that time fallen. And had it been impos
sible for the posterity of Adam, supposing him
to have persevered in holiness, to be otherwise
than holy, their goodness would have had np
value, and weuld nnt be entitled to reward.
Man weuld have been a machine, having no
power to move except in one pre-established
and appointed way. It does not, therefore, fol
low that there would have been no error and no
sin, and consequently no punishment of sin,
among men, if our progenitor had not fallen.
It is indeed true, that both particular individuals,
and the race of man at large, would have been
by degrees more and more confirmed in good
ness, if the state of innocence (or the state of
the even balance of the human powers) had
continued, as is actually the case with good
angels; but this confirmation cannot be under
stood in reference to men more than to angels
as removing the possibility of sinning.
(b) When now God foresaw that sin could
not be hindered among men, since they are
beings endowed indeed with a moral nature, but
at the same time possessing appetites and pas
sions limiting the exercise of reason, he provided
that the guilt and ill-desert of sin should be di
minished in Adam's posterity by allowing Adam
to fall, and so a general weakness and depravity
to pervade the whole race. A stronger and more
incorrupt race would, if it sinned, sin far more
deeply and unpardonably than a weaker.
Hence we see that the sin of the fallen angels
is always described in the Bible as far more de
serving of punishment and more unpardonable
than the sin of the first parents of our race ; and
their whole moral apostasy is described as far
greater than that of man. Those among Adam's
weaker posterity who resist the inducements to
sin, and are diligent in the pursuit of holiness,
do, as it were, overcome themselves ; and their
virtue can therefore have so much more internal
worth, and be so much the more deserving of re
ward. Those, on the other hand, who yield to

these temptations, and sin, although they an
by no means free from the desert of punishment,
(since God has made knewn the means by
which sin may be guarded against,) may yet,
en acccunt nf their weakness and inability, hope
for pity, forbearance, and a mitigatien nf punish
ment. Vide en this subject, Michaelis, Von
der Sfinde, s. 563. Perhaps God designed by
permitting the fall to promote many other and
unknown ends. Perhaps the example of the
fall of man may be instructive to the higher
orders of spiritual beings, who are always de
scribed in the Bible as standing in intimate con
nexion with man and having knowledge respect
ing him.
(c) Death was to Adam the proper punishment
of his sin ; to his posterity it is not, properly
speaking, punishment, but the inevitable conse
quence of the sin of Adam. For no mortal can
beget an immortal. Vide s. 78, III. Since now
death frees us from this mortal body, the princi
pal seat of our sinful depravity, and since the
Christian doctrine gives us the comforting as
surance that in the future life we shall possess
a more perfect body, (1 Cor. xv. &c.,) death
can no longer be regarded as a punishment, but
must rather be considered as a blessing, by all
those who fall in with the order appointed by
God, and fulfil the conditions on which he has
promised happiness after this life. Now it is
a doctrine which we are everywhere expressly
taught in the New Testament, that we are in
debted for this good, for this blessed immortality,
to Jesus Christ; and the observation of Paul is
therefore well founded, that through the institutes
which God has established for the recovery of
the human race through Christ, through the di
vine plan of mercy, we have gained far more
than we lost through the sin of Adam and its
consequences; Rom. v. 15, seq.
Note. — The disposition to transgress the
moral law, from which no man is free, cannot
be derived from any deficiency of reason, from
error, or want of knowledge. There may be
from hence a possibility of sinning either from
ignorance or design, but a mere possibility of
sinning, and an inclination to sin, are very dif
ferent things. And we feel this disposition
even where there is no error or defect of know
ledge, yea, even in those cases in which we see
most clearly that obedience to the moral law
will conduce to our best advantage, and that by
disobedience we shall render ourselves misera
ble. Norcan it bea merefault of education. For
then there would be, among all the multiplied
and often opposite modes of education, some one
which would furnish us with men who would
be free from this disposition. Nor is it, as has
been before observed, the effect merely of the
bad examples which we witness in others. This
depravity is not exhibited in all men in the same

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

295

way. One man is either little, or not at all in
clined to those things for which another has a
great propensity. All, however, are inclined
to perform many actions which they themselves
acknowledge to be sinful and injurious. There
is in men a general anomaly, or a general dispo
sition to transgress the moral law, which does
not determine to any one particular vice, but
which is differently modified in different per
sons. Since this disposition seeks out so
many and so different deviations, it has a differ
ent aspect in different individuals; but in all
alike, it appears as a strong disinclination to
certain duties, and a vehement propensity to
certain actions which are morally bad. What
is common to this depravity, as it appears in all
men, is the preponderance of that which is re
presented to us as good or evil by our lower ap
petites, over that which we perceive in the use
of reason to be good. From this depravity no
age is free, nor can it in this life be ever wholly
eradicated. The faults of youth, such as levity
and prodigality, do, indeed, often disappear in
later periods of life, but their place is supplied
by others, such as ambition and jealousy ; and
many of the excellences which belong to the pe
riod of youth — e. g., innocence, openness, and vi
vacity, often gradually decay in the years of man
hood ; and although a more advanced age seems
to have the advantage in point of experience and
exercise, yet still it cannot be affirmed as a ge
neral fact, that this higher age is on the whole
morally better than youth. It is therefore a
we^l-known proverb, founded in experience, to
say respecting old men who only seem exter
nally to have reformed, that they have not for
saken sin, but sin has forsaken them.
II. On Teaching this Doctrine.
The questions relating to this subject are,
Whether the doctrine of man's native depravity
ought to be exhibited in popular instruction ? and
if so, in what way ? On this general subject,
cf. Knapp's Essay in Ewald's Christlicher Mo-
natsschrift; Jahrg. 2, 1802; bd. 2, st. l,s. 3, f.
(1) The doctrine of native depravity, as we
are taught it both by scripture and experience,
is very disturbing, depressing, and humbling
in its tendency, The light in which man is
here taught to regard himself is not at all favour
able or pleasant, and is calculated to lead him
to tremble for himself. But feelings of this
kind, although highly salutary, are yet unplea
sant to the natural man (gapxixlp, 4/1^1x9), and
for the very reason that he is of such a character,
he is opposed to everything which awakens feel
ings of this kind ; he prefers to keep this subject
out of sight, and is unwilling to hear anything
respecting it. It is with him as with a sick
man, who is unwilling to acknowledge, either
to himself or others, that he is sick, partly be

cause he is ashamed of his sickness, and partly
because he is reluctant to adopt the severe re
medies necessary to his cure. Thus it is with
the carnal man who refuses to undertake the
radical cure of the disorders of his soul, because
he would feign conceal his sickness from his
own view, and dreads to make the bitter sacri
fices which his moral recovery and holiness re
quire. He would rather, therefore, persuade
himself and others that he is good, or at least
that his case is not so bad as might seem. Now
if any one does not believe that he is sick, nei
ther does he believe that he is in any need of a
remedy or of a physician; or if he thinks he is
only slightly sick, he hopes he shall be able to
help himself, or to recover without the aid of
medicine. And so any one who thinks in the
same way with regard to his moral state will
infallibly be cold and indifferent in the use of
all the means which the Christian doctrine pre
scribes for the sanctification of the heart; he
will even scorn them as idle and superfluous,
because he sees no necessity for them ; yea, he
will even feel aversion and hatred towards them,
as a sick man is accustomed to do towards a
bitter and disagreeable medicine. It is there
fore very intelligible, and may be psychologi
cally explained, why the opinion, that man is
not so depraved as is sometimes represented,
and the delusion that the Christian means of
cure-are inappropriate, superfluous, and may be
easily dispensed with, should gain currency in
an age and among men distinguished above
others in egotism, self-sufficiency, and the love
of worldly enjoyment.
(2) We may hence explain the fact why the
doctrine of human depravity is repugnant to. so
many in our age, and why it is almost wholly
set aside in the instruction of the common people
and of the young. The pretext by which the
omission of this doctrine is commonly justified
is, that it inspires men with aversion to God,
that it makes them irresolute and spiritless in
the pursuit of virtue, and that it leads to an un
worthy depreciation of oneself, and even to de
spair, which prevents all improvement. These
effects, however, can never be feared when this
doctrine is taught as it is in the holy scriptures.
Who can bring an example to shew that the
scriptural doctrine ever produced such an effect?
On the contrary, experience shews that this doc
trine, rightly exhibited, produces just the oppo-
sit effects, and animates man in the pursuit of
holiness, and leads him to the highest exertions
of all his powers for the attainment of it. Vide
s. 77, JL, ad finem.
The true ground why so many forbear to
preach this doctrine is, that, for the reasons just
now suggested, it is displeasing to many of their
hearers, whose favour they would gladly conci
liate. It is with them as with those respecting

236

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

whom John speaks, ch. xii. 43. Others have
never clearly considered the reasons why they
forbear to preach this doctrine, but follow blindly
the example set them by some of the eminent
and lauded preachers of the day. For the great
majority of men, and even of teachers, never
think for themselves, but depend upon authority.
Again: there are, alas! many religious teach
ers who are themselves unrenewed men, who
even while at home were sunk deep in moral
corruption, who become still more depraved at
the schools and universities, and who, when
they assume the sacerdotal robe, alter only their
outward deportment, without experiencing a
radical change of heart. Such are blind leaders
of the blind.
(3) The teachers who adopt the principles
just mentioned are accustomed to descant large
ly upon the worth, the nobleness, and the dignity
of man, since discourse like this is heard with
pleasure, and it is far more agreeable to be
praised than blamed. In this strain, therefore,
preachers of such a character often indulge, and
even in their instruction of the young dwell on
nothing but the dignity of man. In this way
many of them suppose they shall elevate man,
inspire him with a zeal for virtue, and by means
of this feeling of honour raise him to nobleness of
character. And it is, indeed, right to point man
to the noble faculties which he possesses, &c
This is often done in the Bible. This, how
ever, we should do, and not leave the other un
done. In the Bible this is always done in con
nexion with the doctrine of the moral apostasy
of man. If this doctrine be not brought into
connexion with it, the doctrine of the dignity of
man is injurious; it nourishes pride and self-
righteousness, and prevents that self-knowledge
which is so essential, and thus leads aside from
the way of true reformation, such as God will
accept. It leads men to think that they are per
fect, and have no need of reformation ; that they
are in no danger, and at most need only to be
ennobled and perfected, and not to be radically
renewed. What must be the effect of a doc
trine like this in an age in which self-confidence
and selfish blindness are the prevailing fault,
and have so deeply imbued the minds even of
children and youth, that at the age when they
are just beginning to learn, they think them
selves wiser than their teachers, and from the
height to which they suppose themselves to
have attained, seem to look down with compas
sion upon the aged.
(4) From these observations it follows, that
it is the duty of a Christian teacher to exhibit
the doctrine of moral depravity without regard
to the fear or the favour of man, after the exam
ple which the inspired teachers have set him —
the ancient prophets, Jesus, and the apostles.
The times have changed nothing belonging to

this doctrine, nor can they. Human nature is
the same now that it has been in every preced
ing age; and the inculcation of this doctrine is
not less important in an enlightened than in an
unenlightened period. It is by this doctrine
alone that the necessity of an entire moral re
novation of the human heart can be placed in a
strong light; here man learns to understand
himself aright, and to think humbly with regard
to himself; here he learns to see clearly the
difficulties and mighty hindrances which lie in
the way of conversion, and attains to the con-!
viction that he needs help, and that without di
vine assistance he can do nothing. Truly and
beautifully has Seneca said, Initium est salulis, \
notilia peccati. Nam qui peccare se nescit, cor-
rigi non vult. Deprehendas te oporiet antequam
cmendes, Ep. 28. This is the great principle
upon which the inspired teachers proceeded in
all their instructions. Christ, for example, took
this course in his conversation with Nicodemus,
however strange the doctrine might have ap
peared to the latter. And there is no better way,
none which is more capable of vindication on
psychological grounds.
(5) But in order that the teaching of this
doctrine may attain its end, it is not enough to
set forth the mere dogma, and to prove it con
nectedly from the holy scriptures, and then to
speak of it in the abstract; for in that case the
wholesome and necessary application is easily
neglected by the hearer. On the contrary, it
ought rather to be spoken of in the concrete;
at least, the abstract statement should always
be applied to particular concrete cases, and es
pecially to ourselves. This is the wise mode of
teaching exhibited in the Bible. Vide s. 77,
III. 2. In the popular exhibition of this doc
trine, therefore, the teacher should begin with
making his hearer observant of himself, and en
deavour to convince him of his own depravity,
or of the preponderance of appetite over reason
in himself, as learned from his own experience.
This is the easiest way to bring the contemner
of this doctrine to silence. For example, let the
teacher in his instructions go over all the points
which Paul has cited Rom. vii. 7 — 23, as proof
of the moral corruption of man, without at first
remarking that this is taught in the Bible. The
hearer must confess that he finds it in himself
exactly as described — that he is not what he
ought to be, and what his own moral feeling
teaches him that he must be, in order to please
God. When he is brought to this conviction,
then let him be shewn that the doctrine of scrip
ture corresponds with bis own experience. In
this way he will acquire regard for the Bible, as
he will see that it gives no ideal description of
man, but represents him as he actually is. Then
he will lie constrained to acknowledge : "Yes!
I too am actually so; it is as if I myself were

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

297

here described." Has any one come to this
point, there is hope that he may be inclined to
employ the means of recovery prescribed in the
scriptures, and especially in the Christian doc
trine; particularly if he is shewn how and
wherefore they have so beneficial an effect; and
if is made to consider, that our own good in
tentions and all the means by which we attempt
to help ourselves are inefficacious. In this way
is the feeling of the need of help and of a Re
deemer to be excited in man ; and thus does the
knowledge of our moral depravity and inability
lead to Christ, as to him through whom alone if
can be removed. But all this instruction will
be in danger of failing of its effect, unless the
hearer perceives that the teacher himself has a
personal interest in the matter, that he speaks
from his own internal conviction, and that he
has experienced on his own heart the efficacy of
the means prescribed, and shews their effect in
his life and walk.
(6) None of the profound and learned inves
tigations of philosophers and theologians, re
specting the nature of human depravity, the
mode of its propagation, &c, should have any
place in the practical and popular exhibition of
this doctrine. It is enough for the teacher to
stop with the simple doctrine of the Bible, and
merely teach, (a) that all men have been ac
tually so, ever since our first parents transgress
ed the divine command ; and (6) that, according
to the Bible, the ground why all their posterity
are such lies in our first parents; but that (c)
we owe the ipprovement of our condition, and
the restoration of our lost holiness and happi
ness to Jesus Christ, since he redeems or frees
us from sin and its evil consequences, and turns
¦ this evil to our good ; Rom. vii. 25. For more
on this point, vide the article on Christ.
SECTION LXXXI.
EXPLANATION OF THE IDEA WHICH IS COMMPNLY
CONNECTED IN THEOLOGY WITH THE EXPRES
SION " ACTUAL SINS ;" AND OF THE DIFFER
ENT DEGREES OF SIN.
We have thus far treated of the moral corrup
tion of human nature, and its causes ; we have
also given a history of this doctrine; s. 74 — 80.
We now proceed to consider particular sinful
actions, whose source is found in this same mo
ral depravity. Vide s. 73, ad finem. We shall
treat this subject under the, two following divi
sions — viz., (1) The nature of particular sinful
actions, and their different kinds and divisions,
s. 81 — 84; (2) The different state which arises
in man on the commission of sin, s. 85 — 87.
I. Additional Explanation of the idea of Sin.
We have before shewn, under s. 73, I., what
u meant by t ne terms sin and law ,- and this will
38

be presupposed in the remarks which follow.
Since now we must regard this natural depravity
as a sinful slate, and since we must regard par
ticular sinful actions as the consequence and re
sult of this state, theologians, since the time of
Cassianus, have adopted the division of sin into
peccatum originate and peccatum actuale. Vide
s. 79, No. 4, ad finem, and Morus, p. 118, supra.
Morus has, indeed, omitted the special consi
deration of the doctrine de peccato actuali in his
Dogmatik, and assigned the discussion of it
wholly to the department of Morals. But the
general theory of actual sins belongs to the pro
vince of Dogmatical theology, and is commonly
introduced by theologians into this department.
Actual sins are, moreover, commonly denomi
nated peccata sensu siridiori. By actions, how
ever, theologians do not mean, in treating of this
subject, those merely which are external — i. e.,
which are committed by means of the body and
its organs ; but also those which are internal —
i. e., those which take place merely in the soul,
and are performed in thoughts, desires, &c
Hence it has been common to subdivide actual
sins into external and internal, of which we shall
say more hereafter. Actualis is a term which
belongs to the later Latin, and was first used by
Macrobius; it answers to the older term adu-
osus, active, consisting in action; or to activus,
which is sometimes employed in the same sense.
Hence Cicero says, vita actuosa, virtus aduosa,
Nat; Deor. i. 40; instead of which Macrobius
writes, virtutes actuales. Seneca has, activa
philosophia, Ep. 95, and Quinctilian opposes
aclivum (the practical) to speculativum, (the the
oretical.) But sinful actions are denominated
peccata aclualia in opposition to native depravity,
because they involve an actus transitorius, such
as exists in all human actions; they have a be
ginning and an end. But original sin has in
this life no end, but continues as long as man
remains upon the earth. It is not an act, but a
state. The application of the term sin to this
state is indeed inconvenient, because, according
to the definition given of sin, native depravity
cannot be literally so called ; a more appropriate
name would be, hereditary evil. But since the
former term is now common among theologians,
and the thing denoted by it is accordant both
with reason and scripture, it must be understood,
and its ground must be known.
In explanatinn of the subjective definition of
sin given s. 73, 1. — viz., a free action which is
not conformed to the law of God, or which devi
ates from this law, let the following additional
remarks be considered. When we would judge
respecting any action, internal or external, whe
ther it is sinful or not, our decision must depend
upon the three following conditions — viz.,
(1) That the man who commits the action
had sufficient knowledge of the law, (nohiia

298

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

legis.) And this presupposes (a) that the law
was actually given to man; (b) that it was
known by this individual, or at least, that it
snould have been known by him, and that so it
is his own fault if he remained unacquainted
with it; and (c) that he understood the sense of
the law, or might have understood it. Is any one
of these cenditions wanting, the act contravening
"the law is, indeed, an evil, (foolish, hurtful in
its tendency, &c.,) but not sin. Vide s. 73, I.
Cf. Rom. iv. 15; v. 13, dpaptla obx iXXoysltai
pij bvtos vbjjiov.
(2) That the action does not, in fact, agree
with the law. The determination of this matter
has often in particular cases more difficulty than
one would think. The over-anxious and scru
pulous man often regards certain actions, both
internal and external, as sinful, while they are
not forbidden in the divine law ; and in this way
he needlessly disquiets himself. Another man
mistakes on this subject through indifference
and carelessness. But a far more common fault
is, to allow self-love to pronounce too light and
partial a sentence upon our own actions, while,
on the other hand, we judge the actions of others
too severely. Vide M-att. vii. 3 — 5. Nor is the
obligation pf the law the same for all. Some
laws are not universally obligatory, but binding
only on certain individuals, and in particular
cases. The same action may be sin in one man,
and not in another. One does it with a convic
tion that it is not wrong, and so sins not; the
other is doubtful, or convinced in his heart
that it is wrong, and yet does it, and sins.
This may be applied to the so-called d5td<j>opa,
indifferent things, fastings, amusements, card-
playing, dancing, &c Vide 1 Cor. viii. and ix.,
and Rom. xiv. 23. The further discussion of the
subject of sin ex conscientia errante sive erronea
belongs to the department of theological Morals.
(3) That in the commission of the action,
man had the use of hxs free-will, (f 6 a-uf s%m>gibv,
or ixsv&spa itpoalpseis.) An action which we
have been compelled to do against our will, or
which we have done without consciousness,
cannot be regarded as our own action. This is
true not only of evil, but of good actions. In
order, now, that the action of a man may be free
and so imputable, he must in doing it (a) be in
a state in which he can exercise his understand
ing, and determine his will according to that
which his understanding approves ; for this is
essential to freedom. Therefore no infant, no
idiot, no insane person, no sleeper or dreamer,
can commit sin, because he has not the use of
his understanding. The shameful words and
deeds, the blasphemy, &c, which we often see
and hear in delirious persons, are not sins, be
cause they are not free actions ; and if they are
afterwards disposed to trouhle themselves on ac
count of what they may have said or i^ine in

such a state, they ought to be set at rest. In
order that a man's action may be free, (J) his
power to act must not be hindered by external
circumstances. If, therefore, in any case a
man is compelled by some external necessity
to acl wholly against his will, or if he is barely
restrained in acting, so that he cannot proceed
wholly according to his own will and intent,
then his action is not free, or at least not per- 1
fectly free, and so is not imputable, er is not"
wholly so. Everything depends here upon the
intention. A man designs to do an evil deed/i
but is prevented from accomplishing his pur
pose by external circumstances, and so does
not sin indeed externally, but he does in his
heart, and in the judgment of God and of his
own conscience is deserving of punishment.
The case is the same as to the imputation of a
good act, the execution of which has been pre
vented by external circumstances. Vide Matt,
v. 28, coll. s. 82.
II. The different degrees of Sin.
In common life sins are distinguished into
gross and great sins, and light and trifling sins,
and the latter are judged deserving of less pu
nishment than the former. This difference is
founded in the nature of the thing itself. For
whoever sins, acts against the obligation which
rests upon him to fulfil certain duties; but this
obligation has different degrees, according to
the difference of the powers of the acting sub
ject, and of his motives to action. Hence it
follows that one commits greater sins who has
more power and stronger motives for doing
right than one with whom these powers and ,
motives were weaker. Again : the less the
motives and inducements, to sin, and the more
the reasons which were calculated to deter from
the commission of it, so much the worse is the
sin, and so much the more deserving of punish
ment. The motives tending to withhold from
sin are to be judged of from the peculiar situa
tion, the circumstances, the mode of thinking.
and the knowledge of each individual; also.
according to the nature of the person or thing
with respect to which the sin is committed, (e
g., sins against parents, to whom we are undei
greater obligations than to others;) and also
according to the consequences which flow from
the sin. The consideration of this matter, how
ever, properly falls into the department of theo
logical morals.
In entire conformity with these principles
does the holy scripture decide respecting the
different degrees of sin, and their desert of pu
nishment. Vide Matt. v. 22; John, xix. 11,
utl^av dpaptla; Luke, xii. 47, 48; Matthew,
xi. 22—24; 1 Tim. i. 15 ; 2 Peter, ii. 20, 21.
But since this difference of degree in sin de
pends upon so many things, which are not

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

299

always obvious, and cannot be duly estimated
by others ; upon the dispositions and intentions
concealed in the heart of him who acts ; upon
his knowledge, his temptations, his powers and
capacities ; it is often impossible for us in par
ticular cases to form a correct judgment. God
only, who knows the heart of man, and the cir
cumstances in which he acts, can j udge truly and
decisively respecting his actions. To him, there
fore, should this decision be left. Vide Rom.
xiv. 4, ah tis si b xptwov dxxbtpiov oixitrpi ; James,
iv. 12 ; Matt. vii. 1, seq. On this account, it is
our wisdom, as well as our duty, although con
trary to the common disposition of men, to judge
ourselves with all possible strictness, but the
faults of others with forbearance and toleration.
This, too, is according to the direction of Christ,
Matt. vii. 1 — 5, coll. Luke, xiii. 2 — 5. Baum-
garten has discussed this subject minutely in his
"Diss, de gradibus peccatorum ;" Halae, 1744,
Note 1. — The philosophers both of ancient
and modern times have been almost entirely
agreed that there is a difference of degree in
sins ; with the exception only of the stoics, who
maintained the paradoxical opinion, that all sins
are alike. Vide Cicero, Parad. iii. ; Seneca,
Ep. 66 ; Cicero, De finibus honor, et malor. iv.
27, seq. They assumed that all virtues were
equal ; and hence it followed, by way of contrast,
that all vices were equal ; and hence, that all the
virtuous and all the vicious were, in their view,
on the same level — e. g., one who killed a slave
without a cause committed, in their view, an
equal sin with one who abused his father. In
this doctrine they were opposed chiefly by the
peripatetics. But although they maintained
this equality of virtues and of vices, they yet
ascribed to them a different extent and limita
tion, so that some were capable, of palliation,
others unpardonable; because some deviated
more than others from the law ; and so with re
gard to the virtues, which were judged of by
them according to their different utility. Hence
we see that in substance they agreed with others,
and only differed from them by this striking
proposition, which they selected on account of
its strangeness. All which they mean to affirm
is, that one transgression is as much a trans
gression as another; and all, in respect to their
internal nature, are alike, because they are all
violations of the rule, and so are opposite to the
virtues. And the same is taught by the text,
James, ii. 10, 11. But this internal nature of
virtues and vices cannot be made the standard
by which their greatness is determined, but the
consequences which result from them, the pur
pose and intention of the soul from which they
flow, and sometimes even the mere "so it
seems good" of the lawgiver. Vide Tiedemann,
System der Stoischen Philosophie, th. iii. s.
151—156.

Note 2. — Some theologians have maintained
that sin, or rather the guilt of sin, is infinite in
the philosophical sense, (culpam sive reatum
peccatorum esse infinitum.) They resort to this
statement in-order to explain more easily the
infiniteness of the satisfaction made by Christ,
and also the eternity of the punishments of hell.
Whoever, they say, breaks the laws of the
Infinite Being, brings upon himself infinite
guilt. But this statement, taken in the strict
philosophic sense, is incorrect. For (a) it
would follow from this that there was no differ
ence of objects; for the infinite is always like to
itself, and cannot be increased or diminished.
(6) An action which is directed against a parti
cular object, does not, of necessity, partake of
the nature of this object. Whether the object
is finite or infinite is a matter of indifference
with regard to the nature of the action, and
makes no alteration in its character. A finite
action cannot become infinite, or involve infinite
guilt, merely because it relates to an infinite ob
ject. If it could, then every good action agree
ing with the divine law must be infinite, and
have an infinite worthiness; and so the know
ledge which man has of God must be infinite
because it relates to an infinite being, (c) This
whole opinion rests upon a comparison of divine
and human things carried too far, so as to give
rise, as in innumerable other cases, to mistake.
We look upon the crimes committed against
rulers and magistrates as greater than those
committed against others, and we punish them
more severely; and this with justice. But the
reason of this lies not so much in the personal
character or worth of the injured object, as in
care for the public welfare or security, which is
more endangered by any indignity done to the
magistracy than to a private person. Hence
this crime, in order to deter others from com
mitting it, must be punished more severely
than others. But this principle cannot be ap
plied in its whole extent to God ; although such
human representations are often applied to him.
For, properly speaking, God cannot be in
jured by men; they cannct frustrate any of his
plans, nor set aside, disturb, or throw effectual
hindrances in the way of any of his counsels.
Vide Eberhard, Apologie des Sokrates, th. i. s.
374, f. SECTION LXXXII.
DIVISIONS OF SIN IN RESPECT TO THE LAW, TO
THE KNOWLEDGE AND PURrOSE OF HIM WHO
COMMITS IT, AND TO THE ACTION ITSELF.
I. In respect to the Law.
As the law contains both precepts and prohibi
tions, it follows that actions deviating from it
may be of two kinds — viz., (a) actions forbid
den by the law, sins of commission, (peccata

100

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

commissionis ,-) (b) declining or refusing to per
form actions required by the law, sins of omis
sion, (peccata omissionis.) The latter kind, as
well as the former, are mentioned in the Bible,
and declared to be equally sins, James, iv. 17,
"To him that knoweth to do good, (i. e., who
has power and opportunity to perform it,) and
doeth it not, it is sin ;" or, every omission of
good, to perform which we are obliged by the
divine law, is sin. Cf. Luke, xii. 47 ; Matt. vii.
19. A man, therefore, who guards merely
against sins of commission, so that he cannot be
charged with any open violation of the divine
will, does not deserve the name of an observer
of the divine law. To this character he can lay
claim only when he has not to condemn himself
for omitting the good which the law required
him to perform, Thus, not only does he sin
who does what is forbidden by God, but he too
who omits to do what God requires. It is, how
ever, a common error of men to regard sins of
omission less than those of commission, because
they are less externally visible. Some theolo
gians, too, have maintained that sins of omission
were less heinous and punishable than those of
commission. But this, as a general proposition,
and applied to all cases, is false. To neglect to
use the powers and faculties given us is often as
injurious, sometimes more so, than the abuse of
them in sins of commission. But because the
evil done in sins of commission is often more
immediate and obvious than in sins of omission,
where the effect is more slow and is often lost
in obscurity, we are easily led to regard the lat
ter as less than the former. In the eyes of God,
the thief and the murderer may be less vile than
the hardhearted rich man, who refuses to relieve
his dying neighbour, and suffers him to perish
of hunger; although the former is severely pu
nished by men, while the latter remains unpu
nished, and even may enjoy the highest repute
and honour in the view of men. Christ teaches
this. Matt. xxv. 41 — 46, where those who have
not fed the hungry and clothed the naked are
consigned by the Judge of the world to the
place of torment, as well as other offenders.
He applies the term xaxoitoislv to the emissipn
of a gpod action, Mark, iii. 4 ; Luke, vi. 9.
II. In respect to the Knowledge and the Will of him
who sins.
(1) In respect to knowledge. In case of an
illegal action, one either knows the law or he
does not; hence arises the division of sins into
those of ignorance and those of knowledge,
(peccata ignorantix, and peccata cum scientia
recti commissa.) Sin, or transgression of the
divine law, always presupposes a knowledge of
this law ; for without the knowledge of the law
there can be no sin. Vide s. 81, I. The sin
vf ignorance is not found, therefore, in the case

of one who is wholly ignorant of the divine la#,
or who has had no opportunity of becomingac-
quainted with it; in short, when his ignorance
is without any fault on his part. Hence Christ
says, John, xv. 22, 24, "Had I not told it unto
you, (that I was a divine teacher,) ye would
not have sinned, (in rejecting me;) and had I
not done such great miracles, (by which they
are furnished with the means of judging cor
rectly respecting me,) they had not had sin."
An ignorance of this kind, which is wholly
without criminality, is called by the schoolraenj
ignorantia invincibilis; and, however various are
the explanations which they give of it, they are
agreed in saying, that it must be excused, and
cannot be imputed. In particular cases, how
ever, it is very difficult to judge respecting
others, whether the ignorance of any one is, or
is not, without any fault on his part; for what
seems to one easy to be known, so that he can
hardly conceive how it should appear dark or
difficult, is attended in the view of another with
insuperable difficulties and hindrances. Hence
we ought to be very cautious in judging. God
only can determine infallibly whether, and how
far, ignorance is attended with criminality. As
soon, however, as any ene neglects the means
within his reach of acquiring knowledge of the
law, his ignorance is no longer innocent; he
commits actual sin, and is liable to punishment.
In order to a sin of ignorance, it may therefore
be considered as essential that the person should
have been able to know the law, and that his
own negligence and forbearing to inquire is the
only cause of his ignorance.
Nearly related to these are sins committed
through error, (per errorem commissa;) hence
they are often classed with sins, of ignorance.
Sins of error are those which are committed
(a) when one erroneously supposes that a law
exists, when in fact there is none — e. g., when
one supposes it is his duty to persecute heretics
and errorists; (b) when one misunderstands the
law, or (c) when, through error, he fails in the
application of the law to particular cases; or
(d) when he judges erroneously respecting the
obligatipn under which he is laid by the law.
The enly question now is, whether such an error
is without fault, or not; whether it was in our
power to avoid it. These different kinds of sin
are distinguished in the scriptures, and are al
ways there judged of, according to the principles
here laid down — e. g., Luke, xxiii. 34, Father,
forgive them, (there was, therefore, sin in this
case; for they had had opportunity to become
better instructed; and yet there were many
things whic diminished their guilt; and so
Christ adds,) for they know not what they do.
Acts, iii. 17, xata dyroiav l7r.pdj;£fE' and Paul
says, respecting himself, 1 Tim. i. 13, God had
forgiven him fer persecuting Christians, oVt

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

301

iiyvouv iitoinga iv ditigtla. Sins in general are
sometimes called dyj/oij/iafa, Heb. ix. 7. Heb.
nutf, Lev. iy. 2, 13, where sins of ignorance of
every kind are spoken of at length. The fur
ther discussion of this subject belongs to theo
logical morals.
(2) In respect to the will. Here, again, it must
be presupposed, that without the free determina
tion of the will no sin can exist. Such an act
does not depend upon me, and is not to be re
garded as mine, Vide s. 81, I. ad finem. In
order to estimate correctly the sinfulness of hu
man actions, and their liability of punishment,
regard must be had to the motives and induce
ments wnich act on the human will, and the re
lations of men with regard to them, and the
situatio.i in which the offender is placed. Ac
cording to these circumstances must the degree
of the sinfulness of actions be judged and esti
mated. Sins may be divided, in respect to the
intention with which they are committed, into
the following classes — viz.,
A. Involuntary sins, when one transgresses
the law of God, without having formed a proper
resolution or purpose of so doing, (si absit con
silium peccandi.) Among these are: —
(a) Sins of precipitancy, "qux," as Cicero
says, (Officiis, I. 8,) "repentina aliquo mo/u
animi accidunt," in opposition to deliberate sins,
prepense and aforethought. Sins of this kind are
committed when persons act so precipitately that
they do not once think of the law forbidding the
action which they perform, or do not duly con
sider the reasons which lie against it. They
ought to be carefully distinguished from sins
which are committed through levity. In ordeT
that a trespass committed by me should be
through mere precipitancy, I must not have
sought the opportunity to sin ; the time between
the resolution and the action must have been
very short, and the feeling which has carried
me away must have been very strong. The
sin, too, must be followed by deep repentance,
and a firm resolve to avoid the same in future.
Such sins of precipitancy ought not, however,
to be lightly regarded, because they often plunge
us into great calamity, and, if often repeated,
cease to be sins of precipitancy. Sins of this
nature are mentioned in Gal. vi. 1, where Chris
tians are exhorted to be on their guard against
them, and to encleaveur, in the spirit nf meek
ness, te restore those who have committed them.
Vide also Psalm lxxiii. 2, coll. ver. 23, seq.
(b) Sins of weakness, (peccata infirmitalis.)
These, in the strictest sense of the term, can
take place only when one knows that what he
does is against, the law, but yet is not physically
able to forbear doing it. They are seen in per-
nons who are not sufficiently confirmed in gopd-
ness, whp have net a settled habit ef dping
right, and whnse passiens are very vielent.

Sins, hewever, cannct be said to be committed
from mere weakness, unless he who commits
them has used on his part a proper watchful
ness, and has resisted his evil desires, and
found, after all, that it was impossible for him
wholly to exclude them from his mind, or to
fulfil his duties and his good intentions. This
is the case of which Christ speaks, Matt. xxvi.
41, "The spirit is willing (itpa$vpov) ; but the
fiesh (i. e., the body, by which the soul is so
much influenced) is weak (da^ExjJs) ;" i. e., as
weak men, whose spirit dwelt in a disordered
body, iliey were not able to execute the good
purposes for which they had a willingness.
The general maxim contained in this passage is
the following: men are often hindered by sense
and passion from the execution of their best
purposes, and yield to the inducements to sin.
The scriptures, therefore, always presuppose
in these sins a certain goodness of heart, and
the serious purpose of avoiding sin, and deep
repentance on account of it when it has been
committed. Men, therefore, who are totally
corrupt, and in whom all moral sense is sup
pressed, cannot commit sins of weakness ;
though, on the other hand, it is not entirely
true, according to the common affirmation of
some theologians, that the pious only and the
truly regenerate can commit sins of weakness
and precipitancy, and that, as some will say,
all the sins of the unrenewed are to be regarded
as sins of design, (Germ. Bosheitssiinden.)
For, as even the pious man is frequently borne
away by the violence of passion to the inconsi
derate ccmmissipn nf deeds which are against
his ewn will and purpose; this must certainly
be much oftener the case with unrenewed men ;
and unless they are in a high degree corrupt and
vicious, it cannot be affirmed with certainty re
specting them, that they always sin from sheer
wickedness, and that they never fight against
sin and endeavour to resist it. For a man who
is addicted to a particular vice, and who often
commits one sin, may yet have in him much
which is good, and strive with earnestness and
zeal against other sins to which be is tempted.
Now, little as sin can in any case be approved
or exculpated, it is yet true that many very
gross outbreakings of sin in particular cases
and persons are to be considered as sins of
weakness and precipitancy, and that the 077!-
niscient Being often passes a different judg
ment, with regard to the morality of such ac
tions, from that which men commonly form, or
are able to form. This is the case, for exam
ple, with theft, suicide, homicide, infanticide,
and ether similar crimes, which, on account of
their consequences, need to be severely punish
ed by human courts.
B. Voluntary sins, peccata voluntaria, or
proxretica, (from itpoaipsois, propositum, ton-
2C

302

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

silium.) These are committed with a determi
nation of breaking the law of God.
(a) When any one knows the law, and, be
fore he sins, distinctly recollects it, or might
easily recollect it, and yet proceeds to sin, then
his sin is voluntary ; so also, when he delights
himself in the sin which he has committed, ap
proves of it, and wishes for an opportunity to
repeat it, notwithstanding he is convinced, or
might be, that the act is opposed to the divine
law. (b) A sin does not cease to be voluntary and
deliberate, because he who commits it may have
been urged on by the command, the threat, the
solicitation, or the contempt, of men. For in
this case it is in my power to leave the sin un
done ; and if I commit it, I form the resolution
of breaking the law of God in order to escape
an evil threatened me by man. Vide Matt. x.
28. An exception is of course made with re
gard to proper physical compulsion — e. g., if one
strikes another with my hand, against my own
will, the action in such a case is no more mine.
(c) It is not necessary that every voluntary
sin should be a gross one; even the smallest
violation of the law which takes place with de
liberation is a voluntary sin; and it may even
be that an action which is not in itself sinful,
and which is only regarded as such from an
unenlightened conscience may become a volun
tary sin by being deliberately performed ; for
the person in such a case forms a resolution to
break the law of God — e. g., when one regards
card-playing as forbidden, and yet plays. Vide
s.81,1. 2.
(d) The highest degree of voluntary sin is
that in which one sins with willingness, from
mere wickedness, and for the sake of the sin it
self, (peccatum frivolum, or ixovgiov.) Every
such sin is indeed voluntary ; but every volun
tary sin does not spring from pure malice or
evil. Such a sin exists only when one violates
the law without being tempted to it by external
solicitations or opportunities. There are, there
fore, many voluntary sins which do not result
from this pure evil, and which are not commit
ted with this perfect cordiality ; but which may
be even reluctantly performed, through fear of
persecution, contempt, or some other cause. In
such a case, we have the sin of purpose, not of
mere evil. Should one in opposition to his own
convictions renounce religion at a time of per
secution, or when irreligious opinions were pre
valent, he would sin voluntarily ; but for him to
do this without the influence of persecution, of
danger, or of any solicitation from without,
would be to sin cordially and from entire wick
edness. Paul names this sinning ixovglas, Heb.
X. 26, where he speaks of just such a denial of
the faith, and justly declares it to be one of the
most heinous and unpardonable of crimes.

(e) When from the frequent repetition of a
sin, a habit is formed, this sin thus made habi
tual is denominated a vice; e.g., the, vice. iof
drunkenness, &c The term vice is usedintwo
senses — viz., sometimes to denote the habit it-
self of acting against the divine law ; sometimes
to denote the particular actinns which originate
in such a habit. Thus when it is said, a man
is guilty of a great vice, the meaning is, that he
has committed a sinful action which with him
is habitual. Hence every vicious man isasin-
ner — i. e., a transgressor of the divine law ;, but
every sinner is not of necessity vicious. Cf.
Michaelis, Von der Sfinde, s. 337, seq. and
Toellner, Theelogische Untersuchungen, th. i.
b. 2, Num. 7.
Note. — As the sacred writers always proceed:
on the principle that God, as ruler, has aright
to prescribe laws to men, arid that men, as his
subjects, are always bound to obey; they de
scribe those who knowingly and wilfully trans
gress his authority, as enemies, reie/s,.and in
surgents, and their crimes, as rebellion, enmity,
&c ; so Psalm viii. 3 ; Rom. viii. 7 ; James, iv.
4. On the contrary, the virtuous man is de
scribed in the Bible as obedient and submissive
(diijj)), who willingly, and cheerfully bows to
the authority of God. Humility often stands
for piety, and pride for wickedness, — intentional
and deliberate sins; and the proud are those
who commit them. Vide Ps. cxix. 21, 51;
xxv. 9. Why are the virtuous called humble
and obedient ? All virtue should proceed from
religious motives, from thankful love, and a
spirit of obedience towards God.
(3) In respect to the actions themselves, or
the acting subject, sins are divided into internal
and external. We aot either with our souls
simply, or with them in connexion with the
body, of which the soul makes use as its organ.
This division is found in the New Testament,
Matt. ix. 4; Rom. iii. 13, seq.; 2 Cor. vii. 1,
(poXvguos oapxos xai itvsvpatos-) Peccata actu-
alia interna, are those which are committed
merely in heart, or in thought. They are also
called acliones (pravas) animi, and are compre
hended by Paul under the term ipya, Gal. v. 19,
seq. coll. Rom. i. 28 — 31. Among these, how
ever, we are not to include those evil desires
that rise involuntarily and without guilt in the
hearts of men ; which are rather the disease of
the soul than its guilt. They are committed
only when the desires after forbidden things
rising in the heart are cherished, entertained,
delighted in, and executed ; in short, when, as
James says, (ch. i. 15,) sin is conceived in the
heart. Cf. s. 78, IV.
Peccata actualia externa, are those unlawful
actions which one commits with the body and
its members. They are divided, according t»
the different manner in which the disposition of

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

303

the soul is made known through the body, into
peccata oris or lingux, (Matt. v. 22 ; Rom. iii.
14; James, iii. 2,) gestuum and operis. The
external or bodily actions of men are, however,
only so far sinful and liable to punishment, as
they depend on the soul or the will, Matt. xv.
18 — 20; otherwise, they cannot be denominated
sins. Vide No. II. 2, of this section. Hence
Christ calls the heart of man the treasury
(Pijgavpbs) of good and evil, where good and
evil actions lie concealed, and are prepared, be
fore they are externally exhibited ; Matthew,
xii. 34, 35, col). Mark, vii. 21. The body is
merely the instrument or subject, which obeys
the commands of the soul. Hence it is plain
that it is false to consider internal sins as less
heinous and deserving of punishment than ex
ternal sins, as is commonly done. This mistake
results from the fact that internal sins are con
cealed from the view of men, and cannot there
fore be punished by them. We deceive our-.
selves here also, by conceiving of the relation
between men and God as about the same as that
which subsists between man and his fellow
man, especially like that between subjects and
a human ruler, where thoughts are not liable to
punishment, so long as they remain mere
thoughts, and are unknown to other men. But
to God the mere thoughts of men are as much
known as their outward actions. Vide 1 Cor.
iv. 5, and s. 22; and he can therefore bring
them into judgment for the one as well as for
the other. Hence„in the Bible, the very signi
ficant epithet, xapSioyvagttjs (a1? ipn) is applied
to God. It is also obvious that in very many
cases internal sins are, in the sight of God,
more heinous and ill-deserving than external.
For example : one man occupies his fancy with
shameless and unchaste images. He commits
internal sin, although no other man can reproach
him for it, or punish him, because it is done
merely in heart. Another man, ordinarily
chaste, is borne away by passion at one time
actually to commit fornication, or adultery, and
thus brings upon himself shame or punishment
from man, while the other goes free. Both
have sinned. But which of the two sins is, in
the sight of God, of the darkest character and
the most deserving of punishment, the internal
9r the external ? The decision in this case is
lot difficult; and if we, like the omniscient God,
Knew the heart, we should all decide in the
same manner with regard to offences of this na
ture. Hence Christ says, Matt. v. 28, whoever
looks upon a woman to lust after her hath com
mitted adultery with her already in his heart.
Cato pronounced justly a similar judgment:
Furlum sine ulla quoque attredatione fieri posse,
sola mente atque animo, ut furlum fiat, adni-
<*2nte ; Gellius, xi. 18, ad finem.

SECTION LXXXIII.
OF SOME OTHER DIVISIONS OF SIN AND SINS OF
PARTICIPATION.
I. Some minor divisions of sins.
Besides the divisions of sin already mention
ed, s. 82, there are also many others which are
either wanting in exactness and philosophic cor
rectness, or are of less consequence, as they
cast but little light upon the doctrine itself, and
only furnish some contingent characteristics of
particular kinds of sin. Some of thern are also
liable to great abuse. Still, as they are fre
quently found in the writings of the schoolmen
and of modern theologians, it is necessary to
understand them as matters of history.
(1) The division of sins in respect to the
object of the law against which the sin is com
mitted into those which are committed against
God, against one's neighbour, and against one
self, is a very common division, but far from be
ing accurate and just. For the object of every
sin, if the formale of it is considered, is God.
The obligation to obey the law issues from him
as the supreme Ruler and Lawgiver. Again;
every one who commits a sin, of whatever kind
it may be, sins in each case against himself.
For in the commission of it he most injures
himself. Note. — We may here notice the division of
sins which is found among the schoolmen, into
peccata philosophica (those committed against
the laws of nature), and peccata theologica,
(those committed against the revealed will of
God.) But no characteristics can be given by
which these two kinds of sinning can be distin
guished from each other; and the guilt and ill
desert of both must be necessarily equal, since
God is no less the author of the laws of nature
than of those of Revelation. We may learn
something of the great abuse of this division,
of which some of the Jesuits since the close of
the seventeenth century have been chargeable,
from church history and theological ethics.
(2) Sins have been divided, in respect to
their greater or less guilt and desert of punish
ment, into mortalia or non-venalia ,- (unpardon
able), and venalia (pardonable) ; — sins unto
death, and venial sins. The phrase sin unto
death is taken from 1 John, v. 16, where, how
ever it has, an entirely different meaning from
that which is given to it in this connexion — viz.,
punishment with death at a human tribunal, a
crime worthy of death, a capital crime. But this
phrase, as used by theologians, is taken in the
Hebrew sense, and denotes sins which draw
after them death — i. e., divine punishment— e.
g., John, viii. 21, 24, drto^avsla%s iv ty dpaptla
vpav. The term peccatum veniale is found even

304

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

in Augustine. Very different opinions, however,
are entertained by theologians as to the mean
ing of this division; and there has been much
controversy about it, especially between the the
ologians of the Roman and the protestant church.
In order that this term may be understood in a
sense conformed to the Bible, it must be ex
plained in the following way ; every sin, as such,
deserves punishment, ($dvatov ditoxvsi, James,
i. 15,) nor do the "least remain unpunished.
The pious man, therefore, either does not sin at
all, or if he sins, deserves punishment, (death.)
But if any one has sinned through ignorance,
heedlessness, human weakness, or precipitancy,
he may hope for the pardon (veniam) of his sin,
since he did not commit it with deliberate pur
pose. Vide s. 82. Heinous sins remain al
ways deserving of punishment; but those who
repent of their sins and with all their hearts
turn from them, receive, according to the doc
trine of the scriptures, pardon from God, through
faith in Jesus Christ; and the Christian knows,
that through his faith his sins are truly forgiven
him. Vide Rom. viii. 1, oiS'sv xatdxpipa. 1
John, i. 9, coll. ii. 1 ; Ps. ciii. 8—18.
(3) As the phrase to cry to Heaven is used in
the Bible with reference to particular sins, some
have thence taken occasion to introduce the di
vision of sins into clamantia and non-clamantia.
The texts are, Gen. iv. 10; xviii. 20 ; Ex. iii. 7 ;
James, v. 4, coll. Is. xxii. 14. The sins men
tioned in these passages have been comprised in
the following distich : —
" Clamitat ad ccelum vox sanguinis et Sodomorum,
Vox oppressorum, merces detenta laborum."
But this crying to Heaven is not given in the
Bible as the definite mark of any particular sins,
and it may be spoken of many others besides
those to which it is actually applied. It depends
merely upon the circumstances. It is prosopo
poeia, and is used to denote great and aggravated
offences, which have terrible consequences, but
which are not punished in this world, either be
cause they remain undiscovered, or because, on
account of great public corruption, they are not
regarded as sins. Respecting such sins, the He
brew says, they cry to God, or, they call to God
for revenge — i. e., they are punished by God
with peculiar severity, although overlooked by
men. Among sins of this nature, e. g., is^er-
jury, respecting which it is expressly said, Ex.
xx. 7, that God will not foroear to punish it,
although the phrase crying fo Heaven is never
used with respect to it in the Bible. On the
contrary, it is said, respecting the blood of
Christ, Heb. xii. 24, that it'spealcs better things
than the blood of Abel; it calls upon God. for
favour and the forgiveness of sins, or it results
in this, that God does pardon ; while Abel's
'riood c-alied on God to punish, or was followed

by this consequence, that God punished the*
murderer. In connexion with these texts, vide
Sir. xxxv. 18, "The tears of the widow cry
over themselves (to Heaven) against him who
extorts them."
II. Participation in the sins of others.
In 1 Tim. v. 22, Paul makes use of the lan
guage xowavsw daaptlais dxxat piai;. A sin of
participation is committed by any one, when the
unlawful action, though not performed imme
diately by him, is yet done mediately through
him, or, which is the same thing, is occasioned,
aided, and abetted by him. Everything, there
fore, by which I give to my fellow man oppor-
nity, inducement, or occasion to sin, is a sin of
participation. The guilt which rests upon me
is greater or less, in proportion as I could have
foreseen, or did actually foresee and approve,
the sins which my fellow man has committed
in consequence of these opportunities and in
ducements which I placed in his way. In a
great variety of ways can one give to another
occasion to sin; — by command, by bad advice
and counsel (John, xviii. 14; 2 Sam. xvi. 21),
by praising wicked deeds, by concealment, by
omitting to place all possible resistance in the
way of the sin, or by failing to give needful admo
nition, warning, or correction, (1 Sam. iii. 13.)
The mere participator, however, has not always
equal guilt with the one who himself directly
commits the sin. The guilt of the one may be
greater or less than that of the other, or that of
both may be equal ; and this will be according
to the circumstances in each particular case.
The more full discussion of the whole sub
ject belongs properly to the department of
morals. There is one class of sins of participation
which deserves more particular notice here, al
though the consideration of it at large belongs
to theological morals — viz., scandals, so called.
We subjoin only a few remarks. SxcwoaXov
(s-'ptn) is, literally, anything by which one is
made to fall; it then signifies anything by
which one is injured — e. g., snares, plots;
finally, in a moral sense, it denotes not only
every deliberate and designed solicitation of an
other to evil, but also everything by which one
gives to another occasion to sin, even in a more
indirect way, and if he had no intention of so
doing — e. g., the bad example which one sets
before another. This term is sometimes used
in the discourses of Jesus to signify temptation
to apostasy from Christianity — e. g., Matt.
xviii. 6; John, xvi. 1 ; but it is also used by
Christ in a wider sense — e. g., Matt. xvii. 27,
where it denotes the inducement to disobey ma
gistrates, which one offers to another by his
conduct; and in general gxavSaxl£si* is with
him to give occasion to sin, to tempt, Matt. v.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

305

i9, 30. Such an offence or scandal may be
committed either in word or in external deed.
Actions and words may in themselves be right
and innocent ; but if one can foresee that by them
another may be led into sin, it is his duty to re
frain from them. On these principles, Paul
judges respecting the eating of meats regarded
as unlawful, and of flesh offered to idols, in pre
sence of persons who had conscientious scruples
respecting it, Rom. xiv. 20 — 25 ; 1 Cor. viii.
10 — 13. The maxims which Paul lays down
in these places are very important and worthy
of being laid to heart, because they are applica
ble to all similar cases. The accountability
and ill-desert of a person guilty of such an of
fence is different, in proportion to the deed ifr-
self and its consequences. The easier it is to
avoid the seductive action, the more important
the office and station of the one who does it ;
the more unlawful the actionis in itself, and
the greater the evil done by it, so much the
greater and more deserving of punishment is
the offence.
Scandals or offences are sometimes divided,
in respect to the subject, into those given and
those received — a division, however, which is in
many respects inconvenient; it is further treated
of in theological morals. Scandals given are
those actions of an injurious tendency, to the
emission of which one is obligated, either from
the nature of the actions themselves, or from the
particular circumstances of the case. To com
mit an action in such a case is gxovSaxl^siv tlva
(active), Matt, xviii. 6. Scandals received are
such actions as may prove temptations to some
one, but which are either in themselves good
and according to duty, or at least indifferent in
their moral character. In the first case, one
may give offence or occasion sin without being
accessory to it, and so without sin on his part.
In the second case, it is a duty to abstain from
the action, according to the advice of Paul, as
we have seen above. This scandalum acceptum
is oxaj'8aM,a§i)t/ai, iv tlvi, Matt. xi. 6 ; xiii. 57 (the
first case); Rom. xiv. 21, (the second case.)
In judging of sins of participation arid of
scandals, moralists often mistake by carrying
the matter too far in theory, and thus weaken
ing the effect of their rule; as, on the other
hand, men in common life are apt to judge too
lightly and indulgently respecting such sins. In
order to guard against this latter fault, which is
often very injurious, it is well to reverse the
case, and see how we should judge respecting
participation in good, virtuous, and noble ac
tions, and how careful we should be to make
out our title to reward in consequence of this
participation. In this way many incautious
decisions respecting these sins would be pre
vented. 39

SECTION LXXXIV.
OF THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST,
OR THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.
The latter phrase (the sin against the Holy
Ghost), which is introduced into theology, is
both unscriptural and very inconvenient, on ac
count of its indefiniteness and vagueness. For
there are many sins against the Holy Gliost
which are not yet blasphemy against him. Vidu
Acts, vii. 51 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8. The blasphemy
of the Holy Ghost (pxaafri/ila, or xbyos sis itvsi
pa dyiov) is the sin'which is intended in this
discussion; and this, too, is the scriptural mode
of expressing it. The proof-texts properly re
lating to this subject are, Matt. xii. 31, 32;
Mark, iii. 28— 30 ; Luke, xii. 10; with which
many compare the texts Heb. vi. 4 — 6 ; x. 29 ;
1 Pet. iv. 14; John, xv. 22 — 24, &c, although
their reference to this subject is disputed by
others. I. Historical Observations.
Even among the ancients the explanations
given of this subject were very diverse, and
often very indefinite and unsettled. Athanasius
wrote a whole dissertation on this subject; Ep.
4, ad Serapion. In this he states, among other
things, the opinion of Origen, that " all the sins
committed after baptism were sins against the
Holy Ghost." But in the writings of Origen
now extant, he places the sin against the Holy
Ghost in the denial of the divinity of Jesus
Christ, by means of which he performed mira
cles (works of the Holy Spirit.) So Theognos-
tus of Alexandria, Hilarius, and Ambrosius,
although the latter in one place explains him
self differently. In the Pastor of Hernias this
sin is explained to be blasphemy in general.
Since the fourth century, two explanations
have, however, found the most approbation ; and
although they are both very differently modified,
yet the most diverse representations can be ar
ranged under the one or the other of these gene
ral classes. (1) The explanation of Chrysos
torn (Horn. 42, in Matt.), to which Hieronymus
also assents, (Comm. in Matt. 12.) According
to them, one commits the sin against the Holy
Ghost who asserts that the miracles performed
by Christ through the aid of the Holy Ghost
were done by the agency of an evil spirit. (2)
The other is the opinion of Augustine. lie
is not indeed always consistent with himself in
his views respecting the kind of sin which
should be regarded as the sin against the Holy
Ghost. But he makes the principal character
of this sin to be the obstinate impenitence of the
sinner till the close of his life, and from this
circumstance he explains it, that this sin is not
forgiven.
2c2

306

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

To one or the'other of these explanations most
of the theologians of the Western church have
attached themselves, at least in general. The
reformers of the sixteenth century came out of
the school of Augustine, and generally adopted
his views on this subject. Hence the following
description of this sin was the most common
among the Lutheran theologians of the sixteenth,
seventeenth, and a part of the eighteenth centu
ries — viz., it is committed when any one recog
nises the Christian doctrine as divine, and in
wardly approves it, but yet denies it against
his own convictions, opposes and blasphemes
it, and perseveres in this deliberate contempt of
all the means of grace, through which the Holy
Spirit acts upcn his heart, even till the clese ef
life. Against this view, hewever, many difficulties
have been urged, (a) It is said that in the texts
ef scripture above cited the ordinary operations
of the Spirit of God are not intended, but the
extraordinary, (b) That every sin, persevered
in until death, is followed by condemnation ; and
that this cannot therefore be a distinguishing
characteristic of the sin against the Holy Ghost.
For these reasons other theologians prefer the
opinion of Chrysostom and Hieronymus — e. g.,
most of the Arminian theologians, and, after
them, Stackhouse, Tillotson, and other English
divines. These again were followed by most
of the German Lutheran theologians of the eigh
teenth eentury, after Pfaff, Schubert, Baum-
garten, and others, had" assented to this view.
For the opinions of the theologians of the Rom
ish church on this point, vide Mart. Gerbert,
De peccato in Sp. S., S. Blasii, 1760; and Hirt,
De logomachiis circa- Doctrinam de Spiritu
Sancto obviis, where the opinions of the Lu
theran theologians are carefully collected. Vide
Noesselt's " Biicherkenntniss" for an account
of an almost innumerable multitude of other
works on this subject — e. g., those of Feuerborn,
Musaeus, Schubert, Zellner, Hauber, Flatt (a
prize essay, 1770), Buchwitz, Semler (1768),
&c. II. Scriptural Representation.
The Pharisees and Scribes attributed the
miracles which Jesus wrought to confirm and
establish his divine mission, to the devil, with
the malicious purpose of rendering Jesus sus
pected in the view of the people, upon whom
his miracles had produced 8 great impression,
as being a magician, standing in alliance with
the devil. It was this wicked calumny which
led Jesus to make tt-r declaration respecting the
unpardonableness of the blasphemy against the
Holy Ghost, according to the express informa
tion of Mark, c iii. 30. The following remarks
may serve to explain this declaration of Jesus : —
(a) Bxagfyquia is any slander or calumny

which aims to disgrace or dishonour any one,
whether it be God or created beings, angels and
men, 2 Pet. ii. 10, 11 ; Mark, vii. 22. In this
passage it is used in the widest sense, and so
includes both. (It is inaccurately rendered by
Luther, in Mark, iii. 28, blasphemy against
God.) Therefore Christ says, "All other sins,
and even blasphemies (against God and men),
may be forgiven to men (if they seek forgive
ness in the appointed way) ; but for that sin
alone, which is committed by blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost, is no forgiveness to be expect
ed. It is the most heinous of all sins.
(b) The phrase Son of man is sometimes ap
plied to the Messiah, considered in his whole
character ($sdv$oaitos) ; it is however borrowed
from his inferior nature, and relates chiefly to
his humanity. The contemporaries of Jesus
were especially offended by the humiliation of
the Son of man, which was so contradictory to
their expectations respecting the Messiah, Matt.
xi. 6; 1 Cor. i. 23. Blasphemy directed against
the Messiah was indeed, in all cases, a great
offence; but in the ignorant and misguided
multitude it was by no means so great a sin as
in those who led them astray; and hence in
their case there was hope of pardon. They
were among those who knew not what they did,
Luke, xxiii. 34.
(c) The case was very different with the
Pharisees ; they blasphemed against the Holy
Ghost, since they knew that the Holy Ghost
acted through Christ, but yet denied it, and cast
contempt upon his agency. The support and
guidance of the Son of man is constantly as
cribed by Christ and the apostles to the Holy
Spirit. Vide Matt. iii. 16; John, iii. 34; Acts,
x. 38. It is not, however, the personal dignity
of the Holy Ghost, as God, which is here
spoken of, nor does Christ design to say that a
sin against one divine person is greater than
against another, — for which no reason can be
supposed; nor would he intimate that the Holy
Ghost was superior to himself and the Father;
for, according to his instructions, they are equal
in dignity ; but he speaks only of the operations
of the Holy Spirit, and of his manifestation,
which was so plainly exhibited in Christ. For
the work of God and the work of the devil are
here opposed to each other, and in Mark, iii. 29,
30, itvsvaa dyiov and itvsipa dxd^aptov and in
stead of the phrase, to cast out devils by the spi
rit of God, which is found, Matt. xii. 28, we
find the phrase, by the finger of God, used in
Luke, xi. 20. The sin here described is there
fore called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost,
because it is committed against those divine
operations which are especially ascribed to the
Hely Ghost as his ceconomic work. But it
does not follow that the personal dignity of the
Hely Ghpst is greater than that of the Father

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

307

or the Son. The Pharisees, therefore, committed
the sin against the Holy Ghost not only by ob
stinately den ying, against their own convictions,
the miracles which Jesus performed in proof of
his divine mission, and which they knew in
their hearts to be performed through divine
agency, but by giving them out as imposture
and the effect of an evil spirit, with whom Jesus
stood in alliance, in order thus to render his
doctrine suspicious. This, considering the cir
cumstances in which the Pharisees were, shew
ed a high degree of wickedness, and was actual
blasphemy against God — a designed and deli
berate blasphemy, too, which they were by no
means disposed to repent of or to retract. Here
two questions arise — viz.,
(1) Can the sin against the Holy Ghost be still
committed at the present time ? Those who adopt
the opinion of Augustine commonly affirm that
it can. But among those theologians who have
explained these texts after the manner of Chry-
sostom and Hieronymus, the opinions on this
subject vary, (a) Some of them maintain the
affirmative. They think that whoever denies
the miracles of Christ, casts contempt upon
them, or gives them out as deception, impos
ture, or magic, still commits this sin, although
(as they sometimes cautiously add) no one can
undertake to decide whether it has been commit
ted by another, (o) But the other side was taken
long ago by some Arminian theologians, (e. g.,
by Limborch.) They maintained that only eye
witnesses of Christ's miracles, as the Pharisees
were, could be guilty of this sin, because no
others had equal advantages for attaining to a
full and undoubting conviction of their certainty.
Those in our times who pursue the general
course of the Pharisees, deny and ridicule events
respecting the historic truth and credibility of
which they are in doubt, or which they suppose
never to have taken place. Hence it is con
cluded that this sin can no more be committed,
because miracles are no longer performed. So
Pfaff reasoned, and after him many protestant
theologians, (c) There is still, however, one
case in which the same sin which was commit
ted by the Pharisees may be still committed —
viz., where one is fully convinced of the historic
truth of the miracles of Jesus, and that they were
done through the divine power, and yet, in total
opposition to his own convictions, and with the
same malicious purpose which the Pharisees
had, pronounces them to be imposture and de
ception, the effect of magic or other wicked arts.
This would in reality be the same case with
that ef the Pharisees. Fer the circumstance cf
having seen the miracles oneself is pf dp special
ccnsequence, and it is encugh if one be con
vinced of their truth. When the conviction of
the truth of the miracles is equally strong in
one who has not seen them and in one who has,

the same degree of guilt would seem to be ne
cessarily involved in denying them. Such a
case indeed will seldom occur, but the possibi
lity of it must be admitted.
(2) Why does Christ affirm, that this sin cannot
be for given ? and what does he mean by this decla
ration ? The theologians who adopt Augustine's
hypothesis, understand here a real impossibility,
in the proper and philosophical sense, and derive
it from the nature of the sin itself, as being con
tinued to the end of life; respecting which vide
supra. Those who follow the other hypothesis
have different opinions on this subject. Some
understand a real impossibility, but do not enter
upon the question, why it is impossible. Others
take the ground, that this language means only
that this sin is forgiven with great difficulty.
So most of the theologians of the Romish church
who adopt this hypothesis; also many of the
Arminian theologians and commentators ; like
wise Heumann, Pfaff, and other protestants.
These againare divided in their opinions, since
some suppose that Christ spoke conditionally,
meaning that this sin could not be forgiven if it
were not repented of; and others, that Christ here
uses the language of feeling, which is accord
ingly to be understood hyperbolically, and not
literally Vide Koppe, Quo sensu peccato in
Spiritum Sanctum venia a Christo negate fue-
rit; Gott. 1781.
On this question we will give our own judg
ment. The words of Jesus are, ovx dq&igstai
eis tbv alava — oiifE iv toitip f 9 aiavi, ovts iv
f 9 pixxovti (i. e., according to the usus loquendi
of the Jews, neither here nor hereafter) ; svoxos
igtiv aiaviov xpttfEcog, or, according to another
reading, apaptlas, (he incurs the guilt of a sin
never to be pardoned, and for which he must
endure the pains of hell.) The meaning cannot
be, that God cannot forgive such a sin. For
one who has sinned in a manner ever so aggra
vated, may yet repent and reform, and then he
surely receives forgiveness; and this is truly
said respecting blasphemy against God of any
other kind. Itis obvious that Christ here speaks.
with feeling and righteous indignation ; this is
proved by all his words ; and on this account it
is unwarrantable in us to give these terms an
universal sense, and to apply them to every
similar case. This Koppe has well shewn in
the Essay before mentioned. But although
Christ spoke with, feeling, it does not follow
that he went too far, or affirmed anything which
is not in strict accordance with truth. For the
feeling which Christ exhibits is never accom
panied either by error or sin. The case properly
stands thus : (a) all experience shews that a
man who has arrived at such a point of wicked
ness seldom comes to a knowledge of the truth
or to repentance ; hence Paul says, with regard
to such sinners, dSvvatov yap, x. t. x, ; Heb. vi.

308

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

4 — 6. Vide other texts cited at the beginning
of this section, (b) But. Christ, as one who
knpws the heart, was most firmly convinced
that those whom he addressed would never re
pent of that deliberate blasphemy, but would
persevere in it to the end. The reason why he
spoke so decidedly was, that he knew what was
in man, and did not need that any one should
teach him ; John, ii. 25 ; xvi. 30. In this way,
the theories of Augustine and of Chrysostom
somewhat agree on this point ; and we have also
a plain reason why Christ speaks so decidedly
in this case, while yet we cannot do so in simi
lar cases. SECTION LXXXV.
OF THE STATE INTO WHICH MEN ARE BROUGHT BY
THE COMMISSION OF SIN, AND THE DIFFERENT
KINDS AND NAMES OF IT.
I. The state of sinners in respect to their condud
and disposition.
Those in whose hearts evil desires no more
prevail, but rather virtuous feelings and a dis
position inclined to moral good, are called up
right, virtuous, (probos, honestos ,-) but those
who are thus, out of regard to God — i. e., from
obedience to the known will and command of
God, and from thankful love to him — are called
pious (pios), religious; although this distinction
is not always observed in common discourse.
The latter is the state which we are required
to possess by the precepts of Christianity. A
short summary of Christian doctrine on this
point is contained in the first epistle of John.
The Bible recognises no other virtue or holi
ness than that which springs from religious
motives ; religious virtue, we are there taught,
is the only virtue which has true worth in
the sight of God ; and this we are taught even
in the Old Testament. Those who possess
this religious virtue are there called D'p^s, 0>ijp,
D^TDn, D^E^, 6"weato&, dyioi, itpdsis, svgsftsis, SovXoi
®soi, x. t, x. ; one of the opposite character is
called dgsfirisi abixos, x. t. x. But one who acts
according to his corrupt desires, and does so ha
bitually, is oalled in scripture the servant Qr slave
of sin ; it is said of him that he lives to sin, he
serves it, he obeys it, he is sold under sin, and it
rules over him. Vide Ps. xix. 14; Rom. vi. 1,
2, 6, 12, 16, 20 ; vii. 14, 24 ; xiv. 24 ; John, viii.
34, seq. ; 2 Pet. ii. 19. He only who is placed
in a state in which he can govern his desires,
and subject his appetites to reason enlightened
by divine instruction, is a free man, (John, viii.
34 ;) whoever cannot do this is a slave of sin.
The state of all who are devoted to sin is not,
however, alike. Every vioious man is, in his
own way, a servant of sin ; but all are not so in
the same way. Three principal classes may be

in general here distinguished, (a) Some adop<
the appearance of virtue and piety ; they give a
saintly appearance even to their crimes, in order
to obtain the advantages connected with good'-'
ness. These are hypocrites; and their fault is
called ijtbxpigis, ~pv, ara, nrnp ; opposite to which
are rips;, roww, Avista, truth, sincerity. This is
one of the most shameful, aggravated, and dan
gerous crimes — the hatefulness and destructive-
ness of which are more fully considered in the
department of Morals. Cf. Matt. vi. and xxiii.;
Luke, xi. 37—54; 2 Tim. iii. 5. (6) Others
have no hesitation in acting out before the world
the ungodly desires and purposes of their hearts.
Such are called ungodly, improbi, dSixoi, dossils,
D'pEh, because they do not fear nor regard God
or his law ; opppsite to these are those who fear
God — i. e., act with reverential regard to his
commands, (c) Those sinful and godless men
who, by long custom in sinning, have esta
blished a fixed habit of it, are called vicious,
wicked, sceleralos. Cf. s. 82, II., ad finem.
II. The state of sinners in respect to the conse
quences which sin involves.
The different kinds of sinners noticed above
are all unhappy, and in the judgment of God
deserving of punishment. The feeling of their
danger and misery is not, however, alike with
them all ; and some live even in entire insensi
bility. In this observation we have the ground
of the divisions of the various states which have
been commonly made by theologians, and which
are founded in experience ; though the passage
from one to the other of these states is very
easy. (1) Some men very plainly see the unlawful
ness of their actions, and the evil consequences
springing from them? they often form the pur
pose of renouncing sin and living better; but the
power of the evil inclinations which have ob
tained the mastery over them is so strong,
that they allow themselves to be continually
hurried away into sin. Such are in constant
restlessness, fear, and anguish, on account of
their sins ; and their state is denominated by the
ologians, in comformity with scriptural phrase
ology, conditionem sive statum servilem or sern-
tutis, a state of slavery ; and this is taken from
John, viii. 34 ; Romans, vi. 20, and chap. vii.
Men in this state are like slaves, who, at least
sometimes, if not always, wish to be free, and
make attempts for their own deliverance, and
yet always remain slaves.
(2) Others lead a sinful life, without having
an earnest desire to free themselves from the
dominion of sin. They pay no regard to their
unlawful actions, and have no scruples about
them, either from ignorance or levity, or because
they hope to remain unpunished, and from many
other reasons, often those whioh are in the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

309

highest degree foolish. This is called the state
of security — i. e., freedom from care, like the
Latin securus,- — status securitatis, or libertatis
earnalis, because those who are in it feel free to
follow their sinful appetites, (cdpjj.) This state
is far more dangerous than the preceding one ;
and with such sinners reformation is far more
difficult. Cf. Matt. xxiv. 38 ; Ephes. iv. 17—
19; Jude, ver. 4, seq. The state of such is
therefore compared wjth that of the sleeping or
of the dead, Ephes. v. 14. They live for sin,
but are dead to goodness ; while it ought to be
the reverse.
Note. — Theologians distinguish between this
state and that of spiritual liberty or security.
They give the latter name to the state of the
pious, the whole disposition of whose heart is
so renovated as to be conformed to the precepts
of Christianity, who by divine assistance control
their evil desires, and are sure of the pardon of
their sins. Vide John, viii. 36 ; Rom. v. 1 ; vi.
18. For true spiritual freedom consists in being
free from the power and dominion of sin, and
also from its punishment; and we owe both to
Christ. These are the blessed godly ones (Gott-
seligen, in 'he proper sense of the term) — i. e.,
those who are blessed in the conviction which
they feel of the forgiveness of God, who inter
nally and from the heart enjoy a happiness in
which they cannot be disturbed, even by out
ward calamities. Happy and unhappy (selig
and unselig) are terms which apply properly to
the internal state — the well or ill-being of the
soul ; fortunate and unfortunate, (gliicklich and
unglilcklich,) more to the external state.
(3) Others still come into a state of hardness
or obduracy. This state exists when any one
remains insensible and. indifferent under the
most powerful motives to repentance, so that
they cease to make any impression on him. It
springs (a) from the frequent repetition of sin,
and from the settled habit of sinning. This
produces a gradual diminution of the power of
the motives to abandon sin, and at length an
entire cessation of their efficacy. (6) But those
are in peculiar danger of coming intn this state
whe have had placed before them the most
urgent and moving inducements to religion and
virtue, but have yet neglected and despised them
all. It is in the very nature of the human soul
that these motives, at each repetition of sin, lose
semething nf their energy, and that at length an
entire indifference must ensue, rendering the
cenversien pf Pne whp has brought himself into
such a state morally impossible. This state is
called by theologians, statum indurationis per-
fectum. It is described by Paul, Heb. vi. 4, —
6, and Is. vi. 10, " Who have eyes, but see not;
ears, but hear not" — i. e., who are deaf and in
sensible to all the motives to holiness which are
held before them, and which they clearly under

stand, and who therefore cannot be healed — i. e.,
renovated and made happy. Cf. John, xii. 40 ;
Acts, xxvii^ 26, 27; 2 Cor. iv. 4; iii. 14; also
Exod. vii. 13.
The words and phrases used in the Bible to
denote this, state are, (1) -iaa, papvvEg^ai, fiapvs.
These words are litetally employed to signify
what is heavy and inactive ; they are then used
with reference to the members of the body and
the organs of serise, as heavy tongues, hands,
ears, denoting their inactivity, and the difficulty
of their use; Zech. vii. 11; Gen. xlviii. 10;
Matt. xxvi. 43; lastly, they are appt'ed to the
soul, indicating stupidity of the understanding,
and slowness of belief; 1 Sam. vi. 6; 2 Chron.
xxv. 19; sometimes also the qualities of the
will, and sometimes those of the understanding
and will both, — an inertness of soul, and an in
capacity to the right use of its essential powers.
(2) rmp, literally , hard ,- Hiphil,ms>ph, gxXr]pvvsiv,
g'xXnpvvsg^ai- hence the term gxXijpoxapSla, from
which obduratio is taken. The state of mind
now under consideration is often indicated by
this gxXrjpvvsg^ai, as Heb. iii. 8, 15, seq. ; Rom.
ii. 5 ; and by nc'p in the Old Testament, Exodus,
vii. 3 ; Ezek. iii. 7. (3) The words which ori
ginally signify fat, denote also this state of in
sensibility and unfeelingness — e. g., iptt/ii, pin-
gue fieri, itaxvvsg^ai, Is. vi. 10, and Matt. xiii.
15; as likewise the Latin pinguis is synony
mous with hebes, stupidus, tardus — e. g., inge-
nium pingue is the same as dull and obtuse.
The fat of the body of animals is without sensa
tion ; and this observation was much more fa
miliar to nations offering sacrifices, and so
having much to do with the slaughter of ani
mals, than to us; and hence this phraseology
was so current among them. (4) The words
which indicate deep sleep, in which all external
sensation ceases ; xatdw%is, Rom. xi. 8, an
swering in the LXX. to the Hebrew rip-nn. (5)
One of the most common words used in the
New Testament on this subject is itapagis, and
itapoa, itapovg^ai — e. g., Rom. xi. 7, 25 ; 2 Cor.
iii. 15 ; Mark, vi. 52, xapSi'a itsitapapivv). This
word is properly taken from itapos, which means,
having a hard, indurated skin, (as in the hands
of workmen ;) callous, without feeling; and so
itapaisis figuratively denotes, according to Hesy-
chius, the same as rj dvaia^rjgla, and is synony
mous with gxXtjpoxapSla. All these words
which signify hardheartedness are sometimes
used in reference to the understanding, (called
aS,) sometimes in reference to the will, and
often with reference to both. A soft heart is,
accordingly, susceptibility for reasons and con
viction, the open ear of the soul. A hard heart
is the opposite, and indicates a want of know
ledge and capacity — the remiss use of them,
inactivity. With regard to this status indurationis there

310

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

has been a great.difficulty, which may be stated
as follows : — From what has been already said,
it appears that when a man comes into this
state, he alone is to blame, and has all the
guilt of it resting upon himself. This is taught
in the scriptures in many of the passages al
ready cited. Still there are ether texts ef scrip
ture in which Gcd seems to be made the author
of this obduracy of men, and of sin in general,
and its consequences — e. g., Exed. iv. 21, "I
will harden Pharaeh's heart:" xiv. 17, seq.; Is.
lxiii. 17; Deut. ii. 30; Jesh. xi. 20; Ezek. xx.
25 ; and in the New Testament, John, xii. 40,
tstvtyXaxsv b^aXuovs avtov xai itsiiapaxs xop-
Slav. Rom. ix. 18, also i. 24. These and simi
lar texts were explained by the severe particu-
larists ef the reformed church, alse by the Jan-
senists and many ef the stricter Themists ef the
Romish church, to mean, that Ged is the effi
cient cause of these effects; that from such men
he withdraws or withholds, for some reason to
us inscrutable, a certain supernatural or irre
sistible grace, without which they cannot be
come holy or happy ; and that he does this by
his unconditional decree. This interpretation
resulted from ignorance of the usus loquendi of
the sacred writers. Let the student consider the
following particulars — viz.,
(a) Even in rnodern languages we often use
expressions by which we ascribe to an indivi
dual the remote consequences of his actions,
even when he did not design to produce these
consequences, and perhaps employed all the
means in his power to guard against them — e.
g., after I have often exhorted some one to re
pent, and all without effect, except that, in di
rect opposition to my intentions, he becomes,
through my repeated warnings, only the more
unfeeling, I then say, / have preached him deaf,
I have made him harder and more wicked by my
efforts. Thus, Isa. vi. 10, "Make hard this
people (by preaching), and let their ears be
deaf." Vide Michaelis' note on Exod. iv. 21.
We speak in the same way when our good pur
poses have miscarried. But,
(b) In the ancient, and especially the Orien
tal languages, this mode of speech is far more
current than in modern languages. It is alto
gether appropriate to the whole manner of
thinking and speaking in the ancient world ;
but it has by degrees become foreign to the sci
entific dialect of the modem world, although it
has not wholly fallen into disuse in common
life. Hence it often has a strange appearance
to the learned, while to the unlearned it sounds
more natural. The simplicity of that early age
of the world often ascribes everything which
takes place under the inspection and special
guidance of Providence, whether it be good or
evil, directly to God himself, and regards him
as the author and efficient cause of every event

and of its consequences, because nothing takes
place without his permission and foreknow
ledge. Vide s. 58, IL 1, and especially s. 70,
note, ad finem. Thus, God performs miracles
in order to induce Pharaoh to let Israel go;
Pharaoh does not comply ; and the oftener the
miracles are repeated, the more hard-hearted
does he become. Now it is said that God hard
ened Pharaoh, rendered him unfeeling, and even
by those very means which should have render
ed him feeling; and at the same time, the cala
mity which now befals him is regarded as a pu
nishment which God inflicts upon him. This
last opinion plainly shews that it was not the
belief that God acted irresistibly upon Pharaoh ;
for in that case how could he be punished?
This language is then to be understood in a
manner perfectly cpnsistent with the personal
guilt ef Pharaph. Cf. Rpm. i. 26; ix. 17; 2
Thess. ii. 11. In the same way, the good ac
lions ef men are ascribed to God ; and from the
misunderstanding of the texts in which this is
done originated the doctrine respecting superna
tural and irresistible grace, as from the misun
derstanding of the other, the doctrine of judicia.
hardness. The mode of thinking and speaking
now referred to is found also among the Greeks,
and indeed in all ancient writings ; it occurs in
Homer as well as in the Bible, and also in the
Arabic writers. In Homer it is said that the
Deity infuses good and evil into the heart, (l/t-
fidxxsi. xapolr];) that he inspires wisdom and
folly, (Odyss. xxiii. 11, seq.;) that he infatu
ates and deceives men, deprives them of their
reason, so that they may act foolishly, deludes
their senses, Zsvs fypivas s'ixs to, II. ix. 377, xix.
137;) tempts them to evil, (Odyss. xxiii. 222 ;)
and is the cause of the wickedness of men.
For he does everything. II. xix. 87, 90, seq. ;
Odyss. xvi. 280, 297, 298 ; II. ix. 632, seq.
• ¦ • AWrjirHv re kokSv ts
Qvpov iviffrnSsaai Scoi Sbiav. . . .
Shall there be evil in a city, and the LoTd hath
not done it? Amos, iii. 6.
Note.— The text, Rom. ix. 18, Sv ^s'tee iUsl,
ov Ss ^tixsi gxxrjpivsi means, according to many,
he treats hardly, like Job, xxxix. 16, (oTtooxtor
pwEt tixva ;) and the principal reason for this
is, the contrast of ixsslv. This interpretation,
however, does not agree with ver. 19 ; and the
whole passage alludes too plainly to the pas
sage in Exodus respecting Pharaoh to admit of
this interpretation. This language is therefore
to be understood here also in the common sense,
and the verse may be thus explained — viz.,
" The good and the evil which befal men de
pend alike upen the divine will. Seme (who
are pleasing to him, as his children) he causes
to prosper ; others he hardens — i. e., he suffers
them to feel the censequences ef their ebstinacv.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

311

insensibility, and indifference to his oft-repeated
commands ; as in the case of Pharaoh, ver. 17."
The same thing which is called gxXrjpvvsiv here,
is called ev6> jJjox&ai bpyipi, ver. 22. Vide Rahn,
«d loc. Rom. ix. 17—23 ; Halae, 1789.
SECTION LXXXVI.
WHAT PUNISHMENT IS, AND WHAT IS THE OBJECT
OF IT; HOW THE DIVINE PUNISHMENTS ARE
NAMED IN THE BIBLE, AND WHAT WE ARE
THERE TAUGHT RESPECTING THEIR NATURE ;
ALSO THE VARIOUS DIVISIONS OF THE DIVINE
PUNISHMENTS.In our treatment of this whole subject we
must proceed on the ground of what has been
already said on the divine laws and punish
ments in the discussion of the subject of divine
justice, s. 30, 31. Supposing the student al
ready acquainted with these, we proceed to
make some additional observations, and a more
immediate application of what has been already
said. I. What is Punishment, and what is its object ?
" Punishment is an evil (suffering, something
awakening unpleasant sensations) which the
superior inflicts upon those placed under him,
on account of some trespass, (the theologian
calls it sin;) and this, for the sake of maintain
ing the authority of his laws for the good of his
subjects,' or to promote their improvement and
welfare." This is the general notion of pu
nishment, which is also to be applied to the di
vine judgments, though with a careful separa
tion of every human imperfection. The follow
ing points need to be carefully considered : —
(1) The one who punishes another must in
all cases be the supreme magistrate, whether it
be God or man. For no one has the right to
punish who has not the right to give laws, and
this is the peculiar province of the supreme ma
gistrate. Vide s. 73, 1. All punishments there
fore depend upon the law, and one can inflict
punishment only upon those over whom he pos
sesses the power of legislation. Consequently
the right of punishment belongs to God.
(2) In order to be punished, one must be sub
ject to a law, and have broken it, and in such a
way, too, that his transgression can be imputed
to him. And this may be when he has either
committed unlawful actions himself, or contri
buted to those of others. But it is only when
the trespass can thus be imputed to a person that
punishment can be inflicted upon him.
(3) The objects of punishment are, all unlaw
ful actions. In human judicatories the external
actions only are the objects of punishment ; be
cause the knowledge of men extends no further
than these ; but at the Wr of God not only these

but also internal actions, evil thoughts, designs,
and desires, are liable to punishment. Vide s,
82, ad finem.
(4) The guilt of a person has, therefore, its
ground in his relation to the law transgressed
by him, and 'to its author. On account of this
relation he deserves the punishment which is
threatened against transgressors — i. e., he must
take upon himself the evil connected with the
transgression of the law. The guilty person
(qui culpam sustinet) is called in the scriptures
StpsiXst rjs, b sxav apaptiav, evoxos vopov, vitoStxos
§*9, t'sxvov bpyijs—one who must give account,
&c. Vide Morus, p. 110, 8. 4, note 1. All men
are described in the Bible as being such ; and
the sacred writers insist upon it with great ear
nestness, that men should look upon themselves
as subject to the penalty of the law, as the only
way for them to become disposed to accept of
the means of improvement offered to them, and
to comply with the prescribed conditions. Vide
s. 80.(5) The last end of punishments. This in
general may be best stated as follows: they
aim at the welfare and reformation of the sub
ject; or it is their object to support the autho
rity of the law for the welfare and improvement
of those placed under it. This subject is treat
ed more at large in s. 31, II. 2, where the. opi
nion of Michaelis, that the only object of pu
nishment is to deter men from sin is further con
sidered. The imperfections which cleave to
human punishments must necessarily be sepa
rated from divine; nor should human punish
ments ever be made the standard by which
divine punishments are to be judged of.
Note. — Some modern philosophers have as
serted that God cannot punish, and that divine
punishments ought never to be spoken of, be
cause what are so called are to be regarded as
benefits, and have benevolent ends and results.
But merely because punishments tend to pro-
mete the gepd pf men, and are designed te se
cure the must benevelent results, they de not
cease to be evils, and become the same with
what are ordinarily denominated benefits. The
pain which is felt in sickness is beneficial ; it
makes one mindful in time of danger, leads to
caution, and so is often the means of preserving
life ; still it is an evil which we endeavour to
avoid, and the approach of which we fear.
Thus it is with punishments. And it is in the
highest degree injurious to undertake to oblite
rate from the minds of the great multitude of
unconverted men the fear of divine punishment.
Too great caution cannot be used against that
miscalled philosophy which does this; for
wherever it has found entrance, either in an
cient or modern times, it has always destroyed
religion, morality, and civil order. Vide s. 156

312

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

II. Scriptural names of Divine Punishments, and
the nature of these punishments.
(1) Many of these names bear the impress
jf the simplicity of the popular phraseology of
the earliest times. They are sometimes derived
from injured and irritated rulers, who give free
scope to their anger, and take revenge for the
injury done them; sometimes from judges, who
hold judgment over the guilty, pronounce sen
tence upon them, and execute it. It would be
a great mistake, however, for any one to charge
the scriptural writers with entertaining gross
anthropomorphic ideas on this subject merely
because they sometimes use expressions of this
nature. They only retained the common terms
in use among men, while they always under
stood them in a refined and elevated sense. It
is not with them, as in Homer, where, even the
gods fear that Jupiter, when he is enraged, will
punish the innocent and guilty alike, II. xv.
137. Nothing like this is taught in the scrip
tures. That the sacred writers connected ideas
worthy of God with those popular expressions
which they made use of is evident from the New
Testament,jn which, notwithstanding the most
just conceptions of the divine nature are un
questionably contained, still the terms in com
mon use with regard to the Divine Being, such
as the revenge, the oath, the curse of God, often ap
pear. The same is true in the Old Testament,
in the bopks pf Mpses and in the Psalms.
Expressions like these, it may also be said,
make a far stronger impression upon the uncul
tivated mass of mankind, depending as they do
upon their senses, than terms more abstract;
they take firmer hold upon them, and sink
deeper and more easily into their hearts, than
terms which represent the thing less plainly to
the senses. For this reason, terms of this na
ture are employed by the sacred writers, espe
cially when they have to do with men of the
character now described ; they alternate, how
ever, such expressions with others ; and in this
we ought to imitate them.
The following are among the names which
they employ — viz., «js, inn, non, Spyij, §vpt>s,
Psalm vii. 12; Romans, v. 9, coll. s. 31, ad
init. ; r»p, Deut. i. 27; Drij, ixSlxr/gts, Isaiah,
lxiii. 4 ; Luke, xxi. 22. The opposites of these
are the love, the favour, the friendship of God,
ipn, in, dydiirj, I'Xcos, %dpis, x. t. X. With referJ
ence to announcing or threatening the divine
punishments, the sacred writers frequently em
ploy words which literally mean to rebuke, in-
crepare, which the irritated man commonly
does; especially, npi, rnj», iitittpda, iititipla,
Jn.dc, 9, seq. Again: the words which signify
cursing, imprecation, are used to denote the
same thing as nSSp, xatdpa, n-wp, &c, Deut. ix.
?G, seq. ; Gal. iii. 20. Opposite to this is nana,

sixoyla, sixoyslv, Deut. xxviii. 15 ; Gal. iii, 13,
As vocabtda media (used with reference either
to benefits or punishments) all the nominajudi-
cii and verba judicandi are often employed;
more frequently, however, with reference to di
vine punishments, as EifD, rn, si, xplgis, xplpa,
xatdxpipa, Gal. v. 10; Rom. ii. 3. The words,
too, which designate a judicial declaration, are
often employed to denote threatenings and pu
nishments ; so even -on, xbyos, pijpa Bsoin
Among the vocabula media belong also all the
verba intuendi and aspiciendi, such as r*n, iitsl-
Ssiv, and especially tpc, to which the word
iitigxEittso^tai answers in the New Testament,
and in the Vulgate, visitare; in the good sense,
to behold any one with a cheerful face, is to shew
him kindness or favour — e. g., Psalm viii. 5;
Luke, i. 68, 78 ; in the bad sense, to behold any
one with an angry face, is to punish him ; hence
mjjs and iitigxoitrt signify often punishment —
e. g., Isaiah, x. 3 ; 1 Peter, ii. 12. In the Old
and New Testament the terms -idic, -id-, usur
Ssvsiv, casligare, and 7tat6Et,'a, are used to denote
the fatherly discipline and chastisement of God,
which is the proper idea to be entertained of the
divine punishments, and the ends for which they
are inflicted. Cf. s. 31, II. Finally, all the
Hebrew words which properly signify sin and
guilt are often used to denote punishment — e. g.,
pip, rvt'n, fa. Vide s. 73, II. 2, ad finem,; ex
actly as, in Homer, "Af*; signifies crime, and
also its guilt and punishment, II. xix. 91. Cf.
136, 137. Aidj Svy&rrip "Arr] 7} iravras darai.
— Ate, the daughter of Jupiter, who brings every
one into guilt. Cft II. ix. 50, seq., and s. 30, 31.
Note. — Some modern philosophers and theo
logians object to the phrase, the anger of God;
and many young religious teachers carefully
avoid it, and pronounce their older brethren
who still employ it very unenlightened. But
they do this without any good reason. Anger,
in general, is the expression of strong disappro
bation. In this men indeed are liable to err;
they may express their disapprobation with re
gard to things which do not deserve it, or more
strongly than is proper, and often quite unjusti
fiably ; their anger, therefore, may be, and often
is, wrong and sinful. But it is by no means
necessary that anger should be so ; there may
be a righteous anger, as is often said in common
life, when one expresses his deep and lively
displeasure in such a way as to be perfectly
conformable to the subject, the end, and the cir
cumstances. Nor can a good moral being ex
ist, or even be conceived to exist, without such
anger. God, as the most perfect and holy moral
being, has certainly the greatest displeasure
against sin; and as he is the supreme moral go
vernor of" the world, he expresses it in a very

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

313

impressive manner. He therefore is said to
hum with anger, but his anger is always just.
(2) The divine judgments are inflicted, ac
cording to the Bible, (a) in the present life; (b)
by death (although this was strictly a punish
ment for sin pnly in the case of the first man,
and with regard to all others is only a conse
quence of the sin of Adam ; vide s. 76, III. and
s. 80, ad finem); (e) after death. All these pu
nishments, according to the Bible, stand con
nected with the sin of our first parents. For
from that arose the moral corruption which is
communicated to all mankind. This is the
source of actual sins, and these bring punish
ment in their train. Vide s. 76, seq. Fr6m this
evil the second Head of our race has freed us.
That the representations given in the Bible
respecting the divine punishments and their end
agree perfectly with what sound reason recog
nises on this subject is very evident from the
description it contains of the nature of these
punishments. They are (a) always just and
proper ; vide the texts quoted s. 31 ; moreover,
Rom. ii. 2, xplua ®sov sgti xat' dxri^rsiav. Vide
also those texts which speak of the drfpocfuTio-
Xij^la ®soi. ((3) They have the welfare of men
for their object. This is the last end for which
they are inflicted ; (vide the texts cited ;) and if
this object is not attained with any particular
offender, he himself is alone in fault; and his
punishment then serves for the good of others,
who learn wisdom from his example, (y) They
are certain, and will be inevitably inflicted ; they
are not mere, empty threats ; no one will be able
to escape. Vide Rom. ii. 3, coll. Heb. xii. 25,
and especially Heb. iv. 12, 13. This follows
from the divine veracity; these punishments
must be maintained in order to uphold the au
thority of the Divine Being, and to prevent an
universal carelessness and indifference about
sin. (8) The divine punishments are also de
scribed as terrible ; as in these expressions : Our
God is a consuming fire ; it is a terrible thing to
fall into his hands, &c. Heb. x. 30, 31 ; xii. 29.
For in order that these punishments may attain
their end, they must be sufficiently severe to
terrify the transgressor, and must meet him
in the point where he can be most strongly
affected. III. Divisions of Punishments.
(1) A very ancient division of punishments
is into pxnam damni and sensus, in reference to
the evil itself which is inflicted on any one by
punishment, (a) By punishment, a certain
good is withdrawn. The judgments of men
respecting their true welfare and their real inte
rests are very diverse; and consequently the
withdrawal of their supposed advantages is va
riously estimated and felt. To one person,
riches appear a great advantage ; to another,
40

not; and so while- the former will regard the
loss of them as the greatest evil, the latter Till
not suffer in the least from their loss. It is not
here, then, of so much consequence, whethei
the advantages are real or only apparent, as in
what estimation they are held by him from
whom they are withdrawn. This withdraw-
ment now is called poena damni, or sometimes
poena negaiiva. (b) When, in addition to this,
positively unpleasant feelings are caused and
pains inflicted, this is called^icema sensus. These
two parts of punishment are commonly con
nected. These unpleasant sensations have their
proper seat, either in the body, and are commu
nicated through the senses to the soul, or they
are confined to the soul, and have their origin
there. The latter are felt the most keenly, and
are the most dreadful.
(2) In respect to the connexion of punishment
with crime, punishments are divided into natu
ral, and positive or arbitrary. The former are
such as result from the internal nature of mo
rally bad actions themselves ; the latter are
such as stand in no natural and necessary con
nexion with wicked actions, but which are con
nected with them merely by the good pleasure
(arbiirium) of the lawgiver. These two kinds
of punishment have been already explained, s.
31, as well as the doctrine respecting the natu
ral and positive laws of God, s. 30.
In this place we shall add a few remarks re
specting the natural punishments inflicted by
God upon men, especially in this life ; in the
following section we shall farther discuss the
subject of positive punishments.
There has been some dispute among philoso
phers (into which we do not mean to enter fully
now) whether the natural evil consequences of
sin ought to be called punishments; and the
propriety of this is by some denied. Judging
from the common conceptions on this subject,
and the common phraseology founded on these,
there can be no doubt but that we may and
ought to consider the evil consequences result
ing from the transgression of the divine com
mandments as punishment. So we say, for ex
ample, with respect to a liar, in whom at length
no one places any confidence, or with respect tc
the voluptuary or drunkard, who brings infamy
and disease upon himself, and in all such cases
that sin punishes itself. Again, if the leges na-
turales are properly called laws., (and whatever
is true of law in any case is true of them,) how
can it be doubted whether the.consequences re
sulting from the transgression of these laws are
properly denominated punishments ?
But these natural punishments may be distin
guished into two kinds : —
(a) Such as are the necessary and inevitable
evil consequences of the actions themselves, and
which would result equally from these actions^
2D

314

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

were they not forbidden, and were the actions,
therefore, not sins. They are called physical
punishments. Among these are all the sick
nesses and pains which arise from intemper**
ance of every kind ; the poverty which comes
from idleness; the grief, sorrow, and shame,
which are the results of a dissipated life; &c.
It is in order tp guard against the necessary evil
consequences of sin, and so to diminish them,
that the divine law is given ; and in this way it
is, that what were before mere evils now become
sins. Vide s. 73, I.
(b) Punishments which result from the rela
tion of human actions to the law, or which have
respect to the moral character of men. These
are called moral punishments. These moral
consequences of sin fall principally and most
heavily upon the soul. Hence they are also
called spiritual punishments. Among these are,
e. g., the reproaches of conscience, telling us
that we have violated the law of God, rendered
ourselves unworthy of his favour, and disquali
fied for his blessings ; also restlessness of soul,
and fear of punishment, from the consciousness
of guilt or ill-desert — the fear of God. Rom.
iii. 19, 23 ; 1 John,.i. 8, seq. ; iii. 14, seq. These
are the most fearful and terrible of all punish
ments. This distinction between the different kinds
of natural punishment is very important, espe
cially in the doctrine of the atonement cf Christ.
Vide s. Ill, II. From thence it appears,
(a) That the natural and physical evil conse
quences of certain wicked actions cannot wholly
cease, even after pardon has been bestowed upon
men, and they have repented, or after they have
appropriated the merits of Christ. For we have
no right to suppose that God will remove, in a
miraculous manner, the necessary physical con
sequences of sinful actions. From experience
we see that God does not do this in the present
life. E. g., if any one has brought upon him
self, by his excesses, prolonged sickness or po
verty, he will not become at once well in body
and estate merely by reforming his courses ; but
he must continue to feel the necessary conse
quences of his errors and crimes, just as the con
sequences of the sin of Adam — death and other
temporal calamities — continue to be felt by all
his posterity, even by those who are renewed
and pardoned. Vide Rom. viii. 10, 18 — 23.
Nor does the Bible anywhere teach us, that in
some miraculous way God will, even in tlie fu
ture life, remove all the natural and lasting con
sequences of actions ; it is therefore highly pro
bable that some portion of these consequences
will continue even hereafter. But these natural
ly evil consequences, (as well those which are
temporal as those which continue in the future
life,) from which we are net entirely freed by
the death of Christ, are yet mitigated, and lose

the terror of punishment, to those who are par-
doned and sanctified. This experience in the
present life teaches us, and the hely scriptures
assure of the same. Vide Rom. viii. 1, and v. 1,
3 — 10. But the pmnx naturales spirituals cease
entirely with the renewed. Hence,
(b) The principal evils from which man is
freed in this and the future life, when he is par
doned and renewed, are, the moral consequences
of sin ; and it is because the believer is freed
from these, that even the natural consequences
of sin are mitigated to him and lose the terror of
punishment. The renewed man will never in
deed forget the sins which he has ence commit
ted ; he will condemn them, and mourn. over
them ; but, as he is sure of pardon, his disquiet
respecting them, his fear of God as a judge, and
the reproaches of his conscience, will either at
once or by slow degrees entirely cease ; peace of
soul will be restored, together with a lively and
joyful feeling of his present happy state, in
comparison with his former unhappy condition.
This is what the scriptures mean by the peace of
God in the heart of the man whose sins are for
given. Vide the texts before cited from Rom.
v. and viii. SECTION LXXXVII.
SOME REMARKS ON "POSITIVE" DIVINE
PUNISHMENTS.
In addition to what we have already said on
this subject, in stating the doctrine of divine
justice, s. 31, we add here the following re
marks : —
(1) The term arbitrary punishments (pamx
arbilrarix) seems to be somewhat inconvenient,
and to be liable to be misunderstood ; it is for
this reason objected to by very many modern
writers, e. g., Steinbart, Syst. s. 130 ; Eberhard,
Apologie d. Sokr. th. i. ; and the author of the
" Apologie der Vernunft." And if the term ar
bitrary must be understood to denote a blind
caprice, in which no regard is paid to rectitude
and propriety, and to the nature of the offence,
it could never, without blasphemy, be predicated
of the punishments inflicted by God. But no
advocate of the arbitrariness of God in the pu
nishments he inflicts has ever understood it in
this sense ; for it cannot be supposed that even
a man of common understanding and goodness
would punish in such a manner. These evils,
which are called positive punishments, are not,
indeed, founded in the internal nature of the for
bidden actions themselves ; they are not the im
mediate natural consequences of these actions;
but they are added to, and conjoined with, the
natural consequences of sin, by the special ap
pointment of the legislator; and it is for this
reasen that they are called arbitrarix. They ar*
mala ex arbitrio — i. e., libero Dei (judicis at

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE FALL.

315

domini) consilio sive instiiuto extrinsecus immissa.
But they are always determined by the rules of
Snpreme Wisdom and goodness, and have all
the qualities of the other divine operations.
They are moreover resorted to by God, in cases
where his object cannot be attained by merely
natural punishments. We should not, then, be
over-scrupulous about the use of this term, for
when we hear it said that God, the All-wise and
just, inflicts arbitrary punishments, the associ
ated idea of blind caprice, acting without cause
or reason, falls away at once and of itself. The
same is true of this term, as of the expression,
the anger of God. Vide s. 86. The arbitrium
of God is always wise, and never a blind caprice,
as it often is with men, especially with passion
ate rulers and magistrates. In case this term
¦were rejected, we might substitute the phrase
free punishments.
(2) That there are positive divine punish
ments, especially in the future world, the Bible
teaches with sufficient clearness. And indeed,
from the scriptural doctrines, that God forgives
sins, (i. e. , removes their consequences,) and that
Christ, the innocent, endured punishment for us,
it seems to follow that the sacred writers be
lieved in positive punishments and their remis
sion. A philosophic argument in behalf of po
sitive punishments is derived from the nature
and efficacy of natural punishments, which are
not sufficiently great to deter the sinner from
crime, or lead him to repentance, so that positive
punishments in addition to these are necessary,
in order to produce this effect. It was a great
object with Michaelis to establish this point.
The arguments brought in opposition to it by
Steinbart, Eberhard, and others, together with
the arguments in its favour, were briefly stated,
s. 31.
But since this subject is attended with various
difficulties, which can never be entirely removed
by human philosophy, owing to the limitation
of our minds, the question arises, What eourse
shall the religious teacher pursue on this subject,
and what instruction shall he give respecting po
sitive divine punishments ? In order to come to
a right decision on this question, and to be able
to answer it for ourselves, we must not proceed
upon empty speculations or ideal conceptions,
but from the following results of experience.
The history of all ages teaches that the prevail
ing notion among men always has been and
still is, that God inflicts not only natural, but
also positive and arbitrary punishments; or,
that moral evil has not only natural evil for its
consequent, but also such punishments as de
pend entirely upon the choice of the lawgiver.
Hence sicknesses and other calamities, which
stand in no natural connexion with crime, were
yet often regarded as the punishments of it — e.
g., the pestilence in the camp of the Greeks be

fore Troy was so regarded in Homer; cf. Iliad,
xvi. 384, seq. Now, in what way did this idea
obtain so wide a prevalence among men, and so
strong a hold upon them ? If we make history
and experience our teachers, we shall come to
the following conclusions : —
(a) Human legislators can threaten only po
sitive punishments, because they are able to in
flict no other. For they are neither the authors
nor the rulers of nature, but are themselves, as
well as those over whom they rule, subject to
that constitution which God has given to nature.
Since, now, men are apt to reason from the hu
man to the divine, they were disposed to trans
fer to God and .his government those procedures
and institutions common in human families and
states. From hence it is obvious how even hea
then nations should have come so generally to
this notion. They reasoned thus : As men have
the right to enact arbitrary laws and impose ar
bitrary punishments, this right must belong in
a far higher degree to the supreme legislative
power, which knows of no limitation. It was by
such arguments that they arrived at this idea,
though by such alone the reflecting mind is not
satisfied. But,
(5) The true cause of this universal belief lies
much deeper. There is on this subject a certain
feeling of need in human nature which cannot be
reasoned away, and which often exercises its
power even over the speculative philosopher, al
though he has long suppressed it by his specula
tion. It is but too clearly proved by daily ex
perience, that fear of the merely natural conse
quences of sin is too inefficacious to restrain men
from committing it. For these natural punish
ments man has but little regard, and he thinks
he can find means to avoid them, or to secure
himself against them. The end, therefore, can
be more surely answered by positive punish
ments. This result, built upon experience, al
though men were only obscurely conscious of it,
awakened in them a feeling which made it ne
cessary for them to believe that there are posi
tive divine judgments. Hence many even of the
ancient heathen lawgivers took means to give
to natural laws and penalties the authority of
positive, and for this purpose they intimately
associated the civil and religious institutions of
their country.
(c) If there are positive rewards in the future
world, as all concede, it is hard to see how posi
tive punishments can be denied. Vide s. 31.
(d) To any one who makes the holy scriptures
the source of his knowledge, this subject cannot
be doubtful; for the scriptures clearly teach
that there are positive punishments, and presup
pose them in many of the most important doc
trines. But'if any one remains unconvinced by philo
sophical arguments and by the authority of the

316

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Bible, that God actually appoints positive pu
nishments, he must be referred to the fact and
observation above mentioned, that this belief
cannot be taken away from a people without
endangering its morality. Even if a religious
teacher should himself entertain doubts on this
subject, it would be foolish and wrong in him to
communicate these doubts to the people, and
thus deprive them of a belief for which he can
substitute nothing equally firm and salutary.
The history of all ages teaches that nothing has
so injurious an effect upon the morality of peo
ple as the persuasion that there are no positive
punishments which they have to fear from the
hand of God. When such punishments have
been expected, the fear of them has always
proved a mighty barrier against all the gross out-
breakings of sin. For a confirmation of these
remarks let the student consult history ; cf. also
s. 156, II. Note.
But, on the other hand, it is equally the duty
of the religious teacher to rectify, by scriptural
views, the false opinions which people are apt
to form respecting the nature of these' positive
punishments, and to prevent, as far as possible,
their injurious influence. In discharging this
duty he may be aided by the following scrip
tural observations. From the prevailing false
ideas respecting positive punishments, occasion
is sometimes taken to condemn others, and to
pronounce upon them uncharitable censures, as,
on the other hand, from the bestowment of posi
tive rewards, many are disposed to extol ¦and to
imitate those upon whom they are conferred,
supposing them to be the favourites of Heaven.
This results from the mistake that prosperity
and adversity in this life are proofs of the plea
sure or displeasure of God with the conduct of
men ; something as it is with those who stand
in favour or disfavour with human rulers. But
all such opinions have a most unfavourable in
fluence upon morality and upon the dispositions
of men. The teacher must therefore take pains
to shew,(a) That external prosperity and adversity
in this life are not distributed by God as reward
and punishment for the moral conduct of men,
(vide s. 71, II. ;) and that it is therefore judging
hastily to pronounce positively and decidedly
that the calamities which befal particular coun
tries or individuals, from natural and not moral
causes, are judgments from God, although they
may be so overruled by the providence of God,
and should be so improved as to contribute to the
promotion of mpral good and to the diminution
of moral evil.
(3) That even although positive divine re
wards and punishments should take place in the
present life, (which we are not entitled to deny
in thesl,) yet men are not in a situation, nor in
any way qualified, to decide that they are so in

particular cases, because they have no sure and
infallible marks by which they can distinguish
these from advantages and calamities which re
sult from other causes, and have no connexion
with the good or ill desert of men. Hence
Christ himself warns against such precipitate
judgments. Vide s. 31, coll. Ps. lxxiii. 2, seq.
(y) The Old Testament is often appealed to,
where much is indeed said respecting positive
rewards and punishments even in the present
life; and by the unguarded application of such
texts much injury may be done, even by sincere
and well-disposed religious teachers. On this
point instruction should be given to the people
with due discretion, in conformity with what
was said on this point, s. 31, ad finem, in the
note. It must be shewn that the same is not
true now as was true in that early period of the
world, and under the peculiar constitution of
the Jewish religion. This matter can be made
very plain to any one, by remarking that then
there were prophets, who, as the divine ambas
sadors, expressly declared that this and that
physical evil was a positive punishment from
God ; but that, as we have no prophets now, we
are unable in particular cases to pronounce a de
finite decision whether this and that evil is or is
not to be regarded as a positive punishment;
(3) Still another chief objection, which is
often urged against the existence of positive re
wards and punishments in the future world, is
this : God would have named the positive pu
nishments which he meant to inflict, and would
have settled the manner of their infliction in his
laws. This is done, it is said, by every hu
mane and just legislator among men; and it is
regarded by us as tyranny and despotism for a
ruler to inflict punishment which he has not
previously threatened. But this comparison of
human rulers and magistrates with God, and of
their punishments with his, will Dot hold. For
(a) with human judges and magistrates this re
gulation is necessary, in order to prevent the
judge from acting unjustly or rashly, or from
inflicting too light or too severe a punishment
under the influence of momentary feeling. But
we are secure from any such danger when the pu
nishments to be inflicted are left to the disposal
of an omniscient, all-wise, and benevolent Ruler.
There is not, therefore, the same reason for this
that there is in the case of men. (b) Humaa
criminal codes, even those which are most com
plete, contain only a few species of crimes; nor
can they have any respect in the appointment
of the punishment to the motives, the state of
mind, and innumerable other circumstances
which make the crime greater er less. But to
all these circumstances Gcd, whp is perfectly
wise and just, must have respect. How impos
sible, now, must it be to give a catalogue of all
sins and their punishments, according to their

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 317

endlessly diversified degrees and modifications ?
Who would read, understand, or regard such a
catalogue * Would it not make many for the
first time, and to their great injury, acquainted
with sins nf which they ctherwise weuld have
knewn npthing? (c) As the future werld lies
entirely beyond the circle of our ideas, it might
not be even possible fully to describe to us, in
our present state, every kind ef ppsitive reward
and punishment, (d) The fear ef a ppsitive pu
nishment at present unknewn makes a stronger
impression upon the sinner, and is more effica
cious in deterring him from sin, than that of a
punishment definitely described; for, in the
former case, the sinner will always fear the
worst, and expect that the punishment will
strike where he is most susceptible.
Note. — The holy scriptures, and particularly

Jesus and his apostles, make it a great object
to unfold all the consequences of sin, and to
shew how we can be freed from them. Those
who are teachers of the gospel should follow
their example in this respect. They insist par
ticularly upon the misery cf the soul arising from
sin, and upon the punishments of the future
world. This entire misery, or the unhappy
state of both soul and body, as produced by sin,
is called in the scriptures by various names —
e. g., ofe^po;, aitaXsia, $dvatos, ffssofos, x. t. X.
Vide Morus, p. Ill, prope ad finem. Of the
external evil consequences of sin which befal
men in the present life the sacred writers speak
less frequently, partly because these are not by
any means so great and terrible as the otfier,
and partly because they are perfectly obvious,
and fall under the notice of every one.

PART II.-STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT
BY THE REDEMPTION.

ARTICLE X.
OF JESUS CHRIST.
~* HIS impertant article has
been treated in a great va
riety ef ways from the ear
liest times. The teachers
cf religion and the inter
preters of the Bible have,
for various reasons, been
dissatisfied with the simple scriptural
representation, and have often predeter
mined, by the principles of some school
of philosophy, or by religious opinions
current at their own time, what could
be believed concerning the person, offices, and
merits of Jesus Christ. Any declarations of the
Bible in opposition to their views have been
either overlooked, as if they could not be found,
or, by the help of that artificial exegesis which
makes anything out of everything, have been
so explained as to agree with their preconceived
opinions. In this manner has this article espe
cially been treated of late in the protestant
church, particularly in the Lutheran church in
Germany. And so common has it become to
pervert this doctrine in the universities, schools,
and in popular discourses and writings, that the
teacher who turns aside from the beaten path
must possess no small degree of unprejudiced
piety. My design is, to exhibit, according to
my honest conviction, the pure, unfalsified doc
trine of the Bible, with its proof, and carefully to

distinguish it from ecclesiastici distinctions, and
from other additions and alterations.
The latter I shall consider by themselves, and
endeavour to illustrate them from history, and to
pronounce judgment upon them according to
their true merits.

CHAPTER I.
OF THE DIVINE INSTITUTIONS FOR THE RESTO
RATION OF MEN IN A GENERAL VIEW; THE
EXPECTATIONS, PREDICTIONS, AND TYPES OF
THE MESSIAH, AND THEIR FULFILMENT IN
JESUS OF NAZARETH.
SECTION LXXXVIII.
OF THE INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED BY GOD FOR
THE MORAL RECOVERY AND THE SALVATION OF
THE HUMAN KACE IN A GENERAL VIEW ; AND
THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINES AND REPRESENTA
TIONS ON THIS SUBJECT; AS A GENERAL INTRO
DUCTION TO WHAT FOLLOWS.
I. What is requisite for the moral recovery of man.
The Bible everywhere teaches that man is
debarred from the enjoyment of vhat happiness
which God intended for him, by the want of
holiness, by sin, and deserved punishment. Vide
Art. IX. Holiness gives the only right of citi
zenship in the moral kingdom of God, (fSagiXsla
©Eoi.) Now because sin is universal among
men, all have need of forgiveness and reforma-
2d2

318

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

tion- — the remission of sins and regeneration,
(dtysais, pstdvoia, dvayEvvijgis.) And since we
never attain to perfect holiness in this life, what
ever advances we may make, [and hence must
be disquieted with regard to our acceptance with
God,] it is equally esesntial that we should
have some quieting amurance respecting what
awaits us, in order to the exercise of true reli
gion, as that we should reform. These, then,
are the principal objects at which Christianity
aims. If men are to be redeemed, these hin
drances to their happiness must be removed,
they must be reformed, and must be forgiven,
and a comforting assurance that they are so must
be imparted. This is done in two ways :
(1) By one method, the power of sinful affec-
- tions is weakened ; so that reason will again at
tain to its dominion over them ; by which man
will be placed in a situation to lead a holy and
pious life, (hixai^s xai Evgsfias £ijv, x.t. x.) This
means, however, must be of such a nature as to
leave human freedom entirely unimpaired. Re
formation in a moral being is effected by bring
ing the desires and inclinations, from which
actions spring, under the control of the intelli
gent mind. It is for this reason that in Chris
tianity a doctrine is revealed to men to be re
ceived and believed by them, intended to en
lighten their minds, to teach them how to avoid
and overcome the temptations to sin, and how to
live agreeably to the will of God and their own
destination. This doctrine must exhibit the
motives for the avoidance of sin and the practice
of virtue and holiness in a manner universally
intelligible and convincing, equally designed to
illuminate the reason and affect the heart. But
it must also shew in what way man can attain
power to enable him to be holy. For any mere
doctrine of virtue, or code of moral precep ts, does
not confer upon man the power of becoming ac
tually virtuous. This, as Paul says, is tb aSi-
vatov tav vbpav. The moral law, with all its
precepts, threatenings, and promises, could not
by itself make us holy and acceptable. The
fault, however, does not lie in the law, but in
that weakness and imperfection which results
from our depravity, (Sinnlichkeit.) 'Ev 9 jjo&e'-
vsi Sid gapxos. Now in Christianity, as we are
taught by the sacred writers, the most perfect
instruction of this nature is given to men.
(2) But the Bible teaches us that the reco
very of man to happiness requires something
more than this instruction. This other means
is, the forgiveness of sins, or, freedom from the
punishment of sin. Nor was it enough that
men should be merely forgiven ; their tranquil
lity and happiness require that they should be
able to attain to an assuraTice and certain con
viction of the fact. This can be done through
the atonement of Christ. Many ancient and

modern philosophers and religious teachers have,
indeed, maintained that no such atonement is
necessary, since God forgives the sins of men
whenever they reform. But the whole history
of the human race, in ancient and modern times,
proves that an universal apprehension, arising
from a universal feeling of need, has prevailed
among men, that besides inward reformation,
some other means of propitiating the Deity, and
averting the deserved punishment of sin, are
neessary, and do actually exist.
The following reasons may be given for this
feeling: — viz. (a) Although one should be
guilty of no new transgressions, he cannot feel
a comforting assurance that the sins which he
has previously committed will be forgiven on the
ground of his subsequent reformation. Indeed,
he can find no reason to believe this, while he
has reason enough to fear the contrary. For
how can that which is once done be undone, or
the consequences of it be prevented ? (b) Every
man, whatever his advances in sanctification,
must still confess that his holiness is very im
perfect, and that he frequently sins. How,
then, can he hope to deserve the mercy of God
by a holiness which is so imperfect and min
gled with sin ? It is the voice of conscience,
then, which has produced' and spread so widely
among men this feeling of the necessity of an
expiation. There is not a nation upon the
globe, as Plutarch has observed, which has not
certain appointments for this purpose; such as
offerings, cleansings, and other religious rites.
Cf. Meiners, Geschichte der Religionem, i.
123, f.
Now it will be in vain to endeavour to take
away this feeling from man, considering how
universal and deeply rooted it is, and that it is
founded upon the voice of conscience, and cor
responds with the most natural and familiar no
tions which men form respecting God, and his
manner of feeling and acting. The religious
teacher who withholds from his people the doc
trine of pardon through Christ — who represents
it as uncertain and doubtful, or entirely rejects
it, acts very inconsiderately and unadvisedly.
He cannot substitute anything better, or more
consoling. And when the consciences of men
awake, he will be unable to give other grounds
which can prove so entirely sufficient for their
consolation. II. The different institutions which God has ap
pointed for the restoration and moral perfection
of the human race in a general view.
(1) The means which God employs for this
purpose are very various and manifold. They
are designed partly to weaken the power and
dominion of sin ; partly to instruct men, and to
shew them the true way to happiness, and give

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 319

them power to pursue it. These objects are
promoted even by the original constitution which
God has given to nature, the movements of con
science, the unhappy feelings which follow upon
sinful actions, &c. ; also by the common and ex
traordinary instruction which God has given to
men, in one way and another, (itoxvuspus xai
itoXvtpbitas, Heb. i. 1 ;) by the opportunity
afforded us of becoming acquainted with the na
ture of virtue and vice — the happiness of the
good, and the wretchedness of the bad, by ob
serving the example and profiting by the expe
rience of others ; — in short, by history, which is
one of the best teachers of the human race.
The history of every nation is useful in this
respect ; but that of the Jewish nation possesses
uncommon interest. Jesus and his apostles
allude to it constantly in their discourses. It is
indeed highly instructive, and exhibited in such
a way as to make the deepest impression upon
the most numerous class of men. It always re
presents God not simply as a metaphysical being,
but as conversant with men, and acting after the
manner of men. It presents clearly before our
eyes the attributes of God, the course of his pro
vidence, and the salutary discipline he exercises
over men. Those religious teachers who en
tirely reject the use of the Old Testament in the
instruction of the common people and of the
young, and who would gladly see the book itself
cast aside, know not what they do. They de
prive themselves and their charge of great ad
vantages. It is, indeed, abused in various ways,
as it was at the time of Christ; but this does
not prevent its proper use. Respecting the use
of the history of the Old Testament, vide 1 Cor.
x. 6, 11; Rom. xv. 4, and Koppen's excellent
work, "Die Bibel, ein Werk der gottlichen Weis-
heit;" and J. G. Muller, Von dem christlichen
Religionsunterrichte ; Winterlhur, 1809, 8vo.
But the greatest blessing which God has be
stowed upon men, as the Bible everywhere
teaches, is the appearance of Christ in the world,
his instructions, and his entire work for the hu
man race; Rom. xi. 33, 36. Still, we ought
not to undervalue or exclude the other benevo
lent institutions by which God has benefited
and does still benefit, not only Christians, but
mankind at large. All these means should be
considered as inseparably connected, as they
really are, and as the scriptures represent them.
Cf. Jerusalem, Betrachtungen, th. ii. ; Hess,
Vom Reiche Gottes; Lessing, Erziehung des
Menschengeschlechts ; Berlin, 1780.
(2) These means are universal. Vide Morus,
p. 126, s. 6. God has not, indeed, bestowed
them at all times, and upon all nations ; since
all men in all ages have not been capable of re
ceiving them ; but he has selected the most pro
per in every age and nation; so that the know

ledge and worship of God, piety and virtue,
have never been wholly lost from the earth.
We should not confine our attention to the Jew
ish nation, but should search out and thankfully
admire the traces of divine care over nations
called heathen. Even in the midst of their im
perfect knowledge of God, and of their polythe
ism, we often find true religiousness and piety,
which, notwithstanding their erroneous views,
are certainly acceptable in the sight of God.
The aneient writers are full of such instances.
The gracious care and providence of God is as
clearly seen in raising up good legislators, prac
tical sages, teachers of the people, promoters of
science and morality, among the Greeks, Ro
mans, and other people of the earth, for their
improvement and moral good, as in the institu
tions which he established among the Jewish
people for the same purposes. These natural
means which God employs redound as much to
his glpry as the supernatural.
Paul therefore says expressly, that Ged has
given the heathen eppprtunity pf knowing him ;
that he has not left himself without a witness
among them ; and that they, too, will be inex
cusable if they leave unimproved that knowledge
of God imparted to them through nature, Acts,
xvii. 27; Rom. i. 18, seq. Accordingly, the
virtue and piety which the heathen practise,
after the measure of their imperfect knowledge,
is represented in the Bible as agreeable to God.
The case of the centurion Cornelius is an exam
ple, Acts, x. God accounted him worthy to be
entrusted with more knowledge, because he
proved himself faithful in the use of that lesser
degree which he possessed.
The national pride of the Jews led them into
the mistake that God had a special regard for
them ; that they were more agreeable to him than
other nations; that they exclusively were his
children; and that the Messiah was designed
only for them. These mistakes are frequently
opposed in the New Testament; there is sis
©eoj xai Ilafijp itdvtav, Ephes. iv. 5, 6 ; 1 Tim.
ii. 5, seq. God has no partiality, (itpogaitoxri^la,)
Rom. x. 12; Acts, x. 34; all have equal right
to the divine blessings, especially to those con
ferred by Christianity; John, x. 16 ; Ephes. i. 10 ;
ii. 14, 18; Rom. v. 18, seq. ; and the texts cited by
Morus, p. 126, s. 6, n. 1, 3. This universality of
the divine favours is expressly asserted even in
the Old Testament. The prophets frequently
affirm that the knowledge of the true God will
become universal among the heathen, and that
they by no means shall be excluded from it;
Deut. xxxii. 31 ; Isaiah, ii. and lxvi. Indeed,
the Old Testament contains promises of far bet
ter times in future for the heathen than for the
Jews. (3) They are appointed by God with great

320

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

wisdom in reference to the nature of man and
the circumstances of particular- times. Such
means are selected as allow the freedom of
man, and leave him at liberty to choose or reject.
It is the internal force of truth which is made to
influence man, and not external compulsatory
means. Moreover, God, like a wise father and
teacher, proceeds according to the time and age
of the human race in general, and of nations and
individuals in particular. He regulates his in
struction according to their capacity. He does
not overload their infancy with such laws and
precepts as they cannot understand, but saves
the higher instruction for the maturer age ef a
more advanced generation.
This greater or less capability cf some gene
rations and nations in comparison with others,
should be considered as one reason why God
did not earlier disclose certain truths which are
peculiar to Christianity, and why he still with
holds them from certain nations and countries.
For such nations, however, he provides in ano
ther way, and leads them to that degree of hap
piness of which they are capable. He is not
confined to one method, as is shewn in the
Introduction. Nor is the education of the human
race confined to this life; provision will- doubt
less be made to enable those who are innocently
deficient here to make up their loss hereafter.
Note. — In the New Testament, the terms
xdpis, x°-pis ®sov, Sapsd ®sov, are used to denote
the whole compass of means employed by God to
bring men to happiness, as well as any particu
lar means. Vide Morus, p. 122, 125. The term
xdpis is used in various senses ; and as unscrip
tural ideas are often attached to it, we shall here
briefly explain the scriptural significations. It
corresponds to the Hebrew in, and sometimes to
"IB-, and similar words. It signifies (1) in gene
ral, the unmerited love and benevolence which
God, as the supreme Governor, bears for all his
creatures and subjects, and especially for men;
and so is synonymous with dydrtij, zpTjSfdf?/;,
fyiXavSpaitia, Tit. iii. 4 ; and (2)' the conse
quences and proofs of this gracious regard ; in
short, all undeserved divine favours ; John, i.
16, xdpis art i xdpitos. These are elsewhere called
xdpigfia, Sapsd, x. t. x. Cf. Rom. v. 15. Inas
much as they are undeserved, they are contrast
ed with ofslxijua, Rom. iv. 4.
Hence arise various other significations, by
which certain great favours are called xdpitss,
byway of eminence: as (a) the Christian doe-
trine and institute in general, and particularly
that principal doctrine of Christianity, the gra
cious forgiveness of sin on account of Christ.
Xdpis xai dxr^tia, John, i. 7 ; Xbyos zdpveos, the
benevolent doctrine, Acts, xiv. 3 ; aidpis ®sov,
Tit. ii. 11, zdpi-s Xpufou, and #dpis simply,
Acts, xviii. 27, seq. (b) Certain employments,

businesses, and offices in the Christian church,
and the talents, abilities, and gifts bestowed by
God upon particular persons in reference to
these offices. Thus Rom. i. 5, ^dpts xai aito-
gtoXr\- also xii. 3. In other texts, x<tyi<spa is
used, with which ^dpis is interchanged as sy
nonymous in 1 Pet. iv. 10, and in the epistles
to the Corinthians. From these and similar
texts is derived (c) the ecclesiastical usage,"in
which gratia denotes, by way of eminence, the
operations of God upon the hearts of men for
their improvement and conversion. These ope
rations were called actiones gratix, and the con
dition of a converted man statwm gratix. The
Latin church, especially since the time of Au
gustine, has used this word in this sense. Vide
Vide infra, s. 129.
From what has been said, it appears that the
grace of God is only his goodness, considered in
a particular relation. Grace is the goodness of
a superior to a subordinate person. The ruler,
properly speaking, is gracious only to the sub
ject, and the lord to the slave. The Bible con
forms to this usage. God, then, is gracious, in
the highest sense of this word, because he is the
supreme and necessary ruler and governor of
men. Everything, consequently, which God
does for men, relating to the body or soul, is an
operation of his grace, actus gratix divinx. And
this grace is free, because no one can compel it;
and the very idea of grace excludes all merit,
Rom. iv. 4.
ILT. The particular purpose of God to restore the
human race by Christ.
The New Testament teaches that God has
determined to bestow his favours upon men
through Christ, and to lead them to holiness and
happiness by him. Hence Christ is called
dpa^yos ^aijs- Acts, iii. 15, coll. ver. 26. This
term is explained by altios actrplas, Heb. v. 9,
coll. Acts, xvii. 30, 31. The gracious decree
of God to pardon, sanctify, and bless mankind,
and the institutions he has established for this
purpose, are called ^dpis gatr,pu>s, Tit. ii. 11;
iii. 4. The following particulars are implied—
viz., God designs to free men from the unhap
piness occasioned by sin, (ga^slv,) and also to
bestow upon them unmerited favours, ^apwow,
xdpis, x. t. x.) These favours are pardon, sanc-
tification, and eternal blessedness, also informa
tion communicated by God respecting this
blessedness, instruction as to the manner how
we may attain to it, and strength imparted to us
for this end. This grace of God is called 7}
xdpis ©eov iv Xpisf 9 So^rslga, 1 Cor. i. 4. It is
always represented in the New Testament as
bestowed upon us through Christ, and on his
account. By him God teaches us and renewu
us; pardons us on account of his death; ind

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 321

Destows upon us eternal blessedness through
him and for his sake. Everything proceeds
from him, and is referred to him. This purpose
of God is also described in the Bible by the
words ^a'toijita ©eov, itpb^sgis itpbyvagis and itpo-
opi'fEU', Ephes. i. 4, 11; iii. 11. The Bible
says, top, that Gpd made this decree from eter
nity, (itpb aiavav, cr xatafioxijs xbgpov.) All
the divine decrees are cf this peculiar nature,
as is implied in the particle jtpo. The passage
1 Pet. i. 20 is very clear upen this subject.
From the Old Testament, the passage Ps. xl.
7, seq., belengs in this cnnnexion. This decree
is always described as thefree determination of
God. Thus in the passages cited it is called
siSoxla ^EkTjfiaf 05. Not that it would have been
consistent for God to desert the human race, and
leave it to perish ; the divine goodness forbids
such a supposition. The simple meaning is,
that no external necessity compelled him to it,
and that it is his free grace, without any desert
or worthiness on the part of men. Paul too, in
Rom. ix. — xi., speaks of the free grace of God
in respect to the new institute which he esta
blished upon earth by Christ.
The following result may be deduced from
what has been said : — Christianity is founded
upon the principles, (a) that all men are consi
dered as sinners in the sight of God ; to which
the conscience of every one bears testimony,
(vide No. I. ad finem ;) and that therefore
(6) they are subject to the punishment of sin,
as experience proves. The distinguishing trait
of Christianity is this : that it promises to men
DELIVERANCE FROM SIN, AND THE PUNISHMENT
of sin, before it requires of them perfect holi
ness, acceptable to God. It thus comes to the
relief of ignorant, desponding, and feeble man ;
inspires him with confidence in God, and with
love to him; acquaints him with his destination
to true holiness and unalterable happiness, and
shews the only way by which he can attain it.
Any philosophy or system of religion which re
verses this order, and demands holiness of men
before it gives the power to attain it ; which re
presents holiness as the procuring cause of for
giveness ; fails of its object, and asserts and
requires an impossibility. The great point in
this pardon or amnesty which Christianity pro
mises, is the doctrine that Jesus Christ came
into the world to bless sinful men, to free them
from sin and death; 1 Tim. i. 15, coll. 2 Tim.
.. 10; John, iii. 16, 17. This pardon, however,
reaches men only when, under divine guidance
and assistance, they act according to the con
ditions and precepts laid down. Hence forgive
ness and eternal life are inseparably connected
in Christianity with the requisition of repent
ance and faith made active by love. These
doctrines are always connected in the scrip
tures; so Tit. ii. 11 — 14.
41

SECTION LXXXIX.
FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEA OF
MESSIAH AMONG THE ANCIENT AND MODERN
JEWS; THEIR VARIOUS OPINIONS RESPECTING
HIM; AND THE PROOF THAT JESUS WAS THE
MESSIAH. I. The gradual development of the idea of a
Messiah among the Israelites.
(1) The idea of a former happy condition in
the earliest ages of the world is universal among
men, and is found too among the Israelites
Vide s. 56. But it is quite as natural to the
human mind to console itself in the midst of
troubles, sufferings, and the feeling of physical
and moral imperfection, with the hope of better
times to come, and of a future happy condition,
either in this life or the life to come, or in both
together. Hence arose the fables of the heathen
respecting the return of a golden age, the ex
pected dwelling of the gods upon earth, and
pictures of a similar nature, in which their
wishes and expectations were embodied. These
ideas, like those concerning the original golden
age, are held by every nation, and are founded,
like those, in a feeling of necessity which is
deep laid in the human soul. These ideas, ex
pectations, and wishes, are found in every na
tion; differently modified, however, according
to their particular situation and mode of think
ing and representation. One people is more
bold and confident in its expectations ; another
is more moderate, hoping and wishing -atner
than determining and deciding.
(2) The Jewish nation, too, expected such a
return of the golden age to the earth ; and they
were justified in this by the declarations and
promises of their oldest prophets. But this ex
pectation of the Jews was peculiar, and distin
guished from that of others in this respect, that
this period was placed by them in the times
when the Messiah should appear. These happy
times were called nan aSip.
(3) But the question here arises— Is the doc
trine respecting the Messiah, the Saviour of the
world, a doctrine really revealed by God to
men ; or is it merely a human opinion, origi
nating among the Jews from their accidental
circumstances, — in short, a Jewish fable, em
ployed by Christ and the apostles for benevo
lent, moral purposes?
First. The last supposition is maintained in
general by those who deny or question all di
rect revelation ; by all, indeed, whe deny the
reality of miracles ; for predictions belong to the
class of miraculous occurrences; and the objec
tions made to one may be made to the other.
Vide s. 7, III., s. 72, II. These writers endea
vour by various hypotheses to explain the na
tural origin of this idea. Cf. Stephani, Gedan-

322

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ken uber die Entstehung und Ausbildung der
Idee von einem Messias ; Niirnberg, 1787, 8vo.
Eckermann, Theologische Beytrage, b. ii. st.
1 ; Altona, 1791, 8vo. Ziegler, Entwickelung
des wahrsoheinlichen Ursprungs der Idee vom
Messias, in Henke's Mag. fiir Religionsphilo-
sophie, b. i. St. 1, Abhandl. 2. Ammon, Ver
such einer Christologie des alten Testaments ;
Erlangen, 1794, 8vo. Their principal opinions
may be compressed in the following statement —
viz., Many brave heroes and deliverers (gatijpss
O'piE'iD) had appeared among the Jews from the
earliest period of their history, and had contri
buted to the public weal. Such were the pro
phets and great kings. But the advantages
which had been hoped for, both in respect to
religious and moral improvement, and also in
respect to civil and social welfare, had not as
yet been realized, and were still expected in fu
ture time. By degrees, all wishes, hopes, and
expectations centred in one person, who would
accomplish all which was desired. This idea
did not become general, or rather, did not take
its origin, among the Jews until after the Baby
lonish captivity. This person was expected to
be the deliverer and helper of the Jewish nation,
and principally a temporal deliverer, who would
establish an earthly kingdom. This idea pre
vailed widely among the Jews at the time of
Christ, and, by the aid of the allegorical inter
pretation then current, was carried into the more
ancient of their sacred books. Now Jesus, it
is said, found this idea, and connected it, such
as he found it, with his doctrine ; not consider
ing it himself (as many say) to be really true.
He modified this idea, and gave himself out for
a spiritual deliverer of mankind by his instruc
tion. Eckermann, therefore, affirms distinctly,
that in the whole Old Testament there are no
proper predictions of Christ. Beytr. st. 1.
Remarks on this Explanation.
(a) All accounts of the origin of this idea,
which are exclusive of direct divine revelation,
if not otherwise objectionable, are merely con
jectural and hypothetical, and cannot be histo
rically proved. This is the reason why they
are so various and contradictory ; there is no
sure historical ground and basis upon which
they can be established and built ; they are mere
plays of the imagination, mere conjectures as to
the manner in which the thing may possibly
have been. And indeed, many cases may be
imagined possible, no one of which can be proved
to be historically true, and most of which have
historical evidence against them. This discre
pancy of views among writers on this subject,
therefore, never will or can cease, as long as
they proceed in this way.
(4) The assertion of Eckermann and others,

that the Old-Testament descriptions ef the Mes
siah are net descriptions pf Jesus, but of an
earthly king, is unfounded. For although the
Messiah is often compared to a king, as even
God is, he is also named and described as a
prophet and priest. And to free men from sin,
to instruct them, and promote their moral im-
provement, are ascribed to him as the principal
part and proper object of his advent. Psalm
xxii., xl., ex. ; Isaiah, ii., xi., liii.
(c) The predictions of the prophets represent
the Messiah not as the king and ruler of a sin
gle nation, as the Jewish kings were, but as the
king and benefactor of all who should be friend
ly to him. In the predictions of the Jewish
prophets he is promised quite as much, and
even more, to the heathen than to the Jews
themselves. Vide the passages before cited.
The promises given to Abrahahi, Gen. xii. 3 ;
xxii. 18, are certainly free from any Jewish ex-
clusiveness, and are as comprehensive as posr
sible. (d) The assertion that the idea of Messiah
originated during the Babylonish captivity, or
afterwards, and that the earlier Jews differently
understood the so-named Messianic passages in
Moses and the prophets, is contrary to history.
For the idea respecting a Messiah was univer
sal among the Samaritans at the time of Christ,
and much earlier. And indeed it was held by
the Samaritans more purely than by the greater
part of the Jews ; as the Messiah was represent
ed by them as the great Prophet and Saviour,
John, iv. 25, 42, seq. Therefore this idea must
have existed among the Jews before the reli
gious separation between them and the Samari
tans; and consequently before the Babylonian
exile. For the Samaritans would not certainly
have received it from the Jews after the separa
tion. Whence then did they derive it? They
admitted only the five books of Moses from the
whole Old Testament. Accordingly, they must
have grounded their expectation upon the testi
mony of Moses, and the interpretation of this
testimony given them by the Israelitish teach
ers sent to them from Assyria, 2 Kings, xvii.
27, seq. The Israelites, therefore, must have
had the idea of a Messiah long before the Baby
lonian exile, and must have found it, too, in the
books of Moses.
Secondly. — The whole opinion that the idea
of Messiah does not depend upon divine revela
tion, and that it is not contained in the oldest
sacred records of the Hebrews, stands in the
most palpable contradiction to the clearest decla
rations of Christ and his apostles. For (a) the-
writings of the prophets are acknowledged by
them to be of divine authority, and the doc
trines and predictions contained in them are not
treated as fictions and fables, but as truly re
vealed by God. And (6) it is no less certain

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 323

that they teach that there are in Moses and the
prophets. predictions respecting the Messiah, er
benefactor cf the world, and that these were ful
filled in Jesus. Jesus himself frequently as
serts this in the most Impressive and solemn
manner, Luke, xviii. 31 — 33 ; xxii. 37 ; xxiv.
27; Matt. xx. 18, 19 ; xxvi. 54; Mark, ix. 12;
John, v. 39, 46. And in this his apostles ex
actly follow his example. Acts, ii. 16, 25 ; yiii.
18; x. 34; xiii. 23, 32; xxvi. 22, 23; 1 Pet. i.
11; 2 Pet. i. 19, and. the Pauline epistles. The
apostles themselves therefore believed this.
Now if Jesus and his apostles were merely
human teachers, they may possibly have erred
in this matter; as also many of the Jewish
teachers of that time, who interpreted these pas
sages in the same way, may have done. But
if they were divinely commissioned, what they
say on this subject must be believed. For I
am not at liberty to proceed optionally in be
lieving the declarations of a man whom I ac
knowledge to be divinely commissioned. I am
not at liberty to make selection of what I will
admit and what reject at my good pleasure. I
must rather yield unconditional faith to each
and every thing which he, as a divine messen
ger, teaches and declares. Consistency, then,
requires us to go on this principle in this sub
ject. Vide Herder, Briefe das Stadium der
Theologie betreffend, br. 18, 21, particularly s.
303, f. 349—352, th. ii. Cf. Herder's Work,
" Vom Erloser der Menschen, nach unsern drey
ersten Evangelisten ; Riga, 1796, 8vo. [Cf. es
pecially Hengstenberg, " Christologie," . where
this whole subject is more ably discussed than
anywhere else. — Tr.]
II. Various opinions of the Jews at and after the
time of Christ respecting the Messiah, and the
nature of his kingdom.
(1) At the time of Christ, and previously,
the current opinion of the people in Palestine,
and indeed of most of the Pharisees and law
yers, was, that he would be a temporal deliverer
and a king of the Jews, and indeed, a universal
monarch, who would reign over all nations.
Thus they interpreted the passages, Psalm ii. 2,
6, 8 ; Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 ; Zech. ix. 4, seq. Hence
those who, during the lifetime of Jesus, ac
knowledged him to be the Messiah, wished to
proclaim him king, John, vi. 15, coll. Matt. xxi.
8, 9. The apostles themselves held this opi
nion until after the resurrection of Christ, Mat
thew, xx. 20, 21; Luke, xxiv. 21; Acts, i. 6.
And Jesus himself, during his life upon. earth,
proceeded very guardedly, in crder to lead them
gradually from this deep-rooted prejudice, and
and not to take it away at once. Josephus says
that the enthusiasm of the Jews in the war
against the Romans, was very much increased
by this belief of an universal monarchy. Vide

Bell. Jud. vi. 5. Suetonius (Vesp. c. -4) and
Tacitus (Hist. v. 13) speak of this expectation
spread throughout all the East by the Jews. It
was expected , that he would institute new reli
gious rites, (John, i. 25 ;) that he would perform
uncommonly great miracles, (John, vii. 31 ;)
that, he would be born at Bethlehem, of the line
of David, and yet from obscure parents, (John,
vii. 42;) and that he would never die, (John,
xii. 34.)
(2) Some, but by far the smallest number,
had purer ideas respecting the Messiah ; and did
not so much, expect an earthly kingdom as for
giveness of sin, instruction, diffusion of truth,
and, in short,, spiritual blessings. Simeon had
this correct view, (Luke, ii. 30, seq. ;) the ma
lefactor on the cross, (Luke, xxiii. 43;) and a
few other Jews at the time of Christ. Many
pipus Jews, top, put of Palestine, may be sup-
ppsed te have had the same ccrrect views. Fer
even the common people of Samaria had opi
nions on this subject comparatively pure. Vide
John, iv. 25, seq. ., Jesus approved these opi
nions as just .and. scriptural, and always acted
in conformity with them. Vide Luke, xvii. 20,
21 ; John, xviii.- 36—38. It is, then, very un
just to charge him with the intention of esta
blishing an earthly kingdem, as is dene in the
werk "Vpm Zweck Jesu," Braunschweig,
1778. Vide Koppe " Progr. de sententia Judae-
orum de Messia. et futuro ejus regno;" Gott,
1779. (3). Many united both pf these opinions, and
considered the Messiah as a teacher and earthly
king at the same time, as the supreme head of
church and state. This appears to have been
the opinion of the apostles and most of the dis
ciples of Christ, while he lived upon the earth.
A multitude of Christians of the Judaizing party,
during the first and second centuries, believed
that Christ.wpuld return tp the earth te establish
a temperal kingdom for a thousand years — an
opinion which has been indulged by many
Christians in every age down to the present
time. (4) Some of the Jews at the time of Christ,
and previously, were free-thinkers, and appear
to have rejected the whole notion of a Messiah
as a popular superstition, a fabulous and ground
less expectation. Especially was this the case
after the destruction of the Jewish state by the
Romans. Many of the Jews out of Palestine,
especially the learned Grecian Jews, appear to
have been of this way of thinking. Accord
ingly, there is no mention of this idea even in
the Book of Wisdom, or in all the writings of
Philo. And even Josephus, in his desire to
please the Greeks and Romans, appears to have
been ashamed pf this faith pf his fathers, and se
always avoids the subject. They were satis
fied with mere morality, and connected the Gre-

324

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

cian philosophy with the doctrines of the Jew-
sh religion and theology. This silence is the
more remarkable, especially in Philo, consider
ing how much he was given to the allegorical
interpretation of the Old Testament.
(5) We find all these different opinions re
peated in the writings of the Jews who lived
after the time of Christ and the destruction of
the temple,— in the Chaldaic paraphrases, in
the book Sohar, in the Talmud, and in the Rab
bins, where so many of the ancient traditions
are exhibited.
(a) The opinions of the more modern Jews
were very various respecting the importance of
the doctrine itself. Some considered it to be
the most important doctrine of their faith, and
expected that a complete restoration of religion,
morality, and happiness, would be effected by
the Messiah. In their view he was to accom
plish, as it were, a new political and moral
creation; so Maimonides. Others considered
it as a doctrine of less importance, and seldom
mentioned it. Many of them appear, in reality,
to have rejected it altogether, or to have been
ashamed of it.
(b) In respect to the institutions of the Mes
siah, and the object of his mission, they exhi
bited the same diversity as prevailed at an ear
lier period. Most adhered to the gross opinion
of the establishment of an earthly kingdom, and
the subjection of the o;u. Others made his
most prominent object to be, the improvement
of doctrine, the restoration of morals, and spiri
tual blessedness. But these were comparatively
few. (c) Some of the Jews who could not under
stand how the Messiah should be described by
the prophets sometimes as king (Ps. ii., ex. ;
Is. xi.,) and sometimes as inferior, lowly and
despised, (Ps. xxii. ; Is. liii.,) invented the doc
trine of a twofold Messiah, in order to reconcile
these accounts ; one, the inferior, despised Mes
siah, Joseph's son, in whom Christians believe;
the other, David's son, who is yet to come and
establish his kingdom.
(d) Many of the Jews endeavoured to account
for the long delay of the Messiah by the sinful
ness of which their nation is guilty. The pro
mise, they say, was made conditionally. But
this hypothesis derives no support from the
Messianic oracles in the Old Testament.
III. The method of proving that Jesus of Nazareth
is the true Messiah.
(1) This is proved from the marks and de
scriptions which the Old Testament gives of
the Messiah, all of which meet in Jesus in the
most remarkable manner. This proof that Jesus
is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament,
may be made extremely convincing. Chris
tians, however, do not, as Collins supposes, by

any means rely selely on the predictions of the
Old Testament for the Messianic authcrity of
Jesus, ner does Christ himself. Vide John, v.
34, seq. For these predictions, though ever so
valuable and important in themselves, are al
ways, like all predictions, in a certain degree
obscure. The Old Testament is indeed very
instructive and useful, when rightly employed,
but it is not the only ground pn which the con
fidence of Christians rests. It affords important
proof even for Christians, but not the only proof.
Vide vol. i. s. 12, II. n
This method of proof from the Old Testament
is especially useful in convincing the Jews, and
in refuting their objections. Thus Christ ap
plies it, John, v. 39 — 47. All the marks which
the Jews consider characteristic of the Messiah,
according to their sacred books, agree exactly
in Jesus. And all those traits and minute cir
cumstances which are exhibited in passages of
the Old Testament acknowledged by the Jews
themselves to relate to the Messiah, meet in him
as they do not in any other person known in
history. He was born at Bethlehem, of the fa
mily of David, of which the Jews have now for
a long time had no continued genealogical ta
bles. He had a precursor. He confirmed his
doctrine by the most striking miracles. He
died, was honourably buried, and rose again.
His garments were divided. Vinegar was
given him to drink. And many other circum
stances of the same nature, greater and smaller,
which were predicted concerning the Messiah,
were fulfilled in Jesus. Such passages are
therefore very frequently urged by the apostles
against the Jews, in order to convince them.
(2) Christians who acknowledge the divine
authority of the New Testament, and the credi
bility of Jesus and the apostles, have an addi
tional and principal ground of their belief of
this truth, in the testimony and information
contained in the books of the New Testament.
Throughout these books Jesus is represerited'as
the greatest divine messenger, Lord over all, the
Saviour of the world, (2<of jjp, <}>u>s fov xbejtm, o
Kiiptos.) In short, he is described as the same
person whom the Jews call Messiah. If divine
wisdom had seen proper to raise him up in an
other country, and under other circumstances,
his name and the form of his doctrine might, in
deed, have been different, while the substance
itself would have continued the same.
According to the constant representation ot
the New Testament, God himself confirmed the
truth that Jesus was the Messiah. He did this
by John the Baptist, John, i. 19—41 ; by voices
from heaven at the baptism of Christ, and on
other occasions ; by angels, Luke, i. 30— 38; by
Jesus himself, who confirmed the truth of his
declarations by miracles, John, iv. 25, 26 ; Matt
xxvi. 62, 63 ; and by the apostles commissioned

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 325

4o be his messengers, Acts, ii. 22 — 38 ; 1 John,
i. and ii. 1 ; &c.
Thus in all the passages of the New Testa
ment where it is said that Jesus is the Messiah,
or that the Messiah has come in the person of
Jfesus, the idea is always implied that Jesus is
the promised Lord and Redeemer, the Benefactor
and Saviour. In short, the word Messiah, which
grammatically signifies king, becomes a doc
trinal word, synonymous with Kvpws and ta-
rtjp. And in this way the erroneous views of
the Jews respecting the Messiah were correct
ed. If we would consider the subject in this
ljght, and be satisfied with the representations
which the New Testament gives of it, we should
easily avoid the difficulties with which many
nave been perplexed regarding this doctrine.
Vide Eckermann, Theol. Beytr. st. 1. We
should not then declare, with this writer and
others, that the doctrine that Jesus is the Mes
siah belongs only to the Jews, and is not an es
sential doctrine of pure Christianity. The He
brew name n/B'D was Jewish or Israelitish, but
the thing denoted by it was intended for all, and
is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity.
Note. — Wnrks pii spme of the subjects treated
in this section. For information respecting
the Jewish opinions of the Messiah, vide Maii
"Synopsis Theol. Judaicae;" Giess, 1698,
, 4to; Glassner, De gemine Judaeorum Messia;
Helmst, 1739, 4to; Eisenmenger, Entdecktes
Judenthum ; Keil (Prof. Lips.), Hist. Dogm.
de regno Messias, Jesu et app. state ; Lipsiae,
1781. On the point that Jesus is the Messiah,
vide the ancient werks pf Olearius and Schott-
gen, in " Her. Hebr." t. ii. The mest ccm-
plete werk after these is that ef Bishpp Kidder,
" Cenvincing Proof that Jesus is the Messiah,"
translated from the English by Rambach ; Ros
tock, 1757, 4to. [For a fuller account of the
literature of this subject, cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s.
444, Anmerk. Vide especially the late work
of Hengstenberg, Christologie des A. T. — Tr.]
SECTION XC.
OF THE PRINCIPLES PN WHICH WE ARE TO INTER
PRET THE LITERAL AND FIGURATIVE PREDIC
TIONS CONTAINED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
RESPECTING THE MESSIAH, AND THE NEW IN
STITUTE FOUNDED BY HIM.
I. Brief History of the manner in which Christians
have interpreted the Messianic Predictions.
The allegorical method of interpretation pre
vailed among the early Christian fathers, espe
cially the Egyptian fathers — e. g., Justin the
Martyr, Panteenus, Clement of Alexandria, Ta-
tian, and still more after the age of Origen.
They considered the Bible, as Philo and other
learned Grecian Jews had done before them, to

be a repository of every kind of useful informa
tion, and especially of all religious truth. Any
truth of this kind which they did not find clear
ly exhibited in it, they introduced by means of
their allegorical interpretation, exactly in the
same way as the stoics, and many other learned
Grecians, had proceeded with Homer and some
other of their sacred bopks. On this principle
it was that many cf these fathers endeaveured
te find all the perfecticn nf Christian knowledge
in, the Old Testament, and carried back into it
the entire Christian system. But in this they
deviated widely from the mind of the apostles,
who expressly say that the patriarchs saw the
promised blessings only from afar off, (Heb.
xi. 13,) and that there was much obscurity in
the predictions concerning Christ, 2 Peter, i.
19—21 ; 1 Peter, i. 10—12.
But this extreme was objected to by many of
the learned fathers— e. g., Eusebius the Eme-
sene, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorus of Mopsu-
estia. Some of these fell into the opposite ex
treme, and allow few or no passages in the Old
Testament to refer to the Messiah. Chrysos-
tom, Theodoret, and others, took a middle course
between these two parties. This difference of
opinion has continued down through all ages of
the Christian church. Some have seen the
Messiah rarely or nowhere, others everywhere,
in the Old Testament; while others still have
pursued a middle course. Vide Ernesti, " Nar-
ratio critica de interpret, prophetiarum Mess, in
eccl." in Opusc. Theol.
II. Examination of the principles of the theory of
accommodation applied to the interpretation of
the Messianic Predictions.
Since the time of Semler, about the middle of
the eighteenth century, an opinion has prevailed
widely in the protestant church, that the Old
Testament contains very few passages, or none
at all, which treat literally and properly of Jesus
Christ, and that all or mpst pf the passages
cited in the New Testament are used in the way
of accommodation. The following reasons have
been offered in support of this theory. The Jews
at the time of Christ were very much given to
the allegorical interpretation of scripture. Ever
after the time of the exile, when the expectation
of a Messiah had become universal among them,
they had eagerly searched the Old Testament for
everything which in the least favoured this ex
pectation; and had succeeded, by the help of
their allegorical interpretation, in making their
scriptures seem to contain predictions respect
ing a Messiah. Jesus and the apostles were
therefore compelled to pursue the same method,
and to use it as a means of gradually bringing
the Jews to a better knowledge of religion.
Their pursuing this course does not prove that
they themselves considered these passages as
2E

326

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

actual predictions. That they did not so con
sider them appears from the fact that they pur
sued a different course when teaching gentiles;
and did not in that case appeal to the Old Tes
tament. But in this statement we must carefully' dis
tinguish between what is true arid what is erro
neous and exaggerated.
(1) The allegorical interpretation of the sa
cred scriptures cannot be historically proved to
have prevailed among the Jews from the time
ef the exile, er to have been common with the1
Jews of Palestine at the time of Christ- and his
apostles. Although the Sanhedrim and the
hearers of Jesus often appealed to the Old Tes
tament, according to the testimony of the New-
Testament writers, they give no indication of
the allegorical interpretation. Even Josephus
has nothing of it. The Platonic Jews of Egypt
began, in the first century, in imitation of the
heathen Greeks, to interpret the Old Testament
allegorically. Philo was distinguished- among
those in that place who practised this method,
and he defends it as something new, and before
unheard of, and for that reason opposed by the
other Jews; De Confus. Lingu. p. 347, seq.
Jesus was not, therefore, in a situation where
he was compelled to comply with a prevailing
custom of allegorical interpretation; for this
method1 did not prevail at that time among the
Jews ; certainly not in Palestine, where Jesus
taught. (2) The writers of tne New Testament them
selves make a clear distinction between the alle
gorical and literal interpretation of the Old Tes
tament. When they use the allegorical method,
they either say expressly, here is allegory, Gal.
iv. 24, or they shew it by the context, or by ore-
fixing some particle of comparison — e. g., ugitsp
xa$as, Heb. vii. ; John, iii. 14 ; Matt. xii. 40.
But they express themselves very differently in
texts which they quote as literal prophecy for
the purpose of proof.
(3) If the apostle's did not allude to the Old
Testament in the instructions which they gave
te gentiles, it dees net follpw either that they
believed the Old Testament to be of no use to
them, or that they did net serieusly ccnsider
the passages which they cited as predicticns
in their instructions to the Jews to be really
such. The reasen why the apostles omitted these
allusions in the commencement of the instruc
tion which they gave to the heathen is the same
as leads the wise missionary at the present day
to omit them in the same circumstances. Their
gentile hearers and readers knew ncthing pf the
Bible, and could not, of course, be convinced
from ar unknown book. The apostles, however,
gradually instructed their gentile converts in the
contents of this book, arid then appealed to it as
frequently before them as before Jews or con

verts1 from Judaism. This is proved by the
Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles: Thug
Peter says-" to the heathen centurion, Cornelius,
after the latter had become aequafintedwithtHe
prophets,! "Of this Jesus testify all the pro*
phets," &c; Acts, x. 43, coll. Acts, viii. 26— 35;
and the epistles of Paul.
(4) It cannot be shewn, in general jtbat Jesus
and- his apostles, in compliance withthe current
prejudices1 of their contemporaries, ever taught
anything or seemingly affirmed anything to Be
true which they themselves considered as false;
No more can it be shewn, in particular, that they
adopted and authorized any explanations of the
Old Testament which they themselves consider
edas invalid, merely because they were common
among their contemporaries. Such conipliance
is entirely eentrary to their usual course of ac
tion ; (vide Matt. v. 19, 23 ;) nor can it be at all
justified on pure moral principles, as even mo
dern theol ogiaris are beginning more and more
to allow. When Christ, therefore, says dis
tinctly, Matt, xxii. 43, that David, by divine re
velation, called the Messiah,. Lord (Ps. ex.), he
must have believed exactly as he said, and so
have admitted a divine prediction respecting the
Messiah in this psalm. The same when he says,
John, v. 46; " that Moses wrote concerning him."
Hence it follows, that whenever Jesus and the
apostles expressly assent to the Jewish expla
nations of the Old Testament, or build proofs
upon them, they themselves must have consi
dered these explanations as just.
Here everything depends upon the doctrine
above stated ; if Christ and his apostles were
mere human teachers, they may have' erred ; but
if fney spake as divine messengers, they must be
believed on their simple authority.
III. The principles oflhterprdation on which Christ
and his Apostles proceed in quoting from the Oh
Testament, especially the Messianic Passages.
Undoubtedly many of the same principles
often appear in Jewish writings, as well as the
same formula of quotation, " thus is fulfilled,"
&c. Vide Wanner, Antiqq. Heb. t. ii. ; Suren-
hus, BipXos xataXXjtyijs- Wetstein ad Matt. i.
22, and Schottgen, in s. 89 of his book last cited.
Now if Christ, by his own example, authorizes
the principles which were embraced by the
Jews, he himself must have considered them to
be true. Whether we must on this account
consider them as true, must be determined by
the alternative above stated. The principles of
interpreting the Old Testament which many
modern commentators have adopted, differ alto
gether from those which Christ and his apostles:
followed ; still these modern principles must
not be ascribed to Christ and his apostles, but
we must inquire historically, What were th
principles on which Christ and his apostles prv

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 327

eeeded? These need not necessarily be the
same as those which modern interpreters adopt.
(1) God determined from eternity (itpb xata-
fiaxrjs xbdfiov) to send a benefactor and saviour
(SufTjp, Messias) to bless the world made
wretched by sin. This purpose was revealed
very eariy; and was from time to time repeated
and" Tendered more plain. Thus Christ and the
apostles declare, with the Jews, "that Moses,
the Psalms, and the prophets spake concerning
him." Vide s. 89.
(2) Ged saw best to communicate his will to
the patriarchs of the Jewish nation, and to trans
mit this revelation to their posterity by means
of extraordinary men, messengers, (owai;) thus
making the Israelites, as it were, the deposita
ries of the divine revelations for the salvation
of men during the earlier ages of the world. In
this respect, too, Christ and the Jews were
agreed ; and in this, also, that God had refer
ence, in all his instructions and ordinances given
by the prophets, to his great plan respecting the
Messiah. (3) Consequently, according to the doctrine
of Christ, the writings of the prophets, from
Moses downwards, contain literal predictions
respecting this Saviour of the world and the
new institute to be founded by him, though all'
these predictions are not of equal clearness.
(4) But to these prophets themselves every
thing which they predicted was not perfectly
plain and intelligible. God saw best to reserve
the more clear explanation of the sense of many
of his earlier oracles to be communicated by
prophets at a later period. Thus many of the
predictions respecting Christ and his apostles
could be more distinctly and justly interpreted
in after times than by the prophets themselves
who originally uttered them. This maxim
often appears in the writings of the Jews, and
is expressly mentioned in the New Testament;
1 Pet i. 10—12, and 2 Pet. i. 19. Vide Progr.
ad h. V. [Vide the discussion of this point in
the Bib. Repository, No. I. Art. 4; also No.
IV. Art. 4. Cf. Woods on Inspiration, Lect. i.
p. 33  Tr.] '
(5) The duties and offices of the Messiah very
much resemble the duties and offices of the Old-
Testament prophets, priests, and kings. These
names are therefore, frequently applied to him.
As a king of the house of David, he inherited,
as it were, all the rights, privileges, and titles
of the kings, (e. g., of David or Solomon;) as
a.prophet, those of the Jewish prophets, (e. g.,
of Moses and others ;) and as a priest, those nf
he priests, (e. g., of Melchisedec and Aarcn.)
The character which they pcssessed, and the ac-
tipns which they performed imperfectly, and on
a small scale, he possessed and performed per
fectly, and on a large scale. This canon of in-
.erpretation 's held by the Rabbins, and is not

in any way objecticnable. The case is very
much the same as when the rights ef an empe
ror are proved by shewing from the history of
the empire that:his predecessors possessed them ;
or when the official rights of a person are esta
blished from the ancient privileges of the office,
and from, the histery pf his predecessers in- it.
Cf. Psalm lxxxix. 27, 3 b— 34.
This principle casts light upen the passages
ef the New Testament; where texts are cited
from the Old, which appear at first sight to
treat of different persons and objects. All the
texts in which the rights; offices, and dignities
of the Israelitish prophets, priests, and kings,
are the subjects of consideration, relate to the
Messiah, the greatest of their successors, and
are directly applicable to him. He possesses
all the greatness, distinction, and pre-eminence
ascribed to them, only in a far- higher degree.
So it is in the writings of the Jews, and in the
New Testament, Heb. i. and ii., and other
places. (6) The Jews generally, though not uniformly,
asserted the pre-existence of the Messiah before
his visible appearance upon the earth, although
the doctrine of his miraculous birth was not as
yet entirely clear to them. This is seen in the
Chaldaic paraphrases and in the writings of the
Rabbins. Christ himself affirms his pre-exist
ence in the clearest manner, John, viii. 58 ; chap.
xvii. seq. The writers just mentioned ascribe
everything which was done in the Old Testa
ment for the salvation of men, and particularly
of the Jews, to the Messiah, as the efficient or
concurrent cause. He led them from Egypt,
defended them in their journey through the de
sert, and spake to them by the prophets. They
explained many passages of the Old Testament
in which the appearance of God, or pf the angel
of the Lord, is mentioned, as applying directly
to the Messiah. This principle, too, is author
ized and adopted in the New Testament. Ac
cording to 1 Pet. i. 11, it was the Spirit of Christ
which inspired the prophets of the Old Testa
ment, and communicated revelations through
them. According to 1 Cor. x. 4, the Rock (a
common appellation of God) which accompa
nied the Israelites in the desert was Christ.
When they tempted God by disobedience, they
tempted Christ, (ver. 9.) Isaiah, who saw God
in his glory, (Isaiah, vi.) is' said to have seen
the glory of the Messiah, John, xii. 41.
Thus we see why texts of the Old Testament,
which treat of God in general, and of his works
among men, especially among his own people,
¦are applied in the New Testament directly to
the Messiah.
(7) Instruction by means of allegories, sym
bols, and symbolical actions, is very suitable to
men; especially during the childhood both of
individuals and nations. Such instruction is

328

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

exactly in the spirit of the Hebrews, and of
other oriental nations. This being so, it would
have been a subject of wonder if instruction of
this kind had not been given respecting so im
portant an object as the new dispensation to be
instituted by the Messiah. That such instruc
tion was given, the Jews have always main
tained ; and it is clearly contained in many pas
sages of the Old Testament — e. g., Ps. xl. 7,
seq. The writers of the New Testament dis
tinctly teach that some of the ordinances ap
pointed by Moses and the other prophets by
divine command, were designed by God to
prepare the way for the future Saviour of the
wprld, to ppint to him, and to be types ef him
and his blessings. Sacrifice, expiaticn, and
pther erdinances cf the Old Testament, were
net appointed en their nwn acccunt, but were
intended as images of the more perfect ordi
nances to be expected in future time. Many
of the expressions and images in the discourses
of John the Baptist and of Christ respecting
sacrifices and the sacrificial lamb, lead to this
conclusion ; and the correctness of it is distinctly
declared by the apostles. Vide Col. ii. 17;
Rom. iii. 21 ; the epistle to the Galatians, and
Heb. viii., ix., x. ; John, xix. 36.
But we are very liable to go too far in the
illustration and development of these allegorical
predictions ; and this study frequently degene
rates into an idle amusement. The charge of
extravagance in this respect may be justly made
against many of the ecclesiastical fathers, and
many protestant theologians of later times, espe
cially against Cocceius and his followers, at the
close of the seventeenth century. The best way
to avoid such mistakes is to admit of no allego
rical predictions except such as are mentioned
in the New Testament, and to extend the resem
blance no further than it is carried there.
But we must not suppose, because some have
made this subject ridiculous by their extrava
gance, that the New Testament does not author
ize the belief of allegorical predictions. Such
a supposition is most obviously untrue ; and the
only reason why any have supported it is, that
they would prefer that an idea so inconsistent,
as it seemed to them, with the spirit and ideas
of our own age, should not be found in the New
Testament. That the design of God relating
to the future was not always made known im
mediately on the establishment of the ordinances
of the former dispensation, does not prove that
God, in founding those ordinances, had no such
design. It was sufficient that he made it known
as sopn as men were capable of understanding
it. Vide supra, No. 4.
These allegorical or symbolical predictions
and indications are commonly called types. So
they were called by the fathers, who took this
term from Heb. viii. 5 ; Rom. vi. 7 ; 1 Cor. x.

6, 11. They were divided into typos personalis,
certain persons (rulers, prophets, priests,) who
were the representatives of the Messiah; and
typos reales, to which the Levitical ritual, sacri*
fices, and other ordinances of Moses belong.
Vide Michaelis, Typische Gottesgelahrtheit,;.
Dr. Rau, Freymiithige Untersuchung fiber die
Typologie; Erlangen, 1784, 8vo; and, most of.
all, Storr Commentar fiber den Brief an die
Hebraer, particularly s. 199—208.
Note. — In the instruction of the common
people, the following view of this subject may.
be most scripturally and safely presented:—
By means of various religious ordinances and
remarkable persons among the Israelites, God
represented and pointed out the Messiah; to
these Jesus and his apostles often allude, in
order to shew that the present dispensation was
of old designed and decreed by God, and in
order to excite a due estimation of these bene
fits in us, who have not the shadow simply, but
the full enjoyment and possession of them;
Col. ii. 17.
Those who deny any direct revelation of the
divine will during the Old-Testament dispensa
tion, declare themselves against allegorical pre
dictions with great zeal. And so they must, in,
order to be consistent. But this shews that
their doctrine is not agreeable to the scriptures,
which affirm that both the Old and New Testa
ments contain direct divine revelations.
(8) Finally, all these observations are per
fectly consistent with the principle that many
texts of the Old Testament are cited merely on
account of some accidental resemblance in sub
ject or expression; in the same way as quota
tions are made in works of every kind ; convey
ing the idea, that what was true in the passage
cited in one sense is true here in another sense.
Thus the text, Is. liii. 4, 5, "he removed our
sicknesses," denoting spiritual sicknesses, is
applied, Matt. viii. 17, to bodily infirmities.
The discourse of Christ, John, xviii. 9, coll..r
chap. xvii. 12, affords a similar example. Cf.
on this subject, Koppen, Die Bibel ein Werk
der gottlichen Weisheit, th. i. s. 235 ; Michaelis,
Dogmatik, s. 122—128; Scrip. Var. Arg. p.
609, seq. respecting itxnpa&ivai, x. t. x. ; Kleu
ker, Tractat. de nexu prophetico inter utrumque
constitutionis divinee fcedus. [Vide also Woods
on Inspiration, Lect. ii  Tr.]
SECTION XCI.
OF THE SUCCESSIVE DEGREES OF THE REVELA*
TIONS AND PREDICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE
OLD TESTAMENT RESPECTING THE MESSIAH.
Divine providence frequently makes a long
and secret preparation for great and important
events, before they are actually accomplished.
Commonly it gives at first only intimations

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 329

and distant allusions, but gradually unfolds its
designs more clearly. We might expect, then,
with much probability, that the divine revela
tions respecting the Messiah would, at first, be
comparatively scanty and obscure, and would
gradually become more clear and evident. And
such we find to be the fact. Besides, the early
childhood of the world and of the Jewish nation
was not prepared to receive full information upon
this subject. Theologians observe, very justly,
that God has most exactly adapted the instruc
tion given respecting the Messiah to the neces
sities of men, and the circumstances of particular
times. The Messiah, accordingly, is sometimes
represented under the image of a king, some
times under that of a prophet,- again under that
of a priest, &c. ; s. 90.
Four periods are commonly distinguished.
(1) The first period extends from the com
mencement of scriptural history to the time of
David. In this period there is, by general con
fession, the most obscurity. From the remotest
ages, however, there was a general belief that
a time would come, in a distant futurity, in
which God would shew signal favour to men,
and especially to pious men, in some extraordi
nary manner, by means of his prophets, and
particularly one of them. This belief was suf
ficient; "They saw the promised blessings from
a distance," Heb. xi. 13.
The first text of this kind occurs Gen. iii. 15.
Vide s. 75, ad finem. [Also Hengstenberg's
Christologie, s. 26, ff.] It was during the life
of Abraham, and the times immediately follow
ing, if we judge from the Bible, that the general
truth was made known, that his family would
be the medium of communicating this great
blessing to a future age. Here belongs the pro
mise, Gen. xii. 3, that " in Abraham all nations
should be blessed." This cannot mean that
they should prosper if they received him and
his posterity with kindness and treated them
as friends, and be unfortunate if they did the
contrary ; but that this happiness should be dif
fused over all through Abraham and his posteri
ty ; he should be the instrument or agent in the
hand of Divine Providence. Further, Gen. xxii.
8, "In (or through) thy seed shall all nations
be blessed." This cannot mean that Abraham's
posterity, as well as he himself, should be re
markably favoured by God; and all nations
friendly to them, and who wished them well,
should be prospered on their account. But here
again is the idea conveyed that the great happi
ness of the nations should proceed from Abraham
and his posterity, the Israelites. The former
passage is explained by this. The word pit
may be used collectively here, as Paul uses it,
Rom. iv. 13. But, in Gal. iii. 11, he refers this
vy more especially to the Messiah, and remarks
that it may be translated in the singular. Christ
42

says expressly, that Abraham rejoiced in view
of the birth and appearance of the Messiah upon
the earth, John, viii. 56 ; and all the writers of
the New Testament agree in referring these
texts to the Messiah.
Another text is found in the song of Jacob,
Gen. xlix. 10. This is not, indeed, cited in the
New Testament as a Messianic prediction ; but
it is so understood by the Chaldaic paraphrast,
the Talmud, and many of the Rabbins among
the Jews ; and by Justin the Martyr, in the se
cond century ; and afterwards by Augustine and
others among the Christian fathers. The word
nW, which Luther renders held (hero), has been
explained in a great variety of ways. But in
whatever way this word is understood, the rest
of this text applies very well to the Messiah ; and
if Abraham expected such a deliverer, and waited
for the day of the Messiah, according to the de
claration of Christ above quoted, the same cer-.
tainly may be true, in the view of Christ, re
specting his grandson, who had the same pro
mises and indulged the same hopes as Abraham.
This texts declares, that " the sceptre shall not
depart from Judah," (i. e., the pre-eminence of
this tribe over the others shall continue, although
Judah was not the firstborn; that tribe furnished
the nation with the greatest kings and warriors,
long before the time of the Messiah,) "until at
last the nW (to be descended from it) should
come, and to him should other nations gather"—
i. e., many other nations, besides the Jewish,
should be subjected to him and dependent upon
him. The best translation of rryf is proles ejus,
filius ejus, especially his great descendant. After
Schultens, Stange has explained this word in
the best manner, in his work, " Symmikta," th.
ii. s. 224, f., Halle, 1802 ; though I cannot
consent to refer the whole passage to Solomon,
as he does.
The last text is Deut. xviii. 18, "A prophet
like me will Jehovah raise up," &c This text
is referred to Christ in the discourses of Peter
and Stephen, Acts, iii. 22 and vii. 37 ; and is
probably alluded to in John, i. 45. Moses is
giving the distinguishing mark of true and false
prophets, and wishes to assure the Israelites
that they would not be destitute of direct mes
sengers from God after his death. By itself,
therefore, it might be taken collectively, meaning
" prophets like me," &c. But if at the time of
Moses there was a belief in a general reforma
tion of religion and morals, which should be
effected in some future time in a special manner,
by a prophet sent from God, (the opposite of
which' cannot be proved,) this word may be used
especially to denote this future reformer; and
Jesus expressly says, " Moses wrote concerning
me," John, v. 46.
Besides these, the origin of many of the sym
bolical predictions respecting the Messiah may
2e2

330

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

be traced to this period; respecting them, vide
s. 90.(2) The second period comprises the reign ef
David. A considerable number ef texts are
found in the Psalms- ef David which may be
referred te Christ mpre easilyandnaturally than
to any other person. Some of them make men
tion of very minute circumstances which had
their accomplishment in Jesus. These Psalms
are actually referred to Christ in the New Tes
tament. The most important of them are, Ps,
ii., xvi., xxii., xl., ex. Now many of the
Psalms from which passages are cited in the
New Testament as referring to the Messiah,
may, indeed, be understood to refer, in their
primary and literal Sense, to another king, from
whose history they may be explained. But
this is no objection to considering them, as the
New Testament does, to be predictions of the
Messiah, according to the principle contained
in s. 90, III., No. 5; — e. g., Ps. xiv., Ixviii.,
lxix., lxxii.
Sometimes, in these Psalms, the Messiah is
represented as a king and priest — in short, in
his exaltation. The wide extension of his king
dom is described ; and the spiritual nature of his
mission is denoted with sufficient clearness.
Thus Psalm ii. and parts of Psalms xvi., xl.,
ex. Again, he is. represented in suffering and
humiliation. Thus Psalm xxii. and part of
Psalms xvi. and xl. The piercing of his hands
and feet, and the parting of his garments by lot,
are mentioned in Psalm xxii. 7, 14, seq. His
death and resurrection are mentioned in Psalm
xvi. 10, 1 1, and also in Ps. xxii. 25.
It was during this period that the appellation
n'Efo (zpigt bs) — i. e., king, by way of eminence,
became common; because the Messiah was de
scribed as a ruler appointed by God', as the repre
sentative of the Deity upon earth. At this time,
too, it was distinctly predicted that he should
be born of the line of David. Vide 2 Sam.
vii. 12, seq.; Ps. ii. and lxxxix; Acts, ii. 30;
xiii. 34.
(3) The third period extends from the reign
of David to the Babylonian captivity, and a
little later. The writings of the prophets during
this period contain many passages which treat
of the future restoration of the Jewish state, and
of the church, then fallen into great degeneracy,
and which encourage the hope that a distin
guished reformer and deliverer, commissioned
by God, would appear, and that with him the
golden age would return to the earth. These
blessings are not promised, however, to the
Jews only, but also to the heathen, and to all
who should desire to share in them. Indeed, far
better promises are given in these prophets to
the heathen than to the Jews; — e. g., Is. ii. and
lxvi. — promises which have been confirmed by
the result. In this period, as in the second, the

Messiah is described as a king and ruler, born
from the line of David; as- a prophet and a re
former of religion and morals; as Is. xi. 1, seq.;
chap, xl — lxvi;
But the passage, Isaiah liii., is particularly
applicable to the Messiah. It describes his hu«
miliation, rejection, death, exaltation, the diffu
sion of his doctrine, &c. No other person has
been found in history to whom this passage can
apply, although some have referred it to Heze-
kiah, others to the Jewish people, and others to
Jeremiah. Vide Doderlein; " Uebersetzung des
Isaias," (edit. 3rd,) where he endeavours to ap
ply this passage to the Jewish people. Dr.
Eckermann (Theol. Beytr. st. i. s. 192) endea
vours to shew that the new Israelitish stateis
here meant by the servant of Jehovah. Staudlin
understands it of Isaiah, explaining it from the
Jewish story, that king Manasseh persecuted
Isaiah, and at last caused him to be sawn asun
der. But this interpretation is forced, and the
story itself a modern fable. Paulus refers the
passage to the better part of the Jewish nation,
which was called nw nap; The New Testa
ment always refers this passage to Christ, and
to none else ; and all other explanations must be
allowed to he difficult and forced'. There is no
person in history to whom it applies as well as
it does to Christ. If we were not sure that it
was written long before the birth of Christ, we
might be tempted to believe that it was an imi
tation of the evangelical history, and was an ex
tract from it, clothed in poetical language.
The passage of Micah, (who was a contem
porary of Isaiah,) chap. v. 1, was considered by
the Jewish Sanhedrim as giving indubitable in
dication cf the birth-place of the Messiah, Mat
thew, ii. 4, seq. In Zech. xii. 12, 13, we have
the lineage of the family, of David, from which
the Messiah should be bom (vide Dathe in loc);
and in Hag. ii. 7 — 9;, an exact indication of the
time in which he should appear — viz., the time
of the second temple. This passage treats, in
deed, more particularly of the gifts, presents,
and offerings, which foreigners would bring to
the second temple. Still" it exhibits those cheer
ful prospects for the future which were first
realized at the time of the Messiah. The pas
sages Mai. iii. 1, iv. 5, 6,, respecting the Mes
siah and his precursor Elias, are more clear.
The passage, Dan. ix. 24, seq., respecting
the seventy weeks has been commonly considered
very important, and as calculated to carry con
viction even to the Jews. But the passage is
so obscure, and is encompassed with so many
difficulties, that it is not so useful as many be
lieve for the purpose of convincing the Jews
that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. Some
modern interpreters have even doubted whe
ther the Messiah is the subject of the passage.
By rptto some have understood Cyrus, others, a

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 331

(ring. Modern commentators have laboured
with the greatest zeal to throw light upon this
subject. Clauswitz, Michaelis, Hassenkamp,
Bathe, Blayney, Gerdes; Velthusen, Less,
Doederlein, and Berthold, have written upon it;
but much yet remains uncertain. Still it can
not be referred to any but the Messiah, without
doing violence to the words. And so much is
clear from this passage, that the advent of the
Messiah is fixed to a time, which has now been
past for upwards of a thousand years. The
Jews, then, may be convinced from this passage,
that the Messiah has long since come ; and then;
from other passages, that Jesus is the person in
whom all the characteristics of the Messiah are
found. [Cf. the late'Cominentary of Hengsten-
b'erg on Daniel; — Tr»]
(4) Fourth period. We have already shewn
in s. 89, from the New Testament and other
writers, how general the expectation of the Mes
siah was about the time when Jesus appeared,
and shortly after, especially after the Jews be
came subject to the Romans, and how this idea
was modified by the great multitude, and inter
mingled with various unscriptural views. . A few,
however, entertained right conceptions. If we
had more Jewish writers of this later period,
especially more from the Jews of Palestine,
who had written upon the religious opinions of
their nation, we should certainly obtain more
accurate and distinct knowledge upon this point.
Still, in what we do know with certainty, we
have enough for our thorough conviction; Fur
ther : one age was distinguished above another
iii the earnest expectation of the Messiah to
come, just as among Christians one age is dis
tinguished above another in its belief on the
Messiah already come. Even in the Christian
church some one doctrine has, at one particular
time, been made more prominent than others.
And so it was in the Jewish church.
Thus far the first chapter, as introductory.
We have now to consider the doctrine respect
ing Jesus Christ himself, what he was accord
ing to the description of the New Testament,
and what he performed for the salvation of men.
The New Testament proposes Christ himself as
the foundation of the Christian toith, John, xvii.
3. We shall treat first of the history of Jesus,
or of the doctrine of the states of Jesus, in chap.
ii. ; then of the person of Jesus Christ, in chap.
iii., (it being inconvenient to treat of this sub
ject first, as is done in many systems ;) finally,
the doctrine respecting what Christ has done
for the good of man, or respecting the work and
office of Christ (de munere Christi), in chap. iv.
Morus discusses all these subjects, p. 134 — 196,
and has interspersed many excellent exegetical,
doctrinal, and practical observations, but he
treats them in a very broken and disconnected
way, and in an entirely different order from

what is common in the systems ; and, in short,
in a manner not very much calculated to facili
tate the subject to the student just commencing
his theological studies.

CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF JESUS IN HIS TWO STATES 0?
HUMILIATION AND OF EXALTATION.

SECTION XCII.
THE SCRIPTURAL REPRESENTATION OF THE TWO
PRINCIPAL PERIODS IN THE LIFE OF JESUS ^
THE SCRIPTURAL NAMES OF THESE PERIODS ;
THE PROOF-TEXTS ', AND SOME CONCLUSIONS.
Before the man Jesus was raised by God to
that illustrious dignity ($b%a) which, according
to the testimony of the New Testament, he now
enjoys even in his human nature, he lived upon
the earth in greater depression and indigence,
more despised and neglected, than the greater
part of mankind. This gave occasion to the di-
visipn nf the whele life ef Christ into twp parts,
or conditions — the state of humiliation, and the=
state of exaltation; or better, status humilitatis
et glorix. These conditions might be called,
with equal scriptural authority, the states of
subjection and of dominion, of poverty and
splendour, of lowliness and majesty, &c;
I. Scriptural names of both conditions.
(1) TartEwds, tait'sivagis, and"' otyof, v^w^ivat.
These; which are the more common theological
terms, are taken from Phil. ii. 8, (itaitsivagsv
savtov;) and ver. 9, (®s6f avtov iitspv^ags.)
Taiteivbs denotes, in general, misery, inferiority,
indigence ; and ityos, elevation, greatness, majes
ty ; James, i. 9, 10; Matt, xxiii. 12.
Note. — The word vtyovv is applied by Christ
himself, in a different sense, to his crucifixion,
John, iii. 13, 14 ; viii. 28 ; xii. 32, 34. For the
verba exaltandi signify alse among the Hebrews,
to hang up, publicly to execute a malefactor. Vide
Gen. xl. 13, 19.
(2) 2dp|, and the opposite itvsipa. Sdp|
and -lin do not denote simple humanity and
human nature, but frequently weak, mortal, suf
fering humanity, and the depressed condition in
which man lives. They are nearly synonymous
with mortalis, conditio mortalis. The opposite
itvsipa denotes what is' perfect, a perfect condi
tion. Thus Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 50, calls the mor
tal body of man <rdp£ xai alpa, which he after
wards calls litlysiov, and gapa taitstvagsas. The
heavenly body he calls itvEvuatixov, and the
heavenly condition of Christ itvsipa. Accord
ingly, the humble life of Christ upon the earth
is called ijpipai tijs eapxbs, Heb. v. 7, and Bios

332

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

iv gapxl, 1 Pet. iv. 2. The same explanation
must be given to the following terms, — viz.,
Xpigtbs iX^Xv^sv, ityavEpu&n iv gapxl, 1 John, IV.
2; 1 Tim. iii. 15, 16; adpi iyivsto John, i. 14;
gitspaa Aav'iS xata gdpxa, Rom. ix. 5 ; i. 3, 4 ;
and 1 Pet. iii. 18. Vide Doderlein, in Repert.
ii. s. 1. f.
(3) The term ita&ipata is applied to the
state of humiliation, 1 Pet. i. 11; and the
phrase ou usta taita Sb%ai to the opposite
state. For, in fact, the sufferings and calami
ties of Christ were by no means confined to the
last period of his life, but were extended
through the whole of his state of humiliation.
Cf. Luke, xxiv. 26, where ita^slv stands con
trasted with sigsX^slv sis *«j» oo|oj>. The phrase
Sola xai t tpj is used in the same way in Heb.
ii. 9 (Ps. viii.), and oolaff^rjvat very frequently
in John, as in chap. xvii.
(4) The words f sXEia&jvai and f sXslagis are
applied to the state of exaltation, Heb. ii. 10 ;
v. 9. The phrase, Std itafrjpwtav (tiXsiagai),
added in Heb. ii. 10, signifies after the suffer
ings endured. These words are literally used
to denote the reward of victors in mock con
tests, when they receive the prize ((3pa)3Eiov) ;
in which sense Philo uses them. Cf. xii. 23.
II. Most important proof-texts.
These are, on the general subject, 1 Pet. i.
11 ; Heb. i. 3, 4; v. 7—9; xii. 2, 3, seq. The
first of these has been already explained, No. I. ;
the second will be when we come to speak de
statu exaltalionis. But the two passages, Phil.
ii. 6 — 11; and Heb. ii. 9 — 11, may be consi
dered as the most full. A brief explanation of
these two passages is here subjoined.
(1) Phil. ii. 6, seq. Paul exhorts Chris
tians to imitate, in respect to their feeling to
wards others, the example of Jesus, who re
nounced and sacrificed all his own advantages
for their good. The passage relates to Jesus,
considered as the Messiah. Mop<pr) ©eov stands
in opposition to popifri Soixov, ver. 7, and so de
notes divine authority and majesty. Mop<j7) is
the same as gxijud, ver. 7. The same senti
ment is expressed more strongly by the phrase
slvai Iga ©E9 — equal to God, the image of God.
Homer applies the epithets ©eoe IxsXos, dvtfesos —
divine, equal to God, to Ulysses and Achilles.
The antithesis is bpolaua dv^paitav, ver. 7,
which signifies, not merely similar to, but the
same as, men. (" He that sees me, sees the
Father," John, xiv. 9.) Christ is the image
of God upon earth, Col. i. 15 ; Heb. i. 3.
Ovx dprtayubv T/yrJffofo- — i. e., he did not wear
his divinity for the sake of ostentation, nor did
he make vain a display of it; the antithesis of
which i3 in ver. 3* 'Exivagsv savtov, ver. 7, is
synonymous with itaitslvaesv savtov, ver. 8.
Ksvos corresponds to the Hebrew p^n; and pin

is rendered poor, needy, in the LXX., and^in
Luke, i. 54, where xsvois and rtxavtoivtas are
contrasted. This phrase, then, is synonymous
with the one used in 2 Cor. viii. 9, iitta%tvae
Si vuds, se ipsum demisit ad statum tenuemn-he
let himself down, he freely sacrificed the riches,
privileges, and all the divine majesty and glory,
which he might still have possessed.
'Ev buoiapatt dv^paitav ysvbpsvosi after he ap
peared as man, he assumed the form of^a ser
vant. Indeed, (ver. 8;) he went so far in his
obedience to the divine will, that from love to
his Father, and to us his brethren, he submitted
to death, and even to a disgraceful crucifixion,
"Therefore" (in reward for his sacrifice and
obedience) " has God highly exalted him," (this
is explained by what follovvs,) " and raised him
to supreme dignity," (Svopa, Heb. i. 4.) The
reference is to the name Lord, ver. 11, which
denotes his dominion over everything in his state
of exaltation; according to ver. 10, 11; Heb, i.
4. "That before Jesus," (or at the name of
Jesus, the name Kvptos — audita nomine Jesu — i.
e., before Jesus as their Lord,) " the inhabitants
of heaven, earth, and the under-world, should
bow the knee" — i. e., universal reverence and
adoration should be rendered to him, (as to
kings, Is. xiv. 23;) "and that all, with one
mouth, should confess that Jesus, the Christ, is
Lord, (Kvpwx,) or universal ruler, (ver. 10.)
His Sb%av ©eov LTaf pos, " this contributes to the
honour and glorification of the Father," John,
xvii. 4, 6. Whoever does this, honours the
Father; for it is his will that all should honour
the Son; John, v. 23; inasmuch as Christ,
even now, since his return to God, provides for
the extension of the kingdom of God upon
earth, and promotes morality and happiness.
(2) Heb. ii. 9—11. Paul shews that man, at
some future time, will pass into a happy life, and
into a perfect condition, although, while upon
earth, he is imperfect and mortal. This he illus
trates from the example of Christ, who in this is
similar to us.
" We see that Jesus, who [like other men]
was inferior in dignity to the angels,, (vide
Psalm viii. 5,) was crowned with glory and
honour, after he had endured sufferings." (He
was thus depressed, in order to suffer death for
the good of' us all, according to the gracious
purpose of God.) "For it became God, from
whom all things proceed, and to whose glory
everything contributes — it became him (i. e., no
thing else could be expected from his justice
and goodness) to bestow upon Jesus the highest
blessedness, after he had endured sufferings, and
had led so many children (worshippers of God}
to glory, (the enjoyment of eternal blessedness;)
and Aad thus become the author of their salvation,
(dpxnybs cwfiypias.) For he that sanctifies (o
dyxctf av, Jesus) aTid they who are sanctified (ayi»

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 333

$6pivol) are o/one race, (or common human ori
gin, e| Iot's so. ?tafpd{ sive ai^of o;, Acts, xvii.
26. He is man, as well as we.) Hence he is
not ashamed to call us brethren, (relatives.)"
Here we see clearly on what analogy the apostle
argues.HI. Results from these and other texts ,• and general
observations on the doctrine of the conditions of
Christ,(1) The states of humiliation and exaltation
concern the human nature only, and not the di-,
vine nature of Christ. These texts refer only to
the man Jesus, or to Christ as man. For as God
he is always the same, (o avfds,) and can nei
ther be humbled nor exalted. But the ancient
writers frequently express themselves incau
tiously and loosely upon this subject. Origen
says, ,l the divine nature let itself down from its
majesty, and became man." De prin. ii. 6.
Gregory of Nyssa says, " xsvoit ai % ^sbtvs wa
Xaprjtrf ysvrjtai ty dv^paitlvvj $vsei." Such lan
guage, indeed, admits of explanation, and was
understood by them in a right sense ; but it is
hard and inconvenient, and not according to the
example of the holy scriptures.
(2) Two things, as we may learn from these
passages, are implied in the humiliation of
Christ, (a) The abdication, surrender, or re
nunciation which he made, for the good of man,
of the exalted privileges which he could have
enjoyed, (carentia sive abdicatio usus majestatis
suae.) This is commonly called xsvagis, from
Phil, ii., ixsvagsv savtov, which Luther renders,
" Er ausserte, or ent-ausserte sich selbst." The
idea, however, is founded rather upon the whole
subject of this passage and of other passages,
such as 2 Cor. viii. 9, than on this particular
word. It is also implied in the idea of his ele
vation; for he then entered upon the possession
and enjoyment of all his rights and privileges.
(4) His submission to great misery and to many
sufferings. Although innocent himself, as the
Bible represents him, yet for our good he freely
submitted to all that distress and wretchedness
which are the inevitable consequences of our
sins. Vide Phil. ii. and the other texts cited.
Note 1. — Theologians have disputed whether
Christ laid aside the use of his divine attributes,
or continued in the actual possession of them,
only veiling them from the eyes of men. There
were various opinions upon this subject in the
Lutheran church, even as early as the sixteenth
century. But in 1616, a controversy commenced
between the theologians of Giessen and Tubin
gen, and other theologians of Wurtemberg:
Those of Giessen maintained that Christ fre
quently renounced the use of his divine attri
butes, and alleged the word ixivags. But the
theologians of Tubingen maintained that the
xtfeis idiomatum divinorum existed in Christ

even in statu exanitionis, although he never
used them ; so that it was a mere xplfyis- This
controversy was in a good measure logomachy.
The theologians of Saxony rather favoured the
views of the theologians of Giessen than of Tu
bingen. So much, however, is certain, that if
the person of Christ, even during his life upon
earth, was the person of the Son of God, (as he
himself clearly affirms,) it was possible for him
to exercise his divine attributes. But, on ac
count of the work which he had to perform upon
earth, he forbore the full use of them ; which is
just what the theolpgians of Tubingen would
say. Vide the works cited by Morus, p. 173,
n. 3. Cf. p. 192, n. 3. [Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch,
s. 470.— Tr.]
iVore 2. — Theologians generally allow some
use of these attributes on different occasions.
Others object that this is not consistent with
the constant humiliation of Christ while upon
the earth, and is not clearly supported by the
New Testament. He himself frequently says,
especially in the gospel of John, that he per
formed the miracles which he wrought as man
through a miraculous divine powerjand as the
messenger of the Father. The case was the
same as to his instruction. Neither Jesus him
self, nor the apostles, ever alluded to his proper
divinity in such a way as to imply that it qua
lified him, as a man upon earth, to instruct and
work miracles. He had resigned his divine
prerogatives, and his qualifications are always
considered as derived from the Father. Vide
s. 102. But this free renunciation of the privi
leges which belonged to him as God did not
exclude the use of them when occasion should
require. Christ himself said that he performed
his work in common with his Father, John, v.
17, seq., and chap. x.;,he that saw him, saw
the Father, John, xiv. 9; his glory, which the
apostles had seen, was a glory which belonged
exclusively to the only begotten Son ; John, i. 1 4.
(3) Although Jesus lived upon earth in humi
liation and indigence, his whole life upon earth
cannot be called, as it is by many, a slate of hu
miliation. The passage, Phil, ii., is often ap
pealed to in behalf of this opinion. But Paul
evidently mentions the taitslvagis, xsvagis, an*1
uoptyri Soixov, (ii. 8, 9,) as constituting only t
part of this life. The incarnation is never men
tioned in scripture as belonging to the state of
humiliation. It is so considered, however, by
many of the ecclesiastical fathers; as Origen,
Gregory of Nyssa ; and by many of the Latins,
as Leo the Great, in his epistles. They are con
sequently compelled to assert that God, or the
divine nature of Christ, lowered itself by be
coming man. Neither are the forty days which
Christ lived upon earth after the resurrection to
be enumerated among the days of his humilia
tion, (ruipai aapxd;.)

334

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

(4) The state of humiliation is commonly di
vided into five:gradus,. degrees, periods ; and the
state of exaltation into the same, number. Some,
however, suppose more, and others fewer. The
common division and arrangement is taken from
the so-named apostolical creed. But the object
of this creed was not to make a systematic and
logical division, and to determine the limits of
the two conditions ; but to oppose certain doc
trines condemned by the orthodox church as er
roneous. The conception is made to stand first;
but this does not belong to the. state of humilia
tion, because the divine nature cannot be lower
ed ; nor could the human nature before it existed.
[Vide Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 471.— Tr.]
We proceed now to treat of Christ considered
as man, or of the man Jesus, in the state of his
humiliation upon earth, s. 93 — 96; and then in
the state of his exaltation and glory, s. 97 — 99,
inclusive. SECTION XCIII.
OF THE ORIGIN, CONCEPTION, BIRTH, AND YOUTH
OF JESUS ; HIS TRUE HUMANITY, AND THE EX
CELLENCES OF IT.
Jesus was the son of Mary, conceived by her
in a miraculous manner (Sid itvsvp.atos dyiov,)
(Matt. i. 18; Luke, i. 35;) of the posterity of
Abraham (Rom. ix. 5 ;) and the royal line of
David. The register of his descent is inserted
both in Matt. i. 1, seq. and in Luke, iii. 23, seq.
They both agree in making him the descendant
of David, however they may apparently differ in
tracing his descent. Ancient writers did not
agree upon the method of reconciling the two
tables. The most correct solution is this : that
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, of
whom Jesus was the adopted son; and Luke
that of Mary. Both descended from David;
Joseph through Solomon, and Mary through
Nathan, who also was David's son. Jesus was
born in the reign of Augustus, (Luke, ii. 1 ;)
probably earlier by some four or five years than
the common Dionysian mode of reckoning,
which we follow ;. accordingly, in the thirtieth
year of the reign of Augustas, 749 (according to
Dionysius, 754) from the building of Rome.
We subjoin the following doctrinal observa
tions : — I. Miraculous Conception of Christ.
The scriptural view of the events of the world
is altogether different and higher than the com
mon view. The Bible derives everything which
takes place in the material world directly from
the will and agency of the Supreme Being, and
refers everything back to him. But it teaches.
at the same time, in what way, by what means
»nd appointments, God arranges and accom
plishes all things which take place around us.
With regard to all important events especially,

we are taught, by scriptural principles, that they
have their deeper .origin in the invisible world
and, that . the way.is prepared for them by Go.d
¦and that they are finally brought forward into
maturity and accomplishment chiefly throuah
the ministry of superior spirits. Such, then, for
a higher reason, was the fact respecting. that
most important of all events, the appearance of
the Saviour of the world, and. of Jiisprecursor.. It
was required, not only by the Jewish nation,Sbut
by the whole ancient world, that great and-,ex-
traordinary persons, employed by God as instru
ments for the accomplishment of his designs,
should receive some extraordinary, and miracu-
lous.attestation of their mission, and. proofs.of
their authority. Such attestation was expected
at and before their birth, during their life, andat
and after their death. Vide Wetstein on Matt.
i. 20. Now though God is represented in. the
Bible as a being high and exalted over all,Jie is
still described as willingly complying with, the
necessities of men, as condescending to them,
and in his intercourse with men acting after the
manner of men ; especially whenever by so do
ing he can attain his great objects, their sancti-
fication and salvation. Accordingly, those ex
traordinary men by whom God intended to pro
mote these objects received his seal to their tes
timony in that extraordinary manner which was
calculated to convince mankind, and to satisfy
their expectations. In this manner, the Bible
informs us, was the testimony of Moses and all
the prophets down to John, of Jesus also and. his
apostles, confirmed by God.
It deserves to be mentioned in this connexion
that the Jews called the Messiah the second
Adam, (as Paul did,) and that iheyimagined he
would be born as guiltless and pure as Adam
was when he first came from the hands of God,
and was therefore called foil ©eov, (Tlos,) Luke,
iii. 38. In common generation, as scripture
and experience teach us, the depravity of man
is propagated. But Christ is described in the
New Testament as similar indeed to us, but
without sin.
TJvsvua dyrov, (Luke, i. 35,) signifies miracu-
lous divine power, and is synonymous with Siva-
jus i^lgtov. Vide Acts, i. 5, 8. Every extra
ordinary and supernatural event takes place
through the influence of the Holy Spirit, and
the performing of all miracles is referred to him.
The phrases, to come upon one (iitsXsvgstai),
and, overshadow one (iitusxudasi) amount to the
same thing : " thou shalt experience a miracu
lous divine power exerted upon thee; thou shalt
become pregnant by this divine miraculous
power, in an extraordinary way." In Matt. i.
20, it is briefly said, " that which is born of her
ix Ilvsvuatbs igtiv dylav."
The phrase, conceived from the Holy Ghost,
which occurs in the ancient creeds (e. g., in

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 335

the apostolic creed,) is derived' from this -pas-i
sage (Matt. i. 20.) (This phrase was intro
duced as antithetic to the declarations of such:
as considered Jesus to be a natural son of Jo-!
seph and Mary. For he was so considered by
many of the Jews at the time of Christ, (cf.
Luke, iii. 23,) and by some Christian sects, as
the Ebionites. -Vide Iren. Haeres. v., c. i. This
same opinion has been advocated lately .in a
work entitled "Versuch eines schriftmassigen
Beweises, dass Joseph der wahre Vater Christi
sey;" Berlin and Stralsund, 1792, 8vo. The
author of this work dees palpable violence to
the sacred writers, and has not considered this
narrative in the spirit of the age in which it was
written. His explanation goes, upon the sup
position that the first two chapters of Matthew
are spurious, and that Luke, in his narratives,
followed a report which had circulated only
among a few Christians respecting the concep
tion of Christ.) From the New Testament it
is certain that before the conception of Jesus
Mary was a virgin. Cf. Matt. i. .23, and Luke,
i. The extraordinary manner of herconception
has led many to say that the name of. rfop^ivos
belbngs to her, even since the birth of Christ.
This name, however, is not given to her in the
New Testament after this event; on the con
trary, Christ is said to be ysvousvov ix yvvaixbs,
Gal. iv. -4. When the monastic life became
popular, and the unmarried state was regarded
as the most holy and pleasing to God, the opi
nion prevailed, that after the birth of Christ,
Mary lived, even in the married state, in entire
continence, like a nun, and had no children by
Joseph. Hence she was called detntap$svos. In
the fourth century this opinion was almost uni
versal ; and Epiphanius and Hieronymus pro
nounced Apollinaris, Helvidius, Jovinian, and
others, who disputed it, to be heretics. But
Basilius the Great considered it as a question
of minor importance. II. True Humanity of Christ.
From the New Testament it is evident that
Christ was a real man, both as to body and soul.
He had feelings, senses, and organs of sense, as
we have. He hungered, thirsted, shed his
blood, and died. He exhibits, too, all the pro
perties of the soul. He attained gradually to
the knowledge and understanding which he
possessed as a man ; Luke, ii. 52. He displayed
human feelings, joy, sorrow, indignation, &c;
Luke, xxii. 42, 44 ; xxiii. 46. Paul calls him
expressly, dv^paitos Xpwrfos 'Iijcovs, 1 Tim. ii. 5.
Men are called his brethren, Heb. ii. 11 — 14.
He frequently calls himself, 6 vJoj fov dv^paitov ;
the more proper meaning of which phrase is, the
son of Adam, the great son of Adam, b Ssvtspos
'ASdp, as Piul says. But in whatever way this
phrase is understood, it clearly denotes the true

humanity of Christ. The. phrases, he came oi
appeared in the flesh, he became flesh, denote the
same thing; John, i. 1.4.; 1 John, iv. 3; Rom
viii. 4, seq.
But certain popular prejudices and incerrect
philosophical. principles led some to doubt, and
others to deny, this clear truth. Hence the true
humanity of Christ was expressly. mentioned in
the ancient creeds.
(1) Some taught that 'Christ did not possess
a true human body, but only a bodily phantom
and shade; that he appeared iv Sokojuei or ipav-
tdgpati, for such -aerial -bodies were then as
cribed to departed spirits, and even to divini
ties. These were the persons who believed
that matter was the origin of all evil, and did
not proceed from God, but from an evil and ma
licious being. Hence, according to their view,
the pure divine spirit of Christ, one of the high
est aeons, could not have dwelt in a material
body. Those who held these opinions were
called Ducetx and Bhantasiusts ; they comprised
most of the Gnostics, as Marcion and others ;
also the Manicheans and their followers.
(2) After the fourth century, others denied
the existence of the human soul of Christ, be
lieving that it was unnecessary, inasmuch as
the Logos supplied its place. We find, indeed,
that the oldest fathers had no particular and dis
tinct conception of the human soul of Christ.
They did not deny its existence, but they made
no distinct and express mention of it in their
writings, presupposing it as understood of
course. Origen, in the third century, taught, for
the first time, the exact doctrine of the human
soul of Christ, and shewed its importance. It
was a considerable time, however, before this
doctrine was introduced into theology as a spe
cific article. It did not become universal among
the catholics until after the middle of the fourth
century, when Apollinaris the younger appear
ed, and boldly denied that Christ had a human
soul. Afterwards he determined more exactly
that Christ indeed possessed the ^vxVi (animal
soul,) which was the organ by which the Logos
operated upon the human body of Jesus; but
that he was destitute of the itvtiua »ovs, (the
rational soul,) the place of which was supplied
by the Logos. Attention was now excited, for
the first time, to this doctrine ; it was introduced
into the Christian creed ; scriptural refutation
of the error of Apollinaris was sought; decrees
of councils were made, and laws were enacted
against it. [Vide Hahn, Lehrb; s. 95, s. 456.
Neander, Kirchengesch. b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1060,
ff., and b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 904; Abth. iii. s.
1170.— Tr.]
OT. Excellences of the Humanity of Jesus.
A. In respect to his body.
(1) The beauty of his appearance. Many of

336

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

the fathers imagined him to be the ideal of man
ly beauty; and the painters of succeeding ages
have endeavoured to express this in their pic
tures of him. The New Testament itself gives
us no means of determining either for or against
such a supposition. Only we must be careful,
if we adopt this opinion, not to consider it es
sential, and must remember the declaration of
Christ, q sdpi ovx iltysXsl ovSsv, John, vi. 63 ;
and what Paul says, that ywagxsw Xpigt bv xata
edpxa is not the thing required; 2 Cor. v. 16.
Vide Car'pzov, Progr. " de forma oris et corpo
ris Christi;" Helmstadt, 1777.
(2) The immortality of his body. We reason
thus : — Immortality belonged to Christ because
he was without sin, for death is the consequence
of sin ; Rom. vi. 23. He was not subjected to
the necessity of dying, although he actually
died, in obedience to God, and from love to us,
and for our advantage. This took place, how
ever, not against his will, but with his consent,
John, x. 18. Hence Paul mentions it as the
express design of the incarnation of Jesus, that
he might suffer death.
B. In respect to his soul. Among these are —
(1) His extraordinary human understanding,
sagacity, and knowledge. His whole history
proves, that even as a man he was not of the
common and ordinary class, but one of those
great and extraordinary persons of whom the
world has seen but few. But he was like other
men in this respect, that his talents and intel
lectual faculties did not unfold themselves at
once, but gradually, and were capable of pro
gressive improvement. Hence Luke records
(ii. 52), that he itposxoitts gotylq. Hence, too,
he learned and practised obedience to the divine
command, and submission to the divine will,
Heb. v. 8 ; he prepared himself for his office, &c.
(2) His perfect moral purity, and the blame-
lessness of his life. Theologians call this, the
sinlessness (dvapuatrigla) of Jesus. The great
est honesty, virtue, and piety shone forth in all
the doctrines and discourses, in the whole life
and conduct, of Jesus. Hence most of the ene
mies of Christianity admit this excellence of the
moral doctrine and of the person of Christ, and
consider him as an example of piety and virtue.
Cf. Hess, Geschichte der drey letzten Lebens-
jahre Jesu. [Also the remarkable passage in
Rousseau's Conf. du Vic. Sav. in his Emilius.]
The most important passages which treat of the
sinlessness of Jesus are, 2 Cor. v. 21, fir) yvovta
apaptlav — i. e., peccati expertem esse (Is. lix. 8) ;
1 John, iii. 3, 5, dyvds isti, and dfiopfia ovx sgti
iv avf 9. Heb. iv. 15, "He was like us, but
Xapls duaptlas- 1 Pet. i. 19, auvov duauov xai
ugitlxoy. The texts also in which it is said that
he was obedient, to the will and command of
God belong in this connexion ; as Heb. v. 8,

(which is called obedientiam activam,") arid
many passages in John.
Jesus being free from siri, was free from the
punishment of sin, and from all that evil which
men bring upon themselves by their own sins,
He suffered what he did suffer, undeservedly
and voluntarily. Vide Heb. vii. 27; 1 Pet. i.
19. The sinlessness of Jesus is to be regarded
as a consequence of the fact that he was bom
without moral pollution. Cf. s. 92.
But this subject is frequently represented as
if it would have been impossible for the man
Jesus to sin ; and as if his virtue and holiness
were absolutely necessary. Cf. Baumgarteri,
Diss, de dvappatngta Christi; Halle, 1753.
But, (a) The scripture nowhere teaches that the
possibility of sinning would have ceased in
Adam and his posterity if Adam had not fallen.
The possibility of erring and transgressing
would belong to man, even if he had no natural
depravity. Otherwise Adam could not have
fallen; for before the fall he was without origi
nal sin. The case must have been the same,
therefore, with the man Jesus, although he was
without natural depravity. Vide s. 80, II. 2. '
(4) If it should be impossible for a man to live
otherwise than virtuously, or if his virtue should
be necessary, it would have no value and no
merit. All freedom, in that case, would vanish,
and man would become a mere machine; ac
cording to the remarks made in the place just
referred to. The virtue of Christ, then, in re
sisting stedfaslly all the temptations to sin, ac
quires a real value and merit only on admission
that he could have sinned. It was in this sense,
doubtless, that Scotus made that affirmation
which was alleged against him, humanam no-
turam Christi nonfuisse avapdptrtov.
(c) This opinipn is, in fact, scriptural. For
(a) we are frequently exhorted to imitate the
example of Jesus, in his virtue, his conquest of
sinful desires, &c But how could this be done
if he had none of those inducements to sin which
we have, and if it had been impossible for him
to commit it. ((3) Improvement in knowledge
and in perfections of every kind is ascribed in
scripture to Christ; and Paul says, "that
through sufferings he constantly improved in
obedience (suagtsv vitaxorp,)" Heb. v. 8. (y)
We read expressly, that Christ was tried— -i. e.,
tempted to sin ; but that he overcame the temp
tation, Matt. iv. 1 , seq. This temptation took
place shortly before his entrance upon his public
office, and tended to prepare him for it. It was
intended to exercise and confirm him in virtue,
and in obedience to God. But what object
could there have been in this temptation, if i'
had been impossible for Jesus to yield to it?
And what merit would there have been in hia

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 337

resistance ? No difference is made in the thing
itself, and in its consequences, by considering
it, with Farmer and others, as a vision and pa
rable, and not as a real occurrence. If it was
impossible that Christ, as a man, should sin, it
would be hard to find what the Bible means
when it speaks of his being tempted, and com
mends him for overcoming temptation.
IV. Early History of Jesus.
As the gospels contain but little important in
formation respecting the events of the childhood
of Christ, the apostles themselves could nothave
been acquainted with many credible circum
stances relating to it. The apocryphal gospels
contain a multitude of stories and fables upon
this subject, especially the gospel "infantiae
Christi." Vide Fabricii Codex apocr. N. T.,
T. I. It cannot be proved, that Jesus performed
miracles before his entrance on his public office,
to which he was consecrated by John the Bap
tist. The supposition is, in fact, contradictory
to the clear declaration of John, who calls the
miracle in Cana of Galilee, dpgjp gr/pslav, ii. 11.
Joseph was a mechanic. Hence Jesus is
called 6 tsxtovos vibs, Matt. xiii. 55. All the
ancient stories agree that he followed the em
ployment of his father, which is very probable,
since he himself is called btsxtav, Mark, vi. 3.
Besides, it was not uncommon for the Jewish
literati to learn and practise some handicraft.
So Paul did, Acts, xviii. 3. It appears from
the united testimony of the ancient fathers that
Jesus was/aier lignarius, tsxtav %vXav. Even
in Hebrew, Ehn denotes a carpenter, by way of
eminence, 2 Kings, xxii. 6.
But Jesus was also learned in the Jewish law
and all Jewish literature, although he had not
studied at the common Jewish schools, nor with
the lawyers. Vide John, vii. 15, itus ovtos
ypdapat a blSs, fir) psud^nxas. Cf. Matt. xiii.
54. Probably Divine Providence made use, in
part, of natural means, in furnishing Jesus with
this human knowledge. Mary was a relative
of Elizabeth, the pious mother of John the Bap
tist, and a guest at her house, Luke, i. 36, 40.
We may imagine, then, that Jesus received
good instruction in his youth from some one of
this pious, sacerdotal family. We see from the
first chapters of Luke, that Joseph and Mary
^belonged, to a large circle of pious male and
female friends, in whose profitable society Jesus
passed his youth, and who contributed much to
his education as a man, especially as they ex
pected something great from him, from his very
birth, as appears from Simeon. Respecting the
early history of Jesus, vide Casauboni " Exer-
citt. in Annates Baronii." Hess, in the appen
dix to his " Geschichte der drey letzten Lebens-
jahre Jesu ;" and Heilmann, " Opusc." torn. ii.
p. 501, seq. 43

SECTION XCIV.
OF THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS, AND* HIS OFFICE AS
TEACHER.
The work committed to Christ by God was
twofold : — (a) to teach by oral instruction and
example ; (4) to suffer and die for the good of
men. Both together compose what is called
the spyov of Christ, John, xvii. And it was that
he might execute both of these offices that, ac
cording to the Bible, he became man. We treat
here, in the first place, of his office as teacher.
I. Commencement and continuance of his office as
Teacher,- also the names and importance of this
office. (1) Jesus entered upon his office 'as teacher,
according to the custom cf Jewish teachers,
when he was abcut thirty years of age ; Luke,
iii. 23. Respecting the continuance of his office,
the opinions of the learned have differed from
the earliest times. The opinions mnst wide
from the truth, are, on the one side, that of Ire
naeus, that it was sixteen years; and, on the
other, that it was pnly one year. Origen sup
posed, that it was three years and a half, which
has become the commpn opinipn, and is founded
upon Luke, xiii. 7, 33, and upon the computa
tion of the passover, especially accerding tp
Jphn. Cf. Mprus, p. 149, s. 3.
(2) The New Testament everywhere teaches
that Christ, considered as a man, was qualified
by God for his office as teacher, by extraordinary
intellectual endowments ; like the prophets of
old, and his own apostles in after times, only in
a far higher degree than they. John, iii. 34,
God gave to him ovx ix ustpov tb itvsipa. The
prophets had these endowments, hut in a less
degree; he, as the highest messenger of God,
had them without measure. Acts, x. 38, Impure*
aitbv 6 ©eos itvsvuati dyia xai Svvdpst. Jesus
received these higher gifts of the Spirit when
John baptized him ; for he himself submitted of
his own accord to this baptism, by which the
Jews were to be initiated into the kingdom of
the Messiah. John himself was convinced, by
a confessedly miraculous occurrence at his bap
tism, that Jesus was the Son of God, and heard
a heavenly voice which expressly declared him
such; Matt. iii. 13—17; John, iii. 31— 33, coll.
Luke, iv. 1, 14. Whatever, therefore, the man
Jesus either did or taught after his baptism, he
did and taught as the messenger of God — as an
inspired man, under direct divine command,
and special divine assistance; iv itvsvuati, as
the New Testament expresses it. Vide Morus,
p. 149, note.
The name of a prophet, (waj,) which denotes
in general an immediate messenger, and author
ized O7?i4assador of God, (vide s. 9, No. 2,) was
given to Christ, because, as above remarked, ho
2F

338

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

taught by divine inspiration, and proved to his
contemporariesithe truth of his doctrine and of
his divine mission by miracles; John, xiv. 10.
The Jews expected this of the Messiah, whom
they hence called N'a:n, 6 itpofyrjtijsi by way of
eminence. Vide John, vi. 14; Matt. xxi. 11;
Luke, xxiv. 19 ; Acts, iii. 22 ; and other texts.
Christ commonly called his office as teacher,
and indeed his whole office, spyov, his work, bu
siness, (cf. John, xvii. 4 ;) also tb sypov toi ita-
tpbs, (John, iv. 34, seq.,) in order to shew that
the Father himself had commissioned him ; ac
cording to what he elsewhere declares, that his
doctrine was not his own, (discovered by him
self as a man,) but revealed and entrusted to
him (the man Jesus) by God; John, xii. 49;
xiv. 10.
The name gat rjp (benefactor of men) is given
to Christ, partly because he died for our good,
and partly because he is our teacher by precept
and example. Both of these belong to the great
work of Jesus, and one ought not to be separated
from the other. He himself says (John, xviii.
37) that he was born and had come into the
world to proclaim the true doctrine, (d/\.rj^Eia;)
and that his kingdom ({iagiXsla) was the king
dom of truth. But we owe it to his death alone
that we become citizens of this kingdom, John,
iii. 6. His death is always described as the
procuring cause of our salvation ; and pur sins
are not forgiven us on account of our own refor
mation and holiness, but on account of the death
of Christ.
II. Christ's method and manner in his Ministry ,-
and the chief contents of his Doctrine.
(1) The instruction which Christ gave was
partly public, (John, xviii. 20,) and partly confi
dential, or private. And accordingly the manner
and nature of his discourse were different. Like
all the aneient teachers, he had two classes of
hearers and disciples ; the exoteric, those who
were publicly instructed, and the esoteric, the
disciples of the inner school, to whpm he gave
private instructien. The Jews ef Palestine, at
the time ef Christ, were very ignerant, mis
guided, and prejudiced. Christ was therefore
cempelled to condescend to their level, and was
unable fully to instruct them in many truths,
for which they had no relish, and which they
could not understand. He could carry them no
further than the first elements of his doctrine ;
and had, first of all, to endeavour to excite them
to attention and inquiry. Vide Matt. xiii. 11,
seq Luke, x. 1, 10, vptv (esotericis) SsSotai
yj/ui/ai uvgtrjpia fiagiXslas- ixslvois (exotericis) ov
SsSotai. His disciples were not, however, to
keep any secret doctrines (disciplina arcani) for
themselves, but as soon as their hearers were
prepared for it, to give them still further instruc

tion, and declare to them the whole. Vide
Matt. x. 26, 27; Luke, viii. 17.
But although the instruction of, Jesus was so
variously mpdified as te manner and subject,
accerding tp the wants ef his hearers, his dec-
trine itself was always the same. He had no
twofold scheme of salvation — one for the refined
and the noble, the other for the mean and uncul
tivated ; but one and the same for all. " Repent
and believe the gospel" was his direction, as it
was of John the Baptist. This was the great
point which he brought to view in all his dis
courses before rich and poor, enlightened and
ignorant. We do not find that Jesus ever with
held or omitted any of his doctrines, or even
proposed them less frequently, because they
might be offensive or unpleasant to his hearers,
or opposed to their inclinations. On the contrary,
he exhibited these very hated truths with the most
frequency and urgency, because they were the
must impprtant, salutary, and indispensable to
his hearers. He disregarded their persecutien
and cnntempt. The dectrines of his death and its
consequences, of the necessity of regeneration
and of holiness, are examples of this kind ; John,
iii., vi., viii., x. His early disciples followed
his example in this respect; as appears from
Acts and the epistles. And his disciples in all
ages are sacredly bound to do the same ; and c
they do not, they are unworthy of him.
Moreover, his public religious instruction was
in a high degree intelligible, throughout prac
tical, and adapted to the necessities of his
hearers. It was without fear or favour of man,
Matt. xxii. 16, 46. He was eloquent and im
pressive, and skilfully availed himself of the
present occasion, place, and circumstances;
John, iv. 14, 34, seq. The populace, accord
ingly, found his instructions far more excellent,
impressive, and sincere, than those of the Phari
sees or lawyers. With all this, however, he was,
as a teacher, in a high degree modest and unpre
tending. Vide Matt. xi. 29 ; John, vii. 16—18.
Considering the imperfect knowledge of his
hearers, Jesus endeavoured to represent the
truth as palpably and obviously to their senses
as possible, and frequently spoke in figures.
He frequently availed himself of the sayings
and proverbs current among his contempora
ries. Following the example of the an
cient, and especially of the oriental moralists,
he frequently taught moral principles in apo
thegms, as in the sermon on the Mount. But
he made the most use of parables, which were
very commonly employed by Jewish teache-s
in their instructions. Vide Vitringa, De Synag.
Vet. 1. 3. Storr, De Parabolis Christi, in his
Opusc. Academ., torn. i.
He gave most of his instructions in the reli
gious dialect common with the Jews. And many

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 339

of his expressions— e. g.; in the sermon on the
Mount, in his address to Nicodemus, &c, can
not be clearly understood without a knowledge
of this dialect. It is the same, for the most
part, as we find in the Talmud and in the writ
ings of the Rabbins. But much of the ancient
Jewish phraseology had been frequently misun
derstood and perverted. These abuses Christ
corrected, and gave a different, more just, and
important meaning to this ancient phraseology ;
as wise teachers ef religien have always dene.
But the superior impression which the scriptural
language and the phraseology of the Old Testa
ment made, led Christ to use them, in prefer
ence to any other, even where another might
have answered his purpose.
We observe in all the discourses of Jesus a
wise forbearance and indulgence of such preju
dices (e. g., respecting the kingdom of the
Messiah, s. 89) as could not have been at once
removed, or were not necessarily of injurious
practical tendency. This is called gvyxatd-
flosis, ceconomia, accomodatio. But we find no
case in which Jesus ever taught any thing
which he considered as false or erroneous,
merely because it might be pleasing to his
hearers, or agreeable to prevailing prejudices.
Such a course would be contrary to his own
maxims and his whole mode of procedure, and
could not be justified on correct moral principles.
Vide s. 64, 65. This, it seems, is more and more
conceded by modern theologians. Many who
do hot consider Jesus as a divine teacher in the
strict sense, prefer saying that he mistook in this
or that particular, to allowing that he declared
or taught anything which he himself considered
erroneous. They perceive that the latter sup
position is entirely irreconcilable with the moral
purity which is everywhere exhibited in the
character of Jesus. Others, however, who are
not willing to allow that Jesus taught anything
inconsistent with their own opinions, affirm that
Christ did not actually believe, in such cases,
what he said, but accommodated his doctrine to
Jewish opinions, in which he himself had no
belief. But they cannot prove the fact; and they
do not consider in what a suspicious light they
place his character. One that allows Christ to
be a divine teacher, if he would be consistent,
must admit his declarations and doctrines with
out exception, and will not venture to select from
them at pleasure what he will believe, or to pre
fer his own views to those of Christ, or to affirm
that Christ could not have taught such a thing,
because it appears differently to him, or because
it is contrary to the prevailing opinions of his
age. See Heringa, Ueber die Lehrart Jesu and
seiner Apostel in Hinsicht auf die Religions-
begriffe ihrer Zeitgenossen ; a prize essay ; Of-
fenuach, 1792, 8vo; Storr, Erlauterung des

Briefs an die Hebraer, th. ii. s. 536, f., and
Opusc. Theol. Iste Abhandl.
(2) The contents of the public instruction of
Jesus. On this subject, and on the plan of
Christ in general, cf. Dr. Reinhard, Ueber den
Plan des Stifters der Christ. Relig.
(a) He instructed his disciples in the doctrine
respecting God and his attributes ; especially re
specting his impartial and universal love to sin
ful men, and his desire for the welfare of all,
respecting providence, and reward and punish
ment after death. This last doctrine he made
eminently practical.
(4) He taught them with still more particu
larity the destination of man and the duties of
the true worshipper of God ; especially the love
of God and of our neighbour, in opposition to
Jewish exclusiveness. He placed before them
the motives for the fulfilment of these duties,
and refuted many practical prejudices which
were common among the Jews and other nations.
He always opposed the arrogance, self-right
eousness, and self-confidence of men, and en
deavoured to shew them that their virtue was
very imperfect, and that they deserved nothing
on account of it, and received every favour from
the grace of God ; Luke, xvii. 9 ; xviii. 9 ; Matt.
xx. 1, seq.
(c) He endeavoured to give them juster views
respecting the Messiah, and the benevolent de
sign of God in his mission, and the new order
which he was to bring about — in short, respect
ing the kingdom of God. He proved to them
that he was the Messiah, and predicted the wide
extension of his religion. He endeavoured to
awaken in his hearers a feeling of the necessity
of a Saviour.
(d) He instructed them in the exalted hea
venly dignity of his person (John, v., viii., x.,)
respecting his death, its causes, and happy con
sequences. He assured them that he was the
person through whom and on whose account men
would be saved; that he was the Saviour of
men, through whom they obtained freedom from
sin and from the punishment of sin ; and all this
through the influence of his dcctrine and instruc
tion, and especially of his death ; John, iii., vi.,
viii., x. He announced the entire abolition of
the Old-Testament dispensation and the Mosaic
institute, and the near approach of the time when
a spiritual and perfect worship should be esta
blished universally. Instructions of this kind
are mostly found in John. Still they were only
the first indications : for Christ had reserved the
more perfect instruction to be given by his dis
ciples after his death and ascension. He only
went before them, and prepared his hearers for
the instruction which they would afterwards
give. He sowed, but it was for them and their
successors to reap the full harvest ; John, iv.

340

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

We find, as a general thing, that Jesus, in his
public instructicns, aimed principally at the im
provement and eerrectipn ef the Jewish doctrine,
in prder to prepare and qualify the great multi
tude for the reception of his religion ; while in
his private instructions, on the other hand, he
discoursed more particularly on his own institu
tions. Vide Matt, ixxii. 29 ; John, iii. 1, seq. ;
-v. 7, seq. In his public discourses, he fre
quently treats of general moral truths ; not, how
ever, in the common unprofitable way in which
men are told what they ought to do, without be
ing told how to do it. He shews how the law of
Moses should be interpreted; and warns against
the false explanations commonly given to it,
and the additions made to it by men, and against
the falsification of the Divine commands ; Matt.
v. seq.
He was accustomed, like many of the Jewish
teachers in his age, to travel about with his dis-
ciples,/and to teach in the synagogues, on the
highways, in the market-places, the field, and
the temple. Vide John, xviii. 20.
(3) The private instruction of Christ.
He had destined his intimate friends (esoteric
disciples) to be the future teachers, through
whom his great plan shculdbe carried into exe
cution. To these he gave more minute expla
nation and instruction respecting the doctrines
mentioned in No. 2. He solved for them any
difficulties or obscurities whioh remained in his
public discourses. Vide Mark, iv. 10, 11, 34.
But even this instruction was in a great measure
only elementary, and preparatory to their future
destination. Hence he frequently endures their
weakness and their prejudices with wise for
bearance ; John, xvi. 12 — 15, 25, seq. ; Acts,
i. 7, seq. He tells them expressly that they
could not understand or endure, at that time,
many things which it was important for them
to know. And he promises to instruct them
more perfectly after his departure, by means of
the Paracletus, and to make known to them the
whole extent of whatever it should be neces
sary for them to know and to teach, for their
own good or the good of others, John, xiv. 26 ;
xvi. 12—14, &c
Note. — Although Jesus frequently declares
that his doctrine is of divine origin, and reveal
ed to him by God himself, (since he was the
greatest of the divine messengers,) we are not
to suppose from this that every particular doc
trine which Christ taught was given: out by him
as entirely new, and as" imparted to him by di
rect inspiration of God. Many of his theoreti
cal and practical doctrines were known to the
Jews of his age, from the writings of the Old
Testament, as Christ himself says, Matt. v. 17 ;
or by some other means — e. g., the unwritten
instructions of the prophets who lived at and
after the time of the Babylonian captivity. But

Christ completed, and amended these doctrines,
made additions to them, and placed them in
relations and connexions which were entirely
new and peculiar, thus -giving them new weight
and interest. This was the case with the doc-,
trine of the immortality of the soul, regenera
tion, prayer, &c It may therefore-be said, with
-truth, that a great part of all the doctrinal and
moral instruction which -is found in the dis
courses of Jesus, actually- existed among the
Jews of his own age. We find many of his
maxims, parables, &c, in the Talmud and the
Rabbins. Vide Ligbtfoot, Schottgen, and
Wetstein, on the New Testament.
But while we willingly concede this, we may
also truly maintain that Jesus founded a new
religious system. He himself says distinctly
that the religious teacher must make use of both
new and old doctrines. "A Christian' teacher
must be like a househplder, who brings out of
his treasure things new and old ; Matt. xiii. 52.
But Christ did more than any other religious
teacher before or since his time, by teaching,
not simply what men have to -dp, but by-pro
viding and ppinting out the means by which
they can perform their duties. Vide John, i.
17; Titus, ii. 11, seq.
The question disputed by theologians, Whe
ther Christ can be called a new lawgiver, may
be decided by -these considerations. Civil laws
and institutions are here out of the question;
such Christ did not intend to establish, since
his kingdom is not of this.world. Law must
be understood as synonymous with religion, re
ligious doctrine ,- according to the use of the
Hebrew min, and the Greek vouos- The ques
tion would then be, more correctly, whether he
was a new religious teacher. The remarks above
made shew that Christ is entitled to this name,
and in a far higher sense than Moses was. He
himself calls his religion, and the ordinances
and institutions to be connected with it, xaivrv
Sio^njxrpi, in opposition to the ancient Mosaic
dispensation, Matt. xxvi. 28. And Paul calls
Christ the author and founder of the new dis
pensation, (ftsovfr/s Kaewjf iWS-tjxj;;,) Heb. ix.
15; xii. 24. His religion, according to Paul,
succeeds te the Mesaic, and puts an end to the
Mosaic dispensation- as such. The term novus
legislator has been rendered suspicious in the
view of some theologians from the use which
Secinians make of it, designating by it the whole
office and merit of Christ.
Note 2. — Jesus always appeals to his miracles,
and proves by them that his doctrine is divine ;
John, vii. 11. His apostles do the same ; Acts,
ii. 22. But this proof is altogetherrejeeted by
many at the presentday, or, at least, very little
regarded. This is the case among those, prin
cipally, who labour for the abolition of all posi
tive religion, and the introduction pf the religipn

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 341

rf reason ; for the positive divine authority of
the religion of Jesus stands or falls with his
iniracles. The truths of reason which Jesus
taught would, indeed, remain valid, although
confirmed by no miracles; but, in that case, his
declarations would not continue to possess di
vine authority. We should no longer be com
pelled to believe in any of his doctrines because
he taught them, as he always requires us to do ;
John; iv. Our belief, on the contrary, would be
entirely independent of him and of his declara
tions. His declarations and doctrines would be
subjected to the revision of human reason, like
the declarations and doctrines of any merely
human teacher. The authority of Jesus would
not be more binding than that of Socrates, of
Confucius, Zoroaster, and other wise men of
antiquity. Whoever, then, denies the miracles
of Jesus, removes all that is positive in the
Christian religion; the sure consequence of
whieh is, that every man may believe as much
of the Christian doctrine as he pleases, and is
by no means bound to admit the truth of what
ever Jesus says, because he is of opinion that
the doctrine of Jesus is subjected to the revision
of his reason. To such an one the writings of
the New Testament may possess an historical,
but not a doctrinal value. Cf. Riihl, Werth der
Behauptungen Jesu und siener Apostel ; Leip
zig, 1792, 8vo; especially the first treatise.
SECTION XCV.
OF THE HARDSHIPS AND SUFFERINGS OF JESUS.
I. During his whole life upon the earth.
Although it is true that Jesus suffered a
great deal while he was upon the earth, we
should avoid all unscriptural exaggeration of
this subject, and not maintain that his whole
earthly existence was mere uninterrupted suf
fering. We find scenes in the life of Jesus
which caused him many happy and cheerful
hours, Luke, x. 21 ; Matt. xvii. 1, seq, Jesus,
as a man, possessed very tender feelings and
warm affections, John, xi. Both pain and plea
sure, therefore, made a strong and deep impres-
sipn uppn his heart. The evangelical histcry ex-
hihits him as at one time in deep distress, and
at anether in great jey.
His external trials and hardships ccnsisted
principally in his great poverty and indigence,
Matt. viii. 20 ; Luke,, ix. 58 ; 2 Cer. viii. 9 ;
the many difficulties and hindrances in the way
of the accomplishment of his office as teacher;
contempt, persecution, danger, and the suffering
which the disobedience and obstinacy of his
contemporaries occasioned him. The sufferings
which he endured at the end of his life will be
considered in No. II. The following remarks
will serve to the better understanding of the

doctrine respecting the suffering and adversities
of Jesus.(1) Human infirmities and calamities aTe
of two kinds — viz., (a) Natural; which are
founded in the laws and constitution of human
nature, and are therefore common to all men.
Jesus, too, we find, was subject to these, s. 93,
but in common with all ethers; and when he
became a true man he ef ccurse subjected him
self te them. (4) Contingent, (accessorise,)
which de not happen.to all, but only to a few.
Such are lowliness, poverty, contempt, &c.
Jesus, as a man, was not necessitated to endure
these ; and the very epposite ef them was ex
pected in the Messiah. He submitted te them,
because the divine, plan for the gopd pf men re
quired it ; Heb. xii.. 2 ; Phil. ii. 6, 7;
(2) Many things which are commonly ac-
ccunted hardships and trials are not so in the
eyes of the true sage, who is superior to the pre
judices of the multitude. And, on the other
hand, many things which are commonly admired
as the best fortune do not appear to him either
good fortune or real welfare. We should be
careful, therefore, not to enumerate among the
sufferings and afflictions of Jesus such things
as would be so accounted only by the voluptuary
and libertine, and not by the- wise man. Such
things are, his frequent journeys, his being born
in a stable, laid in a manger, &c. These cir
cumstances, in themselves considered, were no
hardships to a man who disregarded conve
nience and worldly honour.
Religious teachers must exercise greatcaution
on this subject. There is a double disadvantage
in enumerating such circumstances among the
sufferings of Jesus; one is, that the common
people will be confirmed in the error, (which is
very prevalent,) of considering the goods of for
tune, rank, birth, splendour, and other external
advantages, as of great value ; the other is, that
they will be encouraged in effeminacy and false
sensitiveness. The example of Jesus in his
humiliation ought, on the contrary, to be em
ployed to shew that a man of true piety and
magnanimity needs none of those external ad
vantages which are commonly so highly es
teemed, in order to be happy and contented ; that
a man, even in poverty and humiliation, may be
highly useful to others, &c. The sufferings of
Jesus, considered in this light, are very encour
aging and cheering to despised or neglected
worth. And the New Testament makes this
very use of the doctrine of the sufferings and
humiliation of Jesus — e. g., Hebrews, xii. 2,
aigxvvns xofo^.poi'rjsas-*-*. e.., he was so supe- i
rior to his enemies in greatness and strength of
spirit that he disregarded their insults and their
foolish judgments respecting him.
' The sufferings of Jesus are eminently calcu
lated to impress our minds with i view of his
2f2

548

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

great love to men. He became poor for our
sakes, that we might become rich. The proper
effect of this view is to lead us to gratitude and
cheerful obedience.
(3) Some are accustomed to particularize the
sins for which Jesus atoned by particular hard
ships and sufferings, and also the virtues, for
the performance of which he at such times pro
cured us the power. But we ought not to go
beyond the New Testament, and to make arbi
trary distinctions, which have no scriptural
ground. The Bible does not represent Christ
as enduring, in the highest possible degree,
every imaginable distress of mind and body.
The greatness of the merits of his sufferings de
pends neither upon their continuance nor upon
their magnitude and variety. The sufferings of
Christ would still possess their whole adequate
value, even if he did not endure every imagina
ble distress.
II. Sufferings of Christ at the end of his life;
commonly called his passion.
(1) The sorrowful feelings of his soul, or his
mental suffering, his anguish of heart, exhibited
most strikingly on the Mount of Olives in Geth-
semane; Matt. xxvi. 37 — 44; Luke, xxii. 41 —
44. This anguish is described by Luke as great
to an extraordinary degree. He felt it shortly
before his enemies commenced their abuse. In
view of this distress many difficulties have
arisen. The martyrs of religion have frequently
exhibited, under greater sufferings than these,
and tortures which they have actually solicited,
a joy and firmness which we have been accus
tomed to admire. Besides, Jesus exhibited
throughout all the rest of his life and his after
sufferings an unexampled magnanimity and
power. He foresaw; his sufferings with cheer
ful courage, and undertook them of his own ac
cord. But Jesus did not exhibit, either in the
last moments of his life, or at any other period,
that ill-timed enthusiasm which was so much
admired in the Christian martyrs of the second
and third centuries ; nor, on the other hand, did
he shew any cold insensibility to suffering.
Both enthusiasts and philosophers are therefore
displeased with his allowing himself to feel this
fear and timidity ; and many interpreters have
exerted their skill upon these passages, to per
vert their true meaning. Why such despond
ency and anguish just at this time? We remark
upon this subject,
(a) There is nothing in the conduct of Jesus
at this time which is inconsistent with a great
man. He was far from* that apathy and sto-
cism which the martyrs exhibited, either from
affectation, enthusiasm, or insensibility. He
actually endured therefore, for a considerable
time, the pains of death which are natural to'
men, as appears from Matt. xxvi. 39 — 44 ; John,

xii. 27; and Paul says distinctly, Heb. v. 7, 8
that Christ wished to resemble us, his brethren,
in respect to the painful accompaniments of
death, in order to qualify himself better to be
come a compassionate high-priest. " He pray
ed to God, who could deliver him from death;
with loud crying and tears." Aforeed, stoical
apathy is entirely opposed to the spirit of
C hrist and h is rel igion. Christianity pronounces
against everything which is forced, artificial, and
unsuited to the nature which God has given us.
It is the duty of men to improve and to increase
in holiness; but they should still continue to be
men, and not be ashamed of human feelings,
and of the natural and innocent expressions of
them. The example of Christ is instructive in
this respect. But the most important consider
ation is the following — viz.,
(4) These sufferings, as Jesus and his apos
tles always taught, were endured for our sakes,
and were the punishment of our sins. This be
ing the case, it was necessary for Christ to feel
that he suffered. He could not, and should not,
remain insensible. We must see by his exam
ple what we deserved to suffer. Some hours
before his death, Jesus assigned this as the true
object of his sufferings : " He would shed his
blood for the remission of the sins of men," and
he instituted the Lord's supper in memory of
this great event; Matt. xxvi. 28. This suffer-'
ing, therefore, arose principally from a view and
a lively feeling of the great multitude of sins,
their criminality, and liability to punishment.
Cf. Harwood, Ueber die Ursachen der Seele-
nangst Christi, 4 Abhandl. ; Berlin, 1774. The
history of the sufferings and death of Christ is
considered in this light throughout the gospel
and epistles. He suffered and d.ied for us, and
on our account; and we thus learn what we de
serve. This history was not intended to pro
duce a short and transient emotion, or mere
compassionate sympathy: and the preacher who
employs it for these purposes only neglects its
proper object. This is a great fault of many
Passion and Good-Friday discourses !
(2) The great bodily sufferings and tortures
which he firmly endured^ with which is con
nected, (3) His condemnation to a violent death on
the cross, and his undergoing of this sentence.
His life of humiliation on the earth *ipspai ffopsto's
closed with his death ; for the time which he
lived upon the earth after his resurrection did
not belong to it. Crucifixion, which was de
signed for slaves and insurgentsi was a very
disgraceful punishment. Vide Galatians, iii, .
13, coll. Deut. xxi. 23. Paul therefore consi
ders it as the lowest point of the humiliation of
Jesus, and calls it taitslvagis in distinction, Phil.
ii. 5 — 8; cf. Heb. xii. 2. Every thing was or
dered by God in such a way as to convince the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 343

world.-beyond a question, that his death had
actually taken place. Vide the circumstances,
John, xix. 30, seq. In that age no one doubted
the fact. Jesus was laid in the tomb as plainly
dead. He remained in the tomb until the third
day, that the fact of his death might be the more
certain. His burial was honourable. The pas
sage, Is. liii. 9, may well be referred to this
event : " he was destined to a grave among
transgressors ; but was buried with the rich."
The New Testament does not, however, ex
pressly cite it as applicable to this event.
The question has sometimes been asked,
Whether the burial of Jesus belonged to his
state of humiliation or exaltation. It is suffi
cient to answer, neither to one nor the other.
The burial concerned only the lifeless body,
separated from the soul. But according to the
common way of thinking and feeling among
men, the circumstances of the burial were ho
nourable to Jesus, and should therefore be ra
ther connected with his exaltation than his hu
miliation. Note. — At the time of the apostles no one
doubted the*actual death of Jesus. All, Chris
tians, Jews, and Gentiles, as appears from the
New Testament, were firmly convinced of it as
an undeniable fact. Some, however, appeared
in the second century, who either doubted or
denied the actual death of Christ; or who gave
such a turn to the affair as to remove from his
death and crucifixion whatever was offensive to
the Jews and heathen. The death of Jesus was
not, however, disputed on historical grounds,
for there were none; but merely for doctrinal
reasons. The doctrine cf Christ's death was
inconsistent with some of tifeir philosophical
hypotheses. Most of the Gnostics and Mani-
cheans, who maintained that Christ had a seem
ing or shadowy body, contended that he did not
actually suffer tortures and death; but only iv
Soxr]au (seemingly, in his seeming body.) Vide
s. 93, II. The Basilidiani maintained that Jesus
was not crucified, but Simon of Cyrene in his
stead. Cerinthus taught that one of the highest
aeons, Christ or the Aoyos, united himself with
the man Jesus, the son of Joseph and Mary, at
his baptism ; that Christ deserted the man Jesus
during his sufferings, and returned to heaven ;
and that thus the man Jesus alone suffered and
died. In accordance with this opinion, he and
his followers explained the exclamation of
Christ upon the cross, " My God ! why. hast
thou forsaken me?" Matthew, xxvii. 46.
This desertion (derelictio a Deo) has been
very differently understood, even in modern
times. The words which Christ uses are taken
from Ps. xxii. 1 — a psalm which he frequently
cites as referring to himself. It is the language
of a deeply distressed sufferer, who looks for
ward with anxious longing to the termination

of his sufferings, and to whom the assistance
cf God, comfort, and consolation, seem tp dis
appear altogether, or to delay top lpng. TLe
phrase to be deserted by God is frequently used
witheut implying a prevailing deubt in the ac
tual providence ef Gpd ; as Ps. lxxi. 1 1 ; Isa.
xlix. 14. Notwithstanding, this anxious feeling
was one of the greatest and most piercing of the
mental sufferings of Jesus. At the same time
it is very consoling and quieting to one who
comes into similar circumstances, especially at
the close of his life, since he can count upon
being heard in the same way. Thus Jesus was
enabled, shortly before his death, when he saw
his approaching end, joyfully to exclaim, tsti-
Xsgtai — i. e., now everything which I had to do
or to suffer according to the will of God is ac
complished and perfected ; John, xix. 30, coll.
v. 38. This term refers especially, as itxypoiv
does in other cases, to the fulfilment of what
was predicted concerning him as the decree of
God. Vide Luke, xviii. 31 ; xxii. 37; Acts,
xiii. 29.
III. Attributes and Motives of the Sufferings of
Christ.
Jesus underwent all these sufferings, and
death itself, (1) innocently, Luke, xxiii. 14, 15,
and the parallel texts, 2 Cor. v. 21 ; 1 Pet. ii.
22 ; iii. 18 ; (2) freely, Matt. xvi. 21—24 ; John,
x. 11, 17, 18; xiii. 1, 21—33; xviii. 1—8; (3)
with the greatest patience and firmness, 1 Pet.
ii. 23; (i)from unexampled and magnanimous
love to us ; also, from obedience to God, he herein
subjected himself to the will and decree of Gpd.
Vide s. 88 ; Jehn, xv. 13 ; Rpiu. v. 6—8.
Theelogians call this obedience which Jesus
exhibited in suffering, passive obedience, from
Phil. ii. 8, "obedient unto the death of the
cross." The active obedience of Christ, his
doing everything which was suitable to the
divine will and command, was considered s. 93,
III. They are one and the same obedience in
reality. The origin and advantage of this dis
tinction will be further considered in the Article
on Justification. The various objects and uses
of the sufferings of Christ will also be consi
dered more fully in the same Article, s. 115.
Cf. Morus, p. 160, 161, s. 7.
SECTION XCVI.
of Christ's descent into hell.
I. Meaning of the ^phraseology, " to descend into
hell," (71x1? Sn it, KaraffaivEiv its aiov,) and an
explanation of the texts relating to this subject.
(1) The ancients believed universally, not
excluding the Orientalists and the Hebrews,
that there was a place in the invisible world,
conceived to be deep under the earth, into which.

344

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

the disembodied seuls'pf men, geod and bad,
went immediately after death. The name of
this place was "?*«?, qSrjSi orcus, the under-world,
the kingdom of the dead. This word never de-
' notes theplace of the damned, either in the scrip
tures or in the fathers of the first three cen
turies. Accordingly, the phrase descendere in
orcum always denotes in the Bible the separation
of the soul from the body, and, the condition of the
disembodied spirit after death; Num. xvi. 30,
33; Job, vii. 9 ; Ps. Iv. 16; Isaiah, xiv. 15; and
frequently in the apocryphal books of the Old
Testament. When the heroes of Homer are
slain, their souls are said to descend to Hades.
This phrase may then be explained, in this
sense, to refer to the death of Christ; and so it
is a tropical or figurative representation of his
death, and the separation of his soul from his
body. When he died, he descended into Hades,
and continued there, as to his soul, as long as
his body continued in the grave. We find the
continuance of Christ in Hades actually men
tioned in this sense in the New Testament.
Peter, in his speech, (Acts, ii. 27,) cites the
passage, Psalm xvL 10, ovx lyxataXsl\sis trp>
i/vxip> H-ov J'S dSov, which is always referred to
Christ's death and continuance in the grave.
The phrase xatafiaivsiv sis aSrjv does not indeed
occur in that passage ; but the omission is mere
ly accidental. It was certainly Used by the
first Christians respecting Christ as deceased, in
the same way as respecting other dead.
(2) But the chief dependence is placed upon
two other texts of the New Testament, in which
the descent of Christ to hell is expressly men
tioned, and in one of which his employment in
Hades is thought to be determined.
(a) Ephes. iv. 9. But the context shews
that the descent of Christ to hell is not the sub
ject in this text, but his descent from heaven
down to the earth, and his subsequent return
into heaven.
(4) The principal passage is, 1 Pet. iii. 18 —
20. Various explanations are given of this pas
sage. In the earliest times, it was universally
considered as denoting the continuance of Christ
in Hades; and this meaning is undoubtedly the
most natural, and best suited to the words, the
context, and all the ideas of antiquity. But as
this meaning does not accord with modern ideas,
various other explanations have been attempted.
But the context shews that the continuance of
lesus in Hades is the subject of this passage —
i. e., that it treats of the condition and. employ
ment of the soul of Christ after death. The
apostle is shewing, from the example of Jesus,
that suffering for the good of others is honour
able and will be rewarded. Christ laid men
under great obligations to him, by suffering and
dying for them, ver. 18; by what he did too
after death, while his spirit was in Hades, ver.

19; (ver. 20 is parenthetic;) by his resurrec
tion, ver. 21 ; his return to God, and his elevated
situation in heaven, ver. 22. The sense then is:
the body of Christ died, but his soul was pre
served. (Peter always uses udp| and itvsipa in
this sense; as iv. 1, 6.) While his body was
lying in the grave, his soul (iv 9, sc itvsvuati)
wandered down to the kingdom of the dead, and
there preached to the disembodied spirits. It
was the belief of the ancients that the manes
still continued, in the under-world, to prosecute
their former employments. Vide Isaiah, xiv.
9. The same belief is seen in the fables of the
Grecian kings and judges. Tiresias still con
tinued to prophesy. Vide Isaiah, xiv. 9. Christ,
by his instructions and exhortations to reforma
tion, deserved well of men while he was upon
earth. He continued this employment in Hades.
He preached to the greatest sinners ; and Noah's
contemporaries are particularized as distinguish
ed examples of ancient sinners, ver. 20. Now
that Peter really supposed that Christ descended
to Hades appears from Acts, ii. 31.
II. A Sketch of the History of this,Doctrine.
For the various opinionsvof commentators re
specting the descent of Christ to hell, cf. Die-
telmaier, Historia dogmatis de descensu Christi
ad inferos, ed. 2 ; Altorf. 1762, 8vo ; Semler, in
Programm. Acad. p. 371, seq.; Pott, Epistola
Catholica perpetua annotatione illustr., vol. ii. ;
Gottingen, 1790; Excurs. iii. (ad 1 Pet. iii.;) and
Dr. Hacker, (court-preacher in Dresden,) Diss;
de descensu Christi ad inferos, ad provinciam
Messiae demandatam referendo ; Dresden, 1802.
[Cf. Hahn, s. 472.]
The passage, Acts, ii., coll. Psalm xvi. 10,
was the foundation upon which this doctrine
was built. Its simple meaning is, that Christ
really died, like other men, and that, while bis
lifeless body lay in the grave, his soul was in
the same place and state with the souls of all
the dead. So the early .Christians undoubtedly
understood it. The question now arose, Was
the soul of one who while on earth had been so
active for the good of men, idle and unem
ployed in Hades ? No. Hence a third ques
tion, What was his employment while there?
The same as on earth — he instructed — was the
natural conclusion, which was confirmed by the
word ixrjpvh, 1 Pet. iii. 19. But since, in later
times, Hades was understood to signify only
t/ie place of the damned; and since $vXaxr[ and
sinners are mentioned by Peter in this passage;
it was thither — to the place of the damned — that
Christ was supposed to have gone, to preach
repentance, (xvpisgsiv,) to shew himself as a
victor in triumph, &c
Such is the course which the investigation of
this question naturally took. Nov the histori
cal sketch itself.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 345

(1) The ecclesiastical fathers of the first
three centuries were agreed in the opinion that
during the three days in which the body of
Christ lay in the' grave his soul was in the
kingdom of the dead. This opinion they de
rived correctly from 1 Pet. iii. and Acts, ii. By
this representation they supposed, in substance,
the condition of Christ, as to his soul durihg
his death, to be described. Thus Irenaeus says,
"Christ in this way fulfilled the law of the'
dead," v. 3 1 . Clement of Alexandria expresses
himself in the same way. Origen says, yvpvrj
oauatos ysvbasvri tyv%tj, Contra Celsum, ii.
Tertullian says, " Christus forma humanae mor
tis apud inferos (est) functus," &c.
They differed in opinion respecting his em
ployment there. Most supposed that he preached
the gospel to the ancient believers who expected
his advent — to the patriarchs, &c. Vide Iren.
(iv.45, 50,) Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Origen, and others. But Origen and some
others seem to have believed that Christ rescued
the damned who believed on him in Hades, and
transported them to the abode of the blessed.
Still, the descent to hell is nowhere expressly
mentioned in the ancient creeds of the first
' three centuries, either in the Eastern or West
ern church. No one in this period held it to be
the interment of Christ; nor did any one as
sert that he went exclusively to the place of the
damned. (2) This doctrine was gradually regarded as
fixed after the fourth century, and was adopted
into the creeds. The phrase xat ix^tovt a sis ta
xatax^bvia was established at the Arian Coun
cil at Sirmium, in the year 357, and at many
orthodox and Arian couricils after that time. It
was now inserted in the more ancient creeds, to
which it had not previously belongeo* — e. g.,
into the apestolical creed, particularly, as it
seems, en account of the controversies with
Apollinaris. But all the churches had not ad
mitted it into this creed before the sixth century.
Ruffin says (Expos. S. Ap.), that the Romish
church did riot admit this doctrine into the
apostolical creed, "nee in Orientis ecclesiis habe-
tur," and adds, that the word buried which is
there used, conveys the same sense. The rea
son why this doctrine was so much insisted on,
and admitted into the creeds, especially after
the middle of the fourth century, is, that it
afforded a weighty argument against the fol
lowers' pf Appl linaris, who denied the existence
of a human soul in Christ. Vide s. 93, II. ad
finem. It may be added, that the fathers of the
fourth century, and of the one succeeding, ad
hered for the most part to the opinions found
among the earlier fathers, No. 1.
(3) The opinions of the earlier fathers were
gradually set aside in after ages, especially in
the Western church. The opinion, that the

separation of the soul from the body was all
that was intended by the representation of
Christ's descent to hell, was by degrees entirely
laid aside. The infernus was considered by
many as the appropriate designation of the
place of the damned, and the passage in 1 Pet.
iii. as the only proof-text ; and so the descent to
hell became equivalent to the descent of Christ
to the place of the damned. Such were the
views of many of the schoolmen. Thomas
Aquinas adopted the opinion of Hieronymus
and Gregory, that Christ rescued the souls of
the pious fathers who lived before Christ from
the limbus patrum, (a kind ef entrance te hell,
status medius.) So alse the Ceuncil at Trent.
They new began to dispute, whether the soul
only of Christ was in hell, or his body also ;
whether he was there during the whole time in
whieh his body was in the grave, or only on the
third day, shortly before the resurrection, &c.
Durandus and other schoolmen understood the
matter figuratively. According to them, Jesus
was not in hell quoad realem prxsentiam (as to
his substance), but only quoad effectum. This
opinion had many advocates.
The protestant theologians since the Reforma
tion have been divided in opinion upon this
subject. (a) Luther spoke very doubtfully upon the
subject, and was unwilling to determine any
thing decidedly. He agreed at first with Hiero
nymus and Gregory, in supposing a limbus pa
trum whither Christ went. But whenever he
mentioned the subject, especially after 1533, he
was accustomed to remark that Christ destroyed
the power of the devil and of hell, whither he
went with soui and body. This induced the
theologians, who adhered strictly to every par
ticular doctrine of Luther, to represent the de
scent of Christ to hell as his victory over the
devil, as was done in the Formula Concordix,
art. ix. M. Flaccius had represented the descent
to hell as belonging to the state of humiliation.
But they represented it as belonging to the
state of exaltation, and declared that on the mo
ment of the resurrection Christ repaired to hell,
with soul and body, in both natures, shewed
himself to Satan and hell as victor, and then
appeared alive upon the earth at daybreak.
They are not so unreasonable, however, as to
demand a belief in all their distinctions respect
ing this doctrine. Hutter, Baier, Winkler,
Carpzov, and others, held these views. But
there is.no foundation for them in the Bible.
Some of the ancient creeds say, the gates of
hell (kingdom of the dead) trembled at his ap-
proach^-e. g., the Sirmian creed, 357.
(b) Beza and other reformers understood the
descent of Christ to hell to mean his burial. Rusb
and Rambaeh among the Lutherans assented
to this opinion. It is false, however; for de-

346

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

scent to hell, in the sense of the ancients, does
not refer to the body but to the soul. Vide
supra. (c) Others affirmed that Christ preached the
gospel in Hades ; some say, to the believers
who lived before his advent; others, to the
wicked also, and that such as submited to him
were delivered from the place of the damned ;
almost like the opinion of many of the ancients.
Even Seiler thinks this opinion very probable.
He supposes, with others, that both the body
and soul of Christ were in Hades. But Flac-
cius, Brentius, Dreyer, and others, agree with
the ancients, that only the soul of Christ was
there, while his body lay in the grave. But
these differ again on the question, whether the
descent to hell belongs to the state of humilia
tion or exaltation.
(d) Some supposed, as Durandus did, that
the whole subject should be understood figura
tively. (e) Zeltner, Baumgarten, Gilder, and others,
returned to the ancient opinion, and understood
IjZrjs to denote in general the place and condition
of departed spirits. So most of the English
and Arminian theologians.
(/) John jEpinus (a Lutheran theologian at
Hamburg, of the sixteenth century) affirmed
that Jesus endured in hell the pains of the
damned, and therefore accounted his descent
thither as belonging to the state of humiliation.
He had many followers, though he was not the
first who advanced this opinion. Cardinal Ni-
colaus of Casa had before asserted the same
thing in the fifteenth century, and also many
reformed and Lutheran theologians since the
sixteenth century, as John Agricola, Hunnius,
Brentius, Cocceius, and Witsius.
We. omit the mention of the peculiar hypo
theses of some other theologians.
I. Critical Observations, and a result from what
has been said.
Theologians at the present day are agreed, for
the most part, that this question is one of minor
importance. Some have often affirmed that the
passage 1 Pet. iii. did not relate to this subject.
But all the other explanations given are forced
and unnatural, and the idea, after all, is scrip
tural, for the passage Acts ii. cannot be explained
away. According to the passage, 1 Pet. iii., the
soul of Christ actually went to the place of the
damned (tyvXaxi), career caecum) in Hades, and
there preached to the disembodied spirits. Until
the last judgment the souls of all the deceased
are in Hades, (i. e., they are manes, disem
bodied,) but in different regions, distant from
each other, (i. e., in vario statu), Luke, xvi. 19 —
31. Christ, then, during his continuance there,
did what he was accustomed to do while yet on
the earth for the good of men ; he instructed

those who needed instruction, and exhorted,
The object and use of this preaching, which is
mentioned in the passage in Peter, we cannot
see, since those who are in Hades are always
represented by Jesus, the apostles, and Peter
himself, as fixed in their destiny, and reserved
to the day of judgment. Cf. Luke, xvi.
It will be sufficient for the teacher of religion
to say that the phrase, Christ descended to hell,
teaches (1) that during the time in which the
body of Christ lay in the grave he was really
dead; and (2) that the human soul of Christ
was in the same unknown condition and place
to which the souls of all the deceased go, and
where they continue till the day of judgment;
(3) that in this respect also, as in others, he
was like men, his brethren, and that (4) he had
a true human soul ; Acts, ii. (5) Peter assures
us that Christ did this for the good of men ; he
preachedlo the departed spirits. The nature of this
preaching, its particular object and consequences,
what he intended to effect, and did actually effect
by it, are entirely unknown to us, as many other
things which pertain to the invisible kingdom of
spirits. When we ourselves shall belongtothat
invisible kingdom, and probably not till then, we
shall receive more perfect information respecting
this subject, if it can be useful for us to have it.
SECTION XCVII.
HISTORY OF CHRIST CONSIDERED AS A MAN, IN HI3
STATE OF EXALTATION OR PERFECTION. S. 97
 99, INCLUSIVE.I. Of the Resurrection of Christ.
(1) The vivification and resurrection of the
man Jesus is not, strictly speaking, pars status
exaltationis, but terminus a quo, as some theo
logians have justly remarked. So his concep
tion was the terminus a quo of the state of hu
miliation. The state of exaltation, strictly speak
ing, commences with the ascension of Christ.
The events which preceded were merely pre
paratory. (2) The resurrection of Jesus is frequently
ascribed in scripture to the Father; Acts, ii. 24,
32; iii. 15. Vide other texts Morus, p. 174,
s. 1, note. Jesus, however, frequently ascribes
it to himself, as the Son of God, John, x. 18,
coll. ii. 19, " I have power (i%ovalav) to take
my life again." He had this power, inasmuch
as he acted in common with the Father, and, as
Messiah, had received power from the Father
adequate to this purpose.
(3) The proof of the resurrection of Christ
on the third day is to be deduced entirely from
the accounts given of it in the New Testament
The genuineness of these histories, and the en
tire credibility of the accounts contained in them,
are here presupposed. On these grounds we
may be satisfied of the truth of this fact, even

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 347

if no inspiration is admitted. Vide s. 6, 8. The
following circumstances deserve notice— viz.,
(a) The disciples of Jesus had always ex
pected that he would establish a visible kingdom
upon earth. They had never understood, and al
ways perverted, what he frequently said to them
respecting his death and resurrection. When,
therefore, his death took place, they did not be
lieve that he would actually rise again. Vide
John, xx. 9, coll. ver. 24, 25. Accordingly
they were so incredulous on this subject, that
they regarded the first information of the fact
which they received as fabulous and unworthy
of credit; Luke, xxiv. 11, coll. ver. 22—24.
Gregory the Great remarks, justly and happily,
dubitatum est ab tills, ne dubitaretur a nobis.
(4) After this event Jesus appeared frequently
to his apostles and his other disciples. Ten
different appearances have been noticed by some
writers in the Evangelists. At these times he
conversed with his disciples, and gave them
such palpable demonstrations of his resurrec
tion that none of them could longer doubt re
specting the fact. Vide the last chapters of
the gospels, and particularly John, xx. 21, and
Acts, i. 2, 3 ; x. 41. Some, at first, regarded
his appearance to be that of a dead man with a
shadowy body, such as was believed by the
Jews, Greeks., and Romans; very much the
same as in Homer and Virgil. So Thomas, in
John, xx. 25, seq. For this reason Jesus ate
with them, and allowed them to handle him,
John, xxi.
(c) Thenceforward they were so convinced of
the truth of his resurrection that they never were
or could be persuaded to doubt respecting it.
They spake of it, after the final departure of
Christ from the earth, as an established fact,
which was universally admitted. They pro
claimed it publicly at Jerusalem, where Jesus
was condemned, before the Sanhedrim, and other
tribunals ; nor could any one convince them of
the contrary. Acts, ii. 24, 32; iv. 8 — 13; iii.,
x., xiii. ; 1 Cor. xv. 5, seq. ; 1 Pet. i. 21.
(d) No solid historical objection has been
ever brought against this event ; nor has any
ground been alleged sufficient to convict the
apostles of imposture, because the data for such
proof are wanting. The event must therefore
be regarded as true, until the contrary can be
proved by historical reasons, or until the wit
nesses can be convicted of untruth. The ene
mies of Christianity have often been challenged
to produce a single example of a history so well
attested as that of the resurrection of Jesus, and
' followed too by such important consequences,
both among cultivated and ruder nations, which
has turned out in the end to be false and ficti
tious. But such an example they have never
been able.to produce. It is worthy of notice,
that we do not find in the whole history of the

apostles that any of the most enlightened ene
mies of Christianity, even the Sanhedrim at
Jerusalem, undertook to say that Christ had not
risen, although they hated the apostles so much
as to abuse and condemn them. At that time,
no one ventured seriously to question this fact
The grave was watched ; the frightened guards
brought the news of what had happened to the
Sanhedrim, and were bribed to give out that the
disciples of Jesus had stolen his corpse ; Matt.
xxviii. 11 — 13. Incredible as this story was,
still many of the Jews at first believed it, as
Matthew declares, ver. 15 of the same chapter.
To this latter supposition, the Wolfenb. Un-
genannte has entirely assented, in his work,
Vom Zweck Jesu, and in the fragment, " Ueber
die Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu," which Les-
sing published in his " Beytragen ziir Gesch
ichte und Literatur," b. 4, 1777. He looks up
all possible discrepancies in the narrative which
the evangelists have given of minute circum
stances, although they would not be sufficient,
even if well grounded, to render the fact histori
cally suspicious. Vide Doederlein, Fragmente
und Antifragmente, 2 thle.; Niirnberg, 1781;
Semler's " Beantwortung ;" 2nd ed. 1780; Mi
chaelis, Auferstehungsgeschichte Jesu ; Halle,
1783. Among the ancient writers, see Ditten,
Wahrheit der christlichen Religion auf der Au
ferstehungsgeschichte Jesu, u. s. w ; and Sher-
lok, Gerichtliches Verhor der Zeugen fiir, u. s. w.
Some have endeavoured to render this history
suspicious, from the fact that Jesus iiinot pub
licly shew himself after his resurrection, and did
not appear to his enemies. Some reply that it
does not follow from the silence of the evange
lists that he did not. But Peter says expressly
that he appeared ov itwvti tip %aiji, axx' — i/plv,
(the disciples,) Acts, x. 40, 41. What object,
now, would have been answered by this public
appearance ? Those who had not before received
him as Messiah would have rejected him anew ;
and even although they should effect nothing
by it, they would still have given out the whole
thing as an imposition. And suppose the whole
populace had believed, they might have com
menced dangerous innovations, and made ar
rangements to establish Christ as an earthly
king. Cf. John, vi. 15. Those who had no
taste or capacity for the spiritual kingdom of
Christ would no more have believed in him, or
firmly and faithfully adhered to him, after he
had appeared to them raised from the dead, and
had himself preached to them, than before, when
he also preached to them in person, and wrought
the greatest miracles before them ; so that he
himself would have found the truth of what is
said, Luke, xvi. 31.
Persons have not been wanting who have
considered the account of the resurrection of
Christ as allegorical. Semler supposed that

548

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Christ did not physically rise from the dead, and
that the life which is ascribed to him is spiritual
life in heaven and in the hearts of men. Others
suppose that he did not actually die upon the
cross, but that he lived in private among his
friends for a considerable time after his cruci
fixion, and then disappeared. They suppose
that when his side was pierced he fell into a
swoon, from which he was revived by the evapo
ration of the spices iri the tomb ; without think
ing that, even if he had survived the crucifixion,
this evaporation in a confined cave would neces
sarily have suffocated him. Spinoza says,
somewhere, that the resurrection and aseension
were not events which took place in the material
world, but in the moral world-— i. e., they are
fictions, ancient Christian fables, which, how
ever, had great moral consequences. Many mo
dern writers, and even some theologians, have
adopted this opinion. Dr. Paulus rather in
clines to it in his Comments on the Evangelists.
(4) The necessity and importance of this doc
trine. It is one of the most important of the
positive and peculiar doctrines of Christianity,
and is so regarded by Christ* and in the Whole
New Testament. Morus, p. 175, seq., s. 3.
(a) The apostles always represent this as a
fundamental truth of the Christian faith. The
atySn dyy£'?iois, he shewed himself alive to his mes
sengers — i. e., disciples — is mentioned as a
fundamental truth, 1 Tim. iii. 16; coll. Rom. x.
9. The apostles were called fidpfvpEs dvastdgsas
Xpigtov, Acts, i. 22. Paul therefore says, that
if Christ be not risen we can have no hope of
resurrection, and our whole faith in him is un
founded; 1 Cor. xv. 14, 17, coll. ver. 5—7; for
the instructions of Christ are attested and con
firmed as certain and divine only by the resurrec
tion. Cf. 1 Pet. i. 3, and Morus, p. 176, n. 5.
(4) All the apostles agree that Christ by his
resurrection received the seal arid sanction of
God, as the great Prophet and Saviour consti
tuted by him. He himself had claimed to be
the Messiah; but his death seemed to frustrate
every hope. Vide Luke, xxiv. 20, 21. His
resurrection, however, rendered this belief more
sure and unwavering. His disciples now saw
that he was the person whom he claimed to be.
They were compelled to conclude that God
would not, by such a distinguished miracle,
authorize and support an impostor, who merely
pretended to be a divine messenger. Added to
this is the fact, that he himself had prophesied
that he should rise in three days ; Luke, xviii.
33; John, x. 17. The accomplishment of this
prophecy proves that Christ did not teach in his
own name, but as the messenger of God ; as he
often said; John, viii. — x. The following are
the most important texts relating to this point —
viz., Romans, i. 4 ; Acts, xvii. 31 ; 1 Tim. iii.
16. The passage, Ps. ii. 7, ' Thou art my Son,

this day have I begotten thee," is often referred1
in the New Testament directly to the resurrec-
tion. " I have declared thee (by raising thee
to life) on this day (the day of the resurrection)
to be the Messiah," Acts^ xiii. 33, 34.
II. The Ascension of Christ*
(1) Jesus spent forty days on earth after bis
resurrection, in order to render his disciplea
more sure of the fact, to teach them many im
portant things, and to prepare them for the disv
charge of their public office. Vide the last:
chapters of the evangelists, and Acts, i. Afteri
wards, he was removed, to the abodes of the
blessed. These abodes are situated in regions
invisible to men, at a distance from the earth,
and inaccessible to us while we continue here.
They cannot be better described than by the:
word heaven, which almost all people and lan
guages have, and which the sacred writers fre
quently employ. As they use it, it denotes the
place of the highest sanctuary of God — i. e.,
the place where the Omnipresent Being reveals
himself with peculiar glory. Cf. John, xiv. 2, 3.
Jesus was taken up from earth in view
of his apostles, and borne hence, (iitia&i, dvs-
Xr^fij sis ovpavbv,) Acts, i. 9 — 11; 1 Vet. iii.
22; Heb. ix. 10, 11, 24. He- ascended from
Bethany on the Mount of Olives, Luke, xxiv.
51. He predicted his ascension to his disci
ples; John, vi. 62; xiv. 2, 3. This doctrine,
like that of the resurrection, is enumerated
among the fundamental truths of Christianity,
l Tim. iii. 16, (dvEXr$&r[. iv Sb%in ;) 1 i'et. iii.
22. He taught his disciples to find in ail these
events confirmation of his declarations- and joy
and consolation. As he had risen, the first
that arose from the dead, and had be*n trans
lated to heaven, they too should one day arise,
and be glorified, if they reposed faith anJ con
fidence in him. They should be with him
where he was, at home, in the house of his
Father, &c
Note. — Some modern writers have endea
voured to awaken suspicion respecting the doc
trine of the ascension of Christ, from the fact
that Matthew, Luke, and John do not expressly '
narrate this history of the ascension in their
gospels,, as Mark does in his, and as Luke does
in the Acts. But they could not have been.
ignorant or doubtful respecting this event, any
more than the other writers of the New Tes
tament; since Jesus had mentioned it in bis
early instructions, according to John, vi. 62,
and had frequently alluded to it afterward*.
The writings of Paul, Peter, and the Ajsta «-,'
the Apostles written by Luke, shew how unir
versal was the belief of this event among the
first Christian teachers. And how could these
two have been exceptions ? Vide the Essays,
"Warum haben nicht alle Evangelisten die

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 349

Himelfahrt Christi ausdrucklich miterzahlt?
in Flatt's Magazin, Stuck 8, Tubingen, 1802,
Num. 2.
(2) Accerding tc the clear declarations of the
New Testament, Christ lives in the abodes of
the blessed, as a true man. Cf. Acts, i. 11;
xvii. 31 ; Heb. ix. 10, seq. Vide his appear
ances in the Acts. But the saints in heaven do
not have a gross, feeble, perishable hody, like
the human body which we possess upon the
earth ; but a more perfect, imperishable, glori
fied body, very much like that of the gods of
Homer and the Grecians. 1 Cor. xv. coll. s.
152. New Jesus received such a body in hea
ven, as we shall one day receive; Phil. iii. 21
— -sufta oo|)7S (i. e., lySofoy) avfov, which our
present earthly body (aufta taitslvageas) will in
future resemble. The same doctrine is carried
out, 1 Cor. xv. 42 — 53. As inhabitants of
of earth, men have a mortal body, like Adam ;
as inhabitants of heaven, a refined and immor
tal body, like Christ, the second Adam. Christ,
however, did net receive this bedy immediately
on his resurrection; but when he became an
inhabitant of heaven. During the forty days
which succeeded his resurrection, he ate and
drank with his disciples — actions which cannot
be predicated of heavenly bodies. He bore,
top, on his body the scars and marks of the
crucifixion. Some few have supposed that he
then possessed a spiritual body, from a misun
derstanding of the words >vpwj< xsxXsigusvav,
John, xx. 19, 26. The declaration in the epis
tle to the Hebrews, that he offers to God, as
High-priest, his own blood, in the holy of holies,
shews that the same Jesus, who according to
the divine decree died on the earth for our good,
now lives in heaven, and that we may always
rejoice in the happy consequences of his sacri
fice ; Heb. ix. 14, 24, seq.
Note. — The dispute relative to the Lord's
supper has occasicned much controversy since
the sixteenth century, respecting the omnipre
sence cf the body of Christ, which was asserted
by many Lutheran theologians. But the doctrine
de omniprcsentia or ubiquitate of the human body
of Christ, is a mere hypothesis of some theolo
gians, without any sure scriptural support. In
deed, those divine attributes, which, from the
nature of the case, cannot be predicated of body
in general, cannot be ascribed to the body of
Christ, although it be glorified. Besides, we
are expressly assured that we shall in future
receive a body of the same kind as the heavenly
body of Christ, Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xv. 49.
Finally, this doctrine is not necessary for the
defence of the Lutheran doctrine respecting the
Lord's supper. Vide infra respecting this doc
trine. (3) There has always been a great diversity

of opinions on the question, How long Christ,
as a man, will continue in heaven, and when,
according to his promise, he will return and
visibly reappear on the earth. Christ himself
has promised no other visible return than that
at the end of the world, as the Judge pf men.
Fer his itapovgla to destroy Jerusalem, and
punish his enemies, is a figurative mode of
speech, like the adventus Dei so often spoken
ef by the prophets. But many of the early
Christians, who were inclined to Judaism, and
expected the establishment of an earthly king
dom, explained many texts in accordance with
such an opinion, although there is not one pas
sage in all the writings pf the apestles distinct
ly in faveur of it. The apostles always sup
posed that Christ would remain in heaven until
the end of the world, (during the whele time
ef the New-Testament dispensation,) and not
visibly return until that time; altheugh they
did not undertake to determine hew lpng this
peried would continue. Vide Acts, i. 11;
1 Thess. i. 10, cell. 2 Thess. ii. seq.
Here belongs that remarkable passage in the
speech of Peter, Acts, iii. 20, 21, which has
been so often misunderstood and referred to the
restoration of all things. "God has caused
the joyful times of the New Testament to ap
pear, (xaipol d*a4"v|£tts, cf. 2 Cor. vi. 2,) and
has sent Jesus Christ, whom now the heaven
hath again received, or still retains, as long as
this happy period of the New Testament (the
new dispensation upon the earth) shall continue."
Here,, then, is no prpmise that Christ will re
turn to found an earthly kingdom. As%dg$ai,
when spoken of a place, always means, accord
ing to a Greelc idiom, that the place receives or
retains any one. So all the ancient interpreters,
and Beza, who denied the omnipresence of the
body of Christ from this passage. For this
reason the Lutheran theologians have preferred
to refer 6t|aa^at to Christ. The zpdxot aitoxa-
tagtdgsas are, the times of the New Testament,
like x?°*oi Siap%agEas, Heb. ix. 10. Vide ver.
20. And b)xpi signifies not until, but dum,
while, during ; axpis gr/uspov xaXsltai, Heb.
iii. 13. Vide Ernesti, Program, ad. h. 1. in
Opusc Theol. p. 483, seq.
Note. — It was intended to teach men by this
event, to regard Christ, even in his human na
ture, as henceforth standing in the closest con
nexion with God — as in the possession and
enjoyment of supreme felicity and power, and
as the Ruler and Lord, whose agency and influ
ence were unlimited. The description of God,
as dwelling in heaven, suggests the idea of his
supremacy over all the inhabitants and events
of the world, his controlling providence, bound
less reign, and perfect enjoyment. Morus, p.
177, not. extr.

2G

350

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

SECTION XCVIII.
WHEREIN THE HEAVENLY GLORY OR MAJESTY
OF CHRIST, AS A MAN, CONSISTS; AND THE
SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF THE KINGDOM AND DO
MINION OF CHRIST.
I. Scriptural designation of the Glory of Christ.
The imperfection and inferiority which Christ
had voluntarily assumed during his life upon
earth ceased immediately on his ascension. He
now became, even as a man, immortal and
blessed; Rom. vi. 9, 10; Heb. vii. 16, 25.
Even in his human nature he was raised by God
to a very illustrious dignity; John, xvii. 5,
(8d|a, SoMd&ivai,) Acts, ii. 33—36 ; Eph. i. 20,
seq. ; Col. i. 17. "Ovopa vitsp itdv bvoaa, Phil.
ii. 9, 10. He is entitled to honour from every
being, even from the higher intelligences, Heb.
i. 6; Phil. ii. 9, 10; since he is henceforth
raised in glory and majesty above all, 1 Pet. iii.
22. Hence a kingdom is ascribed to him, over
which he reigns in heaven. He is called King,
and divinely appointed Lord ; 6 Kvpios, Acts, ii.
36 ; and Kvpw>s S6%r^s, especially by Paul, 1 Cor.
ii. 8, (i. e.,the glorious, adorable Lord, maan ti^d,
Ps. xxiv. 7, 8.) In Heb. i. 9, Paul applies
to Christ the passage, Ps. lxv. 8, " God hath
anointed thee with the oil of joy above thy fel
lows" — i. e., God honours thee more, and gives
thee more privileges, than all the partnefs of thy
dignity — the other kings, or sons of God.
Note  Various other appellations are applied
in the New Testament to Christ, descriptive
partly of his supremacy, and partly of his care
for the church as its head. Among these are
the following — viz., KsfaXr/, the Christian
church being often compared with a 4ody, Eph.
i. 22, 23 ; v. 23 ; cWrjp, maritus, 2 Cor. xi. 2 ;
and vvfiflos, John, iii. 29. Also the appellation
of a shepherd, and the comparisons taken from
it, John, x. 12. So Christ is called by Paul,
itoipsva tbv piyav, Heb. xiii. 20, and dp^wtotfirrv,
1 Pet. v. 4. This is a very honourable appella
tion, since kings were called shepherds by the He
brews, Ps. lxxx. 2, seq., like the itoiusvss Xaav
of Homer. We must understand, however, by
this appellation, a pastoral prince, such perhaps
as Abraham was, and the orientalists frequently
were ; the proprietor and owner of the herds,
who had servants in his employment as undeT
shepherds.II. TAe Nature and Extent of the Kingdom of
Christ, the Administration of his Reign which
he carries on from Heaven.
Cf. Ncesselt, Diss. " de Christo homine reg-
nante," Opusc torn. ii. ; Halle, 1773; and the
programm, " De Christo ad dextram Dei se-
dente," p. 10, seq. ; Halle, 1787. There are
some good remarks, together with many very

unfounded ones, in Dr. EckermannV Essay,
Ueber die Begriffe vom Reiche und der Wieder-
kunft Christi, in his Theologischen Beytragen,
b. ii. st. 1; Altena, 1891, 8ve. Mprus treat?
this subject admirably, p. 178, seq.
(1) The terms which signify rule are seme-
times used figuratively, and denote, a joyful
situation, happy, and honourable in an uncom
mon degree— freedom, independence, authority ,-
in short, every kind of distinguished happiness
and welfare. Thus the steic paradcx; "omnem
sapientem regnare, sive esse regem ,-" and Cicero :
"olim cum regnare existimabamur." In this
sense, Christians are called kings, 1 Pet. ii. 9 ;
Rev. i. 6. They are said gvp$agixsvsw *£
Xpifff 9, to share with Christ the royal privileges,
2 Tim. ii. 12. In the parallel passage, Rom.
viii. 17, they are said gwSo%ag^tpiai. They are
said, also, xXnpovopslv fiaoiXslav, Matt. xxv. 34 J
and fiagiXsisw iv toy, Rom. v. 17. According
ly, when Christ is said to reign, his life in hea
ven may be intended. But this phrase applied
to him is not confined to this meaning ; it sig
nifies something far more great and elevated
than all this, as will appear from the following
remarks. (2) The kingdom of Christ, according to the
doctrine of the New Testament, is of very wide
extent. A. It extends over everything in all the uni
verse. " All power in heaven and on earth is
given to me," Matt, xxviii. 18. 'O *af jyp itdvta
SiSaxsv sis xslpas avfov, x. t. X., John, xiii. 3,
God exalted him, even as a man, above every
thing which is great and powerful in the mate
rial and spiritual world, in order that he might
rule over them; and subjected to him even the
different orders and classes of good and bad
spirits. Christ reigns over them as Lord, Phil.
ii. 9—11; Eph. i. 20, 21; Col. i. 15—17;
Heb. i. 4—14; 1 Pet. iii. 22. The ground
and object of such an extensive rule is this : —
There are many things both in the material and
spiritual world which operate to the advantage
or disadvantage of men. Now, if men are to
be peculiarly the subjects over whom Christ is
to reign as king; if to promote their welfare
and to shield them from all harm; if to punish
his own enemies and the enemies of his king
dom, and to bless and reward his follewers, ate
te be his peculiar cencern ; — he must be able te
control all these other objects. For,
B. The reign or government of Jesus, as
Christ or Messiah, has a principal respect to the
human race. He exerts his authority on account
of men, and for their advantage. This kingdom
is twofold, — viz.,
(a) Regnum sensu latiori. Since the time
when Christ was received into heaven, (Eph.
u 20,) he has reigned over all men, whether
they know and honour him or not — i. e., he pro-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 351

¦tides for them all that spiritual welfare and true
happiness of which they are capable. He re
ceived from the Father right and power over the
human race, John, xvii. 2 ; Matt, xxviii. 18 ;
Eph, i. 10; 2 Pet. ii. 1.
(4) Regnum sensu stridiori sive angustiori, ex
tends over his worshippers, who know and love
him; over the whole society (ixxXijgla, Snp) of
those who are united, not by external power and
compulsion, but by the power of truth and by
instruction. This community is therefore called,
in the discourses of Jesus, fiagiXsla ®soi sive
ovpawv, Eph. v. 5; Col. i. 13. Over this com
munity he exercises the most special watch
fulness and care. Its members, when faithful
ly devoted and obedient to him, are his jtpd|3afa
Ibia. The foundation was laid and the begin
ning made in this community during the life of
Christ on earth. From the time of John it suf
fered violence, Matt. xi. 12. But the beginning
was small, and, in comparison with what after
wards took place, unobserved by the great mul
titude; ovx spxstai ftEfd jtapaf!7p7j8Eus, Luke,
xvii. 20. This kingdom was not extended and
widened till after the ascension.
(3) The manner in which Christ governs or
rules his kingdom. He reigns as gatrip, Eph.
v. 23— 29.
A. Now, during the continuance of the pre
sent state of the world,
(a) By instruction in the truth, John, xviii.
37. At his departure from the world he com
mitted this instruction to his disciples, and espe
cially to his apostles as his ambassadors, that
they might communicate it everywhere, without
regard to nation or kindred, Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20.
It was to be more extensively diffused and
widely propagated by means of other teachers,
appointed by the apostles under the guidance
.and authority of Christ, Eph. iv. 11, 15, 16.
Accordingly, in the passages mentioned, Paul
derives the qualifications and the ministry (xd
pis, xaplgpata) of teachers from Christ himself,
as Christ also himself does, John, x. 1, seq.
(4) By that support, help, and assistance
which he imparts to his church, his special con
cern in its extension, and the frustration of the
designs of its enemies, Matt, xxviii. 20 ; 1 Cor.
xv. 25, 26 ; 1 John, iv. 4 ; v. 4, 5.
Note. — All the hindrances which stand in the
way of the extension of Christianity, and the
success of the designs of Christ to promote hu
man happiness, are frequently called l%$pol
Xpisfov. This term is borrowed from Psalm
ex. 2. Morus has enumerated these hindrances,
as presented in the scriptures, p. 180, seq., s. 6.
Christ has already removed these hindrances
in a measure ; he is constantly diminishing
them, and at the end of the present dispensation
will have entirely surmounted them. Ps. ex.
1, 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25. Morus, p. 181, seq., s. 7.

B. In future, when the present state of the
world shall cease, (at which time the greatest
revolutions will take place in the whole uni
verse, 2 Pet. iii. 7, 10 — 13.) Then, and not be
fore, will Christ exhibit himself in all his glory,
as Lord of the human race. Paul says, express
ly, that all the glory of Christ is not now dis
played, Heb. ii. 8; Col. iii. 3, 4; for all have
not yet acknowledged him as Lord, and his ene
mies have still power to harm. But then his
glory will become visible, 1 Cor. xv. 26, 27 ;
Heb. x. 13. Christ will solemnly and visibly
reappear on the earth, Acts, i. 1 1 ; 1 Thess. iv.
16 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 13 ; Heb. ix. 28; Col. iii. 4.
He will raise the dead, John, v. 21 — 23; Mat
thew, xxv. He will sit in judgment upon the
dead and the living, 1 Cor. xv. 26, 27 ; Rom.
xiv. 10; Phil. ii. 10; and will allot rewards
and punishments, John, v. 21 — 23, 27, seq.;
Matt. xxv. ; Acts, xvii. 31. According to the
doctrine cf the universality of Christ's kingdom,
he will judge, not Christians only, but all men.
Cf. the passages above cited, and Acts, xvii.
31 ; Romans, ii. 6, 7. But the lime of this judg
ment is unknown, and was so even to the apos
tles, 1 Thess. v. 1, seq. coll. 2 Thess. ii. 3.
Many of the early Christians, however, appear
to have supposed that it was near at hand, and
was connected with the destruction of Jerusa
lem and the temple, which was also called jta-
povgia Xpitrfov. For the Jews believed that the
temple would stand until the end of the world,
Psalm lxxviii. 69. But the apostles never
adopted or favoured this opinion. Vide Thess.
ut supra.
(4) Some, further observations on the nature
and continuance of the government which Christ
as a man administers in heaven.
(a) The government of Christ is described by
himself and his apostles as being, not external
and temporal, but spiritual, conducted principal
ly by means of his religion, by the preaching of
the gospel, and the power which attends it ;
dxrj&lq, John, xviii. 37; or pr^ati, Eph. v. 26.
Vide No. 3. This fact excludes and refutes the
objection, that Christ designed to establish an
earthly kingdom, s. 89 ; and it frustrates the
hopes of the Chiliasts, who, agreeably to Jew
ish prejudices, are expecting such a kingdom
yet to come.
(4) This government which Jesus adminis
ters, as a man, is not natural to him, or one
which he attains by birth, but acquired. He
received it from his Father as a reward for his
sufferings, and for his faithful performance of
the whole work and discharge of all the offices
entrusted to him by God for the good of men.
'E^aptcfafo avf 9 bVofta, and Sib avtbv vitspv-
i/ags, Phil. ii. 9. " We see Jesus, after he had
endured death, crowned with glory and honour,"
&c, Hebrews, ii. 9, 10. The Father is de»

352

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

scribed as vitbta%as Xpisf^ itdvta, 1 Cor. xv.
24, 27 ; Acjs, ii. 31 — 36 ; the discourses of Jesus
in John, xvii. 5 ; Matt. xi. 27, seq. ; xxviii. 18 ;
also many of the texts which speak of his sit
ting at the right hand cf God, s. 99. Paul, in
his epistle to the Hebrews, frequently makes
use, in relation to this subject, of the word
tsxsia%rivai, which is applied literally to the
reward ef victors. He explains the idea in a
very intelligible manner, Heb. v. 8. Christ
learned by his sufferings to obey God and do
his will ; and he who knows how to obey so
well is also qualified to govern well. Vide
Morus, p. 184, s. 9, for other texts and com
ments. This kingdom is therefore called, at one
time, the kingdom of God, from its founder ; at
another time, the kingdom of Christ, who ac
complished the plan of God ; and still again,
the kingdom of God and of Christ, because God
and Christ were united in its establishment.
(c) The Israelites imagined, according to the
instruction of the prophets, that the kingdom of
the Messiah would be an everlasting kingdom
(aiavios, perpetuus, continuing as long as the
world should endure. Thus it is always repre
sented in the New Testament. " He will reign
over the house of Jacob sis tovs aiwvas, xai tns
f}aaa.slas avfov ovx sgtai tsXos," Luke, i. 33.
The text, Ps. xiv. 7, 6 ^pd»os sov eis tbv aiava
tov aiavos, is explained in the same way, Heb.
i. 8. Christ himself says expressly, Matt. xvi.
18, itixai dSov ov xat wr^vffovst tijs ixxXijglas — i. e.,
the society established by him should not de
cline and perish, like so many others, but al
ways endure. He said, with great explicitness,
Matt, xxviii. 20, that his assistance and special
care should extend to his followers ems tijs evv-
tsxslas toi aiavos. His friends should enjoy
his constant presence, support, and assistance,
in every condition of life, until the end of the
world that now is.
(d) From what has been said, it appears that
the government which Christ as a man admi
nisters in heaven will continue only while the
present constitution of the world lasts. At the
end of the world, when the heavenly state com
mences, the government which Christ adminis
ters as a man will cease ,- so far, at least, as it
aims to promote the holiness and happiness of
men, since those of our race who labour for this
end will then have attained the goal, and will
be actually blessed. So Paul says expressly,
1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28, in entire accordance with the
universal doctrine of the New Testameut re
specting the kingdom of Christ as man. He is
speaking of the kingdom of Jesus, or of his of
fice as Messiah, and refers to Ps. ex. 1, "Sit
on my right hand, until I subject to thee all
thine enemies." The phrase, to sit on the
right hand of the Father, he explains by /3asi-
Xsvtw, and comprehends under this term all the

offices of the Messiah and the institution*
which he has established for the gppd of men—
i. e., for their holiness and eternal blessed
ness. These offices (his kingdom) will cease at
the end of the world, when all the opppsers pf
the advancement of his kingdom uppn earth,
and even Death, the last enemy ef his follpwers,
will be subdued, and when his friends will be
introduced by himself into that eternal blessed
ness te which it is his aim to exalt them. Then
will his great plan for the happiness ef men be
cempleted, and the end ef his office as Messiah
will be attained. Thenceforward the Father
will ne more make use, as before, of the inter
vention of the Messiah to govern and bless men ;
for now they will be actually blessed. Christ
then will lay down his former charge, and give
it over to the Father, who had entrusted him
with it. For we cannot expect that the preach
ing of the gospel will be continued in heaven,
and that the other institutions of the Christian
church, which relate only to the present life,
will be found there in the same way as they ex
ist here upon the earth. In the abodes of the
blessed, the Father will himself -reign over his
saints with an immediate government, and in a
manner different from the rule which he causes
to be exercised over them through Christ, his
ambassador, while they continue upon the earth.
Vide Scripta varii argumenti, p. 60, seq., ed. ii.
The glory and majesty of Christ will remain,
however, unaltered ; and he will still far excel
his friends and brethren, who enjoy a happiness
similar to his own. He will still be honoured
and loved by them as their Lord, and as the au
thor of their salvation, John, xvii. 24; Rom.
viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12.
SECTION XCIX.
REMARKS ON THE FORM AND SENSE OF THE SCRIP
TURAL REPRESENTATION RESPECTING THE KING
DOM OF GOD AND OF CHRIST ; AND ON THE SIG
NIFICATION OF THE PHRASE, " TO SIT ON THE
RIGHT HAND OF GOD," AS APPLIED TO CHRIST.
I. Origin and Design of the Formulse respecting
the Kingdom of Christ.
(1) We must begin with the principle, that
many of the images, expressions, and phrases,
which are applied to God and his government,
are borrowed from those applied to earthly-
kings. We regard God as possessing every
thing which is considered great, exalted, and
pre-eminent among men, but in a far higher de
gree. With us everything is small and limit
ed, with him, great, comprehensive, and im
measurable. But now again, we reason retro-
gressively from the Deity, and from heaven to
earth. God, by his agency, is the cause of every
thing great and wonderful which takes place
on the earth, oiS'sv dvsv ©eov. Even the govern-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 353

ment of kings is of divine origin, and the^ are
appointed by the Deity himself.
¦fijii) (AioTpupsas flaaiXrjos) S ix AiiSj ran, ipttei is I
UriHsra Zsras,
Horn. II. ii. 197. "Jupiter bestows upon kings
their sceptre, and the right to reign over others,"
v. 205. See also II. ix. 98, 99 ; and Callim.
Hymn, in Jov. ix Am>$ fSaoixijss, x. t. X. They
are accordingly the representatives and ambas
sadors of the gods, bear their image, govern and
judge in their stead. Hence they are called
gods, sons of God, Smysvsls, 8iofpE$Eis> ®sloi,
oW&EOb, X, f . X.
All these ideas and expressions were com,
mon with the Israelitish nation, and were so
lemnly sanctioned by their prophets under direct
divine authority. The God Jehovah was their
proper king, supreme over their state and na
tion. He governed them through the instru
mentality ef human regents and deputed kings.
Their constitution was theocratic, — to make use
of a happy term, first applied to this subject by
Josephus. Hence the Israelitish state and na
tion are called the possession, and the peculiar
people of Jehovah, and also, the kingdom of Je
hovah ; as Ex. xix. 6 ; Ps. cxiv. 2. In the same
way the later Jews applied the phrases, king
dom of God, or, of heaven, to the Jewish state
and church, and to the whole religion and ritual
of the Israelites. When a proselyte was re
ceived by them, he was said to be admitted
into the kingdom of God, or, of heaven. Vide
Schottgen, De regno ccelorum (Hor. Heb. T. I.
extr.) ; and Wetstein on Matt. xxi. 25, Note.
On this account the Jews called themselves
wovs fSagiisias, Matt. viii. 12 ; and Christ said,
the kingdom of heaven (the Tights of the peo
ple of God) should be taken from them, Matt.
xxi. 43.
(2) The Jews, according to the instruction of
their prophets, conceived of the Messiah as a
ruler and religious reformer, like Moses and the
pious kings of antiquity, only far greater, more
exalted and perfect than they, (vide s. 89 ;) and
so they spake of the eternal king, and the eternal
kingdom of David, 2 Sam. vii.; Psalm lxxxix.
They therefore called the happy condition of the
church and state under the reign of the Messiah,
and the subjects cf his gpvernment, by way ef
eminence, fiagiXsla ©tov nr oipowuw. They be
lieved that they exclusively should enjoy this
kingdom, and, together with the Messiah, should
reign over all nations. After the Babylonian
exile, this appellation, applied in this sense to
the kingdom of the Messiah peculiarly, became
very common, and was probably taken from
Dan. vii, 13, 14. It must have been common
in Palestine at the time of Christ, but it occurs
very rarely in the later Rabbinical writings.
(3) Jesus and his apostles did not, then, invent
45

these words and phrases ; they only preserved
the terms which they found already existing, and
gave them a meaning more just and pure than the
common one. This they did, however, with
wise caution and forbearance. Christ admitted
the expectations of the Jews of freedom in the
kingdom of the Messiah, but he shewed that this
freedom was not civil liberty, but freedom from
the power of sin, John, viii. 32 ; Luke, xvii. 20.
He confirmed the opinion of the Jews, that the
sacred writings testified concerning the Messiah,
and he agreed with the Jews as to the very pas
sages containing this testimony, but he taught
them the more just and spiritual interpretation
of these -passages. Vide s. 90, III. By re
ceiving the kingdom of God, he means, believing
in Jesus Christ, submitting to his guidance and
obeying his precepts, and thus obtaining the
right of enjoying the divine favours promised
through the Messiah, John, iii. ; Mark, x. 15.
The same is meant by being received into the
kingdom nf God, Col. i. 13 ; Ephes. v. 5. It
was for this object that John the Baptist had
before laboured, although he was ignorant on
many points belonging to the new dispensation ;
the essentials, however, he understood, and his
theme was, " Repent, for the kingdom of God
is at hand." He knew Christ to be the " Lamb
of God, which taketh away the sins of the
world ;" and described the Messiah as the am
bassador of God, a teacher and expiator, John,
i. 29 ; iii. 27, 32, 34.
(4) These attempts of Jesus and his apestles
were very much facilitated by the fact that the
terms kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven
were used figuratively even by the Jews. They
frequently gave these phrases a moral and spiri
tual sense, denoting and comprehending all the
divine appointments for the spiritual welfare of
men, for their happiness in this and the future
life ; everything, in short, which serves to pro
mote the progressive holiness and proportionate
happiness of man in this life, and the life to
come, which is his true destination. Hence
they conceived of a twofold kingdom or state of
God ; one upon the earth, of which the dispensa
tion under the Messiah constitutes the brightest
and greatest epoch, the other in heaven. The
pious worshippers of God are translated from the
former te the latter. Here they live as strangers
in a land ef pilgrimage, there they are at heme,
in their native land. Se they called the latter
place the Father's house, the upper church, the
heavenly or new Jerusalem. And so, compre
hensively, the entire sum of happiness after
death and in the future world was called the
kingdom of God.
Now Jesus and the apostles frequently use
the phrase fiogiXsla Qsov or ovpavav, in this
sense ; and still more frequently do they con
nect the two senses together. One who is a
2c2

354

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

member of the kingdom of the Messiah upon
the earth, and obey his precepts, has a title to
citizenship in the kingdom of God which is in
heaven (in the city of God, in the new Jerusa
lem), Phil. iii. 20, 21, coll. Matt. xxv. 34;
James, ii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xv. 50 ; 2 Thess. i. 5 ; 2
Tim, iv. 18 ; 2 Pet. i. 11. The remark made
respecting fiagiXsvsw gvv %.pigt<p, x. t. x., be
longs in this connexion. Vide s. 98, II. 1.
(7) From what has been said, it appears that
images derived from a king and his subjects,
and their mutual relations, are more proper and
suitable than any other to represent and de
scribe the duties, benefits, and privileges of the
worshippers of God, and especially of the true
followers of the Messiah. But the Jews, who
had little taste for what is spiritual, were con
tent with the mere image, and so forgot the
thing itself which the image was designed to
indicate. They imagined a king reigning visibly
upon the earth.
Jesus and his apostles preserved these same
images, but shewed in what way they ought to be
understood and applied. They shewed that the
Messiah, after his ascension, did not visibly and
bodily reign on the earth, but that henceforward
he reigned in heaven ; and there, invisible to
mortal eyes, would rule the inhabitants of hea
ven and earth (the latter by his religion and vi
sible support) until the end^of the world. They
shewed, moreover, that this invisible and hea
venly government was of far wider extent than
the earthly government expected by the Jews,
and would embrace not one nation only, but all
nations without distinction; because the king
dom of morality, of truth, and happiness, is a
kingdom for all, such being the destination of
all, and God, as a father, being solicitous for the
happiness of all his children, John, x. 16;
dvaxEfyaXaiagag^ai td itdvta iv Xpia*9, Eph. i.
10, also itxtjpoiv itdvta, (comprehendere impe-
rio,) Ephes. i. 23, iii. 19; Col. i. 18. They
taught that the whole visible disclosure of the
majesty of Christ, and his return to the earth,
would not take place before the end of the pre
sent constitution of the world. Thus they pre
served the ancient expressions and phrases
respecting the Messiah and his royal office,
which had been common among the Israelites,
but so defined and modified the meaning of them,
as to give them an entirely different aspect — a
different and far more elevated sense than was
common — a sense, too, which entirely agreed
with the real meaning of the Old-Testament
predictions. Rings are the sons of God ,- and the most illus
trious kings are the first-born. And so the Mes
siah ; but he, in a far higher sense than all
earthly kings, is Ttos ©eov, it pat bt oxos, fio-
voysvtjf, John, i. ; Heb. i. 6; Romans, viii. 29 ;
Col. i. 15, coll. ver. 18. The sotjs of kings,

especially the first-born, are the heirs, and pos
sessors of the kingdom; and, among the Israel
ites, themselves ruled as representatives and
deputies of the father over particular provinces
of his kingdom. Vide Anmerkung zu Ps. xiv.
17. So, too, the Messiah rules over the most
important parts of the paternal or divine king
dom. Hence he is called xXqpouapos, Lard,
possessor of the kingdom, Heb. i. 2. Kings de
cree justice and hold judgment in the name of
God, as his ambassadors and deputies, Psalm
Ixxii. 1. So, too, the Messiah; but he will
hold judgment over the living and the dead, in
the name of the Father, at the end of the world.
In the same way, the other forms and expres
sions may be easily solved.
(6) This kind of representation and mode of
instruction is in a high degree intelligible at all
times ; it possesses internal truth and reality.
But it was particularly adapted to all the con
ceptions of the Jews, and even of the heathen
at that age. It conveyed to them, when it was
properly understood, the most exalted and proper
ideas respecting God, and his designs in the
establishment of the Christian institute and
church. At the time of Christ and the apostles,
the belief universally prevailed among the Jews,
and indeed appears to have been entertained
even by the prophets, that God governed the
world by means of angels, as the servants and
instruments of his providence. Vides. 58, 60.
The belief, too, of many subordinate deities,
through whose instrumentality the supreme
God governed the world, prevailed among hea
then nations. Cf. 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6. The apos
tles, therefore, shewed that God had now en
trusted the government of the world and the
care of our spiritual welfare directly to the man
Christ ; and that these ministers of Divine pro
vidence, as well as all the other instruments
which it employed, were now subjected to him,
that all might trust in him alone, as the author
of salvation. Vide 1 Cor. ut supra. And so
Paul, Heb. i., ii., proves that Christ is far ex
alted above all the servants and ministers of
God (angels), who are now indeed made sub
ject and obedient to him. This reference of the
apostolical doctrine is very clear from Hebrews,
11. 5, ovx d/yysAois iitsto4s f »}i/ oixovjisvnv f rpi psX-
tojffor, (i. e., the times of the New Testament,)
but to Christ only, although he lived in humi
liation upon the earth, (vide the verse follow
ing,) which was always revolting to the Jews,.
Note. — To say the whole briefly: .the phrase
kingdom of God, or, of Christ, in the sense in
which John the Baptist, Jesus, and his apostles,
understood it, signifies, the whole work of Christ
for the good of men, and everything which is ef
fected by this work. Hence the phrase denotes
(a) all the benefits, rights, privileges, and
rewards which his followers receive in this and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 355

the future life ; comprising the doctrine re
specting Christ, forgiveness of sin, and all the
blessedness which we owe to him ; and some
times 'comprising, too, the followers if Christ
themselves (cives), who enjoy these blessings ;
(6) all the duties and the worship which we
owe to God and Christ ; and so the conditions
on which we obtain the blessings above enume
rated. Thus are the comprehensive phrases, to
enter into the kingdom of God, to see it, &c, to
be understood. Vide especially Mcrus,p. 184,
185, n. 3. Cf. Storr, " De notione regni cceles-
tis in N. T." Opusc. Acad. t. i. n. v.
II, Signification of the phrase, " to sit on the right
hand of God" as applied to. Christ.*
(1) The phrase is borrowed from Psalm ex.
1, which the Jewish teachers at the time of
Christ must have considered to be a Messianic
psalm, as appears from Matt. xxii. 44, seq.
[Vide, for the explanation of this psalm, the
note to the author's German translation, 3rd
ed.] The origin of this expression, too, is to
be sought in a comparison of God with earthly
kings. We conceive of kings, rulers, judges,
as sitting on thrones, when they exercise rule,
pronounce judgment, or display all their splen
dour and majesty. Hence the oer4a sedendi (as
3e») signify also to rule, to reign. God has his
throne in the heavens, and there Christ, after
his ascension, seated himself with God; 1
Peter, iii. 22; Ephes. i. 20; Heb. i. 13. Now
for any one to be appointed a place with a king,
to be seated with him, or at his right hand, is
frequently —
(a) A mere external mark of honour, shew
ing that such a person is highly respected, es
teemed, and loved by the king. So 1 Kings, ii,
19, seq. ; 1 Sam. xx. 25 ; 1 Mace. x. 62 — 65.
Standing at the right hand is the same thing,
Psalm xiv. 10. The Grecian and Roman writers
furnish abundant examples of the same usage.
But it denotes —
(4) Participation in the government and asso
ciated rule, though not full equality in rank and
dignity. Sitting with the king is plainly used
in this sense, Matt. xx. 21, and frequently in
Grecian and Roman writers, and in Grecian
mythology. Minerva is represented by Homer
as sitting beside Jupiter, and by Pindar as sit
ting ait his right hand, and as giving charges
and commands. Apollo is represented by Cal-
limachus as sitting at the right hand of Jupiter,
and as rewarding singers and poets. In all
these cases, participation in the government and
associated rule are indicated, though not full
equality. _ * Vide the Programm cited in the preceding Sec
tions, in which the various explanations which have
been given to this phrase are enumerated and exa
mined. Cf Morus, p. 185, n. 6.

(2) Now when this phrase is applied to
Christ, we easily see from this analogy what it
must mean, and how it must have been under
stood by ancient readers and hearers. The
phrase is never applied to. Christ except when
his humanity, is spoken of, or when he is men
tioned as Messiah, as ®sdv^paitos. It is not
spoken of his divine character, though Michaelis
so explains it, referring it to the seat of God
upon the ark of the covenant. The language,
"Christ left his seat at' the right hand of the
Father in order to become man," was first used
by the fathers who lived after the fourth century.
Such language never occurs in the New Testa
ment. Sitting at the right hand of God is always
there represented as the reward which the Mes
siah obtained from God, after his death and as
cension, for the faithful accomplishment, when
upon earth, of all his work for the salvation of
man. It is the promised reward-(f sxslagis, /3pa-
ftslav,) which the victor receives after a long con
test. Vide Acts, ii. 31—36; Heb. xii. 2. Hence
the Father is said to have placed Jesus at his right
hand, Ephes. i. 20. This phrase, therefore,
beyond doubt, implies everything which belongs
to the glory of Christ considered as a man,
and to the dominion over the entire universe,
over the human race, and especially over the
church and its members, which belongs to him
as a king., Vide s. 98. This is the reward,
which he receives from the Father; he takes
this place, as a man, for the first time, imme
diately after his ascension to heaven, 1 Peter,
iii, 22 ; Mark, xvi. 19 ; Acts, ii. 32, seq. &c.
With this his reign in heaven commences.
Paul himself explains the phrase by fiauixtir iv,
1 Cor. xv. 25, and opposes xsHovpyslv (which
is applied to angels, vide Heb. i. 3, 4) to xa$l£siv
ix Ss%iav ©eov, Heb. i. 13, 14. One of the most
decisive texts is Ephes. i. 20 — 22, " God raised
him from the dead, and set him at his own right
hand," ver. 20. The exaltation and dominion
of Jesus, which extends over everything in all
the universe, is described ver. 21 ; and finally
his reign over the church is particularly men
tioned, xai avtbv sSaxs xs^axip iiti itdvta (su
preme ruler) ty ixxXngla, ver. 22. Cf. 1 Pet.
iii. 22.

CHAPTER III.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST.
SECTION C.
OF THE HIGHER NATURE IN CHRIST, AND HOW IT
IS PROVED.
We have before shewn (s. 93) that Christ wan
a true man, both as to soul and body ; but have

356

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

now to shew that, according to the representa
tion of the New Testament, he was not a mere
man, but that he possessed at the same time
such exalted perfections as cannot be ascribed
to any mere man, or, indeed, to any created be
ing; or, to speak in the language of the schools,
that he possessed a divine nature. Caution is
necessary in the selection of the texts by which
this doctrine is proved.
(1) This doctrine cannot be proved,
(a) By every text in which Christ is called
Tibs ©eov, for this is frequently a name by which
his work and office, and not his nature, are de
noted. There are passages, however, in which
Tibs ©eov and povoysvris clearly indicate the
higher nature of Christ. Vide s. 73, 6, 4. Such
texts only must be chosen as are determined by
the context and predicates to have this reference
— e. g., John, v. 10; and the appellation, fioi/o-
ysvrfi, John, i. ; also the texts in which Christ
calls God his Father, in a sense in which this
name is never used by any created being; those,
too, in which he ascribes attributes to himself,
as Son, which never were or could be predicated
of a mortal or created spirit ; the texts, e. g., in
which he says that he works in common with
his Father. It deserves, however, to be re
marked, that many theologians ever since the
earliest ages have considered the appellation
Son of God, as denoting simply the divine nature
of Christ. These remarks apply equally to the
appellation Aoyos, *n itself considered.
(4) By those expressions, when taken by
themselves, which ascribe to Christ resemblance
to God in some high degree — e. g., slxuv ®soi
dopdfov, Col. i. 15, and ditavyagpa S6%rs and
Xapaxtr\p vnogtdgsas avfov, Heb. i. 3. 'Aitai-
yagfia oofir/s signifies the radiance of the divine
splendour or majesty; #apaxfr)p iitogtdgsas
avtov — a visible image (imago expressa) of the
divine substance. The sense, then, of these re
presentations is this, " The Son is he through
whom God hath clearly revealed, or visibly
made known himself to men." So Paul him
self explains it, 2 Cor. iv. 4, « As God, at the
creation, gave light to the obscure earth, so
Christ by his religion gave light to men, and
led them to a clear knowledge of God." Vide
John, i. 14, coll. ver. 18. But other expressions
in the passages just cited, clearly ascribing di
vine attributes to Christ, are proof of this doc
trine, as may be seen below.
. (c) Nor is this doctrine proved by those pas
sages which treat of Christ's state of exaltation,
and of the eminent privileges which were con
ferred upon him as a man, when he entered upon
that condition— e. g., a large portion of the pas
sages, Phil, ii., and Heb, i, 6, seq., which are
often improperly adduced as proof-texts of his
divine nature.
One great .evil of an incautious selection of

proof-texts is this, that when one particular pas
sage is found not to prove the point for which
it was adduced, the conclusion is readily made
that the whole doctrine is incapable of scriptural
support. (2) This doctrine may be proved,
(a) By the texts in which Christ is described
as far exalted over all the creatures of God, over
men, angels, and everything in the universe
besides God himself, and indeed as the creator
and preserver of all things. Such. texts are Col.
i. 15, 16, and others already explained, s. 38.
The proof in point is not derived so much from
the term, slxuv ©eov, as from what is there pre
dicated of Christ. Ilpatotoxos itdar/s xtlgsas,
does net mean, the greatest er first pf all crea
tures ; for we find immediately after, that he
himself created all things ,- and we must there-
fere cenclude that he is net the first ef all crea
tures, since he is himself the Creator, ripuf o-
f oxof must be rendered either king, ruler, Heb.
i. 6, and Rev. iii. 14, where we read dp^r} (i. e.,
dpxav) xtlgsas ©sov ; er, he who existed prior to
all creatures, in which sense the Jews called
Ged primogenitum mundi.
(4) By the texts in which attributes are as
cribed to Christ which can be predicated ef no
mortal, and which are never ascribed to angels,
or to the prophets, or other inspired teachers
whom God has employed for the accomplish
ment of his purposes upon the earth. Such
texts are found most frequently in John. Among
them are those which contain the phrase so often
occurring, " he descended from heaven," John,
iii. 31; vi. 31, seq., ver. 62; viii. 23; xiii. 3;
xvi. 28. This phrase denotes superhuman, hea
venly, or, divine origin and nature; and is
spoken of manna, John, vi. 31 ; and of wisdom,
James, i. 17 ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 47. This language
is never used with respect to any mere prophet
or inspired teacher. Even John, whose bap
tism was i£ ovpavov (of divine origin), distin
guishes himself from Christ, who came from
heaven, (John, iii. 31 ;) and speaking of Christ's
return to heaven, he says, " he returned thither
bitov jjv f 6 itpbt spov, John, vi. 62, and xvii. The
text is so dear, that Socinus and others, who
denied the superhuman nature of Christ, invent
ed a rapture of Christ into the heavens, (raptum
in ccelum ;) or considered the text as referring
to the pre-existence of the human soul; although
not a trace of such an opinion appears in the
Bible. Here it might indeed be objected, "that
Christ is described as an exalted, heavenly spirit,
but not as God; he might still have been created."
So the Arians. The objection, however, is not
valid ; because, in these passages and elsewhere,
he is said to exist before any. created things,
(i. e., ab aeterno,) John, i. 1, and xvii. Vide
s. 37, in prin. Before the creation of the world

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION.

357

nothing existed besides Ged ; so that whatever
had existence then was God himself, belonging
to his being and his attributes. This is the di
rect and incontrovertible conclusion of John in
the passage cited. Indeed, Christ is distinctly
affirmed te have enjoyed supreme divine glory
in heaven. " Restore to me (by exaltation) the
glory fjv six0" 7<po fov tbv xbgpov slvai it ap a
sol" — i. e., in heaven, (referring to his divine
nature,) John, xvii. 5. Such language is never
used in respect to any prophet, angel, or any
created intelligence. Aojia, in the last case,
cannot refer to the office of Christ, or to his do
minion, for he had none " before the creation of
the world." Hence he is called- by way of
eminence, 6 Ttos ©tov, (John, v. 10 ;) o pmo-
ysvrfi, (John, i. 14;) because, among all who
are elsewhere called the S07is or children of God,
he is alone in his kind, and bears this name in
an exalted sense, in which no man, no angel,
no created being, can appropriate it, John, v.
Vide s. 37.
Christ also frequently alludes in his dis
courses to his divine nature in another way —
e. g., by the word sipl, John, vii. 29, 34, 36;
» before Abraham was, I am," John, viii. 58.
This is the very language in which the immu
table God speak of himself in the present time.
So the Jews understood it ; and regarded it as
blasphemy for Christ to apply it to himself, and
on this account began to stone him, ver. 59.
For never had a prophet or any created being
spoken thus of himself.
Christ also frequently ascribed the miracles
which he wrought to himself. He professed
that he worked, or acted, in common with God,
John, v. 17; x. 31. This, again, was never
said of any of the prophets. In the miracles of
which they were the instruments, nothing, in
deed, was done by them, but everything by God.
Accordingly, the Jews affirmed that by this
Claim Christ made himself equal with God, J'so*,
8E9, John, v. 18; x. 31, seq. They perceived
that he used the term filius Dei in a sense in
which no mere man could use it with respect
to himself; and that he made himself equal with
God, by ascribing to himself what can belong to
God only. And Christ does not disapprove,
but rather authorizes their conclusion, John, v.
and1 x.
There are many other expressions in the last
discourses of Jesus to his disciples (John, xiii.,
seq.) which never are used in the Bible, and
never can be used, in respect to any created he-
ing: as John, xiv. 6 — 9 ; also ver. 13, 14, where
Christ ascribes to himself the hearing of prayer,
&c. These classes of texts prove clearly against
Phbtinus and the Socinians, that the writers of
the New Testament did not understand Christ
o be a mere man, but that they supowed him

to possess a higher nature, far exalted above that
of men and angels. This the Arians concede.
But they affirm that these texts are riot sufficient
to prove his equality with the Father. -Even
these texts, however, go far towards proving tliiis
point. But it is proved more directly,
(c) From the third class of texts, which shew
that Christ is represented by the writers of the
New Testament as partaking of the divine na
ture as fully as the Father, and being as truly
God (idos itatpl) as the Father; and from texts
in which he is called God. All the necessary
considerations respecting these texts are found
s. 37, 38. SECTION CI.
OF THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE DEITY AND
HUMANITY PF CHRIST, ACCPRDING TP WHAT
THE BIBLE DIRECTLY TEACHES, AND THE CON
SEQUENCES WHICH MAY BE DEDUCED FROM ITS
INSTRUCTIONS.
I. What the Bible directly teaches respecting the
Union of the two Natures in Christ.
(1) When we compare, without preposses
sion or prejudice, the various passages which
treat of Christ, we clearly perceive that two
parts, as it were, or two aspects, are distin
guished in the same subject or person. This
subject, called Christ, is considered as God, and
as man ; divine and human attributes are equally
ascribed to him in one and the same context ;
as in his own prayer, John, xvii. 5. It was for
this reason that, even as early as the third cen
tury, the appellation ®sdv§puitos, or©£a*Spos, was
given him. Vide s. 102. The clearest passages
in point are found in John; especially i. 3, coll.
ver. Ifi, which clearly teach, (a) that the same
Aoyos, who created all things, and existed from
eternity with the Father, as his Son and confi
dant; — the same Aoyos (6) became man, (cap?
iyivsto,) and lived among men. Hence the
EVodpxuo'is of the fathers. The passage of Paul,
Gal. iv. 4, agrees with the one last mentioned ;
but, taken by itself, is not so clear. So the text,
John, xvi. 28, " He who came down from hea
ven, the same returns again to heaven." The
same person who, as man, lived among men,
came down from heaven, and existed previously
in heaven; John, iii. 13 ; vi. 62; xvii. 5 ; also,
1 Tim. iii. 16; John, viii. 40, 57, 58; and chap.
xiv. From these texts it follows, (a) that the
Logos, who was from eternity with the Father,
is the same person who afterwards appeared
upon the earth under the name of Jesus Christ;
(4) that this Logos became a real man, («dp§
iysvEto,) or received a human nature, and not
merely assumed an apparent human form.
Npw, except we deviate arbitrarily from the

J58

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

words of the Bible, we can explain these facts
only on the supposition that in Christ deity and
humanity are distinguished, and yet connected.
(3) This connexion between the Sonof God
and the man Jesus commenced when Christ was
ccnceived ; vide s. 93. Fer the suppusition of
the Gnostic sects, and of Cerinthus, that the
-higher nature. was united with the man Jesus at
some later period, as at his baptism, is wholly
unscriptural. John plainly declares, i. 14, that
the Aoyos (the same to whom divine predicates
had been ascribed, ver. 1) «ap| iyivsto. From
this passage we are compelled to conclude that
the divine nature connected itself with the hu
man, when the latter was conceived. Theolo
gians illustrate this by the human soul, which
in conception is united with the human body,
and thenceforward animates and governs it. In
the same way was the divine nature united with
the human, thenceforward composing with it
one person, Christ; as our soul and body united
constitute one individual man, consisting of two
very dissimilar natures.
(3) 2dpi must here be taken, in its common
scriptural sense, to denote not merely a man, but
one infirm like ethers, only without sin. The
theologians pf the earliest ages, even pf the se
cond century, took occasion from this term to
call Christ's becoming man Ivgdpxugis and ivav-
$pajtrigis, Lat. incarnatioi In after times they
denominated the same event stposa-r/^'S, assumtio,
the assuming of human nature ; since we must
suppose that the superior nature condescended
to the human and became united with it, and not
the reverse. This mode of speech, although
in itself unobjectionable, is not scriptural. For
the phrase, gitsppatos Af3padfi iitiXau^dvEtai,
Heb. ii. 16; means, that he assisted, took care of
the children of Abraham. How could gUsppa
'Afipadp denote human nature ? 'EitiXapf5dvso$ai
and dvtiXauf}dvsg$ai twos literally mean, to take
hold of any one, Acts, xxiii. 19 ; then, to assist,
to take care of any one, Sir. iv. 12 ; Luke, i. 54.
II. Condusions from these Scriptural Statements ;
and a more precise explanation of them.
The connexion of deity and humanity in Christ
was, (1) Not of such a nature as that either the
deity or humanity was deprived of any essential
and peculiar attributes, or in any essential re
spect changed. For;
(a) The divine nature connot be Supposed to
have changed. Such a supposition would con
tradict our very first ideas respecting God. It is
not therefore just and proper to say, as some of
the fathers did, The eternal Son of God (i. e,,
the Deity) left heaven, surrendered or re
nounced his glory, and condescended to suffering,
indigence, &c, on the earth. Such language is
never used in the Bible ; and the idea implied

by it is inconsistent with the dM'rie glory. Bui
for the Deity to unite itself with frail humanity
is no more unsuitable, derogatory) or dishonour-
able, than for God to give proofs of his glory in
the meanest of his works, to connect himself
with them, and in and through them to exert his
power and agency.
(b) Nor could the htmannaiure be altered in
any essential respect by this its connexion with
the divine; for Christ would then have ceased
to be a true man. If one should say therefore
that Christ as a man had, from the beginning of
his existence, the possession and use of all divine
attributes— -that as a mah he was almighty, om
niscient, omnipresefi^-and that, as many theolo
gians suppose, he merely forbore the exercise
of these attributes as a man, he would thus, in
reality, deify the human nature of Christ. Vide
s. 92, III. 2. Besides, the passages of the
Bible which speak of the increase of his know
ledge, Luke, ii. 52 — of his not knowing, Mark,
xiii. 32, &c, clearly teach the contrary. For
these representations do not bear the explanation
which seme have given them, that he merely
pretended that he did npt know,) simulabat se
nescire, as Augustine said,) that he pretended to
increase in wisdom, &c. In short, those who
form such hypotheses confess with the mouth
the true humariity of Christ, while in fact they
deny it, and allow to Christ only the veil of a
human body and the external appearance of
humanity. (2) The connexion of the two natures must
rather be placed in the two following points —
viz., (a) in a close and constant connexion of the
deity of Christ with his humanity from the com
mencement of his existence ; (4) in a co-opera
tion of the two natures in action, where it was
requisite and necessary, and as far as the nature
and attributes of each admitted. The scriptural
doctrine is this : " the glory (6"o'£a) which Christ,
in his superior nature, had with the Father from
eternity (itpb xatdfioxijs xoa/nov), was imparted
to his human nature, and shared with it when
he became man, so far as this human nature was
susceptible of his glory; and was manifested
whenever and wherever it was necessary upon
earth," John, xvii. 5, 22, 24 ; chap, xiv., coll.
Phil. ii. 9—11.
By the following remarks something may be
done to elucidate this subject, and to render it as
intelligible as the limitation of our conceptions
will permit.
(a) The agency of God is not always exhibited
with equal clearness in his creatures. His in
fluence at certain times and in certain circum
stances appears more strikingly and visibly than
at others. The nature of God, however, remains
unchanged, amidst all these changes of things
which are extrinsic to himself. He is indeed
equally connected and united with all nature, a'

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 359

all times, and under all circumstances, from its
first origin; In a similar way must we conceive
of. the relation of the divine to the human in
Christ In the state of humiliation, the divine in
Christ supported his humanity, wherever and
whenever there was any necessity for it ; espe
cially whenever his Messianic offices required.
The divine nature, however, did not impart to
the human any attributes of which the latter,
especially in its earthly state and condition, was
incapable, or of which it did not stand in need.
Nor did the divine nature in itself suffer any
alteration by the fate of Jesus while he was upon
earth, his sufferings, death, &c But in the
state of exaltation the sphere of the agency of
Jesus was infinitely ennobled and enlarged.
There the influences and the effects of His divi
nity could appear more visibly. There, in hea
ven, he is far more susceptible of its co-opera
tion and support, in the government of the world
and of the church, than in his humble life upon
the earth, John, xvii. 5, 22, 24. Christ, as a
man, could net have been raised to such a de
gree of dignity and glory as to receive supreme
dominion over the spiritual and material world,
if his nature had not been so united with that
of the Lord of the universe, that the boundless
perfections of tile latter became also the perfec
tions of his nature. The Bible always regards
the subject in this point of view ; as John, i.,
xvii. ; Phil. ii. 9, seq. ; Heb. i. ; Ephes. i. 20,
seq. (4) Writers who proceed with caution upon
this subject describe the manner of the con
nexion of the divine and human natures in
Christ rather negatively than pesitively. Many,
however, endeavour to explain the subject by
supposing a prxsentiam arctiorem, or a peeulia-
rem prxsentix gradum, and remark that a prx-
sentia localis, or approximate, cannot be under
stood. The subject has been frequently illus
trated, ever since the fifth century, by a cempa-
rison pf the union between soul and body, and
from this comparison the ideas and phraseology
relative te this subject have been derived. Ac-
ccrding to this comparison, the human nature
of Christ was the instrument and crgan pf the
divine nature, as the bedy is the ergan of the
human soul, with and through which it acts and
operates upon things extrinsic to itself. The
body could not act without the co-operation of
the soul. The soul has a deep concern in every
thing which affects the body, and the reverse.
And yet each of the two parts remains, as to its
essential nature, unaltered. Vide Ernesti, Progr.
Dignitas et Veritas incarnationis Opusc. Theol.
p. 395, seq.
This comparison casts some light upon the
subject, but is not entirely applicable, and must
not be extended too far. In the union of soul
and body, the question regards the state and ac

tions of a spirit in a body. But in Christ, as a
man, his deity does not act upon his body only,
(as Apollinaris supposed,) but upon the human
body and soul both; and indeed upon the human
body principally through the human soul; Here,
then, the question regards the union and co-ope
ration of one spirit With another.
But here we are destitute of clear conceptions
and definite knowledge ; as we know not even
how the human soul acts upon the body, and is
united with it. And here we see the reason at
once, why this subject is so obscure to us in our
present condition, and why we are so little able
to explain the modiis. When we hear ef the pre
sence ef a spirit, if we aveid considering it as ma
terial, we shall obtain only this definite idea, that
the spirit is present with us and acts upon us by
thought. So we are present in spirit with an
absent person when we think of him. Further
than this, we know nothing. Vide s. 23, 1, on
the omnipresence of God.
After these observations, we can form this
general conclusicn : that the deity ef Christ, as
deity, is indeed everywhere present — i. e., acts
in everything; but that it is present with the hu
manity ef Jesus in a peculiar manner, in which
it is net present with any other man, or any
other created being— -that is, that his divinity
acts in and through his humanity, so far as the
latter is susceptible of this co-operation, in such
a way that this deity and humanity united in
Christ must be considered as cne person. This
union is represented in a similar manner by
Origen, Ilspi 'Apxuv, 1. 2. This union or con
nexion of the humanity of Jesus with God is
not limited and temporary, as in other spirits
with whom God is connected, John, v. 26.
That here there is something peculiar, which
does not take place with respect to others, is
shewn by the very peculiar expressions which
are used in the Bible with respect to this union,
and which are never used with respect to the
union of God with his creatures in general.
(c) These thoughts may afford us some con
ception of the union of the two natures ; but they
are very insufficient to render the subject entirely
intelligible, or to explain the manner of this
union in a satisfactory way. Morus gives the
right view of this subject, p. 138, s. 10. The
ologians call it, mysterium incarnationis, and
the more judicious fathers are unwilling to give
any further distinctions respecting the modus
(tb itus) than the holy scriptures warrant. But
nothing more can be determined with certainty
from the New Testament than what has just
been remarked. From the limitation of all hu
man conceptions we cannot believe that even
the apostles or first Christians understood the
subject better than we do. But they did not
pretend to insist upon an explanation of things
beyond the reach of their senses, and the sphere

S60

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

of human knowledge and science. They did not
doubt or deny these things because they could
not be satisfactorily explained. Cf. 1 Cor. ii.,
iii. Such was the fact, only after men adopted
the oracular decisions of an arbitrary metaphy
sical philosophy, as pronounced first by the Pla
tonists, then by the Aristotelians, and in modern
times by other philosophical schools. They now
began to insist upon having everything demon
strated ; by a natural consequence they refused
to believe anything which could not be demon
strated ; and the direct consequence of this was
scepticism. The union of soul and body in one person is
as inexplicable to philosophy as the union now
under consideration. Indeed, if we were mere
spirits, and did not know from experience that a
spirit, which is immortal, and which belongs en
tirely to the moral and spiritual world, is, as a
matter of fact, united with an animal body, which
is dust and earth, into one personal /, we should
consider it as highly improbable, and indeed con
tradictory ; and our metaphysicians would per
haps make bold to demonstrate a priori its impos
sibility from principles of reason.
Note. — Some have questioned, whether the
ideas entertained upon this point might not be
illustrated by a comparison of the religious opi
nions of other nations. We find that many na
tions not only worshipped deities who had been
men, and had lived upon the earth, but believed
that certain deities had assumed bodies, and 4e-
come incarnate. This is true especially of those
nations which believed in the transmigration of
the soul, and were extravagant in their venera
tion for the founders of their religions — e. g., the
Indians, Mongoli, Tartars, Druses, and Persians.
But these nations exhibit a rudeness and coarse
ness of conception, and a gross anthropomorph
ism, from which Christ is far removed, and
which never appear among the first Christians,
nor indeed in the whole age in which they lived.
Whatever distinct conceptions they had upon
this subject were evidently more refined and
suitable to the nature of God than those of
other nations. The idea held by the Greeks of
an attendant demon or genius, who constantly
abode in men, is also entirely different from the
Christian view.
(d) Considering, then, how much there is in
this subject which is obscure and inexplicable,
we ought neither to prescribe any universal for
mulae respecting all the more minute distinctions
of this doctrine, further than they are clearly
founded in the scriptures ; nor, after the exam
ple of Cyril and Leo the Great in the fifth cen
tury, to condemn those who are unwilling to
assent to these human formulae. One particular
view may be very important to us, and contri
bute greatly to our satisfaction and conviction ;
but we ought not for this reason to force it upon

all other Christians, or to consider them as less
pious and devoted to Christ, because they dif
fer, on some points of this doctrine, from our
creed and our phraseology. In fact, the subject
lies too much beyond and above our sphere. The
opinions of men, therefore, respecting the modus
of this truth, and their formulae of this doctrine,
will always continue divided and various ; and
and the hypotheses of the learned will always
be differently modified, according to the differ
ent systems of philosophy and different modes
pf thinking which may prevail.
During the first ages cf the church ncthing
was decided upcn this subject; the simple dec-
trine of the Bible was adopted ; and the more
learned Christians were left at liberty, from the
second century, to philosophize upon this sub
ject at pleasure. So it continued till the end of
the fourth century. The creeds only decided,
Jcsum esse Dei filium i Maria natum. Even
during the violent ccntroversies which began to
rage in the fifth century, many ef the more mo
derate cencurred with the views just expressed.
Melancthon remarked, justly and excellently,
in his " Loci Theologici," that it is not worth
while to bestow much laborious diligence on the
minute development of this subject; that to
know Christ is to know the salvation which he
has procured for us; and not studiously to in
vestigate his nature, and the manner of his in
carnation : " Christum — oportet alio quodam modo
cognoscamus, quam exhibent scholastici." To
scholars, indeed, the historical knowledge of
these investigations is useful and necessary.
But all these subtile inquiries and distinctions
are not proper for the instruction of the common
people and of the young. This wise counsel
of Melancthon was very much disregarded in
the Lutheran church at the very period in which
it was given ; in the Formula of Concord, the
theologians prescribed definite forms of doctrine,
upon which the greatest stress was laid. Vide
s. 102.
(e) The instructions of the holy scriptures
upon this subject, (1) are intended to shew that
this exalted dignity of the person of Christ con
fers a very high value upon all that he taught,
performed, and suffered for men ; — that we are
thus bound, according to his precepts, to believe
his whole doctrine and work, and to apply these
to our own benefit; — and that his doctrines are
the doctrines of God, his works the works of
God, his guidance and assistance, those nf God,
Morus gives some fine views to enable religious
teachers to present this subject in a truly practi
cal manner, p. 139, seq., s. 12, 13.
(2) But there is one more principal circum
stance, to which the scriptures often direct the
attention, and by which the importance of this
doctrine in a practical respect is still more illus
trated. Almost all men feel the necessity of

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 361

having a human God It is difficult to love and
heartily confide in that immeasurable, invisible,
inaccessible God, whom we learn from philo
sophy, But Jesus Christ (the Logos become
man) is not merely the immeasurable, the invi
sible, the inaccessible God; he is a true man
of our own race, and we are his brethren. It is
therefore easy to leve him, and heartily to con-
,ide in him ; especially considering how much,
as a man, he deserves of the human race, by suf
fering and dying for us. Thus our love to him
and our dependence upon him rest mostly upon
the fact that he is man, and indeed, a man
united with God, in such sense as no other man
ever was. Vide 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; Heb. ii. 14 — 18 ;
iv. 15 ; (John, xiv. 1 ;) John, v. 27.
(/) There have been some theologians who
have (maintained that the interposition of a di
vine person was necessary for the recovery of
men; that men could not have been delivered in
any other way. Some have carried this so far
as to seem to set limits to the divine freedom,
and to force from God, by presumptuous demon
stration, what was merely a free gift. Vide s.
88, ad finem. It were enough to shew the
suitableness of this means, without attempting to
prove its absolute necessity. This plan of God
is wise, and fully suited to the wants of men ;
and therefore God has chosen it. The Bible
always labours to exhibit this fact as the great
est proof of the free and unmerited love of God,
John, iii. 16. How opposite to this is the at
tempt to demonstrate this truth a priori! So
thought Athanasius ; and Augustine calls those
itiuMos, who undertake to demonstrate metaphy
sically that God could, not have saved men in
another way. Still we find this mistaken wish
to have every thing demonstrated even among
the fathers. Tertullian said, "God must have
become man in order to unite God with men and
men with God." Anselmus of the eleventh cen
tury argues thus: — "Without satisfaction, men
could not be saved. To give this satisfaction
to God was the duty of men, but the duty was
too hard for them. None but God was able to
give it. But to him, as the Judge of men, it
must be given. Therefore the Son of God must
become man, in order, as God-man, to afford this
satisfaction to God." Vide s. 114, 2. Some
theologians, even in modern times, especially
from the school of Wolf, have pretended to de
monstrate that this was the only means of res
cuing man, and was absolutely necessary for
this purpose.
Such demonstrations are entirely unsuitable
for promiscuous popular instruction. Christ
commissioned his disciples not to demonstrate
this truth philosophically, but to exhibit it (1
Cor. i. — iii.) ; to teach it, from their own con
viction and experience, with plainness and sim
plicity, but still with sincere interest, and then

quietly to leave the consequences with God.
This was surely very wise; and this is the
course which we should pursue. Besides, in
this constant vicissitude of philosophical opi
nions and schools, there is this evident disad
vantage, that the truth itself, which is demon
strated by the help of the philosophy of the
schools, is either doubted or rejected as soon as
the school goes down.
SECTION CII.
HISTORICAL OBSERVATIONS EXPLANATORY OF THE
ORIGIN AND PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
ECCLESIASTICAL SYSTEM, RESPECTING THE PER
SON AND THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST, UNTIL
THE EIGHTH CENTURY.
I. Earliest Opinions, from the Second to the Fourth
Century.
As early as the third century many points had
been established by the catholic councils respect
ing both the divine and human nature of Christ,
separately considered, in opposition (a) to those
who denied that Christ had a real human body
(the Docetae), or (4) to those who either main
tained that he was a mere man, or, allowing his
higher nature, yet denied his essential divinity
and equality with the Father. From that pe
riod the catholic fathers introduced into their
authorized symbols such distinctions and for
mulae as were calculated to oppose the above-
named errors.
But it was not until the fifth century that
anything definite was established_ respecting the
union of these two natures in Christ ,- and on this
subject the most various modes of thinking and
speaking prevailed, even among the catholic
fathers themselves. Those difficult points in
this doctrine, respecting which so much contro
versy existed after the fourth century, do not
seem to have occasioned much trouble to the
earlier Christians, who had not as yet learned
to apply the metaphysics of the schools to the
doctrines of religion. And it is found to be pre
cisely so with common unlearned Christians at
the present day, who have not their heads filled
with, those metaphysical systems, in conformity
with which, as their models, others adjust and
square all their opinions. Hence it does not
appear that any Christian teacher of the first two
centuries made any attempt to elucidate the
mysteries of this subject, and even the heretics
of this period passed them by without taking
offence. All which was" distinctly conceived
of during this early period respecting the manner
in which God became man, was simply this,
that God, or the divine nature of Christ became
visible in a true human body, and assumed real
human flesh. Hence the earliest fathers and
symbols are satisfied with the term, ivgdpxagtf,
2H

362

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

without going into further explanations : Higtsva
its Tlbv ©eov aapxu$svt a. So Justin the Mar
tyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, (Adv. Prax. c. 2,) and
even Origen, (ittpl 'Apyuv.)
[The general truth of the above statement of
our author, that the early fathers supposed that
the Logos assumed only a human body, is con
firmed by the testimony of Muenscher, Dogma
tic History (Translation)^; 63 ; of Hahn, Lehr
buch, s. 456 ; of Neander, Al. Kirchengesch, b.
i. Ab. iii. s. 1063. But there is one exception
to this statement in the opinions of Justin, which
were formed under the influence of the Platonic
philosophy. Adopting the threefold divisien nf
man into body, soul, and spirit, which was so
common with the Platonic fathers, and of which
a fuller account has been given in the first vo
lume, (s. 51, 1. 1, note,) hesupposed that Christ
consisted, like other men, of these three parts,
except that, in place of the erring human reason,
(Germ. Vernunfl, in opposition to Verstand, pr
Gr. itvsipa as opposed to tyixrii) which is only
a ray of the divine Logos, he had this Logos
himself, as the higher controlling principle of
his being. In these speculations with regard to
the manner of the connexion between the divine
and human in Christ, Justin went before the age
in which he lived, and furnished the germ of the
system which was afterwards further developed
by Apollinaris, whose doctrinal predecessor
Justin may therefore rightly be considered. Cf.
Neander, Allg. Gesch. der chr. Rel. und Kir.,
b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1063.— Tr.]
The systems of religion from which many of
the earlier Christians were converted, appear to
have contributed something towards enabling
them to receive without difficulty the doctrine
ef the incarnation of the Son of God. They
were familiarized from their youth, in the midst
of heathenism, with the idea of the visible ap
pearance of the Deity in human forms ; and al
though when they afterwards became Christians,
they considered the accounts of the incarnations
of the heathen gods as fabulous, still, by having
been familiar with such accounts, they were
prepared to receive more easily the fact of the
incarnation announced in Christianity; they
now had a seeming analogy for it. But on this
very account, many of them Conceived of the in-
tarnation as a degradation of the Deity. Vide
s. 93. The converts from Judaism to Christian
ity had also some analogy for this doctrine in
their previous system of belief, which very much
facilitated their reception of it, since they were
taught by their ancient books, even by those of
Moses, to believe in the appearance ef angels
and pf Gpd himself in human form. The stu
dent may find many interesting views, illustrat
ing the relatien pf the varipus systems ef hea
thenism tp Christianity, in Schlegel's "Philos.

der Geschiehte;" also in Kreutzer's "Syih'bo*
lik."— Tr.]
But while-, in opposition ta the Docetas, the
early fathers Contended zealously for the real
ity of the human body of Christ; none in either
of the contending parties, before the end of the
second century, thought it necessary to prove* •
particularly that he had also a true human souk
This was net indeed directly denied, [except
by Justin, as just mentioned—Til.,] still the
necessity cf proving its existence was net at
that tlrne felt ; npr indeed was the essential dis-
tincticn between the nature ef the soul and bedy
at all so obvious at that time, certainly it was
not used in common practice, as it has since
been. [Tertullian was the first who distinctly taught
the doctrine of a proper human soul in Christ
In his anthropology he rejected the common
division of man into body, soul, and spirit, and
admitted pnly two distinct principles in all ani
mated existences^-viz.-, body and soul; the lat
ter ef which, however, in man he suppesed en-
dpwed with higher properties than in the infe
rior erders. He had net therefore the convenient
resert of the Platonic theologians, of interposing
an animal -J/uzrj between the Logos and the body
in Christ; but must either conneet the Logos
immediately and without intervention with the
body, (which would be to attribute at once tb
the divine Logos the pain and sorrow, the pro
gress in knowledge, the ignorance, and all the
other indications of an imperfect human soul,
Which appear in the life of Christ;) or he must
ascribe to Christ a proper and entire human
soul. With this necessity in view, he chose
the latter part of the alternative, preferring the
mystery and complexity attending the connexion
between the divine and human to the absurdities
resulting from the former theory, though com
mended by its simplicity to the speculative rea
son. Cf. Neander Geschichte, b. i. Abth. iii.
s. 1064.— Tr.]
-r After the third century, Origen first [?] gave
importance to this doctrine of the human soul
of Christ in his Theology, and brought it dis
tinctly into light, though not on the same grounds
by which the doctrine is now supported. [Al
though Origen agreed with Tertullian in main
taining an entire human soul in Christ, his
views respecting the mode of union between
the two natures, differed widely from those of
Tertullian, and took their colouring from his
peculiar philosophical system. The union of
believers with Christ furnished him with an
analogy for the connexion between the Logos
and the human nature in Christ. If believers,
he argued, are one spirit with their Lord, as Paul
affirms, much more must this be true of that
soul which the Logos had taken into insepara-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 363

ble union with himself. As the itvsiua in be
lievers is the actuating principle from which all
their feelings and actions spring, much more is
it in Christ, the forerunner of believers, the ac
tuating, controlling, and pervading principle, by
which his entire humanity is guided and filled.
By urging this analogy he drew upon himself
the ohjection which has often been repeated
against the same view, that he made Christ a
mere man, distinguished from other believers
only by a higher degree of the same participa
tion in the divine nature which they enjoyed.
Whether this objection fairly lies against the
views of Origen this is not the proper place to
inquire.— Tr;]
[But the theory respecting the person of
Christ advanced by Tertullian, and developed
and supported by Origen, was particularly of
fensive to Arius and Eunomius, and to all who
contended for the subordination of the Logos to
the Father. According to the earlier doctrine
of the church, which they adopted, and which
connected the Logos immediately with the body
of Christ, they had been able to allege all the
appearances of limitation and natural imperfec
tion which he exhibited as proofs against the
doctrine of the absolute divinity of the Logos,
and in favour of their own views of his subordi
nation. But of this argument they were de
prived when a human soul, of which all these
imperfections could be predicated, was ascribed
to Christ, and his higher nature was allowed in
no sense to infringe upon his full and proper
humanity. On the theory of Origen, it was no
longer possible for them to invalidate the proofs
of the absolute divinity of Christ by opposing
the numerous evidences of subordination ap
pearing in his life and words, since all these
must pf course be understood of his humanity,
leaving his divine nature, though intimately
connected with the human, unimpaired by the
limitations of the latter. Hence Arius and his
followers strenuously opposed the doctrine of
the proper humanity of Christ, and insisted
upon the older, indistinct, and undeveloped
form of belief, by which the Logos merely ani
mated the body of Christ. Cf. Neander, Ges
chichte, u. s. w., b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 904, ff. —
Tr.] [While, on one side,, the Arians at this pe
riod infringed upon the human nature of Christ,
on the other side, Marcellus and Photinus, of
whom we have before spoken, (s. 43,) infringed
upon the divine nature and its personal union
with the human. Marcellus, inclining, as he
did, to Sabellianism, supposed there was a
merely outward and temporary operation of the
Logos upon Christ, though still, it must be al
lowed, in such a way as to secure the being of
God in him. Photinus went further, and giv
ing great prominence to the human in Christ,

made nothing more of the divine in him than the
general illuminating influence which he enjoyed
in common with the prophets and other ambas
sadors of God, though in a higher degree. This
doctrine is properly called Photinianism.— Te.]
[Between these diverging tendencies of opi
nion, Arianism and Photinianism, the catholic
fathers (e. g., Gregory of Nazianz, Gregory of
Nyssa, and others) endeavoured to reconcile the
personal union of two natures in Christ with the
completeness of the human nature-. We have
thus all the elements of that violent controversy
respecting the person of Christ which shortly
followed.— Tr.]
Now, after the middle of the fourth century,
Apollinaris arose, and denied1 the existence of a
human soul in Christ, or at least of the higher
power of the soul. Vide s. 93, II. [His theory
was in general the same as that of Justin, before
mentioned, only more systematically developed,.
It seems to have resulted in a great measure from
the speculative interest which endeavoured to
conceive clearly and to explain what had before
been indistinct. And it has certainly the ad
vantage in many respects, arid especially in
point of distinctness and consistency, over the
older indefinite belief, and over the Arian theory
respecting the person of Christ, with which in
general it agreed. It also sprung from the
Christian interest to see in Christ the full, im
mediate, undisturbed manifestation ef the Deity;
which, as it seemed to Apollinaris, cculd not be
en the theery pf Origen, where a human seul
was made the ergan pf the divine eperatiens.
The ccntroversy against Apellinaris brought
distinctly into view the necessity, in order to
the purposes of man's redemption, of the entire-
ness of the human nature of our Redeemer.—
Tr.] After this period, the investigation of this
point took a new turn, the first ground of which
was laid in the Arian controversies of the same
century. The endeavour now became to make
everything clear and determinate ; and since the
metaphysics of the schools were becoming more
and more common, the ancient simplicity was
thought to be no longer sufficient
II. The two opposing systems, having their origin
in the Fourth Century, and appearing in con
flict in the Fifth.
The foundation of both of these was laid by
the Arian and Apollinarian controversies.
(1) Some of the Christians of the East —
e. g., those of Syria, [and in general the disci
ples of the school at Antioch,] always made the
most accurate distinction between the two na
tures in Christ, and in all their discourses used
terms which indicated this distinction between
the divine and human in his person, in the most
definite and discriminating manner. This had

3C4

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

been before done by some of the earlier teach
ers— e. g., Tertullian, (Adv. Prax. c. 27,) still
more frequently by Origen, and by some of the
earlier councils. But after the middle of the
fourth century, when the Apollinarian contro
versies commenced, the orthodox teachers in
Syria and the other Oriental provinces became
still more accurate in making these distinctions,
and especially were more decidedly opposed to
every theory which took from the humanity of
Christ its peculiar properties. These were the
precursors of the Nestorians.
(2) Others observed no such accuracy, and
often employed phraseology which appeared to
indicate an entire mixture of the two natures,
and a deification of the human nature. This
was occasioned by the Arian controversies ; for
many, in order to exalt Christ in opposition to
the Arians, seemed almost to forget that he was
also a true man.* This tendency exhibited it
self more particularly in Egypt and in the
Western church, and was carried out into fur
ther development at the end of the fourth and
commencement of the fifth century. Those who
opposed this tendency were of opinion that by
phraseology of the kind which the Alexandrine
theologians used the doctrine of Apollinaris was
countenanced ; for his followers often used terms
like the following — viz., God is man, is born,
suffered, died, &c ; Mary is the mother of God,
(^sofdxos.) But the Alexandrine teachers could
plead in their justification the example of many

* There is reason to doubt the correctness of the
reason here assigned by Dr. Knapp for this tendency
of the Alexandrine school, (for it was this school
which objected to the distinction of natures contend
ed for by the school of Antioch.) The Arians
wholly agreed with the followers of Apollinaris, and
with the theologians of Alexandria, in objecting to
the distinction of natures in Christ, and in contend
ing for their mixture and oneness, and the transfer
of the attributes belonging to each. And it is easy
to see how this want of distinction should be pro-
, motive of their belief; since it enabled them to trans
fer to the higher nature of Christ the appearances
of limitation in his life, and thus to obtain a proof
of the subordination of the Logos, of which they
would he deprived were an accurate distinction of
natures introduced, and the application to the one
of the predicates belonging to the other forbidden.
It is a fact deserving of particular notice, that those
who have contended most strenuously for the abso
lute divinity of Christ, have been also those who
have insisted most upon the rights of his humanity,
and for a careful distinction between the predicates
of the two natures ; while those who have held that
the Logos is the most perfect among all created be
ings, but not God in the proper sense, have equally
infringed upon the humanity of Christ, and have
always opposed the distinction of natures. It was
not, then, in opposition to the Arian, but rather to
the Photinian form of doctrine with regard to the
person of Christ that the Alexandrine tendency
found the occasion for its further development. —
Tn.]

of the older fathers who had used similar phrase-
ology. Even Athanasius had spoken of a deifi
cation of the body of Christ after the resurrec
tion. Eusebius of Caesarea, and Gregory of
Nyssa, had said that the human nature of Christ
was sivallowed up by the divine, &c. Some
times even Origen had used similar expressions.
These were the precursors of the Monophysites,
In reality, however, these parties were more
agreed than they believed themselves to be, or
than they seemed to be, judging from their dif
ferent terminologies. Everything was now
ready and prepared for the controversy, which
finally broke out in the fifth century.
[Neander, in his Church-History, (b. ii.
Abth. iii. s. 946, ff.,) traces back these diverg
ing tendencies to the fundamental difference be
tween the Alexandrine school -and that at Anti
och, as to the relation between reason and
revelation. The Alexandrine school, in follow
ing its more contemplative and mystical direc
tion of mind, was disposed to assert the unin
telligibleness of the union of the two natures,
and to magnify the mystery of this union, and
to resist all attempts at definite conception and
explanation. The school at Antioch, on the
contrary, in conformity with its more free and
speculative bias, while it did not assume fully
to explain the v?t£p xbyov of this union of na
tures, still undertook to discover how much in
it was xof d X.dyoj'. — Tr.]
III. Theory of Nestorius, and the Controversy
relating to it.
Nestorius, Patriarch at Constantinople, being
born and educated in Syria, adopted the Syrian
form of doctrine with regard to the person of
Christ, and endeavoured to employ terms which
would accurately distinguish between his divine
and human natures. This, however, had never
before been done in Constantinople. After the
Arian controversies, the term ^Eofoxos had been
used very frequently in application to Mary, the
mother of Christ, which was also a favourite
term with the followers of Apollinaris in Syria.
But when, in the year 428, Nestorius became
patriarch at Constantinople, he was much sur
prised by this language. He objected to the
term ^Eof o'xos, on the ground that it could not be
said that God was born or died ; and instead of
this term he proposed to substitute Xpwfof o'xos.
With this the controversy commenced.
His doctrine, as appears from his homilies,
was this : " Christ had two iitogtdgsis, a divine
and human, (meaning by vitogtagis, as manyof
the ancients did, natura, tpvsis, or as Tertullian
himself employed it, substantia,) and only itpi-
gaitov uovaSixbv, one person. These two natures
stood in the closest connexion (gvvdqsia), which
he considered as consisting principally in the
agreement of will and action, but were no*

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 365

mixed or transformed. Each nature still re
tained its peculiar attributes, as is the case in
man, who consists of two inogtdgsis, soul and
body. All these attributes and actions were
predicable of one person, (itpbgaitov ,) but not
of both the natures ; the inferior were predica
ble only of the human nature ; the superior only
of the divine nature. Accordingly, the terms,
Deus naxus, mortuus est, Mater Dei, ©eos EWapxos,
were very, unsuitable and unscriptural. These
could be properly predicated only of Christ, (the
name of the person.)"
Hereupon Nestorius was openly attacked, at
first in Egypt. His chief opponent was Cyril,
the patriarch of Alexandria, who maintained his
own theory in opposition, and accused Nestorius
of dividing Christ into two persons ; because
$»i;<ttS was the word used at Alexandria for what
Nestorius called iitbgtagis, and iitogtagif for
what he called itpbgaitov. They disagreed,
therefore, more in words than in reality. At
length, in the year 431, the followers of Nesto
rius were condemned as heretics by the council
at Ephesus. The whole party separated from
the catholic church, and continues in the East to
the present day. [For a more full account of
the doctrines of Nestorius, with the original pas
sages, cf. Gieseler, Lehrb. d. k. Gesch. b. i. s.
85, ff. Neander, Gesch. b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 951.
As to the separate community of the Nestorians,
cf. Neander in his Appendix to the History of
this Doctrine, b. ii. Abth. iii. s. 1171. - Also
Mosheim (Murdock's Trans.), vol. i. p. 431,
note. Whether the whole dispute between Nes
torius and Cyril was mere logomachy is a matter
of dispute. — Tr.]
IV. The Doctrine of Eutyches, and the Controversy
respecting it in the Fifth Century.
Eutyches, an abbot, and presbyter in cloister
at Constantinople, was one of the most zealous
opponents of Nestorius. In order to oppose his
doctrine more successfully, he affirmed, after the
year 448, that Christ had only one nature (ula
fiais) after his deity and humanity were united.
He called this nature, tyigis gsgapxapsvv, the na
ture Tnade human. In this way he supposed he
could express the most intimate connexion be
tween the two'natures, which, in his opinion,
were too widely separated by Nestorius, so as to
make two persons in Christ. He meant, in fact,
to say nothing more nor less than that there was
only OTie Christ. The whole obscurity consisted
in the word §igis, which he understood to mean
person; as Athanasius himself did in the fifth
century, and also Ephraem the Syrian. This
controversy, therefore, like the former, was, in
fact, mere logomachy.* Eutyches appealed, and
* [The doctrine of Eutyches respecting the person
J>f Christ has been more definitely stated by other

with truth, to Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria,
and other ancient, and especially Egyptian,
teachers, who appeared to abolish the distinction
of the two natures. Eutychianism may therefore
be truly said to have existed before Eutyches ;
to prove which Salig published a treatise at
Wolfenbutel, 1724, 4to.
Hence arose another unhappy division in the
church. The patriarch of Constantinople joined
with Pope Leo the Great in opposing Eutyches,
and accused the latter of reviving the heresy of
Apollinaris, and of denying the true humanity
of Christ. He protested against this conclusion ;
butthey would not allow that his words admitted
any other sense, and he was too obstinate to alter
his terminology. At the Council at Chalcedon in
the year 451, his doctrine was condemned as he
retical. Here arose the sect of the Monophy sites,
which continues in the East to the present day.
In order to render the difference between them
selves and the catholics and Nestorians clearly
discernible, some of these Monophysites em
ployed paradoxical statements and phrases, like
the following : — viz., one of the Trinity suffered
and was crucified ; the deity of Christ so pene
trated his humanity as to render his body incor
ruptible, (dqfcaptov.) This, however, was denied
by others, because it favoured the Docetee. Some
also, even of the Monophysites, believed that
the divine nature was omniscient, but not the
human nature connected with it, (Mark, xiii.
32.) These were called Agnoetae.
[Note. — As Photinianism and Apollinarianism
were the opposite extremes of this doctrine in
the former period, so now were Nestorianism
and Eutychianism. Between these the catholic
fathers took a middle course, and condemned, on
the one hand, the gwdtysia of Nestorius, as indi
cating a mere external and moral connexion be
tween the two natures in Christ, and, on the
other, the giyxvois or pstaf3oXri of Eutyches, as
indicating such an entire interpenetration of the
two natures as must destroy the peculiarities of
each. The catholic doctrine in opposition to
these extremes is expressed in the following
symbol, established at the Council at C halcedon,
451, under Marcian.

writers on doctrinal history. The principal peculi
arity of it is placed in this point : while Eutyches
admitted that before the incarnation (or, which was
doubtless his meaning, according to conception, and
not in reality) there were two natures in Christ, yet
after this they did not remain distinct, but consti
tuted one nature, not merely by a mvhfam, as Nesto
rius held, but by a real ovyxwis or psra0o\fi, so that
his human nature could no longer be said to be con-
substantial with that of other men. Briefly, it is
Eutychianism to say that Christ is constituted of or
from two natures, but does not exist in two natures,
(Ik Svo tpioiuH, not iv ittm tpvoeat.) Cf. Neander, Gesch.
b. ii. Ab. iii. s. 1078. Also Murdock's Mosheim,
vol. i. p. 433, Note^-TR.]
2h2

366

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

'Eitousvot tolvvv tol's dylois itatpdgw, sva xai
tbv aitbv buoXoyEiv vibv tbv xvpioi* ijuuv 'Ingovv
Xpitff bv gvutyavas aitavtss ixSiSdgxousv, t sXsiov
tbv aitbv iv §-£of r/f t xai t eXeiov tbv avtbv
iv dv^paitbtnti, ®sbv dto^ws xai &v$paitov
aXr/^us tbv aitbv ix ¦fyvzijfi itoyneijs xai ga-
pat os, u/xoovriiov f 9 rfaf pi xaf a f rjx ^Eofrrf a, xai
ofioovo'ioi' tbv aitbv rjplv xata ti\v dr^paitotr^t a,
xata itdvta bpoiov ijplv xapls apaptias' itpb aiavav
psv ix toi itatpbs ysvvrfcivta xata t^v ^sbtnta,
lit' igxdtav Ss tav r/ftEpwi* tbv aitbv, oV r/fias xa*
fiid trpi rjpstipav gattjplav, ix Mapta; f r)s TtapJisVov
t ijs ^fofdxov xaf a f r}v dv^paiibt r\t a, iva xai
tbv avtbv XptcJf ov, vibv, xvpioi/, povoysvij, ix Svo
tpvgsav [iv Svo tyigsGi\ dgvyxi* ^5 dt psit-
tas, dotaipfi'f us, dxaplgt as yvapi^bfis-
vov- ovSauoi tijs *uv tyvgsuv 5ta^>opas dv<^pv\UEvi\s
Sid ti\v 'i vug iv, guCfQuivns Se uaXXov f?7S ISibtn-
t os ixat spas $vafE<os xai eis iv it p bgu it ov, xai
ulav vitbgtagiv gvvtpsxoigqSi °ix sis Sio itpo-
gaiia uspi^bpsvov rj Siaipovpsvov, dxx' iva xai tbv
avtbv vibv xai uovoysvij, &bv Xoyov, xvptw Iqgovv
Xpitff 6V- xd^ditsp dva^sv ol itpotyyjtai itspl avtov
xai avf 6s rjads b xvpios Ingois Xptfff 6s i^siiaiSsvgs,
xai tb tuv itatspuv rjuiv itapaSiSaxs gvpfioXov.
There can be no reasonable doubt which of
the two readings, ex Sio tyvgsuv, or iv Svo fvgsgi,
ought to be preferred. The whole force of the
symbol, as far as it is directed against Euty
chianism, lies in the latter reading, since Euty
ches would allow that Christ was constituted
ix Svo tyvgsuv. The reading iv Svo fyigsgi is sup
ported by good authority, probably from the
whole course of events at the Council of Chal-
cedon, and more consistent than the other with
the context, as the word yvuptg ousvov is of diffi
cult construction with e'x, and, on the contrary,
reads naturally with iv. Cf. Neander, b. ii.
Abth. iii. s. 1110  Tr.]
V. The Theory and Sect of the Monothelites.
This sect arose in the seventh century, from
the attempt of some, who were rather inclined
to the side of the Monophysites, to unite the
Nestorians and Monophysites with the catholic
church. They persuaded the emperor Heraclius
to enact, that Christ, after the union of his two
natures, had only one will and one action of the
will. To this it was thought all parties might
assent, and thus become united. At first many
were inclined to adopt this opinion, and among
others, the patriarchs at Constantinople and
Rome. But a number of councils were held
upon the subject, and the catholics at last came
to the conclusion that this opinion would intror
duce only a different form of the doctrine of
Eutyches. They therefore maintained a twofold
will in Christ — i. e., one for his divine, and one
for his human nature ; but at the same time that
these were never opposed and always agreed.
The other party maintained that there was but

one will ; since the human will of Christ did net
act separately, but was subject to the divine will,
and governed by it. Both parties were right in
opinion, and only misunderstopd each other.
The latter, however, was outvoted, and at the
third Council at Constantinople, in the year 680,
was condemned as heretical ; and thus the sect
of the Monothelites arose in the East, [Cf.
Hahn, s. 464. Gieseler, s. 162.]
Note. — Another controverted point was the
relation of Christ to the Father, in the union of
his two natures. The ancient fathers had com
monly used the appellation Son of God, as a name
of the divine nature of Christ, and not as a name
of his person and office. They found some texts
of scripture, however, in which the human nature
of Christ is also plainly designated by this name ;
as Luke, i. 35. In order to relieve themselves
from, this difficulty, without relinquishing their
position, they said, " Christ as God, was the
natural Son of God, (i. e., he was, in a literal
sense, eternally generated by the Father, he re
ceived his deity communicated to him from eter
nity, Ps. ii.,) but as man he was the Son of
God by adoption — i. e., by the communication
of the divine nature at the time of his concep
tion, he was raised as a man to this dignity.
And in this there is no heresy. But as these
terms and representations respecting adoption
were frequently employed by the Nestorians,
they were gradually omitted by the catholics.
This doctrine was, however, revived in Spain in
the eighth century, 783, et seq., by Felix, Bi
shop of Urgel (Urgelitanus), and was approved
by many in the West. Others regarded it as a
revival of Nestorianism ; councils were held
upon the subject in Italy and Germany ; and at
length the opinion of the Adoptionists was con
demned as heretical.
Respecting all these controversies, vide
Walch, Kelzergeschichte.
These unhappy dissensions should serve as a
warning to every Christian who loves peace, not
to take upon himself to define and decide respeftt-
ing subjects which the holy scriptures have left
undecided; as Morus truly observes, p. 138, s,
10, coll. s. 101. SECTION CIII.
historical observations continued ; the an
cient ECCLESIASTICAL TERMINOLOGY RESPECT
ING THIS DOCTRINE EXPLAINED.
I. Terminology of the Fathers.
The ecclesiastical terminology on this subject
came gradually into use, and originated partly
before the controversies of the fifth century,
partly at the time of these controversies, and in
consequence of them. Many ancient terms were
differently defined and understood after that

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 367

period. This indefiniteness pf phraseology, and
the various use of terms, were the principal occa
sion of these controversies. The terms employed
ought, first of all, to have been explained and
understood. (1) Some ancient general terms respecting the
person of Christ, and the relations and actions of
his deity and humanity.
(a) The ancient fathers were in the habit of
calling the mutual relation of the deity and hu
manity united in Christ, oixovopla, which signi
fies arrangement, institution, regulation; also,
the fashion and manner in which anything is
done or arranged. So it is used by Polybius,
and Cicero, in his letters to Atticus, and by
Paul, Ephes. i. 10. In the same way, Tertul
lian (Adv. Prax. 2) used the word ceconomia,
and rendered it dispensa.tio.
.-.(4) They endeavoured to find some term
which should appropriately designate the whole
.person of Christ, as composed of deity and hu
manity. As the New Testament contains no sin
gle word of this kind, they at last decided upon
the Word §iavSpo; or ^sdv^paitas, God-man; as
Tertullian had been accustomed to say, Deus et
homo, and Origen ©eos xai av^puitos.
(e) They called the power which the deity
and humanity of Christ had of working in comr
man, ivspyiia ^savSpixtj, vis, sive operatio deovi-
rilis. This phrase first occurs in the Pseudo-
Dionysius Areopagitus, Epist. 4. Theologians,
therefore, afterwards called the particular actions
of Christ, as God and man, or his mediatorial
works, operationes deoviriles ; also, djtof sXsguat a.
Vide s. 105.
¦ (2) Various terms were originally used to de
note the two subjects (rtpdyfiafa, res, as Cyril
of Alexandria calls them) connected in Christ.
In the Latin church the oldest term was substan
tia. So Tertullian, " substantias duae, — caro et
spiritus," Adv. Prax. 27. They had previous
ly been contented with the simple formula :
"Christum esse Deum et hominem verum."
The word substantia was still used in this sense
by the Latin church in the fourth century, and
sometimes even by Leo the Great in the fifth
century. It signified, as they used it, ens sin-
gulare, or individuum. It was, however, re
garded as ambiguous, since it also signified ex
istence itself and that which really is. The word
natura was gradually found to be more appro
priate and definite. It had been early used by
Ambrosius ; but after the Ceuncil at Chalcedpn,
in the fifth century, it became, by means of Leo
the Great, the usual arid characteristic term of
the catholic fathers.
In the Greek church, also, many terms were
originally in use. (a) 'Titbotagis. This word
answers exactly to the Latin substantia. It was
used by Nestorius, and before him by many
whose orthodoxy was never doubted. (4) ivotj.

This word was used at the same time in Egypt,
arid was one cause of the controversy between
Cyril aod Nestorius. Vides. 102, iii. (c)Oiiela,
This word was early in frequent use ; but through
the efforts of Cyril and the Roman bishop, in the
fifth century, the word, tyvgis became current as
orthodox. (3) The terms used to denote the whole Christ,
as consisting of two natures.
The Latin church used the word persona for
this purpose ; and this, being very definite and
unambiguous, has been retained, Respecting
its definition, &c, vide s. 104. But the Greek
church had a great variety of terms to express
the same thing, which occasiened the greatest
confusion. (a) Ilpbgaitov. This wcrd was, in fact, the
least ambiguous, and answered exactly to the
Latin persona, (a supposilum intelligens, which
has its own proper subsistence.) In many
churches this was originally the most common
word. It was so even among the Syrians, who
derived their word parsopa from it Accordingly,
Nestorius said, itpoga.it ov iv xai Svo viiog-
tag sis (natures) iv Xpiufip. But the word
was uncommon in Constantinople, Egypt, and
elsewhere. In these places they used instead
the word —
(4) 'Titbgtagis. Among the Greeks this word
means the actual existence (vitap%is) of a thing,
the existing thing ; also, an individual. It was
therefore a far more ambiguous word than the
other. Cyril used it to denote the whole Christ;
but Nestorius, his separate natures. Vide s. 102,
III. Cyril and the Roman bishop said : sis
Xpigtbs,fila vitbgtagis, Svotyvgsis Iv Xpto-
f9. This party prevailed, and introduced •vrtdo'-
f actis as the common word by which the orthodox
were distinguished. Even they, however, some
times still used the word itpbgaitov. The word
vjtdffraffis may also have been regarded as more
scriptural, from Hebrews, i. 2, .xapaxtiip vnoatd-
gsas; but here the person is not the subject of
discourse. Vide s. 100. The Nestorians still
adhered to their itpbgaitov and parsopa.
(s) *v«is. This word was applied to the per
son of Christ by many teachers of the fourth
century, long before Eutyches. Athanasius and
Ephraem the Syrian had affirmed, withcut being
pronounced heretics, that there was fiia tyvais
in Christ. Eutyches, then, in the fifth century,
thought that this word, already authorized by
the catholic fathers, was the best adapted to
express the most intimate connexion between
the deity and humanity, in opposition to Nesto
rius. Vide s. 102, iv. His opponents, how
ever, understood the word differently, and so
made heresy out of it.
(4) The words, comparisons, and established
distinctions employed to illustrate the manner of
the union of the two natures.

368

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

(a) The must ancient words used by the
fathers to denote the union of the two natures
cciYvey the idea of, a mixture of these natures.
Among others was the word avyxpasis, commixtio,
and misceri, which is used by Tertullian (adv.
Prax.) and by Cyprian, and even in the fourth
and fifth centuries by Gregory of Nyssa and
Ephraem the Syrian. This word occasionally
escaped even from Leo the Great, the zealous
opponent of Eutyches. Of the same kind were
the words which frequently occur in the writings
of the Grecian, and more especially the Egyp
tian, teachers of the third and fourth centuries —
viz., ftEfa.Sotoj, pstaitolrjgis, pstapoptyugis. But
the word gvvdfysia was preferred by Nestorius
and some others. But for this very reasen it
was rarely empleyed by his ppponents. The
other words crvyxpauiS) x. f . X., which denote a
mixture of natures, were rejected at the Council
at Chalcedon, because they were used by Euty
ches, and the word svagis, unio, was there esta
blished in their place.
(b) The illustrations of the manner of this
union employed by the ancients.
(a) Comparisons and images. Some of these
are very gross, and exhibit very imperfect con
ceptions. Tertullian said, (Adv. Prax. 27,)
"The deity and humanity in Christ were mix-
tura quxdam, ut electrum ex auro et argento."
Origen and Basilius the Great compared this
union to iron heated in the fire, (penetrated
through and through by the fire ;) Ephraem the
Syrian, to a compounded medicine ; Origen, in
another passage, and Theodorus of Mopsuestia,
to the marriage connexion (two, one flesh) — a
comparison of a more moral cast ; Cyril of Alex
andria and Leo the Great, to the union of soul
and body, which comparison they particularly
advocated. ()3) Many new terminologies were invented
after the controversies commenced, in order to
distinguish one sect from another, and to obviate
various unscriptural representations. Thus, the
natures in Christ were said to be connected
axapigtas, dSiaipstas, and dSiaXvtas — i. e., in-
dissolubly and permanently, and not merely for
a season ; for the Gnostics taught that the jEon
Christ was separated from the man Jesus at the
time of the death of the latter; and Marcellus
taught that the Logos would at some future time
return to the Father. In opposition to these
and similar errors, the above determinations
were therefore adopted by the Council at Chal
cedon. Thus, too, in opposition to Eutyches,
this union was said to be dgvyxvtas, (such that
a third nature had not arisen from the union of
the two natures, as when material things are min
gled ;) each nature existed by itself, unaltered in
its kind, dtpsittas. Christ, it was said, should
be one, 'iv itpbgaitov, pia vitbgtagis %sav§paitov.
This svagis was said to be oigiaSns, (not appa

rent, but real ;) iitogtatixy, (such that the two
natures remained unchanged as to their kind,
although they were essentially united — a term
used by Cyril ;) vitsp^voixri, (supernatural,) &c.
After the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the
schoolmen of the West adopted these termino
logies into their systems. The orthodox Greeks
also constantly preserved them, in opposition to
the Monophysites, Nestorians, and other here
tics. II. Later Distinctions.
During the sixteenth century, after the death
of Luther and Melancthon, not only were the
old subtilties in the doctrine respecting the na
ture and person of Christ revived by many Lu
theran theologians, but many new ones were in
troduced. The occasion of this was, the contro
versy respecting the Lord's Supper between the
zealous adherents of Luther and the Reformed
theologians. The Reformed doctrine was at that
time approved by many Lutheran theologians.
The opposing party, therefore, and especially
James Andrea, Chancellor at Tubingen, and
Mart. Chemnitz, endeavoured, by new distinc
tions in the doctrine respecting the person of
Christ, to draw the line of distinction between
the two systems as finely as possible. Eccle
siastical authority was given to these distinc
tions by the " Form of Concord." Such sub
tilties as these do not appear in the " Loci Tbe-
ologici" of Melancthon. On this subject the
following particulars should be known — viz.,
(1) Luther affirmed the true and substantial
presence of the body and blood of Christ in the
Lord's Supper. But in the sixteenth century
many of his disciples and zealous followers went
beyond their teacher in this matter. Some of
them advocated in fact, if not in words, a physical
presence of the body of Christ Beza, on the
other hand, and other Reformed theologians,
shewed, as Zwingli had done before, that this
could not be supposed; considering that the
human body of Christ is now in heaven, and
could not, as a real human body, be present in
more than one place at the same time.
(2) Against these objections the Lutherans
maintained, either the actual constant omnipre
sence of the body of Christ, as Andrea appears
to have done, or, that it could be present every
where (ubique), whenever and wherever he
would, and the case required. This was the
view of Luther, Chemnitz, Hiilsemann, and
many others. Hence they were called by their
opponents Ubiquitarians, and there was much
controversy respecting the omnipresence of the
body of Christ.
(3) In order to render this presence of the
body of Christ more intelligible, assistance was
sought from the doctrine de communicatione idio-
matum interna d reali. Here Chemnitz was

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 369

the most active. They proceeded on the ground
that the human nature of Christ was united in
the most intimate manner with the divine nature,
that it was penetrated, as it were, by the divine
nature, and received all divine attributes by com
munication. They invented for this purpose
the " genus communicationis idiomatum majes-
taticum." At length they displayed this fine
web of subtilty and termih'ology in the " Form
of'Concord." (4) Hereupon new dissensions and schisms
arose in the Lutherari church in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. For the theologians
of Brandenburg rejected the " Form of Concord"
altogether, and the theologians of Helmstadt dis
approved and rejected particular doctrines con
tained in it, such as the doctrine of the omni
presence of the human nature of Christ. The
controversy which thus arose did great injury
to the Lutheran church.
SECTION CIV.
A BRIEF EXHIBITION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL SYS
TEM RESPECTING THE PERSON AND THE TWO
NATURES OF CHRIST; AN EXPLANATION OF THE
ECCLESIASTICAL PHRASEOLOGY NOW IN USE IN
THE DOCTRINE " DE COMMUNICATIONS IDIOMA
TUM ;" AND A CRITICAL JUDGMENT UPON THE
SAME.
From s. 102, 103, the gradual origin and in
crease of the learned ecclesiastical distinctions
and terminologies is clearly seen. The most
important of these only are still retained. How
many of them are plainly founded in the holy
scriptures may be determined by s. 100, 101.
I. Established Form of Doctrine respecting the Person
of Christ, and the Union of his Two Natures.
There are two natures in Christ, the divine
and human. The Son of God (i. e., the divine
nature) united himself so closely and intimately
with the human nature, that one person is made
from these two united natures. Person, in philo-
sbphical language, is a rational existence, (beasts
then are not persons,) which has its being and
subsistence in itself, (subjectum intelligens, vo-
lens, libere agens.) Thus Boethius in h|s b&ofe^
"de persona et natura," cap. 2. ~THe abstract
of person, or the existence of such a being, is
called personality. This union, therefore, in
being personal, (unio personalis,) is distin
guished from the other kinds of union of God
with his creatures, and even from that of God
(the Father) with the man Jesus; vide s. 101.
We may say that the triune God is in some
sense united with Jesus. But neither the Fa
ther nor the Holy Spirit have so connected
themselves with the human nature of Christ,
that we can say that the Father- or the Holy
Spirit became man. This can be said, on the
47

authority of the Bible, only of the Son of God.
The condition which arises from this union is
called unio (svagis) ; the beginning of this
union, or the act of uniting, unitio, which is
therefore synonymous with incarnatio, (ivgapxa-
gis.) This personal union is a real, not simply
a moral, mystical, or figurative union ; still it is
a supernatural union, such that one nature is, as
it were, penetrated by the other (permeata ,-) al
though the manner, the internal modus, of this
is to us inexplicable, and such that the most in
timate connexion subsists between the two in
their mutual actions. Theologians call this
union of one nature with the other, and their
mutual relations, itspixapngis, observing, how
ever, that no mixture (gvyxvgis) of the two na
tures takes place, and also that this union is in
separable and indissoluble, (dxaplgtus.) Other
distinctions and terminologies, which had their
rise in the controversies relating to this subject,
may he seen in s. 103.
II. Effects of this Personal Union of the Two Natures,-
and the Consequences deduced from it.
(1) The impersonality, dvvitogtagla, imperso-
nalitas, of the man Jesus, or of the human nature
of Christ. Theologians maintain that the hu
man nature of Christ does not subsist in itself,
but in the person of the Son of God, or that in
itself it is dvvtogtatos, and that it has EVvjtoafa-
glav in him. For, if personality is ascribed to
the human nature of Christ, he must be con
ceived as composed of two distinct persons.
This distinction was directed principally against
the opinions ascribed to the Nestorians, and
also against the opinions of the Apollinarians,
Monotheletae and Agnoetae. If we would form
any clear idea from this distinction, we must
understand it, not in a physical, but in a moral
sense, as Ernesti remarks in his programm " De
incarnatione." All that is intended by it is this,
that the man Jesus never was a mere man, and
never acted from simple human power (dij>' e'ov-
fov), in any such way as to be separated from
the Son of God, and, as it were, independent of
him. And this is the representation of the New
Testament. When, therefore, Christ says, /do,
I leach, &c, he speaks of the whole Christ, in
which the divine is the superior and reigning
nature, by which the inferior or human nature is
governed and used as an instrument, just as we,
when we speak of ourselves, our persons, mean
soul and body together.
Note. — In this way, and in this way only, can
we explain the fact that Christ should speak of
himself in the very same discourse, and indeeo
in the Very same sentence, as man, and again in
such terms as the eternal and immutable God
alone uses of himself — e. g., John, xvii. 5,
"Glorify me with the glory which I had with
thee before the world was ;" in the same man-

370

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ner as, when we speak of ourselves, we some
times employ terms which are applicable only
to a spiritual nature, and, at other times, terms
which are applicable only to a corporeal nature ;
the former in relation to the soul, the latter in
relation to the body ; because these two natures
are united in us in one person.
(2) Another consequence deduced from this
community of the two natures is, that one nature
communicates its own attributes to the other, (com-
municare idiomata.)
(a) If by this statement it is meant that the
properties of each of the two natures are regarded
as belonging to the whole person, it is unobjec
tionable. For in the very same way we ascribe
to man the attributes of soul and body, though
exceedingly diverse. Accordingly, the New
Testament and the discourses of Christ himself
represent that the glory which Christ, as to his
divine nature, had with the Father from eternity,
belonged also to his human nature, and, so far as
this nature was susceptible of this glory, was
communicated to it, and became particularly
visible from the commencement of his state of
exaltation. Vide John, xvii. 5 ; Phil. ii. 9 — 11.
Cf. s. 101.
(4.) There is great objection, however, to the
opinion, that all the attributes of one nature are
really (interne et realiter) communicated to the
other. But the strict Lutheran theologians of the
sixteenth century, and especially Chemnitz, were
led by their views respecting the Lord's supper
to insist strongly upon this opinion. Vide s.
103, II. To meet the objections which would
be brought against it, they made the following
limitations — viz.,
(a) Because the Deity is incapable of change,
the attributes of the human were not commu
nicated to the divine nature, but only the attri
butes of the divine to the human. This com-
municatio idiomalum was not, then, mutual or
reciprocal. (0) All the attributes of the divine nature can
not be communicated to the human, but only the
attributa operativa, (those which imply action
and activity,) e. g., omnipotence, goodness, jus
tice, &c The attributa quiescentia, (those which
imply rest and inaction,) e. g., infinity, eternity,
fee, are incommunicable. Vide s. 18, III. 2.
But this opinion, after all these fine distinc
tions, is not founded in the scriptures, and the
texts cited in its behalf do not prove it. Vide
infra, de propositionibus idiomaticis. Moreover,
it is liable to many objections.
(n) Nothing more was necessary in order to
the action of the human nature of Christ, than
for it to be determined and impelled by the di
vine nature in something the same way as the
human body is impelled by the soul ; in which
case each part retains its own attributes, and
there is no necessity for the attributes of the

soul to be communicated to the body. This was
the view of many of the most ancient and or
thodox fathers of the church.
(a) The attributes of the Deity are inseparar
ble. Where there is one, there are all. And no
conception, certainly no clear conception, can be
formed of such a division. The divine nature
is altogether incapable of change. And if the
human nature were changed in any essential
respect, Christ could not continue a true man.
( j) C hrist himself said, that as a man he was
unacquainted with many things. He changed
his place as a man. He learned, and increased
in wisdom. How, then, can I say, that as a
man he was omniscient, omnipresent, and all-
wise? It is far better to be content with the more
simple and more scriptural opinion, that each
nature retained its peculiar attributes, and that
the human nature was supported, guided, and
endowed with strength and wisdom by the di
vine nature, whenever there was occasion. Vide
s. 100, 101. And many good Lutheran theolo
gians, even of the sixteenth century, acknow
ledged that this was sufficient.
(3) Still another consequence deduced from
the personal union of the two natures is the
communio operationum — i. e., all the actions
done by either of the two natures must be con
sidered as the actions of the whole person. So
whether Christ acts from the impulse of the di
vine nature, or as man, in either case the whole
person acts. In the same way the actions of
a man, whether of his soul or his body, are
ascribed, without hesitation, to the whole per
son. The most rational and intelligible opinion
on this subject, however, is this, that the hu
manity of Christ is the instrument by which his
deity acts; though in such a manner that the
peculiar attributes and properties of his humani
ty are not set aside. In all those actions, there
fore, where the humanity of Christ had occasion
for instruction, support, and guidance, it re
ceived the same from his divinity. Such actions
(and all which belong to his mediatorial work
are such) are called by theologians, operationes
deoviriles. Vide s. 103, I. 1.
The ancients expressed the same thing by
saying that there was one will in Christ, and
that his humanity assented to the will pf his di
vinity, and acted accerdingto it. So Nestorius,
and even the orthpdpx of that age. But after
the ccntroversy ef the cathelics with the Mono-
theletas, the former advecated twe wills in
Christ, the latter enly one. Vide s. 102, V.
(4) From the theory of the personal union,
and the communication of attributes, various for
mulae and modes of speech have been derived.
Only a part of them occur in the scriptures.
The rest, which should have been omitted, were
occasioned by theological controversies. They

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 371

»re called propositiones, and are divided into two
principal classes. Respecting all the minutiae
of this subject, vide Baumgarten, Glaubens-
lehre, where they are treated at length. [Cf.
also Hahn, s. 94, s. 445.]
L " Propositiones Personates sive Hypostaticx" — i.
e., such as are derived from the notion of the Per
sonal Union itself of the Two Natures in Christ.
These are again divided into two classes.
(1) Propositions in which the peculiar proper
ties of either of the two natures are ascribed to
the whole person, or in which the concrete of the
person is connected with the concrete of either of
the two natures — e. g., Christ is man, the son of
man, the son of David, where the concrete of the
person is connected with the concrete of the
human nature ; or, Christ is God, the only begot
ten Son of God (in the theological sense), where
the concrete of the person is connected with the
concrete of the divine nature. Such propositions
occur in the Bible and occasion no mistake.
(2) Propositions in which the concrete of one
nature is predicated of the other nature (concreta
naturarum de se invicem prxdicantur)—e. g.,
God is man, the man Jesus is God, the son of
Mary, or of David, is God. Theologians observe
here, that the case is not the same with the a4-
sPracta naturarum. Thus it would be improper
to say, the humanity (of Christ) is the deity (of
Christ.) Anciently, in the fourth and fifth cen
turies, such propositions were frequently em
ployed, vide s. 102; but they were objected to
by Nestorius. They are indeed capable of a
proper explanation, but they easily occasion
mistake. Besides, they have no analogy ; as
nobody says, animus est corpus, corpus est ani
mus, &c. The texts which are appealed to
(Rom. i. 3; Luke, i. 35; Matt. xvi. 13, 16) are
not in point. For the appellation, Son of God,
in these texts, rnay be the name of person and
of office, and is not necessarily the name of na
ture. In the text, 1 Cor. xv. 47, "the second
Adam is the Lord from heaven," xvpios also is
the name of person, and not of nature.
II. " Propositiones Idiomalicx, sive de Communica-
tione Idiomatum ,-" such as denote the Communi
cation of Attributes, ("Idiomata, Proprietates,
, Affectiones.") These, again, are divided into two
principal classes.
(1) Propositions in which the attributes of one
nature are asoribed to the whole person (named
from one of the two natures), or in which the
subject is either a concrete of person or a con
crete of nature, but the predicate is an idioma of
the divine or human nature. These are divided
into three classes — viz.,
(A). Propositions in which the attributes and
actions of one nature or the other are ascribed
to the whole person ; or, where the subject is a

concrelum personx, but the predicate an idioma
alterutrius naturx. A proposition of this kind
is called idiomalica, or, dvtiSotixri, (dvtiSogis,
retributio.) This has analogy in its favour —
e. g., man (the soul) thinks; man (the body) eats.
In this case, both of these actions are predicated
of the whole person. Such propositions fre
quently occuj in the scriptures — e. g., Christ
suffered, rose from the dead, wrought miracles by
his own power, is mortal, is omnipotent. Thus
in John, xvi. 51, "/ (the whole person speaks)
came from heaven, (the divine nature;") John,
x. 12, "Hay down my life (the human nature)
for the sheep ,-" and in many other texts. Vide
Morus, p. 143, s. 4.
(B) Propositions in which the attributes pecu
liar to each nature are predicated of the same, -or
in which the subject is a concrete of one nature,
and the predicate an idioma of the same nature ;
as when we say, the soul is immortal, the body is
mortal. Thus Matt ii. 1, Jesus was born; Acts,
ii. 22, 23, Jesus was crucified; or, making the
subject a concrete of the divine nature, the only
begotten Son of God, (if this name is given to the
divine nature,) was from the beginning, created
the world, is omnipotent, &c This language is
very common in the Bible; and the nature
which is the subject of discourse is often ex
pressly mentioned — e. g., Christ xafd cdpxa.
Vide Morus, p. 142, s. 1, n. 1.
(C) Propositions in which the peculiar attri
butes of one nature are predicated of the other.
These propositions are divided into two classes,
corresponding to the two natures in Christ.
(a) Propositions in which the attributes of
the human nature are predicated of the divine
nature, or where the subject is a concretum di-
vinx naturx, but the predicate an idioma naturx
humanx. This is called ISioitolngis, because
the divine nature appropriates to itself what be
longs to the human nature. The texts cited as
examples are the following: — viz., Gal. iv. 4,
" God sent his Son, born of a woman ;" Rom.
v. 10, "We are reconciled with God, through
the death of his Son ;" Acts, iii. 15, "The prince
(auctor) of life was slain ;" 1 Cor. ii. 8, " Ye
have crucified the Lord of glory ;" but especially
Acts, xx. 28, " God bought the church with his
blood." But the reading in the last passage is
very uncertain. Vide s. 37. And though some
of these and other texts may possibly be exam
ples in point, they are not distinctly so. For
the appellation Son, Son of God, in these pas
sages, may be the name of the whole person of
the God-man (Messiah), and is not necessarily
the name of the divine nature.
(4) Propositions in which the attributes of
the divine nature are predicated of the human
nature ; or in which the subject is a cencrete cf
the human nature, but the predicate an attribute
ef the divine nature. This is called, xowavla

372

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

tav $slav, SC i&iapdtav, pstdSogis, iitEpvityueiSt,
fiextiagis, genus aixipatixbv, sive majestaticum,
because divine attributes are communicated to
the man Jesus — e. g., Jesus, or the Son of man,.
is almighty, omnipresent, omniscient, &c. The
most probable^ texts are John, iii. 13; vi. 62,
"The Son of man will return to heaven, where
he was before." But these do not teach that.
divine attributes are communicated to the human
nature of Christ; and, in truth, the phrase Tibs
dv^paitov here denotes the whole person, the
Messiah, although the appellation is taken from
his humanity. The texts, Matt, xxviii. 18, 20,
"All power is given to me in heaven and in
earth," and " I am with you," &c, (from which
the communication of omnipotence and omnipre
sence to the humanity of Christ has been con
cluded,) are irrelevant to this point;, for they
treat of the state of exaltation, and- the whole
Christ speaks of himself, and not merely his
humanity. For other texts, vide Morus, p.
144, n. 3.
Note. — This whnle third class cf propositions
was disapproved even by many of the ancient:
fathers, who were of the opinion that it should
be entirely discarded, because it has no clear
authority from scripture. So Origen and many
others. But Cyril and Leo the Great, in the.
fifth century, advocated these propositions in
opposition to Nestorius. And in the seven
teenth century, Chemnitz and the "Form of
Cpnccrd" brought them again into vogue; and
especially the genus propos. auchematicum, on
account of their bearing on the doctrine of the
Lord's supper, Morus, 1, 1. n. 2.
They ought to be discarded for the following
reasons — viz., (1) They have no clear support
from scripture ; vide supra. (2) They are con
tradictory to all the analogies to which we can
appeal in other cases. Who would say, the
soul dies ; the mind eats, digests ; the body
thinks, philosophizes ? although, indeed, the
concretum naturx, man, is used in. such cases.
They give rise to propositions which, though
capable of a reasonable explanation, are very
offensive in their form, and the occasion of ridi
cule from the thoughtless. Such are the fol
lowing: God died, and was buried; the man
Jesus is eternal ; Mary was the mother of. God ;
one of the Trinity was crucified, &c All the
offensiveness of these propositions is removed
by using the name of the person, Christ. (3)
Such expressions lead the great mass of men
into gross and material conceptions of God, and
confirm them in such conceptions, which they
are always inclined to form. For this reason
they were discarded by Nestorius, though- even
he admitted that they might be explained in
such a way as to give a true sense. Cf. Morus,
p. 145, n. 2.
(2) The second class of propositiones idioma-

ticx comprises those propositions in which th*
works belonging to the mediatorial office ol
Christ are ascribed to the person, named from
either of the two natures, or from both united.
This class is called genus propositionum dito-
tsXsgpatixbv, from ditotsXsgpata, effectus sive
opus, sc. mediatorium. This is thus described
in the language of the schools : " Apotelesmata,
sive actiones ad opus mediatorium pertinentes
tribuuntur subjedo, vel ab humana, vel a divina,
vel ab utraque natura denominato." This cor
responds with analogy; because these actions
were performed through the union of the two
natures. Such propositions frequently occur in
the scriptures, and are founded upon the com-
munio operationum utriusque naturx. Thus I
can say, Christ raises the dead, redeems and
judges men. But I can also say, either that the
Son of God, (in the theological sense,) or that
Jesus, the Son of man, does the same things;
Luke, ix. 56 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; 1 John, iii. 8 ; Heb
i. 3 ; vi. 20.
This genus apotelesmaticum is made very pro
minent in the " Form of Concord," on account
of the controversy in the sixteenth century be
tween Osiander and Stancarus, theologians of
Konigsberg. Osiander taught that Christ atoned
for the sins of men only as God, and not as man.
Stancarus, on the other hand, taught that the
human nature only, and not the divine, ,was
concerned in the mediatorial work. The other
theologians decided justly that both natures
were here concerned. These two theologians,
indeed, expressed themselves inaptly, but ap
pear not to have been so unscriptural in their
opinions as many supposed them to be. Osian
der only designed by his declarations to exhibit,
in a clear light, the high worth of the merits of
Christ; and Stancarus only wished to obviate
the mistake that Christ endured sufferings and
death as God. As for the rest, vide Morus, p. .
146, last note.

CHAPTER IV.
THE WORK OF CHRIST, AND WHAT HAS BEEN
EFFECTED BY IT.

SECTION CV.
SCRIPTURAL NAMES AND DESCRIPTIONS OF THE
WORKS OF CHRIST, AND THEIR SALUTARY EF
FECTS J ALSO, THE NAMES OF CHRIST AS THB
SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD.
1. General Names of the Works of Christ for the
good of Men.
(1) "Epyoi/ is frequently used in the New Tes
tament in the discourses of Christ himself, John,

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 373

ir. 34 ; xvii. 4. It signifies the business, works,
which he had undertaken. In the passages
cited, his business is called spyov toi itatpbs, or
fov'jtEfiiJ/ovj'fos; because it is considered as a
commission given him by the Father. It is
also called ivtoxrj, mandatum, commission, John,
x. 18 ; xii. 49.
(2) Many ecclesiastical terms were afterwards
adopted in addition to these scriptural terms.
Among these is the word munus, which is very
appropriate, as it means business, work; and
thus answers to spyov. The word officium was
used in the same sense, and became the most
commpn name for the work of Christ in the
Latin church. Tertullian says (con. Marc. iii.:
16), respecting Christ, "Officium prophetae,
nuntiantis divinam voluntatem." Hilarius, of
Poictiers, in the fourth century, says, " Officium
Christi proprium cognitionem Dei afferre," and
"Officium Christi pcenale." These terms were
retained in the protestant church, and officium
and offkia were the mest ccmmon terms with
Melancthon, Chemnitz, and others. But be
cause, in Germany, munus and officium were
commonly rendered by words which denoted
offices, posts of honour, (Germ. Amt, Ehrenamt,)
they were so rendered here, and in this way
occasion was given to associate several incor
rect ideas with this subject. So they spoke of
the mediatorial office pf Christ, instead nf his
mediatorial work; and of the three offices of
Christ, instead of his threefold work, or the
three parts of his mediatorial work. On ac
count of this ambiguity of the words officium
and munus, Ernesti preferred to say, " De opere
Christi salutari."
II. General Description of the Objects of the Mission
of Christ, and of the Benefits flowing to Men
through him.
(1) In some passages the object of his advent
to the earth is stated in general terms to be to
rescue men from their- unhappy condition, and
to transfer them into a more happy situation —
e. g., John, iii. 16, "Those who believe in him
shall not be miserable, (fir) ditbxxvg^cu,,) but
shall become happy, (£aijv sxsiv.)" Also, Heb.
ix. 15, where ditoxit pagis means liberatio ab in-
fortunio* and xXypovopla, possessio beatitatis.
Cf. Luke, xix. 10; 1 Tim. i. 15. Christ is
said to have come, 1 John, iii. 5, 8, dpaptlas
ai'pf iv and xisiv spya fov Stafibxov, peccata. The
word gu£siv .which occurs frequently in these
passages, like the Hebrew »'t!>in, involves the
two ideas of freeing from misery and translat
ing into a happy condition. The same is true
of the word gutnpla.
(2) In other "passages the benefits which
Christ has bestowed, and his desert of the hu
man race, are comprised in a shorter descrip
tion, and only particular parts of his work are

mentioned — e. g., John, i. 17, which treats of
the great advantages which Christianity has
oyer the Mosaic doctrine and institute, (vopos.)
Christianity bestows the greatest blessings,
%dpis xai dxrfcsia — assurance of the most sincere
love of God/or of his free, unmerited grace, and
of his truth. John, xiv. 6, "I am the way, the
truth, and the life" — i. e., I am he through!
whom you come to God, who qualifies you to
enter the abodes of the blessed ; and this my
promise is true ; you may safely confide in it ;
I arii the author and giver of life — i. e., of hap
piness. Heb. ii. 14, " By his death he deprived
the devil, the author of all injury and wretched
ness, of his power to harm ; he freed us from the
fear of death, and procured us the pardon of our
sins." The passage, 1 Cor. i. 30, should be
cited in this connexion : " Through him God
has bestowed upon us true wisdom — has esta
blished a dispensation which truly deserves the
name of a wise dispensation, (in opposition to
the pretended wisdom of men, ver. 21 ;) he is
the cause of our forgiveness — God pardons us
on his account; he sanctifies us through him,
(after forgiveness has been bestowed;) to him
we owe deliverance from the power, dominion,
and punishment of sin."
III. Scriptural Titles which are given to Christ as
the Saviour of the World.
The names, Messiah, Christ, King, Lord,
which denote the elevation and dignity of
Christ, have also a reference to the benefits
which he bestowed upon us, and to the works
which he performed for the good of men. For
he is Messiah, King, Lord, for the very purpese
ef delivering us from misery, and ef bestowing
blessings upon us. These titles have been con
sidered, s. 89, 98. Their doctrinal meaning,
then, as applied to this subject, is Sufrjp, (xbg-
pov,) Saviour, Benefactor of men. The follow
ing titles imply more directly the idea of his
being the Benefactor of our race.
(1) 'I^bovs." This is indeed the name by
which he is more properly distinguished as
man ; but at the same time it may have been
given to him as a significant name, denoting his
future works and destination, according to the
custom in giving names, common in the East
Indeed, the New Testament expressly declares
that he received this name by divine appoint
ment, on the command of the angel : Sugsi xabv
avtov ditb apaptiav, Matt. 1. 21 ; Luke, i. 31 ;
ii. 21. This name was common among the
Jews at the time of Christ, and is the name of
the Jewish leader, Joshua, which is accordingly
rendered 'Ijjotvs by the LXX., and Heb. iv. ?
The Hebrew name j;reh or jw'w is derived from
jjtt", Hiph. jwffi, which answers to gu£siv, (as
gatnpla does to iite»,) and signifies, according to
Hebrew and Greek usage, not merely a deli-
21

374

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

verer, but in general, a benefactor, one who be
stows blessings.
(2) tat 7jp. This word agrees in signification
with 'Ivgois, and answers to the old German
werd, Holland, (Savipur.) Fpr owrjp denetes
ene who has not only saved a person from ex
tremity and wretchedness, but translated him
into a happy condition. Cicero says, (in Verr.
ii. 63,) " Is est Soter, qui salutem dedit," and
remarks that it is " ita magnum, ut latino uno
verbo exprimi nonpossit. Vide Ernesti, CI. Cic
in h. v. In this sense the Greeks applied it to
their gods — e. g., to Jupiter, (so also it is applied
to God, Luke, i. 47 ;) also to their rulers — e. g.,
Antiochus, Ptolemy Soter. So Philo names the
emperor. The LXX. give this name to Moses
and other Jewish leaders. Christ now is called
in the New Testament, by way of eminence,
Suf r)p fov xbgjtmi, the Saviour of the world, the
Benefactor of the human race, Luke, ii. 11 ; John
iv. 42. So when the word ga^siv is spoken of
Christ, it signifies to bless; and ga^bpsvoi, the
blessed, is a name given to pious Christians, 2
Cor. ii. 15 ; and gatrjpla signifies all the bless
edness which Christians receive from Christ, not
only in the life which is to come, but in that
which now is, 1 Pet. i. 10, seq.
(3) Msgltrjs. This word was used in various
senses by the ancients. Among the Greeks it
meant conciliator, (a negotiator, or peace-maker
between contending parties,) sponsor, arbiter.
When this term is applied to Christ in the New
Testament, it is taken from Moses, and implies
a comparison of Moses with Christ. Moses is
called by Philo (de v. Mos.), and by Paul ; Gal.
iii. 19, usgltns, in the sense of mediator, ambas
sador, negotiator (internuntius, interpretes), as
mediator between God and the Israelites ; because
he spoke and acted in the name of the Israelites
with God, and in the name of God with the
Israelites. The passage, Deut. v. 5, where
Moses describes himself as standing dj/d filcroK
Kvptov xai y\.aov, affords the origin of this appel
lation. With this the works of Christ were com
pared; he was called, 1 Timothy, ii. 5, psgltns
©eov xai dv§paitov, partly inasmuch as he treats
with God in the name of men, and does with
God everything which is possible for our good ;
and partly because he treats with men in the
name of God, and, as his ambassador, founds a
new institute, and assures to men the compla
cency and favour of God. In this respect he is
called, Heb. viii. 6, asglttjs xpslttovos Siogrn-
xrjs- ix. 14, xaivijs Sio^rJxT/Si the founder of a
new and more excellent dispensation than the
ancient Mosaic dispensation. Cf. xii. 24.
(4) 'O itpo&ritns, waj, the prophet, an ancient
Jewish appellation of the Messiah, since he was
conceived to be the greatest of all the messen
gers and teachers sent from God. This term is
derived principally from the passage, Deut.

xviii. 15, which is referred to Jesus by Peter,
Acts, iii. 22, seq. ; and by Stephen, Acts, vii.
37. Vide s. 91.
(5) 'O ditogtoxos. This appellatien nccurs
Heb. V. 1, ditdatoXos — tijs bpoXoylas ijUav — i. e.,
the messenger, ambassador ef Gpd, whpm we
(Christians) profess. Christ frequently, espe
cially in Jehn, applies to himself the phrase bv
ditsgtsiXsv 6 ®eo$, John, xvii.
The various other titles which were given to
Christ, from the particular benefits which he
cenferred upen men, including the figurative
names, apxispsis, dfwd$, dpitsXos, &vpa, will be
noticed in their proper places.
SECTION CVI.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED IN THE SCRIPTURES AS PRO
PERLY BELONGING TO THE WORK WHICH CHRIST
PERFORMED FOR THE GOOD OF MEN ; EXPLANA
TION OF THE WORD " REDEMPTION," AS USED IN
THE BIBLE ; AND WHAT IS THE MOST CONVE
NIENT AND NATURAL ORDER AND CONNEXION
FOR EXHIBITING THE DOCTRINE OF THE ENTIRE
MERITS OF CHRIST.
I. What belongs to the Work of Christ, or to
Redemption.
(1) The declaration of his doctrine, and in
struction respecting it. To this many of the
titles applied to him refer: as 5 rfpoijjjjfrjs, ° drtds-
toxos, (s. 105,) SiSdaxaXos, x. t. x. Respecting
the discharge of his office as teacher, vide s. 94.
It needs only to be remarked here, that instruc
tion in this divine dectrine is by ne means men
tioned in the New Testament as the only object
of the advent of Christ ; still it is represented as
a greai object, and as an essential part of his work
upon the earth, or of the work of redemption.
So he himself represents if. In John, xvii. 3, 4,
he expressly mentions instruction in the true
religion (" that they should acknowledge thee
as the true Ged") as belpnging to the Epyox
which was given him by the Father to do; and
in John, xviii. 37, he says, that he was. born
and had come into the world in order to propa
gate the true religion, (dajj^Eiov.) He every
where taught that he was lawgiver and king
so far as he was a true, an infallible teacher;
that he reigned over the minds of men, not by
external power and constraint, (like the kings
of the earth,) but by the internal power of the
truth which he preached. Cf. John, iii. 34-
xii. 49, 50.
(2) The sufferings and death which he endured
for the good of men. This, too, Christ himself
always mentions as an essential part of this work
— e. g., John, iii. 14, seq. In the allegory,
John, vi. 51, where he compares himself with
the manna, he means by the 4read of heaven the
doctrine respecting his person, and especially re
specting the sacrifice of his body for the good

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 373

of men, (vithp fwijjj fov xbguov ;) which he incul
cates as a doctrine of the first importance. In
John, xii. 27, he says, "For this purpose (to
die for the good of men, vide ver. 24) God had
brought him. into such distress, and therefore he
would readily and cheerfully endure it." Cf.
John, xiv. 31. The institution of the Lord's
Supper was designated to commemorate "his
blood shed for the remission of sins ;" Matu
xxvi. 28. That Christ died for the good of all
men is the universal doctrine of all the apostles ;
Heb. ii. 9. _ Paul calls this suffering of Jesus
wtaxorj; Rom. v. 19, coll. Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v.
8; because he endured it in obedience to the
will of God. He contrasts it with the jtapaxorj
of Adam, and says that by it we have obtained
forgiveness and the remission of sins. If, then,
we would adhere to the declarations of the
scriptures, we shall not separate this part from
the other ; but consider them both, one as much
as the other, as belonging to the work of Christ.
Many indeed maintain that the annunciation
and diffusion of his doctrine was the only object
of the life of Christ upon earth, and that his
death is to be considered merely as a martyr
dom, by which lie gave an example and pattern
of steadfastness and devotion to the will of God,
and a confirmation of the truth of his doctrine.
But, (a) The assertion that this was the only object
of his life is inconsistent with the declarations
of scripture. We do not find that the scriptures
particularly mention his death as an example of
'steadfastness ; at least, they do,nnt dwell upen
this view, er regard it as the principal peint.
Remission of sins and eternal life are mentiened
by Christ himself as the principal cbject which
he had in view, Jchn, iii. 16; Matt. xxvi.
(4) As to the ether assertien, that his dnctrine
was proved and confirmed by his death, we find
net a single passage ameng all that speak ef his
death and the ebject cf it which give us to un
derstand that the truth and divinity of his reli
gion was proved and confirmed by this means,
although they were so by his resurrection and
flsce7m'o7i. The passage, Heb. ii. 10, cannot be
appealed to in proof of this assertion ; for Sid
ita&npdtav means, after sufferings and death had
been endured, and refers to Christ. Nor can the
passage, John, xvii. 19, be appealed to, " I have
sanctified (according to some, sacrificed) myself,
that they also might be sanctified by the truth."
The meaning of this passage is : " I have entirely
consecrated (as ver. 17) myself to this service, in
order to give them an example which they should
follow in the proclamation of the true religion ;
that they also may deny themselves, take up
my cross, renounce all worldly prospects, and
live solely for me and my cause." Thus we
see that on this subject the opinions of Christ
and of the first Christians were entirely differ

ent from those above mentioned ; and we ought
not to ascribe to those times and writers the
ideas which are now current among so many.
But, in not considering the death of Christ as
designed to confirm the truth of his doctrines,
the scriptures are entirely right. And if they
had so considered it, they would plainly have
been wrong. It is strange that those who ad
vocate this point should have overlooked this.
For, (c) The steadfast death of a martyr can never
prove the truth of the doctrine for which he dies ;
for almost all religions can point to their heroic
martyrs. His own firm belief cf the truth for
which he died is all that can be concluded from
the death of a martyr. The religion of Jesus,
therefore, would have a very uncertain ground
if it rested upon this fact, and depended- foi
proof upon this argument. Besides, although
Jesus died with great firmness and magnani
mity, it is still certain that he did not endure
death with that tranquillity and joy which have
been admired in so many martyrs of the Chris
tian and the other religions. Consider his
agony in Gethsemane, Luke, xxii., and previ
ously, John, xii. 27. If this, then, were all,
Jesus has been surpassed by many martyrs.
Vide s. 95, II.
(d) During the short continuance of his office
as teacher, Jesus did not exhibit the whole com
pass of the doctrines of his religion, even to his
apostles, because he was with them but a short
time, and the truths to be taught were many, and
the disciples were as yet incapable of receiving
most of them ; John, xvi. 12. It was not till
after his death that these doctrines, in all their
extent, were exhibited, developed, and applied
by the apostles, and were at the same time in
creased by the addition of many others about
which Jesus had said nothing clearly. He de
signed to prepare the ground, and to begin to
sow, but they were to enter into the full harvest ;
John, iv. If, then, as is frequently said, he de
signed to seal or confirm his doctrine by his
death, he could only confirm so much of it as he
himself had already taught, leaving us in uncer
tainty respecting the rest, and respecting its
whole later development.
(e) If the writers of the New Testament be
lieved that Jesus lived upon the earth merely for
the purpose of teaching, it is hard to see why
they should ascribe such distinguished excel
lences to his person ; and why the Deity should
be united with him in a manner in which it never
was with any other man, or any other created
being. As a mere man, he might have been
taught by God, and have preached a doctrine
revealed to him by God, and have founded a
new religion and religious institutions, as Moses
and the prophets did, and afterwards the apos
tles themselves. He himself delivered only the

J76

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

smallest part of his doctrines ; nor did he widely
disseminate even these. He taught only three
years, in a few provinces, within the small cir
cuit of Judea and Galilee; and he saw but little
fruit of his labours. The apostles, on the other
hand, lived through a long course of years, added
to the number of the doctrines ef the Christian
religien, and widened their scope, disseminated
them through many countries, and saw the hap
piest results of their labours. In shcrt, they did,
as Christ himself predicted, greater things than
he himself accemplished ; Jehn, xiv. 12. Were
Christ, then, a mere teacher, he must in many
respects give place to his apostles, and rank as
inferior to them. On this supposition, he would
only have the preference of originating, founding,
and giving the tone to his religion ; while, on
the contrary, according to the representations of
the apostles, and before them of John the Bap
tist, he had an infinite superiority over them,
and over all the teachers who had preceded or
would follow them. These had done and could
do nothing which could bear any comparison
with what he had done for the human race ; for
to him alone are men indebted for their entire
happiness here and hereafter. Even John the
Baptist, whom Christ described as the greatest
of all prophets, esteemed himself unworthy to
offer him the most menial service; John, i. and
iii. 28 — 36. "Whosoever believes in him has
eternal life." Where was this ever said of a
prophet or apostle ? Where is it said that who
ever believes on Moses or Paul has eternal life ?
The writers of the New Testament, then, must
have supposed, if they do not speak and judge
quite inconsistently, that the design of God, in
the mission and death of Christ, extended to
something more than mere instruction and ex
ample. They must have believed that he was
a, far more exalted person than any human
teacher who preceded or would follow him.
(/) Where is it said, respecting James, Ste
phen, or any other martyr, that he died for men?
But this would have been said of them if this
language had meant nothing more than giving
an example and furnishing confirmation to a
doctrine. Paul himself protests against this
idea, as derogatory to Christ, and abhorrent to
the feelings of Christians, 1 Cor. i. 13.
II. Explanation of the word dmdmrpams or XOrprarij,
(Redemption,) and a development of the idea
contained in it.
(1) The primary and literal signification of
Xvtpba is, to redeem by the payment of a ransom
of money or something else. For xitpov is pre-
lium redemptionis, and is used by the LXX. to
translate the Hebrew n§a, Exodus, xxx. 12,
seq. Thus it is used, e. g., when speaking of
redemption from captivity or slavery, which is
effected by the payment of a ransom, or when

speaking of a person's property which is in the
hands of another, and which he then redeems.
In this sense Xvtpba frequently corresponds to
the Hebrew words hxi and rn9, and xitpasis to
the substantives derived from them — e. g., Ley.
xxv. 25, 30, 48, 49. But,
(2) Avfpow and x,vfpa><«s frequently convey
the general idea of any rescue and deliverance
from an unhappy situation, as from slavery/ or
deliverance from any other, even moral evil,
without either the literal payment of a ransom,
or anything like it; precisely like rna and S«m.
Slavery and captivity so often befel the Hebrews
that they were in the habit of comparing every
species of wretchedness with this severe cala
mity. Captivity stood with them for great ca
lamity; as Job, xlii. 10, God freed Job from
captivity when he restored him to health and
prosperity. Captured people, Ps. liii. 7, signi
fies unhappy people. Every deliverance from
misfortune, even where no ransom, in the literal
sense, was paid, was with them xitpagis; the
deliverer, xvtpatsjs; the means of deliverance,
xitpov, as Morus properly translates it. It. is
not said merely of deliverance from bodily evil,
but is transferred to spiritual evil. According
ly, the LXX. frequently translate ma and 'tnj by
ga^siv, Job, xxxiii. 28 ; and by pW»o&at, Is. 1. 2;
which are then synonymous with j.vfpovi'.
(3) The writers of the New Testament follow
this Hebrew and Hebrew-Greek usage, and em
ploy these words to denote any preservation and
deliverance, even in cases where no ransom, in
the proper sense, is paid — e. g., ^fiipa ditoXvtpa-
gsus, Eph. iv. 30 ; iyyl^si ditoXvtpagis, Luke,
xxi. 28 ; and drtoxit pagis tov gapatos, Rom.
viii. 23 ; and Moses is called, Acts, vii. 35, the
Xvtpatijs of the Israelites, although he paid no
ransom for them. In this sense is d?toX,vfpu<ri5
applied by Jews and Christians to the Messiah,
and denotes, when spoken of him, the rescue and
deliverance which he has procured for us.
In all the variety of their opinions respecting
the Messiah and his designs, the Jews differed
also in opinion respecting this deliverance which
they were expecting from him.
(a) Many Jews, who supposed the Messiah
would be a temporal ruler, placed this %it pasts
koov, principally, at least, in a temporal deliver
ance of their nation from its enemies and op
pressors. Cf. a.vfpo'vi' 'Igpaip. spoken of the
Messiah, Luke, xxiv. 21 ; which is expressed
by aitoxa^igtdvai paaiXslav f 9 'Ispajj^, Acts, i. 6.
(4) But those of the Jews who were better
instructed understood this ditoXvtpagis which
was ascribed to the Messiah in a spiritual and
moral sense only. In this sense Christ himself
and his apostles always understood it. Now it
was common to conceive of Sin as having a
power and dominion which it exercised over
sinners, (vide s. 85, 1.,) and to conoeive of the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 377

author of sin (the deceiver of our first parents)
in the same way ; and so of Death, (the conse
quence and punishment of sin,) which is de
scribed as a tyrant, who has men in his power.
One who perishes, or becomes miserable, is his
captive and slave. But, according to the repre
sentations of the New Testament, Christ frees us
(a) from the power and dominion of sin by means
of instruction and counsel received by us in faith,
'Aj^^tia iXs v^tpaos i vfiaj — Tibs vf&as sXs v^tcpavsi,
x. t. X., John, viii. 32 — 36. He accomplishes
this deliverance by means of his doctrine and
example. But (8) he frees us also from the pu
nishment of sin, or procures us forgiveness, by
his death, (atonement.) We cannot experience
the good resulting from the first part of this
redemption, and have no true capacity for it,
before we are made sure of the second.
This twofold deliverance is expressed by va
rious phrases, which sometimes denote the one
kind, sometimes the other, and sometimes the
two together. Among these phrases are the fol
lowing : — ga£siv ditb dpapttuv, Matthew, i. 21 ;
xd$apl£siv ditb dpaptlas, John, i. 7, 9, &c. So
also xvtpba and xitpagis are used sometimes to
express the one kind of deliverance or the other,
and sometimes both together, Heb. ix. 12; 1
Pet. i. 18 ; Rom. iii. 24. What is expressed
by the phrase Xvtpovv ditb dSixias, Titus, ii. 14,
is expressed by itsaipslv, Gal. i. 4; and Christ
himself says he gave his life xirtpov dvti itox-
xdv — i. e„ he died for the delivery and rescue
of men, Matt. xx. 28. In the same way, the
other words of buying and. redeeming are used
mostly for every kind of rescue and deliverance,
and in this sense are transferred to Christ ; as,
tyoadguv, iiayopd^siv, 1 Cor. vii. 23. "The
Lord that bought them," 2 Pet. ii. 1 ; Gal. iii.
13; Rev. v. 9.
III. The Order and Connexion in which the parti
cular topics belonging to the Article respecting the
Merits of Christ may be most conveniently and
naturally treated.
It is most natural here to have respect to the
twofold object. of the mission of Christ; (a) to
free men from the unhappy condition into which
they are brought by sin, "that they may not
perish," John, iii. 16; and (4) to procure for
them true happiness in the present and the fu
ture world, "that they should have eternal
life," John, ubi supra. Hence appears the pro
priety, in the systematic treatment of theology,
of separating the doctrine respecting the work
(opus) of Christ, from the doctrine respecting
the good, or the benefits themselves, which C hrist
has procured for ub by his work, (beneficia
Christi.) The first part exhibits the means
which God employs to recover the human race
through Christ; the second part, the results of
what Christ did. This same distinction is made
48

in the holy scriptures in other places besides
John, iii. ; as Rom. v. 9, 10, ^dmfos is the opus
Christi ; xaf aaAayr; is the result, or the blessing
which Christ bestows; 2 Tim. i. 10, "through
the gospel (opus Christi) he has brought life and
immortality to light, (beneficia.)" According to
the example of the Bible, therefore, the whole
subject may be arranged in the following man
ner — viz.,
I. Of the work of Christ, or the redemption
which he has effected, — his mediatorial work,
(redemptio.) This comprises,
(1) Deliverance or redemption from the pu
nishment of sin, which is effected by his death
or his blood, together with the doctrine of the
justification or forgiveness of men, the fruit of
this redemption. S. 108 — 115, incl.
(2) Deliverance from the power and dominion
of sin, which is effected, through divine assist
ance, by the instruction which Christ gives by
his doctrine and example. S. 116, 117.
Each of these kinds of deliverance belongs
equally to this ditoXvtpagis, or redemption. Only
we must have the forgiveness of our past sins,
and assurance of the same, before we can avail
ourselves of what is contained in the second
part. Hence we have adopted this order. And
so the Bible teaches; we are first pardoned,
then sanctified. The first is effected by the death
of Christ, the second, with divine assistance, by
the instructions of Christ, when received and
obeyed in faith.
II. On the result of all these works under
taken for the good of men, or the blessedness to
which men attain in this life and the life to
come, in consequence of these works, (benefi
cia Christi.) S. 118—120, incl.
But before we enter upon this plan, we must
say a few words respecting the method com
monly pursued, especially in former times, in
discussing the doctrine of the mediatorial work
of Christ ;s. 107. SECTION CVII.
OF THE METHOD FORMERLY ADOPTED OF CONSI
DERING THE WORK OF CHRIST, AS CONSISTING
OF THE PROPHETIC, PRIESTLY, AND KINGLY
OFFICES.It has been for a Ipng time the custom in the
protestant, and especially in the Lutheran
church, to consider the mediatorial work of
Christ as consisting of three oj^ces, (munera,
officia, Germ. JEmtern) — viz., the prophetic,
priestly, and kingly. This method was not
universal among the Lutheran theologians,
though it was the most general from the se
venteenth century down to the time of Ernesti.
In 1768 — 69 he wrote two Programma, "De
officio Christi triplici," which are found in his
" Opusc. Theolpg.," p. 411, seq., and in which
2 i 2

378

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

he objects to this method, for many reasons.
Most of his reasons (for they are not all of
equal validity) have so much weight, that
Zacharia, Doderlein, and many other protest
ant theologians since his time, have pursued an
entirely different method. Seiler, Less, in his
"Prakt. Dogmat." and others, adhered to the
old method, and endeavoured to defend it. Also
Dresde, whose " Obss. in tripartitam divisionem
muneris mediatorii;" Vitel. 1778, 4to ;• contain
many excellent historical remarks. We shall
speak first of the origin and history of this me
thod, and then of the reasons why it does not
appear to be proper in the systematic treatment
of theology. I. Origin and History of this Division.
The title roeta, Xpisf is, Unctus, gave rise to
this division. In its common use, it properly
signifies a king. But it was considered accord
ing to its etymology, and thus new significa
tions were formed. The question was, " Who,
in the Old Testament, was anointed, or conse
crated to office, by unction?" This was found
to have been the custom most frequently with
respect to kings and priests. Accordingly,
Ambrosius, Ruffinus, and other ecclesiastical
fathers, declared that IWD denoted the kingly
and priestly office. But it was found that pro
phets also were sometimes anointed. And so
Clement of Alexandria and others declared that
Christ was called iron because he was a pro
phet. Vide Dresde, s. 5. Now when they saw
that Christ was actually called king, priest, and
prophet in the scriptures, they put these two
things together, and declared that the whole
mediatorial work of Jesus consisted in these
three kinds of works. Eusebius, in the fourth
century, in his Church History, and also in his
"Demonstratio Evangelica," (iv. 15,) is the
first who appears to have distinctly connected
these three parts, and to have considered them
as belonging to the mediatorial work.
This division, then, is not so modern as Er-
nesti appears to suppose. Indeed, it may have
been originally derived by the Christians from
the Jews. For the Rabbins and Cabalists as
cribe to the Messiah a threefold dignity (crown)
— viz., the crown of the law, of the priesthood,
and of the kingdom. Vide Schoettgen, in his
work on the Messiah, s. 107, 298. At least both
of them formed the division in the same way.
But among Christians it was never the general
rule of faith, but only employed as a figurative
mode of representing the doctrine. Anciently it
was most cemmon in the Greek church. Chry-
sostom, Theodoret, and others, shew traces of it.
It was therefore seen in the Confession of Faith
of the modern Greek church in the seventeenth
century, and it is still common in the Russian
church. Anciently in the Latin church it was

sometimes, though seldom used. But the school
men never used it in their acroamatical instruc
tions ; for which reason the theologians of the
Romish church in after times used it but seldom,
although Bellarmin and many others do not dis
card it. For the same reason, Luther and Me
lancthon, and other early Lutheran theologians
who separated from the Romish church, do not
make use of this method in treating of the doctrine
of the mediatorial work of Christ. But after the
seventeenth century it was gradually introduced
into the systems. It appears to have been first
introduced by Joh. Gerhard, in his "LociTheo-
loo-ici." At least it is not found-in Chemnitz.
It was afterwards employed in popular religious
instruction, and was admitted by Spener into his
Catechism ; until at last it became universal te
treat ef the doctrine respecting the mediatorial
work of Christ according to this division and
under these heads. In the reformed church it
was adopted by Calvin, who was followed by
many others. It is also adopted by many Ar
minian and Socinian writers.
II. A Critical Judgment respeding this Method.
Morus, indeed, acknowledges that nothing
depends upon exhibiting the doctrine in this
particular form, and that the truths themselves
may be expressed in other words, and with
out this figurative phraseology. At the same
time he undertakes to defend it, though not in
a very satisfactory manner. The following rea
sons seem to render it unadvisable for theolo
gians to make use of this form in the scientific
treatment of this doctrine.
(1) It appears from No. I. that this manner
of presenting the subject arose entirely from an
etymological explanation of the word rp;yp, and
from an allegorical sense of this title founded
upon its etymology. For, according to the true
use of the word in the Bible, Messiah signifies
only king. Many were anointed, but kings
were called, by way of eminence, the anointed.
(2) All these words, when applied to Christ,
are figurative. Such figurative expressions are,
indeed, very geod and instructive in themselves,
and must be suitably explained in the acroama
tical and popular treatment of theology. But it is
more convenient to express the ideas themselves
in the first instance by literal Janguage, and not
to make figurative expressions, although they
may be scriptural, the ground of our divisions.
And so indeed we proceed with respect to the
pther figurative terms applied to Christ in the
Bible, as /a7n4, physician, shepherd, door, vine.
And why sheuld we proceed differently here ?
Thus we can consider Christ as king, and as
a divinely authorized teacher (prophet), in both
his states; and especially as making atonement
(High Priest) ; and then we can explain the
figurative terms, and shew the meaning of the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 379

words sacrifice, intercede, and 4/ess, when spoken
of Christ.
(3) When theologians attempt to determine
definitely which of the works of Christ are de
noted by each of these titles, they themselves
differ widely from one another; because these
titles are figurative, and so admit of various sig
nifications, according as they are understood in
a more limited or a wider sense. On this ac
count, it is inconvenient to make this division
the basis of our treatment of this subject. It
may easily occasion confusion of ideas. Some
(No. I.) admit only two offices, the royal and
priestly, and comprise the prophetic office in the
priestly, because the priests were employed in
teaching. But even those who admit three of
fices are not united. The opinion which Baier
formerly held, and which Seiler follows, is one
of the most current in the Lutheran church —
viz., the prophetic office comprehends the works
of Christ as divine teacher, in order to free men
from ignorance and to point out to them the way
to happiness (oblatio amissse salutis) ; the priest
ly office comprehends the whole work of atone
ment, or deliverance from guilt and the punish
ment of sin (acquisitio amissee salutis); the
kingly office comprehends the labours of Christ
for the good of his followers and of his church,
and for the more general diffusion of truth over
the earth, (collatio amissae salutis.) But others
again define and divide differently.
(4) The advocates of this division appeal to
the Bible, where these figurative titles, king,
prophet, high priest, frequently occur in appli
cation to Christ. But the sacred writers do not
mean to designate by these titles the very works
of Christ, as Redeemer, which theologians un
derstand by them. The sacred writers mean
frequently to describe by these titles the whole
object of the mission of Christ and his whole
work. These titles were derived from the an
cient Jewish constitution, and were used by the
apostles, for the most part, in their instructions
to Jews and converts from Judaism, to whom
the sense concealed under these figures was at
once intelligible. At first the Jewish institute
was administered by prophets and priests only,
and if this state of things had continued, and
the Israelites had never been governed by kings,
Christ would not have received the name of
king, and would not have been compared to a
king. But since the royal dignity was the
highest among the Israelites, the dignity of
Christ was compared with it, and so he was
called a king.
The following remarks may shew the idea
which is attached to these names in the scrip
tures, and the manner in which they are there
used. (a) Prophet. This name was given to Christ
not merely because he was a teacher, but also

because he was a messenger or am4assador of
God, according to the original signification of
the word. He performed all his works, suffer
ing and dying, as well as teaching, as pro
phet — i. e., as the messenger of God, He is
called a prophet especially in comparison with
Moses, according to the text, Deut. xviii. 15.
coll. Acts, iii. 22. Vide s. 91, 1. But Moses,
besides being a teacher and the founder of the
Jewish religion, performed also the works of a
ruler and priest, and did not transfer, till after
wards, one part of his duties, the priesthood, to
Aaron. Moses, therefore, enacted lawsi instruct
ed, ruled, sacrificed — all as prophet — i. e., as
commissioned by God.
(4) King. Here the case is the same as
above. This name is given to Christ, not merely
because he rules, guides, and protects his fol
lowers and church, but also because he is a
teacher of the truth; as he himself declares,
John, xviii. 37, that his kingdom consists in
announcing, promoting, and diffusing the truth.
Vide s. 106, 1. 1. Now according to the com
mon explanation, and the minute distinction
which is here introduced, this would intrude
upon the prophetic office.
(c) Priest. In the Epistle to the Hebrews,
from the fifth chapter and onward, Christ is
often compared with priests, and especially with
the Jewish high priest. But this comparison is
derived from the text, Ps. ex. 4, which Christ
refers to himself, and to which Paul appeals ic
the abovenamed epistle. The reason why such
frequent use was made of this comparison in this
epistle is, that it was written principally to
converted Jews, who, however, were inclined to
apostatize from Christianity, and who looked
upon the origin of the Mosaic religion and the
whole Jewish ritual as far more elevated, splen
did, and magnificent, than the Christian. In
comparison with this, the origin and rites of
Christianity appeared poor and insignificant.
On this account, Paul compares Christ, in the
first place, with Moses ; and then, from the fifth
chapter and onward, with the Israelitish priests.
He shews his resemblance to them, and at the
same time, his great superiority over them.
These figures and comparisons are not, there
fore, so intelligible to Christians, who are unac
quainted with the Levitical ritual and priesthood.
To such, then, all this must be explained before
they can properly understand these comparisons.
Is it not, therefore, more suitable and judicious,
first to exhibit the truth itself in plain and literal
language, as Christ and the apostles so frequent
ly do on this subject; and tlten, to shew by
what figures and comparisons this truth is re
presented in the scriptures, and to explain the
meaning of these figures and comparisons?
We do not mean to imply that these figurative
terms are in themselves objectionable, and

380

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

should not be used in the more popular Chris
tian instruction. We only mean, that in the
first place the truth should be taught without
figures ; that then the figurative terms contained
in the Bible should be explained ; and that after
wards literal and figurative language should be
used alternately. And for this we have the ex
ample of the scriptures themselves. These figu
rative terms are by nn means in themselves ob
jectionable ; for, according to the principles of
the human mind, they exert a more powerful
influence, illustrate truth more clearly, and im
press it more deeply upon the heart, than can be
done by literal terms. Only they must be pro
perly explained.
[The ancient method of considering the work
of Christ under the form of a threefold office has
been revived of late, and is adopted in the sys
tems of De Wette, Schleiermacher, and Tho-
luck  Tr.]
We now enter upon the plan marked out at
the close of s. 106.

PART I. OF CHAPTER IV.
ON REDEMPTION FROM THE PUNISHMENT OF
SIN; OR, ON THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST,
AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF MEN BEFORE GOD
—THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT.
S. 108—115. SECTION CVIII.
OF THE VARIOUS OPINIONS RESPECTING THE FOR
GIVENESS OF SIN BY GOO, AND THE CONDITIONS
ON WHICH FORGIVENESS MAY BE GRANTED; AND
AN APPLICATION OF THIS TO THE SCRIPTURAL
DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.
I. The "Forgiveness of Sin" Various Opinions re
specting it, especially in regard to the Conditions
of it.
It is the uniform doctrine of all religions, that
transgression of the divine law incurs inevitable
punishment; but that no sins are altogether ir-
remissible ; that, on the contrary, God is in
clined to remit the punishment of sin, on certain
conditions. For the object pf religion is not
only to point out to men their destination, but
also to impart ta them peace and composure of
mind with regard to their destiny here and be
yond the grave. The opinions of men respect
ing the conditions on which the pardon of sin
depends, may be divided into several classes.
Some have united many of these conditions to
gether, as requisite to pardon; others have de
pended wholly on some particular one.
(1) Sacrifice, and other religious rites and ce
remonies.

(a) We observe that sacrifice is universal
among all nations as soon as they rise above
the first brutal condition. The Bible places it
in the very first period of the world ; Gen. iv ,
viii. 20, 21. Many ancient and modern philo
sophers have greatly wondered how an idea in
itself, as it seemed to them, so unworthy of God,
could have occurred to men, or could have pre
vailed so universally among them. But there
is a feeling lying deep in our nature which com
pels men to look around for some means of con
ciliating the favour of the Deity, and of averting
the deserved punishment of sin. Vide infra,
No. II., and s. 88, I. 2. Why sacrifice was the
means selected for this purpose, and why ac
cordingly it was sanctioned by divine appoint
ment among the Israelites and their ancestors,
may appear from the following considerations.
Men conceived of the Deity as corporeal and
like themselves. Vide s. 19. Hence arose the
idea of sacrifice. They hoped to conciliate the
favour of God by the same means by which
they endeavoured to gain the favouT of men,
supposing that what was pleasing to men would
be so to God. The thought that internal good
ness and integrity of heart are alone pleasing to
God, however plain this may appear to us, was
entirely beyond the comprehension of rude and
uncultivated man. But even allowing him to
have some idea of this, he would still feel, as
we must, that his holiness was very imperfect,
and afforded a very doubtful pretension to the
approbation of God. Besides, he would be dis
quieted by the fear that his past transgressions
might not be cancelled, or be undone, by any
succeeding holiness, and that punishment there
fore was still to be apprehended. He accord
ingly brought gifts and presents to his gods, to
render himself acceptable to them. And so, in
the ancient languages, the words which mean
gifts, presents, also signify sacrifice. It was
supposed in the earliest times that the gods
were personally, though invisibly, present at the
offering of these gifts, and when the offerings
consisted of food, as was commonly the case,
that they themselves partook, and enjoyed the
sweet savour, (the sweet smell of the flesh of the
offerings, xvlgga, Horn. II. iv. 49 ; xxiv. 68,
seq.) Hence offerings were called th»/ooda»d
drink of the gods. Homer describes Jupiter
and the rest of the gods as going from Olympus
to a festal sacrifice which the Ethiopians pre
sented to him, and which lasted twelve days;
II. i. 423, seq.; xxiii. 20fi, 207. It was the
object of these gifts to express gratitude to the
gods for blessings received, to obtain future
benefits, and to avert the evils which they were
supposed to ordain or to inflict in anger.
The opinion of Ernesti, Doederlien, and
many others, that sacrifices were originally only
thank-offerings, and that the expiatory sacrifice

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 381

was first introduced by Moses, is without proof.
The three kinds of sacrifice above named are
found to exist together in all nations. Even the
sacrifices of Abel and Noah, Gen. iv. and viii.,
were designed to obtain good from God, and
to avert evil, (the anger of God.) Homer
gives, II. ix. 495, the great principle on which
all nations who have sacrificed have uniform
ly proceeded, " that meat, and drink offerings
conciliate the gods with men when they err
and sin." Even men were sacrificed to the
gods when it was thought that the common
flesh of beasts was insufficient to appease their
anger, or to avert their displeasure. This was
the case principally in the ages ef the greatest
rudeness and barbarity, when men imagined
their geds to be as wild, revengeful, and bleod-
thirsty as themselves. But such sacrifices were
resorted to even by the cultivated Greeks and
Romans, in case of plague or any great calami
ty; and, notwithstanding the strictness with
which they were forbidden by the laws of
Moses, they were frequently practised even by
the Jews.
Respecting the origin of sacrifices, vide
Sykes, Vom Ursprunge der Opfer,' with Notes
by Semler; Halle, 1778, 8vo; and Wplf, Vpm
Ursprunge der Opfer, in his Vermischten
Schriften. (4) As seme ef these natiens became gradu
ally mere civilized, many ameng them perceived
that such a use cf sacrifices was inccnsistent
with just ideas respecting Ged and his attri
butes, and that men ceuld never obtain from the
Deity by sacrifices even those things which they
hoped to obtain by them. The use of them,
however, could not be done away immediately
by legislators and the institutors of religion, be
cause nothing could be substituted for them;
they were thus, of necessity, continued as a part
of the external worship of God. All that the
more enlightened could do was to prevent them
from becoming injurious, and, if possible, ren
der them promotive of higher objects. To the
ancient usage they must affix nobler ends, and
employ sacrifices as sensible representations for
teaching virtue, and improving the moral con
dition of the people. Such attempts were made
in many cultivated nations. The ancient forms
were preserved, while a more elevated and bet
ter sense was affixed to them. But the results
of this course were not equally happy in every
case. The ordinances which Moses was re
quired to make by divine commandment are
distinguished in this respect above all that we
find among the ancient heathen nations. Moses
was fully convinced that offerings in themselves
could never secure the actual forgiveness of sin
from God. He did not therefore ordain them
for this purpose. He proceeded on the princi
ple which Piul declares, Heb. x. 1. All the

prophets who succeeded Moses held the same
views, Ps.l. 8 ; li.; Is.i. 11; Jer. vi. 20 ; Amos,
v. 22, &c But it was necessary that sacrifices
should be.preserved ; otherwise, that gross and
uncultivated people would soon have deserted
the worship of God. Moses therefore ordained
sacrifices, as Paul justly says, Heb. ix. 13, for
external purification simply. For this reason
no sacrifices were appointed by God in the Mo
saic institute for such offences as murder, adul
tery, &c ; not because such offences could noi
be forgiven by God, but because the civil wel
fare required that the punishment of them should
not be remitted. For it was the object of God
in appointing these sacrifices,
(a) That they should release from the civil
punishment of certain crimes. The commission
of a crime rendered one unworthy of the com
munity of the holy people,, and excluded him
from it. The offering of sacrifice was the means
by which he was externally readmitted to the
Jewish community, and rendered externally
pure ; although he did not, on this account, ob
tain the pardon of his sin from God. It was
designed that all who offered sacrifice should,
by this act, both make a public confession of
their sins, and at the same time see before them,
in the sacrifice, the punishment which they had
deserved, and to which they acknowledged
themselves exposed. Hence sins were said to
be laid upon the victim, and 4orme away by it
when it was sacrificed. This transaction mani
festly had its ground in the idea of substitution.
" What thou deservedst to suffer, (death, pu
nishment,) this beast now suffers." Therefore
the design of the sacrificial code of Moses was
not to provide atonement for sins, but to repre
sent sin as great and deserving, of punishment ;
in a word, "to lead to the knowledge of sin;"
Gal. iii. 19.
()3) Another end of the .sacrifices appointed
by Moses was, as we are taught in the New
Testament, to point the Israelites to the future,
and to prefigure by types the greater divine pro
vision for the recovery, of the human race, and
to excite in the Israelites a feeling of their need
of such a provision. Vide Gal. iii. and iv., also
the Epistle to the Hebrews. On this subject,
cf. s. 90, III. 9.
Old and cultivated natiens, like the present
natiens nf Europe, now for a long time unaccus
tomed to sacrifices, would not be so favourably
affected by seeing death inflicted as a punish
ment upon a victim, as by having the truth re
presented by this rite stated simply and impres
sively. But a gross people, still in the infancy
of its improvement, would be more moved and
influenced by such a transaction. They have
more sympathy with beasts than we have ; as
is shewn by the great influence cf the fables ef
.ffisop. And hence many heathen nations began

3S2

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

to neglect, and sometimes even to despise sa
crifices, as they gradually advanced in cultiva
tion. The case was the same with the Jews,
and especially with the more cultivated Grecian
Jews. But at the time of Christ there were still
some Jews zealously devoted to the service of
the altar, who committed the frequent and very
general mistake, that God would forgive their
sins on account of their sacrifices, notwithstand
ing the decided testimony which their ancient
prophets had borne against this opinion. Paul,
therefore, argues against it in some of his epis
tles. Note. — Many suppose that sacrifices were ap
pointed in the very earliest times by an express
command from God himself. This supposition
is rendered probable by the consideration that
,the Bible always regards sacrifices as rites well-
pleasing in the sight of God. They are repre
sented as acceptable to him, and approved by
him from the time of the flood, and even before ;
Gen. iv. and viii. If sacrifices were actually
commanded by God, we must suppose that God
instructed the first race of men on this subject,
after the manner above described ; but that his
instructions were gradually forgotten and passed
out of mind. The fact, however, of the original
divine appointment of sacrifices is not clear from
the Mosaic records. And as the results of the
investigation are the same, whether the suppo
sition be true or false, we have had no reference
to it in the previous remarks upon sacrifices.
'¦ (2) Self-inflicted penances, and arbitrary suf
ferings which the sinner lays upon himself,
in order to obtain from God the remission of
punishment. This is a foolish error. We should think a
human legislator very irrational who should
permit the criminal to seleot a punishment at
pleasure, in place of the one threatened in the
law. This error, however, is very widely
spread, especially among the Indians, and na
tions who Inhabit southern climates, whose re
ligious require of them self-inflictions which
are incredibly severe. They frequently go so
far as to believe -that- an innocent man may un
dertake such sufferings for others ,- and thus ob
tain for therri> forgiveness from God. This error
is founded upon the mistaken opinion that God,
like man, will ' be touched with compassion at
the sight of these self-inflicted sufferings, and
thus be inclined to remit those which are due.
Fasting was also regarded in the light of a self-
infliction, by which the forgiveness of sin might
be procured. The great mass even of the Jews
practised all these penances, with the grossest
conceptions of their nature and efficacy. Vide
1 Kings, xviii. 28. The prophets, therefore,
frequently reprove them for this erroneous opi
nion, and teach them the truth ; Is. lviii. seq.
Cultivated nations frequently entertain the same

false religious views, which are extremelyinju-
rious to morality. Even Christians are not en
tirely freed from them, after all that the New
Testament contains to the contrary.
(3) Good works, so called, on condition and
account of which God is supppsed tp remit sin.
It was supposed (a) that one who had re
formed might atone and make satisfaction for
his past sins by some works of distinguished
virtue; or (4) that even one who had not re
formed entirely, but was still addicted to certain
sins, might be pardoned by God for these sins,
on account of some great, difficult, and useful
labours which he might perform — suppositions,
to be sure, both false and unphilosophical !
They have their ground, however, in the fact
that good works are sometimes the means and
motives with men, in bestowing pardon. An
injured man sometimes forgives the offender on
account of some favour which he may have re
ceived from him. A government sometimes
forgives one offence in a person, who in other
respects has deserved well of the rulers as in
dividuals, or of the state; on account, there
fore, of their own interest, which he has pro
moted. This circumstance, that in these cases
men forgive offences on account of their own ad
vantage, which has been promoted by important
services, is overlooked when they are compared
with the conduct of God. We are not able to
confer any good or benefit upon God by our
best works. By these works we serve and be
nefit only ourselves, and we cannot demand or
deserve a reward from God for actions for the
very performance of which we are indebted to
him, Luke, xvii. 10. It would be as foolish for
us to require recompence from God for these
services as for one who has been rescued from
danger to demand reward from his deliverer in
stead of giving him his thanks, or for a patient
to demand reward from his physician instead
of paying him his fee, on the ground that by fol
lowing his directions he had escaped from dan
ger or sickness.
This opinion has taken such deep root in the
minds of men of all classes, and has spread so
widely, that it cannot be entirely eradicated
even from the minds of Christians. It prevail
ed among the ancient heathen, and especially
among the Jews. The latter held the foolish
opinion (which has been revived in another form
among Christians) that the worth and merits
of their pious ancestors, particularly of Abra
ham, would be imputed to them, and that thus,
through their substituted righteousness, they
themselves might be freed from the strict observ
ance of the law. Against this mistake, John the
Baptist, Christ, and the apostles, zealously la
boured. Vide Matt. iii. 9; Rom. iii. 5. The Jews
believed that God was bound injustice to for
give and save them, on account of the promise

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 383

which he had made to Abraham. Vide Rom.
ix.— xi., coll. s. 125.
. (4) Repentance and reformation.
This condition of forgiveness has always
appeared the best and most rational to the more
improved and reflecting part of mankind, to
whom the former conditions must have appeared
unsatisfactory. Even the Old and New Testa
ments are full of passages which assure us that
God forgives sins after deep repentance, and
the moral reformation consequent upon it; Ps.
xxxii. 3 — 5; li. 8, 12, 17; Luke, xviii. 13, seq.
The writings of the Grecian and Roman philo
sophers also are full of passages which mention
this as the only acceptable condition. Seneca
says, " Quern posnitet peccasse, est . innocens."
But even after recognising this condition, very
disquieting doubts must remain, respecting
which, vide No. II. A satisfactory assurance
respecting the forgiveness of ^ias£ sins would
still be wanting. This leads us to the second
part. H. Application of these Remarks to the Scriptural
Doctrine concerning the Atonement of Christ.
(1) The condition mentioned No. I. 4, how
ever reasonable and obvious it may be in itself,
appears from experience and the history of all
times, to be unsatisfactory to the great body of
men. They never have received nor can receive
from it a quieting assurance of the forgiveness
of sins, and especially of those committed before
their reformation. All nations hope, indeed, that
God is disposed to forgive sins when they are for
saken ; but men need something more than this.
They must have something external and sensible,
to give them assurance and conviction that their
sins have actually been forgiven. This assurance
they endeavoured to obtain by sacrifices. Vide
No. I. They believed universally that besides
the moral improvement of the heart, some addi
tional means were necessary to conciliate the
favour of God, and to avert the punishment of
sin. Cf. Horn. II. ix. 493—508. This opinion
is so deeply wrought into the human soul, and
arises from such an universal sense of necessity,
that any attempt to obliterate it or to reason it
away would be in vain. To deprive men of this
opinion, that the favour of God may be concili
ated and the positive assurance of pardon ob
tained, would be to tear away the props upon
which their composure and confidence rest, with
out being able to substitute for them anything so
clear and satisfactory ; and thus would be an act
of injury and cruelty.
(2) But what is the origin or ground of the
feeling that reformation alone is insufficient, and
that something else is necessary to avert the
judgments of God from the sinner, and to in
spire liim with confidence that they are or will
he averted ? This feeling is founded in the mo

ral nature of man, or in the voice of conscience.
Vide s. 88, I. 2. For,
(a) However far a man may advance in holi
ness, his conscience still declares to him that his
holiness is very defective, and that he frequently
commits sin, and that his sin deserves punish
ment. And the more upright and virtuous the
man is, the more tender and strong will this
feeling be. How, then, can he hope by a holi
ness so imperfect, polluted, and stained with
sin, to secure the favour and approbation of
God, and to escape unpunished? To one who
feels thus, how desirable and welcome must be
the assurance that, notwithstanding his imper
fect holiness, God will still be gracious to him
on certain conditions ! — the more desirable and
welcome, the more he sees that he can never at
tain this assurance on any of the conditions
above mentioned, No. I., 1, 2, 3. This .assur
ance it is the object of the Christian doctrine
of atonement to impart.
(6) Although a man were thoroughly reformed,
and should commit no more intentional sins, he
would still remain in an anxious uncertainty with
respect to his past sins ; for there is no ground to
believe that on account of one's improvement God
will remit the punishment of sins committed
before this improvement commenced. Indeed,
without an express assurance from God to the
contrary, there are many reasons to fear that he
will punish the former sins even of the penitent.
This assurance to the contrary can be found
alone in the Christian doctrine of the atonement
of Christ.
This feeling of necessity, therefore, this appre
hension and belief that besides improvement we
need and must find some other means of obtain
ing assurance from God that the punishment of
sin will be averted from us; this feeling lies
deep in the soul of man, and is founded in his
moral nature, in the voice of conscience. Let
no one say that all men do not have this feeling,
and that he himself neither has it now nor ever
has had it. This feeling may be suppressed for
a time by levity, or the tumult of passion, or by
cold and heartless speculation, or by both ol
these causes united ; but it commonly revives
in due time, especially in the hour of affliction,
on the approach of death, or on other occasions
which compel men to serious reflection. It then
demands from them, as it were, its rights, and
frequently to their great confusion; it excites
anxious doubt and solicitude, and spreads out a
dark futurity to view. This is a situation of
frequent occurrence, but one in which no person
would wish to be. Kant therefore, refers to this
feeling in his philosophical theory of religion.
On occasions like these such disquieting doubts
and fearful apprehensions will often rise irre
sistibly, even in the minds of those who aro
above superstitious weakness, and, indeed, of

384

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

speculative philosophers themselves, whose
feelings had been the most suppressed and
deadened. From these feelings no one is se
cure, however firmly established in his theory ;
for the philosophy of the death-bed is a different
thing from the philosophy of the study and of
the school.
A religion, therefore, coming with credentials
from Heaven, which, on divine authority, gives
to man satisfaction upon this subject; which
shews him a means, elsewhere sought in vain,
by which he can obtain composure and assur
ance against anxious doubts, and which teaches
him to look forward with joy' into the future
world ; such a religion may well claim to be
considered a religion of high and universal utili
ty. Those who rob the Christian religion of
this doctrine rob it of that which more than any
thing else makes it a blessing to man.
(3) There is still another view of this subject.
The great mass of mankind in all ages have no
correct ideas respecting virtue and vice, or re
specting God and divine things. Itis not strange
therefore that they should have always and al
most universally believed that God rriight be
conciliated by the most insignificant actions
which they might perform without sincere re
formation, and which, indeed, they sometimes
supposed might take the place of reformation.
This was their idea of sacrifices, ceremonies,
penances, fasts, &c They made but little ac
count of moral purity and holiness of life. To
relieve themselves of the trouble of caring for
their own virtue they supposed that the virtue
of others might be imputed to them. Vide No.
I. and Meiners, Geschichte der Religionem, s.
125, f.
At the time of Christ and the apostles these
common mistakes prevailed, though in different
forms, throughout the Jewish and heathen world.
Now in the establishment of a universal religion,
such, as the Christian was intended to be, this
fact demanded special attention ; (and not merely
on account of that particular age, but on account
of all following ages ; because these same mis
takes prevail among men in different forms at
all times;) for the moral improvement of men,
and the sincere and pure worship of God must
be the great objects of this religion. But while
it has these high and spiritual objects in view,
and should make it possible for men to attain
them, it must also be universal, designed for
every individual. It must regard the necessities
of all men, and not merely of the few who ac
count themselves wise, and esteem themselves
philosophers. Sacrifices, on account of their
imperfections and perversion, were to be for
ever abolished. The other conditions of for
giveness were no longer to be tolerated, being
false and injurious to morality. Sincere reforma
tion was the only condition left, and this was

accompanied with the anxious solicitude before
mentioned. This internal reformation and holi
ness was made by Jesus the indispensable con
dition of forgiveness, though not the procuritig-
cause of it; since, owing to the imperfection of
our holiness, we could then never have ebtained
forgiveness. New, in order to relieve the mind
from the solicitude still accompanying this con
dition, and to satisfy this feeling of need, some
thing external must be added, which should
powerfully affect the senses, not only of the
Jews of that age, but of the heathen and of men
in general. This must be something which
would be obvious to every one, and not merely
to a few ; something, too, which would not
hinder or weaken the personal exercise of vir
tue and holiness of life, but rather promote and
strengthen them.
Such is the doctrine of the atonement of Christ.
This can never lead to security in sin or indif
ference with regard to it, (as it has often been
supposed to do,) because personal reformation
and holiness (ustdvoia, dywxjfids) are connected
with it as an indispensable duty, as conditio sine
qua non. Christ died for men once for all, and
suffered the punishment which they would have
endured for their sins, and which their con
sciences tell them they could not have escaped,
even after their reformation. And thus the ne
cessity of continuing to sacrifice was removed,
and the injurious consequences which attended
sacrifices were obviated. "By Christ, and his
sacrifice, men obtain from God (as Paul declares,
Acts, xiii. 38) the forgiveness of all their sins ;
and consequently, even of those which, according
to the law of Moses, were unpardonable — i. c,
would be irremediably punished," (for which
reason sacrifices were now no longer necessary.
No. I.)
On one side, the infliction upon Christ of the
penalty which we deserved places the authority
and sanctity of the divine law in the clearest
light, and shews the certainty of the execution
of the divine punishment upon sin in a manner
at once striking and in the highest degree alarm
ing. Cf. Romans, iii. 26, Efi-oi aitbv (®sbv)
Slxaiov. This doctrine thus guards against in
difference to sin, and, as experience teaches, ex
erts a powerful influence in reforming and en
nobling the moral character of every one who
believes it from the heart.
On the other side, this doctrine awakens in
those who heartily receive it, love to God, who
has made use of so great and extraordinary
means for their forgiveness. It also excites gra
titude to God and to Christ Vide the passages
of the New Testament cited by Morus, p. 153,
s. 6. One who really believes 'this doctrine, and
does not feel the most lively love and gratitude
to God and to Christ, and does not sympathize
with all which the New Testament says upon

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 385

this subject, (1 John, iv. 10, 11 ; John, iii. 16;
Rom. v. 8; viii. 32,) must be destitute of every
tender sensibility and of every human feeling.
The proof that this doctrine does actually excite
this feeling and is adapted to the necessity of
man, may be seen not only in the joyful recep
tion with which it met from the better part of
the Jews at the time of the apostles, but also in
the approbation of it in succeeding ages, which
has been, and is still, expressed by so many men
of all nations ; and also in the astonishing effects
which it has produced.
God, therefore, as the scriptures represent,
(Rom. iii. 25,) has set forth Jesus as a Propi
tiator, to assure men of his gracious disposition
towards them ; in order, by this means, both to
lead them from a merely external service of him
to a spiritual worship, and also to convince them
in an affecting manner, as well of his holiness
and justice as of his compassionate goodness
and grace; and so, by the alarming apprehen
sions and thankful feelings which flow from such
considerations, to influence them to exercise pure
virtue, sincere piety, and devotion to God,, to
cherish and exhibit love to him who first loved
them. This representation, which is founded
on the hply scriptures, contains nothing irra
tional, and is entirely suited to the moral nature
of man. SECTION CIX.
SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE NECES
SITY OF THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN; WHAT IS
MEANT BY FORGIVENESS, PARDON, JUSTIFICA
TION ; AND THE SCRIPTURAL TERMS BY WHICH
THEY ARE DESIGNATED.
The Necessity and Indispensableness of Forgiveness.
As sin is justly represented in the holy scrip
tures as a very great evil, from which no one is
free, so, on the other hand, the forgiveness of
sins is described as one of the greatest benefits,
which no one can do without. It is very im
portant for the religious teacher to lead those
committed to his charge to consider this subject
as it is exhibited in the scriptures; for almost
innumerable mistakes are made respecting it by
men in every rank and of every character, the
high and the low, the enlightened and the igno
rant. Many majie but little account of sin,
and, through levity or erroneous speculation,
overlook its consequences, and of course make
light of forgiveness. Others believe that they
can easily obtain forgiveness, and rely on the
mercy of God, or on the merits cf Christ, with
out on their part performing the conditions upon
which their trust in these merits and.their ex
perience of them must depend.
These injurious mistakes are opposed in
many passages- of the Bible.

(1) In such as describe the ruinous conse
quences of sin, and which present the judg
ments of God in a fearful and terrific light, as
severe and intolerable — e. g., Heb. x. 31 ; Ps.
xc 11; cxxx. 3. To the same purpose are
many of the examples given in the scriptures,
especially in the history of the Israelites.
(2) In such as describe the judgments of hea
ven upon those who do not fulfil the conditions
prescribed, and are destitute of faith in Jesus
Christ, as certain and inevitable — e. g., Heb. iii,
12, 13 ; Rom. ii. 1—3, coll. i. 32.
(3) In such as shew that no one can enjoy
tranquillity and happiness who has no assur
ance that his sins are forgiven — e. g., Heb. x,
26, 27. The example of David and other saints,
who have been deeply troubled on account of
their sins, and anxious for the consequences of
them, contain much instruction upon this sub
ject, Psalm li., cxxx., &c
II. Scriptural Terms and Phrases denoting For-:

The pardon or forgiveness of sin which men
obtain from God is expressly mentioned in the
New Testament as the effect and consequence
of the atonement or redemption (ditoXvtpagis)
of Christ. In Eph. i. 7, the d<j>Effis itapaittapd-
tav is represented as belonging to the aitoxv*
f pwuis Sid at'fiaf os Xpitff ov, and as a consequence
of it. Cf. Col. i. 14; Heb. ix. 15; "Christ
died sis ditoXvtpagis tav iiti tvi itpatin Sia^x^
itapafUdgtav." Romans, iii. 24, " We are par
doned, Sixaiovpsvot Sid aitoXvtpagsas fr/s iy
Xpisf 9," &c The principal terms are the fol
lowing — viz.,
(1) Kataxxayri, reconciliation, (Germ. Ver-
sohnung,) and xataXXdggofiai. Cf. Morus, pages
113 — 166, s. 9 — 11. This phraseology was
primarily used with respect to enemies who
were reconciled, or who became friends ?gain ;
1 Cor. vii. 11 ; Matt. v. 24. Then it was trans
ferred to God. The first origin of this phraseo
logy with respect to him is to be found in the
fact that men had gross conceptions of the sub
ject, and supposed the manner of the divine
conduct to be like that of men. Whoever trans
gressed the law of God provoked him to anger —
i. e.,' to displeasure and to a strong expression
of it. (Hence the judgments of God are called
opyrj, s'xSi'xtjbis ©eov.) God must now be ap
peased, and the transgressor must endeavour to
make God again his friend. Such was the
common and popular language on this subject —
language which was universally intelligible,
and which is always used in the holy scriptures
in a sense worthy of God. Vide s. 86. Thus
when it is said in the New Testament, ©eos
ijuiv xataxxdttstai, the meaning is, that through
Christ he withholds the expression of his dis
pleasure, the punishment of sin. Thus Paul
2K

38S

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

uses this phraseology, 2 Cor. v. 19, and ex
plains it by the addition u^ /\oyi£ dfiEfos itapaitta-
pata- like the Hebrew jiy awi, Psalm xxxii. 1,
2., In Rom. v. 11, he uses the phrase xofa*.-
Xayriv ixdfiouEv, in the same sense — i. e., we ob
tain from God the forgiveness of sin. The lat
ter passage shews clearly that xataXXayr/ does
not denote the moral improvement of men, as
Eberhard, Gruner, and others explain it. On
the contrary, the term always implies the idea
of the mutual reconciliation of two parties, by
which two or more who were not previously on
good terms become friends again. KofaMjiyr],
then, as Morus remarks, (p. 165, ad finem,)
means, the restoration of friendship, and the
means of effecting this, through Christ ,- and xa-
taxxdeasw is, to bring about, or restore harmony
and friendship. This harmony does not sub
sist between God and men as long as men are
considered as transgressors, and God is com
pelled to punish them as such. They do not
love God as their father, and he cannot love
them as his children. That they learn how to
love him, and that he is able to love them, they
owe to Christ. He therefore is the peace-maker,
the restorer of friendship, 6 xataxxdggav.
(2) *A<psgis dpaptiuv, dtyisvai, and the similar
phrases xa$apl£siv, xapl^sg^tai duaptlas, itdpsgis,
x. t. X.
(a) Explanation of these terms and of the sen
timent contained in them. "Aipscis and dflsvai
are used literally to denote release, as from cap
tivity, Luke, iv. 18 ; also remission of debt (de-
biti), Matt. vi. 12. Now sin was very fre
quently compared both with captivity and with
debt; and hence, probably, this term was first
used by the LXX. as correspondent with jij) Nfe?:.
This phrase was always opposed to the inflicting
of punishment, or the wrath of God, and denotes
remission, forbearing to inflict punishment ; Ex.
xxxiv. 7. In Mark, iii. 29, exeiv d$sgiv is con
trasted with svoxos igtiv xpigsas. To take away
sin, and take away punishment, were thus one
and the same thing with the Hebrews, Is. liii.
And so it comes to pass that the words which
stand for sin also stand for punishment. Thus
to forgive sin, and to heal sickness (poena peccati),
were frequently the same, Matt. ix. 2, 5, 6,
coll. Ps. ciii. 3.
Similar to these are the other popular terms :
as, rtdpEffis, which is, the act of overlooking, Rom.
iii. 25. God does not look upon sins, he forgets
them, does not think of them ; in epppsitipn to
thinking of them, placing them before his counte
nance (Psalm xc. 8) — i. e., punishing them, &c.
Also, gaptjfta&at itapaittaaata, Col. ii. 13,
spoken of the remission of guilt; l%aXsltyslv
dfiapf ias, Acts, iii. 19, answering to the Hebrew
.inD, Is. xliii. 25 ; used also by Lysias. The
figure in this case is taken from an accounr book,
lc 'rhich the name of the debtor is obliterated

when he has paid his debt, or when it is remit-
ted to him.
The phrases, xaJopifEo-^at c<4>' dpaptiuv, pa»-
tl^sg^ai, x. t. x., to be purified, washed, to purify
oneself, occur very frequently. They were de
rived from the Very common comparispn nf sin
with stains and impurities. Hence Moses or
dained purifications and washings as significant
or symbolical rites. These phrases were used,
first, in respect to men, and denoted self-purifi
cation (xa£r iavfd*,) — i. e., moral reformation,
1 John, iii. 3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; Heb. x. 22 ; which
however could not be done independently of
God, but by his assistance; secondly, in respect
to God. He is said to purify men from sin — i.
e., to consider them as pure, innocent — not to
punish them. So Ps. Ii. 4, "Wash me from
mine iniquities ,-" 1 John, i. 9 ; 2 Pet. i. 9,
xd^apigubs tav ridxaji dfiap-riuv.
(4) Some are not content with making the
forgiveness of sins to consist in the removal of
the punishment of sin, but would have it extend
to the removal both of.the guilt (culpa) and^Mi-
nishment of sin, since both belong to the impu
tation of sin. This statement understood in a
popular sense, is not objectionable ; but strictly
understood, it is. The established theory re
specting the remission of sin has been transmit
ted from the time of Anselmus (s. 101, ad fin.),
who brought the whole doctrine of justification
into a judicial form, and arranged it like a legal
process. Thus, when a thief has stolen, he
must both restore the property stolen and suffer
punishment. The guilt, in this case, is not re
moved by the punishment. The advocates of
this opinion, therefore, comprehended under
justification a special acquittal of guilt, different
from the acquittal of punishment. This acquit
tal of guilt they considered as the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ imputed to men by
God, in the same way as if it had been wrought
by them. In this way, as they thought, was
the guilt of sin removed. Vide s. 115. But,
First. This distinction between the guilt and
punishment of sin is never distinctly made in
the Bible when the forgiveness of sins is spoken
of. Some have considered this distinction as
implied in the passages which speak of the pu
rification or Washing away of sins, or in which
sins are compared with debts ; but without suf
ficient reason. The Bible makes justification
the mere forgiveness of sins — i. e., removal of
the punishment of them ; without any special
acquittal of guilt conneoted with it; as Rom. vi.
7, seq. Vide s. 110, "De obedienlia Christi
activa," from which the doctrine "De obedien-
tia Christi passiva" must nnt be separated.
The ebedience of Christ shewn in acting and
suffering is one and the same. The fruits of
this obedience we enjoy, as will be seen from
the texts cited below. The Bible does not se-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 387

parate one kind of obedience from the other;
neither should we. Vide s. 115.
Secondly. The remission of the guilt of sin is
nqt essential, and does not contribute to the real
tranquillity of the sinner. The guilt of a sin
once committed cannot be effaced. The con
science of the transgressor can never be made to
pronounce him innocent, but will always regard
him as having sinned. It is enongh to compose
his mind, to know and be convinced that the
punishment of sin has been remitted. But how
can he be made to believe, and be happy in be
lieving, that he is innocent, when, according to
the testimony of his own conscience, he is
guilty. Thirdly. The theory which teaches that the
guilt of sin is removed is founded upon a com
parison of the conduct of God towards men with
the conduct cf men ameng themselves, which is
here entirely inapplicable. A criminal (e. g., a
thief) whe sins against his fellew men does
them an injury. He must therefore make good
their loss, besides suffering punishment. But
men, by sinning, do not injure or rob God.
They wrong only themselves. Now if men fulfil
the, prescribed conditions of obtaining pardon,
Gpd remits the punishment of sin; but God
himself cannot remove the guilt of sin, in its
proper sense. For God cannot err, and consi
der an action which is actually wrong, and con
sequently involves guilt, as right in itself. He,
however, can forgive us, or remit the punish
ment which we deserve. He can regard and
treat us, on certain conditions, as if we were in
nocent' (3) Aixaiagis, Sixaioovvn and Stxaiovc&ot, Xo-
yt£so$ai sis Sixaiogvvviv, x. t. X.
These terms of the Grecian Jews can be ex
plained only from the Hebrew usage, pix, in
Hebrew and Arabic, in its primary and physical
sense, means, rectus, firmus, rigidus fuit ; then,
in a moral sense, rectus fuit, in various modifi
cations, degrees, and relations — e. g., verus et
verax fuit, bonus, sc. benignus fuit ; scverus,
xquus, Justus, innocens/ut.7, right, such as one
should be; Ps. cxliii. 2, " No man is right in
the sight of God." Hence we can explain the
significations of p< wi, Sixaiow, facere justum ;
and of SixaMvg^ai, fieri justum. A man may be
justified in twe ways — viz.,
(a) By perfect holiness, virtue, cr uprightness
of ccnduct ; by being actually just, er such as
one should be. Hence the phrase to justify, er
to consider, pronounce, treat, reward one, as right,
acccrding to the above-mentioned sense. In
this sense it is used by the LXX., Ps. cxliii. 2,
ov S.txau<frqgEtat ivaitiov eov itds %uv, and Ezek.
xvi. 51, 52. This is called justiflcatio interna.
Iri this sense it is understood, in the important
passage respecting justification, Rom. v., Ijoth
by Socinians, who reject the doctrine of satis

faction, and by those of the Romish church who
advocate good works as the procuring cause of
salvation. But this interpretation does the
greatest violence to the words in this passage.
In connexion with this meaning, Sixaiov*
sometimes signifies emendare, probum reddere,
Psalm lxxiii. 13 (in the Septuagint), and Rev.
xxii. 11, seq. Some of the schoolmen call this
justificatio physica.
(b) One who is guilty is said to be justified
when he is declared and treated as exempt from
punishment, or innocent, or when the punishment
of his sins is remitted to him. This is called
justiflcatio externa. The terms justification,
pardon, accounting righteous, occur in the Bible
much more frequently in this sense than in any
other, and so are synonymous with/org«»eness
of sin. This sense is founded on the judicial
meaning of the word p'lxn, to pardon, acquit, pro
nounce innocent, spoken of the Judge (p'-ix inno-
cens) ; and of the opposite, y'tshn, damnere, pro
reo declarere (ysy, reus) — e. g., Ex. xxiii. 7;
Prov. xvii. 15, seq. This is transferred to God,
who is conceived as the judge of the actions of
men. Here, however, we must be careful not
to carry the comparison too far, and must ab
stract from our conceptions all the imperfections
which belong to human conduct. He condemns,
or judges, — i. e., he punishes; — antecedens (the
part of human judges) — pro consequente. The
opposite of this, to acquit, pardon (Sixaioiv), is
then to remove punishment. This is done, how
ever, as the Bible everywhere teaches, not prop
ter justitiam internam hominis, as at human tri
bunals; for no one is innocent and pure from
sin; Rom. iii. 19, seq. According to the gos
pel, God bestows favour upon men gratuitously,
on account of faith in Christ, on condition of
holiness and of persevering in Christian confi
dence. The principal texts which support this doc
trine, and in which Sixalagis and Sixaiogirvij
stand in this sense, are Rom. iii., iv., v., in op
position to the Jewish doctrine of the desert of
works. These passages will be examined in
the following sections. In Romans, iv., the
term Sixaioiv is used ver. 5 ; Xoyl£tg§ai Sixaio-
gvvnv, (to pardon, the opposite of Xoyl£sg$ai
apapttav, to punish,) ver. 6 ; and dflsvai dpap-
tlav, ver. 7. In Rom. v. 9, 11, otxatovd&at and
xataxxdttsg^ai are interchanged in the same
way ; and Sixaiogvvri is explained by ixsv$spla
ditb — dfiqpfias xai ^avdtov. The words Sixaioiv,
Sixaiogvvq, are also opposed to dpyr) ©eov, Rom.
i. 17, 18; to xatdxpigis, Rom. v. 16, 18; to
iyxaXslv, Rom. viii. 33. Cf. Storr, " De signi-
ficatione vocis Sixoids in Nov. Test" Opusc.
Academiea, t. i.
Note. — The writings of theologians present
great diversity and difficulty in determining the
idea of Sixalagis and Sixaioiv. Most of the an-

388

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

cient Lutheran theologians, with whom Doder-
lein and Seiler agiee, consider justification as
being merely the removal of punishment ; while
Koppe, Zacharia, Less, Danov, and others, com
prise in this idea the whole purpose of God to
bless and save men, of which the removal of
punishment is only the commencement These
theologians maintain that justification is the
same as predestination, only that justification is
the less 'definite word of the two. Vide Zacha
ria, Bibl. Theol. iv. s. 548, seq., and especially
Danov, Drey Abhandlungen von der Rechtfer-
tigung; Jena, 1777; in answer to which Seiler
wrote, " Ueber den Unterschied der Rechtfer-
tigung und Pradestination ;" Erlangen, 1777,
8vo. Those who hold the former opinion consider
the conferring of good as a consequence of jus
tification, and appeal to the obvious texts, Rom.
v. 1, 18, 21; Gal. iii. 11. They remark, that
exemption from punishment and bestowment of
blessing are not one and the same thing, since
one who is acquitted in court is not, of course,
promoted and rewarded. Those who hold the
latter opinion mention the fact that p-is fre
quently means, benefit, blessing, recompence, and
construe the phrase npisS a^n, Xoyl£sg$ai sis
Sixaiogvvijv, which is first spoken of the faith
of Abraham, Gen. xv. 6, to mean, to reckon as a
merit, to reward; in the same way, Psalm cvi.
31, and Romans, iv. 4, where Paul himself ex
plains pis by fue&os- The declaring Abraham
righteous did not consist in the simple forgive
ness of his sins, but in the bestowment of bless
ing and reward. Cf. James, ii. 21.
The following considerations may help to set
tle the controversy : —
(1) The purposes of God to forgive the trans
gressor his sins, and to make him happy, are
one and the same ; but they may be distinguish
ed in our conceptions of them, and then his be
stowing reward is the immediate consequence
of his granting forgiveness. For when Gpd
forgives one his sins, the bestowment of the
promised gppd immediately succeeds. And
when God sees one incapable of this good, he
does not forgive his sins.
(2) The sacred writers do not, in their terms,
so carefully distinguish and so logically divide
these two ideas, which are so nearly related, as
we do in scientific discussion. This is the less
strange, as the words Sixaiow and Sixoiueris have
very many and various senses, one of which fre
quently runs into the other. The words are
sometimes used in the Bible exclusive, beyond a
doubt, of the idea of blessing, and sometimes
also inclusive of it.
(3) But this should not hinder us from dis
tinguishing these ideas, and considering them
separately, for the sake of clearness in scientific
discussion. Here, however, as in respect to all

the divine purposes, we must guard against the
idea of succession ,- and also against mistake from
a comparison with human tribunals, where one
may be entirely acquitted, without, however,
receiving reward, or any further provision for
his welfare. The accused is absolved, and then
left to seek his fortune where he pl.eases. But
this is not the manner of God. Upon every one
whom he forgives, or whom he counts right
eous, God immediately bestows, on the ground
of faith in Jesus Christ, all the good and bless
ing which the subject of his grace is capable of
enjpying. This is the reason why the sacred
writers frequently connect these two ideas in
the same werd. Cf. Npesselt, Pfingstprogramm,
De eo quid sit, Deum condonnare hominibus pec
cata, pxnasque remittere? Halae, 1792, (in his
Exercitt) Morus (p. 151, s. 5) has therefore well de
fined and explained the scriptural idea of the
forgiveness of sins in the wide sense in which it
frequently occurs in the Bible, as including
(1) exemption by God from the fatal conse- "
quenpes of sin — i. e., from fear of the suffering
or punishment consequent upon sin, and from
this suffering and punishment itself, (fir) ditoXsg-
^ai, John, iii. ;) (2) the bestowment of bless-
ings) (Ca^v sxsiv,) instead of this deserved pu
nishment. For both we are indebted to Christ.
The ground and motive, however, of the forgive
ness of sin on the part of God is his unmerited
goodness and benevolence. This is the uniform
representation of the holy scriptures, John, iii,
16, seq. Morus, p. 152, s. 6.
SECTION CX.
ILLUSTRATION OF THE SCRIPTURAL STATEMENT
THAT MEN OWE IT TO CHRIST ALONE THAT GOD
JUSTIFIES THEM, OR FORGIVES THEIR SINS.
Since sin consists in transgression of the
divine law, it is the prerogative ef God alone to
forgive sin. So the Bible everywhere teaches;
Ps. Ii.; James, iv. 12, coll. Luke, v. 21. The
gospel teaches that we are indebted for this for
giveness to Christ alone, — that God forgives pn
account of Christ. It everywhere magnifies this
as ene of the greatest divine favours, and as the
foundation of all pur blessedness; John, iii. 16;
vi. ; Heb. ix. 15; Rom. v. 1. Accordingly, the
doctrine of forgiveness through Christ is always
enumerated by the apostles among the principal
dpctrines and elementary principles of Chris
tianity, which were never to be withheld in reli
gious instruction. Vide 1 Thess. i. 10, 'Ii?«ovs
6 bvbusiios ijuds ditb tijs dpyijs ipxopsvKs, et alibi.
The Acts of the apostles and their epistles shew
that they always commenced with this doctrine,
and referred everything to it, both with Jews
and Gentiles, enlightened and ignorant; because
it is "equally essential to all.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMFTION. 389

The following classes comprise the principal
proof-texts relating to this point : —
(1) The texts which declare that Christ has
atoned for us ; and that to procure the remission
of sins was the great object of his advent to the
world; and that he accomplished this object;
1 John, u. 1, 2 ; Heb. i. 3, At,' iavtoi xd^apcgpbv
HaajgdpEvos tav dftapftuv t/pav. Heb. ix. 26,
« Re has appeared before God (itstyavsput a*, ver.
24) with his offering, (Sid Svglas avfov,) to take
away sin, (sis a&stngiv dpaptlas,)" — i. e., he
sacrificed himself for us, he died for us, to free
us from the punishment of sin, (vide ver. 14.)
(2) The texts which require from us an un
limited confidence (itlgtis) in Christ, for the rea
son that we are indebted to him and to his per
son for our spiritual welfare and our acceptance
with God. Acts, xxvi. 18, Xofislv dtysgtv auap-
itaov — itigtst tvi sis lps- ii. 38; Rom. v. 1,
Aaeata^ivtss ix itlgtsus, siprivr/v exbpev rtpbs
%sm (the favour of God and peace of mind) Sid
Jipwrfoi, (which we owe to Christ.) Eph. i. 7,
'Ev 9 (Xpitff9) sxopsv ditoXvtpagiv Sid at'ftofos
avfov — i. e., ti\v dfysgiv itapaiitapdtav.
(3) The texts which teach that there is no
other way besides this in which the forgiveness
of sin can be obtained. Heb. x. 26, " For those
who.apostatize, contrary to their better convic
tions respecting Christ (sxovglus dpaptavovzuv,
ver. 23; iii. 12, 13), there remains no atoning
sacrifice (§vgla itspl dpaptiuv)" — i. e., there is
no way for them to obtain the forgiveness of
their sins, since this is the only way, and this
way they despise. Cf. Heb. vi. 4, seq. The
discourse of Peter, Acts, iv. 12, Ovx igtiv iv
dxxa gatrjpla, x, t, X, Xutnpla, in this pas
sage, is good, happiness, here and hereafter.
This happiness can be obtained through no other
person. The name (person) of no other man
under heaven is given to us for this object.
"Oxofia here is connected iv dvSpiitois, no name
among men. The meaning is, " We are direct
ed by God to no other man, however holy,
through whpm to pbtain safety and happiness,
besides Jesus Christ."
ir (4) The texts which teach clearly and ex-
ipressly that Ged forgives men their sins, er jus
tifies them, and frees them from the punishment
ef sin, solely on account of Christ Acts, x.
43, "To him gave all the prophets witness,
that whoever believes in him should through
him (Sid bvbpatos aitoi) receive remission of
sins." (Cf. Ps. xxii., xl., ex. ; Is. liii.) Acts,
xiii. 38, "Aid Tovtov iplv dtytgis dpaptiuv
xatayyixxttat, even of those from which you
could not be justified according to the law of
Moses." 1 John, ii. 12, 'AcpE'eoiifoi vplv at
dwipfiai Sid tb bvopa aitoi, propter Christum.
Rom. V. 10, Ti.atrjXXdyrip.sv f9 ©S9 Sid fov ^awd-
*«« fov Tiov ovitoi, coll. ver. 18, and 1 Thess.
i 10; 2 Cor. v. 21, " God treated him, who had

never sinned, as a sinner, in bur stead, that wo
might he forgiven by God ; ysvaps^a Sixaioswr/
©eov (i. e., Slxaioi ivaitiov ©eo-v) iv avtcp," on
his account, ver. 19.
But the passage which exhibits the mind of
Christ and the apostles most fully and clearly
is Romans, iii. 21 — 28. Cf. Noesselt, Abhand-
lung, Opusc t ii. Paul here opposes the pre
vailing mistake respecting the merit of good
works, and of the observance of the law, and
the opinion that God loved the Jews alone, and
comparatively disregarded every other people.
Paul shews that, on the contrary, God feels 3
paternal interest in all men, and is willing to
forgive all, since all, as Sinners, need forgive
ness ; but that men can never obtain a title to
this forgiveness by their own imperfect obedi
ence to the law, but only by faith in Christ, to
whom they are indebted for this favour, and in
a way exclusive of all personal desert. " Now
(in the times of the New Testament) we are
made acquainted, by the Christian doctrine,
with the purpose of God to forgive us (Sixaio-
gvvrj ©eov, ver. 22, 24,) withput respect to the
observance of the law as anything meritorieus,
(xupls vbuov ;) of which purpose frequent indi
cations appear even in the Old Testament.
This is God's purpose to forgive men, on ac
count of their faith in Jesus Christ, without
their own desert. This forgiveness is extended
to all (Jews and Gentiles) who believe in
Christ. All are sinners, unworthy of the di
vine favour, and deserving of punishment. But
God, in the exercise of his impartial, paternal
love, desires to make all men happy, and ac
cordingly intends this to be the means of the
happiness of all. But this forgiveness is be
stowed upon them without their deserving it,
(SapEciv,) from the mere mercy (xdpis) of God,
through the atonement of Christ. God hath
appointed Christ to be an atoning sacrifice,
(iJioofripio*,) or a propitiator through faith in
his blood, (i. e., God forgives us on his account,
if we place our whole reliance upon his death,
endured for our good.) He now indulgently
forgives us our past sins, (committed before our
conversion to Christ; cf. Heb. ix. 15.) He now
shews (in these times of the New Testament)
how merciful he is to all men, by forgiving
(Sixaio'wfa) every one (Jew or Gentile) who
believes in Jesus Christ, (tbv ix itlgtsus.)"
The question arises, how and by what means
has Christ procured for us pardon from God, or
the forgiveness of sins? .
We find many clear declarations upon this
point in the discourses of Jesus himself, espe
cially in the Gospel of John, where he frequent
ly speaks of his death, and of the worth and ad
vantages of it; John, iii. 14; Matt. xxvi. We
find passages of the same kind even in the dis
courses of John the Baptist, John, i. 29 ; and in
2k2

390

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

the prophecies to which Christ appeals as re
ferring to himself; Ps. xxii., xl.; Is. liii. But
this doctrine is more clearly explained, deve
loped, and applied in the instructions of the
apostles. While Christ was visibly upon the
earth, he laid the foundation for this doctrine,
but left it for his disciples to make a more full
development and application of this, as well as
of many other doctrines, after his sufferings and
death should have become facts which had al
ready taken place. That the views which they
give upon this subject did not originate merely
in the conceptions then prevalent among the
Jews and heathen, but are exactly suited to the
universal necessities of man, is clear from s.
108. But there have always been some in the
Christian church, and many in modern times, to
whom this doctrine, so clearly taught in the
New Testament, has been offensive, as it was
formerly to many Jews and heathen; 1 Cor. i.
2. And so they endeavour to give a different
view from that given in the New Testament of
the nature of the benefits which Christ has con
ferred upon the human race, confining them to
his doctrine, and the results of it. So Socinus,
and many of the same opinion in other parties.
Sometimes they endeavour to deduce their opi
nions by a forced interpretation from the Bible.
Sometimes they hold that the subject should
not be definitely stated, at least in popular dis
course, — that it is sufficient to say, in general,
we obtain forgiveness of sin through Christ, or
through faith in Christ, leaving every one to un
derstand this statement in his own way. But
the meaning of this indefinite phraseology must
certainly be explained in theological instruction.
Should it, then, be withheld from the people ? and
is it honest to refer the-common people and the
young to the holy scriptures by the language
employed,- and at the same time to teach them
something widely different from what is con
tained in the Bible ? If the conscience of any
one does not pronounce such conduct inexcusa
ble, he should renounce the. idea of being a
Christian teacher. The question here is not,
how the doctrine may be understood by learned
men, judging independently of the authority of
Revelation, but hew the dectrine is taught in
the New Testament ? Since this bepk lies at
the foundation of religieus knpwledge, the dec
lines and ideas which it cnntains should be ex
plained, and in a way which will be intelligi
ble te thpse whe hear. And cnnsidering hew
adapted to the wants ef man the scriptural dec-
trine cf forgiveness is, what a powerful influ
ence it exerts, how much it does to tranquillize
the mind, to purify and elevate the character, it
would be an act of rashness and cruelty to de
stroy the faith of men in it, and to rob them pf
a belief in place ef which nnthing can be sub

stituted at ence se plain to the reason, so bene
ficial to the character,- and so consoling to the
heart. The Bible ascribes the forgiveness which is
procured for us by Christ principally to the fol
lowing points — viz., (1) his sufferings and vio
lent death; which is often called, according to the
Hebrew idiom, alfia Xpifffov and ovovpds. This
is the principal thing. In connexion with this it
places (2) his resurrection, and (3) his interces
sion. On these grounds God justifies or for
gives men. These three parts will therefore be
separately considered. S. Ill, 112.
Note. — We should not stop with one of these
particulars, and overlook the rest. The resur
rection of Christ, according to the New Testa
ment, assures us of the validity of his atone
ment; and his intercession imparts a deep con
viction that, although he has ascended into the
heavens, he is still mindful of us, and cares for
our welfare. These three points together com
pose the entire meritum Christi. Persons are said
mereri, or, 4erae mereri de aliquo, when they as- ,
sist another to obtain possession of any advan
tage. Sometimes these advantages themselves,
which are obtained by the assistance of a bene
factor, are called merita. But the custom of the
schools, ever since the time of the schoolmen,
has been, to call the death of Christ, so far as
we are indebted to it for pardon and eternal hap
piness, the meritum Christi, by way of emi
nence ; meaning that we owe these spiritual
blessings to the death of Christ, without deny
ing that he has deserved well of the human race
in other ways. Considering that this phraseo
logy has now become established in systema
tic theology, Morus (p. 171, 172, s. 5) justly
thinks that it should be preserved, as a devia
tion from it might produce confusion.
SECTION CXI.
OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF CHRIST; HOW
FAR WE ARE INDEBTED TO THEM FOR OUR JUS
TIFICATION OR PARDON; TOGETHER WITH OB
SERVATIONS ON SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL AT
TRIBUTES (AFFECTIONES) OF THE DEATH OF
CHRIST.We shall adhere, in this place, simply to the
doctrine and representations of the New Testa
ment, and hereafter (s. 114) treat of the various
explanations which have been given in later
times of this doctrine, and of the various eccle
siastical opinions de satisfactione.
I. The Sufferings and Death of Christ ,¦ and how
far men are indebted to them for their Justifica
tion or Forgiveness.
By the sufferings and death of Christ, accord
ing to the scriptures, many objects and ends
which God had in view were attained, and they

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 391

may therefore be considered in various lights,
all of which are important and full of instruc
tion. Thus the death of Christ furnishes a proof
of the great love of God and of Christ to us. It
is an example of the greatest steadfastness, con
fidence in God, and patienoe, &c. And these
views of it are often presented in the New Tes
tament, but by no means the most frequently.
The sufferings and death of Christ are mainly
considered as the ground or procuring-cause of
our forgiveness and of our spiritual welfare.
» All men are sinners, and consequently deserv
ing of punishment. The ground on which God
pardons them, er forgives their sin, is the suf
ferings and death ef Christ, pr his 4/ood shed
for them. He endured the misery which we
should have endured as the penalty ef sin, in
order that we might be saved from deserved
punishment." Such is the uniform doctrine of
the Bible, the reason and object of it are plain
from what was remarked in s. 108. Without
this doctrine the Bible is not consistent. Our
forgiveness, then, does not depend upon our re
formation and holiness, by which we deserve no
thing from God, (Gal. ii. 21 ;) but upon the
death of Christ, of which our holiness is the re
sult The death of Christ is the antecedent, our
holiness the consequent.
' This doctrine is briefly and summarily taught
in the following passages, part of which have
been already explained, and the remainder of
which will be hereafter; viz., Matt. xxvi. 28;
Horn. iii. 25; v. 8, 9; Eph. i. 7; Heb. ix. 12,
15,28; 1 John, i. 7.
The death of Christ, however, is not here
mentioned, exclusively of his other sufferings.
Vide s. 95. All together constitute that which
Paul calls the vitaxor^ of Christ, Rom. v. 19,
because he endured them from obedience to God,
Phil. ii. 8. Theologians call them all obedientia
passiva. But death, especially a violent death,
most deeply moves our sensibilities, and com
prises, as we regard it, the sum and substance
of all other sufferings and punishments. For
this reason the New Testament makes more fre
quent mention pf the death, blood, and cross pf
Christ. The following passages clearly and distinctly
teach that Christ has effected the deliverance
of man from the deserved punishment of sin, by
means of his sufferings and violent death — viz.,
(1) The texts which teach that Christ suf
fered or died for all sinners, or for all the sins
of men ; S i a (itapaittuuata), itspl (itoXXuv),
but more commonly iit s p (duaptuXuv or itav-
tiiv or dfiapfiioi' rjuav), Hebrew, Sy. E. g.,
Matt. xxvi. 28, "The blood shed for many, for
the remission of sins." Rom. iv. 25 ; v. 6; 1
Cor. xv. 3; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15; 1 Pet. iii. 18; Is.
Iiti. 5, seq.
It haa been objected against this proof, that

to do a thing vitsp tlvos, sometimes means sim
ply to do it for the good of any one, to instruct
him, improve him, or to give him an example.
So Col. i. 24, where Paul speaks of his sufferings
for the good of (vitsp) the Colossians and of the
whole Christian church, because he was perse
cuted by his enemies, and then imprisoned at
Rome. But the sense even here is, "he con
gratulates himself that he can undergo in his
own person what would otherwise have befallen
the whole church; while the general hatred
lights upon him, others escaped." When now
this phraseology is used in the New Testament
with reference to Christ, it never means that he
died to teach men, &c. ; but always, instead, in
the place of men, to deliver them. He suffered
what we should have suffered; endured the
penalty of the law, which we should have en
dured. This is confirmed by the passage Is.
liii., from which these terms are so frequently
borrowed in the New Testament And this is
decisively proved by the passage Rom. v. 6,
where it is said that Christ died for (vitsp) sin
ners. This cannot mean that by his death he
gave men an example of firmness, or sought to
reform them. For in ver. 7, we read, "There
are hut few instances among men (like that of
Damon and Pythias) of one dying for an inno
cent friend; and indeed the examples are rare
of one dying (as Peter was willing to do vitsp
Xpifffov, John, xiii. 37) even for a benefactor,
(dyajds.) But there is no example of one dying
for rebels and criminals, to rescue them from
the death which they deserved, and yet so did
Christ die for us." Paul could not have ex
pressed his meaning more clearly. According
ly, he says, 2 Cor. v. 14, "Did one (Christ)
die for all, then were all dead."
Further ; if this phraseology meant nothing
more than is contended for by the objector, it
might be used with reference to the death of tho
apostles and other martyrs. But this is never
the case in the New Testament. No one of
them is ever said to have died for the world,
for sinners, or sin'. It is said respecting Christ
exclusively, 6fi — eis v7t£p itdvtav drti&avE, 2
Cor. v. 14, 15, coll. 1 Cor. i. 13, "Was Paul
crucified for (vitsp) you ?"
The meaning, then, of the phraseology,
"Christ suffered for us, or in our place," is this:
" Since Christ suffered for our sins, we ourselves
are freed from the necessity of enduring the pu
nishment which they deserved. It is the same as
if we had ourselves endured this punishment;
and therefore it need no longer be feared." The
epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians,
and Hebrews, are full of texts of this import.
Cf. Morus, p. 151, and Storr, Doctrina Christ.
p. 254.
ffl) The texts whiih teach that Christ was
treated as a sinner ; and this in our stead, thai

392

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGV.

we might be considered as forgiven by God.
2 Cor. v. 21, where dpaptla or duaptaxbv rtaislv,
is, to treat one as a sinner, to punish him ; as the
opposite Slxaiov itoislv or Sixaioiv is to treat as
innocent, to forgive. Jesus was treated in this
way vitsp tjuuv, which is explained by what
follows, "that we, on Christ's account, might
Be treated by God as just or innocent" — i. e.,
might be saved from deserved punishment;
ytvaus$a Stxaiogivrj ©eov — i. e., Slxaioi ivaitiov
©eov. So also Gal. iii. 13, "Christ hath re
deemed us (who as sinners must fear the threat
enings of the law) from the threatened punish
ment of the law (xofdpa vdftov), yEvdfiEvos
V7t£p iipav xaf dp a," for i7ttxaf dpaf os, (as in
ver. 10;) — i. c, by enduring for us a cruel capi
tal punishment, (to which, according to the
law of Moses, only the grossest offenders were
liable.) Cf. Isaiah, liii. 4 — 6, from which the
apostles frequently borrow these and similar
expressions. (3) With the passages already cited belong
those which teach that Christ took, upon himself
and 4ore the sins of men — i. e., endured the pu
nishment which men would have endured for
their sins. . In Hebrew the phrase is pj n&j, or
ban ; in the Septuagint and the New Testament,
fyspsiv or oipEiv duaptids. It occurs in the text,
Is. liii. 4, which is always referred by the New
Testament to Christ. Also John, i. 29 ; lPet.ii.
24 ; Heb. ix. 28, &c Some would render fyspsiv
or aipsu/ dftapf lav by auferre peccatum, to make
men virtuous, to reform them in a moral respect.
The only passage in the New Testament in
in which the phrase will bear this interpretation
is 1 John, iii. 5, where it is equally capable of
the other rendering. The phrase commonly
has the meaning first given, and a different in
terpretation does the greatest violence to the
passages in which it occurs ; the comparison
being so clearly derived from sacrifices.
But what is the origin of this signification of
the term? In the Old Testament, sin is fre
quently compared with a burden which oppresses
any one, and which he is compelled to carry,
when l.e feels the unpleasant consequences of
sin, or is punished. So in Arabic, to bear one's
own or another's burden. Hence the phrase was
used in reference (a) to the vibtim, which was
sacrificed for the atonement of sin. The victim
was supposed to have the sin or punishment
laid upon it; Lev. xvi. 21, 22. (4) In reference
to men ,- and first, to such as were punished for
their own sins, Lev. xx. 19; xxiv. 15; and, se-
condly, to such as were punished on account of
the sins of others, Lam. v. 7, " We must bear
the sins of our fathers." Ezek. xviii. 20 ; also,
Is. liii., " The punishment lies on him ; he 4ee»-s
our sins." This sense holds in the passages
cited from the New Testament John, i. 29,
"Behold the (sacrificial) lamb acceptable to

God, which 4ears the sins of the world!"— a
comparison drawn from sacrifices. This eom-
pariscn is inapplicable, acccrding to the other
interpretation — the Lamb which makes us pious
arid virtuous. In Heb. ix., the figure implied
in itpogsvsx^sls is taken from sacrifices. In 1
Pet. ii. 24, the two ideas are distinguished;
first, "he bore our sins on the cross," (i. e.,
suffered on the cross the punishment of our
sins;) then, "that we might die to sin (spiritu
ally), and live wholly to holiness, (Stxaioo'vi'ii.)"
(4) The passages which teach that the death
of Christ was a ransom for us, (xitpov, dvti-
xvtpov^) 1 Tim. ii. 6, and even in the discourse
of Christ, Matt. xx. 28. The term xitpov de
notes anything by which one is freed, delivered.
Vide s. 106, II. The meaning of the proposition,
then, is this : The death of Christ was the means
of delivering and rescuing us from the greatest
misery, from the punishment of sin; or, accord
ing to Heb. ix. 12, " Christ, aiavlav Xvtpagiv
sipdpsvos, effected our eternal liberation from
misery and punishment;" Is. xliii. 3, 4.
(5) All the texts which compare the death of
Christ with the sacrifices and Levitical ordi
nances of the Old Testament; also the texts
which teach that the death of Christ obtained,
once for all, and in a far more perfect manner,
the advantages which men had hoped to obtain
from their sacrifices and expiatory rites. This
doctrine was indeed founded in the ideas preva
lent at that period, and was particularly evident
and convincing to the Jews then living, and to
such of the heathen nations as were accustomed
to the rites of sacrifice. But it was by no means
intended for such exclusively ; since it is also
founded in a feeling which is universal among
men, that some means of atonement are neces
sary ; s. 108. The apostles, therefore, in their
instructions to Jews, heathen, and Christians, de
rive their expressions and comparisons from sa
crifices, and only in iheir instructions to Jews,
from the particular services of the Mosaic ritual.
The idea which lies at the foundation of this
comparison is this : " Christ by his death liberated
us from death" (punishment of siri), which we
should have suffered ; and we should see in him
(a) what dreadful consequences our sins incur,
and (4) how gracious God is, in forgiving us for
the sake of Christ." Ephes. v. 2, jtopE'SuxEi'
Eavrov v7tEp ijauv ©E9 itpogfopdv, §vglav,
d<rfir)» EvioSias. Romans, iii. 25, (ia.acrf)Jpioi>.}
Heb. ix. 7, 1 1—29 ; x. 1— 14 ; Acts, xiii. 38, &c.
Hence the term alfia (cxdes cruenta), which sa
frequently stands for the death of Christ, is to be
understood in its full sense. It frequently stands
in such a connexion as shews that the figureis
derived from the blood of the sacrificial victim,
and from the qualities ascribed to it — e. g., Heb.
IX. 13, 14, alua tavpav xai tpdyav, in opposition
to alfia Xpiof ov — xa^apiEi. 1 John, i. 7, " The

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 395

blood ef Christ cleanses," &c. 1 Pet. i. 19,
"The blood of Christ, a lamb without spot or
Ornish." Taking all these texts together, there is no
rbom to doubt that the apostles entertained the
opinions respecting the death of Christ, and its
effect, which were ascribed to them at the com
mencement of this section. These opinions have
been shewn (s. 108), not only to correspond with
the particular* circle of ideas with which they
were familiar at that period, but to meet a uni
versal necessity of man. This is a necessity,
indeed, which is but little felt by the learned,
and least of all by the merely speculative scho
lar. Vide 1 Cor. i. — iii.
II. Universality, and Perfect and Perpetual Validity
of the Atonement.
(1) Its universality. Two points must here
be noticed.
First. According to the clear testimony of
the Bible, Christ endured death for the whole
human race; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, vitsp itdvtav dits-
Sdvn. Ver. 19, " God reconciled the world to
himself through Christ." 1 Tim. ii. 6, Sov$
savtov dvtlxvtpov vitsp itdvtav. 1 John, ii. 2,
" He is the propitiator, not only for our sins, (i.
e., those of Christians,) but also for the sins
bxov toi xogpov," &c But the passages which
are most explicit upon this subject are found in
the epistle to the Romans, where Paul contro
verts the mistaken opinion of the Jews that the
blessings of the Messiah's kingdom belong ex
clusively to the posterity of Abraham. He
Shews, Romans, v. 12 — 19, that as one man was
the author of sin in the world, and of the conse
quent punishment which all now endure, so one
man is the author of salvation and forgiveness
for all. In Romans, iii. 9, 22, he shews that as
the moral disease is universal among men, the
remedy must needs be universal ; and, in ver.
29, that the benevolence of God is not confined
to a small portion, but embraces the whole fa
mily of man.
In such passages of the New Testament, the
term itoxxol or ol itoxxol frequently stands for
Ttdvtss. E. g., Rom. v. 19, ol itoxxol stands for
all men who are obnoxious to punishment and
need forgiveness; as it reads ver. 12, 18. The
same in ver. 15. Cf. Matt. xx. 28; xxvi. 28 ;
1 Cor. x. 33, &c. The Hebrews used the word
rjian in the same way, Is. liii. 12. .M involves
the idea of many, and hence in the ancient lan
guages the words which signify many are often
used to denote universality — so many! such a
multitude! This was the case especially where
only one was pointed but in contrast to the many ;
one for so many !
Note. — The question has been asked, whether
Christ died for the ungodly. The strict particu-
larists and prcdestinarians answered this ques

tion in the negative, en the ground that the
death ef Christ dpes net actually secure the sal
vaticn pf the wicked, and is ef np advantage te
them. But because seine, by their own fault,
derive no advantage from the death of Christ,
we cannot say that the death of Christ does not
concern them, and that Christ did not die for
them, any more than we can say that divine in
struction has no power in itself to reform man
kind, because many Will not allow themselves
to be reformed by it Moreover, this opinion is
.inconsistent with the New Testament. In 2 Pet.
ii. 1, the false teachers and deceivers, whem a
dreadful destructicn awaited, are said expressly
to deny the Lord who bought (redeemed) them.
Misunderstanding and logomachy may be obvi
ated by attending to the just remark of the
schoolmen, that the design of the death of Christ,
and the actual results of it, should be distinguish
ed. Actu primo, Christ died for all men ; but
adu secundo, net for all men, but only for be
lievers — i. e., according to the purpose of God,
all might be exempted from punishment and
reridered happy by the death of Christ; but all
do not suffer this purpose actually to take effect
with regard to themselves ; and only believers
actually attain to this blessedness.
Secondly. Christ removed the whole punish
ment of sin ; his death atoned for all. sins. So
the apostles declare. 1 John, i. 7, "The blood
of Christ cleanses from all sin." Romans, v.
16 ; viii. 1, ovSev xatdxpipa tols iv Xpicf 9, Acts,
xiii. 38, &c But an apparent difficulty is here
suggested, which must be answered from the
discussion respecting punishments, (s. 86, 87,)
and can therefore only be touched here.
Now there are two kinds of punishments —
viz., natural, such as flow from the nature and
character of the moral action itself, (e. g., debi
lity and disease from luxurious excess;) and
positive, such as do not result directly from the
nature and character of the moral action, but are
connected with it by the free will of the law
giver. God actually threatens to inflict such
positive punishments upon the wicked, espe
cially in the future world ; just as he promises,
on the other hand, to bestow positive rewards in
the future world upon the righteous, s. 87.
Again ; the natural punishments of sin are of
two kinds — viz., (a) physical, as sickness in
consequence- of immoderation; and (4) moral
(by far the worst!), such as disquiet of mind,
remorse of conscience, and dread of God ; s. 86,
II. 2.
Now, has Christ redeemed us from all these
punishments ? Those who mean to speak strictly
and logically reply, 710/ Christ has redeemed
us, properly speaking, only from positive divine
punishments in the future world, and from that
kind of natural punishments which may be called
moral, or the evil results ef sin in a mpral respect.

394

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Even the man who is reformed still retains the
consciousness of the sins which he has commit
ted, and reflects upon them with sorrow, shame,
and regret. But the pardoned sinner knows
that God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven his
Bins ; and so is no longer subject to that disquiet
of mind, pain of conscience, dread of God and
despair — the pxna moralis of sin, which render
the wicked miserable.
The physical part of natural punishment in
deed remains, even after the- transgressor is re
formed. If any one, by his extravagance, has
made himself sick and poor, he will not, in con
sequence of being pardened and renewed, beceme
well and prosperous. The physical conse
quences of sin continue, not only through the
present life, but probably through the life to
come. They can be obviated only by a miracu
lous interference of God, which is nowhere pro
mised. But these very physical consequences
of sin, whose evil is so lasting, are like a bitter
medicine ; they have a good effect, and secure
us from turning again from the right path. Al
though one who is pardoned has therefore no
right to expect that the physical evils resulting
from his transgression will be counteracted by
his being subsequently forgiven, yet he may
hope, both from what has now been, said and
from common experience, that these evils will
be very much diminished, will lose the terror
of punishment, and contribute to his good. Such
is the case exactly with bodily death.
The same truth is taught in the Bible, not
indeed in a scientific manner, which would be
unintelligible to men at large, but in the popular
manner, in which it should always be taught.
(1) The Bible never says that Christ has entirely
removed the physical evils which naturally re
sult from sin. (2) When the sacred writers say
that Christ suffered punishment for us, they mean
principally the positive punishment, from which
he has liberated us by his sufferings and death.
Vide s. 87, No. 2. They also teach, (3) That
one who trusts in Christ can take courage, can
love God and confide in him without dreading
his anger, and without distressing himself in
view of his past guilt, which is now forgiven
him for the sake of Christ. The remission of
the moral punishments which naturally flow
from sin is thus set forth in a manner which
ought to be followed by the public teacher.
Vide s. 109, ad finem. (4) But the terms par
don and forgiveness of sin are frequently used in
the New Testament in a wider sense, compre
hending all the divine favours which the par
doned receive from God ; they denote the whole
amount of the blessedness — the salvation — which
the pardoned enjoy. Vide s. 109, Note. If,
therefore, (5) the natural physical consequences
of past sins are not removed, they still lose their
Beverity ; they are rendered mild and in many

respects beneficial ; they are vastly overbalanced
by the various blessings bestowed, and thus
cease, in their actual effects, to be punishments'.
The holy scriptures, therefore, declare with
truth, that the blood of Christ atones for all sins.
Cf. the programm of Npesselt, above cited.
Note. — Theologians have been divided on the
question, whether the apostles held that the sins
committed before Christ, or during the Old-Tes
tament dispensation, were forgiven by God on
account of the atonement to be afterwards made.
Doederlein and others take the negative side.
They say that the dlpEgis itpoysyovbtav duaptrtftdj-
tuv, Rom. iii. 25, may denote the remission of
the sins which the Jews and Gentiles of that
age had committed before their conversion to
Christianity. The itapafidgsis iiti trj itpafn
Sia^rjx^, Heb. ix. 15, may be understood in the
same way, or may denote the sins which were
irremissible during the Old-Testament dispensa
tion. Vide ver. 9. But the context of this pas
sage is more favourable to the common interpre
tation. Besides, the affirmative of this question is
supported, (1) By the whole analogy of scrip
ture. The Jews of that age agree with Christ
and the apostles in teaching that men of the
earliest times hoped for the Messiah — that the
divine ordinances of the former dispensation re
ferred to him, and pointed him out — and that all
the pious of antiquity confided in him. Vide
John, viii. 56; Luke, x. 24; 1 Pet. i. 10, 11.
Cf. s. 90. (2) By the passage, Heb. ix. 26.
where this doctrine is plainly implied. " God
appointed that Christ should suffer and die for
all sins, ana once for all. Otherwise, it would
have been necessary that he should suffer more
than once (itoxxdxis) from the beginning of the
world ; since there were always sinners in the
world." This plainly involves the sentiment
that Christ died for the men who lived before
him. The opinion of Lceffler and other modern
writers, that pardon through the death of Christ
related only to the new converts from Judaism
and heathenism is entirely false and contradic
tory to the New Testament. Vide Gal. iii. 21,
seq.; Romans, i. 18, seq., coll. 1 Thess. i. 10;
John, iii. 13—16; Romans, v. 18, 19; and
especially 1 John, ii. 1, 2.
(2) The other attribute of the atoning death
of Christ is, its permanent and perfect validity,
(perennitas, perennis valor meriti Christi.)
This doctrine is held in opposition to those
who believe that the expiatory sacrifice of
Christ is not valid and sufficient for the atone
ment of some particular sins, and who therefore
seek for other means of obtaining pardon, such
as penances and satisfactions. This opinion
has not only prevailed in modern times, espe
cially since the middle ages, throughout the
whole body of the Romish church, but former-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 395

ly,, though in different forms, even in the times
of the apostles, among Jews and Gentiles. Vide
g. 108, No. I. Paul therefore shews, especially
in his epistle to the Hebrews, that Christ had
¦sacrificed himself once for all (dita£) for all sins,
and that now no more sacrifices, penances, and
expiations are necessary for men. Heb. vii.
27, Tovfo litoajgsv itydnaz, savtov avsvsyxas.
Heb. ix. 25, 26 — 28, " He appeared at the clese
of this age, drtafi sis d^s'fr/o'H' dfiapfias- and then
drta| rtpogsvsx&Eis sis tb itoXXav dvsvsyxslv dfiap-
fias. Se alsp, X. 14, piq, itpogfopq, tstsXslaxsv
sis tb Sir/ vexes *oi>S dyiafofiEvov$. Acccrd-
ingly, Christ is said, ix. 11, by his pnce enter
ing inte the heavens, to have procured eternal
( coemption, (alaviav Xvtpagiv.)
SECTION CXII
OF THE INFLUENCE WHICH THE RESURRECTION OF
CHRIST, AND HIS SUBSEQUENT EXALTATION AND
INTERCESSION, HAVE UPON OUR FORGIVENESS OR
JUSTIFICATION.It was observed (s. 110, ad finem) that the
New Testament points to three particulars in
the justification procured for us by Christ. The
first of these, the death £f Christ, was consider
ed, s. 111. We come now to treat of the two
remaining- particulars.
I. The Influence of the Resurrection and Exaltation
of Christ upon our Justification.
We have before examined (s.' 37) what is
uniformly taught in the Bible respecting the re
surrection of Christ, and the great importance
of this event, and all this is here presupposed.
The resurrection of Christ is mentioned, in con-
nexion with our justification, with the most dis
tinctness in the two following texts — viz., 2 Cor.
v. 15, " Christians should not live for their own
pleasure (lowf^ £rjv), but for the honour of
Christ, and according to his will, 1 9 vitsp aituv
aftd&avbvti xai iysp^svti" (sc iitsp ait av) ; and
Rom. iv. 25, " He died (according to the divine
purpose) Sid f d itapaittapata qpuv, rj y s p J tj
Sid f 771' Six aiogvvnv ijpav."
What is meant by his being raised for our
justification must be gathered from other pas
sages. 1 Pet i. 3, "God has made us, by
means of Christianity, reformed men (4orn
again)', that -we might cherish a firm hope (sis
iXitiSa £ugav, sc. of future happiness, ver. 4),
through the resurrection of Christ. 1 Pet. i. 21,
" God has rat'sed Christ and rewarded him with
glory (the state of exaltation in the heavens),
that he — the risen and glorified Christ — might
be your confidence and hope in God" — i. e., that
you should consider him as the person to whom
alone you are indebted for the confidence which
yiu now are enabled to repose in God. 1 Cor.
XT. 17, "If Christ were not risen, then the con

fidence (itigtis) which you feel in him would
be vain ; IV 1 igti iv dp.apt idis ifiav" — i. e., you
could not be certain of that forgiveness which
you now hope to obtain from God through
Christ. Cf. Rom. viii. 34.
From these passages taken together we can
easily gather the relation and connexion in
which the resurrection and exaltation of Christ
stand to. our justification and forgiveness. The
resurrection of Christ, then, cannot be consider
ed to have any desert t-'tj itself alone, nor can it
be supposed, separately considered, to have freed
us from the punishment of sin. But, according
to the Bible, the resurrection of Christ and his
subsequent reward in heaven give attestation
and confirmation to all that he taught and suf
fered. For since God raised and rewarded
Christ, we must conclude that He fully ap
proved of everything which Jesus taught and
performed — and that Christ must have accom
plished His designs. Did Christ suffer and
die with the intention of liberating us from the
punishment of sin, we may be sure, since his
resurrection and exaltation, that he fully attain
ed this object, and that we can now through him
lay claim to reward and eternal happiness. This
is what Peter means by itigtis xai ixitls rjuav.
In the passage cited from 1 Cor., Paul means to
say, that if Christ were not risen, we might be
led te suspect that he had net performed what
he promised and undertook to perform. '
We are now prepared to understand the mean
ing of the declaration in the Epistle to the Ro
mans, jjyip$7i sis Sixaiogvvriv rjpuv — viz., 7,'ti order
to afford us certainty cf our forgiveness, of which
we could have no certainty if Christ had re
mained in the grave. Vide Acts, xiii. 37, 38.
Accordingly, the resurrection and exaltation
(Sd|a, as Peter has it), of Christ are the con
firmation and assurance of our justification,
while the sufferings and death of Christ are pro*
perly the procuring cause of it.
H. The Influence of the Intercession of Christ upon
our Justification.
(1) Sketch of the history of this doctrine.
Many theologians, and some of the ecclesias
tical fathers, represent intercession as a conti
nued external action of Christ, different from
his atonement, by which blessings are not only
imparted to us, but likewise procured for us.
Among the fathers who held this opinion were
Gregory of Nazianzen, Gregory the Great,
Paulus of Aquilia, and others; among modern
theologians, Calvin, and of the Lutheran church,
Chemnitz, Baumgarten, and others. These
writers regard the intercession of Christ as a
distinct" work performed by him in his state of
exaltation in heaven. They have very different
conceptions, however, respecting the manner of
this work, some of which are very gross. Many

396

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

of them contended for an intercessio verbalis—
e. g., Cyprian and Augustine; and th'eir opi
nion was adopted in the Romish church. Ac
cordingly, Luther renders Ivtvyxdvsi, Heb. vii.
25, "Er bittetfur sie," (he prays for them.) So
t'etavius, Hellaz, Quenstedt, and many ethers,
tmeng the Lutherans. They also differ widely
"rom one another respecting the nature, object,
and continuance of this intercession. Some
consider it as belonging to the sacerdotal office,
in which case the comparison is drawn from
the Jewish high priest in the Epistle to the He
brews. Nothing definite upon the subject ap
pears in the symbols, except in the Augsburg
Confession ; and even there no distinct expla
nation is given. •
Another theory, which entirely divests the
subject of its material dress, and which has
therefore been more generally approved in mo
dern times, was first distinctly stated by Philip
Limborch, the Arminian theologian, arid by
Musasus in the seventeenth century. They
consider the intercession of Christ to be merely
the relation in which he, in his state of exalta
tion, stands to sinners, as their Redeemer, and
riot as a continued action, by which he still pro
motes the Welfare of men, and by which salva
tion is still procured for them. The same opi
nion is found in Ballhorn's dissertation, De in
tercession Christi sacerdotali, (among Walch's
Vorsitze;) Gottingen, 1774. This opinion,
however, does not exactly correspond with the
dectrine ef the Bible.
(2) Explanation of the texts relating to this
subject, and an elucidation of the ideas contained
in them. These texts are —
(a) 1 John, ii. 1. "When a Christian has
committed sin, (let him not despair of pardon,
but encourage himself with the thought, that)
we have itapdxX-nt av itpbs tbv itat'spa, in
Jesus, the righteous." Here itapdxXntos is, pa-
tronus, advocate, defender, (Fursprecher, Luther.)
This name is given by Philo to the ministers
and favourites at court, who promise to any one
the favour of the king; and also to the high
priest, the expiator of the people. Vide Pro
gramm, De Christo et Spiritu Sancto paracletis,
in "Scripta varii argumenti," Num. iv. In
this respect it is that Christ is called Hapdxxrj-
tos. He is our expiator, Ixagubs itspl auapt iuv,
ver. 2. Accordingly, the meanihg of this pas-
Sage is, that since Christ is exalted to heaven,
and while he continues there, we may be firmly
convinced that God will be gracious to us, and
for Christ's sake will remit the punishment of
our sins; and that Christ, in his state of exalta
tion, continues without intermission his cares
for the welfare of men.
(4) Rom. viii. 34. Here Paul says, " No one
can condemn (xaf axpivtiv) the friends of God,
(Christians.) They are exempt from punish

ment. Christ died for ihem; and inueeJ, (what
might add to their comfort,) had risen again,
was seated on the right hand of God, os xai ev-
tvy'xdvsi vitsp ijiiuv, (vertritt uns, Luther.) 'Ei/-"
tvyxdvsiv, joined with the dative, means occu/r-
rere alicui ; then, adire, convenire aliquem, Acts,
xxv. 24; joined with xcwd (tlvos), accus'drei
Rom. xi. 2 ; with vitsp (tiros), medium se alte?_
rius causa interponere, to interpose in behalf of
one, to intercede for him ; as here, interc'ed'ete
pro aliquo, deprecari, causam alicujus agefc
From this text it does not appear that this in
tercession Was performed by words. The prin
cipal idea is, " Christ is now, as it were, our
patron with God ; his being with God in hea
ven gives us the consoling assurance that'
through him we are for ever reconciled with
God and freed from the punishment of sin ; and
that, as the advocate and patron of the pious,
Christ still prosecutes in heaven his labours for
their welfare."
(c) Heb. vii. 25, seq. Here the case is the
same. " Christ (being an eternal high priest)
can for ever bless (gu^scv sis to itavtsXss) all
those who seek the favour of God through His
mediation, since he ever lives ei$ fo ivtvyxd-
vsiv" — i. e., since Christ ever lives with God
in heaven we can always be sure of forgiveness
and of every divine blessing; for he is not in
heaven in vain, but even there continues to be
engaged for our welfare. The phrase intercessic
sacerdotalis is taken from this passage ; for the
figure Here, as in the Whole chapter, is borrowed
from the Jewish high priest, who on the great
day of atonement entered into the most holy
place and made expiation for the sins of the
people, (pro populo intercedebat apud Deum.)
He did not do this, however, by words (he spake
no word, vide Ex. xxviii. and Lev. xvii.), but
by action — namely, by offering the blood of the
victim. The object of this comparison, then,
is to shew that Christ performs with God in
the heavenly world what the Jewish high priest
did yearly for the people upon the earth. It re
fers, then, both to the permanent validity of the
atonement of Christ, and to his continued la
bours in heaven for the salvation of men. Re
specting this figure, cf. Morus, p. 155, seq.
(d) Heb. ix. 24 — a parallel passage, Which
confirms the above explanation. " Christ did
not enter into an earthly temple, like the Jewish
high priest, but into heaven itself, viv iufyavig-
J^kii f9 itpogaitip ©eov vjtEp Tjfiui*" — the very
phrase applied to the high priest when he pre
sented to God, in the temple, the blood of atone
ment for the people. It means, therefore, "in
order to procure for us a firm assurance of being
expiated, or of forgiveness of our sins, and of
the enjoyment of all the spiritual blessings con
nected with forgiveness."
The intercession of Christ before God in the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 397

heavenly world denotes, then, both the lasting
and perfect validity and efficacy of his atone
ment, of which we obtain consoling assurance by
lis abiding with God in his state of exaltation,
and also the continued wakeful care which Jesus
Christ exercises in heaven over his followers on
the earth. In short, the intercession of Christ
is one of the chief employments which Christ
prosecutes in heaven in his state of exaltation,
as the King and Patron of men, and especially
of the Christian church, and its individual mem
bers ; s. 98. He is our Paracletus and Patron,
therefore, not merely in respect to what he for
merly did for men while upon the earth, but also
in respect to the efforts which he still continues
to make for our welfare.
The Bible nowhere teaches that this interces
sion consists in words. But considering that
Christ must still be regarded as a man, though
in heaven, there is no objection to representing
the thing under the figure of actual intercession.
In brief, Christ does for us all and more than
could be done among men through verbal inter
cession, or other kinds of interposition, by a
powerful human advocate. The passage, Heb.
xii. 24, may here be compared : " The blood of
Christ speaks better (for us) than the blood of
Abel." The blood of Abel cried to God for
vengeance upon Cain. The death of Christ
moves God, not to punish, but to bless and for
give. SECTION CXIII.
THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF PARDON OR JUSTIFI
CATION THROUGH CHRIST, AS AN UNIVERSAL AND
UNMERITED FAVOUR OF GOD.
I. The Universality of this Benefit.
It is universal as the atonement itself. Vide
s. Ill, II. If the atonement extends to the
whole human race, justification must also be
universal — i. e., all must be able to obtain the
actual forgiveness of their sins and blessedness
on account of the atonement of Christ. But in
order to obviate mistakes, some points may re
quire explanation. Justification, then, is uni
versal, (1) In respect to the persons to be pardoned.
All men, according to the Bible, may partake
of this benefit. It was designed for all. Vide
especially Rom. iii. 23; v. 15; s. Ill, in oppo
sition to Jewish exclusiveness. It is bestowed,
however, conditionally ; certain conditions are
prescribed which are indispensable. Those who
do not comply with these conditions are excluded
from the enjoyment of the benefit. Justification
and forgiveness are not, therefore, universal in
effect (actu), and this 'solely through the fault of
men.*

[This is very conveniently expressed by the

Another conclusion from the universality of
justification is, that every one may be sure of
his forgiveness. This certainty, however, must
not be founded upon inward feelings, which are
frequently deceptive, but upon an actual com
pliance with the conditions on which God will
forgive sins. If any one finds in himself the
signs of true faith, of sincere love to God and.
Christ, of a renewed heart, and of a virtuous,
Christian disposition, he is justified. Romans,
viii. 16, "The holy, Christian temper (itvsipa)
wrought in us by God gives us the clearest and
surest proof that we are the children of God."
1 John, iii. 7 ; 2 Peter, i. 9, 10. This certainty
is in the highest degree necessary to our tran
quillity and happiness; 1 Tim. i. 16; 1 Cor. vi.
11; 1 John, v. 18—20.
(2) In respect to sins and the punishment of
sin. (a) As to sins ,- the position that all sins with
out exception are forgiven for Christ's sake is
proved partly from the power and efficacy of
the atonement of Christ, which is extended to
all sins, (vide s. Ill, and the texts there cited ;)
and partly from the texts which promise forgive
ness of all sins, even the greatest and blackest,
to those who comply with the prescribed condi
tions of pardon; Ezekiel, xviii. 21, 22; Psalm,
ciii. 3; 1 Cor. vi. 11 ; Ephes. ii. 5 ; 1 Tim. i.
15. The sin against the Holy Ghost cannot be
regarded as an exception. Vide s. 84.
(4) As to the punishment of sin, the answer
to the question, whether the pardoned are
exempt from all the punishments of sin, whe
ther, therefore, justification is plena et perfeda,
may be learned from s. 1 1 1, II. The natural and
physical evils which result from past sins, in
deed, remain, but they are mitigated and render
ed more tolerable, and are divested of the terror
of punishment by the cessation of the moral
evils which result from sin, which takes place
in consequence of the entirely different relation
in which men stand to God after they are once,
pardoned. The positive punishments of sin are
entirely removed, and man receives even here
the expectation of positive divine rewards, and
of the full enjoyment of them in the life to come.
(c) In respect to time atid lasting continuance.
First. — The scriptures uniformly teach that
forgiveness extends through the whole life of
man. He may receive pardon at any time,
while life continues, so soon as he fulfils the re
quisite conditions of forgiveness. This last
clause should be carefully and expressly annex
ed, in order to preserve men from security and
terms objective and subjective justification. Objec
tive justification is the act of God, by which he prof
fers pardon to all through Christ ; subjective is the
act of man, by which he accepts the pardon freely
offered in the gospel. The former is universal, the
latter not. — Tn.]
2L

398

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

carelessness in sin. Foimerly many teachers,
especially in the Lutheran church, were incau
tious in the use of language on this subject.
They used the general phrases, the door cf mercy
stands ever open; man can obtain avour (for
giveness) in the last moment of life, without suit
able explanation and cautious limitation. But
while it is important, on the one hand, to shew
that God is indeed ever ready to forgive, it
ought, on the other hand, to be observed, that
man is not always capable of forgiveness; that
forgiveness is necessarily connected with repent
ance, as an indispensable condition, (not imply
ing, by any means, that repentance is the pro-
curing-cause of forgiveness ;) that repentance
and holiness are important things, which cannot
be accomplished in a few moments, and that
therefore it is extremely dangerous to delay
them to the end of life, especially considering
that we do not know that we shall then have
our reason, or that we shall not die suddenly.
The sincere Christian teacher will render such
considerations as impressive as possible, in
order to disturb security in sin. He should
guard, however, with equal caution, against the
mistake of those who represent repentance and
hoi i ness as the meritorious ground of forgiveness.
The frequent perversion of the doctrine of
justification gave rise, at the end of the seven
teenth and commencement of the eighteenth
century, to the terministic controversy. Joh.
Ge. Bose, a deacon at Sorau, in endeavouring
to avoid one extreme fell into another. He held
that God did not continue to forgive, even to
the last, such persons as he foresaw would
harden themselves in impenitence, but that he
established a limit of grace, (terminum gratix
sive salutis peremptorium,) to which, and no fur
ther, he would afford them grace for repentance.
He appealed to the texts which speak of God
as hardening or rejecting men, some of which
have no reference to conversion and forgiveness,
and some of which are erroneously explained by
him. Vide s. 85. Ad Rechenberg, at Leipsic,
and others, assented to this opinion, though
with the best intentions. But Ittig, Fecht,
Neumann, and many others, opposed this opi
nion, and wrote against the work of Bose,
"Terminus peremptorius salutis humanae," and
against Rechenberg. They were in the right.
This opinion is not taught in the holy scriptures,
and is calculated to lead the doubting and anx
ious to despair, and to place them, as many sor
rowful examples teach, in the most perilous
condition, both as to soul and body, especially
on the bed of death.
The doctrine that repentance and holiness are
the meritorious ground of salvation would have
equally terrible consequences. According to
this doctrine, we should be compelled to deny
all hope of salvation to one who had lived an

impenitent sinner till the last part of his life;
which the Bible never does, and which is in
itself cruel. The conscience even of the good
man must say to him on his death-bed, that his
imperfect virtues are insufficient to merit heaven.
In neither of these instances, then, would there
be any consolation ; but despair would be the re
sult of this doctrine in both.
Secondly. If one who has obtained the forgive
ness of his sins is guilty of new transgressions,
he forfeits the blessing of forgiveness, and all
its salutary consequences ; and by new offences
incurs new punishments, which, after his fallj
are justly more severe and intolerable than be
fore. Still it cannot be said, as it has been said
by some, that in case of apostasy God considers
the sins once forgiven at the time of repent
ance as not forgiven, and that he still imputes
them to the transgressor. There is no reason for
this supposition ; and such is not the case in hu
man courts. The Bible uses the terms, sins are
blotted out, no more remembered, Ezekiel, xviii.
22; xxxiii. 16; Psalm ciii. 11, 12. So Paul
says, (Rom. xi. 29,) that God will never recal
or take back the gifts which he has promised
and bestowed, (austausX'^ta xapigfiata.) Vide
Wernsdorf 's Dissertation on this subject in Cell.
Dissertat. t. i. p. 607, seq.
Thirdly. Even those who after their reforma
tion and the bestowment of forgiveness fall away
and transgress anew, may again obtain the for
giveness of their sins as soon as they repent
and believe in Christ. So the Bible everywhere
teaches, both in the Old and New Testament;
Ezek. xxxiii. 11 ; 1 Thess. v. 9. Christ com
mands us to be forgiving to our neighbour who
has wronged us, since in this we shall resemble
God, who is easily reconciled, and who willingly
forgives sin. Therefore the precept, Matthew,
xviii. 21, 22, is applicable to God. This posi
tion is confirmed by the examples of many
apostates in the Bible, who, after the commis
sion of great offences, were again received into
favour — e. g., David, 2 Samuel, xii.; Peter,
Matt, xxvi., &c. The condition of repentance
and faith, however, is indispensable. Vide Ps.
Ii. ; Morus, p. 211, seq.
But from the earliest ages Christians have en
tertained various erroneous opinions upon this
subject The opinion prevailed, even during the
earliest ages, that great sins committed after bap
tism (by which ordinance the Christian was snp*-
posed to receive the remission of sin) could not
be pardoned without great difficulty, if indeed at
all, on which account many delayed baptism till
the end of life.
The excommunication of great offenders had
been common among Christians from the time of
the apostles, (as it was among the Jews, which
indeed at that time was necessary.) But now,
in the second and third centuries, Montanus,

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 399

Novatian, and many others, began to exercise
this prerogative very severely, and in order to
invest it with more terror, insisted that the ex
communicated should never be restored, in op
position to those who were too lenient in re-ad
mitting them. Montanus, however, declared
expressly that they might still obtain forgiveness
from God, (Tertullian,) and even Novatian was
willing to leave it undetermined how God would
deal with them.
But afterwards, some particular teachers and
some whole sects maintained that one who is
excluded from the Christian church is excluded
from the favour of God and placed beyond the
reach of pardon. This opinion prevailed exten
sively in the Romish church. It was based on
the principle, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In op
position to this error, the ancient creeds pre
scribed the declaration Credo remissionem pecca
torum. This same error is controverted in the
Augsburg Confession, Art. 13. The ancient
apostolic church was far removed from such an
opinion. In the second epistle to the Corin
thians, Paul advises that the incestuous person
whom he had required to be excommunicated
in his first epistle should now be restored, since
he had repented of his crime, and had put away
his offence. And even there, where he advises
his excommunication, and even undertakes to
punish him, 1 Cor. v. 5, he will by no means
have him excluded on this account from the fa
vour of God, but declares, on the contrary, that
he inflicts punishment with the very intention
of saving his soul, JW itvsipa ffw^ij iv ijaspa
xvpiov. II. Justification or Forgiveness is an unmerited
Divine Favour.
That man can merit the divine favour and
forgiveness by good works or virtues is an old
mistake, which continues to be widely preva
lent, and is ever appearing again in some new
form. Against this mistake, which prevailed
among the Jews and the Christian converts
from Judaism, the apostles laboured incessantly,
in entire accordance with that reasonable decla
ration of Jesus, Luke, xvii. 10, " When we have
done everything which we are bound to do, (al
though no one can ever pretend that he has,) we
are, still servants who have deserved nothing,
(djupEcot,) for we have done only our duty." All
our good works do not confer favour upon God,
or lay him under obligation. The observance
of his laws is our duty, and tends to our own
good merely.
In Rom. iii. Paul particularly illustrates this
doctrine. Ver. 24, he says, "through Christ
we are justified, Sapsav, fi? gdpvft ©eov" — i. e.,
' from mere free grace, which we have not de
served, and which we cannot repay. Vide
Matt. x. 8. Paul therefore calls justification,

Supov ©eov, Ephes. ii. 8. But the Jews and the
Christian converts from Judaism in that age
were particularly inclined to the opinion that
the external observance of the divine law, espe
cially of the Mosaic ceremonial law, the most
perfect of any, was meritorious, and more than
anything else procured forgiveness from God.
This mistake is controverted by Paul in his
Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. He
shews that man is justified by God, ovx s"? spyav
vouov, or gtopis spyav vopov, (not because he ob
serves the law, Tit. iii. 5; 2 Tim. i. 9 ;) Rom.
iii. 20, 21, 28, ch. vi.; Gal. ii. 16—21, seq.
Ndfios has frequently indeed in these chapters a
special reference to the divine law given by
Moses, because this was regarded by the Jews
as the most perfect. But it is by no means to
be limited te this sense. Paul affirms the same
in respect to obedience to all the divine precepts,
since this obedience is always imperfect, Rom.
iii. 28, vi. 14; Gal. iii. 17, 29, 23; and ol vitb
vbaov are not merely the Jews, but all who sub
ject themselves to the divine laws, thinking to
merit the favour of God by obedience. The
Jews considered their observance of the law as
meritorious, and many Christians hoped to be
justified on the same ground. Paul opposes
this opinion, and proves that Christians cannot
consider obedience as the meritorious ground
of justification, for which they are indebted .to
Christ alone. But what Paul says respecting
works, applies equally, in his opinion, to obe
dience to all laws, to works in general, even to
Christian works. He does not speak exclusive
ly of the law given by Moses ; his positions are
general, applying equally to all the laws of
God, whether given by Moses, by Christ, or in
any other manner. Vide Progr. ad Rom. vii.
21, in Scripta Varii argumenti, No. xii. Our
obedience to the divine law is not, and cannot
be, in, itself meritorious. That this is a general
doctrine is perfectly clear from Rom. iv. — e. g.,
ver. 4, " He that works for hire (lpyd£sg§ai, 1
Thess. ii. 9, seq.) receives his wages, not
through the grace of him for whom he labours,
(as we all receive pardon from God,) but from
the obligation of his employer to recompense
him." Now if we receive the reward through
grace, our works contribute nothing to this end,
— they are not the meritorious ground of our
pardon. Paul also employs the argument, that if we
by our obedience to the law could merit pardon,
the atonement of Christ would be entirely in
vain. The fact that we do not obtain forgive
ness in this way renders the atonement neces
sary, Gal. ii. 21.
But why is this doctrine taught in the holy
scriptures? If God made our works of legal
obedience the measure by which he bestowed
pardon and reward, we Aould have but a uoor

400

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

prospect. For how imperfect is our obedience,
especially during the early stages of the Chris
tian life ! How defective is it, even in the best
and most advanced Christians! The greater
advances a man makes in holiness and in Chris-
, tianity, the more he sees and feels his imperfec
tion. What feeble hope would the good man
then have, if his own works (which his con
science pronounces very imperfect) should be
the procuring cause of his pardon ! The Chris
tian teacher who inculcates such an opinion
knows not what he does. Melancthon ex
pressed this very well in the Augsburg Con
fession, Art. 4.
For a further consideration of this subject,
and an account of the controversies respecting
it with the Romish church, vide infra, s. 124,
125. SECTION CXIV.
OF THE VARIOUS THEORIES RESPECTING THE NA
TURE AND MANNER OF THE ATONEMENT OF
CHRIST; AND A NOTICE OF SOME OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT WORKS ON ATONEMENT AND JUSTI
FICATION.
The comm.in word authorized by ecclesiasti
cal usage for denoting the atonement is satisfac-
iio (Germ. Genugthuung.) This word is not
indeed found in the Bible, but is in itself unob
jectionable, taken in the large sense in which
it was formerly understood in the church, and
freed from the false opinions sometimes con
nected with it in later times. This word was
originally a judicial term, and was applied for
the first time (with many more of a similar na
ture) by Tertullian, who was himself a jurist,
to the atonement of Christ. " Christus peccata
hominum, omni satisfactions habitu expiavit,"
De patientia, c. 10. It has since been retained
in the Latin church, though it occurs but seldom
in the Latin fathers, and did not become gene
ral until the time of the schoolmen, and espe
cially of Anselmus.
The words satisfacere and satisfadio relate
originally to matters of debt,— -the payment of
debt, debiti solutio. They are then applied^^-u-
ratively to other things, which have, or are sup
posed to have, some resemblance to debt. Hence
we find them used in the following senses —
viz., ta discharge a debt for any one (satisfacere
pro aliquo debitore), to make him content, to com
ply with his wishes, to fulfil his desire, to do what
he was bound to perform, to beg him off and ob
tain his pardon. Hence the phrases satisfacere
officio, muneri, expedationi, promissis ,- satisfacere
iopulo (to comply with its wishes), ixavbv
itoislv, Mark, xv. 15; accipere satisfactionem,
(to accept the payment or apology offered, or
the request for pardon.) Satisfacere often de
notes net merely payment with minny, (thpugh

this is the ground pf this usage,) but every ether
mpde ef discharging debt er pbligatipn.
Npw when Tertullian and ether ancient
writers found the wnrds Xvtpov and dvt ixvtpov.
applied in the Bible to the atonement of Christ,
(s. 106,) they were very naturally led to adopt
the word satisfadio. The two former words
properly denote a ransom, pretium redemptionis.
These writers retained the figure, arid compared
the unhappy, sinful condition of man, sometimes
with captivity, sometimes with debt, both of
which ccmparispns are scriptural. Sins are fre
quently called in the Bible otysiXrjpata. From
these Christ freed men by his death. This death
ef Christ was therefore compared with the sum
which is paid as ransom for captives or debtors,
tp liberate them from captivity or release them
from debt. At first this was considered only
as a figurative mode of speech, denoting that
God was by this means satisfied or appeased.
But afterwards this phraseology came te be un-
derstepd literally, and many hypotheses disho
nourable to God were suggested in explanation
of this idea.
But, as Morus has justly observed, there is
no injury to be apprehended from retaining this
word, which is now authorized by ecclesiastical
usage, if it is only so explained as to convey the
same meaning as xitpov, ditoXvtpagis, and simi
lar scriptural' terms. The phrase, Christ has
made satisfaction for us, should therefore be ex
plained to mean, that Christ by his death has
procured for us from God perfect forgiveness
and the remission of sins ; so that now we have
no punishment to fear, but rather blessings to
expect. The following are some of the principal me
thods of explaining this subject, and the eccle
siastical theories respecting it.
(1) During the first two centuries most of the
ecclesiastical fathers adhered, in a great mea
sure, to the simplicity of the scriptural repre
sentation of this subject, and attempted no defi
nite explanation of the manner of the atonement
beyond what is given in the scriptures, and in
doing this, made use for the most part of scrip
tural phraseology. They represented the death
of Jesus as a sacrifice.
But a theory, some traces of which had ap
peared even during the second century, became
prominent during the third and fourth centuries,
and continued a longtime the prevailing theory
among the learned in the Greek and Latin
churches. The advocates of this theory took
the word Xvtpba in its primary and literal sense,
denoting release from captivity or slavery by
the payment of a ransom, (xitpov, s. 106.)
With this they associated the idea of the power
and dominion of Satan over the whole human
race, in a sense not warranted by the Bible
They referred to the texts affirming that Christ

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 40!

freed us from the power of the devil. Thus
originated the following theory : — Ever after the
fall the devil had the whole human race in his
power ; he ruled over men like a tyrant over his
vassals, and employed them for his own purposes.
Thus far they had the support of the Bible. But
here they began to philosophize beyond what
is written. From this captivity God might in
deed have rescued men by the exercise of his om
nipotence; but he was restrained by his justice
from doing this with violence. He therefore
offered Satan a ransom, in consideration of which
he should release mankind. This ransom was
the death of Christ, (as a divine being.) In
accordance with this theory, Origen interpreted
the text, Matt. xx. 28, "He gave his life a ransom
for men," as denoting the ransom paid to the
devil, not to God. Satan had consented to the
compact ; but he wished fraudulently to retain
Jesus, whom he considered only as the best and
most pious man under his own power, and so sleiv
this innocent being. He was now, therefore,
justly compelled to liberate the human race.
This theory was first adopted by the Grecian
church, and especially by Origen, (Comm. in
Matt. xx. et alibi,) through whose influence it
became prevalent, and was adepted at length
by Basilius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of
Nazianzen, Nestorius, and others. From the
Greeks it was communicated to the Latins,
among whom it was first distinctly held by Am-
brosius, and afterwards by Augustine, through
whose influence it was rendered almost univer
sal in the Latin church. In this church they
endeavoured to perfect the theory. Satan, they
added, was deceived in the transaction ; for
taking Jesus to be a mere man, and not know
ing that he was also the Son of God, he was not
able to retain even him, after he had slain him.
And it was necessary for Christ to assume a
human body in order to deceive the devil, as
fishes are caught by baits. This view occurs
frequently in the writings of Leo the Great, in
the fifth century. Cf. Semler, Geschichte der
Glaubenslehre, prefixed to Baumgarten's "Po-
lemik;" Doederlein, Diss, de redemptione a po
testate diaboli, in his "Opuscula;" and Cotta,
Hist, doctrine de redemptione sanguine Christi
facta, in his edition of Gerhard's " Loci Theo-
lqgici," prefixed te th. 4.
Sp prevalent was this theory in the Latin
church; before the twelfth century, that Abelard
declares, " Omnes dodores nostri post apostolos,
in hoc conveniunt ,-" and Bernhard of Clairvaux
was so firmly persuaded of its truth as to de
clare that Abelard, who held that the devil never
possessed, in a literal sense, such power as was
ascribed to him, ought rather to be chastised
with rods than reasoned with.
But after the twelfth century this theory gra
dually lost ground, through the influence, prin-
51

cipally, of the schoolmen who lived after the age
of Anselmus and Abelard ; and another theory
was substituted in its place. Vide No. 2.
Peter of Lombardy, however, still continued
more inclined to the ancient theory. In the
Greek church, too, this hypothesis was gradu
ally abandoned, and was opposed even earlier
than, in the Latin church. John of Damascus
attacked it as early as the eighth century, and
maintained (De fid. Orthod. 1. 3) that Christ
brought his blood, which was shed as a ransom,
not to the devil, but to God, in order to deliver
men from the divine punishments. So the scrip
tures, " He offered himself to God for us, a spot
less victim." This is implied in the whole
scriptural idea of sacrifices, which were offered
only to God.
(2) The other theory, of which also some
traces appear in the early ages, is the following.
Proceeding on the idea of debt, the authors of
this theory maintained that the relation of all
sinful men to God is the same as that of a debtor
to his creditors. We find it distinctly said, as
early as the fourth century, that Christ paid
what we should have paid, or what we owed.
The idea of sacrifice and of his offering up him
self was still associated with this. The learned
now began to carry out the former idea, at first,
indeed, in a manner not inconsistent with the
scriptures. The debt was sin, and could not be
cancelled, or the punishment remitted, unless
satisfaction or payment were made. Since men
were unable to do this of themselves, Christ
did it for them ; and God accepted the ransohn,
(the death of Christ,) and forgave men, as if
they themselves had made satisfaction.
We find very clear traces of this theory as
early as the fourth century in the writings of
Athanasius, of the Grecian church; and still
more clear, in the writings of John of Damas
cus, who expressly rejected the theory stated in
No. 1. At the same period, in the Latin church,
we find indications of the same theory in the
writings of Hilarius of Poictiers, (Com. in Ps.
liii.) But the schoolmen of the eleventh and
twelfth centuries gave this theory a greater cur
rency than it had had before, and spun it out to
a finer subtilty. They attempted to determine
the idea of atonement with philosophical and
dialectical accuracy. But they could not do
this if they confined themselves to the plain and
popular phraseology of the Bible ; they there
fore selected the judicial word satisfadio, which
had been already used by the older writers.
The idea on which they began, in this case as
in others, was itself scriptural ; but by philoso
phizing upon it they gradually declined from
the simple doctrine of the Bible. This was the
case particularly with Anselmus, whose system
has been generally adopted, even by Lutheran
theologians. He defined satisfadio to be dcbiti
2 l2

402

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

solutio. His system is exhibited most fully in
his work, Cur Deus Homo? He maintained the
absolute necessity of satisfaction, in the meta
physical sense. His whole theory is derived
from the civil process respecting debt among men,
transferred to the tribunal of God. But such is
not the representation of the Bible, where the
compassion and undeserved love of God is made
the ground of this transaction, and not any ju
dicial notions of this nature. God is compared
with a ruler who forgives from' his forbearance
and his compassionate love, and does not pro
ceed according to stern justice ; Matt, xviii.
26, 27.
The following is the system of Anselmus : —
Man owes reverence to the character of God,
and obedience to his laws. Whoever withholds
this reverence and obedience due to God, robs
God of what belongs to him, and must not only
restore that which he withheld, but pay an ad
ditional amount, as amends for the dishonour
brought upon God. Thus it stands with sin
ners. The payment of this debt is the satisfac
tion which every sinner must make to God, ac
cording to the nature of his offence. For God
cannot in justice remit the debt (or punishment)
unless satisfaction is made. This man could
never do, nor indeed any other than God him
self. And yet to him, as judge, must this sa
tisfaction be made. The expedient was then
devised for the Son of God, as God-man, by his
death to make this satisfaction. He was able
to make this satisfaction only as God ; but as
man, he was also able to be surety for men, and
then himself actually to pay the debt, or make
satisfaction for them. Cf. s. 101, ad finem.
This fine-spun juridieo-philosophical theory
was exactly in the spirit of that age, and was
almost universally adopted by the schoolmen,
though with various modifications — e. g., by
Alexander of Hales, Thomas Aquinas, Duns
Scotus, Gabr. Biel, and others. Among these,
however, a controversy arose respecting the
value of the blood of Christ in cancelling the
debt of the human race. Thomas Aquinas
maintained that the value and worth (valor) of
the blood of Christ were in themselves infinite,
on acccunt of the infinite dignity of the person
of Christ; and that this ransom not only 4a-
lanced but outweighed all the sins of all men.
He was followed by the Dominicans. This
appears, too, to have been the opinion of Ansel
mus. Duns Scotus, on the other hand, main
tained that God was satisfied with this ransom,
although it had not in itself any infinite value
or worth. God, however, accepted it as suffi
cient and equivalent. He thus endeavoured to
approximate to the doctrine of the Bible, which
always represents justification as a free gift, and
a proof of the entirely unmerited love of God.
He was followed by the Franciscans. But even

this statement was founded upon the judicial
doctrine of acceptilatio, when anything insuffi
cient is accepted as valid and equivalent. Cf.
Ziegler's Essay, Historia dogmatis de redemp
tione inde ab ecclesiae primordiis usque ad Lu-
theri tempore; Gottingen, 1791, 4to.
(3) On the theories and explanations of this
doctrine which have prevailed since the six
teenth century.
(a) The system of Anselmus had been ex
tending through the Romish church ever since
the twelfth century, through the influence of the
schoolmen, who added to it various new subtle
ties, distinctions, and terminologies. This same
system was adopted, in main, though with the
slight alteration of some terms and representa
tions, by a considerable number of protestant
theologians. Luther, Melancthon, and the other
early reformers, adhered to the simplicity of the
Bible, and avoided these subtleties. But after
the death of Luther, the theologians of the Lu
theran church took sides in great numbers with
Anselmus and Thomas Aquinas. They now
introduced many of the unscriptural hypotheses
and distinctions established by the schoolmen,
and thus deformed the doctrine and rendered its
truth doubtful in the minds of many. Their
great error consisted in representing this subject
too much after the manner of men, and, of
course, unworthily of God. The symbolical
books of the protestants have, in the meantime,
adhered to the simple Biblical representation;
and these exaggerated opinions have been held
rather by particular teachers and schools than
by the protestant church generally.
The following -are examples of these faulty
representations and expressions: — God, it is
said, was actually injured by the sins of men;
he leas angered and enraged! in the strict
sense ,- it was necessary that he should be propiti
ated, a?id that his robbed honour should be re
stored; that he could not be moved to compassion
till he saw blood flow. These figurative expres
sions ought either to be wholly avoided in the
scientific statement of the theory, or to be justly
and scripturally explained. -God cannot be in
jured in the literal sense; his honour cannot be
destroyed or diminished. But those who used
these inconvenient expressions did not mean by
them what they really imply. The proper idea '
which lies at the foundation of such phraseology
is this : that the laws of God must be kept holy
and inviolate; that God does and must strongly
express his displeasure at the transgression of
his wholesome laws ; and that therefore punish
ments are necessary for their maintenance.
Again ; many held that the guilt of sin is in
finite, (infinitum debitum, s. 81, ad finem,) and
that, consequently, Christ endured infinite pu
nishments, the pains of hell itself , (Morus, p. 169
No. 4,) to the same amount as all sinners taken

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 403

together would have been compelled to suffer;
that the satisfaction of Christ was absolutely
necessary, and the only possible way for the
restoratipn of the human race ; that some parti
cular sins were atoned for by each part of the
sufferings of Christ; that the blood of Christ
had a physical efficacy, &c. &c
(4) These false representations, and others
like them, which are so dishonourable to God,
gave rise to various controversies. Reflecting
persons rejected much of this phraseology and
this mode of representation as contrary to rea
son and scripture. Many also disapproved of
the harmless term satisfadio, and of all the figu
rative expressions relative to debt and the judi
cial processes respecting it which had been intro
duced by Anselmus, because they were so often
perverted. At the same time, they did not deny
any essential part of the doctrine itself, but only
Wished to simplify the subject, and to adhere
closely both to the principles and words of the
Bible. This scholastic system and this tech
nical phraseology were, on the contrary, de
fended with great zeal.
(c) But since the sixteenth century there have
not been wanting persons who not only disliked
and rejected the ecclesiastical form and phrase
ology of this doctrine, but who opposed the
doctrine itself on philosophical and theological
grounds. Among these were Lalius Socinus
and Faustus Socinus in the sixteenth century,
and their numerous avowed or secret adherents
in the same and the following centuries. They
made the desert of Christ to consist merely in
his doctrine and instruction. By his death he
only confirmed his doctrine, and gave an exam
ple of patience, firmness in suffering, and obe
dience to God. The followers of Socinus en
deavoured to shew that there are no positive di
vine punishments ; since if this were true, the
atonement, which principally relates to the re
moval of these, would fall away of itself, (s.
Ill, II.) These views were embraced by many
of the Arminian and English theologians and
philosophers, who were followed, in the eigh
teenth century, by great numbers of German
protestants. Vide the Essays on this subject
in Eberhard, Apologie des Socrates; and Stein
bart, System der Gluckseligkeitslehre, &c
Philosophers are at liberty to speculate upon
this subject, according to their own views and
their favourite theories, variable and transient
as they are. If they please, they may investi
gate the subject independently of the Bible, and
propose the results of their investigation for the
examination of the learned. They ought, how
ever, to avoid the error, so frequently committed
ever since the time of Socinus, of thinking that
the Bible must necessarily contain the doctrines
approved as true on the philosophical principles
of their own particular schools — the fault of in

terpreting the Bible, not according to its own
spirit, and the spirit of the age in which it was
written, but according to the views of particular
sects of philosophers in their own times — a fault
which has been often repeated of late by the
adherents of Kant and his successors. Let any
one consider the various and contradictory the
ories of the different philosophical schools in
our own age. Now each of these schools at
tempts to support its own theory by the author
ity of the holy scriptures. But all of these the
ories cannot possibly be founded in the Bible ;
and who can say which of them all is so?
What is essential \n the common ecclesiastical
system respecting the atonement is clearly re
vealed in the scriptures, and is entirely adapted
to the spirit of the sacred writers and their
whole mode of thinking, to the wants of the
age in which they wrote, and to the wants of
mankind at large. Vide s. 108, seq. Morus
has briefly exhibited the essentials ef this doc
trine, p. 150 — 155, s. 4—6.
(4) Many protestant theologians began as
early as the seventeenth century to depart by
degrees from the theory of Anselmus, which
presents so many difficulties, and is liable to so
many weighty ebjectiens, and to bring back
this dcctrine te the simplicity ef the Bible. The
bepk pf Grotius, "De satisfactiene Christi,"
(Leiden, 1617 ; Halae, 1730, ed. Joach. Lange,)
was the first thing done towards undermining
the system of Anselmus. Grotius indeed made
the ecclesiastical system the ground of his
work, but he deduced the necessity of satisfac
tion, not so much from the injury done to God
as from the' holiness and inviolableness of the
divine laws, which render punishments neces
sary for the good of men. In this he exactly
accorded with the Bible. He shewed that there
was no internal and absolute necessity for this
satisfaction, but that the -necessity was only
moral or relative. These and other views of this
scholar became gradually more current among
theologians, who sought both to bring them into
a still nearer agreement with the Bible and also
to reconcile them with the established system
of the church.
Some protestant theologians have made use
of the new systems of philosophy which have
become successively prevalent in modern times,
to illustrate and defend the doctrine of the Bible
and of the church. Thus Carpzov, Baumgarten,
and others, made use of the Leibnitz-Wolfian
philospphy. Vide alse Reinbeck, Tract. Theol.
de redemptione per lytron; Halle, 1710, 8vo;
Theod. le Blanc, Erweis der Genugthuung Jesu
Christi, with the preface of Rambach; Giessen,
1733, 8vo; — one of the best of the older works.
Staudlin and others have made the same use of
the philosophy of Kant, as Kant himself has
done in his " Religion innerhalb der Grenzen

404

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

der blossen Vernunft.'' But others; with equal
zeal, have employed these very same philoso
phical systems in opposition to this doctrine of
the Bible. One of the most zealous opponents
of the doctrine of the atonement in modern times
is Dr. Loffler, in his work, " Ueber die kirch-
licheGenugthuungslehre; Zullichau, 1796, 8vo.
(5) The frequent attacks made in our own
age both upon the ancient ecclesiastical system
and upon the doctrine of the Bible itself have
made it necessary to state this doctrine more
accurately than was formerly done. Many mo
derate theologians have endeavoured so to ex
hibit this doctrine that it should agree both with
the decisions of Revelation and with the ac
knowledged principles of sound reason, thus
rendering it intelligible, and obviating the most
important objections against it. Since the mid
dle of the eighteenth century many have laboured
to effect this object, though not with equal suc
cess. Among these are Ernesti, Tollner, Danov,
Noesselt, (Vom Werth der Moral,) Less, Gries-
bach, (Praktische Dogmatik,) Doderlein, (Dog
matik,) Michaelis, (Gedanken von der Sunde
und Genugthuung; Gottingen, 1779, 8vo,) and
Seiler, (Ueber den Versohnungstod Jesu, with
some essays, &c, 2nd ed.; Erlangen, 1782, gr.
8vo; in connexion with which the doctrine of
justification is treated.) The lastmentioned
writer endeavours to refute the objections of
Eberhard and Steinbart. Among the latest
writers on this subject is Dr. Gottlob Christ.
Storr, (Pauli Brief an die Hebraer erlautert;
Tubingen, 1789, 8vo; 2nd Ausg. Tubingen,
1809. Second part, Ueber den eigentlichen Zweck
des Todes Jesu, s. 363— 692.) He holds that
the object of the death of Christ is not directly
the reformation of men, and that their exemption
,from punishment is not the effect of their re
formation; but that the direct and immediate
object of his death is, to procure the forgiveness
cf sin, and to make atonement. Another writer
is Schwarze, (in Gorlitz,) "Ueber den Tod
Jesu, als ein wesentliches Stuck seines Wohlt-
hatigen Plans zur Begluckung der Menschen ;
Leipzig, 1795, 8vo. The discourse delivered
by Dr. Reinhard, at the Reformationsfeste, on
the text, Rom. iii. 23, seq., containing a brief
and practical statement of the scripture doctrine
of the atonement, excited much attention, espe
cially from the unusual manner of its publica
tion, and led to many writings for and against
the doctrine of the Bible. Among these the
following work is in many respects favourably
distinguished : — " Der Widerstreit der Vernunft
mit sich selbst in der Versohnungslehre, darge-
stellt und aufgelost, von Krug;" Zullichau,
1802, 8vo.
The essential points in the theory adopted by
the moderate theelpgianspf the pretestant church
may be thus stated : — Gcd had a twofold object

in view— -viz., (a) to preserve ihviolate the au
thority of his law given for the good of mail.
How could this be effected otherwise than by
the punishment of transgression, threatened and
actually inflicted ? (4) But as a slavish fear of
God is utterly inconsistent with pure religion,
(fbpos IxpaXXsi trpi dyditi;v, 1 John, iv. 18,)
some means must be chosen to free men from
their reasonable fear qf punishment, and to givfe
them a certain assurance that God would forgive
them, be gracious to them, and count them
worthy of his favour, in such a way, however,
as not to occasion indifference with regard to
sin. Bnth pf these objects were attained by the
sufferings and death of Christ; the first by the
proof given, through the sufferings of Jesus, that
God abhors sin and will not leave it unpunished ;
the second, by the declaration of God that Christ
had suffered these punishments for our good, in
our stead, and on our behalf. Death is the con
sequence of sin, and isin itself a great evil. We
must regard it as the sum of all evils and terrors.
(Hence in the Bible death stands for every kind
qf misery.) Especially is this the case with a
violent and excruciating death, which is the pu
nishment of the greatest criminals. Such a
death did God himself inflict upon Christ, who
was himself entirely guiltless, (dyios xai Sixaws.)
God, however, could not be so unjust and cruel
as to inflict such a punishment upon an innocent
person without object or design. Hence we may
conclude that Christ endured his sufferings and
death for men who should properly have endured
these punishments, in order to inspire them with
confidence in God, with gratitude and love to
him, and to banish all fear of the divine punish
ments from their hearts. It all comes back,
therefore, at last, to this, that God chose this
extraordinary means from the impulse of his
own sincere love and benevolence to men. Thus
the scriptures always represent it, and on this
view we should always proceed in our religious
instructions. Vide Morus, p. 152, seq., s. 6.
But if men would be certain that they have in
this way obtained the forgiveness of their sins,
they must place their entire dependence on
Christ; they must repent of their sins ; by the
help of God lead a holy life, and punctually ob
serve all the divine laws. This is an indispen
sable duty and an essential condition of salva
tion through Christ; and to one who has sincere
love to God and to Christ, this will not be difE
cult. Obedience to God, being prompted by love
and gratitude, will be yielded with cheerfulness.
No one, however, must consider his repentance
or holiness as the meritorious ground of forgive
ness. For forgiveness is not the effect arid con
sequence of our holiness, but flows from the
death of Christ.
This doctrine thus exhibited cannot be injuri
ous to morality ; on the contrary, it produces the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 405

most beneficial effects upon those who believe
it from the heart, (s. 108, II.) So experience
teaches. We see the most convincing proofs of
the beneficial tendencies of this doctrine in those
Christian communities, both of ancient and mo
dern times, where it has been faithfully taught
and cordially believed. [Cf. Tholuck, Lehre
von der Siinde und vom Versohner, s. 104, ff.
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 475 — 500. Bretschneider,
Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 245 — 355. Neander, b. i.
Abth. ii. s. 70—78. Flatt's Magazine, b. i. s.
I — 67, Ueber die Moglichkeit der Siinden-Ver-
gebung. — Tr.] SECTION CXV.
OF THE ACTIVE OBEDIENCE OF CHRIST.
I. What is meant by Active Obedience ,- and a His
tory of this Doctrine.
i Christ's cheerful discharge of the commis
sion given him by God is called his obedience
(vitaxoij) ; according to the example of the
Bible — e. g., Phil. iii. 9 ; Rom. v. 19 ; Morus, p.
161, s. 7. Morus justly defines the obedience
of Christ to be, peradio eorum, qux peragere de-
hrit, et in peragendo summa virtus. Christ ex
hibited this ebedience in twe ways— viz., (a)
by acting (agendo) — i. e., by keeping and eb-
serving the divine laws ; (4) by suffering, (pa-
iiendo) — i. e., by cheerfully undertaking and
enduring suffering for the good of men, in ac
cordance with the divine determination. Cf. s.
93, III., and s. 95, ad finem. The former way
is called obedientia activa, (not active in the
sense of busy, which would be aetuosa, but in
tiie sense of acting, Germ, thuender ;) the latter,
.obedientia passiva. These two ways may be
thus distinguished in abslracto. But they ought
not to have been separated from each other.
Christ's active obedience is not properly differ
ent from his passive obedience. His obedience
is one and the same in all cases. Suffering, in
itself considered, so far as it consists in unplea
sant sensations, is not obedience. A person may
suffer and not be obedient, but impatient, dis
obedient, and refractory. But for one to suffer
obediently, or to shew obedience in suffering,
this is an acting, a fulfilment ef duty, pr that vir
tue which is called patience, ene ef the greatest
and mest difficult nf virtues ! But hew can a
virtue, which censists entirely in acting, be called
passive ? In truth, then, the ebedience ef Christ
is pne and the same thing, censisting always in
acting. It is that virtue by which Christ ful
filled net pnly the meral laws pf God, but alsp
the ppsitive divine cemmands which were laid
upon him, to suffer, to die, &c. Obedience is
never wholly passive, and what is simply passive
is not obedience. But a person shews obedience
by acting in suffering.

Theelpgians ccmmonly hold that the active
obedience of Christ was as much a part of his
atonement or satisfaction as his passive obe
dience. This opinion might be more clearly and
definitively expressed as follows : — The satisfac
tion which Christ has made consists both in his
enduring the punishments incurred by men and
in his yielding a perfect obedience to the divine
laws. This is what is meant by theologians.
This opinion is derived from the twofold obliga
tion of men (a) to keep the divine laws, and (6)
when they have failed, to suffer punishment for
their sin. In this way the satisfaction of Christ
came to be considered as consisting of two parts,
active and passive. This view was then con
nected with the theory of Anselmus, respecting
the removal of the guilt and penalty of sin. The
suffering of Christ removes the penalty, and his
active obedience the guilt of sin ; and the per
fect righteousness of Christ, or his fulfilment of
the law, is imputed to us, in the same way as
if we ourselves had fulfilled the law, and thus
our defective obedience is made good. Respect
ing this doctrine de remissione culpm et pxnx.
Vide s. 109, II. 2. This is in brief the common
theory, which will be more particularly exa
mined, No. II.
We subjoin a brief history of this doctrine.
Good materials for this history may be found in
Walch's Inaugural Disputation, de obedientia
Christi activa; Gottingen, 1754, 4to.
Passages are found even among the ancient
fathers, which teach that the fulfilment of the
divine law by Christ is to be considered as if
done by us. Vide the passages cited by Walch.
Many of these passages, however, appear very
doubtful and indefinite, and this doctrine was
by no means universally established in the early
church. Even Anselmus, who built up such an
artificial system, did not make this application
of the twofold obedience of Christ. This, how
ever, was the tendency of his theory, especially
of the doctrine, de remissione culpx et pxnx.
But after his time, this explanation of the satis
faction made by Christ by means of his twofold
obedience was adopted by several schoolmen,
who now looked up texts for its support. But
it was never very generally adopted by theolo
gians of the Romish church. In the protestant
church, on the contrary, it has been almost uni
versally taught by our theologians since the six
teenth century, and even introduced into the
"Form of Concord," (Morus, p. 169, n. 5,)
which, however, never received an universal
symbolical authority in the Lutheran church.
This explanation is not found in the other sym
bols. One reason, perhaps, of the reception of
this explanation in the protestant church, is the
suppositipn that the theery de obedientia activa
cpuld be used te advantage against the catholic
tenet of the value of one's own good works

406

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Another reason is, that the imputation of the
active obedience of Christ was denied by the
Socinians and Arminians. For these reasons,
most of the Lutheran and Reformed theologians
accounted this doctrine essential to sound ortho
doxy. But doubting whether the active obe
dience of Christ constitutes a part of his satis
faction, has no influence upon the plan of salva
tion through repentance, faith, and godliness.
Baumgarten and Ernesti have therefore justly
enumerated this dispute among those of second
ary importance. And, in fact, the difference
among theologians upon this subject has often
been more apparent than real. There were, in
deed, some protestant theologians, even in the
former century, who denied the desert of the
active obedience of Christ — e. g., the Lutheran
theologian Karg, or Parsimonius ; also the Re
formed theologian John Piscator, who had many
followers; more lately, Jo. la Placette, and
others. The same was done by many of the
English theologians, who in general adopted
the Arminian views. But from the end of the
sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth cen
tury the opinion was by far the most prevalent
in the Lutheran church that the active obedience
of Christ is of the nature of satisfaction, or vi
carious. This opinion is defended even by
Walch in the place just referred to. .
But since the time of Tollner the subject has
been presented in a different light. He pub
lished a work entitled, " Der thatige Gehorsam
Christi;" Breslau, 1768, 8vo. In this he de
nied that the active obedience of Christ is of the
nature of satisfaction. Upon this a violent con
troversy commenced. Schubert, Wichmann,
and others, wrote against him, and he, in reply,
published his " Zusatze ,-" Berlin, 1770. The
best critique ef this matter is that pf Ernesti,
Theol. Bibl. b. ix. s. 914, f. For the history
of the whole controversy vide Walch, Neeuste
Religionsgeschichte, th. iii. s. 311, f. The sub
ject is considered also in Eberhard, Apologie
des Socrates, th. ii. s. 310, f. Of late years, a
great number of protestant theologians have de
clared themselves in behalf of the opinion that
the active obedience of Christ is properly no
part of his satisfaction, which is the effect solely
of his passive obedience. Among these are
Zacharia, Griesbach, Doderlein.
II. The worth and uses of the Active Obedience of
Christ.
That Christ did render this perfect obedience
is clear, both from the fact of his being sinless,
(s. 93, iii.) and from the express declarations
of the Bible, Matt. v. 17 ; John, iv. 34, viii. 29;
Phil. ii. 8. Cf. likewise the texts Ps. xl. 7,
cited by Paul, Heb. x. 5. This perfect obedi
ence is useful to us in the following respects : —
(1) This obedience of Christ stands in the

most close and intimate connexion with his
whole work for the good of mankind. His suf
ferings and death could not possibly have the
worth and the salutary consequences ascribed to
them in the scriptures, if Christ had endured
them otherwise than as innocent and perfectly
holy. His innocence and perfect virtue are there
fore frequently mentioned by the apostles, when
they speak of the worth of his sufferings and
death, Heb. ix. 14; 1 Pet. i. 19; iii. 18. In
Heb. vii. 27, Paul shews that the death of Christ
was so infinitely superior to all Jewish sacri
fices, because Christ was sinless, and was not
compelled, like the Jewish priests, first to purify
himself by offering sacrifice for his own sins.
(2) Christ's obedience to the divine laws is
useful and instructive to us, in furnishing us
with a perfect example of holiness and spotless
virtue. Christ explained the divine laws not
merely by instruction, but by action. His
whole conduct was a living recommendation of
the purest and most perfect morality, and power
fully plead in behalf of virtue. To this the New
Testament frequently alludes, 1 John, iii. 3 ;
I Pet. ii. 21; Heb. xii. 2.
(3) But besides this, the active obedience of
Christ, taken by itself, is considered by many
a separate part of his satisfaction, as well as his
passive obedience. Vide No. 1. They sup
pose it to be vicarious, in itself considered, or
that it will be imputed to us — i. e., that merely
on account of the perfect obedience yielded by
Christ to the divine law we shall be regarded
and treated by God as if we ourselves had per
fectly obeyed. Accordingly, they suppose that
Christ, in our stead, has supplied or made good
our imperfect obedience to the divine law. To
this view there are the following objections —
viz., (a) Christ never spoke of an imputation of
his obedience and virtue, as he frequently did
of his sufferings and death. The same is true
of the apostles. Christ frequently speaks in
general of his doing the will of his Father for
the good of men, and teaches that this obedi
ence will be for the good of those who believe
on him. He does so very frequently in the
Gospel of John, iii. iv., vi., xiii., seq. 17. But
here he refers to his whole obedience both in
acting and suffering, and does not separate one
from the other. Indeed, there are passages
where the apostles must necessarily have spoken
of the active obedience of Christ as vicarious,
if they had held any such doctrine. E. g.,
Rom. vii., viii., where Paul laments the weak
ness and imperfection of human nature, by
which man is unable, even with the best inten
tions, perfectly to fulfil the divine commands.
In this connexion, nothing would have been
more consoling than the mention of the vicari
ous obedience of Christ, by which our imper-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY. THE REDEMPTION 407

fact obedience is made good. But nothing of
all this! For the consplatipn of the pious, he
mentiens only the death, resurrection, and inter
cession of Christ, Rom. viii. 33, 34.
The active obedience of Christ, however, is
not excluded. In Rom. v. 19, the apostle makes
mention of it. In this passage, which is cited
as one of the most important proof-texts, we
read, "As through the disobedience of Adam
many became sinners, so through the obedience
of Christ many are made righteous," or are par
doned. In ver. 18, the mapa'jtfiofia 'ASdp and
OMtaiufia Xpifff ov are contrasted. Now, accord
ing to the uniform scriptural usage, this obe
dience of Christ does not refer simply and ex
clusively to his active obedience, but principally
to his obedience to the divine command to suffer
and die for us, Phil. ii. 8 ; Heb. v. 8, 9. But
in the passage cited, the apostle clearly com
prises under the word iiitaxoij the whole obedi-
dience of Christ, and teaches that this, especial
ly as shewn in suffering for us, is for our good.
Cf. Rom. x. 4. On the whel'e, then, eur ppsitipn,
that the perfect ebedience cf Christ to the divine
commands, separately considered, (i. c, discon
nected from his death,) is never mentioned in the
Bible as meritorious, is confirmed. The scrip
tures declare that the whole obedience of Christ,
exhibited both in acting and suffering, is for our
gqpd. But they never divide this ebedience, as
thu>lpgians have frequently dene. The whele
obedience cf Christ is useful to us principally
on acccunt pf his pbedience shewn in suffering.
(4) The perfect ebedience ef Christ, it is as
serted, must needs be imputed to us, in order to
make gppd pur defective ebedience to the law,
since the justice of God demands perfect obe
dience. But to this it may be answered, (a)
That it is difficult to see how this is necessary ;
for our imperfect obedience to the divine law is
either gui llless on our part, — in which case there
is no imputation of guilt, and consequently no
reason why another's righteousness should be
imputed to us, — or it is guilty and deserving of
punishment But this punishment is already
removed by the sufferings and death (the pas
sive obedience) of Christ. But that the guilt
as well as punishment of sin is and must be
removed by Christ, cannot be proved. Vide s.
109, II. 2. (fi) It is inconsistent with many
other principles and declarations of the Bible —
e. g., with the principle that man will be re
warded or punished, xofafdifpya avf ov, Rom.
ii. 6. Here the imputation of the merit of an-
other's works is entirely excluded. The ancient
prophets, and all the teachers of the New Tes
tament from the time of John the Baptist, con
tended strenuously against the opinion of the
Jews respecting the imputation of the vicarious
righteousness of Abraham. Vide s. 108, I. 3.
We should not therefore expect such a doctrine

as this from them ; but the scripture doctrine of
the merit of the whole obedience of Christ is
fully secured against perversion by the frequent
inculcation of diligence in holiness. Vide s.
114, ad fin. It has as little resemblance to the
Jewish doctrine of the merit of the good works
of Abraham, as it has to that of the Romish
church, respecting the desert of the good works
of the saints.
(c) Many questionable conclusions may be
deduced from this doctrine, which would indeed
be rejected by its advocates, but which cannot
be easily avoided.
(a) We might conclude from the doctrine
that the obedience of Christ is imputed to us,
and that on account of it we are rewarded by
God, that the long-continued and high virtue of
a confirmed Christian is of no greater value in
the sight of God, and will receive no greater
reward, than the imperfect virtue of a beginner;
for the deficiencies of the latter in personal ho
liness will, according to this doctrine, be made
up by the perfect obedience of Christ imputed
to him — i. e., considered as his own obedience.
But this is contrary to the fundamental princi
ples both of reason and revelation.
()3) However much this doctrine may be
guarded against perversion by saying that the
personal virtue of the Christian is not excluded
or dispensed with, it must doubtless weaken the
motive to holiness of life, and thus prove inju-
rinus to the interests ef mprality. Why was it
necessary for Christianity to point out so many
means of holiness, in order that we might attain
perfect happiness, if in this way it could be at
once attained with so little difficulty and labour.
Note. — It may help to settle the controversy
on this subject to consider that it has originated
solely in mistake. Two things have been sepa
rated which never can be put asunder, and
which never are in the Bible, but, on the con
trary, are always connected. All that Christ
did and suffered for our good receives its pecu
liar worth from the fact that he did it from obe
dience to the divine will. This is the virtue
or obedience of Christ. If we would partake
of the salutary consequences of his sufferings,
we must, under divine guidance and assistance,
follow his example. This is an indispensable
condition. The two things are always connect
ed in the Bible, and should be in our instruc
tions; and then this doctrine cannot be abused.
The remarks made by Morus, p. 170, 171, are
directed to this point.
The Bible indeed justifies us in saying, (1)
that everything which Christ actively performed
during his whole life, in obedience to God, is
salutary to us, was done on our account, and
for our good. But (2) we therefore truly af
firm, that our whole happiness (gatnpia) is ihe
fruit in a special manner of his obedience to the

408

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

divine command, both in his suffering and in all
the actions of his life. Had he net shewn this
ebedience, we should not have attained to this
happiness. So the scriptures everywhere teach.
The obedience of Christ in suffering is therefore
the foundation, and imparts to us the assurance,
that all his other obedience, in respect to all the
divine commands, will be for our benefit; John,
vi. 51; iii. 14—16; xii. 24; 1 John, iv. 9; 1
Thess. v. 9, seq. No injury to morals need be
apprehended if the scripture doctrine is follow
ed, and things which belong together are not
separated. Vide s. 114, ad finem.

PART II. OF CHAPTER IV.
ON REDEMPTION FROM THE POWER OR DOMI
NION OF SIN.

SECTION CXVI.
OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCTRINE ; ITS CON
FORMITY WITH SCRIPTURE ; AND THE MANNER
IN WHICH WE ARE FREED FROM SIN THROUGH
CHRIST. I. Importance of this Doctrine.
In treating of the work of redemption, writers
have commonly considered only the first part
— the atonement, or freedom from the punish
ment of sin. But deliverance from- sin belongs
as really to the redemption of Christ as deliver
ance from punishment, which indeed Ernesti
and others have before remarked. By the death
of Christ we are indeed, as the scriptures teach,
delivered from the punishment of sin. But since
the disposition to sin is so strong and universal
among men, (and this is the whole cause of
their degeneracy and unhappiness,) some means
must needs be pointed out, in the proper use of
which they may, under divine assistance, over
come this bias and propensity to sin, and may
attain to true holiness and the practice of virtue,
acceptable in the sight of God. If Christ had
not shewn us such means, his work of redemp
tion would have been incomplete, and his atone
ment in vain. For we can participate in the
blessings of redemption, even after we have ob
tained forgiveness, only by avoiding sin and
living righteously. And had not Christ fur
nished Us with means to do this, his atonement
would be of no avail.
The reason why this has not been commonly
considered in the systems of theology as making
a part of the work of redemption, is, that the
Socinians have regarded it as constituting the
whole of this work, exclusive of the atonement
of Christ by his sufferings and death. Evange
lical writers, therefore, though they did not en

tirely omit this important part of Christ's work,
passed it by in this connexion, in order to avoid
all fellowship with such an opinion, and to af
ford no appearance of diminishing in the least
from the influence of the atonement or satisfac
tion of Christ. But in conformity with the
Bible, even the ancient fathers considered both
of these things as belonging to the work of re
demption — e. g., Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the
Great, and Gregory the Great. The latter says,
" Christ became man, not only to atorie for us
by his sufferings and death ; but also to instruct
us, and to give us an example." This is the
full scriptural idea of ditoXvtpagis. Cf. s. 106,
II. Therefore redemption (ditoXvtpagis) com
prises the two following parts — viz., (1) Deli
verance from the punishment of sin (Ixagpbs,
atonement, xataXXayrj) ; (2) from the power and
dominion of sin. The former is effected by his
sufferings and death, and is confirmed by his
resurrection and intercession. The latter is ef
fected by his doctrine, accompanied by divine
power (the assistance of the Holy Spirit,) and
by his example.
The connexion of these two parts, as we learn
it from scripture and experience, is this: —
When an individual is assured of his forgive
ness through Christ, he is filled with the most
sincere love and gratitude to God and to Christ.
" He to whom much is forgiven, loves much ;"
Luke, vii. 47. These feelings render him dis
posed and desirous to obey the commands of
God and Christ. This obedience, flowing from
love, is not burdensome, but easy and joyful ;
1 John, v. 3, seq. The actual participation
in the benefits of this second part of Christ's
work, belongs, therefore, in all its extent to
those only who have experienced the benefits
of the former part. A Christian teacher, there
fore, proceeds preposterously, and contrary to
the example of the holy scriptures, when he ex
hibits and inculcates only the second part, either
passing the first in silence, or exciting doubts
with regard to it, or casting contempt upon it
He ought to connect the two parts, and to exhi
bit them clearly and scripturally, as the apostles
have done. The method of the apostles has
been proved the best by experience. Whenever
the atonement of Christ, or the first part of the
work of redemption, has been omitted, little
has been effected by preaching morality, and
holding up the example of Jesus. Men may
be taught in this way what they should be, bui
are left ignorant of the means of becoming so.
II. This Doctrine True and Scriptural
It is the doctrine of the Bible, that Christ be
came man, not only to free us from the punish
ment of sin, but from sin itself. Jesvm himself
says this, John, viii. 32, 36, seq. Cf. John, vi.
The writings of the apostles contain passages

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 409

of the same import — e. g., Titus, ii. 11 — 14.
Here Paul shews Titus what he ought to teach.
He says (ver. 11, 12), that Christianity makes
men pious and virtuous, and gives them the
most cheerful anticipations of the future. Now
(ver. 14) he mentions the redemption of Christ,
implying (a) that he died for us QSuxsv savtov
irtsp qpuv) ; (4) that he designed to deliver us
(Xvtpagrjtai) from all unrighteousness (d7to
itdgtjs dvoulas), and make us the friends of God,
and ready for all good works, (Christian vir
tues.) Here plainly drtoa.vfpioiris implies both
the particulars above mentioned. So 1 Pet. i.
18, Christ delivered us (xvtpoiv) ex patalas
&vagtpotyrjS,from a sinful, heathenish, vicious life.
Ephes. ii. 9, 10, " We are xtig^svtss iv Xpifff9
\itl Epyois dya^ois" — i. e., renewed, placed in a
situation in which we can act virtuously. Gal.
i. 4, "Christ gave himself itspl dpaptiuv ijpuv
(to deliver us from sin), and to rescue us from
our former condition in the service of sin, (bitas
UstXntai ix fov aluvos itovrjpoi.)" The two
things are connected still more clearly, 1 Pet.
ii. 24, " Christ suffered on the cross the punish
ment of our sins ; we ought therefore to die to
sin, and live entirely for holiness. For to his
sufferings are we indebted for all our blessed
ness (this twofold good) ; by his stripes we, are
healed." In order deeply to impress the mind with the
close connexion and the practical use of both of
these parts, the apostles frequently transfer the
terms relating to the death of Christ to the
moral improvement or holiness of men, effected
by him. E. g., We ought to die spiritually to
sin, as he died for it bodily ; to rise, &c. Vide
the texts already cited ; also Rom. vi. 4 ; viii.
10, &c
More important still are the passages which
teach that Christ delivered us from the power
and dominion of Satan, as Ephes. ii. 2 ; that he
hasi destroyed the power of the devil, &c; John,
xii. 31, seq. This phraseology is best explained
by the passage, 1 John, iii. 8, o itoiuv dfiapfiav
h'SiapbXov igtiv (diaboli filius, or diaboto simi
lis, ver. 12 ; John, viii. 44) ; for he sinned of
old (dii dpxijs). Again, Eis f ovfo ityavspufr) b
Tibs ©eov, iva Xvgy Ipya SiafSbxov. The latter
clause) ?pyo Siatibxav, is clearly synonymous
with dfiopf t'ai. Sins are thus described, because
the devil is regarded as the author of them, and
because by committing sin we resemble him,
and are instruments in his hand ; as, on the con
trary, Ipya ©eov, are virtuous and pious actions —
such as flow from likeness to God, or love to
him. HI. The manner in which Christ delivers us from
Sin.
' If we would obtain definite conceptions upon
this subject, we must come down to the simplest

possible ideas, and avoid the vague and obscure
expressions with which mystics are wont to
darken their own views. In representing the
matter briefly, writers are often content with
saying that new power and ability to do good is
afforded us by Christ. This representation ac
cords perfectly with the holy scriptures, with
the promise of Christ, and with Christian expe
rience. From this language, however, we are
not to understand that any miraculous assistance
is furnished by Christ. This power is usually
afforded in a natural manner, and the scriptures
themselves clearly point out the means by which
it is obtained. That Christ frequently and dis
tinctly promised his aid and support at all times
to all his followers, if they on their part per
formed the requisite conditions, is made certain
from the scriptures ; Matt, xxviii. 20. The
term Swafiis Xpisfov cccurs frequently in John
and in the epistles. Vide John, xv. 1, seq. ; 2
Cor. xii. 9'; 2 Pet. i. 3, 4.
This assistance of God and Christ which is
promised to Christians in connexion with their
use of the Christian doctrine, does not act in a.
manner inconsistent with the powers and con
stitution of human nature, but wholly in accord
ance with them. According to the wise consti
tution of our nature, all our actions are princi
pally dependent upon the fixed determination
of the will, which is again dependent upon the
strength and clearness of the motives present to
the understanding. Now we are frequently
hindered by external circumstances which are
beyond our control from the practice of virtue.
In this case we are without guilt, and the omis
sion cannot be imputed to us. (Here, however,
we are liable to deception by thinking we are
without fault, when this is not true.) But often
the fault is in ourselves. We allow sense to
rule our reason. We refuse properly to consider
the motives placed before us, or we neglect op
portunity of instructing ourselves respecting
duty ; or are chargeable, perhaps, with both of
these faults. If now, in this case, we disobey
the law of God, we are apt to bemoan our weak
ness and want of power for doing good. Suca
faults and weakness of the understanding and will
cannot be corrected by any miraculous power
afforded by Christ; and the virtue which should
be effected by such a miraculous power would
cease to be a personal virtue of the one in whom
it was wrought, and consequently could not be
imputed to him. There is no other way but for
man to learn the motives to piety and the avoid
ing of sin which are presented in the Christian
doctrine, and to form the fixed resolve that,
under divine guidance and assistance, he will
govern his own will by what he knows to be
the will of God and Christ. Only then, when
he has done everything on his part, can he count
upon the divine assistance. Until man has
2M

410

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. /

done his part, he is incapable of that assistance
which God and Christ have promised to afford.
If we are wanting in this thankful love to God
and Christ, which has been before insisted upon,
we must also be wanting in the disposition either
to learn or obey his will ; and in this condition,
we are of course disqualified for his assistance.
These remarks lead directly to the answer of
the question, How are we delivered by Christ
from the power and dominion of sin ? When
we derive the motives for obedience to the di
vine precepts from the instructions and example
of Christ, and suffer these to control our affec
tions, and when we do this from grateful love to
God and to Christ, we then fulfil the conditions
which are essential on our part, in order that we
may rely upon this promised guidance and as
sistance. We shall shew, in the following sec
tion, what is taught in the Bible respecting the
efficacy of the instruction and example of Christ,
in overcoming the power of sin. By the in
struction of Christ we obtain exact and distinct
information respecting the nature of sin and its
consequences, &c His instruction and example
shew the means and motives for avoiding sin,
and leading upright and pious lives, (Sixaius
XOA EVgE^aS.) SECTION CXVII.
OF THE DELIVERANCE FROM THE POWER AND DO
MINION OF SIN, FOR WHICH WE ARE INDEBTED,
UNDER DIVINE ASSISTANCE, TO THE INSTRUC
TION AND EXAMPLE OF CHRIST.
I. Scriptural Doctrine respecting the Efficacy of
Christ's Instructions in subduing Sin.
(1) The doctrine of Christ informs us dis
tinctly what are the requisitions of the divine
law, and how we should order our life in con
formity wilh them ; it teaches us to notice every
deviation from this law, and the dreadful conse
quences of disobedience; and it gives these in
structions in a manner which is plain and intel
ligible to every mind. This comprehensive and
complete instruction as to the whole extent of
Christian duty gives the Christian doctrine a
great advantage above other moral codes, in
which only the more violent outbreakings of sin
are at all noticed. The apostles everywhere
exhibit, with great earnestness, this advantage
of the Christian doctrine, and Christ himself
declares it to have been one great object of his
coming into the world, to give this instruction.
Accordingly, Matt v. 21, seq., he gives exam
ples of this more complete instruction about the
duties of man, as drawn from the divine com
mands. Those religious teachers, therefore, mistake
very much who make the doctrines of faith the
only subjects of discourse, entirely omitting

Christian ethics, and perhaps speaking 3on-
temptuoustly of them. These moral instruc
tions constitute a most valuable portion of the
Christian system. Even the enemies of Chris
tianity, both in ancient and modern times, have
done justice to the morality of the gospel. But
our pwn age dees net need to be warned so
much against this fault as against the opposite
pne pf inculcating the mere mcrality of the
Bible, and of speaking disrespectfully of the
evangelical doctrines. The teachers of religion
should connect the two together, as the sacred
writers do, and should draw the motives to ho
liness, virtue, and moral purity from the doc
trines nf the Christian religipn. Vide s. 116,
I. ad finem. It was net the manner of Christ
te teach the duties witheut the dectrines nf reli
gion. Neither he nor his apostles separated the
one from the other. The gospel contains both.
The doctrine respecting Christ, and the other
great doctrines of faith, afford a powerful support
to moral lessons, and so they are uniformly em
ployed by the apostles. This method, however
much disregarded at present, deserves to be seri
ously recommended to every teacher of religion
who is desirous of promoting the true and lasting
interest of his hearers. Christian ethics teach
us our duty; and Christian doctrines open the
sources from which we must draw strength to
perform it. In popular discourse, then, instruc- '
tion in morals should always be connected with
and derived from evangelical doctrines.
(2) The Christian doctrine gives full instruc
tion respecting the manner of suppressing out1- '
sinful inclinations, and the means we should l
use to overcome temptation to sin, to weaken
the power of sense, and to make constant ad
vances in holiness. Tit. ii. II, seq., "The sa
lutary system of Christianity is designed by
God for all men. It teaches us (itaiSsvovaa) to
renounce all irreligion (do-EjSEia), and all the
sinful passions that prevail among men (xospi-
xai iiti^vulai) ; and, on the contrary, to live
wisely, piously, and virtuously on the earth."
2 Pet. i. 3, 4, seq. This passage contains the
following truths: — "God gives us power to
lead a virtuous life (fur; xai sigs^sia), and shews
us the means of doing this by the knowledge
of God," (i. e., the Christian scheme, whose
author is God.) Ver. 4, "By this knowledge
we attain to pious and godlike dispositions,
(©Eias xoivavol tyigsas, as children resembling
our Father,) and distinguish ourselves from the
great mass of mankind, who live in immorali
ty." "Thus we are placed in a situation to
practise all the Christian virtues, (ver. 5—7,)
and are not dpyoi ovSe dxoprtoi," (i. c, are al
ways employed in works of virtue, and dis
posed to whatever is good.)
Christianity therefore justly requires of its
friends, to whom it gives such perfect instruc

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 411

(ion as to the observance of the divine precepts,
to maintain the most unsullied purity of charac
ter. John is fully justified in declaring (1 John,
ii. 4,) that he is a liar who professes to be a
friend and follower of Christ, and does not keep
his commandments. The same writer justly
remarks that the Christian who is in earnest in
overcoming his sins, and who acts out of pure
love to God and to Christ, will not find it diffi
cult to fulfil the commands of God, a£ svtoXai
avfov J3apEiai ovx slgiv ; 1 John, v, 3, coll. Matt.
xi. 30. He therefore assures us, in entire con
formity with experience, that a true Christian,
by his obedience to Christian rules, and by con
stant exercise, can advance so far, that virtue
will become his confirmed habit, and the pre
ponderating disposition to sin will become sub
ordinate, ov Svvatai apaptdvsiv, 1 John, iii.
8, 9,
Note. — Paul and the other apostles were ac
customed to connect the history of the person of
Jesus Christ, in his humiliation and exaltation,
with his doctrine. From this history they de
duce some of the advantages which we enjoy as
Christians, and also some of our duties and the
motives to the discharge of them ; or they refer
to this history in inculcating these duties, in
order to render them more impressive. Thus
they frequently ascribe, to the sufferings and
death of Christ a power to subdue sin, and to
excite pious affections. An example of this is
Heb. ix. 14, seq., " If even the blood of beasts
took away external impurity, and rendered those
who were expiated externally clean, according
to the law of Moses, how much more must the
blood of Christ purify us from sin" (dead
works) — i. e., render us holy ; " that we may
be placed in a situation to worship God in a
manner acceptable to him." Still more clear
is the passage 2 Cor. v. 15, "He died for all,
that they should not live according to their own
choice (iavfcji), but according to the will and
commands of Christ, who died for them." The
love of Christ in offering up himself for them,
should incite them to grateful love, and to will
ing obedience to his commands ; 1 Peter, i. 18,
19, " Christ delivered us by his 4/ood from an
idolatrous and sinful ccurse pf life." There are
many more passages of the same nature.
From a comparison nf these texts it is easy to
see that ne direct cr miraculcus physical agency
is here ascribed tc the death pf Christ, nor any
ppwer derived from it which is peculiar and
distinct from the influence of the doctrine re
specting Christ. The influence of the death of
Christ in promoting a reformed and holy life,
takes place in the following way : — The consi
deration of the death of Christ promotes (a) ab
horrence and dread of sin, and regard for the
divine law, while we see so severe a punish
ment inflicted upon Christ. In the death of

Christ, then, we see sin, in all its dreadful con
sequences, and the inviolable sanctity of the
divine law. (4) Love, gratitude, obedience to
God and Christ, and zeal in obeying his com
mandments, are also effects of contemplating
Christ's death. Thus 2 Cor. v. 15, coll. Gal.
ii. 20; 1 John, v. 3; Rom. viii. 3, 4, "Because
Christ was punished for our sins, we ought,
from gratitude, the more carefully to obey the
precepts of the law," (Sixalaua vb/iov.) Here,
then, the effect is produced upon our affections
through pur understanding.
The apestles ascribe a similar influence in
prompting reformation and holiness to the resur
rection of Christ and his exaltation in the hea
vens, 2 Cor. v. 15 ; Col. iii. 1 ; Heb. xii. 2. By
the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, his
whole doctrine, and all which he did for us, re
ceive new importance, and are rendered clear
and certain; and if we confide in him, and obey
his precepts, we may now look forward with
cheerful anticipations to a reward in heaven.
For (1) he has gone before to the place whither
we shall follow him if we love him, and seek
to resemble him, (John, xiv. 2, 3 ;) and (2)
while we continue upon the earth he still cares
for us, and is active in promoting our welfare.
Christ himself frequently connects these two
things, John, xv., xvi., xvii. Vide s. 112, II.
What a powerful influence in promoting piety
and holiness must these considerations exert
upon the heart of every man who cordially be
lieves and embraces them !
n. Influence of Christ's Example in aiding the
Practice of Virtue.
There is a propensity to imitation implanted
in all men. Good and evil examples often ex
ert an influence upon the heart indescribably
great, and sometimes almost irresistible. This
propensity, as well as the love of distinction,
ought therefore to be turned to account in edu
cation. Good examples do far more to improve
and ennoble the character, and to perfect holi
ness, than mere lessons and rules. Longum et
difficile iter est prxcepta, says Seneca, breve d
efficax per exempla. Such examples act more
strongly and directly upon the senses, and ex
cite the heart to virtue and everything noble and
great. The example of Jesus is held up for imitation
everywhere in the New Testament, as the most
perfect model of every virtue. It is made the
indispensable duty of all his followers to con
form to it in all their conduct. Vide 1 John,
ii. 6; iii. 3; 1 Pet. ii. 11, "He has left us ex
ample (pattern, wtoypafifid*,) that we should
follow his steps." But the example of Christ
is recommended to us for imitation, not only h
respect to his general integrity, purity of mo
rals, and entire blamelessness, (in which hi

4i5

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

was perfectly exemplary, and the only one in
deed who ever was so; vide s. 93* III.;) but
also in respect to particular virtues, especially
those which are more high and difficult, which
require a great struggle and effort, such as pa
tience; trust in God, firmness in suffering, the
practice of humility and self-denial. In these
respects, Christ himself commends his example
to the imitation of his followers. Vide 1 Pet
ii. 21—23 ; Phil. ii. 5, seq. We have still fur
ther encouragement to imitate the example of
Jesus by the reward bestowed upon him, the
man Jesus, in consequence of his piety and vir
tue, which we also may expect to receive, so
far as we are capable of it, if we follow him.
Vide Phil, ubi supra, and Heb. xii. 2, 3.
It is an excellent rule which is given by some
of the ancient Greek philosophers, that in our
whole life and in all our actions we should have
the example of some great, wise, and virtuous
man in view, and that we sheuld imagine him
te be the witness and everseer (custos et pxda-
gogus) ef all pur ccnduct. They advised that
we should do everything under the notice, as it
were, of such an inspector, and inquire at every
step what he would do or recommend in this
case ; would he approve or disapprove ? Could
1 do or say this thing if he were present with
out blushing? &c Epictetus (Enchir. c. 51)
recommends Socrates and Zeno for models ; Se
neca (Ep. II. Extra.), Cato, and Laelius. Chris
tians can select no greater and more perfect man
to be the witness of their conduct and guide of
their morals than Jesus. And we know, too,
that we may not only imagine him to be the
witness and judge of our conduct, but that he
actually is so. He knows all our thoughts and
actions, and will be the sole Judge of the living
and the dead. So we are taught by Christ him
self in his discourses recorded in John, and by
all the apostles. Both Christ and his apostles
require Christians to do everything iv bvbpati
Xpitffov. The passage Heb. xii. 1, 2 deserves to be no
ticed among the many which speak of imitating
the example of Christ. Paul first compares the
firm and pious sufferers of antiquity, Whose ex
ample in suffering the Christian ought to imi
tate, with spectators and witnesses, who look
upon our race and contest, and encourage us to
perseverance. Among these witnesses is Jesus,
who far surpasses the rest, who is the best ex
ample of confidence in Gcd, and of every virtue,
and who constantly observes us, and will finally
reward us if we follow him.
But those only who possess the characte. de
scribed, s. Ilfi, I., ad finem, are properly cupa-
Dle of imitating tnis example of Jesus. Men
who have not felt the consciousness that their
sins were forgiven, and have not been renewed
in the temper of their mind, have no taste or

capacity for this imitation of Christ. Nor can
we properly require of them what they in this
situation are incapable of performing. We can
make them feel, however, if their moral sensi
bility is net entirely deadened, hew far below
this example they stand, and hew gopd and sa
lutary it would be for them tp imitate it.

PART III. OF CHAPTER IV.
ON THE PRESENT AND FUTURE CONSEQUENCES
OF THE WORK OF CHRIST.

SECTION CXVIII.
SCRIPTURAL TITLES OF THE SALVATION PROCURED
BY CHRIST FOR MEN ; ITS GENERAL NATURE;
THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RE
SPECTING THE ABOLITION OF THE OLD-TESTA
MENT DISPENSATION BY CHRISTIANITY, AND
THE ADVANTAGES RESULTING FROM IT TO THE
WORLD.
I. Scriptural Names of the Blessings of Christianity ,
and their Nature.
Some of these names are literal, others figu
rative. The most common are the following —
viz., 'Eixoyia, na-o, denoting every kind of be*-
nefit, Ephes. i. 3 ; Gal. iii. 14. Xdpis, in, -i?n,
John, i. 16, "Through his infinite love we have
obtained xdpiv avti xdpitos," an undeserved bent-
fit superior ta the other, in opposition to the Mo
saic dispensation, (ver. 17,) which could not
secure this forgiveness of sin, and the blessings
connected with it, which are here intended by
the word ^dpiy. The word fur) is also fre
quently used, vita vere vitalis, happiness. Also
Zuoitoisig^ai, fr)v, x. t . X., in opposition to d»tio-
Xsla and ^dvatos, unhappiness, John, iii. 36; X.
11 ; Ephes. ii. 5, where the figure is continued^
" Through Christ he has vivified and raised lis
up," &c.
The Jews had anciently very diverse opinions
respecting the nature of the blessings to be ex
pected from Christ. Only a few of the better
instructed conceived that these benefits were
entirely of a spiritual nature. For such bless
ings the great mass had no taste. They expect
ed, for the most part, temporal blessings, and
hoped, under the Messiah, to be rich, honourable
and mighty. Vide s. 89. And these expecta
tions have prevailed in a large portion even of
the Christian world. Accordingly, many, in
direct opposition to the spirit of Christianity,
have associated the promises of earthly good and
temporal welfare, made under the Mosaic insti
tute, with the precepts of the New Testament
We may, indeed, hope and expect to obtain from
God all that good, even of a temporal nature, ot

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 413

which we are capable, and of which we stand
in need. But through Christ, and observance of
his precepts, we cannot hope to obtain earthly
good. For the design of his religipn is to with
draw us from earth and sense, to improve and
ennoble the heart, and to procure the enjoyment
of high spiritual blessedness ; Philippians, iii.
14, 17, 20. On this ground, therefore, the Jew
ish idea of the coming of a millenial kingdom
of Christ upon the earth is entirely objection
able. The apostles never indulge in such ex
pectations, but take every opportunity to con
tradict them. They call those who entertain
snch ideas sopxixoi, persons who adhere to what
is sensible and exterior, have no taste for what
is spiritual, and are not therefore real disciples
of Jesus. Hence Paul says, Ephes. i. 3, " God
has blessed us, through Christ, itdgv^ svxoy'ia
rtvsvfiat i xvj iv iitovpaviois." Jlvsvaat ixbs is
here opposed to sopxixos, and implies that the
blessings spoken of are not designed for the
body and the senses, but for the mind. The
phrase ''Ev tols iitovpaviois (sc. f bnois' vide verse
20; ii. 6, 12) does not signify in the Christian
church, but denotes, literally, the blessings
which we shall enjoy in heaven, which is our
home, where we are citizens, (not in the visible
world.) Hence in Heb. viii. 6, he calls the
blessings which are bestowed upon us through
Christ, in comparison with the promises made
under the Mosaic dispensation, xpEif f ova dya^d.
Tn Heb. vii. 19, he says, that there is through
Christianity, iitstgayayvi xpelttovos iXitlSos, (i. e.
it inspires the hope of more great and distin
guished divine favours,) since the Mosaic insti-
tnte is removed.
The blessings bestowed upon us through
Christ are commonly divided into general or
fublic, (such as relate to the whole human spe
cies,) and particular, privata, (such as relate to
each'individual Christian.) Among the former
is, as the New Testament everywhere shews,
the abolition of Judaism, (the ancient institute,)
and the establishment of a new dispensation
and institute, by which all the nations of the
earth might be united in one common religion.
We shall first treat of the removal of the ancient
Church of God, and of the establishment of the
new ; and then of the particular benefits of
Christianity.
II. The Abolition of the Mosaic Institute, and the
Union of Jews and Gentiles in one common Re
ligion. (1) The Israelitish constitution and religion
(»dfios) were only temporary and national. They
were designed, in their first origin, only for a
barbarous and rude people, destitute of moral
cultivation. But the human race was not des
tined to remain always in a state of infancy;
and as soon as men were prepared for a more

high, perfect, and spiritual instruction, that more
imperfect kind, intended for beginners, would
of course be omitted. The Jewish institute
was designed to be only preparatory ; such is
the uniform doctrine of the apostles, especially
of Paul. Vide the Introduction, s. 12, where
we have cited the most important texts, which
are principally contained in the epistles to the
Galatians and Hebrews. Now, therefore, ac
cording to their instruction, Christ had abolish
ed the law. (Christ himself, for good reasons,
gave at first only hints which led to this con
clusion — e. g., John, iv. 21 — 24; x. 16. He
left the full development of this doctrine for his
disciples.) Rom. x. 4, tsxos toi Kofiov Xptsf bs —
i. e., tsxos i'lpEpE f 9 vopa. Heb. vii. 18, 19 ; Gal.
iv. 4, 5; Eph. ii. 14, 15. According to these
and other passages Christ has freed his follow
ers from pbligatipn to observe the law of Moses,;
and the punishments threatened in it do not re
late to those who believe in Christ. Vide Gal.
iii. 13, XpiSfos i£t;y6pagEV rjfids ex fr]s xafdpas
fov vopav — i. e., from the punishments which
the Mosaic law threatens.
Here two questions arise — viz.,
(a) How are we to understand those texts
which teach that the Mosaic law and institute
are removed and declared to be null by the cru
cifixion? Such texts are, Gal. iii. 13 ;¦ Eph. ii.
16; iii. 15; and especially Col. ii. 14, "He
took it away, and nailed it to his cross," — by
his crucifixion he declared it invalid. The apos
tles everywhere teach that the new dispensation
through Christ (xaivrj Sia^r/xr;) commenced at
his death, and was by that event solemnly sanc
tioned and introduced. Eph. v. 25, 26 ; Heb.
xiii. 20; ix. 14, 15, where the preparatory eco
nomy of Moses, consisting in sacrifices, is com
paied with the preparatory economy of Christ,
consisting in the sacrifice of himself. Christ
himself calls his blood which was shed, alfia
xaivijs Sia^rjxr/s, Matthew, xxvi. 28. Conse
quently, the ancient Israelitish dispensation
ceased with the death of Christ, because at
that event the new dispensation commenced.
We see by this what value was attached to the
death of Christ, and how everything in this new
.dispensation through Christ proceeds from it.
The day of his death is the consecration-day of
the new covenant. The new covenant is not
dated from the time when he began to teach,
but from the time of his death.
(4) Are all the Mosaic laws abolished by
Christ, and no longer obligatory upon Chris
tians ? From the passages cited we must cer
tainly answer in the affirmative. But the laws
of Moses are of different kinds; and many of
the older theolpgians maintained that Christ
abelished enly the ceremonial and civil law ef
the Israelites, and net the moral law, especially
that centained in the decalogue. But in the
2 m2

414

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

passages of the New Testament which treat ef
the abolition of the law there is no allusion to
this threefold distinction. Paul includes the
whole under i/dfios, Romans, vi. 14 ; Gal. iii. 19,
25. Besides, many of the laws of Moses, which
are truly moral, are expressed and stated in such
a way as to shew plainly that they were de
signed, in that form, only for the circumstances
and wants of the Israelites at the time being —
e. g., " Honour thy father and thy mother, that
thy days may be long in the land," (Palestine;)
and the law respecting the Sabbath.
The mistake upon which this limitation is
founded may be pointed out. Moral laws are
in themselves universally obligatory, and unal-
'.erilble as the laws of nature. There are, doubt-
'.ess, many such moral laws in the code of
Moses, as well as of Solon, Lycurgus, and
others. But they are not binding upon Chris
tians because they are parts of the Mosaic code,
and stand in the decalogue, but (a). because
they are founded in the constitution of human
nature, which God himself has given us, and
are therefore' laws of nature, and (4) because
Christ has commanded us to obey them. In
the same way, we observe the moral laws which
stand in the codes of heathen legislators — Con
fucius, Solon, Lycurgus, &c. ; not because they
have given them, but because these laws are
universal, and founded in our very nature.
When a ruler introduces a new statute-book
into his dominions, the old book, after its rejec
tion, is no longer the rule by which right and
wrong are determined, although much in it
still remains true. Just such is the case here.
Morus well observes (p. 243, infra), that Chris
tians observe the moral precepts in the Mosaic
code, quia ratio dictat, et Christi dodrina propo-
nit, proponendoque confirmat. Judxi vera tene-
bantur ea observare, quia ratio diciabat, et Moses,
jussu divino, prxscripserat.
In this way we may understand the declara
tion of Christ, Matthew, v. 17—19, "that he
was not come to destroy the law and the pro
phets, (vopov xai 7tpo$r)f as,) and that all the di
vine commands contained in them must be
punctually obeyed." This does not conflict
with the dpctrine ef Paul. Christ was neither
able nor willing te abrpgate these universal
laws, because they were given by God for all
men ; not, however, because they were given
by Moses. It was, on the contrary, the design
of Christ still more to illustrate these laws, and
to recommend obedience to them by his doc
trine and example.
The question, Whether the ten command
ments of Moses should be retained in the moral
instruction of the common people and of the
young, has been much controverted of late.
(Cf. Thorn. Boclo, Etwas uber den Decalogus,
oder, von der Verbindlichkeit der zehn Gebote

fiir die Christen; Schmalkalden, 1789, Svo;
Hufnagel, Ueber den Religionsunterricht, nach
den zehn Geboten; Zacharia, Bibl. Theol. th.
4 ; Less, Doderlein, Reinhard, in their Chris
tian ethics.) From what has been already said,
it is plain that the Ten Commandments are not
obligatory because they are laws given by
Moses. They are not therefore, of necessity,
fundamental in Christian instruction. No in
jury, however, is to be' apprehended from mak
ing them so, any more than in the first Christian
church, if the manner in which Christ and the
apostles allude to the moral precepts of Moses
and the Old Testament be only made our model.
The intelligent and conscientious teacher will
be very cautious in declaring to the common
people and the young that the Ten Command
ments are abrogated, since he might be easily
understood to mean, that the duties enjoined in
them are no longer obligatory. The instruction
which God has given through Jesus, respecting
the moral law and our duties, is much more
perfect and extensive than that which was
given, or could be given, through Moses. Our
hearers should therefore be led directly to this
more copious fountain of knowledge. This will
not prevent our connecting instruction from the
Old Testament with that from the New, as
Christ and the apostles did, especially since
the history of the Old Testament so well eluci
dates and explains many points of duty.
In those churches in which the decalogue is
incorporated, by their very constitution, into the
system of instruction, it is neither necessary nor
advisable for the teacher to urge the discontinu
ance of this custom. By this course he would
do more hurt than good. He will proceed more
properly and judiciously by confirming, com
pleting, and enlarging from the New Testa
ment all the particular moral precepts contained
in the decalogue, making the decalogue, in this
way, serve only as a guide to Christian instruc
tion. He will do well also to connect with or
append to the catechism a good outline of Chris
tian doctrines and morals, exhibited in a natural
order, and in an intelligible and practical man
ner, according to the holy scriptures.
(2) It was the great object of Jesus to esta
blish an universal religion, by which all nations
of the earth might be united in one common
worship of God. Vide John, x. 16, " One fold
and one Shepherd." Cf. Reinhard, Ueber den
Plan des Stifters der christlichen Religion. But
this plan in its whole extent could not be car
ried into effect, nor indeed was it designed to
be, until after his departure from the earth.
Vide John, xii. 32. In order to render this
plan practicable, it was essential that the Mo
saic institute should be abrogated, and declared
to be thenceforward abolished. Without this,
Jews and Christians could never be brought

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 415

together, or united in a cemmon religious so-
ciety. The Jews were distinguished by na-
1 'tional pride and contempt for all the rest of
mankind. They considered themselves exclu
sively as a holy people, beloved of God. All
other nations seemed to them to be desecrated,
and hated by God. They exhibit, as Tacitus
says (Hist. v. 5), Odium hostile adversus omnes
gentes; and, as Paul says, 1 Thess. ii. 15, a
universal misanthropy, itdgiv av^paitois ivwvtloi.
And what was the occasion of this hatred and
separation? Their misunderstanding the Mo-
"saic laws, and putting a false interpretation
upon them.
In'opposition to this, the great principles of
Christianity are, the love of God and universal
philanthropy, and that all upright and true wor
shippers of God, of whatever nation they may
'"be, are equally acceptable to him, have equal
rights, and an equal share in the blessings of
Christianity, John, iv. 21 — 24; Acts, x. 35;
Romans, x. 12; Gal. v. 6. This assimilation
• and union, by which all distinction between
Jew and heathen would cease, could not be
brought about except by the abrogation of the
Mosaic institute, which was designed by God
to be only a preparatory economy. One of the
principal passages relating to this subject is
Ephes. ii. 12 — 19, coll. Col. i. 21, seq. ; Ephes.
ii. 10, seq. " Christ has united the two (Jews
and heathen), has done away the cause of their
' enmity, has established harmony, brought them
!'T)0th together into one society, and given them
citizenship in the kingdom of God; this he did
by removing the wall of partition (asgbtoixov
tav ippaypov, ver. 14), that separated between
heathen and Jews, and prevented their becom
ing one people." This wall of partition was the
Mosaic law, as he himself explains it, ver. 15,
vopos ivtoxav. This he calls, in ver. 14, 3z&pa,
the cause of enmity. SECTION CXIX.
THE HAPPINESS WHICH CHRISTIANS OBTAIN IN
THIS LIFE FROM CHRIST.
We treat now of the particular benefits of
which every professor of Christianity partakes
when he performs the prescribed conditions.
Vide s. 118,1. ad fin. As our existence is com
posed of two very unequal portions, these bless
ings are likewise of two kinds. We enjoy some
of them even in the present life, and others not
before we enter the future world ; s. 120. It
must always be borne in remembrance, that the
apostles derived all these spiritual advantages,
of whatever kind, from Christ, and that they
connect these, as well as the rewards of the
pious (natural and positive), in such a way with
the history of Jesus, that they represent him as
- :he procurer of them all. This method of in

struction is perfectly suited the wants of man
kind. General truths become much more intel
ligible, clear, and certain, by being placed in
connexion with true history, from which they
receive a positive sanction. We find that the
ancient teachers of religion among the heathen
pursued the same course. And this is a proof that
they better understood the constitution of roan
than those Christian. teachers who would sepa
rate everything historical from the exhibition of
Christian truth. Vide s. 108.
The spiritual blessedness which believers in
Christ receive through him, even in the present
life, consists, according to the doctrine of the
New Testament, in the following particulars : —
I. Assurance of the undeserved Benevolence, the Con
stant Favour, and Paternal Love of God.
¦The apostle places this class of spiritual be
nefits in the closest connexion with the whole
history of Christ, representing them always as
the fruit of the atonement. Their doctrine is, that
whoever is sure of the forgiveness of his sins (and
this assurance he receives through the atonement
of Christ, or through faith in Christ as a Saviour
and expiator), and, under the guidance and as
sistance of God and Christ, lives conformably
to the divine precepts (which he learns from the
Christian doctrine and from the example of
Christ), such an one is capable of receiving the
divine blessings which are promised to such, and
he can at all times be assured of the favour and
paternal love of God ; he will be treated by God
and Christ as a friend, and made partaker of
their happiness, so far as he is susceptible of it.
Various figures and expressions are used in
the scriptures to represent these fruits of the
atonement, and of faith in it. But they all con
vey one and the same idea. They ought not
therefore, in systems of theology, to be sepa
rately considered, in different chapters or arti
cles. The following expressions are some of
the most common — viz., sonship, the right of
adoption, election, access to God, and union with
him. We shall now briefly explain these terms.
(1) Tio^sffia ©eov. This is a term which was
originally borrowed from the Israelitish church.
In the ancient languages the phrase, children of
God, denotes the peculiar friends, the favourites
of the Deity. The Israelites received this name,
and also that of firstborn, to denote their pre
eminence above other people. Vide Ex. iv. 22,
23. Hence in Rom. ix. 4, the Israelites are
said to possess vlo^sgla — i. e., the rights of the
favourite people of God. This term is trans
ferred to true Christians, in order to denote the
relation which subsists between them and God.
Those who endeavour to resemble God in their
conduct, and who faithfully obey his command
ments, have a higher capacity for happiness and
reward than others who are wanting in these

416

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

traits of character. We hence conclude, with
reason, that God loves and favours them more
than.others who are unlike him. One who loves
God as a son loves his father, and seeks to re
semble him as a dutiful son seeks to resemble
his father, will he loved by God in return, as a
dutiful son is loved by his father. All the ad
vantages and spiritual benefits, therefore, which
we obtain through faith in Christ, and obedience
to his precepts, are considered as belonging to
vio^Effia, because they are all proofs of the pater
nal love of God. Vide Gal. iv. 4, 5 ; iii. 26 ; Rom.
viii. 15 (Tti'Evfiavio^Effias, a filial disposition), and
ver. 23 (the reward of Christians); Ephes. i. 5;
1 John, iii. 1, 2. This right of adoption we owe
to Christ, as the author of Christianity and our
Saviour. Those only possess this right who
believe in him as Xpiafds and Xatrjp. Hence
John declares (i. 12), "He gives to all who
believe on him the privilege (iioveria) of consi
dering themselves the children of God" which
privilege they obtain, according to ver. 13, not
by descent from pious ancestors, according to
the Jewish prejudice, but solely by true faith in
Jesus Christ, and from the holiness and like
ness to God arising from and connected with
faith. Tlje apostles give this appellation to the sin
cere worshippers of God the more readily and
frequently on account of the name of Christ,
Tios ©sow. God treats Christians as his peculiar
friends on account of Christ, who is his most
beloved and chief favourite, itpat dfoxos, povo-
ysv-rjs- Vide Gal. iii. 26, 27 ; iv. 4—7.
Pious Christians are thus called the children
of God in a twofold sense : (a) because they
love God as their Father, and obey him from
love; (6) because they, on account of this dis
position, are loved in return by God, as obedient
children, and so obtain from him forgiveness of
sins and other Christian blessings. Both of
these ideas are sometimes implied at the same
time in this term.
[In the older writers of the English church
(as well as in the ancient fathers, and the most
devout and spiritual writers of other nations,)
we frequently meet with the idea, that the rela
tion existing between man and God, denoted
by sonship, is not merely a relation of feeling,
but also of nature. This is sometimes illustrated
by saying that we are notadopted by God into
his family in the same manner in which a
wealthy benefactor sometimes adopts a destitute
and orphan child, conferring upon him great
privileges, and giving him the name of son, to
which he has no natural title. In such a case,
this name would denote only that the per-
' son on whom it was conferred held the same
place in the affections of the benefactor, and
exercised in return the same feelings of grati
tude and dutiful reverence as an own son would

in similar circumstances. And this seems to he
the mere general sense in which this appella-
tipn was used in reference to the friends and
worshippers of God before the Christian dispen
sation, and to those few who, like the devout
Cornelius, are found fearing God even in the
midst of heathenism. But this term, when
applied to believers in the New Testament, has
a superior meaning, and points to the gift of the
Spirit of adoption, which, in the highest sense, is
peculiar to the Christian dispensation, and con
sequent upon the completion of Christ's work.
By being born of God, and receiving this peculiar
grace, the Spirit of adoption, believers become
partakers of " the divine nature," and possessed
of an internal principle, the fruits of which are
the love and obedience in which the essential
nature of sonship is sometimes placed, but
which are in reality only the signs or effects of
that new life in which it really consists. The
possession of this Spirit by Christ, though in a
far higher degree of intimacy, seems to be one
of the grounds of his bearing the title of Son.
And the manner of the Spirit's presence and
operation in believers is compared by the sacred
writers with the hypostatical union of the divine
and human natures in Christ. These ideas
may be, indeed, carried so far as to involve
error. But it is an important question whether
they have not a scriptural basis. Is the compa
rative infrequency, in our later theological
writings, of these ideas, which were so current
in the fathers of the English church, the result
of an advance or a decline in theological
science ? — Tr.]
(2) All the words which literally signify to
choose and elect are frequently enipleyed in order
to denote the distinguished favour and love of
God to his people. We are accustomed to
select from many things that which is the best,
most desirable, and valuable. Hence to say a
thing is chosen is often the same as to say it is
valuable or useful — e. g., gxsios ixXoyrj, Acts,
ix. 15. Now, because our love rests upon those
objects which appear to us good and valuable,
the words which in the oriental languages sig
nify to select, signify also to love, to wish well to
any one, to benefit him, in a distinguished man
ner. In the same way is -na used in Hebrew —
e. g., Deut. iv. 57, where an** is added. TheLXX.
sometimes render it by the word ixxiytg^ai, as
in the passage cited, and sometimes by evSo-
xslv and dyaitdv. The New Testament employs
the words ixXsysg^ai and ixXsxtbs in the same
manner. In the Old Testament, the Israelites
were denominated, by way of eminence, the
chosen or beloved (on^ro) of God. This term was
then transferred to Christians, who become.wor-
thy of the love of God by faith in Jesus Christ,
and by conduct conformed entirely to the divine
will— e. g., Matt. xxiv. 24; 1 Pet. ii. 9. 'ExJii-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 417

ntfeai is therefore Christianumfacere, as 1 Cor.
i, 27, 28. In the same way the 7jer4a cogno-
scendi, in the ancient languages mean to love,
to be friendly to any one. . Thus Christians are
said to be yvug^svt es vitb ©eov, amid Deo. Gal.
iv. 9; 1 Cor. viii. 3, coll. Ps. Iv. 14.
(3) The terms which denote the drawing near
of God to men, or union with him. God was
conceived of by the ancient world as corppreal,
and as resembling man. Thus many believed
that he was literally and actually more present
in one place than in another, and that he ap
proached the place where he wished te exert
his power, and that etherwise he withdrew er
absented himself. Vide s. 23, II. From such
conceptions a multitude of figurative expressions
have arisen in all the ancient languages. These
expressions appear very gross and unworthy of
God. At first, however, they were literally
understood by the great mass of mankind. But
afterwards, as the views of men became en
larged and improved, they were understood figu
ratively, and were interpreted in such a way as to
be consistent with the divine perfections. The
terms, the approach, or coming of God to any
one, the connexion of God with any one, denote
a high degree of his favour and love, and of the
active display of these feelings, his assistance
and agency ; and so the withdrawment cf God,
and his forsaking any one, denote, on the other
hand, the withdrawing of his love and the bene
fits resulting from it. Thus naif; denotes the
friendship of God, Ps. lxxiii. 28, coll. Zeeh. ii.
10, 11. And thus Christ promises to his disciples
that he and his Father would come and make
their abode with them — i. e., would be always
connected with them, and never withhold from
them their special assistance and protection ; in
short, would be to them what one friend is
to another in guiding and uphnlding him ; ver.
21, iufavl^siv. Thus Jesus ccnsples his dis
ciples who were lamenting his departure. Cf.
Rev. iii. 20, and Matt, xxviii. 20. The terms,
iusls igpsv (or psvopsv) iv ^£9, ^eos ifffi*
(or fiEKEi) iv valv, which occur John xvii. 21,
and 1 John, iii. 24, &c, denote, in the same
way, a high degree of the special favour and
friendship of God, agreement of disposition
with him, and his assistance connected with
his favour. Cf. John, xv. 1, "Whoever is and
remains faithful and devoted to him shall be
treated by him in the same manner in return ;
he shall be united to him, as the branch is
united to the vine."
From these and similar passages the mystics
have taken occasion to speak of a secret union
(unio mystica) with God and Christ. They
commonly express this by the terms, the in
dwelling of God in the heart, sinking down into
God, the communication of God, the enjoyment
53

of him, &c. &c. Some of them associated very
gross conceptions with these phrases ; cf. s. 23.
After the eleventh and twelfth centuries such
language became more common in the Western
church. It was understood by some in a literal
manner, and in a sense unworthy of the charac
ter of God ; by others, in a manner entirely con
formed to the Bible, but yet sometimes too indis
tinctly. Luther, Melancthon, and other reform
ers, retained the phraseology of the ancient mys
tics, and it was adopted into the systems of theo
logy. Some made a special article on the subject
of the mystical union ; though Melancthon and
others took pains to controvert the gross ideas
of the fanatical mystics. , Hence it came to
pass that this phraseology was thus used mostly
in homiletical and catechetical discourses, and
that formerly many sermons and books were
written upon this subjoet
In the holy scriptures these terms dencte some
times the agreement of the dispositions of th>/
pious with the law of God ; sometimes the pe
culiar favour and friendship of God towards
them, and the special proofs of it, and also their
enjoyment and feeling of the tokens of this
friendship. There is no reason, therefore, for making a
particular article in the systems of theolpgy
uppn this subject. Cauticn, hpwever, shenld
be used in Christian instructien tp prevent the
notion that there is anything properly miraculous
in this matter which is not according to the
Bible. This cauticn is the mere necessary, as
many enthusiastic parties frequently employ
such expressiens with regard to these divine in
fluences, and give them such a meaning as im
plies an immediate illumination independent of
the holy scriptures. So the Quakers and Bohe
mians. And it has sometimes happened that
well-meaning though unenlightened Christians
have received the doctrine of these sectarians as
scriptural because it was expressed in scriptural
phraseology. Another reason for calling these propfs pf the
lpve pf Gpd, and the experience ef them, «7ij'o
mystica, is, that they are inward, and enjoyed by
spiritual fellowship, and are unseen and disre
garded by those who have no taste or capacity
for such experiences. A satisfactory and full
explanation of these feelings cannot be given to
those who have no experience of them, as is the
case with all matters of experience. Paul said,
very truly, Col. iii. 3, " Your (the true Chris
tian's) life in God, (i. e., your divine life, which
is acceptable to Gpd — yeur happy life as Chris
tians,) like the present life ef Christ in heaven,
in the full enjeyment ef happiness, is ccncealed
(xsxpvittai) from the great multitude of men ;"
they do not regard it as happy or desirable be
cause they have ne taste for it.

418

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

II. Happiness and Peace of Mind, and a joyful
Prospect of the Future.
We owe to Christ, according to the doetrine
of the New Testament,
(1) Inward peace and happiness. These
spring from the firm conviction that through
Christ we have obtained from God the forgive
ness of sin, and from the joyful consciousness
of the power of God, and his approbation of our
feelings and conduct. This state of mind is
frequently expressed in the New Testament by
itap"prjgla, cheerful confidence in God, in opposition
to an anxious and slavish fear of punishment.
Thus Heb. iv. 16, itpogspxaus^a fiEfd itafipr/gias
tip §pbv& tijs zdpif °s, " We may now with joyful
confidence expect unmingled good from God,
and supplicate him for^it." 1 John, iv. 17,
itafipygiav exeiv iv quipa xpigsas, to be able to
look forward to the day of judgment with cheer
fulness. Cf. 1 John, iii. 20, 21, peace of God,
or with God. Rom. v. 1, 2, Eiprjvr/j' npbs tbv
®sav sxoasv, Sixaia^svtss — itpogayayiiv sis #apw
©eov, &c. Ver. 11," We can at all times rejoice
in the assurance of divine favour, (xov^ofiE^a iv
®E9 ;) and this, Christ by his atonement has en
abled us to do." By this assurance and confi
dence the soul of the true Christian comes to
such a firm, steadfast, and composed frame, as
enables him to endure unmoved the greatest
trials. He is deeply convinced that the greatest
adversities contribute to his highest good, and
are the means which God, as a kind father, em
ploys for the welfare of his children, whom he is
educating not merely for this short life, but for
eternity, Rom. v. 3 ; viii. 28, 32.
(2) The most cheerful prospect of the future, or
a certain hope of our future blessedness. One
great object of Christian instruction is, to
awaken, confirm, and cherish this hope. It is
always used as a motive to diligence in holi
ness, to self-denial, and to steadfastness in all
the sufferings and adversities of the present life.
Rom. v. 2, ixitis So^ijs ®soi — i. e., of the divine
•rewards. Rom. viii. 17, 18, 24, seq. ; 1 Pet. i.
3 ; 2 Cor. vii. 1, 4, 8, seq. All this is every
where connected with the history of the person
of Jesus in his humiliation and exaltation ; and
confirmation of the views now given is drawn
from his sufferings and death, as Heb. ix. 15;
from his resurrection and subsequent exaltation, as
John, vii. 28; xvii. 24; 1 Thess. v. S— 10. By
his death we are delivered from death. His re
surrection and his exalted station are pledges to
us that he will actually perform all that he pro
mised, and will bring us to that place to which
he has gone before — to our proper heme, and our
Father's house.
Wre ought not, however, in hope of the future
¦vorld, to forget the present. W i should re

member that God designs that we should live
for the present world, and that our happiness
hereafter depends upon our good improvement
of the time now allotted us. Faith in Christ
and grateful obedience to all his requirements
should render us happy even here. 1 Tim. iv. 8,
svgij3sia — iitayysxlav (sxsi) £uijs tijs viv xai tijs
psxxoigris. This cheerfulness and joy which
so visibly distinguish the pious Christian, and
more than ever in the midst of sufferings and
adversities, often compel those who are without
to wish that they were as pious and as enviably
happy as they see him to be. Many are in the
case of King Agrippa, (Acts, xxvi. 28,) who con
fessed that but little was wanting to persuade him
to become a Christian. But they stop here, be
cause they are unwilling to employ the simple
means necessary for obtaining the Christian cha
racter, and dread to sacrifice their sinful pro
pensities. SECTION CXX.
THE HAPPINESS WHICH CHRISTIANS OBTAIN
THROUGH CHRIST IN THE FUTURE LIFE.
This subject also is placed in the New Testa
ment in the most intimate connexion with the
history of the person of Jesus Christ and is de
duced from it. He is the procurer of this happi
ness. This subject needs only to be briefly and
summarily stated here ; since the scripture doc
trine respecting the happy and unhappy condi
tion of men after death will be more fully exhi
bited, s. 147, et seq.
I. Our Deliverance from Death obtained through
Christ.
Death is always represented in the New Tes
tament as the effect and consequence of sin.
Now since Christ has delivered from the conse
quences and punishment of sin, he must also be
regarded as the cause of our deliverance from
death. The resurrection of the dead — i. e., the
complete restoration of the whole man, both as
to soul and body, is a blessing for which the
human race is indebted, according to the New
Testament, to Christ. Vide John, xi. 25 ; 1 Cor.
xv. 22. The resurrection of the dead was gene
rally believed among the Jews at the time of
Christ and the apostles, and only the Sadducees
denied it. But Christianity gave tp this doctrine
a new support and sanction. It now became.
intimately connected with the religion of Jesus
and with the history of his person, like every
thing else relating to the deliverance and welfare
of man.
(1) Christ and the apostles have the merit
which is unquestionably great, of casting new
light upon the doctrine of life beyond the grave,
and the future restoration of the whole man, and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 419

giving it a certainty it never had before. They
exhibited this truth in such a way that on one
side it serves for the comfort and consolation of
mankind, and on the other, to urge powerfully
to the practice of goodness and holiness in the
present life. Vide Heb. ii. 15; 1 Thess. iv.
13, 18; 1 Cor. xv. 30, 57, 58'; Acts, xxiv.
14 — 16. Paul therefore says, very truly, 2
Tim. i. 10, that Christ is tyutigas fu7;v xai
dqfeapglav Sid tov E-vayyEXiov — 1. e., by his in
structions he brought to light, and clearly and
infallibly revealed, the doctrine of a happy im
mortality. (2) But this doctrine is intimately connected
in the New Testament with the history of the
person of Christ. According to the New Testa-.
ment we are indebted for our hope of a future
restoration to life by the resurrection,
(a) To the death of Christ. For the deliver
ance of man from every kind of misery, and
from all the punishment of sin, and consequently
from death, is always derived in the New Tes
tament from the death ef Jesus. Vide s. 111.
The clearest passage of this kind is Hebrews, ii.
14, " Christ became man in order to take away
(fw» xaf apyTjSfl) by his death the power of him
whoistheauthorofdeath,iAedem7," (from whom
death and every calamity is derived, since he is
regarded as the author of sin, which brought
death in its train. Vide 1 Cor. xv. 56.) Here
belongs also the passage, Rom. v. 14 — 19, where
Christ is compared with Adam. Adam brought
death into the world by his disobedience, Christ
brought in life by his obedience, (vrfaxorj, willing
obedience to the divine will, especially to the
divine purpose that he should suffer and die for
us.) The same thing is briefly expressed, 1 Cor.
xv. 21, thus : — " As Adam was the cause of the
death of all men, so all owe it to Christ that they
shall be raised at the last." This corresponds
with the language, ver. 55, ^dvafos xatsitb^n sis
wxos, death overcome (by him), henceforth eeases ;
and also with 2 Tim. i. 10, xafapyr/aas tbv^dvo-
tov, taking away the power of death, vanquishing
it — i. e., freeing men from it, and awaking them
to eternal life. And in the Revelation of John,
the victory of Christ is made to consist princi
pally in the fact that through him death ceased to
be ; Rev. xxi. 4, ^waf os oix 'igtiv sti, or, was cast
into the lake of fire, xx. 14 — i. e., was removed
and able no more te hurt.
Note. — The Bible mentiens it as pne pf the
olessings resulting from the werk pf Christ, that
all mankind will be raised by him — e. g., 1 Cor.
xv. 21, 22, coll. John, v. 21, seq., and conse
quently the wicked as well as the good. Some
theolpgians, indeed, have ebjected to considering
resurrection in the case of the impenitent as a
blessing, and have rather regarded it as a punish
ment. But a great value is ascribed in the Bible

to mere existence, even in the present life, where
we live in the midst of so many evils and adver
sities. Life in itself is always more valuable
than non-existence, or annihilation; although it
seems that for some men it would have been
better never to have been born ; as Christ him
self says, doubtless in the language of a current
proverb, Matt. xxvi. 24. Now although the
wicked are te be punished in the future world
through their own fault, the preservation of their
life does not on this account cease to be a bless
ing; still tess is it changed itself into a punish
ment, by the punishments which will be conse
quent upon it. The ancient fathers, Athana
sius, Augustine, Theodoret, Hilarius, and others,
understood the subject very much in this way.
(4) To the resurrection of Christ. Morus, p.
175, s. 3.
The New Testament teaches, that from the
resurrection of Christ we may and should argue
the possibility and reality of our own. Was God
able to raise Christ, and did he actually raise
him, from the dead ; he is both able to raise us,
and will actually do so. The resurrection of
Christ is therefore a sensible confirmation of the
doctrine of our resurrection. So Paul argues,
1 Cor. xv. 12 — 20. In Acts, iv. 2, it is said that
the apostles taught through Jesus the resurrection
of the dead — i. e., by his example. As God
raised up Christ in order to confer upon him a
reward in heaven, we are to share in the same
reward and happiness, and to be with Christ.
We can therefore be certain of our resurrection ;
1 Thess. iv. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 14; 1 Peter, i. 21.
Christ is therefore called ditapxii xsxoipijpsvav,
1 Cor. XV. 20, 23, and itpatotoxos ix tav vsxpdv,
the first that rose, Col. i. 18, because he must be
iv itagi itpatsvav. Cf. progr. " de nexu resurrec-
tionis Jesu Christi mortuis et mortuorum," in
scripta varii argument!, N. ix.
(c) To the more perfect condition of Christ in
heaven. Christ and the apostles everywhere
teach that it is the will of God that Christ should
continue and complete in heaven the great work
which he commenced on earth for the restoration
of the human race. He has therefore empowered
Christ to raise the dead and to hold a day of judg
ment, with which Christ will accomplish his
great work for the good of man. He himself de
clares this, John, v. 21, 25 — 29, and represents
this charge as entrusted to him by the Father.
In John, xi. 25, he says, iya dpi r} avdgt asi$ xai
v fur) — i. e., the cause of the resurrection and
vivification of men, he to whom they are indebted
for this ; cf. ver. 26. Paul says, Rom. xiv. 9, that
by his death and resurrection he has shewn
himself to be Lord (xvpisvsw) of the dead and
living; and I Cor. xv. 25, 26, he will conquer
and disable death, the last enemy of the human
race. Cf. s. 98, 99.

420

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

[I. Our Deliver vice from Punishment after Death,
and our Happiness' in the Future World obtained
through Christ.
The consequences and punishment of sin
continue even into the future world ; and it is
there first, according to the scriptures, that the
positive punishments of sin are completely in
flicted. Now Christ has not only freed us from
these punishments (eternal condemnation) on
certain conditions to be fulfilled by us, (vide
Romans, v. 9; 1 Thess. i. 10, jruousvos fads ditb
tijs bpyijs tijs Ipxapsvys 0 but we owe to him our
whole welfare and blessedness in the future
world, (fur) aiavios.) There the happiness be
gun in the present life will continue and be per
fected, and everything by which it is now in
terrupted will be removed. Besides, according
to the New Testament, we may expect that
God will there confer positive blessings and re
wards. Paul says, 1 Thess. v. 9, s^rsto r/uas b
©eos ovx eis bpyijv, dxx' sis itspntolnaiv ffufr/pias
(the attainment of happiness) Std Xpisfov.
But how do we attain this happiness through
Christ? (I) By the doctrine of Christ. This gives us
(a) Information respecting the nature of future
happiness, so far as we are now capable of un
derstanding it. Vide 1 Timothy, i. 10; 1 Cor.
xv. (4) Direction how we may obtain the pos
session of it. The religion of Christ derives
motives to piety and godliness from the bless
edness of the future world, shews us the means
by which we may attain it, and prepares us for
it. John, iii. 16; vi. 51; 1 John, ii. 25, the
great end of the Christian religion (E7tayyEV\.ia)
is to give men fur) aiiirios. By the Christian
doctrine, and obedience to it, we are made
(through divine assistance) to resemble the
holiness and righteousness of Christ in this
world, in order that we may hereafter be re
warded, as he is; 1 John, iv. 17; 2 Thess. ii.
13, 15; iv. 14. Hence the Christian doctrine
itself is called £»tj and fur; aiavios, because it
shews bSbv £uijs ; John, xvii. 3. But,
(2) Our enjoyment of this happiness is de
scribed as principally owing to Christ's death
and subsequent exaltation, (a) Our entire free
dom from misery and our being placed in a
happy condition is ascribed to the death of
Christ, (vide No. I.,) and consequently the
happiness of the future state must also be a
consequence of this event. Heb. ix. 15, " We
obtain through the death of Christ litayysXiav
alavlov xXrpovoulas." 1 Thess. v. 10, "He died
for us," Iva gvv aitu ^aapsv. (b) Since Christ
is exalted in heaven, he cares for the good of
men. He is oXtios gatrjplas aiavlov tols vitaxov-
ovow avfip itdgi, Heb. v. 9, coll. vii. 25. And
as he has received power from the Father to
raise the dead and hold a day of judgment, he

has also received charge from him to distribute
rewards to the righteous and to introduce his
followers into the abodes of the blessed. Vide
Matt. xxv. 32, seq. ; John, x. 28, 29, £u»)«/ aio-
«o»> SlSapi avtols, xvii. 2; 2 Tim. iv 18, ef
seq.

ARTICLE XI.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CONDITIONS OF
SALVATION.

This Article, and the following, exhibit the man
ner in which Christians may attain to the promised
happiness. The Eleventh Article treats of the con
ditions which the Christian doctrine prescribes to
men, and which must be performed by them if they
would actually enjoy this blessedness. These con
ditions are, repentance and faith. The Twelfth
Article treats of the assistances by which God ena
bles men to perform the prescribed conditions, or,
technically speaking, De operationibus gratix, sive
de ceconomia gratix.

SECTION CXXI.
ON THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF "FAITH," AS
THE ONLY CONDITION OF SALVATION; TOGE
THER WITH REMARKS RESPECTING THE SALVA
TION OF THE HEATHEN AND OF INFANTS.
I. Outline of the Christian Doctrine respecting
Faith ,- the origin and ground of the same.
(1) Jesus and the apostles, in the instruc
tions which they give to adults who are ac
quainted with the Christian doctrine, always
insist chiefly on faith in Jesus Christ as the
great condition of obtaining the salvation pur
chased by Christ. The whole happiness of the
Christian (his Sixaioavvr; and gatrjpla) is de
rived from this sin'gle source ; and the unbeliever
(aitigtrjgas) loses this happiness, and brings
upon himself misery, (aitaXsia, xofdxpisis;)
Mark, xvi. 16; Romans, i. 17; iii. 21, 22.
"the gospel makes known the determination
of God to forgive all who believe on Jesus
Christ, on account of their faith, (ex or Sid trts
itlgtsas ;)" Hebrews, x. 38, 39, seq.
(2) The doctrine of faith is therefore inse
parably connected with the doctrine of th«
atonement and of justification. The latter caD
be obtained only through faith. Therefore, cf
s. 108, where the plan of this doctrine is stated.
We are led even by natural religion to the
following points : — " Man must regard himself
as morally imperfect, and in such a way, too,
as to imply guilt on his own part; or, which is
the same thing, he must acknowledge himself
to be a sinner, a transgressor of the divine pre
cepts. He must acknowledge that he ought to

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 421

avoid and abhor sin, place his confidence in the
mercy of God, hope for pardon and forgiveness
from him, and that he ought to form and execute
the serious purpose of obeying the divine pre
cepts and living acceptably to God." This
might be called the faith of reason. But this
philosophical faith is wanting in that certainty
and evidence which is necessary to tranquillize
the mind; it is insufficient to satisfy those whose
consciences are awakened ; as we have before
shewn, s. 108. Experience teaches that a faith
of this general nature is not able to answer those
feelings which rise in the inmost soul even of
the best of men. There must be something po
sitive and historical upon which they can rely;
some express assurance from God of his for
giveness ; or they will be left in the most dis
tressing uncertainty. The greater part of the
human race, in all nations, are therefore united
in believing that something must be done in
order to conciliate the favour of God to sinners,
and to induce him to forgive their past offences ;
and also that their mere reformation, and their
living in the practice of virtue, imperfect as
their goodness will always be, is insufficient to
secure the divine forgiveness, and can afford no
quieting assurance that pardon is obtained. Vide
s. 108. Now Christianity rejects all the means
of conciliating the favour of God, in which the
great body of men place their confidence, and
which were common among Jews and Gentiles
at the time of Christ. It regards them as af
fording false grounds of peace, and as being in
jurious to morality ; and in place of them incul
cates faith in Jesus Christ, and the atonement
made by him, and makes this, exclusive of the
personal deserts of believers, the sole ground of
all the benefits which they enjoy.
In this manner, the doctrine respecting the
conditions of salvation is brought into the closest
connexion with the other positive doctrines of
Christianity, and especially 'with the history of
the person of C hrist To the greater part of man
kind this scriptural faith possesses far more in
terest, evidence, and certainty, than a merely
philosophical faith can ever give. The latter
mustbeforeverattended with uncertainty, doubt,
and fear of the reverse of what is hoped for.
And this uncertainty and fear may become, in
moments of suffering and adversity, extremely
disturbing, and perhaps lead to obstinate de
spair. For we cannot obtain from philosophy any
express assurance of the will of God relative to
our forgiveness. Again : the scriptural account
of faith in Christ as the only contlition of sal
vation excludes wholly all the false motives to
duty which are so injurious to true morality.
The essentials of the scriptural doctrine on this
point, and their connexion with each other, may
be clearly seen in the following statement.
The Christian should strive after the greatest

possible moral perfection, (likeness to God.)
This effort should result from willing obedience
to God, and this again from thankful /ove to
God, and confidence in him, and not from slavish
fear of punishment; 1 John, iv. 18, 19. But
this love, this grateful confidence, cannot exist
unless man is convinced that God is graciously
disposed towards him, and will forgive his sins.
God does not forgive sins, however, on account
of good works, self-inflictions, sacrifices, &c,
but on account of Christ; s. 108. We must
therefore believe that Christ by his death has
procured forgiveness and salvation. But would
we come to the actual enjoyment of the promised
forgiveness, we are under indispensable obliga
tions to live henceforward in the strictest ob
servance of the divine "commands from grateful
love to God and to Christ. Consequently we
must become familiarly acquainted with the
divine precepts and must regulate our whole
conduct according to them ; and how to do this
we are fully taught in the Christian doctrine.
And thus faith as much involves our doing the
divine will, as it does our knowing it.
The personal enjoyment and possession of
forgiveness and saving grace, and of the whole
sum of Christian blessedness which God has
promised to bestow, is called applicatio gratix,
and the condition on which we obtain these
blessings (conditio gratix) is faith. Vide Morus,
p. 197, seq., s. 1, 2. Those who enjoy these
blessings are called in the scriptures by dif
ferent names. Vide Morus, p. 197, note 3.
Cf. Tollner, Wahre Griinde warum Gott den
Glauben an Christum will, in his " Vermischte
Aufsatze," th. ii. st. 2.
II. On the Salvation of Heathen and of Children.
(1) When treating of the conditions of salva
tion established in the Christian scheme, we
speak in reference to Christians — i. e., those
who have opportunity and capacity to become
acquainted with Christianity, and to convince
themselves of its truth, without undertaking to
say what means for attaining salvation God
may give those who are ignorant of Christian
ity, or who remain unconvinced of its truth
through unintentional mistake, and without
criminality on their part. God is not limited
to one single method, which he is compelled to
employ equally at all times and among all men.
The Bible says, indeed, that God will punish
the heathen on account of their sins ; not, how
ever, because they did not believe in Jesus
Christ, if this was not their fault, but because
they did not act agreeably to the knowledge
which they possessed, and the law of nature
with which they were acquainted ; Rom. i. 21,
seq.; Ephes. ii. 1, 2. The holy scripta.^
therefore, never regard the heathen merely as
such, as excluded from salvation Such pas-
2N

422

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

sages as Mark, xvi. 16, do not relate to the
heathen who are innocently ignorant of the
gospel. .The word ditigtsiv does not signify
not to believe, but to Disbelieve, and always im
plies guilt. The conclusion sometimes drawn
from such passages is as improper as it would
be to conclude from 2 Thess. iii. 10 that the
child and the infirm man should be left to pe
rish by hunger; as Heilmann well observes.
No one will ever be condemned for guiltless
ignorance, or for unintentional and innocent
mistake; but only for guilty rejection and con
tempt of the truth, or for living contrary to the
truth when once known. What Mark expresses
by ditigtsiv, John expresses by fir) mgtsisiv,
(to be unbelieving,) John, iii. 18 ; xii. 47, 48 ;
and these two modes of expression are synony
mous. Vide John, iii. 36. Hence ditigtla and
ditsfesia were frequently interchanged as syno
nymous, Rom. iii. 3 ; xi. 20, 23, 30. Now the
df£i^ovvf£s or-cwtifffowfES are (a) the unbeliev
ing, those who do not receive the words and
declarations of another as true, who do not give
them credit; (4) the disobedient, obstinate, (con-
iumaces;) in which sense Xenophon and other
classical writers use the word ditigtsiv. Now
the terms, ditsfeslv Xpifff 9, ditigtsiv, fir) itigtsv-
sw, a%stsiv Xpifffdv, are used in the New Tes
tament to designate those who are disobedient
to Christ, and do not follow his precepts, always
implying guilt on their part. This is done in
two ways: (a) by despising and rejecting Chris
tianity when it is once made known, or when
opportunity is given for understanding and exa
mining it; Rom. iii. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 11 ; (/3) by liv
ing in opposition to Christian truth when it is
understood and embraced, and by neglecting
its precepts. Vide Tit. i. 16. In both of these
cases there is guilt; and hence punishment
(xafdxpiffis) ensues. The word unbelief, there
fore, often designates at the same time these
two kinds of guilt — e. g,, Mark, xvi. 16; John,
iii. 18—21 ; xii. 47, 48.
Those heathen, now, who do not belong to
one or the other of these classes, are not dis4e-
lievers, though they may not believe in Christ.
Upon such, therefore, condemnation is not pro
nounced in these passages. They are not in
deed obedient to Christ, nor yet disobedient.
Thus one who is not the subject of a certain
king may not indeed be obedient to his laws,
either because he is ignorant of them, or not
bound in duty to obey them ; but he cannot on
this account be called disobedient. Disobedience
always presupposes an obligation to obedience.
(2) God has not seen good as yet to bring
all nations to the knowledge of Christianity.
And, little capable as we are of understanding
the plan of God in this respect, we ought not to
conclude from this circumstance that the Chris-
-ian revelation is unnecessary and may easily

be dispensed with. It has pleased God to leave
many nations for thousands of years in a barba
rous and savage state. But can we conclude
from this fact that intellectual cultivation and
moral improvement are superfluous and useless,
and therefore missions are unnecessary? Nor,
on the other hand, can we conclude from this
circumstance that God cannot save the heathen
because they have not enjoyed the light of
Christian revelation. Human happiness has as
many degrees and gradations as human cultiva
tion and refinement of manners, and all men are
not capable of one and the same degree. They
cannot all, therefore, be treated by God in the
same manner. One thing may be indispensable
to the happiness of some persons and of some
nations, while to others the same thing is quite
superfluous, because they are as yet incapable
of enjoying the happiness arising from it. It is
not said in direct words in the New Testament,
that God will make the heathen eternally happy.
If this were said, there are many who would
pervert it. But it is expressly asserted that
God does not demand more from any one than
he is able with his knowledge and abilities tc
perform ; Luke, xii. 48, seq. ; and also, that he
who faithfully serves God according to the
knowledge and means which he enjoys, and
does what he considers to be his duty, is accept
able to him; Acts, x. 35. Cf. Morus, p. 129,
note 9. According to the testimony of the holy
scriptures, God will have reference, in deter
mining the character and conditions of men, to
the knowledge they have had, the dispositions
they have cherished, and the actions they have
performed. We may confidently expect from
the goodness of -God that since he has hereto
fore given to so many nations only the light of
nature, he will not make them miserable for the
want of that higher knowledge of which they
are innocently destitute. And since there is a
future life, we may trust that he will there lead
them to that higher degree of happiness and
clearness of knowledge which they did not at
tain in this life, because, without fault of their
own, they were here incapable of receiving it
To such a dispensation in the future world there
is at least an allusien in Rev. xxii. 2, inthe tree
of life, by the river of life, whose leaves serve sis
^£pa7t£iav f av t$-vuv.
The great bedy pf the Jews, from the earliest
ages, denied salvation to the heathen, on the
principle, Extra ecclesiam non dari salutem.
But this is entirely opposite both to the Old
Testament and to the spirit of Christianity.
Even Mahommed did not go to this degree of
exclusiveness. Nor did the more ancient Gre
cian fathers deny salvation to the heathen,
although they philosophized about it after their
manner. E. g., Justin the Martyr and Clement
of Alexandria held that the Adyo$ exerted an

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 42?

tgency upon the heathen by means of reason ;
and that the heathen philosophers were called,
justified, and saved by philosophy. But after
wards, especially after the third century, when
the false Jewish notions respecting the church
(s. 134) were introduced into the West, and the
maxim was adopted, Extra ecclesiam nan dari
salutem, (which was the case after the age of
Augustine,) they then began to deny the salva
tion of the heathen ; though there were always
some who judged more favourably. Thus
Zwingli, Curio, and others, believed that God
would pardon the heathen on account of Christ,
although in this life they had no knowledge of
his merits. Cf. the historical account in Bey-
kert's Diss, "de salute gentium;" Strasburg,
1777 ; and a short statement of the opinions of
others in Morus, p. 128, 129, where he justly
recommends to our imitation the exemplary
modesty of the apostles when speaking on this
point. The whole subject was investigated
anew on oceaeion of the violent attack which
Hofstede, a preacher in Holland, made upon
the Belisaire of Marmontel. This gave rise to
Eberhard's" Apologie des Soerates." Cf. also
Tollner, Beweis dass Gott die Menschen auch
durch seine Offenbarung in der Natur zur Se-
ligkeit fiihre; Zullichau, 1766, 8vo. Many
modern writers have treated this subject in such
a way as to lead to a feeling of indifference
towards Christianity; but this result need not
be feared from the scriptural representation here
given. (3) We must apply these same principles to
the subject of the salvation of infants. None
have ever really doubted respecting the salva
tion of those who have died in infancy, before
they attained'to the full use of their understand
ing. For since there is a future life, we may
expect with certainty that God will make such
provision there, that both children in the literal
sense, and those who are children in under
standing and knowledge, will be able to obtain
what they were here deprived of without their
own fault; and that in his goodness, wisdom,
and justice, he will bestow upon them that de
gree of happiness of which they are capable.
Theologians have pursued two different me
thods in treating of this subject.
(a) Some are content with saying that God
will pardon and save infants on account of the
merits of Christ, which extend to all, although
they may not have believed in Christ during
their life-time; and that their being born with
natural depravity will not harm them, because
they themselves are not to blame for it. These
writers refer to Rom. v. 15 — 17 for an analo
gous proceeding. This is the most simple and
the safest view.
(4) Others, misunderstanding the passage,
Mark, xvi. 16, suppose that faith in Christ is

an indispensable requisite for salvation in all
men ; and have therefore (together with some
schoolmen) embraced the doctrine of a faith if
infants, which they have variously explained
and described, as fides prsesumpta, implicita, per
baptismwm sine verba (some say, sine cognitione)
infusa; talis qffeclioin infante qualis Deo placet.
The schoolmen describe it as dispositio ad jus-
titiam. But none of them succeed in.conveying
any intelligible idea. Nothing is said in the
New Testament about such a faith. Faith
always presupposes knowledge, and power to
exercise the understanding. Now since chil
dren have neither of these requisites, faith can
not be ascribed to them ; nor indeed disbelief,
unless the word is used very improperly. The
mere want of faith is not damnable, but unbelief
only, or the guilty destitution of faith. Those
who have adopted this view have thus been
compelled (as appears from the preceding re
marks) to- vary the idea which is uniformly
attached to the word faith when adults are re
ferred to, as soon as they speak of children, and
to call something in them by this name which
is nowhere else so denominated. The passage,
Matt, xviii. 6, does not bear upen this ppint,
since the disciples ef Christ are there meant
Cf. the Article en Baptism, s. 142, and Morus,
p. 249. From the words of Christ, however,
Matt. xix. 14, "Of such is the kingdom of
God," it is clear that he considers children as be
longing to his kingdom. And this is enough.
SECTION CXXII.
OF THE VARIOUS SIGNIFICATIONS OF THE WORD
FAITH, AS USED IN THE BIBLE ; SOME OF THE
PRINCIPAL PASSAGES RELATING TO FAITH ; THE
PARTS OF WHICH FAITH IS MADE UP; AND
SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THEOLOGICAL
DIVISIONS OF FAITH. v *
I. Significations of ninns ; and Explanation of the
principal texts relative to Faith.
The terms,failh, the faithful, &c, frequently
occur in the religious dialect even of the He
brews. They were originally taken from the
language of common life, and transferred into
the religious phraseology of the Jews, where
they express various nearly related ideas.
From this Jewish dialect Christ and the apos
tles borrowed these terms. The Hebrew words
jw, l'DNn, ruiCN, were translated by the Hellen
istic Jews (e. g., the LXX.) by the words itig-
tsvsiv, itigtis, and were also rendered in the
same way by Christ and his apostles.
jcn primarily signifies, to be firm ,- and then,
to be certain, sure, confident. Hence ruirw signi
fies, as itigtis does, aside from its religious use,
truth, faith, integrity, honour, proof (Acts, xvii.
31), and conviction, (Rom. xiv. 23.) When

424

CHKiSTIAN THEOLOGY.

things are spoken of, twin and itigtsvsw signify,
to hold them (whatever they are, events, doc
trines, laws) as certain; when persons are
spoken of, they signify, to trust in them, to rely
on their words, declarations, works. These
words were used in the same sense in reference
to persons and things, in the language of com
mon life among the Jews. In Hebrew they
were construed with the particles a or Sy. Hence
in the Septuagint and in the New Testament,
itigtsvsw is construed with sis and iv, frequently
too, as in pure Greek, with the dative — e. g.,
sis or iv Xpifff 9, f 9 Xpifff 9, siayysXiip, &c. The
term occurs for the first time, in the religious
sense, in reference to Abraham, Gen. xv. 6,
litlgtsvgE ®ssp — i. e., considered his promise as
sure, relied on it, and acted accordingly. It
frequently occurs afterwards in the Old Testa
ment — e. g., Exod. xiv. 31 ; Psalm lxxviii. 22,
32, &c
To believe, therefore; (a) when Commands,
promises, doctrines, events, are spoken of, sig
nifies, to consider and regard them as fixed and
certain ; (b) when God is spoken of, it denotes
our whole duty to him, love, confidence, and obe
dience to his commandments, because everything
which comes from him is certain and infallible;
(c) when prophets and the messengers of God
are spoken of, to believe them, means, to receive
and obey what they make known as of divine
origin and infallibly certain. This term is em
ployed in the Koran in the same way. These
main ideas are differently modified according to
the different objects which are received by us
as certain. And hence we can easily derive the
strictly religious senses in which this word is
used in the New Testament.
(1) niofis frequently signifies religion itself
and the particular doctrines of which it consists,
(fides, qux creditur, or fides objediva;) like
Iman, in the Koran, and nins in the Talmud.
It is thus used for Christianity in general, Jude,
ver. 3, 20, dyiatdtfi itlgtsi, Gal. iii. 23. Also
in the phrases ¦vrlaxor) itlgtsus, fides apostolica,
Nicxna, &c. Ndfios rtifffsios is the doctrine
which requires faith.
(2) It is more frequently used subjectively,
denoting the approbation which one gives to a
teacher, and the obedience which he yields to
his instructions, after being convinced of the
truth of his doctrine and the divinity of his mis
sion. This approbation is called in the schools,
fides qua creditur. Thus John, v. 46, jtiBfEvsn'
Muvffij ; Matt. xxi. 25, 32, 'ladvvy. When used
in the gospels in reference to Jesus it denotes
the acknowledgment of him, and obedience to
him, sometimes as a prophet, and indeed the
greatest messenger of Heaven; and sometimes
as Messiah. Hence Christians are called itig-
tsiovtss, itigtol. Synonymous with riisfEVEiv
are itsi$sg$ai, buoxoysiv XpiofcV 'Irjaovi', slvai

Xpifffov, or iv Xpifffip, Kvpio" siitsiv, 'Iijgdiv.
iitixaXslv bvopa Xpigtoi. The opposite terms
are ditigtsiv, ditsi^slv, pr\ vitaxovsiv svayysXl^
Closely connected with this is,
(3) The sense, trust, confidence, itsitol&jgis,
which arises from the conviction of the truth
and divinity of a doctrine, and is manifested in
different ways.
(a) When one is convinced of the power and
goodness of another, and therefore confidently
hopes for help and assistance at his hand, and
this not only because he is a4/e, but also will
ing to help and befriend him. This use is com
mon in profane writings, in Hebrew (nsa and
rwn), in the Septuagint, and in the New Tes
tament. Isaiah, xxviii. 16; Matt. xix. 2, &c.
This confidence is therefore sometimes express
ed by the word ixitls, Rom. v. 5, by ixni^siv,
with iv and sis, and by other similar terms.
For the same reason, the confidence one may
feel that God will enable him in an extraordi
nary manner to work a miracle, is called rfisfis
— e. g., Matthew, xvii. 20; Acts, vi. 5, 8; 1
Cor. xiii. 2. This faith is technically called
fides miraculosa — the faith of miracles.
(4) When one is convinced that another will
do what he says, (is veracious and faithful,) he
depends entirely on his.promises, and certainly
expects their fulfilment in every case, and from
this confidence complies with everything which
the other requires. Thus Abraham's faith in
God is described ; and thus the terms itigtsisui
©£9 and Ady9 ©eov are often used, Ps. cvi. 12 ;
Hab. ii. 1.
From this wider meaning has arisen the pro
per Christian sense of saving faith, which Paul
frequently uses in his epistles to the Romans
and Galatians, where he controverts the mis
take of the meritoriousness of observing the di
vine law. Here jtisfEvEii' Xpwf9 and jtiafis
denote the firm persuasion that we owe our
whole spiritual welfare to Christ °r to the free,
unmerited mercy of God on Christ's account,
and our trust in God and Christ arising from
hence, Gal. ii. 16; iii. 6; Rom. iv. 16, 'seq.
This kind of Christian faith is compared with
that of Abraham. He confided in God in the
same manner, according to the measure of his
knowledge. He relied on the promise (iitay-
ysxla, Rom. iv. 20) of God respecting a numer
ous offspring, and on the other great promises
connected with this, (although he saw the good,
as Paul says, only itbfca^sv,) without doubt
ing, (oi SiExp&r;, and Tta-r/popoprf^si's, firmly con
vinced,) though the thing promised was appa
rently improbable, (itap' ixitlba, -«>r. 18.) Now
as Abraham confided in the promise of God,
(iitlgtsvos ©eis,) Christians should also confide
in the promise of God and Christ, and look to
God for salvation and blessedness, in this life
and the life to come, in and through Christ

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 425

and not on their own account, or on the ground
of their own merit, of which they have nothing
to boast. This is what theologians call justify
ing and saving faith.
The two former senses of faith are not ex
cluded from this third signification, but are al
ways presupposed and included in it. One
who would obtain forgiveness through faith in
Christ must (a) have an acquaintance with the
Christian religion, and a persuasion of its truth ;
he must regard it as of divine authority, and
embrace it with all his heart ; and (4) he must
actually rely on the divine promises contained
in this religion, and prove the reality of his con
fidence by his feelings and actions. The latter
sense springs out of the former. How could
Abraham have confided in God if he had been
destitute of the knowledge of God, of his attri
butes, and promises? Hence when Paul would
give a complete description of true Christian
faith, he often comprises both these ideas quite
distinctly under the word itigtis, Rom. iii., iv.,
and James, ii. 19 — 24, where itigtsvsw refers
sometimes to knowledge and the assent of the
understanding, and sometimes to the confidence
which springs from them.
Note. — The passage Heb. xi. 1 has always
been considered one of the most important with
regard to the subject of faith, and so indeed it
should be, though its sense has been frequently
perverted. The meaning of this passage needs
to be distinctly exhibited. Paul here speaks of
faith, or confidence in the divine promises or
declarations, in general, especially of that exer
cised in sufferings and persecutions, (in order
to preserve Christians from apostasy,) not ex
clusive, however, of the peculiar saving faith
of the Christian, as he also hopes to obtain for
giveness and salvation through Christ. This
is taught by the examples of Rahab, Samson,
Jephthah, and others, which are mentioned.
Paul does not undertake to give a logical defi
nition of faith, but only distinctly to describe its
characteristics, without which one cannot lay
claim to the possession of faith. But this is
the very reason why the passage is so worthy
of note, and so practically useful ; for it shews
what is requisite to faith in general, according
to Paul's ideas, of it, and what traits it must al
ways possess, however different may be the
objects to which it is directed. A person shews
his faith by being firmly and unhesitatingly
convinced, on the mere testimony of God, (1)
with respect to things which are not actually
present with, us and in our possession (lxiti£b-
usva) — e. g., future deliverance, future blessed
ness, promised by God, of whatever kind it may
be, temporal or spiritual; (2) with respect to
things beyond the reach of our senses, (ov
fiXsitbusva.) 'Titogtagis and sXsyxos are synony-
raous in this passage, and signify firma persua-
54

sio. Paul himself explains his meaning in ver.
6 : the pious man must believe that God exists,
(although he does not see him,) and that he will
reward his worshippers, (although the reward
is not immediate.) Here therefore both know
ledge and assent to the truth, and the confidence
which is the result of them, are requisite, in
order to the existence of faith in the wider sense
in which it is here used.
II. Theological Divisions of Faith ,- and the parts
of which it is composed.
(1) The Bible frequently says respecting one
who professes Christianity, that he has faith in
Christ. Vide No. 1. But this faith is twofold.
One may understand and externally profess the
doctrines of Christianity without obeying them
or feeling their transforming influence upon his
heart; or he may apply them, according to their
design, to the improvement of his heart and the
sanctification of his dispositions; in short, he
may do all that God requires of him in the
Christian doctrine. The faith of the former is
called fides externa, historica, or theoretica; that
of the latter, fides interna, habitualis, salvifica,
(salutary, saving, ffufr/pios.) The former kind
of faith, disconnected with the latter, is some
times called dead faith, because it is ineffectual,
and contributes nothing to our improvement or
salvation. The phrase is taken from James, ii.
17, 20, 26. The latter is called living, viva, ac-
tuosa, because it exerts a salutary influence in
promoting our happiness and true welfare.
Christian faith, in its whole extent, is there
fore a conviction of the truth and divinity of the
Christian scheme of salvation, and a conduct
conformed to this conviction. One who believes
the Christian religion in such a way as to act in
accordance with it, and who allows his affec
tions to be governed by his belief, is a true
Christian, and possesses fides salvifica. As to
one who willingly and cheerfully follows the
commandments of God and Christ, and sedu
lously conducts himself by the rules which they
have prescribed, the Bible says, either that he
is obedient to God and Christ, or he believes in
them. Hence these two terms are synonymous;
Morus, p. 201, n. 3. The definition, therefore,
which Crusius gives in the passage before
cited, is just : saving faith is a cordial approval
of, and compliance with, the divine plan of salva
tion. (2) On the different parts of which faith con
sists. Faith is made up of different parts, all of
which, however, must belong to it, in order to
its being perfect. The different objects of
Christian instruction, to which faith refers,
form the ground nf this division. There is a
faith in events, in dectrines, ccmmands, and
promises. These objects will be piuutHuarly
2n2

426

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ccnsidered in the following sectien. -Now
Christian faith, in a general view, embracing
all these cbjects, is considered by theologians
, as consisting of three parts — knowledge, assent,
and trust, or confidence, (notitia, assensus, fidu-
cia\, which will now be considered. Whenever
entire Christian faith is spoken of as compre
hending all the objects just mentioned,'" this di
vision is perfectly applicable. But all these
parts do hot belong to Christian faith as direct
ed to each particular object. They all belong
only to the faith in promises. Knowledge and
assent merely are requisite to the faith in events
and doctrines; and a will and inclination to
obey, to faith in the divine commands. To avoid
this inconvenience, faith might be made to con
sist in two particulars — knowledge, and a dispo
sition of heart correspondent to this knowledge,
(iitiyvugis xai aia^gis, Phil. i. 9,) according to
which one would be inclined to obey the divine
commands and confide in the divine promises.
Many theologians prefer this division. But in
what remains we shall follow the common
threefold division.
(a) Knowledge of the subject to be believed is,
from the very nature of the case, an essential
part of faith, of whatever kind it may be. Paul
asks, How can men believe, if they are not in
structed? (if they do not possess knowledge of
the things to be believed,) Rom. x. 14. This
knowledge cannot, indeed, in every case, be
equally thorough and comprehensive. In many
of the early Christians it was at first very gene
ral and confined, as indeed it is often still, to
some of the great elementary truths. But how
ever limited and imperfect this knowledge may
be, it always implies certainty, and must amount
to a firm conviction ; otherwise, from the very
nature of the human mind, it can produce no
effect on the will, and it ceases to he faith. For
we believe only that of which we are certain.
Cf. the terms vitbgtagis and sXsyxos, Heb. xi. 1,
and itXr)po$6psio^ai, Rom. iv. 21, where it is
contrasted with doubting; also James, i. 6.
But this conviction should be effected by rea
sons which enlighten the understanding, hy in
struction intelligible to the human mind, not by
authoritative and compulspry decisions. The
mere reception of a doctrine on the word or
command of another, without being ourselves
convinced of its truth, is not faith, but credulity.
Christ and his apostles therefore prescribe in
struction, (xvpiggsiv,) and make faith a result or
effect of instruction — e.'g., Mark, xvi. 16. And
Paul derives itigtis from dxorj, Rom. x. 17, &c.
From these remarks we can easily see how far
to admit the fides implicita of the schoolmen.
They mean by this, faith in such doctrines as
we do not understand, and of which we are not
convinced by reason, but must receive on the
mere word and authority of the church. From

these remarks, too, we can easily form an opj.
nion respecting the faith of children, for which
some contend. Vide s. 120, ad finem.
(4) Assent. This is divided into general (as*
sensus generalis), by which is meant the general
reception of known truth as credible and sure ;
and into^arfeWar (assensus specialis); by whics
is meant the special application of certain gene
ral truths of the Christian doctrine to oneself—
e. g., Christ died for men, and also for me. It
is this latter kind which more frequently pro
duces salutary feeling3 and emotions in the
soul. Vide the examples, Rom. viii. 31—39;
1 Tim. i. 15, 16; Morus, p. 201, s. 6. This is
commonly expressed in the New Testament by
SE'zES^ai and itapaSsxsg^ai, as Mark, iv. 20,
where dxovsiK implies the knowledge of the
truth, itapaSixsa^ai, assent to it, from whence
the result xap7toi}iop£ii;. 1 Thess. ii. 13, where
itapaXaufidvsiv Xbyov, merely to hear instruction,
is distinguished from Ssxsg^ai. 1 Cor. ii. 14,
the carnal man, obedient only to his passions,
dpes not assent (Ssxsg^ai) to the divine doc
trine, &c
Although assent should always be connected
with the knowledge of the truth, because the
will should be governed by the understanding,
yet we find that it is often withheld from truths
which cannot be doubted, from the prevalence
of prejudice or passion. So it was with the
contemporaries of Jesus in Palestine. They
could not deny that the miracles which he
wrought were real miracles, and yet they did
not yield him their assent. Like to these are
all who at the present day, from love to sin, re
fuse obedience to the truth which they know.
Such persons commonly endeavour to persuade
themselves and others that the cause of their
unbelief has some other ground besides their
own will ; hence they give ready credit to every
semblance of reason for doubting the truth and
divinity of Christianity.
If this assent, therefore, is genuine, it must
act on the heart of man. The will must be con
trolled and governed by the truths which the
understanding acknowledges and embraces a?
true. Otherwise this assent resembles that
which, according to James, ii. 19, we allow even
to devils. Cf. James, i. 22; Luke, viii. 13; and
Heb. iv. 2.
It will be understood, of course, that this as
sent has different degrees, respecting which we
shall say more hereafter,
(c) Trust, or confidence. Knowledge and as
sent become, in respect to the divine promises
given to Christians, confidence — i. e., a firm con
viction that the promises given by God will
surely be fulfilled. Morus, p. 202, n. 2, justly
says, " that to the assent of the understanding
there must be added a trust in that grace (of
God) by which one conducts himself conform*

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 42*

ably to this gracious promise." All the three
parts, therefore, of which faith consists, are
comprised in that faith which relates to the
divine promises; while, from the very nature
of the case, only knowledge and assent belong
to the faith relating to events, doctrines, and
commands. Here, on the contrary, from the
very nature of the subject, all the three parts
must consist together. This state of mind in
Christians is called in the New Testament
itsitofengis, itap'lingla, tXitls, x. t. X. Ephes. iii.
12; Heb. iii. 6; 1 John, ii. 28.
Note. — On the method pursued by Jesus and the
apostles in teaching the doctrines of faith. They
do not confine themselves merely to enlighten
ing the understanding (SiSaffxEH*), but, in con
nexion with this, they would, always have an
appeal made to the heart, (itapaxaXslv.) So
2 Tim. iv. 2 ; 1 Tim. iv. 13 ; 2 Cor. v. 20, &c.
They always employ the effect produced in the
understanding by truth, to move and excite the
affections of their hearers or readers. Thus their
instruction is always perfectly practical. The
beginning must indeed be always made by in
forming the understanding. For how can a man
believe or perform anything with which he is un
acquainted? Vide Rom. x. 14. But the Chris
tian teacher who is content, as is often the case,
with giving lifeless instruction to the understand-
:ng, and who supposes that the approval of the
affections will follow of course, betrays great
ignorance of human nature. For experience
proves that the state of the heart exerts a great
influence on the attention paid to truth, and on
the whole activity of the understanding. If the
heart is wanting in love for the truth, the under
standing will be very slow in coming to a clear
knowledge, just discernment, and proper esti
mation of it, and the reverse. According to the
method of Christ and his apostles, therefore,
which is adapted to the very nature of the human
soul, the teacher who labours to promote the con
viction and conversion of men, must begin at
the very outset by inculcating the most clear,
practical truths, in order that the heart may first
become favourably disposed to the truth, and
that the understanding may thus become more
susceptible of what is taught. He must then
employ again .the truths which he has thus com
municated to excite and move the affections.
And whatever knowledge is conveyed to the
mind should always be so directed by the Chris
tian teacher as to excite and move the affections.
SECTION CXXIII.
\
OF THE DIFFERENT OBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN DOC
TRINE TO WHICH FAITH REFERS ; AND THE
RELATION OF FAITH TO THE SAME.
These different objects were enumerated, s.

122, II. 2, and will now be separately consi
dered. The truths of the Christian religion which
faith embraces may be reduced to the following

I. Dodrines, and Historical Fads.
Historical facts are here classed with doctrines
because the Christian religion is founded on
facts; such, for example, as that Christ died,
rose again, &c. The firm conviction that these
doctrines or events are true is called, with re
gard to the former,^?des dogmatica, with regard
to the latter.yzdes historica, (in the more limited
sense.) For examples of the former kind, vide
Heb. xi. 2, seq.; of the latter kind, Rom. x. 9,
10; John, xx. 29; 1 Cor. xv. 3. The apostles
always placed the doctrines of Christianity in
the most intimate connexion with the person
and whole history of Christ, and in this way
gave general truths, such as the paternal love
of God, and his readiness to forgive, the author
ity of positive Christian doctrines. Vide Art.
x. Christ and the apostles teach no Christianity
independent of the person and history of Jesus
Christ. Their whole system is founded on the
fact that Christ is the great Messenger promised
by God, and that life everlasting may be ob
tained through faith in him ; and to these truths
they constantly refer; John, xx. 31. To extend
and perpetuate the knowledge of these facts all
the gospels were written, and all the apostles
laboured in their oral and written instructions.
As soon as the doctrines, laws, and promises of
Christianity are separated from the history of
Christ, they lose that positive sanction which
they must have in order to answer the demands
of the great mass of mankind. The apostles
therefore always built their instructions on the
history of Christ. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 2, 3, 14. And
the teacher who regards the directions and ex
ample of Christ and of the early Christian
teachers, and who is convinced of the import
ance of these peculiar doctrines of Christian
ity, will follow their example in this respect,
that instead of withholding these doctrines from
the youth whom he is called to instruct, he will
place them before their minds in a manner
adapted to their comprehensions. And he must
disapprove the course of some who confine their
instructions to the truths of natural religion.
But even supposing that the teacher should
doubt in his own mind respecting the import
ance of these peculiar Christian doctrines, he
ought to know, from the mere principles of hu
man nature, that the dry exhibition of the truths
of reason, without the vehicle of history, is ill
adapted for the instruction of the common people
and of the young. He ought to know, too, that
there is no history which can be used to more
advantage for the purpose of rendering the great

428

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

truths of religion evident, impressive, and prac
tical, than the history of Christ. In neglecting
this method, or objecting to it, he has considered
only one side of the subject, and while he sup
poses he is proceeding very philosophically, his
conduct is, in fact, exceedingly otherwise.
Happy the teacher who knows from his own
experience the salutary efficacy of the positive
doctrines of Christianity ! Supposing him,
however, not to have this experience, he ought,
for the reasons above given, to adopt this most
reasonable method of instruction. Cf. Muller,
Vom christlichen Religionsunterrichte ; Winter-
thur, 1809, 8vo.
But in order that the general doctrines of
Christianity may exert an influence on any one's
feelings and dispositions, he must exercise the
assensio specialis (s. 122, II.) — i. e., he must be
convinced of the applicability of these doctrines
to himself; he must appropriate and apply them
to himself; he must feel, for example, that Christ
died not only for all men, but also for him. For
our confidence in the divine promises given
through Christ and on his account must depend
on our conviction that they relate personally to
ourselves, that they are given te us. To pro
duce this conviction should be the great object
of the teacher. For religion should not be so
much the concern of the head as the interest of
the heart. II. The Divine Promises.
The divine promises constitute a very import
ant part of the Christian doctrine. The faith in
them which is required of us as Christians has
not so much respect to the promises of temporal
good as to those of spiritual and eternal good
which we may obtain through Christ and on
his account.
The following particulars may be noticed with
respect to this faith — viz.,
(1) True faith in the divine promises consists
in a confident and undoubting hope that God will
fulfil them, and will actually bestow upon us the
good which he has promised. All the three
parts of which faith consists (knowledge, as
sent, and confidence, Rom. iv. 16) belong to
this kind, s. 122. Paul illustrates the nature
of this kind of faith by the example of Abraham,
Rom. iv. 20; Gal. iii. 8, 16. Abraham had
great promises made to him (iitayysxlai), the
fulfilment of which, at the time they were given,
was quite improbable; and yet he maintained a
firm faith. We may mention here the examples
of the faith of the Israelites, John, iii. 14, coll.
Num. xxi., and Heb. iv. 1. In the last-cited
passage, faith in Christian promises is not, in
deed, the particular subject of discpurse. But
all which is true of faith in other promises of
divine favours is also true of faith in Christian
promises. The only difference in the two cases

is the difference of the objects upon which faith
fixes. The signs and characteristics of it are
the same. Vide Heb. xi. 1, (s. 122, ad finem.)
Hence Paul calls all who believe in the diviue
promises (ol ix itlgtsus,) Abraham's children —
i. e., like him, and capable of a similar reward.
(2) The promises given to Christians, as
such, have all reference to Christ; Morus, p.
203, s. 7. They are placed in the most intimate
connexion with his person and history. Christ
is therefore always described as the ground of
our faith, (fundamentum fidei.) We are taught
everywhere that Christ died for us, that on his
account God remits the punishment of sin, and
bestows upon us everlasting happiness. It is in
these divine promises that we are required to be
lieve — i. e., we must be persuaded that God will
fulfil them for us. Vide Rom. iii. 15; viii. 12,
17 ; iv. 24. Theologians call this kind of faith,
or this firm conviction that God will perform his
promises to us, and for Christ's sake be gracious
to us, the application or laying hold (apprehen-
sionem) of the merits of Christ. Both the theory
itself and this term rest upon the authority of
the New Testament, although the term >tapa-
Xapfidvsiv Xpifff ov in Col. ii. 6, signifies, to be
informed respecting Christ and his religion, to
hear Christian doctrines. This idea is com
monly denoted by the terms, 7tifffEV£ii> f£ ?.o-/9
fov 5f avpov, sis i^a^svta, x. t. x. Vide Moras,
p. 203, n. 1. But in John, i. 12, the term Xau-
fidvsiv Xpiof bv is used to denote this self-apply
ing faith, for it is directly explained by the term
7tlfff£VElV. (3) The result of this confident faith in the di
vine promises is the possession or enjoyment of
the promised good, or the reward. God is not
only able to perform his promises; he is likewise
true and infallible. But he never makes promises
to men on the ground of their desert, for they
have none ; but all his promises are uTidesersed.
Ho gives them, indeed, on condition of faith
(Sid itlgtsus), Rom. iv. 4, 16; but yet Sapsdv
and xard a;dpi>», and not as Styslx^ua. This
truth is thus expressed in the same connexion
(ver. 3); a man's observing the divine law can
not be imputed to him as a merit, but faith
only Xoyi^stai sis Sixaiosvi^n. Cf. Gen. xv. 6.
For obedience to the divine law is what we owe.
Ncr can we find anywhere, even in the greatest
saint, an obedience so perfect as to satisfy con
science. Now since Christians are to have
good bestowed upon them through Christ, and
on account of faith in the divine promises, and
since this good is commenced in the removal of
punishment, or the forgiveness of sin (justifi
cation, pardon), this faith is called justifying
(justificam); as Paul says, in the passage cited,
SixaiovfiET/oi SupEax Sid tijf itlgtsus. Paul illus
trates this by the example of Abraham. His
faith in the divine promises was impute*! to him

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 429

by God as a merit — 1. 1,., he was rewarded on
account of his faith. The, promises made to
him of a favoured posterity and the possessien
of Canaan were fulfilled to him as a reward.
In Heb. xi. 31, Paul illustrates this by the ex
ample of Rahab. Her faith (a firm conviction
that the God of the Israelites is omnipotent, and
would fulfil his promises to the Israelites, and
give them the land of Canaan) was the occasion
of her being pardoned, and not perishing with
the rest of the Canaanites, ov gwaituXsto tois
dnsi&igagi, or, as James says (ii. 25), £'Sixaiu#7i.
In this case, indeed, the object of faith is differ
ent from the object of Christian faith. But the
result (reward) is the same ; and the character
istics of it are the .same. In the case of Rahab,
the good bestowed was earthly and temporal;
in the other, spiritual and eternal.
ITI. The Divine Laws or Precepts.
Since to believe, in the large sense, is the same
as to receive and obey the Christian doctrine in
all its parts; its laws and rules of action must
be as perfectly acknowledged and received as its
promises. (1) Statement of the doctrine of the New Tes
tament on this subject. One who believes the
divine promises receives the good promised on
account of his faith ; but it is not optional with
him to receive this part only of the Christian
doctrine, and to refuse obedience to the laws
which it prescribes. No one can say, / will
hold fast to the promises, and leave the observance
of the law to others. These two- things cannot
be separated ; and they are both implied in ie-
lieving' in Christ, or the gospel. Christ and the
apostles everywhere teach that the observance
of the precepts of Christianity, or holiness, can
not be separated from faith in Christ. Obedi
ence is the fruit of faith. Matt. vii. 21, "He
only who does the will of my Father can enter
into the kingdom of heaven." John, xv. 14;
Luke, vi. 46 — 49; 1 John, ii. 3 — 6, which is
the most decisive text. Paul expresses himself
in the same manner on this subject, Gal. v. 6;
Ephes. iv. 22, and here certainly he does not
contradict James. The latter is very explicit on
this subject, especially in the second chapter of
his epistle, where he remonstrates against the
perversions of the doctrine of faith, as if a mere
knowledge and cold assent to the truth, a dead
faith in Christ, disconnected with the practice
of holiness, could be sufficient.
This disposition of the Christian to live in
entire conformity with the precepts of the Chris
tian doctrine is called 9pot<r;f*a itvsvpatos, Ro
mans, vii. 6, 7, 18 — i. e., the renewed temper
produced by God, by means of Christianity,
the holiness, love, and zeal for virtue produced
in the Christian by the Holy Spirit. It is op
posed to <j> pbvvpa gapxbs — i. e., the disposition to

live according to sinful propensities. This dis
position is everywhere ascribed to God, or to
the Holy Spirit, as the author of Christianity,
the guide of the pious, and the promoter of all
Christian perfection. In Romans, viii. 1, this
state is described by the phrase itspiitatslv xata
itvsiaa, and in ver. 9, by itvsipa Xpifffov, a
Christian state of mind, a disposition like that
of Christ, and for which we are indebted to his
assistance and instructions. In 1 John, iii. 24,
the same term is used. In Gal. v. 22, the term
xaprtos itvsvfiatos is used, denoting Christian
virtues, actions proceeding from a heart renewed
by the Holy Spirit, through the influence of
Christianity. In Rom. vi. 6, &c, this charac
ter is called, metaphorically, xaivos di-^piortos,
and the renunciation of the previous love and
habit of sinning is called fiEfd^oia, the putting
off of the old man, &c, which will be further
considered hereafter. Faith in the divine pro
mises, thus connected with obedience to Chris
tian precepts, or holiness, is called living, or
active faith, viva, aduosa, operosa, pradica. Paul
himself speaks of a faith (Si' dydrt)7s) ivspyovpsvri,
Gal. v. 6.
(2) On the use of the words law aTid gospel,
in the Bible and in theology, and inferences from
it. Morus treats this subject as an Appendix
to c. 3, p. 238—244.
(a) When the words j<dfios and ypdppa are
used in the New Testament in opposition to
svayyixiov and itvsipa, the former do not mean
precepts respecting the conduct of men in gene
ral ; nor the latter merely the promises (iitayys-
xlai) given to Christians. But vbpas and ypdfifia
frequently denote the Mosaic law, or the whole
Old-Testament institute and religion ; E'voyyE-
kiov, itvsifia, and other similar terms, the whole
Christian doctrine, its commands as well as its
promises. Thus, e. g., the sermon on the Mount,
Matt, v., is purely evangelical, even in the pre
cepts respecting conduct which it contains ;
John, i. 17; Rom. viii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 6; iv. 6,
seq. ; Morus, p. 240, s. 4.
This will help us to explain many of the texts
in which the apostles speak of the great advan
tages which the gospel has over the law ; where
they say the law was imperfect, was not design
ed for all men in all ages, is not obligatory on
Christians, and is supplanted by Christianity.
Much like this is found in Rom. iii., iv., vii.,
viii., and Gal. iii.
But the schoolmen, and many theologians
who followed them, did not distinguish accu
rately between the various senses of the words"
vopos and siayysXiov in the New Testament.
And notwithstanding it is clearly asserted that
the whole Mosaic institute, as such, is super
seded by Christianity (vide s. 118, II.), yet
many held the opinion that the law given on
Mount Sinai was designed, as far as its moral

430

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

part is concerned, for the whole world, and is
obligatory at all times, even en the greund nf
its having been there given. They understand
the Christian law and the law of Moses to be sy-
npnympus, and believe that the Mesaic law, as
such, (the ceremenial part nnly excepted,) is
ebligatory upon Christians. On the other hand,
they always understand EvoyyE'a.ioj', according
to its etymology (joyful news), to mean, not
the whole Christian doctrine, but only that part
of it which contains the' promises.
This departure from the scriptural usage gave
occasicn to adopt the division into law and gos
pel in the theological sense. Such, then, is the
state of the case. Gospel, in the wider sense,
is the whole Christian doctrine, as composed
both of precept and premise. This is the mest
ccmmon sense in the New Testament. In the
narrower sense, it is the promises of the Chris
tian doctrine, especially those of pardon tiirough
Christ. In this sense it sometimes occurs in
the New Testament; Rom. x. 16, coll. ver.
3—15; Rom. i. 16, 17; iii. 21; Acts, xiii. 32;
XX. 24, EvctyyE^cov ^dptfos ©eov, 1 Cor. ix. 23.
In this sense theologians have always used it.
Law generally signifies in the New Testament
the Mosaic law; but sometimes the precepts of
God and of Christ, Gal. vi. 2, &c
(4) By law and gospel, as used in theology,
the whole sum of the doctrine of salvation is
meant. By the law is understood the sum of
all the divine precepts given to man in the Old
and New Testament ; or, the whole moral law ;
Morus, p. 238, seq., s. 2. From this we learn
what God has commanded and forbidden, and
of course what sin is. By gospel is understood
all the promises relating to the salvation of man
through Christ, whether contained in the Old
or New Testament. These assure men of grace
and forgiveness, and thus comfort and encour
age the sinner ; this is what is more properly
called fvayyEa.iov ^dptfos.
This definite theological use, which is not in
itself unscriptural, was common before the Re
formation in the Romish church, and was em
ployed by the schoolmen in their systems. Be
cause the decalogue contains moral precepts, and
is called, by way of eminence, law, and be
cause voaos occurs sometimes in this sense in
the New Testament, they called all moral pre
cepts the law ; and because EvoyyEkiov signifies,
etymologically, a joyful message, and occurs
sometimes in this sense in the New Testament,
they called all the promises qf God, inasmuch as
they are of a joyful nature, gospel. This was
proper in itself. The fault lay in their regard
ing this as the only scriptural use, and accord
ingly endeavouring to adapt it to all the pas
sages in which law and gospel occur. Luther
and Melancthon, and also the Swiss reformers,
retained the established usage of these terms,

and from them it has been adopted by other '.he-
olpgians of the protectant church into their sys
tems. The Arminians, in the seventeenth cen
tury, made the first attempt to shew, some of
them, that this is not to be found in the Bible,
and others, more justly, that it is not the only
scriptural use. They taught that the gospel
comprehends laws as well as promises, and
that one as well as the other must be comprised
in faith in Jesus Christ. But the old division
was for a long time retained by protestaut theo
logians, even in their homilefical and cateche
tical instructions ; nor was there anything ob
jectionable in this. Although this use of these
words is not the only, nor even the common
scriptural usage, yet there is" good reason for
this distinction (Morus, p. 240, s. 4), if it is
only properly explained. The truth which is
designated by it cannot and ought not to be
passed over. For it is plain that rules for con
duct and promises of blessing are of altogether
a different nature, have different ends, and pro
duce different effects, and that both therefore
must have different predicates. The Christian
doctrine contains both. From the nature of the
human soul, promises of a great good awaken
pleasure in the mind, and incite to willing effort
to do everything which can secure the enjoy
ment of this good. But this very nature of the
soul makes rules for feeling and conduct neces
sary. Precepts and promises must be most in
timately connected. And the promises must be
made to serve as a spring and motive to obey
the divine commands. This obedience is an
indispensable condition, and unless it is fulfilled
the promised good cannot be bestowed. This
is the doctrine of the New Testament. The
Christian teacher must therefore make use of
the law, in order to promote the* knowledge of
sin, and repentance, and to shew the unhappy
consequences which, according to the Christian
doctrine, result from sin both in this life and
the life to come ; and that he may employ for
this purpose everything, as well in the Old as
in the New Testament which bears on this
subject. Vide Morus, p. 242, s. 7.
Note. — The passages, Rom. iii. and Gal. iii.
and iv., relating to the law and its abolition,
have been misunderstood in two different ways,
which should be carefully guarded against.
(a) Some have taught that believers have no
thing to do with the law, since Christ has ful
filled it for them ; and they appeal to these pas
sages. They would embrace only one part of
the gospel — its promises, and would gladly be
relieved of the other, and thus overthrow all
morality. Such were the doctrines of many of
the fanatics at the time of the Reformation and
afterwards. Morus, p. 241, s. 6. The same
thing was charged upon Agricola in the six
teenth century, and his follpwers, the Antino-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 431

mians. Hence the fifth and sixth articles were
intreduced into the Form of Concord.
(4) Others have supposed that the Mosaic
ceremonial, or civil law exclusively, is intended
in those passages where it is said that man de
serves nothing of God by observing the law —
k. g., Rom. iii. and Gal. iii. and iv. They
maintained, accordingly, that although the fa
vour of God could not be conciliated by obe
dience to the ceremonial law, it might be by the
observance of the moral law. Thus the Soci-
niansand many others. But Paul knows nothing
of such a distinction, and what he says, he says
of the whole Mosaic law, moral as well as
ritual. The observance of the one is as little
meritorious as of the other; and what is true of
the moral law of Moses is true, according to
his express declaration in these passages, of the
whole moral law, whether learned from nature
or from the Christian doctrine. Vide Progr. in
Rom. vii. et viii., in " Scripta varii argumenti,"
Num. xii. The following is the doctrine of the
apostles: — Obedience to the divine law is not
the ground, or the procuring-cause, of our for
giveness and salvation. (And happy is it for
men that it is not; for were it so, no man of an
enlightened and tender conscience could ever be
sure of salvation.) Faith in Christ who died for
us is the only ground of our acceptance. Still
obedience to the divine law is an indispensable
duty in connexion with this faith ; indeed, it is
practicable and easy only while this faith exists.
The strict requirements of the moral law cause
us to see clearly how deficient and imperfect
we are, since while we allow that the law re
quires only what is right, we are yet unable to
conform to it. They also excite in us a deep
feeling of our need of a different dispensa
tion, coming in aid of our imperfection. And
by seeing our need, we become disposed to em
brace the provisions for salvation which God
offers. Thus the law leads us to Christ, Rom.
iii., vi.,Vii., and the Epistle to the Galatians.
SECTION CXXIV.
OF THE CPNNEXION PF THE PARTS OF WHICH
FAITH IS COMPOSED; THE CHARACTERISTICS
AND DEGREES OF FAITH J AND THE CONDITIONS
ON WHICH IT IS SAVING.
[. The relation in which the parts belonging to Faith
stand to each other.
Here the following cautions should be ob
served — viz.,
(1) We should not separate one part of faith
fro-.n another, or insist more upon one than an
other, or imagine that the different parts may
exist at different times. This mistake has been
made by some with respect to the promises,

(gospel,) and the rules of conduct, (law.)
Some insist wholly or disproportionately on
the latter, and thus alarm one who is just be
ginning a religious life, and who feels himself
to be still weak. This is the fault of those who
preach only the law or morality, who are always
telling men (though they generally know it
sufficiently without being told) what they ought
to be, without shewing them the proper means
of becoming so, and how they may acquire the
requisite power. Others dwell entirely on the
promises, and neglect the law, instead of deriv
ing from the promises the motives and power
to obey the law, as the Bible does, 1 John, iv.
10, 19 ; iii. 3 ; Gal. ii. 20. Vide s. 123, ad finem.
At the present day, the former mistake is the
more common one, and therefore needs to be
guarded against more carefully than the other.
(2) We should not consider the manner in
which faith arises in man, and in which one
part of it follows another, to be uniformly the
same in all cases ; nor should we prescribe the
same order and succession as essential to all.
The physical and moral constitution of men is
so different, and the circumstances under which
they begin to amend their lives are so unlike,
that the same form and method cannot possibly
be prescribed to all. The neglect of proper at
tention to this difference among men gives easy
occasion tp uncharitable judgments, to hypo
crisy, anxiety, and scrupulous doubts.
The common representation is that which
Melancthon has given in his " Loci Theologici."
Reformation is commenced by means of the
law, which convinces man of his sins. Then
follows the distressing sense of the merited di
vine displeasure, and the desire of obtaining
pardon. Here the gospel comes in for man's
relief, and imparts comfort and consolation.
Hence arise faith, and the fruits of it ; and from
faith, forgiveness of sin and the assurance that
it is remitted.
In this way does the moral change in men
frequently, but not always, take place. The
order is not important, provided all the essen
tial parts of faith are exhibited. Faith can no
more be wrought in all Christians in the same
manner than the sciences and arts can be learned
by all in the same manner. With one, the ter
rors of the divine threatenings and punishments
must be used in the first instance; with an
other, of a more mild and gentle disposition,
the infinite love of God and his promises must
be used. Though beginning in different ways
both may come to the same result. When we
compare the accounts of conversions recorded
in the Old and New Testament, we observe this
very difference. They all exhibit the great es
sential of faith; but the manner in which they
came to the possession of it is different. Books

432

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

containing accounts of the conversion of parti
cular men are very useful ; but we should be
ware of making the experiences of individuals
and the way in which they may have been led
to faith a rule for all. Vide Toellner, Theolo
gische Untersuchungen, st. i. ii.
[Note  Neander has illustrated this import
ant point very fully in his " Denkwiirdigkeiten,"
and also in his " Gelegenheitsschriften." The
F'.fth Article in the latter collection of Trea
tises, entitled, "The Manifold Ways of the Lord
in the Work of Conversion," is worthy of the
careful study of all engaged in promoting reli
gion in the world. It is a deep saying of Ori
gen, that what Paul said of his becoming all
things to all men, that he might gain some, is
applicable in a far higher sense to the Saviour
himself, in the methods he employed while- on
the earth, and still employs in heaven, to bring
men to saving faith. — Tr.]
II. Signs by which we can discover the Existence
cf true Faith.
To every Christian it is of the first import
ance to know whether he possesses true faith,
that he may be sure of his being accepted by
God. These signs may be reduced to two
classes, which correspond with the instructions
of the New Testament.
(1) Christian dispositions. These are called
in the New Testament fpbvnpa itvsvaatos, or
itvsiua. Vide s. 123. Rom. viii. 14, 16,
"The renewed Christian temper (itvsvua) pro
duced in us by God, by means of Christianity,
affords us inwardly the surest proof (gvupap-
tvpsl) that we are the children of God," that we
resemble him, that we love him, and that he
loves us a father loves his children. Eph. i.
13, 14, "Ye are sealed by the Holy Spirit —
l. e., the Christian disposition, for which you
are indebted to God, is a sure proof to ypu that
God loves you and will bless you; it is a pledge
(dp£aj3aw) to you of future reward." Thus, too,
1 John, iii. 24, " By the spirit (that renewed
temper for which we are indebted to Christ and
the Holy Spirit) we know that we are true
Christians, and beloved by God." The Chris
tian may therefore be sure that he has faith
when he is conscious of hatred to sin, sincere
love to God and Christ, to the good and pious,
and of a constant effort to increase in holiness
or moral perfection.
(2) But these dispositions must be exhibited
in the external conduct, by actions which flow
from grateful love to God and Christ, and from
other religious motives, (xapitoi itvsvaatos.)
These, therefore, are infallible signs of faith.
Vide 1 John, ii. 29; iii. 7, seq. Christ said,
Matthew, vii. 16, "By their fruits ye shall
know them." Entire reliance cannot be placed

upon evidences drawn from mere internal feel
ing. One may easily deceive himself with re
gard to his own feelings ; and if a certain de
gree of feeling is insisted upon as necessary,
those who do not come up to this standard,
while yet they may have faith, will be easily
led into mistake, and involved in doubt and dis
tress. Nor can we properly demand that every
ene should give the time and hour when he be
o-an to believe ; for faith is not always instanta
neous, but, from the very nature of the human
soul, is sometimes gradual. Vide Spalding,
Vom Werth der Gefiihle.
Note. — The common theological phrase, in-
iernum testimonium Spiritus Sancti, is derived
from Rom. viii. 16. (The passage, 1 John, v.
6, 8, does not relate to this point)
(1) This passage treats directly of the inward
conviction which Christians obtain of their be
ing forgiven by God, from the new disposition
which he has produced in them by means of
Christianity. By this they are sure (a) that
they are now free from the divine punishments,
which they had reason to fear while they con
tinued unrenewed and followed their sinful de
sires ; and also (4) that they have a share in all
the rights and privileges of believers, and shall be
partakers of the promised blessedness in future.
(2) But under this phrase theologians include
the internal conviction which Christians have of
the divinity qf the Christian doctrine. But this
conviction arises only by way qf inference. The
Christian reasons thus: — Because more is ef
fected for the moral good of men by means of
Christianity than by all other means, (as he can
say from his own experience,) it follows that
this doctrine is divine, or that we must believe
what Christ and his apostles say when they
declare it to be divine. John, vii. 17, " One
may be sure from his own experience that what
Christ affirmed is true, that he did not speak of
himself," &c. Cf. 1 Thess. ii. 13. This con
viction depends, therefore, on the experience of
each individual Christian. He himself must
have felt the efficacy of the Christian doctrine
in his own heart. Hence this is called the ex
perimental proof of the divinity of the Christian
religion ; and Christ himself insists upon it,
John, vii. 16, 17; 1 Thess. ii. 13. Every true
Christian must have this experience; but it can
not be used to convince one who is not a true
Christian, because he has never felt in himself
the better influence of the Christian doctrine;
still less can this experience be brought in proof
of the divinity of the books of the Bible. It only
proves the divinity of the doctrine contained in
them. Vide Less, in the Appendix to his
"Wahrheit der christlichen Religion," and
Noesselt, Diss, de Sp. S. test; Halle, 1766
Cf. s. 7, IL, ad finem

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 433

III. The different degrees of Faith : the possi
bility qf losing Faith and qf falling away.
(1) The knowledge, intelligence, and whole
mental state of men are very different, as well
as their natural constitution, temperament,
and faculties. Hence we infer that faith can
not have the same degree of perfection in all.
We are not responsible, however, for the
weakness and imperfection of faith any fur
ther than it is criminal; a subject, the consi
deration of which belongs more properly to
theological ethics. The Bible accordingly
distinguishes between a weak, imperfect, in
cipient faith, and a strong, perfect, confirmed,
and assured faith. It compares the state of
one just beginning to exercise faith, to child
hood, and that of the more confirmed Chris
tian, to manhood. Vide Romans, iv. 19;
2 Thess. i. 3; Ephes. iv. 13, 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1.
(2) But no Christian can make pretensions
to the highest possible degree of perfection in
faith, although he should constantly strive
after it. Great imperfections and innumera
ble defects always remain even in the best
Christians, partly in respect to their know
ledge, partly, and indeed mostly, in respect
to their practice of known duties. Vide Ps.
xix. 13; Phil. iii. 12; James, iii. 2. This
ought frequently to be noticed by the teacher,
in order to humble the pride of men, and to
excite more zeal and effort in the pursuit of
holiness, and more watchfulness against sin
This consideration leads us to say,
(3) It is possible that even the best and
most perfect Christian should lose his faith.
and apostatize. The Bible clearly teaches
that. one may lose his faith, and therefore fail
of the blessedness promised on condition of
faith. Vide 1 Tim. i. 19; vi. 21. Christ Urn-
self mentions, (Luke, viii. 13,) the rtpoefxaipovs,
who indeed possessed true faith, but did not
i remain steadfast. And for what purpose are
the frequent exhortations to constancy in
faith given in the holy scriptures, if there is
no possibility of its being lost? Cf. Gal. ii. 2;
Heb. vi. 4. seq. Still the way of recovery
stands open even to the apostate while he
lives ; Luke, xxii. 32 ; Ps. Ii. 2—19. Cf. s. 113.
But from the very principles of our nature it
is plain that reformation and the recovery of
faith must be more difficult the oftener one
who had .begun to walk in the way of holi
ness returns to unbelief and sin; 2 Pet. ii.
20—22; 2 Timothy, ii. 26.
Note 1. — Many have held that true faith
cannot be lost. Against this opinion the
above paragraph is directed, (a) Some fana
tics have held that faith could not be lost or
destroyed, even by living in sin and vice. So
taught the Valentinians, according to Ire-
noeus ; and more lately, the enthusiastic Ana
baptists, Munzer, &c, at the time of the
Reformation. They are condemned- in the
thirteenth article of the Augsburg Confes-
55

sion. (4) The advocates of absolute decrees
also held that he who had once attained true
faith could not lose it, because God could not
alter the irrevocable decree he had once
formed respecting his salvation. And as faith
is made in the Bible an indispensable condi
tion of salvation, one predestined to salvation
could not, in their view, lose faith. Cf. s. 32,
ad finem. Augustine was the first who held
this doctrine. He was followed in the fifth
century by Prosper of Aquitania, and in the
ninth century by Gottschalk, although the
latter expressed himself doubtfully on this
subject. Calvin and Beza, in the sixteenth
century, adopted this doctrine, which, to
gether with the doctrine de decrdo absoluto,
was established by the Synod at Dordrecht,
1618, as an article of faith, in opposition to
the Arminians.
[Note 2. — On the doctrine of the saints'
perseverance there has been much needless
debate: To prevent this, and to arrive at a
just and satisfactory conclusion as to this
doctrine, it is important to dismiss whatever
does not properly belong to it, and to make
the subject of inquiry as specific and simple
as possible.
First, then, it is no part of this question,
whether it is in itself possible that believers
should fall away; or whether they are liable,
or exposed to this, or are in danger of final
apostasy. The advocates of this doctrine may
admit all this as really as its opponents. In
deed, it is often asserted by them (e. g. in
the articles of the Synod of Dort) that be
lievers not only may, but if left to their own
strength certainly will draw back to perdi
tion. Secondly. It is admitted on both sides that
Christians are to be warned of their danger,
after the example of the scriptures ; and that
this danger should be set before them as a
means of awakening them fi\in slumber, in
citing to duty and watchfulness, and making
them faithful untc death.
Thirdly. It is admitted also on both sides
of this question that the belief in the doctrine
of perseverance will probably have a bad in
fluence upon those who think themselves
Christians when they are not, and even upon
true Christians in a state of declension.
Fourthly. All, too, will admit that many
who appear for a time to have Christian faith,
and belong to the visible church, do in fact

When these conceded points are dismissed
from the question, what remains at issue be
tween the advocates and opponents of this doc
trine ? Merely this, Whether God will actually
preserve all true believers from final apostasy, and
keep them through faith unio salvation f In ar
guing this point, nothing is necessary for the
advocates of this doctrine but to prove from
20

434

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

scripture that God has purposed and promised
to preserve all whom he has renewed by his
Spirit. If this can be shewn, the warnings and
exhortatipns contained. in the scriptures, so far
from being inconsistent with the promise and
purpose of God, are the most suitable means of
securing their fulfilment; since no motive tends
so powerfully to keep Christians, as intelligent
and moral agents, from apostasy, and to secure
their perseverance, as the exhibition of their
danger. As to the power of God to employ such means
and exert such an influence on Christians, in
perfect consistency with their moral agency,
as shall hinder the hurtful tendencies of the
world and their own hearts, and bring them to
heaven, there can be no reasonable doubt.
It may be proper to ask, in conclusion, whe
ther the objections commonly urged against this
doctrine do not derive their chief strength from
misapprehension and mis-statement, and from
a vague use of terms? Let the simple inquiry
be made, whether believers will in fact fall
away and perish ; and let this question be an
swered in a purely scriptural manner, and the
common objections will lose their force, and the
doctrine of perseverance be acknowledged to be
adapted to glorify God, and to comfort and ani
mate the pious. — Tr.]
IV. The Attributes essential to "Saving" Faith.
(1) Constancy to the end of life, (perseveran-
tia.) This is called by Paul iitouovij ; Heb. x.
36, coll. iii. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 58. (In Matt. xxiv.
13, the subject is not salvation, but temporal
deliverance.) This constancy must extend to
all the parts which belong to faith. One must
neither renounce the Christian doctrine in gene
ral, and apostatize from it, (Luke, viii. 13; 2
Pet. ii. 20;) nor may he give up particular
doctrines which are essential to the Christian
system ; 1 John, ii. 24. He must remain un
shaken in his reliance upon the divine promises ;
Heb. vi. 12; Col. i. 23. He must avoid most
cautiously all disobedience to the divine com
mands ; 1 Timothy, i. 18, coll. Ezek. xviii. 26.
(2) Growth and increase infaith, (incrementa
fidei.) (a) We must endeavour to extend and
perfect our knowledge of Christian doctrines
and duties; Heb. v. 12; vi. 1, seq.; Phil. i. 9,
seq. (b) We must make constant advances in
holiness, arid in the practice of all Christians
virtues. We must strive daily to be freed from
our remaining faults, and to cherish and deepen
our hatred to sin (poenitenlia quotidiana), 1 Pet.
ii. 1, 2. Holiness and the practice of Christian
virtue must become habitual with us ; 2 Cor. vii.
1. The observation often made by theologians,
.that there is no pausing here, that we must
either advance or recede in goodness, is true
from the very nature of the human mind.

(3) The evidence qf faith by good works.
A. The various meanings of the word Epya
in the holy scriptures. A careful examination
of these would have prevented many mistakes
and controversies.
(a) "Epyoi/ denotes an action, in the widest
sense, whether morally good or bad — e. g., God
rewards man according to his works, Romans,
ii. 6, &c. Hence spyov also signifies an em
ployment, business, office ,- an office in the church,
for example, as in 2 Tim. ii. 21, seq.
(4) The phrase spya dya^d or xaxd, or spya
simply, frequently denotes particular actions
which are conformed . to the law of God, or
Christian virtues, which God has promised to
reward, in eppositipn tp a/iaptlai orspyaitovijpd;
Matt. v. 16 ; Rom. ii. 7 ; 1 Tim. v. 24, 25, &c.
In this sense the word 1'pya is used by James
throughout the whole of the second chapter of
his epistle. Cf. James, iii. 13. With James,
then, good works are pious acticns, such as are
done with reference to God — i. e., such as flow
from love to God and a spirit of obedience.
Such actions only are pronounced by the scrip- .
tures to be true virtues, because they flow from
religious motives. They are Christian good
works whenever they are done with a particular
reference to Christ.
But this term came to denote, in a narrower
sense, particular works of love, such as alms,
&c ; Acts, ix. 36 ; 1 Tim. vi. 18, &c. During
the middle ages the Roman church made this
particular sense the prominent one, and accord
ingly ascribed great merit to almsgiving, pre
sents to cloisters, churches, &c, s. 125. But such
works are called good in the holy scriptures
only so far as they are an active exhibition of
love and obedience to God, and as they flow
from religious motives.
(c) Quite different from this is the meaning
of the term spya vbpov, (sometimes simply
Epya,) when used by Paul in opposition to
itigtis, Rom. ii., iii., iv. ; Gal. ii., iii., &c. Vide
Progr. " De dispari formula docendi, qua Chris-
tus, Paulus et Jacobus de fide et factis disse-
rentes usi sunt, item que de discrimine spyav
vbpov et spyuv dya^uv," (1803,) in " Scr. Var.
Argum." Num. xii. (Translated in the Bib.
Repository, Jan. 1833.) Correspondent to this
phrase is that in the writings of the Rabbins,
Q" -nnn o^pra, which denotes the fulfilment and
observance of the divine law and of its particu
lar precepts, whether they are of a moral nature
or not, and whether they are given by God
through Christ, Moses, or by the law of nature.
Vide s. 113, IL, and s. 123, and fin. in the note.
Paul allows, and frequently expressly de
clares, that whoever should perfectly obey this
law, in whatever way made known to him;
should actually live by it, or enjoy the blessed
ness promised by God as a reward, not because

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 435

he could demand this as something which he
had earned, but because God had promised it.
But no man, in his present condition, can boast
of such an obedience as this, and therefore none
can hope to be accepted with God and blessed
on the ground of his obedience to the divine
commands, (l£ epyav vbpmi.) Paul expresses
himself very clearly on this point, Tit. iii. 5,'
coll. ver. 3 ; 2 Tim. i. 9 ; Ephes. ii. 8. The
reason, therefore, why he excludes obedience
to the divine commandments as a ground of our
forgiveness, or why he holds that obedience is
not the meritorious cause of forgiveness, is, that
we do not in reality obey the divine law in such
a manner as to enable us to rely on the divine
promise above mentioned. And yet God has
declared that he will shew mercy to us ; this
must therefore be done in some other way, and
by some other means — namely, by faith. It is
on this account that he excludes the spya vopov,
or our supposed obedience to the divine com
mandments, from faith in Christ, and from the
forgiveness and salvation to be attained through
faith, Rom. iii. 20, et passim. But as to Epya
&ya$d — i. e., the virtues performed from love to
Christ, Paul would no more exclude them than
Christ and James did. On the contrary, he
derives them, as they did, from faith, and in
sists strenuously upon them, and in the very
passages in which he denies merit to Epya
vbfim — e. g., Rom. ii. 7 — 10; Ephes. ii. 10,
seq. Cf. s. 108, 123, ad finem.
Paul and James are therefore agreed in fact.
And there is no difference in the meaning of the
words itigtis and Sixoiovc&ai as used by them,
but solely in the use of the word spya. Paul
speaks of the foolish mistake, by which one
would obtain life and salvation from God by his
supposed fulfilment of the divine law, while in
reality he does not keep the law. James speaks
of the pious, unpretending exercise of virtue,
which is the first fruit and the evidence of faith,
and therefore rewarded by God. Paul and
James, as well as Christ, disapprove of the for
mer, while both of them, as well as Christ, re
quire the latter, with great seriousness and ear
nestness. B. What Christ and the apostles teach as to
shewing faith by good works. They are all
agreed in saying that an indolent and inactive
faith (vsxpd, James, ii.) is of no advantage, and
is entirely contrary to its object For faith is
designed wholly for active life, and must be
manifested and proved, so often as there is op
portunity, by the practice of holiness. This is
what James so well insists upon in the second
chapter of his epistle. His doctrine is, .that
every Christian must possess faith in God, (the
knowledge of God, and that trust in him result
ing from this knowledge;) but that this faith
must be exhibited in works, (fruits, chap, iii.)

What good does it do for one to say, I know
and honour God, and confide in him, if he does
not prove this by his pious actions ? If Abra
ham had professed faith with his mouth, but
had not obeyed when God commarided him to
offer up Isaac, would that have pleased God ?
No ! He did not receive the divine approbation
and blessing until he proved in fact that he had
right conceptions of God, and that he placed
unlimited confidence in him. In the same way
Christ shews that man must be known by his
works, (xaprtoi,) and prove by them that he
truly fears God, Matt. vii. 16 — 24; John, xiv.
15; xv. 14. And Paul, too, teaches that God
will reward men for the uniform practice of vir
tue, (vitopsvri spyov dya^ov,) Rom. ii. 7, and
that, while Christians are indebted for their sal
vation to the mere grace of God, and not their
own works, they are yet placed by the divine
commands under obligation to practise these
spya dya^d, Ephes. ii. 8 — 10. Thus he calls
the virtues xop7tovs itvsvpatos, (the fruits of a
heart renovated by the influence of the gospel,)
Gal. v. 22, 25. In Rom. viii. 1, 13, he says,
that one is not a Christian who has not itvsvua
Xpifffov. Vide other passages in Morus, p. 212,
Note. The uniform doctrine of the holy scriptures
is therefore briefly this : — "Faith is the condi
tion of salvation. (Hence so high a value is
placed upon it, from the beginning to the end
of the scriptures.) But this faith cannot exist
unless the heart is truly renewed and made
holy ; and this inward renewal is evidenced by
good actions or works. Now this faith, and
the holiness inseparably connected with it, and
and the exhibition of it by good works, is re
warded by God. This faith and what is con
nected with it is therefore the condition of sal
vation (conditio salutis,) but not the meritorious
cause, (causa meritoria ,-) for salvation is an un
merited favour. Vide Romans, iii. 24, 25 ; vi.
22, seq. Cf. s. 125.
SECTION CXXV.
OF THE NATURE OF CHRISTIAN GOOD WORKS OR
VIRTUES; THE RELATION IN WHICH THEY
STAND TO SALVATION; AND THEIR MERITORI-
OUSNESS. I. The true nature of Christian good works.
Their worth or capability of being rewarded
(not their merit) consists partly in their con
formity to the rules of conduct which God has
given to Christians, (materiale adionis,) James,
ii. 11, and partly in the end to which they are
directed, and the motive by which they are per
formed, (formale.) An action, therefore, is not
a good work, although it may be right and law
ful in itself, when it results from impure and

436

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

unworthy motives, such as vanity, ambition, the
gratification of inclination, &c The Christian
performs good works only when he acts from
thankful lpve to Gpd and Christ, and in uncon-
ditipnal obedience to their requirements ; in
shert, ftpm motives drawn from the Christian
religion, Romans, xii. 2; 2 Cor. v. 15; Phil. i.
11 ; John, xiv. 15, 21, and almost the whole of
the first epistle of John.
We can here distinguish three cases — viz.,
(1) In acting, the Christian may be con
scious of this motive, and act solely on account
of it.
(2) But it is neither possible, nor requisite,
that he should at all times, and in every action,
be distinctly conscious of this motive. Fpr one
acquires, from long exercise in virtue as well as
in vice, a habit of action. And since this habit
presupposes a high degree of perfection, the
value ef acticns performed under the force of
this principle is not less, but often greater; for
they imply a prevailing feeling ef piety and lpve
to Gpd.
(3) Filial pbedience te Gpd, pr religieus mo
tives, are net always the single and enly motives
to good actions, even in Christians. Their own
advantage, reward, fear of punishment, the main
tenance of a good reputation, &c, influence them
to action. These motives, in themselves, should
not be entirely banished, as some rigorous mo
ralists, who are ignorant of human nature, would
do. For God makes use of these very means to
hold men to the observance of his laws. They
may therefore be used by us as assistances. But
it is clear that an action which results from such
motives merely, cannot be called a pious Chris
tian action, or a good work, although in itself it
may be useful, commendable, and even accept
able to God. Vide Rom. ii. 14, 26, 27 ; Acts, x.
4, 34, 35. The teacher, therefore, should beware,
in Christian education, of drawing the prinicipal
motive from ambition and selfishness ; for these
principles will exclude every good and religious
feeling, and introduce manifold evil into the
youthful heart.
In Christian good works, therefore, every
thing depends upon the state of mihd, the dis
position (rtj/Evfia, Gal. v. 22) with which they
are performed. That man only is capable of
good works (in the Christian sense) who has
a pure and prevailing love to God and Christ,
and whose principle it is to practise all known
good and to avoid all known evil, because such
is the will of God and of Christ. God and
Christ estimate the worth of an action, therefore,
not according to the external appearance, upon
which men lepk, but acccrding tp the dispesitipn
of the heart, which men do not see. Hence an ac
tion may frequently appear to men to be trifling,
insignificant, or even blamable, while in the sight

of God it is commendable and of great price.
Such was the act of Mary in anointing Jesus,
which his disciples blamed, Mark, xiv. Christ,
however, called it a good work, because it was
a pious deed — i. e., because it resulted from sin
cere and grateful love to him ; and such actions
only are, in his judgment, good works. Vide
Tollner, Ueber die Beschaffenheit eines guten
Werkes, in his "Theol. Untersuch," th. ii.
Note 1. — Good works are required from every
Christian, so far as he is able to perform them,
Gal. v. 25 ; 1 John, ii. 6 ; iii. 7. Cf. s. 123. The
last clause contains a necessary limitation. For
sometimes he finds no opportunity, or is placed
in circumstances unfavourable for exhibiting, by
his outward actions, the pious dispositions con
cealed in his heart. Moreover, those just com
mencing a religious life, and who, though they
have real faith, have it in a less degree, (s.
124,) cannot exhibit that perfect and mature
fruit which is expected from advanced and con
firmed Christians. But Ged judges ef the
gopdness pf actions according to the inward
disposition and the sincerity of the heart. In a •
gopd wpTk this rectitude of motive in indispen
sable. Ephes. iv. 20 ; 1 John, ii. 6. We can
not therefore say that faith is always rich in
virtues ; for it cannot always be so. Npr will
his unfruitfulness be charged against any ene
as a sin, unless he himself is te blame for it. In
this matter God is the only infallible judge.
Note 2. — When the Bible speaks of the neces
sity of Christian good works, it refers only to
Christians, and to what is required of them ac
cording to the Christian doctrine. No one who
is destitute of the knowledge of Christianity
without his own fault can be required to live
according to its rules, or be punished merely
because he does not. Nothing will be required
of any one which has not been given him.
Christian actions may indeed be more perfect
and noble in themselves than others, because
they flow from more perfect, pure, and elevated
motives; but the good actions of those who are
not Christians do not cease to be good and ac
ceptable to God because they do not flow from
Christian motives. Cf. the example of thecen-
turion Cornelius, Acts, x., and the declaration
of Paul, Rom. ii. 6 — 11. In the former passage,
(ver. 35,) Peter ascribes $bf3ov ©eov to the hea
then centurion Cornelius ; and in the latter,
Paul calls the actions of heathen spya aya$d ',
and both teach that truly religious actions in
heathen are acceptable to God, and will be re
warded by him. The doctrine of Augustine,
therefore, virtutes ethnicx esse splendida vitia, is
false. He taught that all which man does as
man, without supernatural and irresistible grace,
is sin. Hence he affirmed that the heathen were
condemned because they could not but sin. Vide

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 437

g. 121, II. [Cf. "Bib. Repos." Jan. 1833.
Art. Augustine and Pelagius  Tr.]
II. The Relation which exists between the Good
Works of Christians and their Salvation.
There was a controversy in the Lutheran
church in the sixteenth century on the question,
Whether good works are essential to salvation ? Ge.
Major, a theologian of Wittenberg, and some of
the disciples of Melancthon, held the affirmative ;
Flacius and others, the negative. Nic Amsdorf
of Raumburg went so far as to say (1559) that
they stood in the way of salvation — a horrible
position if it is understood to mean, that obe
dience to the divine law is damnable. But this
was not his meaning; he only meant to affirm
that the opinion that good works cculd merit
salvatien is dangerous te the soul. And in this
he was right; but so was Major in his position.
The difficulty may be removed by considering
in what the salvation of Christians consists.
(1) It is begun, the foundation of it is laid, in
the forgiveness of sin, or justification in the nar
rower sense. This is the free gift of God, and
cannot be merited by good works, s. 113, II.
But this blessing is forfeited by one who omits
good works, and commits sin. Vide 1 John, iii.
6; Gal. v. 19; 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. Good works,
therefore, are necessary for the continuance (con
servatio) of this benefit. They are, when they
ca7» be performed, the condition of pardon, though
not the meritorious cause of it.
(2) Salvation consists in the divine rewards,
or proofs, of the divine favour; partly those
which are natural, such as quiet of soul, peace
with God, &c, and partly positive, bestowed
both in the present and future life, as we are
taught by the scriptures. These rewards can
not be merited by good works in themselves
any more than the forgiveness of sin. But
faith, and the good works connected with it, are
the conditions on which alone these rewards are
obtained, and the degree of reward is regu
lated by the degree of zeal in holiness which
is exhibited; Matt. xxv. 20—29; 2 Cor. ix.
6; Gal. vi. 7, &c. For obedience to the di
vine law is as essential a part of Christian faith
as to trust in God through Christ, s. 123. Good
works are therefore always described in the
Bible as the effects and fruits of Christian faith,
James, ii. 26, seq.
We may therefore justly say, as Major did,
that good works are essential to the attainment
of salvation, as a condition, and we may also say,
as Flacius and Amsdorf did, that they are not
to be regarded as meritorious, or the procuring
cause of our salvation. Cf. F. T. Riihl, Werth
der Behauptungen Jesu und seiner Apostel ;
Leipzig, 1791, Svo; especially the 4th Essay,
" Seligkeit beruht allein auf Glauben," u. s. w.

Also Storr, Commentar zum Brief an die He-
braer, th. ii.
HI. History of opinions respecting the meritorious-
ness of Good Works.
God has determined and promised to reward
the gopd actipns pf men. But this reward is net
scmething earned by men, (s. 108, II.,) which
God is bound to pay them ; it is given to them
of his free, undeserved goodness. Hence these
rewards are called in the New Testament x°-?Hi
Sapsd, sitawos, (approbation,) Sola, gtifyavos —
terms which imply.gifts and undeservecTrewards.
These rewards are intended to excite men to love
God more sincerely and to yield a cheerful and
willing obedience to the divine commands, not
withstanding the difficulties with which this obe
dience is attended.
But obvious as this doctrine is to sound and
unprejudiced reason, the great mass of mankind,
of all ages and religions, have regarded certain
external actions as meritorious and propitiatory.
This error, as far as it is theoretical, results from
false notions respecting God, and our relations
to him. This is the reason why it is so preva
lent, in one form or anpther, ameng the Jews,
the heathen, and Christians. Vide s. 108, II.
But this theoretical error would have been easily
escaped or exploded if itwere not connected with
the depraved inclinations of the human heart.
Love to sin makes men quick in inventing theo
ries which will allow them to indulge in it at
pleasure, and yet assure them of the favour of
God. We shall here briefly exhibit the false
opinions which have prevailed on this subject
among Christians.
(1) Many Christians, (especially the converts
from Judaism,) even in the times of the apostles,
cherished the opinion that their acts of supposed
conformity to the law, such as almsgiving, sacri
fices, ceremonies, circumcision, and obedience to
other particular precepts of the ceremonial and
moral law of Moses, were meritorious. They
even believed that the good works of their ances
tors were imputed to them. Hence Paul shews,
in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, that
man deserves nothing of God for his supposed
obedience to the divine law ; that the opinion of
the meritoriousness of our own works is in the
highest degree injurious; and that God forgives
and rewards us solely on account of faith, with
out any desert on our part, (Sixaiow Sapsdv, Sid
itlgtsus Xpifffov.)
But here again a mistake was made on the
other side, and Paul was understood to speak
lightly of the observance of the divine law. He
himself complains that he was thus misunder
stood, Rom. iii. 8 ; vi. 15 ; Gal. v. 13. The same
thing has happened to Luther, Arndt, Spener,
and other Christian teachers of ancient and mo-
2o2

438

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

dern times, who have followed in his footsteps.
Even in the age of the apostles there were
some false Christians, and even false teachers.
They lived a sensual, disorderly life, and justi
fied this on the ground that Christians are free
from the law. Against such a sentiment there
is much said in the epistles of John, Peter, and
Jude. Others believed that an inactive faith
would suffice, and that works are not important.
They were content if they were only orthodox
in head. James, in the second chapter of his
epistle, is strenuous in opposing this sentiment.
He shews that true Christian faith cannot exist
unless it is exhibited by Christian virtues. Cf. the
Essay above cited in " Scripta Varii Argumenti."
(2) Notwithstanding these clear instructions
of the New Testament, these two mistakes re
specting the merit of works and the sufficiency
of an inoperative faith, have always prevailed
among Christians. The mistake respecting the
merit of works was adopted into the whole sys
tem of the Latin church. This will now be
shewn from history.
A. During the dark ages, after monastic prin
ciples became prevalent in the Western church,
the worship of God, piety, and holiness, were
suppesed to consist almost wholly in external
rites. They believed that God would be induced
by certain external actions to bestow favour on
mankind. They thought they could merit his
approbation somewhat as the day-labourer earns
his wages by toil. Much importance was at
tached to works of beneficence, to almsgiving and
presents, especially to cloisters and churches.
They thus kept to the sense in which Epya dya^d
is sometimes used in the New Testament — viz.,
opera benefica, stopping, however, with the out
ward action, and leaving the disposition of the
heart out of account. Vide s. 124, ad finem.
They also i nsisted upon self-inflictions, fasts, and
other external punishments, arbitrarily imposed ;
just as the Jews formerly did. They even re
lied, like the Jews again, upon the virtues of the
saints, and upon their treasure of good works.
These views led to great corruption in morals,
and a wide remove from the genuine spirit and
true nature of Christianity.
B. After the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,
the schoolmen, and especially Thomas Aquinas,
began to admit these views into their theological
systems, and to defend them by logical argu
ments. They reasoned (a) from the term fiitf-
£ds> which is frequently used in the Bible to
denote wages earned, as 1 Cor. iii. 8, where the
Vulgate has meritum ; and also from many of
the old Latin fathers, who had said, merere ho-
minem salutem, &c. But by such language they
ineapt nothing more than consequi, impelrare,
in which sense merere is used by Cicero and
other Latin writers. And in general in all the
ancient languages, and in the Hebrew and

Greek, the terms which denote wages, recom-
pence, are used for reward of any kind, whether
deserved or not. The meaning in every case
must be determined by the context. In the New
Testament, what is called f«s£ds is also called
fcdpis and Sapsd in the same context. We are
said to receive pia^bv Sapsdv. Thomas Aquinas
taught that when man of his own accord per
forms benevolent actions, gives alms, endows
churches, &c, God considers this as done to
him, and sees fit (xquum, congruum) to recom
pense the act. This he called meritum de con-
gruo. (4) Again, he appealed to the doctrine
of Auo-ustine, De gratia supernatural! spiritus
sancti. This grace produces good works in the
regenerate, which therefore merit salvation, be
cause they are derived from the Holy Spirit
He called this meritum de condigno. The unre-
generate cannot perform any such meritorious
works, because they do not possess this grace.
He was followed in his opinions by other teach
ers ; and in the sixteenth century this doctrine
was confirmed by the council at Trent.
C. This false theory, so greatly injurious to
morals, was vehemently opposed by the German
reformers of the sixteenth century. Luther es
pecially argued against it from the principles
contained in Paul's epistles to the Romans and
Galatians, which were directed against similar
mistakes made by the Jews. But, in the heat
of the controversy, Luther frequently went to
the other extreme, and sometimes expressed
himself with toe little precision and distinctness.
He sometimes appeared not only to deny merit
to those works which the monks regarded as
meritorious, and to all self-righteous works,
(Paul's works of the law,) but also to speak
slightingly of Christian virtues, and rather to de
preciate than recommend them; though this
was far from his intention. But afterwards,
when his doctrine was misapplied by some who
appealed to his authority, he became more
guarded, and expressed himself more definitely.
Melancthon especially took pains to guard
against these perversions in the Augsburg Con
fession (Art. iv.), in his Apology, and in his
" Loci Theologici." After the death of Luther,
Melancthon and some of his associates endea
voured to analyze the subject still further, and
to obviate all mistake. But they were poorly
rewarded for their pains, since they were charged
with departing from Luther and adnpting the
errors of the Romish church. Hence much con
troversy arose in the Lutheran church in the
sixteenth century, which ran out for the most
part into mere logomachy, as in the case of
Major and Amsdorf. It was hoped that the
Formula of Concord would put an end to this
strife, Morus, p. 214. But the adherents of the
Romish church still appealed to the second
chapter of James, in opposition to Luther. He

STAT E INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 43»

and his associates did not know how to defend
themselves against this argument, and did not
sufficiently understand the difference between
Ipya dyo&d and the I'pya vbpov, which were re
garded as meritorious. This is the reason why
he and the authors of the " Magdeburg Centu
ries," and some other theologians, spoke so dis
creditably of this epistle.
Note. — The circumstances of the Christian
teacher in our days are frequently such, that,
after the example of Christ and the apostles, he
must sometimes insist more upon faith as the
ground of pardon and salvation, and sometimes
more upon the fruits of faith, or pious Christian
actions. He should take the former course
when he has to do either with sinners who are
sorrowful and truly penitent on account of their
sins, or with those who have a self-righteous
disposition, and hope that they shall be forgiven
and saved on account of their supposed obe
dience to the law, and their virtuous conduct.
Vide Luke, xxiii. 40, seq., xviii. 9 ; Rom. iv.
5 ; Acts, xvi. 30. He must do this in order to
shew that salvation depends entirely upon a dis
position of sincere and unwavering confidence
in God — (i. e., upon faith,) since God and
Christ, who know the heart, have regard solely
to the disposition. In this way one who is
proud of his virtue, self-righteous, and Pharisa
ical, will learn wherein he is deficient.
He must take the latter course — that of re-
ommending good works, or the fruits of faith —
when he deals with those who undervalue or
neglect the pursuit of holiness either through
levity, indolence, or the love of sin ; who per
suade themselves that a mere external pro
fession of faith will be sufficient; who say,
Lord, Lord ; out obey not his commandments ;
and who pervert the doctrine of justification
through faith to excuse a life devoid of good
ness, perhaps openly sinful. Such persons
must be made to see that their sentiments are
false, and that there are some infallible signs
by which it may be known whether a person
possesses true faith ; as a tree may be known
by its fruits. These signs are pious actions,
which are the invariable attendants of faith,
and which the true believer will never fail to
perform whenever he has opportunity. Matt
vii. 16; xix. 21; xxv. 31—46; Rom. ii. 6;
1 Tim. vi. 18 ; James, ii.
SECTION CXXVI.
EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS WHICH ARE USED IN
THE SCRIPTURES TO DENOTE BOTH THE EXTER
NAL PROFESSION OF CHRISTIANITY (FIDES EX
TERNA) AND INTERNAL MORAL IMPROVEMENT
AND SANCTIFICATIDN.
It is the general custom tc treat of repentance,
conversion, renewal, regeneration, sandification,

in separate and distinct articles (loci) ,- but this
was net the case anciently. Neither the eccle
siastical fathers ner the scheolmen treated these
topics separately. It was not until the sixteenth
century that this method was adopted ; and the
chief object of this at first was to explain more
fully these scriptural terms and obviate different
errors relating to them. But afterwards the dis
tinction was more finely drawn, these doctrines
were more separated, and particular proof-texts
were sought for each. But many of these dis
tinctions are not to be found in the Bible. All
of these terms denote the improvement of men,
and imply the same divine agency ; although
sometimes the gradual progress and the differ
ent degrees of moral improvement are distin
guished. The better plan is, therefore, to bring
all these topics together, and to treat of them in
one and the same article, as, indeed, most theo
logians now do. So Morus, p. 220, seq., s. 6.
The case is the same with respect to calling,
illumination," and similar expressions, which
will be explained in Art. xii., De operationibus
gratix, s. 130.
I. Scriptural idea of the words denoting Conver
sion, (imarpoipri, brmTptytiv, by which the LJCK.
translate the Hebrew ^vi>-)
'Eitigtpsfsiv frequently stands alone, some
times connected with iiti or 7tpos tbv ®sov, to
turn to God. This term is derived from the
very frequent comparison of the actions and con
duct of man with a way, and with walking in
it; whence the religion itself which one adopts
is itself called -yn. But this term is used in
two different senses — viz.,
(1) It denotes the moral improvement and ho
liness of men when they repent of their sins and
forsake them. In this sense is the term com
monly used in theology, Ezek. iii. 19 ; Joel, ii.
12, 13; Matt. xiii. 15; Acts, iii. 19. This
turning is produced by God, or the Holy Spirit,
by means of 'revealed truth. The same is ex
pressed by the word pstavoslv, by which also
the LXX. render the Heb. aiu\ These two
forms of expression are frequently interchanged
as synonymous, as Acts, xv. 3, coll. xi. 18.
" The heart is turned away from the love of sin.
and inclined to efforts after what is good and
right, under the assistance of God and the Holy
Spirit." Vide 2 Cor. vii. 11 ; Jer. iii. 12, 13,
(an exhortation to the Israelites to return to
God, from whom they had' departed.)
(2) It denotes sometimes the external transi
tion from a false religion to the true, — the re
nunciation of idolatry; Hos. iii. 5 ; Ezek. xiv.
6. Hence it is applied in the New Testament
(a) to Gentiles who enter into the external
Christian community, Acts, xx. &l ; xxvi. 18
1 Thess. i. 9 ; (4) to Jews becoming Christians
Acts, ix. 35 ; xiv. 15 ; 2 Cor. iii. 16.

440

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

These two senses ought to be distinguished
in the explanation of this term. For though
conversion of the former kind is the object
of the latter, yet it is not always attained.
But sometimes the two meanings are con
nected together, because the first is the ob
ject of the second, and with many is actually
attained. Thus when the apostles preach.
conversion to Jews and Gentiles, they mean
both; for neither Christ nor his apostles_ en
couraged a merely external introduction into
the Christian church. Still they require men
to enter into the external church because
there are the means of conversion found.
IT. Scriptural idea of the words^ denoting Re
generation, (itaXiyyEvsola, yEwdoJai dva^sv or
Ssvtspov, dvaysvvag'&ai. Also the synonymous
terms, dvaxaivugts, dvavsovv, xaivbs dv^paitos,
xaivrj xftffis, x. f . X.)
The word itaXvyysvsgla denotes frequently
any entire alteration of state, by which one
is brought into an entirely new and reformed
condition, or placed in a better situation.
The change indicated by this term is, how
ever, as Morus justly observes, in every case,
mutatio in melius, p. 223, note at the' top.
Vide " Scripta Varii Argumenti," Num. vi.
Thus Cicero (Att. iv. 6) calls his restoration
from exile, rfakiyysxEffia, and Josephus (Ant.
xi. 3) calls the restoration of the Jewish land
after the captivity itaxiyysvsgla itatplSos. The
stoics spoke of itaXvyysvsgla tav bXuv. In Ro
man law, the manumission of a slave was
called his regeneration. In Matt. xix. 28, it
denotes an introduction into a new and happy
situation, whether the resurrection or the es
tablishment of the Messiah's kingdom "be
understood. When the Israelites spoke of a person
changing his religion, they used the phrases
birth, new birth, &e. When a Gentile passed
over to Judaism (became a proselyte), he was
regarded by the Jews as new born, a new man,
a child just beginning to live. As such he
was received into their church, and obtained
civil rights. Even in the Old Testament the
term "|,7» is used in reference to proselytes,
Ps. lxxxvii. 5, cell. Is. xlix., Ii., liv. This
might be called external regeneration. The
term was afterwards used by the Rabbins in
a moral sense, since it became the duty of one
who had been admitted into the Jewish
church to live according to Jewish laws, and
to have a better moral disposition. This is
internal, moral regeneration. The term was
used in both of these senses by the Jews at
the time cf Christ and the apostles.
Now it was not the manner of Christ and
the apostles to invent new terms, but to bor
row terms from the ancient Jewish phrase
ology, and transfer them to Christianity.
Hence we find all these words used in the
New Testament in three different senses —

(1) To denote one's passing over externally
from Judaism or heathenism to the Christian
society, and .making an external profession
of the Christian, in opposition to the Jewish
or heathen religion, which the Christian re
nounces. Thus Paul says, Ephes. ii. 15,
" Christ has united Jews and Gentiles into
one church," (sis xaivbv dv^puitov, which can
not here denote internal reformation, as this
could not be predicated of all.) Cf. James,
i. 18. Thus Peter says, 1 Pet. i. 3, " God
hath brought us to the profession of Chris
tianity (di<oy£)/!'ijffas rjfids), in order to enable
us to obtain salvation." Paul frequently says
of those whom he had induced to make pro
fession of Christianity, that he had begotten
them (yswav), Philemon, v. 10 ; 1 Cor. iv. 15;
and aSlvsiv, Gal. iv. 19.
(2) To denote the internal or moral renewal
of the heart and of the whole disposition of
man. This is the object of one's Ijecoming a
Christian, to renounce the love of sin, and
love what is good, and to practice it from
motives of love to God and Christ. This
state is effected in Christians by God, or the
Holy Spirit, through faith in Christ. The
creation of a new heart (reformed disposition)
is mentioned in this sense, even in the Old
Testament, Ezek. xxxvi. 26— 28;,Ps. Ii. 12.
In other passages the term cireumciiionqf heart
is used, Deut. x. 16 ; elsewhere, a ¦sew heart, a
new spirit, a new mind, which has God for its
author, Ezek. xi. 19, 20 ; Psalm 1,, li. ; Is. i.,
&c. In this sense Paul speaks of putting on
the new man, and putting off the old man, of
a new creature, after the image of God, Ephes.
iv. 22, 24, and Col. iii. 9, 10, and duaxoiKoois
vobs, Rom. xii. 2, and dj/a*EovoJai f 9 itvsvpati,
Ephes. iv. 23, seq. Here belong all the texts,
in John and elsewhere, which teach that man
must be born qf God, or the Holy Spirit —
i. e., become his child, love him, in disposi
tion and conduct resemble him, that he may
be loved by God in return ; for all which he
is indebted to God or to the Holy Spirit,
1 John, iii. 9; v. 1 ; John, i. 12, 13. Cf. the
remarks respecting vio^Eisia, s. 119, I. 1.
These different terms, therefore, refer to one
and the same thing.
(3) In many passages these two senses are
combined, because internal regeneration is the
object of external regeneration; exactly as in
the case of litigt pitysiv. Among other texts is
John, iii. 3, 5, " Whoever is not born of bap
tism and the Holy Spirit (i. e,, does not conse
crate himself by baptism to the profession of my
religion, and does not become, through divine
assistance, a reformed man, "a child of God, a
friend of God, like him in moral character) can
not be considered a member of the Messiah's
kingdom (fiagiXsla ©eov)." Rence baptism is
called, Tit. iii. 5, xovtpbv itaxiyysvsglas, because
we are not only solemnly adnfitted by this rite
into the Christian society, but are likewise

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 441

thereby obligated, according to the precepts of
Christ, to become reformed in character; and
on this condition have all the rights and re
wards of God's children granted and assured to
us. So the Rabbins expressed themselves with
regard to the baptism of proselytes. And for
this reasen the most ancient fathers, Ignatius
and Justin, call baptism dvaysvvngis.
III. Scriptural idea of the term pcrSi/ma.
This word is used by the Greeks to designate
a change in a person's opinions, aims, disposi
tions, with respect to particular things. Thus
the phrase, sis pstdvoiav dysiv, signifies to in
duce any one to alter his opinion, and to adopt
another. Polybius uses the word pstavoslv in
relation to a general who designed to stake bat
tle, but afterwards determined differently. Plato
contrasts itpovoslv (to use forecast) and fiEfa-
vaslv, (to reconsider when it is too late.) In
Heb. xii. 17, it is said that Esau could not ob
tain the alteration of his father's opinion, (f«fd-
roia.) In the classical writers, however, this
term is not used to denote particularly an alter
ation in the 7«oraZ state of the mind or heart.
This use first prevailed among the Grecian
Jews, and was derived by them from the Sep
tuagint. The Hebrew aity, is commonly ex
pressed in the Septuagint Version by pstavoslv,
as Is. xxx. 15, though sometimes also by im-
otpifysw. The Hebrew aru is rendered in the
same way, Jer. iv. 28. These significations
run together, since we determine not to repeat
that which causes us sorrow. Hence the words
pstavoslv and pstapixsg^ai are connected as sy
nonymous, 2 Cor. vii. 8, coll. Luke, xvii. 4.
This word, accordingly, like iitigtpo^r), and
other similar terms, is used in the New Testa
ment, in a wider and a narrower sense — viz.,
(1) It denotes the forsaking of a religion
which one had formerly professed, and is pro
fessing a new (the Christian) religion, (because
there is in this case a change of view and opi
nion with respect to religion;) Acts, xx. 21,
where it is said that pstdvoia sis ®sbv is preach
ed to Jews and to Gentiles, in connexion with
rtifffis sis Xpifffov. Thus Luke, xxiv. 47, and
other texts. Vide Morus, p. 222. In the same
way as the return of the Israelites from idolatry
to the true religion was called pstdvoia, could
the conversion of Jews or Gentiles to Christian
ity be so called.
(2) It more commpnly denetes a moral
change. And (a) it expresses the entire meral
renevation or conversion of men, in the widest
sense; and (4) the commencement of this
change, when one begins to abhcr the evil which
he leved, and te form the sincere purpcse ef for
saking it. It is frequently used in this nar
rower sense in the holy scriptures, and this is
its most common use in theology, as will be
56

further shewn, s. 127. This change always
presupposes an entire revolution in the views
and feelings of the subject of it; he begins
thenceforward to love and practise gcpd instead
ef evil. This was the great subject of the
preaching of John the Baptist; MEfaroEifE was
his continual theme, Matt. iii. 2, 11 ; Luke, iii.
8. The same may be said of Christ, Mark, i.
15. It here denotes a radical alteraticn, or a
change by which an entirely new directien is
given te pne's life and efforts. Hence the
phrases which cceur sc frequently, ustavoslv
ditb tav dpaptiuv er spyav vsxpuv, Acts, viii.
22; Heb. vi. 1. Hence, too, fiEfoMEiK and iiti-
fffpE^Ew are interchanged as synonymous, Acts,
iii. 19, 26; Rom. ii. 4.
(3) The writers of the New Testament fre
quently connect the two meanings of the word
jistdvoia together, since the object of an exter
nal change of religion is always the improve
ment of the heart. Acts, xi. 18, " God hath
granted even to the heathen pstdvoiav sis fur/v.
The ancient ecclesiastical fathers, even in the
Latin church, also connected with this word the
idea of repentance and reformation in the moral
sense ; and Lactantius proposes well (Inst. Div.
vi. 24) to render it by the word resipiscentia.
But the word commonly employed in Latin
theology was pxnitenlia, by which the Vulgate
renders astdvoia; which is not, indeed, incorrect
in itself, but often rather ambiguous, and some
times quite inappropriate. Cf. Morus, p. 224
s. 2. After the fourth century writers began to
understand this word according to the Latin
etymology, and to vary from the usage of the
Bible. The influence of Augustine contributed
to the wide diffusion of this error. He insisted
upon the derivation of the word pxnitenlia from
punio or pxnio ; because man himself punishes
his own sins, and therefore receives forgiveness.
Pxnitentia est quxdam dolenlis vindicta, semper
puniens in se, quod dolet commisisse, De Pcenit,
c 8. He was followed by other Latin teachers,
especially by Peter of Lombardy and other
schoolmen. The unscriptural idea that pxni
tentia is not only repentance for past sins, but
punishment, self-inflicted, on account of them,
has prevailed widely not only in the Romish
but also in the protestant church.
This sort of pxnitenlia is expressed in the
Roman church by the German terms, Busse (pe
nance, punishment, in the shape of a fine or
mulct), Busse thun (to do penance), biissen (to
atone), the last of which terms expresses more
clearly the false associated idea. Many pro
testants have therefore wished that when the
error of the Romish church implied in this term
was abandoned, this term itself, which so easily
leads into mistake, had also been given up.
Christ has freed us from the punishment of sin,
and an atonement on our part is not possible.

142

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Even when we repent (astavosiv) — i. e., alter
and reform, we make no atonement, but we re
ceive great blessings. Vide the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession, c. v. and vi. But there
is no word in German [and the same is true in
English] which answers fully to the Greek
pstdvoia. And if the scriptural idea of this term
is explained in the early catechetical instruc
tions, the inaptness of the terms by which it is
rendered need not be so much regretted, since
people in common life are not accustomed to
take words in their etymological sense.
IV. Scriptural idea of terms denoting Holiness or
Sanctity, (ayiunvvrj, 0LyicuT/i6s, k. t. A., also hjiSrris,
5ino[. Heb. EHp, with its derivatives.)
The words dyios> dyid£sw, tshp designate
primarily whatever is singled out, selected, or
• best in its kind. Vide s. 29. It was first applied
in the ancient languages to external excellences
and privileges ; afterwards, to those of an inter
nal and moral nature. Hence arose the twofold
use of these terms in the Bible, which must not
be overlooked; they denote sanctitas externa,
and interna.
(1) All the Israelites are called by Moses
O'E^-ip, and holiness is ascribed to them without
respect to their moral conduct, but merely from
the circumstance that they were (externally)
separated from the Gentiles, and (external) pro
fessors of the true religion. The same way of
speaking became common in respect to Chris
tians, who are frequently called in the New
Testament dyiot, }jyiagp.svoi, merely from the
circumstance that they profess externally the
Christian religion, and belong externally to the
Christian community, and thus are distinguish
ed from Jews and Gentiles. Hence all who
were received into the visible Christian church
by baptism, were called dyioi, Christians, with
out respect to their moral disposition, as appears
from the epistles to the Corinthians.
(2) These terms are also evidently used by
the sacred writers in a moral sense. Lev. xix.
2, " Be ye holy, for I am holy." Cf. 1 Pet. i.
14 — 16. So dytaaubs, in Rom. vi. 22, is the
same as Sixamavvn in ver. 18, 19, virtue, righte
ousness; dyiagvvij, 1 Thess. iii. 13, and dyia^EM*,
v. 23. 'Ayiasfids, in Heb. xii. 14, is that with
out which no man shall see the Lord. The same
is true of dffios and offidf r/s, Ephes. iv. 24 ; Luke,
i. 75, offidfr/s xai Sixaioffvw?. It here denotes
that blamelessness of feeling and conduct which
is required, according to the divine precepts,
from a true worshipper of God, and especially
from a Christian, and also the habitual abhor
rence of sin and love of riioral excellence. Cf.
1 John, iii. 7, Sixaibs igti xa$us ixslvos Slxaios
Ifffi- Rom. vi. 18, SovXsvsw Sixaiouw}?, coll. ver.
19, "He is dead to sin, and lives entirely for
virtue." In this way the Christian becomes

like God, and loves him from similarity of dis
position, and in return is loved by God, as a
dutiful son who resembles his father is loved
by him. Man is destined for holiness, and the
happiness proportionately connected with it.
Vide s. 51, II. ; and when any one is admitted
into the community of the saints, (the Jews un
der the old covenant, and Christians under the
new,) his holiness is the great object aimed at.
The church is designed to be schola sanctitatis.
Otherwise, his admission into the church^and
his fellowship with the saints will be of no ad
vantage to him ; indeed, his condemnation will
be aggravated in consequence of these privi
leges. Holiness is therefore the evidence and
result of conversion, or of repentance and regene
ration. One who is destitute of holiness, or
who is negligent in the pursuit of it, is not con
verted, or 4orn again, or has not repented. For
an account of the nice distinctions and techni
cal definitions of the words conversion, regenera
tion, repentance, renewal, sandification, which
theologians formerly introduced into their sys
tems, vide Morus, p. 223. [Also cf. Hahn, s.
523, ff.— Tr.] SECTION CXXVII.
STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF MORAL REFOR
MATION ; ITS COMMENCEMENT ; ON PUTTING
OFF REPENTANCE ; AND ON LATE CONVERSIONS.
I. Scriptural Doctrine respecting Repentance and
Conversion; inferences from it ,¦ and an Expla
nation of Technical Terms.
(1) Two things are justly considered as es
sential to the commencement of reformation —
viz., the knowledge of sin as sin, and the sor
row of soul arising from it or bitter penitence
on account of sin and abhorrence for it. Chris
tian repentance is therefore a lively knowledge,
agreeably to the precepts of the gospel, of the
sin which we have committed, as a great evil.
This knowledge is called lively when it is effi
cacious and influences the will, in opposition to
a dead knowledge, which has no influence upon
the determinations of the mind. These two
things must belong to reformation of every
kind, and to whatever object it relates, for they
are founded in the very nature of the human
soul. Whenever a change takes place in human
views and feelings, whether entire or partial, it
is always effected by the same laws, and in
volves the same general feelings. In order that
a man may renounce a particular vice, (suppose
drunkenness,) his understanding must first ap
prehend it as a fault, and must see its injurious
consequences. The first effect is therefore pro
duced upon the understanding, and next, through
that, upon the will. The lively conception of
the evil consequences of past transgression or

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 443

of habitual vice awakens sorrow for sin, aver
sion to it, and a determination henceforward to
avoid it But Christian reformation does not
consist in the giving up of particular sins and
vices, but in renouncing sinful dispositions and
principles, in the turning of the heart from the
love of sin to the love of goodness. Particular
outbieakings of sin may be compared with par
ticular symptoms of a dangerous disease; at
tempting to remove these will be in vain, unless
the disease itself is entirely cured. If this is
done, these symptoms of course disappear. In
the same way we should strive, not only to be
rid of particular sins, but to be renewed in the
whole temper of our souls.
The same things are essential to every kind
of reformation — e. g., Jer. iii. 12, 13, where the
Israelites are exhorted to renounce their idola
try; and 2 Cor. vii. 8 — 11, which describes the
feelings produced among the Corinthians by the
rebuke which Paul administered to them on ac
count of their indulgence to the incestuous per
son; and these feelings were the cause of their
reformation, or of their putting away the offence.
Here pstdvoia is said expressly to consist main
ly in Xiitri xata ®sbv, godly sorrow, which was
very beneficial to them after they became con
scious of their guilt. Cf. Ezek. xviii. 21, seq. ;
Luke, iii. 10—14.
Now since the nature and operations of the
human soul are the same at all times, it is not
to be wondered at that the manner of moral re
formation is described in the Old Testament as
essentially the same as in the New. And, in
deed," the process of reformation could not be dif
ferent in the Old Testament and the New, since
it depends upon the unaltered constitution of the
human soul, of which God himself is the author.
The experience of David, (after his affair with
Bathsheba,) recorded in Ps. Ii., is full of in
struction on this point. It consists of the know
ledge of his sin and desert of punishment, sor
row, repentance, desire of forgiveness, the ear
nest wish for reformation and for confirmed
goodness ; also of love, confidence, and sincere
gratitude to God. Cf. Ps. xxxii.
The nature of reformation, and especially of
its commencement, are clearly described by
Christ in two parables.
(a) The parable of the pharisee and the pub
lican, Luke, xviii. 9 — 14. The pharisee is very
proud of his virtues and merits, and thinks ho
man is better than himself, and is fluent in
praise of his own good works. The publican
acknowledges his sins, is troubled, and peni
tent He utters the simple feeling of his heart
in the few words, "God be merciful to me, a
sinner." And Jesus decides, that the latter went
down to his house forgiven by God, the other
not. Here the man who believes that he shall

obtain the grace of God on accouht of his own
works or worthiness, through pride and selfish
blindness remains ignorant of himself and his
great imperfections, and does not see God as
holy and just. He is not therefore inclined io
embrace the doctrine of forgiveness through
grace without personal merit, and accordingly
he is not forgiven. This mistake is called self-
righteousness, from Rom. x. 3. Cf. Dan. ix.
18 ; Is. lxiv. 6. This mistake is one of the most
injurious and dangerous, because the man who
makes it persuades himself that he does not
need reformation.
(4) The excellent parable of the prodigal son,
Luke, xv. The object of this parable is two
fold. First, to shew in what way a man comes
to the knowledge of sin, and to the feeling of
guilt; how he must humble himself, and ac
knowledge his unworthiness of the divine fa--
vours, and yet have confidence, and lay hold of
and embrace the undeserved forgiveness of God.
Secondly, this parable shews how gracious and
kind the feelings of God are, and how ready he
is to forgive the repentant sinner. Vide Luke,
xv. 7, 10. Cf. Tollner's Essays in his " Theol.
Unters." Bd. i. th. 2, s. 390, seq. ; " Busse
und Glauben ;" also, " Ueber die Parabel vom
verlornen Sohn."
(2) Sorrow for the sins we have committed,
(xiitr), 2 Cor. vii. 9, 10,) which is also an es
sential part of reformation, is called by theolo
gians contrition, brokenness qf heart, (Germ.
Zerknirschung.) Our older theologians justly
render and explain this term by the phrase Reue
und Leid, (penitence and sorrow.) The term is
taken from the Hebrew nn Nan and -aeri aS (lit.
wounded heart), Ps. xxxiv. 19 ; Is. lvii. 19 ; Ps.
Ii. 19. Both of these terms are applied to a de
sponding, contrite, troubled mind, whatever the
cause of the distress may be. Cf. Is. lxi. 1,
and other passages cited by Morus, p. 218, n. 9.
The lively knowledge of sin as a great evil, ne
cessarily involves unhappy feelings and sorrow,
(dolor animi, Xvitrj,) Ps. Ii. 19 ; Jer. xxxi. 19 ;
Luke, xviii. 13. And since we are drawn away
to sin by the strength of our passions, and cold
reason is far too weak to afford the necessary
resistance, other feelings must be opposed to
those which incline us to sin, in order to coun
teract their influence ; for man is not merely a
rational being, buf is composed of sense and
reason, (Germ. Vernunftig-sinnliches Wesen.)
Now it is a great object, and one of the chief
advantages of religion, to excite and maintain
these penitential feelings. Sorrow for sin is
highly beneficial in its influence, and is essen
tially involved in true and radical reformation.
Hence Paul, 2 Cor. vii. 9, calls this penitence
and sorrow, xiittjv xata ®sov, acceptable to God,
agreeable to his will and purpose — because it

444

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

contributes to our salvation, (eis gatijplav.) And
because it does so, it is a repentance not to be
repented of, (dustausXtjtov.)
But this sorrow for sin is very different in de
gree both as to strength (intensive) and continu
ance, (extensive.) Men differ exceedingly from
each other in respect to constitution, tempera
ment, and the entire mental disposition. Ac
cordingly, their feelings, and the manner in
which they express them, are very different.
No general rule can therefore be prescribed for
all, respecting the degree of sorrow which it is
necessary to feel, and the manner in which it
must be expressed. We have no definite mea
sure of human feeling, no mathesis affecluum.
Let this, then, be the only rule by which we try
ourselves and others : Sorrow for sin is then only
sufficiently great (for the purpose of reformation)
when it produces in us a constant aversion to sin,
remaining through our whole lives. It implies
the sincere wish, Would that I had not trans
gressed the divine commands, and also the ac
knowledgment of the desert of punishment on
account of such transgression. But while one
is inclined from his very temperament to sorrow
and despondency, or to violent outbreakings of
feeling, another is naturally disposed to cheer
fulness, is more considerate and reserved, and
gives little vent to his emotions. Besides, there
are different degrees, both of actual sin and of
inward corruption, in different men; and their
feelings of sorrow will of course vary accord
ingly. Sincerity of heart is the great requisite here ;
Ps. xxxii. 6. It is on this only that God looks
with approbation. The accurate recollection of
each particular sin we have ever committed is
neither necessary nor possible. Still less are
the external, visible signs of penitence and sorrow
essential to reformation, unless they arise from
the deep, sincere sorrow of the heart. Whether
the feelings of the heart shall be'expressed by
external signs depends wholly upon the differ
ence of men as to natural temperament and or
ganization. As to tears, lamentations, and
sighs, they are of very little consequence in this
matter. Provided the heart be renewed, whe
ther it be with or without tears is a point of in
difference. The tearless repentance of a man
of a sedate cast of mind may be more sincere
and acceptable to God than'the penitence of a
person of a more effeminate mouldy which is
attended with sighing and weeping, but which
often passes soon away and leaves no abiding
effects. Cf. 124, I. II. We should beware,
however, of considering persons to be hypocrites
because they make these violent demonstrations
of feeling — a rash decision too often made! On
this point we are liable to mistake, and religious
teachers have often, from the earliest times,
been in fault here. Many made too much of the

term contrition, and undertook to lay downde.
finite rules on this subject, and appealed to
some examples and passages in the Bible,
which are not, however, universally applica
ble — e. g., the repentance of David, Mary Mag
dalene, Peter, and the repentance in sackcloth
and ashes mentioned in the Old Testament,
which, however, does not describe reformation
of heart, but the public external rites employed
in case of pestilence and other great calamities.
Such vehement expressions of feeling are not
required of all men. The example of David,
who spent three quarters of a year in trouble on
account of his sins, is frequently mentioned
here. But he had himself to blame for this;
since he himself confesses, Psalm xxxii. 3, 4,
that he endeavoured to keep silence respecting
his sins — i. e., to exculpate himself before God,
to palliate his guilt, and to avoid the necessity
of humble confession and penitence. As soon
as he acknowledged his sin and repented of it,
God forgave him, ver. 5.
Christianity does not lay down any definite
rule, or prescribe any artificial efforts by which
this moral change must be effected. It requires
from each nothing but what- is adapted to his
nature. Peter wept, and considering his cha
racter and his crime, this was- natural. The
publican only sighed. Zacchaeus does not ap
pear to have done either the one or the other.
And yet the penitence and reformation of all
was acceptable in the sight of God.
According to the precepts of Christianity this
change must result in the suppression of the
reigning desires of the flesh, and in restoring
dominion to those principles of reason which
are conformable to the will of God ; and thus
renovating the whole man, and making him,
before carnal (ffapxixds), to be spiritual (itvsvfuir
fixds), obedient to the precepts of Christianity,
and in a state prepared to enjoy the guidance
and assistance of God, or the Holy Spirit Cf.
Romans, vii. 25; viii. 1, seq.
Theologians call the reformation of men who
were before entirely rude and savage, pxnilen-
tiam primam, or magnam ; that of those who
are in a better moral condition, but still need
reformation, pxnitentiam stantium, or secundam,
or quotidianam. And all, even the greatest
saints on earth, stand in need of this daily re
pentance, though in different degrees. None
can justly consider themselves perfect. All
must acknowledge themselves sinners, deficient
and imperfect So the whole scriptures require
us to feel ; and everywhere insist upon sincere
and unpretending humility, and condemn the
opposite dispositions.
(3) Sorrow or penitence for sin must flow
from the knowledge of sin — i. e., from a con-
seiousness that we have acted contrary to the
divine law, and therefore deserve divine punish

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 445

ments. Hence it follows that we should impar
tially examine our actions according to the law
ef God. Now when one sees that he has been
ungrateful and disobedient, and rendered him
self unworthy of the divine favour; when, in
view of this, he feels sorrow and sincere peni
tence, and begs God to pardon his sins and
avert deserved punishment ; this is called mak
ing confession of sin to God, (confessio.) This
is not, then, as some would have it, a particular
part of repentance. It is the opposite of con
cealing, exculpating, palliating one's sins before
God, (refusing to acknowledge them as such,
and to seek forgiveness for them.) Proverbs,
xxviii. 13, " He that covereth his sins shall not
prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh
them shall have mercy." So Christ represents
it in the parable of the prodigal son, Luke, xv.
Vide Psalm xxxii. 3 — 6; Dan. ix. 4; 1 John,
i. 8, where saying we have no sin is opposed to
ofioXoyslg^ai, dfiapfiay, ver. 9, to acknowledge
and repent of sin.
The Bible says nothing of the necessity
which the Romish church teaches of making
confession to men as to representatives of God.
It recommends, however, the practice of con
fessing our faults to experienced Christians, and
of opening to them the state of our hearts, as
conducive te vital religien. Cf. James, v. 16.
(4) Sorrow for sin and hatred and abhorrence
of it are always founded on a previous know
ledge of sin; but they are produced in two
ways — viz.,
(a) By contemplation of the divine precepts
and the penalty threatened in the law against
transgressors. The divine laws were given for
our highest gepd. Every vielatipn pf them beth
destroys the happiness flewing from pbedience
and incurs the punishment annexed te dispbe-
dience. When the sinner serinusly revplves
such ccnsiderations as these, he must necessa
rily feel mingled emotions of shame, terror,
anxiety on his own account, and abhorrence for
sin itself. We find that Christ and the apos
tles made use of these considerations in order
to awaken a salutary fear in the minds of their
hearers. Vide Matt. iii. 7, 10; Luke, iii. 3,
seq. ; Heb. x. 29, seq. This is called by the
schoolmen and in the Romish church, altritio,
or, as Thomas Aquinas has it, contritio informis
— i. e,., imperfecta, inchohata, (dolor de peccato e
tnetu pcenarum.) \
(b) By contemplation of the divine promises
contained in the gospel. When we consider,
on one side, the undeserved love and kindness
of God, exhibited in so many ways, and espe
cially through Christ, and which- has sought
in every possible manner to lead us to true hap
piness in this life and the life to come, and has
invited and encouraged us by the greatest pro
mises, (John, iii. 16;) and when we consider,

071 the other side, our own levity and negligence,
our wilful rejection of the means of good offered
us by God ; when we consider all this, we must
be constrained to feel the deepest penitence and
shame, abhorrence for sin, and love to God and
Christ who have done so much for us. These
motives have a great and mighty efficacy in
promoting radical reformation. Jesus and the
apostles use these motives more frequently than
any others. Their whole heart, as it were, Uvea
in them. Vide John, iii. 16; xxi. 15, seq.; 1
Pet. iv. 1—3 ; Tit ii. 10, II. The schoolmeu
and the Romish church call this contritionem
(dolorem de peccato e dilectione oriundum.) Thus
this very consideration of the great blessings
for which we are indebted to Christ leads to
faith in him. He who knows that much has
been forgiven him, loves much, Luke, vii. 47.
Since Christ has done so much for us, and has
even died for us, we are led to place our whole
trust in him, and look to him for all our happi
ness, and to obey his commands from grateful
love, John, iii. 5, 14 — 21. We see that by our
sins we are rendered unhappy, that by our own
merit we cannot obtain the favour of God, not
even by our best works. Hence we confide in
Christ, and seek through faith in him to obtain
forgiveness of God, ix itlgtsus Sixaia&fvai, Gal.
iii. 24. In this way we become children of God,
(Tioi1 ©eov Sid itlgtsus iv Xpifff 9, ver. 26,) 4e-
loved of God, and blessed by him.
Many of the schoolmen and theologians of
the Romish church reject altogether the motives
first mentioned, asserting that they are not at all
promotive of our moral improvement. The An-
tinomians of the sixteenth century expressed
themselves in a similar manner with many
others. It is true that this attrition may be so
abused as to lead to a despair which will abso
lutely prevent instead of promotingreform'ation.
But still when it is cautiously made use of, espe
cially in the case of rude and uncultivated men,
it produces a very good effect, and is therefore
employed in the Old Testament, by John the
Baptist, and Jesus himself, with many classes
of hearers. Some are entirely incapable of the
tender emotions to which the appeal is made in
this second class of motives. Their heart must
be broken and softened before it can become
susceptible of the motives of the gospel. There
is in this respect the same difference even in
adult persons that there is between children,
some of whom are ill-mannered and rude, and
others docile and well-disposed. The wise
teacher will employ different means with these
different cases ; and so must also the teacher
of religion. Vide Tollner's Essay (No. 1)
" Busse und Glauben."
When one is reformed, the love of sin, now
renounced, is succeeded in his mind by holiness
diligence in duty, or pious Christian dispositions
2P

448

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

and a h;ly Christian walk. Cf. s. 126, IV.
Hence some theologians of the Lutheran church
in the sixteenth century, took pxnitentia in so
wide a sense as to include faith and diligence
in good works.
Morus (p. 216, 217, s. 2) has given a good
summary statement of the different parts of re
formation here separately considered. The 7,'ti-
toard maTi is principally regarded in Christian
reformation. The object is not merely to re
strain the gross outbreakings of sin, but to rec
tify the whole disposition and heart, so that
the subject of it will henceforth act from entirely
different motives and principles. The holy
scriptures, both of the Old and New Testa
ments, insist everywhere that the fovs, xapSia,
itvsiaa, o 'iga dv$puitos, must be renovated. The
terms, circumcision of the heart, new heart, reno
vation, regeneration, new creature, all express
this truth. Vide John, iii. 1 — 21 ; also No. vi.
in " Scripta Varii Argumenti" above cited. If
any one expects to succeed, by attempting to
amend externally, or in any other way than by
a radical change of heart, he will be disapoint-
ed. Vide No. i. 1.
II. Delay of Repentance ,- and late Conversion.
This subject is treated more fully in Chris
tian ethics.
(1) The danger and evil of delaying reforma
tion, (a) The danger and difficulties. The
longer one continues in sin the more fixed be
comes his habit of sinning, and of course the
more difficulty will he find in breaking loose
from it. He will thus become more and more
the slave of sin, and be constantly bound with
stronger chains. The longer therefore reforma
tion is deferred, the more difficult it becomes.
Besides, external circumstances are not in our
power. Many die suddenly; others lose the
use of their reason, or in their last moments are
entirely unfitted for the mental efforts which are
requisite for attending to the important concerns
of religion, &c. (4) There must always be an
evil and injury attending late reformations,
however thorough and sincere they may be.
God proportions the rewards he bestows to the
degree of zeal which one shews in goodness,
and to the length of time during which he has
exhibited it. Vide s. 125, II. One who has
just commenced a virtuous course, and has
made but little advancement in it, cannot expect
a great reward. In the future life, he must re
main inferior to others, and thus suffer for his
remissness and negligence.
(2) The opinions of theologians have always
been very much divided on the question as to
the possibility of late repentance, and the worth
of it. Vide the history of these opinions in He-
gelmeyer's Diss. " de sera pcenitentia," p. i. ;
Tubingen, 1780.

First. Mesthpld, with truth, that late reform-
atinn is possible, and that God may pardon
(though with the limitations mentioned, No. I)
even those who defer repentance to the last, if
it is then therough and sincere. They held,
hpwever, for the reasens above given, that such
late conversions are very doubtful, and that
great caution should be used in speaking confi
dently of the salvation of those who put off reli
gion to the last, lest this should tend to confirm
others, to their great injury, in their prevailing
errors. It is unsafe for men to pronounce any
opinion in such a case. For there is no evi
dence of true faith but the works of the life.
None but God can look into the heart. But
since God can look into the very soul ; since he
will forgive, without exception, all who sin
cerely repent of their sins, and ask forgiveness
through Christ, in the way which he has pre
scribed, (1 Tim. ii. 4 ; 2 Pet. iii. 9 ;) and since
the grace of God is limited to no time, to no ter-
minum gratix peremplorium, (s. 113, 1. 3 ;) there
can be no doubt, in abstrado, but that God will
really forgive those who seek for pardon, though
it may be late, if their desire be only sincere
and earnest. He will bestow even upon such
that happiness and reward of which they are
susceptible. The example of the malefactor on
the cross (Luke, xxiii. 40 — 43) is justly refer
red to in behalf of this opinion. The Christian
doctrine justifies us in promising pardon and
mercy to all, even the greatest sinners, at all
times, provided they will only accept these
offers. To cut off, therefore, an unhappy dying
man from all hope, and to thrust him into de
spair, is without scriptural warrant, and highly
presumptuous and cruel.
Secondly. Others regard late repentance as
impossible, and hold that one who has deferred
it to the last cannot hope for pardon ; because,
they say, late repentance never can be true or
sincere, and this is a condition indispensable to
forgiveness. They appeal to the example of
many who in prospect of death gave signs of
repentance, but who, as soon as danger was
past, became worse than before.
But (a) there are also examples of a different
kind — examples of those who, like the thief on
the cross, became repentant and believing in
circumstances of imminent danger, and who yet
have afterwards manifested an unshaken fidelity
(4) These who advocate this opinion often mis
take the want of perseverance in faith for the
want of sincerity in it. (c) The examples men
tioned do not prove that late repentance is never
sincere and thorough, but only that it is not
always so ; which indeed is true.
The great argurrient, however, which is used
on this side is, that conversion is not the work of
a moment, (not subitanea or ens/an/anea,) but
requires lime, earnestness, zeal, practice. This

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 447

Is true from the very nature of the human mind.
But this only proves the great difficulty, the
uncertainty and danger of such late conver
sions, and not the entire impossibility of them.
Many men, in whom the work of conversion is
not completed, are still not entirely evil and
destitute of all good. The seed of goodness
frequently lies in their hearts, while its growth
and fruitfulness are impeded and prevented by
various internal and external hindrances. But
this work may have been silently and unob-
servedly going on in the midst of these difficul
ties. And now unexpectedly some external
circumstance occurs as a means of awakening.
The person hears a moving exhortation, is re
minded of some promise or threatening from
the Bible, is placed in imminent danger, or in
some such manner is aroused, and impelled to
attend more earnestly to the concerns of his
soul. These circumstances depend on Divine
Providence, and God makes use of them as
means for the conversion of men. This appears
to have been the case with the malefactor on the
cross. Probably there had been a long prepa
ration in his mind for the result to which he
then came. The passage, Heb. vi. 4 — 6, 'ASi-
vatov — itapaiisgavtas — ovaxaivt^Eiv sis pstdvoiav,
has no relation to this point. This passage
refers to those who persevere in apostasy, and
the rejection of religion. The phrase, dSivatov
iati, means only that it is impossible for men.
Cf. Matt. xix. 26.
¦Those theologians who differ so widely from
the Bible as to hold that the forgiveness of men
depends altogether upon their holiness or obedi
ence to the divine commandment's, and not upon
faith in Christ and his atonement, are indeed
hard pressed in this point. If they would be
consistent, they must deny salvation to those
who delay repentance till just before the close
of life, and who therefore do not exhibit the
fruits of this change. So even Steinbart
thought. The holy scriptures, on the contrary,
teach that God forgives men on account of their
faith in Jesus Christ; that holiness is the con
sequence of this faith, and that without this
faith in Christ man is not able to live holy.
Now if a man, whose reformation begins with
faith, is prevented by death from exhibiting the
fruits of this faith, (which, however, he would
have exhibited had he lived longer,) he cannot,
on this account, be excluded by God from hap
piness ; although his happiness will be less than
that of others who have pursued a long course
of active virtue. Thus we might conclude in
ubstracto ; the determination in particular given
cases must be left with God.
Note. — The work of Noesselt, " Ueber den
Werth d er Moral und spaten Besserung," (Halle,
1777, 8vo, Ausg. 2, 1783 ; especially s. 220,
seq.,) contains much on this subject which is ex

cellent. This work was occasioned by the unset
tled, partial, and indefinite views contained in
many works on this subject, especially in those
which held up the opinion that late repentance
is impossible or of no avail ; such, for example,
as that of Saurin, " On the Delay of Conver
sion;" Edward Ha'rwood, "On the Invalidity
of Repentance on the Death-bed ;" and Stein
bart, on the question " What Value can be al
lowed to Sudden Conversions, especially on the
Death-bed ; and what is it advisable publicly to
teach on this subject?" Berlin, 1770, 8vo.
SECTION CXXVIII.
REMARKS ON THE FALSE OPINIONS AND PERVER
SIONS CONCERNING THE DOCTRINE OF REPENT
ANCE, WHICH HAVE BEEN GRADUALLY ADOPTED
IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Most of these mistakes have arisen from false
ideas, agreeing with the depraved inclinations of
the human heart, respecting forgiveness of sin,
propitiating God, and the merit of good works.
Cf. s. 108, and s. 125, III.
I. Penance of the Excommunicated.
The apostles and other ancient Christian
teachers held that it is the prerogative of God
alone to forgive sin, and that men are bound to
confess their sins to him, and to seek forgiveness
from him. So taught Justin the Martyr (Apol.
2), and others. But even as early as the times
of the apostles the custom (which had before
prevailed among the Jews) of excommunicating
gross offenders from the church (d<j>opifffi6s) was
adopted by Christians, and was indeed necessary
at that time. The rites attending restoration to
the church became constantly more numerous
and complex duringthe second, third, and fourth
centuries. Those who were restored were com
pelled to perform public penance, (pxnilentia pub-
lica.) The excommunicated person (lapsus) was
bound (l).to labour to convince the church of
the reality of his penitence and reformation.
He appeared therefore in public in a mourning
dress ; he fasted, wept, and begged for prayers,
(contritio.) (2) He was bound to make a pub
lic confession of sin, and to ask forgiveness of
the church; and this, in order to humble him and
to warn others, (confessio.) (3) His undergo
ing these and other trials and punishments im
posed upon him as the condition of his being
readmitted, was called satisfadio; and he ob
tained pacem. Vide Morini Tradatus de posni-
tenlix sacramento. This was originally only
church discipline, and nobody pretended that it
was connected with the forgiveness of sins by
God, who looks not upon the outward man, but
upon the heart. Indeed, Montanus in the se
cond century, and Novatian in the third, though
they were so rigorous in church discipline that

448

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

they were unwilling to readmit a person who
had been once excluded, did not deny that he
might obtain forgiveness from God.
II. Penance supposed the means of obtaining the
Forgiveness of God.
We find that the great body of Christians
since the second century have entertained very
erroneous apprehensions respecting this excom
munication. Many believed (although the doc
trine was not as yet formally sanctioned by the
authority of the church) that a person by being
excommunicated from the church is also ex
cluded from communion with God. But they
also held that when the church forgives a person
and admits him again to their fellowship, God
also forgives him and admits him to his favour.
And this opinion was more dangerous in its ten
dency than the former. The church, and espe
cially those who ruled over it, who had the most
to say in this matter, came to be regarded more
and more as the representatives of God. Vide s.
135, 1. Hence great importance was attached to
the external rite in the read mission of the excom
municated. The idea became prevalent, that
God is influenced, and moved as it were to com
passion, by fasting, weeping, kneeling, begging,
and sighing. In short, it was believed that a per
son could obtain forgiveness of God by the same
external means by which the favour and forgive
ness of the church and its rulers could be obtained .
And the teachers of religion often contributed to
the increase of such errors by insisting injudi
ciously upon these externa] rites. Even Origen
sometimes expressed himself in this unguarded
manner — e. g., in Homil. 15 in Levit. After
the fourth century, the service of God was made
to consist more and more in mere outward cere
monies. III. Auricular Confession.
When the Christian church was much en
larged, the Grecian church in the third century,
and the Western church in the third and fourth,
commuted the public confession of the excom
municated for private confession to be made to
a presbyter appointed for that purpose. Vide
Sozom. ix, 35. This too was soon abolished in
the Grecian church, but it was retained in the
Latin church. Hence arose by degrees the prac
tice of auricular confession, and then, slowly, the
whole system of public penance. At first the
lapsi only were bound to ccnfess their grosser
offences to spiritual guides, before they could be
reinstated and allowed to approach the holy sup
per. But in process of time, every Christian
was required to confess to the clergy all his
sins, even the least of them, before he could be
admitted to the Lord's table. The clergy and
the monks confirmed the populace in the persua
sion, to which it was itself predisposed, that con

fession to the priest was the same as confession
to God ; and that the priests gave absolution in
God's stead.
This much-abused principle, that confession
must be made to spiritual teachers and the heads
of the church, is found very early, even in the
third century — e. g., in the writings of Origen
(Homil. in Levit), and especially of the Latin
fathers, Cyprian, Hieronymus, and Augustine.
They compared the presbyter with a physician,
who cannot heal a disease if he is not made
acquainted with it. In all these rites, there is
much which is good, and which might be prac
tised to great advantage, and, indeed, was so :t
the early church. But afterwards, when tht
priesthood and laity had both very much dege
nerated, they were greatly perverted and mis
applied. IV. Penance imposed by the Clergy:
At first the church imposed the satisfaction to
be made by offenders. This was now done by
the ecclesiastic, to whorn confession was made.
The penalties imposed by him were now no
longer considered merely as satisfaction given to
the church. It was believed, that by these same
means God is rendered propitious and his judg
ments are averted. It was also believed that
the teachers and ministers of the church are the
representatives of God. These ministers were
now frequently compared, as indeed they had
been during the third century, with the Leviti-
cal priests, who, in God's stead, imposed pu
nishments for the purpose of atoning for sin,
such as prayers, fasts, almsgiving, and other rites
and gifts, which were now looked upon as me
ritorious good works, s. 125. The ecclesiastics
and monks had books of penance, in which the
penalties were assigned for each particular sin.
Vide Joh. Dallaus, De pcenis et satisfactionibus
humanis; Amst. 1649.
V. The Doctrine of Indulgences.
At last the doctrine of indulgences was intro
duced. This was destructive of all morality.
The practices of penance and confession which,
at least during the darker periods of the middle
ages, maintained to some degree an external
discipline and order, fell at once into neglect
and disuse. For by means of indulgences the
people obtained remission of the penances, and
freedom from the canonical or ecclesiastical pu
nishments of sin, which were imposed by their
father confessors. These indulgences were first
granted by the bishops, when an individual of
fered of his own accord to perform some gond
work, to give alms, to found charitable institu
tions, to build churches, &c They were after
wards sold for mere money. After some time
the pope appropriated the trade in indulgences
to himself, and during the thirteenth -and four.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 419

teenth centuries carried on a wide extended mo
nopoly in this business. Indulgences could
now be purchased even for future sins. It was
the prevailing belief that these indulgences de
liver not only from canonical punishments —
i. e., from those imposed by the laws of the vi
sible church, but also from the divine punish
ments, since the pope is the vicar of God and
of Christ. After the thirteenth century this
practice was sustained by. the doctrine de thesauro
bonorum operum, which the church, and espe
cially the pope, the head of the church, were
supposed to hold at their disposal, s. 125. The
abuses attending this practice gave occasion to
the reformation in Germany and Switzerland in
the sixteenth century.
VI. Scholastic System of Penance.
These erroneous opinions, which had gra
dually arisen, were brought into a formal scho
lastic system by the schoolmen, and especially
by Peter of Lombardy in the twelfth, and Tho
mas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. The
whole doctrine of the Bible respecting moral
reformation and a change of heart was thus
changed into S'matter of external penance. This
became the prevailing system of the Romish
church, and all these principles of the school
men were sanctioned by the Council at Trent,
Sess. 14.
The following are the main principles of the
schoolmen — viz.,
(1) Pxnitentia is derived from punio, accord
ing to Augustine, and therefore denotes the pu
nishment of oneself '. Hence originally the Ger
man Busse, which signifies, punishment, atone
ment, &c. Vide s. 126, IV.
(2) Each particular sin must be atoned for by
particular satisfactions.
(3) Therefore every Christian must confess
all his sins to the minister of the church, as a
priest and judge, placed in God's stead.
(4) Conversion,, therefore, consists of three
things — viz., contritio, or compundio cordis, con-
fessio oris, (to the priest in God's stead,) and
satisfadio operis, (satisfaction rendered by per
forming the penances imposed.) All this was
borrowed from the ancient ecclesiastical disci
pline. Vide No. I., on the distinction between
attritio and contritio. Cf. s. 127, 1. 3.
(5) This satisfaction, or atonement, must be
made by prayer, alms, fasts, and other external
' rites and -bodily chastisements. Accordingly,
Peter of Lombardy says, Oratio dominica dclet
minima et quotidiana peccata. Sufficit oratio do
minica cum eleemosynis etjrjunio. Vide s. 108.
(6) This pxna salisfactoria, which must, in
the usual course, be endured, may be somewhat
remitted, says Thomas Aquinas, by means of
indulgences. But this principle was afterwards
very much extended. Vide No. v.
57

(7) One whe is npt absplved of his pardon
able sins by rendering such satisfactions goes
at death into purgatory, where, in the midst
of torments, he must make atonement for them.
The dectrine depurgatorio was propagated dur
ing the fourth century in the West, and univer
sally prevailed from the ninth to the eleventh
centuries. It was believed, however, that souls
could be freed from purgatory, or, at least,
that their continuance there could be shorteried
by having masses said for their souls. Vide
s. 150.

ARTICLE XII.
ON THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE ; OR THE DI
VINE INSTITUTIONS FOR PROMOTING' RE
PENTANCE AND FAITH; S. 129—133, INCLU-
SIVE.

SECTION CXXIX.
EXPLANATION OF THE TERMS "GRACE, OPERA
TIONS OF GRACE, MEANS OF GRACE," AND
OTHER PHRASES EMPLOYED IN THEOLOGY ON
THIS SUBJECT ; AND THE CONNEXION OF THIS
DOCTRINE WITH THE PRECEDING.
I. Connexion of this Doctrine with the foregoing ,-
and the Import of it.
The whole Christian doctrine is given by
God to men in order to bring them to faith and
repentance, and consequently to eternal happi
ness. For they are not capable of this happi
ness until they perform the conditions described
in Article xi. But, as the scriptures teach us,
we are not at present in a condition to amend
ourselves, and by our own powers to fulfil
these conditions, without some higher assistance
and guidance of God. This incompetency is
owing to the power of sense, and its preponder
ance over reason, or, which is the same thing,
to natural depravity. Vide sec. 77 — 80. Now,
though man needs a moral change, his will,
according to both scripture and experience,
being in a high degree depraved, he is yet
unable, without divine help and assistance,
either to awaken within himself earnest desires
after holiness, or to execute the good purposes
he may form, and persevere in them, or to
perform the other conditions upon which his
salvation depends. All the arrangements, there
fore, which God has made, in order to produce
in those who live in Christian lands faith in
Christ and a change of heart, and to secure
their continuance, and thus to bring men to the
enjoyment of the promised salvation, are called
by the general name of grace, or the operations
2 p2

450

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

of divine grace, (operationes gratix, German,
Gnadenwirkungen. )
II. The Various Names by which these Operations
are commonly designated in Theology.
(1) Gratia. By this term is understood, in
theology, the divine operations or power (assist
ance) exerted in producing repentance or con
version. It is contrasted with nature, and by
this is meant, the natural powers of man, which,
on account of his depravity, are regarded as too
weak and insufficient to effect this moral reno
vation, and therefore need to be elevated and
strengthened by God. The state of one who is
enlightened by Christian doctrine, and by a
faithful use of it, under divine assistance, is re
newed, is called a slate of grace, (status gratix.)
This is opposed to the natural state, (status na
turx, 6r naturalis,) by which is meant the state
of one who is not as yet enlightened by the
Christian doctrine, or renovated by its influ
ence, and has not yet experienced the assist
ance of God. Morus, pages 234, 235. Augus
tine first used the word gratia to denote the su
pernatural agency of God in conversion. He
held this agency to be, in reality, miraculous,
and therefore irresistible. Vide sec. 132. This
use of the term has since been retained in theo
logy, even by those who have discarded the er
roneous epinions of Augustine.
Xdpis is used in the Bible to denote (a) the
undeserved divinefavour towards men in general ;
(b) the result and proof of this favour in the par
ticular blessings bestowed; and (c) more espe
cially the blessings for which we are indebted to
Christ, pardon, the forgiveness of sins, and all
the Christian privileges connected with forgive
ness. Hence all the operations qf God on the
hearts of men, in promoting repentance and holi
ness, are comprehended by the. sacred writers
under the term #dpis, as being the most distin
guished favours ; although these are not the
only favours intended by this term in its scrip
tural usage, but the others now mentioned are
also often designated by it. Vide s. 88, IL,
note. The whole series of operations and means
which God employs to bring men to the enjoy
ment of the blessedness procured by Christ is
called in theology, xconomia gratix, the xcono-
my or dispensation of grace, (Germ. Gnadenan-
stalt, or Einrichtung.) Theologians distinguish
here (a) actus, or operationes gratix — i. e., the
gracious, salutary influences (also called auxilia
gratix) by which men are brought to salvation,
and (P) the media, gratix — i. e., the means
which God employs in exerting these influ
ences on the hearts of men; the means of re
pentance or holiness. These means are, the
Word qf God — the divine doctrine, especially
that made known through Christ. The theolo

gians of Tubingen have sometimes given the
name gratia applicatrix to these divine opera
tions, because, through them, God applies to us
the merit of Christ to be embraced by faith —
i. e., he places us in a condition in which we
actually realize the fruits of Christ's merits.
(2) These operationes gratix are sometimes
called the office of the Holy Spirit, (officium, or
munus Spiritus Sancti, or better, his opus, busi
ness, work, cf. s. 105, I. 2,) because the sancti
fying divine influences are frequently ascribed
in the scriptures to the Holy Spirit. Some the
ologians have ascribed a fourfold, and others a
fivefold office to the Spirit, in renewing the
heart of man — viz., elenclicum, didaclicum, px-
deuticum, paracldicum, and others, epanorlholi-
cum. A different divisien is made by others.
This form of the doctrine is derived from the
passage, John, xvi. 7 — 15. But there the thing
principally intended is the instruction which
the apostles should receive from the Holy
Spirit, by which they themselves should be
enabled to teach men, to exhort them to repent
ance, and to convince (ixiyxsw) them of their
unbelief. This passage, then, does not speak
of the renewing influences of the Holy Spirit
on the hearts of all Christians; though all these
renewing influences are, beyond a question, as
cribed everywhere in the scriptures to God, and
especially to the Holy Spirit. Vide s. 131.
Note. — The various, and mostly fruitless,
controversies which have prevailed among the
ologians, especially since the time of Augus
tine, respecting the manner in which the agency
of God is exerted in renewing the heart of man,
and likewise the various technical terms and
fine distinctions which have been introduced,
have rendered this article one of the most diffi
cult and involved, in the whole system of theo
logy. These subtleties, however, should have
no place in the religious instruction given to the
unlearned Christian. It is sufficient for him to
know (1) that he owes his renewal not to him
self and his own powers, but (2) that it is the
result of that powerful divine assistance which
God -denies to none for this purpose; (3) that
faith and repentance are not produced by an ir
resistible influence, but that man can resist
them ; (4) that in the case of those who enjoy
the Word of God (revealed religion), the sav
ing change is effected by God, through this
Word, as a means ; and that (5) those, there
fore, who enjoy the Word of God are to expect
no divine assistance entirely disconnected from
it, though they may look for this assistance in
connexion with the faithful use of the Word of
God ; and that, accordingly, (6) man must not
be passive and supine in this work, but care
fully use all the opportunities and means which
divine grace affords him.
Erasmus remarked in hi* work, " Contra

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 451

librum Lutheri de servo arbitrio," that it is not
essential that one should be able to determine
• accurately and logically the manner in which
grace operates on the heart, if he only inwardly
experiences these renewing influences. Not
every one who imagines that he understands
the manner in which the divine agency is ex
erted has himself, of necessity, actually expe
rienced it, and the reverse. Nor is it either ne
cessary or possible, in particular cases, to deter
mine definitely how much man himself (natura)
has contributed to his own improvement, and
how much grace has done for him, provided he
sincerely believes that he owes his entire re
newal to the unmerited divine compassion.
Vide Morus, p. 229, note, and p. 236, 237.
SECTION CXXX.
WHAT ARE THE OPERATIONS OF DIVINE GRACE
FOR PROMOTING THE REPENTANCE AND SALVA
TION OF THOSE WHO LIVE IN CHRISTIAN LANDS J
AND WHAT MEANS DPES GPD EMPLPY IN EXERT
ING THESE INFLUENCES GN THEIR HEARTS ?
1. In what the Operations of Divine Grace consist,-
and in what order they follow.
We shall first exhibit this dectrine in the form
in which it is. commonly treated in theological
systems, and then shew how it may be more
Bimply and intelligibly represented.
(1) The common method in theological
schools is to describe these various divine ope
rations by figurative terms drawn from the
Bible, often using them, however, in a differ
ent sense from that in which they are there
used, and then to treat particularly and sepa
rately of calling, illumination, regeneration,
union with God, sandification, and renovation.
The result of this has been, that these particu
lar parts are conceived of as different and dis
tinct, while in truth they are most intimately
connected. Vide s. 126, in prin. Theologians
make the following division of these influences,
and suppose them to follow in this order : — (a)
Man is invited by the truths of the Christian
religion to repent and accept the salvation of
fered him, (vocatio.) (b) He now attains a pro
per, lively, and salutary knowledge of Chris
tian truth, (illuminatio.) (c) When the under
standing entertains just views, then the willis
renewed. Goed feelings and dispesitipns arise
in place of sinful ones, (regeneratio.) (d) This
work of illumination and regeneration must be
carried on'by ever-increasing divine influences ;
and thus progressive sanctificatien, pr entire
heliness, will be effected ; and the higher the
degrees of divine influence, the more closely
will man become united with God, (unio mys
tica.) The proper scriptural import of most of
these terms was explained s. 126; and the unio

'ica in s. 119, I. 3. Cf. Morus, p. 232.
Calling and illumination still remain to be ex
plained. (a) Illumination. This word is commonly
explained in theology in such a way as to ren
der it applicable only to the true believer. It
denotes that true and living knowledge of the
doctrines of salvation which has a powerful effi
cacy upon the will, which is not the case with
the knowledge which unregenerate men pos
sess. So that, as theologians explain it, illu-
minare aliquem is the same as cum effedu salu-
tari docere aliquem. Of such a kind, indeed,
must our knowledge be, in order to be salutary
and saving; and to make it so is the object of
the divine influences. In the Bible, however,
this term is differently used in a wider and nar
rower sense. To enlighten, (futl^siv, ¦wn,
means, (a) to instruct, teach. It is used by the
LXX. as synonymous with SiSdgxsw, x. t. x.
And human teachers are said to enlighten men
as well as God. Thus, Eph. i. 18, " The eyes
of the understanding being enlightened ;" and
iii. 9, iputi^sw; and 2 Cor. iv. 6; Heb. vi. 4,
9ufifffids. For 9us is intelligence, clear know
ledge, and the opposite, ffxdfos, is ignorance.
Of the same import is the phrase, dvolysiv tovs
Sf$aXpois, Acts, xxvi. 18, &c. All this is the
same as the phrase, Sovvai yvugw gutnpias,
Luke, i. 77. (J3) Light and darkness also sig
nify prosperity and adversity. Hence, in the
scriptural use, (y) both meanings are some
times united in these words, (in the widest
sense) — instruction, and the happiness which
results from it. Thus Christ is said $utl£sw
tbv xbgpov, and to be yws xbgpav, a teacher and
benefactor of the world, John, i. 4 ; viii. 12. In
the scriptures, therefore, illumination signifies,
instruction in those truths which God gives to
men for their salvation. It is always the end
of this illumination to influence the will and to
promote holiness ; but through the fault of man
this end is not always attained. Those with
respect to whom the design of God is attained
are savingly enlightened. But in a wider sense
even the wicked may be said, according to the
scripture use of this term, to be enlightened — i.
e., converted. Hence (putig^svtss is frequently
a general name of those who live in Christian
lands, because they are better instructed, al
though they are not all savingly enlightened.
(4) Calling, gracious calling. Theologians
understand by this term the effer ef the bless
ings purchased by Christ which is made te
men, whether they accept the effer er npt This
use ef the term has its erigin principally in
seme ef the parables ef Christ, in which he de
scribes the blessings cf the Messiah's kingdem,
pr Christian privileges, under the image ef a
great feast, te which many guests (x£xv\.r>fiEVo£)
are invited, many cf whpra despise the invita-

452

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

tion, and only a few accept it,, as, Matt., xxii. 3,
seq. Now some have undertaken to apply this
beautiful figure employed by Christ to all the
cases in which, xxijgis, xy.rrtal, xaXslv occur in
the apostolical writings, by which, the greatest
violence is done tp these, terms. In most of the.
passages of the New Testament, in which
xaXsiv stands without any further qualification,
it signifies, not merely to offer Christian privi
leges to any one, but actually to impart them.
It denotes admission into the Christian church,
and the enjoyment of Christian rights. K^foi
are those who have not only received an invitar
tion to become Christians, but are real Chris
tians, (such as are admitted ;) and xtojffis is, in
general, that divine favour conferred on any one
by which God counts, him worthy of the privi
leges of Christianity. It is therefore frequently
a blessing bestowed only upon actual Chris
tians. Kxijgis therefore frequently signifies, the
particular advantages which any one obtains. by.
means of Christianity. Vide Romans, i. 7; 2
Thess. ii. 14; 2 Peter, i. 3; Eph. iv. 4, ixuls
xXrjgsus. Heb. iii. 1, xXijgis.iitpvpdv.ios, &c. ;
and when Christ says, Matt. xx. 14, many are
called, (enjoy the advantages of Christian in
struction,) few belong to the chosen,. (those who
are truly good and acceptable to God.).
But what is the origin of this use? From the
ancient use of the words Nip and xaXslv. They
were used to denote calling — i. e., accepting,re-
ceiving ; designing or nominating any one to a
particular service, employment, office, privilege,
&c Hence it was said of priests and prophets
whom God took into his service, that they were
called; and so of Abraham, whom he chose to
be his peculiar friend; and of the Israelites,
whom he received and selected from others, as
his own people — e. g., Is. xlviii. 12. The
particular members of the Christian society to
whom this benefit happened are called xXrrt ol.
Thus Paul uses the words xxijgis, and xaXslv of
the external election of the Israelites to be the
people of God, Rom. xi. 29, and ix. 11. This
phraseology was now applied to Christians,
denoting partly their external reception in the
Christian community, (Rom. ix, 24,) and partly
all the advantages and blessings which they re
ceive through Christianity. We are able, there
fore, according, to Morus, to distinguish three
different uses of the word xaXslv in the New
Testament, when it is used in reference tp reli
gion — viz., (a) to admonish or counsel anyone
for his best good ; (4) to instruct him as tp his
welfare, to point out to him and furnish him the
means of attaining it, (faith in Christ, which is
active in good works;) (c) to offer and promise
this good to any one. So in the parables of
Christ. When, therefore, God is said to call
any one, the meaning is, in the theological
sense, that he teaches him, or causes him to be

instructed in.the truths of salvation, tha.the.ma3r
embrace them, apd apt accordingly, and. that he
promises him. all the blessings and privileges..
connected with the Christian doctrine.
(2) The method best. adapted to the nature
of the subject, is to divide all which God does.
to assist. us in obtaining the blessings promised
in the gospel intp three-principal classes — viz.,
First. The first divine influences are in
tended tp cemmunicate te. man the knowledge
pf the truths ef the Christian religion, and of
the blessedness purchased by Christ for man
kind, (illuminaiio, in the wider sense.) This.
must necessarily cpme first ; for how can a. man
be disposed, to desire or accept a divine favour
of which he knows nothing ? Paul therefore
says, very justly, Rom. x. 14, "How should
they serve God in whom they do not believe ?
And hnw shpuld they believe in him ef whom
they know nothing (ov ovx ijxovpav) ? And how
should they know anything of him without be
ing instructed ?" By this instruction man be
comes acquainted with the divine decree, (pre-
destination that the happiness promised through
Christ is intended even for him, and that he
must appropriate it to himself; that Christ has
redeemed him, died for him; and that he there
fore may obtain the forgiveness of.sin, and eter
nal salvation, &c. In this way man is invited
to receive and obey the Christian doctrine, that
his heart may be thus disposed; and this is
called vocatio, in the widest sense.
This calling is sometimes said to be universal.
If by this is meant that the Christian religion
and the blessedness attainable by it is actually
offered to all, and that all have opportunity to
become acquainted with it, and that those who
do not know and receive it can blame only
themselves, the statement is false, and contrary
to historical fact. For the blessings of Chris
tianity are not published, even to the present
day, to all nations, to say nothing of all men ;
because God must know that at present all are
not prepared to receive these blessings, though
duubtless he dees npt wholly neglect even such,
but in a different way conducts them to all that
happiness of which they are capable, and will
doubtless ccntinuete de sp throughout the future
world. Vide s. 121, II. Cf. sT88, II.
In another sense, however, this gracious call
ing is truly and scripturally said to be univer
sal; in the sense, namely, (a) that all people
and individuals have free access to the grace of
God in Christ as soon as they have opportunity
to become acquainted with it ; and (4) that every
real Christian, without exception, may enjoy tho
whole sum of blessedness procured by Christ,
by complying with the prescribed conditions,
(itigtis xai pstdvoia, Art. xi.)
Second. The next class of operations go to
secure our actual enjoyment of the blessedness

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 453

promised us and procured for us by Christ.
These operations take effect when man no
longer acts in opppsitipn to the knowledge
which his understanding has received; but
faithfully complies With it, follows what he
knows to be right, and allows his will to be
governed by it; so that his knowledge is no
longer dead, but living. It is in fact the same
divine agency which enlightens the understand
ing and renews the will. Whatever is done in
the understanding has the renewal of the will for
its Object, and is for this end effected. This
divine agency has for its aim the production of
faith and repentance, the excitement of Chris
tian dispositions, and the salutary consequences
thence resulting ; Rom. v. 5, itvsiua dyiov ; xiv.
17, Sixaioo'vi'77, siprpin, #apd, sv itvsvpati ayi9.
Tit. iii. 4 — 7. The pouring out of the Holy
Spirit is, in this passage, producing and com
municating" the Christian temper of which God
is the author, and by which we become xTif/poj/o-
fioi £ur}s alaviov.
This is calling in the stricter sense, [or effec
tual calling,'] and regeneration (conversio transi-
tiva) in the theological sense ; s. 126.
When any one feels a firm and lively convic
tion of the truths of salvation with which he is
acquainted, God grants him power to subdue his
sinful desires, and cheerfully to obey the divine
precepts. Thus (a) the internal hindrances to
faith and repentance, by which we are kept from
the enjoyment of spiritual happiness, are re
moved ; and ignorance, error, prejudice, and the
prevailing bias to sense, are weakened. Vide
Morus, p. 226, n. 1, where the texts ef scripture
are cited. (4) On the ccntrary, man is led by
God te entertain better views, is inclined to
faith and repentance, arid is brought into a state
in which he is ready and able to repent and Re
lieve. Both of these particulars are comprised
in the expression of Christ, God draws (ixxvsw)
men to believe in him — i. e., he convinces them,
and renders them disposed to this duty, John,
vi. 44. Vide Morus, p. 227, Note 2.
Third. The third class of divine operations
relates to the preservation of faith, and the con
tinuance of the entire happy condition resulting
from it. Faith is saving only on certain condi
tions. These are, its firmness, growth, and in
crease, and the shewing of it by good wprks,
pr Christian virtues. Vide s. 124, IV. This
class cemprehends, therefore, (a) these divine
operations and institutions which tend to in
crease our knowledge of the great truths of sal
vation, and perfect our acquaintance with them.
The state resulting from these influences is
commonly called illuminalio regenitorum. . (4)
Those influences by which the Christian is ad
vanced in holiness and fitted for the practice of
Christian virtue, so as to attain a habit of good
ness, (renovatio and sandifieatio, in the theolo

gical sense; s. 126.) Both of these influences
are noticed 2 Thess. ii. 17, ©eos — fffr/piiai vfids
iv itavti Xbya xai spya dya^iji. The latter
is mentioned 1 Thess. v. 23, ©eos— *dyid<rai vfids
bXbtsXEis- Cf. iii. 13.
Note. — When the enlightening of the riiind
into the knowledge of the truths of salvation
arid the learning of these truths is spoken of, it
is only So far as these truths are practical, and
stand in connexion with the plan of salvation
(Art. xi.), and so have an influence on the holi
ness or moral improvement of men. These
illuminating divine influences are not intended
to convey learned theological science to the
mind, or to teach the holy scriptures theoreti
cally. All this must be done by each individual
by his natural efforts. The divine influences
are directed only to moral ends, producing faith
and repentance, and renewing the heart. It
is therefore possible for an unregenerate and
wicked man, who has not therefore experienced
these renewing influences, to possess a funda-
mentalthebre'tic knowledge of religion, which
he may have acquired by his cwn diligence.
And if he is a teacher, he may clearly explain
tc others the doctrines of the Bible, and convince
them, and thus be the means of good. Cf. Phil.
i. 16- — 18. This good, however, will be very
much 'prevented by the fact that hearers give
much more regard to the example than to the
doctrines of their teacher, and that what does
not go from the heart does not commonly reach
the heart. Again ; these divine influences have
different degrees, since the capacity, for them
is different in'different men. Vide s. 124, HI.
II. The Means which God employs in producing
these effects.
The doctrine of the protestant church has
always been, that God does not act immediately
on the heart in conversion, or, in other words,
that he does not produce ideas in the under
standing and effects in the will, by his absolute
divine power, without the employment of exter
nal means. This would be such an immediate
illuriiination and conversion as fanatics contend
for, who regard their own imaginations and
thoughts as effects of the Holy Spirit. Morus,
p. 231, note. The doctrine of the protestant
church is, that God exerts these reforming in
fluences mediately ; and that the means which
he employs with those who have the holy scrip
tures, is the divine doctrine taught in them, espe
cially the truths of Christianity, in their full ex
tent, comprising law and gospel, (precept ana
promise.) On this subject, cf. s. 123, III. It
is only through the medium of these truths that
these effects are produced, and not in a direct
manner. The sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Sup
per, are enumerated among the 7neans of grace,

454

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

and are so called. This is proper, if we remem
ber that these sacraments do not exert an in
fluence through themselves alone, as external
rites of religion, but only as connected with the
word of God, or so far as the truths of the Chris
tian religion are connected with them, are sen
sibly exhibited and impressively set forth by
them, and so through their means are personally
appropriated by men. Everything here comes
back to the Word of God, or the revealed doc
trines of Christianity, which is the medium
through which God exerts his influence, even
in the sacraments,
The fact that God exerts these influences in
the conversion of men, through the doctrines of
revelation, is established,
(1) By such passages of scripture as ex:
pressly declare that faith, repentance, and holi
ness, are excited and produced in the human
heart by God, through the influence of Christian
truth; as 2 Pet. i. 3, "The divine power hath
given us, by means of the Christian doctrine
(iitlyvagis), all the means which we need in
order to live piously and godly." Rom. x. 17,
18, rj itigtis i% dxor/s; cf. ver. 14. James, i. 18,
" God has renewed us A6y9 dy.rj^£ias." Con
nect with these all the texts in which the Chris
tian doctrine is compared with seed sown by
God, falling upon the human heart, and bear
ing fruit, Luke, viii. 11, seq.; 1 Pet. i. 23,
gitopd. 1 John, iii. 9, gitspua Avtov asvsi iv
ait 9. 1 Thess. ii. 13; 2 Tim. iii. 16; John,
viii. 31, 32.
(2) The texts which declare that through this
divine doctrine Christians are brought to the, en
joyment of blessedness, and are preserved in it.
John, xvii. 17, 20 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6, 7tv£vf<.a ^aoitoisl,
1 Tim. iv. 16, "If thou rightly teachest the
Christian doctrine ffEavfov ffoffsis xai dxovojifds
gov." Ephes. vi. 13 — 17, where it is shewn in
figures that by the right use of the Christian
doctrine one may advance far in all Christian
virtues, and may secure himself against apos
tasy. 1 John, v. 4, " By your faith in the Son
of God you overcome the world." James, i.
21, the Christian doctrine is called sufyvtos Ao
yos — i. e., the doctrine implanted in Christians,
in which they are instructed ; as Paul uses
fyvtsvsiv, 1 Cor. iii. 6, seq., adding Swdpsvos
ffusai ^rjtds vpuv. Morus cites other passages,
p. 225, s. 1, note 1.
Note. — It has become common in theological
schools to denominate the divine doctrine, the
sum of which is contained in the holy scriptures,
the Word of God, from a literal translation of
D'nSs 13^1, pijua, or Aoyos ©to-v, or Xpifffov. This
term denotes the declarations, oracles, revela
tions made in the Bible, and hence the divine
doctrine, or instruction in general, as Psalms
cxix., civ., cv., &c Thus in the New Testa

ment the Christian doctrine is denominated
simply Adyos. In later times it has become
common to call the Bible itself, considered as a
book, the Word qf God, and many have ascribed
a divine and supernatural power to the Bible as
a book. In this way occasion has been given
to the mistake of ascribing to the book, as such,
what belongs to the truths or doctrines contained
in it. This is never done in the holy scriptures
themselves. There the Word of God is the di
vine doctrine itself, with which we are made
acquainted by this book, but which can be effi
cacious without the book, as it was in the first
ages of Christianity, before the writings com
posing the New Testament were written. For
the power lies not in the book itself, but pro
perly in the doctrine which is contained in the
book. Vide Toellner, Ueber den Unterschied
der heiligen Schrift und des Wortes Gottes, in
his " Vermischten Aufsatzen," 2te Samnil. s.
88, f. SECTION CXXXL
HOW IS THE DIVINE ORIGIN OF THESE GRACIOUS
RENEWING INFLUENCES PROVED FROM THE HOLY
SCRIPTURES ? AND REMARKS IN EXPLANATION
PF THE SCRIPTURAL PHRASEPLPGY ON THIS
SUBJECT.
I. Scriptural Proof of the Divine Origin of the
Influences of Grace.
Many texts are frequently cited here which
do not belong to this subject, but which refer
only to miraculous gifts, which the apostles and
some of the first Christians received, and not
at all to the renewing influences which are im
parted to all Christians. Such are 1 Cor. xv.
10; 2 Cor. iii. 18. Still there are many texts
which relate directly to this subject a few only
of which will be here cited, under two principal
classes. (1) The texts which teach that God, or, what
is the same thing, the Holy Spirit works by his
power in the hearts of Christians, 1 Thess. ii.
13 ; Ephes. i. 19 ; Rom. viii. 1 — 6. Hence the
whole renewed and sanctified state of the true
Christian is denominated itvsipa and fypbvxua
itvsvpatos, as in the passages cited. Vide s.
123, II. 1, and s. 124, II. Through this influ
ence, the flesh or sense (^pbvrjpa sopxds, ffdpl)
loses its dominion over reason, and the will is
renewed; all which results from God, or from
the Holy Spirit, who dwells and works in ihe
hearts of Christians.
Now in the same way as the influence of God
or of the Holy Spirit (svspysia, ivspysi itvsiua)
takes place in true Christians, the EVspyEio fov
Xatavd, gapxos, x. t. x., works in unbelievers and
sinners— e. g., Ephes. ii. 2; cf. i. 19, 20. For

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 455

as Satan is regarded and described as the author
of evil and wickedness in depraved and unbeliev
ing men, so is God the author of goodness and
virtue in enlightened Christians. So Rom. v.
5 ; Ephes. iv. 30, xvitslv itvsipa dyiov, to coun
teract by sin his salutary influences.
(2) The texts in which all the specific spiri
tual benefits which Christians enjoy are ascribed
to God, or to the Holy Spirit, as the author, or
efficient cause. There is not one among all
these benefits which is not somewhere described
as produced by divine influence. Thus (a) in
struction in Christianity (illuminatio), John, vi.
45, 65 ; Ephes. L 17, 18, " God gives us itvsipa
gofylas by the Christian doctrine ;" 1 Thess. iv.
9 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3, 8. (4) Conversion and faith',
and the entire sum of Christian blessedness
(xJ^ffis), Phil. i. 6; Ephes. i. 11 ; ii. 5, 10; iii.
16; Acts, xvi. 14 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25. (c) The ef
fects and consequences of faith ; such as good in
tentions, readiness to good works, and skill in
doing them, Ephes. iii. 16 ; 2 Pet. i. 3 ; 2 Thess.
ii. 17 ; Rem. xv. 5. Indeed, the very executicn
of pur good purposes is represented as the work
of the Spirit, 1 Cor. i. 8; 1 Pet. v. 10; Rom.
viii. 13, 14; ix. 1; xiv. 7; Phil. ii. 12, 13,
" The Christian who is in earnest about his own
salvation should exhibit all diligence and zeal;
and yet he should cast himself upon the divine
guidance and assistance, since he can do nothing
of himself. For it was God who had awakened
in the Philippians (when Paul was among them)
a serious desire for salvation, and who aided in
the execution of this desire, (although Paul
was absent from them.) And this he did vitsp
siSoxlas — i. e., for all this the Philippians were
indebted to the mere mercy of God, to his free,
gracious will."
II. Remarks Explanatory of the Scriptural Phrase
ology on this subject.
(1) There are many passages in the Bible
which, taken by themselves, appear to affirm an
immediate influence of God in the renewal of
men — an influence, therefore, which is miracu
lous and irresistible, and involving an exertion
of his bare omnipotence. And so there are pas
sages, where, on the other hand, it seems to be
taught, that God denies and withholds from men
the means for their improvement, and renders
them hard, obdurate, &c. In other passages,
however, it is expressly said that God employs
means, and that these are accessible to all men.
Vide s. 130, II. These influences are described
in these very passages as resistible. It is dis
tinctly taught that man is not to be compelled;
that he himself must not be inactive about his
own moral welfare ; that he is free to will and
choose good or evil. Hence good and evil ac
tions are ascribed to man himself, and considered

as imputable to him. We find these two ways
of representing this subject connected together
in the same manner in the Old Testament, and
in other ancient writings — e. g., those of the
Arabians and Greeks. Cf. the texts cited s.
85, II. 3. According to these, God puts good
and evil, wisdom and folly, into the hearts of
men, and is the author both of their prosperity
and their overthrow. And yet, according to
these same writers, the good actions of men are
rewarded by God, and their wicked actions pu
nished by him, as their own actions ; whereas if
they came from God, they would not be imput
able to those by whom they were performed.
(2) Are not these two representations really
contradictory? Such they may appear to us,
who are accustomed to different distinctions and
expressions from those which were formerly com
mon respecting divine influences, the freedom of
the numan will, and its relation to Divine Pro
vidence. Those especially who are scientifically
educated are apt to bring these subjects into a
philosophical form, and to express them in scho
lastic terms. Hence in modern languages we
have appropriate expressions with regard to free
dom, &c, even in common discourse. Such was
not the case in ancient times. And for this rea
son we frequently find difficulties and contradic
tions where they saw none. On the one hand,
the ancient world acknowledged, with us, that
God governs everything, and that nothing can
take place without his co-operation; on the
other hand, they knew that the human will
must at the same time remain free, because the
actions of men would otherwise cease to be their
own actions. If men were moved like machines,
and wrought upon like statues, their actions
could not be imputed to them. But in the an
cient world, the means by which God acts were
not always so carefully distinguished as is com
mon at present. And even when these means
were known, they were more seldom mentioned.
The sacred writers, indeed, well understood
them, for they frequently mention them, but not
in every case distinctly. Thus it happens that
many things were generally described by the an
cients as the immediate effects of divine power,
which actually took place through the instru
mentality of means which were either unknown
to them, or which they left unmentioned. And
so, many effects of the divine agency which
have a miraculous aspect were really produced
by natural means. To those who are unac
quainted with the ancient phraseclpgy, the de-
scriptinn given ef thpse effects in the ancient
manner ef thinking and speaking seems to im
ply that God brought them to pass by an imme
diate and irresistible agency. Vide s. 70, Ncte
ad fin.
New what did Augustine and his follpweis

456

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

do ? They took only one class of these texts,
and interpreted them as they would the lan
guage of accurate philosophers, without paying
any regard to the extreme simplicity of style in
which the Bible was written. They drew con
clusions and general doctrines from these texts,
which were never drawn by the authors them
selves from these premises ; and all this from
ignorance of the ancient manner of thinking and
speaking. Vide s. 85. Illiterate persons have
generally understood this scriptural phraseolpgy
better than ethers.
, From these passages, Augustine and his fol
lowers deduced the doctrine of the irresistible
grace qf God as something which is miraculous
in its nature, and which, according to his uncon
ditional decree, he bestows upon some men, and
withholds from others. Without this grace, man
could not recover himself to holiness, because,
since the fall, he possesses no freedom of will in
spiritual things. Man can do nothing which will
contribute to this end. He is entirely passive
under these operations of grace. Augustine de
pended much on the passage, John, vi. 44, " No
man can come to me unless the Father draw
him," (de gratia irresistibili et particulari.) The
meaning of this passage is, " No man can come
to me unless the conviction of the great love of
the Father (in giving me to the world from
love to it) induces him, under divine guidance
and co-pperatien, tp ccme te me, and believe en
me." Even Origen (rtspl dp;^, iii. 19) noticed both
these classes of texts, and said that they should
not be separated, but taken together, that they
might not contradict 6ne another, and that one
sense might be deduced from them both. And
in fact, the two things, the earnest efforts of man
and the assistance of God, are connected in the
holy scriptures. Morus therefore observes, very
justly, p. 225, s. 1, that the following: result may
be deduced from the various texts of scripture
taken together : — " God leads us, by means of his
truth, to faith and repentance." Truth is the
means which God employs for this end. So the
symbols and the protestant theologians. Vide
ubi supra, note 5.
(3) The following ideas, though variously mo
dified, are found to have prevailed generally in
the ancient world — viz., that all life, activity, and
motion throughout the universe, proceed from
spirits or invisible beings. And even the extra
ordinary and unusual mental excitements, the
talents, acquisitions, courage, and magnanimity
which appear among men, were derived from the
inspiration of higher spirits, and viewed in con
nexion with them. They believed, too, very
generally, in evil spirits, to whose influences
(under the divine permission) they ascribed the
wicked purposes, the errors, faults, and calami

ties of men. Cf. s. 58, II. With this mode of
representation the hely scriptures plainly agree
throughout Vide the article on the Angela.
They however take no part in the superstitious
notions which heathen antiquity, and even the
great mass of the Jews, connected with this re
presentation. From all these they keep aloofl
But, on the other hand, the Bible is equally far
from agreeing with that modern mechanical
philosophy which tends to set aside the influ
ence of spiritual beings, and, as far as possible,
that of God himself. According to the Bible,
there are good and evil spirits, which in various
ways operate on the earth and on man. But
there is especially a divine Spirit (»nn rtn), in
an eminent sense, which operates in and upon
true Christians, as it did in the times of the Old
Testament upon the Israelites. Christians are
indebted to Christ for this Spirit, whence he is
called itvsifia Xpifffov, the Paracletus, the coun
sellor of the pious, whom Christ sends in his
own stead from the Father, John, xv. 16. As
soon as any one believes in Christ, this divine
Spirit -begins to influence his heart, and, as it
were, to dwell with him. And all the good
which such an one new thinks or does — his
knowledge, his holiness and happiness — he
owes solely to him. He it is whom Christ
truly enlightens in his understanding and guides
into all the truth. Nor can he accomplish any
thing good without his agency. He iloes not
however, exert his influence upon all in the samn
manner. He renews the heart and all the dis
positions of every true Christian (dona spiritus
sancti ordinaria); but upon some in the first
Christian church he exerted a peculiar agency,
enduing them with the gifts of teaching, of
working miracles, &c (dona extraordinaria.)
Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 4—11, also s. 39, coll. s. 19, II.,
and s. 9, III., IV.
To the great bulk of mankind, who are unac
customed to the arbitrary and mechanical philo
sophy of the schools, and who are unperverted
by it, this simple and truly animating represen
tation, which is everywhere given in the New
Testament, is more intelligible, clear, and con
soling, and has more influence on their heart,
and is more conducive to their moral improve
ment, than all the philosophical and metaphysical
reasonings on Divine Providence and co-opera
tion, how deep soever they may apparently be.
(4) The uniform doctrine of the holy scrip
tures is, therefore, that God effects the moral
change and renovation of the human heart, not
immediately, but mediately, and that the means
which he employs is the Christian doctrine in all
its extent, its doctrines, precepts, and promises.
Vide No. 2, ad finem. But the Bible also
teaches, that the cause of the effect which i#
produced by this divine doctrine Vies not merely

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 457

In the power and weight of the arguments by
which Christianity is proved, or of the truths
which it exhibits, but principally in the power
and agency of God, who, by means of this doc
trine, acts in the souls of men, Theologians
say, "Divina efficientia a doctrina ipsa, ejusque vi
et efficacia discemitur." This clearly appears
from the passages before cited, especially from
1 Cor. iii. 6, 7; Phil, ii, 12, 13; 2 Thess. ii.
15—17; i. 11; Ephes. i. 16—20; iii. 16—20;
1 Pet. i. 15; Acts, xvi. 14, and rnany of the
discourses of Jesus, especially those recorded in
John — e. g., iii. 13 — 17, &c.
This now entirely agrees with the promise of
Christ, (a) that after his departure from the
earth he would support by his constant and spe
cial assistance all those who should believe on
him, even to the end of life ; and (4) that the
Holy Spirit of God should always work among
them, through the Christian doctrine. This the
apostles everywhere repeat And so they de
scribe the whole moral renovation and perfection
of man. as the work of God, or of the Holy
Spirit; Ephes. i. 19; James, i. 5, 18; where,
however, this work is said to be accomplished
Xoyip dxrfcsias, iii. 17, seq. ; Heb. xiii. 20, 21.
When this doctrine is rightly understood—
(i. e., in such a way that human freedom, or
the moral nature of man, is not violated) — •
sound reason cannot object to it. For it affirms
no new revelations or irresistible influences.
The manner," however, in which this influence
is exerted cannot be understood by reason, be
cause the subject belongs to the sphere of things
above sense. This we are taught by Christ
and the apostles. When Christ (John, iii.)
had told Nicodemus that the Holy Spirit effects
a moral regeneration in men, the latter thought
the doctrine incredible, and was unwilling to
believe it. Christ replied, (ver. 8,) that it
would be unreasonable to consent to believe
only what is directly perceived by the external
senses, and the whole manner of whose exist
ence and operation we could see, as it were,
with our own eyes. He illustrates this by a
comparison with the wind, which we cannot
see and follow with our eyes, but of whose ac
tual existence we may be convinced by its ef
fects ; as, for example, by the sound which it
makes. And such is the fact here. And there
are a number of important passages of the same
import, in the first epistle to the Corinthians,
chap. i. — iii., and especially ii. 14. Cf. Morus,
p. 237. Here 4"i>#ix6s dt&poitos is not the natu
ral man, for which yvffixds would be the word ;
but the carnal man — i. e., (where objects of
knowledge are spoken of,) one who will ac
knowledge and receive in religious matters no
higher divine instruction and guidance, who
will believe nothing but what he perceives by
58

his external senses, (oopxixds,) one who has no
perception of the truths revealed by the Holy
Spirit, (fd fov itvsvuatos dyiov.) No wonder,
therefore, that he does not yield his assent to
these truths, and that they even appear foolish
ness (fiupia) to him. For such dectrines require
te be differently discerned frem thpse which are
merely of human discovery ; they must be dis
cerned itvsvpatixas. We reject human doc
trines, or renounce them, when they do not in
struct or satisfy us. But since God cannot err,
the truths which he has revealed, and which we
know from our own convictions to be such,
may not be judged of by us in the same man
ner. We are not at liberty to oppose or re
nounce them because they may chance to be
displeasing to us, or because they may be hard
and unintelligible.
(5) But the scriptural views of the agency of
God in producing the moral renovation of man,
when carefully examined, are by no means in
consistent with the philosophy of the day.
They agree in all essential points with the doc
trine which is confirmed by experience and
reason, respecting the providence and agency
of God. For (a) all ability and power which
man possesses for perceiving the truth, and for
choosing either good or evil, is derived solely
from God. (4) But God must also concur by
his agency in the use and exercise of these
powers, and preserve them to us in the moment
of action. Vide s. 69. (c) We owe it to God,
too, that we have opportunities to exert our fa
culties, and objects about which we may em
ploy them. Through the divine ordering and
government, we have teachers, and all the other
internal and external assistances for acquiring
knowledge of the truth, and for making progress
in goodness. If we are deprived of these aids,
we are not in a case either to understand the
truth, to practise virtue, or to do anything great
and useful. Vide s. 70. Everything from
without which contributes to our moral good is
ordered by Divine Providence and is employed
by God for the promotion of his designs; so
that to him alone are we indebted not only for
all temporal, but also for all spiritual good ;
although by all this our freedom of will is not
in the least impaired. Vide s. 70, 1. But being
unable to fathom or comprehend the manner cf
the divine government, we cannot presume to
determine positively how God can or must con
trol us, and in what way he may, or may not,
exert an agency in promoting our moral improve
ment. On this subject we must confine our
selves wholly to experience, and especially to
the instructions of the holy scriptures, if we
make them the ground of our knowledge. Nor
must we renounce this doctrine because we can
not understand the internal modus of it.
2Q

458

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

SECTION CXXXII.
A SKETCH OF SOME OF THE PRINCIPAL THEORIES
RESPECTING THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE, AND
THE FREEDOM (OR ABILITY) OF MAN IN SPI
RITUAL THINGS ; AND THE CONTROVERSIES ON
THIS SUBJECT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
I. Opinions of the early Greek Fathers.
In the earliest ages, shortly after the time of
the apostles, there was no controversy on this
subject, as Augustine himself acknowledges.
In the exhibition of this doctrine most of the
first teachers contented themselves with that
simplicity which prevails in the New Testa
ment. They so express themselves, that while
they affirm, on one side, that man receives as
sistance (auxilia) from divine grace, they still
allow to him, on the other side,/reedom of ac
tion. Nothing was said from the first to the
third century about irresistible grace. Vide s.
79, in the History of the Doctrine of Original
Sin. So Irenzeus says in many passages, " that
God compels no man ; that we are free, and can
choose good or evil." Clement of Alexandria
says, " that God indeed guides, but never 47,'mds
our free wills ; and that hence to believe and to
obey is in man's power." In the third century,
Origen expressed his opinion still more defi
nitely than the fathers who had preceded him.
In his work itspl dp^iv, (1. iii. c I.) he says,
we are indebted for faith to God alone. He
gave us the means of faith. From him come
both the faculties which man has of doing right,
and the preservation of these faculties. But
the use of these faculties bestowed upon us de
pends upon ourselves. When therefore in some
passages of the New Testament the improvement
of man is ascribed solely to God, and in others
to man himself, there is no contradiction. For
even that which depends upon our own free will
cannot take place without the divine assistance ;
and God does not work in us without our own
co-operation. For he does not bind the free
human will. With these sentiments, Athana
sius, Basilius the Great, Chrysostom, and other
fathers of the Greek church, perfectly agree.
\_Nole. — The early Greek fathers were led to
insist thus strongly upon avf s^ovgiov, iXsv^splav,
itpoalpsaiv, (the self-determination, freedom of the
will,) by standing in immediate conflict with
the views of man prevailing throughout the hea
then world, and especially among the contem
porary Gnostic sects. Before Christianity was
promulgated, it had become almost universal to
regard man as acting under the same necessity
to which material nature is subjected. Evil
was supposed either to belong to matter, and to
be inherent in the human organization, or to re
sult from an irresistible fate and necessity.
Thus the free and accountable agency of man

was theoretically obscured, and practically also.
as far as the image of God, which is never
wholly effaced, can be obscured by theoretic
error and moral corruption.
The publication of Christianity cast new light
upon the condition and relations of man. While,
by revealing a remedy, it implied his helpless
ness and need, on the other hand, by offering
pardon, it implied his guilt and exposure to pu
nishment, and by appealing to the divine por
tion in man it awakened him from his apathy
as to moral obligation and effort. The whole
nature of the Christian remedy, consisting not
of magical or physical influences — which would
have been requisite had man been unijer a na
tural necessity of sinning — but of moral means,
calling our moral faculties into exercise, con
tained an implied contradiction to the pagan and
Manichean philosophy, and struck at the root
of every view which derives evil from a neces
sity of nature rather than from the perverted use
of our moral powers.
From these considerations it may be explain
ed that the early Greek fathers should have in
sisted so disproportionately upon the freedom
of the human will, though they by no means
went into the Pelagian excess cf ascribing to il
an independency on divine grace. Had they
been placed in as immediate contact with the
stoical pr pharisfeical doctrine pf human self-suf
ficiency, as with the Pagan and Gnestic idea cf
natural necessity, they weuld, doubtless, have
given tp man's inability and dependence on
Ged that place which human freedom and power
now hold in their system.
As it was, the excess to which the Greek.
fathers carried this point laid the foundation fot
the divergency between the Eastern and West
ern churches, which will appear in the sequel
of this sketch.
With regard to the anthropological views of
the Greek fathers of this period, cf. Neander,
Kirchengeschichte, b. i., Abth. iii. s. 1049—
1060  Tr.]
II. Opinions of the early Latin Fathers,- and the
Doctrine of Pelagius.
We find that most of the ancient Latin fa
thers agreed with this simple doctrine of the
Greek church. So Hilary, of the fourth cen
tury ; nor were any objections made to him be
fore the time of Augustine, near the beginning
of the fifth century. We find, however, in
Africa, even before the time of Augustine, some
traces of the peculiar expressions and senti
ments which were afterwards formed by him
into a system, which he held in opposition to
that of Pelagius. Tertullian, who in the rest
of his system does not differ from the Greeks,
opposes gratiam divinam to natura, and says.
that the vis gratix is potentior natura, (the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 459

natural powers of men,) De Anima, c. 21. He,
however, allows to man liberi arbitrii poteslatem.
Cyprian, in the third century, comes still nearer
to the opinions of Augustine. And indeed
there must have been many in Africa before
and at the time of Augustine who held the es
sentials of his system.
This induced Pelagius, (who was a native of
Britain, but who was extensively read in the
works of the Greek fathers,) in the beginning
of the fifth century, to analyze and collate the
doctrines of the Greek fathers, and especially
of Origen, and to draw consequences from them
which they themselves had not authorized. He
taught that three things should be distinguished
in man, the posse, velle, and agere. For the
faculty or power to do good men are indebted
to God alone (gratix), who had granted it to
human nature. To will and to act depends upon
man himself. Still men are so assisted by the
grace of God that their willing and acting is
facilitated. But the means which God makes
use of in affording his aid are dodrina and reve-
latio. He made this last point more prominent
than any of the teachers who had preceded
him ; and this was well. But in other points
he deviated from, the doctrine of the Bible —
viz., (a) by denying natural depravity ; (4) by
deriving our ability to do good solely or princi
pally from the power with which our nature
was originally endowed by God; (c) and by
allowing to God no real instrumentality in the
conversion and sanctification of men. Accord
ing to this system, God works only by means
of the Christian doctrine — i. e., he is the author
of this doctrine, which contains more powerful
motives than any other.
Against this system Augustine contended. In
Africa, councils were held in opposition to Pe
lagius, in which his doctrine was condemned.
The Christians of the Eastern church, of Pales
tine and elsewhere, did not, however, assent to
this decision ; and the same is true of marry in
the Latin churches beyond the bounds of Africa,
and at first even of the Roman bishop himself.
This was ewing, partly to the extravagant zeal
of Augustine, and te the mixture of many erro
neous opinions in his system ; and partly to the
guarded and ambiguous phraseolpgy pf Pela
gius, by which he concealed his departures
from the scriptural doctrine. But at length
Augustine succeeded so far in his efforts, that
the doctrine of Pelagius was condemned, and
the condemnation confirmed by the Emperor.
And thus the theory of Augustine obtained the
predominance, at least in the West,
ITI. Augustine's Doctrine respecting Grace.
(1) He held that human nature is so de
praved (s. 79) that it no longer possesses free
dom of will in spiritual things (carere libero

arbitrio in spiritualibus)—i. e., is unable to un
derstand spiritual things, (the truths of salva
tion contained in the scriptures,) or to act con
formably with them, without the divine instruc
tions contained in the scriptures, and the gracious
assistance of God, although he may possess free
dom in natural things (liberum arbitrium habere
in naturalibus) — i. e., he may learn God from
nature and reason, and fulfil many of his duties.
The Bible, too, teaches that the wicked come
at length to such a habit of sinning that they
become the slaves of sin, (John, viii. 32, 36;
Rom. vii. 23,) and that they can be delivered
from this slavery only by faith in Jesus Christ
and by divine assistance. Since now Augus
tine was led, by opposition to Pelagius, to ex
aggerate the doctrine of natural depravity, (vide
s. 79, 80,) he represented the assistance afford
ed by God in the improvement of man as truly
compulsory, and of such a nature as to infringe
upon human freedom. The ancient fathers, on
the other hand, held to fd avfElovoioi/, under
standing by this term, or the term liberum arbi
trium, (which Tertullian first borrowed from a
term in Roman law,) the power of man to
choose good or evil freely and without compul
sion. This view was universally held in the
East, and in the West, too, before the Pelagian
controversies. (2) Augustine made a careful distinction be
tween nature and grace. Vide s. 129, II. , and
Morus, p. 234, note 2. Grace alone can renew
man; he can do nothing for this end by the
powers of mere nature. And it is true, in a cer
tain sense, according to the Bible, that man
alone cannot deliver himself; that by his own un
aided powers he cannot renew himself. But Au
gustine went further than this, and the additions
which he made are not scriptural. Man, he
said, can do nothing which will at all contribute
to his spiritual recovery. He is like a lump
of clay, or a statue, without life or activity.
Hence, he denied virtue and salvation to the
heathen, and to all who are not enlightened by
grace. Vide s. 121.
(3) This divine grace, which alone is abl„ to
renew the heart, is described by Augustine as
efficax and sufficiens — i. e., alone sufficient to
overcome the power of sin, (in which Augus
tine was right,) and also as irresistibilis. For
he conceived grace to be the direct operation of
divine omnipotence, acting in a miraculous
manner, qua voluntatem hominum indeclinabili
vi ad bona trahat.
(4) Augustine made a threefold divisien nf
grace, founded nn the dectrine which he held in
epposition to Pelagius, that to will, to be able,
and to perform, depend solely on divine grace-
viz., (a) gratia excitans or incipiens, that grace
which renders the human will inclined to faith,
excites good emotions, and produces the begin-

460

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

nings of faith. OtheT names given to this in
cipient grace are, prxveniens, pulsans, trahens, .
vocans, prxparans. (4) Operans or efficiens, that
grace which imparts faith and new spiritual
powers for the performance of duty. God pro
duces good desires and determinations in man
by the truths of the Christian religion, (c) Co-
operans, perficiens, or assistans, that by which ,
the believer is assisted after his conversion, so
that he will be able to perform good works, and :
to persevere in faith.
Augustine differed from all the theologians
Who had preceded him, in teaching that grace
anticipated the human will, (prxvenire volunta-
iem.) This may be understood in a very just
and scriptural sense. But Augustine meant by
it nothing less than that the first good desires
and determinations to amend are miraculously
produced, or infused into the heart by divine
grace ; whereas the earlier theologians had uni
formly taught that God gives man, in the use
of means, opportunity to repent, and that he
guides and assists in this work by his own
agency; but that man himself must be active,
and must form the resolution to repent, and
have a disposition to do so ; in which case di
vine mercy will come to his relief, (quod volun
tas hominum prxveniat auxilia gratix.) To this
view, however, Augustine could not consent,
because he denied all power to the human will.'
In this work, man, in his view, is entirely pas
sive. But many of his followers in the West
differed from him in this particular, and adhered
to the more ancient representation. Afterwards
they were frequently numbered with the Semi-
Pelagians, and in the sixth century their doc
trine was condemned.
(5) With respect to the manner in which
saving grace operates, Augustine believed that
in the case of those who enjoy revelation, grace
commonly acts by means of the word, or the
divine doctrine, but sometimes directly, because
God is not confined to the use of means. On
this point there was great logomachy. Real
conversions, even in such extraordinary cases
as that of Paul, are effected by the word of God,
and the believing reception of it; a^hough the
circumstances under which the word is brought,
home to the heart may be extraordinary.
(6) Augustine connected all these doctrines
with his theory respecting the unconditional de
cree qf God; respecting which vide s. 32. He
taught that the anticipating and efficient grace
of God depend not at all upon man and his
worthiness, (susceptibility,) but solely on the
decree of God. God, according to his own will,
elected some, from all eternity, from the whole
mass of mankind, in order to make them vessels
of mercy, (susceptible of his grace ;) while from
others he withholds this renovating grace, that
they may be vessels of wrath. He imparts, in

deed, to all the anticipating grace ; -"but effuieril
grace only to a few — viz., the elect. Of this
procedure none can complain; for God is not
bound to bestow his grace upon any. Thus the
efficafty (efficacia) of grace oh 'the heart is made
by him to depend on the unconditional deeree
of God, (a4 eleclione Dei,) and also the opposi
tion (resistentia) of men : the latter oh -the de
cretum reprobalionis. For God does riot wfHto
exert the whole power of Iris grace upon the
heart of those who prove reprobate. Why he
does not we are unable to determine; this is
one of the unfathomable mysteries of the divine
decrees. Such doctriries as these are distinctly
expressed in many ef the writings ef Augus
tine,— as in his wprk, De predestiiiatione Sanc
torum. He is not, however, at all times con
sistent with himself; and feeling how hard his
doctrine is, sometimes expresses himself lessSe-
verely . [For a more complete view of the sys
tem of Augustine, cf. the Jan. No. of Bib. Repo
sitory, for 1833, Art. Augustine and Pelagius.]
IV. Controversies on Particular Points in the
Augustinian System.
The system of Augustine respecting grace
was, taken as a whole, made fundamental in
the Western church in the ages succeeding his.
Some adopted it entire, others only in part;
most, however, dissented from it in some parti
culars, and lowered it down, so to speak. They
retained many of his terms, but employed them
in a more just and scriptural sense. Others, on
the contrary, adopted the systerh of Pelagius, or
endeaveured to compose a new system by com
bining his opinions with those of Augustine.
The principal points on which a difference of
opinion existed in the Latin church were the
following — viz.,
(1) The doctrine of predestination. Although
Augustine believed in unconditional decrees,
this doetrine never became universal in the
Latin church. Most of the members of this
church, until the ninth century, held only to
those passages in his works in which he ex
pressed himself with less rigour. But in the
ninth century, when Gottschalk began to advo
cate unconditional decrees strenuously, a vehe
ment controversy arose. Vide s. 32, note. His
principal opponents were Rabanus Maurus,
Hinkmar, and others, who justly derived pre
destination from God's foreknowledge of the
free actions of men. In this opinion they had
many followers, though a large number still
adopted the theory of Augustine, after mode
rating and modifying it in various ways. To
this party Peter of Lombardy and other school
men belonged. Luther arid Melancthon (as
well as Calvin and Beza) were at first s'ttong
Augustinians ; but they afterwards abandoned
his doctrine of predestination, while Calvin and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 461

Beza still adhered to it, and made it a doctrine
of their church. Vide the sections above cited.
Between the seventeenth and eighteenth centu
ries the most violent controversies on this sub
ject raged in the Romish church, between the
Jansenists, who were zealous Augustinians,
and the Jesuits in the Netherlands and France.
The latter agreed very nearly in sentiment with
Eabanus, and had many supporters.
(2) The doctrine of the freedom of the human
will and its relation to the operations of grace.
On this subject there are three principal systems.
First. The Augustinian, which allows to
man no freedom of will in spiritual things, ac
cording to the statement above made ; No. iii.
The strenuous adherents of Augustine above
named entirely agreed with him in this particu
lar; and the doctrine of the entire inability of
man in spiritual things, in the sense ef Augus
tine, was zealeusly advucated by the Domini
cans, who in this followed Thomas Aquinas.
Out of this arose the violent controversy which
prevailed in the sixteenth and seventeenth cen
turies, de auxiliis gratix, between the Domini
cans and Netherland theologians on the one
side, and the Jesuits and their adherents on the
other, and afterwards, in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, between the Jesuits and
Jansenists. Luther,, with Carlstadt and some
others of his coadjutors, belonged at first to this
high party. The former defended this doctrine
in his book, De servo arbitrio, against Erasmus.
Afterwards, however, his views became very
much more moderate, and he retained but little
more of the doctrine of Augustine than the
terms in which it was expressed. ,He was fol
lowed by a large number of the theologians of
his church.
Secondly. The scholastic system. Most of the
schoolmen endeavoured to moderate the theory
of Augustine. They taught that grace is indeed
powerful and efficacious, but that man is not
compelled by it, and can resist it. The assent
of the human will must accompany grace, with
out which it is inefficacious. They allowed,
therefore, the freedom of the will in a certain
sense. They held that the will of man can
either follow or resist grace; while still they
admitted that grace has a certain influence in
the renovation of man, not indeed miraculous,
but yet acting physically in connexion with the
divine word. They were followed afterwards
in the Romish church by the great body of the
Jesuits, who on this account were involved in
much controversy with the Dominicans, Jansen
ists, and others, who were strict Augustinians,
and by whom they were accused of inclining
to Pelagianism. At the time of the Reforma
tion, in the sixteenth century, this theory
prevailed far and wide in the Romish church,
and was defended by Eck and Erasmus against

Luther. It was adopted by Melancthon, and
expressly avowed by him after the death of Lu
ther, and by the theologians of his school in the.
sixteenth century. Others, however, would not
swerve from the earlier system of Luther,,
though the. difference which now existed be
tween the two parties was more in words than
in reality. This doctrine was called by the lat
ter synergism, and its advocates synergists, be
cause they taught that the operations of grace
are accompanied by the action of the human
will. The principal advocate of this synergism
was Victorin Strigel, and its principal oppp-
nent Flacius. Since that period the opinions on
both sides have assumed a much more mode
rate shape, and a great deal of logomachy has
ceased; but there still remains a difference of
opinion on this point in the protestant as well
as in the catholic church.
Thirdly. The system of Pelagius. Many think
that this system is better than any other to re
move the contradiction between human freedom
and the influences of grace. Pelagius entirely
denies any physical influence of grace, and any
alteration of the will effected by means of it
God, indeed, operates on men, but merely
through the (natural) power of the truths of re
ligion, of which he is the author. Man has
ability both to understand these truths and live
according to them, and alsp ability tp sin. And
this is the freedem pf will essential te man.
God causes the renovation of the heart, but
merely through the influence of Christian doc
trine, inasmuch as this doctrine, of which God
is the author, contains more powerful motives
to improvement than any human systems. Vide
the Estimate, No. ii. ad fin. Many modern
theologians have received this system entirely,
and some have undertaken to interpret the com
mon ecclesiastical formulas and the Augusti
nian phraseology in conformity with it. Re
specting these controversies and systems vide
the works of Vossius, Sirmond, Mauguin,
Serry, Norisius ; also the works of Semler,
Walch (Ketzergeschichte), Rosier (Bibliothek
der Kirchenvater), and others. [Cf. Neander,
Kirchengesch. b. ii. Abth. iii. Bretschneider, b.
ii. s. 606.— Tr.]
V. Later History of this Doctrine.
Since the seventeenth, and especially since
the eighteenth century, many theologians of the
protestant church have laboured to cast light on
the doctrine of the operations of grace and the
efficacy of the divine word, and to exhibit this
doctrine in a manner correspondent with the
principles of modern philosophy. Some have
declared themselves decidedly in favour of the
Pelagian system. Others have adopted it only
in part, or, while they have held it, have dis
guised their belief by using the terms of the
2 q2

462

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Augustinian or scholastic theory in an entirely
different sense from what belongs to them, in
reality denying physical influence. In this
point, however, the protestant church is agreed,
that the Holy Spirit does not act immediately,
but mediately, through the word, s. 130, II.
So clearly do the symbols teach. Mcrus, p.
231, n. 1. Still there is a great diversity ef
ppinipn on the question about the manner in
which the Holy Spirit acts through the word,
and on the question whether these operations
may be denominated supernatural, and in what
sense. On these points there are two principal
theories prevalent in the protestant church.
(1) Many hold that although grace operates
through the word, there is still connected with
the word a special power of the Holy Spirit, in
enlightening and converting men. This power,
however, is never exerted without, but always
in connexion with the word. Conjundum cum
usu doclrinx auxilium Dei, quod ille fert utenti-
bus ea, Morus, p. 228, note. The greater part,
though not all of the early protestant and Lu
theran theologians, were of this opinion. So
Melancthon. Some gave such a turn to this
doctrine that they were suspected of fanaticism.
This was the case with Herm. Rathmann, a
Lutheran preacher in Dantzig, who affirmed in
his work, "Gnadenreich Christi," 1621, that man
is so depraved that the Word of God can by
itself exert no power on his heart, unless the
almighty power of the Holy Spirit is connected
with it. Upon this a great controversy arose
in the seventeenth century. Some, too, of the
party of the pietists, in the eighteenth century,
expressed themselves so vaguely on this point
that they were suspected of fanaticism. But,
in fact, neither their opinions, nor that of Rath
mann, can properly be called fanatical. Fana
tics and enthusiasts believe in an illumination
and renovation of man effected immediately by
God, without the use of the word, or the truths
of the holy scriptures, of which consequently
they speak with disregard. So, e. g., the
Quakers. Vide Morus, p. 231, s. 5, for a brief
view of their system.
Many modern theologians have entirely de
parted from these views, (vide No. 2 ;) while,
on the other hand, many have adhered to the
more ancient theory, and defended it against all
attacks. E. g., C. A. Bertling, Vorstellung
was die Lutherische Kirche von der Kraft der
heiligen Schrift lehre; Dantzig, 1756, 4to. The
author of the "Freundschaftliche Unterredun-
gen liber die Wirkungen der Gnade," 2te Ausg.
4 till.; Halle, 1774, 8vo. Also the " Briefe
fiber die Wirkungen der Gnade," by the same
author, which is the best work in favour of this
theory. Gottl. Christ. Storr, "De Spiritus
Sancti in mentibus nostris efficientia, et de mo
menta ejus doctrinm;" Tubingen, 1777, 4to.

Cf. Gehe, Diss, inaug. de argumento quod pro
divinitate religionis Christianae ab experientia
ducitur; Gottingen, 1796.
This theory, however little it may accord
with the prevailing principles of modern philo
sophy, is strongly supported by many passages
of scripture, s. 130, s. 131, II. 4.
(2) Others, on the contrary, hold that the
divine and supernatural (though they do not
like to make use of this word) power of the
word of God, by which man is converted, is not
to be looked for in connexion with the word,
but as belonging to the word itself. They thus
consider the power by which man is renewed
and made holy, to be in no sense a physical,
but rather a logico-moral power. This opinion,
which is fundamentally Pelagian, was ingeni
ously defended in the seventeenth century by
Claud Pajon, a reformed theologian of Orleans;
it led, however, to much controversy. This
opinion was first fully exhibited in the Lutheran
church, after the eighteenth century, by Joh.
Ernest. Schubert, in his "Unterricht von der
Kraft .der heiligen Schrift;" Helmstadt, 1753,
4to. It was against this work that Bertling
wrote. Cf. No. I. It was afterwards defended
by Spalding, " Ueber den Werth der Gefuhle
in Christenthum," and by Eberhard, " Apologie
des Sokrates," thl. i., iii. The most copious
and learned work on this subject is, Junkheim,
" Vnn dem Uebernaturlichen in den Gnadeu-
wirkungen;" Erlangen, 1775, 8vc. This the
ory has been adopted by mpst modern theolo
gians of the protestant church, and essentially
even by Morus. They frequently employ, in
deed, the ancient phraseology and formulas,
but in a different sense from that in which they
were originally used — a sense which is consi
dered by them more rational, i. c, more con
formed to the philosophical system adopted by
these modern theologians. We shall now give
a brief historical account and illustration nf this
theery, which at present is the mnst pppular and
current among protestant theologians, adding,
however, a critique as we pass along.
SECTION CXXXIII.
EXHIBITION OF THE MODERN THEORY RESPECTING
THE DIVINITY OF THE OPERATIONS OF GRACE,
AND THE POWER OF THE WORD OF GOD.*
I. How does God act in promoting the Moral Im
provement and Perfection of Men? and in tohat
consists the Divinity of the Operations of Grace ?
(1) God does not act in such a way as to

* How far I assent to this theory, either on scrip
tural or other grounds, will appear from the previous
sections. Where I agree with it entirely, I shall
state it as my opinion ; wherever it appears to me
erroneous — i. u. not demonstrable from the Bible —
I shall give it as the opinion of others.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 463

infringe upon the free will of man, or to inter
fere with the use of his powers. Vide Phil. ii.
12, 13. Consequently, God does not act on
man immediately, producing ideas in their souls
without the preaching or reading of the scrip
tures, or influencing their will in any other way
than by the understanding. Did God operate
in any other way than through the understand
ing, he would operate miraculously and irresisti
bly. And the practice of virtue under such an
influence would have no internal worth ; it
would be compelled, and consequently incapa
ble of reward. But experience teaches that the
work of reformation and holiness is not effected
violently and at once, but by degrees ; which
could not be the case if God acted irresistibly
and miraculously. Experience teaches, too,
that man can resist; and so the Bible says ex
pressly, Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Heb. iii. 8, seq. ; John,
vii. 17; Acts, vii. 51. We find, also, that the
moTal reformation of man cannot take place with
out earnest and zealous effort, (the working out
of salvation with fear and trembling, Phil, ii.,)
or the vigorous exercise cf pne's own powers ;
and that man must be anything rather than pas
sive and inactive in this matter. The Bible
teaches the same thing, and so requires of men
that they should reform, change their heart,
Acts, ii. 38; viii. 22. It exhorts them to in
crease in knowledge and virtue, Ephes. ii. 10;
Tit. ii. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 1, 2, seq. And for what
purpose has God given to man the direct reve
lation of his will, if it is not to be used and
employed by God himself in promoting the sal
vation of men? Hence all genuine protestant
theologians, on whatever other points they may
differ, are agreed in this.
(2) The divinity in the operations of grace
consists, .
(a) In the doctrine revealed by God. For by
means of this, faith is excited and preserved in
men. This dectrine cnuld not have been dis
covered by man without a divine revelation;
and God is the author of all the effects' which
result from it. In the same way we properly
ascribe to a discourse, or to a great writer, all
the beneficial effects which may result from his
discovery or writings, and regard him as the
author of these effects. All this is true; but
this is not all which the Bible teaches on this
subject. The Bible teaches that besides this
there is an agency of God connected with divine
truth and accompanying it; or that there is con
nected with the divine word an operation of
God on the hearts of men, having for its end
their improvement and holiness. Vide s. 131,
II. 4.
(4) In the wise and beneficent external institu
tions which God has established, by which man
is led to the knowledge of the truth, and his
heart is prepared and inclined to receive it.

Who can fail to recognise the divine hand in
these external circumstances, by which so pow
erful an influence is exerted upon us ; and which
are often entirely beyond our own control?
How much does the moral culture and improve
ment of man depend on birth, parentage, early
instruction, education, society, example, na
tural powers, adversity, or prosperity ! Vide s.
131, II. 4. These circumstances are frequently
mentioned in the Bible, Rom. ii. 4, seq. Hence it
follows thatGod'has made wise arrangements for
the good of man, which may properly be called
grace, inasmuch as they are proofs of his unde
served goodness. It follows also that God
withholds his assistance from none, and that
the work of moral renovation is effected in a'
manner entirely adapted to our moral nature,
not forcibly, irresistibly, instantaneously, but
gradually. Vide s. 126, seq.
Now, so far as the end which God has in
view, in wisely ordering these circumstances
and appointing these means, is attained — i. e.,
when man does not himself resist their influ
ence, this grace may be called efficacious. Still
it is exerted in such a way that no one is com
pelled. Grace never acts irresistibly. The re
newal of man is effected by God through the
Christian doctrine, the influence of which can
be resisted, because it acts on the will through
the understanding; and the will is not necessa
rily determined, but only rendered disposed to
determine itself for a particular object. In the
physical world the law of sufficient reason and
of necessity prevails ; in the moral world, the
law of freedom. God, therefore, who himself
has given this law, will not act in contradiction
to it. Frequently, however, one cannot prevent
the good impressions and emotions which arise
on hearing or reading the truths of the Chris
tian religion ; just as he is unable to prevent the
sensations or ideas which external objects pro
duce in his mind, through the senses. This
observation, which is founded on the nature
of the human soul, gave rise to the position
which was taken in the controversies between
the Jansenists and Jesuits ; gratiam non esse
irresistibilem, sed inevitabilem. For although
man cannot prevent in every case good impres
sions and emotions, he is able to prevent the
consequences of them in actual reformatipn.
II. In what manner does God operate on the heart
of man through the Word, inpromoting his Moral
Improvement ?
On this ppint theelogians are divided.
(1) The natural power of truth acts first on
the human understanding. The Christian doc
trine makes us acquainted with God, with his
feelings towards us, and with what he requires
of us. It delivers us from ignorance and preju
dice,. For all this we are indebted to God. God

464

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

gave us these instructions that they might have
an effect upon us — i. c, that they might act
powerfully on the will, and excite in us good feel
ings and resolutions. Thus the consideration of
the divine promises revealed in Christianity
tends to lead our minds to repose confidence in
God. The consideration, too, of these promises,
and the examination of our conduct by the di
vine precepts, produces sorrow and repentance.
These precepts and promises, which the Chris
tian religion makes known, are adapted to pro
duce zeal for virtue or holiness. At first our
powers for goodness are weak; but by exercise
they increase in strength and become confirmed.
Vide Art. xi. All this takes place according to
the natural laws of the human mind ; but the
effect produced does not cease en this account to
be the work of God.
(2) But the New Testament always ascribes
to the Christian religion a greater power and
efficacy in rendering men virtuous and happy
than to any truth ever discovered or taught by
man, or supported merely by arguments of hu
man wisdom. Thus Paul says, Romans, i. 16,
siayysXiov Xpifffov is Svvauis ©eov eis gutv\piav
itavti tc, itigtsvovti. In 1 Cor. i. and ii. he
shews that the gospel had produced greater ef
fects than any human system ever did or could
produce, although exhibited in the most elpquent,
forcible, and convincing manner. Cf. John,
vi. 63, and John, iii. Experience and history
confirm this. Philosophers and moralists, who
depend upon the internal strength and validity
of their systems derived from human wisdom,
have never been able to accomplish such great
and wonderful results as the Christian religion
has produced, although exhibited without elo
quence or human wisdom. What merely human
teacher of morals could ever boast of so great
and remarkable an effect from his instructions as
we read of in Acts, ii. 37, and viii. 27 — 38 ? And
whence is all this ? Some have thought it to be
owing to the divine authority on which the Chris
tian doctrine is published. This authority, they
say, exerts more influence on one who acknow
ledges it, and removes doubts and difficulties more
easily, than the most convincing arguments and
the most eloquent address, which depend on no
thing more than mere human authority. But
why have, not other religions, which have also
been published on divine authority, produced
these same effects ? This divine authority can
not therefore be the only ground of the difference.
With this must be connected the internal excel
lence of the religion itself, and the salutary na
ture of its doctrines. These two taken together
constitute the whole cause, so far at least as it is
externally visible, of the facts under considera
tion. But even these do not satisfactorily ac
count, for all the effects produced by the Christian
doctrine; they are not assigned by the holy scrip

tures as the principal cause from which these
effects are explicable. The scriptures teach
that the cause of these great effects does not lie
merely in the power and weight of the doctrine*
of Christianity, and the evidence by which they
are supported, but principally in the almighty
power and influence of God, who through the
Christian doctrine works in the souls of men.
Vide s. 131, II. .4. This efficacy of the divine
dpctrine is called in theology, the power (vis,
efficacia) qf the divine word.
(3) inferences drawn from the preceding state
ment. (a) The power of the word of God, or the
agency of the Holy Spirit, is not physical but
logico-moral — i. e., the Holy Spirit acts upon the
human soul in a manner conformed to our ra
tional and moral nature. This influence is
founded in the knowledge of the truths.of Chris
tianity, and of the motives contained in it, by
which the human will is drawn, but not com
pelled. To this is added, on the part of man,
the firm conviction of the divine origin and au
thority of this doctrine, and of the divine su
perintendence by which its effect on him is in
creased. Power to convince and reform is im
parted to and connected with the Christian doc
trine in the same way as power to germinate
and grow is given to seed, and power to heal,
to medicine.
This last statement is in itself true and scrip
tural. Cf. Mark, iv. 28. But it is not incon
sistent with the other equally scriptural view of
the influence of God on the heart of man. For
he does not act on us otherwise than by means
of the Christian doctrine, and consequently not
in a compulsory and irresistible manner, but in
a manner conformed to the moral nature of man,
although the internal modus of his agency may
be inexplicable to us. And who can explain the
internal modus of the effects produced by God in
the natural world ? John, iii. 8. Vide s. 131,
II. 4. To believe, therefore, that there is an
influxum (vim physicam, or as others express it,
more guardedly, physico-analogam,) is, according
to what has now been said, not contrary to scrip
ture, but conformed to it.
(4) But however powerful the operation of the
divine word, and of God by means of his word,
may be, man himself must not, in the meantime,
be inactive and sluggish; Phil. ii. 12, 13. For
the effect of the divine influence on the heart of
any one depends on his making a right use
and proper application of the divine doctrine,
and on his whole conduct in regard to these di
vine influences. If he disregards these influ
ences, and neglects to improve them in the
proper manner, he can no more be benefited by
them than one can be satisfied and nourished
without the use of food. Such is the uniform
representation of the Bible. Vide Mark, iv. 20

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 463

seq.; Luke, viii. 15, Katsxsw xoybv iv xapSia
xa-Xy xai ar/d&>], to embrace and obey the truth
with an upright and sincere heart.
(c) Theologians call the operations of grace
supernatural. By this they cannot mean to de
note a direct, and of course irresistible, agency
of God in the soul of man, or anything properly
miraculous. This term cannot, therefore, be
taken here in that strict sense in which philoso
phers use it. According to the Pelagian theory,
these influences can be so called only because
they are exerted through the divine doctrine
which is supernaturally revealed, (in respect,
therefore, to the means by which they are ex
erted ;) and hence are more efficacious than mere
unassisted reason could be. Thus we call super
natural knowledge, that for which we are in
debted to divine revelation, and natural, that to
which we can attain through our own reflection.
According to the theory of the ancient theolo
gians, which is more accordant with the holy
scriptures, with Christ, and the apostles, these
influences are also called supernatural, because
they cannot be explained by any of the known laws
of nature ,- John, iii. 8 ; 1 Cor. i. 2. Vide s. 131,
II. 4. In respect to the manner in which the
influences of grace are exerted on the human
soul, a manner entirely suited to its moral na
ture, the operations of grace may, indeed, be
denominated natural, as they are by Eberhard,
in his "Apologie des Socrates."
(d) Theologians distinguish between nature
and grace. In this they follow Augustine. Vide
s. 132, II. But they have differed very much
in determining what are the motus gratix, and
what the motus naturx, and how they can be dis
tinguished. The common opinion has been, that
the doings of the unconverted, even their vir
tues, flow from their nature, and therefore, ac
cording to Augustine, are not pleasing to God,
or capable ef reward. Of the actions of the re
generate only can it be said that they are accept
able in his sight, and flow from the influences
of grace. Vide Spener, Vom Unterschied der
Natur und Gnade; Erfurt, 1715. But there are
difficulties attending this opinion, s. 125. To
determine the marks by which nature and grace
may be distinguished, the matter can be stated
as follows: — Everything which we owe to the
right use of the Christian doctrine, and to the
agency of God through his truth, is the effect
of grace; and everything in us which has not
its origin or foundation in the use of the divine
truth is the effect of nature. If, then, we can
ascertain how much we owe to our being in
structed in divine truth, and to the influences of
God by its means, we may alse know how much
we owe to grace. Proceeding in this way, we
do not treat nature (or that essential constitu
tion which God has given to man) with con
temptuous disregard; nor are we compelled, in
fit)

denying grace to the heathen, to deny decidedly
that they had any virtue, or can attain to sal- •
vation. Note. — In popular religious instruction the
teacher should confine himself to such clear and
scriptural points as Morus has exhibited, (pages
236, 237, note 4,) illustrating these by the Bible
and experience, and setting aside all learned
theological disputes and scholastic terms.
(1) God has endued man with reason and
conscience. By the aid of these principles,
man is enabled to learn much respecting the na
ture and will of God, and to act conformably to
this correct knowledge, Rom. i. 19, 20 ; ii. 14,
15, seq.
(2) But the holy scriptures give us a far more
perfect knowledge of God and of our duty. The
revealed religion contained in them has much
which is peculiarly excellent, and which is not
taught in natural religion. And, according to
the testimony of the scriptures, God has pro
mised his special assistance, support, and guid
ance, to those who possess them, and obey the
precepts contained in them. And this promise
is confirmed by experience; Rom. i. ii. We
ought therefore thankfully to receive, and faith
fully to obey, the instruction contained in the
holy scriptures.
(3) No one can understand, discern, or receive
with approbation the instructions of the holy
scriptures, unless he is taught the truths con
tained in them; nor can any, one obey these in
structions, unless the hindrances which stand in
the way of his reception of them, in his under
standing and will, are removed, 1 Cor. ii. 14.
(4) To be delivered through divine instruction
and assistance from our ignorance, our mistakes,
prejudices, and from our evil passions, is a great
and invaluable benefit; and we owe this benefit
to none but God and the Holy Spirit. Vide the
texts cited, s. 130.
(5) There are, and always will be, great diffi
culties and hindrances, both within and without,
by which nur assent te the truths ef revelation
will be weakened, and our progress in holiness
retarded ; and these difficulties and hindrances
cannot be overcome and removed without the
constant assistance and support of God, John,
v. 44; viii. 43, seq.; Ephes. iv. 18, and other
passages. Vide s. 130, 131.
(6) We need therefore, in commencing and
continuing a life of piety, the help, support, and
guidance of God. We ourselves, however
must not in the meantime be inactive, but must
conscientiously employ the means which God
has given us, and faithfully obey the instruc
tions and directions contained in the Bible, al
ways remembering that we owe these means
of improvement and virtue to God only, and
that without him we can do nothing. Phil,
ii. 12, 13.

466

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

[iVo/e. — The opinions of the Lutheran theolo
gians since the time of our author have been
equally diversified as when he wrote, and per
haps mora so. This is the less strange, as it is
now a ccnceded peint that their own established'
standards are at variance among themselves on
the doctrine of the operations of grace. Cf. s.
32, Note. Henke, Eckermann, and Wegschei-
der, follow out the positions of Morus, Junk-
heim, Michaelis, Doederlein, and others, to the
full Pelagian extreme, and make the grace of
God in conversion to be only that general
agency by which he has endued man with ra
tional powers, written the law upon his heart,
instituted Christianity, and caused it to be pro
mulgated, and by which, in his providential ar
rangements, he gives to every man opportunity
and excitement to repentance. Ammon also
(Summa, s. 132, 133) makes the renewing
grace of God to consist procuratione institutions
salutaris, excitatione per exempla virtutis illustria,
paupertate, calamitatibus, admonitionibus amico-
rum et inimicorum.
All these writers agree in making the opera
tions of grace merely external, in the way of
moral influence, and in denying an immediate
ageney of God upon the human mind. In this,
their system is stamped with one of the most
essential features of Pelagianism. Cf. Nean-
der's development of the Pelagian system in
Part iii. of the 2nd vol. of his Church History.
There is another class who are distinguished
from the former by admitting an immediate di
vine agency in the moral kingdom, though they
differ among themselves as to the relation of
this influence to the agency of man, especially
at the commencement of the life of faith. Bret-
schneider contends strenuously for an immediate
divine influence as indispensable to conversion.
At the same time, he supposes it to depend upon
the character and state of the individual who is
the subject of this influence, whether grace alone
produces faith in him, or whether he himself
contributes anything towards it. The operations
of grace, accordingly, are not uniform, but as
various as the states in which it finds man, from
untutored barbarism, to the highest degree of
illumination and refinement enjoyed in Chris
tian lands. Nearly the same views are express
ed by Reinhard in his Theology.
Neander and Tholuck, as will be obvious to
any attentive reader of their works, hold promi
nently, that even in faith there is a divine ele
ment — that it can by no means result from the
unaided efforts of man ; that, besides the gene
ral influence of Christianity, there is an internal
influence of the Spirit of God — a drawing of the
Heavenly Father — but that man also is active
in this work; and that it is an unwarrantable
assumption to undertake to settle immovable
limits to these two conspiring agencies, or to

solve the mystery belonging to the secret ppe>
rations of grace.
Again: Schleiermacher, Marheinecke, and
others belonging to-the more appropriately phi
losophical school of theologians, have restored
the entire system of Augustine as to immediate
and efficacious grace, and the absolute and un
qualified dependence of man upon God for the
-very commencement of faith. With regard to
this class, it is remarkable, that while Augus
tine and Calvin rested the proof of this doctrine
mainly upon scriptural authority, these have been
led to adopt and now maintain it on grounds
purely philosophical. The weight of the names
of such writers has raised the Augustinian and
Calvinistic theory of grace far above the con
tempt and reproach with which it was hereto
fore treated by the great body of Lutheran thep
logians. A few extracts, under distincts heads, will
shew something of the manner in which this
doctrine is treated by writers of this class, and
how much importance is attached by them to
the idea that the divine influences are immediate,
and not merely moral and external. Our ex
tracts are drawn from two of the more lucid and
popular writers. The statements of Schleier
macher and others of the same school upon this
subject, though still more decisive on the point
in question, are so intimately interwoven with
the whole of their system, and receive so much
colouring from it, as to require more explanation
to render them perfectly intelligible than the
present limits will allow.
That such an influence is to be desired, is af
firmed by Reinhard in the following passage
from the 4th vol. of his "Morale's. 129:—
"When one considers the innate depravity of
which man is conscious — the weakness of his
moral powers hence resulting — the innumerable
perversions to which those constitutional feel
ings and propensities which are in themselves
good, are liable, the disordered states which
arise from these perversions, and which more or
less hinder a true moral development — in fine,
the many external causes which nourish and
strengthen depravity, and render genuine refor
mation exceedingly difficult, — when one who is
in earnest in the work of improvement ccnsiders
all this, he must feel the wish arise, that God
weuld lighten this arduous work, and come in
aid of his efforts."
Objections having often been made to the pos
sibility of such influences, by Reimarus, Les-
sing, and others, on the ground that violence
would thus be done to the intellectual and moral
nature of man, Bretschneider thus replies:—
"That God has power to act inwardly on the
souls of men, and to' awaken ideas in their
minds, cannot be denied. As the Creator of
spirits he knows their nature, and how he can

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 467

operate upen them ; and as almighty, he must
be able te produce in his creatures any effect
which he desires. Dees any ene deny this
power to God, he erects between him and the
spiritual world an insurmountable wall of par
tition ; and in order to be consistent, must deny
that God is the governor of the world in gene
ral, any more than he is of the spiritual world.
The possibility of an inward agency of God
upon the world of spirits cannot therefore be de
nied, although the manner in which this agency
is exerted is inscrutable ; which indeed is true
as to the manner of all the divine operations."
* * " With what truth now is it presupposed
that these influences must hamper the free
agency of the mind, and reduce the subject of
them to a mere machine ? Does not the very
nature of the case require that reason, the reci
pient, should actively receive, retain, and appro
priate that which is given it ? Does not the
teacher often, in giving instruction to the child,
suddenly interrupt the course of his thoughts,
and put him on an entirely new train of ideas ?
But are the laws of mind in the child violated
by this interruption ? The teacher, it is said,
makes use of words. But cannot God, by an
adloquium internum, cause new thoughts in the
souls of men ? Or are words the only possible
way by which a Spirit can impart his light to
other spirits, and teach them." Dogmatik, b.
i. s. 129, ff.
But an immediate influence of this kind is not
only desirable and possible, but also highly ^3ro-
lable. Here again Bretschneider remarks; — ;
"As God stands in connexion with the material
world, and by his most full and perfect life con
tinually operates upon it, he must also stand in
constant connexion with the moral world, other
wise there could be no moral government."
Dogmatik, b. ii. s. COO. This probability, drawn
from the co-operation of God in the material
world, is stated still more strongly by Reinhard.
If there is an immediate concurrence and agency
of God in the material world, as generally con
ceded by German philosophers and theologians,
such an agency is much more to be expected in
the moral world, since this is a far more conge
nial sphere for divine operations. " In the ma
terial sphere, the connexion between natural
causes and effects is obvious to the senses, and
must therefore be principally regarded by us,
although even here the scriptures commonly
mention only the highest and last cause, which
is God. But in the kingdom of freedom, there
is no such mechanical connexion between cause
and effect, but an unimpeded intercommunion
of beings freely acting; here, therefore, there
can be no reason why we, with the scriptures,
should not conceive of an immediate influence,
since such an influence is far more adapted
than one which is mediate, to the sphere of

which are we now speaking." Moral, b. iv.
s. 258.
But while these writers contend for the fact
of immediate divine influences in promoting the
renewal of men, they are careful to guard against
the perversion of this doctrine by enthusiasts
and fanatics. " The reality of these influences,"
says Bretschneider, " cannot be proved from ex
perience. The influences of grace, as such,
cannot be distinguished in consciousness from
others; because our consciousness informs us
only of the effect, and not of its origin ; takes
note only of the change itself which passes
within us, but is unable to feel whether it comes
from God. * * * As the agency of God in the
material world always appears to us as natural,
and in the effects produced we never discern the
supernatural cause, so his agency in the moral
world will always appear to us as natural, and
conformed to the laws of psychology, and we
are unable in our consciousness to distinguish
him as the acting cause." Dogmatik, b. ii. s.
600. Cf. Reinhard's " Moral," b. iv. s. 264.
In this manner do these writers contend for
the fact of immediate divine influences, by argu
ments derived from the need of man, the perfec
tions of God, and the analogy of his agency in
the material universe ; and at the same time
guard against the perversions of this salutary
opinion by enthusiasts who, in the words of
Tucker, "think they can see the flashes of illu
mination, and feel the floods of inspiration pour
ed on them directly from the divine hand, and
who undertake to give an exact history of all
his motions from the very day and hour when
he first touched their hearts."
It may be remarked here, that Kant conceded
the possibility of immediate operatiens of grace
for the conversion of man, but denied that they
could be either proved or disproved from philo
sophy. The belief in such influences he held
to be useful in awakening the hope that God
would do for us what we ourselves might be
unable to accomplish in the work of our moral
renovatipn. — Tr.]

APPENDIX.
OF PRAYER AS A MEANS OF GRACE.
The doctrine respecting prayer is commonly
treated in systematic theology in connexion with
the doctrine of the operations of grace. But as
the full discussion of this subject belongs rather
to Christian ethics than to theology, it has by
some theologians been either wholly omitted, or
only cursorily noticed in their systems. On this
subject we shall make here only the following
remarks. The prayer of Christians is a means
of grace included under Christian deetrine, and

468

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

not to be separated from it. For the influence
of prayer is not to be derived from the mere act
of those who pray. It stands in connexion with
the power of the religious truths to which prayer
relates. (1) Statement of the philosophical theory
respecting prayer.
The following is the theory respecting prayer
which has been adopted in modern times, espe
cially in the eighteenth century, by Mosheim
and Moras, and which is held by many philo
sophical and theological moralists. One who
institutes a merely philosophical examination of
prayer, and passes by all the positive promises
to the supplicant contained in the holy scrip
tures, and especially in the Christian system,
will yet allow, if he understands the nature of
man, a great moral influence to prayer. For it
is the means of reminding us of the great truths
of religion, and of impressing these truths deeply
on our hearts. It excites, moreo /er, a sure and
grateful confidence in God and his promises, and
a longing desire after the enjoyment of the bless
ings which he has promised. It is therefore, in
itself, of a most beneficial tendency, and has an
indescribable influence in promoting moral im
provement, and in purifying the heart. A man
is not prepared for the blessings which the
Christian doctrine promises, and is not capable
of free, meral improvement, unless he ackncw-
ledges Ged as the author of them, and has a
lively perception of these benefits, and an ear
nest desire to obtain them. Now from this de
sire after divine blessings springs the wish, di
rected to God, that he would bestow them upon
us, and this is the inward prayer of the heart.
If these feeling's are strong and vivid, it is com
mon and natural to us to express them in words
and in the form of an address to God, whom we
conceive to be present with us, and acquainted
with our thoughts and wishes. (The ve7-4a/ ex
pression is, however, by no means essential to
prayer. A soul directed to God is all which is
requisite.) By the very act of prayer, this vi
vidness of conception is very much heightened,
and in this way our desires and our longings
are cherished and strengthened by prayer itself.
In this exercise God is made, as it were, pre
sent with us ; and while we are engaged in this
duty, we feel as we are accustomed to feel in
direct intercourse with a person who is near at
hand listening to us, and who by our words and
requests is rendered favourable towards us and
becomes intimate with us. To the philosopher
all this may appear illusion and imagination,
but if he looks at experience, which on this sub
ject is worth more than all speculation, he will
find that this aid is indispensable to any one
who means to make religion a matter of serious
and lasting interest. Experience shews that
good thoughts, purposes, and resolutions, unac

companied by prayer, amount to nothing, be
cause they leave the heart cold and the mind
unaffected. (2) Examination of this view cf prayer.
It is true that prayer, considered merely as a
means of improvement, has great moral advan
tages — i. e., that it has a great effect on our
moral improvement, that it withholds from evil,
tranquillizes the soul, and is in every way pro
motive of the interests of morality and sincere
religion. But it is also true, that it would
cease to produce these results which are expect
ed from it if we should content ourselves with
this theory of our philosophical moralists, and
did not confidently hope to obtain the blessings
for which we ask. One who considers the
often-repeated assurances, " he that asks shall
receive," &c, as delusive, and not serious or sin
cere, will find that he wants an inward impulse
to prayer. He can exercise no earnest desires,
no real confidence, and no hearty gratitude. It
is not our business to inquire how God can hear
and answer our supplications without infringing
upon his immutability, or altering the establish
ed course of nature. We are to be satisfied
with knowing that he can do more than we un
derstand, and that he can and will do every
thing which he has promised. Such consider
ations, connected with personal experience, are
enough to secure us against every doubt Nei
ther Christ, nor the other early teachers of
morals, nor the prophets of the Old Testament,
ever made use of the motives to prayer, so often
used at the present day, derived merely from its
moral advantages. Their great motive to prayer
is, that it will be heard, upon which they could
depend as confidently as the child does upon its .
father, when it requests what is needful for it.
This is the great motive by which prayer should
be inculcated on the common people and the
young, otherwise they easily get the erroneous
impression that prayer, as such, is of no advan
tage, and in reality useless, since it is not heard.
On this account Jesus and the other teachers of
morals and religion in ancient times did wisely,
both in omitting to mention the motives to pray
er derived from its moral uses, and in inculcat
ing it on the simple ground that it is heard,
without philosophizing upon the question, in
what way it has an influence. And certainly
Christians do well in holding fast to the doc
trine ef Jesus and nf the hely scriptures. Cf.
Cramer, Die Lehre vom Gebet, nach Offenba-
rung und Vernunft untersucht, u. s. w. ; Keil
und Hamburgh, 1786, 8vo; and Nitzsch, Diss.
inaugural., Ratio qua Christus usus est in cotn-
mendando precandi efficio ; Viteberg, . 1790 ;
also, " Nonnulla ad historiam de usu religiosa
precationis mprali pertinentia," by the same
auther, and published at the same place, 1790,
4tc.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS. BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 469

Two points deserve particular consideration
in this connexion.
(a) The feeling that prayer is necessary is
absclutely universal. The histery pf all nations
who have had any religipn shews that prayer is
everywhere recegnised as an auxiliary to piety,
which is indispensable and founded in eur very
nature. Experience, too, teaches that those re
ligions which inculcate frequent prayer, and in
sist upon it as a duty of the first importance, are
the most practical, and can enumerate among
their followers more examples of men eminent
ly religious and virtuous than other religions
which make prayer of less importance, and at
most prescribe certain public prayers and set
formulas. Next to the Jewish and Christian
religion, the Mohammedan has exerted the
most influence on the heart, because it so stre
nuously inculcates prayer. This religion, next
to the Jewish and Christian, has had the great
est number of truly religious professors and de
vout worshippers of God. [Cf. the work of
Tholuck on Ssuffismus, or the doctrine of the
Ssuffis — a Mohammedan sect in Persia  Tr.]
¦ (4) Christ makes it the special duty of his
followers te supplicate God in his name, and
promises to them a sure audience, which he
would, as it were, procure for them, John, xiv.
13; xvi. 23, 24. This duty is inculcated by the
apostles upon all Christians. The sentiment of
many passages taken together is this: Pray
with reference to Christ and his work, conse
quently in belief or sure confidence in him and
in his promises. In prayer we must be deeply
convinced that he is the author of our salvation,
that even now he is mindful of our interests, and
. makes the things for which we ask his own, and
intercedes with God to hear our requests. In
this respect he is represented as our Paracletus
and Advocate with God, 1 John, ii. 1. But the
blessings which Christianity promises to us are
not temporal, but spiritual. Desire to obtain
these is always conformable to the divine will,
and as far as they are concerned, the hearing of
prayer is certain.

ARTICLE XIII.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOCIETY
OR CHURCH.

[The common order is to treat, first, of the sacra
ments, and then of the church ; but the reverse order
is in many respects more natural and proper ; for
both of these parts of divine service have a principal
relation to the church. By baptism we are solemn
ly initiated into the church ; and by the Lord's Sup
per, the members of the church solemnly renew and
Derpetuate the remembrance of Jesus Christ, and pf

the blessings which he has bestowed upon the hu
man race.]

SECTION CXXXIV.
WHAT IS MEANT BY THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; ITS
OBJECT ; ITS NAMES ; AND THE DIVISIONS OF
*THE CHURCH COMMON IN THEOLOGY.
I. Idea of the Christian Church; its Objed,- and
an Explanation of its Scriptural Names.
The Christian church, in the widest sense,
may be defined to be, the whole number of those
who agree in worshipping God according to the
doctrine of Jesus Christ. In this wider sense it
agrees with the word Christendom. Its object
is, to maintain and perpetuate the Christian doc
trine, and by means qf ordinances and exercises
observed in common, to promote the practice qf it.
Such is the great body of mankind, that with
out some common duties and some external or
dinances, the Christian religion could scarcely
be maintained among them ; certainly it could
not be kept from totally degenerating. The
government and preservation of the church are
everywhere properly ascribed to Christ, as its
head. The same scriptural principles are there
fore applicable here which were above laid
down in the doctrine respecting the kingdom of
Christ, s. 98.
The scriptural names of church are,
(1) 'Exxkr/sia. This term is used by the
Greeks to denote an assembly of men, called
together on the authority of the magistracy ;
frcm ixxaxia, evoco, convoca — e. g., Acts, xix.
32, 39. The Hebrew Vip is used in the same
way, especially in the bcpks pf Mpses, and is
ccmmpnly translated in the Septuagint by ix-
xXrjgla. The same is true ef the Hebrew Nipp.
The term Snp (mrp), denoted secondarily all
those who belonged to the Jewish people, and
professed the Jewish religion. Christians took
the word from the Jews, and like them used
ixxXngia to denote (a) particular societies of
Christians in particular cities or provinces — e.
g., ixxXrjgla iv 'lEpogoXvpois, x. t. X., Acts, viii.
1 ; (4) the religious assemblies of these societies,
and the places in which they met — e. g., 1 Cor.
xi. 18 ; xiv. 19, 28, &c ; (c) the whole sum of
those who profess the Christian religion, wher
ever they may be — e. g., 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Matt.
xvi. 18, seq.
(2) Xvvayayrj and iitigwayayij- and these,
too, are used by the Septuagint to render the
words Snp and my. But they were employed
by the Grecian Jews about the time of Christ
to denote their places of prayer, or oratories, and
the congregations connected with them. Vide
Vitringa, de Synagoga Vetere. And so we find
them used in the New Testament, to denete the
religious assemblies ef Christians, and the
2R

470

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

places where they held them — e. g., Heb. x.
25 ; James, ii. 2. These terms, however, were
never used, like the preceding, to denote the
whole of Christendom.
(3) There were also various figurative names
employed — e. g., fiagiXsla tuv ovpai/mx, or fov
©eov, So frequently in the discourses of Christ.
Vide s. 99, 1. But this term denotes not simply
the Christian religion and church; it compre
hends all to whom belong the rights, duties,
and the entire blessedness of the pious follow
ers of Christ, in this life and the life to come —
e. g., John, iii. 3 ; Matt. v. 3. Xuua Xpifffov
(of which he is the xsfyaxii) — a figurative ex
pression used to denote the intimate connexion
between believers and Christ, and to impress
upon them the duties of mutual harmony and
brotherly lpve; Rem. xii. 5. He is the head,
we the members, Eph. i. 22, alse chap. iv. and
v. Naos ©eov, 1 Ccr. iii. 16, 17, — used to de
scribe the dignity and holiness of Christians,
and the inviolableness of their rights. Ojxos
®soi, 1 Pet. iv. 17, seq. Besides these, all the
terms used to designate the Israelites as the
peculiar and favourite people of God are trans
ferred to Christians in the New Testament — e.
g., xabs rtEpiovciios, Titus, ii. 14; xabs sis itspi-
itbivgw (itspi7towqgEus), 1 Pet. ii. 9; ixXsxtol, x.
t. X. The Israelites were the ancient people of
God, (under the itaXaid Sia&pcrj,) in opposition
to the new people of God, (under the xaivi) Sia-
J>»Jxr/.) And this ancient people is always re
garded as the stock from which the new sprung,
Rom. xi. 17, seq.; Acts, xv. 16. And on this
very account Paul earnestly warns Christians,
in the passage cited, against despising or un
dervaluing the Jews.
II. Divisions of the Church.
( 1 ) Into universal and particular. The church
universal comprehends within itself all who
profess the Christian doctrine, No. I. But since
all Christians cannot agree respecting doctrines
and forms of worship, it is natural that those
who do agree in these respects should enter into
a more intimate connexion. Hence have arisen
particular churches, differing according to place
and time, doctrine, forms, &c Hence the divi
sion of the church into the Eastern, Western,
Roman, African, Papal, Lutheran, Calvinistic,
&c Again; these particular churches are sub
divided into ecclesix singulares, by which are
understood the separate communions belonging
to one particular church, since even these often
differ according to time and place, and even
with respect to doctrines and usages. Thus we
have the Lutheran church in Saxony, Branden
burg, Sweden; the Reformed church in Eng
land and Switzerland, &c
(2) Into the true church and false churches,
and their subdivisions. This division must be

retained in abstracto, although it should be ap
plied very cautiously in concreto, or to particular
cases. We may see, in general, that that Chris
tian church deserves eminently the name of the
true church in which there is an entire agree
ment with the doctrine of Jesus and the apos
tles. The more it obeys Christ in everything
which he has commanded, the more worthy is
it of this name, Eph. v. 23, 24. But there has
never been a church respecting all whose mem
bers this could be said ; nor was there any such-,
even during the times of the apostles, as we see
from their writings ; there has never been a par
ticular church wholly free from errors and devi
ations from the doctrine of Jesus. Christ him
self declares that in his church on earth there
will always be error and truth, good and evil
mingled together. Vide s. 135, II. It is there
fore better to say that is the true church, or,
more properly, has the most truth, in which
there is found a nearer agreement with the doc
trine of Jesus and the apostles than in other
churches. On this subject the opinions of Christians are
so divided that it is impessible to give any ge
neral characteristic marks ef the true church
which would be approved by all. The defini
tion of the true church will always depend upon
the individual belief and conviction of every
Christian ; and each one regards that church as
true which is most accordant with his own
views. The follpwing principles, however,
may be of some practical importance : —
(a) No one church is in the exclusive pos-
sessien nf the truth. There are in every church
faults, defects, and errors ; and so it was at the
time of the apostles, and so it is in all human
societies and institutions.
(4) Nor is there, on the other hand, any
Christian church which is wholly wanting in
the truth, or which does not profess many use
ful and important truths, although mixed more
or less with error. We cannot in this matter
judge of the particular members of a church
from the established and received doctrines of
their church without doing the greatest injus
tice. In this respect wrong is often done ; for
experience teaches that there are often gopd
Christians in a church which professes many
errors, and which has a bad constitution ; and,
on the contrary, that there are often connected
with very excellent church-establishments those
who are unworthy of the Christian name. These
observations have given occasipn to the divisien
pf the church into pure and impure, accprding
as mpre er less errers or false principles are em
braced. We also speak of a corrupt church, by
which is meant particularly a church in which
false moral principles, exerting an injurious in
fluence upon the life and Christian walk, are
mingled with Christian doctrine. It remains

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 471

therefore true, that the separate Christian com-
muninns are pf different value and excellence
according te their greater er less purity in dec-
trine, and accerding to the greater er less adapt-
edness ef their external pelity and forms to pro
mote moral improvement. It cannot therefore
be in itself an indifferent matter to which of
these one belongs. No one, however, should
desire to make his own individual conviction
the unconditional rule for all others, and despise
and condemn those who do not agree with him
self. (c) If there is no church in which the system
of doctrine, the regulations, forms of worship,
&c, are perfect and incapable of improvement,
it follows that improvements may and ought to
be made in them whenever and wherever there
is a necessity for it, and that it is an entirely
false maxim to adhere invariably to what is an
cient, and never to alter. It does not belong,
however, to any particular member, not even to
a public teacher, to urge his supposed improve
ments upon the church. And correct as is the
principle de reformatione ecclesix, in the abstract,
its practical application is attended with very
great difficulties.
(d) To unite externally all the different
churches is not practicable ; and even if it could
be done, would occasion more injury than bene
fit. And notwithstanding all the difference as
to opinion and form in religious matters, mutual
love and toleration may still exist. This is
proved by the history of the church in ancient
and modern times.
(3) The church is divided into visible and in
visible. This division is entirely rejected in
several of the new systems — e. g., in those of
Gruner, Doderlein, and others. They seem,
however, to have taken offence merely at the
terms. These are, indeed, new ; and have come
into use since the Reformation. But the thing
itself which is intended by these terms is well
supported, and is as ancient as the Christian
church itself, and was acknowledged as true by
Christ and the apostles and the whole early
church. These terms came into use in the fol
lowing way : — Luther denied that the Romish
church, according to the doctrine and polity
which it then professed, is the true church. It
was then asked, Where then was the true church
before him? To which he answered, that it
was invisible — i. e., before the Reformation
those Christians had constituted the true church,
and held the pure doctrine, who, without re
garding the authority and commandment of
men, had followed the scriptures according to
their own views, had lived piously, and kept
themselves free from the errors of the public
religion; and such persons there always had
been, even at the most corrupt periods, although
they had not always been known. It was from

this just observation that this division arose.
Cf. Confess. August, Art. vii. anu viii., and
Apol. A. C.
Protestants understand by the invisible church
true Christians, who not only know the precepts
of Christ, but from the heart obey tnem, Matt.
vii. 21. This church is not always clearly seen ;
indeed, to speak justly, it is known only to God,
Col. iii. 3 ; while from the eyes of men, who
judge only according to the external appearance,
it is wholly concealed. On the contrary, the
visible church consists of all Who by profession
belong externally to the church — i. e., attend
public worship, partake of the sacraments, &c ;
for wherever the Christian doctrine is proclaim
ed, and the rites prescribed by it are observed,
there the visible church is. Not every one,
therefore, who belongs to the visible church,
even if it be one of the best, does on this account
belong also to the invisible church. For in the
visible church there are often wicked men and
hypocrites. This is not, then, a division generic
in species, but eadevt res diverse respedu. The
same is true with respect to other societies —
e. g., the republic of the learned.
There are not wanting passages in the New
Testament in which this distinction is plainly-
made, although it is not expressed in this man
ner. For, first, the word IxxXqgla in many texts
denotes the whole number who make an outward
profession of Christianity, without having any
reference to their inward state — e. g., 1 Cor. i.
2, &c Vide No. I. But, secondly, in other
passages such predicates are given to the church
as do' not apply to all who profess Christ, but
only to that better and nobler part which is
called the invisible church — e. g., Eph. v. 27,
ctyia, dficofios, fir) sxovga gitiXov r) jkiftSa, &c.
Here belongs the remarkable passage, Mark, ix.
38 — 40, where the disciples of Jesus would not
acknowledge a person to be a genuine follower
of Christ, because he did not belong to their
society, their external church, and was not, as
it were, enrolled as belonging to their corpora
tion; on which point Christ sets them right.
Cf. Matt. xv. 22, seq. That in the visible
church (fiagiXsla tav oipavav) the evil and the
good are mingled together, and cannot be exter
nally separated without injury to the whole, is
taught by Christ in the excellent parable, Matt.
xiii. 24 — 30. The wicked are compared with
the tares, although they belong to the external,
visible church ; but the good, who belong both
to the visible and invisible church, are compared
with the wheat. Cf. the. text, Matt. vii. 21,
above cited.
Note. — Christ regards all who from the heart
believe in him (the members of the invisible
church) as a present which God has given him,
and so calls them; and upon them, he says, he
bestows eternal life. Vide John, vi. 37 ; xvii.

472

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

2, 6. The better, pious part of mankind are
spoken of as belonging to God, — they are his
children ; and this his possession he gives over
to the charge of Christ, to lead them to eternal
life. This is a great and heart-affecting idea ;
and if such a thought had been found in Plato
or Xenophon, there would have been no end of
praising it; but in the holy scriptures it is less
regarded. (4) The church is divided again into militant
and triumphant. By the church militant is
meant Christians in the present life, so far as
they have to contend with many internal and
external sufferings, adversities, and persecu
tions. By the church triumphant is meant the
society of Christians in heaven, so far as they
are freed from all these trials, and enjoy the
most perfect rest and blessedness. The church,
however, is here used, in the narrower sense,
for the invisible church and its members. This
division was taken principally from the text,
Rev. xii. 7, seq., though this is rather a descrip
tion of the rest to which the church will be re
stored here upon the earth, after long persecu
tions and calamities. It is also derived from
those passages in which the dangerous and toil
some life of Christians is compared with a strife
and conflict, which will soon be over — e. g., 2
Tim. iv. 7. Here too must be mentioned the
text, Heb. xii. 22, 23, where the noble thought
is exhibited, that we compose but one society
with the host of blessed angels and the company
of the saints now rewarded in heaven (tstsxsiu-
psvav Sixalav), of whom Jesus is the Head ; and
that when we have completed our course here
below, we shall join this upper society in our
native land.
Note. — Among the writings of the older pro
testant theologians, in which this division and
the other topics introduced in this section are
treated very thoroughly, that of Jo. Musaeus, De
Ecclesia, (Jena?, 1 675,) deserves particular men
tion. SECTION CXXXV.
ATTRIBUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH; THE
ECCLESIASTICAL TERMS COMMONLY EMPLOYED
TO DESIGNATE THEM, AND THEIR SIGNIFICA
TION.It has been common, in imitation of the an
cient confessions, to predicate of the true church
the four attributes, una, sancia, catholica, aposto-
lica. In the apostolic symbol it is called a holy
Christian church, the society of the saints ; in the
Nicene symbol, one only, holy, Christian, apos
tolic church. Most of these terms are taken from
the New Testament, though they are there used
in a different sense from that in which they are
employed in the later ecclesiastical phraseology.
And this difference should be carefully noted.

It must be remarked in general that all these at
tributes properly apply only to the invisible
church, although many of them may be predi
cated also of the visible church, when rightly ex
plained. The doctrine of the perpetuity of the
church may be most conveniently considered in
connexion with these.
I. Unity of the Church.
This predicate has an entirely different mean
ing in the New Testament from that which it
bears in the common ecclesiastical phraseology.
Its two significations will therefore he separately
considered. (1) When the unity of the church is spoken
of in the New Testament it is a moral unity
which is intended. The import of this term is,
that all who worship God according to the doc
trine of Jesus should regard themselves as mem
bers of one society, and as such should exercise
mutual brotherly love; that notwithstanding all
differences of birth, condition, knowledge, opi
nions, and forms, they should still constitute
but one church, or religious society, worshipping
one and the same Lord, even Christ, and par
taking in common of the blessings promised to
his followers. That there should be such a
union among his followers was the last will, the
testament of Christ; John, xiii. 34, coll. xv. 1,
seq. And in order to this, it is not essential
that there should be a full and entire agreement
of opinipn nn every particular dectrine. Chris
tians, though differing as to their mode of think
ing, their particular opinions and forms, and
though divided into particular communions,
ought to regard themselves as constituting still
but one church, and so to live together in unity
of spirit. This is the true spirit of Christianity ;
it infuses feelings of toleration. And the more
one has of the mind of Christ the more tolerant
will he be to others ; and especially, because he
knows that not only his Lord, but his brethren,
see much in him which requires forbearance.
Vide Tit. iii. 3—5.
This unity of the church is mentioned in
those passages in the New Testament in which
warnings are given against disturbers of the
peace and against controversies; and in those
also in which it is taught that it is the design of
Christianity to remove all distinction betnfeen
Jew and Gentile, and to unite all nations in a
common religion; respecting which vide sec.
118, II.
The principal proof-texts here are, John.
xvii. 20, iva itdvtss sv (Low- John, x. 16, " one
fold, one shepherd ;" and Ephesians, iv. 3 — 6,
and ver. 13, Judfr/s itvsv/jiatbs, because all wor
ship one God and one Christ, have one baptism
and one doctrine. The JWfr/s itlgtsus in ver. 13
is one and the same Christian doctrine, professed
alike by Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ,

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 473

who ought therefore to love each other as bre
thren. Galatians, iii. 28, itdvtss sis iv Xpiuf 9.
Rom. xii. 5, itoxxol iv gapd igpsv, coll. ver.
13; x. 17; 1 Cor. i. 12, 13 ; viii. 6. The true
spiritual unity of Christians is therefore placed
by Christ himself in this, that they believe in
the only true God, and in Jesus, as the Saviour
of the world; that they leve him, and from lpve
to him obey his commandments, and especially
that they love one another. By this only can
the true disciples of Christ be known ; not by
external names and forms, but by faith, work
ing by love — the love of Christ and our neigh
bour. (2) But there gradually arose, after the second
and third centuries, an entirely different concep
tion of the unity of the church. It first origin
ated among the fathers in the West, in conse
quence of their transferring to Christianity cer
tain incorrect Jewish ideas which were disap
proved by Jesus and his apostles, and which had
the most injurious results. The unity of the
church was placed by them in an entire external
agreement as to those doctrines and forms which
were handed down from the times of the apos
tles, through the churches founded by them, and
in the external connexion and fellowship of the
particular societies founded upon this agree
ment. The most ancient passages relating to this
subject are found in Ireneeus, (i. 10,) Tertullian
(De Prescript. Hseret c, 20, ad fin.) and Cy
prian, (in his Book, " De Unitate Ecclesiae.")
The object contemplated in this external con
nexion of churches was at first very good ; it was
designed by this means to set bounds to the ever
encroaching corruption in doctrine and life, and
to remove false teachers. But when the rulers
of the churches no longer possessed the genuine
spirit of Jesus, then, through these principles
and the consequences derived from them,, the
hierarchy was gradually established; and into
lerance and the spirit of persecution and anathe
matizing became very prevalent. Even the pa
pal hierarchy rests entrirely upon these princi
ples, and originated from them. The principal
bishops now established a kind of college or se
cret society; and this unity ofthechwrch was made
dependent, first, upon many heads, then, upon
one visible head of the church. And whoever
ventured to dissent from the doctrine or the ordi
nances of the principal bishops, who held toge
ther and governed their churches, was excluded
from church-fellowship and declared a heretic.
Even Cyprian derived the one true church in
the West from Peter, because he taught at Rome,
and because the church there was the mother of
most of the churches in the West. The bishops
regarded themselves therefore as the successors
of the apostles, and as the representatives of God
and of Christ; and whoever was excluded by
60

them from church-fellowship was excluded by
God himself; and it was early believed and
taught that he was at the same time excluded
from salvation. Vide s. 128, II. Hence even
Cyprian states in his book the principle, extra
ecclesiam illam unicam et veram [extemam or
visibilem]. non dari salutem — a principle from
which so many false doctrines were afterwards
deduced. Vide s. 121, II.
,Upon these supports does the whole false
system of the hierarchy in the Romish church
depend. Vide Henke, De Unitate Ecclesiee, in
his " Opuscula." But there is nn such societas
Christiana, nnr pught there, accerding tn the de
sign ef Jesus, to be any which shall resemble
civil societies ; for this leads to a hierarchy, and
all the evil consequences which flow from the
collision of secular and spiritual power.
Protestants have never had properly one
church, but churches, (ecclesias.) Such, at least,
is the language employed iu the Augsburg Con
fession, Art. vii., and in the other public instru
ments, even in the peace of Westphalia ; and it
is in this that protestantism is distinguished from
consolidated popedom. The Roman-catholic idea
of the church is vindicated in a very subtile and
plausible manner in the work, "Idea Biblica
Ecclesias Dei," by Franc. Oberthiir, vol. i. ;
Salzburg, 1790, 8vo, vol. ii. 1799. He pro
ceeds on the definition, Quod sit ecclesia schola
quxdam, quam Deus erexerit, nutriendx ac pro-
movendx internx religionis causa, in which,
however, there does not seem to be anything
insidious. II. The Sandity of the Church.
This is twofold — viz.,
(1) External; and this is predicated of the
church so far as it is distinguished from other
religious societies (e. g., Jewish or Gentile) by
the superior excellence of its religious princi
ples. In this wider sense, even the. Jews are,
in the Old Testament, often denominated holy ;
and taken in this sense, the visible Chris
tian church may justly be called holy ; for it is
not the moral character of the members which
is designated by the term in this wider sense.
And so all Christians, even those who are such
merely by external profession, are often deno
minated ctyioi in the New Testament. Vide s.
126, IV.; also 1 Pet. ii. 9.
(2) Internal, or moral. The whole object of
the establishment of the church, and the instruc
tion communicated in Christian doctrine, is to
bring the members of the church, under divine
guidance, to this internal holiness. This is said
by Paul in the passage cited, Ephes. v. 26, 27,
coll. Tit ii. 14. But this object is not actually
attained in respect to all who belong to the ex
ternal visible church, but only in those who
belong to the invisible chureh. It can therefore
2r2

474

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

be truly said only of the invisible church, that
it is holy in this internal, moral sense.
Many have been led, by confounding these
different meanings, and by misunderstanding
those passages in which it is made the duty of
every Christian to be holy, to adopt the princi
ple that even the external or visible church must
be a society consisting only of renewed persons
or saints, and that a church which tolerates
within itself unholy or unregenerate persons
cannot be a true church, and so is to be ex
cluded from Christian fellowship. It was on
these principles that the Novatians proceeded
in the third century, and the Donatists in the
fourth and fifth. And they were still more fre
quently maintained by the Anabaptists and
other fanatical sects in the sixteenth century.
The same principles have been revived in still
more modern times by the quakers, and many
other fanatics and separatists.
But they do not consider that in all external
human societies good and evil must be mixed,
and that often the Omniscient only can discern
and distinguish the hypocrites, who are much
more injurious than the openly vicious. And
so Christ pronounced that the external church
could never be pure frem evil, and that the tares
and the wheat must be suffered te grow toge
ther; Matt. xiii. 3, seq., ver. 24 — 31, 47 — 50;
and so, too, he himself endured Judas among his
apostles. Too great severity often terrifies the
good and keeps them at a distance ; and wicked
ancestors often have descendants who are good
and useful members of the church, but who
would not have been so if their ancestors had
been excluded. The external, visible church
cannot, therefore, be a society consisting of
pious Christians only; it is rather a nursery
(seminarium), designed to raise up many for
the invisible kingdom.
Still, however, it is always right, and cer
tainly according to the spirit of Christ, for like-
minded Christians to associate together, and to
establish among themselves institutions which
they may deem promotive of piety, or even to
form smaller societies, in which they will permit
those o nly to participate who have a like object
and possess similar dispositions with them
selves, excluding all others, the ecclesiolx in eccle
sia of which Spener spoke. They should beware,
however, against running in this way into spiri
tual pride, against holding themselves to be bet
ter than others, and against regarding those who
do not join them, and are not enrolled among
them, as worse Christians than themselves.
It does not belong to the government to interdict
such associations, if they do not disturb civil
peace and order, any more than to forbid and
hinder other private associations of citizens for
other lawful objects. The reasons for and
against these associations are canvassed in

Burkhardt's "Geschichte der Methodisten;"
Niirnberg, 1795, s. 123, f. The history of the
church teaches that these smaller associations
have had, upon the whole, a highly beneficial
effect. In times of ignorance and unbelief they
have been the depositories of uncnrrupted Chris
tianity. Without the Waldenses, the Wick-
lifites, and the Hussites, the Reformation would
never have taken place.
III. The Catholic and Apostolic Church.
A different idea is attached to the term catho
lic in modern times, and especially in the pro
testant church, from that which anciently be
longed to it. Catholic is now used in its etymo
logical sense, and is synonymous with universal.
And the church is said to be universal, because
all in the whole earth who profess Christ belong
to it, and because Christianity is not merely a
national religion, or the religion of a country,
but one which may be professed by all men
without distinction. The church is called apos-
tolical, because the members of it profess to
adopt the doctrine taught by the apostles, and
contained in their writings ; according to Eph.
ii. 20, " built upon the foundation of the apos
tles." But anciently xa^oXixbs was synony
mous with 6p^oSo|os, and fides catholica was the
same as fides orthodoxa, which was the faith
held in opposition to heretics, because it was
supposed that the true faith, which accords with
the will of Christ and the apostles, must be the
universal faith of all Christians, and be found
in all the churches established by the apostles.
Hence ecclesia catholica is that qux habetfidem
sive veritatem calholicam — i. e., the right and
pure doctrine and constitution, in opposition to
those churches which have not the pure aposto
lic doctrine, but belong to the heretics. They
proceeded on the principle that there is only one
true church, (vide No. I.,) and in order to es
tablish and maintain this, the principal churches
and their bishops throughout the Roman empire
(xa§-' Sxtjv aixovpivriv) had gradually formed a
separate church union. Whatever agreed with
this was xa^oXixbv, otherwise aipEfixdv. The
genuine apostolic doctrine was supposed, how
ever, to be found in those churches which the
apostles themselves had founded. To these
churches, and to the doctrine handed down in
them from the times of the apostles, the appeal
was therefore made, in the controversies in
which the catholic fathers were engaged with
the heretics ; and it was by this appeal, an ap
peal to tradition, that they confuted them. Vide
Introduction, s. 7, III. But the whole body of
Christian churches professing the orthodox doc
trine handed down in the apostolic churches
were called the catholic, orthodox, or apostolic
church, because they all agreed in the doctrines
and regulations prescribed by the apostles to

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 475

the ch irches founded by them — e. g., by Peter
to the church at Rome, by Paul to that at Ephe-
sus, &c. The earliest passages relating to this
subject are found in Irenaeus, Adv. Hseres, 1.
iii., and especially in Tertullian, De Prescript
Hscr., c 20, 21. It is there said, for example,
Tot ac tantx ecclesix, una est ; ilia ab apostolis
prima, ex qua omnes. Sic omnes primx, et omnes
apostolicx dum una; omnes probant unitatem,
etc. Vide the Essay of Henke before cited.
Note. — The infallibility of the church was
not believed during the first centuries. Between
the period of the Nicene Council,in the fourth
century, and Gregory the Seventh, many traces
of this opinion appear. From Gregory the
Seventh until the Westesn schism in the four
teenth century, it was placed mostly in the in
fallibility of the pope. From that period until
the Council at Trent, the idea prevailed that
only the church collected in general council is
infallible. Since that period, the opinions of
catholic theologians have been divided on this
point. Some (the genuine Romanists) make the
pope the subject of this infallibility; others (and
among these even Febronius) suppose the oecu
menical ccuncils alcne infallible; ethers still
(and principally the French theclpgians since the
middle.ef the seventeenth century) attribute in
fallibility enly ta the church dispersed at large.
At present this dectrine is wholly abandoned
by some of the more liberal catholic theologians.
Vide the excellent bopk (written by a cathelic,)
entitled Kritische Geschichte der kirchlichen
Dnfehlbarkeit zur Beforderung einer freyern
Priifung des Kathelicismus, Frankf. a. M. 1792,
8vc. Cf. alsp the very learned and liberal
werk, entitled " Themas Freykirch, cder Frey-
miithige Untersuchung von einem katholischen
Gottesgelehrten uber die Unfehlbarkeit der ka-
thelischen Kirche, lr. b. ; Frankf. und Leipzig,
1792, 8ve. IV. The Perpetuity of the Church.
Christ himself teaches, with the greatest as
surance, that the religieus spciety and ccnstitu-
tiun founded by Tiim will never cease, but be
perpetual. All the powers qf decay and destruc
tion shall not get advantage over it, itixai aSov
(where all which perishes or is destroyed upon
the earth is collected) ov xatigxvgovgw a/vfrjs,
Matt. xvi. 18. It is the doctrine of the New
Testament that Christ, as the Ruler of the
church, is now actively employed in heaven for
its good, and that he will continue until the end
of the world to support and enlarge it. Vide
Matt, xxviii. 20 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25, coll. Ephes. iv.
16, and s. 9S, respecting the kingdom of Christ.
This, however, is not to be so understood as to
imply that the particular forms of doctrine which
prevail at any particular time, and the particu
lar church communinns originating from them,

will be ef perpetual duratien. Changes must
necessarily here take place. The history pf the
church teaches that one mode of church polity
succeeds another, and that yet, however great
these changes may be, Christianity still sur
vives. External constitutions and economies
resemble the scaffolding, which aid in the con
struction of the building, but are not the build
ing itself. They may be taken down and broken
to pieces when they have answered their pur
poses, and the building will then proceed in a
different way. That this is so, is proved by the
history of the church. It has been, however, a
common mistake for the members of certain par
ticular churches — -e. g., the catholic, Lutheran,
and others, to suppose that if their particular
constitution should cease the whole Christian
church and Christianity itself would perish.
So most in all the separate communions still
think, and always have thought; and yet the
Christian doctrine and church have hitherto
been perpetuated, notwithstanding the greatest
revolutions in states and in ecclesiastical poli
ties; and this beyond a doubt would still be the
case, even if the particular churches and esta
blishments now existing should perish. The
spirit and essential nature of Christianity may
remain, however much its external form may be
altered. Christianity, however, is not so con
nected with any one place or nation that it must
necessarily be perpetuated there, nor has any
one church a premise that its descendants shall
be Christians. We know from the history of
the church, that where Christianity was once
most flourishing, it has since been expelled,
either by superstition or unbelief, and it has
thence travelled to other regions which were
formerly sunk in the deepest night of ignorance.
Let the reader call to mind the former flourishing
condition of the Eastern churches, and then com
pare with it their present state. Every church
should make the use of this fact which is sug
gested in Rev. ii. 5.
SECTION CXXXVI.
OF THE HEAD OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ; AND
OF THE INSTITUTIONS ESTABLISHED TO MAIN
TAIN AND EXTEND IT, ESPECIALLY THROUGH
THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC TEACHING.
I. The Head of the Church.
The only true Head and supreme Lord of the
Christian church is Jesus Christ, according to
the uniform doctrine of Christ himself and the
apostles. ¦ Vide Morus, p. 278, s. 2. Those
who profess his doctrine are brethren, and as
such have equal rights. Vide Matt, xxiii. 8.
Hence he is called b.itoiprp, dpztrtotftrri', x. t. X.
John, x. 12 ; 1 Pet. v. 4 ; Heb. xiii. 20 ; and
xsyaXri ixxXnglas, Ephes. i. 22, iv. 15 ; Col. ii

476

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

10. Nor is he called by these titles merely in
a figurative sense, but because, in his exalted
state, he exercises unwearied and watchful care
ever men, and especially ever his church and
.its members. Vide s. 98, respecting the king-
dpm of Christ.
Christ therefore by no means wished that his
apostles sheuld exercise a lordly deminion over
other Christians, Luke, xxii. 24, and they never
assumed such authority, but expressly protested
against it. Vide 1 Pet. v. 1 — 3 ; 1 Cor. v. 6,
seq. Nor was it his will that one of the apos
tles, or his successors, should possess supre
macy and magisterial power over the church,
like what is asserted in the Romish church re
specting Peter and his successors, of which
there is not a trace in the New Testament or in
the first centuries, as appears from church his
tory. The text, Matt. xvi. 18, upon this rock I
will build my church, relates indeed to Peter and
his merits in diffusing the Christian faith. For
history teaches that he really laid the first foun
dation of the great building .of the house of God
after the departure of Christ, both from the Jews,
Acts ii., and from the Gentiles, Acts x. — a
building which is firmly based (built on a
rock,) and which will endure until the end of
the world, whence he is always pre-eminent
among the apostles. But nothing is said in this
passage respecting his own supreme and judi
cal power over the church, or that of his suc-
jessors. Peter is here spoken of as a disciple,
md not as a ruler and governor. Morus ex
plains this passage very well, (p. 284, seq. n. 3.)
It is therefore justly affirmed in the protestant
¦ihurch that Christ has constituted no visible
-.sad of the whole church who is to hold his
place upon the earth, and to act and make de
crees as his representative and in his name.
It is quite another question, Whether the
Christian church has not the right to commit to
some one the charge and government of its exter
nal public concerns? This right the church cer
tainly has ; and if good order is to be preserved,
it must be exercised, because all the members
of the church cannot take part in its govern
ment. Thus it was in the apostolic church.
But the oi»fc, or the many, who are appointed to
this duty, a.id who constitute an ecclesiam re-
prxsentativu i, possess this pre-eminence not
jure divino, but humano. They ought not
therefore to ,nve out their decretals as divine,
and in the name hi <iod. Their enactments are
merely human, at * ought to have no more than
human authority, ihey may be altered, im
proved, &c.
Since, moreovei, .n every well-organized so
ciety there must be duuordination, no good rea
son can be given why this should not be intro
duced among the o.licers and teachers of the
Christian church, and why one should not have

more authority than another. In this way, at a
very early period, a great pre-eminence over the
other occidental bishops was ascribed to the
Roman bishops, and he was called the head of
the (occidental) church, while as yet there was
no absolute dominion or magisterial power over
the church allbwed him. But for a further ac
count of this matter we must refer to canon law
and church history.
IX The Office of Teaching in the Church.
Every Christian has the right, and indeed is
under obligation, to do all in his power to main
tain and promote Christian knowledge and feel
ing. Vide Rom. xv. 14; Gal. vi. 1; Eph. v.
19 ; vi. 4 ; 1 Thess. v. 14. But since all Chris
tians have not the time, talents, or other qualifi
cations requisite for this work, some were set
apart by Christ, whose appropriate business and
calling it should be to teach and counsel those
committed to their charge ; and these were to
be the instruments through whom he designed
that his doctrine should be maintained and trans
mitted, and the practice cf it promoted., Paul
therefore derives the institution of the different
kinds of officers and teachers in the church di
rectly from God and Christ, and says that each
received a different office and employment, ac-»
cording to his talents and gifts; 1 Cor. xii. 28;
Eph. iv. 11, 12; and in the latter passage he
says that this arrangement was made for the
perfection and edification of the Christian
church, (itpbs xataptiaubv — sis oixoSoftrji' gu/iatos
Xpifffov.) They are hence called iitripstas and
Sidxoxoi ©eov and Xpifffov — those who stand in
the service of God and Christ, and are employed
by them as instruments. They are also called
fellow workers with God, (gvvspyol,) 1 Cor. iii. 9.
The Christian office of teaching was therefore
apppinted by Jesus Christ himself as an insti
tution designed for the maintenance and spread
of the gospel through all ages. And he had
the right to dp this, as being cemmissipned and
authorized by God himself to be the founder
and head of his church. No one of his follow
ers can therefore consistently undervalue this
institution, or wilfully withdraw himself, on any
pretence, from the assemblies of Christians for
the purpose of religious instruction. Matt
xxviii. 18—20; Eph. iv. 11, seq.; Heb. x. 25.
But it is necessary, in order to obviate various
abuses and mistakes, that we should here more
particularly illustrate some points relating to the
office of teaching.
(1) The apostles were set apart, as public
teachers and as founders of Christian churches,
directly by Christ himself; and they again, as
ambassadors for Christ, apppinted a perpetual
office of teaching, and the public assembling of
Christians for worship, and other institutions,
calculated to impart strength and perpetuity to

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 477

the church. Cf. the first chapters of the Acts of
the Apostles. Cf. also Spalding, Vom Werth
und Nutzen des Predigtamts, 2te Ausg. ; Berlin,
1773, 8vo.
The teachers in the apostolic church are di
vided into ordinary and extraordinary. Among
the latter are included the apostles themselves,
the evangelists, (who were missionaries and as
sistants of the apostles,) and in general all who
were not appointed as permanent teachers over
particular churches, but who were employed in
extending Christianity, and in founding new
churches. Among.the former — the ordinary and
permanent officers and teachers of each particu
lar church — were iitlgxorioi, itpEgfivtEpoi, itoi-
usvss, SiSfiffxatoi, (of which the general name is
ryyovfiEvoi, officers, rulers of the church, Hebrews,
xiii. 7, 17, 24.) Some of these had more to do
with the external concerns of the church, (pres-
byteri regentes, itoiusvss,) and others were more
especially employed in instruction, (presbyteri
dvcentes, SiSdgxaXoi.) But for a more particular
account of this matter we must refer to church
history. These officers and teachers were not appointed
immediately by Christ himself; and in the first
Church they were not always appointed in the
same way and by the same persons ; certainly
no rule was given respecting this point which
should be binding in all places and at all times.
The apostles never imposed teachers upon any
church, but left to the churches the enjoyment
of the right belonging to them of choosing their
own teachers. This right of choosing their of
ficers was sometimes exercised by the churches
— e. g., Acts, vi. 2, 3, 5; 2 Cor. viii. 19; and
sometimes they left it to the apostles, or persons
commissioned by them, to whom was committed
the care of the public affairs of the church — e.
g., 2 Tim. ii. 2; Tit. i. 5, seq.
But all these teachers and overseers, appoint
ed either by the churches or their rulers and re
presentatives, were regarded in the New Testa
ment as appointed by God, or the Holy Ghost,
or Christ — e. g., Acts, xx. 28; Col. iv. 17; be
cause their consecration took place on his autho
rity, and according to his will. It is common
to denominate the naming and consecration of
any one to the office of teaching, his calling (vo-
catio), because Nip and xaXslv are used in the
scriptures with respect to the designation of
prophets and other teachers, and the diviae com
missions entrusted to them. And this calling,
even in application to the teachers of religion at
the present day, may be denominated divine, so
far as it is, accordant with the divine will, and
With the order which God has established ; in
the same way as the institution of government
is called divine, Romans, xiii. 1. At the present
time, however, this calling is never immediately
from Gud. And every teacher may be sure that

he has a divine call (i. e., one in accordance
with the divine will) when in a regular manner
he has received a commission to his office from
thpse who have the right te induct him, and
after careful examinaticn, in the presence ef
Gpd, has found that he can hepe te discharge
its duties with the divine approbation. The
characteristics of a teacher who is acceptable to
God and to Christ are briefly enumerated, 1
Tim. iii. 2—7; 2 Tim. ii. 24 ; Titus, i. 5—9;
1 Pet. v. 2, seq. ; and by these each one may
examine himself.
That a teacher of religipn shnuld be solemnly
consecrated to his office, or ordained, is a regula
tion which is indeed useful both to the teacher
himself and to the church ; but, in itself consi
dered, it is not a matter juris divini ; it is no
where expressly commanded by God, and con
tributes nothing, considered as an external cere
mony, to efficiency and activity in the sacred
office. Luther himself pronounced ordination
riot to be necessary, and said that a rightful call
ing is sufficient to make any one a rightful
teacher, and this is the consecration of God.
And this is very true ; for the right to teach
does not properly depend upon ordination, but
upon vocation. On protestant principles, the
ordination of a teacher is nothing else than a
public approval and confirmation of his calling
to the office of teaching; so that thenceforward
he may begin his work, and enjoy his rights.
Morus, p. 282, n. 3.
The act which is now called ordination, and
which is still retained in the protestant church,
is something very different from ordination ac
cording to the use of the ancient church, and the
old ecclesiastical Latinity. Ordinatio was there
the same as xsipotovla, and was taken from mili
tary life among the Romans, like the word or-
dines ; for Christians were called milites Christi.
It was therefore synonymous with constitulio,
constituere ad munus publicum, and was the same
with vacare. But afterwards they made a sepa
rate order of the clergy, and allowed them en
tirely peculiar privileges, and an ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, and then called them ordo, in the
sanie sense in which the Roman senate is called
ordo, ordo senatorius, with which it was com
pared ; and when any one was received into
this order by special consecration, he was said
ordinari. The right of ordaining, according to protest
ant principles, is not confined tb particular per
sons — e. g., bishops; but it can be performed
by any one who is commissioned to do it by the
church, or by their functionaries and representa
tives. The imposition of hands in the induction
of teachers into office is mentioned — e. g., 1 Tim.
iv. 14; Acts, xiii. 3; and is a ceremony bor
rowed from the Jewish church, where it was
practised with regard to all to whom any office

478

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

was given, to whom anything was promised, or
for whom any blessing was implored from God,
as a sign of blessing, invocation, &c — symbo-
lum collationis.
There is one practice in the protestant church
with reference to this subject which is a real
remnant of popery — viz., that an ordained per
son may still teach and administer the sacra
ments, even when he no longer properly fills an
office as a teacher of religion, as if ordination
put a character indelebilis upon a person ; while
the truth is, that the permission and the right to
discharge these duties depend upon a person's
vocation to the sacred office, and not upon his
ordination. In this respect, therefore, the prac
tice of the protestant church is inconsistent with
its theory, and many evil consequences are the
result. (2) Of the rights of Christian teachers.
First. As to the rights of teachers, they have,
merely as teachers, no other than to instruct and
counsel that part of the church entrusted to their
care, to perform the services of public worship,
and in return to expect their maintenance from
the church ; 1 Pet. v. 2, 3 ; Acts, xx. 28 ; 1 Cor.
ix. 6 — 14. The church and the government may,
however, if they see it to be best, confer still
other rights, privileges, and immunities upon
teachers. Note. — As to the manner in which the church
shall be governed, and by what sort of persons,
and how instruction shall be provided for, there
are no precepts given in the Bible. Properly,
all Christians have a right to teach — every fa
ther his own family ; and even to administer the
sacraments, as even Tertullian truly observes.
There is, therefore, truly a jus laicorum sacerdo-
tale, as Grotius, Salmasius, Bohmer, and Spener
have maintained. Even among the Jews the
teachers of the people were not priests, but lay
men ; and any one who had proper qualifications
might teach in the synagogue or in the temple.
Among the ancient Israelites the prophets were
commonly not from the order of the priesthood,
but for the most part from other tribes, classes,
and orders of the people. But for the sake of
good order, the business of teaching and of per
forming the services of public worship must ne
cessarily be entrusted to some particular persons;
otherwise irregularities and abuses are inevita
ble ; as may be seen from the example of some
sects which allow every one to teach, 1 Cor. xii.
Secondly. It was not long, however, before
other rights and privileges were conferred upon
the teachers cf the Christian church ; partly such
as had belenged te the Jewish priests (with whom
Christian teachers were compared) and even to
the heathen priests within the Roman empire,
and partly such as were given to the extraordi
nary teachers in the first Christian church, and
especially to the apostles. To these extraordi

nary teachers Christ promised extraordinary
gifts of the Spirit, and many of their peculiar
privileges and rights were founded upon these
gifts, and could not be claimed by their succes
sors, to whom these gifts were not imparted.
Among these is especially the office or the
power of the keys, (potestas eluvium.) This in
cludes the power of forgiving or not forgiving
sins, like what is common in the protestant
church at confessions, or at the preparation for
the Lord's Supper; (against which there is no
thing to be objected, if it is understood that this
absolution is not collaliva, but merely declaraMva
or hypothetica ,-) and also plenipotentiary power,
either to exclude any one from church fellow
ship, or to receive him again ; so that the entire
administration of church discipline is called offi
cium clavium. Vide Morus, p. 2H6 — 288.
But with regard to this there are more mis
takes than one which need to be answered.
(a) In all the passages of the New Testa
ment which are appealed to in behalf of the
power of the keys, the apostles only — the extra-
ordinary teachers of the church — are spoken of.
(4) In the passages Matt xvi. 19 and xviii.
18, nothing is said about forgiving or not for
giving sins, but about binding and loosing,
which in such a connexion always mean, in the
Syriac, Chaldaic, and the Rabbinical writers,
to forbid and to allow. Cf. Lightfoot and Wet
stein on these texts. The meaning is — " You,
as my ambassadors, shall have power in the
Christian church (xXsls fiagiXslas ruii' ovpai'ujp)
to make regulations and to give precepts, to
allow and to forbid ; and God will approve these
your appointments, and they shall be regarded
by men as if they were from God." For the
apostles had special gifts of the Spirit, and
were the ambassadors of God and of Christ.
The doctrine of the apostles should therefore be
to all Christians the rule of what they should
do and what they should leave undone. The
same is taught in other words, Matt, xviii. 18.
This is somewhat differently explained by Mo
rus, p. 284, 287.
(c) In John, xx. 23, Christ gives to his apos
tles, as ambassadors of God, full power to for
give sins, or to withhold forgiveness. The rea
son of this is to be found in the gifts of the
Spirit promised ver. 22. The apostles" did not
indeed become omniscient and infallible by the
possession of these extraordinary gifts ; but they
received power to free men from certain evils,
which were regarded as punishments of sin,
especially from sicknesses ; and it is this power
which seems to be here spoken of, and therefore
not so much de remissione peccatorum verbal!,
(as theologians call it,) as de remissione reali.
Thus the healing of the lame man, Matt. ix. 6,
is derived from the power which the Messiak
possessed of forgiving sins.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 479

(d) The right to receive any one into the fel
lowship of the church, or to exclude him from
it, did not belong to the apostles or to other
teachers exclusively. Nor did the apostles ever
exercise it, or claim it for themselves ; but they
left the exercise of it to the churches. Vide
1 Cor. v. 13 ; 2 Cor. ii. 6—10. That the church
not cnly have the right, but are under obliga
tion, tp provide for the support of their doctrine
and constitution, and to see to it that nothing is
done contrary to them, is indeed unquestionable.
And this is the foundation of Christian disci
pline — i. e., of all those public regulations and
appointments by which the Christian doctrine
and constitution, and a correspondent demean
our in the members of the church, are promoted
and preserved. And this is according to scrip
ture. But respecting the manner in which
Christian churches shall administer this disci
pline, no general rules are given. This must
depend upon the situation and circumstances of
each particular church. The church may allow
this right to be exercised by some particular
persons — e. g., by its teachers; but these in
such a case do not possess this right in and of
themselves, but in the name of the church and
as its representatives. In the Augsburg Con
fession and the Apology there is a particular
chapter on the power of the church as exercised
through its teachers. But many protestant teach
ers are dissatisfied with having their power
limited to mere teaching and counselling. It is
moreover a maxim in the protestant church, that
church discipline should not have the form and
effect of civil punishments. Vide Morus, p.
285, s. 8.
If therefore the phrase, the power of the keys,
is to be retained, and this power is to be consi
dered as belonging to the office of teaching, it
must be understood to denote the right and duty
of the teacher earnestly to exhibit before the
impenitent and unconverted the consequences
of their sins, the divine punishments ; to ad
monish them, to counsel and exhort them to re
pentance ; and, on the contrary, to comfort and
console the penitent, and to convince them, with
reasons drawn from the Christian system, of
the mercy of God, and the forgiveness of their
sins. This right is derived from the very object
of their office, and cannot be denied. Cf. the
texts relating to this subject, as cited by Morus,
p. 283, n. 2, and p. 287, No. 2. And to these
points are the rights and duties of teachers
limited, according to the principles of the pro
testant church.
Note 1. — The more extended investigation of
the doctrines of church government, of the
primacy, of the rights of the church and its
teachers, the relation of the church to the state,
&c, which were formerly introduced into the
theolpgical systens, beleng rather te cancn law

pr tp church history. It will be sufficient here
to make this ene additional remark, that the
uniting of persons in an ecclesiastical society
produces no alterations in their lawful, civil,
and domestic relations. Vide 1 Cor. vii. 20 — 24.
The church is not a society which is opposed
to the state; it rather contributes to advance
the good ends of civil society. Hence the mem
bers of the church are always directed to yield
the most perfect obedience to the government.
Vide Luke, xx. 25; Rom. xiii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii.
13 — 17. The true Christian should not indeed
conform to the world (the great body of unre
newed men), and ought to keep himself unspot-
ted from the world ; still he should not, of his
own accord, relinquish his worldly station and
calling, so far as it is not sinful.
[Note 2. — On the general subject of this arti
cle, cf. Hahn, s. 613, ff. Neander, Kircheng.
i. b. 1 Abth. s. 346. Bretschneider, b. ii. s.
785, ff— Tr.]

ARTICLE XIV.
OF THE TWO SACRAMENTS— BAPTISM AND
THE LORD'S SUPPER.

SECTION CXXXVII.
OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL.
I. Different uses of the term " Sacramentum."
(1) In the earliest times of the church. Even
Tertullian employed the term sacramentum with
reference to Baptism and the Lord's Supper (sa-
cramentum aqux d eucharistx), and many of the
Latin teachers after him. But neither Tertullian
nor the other ancient fathers employ it exclu
sively with reference to these ; but they were
accustomed also to apply it to other things, to
such especially as they elsewhere called mysie-
ria. Hence we find that in Tertullian the
terms mysterium and sacramentum are used to
denote the whole Christian religion and its par
ticular doctrines. The doctrine of the Trinity,
of the Incarnation of Christ, &c, are called al
ternately mysterium and sacramentum. The
same is true of all the rites and ceremonies
practised by Christians, so far as they are the
types of spiritual things, and have a special sig-
nificancy, or a secret sense, or are kept private.
But from whence is this use of sacramentum
derived? Not from the ancient Latin significa
tions of this word, according to which it denotes
the military oath, or a sum of money deposited,
but from the ancient Latin versions of the Bible
— e. g., the Vulgate. In these the Greek pvg-
t^piov is frequently rendered by the word secra-
mentum. And since this Greek term was used

480

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

respecting all secret and unknown things, and
nesignated the higher religious truths, the secret
sense of a thing, &c (vide Introduction, s. 6),
the term sacramentum was employed in ecclesi
astical Latinity in all these senses. And it
was adopted the more willingly by the fathers,
because they were accustomed to compare the
doctrines and rites of Christianity with the doc
trines and ceremonies of the pagan mysteries,
in order to secure for them a higher regard and
authority among the heathen. The texts of the
Vulgate on which this use is founded are the
following — viz., Dan. ii. 18, 30, where Ne
buchadnezzar's unknown dream is called sacra
mentum. Tob. xii. 6, 7 ; B. of Wisdom, ii. 22 ;
Ephes. iii. 3, 9, where it stands for the Chris
tian system, and its particular doctrines. Ephes.
v. 32 ; Rev. i. 20 ; xvii. 7, &c. The fathers now
called everything standing in any relation to
religion, sacramentum, and extended it espe
cially to all religious rites which have a secret
sense or anything symbolical, and which are
the external and sensible signs of certain spiri
tual things not cognizable by the senses. Re
specting the meaning of this term, cf. G. J.
Vossius, Disp. xx. de Baptismo; Amst. 1648.
Gesner, Thesaur. Lat h. v. Windorf, Index
Latin. Tertull. t. vi. p. 500. The primary
sense, therefore, of the term sacramentum, is,
as Morus justly observes, sacrum signum, or
significatio rei sacrx.
(2) The rites of baptism and the Lord's Sup
per have always been justly regarded in the
Christian church as the most impprtant acts of
religious service, and as possessing a peculiar,
mystical efficacy. But to many other usages
which have gradually become prevalent in the
church, and which were not instituted by
Christ himself, a great significance and effi
cacy was attributed ; and they were supposed
to contain deep religious mysteries. To all
these the term sacramentum was applied, in the
sense in which it was used by Augustine — viz.,
Sacramentum est visible signum rei sacrx, sive
rei divinx invisibilis. In this way all the rites
of the church might be reckoned as belonging
to the sacraments, and this was actually done.
Now after the twelfth century the schoolmen
began to contend about the number of the sa
craments, and at length most of them settled
upon seven (as a sacred number), which they
regarded as the most important and efficacious,
and to which, by way of eminence, they gave
the name sacramentu These were first dis
tinctly stated by Petei of Lombardy, in the
twelfth century, as baptism, the Lord's Supper,
confirmation, (confirmatio calecumenorum), ordi
nation, extreme unction, auricular confession (sa
cramentum pxnitentix), and wedlock. He was
followed in this by most of the teachers in the

Romish church, and they endeavoured to gup
port their opinion even from the Bible. This
doctrine was not, however, publicly acknow
ledged until the Cnuncil at Trent, in the six
teenth century. It must be acknewledged that
this selectien dpes net reflect much credit upon
the sagacity of the one who made it; and it
proved the occasion of a great accumulation of
ceremonies, and confirmed the people in the de
lusion that Christianity consists essentially in
ecclesiastical rites, and that those invented by
men have equal authority with baptism and the
Lord's Supper, which depend upon divine ap
pointment, and possess equal power and effi
cacy. (3) These perversions induced the protestant
theologians of the sixteenth century, especially
those of the Lutheran church, to use the word
sacramentum in a more limited sense than that
in which it had been previously taken, and so
to determine its meaning that it should no more
include all the rites which had been formerly
denominated sacramenta, but merely baptism
and the, Lord's Supper. Hence the doctrine of
seven sacraments was publicly established in
the Romish church by the Council at Trent in
opposition to the protestants ; and it was there
maintained that all the seven were instituted by
Christ, and were sacraments in the same sense
with baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is
however expressly said, in the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession by Melancthon, that no
thing depends upon the use of the word, or
upon the number, if the thing itself is only
rightly understood, and human institutions are
not made of equal authority with those of God.
Nemo vir prudens de nomine et numero rixabilur.
Cf. Morus, p. 276, s. 5.
The Lutheran theologians have adhered close
ly to the use of this word in the narrower sense
adopted in the sixteenth century. But the re
formed theologians have often used it in the
wider sense, after the ancient manner — e. g.,
they frequently call the Levitical ceremonies
and all the types of the Old Testament, sacra-
ments. Many among the catholics (Bellarmin,
and more lately Oberthur) have expressly al
lowed that baptism and the Lord's Supper are
the most general and important of the sacra
ments, and that they therefore approached the
protestants more nearly than the Council at
Trent Oberthur (in his Idea Bibl. Eccles. Dei,
vol. ii.) confesses that Christ expressly and
immediately appointed only two sacraments,
but insists that he conferred upon the church
and the priesthood the power to add others
The assertion made by some that baptism and
the Lord's Supper are even in the New Testa
ment denominated fivfffrjpia, is without founda
tion. For the oixoi'dfios fivofr/piiov ©eov (1 Cor

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 481

iv. 1), is one who teaches the doctrines which
God has revealed to men, and of which they ¦
were before ignorant. Vide chap. ii. 7.
II. Development of the idea which is connected in
the Lutheran church with the term " Sacra
ment ,-" and the marks by which Sacraments are
distinguished from other ceremonies.
(1) By the word sacraments is understood, in
the Lutheran church, those religious rites and
ceremonies which God himself has instituted in
the holy scriptures, by which certain spiritual
blessings are represented and actually communi
cated. Luther defined a sacrament, in this nar
rower sense, as follows : — It is an observance
appointed by God, in which one makes use qf a
visible thing, which has the divine word of com
mand and of promise. Cf. Morus, p. 274, s. 2,
n. 1.
The essential characteristics of a sacrament
are therefore the following — viz.,
(a) Sacraments are external religious acts.
(4) They are among those acts which are po
sitively instituted — i. e., they are such as stand
in no essential connexion, from their internal
nature, with religion and the welfare of men,
(like prayer, for example.) And all the reli
gious acts which have these two characteristics
are called ceremonies.
(c) They are instituted and appointed by God
himself. (d) They serve not only to exhibit or repre
sent to the senses the spiritual blessings which
flow from God and Christ, but actually to com
municate them.
In every sacrament, therefore, there are two
parts ; — the visible thing (materia, or res ierres-
tris), which affects the senses,- as the bread,
wine, and water; and the invisible thing (res,
or materia cxlestis), which is typified and im
parted by the external sign. But respecting
the manner in which the sacraments exert their
power and produce their effect, protestant theo
logians have not agreed ; nor have even the Lu
theran theologians agreed among themselves.
In this point, however, they coincide, that the
sacraments do not exert a mechanical or miracu
lous power, as some catholics and enthusiasts
have maintained ; for in that case they must act
irresistibly; but some of them contend that they
have a physical power, or a power analogous to
physical (physico-analogam vim) ; while others
say, that they have merely a moral effect. It
is the same here as in the controversy respect
ing the power and efficacy of the divine word.
These religious services stand in the most inti
mate connexion with the essential doctrines of
the Christian system, and they can in themselves
produce no effect upon those who have no
knowledge of these doctrines, or no conviction
of their truth — i. e., no faith. The truths of
61

religion which are herein represented, and
which should be deduced from these ceremo
nies, produce their effect in the same way (or
rather the Holy Ghost produces through them
an effect in the same way) upon the heart cf
man, as they are accustomed in other cases to
do, when they are heard, read, &c; only in
these sacraments they are not taught by words,
but in different ways are rendered obvious to
the senses. All which has been before said
respecting the operations of grace through the'
Word of God, s. 129, seq., is therefore equally
applicable to this subject. Cf. especially with
reference to the Biblical doctrine, s. 131. Me
lancthon, therefore, well observed in the Augs
burg Confession, Art. vii., that Augustine truly
said, Sacramentum esse verbum visibile ; for, he
adds, ritus oculis accipitur (ut moveat corda), et
est quasi pictura .verbi, idem significans quod ver
bum. Now in the same way in which God ex
erts his power through the word, when it is
heard or read, in the very same way does he
act through the Word (the truth), when in
other ways and by external rites it is repre
sented to the senses.
(2) Inferences from this representation of the
Lutheran theologians. From this limitation of
the idea of sacramentum it follows that only
baptism and the Lord's Supper can properly be
regarded as sacraments. For the characteristics
of the sacraments have been so settled that they
can all apply only to these two ; and other ce
remonies are excluded from the number. By
these distinctions are excluded,
(a) The five other sacraments of the Romish
church, because the third and fourth of the cha
racteristics above mentioned do not belong to
them ; or at least one or the other of these two
characteristics is wanting. Morus shews this
particularly with regard to each one of the five
Romish sacraments, p. 275, s. 4, in the Note.
(4) The washing of feet (pedilavium), which
was regarded by some as a religious rite ap
pointed for all the members of the Christian
church in all ages, because Christ washed his
disciples' feet, (John, xiii. 5,) and because it
appears from 1 Tim. v. 10, that this rite was
practised in the first Christian church. But
this act was symbolical, and Christ designed by
it to inculcate upon his disciples, after the ori
ental manner, the duty of Christian love, con
descension, and readiness to serve others
Vide ver. 12, seq. It was never appointed by
the apostles as a rule for all Christians in all
ages. By degrees, as customs altered, ami
another mode of thinking prevailed, it fell into
disuse in most of the Western churches. Still
it was long retained in the Eastern churches,
and in some of them is common to this day.
Even in the West, it has been revived by some
of the smaller churches — e. g., by a part of the
2S

482 \

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Mennonites ; and it is now practised by some,
though not all, belonging to the society of
United Brethren. They, however, do not in
sist that it is an essential Christian rite, which
must be observed by all Christians, and which
should again be introduced into all Christian
churches, after it has now fallen into disuse;
but they leave every one to his own judgment
respecting it.
(c) The Jewisti religious rites, such as offer
ings, sacrifices, &c. For Paul says that they
did not effect the forgiveness of sin before God,
although they Were instituted by him, Heb. ix.
9 ; x. 11. So far as they typified spiritual bless
ings, (vide s. 90, III. 7,) they might be called
sacraments in the old sense.
(d) Especially have circumcision and the
passover been considered as sacraments, and
called, by way of distinction, sacramenta Vete-
ris Testamenti, and compared with baptism and
the Lord's Supper. But many modern theolo
gians have decided that they cannot be called
sacraments in the sense of the Lutheran church.
For although they were commanded by God,
they were attended by no promise of spiritual
blessings. Circumcision related merely to ex
ternal good, the possession of Canaan, the pos
terity of Abraham,- &c, Gen. xvii., and not to
the forgiveness of sins, &c On the contrary,
it is assigned as the object of baptism, the ini
tiatory rite of the Christian religion, to promote
the circumcision of the heart, or moral improve
ment. Vide Col. ii. 11, 12. The passover was
instituted merely to commemorate the deliver
ance of the Jews from Egypt. Still, although
it is not declared in the scriptures that baptism
and the Lord's Supper have come into the place
of circumcision and the passover, yet both of
the latter may be regarded as sacraments, so
far as they typified spiritual blessings. For it
was expressly said to Abraham at his circumci
sion, that the great promises made to him and
his posterity should be fulfilled, (Gen. xvii.
21,) and among these were spiritual blessings.
And all the offerings and festivals of the Jewish
religion, and especially these two, which were
the most solemn, are said in the New Testa
ment to have a figurative sense. Vide 1 Cor.
v. 7; John, xix. 36; and s. 90. Cf. Heilmann,
Definienda justa sacramentorum notione, in his
" Opuscula," th. i. s. 433.
III. Tlie Object of Christ in instituting these two
Sacraments.
(1) The utility and necessity of religious rites
may be inferred from the constitution of our na
ture. Man is not a mere spirit, but a being com
posed of reason and sense. And on this account
there must be something in religion which will
appeal to his senses, excite and sustain his de
votion, and strengthen his zeal in piety. The

sensible representation of the truths of religion
often makes a stronger impression upon men,
as experience shews, than mere instruction; be
cause their feelings are apt to be more strongly
excited by anything which appeals to the senses
than by that which addresses simply the under
standing. Hence our religious services cannot
be merely spiritual. Even ceremonies of human
appointment have a great effect, and far more
those which have divine authority, and, like
baptism and the Lord's Supper, are accompa
nied with special promises.
Religious rites in general contribute much
also to the support of religion itself; since by
their means the solemn and public profession
of religion is renewed, and even children are
from their youth up accustomed to them, and
are bound to their observance. A religion with
out external religious rites, and without the
aids of sensible exhibitions of its truths, would
be as liable to become obsolete, as the different
systems of philosophy. The truth of this re
mark is confirmed by the history of the church.
In the oriental church, Christianity was indeed
very early disfigured by many false doctrines;
but the profession of Christ, and the essentials
of his religion, still continued, until Moham
med and his adherents succeeded in abolishing
Christian worship, together with baptism and
the Lord's Supper. It is therefore very neces
sary that these religious rites should be main
tained ; and the opponents of Christianity pro
ceed very wisely when they endeavour to bring
them into disuse and contempt. For the doc
trines to which they relate must soon share the
same fate.
(2) But it is equally important, on the other
hand, that religion should not be overloaded
with external rites, and that they should be as
few as possible; for when they are multiplied
their effect is weakened, and they are soon re
garded with indifference and contempt This
is proved by the example of all religions, and
even of the Christian religion, when it has been
burdened with ceremonies. Christ endeavoured
by his doctrine to withdraw men more and more
from what is external and sensible, and to pro
mote internal, spiritual worship, as an affair of
the heart. Cf. John, iv. 23, 24. Hence he
appointed but few ceremonies. An additional
reason for this was, that at the time when Chris
tianity was founded, the religious ceremonial
both of the Jews and of the heathen nations was
looked upon with coldness, or even, with con
tempt, by the more cultivated and thinking part
of the public, on account of the great multipli
city of its rites, and the superstition with which
it was attended. Even a great portion of the
religious Jews at that time felt the burden of
the, Jewish ceremonial law tc be very oppres
sive. Cf. Acts, xv. 10; Matthew, \xiii. 4

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 48?

A new religious institution, therefore, prescrib
ing but few, simple, and easy rites, would on
this very account commend itself to the Jews
and the heathen. Cf. Matt. ix. 14 — 17.
Considered in this respect, these two sacra
ments of Christ have great advantages. They
are natural, simple, and universally applicable.
They are therefore peculiarly appropriate to an
institution which is designed to be universal.
It is otherwise with the Jewish ritual, which is
not adapted to all men, countries, and times.
Indeed it was not designed by God for all men,
but only for a particular period, and that for a
limited time. Christ, however, has not forbid
den the introduction of other religious usages ;
for an increase of them may often be indispen
sable to the maintenance of united religious
worship. But he has left this to the discretion
of his church, which may appoint and modify
them according to the circumstances. Those,
however, which Christ has instituted should
serve as models and patterns, in point of sim
plicity, for all other Christian ceremonies.

CHAPTER I.
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
SECTION CXXXVIII.
NAMES, INSTITUTION, AND ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN
baptism; WITH OBSERVATIONS ON JOHN THE
BAPTIST AND THE JEWISH BAPTISM OF PROSE
LYTES. I. Names of Baptism in the Bible.
(1) To fidqttigpa, from J3arff l£sw, which pro
perly signifies to immerse, (like the Germ.
taufen,) to dip in, to wash, (by immersion.) In
the Syriac and Chaldaic (which Christ used)
this is denoted by the words, bss, rr>23, So?,
(Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. p. 849, 850.) Hence the
washing of vessels with water is called fidittig-
fwi, Mark, vii. 4. And instead of vlfyuvt ai in
ver. 3 of the same chapter, we have in ver. 4,
flaittigavtai- so also of the washing of hands,
Luke, xi. 38, seq. (In the New Testament the
form d panwifffids is never used for the religious
rite of baptism, either of John or of Christ; but
always t b fidittigpa.) Hence it is often used
tropically, (a) For what flows, or is communi
cated, to any one in full measure; as in Latin,
perfundere, imbuere, &c — e. g., Acts, i. 5.
(6) For severe sufferings which befal any one—
e. g., Matt. xx. 22, 23 ; for these are often com
pared with waves which overflow any one ; Ps.
lxix. 2, 3. So among the Latins, fludus mi-
serix, mergi mails. Hence martyrdom is called
by the ancients, baptisma sanguinis. In the

classics, — e. g., in Plato, — a drunken person is
said to be fiaitt to&ei';, vino imbutus, mersus.
(2) Ko^opifffids, John, iii. 25; because by
washing purification is effected, and baptism
represents purification from sins, and is design
ed to promote this end in the one who is bap
tized. Hence Josephus (xviii. 7) employs ix-
xdgtaipsiv in respect to the baptism of John.
Perhaps, too, 2 Peter, i. 9, (xa^opifffios tuv
itdxai dftapfMoi', coll. Eph. v. 26) belongs in
this connexion.
(3) To ¦vSup, because baptism was adminis
tered with water ; John, iii. 5, coll. Acts, x. 47 ;
Eph. v. 26, seq.
(4) Among the church fathers one of the
oldest names was $ut iguos, from the instruction
which the subject of this rite received in con
nexion with his baptism, as Justin the Martyr
(Apol. i. 61) explains it The Syriac, too,
translates fovs ajtof $utig$svtas (Heb. vi. 4),
those once baptized, which version Michaelis
follows, though it is a doubtful rendering. Bap
tism is moreover called by the church fathers,
ufpoyis, sigillum, (character Christiani,) zdpis,
xdpiapa, svSvpa anopsia;, x. f • X.
II. Institution of Baptism, and the principal texts
relating to it.
Jesus, even during his life upon the earth,
required those who wished to become his dis
ciples to be baptized by his apostles; John, iii.
22, coll. ver. 5 of the same chapter, and chapter
iv. 1, 2. But at that time none but Jews were
received into his church and baptized ; as was
the case also with John in his baptism. Shortly
before his ascension to heaven, he first gave the
commission to his apostles to admit all (itdvta
s$vy) into the Christian church, and to baptize
them without distinction; Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20,
cf. Mark, xvi. 15, 16. They were to be made
disciples of Jesus Christ, or professors of his
religion (ua^ntsvEiv) in a twofold manner —
viz., by baptism and by instruction. They were
to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit— i. e., by baptism they were
to be obligated to accept and obey the doctrine
which acknowledges and receives Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit. Whoever, therefore, is bap
tized, declares by this rite that he acknowledges
Father, Son, and Spirit for his God, that he
will obey his laws, and that he expects protec
tion and blessing from him ; and God, on the
other hand, promises and grants to him the en
joyment of all the benefits which the gospel of
Christ enjoins upon us to expect from the Fa
ther, Son, and Holy Spirit. For a more full
explanation ef this formula, vide s. 35, 1., and
Morus, p. 275, s. 2, 3. It is the opinion of
some that Christ did not design in this passage
so much to prescribe a precise formula, — in
which case he would rather have said, " Bap-

484

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

tize ye, and say, I baptize thee in the name of the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," — but that he
merely intended to teach what is the meaning
and object of this rite. That this command of
Christ was obeyed by the apostles may be seen
from the Acts and Epistles^ The other import
ant passages concerning the object, design, and
effect of baptism — e. g., John, iii. 5 ; Titus, iii.
5; Acts, xxii. 16; Gal. iii. 27; Rom. vi. 3,4;
Ephes. v. 26; 1 Pet. iii. 21, &c, will be ex
plained in the following sections.
III. Origin of Christian Baptism ,¦ the Baptism of
John, and the Jewish Baptism of Proselytes.
(1) John baptized' before Christ appeared
publicly as a teacher, and Christ even suffered
himself to be baptized by him. The baptism
of John is described', equally with the baptism
of Christ, as a divine institution, and as per
formed under divine authority ; John, i. 33,
(God sent him to baptize,) and Luke, vii. 30,
where it is called a divine institution (jiovXri
©eov), and Matt. xxi. 25, seq.
(2) But although this is a divine institution,
we must still seek among the prevailing prac
tices and expectations of the Israelites the more
immediate reason why just this and no other
form of initiation was then introduced by John
and Christ. From the passage, John, i. 25, it
is manifest that the Jews (the Sanhedrim and
the Pharisees) expected that the Messiah and
his herald Elias would baptize. Cf. Lightfoot
on this text. And so, many even among the
learned (the Pharisees and Sadducees) suffered
themselves to be baptized by John (Matt. iii.
7) ; which probably would not have been the
case if baptism had been to them a strange and
unheard of thing. The Israelites, like many
other nations, had different forms of lustration
and washings with water, which were clearly
prescribed by their law, by means of which they
sanctified, consecrated, and cleansed themselves
from impurities. Vide Wetstein on Matt. iii.
6. As, now, the Messiah was to bring about
a general reformation, and to establish a new
constitution, into which every one must be so
lemnly initiated, and to- which he must be con
secrated ; as, moreover, it was the universal
expectation, according to the prophets, that he
would cleanse men from their sins, which was
exactly typified by the washings in the Levi-
tical law ; it does not seem unnatural that just
this form of initiation should have been expect
ed by the Jews, and should, in fact, have been
chosen by John and Christ, according to divine
appointment. If, now, the baptism of proselytes was custom
ary among the Jews at or before the time of
Christ, many things oould be explained still
more clearly from this circumstance. The Tal
mud and its interpreters relate that the prose

lytes, as well circumcised, as uncircumcisedj,
were initiated by baptism into the worship of
the one true God, and that this was a symbol
of purification from sin, and of the renunciation
of heathenism ; and that they were then consi
dered as 4orra again — exactly the expression
used by Christ (John, iii.) and by Paul (Tit
iii.) respecting Christian baptism. Vide s.
126, II. The Talmudists make this practice
very ancient, and place it as far back as the
time of Moses, and even further, (which pro
bably is going too far, as their way is.) The
oldest passage respecting a religious cleansing,
or sort of baptism, occurs in Jacob's history,
(Gen. xxxv. 2,) when he puts away the idols
in his house, and builds an altar to Jehovah.
This passage may certainly have induced the
Israelites to adopt this custom. So much is
certain, that as early as the second century pro
selyte baptism must have been very customary;
since in the Dissertations of Epictetus (ii. 9),
published by Arrian, fSsftapusvos signifies a
Jewish proselyte, and itapafiaittig^sls, one who
had not sincerely embraced Judaism. Others,
however, are inclined to think that Christians
are here meant, and that Epictetus confounded
them with the Jews. For these reasons, Dantz
firmly maintained that the baptism of proselytes
was, as it were, the prelude of the baptism of
John and of Christ; and he is followed hy Mi
chaelis, Less, and others. Cf. his treatise de
antiquitate baptism! initiationis Israel, in Meu-
schen's N. T. e Talmude illustrato, p. 133, f.
and Wetstein on Matt. iii. 6.
There is much for and much against the
opinion that proselyte baptism was customary in
the first century, and even earlier, (a) Against,
There is not found, even to the present time,
one distinct evidence of it in any writer before,
at, or shortly after, the time of Christ; not in
Philo, — not in Josephus, even when he speaks
of the conversion of the Idumeans, under John
Hyrkan, to Judaism (xiii. 9), where he simply
mentions circumcision, — not even in the Chal
daic paraphrases. Zeltner firmly opposes to
Dantz this stubborn silence of the writers near
the age of Christ. (4) In favour. The unani
mous testimony of all the Rabbins, — the univer
sality of this practice among the Jews of the
second century, since it can scarcely be thought
that they would have borrowed it from the
Christians, who were so hated and despised by
them, — the striking similarity of the Jewish ex
pressions, concerning the baptism of proselytes,
with those which occur in the New Testament
respecting the Christian rite (regeneratio), — also
the circumstance that Josephus, in his account
of John the Baptist, does not express the least
surprise at this practice as a new and unwonted
ceremony. This last argument, however, is
invalidated by the remark, that it is known to

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 485

have been expected that the precursor of the
Messiah would baptize. Besides, it appears
that the baptism of John did excite among the
Jews some degree of surprise. This is seen
from the question, why baptizest thou then? and
from his being called the Baptist. Ziegler has
lately maintained, with very probable reasons,
that the antiquity of the Jewish baptism of pro
selytes ascends beyond the origin of Christian
ity. Cf. his Theological Essays, part ii. (Got-
tingen, 1804,) Num. 3, «< Concerning the Bap
tism of John as the unaltered application of the
Jewish Baptism of Proselytes, and concerning
the Baptism of Christ as the continuation of that
of John." But although much may be advanced
in support of this opinion, it cannot be relied
upon with certainty, since it is entirely destitute
df clear contemporary evidence.
IV. Was the Baptism of John different from
Christian Baptism ?
Many theologians of the Romish church for
merly maintained that there is a difference, but
protestants usually take the opposite side, al
though some, especially the more modern, have
again adopted the former opinion. The follow
ing observations may serve to settle the mat
ter:— (1) The object qf John's baptism was the same
with that qf Christian ; and from this it may be
at once concluded that it did not differ essen
tially from the latter. John exhorted the per
sons baptized by him to repentance (fist dvoia)
and to faith in the Messiah who was shortly to
appear, and made these duties obligatory upon
them by this rite, Matt. iii. 11; Luke, iii.;
Mark, i. ; John, i. ; Acts, ii. 38. And as soon
as Jesus publicly appeared, John asserted in the
most forcible manner that he was the Messiah,
and so required of all whom he had then or be
fore baptized, that they should believe in Jesus
as the Messiah. Now in Christian baptism,
repentance and faith in Jesus as the Messiah are
likewise the principal things which are required
on the part ef the subjects ef this rite.
(2) The practice ef the first Christian church
cenfiTms the point that the baptism of John was
considered essentially the same with Christian
baptism. For those who acknowledged that
they had professed, by the baptism of John, to
believe in Jesus as the Christ, and who in con
sequence of this had become in fact his disci
ples, and had believed in him, were not, in a
single instance, baptized again into Christ, be
cause this was considered as having been already
done. Hence we do not find that any apostle or
any other disciple of Jesus was the second time
baptized ; not even that Apollos mentioned in
Acts, xviii. 25, because he had before believed
in Jesus as Christ, although he had received
only the baptism of John.

(3) But all those disciples of John who had
not before acknowledged this truth, and had re
ceived the baptism of John or his successors in
an entirely different signification, were properly
considered at the time of the apostles as not be
ing baptized, or as wrongly baptized, and all
such were therefore required to be baptized ex
pressly into Christ as the Messiah. This was
the case with the Jews, whe, according to Acts,
ii. 41, were baptized into Jesus, among whom
were many whom John had baptized, but who
had not then recognised Jesus as the Messiah,
and had even taken part in his crucifixion. This
was likewise the case with those persons whom
Paul (Acts, xix. 1 — 5) permitted to be baptized
at Ephesus, although they had already received
the baptism of John. There is in this place
nothing that needs to be artificially explained.
The meaning is, "That when they heard from
Paul that it was essential to baptism that one
should believe in Jesus as the Lord and Christ,
(which they hitherto had not done, since the
disciples of John who baptized them had said
nothing to them about it,) they were then will
ing to suffer themselves to be solemnly obli
gated by baptism to the acknowledgment of
Jesus." Vide Bengel's Gnomon, ad h. 1. and
Semler, Diss, ad Acts, xix. 1, seq. This was
the more necessary at that time, as many of the
disciples of John had entirely separated them
selves from the Christians. These false disci
ples of John still continued to practise John's
baptism into the approaching Messiah, but de
nied that Jesus was the Messiah. Even to the
present day there are remnants of this sect in
Syria and Arabia. Vide Norberg, Ven der Re
ligipn und Sprache der Zabier, and Walch, De
Sabaeis, in the Comment. Soc. Gott. 1780 and
1781. There is much directed against the false
disciples of -John in the accounts given by the
Evangelists respecting John the Baptist. Vide
Storr, Ueber den Zweck der evang. Gesch. und
der Briefe Johannis ; Tubingen, 1786, 8vo ; 2d
ed. 1809. There is nothing therefore in the
passages Acts ii. and xix. which favours the
doctrine that those who had been baptized by
John were required to' be re-baptized, in order
to admission into the church of Christ.
SECTION CXXXIX.
HOW AND BY WHOM BAPTISM IS TO BE ADMINIS
TERED ; AND RESPECTING THE OPTIPNAL AND
UNESSENTIAL THINGS ATTENDING THE OBSERV
ANCE OF THIS RITE.
I. Concerning Immersion, Affusion, and Sprinkling
with Water.
(1) It is certain that in Christian baptism,
as in the baptism of John, only water was used
by Christ and his apostles. Vide Jehn, iii 5 ;
2s2

486

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Ephes. v. 26. But after baptism in itself cen-
sidered, and simply as an opus operatum, came
to be regarded as essential to salvation, the
question was started, Whether, in the want of
water, baptism could be performed with any
other material — e. g., wine, milk, or sand ? The
question must be answered in the negative,
since to do this would be contrary to the insti
tution pf Christ Fpr any one to be prevented
necessarily from being baptized does not subject
him to condemnation, but only the wilful and
criminal refusal of this rite.
(2) Immersion is peculiarly agreeable to the
institution of Christ, and to the practice of the
apostolical church, and so even John baptized,
and immersion remained common for a long
time after ; except that in the third century, cr
perhaps earlier, the baptism ef the sick (4ap-
tisma clinicorum) was performed by sprinkling
or affusion. Still some would not acknowledge
this to be true baptism, and controversy arose
concerning it, so unheard of was it at that time
to baptize by simple affusion. Cyprian first
defended baptism by sprinkling, when necessity
called for it, but cautiously and with much limi
tation. By degrees, however, this mode of bap
tism became more customary, probably because
it was found more convenient; especially was
this the case after the seventh century, and in
the Western church, but it did not become uni
versal until the commencement of the fourteenth
century. Yet Thomas Aquinas had approved
and promoted this innovation more than a hun
dred years before. In the Greek and Eastern
church they still held to immersion. It would
have been better to have adhered generally to
the ancient practfce, as even Luther and Calvin
allowed. VideStorr, Doct. Christ. Pars theoret,
p. 291. If it is asked, however, if immersion
is so essential that one who has been only
sprinkled is not to be considered as properly a
baptized person, it may be answered, No ! No
thing more is essential to the external part of
baptism than that water be used, (Acts, x. 47 ;
John, iii. 5,) and that the subject, by the solemn
use of this rite, be consecrated to Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, and be pledged to obey the
Christian doctrine, Matt, xxviii. 19. The wash
ing with water is considered as the symbol of
the purification of sins, and this can be signified
as well by affusion as by immersion. Hence,
even in affusion, the external significancy of the
rite is retained. And this is the reason why
many in the Western church, and even in the
protestant church, have contended that this rite
should be administered, not per adspersionem,
but per largiorem aqux affusionem.
(3) There is no command given concerning
the question, whether immersion or affusion
should be performed only once, or more than
once; this therefore is in itself optional. In

the Greek church we find the threefold immer
sion earlier and more prevalent than in the La
tin; whence the Greeks objected to the Latins.
Basilius and Hieronymus say that this was
practised in conformity with an ancient tradi
tion ; and if it was not common in the first
church, perhaps the controversies with the
Antitrinitarians in the third century might have
given the first occasion for it. In the African
church it was already common in the times of
Tertullian and Cyprian, and in the apostolical
constitutions it was so ordained. At the fourth
church council at Toledo, in the year 633, this
threefold immersion was first established by
ecclesiastical authority in the Latin church, in
opposition to the Arians.
(4) It is also optional whether the head, the
forehead, or the breast, be wet with the water*;
and in this respect the one who administers this
sacrament must govern himself according to the
usages of his own particular church.
II. On the use of Formulas in Baptism.
The formulas used in administering baptism
have always been very different In the Greek
church it is still common to say, as formerly,
Baptizetur hie, or hxc (servus, or serva Dei) in
nomine, &c. In the Latin church the subject is
addressed, I baptize thee in the name, &c. The
formula adopted by some of baptizing in the
name " qf God the Father, God the Son, and Goo
the Holy Ghost," is liable to be misunderstood,
as.it might be interpreted to mean that there are
three gods. It has appeared strange to some
that we find in the New Testament no passage
from which it plainly appears that the words
used Matt, xxviii., tn the name qf the Father,
&c, were used in the apostolical church. Foi
we always find only, sis Xpiuf bv or 'Itjgoiv— sis
bvopa Kvpiov or 'Ir/ffov— e. g., Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal,
iii. 27; Acts, ii. 38; x. 48; xix. 5. The opi
nions on this subject are not unanimous. (1)
We might say, with some, that although the
formula in Matthew xxviii. were not used in
the apostolical church, but it was merely said
in the name qf Jesus — i. e., into the profession
of Christ and his doctrine — yet this was entirely
the same with the other, because it compre
hended the profession of the Father and of the
Holy Spirit, since whoever was baptized into
Jesus by this act professed his belief in the
whole doctrine of Christ, and therefore in that
which he taught concerning the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit Basilius endeavoured to ex
plain the thing in this way. (2) Others (and
among the rest,' Facundus Hermianensis, De
Tribus Capit i. 3) are of opinion that it does
not follow from these places that they did not
fully employ the prescribed formulas in bap
tism ; but that Christian baptism was so named
in distinction from the baptism of John, and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 487

from the Jewish proselyte baptism, since one
who had received this proselyte baptism, or had
wrongly understood thafof John, was not bap
tized into Christ. This can be reconciled very
well, at least with Acts, xix. 5, and with some
other places. Vide s. 138, II. But in addition
to these there is a third reason. (3) In the an
cient Christian church immediately after the
time of the apestles, the werds prescribed by
Christ at the establishment of this rite were cer
tainly used, (Just. M. Ap. 1, 80.) It may there
fore be rightly inferred that it was the same at
the time of the apostles ; and that it is right and
proper to continue in this use. It is not, how
ever, forbidden to unite with this other formulas
which are suitable, and which serve to explain
the design of this rite, and to excite pious feel
ings. The teacher will of course gcvern him
self in this matter according to the circumstances,
the constitution, and usages of the particular
church to which he may belong.
III. By whom is Baptism to be administered ?
In ordinary cases, certainly by the teachers
of religion ; for it is their appropriate business
and calling to lead disciples to Christ, (fia^rj-
fEvED',) and this duty is also committed to them
by the church and government. We find, there
fore, that baptism in the apostolical church was
always administered by the teachers. Vide
John, iv. 2; Acts, x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 16. But
although this ad^nt sisw is the appropriate busi
ness of teachers, still they have no exclusive
right to it, as this is npwhere given to them in
the New Testament. But in case of necessity,
and when no teachers can be obtained, baptism
may be administered by any Christian, and is
valid if it is performed according to the institu
tion of Christ. Vide s. 136, II. 2. This has
been the doctrine and practice which has univer
sally prevailed in the church.
IV. How far a knowledge of Christian Doctrines is
' essential in the subjects of Baptism.
This knowledge must certainly be presup
posed in adults before they can be baptized. For
how could they solemnly profess, as they do in
baptism, to believe, and pledge themselves to
obey, a doctrine respecting which they were
wholly ignorant? We find, therefore, even in
the writings of the New Testament, that the
candidates for baptism were previously instruct
ed. But this instruction was by no means par
ticular; it was confined to the main, funda
mental truths of Christianity ; the doctrine of one
God; the principal articles respecting Christ;
that he is the Messiah ; and that through him
we receive forgiveness from God ; also concern
ing the Holy Spirit promised to Christians, and
the indispensable necessity of repentance and
holiness : these are the principal truths in which

the candidates for baptism were briefly instruct
ed. When they were sufficiently acquainted with
these truths, and had professed them from the
heart, they were allowed baptism, and received af
terwards more complete instruction both in these
and the other Christian doctrines. Cf. Acts, ii.
41; viii. 12, 36, seq.; ix. 17, 18 ; x. 34—48, where
in the words of Peter we have an example of
the instruction commonly given before baptism.
Cf. Heb. vi. 1, seq. In the great addition of
new converts in the first period of Christianity,
this preparatory instruction could not possibly
be very long or particular, especially as the
teachers of religion were yet few. Accordingly,
the confessions of faith to be made in baptism
were at first very short and simple; such, for
example, was the symbolum apostplicum, so call
ed ; but this was gradually enlarged by the ad
dition of new distinctons, by which the orthodox
endeavoured to distinguish themselves from he
retics. The instruction of catechumens and the
time of probation preceding baptism were by
degrees increased and prolonged ; and for this
there was good reason. For as the number cf
Christian proselytes constantly increased, and
multitudes were pressing into the church,
greater caution became necessary in admitting
them. This led to the appointment of fixed
periods for the probation of new converts before
baptism. V. Usages incidental to Baptism, but not essential
to Us Validity.
Many of these are very ancient, but they may
all be dispensed with without affecting the vali
dity of Christian baptism, because they are not
commanded by Christ. In Christian archaeo
logy and church history they are more fully ex
hibited than they can be here. We mention
only some of those which are still common
among us.
(1) The sign of the cross appears to have
been first introduced in connexion with baptism
in the fourth century, and is' intended to be a
solemn memorial of the death of Christ; Rom.
vi. 3.
(2) The imposition of a name ; this was also
done in connexion with Jewish circumcisions.
(3) The laying on of hands, as a symbol cf
the communication of the Holy Ghost, or of the
gift of sanctification, which in this way is so
lemnly sought of God for the subject of baptism,
and promised to him. This is mentioned even
by Tertullian.
(4) Sponsors at baptism. Tertullian (De
Bapt. ch. 18) mentions these as being present
at the baptism of children ; but they were also
concerned in the performance of this rite for
adult persons; just as sponsors were called in
at the rite of circumcision among the Jews.
Such only, however, as belong to the Christian

4S8

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

church can be employed for this service ; hea
thens, Jews, Mahommedans, and others who
are not members of the Christian church may
be present at the rite, but not as valid sponsors.
(5) The subjects of baptism must renounce
Satan. This denoted originally an entire renun
ciation on their part of heathenism and of hea
then superstitions, and also of the entire dispo
sition which had before prevailed within them,
as far as it was opposed to Christianity.
(6) Exorcism. The first traces of this prac
tice appear in Africa, in the third century, as we
learn from Cyprian's letter, although a founda
tion for it was laid as early as the second cen
tury. It had its rise in various opinions, in a
great measure superstitious, respecting the phy
sical agency of the devil upon men, and in the
idea that evil spirits may be driven off by the
use of formulas and certain charmed words. It
was at first practised only at the baptism of hea
then, who were regarded as persons possessed
by the devil ; but it came afterwards to be em
ployed at the baptism of the children of Chris
tian parents. Vide Kraft, Ausfiirhliche Historie
des Exorcismus ; Hamburg, 1750. Concern
ing the other usages in baptism, vide, besides
the ancient authors, (e. g., Vosii Disertatt. cf.
s. 137, 1. 1,) Calixtus, Diss, de Antiq. Ritibus
Bapt ; Helmstadt, 1650; Noesselt's historical
investigation and illustration of the usages com
mon in baptism, published in the weekly " An-
zeiger" at Halle, 1764, No. 28—32.
Note. — The rite of exorcism has been pro
perly abandoned in most places in the protestant
church. Although it is well explained in the
Lutheran church, as a confession of the natural
corruption of indwelling sin and of redemption
from it, and in various other ways, still it is cal
culated to promote superstition and serious error
in the community at large; and, what is most
important, to excite contempt among the lightly
disposed. Morus gives the same opinion, (p.
257, note 3.)
It may be remarked, in general, that some of
the usages common in many places at infant
bitptism are not at all suitable to children, and
have been transferred, without much judgment,
to their baptism, from that of adult persons.
Among these inappropriate services we may
place the confession of faith, and the renunciation
of the devil. Instead of these, it would be more
appropriate and profitable to have a sincere
prayer, in which the new member of the Chris
tian church should be commended to the care
and blessing of God ; and at the same time a
feeling exhortation to parents and other specta
tors, in which they should be impressively re
minded of the duties which they owe as Chris
tians to their children, and those entrusted to
their watchful care. Much depends in things
of this nature upon the teacher, who, even where

the rites are not exactly suitable, can obviate
mistake and remove ignorance by proper expla
nations. Even the best formulary in baptism
will affect spectators but little if they see that
the teacher uses it without any emotion, and re
peats it with a heartless voice and manner. The
teacher needs to be on his guard against per
forming the duties of his office — especially those
which frequently recur, as the Lord's Supper and
baptism — in a merely mechanical way. When
he performs religious services with a cold heart,
it cannot be expected that others present should
engage in them with warm devotion. A teacher
who discharges his duties in this manner must
lose in the good opinion of his hearers ; and the
blame is his own if he at last becomes con
temptible in their view.
SECTION CXL.
OBJECT, USES, AND EFFECTS OF CHRISTIAN
BAPTISM.
The uses and effects of baptism are divided,
as in the sacraments in general, into internal
and external.
I. External Advantages and Effects of Baptism.
By means of this rite we are received as mem
bers of the visible Christian society, and conse
quently become partakers of all the privileges
belonging to Christians. It is therefore, consi
dered in this light, the solemn initiatory rite of
admission into the Christian church, (socra-
mentum initiationis.) This is mentioned ex
pressly in the New Testament as the design
and object of baptism. As soon as a person
was baptized he was considered as a member
of the church, (dyios, fia^TTjs, itiotsvuv,) Acts,
ii. 41, 44, and entitled to all the rights of other
Christians. 1 Cor. xii. 13, " Whether we be
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or
free; fis sv oufia iJ3arf.fi'a$i7ft£v" — i. e., we are
united by baptism into one church, and have,
as members of it, equal rights. Vide ver. 12,
27. W'hence Paul says, Eph. iv. 4, 5, there
is IV pdittigfia, (ene common baptism,) and iv
ffwfia, (one church,) and plaix-tls of Christians;
and Gal. iii. 27, "As many of you as have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" — i. e.,
are Christians, belong to the school of Christ,
and are therefore obligated te confess him for
your Lord and Master, to obey him, and to fol
low his example.
II. The Internal Adva?itages and Effects of

(1) In the old ecclesiastical writers we find
many extravagant and unscriptural assertions- re
specting the effect of baptism, especially in the
instructions which they gave to catechumens and
new converts — e. g., in Gregory of Nazianien,

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 489

Cyril of Jerusalem, and even earlier, in Irenaeus
and Tertullian. Cyril of Alexandria went so
far as to say that the water became changed
(fiffafffoi^Eiovo^ai), by the divine power of the
Holy Spirit, into an entirely different element.
All this, indeed, admits of being explained ac
cording to scripture; but it is still apparent that
Christians began very early to attribute to bap
tism a magical efficacy, by which it produces its
effect through its own inherent virtue, and inde
pendently of the use of the word of God, and by
which it acts, not only upon the soul, but upon
the body also. Hence they made use of it in
order to heal sicknesses, to banish evil spirits,
&c. During the middle ages, these superstitious
notions prevailed more and more, and were even
adopted by the schoolmen into their systems.
We find, e. g., in Thomas Aquinas, the doctrine
that a character indelibilis is acquired in baptism
— an opinion which Augustine had before held ;
also the scholastic doctrine that by baptism na
tive depravity is so far done away that only coti-
cupiscentia remains, and that even this loses the
form of sin. Protestants have in every way
endeavoured to separate the scriptural doctrine
from these superstitious notions ; yet there are
not wanting incautious expressions on this sub
ject even among some protestant theologians.
(2) In the New Testament this magical effect
is nowhere ascribed to baptism, as if faith were
imparted to man by baptism without his being
himself active in obtaining it ; as if he received,
through this external rite, the forgiveness of sins,
readiness in good works, and eternal salvation.
Neither has Luther taught such a dpctrine. On
an adult person, who has no knowledge of the
word of God or of the Christian doctrine, baptism
can have no efficacy simply as an opus operatum.
Its effect on adults depends on their being in
structed in the divine word, and the connexion
of baptism with this instruction. To this divine
word, and the divine efficacy connected with it,
(s. 130, 131,) does the power properly belong
to renew the heart of man, and to make it sus
ceptible of the benefits and privileges which
Christianity promises, and not the mere exter
nal rite of baptism. This we are distinctly
taught in the holy scriptures. So Peter (Acts,
ii. 38) exhorts his hearers to suffer themselves
to be baptized eis dfyngw duaptiav, but he ex
pressly requires, as an essential condition, the
pEtavosiv, (which is effected by God through
the use of Christian doctrine;) and it is the
same in the baptism of John, Mark, i. 4, seq.
So, Acts, xxii. 16, Paul was called upon to be
baptized and to be washed from his sins ; but
the condition was iitixaXtgdpsvos tb ovopa tov
Kvpiov. Several texts relating to this point
should be here more particularly considered.
(a) John, iii. 5, " Whoever is not born of
water and of the Spirit cannot enter into the

kingdom of heaven" — i. e., whoever does not
take upon himself the obligation to live in an
entirely altered and renewed temper of mind,
which is effected through baptism by the aid of
the Holy Spirit, has no part in the saving bless
ings of Christ's spiritual kingdom, (forgiveness
of sins and eternal blessedness.) Vide s. 126,11.
(4) Titus, iii. 5, where Paul means to say,
God had bestowed salvation upon them (sgogsv)
by leading them to embrace Christianity. We
become participators in these Christian bless
ings in a twofold way ; first, Std kovfpov itaxiy-
ysvsglas- so baptism is called as far, as one ex
ternally receives it, and especially as far as he
is engaged, by means of it, to lead a new life,
and receives strength for this end : secondly, xai
Sid dvaxawagEus Hvsvuatos dyiov — i. e., through
that entire change and renovation of heart which
,we owe to the Holy Spirit. This renewal he
effects through the Christian doctrine, s. 130,
131. The meaning is, "the renovation of our
hearts, which is effected by the Holy Spirit, is
bestowed upon us by the free and undeserved
grace of God. He assists us to obtain this
blessing by means of Christian baptism, in
which we become obligated to lead a new life,
and receive strength so to do, and also by the
entire renewal of our hearts, which we owe to
his Spirit."
(c) 1 Pet. iii. 21. It is said concerning bap
tism, that it delivers or frees us from the pu
nishment of our sins, (bu£ei;) not, however,
as an external washing, but inasmuch as we
pledge ourselves in this rite, and are assisted
by it, to maintain a good conscience, and inas
much as it is the means by which we receive
and appropriate to ourselves the gracious pro
mise of the forgiveness of sins through Christ,
which is elsewhere called pstdvoia dyiagvvn.
The scriptural dpctrine cf the internal advan
tages and effects nf baptism may be embraced
in the following points : —
First. When we are received by baptism
into the number of the followers of Jesus
Christ, we sacredly bind ourselves to believe
his doctrine in its whole extent, its commands,
and its promises ; to embrace it as true, and
therefore punctually to obey it in all pasts, to
live pious and godly lives, according to his pre
cepts, and to imitate his example. For he only
who does this is worthy of the name of a Chris
tian, and can lay claim to the blessedness pro
mised to believers. Vide 1 John, ii. 4 ; iii. 3.
Peter calls this, in his first epistle, chap. iii. 21,
gvvEiSrjgsas dya^rjs iitspat nua sis ®sbv, and makeb
this one object of baptism. 'TZitsputnua is pro
perly stipulatio, and so denotes any solemn obli
gation which one assumes (before God) . Hentse
the meaning here is : " By baptism we take
upon ourselves the sacred obligation, in the
presence of God, to maintain a good conscience,

490

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

to be watchful against sin, and to strive after
holiness." The passage, Romans, vi. 3, 4,
seq., teaches the same thing, coll. Col. ii. 12,
13, "We are, like Christ, buried as dead per
sons by baptism, and should arise, like him, to
a new life" — i. e., by baptism we obtain the
assurance of the pardon of sin on account of the
death of Christ; and so, when we are baptized,
take upon ourselves the obligation to die to sin
in a spiritual manner, as Christ died and was
buried bodily, &c. The image is here taken
from baptized persons as they were immerged,
(buried,) and as they emerged, (rose again;) so
it was understood by Chrysostom. Since im
mersion has been disused, the full significance
of this comparison is no longer perceived. So
then by baptism we profess to receive Christ as
our teacher, Saviour, and Lord — i. e., we thus
bind ourselves to embrace and obey his doc
trine, confidently to trust his promises, to ex
pect from him all our spiritual blessedness, and
te reu ler him ,a dutiful ebedience. This is
what is meant in the New Testament by being
baptized in the name qf Christ. Vide Morus, p.
246, s. 4. But since now all these blessings
which we owe to Jesus as Messiah, or Saviour
and Lord, are blessings which God bestows —
blessings which, according to the Christian
doctrine, are derived from Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit ; so in baptism we bind ourselves to be
lieve in Father, Son, and Hply Spirit, as pur
Gpd, to look for our salvation from them, and
to acknowledge and adore them as the only au
thors of it. Hence the command of Jesus to
baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, is designed to express the reli
gious connexion in which we stand to them,
and our duty to pay them religious homage.
Secondly. Through baptism we receive the
assurance that the divine blessings which the
Christian doctrine promises concern even us,
and that even we may participate jn them ; or,
in other words, these blessings are by this rite
particularly applied to our own personal state,
and we learn in faith to appropriate them to
ourselves. As any one, on being formally ad
mitted as a citizen of a town, in taking the oath
of citizenship, and in going through the other
rites of initiation, receives the confident assur
ance that he has now a title to all the rights
and privileges of citizenship ; so it is with the
Christian in baptism. It is the same, in this
view, with baptism as with circumcision. This
Paul calls (Rom. iv. 11) a gr/uslov and scppoyiSa
for Abraham and his posterity — i. e., a token
of assurance and a proof that God was favour
ably disposed towards him, and justified him
on account of his faith. So baptism is to every
one the token of assurance that he may partake
\v ail those spiritual blessings which Christian
ity promises. Whoever, therefore, is baptized

receives the assurance that his sins are forgiven
him for the sake of Christ — that God, for the
sake of Christ, looks upon him with favour and
regards him as a child, and that he, in faithful
obedience to the commands of Jesus, (and by
enjoying the constant aid of the Holy Spirit
which is promised,) may securely expect eter
nal blessedness; Acts, ii. 38; Gal. iii. 27;
Mark, xvi. 16. Hence Peter, in his first epis
tle, chap. iii. 21, compares the water of baptism
to the water of the deluge, (as the Jews also
called their washings and purifications spiritual
floods ; d*f if vTtos, image, likeness.') Even as the
pious at the time of the deluge (ver. 20) were
bodily delivered ; so are those who are baptized
with water spiritually delivered from sin and
its penalty.
Conclusions from the foregoing, and some re
marks designed to illustrate certain theological dis
tinctions and terminologies respecting baptism.
(a) It is justly maintained that baptism tends
to awaken, enlarge, and confirm our faith, and
that by means of it we receive power and im
pulse for a new spiritual life. This effect is
produced in regard to both the objects which
belong to Christian faith, the law and the gos--
pel. Still this is not wrought through any mi
raculous or magical influence of baptism, or of
the Holy Spirit in baptism ; for,
(4) This effect of baptism depends upon the
Word of God united with baptism ; or the di
vine truths of Christianity and the divine power
inherent in and connected with them. Cf.
Ephes. v. 26, "Christ purifies and sanctifies
the members of the church in baptism through
the Word" — i. e., the whole gospel system in
its full extent, its precepts and promises. The
latter are made to us in baptism ; and at the
same time we pledge ourselves to obey the for
mer, and receive strength so to do. The means,
therefore, by -which baptism produces these ef
fects, or rather, God through baptism, is, the
Word. It is the same in the Lord's Supper.
It is accordingly rightly said that " God, or the
Holy Spirit, operates in baptism upon the hearts
of men;" excites good feelings, resolutions,
&c. — namely, through the Word. Hence the
effect of baptism is properly an effect which
God produces through his word, or through the
contents of the Christian doctrine, which is visi
bly set forth, represented, and appropriated to
us in baptism, for the sake of making a stronger
impression upon our heart. Baptism may be
thus called, verbum Dei visibile. Vide s. 137,
II. In the same manner, therefore, as God ope
rates upon our hearts, through the Word and in
the use of it, when we hear or read it, does he
also operate in this visible presentation of the
same truth, by the external rites of baptism and*
the Lord's Supper. And so we may apply to
this subject all which is said in the twelfth

TATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 491

article respecting the operatiens nf grace, beth in
the statement ef the Biblical dcctrine (s. 130,
131) and ef the different theeries ef theelpgians
in the succeeding secticns. But this effect is
net miraculous, nnt magical, not irresistible, but
suited to our moral nature.
(c) According to the ancient scholastic divi
sion, two things must be considered in baptism,
¦materia (better, res) terrestris, that which strikes
the senses externally — the water ,- and materia
cmlesiis, the invisible thing which is represented
by the visible sign, and conveyed through it.
This is the Holy Spirit, and his power and
agency; or, more definitely, it is that which in
baptism is effected in us by God, or by the
Holy Spirit, through the divine Word.
Note. — Augustine expresses himself very
justly concerning the efficacy and power of
baptism, (De Bapt. i. 13, 18,) "It has indeed
the power to effect regeneration (change of
heart) in men ; but it does nothing for man's
salvation, if there is in him any hindrance, (ob-
ttaculum.)" Luther too follows him in this,
and says, very appropriately and justly, espe
cially in his large catechism, "that the divine
word and instruction must not be separated from
baptism, and that without the former, and faith
in it, the water is nothing but water, and can in
nowise benefit the subject." Vide Morus, p.
250, n. 4.
(d) Baptism is frequently represented as a
tovenant which is established between God and
men ; hence the expression, to stand in his cove
nant qf baptism, and others of the same kind.
This name is derived from circumcision, and the
covenant of God with Abraham established by
it; also from 1 Peter, iii. 21, where iitspatrjua
is translated covenant by Luther. Cf. Heb.
viii. 10, seq. The thing intended by this name
is true, if it is rightly understood. God so
lemnly promises to men, in baptism, the enjoy
ment of all the blessings which are promised in
the Christian doctrine ; and man solemnly binds
himself in the same rite to yield obedience to
God and the Christian doctrine; and in order
to this, receives strength and assistance from
God. Any one, therefore, who has not broken
this engagement, or forfeited this gracious as
sistance which is promised, stands still in the
covenant of baptism. For baptism is the testi
mony, the assurance of pardon — the pledge and
proof of this and all other Christian blessings.
SECTION CXLL
OF THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM, AND WHETHER
IT MAY BE REPEATED.
I. Tlie Necessity of Baptism.
(1) An internal and absolute necessity of
baptism cannot be affirmed. For the water of

baptism, in and pf itself, and the rite itself, as
an external act, have nc ppwer te renew er save
men. This effect depends sclely upen the
agency ef Gpd, through the Christian dpctrine,
united with baptism. Since, then, it is cne ef
the positive rites established .by Christ, and has
ne internal er essential efficacy, it is ne other-
wise necessary than because it has been com
manded (necessitas prxcepti.) But Christ has
commanded that all who would be his disciples
should be baptized. Any one, therefore, who
acknowledges Jesus Christ as a divine messen
ger, and regards his authority, is under obliga
tion to obey his precept Christ brought a
charge against the Pharisees, (Luke, vii. 30,)
that they had rejected the divine appointment
(|3otAt; ©eo-v) concerning the baptism of John.
He required baptism of Nicodemus, (John, iii.
3, 5, 7,) and commanded the apostles to baptize
all whom they would make his disciples, (Matt.
xxviii. ; Mark, xvi.)
It would be false, however, to assert that
baptism is absolutely essential to each and every
man in order to salvation. Theologians there
fore hold, with truth, that if a man is deprived
of baptism without any fault of his own, his
salvation is not endangered by this omission.
Even that familiar passage, Mark, xvi. 16,
" Whoever believes and is baptized is saved,
but he that believes not is punished," is not
against, but in favour of this view. For punish
ment is here threatened only to the unbelieving,
who wilfully reject Christian truth, and not to
those who, without their own fault, remain un-
baptized ; hence pant ig^sls is not repeated in
the second member. For an unbeliever should
not be baptized; and even if he should be, it
cculd do him no good. Just so it is in John,
iii., where ylwr/uis ix itvsipatos is represented
as the principal thing (ver. 6 — 8), and the yiv-
vtjgis ix vSatos as useful only so far as it tends
to promote the former.
(2) Sketch of the history of this doctrine. The
most opposite opinions have prevailed from the
earliest times respecting the necessity of bap
tism. (a) Already in the second century some de
nied that baptism is necessary for every Chris
tian, and that it is the will of Christ that each
and every one should be baptized. They main
tained, that those who have otherwise sufficient
faith have no need of baptism. Of these Ter
tullian speaks, (De Bapt ch. 12 — 14.) Some
Socinians agreed with these, and maintained
that baptism is not properly applied to such as
are born of Christian parents, but that it is an
external rite of initiation, by which those of
other religions are to be introduced into the
Christian church — an opinion to which many
who are of a Pelagian way of thinking assent.
It is true, indeed, that there is an entire want

*92

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

of express testimony and evidence from the
apostolical age concerning the baptism of those
born of Christian parents. This inquiry has
been lately revived ; and Teller (Excurs. i. on
Burnet, " De fide et officiis") is of the opinion
that those descended of Christian parents were
not baptized, but were considered as born with
in the lap of the church. That this, however,
was done, is implied in the whole design of
baptism, as expressed by Jesus and the apos
tles, s. 140, and may also be concluded from
the. analogy of circumcision, and the uniform
practice of the ancient church after the aposto
lical times. There is a work, in which, with
a boldness not to be found elsewhere, the entire
needlessness of baptism is maintained, its esta
blishment by Christ denied, and the whole thing
given out as an invention of Peter, for the sake
of making himself pleasing to the Jews ; it is
entitled, " Die Taufe der Christen, ein ehrwiir-
diger Gebrauch, und kein Gesetz Christi," pub
lished 1774. The authcr was C. C. Reiche.
An answer tp this was written by J. E. Tro-
schel, "Die Wassertaufe ein Gesetz Christi;"
Berlin, 1774.
(4) Among the old catholic fathers in the
Christian church there always prevailed very
high ideas respecting the necessity and advan
tages of baptism. They were accustomed, how
ever, to defer baptism as long as possible (pro-
crastinare) ; and this is recommended even by
Tertullian, De Bapt. c. 18;) and many would
not be baptized until just before their death — e.
g., Constantine the Great. They supposed- that
baptism removes, in a kind of miraculous way,
all the sins previously committed ; while, on
the other hand, the sins committed subsequently
to baptism could be forgiven only with great
difficulty, or not at all ; and so they imagined
that one baptized shortly before death, er one
who dies a martyr, (for martyrdom, in their
view, has the same efficacy,) goes out pf the
werld as a man without sin, and is saved. They
therefore delayed very much the baptism of new
converts, and prevented them from the enjoy
ment of this sacrament, entirely contrary to the
appointment and meaning of the apostles, who
baptized new converts immediately, and often
many thousands in one day, respecting whose
conduct and integrity they could not possibly
have been thoroughly informed before; Acts,
ii. 41; xvi. 15, 33, coll. Acts, viii. 13. Vide
Baumgarten, De procrastinatione baptismi apud
veteres; Halle, 1747.
(c) When now the position, extra ecclesiam visi-
bilem non da-i salutem, with all its consequences,
become more and more prevalent, especially af
ter the time of Augustine, and in the Western
church (vide s. 128, II. and 135, 1.), they began
to maintain, the doctrine of the absolute neces
sity of baptism in order to salvation ; because

baptism is the appointed rite of initiation or
reception into the church ; and they gave out,
that whoever is not baptized, and so is not a
member ef the visible church, could not become
partaker of eternal happiness. So Augustine
had before judged, not only respecting the hea
then and the children of heathen parents, but
also the children of Christian parents who die
before baptism. He was followed by the school
men. After this time they began very much to
hasten the baptism of children; and now, for
the first time, the so-called baptism qf necessity
(administered when a child was thought in dan
ger of dying) became common. It happened
also not unfrequently, that the children of un
christian parents (e. g., of Jews) were forcibly
baptized against their own and their parents'
will, on the ground that they were thus put into
the way of salvation; of this we find many ex
amples in earlier times. That this is contrary
to the sense and spirit of the holy scriptures
may be seen from this, that circumcision was
appointed on the eighth day, and one who died
before was not considered, on this account, as
shut out from the people of God.
II. 7s Christian Baptism to be Repeated?
(1) The doctrine now prevalent in the church
is entirely just, that baptism is not to be repeat
ed when one passes over from one Christian sect
or particular communion to another. For,
(a) Baptism, considered as an external reli
gious rite, is the rite of initiation and solemn
reception into the Christian church in general.
The subject of baptism pledges himself to the
profession and to the obedience of the doctrine
of Jesus in general, and not to any one particu
lar church. No one of these particular commu
nions (such as they have always been) is in
exclusive possession of the truth (vide. s. 134,
II, 2) ; but in this all agree, that they hold them
selves pledged to profess the pure Christian
doctrine (i. e., what they, according to their
views, understand as such.) Every sect binds
its own baptized to this ; and hence it is, in this
view, the same thing, wherever and by whom
soever one is baptized. And Paul taught the
same thing when he said, 1 Cor. i. 12, seq.,
that one is not pledged by baptism to any man
or to any sect, but to the profession of Christ.
(4) The power or efficacy of baptism depends
not upon the sect or the man by whom it is ad
ministered; man can neither increase nor dimi
nish this efficacy. Vide 1 Cor. i. 12.
(c) We find no example during the times of
Christ or the apestles to prove that proper Chris
tian baptism was ever repeated ; although we
find some examples, even at that time, of great
sinners and of persons excommunicated.
(d) We do not even find that the baptism of
John was repeated, (although, at the present

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 493

time, the Sabeans in the East yearly repeat it ;)
and the same is true of Jewish proselyte bap
tism. The examples Acts ii. and xix. do not
bear upon this point. Vide s. 138, IV.
(e) Finally, the uniform phraseology of the
holy scriptures teaches clearly the same thing,
since it is always said concerning Christians
who were received into the church, that they had
been baptized (baptizatos esse), because it took
place once for all ; not merely that they were bap
tized (baptizari ,-) Rom. vi. 31 ; Gal. iii. 27. It
is a thing which had been performed. It is
different with the Lord's Supper : this is a rite
to be repeated ; 1 Cor. xi. 25, seq. Therefore,
only when an essential mistake has been com
mitted — when, e. g., anything belonging to the
essentials of baptism, as the use of water, or
proper instruction concerning the object of this
rite, has been neglected or altered, or if it has
been administered by one not a Christian; vide
Acts ii. and xix., s. 138, IV. ; in such cases only
must it be renewed, as baptism then ceases to
be true Christian baptism.
(2) The opinions respecting repeating bap
tism were different even in the ancient Chris
tian church. Already in the second century
they were accustomed in Africa (as appears
from Tertullian, De Pudic c. 19; De Bapt. c.
15,) to rebaptize' heretics, and the same was
done in many provinces of the East. This
was not the case, on the other hand, in Rome,
and in the other European churches; here
they simply laid hands upon those who were
restored, when they were received back; and
appealed for this to the apostolic tradition, that
whoever has been baptized according to the
command of Christ is rightly baptized, although
it may have been done even by a heretic. In
the third century there arose a vehement con
troversy on this point between Stephanus, Bi
shop of Rome, and the African party, whose
usage Cyprian zealously defended. But they
could not agree, and each party still adhered to
its previous usage. These opinions, however,
were abandoned by degrees in the African
church, as in most others ; they were, however,
revived in the fourth century by the Donatists,
and other- fanatics of the succeeding century,
who would acknowledge no baptism as valid
which was administered by a heretic, or any
teacher who did not stand in fellowship with
them. The same opinion was revived by the
enthusiastic sect known by the name of Anabap
tists, in the sixteenth century. They, however,
altered their theory afterwards to this, that they
merely rejected infant baptism, and admitted
only adult persons to baptism; and this is still
the doctrine of the Mennonites and the other
Anabaptists; hence they rebaptize those who
were baptized in infancy, because infant baptism
is not regarded by them as valid, and those bap

tized in this way only are considered by them
as not baptized. They therefore reject the name
of Anabaptists, (Wiedertaufer.) The opinions
of all Anabaptists of ancient and modern times
flow partly from unjust ideas of the power and
efficacy of baptism, and partly from erroneous
opinions respecting the church. It is true, in
deed, that many who have denied that baptism
should be repeated have held these same erro
neous opinions, but they would not admit the
consequences which naturally result from them.
(a) The Africans of the second and third
centuries held this point in common with their
opponents, that forgiveness of sin and eternal
happiness are obtained by means of baptism,
and the Holy Ghost by means of the laying on
of the hands of the bishop ; and indeed both
imagined that a sort of magic or miraculous in
fluence belongs to these rites. Vide s. 139,
IV. The Africans concluded now, that as
heretics do not hold the true Christian doctrine
they are not to be considered as Christians,
and consequently that their baptism is not
Christian baptism, and that they, therefore, like
unchristian persons, are not susceptible of the
Holy Ghost.
(4) The Donatists, now, maintained plainly
and decidedly that the church can consist only
of holy and pious persens, and that this genuine
Christian church could be found only among
themselves,, (vide s. 135, II.;) wherefore they
rebaptized all who came over to their sect. For
they maintained that the gratia baptismi does
not exist among heretics ; that the ordination of
teachers out of their own communion is invalid ;
that others have not the Holy Ghost, and can
not therefore baptize in a valid manner; — in
short, it was their opinion that the efficacy of
the ordinances depends on the worthiness of
him who administers them.
(c) The Anabaptists of the sixteenth century
proceeded from the same position, that the
church is a community of mere saints and re
generated persons. They and their followers
therefore rejected infant baptism, as it could not
be known as yet concerning children whether
they would live pious or ungodly lives ; nor
could children promise the church that they
would live righteously. Adults only, in their
view, might therefore be baptized. Cf. the work
written by an Anabaptist, entitled " Ueber die
meralischen Zwecke und Verpflichtungen der
Taufe," which, aside from this point, contains
much which is good ; translated from the Eng
lish ; Leipzig, 1775 — 8. Vide also D. A. J.
Stark, Geschichte der Taufe und der Taufge-
sinnten; Leipzig, 1789, 8vo.
[Note. — On the general subject of baptism,
cf. Bretschneider, Dogmatik, b. ii. s. 672, ff.
Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 556, s. 122, ff. The litera
ture of this doctrine is here very fully exhibited.
2T

494

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

For the early history of this doctrine, cf. Nean
der, K. Gesch. b. i. Abth. ii. s. 533—63; also
b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 682, ff. ; for the more recent
history, cf. Plank, Gesch. der protest. Lehrb.
b. v. th. 1.— Tr.] SECTION CXLII.
OF THE BAPTISM OF INFANTS.
Many of the ancients and moderns have dis
approved of infant baptism. It was first ex
pressly dissuaded by Tertullian (De Bapt. c
18), although he does not entirely reject it, as
it was -at that time in common use. But it was
also quite common then to delay baptism ; and
those who approved of this could not at the same
time approve of infant baptism. Vide s. 141, 1.
Infant baptism was also rejected by the Anabap
tists of the sixteenth century, and their follow
ers, for reasons mentioned in s. 141, ad finem.
Mich. Servetus, too, in the sixteenth century,
would have no one baptized under thirty years
of age. There is no decisive example of this
practice in the New Testament; for it may be
objected against those passages where the bap
tism of whole families is mentioned — viz., Acts,
x. 42, 48; xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16, that it is
doubtful whether there were any children in
these families, and if there were, whether they
were then baptized. From the passage Matt.
xxviii., 19, it does not necessarily follow that
Christ commanded infant baptism ; (the fia^??-
fEvE«i is neither for nor against;) nor does this
follow any more from John, iii. 5, and Mark,
x. 14, 16. There is therefore no express com
mand for infant baptism found in the NewTes-
ment; as Moms (p. 215, s. 12) justly concedes.
Infant baptism has been often defended on very
unsatisfactory a priori grounds — e. g., the ne
cessity of it has been contended for, in order
that children may obtain by it the faith which
is necessary to salvation, &c It is sufficient to
shew, (1) That infant baptism was not forbid
den by Christ, and is not opposed to his will
and the. principles of his religion, but entirely
suited to both. (2) That it was probably prac
tised even in the apostolic church. (3) That
it is not without advantages.
I. Proofs of the Lawfulness and Antiquity of
Infant Baptism.
(1) That infant baptism, considered as a
solemn rite of initiation into the church, cannot
be opposed to the design and will of Christ,
may be concluded from his own declaration,
Matt. x. 14, "Suffer little children to come unto
me and forbid them not, tav ydp toiovtuv igtiv
r) jSagiXsla fov ©eov." This is indeed no com
mand foi infant baptism ; but if children may
and ought to have a share in the Christian
church, and in all Christian privileges (J3affi»,sia

©eov), it cannet be improper to introduce them-
into the Christian church by this solemn rite of
initiation. Indeed, if it is according to the de
sign of Christ that children should have a share
in the rites and privileges of Christians from
their earliest youth up, it must also be agreeable
to his will solemnly to introduce them, by this
rite of initiation, into the nursery of his people.
Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 14.
(2) Christian baptism is so far similar to cir
cumcision as that the one was the rite of initia
tion into the ancient church, the other into the
new ; s. 137, II. ad finem, and Morus, p. 253,
note. But Christian baptism represents and
imparts far greater spiritual benefits than cir
cumcision. Now we know that the sons of
Jews and proselytes, accerding to divine com
mand, were circumcised on the eighth day, when
they certainly had as yet no idea of the intent
and meaning of this religious rite. Accord
ing to this analogy, children among Christians
may be baptized, even during those years when
they cannot as yet understand anything of the
design of the rite, or make any profession of
their faith. At least, this analogy must have
been very clear to the first Christians, and to the
apostles, who themselves were Jews. When
therefore in the times of the apostles a whole
family was baptized, would not the children be
baptized too ? And did not Paul say without
limitation that all were baptized, at a time when
there were those grown up in the Christian
society who were born of Christian parents?
Vide 1 Cor. i. and xii., and Gal. iii. Again;
were it entirely decided that Jewish proselyte
baptism was common during the life of Christ,
this circumstance would establish the position
still more; for the children of proselytes were
also baptized. But even if proselyte baptism
was not introduced until the end of the second
or beginning of the third century, and was then
adopted in imitation of Christian baptism, even
in this case it might still be concluded that at
that time the baptism of infants must have been
common among Christians.
(3) The most decisive reason is the follow
ing: Christ did not indeed ordain infant bap
tism expressly ; but if, in his command to bap
tize all, he had wished children to be excepted,
he must have expressly said this; Matt xxviii.
Since the first disciples of Christ, as native
Jews, never doubted that children were to be
introduced into the Israelitish church by circum
cision, it was natural that they should include
children also in baptism, if Christ did not ex
pressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished that
this should not be done, he would have said so
in definite terms.
(4) That infant baptism was very common
shortly after the times of the apostles, both in
the Eastern and Western churches, admits of no

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 495

doubt, if all the historical data are compared.
Vide Morus, p. 251, not. ad s. 10. Some have
endeavoured to find evidence for this practice
even in the writings of Justin the Martyr and
Irenaeus ; but they are not sufficiently decisive
on this point.* The most weighty evidence
that can be produced, from the oldest church
fathers and from church history, is the follow
ing—viz., (a) From Tertullian (De Bapt c. 18) it is
clearly seen, that already in his time the bap
tism of infants was very customary in Africa
and elsewhere, although he himself does not
speak favourably of this practice.
(4) In the time of Cyprian, in the third cen
tury, there arose a controversy concerning the
day when the child should be baptized, whether
before the eighth day. But there is no question
on the point whether children ought to be bap
tized ; in this they were all unanimously agreed.
(c) Augustine calls infant baptism apostolica
tradiiio, and says, totam ecclesiam id traditum
tenere. ' (d) But far more important is the testimony
of a much earlier, and therefore more valuable
witness — viz., Origen, of the third century, who
says in his Comm. in Ep. ad Rom. vi., that the
church had received this as a tradition from the
apostles, (rtapdSoffis djtofffo^ixrj.) Here it might
indeed be objected that the church fathers ap
peal much too freely to apostolic tradition, for
the sake of giving to their own opinions and to
the appointments of the church the more autho
rity. But if infant baptism was not practised
in the oldest church, it is hardly conceivable
how it should have become so general a short
time after, and this too without any controversy
or contradiction. When Origen was born, about
^the year 185, it was universally prevalent in the
Christian church, and he was, as he says him
self, a baptized child. If it was not customary
at the time of the apostles, we must suppose that
afterwards" single individuals or churches began
to baptize children. But in those times in
which they adhered so strictly, even in the
smallest trifles, to ancient usage, such an inno
vation could not possibly have taken place with
out great excitement, controversy, contadiction,
and without occasioning many councils. These
I effects were produced by some very insignificant
matters, but we cannot find the least trace of
opposition to the first practice of infant baptism.
There can, then, be no time mentioned in which
the baptism of infants was first introduced after
the death of the apostles. Therefore it must
have existed from the beginning. Neither Ter
tullian nor Pelagius knewof a later origin of it,

* [The evidence from Irenaeus is thought valid and
incontrovertible by Neander; vide K. Gesch. b. ii.
Abth. ii. s. 549, 550.— Tr.]

when the former censured it, and the latter de
nied that it is necessary to procure the forgive
ness of sins for children. For the history of
infant baptism and its opponents, vide Guil.
Wall, Historia Baptismi Infantum, and John
Walch, Historia Paedobaptismi, Saec. iv pri-
orum ; Jenae, 1739.
II. The Uses and Effects of Infant Baptism.
Although children at the time of their bap
tism know nothing respecting this rite, and are
not capable of any notion of it, and can make
no profession, (and these are the principal ob
jections on the other side,) still it does not fol
low that infant baptism is without advantages,
any more than that Jewish circumcision was.
It has twofold advantages :
(1) For the children themselves. The advan
tages to them are beth present and future.
(a) The present effect, as far as it appears
clearly to us, is principally this, that by this
means they are admitted into the nursery
of the church, and even while children en
joy its rights and privileges, as far as they
are capable of so doing. This is sufficient;
and there is no need of adopting the doctrine
about a children's faith, so far at least as that
implies anything which can exist without com
prehension and capability of using the under
standing. Vide s. 121, IL, and Morus, p. 249.
In the general position, that just as far as they
have subjective capacity, and as soon as they
have this, God will work in them that which is
good for their salvation, there is not only no
thing unreasonable, but it is altogether rational
and scriptural. It is also certain that we can
not purely tell how sopn, or in what way and
by what means, this subjective capacity may
be shewn and developed.
(4) As soon as their mental powers begin to
unfold themselves in some degree, children are
capable of an obvious inward, moral effect of
baptism, or of God in and through baptism. In
the Christian instruction imparted to them they
must therefore be continually referred to this
event; it must be shewn them that they too
have obtained by baptism a share in all the
great and divine blessings and promises which
are given to Christians, and that they are so
lemnly obligated by baptism, through God's
assistance and guidance, to fulfil all the condi
tions on which Christians receive these great
promises. In the youthful age this means is
exceedingly efficacious in exciting pious re
flections, and it operates. upon the whole suc
ceeding life. It is on this account (as Morus
well observes) a very suitable and commend
able practice in the protestant church, that the
children, before they approach the Lord's Table
for the first time, are thoroughly instructed in
the doctrinal and practical truths of Christianity,

496

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

to the acceptance and obedience of which
they are obligated by baptism. This is called
the confirmation, (of the covenant of baptism.)
It has upon, many, as experience teaches, the
most salutary efficacy through their whole life,
and it is the duty of the evangelical teacher to
lay out all his strength upon this instruction,
and to make it, as far as he can, appropriate
and practical. And if in some the advantages
of it do not appear immediately, still in late
years they are often seen. The good seed sown
in the heart often lies a long time concealed be
fore it comes up. Baptism cannot indeed exert
any compulsion upon children, any more than
when one is enrolled, as a child to a canonry,
or as an academic citizen. They must act ac
cording to their own conscientious conviction,
choice, and determination, after they come to
the exercise of their understanding.
(2) Far the parents, relatives, or guardians of
the children. To these, too, is the baptism of
infants eminently useful in many respects; and
it may be said that this advantage alone is a
sufficient reason for instituting infant baptism.
For (a) the assurance is given by this rite to
parents, in a solemn and impressive manner,
that the great privileges and promises bestowed
upon Christians will be imparted to their chil
dren also, and thus religious feelings, pious
thoughts and resolutions, are awakened and
promoted in them. (4) By this rite they are
engaged and encouraged to educate their chil
dren in a Christian manner, in order that their
children may receive the privileges bestowed
upon them, and attain one day to the actual ex
ercise and enjoyment of them. These duties
should be urged upon parents by the Christian
teacher, especially at the time when their chil
dren are baptized ; and he may find instruction
respecting the manner in which this should be
done in the passages above cited. Respecting
the usages properly connected with infant bap
tism, vide s. 139, ad finem.

CHAPTER II.
ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.
SECTION CXLIII.
OF THE NAMES OF THE LORD'S SUPPER ; AND THE
OCCASION AND OBJECT OF ITS INSTITUTION.
I. Names of the Lord's Supper.
j, (1) The scriptural names, (a) Kvpiaxbv Sslit-
vov, the festival which Christ appointed, and
which is held in his honour, and is commemo
rative of him, 1 Cor. xi. 20. Hence the com
mon appellations, the Lord's Supper, cxna do-

mini, or sacra cxna, because it was instituted at
supper time. Entirely synonymous with this
is the phrase (4) Tpdits^a Kvpiov, 1 Cor. x. 21,
where we also find the name itot rjpioi/ Kvpiov.
With these the term xXagis toi dptov, Acts, ii.
42, is frequently mentioned. But this seems
rather to apply to the feasts of love, (Agapae,)
after which the sacrament of the Supper was
frequently, though not always, administered in
the primitive church. Cf. ver. 46, ustaxaufid-
vsw tpotyijs. The term ScopEa iiiovpavios, Heb.
vi. 4, is rendered by Michaelis heavenly manna,
and applied to the Lord's Supper. This term
seems, however, to denote more generally the
unmerited divine favours conferred upon the
primitive Christians.
(2) The ecclesiastical names of this sacrament.
These are very many : some of the principal are
the following: —
(a) Koivuvla, communio — a festival in com
mon. This name is borrowed from 1 Cor. x.
16, where, however, it denotes the profession
which Christians make, by partaking in common
of the Supper, of their interest in Christ, of the
saving efficacy of his death for them, and their
own actual enjoyment of its consequences.
(4) Ev^opifff ia and Ev^oyta, (for these terms
are synonymous.) This sacrament is so called
because it is designed to promote a thankful re
membrance of Christ, and of the divine favours
bestowed upon us through him. He himself
commenced the Supper by a prayer qf thanks,
which has always been justly retained in admi
nistering this ordinance. The appellation euclia-
ristia (eucharisi) was used even by Ignatius,
Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian.
[This name seems also to be of scriptural ori
gin, and to be taken from the phrase jtofrjpioi/
svXoylasb sixbyovpsv, used by Paul. — Tr.]
(c) Svi/oSjis, avva\is dyia. This signifies, pri
marily, a collection ; then, a collection for cele
brating the Lord's Supper, and finally, the Lord's
Supper itself. This name was probably taken
from 1 Cor. xi. 18, 20; gwspxopsvuv vpuv.
.(d) Asitovpyla [primarily, ministerium~\, then,
the sacrament of the Supper, as the principal act
of religious service, especially on account of the
sacrifice of Christ which is there commemorated,
since XsitovpyCa signifies, by way of eminence,
that part of religious service which consists in '
sacrifice. (e) Mvafripiox, cxna mystica and missa; so
this sacrament was called, because the catechu
mens were excluded from it, and none who were
not Christians could be present when it was ad
ministered. They were sent away by the dea
cons with the words, lie, missa est, (ecclesia.)
Missa signifies properly dismissio catechumeno
rum et. pxnitentium.
(f) There are other names, which were taken
from sacrifices, and the offering of sacrinces —

I

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 49T

e. g., Jtf off^opd, ablatio, &>gla, ^vffia dvaluaxt os,
altare, sacramentum altaris, &c Many such
names are found in the ancient liturgies. Vide
Morus, page 271, note 2. Christ instituted the
Supper chiefly in commemoration of his death,
or his offering up of himself for man; and he
employs in doing this the terms borrowed from
sacrifices. Now it was customary for the Chris
tians who had most possessions to bring food
and drink to their love-festivals, and from the
remnants of these gifts (itpogtyopd) they held the
Supper in commemoration of the sacrifice of
Christ. This gave the first occasion for com
paring this sacrament with an offering; and this
was done the more willingly by Christians, as
it was often objected against them, by Jews
and heathens, that they had no sacrifices. And
by degrees they became accustomed to regard
the Lord's Supper not merely as a festival in
memery pf the sacrifice of Christ, but as an ac
tual repetition of this sacrifice — an idea which
gave rise afterwards to the grossest errors. The
first traces of these opinions are found in Justin
the Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and still more
in Cyprian, Augustine, and others. Vide Er
nesti in " Antimuratorius," in his " Opusc.
Theol." p. 80 ; and with respect to these eccle
siastical names in general, Casaubon, Exerc. in
Baron.— Ex. 16, p. 445.
II. Texts relating to the Lord's Supper, and the
occasion and object of its Institution.
(1) The institution of the Supper is described
in the following texts — viz., Matt. xxvi. 26 — 28 ;
Mark, xiv. 22—24 ; Luke, xxii. 19, 20. Luke
is more full and distinct in his narrative than
the others; in John there is nothing said re
specting it, since he presupposed it as already
well known. Paul, however, gives an account
of the institution of the Supper, and agrees most
nearly with Luke, 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 25. He is
speaking of the disorders which had crept into
the Corinthian church in their observance of the
Agapae, and of the Lord's Supper in connexion
with them ; and takes this opportunity to dis
course at large (in the entire passage from ver.
17th to 34th) respecting the design and the effi
cacy of the sacrament of the Supper, and the
proper mode of celebrating it. Cf. 1 Cor. x.
16, 17. Theologians are not agreed among
themselves whether the passage, John, vi. 50,
seq., where Christ speaks of the eating of his
flesh and drinking his blopd, relates to this sacra
ment. Vide Morus, p. 269, note D. As the
Reformed theologians often appealed to this
passage in behalf of their theory, the Lutherans
(e. g., even Ernesti) would not allow that it
.could be used to explain the language in which
the Supper was instituted. So much is certain,
that nothing is said in this passage itself respect
ing the Lord's Supper, since this was not yet in-
63

stituted. But the terms here used have a striking
resemblance'with those employed at the institu
tion of the Supper; and since this discourse of
Jesus produced at the time a great sensation on
account of its remarkable phraseology, it can
hardly be supposed that his disciples would for
get it, or that it should not have occurred to their
minds when terms so similar were employed at
the- institution of the Supper. They, doubtless,
could explain many things in this whole trans
action from their recollections of this discourse.
This will appear the more probable if we con
sider that these words of Jesus, recorded by John
(chap, vi.),- were spoken shortly before the pass-
over, (ver. 4 ;) that the images employed by him
were taken from the custom of eating the flesh
of the victims at the festivals attending the sa
crifices, and especially at the passover, the most
solemn pf them all ; and that it was exactly at
the passnver that the Supper was instituted by
Christ. But allewing that these werds may be
used te illustrate those employed by Christ on
the latter occasion, the Lutheran opinion is not
invalidated. For every Lutheran will allow that
it was a great object in the establishment of the
Lord's Supper to remind us, in an impressive
manner, of the body of Jesus offered, and his
blood shed for us, and to exhibit and convey to
us the great blessings which we owe to him.
Now in John, odp£ and alfia Xpifffov plainly de
note the doctrine of Jesus so far as he offered up
his body, and shed his blopd for the geod of
man. Vide John, vi. 51, 63. To eat and drink
of this body and blood is the same as itigtsisiv
sis Xpisf w t'ofavpiafiEfoi'. Vide ver. 47, 50, 51,
56. What food and drink are to the body, as
contributing to its nourishment and vigour, the
same is a living faith in this doctrine to the soul ;
spiritual nourishment, pabulum animi. This
language, then, is to be understood to denote
" the truth of Christ's sacrifice or atonement,
and the inward experience of its benefits." And
this was the very object of the Lord's Supper —
viz., to preserve the memory of the death of
Christ, visibly to set it forth, and to convey its
benefits to those who partake of this sacrament.
It cannot, therefore, be denied that the passage
in John (so far as it is figurative and symbolical )
serves to illustrate the language in which the
Lord's Supper was instituted, and indeed the
whole nature of this ordinance. Cf. especially
Storr, Doctrinae Christianae pars theoretica, p.
314, seq.
(2) What was the occasion of Christ's institut
ing this festival? What was the immediate cause
of his doing it? He was accustomed to take oc
casion, from the circumstances by which he was
surrounded, to give instruction ; and at the pass-
over everything was symbolical, and the father
of the family (the character which Christ now-
sustained among his disciples) referred every-
2t2

498

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

thing back to the events in the life of the ances
tors of the Jewish nation. It seems now that this
Jewish passover gave the first occasion to Christ
for instituting his Supper.
(a) Christ abolished the ancient dispensation,
(itaXaidv Sio&qxriv ;) consequently all the Jew
ish festivals, sacrifices, and the solemnities con
nected with them, were set aside, and among
these the passover, one of the principal festivals
of the Jewish church. This was done, as we
are taught everywhere in the New Testament,
by the death of Christ. Still it could not be
denied that this and other Jewish festivals had
many advantages, and that they tended to keep
alive a sense of the divine benefits, and to
awaken pious feelings. Vide s. 137, III. 1.
Besides, it was .altogether customary, both
among the Jews and the heathen nations, to
have sacrificial festivals standing in immediate
connexion with religion ; hence Paul objects to
it that Christians who drink from the cup of the
Lord, and eat at the table of the Lord, should
drink from the cup and eat from the table of
idols, 1 Cor. x. 15 — 21. Still it cannot be pro
perly said that the common sacrificial festivals
among the Jews and heathen furnished Christ
the principal or only inducement to institute his
Supper, as was asserted by Cudworth, in his
work, "De vera notione sacrae cosnae," which is
found in his " Systema Intellectuale," accom
panied by Mosheim's remarks — an opinion to
which Warburton and others have acceded. It
is also false to assert that the Lord's Supper is
properly a sacrificial festival, like the Jewish
passover, although it is a cxna religiosa, or sacra,
and although it maybe compared, and is in fact
compared by Paul (1 Cor. x.,) with these fes
tivals. Vide Morus, p. 261, note ; and p. 271,
note 2. It is more just to say that Christ merely
took occasion from the Jewish sacrificial festi
vals, and especially from the passover, all of
which were now abolished, to institute this fes
tival, to maintain among his followers the me
mory of his offering up of himself. But in en
tire conformity with the spirit of his religion,
and of all his other institutions, he left it unde
termined at what times it should be held , and how
often it should be repeated. He simply said,
Do this, as oft as ye do it, in remembrance of me,
1 Cor. xi. 25.
(4) The passover was designed to commemo
rate the rescue of the Israelites from Egypt, and
their deliverance from many afflictions; and
was to be repeated by their descendants as an
occasion for thankful remembrance of the di
vine favours. Vide Exodus, xiii. 9, coll. xii.
26, 27. It took its name from this circumstance
—viz., roj, feast of deliverance, or rescue. In the
same way was the Christian festival designed to
promote the grateful remembrance of Christ, on

account of the deliverance from sin and its pu-
nishment, and all the other spiritual blessings
which we owe to him, and it was to be repeated,
eis i/rpi ipqv avdavrigiv; Luke, xxii. 19; 1 Cor.
xi. 24, 26. Hence Paul says, 1 Cor. v. 7, fo
rtdgxa i/aav vitsp r/uuv itvfrj, Xpifff 05. He
does not, indeed, here mean the Lord's Supper
itself; but still it is very easy to see from this
passage the intimate connexion of these ideas.
The words, however, by which the Supper was
instituted, This is my body, &c, cannot be ex
plained from the formula used at the celebration
of the passover, This is the bread of suffering
which our fathers ate, &c ; for this formula was
not adopted until after the destruction of the se
cond temple; neither can it be found in the
Talmud, as Schottge'n has shewn, (Hor. Tal
mud, ad Matt. xxvi. 26,) and also Deyling,
(Obs. Miscell. P. i. Exerc. iv. p. 221.) The
words of Christ on this occasion are rather to be
compared with the Mosaic formula employed at
the solemn sanctioning of the law, at which
time sacrifices were also offered ; Exod. xxiv. 8,
Behold the blood qf the covenant, which the Lord
hath made with you. Cf. Morus, p. 260, note 2.
(c) Christ did not institute his Supper during
the continuance of the passover, but after it was
finished, in order to give his new ordinance an
additional solemnity from its connexion with the
passover, and at the same time to make it entirely
distinct from the latter. This example was so
far imitated by the ancient Christians, that while
they celebrated the sacrament of the Supper in
connexion with the Agapx, or feasts of love, they
yet observed it as a separate festival, after the
former was ended. At the social festivals of the
Jews, at the passover, &c, a cup was passed
round, over which thanks were s.iid, while the
cup was drank to the praise of God — a custom
which we find in other ancient nations. Cf.
Psalm cxvi. 13; 1 Chron. xvi. 1, seq.; also the
itotrjpiov 5aifio>'iuv, 1 Cor. x. 21. It was with
this ceremony that Christ concluded the pass-
over, Luke, xxii. 17. And now. after they had
eaten, (ig^ibvtav altav, according to Matthew
and Mark, or fiffd fd Sslitr^ga:, according to
Luke and Paul,) he again offered a prayer of
thanks, as was customary at the. commencement
of a festival (Ev^apiofrjoas,) in order to distin
guish this ordinance from the one which had pre
ceded, and then distributed the bread and passed
round the cup the second time. He took the
materials for this sacrament from what remained
of bread and wine (as the ordinary drink of the
table) after they had eaten. And this was en
tirely conformed to his design, that the rite com
memorative of him should be as simple as pos
sible, and such that it could be often observed,
and in any place, without much trouble or diffi
culty. In this respect the Lord's Supper differs

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 499

widely from the Jewish passever, where every
thing was cemplicated and circumstantially ar
ranged. Vide Exed. xii. 3, seq.
Note. — Christ recemmended the observance
of the Supper, net merely to the apestles, but to
all Christians. Vide Morus, p. 259, s. 1, ad
finem. Nor was it his meaning that they should
merely sometimes remember him at their ordi
nary social meals, and while they partook of the
bread and wine on the table, think of his death ;
on the contrary, the apostles understood the
words, Do this in remembrance of me, to relate to
all Christians ; and they distinguished this fes
tival from all other social festivals, and intro
duced the observance of it into all the Christian
"hurclies. This appears especially from 1 Cor.
xi. 23, 24, coll. x. 16, where it is also described
as an ordinance of Christ, and indeed as one
which Paul himself, as well as the other apos
tles, had received immediately from Christ. It
is said expressly, ver. 26, that this ordinance
should be observed until, the end of the world,
(axpis ov sx$y 6 K-vpios.) The Supper was de
signed to be a perpetual sermon on the death of
Christ until he shall come again to bring his
followers into the kingdom of the blessed ; and
every one who partakes of it is supposed hereby
to profess that he believes Christ died even for
him. There have always, however, been some
who have supposed that this institution is need
less, or that the precept to observe it does not
extend to all Christians : the'Pauliciani, e. g.,
supposed that 4read and wine are here figurative
terms, denoting the doctrines of Christ, which
nourish the soul. So the Socinians, and seve
ral fanatical sects.
(3) More particular explanation of the object
of Christ in instituting the sacrament qf the Sup
per. (a) The chief object qf Christ. From what has
been already said, it appears that this festival
was designed to be in commemoratipn pf Christ,
— pf all the blessings for which we are indebted
to him, and especially of his death, from which
these other benefits all proceed. This is evident
from the very words in which this ordinance
was established, gapa vitsp ipuv SiSopsvov, (or,
as Paul has 'it, xXapsvov, -OE', Ixdere, vulnerare,
to which the breaking of the bread alludes,) and
aifia vitsp vuuv, (or itspl itoXXuv, according to
Mark and Luke,) ixxvvbpsvov, slsdtysgw ap.aptt.uv.
Christ often repeated these words during the
eating and drinking of the Supper, and inter
changed them with others of the same import ;
and hence we may account for the different
phraseology recorded by the different evange
lists. The same thing is evident from the ex
press declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 26, "So
often as ye partake of this festival, you profess
yourselves among the number of those who be
lieve that Christ suffered death for their sakes,"

(^dvatov Kvpiov xafayys».Ef£.) Cf. 1 Cor. X. 16,
and also the fine paraphrase of this passage
given by Morus, p. 259, s. 3, n. 1.
But this needs more particular explanation.
On the day of Christ's death the ancient Mosaic
dispensation ceased, and the new covenant, or
the new dispensation instituted by God through
Christ for the salvation of men, commenced.
The memorable event of that day, which had
such vast consequences, he and his apostles
celebrated by this festival, and he commanded
them to continue to observe it in future time.
It is therefore the uniform doctrine of the apos
tles that the new dispensation of God (xainj
Sia^rjxr/) began with the death of Christ, and
was thereby solemnly consecrated. Cf. the
texts cited s. 118, II. 1. Hence Paul says, Heb.
ix. 14, 15, that even as Judaism was inau
gurated by sacrifices, so was Christianity also,
by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And now as
Moses, Exod. xxiv. 8, calls the blood of the sa
crifice by which the Mosaic laws and the whole
Mosaic institute was consecrated and received a
solemn sanction, the blood of the covenant, so does
Christ, with a most indisputable reference to
this expressien, deneminate his death, — his
blppd which he shed, the blood of the new cove
nant; and the wcrds fd atfia xaivijs Sia^ijxr/s
(pr, as Luke and Paul plainly have it, tb itotrj
piov (igtt) 7) xaivri Sio^xr; iv f 9 aipati pov) are
te be regarded as explanatory ef the werds tovtb
igti tb gupd fiav, tb alpd fiov.
The meaning therefore is, " ye celebrate, while
ye eat this bread and drink this wine, the me
mory of my body offered up, and of my blood
shed for you, by which the new covenant, the
new dispensation for the good of the world,
whose founder I am, is consecrated." The sa
crament of the Supper is therefore a significant
sermon on the death of Jesus, and requires, in
order to a proper celebration of it, a personal
experience of the benefits of this death.
Christ says, " drink ye all of it ; for it is my
blppd." By this he means that they sheuld so
divide the wine among themselves that each
should receive a portion of it. He himself did
not partake of the sacramental bread and wine ;
for his body was not offered, nor his blood shed,
for his own sake ; and those only for whom this
was done should eat and drink of it. The tovtb
lirf 1 ffwfia and alfia refers, therefore, principally
to the act itself, like the following tov to itol-
£(,^E — i. e., this act (which you shall hereafter
repeat) shall serve to impress your minds with
the great importance of my body offered up for
the good of men, and of my blood shed for their
sake, and shall remind you of all the salutary
consequences flowing from my death, and shall
convey these benefits to you personally. It is
not, therefore, the then present and living body
of Jesus which is here spoken of, but the body

500

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

which was sacrificed — i. e., Christ, so far as he
died for us. This is illustrated by the formula
used by Moses respecting the passover, Exod.
xii. 11, 27, kct ntro — i. e., by this act you
solemnly commemorate the deliverance from
Egypt. And as the passover was appointed
and first celebrated shortly before this deliver
ance, so was the sacrament of the Supper insti
tuted and celebrated just before the death of
Christ; and as the former was to be repeated in
commemoration of the great event on account
of which it was first instituted, and for the sake
of awakening grateful and religious feelings, so
it was also with the latter. This analogy seems
to have been perfectly understood by the apos
tles, and hence they do not inquire of Christ,
as they were accustomed to do in other cases.
(4) But in connexion with this principal ob
ject, Christ had also others in' view, all of
which, however, are related to this, arid depend
upon it. Especially does it appear to have been
an object with Christ in this ordinance to make
plain, and impressively to recommend to his dis
ciples that great precept of his religion, Love
one another, as I also have loved you, 1 Cor. x.
17; xii. 13. He designed that by this symbol
his disciples should mutually pledge their cor
dial lcve. It is a thing well knpwn by pld ex
perience that friendships are founded, cherished,
and sustained by social festivals. Of this fact
many of the ancient legislators and the founders
of religions availed themselves in the appoint
ment of festivals ; and this was also done by
Moses. In many of the Oriental nations, there
fore, the guest who had but once eaten with
them, even if it had been only bread and salt,
and who had drunken with them, was considered
as a pledged and unalterable friend ; and it was
in this way that the league of friendship and of
mutual service was contracted.
This noble custom was now made more ge
neral, and, as it were, consecrated, by religion,
or the association of religious ideas. All the
followers of Christ were to unite in this cele
bration, and to hold this festival in common,
and without any distinction, in memory of their
great benefactor and Saviour. For the follow
ers of Christ were required to love each other
as brethren, and this/or Christ's sake — i. e., be
cause it is the will and the command of Christ,
their common Lord. Vide Joh. Gottlob Worb,
Ueber die Bundes-und Freundschaftssymbole
der Morgenlander ; Sorau, 1792, 8vo.
But we must remember, in connexion with
this, the uniform doctrine of the New Testa
ment, that Christ in his exalted state is as near
to all his followers, at all periods, even until
the end of the world, (Matt, xxviii. 20,) and
that he equally guides and supports them as
when he was with His disciples, by his visible
presence, upon the earth. Vide s. 98. He was

visibly present when he first held this festival
with his disciples then living, and he then took
the lead. But while he commands all his fol
lowers to continue to observe this rite until his
visible return, he gives them the assurance that
they stand equally under his inspection, and en
joy equally his care, with those who lived with
him while he was upon the earth. Theologians
say truly, Christus prsesentiam suam suis in sacra
cxna declarat adspectabili pignofe. So cer
tainly as they see the bread and the wine, even
so certain should it be to them that he still
lives, and that he is especially near to them, as
he was formerly to his disciples while upon
earth. Note. — From what has now been said, it ap
pears (a) that the theory of the substantial pre
sence of the body and blood of Christ in the
sacramental symbols is not essential, or is not
to be looked upon as the great point in this doc
trine, and that it cannot be decisively proved
from the words of Christ. The reformed theo
logians take slvai here in the sense of signify
ing, shewing forth — a sense in which it is indeed
often used— e. g., Sept. Gen. xii. 26, 27; Gal.
iv. 24 ; Rev. i. 20. Christ himself uses igtl in
a similar connexion, instead of gijpalvsi, John,
xv. 1. The objections to this explanation which
are of any weight may be seen in Storr's "Doc-
trina Christiana," p. 305, seq. Cf. also s. 146.
This particular theory ought never to have been
made an article of faith, but rather to have been
placed among theological problems. Vide s. 146.
It also appears from the foregoing that we are
not to suppose in the sacrament any actual of
fering up of the body of Christ, repeated every
time the sacrament is observed. This false idea
became gradually prevalent in the Romish
church. Vide No. I. of this section, ad finem.
This sacrament may indeed be called, as it is
by the fathers, a sacrifice, but only in a figura
tive sense. For Christ offered up himself once
for all, Heb. ix. 25—28 ; and the Lord's Supper
is the means of appropriating to each one the
benefits of this one sacrifice. It is taught, how
ever, by the Romish church, that the priest of
fers to God, as a literal atoning sacrifice, both
for the dead and the living, the sacramental
symbols, which beccme, by censecraticn and
transubstantiatinn, the real bedy and blppd pf
Christ. From this dpctrine respecting masses
many ether false ideas have eriginated.
SECTION CXLIV.
PF THE DISTINCTIPN BETWEEN WHAT IS ESSEN
TIAL AND UNESSENTIAL IN THE CELEBRATION
OF THE ORDINANCE OF THE SUPPER.
Some things pertaining to this ordinance are
essential — i. e., of such a nature that without
them the whole act would not be the true Lord's

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 501

Supper; others are unessential, or contingent. The
latter depend upon the circumstances of time,
place, society, &c ; and with regard to these
things we feel ourselves justified in deviating
even from that which was done on the first in
stitution of the Supper, since these are regarded
as indifferent matters, Christ having given no
express precepts respecting them. Thus all
agree that the time of the day in which it is ob
served is unessential, although Christ observed
it in the evening; the same as to the posture at
table, whether sitting or lying; and with re
spect to the place, whether it be a public or a
private house; and other things of the same
kind. But on some points opinipns are divided. In
the protestant church the use ef the 4read and
wine (materia, er res terrestris, elementa, symbo-
la) is reckened ameng the essential things ; and
the use ef them teo in such a way that each of
the elements shall be separately (separatim)
taken. Protestants, too, contend that none but
real Christians may partake of the Lord's Sup
per. Other things are regarded by them as un
essential. These points will now be briefly
considered, and illustrated by some historical
observations. I. The use of Bread and Wine in the Lord's
Supper.
(1) With regard to the nature of the bread to
be employed in this sacrament, the opinions of
theologians have been diverse.
(a) It has been asked whether the bread
should be leavened or unleavened, or whether
this is a point of indifference. In the protestant
church the latter opinion is maintained, and
justly, since Christ left no precept respecting
this point. So much is beyond doubt, that at
the institution of the Supper Christ made use of
unleavened bread, because no other was brought
into the house during the celebration of the Jew-.
ish passover, still less was any other kind eaten.
We have indeed no express information respect-
ing the custom of the primitive Christians in
this respect ; but from all circumstances it ap
pears that they regarded it as a matter of indif
ference whether leavened or unleavened bread
is employed. They came together almost daily
to partake of the Supper, and they carried with
them the bread and wine for this festival. In
this case they took the bread which was used
at common meals, and this was leavened bread.
Epiphanius (Haer. 30) notices it as something
peculiar in the Ebionites, that once in the year,
at the time of the passover, they celebrated the
Lord's Supper with unleavend bread. It was
customary at a subsequent period in the Oriental
church to make use of leavened bread, yet not
always and in all places. In the Western
church, on the contrary, unleavened bread was

more commonly (though not always) employ
ed ; and Rabanus Maurus, in the ninth century,
declares this to be an apostolical tradition in the
Romish church. There was, however, at this
time, no law upon the subject, either in the
Eastern or Western church. But in the ele
venth century a controversy arose on this point
between the two churches, as the Patriarch of
Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, reproached
the Western church for the use of unleavened
bread, and made it heresy. After this period it
was contended in the Romish church that no
other than unleavened bread should be used,
and • this was so established by many papal
decretals. The opposite ground was taken by
the Greek church, and is still maintained at the
present day. Vide Joh. Gottfried Herrmann,
Historia Concertationum de Pane Azymo et
Fermentato in Ccena Domini; Leipzig, 1737,
8vo. (4) Another thing which must be considered
unessential is the breaking ef the bread, which
was done at the first institution of the Supper,
according to the custom of the Jews, who baked
the bread thin, and were accustomed therefore
to break, instead of cutting it. We see, how
ever, from 1 Cor. xi. 24, (coll. x. 17, eis dpfos,
from which pieces were broken off,) that this
custom was retained in the primitive Christian
church, and was regarded as emblematical of
the wounding and breaking of the body of
Jesus. It would have been better, therefore, to
have retained this custom afterwards, for the
same reason that the custom of immersion is
preferable in performing the rite of baptism.
Luther at first declared in favour of the breaking
of bread, though he afterwards altered his opi-
ninn. It has been custcmary in the Romish
church, especially since the twelfth and thir
teenth centuries, te cut the host or holy wafer
in a peculiar way, so as to represent upon it the
crucified Saviour, and to make "the pieces more
and more small, that no one might receive too
much of this costly food.
(2) In respect to the wine, it has been com-
mnnly suppnsed that Christ used such, in the
institution of the Supper, as was mingled with
water. For it was very customary with the
orientalists to drink mingled wine at table, and
one was regarded as quite intemperate who
drank pure wine, (merum.) Still this is very
uncertain, since water and wine were frequently
drunk separately at table. In the ancient church,
however, the custom prevailed in most places
of mingling water with the sacramental wine.
It was also determined how much wine should
be taken; though this was variously settled.
Diverse allegorical significations were given to
the mingling of these two elements. E. g., it
was said that the wine is the symbol of the
soul of Christ, and the water of the people who

502

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

are united with him, &c. Such allegorizing is
seen even in the writings of Cyprian. Cle
ment III. expressly enacted in the twelfth cen
tury that the wine should be mingled with
water. This was not insisted upon by Luther,
on account of the superstition connected with
it. The colour of the wine is also indifferent,
nor is it certain that Christ used the red wine.
(3) In order to the right celebration of the
Ltrd's Supper, neither the bread nor the wine
must be taken without the other, but both must
be used; (communio sub utraque specie,) though
one separately from the other, (separatim.)
(a) As to the latter point, it is probable from
the institution of the Supper by Christ that he
distributed each of the elements separately to
his disciples. But we find that in some of the
Oriental churches an exception was made in
behalf of some sick persons, and that bread
merely dipped in wine was given them. The
same thing was done in the West, especially
during the tenth century, where, in some places,
the bread only was consecrated, and then dipped
in the wine, and so given to the communicants —
a practice which was justly condemned.
(4) It is also a well-founded opinion, that the
cup should not be withholden from any who
partake of this sacrament. Vide Morus, p. 272,
n. 3.
From 1 Cor. xi. 26; x. 16, 21, it appears,
undeniably, that in the apostolic church all
Christians, partopk bpth of the bread and the
wine. And this was the practice throughout
the whele Christian church during the first ten
centuries. The Manicheans, whp abstained
wholly from wine, did not use it even at the
Lord's Supper ; but they were strongly opposed
by the teachers of all other parties — e. g., Hie
ronymus, Leo the Great, &c. Particularly im
portant is a decree of Pope Gelasius I., of the
fifth century, against some sectarians, who
used only bread in the celebration of the Supper.
He calls their practice grande sacrilegium, and
is very strong in his opposition to it.
But when the doctrine of transubstantiatipn
began to prevail in the West, especially after
the eleventh century, the schoolmen suggested
the question whether, considering that the bread
is changed into the body of Christ, the blood is
not also there, and so, whether it is not enough
to partake merely of the bread ? This question
was answered in the affirmative; and it was
suggested as an additional reason in behalf of
this opinion, that drink may be easily spilled,
and that it is more difficult to lose any portion
of the bread. This ground was taken even in
the twelfth century by Hugo of St. Victor and
Peter of Lombardy, and in the thirteenth cen
tury was defended with great zeal by Thomas
Aquinas. Some churches in the West began,
therefore, to introduce the custom of withholding

the cup from the laity, and giving it only to the
clergy. The first examples of this occurred in ,
some English churches about the middle ef the
twelfth century. The scarcity and dearness ef
wine in northern Europe during this peried may
have furnished an additional motive for this
practice. It was not until the thirteenth century
that these examples were follpwed in France
and Italy. Still this ebservance did not become
universal either in this or the following century,
although it was becoming more and more pre
valent in the churches in the West. This doc
trine de communione sub una was zealously op
posed by Wickliff and Huss and their adherents;
and this led the Council at Costnitz, 1415,
wholly to interdict the use of the cup by the
laity. It was established by that Council,
"that in each of the two elements the whole
body of Christ is truly contained." This doc
trine has been maintained in the Romish
church ever since this period, although many
theologians, and even some of the popes, have
objected to it. Luther and Zuingle adopted the
principles cf Wickliff and Huss, and introduced
again the general use cf the cup intc their
churches, and hence the decisicns nf the Coun-
cil at Ccstnitz were re-enacted by the Council
at Trent in the sixteenth century. Besides the
older works of Leo Allatius, Schmid, Calixtus,
on this subject, cf. Spittler, Geschichte des
Kelch's im Abendmahl ; Lemgo, 1780, 8vo.
II. By whom should the Lord's Supper be observed?
who should administer it ? and may it be cele
brated in the Private Dwellings of Christians ?
These questiens ccme under the general in
quiry respecting what is essential and net es
sential in the ebservance cf the Lord's Supper.
(1) None but actual members of the Christian
church can take part in the Lord's Supper;
those who are not Christians are excluded from
it. On this point there has been an universal
agreement. For by this rite we profess our
interest in the Christian church, and pur belief
in Christ. Vide 1 Cor. x. 17; xi. 26. The
passage, Heb. xiii. 20, seems also to belong in
this connexion. Every actual member of the
church may therefore be admitted to the enjoy
ment of this ordinance, without distinction of
regenerate and unregenerate persons, (though
this is denied by some.) This is evident from
the fact that it is the object of the Supper to
make an external profession of Christian faith,
(vide s. 145, I. ;) and because it may be, and
is designed to be, a means of promoting a change
of heart, and often produces this effect. As un
regenerate persons are not excluded from hear
ing the divine word, neither should they be from
partaking of this sacrament. Nor do we find
that persons. who gave no evidence of a regene
rate inind, and who were yet members of the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION.

50S

visible church, were excluded from the sacra
ment in the primitive Christian church ; although
such persons were advised to abstain from the
sacrament, so long as their hearts were not in a
proper frame, still it was left to their own con
sciences. Since, therefore, a mixed multitude
of good and evil must be allowed in the visible
church, it is the same as to the Lord's Supper.
Christ himself admitted Judas to the first cele
bration of this ordinance ; and thus taught us
our duty with regard to this subject. Many
have indeed denied that Judas, the betrayer of
Christ, partook of this sacrament with the other
disciples ; but from Luke, xxii. 20 — 22, the fact
appears too plain to be denied. This is admit
ted even by Augustine on the third Psalm.
This fact is important, since many conscientious
Christians, and even teachers, have had great
doubts as to uniting with unconverted men in
this ordinance, and have become separatists.
In respect to children, however, it is main
tained that they are excluded from partaking
of the Lord's Supper. It was common in Africa,
in Cyprian's time — i.e., in the third century — to
give the sacramental elements even to children ;
and this custom was gradually introduced into
other churches. But in the twelfth century this
practice fell into disuse in the West, although
in the East it continues to the present day.
The passage, John, vi. 53, is appealed to in be
half of this practice. Vide, Peter Zorn, Historia
Eucharistiae Infantium ; Berlin, 1736, 8vo. It
cannot be said that the exclusion of children is
expressly commanded by Christ, because there
is nothing about this subject in the New Tes
tament, nor do we read that in the apostolic
church they were excluded from the sacrament.
(The children of the Israelites were not ex
cluded from the feast of the passover.) Yet as
children were not admitted during the first cen
turies of the Christian church, (except in Africa
in the third century,) we judge that they cannot
have been admitted in the apostolic church ; for
in that case this practice would not certainly
have been disused in all the churches. The
cause of the exclusion of children is, plainly,
that they cannot as yet understand the import
ance of the transaction, and must be unable to
distinguish this religious festival from a com
mon meal; 1 Cor. xi. 29. It would thus be
come to them a merely formal and customary
thing, and make no salutary impression.
(2) By whom should the Lord's Supper be ad
ministered? As the administration of the other
religious rites of the church is entrusted to the
teachers' of religion, it is proper and according
to good order that this also should be adminis
tered by them. This, however, is by no means
their right exclusively and necessarily, but only
ordinis et decori causa, as MorUs well observes,
p. 272, ad fin. In extreme cases, therefore,

where no regular teachers can be obtained, this
sacrament may be administered by other Chris
tians to whom this duty is committed by the
church. Vide s. 136, II. 2 ; s,. 139, III. This
has been uniformly maintained by Luther and
other protestant theologians. In the ancient
Christian church it was as regularly adminis
tered by the teachers as baptism. Justin the
Martyr (Apol; I. 85, seq.) says that the jtpo-
sgtutss consecrated and distributed the ele
ments; and Tertullian (De Cor. Mil.) says,
nee de aliorum manu quam pr^esidentium sumi-
mus. (3) The question has been asked, Whether
private communions (e. g., in the case of sick
persons) may be permitted, and whether they
accord with the objects of the Lord's Supper ?
This has been denied by some modern writers,
particularly by Less, in his " Praktische Dog
matik," and by Schulze of Neustadt, " Ueber
die Krankencommunion;" 1794. Cf. the work
" Ueber die Krankencommunion, mit besonderer
Hinsicht auf ihren Missbrauch und ihre Schad-
lichkeit;" Leipzig, 1803, 8vo; in which, how
ever, the practice is not wholly rejected. These
writers have been led to make their objections
by seeing the frequent abuse of private commu
nions, by knowing that they are frequently re
sorted to from pride, or from some superstitious
ideas with regard to their efficacy. Hence they
have been led to maintain that it is essential,
in order to a right celebration of the Lord's
Supper, that it should be held in common by
the mixed society of Christians constituting a
church, and that private communions cannot be
regarded as constituting the Lord's Supper.
This opinion, however, has been justly re
jected by many theologians — e. g., by Doeder-
lein. The following reasons have been urged
against it — viz.,
(a) It is doubtless true that in the apostolic
church the Lord's Supper was commonly and
regularly celebrated in the public assemblies of
Christians; 1 Cor. xi. 20 — 34. And this must
always remain the rule, from which there can
be no exception in respect to those Christians
who are able to attend the public meetings, but
who refuse so to do, either from pride or self-
will. There may, however, be an exception
made in behalf of Christians who are neces
sarily detained from attending on the public or
dinances of divine service — e. g., in the case
of sick persons. And it would be, as Morus
well remarks, inconsistent with the rule of
love, which- is one of the chief commands of
Christ, if sick persons should be prevented from
partaking of the Lord's Supper in their own
houses. (4) A public place cannot be made essential to
the proper observance of the Lord's Supper, for
it was held at its first institution in a private

c.04

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

house ; nor is the number of Christians present
at all important, since it was first celebrated
only by a select few of the five hundred disci
ples of Christ then living; but everything de
pends upon the feelings and character of the
communicants. The Christian who in this act
commemorates the death of Jesus, professes his
relation to the church, and forms pious resolves
and purposes — he truly celebrates the Lord's
Supper whether he performs this act in public
or private.
(c) Even in a private dwelling a profession
may be made, by this act of faith in the death
of Christ, before the teacher and others present,
1 Cor. xi. ; and persons not present still learn
that such a profession has been made. This
object ef the Lord's Supper is therefore attained
even by the private celebration of it. There
was a regulation among the Bohemian brethren
in the fifteenth century, (about the year 1461,)
that when a sick person desired the Lord's
Supper, other members of the church should
partake of it with him, in order that it might be
a true communion — an example which is worthy
of imitation ! And even among us this might
be done without great notoriety, by admitting
the near relations, acquaintances, or friends of
the sick person, or those occupying the same
house ; and they, too, might perhaps receive a
salutary impression from such a celebration of
this ordinance. The assertion of Less, that pri
vate communions were unheard of in earlier
Christian antiquity, is not true. Justin the
Martyr says (Apol. 2), "that the deacons first
distributed bread and wine to those present, and
then carried it to the absent."
ILL Unessential Rites in the Administration of
the Supper.
It is important that the Lord's Supper, so far
as it is an external rite, should be-so adminis
tered as to distinguish it from common and or
dinary repasts, as a special festival in comme
moration of Christ. This is called by Paul, 2
Cor. xi. 19, Siaxplvsw tb guua toi Kvpiov. This
may indeed be done without any external cere
monies; and it cannot therefore be said that
such external rites and usages are essential to
the ordinance. Still it is wise, and adapted to
promote the ends for which the Supper was in
stituted, to employ such external solemnities as
will remind the communicants of the great ob
ject of this festival, and give it an obvious and
marked distinction from other meals. Here,
however, caution must be used, lest supersti
tion should be encouraged by the introduction
of these ceremonies, and they thould be sup
posed to possess some special power.
Christ distinguished this ordinance from the
,passover, which immediately preceded, by of
fering up a prayer of thanks, (si'xapigtijgas, or

sitoyrjoas,) which was probably one of the brief
thanksgivings common among the Jews, as
neither of the evangelists have thought neces
sary to record the words. lie then stated briefly
the object of this ordinance. In both of these
particulars, the example of Christ. is properly
followed in the administration of the Supper.
It is customary to offer thanks to God, briefly
to state the object of this ordinance, and thus
solemnly set apart the bread and wine to this
sacred use. Vide 1 Cor. x. 16, itotijpiov sixo-
ylas, b svXoyoiasv — i. e., the wine in the cup,
which we consecrate to this use by the prayer
of thanks. It is also said elsewhere respecting
those who thank God for the enjoyment of other
food, that they partake of it pst sixoylas, 1
Tim. iv. 5; Luke, ix. 16.
This solemn opening of the Supper with
prayer and reference to the command of Jesus,
is called consecration, and is proper and accord
ing to the will of Christ. Consecration, there
fore, in the Lord's Supper, consists properly in
a solemn reference to the object of the Supper,
and in the devout prayer accompanying this,
and not in the repetition of the words, this is
my body and this is my blood. These words are
uttered merely in order to make the nature and
object of the ordinance then to be celebrated
properly understood ; so our symbolical books
uniformly teach. Hence these words were fre
quently repeated by Christ during the celebra
tion of the ordinance, and were used alternately
with other expressions. This consecration is
not to be supposed to possess any magical or
miraculous power. Nothing like this was at
tributed to this rite by the older church fathers,
who used consecrare as synonymous with dyid-
£sw and sanclificare, to set apart from a common,
and consecrate to a sacred use. By degrees, how
ever, a magical effect was attributed to conse
cration, and it was supposed to possess a pecu
liar power.' This was the case even with Au
gustine. And when afterwards the doctrine
of transubstantiation prevailed in the Romish
church, it was supposed that the change in the
elements was effected by pronouncing over them
the blessing, and especially the words of Christ,
this is my body, &c.
Besides this, there are various other contin
gent and arbitrary usages, some of which are
good, and adapted to promote the ends of this
ordinance, and others are extremely liable to
become perverted into means of superstition.
More full information on this point may be ob
tained from Christian Antiquities. Many of
the rites introduced by the Romish church have
been retained in the Lutheran church, such as
the singing of the words of consecration, the
marking of the bread and wine with the cross,
the holding a cloth beneath, &c These and
other usages originated for the most part in the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 503

doctrine of transubstantiation, and the extrava
gant opinions respecting the external holiness
of the symbols resulting from this doctrine.
They admit, however, of a good explanation;
and where they are customary, and must be re
tained, they ought to be so explained by the
religious teacher. Marking with the cross, e.
g., should remind us that this ordinance is held
in commemoration of Christ crucified, &c
SECTION CXLV.
of the uses and the efficacy of the lord's
supper; and inferences from these.
We must here presuppose much of what was
said, s. 140, respecting baptism. The uses and
efficacy of the Lord's Supper, as of baptism, are
twofold — viz., external and internal, and may
be easily deduced from the design of this ordi
nance, as stated s. 143.
I. External Uses and Efficacy.
By celebrating the Lord's Supper, a person
publicly professes himself to be a member of
the external Christian church, and as such re
ceives and holds all the rights belonging to
Christians, to the enjoyment of which he is in
troduced by baptism. For Christ enjoined this
sacred duty only upon his followers. Every
one, therefore, who partakes of the Lord's
Supper, by so (Joitig professes that he is a real
member of the external church, that he believes
in Christ, and yields him reverence. Hence
Paul says, 1 Cer. x. 16, that bread and wine
are xowavla ai'fiaf o$ xai ffiofiaf 05 Xpifffov. Paul
here, and in this whole passage, teaches that
the symbols (bread and wine) stand in the most
intimate connexion with the body of Christ
slain on the cross for our sins, and are the
means by which we become partakers of the
benefits of this death, and testify our interest
in them. The meaning- is, Whoever celebrates
the Lord's Supper becomes partaker of the body
and blood of Christ, and professes the same;
or, By this prdinance he gives it to be under
stood that he believes in Christ, and especially
that he believes that Christ offered up his body
and shed his blood for him; and he thus be
comes partaker of the benefits of this sacrifice.
The terms xoivavol ^vgiagtyplov, spoken of those
offering sacrifice, ver. 18 ef the same chapter ;
alse xowuvoi Saipovlav, ver. 20, are used in the
same way, and are explained ver. 21, by the
phrase pEtsxsiv tpaits^s Kvpiov xai Saiuoviav.
The epppsite pf this is seen ver. 14, "flee idol
atry," have no fellowship with idolaters ! and
ver. 17, " while we all eat of one and the same
bread, (a portion of which is broken for each,)
we profess to be all members of one body" — i.
e., of one church. The same is taught by the
passage 1 Cor. xi. 26, "for as often as ye par-
64

take of the Lord's Supper, tbv §dvatov Kvpiov
xatayyixxsts," i. e., you thus profess your
selves to be of the number of those who believe
that Christ died for the salvation of man.
II. Internal Uses and Efficacy.
(1) With regard to the effects of the Lord's
Supper, as well as of baptism, there were vari
ous mistakes, even among the earlier fathers.
Vide s. 140, II. The opinion is very ancient,
that the holy spirit so unites himself with the
symbols when they are consecrated, that they are
transmuted (ustagtoixsioig^ai, trans-elementari,)
into an entirely different element, become the
body and blood of Christ, and possess a power
and efficacy which cannot be expected from mere
bread and wine. These thoughts occur even
in the Apostolic Constitutions, in Irenaeus, Cyril
of Jerusalem, Basilius the Great, Ambrosius,
and others. It was on this account that the
invocation (inlxx^gis) of the Holy Spirit was
introduced in many places before the holding of
the Supper. Vide Morus, p. 202, n. 2, 6. They'
say also that the bread and wine, through the in
vocation of the name of Christ, and by the power
of the same, are sanctified, so that they no more
continue what they were, but receive a special
spiritual and divine power. So say, e. g., Theo
dotus, (as quoted by Clemens of Alexandria,)
Tertullian, and others. Hence we often find in
the ancient liturgies, both oriental and occi
dental, frequent invocations of the Holy Spirit
of God and of Christ, in which they were en
treated to unite themselves with the bread and
wine, and to communicate to them this power.
At a very early period, therefore, a kind of
magical and miraculous effect was ascribed to
this ordinance,. and it was supposed that as an
external act it has a mechanical agency, not
only upon the soul for the remission of guilt and
punishment, but also upon the body. It is very
often said by some of the fathers after the fourth
century, in conformity with this latter opinion,
that this sacrament has power to heal the sick,
to secure one against magical arts and the as
saults of the devil, and even to effect the salva
tion of the souls of those who are dead. Hence
originated the missx pro defunciis, and innu
merable other superstitious opinions and prac
tices, which fruitfully multiplied, especially in
the Western church, during the dark ages, and
which were then brought by the schoolmen into
a formal system.
(2) This magical or mechanical efficacy is
never ascribed in the New Testament to the
Lord's Supper. The opinion that man obtains
faith, remission of sin, and new spiritual power,
merely by the external celebration of this ordi- ,
nance, as an opus operatum, and by an external
participation in the sacramental symbols, with
out being himself active in repentance and faith,
2-U

506

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

receives no countenance from the sacred writers.
The same is true respecting baptism and the
other means of grace. The efficacy of the Lord's
Supper upon the human heart stands in intimate
connexion with the divine word, and with the
power inherent in the truths of the Christian
doctrine. Without the knowledge and the pTo-
per use of the word of God, this ordinance, in
itself considered, and as an external rite, has no
efficacy. And so' the effect which the Lord's
Supper has upon the human heart is not ma
gical, miraculous, and irresistible, but in ac
cordance with our moral nature; exactly as we
have represented it to be with baptism, s. 140,
coll. Art. xii. ». 133.
It is therefore truly said that the Holy Spirit
acts upon the hearts of men through the Supper,
or through the bread and wine, and that he by
this means produces faith and pious dispositions.
But he produces this effect through the word,
or through the truths of Christianity exhibited
before us and presented to us in this ordinance.
The effect of the Lord's Supper is, therefore, an
an effect which is produced by God and Christ,
through his word, or the truths of his doctrine,
and the use of the same. In the sacrament of the
Supper the most important truths of Christian
ity, which we commonly only hear or read, are
visibly set before us, made cognizable to the
senses, and exhibited in such a way as power
fully to, move the feelings, and make an indeli
ble impression on the memory. Hence this sa
crament is justly called verbum Dei visibile.
Some of the most weighty doctrines of religion
which are commonly taught us by audible words,
through the outward ear, are here inculcated by
external visible signs and actions.
Among the doctrines more especially exhi
bited in the Lord's Supper is the doctrine of the
redemption of man by the death of Christ, and
»he universal love of God shining forth from this
event, (Romans, viii. 32; John, iii. 16,) and all
che duties both to Christ and our fellow-men
which result from it. The contemplation and
application of these important truths, to which
we are excited by the Lord's Supper, awaken in
the hearts of pious Christians the deepest love
and gratitude to God and Christ, and a readiness
to comply cordially with their requirements.
And it is only when we possess this disposition
and this temper of mind that we are truly sus
ceptible of the influences of divine grace through
the word, s. 130, 131 ; it is then only that we
can expect to enjoy that special presence and
aid of Christ which he has promised at his Sup
per. Vide s. 143, ad finem. These are the
things which, according to the scriptures, are
essential to the proper efficacy of the Lord's Sup
per ; and we need not trouble ourselves with in
quiries respecting the manner of the presence of
the body and blopd pf Christ in the symbpls.

Hence it appears that the internal efficacy ef the
Lord's Supper, or of the word' of God through the
Supper, is twofold.
First. This ordinanceis the means of exciting
and strengthening the faith cf one who worthily.
celebrates it, so far as he refers to the divine
promises, and- stands firm in the convictinn cf
their certain fulfilment. Vide s. 123. For we
are reminded by this ordinance,
(a) Of the death of Christ. He instituted this
ordinance on the day of his death, and the break
ing of the bread and pouring out of the wine
represent the vielence dene te his body and the
shedding of his blood. Vide s. 144, I. 1.
(4) Of the causes and the salutary results, of
his death — the founding of a new dispensation,
the forgiveness of sins, and our title to everlast
ing happiness. Vide Heb. viii. 6, seq.
(c) Of the special guidance and assistance
which Christ has promised to his disciples until
the end of the world. Vide s. 143, ad finem.
(d) Any one who from the heart believes these
great truths of Christianity, obtains in the Lord's
Supper the personal appropriation of'these be
nefits procured through. Christ's death — i. e., he
receives in the Lord's Supper the most solemn
assurance and pledge that Christ shed his blood
for him and on his account, and that he therefor,
may participate in all the salutary results of hi.
death. This is the xoiKJj'ia ai'fiafos and gauatos
Xpifffov, 1 Cor. x. 16, or the spiritual enjoyment
of the body and blood of Christ It should be as
certain to us as that we see the bread and wine,
that Christ died for us, and that he still cares for
us, as he did formerly for his disciples while he
was upon the earth, and still promotes our
eternal welfare. This is the true inward enjoy
ment which may be experienced at the table of
the Lord.
Secondly. In this way does this ordinance
contribute to maintain and promote piety among
believers. The contemplation of the death of
Christ, of its causes, and the great and beneficial
results which flow from it, fills our hearts with
gratitude and love to God and Christ, and makes
us disposed and ready to obey his precepts. In
this frame we are prepared to enjoy those divine
influences upon our hearts, and that assistance
of Christ, which it is promised we shall enjoy
at the Lord's Supper.
Again ; Christ inculoates the love of God and
the love of our neighbour as the two great pre
cepts of his doctrine. Of both these duties we
are reminded by this sacred rite, and derive from
it new motives to perform them. All Christians
without distinction are required to participate in
this rite — high and low, rich and poor, to eat in
common of one bread and drink of one cup. As
followers of Jesus they are all brethren, and
all equal, and mutually bound to live in peace,

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. . 507

friendship, and brotherly love. All share equally
in the rights which Christ purchased for them.
Christ is the Lord and Master of them all, and
Is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Cf.
1 Cor. x. 17 ; xii. 13, " For whether we be Jews
or Greeks, bond or free, we are all baptized into
one body, and made to drink into one spirit (e'tt.o-
t It&ipsv)"-— i. e., we partake of one festival, so
that we compose but one church (eis IV ffwfia),
and are mutually obligated to cherish the most
cordial brotherly love and harmony of feeling,
iv hi itvsipatos. Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 17 ; Ephes. iv.
3, 4. It was one object even of the Mesaic sa
crificial feasts te bind more strongly the band
of friendship and brotherly love among the Is
raelites. But here we have xpsittovss iitayysxlai.
Vide s. 143, 1, 3.
From these remarks respecting the object and
efficacy of the Lord's Supper, several important
practical consequences may be derived.
(1) Whoever partakes of the Lord's Supper
takes upon himself the sacred obligation to live
in all respects conformably to the rule given in
the gospel, and there made the condition of en
joying the salutary consequences of the atoning
death of Jesus. Theologians therefore say that
in enjoying the Lord's Supper a covenant is made
, with God, since man engages, on his side, to
yield obedience to the divine precepts, and God,
on his part, promises, assures, and actually im
parts to men his benefits ; as it is in baptism, s.
140, ad finem. <
(2) Since the uses and the effects of the Lord's
Supper are not magical, miraculous, or irresisti
ble, but entirely adapted to the moral nature of
man, he only can derive the proper benefits from
this rite who falls in with the moral order>above
mentioned. Therefore,
(3) Whoever devoutly contemplates the great
truths of salvation represented and made present
to us in the Lord's Supper, and suffers himself
to be excited by these means to feelings of lively
gratitude to God, to diligence in the pursuit of
holiness, and to a truly Christian temper in all
respects, he fulfils, on his part, the design of
this rite. It follows from this, of course, that
this festival in commemoration of the death of
Christ can be properly celebrated only in the
exercise of a grateful heart, and of pious rever
ence. But, on the other side, the communicant must
endeavour to remove from his mind all supersti
tious fear and scrupulous anxiety about this ordi
nance. These fears are often cherished by the
incautious expressions which religious teachers
sometimes use ; and even by theelogians has this
rite been called tremendum mysterium. Re
verence and love for God do indeed go together ;
and in this sense such representations are proper.
But anxiety and slavish fear are inconsistent
with love, 1 John, iv. 19, 90^05 ovx igtiv iv

idyditri.. The celebration of this festival should
rather be a cheerful occasion ; and it should pro
mote pious and thankful joy, since it brings to
pur mind an event sp fraught with happy conse
quences for us.
What Paul says on this subject, 1 Cor. xi.
27 — 29, and 34, is very true, but often misunder-
stopd. He speaks here of the external conduct
of the communicants, so far as it indicates his
internal disposition or state of heart Many of
the Corinthians partook of the Lord's Supper
without thinking at all of its great object. They
did not regard it as a religious rite, but rather as
a common meal, (fir) Staxpiroi/f es ffwfia Kvpiov,
ver. 29.) They permitted themselves those
disorders and excesses in which many think it
right to indulge at common meals, — quarrels,
gluttony, drunkenness, &c. ; ver. 17—22. This
is called by Paul dva%lus ig^tlsw xai itlvsw — i. e.,
indecore, in an unbecoming, improper manner, so
as to shew by one's conduct an irreligious dis
position, an indifference with regard to this im
portant rite, and a contempt for it. Paul pro
nounces this to be in the highest degree wrong,
and therefore deserving of punishment, svoxos
sgtai gapatos xai aiaat os Kvpiov, ver. 27 — i. e.,
worthy of punishment on account of the body
and blood of Christ undervalued by him ; and
ver. 29, (coll. ver. 34,) xpifia sayta ig^lsi xai
itivsi, he draws upon himself divine judgments
on account of his improper observance of this
ordinance. (4) The observance of the Lord's Supper does
not require, therefore, in the pious Christian, any
severe and anxious preparation ; he may partake
of it at any time with advantage, as he may at
any time die happily. And the unconverted man
has no other exercises and preparations to go
through than those which in general he must go
through in order to his conversion, (pstdvoia.)
It is with reason, however, that Paul makes it
the duty of every Christian carefully to examine
his feelings and his conduct before approaching
the table of Christ. 1 Cor. xi. 28, Soxipagst a
dv^paitos savtov, xai ovtas) i. ts., after he has
examined himself) ix tov dptov lg$iita- cf. ver.
31. The meaning is, " Let him examine him
self, to see whether he approaches the Lord's
Supper with pious feelings, really designing to
do what this action implies" — viz., make a pro
fession of the death of Christ in the fullest sense
of this term.
Note. — Times for confession, or rather, for pre
paration for the Lord's Supper, may and should
be employed for the purpose of this personal
self-examination. These occasions should also
be improved for the purpose of shewing the
evils which result from a thoughtless partaking
of the sacramental Supper, according to 1 Cor.
xi. It must not, however, be said that every
unconverted man receives the Lord's Supper to

508

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

his own eternal condemnation. This is not a
scriptural doctrine. Vide 1 Cor. xi. 32. Nor
does it belong to the teacher to exclude any one
from this ordinance because he regards him as
unconverted, even supposing him to have power
so to do. Vide s. 144, II. It is his duty, how
ever, to warn such a person, and represent to him
his case, as Paul does, 1 Cor. xi.
(5) How often should the Lord's Supper be cele
brated? Christ gave no definite precepts on this
point, and this was very wise. Everything me
chanical, confined to a particular time or a parti
cular place, is contrary to the spirit of Chris
tianity. Christ has therefore left it for every
Christian to determine, according to his con
scientious conviction and j ud gment, how often he
will freely repeat this solemn observance. And
thus in this respect also does this Christian ordi
nance differfrom the passover and other religious
ceremonies of the Israelites. It is to be expected
of every sincere Christian that, finding how salu
tary these communion seasons are in their influ
ence upon him, he will welcome their return, and
wish them to be often repeated. But to the
question, how often? no answer, from the nature
of the case, can be given which will apply to
every individual. In the early Christian church
they were accustomed to celebrate the Lord's
Supper almost daily. But the too frequent repe
tition of this ordinance will be apt to produce
coldness and indifference with regard to it. This
perhaps had been the case in Corinth ; cf. 1 Cor.
xi. 20 — 30. The zeal with which this ordinance
was first observed gradually abated, and for this
reason, among others, that but few good fruits
were seen to result from it. At the time of
Chryspstom and Augustine, the observance of
the Supper had become far less frequent. Be
tween the sixth and eighth centuries it was cus
tomary, especially in the Western church, for
every Christian to commune at least three times
during the year; and this was even established
as a rule by many ecclesiastical councils. In
the protestant church no laws have been passed
on this subject ; and this is as it should be.
SECTION CXLVI.
THE VARIOUS OPINIPNS AND FPRMS OF DOCTRINE
RESPECTING THE PRESENCE OF THE BODY AND
BLOOD OF CHRIST IN THE LORD'S SUPPER HISTO
RICALLY EXPLAINED J AND ALSO A CRITIQUE RE
SPECTING THEM.
I. History of Opinions respecting the Presence of the
Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper.
(1) It may be remarked, in general, that the
opinions of the ancients on this subject, from the
first establishment of the Christian church until
the eighth century, were very diverse. After the

eighth century there were some controversies
respecting the mode and manner of this presence
of Christ; and in the thirteenth century, one of
the many theories on this subject was established
as orthodox. The church fathers in the first
centuries agreed on many points relating to this
matter, and on other points differed, without,
however, mutually casting upon each other the
reproach of heterodoxy.
The first germs of the Roman-catholic, the
Lutheran, and the Calvinistic theories, are found
already in their writings ; but it was not until a
later period that they were developed, and new
consequences deduced from them. We cannot
therefore conclude, when we meet with expres
sions in the ancient fathers which sound like
those which are used in our own times, that they
adopted the whole theory of one or the other mo
dern party. Their ideas are so vague, their ex
pressions so indefinite and unsettled, that each of
the dissenting parties in modern times may fre
quently discover passages, even in the same
father, which seem to favour its own particular
theory. In the sixteenth century, when the catholics,
Lutherans, and the reformed theologians were in
controversy with each other on this point, each
party collected passages from the fathers, in order
to shew the antiquity of its own theory; thus
Melancthon in opposition to CEcolampadius, and
the latter against the former. In the seventeenth
century, many centrnversial books passed back
and forth between the learned Roman-catholic
theologians of France and the reformed theolo
gians of France and the Netherlands, in which
Nicole, Arnaud, and others, endeavoured to
prove, on one side, the antiquity of the doctrine
of transubstantiation; and Albertinus, Claude,
Blondell, Laroque, and others, attempted, on the
other side, to secure the authority of the ancients
in behalf of the doctrine of the reformed church.
Ernesti also, in his Antimuratorius, (Opus.
Theol. p. 1, seq.,) has collected many passages
from the ancients in behalf of the Lutheran the
ory, and in opposition to transubstantiation, &c ;
also in his " Brevis Repetitio et Assertio Sen-
tenlia? Lutheranae de Presentia Corporis et
Sanguinis Christi in Sacra Ccena," (Opus.
Theol. p. 135, seq.,) which is one of the most
important modern works on the Lutheran side.
It was called forth by Heumann's " Proof that
the Doctrine of the Reformed Church respect
ing the Lord's Supper is correct and true;"
Eisleben, 1764. It is a very easy matter, how
ever, for any one to find his own ideas express
ed in the. vague and indefinite phraseology ot
the fathers. The testimony of the sacred writers
in favour of the essential part of the doc
trine of the Lutheran church has been exhibited
partly by Ernesti, and partly by Storr, in a

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 50S

very plain and lucid, though brief manner, in
his « Doctrines Christianae pars Theoretica," p.
305—318. [The later works of most value on this de
partment of historical theology are, Phil. Mar-
heinecke, Sanctorum Patrum de Praesentia
Christi in Ccena Domini, Sententia Triplex;
Heidelberg, 1.811, 4to. Neander, Kirch. Ges
chichte, b. i. Abth. ii. s. 577—596; Abth. iii.
s. 1084 ; b. ii. Abth. ii. s. 697—712 ; Abth. iii.
s. 1394. Cf. Gieseler, b. i. s. 96 ; b. ii. s. 15,
17. A full account of the literature of this doc
trine, in all periods, may be found in Halm's
Lehrbuch, s. 570, ff. ; also in Bretschneider's
Syst Entw. a. 728, ff.— Tr.]
(2) Sketch of the history of this doctrine from
the second to the ninth century.
(a) The fathers of the second century pro
ceeded on the principle, which is in itself true,
that the Lord's Supper must be considered as
entirely different from an ordinary repast. Jus
tin the Martyr says, (Apol. i. 66,) oi xowbs
dpfo$, ovSe xowbv itbpa. They, however, enter
tained, even at that early period, many ideas
respecting this ordinance which have no scrip
tural authority. Neither in the writings of the
apostles, nor in the words of Christ, is there
any trace of the opinion that a certain superna
tural and divine power is imparted, in a mira
culous and magical way, to the symbols, and
that in this manner the Lord's Supper exerts an
agency upon men. But this opinion (which
resembles that entertained by many respecting
the water in baptism) is found very frequently
in the writings of Justin, Irenaeus, (iv. 34,)
Clemens of Alexandria, and other fathers' even
of the second and third centuries ; and it is entire
ly in accordance with the spirit and taste of that
age, which beheld everywhere something ma
gical and mysterious, and could not be contented
unless it found something surpassing compre
hension. In order to express their opinion that
the bread and wine are changed by the divine
power, or by the Holy Spirit, and thus obtain
a new virtue and efficacy, totally different from
that which naturally belongs to them, they used
the terms uEtaf}dxXso$ai, uEtafioXr), p-stauop^ovg-
?>ai, fi£fafffoi#Eiovo|iai, pstagtoixsiugis, psta-
7lO«7fflS. Still they did not suppose any such change
in the elements, that they cease to be bread and
wine — i. e., they did not believe in transubstan
tiation, in the proper sense of the term ; neither
does the Grecian church, which employs these
terms, especially ust aj3okrJ, but still opposes the
doctrine of the Romish church. Some of the
fathers understood these terms in a perfectly
just sense, and meant only to say that the
bread and wine cease, by consecration, to be
•ommon bread and wine.
(4) Again; it was maintained that the Word

of God (Aoyos ©eov) is added to the bread and
wine thus ennobled and endowed with divine
power. If by the Word of God is meant the
Christian doctrine, it is very true that the effi
cacy of the Lord's Supper is connected with it,
and depends upon it. Vide s. 145. So it was
understood by many of the ancient fathers,
e. g., Irenaeus. But some of them understood
by 6 Aoyos, the divine nature of Christ. And
from the fact that this Logos was united with
the man Jesus and his human body, they were
led to the idea, that after the same manner he
is united with the bread and wine in the Lord's
Supper. And they endeavoured to illustrate
this union of Christ with the sacramental bread
and wine, from the union of the two natures in
his person.
In this comparison, which was made by Jus
tin the Martyr, we find the true origin of the
doctrine concerning the real presence of the
body and blood of Christ in the elements on his
table. Vide Morus, p. 263, n. 4. According
to this view, Christ is present in a supernatural
way in the symbols, and in an entirely different
manner from that in which, according to his
promise, he is everywhere present with his
disciples, until the end of the world.
(c) After this period the idea became more
and more current that communicants in partak
ing of the visible bread and wine also partake
of the invisible body and blood of Christ. Es
pecially did this idea prevail after the fourth
century. Thus, e. g., Gregory of Nyssa affirms,
"that as the body of Christ, by his union with
the Logos, was so changed and transformed as
to become participator in his divine glory, so
also the sacramental bread sis guaa toi ®sov
Aoyov pstaitosltai." Chrysostom and Cyril of
Jerusalem also say that we must believe the
divine declaration, that we receive the body
and blood of Christ in the sacramental elements,
although this may seem to be opposed to the
evidence of our senses.
But although this doctrine seems to approach
very nearly to transubstantiation, these fathers
did not yet teach that there is any change of the
elements by which they lose their own nature,
and cease to be bread and wine; on the con
trary, they often taught in other passages that
the elements retain their own natural properties,
that when partaken of by us they become assi
milated to the nature of our bodies, that in the
Supper we do not receive the natural body of
Christ, but only the significant signs of it, that
we ought not to stop short with the mere sign,
but to turn our thoughts to that which is signi
fied and imparted by it There are many pas
sages of this import in the writings of Origen,
of Augustine, Theodoret, and others.
But in subsequent periods, the conceptions
which prevailed on this subject, even in the
2 u2

510

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Grecian .church, became more and more gross
and sensual ; as appears from the writings of
John of Damascus in the eighth century, and
others. Still the opinion that the consecrated
bread and wine lose their substance was not re
ceived in the Greek church; nor is it known
among them to the present day, although they
employ the term pstafioxii to denote the change.
Vide Kiesling, Hist. Concertationum Graecor.
et Latinor. de Transubst. ; Leip. 1754.
(3) History of this doctrine from the ninth to
the sixteenth century in the Western church.
It is known from Beda Venerabilis, that d uring
the eighth century there were violent contests in
the Western church respecting the manner of
the presence of the body and blood of Christ in
the Lord's Supper, and on the question how
the elements are changed. And' even at that
time they began to give various explanations
of the passages found in the writings of the
earlier Latin and Greek fathers on this subject.
After the ninth century, the tone and taste
which began to prevail made it certain that of
different theories on any theological point, that
which is the most gross and material would
gain the predominance.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the following
opinion, first distinctly advocated by Paschasius
Radbertus, a monk at Corvey, in the ninth cen
tury,, should have received so general approba
tion — viz., "that after the consecration of the
bread and wine nothing but their form remains,
their substance being wholly changed, so that
they are no longer bread and wine, but the body
and blood of Christ. Their form continues, that
no one may take offence at seeing Christians
eating human flesh and blood."
This doctrine was not, indeed, current at that
time, for it caused much commotion, and was
strongly opposed by the monk Ratramnus, and
John Scotus Erigena, and many others. They
did not deny the presence of the body and blood
of Christ ; but they taught that this conversio or
immutatio of the bread and wine is net of a car-
nal hut a spiritual nature; that these elements
are not transmuted into the real body and blood
of Christ, but are signs or symbols of them. In
many points they approximated to the opinion
of the Reformed theologians.
As yet the councils and popes had determined
nothing on this subject. In the meanwhile the
doctrine of Paschasius became more and more
general during the tenth and eleventh centuries.
When therefore Berengarius of Tours, in the
eleventh century, attacked this doctrine, he was
strongly resisted, and obliged to take back his
opinion. He denied any transmutation of the
elements; but maintained that the bread and
wine are more than mere symbols, and that the
body and blood of Christ are really present in

the Lord's Supper. In short, he took a middle
course between Paschasius and Scdttls, and
came very near, in the main points of his doc
trine, to the Lutheran hypothesis. Vide Les-
sing's work, Berengarius von Tours; Braun
schweig, 1770, 4tc.
After the twelfth century the theory cf Pas
chasius was further developed by the school
men, and carried out into its results. Even
Peter of Lombardy, in the twelfth century,
declared himself in behalf of this opinion, al
though he still speaks somewhat doubtfully
respecting it. The inventor of the word trait-
substanliatio is supposed to be Hildebert, Bishop
of Mans, in the eleventh century. Before him,
however, the phrase commutatio panis in sub-
staniiam Christi had been used by Fulbert,
Bishop of Ohartres. This term became current
in the twelfth century through the influence of
Peter of Blois. It was not, however, until the
thirteenth century that this dogma became uni
versally prevalent in the Romish church. At
the IV. Concilium Lateranense, 1215, under
Pope Innocent III., it was established- as the
doctrine of the church, and confirmed by the
Council at Trent, in the sixteenth century, in
opposition to the protestants. According to this
doctrine, this transmutation is produced by the
sacerdotal consecration. Vide Calixtus, DeTran-
substantiatione ; Helmstadt, 1675.
(4) Principal opinions respecting the manner
of the presence of the body and blood qf Christ
in the sacramental elements, among the protestant
theologians, since the Reformation.
There were three forms of doctrine on this
subject which for many centuries had prevailed
,in the Western church — viz., (a) the theory of
transubstantiation, advanced by Paschasius Rad
bertus, which afterwards became the prevailing
doctrine of the church.; (4) the theory, that the
bread and wine are merely symbols of the body
and blood of Christ, advocated principally by
Joh. Scotus Erigena; (c) a theory which takes
a middle course between the other two, main
taining that the body and blood of Christ are
actually present in the sacramental elements,
but without any transmutation of their sub
stance; supported by Berengarius in the ele
venth century. These theories continued, though
under various modifications, after the sixteenth
century, and were designated by the character
istic words, transubstantiatio,fiigura, unio. The ,
Greek church still adhered to its old word
fiita<3oxij. Both the German and Swiss reformers were
agreed in rejecting the doctrine of transubstan
tiation as wholly unfounded. In this too they
were agreed, that the body and blood of Christ
are really present in the sacramental elements.
and are imparted to the communicant when ne

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 511

partakes cf the bread and wine; since Christ is
near te all whpm he ccunts his own, imparts
himself to them, counsels and guides them.
Butin explaining the manner of this presence
they differed from each other. Luther had a
great attachment to many of the scholastic
opinions and distinctions, and at first entertain
ed a very high idea cf clerical pewer and the
pre-eminence cf the priesthepd. He therefore
retained the doctrine of the schoolmen, de prx-
sentia reali et substantiall, in such a way, haw-
ever, as to exclude transubstantiation. His
doctrine at first was, that " in, with, and under
(in, cum, and s«4, terms which he took from
Bernhard) the consecrated bread and wine, the
true and essential body and blood of Christ are
imparted to the communicant, and are received
by him, although in a manner inexplicable by
us, and altogether mysterious." He held, there
fore, that the body of Christ, which in its very
essence is present in the sacred symbols, is re
ceived by the communicant, not spiritually
merely, but (and here is the point of difference
between him and the Swiss Reformers) realiter
et substantialiter ; so that both helieving and
unbelieving communicants partake of the real,
substantial body and blood of Christ; the for
mer to their salvation, the latter to their con
demnation. The bread and wine are visibly
and naturally received, the body and blood' of
Christ invisibly and supernaturally ; and this is
the unio sacramentalis, such as takes place only
in this sacrament. In one passage he explains
this unio sacramentalis by the image of heated
iron; and in employing this illustration, borders
close upon the error of Cunsubstantiation. ¦ He
says alpo that what the bread and wine do or
suffer, the same is done or suffered by the body
and blood of Christ — they are broken, distri
buted, poured out, &c By degrees, however,
he abandoned these views, and was content
with affirming the real presence of the body and
blood of Christ in the sacramental elements,
and with an indefinite manducatiime orali.
The doctrine of the Swiss theologians, on the
contrary, as exhibited by Calvin, who in some
respects modified the view of Zuingle, was this :
"The body and blood of Christ are not, as to
their substance, present in the sacramental ele
ments, but only as to power and effect; they are
vere et cfficaciter represented under the bread and
wine ; dari non substantiam corporis Christi in
sacra cccna, sed omnia qux in suo corpore nobis
beneficia prxstitil." Accordingly the body and
blood of Christ are not present in space, and are
not orally received by communicants, but spiri
tually, with a kind of manducatio spiritualis.
Zuino-le, however, maintained that the bread
and wine are 7?iere symbols of the body and
blood of Christ, and seemed wholly to reject
the idea of his real presence in these symbols.

Many of the Reformed theologians did not,
therefore, at first assent to Calvin's doctrine,
and many, even subsequently, adhered to that
of Zuingle.
Calvin, then, designed to take a middle course
between Luther and Zuingle. Luther appealed
to the words in which this rite was instituted,
especially to E'afi. He referred also to the di
vine omnipotence, by which the body of Christ
might be made substantially present in many
places at once. Cf. Morus, p. 266, s. 8. This
was wholly denied by the Swiss theologians,
as being contradictory. They contended, also,
that there is no occasion or use for this substan
tial presence and communication of the body
and blood of Christ, since it cannot contribute
to make one more virtuous, pious, or holy.
With regard to satt they remarked that, accord
ing to common use, even in the New Testa
ment, it often means to signify, shew forth,
(vide s. 143 ;) and the subject here requires
that it should be so understood, since otherwise
Christ is made to say what is untrue.
Luther, however, adhered to his opinion, es
pecially after it became the subject of contro
versy. Melancthon was more calm and impar
tial, and wished to promote peace between the
two parties. He therefore took the ground, es
pecially after Luther's death, that it is better
merely to affirm the presence and agency of
Christ in the sacred symbols, without attempt
ing minutely to define and limit the manner of
this presence. He was not favourable either to
the prxsentia corporalis Christi, or to the man-
ducatio oralis, but only affirmed prxsenliam re-
alem et efficacem Christi in sacra ccena. He
therefore chose a middle way between Luther
and Zuingle, and very nearly agreed with Cal
vin, who also pursued this middle course.
Many of the more moderate Lutheran theolo
gians agreed with Melancthon, and seemed with
him to incline to the side of Calvin. On the
other hand, the zealots for the Lutheran theory
insisted upon all the distinctions which Luther
adopted, and even on some points went further
than Luther himself. But in the electorate of
Saxony the party of Melancthon became more
and more numerous, and after his death the
dreadful Crypto-Calvinistic controversies and
persecutions broke out, (a. d. 1571.)
These and other controversies and disorders
in the Lutheran church, and the necessity of
doing something to establish the Lutheran form
of doctrine, led to the adoption of the Formula
if Concord, in the year 1577, which was then
made a standard of faith, and adopted as an au
thorized symbol. In this the most minute
boundary lines are drawn between the theories
of the Lutheran and the Reformed church, by
applying the new distinctions introduced into
the doctrine of the union of the two natures in

512

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Christ, and the communicatio idiomafum. Vide
s. 103, II., and s. 104. The Lutheran theolo-
gians of that period, especially Andrea, Chem
nitz, and their followers, endeavoured to shew,
by the theory of the intimate union of the two
natures in Christ, and the communicatio idioma-
tum resulting from it, how Christ, as God-man,
might be everywhere present, even as to his
bodily nature, and that therefore he might be
present at the sacrament of the Supper, and
might unite himself with the elements, and
through them with the communicants, and thus
act upon them. This doctrine was called ubi-
quitatem corporis Christi, and the advocates of
it were named contemptuously by their oppo
nents Ubiquitistx. The manner of the union of
the body of Christ with the bread and wine was
declared to be a mystery, (mysterium unionis
sacramentalis.) And on this account the framers
of the Formula of Concord would not decide po
sitively of what nature it is, but only negatively,
what it is not. It is not a personal tiniun, as it
is explained to be by many of the older fathers,
(vide No. 2,) nor is it consubstantialio ; still less
is it a union in which a change of the substance
is effected, (transubstantiatio ,-) nor is it a union
in which the body and blood of Christ are in
cluded in the bread and wine, (impahatio ,-) but
of an entirely different nature from any of these
mentioned, and one which exists only in this sa
crament, and therefore called sacramentalis. Cf.
Plank, Geschichte des Protestantischen Lehrbe-
griff's bis zur Einfiihrungder Coneordienformel.
But these fine distinctions established in the
Formula of Concord' were never universally
adopted in the Lutheran church. And espe
cially in those places where this formula had
no symbolic authority were its subtleties re
jected. Many of the Lutheran theologians are
more inclined to the moderate theory of Melanc
thon, or rather, have approximated towards it.
Morus truly remarks (p. 268, n. A.) that the
whole theory established in the Formula of
Concord respecting the omnipresence of the hu
man nature of Christ, from the union pf natures
in his person, is justo subtilior.
II. Critical Remarks on these different Hypotheses.
(1) All the different theories here stated are
attended with difficulties. Transubstantiation
contradicts the testimony of our senses, and has
no scriptural authority, since these symbols are
called in the scriptures 4read and wine, and are
therefore supposed to have the substance of bread
and wine.
With regard to Luther's theory, there is the
difficulty above mentioned, that there appears to
be no object or use in the substantial or corpo
real presence of Christ; though this objectien
in itself is by no means decisive, since there are
many things whose utility we cannot under

stand which are yet useful. But besides this,
there are other objections to the Lutheran theory.
If the substantial body and blood of Christ are
present in the sacramental elements, and are
received by the communicants, how, it might be
asked, (a) Could Christ, at the institution of the
Supper, give his real body to his disciples to be
eaten by them, and his real blood to be drunken
by them, while they saw this body before their
eyes, and he, yet alive, sat with them at table ?
(4) How can the body of Christ be present,
as to its very substance, in more than one place
at the same time ? and what object is answered
by such a supposition? The conclusions de
duced from the doctrine of the union of natures
afford no satisfactory answer to these questions.
(c) How can the theory of the substantial
presence of the body and blood of Christ, and of
their being eaten and drunken by communicants,
be reconciled with the words in which this sup
per was instituted ? For Christ did not speak
of his body then living upon the earth, which
they saw before their eyes, and of the blood
flowing in it; still less of his glorified body in
heaven, but of his body slain on the cross, (iiisp
viuqv SiSbusvov,) and of his blood there shed,
(alua ixxwbfLsvov.) If, therefore, the substan
tial and corporeal presence of Christ were meant,
it must be the substance of that martyred body
and of that perishable blood. But in this case
we cannot understand how either of these can
be still present, and imparted to communicants.
Difficulties of this nature induced Melancthon,
as has been before remarked, to modify the Lu
theran doctrine, and to adopt a theory less repul
sive. But the theory of Calvin, though it ap
pears to be so easy and natural, is also attended
with difficulties ; for even he admits of the pre
sence of the body and blood of Christ, only not
as to their substance, but according to his view,
believers alone receive the body and blood of
Christ. But as soon as I admit that the body
of Christ is present to believers only, this cannot
be reconciled with 1 Cor. xi. 27, 29, as the op
ponents of Calvin have always remarked.
The better way, therefore, in exhibiting either
the Lutheran or Calvinistic doctrine, is, to avoid
these subtleties, and merely take the general
position, that Christ, as man and as the Son qf
God, may exert his agency, may ad wherever,
and in whatever manner he pleases. He therefore
may exert his power at his table as well as else
where. This is perfectly scriptural, (vide s. 98
and s. 143, ad finem;) and it is also the sense
and spirit of the protestant theory. And this
doctrine respecting the nearness of Christ, his
assistance and strengthening influence, in his pre
sent exalted state, secures eminently that proper
inward enjoyment which Lutheran and Reform
ed Christians, and even catholics, with all their

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 513

diversity pf speculaticn pn this ppint, may have
alike in the Lord's Supper. Christ, when he was
about to leave the world, no more to be seen by
his followers with the mortal eye, left them this
Supper as a visible pledge of his presence, his
protection, and love.
(2) There are some theologians who think that
the whole doctrine respecting the presence- of
Christ is destitute of proof, and is derived merely
from the misunderstanding of the passage, 1
Cor. xi., and from the false interpretation of it
given by the fathers. Their hypotheses, it is
said, have not been sufficiently examined, but
have been too credulously admitted, and other
theories have been built upon them, after they
had been previously assumed as true. This opi
nion might.be called the Pelagian theory ; not
because it can be shewn that it was held by Pe
lagius himself, but because it has been usually
adopted by those who are ef the Pelagian way
of thinking respecting the influences of grace.
On this subject, vide Art. xii. They contend
that in partaking of the Lord's Supper we are
merely reminded of Christ, especially of his body
offered and his blopd shed en pur acccunt Ac
cording to this view, his bedy and his blppd,
while we thus ccmmemerate his death, are pre
sent te pur thpughts, in the same figurative way
as the bedy pf a deceased friend cr benefactcr
may be present te pur minds when we are think
ing ef him. This view is ccntrary to the New
Testament ; for it ccmes te nothing more than a
mere remembrance of Christ, and an assistance
from him, improperly so called. Vide s. 98.
They go on to say that Paul, indeed, in 1 Cor.
xi. 27, 29, uses the words ffufia xai dlp-a Xpifffov
with reference to this ordinance ; but that he does
not affirm that the communicant eats the body or
drinks the blood of Christ, but merely the bread
and wine, ver. 28 ; and that although the ancient
Christians sometimes spoke as if the body and
blood of Christ were really received by commu
nicants, (as was very natural, in accerdance with
John, vi.,) yet the same is true here which was
spcken by Cicere, (Nat. Depr. iii. 16,) Cum
fruges Cererem, vinum Liberum dicimns, (pa-
nem, ccrpus Christi, vinum, sanguinem Christi,)
genere nos quidem sermonis utimur usitato ; sed
quern tarn amentem esseputas, qui illud, quo vcsca-
tur, Deum (ccrpus Christi) credai esse?
The difficulties in the way ef this Pelagian
theery, which leaver the Lerd's Supper a mere
ceremeny, are stated by Morus, p. 267, note 5.
He shews very clearly that this theory is not in
the spirit of the other Christian ordinances. Cf.
Storr on this article, in his System. The attempts
of many modern writers who have discussed this
point (those, e. g., cited by Morus, p. 266, s. 7,
in the note) come to the same thing; for to many
of them the doctrine of the nearness of Christ
and his assistance — i. e., of his uninterrupted
65

activity in behalf of his followers, is extremely
repugnant, because they do not see how they
can reconcile it with their philosophical hypo
theses, which, however, are wholly baseless.
But this doctrine is clearly taught in the holy
scriptures, and is one of the fundamental truths
of apostolical antiquity.
(3) Many moderate protestant theologians are
now of opinion that nothing was plainly and de
finitely settled by Jesus and the apostles respect
ing the manner of the presence of the body and
blood of Christ in the sacramental elements, and
that this doctrine cannot therefore be regarded as
essential, but rather as problematical. Formerly
this doctrine, relating merely to the manner of
this presence, was regarded as a fundamental
article of faith ; hence each of the contending
parties adhered zealously to its own theory, re
garding it as the only scriptural one, and looking
upon all who thought differently as heretics.
This was the cause of that unhappy and lasting
division which took place in the sixteenth century
between two churches which agreed on funda
mental doctrines, and which ought mutually to
have tolerated their disagreement on this parti
cular point. So judged Melancthon, and disap
proved of the violent controversies of his age.
Even in his learned writings he passed briefly
over topics of this nature, and assigns as the
reason of his not going more deeply into them,
" ut a quxstionibus Mis juventutem abducerem."
Speculations respecting the manner of the pre
sence of the body and blood of Christ have not
the least influence upon the nature or the efficacy
of the Lord's Supper. What the Christian needs
to know is, the object and the uses of this rite,
and to act accordingly. Vide s. 145. He must
therefore believe from the heart that Christ died
for him ; that now in his exalted state he is still
active in providing for his welfare; and that hence
it becomes him to approach the Lord's table with
feelings of the deepest reverence and most grate
ful love to God and to Christ. Upon this every
thing depends, and this makes the ordinance
truly edifying and comforting in its influence.
These benefits may be derived from this ordi
nance by all Christians; and to all who have
true faith, or who allow this ordinance to have
its proper effect in awakening attention to the
great truths which it exhibits, it is a powerful,
divinely-appointed means ef grace, whatever
theory respecting it they may adopt, — the Lu
theran, Calvinistic, or even the Roman-catholic
transubstantiation, gross as this error is.
It is obvious, then, that all subtle speculation
respecting the manner of the presence of the bedy
and blood of Christ should have no place in po
pular instruction, bat should be confined to
learned and scientific theology. In the present
state of things, however, these disputed points
cannot be wholly emitted in public teaching.

514

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

But the wise teacher will skilfully shew that he
does not regard these as the principal pcints in
this doctrine, according to the views just given ;
in such a way, however, that even the weak will
not be offended. It will be best for teachers, in
the practical exhibition of the theory of the Lu
theran and Reformed churches, te proceed en the
principle before laid dewn — viz., " that Christ,
in his present state ef exaltatien, as Gpd and man,
can exert his pewer when and where he pleases ;
and that, as he has premised to grant his presence,
his gracious nearness and assistance to his true
followers till the end of the world, they may
rejoice in the belief that it will be especially
vouchsafed to them during this solemn festival
in commemoration of him." This principle is
wholly scriptural.

ARTICLE XV.

ON DEATH, AND THE CONTINUANCE AND DES
TINY OF MEN AFTER DEATH; OR THE DOC
TRINE RESPECTING THE LAST THINGS.

SECTION CXLVII.
OF DEATH.
I. Different Descriptions and Names of Death.
(1) No logical definition of death has been
generally agreed upon. This point was much
contested in the seventeenth century by the Car
tesian and other theologians and philosophers.
¦Since death can be regarded in various points of
. view, the descriptions of it must necessarily vary.
'If we consider the state of a dead man, as it
strikes the senses, death is the cessation of natural
life. If we consider the cause of death, we may
place it in that permanent and entire cessation
of the feeling and niotion of the body which re
sults from the destruction of the body. Among
theolcgians, death is commonly said to consist
in the separation of soul and body, implying that
the soul still exists when the body perishes.
Among the ecclesiastical fathers, Tertullian (De
Anima, c 27) gives this definition : Mors — dis-
junctio corporis animxque ; vita — conjundio cor
poris animxque. Cicero (Tusc i.) defines death,
discessus animi a corpore. The passage, Heb.
iv. 12, is scmetimes cited en this subject, but
has nothing to do with it. Death does not con
sist in this separation, but this separation is the
consequence of death. As soon as the body
loses feeling and. motion, it is henceforth use
less to the -soul, which is therefore separated
from it
(2) Scriptural representatiens, names, and
modes of speech respecting des>'r.

(a) One of the most common in the Old Tes
tament is, to return to the dust, or to the earth.
Hence the phrase, the dust of death. It is
founded on the description, Gen. ii. 7, and iii.
19, and has been explained in s. 52, 75. The
phraseology denotes the dissolution and destruc
tion of the body. Hence the sentiment in Eccles.
xii. 7, " The body returns to the earth, the spirit
to God."
(4) A withdrawing exhalation, or removal of
the breath of life. Vide Ps. civ. 29. Hence
the common terms, d^i/xs, itapsSaxs tb itvsipa,
reddidit animam, i%iitvsvgsv, exspiravit, &c.
(c) A removal from the body, a being absent
from the body, a departure from it, &c. This
description is founded on the comparison of the
body with a tent or lodgment in which the soul
dwells during this life. Death destroys this tent
or house, and commands us to travel on. Vide
Job, iv. 21 ; Is. xxxviii. 12 ; Ps. Iii. 7, where see
my Notes. Whence Paul says, 2 Cor. v. 1, the
iitlysios r[uuv olx'ia toi gxrjvovs will be de
stroyed ; and Peter calls death ditb^sgus fov
gx-nvufnatos, 2 Pet i. 13, 14. Classical writers
speak of the soul in the same manner, as xaTau-
xrjvoiv iv f 9 gupati. They call the body gxrpios.
So Hippocrates and .cEschines. 2 Cor. v. 8, 9,
ixSnuijoai ix tov gupatos.
(d) Paul likewise uses the term exSveo^m in
reference to death, 2 Cor. v. 3, 4 ; because the
body is represented as the garment of the soul,
as Plato calls it. The soul, therefore, as long
as it is in the body, is clothed ; and as soon as
it is disembodied, is naked.
(e) The terms which denote sleep are applied
frequently in the Bible, as everywhere else, to
death. Ps. lxxvi. 7; Jer. Ii. 39; John, xi. 13, '
et seq. Nor is this language used exclusively
for the death of the pious, as some pretend,
though this is its prevailing use. Homer calls
sleep and dea/A twin brothers, Iliad, xvi. 672.
The terms also which signify to lie down, te
rest, (e. g, zyJ, occumbcre,) also denote death.
(/) Death is frequently compared with and
named from a departure, a going away. Hence
the verba eundi, abeundi, discedendi, signify, to
die ; Job, x. 21 ; Ps. xxxix. 4. The case is the
same with v7tdyu and 7topEvofiai in the New
Testament, Matt. xxvi. 24, and even among
the classics. In this connexion we may men
tion the terms dvaXvslv and dvdxvais, Phil. i.
23 ; 2 Tim. iv. 6, which do not mean dissolution,
but discessus. Cf. Luke, xii. 36. Vide Wet
stein on Phil. 1.
Note — We have before remarked, in the Ar
ticle respecting Sin, that death, when personi
fied, is described as a ruler and tyrant, having
vast power and a great kingdom, over which
he reigns. But the ancients also represented it
under some figures, which are not common
among us. We represent it as a man with a

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 515

scythe, or as a skeleton, &c; but the Jews
before the exile frequently represented death as
a hunter, who lays snares for men ; Ps. xviii.
5, 6 ; xci. 3. After the exile they represented
him as a man, or sometimes as an angel, (the
angel of death,) with a cup of poison, which he
reaches to men. From this representation ap
pears to have arisen the phrase, which occurs
in the New Testament, to taste death, Matt xvi.
28 ; Heb. ii. 9 ; which, however, in common
speech, signifies merely to die, without remind
ing one of the origin of the phrase. The case
is the same with the phrase to see death, Ps.
lxxxix. 49 ; Luke, ii. 26.
II. Scriptural senses of the words " death" and " to
die;" and the Theological distinctions to which
they have given rise.
(1) Death frequently denotes the end or the
destruction of everything. It is therefore applied
to countries and cities which perish. The inha
bitants of them are compared with dead men.
The restoration of them is compared with resur
rection from the dead. So Isaiah, xxvi. 19, 20;
Ezek. iii. 7, seq.
(2) Hence arise the figurative modes of
speech, to be dead to anything, as to the law, to
sin, &c ; Gal. ii. 19 ; Rem. vi. 2, 5, &c.
(3) But this term is used with great frequency
in a moral sense — e. g., to be dead to all good
ness, to be dead to sin — i.- e., te be disqualified
for all gpodness by the sin reigning within us,
Ephes. ii. 1, 5; v. 14. Likewise the opppsite,
to live, to be alive for goodness — i. e., to be active
in virtue and capable cf performing it. (Mors
et vita spiritualis et moralis.)
(4) Death, is cenceived te be the substance
and sum cf all misery ; and the punishment ef
death as the severest punishment. Accerdingly,
death denotes (a) every unhappy condition in
which human beings are placed, as to body and
soul. The opposite, life, denotes welfare, prospe
rity, Ezek. xviii. 32; xxxiii. 11; Rom. vii. 10, 13.
(4) Punishments, as the unhappy consequences
of the transgression of the law. In this sense,
nto is frequently used in Syriac and Chaldee,
and death in the New Testament ; Rom. i. 32 ;
1 John, iii. 14; James, v. 20. (c) The Jews
called the punishments of the lost in hell the
second death — i. e., the death of the soul, which
follpws that of the body. Traces of this use
are found in Philo, in the Chaldaic paraphrases
of the Old Testament, and very frequently among
the Ralibins. In this sense is o Ssvf Epos $dvatos
used in Rev. ii. 11 ; xx. 6, 14; xxi. 8. Vide
Wetstein en Rev. ii. Se, top, bxs^pos, ditaXsia,
x, t. x.
From these varieus senses ef the word death
theologians have takeri occasion to introduce the
division of death into temporal or bodily, spiri
tual, (by which is meant a state of sin and in

capacity for virtue,) and eternal, (the punish
ments of eternity.) The latter is what is other
wise called the second death, mors secunda, cujus
nulla est finis, as Augustine remarks. Vide s.
79, No. 2. The Bible, too, gives the name of
death (mors spiritualis) to the state of sin, inas
much as it is (a) an unhappy state, and (4) a
state which incapacitates sinners for all good
ness. Hence sinners are said, Ephes. ii. 5 ;
Col. ii. 13, to be vsxpol iv itapaittapagi, partly
because they are unhappy in consequence of
sin, (vide the opposite,) and partly because
they are dead to all goodness, or are incapaci
tated for it. Hence, too, those sinners who are
secure, ignorant, and regardless of the misery
and danger of their situatien, are said to sleep
er to dream, Jude, ver. 8, (ivvitvia^dpsvoi.)
III. The Universality or Unavoidableness of Death ,-
also a Consideration of the Question, whether
Death is the Punishment of Sin, and how far it
is so.
(1) Death is universal and inevitable. Nene
in the present state are excepted. This is the
uniform declaration of scripture. Ps. xlix.
8—12 ; lxxxix. 49 ; Rom. v. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ;
Heb. ix. 27. Christ himself was not excepted
from this general lot of mortality, (though he
submitted to it of his own accord,) John, x. 17,
18 ; since Paul declares, Heb. ii. 14, seq., that
he became man, that he might be able to die for
our good.
Some exceptions to this general lot are men
tioned in scripture, (a) In ancient times,
Enoch, of whom it was said, Gen. v. 24, that
God took him, because he led a pious life. Some
of the fathers incorrectly understood this pas
sage to mean, that he died. Cf. Heb. xi. 5.
Elias is another exception, 2 Kings, ii. 11. Si
milar narratives are found among the Greeks
and Romans, from which we learn that it was
a common notion among the ancient people that
men who were especially beloved by the Deity
were removed from earth to heaven alive, or
after their death. (4) In future times. Those
who are alive at the day of judgment, according
to Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 51, coll. 1 Thess. iv. 15,
shall not die, (xoifu^rjffoi'fow,) but shall be
changed (dxxayiigovt ai) — i. e., their body, with
out previous dissolution, (death,) shall be en
nobled by a simple renovation or change ; since
this mortal body is incapable of the enjoyment
of heavenly blessedness; ver. 50, 53, 54, coll.
2 Cor. v. 2 — 4, iitsvSvgag^rai oixttjpiov i% oipavov,
(to be clothed.)
(2) The mortality of the human body is ex
pressly derived in the record of Moses, Gen. ii.
17, also chap, iii., from the taste ef the forbid
den fruit, er pf the peispnpus tree. It was by
this means that eur first parents themselves be
came mertal, and thus propagated their disor-

516

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

dered and dying bodies to all their posterity.
Vide s. 74, 75, 78. The universality and un
avoidableness of death is therefore, according
to the scriptures, the result and consequence of
the transgression of the first parents of the hu
man race. And so., in all cases, the Bible de
rives death from the sin of the first man. Rom.
v. 12, "Through one man came sin into the
world, and death by sin, and so death became
universal among men, (eis itdvtas dv^paitovs
¦ SiijxSs.)" 1 Cor. xv. 21.
Here the question is thrown out, whether the
death qf the posterity qf Adam is to be regarded
as the punishment of his sin ? To this the an
swer commpnly given by theelogians is, that
with regard to the wicked, death is to be re
garded in the light of a punishment, but not with
regard to the pious, but that to them, on the
contrary, it is a benefit. Since as the latter are,
by means of death, translated into a more happy
condition, it must be looked upon as a benefit
as far as they are concerned ; and so the scrip
ture represents it Vide s. 148. Still (a) death
does not cease to be a great evil, in itself consi
dered, to the whole human race, and even to the
pious. Hence Paul denominates 'it d ix^pos, 1
Cor. xv. 26; and considers it one of the cala
mities befalling our race, with regard to which
even the pious man cannot be indifferent. He
says expressly, 2 Cor. v. 4, that even to the
Christian it is no pleasant thing to be unclothed
— i. e., stripped of his body by death ; but that
he would rather be clothed upon — i. e., be in
vested with his heavenly body immediately,
without the intervention of death. (4) When
it is said that death, in the posterity of Adam,
is the punishment which they must undergo on
account of his transgression, the term punish
ment is used in that general sense in which it
is employed in common life, and often in the
scriptures. But if it be taken in the strict phi
losophical sense, (in which punishment always
presupposes personal guilt,) death can be proper
ly called the punishment of sin only in reference
to our first parents themselves ; with regard to
others, it is indeed the consequence and result of
the sin of our first parents, but not properly its
punishment. Vide s. 76, III., s. 78, III. 3, &c
This was remarked by many of the church fa
thers, especially before the' time of Augustine;
and they therefore objected to calling the death
of the posterity of Adam the punishment of sin.
Vide s. 79, No.l, 2. (o) When it is said of
Christ that he frees or redeems men from (bo
dily) death, the meaning is, that men owe it to
him, m general, that the terrors of death are
mitigated with regard to those who believe on
him; and in particular, that our bodies are re
stored at the resurrection. Cf. John, xi. 25,
26. This is what is meant by the redemtio a
mbrtc corporaliper Christum, s. 120, coll. s. 11 1 ,

II. 1. From the necessity itself of dying we
could not be freed, unless God should produce
an entirely new race of men. Cf. Cotta, Theses
Theologicae de Novissimis, Speciatim de Morte
Naturali; Tubingen, 1762. [Also the treatise
of Dr. Wm. Bates, " On the Four Last Things,"
and particularly on Death," chap. iii. and iv.—
Tr.] SECTION CXLVIII.
OF THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE CONTINU
ANCE OF THE HUMAN SOUL, AND ITS STATE
AFTER DEATH.
It is the doctrine of Christ that the life of
man is not bounded by this earthly state, but
that, although he does not exist solely for the
future, his life extends into eternity. The ge
neral doctrine of the Bible respecting the desti
nation of man, as a rational and moral being,
has been already exhibited in the Article on the
Creation of Man, s. 51, H. ; and it was there
shewn to be holiness, and temporal and eternal
happiness standing in the most intimate con
nexion with it. The superiority of our know
ledge of the state of man after death, in compa
rison with that possessed by the ancient world,
is not to be ascribed so much to the progress of
science as to the work of Christ, and the influ
ence of the Christian doctrine. Those who
lived before Christ were not indeed wholly des
titute of knowledge respecting this important
truth ; indeed, many heathens, both before and
after the time of Christ, snggested very import
ant arguments in behalf of immortality; still
they were unable to attain to anything more
than a high degree pf probability pn this subject.
Vide s. 149. Every impartial man must cencede
that Christ has high claims to gratitude for what
he has done in relation to this subject, even if he
dees net allpw that he has disclosed anything
new with regard te the future state ef man.
(1) He has cennected this truth mest inti
mately with the ether practical truths ef religipn,
and referred all the rest te this in such a man
ner as ne teacher before him ever did. And
now, any one who acknowledges the divine
authority of Christ, and of the Christian reli
gion, obtains a satisfactory certainty respecting
this doctrine, which at best can be rendered only
highly probable by the light of nature. And
from believing this doctrine, all religion comes
to possess for him a new interest ; and he finds
in it the greatest consolation in sufferings and
hardships of all kinds — the most effectual en
couragement to holiness, and the greatest dis
suasive from sin.
Note. — The strongest philosophical proofs in
behalf of immortality are derived from the im
possibility of reconciling the destruction of the
w.hole man with the object of his existence, and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION.

517

with the divine attributes. Vide s. 149. But
•a satisfactory certainty on this subject, and a
conviction of the truth of immortality raised
above all doubt, cannot be attained in this way.
For the simple fact that we, by our reason, can
not reconcile any two things, does not prove
that they are irreconcilable; nor can we con
clude as to the reality of anything, merely from
the fact that it is to be wished for by us. Cf.
Seneca, who says, Ep. 102, Philosophi rem
hanc gratissimam promittunt, magis quam
PROBANT. (2) By the plain instruction which Christ
has given respecting this subject, and the obvi
ous reasons he has adduced for it, he has made
it universally intelligible, and in a very high
degree comprehensible, even by the great mass
of mankind. He has done this especially by
the connexion in which he has placed it with
the history of his own person, by which every
thing is rendered more obvious, and receives a
greater and more lively interest. Vide s. 120.
Hence the remark of Paul, 2 Tim. i. 10, is very
true, that Christ by his doctrine has taken away
the power of death, so that it is no more to be
feared ; he has made us certain of blessedness,
and for the first time placed the doctrine of eter
nal life (fur; xai dip^apffia) in a clear light (fyati-
«os). Cf. Einiges, Ueber das Verdienst der
christlichen Religion um die Lehre von der
Unsterblichkeit der Seele ; Flensburg und Leip
zig, 1788, 8vo.
The following are the chief points of Chris
tian instruction respecting the life of the soul
after death: —
I. Scripture Proof of Immortality, and what is
implied in it.
In death, the body only dies; but the soul
survives the body, and lives on uninterruptedly;
and is immortal. Here belongs the text, Matt.
x. 28, where Christ says that tyrants and per
secutors have power only over the body, and
pan kill that only, but have no power to kill the
soul, over whioh God alone has rule and power.
Again, Luke, xvi. 19, the parable of the rich
man and Lazarus, ver. 22, 23, seq. ; Luke, xx.
38, " God is not a God of the dead, but of the
living." Also many passages in John, in which
Jesus promises an immortality, and that too of
blessedness, to his true followers, and assures
them that in death their souls shall not perish —
e. g., John, v. 24; viii. 51; chap, xi.; xii. 24 —
26 ; xiv. 2, 3, where he says that in his father's
house there are many mansions, and that, he
was going to prepare,^ place for them, and to
bring them thither* unto himself, (by death.)
Cf. the promise given to the malefactor on the
cross, Luke, xxiii. 43.
But he always connects this doctrine with
that respecting his own person. He it is to

whom we are indebted for this truth ; without
him we should not have had it. He is the pui-
chaser and the giver of life, and of a blessed
immortality ; whoever believes in him, although
he may die, yet lives ; John, xi. 25, 26. With
this the doctrine of the apostles agrees. Vide
2 Cor. v. 1—10; 2 Tim. i. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 13,
seq.1, Phil. i. 23; 1 Pet iv. 6, departed Chris
tians (vsxpol) are regarded by men as evil-doers,
and as miserable persons, who have been justly
persecuted and punished ; but their spirit is
introduced by God into a happy life. So Matt.
x. 28.
It pertains essentially to the immortality of
the soul that our self-consciousness will remain,
and that we shall then have the conviction that
our state after death is the consequence of the
life that now is ; as the parable, Luke, xvi. 22,
seq., plainly shews. Cf. Luke, xx. 27, and
John, viii. 56, 'Afipadu — siSs trpi vjpspav tijv
iuifv, xai ixdprj, Cf. also 2 Cor. v. 8, 9, and
the other texts cited by Morus, s. 2, note.
The doctrine respecting the sleep qf the soul
does net agree with the declarations of Christ,
and is directly opposed to them. Some have
maintained that the soul after death remains, for
a time at least, in a state of insensibility and
unconsciousness, which they compare with
sleep. Vide s. 150, where some of the texts to
which they appeal are examined. They sup
pose that it is first awakened from this sleep at
the last day, when it is reunited to the body.
The state in which they suppose the soul to be
in the meantime is called lethargus, and those
who hold this doctrine are called iitvotyvx1* "*»
and those who wholly deny the immortality of
the soul, ^D^oTtowv^ifai. They support their
doctrine in part by an appeal to some figurative
representations in the holy scriptures respecting
the kingdom of the dead, by which it is set forth
as the land of silence, darkness, and forgetful-
ness; and in part by the common experience
that our souls dp nnt feel and receive sensatiens
except through the body and the organs of sense,
and that when the brain is injured, conscious
ness and memory often wholly disappear. To
this it is justly objected, that it is impossible to
conclude, without the greatest fallacy, merely
from the present constitution of man, in which
soul and body are intimately connected, how it
will be hereafter, when the soul and body shall
have been entirely separated.
Christ and the apostles held no principles
that could lead to the doctrine of the sleep of the
soul. They rather regarded the earthly body
which we inherit as the nearest spring and
source of human depravity, and of the sins aris
ing from it, and of all consequent pain and mi
sery. Vide s. 77, II. According to this doc
trine we obtain by death a release from many
sufferings; the disembodied spirit can exert its
2X

5i8

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

energies more freely than before, and enters
upon a far greater and wider sphere of action.
Cf. Rom. viii. 23, ditoXvtpagis toi gupatos,
Rom. vii. 5, 18, 23, 24, gapa $avdtov, 1 John,
iii. 2. Vigilantius, in the fifth century, was ac
cused, though unjustly, by Hieronymus, of
holding this opinion respecting the sleep of the
soul. In the twelfth century it was condemned
by Innocent III. In the sixteenth century it
was advocated again by some anabaptists and
Socinians, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, by Christopher Artobe, John Heyn,
and others.
II. The Connexion of the Life to Come with the
Present.
On this point, Christ and the apostles teach,
(1) That the life after death is an immediate
continuation of the present life. The soul is
not altered in death, but takes along with it its
dispositions, its habits, and whole tendency,
into the future world. The life to come, taken
in connexion with the present, make together
one whole, even as manhood is only the conti
nuation of youth. Morus justly observes, tenore
continue necti finem vitx et iniiiafuturx sortis.
(2) That the life to come is to be regarded as
the consequence of the present, since the conse
quences of all our present dispositions, inclina
tions, and actions, continue there. Death de
termines the destiny of men in the future world.
It is here that man lays the foundation either
for his future happiness or misery ; this is the
state of probation, that of retribution. All this
is taught in the New Testament, sometimes
literally, and at other times figuratively — e. g.,
it is sometimes represented under the image of
sowing and reaping, a contest, and the crowning,
&c. Vide Luke, xvi. 25; Hebrews, ix. 27;
Rom. ii. 5—12; 2 Cor. iv. 7; v. 10; 1 Tim.
vi. 18, 19 ; Gal. vi. 7, 10, " What a man sows,
that shall he also reap ; he that follows his
carnal appetites shall reap qfeopdv ; the pious
Christian, £aijv aluviov."
III. The Intermediate State between Death and the
Judgment.
The restoration of the body (the raising of
the dead) will not take place until the end of
the world, the last day of the present constitu
tion of things — a period which no one knows
beforehand. Vide s. 151, seq. And then will
every one, for the first time, receive the full
measure of reward or punishment allotted him,
according to his conduct in the present life.
Vide Luke, x. 12; Rom. ii. 16 ; 2 Cor. v. 10.
Before this time shall arrive, the disembodied
spirit will be in a certain intermediate state.
The exact nature of this state is not indeed par
ticularly described to us, and we are unable

even to conceive of it distinctly ; but so much
the Bible plainly teaches, that immediately
after death the soul passes into that state for
which, from the nature of its previous life, it is
prepared. Immediately after death, retribution
begins ; the pious are happy, and the wicked
miserable, each in exact proportion to his feel
ings and actions. Vide Luke, xvi. 22 — 25,
(the parable respecting Lazarus.) This truth,
too, is always placed by Christ himself and his
apostles in intimate connexion with his own
person — e. g., Luke, xxiii. 43, " To day shalt
thou be with me in paradise." Phil. i. 23,
dj<aX,vffai xai gvv Xpiof9 slvai; 2 Cor. v. 8, ix-
Stjp.ijgai ix tov gupatos, xai ivSrtpijoat rtpbs tbv
Kvpiov. -v.-
In what the rewards and punishments of this
intermediate state will consist cannot be deter
mined, nor whether, in addition to those which
are natural — the necessary consequences of ac
tion and feeling, — there will also be, even then,
those which are positive and result from the free
appointment of God. As to those who are lost
the Bible teaches us only this, that their pu
nishment — their whole state of misery — will
commence immediately after death ; Luke, xvi.
22, seq. And for this we have the analogy of
what the New Testament teaches respecting
the miserable intermediate state of the evil spi
rits, which will last until the day of judgment,
2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude, 7. Vide s. 63. For the fate
of lost men is described as one and the same
with that of evil spirits. Vide Matthew, xxv.
41. On the other hand, the happy intermediate
state of the pious commences also immediately
after death. The texts in proof of this are cited
by Morus, p. 289, s. 1, note 2. Their blessed
ness is likened to that of the holy angels ; hence
they are called by Jesus himself IgdyysXai,
Luke, xx. 36.
Since, now, the destiny of man is decided im
mediately after death, and since among men
such a decision is usually made by a judgment
and sen/e7ice, there is no more proper way of re
presenting this arrangement of -God w'ith re
spect to the future destiny of men than by com
paring it with a judgment, since it has the
same effect as a formal judgment. This has
given occasion to the division of judgment into
particular or preceding (judicium particulare,
or antecedens), which denotes nothing more
than the determining of the fate of men imme
diately after death ; and universal or subsequent,
(judicium universale, or consequens.) It is re
specting the former that Paul speaks, Heb. ix.
27, "It is appointed to jail men once to die,
fiEfd Se fovfo xpisis" — IT ef, then follows the
determination of their destiny, whether it shall
be happy or miserable. Cf. 2 Cor. v. 10. The
Pharisees- also, according to Josephus, (Antiq.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 519

xviii. 2,) taught that the soul is immortal, and
gfter death is judged under the earth, and re
warded or punished according to its works.
- According to the doctrine of the New Testa
ment, therefore, there is no third place, or me
dium, between heaven and hell, or between
being happy and miserable, although there are
very different degrees both of the one and of the
Other. The intermediate condition of which
we have spoken must not be understood to im
ply anything like this. Still an opinion like
this got footing very early in the Christian
church. Vide s. 150. And this gave rise to the
custom of praying for^ the dead, since men were
foolish enough to imagine that there is room to
obtain an alteration in the yet undecided destiny
of departed spirits, while in truth their destiny
must depend solely upon their own actions
during the present life. This custom had be
come very general in the fourth century, and
was at that time opposed by Aerius, presbyter
of Pontes, as we learn from the testimony of
Epiphanius, (Ha?r. 75,) who is very indignant
against him on this account. It was also Op
posed by the Spanish presbyter, Vigilantius, in
the fifth century, in reply to whom Hieronymus
wrote a violent book: This doctrine was after
wards brought into connexion with that respect
ing purgatory, (vide s. 150 ;) and then followed
masses for souls, as sacrifices for the departed.
There are also some traces of prayers for the
dead even among the Grecian Jews — e. g., 2
Mace. xii. 43 — 46, vitsp vsxpuv itpogsvxsd^ai.
Note. — From what has now been said, it ap
pears that death, so far as it is the transition to
a higher and more perfect life, and the means
of bringing us to the enjoyment of it, ought not
to be terrible to us, but should rather be regard
ed as a benefit. Those only, however, can re
gard it in this light who have lived here accord
ing to their destination, who have obtained the
forgiveness ef their sins (SixaiovfiEiioi), and who
gn put pf the werld with pipus and gpdly dis
positions. Vide 2 Cor. v. 6—10; Phil. i. 21,
23 ; John, xiv. 1—4 ; 1 John, iii. 2, 3 ; 1 Peter,
i. 4, 5, &c. SECTION CXLIX.
HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE VARIOUS OPI
NIONS WHICH HAVE PREVAILED IN ANCIENT
AND MODERN TIMES RESPECTING THE CONTI
NUANCE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH ; AND THE
PROOFS DRAWN FROM REASON IN FAVOUR OF IT.
I. 7deas of Rude Nations.
The ideas of most rude heathen nations re
specting the state of man after death are indeed
dark and obscure, as well as their ideas respect
ing the nature of the soul itself, which they re
gard as a kind of aerial substance, resembling

the body, though of a finer material. Vide s.
51, 1. 3. Still it is found that the greater part
of rnankind, even of those who are entirely un
cultivated, though they may be incapable of the
higher philosophical idea of the immortality of
the soul, are yet inclined to believe that the soul
survives the body, and Continues either for ever,
or at least for a long time. Their susceptibility
for this faith, and their inclination to it, depend
upon the following circumstances — viz.,
(1) Upon the love of 'life, which is deeply
planted in the human breast, and operates pow
erfully, and leads to the wish and hope that life
will be continued even beyond the grave.
(2) Besides the traditions in behalf of this
faith which uncultivated nations received trans
mitted from their fathers, they often had dreams,
in which the dead appeared to them speaking
and acting; and in this way they found their
wishes, and the traditions they had received
from their fathers, confirmed anew, so that the
hope of immortality was always sustained in
them, and never extinguished. Thus Homer
represents (II. xxiii. 103, seq.,) that Achilles
first became convinced that souls and shadowy
forms have a real existence in the kingdom of
shades, by the appearance to him of the depart
ed Patroclus in a dream. So too it is repre
sented in the parable of Christ, Luke, xvi. 27,
where the rich man wished that Lazarus might
be sent to appear before his living brethren,
since if one of the dead should teach them re
specting the state and destiny of the dead, they
would believe. Moreover, these visions were
often regarded as divine, — dmp ix Aids igti, II.
i. 63. But we find that many heathen nations, long
before they had any philosophy, or enjoyed the
light of revelation, or before they endeavoured
to prove the immortality of the soul by argu
ments drawn from reason, still possessed a firm
belief of the continuance of the soul. So it was
with the Egyptians, the Indians, the Thracians,
the Celtae, the ancient Germans, the ancient
Greeks and Romans, and so it is with many of
the rude heathen nations of our times. Vide
Meiners, Geschichte aller Religionem^ s. 174, f.
Hence we find necromancy practised among the
most barbarous people of all ages ; (vide s. 66 ;)
and the prevalence of this presupposes, of
course, a belief in the existence of the soul be-
ynnd the grave. Vide Scripta Varii Argumenti,
Number iii., " Orige ppinionum de immortali-
tate animorum apud nationes barbaras atque a
cultu veri Dei alierias."
II. ideas of the Jewish Nation.
(1) Many have maintained that the doctrine
of the immortality of the seul is nnt taught in
the Old Testament. This was especially main
tained by many Socinian writers of the sixteenth

520

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

and seventeenth centuries. Others have gone
so far as to construe the supposed silence of the
Old-Testament writers on this subject into a
formal denial of the doctrine, and have attempt
ed to justify their opinion by some texts in
which it seems to be said that all is over with
man at his death — e. g., Eccl. iii. 19. seq. ; Is.
xxxviii. 18; Ps. vi. 6; xxx. 10; lxxxviii. 11;
cxv. 17; Job, vii. 7—10; x. 20—22; xiv.
7—12; xv. 22. The Fragmentist of Wolfen-
buttel attacked the divine authcrity pf the Jew
ish religien in the mest pdipus manner by these
ebjections. Cf. the fourth Fragment from Les-
Hing's Beytragen zur Geschichte und Literatur
aus der wolfentiittel'schen Bibliethek, th. iv. s.
484, f. On the ether hand, Warburton (Divine
Legatien of Moses) derived one of his main
proofs of the divine mission of Moses from this
his supposed silence on the subject of immorta
lity. Moses, he argues, being sustained in his
legislation and government by immediate divine
authority, had not the same necessity that other
teachers have for making use of threatenings
and punishments drawn from the future world,
in order to furnish motives to obedience.
(2) But even if it were true that there is no
text, either in the books of Moses or the writ
ings of a subsequent period, in which the im
mortality of the soul is distinctly mentioned, it
would by no means follow that this idea was at
that time wholly unknown among the Israelites.
Even from this supposition we must draw the
contrary conclusion. For, not to mention that
the Israelites and their ancestors were in Egypt,
where this faith was very ancient, (according
to Herodptus, ii. 123, the Egyptians were the
first who entertained it,) it is proved that the
Jews held this doctrine (a) From the laws of
Moses against necromancy, or the invocation of
the dead, which was very commonly practised
by the Canaanites also, (Deut. xviii. 9 — 12,)
and which, notwithstanding these laws, was
for a long time afterwards retained among the
Israelites, as appears from 1 Sam. xxviii., and
the prophets. (4) From the appropriate ancient
Hebrew name for the kingdom of the dead Sists'
(aSrjs), which so often occurs in Moses and the
other books of the Old Testament. That Moses
did not in his laws hold up the punishments
of the future world to the terror of transgressors,
is a circumstance which redounds to his praise,
and cannot be alleged against him as a matter
of reproach, since other legislators have been re
proached with being either deluded, or them
selves impostors for doing this very thing. And
Moses did not design to give a system of theo-
lpgy in his laws.
(3) But frnm passages in his writings it may
be seen that this dpctrine was net unknuwn to
him. These passages have been cellected by
different writers with different success. Vide

Michaelis, Argumenta pre Imfflprtalitate Animi
e Mose Collecta, in Syntagm. Comment, t. i.;
Gottingen, 1759. Luderwald, Untersuchung
von der Kenntniss eines kiinftigen Lebens im
Alton Testamente; Helmstadt, 1781. Semler,
BeantwortungderFragendeswolfenbiittel'schen Ungenannten. Seiler, Obserr. ad psychologiam
sacram; Erlangen, 1779.
The following texts from the writings of
Moses may be regarded as indications of the
doctrine of immortality — viz., Gen. v. 22, 24,
where it is said respecting Enoch, that because
he lived a pious life, God took him, so that he was
no more among men. This was designed to be
the reward and consequence of his pious life,
and it points to an invisible life with God, to
which he attained without previously suffering
death. Vide s. 147, iii. 1. Gen. xxxvii. 35,
Jacob says, " I will go down into Sw unto my
son." We have here distinctly exhibited the
idea of a place where the dead dwell connected
together in a society ; vide s. 150. In conformity
with this idea we must explain the phrase to go
to his fathers, Gen. xv. 15 ; or, to be gathered to
his people, (mpre ccrrectly, to enter into their
habitation cr abode,) Gen. xxv. 8, xxxv. 29;
Num. xx. 24, &c. In the same way many ef the
tribes ef Ncrth- American savages express their
expectation of an immortality beyond the grave,
by saying respecting one who is dead, that he
will now see his father, grandfather, great
grandfather, &c.
Paul argues from the text, Gen. xlvii. 9, and
similar passages, where Jacob calls his life a
journey, that the patriarchs expected a life after
death, Heb. xi. 13 — 16. Only he says, very
truly, 7t6ppu$Ev ISbvtss tds iitayysxlas. In
Matt. xxii. 23, Christ refers, in arguing against
the Sadducees, to Ex. iii. 6, where Jehovah calls
himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
(i. e., their protector and the object of their
wership,) Ipng after their death. It could net be
that their ashes and their dust should worship
God ; hence he concludes that they themselves
could not have ceased to exist but that, as to
their souls, they still lived. Cf. Heb. xi. 13—17.
And this passage was interpreted in the same
way by the Jews after the time of Christ. Vide
Wetstein, ad. h. 1.
In the subsequent books of the Old Testa
ment the texts of this nature are far more nu
merous. Still more definite descriptions are
given of Sine', and the condition of the departed
there; e. g., Is. xiv. 9, seq., also in the Psalms
and in Job. Vide s. 150. Even in these texts,
however, the doctrine of the reward of the right
eous and the punishment of the wicked in the
kingdom of the dead is not so clearly developed
as it is in the New Testament ; this is true even
of the book of Job. Vide s. 151. All that we
find here with respect to this point is only

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 521

obscure intimaticn, so that the Pauline itbjSpa&v
ibbvtss is applicable, in relation to this doctrine,
to the other books of the Old Testament as well
as to those of Moses, In the Psalms there are
some plain allusions to the expectation of reward
and punishment after death, particularly Ps. xvii.
15; xlix. 15, 16 ; lxxiii. 24. There are some pas
sages in the prophets where a revivication of the
dead is spoken of, as Is. xxvi. 19 ; Dan. xii. 2 ;
Ezek. xxvii. But although these do not teach
a literal resurrection of the dead, but rather re
fer to the restoration of the nation and land, still
these and all such figurative representations
presuppose the proper idea that an invisible part
of man survives the body, and will be hereafter
united to it. Very clear is also the passage
Eccl. xii. 7, " The body must return to the earth
from whence it was taken, but the spirit to God
who gave it," evidently alluding to Gen. iii. 19.
From all this we draw the conclusion that the
doctrine of the immortality of the soul was not
unknown to the Jews before the Babylonian
exile. This appears also from the fact that a ge
neral expectation existed of rewards and punish
ments in the future world; although, in com
parison with what was afterwards taught on this
point, there was at that time very little definitely
known respecting it, and the doctrine, therefore,
stood by no means in that near relation to reli
gion and morality into which it was afterwards
brought, as we see to be the fact often in other
wholly uncultivated nations. Hence this doc
trine is not so often used by the prophets as a
motive to righteousness, or to deter men from
evil, or to console them in the midst of suffering.
But on this very account the piety of these an
cient saints deserves the more regard and admi
ration. It was in a high degree unpretending
and disinterested. And although the prospect
of what lies beyond the grave was very indis
tinct in their view, and although, as Paul said,
they saw the promised blessings only from afar,
they yet had pious dispositions, and trusted God.
They held merely to the general promise, that
God their Father would cause it to be well with
them even after death. Psalm lxxiii. 26, 28,
" When my strength and my heart faileth, God
will be the strength of my heart, and my portion
for ever."
But it was not until after the Babylonian cap
tivity that the ideas of the Jews on this subject
appear to have become enlarged, and that this
doctrine was brought by the prophets, under the
divine guidance, into a more immediate con
nexion with religion. This result becomes very
apparent after the reign of the Grecian kings
over Syria and Egypt, and their persecutions of
the Jews. The prophets and teachers living at
that time (of whose writings, however, nothing
has come down to us) must therefore have given
to their nation, time after time, more instruction

upon this subject, and must have explained and
unfolded the allusions to it in the earlier pro
phets. And so we find that after this time, more
frequently than before, the" Jews sought and
found in this doctrine of immortality and of fu
ture retribution, consolation and encouragement
under their trials, and a motive to piety. Such
discourses were therefore frequently put in the
mouths of the martyrs in the second Book of
Maccabees — e. g., vi. 26; vii. 9, seq., coll. xii.
43—45. Cf. also the Book of Wisdom, ii. 1,
seq. ; and especially iii. 1, seq., and the other
apocryphal books of the Old Testament.
At the time of Christ and afterwards this doc
trine was universally received and taught by the
Pharisees, and was indeed the prevailing belief
among the Jews ; as is well known from the
testimony of the New Testament, of Josephus,
and also of Philo. Tacitus also notices this
firm belief of the Jews in the immortality of the
soul. In his history (ver. 5) he says, animas
prxlio aut suppliciis peremptorum xternas putant,
Cf. an Essay comparing the ideas of the Apo
cryphal books of the Old Testament on the sub
jects of immortality, resurrection, judgment,
and retribution, with those of the New Testa
ment, written by Frisch, in Eichhorn's Biblio-
thek der Biblischen Literatur, b. iv. ; Ziegler's
Theol. Abhand., th. ii. No. 4. Flugge, Ges
chichte des Glaubens an Unsterblichkeit, u. s.
w., th. i. But the Sadducees, and they only,
boasting a great attachment to the Old Testa
ment, and especially to the books of Moses,
denied this doctrine, and, at the same time, the
existence of the soul as distinct from the body.
But Christ did more to illustrate and confirm
this consoling doctrine than had been before done
among the Jews or any other people; and he
first gave to it that high practical interest which
it now possesses. Vide s. 148, at the beginning.
ILL Philosophical Arguments.
As soon as they began in heathen nations to
philosophize, and to investigate more closely the
doctrines relating to God and the nature and des
tination of man, they saw the importance and
great practical interest of the doctjine of the
immortality of the soul. It was found to exist
already as a popular belief, but they now endea
voured to give it philosophical proof and de
monstration. Here, as in other things, the
Greeks distinguished themselves abeve ether
natiens. They laid the first greund pf thpse phi
losophical proofs which were afterwards en
forced anew by Christian philosophers, and cor
rected and further developed. In the varied web
of proof in our modern philosophical schools,
the chief threads, and, as it were, the entire ma
terial, are of Grecian origin. According to the
testimony of Cicero, the first Grecian philoso
pher who investigated this subject was Phere-
2x2

522

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

cydes ; but according to Diogenes Laertius, it
was Thales. The followers pf Spcrates, hew-
ever, did the mest for this doctrine, and espe
cially Plato, in his Phacdon. The Platonic ar
guments are found collected in the Tusculan
Questions of Cicero (i. 23), and also briefly
stated in his Treatise, De Senectute, c. 21, seq.
With regard to these proofs, it is difficult for us,
with our present ideas, to see how the soul, se
parated from the body, could maintain its own
subsistence or personality, since, according to
Plato, it is only a part of the soul of the world,
to which, after death, it will return.
There were, however, some among the Gre
cians who denied, or at least doubted, the im
mortality of the soul. Among these was Epi
curus. The stoics contended, indeed, for the
continuance of the soul after death, but not for
its absolute immortality, with regard to which
they were accustomed to speak doubtfully; as,
for example, Seneca often does in his epistles.
The opinions of Aristotle on this subject are
doubtful ; many of his disciples have concluded
from his principles that the soul is not immoT-
tal — e. g., among his old followers, Dicaearchus ;
among the later Aristotelians, Averrhoes, in the
twelfth century, and Peter Pomponatius, in the
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in his book,
" De Animi Immortalitate," edited anew by
Prof. Christi. Gottfr. Bardili; Tubingen, 1791,
8vo. He endeavours in this work to shew that,
according to the principles of the Averrhoistic-
Aristotelian philosophy, the immortality of the
soul cannot be demonstrated on natural grounds.
Even among Christians there have been some
who have denied the immortality of the soul.
There was, for example, an Arabian teacher, in
the third century, against whom Origen wrote,
who maintained that the soul dies with the
body, but is again raised with it at the last day ;
an opinion which was revived in the seventeenth
century by William Coward, a London physi
cian. Still more strange is the opinion of H.
Dodwell, who, in a work published in London,
1706, contended that souls are naturally mortal,
but become immortal only by means of Chris
tian baptism.
The opinions of some of the grosser materi
alists of modern times are well known — e. g.,
of Toland, Helvetius, de la Mettrie, and the
author of the Systeme de la Nature, who were
followed in this by many of the so-called philo
sophers who wrote during the French Revolu
tion ; also many of the sceptics, who thought
nothing could be determined on this subject —
e. g., Hume.
A few words respecting these philosophic ar
guments themselves. It has been justly re
marked by philosophers of modern times, espe
cially by Wolf, that three things are involved
in the immortality of the soul: (a) the uninter

rupted continuance of the substance of the soul ;
(4) the centinuance ef its ccnscinusness ; and
consequently (c) the lasting recollection of the
soul, that its state after death is a consequence
of that which preceded. This is very true ; but
long before these philosophers wrote, all these
points were taught in the Christian dectrine, as
we have already seen in s. 148. Cf. the single
passage, Luke, xvi.
These philosophical proofs are either meta
physical — i. e., drawn from the idea which we
have of the ncdure and attributes of the human
soul ; or moral — i. e. deduced from the relation
between God and the human soul, or, which is
the same thing, from the attributes and designs
of Gpd, and the destination of man as a moral
being, as learned from the attributes of Gpd.
The foundation for all these arguments was laid
by the Greeks, and by those who drew imme
diately from them. In modern times, however,
they have been revised and rendered more ac
curate, and better adapted to the prevailing sys
tems of philosophy.
(1) The metaphysical proofs are derived from
the simple nature of the soul, (its immateriali
ty,) from its inherent and essential activity, and
from the maxim that simple things and elemen
tary powers do not perish. Vide Cic. de Se
nectute, 21, seq. None but God can destroy
the essential being of the soul ; but it cannot be
shewn that he either will destroy it or wishes
so to do. But from this argument nothing more
than the bare possibility of the immortality of
the soul could be shewn. But this possibility,
if it depends merely upon the will of God, is
quite as obvious, even if the soul has not that
absolutely simple nature which is ascribed to
it. In general, a complete metaphysical proof
is impossible, because we know so little of the
true nature of the soul. The doctrine of the
simplicity of the human soul, in the strict philo
sophical sense of this term, is a mere philoso
phical hypothesis. Vide s. 51, I. 3, note.
(2) The moral proofs are far more conclusive,
though still not strong enough wholly to exclude
all doubt and solicitude. Vide the introductory
remarks to s. 148. Some of these moral proofs
were urged by Plato and Cicero, in the passages
above cited. The supposition of the mortality
of the soul contradicts all our ideas of the attri
butes of God — his wisdom, goodness, and jus
tice. Is the duration of man limited to the pre
sent life, then the destination of man, and the
designs of God with regard to him, are the most
inexplicable riddle, and everything is full of
contradictions. But if this life is not the last,
decisive state of man, but is to be regarded only
as a state of education, trial, purification, and
preparation for a future life, then the plan and
connexion of things becomes clear and obvious.
We are moral beings, and find in our souls capa-

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 523

cities for ever increasing moral improvement,
and we feel a longing after immortality, in order
to make higher advances in that moral and spi
ritual perfection in which the attainments of the
best during the present life are so imperfect.
These capacities and this longing are to be re
garded as promises from the Creator. For
were they never to be satisfied, he would not
have placed them in the soul, as it could not
have been his design to deceive us. If our
souls are not immortal, then the beasts, which
have merely an animal nature, and no rational
and moral part, are far better in their condition
than we, to whom a higher destination has
plainly been given ; for they can develop their
constitutional capacities, and can satisfy the
innate propensities of their natures. And shall
not we, the nobler creation of God, be able to
develop the far more perfect spiritual and moral
powers which he has given us, and to satisfy
our spiritual wants ?
The whole system of the rights and duties of
moral beings would appear to be a web of incon
gruities if the present life were the only one.
And, in fine, the disorder and injustice which
are obvious in the destiny of men in their earthly
life almost irresistibly compel us to admit this
doctrine to be true, and to console ourselves in
the midst of these disorders by the belief of it.
The manifest disorders of the present state oc-
casiened great difficulty te all thinking men ef
fprmer times, whe did not fully and distinctly
admit the truth of a future life and future retri
bution. Vide Job, xxiv. 1, seq.; Eccles. viii.
10, il, 14; ix. 1—3. Vide s. 71, especially
No. VI. ad finem. Cf. L. H. Jacob, Beweis
fur die Unsterblichkeit der Seele aus dem Be-
griffe der Pflicht; Zullichau, 1790, 8vo. This
proof is drawn out oh the principles of the Kant
ian philosophy, and was written in answer to
the prize-question proposed by the Stolpic In
stitute at Leiden, " Whether there are any du
ties which, on grounds of reason, a man would
feel himself bound to perform if he did not be
lieve the soul to be immortal ?"
Note. — The following are some of the princi
pal modern writers on the immortality of the
soul : — Clark, Sherlock, Addison, Reinbeck,
Canz, Reimarus, Vornehmste Wahrheiten der
naturiichen Religion, 10 Abhand. Spalding,
Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Jerusalem,
Betrachtungen uber die Wahrheiten der Reli
gion, th. 1, 6 Beytr. Noesselt, Vertheidigung
der christlichen Religion. Mendelsohn, Phae-
don. Villette, Unterredungen uber die Gluck-
seligkeit des kiinftingen Lebens. Kant, Kri-
tik der praktischen Vernunft, and the work of
Jacob above cited. The history of this doctrine
has been given by Oporin, Franz, Cotta, Hen-
nings, and Flugge, with which cf. Struvius,
Historia Doctr. Grecor et Romanorum Philos.

de Statu Animarum post Mortem ; Alten, 1803,
8vo. Simon, Geschichte des Glaubens an die
Fortdauer der Seele nach dem Tode, an Ges-
penster, u. s. w ; Heilbronu, 1804, 8vo. Nic.
Aug. Herrich, Sylloge Scriptorum de Spiritibus
Puris et Animabus Humanis Earumque Mate-
rialitate, Immortalitate, et Statu post Mortem,
deque Anima Bestiarum; Regensburg, 1 790, 8vo.
[Matth. Claudius. Wandsbecker, Bote, th.
v. Hahn, Lehrbuch. s. 634, ff., and his history
of this doctrine, s. 641, ff.— Tr.]
SECTION CL.
OF SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE VARI
OUS OPINIONS RESPECTING THE PLACE OF DE
PARTED SOULS, AND THEIR CONDITION THERE.
I. The Place of their Abode.
(1) Among many rude nations, and also
among some which are cultivated, (e. g., in
America, Thibet, and Hihdostan,) the opinion
is found to prevail that the soul passes from one-
body into another, sometimes another human
body, sometimes that of beasts, or even into
plants and trees. This was called fisf sfi4d>z«ffis,
by Pliny, transfiguratio. Originally this trans
migration of souls was not regarded as a matter
of retribution, or as a means of purification.
This turn was not given to the doctrine until a
period of higher cultivation. It came to be un
derstood in this light, for example, by Pytha
goras and Plato among the Greeks. The belief
in this doctrine seems rather to have rested, at
first, upon a certain supposed analogy in nature,
where one body is observed always to pass into
another, and even when it seems to perish only
alters its form and returns in a different shape.
This belief may have also sprung in part from
the almost universal idea that every thing in
the whole creation is animated by a soul, espe
cially everything possessing an internal life and
power of motion — e. g., plants.
This doctrine of the transmigration of souls
has also been held in modern times by many of
the Jews. Vide Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Ju-
denthum, th. ii. c. 61. It cannot, however, be
shewn that this opinion prevailed among the
Jews at the time of Christ, particularly among
the Pharisees, either by the passages of the
New Testament cited in favour of it, or by those
from Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 2 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 12.
Among Christians, this notion has met with
but little favour ; and it has without reason been
ascribed to the Gnostics, Manicheans, and even
to Origen. The reason of its being ascribed to
the latter was his belief in the pre-existence of
the soul (vide s. 57, II. 1) — a belief which in
some philosophical systems is intimately con
nected with the doctrine of the transmigration
of the soul. Since the seventeenth centurv this

524

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

has been again regarded as a probable doctrine,
on account of some analogy in the material
world, and has been again advocated by Hel-
mont, Edel mann, Lessing, (Erziehung des Men-
schengesphlechts.) \_Notc. — The doctrine cf the transmigratien
of spuls has received new light from the inves
tigations which have been made of late in East
ern literature. A deeply interesting exhibition
of this subject is given by Fred. Schlegel in his
"Philosophie der Geschichte," b. i. s. 147. He
there shews that this is one of the most funda
mental doctrines of faith in the Eastern world —
that it rests upon a religious basis, and even in
the earliest periods was connected with the idea
of retribution and sanctification. The soul, it
is supposed, after having been soiled and cor
rupted by its contact with the body and the
world, must expiate its sins by wandering, for
an appointed cycle, through various forms of
uncongenial matter. By enduring these penal
sufferings for a long time it becomes purified,
and prepared to mingle again in the original,
pure fountain from which it proceeded. At the
bottom of this whole belief lies the deep and
just feeling, that after man has wandered so far
from God, in order to approach him again he
must travel with great labour through a long
and dreary way ; and also the conviction, that
nothing which is imperfect or stained with sin
can enter into the pure werld pf blessed spirits,
or be for ever united with Ged. — Tr.]
(2) Far mpre general was the opinion among
the ancient nations that the abode of departed
spirits is under the earth ,- because the dead are
laid beneath the ground, and their body returns
to the dust. The souls there separated from
their bodies were regarded as a sort of aerial
beings, or shades, (siSuXa, umbrx.) Vide s. 66,
II. coll. s. 59, 1. Taken as a whole, the ancient
Eastern nations and the Greeks agreed in this
point; while still it is not necessary to suppose
that the latter borrowed their ideas from the
former. This place was denominated by the Hebrews
l?wsi, by the Greeks, aSns — the word by which
the LXX. always translate Ww. The term
aSijs is explained by Plutarch (De Is. et Osir.)
by dEiSfs, dopafov, dark, where one sees nothing.
It is allegorically explained by Plato, in his
Cratylus, as the invisible world, because the
place is unseen. Neither of these terms is used
in the scriptures to signify exactly the grave,
still less the place qf the damned; nor are they
used in this sense by any of the fathers in the
first three centuries. Vide s. 96, 1. The same
place is called among the Hebrews ynwi ntwin,
as in Homer, vitb yalav, vitb xsi^sgi yaias, and
the entrance to it is placed by the Greeks in the
extreme west. Where the sun goes down, and
his light and fire are extinguished, there, it was

naturally supposed, is the place where all things
perish, and where darkness reigns.
Both the Hebrews and Greeks describe this
under-world as a great kingdom, and both use
the phrase, gates qf death, or Hades. Cf. Homer.
Here, according to the ideas of men in the ear-
liest ages, the shades of the good and the bad
dwell together, without any distinction or any
marked separation. Thus it is where hmf is
introduced in the Old Testament — e. g., Is. xiv.,
where there is a kind of distinction of rank, and
kings sit upon thrones ; but where nothing de
finite and clear is said respecting a distinction
in the places of the pious and the wicked. Thus
in Homer, too, even those who are punished are
in the same place with the other shades, Odys.
xi. 575, seq.
But after a time these places in the lower
world were divided, and the residences of the
righteous and the wicked were conceived of as
separate. Thus Tartarus among the Greeks,
which, during the time of Homer and Hesiod,
was regarded merely as the prison of the Titans,
became gradually the universal abode of the
damned. So. it is with Plato and others, who
are followed by Virgil, jEn. vi. In the same
way did the conceptions of the Jews on this
subject become more developed in later periods.
According to Luke, xvi. 23 — 26, both the rich
man and Lazarus are in Hades, but a wide gulf,
(xdg/ia ftlya,) as it is figuratively represented
in the parable, separates the fields of the blessed
from the place of the damned ; no one may or
can pass from the one to the other. The Jews
too, in imitation of the Greeks, called the place
of punishment, where wicked men and angels
are reserved unto the day of judgment, Tdpf apos.
Vide Joseph. Bell. Jud.ii.7; 2Pet.ii.4; Where
Tapfapdw appears. Cf. s. 63, II.
From this it appears that the sacred writers
retained the phraseology common among their
contemporaries, in order to be more easily un
derstood by them, and to make a stronger im
pression upon their minds. They, however,
used all this only in the way of figure and figu
rative representation, by which they designed
to set forth the most important truths with re
gard to the state of departed spirits ; as any one
may see from Luke, xvi., 2 Pet. ii., &c.
The whole kingdom of the dead is described
by the ancients in a threefold method — viz., (a)
as a dark, desolate, silent region, the land of
forgetful ness, rest, and inactivity; since the
dead rest silently in the grave under the earth,
and are cut off from all connexion with the liv
ing world. Cf. the texts cited from the Ofd
Testament, s. 149, II. (in init.) This gave
rise to the idea respecting the sleep qf the soul
in after times. (4) Again it was described as
a kingdom full of motion and activity, and as
resembling as nearly as possible the present

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 525

world. Cf. Isaiah, xiv. (c) But in process of
time these two representations were connected
together in a great variety of ways.
Now the sacred writers, and Christ himself,
often make use of figurative expressions, bor
rowed from these ideas, though they also fre
quently exchange them for others which are
more literal. Thus what Christ represents in
Luke, xxi., under the image of a steep walled
grave, he describes elsewhere without a figure —
viz., that the states of men in the future world
will be very diverse, but exactly apportioned,
both as to happiness and misery, according to
their conduct in this life; and that it will not
depend upon the choice of men to pass from
one state to the other. Cf. Matt. xxv. The
hindrances here are as great and insurmountable
as a deep chasm is to one who would pass from
one place to another. Cf. s. 148, 1.
The ancient languages were still more defi
cient than those of the present day in philoso
phically definite expressions for objects beyond
the cognizance of the senses. Indeed, many
things could not be so much as conceived of
without a symbolical representation; hence
such are often found even in the writings of
Plato, and other Grecian philosophers. Ac
cording to this method, one could not indeed
teach in so exact and definite a manner ; but he
would make a stronger impression upon the
feelings and desires, and succeed better in
awakening religious dispositions among those
who were unacquainted with philosophical lan
guage. This hint is very important for the re
ligious teacher. If he follows the method of
instruction pursued in schools of philosophy,
and adopts their phraseology, he will accom
plish but little, and often be entirely unintelli
gible to his hearers. He must follow the ex
ample of the Bible, and make use alternately
of figurative and literal representations. In fact,
the whole representation of the invisible world
must be figurative and symbolical, even when
we make use of the most literal expressions in
our power. It is all a mere comparison of the
invisible world with something like it in the
world of sense. For what the apostle said,
"eye hath not seen, ear hath not heard," &c,
is literally true in application to this subject.
With regard to Orcus, and the different views
entertained on this subject among Christians,
cf. Cotta, De Inferno ejusque Sede; Tubingen,
1775. As to the ideas of the Hebrews, ef. the
works of Ziegler and Ammon, Ueber das Tod-
tenreich der Hebreer; Erlangen, 1792. Cf.
also, an Excursus of Heyne on the fourth
.lEneid, and other works cited below.
jfote  To any unprejudiced observer it can
not but appear a great excellence in the Bible,
and especially in the New Testament, that it
takes no part in the absurd conceptions which

have often prevailed on this subject, and from
which the greatest philosophers are not alto
gether free — e. g., Plato. And, on the other
hand, the Bible is equally deserving of praise
for not exhibiting pure truths in metaphysical
language, and making them the object of dry
and curious speculation, but, on the contrary,
in the highest degree intelligible, so that their
practical application is obvious to every one.
(3) But many believed that departed souls
remain in or about the graves or dwellings of
the dead, either for ever, or for a long time. So
many nations of different-degrees of cultivation.
The opinion was formerly very widely diffused,
that departed spirits linger for a long time
around the dead body, or at least sometimes
return to it from the kingdom of the dead ; and
hence, in part, the belief in spectres, s. 66, II.
These ideas prevailed to some extent among
the Jews and many Christians ; and even at the
Concil. Iliberit in the year 313, it is forbidden
to kindle a light in burying-grounds, lest the
spirits of the saints should be disturbed.
II. Opinions respecting the state of Departed Souls.
(1) It is apparent from what has been said,
that, according to the ideas of the ancients, the
employments,- the state and life of departed
souls, resemble the life of men in this upper
world — an idea in which many germs of truth
are involved. We find nothing said respecting
the sleep of the soul either in the Old or New
Testaments, nor in the earliest monuments of
other nations. Vide s. 148. Quite as foreign
from the conceptions of the earliest periods is
the idea that the dead have no recollection of
their earthly life, and take no interest in human
affairs. The opposite of this is clear from the
earliest records — e. g., from Homer (Odys. xi.
coll. II. xxii. 389, 390), and from the holy
scriptures, (Is. xiv., Luke, xvi.) It was for
this reason that so many nations believed that
the dead sometimes return, appear to men, and
have personal intercourse with the living. And
hence too the error of invoking the saints. These
superstitious conclusions, however, are not fa
voured by the doctrine of Christ. Vide Luke,
xvi. 27— 31.
It was very natural, even for nations having
no direct revelation, to come to the thought that
the shades in Hades recognise each other, have
mutual intercourse, and perpetuate the friend
ship begun in the present life. This idea
might, indeed, like many others, have been
abstracted from the mere phantoms of a dream.
For in dreams our departed friends appear to
be cognizable, as Patroclus did to Achilles,
even as to his eyes, voice, and stature, II. xxiii.
66, seq. 107. This may be justified also by an
appeal to scripture, Luke, xvi. ; Heb. xii. 23,
and Revelation. The soul, indeed, is no longer

526

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

regarded as a fine material substance, as it often
was in ancient times ; but these delightful views
lose nothing on this account, as some have most
unphilosophically supposed. For one may be
recognised otherwise thari by his body, and
may be loved, too, otherwise than corporeally.
Why then should not departed souls recognise
each other, even when they no longer possess
bodies ?
(2) In the childhopd of nations, the ideas of
men have been commonly very vague and inde
finite with regard to the happy or miserable state
of departed souls. Cf. Meiners, Geschichte der
Religionen, s. 174 — 178. With regard to what
the Israelites in the earliest times knew on this
subject, while they yet "saw the promises in an
obscure distance, cf. s. 149, II. Many of the
heathen nations represented the state of the
dead, not indeed as wholly miserable ; still they
regarded it as not altogether desirable, and often
as rather worse than better, in comparison with
their state in this world. Achilles in Hades
does not speak of death very favourably, but
would rather till the field on earth, as a day
labourer, than rule all the hdsts of the shades ;
Odys. xi. 487. For the Elysium in Homer is
not as yet the residence of the departed souls of
men, but only the abode of heroes or demigods.
But by degrees they advanced to more en
larged and correct conceptions. The Greeks
then supposed that good men participate here
after in the joys of Elysium, and that crimes
are punished in Hades. At first, however, only
the grosser offences were supposed liable to
punishment there, and in Homer, one offence
only— perjury ; II. iii. 278 ; xix. 259, 260. This
indicates the great simplicity and the very de
fective ideas on moral subjects which still pre
vailed, since only the very grossest crimes were
regarded as worthy of punishment. After
wards, in the greater advance of cultivation, and
the higher perfection of moral ideas, the number
of crimes punished in Hades was very much
increased ; and at length it was believed that
every virtue is there rewarded and every vice
punished. So it is represented by Plato, and
other Grecian philosophers ; so also, in imita
tion of them, by Virgil, JUneid, vi. Vide Heyne,
Excurs. 1 and 8.
A gradual development of ideas is also no
ticed among the Israelites. In general, the
great multitude among them, as among other
people, formed very gross conceptions respect
ing the joys and pains following death, and re
garded them as merely corporeal, since they
were unable to conceive of any other. Many
understood literally the expressions, to be in
Abraham's bosom, to sit down at table with Abra
ham, Isaac, and Jacob; the more enlightened,
however, used them only as figurative expres
sions, as Christ himself always understood and

explained them in his instructions — e. g., Luke,
xvi. (3) The doctrine respecting an intermediate
state of departed souls, and respecting purga
tory., Cf. s. 148, III., and Morus, p. 290.
Such a state, in which the fate of men is unde
cided until the day of judgment — a state which
is neither heaven nor hell, neither being blessed
nor damned, was supposed by many of the
church fathers — e. g., Justin the Martyr, Ire
naeus, and Tertullian. Only some eminent
saints and martyrs, it was supposed, come at
once into heaven ; and only the grossest sinners
go at once into hell. This intermediate state
they call, taking the appellation from Luke,
xvi., Sinum Abrahami. To this they referred
the text, 1 Pet. iii. 19, f d iv fvXaxy itvsipata.
Vide s. 96. Thither Christ went, and rescue'd
from thence the patriarchs and other pious men
who had died before his atonement was made.
This place was afterwards called limbus (supe
rior or exterior pars inferni) patrum ,- and a lim
bus infantium was also supposed (and is still
believed by the Romish church) into which
children go, because they are not actually con'
demned, having committed no peccata adualia,
while still, in consequence of original sin, tbey
are unable to attain to the blessed vision of
God. The foundation for the doctrine of purgatory
is found even in the second and third centuries.
Its origin may be traced back to the Pythago
rean or Platonic philosophy. Souls, according
to Plato, are a part of the divine nature, which,
however, are confined in the body, as in a pri
son. Vide s. 74, 1, ad finem. Now, even after
the soul of man is disembodied, there still
cleaves to it much sin and impurity, acquired
from its contact with the body, and this im
purity is regarded by Plato as a natural sick
ness. It cannot therefore, immediately on leav
ing the body, return again to its original source.
With some, the disorder is incurable, and these
are the lost, who go at once to Tartarus ,- with
others, it is curable, and these are purged and
purified in Hades. This process Plato com
pared with purification (xa>opsis) by water, air,
and fire; and represented this state as an inter
mediate one. Vide Plato, Phaedon, c. 62 ; and
Virgil, Mneii, vi. 735—751, and Heyne, Ex-
cur, xiii.
This, with many other Platonic doctrines and
fables, was early transferred to Christianity.
We find traces of it among the Gnostics, (ac
cording to the testimony of Irenaeus, ii.51,seq.,)
in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, in the
second century, and of Origen, in the third. But
after the fourth century it was more widely dif
fused through the Latin church. It is found
in Hieronymus, Lactantius, Ambrosius, and
even Augustine; the latter of whom, however,

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 527

though he speaks of ignis purgatorius, regards
the subject as doubtful. In the sixth century
this doctrine was taught by Gregory the Great,
in the eighth by Beda, Boniface, and others. It
was supposed that those Christians only who
commit no deliberate sin after baptism are ex
empt from this punishment, or such as become
martyrs, or who, by assuming the monastic life,
have made atonement for their sins. Gross of
fenders — those who, according to Plato, are
irrecoverably disordered, pass immediately after
death into hell. Those who have not sinned so
grossly, (who are recoverable,) or whose repent
ance commences in the present life, but remains
imperfect, although they are not eternally con
demned, yet do not attain at once to the enjoy
ment of God. Such persons, it was supposed,
need to be purified and to make expiation for
their sins by the endurance of certain penalties
appointed by God, conceived of under the image
of purifying by fire. The advocates of this view
endeavoured to support it by such texts of scrip
ture as the following — viz., 1 Cor. iii. 13, (as
by fire ;) Jude, ver. 23 ; Malachi, iii. 2 ; 2 Mace.
xii. 39.
This doctrine became connected with many
opinions and practices equally unscriptural, es
pecially with offering prayer for the dead, and
making satisfaction to relieve them from punish
ment ; and also with the doctrine of the Lord's
Supper as a sacrifice for the dead — a doctrine
which prevailed during the eleventh and twelfth
centuries ; at which time, also, masses offered
in order to free souls from purgatory became
common. As early as the eleventh century, the
feast of all souls was appointed by Pope John
XVIII. This doctrine was now adopted by the
schoolmen into their systems — e. g., by Peter
of Lombardy, Thomas Aquinas,' and others.
The most frightful representations were given
of purgatory, founded upon stories of the appa
rition of souls from thence, &c The theolo
gians, too, contended respecting the place, man
ner, and duration of this punishment. And the
council at Florence, in 1439, gave this doctrine
the authority of a formal article of faith. As
such, it still continues in the Romish church,
and was re-established by the council at Trent.
This doctrine, however, of the Romish church
respecting purgatory, as it has been gradually
developed by the schoplmen, and as it was es
tablished by the ceuncil at Flnrence, differs in
twn essential points from the old Platonic no
tion which was adopted by Origen and other
church fathers— viz., (a) According to Origen
and the Platonists, all without exception are
subjected to this purification, although some
need it more, and others less. But according
to the opinion of the Romish church, those only
go into purgatory who, though they have been
baptized and believe, are not of perfect virtue.

(4) According to Origen and the Platonic idea,
the whole design of this suffering is to promote
the moral improvement and perfection of men;
but according to the conception of the Romish
church, it is designed to make atonement and
expiation for sin.
Note — Works on this subject, (a) Histori
cal: Jac. Windet, Xtpapatsvs titiatoxixbs de
Vita Functorum Statu ex Hebraeorum et Grae-
corum comparatis Sententiis concinnatus; Lon-
dini, 1663 — 64. Systeme des Anciens et des
Modernes sur l'Etat des Ames separees de
Corps ; a, Londres, 1757, 2 torn. 8vo. Thom.
Burnet, De Statu Mortuorum et Resurgentium;
London, 1757; against which, and in behalf of
the Remish dpctrine, there were treatises writ
ten by Muratori, Columna, and others. Baum-
garten, Hist. Doctrinae de Statu Animarum se-
paratarum ; Halas, 1754. Cotta, Recentiores
qusedam Controversiae de Statu Animi post
Mortem; Tubingen, 1758. (4) Philosophical
and doctrinal works : Wernsdorf, De Animarum
separatarum Statu, earumdemque cum Vivis
commercio, in his "Collec. Disputt" torn. i.
Np. 15. The best and latest works on the state
of the soul after death are collected by Loscher,
Dresden, 1735. Meier, Philosophische Be-
trachtung vom Zustande der Seele nach dem
Tode; Halle, 1769. J. E. Schubert, Gedanken
vom ewigen Leben, und Zustand der Seele nach
dem Tode; Jena, 1747. J. C. Lavater, Aus-
sichten in die Ewigkeit; Zurich, 1773, 3 th.
8vo. Other works are cited s. 160.
SECTION CLI.
WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD BY THE "RESURRECTION
OF THE DEAD ;" THE MEANING OF THE WORD
"RESURRECTION;" AND WHAT IS TAUGHT RE
SPECTING IT BY THE JEWS.
I. What is understood by the Resurrection of the
Dead.
By this is meant, the revivification of the hu
man body after it has been forsaken by the
soul, or, the reunion of the soul hereafter with
the body which it had occupied in the present
world. Death was compared with sleep, and
the dead body with a sleeping person, D^DSty,
xoiprfcsvtss, s. 147, 1. Hence the terms which
literally signify to awake, to rise up, to rise out
of sleep, are also used to denote the resurrection
of the lifeless body — e. g., in Hebrew, the
terms Dip, D<pn, and in Hellenistic Greek, dvl
atnui, dvdgtagis, (with the Rabbins, npipri),
Hyslpu, and EyEpffis ex vsxpuv. Of the literal
sense of these terms, examples may be found
everywhere; cases of the derived signification
occur where these terms are used with the qua
lification ix vsxpuv-i-e. g., where the resurrec
tion of Christ is spoken of, and that of others

S28

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

whose body is to be restored like his. Vide
John, v. 21, 28; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4, 20, 53.
The Jews were also accustomed to speak of
the resurrectien ef the dead under the image ef
a new pr second birth, tp which they were led
by the passage Is. xxvi. 19, "The earth will
again bring forth her dead." Vide Michaelis's
Commentary en Heb. i. 5. Again, dvlgtqui
was used even by the ancient classical Greeks
te denete the returning ef the dead to life. So
it was in Homer, II. xxi. 54, seq., where
Achilles says, " What a wonder ! all the Tro
jans slain by me shall again arise from the
kingdom of the dead, (dvagtqgovtai.)" Cf. II.
xxiv. 756. Cicere and Livy designate this idea
by the phrase a4 inferis exsistere. In -ffischy-
lus, the term dvdgtagis is used for the same
thing. But the same terms which signify arising,
and the being awakened from sleep, also denote
figuratively, (1) a restoratipn tp a mpre happy
cendition, in opposition to a state of fall and
prostration. In this general sense they are used
in two ways — viz., physically — e. g., a sick
man rising from his bed and recovering his
health is said dvdgtnvai, Is. xxxviii. 9 ; and
again in a moral sense, used with reference to
the reformation of a man who rises from his fall.
And so (2) the terms resurrection from the dead,
and being raised from the dead, denote, figura
tively, (a) external and physical restoration to
a happy condition, death being the representa
tive of misery, and life of happiness — e. g., Is.
xxvi. 19, 20; Ezek. xxxvii.; where the subject
is the restoration of the Jews after a long and
terrible persecution, and the reward of the vir
tuous. Cf. Dathe, a. 1. (4) A moral restora
tion or renovation of men — e. g., Eph. v. 14,
EyEipE .... dvagta ix vsxpuv, coll. i. 19, 20, and
Rom. viii. 10, &c.
II. Doctrine of the Jews respecting the Resurrec
tion of the Dead.
(1) There are obvious traces of the doctrine
that the soul will survive the body, even in the
oldest Jewish writings, (vide s. 149, II. ;) but
ef the doctrine, that the body will hereafter be
raised to life and the whole man be restored,
there are no very clear intimations in the ear
liest writings. There is nothing in these writ
ings which is inconsistent with such a doctrine,
or opposed to it ; but neither, on the other hand,
was there, in those early ages, any distinct in
formation or revelation communicated on this
subject. The passage, Job, xix. 25, seq., is in
deed cited in behalf of this opinion, and such a
construction of this passage is strenuously vin
dicated by Michaelis and Schultens. Accord
ing to the Vulgate, which Luther for the most
part follows, this passage very clearly teaches
this doctrine ; and many persons, having been

accustomed to this rendering from their youth,
are startled by any doubts with respect to it.
But, (a) It is remarkable, that neither the ancient
Jewish teachers, nor Christ or his apostles, ever
appealed to this passage which appears so plain
to us. This explanation, therefore, appears to
have been unknown to them, nor can there be
found any trace of it in the Septuagint.
(4) It is not in itself probable that this doc
trine should have been at once so clearly re
vealed in so ancient a writing. This would be
contrary to all analogy. For knowledge of this
kind has always been gradually developed, and
the revelations made to man follow in regulai
gradation one after another.
(c) If Job had such distinct expectations and
hopes, it is hard to account for it that he did not
earlier express them, that he did not oftener
console himself with them, and that he con
stantly recurs to his old complaints and doubts,
which would have been entirely set aside and an
swered by the knowledge of any such doctrine.
(d) Nor can it be accounted for that his
friends should have replied nothing to the state
ment of such a doctrine as this, since they take
up, one by one, all his remarks, his complaints,
and his consolations, and refute them. Would
they, now, have passed by unnoticed this most
important of all his arguments?
(e) From many passages in the book of Job
it is clear that he was indeed acquainted with a
life after death (he speaks of Ssitf) ; but there
is no satisfactory evidence that he believed in a
state of retribution beyond the grave. Vide
ch. xiv. 7—12; vii. 6; ix. 25; xvii. 11—16;
xvi. 22, seq.
(/) The common translation of this passage,
according to which it is made to teach se plainly
the dectrine ef the resurrectien, dees vielence to
the werds of the original, and is contrary to the
whole usus loquendi of the Bible. This Mi
chaelis perceived. He therefore alters the text
and, by a comparison with the ancient dialects,
makes out an artificial rendering, according to
which the passage treats pf the resurrectien.
The most natural construction of this passage
is, to understand it as relating to Job's restora
tion to health and recovery from sickness, which
he so ardently wished and hoped for. Vide
Morus, p. 293. This text would then be illus
trated by one still more plain in the same book,
viz., ch. xlii. 25. He refutes the national preju
dice which his friends were continually object
ing against him, that sickness and other external
calamities are always to be regarded as the con
sequence of sins committed by the sufferer. He
pleads that even piety and rectitude are not al
ways exempt from these calamities. It is on
this account that he cherishes the hope, which
he elsewhere expresses, that God will justify

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 529

him in the view pf his enemies and accusers, by
an entire restoration; and this hope becomes
here so strong that it leads him to look upon his
recovery as certain. Cf. Eichhorn's Essay,
Hiob's Hoffnungen, in his " Allgemeinen Bibli-
othek. derbiblischen Literatur," b. i. s. 367 ; also
Henke, Narratio Critica de Interpretatione loci,
Job, xix. 25, 27, in Antiqna Ecclesia, Helms t
1783, 4to., {in his " Opusc")
According to this view, the text may be trans
lated as follows: — "I know that my Redeemer
lives. And ere long, he, who now lies in the
dust, will arise, (he who is deeply bowed down
by sickness and pain will recover;) although
my skin is consumed, I shall yet in this body see
God, (i. e., have in him a, gracious God, be
blessed and restored by him;) as a friend shall
I see him, and no more as an adversary. I wait,
full of longing desire, for his help. Then shall
ye say, when my innocence is clear, why did
we persecute this man ?" Ilgen, in his work,
"Jobi antiquissimi carminis Hebraici natura
atque virtutes," p. 161, seq., thus translates:
" Vivit, scio enim, causae meae patronus. Qui
contemtus in pulvere jacet, victor caput attolet.
Hffirebo adhuc in cute, dira hac vi contusa : ex
hac cuticula videbo Deum. Quern ego mihi
videbo propitium, quem hisce oculis cernam
animo non alienatum. O quam enecat renes
desiderii ardor !"
There are no distinct intimations of the doc
trine of the resurrection of the body in the writ
ings of Moses, or in the Psalms ; for Ps. xlix.
15, does not relate to this subject, still less does
Ps. civ. 29, 30, though cited by Theodoret as
one of the proof-texts of this doctrine. Isaiah
is the first writer who compares the restoration
of the Jewish people and state with a resurrec
tion from the dead; ch. xxvi. 19, 20. In this
he was followed by Ezekiel at the time of the
exile, ch. xxxvii. From these passages, we must
conclude that something respecting this doctrine
was known at that time among the Israelites ;
still they do not seem to have seen it in that
clear light in which it was afterwards revealed ;
since in that case the prophets would probably
have mentioned it oftener and more distinctly in
their writings. But the text, Dan. xii. 2, leads
very plainly to this doctrine, for here is some
thing more than a mere civil restoration. " Those
who lie asleep under the earth will awake; some
te eternal life, ethers te everlasting shame and
•contempt" Judging then from the writings of the Jews,
they appear to have been destitute of any com
plete knowledge of this doctrine until the exile,
and indeed for a considerable period after. Still,
there is nothing in the Old Testament which
contradicts this doctrine, it is only not plainly
revealed. For where it is said, (e. g., Psalm
Ixxxviii. 10,) "that the dead shall not rise again

and praise God," it is plainly meant that they
will never return to this upper world, and into
the society of men living upon the earth ; they
can never again, in company with us, and in the
circle of the living, praise God. Cf. Ps. vi. 6,
xxx. 10; Is. xxxviii. 18, coll. ver. 20.
(2) It was not, then, until the Babylonian
exile, and more especially after this period, that
this doctrine was developed and diffused among
the Jews. We are not acquainted with the more
particular occasion which led to this develop
ment, or what prophets or teachers after Daniel
were employed in giving this doctrine a wider
circulation. For just in this place there is a
great gap in the doctrinal history of the Jews,
since no writings of the prophets or teachers of
this period have come down to us. So much
only is known on this subject from the informa
tion whieh'has come down to us — viz.,
(a) About the time when the Jews came under
the Grecian dominion, the doctrine of a future
retribution was more developed among them
than it had before been, and was employed by
them in a practical way, as a means of consola
tion under suffering and persecution. Vide s.
149, II.
(4) It is known also, that even at that time
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body was
most intimately connected with the doctrine of
retribution. It was then taught that the perfect
and happy condition of man would first com
mence, when his soul should be hereafter united
again to his body. They did not therefore com
monly separate these two things in their concep
tions, but always connected the thought of the
continuance of the soul after death with the idea
of its future union with the body; indeed, they
supposed that the blessedness of man could not
be complete until his soul should be reunited to
his body. Hence they comprehend under the
term cwdsfaffis, the entire future condition of
man. For according to the doctrine of the Jews,
with which the holy scriptures accord, man is
not merely in this life a being cemppunded pf
sense and reasen, but he will continue the same
in the life te ccme, except only that, in the case
of the good, there will be none of that prepon
derance of sense over reason which has its foun
dation in our earthly bodies. Cf. the Essay,
" De nexu resurrectionis J. C. e mortuis et mor
tuorum," in Scripta Varii Argumenti, Num. ix.
Thus we find it, for the first time, in the se
cond bopk of Maccabees, where the martyrs are
made to expresss the hope, by which they were
consoled, of a coming resurrection — e. g., vii. 9,
fis aiwviov dvaftuogiv £uijs ' rjpds dvafff rjffsi,
and ver. 14, itdxiv drasfr/ffEe&ai vitb ©eov, and
dvdgtaais sis £<otjj', also verses 23, 29, 36, but
especially chap. xii. 43 — 45, where it is said it
would be foolish to pray for the dead if they did
no*- rise again. And so we find, both among the
2Y

530

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

later Jewish and earlier Christian writers, that
there is np distinction made between immertality
and the resurrectien, but that bcth are ccnsidered
as the same thing. Vide the passages frem the
Rabbins cited in Schottgen's Her. Heb. ad Jeh.
v. It is the same frequently in the New Testa
ment — e. g., Matt xxii. 31, where the dvdgtagis
vsxpuv is argued frem the fact, that Gcd calls
himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
even after their death; although, according to
our present usage, in which resurrection and
immortality are distinguished, this fact would
only prove the continuance of the soul after
death. Again, 1 Cor. xv. 32, si vsxpol ovx
iysipovtai, tydyuusv xai liluusv, x. t. X. But
wherever dvdgtagis tfofiafos, or oapxds is
spoken of, the resurrection of the body and its
connexion with the soul are alone intended.
The Jews, therefore, would regard the resto
ration of man as incomplete unless his body
were restored. They believed the latter essential
to the entire restitution of man, because in the
present life he consists of both soul and body.
And as the body here participates in our virtues
and vices, and their consequences, so they sup
posed it would hereafter participate in our re
ward or punishment. Hence they represent the
intermediate state in which the soul exists with
out the bedy, as an imperfect state. It is cem-
pared by them te nakedness, (and the same is
dene by Plato,) e. g., in the Chaldaic para
phrases, Job, xxxviii. 14, &c. So Paul, ov
yvavol Evpr/^r/ffofiE^a, 2 Cor. v. 2 — 4.
The greater part of the Jews formed very
gross conceptions respecting the rewards and
enjoyments of the blessed in the future state, and
many of them perverted the doctrine of the re
surrection of the body to suit these conceptions.
For they were for the most part better acquainted
with the grosser corporeal pleasures than with
the higher spiritual joys, for which indeed they
had but little taste or capacity. They thus pic
tured to themselves the future life as entirely
resembling the present, except in being exempt
from all sufferings and unpleasant sensations.
They believed that men would eat and drink,
and satisfy their other animal appetites, in the
same way there as here. Doctrines like these.
were taught by many of the most distinguished
Rabbins who lived after the time of Christ, and
even by Maimonides. It is said in Rev. ii. 7,
and xxii. 2, 14, that the tree of life is placed in
heaven, and its fruit is there eaten, as the means
of obtaining immortality. This representation
is figurative; but many of the Jews understood
such descriptions literally, and believed in a
kind of food for angels or gods, like nectar and
ambrosia. It was against such gross material
representations, which have no necessary con
nexion with this doctrine, but which were often
associated with it, that the Sadducees directed

their wit; and they made these incongruities
ridiculous. This was their object when they
proposed to Jesus the case of the woman who
had several brothers, one after another in suc
cession, for husbands, Matthew, xxii. 24, seq.
Others, better instructed, separated from their
conceptions of the future state these grosser in
dulgences, and thus escaped this ridicule. They
taught that we shall hereafter possess a more
refined body, which will not be dependent for its
nourishment upon food, and which will not pro
pagate the race. This was the opinion of most
of the Pharisees at the time of Christ, and the
same was afterwards maintained by most of the
Jewish teachers. For when Christ said that
" the risen saints would not marry, but be as the
angels of God," the Pharisees entirely assented,
Matt. xxii. 30, coll. Luke, xx. 39, and the texts
cited from the Rabbins in Wetstein on Matt.
xxii. 30. With regard to the use of food, Paul
says expressly that it will entirely cease in the
future world, ©eos xotXiav xai ijpuiuara xaf apy77ff£i
— i. e., he will take them away, and enable us
to do without them.
The doctrine of the resurrection of the body
was therefore common among the Jews at the
time of Christ and the apostles. Vide Matt.
xxii. ; Luke, xx. ; Acts, xxiii. 6 — 8. So, in
John, xi. 24, the Jewess Martha speaks of the
resurrection of the dead as a thing well known
and undoubted. Josephus indeed (Ant. xviii.
2) expresses himself doubtfully with regard to
the Pharisees — " they believe that the soul is
immortal, and can easily return to life (dvafila-
ffai);" and again, (Bell. Jud. ii. 7,) "they
maintain that the souls of the pious pass into
other bodies, (fiEfaBaij/£iv sis stspov gupa.)"
Here Josephus, in his usual manner, so repre
sents designedly the Jewish doctrine, that the
Greeks and Romans, to whom the resurrection
of the body appeared absurd, should suppose
the transmigration of souls to be intended, while
at the same time the Jews should understand
that the resurrection of the dead was spoken of.
But from the texts cited from the New Testa
ment, it appears that the Pharisees, like the
other Jews, believed in a resurrection.
There were some among the Jews of the
opinion that the wicked would not receive a
body in the future world. Josephus says, in the
passage cited, that even the Pharisees believed
that the souls of the wicked would not pass into
other bodies, (i. e., that the wicked would not
rise again,) but that they would be eternally
punished. It may perhaps be that this was
taught by some at the time of Josephus ; but
during the first century it was the more prevail
ing belief, even among the Pharisees, that both
the righteous and the wicked would share in
the coming resurrection. For in Acts, xxiv
15, Paul says expressly that he agrees with the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 531

Pharisees and other Jews (in opposition to the
Sadducees) in maintaining the dvdgtagw, and
that not only of the righteous, but also of the
wicked (SixaiW ts xai aSlxuv.) But frequent
traces of this opinion are to be found in the
Chaldaic Paraphrases, and in the writings of
the Rabbins after the time of Christ, although
it never became general among the Jews. This
opinion came naturally from the idea that the
happiness of the good would be incomplete
without the body ; and so it was made a part
of the wretchedness cf the wicked net tp ccme
again inte possession of a body. Another cause
of this ' opinion is the allegorical explanation
which they gave to some passages in the Old
Testament; — e. g., Ps. i. 5, D'jwn u^i'nS, Sept.
ovx dvofff rpovt at ol dgsfisls. Indeed, many main
tained the entire annihilation of the wicked,
both as to soul and body. Vide Theod. Das-
sovii Dissert, qua Judaeor. de resurrectione mor
tuorum sententia explicatur, c 4 ; also Menasse
ben Israel, De Resur. Mort, 1. iii. ; Amst. 1636,
where many of the Jewish fancies respecting
the resurrection of the dead are collected toge
ther. This opinion respecting the non-resur
rection of the wicked has found advocates even
among Christian writers, especially of the Soci-
nian party.
Note. — The term dvdgtrivai ix vsxpuv is used
once in the New Testament to denote the return
of a departed soul to the world, and its re-ap-
peararice in its supposed body of shade — viz.,
Luke, xvi. 31, coll. ver. 27, 28, 30 ; like the
sense in which the phrase a4 inferis exsistere is
sometimes used.
(3) Since the doctrine of the future resurrec
tion of the 4ody was not very plainly taught in
the books of Moses, or elsewhere in the Old
Testament, (as it seems not to have been fully
revealed in those earlier ages,) it is not to be
wondered at that some of the Jews took occa
sion, pr derived a pretext from this, either to
deny this dectrine, er to dpubt respecting it.
This was dene net merely by the Sadducees,
whe denied in generalthat the seul pf man is
pf a nature different frem his body, and that it
can continue after death, (vide Acts, xxiii. 8,
seq., and Josephus, in the passage before cited,)
on the ground that this doctrine is not taught
by Moses, or in all the Old Testament; but alsn
by Pther Jews, especially these, it seems, whe
had imbibed the Grecian (the Pythagorean or
Platonic) philosophy, or who at any rate enter
tained ideas respecting the body similar to those
taught in this philosophy, making it aprison for
the soul, from which it is freed by death when
it returns to God.
Thus, according te Jpsephus, (Bell. Jud. ii.
7,) did the Essenes believe. They seem, there
fore, not to have maintained the resurrection of
the body, although they believed in the immor

tality of the soul. Even Josephus carefully
avoids the words dvdgtagis and dvlgtrjui when
he describes the doctrines of the Pharisees and
Sadducees, and expresses himself ambiguously,
in order not to displease the Greeks and Ro
mans, for whom he principally wrote, and to
whom the doctrine of the resurrection of the
body would appear not only new, but, according
to the principles of the philosophy prevailing
among them, offensive and absurd. And so
Paul was ridiculed at Athens by the Grecian
philosophers when he taught the resurrection
of the dead, Acts, xvii. 32, coll. xxvi. 6 — 8,
and ver. 23, 24. At a later period, Lucian and
Celsus employed their wit against the same
doctrine in Origen and others ; and Pliny says,
(Hist. Nat. ii. 7,) that if it is impossible for
God to destroy himself, it is equally impossible
for him, mortales xternitate donare, et in vitam
revocare defundos. There have always been
some among the modern Jews who have been
inclined to the doctrine of the Sadducees, and
who have frequently been opposed by the Rab
bins. Vide Wetstein on Matt. ^xii.
SECTION CLII.
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE RESPECTING THE RE
SURRECTION OF THE BODY.
I. What Christ and the Apostles have done for this
Doctrine, and respecting the Doubts of some
Christians.
At the time of Christ and the apostles this
doctrine had already beceme prevalent ameng
the Jews, s. 151, IL, altheugh it was npt
clearly revealed in their elder religious books.
Through Christ it was now for the first time
distinctly established anew, and revealed on
divine authority. In those very discourses of
our Saviour in which he designs to prove him
self divine in the highest sense, he plainly and
definitely brings forward this doctrine as a con
stituent part of his religious system— e. g.,
Matthew, xxii. ; John, v., viii., xi. Without
this explanation and positive assurance on his
part and that of his disciples, this doctrine,
would still have been doubtful. But those who
regard Christ and his apostles as being what
they profess to be, ought not and cannot be any
longer in doubt.
Christ and his apostles, however, corrected
the false notions on this subject, which at that
time prevailed among at least a large portion of'
the Jews, and made the whole matter more ob
vious and intelligible. But this doctrine has
derived a special interest and demonstration
from the fact that it is placed in the most inti
mate connexion with the history of the person
of Christ, and that he is represented as the one
to whom we are indebted for this benefit It is

532

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

most intimately connected with his death, his
resurrection, and his exalted state in heaven.
Vide s. 119, ad finem, and s. 120, I. The
apostles rested 'the doctrine of our resurrection
mainly upon that of Christ, (cf. 1 Cor. xv. ; 1
Thess. iv. 14;) they preached through Jesus
(eV*9 Ir/ffov) the resurrection of the dead, Acts,
iv. 2 ; and hence they call him the first that rose
from the dead ,- Acts, xxvi. 23 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20,
et alibi. And from this Paul argues that if it is
acknnwledged that Christ rese frem the dead,
there can be ne reasen to deny or think it impos
sible that there should be a general resurrection
of all men, 1 Cor. xv. 12, seq. Cf. Mosheim,
Diss. " Qua docetur Christum Resurrectienem
Mertuprum Cprpprum, Qualem Christiani Cre-
dunt, e Tenebris in Lucem Revecasse et De-
menstrasse," in his Dissertatiens "Ad Hist.
Eccl. Pertinent," vel.' ii. p. 586. Cf. also the
Essay, "De Nexu Resurreetionis Christi e
Mortuis et Mortuorum," in " Scripta Varii Ar-
gumentii," Num. ix.
But this doctrine has been doubted or denied
by many Christians in modern times.
(1) It appears from 1 Cor. xv. and 2 Timo
thy, ii. 18, that even during the life of the apos
tles there were Christians to whom this doctrine
seemed doubtful, if they did not wholly deny
it, because it did not accord with their precon
ceived opinions, although it cannot be shewn
that they at the same time denied the immorta
lity of the soul. These may have been either
Gentile converts (for this doctrine was pecu
liarly offensive to the heathen, vide s. 151, ad
finem,) or converts from Judaism, who had
agreed on this point with the Essenes or the
Sadducees. To the latter class belong Hyme-
nseus and Philetus, Xsyovt ss tr\v dvdgtagiv r}'5j?
ysybvsvai. They probably understood the term
dvdgtagis, as used in the Old Testament and by
Christ, to signify the introduction of aperson into
a better state,' or improvement of life. Vide s.
151, I. This they supposed was already ac
complished by Christ, and that a resurrection
in the literal sense is not to be looked for.
Hence Paul endeavours (1 Cor. xv.) in part to
iobviate the ebjecticns cf the Sadducees and
Gentiles, and in part te separate and distinguish
the true dectrine frem the gross and earthly
ccncepticns nf many of the Jews.
Still the opinion that there will be no restora
tion of the body has always found place among
some Christians, especially among the Gnos
tics, who were led to reject this doctrine by
their views respecting matter, and by their
method of interpreting scripture. So thought
Manes, in the third century, and his numerous
followers in after times; also the Priscillianists
in Spain; likewise Hierax at the commence
ment of the fourth century, who would allow
of only a spiritual resurrection, or a resurrection

of the soul. And sn in all succeeding ages
there have always been those among Christians
whohave either secretly doubted or openly reject
ed this doctrine. Cf. Dr. Hammer, Mortuorum
in Vitam Revocatio, Sermonibus Christi Histori-
caelnterpretationis ope Vindicate; Lips. 1794.
, (2) In modern times, many protestant theo
logians — e. g., Eckermann, Henke, Amman,
&c  have endeavoured to explain away from
the New Testament the doctrine of the resur
rection of the dead, notwithstanding the many
clear passages by which it is supported. They
have maintained that this dogma is no part of
the Christian system. It was, in their view,
through mere condescension to the prevailing
opinions of the Jews that Christ and the apos
tles employed the common language on this
point, which must accordingly be understood
in a different sense — viz., a sense agreeing with
the philosophical ideas prevailing in the nine
teenth century. There is not, however, the
remotest hint, in all the words of Christ and
the apostles, that they meant to be understood
figuratively ; and if this method of interpretation
were adopted, nothing of the Christian system
would be left behind. That the words of Christ
and the apostles are to be understood literally
on this subject is plain from this, that it is af
firmed of Christ that he himself now possesses
a body in his heavenly state in the kingdom of
the blessed, and that we shall hereafter resem
ble him in this respect, and possess a body
which will be like his glorious body, s. 153.
LT. Biblical Representation.
The principal texts of scripture which relate
to this subject are, John, v. 21 — 29 ; vi. 39,
40 ; Matthew, xxii. 23, seq. ; 1 Cor. xv. ; Acts,
xxiv. 14, 15; 1 Thess. iv. 13; Phil. iii. 21.
With regard to the principal points taught in
these passages, we remark,
, (1) The raising of the dead is ascribed ex
pressly to Christ, and it is represented as the
last work which will be undertaken by him for
the salvation of man. Paul says, 1 Cor. xv.
22, seq., " As through Adam all die, so through
Christ shall all be made alive ; through him
shall death, the last enemy, be conquered ; and
then shall his work as Messiah be completed,
and he will lay down his government." Christ
himself said that he had received power for this
purpose from the Father ; John, v. 21 , " The
dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and
live. For as the Father £ur)y sxsi iv iavt 9 (i.
e., is the original source of all life, and pos
sesses, as Creator, all-quickening power) he
hath given to the Son also power to quicken the
dead." And in John, xi. 25, where he is about
to raise the lifeless body of Lazarus, he says
respecting himself, that he is r) dvagt asis xai r
fur;, the one who would raise the body, and

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION, 533

give life to the dead. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 14, and
Rev. 1. 18, sxst xXsls tov aSov xai tov §avatoi.
(2) All the dead will hereafter be raised, with
out respect to age, rank, or moral character in
this world. So the New Testament teaches
throughout; especially in opposition to the opi
nions of some Jews, s. 151, II. 2, ad finem,
coll. s. 120, I. 2, note. So 1 Cor. xv. 22,'eV
•ASdfi itdvtss djto^i/rjffxovffi, to which is opposed
iv Xpifff 9 itdvtss ^uoitoir^rfiovtai. Acts, xxiv.
15, dvdgt affis vsxpuv Sixalav ts xai dblxav. And
Christ himself says, John, v. 28, 29, " All who
are in their graves shall hear the voice of the
Son of man, and those who have done well
ixrtopEvffoyfai eis dvdgtagiv fioi-is, (i- e., sis^uijv,)
those who have done evil, sis dvdgtagiv xplgsus-
This was a common mode of speech among the
Jews, (vide Mace vii. 14, coll. xii. 43, dvdgt asis
fi$ fur))',) which is obviously taken from Dan.
xii. 2.
(3) The resurrection of the .body, however,
will not take place before the end of the world,
or the general judgment. This, too, was the
common doctrine of the Jews at the time of
Christ; hence Martha says, John, xi. 24, "that
she knows her brother will rise at the last day,
(iv ty igxdt<>i rjpspa.)" And this opinion is
everywhere confirmed by Christ. In John, v.
21, he net pnly cennects the resurrectien and
judgment most intimately together, but in John,
vi. 39, 40, he expressly promises his followers,
dvoufTjffu [eis fuijy] iv fij igxdty rjuspa. And
so in 1 Cor. xv. 22 — 28, the resurrection is
placed in obvious connexion with the jtapovsia
-of Christ, after which the end of the world
will immediately come; and in 1 Thess. iv. 15,
it is said that those who survive the itapovglav
of Christ will not attain either sooner or later te
the enjeyment of heavenly blessedness than
xoipvfesvt ss ; but that the dead and living will
meet Christ at the same time, that they may be
forever with him. Cf. Rev. xx. 11, seq. The
resurrectien cf the dead, then, will take place
when the Christian church en earth shall cease ;
but this, according to the clear declarations of
Christ, shall last until the end of the world.
This cannot be reconciled with the hypothe
sis of Priestley, who attempts to shew that the
resurrection will take place immediately after
death. The same hypothesis has been advo
cated in a werk entitled, » Auferstehung der
Tedten nach der eigentlichen Lehre Jesu
Christi," by Jch. Fr. des Cotes, court preacher
at Nassau; and still better in the " Beytragen
zur Beforderung des verniinftigen Denkens in
der Religion," 2tes, Heft, s. 76, f., and 3tes,
Heft, s. 39, f. It is indeed true that the disem
bodied existence of the soul beyond the grave
is comprehended in the writings of the Jews
and of the New Testament, under the term
dvdgtagis- but this is not all which is comprised

in this term ; and the dw'fff affis will not be com
plete and perfect until the body also, is raised.
Vide s. 151, II. 2.
Again; these Pauline texts are opposed to
the opinion of the Chiliasts, that there is a two
fold resurrection; an earlier, that of the pious,
and a later, that of the wicked, or of the hea
then. An d*dfff affis itputn is, indeed, mentioned
in Rev. xx. 5, 6, but the phrase admits easily
of another interpretation.
(4) As to the manner in which the resurrec
tion will take place, the New Testament gives
us no definite information by which our curio
sity can be wholly satisfied ; and this, doubt
less, because such information could be neither
intelligible to us nor of any use. The whole
matter lies beyond the sphere of our knowledge.
In speaking on this subject, Christ and the
apostles sometimes make use of expressions
which are figurative, (and of such there were
many current among the Jews,) and sometimes
they content themselves with proving the possi
bility and intelligibleness of the thing, in oppo
sition to doubters and scoffers, and with making
it plain by examples.
(a) Among the more figurative representa
tions and expressions, at least among those in
which there is some intermixture of what is
figurative, the representation contained in John,
v., is commonly reckoned — viz., the representa
tion that the voice of Christ will penetrate the
graves in order to awaken the dead. The image
is here that of a sleeper who is aroused by a
loud call ; and some understand the representa
tion as so entirely figurative that they exclude
any audible or perceptible sound. It cannot,
however, be shewn that Christ meant to ex
clude these. For in the resurrection of Laza
rus, of the young man at Nain, and the daugh
ter of Jairus, the voice of Christ was heard by
them, and was the means of raising them to
life. Still the voice, merely as such, is -not the
efficient cause of the work, but the almighty
power accompanying it ; and so it is said of
God, when he produces any effect by his cre
ative power, that he speaks, his voice sounds forth.
The Jews supposed that the dead would be
awakened by the sound of a trumpet. • Traces
of this opinion are to be found in the Chaldaic
paraphrasts. At first this representation be
longed only to the figurative phraseology of
prophecy ; for the people were commonly as
sembled by the sound of the trumpet, as was
the case in the assembling at Sinai; and, in
general, a trumpet was used to give signs and
signals — e. g., for an onset in battle, &c. Af
terwards, this representation was literally un
derstood, and the size of the trumpet was sup
posed to be a thousand yards, and that it was
blown seven times. Vide Wetstein and Sem
ler on 1 Cor. xv. 52. In this passage Paul uses
2y2

534

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

'.he term Iv igxdtvj gdxitiyyi, (gaXitigsi ydp,) —
*£xpoi lyEp^Tjaoi/fai. The same poetic phrase
ology is employed in 1 Thess. iv. 16, "Christ
will come with a shout, with the voice of the
archangel, and t\v gdxittyyt ©eov (the trump
given him by God), xai oi vsxpol dvagtr\govtai."
In this representation there is much, indeed,
which is figurative, and which belongs to the
prophetic imagery, (as in Matt. xxiv. and in
the Apocalypse,) and we are not now able to
determine the meaning of all the particular traits
in this picture. But the great thought which
we must hold fast is very obvious — viz., Christ
will solemnly and visibly appear in his majesty,
and by his divine power raise all the dead. In
other passages this truth is literally expressed —
e. g., Phil. iii. 21, where it is said that Christ
will do this by the power by which he is able
to subdue all things to himself — i. v., by his
EvEpyfia, his omnipotence, which surmounts all
difficulties and hindrances, and brings to pass
what appears to men impossible.
(4) The possibility of the resurrection of the
dead is illustrated by Paul, in opposition to
those who regarded it as impossible or contra
dictory, 1 Cor. xv. 35, seq., by comparing it
with events of common occurrence in the natu
ral world, which seem to us less wonderful
only because they are common. "How is it
possible," it was asked, " that the dead should
be raised ?" (itas iyslpovtai vsxpol.) He re
plies : " The grain of corn cast into the ground
cannot rise (^aoitoisltai) until it die," (dito^dvrj,
vide John, xii. 24.) This appears unintelligi
ble ; and we should regard it as impossible if
we did not see it actually accomplished. Why
then should not God be able to raise men, and
from their present bodies to produce others?
This is a fine comparison to illustrate the pos
sibility of this event. Again ; he shews, by the
example of Christ, that the dead can be raised,
ver. 12 — 14. And so the apostles always — e.
g., Acts, iv. 2, xatayysXXsw iv tip 'Irjgov tr/v
dvdgtagiv vsxpuv. Cf. Morus, Diss. Inaug. ad
1 Cor. xv. 35—55; Lipsiae, 1782.
Note — Many modern writers also have en
deavoured in various other ways tp shew the
possibility of the resurrection, and in this have
availed themselves of the observations of natu
ralists. The common fault with these compa
risons is, that either the alleged facts are untrue
and imaginary, or have nothing resembling the
resurrection. It must be considered a fault of
the first kind, to endeavour, as Fecht, Von
Frankenau, and others, have dene, to illustrate
the resurrectien by the alleged palingenesia cf
plants, nr their restoration from their ashes, by
means of a chemical process, which, in fact, is
ncthing more than an exhibition of the image
of the plant. Vide Wiegleb, Naturliche Magie.

It is a fault of the other class to apply to this
subject the observation, that there is only one
mass of matter upon the earth, and that nothing
is lost, nothing perishes, but still revives again,
only under forms which are ever new. But
this revivification is very different from the re
surrection of the dead ; for in the former case
tfiere is no consciousness of the previous state.
The inanimate body of a man may furnish nour
ishment to a beast of prey or to a vegetable,
so that its parts will become incorporated with
those of the beast or the plant, and contribute
to their nourishment and growth ; but is this re
surrectien ? The principal thing in the resur
rectien is the reunien of the soul with the body.
But if these attempts have not succeeded, it
is equally vain to attempt, by reasons a priori,
to prove the impossibility of the restoration of
the body. Respecting the question, whether
our souls will remain after death without a
body, nothing can be definitely determined by
philosophy; but the negative opinion is not
only liable to no philosophical objection, but has
in its favour this fact, which is universally ob
served, that the different species of beings are
not essentially altered, or as it were made anew,
through all the changes to which they are sub
ject, but still preserve their peculiar and cha
racteristic features ; so that the wonderful gra-
dationin the works of God is preserved unbroken.
Thus there, are beings wholly spiritual, (as the
angels are described to be in the scriptures ;)
there are beings composed qf reason and sense,
(as men, and perhaps many in other worlds ;)
and, finally, there are animate beings, consist
ing wholly of sense, and having no moral na
ture, (such as the beasts.) Since, now, the
latter class subsists by itself, and is so separate
from the foregoing that there is no example of
a mere animal becoming a rational being, it may
from this analogy be expected that it will be the
same with man, arid that, even in the future
world, he will not become a merely spiritual
being, but remain, as now, compounded of spirit
and matter, and consequently will hereafter be
come again possessed of a body.
SECTION CLIII.
DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT RESPECTING
THE NATURE OF THE BODY WHICH WE SHALL
RECEIVE AT THE RESURRECTION ; AND THE OPI
NIONS OF THEOLPGIANS ON THIS POINT.
I. Difference of the Future Body from the Present.
That there is a difference between the two
in respect to their entire constitution and the
objects of their existence, we are taught by the
New Testament. The body received at the re
surrection will be immortal, and is designed for

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 535

an entirely different world from the present.
The chief characteristic of the resurrection-body
is placed by the New Testament in its anop
sia, and its other excellences are derived from
this. Vide the texts cited by Morus, p. 292,
note 8. It cannot therefore be wholly consti
tuted like our present body, which is designed
only for this world.
One of the most important texts on this sub
ject is 1 Cor. XV. 50, ffdpfj xai alfia fiagtXclav
©eov x&.rjpojiofifij' ov Svi'af ai — i. e., man, in the
present imperfect state of his body, (Theodoret
well says, rj ^Mjfr) ipvgis,) is incapable of hea
venly bliss. For. the mortal body (<|&opd — i.
e., ffuifia qfcaptov,) cannot partake of eternal
life, (anopsia, immortality.) Blood, according
to the conception of the whole ancient world,
is found only among men and other animals
who are nourished by the food of our earth, and
not among the immortals, who do not taste of
this food. The gods, therefore, in the opinion
of the ancient Greeks, had no blood, (they were
avaluovss,) and were immortal, because they ate
no bread and drank no wine.
In Homer, (II. v. 341, seq., vi. 142,) men are
called, in opposition to the gods, ppotol, those
who eat the fruit of the field. The body of the
' gods was regarded by them as a true body, and
in human form, but only framed more perfectly,
and from a finer material ; it was by no means
that shadowy body ascribed to departed souls.
Vide s. 150, s. 66, II. And so was the body of
those raised up at the last day conceived of, as
no mere shadowy form, but as a true body,
though without flesh and blood.
The Greeks supposed that their gods ate a
food peculiar to themselves, nectar and ambro
sia; and so the great multitude of the Jews
supposed that those who are raised to be inha
bitants of heaven partake of a kind of heavenly
food. Vide s. 151, II. 2, and s. 59, IL, respect
ing angels. There have always been Chris
tians w.ho have maintained the same thing1; and
even in modern times some have expressed
themselves at least doubtfully on this point; — e.
g., Michaelis. But the passage, 1 Cor. vi. 13,
(already cited, s. 151,) teaches exactly the con
trary. The gods of the Greeks were supposed
to marry and to indulge in the sexual propensi
ties ; and some Jews imagined the same thing
with regard to the angels and those raised from
the dead; but this idea is rejected by Christ,
Matt. xxii. 30. Cf. the sections'before cited.
Here, then, is a separation between what is
true and false in the prevailing popular concep
tions, which is worthy of notice. In these con
ceptions, there is often much which is true, and
the germ of truth, which is fully developed. But
the learned often mistake in rejecting certain
ideas merely because they are the common con

ceptions of the people. Not so Christ ; he only
distinguishes between what is false and true in
these conceptions.
Respecting the nature of the heavenly body,
and its difference from the earthly, Paul ex
presses himself very fully in 1 Cor. xv. 35, seq.,
71:019 gdpati spxovtai ; sc. i sepulcris. (a) He
takes a comparison from a grain of wheat, from
which an entirely new body is developed, whose
form and properties are very different from
those of the seed sown. (4) God makes mate
rial things in very different forms arid with dif
ferent constitutions, on account of their differ
ent destination. The body of fishes, of birds,
and of beasts, is not the same ; their nature and
attributes are wholly different, ver. 39 — 41.
And so must our heavenly body'be organized
differently from the earthly, because it has a
different end. (c) The heavenly body will have
great pre-eminence over the earthly. Ver. 42,
seq., gitslpstai (i. e., sepelitur, sc. gupa) iv
9^opS — i. e., tifeaptov, perishable. The sequel
is to be explained in the same way : for iv
dtipla read dtiuov, deformed, disfigured ; da^Evss,
feeble, powerless ; ^-v^ixd, carnal, animal; be
cause in this life the animal propensities must
be indulged. But when it is raised it will be
a body iv d^&opffia — i. e., d^apfdv, immortal,
indestructible ; ivSoj-bv, beautified, glorious ,- Sv-
vatbv, strong and mighty ; and itvsvp.at ixbv, spi
ritual, exempt from everything which is imper
fect in the material body ; — in short, our earthly
body is, like Adam's, from the earth, (ix yijs,
Xo'ixbv ;) the future body will, like that which
Christ now possesses, be a heavenly body, (i%
ovpavoi.) And here Paul makes the observation, that
Christ had not at first (itputov, while he here
lived upon the earth,) that more perfect spiri
tual body, (rfvEvfiofixdi/,) but that which was
natural (^vxixbv,) and afterwards (litsita, after
his ascent to heaven) that which was spiritual.
Therefore he did not possess it immediately
after his resurrection, while he was yet upon
the earth, for he then ate and drank, John, xxi.,
but he first received it when he passed into the
heavens. Cf. s. 97, II.
That our body will be like that of Christ is
plainly taught, ver. 49 ; fyopsgopsv tr\v sixbva fov
ErtovpoWov [Xpifffov] ; and still more plainly,
Phil. iii. 21, " Christ will transform (pstagxi-
patlgsi) our earthly perishable body (oiufia f a-
itswagsas) lnt0 the resemblance of his heavenly
body, (guua Sd£r/s.) Cf. Rom. vi. 9. This
heavenly body is commonly called glorified, for
so SESoloffftiVoi' is translated. This translation,
however, may give occasion to unfounded ac
cessory conceptions with regard to the splen
dour &c of the heavenly body. The simple
idea conveyed by this expression is, glorious,

536

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

excellent, perfected, ennobled. Vide Morus, p.
292, n. 8.
Those who are alive at the last day will net
indeed die, like ether men, s. 147, II. Still,
according to the doctrine of Paul, their bodies
must undergo a change, like that which it was
necessary for the earthly body of Christ to ex
perience before it entered the heavens. Vide
1 Cor. xv. 51, itdvtss psv ov (non sollicitanda
lectio,) xoiurj^ngbas^a, itdvtss Se dxxayrjgbfji£$a —
i. e., their bodies must be changed, in prder
that they may be adapted te their future desti-
natipn and abpde, and be ne more perishable
and destructible. For the mortal body must
become immortal, ver. 53, coll. 2 Cor. v. 4 ;
1 Thess. iv. 15, seq. In Phil. iii. 21, .this
change is expressed by the word pstagx^uatl-
Zsw. Some of the Jews also appear to have
maintained that such a change would take place
with those alive at the last day. Vide Wetstein
on 1 Cor. xv. 54.
Such is the doctrine which we are plainly
taught in the New Testament respecting the
constitution of our future body. Let not, there
fore, the Christian doctrine be charged with all
the absurdities and fancies which dreaming
heads have suggested respecting the nature,
form, size; and uses of the spiritual body, nor
with the fictions even of some theologians re
specting corpore pellucido, penetranli, illocali,
invisibili, prxfulgido, impalpabili, &c. From
the texts already cited, as well as from others,
it is plain that the more perfect body which we
shall hereafter receive will contribute very much
to pur heavenly blessedness, as, on the other
hand, out present frail- body greatly conduces
to our present suffering and imperfection. But
how far our glorified body will affect our future
blessedness cannot be definitely determined
from the holy scriptures. Vide Morus, p. 299,
300, s. 10.
Note. — The Bible says indeed plainly, that
the bodies even of the wicked will be again
raised, but it nowhere informs us particularly
what their nature and state will be. The first
Christian teachers, however, imagined without
doubt that their state would be such as to ag
gravate the sufferings of the wicked ; as they
supposed, on the other hand, that the body
which the righteous would receive would con
tribute to the heightening of their joys and
blessedness. II. Identity of the Future with the Present Body.
Notwithstanding the difference between the
body which we now have and that which we
shall possess hereafter, it is still taught in the
schools of theology that our future body will
be, in substance, the same with the present.
Vide Morus, p. 291, seq., s. 3, note 6. This,

however, is denied by some, who maintain that
the body which believers will receive at the re
surrection will be entirely new, of a totally dif
ferent kind, and not having a particle of the
present body belonging to it. So in modern
times have some Socinian theologians taught;
also Burnet in his work, De Statu Mortuorum
et Resur gentium, c. 9 ; likewise Less, in his
" Praktische Dogmatik," and others. They
ground their opinion upon the fact that the parts
of our body in the process of time, and in the
ordinary course of nature, became incorporated
with many thousand other human bodies. To
which, therefore, they ask, of all these thou
sand, do they appropriately belong? And if
every human body should again receive all the
parts which ever belonged to it, it would be a
monster. In order to obviate these difficulties, it is justly
remarked by others, that there is no reason to
suppose that each and every part of the earthly
body will be hereafter raised, but only that its
finer elementary materials will be restored. For
the grosser parts of the body, which appear to
exist only for the filling out of the whole, and
for holding it together, (like the stones for fill
ing up in a building,) are in constant flux, and
fall off from the body while yet it cannot be said
that we have lost our body or received a new
one. In respect to these grosser parts, our body
in early childhood was totally different from our
present bedy, and in nld age it will be differenS
from that which we now have. Still we call it
through these different periods, our body, and
regard it as being the same. In common language,
we say, with our eyes we have seen, or with these
hands we have done, what took place twenty or
thirty years ago. In this way we may speak
of identity in a more general and popular sense,
and, understood in this sense, the identity of the
body through all the periods of its existence
may be spoken of without impropriety. It is
not implied in this that the body will be here
after constituted of precisely the same materials
which it here possesses, nor that it will again
have the same form, limbs, and organs, which it
now has, but that, from all the parts of which
our present body is composed, the most fit and
the most noble will be chosen by God, and of
these the heavenly body will be constructed.
What conceptions the first Christian teachers
formed as to the manner of this, -we cannot
clearly ascertain ; nor is it possible that, while
we remain upon the earth, we should be able to
understand this matter fully. So much, how
ever, is plain, that the inspired teachers did not
believe that an entirely new body would be
hereafter created for us, but that there would be
a kind of identity, in the popular sense of the
term, between the heavenly and earthly body.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 537

Such is the implication of the terms so often >
employed by them, to awaken or call forth the
dead from their graves, (vide John, v. 28, 29;)
also of the representation that the sea and Sheol
should give up their dead, Rev. xx. 13, seq.;
and especially pf the passage, 1 Cer. xv. 35 — 38.
It is here plainly implied, that the present mor-
tal bpdy ccntains the germ of the heavenly body,
in the same way as the germ of the plant lies in
the seed, from which, after it is dissolved and
dead in the earth, the plant is developed, and,
as it were, raised to life. Hence, according to
Paul, the future body has at least as much in
common with the present as a plant has with
the seed from which it springs. It will be still
the same body which we shall hereafter possess,
only beautified and ennobled (astagxriuati£b-
usvov,) Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 Cot. xv. 42, 52, 53. This
is thus expressed by theologians : there will be
a renovation of one and the same substance,
ond not the production of a wholly new mate
rial. Vide Morus, p. 291, 292, note 6, ad s. 3.
Some modern writers have endeavoured to illus
trate this matter by the application to it of the
whole of Bonnet's Theory of Development;
but this is not contained in the words of Paul,
although his doctrine bears some resemblance
to it.
The church-fathers are not entirely unanimous
in their opinions respecting the identity of the
body. The earlier fathers gave no very definite
opinion on the subjeet, but contented themselves
with saying in general that we should receive
again the same body ; so Justin the Martyr, and
Athenagoras, and Tertullian, in their books, De
Resurrections. They appear, however, to have
had rather gross conceptions on this subject.
Origen, in the third century, was the first who
philosophized with regard to the heavenly body,
and undertook to determine accurately respecting
its nature. He defended the resurrection of the
body against those who denied it, and taught at
the same time that the substance of the human
body — the essential and characteristic form by
v^hich it is to be discerned and distinguished
from others — remains unaltered. He also con
troverted the opinion of some who supposed that
those who are raised will again be invested with
the same gross, material body as before. It was
his opinion that the grosser parts will be sepa
rated, and that only the germ or fundamental
material for the new body will be furnished by
the old. He and others expressed their views
by the following formula — viz., we shall here
after have gaaa tovto (idem) fi£v, dxx' ov t oioif o
(ejusmodi,) De Prin. ii. 10.
But such a statement was far from being satis
factory to many at that period, and especially to
the gross Chiliasts. They wished to keep alive
the hope of having still the same flesh as at pre

sent, in erder to their eating, drinking, &c So
Nepcs, Methodius, Theophilus of Alexandria,
and others. With these Hieronymus, in the
fourth century, agreed, and opposed the opinipn
pf Origen, cnntending that the same bedy wpuld
be raised, with the same limbs and nerves, and
with flesh and bleed in the proper sense, and
even with distinctien nf sex, although he did not,
indeed, affirm that the animal and sexual appe
tites would be indulged in the heavenly world.
Epiphanius, however, who was a declared oppo
nent of Origen, says expressly that the bodies
of the raised must have teeth, since otherwise
they could not eat. What kind of food they
would have he did not pretend to say, but left
for God to determine.
The opinion of Origen was adopted, in the
fourth century, by Gregory of Nazianzen, Basi
lius, Chrysostom, and all the opponents of the
Chiliasts. Those who maintained the resurrec
tion of the body in its grosser parts were all,
with the exception of Hieronymus, Chiliasts.
The opponents of Origen, among the Greeks and
Latins, began now to insist, that not merely the
resurrection of the body (corporis) should be
taught, but also carnis (crassx.) The older fa
thers used corpus and caro interchangeably (as
was also done in the older symbols), and in
tended by the use of these terms to denote only
that there would be no new creation of a body,
since both of these terms, according to the He
brew usus loquendi, are synonymes ; as when we
speak, in reference to the Lord's Supper, of the
corpus and caro Christi. But since the term
caro implies, according to the same idiom, the
associated idea of weakness and mortality, it was
abandoned by many who wished to use language
with more precision, and instead of it, the phrase
resurrectio corporis was adopted. It was on this
account that the Chiliasts insisted so much the
more urgently upon retaining the terms <jdp| .
and caro.
Note  Works on this subject, Cotta, Theses
Theol. de Novissimis, in Specie de Resurrec-
tione Mortuorum ; Tub. 1762. Hermann, Pflug,
Beweiss der Moglichkeit und Gewissheit der
Auferstehung der Todten, 1738. On the history
of this doctrine, besides the works of Hody and
Burnet, cf. Ge. Calixtus, De Immortalitate
Animi et Resurrectione Carnis, and especially,
W. A. Teller, Fidei Dogmatis de Resurrectione
Carnis, per quartuor priora saecula enaTratio ;
Halle and Helmstadt, 1766, 8vo; with which,
however, the student should compare the addi
tions and corrections made by Ernesti in his
"Neues Theol. Bibliothek," b. ix. s. 221—244.
[Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s. 658, s. 152. Nean
der, All. K. Geschichte, b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1088,
and especially 1096; also b. ii. Abth. iii. s
1404— 1410.— Tr.] 68

538

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

SECTION CLIV.
OF THE LAST APPEARING OF CHRIST BEFORE THE
END OF THE WORLD ; THE VARIOUS OPINIPNS PN
THIS SUBJECT ; ALSP RESPECTING THE MILLEN
NIAL KINGDCM, AND THE UNIVERSAL CONVER
SION OF JEWS AND GENTILES.
I. The Last Appearing of Christ.
Christ often spoke of his future coming (ita-
povffia), using this phrase in different senses.
It sometimes denotes figuratively the destruction
of the Jewish state, and the consequences of
this event, particularly the advantages which
would result from it to the Christian doctrine
and church ; as the spiritual kingdom of Christ
could not be truly established in the earth until
this event should take place ; Matt. xxiv. and
xvi. 27, 28. Again, it denotes his visible appear
ing to judge the world; Matt. xxv. 31, seq.
When Jesus spoke of his appearing, his disciples
duringhis life commonly conceived at once of his
coming to establish an earthly kingdom. And
when he spoke of his coming at the destruction
of Jerusalem, they supposed that he would then,
with his followers, destroy the hostile Jerusa
lem, triumph over his opponents, and commence
his new earthly kingdom.
The 24 th of Matt, was for the most part under
stood in this way by many at that time. With
this they then connected the idea that the end of
the world was near at hand, because, according
to the opinion of the Jews, Jerusalem and the
temple would stand until the end of the world.
Vide s. 98, II. 3. Hence in the passage, Matt.
xxiv. 3, the disciples of Jesus connect the two
questiens, when will the temple be destroyed? and,
what are the signs of the end qf time ? In what
Christ said, Matt, xxiv., he referred tp the dif
fusion of his new religion, the establishment
and confirmation of his spiritual and moral
kingdom, on which the destruction of Jerusa
lem would have a favourable influence. Vide
Matt. x. 23 ; Luke, xii. 40. But he said this in
part in the style of prophetic imagery, as in
Matt. xvi. xxiv. To these questions Christ re
plied with great wisdom and forecast — to the
first, in Matt. xxiv. 4 — 25, 30 ; and to the se
cond, Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. He taught them
plainly only so much as it was needful for
them to know at that time. The rest he taught
them in prophetic figures, which were not as
yet entirely intelligible to them, and the mean
ing of which they afterwards learned. Their
false expectations were not therefore cherished
and approved, but neither were they prema
turely contradicted. Full information on this
subject was among those things which they
were not then able to bear, and respecting
which they were to receive more full informa
tion after the ascension of Christ to heaven;

John, xvi. 12. And this more full information
they actually received. For from that time they
abandoned their expectations of a Jewish king
dom, and thenceforward looked for no other
coming of Christ than that at the general judg
ment. As to what Christ and his apostles
taught respecting the nature and extent of his
spiritual and heavenly kingdom, vide s. 97 — 99.
II. The Belief of a Millennial Kingdom of Christ
upon the Earth, or Chiliasm.
(I) Origin of this belief. The Jews supposed
that the Messiah at his coming would reign as
king upon the earth, and would reside at Jeru
salem, the ancient royal city. The period of his
reign they supposed would be very long, and
therefore put it down at a thousand years, which
was at first understood only as a round number.
Respecting the Jewish ideas of the Messianic
kingdom, cf. s. 89, and s. 118, I., together with
Wetstein's selections from Jewish authors on
Rev. xx. 2. This period was conceived of by
the Jews as the return of the golden age to the
earth, and each one formed to himself such a
picture of it as agreed best with his own dispo
sition, and that degree of moral and intellectual
culture to which he had attained. Many anti
cipated nothing more than merely sensual de
lights, others entertained better and more pure
conceptions, &c
The same remark applies to many of the Ju-
daizing Christians. Although Jesus had not*
yet appeared as an earthly king, yet these per
sons were unwilling to abandon an expectation
which to them was so important. They hoped,
therefore, for a second coming of Christ to es
tablish an earthly kingdom, and transferred to
this kingdom everything which the Jews had
expected of the first The apostles wholly
abandoned this opinion after the ascension of
Christ, and expected no other coming than that
at the judgment of the world, 1 Cor. xv., and
elsewhere. The fact, however, that these Jew
ish ideas had taken deep root in the minds of
many Christians in the apostolic age, may Be
argued from 1 Thess.' iv. 13, seq., ch. v., and
2 Thess. ii.
Many have endeavoured to find this idea even
in the Apocalypse, especially xx. 1—8. But
John does not there speak of Christ reigning
visibly and bodily on the earth, but of his spi
ritual dominion, resulting from the influence of
Christianity, when it shall at length be univer
sally diffused through the earth — a kingdom
which will last a thousand years, used as a
round number to denote many centuries, or a
long period. Thus does it appear that even
during the first century there were many opi
nions upon this subject among Christians which
deviated widely from the doctrine of the apos
tles.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 53P

[Note. — The scriptural ideas upon which the
belief in a millennium rested are more specifi
cally stated by Neander, Kirchengesch. b. i.
Abth. iii. s. 1089. As the world was made in
six days, and, according to Ps. xc. 4, a thou
sand years is in the sight of God as one day, so
it was thought the world would continue in the
state in which it had hitherto been, for six thou
sand years; and as the Sabbath is a day of rest,
so will the seventh period pf a thpusand years
censist pf this millennial kingdom as the clcse
of the whole earthly state. — Tr.]
(2) In the second century, the doctrine of the
future earthly kingdom of Christ became more
and more widely diffused, and in a large portion
of the Christian world it was finally predomi
nant Its first zealous advocate was Papias, in
the second century; and he was followed by
Justin the Martyr, Tertullian, and mest pf the
Mentanists. This dpctrine was alse adppted by
some ef the heretics — e. g., by Cerinthus. It
was net, hpwever, held by all in the same man
ner. Mest taught that the church would have
to suffer much from Anti-christ (the seducer and
persecutor) ; and that Christ would then visibly
return and destroy his ppwer; 2 Thess. ii. Then,
it was supposed, all worldly power would cease,
the pious be raised from the dead (itpat n dvdgta
gis), assemble in Jerusalem, and standing under
Christ, their king, would reign with him a thou
sand years.
• As to the pleasures then to be enjoyed, the
conceptions of some were very gross, those of
others more chastened. In forming their pictures
of this period- they drew largely from the Apo
calypse, which they interpreted in many different
ways. Origen, in the third century, was the
first who wrote in opposition to this doctrine, and
who gave a different interpretation to the texts
of scripture to which appeal was made by the
Chiliasts. On this account, this doctrine fell
into disesteem among the learned. In the third
century, Dionysius, Bishop at Alexandria, wrote
against Chiliasm in oppositipn tp Nepes, Bishpp
in Egypt, and in his wprk denied that Jehn
wrote the Apecalypse, because his cpppnents
were accustomed to derive their doctrine princi
pally from this book.
[Note  It was in Phrygia, the seat of the
spirit of religious enthusiasm, that Chiliasm
chiefly prevailed ; and from thence it spread.
Here belonged Papias, Irenaeus, Justin the Mar
tyr, &c. Two causes contributed to prevent
this doctrine from becoming more universally
prevalent in the early church — viz., opppsitipn
to Mpntanism, and the influence cf the schcpl at
Alexandria. The visienary ccnceptiens which
the Mentanists entertained and inculcated re
specting what weuld take place in the millen
nium, brought the whole doptrine into disrepute;
and all the epppnents of Mpntanism opposed

these gross Chiliastic conceptions as belonging
essentially to that scheme. The allegorizing me
thod of interpretation adopted by the teachers of
the Alexandrine school enabled them to avpid
the gross conceptions of the millennium to which
those who adopted the literal mode of interpre
tation were led. By applying this principle to
the interpretation of the Apocalypse, they could
take away the support which the Chiliasts de
rived from it without excluding the book from
the sacred cancn. — Tr.]
(3) The seed ef the dectrine ef gross Chili
asm has always remained in the Christian
church. This doctrine, however, has shewn
itself in different forms, and has been taught
sometimes in a more visionary manner, and at
other times less so. Respecting the time when
this millennial kingdom will commence, there
has been no general agreement of ' opinion.
Many suppose it will take place before the re
surrection; others, not until afterwards.
At the time of the Reformation this belief in
a millennial, earthly kingdom of Christ was re
vived and widely spread by the enthusiastic ana
baptists, Thomas Miinzer and his adherents.
They themselves wished to establish this king
dom of Christ with fire and sword, and to nut
an end to all worldly power ; they encouraged
rebellion. Hence Luther and Melancthon set
themselves against this doctrine with great zeal
and earnestness. Vide Augsb. Conf. Art. xviii.
It shewed itself again, however, in the protest
ant church.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth century
Spener was charged with teaching Chiliasm ; but
he was far removed from this. He only expressed
frequently the hope that the spiritual kingdom
of Christ would not only continue in the world,
but would be much more widely diffused than it
now is, and hereafter would become absolutely
universal. And this expectation (spes meliorum
temporum) is perfectly accordant with the holy
scriptures. This is the point to which all the
middle part of the Apocalypse refers — viz., from
chap. xii. 18 to xx. 10, the victory of Christ over
heathenism, and all sin and corruption on the
earth, and the general diffusion of Christianity ;
after which the end of the world and the kingdom
of the saints will follow, chap. xx. 11 — xxii. 5.
This, one might call (if he wished) Biblical
Chiliasm; in this there is nothing of enthusiasm :
and even for those who do not live to see. this
period the anticipation of it is consoling and
animating. But Petersen, who came from the school cf
Spener, at the end ef the seventeenth and com-
mencement ef the eighteenth century, inculcated
in his writings varicus enthusiastic ideas en this
subject. The same dectrine was taken inte fa-
VPur about the same time by Burnet, in England,
in his work, " De Statu Mort et Resnrg." At

540

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

a later period, Bengel, in Germany, went a great
deal too far in many points in his interpretation
of the Apocalypse. So, many theologians of
Wurtemberg, Crusius and hisdisciples, and La-
vater in Switzerland.
A good development of the history of this doc
trine is contained in Corrodi's " Kritisohe Ge
schichte des Chiliasmus;" Frankfort und Leip
zig, 1781 — 1783. It was principally occasioned
by Lavater's views on this subject
[Note. — Neander, in his history of this doc
trine, (b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1090,) suggests the im
portant Caution that we should not allow our
selves, through disgust at the extravagant visions
of enthusiasts about the millennium, to decide
against what we are really justified in hoping and
expecting as to the future extension of the king
dom of Christ. As the Old Testament contains
an intimation of the things of the New, so
Christianity contains an intimation of a higher
order of things hereafter, which it will be the
means of introducing ; but faith must necessa
rily come before sight. The divine revelations
enable us to see but a little, now and then, of
this higher order, and not enough to form a
complete picture. As prophecy is always ob
scure until its fulfilment, so must be also the
last predictions of Christ respecting the destiny
of his church, until the entrance of that higher
order. There are three degrees in the manner of
holding this doctrine, described as crassus, sub-
tilis, subtilissimus, according to the proportion
in which enthusiastic and visionary conceptions
are mingled with the scriptural idea of the
future kingdom of the Messiah. The lowest
kind is characterized by the belief of the visible
appearance and reign of Christ upon the earth,
a resurrection of the saints before the general
judgment, and their living with Christ in the
enjoyment of worldly splendour and luxury for
a thousand years. In this form it was held by
many of the ancient Montanists, and by the
anabaptists in the sixteenth century. The more
refined and scriptural doctrine of the millen
nium, as held by Spener, Vitringa, and others,
excludes the idea of the visible appearance of
Christ, and does not insist upon the definite
period of a thousand years, but only holds to
the future universal extension of the spiritual
kingdom of Christ. Cf. Hahn, Lehrbuch, s.
665.— Tr.]
III. Future Conversion of Jews and Gentiles.
The doctrine of the universal conversion of
the Gentiles, and especially of the Jews, to be
hoped for hereafter, has been for the most part
taught by the advocates of the grosser kind of
Chiliasm. Still the former doctrine stands in
no nectssary connexion with the, latter. And
many protestant theologians, who are far from

assenting to any unscriptural views of the mil
lennium, have adopted this doctrine — e. g., Mi
chaelis, Koppe, and others still more lately*
But some theologians connected with both of
these doctrines other opinions which do not en
tirely accord with scripture, or which at least
are not in all parts clearly demonstrable from
scripture — e. g., Burnet, Bengel, Crusius»
Hence Ernesti and his whole school were very
much opposed to this doctrine, and would not
at all allow that even the remotest hope of the
conversion of the Jews is authorized by the
New Testament
It has happened with regard to this subject,
as it often does in all the departments of human
knowledge, that opinions in which there has
been an intermixture of what is erroneous and
incapable of proof have been on this account
entirely rejected, instead of being carefully
sifted, in order to separate the true from the
false, that which may be proved from that
which is incapable of demonstration. The doc^
trine itself of the future conversion of the Jews
involves nothing questionable or enthusiastic,
if it be understood only to imply that the apos
tles believed and taught that the Jews would
hereafter abandon their prejudices and their
hardftess of heart, possess a taste and suscepti
bility for Christianity, and cordially unite them
selves with the Christian church. When this
will take place, and by what means it will be
brought about, the apostles determine nothing?
and with regard to these points nothing is
known. But an expectation of this event is
found in their writings.
Two things on this subject are certain — viz.,
(1) That it was always a current doctrine among
the Jews that all the Gentiles would at last be
come incorporated in the kingdom of the Mes
siah ; and with reference to this event they ex
plained many passages in their prophets, which,
when read impartially, plainly teach this very
thing — e. g., Ps. xxii. 28; Is. ii., xii., xl. — lxvi.;
Zech. xiv. 9, 16, coll. Rev. xv. 4. And this
same hope is clearly expressed by Paul, esp&>
cially in Rom. xi.
(2) The Jews, at the time of the apostles and
afterwards, explained many passages in their
prophets as referring to the future restoration
of their people at the time of the Messiah,
(Deut. xxx. ;) and these passages are refer
red in the New Testament, and by Paul, to
the same event ; from whence; it is clear that
the apostles taught and inculcated the same
thing with the ancient prophets — e. g., Isaiah,
x. 21 ; lix. 20; Jer. xxxi. 1, seq. ; Hosea, iii.
5 ; Zech. xiv. 6 ; ix. 10. These passages, in
deed, have all been differently interpreted in
modern times. Cf. Doederlein's work, " Giebi
uns die Bible Hoffnung zu einer allgemeinen
Judenbekehrung?" But the Jews understood

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 541

these passages to refer to the restoration of
their nation, and the New Testament gives
them the same explanation. This is histori
cally certain; and upon this everything de
pends, when the question is, Whether the New
Testament teaches this doctrine? Vide Schottgen,
in the book, "Jesus, der wahre Messias;"
Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum; and
Koppe on Rom. xi.
We may come now more easily to the exa
mination of the celebrated passage, Romans,
xi. 25, seq. Ernesti and others understand the
nds 'igpaijX ga&[gst at thus : all " Israel can be
delivered ;" but this does not accord with ver.
31, i'ra avfoi iXsij^tagi, and ver. 32, fovs ndvtas,
&EiJffi7. We cannot render these clauses, in
order that God can have pity ,- no, he will ac-
tually have mercy upon them. Nor can we see
any reason, according to this interpretation, why
Paul should adopt such a high and elevated tone
with regard to a matter which is self-evident, or
how he could call this pvgtrjpiov. It is also
equally unintelligible, if this were all, what
should have induced Paul so solemnly to cele
brate and magnify the divine wisdom, ver. 33 —
36. But everything is plain and consistent if
Paul is understood here to speak the language
of prophecy. He proceeds on the ground of the
expectation universally prevalent among his
countrymen, and authorized by the ancient pro
phets ; he rectifies their ideas with regard to
their future restoration, discards their false con
ceptions, their hopes of earthly good, and then
says, with great assurance, that all Israel will
hereafter be converted to Christ, as all the Gen
tiles will come to worship him; although, when
he wrote, there was no human probability of
either of these events. But in all this he does
not give the least countenance to the enthusi
astic conceptions frequently entertained on this
subject. He does not fix any definite time. But
theologians have often been unwilling to allow
that Paul affirmed the final conversion of the
Jews, because enthusiastic ideas have often
been connected with this doctrine, or because
they have regarded this event as either impos
sible or improbable, since after the lapse of
eighteen centuries there are no signs of its ac
complishment. The sentiment of this passage is as follows :
" I must propose one other important subject for
your (i. e., the Gentile converts) consideration —
a subject with which you have been hitherto un
acquainted, and which has therefore been disre
garded by you — in order that you may not be
proud of your advantages over the unbelieving
Jews : namely, some of the Jews will continue
unbelieving until all the Gentiles who are
chosen by God (itxripapa i^vuv) shall have
brlieved in Christ. (This will therefore first
take place.) But when this is first brought

about (xai ovfco for xai tots or Eitsita, vida
Koppe) — i. e., when all the Gentiles have first
become believers, (now follows the fMifffrjpiov,)
then will the nation of the Israelites also experi
ence salvation, (gu^gstai,) by embracing the
Christian faith. For thus it is said in the scrip-
tures,-4-The Deliverer (Messiah) will come put
pf Zipn (David's line), and then will I free
Jacob from his sins, (Is. xlix.)" Cf. Koppe
on this passage. Paul here quotes the same
passages of the Old Testament from which the
Jews had always proved that an entire restorai-
tion of their nation was predicted by the pro
phets; though he did not understand therri, as
they often did, to refer to an external, civil re
storation. SECTION CLV.
OF THE GENERAL JUDGMENT, AND THE END OF
THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION OF THE WORLD.
I. The General Judgment.
The following texts may be considered as the
most important relating to the last judgment —
viz., Matt. xxv. 31; John, v.; 2 Thess. i. 7 —
10; 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17; 2 Pet. iii. 7—13; 1
Cor. xv. ; and Rev. xx. 11. In illustration of
this doctrine, it may be observed,
(1) According to the uniform doctrine ef the
scriptures, the judgment cf the world will fol
low immediately after the general resurrection ;
and then will be the end of the world, or of its .
present constitution. Cf. 1 Cor. xv.
(2) This doctrine of a general judgment of
the world was also prevalent among the Jews
at the time of Christ and the apostles ; although
they frequently associated with it many incor
rect notions. This doctrine, as well as that of
future retribution and resurrection, was, without
doubt, more and more developed and illustrated,
under the divine guidance and direction, by the
prophets and teachers of the Jewish nation who
lived after the exile. Vide s. 149, II. 2. This
was done more particularly at the same period
of time in which those other doctrines were de
veloped. But there are also passages in Daniel
which allude to this event — e. g., chap. xii.
Before the exile the, doctrine of the judgment
as a solemn, formal transaction at the end of the
world, was not clearly taught. At that time the
Jews held only the general truth, that God is
the righteous Judge of the world, who in his
pwn time weuld pronpunce righteeus sentence
upen all men, acccrding to their deserts, and
bring all their works, even the most secret, to
light. Vide Ps. ix. 5 — 9 ; Eccles. ix. 9 ; xii. 13,
14. The doctrine which was afterwards deve
loped among the Jews, and in the form in which
it existed among them at the time of Christ,
was expressly authorized and confirmed by him
2Z

S42

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

as true, and as constituting a part of his reli
gious system ; in such a way, however, as to ex
clude the false additions of the Jewish teachers.
(3) The holding of this judgment as well as
the raising of the dead is commonly ascribed in
the New Testament to Christ, and represented
as a>commission or plenipotentiary power, which
the Father had given to the man Jesus as Mes
siah. Thus it is said, Rom. ii. 16, ©eos (cf. ver.
6) xpivsl ta xpvitta dv^paitav Sid 'Ir/ffov, and
Christ himself 'says, John, v. 22, 25, xpiow
7tdgav SsSuxs f 9 V19. Vide Matthew, xvi. 27 ;
Acts, x. 42; xvii. 31. Cf. s. 98, II. 3, and
Merus, page 294, note 8 ; and page 296, note 3.
Christ himself.assigns it as the reason why God
had entrusted to him the holding of this judg
ment, that he is a man, (vlbs dv^purtov ;) John,
v. 27, coll. Acts, xvii. 31, cwtJp. God has con
stituted him the Judge of men, because he is
man, and knows from his own experience all
the sufferings and infirmities to which our na
ture is exposed, and can therefore be ccmpas-
sionate and indulgent; Heb. ii. 14 — 17, coll. 1
Timothy, ii. 5.
(4) Names given in the scriptures to the last
judgment. The time of this judgment, and the
judgment itself, are called in the passages al
ready cited, ijfispa (D1<) Kvpiov or 'Irfffov, Xpiff
fov, x. f . X. ; also r/fispa usydxn (bnJ DV), Jude,
ver. 6 ; xpiais (sometimes written xatdxpigis),
xplua, itapovgla Xpifffov, 1 Thess. iv. 15; 2
Thess. ii. 1 ; sgxdtt; ijuspa, John, vi. 39, 40, 44.
Hence the ecclesiastical name of this transac
tion, judicium extremum, or novissimum, the last
judgment, because it will take place at the end
of the world that now is. The term, the last
judgment, is not used, however, in the New
Testament. Nor are the phrases igxdtrj rjiispa
and f 6 igxdtov tuv ij/iipuv used exclusively with
reference to the end of the world. They often
designate merely the future, coming days — e. g.,
2 Timothy, iii. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 3 ; like r™«n rvnnx,
Genesis, xlix. 1. They sometimes also denote
the last period of the world, or the times qf the
Messiah — e. g., Heb. i. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 20, like tixtj
alavav, aiwv usXXuv, Heb. wn oSiy.
(5) The time qf the judgment, or of the end of
the world, and its signs or precursors. Vide
Morus, p. 304, s. 13. According to the assur
ance of the apostles this time is unknown. Yet
many of the Jewish Christians at the times of
the apostles supposed that it would take place
immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem
and of the Jewish state, because the Jews be
lieved that their temple and city would stand
until the end of the world. Vide s. 98, II. 3.
But the apostles never affirmed this ; they never
pretended to the knowledge of a divine revelation
respecting the time, but contented themselves
with saying, that it would come suddenly and
unexpectedly, like a thief in the night; 1 Thess.

v. 2 ; 2 Pet. iii. 10. In the first of these texts,
Paul shews that this event was not so near as
some at that time supposed ; and in the second,
Peter shews that the actual coming of this event
could not be doubted, merely because it seemed
to some to be long delayed. In 2 Cor. iv. 14,
Paul considers himself and his contemporaries as
being among those whom Godwouldraisefromthe
dead through Christ ; he did not therefore expect
himself to survive the judgment of the world,
although from other passages it might seem that
he at least wished he might. It is not by chance
that the declaration of the apostles — that they
could not determine the time and the hour of
this event, is so clearly preserved to us. Were
there any reason to charge them with the oppo
site, to what contempt would their doctrine be
exposed !
As to the signs and precursors of this event
nothing can be very definitely determined from
the New Testament; nothing certainly by
which we can draw conclusions wkh any
safety with regard to the precise time of its oc
currence. No indications pointing definitely te
the day and heur can be expected, especially
for this reason, that the coming of this event is
always described as sudden and unexpected.
Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 10. Even with regard to the far
less important revolution among the Jewish
people, in the overthrow of their state, it is said
(Matt. xiii. 32) that the exact time when it
would take place no one but God knew, not
even the angels, nor the Son of man in his hu
miliation. And yet there have never at any
period been wanting persons who have under
taken to determine definitely the time and hour
of this event. They have commonly reasoned
from some, and often very arbitrary, explana
tions of the Apocalypse, and from calculations
drawn from the same. This ingenious search
after the time and hour of the fulfilment of the
divine predictions is not according to the mind
and will of Christ, since it usually leads to the
neglect of what is more important; and besides,
nothing is gained by it. Vide Acts, i. 7.
In the earliest age of the church many sup
posed that the end of the world would follow
immediately upon the destruction of Jerusalem.
When this event was past, other calculations
were made. In the tenth century the opinion
was very prevalent in the Western church that
the end of the world was near at band, because,
according to Rev. xx. 3, 4, the millennial king
dom should commence after a thousand years.
This belief had the effect, upon the multitudes
who adopted it, to render them inactive ; they
squandered and consumed their goods; they
suffered their houses to go to ruin ; and many
families were reduced to want. Hence, in the
eleventh century there was more building and
repairing done than at any other period.

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 543

• From this we may conclude that the way to
promote the conversion of men is not, as it were,
to compel them to it by the fear of the proximity
of the last day. Even in modern times many
'theologians, and those too of some celebrity,
have entered into calculations of this kind,
drawn chiefly from the Apocalypse — e. g.,
Bengal, Crusius, and others.
What we are definitely taught on this subject
in the New Testament may be stated as fol
lows : — The Christian church will hereafter be
subjected to great temptation from heathen pro-
faneness, from false, delusive doctrine, and ex
treme moral corruption, and will seem for a
time to be ready to perish from these- causes;
but then Christ will appear, and, according to
his promise, triumph over this opposition; and
then, and not till then, will the end of the world
come ; Christ will visibly appear and hold the
general judgment, and conduct the pious into the
kingdom of theblessed. This is the distinctdoc-
trine of Paul, 2 Thess. ii. 3 — 12, and is taught
throughout the Apocalypse, xii. 18 — xxii. 5,
and this is sufficient for our instruction, warn
ing, and comfort.
(6) As to the nature of the general judgment,
and the manner in which it will be conducted
by Christ, we can state on scriptura. authority
only the following particulars : —
(a) That Christ will pronounce sentence upon
all men, even on those who have lived in pa
ganism, Rom. ii. 6, seq. ; Acts, xvii. 71. Vide
s. 88, II. 3. Final sentence will then, too, be
pronounced upon the evil spirits, Jude, ver. 6 ;
2 Pet. ii. 4; Matt. xxv. 41. For other texts,
ef. Morus, p. 294, not. 1 and 3.
(4) This sentence will be righteous and im
partial, 2 Tim. iv. 8. Every one will be judged
according to the light he has enjoyed, and the
use he has made of it. Those who have had
the written law will be judged according to
that; the heathen, according to the light of na
ture, Rom. ii. 13 — 16. Those who have had
greater knowledge, and more opportunities and
powers for doing good than others, and yet have
neglected or abused them, will receive a severer
sentence, &c. ; Matthew, x. 15, 11, 23, 24;
2 Thess. i. 5. Morus, p. 294, note 4.
(c) This will be the final and irrevocable sen
tence, by which rewards will be bestowed upon
the righteous, and punishments allotted to the
wicked, for their good and evil actions, and the
thoughts of the heart; Matt. xxv. 31 — 46; 2
Cor. v. 10 ; 1 Cor. iv. 5 ; Rom. ii. 6, 16.
Note  It has for a long time been disputed
among theologians, whether the judgment of the
world will be an extern/A, visible, formal trans
action, or whether the mere decision respecting
the destiny of man, the actual taking effect of
retribution, is represented under the image of a
Judicial proceeding, like what is now common

among men? The reasons alleged on both
sides of this question are stated by Gerhard in
his Loci Theologici. Cf. Morus, p. 295, note
1. The latter opinion is adopted by many the
ologians at the present time — e. g., Eckermann,
Henke, and others, who contend that this whole
representation was intended by Christ and the
apostles to be merely figurative, and should be
so understood. It is clear, however, from the
New Testament, unless its language is arbitra
rily interpreted and explained away, that the
first Christian teachers everywhere represent
the judgment of the world as a solemn, yisible
transaction, distinct from retribution; though
its more particular nature cannot be distinctly
determined or made plain to us ; and is therefore
described in the New Testament, for the most
part, by figures. This is very well expressed
by Morus, p. 295, s. 6. If the New Testament
taught the contrary opinion, its doctrines would
not be consistent with each other. For, accord
ing to the New Testament, man will possess
a body, even in the future life, and continue
to be, as he now is, a being composed both of
sense and reason; and so there, as well as here,
he will have the want of something cognizable
by the senses.
With regard to this subject, as well as many
others, the Bible is accustomed to connect figu
rative and literal phraseology together, and to
use these modes of speech interchangeably, in
order to render clear and impressive to our
minds many things which could not otherwise
be represented plainly and forcibly enough.
Thus it is, for example, in the discourses of
Christ on this subject, Matt. xvi. 27, seq., and
chap. xxv. By all which he has there said in
a figurative style, the idea should be impressed
that Christ will visibly appear in a majestic
manner, pronounce some innocent and others
guilty, and treat them accordingly. In the
courts of the ancients it was a custom to place
the former on the right hand, the latter on th»
left ; and every one who heard this discourse oi
Christ knew what he meant by this representa
tion. He taught the same truth without a
figure, when he declared that some should be
pardoned and made happy, and others pro
nounced guilty and punished.
II. Scriptural Doctrine respecting the End of the
World.
(1) Even the ancient Hebrews believed that
as the world had a beginning it would also have
an end ; and so their prophets speak of the grow
ing old of the heavens and the earth. They
teach that hereafter the whole material creation
will become unfit for its purposes, and useless
to its inhabitants, and that God will then lay
by the aged heavens, like an old, worn-out gar
ment, and create a new heaven and a new earth.

544

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

Vide Ps. cii. 10 — li, where this is described,
in opposition to the eternity and unchangeable
ness of God. Cf. Heb. i. 10— 12.
Our seeing the constant fluctuations and
changes of all things, the wasting and falling
away of the hardest rocks, and other observa
tions of a similar nature, may lead to the same
thought, and give it confirmation.
Hence we find, even in the Old Testament,
such expressions as the following: until the
heavens are no more, until the sun and the moon
are no more — e. g., Job, xiv. 12. So in Ps.
lxxii. 5, 7, 17, where a time far removed is ex
pressed by this phraseology; for this period
was naturally conceived of as far distant, since
changes of this nature are found by experience to
require a long time. Moreover, in the prophets,
such expressions as the destruction qf the heavens
and of the earth, the growing pale and darkening
of the sun andmoon, are often used figuratively, to
denote great changes in the world, the calamity
and downfall of particular states and countries,
&c — e. g., Is. xiii. (respecting Babel ; chap.
xxxiv. ; Ezek. xxii. ; Rev. vi. ; Matt. xxiv. 29,
seq. On the contrary, the phrases new heavens,
new earth, the clear shining sun, &c, are used
to denote the welfare and returning prosperity
of states — e. g., Isaiah, lxv. 17; lxvi. 22 ; xiii.
10, et passim. But these very figurative ex
pressions presuppose the literal idea.
(2) From these more general ideas and ex
pectations respecting great changes hereafter to
take place in the universe, there was developed
among the'Jew's and other nations the more de
finite idea of the future destruction cf the werld>
and especially ef pur earth. Everything, it was
Suppesed, weuld be hereafter shattered and de
stroyed, but not annihilated ; since from the
ruins of the ancient structure there would come
forth again a renewed and beautified creation.
Philo says, (De Vita Mosis, torn. ii. p. 144,
ed. Mangey,) via dvatyalvstai r) yij, p.std xd^op-
gw, the earth shall appear new again, after its
purification, even as it was after its first creation.
He calls this renovation rfa?nyy£i>Effiai', vsat spiff-
pbv tav gtoixslav, x. t. x. ; as the Greeks also
denominated the same thing, itaxiyysvsglav tuv
bxov — an expression used by the stoics with
reference to this subject. This end of the
world was not then described as its entire de
struction or annihilation.
Npw Christ and the apostles taught the doc
trine of the end of the world very distinctly and
plainly, and sanctioned what was previously
known on this subject by their own authority.
Vide Matt. v. 18; Luke, xxi. 33; 2 Pet. iii.;
1 Cor. xv. ; Rev. xx. 11, et passim. But among
the Jews and some others the doctrine prevailed
that this change would be effected by a general
conflagration. This belief in such a conflagra
tion did not at first rest upon any arguments

drawn from a profound knowledge of natural
philosophy ; such, for example, as the supposi.
tion of a fire burning in the centre of the earthj
or the approximation of a comet, as many mo
dern writers have thought, but they were first
led to this belief, and afterwards confirmed: in
it, by thoughts like the following : Water and
fire are the two most powerful and efficient ele
ments, by which the most violent changes are
produced in the earth, and by which desolations
and renovatipns are effected. New we find tra-
ditipns among all nations respecting great flppds
pf water, and the deselations occasioned by them
in the earliest times. According to Moses, the
water originally covered the whole earth, and
the dry land issued from thence, and then fol
lowed Noah's flood. It was now the expecta
tion that hereafter the other still more fearful
element; — the fire, which even now often causes
such terrible desolations, would effect a still
more amazing and universal revolution than
that effected by the water, and that by this
means the earth would be renewed and beau
tified. It was by such analogies as these that this
traditionary belief was confirmed and illustrated
among the heathen nations where it prevailed.
It was afterwards adopted by many philoso
phers into their systems, and advocated by them
on grounds of natural philosophy. Thus, for
example, Heraclitus among the Greeks con
tended for such a conflagration and regenera
tion of the earth by means of fire; and so after
him the stoics. Cf. Cicero, De Nat Deor. ii.
46 ; and Seneca, Quaest Nat. ii. 28 — 30.
This doctrine of the perishing of the world by
fire was unquestionably prevalent among the
Jews at the time of Christ and the apostles, al
though Philo does not accede to it in his book
LTEpi dy^apcfias xdffftov. The arguments which
he there brings against it are, however, ex
tremely meagre, built partly upon arbitrary me
taphysical reasoning and partly upon a play on
the word xbgpos.
In one passage of the New Testament this
doctrine is very distinctly stated, 2 Pet. iii.
7 — 13. It cannot be thought that what is here
said respecting the burning of the world is to be
understood figuratively, as Wetstein supposes;
because the fire is here too directly opposed to
the literal water of the flood to be so understood.
It is the object of Peter to refute the boast of
scoffers, that all things had remained unchanged
from the beginning, and that therefore no day
of judgment and no end of the world could be
expected. And so he says that originally, at the
time of the creation, the whole earth was cover
ed and overflowed with water, (Gen. i.,) and
that from hence the dry land appeared and the
same was true at the time of Noah's flood. Bu»
there is yet to come a great fire-revolunon. The

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 545

heavens and the earth (the earth with its atmo
sphere) are reserved, or kept in store, for the
fixe until the day of judgment; ver. 10, at that
time the heavens will pass away (niapE'p^Eo^ai)
with a great noise, the elements will be dissolved
by fervent heat, and everything upon the earth
will be burnt up. The same thing is taught in
ver. 12. But in ver. 13, Peter gives the design of
this revolution ; it will not be an annihilation,
but " we expect a new heaven, and a new earth,
wherein dwelleth righteousness" — i. e., an en
tirely new, altered, and beautified abode for man,
to be built from the ruins of his former dwell
ing-place, as the future habitation of the pious.
Cf. Rev. xxi. 1, seq. This will be very much
in the same way as a more perfect and an im
mortal body will be reared from the body which
we now possess. The passage, Rom. viii. 19,
seq., also treats of this renovation and beauti
fying of the world. Vide Morus, p. 303, note 5.
.Cf., with regard to the subjects here discussed,
Siiskind's "Magazin fiir christliche Dogmatik
und Moral," lOtes St. No. 2, respecting the
Jewish ideas of the Messiah as the governor of
the world and the raiser of the dead ; and No. 3,
the declarations of Jesus, in which he ascribes
to himself the raising of the dead, the judging
of the world, and a kingdom at the end of the
world, SECTION CLVI.
OF THE PUNISHMENTS OF HELL, OR ETERNAL
CONDEMNATION.
I. Scriptural Names and Representations of these
Punishments, and of the Place where they will
be inflicted.
According to the doctrine of the Jewish na
tion at the time of Christ — a doctrine which he
himself receives as true, and expressly author
izes and confirms — the wicked are miserable,
and the righteous happy, even immediately
after death. Cf. what was said respecting the
intermediate state s. 150. Still it is not until
after the day of judgment that the perfect bless
edness of the righteous or the entire misery of
the wicked will properly commence, and they
enter upon the state of full retribution. The
former will then go to an abode of joy, the latter
to a place of sorrow. Vide Wetstein on Matt.
xxv. 46. The condition of wicked men and nf
the fallen angels before the day of judgment is
described by the sacred writers as like that of
malefactors while yet in prison, before the final
judicial sentence is pronounced upon tjiem.
The place in which they are confined is pro
perly called Tdpf apos, and it is a part of Hades
—the invisible world in which bad angels and
ungodly men are reserved until the day of judg
ment. Vide s. 150, 1. 1. This place is also
69

calfed £0905, or gxbtos, in the epistle of Jude and
in 2 Pet. ii., and fvXaxi) in 1 Pet. iii. 19. Even
in this place the wicked are represented as in
deed Unhappy, but their complete misery will
not commence until after judicial sentence has
been pronounced upon them.
The place of punishment after judgment is not
revealed in the scriptures, nor is it known dis
tinctly whether the Jews conceived of it as under
the earth, or as entirely beyond the" boundaries
of our planet The term dSrjs is not used in the
scriptures to designate specifically this place,
for hinxl and ijSr/s are the names given to the
kingdom of the dead, where the righteous and
the wicked both abide after death. Vide s.
150, I. The more appropriate designations of
this place are xCpvn itvpbs xai §slov ; Rev. xx.
10, 15; and yslwa, Matt. x. 28; v. 22; on
which place cf. Wetstein.
The names given to these punishments them
selves, both before and after judgment, are in
part figurative, and many terms which were
commonly applied by the Jews to this subject
are retained in the New Testament. These
images are taken from death, capital punish
ment, tortures, prisons, &c ; and it is the design
of the sacred writers, in using s,uch figures, to
awaken the idea ef spmething terrible and fear
ful ; future punishment, they mean te teach, will
awaken in men the same feelings of distress as
are produced by the objects employed to repre
sent it. Some of the more general and literal
names of this punishment are bxs^pos aiavios,
2 Thess. i. 9 ; dpyr) fi£M.ovffa, Matt. iii. 7 ; xbxa-
sis aiuvios, Matt xxv. 46 ; jSdsavoi, Luke, xvi.
24, 25. The more figurative names are ^drafos,
John, viii. 51 ; xi. 26 ; $dvatos Ssvtspos, Rev.
xx. 6, &c. Vide s. 147, II. ; gxbtos and £090,5
fov ffxdfovs, Matt. xxv. ; Jude, ver. 6, seq. ; nip
alaviov, $xb% rtvpos, Matt. xxv. 41 ; xviii. 8 ;
2 Thess. i. 9 ; the worm which dies not, Mark,
ix. 44, where the comparison is taken from
Isaiah, lxvi. 24 ; itopsvsg^ai ditb ®sov, in oppo
sition to beholding the countenance of God, Matt
xxv. 41 ; having no rest day nor night, Rev.
xiv. 11, &c.
Many ef the Jews, and some even of the
church fathers, took these terms in an entirely
literal sense, and supposed there would be literal
fire &c. in hell. But nothing more can be in
ferred with certainty from the words of Christ
and the apostles than that they meant by these
images to describe great and unending misery.
The name adopted by the schoolmen, damnatio
xterna, is founded upon Heb. vi. 2, where we
find xplua (i. e., xafdxpifia) aicwiop. Cf.
2 Thess. i. 9.
II. Nature of Future Punishments.
It is certain from the plainest declaration of
the holy scriptures (cf. s. 155), and may also
2 z 2

546

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

be proved on grounds of reason, that the happi
ness or misery of the future world stands in
most intimate connexion with the present life.
The rewards and blessedness of the world to
come are to be regarded as the salutary and hap
py consequences of the present life and conduct
of men; and, on the contrary, the punishments
there to be endured, and future misery, as the
sad and fatal consequences of their character
and actions in this world. Our future good or
evil estate is dependent upon our present life
and character.
The divine punishments are divided into na-
iural and positive, or arbitrary, and both these
kinds belong to future punishment. Vide s. 31,
86, 87.
(1) Among natural punishments we may
reckon the following — viz.,
(a) The loss or deprivation of eternal happi
ness, pxna damni, Matt. vii. 21 — 23, aitoxapslts
dit' ipoi. Matt. xxii. 13 ; xxv. 41 : in all of
these texts the representation is figurative. Cf.
2 Thess. i. 9, Six-nv tloovgw — ditb itpoguitov tov
Kvpiov — i. c, removed from Christ, and from
the happiness which he enjoys.
(4/ The painful sensations which are the na
tural consequence of committing sin, and of an
impenitent heart, patna sensus. These punish
ments are inevitable, and connected as closely
and inseparably with sin as any effect with its
cause. From the consciousness of being guilty
of sin arise regret, sorrow, and remorse of con
science, and it is these inward pangs which are
the most grievous and tormenting. The con
science of man is a stern accuser, which cannot
be refuted or bribed, and the more its voice is
disregarded or suppressed here upon earth, the
more loudly will it speak hereafter. For man
will then be no longer surrounded, as he is in
this world, with external circumstances, which
distract the mind, and prevent him from seeing
the heinousness of sin, and from reflecting on
his unhappy situation. He will pass at once
from the noise and tumult of the things of sense
into the stillness of the future world, and will
there awake to reflection. He will then see
how he has neglected the means of improvement
and salvation, and to what irreparable injury he
has thus exposed himself.
Add to this, that the propensity to sin, the
passions and evil desires which in this world
occupy the human heart, are carried along into
the next. For it cannot be supposed that they
will be suddenly eradicated as by a miracle ; and
this is not promised. But these desires and
•propensities can no longer find satisfaction in
the future world, where man will be placed in
an entirely different situation, and surrounded
by a circle of objects entirely new ; hence they
will become the more inflamed. From the very
nature of the case it is plain, therefore, that the

state of such a man hereafter must necessarily
be miserable. Shame, regret, remorse, hope
lessness, and absolute despair, are the natural,
inevitable, and extremely dreadful consequences
of the sins committed in this life.
(2) But there are also, according to the most
incontrovertible declarations of the scriptures,
positive or arbitrary punishments — i. e., such as
stand in no natural and necessary connexion
with sin. Vide Morus, p. 297, note 2. This
is, indeed, denied by those who will not allow
that God inflicts any arbitrary punishments.
Vide s. 31, 86, 87. But even if they suppose
they can make their opinion appear probable on
philosophical grounds, they ought not still to
assert that the doctrine of positive punishments
is not taught in the Bible. All the ancient na
tions who believed in the punishments of hell
regarded these punishments, at least the most
severe and terrible of them, as positive or arbi
trary — i. e., as depending on the will of the
Legislator; as, on the other hand, they regard
ed the rewards of the pious as not merely natu
ral, but principally arbitrary.
There are, in fact, but few men in such a state
that the merely natural punishments of sin will
appear to them terrible enough to deter them
from the commission of it; and so, for this rea
son, if for no other, the doctrine of positive pu
nishments should be retained in popular instruc
tion. Experience also shews that to threaten
positive punishment has far more effect, as well
upon the cultivated as the uncultivated, in de
terring them from crime, than to announce and
lead men to expect the merely natural conse
quences of sin, be they ever so terrible. Hence
we may see why it is that the New Testament
says little of natural punishments, (although
these beyond a question await the wicked,) and
makes mention of them in particular far less
frequently than of positive punishments; and
why, in those passages which treat of the pu
nishments ofhell, such expressions and images
are almost always employed as suggest and
confirm the idea of positive punishments. Cf.
No. I. of this section ad finem.
Those, therefore, who consider Jesus to be
a teacher of truth, in whose mouth there was no
guile, must necessarily believe also his often
repeated declarations on this subject. It is very
inconsistent in some modern philosophers and
theologians to admit of positive rewards for the
pious, and yet deny positive punishments for the
wicked. We are, indeed, compelled to admit
positive rewards, because those which are merely
natural tare not sufficient to complete the mea
sure of our happiness. If the positive rewards
are probable on grounds 'of reason, how can it
be said that positive punishments are impossible
and contradictory? It was, moreover, the pre
vailing doctrine among the Jews at the time of

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 547

Christ, that punishments are for the most part
positive, and that they affect even the body.
Hence the words pf Christ, aitoXsgat ^xv" xai
gaua, Matt. x. 28. Fpr since the impenitent
will be again clethed with a bedy at the resur
rectien, this bedy must participate in their pu
nishment, as the body of the righteous will par
ticipate in their reward.
As to the question, In what these positive or
corporeal punishments will consist ? no definite
answer can be drawn from the Bible, because
it is plainly intended that all the representations
made of this subject should be understopd figu
ratively and by way ef cemparispn — i. e., these
punishments will censist pf pains like these,
e. g., arising frem fire er from a gnawing worm.
We are so little acquainted with the state in
which we shall be hereafter, and with the na
ture of our future body, that no strictly literal
representation of future punishments could be
made intelligible to us. Even the place in
which the wicked are confined will contribute
much to their misery, also the company of other
sinners, and of evil spirits — a circumstance
particularly mentioned in Matt. xxv. 41.
Note. — The efforts of those who have endea
voured te persuade even the. common people
and the young that no positive divine punish
ments are to be expected in the world to come,
have ever had a most injurious tendency, as
the history of all ages will shew. For the
deep-rooted expectation of such punishments
among all nations has always been a check
upon the more gross outbreakings of sin. It
was from this expectation that the oath derived
its sacredness and inviolableness. It is often
said by Cicero and others, that all philosophers,
both C}reek and Roman, are agreed in this, that
the gods do not punish, dcos non nocere. But
as soon as this opinion of the philosophers be
gan to prevail among the people, it produced,
according to the testimony of all the Roman
writers, the most disastrous consequences,
which lasted for centuries. No subsequent ef
forts could ever succeed in awakening a fear
of divine punishments in the minds of the great
multitude. Hence resulted the deplerable de
generacy ef the Reman empire. Truth and
faith ceased, chastity became centemptible,
perjury was practised without shame, and
every species of luxurious excess and of cruelty
was indulged. To this corruption no philoso
pher was able to oppose any effectual resist
ance ; until at length its course was arrested
by Christianity.
Among Christians themselves such efforts
have always been followed by similar disastrous
consequences. (1) The papal sale of indulgences, which be
came general during the twelfth and the suc-
c«u>dmo- centuries, and especially after the cru

sades, had a tendency, in the same way, to
diminish the fear of positive divine punishments,
because it was supposed one might purchase
exemption from them. The result of this delu
sion was equally deplorable in this case as in
the one before mentioned; the greatest immo
ralities prevailed throughout Christian lands;
until this evil was arrested by the reformation,
and the fear and the love of God were both
awakened anew in the hearts of Christians.
(2) A similar result took place in England in
the latter half of the seventeenth century, when
some rationalist philosophers, during the reign
of Charles IL, undertook to emancipate the
minds of men from the fear of positive divine
punishments. The effect of their efforts is well
known from history. Frivolity of spirit, im
morality, sins of impurity, and all the dreadful
consequences of forgetting God, suddenly pre»
vailed. (3) The principles of these English philoso
phers were gradually diffused through France
by the writings of Voltaire, Diderot, and others ;
and after 1740, they were also adopted and dis
seminated by some even in Germany. The
history of our own times shews us sufficiently
what has been the result of these principles here.
It is agreeable to the gospel — it is, indeed the
very spirit of the gospel, to represent God as
Love. It is also right for the evangelical teacher,
indeed, it is his duty, to preach respecting the
infinite love of God, especially as itis manifested
in Jesus Christ. In this his whole heart should
live. But he must never forget to teach in what
order and on what conditions alone man becomes
susceptible of these proofs of the divine favour.
The gospel itself, though at a loss for words
sufficiently to magnify the infinite love of God,
represents also' his penal justice in a light ex
tremely terrifying to all who do not fall in with
this prescribed order, and threatens them with
the most severe and inevitable punishments in
the world to come. Both of these views should
therefore be connected together. Cf. the small
work written by Jacobi, Was soil ich zur Beru-
higung meiner Seele glauben ? Was soil ich hoffen
bey den mannichfaltigen Meinungen der Gelehr-
ten?" 1790; s. 83—96.
III. The Justice and Necessity of the Punishments
of Hell,- the Sins which being Condemnation in
their train ,- and the different Degrees of Punish
ment. (1) That there will be punishments in the
future state nas been believed by nearly all men
who have reflected impartially upon the world,
the destiny of man as a moral being, and upon
the attributes of God. It is obvious to every
one that the earth is not the theatre of the divine
justice, and that the lot of man here below is
not justly apportioned to his moral conduct

548

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

The greatest criminal often goes unpunished,
and lives, perhaps, in external peace and pros
perity ; and the pious, good man is often unre
warded, lives in adverse external circumstances,
and frequently is severely persecuted. All this,
now, appears to contradict our ideas of the di
vine justice, goodness, and wisdom, and makes
the destination of man an inexplicable riddle.
As soon, therefore, as men came to believe in
a future life, and began to reflect upon the dis
proportion which now exists between the moral
character and the happiness of men, the thought
would naturally suggest itself to their minds
that the proper theatre of divine justice will be
first opened in the world to come, and that the
punishment of the sinner there may be as confi
dently expected as the reward of the righteous,
since in this way only can either the justice or
goodness of God be vindicated. Vide the Arti
cle on Providence, especially s. 71, VI., ad
finem. Also Michaelis, Ueber die Lehre von
der Siinde, s. 314. Such, accordingly, is the
uniform representatien of the New Testament.
Vide 2 Thess. i. 5, seq. ; Rom. ii. 6, seq.
(2) Causes of condemnation. According to the
conceptions of men possessing only a very limited
and imperfect knowledge of moral things, it is
only a few of the grosser crimes which are
punished after death. In proportion as their
Ideas on moral subjects become enlarged and
perfected, the number of offences which they re
gard as liable to punishment is increased, and
they come at length to the just result that every
sin must be punished. Vide s. 150, II. 2. And
so, according to the express doctrine of the New
Tcstuuent, all irreligiousness (an ungodly dis
position, forgetfulness of God, dgsjlsia), every
transgression of the divine precepts, all kinds
of vice and moral corruption, will be inevitably
punished in the future world ; and this punish
ment will be inflicted not only upon those who,
like Jews and Christians, have the express
written law of God, but also upon the heathen,
who have merely the law of nature. Vide Rom.
ii. 6—16; Gal. iv. 8; Matt. xxv. 41, seq.; 1
Cor. vi. 9 ; 2 Pet ii. 1—3.
Especially is drtiafia or ditsfesia represented
as a cause of condemnation. So Mark, xvi; 16,
' he that believeth not is condemned." John,
Hi. 18, and ver. 36, 6 drtEi^wv via oix o^Efai
fur)*, dxx' rj Spyi\ ©eov pivsi lit' aitbv. By this
unbelief is meant, the deliberate rejection of the
doctrine of Christ, and disobedience to his pre
cepts, against one's better conviction. It in
cludes also apostasy from the Christian doctrine
when it has been once received and acknowledged
as true ; Hebrews, x. 26, 39. Everything there
fore which draws after it punishment in the fu
ture world maybe comprehended under drtifffid
and avoala — a criminal disbelief and transgres
sion of the divine precepts. Whcever, then, is

ditigtos er avopos, will be unhappy hereafter,
however different the degrees of unhappiness
may be. On the contrary, itigtis and SWouof
0ios (sigsfisia) will be followed by blessedness,
however great the difference in degree may be.
It will be understood, of course, that among the
unbelieving who will be punished those are not
included who have no opportunity to become
acquainted with the divine will or with the
Christian doctrine, or who are naturally incapa
citated for this; in short, those who do not be
lieve without any fault of their own — e. g.,
children and many of the heathen. Vide s. 121.
Note. — As to the number of those who will be
saved and lost, the Bible says nothing definitely.
When, on a certain occasion, the question was
proposed to Christ, Whether the number qf the
saved would be small ? he gave an answer, ac
cording to Luke, xiii. 23, seq., of the following
import : — " Ask not such questions from an idle
curiosity, but act as if thou wert alone among
many thousands." There are, indeed, many
who will be saved, (cf. ver. 28, 29, and Rev.
vii. 9,) but among them there will be many
whose lot it was supposed would be different;
and not all of those who account themselves the
heirs of salvation, and are so esteemed by others,
will be found in this number, ver. 29, 30. It
is often distinctly affirmed by Christ, that among
those who profess his name there are many
who will not obtain eternal life, although he de
sires to lead all to salvation. E. g., Matt. xx. 16 ;
xxii. 14, " many are called, but few are chosen"
— i. e., many who hear mp suffer themselves
to be instructed in my doctrine, and become ex
ternally professors of my religion (xXvtol) ; but
few, however, belong to the number of the
chosen saints, the elect, those who are well-
pleasing in the sight of God, who do that which
is commanded them, who are what they should
be. It is the same as to Matt. vii. 13, 14, where
Christ shews that the way in which many
teacher's lead the people is not the right way for
attaining salvation — i. e., their instruction is not
true and salutary, although followed by the ma
jority of men (iazatita); the right and sure way
which he points out meets with less approbation
(it is narrow and forsaken, trodden by few), be
cause it is more diffioult and requires many sa
crifices. For there were at that time but few
who believed on him, and kept his command
ments with the whole heart.
(3) As there are future- punishments, they
must be different in degree. Vide Morus, p. 298,
s,. 9. This might be concluded a priori, and
might be reasonably expected from the justice
of God ; for there are different degrees in sin,
and one is greater than another ; (vide s. 81,
II. ;) and hence punishments, both natural and
positive, must be proportionately varied. Now
this is the uniform doctrine of Jesus and tho

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 549

apestles. The mere knewledge ef the divine
will a man has, the mere opportunity and in
ducement to avoid sin, the greater the incentives
te faith and virtue which are held up before him,
by se much is his respensibility increased, and
the greater will be his punishment if he dees net
make a faithful use of his advantages. "The
servant who knows his Lord's will, and does it
not, deserves to be beaten with many stripes."
» To whom much is given, of him will much be
required." Matt. x. 15; xxiii. 15; Luke, xii.
4f>. Hence Paul says that the heathen who act
against the law of nature will be punished ; but
that the Jews will be punished more than they,
because they had more knowledge, and more was
given to them.
But we can go no further than this general
rule, that this difference of degree will be ap
portioned xofd yvugw, itlgtiv, and Epya. For
God alone is able rightly to appoint punish
ments, and to fix their degree, since he alone is
able by his omniscience to determine infallibly
the degree of sin and its ill desert. It may
therefore be, that many whom we regard as ut
terly damnable may not in God's judgment de
serve damnation, or not that degree of it which
we award them. Others, on the contrary, to
whom we might adjudge reward, may- appear
in the eyes of God to deserve severe punish
ment SECTION CLVII.
DURATION OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS ; REASONS
FOR AND AGAINST THEIR ETERNAL DURATION.
Reasons in favour of the Eternal Duration of Fu
ture Punishments, and what is, or may be, ob
jected against these Reasons.
(1) From the holy scriptures. In the New
Testament, the punishments of hell are ex
pressly described as eternal. In Matt. xxv. 41,
46, we find itip aiuviov and xbxagis aicwios op
posed to fur) aiavios- in both of these sentences,
therefore, must aiavios be taken in the same
sense, per legem disjunctionis. And so, if in
connexion with gut), it means unending, eternal,
it must mean the same in connexion with 7t.vp.
In accordance with this must other texts be ex
plained ; as where it is said respecting the fallen
angels, that they are bound in SEffftoi diSioi,
Jude, ver. 6, coll. 2 Pet. ii. 4; Rev. xiv. 11;
bXs$pos aiavios, 2 Thess. i. 9 ; Mark, ix. 44, 46 ;
Rev. xx. 10. So in John, iii. 36, where it is
said respecting unbelievers, psvst r} dpyr) ©eov —
ovx b^etat tufa. In Matt. xxvi. 24, Christ
says respecting Judas, "that it would have
been better for him never to have been born."
With regard to these texts we shall here sub
join some observations.

(a) On the texts in which aiuv and aiavios
are used. These are regarded by some as not
decisive. For dSiji and aluv are used to denote
any long duration or period of time. Sometimes
they refer to the past, and denote ages gone by,
ancient days, antiquity ; thus, itixai aiiij/ia, Ps.
xxiv. 7, 9 ; sttj aidwia, years of antiquity, Ps.
lxxvii. 5 ; a;p6»»oi alavwi, Rom. xvi. 25 ; art'
aiavos, Acts, iii. 21. .Sometimes they refer to
future time, and are applied to everything
which lasts long, although in time it may come
to an end, or has come to it already. For the
Hebrews and other ancient people have no one
word for expressing the precise idea of eternity.
Cf. s. 20, III., respecting the eternity of God.
Thus Paul, 2 Cor. iv. 18, opposes ai<wioi/ to
rtpdffxaipov. Thus Sia^r/xr/ aiavios is used with
reference to the Mosaic institute, although it
came to an end, Ex. xxxi. 16 ; the same as to
lEpofEia aidn<ios, Num. xxv. 13.,
From this, as some suppose, it follows, that
xo^auis aiavios may mean: either the pain and
condemnation ordained by God of old (as Christ
says, with regard to the blessedness opposed to
it, that it was itpotjtoipagp.svii, Matt. xxv. 34,
41), or misery and happiness long continued,
lasting for ages, without yet designating a dura
tion absolutely endless ; or both of these senses
may be comprehended under this expression. In
the invisible world, everything is alavim and
diSiov. There, according to the conceptions of
all nations, time is not measured by years and
short human periods, as it is here in the world,
but by long periods, by ages.
To this some add the remark, that itip and
xoTiaffis aiavios properly denote the place, the
kingdom, the residence of the lost — the state of
condemnation ; as ^agiXsla ©tov and fur) alavms
denote the place, the abode of the blessed.
This place, they say, may be eternal, because
it will never be without occupants, or persons
who endure punishment on account of sin.
There will always be two different kingdoms,
one of happiness, the other of misery, the dis
tinction between which will never be removed,
and which can never be united. But from this
it does not follow that every person who has
once been there, or suffered punishment, will
remain there for ever.
(4) As to the phrase, their worm dieth not,
&c, Mark, ix., this, it is said, occurs also in
Is. lxvi. 24, with reference to the unhappy fate
of the idolatrous Israelites, and is transferred
here to the punishments of hell. Since, how
ever, in the former case it does not denote an
absolute eternity of suffering, but only its
dreadfulness and long continuance, so it is at
least possible it may mean the same here. And
as to the term jueVei in John, iii., the idea of
eternity is still less implied in this. As useii

550

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY,

by John, it may stand for slvai, and denote only
the certainty and inevitablenesss of future pu
nishments. ^
(c) In the passage with regard to Judas,
Matt, xxvi., the language employed, it is said,
may be proverbial and popular, not admitting of
a strict construction. It is as much as to say,
" such an one makes himself extremely misera
ble; well would it be for him had he never
been born!"
But these texts in which there is a clear con
trast between £aij aiovios and xbxagis aiavios,
cannot be so easily explained away as some
suppose. And if any one considers them im
partially, and without attempting to prevent
their obvious meaning, he will not fail to de
rive from them, as Morus justly observes, (p.
300, ad finem,) " idea sempiternitatis, non autem
longi temporis." For since fur; aioxios in all
the other discourses of Jesus is understood,
without contradiction, to denote a blessed life
lasting for ever, there is no reason .for under
standing it differently here. And if ifw?) aicwios
here means eternal life, then, per legem disjunc-
tionis, must xda,affis aiavios denote eternal, un
ending punishment. And the other textst relat
ing to this subject must now be explained in
accordance with these.
(2) Other arguments a priori have been em
ployed in behalf of the eternity of future punish
ments. (a) The guilt (culpa,' reatus) of sin, it is said,
is infinite, and its punishment must therefore be
the same. The injured majesty of the law
giver is infinite, and hence punishment for the
injury must be infinite too. This argument
was employed by many of the schoolmen —
e. g., Thomas Aquinas, and has also been urged
by Mosheim, and other modern theologians.
Answer. — There is no infinitus reatus peccato
rum, nor can the object against which sin is
committed be made in every case the measure
of its criminality or ill desert ; certainly this
cannot be done with regard to God. Vide s.
81, ad finem.
(4) Every sin is followed, to all eternity, by
injurious consequences to him who commits it;
as every virtue or good action is followed by
good consequences. The wicked, therefore,
must be miserable to all eternity, and endure
the punishment of their sins.
Answer. — This is very true, as far as natural
punishments, or the natural evil consequences
of sin, are spoken of. And if these are meant
when the eternity of future punishments is
mentioned, then indeed must they be called
eternal, since something will always be de
tracted from the happiness of the sinner for his
having sinned, even if he repents, and all posi-
*. ve punishments are removed from him or re

pealed, as it cannot be otherwise than that the
natural consequences of sin should always re
main. Those who have sinned will always
stand proportionably below others in point of
happiness, as there are degrees both of blessed
ness and misery.
Here, however, two things should be remark
ed — viz., first, all the consequences of our ac
tions cannot be imputed to us, and so all the
evil consequences of our actions cannot be re
garded as punishment, especially in case it was
impossible for us to foresee these consequences,
or when we sinned unintentionally. Secondly.
Divine Providence has wisely ordered it, that
good and useful consequences shall often result
even from the sins of men, and these conse
quences are equally unending— e. g., through
the unbelief of the Jews the heathen are saved,
according to Paul, Rom. xi. This now should
be taken into consideration, in mitigation of the
guilt and punishableness of many sins.
(c) Another argument in behalf of the eter
nity of future punishments is drawn from the
scientia media Dei. Vide s. 22, 1. With regard
to some men, God foresaw that if they conti
nued here upon the earth they would sin with
out cessation. Since now theso persons are
such, as to their whole constitution and dispo
sition, that they would go on for ever to sin,
they are justly punished for ever. This argu
ment was employed by Fulgentius and Gregory
the great ; and it has been" again used of late by
Drexel, Baumgarten, Troschel, and others.
Answer  It cannot be reconciled with out
ideas of justice that sins which were never ac
tually committed should be punished as if they
had been committed. If a human ruler should
punish an individual'for crimes of which he was
never actually guilty, but which he knew with
certainty he would perpetrate if he had means,
time, and opportunity, it would doubtless be
pronounced unjust and tyrannical. The fact,
too, is very questionable, whether there are any
men who would go to sin without interruption,
in every possible situation and under all cir
cumstances in which they might be placed in
this world. Nothing like this is taught us in
the Christian doctrine. According to this, God
punishes only fd Ipya, or a sitpo%Ev hxagtos.
Rom. ii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 10.
(d) The eternity of the punishments of hell
is inferred by others from the bias to sin, which
will continually acquire strength in those who
are lost, and finally make repentance impossible.
It is often seen, even here upon the earth, how
deeply this propensity to sin takes root when it
is long indulged, and how difficult, and indeed
impossible, repentance becomes. Besides, the
use of the means qf grace is confined to the pre
sent life. Hereafter there will be no preaching

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 551

ef the word of God, and no sacraments, and the
grace of God will no longer be there given to
bring men to repentance.
Answer. — In these statements there is much
which is vague and incapable of proof.
First. The state of things in the future world
is very different froVn the state here. The rea
son why the bias to sin takes such deep root,
and why reformation is so difficult in the pre
sent world, often lies in the external circum
stances by which man is surrounded, and which
make an irresistible impression upon his senses.
As soon as these objects can be removed, or the
impression which they make upon the senses
can be weakened, it is seen that reformation
becomes more easy. But now in the future
world the spirits of lost men will no longer be
surrounded by these external objects, which
prove so exciting to the senses ; so that, even
if the impression before made upon them by
these objects should for awhilel remain, they
must still, from the very nature of the human
soul, become weaker and weaker in the absence
of these excitements. It would seem, there
fore, that sometimes, at least, the propensity to
sin must gradually decrease in the future world,
especially when we consider that those who are
lost, being no longer deceived by external and
sensible objects, and being no longer withdrawn
from reflection as when upon the earth, will
now see and deeply feel the evil consequences
of sin.
Secondly. From hence we may conclude, if
the use of reason is not wholly denied to the
damned, and if their moral nature is not wholly
destroyed, that it is not improbable that even in
hell they may possibly conceive an abhorrence of
sin, and renounce their love for it, although the
word of God is not there preached, nor the sacra
ments there administered. Morus, p. 301. The
knowledge which they will carry with them
from this life into the next cannot be entirely
obliterated ; nor can it be supposed that God
will compel them to sin, or so entirely withhold
from them his grace that they will not be able
to come to the knowledge of their sins, and to
renounce the prejudice and wickedness cherish
ed during the present life. For God to do this
would be to punish sin with sin, and to be him
self the author of new offences. It may be
asked, then, whether the end of the divine pu
nishments, to promote the actual reformation of
those upon whom they are inflicted, may not be
attained even in the case of those who will
hereafter be condemned ?
Thirdly. But should any one say that these
punishments will be so severe, and will cause
so great pain, that they will rather drive those
upon whom they are inflicted to despair, dis
traction, or fury, than promote their repentance,
he does not consider that such a statement can

hardly be reconciled with our ideas of the jus
tice and goodness of God. These ideas do not
permit us to suppose that he will punish any
one as an offender from whom he himself has
withdrawn all opportunity for repentance and
all freedom of action. He only can be rightly
punished who enjoyed freedom, but would not
employ the means and opportunities for reform
ation which were offered him.
II. Arguments for the Finiteness of Future Punish
ments, and Objections to these Arguments.
Besides what is commonly said to invalidate
the prevailing opinion of the eternity of future
punishments, the following arguments are often
employed to support the opinion that they are
finite in duration. These arguments are of very
unequal weight.
(1) Arguments from the New Testament.
(a) The advocates of this opinion appeal to the
declaration of Peter, Acts, iii. 21, where xpdvoi
/ditoxatagtaasus itdvtuv are spoken of, which
God had before promised by the prophets. This
is understood by many to denote the future re
covery of lost spirits and men to a happy condi
tion, which is on this account called restoration.
(4) The finiteness of future punishments is in
ferred by others from the efficacy and univer
sality of the merits of Christ. There is no rea
son, they say, to limit the salutary consequences
of his work merely to the present life. It will
continue to be efficacious in the future world if
man is only willing to reform. Such is the
reasoning of many, and they refer to 1 Cor. xv.
22 — 28, where $dvatos denotes misery and the
punishment qf sin; and also other texts.
Answer. — From the New Testament, how
ever, no clear argument can be derived in be
half of the finite duration of future punish
ments ; for,
(a) The passage in 1 Cor. xv. treats of death
in the literal sense, since §dvatcs is there op
posed to the resurrection of the dead, and it is
there expressly said that Christ, in raising the
dead to life, will conquer this last enemy of the
human race. Cf. s. 98, ad-fin. This is therefore
described as his last great work for the good of
the human race. And so, judging from this pas
sage, one could expect no influence of Christ,
or of his work for the good of men, beyond the
grave. (4) That the passage referred to in Acts iii._
does not relate to this point is beyond all ques
tion. Vide Ernesti's Programm on this text,
in his " Opusc Theol.," p. 477, seq. Cf. s. 97,
ad finem. The meaning of this passage is as
follows : — "The heavens have received Christ,
or retain him within themselves, as long a.\
(dzpis ov) the happy period of the New Testament
continues." He will not come again to found
an earthly kingdom. In ver. 20, these xs>ovoi

552

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ditoxatagtdgsas itdvtav are called xaipoi owaJ/i-
%tus ditb Kvpiov, and in Heb. ix. 10, xaipds Siop^w-
ffsios. Thus it is said in Matt. xvii. 11, 'Ha,ias
(i. c, John) d7toxafa<jf77ff£c rtdvfa, where the
phrase is taken from the Sept. Version of Mai.
iv. 6. ndvfa refers to everything which needs
reformation in religious affairs, and to every
thing which is predicted by the prophets. Cf.
Morus, p, 301.
(c) Nor is there in the discourses of Jesus a
single passage which encourages the hope that
there will be a termination of future punish
ments. Cf., e. g., Luke, xvi.
(2) Arguments from reason for the-finite dura
tion of future punishments. The principal of'
these are drawn from our ideas of the divine at
tributes, the goodness, wisdom, and justice of
God. How can it be reconciled with these at
tributes, it is asked, that God should make so
large a number of his rational creatures for ever
miserable ? How can God, who is love itself,
punish his creatures eternally because" they have
lived a few years only in a thoughtless, wicked,
and irrational manner? This seems to be
wholly disproportionate. Again it is asked,
how could God create beings whose eternal
misery he foresaw ?
To these questions it may be replied,
(a) That although the views expressed in
thern are in general true, yet our limited under
standing is unable to determine, in particular
cases, what is to be expected from the divine
goodness, wisdom, and justice, and what is ac
cordant with these attributes, and what other
wise. And so, although it may appear to us to
be agreeable to the goodness and the other attri
butes of God to put a period to the punishments
ofhell, still it does not follow that he must ne
cessarily, or will actually do this. Did we not
see it to be a fact, that God has created a world
in which there is so much physical and moral
evil, we should proceed to argue, on this prin
ciple, that it would be inconsistent with his
perfections to give such a world existence, and
should think that we had reasoned conclusively.
(4) Again ; in reply to the above questions it
may be said, that God does not look merely at
single individuals, but has respect to the whole
of his creation, and that he must prefer the wel
fare of the whole to that of a few. The offender
himself may not always be benefited by the di
vine punishments visited upon him, but his ex
ample may yet serve for the warning of others,
and thus conduce to their good. Cf. Rom. ix.
17, 22. Thus the eternal punishments inflicted
upon some may perhaps serve, through all eter
nity, to deter from sins many other beings in the
boundless empire of God — good angels, and
men redeemed, and perhaps still other classes
of beings not belonging to this world. By
this punishment, therefore, a good may be done

for many which will overbalance the evil in
flicted on a few. The subject is exhibited by
Michaelis in this light in his work, " Von der
Sunde," s. 325, seq. Plato, in his Gorgias,
near the end, ascribes a similar thought to So
crates ; " he believed that the irreclaimable part
of mankind would be eternally punished, as
rtopaSftyiU-af a, iVa aXXot bpavtss, fyofiovpsvoi jSea-
tlovs y'svuvtai." There is much probability in
this thought. The force of it, however, some
endeavour to invalidate, by saying that it is
conceiving of God too narrowly, and too much
after the manner of men. God cannot be want
ing in other means by which this object could
be more easily and surely attained. Again ; it is
very much to be doubted whether the example of
persons condemned to eternal punishment would
have such a powerful effect upon all, and ac
tually deter them from sin. This effect is not
certainly produced upon many here in this
world, who helieve most confidently in the
eternity of future punishments. Moreover, it
is an imperfection belonging to human legisla
tors and rulers, and not therefore to be trans
ferred to the supreme legislator, that the pu
nishments inflicted by them often serve merely
for the warning of others, and cannot secure the
reformation of those who are punished. Vide
s. 31, No. 2, respecting the positive justice of
God. SECTION CLVIII.
RESULT DRAWN FROM COMPARING AND EXAMIN
ING THE DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS FOR AN»
AGAINST THE ETERNAL DURATION OF FUTURE
PUNISHMENT ; AND A SKETCH OF THE HISTORY
OF THIS DOCTRINE.
I. Result of the Reasons for and against this
Doctrine.
(1) There is not a single text in the New
Testament, either in the discourses of Christ or
in the writings of the apostles, which clearly
authorizes the hope of an entire and universal
removal of all future punishments ; but exactly
the opposite of this sentiment is expressly af
firmed in many passages. Vide s. 157, I. 1,
and II. 1.
(2) The following remarks, drawn partly
from scripture and partly from reason, may
serve to illustrate and confirm what we are
taught in the Bible respecting the duration of
punishment in the future world. There are
two kinds of punishment which the wicked will
be made to suffer — viz.,
(a) Natural punishment. As every action
morally good is followed by endless good con
sequences to him who performs it, so it is with
every wrong action. This is founded in the
wise constitution of things which God himself

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 553

has established. When, thetcfore, natural pu
nishments are spoken of, it iB ofcvious to reason
how an eternal duration of them may be affirm
ed. Indeed, reason cannot conceive it to be
otherwise, since there is no promise of God,
either in the holy scriptures or elsewhere, that
the natural evil consequences of sins once com
mitted will ever cease. In order to this there
must be seme incemprehensible miracle per-
fprmed, and this Gpd has not promised to do.
Hence, as far as natural punishments are con
cerned, their eternal duration may be affirmed,
both on grounds of scripture and reason. Cf.
s. 157, 1. 2.
(4) Positive punishments. With regard to these
we may conceive that they may be removed ;
indeed, much can be said, on grounds of reason,
to render this opinion probable. To hope that God
would remove the positive punishments of sins,
in case the sinner, even in the future life, should
oome to the knowledge of himself, and truly
repent, would seem to be agreeable to the divine
goodness and justice. That the repentance of
the sinner in the future world is absolutely im
possible is not taught in the scriptures. Vide
s. 157, 1, 2, coll. s. 63, II. Note, respecting the
fallen angels. And that even these miserable
beings are by no means wholly excluded from
the active proofs of the goodness and justice of
God is evident from the fact that the Bible ex
pressly teaches that the lot of some of the
damned will be more light and tolerable than that
of others. Vide Matt. xi. 22, 24 ; x. 15 ; Luke,
xii. 48. The phrase xbxagis aiavios may per
haps relate therefore merely to the natural pu
nishments of sin, and not to the positive. Still
it cannot be shewn that this phrase does and
must refer exclusively to these natural punish
ments, and it is still possible that both these
kinds of punishment may be comprehended in
its meaning. In short, no arguments which are
merely philosophical furnish anything more than
a certain degree of probability on this subject;
they cannot enable us to decide anything defi
nitely with regard to it. We know too little
what the positive punishments of the future
world will be, to speak decidedly with regard
to them. Where the object is unknown to us,
we cannot pronounce decidedly that the predi
cate of eternal duration may not be applied to
them. But allowing that positive punishments
may be wholly removed from one who may
have actually repented, still the natural evil
consequences of sin will not therefore, of neces
sity, come to an end. These may, indeed, be
come more light and tolerable to one who has
repented, but even such an one can never be
happy in the same degree as another who has
never sinned. Such an one will always stand
on a lower point of happiness than others, and
70

there will always be a great gulf fixed between
him and them.
(3) The wisdem which Christ and his apes
tles always shewed in exhibiting this dectrine
shculd be imitated by all Christian teachers.
In cur practical instructions we should never
indulge in speculations, or suffer ourselves to
enter upon the investigation of learned questions
which the unpractised cannot understand, and
will but too easily, misconstrue and pervert.
Even the distinction between natural and posi
tive punishments cannot be made perfectly plain
to the unlearned ; and hence it is never insisted
upon in the sacred scriptures ; and that positive
punishments will ever wholly cease in the fu
ture world can be shewn incontrovertibly nei
ther from the Bible nor any other source. It is
moreover impossible to prevent the doctrine of
the finite duration of future punishments, let it
be stated ever so guardedly, from being pervert
ed in various ways by the great mass of man
kind, to their own injury.
Let the teacher, therefore, adhere to the sim
ple doctrine of the Bible ; the more so, consi
dering how little we know of *he future world,
and how liable we are, through our ignorance,
to mistake. Had more full disclosures on this
subject been necessary or useful for us in the
present life, they would have been given to us
by God either through nature, or direct revela
tion, or in both these ways. But since he has
not seen fit to do this, let the Christian teacher
exhibit faithfully and conscientiously that only
which Christ and the apostles taught on this
subject, without either adding anything tn their
testimeny, nr diminishing aught from it.
Note. — Some modern writers, who admit that
eternal punishments are threatened in the Bible,
but who are unable to reconcile this doctrine
with their preconceived philosophical or theo-
lcgical principles, have hit upen the thought
that God has merely threatened these eternal
punishments, in order to deter men more effec
tually from sin, and to sustain more firmly the
authority of his law ; but that it depends upon
himself to what degree he will fulfil his threat
enings. In executing the sentence, he can and
will, it is said, abate something from the seve
rity of the punishment threatened. So thought
Tillotson, in his Sermon on the Pains of Hell.
And this view has appeared not improbable to
many German theologians — e. g., Bushing,
Bahrdt, (in his "Dogmatik,") Less, and others.
But such a supposition is unworthy of God.
Human legislators do, indeed, in consequence
of their weakness, sometimes resort to such ex
pedients, in order to sustain the authority of
their laws. Still such measures, even among
men, are generally followed by injurious conse
quences, and are rarely adopted except by weak
3A

554

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

princes. But with regard to God, who is faith
ful and true, such a supposition is incongruous.
Nor does he need any such expedients, since he
cannot want for means to effect this object,
without going contrary to his veracity. Be
sides, the whole strength and efficacy of all the
threatenings connected with the divine laws
would by this supposition be diminished. For
men are always inclined enough to believe that
they shall not, after all these threatenings, be
dealt with so strictly and severely, because they
have been accustomed to see some abatement
of the penalty annexed to human laws, when it
comes to be inflicted. But against so hurtful a
mistake the holy scriptures labour with the
greatest earnestness, and everywhere insist
upon the doctrine of the divine veracity, and
the unfailing fulfilment of the divine threaten
ings; e. g., Heb. iv. 12, 13.
II. Sketch of the History of this Doctrine among
Christians.
Cf. Burnet, De Statu Mortuorum et Resur-
gentium; also, J. A. Dietelmair, Hist. Anti-
quior Commenti^anatici de ditoxatagtdgsugis
itdvtav; Altorf, 1769, 8vo; and Cotta, Historia
succincta Doginatis de Pcenarum Infernalium
Duratione; Tubing. 1774.
(1) We are not to expect any deeply-learned
and philosophical investigations and distinc
tions, with regard to this subject, from the sim
plicity of the earliest Christian period. The
teachers were then contented with the simple
doctrine of the apostles which has been already
exhibited, and they made use of this with the
most happy success in their didactic and horta
tory discourses. Afterwards, since the second
century, when they began to mingle the philo
sophy of the schools with Christianity, they fell
into speculation upon this doctrine. Some un
dertook to define the idea of aiavios more accu
rately, and to shew that it does not necessarily
imply punishments which are strictly unending.
Others insisted upon the literal meaning of this
term, and would have it taken in its strictest
sense. Thus two parties were formed. These
might perhaps have found some points of unipn,
pr at least of approximation, if they had properly
considered the distinction between natural and
positive punishments. But no traces of this
distinction can be found in most of the ancients ;
certainly they did not see it, and all the conse
quences which can be derived from it, with suf
ficient distinctness.
(2) The doctrine that the pains of hell are
finite in duration was first clearly taught by
some of the Christian teachers of the Alexan
drine school in the second century. They ob
viously derived their mode of representation
from the principles of the Platonic philosophy.
Plato regarded punishments merely as medi

cinal, designed to effect the cure of the disorders-
of men. He supposed that all spirits and souls.
not wholly irreclaimable would be morally pu
rified and renovated by means of punishments,
and would in this way attain to happiness;
which, however, would be very different as to
its degree. But still he, as well as Socrates,
believed in the unending punishment of the irre
claimable. Cf. s. 150.
Even in Clement of Alexandria we find a
clear exhibition of these Platonic ideas. Cf.
Strom. 4 and 6. But Origen, in the third cen
tury, taught still more plainly, drtoxafafffaow
Saifwviuv xai dgsfiuv dv^puituv, and itpogxai-
pov slvai xbXagiv dgsfiuv dv^pditav, and endea
voured to establish this doctrine by many argu
ments. In the works of his which are still
extant, there are passages which are clearly of
this import — e. g., in his works, " Contra Cel-
sum," v. 15 ; " De Principiis," ii. 5. Homil.
19, in Jerem., and Athanasius and other ancient
writers, are agreed that he taught this doctrine.
Some modern writers have undertaken to dis
pute this, though without sufficient reason.*
Origen was followed in this doctrine by many
of the learned Grecian fathers — e. g., Diodorus-
of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others
of the school of Origen. Even in the Latin
church this opinion was widely disseminated
in the fourth century, as we learn from Augus
tine and Hieronymus.
But in opposition to these, the doctrine ef the
eternity of future punishments was affirmed by
other equally distinguished teachers — e. g.,
Gregory of Nazianzum, Basilius, John of Con-
stantinople, and among the Latins, by Hiero
nymus, Augustine, and others. Even in the
fourth century Origen and his adherents were
severely reproached on account of this and other
doctrines which had been already freely circu
lated. At length the ecclesiastical anathema
was pronounced upon this doctrine. Among
the opponents of the school of Origen and of
their doctrine on this subject, Theophilus of
Alexandria, in the fourth and fifth centuries,
was especially distinguished. The doctrine of
Origen was therefore cendemned by the fourth
council at Carthage, in the year 398, and after
wards by many other councils, and in opposi
tion to it the doctrine of the eternity of future
punishment was established as the faith of the
church. (3) Still the doctrine of the limited duration
of future punishment has never wanted defend
ers. Even during the dark ages and among the

* [Neander, while he concedes that Origen taught
this doctrine, thinks it is one of those points respect
ing which his opinion afterwards changed. Cf. Ne
ander, Allg. Kirch. Gesch. b. i. Abth. iii. s. 1098.—
Tn.]

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION.

«55

sehoolmen there were some who took this
ground, especially Scotus Erigena in the ninth
century, and the Abbot Raynaldus in the
twelfth. But the great majority of teachers
during this period held fast to the opposite opi
nion, and endeavoured to confirm it by new ar
guments ; so, e. g., Thomas Aquinas and others.
But this doctrine of the limited duration of
future punishment fell into very ill repute in the
Western church, on account of its being pro
fessed by some of the enthusiastic and revolu
tionary parties in the sixteenth century, (e. g.,
by the Anabaptists,) and from its being inti
mately connected with their expectations and
schemes. The mere profession of the doctrine
came to be regarded as implying assent to the
other extravagances of these parties, and as the
signal for rebellion. Hence it is rejected in the
symbolical books of the Lutheran church as an
Anabaptistical doctrine; Augs. Confess. Art.
xvii. In the form in which this doctrine was
held by these sects it deserves the most unmin-
gled disapprobation. Again; among the ill-
famed Christian free-thinkers — e. g., the Soci-
nians — there were some who professed it. In
modern times it has been the same. This doc
trine has been advocated in the protestant church
both by men who have stood in suspicion of
enthusiasm, (e. g., Peterson, Lavater, and
others,) and by some of the free-thinkers in
philosophy and theology, although for very dif
ferent causes, and on very different grounds, by
these two classes.
The principal advocates of the common opi
nion on this subject, in modern times, are,
Mosheim, in the Appendix to his Sermons ; and
among the philosophers, Leibnitz, Baumgarten
in his Dogmatik and Vindiciae Prenarum iEter-
narum; Halle, 1742: Schubert, Verniinftige
Gedanken von der Endlichkeit der Hollenstra-
fen, 3te Aufg. Jena, 1750; Heinr. Meine, Gute
Sache der Lehre von der unendlichen Dauer
der Hollenstrafen ; Helmstadt, 1748 ; Schlitte,
Ueberlegung der beiderseitiger Griinde fur und
wider die unendliche Ungliickseligkeit der
Verbrecher, &c. Cf. also Michaelis, Von der
Sunde, &c
The principal advocates of the doctrine of the
limited duration of future punishments are,
Soner, (in an acute philosophical work, to
which Leibnitz replied ; vide Lessing's Bey-
trage zur Geschichte und Literatur, lr Beytr.,
Braunschweig, 1773, s. 201 ;) Eberhard, Apo
logie des Sokrates, th. i. and ii. ; Gruner, Theol.
Dogm. p. 636 ; Basedow, Philalethie, s. 539 ;
Steinbart, System, u. s. w. A work entitled
Ueber die Strafe der Verdammten und deren
Dauer ; Leipzig, 1782 ; is composed with much
reflection. The arguments on both sides are
examined, and a middle course between them
is chosen. Some have supposed that the wicked,

after enduring the punishments of hell for a
season, will be at last annihilated, and have
called this mortem xternam. Vide s. 151, ad
finem. But according to scriptural usage, §d-
vat os, or bxs^pos aiavios, or Ssvtspos, is not anni
hilation, but eternal condemnation.

ON ETERNAL BLESSEDNESS.
SECTION CLIX.
INTRODUCTION TO THIS DOCTRINE ; AND EXPLANA
TION OF THE SCRIPTURAL PHRASEOLOGY WITH
REGARD TO IT.
I. Grounds for expeding a happier life hereafter.
That a more happy life is to be expected after
death appears, even on grounds of reason, in a
high degree probable, if either the present state
of human life is considered, or the attributes of
God, his goodness, justice, and wisdom. Cf.
the arguments in behalf of the immortality of
the soul, s. 149. Man and his destination are
the most insolvable riddle, if he has received
existence merely for the present life. And this
riddle can be explained only on the supposition
that the period of man's existence extends be
yond the grave, and that there will properly
begin the happy state where the pious will reap
the fruits of what they have sown.
The destination of man, as a moral being, is,
holiness and proportionate happiness. As to
holiness or moral perfection, it is and remains
extremely defective during the present life ; and
even those who make the greatest advances in
moral excellence still fall very far short of that
high standard which is set up before them and
which their own inmost feeling tells them they
ought to attain. And as to happiness, it must
be confessed that no one in the present life is
perfectly happy, either as to body or soul, al
though there is implanted in all by the Creator
a disposition to seek for happiness, and an in
extinguishable thirst to enjoy it. But how
scanty and miserable is the satisfaction of this
desire in the present life, even with those who
in the judgment of others are enviably happy !
Beautifully and faithfully is this described in
Ecclesiastes — a book which contains the true
philosophy of life.
It is true, indeed, that agreeable sensations,
both bodily and spiritual, are enhanced in their
value and charm by being connected with un
pleasant sensations, if the unpleasant only go
before, and the pleasant follow after. Thus to
the convalescent man, after he has endured
great sufferings in his sickness, the mere cessa
tion of pain is an exquisite delight, while to
those who have felt none of these sufferings it

556

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

is no source of pleasure. But an order exactly
the reverse is common in the life of men here
upon the earth. The most cheerful time is that
of youth; then we have the full power and
bloom of life. The older we grow, the more
we become entangled in business, burdened
with cares, oppressed with griefs and distresses,
infirmities of body and mind, perhaps with po
verty and disgrace. How sad were the lot of
man if he had no future and happier life to
expect !
How many men are born with intellectual
faculties and powers which they can never fully
develop here, either because they die early or
are wholly destitute of the means and opportu
nities for development and cultivation. Now if
existence ceases with death, this sum of powers
is wholly lost. But since our Creator does not
give us even our bodily powers in vain and for
no end, how much less can he have imparted
the higher intellectual and especially moral fa
culties without design!
It is no wonder, therefore, that the expecta
tion of a more happy state after the present life
has, as it were, forced itself so universally
upon reflecting men. But equally universal and
equally well grounded is the hope of an unend
ing continuance of this future happy state. For
if it is not to continue for ever it ceases to be a
truly happy condition. To foresee the end of a
state of bliss would be of itself enough to dis
turb the happiness which we might for a time
possess, and to embitter its enjoyment; and
when it should actually come to an end, it would
leave us far more miserable than we were before
we had experience of this blessedness. For one
who is born and brought up poor and in a state
of servitude will not feel his situation to be so
miserable and oppressive as a rich or great man,
who is cast down from his elevation and brought
into the same condition, will find it to be.
Great and inestimable, therefore, is the merit
of Jesus Christ in giving to this doctrine of an
eternal blessedness beyond the grave that firm
ness and certainty which it cannot receive from
arguments of reason, by which it can be rendered
only probable ; and also in referring everything,
as he does, to this future life. Vide John, xx.
28 ; 1 John, ii. 25 ; Rom. ii. 7, and s. 148. Ex
cept for Christ we should have no satisfying
certainty to lift us above all doubt. But now
this doctrine is placed in the most intimate con
nexion with the history of his person, since he
always represents himself as the one through
whom we attain to the possession of this eter
nal happiness, and in whose society we shall
enjoy it. Cf. the sections above cited, also s.
* 120, II.
II. Nature and Names of Future Blessedness.
On this subject we have no very clear and de

finite knowledge, nor can we have in the present
life. Men, indeed, usually conceive the joys of
heaven to be the same as, or at least to resemble,
the pleasures of this world ; and each one hopes
to obtain with certainty, and to enjoy in full mea
sure, beyond the grave, that good which he holds
most dear upon earth — those favourite employ
ments or particular delights which he ardently
longs for here, but which he can seldom or never
enjoy in this world, or in the enjoyment of which
he has never been fully satisfied. Hence rude
men, living only in the indulgence of their pas
sions and appetites, have always expected to find
in heaven the uninterrupted enjoyment of sensual
delights of every kind. The indolent man, or
one who is exhausted by severe labour, regards
rest and freedom from employment as the high
est good, and places the chief blessedness of
heaven in this. But one who reflects soberly
on this subject will easily see that the happi
ness of heaven must be a very different thing
from earthly happiness. This last is of such
a nature as to be soon followed by disgust and
satiety. We should be very unhappy, if we
should live for ever in the richest profusion of
the highest earthly delights and joys, even
could we continue in perpetual and never-fading
youth. For all earthly joys and delights of
which we know anything by experience, are of
such a nature that after they have been enjoyed
for a short time they lose their relish, and then
follows satiety. Experience daily confirms the
truth of what is said by the preacher, that every
thing upon earth is vanity and vexation of spirit.
If it were appointed to us in our present condi
tion to live for ever upon the earth, in the full
enjoyment of all it can afford to please and
charm, our lot were indeed pitiable. Had we
tasted all possible earthly pleasures, and were
there none now left which could attract us by
their novelty, satiated with a joyless life we
should wish ourselves dead, and even this
wish, to our sorrow, would remain unsatisfied ;
even that rest, or rather indolence and torpidity,
which is so highly praised and so ardently
longed for by some drones, would, long conti
nued, render us perfectly miserable, and at
length become wholly intolerable.
Cicero very justly remarks, that the blessed
gods, according to the notion which the Epicu
reans entertained of them, could not possibly be
happy, being without employment, and having
nothing to think of, through all eternity, except
4e& est mihi. Hence the bliss and joys of the
future world must be of an entirely different
kind from what is called earthly joy and happi
ness, if we are there to be truly happy for ever.
But since we have no distinct conceptions of
those joys which never have been and never will
be experienced by us here in their full extent
we have of course no words in our language to

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 557

express them, and connot therefore expect any
clear description of them, even in the holy scrip
tures. Cf. Morus, p. 298, s. 7, ad finem, and
p. 299, note 1. Hence the Bible describes this
happiness sometimes in general terms designat
ing its greatness, (as Romans, viii. 18 — 22 ; 2
Cor. iv. 17, 18,) and sometimes by various beau
tiful images and figurative medes ef speech, bcr-
rewed frem everything which we knew to be at
tractive and desirable.
The greater part cf these images were already
cemmon among the Jewish contemperaries ef
Christ, but Christ and his appstles empleyed
them in a purer sense than the great multitude
of the Jews. The Orientalists are rich in such
figures. They were employed by Mohammed,
who carried them, as his manner was, to an ex
travagant excess, but at the same time said ex
pressly that they were mere figures, although
many of his followers afterwards understand
them literally, as has been eften dene in a similar
way by many Christians. If all which is figura
tive is taken away, the main idea which is left is
that of great felicity, which, as it is expressly
said, will transcend all our expectations and con
ceptions. Vide 1 John, iii. 2 ; Col. iii. 3, £ior)
qpuv xsxpvittcu,. The passage 1 Cor. ii. 9, eye
hath not seen, ear hath not heard, &c, (which is
taken from Isa. lxiv. 4,) does not properly relate
to this subject. Judging from ver. 7, 8, the
subject here treated of is the Christian doctrine,
which was before unknown, and which is not
the product of human invention. Still the whole
passage leads to this, that God made these ex
traordinary provisions through Christ, in order
to bring us to the enjoyment of an unspeakable
bliss. Cf. also 1 Cor. xiii. 2.
The following are among the principal names
of future happiness, both literal and figura
tive : —
(1) The literal appellations. Zarr fiorj aiuvu>s<
which, according to Hebrew usage, signifies, a
happy life, vita vere vitalis, eternal well-being.
Hence the term dpyr) ©eov is opposed to it —
e. g., John, iii. 16, 36; also xafdxpiffis, xda.affis,
x. t. X. Ad|a, 8d|a ©eov, reward, Rom. ii. 7 ;
v. 3. 'Anopsia, Sd|a, t ifir) xai d^apffia, Rom.
ii. 7; and slpr\vn, ver. 10. Alaviov pdpos Sdjlr/s,
an eternal reward of full weight, £ Cor. iv. 17.
Sufr/pia, gatrjpia aiavios, Heb. v. 9, &c
(2) Figurative representations. Among these
is the name heaven. The abode of the departed
saints is a place which, to us who live upon the
earth, and while we remain here, is invisible
and iriaccessible, beyond the bound of the visi
ble world, and entirely separated from it; there
they live in the highest well-being, and in a
nearer connexion with God and Christ than
here below. This place and state cannot be
designated by anymore fit and brief expression
than that which is found in almost every lan

guage — viz., heaven ; this, therefore, is frequent
ly employed by the sacred writers. It is there
that the highest sanctuary or temple of God is
situated — i. e., it is there where the omnipre
sent God reveals himself most gloriously. That,
top, is the abede ef the higher spiritual creaticn
ef Gpd. Thither was Christ translated; he
calls it the house of his Father, and says that he
has there prepared an abede for his folfowers,
Jehn, xiv. 2, cell. s. 23, IL, and s. 97, II.
This place was never cenceived cf in ancient
times, as it has been by seme medern writers,
as a particular planet, er world, but as the wide
expanse ef heaven, high abeve the atmesphere,
er starry heaven ; hence it is semetimes called
the third heaven, as being neither the • atmo-
sphere ner starry heaven. Vide 2 Cer. xii. 2.
The remark of Morus is gopd, p. 297, nnte 4,
" Illud in cxlo esse, magis indicat statum cendi-
tienemque heminis, quam lncum certum."
Ancther figurative name is paradise, taken
from the abede ef the first man in his innocence.
Vide vol. i. s. 52, ad finem. From this it is
transferred to the abode of the blessed. Luke,
xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7; xxii. 2.
Again : this place is called the heavenly Jeru
salem (iitovpdvios, xaivrj, rj dvu) ; because the
earthly Jerusalem was the capital city of the
Jews, the place of the royal residence, and the
seat of the divine worship, Gal. iv. 26 ; Heb.
xii. 22 ; Rev. iii. 12. Baffiteia ovpaviiv, or ©eoJ,
Matt xxv. 34 ; James, ii. 5 ; |3affiJi£i'a iriovpdvios
and aicwios, 2 Tim. iv. 18; 2 Pet. i. 11 ; gvpfia-
gixsvsw f^ Xpifff 9, 2 Tim. ii. 12 — i. e., to be
distinguished, honoured, and happy, as he is, —
to enjoy royal felicity. Cicero says, turn nos
regnare videbamur. The stoics say, omnem sapi-
entem regnare. Kxvpovoula and xxijpos, (accord
ing to the Heb. e»t and Sru, possidere, to attain
to possession,) the possessing and fully enjoying
happiness, as the ancientlsraelites did Palestine.
Hence x^r/porofua tstqpnpsvri iv ovpavols, 1 Pet
i. 4; Heb. ix. 15. To sit down at table with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — i. e., to share with
the pious pf antiquity in the jeys pf salvatipn;
to be in Abraham's bosom — i. e., te sit next to
Abraham, Luke, xvi. 22 ; Matt. viii. 1 1. Vide
Wetstein, ad h. 1. Saf3|3af iffftds, or dvditavgis,
dfsffis, Heb. iv. 10, 11, where it denotes the
happiness of pious Christians, both in this life
and that to come. Sf ityavos Sixatogvvijs, the re
ward of piety, 2 Tim. iv. 8 ; Phil. iii. 14.
(3) As to the abode of perfected and happy
men after the judgment, when their souls wiil
be again united with their bodies, the opinions of
men have been very different. It is of chief im
portance to notice that it is always described in
the New Testament as a very delightful and
happy place. Moreover, the apostles teach dis
tinctly that this earth, after the present state of
things is ended, will be renewed, and fitted for the
3a2

558

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

ordinary residence of those whose souls will be
again united with their bodies, in short, of the
saints who will be raised. Vide 2 Pet. iii. 13,
where he speaks of a new heavens and a new
earth. Hence it is said in the Apocalypse, that
the New Jerusalem in heaven (i. e., the abode
of the departed souls of the pious) will, after
the resurrection, (when their souls will be again
united with the body,) be let down (xaf afialvsiv)
totheearth, (nowrenewed and beautified.) Rev..
xxi. 1, seq., coll. Rom. viii. 18, seq.
SECTION CLX.
WHAT DO REASON AND SCRIPTURE TEACH AND
LEAD US TO EXPECT, IN A GENERAL VIEW, AS
TO THE REAL NATURE OF FUTURE BLESSED
NESS?The sum of what we are taught by reason and
scripture on this point may be comprehended
under the three following particulars : — (a) We
shall hereafter be entirely freed from the suffer
ings of this life; (4) Our future blessedness will
be a continuation of the happiness of this life ;
(c) But it will also be increased by the addition
of many new joys, which stand in no natural or
necessary connexion with our preceding condi
tion in this life.
I. Entire Freedom from the Sufferings and Adver
sities of this Present Earthly Life.
This is often expressed in the Bible by words
which denote rest, repose, refreshment, after per
forming labour and suffering affliction — e. g.,
dvErfis, avditavgts, gafifiattgubs, (not inactivity,
entire freedom from employment, or indolence;
vide s. 159 ;) vide 2 Thess. i. 7, " God will give
to you, who are troubled, dvsgw. Heb. iv. 9,
11 ; Rev. xiv. 13, " they rest from their labours,"
where xortoi, like labores, signifies moleslix af
flictions, and not employments. Cf. Morus, p.
299, n. 1. Cf. also Rev. vii. 17, "God shall
wipe away all tears from their eyes."
This exemption from the evils of the pre
sent life includes, according to the New Testa
ment, (1) Deliverance from the earthly body, the
seat of the lower principles of our nature and of
our sinful corruption, and the cause of so many
evils and sufferings, 2 Cor. v. 1, 2.; 1 Cor xv.
Vide s. 153.
(2) Entire separation from the society of
wicked and evil-disposed persons, who in vari
ous ways injure the righteous man, and embitter
his life on earth ; 2 Tim. iv. 1 8, pvBEf ai ps ditb
itavtbs spyov rtowypov, (i. e., men who do evil.)
It is hence accounted as making a part of the
felicity of Christ in heaven that he is there sepa
rated from sinners, (xE^upifffiEVos,) Heb. vii. 26.
(3) Everything here upon the earth is incon
stant, and subject to perpetual change ; and in

capable of satisfying our expectatiens and de
sires. Everything is vanity. Even the pleasures
and jeys pf this life are ef such a nature that
they lead te satiety and disgust when they are
lung continued. Vide s. 159. But in the world
to come it will be different. The bliss of the
saints will continue without interruption or
change, without fear of termination, arid without
satiety ; — gtsfavos d^&apf os, aplavtos, dudpavtos,
a crown ever new and" beautiful, in opposition to
the fading crowns of earthly victors; 1 Pet i.
4; v. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 16, 18; Luke, xx. 36;
1 John, iii. 2, et passim. From hence it is also
manifest that the joys of the pious in the future
world will be capable of a constant increase, an
ever-progressive enlargement. For everything
uniform and stationary produces satiety and dis
gust. In the heavenly world, then, there will
be no sameness and stagnant uniformity of joy.
Note. — The question is here asked, whether
the pious, in the future world, will be entirely
delivered from natural depravity, or the prepon
derance of sense over reason? Whether their
obedience to God, and their virtue, will be so
entirely confirmed that they will be for ever free
from all danger of sinning? If we would agree
with the holy scriptures we must answer this
question in the affirmative. The whole ana
logy of Christian doctrine implies that this will
be so ; and so clearly that it does not need any
further proof. That the state of the saint in the
future world will be one of secure and confirmed
holiness may also be deduced incontrovertibly
from the doctrine of the perfectionment and en
nobling of the body. The seat of carnal appe
tite and of sin is in the earthly and mortal body ;
and from this we shall then be freed, and shall
possess, like Christ, a heavenly body, s. 77,
and s. 153. According to 1 Cor. xv., our body
will no more then be gapa tyxlx°vi but 7tvsvpa-
tixov. There is no need therefore of resorting
to purgatory to explain how man may be here
after purged from hereditary depravity. The
possibility of sinning will, however, still re
main, as it was with man in his original inno
cence, and as it is with the holy angels. But
the blessed saints in heaven will not wish to sin ;
for the preponderance of sense will then be en
tirely removed ; nor will they any longer meet
with those external hindrances, those allure
ments to sin, which obstructed their piety here
upon the earth. On the contrary, they will
there have the strongest attractions and motives
to piety, more enlarged views, good examples,
&c. And these means are sufficient to confirm
the saints in goodness.
II. Continuance of the Happiness of "x Present
Life.
When the soul leaves the body it will retain
the consciousness of whatever passed within it

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 559

while here upon the earth. It carries along with
it, into the future world, the ideas, the know
ledge, the habits, which it possessed here. And
so it takes also good and evil from this life, into
the next, as its own property, and there receives
the fruit of it. It is therefore certain that a part
of the heavenly blessedness will consist in the
consciousness and recollection of the geod en
joyed and performed in the foregoing life, and
in that cheerfulness and peace of mind which
will proceed from the thought of this. As to
the wicked, the case will be reversed. This,
now, is one of the rwziuraigood consequences or
rewards of virtue and piety ; and the opposite is
one of the natural evil consequences or punish
ments of sin. Vide s. 156, 157.
From what has now been said, it follows of
course that there will be a difference of degree
(diversitas graduum) in the happiness of saints
in heaven. The happiness of all will be equally
eternal, but not equally intense. The more good
actions, such as are acceptable in the sight of
God, one has performed, the nobler his virtues
were, the greater the difficulties and hindrances
which he had to overcome, the greater will be
his reward. That this should be otherwise nei
ther the goodness nor justice of God permit us
to believe. Thus,, for example, two men, one
of whom had devoted his whole life to virtue
and piety, while the other had put off reflection
to a late period, and then first renounced his
former sins,, could not possibly be equal to each
other in reward. Vide s. 127, II. In short,
the happiness of each individual will be exactly
apportioned to his susceptibility of happiness.
Great and various as may be his capacity or
susceptibility for the enjoyment of happiness,
just so great and various will his happiness
certainly be hereafter. The very different ta
lents, powers, and knowledge of men, and the
use they have made of them, also make a great
difference as to the capacity for happiness.
All this is perfectly accordant with the Chris
tian doctrine. Cf. the parables, Matt. xxv. 14,
seq., and Luke, xix. 16 — 19; also 2 Cor. ix. 6,
" he who soweth sparingly shall reap also spar
ingly ; and he who soweth bountifully shall reap
also bountifully;" coll. Gal. vi. 7; 1 Cor. iii.
8, " every man shall receive his own reward,
according to his own labour, (xofd tbv ISiov
xbitov,) Rom. ii. 10, "to him who worketh
gepd, glpry, hpnpur, and peace, will be given,
'lovSala itputov, (since frem his greater knew-
ledge he could do more good,) xai "ExXqvi," in
opposition to the punishment spoken of ver. 9.
This sentiment is not contrary to the de
claration of Christ, the last shall be first, &c,
Matt. xix. 30; xx. 1—16, the parable of the
labourers in the vineyard. For all which Christ
there says has respect to the mercenary question
of Peter, What shall we receive in return ? In

opposition to this, Christ teaches that men must
not undertake to prescribe to God when and
how he shall bestow rewards ; in their dealings
with him they must not insist upon recompence ;
for men have deserved no reward at the hand
of God which they can claim as a right. They
ought rather, conscious of their own unwor
thiness, to expect this reward, with humility
and submission, only because God, of his mere
good mercy, has promised it. Cf. Cotta, De
Diversis Gradibus Glorias Beatorum ; Tub.
1773. Note 1. — The Christian doctrine requires of
every one who desires to partake of eternal hap
piness that he should possess a humble and un
pretending spirit, and should be deeply con
vinced that he deserves nothing by his good
deeds, and has not so merited the rewards of
the world to come that he can claim them as his
right. This disposition is finely represented in
Matt. xxv. 37, seq., where Christ says, that the
pious will be hereafter surprised to find them
selves so rewarded, as they will not be conscious
of having done any thing to deserve such re
wards. On the contrary, the wicked, ver. 44,
suppose they have done much good, but are not
withstanding sent away into the place of torment.
Vide especially Luke, xiii. 26, seq.
Note 2. — According to the Christian doctrine,
such actions only as flow from grateful love to
God and Christ can be consistently rewarded,
for these virtues only are recognised by scrip
ture as having any gopd desert. Hence in
Matt. xxv. 35, 36, Christ himself specifies such
deeds as are active proofs of faith in him, and
of. grateful love to him. Vide s. 124, 125,re-
specting good works. One who does good from
impure motives has, as Christ says, already re
ceived his reward.
III. Positive Rewards in the Future World.
Besides being exempt from all earthly trials,
and having a continuance of that happiness
which we had begun to enjoy even here, we
have good reason to expect hereafter other re
wards and joys, which stand in no natural or
necessary connexion with the present life. For
our entire felicity would be extremely defective
and scanty, should it be confined merely to that
which we carry with us from the present world,
to that. peace and joy of soul which result from
reflecting on what we may have done which is
good and pleasing in the sight of God ; since
even the best man will always discover great
imperfections in all that he has done. Our feli
city would also be incomplete were we com
pelled to stop short with that meagre and ele
mentary knowledge which we take with us
from this world, — that knowledge so broken up
into fragments, and yielding so little fruit, and
which, poor as it is, many good men, from lack

560

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

of opportunity and without any fault on their
part, never here acquire. Besides the natural
rewards of gopdness, there must, therefore, be
ethers which are positive and depending en the
will ef the Supreme Legislater.
On this ppint almpst all philpspphers are for
the above reasons agreed, even those who will
admit of no positive punishments in the world to
come. But for want of accurate knowledge
of the state of things in the future world, we
can say nothing definite and certain as to the
nature of these positive rewards. Vide s. 159,
I. In the doctrine of the New Testament, how
ever, positive rewards are considered most ob
viously as belonging to our future felicity, and
as constituting a principal part of it. For it
always represents the joys of heaven as result
ing strictly from the/a»our of God, and as being
undeserved by those to whom they are given.
Hence there must be something mpre added te
the -natural good consequences of our actions,
something which cannot be considered as the
necessary and natural consequences of the good
actions we may have before performed. But
on this subject, we know nothing more in gene
ral than this, that God will so appoint and order
our circumstances, and make such arrange
ments, that the principal faculties of our souls —
reason and affection, will be heightened and de
veloped, so that we shall continually obtain
more pure and distinct knowledge of the truth,
and make continual advances in holiness.
The following particular remarks may be of
some use in illustrating this subject: —
(1) In this life God has very wisely allotted
various capacities, powers, and talents, in dif
ferent ways and degrees, to different men, ac
cording to the various ends for which he designs
them, and the business in which he employs
them. Now there is not the least reason to
suppose that God will abolish this variety in
the future world ; it will rather continue there
in all its extent. We must suppose, then, that
there will be, even in the heavenly world, a di
versity of tastes, of labours, and employments,
and that to one person this, to another that, field
in the boundless kingdom of truth and of useful
occupation wi]I be assigned for his cultivation
according to his peculiar powers, qualifications,
and tastes.
A presentiment of this truth is contained in
the idea, which was widely diffused throughout
the ancient world — viz., that the Manes will
still prosecute, in the future life, the employ
ments to which they had been here accustomed.
At least, such arrangements will doubtless be
made by Gpd in the future life, that each indivi
dual will there develop more and more the
germs implanted within him by the hand of the
Creator; and will be able, more fully than he
even could here, to satisfy the wants of his

intellectual nature, and thus to make continual
progress in the knowledge of everything worthy
of being known, of which he could learn only
the simplest elements in this world ; and he
will be able to do this in such a way that the
increase of knowledge will not be detrimental
to piety, as it often proves on earth, but rather
promotive of it. To the sincere and ardent
searcher after truth it is a rejoicing and consol
ing thought that he will be able hereafter to per
fect that knowledge which here has so many
deficiencies. Vide 1 Cor. xiii. 9, seq.
But there is danger here of going too far, and
of falling into those strange conceptions of
which we find so many examples in the writ
ings of Lavater. Various as the tastes and
wants of men in the future world will doubtless
be, they will still be in many respects different
from what they are here; because the whole
sphere of action, and the objects by which we
shall there be surrounded, will be different.
We shall there have a changed and mere per
fect bedy, and by this single circumstance shall
be freed at ence from many nf the wants and in-
clinaticns which have their seat in the earthly
bedy. And this will also contribute much to
rectify, enlarge, and perfect our knowledge.
Many things which seem to us very important
and essential during this our state of infancy
upon earth, will hereafter doubtless appear in a
different light; we shall look upon them as tri
fles and children's play, and employ ourselves
in mere impertant occupations, the utility and
interest of which we may have never before
thought of.
Some theologians have supposed that the
saints in heaven may be taught by immediate di
vine revelations (lumen glorix) ; especially these
whe may enter the abedes ef the olessed without
knowledge, or with only a small measure of it,
— e. g., children, and others who have died in
an ignorance for which they themselves were
not to blame. On this subject nothing is defi
nitely taught in the scriptures ; but both scrip
ture and reason warrant us in believing that
provision will be made for all such persons in
the future world. Vide s. 126, II.
Note. — In the popular exhibition of the whole
doctrine of future blessedness much prudence
and caution are requisite ; and the teacher must
pay careful attention to the difference of educa
tion and intellectual culture among his hearers.
This is particularly necessary with regard to the
point introduced in the foregoing paragraph.
The importance which the learned and educated
man attaches te the culture cf his inlelledua.
ppwers, and te the increase cf knowledge, may
easily lead him inte the mistake ef insisting,
even in his religieus discpurses, top much en
the importance of this/or every one, and of repre
senting it as constituting a chief part of the

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 561

employments and joys of the future life. But the
great mass of mankind have but little taste for
this intellectual culture. They even associate
with it the idea of severe labour and toil, be
cause thinking and learning are so difficult to
them. It is the same as to the expectaticn nf
increased activity hereafter. This has ne charm
for the great mass of mankind, because their bo
dily labours are so oppressive. They find more
satisfaction in the idea of rest and refreshment,
with regard to which, however, they should be
taught that the rest of heaven is not a state of
entire inactivity. Vide s. .159. They prefer to
hear of the cessation of all their pains, and the
drying of all their tears. Cf. Rev. vii. 17, &c.
It is therefore very necessary, in presenting this
subject before popular assemblies, to have re
gard to the different wants, conceptions, and
dispositions of men, and thus to imitate the ex
ample of Christ and the apostles.
(2) A principal, part of our future happiness
will consist, according to the Christian doctrine,
in the enlargement and correcting of our know
ledge respecting God, his nature, attributes, and
works, and in the salutary application of this
knowledge to our own moral benefit, to the in
crease of our faith, love, and obedience. There
has been some controversy among theologians
with regard to the vision of God, (visio Dei in-
tuitiva, or sensitiva, or bealifica, or comprehen-
siva.) The question is, whether the saints will
hereafter behold God with the eyes of the glo
rified body, or only with the eyes of the mind —
i. e., merely know him with the understanding.
On this point there was dispute even in the an
cient Oriental church among the Nestorians,
some of whom advocated the bodily vision of
God, and were on this account blamed by others.
Even in the Latin church, too, there was con
troversy on this point among the schoolmen,
and the different theological schools of the Rom
ish church. And this was' transmitted to the
protestant church of the seventeenth century ;
since Musaeus, and other theologians of Jena,
rejected the doctrine of the bodily vision of God,
which was, on the other hand, advocated by the
theologians of Wittemberg.
But .in the scriptures God is always repre
sented as a Being invisible by the bodily eye
(ddpofov), as indeed every spirit is. Vide s. 19.
The texts of scripture which speak of seeing
God have been misunderstood ; they signify,
sometimes, the more distinct knowledge of God,
as we speak of knowing by seeing, of seeing
with the eyes of the mind ; so John, i. 1 8 ; iii. 2 ;
iv. 12, coll. v. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 16; and Paul
uses fixiitsiv and ywagxsw as synonymous,
1 Cor. xiii. 12, 13, coll. v. 10.— Again, they
express the idea of felicity, the enjoyment of
God's- favour, the being thought worthy of his
71

friendship, &c Still more frequently are both
of these meanings comprehended under the
phrase to see God. The image is taken from
oriental princes, to see whose faces, and to be
in whose presence, was esteemed a great favour.
Cf. Matt. v. 8; Heb. xii. 14, "Without holi
ness ovSeis d^Efai tbv Kvpiov." The opposite
of this is, to be removed from God and from his
face. But Christ is always represented as one who
will he personally visible by us, and whose per
sonal, familiar intercourse and guidance we
shall enjoy. And herein Christ himself places
a chief part of the joy of the saints, John, xiv.,
xvii., &c. And so the apostles often describe
the blessedness of the pious, by the phrase being
with Christ. To his guidance has God entrust
ed the human race, in heaven and on earth.
And Paul says, 2 Cor. iv. 6, we see " the bright
ness of the divine glory in the face of Christ,"
— he is " the visible representative of the invi
sible God," Col. i. 15. Vide s. 120, respecting
the office of Christ.
(3) According to the representation contained
in the holy scriptures, the saints will dwell to
gether in the future world, and form, as it were,
a kingdom or state of God. Cf. Luke, xvi. ; xx.
38; Rom. viii. 10; Rev. vii. 9; Heb. xii. 23.
They will there partake of a common felicity.
Their enjoyment will doubtless be very much
heightened by friendship, and by their cpnfid'ng
intercourse with each other. We must, how
ever, separate all earthly imperfection from our
conceptions of this heavenly society. But that
we shall there recognise our former friends, and
shall be again associated with them, was uni
formly believed by all antiquity. Vide s. 150,
II. 2. This idea was admitted as altogether
rational, and as a consoling thought, by the
most distinguished ancient philosophers. Cf.
the speech of the dying Socrates, recorded by
Plato, and translated by Cicero in his Tusculan
Questions, i. 41. This too was the opinion of
Cicero, as may be seen from his treatise, De Se-
nectute, u. 23, and De Amicitia, c. 3, 4.
And yet there have been Christians, and even
teachers, calling themselves Christian teacheTS,
who have blamed, and even ridiculed, other
Christians for comforting themselves under the
loss of those who were dear to them, by che
rishing the joyful hope of seeing them again,
and renewing after death the friendship here
formed. Even reason regards this as in a high
degree probable; but to one who believes the
holy scriptures it cannot be a matter of doubt oi
conjecture. For,
(a) The scriptures assure us that we shall
hereafter see Christ, and shall enjoy his personal
intercourse and friendship. So John, xiv. 3,
"I will take you to myself; where I am, there

362

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY.

shall ye be also." Cf. 1 Pet. i. 8. According
to John, xvii. 24, we shall be high witnesses
and participators of his glory.
(4) Paul says expressly, 1 Thess. iv. 17, that
we shall be with Christ, in company with our
friends who died before us (aua gvv aitols) ; and
this presupposes that we shall recognise them,
and have intercourse with them, as with Christ
himself. Paul advises that Christians should
comfort themselves, under the loss of their
friends, by considering that they are at home
with the Lord, and that they shall be again
united together.
The objections made against this opinion are
of no weight. It is said, for example, that the
body of the saints will be entirely changed, and
cannot therefore be recognised. But it would
need to be proved that this change is of such a
nature as to make it impossible to recognise a
person to be the same whom we before knew.
And even were this allowed, it is not merely
through the body that we can recognise each
other. Even friends here upon the earth, who
have never seen each other's faces, disclose
themselves by conversation and agreement of
soul. Indeed, we can, even upon earth, through
the instrumentality of others, become again ac
quainted with old friends whom we had forgot
ten. And why may not this be the case in the
world to come ?
Again : it is objected that Christ himself says,
Matt. xxii. 30, that the relation of persons con
nected by marriage will cease in the heavenly
world. It is said, moreover, that the love which
exists between husband and wife, and also be
tween parent and child, is rather of a bodily
than a spiritual nature, and therefore will wholly
cease when this grpss earthly body is thrown
off. Answer. — It is true, indeed, that this con
nexion and love, so far as it is founded in the
distinction of sexes and in blood-relationship,
will cease ; there will be no wedlock, no sexual
propensities, and no gross material bodies in
the heavenly world. But friendship, in virtuous
and pious minds, does not depend upon these
circumstances, but rather upon conformity of
intellectual tastes and dispositions. Whatever,
therefore, is merely sensual and corporeal in
love and friendship here upon the earth, will
there fall away ; but whatever is spiritual, which
is the essential and nobler part of friendship,
will remain, and constitute a great part ef the
bliss ef heaven. Cf. Less, De beatorum in
ccelis Consortio, in his Opusc Theol. p. ii., p.
329, seq.; also Ribbeek's Sermons on this sub
ject; and Engel's little work, "Wir werden
uns wiedersehen." Villaume, in his Inquiries
on some Psychological Questions, denies, in
his second essay, (whether, in the future life,
we shall remember the present,) that we shall

hereafter have any recollection of our lives on
earth, because he regards memory as a bodily
faculty, affected arid often destroyed by bodily
injuries. But here he mistakes the exercise of
a power for the existence ef the power itself.
He also denies that friends will recognise each
other in the life to come.
Note. — The question is asked, whether the
pleasures pertaining to the body, and bodily
employments, will continue in the lifetoccme?
There can be no hesitation, if we follow the
scriptures, in answering both these questions in
the affirmative. For what purpose will saints
in the life to come have a body again, if it is
not to be still the organ through which they will
feel and act? It is therefore justly concluded
that the pleasures and employments of heaven
are not merely spiritual, but also bodily. Paul
too says, according to the most natural interpre
tation of the passage, Rom. viii. 18, seq., that
all nature will be ennobled, and beautified for
the residence of the friends ef God; and that
they will dwell in a world which will minister
pleasure to the refined senses of the spiritual
body. But in what these corporeal pleasures and
employments will consist cannot now be under
stood by us, because we know nothing of the
nature of the future body, of its organs, or of the
objects by which we shall then be surrounded.
So much is certain, however, that these will be
different from corporeal pleasures and employ
ments here upon the earth. This is clearly
taught in the New Testament. E. g., Christ
says, Matt. xxii. 20, that the saints, at the re
surrection, will be like the angels qfGod, (as we
justly conceive of them ;) " they will not mar
ry, nor be given in marriage," because the end
of marriage, the propagation of the race, will no
longer exist. Nor will the glorified body be
nourished and sustained by eating and drinking.
Vide 1 Cor. xvi. 13; cf. s. 153. Hence it is
obvious that Christ employed the phrase, to sit
down (at table) with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
which was common among his contemporaries,
in a figurative sense.
The following are some of the most important
or most celebrated works on the life eternal, and
the joys of the blessed above — viz., On the His
tory of this Doctrine, Burnet; also Cotta, in his
" Historia dogmatis de vita aeterna." Vide s.
149, ad finem. This subject is treated doc-
trinally and philosophically in Cotta's "Theses
Theol. de vita aeterna." Tubing. 1758. A
poetical delineation of this doctrine may be seen
in Lavater's "Aussichten in die Ewigkeit." In
this work, while we find many very beautiful
and happy thoughts and fine observations, we
feel the want of just interpretation of scripture,
and calm and unimpassioned investigation. He
gives himself entirely to the wing of his bold

STATE INTO WHICH MAN IS BROUGHT BY THE REDEMPTION. 563

imagination, and treats the subject rather as a
poet than a philosopher. A more strictly philo
sophical and theological investigation' of this
subject is found in the work of C. L. de Villette,
Unterredungen fiber die Gluckseligkeit des zu-
kunftigen Lebens, translated from the French
into the German, and accompanied with a Pre
face, by Spalding. Berlin, 1766, 8vo. Cf. also

Carl Wilhelm Geldhammer's Betrachtungen
fiber das zukunftige Leben, u. s. w., 2 thl. ; Leip
zig, 1791 ; a wcrk written with warmth ef feel
ing and in a pepular manner. The scriptural
grounds pf this- dpctrine are briefly and tho
roughly investigated by Storr, in his Comment.
de beata Vita post Mortem, p. 75, torn. ii. of his
Opusc. Academiea.

INDEX.

PART I.— SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

Page
Actual sins, true idea of  297
Adam, original state of  187
Age, notion of the golden  198
Angels, creation of  208
— — , divisions of  209
 , importance' of the doctrine of . 202
, proofs of their existence . . . 208
 , their appellations  207
 , their nature  207
, fallen, apostasy of  219
, existence of  215
¦, names of . ..... 221
— — —  , nature of  219
— — —  , number and classes of . 221
, objections to the common
theory of the employments of . . . 222
 , present and future state of 220
 , holy, classes of '  212
 , employments of ... 211
 , names of  213
 , present state of . . . . 209
 , worship of  214
Arius, his view of the Trinity . . 153,160
 , origin of his errors  12
Athanasius, his view of the Trinity . . 154
Atheism, nature of  89
Atonement, perfection of  393
, various theories on . . . 400
Augustine, his view of the soul . . . 158
, opinions of, on grace . . . 459
, theory of, on original sin 275, 290
Bacon, principles of, applied to theology 13
Baptism, by whom to be administered . 487
 , effects of infant  495
., external advantages of. . . 488
 , formulas used in  486
 , institution of  483

Baptism, internal advantages of . .
 , John's the same as Christ's
 , knowledge requisite for
 , lawfulness of infant . . .
 , mode of 
 , names of 
 , necessity of 
 , not to be repeated . . .
 , origin of 
-, usages incidental to . . .

Bible, see Scriptures.
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost . .
Blessedness eternal, continuance of pre
sent happiness 
 , exemption from suf

ferings

-, nature and names of
-, to be expected . .
-, rewards of . . . .

Body, human, origin of
 ;  , original excellence of

Children, salvation of . . . .
Christ, active obedience of . .
 , ascension of ... .
 , deity and humanity of .
 , descent of, into hell
 , divine attributes ascribed to
 , divine honour claimed for
 , divine names given to . .
 , doctrine of his person . .
 , doctrines of, their truth

-, glory of, in heaven . . .
-, happiness derived from, on earth
 , in future

Page 488485 487
494485483491
492
484
487 305558558
556555559
200 195
421
405318357343 138139136
355 57
350
415
418411

-, influence of his example . .
-, kingdom of  350
-, last appearance of  538

3B

565

566

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

Page
Christ, millennial kingdom of ... . 538
 , mission of  373
, names of  372
•  , offices of  377
 , redemption effected by . . . 374
 , resurrection of  346
 , seat of, at God's right hand . . 355
 , subjects of his teaching . . . 340
 , sufferings and death of . . . 390
Christianity, names and blessings of . . 412
Christians, views of the primitive, on the
Trinity  148
Church, catholic and apostolic .... 474
, divisions of  470
 , head of  475
 , perpetuity of  475
 , sanctity of  473
 , scriptural character of ... . 469
 , Christ teaching in the . . . . 476
 , unity of  472
Confession, auricular, its futility . . . 448
Conversion, meaning of the term . . . 439
Creation, end of God in  171
 , how from nothing .... 167
 , Mosaic account of ... . 171
¦  , six days of  177
¦  , time of year of  177
 , work of, twofold  169
Creatures, different classes of ... . 169
 , preservation of  241
Dead, resurrection of; see Resurrection.
Death, names and descriptions of . . . 514
 , senses in which used . . . . 515
 , state after  516, 518
 , universality of  515
 , whether or not a punishment . 516
Decrees, divine  109
Depravity, natural, ecclesiastical phrase
ology on  289
 , how proved . . . 283
 , imputation of . . . 287
—  , manner in which pro
pagated  286
¦  — , names of, in scripture 278
¦  , nature of . . 277, 285
 , results of discussion
of  293
 ¦ — -, teaching of doctrine 295
Divinity, its character . ...... 26
Doctrines, Christian, fundamental . . 34
Eden, its character  188
Edwards, President, views of, on original
sin  282
Eve, the creation of  188
Faith, analogy of  35
 , attrib ites of  434

Page
Faith, different degrees of . . . : . 433
 , division of doctrines of ... . 33
 , objects of  427
 , relation of one part of, to another . 431
 , significations of the term . . . 423
 , signs by which discovered . 432, 434
 , theological divisions of  425
Father, deity of  135
Fathers, terminology of  366
Forgiveness of sin, to what owing . . 390
Franke, account of his lectures ... 13
Germany, school of biblical theology in 10, 14
God, decrees of  109, 124
 , division of the attributes of . . . 97
 , doctrine of his government . . . 245
 , eternity and immutability of . . 99
 , government of, in relation to evil . 249
 , government of, relative to human
freedom  247
 , holiness of  116
 , justice of  . 117
 , knowledge of, whether innate . 32
 , nature and attributes of ... . 94
God, notion of  St
 , omnipotence of  101
 , omnipresence of . "  105
 , omniscience of  102
 , proofs of the existence of . . . 86
 , scriptural names of  93
 , source of the knowledge of . . . 95
 , spirituality of ...... . 97
 , unity of  90
 , veracity and goodness of ... 114
 , will of  109, 113
 , wisdom of  108
Golden age, notion of  198
Grace, different theories of  458
 , divine origin of  454
 , explanation of the term . . . 449
 , later opinions on  461
•  , operations of .... 451, 462
 , opinions of Latin fathers on . . 458
 , scriptural phraseology of . . . 455
various names of  450

Guilt of sin, removal of  386
Heathen, salvation of the  321
Hell, history of doctrines of .... 554
 , names of  545
 , punishments of  545
Holy Ghost, blasphemy against . . . 305
, scriptural representation of . 306
Holiness, its nature  442
Image of God, how to be understood . . 169
Immortality, ideas of Jews of .... 519
 , ideas of rude nations of . . 519
 > philosophical arguments on 521

/
f'U>

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

567

Page 517

Immortality, scriptural proofs of . . ,
Inclinations, evil, origin and punishable
ness of  288
Indulgences, futility of  449
Inspiration, idea of universal .... 66
, national views of ... . 67
, various theories of . . . 68
, views of great men of . . 66
Involuntary sins ........ 301
Jesus, ascension of  348
 , character of, as a teacher .... 337
 , deity and humanity of .... 357
 , descent into hell of  343
 , different conditions of  331
 , doctrine of  337
 , doctrine of the person of ... . 355
 , early history of  337
 , glory of, in heaven  350
——, history of opinions concerning . . 361
 , kingdom of  350
——, method of his ministry .... 338
 , miraculous conception of . . . 334
— , mission of .  373
 , names of  373
 , offices of  377
 , predictions respecting  325
 , redemption effected by ... . 374
, resurrection of  346
— — , seat of, at God's right hand . . . 355
 , subjects of his ministry .... 340
 , sufferings and death of . . 341, 390
 , true humanity of  335
Jews, views of, on original sin . . . . 273
Jews and Gentiles, future conversion of . 540
Judgment, the general  541
Justification, an unmerited favour . . . 399
, effect of Christ's exaltation
on  395
 , only of Christ  388
, universality of  397
Keckermann, B., his view of the Trinity 159
Keys, import of the term  478
Knapp, Dr., memoir of  16
Language, original, of man  196
Law, connexion of sin with  299
Law and gospel, meaning of ... . 429
Life, connexion of the present and future 518
 , the tree of  187
Lord's Supper, by whom and how to be
observed  502
 ,  , by whom to be adminis
tered  503
 , chief object cf .... 499
 , external uses and efficacy
of  505
 -, history of opinions of . 508

of

Page
Lord's Supper, institution of ... . 497
, internal uses and efficacy
 50b
— , names, of.  496
— , remarks on hypotheses of 512
— , texts relating to . . .
 , unessential rites in . .
— , use of bread and wine in

497504501

Magic, historical observations on ... 231
Man, destination of  182
 , means of subsistence of .... 187
 , moral inability of  28
 , Mosaic account of the origin of . 184
 , nature of  180
 , original external advantages of . 197
 , original language of  196
 , preservation of  243
 —, primitive state of  192
Matter, on the eternity of  lGti
Men, great, belief of, in inspiration . .
Messiah, degrees of revelation of . . .
 , gradual development of . .
interpretation of the predictions

respecting .
 , Jesus of Nazareth the true
 , views of the Jews of . .

66
328321 325321
32:;
Millennial kingdom, the  53H
Miracles, Christianity proved by . . . 59
 , their possibility  254
Monarchians, their views of God . . . 151
Monothelites, sect of  366
Morals, importance of the Christian sys
tem  31
Mosaic institute, abclition of ... . 413
Mysteries, religious  36
Nations, agreement ef, in ideas of inspi
ration  66
Nature, revelation of God in ... . 28
New-Testament writers, their views of
original sin  274
Nicene Council, the  154
Ordination, nature and importance of . . 477
Origen, his views of the Trinity . 153,362

Paradise, its character . . .
Pardon, nature of 
Participation, how shown in sin
Pelagius, errors of, on grace
-, views of, on original sin

Penance, futility of
-, self-inflicted, folly of

Plato, his views of God
Possession, satanic, history of .
 , meaning of
.  , records of,intheNew

188
385.30445S 282447 382 145
227226

Testament  223

5C3

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

Prayer, •* mean of grace 
Predictions, Messianic, accommodations
of 
 , degrees of . .
 , how interpreted
 , principles of, act'
ed on ov Christ and his apostles
Prophecies of Christ proofs ->f Christian
ity 
Providence, definition of . . .
 , history of opinions of
, its benevolence
 ., its universality
 , its unsearchableness
 , proofs of . . .
 , scholastic views of
Punishment, its nature and object
 , positive divine
 , removal of . .
 , scriptural names of
Punishments, division of . .
Purgatory, opinions on . . .

Rationalism, character and design of
Reason, definition of 
 , use of 

Reconciliation, nature of ... .
Recovery of man, divine institutions for .
 , purpose of God respect-

-, requisites for

Page 467325328325326 61
235236253
252 253
238
239 311314
387 312 312529 14
3838
501317 320
317440

Regeneration, meaning of the term . .
Religion, harmony of natural and reveal
ed  29, 30
 : — , its distinction from theology . 26-
 :  , mysteries of  35
 , of Christ, beneficial tendency
of  58
Repentance, character of  42, 441
 , danger of delaying . . . 442
 , mistakes respecting . . . 447
 , not the procuring cause of
salvation  382
Revelation, degrees of  40
 ¦, principal periods of . . . 41
 , object of  40
 , one made by God to man . 28
Resurrection, biblical representation of . 532
 , Christian doctrine of . . 531
', difference of the future body
from the present  534
 , doctrine of the Jews respect
ing  528
 , identity of the present and
future body  536
, what is understood by . . 527

Sabbath, its origin  173
Sacrament, nature of a  479

Sacraments, object of Christ in instituting 482
Sacrifice, universality and design of . . 380
Salvation, conditions of  420
— ,  of children and the heathen . 421

Sanctification, its nature  443
Satan, power of, over men  226
Scriptures, books of  47
 , external proofs  47
 , how adapted for common use . 80
— :  , inspiration of  62
 , integrity of  56
 , internal proofs of  47
 , reading of  78
 , the use of  37, 74
Servetus, his view of the Trinity . . . 159
Sin, actual idea of  297
 , against the Holy Ghost .... 305
 , Christ's instructions on ... . 410
 , definition of  259
 , different degrees of  298
 , inquiry as to whether God could
have prevented  265
 , forgiveness of, its. cause .... 380
 , its necessity . . . 385
 , how connected with knowledge . 300
 , imputation of Adam's  273
 , involuntary  301
 , its results on the sinner .... 308
 , manner of  409
 , Mosaic account of original . . . 266
 , opinipns pf heathen philpsophers on 261
 , participation of others' .... 304
 , redemption from . . . . -. . 408
 , results of reason and observation
on  263
 , scriptural terms for  260
 , sprrow for  443299 160
200 525523233 9

 , viewed in ccnnexien with the law
Socinians, their views cf the Trinity . .
Seul, its origin 
Souls, departed, opinions of their state .
-, place of their abode

Spectres, question as to existence of .
Spener, proceedings of, at Halle . .
Spirit, Holy, divinity of  142
 , meaning of the term . . . 140
 , names given to .... 143
 , personality of  141

Teachers, Christian, rights of ... .
Testament, New, collection of books of .
 ¦  , external proofs of . .
 , inspiration of . . .
 , Old, authenticity of . . .
 , cautions in reading
 , completion of canon of
 , external proofs of . .
 , inspiration of . . .
 , origin of canon of . .

478 53 47
6248 7751
44 6450

INDEX OF SUBJECTS DISCUSSED.

539

Testament, Old, reception of canon of
Theo.ogianS' hypotheses on sin . .
Theology, course of study of . . .
 , how distinct from religion
 , scientific treatment of
Tradition, the use of ... .
Trinity, distinction of persons in
 , doctrine of ....
 , history of doctrine of .
 , how taught in New Testament
 Old Testament

 , terms employed respecting 151, 154
 , views of primitive Christians re
specting  148

Page 52
274 44
26 4339
155
130144133 131

Understanding, original excellence of
man's  192

Page
Urlsperger, Dr., his views of the Trinity 101
Will, original excellence of man's . . 194
Works, good, connexion of, with salva
tion  43"
 , history of opinions respect
ing  437
-, not to be depended on for

salvation  382
 , true nature of ... . .435
Works of God, knowledge of ... . 170
World, ancient, views of, on divine influ
ence  " . 66
 , creation of  163
 , end of  543
 , material from which formed 176, 163
 , meaning of the term . . . . 161

73

3b2

PART II.— SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATED.

Genesis.

chap. VEKSE
1. 1,2

PAGE
... 176
1. 26 .... . 169
2. 4—24 . . 185, 271
3. 14, 15 . . 272, 329
3. 19  271
6. 7  113
17. 1  93

49. 10

Numbers.

6. 24

Deuteronomy.
4. 7, 8 . . .
6. 4 
18. 18 .... ,

2 Samuel.

16. 14 . . .
Job.
14. 4 . . .
19. 25, &c .
38. 7 . . •

2.
14.16..19.32.

7 .
1 .
10 .
1—6
2 .

33. 6, 9
51. 7 .
90. . •
119.139.

89—91 15, 16 .

329

Exodus.
3. 13  93
32. 32  243

Proverbs.

Psalms.

102

133

29 91
329

227

283 528207

132 89
344 28
444
:, 133283 101 114
200

CHAP. VERSE
8. 22—30

Jeremiah.
23. 23, 24 . . .

PAGE 108

Ecclesiastes,
8. 8  99
12. 7  99
Isaiah.
6. 3  133
28. 23—29 ... 122
44. 6  100
48. 11  94
48. 16  133
53  330

John.

107

Matthew.
1. 20  335
3. 16, 17 .... 134
5. 17  77
16. 18  476
16. 19  478
20. 1—16 . . 127, 559
23. 35  52
24  538
25. 41—46 ... 300
26. 41  301
26. 63  57
28. 18—20 ... 133

Mark.
3. 28—30 .

306

Luke.
1. 37  102
11. 51  52
15  443
16. 8  251
18. 9—14 .... 443

CHAP. 1.
3. 5.5. 5.7.8.
10.
10. 13.
14. 14. 14.15.15. 17.
20. 20. 20.

VEKSE 1,2 .
3,5 .
23 . ,
39 .
39—47 15—17
44 .
28 .
34—36 19 .
6 .
16,17
26 .
22—2426 .
5 .
23 .
25 .
28 .

Acts
3. 20, 21 .
13. 48 . .
17. 27—31

Romans.

PAGE
. 136
441, 489
. 140
. 76
. 324
. 59
. 224
. 137
. 93
. 62
. 373
. 141
134, 141
. 300
. 141
. 138
. 478
. 234
. 137

1.

3,4 . .

. .

1.

19, 20 . .

. i

2.

14, 15 .

. •

3.

21—28 .

.

4. 5.

6.
3,4 .
. .
8.8.
29, 30 .
. . .
8.
34 . .
9.
5 . ,
. . .
9.
in.
349 128 23
138
28,33 32
399
389 11G391 386 490 77
1-25
396 137
310337
571
572

INDEX OF SCRIPTURES ILLUSTRATED.

CHAP. VERSE
11. 33—36
12. 6 . .

PAGE 541 35

1 Corinthians.
1. 30 ..... 373
3. 11  33
10. 6—11 .... 121
11. 27—34 . 121,507
12. 4—11 .... 142
2 Corinthians.
3. 11  42
5. 21  392
7. 9, 10 ... . 443
13. 14  134

Ephesians.
1. 4—14 . . .
2. 3 . . . ; '
Philippians.
2. 6 ....
2. 8, 9 ...
2. 10 ... .

CoLOSSIANS.

1. 24

112
285

137
333 140

391

1 Thessalonians.

CHAP.

VERSE

PAGE

1.

8—10 . .

. . 34

4.

17 . . .

1.

1 Timothy.

5. 22 ... .
2 Timothy.
3. 14—17 . .

Titus.

2. 11
2. 13
3. 5

Hebrews.

1 .
9—11 14 .
12 .
1 .
13 .
7. 9, 10
7. 25 .
9. 24 .
11. 3 .
11, 13 .

304

64

410 133
489

. . 40
. . 332
225, 373
. . 114
. . 34
. . 115
. . 274
. . 396
. . 396
. . 167
. . 41

CHAP. 12.12.12.

VERSE 1,2
5^-1127 .

James.

17

PAGE 412 122 42

101

1 Peter.

1

2 19
21

134

3.

344
489
2 Peter.
1.1.
2.3.
3, 19
4
7-
4 . .
20 . .
-13 . .
1 John.
101
410 65
219
544
9
1
7,
39fi
5.
3 . .
,
134
Jude.
219
Revelation.
20.
1—8 . . .
538
22.
18 . . . .
74
9391