IDEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL LIBEAET: a A SERIES OF TEXT-BOOKS, ORIGINAL AND TRANSLATED, ColUges ctnir Srjeologital Btminants. EDITED BY EENRY B. SMITH, D.D., AND PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., PBOFESSORS IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL BKMTWABg, NEW SOKE. VOLS. I. AND II. OF THE THEOLOGICAL DIVISION: VAN OOSTEKZEE'S CHKISTIAN DOGMATICS. NEW YOKK: SCRIBNEE, ARMSTRONG & CO. CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS: A TEXT-BOOK FOR Academical Instruction and Private Study. BY J. J. Van OOSTERZEE, D.D., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT. ffranslzitefr from ijp *§nh\ BY JOHN WATSON WATSON, B.A., VICAR OF NEWBURGH, LANCASHIRE ; AND MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A., STEATFOKD-UPON-AVON. VOLUME II. NEW YORK: SCRIBNER, ARMSTRONG & CO. CONTENTS OF VOLUME SECOND. SECOND DIVISION. MAN'S PRESENT CONDITION. SECT. pAGE lxxii. The Sad Reality 389 — 392 lxxiii. The Nature of Sin - - 393 — 306 lxxiv. Its Origin in the Individual Man - - 396 — 402 lxxv. Its Origin in Mankind 402 — 412 lxxvi. Its Origin in the Spirit World 41 3—422 lxxvii. Its Power - 423 — 429 lxxviii. Its Culpability - - - 429 — 433 lxxix. Its Sentence - - - 433 — 439 lxxx. The Possibility of Salvation - ... ^9 — 441 CHAPTER III. jesus christ, the founder of the kingdom of god (christology) - 442 — 535 LXXXI. Transition and Survey ... 442 — ^^ FIRST DIVISION. THE DECREE OF REDEMPTION. lxxxii. The Plan of Salvation in itself 446 — 457 lxxxiii. The First Rays of Light - 458 — 462 lxxxiv. Mosaism - 463 — 466 lxxxv. The Reign of the Kings 467 — 470 lxxxvi. Prophetism 470 — 476 lxxxvii. The Forerunner - 477 — 479 lxxxviii. Heathendom - 480 — 482 lxxxix. The Fulness of the Time ¦• - - - 483 — 485 SECOND DIVISION. THE PERSON OF THE REDEEMER. xc. Place, Source of Knowledge, and Requirements of the Examination - - 486 — 489 xci. The Historic Reality of the Appearing of Christ 490 — 493 xcn. The Human Character in Christ's Manifestation 493 — 497 xciii. His Unsullied Purity - - 497 — 506 xciv. His Suprahuman Descent - - 506 — 512 xcv. His Theanthropic Rank - - 512 — 518 xcvi. The Church's Interpretation of this Doctrine - 518 — 525 xcvii. His Messianic Character - 526—531 xcviii. His Designation to be the Saviour of Mankind 531 — 535 vi CONTENTS. CHAPTER IV. SECT. PAGE ON REDEMPTION, OR THE SALVATION ENJOYED IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD (OBJECTIVE SOTERIOLOGY) 636 632 XCix. Transition and General Survey - - 536 — 539 FIRST DIVISION. THE SAVING DEEDS. c Before the Incarnation ... 540 — 542 ci. The Voluntary Incarnation - - 543 — 549 en. The Holy Life - 550— 553 cm. The Obedience unto the Death - 553 — 558 civ. The Intermediate State 558 — 563 cv. The Resurrection - 563 — 571 cvi. The Exaltation to Heaven 571 — 576 evil. The Coming again of Christ 577 — 582 SECOND DIVISION. THE SAVING BENEFITS. cvm. The Threefold Office of Christ 583—586 cix. The Prophetic Office 586 — 592 ex. The High-Priestly Office 592 — 597 cxi. The High-Priestly Office (Continuation) 597 — 614 cxii. The High-Priestly Office (Conclusion) 615 — 619 cxm. The Kingly Office - - 620 — 627 cxiv. The Higher Unity - 627 — 632 CHAPTER V. THE WAY OF SALVATION, OR THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM (SUBJECTIVE SOTERIOLOGY) - 633 — 695 cxv. Transition and Survey - 633 — 635 FIRST DIVISION. THE DEMANDS OF THE GOSPEL. cxvi. The Longing for Deliverance - 636 — 638 cxvii. Saving Faith - 638 — 643 cxviii. True Repentance - 644 — 649 cxix^Good Works - 650 — 656 cxx. Christian Sanctification - 657 — 662 cxxi. The Perseverance of the Saints 662 — 666 SECOND DIVISION. THE WORK OF GRACE. cxxii. Necessity of the Operation of Grace 667 — 671 exxm. Extent of this Operation - - 672 — 679 cxxiv. Its Character - 679 — 685 exxv. Its varying Conception 685 — 689 cxxvi. Result ... 690 — 695 CONTENTS. Vll CHAPTER VI. SECT. PAGE OF THE CHURCH, OR THE TRAINING SCHOOL OF THE KINGDOM OF god (ecclesiology) - - 696 — 774 cxxvii. Transition and Survey FIRST DIVISION. THE NATURE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. cxxvni. Its Origin cxxix. Its Idea cxxx. Its Attributes cxxxi. Its Importance cxxxn. The True Church cxxxm. Church Government cxxxiv. The Church and the World SECOND DIVISION. THE MEANS OF GRACE. cxxxv. cxxxvi. CXXXVII. CXXX VIII. CXXXIX. CXL. Prayer in the name of Jesus The Word of Preaching The Sacraments Holy Baptism The Holy Communion The Christian Church Life - 696—698 - 699 — 701 702 — 706 707 — 710 710—713 713—718 719—723 724—729 730—734734—739740—747 747—757 758—770 771—774 CHAPTER VII. THE FUTUR , OR THE COMPLETION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD (eschatology) - 775 — 810 cxli. Transition and Survey FIRST DIVISION. THE PERSONAL CONDITION. cxlii. The Departed Spirit cxlhi. The Restored Body cxliv. The Final Decision SECOND DIVISION. THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS. ^xlv. The Last Times Cxlvi. The Triumphant Kingdom of God - cxlvii. The Final Judgment cxlviii. The New Heaven and the New Earth cxlix. Restoration of All Things ? cl. Conclusion 775—778 779—783 783—788789—793 794—797 798—801 801—803 804—806 806—809 810 SECOND DIVISION. MAN'S PRESENT CONDITION. SECTION LXXII. — THE SAD REALITY. THE possibility of the fall became a reality already in the first man, and all mankind after him reaps its bitter fruit. The abso lute universality of sin and misery upon earth is a fact, which is not only announced in various ways in Holy Scripture, but is also borne witness to in the most undoubted manner by the history of mankind and the self-consciousness of every man. That which cannot thus be denied by any one is nevertheless first properly recognised and deplored when sin is regarded in the light of con science, of the Gospel, and of spiritual experience. Dark as was the region we were lately traversing, that to which our eye is now directed is relatively clear and wide. The doctrine of sin (Hamartology) presents to us in this section a melancholy, but most impor tant, field for investigation. He who is really governed by the " passion for reality " can hardly do better than examine moral evil in all its various tendencies. i. There is no fact from which we can more safely start upon our investigation, than the generally recognised phenomenon that no mortal upon earth is really happy. The well-known saying of Solon to Crcesus is not seriously contradicted by any one ; but it does not merely declare that we cannot be sure of that happiness before death; it rather signifies that true happiness is, from its very nature, wanting to us all. Is happiness nothing else but the harmony between our wants and our condition ? then the constant condition of man is best described by one word — discord. Discord in his own inner life, between reason and faith, between heart and conscience, between will and action. Discord between ourselves and other men, who apparently go with us, but are really opposed to us.1 Discord above all with God, without whom we cannot live, and to whom we cannot draw nigh. Our peace is every moment disturbed by painful recollections, sad experiences, and sorrowful prospects. That condition does not proceed from causes external to us, because even where outward circumstances have been changed in the desired direction, it continues to exist ; it cannot be changed nor reasoned away. The heart has no rest, because the conscience has no peace ; the conscience has no peace, 1 Gen. xvi. 12. 390 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. because we do not stand in the proper relation to God. Our inmost self- consciousness testifies, in agreement with Holy Scripture, that the deepest source of our misery is to be sought in sin, and it irresistibly urges us to examine more closely this cause of all our unhappiness. 2. The absolute universality of sin is most emphatically affirmed in Holy Scripture. The Lord speaks of all His hearers without distinction as sinners, and calls the human heart the seat of every wickedness.2 St. Paul speaks of the universal guiltiness of the Jewish, as well as of the heathen world,3 and even of those who already believe in Christ. St. John4 and St. James6 assure us that they still from time to time sin again. All these statements do but repeat in different words that very thing which was already confessed in the days of the Old Testament.6 Holy Scripture speaks only of one sinless being, but He was the Man from heaven,7 and the world, on the contrary, lieth in wickedness as in its natural element.8 A new birth is therefore required of every one,9 whilst repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached to every nation without any exception.10 Even if other passages in the Bible seem to teach somewhat different, this semblance disappears on closer examination. St. Luke xv. 7 is not spoken of the ninety-nine sinless ones, but of such as outwardly lived without reproach, and from the standpoint of legality need no repentance. In Mark x. 14, the children are considered as fit for the kingdom of God, not on account of their moral purity, but of their simplicity and humility. The devout Heathen11 is pleasing to God, and just as the Jew, is to be received into the community of those who are saved through Christ. The words 01 the Apostle, lastly, in 1 John iii. 9, point out the highest ideal of Christian life, which, however, according to 1 John i. 8, ii. 1, is yet not in any degree reached here. 3. The whole history of mankind confirms these statements. That of the old world begins with fratricide, and ends with a deluge, and that of the new is as much sullied as is that of the old. " Everywhere we see a dark shadow, which throws a gloom over almost every division of earthly life" (J. Miiller). The Israel of God has objectively far greater privileges th in Heathendom, but subjectively it is not on the whole in a much better position.12 We find the life even of the best men stained by moral flaws, or, where we cannot indicate such, as in Abel, Jonathan, Daniel, and others, we ascribe this only to our imperfect knowledge, not to their abso lute perfection^ Even the blessed influence of Christianity, though it has been able to limit the power of sin, has not by any means been able to expel it. Our own times have taught us something of the terrible ravages of sin, in a manner which must for a very long time put to shame al! the self-glorying of mankind. 4. No wonder, then, that the self-consciousness of the individual man and of mankind announces in very different forms this same truth. Look, for 2 Matt. vii. 1 1 ; xv. 19. « r John v. 19. 3 Rom. iii. 9, 23. » j0hn iii. 5. 4 1 John 1. 18. 10 Luke XX;V- 4- 4 James iii. 2. ¦' Acts x. "C. " I Kings viii. 46 ; Job xiv. 4 ; Prov. xx. 9. » Rom. iui, sag. ' 1 Cor. xv. 47. " THE SAD REALITY. 391 example, at the universality of sacrifices for sin ; at the constantly repeated complaint which we hear even from the best of men, that each succeeding race is worse than the preceding.13 The few who have the hardihood to main tain that man is radically good will always prove the most superficial. He who says that he has not sinned,14 when he says it, is usually thinking only of great enormities, without going down to the secret principles of life, or is com paring himself with those who in respect of morality are even lower than he is. A more profound self-examination discovers everywhere, to use the Arabian saying, "that black peppercorn in which sin has its focus." Hence it is that even from heathen lips we hear most striking statements concerning this ; thus Seneca says (De Ira. iii. 26), " Omnes inconsulti et improvidi sumus, omnes incerti, queruli, ambitiosi, mali inter malos vivimusi;" and Ovid, " Video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor ; " while Horace says, " JEtas parentumpejor avis tulit nos nequiores,mox daturos progeniem vitiosiorem;" Tacitus, "Corrumpere et corrumpi sasculum vocatur. — Vitiis nemo sine nas- citur." — Compare further Plato, de Rep. vii. c. 3, sqq.\ Xenophon, Cyro- pcedia vi. 1, 41 ; and many other places. — The indictment comes with still greater distinctness from Jewish lips,15 e.g., David, Isaiah, John Baptist; while it is heard with the greatest clearness in the most celebrated Christians, — St. Paul, Augustine in his Confessions, Luther in so many of his letters and con versations. Nor are the observations of experienced men, who were skilled in human philosophy, without value here. "II y a toujours quelque chose dans le malheur de nos meilleurs amis, qui ne nous deplait pas" (La Rochefou cauld). " Mon ami, tu ne connais pas la race maudite, a laquelle nous appartenons" (Frederic the Great). The proverbs, "Every man has his price, for which to sell his principles." " It is easier to weep with the mourner, than to rejoice with the rejoicing. " — Kant asserts that a man will often find in himself a disposition with regard to his friends, for which he must feel deeply shamed, etc. — The ground for this universal conviction need not be sought in an absolutely immediate consciousness in mankind of its corruption. Mankind, indeed, is made up of individuals of very different shades of development, and this explanation would easily lead us to the hypothesis of innate ideas. We would rather think of the impression which everyone sooner or later receives from those he observes, and which, confirmed ere long by observation and reasoning, is alike elucidated and corroborated by what we discover from a close investigation in our own bosom. Thus from the very earliest times has been established a universal belief of mankind in its own sinful condition, a belief so firm that he who contradicts it as to himself, is by no means considered morally pure, but rather as half demented, or irrecoverably arrogant. Against a confession as unanimous as this, the assertion of some, that everything even in the moral world is good as it is, and that without this evil element the world would be less perfect, may be called a thoughtless phrase, nay, a terrible blas phemy of God. 5. The right knowledge of sin is of preponderating importance. " Cog- nitio peccati initium salutis" (Calvin). " Without the descent into 13 Ps. xii. 1, and many other passages ; compare Eccles. vii. 10. " Jerem. ii. 35. 15 Ps. cxliii. 2 ; Isa. vi. 5 ; Matt. iii. 14. 392 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. self-recognition, no ascent to the recognition of God" (Tholuck). And so in the Heidelberg Catechism the knowledge of our misery through sin is properly called the first of the things necessary. It is only by this means that the necessity for a special revelation can be acknowledged ;16 while, on the other hand, we can be sure that a Pelagian Hamartology will inevitably lead to a Rationalistic Christology. All the "errors of the Modernism of the present time are the result of a theoretical and practical denial of the exist ence of sin; while, on the other hand, the so much desired regeneration of Christian Dogmatics is to be looked for through a deeper conviction of sin. 6. Every-day experience teaches that the right knowledge of sin is as rare as it is difficult. The ground of this difficulty lies (objectively) in the nature of sin, having an abnormal, arbitrary, and ever-changing character, and (subjectively) in the pride which, itself the first and greatest sin of all, most sadly interferes with a true knowledge of self. Obliged to be our own judges, we are as little impartial as well instructed to judge, and we constantly deceive ourselves. Hence, the true conviction of sin in the Gospel is represented as the work of the Holy Spirit,17 whilst the prayer of Ps. xix. 12 — 14, and cxxxix. 23, 24, cannot be too often repeated. How ever, it can only hope to be heard, when we tread this domain with the infallible light in our hands. 7. No abstract reasoning, however acute, is sufficient to make us know sin in its true light. As we dissect the idea of sin with the knife of_ dia lectics; sin itself fades only too quickly before our eyes into an empty idea. We must here tread the path of psychology, and not that of speculation ; and the proverb, " descendite ut ascendatis" must be ever kept in mind. Over a phenomenon in the domain of morals such as this, a moral judg ment can only be the right one. Sin must therefore be regarded in the light of conscience, which judges more quickly and more accurately than the understanding, and is less easily corrupted ; and in the light of the Gospel, which not merely, like the law, gives us the knowledge of sin,18 but reveals it as sin in all its deformity, by means of the full splendour of God's holiness and grace. Specially too must it be seen in the light of the spiritual experience of ourselves, and of all who ever had the courage to cast a deeper look down ; for in this case the universal is here conceived from the particular. It is not the rich young man, but the poor publican, who will best fathom the mystery of unrighteousness. Compare specially, as to this chapter, Doertenbach, article Siinde m Herzog's R. E., xv. ; J. Muller, a. a. 0. ; H. T. L. Ernesti, Vom Ursprung der Siinde nach Paulin. Lehrgehalt. (1862) ; E. Naville, Le probleme du Mai (1863) ; R. Rothe, Theol. Ethik., 2nd ed., iii. (1870), pp. I — 107 ; and last, but not least, A. Tholuck, Die Lehre von der Siinde und vom Versohner, 9th ed. (1871). Points for Inquiry. Is there ground for the statement that Jesus did not regard and treat all men as sinners? [Van Hengel, Scholten.] — Further elucidation of the passages in Scripture which seem to plead against the absolute universality of sin. — Absolute consensus of (Ecumenical and Church symbols on this point. — Connection of the doctrine of sin with all the principal points of Christian dogma, — How is it that the eternal distinction between moral good and evil is so sadly overlooked by many, and specially at the present time? [Isa. v. 20.] 16 Section xxx. " John xvi. 8. 18 Rom. iii. 20. THE NATURE OF SIN. 393 SECTION LXXIIL— THE NATURE OF SIN. The nature of sin reveals itself in the perverted relation in which the sinner places himself to the demands of the moral law. Sin is every thing—principle as well as act— which contradicts this law, and which thus makes man disobedient to the Supreme Lawgiver. In contradiction to the love which He demands, it displays a selfish character, soon rising to hostility, and requiring satisfaction at any price. In this general description of the unchangeable nature of sin, its absolute condemnation is at once pronounced. Sin does not consist in this, that we are not yet that which we must become ; but rather in this, that we are just the opposite of what we ought to be. 1. The question, what'xs reaily sin? is perhaps best answered by con sidering the word itself. The word, derived from the old High German suona (stihne) thus points of itself to something for which expiation must be made. It is the translation of the Greek a^aprla, a/j.aprdveiv, by which is denoted a falling away from, or missing of the right way; and of the Hebrew kept, which also denotes falling away.1 With this are allied the ideas which find their utterance in the words rrari (going astray), p.» (vanity), ctf» (guilt). Judged philologically, the idea of sin is developed much more among the Hebrews than among the Greeks, the natural consequence of the revelation of the holiness of God. 2. Closer scrutiny soon shows that the idea of sin is limited by another idea, viz., that of law.2 " Where no law is, there is no transgression ; " so this very word best describes,' though still merely in a general way, the nature of sin. From the Christian Theistic standpoint the existence of an eternal moral order in the world is placed above all doubt, and consequently the distinction between moral good and moral evil in the objective sense of the word. That which according to this rule must be done, is good ; that which ought not to be done, and goes beyond the fixed rule, is evil. " Peccare est tanquam limites transilire" (Cicero). A law is not advice, nor trial, nor prayer, but a positive demand, to which our only relation can be one of subjection, or of transgression. The latter is only possible in a rational and moral being; brutes, infants, may do wrong, but cannot actually sin.3 But man is conscious in himself that he is not without or above, but unconditionally under law : the conscience expresses the claim of moral obligation ; and where that claim is disowned,, sin is born. The self will which sets itself up against law, is certainly not the better, because 1 Compare Heb. x. 26. 2 Rom. iv. 15. 3 Compare James iv. 17. 394 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. it displays itself as pretended independence and strength of mind; indeed, it is not moral strength, but weakness, to withdraw from the command of duty, and he who oversteps the prescribed limits commits a moral wrong. According to Scripture,4 sin bears the mark both of unrighteousness,5 and of transgression of law.6 It is hardly necessary to point out that such expressions must be applied not merely to the sinful deed, but also to the sinful thought. What we do outwardly is merely the revelation of our inner nature, even when we transgress the law. 3. We cannot, however, allow ourselves to be limited by this general view, when we consider that behind the impersonal law there stands no one less than the personal lawgiver, against whom each transgressor of the law makes himself chargeable with positive aisobedience. All virtue is in its nature obedience;7 all sin, disobedience to God, even when we do wrong to our neighbour or ourselves.8 The oft-used antithesis between autonomy and heteronomy in morals fails when we regard morality as a duty towards God Himself; for us theonomy must be autonomy. Man is obliged, not only to obey his own moral nature (his better self), but Him who has implanted in him this better nature, the only Lawgiver, who is able to save and destroy,9 and who has made the claims of the law unconditionally His own. Now the sinner, indeed, rejects this his obligation to this claim, and so becomes a rebel in God's moral kingdom. Hence sin in Scrip ture is often described as unfaithfulness and covenant-breaking, as the words Tapd-n-Tu/j-a, vapaKoii, irapaTrlirTuv, etc., denote. Hence, too, springs that deep feeling as to the temerity of sin, which is so specially and expressly declared in so many sayings of the prophets.10 4. The being of the lawgiver and the chief claim 01 the law are indis- solubly one; the sum and substance of the commandments is eloquently comprehended in the word "love."11 Where the sinner sets himself against the two, there must his sin necessarily display the character of egotism. Man, as it were, displaces the centre round which his thought, feeling, will, and actions must constantly move ; sin is decentralisation, in which the place of God is occupied by self. This selfishness is in no degree an exaggeration, but much rather the opposite, of pure self-love. The last presupposes love to God, which the first denies. The proof, that sin in its very nature cannot be called aught else but selfishness, is specially shown in this, that all transgressions, whether directly or indirectly, lead off from, or lead back to it. This characteristic of sin is pointed out in various ways in Holy Scripture. The perfection of Jesus is shown in this, that He did not seek to please Himself,12 the perfection of love is shown in the fact that it seeks not its own,13 and the summit of corruption in the terrible last days is denoted by the phenomenon that men " shall be lovers of themselves."14 Thus the life for self is diametrically opposed to life for 4 I John i. 9 ; iii. 4. » James iv. 12. 5 <«'*<«¦ "> Isa. i. 2 ; Micah vi. 1, etc 6 avop.(a, elsewhere vapa^ams. " Deut. vi. 5 ; Matt xxii •17— ao ' Gen. xxii. 12. w Rom. xv. 3. ' ' ' * ' 8 Compare Gen. xxxix. 9 ; Ps. Ii. 4. 13 1 Cor. xiii. 5. 11 2 Tim. iii. 1, 2 ; compare 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. THE NATURE OF SIN. 395 God and Christ.15 So on account of this "arbitrary resistance to the Divine Will" sin must necessarily be the source of the difference which we have already noticed. It is thus recognised by the most distin guished thinkers (Miiller, Nitzsch, Naville), that here, in a degree such as is met nowhere else, the right mark is hit. 5. This selfishness inevitably becomes hostility where the sinful lust comes into painful collision with the law of God, or with the equally selfish will of a neighbour. The utterances of Scripture on this point,16 which the Confession of the Reformed Church emphatically repeats, are, when rightly explained, raised by history and experience beyond all doubt. Even the tenderest love is not free from a hidden selfishness, and love changes into hate, where the self-denial which it demands is rejected by flesh and blood. It even rises sometimes to the desire that there were neither law nor lawgiver, and, where a man can withdraw "himself from the supremacy of the former at any cost, to powerless rage and spite, as is seen in the Cain of Lord Byron. The "utinam unam cervicem haberet" is not the thought of a Caligula only ; and where a man dethrones his God in order to deify self, he becomes at last destitute of " natural affection."17 6. From what has been said it appears that sin in no way exhibits a merely negative character, although the distinction between sin (peccatum) and crime (crimen) may not be overlooked; yet the first has, even when regarded as a principle only, along with its negative, a sadly positive side. It is a positive negation of God and His will, in so far as it puts something entirely different in place of that will. In the sinner there is not only a want (defedus) of that which must be found in him ; but also an inclination, a tendency, a striving (affedus) which ought not to be in him. " Defectus sunt ignoratio Dei, non ardere amore Dei, vacare metu, fiducia Dei ; bos defectus comitantur prava? affectiones, amor nostri, superbia," etc. (Me- lancthon). Certainly, too, the not being as yet what we can and must become, should be called sin, " omne minus bonum habet rationem mali." Yet sin does not merely or chiefly consist in this, that we are still removed far from the aim we are to attain to ; but much more in this, that we fall far away voluntarily from it, in order to follow out our own ends. Though it taints the whole man, sin really is placed in the domain of the will ; and even with respect to transgression through weakness, the rule, " omne peccatum est voluntarium," may still to a certain degree prevail. It is not merely a temporary want of, but a denial in principle of, the moral good, which is unconditionally willed- by God. Though it sometimes assumes the appearance of good, yet it has nothing in common with the essence of the matter ; it is ofttimes the caricature of it, but never only a lesser degree thereof. The distinction between good and evil is as great as between light and darkness, and the temptation to the latter is doubly dangerous, since it hides itself under the appearance of the former.18 7. The absolute guilt of sin, so strongly expressed in Holy Scripture,19 is the natural consequence of its character, so depicted. Disorder in place 15 2 Cor. v. 15. 18 2 Cor. xi. 14. 16 John xv. 24 ; Rom. viii. 7 ; Tit. iii. 3 ; and other places. ™ Rom. iii. 19. 17 Rom. i. 31. 396 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. of order, rebellion instead of subjection, selfishness in place of self-denial, hate where love is demanded with the highest right ; we cannot possibly conceive anything more sad, or anything more terrible. It is one of the excellences of our Symbolical and Liturgical Writings, that this idea so constantly appears in them, as, for example, in the excellent "Confession de peche," which is still used in the Walloon Churches, and — one of the greatest misfortunes of our time that it is wanting in by far the greatest number of them. Comp. C. Weiszaecker, 7m der Lehre vom Wesen der Siinde, in the Jahrb.fiir Deutsche Thiol. (1856), i., p. 131, sqq.; J. MiiLLER, a. a. 0., p. 166, sqq.; E. SARTORIUS, Die Lehre von der heiligen Liebe. (1840), i., p. 61, sqq. ; NlTZSCH, a. a. .0., p. 105; P. H. HuGENHOLTZ, Uet hooge bilang van de kennis onzer Zonde (1864). Points for Inquiry. Is not the entire distinction between good and evil relative and conventional ? — Is there ground for asserting that the conceptions of sin in the Old Testament and in the New are actually distinct ? — The relation of the ideas of law and obligation. — Is a thing morally evil because God forbids it, or does God forbid it because it is morally evil ? — The dis tinction between selfishness and proper self-love. — Can every sin be truly explained as a revealing of natural selfishness ? — Import and truth of the fifth answer in the Heidelberg Catechism. — How can we explain, and how best combat, the sad denial of the existence of sin, so specially seen in our time ? SECTION LXXIV. — ITS ORIGIN IN MAN. The actuality and the influence of the sinful principle in man, is in no degree the consequence of causes, consisting merely either in the original direction of his nature, or in the unchangeable nature of good, or in his external circumstances and position, or in anything external to himself. Every explanation of the origin of sin, in which its essential guilt is disowned, is rejected by the conscience, and is in principle inadmissible. The sinful act is the consequence of the perverted disposition, and this, again, is the fruit of a moral corruption of human nature, which has its seat in the heart, and thence radiates into every direction of the internal and external life. 1. After the inquiry as to the nature of sin naturally follows that into its origin, in the first place, in the individual man, considered by himself. This question, discussed in every age, and answered in divers ways, deserves the more consideration because it has not only speculative, but preponderat ing practical importance. From the nature of the case, a negative answer must here precede the positive one. ITS ORIGIN IN MAN. 397 2. According to some, sin necessarily proceeds from the metaphysical imperfection of man, and may even be considered as absolutely inseparable from it. Because man is a finite and limited being, it is so natural that he should stumble and fall, that we must much more feel surprise if this were not to happen. This idea, formerly supported by Leibnitz, and since his time by others too, and specially by clever defenders of the so-called Modern Theology,1 seems at first sight not unacceptable, but closer inves tigation shows that it is overweighted with insuperable difficulties. For as soon as sin becomes something absolutely inevitable, at that very time it ceases to be sin. Besides, this theory is quite unable to explain the facts of the case properly. Experience teaches that it is" not merely a weak, but a really wicked will which governs not a few of mankind. Evil appears not only as weakening, but as an active and energic perversion of our moral nature. A crime arouses not merely compassion, but terror, which from this standpoint becomes really quite unintelligible. Holy Scripture even calls us not only to sorrow, but to hatred against sin, and speaks of a power of evil, and even of the depths of Satan, which exhibit a much more serious character than that of imperfection and weakness only. According to its declarations, which conscience supports, we are speaking here not only of a fault, but of a crime ; not of a weakness, but of a terrible power ; not of something necessary, but of something contrary to nature. Where this is denied, every self-accusation is, in other words, explained as a miserable self-deception, which is disposed of when we analyse more deeply the evil which has been done. 3. Not more favourable can our judgment be upon the opinion of those who consider sin as a fruit of sensibility, which develops so much earlier than reason, and hence, even involuntarily, leads us astray, from time to time. According to this view, too, sin primarily originates in God, who has given man such a sensuous nature, and has thus willed that he should gradually develop from sin as the lower, to good as the higher. But then, how is it that man sins, not only at that time of life when sensuousness still entirely governs him, but even when its allurements are felt in a much less degree, gives himself up entirely as the slave of evil ? Whence come all those spiritual sins, pride, envy, etc., which have nothing or little in common with sensuality, and which we see rise to such a surprising- height in the Prince of darkness ? Whence comes it, that God's Son has taken human nature, even its sensuous side, and notwith standing continued sinless ? It is only the self-depreciation, but not the self-exaltation of the sinner, which can be explained in this way, and in its inevitable consequences this theory cannot be aught but injurious. It necessarily calls out a rigorous asceticism, which finally attaches the highest • value to a " bodily exercise," so little valued by St. Paul,2 and at last makes every free, lively, and sound view of life impossible. In vain, too, does the hypothesis of sensibility look for a sufficient recommendation in the words of Scripture. The saying of the Lord, in St. Matt. xxvi. 41, refers exclu sively to the momentary state of His disciples, and serves to recommend to See, e.g. , Riggenbach, Die neuere Theologie in der dealschen Schweiz. 2 1 Tim. iv. 8. 398 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. them most specially the duty of watchfulness. The words of St. James 3 need not be exclusively understood of sensual desire; and besides, it falls short of an explanation of how that desire had its origin in the human heart. Lastly, as far as relates to St. Paul's statements, only when we cling to the sound of the letter can we find in his teaching concerning the flesh Ud„i) and its operation a support for the theory which is in dispute. And even by flesh the apostle does not mean sensuality, but the entire sinful nature of man, to which belong not only the body, but the under standing, feeling, and will also, and which as such stands in direct opposi tion to the renewed spiritual principle by which the Christian is led. Hence, too, he mentions among the works of the flesh those which have absolutely nothing to do with sensuality as such.4 To be carnally minded is death, not the possession of, or the life, in the flesh itself. If sensibility is a temptation and incitement to sin, the real cause of the latter must be sought much deeper. 4. Still less can it be found in the true nature of moral good, of whose light moral evil could be called the inevitable shadow. " Perfect holi ness," so we hear it said on more than one side, " and absolute wickedness are 'both pure abstractions." We should never "become conscious of good, if evil were not ; sin is a necessary point of transition to a higher per fection ; a moment of development, not intended to continue, but to be ever again repeated. If man had not eaten of the tree of knowledge, he would not have been man, but beast." This theory, too, is not new ; it met with strong supporters among some of the Gnostic sects, e.g., the Ophites, and was also regarded favourably by Lactantius, J. Scotus Erigena, and others. Schiller pleaded for it in " Etwas icber die ersten Menschengesellsch. nack der Mos. Urk." when he declared his conviction that the fall in an intellectual and moral view might much more be called an advance ; and even with Hegel, evil consists in reality in this, that man adheres to the standpoint of the lower naturalness, above which he must be raised by the spirit. According to this system, there is thus a certain discord in the nature of man, but a discord which will, even in the domain of morals, gradually disappear. Yet, it seems that even this conception of sin, as " interpretamentum boni,"5 can be as little adequately justified before the tribunal of reason as before that of conscience, and that all properly so-called dread of evil may from this standpoint be called pessimistic folly. If sin be a necessary consequence of finiteness, it would be a curse, and not a blessing, to be a finite being, and a Buddhistic absorption into the Nirwana (the Nothing, the Void) would at length be the most desirable prospect of him who above all else desires to be relieved from these chains. Certainly, under a Divine government, which causes good to come even out of evil, sin itself may become a means to higher completeness ; yet he who states that the last is absolutely unattainable without the first, says, in other words, that God has notwithstanding properly willed and ordained that which He hates and 3 James i. 14, 15. 4 Gal. v. 19, sqq.; compare Col. ii. 18 — 23 ; Rom. viii. 6. 5 Lactantius. ITS ORIGIN IN MAN. 399 punishes. This whole conception arises, consciously or unconsciously, from a pantheistic idea of God, according to which God effects evil as well as good, so that properly for Him, evil as positive evil does not exist. From the Theistic standpoint, on the contrary, we must maintain the finite, as such, is not yet the sinful, and in the moral world, at least, light without shadow is possible, or — the conception of the highest holiness must be rejected as absurd.6 Even the often used comparison, derived from dis cords which are resolved in higher harmony, rests on an involuntary confusion of the sesthetic and ethical spheres ; between discord and keynote the distance is relative, between moral good and evil in principle the con trast is absolute. Where this absoluteness is brought down to something merely relative, the spiritual nature of man, as well as the loftiness of the moral ideal, is most miserably misapprehended ; and where no other pros pect is open to mankind, but to continue in sin for ever, boih Soteriology and Eschatology may be placed in the list of follies. " We console our selves for our vices by declaring them necessities, and clothe in the mantle of science the testimony of a corrupted heart " (Lacordaire). 5. Many other solutions of the proposed question might be mentioned, if completeness were here required. As the most superficial, must perhaps be mentioned that of the old philosopher (Socrates), that error was the source of sin, since men simply are forgetful of the duties which they intend to fulfil. As the most profound we must mention that of R. Rothe, the most renowned divine of the nineteenth century, who thinks that he finds in man's original relation to matter the key of the enigma, and just thereby plainly overlooks the difference between natural and moral evil. While he and others thus find the causes of sin in man himself, not unimportant, on the other hand, is the number of those who in causes external to him seek for the ground of the sad phenomenon, e.g., in the imperfect condition of society. But then, whence is it that the society itself, consisting of indi viduals, is so corrupt, and that all attempts to reform it fail so miserably ? The question is only transplaced, not resolved, where the key, which Scrip ture and experience offer, is rejected. The secret of the origin of sin can be first discovered only when sin is viewed in the light of conscience. 6. There is no fact which is more plainly announced by conscience than that sin is not fate ; but an act which we as such have to impute to our selves, as it will be imputed to us by God, if He does not forgive it. "There is no fatal law which condemns us to impurity " (Naville). Sin in man thus arises, because his will is inclined to evil, and because he consequently most fatally misuses the freedom bestowed upon him. Let it be true, that this misuse is determined by all sorts of circumstances and influences external to us, it is no less certain that it is we ourselves who thus decide for ourselves, without any compulsion and without offering a proper resist ance. How is it that we, who know this and even condemn it, neverthe less constantly let our lust prevail over our duty ? The misuse of our personal liberty is the consequence of the moral corruption of human nature. 7. When we speak of this moral corruption, we by no means declare I John i. 5. 400 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. that the original nature of man was so wholly destroyed and annihilated, that it might be literally called nothing but sin, " a mass of corruption." On the contrary, according to Augustine, " in quantum natura est, bona est" But in whatever degree our nature has continued entire, in other words, in whatever degree man does not cease to be man, yet is it completely penetrated by a moral corruption of which the heart is the source and centre. Impurity in the heart we describe as corruption, because it has been preceded by an originally better moral condition.7 We thus distin guish between the essential being of man (essentia substantia), and his present condition, the sinful nature which has now once for all become inseparable from man. Hence we call every sinful act the revelation of a sinful prin ciple, and of this sinful principle we assert, that it — save the one exception which was seen in Jesus Christ — is from biith inherent in every member of the human race, in this respect always unvarying. 8. The evidence for this statement is already given in the nature of sin itself, according to what we have thus far learnt of its nature. If it be not willed by God, and just as little a fruit of man's original disposition, it must then be called a fruit of moral corruption. A phenomenon so universal is only to be explained from a cause equally universal. Hence sin exhibits, in the midst of innumerable variety, everywhere again and again, one and the same character ; so that we may, with some knowledge of mankind, almost count upon the way in which any one in certain circum stances will forsake his higher calling. This uniformity points, too, to a cause lying deeper, and present in every one without exception. Even the surprising power of sin, notwithstanding all that has been done to resist it, seems inconceivable, when we are not permitted to speak of a corruption of the entire nature, from which sin is always springing as bubbling water, as if from an impure fountain.8 " Just as little as mankind on its part is merely an atomistic crowd of spirits, so little can it be atomistically indi vidualised in its sins."9 Education also and example are undoubtedly factors which must not be overlooked. But, though rain and sunshine make weeds grow more quickly, they could not draw them out of the ground, if they had not been laid there before. Evil shows itself already in the child, before education and training can operate ; not to say that even the most pious parents have had most wicked children, or vice versa. Take for example, Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, and Amon, the son of Manasseh. In truth, " we can as well explain the rain by the clouds, as sin only by education." * 9. That which the nature of the case declares, Holy Scripture expressly confirms in more than one way. When we listen to Jesus, we hear Him profess that the heart of man10 is the seat of the deepest impurity, and that man, who is born of the flesh alone, is utterly unsuited ior the spiritual kingdom of God.11 Nor does that which He testifies of the inner light of man,12 and of the good and honest heart of the well- inclined hearers of the Gospel,13 absolutely conflict with this. The first ' Section lxx. 10 Matt. xv. ig. >2 Matt. vi. 22 i% 8 Neth. Conf., Art. xv. " John iii. 5. ls Luke viii. 15. * Lange. ITS ORIGIN IN MAN. 401 points to the light of conscience, which is dimmed, but by no means extinguished, by sin ; the other, to that simple and well-meaning disposition which makes man receptable of the seed of the Kingdom of God, and also in its part is the work of the preparing grace of God. Undoubtedly there is, even in a sinful world, a distinction between men and men,11 but in a greater or less degree the qualification of " evil "15 is no less applicable to all. Hence St. Paul calls all men, without distinction, children of wrath by nature16 (#cret, naturaliter, indole sua, cf. Gal. iv. 8), and he thus shows the Jewish as well as the heathen world as sinful and guilty before God.17 We hear the echoes of these tones even in the Scriptures of the Old Tes tament. In Gen. viii. 21, God calls the thoughts and imaginations of man's heart, without exception and limitation, " evil from his youth," and declares that He will henceforth spare mankind, because this sinful disposi tion cannot in any way be destroyed by punishment. Job denies that any one can bring a clean thing18 out of so many unclean things ;19 and David confesses20 that he was already born in sin from a sinful mother. Had he in this expression thought chiefly, as some say, of the wickedness of that mother, about which history is silent, it would have been rather a word of excuse than of self-accusation and repentance. Stronger even still, than such separate expressions, does the whole spirit of Holy Scripture plead for the doctrine of the complete corruption of human nature. 10. Self-consciousness and experience expressly confirm all we have said. No one can remember his first evil deed, still less his first sinful thought On the contrary, every one who examines himself narrowly will find, not only that good in him is too weak, but much more, that there is in him an evil principle, aye, that he is not in a position to withdraw himself by a bold resolve from the rule of selfishness, and to place himself unconditionally under the law of love. How much impurity may spring up in the heart and the imagination, even in the holiest moments ! Even apparent good is soon seen to be mixed with evil, and the glory before God continues to be wanting,21 even where praise with men is earned most widely. It is certainly partial, when, after a well-known saying of Augustine, we consider the virtues of the heathen merely as splendid sins (splendida vitid). Augustine himself indeed recognises another and kindlier mode of view.22 Still less need we despise nobility, humanity, and other good qualities in this sphere ; because we see in them the influence, perhaps indirect, but not the less unmistakable, of the Logos before His incarnation.23 But such excep tions confirm much more than really contradict the melancholy rule ; and even from the heathen world, from a very early time, we hear the most bitter complaints of the moral corruption of human nature. Thus Seneca says,24 " Peccavimus omnes, nee delinquimus tantum, sed ad extremun aavi delin- quemus."25 What wonder that a philosopher like Kant spoke of "radical evil," or that a poet like Lamartine piteously exclaimed, " L'homme est un 14 John ix. 39—41. w Ps. Ii. 5. 15 Luke xi. 13. ll Rom. iv. 2. 18 Ephes. ii. 3. a See Civ. Dei, v. 18. " Rom. iii. 19. ** John i. 4. ,8 Job xiv. 4. n De Clem., i. 6. 19 Job xv. 14; Jerem. xiii. 23. B Comp. § lxxii. 5 D D 402 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. Dieu tombe\ qui se souvient des cieux " ? When carefully considered, not much can be brought against this doctrine, save that it is painful and humi liating, and that it may be sadly abused. But this last will then only be the case when it is considered without the light of the Gospel, and used as a cloak for sin ; and as to the first, such affliction is in every case better than deplorable self-deception. How many blunders have been committed in the education of children, by treating their' evil tendencies, as if their nature were in itself pure and good ! how often is preaching unfruitful, because the preacher disregards the fallen nature of his hearers ! Many a one, after long and fruitless labour, must shamefully confess with Guizot, " Nous avons meconnu le mal inherent a notre nature." _ _ ii If, on the contrary, the fact of internal corruption is once fixed absolutely fast, then nothing is more natural but that it should radiate from its centre into every part of the internal and external life.26 Most instruc tive in this respect is the parable of the Prodigal Son,27 which makes us see in a most striking manner the history of the development of sin, from selfishness to a false desire for freedom, and from this to the most pitiable slavery and misery. He who thus sketched the sinner, knew better than any one what was in man. Every separate history may in another sense be called again an eternal history, but at the same time it elicits the question, where is the historic root of this wide-spreading tree of un righteousness hidden? That question points us to the narrative of the fall, of which St. Augustine has so very justly testified, " Nihil est ad prse- dicandum notius, nihil ad intelligendum secretius." Compare the literature mentioned in §§ lxxii., lxxiii., lxxiv. Points for Inquiry. Whence is it that the question as to the origin of sin in man has in all ages been so differently answered ? — The grand alternative. — Further elucidation of the doctrine of St. Paul concerning the power of the flesh. — Resemblance and differences in the representa tions of ancient and modern Gnosticism. — What in this case is the theory of Schleiermacher? —and of Rothe? — and of the empiric philosophy? — Whence comes the disinclination amone so many to recognise the influence of personal freedom in this domain? — Is it reasonable to call the heart alone, and not human nature, corrupt? — Further support of the Scriptural proof. — What judgment must we form on the relatively moral good in the natural man? — Theoretical and practical importance of the recognition of the corruption of man by sin. SECTION LXXV. — ITS ORIGIN IN MANKIND. The moral corruption of human nature has its historic ground in the disobedience of our first parents, who voluntarily transgressed God's command, and, in consequence, have lost their original 26 Section Ixxix. " Luke xv. II — 17. ITS ORIGIN IN MANKIND. 403 purity. Between this fall of the first man, and the corruption of the whole human race, there thus exists a direct connexion, which seeks its proper expression in the so-called doctrine of original sin (peccatum hereditarium). Whatever may remain here undeter mined or incomprehensible, this is sufficiently evident, that in the history of the fall of the Protoplasts must be sought the key for explaining the mystery of sin, but at the same time that that history itself, on its part, points us to a power of evil which was older than the first human pair. The investigation into the reality, the nature, and the immediate origin of sin, forces us of itself to go back to its first cause, and to look for the first link in the fatal chain. It is necessary that we view the first sin in the light of history, before we can expressly discuss its exact connexion with the universal corruption of our nature. I. 1. The narrative of the first sin,1 which must offer the desired key, exhibits itself an hieroglyphical character, and has in all ages been explained in different ways. By not a few,2 specially in the last century, and since that time, a purely mythical conception has arisen, and the idea been defended, that here nothing but the philosophical conception of a pious thinker con cerning the commencement of original evil has been laid down in an historical form. In favour of this view, however, we find no preponderating reasons, and there are many objections against it. The narrative presents itself plainlv as history ; and such an historico-fantastic clothing of a pure philosophic idea, in our view, accords little with the genuine spirit of Jewish antiquity. The distinction between the Jewish and the heathen religions, with the grand mythological background of the latter, must not here be overlooked, while the reasons alleged for the general credibility of the oldest Mosaic records are also available for this particular section. More arbitrary even than the mythical, must the allegorical conception be called, (supported by Philo Judasus, M. Maimonides, Origen, and Ambrose,) which refers everything which is said of fruit, serpent, woman, etc., to entirely different things than those which the sacred letter denotes. This explanation presupposes an artistic reflection, such as is at least not to be looked for in the most remote ages, and opens the door for all sorts of suggestions, which soon too easily lead to mockery of that which is thus misunderstood. We avoid both perils when we place ourselves at the standpoint of the historic conception, which, further examined, is in our esti mation supported by sufficient grounds. Here, too, we have a Sage", if we want to use this word, but one of which the kernel is undoubtedly history ; a tradition, originally derived from our first parents themselves, preserved for centuries by word of mouth, afterwards perhaps in hiero glyphs, and finally in writing, which thus became known to Moses, and was 1 Gen. iii. s Eichhorn, Gabler, etc. 404 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. later placed at the head of the Pentateuch. In so far as this tradition was given in a most childish form, and contains elements which cannot possibly be literally apprehended, it may be said that here there is a history written, which, though not real, is nevertheless an infallibly true one.3 As such it is also afterwards explained and employed in the writings of the Old and New Testament.4 Besides, the narrative bears an internal character of psychological truth, which recommends it more strongly after every new investigation. Certainly the very remarkable agreement be tween the chief subject-matter of the Mosaic record and the traditions of the most different nations concerning a fall into sin and its sad results cannot be better explained than by our hypothesis (§ lxx. 14). Whatever in it seems strange or incredible disappears to a considerable extent, when we only know how to get through the shell to the kernel, and consider that we are here moving in a higher sphere than that of a dead level, every-day reality, and in view of many a singularity assume the language of true modesty, " In re obscura tutissima ingenua ignorantise confessio " (Clericus). 2. In any case so much is at once evident, that the origin of the first sin is to be sought neither in God nor in man himself, but in the craft and power of a mysterious Deceiver. It will always be impossible to determine whether this be here only denoted under the image of a serpent, or whether we must conceive of a real serpent, of which, in some way or other, he made use to attain his end. In the last view, which certainly accords most with the letter of the record, one must either assume that the serpent spoke in an unusual manner, with acts, signs, etc., or suppose with Lange that the woman was in a vision during this dialogue. Unacceptable remains always the suggestion, that we have here narrated her own re flections on seeing a serpent eating and yet not dying, in the form of a conversation ; when could such thoughts have risen in a still absolutely uncorrupted heart ? We must always suppose that the first sinful lust in her heart was raised by a word from without, under whatever form it may have been spoken. The Tempter begins by arousing in the woman, as the easiest ¦ deceived, doubts as to the truth of God's word and the goodness of His will. Where by that doubt the unlimited confidence of love is broken, the selfish desire to be like God is called out. Just as a third fatal power does sensuous lust enter into the scene ;5 and where desire brings sin into the world, the victim of temptation becomes at once its instrument against Adam. " Infidelitas radix defectionis; hinc ambitio et superbia fluxit." (Calv.) 3. The unalterable character of sin shows itself at once in this first transgression. It reveals itself as a renouncing of law,6 and as arbitrariness, whereby it naturally is an entire matter of indifference how much or how little selfishness takes for itself, if its demands once prevail over those of love. Hence, too, the greatness of the evil here wrought, when measured by a moral rule, cannot seriously be disputed. The first sin was committed in opposition to an absolute, plain, and relatively easy command ; from a principle in the highest degree impure, with full consciousness, without any 3 Nitzsch. * Gen. iii. 6. 4 Job xxxi. 33} Hosea vi. 7; Matt. xix. 4—6; 2 Cor. xi. 3, etc. • 1 John iii. 4. ITS ORIGIN IN MANKIND. 405 need, even without a tolerable pretext, and, if we adhere to the letter of the record, at the instigation of a beast who was subject to man, and from which he must have understood that a very impure spirit was speaking through it. 4. Thus, even the immediate consequences of the sin could not be aught else but sad and destructive. So little is this first deed a mistake standing alone, that it becomes much more the source of the saddest change, espe cially for our first parents. The harmony in man himself between his spiritual and animal nature is destroyed, between his present and his past, between his reason too, and his awakening conscience.7 Nor less is destroyed the harmony between the man and the woman, where both put away the guilt from themselves, and one comes forth as the accuser of the other. Specially is destroyed the harmony of man with his Creator and the surrounding creation. With these natural consequences are also threatened still more definite punishments of the evil, both to the tempter and to the tempted, and even reaching to inanimate nature. " The fall of man was a cosmic event, as when a kingdom falls with its king" (Von Baader). However difficult it may be to come here to any conclusion on our own authority, since we do not know what would have been the state of things if man had not sinned ; of this, at any rate, there can be no doubt, that death must, on its appearance in the world of man, be regarded as a punishment on sin ; while this, too, can as little be ques tioned, that already was revealed to the first sinner, in the clearest light, the mercy of God as well as His holiness and justice. 5. We should judge quite incorrectly of the more extended consequences of the first sin, if we thought that from that moment moral corruption sprang at once into life in full force. This could only, from the nature of the case, be at first gradual, but still, by the force of the principle, in an ever increas ing ratio. Even though — and this we may accept — the transgression was earnestly deplored ; with the first purity was also lost internal peace, the power of love was destroyed, and where new conditions gave rise to new temptations, each succeeding disobedience must lead to further declension. The son of Adam bears his image, and that first son becomes a fratricide, and head of a race which was constantly departing more and more from God. The turning away from God brings habitually ruin as its conse quence. Just as the lava hardens after it has broken from the crater, and in that state can never return to its source; so after the first fall, the history of mankind becomes likewise the history of the development of sin. Sin rules with an ever-increasing power from Adam to Noah, from Noah again to Moses, from Moses to Christ, and even where He in principle subdues its power, its rule continues prolonged, apparently unchangeable. It is a wide stream, to whose source we cannot reach without placing our selves once more in the lost paradise. Such a continuity would thus at once bring us involuntarily to the thought of a very close connexion ; and when we begin to ask after this, we find a confirmation of the declaration of the Christian philosopher : " Le dogme chrdtien de la chute de l'huma- nite renferme la doctrine philosophique qui rend le mieux compte a la ' Gen. iii. 7, 8. 406 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. raison des donne"es de l'experience, a 1'occasion desquelles se pose le pro- bleme du mal" (Naville). 6. After all that has been said, we can hardly estimate highly enough the great importance of the narrative of the first sin. It supplies an answer to a question which we cannot put on one side, an answer whose inner truth as far as concerns the chief matter, notwithstanding the mystery in its particulars, recommends itself both to the thoughtful understanding and the speaking conscience. It stands there as an indestructible testimony against all Dualism and Manichsisro, but also against all Pelagianism and Optimism in its varying forms. It casts a true light over man, as the fallen king of creation, and offers us the only fitting key to all the aspirations and the pains of his internal and external life. Lastly, it may be called, in so far as it exhibits in essence and character the image of every sin, with its con sequences, not merely a most remarkable, but an eternal history. What marvel that not merely Theologians, but philosophers too, of all schools of thought, agree in their high estimation of a record, which, if it were destroyed, would make the history of our race a labyrinth without entrance or exit ? Comp. Lange, Kurtz, Delitzsch, Keil, and others on Gen. iii. ; the third supple ment to Tholuck's Lehre von der Siinde; K. H. Sack, Psychol. Moral. Bemerkungen mit BezugaufdenSiindenfa.il, Stud, und Krit. (1869), ii. : Steiner, Die Bibl. Erzahlung vom Siindenfall (1870) ; and, as regards the traditions of other nations, H. Lueken, u. a. 0., p 74, etc. Upon the whole subject, study Bl. Pascal, Pens'ees. Points for Inquiry. Closer definition and defence of the historical interpretation of Gen. iii. — What opinion must we form as to the serpent and its probable speech ? — How far can the first sin be called the fruit of anticipation and impatience ?-— Explanation of Gen. iii. 14—19, com pared with Rom. viii. 19— 23.— The history of the fall and the temptation in the wilder ness. — Testimonies to the high estimation of the history of Paradise at different times and in different schools of thought. II. 1. To the question whether there is a real connexion between this first and every later sin, the Scriptures of the New Testament give us a sufficiently plain affirmative reply. Specially does St. Paul give us light on this point, in Rom. v. 12 — 21, cp. with 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. Both expres sions testify most decidedly that our sin as well as our death stands in the closest connexion with that of Adam. By one man— thus must we under stand his words, which are here of the utmost significance, by one man (the father of mankind) has sin (as a fatal and hostile power) come into the world (so that it therefore existed already elsewhere), and by sin death (physical death, with its consequences), and death has passed on all men ; for that (i<$ v, Fr. parce que, cf. 2 Cor. v. 4) they all (even themselves) have sinned. How this sinning of all is properly speaking connected with that of Adam, the Apostle does not point out here at once, but it is deduced, besides from the entire comparison between Adam and Christ, specially from v. 19, where he says that by the transgression of that one man many were made8 sinners, i.e., became sinners, and were treated as such. Thus, in consequence of their natural relationship to Adam, they also transgress and die in 8 KCLTeo-T&07] W. Verweij, Vergelijking van het Stelsel van Augustinus met dat van Paulus, Waarheid in Liefde (1839), iii. ; T. Reitsma, Over de voordeel. en nadeel. werking van de Aug. tn Pel. righting in de Chr. Kerk, in the Jahrbb. voor wet. Theol. (1853), p. 301, sqq.; C. J. Riggenbach, Die Erbsiinde, in his Apologet. Beitrdge (1863), pp. 115— 143; E. Bersier, La Solidarity, Eng. trans. (1870), pp. 12 — 70. Points for Inquiry. Further development and elucidation of Rom. v. 12, sqq. — History of the doctrine of original sin before Augustme, and in the Middle Ages. — Its importance for the theology of the Reformation. — Its later development and present condition. — The importance erf Christian baptism in connexion with this doctrine. — Is not the innocence of childish years in conflict with its meaning ? — The pre-existence theory of J. Miiller. The danger of exaggeration, misconception, and misapplication of the truth in this domain.— How can this subject be best treated homiletically ? 20 1 John iii. 8. ITS ORIGIN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD. 413 SECTION LXXVI. — ITS ORIGIN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD. The first human sin is the consequence of a temptation, of which the Author must be sought for in a spirit world which has rebelled against God, the existence and power of which is most indubitably attested by Holy Scripture. Reason, when it denies the possibility of that existence, and the operation of that power, goes beyond its right ; but Christian science, too, while endeavouring to explain the ultimate ground of the origin of moral evil, meets in this dark sphere with impassable limits. 1. If sin be as little from God, as solely from man, it must then either be absolutely inexplicable, or be ascribed to a power hostile to God. Thus the consideration of the historical origin of evil leads us of itself to that of its metaphysical origin. It is already in some degree clear from the narra tive of the Old Testament that we must here really think of a suprahuman tempter. The hostile power, which is here seen speaking and acting,1 is pl.iinly older than man, and in its nature not merely animal, but spiritual- daemonic ; and the punishment, too, which is threatened to the tempter, would at least sound incomprehensible, if there had not here been some thing more than a common serpent. We meet already in the Rabbinical Theology with traces of a deeper conception, which appears afterwards to have passed over from the Israelites to the Persians ; and in the book of Wisdom2 we meet with a representation that " death is come into the world through the envy of the devil." It is, however, specially the word of the Lord itself which gives us the courage to think of a fatal influence of the spirit world, and to testify of the first man, " Diaboli blasphemiis abreptus, quantum in se erat, exinanivit totam Dei gloriam " (Calvin). The proof- passage John viii. 44, we cannot conceive of but as a deeply significant reference to the history of Paradise, nor can we understand in any other way the hints which St. Paul throws out in 2 Cor. xi. 3, 14. In the Apo calyptic designation of Satan as the old serpent,3 the same view is shadowed forth, which is neither directly nor indirectly contradicted by a single word in the New Testament. When in connexion with this we observe what we there read as to the attempt of the arch-fiend to overthrow even the second Adam, and as to his constant fatal influence, both in the world and in the Church of the Lord, everything combines to produce the belief that man, " lending his ear to the words of the devil," committed the first sin ; and we see a light fall upon the history of Paradise which to a certain degree removes the obscurity, but which, on the other hand, dazzles our eyes. 2. That an explanation like this in its turn rouses suspicions is nothing Gen. ii. 15 (cf. inti) ; iii. I. 2 Wisdom ii. 24. Rev. xii. 9; xx. 2. 414 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. more than natural, but at the same time it is evident that these can be, at least to a certain extent, satisfactorily answered. To the theological difficulty that God should have permitted an evil spirit — even when its existence and operation is considered as possible — to destroy His most glorious work, we may answer by pointing to what we have already said concerning the pro blem of liberty. If God has permitted evil in the human world, it is not absurd that He should tolerate it also in the spirit world, which cannot in any way be conceived of as a mere kingdom of automata. — If any find it here anthropologically inexplicable that the first man listened to a temptation like this, since in truth as yet no inclii.ation to evil was found in the guileless heart, we will not deny the difficulty ; but, on the other hand, we observe that this relative inexplicability properly belongs to the essence of sin. Evil has no ground of existence, but only a beginning ; it is the child of self-will which is unreasonable and immoral. " Defectionis ratio sufficiens deficit. Causam defectionis, cum efficiens non sit, sed deficiens, invenire velle, tale est ac si quisquam velit videre tenebras aut audire silentium. Ita nesciendo scitur, ut sciendo nesciatur" (Augustinus, D.C.D. xii. 7, 9). — And lastly, if the pneumatological difficulty is adduced, How then could the evil one himself have fallen ? we must repeat the answer just given. " Oculus nusquam tenebras vidit, nisi ubi cceperit non videre, et silentium nullo modo nisi non audiendo sentitur" (Augustine). But even though the question must remain entirely unansweied, this gives us no reason for misapprehending the relative light which rises from the opened spirit world as to the origin of sin in the human world ; it is with this last that we have here to do, and the key we employ we have not indeed ourselves forged, but received from trustworthy hands. One curtain we see here removed, whereby a new world is opened to us, from which we may not turn away our eyes, even if we discover in the background another impenetrable veil. — In no case can we say that the recognition of the Satanic origin of sin annihilates the guilt of man's first transgression. The feeling of guilt awakened in Adam and Eve loudly declares the contrary ; and even more especially is it true of the first working of Satan upon the still uncorrupted man, " persuadere potest, praecipitare non potest " (Jerome). The great question which alone demands further treatment here, is that as to the credibility of the existence and operation of a higher hostile power, such as seems here to be presupposed. That question can only be answered through a somewhat more extended digression on Satanology and its import in the domain of Christian Hamartology. We have before observed, in § lvii., why we have so long postponed this discussion. We ai e concerned here in no way with a purely ontological, but with an ethical and psychological question. We attach to it importance, not so much because it satisfies our curiosity with regard to the spirit world, but above all, because it affords us a deeper insight into the origin and nature of moral evil.' If such insight can in this way be gained, then may the Christian Theologian even not refuse the less pleasant task of being an " advocatus diaboli " It is always better, if needs be, to look an unpopular truth in the face, than to belong to the number of those who are characterised in the words of the poet— " The people would not suspect it was the devil, Even if he had them by the throat."— Goethe. ITS ORIGIN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD. 415 3. If we thus begin here also with inquiring into the doctrine of the New Testament, then is it not difficult to gather into one well compacted whole the hints which are scattered through its pages. Tnus the Lord, as well as His Apostles, speaks constantly of an evil spirit, denoted by various names as Satan (opposer), Beelzebub (god of flies), Beelzebul (dung god), Belial (good for nothing), but everywhere the head and lord of lower evil spirits (daemons), enemies to the honour of God, and the salvation of mankind. A complete survey of the Biblical Satanology is here neither necessary nor possible : enough that the Lord represents the Father the devil, as a homicide from the beginning and the arch-liar,4 and asserts that he — so it reads literally — does not stand in the truth,5 because there is no truth in him. The sphere in which he lives and moves is not that of truth, but of wilful lying.' How long this has been so, Jesus does not say, but St. John testifies6 that he sinneth fro.n the beginning, in other words, as long as there has been sin. In other places, too,7 we hear of angels who kept not their first estate, but sinned ; and if now we join to these another significant statement of St. Paul,8 we appear thus obliged to hold, that pride even in this domain has been the cause of the most fatal fall. Of these fallen angels the devil is called the head,9 the abyss their abode,10 but not less a certain freedom their portion, so that they are also said to people the air ;n and separated into different classes, they fight in union against the Kingdom of God. Their nature was thus originally like that of the good angels, but is now once for all degenerated, and their condition hopelessly wretched. To this power is attributed, besides the first sin, especially the first fratricide,12 the treachery of Judas,13 and the constant resistance to the Kingdom of God and His servants.14 It rules the world, but is besides constantly a source of danger to the Christian,15 and will first at the end of the ages, after the last violent struggle, be destroyed for ever.16 For so long the devil is and will be tempter, accuser, and corrupter of men, evil not relatively but absolutely, however much in his most violent raging dependent on a higher power.17 Watchfulness and prayer against his destructive influence is thus continually and most emphatically enjoined.18 4. This Christian Dsemonology offered too much food for ardent imagina tions, and on the other hand left too many difficulties for the philosophi cally developed intellect, to allow it to escape the danger, on one side, of being developed in a more or less arbitrary way, and on the other side of being most sharply combated and derided. Actually, however, the history of the doctrine admits of several more proofs than can be mentioned here. Against Gnostics and Manichseans the Christian Church has maintained with proper tact the fall of the angels, and considered as its cause, in addition to pride, envy and sensuality. With many of the fathers especially was developed the doctrine of the power of daemons, who were charac terised by Origen as "God's executioners." The hope, however, of the 4 John viii. 44. " Matt. xxv. 41. " 2 Cor. ii. 10, II. " oi)x ior-qKev. 10 Jude 6. 15 1 Pet. v. 8. 6 1 John iii. 8. " Ephes. vi. 12. 16 Rev. xx. 2, 10. ' Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4. " I John iii. 12. " Rev. xii. 12. 8 1 Tim. iii. 6. 13 John xiii. 2. 1B Matt. vi. 13; James iv. 7. 4l6 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. last-named of the repentance of the Devil was very soon condemned as heretical. According to Augustine and Anselm19 must the creation of the human world have been a kind of compensation for the fall of the angels, in order to fill up the void thus caused ; and according to the view of the Bogomili, Satan was originally nothing less than the elder brother of Christ. How much superstition in particular the Middle Ages have nourished in this domain can here be only called to mind, and without enlarging. Even the lively fancy of Luther recognised in this respect neither limits nor bounds. "A Christian will know that he sits in the very midst of devils, and that the Devil is closer to him than his coat or shirt, or even than his own skin. If any one dies of the plague, is drowned, or falls dead, this is the work of the Devil." With much more sobriety and calmness did Calvin express himself on this point20 when the occasion presented itself, while he viewed the subject more particularly from its practical side. It continued, however, to be recognised by the orthodox, Romanists as well as Protestants ; and not slight was the offence, when B. Bekker (t 1698), in his " Betooverde Wereld," assailed the traditional doctrine with the weapons of the Cartesian philosophy. He paved the way for the later rationalistic negation, on the part of Semler and his allies. The opposition to the trials of witches becams ever more an opposition to Holy Scripture itself, and however much the Supranaturalism of the former century continued to maintain even here its declarations in principle, confidence was shaken, and the sympathy for the doctrine dis appeared almost at once. The severe criticism of Schleiermacher21 strength ened many in their denial, and made them believe that the whole question might not be properly called a theologico-dogmatic one. And yet we now hear from his school the first voices of importance again raised in favour of the dogma. Its maintenance, in different modes by Twesten and Nitzsch, as well as Martensen and Lange, was supported from the philo sophic side, among others, by Daub and Schelling, and from the theosophic by Rothe and Keerl. On the other hand, the modern Naturalism flatters itself with a most easy triumph of her negation, and a belief, considered as absolutely indispensable on the extreme right, is called, not merely by the left, but even by many in the centre, quite superfluous. In such a condi tion a new revision of the arguments, pro and contra, is by no means super fluous. " Adhuc sub judice lis est." 5. Only frivolity can deny that the subject has its very mysterious sides for thoughtful faith, so that even if the scale inclines to the right side, it does so only after some wavering ; and this is the case, not only because of the uncertainty of all Pneumatology in itself, but also because of the peculiar character of the scriptural doctrine with respect to the evil spirit and his kingdom. Most of the utterances exhibit a purely incidental others a poetical figurative character. Not a few reflect a popular belief whose origin and value has been very differently estimated ; some again occur in Scriptures of disputed authenticity, such as the second Epistle of St. Peter and that of St. Jude. In this state of things it is at least unadvi- sable to exalt the agreement with, or doubt upon, this particular point to a' 19 Anselm, De casu diaboli. w Inst. i. 14, 15. a Der Christluhe Glaube, §§ xlii.— xiv. ITS ORIGIN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD. 417 Shibboleth in the Christian creed. Salvation, in the end, depends upon belief in Christ, not upon belief in the devil. Yet Christ has even on this subject uttered sayings, which we are not free to overlook; and if here, too, and not for the first time, faith is brought to a severe trial, on the other hand in the denial of unbelief there is not a little which can be answered, or at least qualified. 6. This is at once evident, when we look at the exegetical difficulties, which are often too highly exaggerated. That Scripture in reality partly presupposes, partly teaches expressly, the existence of a world of spirits in rebellion against God, may be regarded as an axiom in exegetical investiga tion. The days are gone by when men thought of the tempter in Matt, iv., as a scribe, or of the principalities and powers in Eph. vi., as hostile Jews. Even if we could in this manner explain away a few proofs, a far larger number would remain. That it is the wicked one who sows the bad seed, is most expressly declared by the Lord,22 not merely in a parable, but also in the explanation of a parable. He presents the working of the devil in direct connexion with His own approaching suffering,23 and for us at least it is impossible to see in a word of warning, such as Luke xxii. 31, 32, nothing more than a mere poetical figure. The reasons which have been already brought forward in treating of Angelology against the idea of accom modation to the popular idea and error,24 retain here also undiminished force. In the circle of His trusted disciples the Lord speaks about Satan and his kingdom, just as He spoke to the ignorant multitude ; and that He Himself believed in its existence is in our view placed beyond all doubt. Upon this point the Apostles are in accord with one another and their Master. If it be true, that upon certain points of Dasmonology (e.g., the present abode of evil spirits) diverse statements are met with in the New Testament ; even though these could not be brought into accord, it would at the utmost follow that this particular point was enigmatical, but not yet that the whole subject was unscriptural, and still less inadmissible. In this domain exegetical notes of interrogation will continue to be seen in abun dance, but it is impossible by means of exegesis to banish Satanology from Dogmatics. 7. As to the historical objections ; it is said first of all, that Satanology is not an element in the Divine revelation of the Old Testament, but con tains an image which was derived in later times by the Jews from other nations, at the time of and subsequent to the Babylonian exile. The first must be granted, but as yet it proves nothing in itself against the truth of this statement. Even the doctrine of a future life is not expressed by Moses or the Prophets as such, and yet it is for us more than a dream. It lies in the nature of evil, that it is not manifested by a holy God, but reveals and betrays itself by its fatal working. In the history of the world Satan is like the sea monster which lurks in the deep, but sometimes raises its head above the waves, whilst we can only discover the signs of its movements and direction from the undulation of the water. A premature discovery of the proper mystery of unrighteousness would only have promoted the worship of daemons in Israel, and would thus have injured Monotheism. — 22 Matt. xii. 19, 39. a Luke xxii. 53 ; John xiv. 30. M Section lvii. 3. E E 41 8 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. And as to the often-repeated assertion of the later origin of the dsemonolo- gical ideas, we must grant that during and after the Babylonian exile they were developed in many directions, but yet not, on that account, that before that time they were unknown in Israel. Even in writings composed before that time we meet with expressions which either probably or cer tainly prove the contrary. Think, for example, of the strict prohibition of sorcery, which is yet distinguished from soothsaying ;25 of the devils and spirits of the wilderness,26 which in earlier and later times lived in the consciousness of the people ; of Azazel,27 to whom the scapegoat was sent on the day of atonement ; of the evil spirit by whom Saul was tormented,28 and by which in earlier times the people of Sichem was governed;29 and, not to mention more, of Satan, by whom David was moved to number the people.30 If this last was, according to 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, more directly brought about by God in His anger, the other account explains that narra tive, but does not directly contradict it. In other passages, too,81 Satan is permitted by the Almighty to bring about misfortunes, and he even appears still in the presence of God, though an ¦opponent to be rebuked and punished.32 In the book of Daniel, indeed, angels are mentioned, but not devils, and in no passage, where in the later writings of the Old Testament the dsemoniac power is specially mentioned, is this done in such a way as if mention was here made of an entirely new and hitherto unknown idea. It is, moreover, not in itself probable that the Jews received this idea from the Persians. We might perhaps declare with greater right the contrary ; unless it be assumed that both these ideas had been drawn from a common source of older date. Besides, the Satanology of the Jews differs on this point from that of the Parsees in principle, since the latter displays a dualistic character which the former does not possess. In no passage, not even in John viii. 44, does Holy Scripture teach an eternal principle of evil; here everywhere is the prince of darkness the opposer, but at the same time the slave, of the kingdom of God. But why should we not recog nise even in the Parsees' conceptions some broken rays of the light of a higher truth ?33 Finally, the great question for the Christian is, How has He expressed Himself on this subject, whom we revere as King of truth, even where He reveals the secrets of the spirit world ? That which without the stamp of His authority would perhaps appear a mere popu'ar conceit, is viewed in a different light when His word casts the deciding weight in the balance. 8. Indeed, there is not a single philosophical difficulty which should compel us to think here only of the effect of superstition and stupidity. Men find already (a) the idea of such an evil spirit an absurdity, but forget first of all to establish the right of reason to come to a decision a priori in this domain. If the spirit world is the kingdom of freedom, then must a fall be possible, and this fall will be deeper, in proportion as the height attained has been greater. Nor is great cunning and cleverness, 25 Lev. xix. 31 ; xx. 6. s° 1 Chron. xxi. 26 Lev. xvii. 7 ; Isa. xiii. 21 ; xxxiv. 14. sl Job i. 6, sqq " Lev. xvi. 8. « Zech. iii. 2. ' 28 I Sam. xvi. 23. as Jonn i. 5. 29 Judges ix. 23. ITS ORIGIN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD 419 allied with Satanic wickedness, in any way inconceivable, as an every-day history proves. Certainly a spirit thus highly developed, must more than any one else feel the folly of every resistance to God ; but it is the sharpest sight which is often most completely blinded by sin. — If (b) this belief be considered as conflicting with the recognition of the supremacy and omni presence of God, yet this is only the case when we retain a lower dualistic or pantheistic standpoint. From the theistic standpoint it is certain, that God continues, supreme even over Satan, and though working everywhere, does not everywhere reveal His presence in the same manner ; so that there may very well be in the infinite universe, as contrasted with the holy heaven, an abode of nothing but sin and misery. Again, it is considered (c) that at any rate the free operation, if not the existence, of evil spirits is impossible, improbable, and in any case irrecognisable. But here, if anywhere, will it be most fitting to call to mind the well-known words, " there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy." With equal improba bility could man of himself have conceived that God would admit sin into the human world, and yet His thoughts have been different to, and higher than, those of men. Nowhere, indeed, are we given an unmistakable sign by which we may distinguish a direct Satanic temptation from those which our hearts or the world offer, but the evil one works in and through these very two things ; and two different factors may now and then work together, though we are not able to fix accurate limits to the two. Thus, e.g., sickness may be brought about by atmospheric as well as physiological causes, without our being able to show where the one ends and the other begins. If it be said (d) that all Dasmonology is a fruit of superstition, and dwindles with the increase of civilisation, then truth and error are confounded. It is in itself an unspeakable blessing that many a superstition on this point gives place to more reasonable ideas; but here, too, the truth itself did not vanish with the foolish legends former ages had combined with it. The an tiquity and universality of the belief in evil spirits, may even be an internal evidence of its truthfulness ; and there is a certain decay of belief, for example, in revelation and miracles, which is not the consequence of sound reasoning. but often merely of growing frivolity. Then is realised the truth of Gothe's words : " Den Bosen sind sie los, die Bosen sind geblieben ; " and thus was the remark of prior ages true, that it is one of Satan's deepest designs to make men doubtful of his existence. — Certainly (e) the misuse of the doctrine has in every age been abundant and painful. Its prin cipal cause was this, that traditional popular heathen sayings were mingled with biblical ideas, and thus too easily caused the drawing of caricatures which — might frighten children. But a dishonourable polemic such as this, which would rather have on its side laughers than thinkers, betrays its own weakness ; and Jesus, at any rate,^cannot be accused of this exaggeration when He chooses the fowls of the air34 as images of the evil foe. The question is still important, whether the systematic resistance of this belief has pro duced as many blissful results as its superstitious maintenance. — Finally, (/) if it be said that the whole matter, properly viewed, is not of preponderating " Matt. xiii. 4, 19. 420 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. value, again we run the risk of deciding too superficially. The question under discussion directly coincides in principle with another, whether our Lord and His witnesses deserve our confidence, even where their voice is heard in a domain which from the nature of the case lies entirely beyond the reach of our personal observation. But, besides, there is a great truth contained in Strauss' words,35 " If Christ is come to destroy the works of the devil, He need not have come if there is no devil ; if there is a devil, but only as the personification of an evil principle, then are we satisfied with a Christ as an impersonal Idea." It is at any rate a great question, whether we shall continue to recognise the necessity of a supranatural redemption, if we assert that we have no other strife than that against flesh and blood, and that sin only springs from man himself, without recognising a super human power of evil. He who has already lost the accurate conception of sin will also easily give up the Biblical Daamonology, which cannot possibly be maintained by itself, but only in connection with the entire teaching as to God, and the cosmogony of the Bible. On the other hand, he who recognises the deep corruption by sin, will constantly be drawn back to the recognition of a personal power of evil, which is older than our race, and with respect to which Holy Scripture does not reveal much, but enough to let us have a single glance beyond the dark veil. For many a day to come will the superficial make merry over this dogma, while the thoughtful will return to it with continually increasing seriousness. 9. As regards the proper nature and operation of the evil spirits, a cautious gnosis will not attempt much definition. There is no ground for regarding them, with Lange, as spirits of the inhabitants of a perished world, but just as little for asserting, when we have once recognised the reality of a suprahuman sinful principle, that it only attains a concrete personality in its slaves and victims.36 This last attribute must be defi nitely assigned to its supreme head; indeed, as has been well observed, the expression " father of lies " points back to an intelligence, a personal self-consciousness, and through this does the contest against evil first be come a proper spiritual contest.37 A common hostility to God has bound in a relative unity all its servants, however selfish or hostile to one another they may be in other ways. The revelations of the kingdom of darkness run as it were parallel to those of the kingdom of God. They are likewise seen at the fall,38 at the redemption,39 and even by-and-by at the end of the world.40 Perhaps, in this way some light may be thrown on some mysterious pages of the Old Testament, as well as on the history of the Egyptian magicians, Balaam, the witch of Endor, etc. But certainly this dogma affords the most fitting key to the narratives of the Evangelical history concerning those possessed with devils. The superficial assertion that these were merely lunatics, incorrectly regarded by the popular view as possessed, is at any rate in conflict with remarkable facts. On the con trary, there is much which seems to justify the supposition that in the fulness of time there really was an extraordinary development of the power of the kingdom of darkness, of course, by the permission of a higher power. For 35 a. a. O. ii. 15. 87 Martensen. » Matt iv aa Mallet. » Gen. iii. « Rev."XX-' ITS ORIGIN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD. 421 the very reason that this power is now broken, though not taken away, is it doubly rash to assert that what is not now observed any more in this form, could not possibly have happened in earlier ages. And who will prove that ' there are not now any who are possessed ? Who will assure us that the power and craft of Satan will not increase as the great drama hastens to its end ? A repentance of the evil one, such as the pious Lavater prayed for, we are not led to expect from the word of God. His image is not the suffering Abbadonna of Klopstock, but the Capaneus in Dante's Inferno,41 the monster whom Virgil addresses, who may only be a restless fury, as his fitting punishment for his unbounded pride. But his destruction as a Power, which can no longer rule and threaten, is the prospect before the completion of the ages, which like a friendly ray colours this dark page in the history of the world. 10. We have already observed something of the importance of the dsemo- nological question. As the dark shadow of Angelology it extends our knowledge of the spirit world, and thus far allows us a new glance on the widespread domain of God's works. But it is of special and incontestable importance in connexion with the doctrine of sin. The origin of sin in man is better understood, if we may assume that a spirit has worked here which excelled man in cunning and craft. If the question, how this spirit himself could fall so low as to rebel against God, must remain un answered, the same difficulty applies also to the existence of sin in man. Enough that sin has a history, older than that of this present world, and that no philosophy can construct this history a priori, nor deny it a posteriori. — The nature of sin is at the same time explained better in this way. It is here evident that it is as little the fruit of sensuousness as of want of development. Dsmonology acquaints us with spiritual beings, superior in intellect, but also in wickedness, to man, and thus shows us that we must not prefer to find the nature of sin where the superficial are so ready to look for it. — Moreover, the power of sin is more apparent when the eye penetrates so much further than this visible creation. All the works of darkness are together merely the revelations of a principle hostile to God, concentrated in a giant spirit, which like a Titan rages against God. " The proper devilishness of sin is this, that it thus modifies the first words of the Decalogue : I am my Lord and my God " (Luther). It is not love alone which can join together, — hate also can do it ; and in this case the union has as its object nothing less than the destruction cf the whole moral order of the world. Only one power is greater than this colossal coalition; it is that of Him who binds the evil one even where He leaves him relatively free, and who by His Son has condemned " the prince of this world." There is something overwhelming in the represent ation of such a kingdom of darkness, for which we cannot further indicate any limits ; but at the same time there is in it something glorifying for man. There are sins committed by men, which can never have sprung of them selves in man's heart, but only in devils'. The world lieth in wickedness,42 but is not yet wickedness itself. How fearful must the conflict have been which its prince has waged against the Light of the world, and still 41 xiv. 49. a 1 John v. 19. 422 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. continues to wage !— Even the conflict against sin is, by the recognition of the existence of this fatal power, at once excited and directed. That conflict does not cease, but then first in reality begins, when we become through faith the property of the Prince of Peace. The devil cares not to tempt those whom he feels he possesses by a perpetual right (Leo the Great). Hence the Lord and His Apostles constantly excite and_ arm the Church for this conflict.43 By doing away with the existence and influence of the Evil One, we do not proceed one step : nor do we obtain the slightest pretext in excuse of the evil we have done. " If Satan were to speak and God to be silent, you would have an excuse. But your ears are placed between a warning God and a suggesting serpent. Satan never ceases persuading towards evil, but neither does God cease advising towards good" (Augustine). The more sin is recognised as not merely something purely human, in a certain sense natural, but in its deepest essence demonic, the more seriously will the conflict be undertaken, but also the more certain at length will be the victory gained.44 ii. In the treatment of this doctrine from the pulpit and m popular instruction the capacity and the wants of the flock are to be considered. " The doctrine of the devil, like so many others, is more fitted for the strong meat of the t^m than for the milk of the c^ioi."45 Where its mis use as an excuse for sin must be strongly opposed, there from the other side we must be on our guard, as well against all naturalistic imaginings, as against the theosophic development of this doctrine, which would be wise above that which is written, and would often construct n e ntire cosmdgony merely on the basis of a few indications of Holy Scripture, which are perhaps interpreted wrongly. There is an unbelief which gives evidence of superficiality ; but there is also a superstition which rises higher and sinks deeper than it should, and which by its fantastic creations may evoke a dangerous reaction. The scriptural doctrine concerning " the depths of Satan " must not be connected with Astronomy and Cosmology, but rather with Hamartology, so that the discussion never loses its ethical character. Compare the Art. Teufel und Dcemonische, in Herzog's JR. E., and the literature there quoted, as well as Oosterzee, Leven v. Jezus, ii. (2nd ed.), bl. 140 — 160. For the history of the doctrine, G. Roskoff's Geschichte des Teufels, 2 vols. (1869), though written with negative tendencies, deserves recognition ; Dr. A. Reville has published an abridg ment of this in his Histoire du Diable, etc. (1870) ; G. L. HAHN furnishes an exact and extended survey of the Biblical doctrine in the Iheologiedes N. T. (1854), i., %$> 128 — 145; also LuECKE, Ueber die Lehre vom Teufel, in the Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Chr. Wissensch. u. Chr. Leben. (1851). ii.'; A. Disselhof, Ueber die Geschichte des Teufels (1870), -a. treatise in a conservative spirit. On the dogmatic and apologetic estimate of Daemonology, we meet with hints meriting attention by Teichmann, in a treatise, Die Voraussetzungen der Bibl. Lehre vom Satan, in the Beweis des Glaub. (1870), p. 466, sqq. ; compare also SANDER, Die Lehre der H. S. vom Teufel, Evang. K. Z. (1859), Nos. 7 — 9. Points for Inquiry. Meaning and force of John viii. 44. — Further discussion of the principal "Cruces interpretum" in the dsemonology of the Old and New Testaments. — How can we best explain the traditional antipathy to this dogma? — The possessed in the Gospel history. — Satanology and Theosophy. — Satanology and Theodicee. — Satanology and Christian Morality. — Satanology and Literature. 43 Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Ephes. vi. 10—18. ** Cf. Heid. Cat., Ans. 127. " Plitt. ITS POWER. SECTION LXXVII. — ITS POWER. 42J The sinful principle, thus originated, and to a certain extent explained, manifests itself in a transgression of law, which every where exhibits the same character, but under ever-changing forms, so that we must come to a closer examination and division of actual sins. Under all these varying forms, however, sin appears as a fatal Power, which penetrates and dominates the entire internal and external life of the individual man and of mankind, and in consequence, if not arrested in time, brings the sinner into a condition which becomes mote and more sad, and, in the end, makes a victim of its slave. 1. If we have thus far searched for the origin of moral evil, we must now look upon its Manifestation, and observe the close connexion between different sins and innate inclination to sin. From the diseased root came, by the law of an internal necessity, the wild branches ; and from these the poisonous fruits. At the very commencement we must here distinguish sins of sensuality from those of pride, and give heed to the peculiarities of each. In the first is revealed the power of the flesh, in the other the tendency of the spirit, as that is ruled by the sinful principle ; the first in a falling, the other in a rising hue. The sins of sensuality relate, partly to the selfish enjoyment, partly to the possession, of that which is pleasant to flesh and blood. As a rule, we see the desire for enjoyment chiefly deve loped in earlier, and that of covetousness in later, years ; and just as in both the sensual" lust is positively revealed, so does it betray itself negatively in negligence, indolence, and sloth. The passion of sensuality is more or less of a social nature ; that of pride, on the contrary, is unsocial and solitary; the first leads to association, the second to exclusion. By the one man becomes a beast, by the other he runs the risk of becoming a devil. The sins of pride show themselves partly in the intended or involuntary misleading of ourselves ; partly in misconception, despising, and resistance of others in different forms and degrees ; partly in rebellion against God, before whom the proud man will not bend, and from whom he cannot, however, entirely withdraw himself. From the concatenation of such desires and acts springs spontaneously a continuous sinful tendency of life, which is at last raised by constant development to an entire theoretical, or even practical, forgetfulness and desertion of God. Thus is revealed a mystery of unrighteousness, whose lowest depth can never be penetrated by our eye, a corruption which spreads from the centre of the heart to every point of the circumference. Even the rudest forms of sin are only the individualised revelations of the dominion of the flesh ; and 424 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. in everything which man by his own corrupt nature desires, he seeks indeed himself alone. Under the preponderating influence of selfishness, natural inclinations become fatal passions, and even the virtues flow away in selfishness, as rivers to the ocean. 2. The multiplicity of sins already at an early date made men feel the want of a division of this unhappily too abundant material, according to a fixed principle. Different principles of classification have been proposed, but none of them are raised above fair objection. We may, for example, divide sins (a) with regard to the object, against whom it is wrought, into sin against God, our neighbour, and ourselves ; in connexion with which we must, however, observe that all sins are indeed sins against God •} or (b) from the relation of the sinner to the law, into sins either of action or merely of negli gence, while the first may again be split up into actions which are absolutely sinful, and into others merely relatively so. Both, however, coincide in most cases ; he who acts dishonestly often neglects the duty of generosity, and so far the rule, " the omission of good is sin,"2 is here applicable. Thirdly, (c) in proportion to the manner in which they are manifested, we speak, for the sake of distinction, of transgression in thought, word, and deed, a distinction which is so far good, that it takes some account, too, of the greater or less weight of the sin, though, on the other hand, they may indeed be the same transgressions which are wrought by heart, mouth, or hands. Without doubt, the best division is that (d) in which, more especially, the greater or less degree of guilt is duly brought into account. Thus there are on one side sins of ignorance, which may be more3 or less4 guilty, of rashness and weakness; on the other hand, those which are done on purpose and with reflection, and these may again be divided into excusable or absolutely inexcusable, while in this latter class we must think only of the sin against the Holy Ghost, upon which we shall treat hereafter at greater length. With considerable arbitrariness the Romish Church speaks of seven deadly sins, viz., pride, covetousness, sensuality, envy, gluttony, revenge, and negligence. Protestants, on the contrary, maintain with reason the great truth that all sin is in its nature damnable, and that even ignorance is punishable, in so far that it may never be called absolutely guiltless f but that only obstinate unbelief will bring the sinner actually into a state of condemnation ; as Luther says, " No sins can condemn a Christian man, save unbelief alone." We must entirely reject, as grounded on pure fancy, the old distinction between so-called dumb and crying sins, according to the old verse (with reference to Gen. iv. 10; xviii. 20; Exod. iii. 7 ; James v. 4) : — " Clamitat ad ccelum vox sanguinis et Sodomorum, Vox oppressorum, mercesque retenta laborum." in which, at any rate, the idea of the first-named cannot possibly be accurately defined. We might with the same right, after Isaiah i. 18. speak of sins which are red or not red. — But even still less may the defini tion of the old Stoics be granted (now and then followed in later times even on the part of Christians), that all sins are equal— -unless by this it be 1 Ps- l;- 4- 3 Luke xxiii. 34. Luke xii. 48. 1 James iv. 17. * Acts xxiii. 5. ITS POWER. 425 only asserted that all exhibit the general character of transgression of law. But besides, it lies in the nature of the case, that the punishability of one misdeed exceeds not a little that of another.6 It is also self-evident that these and all other divisions are only applicable to actual sins, and not to habitual sin.7 3. Whatever measure, however, we make use of, it is evident that the power of sin upon the internal and external life of every man whom it rules, is as extensive as fatal. Where the heart, the fountain of life, has become the seat, not of love, but selfishness, then in consequence of this condition, unnatural in the higher sense of the word, is the conscience stained, disquieted, and only too soon dulled.8 But by this the intellect is at the same time dimmed in the saddest manner, not in the natural domain, but even the more in the spiritual one. From the impure heart the mist rises up, which clouds the spiritual eye. In truth, the sinner knows neither God nor himself, and consequently condemns in others what he overlooks in his own bosom ;9 the blindness even may be so great that it in some degree serves as an excuse,10 though, on the other hand, it leads to con stantly fresh erring. In so far, indeed, does the clever sinner become a fool, that he shuts his eyes both to the highest truth, and to his own interest. The will, too, becomes ever more inclined to evil, and enchained to sin ; in place of the Juntas the ./Voluntas becomes continually stronger and stronger. Then also the body is naturally misused in the service of sin, so that its members become instruments of unrighteousness, and the good, intended by God, is made death.11 The power of sin gains the summit of its influence in man, where he not merely does evil himself, but takes pleasure in the evil which he sees others do. Both the one and the other perfectly justify the description of the life without God given in Eph. iv. 17 — 19, and other passages. "Natura corrumpit personam." 4. " One sinner destroyeth much good."12 This is specially seen where we regard the power of sin in the whole of mankind. It upsets the house hold, destroys society, and causes countless sorrows in the State, the Church, and the world. It reaches its climax when the man, already corrupt himself, becomes besides partaker in the sins of others,13 and brings about those offences against which the Lord gives such express warning.14 The words of* St. James (iii. 5) are in a greater or less degree applicable to the history of the development of every sin. If some limiting power15 did not stand in opposition to its influences, it would long ago have destroyed the humanity which it now taints and rules. 5. From these reasons we may say that man and mankind have lost their real life through sin, and, separated from God, live in a miserable state of death. In God is life, and separation from Him is thus inevitably loss of life, since love and life are one. The natural life, indeed, still goes on, as in the branch which is separated from the parent stem, 6 Compare Matt. x,i. 20 — 24; Johnxix. 11. " Rom. vi. 13; vii. 13. 7 Erfsmet. n Eccles. ix. 18. 8 1 Tim. iv. 2 ; Titus i. 15. '3 1 Tim. v. 22. 9 2 Sam. xii. 5—7. " Matt, xviii. 6, 7. 10 1 Tim. i. 13. ls rb xarixov ; compare 2 Thess. ii. 6. 426 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. bat spiritual death leads of itself to natural, just as this ends in eternal death. We must not, however, so conceive this, as if man, as the Lutheran confessions declare, had become like a lifeless trunk or stone. On this point, on the contrary, the Reformed Church, agreeing with Scrip ture and experience, has at all times maintained that the Divine grace works in man " not as in stocks or blocks," and has expressed it as her con fession, "that by the fall man has not ceased to be man, gifted with intellect and will, and that sin has not done away with the nature of man, but cor rupted it, and spiritually slain it " (Can. Dord. iii. iv. 4, 16). This condition of spiritual death, too, must also be so presented, that there remains a psychological possibility of awaking and resurrection, which is not only promised, but also demanded, in the Gospel.16 So, too, we must not with the Lutheran Church assert that the reason of the natural mind has become " stock, star, and stone blind; " for Holy Scripture teaches the contrary.17 But though nature as such is not destroyed by sin, it is still bound and cor rupted in such a way that it cannot possibly develop its original capacity in a normal manner. Sin is in no way " the not as yet willing the good,"18 because the sinner is still only partially developed in spirit, but the selfish desire for moral evil, which certainly does not seem to us morally good, but sensuously pleasant ; sin is not our original nature, but such a perversion of it, that it, wherever it rules without restraint, has at length become a " second nature."19 " The evil does not consist in this, that the fulness of life is not yet attained ; but in this, that life has been broken up into fragments ; that the holy unity which should reconcile and appease the various elements in the movement of life, is restrained and retarded in its activity. The history of the world is not on this account profane, becauses it realises other than what is holy, but since in this it declares its denial of what is holy" (Martensen). The power of sin makes man and mankind not only weak, but corrupt; not only ill, but spiritually dead ; not indeed incapable, but unfitted for, and deprived of, life in holy communion with God. 6. This condition, in which man is placed by the corruption of sin, is, from the nature of the case, capable of ever-varying change, and on this account, when a closer description of it is to be given, is constantly divided into various grades. As distinguished from some, who speak here of a triple, and from others, who talk of a sevenfold condition, we intend to look somewhat more closely into a fivefold condition. So we think first of (a) the state of discord, which follows as a natural con sequence of the destruction of the internal harmony, and of the original nature being, though not utterly destroyed, still, dominated by the power of sin. For some time this discord may slumber, under the influence of favourable cir cumstances, but sooner or later there is raised in every man the conflict between reason and conscience on the one side, and lust and desire on the other, which had already called forth the lament of the heathen poet : " . . . . video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor." 16 Ephes. v. 14 ; compare Luke xv. 24 ; John v. 25. is Scholten. 17 Prov. xx. 27 ; Matt. vi. 22, 23 ; Acts xvii. 27. '» jer- x;;;_ '2, ITS POWER. 427 Striking is the picture drawn by St. Paul of this condition in Rom. vii. 14 — 23, where, in the light of his present state, he looks back on his former pre-christian condition.20 At one moment the better principle is upper most, at the next the sinful rules ; but, if no higher delivering power inter venes, defeat is inevitable, and — (b.) The condition of slavery is soon felt with its heavy burdens. The question as to free or slavish will, which here naturally occurs, would have called forth a less violent strife, if it had not been always viewed too much from the theological, and too little from the psychological side. Where this last is seriously done, the saying of our Lord,21 which calls the friend of sin its slave, will be easily under stood. Freedom in contrast with outward compulsion may be granted to a certain degree, even to the sinner ; but in contrast with moral slavery must be once for all denied to him. Even where he can in some degree restrain himself, such avoiding of some sins is quite dif ferent from actually doing or being good. To the question whether the sinful will can by a bold resolve at once love God again, and return to His communion, we reply in the words of the confession,22 " Who can expect any improvement from his own free will, who knows that the carnal mind is enmity against God ?" Therefore the Reformed Church rightly opposed the " proud heresy of Pelagius,"23 deeming it quite inconceivable that where heart, conscience, and intellect have felt the fatal influence of sin, the will alone should have escaped it, as by a miracle. The will does not only follow the intellect, according to the well-known one-sided maxim, " Voluntas sequitur intellectum," but specially the internal impulse of the heart, and in consequence of the sinfulness of the heart, the will, too, ever inclines to evil. Each instantaneous act, besides, is not merely caused by motives, but is at the same time connected with earlier acts, and — as has been truly said — no one is free from his own antecedents. " Ethical Psychology teaches that a single act cannot so isolate itself, as the Pelagian view presupposes ; no act is ever done without any connexion whatever " (Nitzsch). This slavery of sin is excellently described to us in Holy Scripture, e.g., in the history of the man who had sold himself to do that which was evil in the sight of the Lord,24 and is specially testified in different ways by St. Paul, e.g., in Rom. vi. 16, 17 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17 ; Phil. 2, 13. The saying of Augustine is most true, " libero arbitrio male utens homo, et se perdidit, et ipsum." Hence, too, we cannot, with the older Remon strants, assume that there is a certain indifference of the will, and that in con sequence it retains almost the same relation to moral good and evil, which the tongue of the balance does to the two scales. Much rather would the experience of every slave of sin, who has really been made free in Christ, prove that he in earlier times was bound to that which he even then deplored sometimes with the bitterest tears, and from which still he could not relieve himself. What a deep truth is hidden in the melancholy com plaint, " I can do everything that I will, except willing," and what comfort 20 Compare Bib. Theol. N. T., Eng. trans., p. 282. a Compare § lxxv. ii. 2 21 John viii. 34. M I Kings xxi. 1— 14. 22 Ned. Get.' 'Art. xiv. 428 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. in the words of Scripture, that besides the doing God also effects the willing. Therefore tones of deep contrition met with in many Christian hymns find an echo in every one who has ceased to be a stranger to his own heart. The power of sin makes the will like the injured spring which cannot possibly raise itself and return to its right direction. " The scholastic Pharisees preach the power of free will ; but the Christian will confess that nothing is less in his own power than his own heart."25 If that painful feeling cannot be banished even from the heart of the Christian, how much deeper is the wound in the heart of the sinner, even where the pain is dulled ; and it must be that with every step down the sloping path retro gression becomes more difficult, and advance more inevitable. That which at first was choice, becomes fate, and at length a man cannot turn back, even if he himself would. Or rather, oue should indeed still wish, but actually one wills not ; and with a fettered inclination of the will he becomes at last quite helpless and void of will under the power of the corrupter.26 (c.) A state of false security is usually the result of the condition just sketched. Scripture represents it under the image of a deep sleep, in which men are steeped, as it were taken in the wiles of the devil ;27 a result partly of the blinding of conscience ; partly of the slothfulness of the flesh. Herod Antipas supplies us with an example, who after earlier doubt and slavishness,28 had now reached such deadness as to be able to mock the Saviour, at the mention of whose name he had not long before trembled.29 At this standpoint indifference to good itself has begun, but there is not as yet indifference to the appearance of goodness, and thus men fall into — (d. ) A condition of hypocrisy, of which Caiaphas gives us a specimen.30 That hypocrisy is a condition lower even than indifference to good, is plain. True, it is an involuntary homage, rendered by vice to virtue, but at the same time an astonishing revelation of the power of sin, as not merely selfishness, but lying, and thus a forsaking of the truth as well as of love. No wonder that the Saviour, always so meek and gentle, making an exception in the case of hypocrites, denounces against them such terrible woes. Where, however, this warning is overlooked, the transition is soon made to — (e.) A state of hardening, which makes us involuntarily think of the Egyptian Pharaoh, and which is from time to time and rightly declared in Holy Scripture to be sin and the punishment of sin.31 The observation, that we read in Holy Scripture just as many times that God hardened Pharaoh as that he hardened himself, leads to the conclusion that we have here to do with a Divine as well as a human factor, which we must not overlook. The hardening, often having been man's own deed, at 25 Melancthon. 26 Ephes. iv. 19 ; Rom. i. 24, sqq. 27 Ephes. v. 14 ; 2 Tim. ii. 26. 28 Mark vi. 20—28. 29 Luke xxiii. 8 ; compare Luke ix. 7 — 9. 30 John xi. 50 ; Matt xxvi. 62, 63 ; 2 Tim. iii. 5 ; Tit. i. 16. 31 [Jer. xxxvi. 24J. ITS CULPABILITY. 420 32 last becomes his state, and he who begins by not wishing to believe ends by being unable to do so. Thus are the words of Jsa. vi. 9, 10,3'* fulfilled in God's righteous judgment, and by degrees the transition becomes more easy to that sin, which the Lord describes as the only unpardonable and eternal one, the sin against the Holy Ghost;33 un pardonable, because in this state repentance and conversion is no' longer possible ; eternal, because the self-conscious and stubborn hatred of a God, who was once known, cannot but rage without end. Naturally, these con ditions can only be theoretically distinguished, since in real'ity they are ceaselessly running one into another. If the last is only reached by a few, the first is known to every one, and each preceding state may lead the way to the next. Opposed to all these is the state of moral freedom, known as such only by name indeed to the sinner. From the power of evil, which the sinner experiences in such a terrible way, its culpability follows of itself. Comp. H. Ritter, Ueber das Bo'se und seine Folgen (1869) ; Luthardt Die Lehre votnfreien Willen und seinen Vei-hdltniss zur Gnade (1863). Upon the sin against the Holy Ghost, Van Oosterzee, Leven van Jezus, ii., pp. 330 — 335, with the literature there mentioned ; to which must be added C. J. Riggenbach, Apolog. Beitrdge (1853), p. 143, sqq. ; J. Muller, a. a. 0., p. 544, sqq.; and Weiss' article in Herzog's P. E., 'xxii Points for Inquiry. Can all sins be easily and completely explained by the principle of selfishness? A closer investigation of the idea and doctrine of deadly sin. — The controversy as to liberuin arbirrium in the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. — What view must we take of God's work in the hardening of the heart ? (Compare Isaiah vi. 9, 10 ; Rom. ix. 18.) SECTION LXXVIII. — ITS CULPABILITY. With the idea of sin is most closely connected that of guilt, and with the idea of guilt that of punishment. The culpability of sin is founded on the nature of God, the essential being of man, and the kind of mutual relation between God and man, a relation disowned and violated by sin. All sins are culpable, because committed against the high majesty and infinite mercy of God. But all sins are not equally culpable ; not one is wholly excusable, one only utterly unpardonable. 32 Compare Matt. xiii. 14, 15. 33 Matt. xii. 31, 32 ; compare Heb. vi. 4 — 6 ; 1 John v. 16 ; 2 Pet. ii. 20 — 22. 430 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. i. Since sin reveals so fatal a power, nothing is more natural than that it should entail the most lamentable consequences for this world and the next. Hamartology must, of course, be completed by the considera tion of the punishments of sin in their wide extent. But the question as to these punishments must be preceded by another, as to the right with which sin is punished. The idea of guilt, not incorrectly called " the clearest conviction and the darkest conception about which Theology ever can speak,"1 must thus be discussed. Here it concerns the proper meaning ground, and extent of the thesis so often disputed : sin is guilt. 2 And then we must at once duly separate the ideas of obligation and' culpability. We are morally obliged or bound to love one another, and he who should do everything to which he was called, would only do what he must consider himself bound to do.2 But now when, being a debtor to this, he withdraws himself from the obligation, he becomes a debtor in a completely different way. That which is wanting in his obedience is in the moral domain his " shortcoming " and debt, ind that shortcoming evidently is his own guilt (c'est ma faute), when he must consider himself its cause. If now a man be morally bound to any one, who has the right to exact payment for shortcomings, and— if that exaction cannot be paid — to punish ; then, from the idea of guilt springs at once that of culpability. Thus guilt (culpa) neces sarily includes culpability (reatus), i.e., the obligation to suffer punishment (obligatio ad pcenam). We distinguish thus in the idea of guilt an objec tive and a subjective side; the first, the actual condition of the sinner; the other, the sad consciousness of the sin. " Guilt is the conscious arrest of our life under the Divine law, which demands satisfaction" (Nitzsch.) 3. The consciousness of guilt is thus rooted, not only in the fact that one'imputes sin to himself, but in the feeling that he must impute it to himself, as something which is not only in or about, but from himself, that therefore he is personally guilty,3 and subject to the punitive judgment of God. Guilt is thus recognised as something objective, something really present, by which the sinner is compelled to pass judgment on himself. The entire teaching of the Old and New Testaments concerning sacrifices and expiations is based upon this important supposition ; and we may boldly assert that there still is an infinitely greater amount of guilt, than of con sciousness of guilt. Whoever asserts, as does Scholten, that sin indeed reveals itself to us as objective guilt upon the legal, but not on the Evan gelical standpoint, declares in other words that repentance is self-deceit, and the import of the word of reconciliation in 2 Cor. v. 19, is an empty sound. This is the inevitable fate of Determinism, that in the end it sacrifices conscience to knowledge, and degrades the word Grace into mere nonsense. Higher far stood the non-Christian poet when he sung — " Life is not the highest good, but the greatest of misfortunes is guilt." (Schiller.) 4. The culpability of sin is founded in God's own essence. Even where we avoid as carefully as we can all Anthropomorphism, we feel that what the Scripture tells us of God's anger against sin is the expression of a 1 Lange. 2 Rom. xiii. 8 ; compare Luke xvii. 10. 3 "Evoxos, James ii. IO. ITS CULPABILITY. 43 t deeply affecting truth. The idea of a justice which demands punishment, by no means belongs exclusively to the Old Testament, as is so often asserted, but is seen on many a page of the New.4 A God, indeed, whose attitude towards sin was absolutely apathetic, .must be a lifeless 'unholy God, whom we could just as little honour as love. For the Divine sight there must be a real distinction between the polluted child of Adam, even before his sinful nature is yet seen, and the stainless angel. And when the sin is actual, repeated, unceasing, how could He suffer a confusion and rebellion which voluntarily resists and hinders the highest aim of His ove ? He must then cease to love Himself as well as His creatures. From the pain felt by love, because it is misconceived, anger is naturally born, whose proper object is really sin ; yet must the sinner, too, who. makes himself one with the sin, inevitably fear the worst.5 5. Not less necessarily does the culpability of sin follow from the nature of man, as a rational, moral, and consequently responsible being. The beast, the idiot, the lunatic, is not culpable, even when he does something deserving punishment ; but it is not so with the sinner, who still and always remains man, and just on this account begins to excuse himself when he has done something wrong.6 There is, indeed, such a present ment of moral corruption, according to which man becomes so perverted, that he can no longer be called culpable. Is the beast of prey culpable when with fully developed powers it prepares for the blood-thirsty destruc tion which its nature enjoins on it? But then it is overlooked that man is brought by sin into an unnatural condition, and that in every man, how ever sinful, reason and conscience continue to raise their voice anew against those of desire and lust. Though the will be inclined to evil, with respect to individual acts there remains always a certain liberty of will, and the saying of Augustine, " Nee inviti tales sumus," retains its force. Nowhere does Scripture teach that, as the consequence of innate sinfulness, we are driven to every possible crime; everywhere is seen the distinction between our condition as sinners and the slavery to which we voluntarily surrender ourselves. Primarily, man is not the slave of any special sin ; but he becomes so by continued indulgence, and in consequence of this he utterly loses his freedom of choice in any particular case. It does not depend upon ourselves whether or not we carry with us a sinful heart, but whether or not we follow its dictates.7 He who asserts that by natuie the sinner cannot do aught but resist God's grace, makes thereby his conversion psychologically impossible, and, to the apparent benefit of Dogmatics, saps the foundation of all morality at one stroke. — Even the affecting figures, which have been brought to light lately by the as yet relatively young science of moral statistics, do not prove, as is so readily asserted, that freedom and responsibility are mere empty sounds. They only confirm what nobody denies, that the law of proportion applies even 1 See, e.g., Luke iii. 17, 18; Matt. xi. 20 — 24; chapters xxiii., xxiv., xxv. ; and in the Epistles, Rom. ii. 6 — 10 ; 2 Thess. i. 8, 9 ; compare Heb. xii. 29, and the whole of the Apocalypse. 5 Compare § xlix. J. " Compare Gen. iii. 7, sqq. ' Deut. v. 29. , 432 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. to the development of the power of evil under certain conditions, and that the whole of society is in a condition of sin and_ guilt, to which each one contributes his share, and for which all are thus, in a much greater degree than is often suspected, answerable one for another. But the sinner who, e.g., is brought to theft, always suffers himself thus to be led ; and even the act, which is the result of definite motives and conditions, the sinner's con science will still, and rightly, impute to him as his own. If we do not wish utterly to ignore the rights of conscience, we must continue to maintain not only the imputation, but the real imputability of moral evil against every one who forgets the distinction between unvarying causality in nature and relative freedom in moral life. Sin and punishment are linked as it were to one another by God Himself, and " the figures of statistics in their regu larity are only rays, from which the fact of that secret, world-ruling will of God shines out with its conformity to law " (Luthardt). 6. By the peculiar relation between God and man, the law of which we speak is raised above all contradiction. If no one can punish but He who is Lord and lawgiver, God is this in every sense of the word.8 If no one can be punished save he who is bound to obedience, and who is placed in a fit condition to obey, certainly neither of these points can be disputed with regard to man.9 Thus far it is an honour to be capable of punishment ; we should not be so if we were not under, and even in a certain sense on an equal footing with God, as person against person, as subjects, at least, towards their lawful King. If, however, without any lawful reason, this relation be broken on our side, then must one of two things happen, either it is something accidental and indifferent, which surely none will assert, or, if it be in truth something sacred, then may it not be profaned without punishment. 7. Already we begin to see better the extent and degree of our culpa bility through sin. All sin is culpable, as committed against the high Majesty of God. If now in daily life an outrage is of greater importance in proportion as it is committed against a person of higher state, in _ this case we may with the fullest right speak of injured Majesty. That it is, in addition, committed against the highest Love, adds to it the character of the vilest ingratitude, and we cannot be surprised that a tender con science accuses us even with regard to a relatively trifling failure ; it is one proof more, that it not merely could have been, but also should have been avoided. Yet all sins are not equally culpable ; principles and intentions, as well as circumstances of different kinds, contribute the deciding weight in determining the guilt of a misdeed.10 Since no one sins entirely uncon sciously, every transgression brings with it a minimum of culpability, and for this reason needs forgiveness, which can also be obtained in a defined way. One only is here excepted ; this one, which we have before shortly mentioned,11 the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, with respect to which we can here only repeat, that it from its nature is unpardonable. Human corruption may rise to the uttermost degree of obduracy, as water, becoming colder and colder, can freeze into solid ice, yet remains s James iv. 12. 10 Compare § lxxvii. 2. " Micah vi. 8. " Section lxxvii. 5. ITS SENTENCE. 433 in its substance always water, and can again melt and become fluid through the warm rays of the sun. But a stone will never melt under the sun's rays ; and this is now the very peculiarity of the sin against the Holy Ghost, that it cannot, like every other sin, make a man become ice, but as it were transforms him internally into a stone. The question which in earliei times separated the Lutheran and Reformed Dogmatics, whether this sin could be committed by one really regenerate, can in our view be answered only in the negative. Still the warning against this degree of guilt and culpability is not wholly unnecessary to any one. Comp. Lactantius, De ird Dei; Barthoi.omess, Vom Zorn Gotles, in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1861), p. 258, sqq.; F. Weber, Vom Zorn Gottes, ein Bibl. 'Jheol. Versuch (1862) ; Lanoe's articles Schuld and Schuldbewustsein, in Herzog's R. E., xiv.; J. Cramer, Het berouw en het ethisch determinisme (1868). As to moral statistics and their connection with Ethics, Luthardt, Apol. Vortrdge, ii. (1867), p. 210, sqq.; and R. Grau, on Buckle's History of Civilisation, in the new Biblioth. voor Chr. Theol. en Letterk. (1870), i. Points for Inquiry. Is it possible from the Naturalistic standpoint to maintain the idea of guilt? — The importance of moral statistics in our investigation. — Connection of the recognition of the reality of the idea of guilt with the chief contents of the Gospel.— The significance of excuses. — How must we judge of the sin against the Holy Spirit, and how. best treat this doctrine for the Church ? SECTION LXXIX. — ITS SENTENCE. According to God's righteous judgment, there is a direct and reciprocal connexion between sin and misery. In all which the sinner lacks, feels, and must needs expect, he already here on earth experiences a part of his well-deserved retribution. The judgment of God on sin is manifest in the history of the whole of mankind, and is proclaimed by the condition of groaning humanity. Its complete fulfilment, however, is only attained on the other side of the grave, where obdurate sin is requited with eternal misery. 1. Guilt and punishment are such completely correlative ideas, that the consideration of the culpability of sin leads at once to that of its judgment. However sad, that consideration is necessary to enable us better to estimate the depth of the fall, as well as the value of the redemption. This investi gation naturally attaches itself to what we have already before taught con cerning the righteousness of God.1 1 Section xlix. F F 434 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. 2. When we speak of the punishment of sin, we mean thereby in general, the evil of suffering conjoined to the transgression, by which the transgressor must according to right pay for his misdeed. The essence of punishment is therefore calamity, whether it spring of itself from the mis deed, or be expressly attached to it by the will of the Judge. Its aim is not in the first place amendment, however desirable this may be as a conse quence, but restraint of the sinner by maintaining the rights of the law. Its extent renders necessary a division into temporal and eternal or future punishments, while the first must also be divided into natural and positive punishments, which are sometimes with less accuracy styled arbitrary. There is no overweighing objection even to this last distinction, when once we have recognised, from the Christian Theistic standpoint, that God has the right as well as the power of visiting the transgression, if He wills, with such experience as would not otherwise necessarily flow from it, accord ing to the purely natural course of things. Natural punishment may also be called positive in so far as it is God Himself who has once for all willed that it should follow the committed sin, as the shadow the light. 3. The connexion between sin and misery is universally felt, and not seriously disputed by any one. " If there were no sins, there would be no wounds." This connexion is direct, since sin separates us from Him, in whom alone is our happiness, and on this account cannot but make us most miserable ; reciprocal, because as misery springs from sin, so again does new sin spring continually from misery. Sin is the seed, misery the harvest, but this constantly brings with it new grains of seed ; indeed, sin not merely produces, but itself is, the greatest misery. Every other sorrow is partly caused, partly increased, partly at length still more infinitely exceeded in wretchedness by it. Not only the suffering which comes direct from God, but the pain which men inflict on one another, even the calamity which we make for ourselves, must be regarded as its bitter fruit. The consciousness of sin increases on the one hand each load of life, and diminishes on the other the power to bear these with calmness. Just because sin is a much more general, shameful, and pernicious evil than any other plague,2 ought it to be called the greatest cause of complaint. 4. We see already that the entire idea of punishment must not in any way be considered as something purely subjective, but much more as the expression of a touching reality. But we also see that there is a real dis tinction between punishment and chastisement, as the words of the Apostle in 1 Cor. xi. 32, also tell us. The world is condemned, the Christian chastised, for the same reason that the rebel is sentenced, while the disobe dient child is corrected. If to our feeling the distinction is great, it by no means follows that it merely exists in our feeling. Why could not God, too, on His part impose the same sorrow on one as a righteous judgment, and on another as a beneficent method of education and purification? It ij inaccurate and arbitrary to assert, that punishment does not consist in any external tribulation, but in the deadly power of sin itself;3 the one does not exclude the other. — In general, we may say of all punishments of sin, that they are strictly just, surely guaranteed in the case of continued Lam. iii. 39. a Scholten. ITS SENTENCE. 435 obduracy, and both in themselves, and combined one with another, are terrible for the sinner. * 5. On this side of the grave the sinner experiences l\is merited punish ment, partly in what he loses (poena damni), partly in what he actually suffers (poena sensus). Even the rest, which he foregoes, is a sign that he is separated from God, and the early or late awakened conscience is a judg ment of God.5 The relation of the conscience to evil when committed is threefold : it reminds us accurately of the misdeed, it judges it righteously;, and it punishes it severely.6 Thus there arises a fearful dread of God 7 quite distinct from childish awe, which compels the transgressor of his own accord to withdraw from God, and so makes him sink still deeper into sin. — But he also soon discovers a new punishment in that which sullies him ; since God requites sin with sin, and not seldom leaves the sinner to his perverted inclination.8 Naturally, He does not will sin as such, but the revelation of its internal power, in order that it may be judged by its own consequences. We can see how one sin becomes the parent of another, from the narrative in 2 Sam. xi., xii., as well as from the account of Jeroboam's misdeeds in 1 Kings xv. 29, 30. 6. To this is added that which the sinner suffers by what he experiences, partly from the natural consequences, partly from the properly so-called positive punishments of sin. Sensuality produces disease, and pride leads to fall. " Per quod quis peccat, per idem punitur et idem." In many a special instance we cannot deny a special judgment of God, by which the words of Judges i. 7 are constantly justified afresh. The history of Jacob, Hainan, Pilate, and others in the sacred narrative, as well as that of many others in profane history, speaks here plainly enough. Take for example, among others, unexpected visitations, such as overtook Ananias and Sapphira, or Elymas the Sorcerer.9 In the history of the world, and of nations also, we meet with calamities, which can hardly be considered as anything but such positive judgments; as the flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, of Pharaoh and his army, Jerusalem and the temple, and of others even in our own time. Why should it be denied or complained of as a hardship that God with deep wisdom thus directly shows His holy repugnance against sin ? or why, since indeed, in contrast with these punish ments, are also placed special rewards for proved obedience ? It was more than superstition when the heathen recognised the hand of God in special calamities, which had no natural connexion with the crime. We must only take care that we never conclude the greater sinfulness of those who have met with special calamities.10 But of ourselves a faithful conscience will declare whether any sorrow must be regarded as a special retribution or not. 4 Heb. xii. 29. 5 Compare Prov. xxviii. I ; Isa. lvii. 21 ; the instances of Adam, Cain, Saul, Herod, Judas, etc. 6 See Gen. xlii. 21, 22 ; Matt. xiv. 2 ; and numerous other passages. 7 Rom. viii. 15. 8 Rom. i. 28. 9 Acts v. xiii. 10 Job xlii. 8 ; Luke xiii. 4, 5 ; John ix. 3. f r 2 436 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. A thoughtful observer will often discover a startling connexion between fate and life, disappointment and transgression. 7. What finally awaits the sinner even here on earth, raises his misery to its height. Even before death he has ever less to hope and worse to dread, according as it becomes darker within him and around him. In accordance with the deep words of Heb. ii. 15, he is subject to the fear of death, which is partly the fruit, but partly too the cause, of the most fatal slavery. But specially in death does he receive a retribution of sin, which cannot be thought of without dread. We have said in § lxx. 6, that corporeal death is not a consequence of the original constitution of our nature, but of its deteriorated state, and besides, is infinitely aggravated for the sinner. " Peccatum iram Dei provocavit, ira Dei mortem induxit" (Gerhardt). If the "once to die" is already a terrifying prospect, the dread becomes more menacing, since death not only separates us from life, and all which was dear to us in life, but delivers us over to an omniscient Judge. And after death — but for the moment enough has been already said to make us regard the truth of the words of the prophet in Jer. ii. 19, as absolutely universal. 8. The judgment, already to be dreaded here by every sinner, is revealed to a much wider extent in the history of mankind. What is that history, but a drama, whose tragic character is increased by the very influence of sin, and of which a satisfactory denouement seems absolutely impossible without the intervention of grace ? Oppression and rebellion, wars and rumours of wars, craft and violence, what a sad concatenation ! Who, for example, can number the sins of diplomacy, and all the miseries which have sprung from them? What an astonishing revelation of the power, but at the same time of the judgment, of sin in slavery, in art and science, even in the domain of language ! And in that maelstrom, not only the guilty, but the wholly or partially innocent are swept away, u and sick unto death, the fallen world is still again and again chastising itself. All the unjustly shed blood comes at last upon the head of a generation which has slain the prophets ; 12 and the nineteenth century reaps the fatal harvest of the seeds of unbelief and revolution which the eighteenth has sown. Thus the world itself is the great Flagellant, which ceases not to scourge its bleeding limbs as a punishment for its sins. Hints alone are here possible, but still are sufficient to show with what terrible seriousness God deals with an injustice with which man often so irresponsibly sports. The words of the apostle, Rom. i. 18, might thus serve as a motto for the annals of the world's history. Every page gives proof of living under the longsuffering, but not in the full enjoyment of the goodness, of God. 9. We cannot deny the traces of God's judgment upon sin, shown even in the face of nature.13 Although we dare not assert with some philosophers that an actual daamoniac power makes its destructive influence felt on the life of nature, yet can we still less overlook the fact, that in the song of praise in Creation, perhaps no tone is so distinctly heard as that of elegy. Most truly, " wherever the stars shine, does a universal sorrow pervade all the veins of nature " (Fr. v. Schlegel). It is the voice of the groaning 11 2 Sam. xxiv. 17. 12 Matt, xxiii. 35—37. i3 Section lxxv. i.4. ITS SENTENCE. 437 creation,14 that is, of all animate and inanimate nature, as distinguished from the Christian, but even he himself is not free from this suffering. The whole creation shares involuntarily in the consequences of the fall, and, as in a chaotic state, looks forward with eager desire to freedom and trans formation. A thoughtful Dogmatics will not venture to describe the extent of this punishment ; " these are things which have occurred in a con dition quite different to ours, and which surpass our present capacity" (Pascal). But the fact of Creation's bondage itself presses as by force upon every one who has considered the face of nature with a more than superficial glance, and, however mysterious, is infinitely more reasonable than its absolute rejection. (Cf. Luther on Gen. iii. 17.) 10. If thus the consequences .f sin on this side the grave are already so terrible, yet can it not but be expected, when we believe in the right eousness of God and the eternal destiny of man, that they also extend to the other side, and there exhibit a still more fearful character. If the Old Testament leaves many questions on this subject unanswered, it is quite different with the writings of the New, which speak as plainly as often of a future retribution. The most fearful punishments are threatened by the Lord and His witnesses on all who continue in unbelief, and unrepentant ; 15 and specially on those who by their utter want of love gave proof of their ineradicable selfishness.16 Much more difficult is it to say anything positive concerning the proper nature of these punishments, because they are alluded to under very different images, which cannot however be regarded as figurative representations merely. The most adequate concep tion may peihaps be drawn from the well-known parable in Luke xvi. 19 — 31. Even here we see, on the one side, a want of that which was most valued and enjoyed during the life on earth ; on the other, a feeling of dreadful pain, increased by the certainty of the happiness enjoyed by others, and the self-reproaches of the now awakened conscience. This remorse must naturally end in despair when all prospect of restoration is definitely cut off, and with the feeling of one's own guilt is joined that of a never-ending " too late." In this loss of the past, this remorse for the present, this despair for the future, is revealed the wrath of God, which abides on the obdurate. 11. So much thus appears, that the nature of the future punishment is in many respects different from that of temporal punishment. The latter was partly delayed by the longsuffering, partly lessened by the mercy, of God, partly concealed from the eyes of others, partly confined within a certain space of time ; in the future retribution the opposite of all this will be the case. It is the revelation of God's holy wrath, no longer tempered by His saving grace. And as we think of the place where this wretchedness dwells, of the circle within which the condemned are placed together, of the- revelation of all secrets, which is joined with the most adequate retribution— above all, of the infinite duration of the still future 14 Rom. viii. 19 — 23. 15 John iii. 36 ; Matt. xiii. 41, 42 ; 2 Thess. 1. 8, 9 ; Rev. xxi. & 16 Matt. xxv. 41—46. 43b CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. punishment, it then becomes impossible for us to sound the ocean of misery caused by sin. 12. The duration of future punishment is most definitely represented in Holy Scripture as absolutely endless.17 Even if the word " eternal" does not itself denote absolute endlessness, it is surely a different matter when eternal pain is without any limitation contrasted with eternal life.18 We shall first discuss in chapter vii., in connexion with Eschatology, the doctrine of the so-called restitution of all things, in its entirety, but here we will only call to mind that its supporters can appeal but to single, indirect, and mys terious utterances of prophecy : those on the other hand who maintain the contrary opinion can bring forward numerous and plain statements of the Lord and His witnesses ; at any rate, the possibility of an endless misery is most distinctly declared in Matt. xii. .31, 32 ; and words such as those in Luke xvi. 26 ; Matt. xxvi. 24 ; xxv. 10, 41, could hardly be vindicated from the charge of exaggerate, if He who spake then had Himself even seen a ray of light in the outer darkness, and been able and willing to kindle it before others' eyes. In no case could such a ray be seen without previous sorrow and conversion ; but, viewed psychologically, this latter is certainly nowhere less to be looked for than in a hell of sorrow and despair, not to say that the Gospel nowhere opens up to us a certain prospect of the continuance of the gracious work of God on the other side of the grave. He who here talks of harshness must by no means forget that sinful man is a very partial judge in his own case ; that nothing less than the highest grace is boldly and stubbornly set at nought in the case here supposed ; and that there will be always, according to the teaching of Scripture, an equitable distinc tion in the rewards as well as in the punishments of the future.19 Aye, even if men might flatter themselves with a diminution or postponement of the punishment, there would still always be a remembrance of the countless mischief which they had done to themselves and others, which as a dark cloud would be before the sun of an eventual happiness. Least of all must they hope for such an end, who have known the great salvation, and all their life long ungratefully despised it.20 — As to the Heathen and others who entirely without their own fault have missed the way of life, Holy Scripture nowhere compels us to believe that these should at once, on that account alone, be the victims of an eternal damnation. " We must carefully distinguish between damnability and damnation ; damnability is indeed the germ, but still only the germ, of damnation" (Lange). Accord ing to the teaching of the Apostle (Rom ii. 12, sqq.), the heathen will be judged by a different rule from the Jew, just as the professor of the Gospel will certainly be differently judged from these two. While there is only one way of salvation,21 rather will the Merciful make it known to men without Christ even after death,22 than the Just One will reap where He has not sown. The kindly utterances of Zwingle on this point are certainly more in accord with the spirit of the Gospel,23 than the hard sentence to which a " Mark iv. 44 — 50; Rev. xiv. 11, etc. 21 Acts iv. 12. 18 Matt. xxv. 46. K 1 Pet. iii. 19. 19 Luke xii. 47, 48. a See his Fidei Christi Exiositio, Op. iv. 6t. 20 Matt. xi. 24 ; Heb. ii. 3. F J THE POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION. 439 dogmatic Exclusivism has not seldom led others. We can safely leave to God the justification, even in this respect, of His own government of the world ; but we must take careful heed, that we do not try to be more merciful and wise than He, to whom sin, as long as it continues sin, is thoroughly damnable. Even in preaching the Gospel, His servants are not free to leave this darker side entirely umnentioned. The statement of it should only be joined always with that of the friendly light of grace, and let the preacher take care that he does not lead his hearers in the way of despairing fear or unbelieving doubt, by yielding to the desire to paint hell as black as possible. The best statement of the prospect of the sinner is that of " the going to his own place," i.e., to the land of his own choice, where he may still continue to dwell. Compare the Art. Hb'llenstrafen, in Herzog's R. E. vi., p. 181, sqq. ; also O. Krabbe, Die Lehre von der Siinde und vom Tode (1836) ; and Mau, Vom Tode, dem Soldi der Siinde (1841) ; the Essay of Lange on Pelagianism, in his Vermischte Schriften, i. (1840), pp. 2 1 7 — 307, and ii. p. 258 ; the suggestive account, Die Reise nach dem Lande seiner Wahl; also Heiberg's Poem, A Soul after Death (1865J; A. Monod, Sermons, i. (1856), pp. 366 — 376. Upon the influence of sin on the inanimate creation, see the beautiful language of the physicist ROEPER, quoted by Luthardt, u. u. O., ii., p. 201, sqq. Points for Inquiry. Further elucidation of the ideas of punishment, the right of punishment, etc., in their theological meaning. — Can the doctrine of a righteousness which demands punishment be co-ordinated with the subject-matter of the Gospel ? — Are all calamities punishments ? — Death in connexion with sin. — The expectation of a future retribution, even in the worlds of Heathenism and Judaism. — The doctrine of the Church, specially that of the Reformed, compared with that of the New Testament, on this point. — Import and force of the nth answer of the Heidelberg Catechism — What view must we take of the future lot of the heathen world ? — The dangers to be avoided when discussing the doctrine of punishment for sin before the Church. SECTION LXXX. — THE POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION. Mankind, according to God's righteous judgment, bowed down under the guilt and punishment of sin, is utterly unable to set itself free from this curse. Yet there remains the possibility of salvation, since the sinner is still man, and as such capable of salvation. This possibility, however, could never have been realised without a special intervention of God, in which the sinner needs to believe, but for which he had no right to hope. 1. Where we see the individual and the race either gone down to, or on the way to, so dark an abyss, the question as to the possibility of deliverance is as natural at the end of this division, as that concerning the possibility of 440 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. the fall was at the close of the preceding one.1 It can be the less put off, in proportion as it is more clearly seen that the confession of the moral inability of the sinner,2 though often misunderstood and misused, is the expression of a sad reality. Under the influence of sin man becomes a slave, absolutely unable to regain liberty by himself, and the slave will become the victim. The consequences of sin cleave to us, and unite themselves to our inner life, like Dejanira's tunic sent to Hercules. Even if we could (and this is psychologically inconceivable) from this time forth, by an irrevocable resolve, put an end to all our transgressing, the past will nevertheless still remain to be accounted for. The evil conscience is constantly bringing us into a state of restlessness and fear, and — moral goodness can come only from the principle of love. The guilty sinner, alienated from God, cannot possibly kindle the flame of love in himself; others, equally subject to the power of sin, can just as little avert its curse from us. No finite creature, however excellent, can turn away from us the inevitable consequences of God's holy anger. Thus the sinful man, left to himself, is not only probably, but certainly lost ; and the ransom ot the captive soul is not to be found on earth. (Cf. Ps. xlix. 6—9 ; Matt. xvi. 26.) 2. Still, notwithstanding all, the question as to the possibility of salvation must be answered affirmatively, and that not merely from a view of God's Power and Grace, but also from a view of man, who stands as it were behind the sinner, and in him is indeed overruled, but by no means destroyed by the sinful principle. We must carefully avoid the two extremes of Pelagianism on one side, and Manichseism on the other. We have already discussed the former; we see the other represented at the time of the Reformation by Matthias Flacius Illyricus (+ 1675), who asserted that original sin was " de essentia hominis;" a statement which still lives in a popular form among many, who conceive of " death by sin" as literally as possible, and are at once grieved when they hear that man has not ceased to be " God's offspring." This onesidedness, not unjustly called " Manichseismus crustatus " by the pronounced Reformed Theologian, Heidegger (1698), is in direct conflict with the utterances of Biblical Theology, as well as with those of the human consciousness, and in its consequences would at last transfer the whole doctrine of sin from the domain of Ethics to that of Physics. In opposition to this we must with all earnestness assert that the possibility of salvation still exists, not merely metaphysically, in the sense of Luke iii. 8, but also psychologically, since even in fallen man there still remain the "slight traces" of which article xiv. of the Netherlands Confession speaks. " Homo, dum nascitur, quia bonum aliquid est, in quantum homo est, Manichseum redarguit, laudatque Creatorem ; in quantum vero trahit originale peccatum, Pelagium redarguit et habet necessarium Salvatorem. Nam et quod sftnanda dicitur ista natura, utrumque repercutit ; quia nee medicina opus haberet, si' sana esset, nee sanari possit omnino, si aeternum atque immutabile malum esset" (Augustine). 3. The ground of the ever- remaining possibility of deliverance is thus 1 Section lxxi. 2 H. C, Ans. viii. THE POSSIBILITY OF SALVATION. 44I based in the essence of man, who undoubtedly needs a complete Palin genesis but nevertheless does not require a transubstantiation. The verv discord in every sinful heart,3 on the one hand our calamity, is on the other our happiness ; it shows, indeed, that sin is our second, but not yet our proper nature; our malady indeed, but not yet our attribute or element. "Ipse dolor testimonium est boni ademti et boni relicti ; nisi enim bonum relic- turn esset, bonum amissum dolere non posset" (Augustine). This is the distinction between man and the devil ; in whom, as far as we can judge from Holy Scripture, this point of connexion is utterly wanting. When the devil lies, he speaks agreeably to his nature ;4 when man tells a lie, he as it were does despite to another, better, but fettered man. Between the vehement inclinations of man and the deepest needs of the sinner a dark abyss gapes ; in the sinful man is hidden the groaning creature. The conscience still remains the organ to which a redeeming activity of God can ally itself. Man has the capacity, not to restore himself by the indwelling healthy essence of his nature, but to be restored by the deliver ing power of grace. He becomes neither beast nor devil ; his heart is a field full of weeds, but still something different from stone ; he is unable to deliver himself, but still always capable of deliverance. This, it is plain, does not give the sinner the slightest right to hope for deliverance ; but also, without this, deliverance would be as impossible as from the Pelagian standpoint it is unnecessary. 4. This possibility, however, can only be realised by a special inter vention of God's delivering love. The history of the Jewish and Heathen worlds teaches that this want has in all ages been felt, and most strikingly expressed. Whether and how far it is fulfilled on its side, remains a question, which only a fresh revelation can answer ; and this may indeed be discussed, but never determined, in the domain of Anthropology and Hamartology. From this last we can only part with the distinct conscious ness, that he who disowns his need of deliverance, remains as much a stranger to the microcosm within him, as he is to the macrocosm around him. Comp. Pascal, Pensees; F. Fabri, Het algemeen Waarheidsgevoel (1863). On Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Herzog, R. E., iv. Points for Inquiry. The contest between M. F. Illyricus and Victorinus Strigel in 1560. — Is the possibility of deliverance present in a like degree in every sinner ? — Is it really taught everywhere in the Gospel, even from its anthropological side ? — Can this confession be completely allied with the fact of the sinner's moral inability ? — Why is it of importance to mention it ? and against what extremes must we be on our guard? — The opinion to be formed on the contents and form of the reasoning in the Heidelberg Catechism, Ans. xii. — xviii. — Result of the whole Anthropology and Hamartology (Rom. vii. 21 — 25). 3 Section lxxvii. 5. 4 iic tuv ISluv, John viii. 44. CHAPTER III. JESUS CHRIST, THE FOUNDER OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD. (CHRISTOLOGY.) SECTION LXXXI. — TRANSITION AND SURVEY. THE possibility of deliverance has been realised by the revelation of God's truth and grace in Jesus Christ, which forms the great subject of the Gospel of salvation. The work of redemption in Him is alike the crowning and the final aim of the works of creation and providence ; a saving act of God, only to be explained from the riches of His infinite love for sinners. The consideration of that work (Soteriology) must necessarily be preceded by that of the person of the Deliverer (Christology), while in this latter we must pay separate attention to the Decree of Salvation, and to the Personality of the Saviour Himself. i. The present chapter opens an entirely new field of investigation, which extends to the utmost limits of the domain of Christian doctrine. After the separate treatise on Theology and Anthropology, everything which still remains for discussion might be properly collected under the one name of Theanthropology. Indeed, we must now discuss the manner in which the relation between God and man, broken by sin, is restored by God in Christ, and will be still further restored. But the great wealth of our materials renders necessary a division, such as has been already pointed out, in the present chapter, and will be also desirable in the succeeding one. A few introductory remarks are intended to point out here the exact standpoint of our examination. 2. The doctrine concerning a way of salvation is not a peculiar element of Christian dogma only. In any religious system, if it be somewhat developed, the question will arise, what must man do to restore the communion with his God, which has been destroyed ? Hence we find in the religions of Heathendom sacrifices, penalties, pilgrimages • and in TRANSITION AND SURVEY. 443 Israel, next to the law, Prophecy. That the most insufficient, pitiful, and sinful means have been devised for satisfying this impulse of conscience does not prove anything against the justice and moral earnestness of this attempt. It is universally recognised that a system of doctrine for sinful men must possess, along with a Theology and an Anthropology, a Soteriology as well. 3. Nowhere however, does this doctrine stand so prominently forward as in the Christian domain. As in Islamism the unity of God is the central dogma, and in Mosaism the Theocracy, so in Christianity is the way of salvation. We naturally use the word salvation here in its widest sense, and think of it as the setting free from the power of sin and its sad conse quences. While we here call this our main point, we naturally do not deny that the word of revelation has cast an inestimable light over God, as well as over man. We only assert that the proper centre of the Doctrine of Salvation is not there but here, and that the essentials of the Gospel are best collected in the proposition, the possibility of salvation, whose, necessity is raised beyond all doubt, has been made a readty, not by the intervention of man but by a proper ad of love on the part of God. That Gospei (good news) deserves its name, not only or principally because it has shed a clearer light on God, virtue, or immortality, than that in which men had thus far rejoiced. Even where all this is recognised, the question as to the proper nature of that really new, heart-rejoicing, and world-renewing fact, which has been revealed, and which justifies eulogies like those in Rom. i. 16, Eph. i. 3, still remains. It can only be answered by placing in the forefront, that here salvation (oarripLa.) is presented as attainable by him who was lost by sin, by a way which no sinner could ever have himself opened up.1 Redemption is not one out of many doctrines, it is the doctrine par excel lence, the central sun from which everything else in the Gospel must receive its light. Without this one doctrine all the Gospel narrative seems inexplicable, its demands exaggerated, its promises baseless and aimless. The aim of the Gospel and its proclamation is not merely or specially to lead man to a purer knowledge of God, and to perfect virtue, but before all to restore the sinner to his normal relation to God. " Christianity is not great and unique, because it is a more developed and confirmed conscience, but because, without in the least injuring that conscientiousness, but much rather giving it the keenest edge, it yet at once stills the conscience ; because it casts out fear by perfect love ; because it shows us that God is greater than our hearts. In its inmost nature Christianity is not like the moral law, a ' Thou shalt,' but a satisfaction, a "Yea and Amen ;' it is not a demand in the name of God, but a Divine power and grace, which, seated in the heart, entirely of its own accord, and without command, becomes an instinct of the freest morality" (Ullmann). 4. If, however, the doctrine of Redemption is to be properly understood and valued, it must not be separated from that of Creation and Providence, but must be most closely combined with them. Redemption indeed appears as something new, by which God restores the disturbed moral order,2 but the new is not yet on that account something which, in entire isolation, stands 1 Comp. Luke xix. 10; Acts iv. 12; I Tim. i. 15. 2 Isa. lxv. 17. 444 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. beyond all historical connexion. The crown of all God's works is united with, and continues to be most closely joined with, those other works. Redemption is at once a new creation and ultimate aim of the providence of God ; but one and the same God is revealed here and there, though in different ways. Mysteries and wonders in the domain of Redemption can therefore the less surprise us, because we meet with these in the domains of Creation and Providence. We must not be offended if we discover here even greater mysteries than we have found elsewhere, because the moral and spiritual domain in life is higher than the material : renewing of creation is more than creation itself. And yet the work of Redemption can only be understood and estimated in its intimate connexion with that of Creation and Providence, because Redemption is brought to pass by Him who is the Mediate Cause of Creation and the centre of the entire Divine plan of the world.3 The harmony, too, which we discover between the kingdom of nature and that of grace, serves not a little to strengthen our belief in the divinity of revelation. 5. However closely allied with the work of creation and the govern ment of all things, Redemption must always be regarded as a free gift of love from God, which can as little be explained naturally a priori, as it can be perfectly fathomed a, posteriori. The attempt, in itself orthy of praise, to justify as reasonable, that which is actual, has not seldom tempted able spirits to try and represent the plan of redemption not only as something most worthy of God, but even as something very natural and intrinsically necessary. A little thought, however, soon shows that Redemption, as the Gospel depicts it, can as little be deduced a priori with logical accuracy from the nature of God as from that of man. True, the nature of God is love, but though that love makes redemption explicable, it is and conti nues, this notwithstanding, an act of free grace. True, man has retained a capacity for redemption, but the sinner has not on that account the slightest right to expect it, as something self-evident. The fact of redemption in Christ cannot be deduced either from the nature of God, or from the idea of man, or from the historic development of our race, as something absolutely necessary, without thereby under mining the deepest foundation of our Christian faith. This faith, indeed, as it is accepted as presented by the Gospel in the inmost consciousness, does not confess that God in Christ has done what could ii priori be counted upon with good reason ; but, on the contrary, that here has been revealed and taken place, that which no one could have expected or claimed ; 4 not that mankind has at length, by its inherent force, after centuries of effort produced "its greatest Son," but that a new branch has been grafted on the old and sickly stem, from which an entirely new life has gone forth.5 Salva tion in Christ is here universally described as the fruit of a pity, without compulsion; which necessarily confounds us, because it so far exceeds all our imagination. Hence, also, the constant mention of a Divine good- pleasure,6 first brought to light in the fulness of time, whereby certainly nothing is denoted, which could have been reckoned upon reasonably in 8 Compare §§ lv., lvi. 5. » Rom. v. 12—21. 4 1 Cor. ii. 9. « Eph. i. 9 ; Col. i. 19. TRANSITION AND SURVEY. 445 any other way. — Hence it follows, that we must here dispute the right of human wisdom to come to some conclusions a priori on its own authority, nay, even that the rights of reason are even more limited in the domain of Soteriology, than in that of Theology or Anthropology. To the questions, What is God, and what is man? individual reflection, even without the light of revelation, can get much nearer to an answer, than if the question be proposed, What has God done for the deliverance of a sinful world ? Here neither speculative thought nor empirical investigation can of itself bring us much further. God alone can procure salvation, but He alone, too, can make known to the sinner whether He gives it, and if so, how He will do it. Thus we are here first of all referred to the narrative which tells of the plan of salvation, and upon this all philosophic thought about historic revelation must be founded. Placing ourselves at this stand point, we speak entirely in the spirit of the Lord, who, in distinction from the work of regeneration upon earth, expressly announces the plan of salvation of God as among the heavenly things.7 But on this very account we must not be surprised that, even a posteriori, the searching to its depth of the revelation in Christ falls too short, even after constant reflec tion. If redemption is really a Divine work, it must, as such, have its mystery ; if it is the greatest of all God's works, we know that the highest mountains cast the longest shadows. The Gospel itself prepares us for this mysteriousness,8 and its best professors have in all times found in this a matter, not of complaint, but of sublime adoration. 6. The investigation into the doctrine of Redemption is of vital import ance for man, for the sinner, for the Christian, for the Theologian and the preacher of the Gospel, especially at the present time. The great matter, which here specially touches us, is not the religion of Jesus, but the salva tion in Christ. It is therefore of great importance, not merely to arrange and direct its discussion in a suitable manner — as has already been pointed out in this section — but to begin and continue it in that spirit of deep reverence and faith, which longs for salvation, in which a Paul has preceded us.9 Comp. M. v^N Staveren, Diss, de Evang. naturd. (1839) ; L. Schoeberlein, Die Grundlehren des Heils, entwickelt aus dem Princip der Liebe (1848), and the article Erlosung, by the same writer, in Herzog, R. E. iv. ; C. Ullmann, Das Wesen des. Christenth. (4th ed., 1854); J. I. Doedes, Wat zult gij prediken ? Acad. addr. (1866). Points for Inquiry. Connexion between this and the preceding chapter.— What do we understand by Redemption ? and how has this idea been developed in the Christian Church in the course of centuries? — Christianity the religion of Redemption, and as such the highest religion. — What is the peculiar nature of the Gospel? and who therefore can be said, and who cannot be said, to preach the Gospel ?— Elucidation of Rom. i. 16 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9, and similar passages. — Is it possible here to separate entirely from one another the investigation into the person and the work of the Redeemer ?— Why must the doctrine of the decree of Redemption be discussed just at this place ? * John iii. 12. " Rom. xi. 33 ; compare Isa. Iv. 8, 9. 9 Eph. iii. 14 — 21. 446 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. FIRST DIVISION. THE DECREE OF REDEMPTION. SECTION LXXXIL— THE PLAN OF SALVATION IN ITSELF. The redemption of the sinful world is the consequence of a Divine plan of salvation (Decretum Salutis), which, planned be fore the foundation of the world, is accomplished in the course of the ages, and has Christ as its centre. That plan of salvation aims at nothing less than the eternal salvation of all who tread the path of life ordained by God, but also of these alone ; and that, not on account of their merits or worthiness, but only of God's free grace in Christ, upon which the sinner is absolutely dependent in the work of his salvation. With perfect right, therefore, faith confesses the consoling doctrine of a personal choosing to life (Prtzdestinatio ad Saluteni), but at the same time the science of faith confesses its inability thoroughly to fathom this depth, and therefore seeks, above all, to comprehend the decree of salvation, in the light shed upon this revealed mystery by history and ex perience. i. Where we have, first of all, to seek an adequate apprehension of the idea of the Divine plan of salvation, we must begin by looking back to see what we have already learnt in general in § lv. as to the Divine plan of the world. As this latter refers to the Creation as a whole, so does the former definitely belong to the Redemption of the sinful world. The plan of salvation becomes thus the means of accomplishing the plan of the world, which was disturbed by sin, as again that plan of salvation is carried out by means of a free and gracious election. Hence all Anthropomorphism must now be naturally avoided as much as possible. Putting aside everything which would make- us think of human deliberation, or arbitrary decree, we speak here simply of the design of God to redeem that which was lost through sin. 2. The existence of such a plan is partly presupposed, partly emphatically ex pressed, in Holy Scripture. If there has been often spoken, without sufficient exegetical reasons,1 in a too sensuous manner, of a "counsel of peace" between the Son of God and the Father, the idea, that God, even where 1 Compare Zech. vi. 13. THE PLAN OF SALVATION IN ITSELF. 447 He redeems and restores, only accomplishes what He had Himself willed and determined, is purely Evangelical, and so in the highest degree worthy of God. Not only does the Apostle Paul point to this with emphasis and with marked preference,2 but even the Lord Jesus Himself speaks here in the most distinct manner.3 From a belief in an all-embracing Providence of God,4 follows already, naturally and necessarily, the confession of this truth. 3. As to the nature and contents of this plan of salvation, we receive suf ficient light from the Gospel. — It is one and indivisible. If dogmatic Scholasti cism has not seldom spoken of different Divine decrees (decreta), and divided these in various ways,5 the Gospel everywhere speaks only of one design, one will, one merciful thought of God, of which everything which is done for the salvation of a sinful world is the gradual realisation. — The centre of this plan of salvation is Christ. In Him God has elected the believing, and in Him the plan of the world must attain its completion.6 He Himself is, par excellence, the Elect and Beloved of the Father ;7 and in Him redeemed humanity is regarded, and, as it were, included, as under its spiritual head. But yet not in this sense, that God has foreseen the perfect Son of man in mankind, as its future natural product, and consequently was well pleased with a race from which so much that was noble should proceed ; but so, that He Himself has given in His Son the new man, as the head to the fallen race, and in Him has actually proved His grace to it. 4. The extent of this plan of salvation is consequently universal ' ; it reaches not merely to a few, but to the sinful world in its entirety, as is constantly declared in the Gospel. It is impossible, without arbitrarily distorting the sense, to understand such passages as John iii. 16; 2 Cor. v. 19; 1 Tim. ii. 4; 1 John ii. 2, and many similar statements, in a one sided particularistic sense. Even other statements of Scripture8 would be destitute of all meaning, if we might not understand that God seriously desired the salvation of all men. The Gospel indeed teaches, as we shall see in a later part of our treatise, that the Elect are given by the Father to the Son ; but nowhere does it declare that the Father has sent that Son into the world solely for the Elect's sake ; and it is everywhere declared to be the sinner's own fault if the highest love does not gain its end in him.9 — Certainly the execution of this plan is conditional. God has in no way determined to give salvation to all, regardless of the position in which they may place themselves to the Gospel of salvation, but to those only who are obedient to the claims of faith and repentance ; not, indeed, that they, on account of this obedience, could deserve salvation. The word condition is incorrectly used here, whenever it suggests some meri- torius deed. It denotes nothing but that the absolutely indispensable 2 Eph. i. 3—12 ; Col. i. 19, 20. 3 Matt. xi. 25, 26 ; John xvii. 2. 4 Section lix. 5 As, e.g., into general and special, antecedent and consequent, etc. 6 Eph. i. 4, 10. ' Isa. xlii. 1 ; Matt. iii. 17; John iii. 35. 8 E.g., Ezek. xxxiii. 11 ; Mark xvi. 15, 16 ; 2 Pet. 111. 9. 8 Compare Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Luke vii. 30. 448 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. requisite and ground of this salvation can never be anything else save God's gracious and unchangeable good-pleasure. God has, according to St. Paul's statement, chosen believers,10 not because they were, but in order that they might become, holy and blameless. This good-pleasure of His combines, from the nature of the case, all those attributes which must be ascribed to His adorable nature. Like Himself, it is eternal, free, wise, holy, gracious, unchangeable, and therefore for a finite intellect un searchable.11 The ultimate aim is, and can be, nothing else than the exalt ation of His name, i.e., not merely of one, but of all His virtues; not merely of His sovereignty, and still less of His justice or grace, as opposed one to the other, but of all the riches of His holy love. 5. The importance of the doctrine of the Gospel concerning the Divine plan of salvation is self-evident. Where it remains unknown, or is incor rectly viewed, Christian faith and Christian life both must necessarily suffer very severe injury. Specially is an accurate definition of this point of incontestable importance for the cause of a free, sound, and _ kindly preaching of the Gospel. One is not only free, but strongly obliged to preach the Gospel to all without exception, without, on any pretext what ever, diminishing one letter of the command, " Compel them to come in." He who forgets this, and, in an evil hour, chooses as the point of depar ture for his preaching, in place of the " decretum salutis," the doctrine of " prsedestinatio ad salutem," mistakes his calling, increases the most dangerous malady, and even cherishes a miserable heresy under the lofty banner of orthodoxy.12 The glad tidings must be brought to all, " as many as are called by the Gospel, these are earnestly called." 6. So far all is plain ; but the subject becomes more difficult when we come to the question, Why has it pleased God to carry out this design of His by means of a free and gracious eledion (Prcedestinatio) ? We cannot be surprised that the dogma, which this word brings before us, has in one place been contradicted, and in another been an apple of discord of the worst kind. The strife sometimes became so violent, that, when it has paused for a moment, the wish of Herder, " Perish the hand which recalls the struggle from the wide stream of forgetfulness!" seemed conceivable. Yet, from the standpoint of Christian Dogmatics, the question cannot possibly be put aside, least of all where the doctrine of salvation is treated of from the standpoint of the Reformation. The so-called " cor ecclesige " needs, and so deserves, an investigation, to which no better place can be devoted than the present. Though the well-known " heus tu, caute de istis agas " of Zwingle must be applied here even more than ever, yet does it not give us any right to sail silently by the rock, rendered notorious by its many shipwrecks. 7. When we speak of Predestination, we express the confession that every believer, who is saved, is saved in accordance with the will of God, who has called and elected him, as distinguished from the unbeliever, to eternal life. To the question, Does there exist any ground for speaking in such a sense 10 Eph. i. 4. 11 Rom. xi/33— 36. >2 Compare Deut., xxix. 29 ; Can. Dord. ii. 5, 6, iii. 8 ; see Calvin on St. John xii. 47. THE PLAN OF SALVATION IN ITSELF. 449 of a fore- ordaining to eternal life ? we cannot possibly, after a little reflec tion, give any answer but, Yes. — When we have once placed ourselves at the Christian Theistic standpoint, the reason already will judge a proposition acceptable, which is merely the natural consequence of a belief in a special Providence. If this Providence has ordered and ordained everything which relates to the temporal lot and life, it is absolutely inconceivable that man's eternal lot should be determined without God's eternal counsel being fulfilled therein. We can securely say, that he who believes in Pro vidence, but rejects every idea of predestination as folly, is not consistent with himself. — Holy Scripture, at any rate, speaks here in such a manner, that all doubt becomes impossible to any one who attaches importance to its utterances. If we consult its letter, there is without doubt a mention of an election even in a completely different sense from that which is here intended,13 and passages have often been quoted as proofs of the doctrine of predestination, which do not bear closer examination.14 But yet, even after this sifting, there remain not a few utterances of our Lord and His Apostles, which at any rate it is not possible for us to understand in any other sense than that which is attached to them by the supporters of the doctrine of a fore-ordaining to eternal life. Take, e.g., and weigh such passages as Matt. xi. 25, 26; xvi. 17; xx. 23; xxiv. 24; Luke x. 20; John vi. 37 — 40; xvii. 2, 24. All the Apostles and their contemporary witnesses agree in this with their Master. Luke, Acts xiii. 48. Paul, 1 Thess. v. 9. James, Ep. i. 18. 2 Thess. ii. 13. Jude, Ep. I, compare ver. 4. Ephes. i. 4. Peter, 1 Ep. i. 2 ; ii. 7, 9. 2 Tim. i. 9. 2 Ep. i. 10. Rom. viii. 28 — 30. John, Revelation iii. 5 ; xiii ?. Rom. ix. — xi. Specially do these two last passages merit here close observation ; the first, because it offers to us a well-arranged " catena salutis" in its inseparable connexion ; the second, because it not only declares, but defends against obstinate denial, God's absolute sovereignty in granting and withholding His highest benefits. It matters little whether an escape is contrived by saying that here there is merely a statement of a general and natural election to the blessings of the kingdom of God. The real participation in the blessings of God's kingdom on earth at the same time includes that in eternal bliss ; the whole mass consists of single individuals ; and from what the Apostle testifies of Moses and Pharaoh,15 it is sufficiently apparent why he has not represented the matter with regard to individuals in a different way than with regard to the many. That he considers the rejection of the Jews a consequence of their own guilt,16 is as certain as that he opens a pro mising prospect as to the final solution of this mystery.17 But this does not detract anything from what can be read as plainly in Rom. ix., and a tho roughly impartial judge was quite right in his statement, " It is all singularly clear, and certainly it will never be with exegetical arguments that one can 13 John vi. 70 ; xiii. 18. 16 Rom. x. 14 See Tisch., Matt. xx. 16; xxii. 14; Acts xv. 18. " Rom. xi. 16 Rom. ix. 14— la. ' G G 45o CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. henceforth combat a system which men like Augustine, Calvin, and Gomar have built up on these premisses " (Reuss). We meet with something like that we have already met with in the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.18 The dogma does not lie ready prepared in Holy Scripture, but all the stones of the building are there, which only need to be put together, to make the whole building rise in just proportion before our eyes. At any rate, we would not willingly assume as our own the exegetical task of the opponents of this truth. 8. Indeed, the entire spirit, no less than the letter, of Holy Scripture gives especially a clear testimony to the doctrine of an election by grace. What else than the independent, and partly at least inscrutable, good- pleasure of God is the cause that the seed of Abraham should be dis tinguished and highly favoured above all other nations, Jacob above Esau, Judah above all the sons -of Jacob, and by-and by David above his brothers ? From the last-named, after a time, is the Elect and Holy One of God born as man among men ; but even He chooses and calls again His followers from the crowd, His Apostles from the wider circle, the three confidants from the twelve, and from the three the one John to be His favourite par excellence. Certainly, this did not happen without a con nexion with natural disposition, capacity, and the proper development of those thus favoured; but, on the other hand, that which was inborn in them would hardly have ripened without the privilege thus given to them. In the cooperation thus apparent between the human and the Divine factor, it is the latter always which, so to speak, settles the point. Hence it comes that, according to Scripture, there lives in the Church the con sciousness of having become the heir by grace of the spiritual blessings of Israel, the chosen people by way of pre-eminence. And so it is that still, ever in agreement with reason and Scripture, the spiritual experience of believers expresses itself indubitably in favour of this confession. No Chris tian, however far he looks back on the path of his inner life, will hesitate to give to God all the honour of his admission into the church of the redeemed, and as expressly as possible to reject all self-glorying. In this respect we may look at Rom. iii. 27, the praise of faith in Rom viii. 28 — 39, and various sacred hymns, which may be called the spiritual expression of a belief built upon the united testimony of the Gospel and Experience. 9. Every one, who really believes in Christ, and on this ground expects salvation, may thus in this privilege acknowledge the fruit of a gracious design for his salvation, and thank God, who has chosen him in Christ from eternity, and in this life called him to a knowledge of the Gospel, brought him to belief, justified him, and in principle, at least, already glorified him. " The Divine plan of salvation cannot otherwise be con ceived of, than as it relates definitely to individuals, and to the mode and manner in which salvation is realised in them" (Rothe). Whoever, on the other hand, does not believe, and continues in sin, is lost temporarily and eternally by his own fault, and it is as reasonable as Scriptural to see in this nought less than the fulfilment of God's eternal plan.19 And yet not so, that we must assume a personal predestination to eternal Section liv. 6. '» John iii. 18, 36. THE PLAN OF SALVATION IN ITSELF. 45 1 damnation in the sense in which we have hitherto (in accordance with Scripture) spoken of a personal election to salvation. Much rather must it be plainly stated that the Gospel announces the latter, but nowhere declares the former. According to Jesus' own words,20 the ungodly go away into everlasting fire, originally prepared, not fur them, but for " the devil and his angels," and it is only as a result of inexact exegesis, and an inadmissible " consequenzmacherei," that any other view can be deduced from single passages of Scripture. It is plain from Rom. ix. 20, sqq., that God, according to St. Paul's declaration, has the power to deal with man, as the potter with the clay, but not that He really does so with the sons of men.21 Prov. xvi. 4 only says, that God has made everything to answer its own destination ; so that the wicked can, according to his state, only expect a day of evil. In Isaiah vi. 9, 10, there is undoubtedly mention of a judgment of hardening upon a guilty nature, but that is announced at that time for this reason, that many might thus escape by means of the way shown to them ; not to say that no Christian dogma should be built merely on single, isolated expressions of the Old Testament.22 That the design of God is fulfilled in the judgment of the unbelieving, is taught in the New Testament; 23 but where it speaks of election and predes tination, it knows of no other than that in Jesus Christ to life and salvation. In opposition to this there is not an inexorable predestination to destruc tion, merely because man has fallen in Adam — we have already seen that original sin in this sense is nowhere taught in the Gospel 24 — but simply a non-election, " non-discretio e communi massa. perditionis " (Augustine), which, as is evident from the example of Israel in Rom. xi., may even be merely temporary. To be elected, according to the Gospel, is always something joyous, never anything frightful; and the doctrine of reprobation, in the sense of the "gemina prsedestinatio," is only a logically natural, but not on that account an absolutely irrefutable, conclusion to the contrary, against which religious as well as moral consciousness must of course be opposed, and for which at least not a single word of the Saviour Himself gives a claim. Even in accordance with the confession of the Dutch Reformed Church, God reveals not His arbitrariness, but His justice, "in that He leaves the others in their fall and destruction, since they have cast themselves therein."25 10. What we have already said, naturally leads to the question how far may the Church confession on this point be called the pure expression of revealed truth ? Rightly does the Netherlands Church confess " that the Son of God has chosen to Himself from the whole human race a church to eternal life." 2G In order, however, to understand better the teaching on this point, we must call to mind what Calvin has said concerning the Decretum absolwumP According to the Reformer, God knows not only who will be saved, or not, but He has fixed this for every one by an irrevocable decree. 20 Matt. xxv. 41. ** Section lxxv. ii. 5. 21 Cf. Jerem. xviii. 5 — 10. 2S Nelh. Conf, Art. xvi. 22 Section viii. 6. 26 H. C, Ans. 54. 23 1 Pet. ii. 8 ; Jude 4. 27 Inst. R. C. iii. c. 21 — 24, compared with Consensus Pastorum Eccl. Genev. de Elemd Dei pradesiinatione (1551). G G 2 452 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. This decree was not first made in consequence of the fall, but must, as quite independent of it, be considered as free and eternal, so that even the fall itself is included in it. In consequence, then, of this decree, as part of mankind is intended to be saved, another part is irrevocably laid under the ban of eternal rejection (reprobatio). All are, indeed, outwardly called by the Gospel, but that calling on the part of God, so far as regards the reprobate, is in no way seriously intended. To the elect alone is given the special irresistible grace necessary for belief and conversion ; while the rest, even though using outwardly the means of grace, being deprived of His higher aid, do not become better, but worse. Yet in this God acts not with injustice, though His acts are incomprehensible, since He only renders to the sinner, already fallen in Adam, what his own guilt has deserved ; while, on the other hand, it is nothing but grace, when He rescues a few from the abyss in which all without distinction were sunk. n. It is this doctrine, — which, even in Calvin's life, was disputed at Geneva by Castellio and Bolsec ; but after his death, by Beza especially, still more urged and developed with almost mathematical accuracy and precision, — which was maintained at the Synod of Dordt in 1 6 18-19, against the Universalism of the Remonstrants ; with this qualification, that, while Gomarus and his allies continued to maintain the supralapsarian view, the more moderate (sublapsarian) view obtained the supremacy, and conse quently the absolute decree of God was regarded as taken in consequence of the fall in Adam, permitted by Him. Predestination was brought into the closest connexion with the revelation, on one side, of God's grace, on the other, of His justice ; and as to the former, special emphasis was laid on this, that the ground of the election was not to be found in any way in the fore seen faith of the elect (ex prcevisA fide), but in God's free and unalterable good-pleasure. From the standpoint of the Reformed Church, the faith given by God is a fruit and evidence of election. With the Remonstrants, on the contrary, the foreseen belief is the reason why men are elected. In the Canons of Dordt, in opposition to the well-known five Articles of the Remonstrants, the dogma is completely developed; it is presented in a like spirit (among others) in the Gallican Confession; whilst the strict Calvinistic (supralapsarian) view is only asserted in one churchly symbol, of later date and slight importance, the Form. Cons. Helv. (1675). 12. To arrive at a fair judgment on this question, we must never forget that we have to do with much more than the mere individual system of one reformer. The severely Deterministic view here favoured, could already point to a past of several centuries, before it found its sharply defined expression at Geneva and Dordt. If the fathers of the first three cen turies had generally expressed themselves with a considerable degree of indecision upon this delicate subject, Augustine, on the contrary, had em phatically placed the doctrine of a special predestination, as the foundation for that of a special grace, in the foreground in opposition to Pelagius, and Prosper Aquitanus (t 455) had very quickly followed his steps. An important step in advance in this path was made in the ninth century by the Frankish monk, Gottschalk (f 870), in speaking not merely of rejection THE PLAN OF SALVATION IN ITSELF. 453 but of a direct predestination to corruption, and even to error and sin. Among the Scholastics, at least Anselm, Peter Lombard, and Thomas Aquinas, were to a certain point in favour of the Augustinian view ; and long before the Reformation, Thomas Bradwardine (t 1349) and John Wickliff (f 1384) had in Fngland supported the idea of a rigorous predes tination. Among the Reformers, Zwingle was already, before Calvin, a consistent Determinist ; the conflict between Luther and Erasmus on Free Will (1526) had not led the former to any other result, and even Melancthon, in the first editions of his Loci, had favoured the same views. It was in later days, when the doctrine of co-operation had appeared with a force before unknown in the Lutheran Church, and the doctrine of the decretum conditionatum had been fixed in its Creeds, that the difference in principle between the Swiss and Lutheran Reformers was first felt in all its sharpness, and the history of Dogma has acquainted us with the bitter strife which it caused among the sons of the same house. The more ought it to be remarked, that the strongest opposition could not prevent Calvinism from forcing its roots deep into the ground of several countries and churches ; just as the ban of Rome has not been able to prevent the views of Augus tine from appearing with new strength among the Jansenists. Though opposed with all kinds of weapons by the Arminians, Socinians, the later Rationalists, as well as by the Anabaptists, Quakers, and others, it still con tinues to maintain its ground, lives constantly in the conscious faith of the noblest and most earnest sons of the Reformation ; and now, in our century, specially by means of Schleiermacher's influence, has been brought to renewed honour in the domain of science. Even the Modern Theology has now and then, not without a certain satisfaction, proclaimed its homogeneity in principle with Calvinism. So it is certainly not untimely to examine this theory somewhat more closely in the light pointed out in Art. vii. of the Netherlands Confession. 13. If we do this, then must we above all confess that the doctrine of Calvin, from a logical standpoint, is excellently conceived, and, so far, may be called a striking monument of the power of thought and strength of mind. For clearness and consistency it cannot be valued too highly, and the superiority of Calvinism above all other systems is plainly estimated, even by its opponents. It is an expression of the feeling of our absolute dependence upon God, and of our complete unworthiness in His sight upon the point of eternal salvation, which is drawn out as sharply as possible. The very thought that the fall of the first man must be excluded from the Divine predestination, Calvin can only regard as a frigidum comment 'urn ; and even though he confesses that the doctrine of reprobation is a decrdum horribile, he yet declares it, since he sees that he cannot yield it without injuring the unity of his system. Thus his definition stands fast, " Cadit homo, Dei providentia sic ordinante," though there must at once be added, on the other hand, '" Sed suo vitio cadit." By this last statement he seeks to escape the conclusion thatGodmust necessarily be the cause of sin; but, with the exception of this one point, he does not retreat before a single conclusion from the premisses from, which he starts. "La grandeur de Calvin," says Vinet, " est d'avoir su se retenir stir une pente horrible." Human thought, justice, compassion, must all retire into the shade before that which God's honour 454 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. is once seen to require. " Hie obmutescere oportet tam dicaces alioqui linguas." The sharp contrast between the revealed will and the secret counsel of God enables him, as it seems, to overcome every doubt, while it is easy enough for him to prove that difficulties of no less importance occur to his opponents from their standpoints. Not one link, in short, in the chain of his reasoning can be broken ; and while the apparently much more rational view of Luther is accused, and that not entirely unreasonably, of an " unsteady oscillation to and fro," 28 from Calvin, at least, no one will withhold the praise that, even in this domain, he proved himself a thoroughly consistent man. No wonder that the relative truth and high value of his system, after former undeserved misconception, has been anew recog nised in our days by dogmatists of distinction and influence. It may safely be predicted, that the future development of the doctrine of salvation will in no case start from a mere superficial disavowal of this grand and masterly structure. 14. Yet will this future doctrine, we dare conjecture, just as much hesitate to accept the Calvinistic theory in all its details as the accurate expression of revealed truth, and as the last words of Christian science in this mysterious domain. We may safely confess that Calvin has declared a great truth, without, on that account, considering his system as the adequate expression of the full truth. To us, at least, it seems incontestable, that the great question is viewed here only from one, i.e., the Divine side, without permitting the opposite declarations, both of Holy Scripture and of the Christian consciousness, to attain their proper force. If the dialectic- reasoning intellect is of the highest value in the domain of Theology, we consider the doctrine of Calvin irrefutable ; but if the human soul and the Christian conscience have the right of voting here, we cannot be surprised that only a relatively small number have had the moral courage to follow the line of thought of the Reformer to the extreme. Many words, at any rate, in the Gospel, which testify of an universal plan of salvation, and know of no other hindrances to the salvation of the sinner save those within himself, can, from this standpoint, be only cleared away by means of an exegesis, in some degree forced and arbitrary. From this stand point there is not merely a subjective, but an objective, contrast between God's revealed and hidden will ; and to him who has once got behind the secret, the first becomes nothing but a pure illusion. It is true, when beginning our reasoning from the conception of God, we must inevitably come upon the line of Calvinism ; but when, on the other hand, we start from man, we come just as necessarily to the opposite position, and the higher Theanthropological unitv in which the two lines meet is to our view at least not in this way presented. If Calvinism can find a powerful support in the religious feeling, the moral consciousness, on the other hand, opposes it with no slight force; and the voice of every human heart, which is raised against an absolute decretum reprobationis, may not be indefinitely 1 ejected as a voice of flesh and blood. Even Logic runs the risk of becoming illogical when it will not be illuminated by the Logos, and transfers its inexorable conclusions to God's ways and works, without 28 Strauss, a. a. O., ii. 442. THE PLAN OF SALVATION IN ITSELF. 455 asking whether there are moral grounds which invite us to an opposite conclusion. The honour of God may even require that, in our reasoning, we should rather be holily inconsequent, than, from respect to a syllogism, be guilty of blasphemy against God. Yet here we have to do with some thing higher than abstract ideas — even with living realities; not merely with the master and his tools, but with that holy Love which executes its adorable resolves by means of the freedom conferred by itself.29 15. And if even after Calvin the problem remains unsolved, we must not think that whatever has afterwards been brought forward either to soften or to develop his doctrine, while the principle is retained, raises us entirely above these and other difficulties. The hypothetical Universal- ism of the Saumur Theologians30 — to mention only a few examples — put prominently forward, indeed, that God wills the salvation of all men, but nevertheless maintained that only the elect can tread the way thereto, and in the attempt thus to reconcile Universalism and Particularism, gained the reputation of greater moderation, at the cost only of consistency. — The sympathy shown by Schleiermacher and his friends for Calvinism, does not prevent its becoming in their hands something totally different from what it originally was. Where the election relates not to the state after death, but only to the earlier or later coming to Christ, the whole matter becomes simply a question of time, and the doctrine of the Apokatastasis, so inexorably rejected by Calvin, becomes the Gordian sword, by which the entangled mesh is easily cut through. — Least of all does the modern Determinism deserve to be welcomed as a new and better edition of the ancient Calvinism. The two start from a view of the world, which is quite distinct in principle, and the idea of guilt, so emphatically maintained by Calvin, is here entirely lost.— But neither does the cloud vanish from before our eyes, when we either entirely deny the doctrine of predestination to salvation, or consider the ultimate ground of this predesti nation as placed in man himself. Or is not this last especially in irrecon cilable conflict with the result of proper theological thought, and real spiritual experience ? Is not the highest comfort of the faithful, and their greatest power for sanctification, injured in this way ? Aye, and may not Indeterminism as easily lead to Atheism, as the contrary to Fatalism ? 16. And so, after all, the conclusion cannot be difficult. Undoubtedly does the Calvinistic doctrine of election to life d crve a preference above all other churchly dogmatic developments, which are placed along side or opposite it. It announces a glorious truth, taught in the Gospel of the Scriptures ; but of which it is not at any rate given to us to dencte the harmony with other equally undeniable utterances of Scripture and conscience, so satisfactorily as to have no single difficulty, remaining. Gladly would we look for this indication from others who scarcely can find words enough to praise the Calvinistic Particularism — provided they express themselves clearly and plainly, and employ no church flag to cover a cargo of wholly Unreformed and, what signifies more, Unscriptural ideas. The attempt to apprehend and develop more profoundly the doctrine of the Divine plan of salvation undoubtedly belongs to the task which 26 Compare § lxii. II. " See the Traite sur la Predestination of Amyraud. 1634. 456 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. Christian science has to fulfil ; but whether it will ever perfectly succeed, at any rate still remains a quest'on: it will certainly approach more easily to its end when we follow the historico-empiric path, rather than that of mere speculation. Reasonable as it is, in agreement with Scripture, to speak of an individual election to eternal life, and happy as it is to comfort oneself therewith, equally presumptuous is it to elevate this personal comfort to a system which would explain nothing less than the entire relation between God and man. 17. Whatever mysteries, however, remain, this much is easily seen, that not a few of the objections, which in all ages have been made to the dogma in question, rest in a great degree in misconception or exaggera tion. To the reproach that this dogma exhibits a fatalistic character, we may reply, that Fatalism may much more be called the caricature of Scriptural predestination. We do not here speak of an inexorable and blind fate, which rules everything, even the Godhead itself; but of a holy, wise, and merciful good-pleasure, which, while very far from treating man as a machine, accomplishes the design of His love, in complete accordance with the natural and moral constitution of man. " Election is not merely a heavenly decree of God, which is only realised in positive fate. It is much more realised from within, through the religious disposition which composes the internal characteristic of human nature" (Lange). — Still less can it be called unjust that God even in the spiritual domain does not give the same privileges to all. Even with respect to the diversity of gifts in the domain of the mind, fortune, etc., this objection to a certain degree exists, without however justifying the surrender of the belief in the righteousness of God's love. Has God no right to do with His own as He will ? is He in any way indebted to any creature ? and is it as yet proved of all whom we cannot yet number among the elect, that they will continue till the end beyond the kingdom of God ? Will Israel be the only one, on whose face alone the vail was for a time placed ? was not St. Paul before a persecutor of the Church? and in any case is not the complaint of injustice premature, so long as the Divine plan is still so far from being completed ? — Least of all is there ground for the reproach that this doctrine makes God the cause of evil, and thus renders man either careless or desperate. That the misuse of this truth, like that of every other, may lead to misery of different kinds, is evident ; but this proves nothing in itself against the accuracy of our statement. So long as with regard to sin we only maintain the distinction between permission and predestination, we run no risk of thinking blasphemously of the Holy One. The belief in His eternal decree, in consequence of which only the believer is saved, is as little a pretext for sloth, as the recognition of a Divine government of the world dispenses with the duty of human activity. Whoever finds here leave for careless ness and sin, shows by this, that he belongs only in appearance, and not in reality, to God's elect and loved ones. In the well-known case of the man who amused himself by saying that he was a "predestined thief" he fully deserved the answer that " he was predestined to be handed.'' In opposition to such fatal eccentricities stands the important fact, that none of the Reformers has done more service to Christian morals than the man cf so many reproaches, Calvin. THE PLAN OK SALVATION IN ITSELF. 457 18. There is no reason for banishing the doctrine of Predestination to life from the public preaching of the Gospel. Much rather is it of great importance in these days to maintain it rightly against so much theoretical and pract cal Pelagianism. But in no case are we at liberty to separate this truth from its foundation, given in the Evangelical revelation of the decree of redemption ; and still less to contrast it with this latter in such a manner that the announcement of God's counsel for the salvation of a lost world thus degenerates in the end into an unmeaning mystification. Let us here speak of predestination as St. Paul, who treats of it expressly and at length, not in Rom. i., but in Rom. viii., and with the prudence of the Heidelberg Catechism, which mentions it but once, in Ans. 54, but no where speaks of a predestination to perdition. Let us place, too, in the fore ground, that God seriously wills the salvation of all ; that there is nought else but a "reprobatio consequens" as the result of one's own obstinate resistance ; that no one is doomed to be lost, merely because it was once thus decreed with regard to hiui ; and that personal belief, without any further extraordinary revelation, is the unmistakable sign of our calling and election to life. So for these reasons let the preacher excite men to ardent gratitude, continual sanctification,31 and a joyous exultation of faith (Rom. viii. 28 — 30). Like St. Paul,32 let us resist the obstinate contradiction of haughty unbelief, and comfort those desirous of salvation with the an nouncement of a full and free Gospel, whereby no one is excluded, who does not exclude himself. The more, too, the statement of this part of the t.uth of salvation exhibits a Christo-centric character — in accordance with Augustine's saying, " Christus praaclarissimum lumen prsedestinationis et gratiae " — the less need we fear its misuse, the more abundant fruit may we expect. Here specially is a source of comfort and strength to the suffering and struggling faith, which can neither be fathomed nor exhausted. But the science of faith finds here on the one side a point of departure, and on the other a goal, for its sanctified reflection, than which none more firm or more beautiful can be conceived.33 Placed in the full light of the pure Gospel, the " cor ecclesia? " is alike the " thesaurus fidei " and the " lumen scientist nostra?." Compare Lange's article Vorherbestimmung, in Herzog, R. E., xvii. ; and on the Biblical doctrine of predestination, especially that of Rom. ix. — xi., the well-known Writings of E. W. Krummacher (1856), J. A. Lamping (1858), and W. Beyschxag (1868) ; on the Church teaching, see A. Schweitzer, Glaubensl. der Ref. Kirche (1844), i., § 8, sqq.; Centraldogmen, ii. (1856), § i., sqq.; SCHOLTEN, ii. bl. 455, sqq. (4th ed.) ; J. J. v. Toorenenbergen, t. a. p. on Artt. 16 and 17 of the N. C; J. P. Lange, iVelche Geltung qebiihrt der Eigenthiimlichk. der Ref. K. u. s. w., in his Verm.-Schrif neue Folge, ii. 1 (i860). As an attempt to point out the higher unity in the Reformed and Lutheran teaching of predestination, its treatment by Martensen, a. a. 0., p. 399, sqq., deserves special mention. As a model of homiletic treatment, see the discourses of A. DES Amorie v. d. Hoeven (1848) on Rom. viii. 28 — 30. Comp. J. J. v. Oosterzee, Geloofsroem, pub ished in Woorden des Levens (3rd ed., 1867), bl. 239 ; and a Sermon of A. Kuijper, in his Second Series (1870), bl. I, sqq. 31 Ephes. i. 3, 4 ; 2 Pet. i. 10. 32 Rom. ix. 16—23. 33 Compare Rom. v. 20, 21 ; xi. 32—36. 453 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. Points for Inquiry. Why does the treatment of the decretum salutis precede that of pradestinatio ad salutem, in Christian Dogmatics ?— Maintenance of the Evangelical Universalism against every arbitrary exegetical, or philosophical limitation. - The foundation of the Evangelical doctrine of predestination in the Old Testament.— Further setting forth of the exegetical proof— History of the dogma before the Reformation.— The di.,erence in principle between the Reformed and Lutheran views.— The decision of the Synod of Dordt on the Five Articles of the Remonstrants of 1610.— Meaning and importance of the distinction between the Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian views.— The Theologians of Saumur.— Schleiermacher contrasted with Calvin.— Later disputes within and without the Reformed Church —Is it necessary to cling to the doctrine of absolute and eternal reprobation ?— Is complete and severe consistency on this point necessary and possible ?— Calvinism contrasted with Modernism, and in relation to the Ethical School.— The only safe way to a further successful treatment of the Dogma.— Comlort and lorce of this truth. SECTION LXXXIII— THE FIRST RAYS OF LIGHT. The revelation of the mystery of the Divine plan of salvation was not made at once, but gradually, and with the most careful pre paration. Scarcely has the night of sin descended, before the first rays of light rise in the promises of salvation made to Adam, Shem, and the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; while the whole of the earliest history of man, before the flood, as well as during the patriarchal era, is in direct connexion with this preparation for the work of Redemption. 1. As we have henceforth to watch the development of the Divine plan of salvation in its historic course, we must go back in thought to the cradle of mankind, and for this purpose make use of the oldest Bible-documents, whose historical truth and value is recognised by Christian Dogmatics, while referring as far as is necessary to what has elsewhere been said in support of this authority. Of course this preliminary history can heie only be sketched in its general outline. Still no single link in this chain must be entirely overlooked, because the gradual development of the revelation is one of the greatest proofs of its all-surpassing excellence.1 2. Hardly is sin in the world befoie the seeking love of God begins its long work.2 The first "Adam, where art thou?" gives evidence of this at once in a striking manner; and still more the enmity which God imme diately places between the tempter and his victim. Just as the work of creation, so does the work of re-creation at once begin by separating light from darkness. Specially, however, does the well-known mother-promise 3 cause a first friendly ray to rise upon the night of sin. There is as 1 Compare § xxxiii. 3. 2 Compare Neth. Conf., Art. xvii. 3 Geii. iii. 15, 16. THE FIRST RAYS OF LIGHT. 459 little reason for the common rationalistic explanation which will only regard it as the hostility between men and serpents, as for the old orthodox idea, which finds here at once a definite, direct, and absolute announcement of the Messiah. Undoubtedly Christ is in the promise, but only as the oak is already in the acorn, or the perfect writing in the first unpractised strokes of the pen. The notion of Seed in the first and second half of the promise can only be understood in its collective meaning; a wide circle is thus revealed to our eye, whose unalterable, but still concealed, centre is the God-min. No less and no more is announced, than that henceforth there will be an irreconcilable contest between mankind and the kingdom of darkness, in which the first will be sensibly wounded, but the last will at length be completely conquered in and by the first. This conflict, begun long before Christ, but decided in principle by His death on the cross, is continued on an ever greater scale within and by His Church, until the completion of the ages ; and it was, perhaps, not without an allusion to the Paradise gospel that St. Paul promised' to the Church " the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet."4 3. No further revelation of salvation, so far as we know, is made up to the time of the Flood. And yet we are not entirely without proofs, that the light, rekindled in Eden, has in no way disappeared from the view of the first inhabitants of the earth. An indefinite feeling of hope is heard in the words spoken by Eve, at the birth of Cain f and also by Lamech6 at that of Noah. But in vain, " sicut Heva fallitur, ita quoque nimio desiderio resti- tutionis mundi fallitur ille bonus Lamechus" (Luther). For the present the want of a renewed communion with God can only find satisfaction in prayers and sacrifice. We have not premisses enough to determine whether this service of sacrifice sprang from a purely human feeling, or from a direct Divine command, or from a union and meeting of the two. But certainly, this form of worship must receive an increased consecration from the marked approval granted to Abel's sacrifice,7 and in later times could more easily become the type of the salvation of the New Testament. Round the altar of Enos8 we presently see the first church assembled, and even in the midst of the increasing corruption there still remain a few who are true to God, who are by-and-by represented by Enoch.9 His walk with God in a holy familiarity shows that the image of God in mankind had not yet hopelessly disappeared. His prophecy, the most ancient known,10 speaks of God coming to judge the wicked, and for that very reason to redeem all who continue to look for a higher salvation. His translation without dying,11 reveals anew to a race, forgetful of God, the existence of a holy and omniscient God, of a life after death, and of a certain retribution. 4. That retribution comes at its proper time, but Noah finds grace in the eyes of the Lord, and after the Flood we see the preparation for the revelation of salvation advanced a step. The preservation bestowed upon 4 Rom. xvi. 20. " Gen. iv. 26. 5 Gen. iv. I. ' Gen. v. 24. 6 Gen. v. 29. 10 Jude 14, 15. ' Gen. iv. 4. " Heb: xi. 5, 6. 460 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. a chosen part of mankind proves already that there are still and ever in God's heart thoughts of peace, even when His hand is stretched out to destroy. Noah comes forth as prophet, priest, and king, the new parent of mankind, as before the first Adam had been ; and at the same time a type in a degree of Him who should come. With him God makes a covenant,12 in which He renews the former promise of salvation made to the old world ; while the covenant-law, given, in the so-called Noachic commandments,13 exhibits the unmistakable attempt to check the renewed outburst of moral evil, at least in its rudest form. Specially does the prophetic blessing, pronounced on Shem above his brothers,14 offer a striking hint for the future. The God of Shem will particularly reveal His highest favour to him, and Japhet, dwelling in the tents of Shem, will thus become also a partaker of his spiritual privileges. " Here first flashes out in the most general outlines the thought, which is soon more plainly expressed in the history of the Patriarchs, that the salvation of the nations will come from the bosom of She'm " (Tuch). The promise, made to this son of Noah, forms as it were the transition between the earliest Universalism and the later Particularism of the revealed salvation ; and where we see this last now and again come out from its former premisses, there is it constantly evident, that the supranaturalistic conception of the Divine record is at the same time the properly organic one. 5. Soon, alas ! it is plain that the new world has remained in almost every respect the old, only with this distinction, that the complete desertion of God in the earlier world has been followed by a polytheism and idolatry which makes a great change in the revelation of the Divine plan of salvation absolutely necessary. From the tree of the Semitic race, to which was given the Divine promise, a single branch is separated, planted in a strange soil, carefully tended, and developed into a tree, which soon with twelve strong branches casts its shadow over Canaan. In Ur of the Chaldees, where it originally worshipped idols,15 is Abraham's race elected to preserve for a later and better time the knowledge and service of the one true God. Abraham, a rock— not in the sense of the criticism of these days, but in that of Isaiah li. 1, — becomes the spiritual ancestor of the faithful, whose name and reputation soon fills the whole East, and still continues to live in a venerated memory among the professors of the three religions of the world. If we believe in a personal living God, we shall not then esteem it inconceivable, but much rather most worthy of God, that He, who in His Son will enter into a renewed relation with man, now communicates more specially with a highly privileged person and race. Great and divine thoughts of salvation, still far removed from realisation, cannot be communicated at all, or only to a select few, and the entire Particularism, which was preceded and succeeded by Universalism, was, besides, merely temporary, and only a means of transition. Thus' God makes a covenant with Abraham and his race ; i.e., God places Himself in a definite relation to him, marked on one side by the best of promises on the other by the holiest duties. The foundation of the covenant dates 12 Gen. ix. 17. 1, Gen ix 2fi Gen. ix. 4, sqq. is Joshf ^ '2 THE FIRST RAYS OF LIGHT. 461 from the calling of Abraham — not from the time of Moses — and the giving of the law upon Sinai, in after days, was only a renewing and confirming of it. It is a special covenant with a single people, with an unlimited prospect of matchless salvation for the world. 6. In Canaan we soon see new rays of light break through the dark clouds. The founding of Monotheism in one house and race, from which it will never afterwards be uprooted, in this connexion becomes a fact of utmost significance. Even though it had not died out in other places,16 and at times it was still accompanied by the worship of idols among the race of Abraham,17 it is soon seen that this race takes a higher place in the ethico -religious domain, than all the other descendants of Shem. The God, who is here adored, is the God of Vision, the Almighty, the Righteous One, the Omnipresent.18 Whatever weakness we may see dis closed in Abraham, he never for a moment yields to the temptation of the Canaanitish idolatry, and the result of the heaviest trial of his faith19 can only serve to place an impassable gulf between his religion and theirs. The unity of God is here firmly established, and — it lies in the nature of the case that the highest salvation of the world can only come from a Monotheistic race. Besides, we see at once, in connexion with this belief, a much higher development of the religious and moral life here, than is elsewhere found. With all their failings and weaknesses the Patriarchs stand far above their contemporaries, as bearers of the special revelations of God. They feel and show themselves strangers, not merely in Canaan,20 but on the earth, who live less for the present than in the future life. From the consciousness of their personal relation to God is developed a hope, as yet more fixed than clear, which reaches beyond this present life.21 All this, though in a lessened degree, p tssed to their children, and made them not only long for a higher revelation, but more capable of receiving it. 7. The definite promises of this period more especially attract our attention. They are the first to which express reference is made in the New Testa ment.22 Thrice to Abraham, and by-and-by to Isaac and Jacob also, it is said that " in their seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed."23 It is thus plainly declared that Abraham was to be a source of blessing to the whole world, though the nature of that blessing was as yet as little definitely announced, as was the descendant of Abraham, who should be the means of this highest salvation. True, that in two at least of these passages24 we may also translate (in Hithpael) "in you and your seed shall all races bless themselves ;" in other words, so great shall your blessing be, that the announcement of it will become a formula of blessing for all nations.25 But in the three other passages the translation (in Niphal), " be 16 Gen. xiv. 18. " Gen. xxxv. 1 — J. 18 Gen. xvi. 13 ; xvii. I ; xviii. 25 ; xxviii. 16. 19 Gen. xxii. 14. 20 Heb. xi. 13—16. al Gen. xlix. 18. 22 Gal. iii. 8, sqq. 23 Gen. xii. 3 ; xviii. 18 ; xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4 ; xxviii. 14, 24 Gen. xxii. 18 ; xxvi. 4. Compare Gen. xlviii. 20. 462 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. blessed," is the most exact, and it plainly expresses that all races not only- promise themselves and each other a blessing as great as that of Abraham, but would actually receive it in and through him. No wonder that this promisa continually echoes through the writings of the Old and the New Testament.26 Whatever mysteriousness they might as yet retain for Abraham, is dimi nished by the legitimate conjecture that the Patriarch did not entirely fail of a still nearer revelation of the future day of salvation ; 27 while besides, in this epoch we must not overlook the first appearance of that entirely unique Angel of the Lord, who long before the Incarnation of the Logos, was nov. only the messenger of God's revelation, but the bearer of His name anc( glory- 8. We see that the golden line, which begins to show itself, is only apparently broken off for an instant in Egypt. If separation from Heathen dom was the first link, oppression was the second in the chain of God's guidance of the elect race. Thus only could Israel become a nation, drawn together more closely than twelve different shepherd tribes, and preserved from the abominations of Canaanitish idolatry, without running the risk of mixing with it in Egypt, where the shepherd was an abomina tion to the people. "Nothing but oppression and slavery in the foreign land could lay the foundation of that kind of hostility which was, for a healthy religious life in Israel, to exist between it and the heathen world. There, first of his nation, did Joseph, the one set apartfrom among his brethren, tread the path which leads through suffering to glory. But there, too, did the dying Jacob28 speak to Judah the great words which promised to him rule and honour "until Shiloh come" (in other words, the rest = the Rest- bringer), whom the nations should obey. Before his failing eye seems for the first time to rise in the far distance the image of a Prince of Peace, soon to be delineated by Israel's singers and seers with the choicest lines. " The personal conception of the rrj* is in most beauteous harmony with the constant progress of the revelation of salvation" (Keil). Compare, as to the credibility of the history of salvation in Genesis in general, the already mentioned writings of Lange, Keil, H engstenberg, and others ; Bunsen, Bibel- werk, v. 1 (i860), pp. 43 — 104, and G. Ebers, ALgyfte und die Biicher Mosis., i. (1868). As to the most ancient promises of salvation, J. J. v. Oosterzee, Christologie, i. (1855), bl. 75, sqq.; G. K. Mayer, Die Patriarchal. Verheissungen (1859). Upon the Angel of Jehovah, Lange, Genesis (1864), pp 97 — 202, and the literature mentioned there. Points for Inquiry. Further discussion of the most important passages treated here, and maintenance of their Soteriological significance. — How to explain the extremely slow course and still indefinite character of the revelations of God's Salvation. —Criticism of the opposite principle and aim. 26 See, e.g., Ps. Ixxii. 17 ; Acts iii. 25, 26; Eph. i. 3. 27 John viii. 56. 23 Gen. xlix. 10. MOSAISM. 463 SECTION LXXXIV. — MOSAISM. Still more has Mosaism, itself only explicable as the fruit of a special revelation, been, for the Israelitish people, in many ways, the powerful agent in preparing the way for the development of the Divine plan of salvation. Not only the law given by Moses, but the entire religion established by Moses, and the government of God founded by Moses, may be called, in St. Paul's words, a " schoolmaster to Christ." 1. With Mosaism we enter upon a new period of development in the preparation for a higher revelation, a period which differs in many respects from the preceding. It bears throughout the character of a period of transi tion, in which Particularism becomes the means to lead the way to subse quent Universalism. It is closely allied to the person and work of Moses, and, even where it accepts new elements,1 runs incessantly forward to the fulness of time.2 2. Mosaism comes forth in history, not only as the revelation of the religious spirit in Israel, but as the fruit of a special intervention of God, which now made itself known to Moses — as before to the Patriarchs — and made him the mediator of the Old Covenant. Naturally, we cannot here treat of the person and history of Moses himself ; but it is enough, that the revealed character of his religion is not only established by many voices, and announced in a succession of facts, but is most emphatically supported by the testimony of the Lord and His Apostles. Neither Monotheism in Israel, nor the personality of Moses himself, nor the ethical and pro phetical peculiarity of his religion, nor the earlier or later history of his people, are explicable from Naturalistic premisses. " As little is the national spirit of Israel the holv spirit of Revelation, as is the spirit of Moses, as such, the founder of the Old Testament religion — but it is the Divine creative Spirit which is witnessed in the human spirit, and which by redemption and reconciliation leads mankind to life in Christ " (Schultz). First by reason of this its character does Mosaism occupy, in the revela tion of the Divine economy, a really different place from that which can, e.g., be ascribed to Parseeism or Buddhism. 3. Already was the separation and call of Moses in itself a proof that God continued to think of His covenant with Abraham and his seed. Even the miraculous deliverance of Israel by him was intended to advance and prepare for the revelation of God's name in the heathen world.3 But specially must the Mosaic law, whose main contents are the ten command ments, according to St. Paul's statement, be the schoolmaster to Christ,4 for 1 Sections Ixxxv., lxxxvi. 3 Exod. ii. 23 — 26; xv. 14 — 16. 2 Section lxxxix. 4 Gal. iii. 24. 464 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. the child still under age, and easily led away. It was indeed intended, partly morally to develop the nation, and at any rate to preserve it from the wildest outbursts of the worst evils ; partly to reveal sin, as sin, by putting it in the strongest light;6 partly, in the last place, by this means to excite the feeling of guilt and the need of grace, without which we cannot seriously speak of a moral capacity for deliverance. The abundant contents, as well as the categorical and prohibitive form, of the law was excellently adapted to attain this triple object, and the history of the most distin guished men, e.g., David, Isaiah, Daniel, John the Baptist, St. Paul and others, shows that this Divine institution has even in this respect borne most abundant fruit. The law remains even after the fulness of time — as is evident from history and the nature of the case— intended for, and suited to this end, and it is entirely in accordance with the spirit of the New Testament that the Dogmatics of the Reformation has so emphatically enforced the usus elenchticus seu pcedagogicus legis. 4. Not only the law, but the entire religion of Moses exhibits in different ways a prophetic character. Already had the idea of God, as it is announced here, in which the holiness and supreme majesty of God are prominent,6 although the idea of His mercy and grace is by no means wanting, 7 already had this Mosaic conception of God the natural aim of exciting a deep feeling of sin.— The sacrifices and solemnities satisfied on the one hand the need of communion with God, but at the same time caused a longing look for a time in which that communion should be more true and complete. Markedly is the sacrifice of expiation in its different lorms here of great significance. He who brought it declared in other words that he had deserved death for a crime which, by the laying on of the hand, was symbolically transferred to the offering, and on the other hand received in the blood-sprinkling the assurance that guilt was done away and covered as it were by a veil of blood before God's holy eye. But when we consult the Scriptures of the New Testament, then had the whole sacrificial system, besides this direct aim, a still more extended meaning. It must be the typico- symbolical announcement of a salvation, which would first be brought into the world in later days in its full reality, by the intervention of a perfect offering.8 — Finally, in the days and from the standpoint of the law, there were not wanting more direct prophetic prospects which stand in manifest connexion with the development of the hope of salvation. We allude here even in some measure to the remarkable utterance of Balaam,9 which has not, indeed, a direct Messianic significance, but yet opens up a prospect of kingly rule and victory, most grandly realised in the house of David ; but more particularly to the promise which Moses by reason of a special revelation pronounced before his departure,10 that a Prophet like himself should rise up from the midst of his brethren, whom they must hear. Though the connexion does not permit us to understand here the word m; (just as yjj. Gen. iii. 15), in anything but a collective sense, yet here the Prophetic condition is denoted in the form of an ideal personality, like 5 Rom. iii. 20 ; v. 20 ; vii. 7. 8 See Col. ii. 17 ; Heb. x. ; and many other places. 6 Lev. xix. 2. 9 Num. xxiv. 17. ' Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7. 10 Deut. xviii. 15—18. MOSAISM. 465 to Moses himself ; an ideal, as is evident from the issue, first fully realised in Him, with respect to whom was heard the heavenly " Hear Him." Hence, even in the days of the New Testament the Messias was with the highest right regarded as the crown of Prophetism.11 5. Even the whole Theocracy established by Moses, stood in close con nexion with the Kingdom of God founded by Christ. By its institution Israel was actually distinguished from all other nations, and thus raised far above them.12 By its revelation through direct Divine interpositions was faith strengthened, but at the same time the desire for further revelation was quickened. By its maintenance in continual judgments the national conscience was sharpened, and the name of the Lord made known far beyond the limits of the chosen people. Yea, the whole dwelling of God in the midst of His people may be called the shadow and prophecy of the blessing to be first fulfilled at a much later time.13 Here is there not merely, as in the heathen world, a dim instinct of mankind to enter into communion with God, but a drawing nigh of God to man, a bowing down on His side, who will not rest till the last wall of partition has fallen, which still separates the sinner from his Maker. 6. Thus Mosaism as a whole displays not merely a propasdeutic- paedagogic, but a typico-symbolic character; indeed, "the entire Old Testament is one great Prediction, one great Type of Him who should come, and is come " (De Wette). Undoubtedly has the so-called Typical Theology, in earlier days supported by Jewish Theologians, and after wards by Christian Fathers, and specially favoured in the Reformed Church by Coccejus, d'Outrein, van Til, Witsius, Vitringa, and others, gained a sad notoriety by the numerous plays of false wit to which it gave occasion. But even here the abuse does not condemn the use, and he who denies the existence of all symbols and types in Mosaism, directly contradicts, not merely Peter, Paul, and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, but the Lord Himself. The proposition, that the cultus of the Old Testament displays a typico-symbolic character, is not in itself unac ceptable, and by comparison with other ancient religions at once obtains a high degree of probability. But particularly when, in accordance with the Gospel, we believe in the design of Mosaism to point out a higher revelation, and to prepare Israel for it, does Typology, if confined within suitable limits, belong to the organism of the Revelation of Salvation. " The idea of typical development is inseparable from that of a teleological development, where the present is big with the future " (Martensen). If already in the domain of nature we see the higher in a certain respect announced and foreshadowed by the preceding lower, why should not the same rule hold good in the kingdom of grace, where everything, either directly or indirectly, is striving towards a preordained centre? Only let us take care, never to separate the typical in certain persons or things (typi personates et reates), from the symbolism of the whole religious dis pensation to which it necessarily belongs ; nor lose sight of the distinction 11 Compare John i". 25 ; vi. 14 ; Acts iii. 22, 23. 12 Compare Exod. iv. 22 ; Deut. vii. 6. 13 John i. 14 ; Rev. xxi. 3. H H 466 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. between mere comparisons and agreements,14 and types and symbols of the New Testament directly ordained of God ; nor point out any other traits in Mosaism, as such, but those which the Lord Himself and His first witnesses point out in the New Testament Scriptures ; and specially let us not overlook the distinction between the capacity and needs of children, who must be fed with milk, and those of full age, who must have strong meat. Typology is only then to be admitted, where the words of Hebrews vi. i, 2, are our motto. 7. " So, as it were still concealed in the bud, are all the impulses of Israel's hope of salvation already enclosed in this period" (Schultz). It will indeed be always difficult to answer the question, how far this pro phetic side of Mosaism was understood and comprehended in the days of the Old Testament. Of the more cultivated at least we know, that they saw the unsatisfactoriness of the external form of religion, and often expressed loudly the necessity for a spiritual sacrifice.15 Men saw even in the law depths which only could be penetrated by a Divine light.16 If we may assume with some that along with the Scriptures of the Old Testament a word-of-mouth tradition of the Divine mysteries of salvation was preserved and extended as a precious treasure, in this way certainly many a want is provided for. By-and-by, too, Prophetism began gradually to supply what was wanting in Mosaism, and whatever the clearness of the prospects thus revealed might leave to be desired, their steadfastness for the belief in God never could be shaken. Viewed in the light of the event, it cannot for a moment be doubted, " that though the ceremonies and figures of the law ceased at the coming of Christ, still their truth and substance remains in Christ." (N. C, Art. xxv.) Comp. Calvin, Instil, ii., ch. 7; A. Dillmann, Ueber dem Ursprung der A. T. Religion (1865) ; L. Kueper, Das Priesterth des A. B. (1865) ; R. Kuebel, Das A. T. Gezetz und seine Urkunde, u. s. w. (1867) ; H. Schultz, Alt. Testament!. Theol. i. (1869), p. 86, sqq.; and, as regards particulars, J. J. v. Oosterzee, The Btbl. T'heol. of N. T. (Eng. trans.), p. 4, and the literature quoted there ; also Christologie, iii. (1861), bl. H— 22. A psychologically probable description of the inner life in Israel, as this was developed by the law (and the prophets), is to be found in Helon's Walljahrt nach Jerusalem, by F. Strauss, 2nd ed. (1843). Points for Inquiry. Is there sufficient ground for considering Mosaism as a fruit of special revelation ?— Why is the Law particularly adapted to act as a preparation for the Gospel ? — What Evangelical elements are already hidden in Mosaism ? — The right and wrong of Typology. " See Num. xxi. 8, 9 ; compare John iii. 14, 15. 15 Ps. Ii. 16—19; Isa. i. II, sqq.; Micah vi. 6—8. 18 Ps. cxix. 18. THE REIGN OF THE KINGS. 467 SECTION LXXXV. — THE REIGN OF THE KINGS. The reign of the kings in Israel was by no means the end of Theocracy; it was rather the starting-point for a new revelation. From out of the tribe of Judah is chosen the royal house, out of which the Salvation of the world is to come. Henceforth is developed the expectation of a Messiah, whose suffering and glory is the subject of poetic and prophetic description, and whose coming is more ardently desired, as the splendour of royalty and nationality is dimmed. Finally, the fall of that Royalty, and the disappearance of the Theocracy, prepares the shortest way for the Kingdom of God, foretold of old by the Prophets. 1. The rise of royalty in Israel, far from being the end of the Theocracy, was rather its modification and at the same time its development. The sin of the people, which roused the indignation of Samuel,1 consisted not in the fact that Israel desired a king, but in that it desired a king "like all the nations." In itself the institution of a visible kingdom conflicted so little with God's design, that there was already found in Deuteronomy2 a so-called royal law, of which it has indeed been asserted, though not esta blished, that it was first given long after the time of Moses. Even in the time of the Judges we meet with aspirations towards a kingdom,3 which in principle were not reprehensible. Only, the king over this people must not be an autocrat, but rather a theocrat par excellence, a viceroy and minister of God, listening to the voice of the prophets, and clearly attached to Mosaism. In Saul too much of this character was missing to expect from a man like him the furtherance of such an idea even for one step. So he is rejected4 as unsuitable, and Jehovah proves much more severe than Samuel, whilst it soon appears that no king whatever, save the man after God's heart alone, was to be a real blessing to Israel. Even by the contrast between Saul and David, the idea of a true theocratic king, as it was to be fully realised one day in the Messias of the Gospels, was brought to the consciousness of the people. 2. Till the time of Samuel and Saul the expectation of salvation, dating from an earlier age, seems to have slumbered; atleast, in the period between Moses and David we do not meet with any noteworthy traces of its exist ence. It is like the seed, which when cast into the ground disappears for a time from view, till it reappears in an entirely different form of life. With the call of David, however, the tribe of Judah comes a step nearer the high dignity already promised to it in earlier times,6 and to this prince nothing 1 I Sam. viii. 5, sqq. f I Sam. xv. II. 2 Deut, xvii. 14 — 20. * Gen. xlix. 10. 8 Judges viii. 22 ; I Sam. ii. 10. H H 3 468 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. less is predicted, than an eternal kingdom in his house, crowned wi£; God's greatest blessing. This indeed is the contents of the promise6 made most solemnly to him by Nathan on behalf of God. Once again to him, as formerly to Adam and Abraham, mention is made of his seed in a collective, not in an individual sense, though the last idea now begins to be seen more clearly than before. This promise finds a beginning of fulfilment in his immediate successor, to whom it directly points, and to whom it is presently repeated under a somewhat altered form.7 He is greeted with the honourable title of God's son, naturally not in a metaphysical, but in a theocratic sense, because he fulfils the vocation assigned to all Israel,8 and consequently enjoys the favour of God. But with this firstborn begins a series of kings, more or less illustrious, pointing to, and issuing in, Him who "was to reign over the house of Jacob for ever."9 In so far as an eternal kingdom was not conceivable, without a matchless person at its head, we see here a ray of light rise before David, of which the lustre dazzles him.10 The promise of God, given to him, becomes under higher guidance the foundation of his unceasing hope, and henceforth in the Old Testament we can speak not merely of a more or less indefinite expectation of Salvation, but of a con stantly developing expectation of a Messiah. 3. Where in the days of David and Solomon the splendour ol the kingdom reaches its summit, David in particular fixes with his own hand an important link in the history of preparation, which here expressly occupies our attention. Whatever he has done to elevate the religious life in Israel by his Psalms, the preparation for building the temple, the training of sacred music, etc., is here in some degree taken into account. Speci ally have the so-called Royal Psalms11 made the dignity of the theocratic kingdom in general stand out with a lustre hitherto unknown. — As a prophet,12 he sang in the spirit of the coming Messiah, and pointed out in the choicest imagery the glory of His kingdom, as well as the conflict which should precede it.13 No wonder that a continual echo of such tones is heard in the Scriptures of the New Testament.14 — Neither may we overlook how he experienced and sung of external and internal conditions, which, viewed in the light of the New Testament, present themselves to us as symbolico-typical declarations of the suffering and glory of the Messiah, without himself knowing or aiming at this. Think for example of Psalms xvi., xxii., xl., lxix., as well as others. Under higher guidance he speaks of his own suffering and expectation, with colouring and tints, which are first fully realised in the Sufferer par excellence, who also became the King without a parallel. It is as if the spirit of Christ, originally working in the prophets,15 even centuries before His appearance, thus prophetically an- " 2 Sam. vii. 13 — 16. 7 1 Kings ix. 5 ; compare I Chron. xxii. 10. s Exod. iv. 22. 9 Luke i. 32. 10 2 Sam. vii. 18, sqq. " Ps. xx., xxi., lxi., etc. 12 Acts ii. 30 ; compare Matt. xxii. 43. 13 See, specially, Ps. ii., ex. " Acts ii. 34; xiii. 33 ; Heb. i. 13 ; and other passages. 15 1 Pet. i. n. THE REIGN. OF THE KINGS. 469 nounces Himself as by the mouth of the sweet singer of Israel's Psalms. — ¦ David moreover does not disappear without having given once again a solemn testimony to his highest expectation. His last words16 express the ' expectation of a Ruler, not merely over Israel, but over men universally ; a Ruler whose appearing would be as friendly and refreshing to the pious, as fatal to His obstinate enemies. 4. The age of Solomon, too, is not lost in the preparation for the fulness of time. His building of the temple did not indeed give any greater stability to the Theocracy, but it added more magnificent splendour to it, and the prayer, made at the dedication of the temple, gives evidence of a large and unlimited expectation.17 The golden age, which dawned upon Israel under his rule,18 lurnishes the later prophets with materials for depicting the Messianic dispensation. He himself sings of the approaching kingdom of peace in the 72nd Psalm, which with the highest probability must be attributed to Solomon. In his book of Proverbs (ch. viii. 22, sqq.) the Divine Wisdom is described by a personal representation in a manner to which the Johannine doctrine of the Logos in after time almost spontane ously attaches itself. And if we may assume that the book of Job was com posed by one of the circle of his wise men, then do we find in it in no way the slightest Messianic announcement, as was formerly asserted without any ground, but still a declaration of an individual hope of a life after death,19 which involuntarily makes one think of the dawn of a brighter day of salvation. Even in the Psalms, whether they belong to this or to a later period, there meet us from time to time similar tones;20 while in other passages again, e.g., Ps. xxxii., Ii., cxxx., the salvation is commended in a true evan gelical spirit, which is soon to be given to the world in Christ. The Lord might well declare that mention was made of Him also in the Psalms.21 5. If we consider, lastly, the decline and fall of royalty in Israel, th's period too is far from being without value for the preparation of Christ's coming. Royalty itself indeed is still seen for a number of ages allied to the house of David, threatened it is true with temporary humiliation,22 but spared from utter destruction. In the midst of the greatest dangers, even in the days of the Babylonian captivity it is preserved, and in Zerubbabel, at the return of the people to its old country, some glare of the old splendour reappears. When afterwards even this last gradually fades away, the expectation of the Messiah, there nursed and cherished, has meanwhile become the heritage of the whole nation. From David's heart it passed into the Psalms, from the Psalms into the hearts of his subjects and then- children. If in earlier times men must content themselves with a few cursory hints, they have now fixed views, which even in days of oppression give a courage to hope for better times.23 Even in the Apocryphal books of the Old Testament we are not without proof that these expectations were in no way abated. Jesus the son of Sirach24 speaks of God's promise to David ; and the book of Baruch25 makes mention of a brilliant future for the regenerate Jerusalem, and in the first book of Maccabees26 repeated refer- 18 2 Sam. xxiii. 1—7. 20 Ps. xvi. 11 ; xvii. 15 ; Ixxiii. 23—28. M Ch. xlvii. 13. 17 I Kings viii. 41, 42. 2I Luke xxiv. 44. a Ch. iv. and v. 18 I Kings iv. 25. K 1 Kings xi. 39. ffl Ch. iv. 46 ; xiv. 41. 19 Job xix. 23—27. " Ps. lxxxix. 35—49. 47o CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. ence is made to the expectation of a true prophet to enlighten the nation ; whilst elsewhere27 the long-continued loss of him is painfully felt and bewailed. No wonder, since the mission of the last of the so-called Minor Prophets was at the same time the last direct revelation of the old Theocracy. We see this gradually disappear after the restoration of the second temple, at the dedication of which no further special token of the glory of the Lord was seen. The Theocracy is resolved into the Hierarchy ; while Eastern and Greek thoughts begin to combine with the original Hebraism. But even where no further trace of the former royalty is left, the expectation of Messiah maintains an existence, which is constantly developed more highly. The prospect, not only of an approaching Kingdom of God, but of a King promised by God, dominates the era before the appearing of Christ; men are still groping in the mist, but know that the light will spring up. Indeed, there are not only national expectations, which live on in sacred song, but definite prophetic promises, founded on progressive revelation, which now claim our attention. Comp. Christohgie des 0. V., i., bl. 112— 211, 494— 5°5 5 Oehler's Art. Konigthum in Israel, in Herzog, R. E.. viii., besides the rich literature concerning David and the different Kings of Israel ; and for the later period, A. van Bemmelen, De Geschied der Makkab. in "hare veelzydige belangrykh. voorgesteld (1837) ; M. A. WEILL, Le Judaisme (2 vols., 1867). Points for Inquiry. The different conceptions as to the relation of Theocracy and Kingdom in Israel— Is there ground for clinging to the existence of Davidic, and indeed of Messianic-Daviaic Psalms ?— The psychological grounds for the expectation of the Messiah by David and Solomon. — Explanation of the most remarkable passages of the Old Testament here referred to.— In what degree must the fall of the kingdom co-operate for the development of the expectation of the Messiah ?— How is it that so few traces of this expectation can be found in the Apocryphal writings of the Old Testament ? SECTION LXXXVI. — PROPHETISM. Like Mosaism, and Royalty, so Prophetism, more especially, has announced and prepared in Israel the new day of salvation. In this respect the so-called Messianic predictions, before, during, and after the Babylonish exile, had a most beneficial effect. They bring prominently forward, next to the sublimity of the person of the Messiah, the nature of His work, and the splendour of His Kingdom; and thus form a transition from the Particularism 27 Ps. lxxiv. 9. PROPHETISM. 471 of the Old, to the Universalism of the New Covenant, whose sig nificance, properly defined and maintained, cannot be estimated too highly. 1. We have learned to recognise the covenant of God with Abraham, as the foundation of the entire revelation of salvation. Mosaism, Royalty, and Prophetism prepare the way for its appearance in Israel. We have already found in the examination of the first two a trace of the last ; now, however, we must look somewhat more closely at this. Here it is naturally not the place for examining Prophetism as a whole, nor need we repeat what has already been called to mind, as well in our treatment of the Biblical Theology of the New Testament (§ xxxv.), as here a little before in that of Apocalyptics (§ xxxii.). We have only to answer the question, how far Prophetism in general, and the Messianic prophecies in particular, may be called a preparation, ordained by God, for the coming of Christ. 2. When we regard from this point of view Prophetism in general, we speak entirely in the spirit of the first witnesses of the Lord.1 But even already, when considered in itself, the appearance of so numerous a group of Prophets, a solar system of men of God, as Da Costa calls them, may be called a fact in Israel's history of the greatest significance ; moreover, it is at once sell-evident, that, when compared with the priesthood, they display a character which calls forth the deepest reverence. They stand there as watchers, not nicely at the gate, but upon the battlements of the temple ; called and disposed not only to maintain, but also to develop Mosaism ; intimate friends of God, and interpreters of His counsel and will, whether this relates to the present or to the future. Hence the independent position which we see them always occupy even towards crowned heads : kings are in their estimation viceroys ot the Holy One of Israel, whose glory is their own cause. The relation of Samuel to Saul is in this respect typico-symbolic, and the motto of Micaiah the son of lmlah, that of every prophet, " What the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak."2 Such prophets are seen already in the time of the judges and kings, in the kingdom of Judah ; and in that of the ten tribes, as well before as after the Babylonian exile. The properly so-called prophetic era, however, in the history of the Old Testament, may be said to be that which reaches from Samuel till the return from Babylon, and thus embraces a period of nearly seven cen turies. Repeatedly do we hear this Prophetism mentioned among the most marked blessings which God had bestowed upon His people,3 and that not without valid reasons. Indeed, by the labours of these men was restrained the godlessness which threatened with inevitable destruction the national existence and prosperity ; and counsel and help were ever again provided by them for the wants of sovereign and people, and the times made ready in Israel, which Moses had desired, and the Prophets them selves foretold.4 1 See, e.g., Acts iii. 22 — 25 ; Rom. xvi. 26 ; 1 Pet. i. 11. 2 1 Kings xxii. 14. 3 Amos ii. 11; Neh. ix. 30. * Num. xi. 29 ; Isa. liv. 13 ; Jer. xxxt. 31—34. 472 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. 3. Specially as we fix our attention on the subject-matter of prophecy, does it appear how Prophetism may well be called alike a salt and a sun for Israel. The majesty of Gods nature is emphatically proclaimed in the words and writings of these men of God. All the prophets are rigid Monotheists, and only in the monotheistic soul could the plant of the highest religion spring up. Chapters xl. and xliv. of the prophecy of Isaiah furnish an example of the bitter satire with which they lashed idolatry and the worship of images.— Then the spirituality of God's law is distinctly asserted. If Israel was but too often inclined to lose sight of the principle, which Mosaism itself proclaimed,5 and constantly to content itself with a purely formal Legalism, the prophets are continually pointing out the absolute necessity for a really spiritual, inward reverence of God. They are the apostles of Spiritualism in the noblest sense of the word,6 and thus arouse moral earnestness, and consciousness of sin, but at the same time a need of forgiveness and purification. The entire Ethics of Prophetism is comprised in the language of Samuel (1 Sam. xv. 22), but at the same time it breathes along with its rigid Sinaitic, a gentle Sionitic spirit also. —The stability of Gods covenant is the guiding star ever again glittering before the eye of the prophets, to which they point the eye ot others. Even in the greatest affliction they remember that the house of David is imperish able, and has the promise of a splendid future.7 Return is predicted after " captivity," restoration after righteous punishment. And in all this they bring a testimony as to the universality of God's kingdom, infinitely in advance of the narrow Particularism of their days. If Mosaism builds walls of separation, Prophetism breaks or at least undermines them, as well those between Judah and Israel, as those between Israel and Hea thendom.8 The mission, too, and work of some of them, e.g., Elisha and Jonah, symbolizes this universalistic principle, while a Daniel even deserves no less a name than that of a zwr/^-prophet. On account of all this, we may safely assert, that the necessary receptiveness for the Gospel would have been absolutely wanting among the contemporaries of the _ Lord, if Prophetism had not already centuries before raised its powerful voice. 4. Here, however, the so-called Messianic prophecies come more specially into consideration. By these we in no way understand mere indefinite poetico-prophetic ideals, about which it afterwards appears that they are fulfilled in Jesus, better than in any one else ; but very definite prophetic announcements of the person, work, and kingdom of the Anointed One from David's house, already promised to him by Nathan ; while it is a matter of indifference whether these announcements were or were not exclusively realised in the days of the New Testament. For it will be easily observed, indeed, that, besides the immediate predictions of the future Bringer,of salvation, which can only re'er to Him, there exist also a great number of Messianic prophecies, which had already a beginning of fulfilment before the fulness of the times, aye, whose fulfilment is constantly going on, and • will go on until the consummation of the ages. We see this, for example, in such prophecies as Isa. xl. 3, sqq. ; Joel ii. 28 — 32, and other passages. 5 See, e.g., Deut. xxx. 6. 7 See, e.g., Isa. vii. 11 — 16. 6 Isa. i. II — 18; lviii. I, sqq. 8 Hos. iii. 4, 5 ; Isa. ii. 2 — 4. PROPHETISM. 473 Where the Scriptures of the New Testament mention a fulfilment of the ancient promises, they do not indeed mean to limit that fulfilment to the single fact which is pointed out.9 Each original fulfilment is rather in its turn a new prophecy, type, and germ of a later one, until all be fulfilled. Upon the broad foundation of the most ancient promise of God rises again and again, as in the building of the pyramids, a closer and more detailed one, till finally, Christ and His kingdom is as it were the culminating point, in which the whole reaches its summit and aim. 5. That there are really Messianic prophecies in this sense, is evident, not merely from scattered testimonies of the New Testament, but still more from the existence of the expectation of a Messiah in Israel itself, even in the darkest times, which without such an objective foundation would be absolutely inexplicable. Hence it is that the Lord and His first witnesses constantly point to these prophecies, as, e.g., Luke xxiv. 44 ; Acts iii. 24, and other passages. They are distinguished as such, partly by the sub limity of their contents and tone, where these specially from the strictly Monotheistic standpoint, plainly point to something more than human ;10 partly by the fulfilment itself, where this can be as little denied as explained naturally ; partly, in fine, from the references in the New Testa ment, by which the writers kindle a clear and trustworthy light on the mysteries of the Old Testament. 6. In explaining the Messianic prophecies we must of course follow the gi ammatico-historical path, considering them primarily and principally in ti.e light of their own time. It does not, however, thence absolutely follow that it would be superfluous, still less inadmissible, to place ourselves, in the explication of the prophetic words, specially at the Christian standpoint. R ther does the purely philological and historic explication of the prophetic oracles, however indispensable in itself, prove absolutely insufficient to enable us to sound all the depths of this treasure. Prophecy is, from the nature of the case, a hieroglyphical writing, for which a key is indis pensable, and as yet we know no better than that which the Lord's own words and those of His Apostles offer. Both stand in their explication of the Old Testament essentially on the same standpoint ; and had we no other choice but that of either revising our Hermeneutics, or constantly con tradicting the King of Truth, where He explains the Scriptures to us, that choice would not be difficult. The enigmatical character, however, of the fact that so many prophetical words are explained in the New Testament in a manner entirely different to that which the connexion or meaning of the original seems to prescribe,11 disappears, partly at least, when we observe that the Scripture of the Old Testament is here not so much literally explained as rather regarded in a typico-symbolical light. It is thus quite as unnecessary in this case to recur to a system of accommodation now utterly worn out, as to the dangerous doctrine of a plurality of senses in Holy Scripture. Let it be only confessed, that the Lord and His Apostles saw in the words and facts of the Old Testament — without prejudice to 9 Compare Christol. of the Old Test, i., p. 59 and following. 10 See, e.g., Ps. ii. 12 ; Isa. ix. 6. " See, e.g., Matt. ii. 15 ; compare Hos. xi. 1. 474 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. the original meaning and aim — an announcement and foreshadowing of that which was realised in an infinitely higher degree in the kingdom of God of the New Testament ; 12 and in place of marvelling any longer at their use of Scripture, we shall, on the contrary, be always finding additional reference to Christ and His salvation in the utterances of the Prophets. 7. As we examine more closely the subject-matter and course of develop ment of the Messianic prophecy, we shall undoubtedly not complain of unifor mity and constant repetition. It is rather a rich variety we observe, combined with a very remarkable gradation from a more general to a more detailed view. If we proceed regularly from the oldest to the latest prophets, we find as yet in Joel only a single announcement of spiritual salvation,13 and that one which is not immediately connected with a promised person. (It is only in consequence of an incorrect interpretation that ch. ii. 23 has been understood of the Messiah.) Amos,u too, merely sees the house of David brought to new honour; while Hosealb expects the reunion of the separated tribes under a Davidic sceptre. But before the vision of Micah and Isaiah a clearer light arises, and what already in the Assyrian period was unambiguously expressed, is soon in the Chaldean and Persian epochs enriched with new traits. Especially do passages like Micah v. 1 — 4 ; Isa. vii. 14, ix. 1 — 6, xi. 1 — 10, the Messianic character of which is in our view incontestable, exhibit a preponderating importance. They put the person or kingdom of the Messiah before us in the light of the brightest glory, the suffering which is to precede, being by Isaiah, as well as by David, but gradu ally recognised. Only in the Jast chapters of Isaiah, in connexion with the prospect of the redemption of the nation, is it declared that the " servant of the Lord," the genuine Israel, can but reach the appointed height through a dark abyss. As Prophet He is the light of the Gentiles too, as Priest He offers himself voluntarily and innocent for the sins of others, and thus He first attains the royal supremacy, and " divides the spoil with the strong" (Isa. liii). Though all this may have found a commencement of its fulfilment in the heart of the people of Israel, the sketch is too concrete, that it should be realised in any one less perfect than the suffering Christ. Only once 16 do we find mention here of God's promise to David, though the highest salvation is nowhere looked for, except from a king of the house of David. This continues the case, even in the time of the Babylonian exile,17 and striking is the certainty with which Jeremiah, in contrast to the apparent uncertainty of the Old Testament, predicts the glory of the new Dispensation.18 Ezekiel depicts the coming prince of salvation under the image of a cedar,19 and shepherd, and sees a stream of living water break out from the new temple.20 Daniel sketches not only the kingdom of God given to the Son of man,21 as it conquers and replaces the kingdoms of the earth ; but he also expects, after the rebuilding of the city and temple, the time when the Messiah shall appear, suffer, and die.22 n See, e.g., Matt. xiii. 14, 15 ; Mark ix. 13 ; Acts iii. 24. '» Jer. xxxi. 30—34. 13 Joel ii. 28—33. 19 Ezek. xvii. 22—24; xxxiv. 23. » Amos ix. II, 12. 20 Ezek xlvii j__I2 " Hos ni. 4, 5. 2' Dan. ii. 44 ; vii. 13, 14. sIsa. Iv. 3. * Dan. ix. 24-37. 17 Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 ; xxxui. 15, 16. PROPHETISM. 475 Even after the exile, in the book of Zechariah™ the idea of suffering is not wanting in the image of the Messiah, but at the same time He is depicted as the long-expected, in whom the royal and priestly dignity should henceforth be peacefully combined.24 Is the second temple also less grand? Haggai predicts that its glory shall be greater than that of the first, and even a blessing to the heathen world ;25 and Malachi expects in a little time, not only the Angel of God's covenant, but also His Forerunner, the second Elijah.26 Thus the course of the development of prophecy is limited, on the one hand, by the individuality of the prophets ; on the other, by the course of events ; but at every turn the person and work of the Messiah presents itself in a suprahuman light before our eyes. " If the idea of the 'Messiah becomes ever more spiritual and universal, it becomes, too, ever more divine. The mystery of the Incarnation rises resplendent on single points of prophecy, though the Old Testament consciousness of belief is not capable of retaining this ray" (Delitzsch). 8. We cannot be surprised that so important a phenomenon as the Messianic prophecy has elicited manifold objections ; but as little will it be difficult from the Christian Theistic standpoint, at least to a certain degree, to resolve them. — If the Messianic predictions be called impossible, because the true conception of Prophetism leaves no space for the announce ment of the relatively fortuitous, we doubt whether in this limitation of the conception in question a proper account has been taken of all the facts. A number of prophetic predictions mention history, relating to things which could not possibly be accounted for by the natural intellect, and which are nevertheless most positively announced years and centuries before. The germs of such things were undoubtedly existing then, but that these should develop themselves just at that time and in that way, which had been foretold with full certainty by the men of God, nobody could of himself have foreseen. But we believe in a God, to whom the future is transparent, and who reveals it, as He is pleased, to His trusted ones. — If we consider such a prediction explicable on merely natural principles, we at once overlook the metaphysical character of the prophecy in taking into account the psychological, and confound the condition of the prediction with its source. The higher revelation must have adapted itself to the consciousness of the prophets, but could hot possibly spring from that consciousness. Pre dictions, e.g., of the suffering servant of the Lord in Isaiah, or of the weeks of Daniel, are inconceivable, if the eye of the Seer were not opened by a higher hand; and particularly does the gradual development and internal coherence of prophecy continue incomprehensible, so long as we here cling to the natural causes. " Contre ce fait sans pareil les hommes epuiseront en vain leur science et leur doute ; il y a Ik plus que l'homme, ce n'est pas un fait humain " (Guizot). — That these predictions too were relatively obscure follows from the nature of the prophetic contem plation, and was even necessary, if the distinctness of the words should not even prevent their fulfilment. — -Contradidory with themselves or with one another these prophecies can be called only when we confound the 23 Zech. xi. 12, 13 ; xiii. 7. ** Hag. ii. 6—9. 24 Zech. vi. 12, 13; ix. 9. M Mai. iii. 1 ; iv. 5, 6. 476 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. substance with the form, or forget that an equal degree of higher light has not dawned on every eye. We need not assume a strictly compacted system of prophetic expectations ; to this one was shown this side, to the other another side of the matter, but together they excite and nourish a hooe which in various ways betrays its supranatural origin.— Or should it be objected, that these prospects did at least partially remain un fulfilled ? We should thus merely show that we have a tolerably unspiritual conception of the fulfilment of prophecy. " In such things measurement by the ell is misplaced " (Hengstenberg). God's thoughts and ways are seen in reality to stand now and then higher than even the words of the Prophets, but the highest truth can be revealed even to them only in forms suited to'their needs and capacity.— Least of all have we the right to call the direct prediction of the Messiah relatively unimpoitant, since in so many other religions also the prospect of a better age is cherished and expressed. So far as this is true, as in Parseeism, the Eddas, etc., the question is how far this expression of a natural presentiment has arisen under the influence of the recollection of an original revelation ; while moreover the comparison between these oracles and the prophetic revela tions, with all their affinity, renders evident in various ways the distinction of human and divine. . 9. The significance of Prophetism in relation to its assigned aim naturally follows from what has been already said. For the contemporaries of the Prophets Prophecy was a source of light, comfort, and power ; a rich amends for the want of later blessings. —For the contemporaries of the Lord they became the touchstone by which they could recognise the Christ, and also did partly confess Him (John i. 45). If this propaedeusis was vain for others, this fact too had been foreseen and foretold ;27 and a means may be suitably chosen, even though for many, through their own fault, it does not attain its object.— Yo\ the Lord Himself the Prophetic Scriptures became the mirror in which He afterwards recognised Himself; his internal Messias- consciousness was aroused by this chorus of voices. — Finally, for the Christian Church, Prophetism remains the great age-enduring proof that God Himself has given, developed, and prepared for the revelation of salvation, and the positive pledge that His plan of salvation will also in the end be perfectly realised. We cannot therefore give too serious heed to this prophetic word,28 nor can the express study of it be urgently enough recommended to the student of the science of faith. Then only, however, will that study become important and fruitful when we have inwardly broken away from Naturalism. Comp. J. J. van Oosterzee, Chr. Dog. (Eng. trans.), p. 140, and the literature there quoted ; Christologie des 0. T. (1855). i., p. 212, sqq.; Auberlen, a. a. 0., i. (1869), p. 70; H. Schultz, a. a. 0. (1866), ii., p. 1, sqq.; J. J. P. Valeton, De Profetie in Israel, in the Protest. Bifd., i. (1870), p. 351, sqq. Upon the latter chapters of Isaiah, A. Rutgers (1866) ; and upon the authenticity of Daniel, the Apologetes men tioned by O. Zoeckler, in his commentary on that book in Lange's Bibelwerk, p. 20, sqq. ; to which add Pusey, on Daniel (1864). On the whole subject of this section, W.Neumann, Geschichte der Messian. Weissagung im A . T. (1865). 27 Isa. liii. I. a Luke xvi. 31 ; 2 Pet. i. 19. THE FORERUNNER. Points for Inquiry. 477 How far is Prophetism in Israel to be regarded as a universally human, and how far as an entirely unique, phenomenon? — Upon what religious questions does Prophecy actually throw new light ? and what questions are not answered by it ? — Is there ground for really conceiving ot definite predictions respecting the historic person of the Lord ? — Treatment and maintenance of the most important Messianic prophecies. — How is it that this portion of the Divine Trpoirai5evffi.s has continued without fruit for >so many, and is so little valued by others ? SECTION LXXXVIL— THE FORERUNNER. In the appearing and work of John the Baptist is the historical preparation for the revelation of Christ in Israel completed, and the ever continuing preparation for His revelation in the world and in the heart symbolised. i. As the Prophetism of the Old Testament found its glorious starting- point in Moses, so it is nobly crowned in John the Baptist. Jesus Him self called him the greatest of the prophets,1 and in all succeeding ages Christendom has spoken of his appearing and work in almost the same breath with that of the King of the Kingdom of God. That it did so rightly, is clear from the voice of history, which raises beyond all doubt the existence of a direct relation between him and the Lord. That John actually lived, preached, baptized, and was slain at Herod's com mand, is also told by Josephus,2 though he, for reasons easy of explanation, does not speak of the connexion of his work with that of Jesus and His disciples. But already in the Acts of the Apostles3 do we find repeated evidence of this connexion ; while the first three Gospels, as well as the fourth, express themselves in this respect most decidedly, and the King of the Kingdom Himself repeatedly pointed to John as His forerunner. Only unbridled hypercriticism can contradict a fact which may be called one of the best established in the Gospel history, or find occasion from the single narrative of Matt. xi. 2, sqq., for regarding with a glance of suspicion whatever is told as to John's earlier relation to Jesus. Even the earliest relation of John's disciples to those of Jesus proves that the masters of both were in no way strangers to one another. 2. The nature and extent of the relation between John and Jesus, though reciprocal, was still from another side so extraordinary that it can not be compared with any other, and can only be explained from the fact, that to John was given by God the definite duty of preparing as power fully as possible, by his whole appearance and work, for that of Christ. — To this end his birth was serviceable, with all its extraordinary circumstances, which at the very outset fix attention upon him, and must make him, as Luke vii. 28. 2 A. J., xviii. 5, 2. 3 Acts xiii. 25 ; xviii. 25. 478 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. the son of such aged parents, announced by an angel, in himself the subject of great expectations. — His unexpected appearance, after long- continued solitude in the wilderness, and after so long a silence of the voice of prophecy, could not fail to make the deepest impression on all "who were waiting for salvation." — His manner of life, though not abso lutely u icommon, must soon increase this impression. It made men think of Elijah, whose return had been foretold by Malachi,4 and symbolised in a striking manner all the seriousness of the Old Dispensation, while at the same time it sounded a sharp note of denunciation against luxury and earthliness. — Specially was his preaching, like the person of the preacher himself, the voice of one calling,6 such as Isaiah had spoken of. It pointed not merely generally to the Kingdom of God and its holy de mands, but to its King, and to His appearance as Redeemer and Judge. This latter John did in a more general way even before the revelation at the Jordan, which became the great turning-point even in his inner life.6 But after that he points directly to Jesus as the Messiah, exalted tar above him indignity, because He already existed before him, and is "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin " of the lost world. It is as if we perceive in this testimony an echo of Isaiah, and at the same time a prelude of St. Paul, — but, above all, the animated expression of the first impression made upon the greatest of the prophets by the sight of the Christ Him self. What wonder that such preaching opened countless hearts for that of the Gospel of the Kingdom by Jesus and the Apostles ! —This was partly explained, partly established, by the baptism of John. By making this symbolical action imperative on all who desired the blessings of the Kingdom of God, he declared, in other words, the whole nadon un clean, but he also opened to the most unclean the prospect of forgive ness through sincere repentance. It was distinguished from all previous religious purifications by its relation to the coming Messiah, and from the later Christian baptism, by the fact that as yet it only served as a solemn setting apart for, not an immediate reception into, the Kingdom of God. The baptism of Jesus' disciples, as well as that of Jesus Himself, at the commencement of His public life,7 must thus be regarded as a temporary continuation of the Johannine baptism of prepa ration. — Even the absence of wonders and signs at his preaching and baptism,8 which may seem strange to superficial observers, was quite in accordance with the proper task of his life. In this also is shown his inferiority to the Prophet, mighty both in word and deed, and the miracles of the Lord quickly make more impression on the people. — Not slight moreover is the influence exercised by his words and work, even after his death. Here he calls out sympathy, there disgust, but no one does he leave unmoved and cool.9 Even the most powerful dare not in the presence of the people deny his Divine mission,10 and Herod trembles at his voice of rebuke.11 He leads not a few to Christ, and even in after years his school is a transi tion to the Church of the Lord ; 12 while they, on the contrary, who con- 4 Mai. iv. 5. ' John iii. 22 ; iv. 2. 10 Matt. xxi. 26. s Isa- "1. 3. 8 John x. 41. " Mark vi. 20. 6 Matt. iii. 16, 17. » Luke vii. 29, 30. >* Acts xix. 1—6. THE FORERUNNER. 479 tinued to call themselves obstinately after him, showed in this very way that they had not comprehended his mission. — In addition to all this comes lastly, a personality and a character, whereby that influence is perfectly explained, but which is always too sublime for any eulogy. We find the most beautiful characteristics of the greatest prophets united in him, and accompanied by a humility which makes him withdraw unconditionally and voluntarily into the shade before the King of the Kingdom. Vainly do men seek to diminish the importance of the appearing and work of John, by pointing to the "strange message" which he sent from his prison to Jesus.13 It was not the person, but the mode of the Lord's work which offered him the material for a conflict or doubt, which can be thoroughly explained, but can in no case be turned into a weapon against the Baptist himself. Jesus Himself has conferred upon him the crown of honour before the eyes of all, and has repeatedly linked His own work and honour with that of John.14 — To the very end the forerunner remained consistent, and even his premature death availed finally to help on the great task of his life. Where the "burning and shining light" was extinguished, must the eye be directed more undividedly to the Sun of the world. 3. The great significance, too, of this part of the history of preparation of Christ's coming is of itself evident. That significance is on the one side historico-apologetic. Must the greatest of the prophets appear as the forerunner of J esus of Nazareth, then can Jesus Himself be nothing less than the promised King of God's Kingdom. The testimony of a man like John not only honours him, but the Lord, and every comparison of the two makes us feel again the superiority of Jesus over John. The modern Naturalism is not even able properly to estimate a man like John, but faith acknowledges in his work the last link of a chain whose begin ning is lost in the night of centuries. — But that appearance at the same time exhibits a typico-symbolic character. Even yet, as then, must the preacher of repentance go before the Prince of Peace, and the Law pre cede the Gospel. Only where John has done his work in the heart, can the Christ come with His salutation of peace. Comp. Oosterzee, Levcnvan Jezus, i., bl. 512; Biblical Theology of t';e New Test. (Eng. trans.), § 7, with the literature mentioned there, to which must be added Oosterzee, Christol. d. 0. V., bl. 522—532 ; the Essay of W. Schmidt, Die Christologie Joh. der Taufers, in the Jahrbuchfiir deutsche Theol. (1859), iv., p. 627. Points for Inquiry. Meaning and force of Luke vii. 29.— Why does Fl. Josephus speak so little and so uncertainly respecting John? — Did John stand at the particularistic or the universalis lie standpoint?— Can we observe in his testimonies concerning Christ progress and advance ment ? — In what relation does he stand to the Mosaism, Prophetism, and Judaism of his time?— Has the absence of all miracles in the history of his public life any apologetic value '—Signification and evidential force of Matt. xi. 2, 3.— The last testimony of John concerning Jesus (John iii. 27— 36).— Why, in Mark i. I, sqq., is the beginning of the Gospel announced in the same breath with the preaching of John ? 13 Luke vii. 19. " Matt. xxi. 24 ; John v. 33—36. 480 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. SECTION LXXXVIII. — HEATHENDOM. The preparation of the heathen world for the coming of the pro mised Redeemer must not be passed over nor undervalued ; neither must it be placed on an equality with that of the people of Israel. Brought about partly by Israel itself, partly in other ways, it shows in its results the most unmistakable signs that God1 was a God, not of the Jew only, but also of the Gentile. i. That which we have as yet discovered respecting the preparation for the highest Revelation, related exclusively to Israel. But St. Paul has already observed that God had not left Himself without witness to the Heathen,2 and the question, what higher Wisdom has done to open the way for the light of the world, even in the night of Heathendom, merits a proper answer, not merely for the sake of completeness, but still more on account of its great importance. For we must not suffer our selves to be charged with the onesidedness of those who entirely pass by or despise this side of the matter, nor with that of those who will not acknowledge the real distinction between the Jewish and the Heathen world. If the first fell in too much with the view of the earlier Orthodoxy, of the other we necessarily run a risk from the standpoint of the modern Naturalism. The more recent school of belief acknowledges and values, on the one hand, the fact that God has prepared the heathen as well as the Jewish world for the fulness of the time ; but, on the other, observes very closely the distinction between that which we find here in the sacred and in the profane domain. 2. The fact that Heathendom, too, was carefully prepared for revelation, must be recognised as soon" as we survey that world, without any relation whatever to the people of Israel. To it, too, was given God's general revelation in Nature, History and Conscience.3 " The Apostle conceives of the Revelation as that consonant, in itself dumb, which can only be expressed in connection with the vowel, added to it from without" (Lange). — So the appearance and labours of distinguished men, such as Pythagoras. Socrates, Plato, Seneca, and others, tended unmistakably to bring out not merely moral and religious civilisation, but specially to call out a desire for a light from above, which no philosopher or priest could kindle. — Lastly, even God's righteous leaving of the heathen world to error and sin, which it had itself voluntarily chosen,4 was itself to become the means in God's hands to bring about by the very extremity of the misery, a desire for redemption which could find satisfaction only in the Gospel. — That neither of these ' Rom. iii. 29. 3 Rom. i. 19, 20; ii, 14, 15 • Acts xiv. 17. 2 Acts xiv. 17. 4 Rom. i. 28. HEATHENDOM. 481 objects has in any way failed, is seen among other things, from the uncon scious and conscious aspirations after Christianity, which we .discover in such various forms in the centre of Heathendom. Thus, e.g., think of the traces of an expectation of salvation in the religions of the East ; of the remarkable utterances of Plato on this point, e.g., the conclusion of the second book of the Alcibiades (cf. De Republica ii.), of the fable of Pro metheus, of the expectations of Virgil, e.g. in his fourth Eclogue, (which were already considered by the Fathers as a kind of Messianic pre diction),5 and many others. 3. Especially by Israel itself has God prepared the heathen world for the New Testament day of salvation. The experiences and journey- ings of the people of Israel made the majesty of their God known far beyond the land of promise.6 The exile to Babylon, in particular, was one of the greatest revelations of the name of Jehovah to the previously idolatrous nations.7 The Israelites, indeed, however much they were set apart from other nations, were in no way separated from them, and were often visited by them.8 — Not less important in this respect is the work of some of the prophets in foreign countries, as Elijah, Elisha,9 Jonah, Daniel, and the behaviour of Jeremiah at the capture of Jerusalem, and the impression made by it.10 Remember also the pious command for the rebuilding of the temple given by Cyrus, after the Babylonish captivity, perhaps caused by the utterance of God in Isa. xliv. 28, with which he had been made acquainted ; as well as the reverence paid to Jehovah by Alexander the Great on his entrance into Jerusalem, when the high priest pointed him to the predictions he saw fulfilled in his triumphs;11 and also the numerous other proofs of the increasing estimation enjoyed by the Jewish people far beyond its immediate neighbours — Above all had Israel an educational effect on the heathen world, through its Holy Scriptures in their Greek translation, scattered like a seed of life over its far extended fields. In conjunction with this, of very great significance also was the Jew ish Dispersion in its different branches — the Babylonian, the Egyptian, the Syrian in Asia Minor, and the Grseco-Roman. According to Philo, there were in Egypt alone a million Jews, and the " victoribus victi leges dede- runt" of Seneca soon shows itself as something infinitely beyond a mere phrase. The influence also of the two kinds of proselytes, those of the gate, and those of righteousness, must by no means be estimated at a low_ value. It is not only the Greek philosophy, but also Israel itself especially, which has been for Heathendom in various ways for centuries "a schoolmaster to Christ." 4. Still, the preparation of the two for the Revelation of salvation cannot be unconditionally placed in one line. Less accurately, indeed, do we denote the difference when we describe that of Israel as positive, and that of Heathendom as negative ; since all that has been said concerning the 5 See, e.g., August., De Civ. Deix., 27, Ep. 155. 6 Exod. xv. 6 ; Josh. ii. 10 ; ix. 24. 7 See the Book of Daniel. 8 I Kings viii. 41, 42 ; x. 9. 9 I Kings xvii. ; 2 Kings v. 10 Jer. xxxviii. 7 — 9; comp. xxxix. 15 — 18. » Joseph. A. J. xi. 8. X I 482 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. latter certainly does not exhibit a merely negative character. But, in con trast with the direct preparation of the elect people, we may here safely speak of a more indirect preparation. Here the dimness is only enlightened by brilliant stars ; in Israel it is besides brightened by a friendly moonlight, and the dawn is finally seen only in the region of the East. Greece, even in its golden age, is merely the land of culture ; Israel, the people of cultus (worship) : and if the presentiment of a better era is roused even in the heathen world, salvation itself and its promise, always will belong in their origin to the Jews.12— Rather than speak of an education of heathendom (in so far at least as by this we understand only a development of the good already potentially present), we would here treat of a preparing grace of God (gratia prceveniens), which, by its own ways, prepared even in this wilderness, a way for the kingdom of God.— The deepest ground for the receptivity of the heathen world, thus aroused, lay undoubtedly in the operation ot the Logos before His Incarnation,13 which did not at all limit itself exclu sively to Israel.14 — Far indeed from finding in the slowness and hiddenness of this Divine preparation anything suspicious, these very things furnish to us a renewed proof of the Divine wisdom, and at the same time of the high value of the kingdom of God. In the domain of spirit, too, the highest of all ripens last and most slowly. 5. The great importance of this side of the matter is in itself evident, even without extended demonstration. — Much of the relatively beautiful and true in the old heathen world is only adequately explained in this way. — The remarkable agreement between so many heathen and Christian predictions is satisfactorily elucidated by this means. — An .otherwise obscure guiding of Providence, in the temporary selection of a single nation, is thus set free from all appearance of arbitrariness and severity. — Lastly, the rapid spread of the youthful kingdom of God into the heart of the heathen world ceases to be a mystery, when we bring the thus finished history of preparation into connection with the " fulness of the time." Comp. Oosterzee, Christology, iii., pp. 103 — 113 ; P. Hofstede de Groot, Ofwoed. d. Mcnschd., ii. (1847), and his God's openb. van Israel, de bron der Gr. Wijsbegeerde, in W. in L. (1869), p. 563, sqq.; (1870), p. 225, sqq.; L. G. Pareau, W. in L. (1859), i. On the presentiment of the Christian perfection, and the desire for it in the heathen world, Luthardt, Apologet. Vortrdge, i., p. 159, sqq.; Ackermann, Das Christliche in Plato (1835), with the motto, Betas p.h JWdruv, 8ebs Se Xpurr .s ; LuEBKEB, Propyleen zu einer Theologie des klass. Alterthums, in S:ud. u. Kiit. (1861), iii. ; F. PlPER, Virgilius der Theolog und Prophet des Heidinthums in der Kirche, Ev. Kal. (1862), p. 17, sqq. Points for Inq.iry. How is it that in the Christian Dogmatics of earlier times the preparation in heathen dom for the appearing of Christ was so much overlooked ? — May we here from any theological standpoint speak of a preparation willed and worked by God ? — How far can we here rightly speak of education ? — What does the New Testament teach us on this matter? — How was it viewed and developed in the Alexandrine School? — The doctrine of Zwingle concerning the salvation of pious heathen. — What progress do we observe in the domain of this investigation in the later Dogmatics, as compared with that of earlier days ? — Closer analysis and estimation of the expectation of salvation in the old heathen world. — Does the doctrine of the Logos shed any light here? — The importance of the Dispersion.- — Heathendom on the eve of the day of the New Testament. 12 John iv. 22. '» John i. 4. » Compare § c. THE FULNESS OF THE TIME. 483 SECTION LXXXIX. — RESULT. — THE FULNESS OF THE TIME. Not only does the Jewish, but also the heathen world, at the beginning of the Christian era, furnish us with evidence of their need of, their capacity for, and their desire after, the coming of the kingdom of God ; so that the words of the Apostle1 concerning the fulness of the time, in which God sent His Son, are strikingly justified. The observation of this phenomenon, and the contem plation, thus completed, of the whole preparation for the coming of the Redeemer, has not merely an historical, but also an apologetic and dogmatic significance. 1. The long history of preparation, which we have surveyed, justifies the claim by which the Lord at the beginning of His public life could say, " the time is fulfilled ; " 2 and it is also with perfect justice declared in the Netherlands Confession (Art. xviii.), that God has sent His Son " at a time decreed by Himself." That the time appointed by God must be the most fit, is evident; but this appears still more clearly here, whether we look at the condition of the Jewish, or at that of the heathen world. We can, of course, here only just touch upon much which deserves further development, but which has also been treated of more than once. 2. Heathendom exhibits the deepest need of a. further revelation, whether we glance at the condition of religion, philosophy, or morality. Religion had outlived itself, and unbelief begun to mock at that which superstition had reverenced most deeply. The silence of the oracles which had formerly spoken, is in this respect symbolical ; and the mysterious voice, said to have been heard declaring that great Pan was dead, was the expression of a touching truth. — Philosophy had long since declined from its former height, and a scepticism, which constantly enlarged its bounds, gradually became the sole wisdom. The hopelessness of obtain ing any objective certainty could do nought but help on a theoretical and practical Epicureanism; and along with the power of truth, that of morality seemed also to be irrecoverably lost. " Innocentia non rara, sed nulla" was the declaration of Seneca. — Who has ever read Juvenal without shuddering at the scenes which are there depicted ? We see sensuality and cruelty united in the most horrible manner, so as to confirm the words of the Apostle;3 both constantly succeeded by the most intolerable satiety of life, the communis vitce fastidium of Seneca. Consider, e.g., the condition of the poor, the slaves, women ; the depth to which marriage had sunk, etc. — Yet the capacity for a higher happiness has not yet been destroyed, but even excited to a greater degree than before ; the ground is ready for the seed. . 1 Gal. iv. 4. Mark i. 15. " s Eph. v. 12. 112 4§4 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. The subjection of a great part of the known world to Rome had overthrown walls of separation centuries old ; the general acquaintance with the Greek tongue could not but be very serviceable to the rapid study and spread of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; a toleration, hitherto unknown opened the heathen world to the preaching of a new religious system • and civilisation, too, while it was a hindrance to many, might be to others a guide to Christianity. And so the fact that the Gospel, according to the Acts of the Apostles, was often received by the heathen with much more eagerness than by the Jews, becomes explicable.— Nor was this any wonder, when the desire for some change for the better was so very widely spread. This is seen, e.g., in the expectation with which so many a glance was turned towards the East;4 in the enthusiasm with which Augustus was welcomed by Virgil, Horace, and so many others, as the saviour of mankind; in the significant narrative of the Eastern Magi in St. Matthew's Gospel; so that at this period we might, with a certain degree of justice, speak of a crypto-Christianism in the heathen world. 3. This same desire is seen with much greater force among the Jews. The yearning has become so great, that " the waiting for the consolation of Israel " was the most striking characteristic of piety about the time of the birth of Jesus. Simeon and Anna are types of this expectation ; and m the Book of Enoch, and the fourth Book of Ezra too, the same expectation is visible, leading even to the appearance of all kinds of false Messiahs. So more than ever before was found a capacity for receiving the long- promised One. Idolatry had dwindled away; religious knowledge was developed more than in earlier times ; more earnestness had been called out under the influence of various circumstances, and the middle wall of partition between Israel and Heathendom had been undermined. From various sides, too, ideas had sprung up, to which the Gospel could ally itself, and everywhere were devout men,5 ready and fit to receive the new light. — The real want of new life was everywhere acknowledged by the best men. The social misery, the religious divisions, the influence of various sects, the depraved condition of the people, combined with the protracted silence of the prophetic voices so long expected in vain ; all these things co-operated in bringing this want more clearly to the consciousness of many ; and we are not astonished to hear it expressed by some in a most striking manner.6 4. But even where this is readily assented to, the objection may be raised, whether the entire history of the preparation, which we have now surveyed, along with all the consequences which result from it, has not rather an historical than a dogmatical significance ? In general, we may reply to this objection, that such a contrast between historical and religious truth is not only incorrect and arbitrary, but even in principle unchristian.7 But it can, besides, easily be shown that what has been said is in direct connexion both with the subject-matter and the basis of Christian faith, and confirms most strikingly more than one primary truth of our religion. We may even point out, as a real mark of progress in the domain of Christian * Tac. Ann. v. 13. s See, e.g., Luke i. 68 — 79 ; compare Matt. ix. 35 — 38. s Acts ii. 5. ' Compare § xxxii. iii. 1. THE FULNESS OF THE TIME. 485 Dogmatics, that modern Supranaturalism has here, — quite as much as in the domain of Soteriology, with regard to the doctrine of gratia prceveniens, — given in the domain of Christology a tit and honourable place to the •' doctrine of the historical preparation for the coming of Christ ; whilst, in earlier times at least, from the standpoint of Ecclesiastical Dogmatics, this was scarcely observed. In the first place we feel, at the end of our road, the absolute necessity of an extraordinary revelation? Nothing of that which we have seen fitted for the preparation for this revelation, would of itself have been sufficient to take its place, and the entire condition of the world at the close of this period is such, that the appearance of a new era of salvation might be called, not merely desirable, but absolutely indispensable. — Secondly, what has been observed, convinces us of the impossibility of explaining the establishment of the kingdom of God among the Jews and the Heathen in a merely natural way. Everywhere, it is true, we see the need of, the longing after, and the capacity for, the salvation, which should come from above, but nowhere power sufficient to produce from itself the highest and the best. — Thirdly, the great ness of Christ is now more clearly seen by us, who appears to be, indeed, the centre of the world's history, the turning-point between the older and later era, the pivot, in a word, on which the entire plan of God moves.9 Such a long and brilliant dawn was only possible when the Sun of the spiritual world, and not merely a star of the first magnitude, was about to rise. — But then there is here, fourthly, revealed the majesty of God, whose wisdom has conducted everything carefully towards this centre, whose truth has fulfilled His promises, now centuries old, whose grace has prepared and bestowed in His Son nothing less than an " unspeakable gift." The whole history of this preparation may be called a continued apology for the Christian idea of God. — And when in these days, more than ever, we see Christianity undermined and menaced, then, lastly, is our belief in the indestrudibility of the kingdom of God strengthened by the thought, that what has been so carefully prepared for cannot possibly be intended to fade away into the clouds, but, on the contrary, must triumph over the most obstinate resistance, and entirely renew the face of the moral world, as it has once, coming to life at a fitting time, conquered the whole Jewish and Heathen world of antiquity. Impressed with this consciousness, we prepare to consider more closely, and with heightened reverence, the PERSON of the Redeemer Himself. Comp. Oosterzee, Leven van Jezus (2nd ed., 1863), i., bl. 265, sqq.; also, The Biblical Theol. of N. T. (Eng. trans.), § 6, with the literature there referred to, to which must be added the Essay of Holtzmann, Die Messias-idee zur Zeit Jesu, in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1867), iii. ; Th. Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara (1867), i., pp. 173 — 206; A. Hausrath, Neutestamentl. Zeitgeschichte, i., Die Zeit Jesu (1868). Points for Inquiry. The meaning of Gal. iv. 4, compared with Mark i. 15. — Was not an earlier appearance of Christianity desirable, and even necessary ?— The relation of the principal Greek schools of philosophy and Jewish religious sects to the Gospel of the kingdom.— The fulness of the time in connexion with prophecy, and with the narrative of its first promul gation. — The Christo-centric character of the history of the world and of Christian Apologetics. —Transition to the succeeding division. 8 Section xxx. 9 Ephes. i. 10. 486 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. SECOND DIVISION. THE PERSON OF THE REDEEMER. SECTION XC. — PLACE OCCUPIED BY THIS SUBJECT, SOURCE OF OUR KNOWLEDGE IN REGARD THERETO, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR ITS EXAMINATION. THE personality of Him who in the fulness of time arose as the promised Redeemer, occupies in the history of the world and of Religion — and, consequently, also in Christian Dogmatics— a unique and indisputable place. We know this personality from a series of testimonies, diverse in value, but in combination sufficient to lead us to a knowledge of the manifestation of the Christ, which, although incomplete, is yet clear, well-grounded, and fruitful. In its historic-dogmatic contemplation, absolute neutrality is impossible, but one-sidedness is prejudicial, and many-sidedness a duty ; although the difference between Dogmatics and Biography must here by no means be overlooked. i. When we approach the contemplation of the person of the Lord, its wholly unique place first of all attracts our attention. To start with, the fact cannot be overlooked that for ages past the whole Christian world has divided the history of our race into two unequal parts, between which the appearing of Christ is the turning-point. Even unbelief must reconcile itself to accept a new era as beginning with His birth, and profane Histo riography—no less than sacred— has recognised the indisputable claim of the ALra Christiana. No wonder, since religion to so great an extent dominates the life of nations, and the history of religion can point to no other manifestation so sublime and so remarkable as this. Nowhere is the personality of its Founder so inseparably connected with the doctrine and precepts of the religion as here. When Mahomet has uttered his main dogma, his personality vanishes ; and whatever one's opinion may be about his history, one can still belong to his community. But from a Christian stand point, on the contrary, not the religion or moral teaching of Jesus, but belief in Christ, is the main thing ; and we possess no higher knowledge of God than that which is the fruit of God's historic manifestation in Him. For this reason, Christology is in Christian Dogmatics, not merely one among many important articles of doctrine ; but the central point, the axis, around which all turns, especially at the present time (§ vii.). If in earlier times THE PERSON OF THE REDEEMER. 487 the dogma of the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture was frequently regarded as the most important central-dogma, now the wh ole dogmatic- apologetic investigation more and more gathers around the Person°of the Lord, as the centre of the Revelation of God. Even from the exaggeration or the misapplication of this principle, less danger is to be apprehended than from its absolute non-recognition, which in earlier and later times expressed itself in the utterance of Rationalism, that " had the world never heard of the person of Christ, but only of His doctrine, it would have been the happier for it." Just as well might one wish to have seen only the sun's rays, but never his disc. What place the person of Christ must therefore occupy — especially in the preaching of the Gospel — cannot here be further entered upon. Enough that for the Homilete also, no other fundamental law applies than for the Dogmatist.1 2. The sources from which we learn to know the Lord, are of course wholly historic in their nature, and moreover of different degrees of value. We may divide them into less or more direct sources ; the latter again into those of the first and of the second rank. To the former belong the Heathen, Jezvish, and Mahomedan testimonies concerning the appearing, the doctrine, the acts and the outward experiences of Jesus on earth. If the last-named sources are of less importance, because they afford us only a dubious echo of Christian tradition ; among the Jewish sources, the passage of Josephus, Antiq. xviii. § 3. 3— although probably interpolated — is espe cially of great importance ; while from the Heathen, again, particularly those of Tacitus, A nnal. xv. 44; Suetonius, Claud, c. 25; and Lucian, De Moitc Peregr. c. n — 13, deserve careful attention. Direct sources of the second order are the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, and the earliest Christian literature of the post-apostolic age ; while even in the so-called Apocryphal Gospels there are by no means wanting traces of well-known, though falsified truth. The first rank we continue to ascribe to the four canonical Gospels, in the examination of which the different, though by no means contradictory, character of the Synoptical and the Johannine accounts must be duly recognised.2 Their testimony is supported by that of the history of the Christian Church, without, however, its being possible to place this last, as a source of our knowledge of the manifestation of Christ, upon a level with the sacred documents themselves. The same may be said of the Christian consciousness (§ x.), which certainly most strikingly confirms the 1 Comp. A. Schweitzer, Ueber die Dignitdt des Religionsstifters, in the Stud, und Kritik. (1834), iii. and iv. 2 As far as concerns the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, heretofore supposed, compare our Lectures already referred to, under the title of The Gospel of John [Eng. trans.]. The further history of this controversy has only given us occasion to make our own the words of W. F. Gess, in his interesting work, Christi Person und Werk nach Ch.risti Selbstzeug- niss, u. s. w., i. (1870), p. 8 : " For my part, renewed application to the study of the Gospels has only deepened the conviction that it is not criticism and intellectual freedom, but prejudice, which refuses to accept the Fourth Gospel as a pure source of historical knowledge ; and that setting it aside amounts to rendering impossible the understanding of the greatest subject on which history has ever written." On the Synoptical Gospels, as sources for the life of Jesus, compare, inter alios, R. T. Grau, Entwicklungsgeschicme des N. 1 .-lichen Schriftthums, i. (1871). 488 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. testimony of the Gospels, but itself does not teach anything new with respect to the Lord, and moreover needs ever again to find its correcting rule in the word of Scripture, which here alone is sufficiently valid and trustworthy. How little the merely human consciousness, regarded wholly in itself, has here a right to speak with decisive authority, as on a level with Scripture, may be inferred, e.g., from the hint of Jesus Himself, in John iii. 12. 3. The only question now remaining is what we are to require in an investigation in itself so highly important. The demand for absolute impartiality and neutrality ( Voraussetzungslosigkeit),3 which was formerly not seldom here insisted on with great emphasis, has been withdrawn by its own advocate,4 and is morever rejected as absolutely impossible, alike by the Christian conscience and by every-day experience. No one stands in an absolutely neutral rel.ition towards the manifestation of Christ ; least of all ought this to be the case with the Theologian who will scientifically explain and justify his belief in Christ. Only he must take care that no dogmatic prejudice obscure the clearness and accuracy of his observation, and must remain prepared to make a due acquaintance with every result of a criticism as far as possible unprejudiced, while he is constantly on his guard against all onesidedness. This latter is found where stress is laid on the Divine in the Lord at the expense of the human, or the converse ; or where, for instance, there is recognised in Him the teacher and the exemplar, but not the one who makes expiation for sin, and the personal Head of the Church ; or again, where the latter is exclu sively acknowledged, while the former is not recognised. The history of Christian philosophic thinking abounds with proofs, which rival each other in their confirmation of the unjustifiable and destructive character of such onesidedness. — How necessary and salutary, on the other hand, a well- directed effort after many-sidedness of conception may here be regarded, is evident even from the nature of the case, and not less from numerous examples. The greater the number of sides from which we contem plate the person of the Lord, the more may we hope to learn to know Him aright, and to penetrate as it were within the veil into the innermost sanctuary. Thus not simply in Himself, or in His relation to the Father, but also in relation to His friends and His foes, to His Church and to the world, to the past and to the future, must He here be contemplated, with an eye enlightened by faith and rendered keen by love. One must thus not think he knows Christ so long as he has only attentively observed Him from one side ; but just as little that any one can learn duly to know each side separately, so long as he has no eye or heart for the great and glorious whole. On the contrary, here also again every part must be distinguished, and as it were inwardly mastered from the point of view of the whole, con templated by the eye of the spirit. While unbelief as much as possible isolates all things, and thus renders for itself the just appreciation of the object of its atomistic criticism absolutely impossible, the science of faith must especially find its strength in the due combination of what it has first * Freedom from presuppositions. « See Strauss. Leben Jesu,f. d. deutsche Volk (1864), p. xiii. THE PERSON OF THE REDEEMER. 489 distinguished ; and must above all take care that it learns to understand the person of the Lord from His own word, rightly explained and maintained. The fruit of such an examination will not indeed be a complete knowledge,5 but yet an insight into the truth, sufficiently clear and well-grounded for us to build further thereupon ; and above all, rich in fruit for our own develop ment, for the cause of the Kingdom of God, and the glorifying of God by the right appreciation of His unspeakable gift in Christ. 4. Here, nevertheless, it is of importance not to overlook the difference between the task of the Biographer of the Lord in the proper sense of the term, and that of the Dogmatist. There was a time when it was thought necessary to include in a system of Dogmatics a review of the life of the Lord, concise indeed, but yet as complete and accurate as possible ; but, even if this were not in itself impossible, the present position of the criticism of the Gospel narrative would render it unadvisable and impos sible. In Dogmatics only those sides of the Lord's personality and those facts of His history ought to come under review, which stand in direct connection with Soteriology, and that which belongs to it. The history of the birth and resurrection of Christ has for this reason far greater import ance for Dogmatics than, e.g., the particulars concerning His baptism or the temptation in the wilderness. A number of questions, for Biography of preponderating interest, are, on the contrary, for the Dogmatic investiga tion, if of any, at least only of a very subordinate degree of importance. The latter has reached its limits in this domain when it has given an answer to the question, " Who was Jesus ? " — a question with which another, " What was and is He, and what is He doing ? " may on satisfactory grounds be associated. The question as to the historic reality of Christ's appearing is thus naturally first in order. Compare our Leven van Jezus (2nd ed.), pt. i., §§ vi. — xvi., pt. iii., pp. 644 — 689; Christologie, iii. ; E. Sartorius, Christologische Vorlesungen (7th ed., i860) ; J. A. Dorner, Die Lehre von der Person Christi, i. (1845), "¦ ('856), (Eng. trans.) ; Th. A. Liebner, Christologie, i. (1849); W. F. Gess, Die Lehre von der Person Christi (1856), new edn. of the original work, entirely recast (1870) ; E. DE Pressense, The Redeemer (Eng. trans.), Jesus Christ, His Times, Life, and Work (Eng. trans.); Ph. Schaff, Jesus Christ, the Miracle of History ; C. W. Held, Selbstzeugnisse Jesu (1865) ; K. T. Noesgen, Chiistus der Menschen und Gottessohn (1869). Points for Inquiry. What place must be adjudged from the Supranaturalistic standpoint, and what from the Naturalistic, to the examination as to the Person of the Lord in Christian Dogmatics ? — What do we know of His person, even from a wholly extra- Christian standpoint? — What is to be derived from early Christian literature concerning the main facts of His history? — What from the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse, and the Apostolic Epistles ? — May the knowledge of Christ be drawn as well out of the Fourth Gospel, as out of the three first ? — Wherefore may not also Church History, and the utterances of the Christian consciousness, be received among the sources of the first rank ? — To what extent is absolute impartiality necessary and possible in the examination now to be made by us ? s John xxi. 25. 490 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. SECTION XCL— THE HISTORIC REALITY OF THE APPEARING OF CHRIST. The Historic reality of the appearing of the promised Redeemer is raised above all reasonable doubts, even by its mighty operation upon the religious and moral life of Humanity ; and no view of His history can for this reason be the true one, according to which the possibility and efficacy of this operation remains in its very essence unexplained. For this explanation neither the Naturalistic, nor the Mythic, nor the abstract Philosophic view of the Gospel history suffices, but only the Christian-historic (Supranaturalistic) view, which on that account must also be firmly held, and powerfully defended against constant opposition, even in the interest of the Christologie examination to be made by Dogmatics. i. The importance of the examination as to the historic reality of the appearing of Christ is at once self-evident. However essential the distinction between historic and saving belief, the latter rests on the foun dation of the former, and loses all its strength on the yielding of this foun dation. In the examination as to this reality, all naturally depends on the point of view from which we regard the Gospel narrative. How great is the difference of views on this point, is well known ; and the choice of a means of testing these different explanations is, for this reason, of great importance. Ours attaches itself to the familiar maxim, Nihil esse potest in effedu, quod non anteafuerit in causa. No view of the history of the Lord can be the true one, in which the peerless impression of His manifestation and work in the world is left wholly or in part unaccounted for. '1 he perf on cannot, at all events, have been smaller than the footprint which He has left behind Him ; the power which has proceeded therefrom must in itself have been present, before it could communicate itself to others. If that is true, it cannot be difficult for us to choose between the different modes of explaining the Gospel documents, and in doing so to hit on the right course. 2. In speaking of the Naturalistic interpretation, we think more especially of that which asserted itself towards the end of last century, in opposition to the older Supranaturalism, and which found its most powerful represent atives in the Rationalist, H. E. G. Paulus (t 1851), and his spiritual allies. Distinguishing between the facts themselves, and the manner in which they were understood and represented by the narrators, they proceeded from the principle that it must be possible to explain all that the Gospels narrate from the ordinary course of things. Thus, the Angel in the history of the nativity became a young man ; the heavenly voice at the baptism, a peal of thunder ; the tempter in the wilderness, a scribe ; the transfiguration THE HISTORIC REALITY OF THE APPEARING OF CHRIST. 49 1 upon the mountain, the effect of the morning light upon the snow crystals, etc. It is commonly known how Strauss, at his first appearance in 1835, pitilessly exposed all the unnaturalness of this so-called natural interpreta tion, and tore to shreds the mantle of its assumed scientific character. Yet we must not here speak too soon of burial, unless it be that of a person only apparently dead, who, after a comparatively short time, leaves his tomb again. In the later generation, also, it found defenders, — in young Holland, for instance, in C. Busken Huet;1 and in France, in the well- known work of E. Renan (1863) ; while in general the apostles and prophets of modern Naturalism do not think it beneath them, even in this way, to rid themselves of the intolerable element of the miraculous in Holy Scrip ture. With the preservation of a good scientific conscience, this way cannot be ours. For here arbitrary exegesis and criticism reign undis turbed ; psychologically, such an interminable misconception on the part of the contemporaries of the Lord as is here presupposed, is inconceivable ; and finally, regarded from its ethical side, this conception brands with an indelible stain the character either of the Lord Himself, or of His first wit nesses ; while it is, after all, entirely inexplicable that such a Christ should be the founder of Christianity, the renewer of the world. Thus, on the principle of the ratio suffidens, this theory must be rejected. 3. No more favourable judgment can be pronounced on the Mythical view, which — already earlier applied to the beginning and the end of the Gospel history — was especially represented, although with a modification of ideas from time to time, by D. F. Strauss, in his, Leben Jesu.2 He regarded the Gospel account of miracles as the historic garb of what were originally Christian ideas, and which have received their present form as the result of an undesigning inventive tradition. It is impossible here to relate the history of this conflict ; among its ablest assailants, the names of Neander, Ullmann, Tholuck, Ebrard, and others, may be mentioned with honour. By them it has been clearly proved what dense mist surrounds this Mythical theory ; how inconceivable the origination of such Myths may be regarded in an historic period like that of the Lord, and how entirely this cloud-castle falls if only the genuineness of a single one of the four Gospels is sufficiently established. Strauss himself has shown that he could not main tain his former standpoint, and has, in his Leben Jesu fur das deutsche Volk, published in 1864, under the influence of the Tiibingen School, changed his supposition of undesigning fiction for that of a fiction with a very distinct purpose in view (Tendenz) in the writing of miraculous accounts for the most part unhistorical. All the objections, therefore, which are to be brought against the Tubingen reconstiuction of the history of the first century and its documents, tell equally against his view ; and the arbitrary separation now made by him between an historical and a mythical life of Jesus, is seen to be in principle untenable, since no other sources are open to him for the knowledge of the one, than for that of the other. " He who regards a miraculous life of Jesus as possible," says Opzoomer, " has many sources to draw upon : for a natural life there is not even one. Of 1 Brieven over den Bijbel (1858), p. 70, sqq. 2 First Edn., 1835 i second, 1836; third, 1838; fourth, 1840. 4g2 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. what kind in its details the [merely] natural life of Jesus was, uninterspersed by any miracles, this is what lies beyond the limits of our knowledge." Yet this recent combination of the natural and mythical explanation is still sacred, as compared with the motley collection of the most dissimilar elements, served up by Schenkel in his Charaderbild Jesu (1864); a pro duction castigated precisely as it deserves by Strauss in his crushing reply, Die Halben und die Ganzen (1865). 4. By the ab sir ad-philosophic modes of explanation we mean those which have not simply been maintained by theologians under the influence of the philosophic systems of others, but by philosophers in the interest of their own system. Take as an example the philosophic interpretation favoured by Spinoza in the seventeenth century, and wholly dominated by the principle that every interpretation which was in conflict with a so-called reasonable truth was definitely to be regarded as inaccurate. — The same is the case with the moral explanation of the Kantian school, which also would have the Gospel history understood in such wise that its meaning should continue to harmonise with the general practical rules of a purely rational system of religion. How much harm such an arbitrary mode of asserting has wrought to the cause of sound Hermeneutics it would be almost impossible" to express ; but it is beyond doubt that Christian Dogmatics, especially, must reject it in principle, unless it would sign its own death-warrant. — Also with regard to the so-called Empirical philosophy, it can scarcely fail to be perceived that by applying the standard of every day experience to the history of revelation, it renders the right understand ing of the latter in principle impossible, and allows itself to be dominated by an assumption, the right of making which has never yet been proved. The impossibility of writing from this standpoint even a tolerable life of Jesus, by which the problem of Christianity is sufficiently solved, has of late become so strikingly apparent, that this wreck of Naturalism has been turned into a trophy for the Christian faith. No wonder that we perceive in the noblest representatives of the freer tendency,3 a notable effort to rise to a more satisfactory conception than ever they can attain to by a consistent application of modern Naturalism. 5. When, in opposition to all these, we recommend the Christian- historical (supranatural) view, we do not by any means intend that of the older Supranaturahsm, as it appeared at the close of last century and the beginning of this, in its one-sided doctrinaire character ; but one which in principle acknowledges the existence of the Supranatural, and finds this Supranatural revealed in a truly Divine, but at the same time truly human manner, in the person and work of the Lord. Where the older Supranaturahsm had scarcely the power or the will to perceive what is truly human in His history, or sought to represent Him now as God, and now again as man ; the later Supranaturahsm, on the other hand, takes with un disguised preference as its starting-point that which is truly human in His personality ; not indeed to make this the end of its research, but rather to rise from it to the Divine and eternal, which is manifested most of all in 3 Seen, e.g. , in Die Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, by Professor Keim, in Switzerland (1867), and in the author of Ecce Homo, in England (1866). THE HUMAN CHARACTER IN CHRIST'S MANIFESTATION. 493 this sinless human form. It does not assume a priori the truth of every separate account of a miracle, but carefully examines these accounts, and contemplates each one of the parts in connection with the inimitable whole. It acknowledges the possibility of miracles in connection with the Christian idea of God (§ xiv.), but accepts the supposition of their reality in par ticular cases, only on the ground of well-supported testimony. It overlooks no purely historical difficulties, but claims that the historical criticism be not guided or dominated by a so-called philosophic principle. In a word, it does not ask of philosophy what this allows to be true, but of history, duly tested as to its sources, what is truth and reality. 6. The right to occupy this standpoint follows from the various reasons which argue for the genuineness and credibility of the Gospel narrative (§ xxxviii.), and at the same time from the fact that only by this way of regarding the Gospel history can the requirement laid down in the beginning of this section (par. 1.) receive its satisfaction. The matter in reality stands thus, that we must choose between leaving unsolved the most tremendous problems, and the acceptance of the only satisfactory solution, which is given us by belief in the Supranatural character of the appearing of Christ. The defence of this belief, with all the weapons of knowledge and science which are at the disposal of a valid system of Apologetics, is — in our esti mation—a question of life and death, not only for Dogmatics, but also for the whole of the Church and of humanity. It is true, as is said by Christlieb, " The Lord needs not us and our weapons ; He who is the Truth itself, is in Himself not only the basis and object of our faith, but also its proof. But His people must learn to believe in this victory, and then, above all, when the course of the age seems to render it questionable." Compare our Leven van Jesus, i. pp. 230—240 ; C. J. Riggenbach, Ueberblick der Hauptfragen das Leben Jesu betreffend, in the Proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance (1867), p. 271, sqq., of Eng. trans. ; Uhlhorn, Die modernen Darstellungen des L. J. (1866). On the romantic production of Renan, B. Ter Haar, Wie was Jezus (1864), and tie literature given on pp. 298 — 300 of that work. Also Luthardt, Die Person J. C, in the nine Apologetic Lectures (1869), p. 139, sqq.; and my treatise, De Christus en zijne plaats, in Kerk en Theol. (1871), p. I, sqq. Points for Inquiry. The value of the examination to be made in this place often over-estimated or ignored. — History of the Natural and Mythical interpretation of the Gospel History, in connexion with the revolutionary movements in the social and ecclesiastical sphere. — Difference between Strauss and Baur, and their mutual relation. — Scientific value of the Naturalistic biography of the Lord. — Final aim, claims, and limit of historic criticism from the stand point of modern Supranaturahsm. SECTION XCII. — THE HUMAN CHARACTER IN CHRIST S MANIFESTATION. According to the universal representation of the New Testa ment, the life of Jesus Christ 011 earth — however extraordinary in 404 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. many respects— was a truly human life; and only as regarded from this point of view can it be estimated at its full value. The Docetic disavowal of this truth, which we see reappearing in different forms in all ages, and which is easily to be explained, is thus not only wanting in all historic basis, but is also in principle and tendency fatal alike to Christian faith and Christian science. i. To the question, "Who was Jesus?" no answer presents less difficulty than that which first of all confesses Him as a sharer of our own nature. In speaking of the human character of His manifestation we by no means imply that He was merely man, far less an ordinary man, but that He was man in reality and truth. The reasons for maintaining this position are as well known as they are satisfactory. All the Evangelists, the fourth not excepted, present Him as a sharer of our nature. They speak of His con ception, birth, circumcision, growth, His hunger and fasting, sleeping and waking, joy and sorrow, suffering and death. The Lord Himself speaks of Himself as a man,1 and even after His resurrection ascribes to Himself a human body,2 as He had already before spoken of His soul,3 and of His spirit.4 On this account also He repeatedly compares Himself with other men,5 and places His spiritual kindred on a level with His mother and His brethren.6 He makes the impression upon His contemporaries of being man ; 7 and even the name of Son of man, although referring indirectly to something supranatural, is at the same time proof that He thinks nothing human alien to Himself. If He appears here and there in a supranatural character, yet never does He stand before us in a non-natural or extra- natural light. No wonder that all His first witnesses are in full agreement on this point with each other and with Him. Peter speaks of Him as a man ordained of God ;8 Paul with manifest emphasis as the man Christ Jesus,9 the second Adam, who has appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh.10 Especially does the Epistle to the Hebrews attach particular importance to His truly human obedience and development ;u and John goes even so far as to see in the disavowal of this truth the characteristic of a systematic Antichristendom.12 In harmony with all the e testimonies the true humanity of the Lord has been confessed by the orthodox Church of all ages, and notably also has been repeatedly witnessed to and defended by the Nether lands Reformed Church.13 2. If we ask as to the logical conception [Begrip, that which is compre hended under the name] which we are to form to ourselves of the human nature of the Lord, it becomes apparent that nothing which truly belongs 1 Matt. iv. 4 ; John viii. 40. ' Mark vi. 3. 2 Luke xxiv. 39. 8 Acts ii. 22 — 24. 3 John xii. 27. " 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; comp. Acts xvii. 31. * Luke xxiii. 46. 10 Kom. viii. 3. 5 Matt. xii. 41, 42. " Heb. v. 8, 9. Matt. xii. 50. >2 1 Tohn iv. 2, 3. 13 See Neth. Conf, Art. xviii. ; Held. Cat.', Ans. 35 ; Can. Dord., ii. 4. THE HUMAN CHARACTER IN CHRIST'S MANIFESTATION. 495 to the nature and essence of man can be said with good reason not to exist in Him. His body was thus subject to human necessities, and mortal, i.e., so constituted that He, like any other, could die. His mind was subject to the law of human development, from a iower to a higher degree. Especially in Luke, chapter the second, is this development depicted to us from the life. Successively is He seen to be infant, child, youth ; and then He is sitting in the Temple, not teaching, but hearing, and interrogating the Doctors of the law. His whole personality moreover bears the stamp of a human, oriental, genuinely Israelitish individuality.14 Yet upon closer contemplation He reveals Himself not only as a man amongst other men, but as the man by way of pre-eminence, the second man — as Adam was the first — in whom the ideal of humanity is realised. This also the Church had a dim sense of, when, even at an early period, it regarded and honoured Him — in opposition to a representation of His outward appearance in a mean and uncomely form — as the fairest of the sons of men ; while on the other hand with judicious tact it refrained from defining anything as to His character, since precisely in the perfect harmony of His self-manifesta tion is reflected the matchless sublimity thereof. 3. The disavowal of this true humanity of the Lord, and the denial thereof, has from an early time received the name of Docelism — a name originally applied to a well-known sect of the first Christian century. We understand thereby in Dogmatics, not simply an isolated historical phenomenon, but in general every view of the person of our Lord, by which in some way or other aught is detracted from the reality of His human nature. In the course of history we see this Docetic principle coming to light under various shapes. It manifests itself first in its Gnostic-Man ichceistic form. As such it arose even in the Apostolic age,15 and is especially contested in the epistles of Ignatius.16 From this standpoint a deceptive phantom-body is ascribed to the Lord ; and Basilides, for instance, asserted that He had walked about on earth in a heavenly covering, consisting of a fine light-material ; while Marcion speaks of Him as descending suddenly into the marker-place at Capernaum. — Docetism afterwards manifests itself in an Arian-Apollin- aristic colouring. Arianism offends not only against the truly Divine nature of the Lord, but also against His true human nature, by substituting the fonner in place of the human soul (i"rxfi); while Apollinarianism represents its Christ as composed of body, soul, and Logos, and so gives to the last the place of the human spirit (irvevp.a). — In the Nestorian-Mono- physite controversy, also, there was by no means wanting a Docetic leaven. Though Nestorius never utterly ignored the truly human nature in Christ, he misapprehended its real character; inasmuch as he degraded the human nature into a deitatis instrumentum, only outwardly united to the Deity (per cwatpuav). So Monophysitism again, with its confounding of the two natures, could not but force the human nature more or less into the shade. And even Theopaschitism (553) had, however unconsciously, a decidedly Docetic background. — Docetism still continues to exist in the present day in Popular-ascetic forms, whenever the essential humanity of the Lord is not earnestly acknowledged along with His essential Divinity. This is the case 14 John iv. 9. ,s 1 John iv. 2, 3 ; 2 John 7. 16 Ad Smyrn., 2, 3 ; ad Eph., 7, 18. 496 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. in the Romish Church, where Jesus is very frequently addressed as the supreme Lord, beside whom the necessity is felt of another more truly human advocate, in the person of His glorified mother. But not less is this especially the case with some orthodox Protestants, who at once scent out a heresy whenever they hear it said that the Lord needed to learn anything; that now and then there was something He did not know; that He in reality shuddered at the thought of the last conflict, and fervently prayed for the removal of the sufferings of death ; while, on the other hand, inaccurate and obscure conceptions — such, for instance, as that of Jehovah in the manger, God upon the cross — are applauded as Evangelical and orthodox. 4. The rise and constant reproduction of the Docetic error is suffi ciently easily explained. It was a natural fruit of the overpowering im- pression left by the appearing of Christ — an involuntary reaction against Naturalistic Ebionitism. It was felt, as it were instinctively, how much the latter detracts from the greatness of Christ, and men on that account passed over to the opposite extreme. In this fact lies an Apologetic hint of great significance : how great must He have been, who produced such an impression even on the first generation after that of His contempo raries ! If the Christ was not more than Strauss or Renan make Him to be, the origin of Docetism is thoroughly incomprehensible. " The original Docetism contains a marked Supranaturalistic element," says Neander. The Docetic error is even — if we must choose between the two — less pernicious than the opposite one. Yet it must in the long run be energetically rejected, and the true humanity of the Lord emphatically maintained. Certainly, tested by the Gospel, the Docetic view lacks every sort of basis for its one sided assertion. Even by that which is highest and most glorious in the testimony of the Scripture concerning Christ, that which is human in Him is not annihilated, but rather exalted and glorified. As Supranatural He everywhere manifests Himself — if at least by nature we here understand man's present sinful condition — but, we repeat it, as non-human or extra- human, never. On the contrary, He weeps at the grave of the friend whom He raises ; He sleeps in the storm, which by His power He stills ; He in vain seeks for figs on the tree, which He causes to wither at a word. Thus we ever see the human side coming out not simply beside the Divine, but rather in and together with the Divine ; and there is not the slightest reason, where the Divine is acknowledged, for calling in question the exist ence of what is human in Christ. 5. It can even be demonstrated that all disavowal of the true humanity of the Lord inflicts incalculable injury alike upon Christian faith and theo logical science. If Christ was man only in appearance, He still remains something foreign to us, and cannot win our confidence. A knowledge and describing of His life in the flesh is then also no longer possible ; rather, He has not, properly speaking, lived as man among men at all, but has simply appeared upon earth, as a higher spirit who shows himself in a lower sphere. If only in appearance man, He would merit just as little the name of the Messiah of the Prophets ; the latter being certainly promised as man among men, and accordingly all the contemporaries of the Lord expected that the Messiah would, however suddenly, appear as HIS UNSULLIED PURITY. 497 such.17 But, besides, all then falls away which we owe to the real incar nation of the Son of God in connection with the work of our salvation. If the Incarnation was simply an appearance, the Redemption also becomes a mere deception,18 and no provision has in truth been made for our need of a truly human Mediator. The love of the Father also, who abased His Son to such a matchless depth, is now, properly regarded, nothing more than a misleading semblance. The whole of tne Gospel history becomes, from this standpoint, a sort of Mythology ; Christ no longer the highest ideal and example of His people ; and the glorification of our nature in and by Him the illusion of a diseased imagination. It has justly therefore been remarked, that " our salvation, too, depends upon the reality of His body;"19 and it was aptly asked by the Reformer (Calvin), " if it were fixed upon the minds of all, that a brotherly hand, and one attached to us by the com munity of our nature, is extended to us by the Son of God, that He may raise us out of this our so abject condition, and set us in heaven; who would not prefer to hold this straight path, rather than to wander in rough and devious bye-ways ? " It ought to be recognised and prized as an essential progress in the domain of the more recent believing science, that its best representatives ever increasingly seek to penetrate into the full depth of the Apostolic utterance, that the Word truly became flesh. Only of" this we must take care, that one essential distinction, of which presently more, be never undervalued or overlooked. Comp. A. H. Niemeyer, De Docetis (1823) ; J. H. Scholten, Oratio de Docetismo .... vitando (1840), and the literature there collected. Our Life of Jesus, i., p. 220 ; Christologie, iii., p. 175 ; and E. DE Pressensf., Early Years of Christianity, i., p. 430. Points for Inquiry. Significance and truth of 1 John iv. 2, 3. — In which of the Synoptical Gospels is the truly human in the Lord most prominent ? — Is the fourth Gospel absolutely free from a Docetic character ? — Significance for this investigation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. — What is ever to be presupposed in the defence of the true humanity, if this latter is to have any signinc nee?— What may be determined with some probability with regard to the means whereby — according to Luke ii. 52 — the Lord increased in wisdom? — Origin, varying forms, and continual significance of Docetism. SECTION XCIII. — HIS UNSULLIED PURITY. Although very man, and in all things tempted as we are, the Lord nevertheless remained perfectly free from every inclination to sin and contamination by it. On good grounds, therefore, has the Christian Church of all ages confessed Him as the Holy and Perfect One, in whom the Ideal of humanity is fully realised ; and has maintained this its confession against manifold opposition. 17 See, e.g., Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph., c. 49. 18 Cyrill. Hierosolym. Cat. 4, el (pavraala fy t\ ivavSpiInniaiS, >pk anaprlas."1 In accord with this word of Holy Scripture the Christian Church of all ages has acknowledged in its Founder the Holy and Sinless One. In the CEcumenical Symbols the separate mention of this particular was, it would seem, not even regarded as necessary ; while in those of the Netherlands Reformed Church this is made only in few words.2 In our day, however, in consequence of different circumstances, the question as to the absolute sinlessness of the Lord has been brought into full light with an earnestness before unknown — as well in the domain of Dogmatics, as in that of Apologetics — and it still continues with good reason to attract the attention in the highest degree. 2. In dealing with this question, it is first of all necessary to know whether, and in what way anything positive can be determined with regard thereto. Even the former is denied, with an appeal to the in complete and fragmentary character of the sacred history. In answer to this it must be observed — as will soon become apparent — that this history con tains sufficient data not to leave us wholly in uncertainty, provided that the historic point under investigation be examined in a purely historic manner. For until lately a dogmatic-philosophic method was pursued, where the ques tion as to the sinlessness of the Lord was under examination. The starting- point was made from the Divine nature of the Redeemer ; from the absolute necessity for His sinlessness, in order to effect the work of our redemption ; from the miracles or predictions which afford a ground and justification for our ascribing to Him this property, etc. It is scarcely, how ever, necessary to prove how little value is to be attached to such an a priori method, and how the indispensableness of anything from a dogmatic point of view is no proof whatever for its historic reality. And although the Christian consciousness requires that He from whom the highest life has proceeded should have Himself possessed this life in the fullest measure, it cannot on its own authority proclaim that He was from the very beginning, always, and in the most absolute sense of the word, sinless. An historic question • like this remains an open one, and without a solution, so long as it is not decided by an appeal to facts which admit of no doubt or contradiction. To the facts, more than anything else, must our attention thus be directed. 3. This already is in itself a fact of great significance, that the idea of sinlessness in its full extent originates on Christian soil, and is met with nowhere else in the Gentile world. Demosthenes, for instance, ascribes the not-sinning to the gods alone ; Epictetus and Cicero speak of it as impossible for men ; and what Xenophon says of Socrates,3 that no one ever heard him speak, or saw him do anything bad, can certainly only be 1 Heb. iv. 15. ; cf. ii. 17. ¦ ?f:A' Co,MS-' Art> xviii- '• Heid- Cat-< Ans- l(>i Can. Dord., ii. I. 8 Memorabilia, 1.1. HIS UNSULLIED PURITY. 499 understood in the relative sense of outward perversion of manners. In Judaism and Mohammedanism, also, the notion of absolute sinlessness is wanting. That it is rooted only in Christian soil seems incomprehensible, unless one has lived who made upon his contemporaries the irresistible impression that He was really " the prototype of the morally good." 4. That which the existence of the notion of sinlessness leads us to suppose, we see confirmed by a number of witnesses, which, even separately regarded, but of course much more when taken together, are worthy of the highest confidence. — In the first place there is the unanimous testimony of Jesus' friends and disciples, bearing witness to His moral purity. Listen to the utterances of Peter in Acts iii. 14, 1 Pet. i. 19, ii. 22 ; of Paul, in 2 Cor. v. 21, Rom. viii. 3, comp. Heb. vii. 26, 27 ; of John, in 1 John ii. 2, iii. 5. — Their declaration is supported by that of strangers and enemies. Judas, Herod, Pilate and his wife, the thief on the cross, and the centurion at its foot, all received the same impression of this personality, — that of high moral excellence. — How far this excellence must have extended may be inferred especially from the Lord's own testimony concerning Himself, as He repeatedly gives this, either directly or indirectly, as well in the three first Gospels,4 as above all in that of John,5 under the most diverse circumstances of His life, and even with death immediately before Him. Particularly is the memorable word of John viii. 46 of importance in this connection, not so much because no single answer is received to this challenge, as on account of the unparalleled self-consciousness of Him Who could address it to aliens and foes ; while He — the meek and lowly of heart — breathes no single word of confession of guilt, either to God or man. A self-consciousness like this cannot possibly have been in this mouth the result either of self-deception or of the deception of others ; it must consequently be accepted as the expression of an astonishing, but objec tively certain, truth. — And this the more, since it is raised above all con tradiction by the testimony of the Father Himself. We refer to all the manifestations of the Divine good-pleasure taken in combination, which present themselves in the history of the life of Jesus, to the appearing of angels, the voices from heaven, the resurrection and ascension of the Saviour especially,6 — facts, of which the historic truth is here naturally presupposed, but then also the dogmatic significance of which for the question under consideration cannot be ambiguous. — And in connection with this must be taken into account the testimony as to the effect of the manifestation of Christ ; especially that of the great transformation wrought by Him in the individual man and in mankind. It can be proved that nothing evil, but on the contrary all that is really good, has proceeded from Christ Himself, and been developed in communion with Him; whilst even those most advanced in the domain of morals continue to look up to Him as an unsurpassed example. All this is wholly inexplicable, unless we take into our hands the key afforded by His absolute sinlessness. 5. That which all these witnesses testify is, — and this fact is here espe cially of importance, — constantly anew confirmed by the irresistible impres- * Matt. vii. 11 ; xi. 29, 30 ; xii. 50. s John iv. 34 ; vi. 38 ; viii. 29 ; xv. 10 ; xvii. 4. 8 Rom. i. 4. K K 2 500 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. sion which the attentive contemplation of the person and manifestation of the Lord produces even apart from our will. It is and continues an im pression of moral harmony, undisturbed by any false note. If every human personality has its weak side as well as its stronger one, who is able to point out the weak side of this holy life ? Precisely the equipoise of the different powers of soul and spirit, and not the preponderance of the one over the other, proclaims the Lord incomparably great. In addition to this, there is the perfect freedom which we discover in His whole outward and inner life. He stands free in the presence of law and tradition, of friend and foe, of the world and the Father, whom He obeys not otherwise than in perfect freedom. Everywhere He feels and manifests Himself as the Son of the house, who is free, and makes free, in opposition to the slaves of sin.7 And this freedom, which with the latter has long degenerated into self-will and self-seeking, He reveals in holy, boundless, perfect love, which is here — as nowhere else on earth — the source and bond of the highest moral perfection. If we combine all this, it very soon becomes apparent that we have not asserted too much, but rather too little, in saying that the personality itself stands yet far above the impression left by it. No wonder, after all this, that the belief in the unsullied purity of the Lord is as old as Christianity itself. If our knowledge of the Lord is on many points imperfect, in this respect at least it need not be uncertain. 6. While the certainty of the Lord's absolute freedom from sin may be sufficiently justified for the Christian conscious ness, it is not easy to give a satisfactory answer to the question as to the proper nature and essence of the sinlessness of Christ. And this must be the case, since it is never in the Gospel described formally and at large ; and we know from experi ence that nothing is less easy for us than to read deep in the heart of the Holy and the Pure One. Thus much is, however, at once apparent, that giving credit to the above-mentioned series of testimonies, we have to ascribe the attribute of sinlessness not only to the outward life of our Lord, but also — and above all — to His inner life. He is seen to be free, not only from every perverse act, but also from sin itself, conceived of as an inward principle, dominating the heart and life. Here the fruit is ripe, because the tree is healthy, and the root is sound and good. We must here speak not only of freedom from sins, but also of freedom from sin; and this idea is to be understood not only in the negative sense of the absence of sin, but in the positive sense of perfect purity and holiness. Under the influ ence of the assaults of unbelief, the more recent Apologetics has contented itself too much with merely defending the first of these ; and certainly this is something, yea, relatively much, but not enough, because there is indeed the right and title to more than this. That which here reveals itself to our eye is an harmonious continuity of moral and spiritual life ; no mere childish, nor even sacred, innocence, but the perfect purity of Him who had had a view of sin very close at hand, but had unceasingly resisted, and had been at every point victorious. 7. Always, however, is the sinlessness of the Lord to be regarded as an attribute of His true humanity, and thus to be clearly distinguished from ' John viii. 34 — 36. HIS UNSULLIED PURITY. SOI the absolute holiness of Him who cannot even be tempted of evil.8 The moral purity of the Lord did not in itself exclude even the least possibility of sinning. Had such possibility been absolutely wanting, the former would, even in the Son of Man, have lost all moral worth. The great thing here is precisely this, that He who was exposed to the severest temptation, ever so maintained the dominion over Himself, that it could be said of Him, He was able not to sin— potuit non peccare. As the result of a sus tained conflict, He so perfectly vanquished the power of evil, that sinning became for Him morally an absolute impossibility ; in other words, the potuit non peccare was ever more raised to a non potuit peccare — He could not sin. That which John speaks of every believer9 has its application undoubtedly in a yet higher sense to the Captain of our Salvation. We must take care, however, that we do not explain the sinlessness of Christ as arising from an original, irresistible necessity of nature, but rather derive it from a free, moral, and spiritual governing-principle of the life. The actual possibility of sinning continued to exist for Him, because He was man as we are, exposed to so much the more terrible temptations in pro portion as His life was hastening to its end ; and that He withstood this possibility to the end, in no case detracts from His true humanity. The example of Adam before the fall shows that it is possible to be man with out being a sinner. Sin belongs not to the original nature of mankind, but to its present condition ; and he who resists and conquers it, is thereby not less man, but even far more so than he who daily sins. And on this account we must think, in connection with the person of Christ, of a, posse peccare, which, in consequence of His own free determination of will, in no case became a reality; of a formal freedom, which was harmoniously raised to the most real (moral) freedom ; of a concrete possibility of temptation, but which was at all times victoriously repelled. No doubt it will ever continue difficult to do eqaal justice to the two conceptions : really tempted, and yet remaining without sin ; even in the domain of our own inner life, the precise point at which outward temptation becomes an inner one, and this becomes a sin, is hidden in obscurity and shadow, and the history of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, especially, is a rock marked out by many a shipwreck. However explained, it becomes convincingly apparent that all the temptations in the life of the Lord, of which His history speaks, came to Him not from within, but from without ; that, even in the most violent assaults, He overcame them by the sword of the Spirit; and that, in short, the humbling word of Matt. xv. 19, is on His lips no word of self-accusation, but simply the fruit of experience and of the knowledge of man. And while, from the nature of the case, there remains also many a question unanswered in connection with this subject, yet the obscurity attending the how is far from affording a sufficient reason for disputing the that, since the miraculous fact itself may be satis factorily defended against objections of various kinds. 8. The completeness of an Anamartesia, of which we have thus far learnt to know the certainty and the cause, has been, and still is, disputed partly on historical grounds, partly upon those of a philosophical nature. As far 8 a.irelpaj7Tos KO.K&V, James i. 13. " I John iii. 9b. 502 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. as the former are concerned, it is true that touching the greater part of the life of Jesus absolutely nothing, or but little, is known to us. But if the sacred documents on this account fall short of defending the confession of the absolute purity and holiness of the Lord against all possible opposition, yet they contain enough — as is evident from what has been said — amply to justify the moral conviction called forth by the impression of this appearing. The Divine witness (Matt. iii. 17) impresses its seal upon the whole previous hidden life ; the testimony of the Lord concerning Himself (John viii. 46) counterbalances many an unanswered query ; and a harmony, like that of the public life of the Lord, were inconceivable, if it had been even tempo rarily preceded by a moral disharmony at an earlier period. The assailant of the sinlessness of the Lord must consequently adduce stronger argu ments against it, than we have mentioned in its favour, according to the rule : neganti incumbit probatio. In reality this has also been attempted, and incidents out of the secluded and the public life of Jesus, and out of the last days and hours of His life, have been appealed to, as being thought to cast some stain upon His mode of thinking, speaking, or acting. With how little ground, however, it is not difficult to show. The one detail belonging to our Lord's early life of seclusion, preserved to us by Luke alone, chapter ii. 40 — 52, contains nothing which gives us reason to entertain doubt as to His sinlessness. For there is nothing to show that His remaining behind at Jerusalem was the result of design or was His own fault. Just as little does His first word (ver. 49 b) testify to any waywardness of disposition with regard to Mary or Joseph ; it undoubtedly shows that the consciousness of a higher origin and work manifested itself at this comparatively early period. Yet the develop ment spoken of, here and in verse 52, may none the less have been entirely normal. For by "increasing" is here meant no transition from the imperfect to that which is better, but progress from the relatively to the absolutely perfect ; and precisely in this fact is the greatness of the Lord manifested, that He was perfectly and wholly child and youth, before He appeared as a man, fully matured. He who finds a sense of moral im perfection in the fact that the Lord submits to receive baptism at the hands of John, has assuredly never considered with sufficient earnestness the con versation before His baptism, nor that which happened at and after this event In the beginning of the Lord's public life His word to Mary (John ii. 4) has been thought to be in some degree wounding in its nature, and in con flict with the respect due to His mother. But all here depended on the tone ; and that Mary by no means felt herself hurt thereby is evident from the remainder of the history : in itself the instruction had nothing unsuit able, was even called for and necessary, and the name of honour, "woman" (tivai), is still given even from the cross to the blessed among mothers.— He who finds a difficulty with regard to the cleansing of the temple (John ii. 13 — 17) overlooks in connection therewith the distinction between holy and unhallowed wrath, the rights of the Zealots in Israel, the self-command of love, and the lofty impression left by this act of the Lord on the first witnesses thereof.— The incident with the Canaanitish mother (Matt. xv. 21—28) testifies just as little of arbitrary severity as of a narrow particu larism, but only of profound wisdom combined with an inextinguishable HIS UNSULLIED PURITY. c0i sense of the limits of His mission. In reality the Lord could not, in ac cordance with a higher order of things, grant the prayer of the Gentile woman, before she had shown herself by persevering faith a true daughter of Abraham.— That by the cursing of the fig tree by the wayside,10 He had interfered with any rights of private property, is just as little capable of proof as that He here acted from an unreasoning impulse. It was a holy symbolical act, to which the most sublime lesson is immediately attached. That which took place in connection with the Gadarene swine u loses in great measure its difficulty if it is considered how infinitely high the deliver ance of a human soul stands above the loss of numerous animal lives ¦ while it does not even appear that Jesus really willed or directly caused this latter.— Or shall we, on the ground of John vii. 8, as compared with ver. 10, bring against Him the charge of inconsistency? But manifestly He spoke of "going up " in the sense of " publicly journeying with the festive caravan," which thus, in the whole connection of this discourse, does not exclude a more silent and private entrance. — The word in Matt. xix. 17, finally, does not absolutely deny that He is good, any more than it will say that He is God ; but it had simply the design of bringing the fluent and superficial questioner at once to consider what high significance must be attached to the word " good," so lightly applied by him to the as yet but little known Rabbi of Nazareth. Of the last period of the Lord's life, neither His relation to Judas, nor His prayer in Gefhsemane, nor His anxious complaint on the cross, affords us any appearance of reason for refusing to Him the name of holy and sinless. In the minutest details even, the first-mentioned reveals to us the constant manifestation of holy and long-suffering love ; while the two other instances, properly explained, prove only the true humanity of the Lord, and the depth of His feeling of suffering. 9. Other historical difficulties are perhaps yet more baseless. The objections adduced from the more philosophical side against the doctrine which we are defending, are partly of a more speculative, partly of a more empirical nature. — It is thought inconceivable that in any province, espe cially in the highest, the originator should at once take and retain the lead, without even, after the lapse of ages, being surpassed by any other. And this is really inconceivable in the domain of knowledge and science ; but, at the same time, not wholly so in that of art, in which sometimes the mightiest heroes — as in the case of Homer, Apelles, etc. — continue to stand superior to the attainments of many a later age ; and least of all is it the case in the sphere of religion, especially where this rests upon the fact of special revelation. Here, on the contrary, precisely the founder and initiator must evidently be the greatest of all ; since in Him there must be originally present that which is awakened and called forth in others by no other than Him. — If it is further said, with Strauss, that the ideal of moral perfection is, from the nature of the case, realised, not in an individual, but only slowly and by degrees, in and by the race : the assertor is perfectly fight, from the standpoint of the Hegelian philosophy. But the claim of this latter to a patent for infallibility, is hitherto absolutely 10 Mark xi. 14. " Matt. viii. 28—34. 504 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. unproved ; and if Christianity sees, on good historical grounds, the moral ideal realised in its Founder, it confesses, at the same time, that precisely in fellowship with Him is it by degrees and after a long time attained in its full extent by redeemed humanity. This whole objection arises from a misconception of the right of personality in the domain of spiritual things, and overlooks the fact that the moral ideal either never can be realised, or can be realised only in an individuality entirely consecrated to God.— Or if the empirical school points us to the absolutely universal fact of the sin fulness of all men upon earth, it compels us thus, indeed, to acknowledge that here there has in reality been an exception to the otherwise universal rule ; but it has not, from its standpoint, the right to reject the exception as something absolutely impossible, since the proof that it is unhistonc has not hitherto been given.— Or if, finally, it is asserted that a perfectly sinless Christ precisely thereby loses His moral greatness, and is no longer suited to be our highest exemplar, the answer is simple. It is not the question, what Christ indeed would be the greatest in the estimation of this or that philosophy; but what Christ a credible history proclaims to us. Just because man is created for endless perfection, can even the Divine perfection be pre sented to him for imitation.12 10. It can surprise no one that we thus at large defend the doctrine- nay, the fact— of the Lord's sinlessness, against all opposition. For the importance of the subject very soon becomes manifest to us, whether we connect it with the doctrine of revelation, or with that of redemption in Christ. As concerns the former, precisely the absolute sinlessness of the Lord authorises our unreservedly believing His word, and seeing in His person nothing less than the image of the Father manifest in human form. Sin and the lie are, in the language of the New Testament,13 and from the nature of the case, correlative ideas ; and on no one can we more certainly rely, as having spoken the truth, than upon Him who beheld it with absolutely unclouded eye, and, moreover, never sought His own honour.14 Now we know that he who sees Him, has seen the Father , since no troubled sea can thus clearly reflect the image of the sun in the firmament. He does not merely speak the truth, but He is the truth, precisely because He has, and is, the life, interrupted by no power of sin. — And as concerns the doctrine of Redemption, the sinlessness of the Lord serves, more than anything else, as a guarantee that He voluntarily laid down His life,15 actuated by no other principle than that of perfect obedience and love. But, on this very account, His death on the cross becomes an act which has the highest moral significance, and His sacrifice obtains such value that, in the sight of God, a propitiatory power can be ascribed to it.16 And as thus only a holy and obedient Mediator could redeem us from the chastisement of sin, so also can He alone free us from its dominion. Defiled by sin, He must have died even for His own sins; Himself imperfect, He could not possibly, by word, example, and spirit, lead others on to perfection. Thus, He could not have been to us anything of all that which, according to i Cor. i. 30, He is made of God un.o His people. 12 Matt. v. 48. " John vii. 18. le Rom. v. 18 ; Phil, ii. 8. " John viii. 46. » John x. 17, 18. HIS UNSULLIED PURITY. 50S Only now could He become to them, in the fullest sense of the word, the perfect High Prie st,17 the Author and the Finisher of the Faith,18 and, at the same time, the highest Exemplar, for their imitation and sanctification.19 11. After all this we may boldly maintain that the disavowal of the un sullied purity of the Lord inevitably leads to the undermining and rejection of the whole of Christianity. Wherefore should we call ourselves any longer Christians, where the highest pledge is wanting that in Christ is given on the part of God a perfect revelation, an everlasting redemption ? It He is not really sinless, although He may be called excellent, He does not stand essentially above us ; and out of fear of Docetism we inevitably fall back to the level, nay, sink beneath the level, of the ancient Ebionitism. Yet modern Naturalism, in order to be consistent, cannot but — in opposi tion to each renewed defence — persist in its denial of the fact of His sin lessness. It must from its standpoint apply in this case also the words of Renan, " On ne sort jamais immacule des luttes de la vie." Certainly, as a mere natural result of the co-operation of finite causes, a truly sinless man is absolutely incomprehensible, and in diametrical opposition with all the data of every-day experience. The arising of a single Faultless and Perfed Bang, among all the children of men, is inconceivable without a moral miracle; i.e., without a direct operation and intervention of God in the natural course of development of a sinful human race. 12. Yet with this is already answered in principle the question, which here presents itself at the close : In what way and under what condition alone, is the defence of the spotless purity of the Lord, on good grounds, to be permanently expected ? Only, namely, in the way of the Christian belief in Revelation, which has acknowledged both the necessity and the possibility of such a moral miracle, but at the same time has seen in this perfect Son of man, something more than man. As well the nature of the case as experience goes to show that once one has come to the recognition of the sinlessness, it is impossible to stop short at this ; but one is com pelled to take a step in advance, unless one would take a step backward. Of two things, one : either Christ was a mere man, for the explanation of whose history a supranatural factor in no case may be called in, and then we must assume that He was wholly man as we are, in this respect also, that He was defiled by human imperfection and sin ; or, if we cannot accept this last, we must necessarily suppose that He was not distinguished in degree, but specifically, from the race to which He stood in the closest relation ; in other words, we must truly recognise in Him something supra- human. A third possibility does not exist, save in the domain of empty abstraction. With logical consequence the recognition of the unsullied purity thus leads us to that of the heavenly origin, and the more than human character, of the Lord ; while he who denies the latter, even with the best will, cannot long continue to hold the former. This is so certain that it even seems impossible to answer all the objections raised against the Anamartesia, if one will recognise in Jesus nothing more than merely a sinless man. In reality He has spoken words and wrought deeds which do not fit within the framework of our conception of spotless human purity ; " Heb. vii. 26, 27. 18 Heb. xii. I, 2. 18 Ephes. v. I, 2; 1 John ii. 6. 506 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. and which only gain sense and significance when there is, at the same time, seen in Him the Man from heaven, the incarnate Son of God. From this, naturally, by no means follows the impossibility of duly maintaining the sinlessness of the Lord ; but rather the necessity for not regarding this miracle by itself— as is only too frequently the case— but for bringing it into connection with the Lord's suprahuman origin and dignity, and rising from the former to the recognition of the latter. " The true man," as has been well said by Ebrard, " must be given to humanity from heaven." Compare, in addition to the well-known and still highly interesting treatise of C. Ullmann, The Sinlessness of Jesus (8th edition of the original, 1870); especially— against the now famous writings of Pecaut and Strauss— the monograph of Dr. P. J. Gouda Quint, De zondeloosheid des Heeren (1862), where a copious literature is presented ; to which may be added the Leven Jezus written by us, i., p. 569, sqq. ; Christologie, iii., pp. ic.3 — 211. Further, J. A. Dorner, The perfect Holiness of J. C. proved from His Works (1862) ; Roger Collard, Essai sur le Caractere de J. C. (1866) ; and, above all, the profound article of B. Weiss, Siindlosigk. Jesu, in Herzog's R. E., third supplementary volume. Points for Inquiry. The significance of this dogma. — Whence is it that the sinlessness of the Lord has been, more than ever before, assailed and defended during the last half-century? — What con ception of sin lies at the basis of the examination as to this article of faith ? — In what manner has this doctrine been developed in the course of ages ? — Explanation of Matt. iv. I — 11, as compared with Luke iv. 13b. — What is meant when Paul, in Rom. vi. 10a., teaches that Christ died to sin ? — What is the difference between the state of not having sinned, of immunity from sins, aiui of immunity from sin ? — The maintaining of the demonstrative force of John viii. 46, and some other places. — Is there any reason for giving especially the name of religious genius to Jesus ? — Is it true that the recognition of the sinlessness of Christ prevents (excludes) that of His moral greatness and imitableness for His people? — Why is it not possible to stop short at the recognition of Him as perfect man : nothing less, but also nothing more ? — Difference and connection between the metaphysical and the ethical element of Christology. SECTION XCIV. — HIS SUPRAHUMAN DESCENT. That which the unsullied purity of the Lord of itself leads us to suppose, is expressly stated by His first witnesses, and placed beyond all doubt by His own declarations — that He, the Perfect Man, was originally infinitely more than man. We speak of Him, therefore, as the Son of God, not simply in the ethical or theocratical sense of that term, but also in the metaphysical sense, and indicate thereby that He is partaker not only of the true and unsullied human nature, but also is in truth partaker of the Divine, and consequently is infinitely far exalted above every creature in heaven and on earth. As such He is Himself the greatest Miracle of history, in the manifestation of whom even that which is HIS SUPRAHUMAN DESCENT. 507 otherwise unheard of and incomprehensible, ceases to be absolutely inconceivable. 1. The step in advance, which we here take in the way of our investiga tion, has naturally been prepared for by that which precedes, and calls above all things for a further examination of witnesses. That, even in respect to Christology, a comparatively great difference is found amongst the writers of the New Testament, is equally well known as it is easily explained ; but the more at the very outset is it worthy of notice that not one of them regarded the Lord either as mere man, or as man only in appearance. However little the General Epistles of James and Jude may contain bearing on our subject, the name of Lord — Kipios — applied in the Old Testament to the Godhead, is here repeatedly used of the Christ. The writers mention this name, as that of the Lord of Glory,1 and the only Ruler,2 along with that of God ; they describe themselves as His servants, and thus ascribe to Him a kingly post-existence, after His departure from the earth, which is wholly inconceivable, without a personal pre-existence. Of the first believers, indeed, it is manifest that they, Christians of the Jews, by " calling upon His name "3 rendered to Him Divine homage. It is remarkable how, notably in Peter, the testimony concerning the supra- human in Christ constantly sounds forth more powerfully. In the Acts of the Apostles He is still spoken of by this Apostle as a man sent of God, the Holy and the Just One, the Prince of Life.* In the First Epistle,5 however, His name is mentioned in one breath with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost ; His life on earth is spoken of as a manifestation, after a previous foreknowledge of Him on the part of God ; and the Spirit of the Prophets, as identical with that of Christ. Perhaps in 1 Pet. iv. 11, but certainly in 2 Pet. iii. 18, there is presented to the glorified Saviour the honour of a doxology, the like of which is nowhere rendered to the crea ture ; and in 2 Pet. i. 1 — if at least this epistle is genuine — the name of God, as well as that of Saviour, is, according to the most probable interpretation, given Him by the Apostle. The Apostle Paul recognises yet more clearly the suprahuman in the Christ ; not merely in those Epistles which are dis puted or doubted, but also in those of which the genuineness is readily accepted by all. Let any one read and reflect upon such utterances as Rom. i. 3, 4; viii. 2, 3, 32; x. 9—13 ; 1 Cor. x. 4; 2 Cor. iii. 17 ; iv. 6 ; viii. 9; Gal. i. 1; iv. 4; and, further, the proof- passages, Phil. ii. 6 — 8; Col. i. 15 — 20; ii. 9. The name of God also (9e6s), is by him without hesitation ascribed to the Saviour, according to the only accurate interpre tation of Rom, ix. 5 ; Tit. ii. 13.6 The same confession is heard in a number of places in the Epistle to the Hebrews ;7 and, as far as the essence ' Jaires ii. 1. 2 Jude 4. " Acts ix. 14. 1 Acts ii. 22 ; iii. 14, 15. s 1 Pet. i. 2, 11, 20. 8 Acts xx. 28, and 1 Tim. iii. 16, frequently cited in this connection, labour under critical difficulties of a preponderating nature. ' Heb. i. 3 ; v. 8 ; xiii. 8, and other places. 508 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. of the confession itself is concerned, Thomas entirely agrees therewith;8 The Apostle John, who communicates to us this last, received in the ancient Church the name of Theologus, on account of his unequivocal and power ful confession of the Godhead of the Lord. Think of the beginning of his Gospel and of his first Epistle,9 but not less of so many a sublime utter ance of the Apocalypse, which would sound like blasphemy, unless He to whom it applied had been more than man. On the sense and force of each of these utterances a more particular criticism is to be found in connection with its treatment in the Theology of the New Testament.™ But what here especially must not pass unnoticed, is that all these testimonies, given by different writers, independently of each other, by men of Jewish birth and education, and from the strictly Monothejstic standpoint, are unanimous, unequivocal, and complete ; that they are, for the most part, the result of personal eye-witness, and of the deep impression thereby produced ; above all, that they may be termed simply the distinct echo of the personal self- testimony of the Lord, which in more than one way has called forth,- lent force to, and set the crown on theirs. 2. As concerns the utterances of Jesus Himself, even though the Modern criticism had left us only one of the four Gospels, the least of all would be more than sufficient for maintaining the assertion, that He ascribed to Him self suprahuman descent and dignity. Even the name of Son of Man is, for the observant eye, simply the transparent veil which covers the supra natural in Him ; and in the Synoptical Gospels, as well as John, the Rabbi of Nazareth speaks in a tone which would sound blasphemous indeed, if He had been nothing more than the pious and genial son of the carpenter. See Matt. vii. 21; ix. 2; x. 37; xi. 27; xii. 6; xviii. 20; xxi. 37; xxiv. 35, 36 ; xxviii. 18—20, and the parallel places in Mark and Luke. Especially in the Fourth Gospel do we meet with declarations which leave no further room for doubt. On the one hand, He declares Himself, it is true, abso lutely dependent on the Father ; u but, at the same time, He places Himself in such relation to the Father as no one on earth besides Himself can speak of occupying. Here, also, He makes mention of his Father, in dis tinction from our Father — this latter word being understood in the sense in which He places it on the lips of His praying disciples. He speaks of Himself as God's only-begotten Son,12 refers to His personal pre-existence before Abraham, yea, before the creation of the world,13 ascribes to Himself absolute oneness of power with the Father,14 which can only be based on unity of nature, and moreover, as is well known, accepts with approbation the reverential homage of the believing Thomas.15 He repeatedly distin guishes between His present form of existence and that in which He was before,16 and demands for His person that which, according to the letter and spirit of the Old Testament, may in this sense be ascribed to no crea ture.17 We might mention more proofs, but enough ; so long as it has not 8 John xx. 28. is John ;;;. vii; g xyii 8 Compare also I John v. 20. " John x. 30. 10 See our Handbook, in loc. ls John xx 28 29 " \°\n y.\ '9. 26- 16 John vi.' 62 • xvi. 28. John 111. 16. 17 John v. 28 ; xiv. I, 11. HIS SUPRAHUMAN DESCENT. 509 been shown, either that these utterances are all forgeries, or that they are to be understood in an entirely different way, we must consequently hold that the humble Jesus willed to be recognised as something infinitely more than mereljuthe most excellent of men, and we cannot escape the conclu sion which necessarily follows therefrom. 3. Even at an earlier stage (§ Hi.) we saw what is meant in general by the name and the idea of a Divine Sonship. Now, however, the question is whether there exist sufficient grounds for applying this name to the historical person, of Jesus of Nazareth, and in what definite sense we employ this appellation with regard to Him. This question is the more to the point, since the name of Son of God is used in the Scriptures of the New Testament, in more than one sense, with regard to our Lord. He is now termed the Son of God on account of His miraculous concep tion and birth as man ;18 now it is said that He was manifested to be so by His resurrection from the dead;19 and now, again,' this title of honour is conferred by Himself on the peace-makers.20 His disciples and con temporaries often used this name as indicative of the long-promised Messiah, of whom it was frequently used in the Scriptures of the Old Testament in the Theocratic sense.21 Nevertheless, it is felt to be the great question in what sense the Lord called Himself the Son, in contra distinction not only from the Father, but from absolutely all men ; and to this question there can, in our opinion, be no other answer given than the one already mentioned. The name of Messiah in itself points to some thing suprahuman, although this was overlooked by the greater part of the contemporaries of Jesus : the Scriptures of the Old Testament ascribe to the Christ not simply the highest Theocratic rank, but also a Divine descent and' dignity in the proper sense of the term.22 The Messianic dignity thus already by implication involves in itself the Divine Sonship ; an everlasting kingdom, such as is here promised, could not possibly be founded and governed by one who was nothing more than man. On this account the name Son of God is by no means an apposition to the synony mous title of Messiah : it is no name of office, but of person and nature, borne in a sense wholly unique by Him who appeared as Messiah upon earth. He is called so, not because He. the perfect Man, was the Re deemer of Israel ; but because from eternity He stood to the Father in a relation of nature and being, which could not better be indicated than by this appellation. Not only the ethical, but also the metaphysical properties of the Divine nature are to be ascribed to Him, if this name is to receive its due. Not that this perfect Man was, as such, also in the moral sense the Son of God ; but that He who is by nature God's own eternal Son, went about on earth as perfect man, is with the fullest right the doctrine of Scripture and the Church.23 The superficial observation of Re'ville, that the confession of the Divine nature of the Lord was only of later origin, 18 Luke i. 35. 19 Rom. i. 3, 4. 20 Matt. v. 9. 21 Ps. ii. 7 ; Matt. xxvi. 63 ; John i. 49. 22 Isa. ix. 6, 7 ; Micah v. 2 ; Dan. vii.. 13, 14 ; Mai. iii. I. 23 See Neth. Conf, Art. x. ; Had. Cat., Ans. 33. cI0 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. and therefore the original Christian conviction was preserved with the greatest purity am ngst the Ebionites, Marcionites, etc., is most triumph antly refuted by a more thorough study of history. Even the attentive perusal of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers alone is sufficient to lead us to an entirely different judgment, and to convince us that the Christian Church never satisfied itself with the acknowledgment that its Head and Lord was a true and holy man. 4. The question, whether a duality of nature in the unity of person is really to be ascribed to our Lord, is already in principle answered by that which has been said. We are not ignorant, it is true, of the many diffi culties which are connected with the conception of two natures in one person — even the word Nature, from nasci (to be born), employed with regard to the Godhead, may afford occasion for misunderstanding— and we should be sorry to take the responsibility of a single sophism which might easily follow therefrom. But yet, if we hold our Lord to be God's own Son, who as such before personally existed, and in the fulness of time truly became man, we are compelled to distinguish between the original nature and that which was voluntarily assumed, and to suppose that the two, however closely united, were primarily distinct. He who rejects this position, and on the contrary asserts the absolute identity of the purely human and the Divine, qua talis, becomes, to be consistent, a Pantheist. On the nature of the relation between the two, more hereafter ; here we have to do only with the fact that in reality a truly Divine nature must be ascribed to the Lord, as well as the truly human nature, of which we have spoken in § xcii. We speak of Him as the Son of God, not simply in the sense in which the first man was so called,24 but as indicating that He who here went about in the form of a servant, before lived as God, and, even after His coming upon earth, ceased not to be the Word that was with God and was God. If the justice of this position were not already sufficiently assured by the Lord's own utterances and those of His first wit nesses, it would have been raised beyond all doubt by the history of His life itself. For earthly meanness of condition and heavenly greatness, we see them here from beginning to end, run side by side as two lines, — nay, as two streams in one channel, inseparably flow together. We hear words, we are witnesses of acts and sufferings, which fall wholly beyond our conception, even of the highest and purest humanity ; but, at the same time, the Divine never meets us here in any other than a truly and purely human garb. Now the one, now the other, comes into greater prominence, but nowhere are they separated from each other ; the iron is entirely penetrated by the fire, but iron and fire were originally two. He who denies this last, and obstinately refuses to recognise in Jesus anything more than man, must also admit that the Jews with justice, or at most only in consequence of a fatal misunderstanding, condemned the Lord to death ; but, at the same time, that there is now no longer the slightest reason for maintaining the ancient wall of separation between Jew and Christian. He, on the contrary, who here accepts with us the fact of something Supranatural, in whatever way Luke iii. 38. HIS SUPRAHUMAN DESCENT. tjH this has entered into personal relation with the merely natural, will also be obliged to admit that henceforth the miraculous in this history ceases to be wholly incomprehensible or absolutely inconceivable. If we measure the Christ according to a merely empirical standard, every miracle must become a stone of stumbling to us, and we shall not rest until at any price this stone is removed out of our way. If we regard Him, on the other hand, as the One in whom the Divine and the human are united, as in no one before or after Him ; no miracle wrought by Him, or of which He was the subject, — provided it be duly proved, — need hinder us from belief in Him who is Himself the miracle of all miracles, the glorious Sun, of which the various miraculous deeds are simply the beamings forth, in a certain sense natural. 5. For the explaining and confirmation of that which has been said, we make the trial with the first particular which we confess concerning the incarnate Son of God : " Conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." Who does not know to what opposition this article has at all times given rise ? Naturally. If one places himself at the Naturalistic stand point, and takes his start from the philosophic principle, Nemo inter nos emineat, nothing is easier than to set up, in connection with the Gospel accounts of the nativity, demands and questions vith which they no longer correspond; and, so soon as this becomes apparent, to inscribe those accounts themselves in the list of fictions. But how entirely different the matter becomes, so soon as we take as our torch in the darkness the word of Jesus Himself, "Ye are from beneath, I am from above," and regard this miraculous beginning of life in the light which falls from this centre, as upon all that follows, so also upon all that precedes it. That which appears in itself incredible, becomes thus reasonable — yea, internally probable and worthy of God, in its connection with this organic whole. Naturally the historic truth of the miraculous fact in question is in itself by no means decided by this observation — we shall later return to it ; — but yet there has been pointed out, by way of anticipation, the only stand point which we can take, if we would hope to succeed in this demonstra tion itself. We may, in fact, add to this that, if in reality the miraculous beginning of life can be satisfactorily defended historically, not only is the suprahuman descent of the Lord thereby confirmed, but also His spotless purity (§ xciii.) is, at least to a certain extent, explained. For when we observe how, on the one hand, all human beings born in the ordinary way, are at the same time defiled with sin ; and, on the other hand, how the only Sinless One with whom we are acquainted, received a beginning of life in an extraordinary way, then, indeed, we are compelled to think in this case of a direct connection between the one and the other, and from the post hoc to reason to the propter hoc. If also it seems impossible to define the precise nature of this connection, this does not in itself justify the scouting of the existence thereof as absurd. Enough, if Christ w&* really the man from heaven, destined and sent to become the Head of a new humanity, then there is certainly nothing incredible, from a Theistic standpoint, in His entering in an extraordinary manner into the sphere of life on earth, and in consequence thereof having remained free from the dominating power of the flesh, which reveals itself in connection with all 512 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. the natural descendants of the first Adam. Moreover, the miraculous beginning of life becomes now, no enigmatical fact in itself, but simply a single link in the long chain of miracles, which is inserted exactly at the proper place — yea, precisely the thoroughly ordinary and every-day occur rence would here be less credible for us than the miraculous. Yet this miracle also calls forth questions from which a truly rational faith cannot withdraw itself. The recognition of the Suprahuman in Christ naturally leads to reverent examination as to His nature as God-man. Compare, in addition to the literature mentioned in the former sections, G. Thomasius Christi Person und Werk (1855); M. Nicolas, La Divinite de J. C, demonstration nouvelle, etc. (1864) ; J. C. Diehl, Jezus Christus, meer dan Mensch (1870) ; J. J. van Oosterzee, De Christus en zijne plaats, in the publication Voor Kerk en Theol. (1871) pp. I — 54, [translated in the Preacher's Lantern, Aug. — Oct., 1873]. On the miraculous beginning of the Lord's life in itself, our Diss. Theol. De Jesu, e virgine Maria nato (1840), and our Leven van Jezus, i., p. 324, sqq. ; as also W. BEYSCHLAG, Ueber die Bedeutung des Wunders im Christenth. (1862). Points for Inquiry. Sense and demonstrative force of the principal loca probantia. — Critical examination of the places in the Scriptures of the New Testament, in which the name of God is given to the Son of God. — The significance of the name Son of Man. — The precise connection between the names Christ and Son of God. — Is the conception of two natures in the one person of the Lord truly based upon the teaching of the Gospels ? — In what relation does the suprahuman descent of the Lord stand to His absolute sinlessness ? SECTION XCV. — HIS THEANTHROPIC RANK. The human and the Divine nature exist in the person of the Redeemer by no means only outwardly together, or parallel to each other, but so intimately united that this personality is as little merely human as exclusively Divine, but is and remains to all eternity, Divine-human. The manner of this union is for our finite understanding incomprehensible ; but its conceivableness may be justified as well theologically as anthropologically, its reality is satisfactorily vouched for, and its significance for the Christian faith and life so great, that if this be disavowed, the just apprecia tion of the work of the Lord becomes absolutely impossible. If hitherto we have devoted attention separately to the Divine and the human in Christ, now the union of the two must be the object of our special investigation. The twofold question here applies, how— in the light of the Gospel — we have to conceive of the nature of this union, and how we have to judge of the fact of this union. HIS THEANTHROPIC RANK. 513 I. 1. The nature of the union here referred to, consists in Christ's being not simply true and holy Man, but also from all eternity the sharer of God's nature and majesty, Divine and human alike, in the unity of the person and self-consciousness. Since the time of Origen, there fore, He has borne, in ecclesiastical terminology, the name of God-man (eedv0paTos), a word which, no doubt, like every other, admits of misunder standing, but which has long ago established itself, and which certainly not less merits its adoption than the well-known words, Providence, Trinity, Person, or Nature (obwtotokos, to be substituted. He recog- nised, indeed, each of the two natures of Christ separately ; but supposed that there existed between the two simply a more external, moral union— do-fryxvTos Vt:ud\ ft-toiris, of the two natures. At the Synod of Ephesus, a.d. 431, 1 [Td 8^ trvevpa, tout' Ion rbv voS«, Oebv Ixuv 6 Xpiffrds, peri if/vxys Kal Ti66o-ews), and the penetration of the one nature by the other (ireptxiipvoi-s). It is evident that, if aught is detracted from either of the two natures, it is certainly not from the Divine ; and just as little would, in later times, the opinion of Peter Lombard, that the Son of God had become nothing in the Incarnation — since God is unchangeable — ever have been condemned as Nihilianism, and have been understood in the sense that He had become absolutely nothing, if the due value ha/. been in reality attached to the humanity of Christ. It is true, Scholasticis \ sought, while eschewing the opinion thus erroneously imputed to Lcmbar. ', to defend in different ways the position that Christ, even as man, was no,: merely something, but also some one (aliquis homo); but, throughout, we see in the Christologie consciousness of this period, rather the human, as it were, absorbed and lost in the Divine, than the Divine recognised and glorified in the truly human. 4. The very opposite — naturally at all times with numerous exceptions — do we discover in the third period, extending from the Reformation to the close of the last century. Henceforth we see an increased importance attached to the truly human; at first with the recognition of the Divin-e nature of the Re deemer, and later even with the disavowal and denial of the same. If at first this controversy, which had slumbered for a considerable time, was allowed to sleep on, it was only because very different questions from these were the questions of the hour. Men rested satisfied, from a conviction of its scripturalness, with the doctrine proclaimed by the great General Councils ; while not only Melancthon, but Calvin also, uttered a warning against all sophistical reasonings. "A practical knowledge," says 'the latter, "is, without doubt, more sure and solid than any idle speculation whatever." Only when the controversy about the Lord's Supper had broken out, was the necessity for a renewed dogmatico-Christologic examination perceived ; and, however great the gulf which very soon separated the Lutheran from THE CHURCH S INTERPRETATION OF THIS DOCTRINE. 523 the Reformed Church, on both sides first the reality and then the high value of the humanity of Christ was advocated with a warmth which had perhaps never been displayed on this subject before. Even the Lutheran doctrine of the communication of the properties of the one nature to the other — communicatio idiomatum—mdcy be regarded, as well as from other points of view, as a powerful exaltation and glorifying of the humanity of Christ. Now, indeed, was ascribed to this, in union with the Divine, ubiquity, omnipotence, omniscience, etc., and the right thereto defended by an appeal to the different propositiones or pradicationes idiomatico? in Holy Scripture, i.e., those places in which either the properties of one or the other nature are transferred to the whole person (genus idiomaticum) ; or redeeming acts, wrought by the whole Christ, are ascribed only to one nature (genus apotelesmaticum); or directly Divine attributes are ascribed only to the human nature (genus majestaticum). The Reformed Tl.eology, on the other hand, held such an actual communicatio idiomatum to be inconceivable, and asserted that the passages of Scripture which seemed to favour it, were to be regarded as an oratorical figure, an Allceosis, which by Luther on his side was termed a " Devil's mask," by which the true Christ was inevita bly concealed. The most that Calvin could admit was that to the pa-son of Christ must be ascribed all the properties of both natures, most closely united ; but an actual transference of the properties of the Divine nature to the human, rightly appeared to him inconceivable, without an annihilation in principle of all that constitutes the essence of the latter. No wonder that the accusation of Nestorianism, brought on the Lutheran side against the Swiss Reformers and those who thought with them, was met on the side of the latter by the charge of Eutychianism in return. In the course of time we see the value attached to the human nature of the Lord manifesting itself even in forms reputed heretical. Michael Servetus sees in Christ only the man entirely taken possession of by God; and, beyond this, rejects the supposition of two natures as an unbiblical Scholasticism. A. Osiander regards Him as the Divine ideal of humanity, only imperfectly realised in Adam, and asserts that only a purely ideal pre- existence must be ascribed to Him. Caspar Schwenkfeld speaks of the flesh of Christ as being made wholly Divine and glorified, without being deterred by the reproach of Eutychianism loudly raised against him. Some Mystics, such as Weigel, Poiret, and others, begin even to speak of a heavenly humanity of the pre-existing Christ. In opposition to this Rationalism lifts its head in the Socinian Christologians, to a certain extent also in some of the Arminian. While these last are not entirely free from a refined form of Arianism, the former see in the Lord only the true and holy man, called Son of God on account of His miraculous birth, who before, and now and then during, His public life had ascended to heaven, there to receive heavenly revelation — in consequence of which He is called the Logos — and who was bodily raised, and exalted to be Head of the Church. In the orthodox Church the Scholasticism of the seventeenth century is followed here too by a Liberalism rapidly sinking into the Indifferentism of the eighteenth ; and while the sharpest doctrinal definitions are laid down as to the relation between Divine and human, the scale begins to incline more and more in favour of the human nature of the Lord at first 524 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. with the weakening, and afterwards with the denial, of the Divine. Under the influence of the prevailing Philosophy, Christology passes, as it were over the bridge of Arianism, back to the standpoint of Ebionitism, and Christ is now seldom even recognised as the ideal man. If on some sides, as by Zinzendorf, Lavater, Hamann, and others, the Godhead of Christ is confessed ; on the other hand, the metaphysical and speculative element in Christology is constantly more and more driven into the background, and in place thereof the highest value is attached to the historical and practical side of the appearing of Christ. What lies beyond this, Supranaturahsm still firmly holds to, but usually more out of reverence for the letter of Scripture than out of any particular sympathy with the subject itself; while Rationalism, on the other hand, degenerates more and more into the most decided Natural ism. The representatives of this change are the author of the Wolfenbiittel fragments, Reimarus, Bahrdt, Venturini, etc. In place of the distinction between the Divine and human in Christ, now arises that between the his torical and the ideal in Him. Unfortunately these two become constantly more opposed to each other, and the former is regarded as an unreal, even excessively aasthetical, veil of high religious ideas. Thus Kant, for instance, looked upon the history of Christ as the history of all time, and belief in the Son of God as that of the moral-minded man in himself. 5. Happily, since the beginning of the present century, wee see z.fourth and still continuing period begin, definitely characterised by the effort to render, as far as possible, full justice as well to the Divine as to the human in Christ ; and more deeply to petietraie and duly to defend the unity of the two. On the phi.osophic side, we see this attempted especially by Schelling, Hegel, and Franz von Baader ; on the theol ogical, by Schleiermacher and those Theologians who received from him " the impulse to an ever lasting movement." It is true Schleiermacher deduced his idea of Christ, not from the teaching of Scripture or of the Church, but from the facts belonging to the experience of the Christian life ; but yet, on the ground of this last, he sees in Him a personality in which, as in no one else, the Divine and human is united, so that He, filled with the highest conscious ness of God, remains the ideal of moral perfection. In a nearly similar sense Hase declared that the Divine nature of the Lord was, "in the serious sense of science, nothing but His unclouded piety." But parallel with and after them there were not wanting manifold endeavours to press a step further into this sanctuary. The truth of the Divine nature of the Lord was especially defended by Nitzsch, Martensen, Sartorius, and others ; the truth and purity of the human, by Ullmann and Dorner. The mystery of the union of the two has been elucidated— 7 with more or less of adhe rence to the doctrine of the Church — on the Lutheran side, by Philippi, Liebner, Thomasius, Hofmann, Kahnis ; on the Reformed, above all by Lange and Ebrard, who notably strive to cleanse the plant of this dogma from the spurious growth of Scholasticism. " It ought," says the latter, " to be esteemed the most important task of the Theology of our time to rectify the doctrine of the God- man. i.e., to bring it back to the Biblical and Patristic purity and clearness of conception." That side by side with this eifort, old errors also now and then find new advocates and representatives, is certainly to be expected. The Supranaturalistic Christology of the pre- THE CHURCH'S INTERPRETATION OF THIS DOCTRINE. 525 sent day has its Arians and its Apollinarists, as well as that of the fourth century. Even the danger of (an anthropo-centric) maintenance and emphasising of the human nature of the Lord, in connection with which His Divine nature is no longer duly recognised, is on this side, also, by no means imaginary. On the whole, however, one may say that the Modern Supranaturahsm of our age strives, more or less successfully, by a deeper apprehension of the doctrine of the Kenosis (Philipp. ii. 7) to present the person of Christ in such wise that — without anything being detracted from His true Godhead — the reality of His incarnation is accepted in all its consequences, and the essential truth of the scriptural Subordinationism is recognised, without falling upon the rock of Arian idolatry of the creature. In this way it seeks at the same time to maintain the Theanthropic character of the Lord against all attacks of modern Unitarianism and Naturalism. The growing necessity for this last is a matter of ignorance for no one who has attentively observed the history of the controversy for some forty years past. The speculative reconstruction of Christology on the left side of the Hegelian school has resulted in Strauss, Bruno Bauer, and Feuer- bach; the Naturalistic tendency of thought celebrated its triumph in Renan, Reville, etc. The account of this controversy in its details is not in place here; but it must not pass unobserved that, on the last-named line, as against many who ever sink more deeply, others seem impelled in a better direction, and endeavour, from their so-called Modern standpoint, to rise to the conception of a truly sinless Christ, who has been raised from the dead, and whose perfect ideality is provable upon strictly historic grounds. So Keim, Beyschlag, the author of Ecce Homo, and others. To what extent this more noble Modernism may become for some a bridge to the believing recognition of the full Christ of the Scriptures, is a question which only the future will answer. Independently of this question, however, it may now be held established, as the trustworthy result of the examination of the history of doctrines, that the solution of the Christologie problem is to be expected neither from the standpoint of Pantheism nor of Deism, but only from the Theistic standpoint ; that it is most safely attempted in the light of Christ's own utterances and those of His Apostles, accurately explained, and apprehended in all their depth; but, above all, that we ought never to make our recognition of the existence of this union of the Divine and human in Christ dependent, as to its ultimate authority, upon our insight into the nature and manner thereof. Only where this is not overlooked, shall we succeed, not merely in firmly holding and defending the doctrine of the Gospel and of the Church, but also in developing and purifying the conception of the latter with regard thereto. Every fresh Christologie examination conducted in this spirit becomes, as it were, a voyage of discovery upon an unfathomable sea ; but in connection with which we have ever to steer clear of " the two warning buoys " of Docetism on the left hand, and Ebionitism on the right. Compare, besides the standard work ot Dorner, already repeatedly mentioned, especially M. Schneckenburgf.r, Zur kirchl. Christologie (1848) ; C. H. Weisse, Die Christologie Luther's und die Christol. Aufiabe der Evang. Theol. (1855) ; L. Th. Schulze, Vom Menschensohn und vom Logos (1867). On the more recent views and 526 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. writings on the life of Jesus, see the postscript to the second edition of our Leven van Jezus (1865), as also H. Rope, Dass der ideale Christus mit dem historischen steht und fallt (1869). A very clear resume of the doctrine of the Lutheran Church as to the communi catio idiomatum is to be found in Luthardt, /./.,§ 51. Points for Inquiry. The Christology ot the Apocryphal Gospels, of the earliest heretics, and of the Apostolic Fathers.— Difference and relation between the doctrine of Origen and Arianism. — History and criticism of Semi- Arianism.— Origin, progress, and issue of the Monophy site controversy. — Theopaschitism and Monothelitism. — What significance has John Damascenus for the Christologie question ?— The Christology of earlier and later Mysticism. — Further treatment of the Lutheran Christology, as compared with that of the Reformed Church. — The controversy between the Tiibingen and the Giessen Theologians on the point of the Ktvuois.— The Christologie peculiarity of the system of the Quakers, Metho dists, Moravians, Swedenborgians, and Irvingites. — To what extent can one speak, since the time of Schleiermacher, of progress in the domain of Christology ?— Old error in a new dress. — Romance in the garb of Science. — Danger of exaggeration in the most modern conception and application of the doctrine of the Kenosis. SECTION XCVII. — HIS MESSIANIC CHARACTER. In whatever respects Christians of an earlier and later time differ with regard to the person of the Lord, all agree in this par ticular, that in Him the prophetic ideal is fully realised ; and that not -only in the sense that He thought, constituted, and showed Himself the Messiah ; but rather in this, that He was as such sent, manifested, and accredited by the Father Himself. This truth rests not simply upon His own utterances and those of His first witnesses, but above all upon the fact that He wrought the work of the Messiah, fulfilled the expectation of antiquity, and satisfied the wants of humanity. The confession, that Jesus is the Christ, has for this reason, not merely an historical significance, but also a moral and religious one, and is therefore with good reason perma nently required of all His people. 1. If the Theanthropic character of the Lord presented for our thought an enigma, of which no complete solution is to be looked for, we enter upon more even ground when we direct our attention to the Christ of God, in relation to His people and to the world. The true and holy God-man appeared on earth as the Messiah of Israel, and it is to this peculiarity in connection with Him that our attention must now be directed. For it is far from true that the statement, " Jesus is the Christ," is, as Modern Naturalism is so ready to assert— however important, perhaps, for the HIS MESSIANIC CHARACTER. 527 Jew — one of only a very subordinate importance for the Christian. The whole of the New Testament lays especial stress upon the Messianic character of Christ's appearing, and also in the Church Symbols mention is made thereof as of something important.1 The idea of the Messiah entertained by the contemporaries of the Lord no doubt stood in very close connection with their nationality, and was even far from pure ; but yet it was in its essence and kernel nothing less than the fruit of a special revelation. Those who attach no permanent importance to this idea, generally do so because, whilst admitting the existence of Messianic expecta tions, they do not believe in true Messianic predictions, pointing by Divine revelation to Jesus of Nazareth, and receiving their fulfilment in Him. From their standpoint the Messianic expectation is indeed something psychologically remarkable, but after all merely subjective ; and the utter ance of the Lord's self-consciousness in this respect, only the expression of a personal opinion entertained by Him as a child of His generation, and which has for us at most an historic interest, but in no case any dogmatic importance. On the other hand, from the standpoint of the Christian belief in revelation, it is by no means an insignificant matter that in this Jesus, as in no one before or after Him, definite promises of God were fulfilled, which present His personality in an entirely unique light ; and thus consequently the practice of many dogmatists, in passing over this point in almost entire silence, cannot be sanctioned. 2. To the question what we mean when we speak of Jesus as the Christ, the answer cannot be difficult. It is equivalent to saying that He is the King of Israel, promised in old times by the Prophets, sent into the world by the Father, anointed with the Holy Ghost, and destined to rule for ever over a kingdom which is ever- enduring.2 Thus, as by the appellation Son of God, the metaphysical dignity is ascribed to Him, so by that of Messiah,3 is His Theocratic dignity indicated, and, indeed, in such wise that this dignity is declared to belong to Him by God Himself. The meaning is thus abso lutely not, that Jesus set up the claim of being Himself the Messiah, and, after long-continued reflection on the condition and wants of His people, formed the bold resolution of realising in His own person the national Messianic expectation. In that case He would not have been essentially different from those false Christs, against whom He so earnestly warns His disciples,4 and whom we see appearing in great number, during and after the Apostolic age. Something more was necessary than a bold resolution to appear in a character of which the greatest of the Prophets did not wish to assume even the appearance.5 Whoever for a single moment conceives to himself all that is expected of the person and work of the Messiah, according to the word of prophecy, will understand that one must have been a deceiver or a fanatic to pretend to be such, unless, according to the counsel of God and the utterance of his own innermost self-consciousness, he really was so. If, with Schleiermacher, we are to reckon the resolve to appear as Messiah among the "accommodations" Held. Cat., Ans. 18 ; Neth. Confi, Art. xviii. * Matt. xxiv. 5. ; Luke i. 32, 33. 5 Luke in. 15, 16. ' John i. 41. 528 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. which the Lord must allow Himself, in order to attain to the end He had in view, then we owe His whole activity— in the end— to an idkfixe, the origin and power of which, again, remains incomprehensible to us. 3. On what grounds have we to regard the Lord as the Messiah in the sense above mentioned ? First of all the utterances of His own conscious ness must here come under consideration — utterances which we cannot suspect, and must thus receive with reverence as the expression of positive truth. Even the name Son of Man is, from this point of view, of great significance,6 as that which— while it presupposes a suprahuman descent- was at the same time the figurative indication of the Messianic dignity. The Lord does not merely suffer Himself to be regarded as the Messiah, as is maintained by Scholten and Renan; but notably wishes to be regarded as such by His disciples, although He for wise reasons forbids the manifesta tion and proclamation of this His dignity. Not only in the middle, or towards the end of His public life, but even at its very beginning, does He display the clear consciousness thereof, and even with death immediately before Him He maintains his character of Messiah. Had the Messianic idea been simply the non-essential form, of which the Lord made use in order to accomplish His benevolent design, the abandoning of this form, at least when everything was at stake, would have been counselled no less by a sense of duty than of prudence. Yet He does not for a single moment think of taking this course, and even regards as inconceiv able continued silence on the part of His disciples with regard to His Mes- siahship.7 On the ground of His airbs ?a we must thus believe that, in order to His fulfilling the work of the Messiah, the Father set His seal upon Him.8 " His life," as Lange justly remarks, " is His office. Not of men and by men, but of the Father, has He received the official mission ; namely, that with the completed manifestation of His inner life He should effect the redemption of the world." The events of the Lord's life, from the manger to the cross, corresponding in so remarkable a manner with the Messianic expectation, prove that this utterance of His self-conscious ness was no fruit of an incomprehensible illusion. His deeds answer e.itirely to the description of that which, in accordance with the prophetic word, was expected of the Messiah;9 and the effect of His appearing plainly shows that He has in reality founded that kingdom of God which was looked for by kings and prophets. The consciousness that He should renew the face of the moral world, was expressed by Him at a time when even the attempt to do so might appear madness, and yet — His word has been fulfilled. 4. The development of the Messianic consciousness with which we see the Lord appear, and in which we see Him live and work unto the end, is not more nearly described in the Gospel, and can only be inferred in general from certain data. It is clear that it must have been most closely connected with the development of the consciousness of His higher nature ; that, in unison with the latter, it was gradually, and at the same time mediately, accomplished ; and that, next to solitude, prayer, and com- ¦ Compare Dan. vii. 13, 14; John xii. 34. ' tocppdyurev, John vi. 27. ' Luke xix. 40. 9 Matt. xi. 4, 5 ; comp. Isa. xxxv. 5, 6. HIS MESSIANIC CHARACTER. 523 munion with His own Spirit, it was especially the examination of tne Scriptures of the Old Testament which early contributed powerfully to awaken within the Lord the sense of His high vocation. The influence, also, of a mother like Mary ought just as little to be overlooked as to be overrated. Thus, that which had subjectively attained to perfect clearness in Him even before the commencement of His public ministry,10 became objectively sealed for Him by the revelation and testimony of the Father at the baptism in the Jordan. Here, as the promised King who has at length appeared, He receives the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Not that He had lived for thirty years without this Spirit, who had filled a John even from the earliest beginning of his existence, and who had in a miraculous manner brought about the Lord's birth.11 But just as little aie we to assume that He received at His baptism nothing essentially new ; or at most only outward gifts, essential to the work to which He was called. In a life like that of the Lord, the person and the office cannot possibly be separated the one from the other ; and evidently that which took place at the Jordan was even for the Lord Himself a fact of high significance. The full light arises upon us when, holding firmly to the reality of His incarnation, we do not lose sight of the distinction between the possession and the use of the Divine properties. Only by degrees, and after a long time, awakening to the consciousness of His rank and work, and, in addition to this, unceasingly exposed to the severest temptations, the God-man had need of an objective confirmation of that which had already become to Him subjectively clear and certain. The transition from the hidden to the public life undoubtedly coincides with a turning- point in the history of the development of His inner life ; and He who before had an abundance of the Spirit, now received of the Father the "Spirit not by measure,"12 in the power of which He would henceforth live and work, and, among other works, perform signs and wonders,13 which He had not wrought before. The Spirit acts not simply, as hitherto, powerfully upon Him, but rests and dwells in Him as in no one else, and henceforth unceasingly flows out from Him, as the Head, into all His true members. Perhaps we may say that the Holy Ghost, given without measure to the Christ, formed the proper bond of communion between the incarnate Son and the Father. 5. The place which the recognition of the Messianic dignity of the Lord occupies in the consciousness of the ancient Church with regard to its faith, and in the preaching of the Apostles, may — after what has been said — be pointed out without difficulty, and as easily explained. The con fession of Jesus as the Messiah is not, indeed, the only thing, but yet is the first, which distinguishes Christians of the Jews from their brethren according to the flesh. It makes Saul to be Paul, and forms the text of his first proclamation.14 In the addresses of Peter, on 'the day of Pentecost and afterwards, it is emphatically prominent ; so too in the case of Paul, not only when he is in the presence of Jews, but also in the presence of Gentiles.18 Even well-nigh at the end of his life, he makes mention of 10 Matt. hi. 15. IS Matt. xii. 28. 11 Luke i. 15, 35. " Acts ix. 20. B John iii. 34. » Acts xvii. 2, 3 ; xxvi. 18, 19 ; Rom. xvi. 25, 26. MM 530 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. this truth as a constituent part of his Gospel ; 16 while, according to John, he who denies it, thereby places himself entirely outside the limits of the Christian faith.17 It cannot, then, surprise us, that already the earliest Apologetic literature bears evidence of an express endeavour to defend the Messiahship of Christ against douot and denial; as is seen, for instance, in Justin Martyr's Dialog, cum Tryph. 6. Nevertheless, the question remains, What value must we, Christians of the Gentiles, attach to this truth, and the confession thereof? and the answer to this question is felt to be wholly determined by the light in which the Scriptures of the Old Testament are regarded. If Israel's prophets were simply popular orators and poetic dreamers, it is a matter of little importance for us that eighteen hundred years ago a Rabbi arose, who had the courage and force of character to make — undoubtedly with the best of intentions — the realisation of these fair dreams of an earlier age the great object and work of his life. If, on the contrary, we hold fast to the ilea of a living God, a particular revelation, a holy Scripture, then this confession is and remains for us also of incontestable importance. It con firms, indeed, the faithfulness of God, who has in this way fulfilled His own promises ;18 and thereby at the same time confirms the inseparable unity of the Old Testament and the New. It furnishes us moreover with the fitting key wherewith to explain, in their historical connection, the words, deeds, and events in the life of the Lord. Finally, it stands in direct rela tion with our only source of comfort, since the Messiah of Israel is at the same time the Saviour of the world.19 He who grows enthusiastic about Jesus, but refuses to see in Him the Christ in the objective sense of the word, has in any case another Christianity than that of the Apostles and Prophets, Evangelists and Church Fathers, Reformers and Martyrs. As Kahnis has well said, " No value can be attached by the Christian faith to the activity of a Jesus who was not the Christ. If Jesus was not the Christ, then the Apostles, who saw in Jesus the Christ, are, properly speaking, the founders of Christianity." 7. The defence of the truth under consideration must be conducted with the utmost care, and, from the nature of the case, must be of a twofold kind: that against Antichristian Judaism on the one hand, and that against pseudo-Christian Naturalism on the other.— As concerns the first of these, the question at once is, whether the Jews with whom we come in contact still believe in the Prophets, and look for a personal Messiah? If not, they must first of all be recovered, if possible, from their Deism and Pantheism, and led to a need of the Gospel. If they do, we ought especially to show that the oldest Jewish expositors have usually explained those places of the Messiah, which have been taken in another sense by later Jews. In so doing, the Messianic interpretation is to be defended and established, not simply by an examination of particular utterances, but by a consideration of the great whole of the Old Dispensation. Especially must we seek to awaken the sense of sin and the felt need of redemption, and to render apparent the proof of the Messianic dignity of the Lord, which " 2 T™- }}¦ 8- " Acts xiii. 32. 1 John n. 22. 23. » john iv- 42 . xx 3I. HIS DESIGNATION TO BE THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND. 531 is given us in the history and present condition of the Jewish people. — As concerns the pseudo-Christian Naturalism, its objections to the reality and dignity of the Messianic character of the Lord have partly a philosophic, partly an historico-critical, partly again a religious-humanistic character. The first are based on the assumption that such an extraordinary mission of Christ as is here supposed was unnecessary and impossible. They must be answered by a due presentation and defence of the doctrine of sin, and of the Christian-Theistic idea of revelation. — Those of the second kind are ordinarily directed against the accounts in the Gospels, by which, above all, the Messianic character of the Lord is proved, such as the birth at Bethlehem, the Davidic descent, the miracle at the baptism, etc. Here the criticism which is under the sway of Naturalistic prejudice, can be vanquished only by a legitimately free but at the same time genuinely spiritual review of the contested accounts. — The last, finally, are connected with the notable effort to eliminate from the Gospel history all that falls beyond the framework of a merely human life. That effort must be con tested in principle ; and, in opposition thereto, it must be shown how every attempt to save religion by the sacrifice of the Supranatural proceeds from self-deception, and inevitably ends in disappointment. In this and other ways it will not be impossible to reduce the gainsayer at least to a momentary silence. True conviction, however, on this point also will only be wrought where one has learnt in a practical empirical way to recognise in the Christ of Scripture the Redeemer of the world, whose appearing has not merely a national, but also a universal and eternal significance. Comp. C. T. W. Held, Jesus der Christ (1865) ; F. Coulin, Le Fits de I'Homme [Eng. trans.]; and moreover the literature mentioned in our Handbook of the Biblical Theol. N. T., § xi. Points for Inquiry. The Messianic expectation of the contemporaries of the Lord. — The appellation Son o' Man. — In what sense may we speak of a development of the Messianic consciousness of the Lord, and of a plan, properly speaking, on His part ? — The significance of the descent of the Holy Ghost at the baptism, in connection with the doctrine of the Kenosis. — The relation between \6yos and irvevp.a.. — Is there ground for supposing that the plan of Jesus was more or less changed or modified during His public life ? — Must we assume, with Colani, that the Lord first began to proclaim Himself the Messiah at the period indicated in Matt. xvi. 13? — Explanation and importance of Matt. xxvi. 63, 64. — Whence was it that the contemporaries of the Lord refused to recognise His character of Messiah ? — History and method of the assailing and defence of this truth. — Why is it not possible to reject it, and still to remain a Christian? SECTION XCVIII. — HIS DESIGNATION TO BE THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND. The Christ of the Prophets is at the same time ordained of God to be Saviour of the world and King of a spiritual Kingdom, M M 2 532 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. in which the Divine plan with regard to the world is fully realised. As true and holy God-man, He is fully qualified for this office. The decree of Redemption and the Personality of the Redeemer thus harmonise together in glorious concord. i. The confession of the Lord's Messiahship, duly defined and main tained, affords us a firm basis on which further to build. For the Gospel, which exalts Jesus as the Christ of Israel, at the same time' proclaims Him as the Saviour of the world : far indeed from the one being in opposition to the other, the latter flows directly out of the former. Salvation proceeds from the Jews, to come through them to all nations. As the Old Testa ment begins with Universalism, very soon to pass over into Particularism, so do we see the very opposite in the Scriptures of the New Covenant. But thus also we arrive in our contemplation of the Person of the Lord at that point at which the transition to the contemplation of His work is equally necessary as easy. Certainly the question, Who is Christ, is of importance to us for this reason, above all, that it prepares the way to the solution of another question, What is He, and what does He will and accomplish in the individual man and humanity that comes into contact with Him. Here we continue, as at the limits between the one domain and the other, still to confine ourselves to the general idea which is indi cated in the name of Founder of the Kingdom of God. In _ doing so, it is incumbent upon us to show, first, that He was truly designed and ordained thereto ; and secondly, that He was, above all others, qualified to sustain the office to which He was destined. 2. That the Lord, although designated and sent first of all for Israel, was by no means exclusively so sent, is sufficiently apparent. Even the Prophets of the Old Covenant had proclaimed the universality of the approaching Kingdom of God.1 At the annunciation of His birth, men tion is made, it is true, only of His people,2 but, at the same time, of a kingdom without end, which from the nature of the case must thus also farther extend itself. The Lord expressed Himself without the slightest limitation concerning the universality of the object contemplated in His appearing,3 and His Apostles bear unequivocal testimony to the same truth.4 The Gospel of the Kingdom is also in reality, with all its disclosures, demands, and promises, adapted to the unchangeable wants of all men and all times. Finally, the objections that are raised against the univer sality of the design in the appearing of Christ, originate in great measure in misconception, and are only in appearance of any force. Precepts like those we hear, Matt. x. 5, were simply temporary, and are later mo dified:5 Jesus Himself, for wise reasons, limited His activity to the house of Israel;6 but yet once and again — where He found faith — stepped 1 Isa. ii. 2 — 4 ; Mai. i. 1 1 ; compare Luke ii. 32 ; John i. 29. * Matt. i. 21. 8 Matt. xx. 28 ; xxiv. 14 ; Luke xix. 10 ; John x. 16. 4 Acts x. 34 — 36; Ephes. ii. 14 — 16; Col. iii. II. 8 Luke xxiv. 47 ; compare Acts i. 8. * Matt. xv. 24 ; compare John iv. 22. HIS DESIGNATION TO BE THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND. 533 beyond these bounds of temporary appointment. Peter also, on the day of Pentecost, already looks forth to those " who are afar off,"7 and while soon afterwards he stands in need of a particular revelation before he repairs to the house of Cornelius, this was only needed to show him that Gentiles also were actually called into the kingdom of God without first becoming Jews. The confession of the Samaritans (John iv. 42) we may for all these reasons boldly make our own; and he who would have us suppose that the Evan gelical doctrine of a personal election to salvation (§ lxxxii.) is irreconcil able therewith, only shows that the difference and connection between this latter and the Divine plan of salvation is not clear to his mind. This last is and remains universal in its extent, and the Christ the centre of a circle of salvation which embraces nothing less than a lost world. In consequence of this its place, His personality has not simply a religious and ethical, but a direct cosmical value (§ xc). As the second Adam, appointed by the act of God Himself to be the Head of a wholly new humanity, He communi cates His life to the most remote members of the great family which enters into communion with Him. In the words of Martensen, "As He is the heart of God the Father, so is He, at the same time, the eternal heart of the world, through which the Divine life flows forth into the Creation." Thus, precisely on account of this His universal and divinely appointed relationship, the Divine plan of salvation is realised in and through Him (§ lv.), and the great prayer of His own life is answered.8 3. For, that He is truly qualified to become the Bringer-in of salvation for the whole world, cannot, after all that has been said (§§ xcii. — xcvii.), be seriously disputed by any one. Under the influence of an earlier Scholasticism, it has at one time been attempted to prove, apparently a priori, what requisite qualifications a Mediator of redemption must possess, in case it pleased God to confer such an one upon us, only imme diately after to show that all the required qualities are in reality found most happily united in Jesus of Nazareth.9 But that which has been already observed at an earlier place (§ lxxxi. 5), that we can determine absolutely nothing d priori in this respect, is confirmed by our whole inquiry as to the Person of the Lord ; and just as foolish would, on this account, the assertion be, that God could not possibly redeem the world in any other way than that which He has opened up in Christ. " They speak most foolishly," says Augustine, "who say that the wisdom of God could not otherwise redeem man than by the death of Christ. It could, indeed, but if it had done so, it would have been equally displeasing to your folly."10 Yet it can at least without difficulty be proved a posteriori, that only such a person as we have learnt to know in our Lord, could be the Founder of the Kingdom of God ; and that no single feature could have been wanting in the image of Christ, which we have thus far sketched, if the work of our Redemption was ever to be accomplished by Him. 4. Precisely because He was truly man (§ xcii.), could He enter into 7 Acts ii. 39. s John xvii. 21 — 23. ' Held. Cat., Ans. 15 — 18. 10 Stultissimi sunt qui dicunt, non poterat aliter sapientia Dei hominem redimere, nisi Christus moriretur. Poterat omnino, at si fecisset, aeque displicuisset stultitia: vestrse. [But compare Heb. ii. 10.] 534 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. our wants and necessities. No deliverance of the sinful world, as we shall soon see, was possible unless He from whom it was to proceed should descend as it were into our depth, to raise us to His height. This is, among other places, distinctly expressed in Heb. ii. n, and more over is self-evident. Only as truly man could the Son of God be the highest revelation of the Father in the nature most highly developed, and the one best known to us here below. Only thus could He suffer and die, have sympathy with our infirmities,11 and raise His people to the highest degree of glory and blessedness.12 As man, yet only as spotless man (§ xciii). Show me a single moral blemish in Christ, and the world's physician of souls will Himself require a healer. But it is precisely the moral perfection of this personality, that He never forgets Himself, and thus also never needs to recal His words or actions. " The Redeemer," to use the words of Rothe, "needs never to do a thing twice, in order morally to learn it, in the widest sense of the term." Every moment is He equally certain with regard to Himself as with regard to the Father, and on that account have we perfect confidence fully to rely for our salvation upon His word and work. And thus His person is for us God's highest revelation, His life the highest ideal, His death out of perfect obedience and love a sacrifice of inestimable value, and moreover His inter cession above, as the Righteous One, of ever-abiding propitiatory force.13 5. Yet He who was merely the ideal man, i.e., the one in whom the Divine ideal of humanity is realised, could not be the Founder of that Kingdom of God which is proclaimed to us in the Gospel. To be able to lay the foundation of an absolutely boundless and, spiritual kingdom, to govern and bring to perfection this kingdom, Divine powers and properties are necessary ; and not simply the so-called communicable ones, but also those which are incommunicable — Omnipresence, Omniscience, Eternity, etc. But the Lord, as we have seen, was more than the ideal man, who as such would occupy no higher rank than that of a creature. He testifies of Him self that which lies wholly beyond the limits even of the purest humanity, as do His Apostles also of Him : yea, it must be admitted without reserve that, " if He is a mere man, although also an ideal one, then the many places in which He ascribes to Himself Divine names, rights, and functions, become self-accusations ; the Apostles are false witnesses, and guilty of the Deification of man; the New Testament ceases to be the fountain- head of truth, since in its central-doctrine it is neither true nor clear ; the Church also has given false testimony in its foundation-article." 14 But just because He is God-man in the full force of the word, so that here the Divine Logos is united in one person with the human nature (unitus, non inclusus)16 can He now do and bear that which surpasses mere human ability ; and He has power to lay down His life, but at the same time to communicate to all flesh that which He personally possesses in Himself,16 yea, to rise to that dominion over all created things, to which humanity in communion with God was originally destined.17 " 5eJ- "¦ J4-I8. '• I John ii. 2. » Erasmus. Heb. v. 8, 9. » Kahnis. « John x. 18 ; xvii. 2. Heb. ii. 5—9 ; comp. Ps. viii. HIS DESIGNATION TO BE THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND. 535 6. It is clear that only a Christ who was true and holy man, but at the same time sharer of God's nature and majesty, could be the Founder of the Kingdom of God ; and that consequently a direct connection exists between the universality of the design in His appointment, and the peculiar nature of His personality. But thus it is at the same time evident that this universal designation of the Founder of the Kingdom of God manifests a very practical side, and may be regarded as exceedingly fruitful, both for the Christian faith and the Christian life. If the person of the Lord is equally destined as qualified to be the Redeemer of the World, then even in this fact is His value, as the highest " gift" of the Father, raised beyond all doubt ; then the proclamation of His Gospel is — not for some only, but for all— the powerful, divinely ordained means for salvation through faith ; then our courage rises to the point of hoping for the victory of the Kingdom of God, our zeal to that of labouring for it. But now also is evident to us, above all, how the decree of Redemption realised in the Person of this Re deemer, is the most glorious manifestation of the wisdom of God, worthy in every respect of Him who framed it. Truly — and the conclusion of this chapter may at the same time form the transition to the following one — nihil tarn Deo dignum, quam hominum salus.u Compare our Leven van Jezus, p. 461, sqq., and Christol., iii., pp. 228 — 244; H. Kritzler, Christenthum und Humanitat (1866, 2 parts) ; J. Cramer, Christend. en Humaniieit (1871). Points for Inquiry. Is all Particularism in reality overcome in the Scriptures of the New Testament? — On what account is it that the fitness of the person of the Redeemer for the object of His mission cannot receive an a priori support ? — Criticism of the method of the Heidelberg Catechism, Answers 15 — 18. — Is Christianity in reality destined and adapted to be the highest religion cf humanity? — Is it to be expected, on good grounds, that it will as such one day triumph over all resistance? — Is there ground for supposing that the saving purpose and work of Christ extends beyond this earth ? — Ephes. i. 10 ; Col. i. 20. — Sense and meetness of the doxology, Rom. xi. 33 — 36. 16 Nothing is so worthy of God as the salvation of men (Tertullian). CHAPTER IV. ON REDEMPTION ; OR, THE SALVATION ENJOYED IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD. (OBJECTIVE SOTERIOLOGY.) SECTION XCIX. — TRANSITION AND GENERAL SURVEY. Soteriology, most closely connected with Christology, and of as great importance as this, has for its aim the more express ex position of this Salvation of God's kingdom in its full extent. While avoiding all vagueness on the one side, and all narrow-minded clinging to systems on the other, it seeks to place in the true light as well the work of the Redeemer as the blessing of Redemp tion. The logical course requires that we* should consecutively look at the deeds Christ has wrought for the salvation of the world, and at the benefits salvation procures for Christians. i. The connedion between this and the preceding chapter is of course reciprocal ; and as the meditation on Christ Himself prepared us for that on His work, so can this latter only be explained by the light in which the Gospel presents Him. Both, indeed, are so closely connected, that Per sonal and Official names are usually indiscriminately ascribed to Him ; and never certainly would so warm a controversy have been waged about the person of the Saviour, had it not been at all times felt that the Christologie question has not only a speculative, but also a practical Soteriological import. As a rule, accordingly, error and misconception with regard to the one is accompanied by error or misconception with regard . to the other ; a Socinian Christology, e.g., can hardly serve as the foundation for an Anselmian Soteriology. On the other hand, it is easy to comprehend that some could find in the person of Christ the key to understand His work ; while others, by the contemplation of His work, have arrived at a better appreciation of His person. Hardly anywhere in the New Testament do we see the one entirely separated from the other. ' TRANSITION AND GENERAL SURVEY. 537 2. The importance of the examination which now lies before us, can certainly not be denied. _ Were not every comparison unjust where the different subjects of doctrine represent different sides of the same truth, we should affirm that we here stand before the very centre of the whole doctrine of Salvation. Yea, "even Christ merits this name, only because He has wrought that work which will now occupy us. The question (Acts xvi. 30) stands, in point of importance and significance, at least on a level with that other, " What think ye of Christ ?" and error concerning the Way of Salvation is certainly not less pernicious than that concerning the Person of the Redeemer. The interest, therefore, with regard to the matter under examination, ought not to flag, but rather to increase. 3. The compass of this examination is just as extended as its importance is great. It embraces, in a word, all which belongs to the broad domain of Redemption (d7ro\<5T/>w(ns), in the comprehensive sense in which this word is used in the Scriptures of the New Testament. The redemption of the individual man and of humanity, of the world and the nations ; redemption in its nature and ground, essence and value, here always understood as it was effected objectively by Christ — while that which is demanded on the side of man in order personally to become a recipient of this salvation (subjective Soteriology) will be treated in a following chapter — here now, if anywhere, we have to do with the "unsearchable riches " of Christ.1 4. The standpoint, from which Soteriology will be treated, naturally entirely depends on the dogmatic conviction of him who expounds it. Hence the history of this doctrine is not less marked by manifold variation and conflict, than is that of Christology. Nowhere, perhaps, does the personal relation of the dogmatist to the Gospel of salvation so distinctly reflect itself as in his mode of presenting the doctrine of propitiation. In general, that presentation is certainly to be regarded as the best, which adheres most closely to the united testimony of Scripture and Experience, and in so doing recognises the fact of sin and misery in all its depth. Sote riology presupposes the truth of Christian Hamartology, but further builds at the same time upon that which has been already taught in an earlier place concerning the Divine plan of the world, and of salvation (§ § lv. and lxxxii.), and concerning the image of God in man (§ lxix). 5. Here also the abundance of the material renders necessary a division, which may be made in more than one way. In our judgment it is preferable first to fix the eye upon that which Christ has done, is doing, and will further do, for the salvation of man and of humanity, and afterwards to direct the attention more especially to that salvation itself in its nature and value ; in other words, to make the object of our separate examination the opus Christi and the salus in Christo. The latter, however, is here still thought of more in relation to the individual than to the whole com munion, and to the development of the future. Soteriology must not too much anticipate that which is first in its proper place when we come to Ecclesiology and Eschatology. Not inaptly also will the former subdi vision attach itself to the doctrine of the different conditions (status) of the 1 Ephes. iii. 8. 538 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. Redeemer • the latter to that of the threefold office (munus triplex), in which He has effected— and is effecting— the work of redemption. 6 In the treatment of the subject in this way, two rocks are to be avoided- that of a vague indeterminateness on the one hand, which is not seldom found in the Soteriological ideas even of those who in other respects form a clear conception regarding God, Man, and the Person of Christ but in this particular domain lose themselves m obscurity. But not less to be avoided is that of a Scholastic propensity for systems, which seeks to comprehend the whole of the salvation in Christ as it were within a framework, which fits in each particular with the other to a hair's breadth,' and by which, on all sides, perfect justice is done to the great subject. The abundance of Soteriological indications in Holy Scripture is too great for it to be possible so to combine them that all the demands of system atic arrangement should receive satisfaction. Soteriology is the exposition of those facts connected with salvation, which the believer— according to the testimony of Scripture— has learned by his own experience of inner life, and for which the spiritually developed understanding seeks the most accurate expression possible. Thus in this domain also life ever exists before the conception thereof, and only approximately can we express by the latter, that which is known and enjoyed by the former. Here, accordingly, if anywhere, the passion for systems may become the grave of the love of truth ; and we must ever keep an open eye for every germ of truth, perhaps also hidden in a mode of presentation which differs more or less from ours, but which nevertheless, as well as ours, has its foundation in Scripture and Experience. Precisely the most distinguished Soteriologians will certainly find the least difficulty in endorsing the words of one of the most excellent of them : " I think it would have fared better with the word of redemption, particularly in our modern times, if people had contemplated the Sun as the sun, instead of plucking out the beams one by one, which thus isolated must indeed vanish. The sunbeams thou canst not bind into a bundle, nor put the sea into a goblet. I also have tried it, and failed — have applied the square of theoretically acquired formulas to the great mystery of" godliness, until the square shrivelled up in my hand, and I could no longer measure, till it was cast away."2 Due attention to the hint thus afforded will at the same time best arm us against the one sidedness of which they especially render themselves guilty, who direct us almost exclusively to the suffering and dying, or to the doctrine and example, or to the Spirit and word of Christ, as that to which we are especially indebted for our redemption. We ought to overlook nothing of all that whereby the King of the Kingdom of God is in the fullest sense the life of the world ; but also, however exactly all is combined and for mulated, we ought still to consider that even the best of buckets cannot exhaust the sea. Compare, for the exegetical examination, the principal Handbooks of the Bibl. Theol. oj the N. T.; for the historical, F. C. Baur, Die Christi. Lehre von der Versbhnung, u. s. to. (1838) ; A. RlTSCHL, Die Chiistl. Lehre von der Rechtf. und Versbhnung, i. (1870). 2 Tholuck, Die tuahre Weihe des Zweiflers, 9th ed., p. 63. TRANSITION AND GENERAL SURVEY. 539 Finally, for the Christian-philosophic, the Dogmatics of Lange, Martensen, Nitzsch, and others. Also, the important article of E. de Pressense, Sur la Redemption, in the Bulletin Theol. (1867), i. and following; and Schoe'berlein's art. Erlbsung, inHerzog's R. £., iv., pp. 129—140. Points for Inquiry. Wherefore, according to the Scripture of the New Test., is every true proclamation of Christ at the same time in nature and tendency a preaching of the Gospel ? — The precise idea of airoXbrptiicns. — "Whence is it that the nature and extent of Redemption has been so differently conceived of and expressed ? — Where is the touchstone to be found, by which we may best judge of the value of the different views on this question ? — Whence is it that in the treatment of the doctrine of Salvation, properly so called, many in earlier and later times have laboured under so much one-sidedness? and how is this defect to be best avoided ? 540 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. FIRST DIVISION. THE SAVING DEEDS. SECTION C. — BEFORE THE INCARNATION. IN order to survey as completely as possible the redeeming work of Christ, Christian Dogmatics rightly distinguishes between that which He has done for sinners in His state of Humiliation, and that which He is doing for them in the state of Exaltation ; and makes each of these the subject of a separate examination. In following this course we must not, however, overlook that which necessarily preceded both. The Word was made flesh ; but, even before the fulness of time, in Him was the life and the light of men. i. The work of Christ forms in itself one whole, completed as to its principle, when He left the earth.1 But that which for His consciousness was inseparable, must be divided in our presentation of it, on account of the extent and dignity of the subject. A sharp line of separation between the different ^parts would lead to one-sidedness; but correctness of distinc tion is here one of the first requirements. Thus the old dogmatic mode of speaking of a twofold state (duplex status), in which the Lord accomplished His redeeming work, is to be approved in principle ; and we cannot be surprised that traces of it present themselves even in the earliest Fathers. Irenaaus emphatically speaks of the Logos as invisibilis visibilis fadus, incomprehensibilis comprehensibilis f actus? and Tertullian3 points to a change which took place with the Son at His incarnation, without His ceasing to be that which He originally was. — Especially after the Reformation do we see this distinction brought into the foreground, both by Lutheran and Reformed Theologians ; but, at the same time, a violent controversy breaks out both about the Person of Him who was to be considered as the proper subject of this twofold state (status exinanitionis et exaltationis), and the precise idea of this humiliation itself, as well as about the different degrees (gradus) into which each of these two conditions was to be divided again. Notably it was a question whether the so-called Descent into Hell was to be reckoned with the Reformed Theologians as still belonging to His state of Humiliation, or rather with the Lutheran, as belonging to His state of Exaltation already begun. Considering the much useless verbal 1 John xvii. 4. 2 Iren., Adv. Haer. iii. 16. » Tertull., De carne Christi, c. 3. BEFORE THE INCARNATION. 541 controversy on either side, it is intelligible that the whole dogma which gave rise thereto should, by the end of last century, have fallen into a sort of discredit. Our century is in this respect more reasonably and favourably disposed, but none the less will not permit the challenging of its right to bring the Church's doctrinal type into greater harmony with the Scriptural basis, from which it has in more than one point deviated. 2. The doctrine of the Status duplex has its ground in certain utterances of the Lord Himself,4 and more particularly in those of Paul.5 An accurate explanation of Phil. ii. 6 — 8, especially, shows that here the Son of God, before His incarnation — the Logos daapxas — is spoken of, who, in consequence of a wholly voluntary act— tKivuae — passed over into a condition of humiliation, which began with His incarnation, and culminated in His death on the cross, and which — as a reward for the obedience therein displayed — was followed by a state of exaltation. Naturally, this distinction is void of all meaning, where, in direct opposition to the testimony of Holy Scripture, the Lord is regarded only as an excellent man, and His personal pre-existence in particular is denied. Where, however, this last is confessed, there is every reason for speaking, not only of a twofold, but of a threefold, state of the Lord ; namely, before, in, and after His state of humiliation upon earth — status pra-exisientice, exinanitionis, et exaltationis. The subject, then, of the first of these, was the Logos do-apicos, who voluntarily surrendered Himself to the second condition, and thence, as Logos evoapKos, was exalted again by the Father, and brought back with increased splendour to the first condition. 3. While we have already spoken of the pre-existence of the Son of God, as such (§ xciv.), the question also as to His redeeming activity before His coming into the world ought not to remain wholly unanswered. Person ally a sharer of the nature, i.e., also of the power, wisdom, and love of the Father, the Logos cannot possibly have remained inactive. Holy Scrip ture accordingly actually teaches that not only were all things created by Him, but also that the Father bears, i.e., upholds and preserves, all things by the word of His power.6 " To bear," says Calvin,7 "is to cause that all things remain in their own state ; for he understands that all things would presently fall into ruin, unless they were upheld by His power." The Lord Himself is naturally and majestically silent, during His life of humiliation, as to that which He was and did before His coming in the flesh ; but His most trusted Apostle, in John i. 4, 5, sheds a wondrous light on this subject. For all men, without any distinction of Jew or Gentile, the Logos was ever the fountain of Life and Light, alike in the natural and spiritual sense. Whatever light and life ever was beheld and enjoyed upon earth, arose under the mighty influence, direct or indi rect, of the pre-existing Logos. 4. It is, however, of imp'rtance not to confound His working in Israel with that in the Gentile world. With reference to the former, we may — in the light of Holy Scripture — speak of a previous drawing nigh and seeking of Israel by the Word who was with God and was God, before in the 4 John iii. 13 ; vi. 62 ; xvi. 28. 6 Heb. i. 3. 5 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Phil. ii. 6—8. ' Calvin, in loc. 542 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. fulness of time He was made manifest among this people.8 The Christ, whose Spirit was in the Prophets, proclaimed Himself by their voice before His incarnation.9 Notwithstanding considerable difficulties, the view which sees in the Angel of the Presence spoken of by Isaiah,10 the Son of God before His incarnation, has inner probability in its favour. Such revelations stood, in this case, in relation to that of the fulness of time, as the lightning flashes issuing from the nocturnal cloud to the rising dawn of day. — As far as the Gentile world is concerned, it is natural here to think especially of the most sublime utterances of the Greek philo sophic mind. It belongs to the great merits of the Alexandrine school, that it has, more than any other, fixed the attention upon the propaedeutic and pedagogic character of philosophy. The notion also of the Logos Spermaticos, in Justin Martyr, is in this connection of great significance and many-sided application. 5. The whole activity of the Son of God before His incarnation bears an exalted and beneficent character, but not yet actually a redeeming one. It is for this reason here mentioned simply as the basis and starting-point for that which He — after His appearing as the Redeemer of the world — both in the state of humiliation and in that of exaltation, has done, is doing, and will yet further do. As such, however, it must not be overlooked, since His activity after His Incarnation becomes, to a certain extent, more intelligible to us, even on account of His previous activity. Yea, the incarnation of the Woid, the true beginning of His work of redemption properly so called, is, on the other hand, simply the continuation of that which the Logos had already earlier effected in order to bring in light and life. Compare § Ixxxyiii., and the literature there mentioned ; to which may be added Schneckenburger, Beitrage zur Christologie (1848), as also our Treatise, De Heilsver- wachting der oude Heidenwereld, in the Review voor Kerk en Theol., i., p. 228, sqq. [Eng. trans., Pr. Lantern, Mar. — May, 1873] ; and especially the beautiful' prefaceto the interesting work, Logos Spermaticos: Parallelstillin zum N. T. aus den Schriften der alten Griechen, by Edm. Spiess (1871). Points for Inquiry. Sense and argumentative force of Phil. ii. 6 — 8. — The Angel of the countenance (presence). — Further elucidation and criticism of the difference between the Reformed and the Lutheran Dogmatics with regard to the doctrine of the Duplex status. — The quadruplex status of the earlier Socinians. — The controversy between the Tubingen and the Giessen Theologians of the seventeenth century on the /cpityis and the kIvuksis. — Criticism of the Naturalistic rejection of this whole distinction. — Defence of its dogmatic and practical importance. 8 John i. 11 — 14. 9 1 Pet. i. 11. 10 Angel of His countenance, or face (vjd)> Isa. lxiii. 9, 10. So the Dutch version. THE VOLUNTARY INCARNATION. 543 SECTION CI. — THE VOLUNTARY INCARNATION. The voluntary Incarnation is that act of love on the part of the Son of God, by which He assumed our human nature of the Virgin Mary, through the operation of the Holy Ghost, and thus became personally united to our race. Of this miraculous fact the true character can be only imperfectly described, and the possibility can be shown only from the Christian-theistic standpoint ; but its historic truth reposes upon well-supported testimony, and its Soteriological importance is, according to the combined utterances of Scripture and Experience, raised above all reasonable objection. 1. The voluntary Incarnation of the Son of God must be regarded as the first step in the path of His humiliation. Apart from all the privations and sufferings which, as became later apparent, were for Him, from the beginning to the end, connected with being man among men, even the Incarnation itself was for the Lord a self-denial in the natural and moral aspect. And indeed, it was not His fate only, but His own act, that He appeared as man upon earth, an act of grace,1 explicable only from the inexhaustible riches of His obedience and love,2 in consequence of which He, who was as God and in God, placed Himself, as the Ambassa dor of the Father, to the Father in the lowly relation of a servant. " Nasci se Deus voluit," says Tertullian, — "God vouchsafed to be born." The emptying of Himself (k Even the King of that Kingdom is not raised abovethe funda mental law of its constitution : that ministering love is here the necessary condition of true greatness, and suffering the path which leads to glory. By virtue of that which He here did and suffered, He is thus qualified to succour His people who are tempted.21— This His holy life, finally, presents to the subject of the Kingdom of God, as in a clear mirror, the " Rom. v. 18 ; Phil. ii. 8. w Acts iii. 1551 Cor. xv. 45. u John xvii. 4—6. al Heb. ii. 16—18. 19 John xiv. 8, 9. THE OBEDIENCE UNTO THE DEATH. 553 image of that to which they are themselves called. However often the conception of Jesus as an example has been misinterpreted or misapplied, it is nevertheless true that it has its foundation in the word of the Lord Himself,22 and in that of the Apostles.23 Definitely in point of self-denial, obedience, and love, does Christ remain the highest ideal for the imitation of all those who, once redeemed by Him, now in consequence of redemption have become bound to Him. But how could He be spoken of as such, unless His whole life on earth had displayed that exalted character which we con template with admiration? No wonder that the life of the Lord becomes in our age ever more the centre of the deepening conflict between belief and unbelief. If there lay between the manger and the cross nothing but an unwritten page, the loss would be incalculable. The question as to the historic reality of the image of Christ presented in the Gospels, has not simply an historico-critical, but also a religious and soteriological interest. Compare the literature to § xciii., and E. Niemann, Jesu Siindlosigkeit und heilige Vollkommenh. (1866); C. E. Luthardt's Apologet. Vortrdge, ii. (1867), p. 55,^., with the notes subjoined. On the Temptation in the wilderness, our Leven van Jezus, i. , p. 569. Points for Inquiry. To what extent can the Lord's life on earth be spoken of as at the same time a humilia tion and a manifestation of His glory? (John i. 14.) — What humiliation is to be witnessed in His circumcision and baptism ? — \\ hat is the sense of Matt. viii. 20 ? and of Heb. xii. 2? — To what extent can the Lord be said, even during His public life, to have borne our sicknesses? (Matt viii. 17; comp. ix. 35.)— What is the real nature of the Imitatio Christi, and who are called thereto? — The indispensableness of the holy life of the Lord, and its insufficiency in itself. — Transition to the contemplation of His suffering and death. SECTION CHI. — THE OBEDIENCE UNTO THE DEATH. The perfect obedience of the Lord attains its culmination in the suffering of that death, which, according to the counsel and will of the Father, He endured upon the cross, wholly voluntarily, and innocent, with the clear consciousness and definite aim, that this death should be nothing less than the life of the world. 1. That the whole life of the Lord may be regarded as one great act of suffering, is, after all that has been said, self-evident. Yet the limits of the suffering in the strict sense of the term, the- suffering of death, do not extend beyond the period reaching from the* last evening of His life up to the hour of His dying. No part of His history is so fully and carefully 82 John xiii. 14, 15. a I Pet. ii. 21 ; 1 Cor. xi. 1 ; 1 John ii. 8 ; iv. 17. 554 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. recorded by His different witnesses as this. They render it easy for us to follow the Master almost from hour to hour ; from the Paschal chamber to the Garden, from the High Priest to the Procurator and the Tetrarch; by the via dolorosa to the Cross and the Grave. The Gospel affords not a single ground for the supposition that there must be attributed to some parts of this suffering a yet more special tendency and efficacy for the salvation of sinners than to others. Everywhere it presents that suffering to us as a whole, not separated from the painful death,1 but most closely connected therewith, and of such nature that it can and must be only once endured.2 2. Far, indeed, from this suffering coming upon the Lord unexpectedly, He repeatedly foretold it, and that at a comparatively early time ; at first more figuratively,3 afterwards more definitely, and this last again with con stantly increasing clearness and exactness. The history even mentions a par ticular period at which the annunciation of His sufferings properly speaking begins, followed by that of the Resurrection, which creates no small sensa tion.4 The arbitrary assertion that all these predictions were only placed on His lips ex eventuf has nothing to plead in its justification ; while il places Jesus below a Simeon, a John the Baptist, and others, who foretold that the Messiah, in accordance with the word of prophecy, must suffer and endure contradiction. The Lord Himself laid great emphasis upon these predictions, and repeatedly appealed thereto,6 — unless this also was all invented. Unquestionably His own consciousness of His approaching destiny was not developed all at once, but gradually, in the light of Scripture and of His own sorrowful experience; but the very peculiar expression by which — while yet in the middle of His public life — He designates the calling of His people to self-denial as a cross-bearing after Him,7 in itself makes convincingly manifest that at that time at least the manner of His death was not for Him a matter of doubt. If the disciples after wards entirely forgot the prediction of His resurrection, this also was because they had to the end obstinately rejected the prediction of His death as an unwelcome interruption to their earthly- Messianic dreams. 3. As the Lord foretold His sufferings at a comparatively early period, so had He felt the weight thereof in all its severity even long before. Even in brighter moments a certain trace of melancholy is not to be overlooked in many a word of His.8 From afar the thought of His suffering troubles Him,9 after His own consciousness thereof had been elevated to the most positive certainty by a heavenly revelation.10 This emotion increases in proportion as that suffering draws nearer,11 and attains its culmination in the anguish and pra yer of Gethsemane.12 It was the natural consequence of His true and holy humanity, for which sin and death must be regarded as something contrary to nature, and reveals, in the way in which it is complained of and overcome, one proof the more of the Divine-human greatness. 1 irddrip.a too davdrov, Heb. ii. 9. » Luke ix 23 ' Rom. vi. IO ; 1 Pet. iii. 18. ' See, e.g., Matt. xi. 16-26. Matt. ix. iS. . Luke xii. 49-SI. ' Matt. xvi. 21—23 5 Luke xvin. 31—34. >• Luke ix. 31. Strauss and others. 11 John xii 27 6 John xiii. 19 ; Luke xxiv. 44—47- n Matt. xxvi. 38, 39. THE OBEDIENCE UNTO THE DEATH. 555 4. That which the Lord thus clearly foresaw, and which even in pros pect caused Him to shudder, He nevertheless endured wholly voluntarily. This is evident from His positive assertions,13 and equally so from His bearing and actions. Think of the majesty with which He caused those sent to apprehend Him to fall to the ground ; of His deeply significant silence, where with a movement He could for ever silence the enemy ; of the neglect of every attempt at self-preservation, even where this would have been easy.14 Everywhere in the Gospel, where the death of Christ is presented as the revelation of the highest love, the highest value is attached above all to this its voluntary character.15 5. "That here, according to the laws of objective and eternal right, a judicial murder was perpetrated, there can be no possibility of doubt."16 The voluntary and terrible sufferings of the Lord were, in the fullest sense of the word, innocent sufferings. This they might not and could not be called, if the Christology of modern Naturalism were ours. From that standpoint the innocence of the Lord cannot possibly be maintained ; and the Jewish council deserves rather to be praised than blamed, for having sought to impose the last restraint and limit upon so much fanaticism and rebellion on the part of the Nazarene. At most Modernism can only admit that His condemnation to death was the fruit of an embitterment perfectly explicable, and of a fatal misunderstanding. Something other, however, does it become where the Lord is truly held to be that which He asserted Himself to be, and where, moreover, all the traces of ignoble pas sion and boundless lawlessness in the course of the trial are observed. Innocent we call Him, according to the united testimony of enemies, strangers, and friends, not simply in the subjective but also in the objective sense of the word, and imply by this expression, not merely the absence of all that which would tend to justify His condemnation, but the actual pre sence of the opposite. With good reason does Holy Scripture lay manifest stress upon this His perfect innocence ;17 and this contributes in a high degree to shed full lustre upon the exalted manner in which that suffering is borne. Notably we here think of the firm self-control with which He avoids every word and deed which could tend to His liberation ; of the matchless love here manifested towards His disciples, towards strangers, towards the instruments of His death, towards His whole nation and the world; — above all, of His obedience to the Father, His oneness of will with that of the Father, and His unwavering confidence in the Father, of which all even to His latest breath bears testimony.18 No wonder that even the Rousseaus and Renans here rival the Fenelons and Pascals in their praise of Him who thus not only endured the pain, but also despised the shame of the cross. 6. If we come to Jesus Himself with the question wherefore He wholly voluntarily suffered all this, we hear Him most positively assure us, both in the first three Gospels and in the fourth, that He endured His sufferings in accordance with God's determinate will and counsel.19 There is here a 13 Matt. xxvi. 53 ; John x. 17, 18. 16 Hase. 14 Luke xxiii. 8 ; John xix. 11. " John xv. 25 ; Acts iii. 14 ; 2 Cor. v. 21. 15 Johnxv. 13; Ephes. v. 2 ; 1 Johniii. 16. ls John xiv. 31 ; xviii. 11 ; Luke xxiii. 46. 19 Matt. xvi. 23; xxvi. 54; Luke xxii. 37 ; John x. 18. 556 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. Divine must needs, to which no opposition could be offered without the abandonment of the most sacred vocation. In the mirror of the Scriptures the Lord had contemplated the image of the suffering Messiah ; in the depths of His own spirit He had heard the voice which called Him to die sealed by Heaven itself.20 Immediately after their public appearance as teachers, His first witnesses accordingly point to His sufferings and death as the fulfilling of God's eternal counsel;21 and it was an illegitimate and un critical use of an Anthropomorphistic expression, when, from a single remark in the parable of the wicked husbandmen,22 it was inferred that God in reality expected His Son would be reverenced, and thus was to some extent disappointed by the event. 7. The moral necessity for the dying of the Lord, in connection with His whole activity, may be shown without difficulty. In the domain of nature and of history alike, the fulness of the inner life does not as a rale attain its complete development except in the way of death. The Lord Himself points to the image of the grain of wheat,23 as a prophecy of His lot; and never would the Gospel of the New Covenant have been proclaimed effectually amongst both Jews and Gentiles, had not the wall of separation been levelled by the cross.24 To such an extent the death of the King was indispensable for the foundation of the Kingdom of God upon earth; had He, after having said and done so much, with drawn from the last conflict, He would therewith have sacrificed alike His dignity and the object of His life. But least of all would the blessings of the Kingdom of God have been prepared for the sinful world, unless the Good Shepherd had laid down His life for the sheep ; and it is this Sote riological significance of His death, above all, with which Christian Dogmatics has to do. 8. Only a few utterances of Jesus Himself concerning the great end of His dying are preserved to us in the Gospels, and there is no reason in point of fact for supposing that He said much more on this subject than His first witnesses relate. Rather does it lie in the nature of the case that the full light thereon would arise only after His resurrection had taken away the offence of the cross. Yet these comparatively few expressions are sufficiently unequivocal to cut off even the possibility of misunder standing upon this point. In the Synoptics He compares His life, which He voluntarily surrenders, to a ransom-price,25 whereby not only a few but many are redeemed ; and He declares that in His blood a New Covenant is founded, and that it is shed with the definite object that there should be forgiveness of sins.26 In a figurative form we hear Him witness the same things in John. His death on the cross is as necessary for the life of the world as the brazen serpent for the wounded in Israel ;27 His flesh is a heavenly bread given for the life of the world ;28 only because the Shep herd gives up His life are the sheep delivered,29 and He sanctifies Him self as a sacrifice for His people, in order that they also, in consequence thereof, may in communion with Him be sanctified unto God.30 Howevel •» Luke ix. 31 ; John xii. 28b. » Ephes. ii. 14—16. » John vi. 51. ' f c\s 1V- 27> 28. » \trrpav, Matt. xx. 28. » John x. II. • « Luke xx. 13. » Matt. xxvi. 28. » John xvii. 19. B John xn. 24. w J0hn iii. 14. J THE OBEDIENCE UNTO THE DEATH. 557 enigmatical all this may sound, it is apparent from it all that — according to the unequivocal utterances of the Lord Himself — the blessings of the Kingdom of God could not possibly have been conferred upon the world, so long as He had not laid down His life. 9. In no other spirit do the Apostles speak, of whom it can be shown that their doctrine in this respect is simply the development and applica tion of the great principles which were expressed by the Master Himself. Peter also speaks of the blood of the Lamb as a redemption price, and ascribes to the exemplary sufferings of the Lord at the same time an atoning character.31 Not the life, but the shed blood of the Son of God, according to John, purifies from all sins, and purchases those thereby ran somed to God as His possession.32 Paul, especially, abounds in utterances of every kind, in which sin is presented as the cause of the death of the Lord, and its forgiveness as the great aim thereof.33 According to his teaching, many — in consequence of the obedience here manifested — were made (consti tuted) righteous ; in other words, were preserved from that which otherwise assuredly awaited them.34 In the whole Epistle to the Hebrews no idea is brought so markedly into the foreground as this, that the Christ was at once High Priest and Expiatory Sacrifice. — The sense and force of all these utter ances is presented in the Biblical Theology of the New Testament; and the benefit itself, derived from the death of the Lord upon the cross, must be later more fully treated of. Here we have as yet only to do with the pro position, that His obedience unto the death was in the fullest sense a saving ad ; and this cannot, after what has been said, be denied without openly contradicting both the letter and the spirit of the Gospel. No wonder that the preaching of Christ crucified is with Paul the main thing,35 and that the Christian Church of all ages has found the true centre of the Lord's redeeming activity in His suffering and death. According to the testimony of experience also, the attractive power of the cross 36 surpasses every other in the spiritual world. Not the teaching and living Christ, not even the risen and glorified Christ as such, but the suffering and dying one, is, by the offering of Himself, the Author of our everlasting salvation. 10. The voluntary self-surrender of the Lord to the suffering of the cross ends only in His death, in which as well His humiliation as His obe dience reaches its most terrible extreme. There is no single reason, upon purely historical grounds, for doubting the reality of His death. Friends and foes were equally convinced that He had really died ; we hear Him declare Himself that He was dead,37 and no single trace of doubt on this point is to be met with in the whole of Christian antiquity. Only the later Deism, Rationalism, and Naturalism has had recourse — in order to lend countenance to the possibility of a mere swoon (Scheintoa) — to the most romantic embellishments ; with regard to which a Strauss at least was yet honest enough to say, " Of all this the originals give no indication, and we have no ground for supposing it." All that we know of the circumstances of Jesus' death and burial, along with the piercing of His 31 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; ii. 21 — 24; iii. 18. 35 1 Cor. ii. 2 ; Gal. vi. 14. 12 1 John i. 7 ; Rev. v. 9. 36 John xii. 32. 13 Rom. iv. 25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 3 ; Eph. i. 7. 87 Rev. i. 18. 84 Rom. v. 19 ; 1 Thess. i. 10, 558 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. side, produces in combination an impression wholly different from that of our seeing before us here one in a swoon, and dead only in appear ance. — But the more are we struck with the depth of a humiliation, in which He, who Himself was the Life, is now at least for some hours the defenceless prey of death. He who regards physical death from its ethical side, and considers what the life of the God-man was, in unbroken communion with God, here recognises a mystery, comprehensible — yet only to a certain extent — for him who believes in the absolute self-surrender of love. In a certain sense it is more surprising that the Prince of Life was really dead, than that such a dead one should rise again. He, however, who asserts that Christ could be dead only subjectively, and not object ively, asserts in other words that His humanity was a mere phantom ; and that He willed indeed to give the highest proof of obedience, but was not able to give it. If this is absurd, we have no course open but to recognise this saving act as without doubt a reality, but a reality which calls forth from us the language of the Christian Father : Mira profunditas, mi Deus, mira profunditas. " Comp. H. E. VlNKE, Verzameling ;n Verklaring der uitspraken van Jezus en de App. betr. zijn lijden en slerven., Soc. of the Hague (1835) ; C. A. Hasert, Ueber die Vorher- sagungen J. -con seinem Tode und seiner Aufersteh. (1839) ; A. RlTZSCHL, Die neutestam. Aussagen uber den Heilswerth des Todes Jesu, in the Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. (1863), ii. On the certainty of the Lord's death, our Lev. van Jezus, iii., p. 388, and the literature there given. Points for Inquiry. What internal evidences of truth are to be observed in the Lord's predictions of His death and resurrection ? — Sense and cause of the prayer in Gethsemane. — Further eluci dation of the principal utterances of the Lord concerning the object of His death. — Wherefore did He speak so comparatively little on this subject?— History and criticism of the denial of the truth of His death. — How could the Lord die, and in what connection does this death stand with the founding of the Kingdom of God upon earth? SECTION CIV. — THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. As the deep Humiliation of the Son of God ended in His grave, so was the latter at the same time the transition to the state of His Exaltation. Put to death according to the flesh, but made alive according to the spirit, He also continued consciously to live during the state of separation, and made manifest to the world of spirits that He was the King of the Kingdom of God, the Saviour of sinners. 1. " Crucified, dead, and buried, He descended into hell." With the treat ment of this last Article, Christian Dogmatics may bring to a close its THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 559 inquiry as to the state of the Humiliation of the Saviour. On the burial in itself — spoken of by Paul as a separate article of his doctrine 1 — it may be brief. The circumstances of the burial of the Lord are known from the united testimony of the four Gospels ; the truth of this historical account, particularly that of the sealing of the tomb — for reasons easily to be explained, denied — has been more than once sufficiently defended by the Apologetes, and the significance of the fact, in the light of the Gospel and of history, cannot be doubtful. As it is very justly observed in the Heidelberg Catechism,2 by the Lord's burial, as it is recorded in the sacred narrative, the certainty of His death is raised above all reasonable doubt. Thereby His humiliation to the death of the cross is confirmed and com pleted, since He, like the meanest inhabitant of the earth, was laid in the grave of corruption. But, at the same time, the word of prophecy was in this way most strikingly fulfilled ;s for the Christian is symbolised the putting off of the old man, by baptism into the fellowship of the Christ who died ; i and the repose of the grave is hallowed for His people, as also His own resurrection and glorification is prepared for."*.,, 2. Longer must we pause at the so-called " descent into hell," which, in the Apostles' Creed, is most closely connected with the burial of the Lord? As concerns the history of this article?, we find the conviction expressed even by the earliest of the Fathers — Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and others-^ that Jesus after His burial actually tarried in the world of spirits, and by some of them also that He there preached the Gospel; while the romantic manner in which this myste rious subject is presented in the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus is well known. Gnosticism, especially, warmly espoused this idea; according to Marcion, this activity of the Lord was directed to delivering the victims of the Demiurge, and leading them upwards with Himself. From the Symbols of the semi-Arians this much-debated Article appears to have passed over into those of the orthodox Church ; according to some, with a view to con trovert Apollinarianism. In the Expositio Symboli Aquileiensis of Ruffinus, at least, this formula is found, and especially through his influence it appears also to have passed over into other confessions of faith ; although it is remarkable that in the Nicene Creed mention is made only of " was buried;" in the Symbolum Quicumque, on the other hand, only of "descended into hell." It is m?nifest herefrom that both expressions were at first employed by many interchangeably, though very soon greater stress was laid upon the latter, and its contents regarded as the indication of a special remedial activity of the Lord. As the doctrine of Purgatory became more developed, the conception found wider acceptance, that the Lord had descended into the lower world in order to deliver the souls of the Old Testament believers from their subterranean abode, the limbus patrum. Especially under the influence of Thomas Aquinas was developed the doctrine of the Romish Church, that the whole Christ— as to His Divine and human nature — voluntarily repaired thither, to assure to the before-^ mentioned saints the fruit of His death on the cross, and to raise them out of 1 I Cor. xv. 4. 3 Isa. liii. 9. 2 Heid. Cat., Ans. 42. * Rom. vi. 4. 560 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. this prison-house to the full enjoyment of heavenly blessedness.— According to Luther, on the other hand, who regards the Descensus as the first step on the path of the Exaltation, the Lord, after His being made alive according to the spirit, and immediately before His return from the grave, descendet body and soul into hell, there to celebrate His triumph over the devil am: his powers,5 and to proclaim to them condemnation and judgment. The Reformed Dogmatics either understood the expression in the sense of " buried," or explained it of the penal anguish and dismay of the suffering Christ.6 Some theologians, the Lutheran Aepinus, e.g. (t 1553), even main, tained that the reference is to the sufferings of hell, which He endured in His soul, while the body was lying in the grave. No wonder that the Form. Cone, declared this Article to be one, qui neque sensibus, neque ratione nostra, comprehendi queat, sola autem fide acceptandus sit; which, however, did not prevent its being possible to say on the other side, that " there are almost as many dissertations concerning the descensus, as there are flies in the height of summer."7 Left by the Supranaturahsm of the past century entirely in a misty obscurity, it was wholly rejected by the Rationalists, as the fruit of an exploded popular notion, to which — according to Schleier macher — nothing but a fact entirely unnoticed by the Apostolic witnesses (unbezeugte Thatsache) served as a basis. Only in our day has the tide turned, and Theologians of different schools begun to return with increased interest — yea, with manifest preference, to this dogma; and to bring it into direct connection, not only with Soteriology, but also with Eschatology. 3. And this is rightly the case, inasmuch as this part of the confession has a Scriptural basis, as cannot — in the light of a purely grammatico- historical exegesis — possibly be denied. Even on the day of Pentecost,8 Peter explains the words of Psalm xvi. 10 of the crucified Master, and Paul9 proceeds essentially from the same idea. His words in Ephes. iv. 8 — 10 appear to have reference to the same fact, and especially the proof- texts, 1 Peter iii. 19 — 21 ; iv. 6, admit of no other interpretation than that the historic Christ Himself, made alive after His death for a higher spiritual existence, in the world of spirits proclaimed the Gospel to the unhappy contemporaries of Noah, who had perished in the flood. The Apostle speaks of this proclamation as beginning immediately after the death of the Lord, without actually determining whether it continued only until the period of His Resurrection, or indeed to that of His Ascension, both which particulars he mentions in the closest connection with each other in the twenty-first and twenty-second verses of this chancer. Just as little does he determine, whether the before-mentioned unhappy generation was the only one to whom this proclamation was addressed, or whether they were rather types of a whole unhappy class of men, upon whom this privilege was conferred. Nor does he say anything of the fruits of this activity, although it can scarcely be thought that this was altogether fruitless; neither does he directly or indirectly express himself as to the source whence he drew this knowledge. He does not even speak of this ' Col. ii. 15. 8 Actsii. 25—31. Calvin, Insht. ii., 16 ; Heid. Cat., Ans. 44. » Acts xiii. 33—37. f Witsius. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 56 1 subject as a "mystery;" but rather presupposes that this also is equally well known to his readers, as are the events which preceded and followed it. All things taken into account, there remains for us no other choice than either to accept this mysterious fact, on the word of Peter and as he related it, or — what certainly is easiest — to reject it with a stroke of the pen, as pertaining to a sphere of Jewish superstition, and of a wholly antiquated conception. 4. For this last we have not the courage, so long as we recognise in the Apostolic word the fruit of something more than mere human wisdom. If we here find also no trace of special revelation, yet we must regard the Apostle's utterance as the fruit of his sanctified insight into the glory of Christ's appearing, in the light of the prophetic word and of the Holy Spirit. The less can we experience any difficulty with regard thereto, since the fact here proclaimed, however enigmatical in itself, is to be regarded as having an inner probability in its favour — yea, as in the highest degree worthy of God and of Christ. The Lord Himself had spoken of His sojourn in the heart of the earth,10 and notably of being immediately after His death in Paradise.11 If we think in connection with this last saying, as illustrated by the Jewish mode of conception, of the place of happiness in the world of separate spirits, we cannot regard it as incon ceivable that He should thence have appeared even to the most deeply wretched " spirits in prison," still to carry out, after His death, that which had been the task of His whole life. Better than the just-mentioned Romish, Reformed, and Lutheran view's — which all must find their neces sary corrective in the word of Scripture — is that which we derive from the rightly explained word of the Apostle, designed and adapted to secure to this " descent " of the Lord, not less than to His resurrection and ascension, the character of a saving act. 5. It is comprehensible that this view should encounter opposition from two opposite sides, an opposition, however, which does not furnish a reason for changing our opinion. On the rationalistic side it has long been asserted that this whole dogma is fallen, and become manifestly altogether untenable, since modern science has deprived us of the nether world of antiquity. But if our cor.ception with regard to locality is different from that of the Apostolic age, yet so long as it must be admitted that there exists a world of spirits in a condition as well of happiness as of misery ; that also the spirit of Christ after His death lived and wrought there, where all the dead are assembled, and that it is not possible, in connection with this subject, wholly to exclude all notion of locality ; so long will the modern Cosmology be compelled to concede to Christian Theology the right of believing that of the departed Lord also the words were true : " My Father worketh hitherto, and I also work." 12 In no case does the obscurity of the how justify us in dis puting the certainty of the that. — And, as concerns the opposition raised on the side of Orthodoxy, which fears that the doctrine here proclaimed must necessarily lead to that of a restoration of all things : the question first of all is, whether Peter really teaches that which we have said, and whether any importance is to be attached to his word, or not. If it is, we are not " Matt. xii. 40. " Luke xxiii. 43. 12 John v. 17. O O 562 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. responsible for the deductions which may perhaps be made from his word, but which yet do not necessarily follow therefrom. In any case, we hear him only speak of a particular class of unhappy ones, in a certain aspect an exceptional one, from which it does not yet actually follow that a conclusion is to be drawn with regard to all, and least of all with regard to those upon whom has shone already the light of the Gospel, which was as yet wholly unknown to the contemporaries of Noah. — Against this twofold opposition we still cling to the conception of an appearing of the departed Lord in the world of spirits — this expression must henceforth replace the " descended into hell" — and regard it as having been "neither a visit to the pious patriarchs, nor a spectacle presented to the devil, nor a new suffering, but better than all that ; for the living a fresh manifestation of the inexhaustible grace of God, for the dead a supreme occasion of casting themselves into the arms of mercy." 13 ... 6. For more than one reason we attribute to this fact an abiding signifi cance of a Soteriological nature. Where the axe is laid to the root of the whole Apostolic body of doctrines (leerbegrip), there naturally this dogma falls to the ground as a withered branch. Where, on the other hand, the Apostolic testimony is all along regarded as the great source of our knowledge of the person and work of the Lord, there is there no reason for refusing its assured place — beside the confession that Christ died, was buried, rose again, and was taken up into heaven — also to this, that He preached the Gospel to them that are dead. It is undoubtedly equally wonderful as the other, but it is also equally unequivocally proclaimed. Understood in the sense indicated, naturally every reason for confining the " descent " to the state of humiliation falls away ; but so much the more confidently may we recognise it as the natural transition to that of exalta tion. — That which we believe, on the ground of the Apostolic utterance, concerning the sojourn and activity of the Lord in the world of spirits, is one proof the more of the reality of His humanity, and of the certainty of His death on the cross. — It renders more distinct our knowledge of the person and work of the Lord ; and affords us a new and striking proof of His majesty and love. — It convinces us of the vast extent and far-reaching consequences of the work of redemption by Christ, as availing also for the salvation of departed generations.14 — It sheds a surprising ray of light upon a terrible judgment of God, and upon a mysterious eternity. — It con firms, above all, the fact that salvation is to be had in no other than in the only name of the Redeemer.15 Those also who here, from no fault of theirs, have not known Him, must hereafter learn to know Him, or they cannot possibly enter into life. For the rest, in regard to all the yet unanswered questions, we may be most fitly reminded, that " it is sufficient for us, as the disciples of Christ, to learn those things only which He teaches us in His own word ; neither is it lawful that we should presume to overleap these boundaries." 16 Involuntarily one thinks in connection with these things of the words of a Christian philosopher : " On this sub ject also it is wiser, after David's fashion (Psalm cxxxix. 18) to meditate on one's couch, than to write thereupon." 17 13 Reuss. ls Acts iv. 12. " Oetinger. " Heb. ix. 26. 16 Neth. Conf., Art. xiii. THE RESURRECTION. 563 Compare, on the burial of the Lord and the sealing of the tomb, our Leven van 7ezu, ^hf- tf'/^ ?nlK^ent hlt0 hel1 (Hades), J. L. Koenig, Die Lehre von Christ'i Hollenfahrt (1842) ; S. K. Ihoden van Velzen, Het Evang. aan de dooden verkondied (1845) ; E. Gueder, Die Lehre von der Erscheinung Christi unter den 'Jodten (\%d\ and Herzogs R. E., vi., pp. 178— 181 ; and further the literature given in the Biblirl) Theol. of the N. T, § 27 (2nd edn. of the original Dutch, 1872). Points for Inquiry. The truth and importance of the burial, and the sealing of the sacred grave.— What is the sense of Ps. xvi. 10, as compared with Acts ii. 31 ?— Criticism of the principal different explanations of Ephes. iv. 8—10 ; 1 Pet. iii. 19— iv. 6.— What errors arose especially after the fourth century, concerning the " descensus " ?— The opinions of the Reformers of the Lutheran and the Reformed Confession.— Under what difficulties does Calvm's view labour?— How is the 44th Ans. of the Heid. Cat. to be regarded?— What development does the latest history of this dogma present an example of ?— Is it open to us (Schweilrer) to inscribe the whole subject in the list of myths?— What light here arises for us upon the universality of the Divine plan of salvation ? SECTION CV. — THE RESURRECTION. The Christ who died for our sins, and was buried, returned — according to the irrefragable testimony of Apostolic Scripture — bodily to life on the third day, and was seen alive by His disciples. If ever this confession, on which the whole Christian Church is built, must be abandoned as absolutely untenable, all will at the same time be for ever over, alike with the highest glory of the Redeemer, as with the highest consolation of the Redeemed. 1. He who died and was buried, rose again; and Christian Dogmatics, also, must keep in remembrance this miraculous fact,1 most of all in our time, in which there has been raised against this " pillar and ground of the truth " a storm of opposition such as has never been known before. The inces sant but utterly ineffectual beating of the waves of unbelief against this rock of truth makes a sad though somewhat comic impression, but it draws at the same time our attention with heightened interest to that Rock itself. 2. As concerns the idea, first of all, which we are to attach to the resur rection of the Lord, but a few years ago it was almost superfluous to make this a subject of formal inquiry, because no one thought in connection with this word of anything else than a bodily resurrection. Now, how ever, it is otherwise, and the assertion is hazarded that the Scriptural expression, "raised from the dead," determines absolutely nothing with regard to the body of the Lord, but simply indicates that He, as to the Spirit, did not remain in Hades, but went into heaven. That the Apos- 1 2 Tim. ii. 8. 0 0 2 564 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. tolic testimony remains a stumbling-block and offence for modern Natu ralism is easy to suppose ; but at least it must not be allowed to remove this stone of stumbling by exegetical artifices. The particular mentioning by Paul of the Lord's burial ; the express notice that He was raised on the third day, and the close connection in which he places this event not only with the immortality of believers, but also with their resurrection, proves here enough for him who is willing to see it. The Resurrection and the Ascension" are in Scripture clearly distinguished from each other ; and the mere confession— to which the theory of the opponents comes in the end— that Jesus, in common with all other pious men, enjoys as to His spirit an immortal life, legitimates not one of the conclusions which are drawn by the Apostles from the fact of His resurrection. In this state of things the choice cannot indeed be difficult, especially where it becomes ever again manifest as clear as day that " the most unfortunate attempt to combat the miraculous has certainly been the purely exegetical one, according to which, properly speaking, no miracle is ever intended in the text itself."2 Nowhere is Rationalism weaker than where it will exe- getically defend itself. Not simply that Jesus lives,— in however vague a sense,— but that He has bodily returned to life, and was seen of His dis ciples, is the kernel and substance of this confession. The conception of the resurrection cannot be worked out a priori, but is simply to be deter mined a posteriori, in the light of the Apostolic testimony. 3. As far as its true nature is concerned, the resurrection of the Lord is the miracle of the Omnipotence of the Father and the Son, in consequence of which the life voluntarily laid down was again fully restored ; and He on the third day bodily returned from the grave to manifest Himself to His people in a condition of glorification already begun, and henceforth wholly and exclusively to live to God, without ever again dying. It is, consequently, alike the perfect restoration and the beginning of the glo rification of the Divine-human life of the Saviour. The broken bond of body and spirit is again united, the unity of the self-consciousness restored, and an end is made to the material limitation, within which this life had formerly voluntarily confined itself. He who rises from the dead is not the man Jesus merely, but the God-man, during and after the state of death inseparably one with the Father, although the bodily veil was for a time laid aside. The condition from which the Lord returned to life is that, not of an apparent, but of a real state of death, although His flesh had seen no corruption. It took place on the third morning, according to the Lord's own prediction in Matt. xvi. 21, with which is to be compared xii. 40 ; so that it is evident that here also, as frequently elsewhere,3 parts of days must be regarded as days. Raised up by the glory of the Father,4 He Himself at the same time arose by virtue of the power of God dwell ing in Him,5 and with " many infallible proofs"6 was contemplated by the eye of His disciples. His body was no illusion, but a real one ; no mortal body, but one already in the process of glorification, of which henceforth neither the condition nor the law is known from observa- 2 Schmid. « Rom. vi. 4. ' Acts i. 3. 3 Compare I Sam. Xxx. 12, 13. » John x. 18. THE RESURRECTION. 565 tion or experience ; but one unquestionably entirely adapted to the new condition into which He was brought by the resurrection. Alike as respects body and spirit was He thereby for ever raised above all rela tion to the flesh ; so that henceforth He no longer lives a life of flesh and sense, easily exposed to temptation, but one of absolutely unlimited and unbroken communion with God.7 4. The question as to the conceivableness of such a miracle, naturally turns upon the standpoint taken by the questioner. The Materialist and Naturalist cannot admit that one really dead should return to life, even though it were confirmed by thousands of witnesses ; beside the everlasting and inexorable grave, he is able — under the yoke of his system — to raise no other psalm-tone than at best that of Psalm lxxxviii. 10 — 12. But the right to deny a priori the possibility of a miracle, if at least one still believes in a personal and living God, has never yet been proved ; and from the Christian-theistic standpoint the doctrine of the Resurrec tion of Christ may be sufficiently justified by an appeal, as well to the pure conception of God as to the exalted personality of the Redeemer. Rightly does the Apostle 8 assert it to be impossible that He should be holden of death ; He who was and did all that the Gospel testifies to us. When it is established on firm grounds that He died, it is for faith almost comprehensible that He should rise again. That which was unnatural for the Incarnate Word, was the laying aside ; that which is natural in the higher sense is the restoration, the unfolding, the glorifying, of the life present in Him. Undoubtedly we have to do here, as in the case of every true miracle, with a mystery, but with a revealed mystery; and if the moment of the resurrection was witnessed by no created being, yet heaven and earth combined to prove the certainty of it. 5. The denial of this miracle has accordingly in all ages proceeded, not from friends, but from opponents of the belief in Christ and Christianity. Begun by the Sadducees,9 we see it represented in the Apostolic age by the erring members of the Corinthian Church, and, as it appears, also by Hymenals and Philetus,10 afterwards by Celsus, Porphyry, Julian, and the calumnies of the Jewish Theology. In more modern times it was again a Jew, Spinoza, who became the leader of the hostile host ;11 and very soon the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries saw that camp vastly increased. The names of the English Deists, Woolston, Annet, and others ; of the German Naturalists, Bahrdt, Venturini, the Wolfenbiittel Fragmentist, etc., have obtained a melancholy notoriety. More earnestly and scientifically has the controversy been conducted within the last few years. The names of its representative men are in every one's mouth ; but as yet far from general is the honesty with which it is acknowledged by one of the most gifted and influential of them : " Christianity, in the form in which Paul, in which all the Apostles understood it, as it is presupposed in the Confessions of all Christian Churches, falls with the resurrection of Jesus."12 6. In this state of things it cannot be doubtful that Christian Dogmatics f — ^ - — -¦¦ — - 7 Rom. vi. 10; 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; iv. 1. 10 2 Tim. ii. 17, 18. 8 Acts ii. 24. " See his Epist.xxi. ad Oldenb. ' Acts iv. 2. 12 Strauss. 566 CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. sees itself called to the prolonged defence of the confession of the Lord's resurrection, as in the fullest sense an " articulus slant is vel cadentis Ecclesice Christiana:." In this respect there is an incalculable difference between the task of the Dogmatics of the period of the Reformation and that of the present century ; that which was then acknowledged by every one, is now on all sides contradicted. But in connection therewith it must always be premised that this fact also is not to be defended entirely alone, but in connection with the great whole of Saving Truth ; and that no recapitula tion of merely historical proofs can gain over an unbeliever to the faith. But that which, as is shown from experience, is not sufficient to compel an adversary to yield the point, is yet by no means without significance for the defence of a fiercely assaulted belief. Something is already gained if it is shown that the difficulties on the side of denial are much greater than on the side of confession ; and that a Modern theologian of our time had truth on his side when he wrote : " The unhesitating denial of the Resurrection, especially in the pulpit — in spite of the serious difficulties which exist, and in conflict with the belief of so many among the Christian laity — is the fruit neither of a scientific nor of a religious conscience."13 With what good reason the language of exultation, " The Lord is risen indeed," is yet ever repeated, is apparent from a glance at a series of wit nesses, who cannot be refuted; of facts which cannot be explained, on the supposition that the Lord remained in the grave. 7. Among the witnesses stands (a) first of all Paul, with his word, his conversion, his whole personality. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter xv. 3 — 8, (which is, without any exception worth mentioning, recog nised as genuine, and as written in the year 57 or 58,) he reminds the Church of that which he had already proclaimed five or six years before, and which he himself had some time earlier — very soon after his conversion, therefore —received from a trustworthy source, amongst other communications, that of the fact of the Lord's bodily rising again ; and he even holds himself most positively assured thereof, on the ground of a series of competent tes timonies, to which also attaches that of his own experience.14 There is not the slightest reason for regarding the "seen" (&