IH

¦I

?%

EMiwDKIMBi tiHHNfr"HHHHh H

lll£l|^[|^tj|^t|j,«IJ[,«l

•TfMJE-VKni^IRSinnr- • iLniais^israr •

Gilt ol the
Rev. Heber H. Beadle
1917

VEXED QUESTIONS, &c.

NEW LIGHTS UPON OLD LINES
OR
VEXED QUESTIONS IN
THEOLOGICAL CONTEOVEESY AT THE PRESENT DAY
CRITICALLY AND EXEGETICALLY DISCUSSED

BY
THOMAS MONCK MASON, B. A, T. CD.

" Whicli things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom
teacheth, hut which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing
spiritual things with spiritual." — 1 Con. ii. 18.

LONDON
JAMES NISBET AND CO., 21 BERNERS STREET
MDOCOLXXVll

THE OETHODOX PEOTESTANT POPULATION OF THESE EEALMS
THE FOLLOWING ATTEMPT
TO SETTLE THE BASES OP THEOLOGICAL CONTEOVEESY
IN SOME OP ITS LEADING PAETICULAES
IS HUMBLY COMMENDED.

' Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God:
because many false prophets are gone out into the world."

" Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good :"
And
" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit."

'E'p'pnseE.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
I. The Sufficiency of the Scriptures, ... 1
II. The Apostolic Foundation, ... 10
III. The Abuse of the Law, . . 15
IV. The Church, . 27
V. Faith and Works, . .53
VI. The Origin of Evil, . . 79
VII. The Gospel, . .86
VIII. Universal Redemption, . . . 141
IX. Baptismal Ablution, . . . .154
X. Baptismal Regeneration, . . 181
XI. Infant Baptism, . . .... 213
XII. The Lord's Supper, . . 223
XIII. The Second Advent, ... . 248
XIV. Ministerial Absolution,  257
XV. Miscellaneous Elucidations, . . . . 271

THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCKIPTUEES.
About to deal with matters of question in the depart
ment of theological controversy, the first of all questions
is naturally as to the grounds upon which the investigation
is properly to be carried on. The answer to this question,
to the professed satisfaction of all Protestant com
mentators, is, the simple testimony of the Word of God.
That " Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to
salvation ; so that whatever is not read therein, nor may
be proved thereby, is not to. be required of any man, that
it should be beHeved as an article of the faith," is a
maxim, not merely included in the Protestant creed, but
upon which the Protestant faith is absolutely founded.
And yet it is certain that many things are incorporated in
the purest forms of that faith, which are derived, not from
Scripture but from tradition — views and usages of the
early professing Christians, recorded by the so-caUed
Fathers, for which no authority is to be found in the Word
of God, It is true that in most instances this charge
relates to matters of no essential importance ; matters of
practice or discipline which, not being strictly denned in
the Scriptures, are to be understood as left to the discre-
A

2 VEXED QUESTIONS.
tion of the church itself. But on the other hand it is
certain that some of the most extravagant corruptions of
Christian doctrine — as, for example, with relation to the
two great ordinances of baptism and the Supper of the
Lord — are entirely derived from the testimony, and main
tained upon the authority, of early writers in the profess
ing Christian church.
The truth is, we in general lie under a great mistake as
to the position and consequent authority of the ancient
writers in the cause of Christianity, commonly distin
guished as the Fathers of the church. Having no other
record of the opinions and practices of the early professing
Christians but what the works of these writers contain, we
are in the habit of regarding them as in some sort the
representatives of the church at their respective epochs.
But it is not ;by writing that the relation of the individual
to the church (in the Scriptural sense of the word) is in
any way to be denned. The true Christianity of no age is
to be judged of by its authors. The great body of the
church were in early, as they are in present, times — silent
workers. Their voice was not " heard in the streets ; "
neither were they at aU careful to transmit their views to
posterity. " To believe, to suffer, to love — not to write —
was the primitive taste."* What they believed is not to
be deduced, or at least concluded, from what the compara
tively few who wrote upon the subject may have described,
whose claim to belong to the church at all, in a spiritual
sense, is merely matter of speculation. All we know of
them for certain is that, for the most part, they had but
an indifferent knowledge of the Scriptures ; a knowledge
the more indifferent the earlier the period at which they
lived. As historians, giving them credit for the most
* Milner's History of the Church, vol. i. p. 107.

THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 3
perfect veracity, their testimony is unquestionable with
respect to matters of fact within their own cognizance ;
even to the extent of what was believed by some others
as weU as themselves. But as to the correctness of the
belief, or the relation of that belief to the members of the
true church, their testimony is simply of not the slightest
account. But there is a special reason why no authority whatever
should attach to the testimony of human writings in rela
tion to the essential truths of the Gospel ; a reason which
goes beyond the mere subordination of such testimony to
that of the Scriptures ; even to the effect of depriving it of
every, the slightest, claim to consideration, though invested
with the highest attributes of respectability, and antiquity
extending to the absolutely primitive, even the apostolic,
age. When our Lord, as related in Matt.. xvi. 18, singling
out Peter from the rest of the apostles by that name by
which He had said he should ever after be distinguished
(John i. 42), addressed him in those memorable words* —
" Thou art a stone, and upon this rock [evidently the whole
apostolic body, that aggregate of ' living stones ' of which
Peter was one] * I will build my church, and the gates of
hades shall hot prevail against it '' — He put upon record
the interesting and important fact, that the building of
the Christian church was a work to" be accomplished in
the teeth of a powerful opposition on the part of Satan and
his foHowers— a conflict, in short, between Himself and
the " prince of the powers of darkness." This foHows as a
matter of course from the terms of the description ; for
surely our Lord would never have said that the gates of
hades should not prevail against it, if no such attempt was
reaUy to be made on their part. As to the meaning of
* Tor the justification of this position see the next Article.

4 VEXED QUESTIONS.
the phrase, " the gates of hades" the question has been
raised, whether it might not be intended simply of death
or the grave, both liable to be signified under the same
term. This question, however, is, I conceive, sufficiently
determined in the sense here assigned, by the construction -
in which the word occurs — the " gates," the usual place of
council in all Eastern communities (cf. Deut. xvi. 18 ;
Euth iv. 1, 11; Dan. ii. 49; Amos v. 10, 12, 15),
metaphorically used to signify the council itself {cf. Ezek.
xxvi. 2), occasionally the result of its deliberations ; and
the verb with which it is coupled, KaTiayym, a verb of
action, implying not merely resistance, but the exercise of
actual force, to vanquish or overpower. So that even if the
word hades be understood in the sense of death or the
grave, it must be of death or the grave personified ; in other
words, of " him that hath the power of death, that is, the
devil " (Heb. ii. 14).
Now if this be so, if the powers of darkness were to be
arrayed against the edification of the church, by what
means can we suppose that purpose to be carried out or
attempted, but by the corruption of the truth, the deprava- '
tion of the vital doctrines of the Gospel, the suggestion of
erroneous conclusions respecting the most important
articles of the Christian faith ? These are the means, the
only conceivable means, by which a spiritual warfare, such
as that which is here brought before us, is capable of being
carried on. And is it likely that these measures would
have been postponed to an advanced age in the history of
the church, when it had become established in the truth,
and with the authority of all its professing members, past
and present, in essential harmony with the word of life ?
Is it not most reasonable to assume that they would be
brought into requisition at once, in the very outset of its

THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 5
Career, from the very moment the occasion was offered for
their employment ? Or ever a truth of essential importance
issued from the lips of the divine speaker, or from the pen
of the inspired writer, may we not, or rather must we not,
conclude that the attempt would be made to turn it aside
from its proper meaning ; as by seizing upon some word of
expression, which, at its first utterance, in its simple natural
sense, metaphorical or literal, was perfectly intelligible to
the effect intended, and suggesting another meaning — as, for
example, the substitution of the literal for the metaphorical,
or vice versa — which, once suggested, and established by
frequent usage, should take its place as the real significa
tion ; and thus divest it of all its saving efficacy, and con
vert it from a means of grace into an instrument of de
struction ?
Nor is this mere matter of speculation : it is simply in
accordance with the ascertained facts of the case. Those
who are versed in the history of professing Christianity are
aware that the most notable heresies that have existed took
their rise in apostolic, or immediately jjosi-apostolic, times;
and wiU be able to trace them to the source to which they
are here ascribed — the misrepresentation of the text of
Scripture. Even the great antichristian heresy, "the
apostasy" icar e^oyyv (2 Thes. ii. 3), which was destined
to attain its full development at a later epoch, is said by St
Paul and St John to have been virtually in operation in
their days (2 Thes. ii. 7 ; 1 John iv. 3) ; and is directly
identified, not only with that particular source of error
under the description of " false-prophets " — i.e., preachers
or teachers of false doctrine (1 John iv. 1) — but with that
very being, the author of evil, by whom they are here sup
posed to be inspired, — " For the mystery " — or " spirit " (1
John iv. 3) — "of the iniquity [previously enunciated in

6 VEXED QUESTIONS.
verse 3] doth already work, only until he that hindereth be
taken out of the way; and then shall the iniquitous one
himself be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with
the spirit [or breath] of His mouth  whose
coming is after the working of Satan" &c. (2 Thes. ii. 7-9 ;
cf. also Eev. xii 17, xiii. 1-4).
The argument here contemplated is, of course, exclusively
applicable to those who are satisfied of the correctness of
the view which is taken of the meaning of our Lord in the
passage in question ; or who, without regard to this particu
lar passage, are otherwise convinced of the personal agency
of Satan and his followers in the delusion and destruction
of mankind — for in either case the same conclusion is
equally involved. Admitting the fact, or even the
possibility, of this contingency — for this, too, is enough for
the purpose of the argument — what is the value of any
evidence concerning any doctrine of importance in the
writings of any author, however respectable for acquire
ments, veracity, and antiquity even to the very verge of the
Christian era ? Acquirements are no security from error :
martyrdom is no proof of truth. Philosophers have
erred, especially in matters of religion; and error has
had its martyrs as well as truth. Eecognizing, in the
arch-enemy of mankind, the "father of lies," the prime
source of corruption and falsehood, how shall we assign a
limit to the extent of his operation in the perversion of the
truths of the Gospel, in respect of matter, place, or time ?
With such a power at work to such effects, to refer to an
tiquity in support of any doctrine that is contrary to the
text or tenor of the Scriptures, what is it — I speak to
those alone who concur with me in the truth of the
premises — but simply to quote Satan in defence of a lie ?
The doctrines of the Bible are, then, to be deduced from,

THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 7
the Bible alone. The testimony to the divine truth is to
be sought for, where alone it is sure to be found, in the
divine Word. The Word was given eoccluswely for that
purpose, and must be adequate to the purpose for which it
was given. It cannot require to be supplemented by man.
Man may be the instrument of its conveyance, the means
of its application ; as he was the medium of its original
communication. Nor is there any bar or bounds to his
elucidation of its contents by a skilful application of the
materials which it supplies, "comparing spiritual things
with spiritual " (1 Cor. ii. 13).* But there his power and
his office end. Of testimony to the divine truth he can,
of himself, contribute nothing ; simply because he can
know nothing.
But though there may be no difference of opinion as to
the propriety of this limitation of the grounds of argument
to the simple testimony of the Scriptures, there is, I fear,
more implied in the description than many, by whom it is
avowedly accepted, will be willing to admit. By the
" testimony of the Word of God " as here intended, is
meant the word itself, or words, in their natural sense,
with no other qualification than that of the context in
which they occur. I am sorry to have to say that much,
* The adoption of a different rendering of this passage by Dean Alford
in his proposed version of the N.T. — " interpreting spiritual things to
the spiritual " — obliges me to say a word in defence of the authorised
translation, as given above. 'SvyxpivovTes, compounded of the verb Kpiva
and the preposition ahv, with, can by no means be understood in the
sense of interpreting things to persons ; but, if interpreting at all, inter
preting Try comparing things to or with things ; and so or similarly in
every version from the Syriac and the Latin of Jerome to the latest
modern, with the exception of the French. In 2 Cor. x. 12 we have an
example of the use of the same expression, from which the impossibility
of the proposed version of Dean Alford will be at once apparent — "For
w& dare not . . . compart ou/rselves.with some that commend themselves.'

8 VEXED QUESTIONS.
if not the greater part, of the theology of the schools con
sists in the systematic evasion of this very sense : in other
words, not in explaining, but in explaining away the
meaning of the Scripture — in showing, not what it really
says, but how it may be understood to mean something
else. And this system is defended upon the ground of a
presumed necessity — the alleged existence of other Scrip
tures, of a contrary or contradictory effect, to which it is
held preferable to adhere.
Both the system itself and the ground of its defence
are equally vain. The doctrinal statements of Holy Scrip
ture — and these are what alone we are here concerned
with — can never have been intended otherwise than
according to the natural sense of their terms : by which I
mean, not the literal as opposed to the figurative, but the
obvious as opposed to the recondite ; that sense in which
any unprejudiced person of the average intellect and
education would understand them, with no other help
than the context of the passage itseK* To suppose it
otherwise would be to suppose that God intended to mis
lead instead of to enlighten ; to produce disagreement
instead of unanimity ; to impose upon man the obligation
to correct the divine deficiencies ; to reveal the truths of
* The context of a statement is an expression so commonly understood
in a sense more or less short of its proper meaning, that it is necessary to
point out that, besides the relation to the passages with which it is
immediately connected, and which may be called the context of the
subject, there is a context of the persons of whom the statement is pre
dicated, and of those by whom it is propounded ; of the time to which
it refers, and of the covenant or Testament under which it is revealed.
What is predicated, for instance, of those to whom an epistle or a discourse
is addressed, is of no application to the world at large ; what is recorded
as the statement of an uninspired person, is of no avail to establish a
doctrine ; and what is true of one time, or of one dispensation, is not
necessarily true of another. For the elucidation of this latter position
see the next Article but one.

' THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SCRIPTURES. 9
the Gospel to " the wise and prudent " and to hide them
from " babes ; " to suspend the intelligence of all that is
essential to salvation upon the arbitrary interpretation of
those for whose instruction it was designed.
And all this, to meet an emergency which has no real
existence — the testimony of conflicting Scriptures. There
is no such thing as a doctrinal statement in the Scriptures
that, in the natural sense of its terms, and in its proper
context, is contradictory to any other interpreted upon the
same principles — due allowance being made for the
different significations of the same word ; as, for example,
the word " justification " in Eom. iii. 28 and James ii 24,
25. Of course it will be understood that I here mean the
Scriptures in their original tongue and amended text. To
mistranslation or misrepresentation, I do not hesitate to
say, will the hypothesis of incongruity in every instance
be found to be due ; as every scholar may verify for him
self, if he only set about the inquiry in a right spirit.
And thus the conclusion stands without objection — that
the testimony of the Word of God, in all doctrinal
questions, is to be taken in the natural sense of its terms ;
and, in fact, to receive it in any other sense is not to
receive it at all, but simply to reject it.

II.
THE APOSTOLIC FOUNDATION.
Tile meaning assigned to the passage, " Upon this rock I
will build my church," in the preceding Article, in which
the " rock " is identified with the whole apostolic tody, and
that, in respect, not of their doctrines, but of their persons,
differing, so far as I am aware, from any that has been
hitherto suggested, a few words may be necessary in its
defence. The church is a building of "living stones" (1 Pet. ii.
5), of which the first laid, the earliest members, are
naturally the foundation. Of the Christian church (here
evidently intended as referred to in the future tense), the
apostles were, consequently, this foundation — the first
called, and first converted. So far the explanation is
matter of fact. And in this sense it is confirmed by the
testimony of the Scriptures. Thus the Ephesian converts
are described as " having been built upon the foundation
of the apostles " (Eph. ii. 20) ; and in the description of the
" holy city Jerusalem " — the type of the church com
plete — the " wall " is represented as having " twelve
foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles "
(Eev. xxi. 14).
The only question, then, is with respect to other ex
planations, whether any of them is equally entitled to
acceptance. Of these,' that which supposes Peter to be the
anti-type of the " rook " is precluded by the change of tin

THE APOSTOLIC FOUNDATION. n
word. Had our Lord meant Peter alone to be the founda
tion, He, would surely have retained that word, irirpoi,
representing the individual, and not substituted another,
irerpa, representing the aggregate — supposing, as we are
bound to do, that He meant to avoid being misunderstood.
For these terms, however similar they may appear to the
English reader, are as distinct in their meaning as the
words by which they are represented in our vernacular,
and quite as incapable of being understood, either of them.
in the sense of the other ; the word Trer/ao?, a stone, never
being used to signify a rock, nor irerpa, a rock, to signify a
stone* Again, as to the explanation which supposes a reference
to the previous confession of Peter, or rather to the subject
of that confession, which is the Lord's divinity — even if it
were conceivable for such an attribute to be the foundation
of the church, there is no ground, in the grammatical con
struction of the passage, for its identification with the
" rock," sufficient to override the intervening designation
of Peter himself. In order to a sensible connection with
the " rock," countervailing the mention of the apostle, it
must have been something visible to which our Lord might
be imagined to refer ; as in the explanation above pro
pounded, where He may be supposed to have pointed to
the general body of the apostles standing before Him— ran
expedient, however, clearly inapplicable to the case of a
moral attribute.
Finally, the hypothesis of a reference to Christ 'Himself
as the " rock " is out of the question for the following
reasons : — First, the absence, upon this hypothesis, of any
meaning to our Lord's designation of Peter ; as well as of
* See Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, s. w. ireTpa, et irerpos, where
this fact is expressly affirmed.

12 VEXED QUESTIONS.
any connection between it and the building of the church,
which is nevertheless announced in connection with it.
Secondly, the confusion of metaphors in representing our
Lord as, at one and the same time, both the foundation and
the founder. And thirdly, and conclusively, the direct
testimony of the Scriptures, that our Lord is not the
foundation of the church (in the sense above predicated),
but contradistinctively, the " top corner-stone," aKpoymviaiov
(Eph. ii. 20 ; 1 Pet. ii. 6), elsewhere called the " head of the
corner" (Ps. cxviii. 22 ; Matt. xxi. 42), as in Col. i 18 He is
expressly declared to be "the head of the body, the church."*
With respect to the passage in Isaiah xxviii. 16, upon
the authorised version of which alone, a contrary conclu
sion might be founded, it will be sufficient to observe that
it is open to objection as regards both the Hebrew original
and the Greek version of the LXX., which gives the sense
as follows — " Behold, I lay upon the foundations, eh
rh 0efie\ia, of Sion a top corner-stone," &c. It is only
necessary to add, in respect of this particular, that where
our Lord is called a " foundation " (1 Cor. iii. 11), it is not
as a foundation of the church, but of its creed — not of its
constituency, but of its constitution ; as we gather both from
the description of it as laid by men — " I [Paul] have laid
the foundation"  " other foundation can no one lay ; "
and also from the sequel, where we have the things built
upon it — " gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble "
— not different persons, but different doctrines in the same or
different persons ; all alike built upon the same foundation,
and to be tried by the same fire.
* See Chrysost., Horn. 6 in Eph. ; also, cf. i.kpoKi6viov, top of the column
Philo, B.M. iii. 4; bicpoKlBos, top-stone, Vitruv., ii. 8; &.icp6wo\is, the
citadel; and indeed, it may be said, every word in the Greek Lexicojj
compounded of the same radical, S«pos.

THE APOSTOLIC FO UNDA TIOA . 1 3
When or how the misunderstanding as to the real mean
ing of the passage originated it may not be possible to de
termine. But I cannot help thinking that it has been
mainly fostered by a miscontruction in the Latin transla
tion of Jerome, in which the word mrpo? is rendered
" Petrus " — that is, in the sense of the proper name, Peter,
instead of the natural meaning of the word, a stone ; and
that, not only in the passage before us, but also in John i.
42, where it first occurs in the same connection, and to
which our Lord is here evidently alluding ; a rendering,
in this latter case, in singular contradiction to the indica
tion of the passage itself, in which it is expressly declared
to be in the sense of a translation — " Tu es Simon filius
Johanna ; tu vocaveris Cephas, quod interpretatur
Petrus " — Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted
Petrus. But Petrus is not a Latin word at all (except as
the proper name, Peter), and, consequently, not the inter
pretation either of the Syriac cephas, or of the Greek
7T6T/30?, of which the proper representative in Latin is lapis,
as petra, rupes, scopulus, or saocum is of the Greek irkrpa, a
rock. The consequence of this misconstruction in the
passage with which we are here particularly concerned is
twofold : besides disparaging the discourse of our Lord in
representing Him as addressing His disciple with the
solemn affirmation of his proper name — " And I say also
unto thee that thou art Peter " — surely a style of address
unworthy of Him who spake as " never man spake " — it
has opened the door, or given encouragement, to that con
nection between " Peter " and the " rock," which all the
other explanations of the passage have only been suggested
for the purpose of evading. With the word a stone in the
place of Peter (as in the representation of the passage in
the preceding Article) the contrast between the apostle

14 VEXED QUESTIONS.
and the rock would be too palpable to have escaped
detection. Is it assuming too much to ascribe a misconstruction, the
effect of which has-been nothing less than the mainstay of
the great Eoman apostasy, to the inspiration of that being
to whom the origination of the apostasy itself has, upon
scriptural authority, already been assigned ?

III.
THE ABUSE OF THE LAW.
The law, in the conventional use of the word, the statu
tory declarations of the Old Testament Scriptures, may be
described, in relation to us, as comprising three depart
ments — the political, the moral, and the ceremonial. I
have said, in relation to us ; because as regarded the
Jews, they were all three virtually but one ; the regulations
of the political and ceremonial constitution, ordained by
God Himself, being equally imperative, equally matter of
conscience) with those of the moral. For us this combina
tion no longer subsists. Upon the dissolution of the
Jewish dispensation all its elements lost their coherency
in the loss of their common bond of union : those that were
peculiar, the political and the ceremonial, expired with it ;
that which had preceded it, which was from the beginning
and for all time, the moral, alone survives.
It is to this department of the law, accordingly, that St
Paul alludes in his first epistle to Timothy (chap. i. 8)—
" The law is good, if a man use it lawfully " — as, indeed, is
apparent from the succeeding verses exclusively relating
to moral offences ; and it is with reference to that law that
the alternative conditions of a lawful and an unlawful usage
are predicated. How moral aphorisms, which are good in
themselves, could be unlawfully used, can only be ration
ally understood in respect of the character with which they
might be invested. Presumably instituted for a certain

1 6 VEXED QUESTIONS.
purpose, or constructed upon a certain principle, apart from
that purpose, or at variance with that principle, they
would, as a matter of course, be liable to the imputation
of an unlawful employment.
Assuming for a moment the truth of this description,
and holding in abeyance the definition of the character
referred to, let us take for an illustration of the case the
passage in Ezek. xviii. 27, as it stands at the head of the
Morning and Evening Service in the Book of Common
Prayer — " When the wicked man turneth away from his
wickedness which he hath committed, and doeth that
which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive."
Surely a most incongruous introduction to the worship of
God under that dispensation, the essential characteristic of
which is justification " by faith without the works of the
lavj" (Eom. iii. 28). Perhaps it will be said, that the
statement in question is a passage from the Scriptures ;
and as such must it not necessarily be true, and con
sequently in proper keeping with the worship of God in
any dispensation or covenant under which it may be cited ?
But is it so indeed ? Does any Christian [Protestant]
really believe, that by simply turning from his evil courses,
and devoting himself to good works, he will actually
accomplish his own salvation ? If he does, wherein does
he make Christianity to consist ? In what, the difference
between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace ?
between the Jewish dispensation under which the passage
was indited, and the Christian under which it is here pro
pounded ? Perhaps he will say, that what is here stated
is to be understood with a reference to the atoning work
of Christ — that, if a man turn "away from his wicked
ness," and so forth, he shall experience the " salvation
that is in Christ Jesus." But this is not anything that is

THE ABUSE OF THE LAW. 17
, here declared. There is no reference to Christ in the
passage itself ; none was there, so far as we can know, in
the intention of the prophet by whom it was enunciated ;
none, certainly, in the conception of those to whom it was
addressed. The fact is, the passage, perfectly intelligible in the
natural sense of its terms, has no application to the
covenant of grace. It is an expression of " the law,"
essentially " good " at the time when it was written ; but,
in respect to the present dispensation, obnoxious to the
charge of an unlawful usage. In this representation of
the matter there is the assertion of a maxim of the gravest
importance : involving nothing less than the integrity of
the divine word in the relation of one integral portion of it
to the other — the maxim, namely, of the exclusive relation
of the terms of the covenant of works in the Old Testa
ment Scriptures to the Old Testament dispensation. In
the light of this maxim, and therein alone, is it, I conceive,
possible to understand clearly the dealings of God with
man as revealed in the Scriptures respectively of the Old
Testament and the New. It is, in fact, the key, the only
key, to the reception of the one in the face of the other
upon the same principle, of the acceptance of all the
doctrinal statements of Holy Scripture in the natural
sense of their terms. But for the verification of this maxim
it will be necessary to go to the fountain head of those
covenanted dealings of God, the conditions of which we
are concerned to investigate.
When man was first created upon the earth, he was
placed under a covenant, which, in regard of its relation to
the conduct of the individual, is properly called a covenant
of works. A covenant, as exemplified in God's dealings
with man, comprises two essential particulars — a benefit or
B

1 8 VEXED QUESTIONS.
reward; and a condition or means of its attainment. In
the covenant established with our first parents, this benefit
or reward was life, in the enjoyment of the dominion or
inheritance of the earth; the condition, obedience to the
divine commandments signified in the abstaining from the
fruit of a certain tree. Thus in Gen. i. 26 God is repre
sented as saying, " Let us make man in our image, 
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and
over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth ; "* and though the condition of its enjoyment be
not positively described, it is equally certainly, though
negatively, declared in the alternative condition of its
forfeiture — " In the day that thou eatest thereof thou
shalt surely die " (chap. ii. 17) — death as the result of dis
obedience necessarily implying life as the reward of
obedience. From the nature of this covenant, the benefit being
suspended upon the conduct of the individual — in other
words, being of the essence of a reward — it follows, as a
matter of necessity, that the parties under it must be left
entirely to their own resources. This conclusion is involved
in the simple meaning of the terms from which it is
deduced. A reward is only the expression of a return for
the fulfilment of a condition ; to the realization of which it
is essential that the condition be fulfilled by the party
claiming it. For the party by whom it is proposed to assist
in that fulfilment would be simply, so far as that assistance
extended, to convert the reward into a free gift — that is, to
supersede the covenant as of works by one as of grace.
* Confirmation of this description, as regards the exclusive relation of
the reward of the covenant of works to the inheritance of the earth, is
involved in the exclusive reference to the earth in the Scriptures of the
Old Covenant, and the special reference to heaven in the introduction of the
New j as pointed out in a subsequent paragraph of this Article.

THE ABUSE OF THE LAW. 19
And so, in the case before us, were God to have interfered
in any way to determine the result, as by the influence of
His Holy Spirit to enlighten or direct, it would be virtually
to have put an end to the covenant Himself.
Such then was the covenant under which the progenitors
of the human race were created ; and under this covenant
alone they and all their progeny must have continued, had
nothing occurred to occasion the introduction of another.
But when, by their infraction of the assigned condition of
obedience, our first parents had forfeited the reward
actually for themselves, virtually (through the corruption
of their nature) for all their successors, God, in the
plenitude of His mercy, announced another covenant
based (so far as man is concerned) upon another condition
and involving another reward. For this covenant, in its
primary constitution — that is, as between the Persons of
the Godhead eternally concerted — is, equally with the
foregoing, a covenant of works ; in which the Second
Person of the Holy Trinity, taking man's nature upon
Him, as his representative fulfils the requisite conditions
and recovers, or redeems, the reward ; but as regards those
for whose benefit it was wrought, it is a covenant of
grace — a covenant, or rather the dispensation of a covenant,
in which the enjoyment of the benefit is, not of works, but
purely of grace or gift, through faith in Him by whom the
inheritance has been redeemed, and in whom, consequently,
it has become legally vested. This covenant or dispensa
tion was announced at the fall, in the revelation of the
seed of the woman that should bruise the serpent's head
(Gen. iii. 15) ; and in this character, of " Son of man,"
Jesus Christ thus became the new federal head of the
human race — the " last Adam," the " second man " (1 Cor.
xv. 45, 47). But as in himself Jesus Christ united the

bo VEXED QUESTIONS.
two natures, the divine and the human, He had another
inheritance, not derived from Adam, even a heavenly ; and
this inheritance, the dominion or " kingdom of heaven,"
or " of God " — for these are synonymous terms* — is the
special attribute and reward of the covenant of grace ; f a
covenant under which, in tnat it is of grace, and in nowise of
works, the assurance of the end — the enjoyment of its
benefits both of heaven and earth — may be lawfully, and
is actually, provided for in the covenant itself, through the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereby all who believe are
" sealed unto the day of redemption " (Eph. iv. 30).
But this covenant of grace, it will be recollected, was
not, like the covenant of works, established upon a condP
tion to be immediately realized, but upon one — the work of
redemption — to be accomplished after a certain lapse of
time ; till when it could only have currency by anticipation,
upon the ground of the certainty of that accomplishment
as secured by the infallible promise of God. In point of
effect, this qualification could make no difference. For all
practical purposes God's promise is equivalent to its per
formance. And thus salvation was " by grace through
faith " (actual or imputed), together with the enjoyment of
every needful condition of its attainment, the indwelling
of the Holy Spirit included, as fully and effectually before
* The "kingdom of heaven "is a form of expression peculiar to St
Matthew, in whose gospel it occurs some twenty-eight times, being repre
sented in all the parallel places in the gospels of Mark and Luke by the
phrase " the kingdom of God " cf. Matt. iv. 17, Mark. i. 14; Matt. v.
3, Luke vi. 20 ; Matt. viii. 11, Luke xiii. 29 ; Matt. x. 7, Luke x. 11 ;
Matt. xi. 12, Luke xvi. 16 ; Matt. xiii. 11, Mark iv. 11 ; Matt, xviii. 3,
Mark. x. 15 ; and Matt. xix. 23 and 24.)
t The position here asserted — of the exclusive relation of the heavenly
inheritance to the covenant of grace — is the complement of that by which
the inheritance of the earth is assigned to the covenant of works (as just
pointed out), and finds confirmation in the same evidence referred to in
the note, p. 18.

THE ABUSE OF THE LAW. 21
as after the finished work of Christ ; though the work not
being really finished, the covenant could not be legally
pleaded or proclaimed. And as the covenant of works was
not legally concluded but by the actual redemption of the
inheritance, both covenants were necessarily co-existent up
to the epoch in which that transaction was completed — the
ascension of the Eedeemer.
Accordingly, during all this period salvation was legally
and nominally by works ; virtually and actually by grace.
And hence, as we might naturally expect, the Scriptures
indited during that period partake of the character of both,
alike in respect of the matter and of the manner of its
revelation — conditions of works and of grace, the former
directly, the latter indirectly represented ; a duplexity of
expression (so to speak) exemplified, not merely in words,
but in forms — the very special purport of the Mosaic dis?
pensation in all its rites and ceremonies ; a dispensation in
which all that was direct, the outward and visible, was the
legal and truly nominal — " For it is not possible that the
blood of bulls and of goats should [really] take away sins "
(Heb. x. 4) ; while that which alone was real, was indirect
— the inward and spiritual. And this duplexity continued,
as I have just observed, up to the actual completion of the
work itself — the ascension of the Eedeemer ; of which we
have a most apt and interesting illustration in the answers
given respectively by our Lord and St Paul to virtually the
same question. " What must I do to inherit the eternal
life ? " is the question of the young ruler in the former case.
" If thou desirest to enter into that life keep the command
ments " (Matt. xix. 16, 17). Salvation was still of the law.
" Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? " is the question in the
latter case. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
shalt be saved " (Acts xvi. 30, 31). The time for law was

22 VEXED QUESTIONS.
over ; there was no need of disguise ; the covenant of grace
Was legal as well as virtual, nominal as well as actual ; the
work of redemption was finished ; the day of foreclosure
was past ; the inheritance was already vested in the
Eedeemer ; and any benefit to be obtained in respect of it
must be sought for, henceforward, through and from Him.
For man in himself, were his life as perfect as that of
Jesus, there would be no opening : he would be simply too
late. And as with the condition, so, in one respect, with the
reward. The inheritance of everlasting life in the enjoy
ment of the earth, the proper attribute of the covenant of
works, is alone, and (naturally) without disguise, pro
pounded in the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Thus in
Ps. xxv. 12, 13, " What man is he that feareth the Lord ?
 his seed shall inherit the earth ; " and again, Ps.
xxxvii. 29 (Prov. ii 21), " The righteous shall inherit the
land, and shall dwell therein for ever ; " and again in Ps.
cxv. 16, where the two localities are specially distinguished,
" The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's ; but the
earth hath he given to the children of men." Nor is there
any exception to this rule, direct or indirect ; the references
to heaven, or the heavenly regions, being exclusively con
fined to one or other of the two senses — either as the
dwelling-place of the Most High, or the visible firmament.
As the destined abode of man it is never mentioned or
alluded to. But when the time for the work of redemption
was come, the announcement of its approach is made in
the terms of that very characteristic in which the reward
of the covenant of grace peculiarly consists — " Eepent ye,
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand " (Matt. iii. 2 ; iv. 17
x. 7).
I have said, in one respect it is with the reward as with

THE ABUSE OF THE LAW. 23
the condition of its attainment — the direct announcement
of it in the Old Testament Scriptures is confined to that of
the covenant of works. In another respect, however, there
is an essential difference between them. With the termin
ation of the covenant of works all regard to its condition,
as I have already stated, terminates also — " He taketh
away the first, that he may establish the second " (Heb.
x. 9). Not so with the reward. Eecovered by the Son of
man for those whose representative He was in its recovery,
its continuance is involved in the transaction ; and all the
statements respecting it in the Scriptures of both
Testaments are literally true, and will be literally fulfilled.
United by faith to Him, who in himself unites the human
with the divine, the redeemed of the Lord inherit, and shall
enjoy the reward of both covenants. But each in its proper
turn — first, the earthly, the first bestowed, the " natural "
(1 Cor. xv. 46) ; of which we have the glorious description
in Dan. vii. 13, 14, in the vision of " one like a son* of
* "D3, without the article. It is so much the custom to discredit con
clusions founded upon the consideration of the article in translations from
the Greek or Hebrew, that, in order to avoid the necessity of defending
upon each occasion the alterations in that respect which I shall have
occasion to make in the authorized version of the Bible, it will be con
venient to state, once for all, the rules upon which I have proceeded. These
rules are simply two ; corresponding to the two conditions of the word in
the original — without or with the article. In the former case (of which
the expression at the head of this note is an example), the word should be
represented in the translation indefinitely (as in the text above), unless it
be certainly evident from the context that it is intended in a definite sense.
In the alternative case, where the word in the original is accompanied with
the article (definite, of course), the same article should be used in the
translation ; except in certain cases indicated in every critical Greek
grammar, and more fully in Middleton's celebrated treatise upon the
subject : and even in these cases it may, or rather should be represented in
the translation, whenever its use is justified by the context, or by a
previous mention of the same expression so defined, to which it might be
held to relate ; as, for example, in the case of " the faith " in James ii. 1,
and subsequently in verses 17, 18, 20, 22, &c, of the same chapter. ,

24 VEXED QUESTIONS.
man " — the representative, as afterwards explained, of " the
saints of the most High " (verses 22, 27) — coming " with
the clouds of heaven " to the " Ancient of days," the Lord
Jesus Christ, and receiving from Him " dominion, and
glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and
languages should serve him ; " and of which the fulfilment,
in the millennial reign of the saints with Christ upon the
•earth, is the subjectof the figurative representation of St John
in Eev. xx. 4-6 : after which " a new heaven and a new
earth," taking the place of the old, brings before us another
inheritance for the saints, another kingdom — a kingdom in
the midst of which is the " throne of God and of the
Lamb," where there is " no night," and yet no " sun," and
where " they shall reign " — not " for a thousand years "
only, but " for ever and ever " (chap. xxii. 3-5).
I have above indicated, as the epoch of the completion
of the work of redemption, the ascension of the Lord. To
this effect I have here only to add the testimony of the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost — the
inauguration of the legal commencement of the covenant
of grace (cf. John vii. 39). In that event was formally re
presented the prime characteristic of that covenant — the
gift of the Holy Ghost. I have said formally represented ;
for, as I have before observed, the enjoyment of that gift to
the ends for which it was designed — the guidance and
preservation of those who by faith are brought within the
fold of the covenant — was just as full, perfect, and effectual
before as after the finished work of Christ. This is, indeed,
of necessary inference ; though, as in the case of the other
attributes of the covenant of grace, the direct evidence of
it is only to be found in the Scriptures of that dispensation
to which it legally pertains. It is by the indwelling of the
Holy Ghost alone that the covenant of grace prevails to its

THE ABUSE OF THE LAW. 25
proper end, as I have already pointed out: Accordingly,
" If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of
his " (Eom. viii. 9) ; and, of course, could no more have
been at one time than at another. But that the pentecostal
effusion was merely a formal representation of a pre-exist
ing condition, is directly shown in the actual gift of that
very Spirit to the apostles by our Lord before His ascension,
when breathing on them He said, " Eeceive ye the Holy
Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, &c." (John xx. 22).
It is not to be understood as intended by this description
to limit the effect of the pentecostal effusion to the mere
ratification of the gift of the Holy Ghost as an attribute of
the covenant of grace. Such was, indeed, its special pur
pose ; but in the accomplishment of that purpose was com
prised the endowment of the newly constituted church with
the powers which were requisite for its development. And
though the more prominent of these — the working of visible
miracles — being only required for a time, has not been per
petuated ; yet in all that is necessary to its edification, in
cluding powers not less miraculous, though only secretly
exercised, the effects of that outpouring still remain : and
therein it is, and not merely, as some imagine, in the gift
of tongues and other supernatural qualifications to the
apostles, that is fulfilled the prophecy of Joel ii. 28-31 ; as
is evident from the terms of the prophecy itself, in which
the gift is described as poured out " upon all flesh ; " in the
enjoyment of which females as well as males, " your sons
and your daughters," the " servants and the handmaids,"
alike participate ; and the operation of which continues to
the end of the dispensation, " when the sun shall be turned
into darkness, and the moon into blood [figuratively, of
course], before the great and the terrible day of the Lord."
The conclusion of the covenant of works being thus con-

26 VEXED QUESTIONS.'
summated in the legal establishment of the covenant of
grace, the peculiar terms of the former, which naturally and
necessarily constituted the prime subject of the Scriptures
indited during its exclusively legal predominance, naturally'
and necessarily come to an end also ; and, under the altered
circumstances of the ease, have no more force or meaning
than the rites or ceremonies of the dispensation to which
they belonged. As a rule, in the interpretation of the New
Covenant Scriptures, or the determination of its doctrines,
the testimony of the Old Covenant Scriptures is available
only where it concurs with that of the New : otherwise it is
simply of no account. The authority of the law, indeed
remains in the same force as ever : it is only its effect that
is changed. It is "good" as a law of living. It is to use
it unlawfully to regard it as a law of life.

IV.
THE CHUKCH.

The question that comes before us under this head is,
simply, as to the proper meaning of the word church ; I
mean, the sense in which it, or rather the word in the
original, eK/cXrjcria, which it is taken to represent, was in
tended by those by whom it was first employed in relation
to the Christian constitution. In its yet more ancient use
in classical literature it had a sense — that of an assemblage
of persons called out of the general body of the citizens for
some particular purpose : a sense which may be considered
as attaching to it still ; but with a peculiar purpose to the
calling, and a peculiar qualification to the called. And it
is in the definition of this qualification that consists the
solution of the question before us — the proper meaning of
the word church in relation to the Christian community —
what description of persons were originally included under
that designation, and are, of course, properly included
under the same designation at the present day ?
The answer to this question I am content to take from
the 19th of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of
England — "a congregation of faithful — i.e., believing —
men ; " or, as it is expressed with reference to the " mystical
body of Christ " in the second of the alternative prayers
following the reception of the Lord's Supper in the office
for the celebration of that rite, " the blessed company of all
faithful (or believing) people." And thus we have the

28 VEXED QUESTIONS.
proper meaning of the word church, in the character of its
constituency, strictly defined with exclusive reference to
the faith of its members.
This meaning, however, it must be observed, is not the
meaning, or at all events the only meaning, attached to the
word in question by a large majority of professing
Christians at the present day. Following the precedent of
a long course of theological, or rather perhaps it may be
called, ecclesiastical usage, the attribute of church-member
ship is no longer held to consist exclusively in the faith of
the individual; but extended to embrace all who accept
the doctrines, in other words, profess the faith of Christ,
without regard to the reality or consistency of their belief.
When and how this modification of the meaning of the
word church originated, is, I believe, clearly traceable to
the same epoch and circumstance to which, as we shall here
after have occasion to remark, the doctrine of baptismal re
generation is likewise due — namely, the establishment of
Christianity by the Emperor Constantine. Up to that
period and event the profession of Christianity (being
attended with the risk, if not the certainty, of persecution)
may, as the general rule, be said to have been commensurate
with a genuine faith — that faith which, according to the
Scriptures, is unto everlasting life {cf. John v. 2i, vi. 47,
54, xi. ;26 ; Acts xvi. 31 ; Eom. x. 9 ; Heb. iv. 3 ; 1 Pet. i.
8, 9 ; 1 John v. 13) ; in other words, the professing church
and the real church were virtually one and the same.
Upon the adoption of Christianity as the religion of the
nation the circumstances of the case were entirely changed.
Christianity, from being persecuted, became favoured;
instead of a source of danger, it was the road to prefer
ment ; and men professed the faith of Christ, not because
they believed it, but either because they had been brought

THE CHURCH. 29
up in it, or, with a general impression of its truth, held it
more convenient to follow the example of others. Infidelity
(in the spiritual sense) was now the general rule, and faith
fulness the exception. The great body of professing
Christians was no longer of the church, as that word is
here defined ; and as this could not be denied or ignored in
the face of the unmistakable evidence and stern logic of
facts, it became a necessity that the. meaning of the word
should be modified to embrace those to whom it could
have no application in its original and proper sense. The
vast majority, regardless or oblivious of the testimony of
our Lord to the real state of the case (Matt. vii. 13, 14,
xx. 16, xxii. 14 ; Luke xii. 32, xiii. 23, 24), could never
submit to the appropriation of all the promises and
privileges of the Gospel by the comparatively insignificant
minority. And as all who profess the essential doctrines of
Christianity have a right to be regarded by men as of the
church, the acceptance of that profession as a definition of
the meaning of the word ensued, and has continued (the
source of more than half the confusion and contention that
has prevailed) ever since.
But this construction, however adopted or admitted, is,
after all, merely a conventional use of the term ; to be
admitted and explained in dependence upon the primary
and proper meaning, with reference to which alone it can
be adequately defined. What, in the first instance, we
want to know, and what we expect of a definition to
inform us, is, what is meant by " the church " in the word
of God — what class of persons they are to whom, under
that designation, the statements and promises propounded
in the Bible are intended to apply. And this I hold to be
as I have above given it ; and as I confidently trust to
prove conformable to the true signification of the term.

3Q VEXED QUESTIONS.
Now it is to be remarked, that the diversity of opinion
which we are here concerned to reconcile is by no means
for want of a definition in the Scriptures themselves
Such a definition we have, and that of a character one
would have thought at first sight sufficient to preclude all
discussion upon the subject. In Eph. i. 22, 23, St Paul,
describing the glorification of Jesus Christ by His heavenly
Father, thus adds : "And gave him to be head over all
things to the church, which is his body ; " and yet again
to the same effect in Col. i. 24 : " And fill up that which
is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for
his body's sake, which is the church." Surely, if it had not
been for some overpowering objection to the doctrine itself
it could never have occurred to suppose that the body of
Christ consisted of, or included among its members, those
who did not believe in Him according to His own require
ment of faith, as well as those who did — the infidel, in
fact, as well as the true believer.
This way of putting it may perhaps appear stronger
than the argument suggests or requires. But it is nothing
more than the very essence of the argument itself. What
we are here concerned to determine is the difference
between believing and only professing to believe the essential
doctrines of Christianity ; and that, not as in the view or
estimation of man, but of God. It is to the sense of the
term in the Scriptures, the expression of God's meaning in
the use of it, that our inquiry is exclusively confined ; and
it is with regard to the faith as recognized by Him that its
application is to be determined. And' in this description
there is room for no middle term. In the sight of God
mere profession of belief, or the belief in unessential
particulars, goes for nothing in relation to that faith by
which alone the sinner is saved. In His view the man

THE CHURCH. 31
that only professes to believe, or who believes otherwise
than according to that faith of which our Lord spake when
He said, " He that bfilieveth on me hath everlasting life "
(John vi. 47), is, to all beneficial intents and effects as
though he believed not at all. And can we rationally sup
pose that they who are answerable to this description are
included, in the divine intention^ as members of the body
of Christ ?
This is not, however, the only testimony which the Scrip
tures afford of the incongruity of a definition of the church
founded upon a profession of the faith without regard to its
reality. Such testimony we have, for instance, in the rela
tion of God to- the church as represented in various passages
, — a relation similarly exclusive of an incorporation of
unbelievers. In Gal. i. 22, 1 Thes. i. 1, ii. 14, 2 Thes. i.
1, St Paul describes the churches to which he was writing,
as being " in Christ," " in God the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ." Is it credible that in this description are
included unbelievers as well as believers ? St Paul him
self has told us that " whatsoever is not of faith is sin "
(Eom. xiv. 23) ; and that " without faith it is impossible to
please him " (Heb. xi. 6). Can sinners, as such, or they
whose every act or thought is essentially displeasing to
God, be supposed to be " in God " or " in Christ " in the
same sense as true believers ?
In 1 Tim. iii. 15 the case is reversed, and God is Himself
represented as being in the church — " These things I write
unto thee ...'.. that thou mayest know how thou
oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is
the church." But does God really dwell in the unbelieving
in like manner as in the belie ving ? St Paul distinctly
limits the indwelling of God to that very condition of faith:
" Try your own selves whether ye be in the faith " — that

32 VEXED QUESTIONS.
is, whether ye believe the right things — " Know ye not
. . . . . how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be repro
bates " (2 Cor. xiii. 5). And to the like effect is his prayer
in Eph. iii. 17, " that Christ may dwell in your hearts by
faith." In other places we have the character of the church re
presented, similarly at variance with the notion of any re
lation to the merely professing or nominal Christian. St
Paul, writing to the Corinthians, addresses his epistle " To
the church of God  to them that have been sanc
tified in Christ Jesus, called, holy " (1 Cor. i. 2) ; and in
chap. vi. 11, he adds of the same, " But ye were sanctified,
but ye were justified." But how sanctified, how justified,
without faith ? Surely it is by faith, we are expressly in
formed, both these qualifications are especially realized.
Thus our Lord in Acts xxvi. 18, " To open their eyes, and
to turn them from darkness^ to light  that they
may receive  inheritance among them which have
been sanctified by faith that is in me ; " and St Paul in Gal.
iii. 24, " Wherefore the law has been our schoolmaster to
bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith."
But we have another scriptural testimony to the charac
ter of the church incompatible with the notion of an incor
poration of unbelievers, equally clear and conclusive though
somewhat more elaborately devised. In the Scriptures of
the New Testament we have nine epistles from St Paul,
giveri consecutively in our Bible, all of them addressed to
churches, or local communities constituting such ; and in
all these there is one common form of address, respectively
as follows : — " To all that be in Eome  called to
be saints, Grace to you and peace, from God our Father, and
the Lord Jesus Christ " — " Unto the church of God which
is at Corinth  Grace be unto you, and peace, from

THE CHURCH. 33
God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ ; " and so
in the second epistle to the Corinthians, the epistle to the
Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the
Colossians, and the two epistles to the Thessalonians : in
all alike the same address precisely — " Grace be unto you,
and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus
Christ." Then follow three epistles, two to Timothy and
one to Titus, individuals, not churches : and how have we
the address ? In form, indeed, the same ; but not in
terms — " Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith ; "
" To Timothy, my dearly beloved son ; " " To Titus, mine
own son after the common faith " — to each alike, " Grace,
mercy, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus
Christ." And then follows another epistle primarily
addressed to an individual, but incidentally coupled with
the church; and accordingly we have the terms of the
address as in the first examples, alone equally consistent
with both descriptions — " Unto Philemon  and to
the church in thy house, grace to you, and peace, from God
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
But it is not by St Paul alone that thjs distinction
between the church and the individual, in relation to the
attribute of mercy, is represented. From St Peter we have
two epistles addressed to definite bodies of Christians in
definite places, properly churches ; and by St John, the
whole of the Eevelation, expressly addressed " To the seven
churches which are in Asia " (chap. i. 4) ; and in all these
we have the same combination of "grace and peace,"
without any allusion to mercy ; while, on the other hand,
we have an epistle from St John to " the elect lady and her
children ; " and here we find the three united as before in
the analogous cases — " Grace be with you, mercy, and
peace." Is this distinction (carried out to such an extent,
c

34 VEXED QUESTIONS.
and without an exception) merely accidental? If not — and
is it possible that anything in the Word of God should be
merely accidental ? — it must have been designed. And
upon what other ground can such a design be rationally
explained than the unsuitability to the church of a term
that drops so naturally into its place when individuals are
the objects of the address ? And thus we have the
character of the church (still, be it observed, upon earth) as
a community of individuals who, in respect of this relation
ship, are beyond the scope of that condemnation to which
the attribute of mercy especially refers. And could this
be predicated of a body the members of which, more or less,
were actually unbelievers ?
In opposition to these evidences of the restricted rela
tion of the " church " in Scripture to the truly believing, in
contradistinction to the general application of the term to
all who profess to believe, without regard to the reality or
consistency of their belief, we have next to consider the
arguments liable to be insisted upon ; of which, however,
there are but few that bear directly upon the point in dis
pute — that is, in which the character of the " church " is
called in question, upon the ground of Scripture testimony
under that particular designation. Of these the first we
may notice is founded upon the ascription to the church
of a definite, or more properly definable constitution,
involving the capability of being recognized by men in the
flesh ; as where our Lord enjoins His disciples, in the event
of a dispute, and failing to obtain redress by certain
preliminary proceedings, to " tell it to the church " (Matt.
xviii. 17) ; or where judgment in legal controversies is
assigned to the church in 1 Cor. vi. 4. In all such cases —
and others there are of less imposing force (see Acts xv. 3,
22 ; 2 Cor. viii. 23) — the question may fairly be put, How

THE CHURCH. 35
could these representations be realized, if by " the church "
was intended those only who believed, to the exclusion of
those who only professed to believe ?
The answer to this question, the solution of the apparent
dilemma, is in the legitimacy of the distinction between
the intention of the divine speaker or inspired writer in the
use of the word, and the fulfilment of that intention under
the actual circumstances of the case. The condition of
church membership, as intended in the Scriptures — faith in
the Lord Jesus ' Christ — being incapable of determination
with certainty by man, it is his duty to rely upon the only
evidence he has, or can have — the profession and life of the
individual. Where these two grounds of inference are
sufficiently in accord, we are not only justified in consider
ing, but bound to treat him as a member of the church.
When our Lord said, " Tell it to the church," He meant, of
course, that which we believe to be the church. If in carry
ing out that injunction we include some who are devoid of
the condition of church membership, that is a mistake of
ours, without our knowledge, and contrary to our intention.
But this liability affects neither our rule of conduct, nor the
meaning of the word. Had we the knowledge, which God
only could have, of the different state of the case, we should
ourselves, no more than God, have conceded to such persons
the application of the term.
I have given this explanation as though the directions
in question had reference to ourselves or our own times
in which view there would appear to be a difficulty in
their fulfilment alike upon the ground of either construc
tion of the word. But such a view is altogether uncalled
for. It is evident that " the church " here intended is not
the church universal; nor even the church national, of
which there was none at the time ; but a branch of the

36 VEXED QUESTIONS.
church, either in some district, or in the yet more limited
sense of some family, as that in the " house " of Priscilla
and Aquila (Eom. xvi. 5), or of Nymphas (CoL iv. 15), or
of Philemon (verse 2) ; while the directions themselves may
well be regarded as confined to the infancy of the Christian
religion, when public justice was administered exclusively
by unbelievers (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 1, 6), and when profession
and faith went hand in hand under the chastening in
fluence of persecution.
The foregoing answer applies in some degree to a similar
argument upon other grounds of evidence against the
meaning of the word church in the limited sense in which
we have here expounded it. In some of the epistolary
Scriptures mention is made of persons supposed to be
members of the church, whose conduct is the subject of
censure ; implying, it is contended, a state of depravity in
consistent with the notion Rof their being true believers.
So far as this charge relates to persons not specially
indicated as of the church, the case has no bearing upon the
question. What alone we are here concerned with is the
application of the term ; and this cannot be affected any
way by statements which have no relation to the term
itself. And of this description are the greater number of
the cases commonly relied upon under this head ; such as
those in Eom. xvi. 17, 18 ; 1 Cor. v. 11, 13 ; 1 Tim. i. 20,
vi. 3, 21 ; 2 Tim. i. 15, iv. 9 ; Tit. iii. 10 ; 1 John ii. 19.
The parties therein respectively mentioned or alluded to
are nowhere described as members of the church, or in
cluded by the context in the number of those to whom the
epistle is addressed. On the contrary, we have positive
proof of the exclusion of the corrupt professor from the title
to ehurch-membership in one of the passages referred to, 1
Cor. v. 11, where St Paul expressly distinguishes between

THE CHURCH.

37

the real member of the church and the nominal — " I wrote
unto you not to keep company, if any one that is called a
brother be a fornicator," &c. In the address there is no
specification of the individuals for whom the epistle is in
tended. The address merely defines the class, whether
under the designation in question, or in analogous terms,
as " the saints," " the faithful in Christ Jesus," &c. If the
individual be not answerable to that definition, whatever
may be his opinion of himself, or however he may be
regarded by others, he is not included in the address, nor
consequently among the number of those for whom the
epistle is designed. It is not necessary that he be
expressly excluded. The writer describes the parties to
whom his observations are intended to apply : the applica
tion he leaves to the parties themselves.
It is, then, only in the case of persons to whom the
epistle is actually addressed under the designation of " the
church" or its equivalent expressions, as determined by
the context, that any ground of objection to the limitation
in question could be raised ; and with regard to such —
leaving out of view, for a moment, the epistles to the
seven churches in the book of Eevelation, to be otherwise
dealt with — there is no instance of a charge inferential of
unfaithfulness, or of any delinquency sufficient to deprive
the party of his title to- be called a member of the church,
in the sense for which I am here contending. The case of
the incestuous person alluded to in 1 Cor. v. 1-5, 2 Cor.
ii. 6-8, is certainly not of this description. Sin, of itself
alone, is assuredly insufficient to that effect. Were it
otherwise, what should we have to think of Noah, of
Abraham, of Jacob, of David, of Peter, of any or all the
saints of God — for who is there that hath not sinned, and
doth not sin ? and what sin could be more heinous than

38 VEXED QUESTIONS.
some of those here adverted to ? It is the allowance of and
continuance in sin that proves the unregenerate heart, and
disentitles the individual to be included among the
members of the church. And that this was not the case
with the incestuous person is evident from St Paul's
admonitions respecting him in his second epistle ; where he
desires the Corinthian brotherhood to " forgive him, and to
comfort him," and to " confirm their love towards him," lest
he " be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow " (chap. ii. 7,
8). And this is the strongest example that presents itself
of the case in question.
But it may be said, Have we not, in the book of Eevela-
tion, statements condemnatory of churches ; alleging
offences inconsistent with the definition in question, and
threatening them with punishment accordingly, even to the
extent of actual extermination ? Thus in chap. ii. 4, 5, the
angel of the Lord, speaking of the church in Ephesus, says,
"I have against thee that thou didst leave thy first
love  Eepent, and do the first works, or else I come
unto thee quickly, and I will remove thy candlestick out of
its place ; " again, verses 14-16, of the church in Pergamos
(and similarly, verse 20, of the church in Thyatira), " I
have a few things against thee, that thou hast there them
that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to
cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to
eat things- sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornica
tion  Eepent therefore, or else I come unto thee
quickly, and I will fight against them with the sword of my
mouth " (see i. 16) ; again, chap. iii. 1-3, of the church in
Sardis, " I know thy works, that thou hast a name that
thou livest, and art dead ..... If therefore thou shalt
not watch, / will come on thee as a thief; " and again,
verse 16, of the church in Laodicea, "Because thou art

THE CHURCH. 39
lukewarm, and art neither hot nor cold, I am about to spue
thee out of my mouth'.' So far as regards the matter of
offence, there is nothing here charged, excepting in the case
of the church in Sardis, that might not be left to be judged
by the explanation in the foregoing paragraph; there being
nothing that in itself is irreconcilable with the condition
of a real, though temporarily misguided, believer. The
departure from their " first love " implies, of course, a de
parture, not from the object of that love, but from its
original fervour, as displayed in their works (cf. next verse) ;
and, no more than the having given in to those offensive
practices against which St Paul warns the Corinthians in
his first epistle (chap. x. 8, 19, 20, 28), or the want of zeal
in the service of the Lord, involves the inference of a state
of actual unbelief. In order, however, to do full justice to
the argument in defence, it will be necessary to take
account of the peculiar character of the epistles in question ;
the rather that I believe that character, upon which the
whole intent and meaning of the epistles themselves
entirely depends, to be in general very imperfectly, if at
all, recognized.
These epistles, then, it will be observed, are all addressed
to the "angels " of the several churches, previously repre
sented under the figure of " stars " (chap. i. 20) ; an appro
priation of their contents confirmed and maintained all
throughout by the pronoun in the second person singular ;
thereby identifying the angel personally with all the allega
tions, for good or evil, that are not otherwise specially
determined. The " angel " here, following the analogy of
the rest of the symbolic composition, is readily and reason
ably ascertained in the sense of an ideal representative of
the church to which he is attached ; just as in chap. ix. 11,
"the angel of the abyss," also represented under the figure

40 VEXED QUESTIONS.
of a " star " (verse 1) ; in chap. xvL 5, " the angel of the
waters ; " and in chap. i. 1, xxii. 6-9, 13, 16, 20, the
" angel " of the Lord Jesus Christ ; the representative char
acter in this latter, to the extent of an actual personal
resemblance, being revealed in the mistaken worship of him
by St John (chap. xix. 10, xxii. 8).* And thus we have
the purport of all the statements contained in the epistles
— i.e., those predicated of, or with relation to, the angel —
inevitably determined to the churches, respectively, as
churches ; to the exclusion of any reference to individuals,
otherwise than in relation with the church, according to the
character in which the churches themselves may happen to
be represented.
And this character, too, is equally easy to ascertain ; or
rather, I should say, difficult to avoid recognizing. Dis
tinguished, as they had been, under the figure of " candle
sticks," or properly, lamp-stands (chap. i. 20), the office of
which is simply to hold or display the lamp or light (see
Matt. v. 15 ; Luke viii. 16) ; and considering that the Lord
Jesus Christ is, not only literally the prime object of the
church's display, but figuratively " the lamp " of the church
itself (chap. xxi. 23) ; the character of the churches
becomes clearly determined in the sense of witnesses for
Jesus Christ ; conformably with the use of the same figura
tion in chap. xi. 3, 4, "And I will give unto my two
witnesses ..... These are  the two candlesticks,"
&c. - With this determination of the character of the
churches (the light in which they are intended to be re
garded), the subject of the epistles to them, the purport of
* "We have another example of the same representative character to the
same extent in the angel of St Peter in Acts xii. 15 ; where the apostles,
assured of his presence at the gate by the damsel Ehoda upon the evidence
of his voice, declare, " It is his angel."

THE CHURCH. 41
all the statements, charges, threatenings, &c, which they
contain, follows, as a matter of course — namely, the fulfil
ment of the duty implied in the figuration ; in other words,
the duty of contributing to the advancement of the cause
and glory of Christ.
In the light of this explanation, then, the charges and
threatenings in question will be seen to involve nothing
in the slightest degree irreconcilable with the character
assigned to the " church " in the definition which is the sub
ject of dispute. Taking them in the order of their occur
rence, the removal of the candlestick is merely an expression
of the extinction of the church as a visible corporation in
the place in which it previously existed ; an event that
infers nothing whatever against the salvation of every
individual in it. The life of a church [local, of course] is
merely the existence of a branch of the church in that
particular place ; and its death, the effect simply of the
removal, by death or emigration, of its members ; leaving
their places to be occupied, or not, by corrupt professors,
who in God's sight — that is, in the scriptural sense of the
word — are no part of the church. The church itself, so
long as it subsists, never alters, never apostatizes, never
becomes essentially corrupt, always waxes, never wanes.
It may die out in any particular place by the removal of
its members as aforesaid ; and it may disappear altogether
from-public view for ages, as it did, and was predicted to
do in this very book (chap. xii. 1, 6, 14-17) ; leaving only
scattered members, "the remnant of her seed," offshoots
from, and representatives of, certain branches, that as
" candlesticks " still continued to " hold the testimony of
Jesus," prophesying " in sackcloth " (chap. xi. 3).
Equally inconclusive is the threatened punishment of
those of the church in Pergamos who had fallen into the

42 VEXED QUESTIONS.
error of the Nicolaitaines, of whom our Lord declares that
He would "fight against them with the sword of His
mouth '.' — the figurative expression of " the word of God "
(Heb. iv. 2), which has as much, if not more, the character
of a spiritual visitation for their amendment, than a
physical one for their destruction. And so likewise, in the
similar case of the church in Thyatira, the punishment
assigned is one of chastening ; so far, at least, as the back
sliding members of the church are concerned. As to " the
woman Jezebel," she was apparently no member of the
church. She called herself a prophetess, and she seduced
the servants of God ; for which both she and they were, or
are threatened to be, visited with sickness — " Behold, I do
cast her into a bed, and those that commit adultery with
her into great tribulation, except they repent from her
deeds " (verse 22) : and it is " her children " that our Lord
adds, He " will kill with death ; " which, even if taken to
include members of the church, would imply no more than
the same visitation predicated by St Paul of the Corinthians
for their disrespectful reception of the Lord's Supper ; and
which he afterwards explains — " But when we are judged
we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be con
demned with the world " (1 Cor. xi. 30, 32).
In the case of the church in Sardis, however, it may be
thought we have a more decided evidence of the com
prehensive character of that designation ; both directly, in
the opening clause descriptive of the church itself — " I
know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest,
and art dead;" and indirectly, in the concluding state
ment — "He that overcometh shall thus be clothed in
white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the
book of life ; " a statement apparently inferential of the
conclusion, that in the " book of life " were members of

THE CHURCH. 43
the church whose names would, or might, be blotted out.
Nevertheless a very slight consideration of the premises —
the peculiar attributes of the church as before pointed out,
and the nature of the object called " the book of life " — in
subjection to the symbolic character of the description, will
clearly show that both these grounds of inference are
equally ineffectual to the conclusions to which, at first
sight, they may appear to conduce. The expression of
death assigned to the church must be understood in a
mitigated sense. That it was not quite dead appears from
the following verse — " Be watchful, and strengthen those
[works ?] that remain which are ready to die." But life in
any degree, in the case of a church, implies faith. As the life
of the natural body is the soul, so the life or soul of the
church is faith. Moreover, the imputation to the church
of being dead, as it is here represented, reflects, not upon
its faith, but upon its works; as appears both from the
passages already quoted, and the point to which they con
verge in the end of the verse — " For I have not found thy
works complete before my God." The church, then, was
alive in that it had faith ; but it was dead in respect of its
works. It had " a name that it lived." This is evidently
with reference to the " book of life," subsequently alluded
to. Its name was in the " book of life ; " but as a witness for
Jesus Christ — its proper work, the work contemplated in
the figuration — it had ceased to operate : it lived as though
it were dead.
With regard to the " book of life " itself, I might dispense
altogether with explanation, accepting the interpretation of
the adverse party ; according to which the book in question
containing the names of all professing Christians, the
liability to erasure would infer nothing against the
restricted definition of the church. If the " book of life "

44 VEXED QUESTIONS.
included more than the church, the hypothetical removal
would apply only to those who were no members of it.
But such an interpretation is contrary alike to the reason
able conditions of the case, and the testimony of the Scrip
tures under this particular head. In considering this
matter we must take care not to confound the " book of
life " with the " book of the living " in Ps. lxix. 28, alluded
to in Isa. iv. 3, and possibly by Moses in Exod. xxxii. 32,
where he says, " Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin — ;
and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou
hast written " (cf. Num. xi. 15 ; Deut. ix. 14). I have said
possibly, on the supposition that the reference is to a book
(imaginary, of course) of the like nature — i.e., a register of
names ; for it is not allowable to suppose that Moses could
have contemplated the alternative of being blotted out
from the list of those who were enrolled unto eternal life*
The " book of life " cannot be identified with the " book of
the living," meaning, of all that are alive ; if for no other
* The fact of the ascription of such a sentiment to the Apostle Paul in
the authorized version of the Bible obliges me, in justification of the above
remark, to draw attention to the imperfection of the rendering of the
passage in question. According to the English translation St Paul, in
Horn. ix. 3, is represented as saying that he "could wish" that he himself
were '' accursed from Christ " for hi3 brethren. In the first place, fivxiw
is the imperfect tense of the verb evxo/uu, to pray ; and consequently
signifies, not "I could wish," but I did pray. Secondly, aydBe/ia is not
the participle of a verb, but a substantive ; meaning a thing or person
devoted to a certain end or doom. And, thirdly, following in such a
context, 4irb tou xpunov does not mean "from Christ," but after Christ —
that is, after the manner or example of Christ ; as in 2 Tim. i. 3, "whom
I serve after [the manner of] my forefathers " — avh irpoy6vuv ; and again,
chap. ii. 21, " If a man shall cleanse himself after [the manner of] these " —
&,Trb Tofauv — that is, with reference to the " vessels of gold and silver . . .
wood and earth," as these are cleansed in order to be "meet for the
master's use ; " or once more, to borrow an example from secular literature,
' ' Those who live in society together live after for according to] a common
rule" — faro irpoHTi.yit.aTos Kotvov (act. Strabo, xvi. ii. 38.

THE CHURCH. 45
reason than that it is declared in a special sense with
respect to some only, to the exclusion of others (Eev. xiii.
8, xvii. 8).
Apart from the book of Eevelation, the allusions, to the
" book of life " are confined to Dan. xii. 1, with reference
to the Jewish remnant ; Luke x. 20, where our Lord says,
" Eejoice not that the spirits are subject unto you, but
rejoice that your names have been written in heaven ; "
Phil. iv. 3, where it is predicated with respect to certain
disciples ; and Heb. xii. 23 — " But ye have come 
to the general assembly and church of the first-borns, which
have been written in heaven." The " book of life of the
Lamb " (Eev. xiii. 8, xxi. 27) is not the book of the natural
life (which is the " book of the living "), but of the spiritual
life ; and therein alone irreconcilable with the view of those
who represent it as containing the names of all who profess
the faith of Christ without regard to the reality or con
sistency of their belief. How could the " book of
[spiritual] life " be supposed to contain the names of those
who are devoid of that faith which is the very essence of
spiritual life ? Our Lord says, " He that  believeth
not the Son shall not see life " (John iii. 36) ; " Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood " — an
expression we all understand to signify the reception of
Him by faith — "ye have no life in you " (chap. vi. 53).
Can we suppose that they who have no life in them, who,
in other words, are dead in the sight of God, are, equally
with the living, inscribed in the " book of life ? " In Phil.
iv. 3 St Paul, recommending certain missionary disciples
to the care of the church, describes them as his " fellow
labourers, whose names are in the book of life." Can St
Paul be supposed in this description to imply no more than
that the parties were (what the church must have known

46 VEXED QUESTIONS.
them to be) professors of the religion which they professed ?
Lastly, in Eev. xx. 15 and xxi. 27 we have the contrasted
representation, respectively, of the lost and the saved with
reference to the inscription in the " book of life " — " And if
any one was not found having been written in the book of
life " — i.e., not merely with reference to the then present
time, but as ever having been there at all, ryeypa/jL/ievos
perfect tense — " he was cast into the lake of fire " — " And
there shall in no wise enter into it [the " holy city," the
type of the church itself] anything common  but
those who have been written " — not who are there then found
written, but who have been there at any time, ryeypa/i/ievoi
as before — "in the book of life of the Lamb." The infer
ence is inevitable, that none had been written there but
those that were saved*
From this it will, I submit, be clearly seen that the
" book of life " is not a register of the names of all who
profess to believe, but only of those who really " believe to
the saving of the soul " (Heb. x. 39). • And now the ques
tion recurs, how to reconcile this description with the
statement in the text, or rather with the inference
apparently deducible from it — " I will not blot his name
out of the book of life." The explanation is to be found,
readily and satisfactorily, in the symbolic character of the
* It is foreign to the present occasion to enter into a defence of the
doctrine involved in the above description. I would, however, merely
observe that the ordinary objection to the "book of life" as thus inter
preted — namely, that it represents the future condition of every individual
unalterably determined before even his actual existence, and the consequent
inutility of any attempt to realize an interest in the saving work of
Christ — is altogether independent of the interpretation in question. The
insertion of a name in the "book of life " is of no more effect than a recog
nition of the foreknowledge of God. If it be certain, as of course it is,
that those only will be saved whom God foreknows, the mere fact of their
being recorded in a book can make no difference in the case.

THE CHURCH. 47
whole representation. It is merely the expression of a
contrast to an implied condition of the church. The church
in Sardis, personified in its " angel," had a name that it
lived — that is, as already explained, its name was in the
" book of life." The maintenance of this position, as also
already explained, depended upon the subsistence of its
members. If these should happen to die out or be removed,
the church would, of course, have become extinct ; and its
name, following the symbolic character of the representa
tion, would be blotted out of the book of life. This
catastrophe the Lord may be supposed to signify in the
threat of coming upon it " as a thief." But, as it were in
defence of the integrity of His own record, and for the en
couragement of the members of the church inscribed in it,
He adds with respect to him that should overcome, " I will
not blot his name out  but confess it before my
Father and his angels." So far, therefore, from implying
the possibility of such an alternative as is here contem
plated, our Lord, in the statement in question, is really
affirming the inviolability of the position thus figuratively
represented. The remaining case, of the church in Laodicea, with
respect to which our Lord says, " Because thou art
lukewarm  I am about to spue thee out of my
mouth," will not detain us long. The effect implied in this
description is simply equivalent to the removal of the
candlestick, already considered with reference to the church
in Ephesus ; while the apparent severity of the expression
is merely in accordance with the exigency of the
metaphorical representation of the church ; things which
are " lukewarm " being naturally repugnant to the stomach,
and occasioning a revulsion by which they are thus ejected.
We have now exhausted the arguments liable to be ad-

48 VEXED QUESTIONS.
vanced against the definition of the church which is the
subject of dispute, so far as those arguments are founded
upon the use of the word in the Scriptures ; and therein,
strictly speaking, satisfied all the legitimate requirements
of the case. The point at issue being the scriptural use of
the word, no evidence is of any avail that has not
immediate regard to the word itself. Nevertheless, not to
leave the matter obnoxious to suspicion upon any account,
just or unjust, it will be necessary to notice, which I shall
do very briefly, a ground of evidence commonly resorted
to in support of the opposite view of the subject : I mean,
certain parables of our Lord in which the " kingdom of
heaven " is apparently represented with reference to a con
stituency of a mixed character, good and evil, identified in
the argument with the church. The parables in question
are those of the tares and the wheat (Matt. xiii. 24-30,
37-40) ; of the net and the fishes (verses 47-50) ; and of the
wise and foolish virgins (chap. xxv. 1-12) ; to which may
be added, as partaking of the same character, our Lord's
description of himself and His disciples under the similitude
of a vine and its branches (John xv. 1-6).
Of the former of these parables, the first, or rather the
interpretation of it by our Lord, affords the clue to the
consistent explanation of all three — " He that soweth the
good seed is the Son of man ; the field is [not the church,
but] the world : the good seed [only] are the children of the
kingdom." Supposing, then, the " kingdom of heaven " to
be the equivalent of the church, we have it here clearly
stated that the " good seed," and upon the same principle
the " good fishes," and the " wise virgins," are alone entitled
to that designation, are alone members of the church.
They who maintain the opposite view of the " church " to
that here advocated are fain to interpret the " world" in the

THE CHURCH. 49
parable as the'equivalent of the church'itself. To such a
construction it ought to be sufficient to object, that the
" world " is, not merely never represented in the Scriptures
as corresponding to the church, but, in the limited sense,
invariably antithetical to it (see John vii. 7, xiv. 17, xv. 18,
xvi. 20, xvii. 14 ; 1 Cor. xi. 32 ; James iv. 4; 1 John v. 19).
The source of this misconstruction, or at least, the ground
of its defence, is the identification of the " kingdom of
heaven " taken in its literal or primary signification, with
the " field " or " world ; " whereas the phrase here is not
used in the literal or primary sense, but metaphorically, the
end for the means, the " kingdom of heaven " for the
preaching of the kingdom, the ministration of the Gospel —
the true and exact counterpart of the " man sovnng,"
((nreipovn, part, pres.) not "which sowed," as in the
authorized version. This ministration includes all to
whom the Gospel is preached ; embracing those who reject,
as well as those who accept it. But the former constitute
no part of the church : they are in nowise " children of the
kingdom ; " but, as our Lord contradistinctively describes
them, " the children of the wicked one."*
Eegarding the parable of the vine and the branches, to
* In Matt. viii. 12, we have this expression, " the children of the
kingdom," in a sense in which, without a word of explanation, it might
be thought to be contradictory to the conclusion above asserted. After
observing that many should come from the east and west, and sit down
with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, "in the kingdom of heaven," our
Lord adds, "But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out." It is
clear from the context that "the children of the kingdom " is here used
in the sense, not of those of whom the kingdom really consisted, but of
those for whom it was primarily designed — the people of the Jews ; that
people to whom "the gospel of the kingdom" was first to be preached :
just as in John i. 11, it is said of Jesus Christ, that " he came unto his
own, and his own received him not." They were " his own " as Jews : but
that relation was a merely nominal one ; and the assertion of it by St
John implied nothing as to its reality in a spiritual sense. D

So VEXED QUESTIONS.
wliich, in consideration especially of the statement in ver3e
6— 'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a
branch "—reference is1 wont to be made in support of the
mixed character of the constituency of the church, not only
is it inapplicable to the argument in the absence of a direct
mention of the church, but it has no relation to the body
comprehended under that designation. The " vine " is not
typical of the church ; nor, consequently, the relation of the
branches to the vine of the relation of the members of the
church to their Head.
The figure of the " vine " is not a new one propounded
by our Lord on the occasion ; but an old one, of which He
states himself to be the antitype — " I am the true vine " —
i.e., the real in contradistinction to an erroneous or imper
fect view of the figure (cf. John vi. 32 ; Heb. viii. 2, ix.
24) ; determined by the definite article to some pre-existing
representation, for the solution of which we are instinc
tively directed to the 01 d Testa ment Scriptures. And there
we have the figure clearly revealed in the sense of a body
in, not a spiritual, but an outward or temporal relation to
God — the relation of the whole body of the children of
Israel, good and bad ; of which an apt exemplification is
afforded in Isa. v. 1-7 — " My well-beloved hath a vine
yard in a very fruitful field ; and he fenced it, and gathered
out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest
vine'  And he looked that it should bring forth
grapes ; and it brought forth wild grapes  The
vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and
the men of Judah his pleasant plant." (See also Ps. lxxx.
8-16 ; Jer. ii. 21, vi. 9, xii. 10 ; Hos. x. 1.)
Following the example here set before us, we have, then,
the relation of the branches to the vine in the parable, the
relation, not as that of the sheep to the shepherd (the true

THE CHURCH.

5i

type of the church), but that of disciples to their Master ; a
relationship of the perishable nature of which we have had
instances in previous Scriptures — as in John vi. 66, " From
that time many of his disciples went back, and walked not
with him ; " to which our Lord may well be supposed to
have had regard in His enunciation of the parable, and in
which sense, indeed, He explains the purport of it in
verse 8 — " Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear
much fruit, and be my disciples."
To those who are aware of the extraordinary accuracy
of the Holy Scriptures in the application of types or figures,
there is another evidence, even yet more conclusive, of the
relationship as here insisted upon. The vine, we all know,
is a plant that sheds its leaves annually — a deciduous tree
Throughout the Bible there is constant reference to trees
or plants in illustration of the different classes or characters
of men — the righteous and the unrighteous; and in all
these cases there is a perfect uniformity in the adaptation
of the emblem to the character, in respect of the conditions
of vitality or decay which they are respectively calculated
to exhibit ; the former, the righteous, being invariably re
presented by an evergreen tree or plant — the olive, the palm,
the cedar, the fir ; the unrighteous, by a deciduous one — as
the oak. Thus in Ps. Iii. 8, David says of himself, " I am
like a green olive tree in the house of God." Ps. xcii. 12,
'' The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree ; he shall
grow like a cedar in Lebanon." Hos. xiv. 8, " What have
I to do any more with idols ? I have heard and observed
him(cf. Job xiii. 5, 6) ; I am like a green fir tree." And
generally, Ps. i. 1-3, " Blessed is the man that walketh not
in the counsel of the ungodly  He shall be like a
tree planted by the rivers of waters  his leaf also
shall not wither :" and again, Jer. xvii. 8, " Blessed is- the

52 VEXED QUESTIONS.
man that trusteth in the Lord  He shall be as a
tree planted by the waters  his leaf shall be
green" And in Ps. xxxvii. 35 we have the comparison
confirmed in the same sense by its application to the un
righteous in outward appearance, only to be denied in effect
— " I have seen the wicked in great power, and spreading
himself like a green bay tree ; yet he passed away, and, lo,
be was not." On the other hand, of the wicked says Isaiah
(i. 30), " Ye shall be as an oak whose leaf fadeth."
Can we, in the face of this systematic observance of con
formity between the type and the antitype, suppose that
our Lord would have chosen the vine, a deciduous plant,
for the purpose of representing a spiritual union with
himself — the already appropriated emblem of an outward
and temporal one ?

FAITH AND WORKS.

Among the doctrines by which a certain and, in respect of
numbers, important section of the professing Christian
world is distinguished, that of the combined effect of works
with faith in the justification of sinners is about the most
commonly enlarged upon and, as it appears to me, the least
effectively encountered. Apprehension for the conse
quences of a religion that limits justification, the groundwork
of salvation, to a simple condition of the mind, is doubt
less the prime motive for the advocacy of a doctrine that
assumes to secure the requisite conduct by combining
it with the faith as an essential part of the means to the
end in view. But whatever the motive or purpose-of the
preaching, the doctrine itseK will, I hesitate not to say, be
found to be as erroneous as the apprehension of the con
sequences of the contrary doctrine is without ground.
Taken for granted that they, to whom exclusively these
pages are addressed, are already satisfied of the necessity
of the faith, whether with or without the works, the
question for discussion here is simply as to the latter,
whether there is any room for them at all in the transac
tion. And to this question the answer will, I trust, be
made to appear clearly in the negative by the following
considerations : — In the first place, the nature of faith and
works in their relation to one another ; the relation, namely,
of cause and effect. Faith is a principle in the mind,

54 VEXED QUESTIONS.
which is either active or passive according as the object of
it, the thing believed, is, or is not, inferential of any obliga
tion or inducement to do anything, or to leave anything
undone. In the abstract it is one of the simplest affections
of the human mind. It is merely the assent of the judg
ment to something which suggests itself, or is submitted
to it for acceptance. It is a phase of knowledge, if it be
not exactly knowledge itself in a degree short of perfec
tion ; for what a man believes may, by the force of evi
dence, become knowledge, and is then, strictly speaking, no
longer matter of faith. In the meanwhile it is thus distin
guished from knowledge — that it is susceptible of degrees,
according to the strength of the evidence upon which it
rests ; whereas knowledge implies the removal of all
doubts, and consequently the negation of all degrees. In
every other respect faith and knowledge are virtually the
same — answerable to the same description, and liable to
the imputation of the same effects. Among these effects
is that to which I have just adverted — namely, works ; of
which both knowledge and faith, alike active, are alike
necessarily productive : and just as unreasonable as it
^would be for a man to know a certain -act to be necessary
or available to secure a certain benefit or escape a certain
loss, and yet abstain from doing it ; so unreasonable would
it be for a man to believe the same consequences, and yet
abstain from pursuing the same course.
It makes no difference in this respect what is the
nature of the faith as determined by the nature of the
subject upon which it is exercised. Upon all subjects
alike, in all departments of life, faith, of the description
here in question — that is active faith as above explained —
is as naturally followed by the appropriate conduct or
works, as, on the other hand, the conduct or works is

FAITH AND WORKS. 55
necessarily preceded by the faith. For as certainly as
there is no believing, without a corresponding conduct
(where the belief has relation to conduct at all) ; so
certainly is there nothing a man does, however common
place or trivial, but what is the consequence of a belief
thereunto conducing. Thus, if a man believes that air and
exercise are essential or favourable to his health, he
naturally goes out and walks ; and every such proceeding
is an infallible evidence of his belief. On the other hand,
he never even stirs the fire or snuffs a candle but as the
result of a belief with respect to the several requirements ;
which is as certainly to be inferred from the acts as the
acts were to be inferred from the belief. It is just the
same in the department of religion. Eeligious faith differs
in no respect from any other faith, philosophic, scientific,
or social, save in regard of the subject upon which it is
exerted. This position is necessary to be insisted upon, because it
is, in fact, upon the ground of such a distinction that the
doctrine of justification by faith is conventionally explained
by those by whom it is systematically advocated. Accord
ing to the general opinion of divines, there are two sorts of
faith, regarded in the abstract — one, which evinces itself
in works, and which is therefore technically denominated
a living or vital faith ; the other, which produces no such
external evidences of its operation, and which is
accordingly termed & fruitless or dead faith. By some, this
distinction is expressed with reference to its origin, rather
than to its results — the former regarded as having its seat
in the heart, and issuing in what is therefore called a heart
felt conviction of a fact; the latter, in the head, extending
merely to a knowledge of the fact, without any real con
sideration of, or interest in it. This distinction is not

56 VEXED QUESTIONS.
merely unauthorized, but opposed to anything like a
rational, not to say intelligible, view of the act to which it
has regard. Believing is, as I have above intimated, one of
the simplest functions of the moral nature ; liable to no
modification, except as regards its grounds, or its objects ;
and otherwise only susceptible of being absolutely affirmed
or denied. A man either believes, or he does not believe.
If he believes, he believes in the only way in which it is
possible for belief to be exercised or experienced. His
faith may, indeed, be stronger or weaker according to the
strength of its foundation ; and it may be various in its
effects according to the matter upon which it is exerted.
But, as to the manner of its subsistence, there is no room
for variety. There are literally no two ways of believing.
The notion of a faith that produces, and a faith that does
not produce, works (otherwise than as determined by the
nature of the object to which it has regard), is, then, a
mere fantasy. The faith that is supposed to be productive
of no works is simply a misnomer ; it signifies properly no
faith at all. And so the faith that is designated with
reference to the head in contradistinction to the heart, as
though it consisted in a knowledge without regard, is, if
not a misnomer, only so because it is something yet more
absurd ; as implying that knowledge, which is the highest
degree of assurance, could fail to exercise an influence upon
the conduct of the individual by whom "it was realized:
But though there can be no difference in the ways or
modes of believing, there is room for every imaginable
difference of effect in respect of the things believed. And
herein, as regards the subject specially before us, lies the
solution of the mystery (if any such there should appear
to be) in the transaction as thus represented. The " thino-s
believed," the objects of the faith by which the proper

FAITH AND WORKS. 57
works are secured, must be the proper objects — namely,
the facts and doctrines in the belief of which justification
consists ; and upon which, as we are here supposed to be
sufficiently agreed, it is unnecessary to enlarge. These
things believed, the proper works naturally follow. There
may, indeed, be to some extent, the works without the faith ;
for the faith may be feigned, and the works hypocritically
performed. But the converse of this proposition is not
equally admissible — there cannot be reasonably presumed
the faith without the works. Accordingly, if there be not
the works, the conclusion is inevitable— there is not the
faith, however there may be the profession.
And this, without any necessary implication of hypocrisy,
in the simple ignorance of his own deficiency on the part
of the individual by whom it is professed. For not every
one that thinks he believes does really believe. Faith is,
like every other moral attribute, an endowment the posses
sion of which is only to be absolutely ascertained by its
exercise under circumstances calculated to afford scope for
the exhibition of the contrary characteristic. Take for
example the attribute of courage, or generosity, or self-
control, &c. — there is scarcely an individual who does not
firmly believe himself to be possessed of one or other of
these qualifications; who would not, in fact, be highly
indignant if his word attesting his conviction upon the
matter were to be seriously questioned. But it is not at
all impossible that, if he were placed in a situation to call
for its display under circumstances sufficiently trying, he
might be found totally deficient ; and discover to his own
surprise, that he had unconsciously invested himself with
an attribute to which he had not the slightest pretension.
It is precisely the same with faith ; the possession of it is
only to be satisfactorily determined by its effects, either in

58 VEXED QUESTIONS.
sacrifice or in suffering, in action or in endurance (which is
only another expression for .works) to an extent sufficient
to negative the possibility, or at least the probability, of
their being done or endured upon any other principle.
In illustration of this description we need but refer to
the great mass of the professing Christian world, whose
conduct or works may be truly said,, as a general rule, to be
in unqualified contradiction to all that they profess to
believe : who live as though they had been simply created
for themselves, and in just the same manner as if Jesus
Christ had never existed ; all the while zealously affecting
the outward forms of devotion ; attending the services and
sacraments of the church ; joining in the responses and
taking their part in the public reading of the Scriptures
unconsciously appropriating to themselves the holiest
expressions and aspirations of the divine word, without the
slightest apprehension of their meaning, the faintest per
ception of their incongruity, or the remotest intention of
making any change in their habits or feelings to bring them
into conformity with the doctrines they are solemnly
professing to believe. From such results, the absence of a
real faith, an actual belief, is a matter of necessary in
ference ; against which the convictions of the individuals,
however strongly or conscientiously attested, are of no
avail. Indeed, I think it will require but a little reflection to
satisfy us that real atheism (not the profession, which is
comparatively rare) is a much more common predicament
than we are wont to suppose. Omitting the heathen who
ignore, and the Mohammedan who rejects, the Deity in the
character in which He has revealed himself, and in which
alone He actually subsists, can we consider the professing
Christian who lives in the habitual disregard of the, divine

FAITH AND WORKS. 59
law, doing that which is forbidden, and not doing that
which is commanded, as really believing in such a God ? —
that the gambler, the idler, the swearer, the drunkard, the
glutton, the backbiter, the envious or malicious, the
passionate or morose, the impure in act or thought, the
trustee who abuses or neglects his trust, the tradesman
who misrepresents the quality of his goods, and above all,
because devoid of the excuse of ignorance or want of
thought, the minister who in the fulfilment of his official
duty intones, or reads in one unvaried pitch of his voice,
the formulas of the church service, confessing the sins of
himself and of his congregation, and supplicating their
forgiveness and the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit,
in a style of speech in which he certainly would not dare
to address an earthly sovereign, do really believe in the
existence of a God who is actually present, and who " shall
bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,
whether it be good, or whether it be evil " (Eccl. xii. 14) ?
And thus we return to the proposition from which we
started — that the proper works are the natural concomitants
of the proper faith ; or, to put it in its alternative form,
the faith by which the sinner is justified is naturally
followed by the appropriate conduct or works. But this
connection implies no share whatever in the accomplish
ment of the end in view. Smoke and sound are the
natural consequences of the firing of a cannon ; but we all
know they have nothing to do with the downfall of the
fortress or tower against which it is directed. They are
signs or evidences of the discharge ; just as the works are
the signs or evidences of the faith ; and in that sense only,
necessary to justification. And just as reasonable is it to
insist upon the necessity of works to justification in any
other sense, as it would be to descant upon the necessity

60 VEXED QUESTIONS.
of smoke and sound to the effectual operation of artil
lery. This being the case, the question as to the influence of
works in justification is clearly solved in the negative. If,
as we have seen, there can be no justifying faith without
the proper works, the works are secured by the faith as
natural consequences ; and to ascribe justification to the
works in conjunction with the faith, would be to ascribe an
effect to two causes, one of which, including the other, is
sufficient for both.
Hitherto we have been dealing with the question upon
the sole ground of a reasonable view of the elements of the
case in relation to one another ; without consideration of
the end, their relation to which is the substance of the
question itself. Extending our regard to this effect, we
come at once under the influence of another class of evi
dences — the testimony of the Scriptures ; by which alone
the question at issue must be conclusively solved.
Justification, the forgiveness of sins as realized under the
New Covenant dispensation, is a matter of exclusively
scriptural definition. We know nothing of it by the light
of mere human reasoning ; nor can it be read with certainty
by the light of the Old Testament Scriptures, as I have
pointed out in the third of these Articles. In its proper
place — the Scriptures of the New Testament — it is
presented to us as an effect, the purport of which is the
relief of the sinner from the burden as well as the guilt of
his sins ; not by a simple forgiveness, or remission of the
penalty due to them; but to the complete acquittal or
exoneration of the individual from the charge of ever
having committed them : so that, once justified, he stands
before God " blameless " (1 Cor. i. 8), or " not having spot
or wrinkle or any such thing " (Eph. v. 27).

FAITH AND WORKS. 61
This condition, not being, of course, true in respect of the
individual's own righteousness, is set before us as accom
plished by the imputation to him of the righteousness of
Jesus Christ, realized by faith in, or (which amounts to
the same effect) acceptance of, Him as his representative ;
whereby he becomes virtually identified with Him in all
His righteous acts and sufferings. Of this identification
we have the direct evidence of the Scriptures in respect of
its leading particulars — His circumcision, " In whom also
ye were circumcised with a circumcision made without
hands, in putting off the body of the flesh * by the circum
cision of Jesus Christ " (Col. ii. 11) ; His crucifixion,
" Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him "
(Eom. vi. 6), and again, " I have been crucified with
Christ" (Gal. ii. 20); His burial, "Buried with him in
baptism " (Eom. vi. 4 ; Col. ii. 12) ; His resurrection,
" Eaised with him through the faith of the operation of
God " (Col. ii. 12) ; His ascension, " And hath raised us up
together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in
Christ Jesus " (Eph. ii. 6) ; besides allusions to the same in
other passages — thus, to His de'ath, in 2 Tim. ii. 11, " For
if we died with him, we shall also reign with him ; " to
His resurrection, in Col. iii. 1, " If ye then be risen with
Christ ; " and to both His resurrection and His passion, in
Phil. iii. 10, " That I might know him, and the power of
his resurrection" — the "power toward us who believe
 which he [God] wrought in Christ, when he
raised him from the dead " (Eph. i. 19, 20)—" and the
fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto
his death."
Such are some of the righteous acts of Jesus Christ, the
imputation of which to the believer is indicated in the
* Amended text.

62 VEXED QUESTIONS
Scriptures, and the sum total of which constitutes the
righteousness by which he is justified; as sufficiently
evidenced in the following passages :- — Thus, inlsa. xiv. 25,
it is declared that, " in the Lord shall all the seed of Israel
be justified ; " as in chap. liv. 17, with reference, to the
Gentiles, " And their righteousness is of me." In Jer. xxiii,
6, Christ is prophetically revealed as " the Lord our righte
ousness." In Eom. x. 4 St Paul says, " Christ is the ful
filment of the law,* for righteousness to every one that
believeth." Again, in 1 Cor. i. 30, " But of him are ye in
Christ Jesus, who of God was made unto us ... .
righteousness." And in 2 Cor. v. 21 we have the double
operation of the principle antithetically displayed — " For
he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him." The righteousness which is here referred to under the
designation of the " righteousness of God," the righteousness
by the imputation of which the believer is justified (see
Eom. iii. 22), is hot, however, the only righteousness that
is predicated in the Scriptures of the covenant under which
we live. There is yet another righteousness equally
insisted upon, though to a different effect — that of the
individual himself, his own obedience, or fulfilment of the
divine law. This is the more important to be noted,
because it is, in fact, to the neglect or oversight of this
distinction that is mainly to be ascribed the confusion that
prevails in the teaching of so many ministers with reference
to the subject before us. This righteousness of the
individual is the equivalent expression of his " works ; "
the connection of which with the faith unto justification is
* TeKos p6ij.ov ; as, in the verbal form, TeAeiV v6jx.ov, to fulfil the law.
See chap. ii. 27, and James ii. 8.

FAITH AND WORKS. 63
the point at issue in the present Article. It is to this
attribute that reference is intended in all those passages
relied upon in defence of the combination of works with
faith, in which the necessity of the former is inculcated,
or allusion made to it in relation to the future life ; as in
Matt. xvi. 27 ; Eom. ii. 6 ; 1 Cor. iii. 8 ; Tit. iii. 8 ; Eev. ii.
23, xiv. 13, xxii. 12, &c. It is an attribute just as
imperative upon the believer as the righteousness of Jesus
Christ, only it has nothing to do with his justification. It
is with respect to that attribute that his condition in the
future life will be regulated ; though it will have had no
share in his attainment of it.
And this brings us to the second subdivision of our sut>
j-ect — the testimony of the Scriptures to the exclusion of
works from any share in the justification of sinners ; under
which head I shall note, in the first place, the principle
upon which the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is available to the
pardon of sin. This principle may be briefly stated to be
the satisfaction of the requirement of a perfect assurance
to the sinner, as well as to all God's rational creatures, of
the integrity of His approval of that which is right, and
disapproval of that which is wrong, arising out of the
transaction itself through the instrumentality of which the
sinner is pardoned. And this satisfaction is complete in
the simple belief of the transaction as conducive to that
result. To suppose, then, that anything more than faith
were requisite- to the justification of the sinner, would be
to suppose that God could withhold His mercy after the
obstacle to its bestowal had been actually removed.
Secondly, the imputation to works of any share in the
justification of the sinner is excluded by consideration of
the dgure or type under which the deliverance of the sinner
ironi the burden of his sins, in other words, his justifica-

64 VEXED QUESTIONS.
tion, is represented- — that of a redemption from bondage
by the payment of a ransom. But in such a mode of
deliverance there is literally nothing assignable to the
individual, but simply to believe in the fact. Understand
ing by the ransom the penalty due to his sins, and taking
for granted (what I presume all will allow) that this
penalty was equal to the extent of all his sins, of omission
as well as commission, there would be no room for the
hypothesis of any deficiency on the score of works, nor con
sequently any room for the works themselves in the con
stitution of the effect in view.
Thirdly, the admission of works as a means of justifica
tion is precluded by the consideration of the character in
which the realization of the effect in question is revealed —
the character, namely, of a grace or gift. Thus in Eom. iii.
24 St Paul says, " Being justified freely by his grace : "
where we have to remark, in the first place, the force of
the adverb Btopeav, rendered " freely," the proper meaning
of which is gratuitously, for nought, or without cause (as it
is actually rendered in the authorized version in John xv.
25, Gal. ii. 21, and 2 Thes. iii. 8) ; and secondly, the
redundancy of the expression " by his grace ; " as though
no single phrase were sufficiently strong to satisfy his
meaning. And in chap. v. 15-17 we have a continuous
succession of declarations couched in the same pleonastic
language to the same effect — " For if through the offence
of one the many died, much more the grace of God, and the
gift [of justification] by grace, which is by one man, Jesus
Christ, hath abounded unto the many. And not as it was
by one that sinned, so is the gift : for the judgment was by
one to condemnation ; but the free gift is of many offences
unto justification. For if by the one man's offence death
reigned by the one, much more they who receive the

FAITH AND WORKS. 65
abundance of the grace, and of the free gift of righteousness)
shall reign in life through the one Jesus Christ."
Now we have it upon the authority of St Paul, that the
two characters — of grace and works — cannot be combined
in one and the same operation : it must be altogether of
one kind or the other ; the nature of the means thus deter
mining that of the effect, as conversely, the nature of the
effect that of the means. This authority we have in no
less than four passages. The first is in Eom. iv. 4, " Now
to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace,
but of debt." The second is in verse 16 of the same
chapter, with .reference to the inheritance of the world by
Abraham and his seed, according to promise, " Therefore it
is of faith, that it might be of grace ; " an observation
equivalent to a statement, that had it been of works it could
not have been of grace. The third is in chap. xi. 6, speak
ing of the election by grace of a remnant of the Jews," And
if by grace, then is it no more of works ; otherwise grace
is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more
grace ; otherwise work is no more work." The fourth is
that of Gal. v. 4, " Whosoever of you are justified bylaw"
— i.e., by works—" ye are fallen from grace " — hypotheti-
cally, of course ; he had just said (iii. 11), " No man is
justified by law." The nature of the means being thus
determined by the nature of the end,, justification being of
grace, the means of justification must be of grace also. It
is hardly necessary to add that this conclusion is equiva
lent to the negation of works.
Fourthly, the hypothesis of works as a means of justifi
cation is precluded by the consideration of the nature of the
effect itself. Justification we have observed to consist in
the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. To
suppose the works or righteousness of the individual him-
E

66 VEXED QUESTIONS. ,
self instrumental to the accomplishment of this effect,
would be to suppose an end attainable by means in a state
of imperfection, which, the more perfect they might be, the
less would be the rationale of their success ; and the proper
operation of which, if they were really perfect, would be
to dispense with the end altogether. Moreover, the impu
tation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ is an effect
essentially involving the exclusion of the righteousness of
the individual himself. It is an effect in which the righte
ousness of Jesus Christ is, not superadded to or combined
with that of the individual, but substituted for it. The
one righteousness must be got rid of before the other can
be enjoyed. And so St Paul intimates in Eom. x. 3, where
he describes the hopeless condition of the Jews, " who,
being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to
establish their own righteousness, had not submitted them
selves unto the righteousness of God." And again, Phil.
iii. 9, " That I might  be found in him, not having
mine own righteousness," &c. It is scarcely necessary to
point out the absurdity of an hypothesis that would
assume, by the operation of means, to establish an end
which consists in the repudiation of the means themselves.
Fifthly and lastly, we have to note the direct testimony
of the Scriptures to the effect that justification is not of
works, but simply and exclusively of faith ; for which pur
pose the following brief selection will, I conceive, be amply
sufficient— Eom. iii. 20-28, " Therefore by works of law
shall no flesh be justified in his sight  But now
the righteousness of God without law is manifested
 even the righteousness of God, which is by faith
of Jesus Christ unto and upon all them that believe
.... Where is boasting then ? It is excluded. By
what law ? of works ? Nay ; but by the law of faith.

FAITH AND WORKS, 67
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith
without works of law. Lastly, Gal. ii. 15, 16, " We who are
Jews by nature  knowing that a man is not justi
fied by works of law, but through faith of Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be
justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of law : for
by works of law shall no flesh be justified."
With these evidences frqm the Scriptures in favour of
the doctrine of justification by faith alone, to the exclusion of
works, our task is concluded, so far as regards the affirma
tive side of the question. To complete the case it only re
mains to consider the passages liable to be quoted upon the
opposite side : of which, however, there appear to be only
six ; besides those relating to the righteousness of the
individual, already disposed of as having regard to his
condition in, not his attainment of, the heavenly kingdom ;
as well as those also in the Scriptures of the Old Testa
ment, with which, as pointed out in the third of these
Articles, we have here no concern. The first of the
passages with which we have now to deal is Matt. v. 6,
"Blessed are they that do hunger and thirst after
righteousness ; " where the hungering and thirsting,
primarily assumed to represent the exertions of' individuals
in pursuit of the condition alluded to, are further treated
as means conducive to that end. But this view is not
only unnecessary, but contrary to the analogy of the other
statements in the same^discourse, in which the grounds of
the blessedness imputed are evidently intended in the
sense, not of means, but of signs. Thus in verse 10,
" Blessed are they that are persecuted for righteousness'
sake ; for their's is the kingdom of heaven," the persecution
cannot be taken to be the means of attaining the heavenly
kingdom ; though, as attesting the righteousness for the

68 VEXED QUESTIONS.
sake of which it is inflicted, it may well be regarded as
the sign of its attainment.
This latter consideration affords also the answer to
another of the passages alluded to in the same behalf — viz.,
1 John iii. 7, " He that doeth righteousness is righteous."
Here the doing righteousness is to be understood as the sign
of having attained, not as the means of attaining, the con
dition in question ; as might be fairly concluded, both from
the introductory observation, " Let no man deceive you,"
most naturally suggestive of a reference to signs or proofs,
and also from the definition of the attainment — " righteous,
even as he is righteous : " for we can hardly believe that
the apostle meant to declare that, by means of his own
righteousness, a man might be as righteous as God himself;
though by such means he might, and indeed only could,
afford evidence of his having attained the state which is
really answerable to this description.
The third of the passages liable to be adduced in support
of a justification by works is Rom. ii. 13, " The doers of
the law shall be justified." But St Paul is here alluding
to the old covenant dispensation ; which, as I have diffusely
explained in a former Article, was ostensibly a covenant of
works. Moreover, the statement stands in opposition to
the previous part of the verse — " For not the hearers of the
law are just before God ; " from which the purport of the
passage is evident in the sense of a contrast, not between
faith and works, but between hearing and obeying, as con
stituting the grounds of justification under the Mosaic
dispensation. The fourth of the passages in question is in the same
epistle, chap. vi. 16, " Know ye not, that to whom ye yield
yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom
ye obey ; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto

FAITH AND WORKS. 69
righteousness." This passage might with greater propriety
have been quoted upon the other side of the question ; the
word rendered obey or obedience* being literally rendered
in the sense of hearing or attending to, and consequently
better calculated to sustain a reference to faith than to
works ; as the following examples of its use will sufficiently
testify — " And a great company were obedient to the faith "
(Acts vi. 7). " By whom we have received apostleship for
obedience to the faith among all the nations " (Eom. i. 5).
" But they have not all obeyed the gospel " (chap. x. 16).
" The mystery which has been kept secret since the world
began, but now  has been made known to all the
nations for the obedience of faith" (chap. xvi. 25, 26).
" Who hath bewitched you that ye should not obey the
truth ? " (Gal. iii. 1). " What shall be the end of them
that obey not the gospel 1 " (1 Pet. iv. 17). Indeed, that
the apostle in the passage before us is referring to faith,
not to works, is apparent from his own definition of
the subject in the succeeding verse — " But God be
thanked ..... ye have obeyed from the heart the form
of doctrine which was delivered to you."
The fifth of the passages alluded to consists of a succes
sion of statements, extended to a considerable length by
intervening illustrations and remarks. The passage is from
James ii. 14-26, and stands properly represented, with
slight alterations from the authorized version, as follows :
" What doth it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath
faith, and have not works ? can they faith save him ? If
a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye
warmed and filled ; notwithstanding ye give them not
* "tiraicoiu, \nraKo^\, from inrb, under, and anoxia, I hear.
T See note, p. 23.

70 VEXED QUESTIONS.
those things which are needful for the body, what doth it
profit ? Even so the faith, if it hath not works, is dead,
being alone. Yea, a man shall say, Thou hast faith, and I
have works : shew me thy faith without the works,* and I
will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest
that there is one God ; thou doest well : the demons also
believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, 0 vain man,
that the faith without the works is futile ?f Was not
Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered
Isaac his son upon the altar ? Seest thou how the faith
worked together with his works, and by the works was the
faith made perfect ? And the scripture was fulfilled which
saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him
for righteousness : and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not
by faith only. Likewise also, was not Eahab the harlot
justified by works, when she had received the messengers,
and sent them out another way ? For as the body without
spirit [or breath] is dead, so the faith without the works is
dead also."
The contradiction which this passage is thought to
present to the doctrine before us is referable to two sets
of expressions — the first, in which a disparagement is
supposed to be cast upon the efficacy of faith, without the
accompanying qualification of works ; the second, in which
justification is expressly declared to be of works, and not
of faith alone.
Now with regard to the former of these, the charge of
contradiction entirely falls to the ground when we observe
that St James is not using the word faith in the sense of
believing, but in the sense, in which it is quite as freely
* Amended text.
t Amended text

FAITH AND WORKS. 71
employed in Scripture, of the religion which is the subject
of belief, apart from the question of its being believed ; in
short, the faith, as with the definite article it is in our own
language generaRy taken to imply. That this is a sense
in which it is commonly used in Scripture the following
examples will be sufficient to attest — " He sent for Paul,
and heard him concerning the faith" (Acts xxiv. 24).
" Examine yourselves whether ye be in the faith " (2 Cor.
xiii. 5). " And might perfect that which was lacking in
your faith " (1 Thes. iii. 10). " Fight the good fight of the
faith"' (1 Tim. vi. 12). "I have fought the good
fight  I have guarded the faith " (2 Tim. iv. 7).
" Earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered
unto the saints " (Jude 3).
And that this is the sense in which the apostle is really
using the word in the passage before us, may be justly con
cluded from his employment of it in that sense in the
beginning of the chapter — " My brethren, hold not the faith
of our Lord Jesus Christ  with respect to persons ; "
from which remark the rest of the discourse, including the
passage in question, is directly deduced. Having, in the
last verse of the preceding chapter, shown in what the true
worship % of God consists — that it is, not in the mere acts
of devotion, but in the spirit in which they are
performed, as He himself elsewhere describes it, " I will
have mercy and not sacrifice " (Hos. vi. 6 ; Matt. ix. 13,
xii. 7) — he goes on to point out the deficiency of those he
was addressing in that particular, evinced in an ungracious
treatment of the poor in their devotional meetings. This
is the holding or exercising the faith, or religion, of Jesus
Christ with respect, or in partialities, to persons ; the eluci-
* &pricrKela, rendered in the authorized version "religion;" as 6prjmcos
"religions," in the preceding verse.

72 VEXED QUESTIONS.
dation of which continues uninterruptedly to the com
mencement of the passage before us.
Assuming then, as we are rationally required, the same
sense to the same word in the continuation of the same
discourse, we have in the passage in question a succession
of observations respecting the impotency of a mere
profession of Christianity ; which imply nothing whatever
concerning the efficacy of a real faith. Thus, in the
beginning of the passage, the relation of the question pro
posed is- not simply to the individual addressed, but to
other persons — " What doth it profit," what good does it
do, either to himself or to anybody else, if a man merely
professes the faith of Christ, " says he hath faith, and have
not works ? Can the faith," the profession of Christianity,
" save him ; " or, with regard to others, if he merely parade
his profession before them, " say unto them, Depart in
peace, be ye warmed and filled," without affording them
the requisite assistance, " What doth it profit 1 " Even so
the Christianity that is without works is " dead " to all
beneficial purposes and effects. It is unnecessary to carry
the paraphrase any further, the case as regards this
particular, of the faith, being sufficiently clear as here pro
pounded, throughout the rest of the passage, in the words
of the passage itself.
In the second of the forms of expression referred to as
presenting a contradiction to the doctrine of justification
by faith alone, this contradiction is apparently more pal
pable and direct. And yet it is in the very directness of
the contradiction that we find the clue to the explanation
of the expression in conformity with the doctrine to which
it seems to be opposed — the assurance, I mean, which it
affords of a difference in the signification of the term justi
fied as it is used by St James, and as it is intended in those

FAITH AND WORKS. 73
passages of Scripture in which the doctrine of justification
by faith alone is meant to be declared. For where two
sentences appear, in one of which that is expressly
affirmed which, upon the hypothesis of the same sense of
the terms, would in the other be expressly denied, there
remains no alternative to the rejection of one or other of
the two declarations, but the admission of a difference in
the sense of one or other of the terms employed. Thus,
when we contemplate the statement of St Paul in Eom.
iii. 28 — " Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by
faith without works of law ; " and that of St James in the
passage before us — " Ye see then how that by works a man
is justified, and not by faith only " — we cannot fail to
perceive that there is no resource for those who desire to
maintain the authenticity of both statements, but the
inference that St James is using one or other of the terms
in a different sense from St PauL
Now there are two distinct senses in which the word
rendered justification, as well as its representative in
English, is liable to be used. The first, which is also the
most usual, is that of being proved to be just, righteous, or
in the right with respect to whatever might be the subject
of discourse; as where a man's conduct is said to be
justified by the] event, or by sufficient reasons adduced in
its behalf; or, to take an exemplification from Scripture,
where our Lord says, with reference^to the conversation of
men, " By thy words thou shalt be justified " (Matt. xii.
37) ; or where our Lord himself is said to have been
"justified in [or rather, by] the Spirit" (1 Tim. iii. 16).
The second sense of the word, which may be distinguished
as the forensic, is that of being accounted righteous or just ;
as where a soldier is said to be justified in taking the life
of his enemy in battle; or, to recur to the Scriptures,

74 VEXED QUESTIONS.
where Job says, " If I justify myself, my own mouth shall
condemn me " (chap. ix. 20), or the prophet Isaiah, " Woe
unto them  that justify the wicked for reward "
(chap. v. 22, 23). But it is in the latter of these senses
that the statement of St Paul is, by common consent,
supposed to be designed ; accordingly it is in the former, I
conclude, that we are to understand the statement of St
James. And this sense, as it is an undoubtedly legitimate one,
so is it especially recommended as the sense here intended,
by the context of the statement in the illustration of which
it is employed — "Yea, a man shall say, Thou hast faith,
and I have works : shew me thy faith without the works,
and I will shew thee my faith by my works  But
wilt thou know, 0 vain nian, that the faith without the
works is futile ? Was not Abraham our father justified by
works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar ? "
Is it not clear that the case of Abraham being justified by
the offering up of Isaac is intended as an exemplification of
the showing of the faith by works; and that consequently
the word justified is used in the sense conformable to that
effect ?
But the evidence in favour of this construction goes
beyond the point of a mere legitimacy, or even probability ;
to the extent of a real necessity, as being the only con
struction which can be consistently received. Three
grounds may fbe referred to in support of this position.
The first is that of the particular cases quoted by the
apostle — the cases of Abraham and Eabab. With regard
to both these cases it is evident that the fact in view — the
justification of the parties respectively — was not a fact
then for the first time about to be communicated ; but one
which had already been revealed, and the evidences of

FAITH AND WORKS. 75
which would be found in their proper places. This
appears from the interrogative form of the expressions —
" Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he
had offered Isaac his son upon the altar ? " — " Likewise
also, was not Eahab the harlot justified by works when she
had received the messengers, and sent them out another
way ? " But if we refer to the only accounts of these
transactions existent, we shall find them both represented
precisely in the light of the construction here asserted.
Thus, in the. case of Abraham, we are distinctly told in
Gen. xxii. 1, that it was with a view to this very effect — of
proving him just or righteous — that the transaction was
originally devised — " And it came to pass after these
things, that God did tempt Abraham ; " agreeably with
which is the statement of St Paul in Heb. xi. 17, " By faith
Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac." And
though we have not the same original design revealed in
the case of Eahab, it is certain that the same effect — of
attesting her faith — is equally deducible from the original
record of the affair in Josh. ii. 9-13, where she declares
the motive of her conduct to the Israelites to have been
her belief that the Lord their God was " God in heaven
above, and in the earth beneath ; " and also from the
testimony of St Paul, in his enumeration of her among
those who had " obtained a good report through faith "
(Heb. xi. 39) ; in other words, who had manifested their
faith by their works.
The second of the considerations to which I would
refer in pursuance of the same argument, is the statement
immediately following the declaration of Abraham's
justification by works — " And the Scripture was fulfilled
which saith, Abraham believed God, and it [that is, of
course, his belief] was imputed to him for righteousness."

76 VEXED QUESTIONS.
Is it not perfectly certain from this representation, that
the apostle intends by justification a different thing from
what he intends by the imputation of righteousness ; and
that, consequently, it is not in the latter sense, but in that
of the alternative signification, that the word in the passage
before us is necessarily to be construed ?
Lastly, in support of this conclusion, we have the
testimony of the apostle's own sentiments with regard to
the efficacy of works to accomplish a justification in the
sense of an acquittal from the charge of sin, or imputation
of righteousness. This testimony is afforded immediately
in connection with the passage before us, more particularly
in two remarks. The first is in verse 10 — " For whosoever
shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he
is guilty of all ; " a striking commentary upon the state
ment in Deut. xxvii. 26, " Cursed be he that confirmeth
not [all] the words of this law to do them." Surely, in the
view of such a remark as this, it would be impossible to
suppose the apostle could have intended to assert the
power of human works to secure to the sinner a favourable
position in the divine regard %
This inconsistency is equally prominently displayed in
the next verse but one following — " So speak ye, and so
do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty!'
Liberty, as here intended, is an expression of the covenant
of grace, founded upon the principle of the liberation of the
individual from the necessity of obeying the law as a
means of justification. The covenant of works, under the
claims of which every man is abiding in the state in which
he exists by nature, implying the obligation of a perfect
obedience to the law * which no man is able to render,
and consequently a subjection to its penal demands, which
* See Article III., p. 18.

FAITH AND WORKS. 77
no man is able to satisfy, is rightly regarded as a state of
servitude; in contradistinction to which the alternative
covenant of grace is properly represented as a state of
freedom. To these characteristics St Paul alludes in Gal.
v. 1, where he tells the Galatian converts to " stand fast in
the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be
not entangled again in a yoke of bondage." Now the " law "
of this " liberty," the rule of life under the covenant of
grace, is love. This is in the nature of the case with regard
to God ; the reward being of grace, the service is necessarily
of grace also. Such is it, also, by the divine will, with
regard to our fellow-men ; as set forth in the command
ment, to love our neighbour as ourselves. This is called
in verse 8, " the royal law," because of the character of
grace; the character that especially attaches to a royal
gift. To speak and act as they that shall be judged by
this law, is to direct the conversation in accordance with
the principle of that covenant by which alone salvation is
attainable. " For he shall have judgment without
mercy " — the judgment of the covenant of works — " who
hath showed no mercy ; and mercy " — the special attribute
of the covenant of grace — " rejoiceth against judgment,"
triumphs over the requirements of the law.
Such is the doctrineof the apostle in theverses immediately
preceding the passage before us. Is it possible that, upon
the basis of this doctrine, it was his intention to declare
justification, in the sense of an imputation of righteousness,
as attainable by the works of the law ?
With regard to the expression, of the faith without the
works being dead, the explanation is suggested by the
apostle himself in another verse ; where, for the word dead
is substituted the word futile or idle. Christianity as a
profession — " the faith," as it is here to be understood —

78 VEXED QUESTIONS.
implies a conduct accordingly; without which it is a msre
inanimate form — " a body without breath, or spirit," as it
is represented in the last verse of the passage. It is not
that works are to faith as the spirit or breath is to the body,
in the sense of the source of its vitality. They are not
supposed to impart life : they only evince it ; as the trem
bling of the demons evinces their faith, or Abraham's works
evinced his.
But one passage more appears to require explanation in
connection with the subject before us — Eev. xix. 8, " The
marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made
herself ready. And it was given to her that she should be
clothed in fine linen, bright and clean ; for the fine linen is
the righteousnesses of the saints." Now the " fine linen,
bright and clean," constituting the garment of the saints,
has been distinctly explained of their justification through
the blood of Jesus ; which is tantamount to the imputation
of His righteousness, here insisted upon — " What are these
that are arrayed in white robes ?  And he said
unto me, These are they who are coming out of the great
tribulation ; and they have washed their robes, and made
them white in the blood of the Lamb " (chap. vii. 14) : and
in chap. iii. 18, our Lord counsels the angelic representa
tive of the Laodicean Church to buy of Him " white
raiment," that he might be clothed, and that the shame of
his nakedness might not appear. So that what is really
signified here is, that the righteousness of Jesus Christ,
His righteous acts, constitutes the righteousnesses or
righteous acts with which the saints are invested ; as might
indeed have been concluded from the antecedent definition
of their source — "And it was given to her that she should
be clothed."

VI.
THE ORIGIN OF EVIL.
It cannot be denied that the condition of the human race
as naturally existent in the world, apart from the provision
made for its relief, is one of the deepest misery and
distress ; one calculated, not only to excite concern for the
objects themselves, but to suggest at least, if not to sanc
tion, doubts as to the possibility of reconciling such a state
of things with the admitted character and attributes of
God, without whose consent we must suppose it could not
have occurred. And certainly, apart from the information
upon this subject which the Bible, and the Bible alone
affords, the task of reconciliation may well be understood
to be beset with difficulties which no reasoning has ever
been able to surmount. Without the knowledge and con
sideration of the real cause of the evil and of the real
nature of the result, as recorded in the Scriptures, the
anomaly ever must have remained, of an infinitely perfect
Creator, and a state of things the prominent feature of
which is evil.
With the Bible for our guide, however, very much,
if not the whole, of the difficulty in question dis
appears. Following the light of that authority, we learn
the all-important fact, the clue to the otherwise impene
trable mystery, that the actual state of things is not at all
the state of things which God created ; but a state super
induced upon it by the conduct, or rather the misconduct

80 VEXED QUESTIONS.
of the creature — the transgression of our first parents ; to
which misconduct or transgression, accordingly, all the evil
that is in it is ultimately to be ascribed. Eegarding sin,
therefore, as the "source of evil, and evil consequently as
the simple result of sin, in the endeavour to explain the
existing state of things in connection with the divine
character and attributes, what we have really to consider
is the responsibility of God in the twofold regard, of the
sin of our first parents, and the continuance or endurance
of its results — the proper expression of the well-known
controversial designation, of the origin and sufferance of evil.
Now the responsibility which might be considered to
attach to God in regard of the matters alluded to, may be
divided into four heads; respecting either, 1st, 'the con
stitution of the creatures, whereby they were made capable
both to sin and to transmit its results ; or, 2d, the treat
ment of them, whereby they were permitted to sin ; or, 3d,
the creation of the creatures at all who should have
sinned ; or, 4th, the endurance of the state of things in
which sin and its consequences are so prominently dis
played. And for the complete removal of every ground of
objection in respect of these several particulars, all that is
required is the establishment of the four following
positions : first, that neither the sin of Satan, nor of our
first parents, nor the transmission of its consequences, are
the results of any defect in the constitution of the crea
tures ; secondly, that no possible treatment of them could
have secured the avoidance of the results ; thirdly, that the
obligation to have abstained from creating the creatures is
founded upon the hypothesis of a condition which has no
real existence ; and fourthly, that the suppression of the
accruing evil is an alternative incompatible with - the
character and attributes of God.

THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 81
First, then, with respect to the constitution of the crea
tures, it is certain that neither the sin of Satan, nor that
of our first parents, nor the transmission of its effects, are
the results of any defect or imperfection ; but, on the con
trary, of attributes essential to their perfection, and without
which they could not have conduced to the higher
purposes for which they were designed. For, as to the
original sins of Satan and of our first parents, the attribute
to the exercise of which they are to be ascribed is literally
the noblest by which a rational being can be characterized —
the freedom of its will ; that qualification by virtue of
which it is enabled to act without other bias or control
than the dictates of its own judgment. Now the judgment
of every creature is necessarily fallible ; for infallibility of
judgment, which is only another name for omniscience, is
the attribute of God alone, and could not be conferred
upon any created being. It could, therefore, only be by a
disposition of the will itself, amounting to a negation of its
freedom, that the avoidance of the result could have been
secured, so far as the constitution of the creature is con
cerned : consequently it is to the absence of such a disposi
tion — in other words, to the absolute freedom of the will
that the result, however deplorable, is properly to be
ascribed. This explanation, it will be observed, is only applicable to
the case of the original offenders, both of, angels and of
men; who only, We are permitted to believe, had that
freedom of their will, by virtue of which their transgres
sions, and the consequences of them, become chargeable
upon themselves alone. The defence of the case as it
• regards the guilty descendants of our first parents is, how
ever, maintainable upon similar grounds ; the evil accom
panying their condition being the result of another faculty,
F

82 VEXED QUESTIONS.
equally essential to the perfection of their nature^-the
faculty of producing their own kind. By virtue of this
faculty, had Adam and Eve begotten a progeny while they
continued in their original perfection, that progeny would
have partaken of their perfection. This, however, not
having been the case, the progeny to which they did give
rise, begotten in a corrupted nature, necessarily partook of
this corruption. And thus the sinfulness of the condition
in which we now exist, as well as that of those in whom it
first originated, is strictly referable to qualifications, not
only inferential of no defect, but essential to the perfection
of the creature.
With regard to the second position — that no possible
treatrnent of the creatures could have secured the
avoidance of the results — this observation must be under
stood with exclusive reference, in the first place, to
the original sinners, in whose case, their primitive condition
alone having been free from sin, is there any room for such
an operation ; and, secondly, to the circumstances in which
they were placed ; any influence upon the parties them
selves, to determine their conduct any way, being negatived
by the freedom of their will. Thus understood, the proof
of the position may be taken to be included in the deter
mination of the question — whether such a mode of treat
ment, as should consist in the exclusion of all opportunity
of doing evil, would be a possible one ? For if this ques
tion, in the general form in which it is here proposed,
cannot be answered in the affirmative — if the principle of
exclusion here suggested could not be supported in all its
integrity — no importance in the argument could attach to
the particular instance in which the opportunity had'
actually been allowed. But this is a proposition so
manifestly absurd — the hypothesis of a state of existence

THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 83
from which all opportunity to sin should be removed, is so
devoid of all reasonable foundation — that no formal refuta
tion of it can be required.
The third position regards the propriety of having
created the beings at all, in whom such disastrous conse
quences have been displayed ; in respect of which position
it is to be observed, that, the original constitution of the
creatures being unexceptionable, it is only in consideration
of the consequences that any Objection could be supposed to
be preferred ; and this, upon the ground of the foreknow
ledge of those consequences, in a sense available to their
prevention. But it is certain that this condition is incapable
of being maintained. The consequences in question could
not have been foreknown apart from the creation of the
creatures. For there are but two ways by which a know
ledge of future events can be realized — viz., by absolute
intuition, or foresight of the events themselves ; and by
reasoning a priori — that is, from a consideration of the
circumstances of the case, including under this head the
disposition of the individuals upon whom it depends. Now
it is by the former of these alone that the conduct of free
agents — which is the true expression of the consequences
here alluded to — can be foreknown. For the agents being
free, implies an equal power of acting differently under the
same circumstances ; consequently the consideration of the
circumstances could afford no clue to the result. But
intuition, the only other ground of foreknowledge, necessa
rily presumes the occurrence of the events upon which it is
exercised ; and, as a matter of course, the existence of the
creatures to whom they are ascribed. God could not
foresee events which were not to occur. The foresight of
them is, consequently, inconsistent with their prevention.
Lastly, we have to consider the endurance of the state

84 VEXED QUESTIONS.
of things in which sin and its consequences are so pro
minently displayed. The predicament here intimated is
that signified in the epicurean dilemma, aut vult, aut non
potest tollere, mala — God either wills, or is unable to
abrogate, the evil ; the force of which consists in the
presumption, that both horns of the dilemma are equally
sharp — that it is as impossible that God should be unable
to abrogate an evil, as that He should approve of it. The
presumption, however, is incorrect. The power of God is,
indeed, infinite as His abhorrence of evil. But this is only
in the sense of its essence, not of its exercise ; in respect of
which, on the contrary, it is ever subject to the restraint of
considerations of the strictest propriety : so that it cannot
be justly said that God can do everything, but only what
is right ; of which qualification the most fitting criterion is,
consistency with His own character and attributes. And
thus, before it can be assumed that God could abrogate the
existing state of things for the purpose of suppressing the
evil that is in it, it must be shown that such a proceeding
would be really answerable to this description. But who
will venture to assert that this is the case — that any
approximation to a just view of the character and attributes
of God would be presented in a proceeding which would
exhibit the divine Being exterminating the works of His
hands, and putting a stop to the progress of all His pur
poses in creation, upon the manifestation of a conclusion,
the certain occurrence of which, as it did occur, He must
have eternally foreknown ?
Thus far the principles of religion common to reason and
revelation are sufficient to carry us, in the justification of
the divine forbearance with reference to the evil which is
admitted to exist. By the aid of revelation, however, we
ascertain another and a more grateful vindication of the

THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 85
divine character, in the assurance that the toleration of the
evil, upon the hypothesis of which the defence of the case
has been hitherto argued, is not a fact in the absolute sense
in which it is there treated ; but that, on the contrary, the
evil has, so far at least as our world is concerned, been en
countered by a remedy answerable to the disorder, and
commensurate in its applicability to the extent of the
damage it was intended to repair. This remedy is the
substance of the Gospel of our blessed Lord and Saviour
Jesus Christ — that communication of the mercy of God in
the salvation of sinners which is the special subject of the
Scriptures of the covenant of grace.

VII.
THE GOSPEL.
What is the gospel ? Surely a strange question to he,
seriously propounded at the close of the nineteenth century
of the Christian era — above 1800 years after the Son of
God came into the world and died in order to establish it
upon the earth ! Is it imaginable that any professing
Christian can be ignorant of what the gospel is ; or that
at the present day any doubt should exist upon the
subject ?
Certainly, if diversity of opinion, where one view only
can be right, is a proof of ignorance or uncertainty, either
or both in this respect must be admitted to prevail to a
most lamentable extent. For, put the question to as many
persons as you can, and I venture to say you will hardly
get the same or a similar answer from a large majority of
the number. Disregarding individual opinions, and look
ing to the leading sects or classes as representing their ad
herents, ask the Eoman Catholic, for instance, what is the
gospel ? and he will answer, in substance if not in words,
the Pope. Put the question to the Socinian, and he will
say, it is the exemplification of a holy life. Ask the
Arminian, and he will tell you, it is the right hand of the
law. Ask the' high-churchman, and he will say, it is the
ordinance of the Lord's Supper, or the imposition of hands.
And finally, to close the inquiry, ask the low-churchman
or evangelical dissenter, and the substance of his answer

THE GOSPEL. 87
will be, salvation by grace through faith in the atoning work
of Christ.
And" such, I have no doubt, is the proper answer to the
question. But .what is most worthy of observation is that,
notwithstanding the variety and incongruity of their
respective replies inter se, they would, one and all, at once
acknowledge its propriety, and declare their acceptance of
it as perfectly consistent with their own view of the case.
This, however, is no more than is to be expected. It is
a statement of Scripture, in the terms of the Scripture
itself; and, of course, not to be directly repudiated by any
professing Christian. But then, as to what it means— that
is another matter, upon which each of the contrasted
parties holds himself at liberty to exercise his own judg
ment or ingenuity in framing a reply according to the
requirements of his particular creed ; differing possibly
from all the rest, except in the qualification, common to
all but one — that it is not what it says.
It is not my intention here to consider the various
modes in which the different subdivisions of professing
Christianity are wont to explain, or rather to explain away,
this and similar statements of Scripture, in conformity
with their several views. But one explanation demands
our attention, both on account of its novelty (for, so far as
I am aware, it is of very recent discovery) ; its general
acceptance by the party with whieh it originates ; and
especially the extent of its bearing upon the subject before
us, affecting, as it does, the sense of all those passages in
the Scripture in which the salvation of man is treated
under that term, or others of the same radical extraction.
It is to the effect that salvation, as signified in the Greek
word so rendered by us, is a merely temporary condition ;
neither involving or implying anything whatever respecting

88 VEXED QUESTIONS.
the future ; so that in all those passages in which salvation
is predicated as an accomplished fact — such as Eph. ii. 5,
8, " By grace have ye been saved ; " 2 Tim. i. 10, " According
to the power of God, who saved us ; " Tit. iii. 5, " Not by
works  but according to his mercy he saved us " —
all that is intended is merely to the effect, that the parties
alluded to had been saved and were safe so far ; but that,
as regards the life eternal, they might eventually be lost.
That this representation is erroneous, it will not, I con-
' ceive, take us very long to demonstrate. The fact is that,
so far from salvation implying a present temporary condi
tion, the case is really quite the reverse ; the proper sense
of the word being with reference to the future and, of
course, eternal state, and only applicable to the present life
by prolepsis or anticipation, as virtually included in the
same result. A few passages of Scripture will suffice to
establish this conclusion. In Acts xv. 11 we have the
testimony of the Apostle Peter directly to the point, where,
speaking for himself and his brethren (whose salvation in
the present sense will not be contested) he says, "We
believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we
shall be saved ; " and again in his first epistle, chap. i. 5,
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who  hath begotten us again  to an
inheritance  reserved in heaven for us, who are
kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation
ready to be revealed in the last time ; " and once more, St
Paul in Rom. v. 9, 10, "Much more then, having now been
justified by his blood, we shall be saved." But if, as we
here see for certain, salvation is the expression of a condi
tion to be hereafter attained, and also predicable of the
present life, we can rationally come to no other conclusion
than that the condition represented in both cases is virtually

THE GOSPEL. 89
the same ; the use of the word in the former being accord
ing to its normal or primary signification, in the latter as
a figure of speech ; while the very use of the same word
with reference to the present life and the future, is prima
facie evidence, and that of the strongest, of the identity in
effect of the conditions thus synonymously represented.
And indeed, if a man can be said at any time to have
been in a state of salvation, it is impossible to understand
upon rational principles how he could be ultimately lost.
For as certainly as there is no salvation without the for
giveness of sins, so certainly is there no forgiveness of sins
but through the vicarious endurance of the penalty by
Jesus Christ as the sinner's representative upon the cross.
And if at any period of his life a man's sins be thus for
given, to suppose him ultimately lost would be to suppose,
either, his condemnation determined exclusively by the
sins he might afterwards have committed, possibly the most
trifling ones of his whole life ; or else the revival of all
his past sins, the cancelling of that connection between them
and the vicarious suffering of the Eedeemer by which they
had been previously atoned for.
I shall not stop to dwell upon the disparaging view
which this hypothesis, of an indeterminate salvation,
presents of the Lord Jesus Christ and of His work in our
behalf — that, while we are descanting upon the salvation
He has wrought for us, and signalizing Him as "our
Saviour," we mean only a salvation that is equally predi-
cable of them that are lost, our Saviour in no other sense
than He is the Saviour of them that are damned. Nor
shall I dilate upon the fact that, assuming salvation to
imply a present temporary benefit, there is no word in
either language, the Greek or the English, to represent the
actual attainment of the heavenly inheritance. But I

9Q VEXED QUESTIONS.
would ask whether it is likely or credible that the Holy
Spirit, by whom the Scriptures were indited for our
instruction, who was specially commissioned to " guide us
into all truth," would have adopted such a form of expres
sion^ the passages referred to, if all that was intended
was a merely temporary condition, an ephemeral salvation,
perfectly consistent with a state of final perdition ; to
which (upon such an hypothesis) nothing would be more
calculated to conduce than that very expression itself, with
its admitted liability to be otherwise understood.
Deeming that enough has been said upon this subject to
satisfy all reasonable requirements, I proceed at once to the
defence of that view of the gospel to which I have already
committed myself ; merely substituting, for the abridged
form in which it is above represented, the passage entire
as it exists in the Scripture from which it is deduced
(Eph. ii. 8, 9) — " For by grace have ye been saved through
faith : and that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God :
not of works, lest any man should boast." In this passage
there are two propositions, representing what may be
termed the essential elements of the gospel, that require to
be separately considered — I., that salvation is a gift, the
channel of its communication being faith ; and II., that it
is thus realized during the present life.
I. With regard to the first of these propositions — that
salvation is a gift — it should require but a slight considera
tion of what is included in the term in question to satisfy
us that it could never be assignable to any other cause
than that to which it is thus restricted. Salvation is a
predicament peculiar to the covenant of grace. It implies
(what has no relation to the covenant of works) the
inheritance of the " kingdom of heaven : " and it represents
the attainment of that inheritance as the result of a recovery

THE GOSPEL. 91
from a lost or fallen state ; a result which is not predicable
of the operation of the law, nor contemplated under the
covenant of works. The reward of the covenant of works —
life in the enjoyment of the dominion or inheritance of the
earth — was suspended upon the condition of a perfect
obedience to the law* Once forfeited, there was no
provision made for its recovery in the law itseK. The for
giveness of sins referred to in the Old Testament Scriptures
was an attribute of the covenant of grace, anticipatively
dispensed ; and could not be claimed upon the ground of
any observance of the law — in other words, as of works.
But if the inheritance of the earth, once forfeited, could
not be recovered by works under its own covenant, how
much less could the inheritance of heaven be attainable
by works under the exclusive predominance of the covenant
of grace ? Or, to put the case in another light, how could
the kingdom of heaven, with all its glorious accompani
ments, the essential and exclusive characteristics of the
salvation that is in Christ Jesus, which formed no part
of the inheritance of the unfallen Adam himself, be
attainable by his descendants through the instrumentality
of their own works ?
And what the nature of the case would thus a priori
dispose us to conclude, the testimony of the Scriptures
amply confirms ; both directly, as in the passage imme
diately before us, and others to the same effect ; as well as
indirectly through the medium of parables, or >with
reference to another condition, of strictly analogous import.
Thus in 2 Tim. i. 10, " According to the power of God,
who saved us  not according to our works ; " and
in Tit. iii. 5, " Not by works of righteousness which we
had done, but according to his mercy he saved us." And
* See Article III., p. 18.

92 VEXED QUESTIONS.
so also in the following, in which the character of the
means, as not of works, is equally clearly ascertained by its
description as of grace; there being no alternative to
works but grace, nor any room for the combination of the
one with the other, as I have had occasion to point out in
the Article upon Faith and Works* Thus John x. 28 (xvii.
2), " My sheep hear my voice  and I give unto
them eternal life; " Acts xv. 11, "We believe that through
the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved ; "
Eom. vi. 23, "The gift of God is eternal life ;" and 1 Cor.
xv. 57, " Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory
through Jesus Christ."
Besides these direct attestations to the doctrine of salva
tion by pure grace, irrespective of works, there are other
passages in which the same doctrine is with equal
certainty, if less explicitly, declared. Such, for instance,
is the question put by St Paul in Rom. vi. 1, ".Shall we
continue in sin, that grace may abound ? " — a question only
to be accounted for upon the supposition that the doctrine
he had been propounding was liable to the charge implied
in the text: — -that it was a doctrine of salvation (see the
preceding verse) independent of a regard to the moral con
duct of the individual. And this question he answers, not
by repudiating the doctrine, but by denying the result —
" God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any
longer therein ? " Can we suppose that, if the doctrine
were false, he would have contented himself with what,
upon this hypothesis, would have been a mere evasion of
the charge, instead of solving the difficulty by denying the
ground upon which it was based ?
Another passage leading to the same conclusion is Gal.
v. 13, " For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty ; only
* Page 65.

THE GOSPEL. 93
use not the liberty for an occasion to the flesh ; " or as in 1
Pet. ii. 16, " As free ; and not using the freedom for a cloak
of wickedness." This designation of the new covenant as
a condition of liberty, in contradistinction to the old
covenant, the law of bondage, has already been explained
in the sense of an exemption or liberation from the obliga
tion to good works as a ground of acceptance with God*
This sense is fully borne out by the passages above quoted ;
in which the injunction, not to use this liberty " for an
occasion to the flesh," or " as a cloak of wickedness,'' is a
clear demonstration that the liberty in question was one
that could admit of such a construction — that there was
an exemption from the obligation to good works which
might be misunderstood to the effect described.
The same truth is set forth with equal, if not even
greater, clearness in two parables of our Lord — the parables
of the lost sheep, and of the lost piece of money (Luke xv.
4-9) ; parables too well known and understood to require
to be transcribed or expounded. It is indeed, I think I
may safely say, impossible to imagine a representation more
conclusive of the doctrine of salvation by pure grace, ,
unaided and unsolicited, than either of the transactions
embodied in these two descriptions, especially the latter ;-f-
nor can I readily believe that our Lord, whose teaching is
everywhere else so remarkably distinguished by its freedom
from all ambiguity, would have employed such a mode of
representing the salvation of sinners, if He had not
* Article upon Faith and Works, p. 76.
1 1 remember to have heard a clergyman, long since deceased, preach a
sermon upon the efficacy and necessity of prayer to salvation, in which,
referring to the former of these parables, he assumed to ascribe the proceed
ing of the good shepherd in the first instance to the bleating of the sheep ;
of which, however, no mention is made in the parable. Surely he must
have overlooked the subsequent parable of the lost piece of money.

94 VEXED QUESTIONS.
intended to exclude works, in any sense or degree, from all
share in its accomplishment. It is no answer to this argu
ment, the allegation that, in another parable immediately
following, we have a view of salvation in which the object
of the divine mercy is represented as taking an active part
in the transaction. Were this view of the subject the cor
rect one, it would certainly give no help to the doctrine it
is intended to confirm. Eegarded in connection with the
preceding, it would merely furnish an example of salvation
in direct contradiction to both the other parables ; only to
be explained upon the hypothesis, not of a salvation by
grace and works combined, but of two different kinds of
salvation, one by grace without works, the other by works
with or without grace — a conclusion, the possibility of
which may be safely left to the judgment of the reader.
But the View is not correct. The resolution of the prodigal
son to return to his father is no self -inspired impulse lead
ing to his conversion, but the conversion itself, wrought in
him (to speak in the language of the antitype) by the Holy
Spirit through the divinely appointed instrumentality of
the famine ; without which there is no reason to suppose
that he would ever have thought of returning to his father,
any more than the lost sheep to the shepherd, or the piece
of money to its owner. The rest of the parable needs no
explanation here. It is merely a representation, with
reference to human forms and in fuller, terms, of what is
briefly appended to each of the other parables — that there
is " joy in heaven, in the presence of the angels of God,
over one sinner that repenteth " — in other words, over one
sinner that is saved ; repentance being here certainly
equivalent to salvation.
And lastly, but equally conclusively, we have the testi
mony of all those passages in which the same conditions

THE GOSPEL. 95
are predicated of justification, and which have been dealt
with at sufficient length in the Article upon Faith and
Works. For justification and salvation, however expressive
of different transactions, are strictly comprehensive of the
same effects ; every one who is justified being ipso facto
saved. For justification is simply the forgiveness of sins ;
only in that way in which it is realized in the covenant of
grace — the acquittal of the individual from the charge of
them in toto, through his identification with Him by whom
they were atoned for upon the cross ; as just now passingly
intimated, and more fully explained in a previous Article.
But the sins of the individual are the only thing that stands
between him and God. When these are removed,
there is nothing to be saved from; his salvation is
complete. The notion that it could be otherwise — that
anything more than the forgiveness of his sins was
necessary to the salvation of the sinner — is a conclusion
founded entirely upon an oversight in regard to the nature
of sin, as though it comprehended exclusively the
sins commonly called sins of commission; leaving the
requirement of a holy life — the sanctification of the
individual — to be still accounted and provided for. But
the sins included in the justification of. the sinner are just
as much the sins of omission as those of commission ; and
his acquittal from the charge of all sin implies just as
certainly the imputation to him of having done all that he
ought, as of not having done what he ought not. And thus
we have the whole groundwork of the salvation as described
by David in Ps. xxxii. 1, and applied by St Paul in rela
tion to the very subject before us — " Now to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness : even as
David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto

96 VEXED QUESTIONS.
whom God imputeth righteousness without works; saying,
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose
sins are covered " (Eom. iv. 5-7). It is hardly necessary
to suggest that the "blessedness" which is here predicated
cannot be to less effect than the salvation which is the
subject of dispute.
But for all these testimonies to the efficiency of grace
unto salvation, to the exclusion of works, it is alleged that
other passages are to be found of a contrary complexion, to
which an equal weight in the controversy ought to be
assigned. Of the passages usually considered as of this
effect, by far the greater number have, however, only a
secondary relation to the subject, and bear no direct
testimony to the point in view. Such are those passages
in which the necessity for suffering is inculcated with
relation to the end ; as for example Matt. v. 29, 30 (xviii.
9 ; Mark ix. 43-48), " If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it
out, and cast it from thee ; for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole
body be cast into hell." Matt. x. 39 (xvi. 25 ; Mark viii.
35 ; Luke ix. 24; John xii. 25), " He that findeth his life
shall lose it ; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall
find it." Matt. xix. 29 (Mark x. 29, 30 ; Luke xviii.
29, 30), " Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren,
or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or
lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundred fold, and
shall inherit everlasting life." With regard to such
passages it will be sufficient to remark that they can be
satisfactorily accepted as declaring a connection between
suffering and salvation, more especially as addressed to the
first professors of Christianity, without involving the
inference of a relation between them as of cause and
effect.

THE GOSPEL. 97
And so likewise of those passages in which a stress is
laid upon good works in reference to salvation; as
Matt. vii. 21 (24-27; Luke vi. 47-49; James i. 22),
" Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will
of my Father who is in heaven." Matt. xxv. 34-37,
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you from the foundation of the world : for I
was hungry, and ye gave me food," &c. John v. 28, 29,
"The hour is coming in the which all that are in the
grave  shall come forth, they that have done good,
unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done
evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Acts x. 35, " In
every nation he that  worketh righteousness is
accepted with him." 1 John it 17, "He that doeth the
will of God abideth for ever." The reference to works here
is upon the same principle as the reference to suffering in
the preceding list. Both are signs or fruits of a condition
to which salvation is annexed. In describing the end with
reference to the signs or fruits of the condition, instead of
the condition itself, God is only using that discretion which
is the groundwork of the whole divine revelation.
To the same category belong those passages in which a
certain character or qualification of the individual is predi
cated as conducive to the realization of the divine grace.
Such are, for example, Isa. Iv. 1, " Ho, every one that
thirsteth, come ye to the waters ; " Matt. v. 6, " Blessed'
are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness ; "
chap. xiii. 8, " Other [seed] fell into good ground, and
brought forth fruit ; " Eev. xxi. 6, " I will give unto him
that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."
The force of such passages as these in the argument here
rests upon the assumption that the character or qualification '

98 VEXED QUESTIONS.
alluded to is one the attainment of which is due to the in
dividual himself. This assumption is a purely arbitrary
one. The character or qualification in question, whether
regarded as before or after conversion, is the work of God,
essentially the Third Person of the Trinity — in the former
case, as the consummation of His office in the process of
vocation or calling, assigned to Him by our Lord in John
xvi. 8, convincing the world of righteousness ; in the latter
case, in the fulfilment of His part in the economy of the
covenant of grace, as pointed out in the third of these
Articles* Of a similar description in relation to the point at issue,
even yet apparently more direct, may be counted those
passages in which the duty or efficacy of personal exertion
is insisted upon as means to the end: as for example, Zech.
i. 3, " Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will
turn unto you ; " Matthew xi. 12 (Luke xvi. 16), " The
kingdom of heaven suffer eth violence, and the violent take
it by force ;" Luke xiii. 24, " Strive to enter in at the strait
gate ; " John vi. 27, "^Labour  for that meat which
endureth unto everlasting life." Salvation is a dealing of
God with man, in which man is the subject as well as the
object, the instrument as well as the end. However God
may work, it is by and through the man the work is carried
on. It is the man who is to turn, however he be turned ;
it is he that is to enter in, however the entrance be effected ;
and if to strive or to labour be included in the work, it is
the man that is to strive and labour, however he be quali
fied or sustained. And if he is to do these things, it is
necessary that he be told to do them. It is a part of the
means by which they are accomplished, and consequently
requires to be expressed, * Page 20.

THE GOSPEL. 99
Besides these, however, there are certain passages that
appear to require special consideration. Excluding, as. in
the analogous case of justification, those in which reference
is made to the works of the individual in relation to the
future life, in the sense, not of means of attaining, but as
affecting his status or condition in it ; * and confining
ourselves, as also in the same case, to, the Scriptures of the
new covenant, with which alone we have here any concern ;
we shall find, I conceive, but the following passages that are
strictly answerable to this description — " With what judg
ment ye judge, ye shall be judged " (Matt. vii. 2). The
judgment here alluded to is not that of God in the life to
come, but of men in this present life ; as is shown in the
fuller representation of St Luke vi. 37, 38, "Judge not, and
ye shall not be judged  give, and it shall be given
unto you ; good measure, pressed down, and shaken
together, and running over, shall they give into your bosom!'
" If thou wilt enter into that life, keep the command
ments " (Matt. xix. 17 ; Mark x. 19 ; Luke x. 26, xviii. 20).
This passage really belongs to the category of Old Testa
ment declarations. The statement, it will be observed, is
in answer to a question proposed. The party to whom it
(the answer) is addressed has made his application to the
Lord in the sense of the old covenant, the covenant of
works — " What good thing shall I do that I may have," or,
as in Mark and Luke, " inherit, the life eternal ? " and our
Lord answers him in the spirit of the same covenant. And
this answer was perfectly applicable at the" time it was
returned. For, as I have already explained,-f until our
Lord had completed His career upon earth, the covenant of
works in reality subsisted. When, however, the work of
* Page 62.
t Article ITL, p. 20.

ioo VEXED QUESTIONS.
redemption was accomplished, and the covenant of works
brought to a conclusion, the enjoyment of the inheritance
of eternal life upon the condition of that covenant, as a
matter of course, ceased ; and is now only to be sought for
upon the condition of the covenant of grace.
"Thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and
gathered where I have not strawed" (Matt. xxv. 26; Luke
xix. 22). This is not to be regarded as an expression of
the reality, but of the sentiments of the party addressed,
set forth in the preceding verse ; as appears from the
account in Luke — " Out of thine own mouth will I judge
thee." , " Know ye not that they who" run in a race-course run
all, but one receiveth the prize % So run that ye may
obtain. And every one that contendeth is temperate in
all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crowU ;
but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as
uncertainly ; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air :
but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection ;
lest that by any means, having heralded on others, I
myself should be disapproved " (1 Cor. ix. 24-27). This
passage has no application to the doctrine in dispute.
There is no allusion here to the exertions of men in
pursuance of the salvation of their own souls, the reference
being exclusively to the salvation of the souls of others ;
as the slightest consideration of the context will be
sufficient to demonstrate. The whole chapter is a descrip
tion of the apostle's exertions and proceedings in the
propagation of the gospel. Having stated in verse 17, that
" a dispensation of the gospel " had been committed to him,
which " woe " unto him if he did not carry out, willingly
or unwillingly, he proceeds to recount the various arts by
which he sought to accomplish the end in view; being

THE GOSPEL. 101
" made all things to all men," that he might " by all means
save some." " And this," he says, " I do for the gospel's
sake, that I may be a fellow-partaker of it "* — that is,
that he might have others saved by his means, to
participate with him in the enjoyment of its blessings ; a
style of expression analogous to that of the same apostle
in Eomans viii. 29, where he says that those whom God
" foreknew, he predestinated to be conformed to the image
of his Son, in order that he [Jesus] might be a first-born
among many brethren" — in 'other words, have many
brethren among whom He should be, as it were, a first
born. From this point the-apostleproceeds with the illustration
in the passage before us, referring to the competitors in the
public games ; and the question is, whether this illustration
is to be regarded as in continuation of the subject up to
that point exclusively contemplated — the apostle's exertions
in pursuance of the dispensation of the gospel committed
to him, having for their object the salvation of the souls- of
others; or, in a sudden reference to a new subject — the
exertions of individuals for the salvation* of themselves ?
And if this question is to be decided, as it only properly
can be, by the consistency of the illustration itself, there
will be neither difficulty nor doubt in determining the
answer. For surely the race of life, the career of men in
pursuance of the salvation of their souls, is in no sense or
respect answerable to the description of a course or contest
in which "men compete with one another ; least of all, a
race in which one only receives the prize ; while, on the
other hand, such a description is, in both particulars, per
fectly consistent with the career of gospel-preachers, in the
, * The words " with you " in the authorized version are arbitrarily
interpolated.

102 VEXED QUESTIONS.
execution of the task of gathering in the elect within thf^r.
reach of their ministration.
But the argument does t not end here. We have the
further evidence in the same behalf, of the use of the same
figure, of a crown, in the sense of the souls saved with
reference to those by whom their salvation has been accom
plished ; as in Isa. lxii. 3, " Thou "— Zion or Jerusalem,
by metonymy, the place for the people — " shalt be a crown
of glory in the hand of the Lord, even a royal diadem in
the hand of thy God." Again, Zech. vi. 11, " Take silver
and gold, and make [two] crowns "—representing the
Gentile and Jewish churches — " and set them upon
the head of Joshua" — the type of the Lord Jesus (cf. verses
12, 13, iii. 8-9).* And again, chap. ix. 16, " And the Lord
their God shall save them  for they shall be as the
stones of a crown." And once more, with special effect in
the argument before us, Eev. iii. 11, " Hold fast that thou
hast, that no man take thy crown " — a caution as unintel
ligible in relation to the crown of everlasting life, as it is
consistent with the reference to a church in the character
of a witness for Jesus Christ, as explained in the Article
upon the Church.-f- Above all, as if designedly to preclude

* The number of the "crowns," as well as their relation to the Jewish and
Qentile Churches, is, the former directly, the latter indirectly, indicated
in the concluding statement of verse 13 — "And he [Jesus, as in all the
previous clauses] shall be the counsel of peace between them both " — that
is, between the two crowns (the only grammatical antecedent), and so
conformable to the description of St Paul in Eph. ii. Ii, "He [Jesus] is
our peace, who hath made both [Jew and Gentile] one."
t See p. 40. Of the aptitude of the figure in question to the effect of this
latter quotation, the following extract from "Missionary Journals and
Letters " by Mr J. Tomlin, is a strikingly confirmative illustration. "Writ
ing from Singapore he says (p. 360), " No sooner had the London Missionary
Society abandoned by an express resolution that important station, than
the Americans came in, and more than supplied our places. The directors

THE GOSPEL. ictf
all misunderstanding upon the point, we have the apostle's
own testimony to this character of the " crown " in three
different places — Phil. iv. 1, "Therefore, my brethren, dearly
ieloved and longed for, my joy and crown." Again, 1 Thess,
ii. 19, " For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing ?
Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ
at his coming ? " And again, 2 Tim. ii. 5, " If a man strive
for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive
lawfully " — where the reference is avowedly to the same
subject. From all this it is evident that the purport of the
apostolic description in the passage before us, is the conduct
of himself and others in carrying out the purposes of God
in respect of the salvation of the elect ; as he expresses it
in immediate connection with the text last quoted,
" Therefore I endure all things for* the elect's sake, that
they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ
Jesus " (verse 10) : the crown or prize being (figuratively,
of course) the souls saved, counted to the credit of him by
whose instrumentality it should have been effected ; the
imaginary race or contest, the competition between himself
and those labouring in the same vocation, who, through
any remissness on his part, might supersede him in
the accomplishment of the task which was properly assign
able to himself. The consideration of the last clause of
the passage belongs to the second division of the subject,
which regards the security of the saved in the present life.
It will be enough here to remark that the word rendered
in the authorized version " a eastaway" is of a much milder
character, simply indicative of failure in obtaining the prize
for which he is supposed to have been contending.
of the L. M. S. now saw their error, when their crown was about to be
taken from them," &c.

104 VEXED QUESTIONS.
The next passage to which I have to refer, 2 Cor. iv. 17,
requires an amendment of the authorized version to render
it properly intelligible. Translated as literally as the
peculiarities of the Greek idiom will admit, it reads thus —
': Our transient light affliction worketh in us,* by excess
to excess, an eternal weight of glory." This relates, as,
indeed, it is expressly stated, not to the fact of salvation,
but to the glory consequent upon it ; and the manner in
which our present suffering conduces to the definition of
that glory, is by the contrast which it affords. The afflic
tion which we undergo in this- life enhances the glory to
be enjoyed in the life to come, without any alteration of
the glory itself, by simply increasing the difference between
them; just as the distance between two' points is increased
as much: by the removal of one of them backward as by
the removal of the other forward. This is what is implied
in the phrase " by excess- to excess " — i.e., by an excess in
one direction, the direction of suffering, to an excess in the
other. And this is wrought, not for us, as in the authorized
version, but in us ; we ourselves, in our affliction, being
the occasion of the difference. The attentive reader will
note the elaborate antithesis between the two parts of the
verse — the transient light affliction, of the former, and the
eternal weight of glory, in the latter.
To a less extent, but more essential effect, the next
passage with which we have to deal, Phil. i. 19, as
represented in our Bible, also requires amendment.
Properly rendered it stands thus — " For I know that this
shall turn to me for (or, unto) salvation ; " not, as in the
authorized version, to my salvation, but the salvation of
* KaTepy^eTai iip.lv ; as in Rom. vii. 13, "working death in me—
11.01 tcaTepya(op.<(vn ; 2 Cor. vii. 11, " what carefulness it wrought m you ''
— Ka.Tnpy6.ffa.T0 vpAV.

THE GOSPEL. 105
others ; the relation to himself, indicated in the pronoun,
having respect to the share which his bondage is stated to
have had in determining the preaching of the gospel. The
sense here advocated is, in the first place, strictly accordant
with the use of the same expressions in other places ; as
exemplified in the case of the latter of the two concerned
— for or unto salvation, with reference to others — in Acts
xiii. 47, " That thou shouldest be for u salvation unto the
end of the earth ; " Eom. i. 16, " The gospel  is the
power of God for salvation to every one that believeth ; "
Heb. ix. 28, " Unto them that look for him shall he appear
the second time without sin unto salvation." And so, in
the case of the former of the two phrases — this shall turn
to me, in the sense of an, event or occasion for the benefit
of others — in Luke xxi. 13, where our Lord, speaking to
His disciples of their being " brought before kings and
rulers for his name's sake," says, " It shall turn_ to
you for a testimony ; " the meaning. of which, in the sense
of an occasion for testifying, is signified in the succeeding
verses — " Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate
before what ye shall answer : for I will give you a mouth
and wisdom," &c. — as well as directly declared in the par
allel accounts of Matt. x. 18j and Mark xiii. 9, " And ye
shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake,
for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles."
And that this is the sense here intended, further appears
from the tenor of the whole chapter — " But I would ye
should understand, brethren> that the things which
happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the further
ance of the gospel ; so that my bonds "—i.e., the effects of
them — " are manifest in Christ in all the palace, and in all
the other places ; and many of the brethren in the Lord,
waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to

106 VEXED QUESTIONS.
speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ
even of envy and strife ; but some also of good will 
What then? Notwithstanding, every way, whether in
pretence or in truth, Christ is preached ; and I herein do
rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. For I know that this
[preaching of Christ on my account] shall turn to me for
salvation  according to my earnest expectation and
hope, that in nothing I shall be shamed, but with all
boldness, as always, so now also, Christ shall be
magnified" — i.e., enlarged (cf. 2 Cor. x. 15) '" by means of
my body,* whether by life or by death " — " Christ " being
here predicated im the sense of His body, the church (cf. Eom.
xii. 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12, 27 ; GaL iii. 16 ; Eph. i. 23, iv. 12 ;
Col. i. 24). But enough, and more than enough, I submit,
has been said to justify the above, or, indeed, any rational,
explanation of the passage ; considering the impossibility
of accepting it in the sense of the authorized version. For
I can hardly imagine that any one could possibly believe
that St Paul had intended to declare that the preaching of
Christ by others, with whatever motive, eould really be
effectual to his salvation.
Another passage from the same epistle, commonly
quoted to the ^same effeet, is chap. ii. 12, rendered in the
authorized version, "Work out your own salvation with
fear and trembling." Had the translators of our Bible not
departed from their usual rendering of the verb in the
original, Karepyd^ecrde, from Karepyd^ofiai, I work, by the
uncalled for addition of the particle out, there would have
been nothing to object to in this version of the passage,
nor any occasion to include it under the present head. It
would, at least, have been in accordance with the proper
* 'Ec np aiparri pov ; as in Matt. ix. 34, " by means of the prince of the
daemons;" and xiii. 3, " by means of parables."

THE GOSPEL. 107
sense of the term ; however another form of expression
might have been preferred. As it is, and considering that
the whole force of the argument in support of which it is
adduced, depends upon the ' meaning of this word in the
sense of accomplishing something yet future — to viork out,
as that phrase is liable (though not of necessity*) to be
understood, it is requisite to observe that such a sense is
wholly inadmissible, as contrary alike to the etymological
construction of the term, and its actual usage in every
other place in which it is employed. The primitive and
proper sense of the word, as determined by both these
criteria, is that of acting upon, or dealing with, something
pre-existent, or doing something at once, the thing done
being directly produced by the action itself at the time.
This sense it has in common with the simpler form,
ipjd^ofiai, of which, with the preposition /eara, (probably
intensitive) it is compounded ; as shown in such expres
sions as 1 Cor. ix. 13, 01 to, lepa, epyatfifievoi, " they which
minister about holy things," literally, working the holy
things, or the things of the temple ; and Eev. xviii. 17,
oaot, ttjv OdXaaaav ipya^ovrm, " as many as trade by sea,"
literally, work the sea.
And such precisely will be found to be the meaning of
the compound term wherever it occurs, both in the New
Testament and the Greek version of the Old ; as, with the
aid of a few explanatory remarks, may be seen in the
following list of all the passages in question — vis., Eom. i.
27, " Working unseemliness " — not that which is unseemly,
as in the authorized version, but the principle existent in
the individual.
* To work out is an idiomatic expression in English with reference to
the past. Thus a poor man, when he undertakes to make a repayment in
labour for a pecuniary favour previously bestowed, is said to work it out.

ioS VEXED QUESTIONS.
Chap. ii. 9, "Tribulation  upon every soul of
man that doeth [properly worketh] evil" — i.e., not evil acts,
but the abstract principle of evil.
Chap. iv. 15, "Because the law worketh wrath" — i.e.,
exerciseth, or giveth occasion for the exercise of, the wrath
of God.
Chap. v. 3, " Knowing that tribulation worketh patience "
— see on chap. i. 27 and iv. 15.
Chap. vii. 8, " Sin  wrought in me all manner of
concupiscence " — see on chap. iv. 15..
Verse 13, " Sin  working, death in me " — i.e., in
a present sense, as. is evident from, the expression " in me."
Death is here put for the cause of death.
Verses 15-20, " For that which I do I allow not 
Now then it is no more I that do it  How to
perform that which is good I find not  It is no
more I that do it" ..... . Chap. xv. 18, " Which Christ
hath not wrought by me "  1 Cor. v. 3, " Concern
ing him that hath so done this deed." In all these passages
the immediate consequence of the end upon the means—in
other words, the completion of the transaction at once in
the act itself — is too obvious to require explanation.
2 Cor. iv. 17, "Our transient light affliction worketh
in us  an eternal weight of glory." The operation
here is upon, or in us, in the present life, " while we are
looking, not at the things which are seen."
Chap. v. 5, " Now he that hath wrought us for the self
same thing " — see on Eom. vii. 15-20, &c.
Chap. vii. 10, " Godly sorrow worketh repentance
 the sorrow of the world worketh death" — see
on Eom. i. 27, iv. 15, and vii. 13.
Verse 11, "What carefulness it wrought"  Chap.
ix. 11, " Which causeth through us thanksgiving to God "

THE GOSPEL. 109
 chap. xii. 12, " Truly the signs of an apostle were
wrought among you "  Eph. vi. 13, " And having
done all, to stand" — see on Eom. vii. 15-20, &c.
James i. 3, " The trying of your faith worketh patience "
— see on Eom. v. 3.
Lastly, 1 Pet. iv. 3, " The time past of our life may
suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles " — see
on Eom. vii. 15-20, &c.
In the Greek version of the LXX the word occurs, as
a verb, in eight places certain, and in two doubtful, besides
thrice in the substantive form ; in not one of which has the
passage, or could it have been, rendered in terms which
would admit of the construction in dispute, as may be
seen from the note below.*
With this understanding of the term, the passage in
question sets before us a salvation already attained ; and
the clause might be fairly rendered, " Exercise, work, or do
the works of, or belonging to, your own salvation ; " bearing
in mind, that salvation has duties and privileges, in the
exercise of which the individual is glorifying God, and pro
moting his own spiritual welfare. And this construction,
as it is most agreeable to the natural sense of the terms, so
is it alone consistent with the context, as displayed in the
succeeding statement — "For it is God who worketh in
* Exod. xxx. 16, " For the service of the tabernacle. " Chap. xxxv. 21,
"And for all its service." Verse 33, "In carving of wood." Chap.
xxxviii. 24, "The gold that was occupied for the, work." Num. vi. 3,
"Neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes" — i.e., according to the
Greek, anything wrought from the grape. Deut. xxviii. 39, "Thou shalt
plant vineyards, and dress them:" Judges xvi. 16, "when she pressed
him daily with her words." 1 Kings vi. 36, "A row of cedar beams"—
following the Greek, wrought cedar. 1 Chron. xxviii. 19, " The works of
this pattern " — in the Greek, the working of this pattern. Ezek. xxxiv.
4, "with force and cruelty ye have ruled them" — according to the Greek,
wearied with labour. Chap, xxxvi. 9, "ye shall be tilled."

no VEXED QUESTIONS.
you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." How
this could be understood as a reason, either for a man's
saving himself, or for his doing it especially " with fear and
trembling,'' it is not easy to perceive. As a ground for
doing his duty of service and gratitude to God, it is
perfectly intelligible ; while for the consistency of that
service and gratitude with the sentiments assigned, we have
the authority of the Scripture from which, in all probability,
' the expression itself has been borrowed — " Serve the Lord
with fear ; and rejoice before him with trembling " (Ps. ii.
11). " Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine : con
tinue in them ; for in doing this thou shall save both
thyself and them that hear thee " (1 Tim. iv. 16). This
passage is strictly a declaration of salvation by faith, and
not by works. Timothy is told to take heed to himself and
to his teaching, with reference, of course, to the principles
of the Christian faith. The injunction to "continue in
them '' is tantamount to a direction to abide in the faith
himself, and cherish that faith in others, whereby alone he
or they could be saved. The bearing of this injunction of
continuance, as a condition of salvation, belongs to the
second of the two propositions into which our subject is
divided ; under which head it will be duly considered.
" Charge them that are rich in the present world, not to
be high-minded, nor to trust in uncertain riches, but in the
living God  to do good ; to be rich in good works ;
to be ready to distribute ; willing to communicate ; laying
up for themselves a good foundation for the time to come,
that they may lay hold on the true* life " (1 Tim. vi. 17).
The " true life " here spoken of, is in a present, not a future,
sense ; and stands contrasted with the " present world " or
* Amended text.

THE GOSPEL. in
life, in the first verse, as indicated by the definite article.
The manner in which the conduct enjoined conduces to the
laying hold of the true life is sufficiently explained in the
disposition it engenders to disregard the pleasures and
advantages of the present one.
But one more passage needs consideration under this
head; and that, only in respect of its appearance in the
authorized version, and textus receptus. I allude to Eev, xxii.
14, " Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they
may have a right to the tree of life." In all the amended edi
tions of the text the former part of this passage reads,
"Blessed are they who wash their robes;" with obvious
allusion to the condition described in chap. vii. 14.
And now that we have, satisfactorily, I trust, accom
plished the object proposed under the first head of our
present investigation — the establishment of the fact, that
salvation is a matter of grace or gift, wholly irrespective of
the works, or moral conduct of the individual — two import
ant conclusions present themselves for our consideration as
arising immediately, and by necessary inference, from the
case itself as thus far ascertained. The first of these is,
that' salvation is a condition in the attainment of which the
sinner is entirely passive. He can do nothing whatever to
acquire or to secure it. Anything he might attempt with
that design, whether in the way of conduct or of prayer,
would ipso facto assume the character of a work ; and as
such determine its own exclusion from the category of means.
Salvation, being in the nature of a gift, can only be received
or rejected. Man may pray for it, and labour for it : and
so he ought ; for in so doing he is cultivating that state of
mind which is the most favourable to its reception. But
neither the labour nor the prayer will constitute any part

ii2 VEXED QUESTIONS.
of the means by which it will have been obtained. This
follows, not only from the nature of the case as above re
presented ; but from the character of the divine dealing in
respect of it. Salvation is not only freely given, but
persistently offered. It cannot be solicited any more than
it can be earned. It is not left to be sought for. It
is itself in search of acceptance, through the operation of
the Holy Spirit, from the beginning of life, before the in
dividual has had the power to comprehend or to seek for it ;
and nothing remains for him but to receive — i.e., to believe
it. " Behold, I stand at the door and knock " (Eev.
iii. 20), is the expression of the Lord's dealing with the un
converted. It is to His disciples that He says, " Knock and
it shall be opened unto you " (Matt. vii. 7).*
The other important conclusion to which I have adverted
as following immediately from the character of salvation as
a gift, is the obstacle to its realization, amounting to
insuperable, in the simple neglect of this.characteristic. If
salvation be, as we see it is, a pure emanation from the
grace of God, to consider it in any other light cannot but
be in the highest degree offensive to the Being by whom it
is offered: and utterly inconsistent with the supposition of
its being bestowed. This is no more than what every one
would recognize as just and reasonable in a matter of
similar dealing between man and man. If any one of
ourselves, moved to compassion by a tale of unusual
distress, were to approach the sufferer with an offer of
gratuitous assistance equal to the requirements of his case,
* This limitation (of the discourse including the passage here quoted) '
exclusively to the disciples, almost universally overlooked, is not only
implied in the nature of the statements it contains, but virtually asserted
in the introductory verses of the chapter— " And seeing the multitudes, he
went up into a mountain : and when he was seated, his disciples came
unto him," &c. (cf. chap. xiii. 2 ; Mark iii. 13).

THE GOSPEL. 113
but by some means to discover that the party in question
was possessed with the idea that the offer, however liberally
expressed, was made with a mercenary motive, either in
expectation of something to be done in return, or as
a remuneration for some imaginary service previously
rendered ; should we not feel ourselves justified, or rather
bound, to withhold the proferred boon until he should have
been brought to regard it in its proper light ; or, failing
that condition, to withhold it altogether? And such is
precisely the case as between God and man in the matter
of salvation — the supposition of any condition is a bar, and
the only one, to its realization. There is, in short, but one
condition really essential to salvation — namely, that it be
understood to be unconditional.
And herein, be it observed, is the ground and explana
tion of that character, of illiberality, which is wont to be
charged upon what is called the evangelical party by that
which is called the Arminian — that, whereas the latter are
ready to concede to the former the possibility of being
saved in conformity with their own doctrines, the former
are unable' to reciprocate the concession in favour of the
latter. For the works, upon which the Arminian insists as
co-essential with the faith unto salvation, are, by his own
admission, quite as predicable of the evangelical, with,
certainly, no disparagement from the principle upon which ,
they are performed; while the faith of the Arminian, in
which is included the co-essentiality of works, is, by that
very qualification, in the estimation of the evangelical,
disqualified for the purpose it is intended to subserve.
II. I now pass on to the second of the two propositions
involved in the definition of the Gospel I have undertaken
to defend — namely, that salvation is a condition virtuallyH

114 VEXED QUESTIONS.
realized during, the present life ; in respect of which the
first thing that strikes us is its natural dependence upon
the proposition upon which we have hitherto been engaged.
If salvation be, as we have just concluded, "by grace
through faith" it must be realized in the present life, to
which the attribute of faith, in reference to salvation,
exclusively belongs. "Faith," as St Paul says, "is the
evidence of things not seen " (Heb. xi. 1) ; and consequently
ceases to subsist when the things themselves come to be
realized, and we shall walk, not by faith, but by sight (cf.
2 Cor. v. 7).
But there is more in this conclusion than the mere fact,
that salvation is secured to the believer during the present
life : there is the further consequence, of the assurance of
that fact, the consciousness of that security in the mind of
him by whom it is realized. To be saved through faith
implies the belief of being saved ; which will be more or less
strong according as the individual is enabled to realize
those fruits which are the proper evidence of the faith and,
consequently, of the salvation by which it is accompanied.
Such a consciousness is, in fact, essential to the character
of the covenant of grace ; as well as to the operation of the
faith by which the sinner is justified and sanctified. " The
kingdom of God," we are told, " is  peace and joy in
the Holy Ghost "* (Eom. xiv. 17). " The fruit of the Spirit
* A late popular writer and dignitary of the church, of so-called broad
church principles, relying upon the absence of -the article, renders this '
clause of the above passage, "joy in a holy spirit." The phrase occurs
elsewhere in the Greek Scriptures forty -nine times without the article ;
and in every instance is rendered in the authorized version "the Holy
Ghost." Perhaps the practice is common to the school, as I perceive the
same rendering by the author of JEcce Homo (p. 7) in the case of the
Baptist's description of the work of our Lord in Matt. iii. 11, (Mark i. 8,
&c.) — " Christ was to baptize with a holy spirit and with fire."

THE GOSPEL.

"5

is  joy, peace," &c. (Gal. v. 22). "God 
who hath  given us everlasting consolation ....;>
through grace " (2 Thes. ii. 16).. But where would be the
joy, or the peace, or the comfort of a mere assurance of the
certainty of salvation in the abstract, without the assurance
to the individual of his being certain to obtain it ? And
what influence or effect could faith be supposed to exerc
upon the life and conduct of those who have not realized
its application to themselves ? Accordingly, to this effect
we have the direct testimony of the Scriptures ; as in Eom.
viii. 16, " The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit
that we are children of God." 2 Cor. v. 1, " We know that
if this our earthly house of the tabernacle were dissolved,
we have a building of God  eternal in the heavens."
1 Pet i. 8, " In whom  believing, ye rejoice with joy
unspeakable and full of glory " — i.e., redolent of the condi
tion hereafter to be attained. 1 John iii 14, " We know
that we have passed from death unto life, because we love
the brethren." Verse 19, " Hereby we know that we are of
the truth." Chap. v. 10, " He that believeth on the Son
of God hath the witness in himself." And lastly, verse 13,
" These things have I written unto you that believe on the
name of the Son of God, that, ye may know that ye have
eternal life."
Looking to the conventional ground of objection to the
doctrine implied in the proposition before us — namely, the
immunity from falling which it is seen to involve — the
only argument in answer to the conclusion here arrived at
that I can imagine to be suggested, is with reference to the
time of its accomplishment, whether it might not have
regard to the actual or approximate termination of the
earthly career, when the opportunity or possibility of fall
ing shall have passed away. Such a mode of explanation

116 VEXED QUESTIONS.
is, of course, founded upon the hypothesis of a salvation
dependent upon the individual himself ; the fallacy of
which I am bound to assume established in the former part
of this Article. But, waiving this consideration, and sup
posing salvation to be realized in this life, but only, as it
were, in articulo mortis, to be carried out in the life to
come, it would fail to put the case upon a whit more
reasonable a footing, in accordance with the principles of
the party by whom it is advocated, than it occupies in the
proposition which is the subject of dispute. It would
merely have the effect of transferring the obnoxious condi
tion from one stage of existence to another ; with no better
grounds for its justification. If it be admissible for a man
to be exempted from the possibility of falling in the future
life, where the possibility of falling, in the abstract, is
equally predicable (cf. Job iv. 18, xv. 15 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4 ;
Jude 6) ; why should it not be so in the present
life, when his spiritual existence has been renewed, and
his period of sinful responsibility concluded by an identifi
cation through faith with Him who is, as much now as ever
He will be, his " strength " and his " redeemer "?
Other considerations incidental to the doctrine of a sal
vation unaccomplished in this life, and consequently
unassured, suggest themselves ; constituting so many argu
ments a priori in favour of the contrasted view of the case.
Prominent among these is the depreciation of the love of
God in Christ Jesus which is the mainspring of the Christian
life, the spirit which animates the whole moral machinery,
and gives effect to all its operations. That this charge is
well-founded might fairly be inferred from the nature of
the case— the view which it presents of the work of
Christ in our behalf, as compared with that which attaches
to the doctrine of a salvation at once present and complete.

THE GOSPEL. 117
But we are not left to mere inference. We have the posi
tive testimony of our Lord himself to the effect in question
in the parable of the two debtors, and its application to the
cases respectively of Simon the Pharisee and the " woman
which was a sinner " (Luke vii. 36-47) ; in which the
measure of the love we bear to God is clearly laid down in
the sense which we entertain of what He has done for us.
To whom most has been forgiven, the same is declared to
love most ; and, on the other hand, " to whom little is
forgiven, the same," it is added, " loveth little." Who,
with this criterion in view, can hesitate to admit, or fail to
appreciate, the difference between the love of those who
believe that they have actually been saved with " an
everlasting salvation," and of those who believe that
nothing more has been done for them than, at the most, to
put them in the way of attaining it V
And if such a depreciation of the love of God in Jesus
Christ be a necessary consequence of the doctrine of a
deferred or unassured salvation, as compared with that of
a salvation present and complete; we have ipso facto
ground for the imputation of another objection to the same
doctrine of no less significance, in the effect it must have
upon the life of the individual in the service of God in
regard of his works, whether of charity or devotion. The
life or conduct of a man in relation to God is naturally
determined by the share which God occupies in his affec-,
tions. Both the quantity and the quality of his service —
in other words, the number and acceptability of his works —
will be proportioned to the love by which they are inspired.
How this criterion is exemplified in the case of the con
trasted doctrines of a deferred or indeterminate salvation
and one immediate and complete, has just been pointed
out. To the same effect we have now to add the conduct,

n8 VEXED QUESTIONS.
life, or works of the parties by whom respectively those
doctrines are professed. As they love most, for whom most
has been done ; so they for whom most has been done
will live most to the service of God.
Another, and yet more formidable, objection to the
doctrine of a deferred and consequently unassured salvation
is the inconsistency of its acceptance with the tranquil
endurance of life in the exercise of the reflective powers.
For what is the doctrine but the expression of a conviction
on the part of the individual by whom it is professed, that
, it is a matter of uncertainty, so far as he himself is con
cerned, whether his condition throughout eternity shall be
one of weal or of woe — whether, in short, if he were to die
at that very moment, or in however short a space after, he
should go to' heaven or to hell for the endless residue of his
existence ? And is it possible that any one could really
believe this, and endure the burthen of life in any state at
all short of absolute distraction ? If the uncertainty only
regarded a merely temporal catastrophe — such as the
explosion of a mine at a particular time when he should
have to pass over the spot, but without certain conscious
ness of the exact moment it would be fired ; so that the
chances were at least equal whether he would escape or be
blown into the air — is it credible that he should continue,
during the intervening days, or months, or years, to perform
the ordinary functions of his life with unaffected calmness
and indifference? Or if he did, could we rationally
come to any other conclusion, than that he did not really
believe that such a catastrophe was impending ? And if
this be a fair representation of the case in respect of an
event of merely temporal concern, how should it be other
wise where the issue is one, not of this life, but of the life
to come— not one of time, but of eternity ? I am quite

THE GOSPEL. n9
aware of the strangeness and magnitude of the conclusion
which this view of the case, taken in connection with the
actual experience of the world, necessarily involves —
namely, the charge of absolute infidelity, or virtual atheism,
in the case of a very large proportion of the professing
Christian community ; for certainly the alternative condi
tion, of a life of distraction, cannot be predicated of the
great body of those by whom the doctrine in question is
avowedly entertained. But this is no argument against
the correctness of the conclusion itself. It merely furnishes
another exemplification of what has already been insisted
upon — viz., the possible co-existence of an actual disbelief
with the most intimate conviction of a belief, only to be
discriminated by its appropriate effects* — in the present
case, the life of distraction, which our common sense
alone is sufficient to convince us must accompany a real
belief of the doctrine in dispute.
It is not, however, upon reasoning of this description
that we have to rely for the establishment of the proposi
tion before us, but upon the testimony of the divine word ;
which testimony we have, indeed, in such profusion that
our chief concern is to reduce it within reasonable com
pass. The fact is, the assurance of a salvation present and
complete is so intimately interwoven in the texture of the
New Testament Scriptures, that such, I venture to say, is
the conclusion which would naturally follow from a simple
perusal of them, unaffected by any critical considerations :
and it is only when the attention becomes directed to
certain passages of an apparently adverse construction,^-
* Article on Faith and Works, p. 57.
t I allude here to the versions of the Scriptures and unamended text ;
not to the Scriptures themselves, which are in nowise responsible for the
representations by which their meaning is liable to be perverted or
obscured.

120 VEXED QUESTIONS.
that the possibility of a question arises, in which the
general body of the Scriptures are arrayed on one side,
and the passages referred to on the other.
Nevertheless as it is upon the ground of special testimony
the doctrine is contested, so it is by the adduction of
special testimony, coupled with the rectification of the'mis-
constructions by which it is assailed, that it must be
defended. And both these requirements I shall now
endeavour to satisfy with as much conciseness as the
exigencies of a clear understanding of the argument will
admit ; confining myself, on the positive side of the question,
to a mere selection of those passages in which the point at
issue is most strikingly confirmed. Thus, John iii 36 (vi.
47), " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life."
Chap. v. 24, " He that  believeth on him that sent
me, hath everlasting life, and cometh not into judgment,
but hath passed out of death into life." Chap. vi. 54,
" Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood " — which
we all understand of the receiving of Him by faith — " hath
eternal life." Chap. x. 27, 28, " My sheep hear my
voice " — this is, of course, predicated of them in the flesh —
" and I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never
perish." 1 John v. 12, 13, " He that hath the Son hath
the life " — that is, the " eternal life " mentioned in the
preceding verse, and repeated in the verse following —
" These things have I written unto you, that ye may know
that ye have the eternal life." It is scarcely necessary to
remark that the " life " predicated in all these passages an
the present tense, is the everlasting one ; which, of course, it
would not have been if it were ever lost. John xvii 22i
" The glory which thou hast given me I have given
them " — that is, not them only there present, but all who
had believed in Him through their word (cf. verse 20), to be

THE GOSPEL. 121
realized, of course, in the world to come. Eom. v. 9, 10,
" Much more then, having been justified now by his blood,
we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if when
we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death
of his Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be
saved by his life." Chap. vi. 22, " But now having been
freed from sin, but become servants unto God, ye have
 the end, everlasting life." Chap. viii. 38, 39, " I
am persuaded " — in the original this implies nothing short
of an authoritative declaration — " that neither death
 nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us
from the love of God." Eph. ii. 5, 8, " By grace ye have
been saved. Chap. iv. 30, " And grieve not the Holy Spirit
of God, by whom ye were sealed unto the day of redemption "
— i.e., " the redemption of our body " (Eom. viii. 23) ; in
other words, the resurrection, the conclusion of the present
dispensation. Phil, i 6, " Being confident " — the same
word above rendered persuaded — " of this one thing, that
he who hath begun a good work in you will perfect it unto
the day of Jesus Christ." Col. iii. 3, 4, " For ye died, and
your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is
our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in
glory." 2 Thes. iii. 3, " The Lord is faithful, who shall
establish you, and keep you from the evil" [one]. 2 Tim. i.
8, 9, "According to the power of God, who hath saved us. "
Verse 12, " I know whom I have trusted, and am persuaded
[see above on Eom. viii. 38] that he is able [we take for
granted that He is willing] to keep that which I have
committed unto him against that day." Chap. iv. 8,
" Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteous
ness, which the Lord  shall give me at that day."
Verse 18, " The Lord shall deliver me from every evil
work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom."

122 VEXED QUESTIONS.
Tit. iii. 5, " According to his mercy he saved us" Heb. iv.
¦3, " We who have believed, do enter into that rest." Chap.
x. 34, " Knowing that ye have in heaven a better 
substance." 1 Pet. i 8, 9, " In whom  believing,
ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory, receiving
the end of your faith, the salvation of your souls." Chap.
v. 1, " The elders who are among you I exhort, who am
 a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed."
Such are a few of the scriptural authorities by which the
doctrine of a salvation present and complete is most strik
ingly attested. It remains, in defence of this doctrine, to
take account of those passages which are generally referred
to upon the opposite side of the question. Of this descrip
tion are (to begin with) those in which faith itself, the in
strumental means of salvation, is said to be represented as
liable to the charge of insecurity ; and which may be, for
the most part, disposed of under one and the same head,
as having regard, not to the faith here alone contemplated,
but either to a faith in other articles than those by which
the sinner is justified ; or else to the articles themselves in
the abstract, without reference to their being believed ; both
conditions equally signified under the same term, as I have
recently had occasion to point out.* This will appear at
once from a simple consideration of the passages ; due
regard being had to the definite article, . the influence of
which in the determination of the latter sense has before
been noticed.f Thus Col. i. 22, 23, " To present you
unblameable and unreproveable in his sight, if ye continue
in the faith." 1 Thes. iii. 5, " I sent to know your faith,"
and verse 10, " that we  might perfect that which
was lacking in your faith." 1 Tim. i. 19, " Holding
* Article upon Faith and Works, p. 71 .
t See last note.

THE GOSPEL. 123
 a good conscience ; which some having put away,
concerning the faith have made shipwreck." Chap. iv. 1,
" In the latter times some shall depart from the faith."
Chap. v. 12, " Having condemnation because they cast off
the first faith." Chap. vi. 10, " A root of all the evils is the
love of money ; which some earnestly coveting have
wandered from the faith." 2 Tim. ii 18, " Who concerning
the truth have erred . . . and subvert the faith of some."
Chap. iii. 8, " Eeprobate concerning the faith." James ii.
14, " Can the faith save him ?"
Besides these passages there are but three that appear to
require notice under this head. In Luke xxii. 32, our
Lord, it is observed, prays for the faith of Peter, that
it " fail not ;" from which the moral possibility of such a
contingency is not unreasonably inferred. This, however,
is no impeachment of the doctrine in dispute. It is only
an illustration of the principle upon which it is based.
The characteristic of infallibility is not presumed to attach
to faith, or any attribute, by virtue of a power inherent in
the thing itself ; but of a divine influence determining the
result, the exercise of which is secured by the covenant
promises of God. Without this influence the faith of Peter
not only might, but most probably would, have failed.
Another of the passages referred to in the same behalf is
Eom. xi 20, " Thou standest by faith; be not high minded,
but fear." This is spoken exclusively of the Gentiles in
their national character, as ingrafted into the church ; the
precariousness of which condition has no relation to
the durability of the faith of individuals, but only to the
character of the succession. A nation, like a church, locally
considered, might apostatize from the faith, without invol
ving a change of faith in any particular person, by the
simple course of events — the growing up in error of succeed-

124 VEXED QUESTIONS.
ing generations upon the removal through death of those by
whom the true faith was originally maintained; as I have
pointed out at large in the Article upon the Church.*
The third of the passages in question, 1 Cor. xv. 2, is
objectionable only as regarded in the authorized version —
" unless ye have believed in vain " — where the word
rendered " in vain," el/cij, means properly without grounds
or cause, as in Matt. v. 22, " Whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause; " the ground or cause, here referred
to, being the resurrection of Jesus Christ, upon which the
argument of the apostle in support of the truth of
Christianity in the first instance, and secondarily of our
resurrection, is founded ; as just before expressly stated —
" If ye bear in mind upon what ground'f I preached unto
you ; unless ye have believed without ground " — in other
words, unless the fact upon which your faith is founded be
a fallacy (cf. verses 11, 13-17).
Another class of passages liable to be quoted in
contravention of the doctrine of a salvation present
and complete, has regard to the various exhortations
to continuance in the state of grace, and intimations of
conditionality connected therewith, which, for the most
part, may be , considered under one and the same head.
Thus John xv. 4, "Abide in me ;" verse 10, " If ye keep
my commandments, ye shall abide in my love ;" Acts
xiii. 43, " Many of the Jews and religious proselytes
followed Paul and Barnabas, who  persuaded them
to continue in the grace of God " — i.e., in the doctrines of
the covenant of grace, in contradistinction to the law ; 1
John ii. 24, " If that which ye have heard from the begin
ning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son and in
* Page 41.
+ Tfxi \6y<p cf. Acts x. 29.

THE GOSPEL.

125

the Father." Perseverance in any state essential to salva
tion, follows, not from any act of grace in se, but from the
operation of the Spirit of God, secured to the believer only
by virtue of a covenant promise to that effect ; as I have
just remarked with reference to faith, in the case of Peter.
Now, the manner in which the Holy Spirit operates to the
effect in question is by a moral force, the force of argument
or persuasion ; of which the manifestation of the effects
are through and by the parties operated upon. There is,
therefore, co-operation ; not the less definite that it is se
cured. The man must believe, though he be persuaded to
believe ; lie must persevere, however the perseverance be
effectuated. And if he must do these things, it is a natural
preliminary that he be told to do them. And so
likewise he must be told the consequences of not doing
them, as moral incentives to "moral action. The instruc
tions and warnings are essential parts of the means by
which the end is accomplished.
The next passage to be noticed here is 1 Cor. ix. 27, the
imperfect rendering of which in the authorized version I
have already alluded to.* Properly translated it reads as
follows :— " I keep under my body, and bring it into sub
jection; lest that by any means, having heralded on others,
I myself should be disapproved" — oBoki/uk, from a, not,
andj 86/cLfios, approved; this latter, the word commonly
used to distinguish the person who has come off victorious
in the public games ; of which we have an example in
James i 12, " Happy is the man that endureth temptation ;
for, having been approved — SotcipM? — he shall receive the
crown." The effect of the contrary expression in the text
before us is therefore, merely to indicate the party referred
to as unsuccessful in attaining the object for which he is
* See p. 103.

126 VEXED QUESTIONS.
supposed to have been contending. Having already
shown that this has regard, not to the salvation of his own
soul, but to the salvation of the souls of others, nothing
more is necessary to relieve the passage from all liability
to the charge in question.
" Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed
lest he fall" (1 Cor. x. 12). The contrast here between
standing and falling is equally well understood with
reference to conduct as to position. Should it, however, be
explained in the latter sense, it is to be remembered that
the caution is addressed to those who are standing only in
their own conceit.
A ground of objection to. the doctrine in dispute is
apparently afforded in 2 Cor. vi. 1 ; wherein, according to
the authorized version, St Paul exhorts the members of the
church at Corinth " not to receive the grace of God in
vain." The passage, however, is imperfectly represented.
It is not addressed to the Corinthian Church at all ; it is
part of a description of the manner in which the apostles in
general executed the office of ambassadors for Christ,
carried on from the preceding chapter ; the pronoun you,
by which the reference to the Corinthians is determined
throughout, being interpolated in the English translation-
in the three places indicated by italics. Eelieved from
these redundancies, and slightly amended in other respects,
the whole account, commencing with chap. v. 19, is fairly
represented in the following terms : — " Wherefore, as *
God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not
imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed
unto us the word of the reconciliation, therefore we are
ambassadors for Christ. As though God did beseech by
* The rendering here is according to Hoogeveen, "DoctrinaParticularum,''
p. 111.

THE GOSPEL. 127
us, we pray in Christ's stead, ' Be reconciled to God ; for he
made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him.' Working
together, moreover, we beseech, ' That ye receive not the
grace of God in vain ; for he saith, In an acceptable time I
heard thee, and in a day of salvation I succoured thee ;
behold, now is an acceptable time, now is a day of salva
tion * ; [we ourselves] * giving no offence in anything, that
the ministration be not blamed." It is only necessary to
add that the " grace of God " in the apostolic exhortation
means, of course, the offer of the grace ; which to receive
" in vain " is simply to reject.
" Whosoever of you(are justified by the law ; ye are fallen
from grace " (GaL v. 4). The expression of "grace " here is
in the sense of the covenant of grace, the gospel, as opposed
to the law. The statement is wholly hypothetical. " No
man," the apostle has just said (chap. iii. 11), "is justified
by the law." But for the purpose of confirming the
doctrine he is inculcating — the inconsistency of a recurrence
to the provisions of the law with a dependence upon the
covenant of grace — he admits the supposition, only to ex
pose more forcibly the inconsistency in question. They
emld not be justified by the law ; and if they were, they
would not be under the covenant of grace.
Another passage relied on in the same behalf is Phil. iii.
8-14, in which St Paul is said to represent his own salva
tion as a matter undecided during the continuance of his
career in the flesh. This effect is an inference from a mis-
* These words are here interpolated in order to compensate the inability
of the English language to determine grammatically the case of the
following participle ; which, being in the nominative, refers, not to the
parties addressed, but to the apostles as fellow-workers to the effect
described ; and thus establishes the character of the whole passage in the
sense above assigned.

128 VEXED QUESTIONS.
taken view of the apostle's meaning in the passage all
throughout ; which is, not to illustrate the doctrine of sal
vation, but to set forth a rule of life for those who are
already saved (see verse 15), the principle of which is, to
act as if their salvation depended upon their own exertions.
This will, I conceive, be sufficiently clear upon a simple
perusal of the passage itself, slightly amended from the
authorized version — " Yea, doubtless, and I count all things
to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ
Jesus, my Lord ; for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things, and do count them as refuse that I might gain
Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righte
ousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith
[the excellency, I say] of having known him,* and
the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of his
sufferings ; being made conformable unto his death, if by
any means I might attain to the resurrection from among
the dead. Not as though I had already apprehended, or
have been already perfected ; but I press forward if so be
that I might apprehend that for which I was even appre
hended of Christ. Brethren, I do not count myself to have
apprehended.f But one thing I do; forgetting those
things which are behind, and stretching forth to those
* ToO yvavai avThv. The reference of the article in the genitive case is
evidently to "the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus" in the
verse but one before ; which reference I have endeavoured to sustain by
the repetition of the accompanying substantive in the parenthesis sub
joined. t Here the apostle marks the distinction between the fact and the
principle upon which he deals with it — the fact, that he has not apprehended,
but been apprehended of, Christ Jesus ; the principle, that he does not
count himself to have apprehended, to the effect of suspending his labours
in the cause of Christ, but continues his career as if the attainment of the
end was dependent upon his own exertions.

THE GOSPEL. 129
things which are before, I press forward toward the goal,
for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded."*
" Quench not the Spirit " (1 Thes. v. 19). It is certain
that this cannot be meant with reference to the Holy Spirit
as a Person. To quench is a word wholly inapplicable with
respect to an individual ; as would be perceived at once in
conjunction with either of the other Persons of the Holy
Trinity. It can, therefore, only be understood of some
operation of the Spirit ; and if so, of what more consistently
than of that in immediate conjunction with which
it is mentioned — namely, prophesying or preaching,
" Quench not the Spirit ; despise not prophesyings " — con
cerning which so many directions of an analogous bearing
are given in other places, especially in 1 Cor. xiv. 1, 3, 5,
29-32, " Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but
chiefly that ye may prophesy  He that prophesieth
speaketh unto men to edification  I would that ye
all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied : for
greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with
tongues  Let the prophets speak two or three
[despise not prophesyings'], and let the others judge [prove
all things]. If anything be revealed to another that sitteth
by, let the first hold his peace [quench not the Spirit]. For
ye may all prophesy one by one  And the spirits
of the prophets are subject to the prophets."
" Christ as a son over his own house : whose house are we,
if we hold fast the confidence and rejoicing of the hope
* In a, sermon, recently preached in the metropolis by a distinguished
clergyman of the Arminian denomination, this text is deliberately enunci
ated in the following form — " Let us, therefore, as many as would be
perfect, be thus minded " — for which, it will be enough to say, there is not
a shadow of authority in the original. I

130 VEXED QUESTIONS.
firm unto the end " (Heb. iii. 6). And again, verse 14,
" We have been made partakers of Christ, if we hold the
beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end." . St
Paul is here declaring, neither the means nor condition of
attaining or retaining, but the signs or proofs of having
attained the position implied in the terms ; as is seen in
the use of the present and past tenses — " whose house we
are" " we have been made partakers " — and not the future.
The next passage claiming consideration is Heb. vi. 4-6,
which to be rightly understood requires an amendment of
the authorized version to the following effect — " For it is ,
impossible, in the case of those who were once enlightened,
and had tasted of the heavenly gift, and had been made
partakers of the Holy Ghost, and had tasted the good word
of God, and the powers of the world to come, and had fallen
away, to renew them again unto repentance, crucifying and
making to themselves an example of the Son of God."
The essential deviations here from the authorized version
are in two particulars ; first, in the reference to the Lord's
crucifixion in the sense of a simple accomplishment, not of
a reiteration of the act ; and secondly, in the representation
of the accompanying statement as a mere exemplification,
devoid of the qualifications of publicity and shame.
In justification of these alterations, it is to be observed, in
the first place, that there is no authority, or rather no room,
for the rendering of the verb in the original, avatrravpoco,
in the sense of crucifying afresh ; seeing that it is a word of
common usage in secular literature, and invariably, as of
necessity, in the sense of a simple crucifixion. Thus
Herodotus, vi. 30, "Histiseus having been captured,
Harpagus with Artaphernes put him to death ; his body
they crucified, his head they embalmed." Id., vii. 194, " He
[Sandoces] was of the number of the royal judges whom

THE GOSPEL. 131
Darius had crucified." Id. vii, 238, "Xerxes, finding the
body of Leonidas, commanded that they should cut off his
head and crucify him." Xenophon Ephesius, iv. 2, " They
fasten him [Abrocomas] to the cross which they had erected.
binding his hands and his feet, as was their manner of
crucifixion." Plufarch, Fabius Max., vi. 5, " Hannibal, dis
covering his mistake and danger in those places, crucified
the guides." Id., Timoleon, xxii 4, " The Carthaginians,
incensed against Mago for his bad conduct of the war, were
reported to have crucified his' body (for he had already
committed sucide)." Id., Alexander, lxxii 2, " Alexander,
overwhelmed with grief for the death of Hephaestio, crucified
the unfortunate physician." Id., Julius Caesar, ii 2, " Caesar
returned to Pergamus, and crucified all the pirates."
Thucydides, i 110, " Inarus, king of the Lybians, being
taken by treachery, was crucified." Herodian, iii 14, " The
soldiers, having cut off his [Niger's] head, caused it to be
impaled " — literally, crucified. It is perfectly certain that
in none of these instances could the word in question be
intended in the sense of a repeated crucifixion. And if not
in these, then in no case whatever. It is impossible for the
word to have both meanings, any more in the Greek than
in the English. It is not a question of the particular
language ; but of language in the abstract. No word in
any language implying a simple act could, without some
quahfying adjunct, imply also a repetition of the act. As
to the preposition, ava, it has in some instances the force
of a repetition ; but in as many, if not in more, it has no
such effect ; as in avafiaivm, to go up, avajiioam, to cry out;
ava^Xeirco, to see perfectly, spoken of one made to see who
had been born blind (John ix. 11, 15, 18).
Secondly, as to the word TrapaBeir/fiarl^ovTa^, rendered in
the authorized version putting to an open shame, there is

1 32 VEXED QUESTIONS.
nothing to justify the expression of either of the sentiments
of publicity or shame. The root of the verb is irapdheir/pM,
from irapa, contra, and Beiicvvfu, to show, meaning simply
an example, pattern, or counterpart ; from which the verb
constructed upon it derives the whole of its force. This
may or may not be to a public or disparaging effect ;
though in such a sense it is commonly understood both in
English and Greek, when not otherwise determined by the
context ; of which an instance is afforded in Matt, i 19,
with reference to Joseph's dealing in the case of the virgin
Mary ; where also our translators have unnecessarily inter
polated the word public. As the construction here
contended , for is avowedly according to the primitive and
natural meaning of the term, the attributes of publicity and
shame being a matter of inference from the context, it will
not be necessary to trouble the reader with any illustrations
of this construction ; as it was in the case of the concomitant
expression of crucifixion, where the sense of repetition was
claimed as attaching to the word itself, being evidently
beyond the range of context altogether.
The effect of these amendments is to admit, at least, if
not to compel, the acceptation of what, in our authorized
version, appear to be acts of reprobation, as acts of grace —
the means or grounds of that "repentance" with which
they stand connected in the text. In this point of view,
the conduct implied may be regarded as analogous to the
looking upon Him whom they pierced, predicted of the Jews
in the latter day by the prophet Zechariah — " And I will
pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and supplications ; and they
shall look upon me whom they have pierced " (chap. xii. 10).
With regard to the sense in which the passage is
commonly understood, it comes up to the requirements

THE GOSPEL. 133
neither of the context nor of the grammatical construction
of the terms. To crucify the Lord, in the sense of wound
ing Him by our transgressions, and to put Him to an open
shame by the imperfection of our obedience, may be
consistent forms of expression ; though I am unable to
realize their consistency. But adihitting such to be the
case, they imply no more than what every man, regenerate
or unregenerate, is guilty of, alike in every respect but in
degree. Moreover, the crucifixion of our Lord certainly,
and apparently the making of Him an example, are repre
sented as to one's self, or on one's own account — an expres
sion intelligible, so far as I can perceive, of grace alone ; to
say nothing of its redundancy altogether in the sense of
reprobation. To the same effect is also the grammatical
construction of the terms. For the crucifixion and exempli
fication spoken of are in the present tense, referring, not to
the conduet of the individuals in connection with their fall,
but to their conduct in connection with their renewal unto
repentance. Had it been intended to represent the
conditions in question as the impediments to a renewal,
the passage, I conceive, should have stood thus — " seeing
they have crucified the Lord unto themselves, and made an
example of him" — that is, supposing the expressions in
dispute to be susceptible of such an application.
The terms of the passage thus simplified, we shall find
no difficulty in reconciling its purport with the doctrine in
contravention of which it is adduced. We have here set
before us certain conditions — namely, I., the having been
once enlightened ; II., the having tasted the heavenly gift ;
III., the having been made partakers of the Holy Ghost;
IV, the having tasted the good word of God; and V., the
having tasted the powers of the world to come : and the
question with which we have to deal is, whether these, or

134 VEXED QUESTIONS.
any of them, are conditions necessarily inferential of the
"grace of God that bringeth salvation" (Tit. ii. 11) ; for if
they be not of this character, the. falling away, from or
after the realization of them, would clearly be no evidence
of a lapse from that state, the infallibility of which we are
here concerned to defend.
Now we are not left to the consideration of these con
ditions alone, as above expressed, in order to define their
proper meaning; and consequently their relation to the
state in question. In the > preceding verses we have a
similar specification of particulars, the analogy of which
with those in the passage before us is directly indicated in
the context — " Therefore, leaving the word [or, discourse]
of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to perfection ; not
laying again the foundation of (I.) repentance from dead
works ; and (II.) of faith toward God ; and (III.) of the
doctrine of baptisms and laying on of hands ; and (IV.) of
resurrection of the dead; and (V.) of eternal judgment.
And this we will do if God permit. For it is impossible,"
&c. : in which representation it is evident that the parti
culars specified, and which are all comprehended under the
one term of a " foundation," are the same not only with
those referred to as "the beginning of Christ," but also
with those in the passage more immediately before us ; in
the former, described as things to be pretermitted ; in the
latter, with the reason for this pretermission — " For it is
impossible, in the case of those who were once enlightened,"
&c. Comparing, then, these two specifications together, we
find the several particulars enumerated in each correspond
ing, one with the other, to the following effect — viz., the
having been " enlightened," harmonizing with the doctrine
of " repentance from dead works ; " the having " tasted of

THE GOSPEL. 135
the heavenly gift," with the doctrine of "faith toward
God;" the having been "made partakers of the Holy
Ghost," with the " doctrine of baptisms and laying on of
hands ; " the having " tasted the good Word of God," with
the doctrine of the " resurrection of the dead ; " and lastly,
the having " tasted the powers of the world to come," with
the doctrine of " eternal judgment."
Of the first of these, representing the condition of having
been " once enlightened" we see enough to satisfy our
present purpose, in the assurance that it refers exclusively
to the acquisition of a doctrine — the doctrine of " repentance
from dead works," as one of the fundamental principles of
the Christian religion. It implies nothing whateyer as to
the having undergone or experienced the state itself to
which the doctrine alludes.
Of the second proposition — the having "tasted -the
heavenly gift," which we find explained by reference to the
doctrine of " faith toward God " — the same conclusion is
equally apparent, though differently inferred. It is, indeed,
interesting to notice the term employed to express the
acquaintance with the " heavenly gift " which is here con
templated ; the same word that is employed in Matt, xxvii.
34, where our Lord is described as tasting the mingled
beverage which He refuses to drink — " They gave him
vinegar to drink mingled with gall; and when he had
tasted, he would not drink."
With regard to the third of the conditions above enumer
ated — namely, the being "made partakers of the Holy
Ghost," signified elsewhere under the name of a baptism in
or with the Holy Ghost (Matt. iii. 11 ; Mark i 8 ; Luke iii.
16 ; John i 33 ; Acts i 5, xi. 16 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13) ; the proper
form of. which was by the " imposition of hands " (Acts viii.
XI, ix. 17, xix. 6) ; and its proper effect, the endowment of

136 VEXED QUESTIONS.
the individual with the power of working miracles : respect-i
ing which all that it concerns us here to remark is, that it
was a qualification bestowed, entirely in the interest of the
nascent religion, upon all by whom that religion
was formally accepted (cf. Mark xvi. 17, 18) — and that,
without regard to the reality or consistency of their faith ;
as witnessed in the case of the traitor Judas, who must
have had that power as well as the rest of the apostles, or
they would have had no occasion to inquire who it was
that should betray Him (see Matt, xxvi 22 ; Mark xiv. 1 9 ;
Luke xxii. 23 ;' John xiii 22-24) ; and also of the arch-
heretic Simon Magus, who could hardly be supposed to have
asked for the power of conferring the Holy Ghost upon
others, if he had not had that gift conferred upon himself
(cf. Acts viii. 13, 17-19).
In regard of the two remaining conditions — the having
" tasted the good word of God," and " the powers of the
world to come," explained with reference respectively to
the doctrines of the "resurrection of the dead" and of
" eternal judgment " — they may be held to have been
virtually disposed of; standing in the same category with the
second proposition, as doctrines " tasted," but not imbibed.
Thus, I submit, it is clearly to be seen that none of the
conditions in question are necessarily inferential of a state
of grace ; and so the falling away from or after them is no
detraction from the security of that salvation which
is founded upon grace itself. They are merely expressions
of illumination, involving privileges peculiar to the opening
of the Christian dispensation ; in which point of view they
stand confirmed by another passage in the same epistle
(chap. x. 26), " If we sin wilfully after that we have
received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no
more sacrifice for sin ; " or, as in the former passage, no

THE GOSPEL. 137
more " crucifying and making to themselves an example of
the Son of God."
Another passage liable to be referred to in the same
behalf is 2 Pet. i 10, " Wherefore the rather, brethren, give
diligence to make your calling and election sure." The
character of insecurity here supposed rests upon a misunder
standing of the words rendered "to make sure," in
the sense of completing or perfecting the result ; whereas
the true sense of the expression is that of assuring or con
firming the same to one's self — irotel <r6at, middle voice — by
the manifestation of the proper signs or fruits previously
enumerated (verses 5-7). A stronger evidence of the same
character is, however, apparently contained in the conclud
ing member of the verse—" For if ye do these things ye
shall never fall." But the verb here rendered to fall,
irraUo, properly signifies to stumble, not to fall ; and is so
rendered in Eom. xi. 11, where it is actually presented in
contrast to such a sense—" I say then, have they stumbled
that they should fall? God forbid." In the only other
places where it occurs in the Scriptures, James ii 10, and
iii. 2 bis, we have rendered it by the word offend.
But one other passage, I conceive, remains to be noticed
here — Eev. xxii 19, " If any one shall take away from the
words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his
part from the tree of life, and from the holy city, which are
written of in this book;" from which it is evident that
persons may be assumed to have a part in such things who
may nevertheless be deprived qf them. Now the " tree of
life " (for so it stands in the original, not the book of life
as in the received text) is undoubtedly a symbol of the
Lord Jesus Christ, as the " holy city " is of His church : so
that in some sense persons who are ultimately lost have a
" part " in the Lord Jesus Christ and His church. But this

138 VEXED QUESTIONS.
" part " is an interest that exists independently of grace,
and is predicable of every one, though he may never realize
the benefit of it. It is an expression of the universal
applicability of the redeeming work of Christ, which may
be a catholic verity (see the next Article), without impeach
ment of its particular application, for the security of which
alone we are here contending.
I have now laid before the reader the whole of the
scriptural evidence upon which, so far as I am aware,
reliance is wont to be placed in opposition to the doctrine
of a salvation virtually realized during the present life —
the purport of the second of the two propositions included
in the definition of the gospel I have undertaken to sustain.
And the question actually at issue is, with reference to the
bearing of this testimony, not simply in the abstract, but
as compared with the testimony of the same character on
the other side — which of the two is most conclusive in
respect of the point it is intended to confirm ; and, as such,
exclusively entitled to our regard 1 For where two opposite
doctrines are in dispute, the evidence in behalf of one or
the other only can be received. To which of these, then,
in the case before us, are we to give our adherence ? This
question — which is equally applicable to, and should at the
same time be extended to embrace, the similar testimony
in relation to the first proposition also — the reader must
answer for himself. Taken together, and in conjunction
with the various arguments upon rational principles by
which they are supplemented, I cannot but consider them
conclusive in favour of that view of the gospel which I have
been hitherto endeavouring to substantiate.
In adjudicating upon these, the proper evidences of the
case, we must not allow ourselves to be turned aside from

THE GOSPEL. 139
the conclusion to which they are naturally calculated to
conduce, by any merely theoretical or sentimental objec
tions — I allude especially to the common allegation of
immoral consequences in a life uninfluenced by the sense of
insecurity, and the issue of which is wholly independent of
the works of the individual himself. The fallacy of this
allegation has been already partially decided in the com
parative estimate of the two contrasted doctrines with
relation to their effects upon the conduct of those by whom
they are respectively professed. So far from attaching to
the hypothesis of an assured salvation, it is to the opposite
view of the case, we there see, that the charge more parti
cularly applies.
As a substantive proposition, the moral conduct of the
individual "saved by grace through faith " is secured by
sanctions far more powerful than, the desire to be saved or
the fear of being lost. It is secured by the twofold chain
of causes, faith and love — faith, by which, the moral nature
is adapted to the new condition ; and love, by which, as
we have just pointed out, it is. influenced in proportion to
the sense we entertain of what has been done for us. In
the former case, the conduct of the individual is a matter
of course ; in the latter, a matter of choice. It is only
necessary to consider what has to be believed, to be assured
of the sufficiency of both the causes to the effect for which
they are assigned. And this will be found, one and the
same, in the history of every individual that is saved,
however various the circumstances under which that con
summation has been realized. Born in sin, by nature a
child of wrath, a friend of the world, and consequently an
enemy of God ; once floating, smoothly or roughly as the
case may be, down the stream of time, heedless or uncon
scious of the abyss of misery in which he was about to be

140 VEXED QUESTIONS.
engulfed; now rescued from destruction by the self-
sacrifice of the Son of God, washed from the guilt of all
his sins in the atoning blood of the Lamb, sealed with the
Holy Spirit of promise as the earnest or pledge of his
inheritance, a " temple of the Holy Ghost ; " united to the
incarnate deity in the bond of an everlasting covenant ; a
member of His body, invested with His righteousness, and
absolutely identified with Him in all His sufferings and
consequent exaltation, His cross and passion, His death
and burial, His resurrection and ascension ; heir with Him
of His kingdom and glory, and even now virtually seated
with Him in the heavenly places.
Such is a brief outline of what the sinner has to believe
in order to realize his salvation. And if he really believes
it, can there be any doubt what his conduct in life will be ?
or any doubt that conduct will be more acceptable to God,
more worthy of His approval, proceeding from a sense of
gratitude for a salvation already realized, than wrought
with the view to a salvation hereafter to be achieved ?
All this has, of course, regard only to those who do
really "believe to the saving of the soul" (Heb. x. 39).
As to the unconverted, their case is not contemplated in
the scheme of God's dealing with the converted ; and,
moreover, would not be met by the conditions which are
the subject of dispute. A morality founded upon the
influence of insecurity and the necessity of works, would
be a false morality in respect of its principle ; and ineffectual
to the end in view, as contrary to the character of a salvar
tion which is "by grace through faith," and "not of
works."

VIII.
TJNIVEESAL KEDEMPTION.

That all men are, or rather have been, redeemed by the
atoning work of Christ, is an article in the faith of many
persons, and ostensibly in that of the Church of England ;
being included under the form of " the redemption of the
world," both in the General Thanksgiving and Exhortation
to the Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer,
and directly asserted in the Catechism in the answer to a
question relative to the Son of God — " Who hath redeemed
me, and all mankind." There is another passage which, at
first sight, might be thought liable to be quoted to the
same effect — viz., that in the Litany, in which the Second
Person of the Trinity is invoked under the title of
the " Eedeemer of the world." But however similar in
expression this latter is to the preceding, the effect is not
the same ; as will appear from the consideration of a
parallel case, in which the terms, if not actually synony
mous, are of equivalent import with those to which they
are respectively compared.
To make this the more clear it will be necessary to draw
attention to a mode of expression, occasionally employed in
the Scriptures, and which, apparently peculiar to them,
may be fairly entitled to be called a figure of speech.
Every work, divine or human, is undertaken with a certain
purpose and followed by a certain effect ; and in the repre
sentation of this work it is -not unusual to employ the

142 VEXED QUESTIONS.
language of the purpose in the expression of the effect, and
vice versa. Thus, for example, in Matt. x. 34 (Luke xii.
49, 51), where our Lord says, "Think not that I came to
send peace upon the earth : I came not to send peace, but
a sword," we have a declaration which, in the literal sense,
amounts to an expression of the purpose of Christ's coming ;
but which we have no hesitation in accepting in the sense
of its effect. On the other hand, in John iv. 42 and 1
John iv. 14, we have a description of the Lord Jesus
Christ as " the Saviour of the world," which, as apparently.
expressive of the effect of the work of Christ, is as certainly
intelligible only in the sense of its design.
In respect of the foregoing examples it will be observed
there is no room for question as to the sense in which they
are to be understood. The character of our Lord and of
His mission in the former instance, and the actual fact in
the latter, are too clear to permit of any doubt. But this
is not always the case. The doctrine involved in the vari
ous definitions of the work of Christ, though equally clear
and certain, regard being had exclusively to the Scriptures,
has, through the intervention of human reasoning,
the speculations and traditions of men, become matter of
controversy ; in the midst of which the real meaning has to
he fought out with the only weapon available to the purpose
— " the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God "
(Eph. vi. 17). An exemplification of this position is
presented in the case of the expression, the " redemption
of the world," compared with that of the " Eedeemer of the
world," which we have been seeking to illustrate. Jesus
Christ is the " Eedeemer of the world " in the same sense
as, in the passages above quoted, He is the " Saviour of the
world " — that is, in the design or purpose of His work.
But as regards the effect — the actual redemption — the

UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. 143
world has been redeemed no more than it has been saved.
As a Saviour the Lord is scripturally revealed in a twofold
character — a Saviour in esse of them that believe, and a
Saviour in posse of them that believe not. As St Paul
says (1 Tim. iv. 10), " We have trusted " — or, put -our
trust — "in the living God, who is a Saviour of all men,
specially of them that believe." And so He may be justly
represented as a Eedeemer of all men, without any
necessary implication of an actual redemption. A Saviour
in posse of them that are not saved, He may be a Eedeemer
in posse of them that are not redeemed. But redemption
itself, like salvation, is a fait accompli; and cannot
be predicated except where it is realized.
Now, as regards the doctrine itself, the redemption of the
world, it is to be observed in limine, that it is entirely
matter of inference. Of direct testimony it is totally devoid.
Nowhere in the Scriptures is redemption predicated of " the
world," meaning the whole human race — a fact itself, con
sidering the extreme importance of the doctrine, all but
conclusive upon the subject. It is only, as I have said, by
inference from certain passages of supposed equivalent
import, that it has any imaginable subsistence. Of these
passages all but one may be included under one and the
same head, and dismissed in very few words — I allude to
those passages in which the vicarious suffering of Christ is
represented with a relation to all mankind : such as John
vi 51, " The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will
give for the life of the world;" 2 Cor. v. 15, "And that he
died for all, that they which live," &c. ; 1 Tim. ii. 6,
" Who gave himself a ransom for all " ;* Heb. ii. 9, " That
* I have included this passage among those in which the redeeming*
work of Christ is predicated with reference to "all men," taking it as it
at present stands in the original. But there_ is a probability, almost

144 VEXED QUESTIONS.
he [Jesus] by the grace of God should taste of death for-
every man ; " in which passages we have indeed a declara
tion of the universality of the purpose of the atoning work
of Christ, but without any determination of its effect.
The remaining passage alluded to is that of John i 29?
in which the Lord Jesus Christ is described as " the Lamb
of God that taketh away the sin of the world." The special
force of the argument here, the characteristic by which it
is excepted from the category of the foregoing, is in the use
of the word " sin " in the singular number ; as if represent
ing that condition of sin or sinfulness known by the name
of original sin, attaching to the whole world, and in the
alleged abrogation of which by the atoning death of Christ
this universal redemption is supposed to consist. But this
conclusion, as thus derived,- is entirely discredited by the
similar, if not parallel, statement in 1 John ii. 2, where the
effect of Christ's redemption, in the same relation to " the
world," is described with reference to " sins " in theplural —
" And he is a propitiation for our sins : and not for our
[sins] only, but also for [the sins] of the whole world." The
amounting to a certainty, that some word or words have slipped out of
the text, which there are apparently no means of restoring. In its exist
ing form, comprehending the rest of the verse, it can hardly be said to be
intelligible. Some MSS. have endeavoured to remedy the deficiency by
the interpolation of the words o5 . .... dSdfle — thus, o? rb papripioy xaipo7s
ISlois *86$e — whereof the testimony was given in their proper times. Our
translators have disposed of it in a more summary manner ; rendering the
words i-i> papripiov, "to be testified," or, in the margin, "as testimony,"
and the remaining words, KaipoTs IBlots, in the singular number, "in due
time." I have little or no doubt of the omission of the word TriffTev6vTuv
or XapfiivovTuv ; an omission readily accounted for by reference to that
most common source of similar errors — the ipoioTEAevrov. With this
amendment the passage would stand thus — 'O Sobs cavrbv avrlKvrpov iirep
irivrav TriaT*v6vTuv [ij KapPdvovTaiv] Tb papripiov KtupoTs ISiois — " Who
gave himself a" ransom for all who believe [or receive] the testimony in
their proper times." _

UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. 145
meaning of both passages alike is sufficiently clear in the
sense of the divine purpose: the limitation of the term,
" the world," being implied in, and defined by, the contrast
in which it is presented — in the former case, to the Jew;
in the latter, if not to the Jew exclusively, to those who
had already been saved, whether Jew or Gentile. Thus
in the first instance we have John the Baptist signalizing
the Messiah to the surrounding multitude as the antitype
of the lamb which was daily offered up for the sins of the
people — that is, of the Jewish people exclusively; but
with this qualification, that Jesus was the Lamb of God "
that should take away the sin * not of the Jew only, but
of the Gentile also ; not of a single people, but of the
whole " world." Surely it is impossibleto understand this
with reference to original sin ? With regard to the state
ment in 1 John ii 2, it is unnecessary to consider to whom
it was addressed. The definition of the "sins" in the
plural number is sufficient to exclude the notion of imputed
or original sin. The probability is that in both cases the
purport of the announcement was with reference to the
* That is, the guilt of it I make this remark because there are those
who would represent it here and elsewhere in another sense. Jesus Christ
in no other wise "takes away" sin than by taking it upon himself —
bearing the guilt and suffering the punishment. That it is in'this sense
here intended is evident from the relation in which it stands — viz., to the
sacrificial "lamb" of the Jewish ceremonial law. Analogous expressions,
equally clearly conclusive to the same effect, are those of Heb. ix. 26,
"But now  hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of him
self ;" and verse 28, "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
many ; " 1 Pet. ii. 24, "Who his own self bear our sins in his own body
on the tree;" and Bev. i. 5, "Washed us from our sins in his own
blood." The author of Ecce Homo (p. 6), assumes the "Lamb of God"
in the passage above as implying thelrelation of sheep to the shepherd ;
referring in that behalf to Psalm xxiii. 1. But the word here rendered
"lamb," hpvbs, is used exclusively in the Scriptures with reference to
the lamb as a sacrificial offering (see Acts viii. 32 ; 1 Pet. i. 19). K

146 VEXED QUESTIONS.
prophecy of Isaiah quoted by St Paul in Acts xiii. 47 —
" I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou
shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth."
Perhaps I should add to the foregoing passages the
statement of St Paul in 2 Cor. v. 19 — " Wherefore, as *
God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself."
But the reconciliation there predicated is so obviously a
reconciliation of man to God, not of God to man, and that,
in the sense, not of an already accomplished fact, but of a
work remaining to be carried out in each particular case —
" We pray in Christ's stead, be reconciled to God " — that
I presume a mere notification of it will be all that is
required. Such, and to such effect, is the whole ground of inference,
so far as the testimony of the Scripture is concerned, upon
which this dogma, of the redemption of the world, is
assumed to be founded. Nor does it derive any confirma
tion from what may be called the reasonable conditions of
the case. These, as commonly alleged in that behalf, may
be summed up in the supposed necessity for such an effect
in order to qualify the world for the experience of the
divine regard. In this view the world, which was under
condemnation from the fall of our first parents, has, by the
vicarious suffering of Jesus Christ, been released from that
condition ; and a reconciliation has been effected, whereby
alone God is enabled to have any dealings with it in the
way of mercy or grace. Some, indeed, unable to realize
any sensible understanding of the phrase in question, have
conceived the notion that the " world " here referred to as
having been redeemed, is actually the literal or material
world, inclusive of its inhabitants, rational and irrational ;
and that the dealing is, consequently, in the way of
* See note, page 126.

UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. 147
providence as well as of grace. With this view, so far as
regards the material and irrational world, we have, however,
here no concern. That it is a fallacious one is sufficiently
clear from the two following considerations : first, that the
sufferings of Jesus Christ were for sin, the transgressions,
actual or imputed, of those beings in whose nature and as
whose representative He endured them, and have no appli
cation to any other ; and, secondly, the curse under which
creation in general is supposed to have been placed at the
fall, such as it was, such is it still, according to the testi
mony of St Paul in Eom. viii. 19-23, where he tells us that
the " creature," or creation — ktutk; — which was a sharer in
the consequences of man's fall (verse 20), is lying under
the burden of those consequences still — still " groaneth and
travaileth in pain " — " waiting for the manifestation of the
sons of God." There is, indeed, a sense in which the
material world has actually been redeemed — viz., as the
reward of the covenant of works, lost by Adam, and
recovered by Christ. But this is an effect assignable, not
to the suffering of Christ, but to His obedience ; not to His
endurance of the penalty for sin, but to His fulfilment of
the law, the condition of its enjoyment, as explained in the
third of these Articles*
Eegarding, however, the world, with relation exclusively
to the world of man, there is no doubt that the view
in question is based upon a confusion of terms, or rather of
ideas — the identification of redemption with atonement.
What is apparently, intended is the necessity of the atoning
work of Christ to the forgiveness of sins ; what is actually
asserted is the necessity of redemption to the dealing of
God with man. Atonement and redemption are two differ
ent things : the former, a means ; the latter, an end : the
* See pp. 19, &c.

148 VEXED QUESTIONS.
former, a work ; the latter, the application of the work :
the former, the satisfaction for sins ; the latter, the
forgiveness of the sins themselves, as it is directly defined
by St Paul in his two epistles, to the Ephesians, chap, i 7,
and to the Colossians, chap, i 14—" In whom we have the
redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins."
And however the first of the two propositions above stated
— that, without the atoning work of Christ, the " shedding
of blood," there is no " remission " of sins — is certainly true ;
the second— that without the forgiveness of sins, the
redemption through that blood, there is no dealing of God
with man — is contrary to the fact as revealed in the
Scriptures. The prime dealing of God with man is to the
end of his redemption. It is in his sins, his actual trans
gressions, that God finds him (Eph. ii. 1, 5) ; and it is from
his sins that God redeems him (Ps. cxxx. 8). And if actual
transgression be no bar to God's dealing with man, original
or imputed sin could not certainly, as a reasonable condition,
be chargeable with such an effect.
But the refutation of the doctrine is not confined merely
to the refutation of the grounds upon which it is assumed
to be based. The doctrine itself stands opposed to the
leading principles of the Christian faith. We have already
incidentally noted its essential characteristic — the innate
forgiveness of sins to all mankind. By that doctrine, the
sins of all men having been atoned for by the sacrifice of
Jesus Christ, every man is born into the world ipso facto
exonerated from the charge of sin. This doctrine is liable
to two principal objections. In the first place, the
hypothesis of a forgiveness of sins without regard to faith
is utterly repugnant to any just notion of God's dealing
with men in the way of grace. There is no such thing in
true religion as an operation of grace, otherwise than

UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. 149
through the intervention of the moral faculties, either
actually in the case of those who have the use of them, or
virtually by imputation to those who have not, but who, if
they had, would have exercised them to the effect in ques
tion — a ground of imputation which infinite wisdom alone
is capable of appreciating ; but which certainly cannot be
extended to embrace the whole world. It is not simply
because the sacrifice for sin has been offered up that sin is
forgiven, or all men would be saved ; but because the effect
of that sacrifice has been appropriated by the hand of faith.
It is with the antitype as with the type. The sacrifice
under the Jewish law was daily offered up for the sins of
the whole Jewish nation ; but it was never supposed to
have any effect — in other words, to be accepted of God— in
the case of those who disregarded or disbelieved in it.
Equally so the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was offered up. for
the sins of the whole world ; but it is only accepted for
those who believe, and consequently, of course, at the time
when they believe.
Some people, impressed with, the theory of an equality
of suffering on the part of the Eedeemer with what was
due to, and would otherwise have been borne by, the
sinner, feel a difficulty in understanding how the suffering
of Jesus Christ could be applicable to the sins- of all man
kind, and yet no one experience any benefit from it except
and when, he believes. It may help them to realize this
effect, to suppose the case of a number of persons, captive
to a foreign power, for whose liberation the stipulated
ransom has been paid in the gross, to be applied to its
proper purpose according as it may be required. Some
refuse to believe in the fact, and disregard the preferred
boon ; others believe, and avail themselves of it. The
ransom was paid at once, and for all ; but it is only effectual

150 VEXED QUESTIONS.
to its end as it is individually appropriated. And thus it
is in the case of the atoning work of Christ; with this
difference — that, whereas the price of redemption from
temporal bondage is made good out of a definite fund in
definite proportions, the fund out of which the redemption
from spiritual bondage is provided for — the suffering of the
Incarnate Eedeemer — is an infinite one ; and consequently
applicable, not in proportion, but in its entirety, to each
individual who by faith realizes an interest in it. There
is here no room for the imputation of loss or failure in
respect of the suffering for those who will not have been
benefitted by it. If only a single individual were to be
saved, it could not have been less ; if all the world, it could
not have been more.
Nor, admitting the necessity of faith to the realization
of the atoning work of Christ agreeably with this descrip
tion, is there any ground for a distinction between sin actual
and imputed ; whereby the latter, as if merely imaginary,
might be held exempt from the condition in question.
Original or imputed sin is just as real as actual sin. It is
the inevitable consequence of the corrupted nature in
which every man is born into the world ; and by virtue of
which he is sure to sin if he lives in the free exercise of
his moral faculties. In judging of this conclusion, two
things but too generally ignored should be borne in mind.
First, that sin consists as much in the not doing what is
commanded as in the doing what is forbidden. It is just
as much sin not to " keep holy the sabbath day," or not
to " visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction,"
as to transgress any of the prohibitory enactments of the
decalogue. Secondly, that the character of sin attaches to
the disposition as well as to the act. It is not only the
doing or leaving undone that constitutes sin ; but the desire

UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. 151
to do or abstain, and which is only not carried into effect
because it could not be, or be conveniently, accomplished.
" How then can a man be justified with God ? " (Job
xxv. 4).
Original sin — the imputation to the individual of the
guilt of the sin he will have committed, or would if he
could — is, then, a reasonable as well as a real, and not a
merely imaginary, attribute ; from the burden of which he
requires to be, and can only be, relieved by faith, actual
or imputed, according to the condition of his faculties, or
the circumstances in which he is placed. And thus our
Lord sums up the whole purpose and effect of His own
atoning death with exclusive limitation to faith — " As
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness," the type of
His own crucifixion, " even so must the Son of man be
lifted up, that [not all men, but] whosoever believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life " (John iii. 14,
15) ; and yet more immediately in relation to the argument
before us — the necessity of faith to redemption — St Peter
in his first epistle (chap, i 18, 19), " Forasmuch as
 ye were not redeemed  but with the
precious blood of Christ  who  was
manifested  for you, who by him do believe in
God." And lastly, the doctrine of a redemption involving the
abrogation of original sin is opposed to the testimony of the
Scriptures upon that particular head. In the view of this
doctrine original sin has ceased to exist. It requires for
its abolition in each individual case nothing on the part
of the sinner but to be born. Indeed, inasmuch as the effect
of Christ's atoning work was retrospective as well as pros
pective, original sin never had any existence at alL To
such a conclusion our only proper reply is the testimony

i52 VEXED QUESTIONS.
of the divine word ; which testimony we have, sufficient
for our purpose, both in the Old covenant Scriptures, where
it was least to be expected, and in those of the New, to
which the doctrine in question more especially belongs.
Thus the statement of David in Ps. Ii 5, " Behold I was
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me ; "
and of St Paul in Eph. ii. 3; "Among whom also we all
had our conversation in times past  and were by
nature the children of wrath, even as others ; " and yet more
significantly in Eom. v. 12-14, " Wherefore, as through one
man sin entered into the world, and death through sin ;
even so death passed upon all men, for that all had sinned.
For until the law [of Moses] sin was in the world : but sin
is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death
reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not
sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression " — that
is, over infants and idiots incapable of actual transgression ;
and in whose case, therefore, death was the testimony to
imputed or original sin.
With regard to one section of the Church of England,
that one by which alone the doctrine in dispute is likely
to be contended for, there is yet another ground of objec
tion, in the contradiction it presents to the doctrine of
baptismal regeneration, as by that same party equally
maintained : of which doctrine a main element is the
remission of original sin in, and by virtue of, that rite.
And though I hold the doctrine of the remission of sin in
baptism to be no less erroneous than that of the redemption
of the world, I mention it here as a conclusive argument in
the case of those by whom the two doctrines are conjointly
asserted. If the world has been redeemed, to the extinc
tion of original sin, then is not original sin forgiven in
baptism : or, if original sin be forgiven in baptism, then

UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. 153
has the world nbt been redeemed, to the extinction of
original sin. One or other of the two positions must be
relinquished ; if upon no other ground than, simply, that
all the world is not baptized.

VII.
BAPTISMAL ABLUTION.
If it were not beyond the range of credibility to suppose
that, in the construction of so solemn a document as an
authoritative symbol of the Christian faith, it would be
possible to have been guilty of an act of mere inadvertency,
one might be disposed to believe the expression, "One
baptism for the remission of sins," in the so-called Nicene
Creed, to have been inconsiderately adopted by the authors
of that formula, as the representative in brief of the more
extended Scriptural definition — one baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins.
The difference in effect between the two forms of
expression will, no doubt, be readily perceived. In the
phrase as it stands in the creed, the rite of baptism appears
as a transaction in or by which remission or forgiveness of
sins is actually realized ; in the Scriptural phraseology it
appears as a figure of that condition, of repentance, upon
which the forgiveness of sins is essentially suspended. The
figurative character here asserted follows from the nature
of the case. Eepentance, a moral qualification wrought in
the mind of the individual, could by no means be supposed
to be really accomplished through the intervention of a
definite and predetermined act, of momentary duration ;
however the forgiveness of sins, which is the act of another,
subitaneously executed, might (so far as the act itself is
concerned) be imagined to accrue through the instru-

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 155
mentality of such a ceremony. Of course, in the scriptural
view, the repentance being figurative, there is no realiza
tion of the forgiveness of sins at all ; the expression to that
effect being merely declaratory of the relation between
them upon the supposition of the reality of the repentance
which is figured in the rite.
With regard to scriptural authority, it should be
observed, the two contrasted expressions stand upon
essentially different grounds. For the form as it appears
in the creed there is, in fact, no direct scriptural authority
at all. There is no such phrase in the Bible as baptism for
the remission of sins. In the passage to which we are
referred for this representation, Acts ii. 38, remission of
sins is indeed predicated in connection with baptism ; but
not, as it is here made to appear, in the character of a
definition of the rite. The phrase referred to occurs in St
Peter's address to the conscience-stricken multitude in
answer to their demand, " What shall we do ? " — " Repent
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ to the forgiveness of your sins."* So that even
here we have the forgiveness of sins coupled with the con
dition of repentance ; the being baptized standing merely as
the expression of their conversion to the religion of Christ,
of which that ceremony was the appointed badge or seal.
This employment of the sign in the sense of the service of
which it is the sign or seal is, it need scarcely be observed,
among the commonest of the figures of speech in which we
daily indulge. Thus, for example, a well-known author,
alluding to a recruit who had enlisted in the service of the
* "Of your sins," apapTtwv vpmv ; as, either with or without the article
tS>v, in all the most ancient MSS., the Sinaitic, the Alexandrine, the
VHtican, and the Codex Ephrsemi ; as also in the Vulgate. The amend
ment is notable as completing the parallelism of the passage with that in
chap. iii. 19, next above referred to.

156 VEXED QUESTIONS.
Pretender, describes him as, " a simple Edinburgh swain
who had mounted the white cockade in a fit of spleen." And
that it is in this sense it is here intended appears almost to
demonstration from the subsequent address of the same
apostle in the following chapter, in which we have the
same injunction, in virtually, if not precisely, the same
terms, with only the substitution of the thing signified for
the sign — "And now, brethren, I wot that through
ignorance ye did it  Repent ye therefore, and be
converted, that your sins may be blotted out " (verse 19).
And no more regard are we bound to suppose St Peter in
his exhortation to the multitude to "repent and be
baptized," or Ananias in his, to St Paul to " arise and
baptize himself " (Acts xxii. 16), had to the act or rite of
baptism, than the author of the foregoing illustration in his
description had to the symbol under which he conveyed
his meaning. With regard to the contrasted expression it
will be sufficient to observe that it is quoted verbatim from
Mark i 4 ; Luke iii. 3 ; and is simply the ordinary definition
of the rite, " the baptism of repentance " (Matt. iii. 11 ;
Acts xiii. 24, xix. 4), with the proper effect of that
repentance in " the forgiveness of sins." And this fact, of
such a description of the rite, is itself conclusive against
the sense imposed upon it in the- form in which it is
represented in the creeds For if, as is certain, the rite be
characteristically distinguished as " the baptism of repent
ance," where the repentance is necessarily figurative, it
could never be effectual to a real forgiveness of sins.
But for the verification of this conclusion we must look
to the character of the rite as set forth in the Scriptures :
and in pursuance of this object it will be necessary to begin
by drawing attention to two operations of spiritual import,
prominently brought before us both in the Old Testament

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 157
and the New. These operations are expressed, one of them
by one principal word in each of the two languages, respec
tively the Hebrew and the Greek, represented in English
by the word sanctification; the other by two principal
words, of the same meaning, but liable .to a distinction in
the use of them, rendered by us purification and justifica
tion — the former having application to objects of all kinds,
animate and inanimate ; the latter to man alone. Corres
ponding to_ each of these operations are conditions of the
object to which they have regard — conditions, by the
nature of the ease, of opposite effect ; viz., under the former
head, the conditions of common and holy ; under the latter,
of unclean and clean : sanctification being the act or process
in or by which things common are made holy ; purification
or justification, that in or by which things unclean are
made clean. Besides these principal terms which may be
regarded as the typical ones of their respective classes,
together with their various grammatical inflexions, verbal
and nominal, which need no illustration, there are several
other words in our own language of different radical
extraction, by which the same effects are liable to be
represented : as, under the head of sanctification, with its
correlatives, holy and common, the words hallow and
pollute, sacred and profane ; under that of purification, or
justification with their contrasted correlatives, clean and
unclean, the words cleanse and defile, righteous, blameless,
guilty* And thus we have, in two distinct categories, two
classes of operations and conditions, perfectly distinct the
one from the other — on the one side, sanctification,
* Most of the different English words, here identified in sense, are
respectively the representatives of a common word in the original of the
New Testament and Greek version of the Old — thus, saint, holy, ayios ;
pure, clean, icaBapbs ; righteous, just, Siaaios ; common, polluted, Koivbs.

158 VEXED QUESTIONS.
with its antagonist condition of common or profane, and its
corresponding attribute of holiness; on the other side,
purification or justification, with its antagonist condition
of unclean or defiled, and its corresponding attribute of
righteousness. Now it is most essential to the due appreciation of the
argument before us that the reader be fully convinced,
not merely of the reality of the distinction here pointed
out, but of the importance attached to that distinction, and
the clearness with which it was understood by the Jews
and Christians during the time when the Scriptures were
being indited, and before the recollection of the Jewish
ceremonial, in which that distinction was sensibly repre
sented, had passed away. To this end it will be desirable
to adduce a few passages from both Testaments, in which
the two operations and their correlative conditions are
presented in direct contrast to one another. Thus, Ex
xxix. 36, " Thou shalt offer  a bullock for a sin
offering for atonement; and thou shalt cleanse the altar
 and thou shalt anoint it to sanctify it." Lev.
viii. 15, "And Moses took the blood, and put it upon the
horns of the altar  and purified the altar, and
poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified
it." Chap. x. 10, " And that ye may put difference between
holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean." Isaiah
lxvi 17, " They that sanctify themselves, and purify
themselves  shall be consumed together." Ezek.
xxii. 26, "Her priests have violated my law, and have
profaned my holy things ; they have put no difference
between the holy and profane ; neither have they shewed
difference between the unclean and the clean." Chap.
xliv. 23, " And they shall teach my people the difference
between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 159
between the unclean and the clean!' Mark vi. 20, " For
Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and
a holy." Acts iii. 14, " But ye denied the Holy one and
the Just." Chap. x. 14, " Not so, Lord ; for I have never
eaten anything that is common or unclean." 1 Cor. i 30,
" But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God was made
unto us  righteousness and sanctification." Chap*
vi. 11, " And such were some of you  but ye were
sanctified, but ye -were justified." Eph. i 4, " According as
he hath chosen us in him  that we should be holy
and without blame!' Chap. v. 26, " As Christ also loved
the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify
and cleanse it ; " corresponding to which is the next verse,
" that it should be holy and without blame." *
And now that we have ascertained by incontrovertible
testimony the essential reality of the distinction in question,
we have to consider what are the qualifications or condi
tions themselves which are thus contrastedly represented.
And first, as to sanctification, the act or process in or by
which things common or profane are hallowed or made
holy — to go to the root of the matter, we have to inquire,
what is the meaning of the word holy, which is only the
English rendering of the term, sanctus, upon which the
compound word, sanctification, is constructed in the
language from which it is deduced. The answer is neither
doubtful nor abstruse. It is simply, neither more nor less
than consecrated, separated, set apart.
I have said, neither more nor less ; because in the com
mon acceptation of it are almost universally included other
qualifications, which are no part of the meaning of the
word — namely, an exclusive relation to God, and the attri-
* "Apapos — literally, withoui^blemish, but typically, as above ; and so
rendered in chap. i. 4, authorized version.

160 VEXED QUESTIONS.
bute of goodness. Both these qualifications are foreign to
the proper sense of the term, whether simple or in
the compound ; as may be seen from the various examples
of its use, where either or both of the qualifications
themselves are decidedly absent. Thus in 2 Kings x. 20,
we have the process of sanctification predicated of
an assemblage of idolatrous worshippers — " Sanctify* an
assembly for Baal ; " and in the passage just quoted from
Isaiah Ivi 17, it is asserted of persons in the practice of
superstitious rites—" They that sanctify themselves, and
purify themselves in the gardens  shall be consumed
together." Again, in 1 Cor. vii. 14, we have " the
unbelieving husband " sanctified by the believing wife,
and vice versa ; while their children are declared to be .
" holy " by virtue of the sanctification or holiness of either
of their parents. And all throughout the Scriptures of
both Testaments we have the attributes of holiness and
sanctification declared with reference to inanimate objects ;
as in Gen. ii. 3, where God is said to have blessed
the seventh day, and " sanctified it ; " in Num. vi. 20, the
shoulder of the ram, the offering of the Nazarite, is declared
to be " holy ; " in Neh. iii. 1, the sheep gate of the city is
said to have been " sanctified ; " in Matt, xxiii. 17, 19, the
temple, it is said, " sanctifieth the gold," and the altar
" sanctifieth the gift ; " and in 1 Tim. iv. 5, " every
creature of God " is said to be " sanctified by the word of
God, and prayer ; " in none of which cases could any
* •ftS'li? — The translators of our authorized Bible appear to have been
staggered at the notion of sanctification in connection with an assembly
of idolatrous worshippers, and have substituted the word " proclaim." In
the abstract sense of the term it was just as applicable to an idolatrous
convocation as to a congregation of Jewish worshippers. But from the
general use of the word in relation to the true God, it is conventionally
understood in that relation, unless otherwise determined by the context.

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 161
intrinsic goodness be supposed to have accrued to the objects
by virtue of their respective holiness or sanctification.
And lastly, we may just mention the case of our Lord
himself, who being inherently perfect, and consequently
unsusceptible of amelioration, yet announces His own
sanctification, not merely as a state in which He was by
nature, but as one accruing to Him, even at the time of its
announcement — " And for their sakes I sanctify myself "
(John xvii 19).*
But although holiness does not signify goodness, nor
sanctification a change for the better ; yet are those quali
fications necessary concomitants of the act of sanctification,
when understood with reference to the fallen race of man,
and as the work of God's Holy Spirit. Separation in spirit
from common or profane uses to the service of God involves,
if it does not imply, a character and conduct conformable
to this description — a putting off the old man, and a
* In the establishment of this definition of the words sanctification and
consecration, as merely synonymous expressions of the act or effect of
setting apart to a special purpose, we have the answer, alike, to the objec
tions of some to the use of the terms (generally the latter) in relation to
certain observances of the Church of England (by no means peculiar to it),
as well as to the conclusions which others, of the opposite description, are
unwillingly or unwittingly compelled to draw from it. Considering the
former of these in no need of illustration, I would merely notice an
instance under the latter head, where a point of the utmost importance—
indeed, nothing less than the very point at issue itself — has been, to all
appearance, suspended upon the inconsiderate acceptance of the word or
act of consecration in what may be called the pregnant sense, here repudi
ated. In the course of the proceedings before the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, in the case of Sheppard v. Bennett, the question raised
being the corporal presence in the elements of the Lord's Supper, as an
article in the creed of the Church of England, against which the argu
ments of the learned counsel, Mr Stephens, had been directed, it was
suggested interrogatively by one of the judges, " But are not the elements
consecrated ? " — the answer to which in the affirmative appeared to be
regarded as in some way or other conclusive : at least no attempt was made .
to shew its irrelevancy. L

1 62 VEXED QUESTIONS.
putting on of the new (Eph. iv. 22, 24, Col. iii. 9, 10).
Now this change, in regard of its moral origin, is just that
condition which is represented in the Scriptures by the
word repentance, in the Greek fj,erdvoia — that is, a change of
mind, in the present context, of course, with respect to sin;
the necessary precursor to a change of conduct in the same
direction. And thus, to sum up under this head, we have
sanctification in the sense simply of consecration to God;
the sanctified — i.e., the saints — those whom God has taken
out of the world (in spirit) and converted to His own use,
holy, no longer common or profane ; and, as the necessary
accompaniment of this qualification on the part of the
sanctified, repentance to the putting away of sins ; not, be it
observed, the guilt of the sins, but the sins themselves.
And now as to the other effect, of purification or
justification, regarded in the same relation to fallen man,
and as the work of God, it will be seen, with equal clear
ness and certainty, to signify the removal of the charge or
guilt of sin. This restriction of the relation and agency of
the work, follows from what has been already observed as
to the proper use of the terms ; justification, though
implying the same effect as purification, being limited in
its application to man, and in a spiritual sense. In the
sense predicable of both terms it has been already defined
synonymously with cleansing ; being the act or process by
which things unclean are made clean. And in that sense,
under the former title of purification, it is, like sanctifica
tion, applicable to all objects, animate and inanimate, as
well as imputable to the agency of man. But in this, as in
the similar use of the term sanctification, to a merely
formal effect — a ceremonial or typical purification, sugges
tive of the spiritual; of which the examples are too
familiar to require specification. It is in the common

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 163
sense of both terms that the effect we have exclusively
here in view is comprehended, and of which the examples
unde;r the head of each are abundant throughout the Scrip
tures. Thus, confining ourselves to the former of the two
terms (the latter needs no exemplification), when David
says (Ps. Ii 7), " Cleanse, or purify me with hyssop," he
only repeats in effect what he had said just before (verse
2), " Wash me from mine iniquity ; " the relation to sin
being intimated in the allusion to the " hyssop," the
instrument for the application of the " blood of sprinkling "
in the typical ceremony of the Jews (cf. Lev. xiv. 6, 7 ; Heb.
ix. 13, 19-22, x. 22, xii. 24 ; 1 Pet. i 2). The same relation
to sin, under the same designation of purifying or cleans
ing, is implied in our Lord's observation in John xiii. 10,
11, " Ye are clean; but not all: for he knew who should
betray him." In Acts xviii. 6, and xx. 26, St Paul
similarly signifies his exemption from the charge of sin in
respect of the impenitency of the Jews — " Your blood be
upon your own heads ; I am clean " — " I am pure from
the blood of all men ; " and in Heb. i 3, he represents our.
Lord as " having through himself made purification —
Kadaptcrpbv ¦Kou^crdpxvo'i — of our sins." Equally direct is
the statement of St Peter in his second epistle, chap. i. 9,
" But he that lacketh these things  hath forgotten
that he was cleansed from his old sins." To which may
be added the crowning testimony of 1 John i. 7, "The
blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sins."
But here, in order to avoid a possible misunderstanding,
it may be as well to observe that the two conditions of
sanctification and justification, though perfectly distinct in
themselves and formally represented, as we shall shortly
have occasion to remark, by different typical ceremonies,
are nevertheless in reality inseparable qualifications. No

1 64 VEXED QUESTIONS.
one is really justified who is not really sanctified ; nor
really sanctified who is not really justified. Moreover
sanctification or holiness being an obligation on the part of
the individual, the non-fulfilment of which is consequently
sin, the not being sanctified would involve the imputation
of not being justified : of which we have an interesting
illustration, with reference to the ceremonial observance, in
the answer of our Lord to John the Baptist ; when, the
latter having hesitated to administer to Him the rite of
baptism, He said, " Suffer it to be so now ; for thus " — that
is, in the fulfilment of the self-imposed duty of a formal
sanctification or consecration preliminary to entering upon
His public ministry — "it becometh us to fulfil [or perfect]
all righteousness " (Matt. iii. 15). Other examples of the
interdependence of the two conditions, with at the same
time their perfect distinctness, may be noted tin Acts x.
15 — "What God hath cleansed, call not thou common;"
and again in Heb. ix. 13 — " For if the blood of bulls and
of goats  sanctifieth to the purity of the flesh," &c.
And now the question recurs — to which of these two
operations does the rite of baptism properly relate ? Is it
a rite of sanctification, to the renunciation of sins ? or a rite
of justification, to the forgiveness of sins ? In the passage
of Scripture, of which the clause of the Nicene Creed at
present in dispute is, as I have already observed, an
imperfect abridgment, it appears as the former; in the
clause as it stands in the Creed itself, it figures as the
latter. The solution of this question is, as I have already
intimated, to be looked for in the Scriptures alone. As to
any assistance to be derived from the writings of the
Fathers, I have already explained the inapplicability of
such sources of information to the determination of any
Scripture doctrine of sufficient importance to have made it

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 165
worth while to corrupt it* I have no doubt that the
remission of sins in baptism is a doctrine of older standing
than it can be proved to be by any authority now extant.
But what we want to know is, not what man has made it,
but what God has declared it to be ; and this is to be
sought for exclusively, where it is sure to be found — in
His own written word.
And as a first step in this direction it is necessary to
disabuse the mind of any reference to purifying or cleans
ing, and consequently to justifying or forgiving of sins, in
the meaning of the word in the original rendered baptism
or to baptize. Neither in the words fidirno-/ui, fiaTnLtfo,
nor in the yet simpler term ^dirrco, from which they are
deduced, is there the slightest allusion to the act of cleansing,
or the quality of clean. The pure and simple meaning of
/3a7rra) is to dip or bathe ; and so far from inferring clean
ness or purification, it is quite as regularly used to imply
foulness or defilement. Thus in Job. ix. 31 (Greek version),
" If I wash myself with snow water  yet shalt thou
plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor
me." Ps. lxviii. 23, "That thy foot may be .dipped in the
blood of thine enemies." John xiii. 26, " He it is to whom
I shall give a sop when I have dipped it in the dish." Eev.
xix. 13, "And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in
blood." Indeed the sense conventionally attaching to it
from the act of dipping or bathing, is to an effect the very
opposite of cleansing — viz., to stain or dye. Thus Achilles
Tatius, i. 4, of the colour of a woman's cheek, " It
resembled purple such as the Lydian woman stains the
ivory." Epigram of Lucillus (or Lucian), Anthol. Palceo.,
ii. 68, " To dye the hair." Aristophanes, Pax, 1176,
" Straightway he himself is dyed a Cyzicenian dye ; " and in
* Article I. p. 5, &c.

1 66 VEXED QUESTIONS.
the Greek version of the Old Testament, Ezek. xxiii 1 5,
" Exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads." It is true
that in all the lexicons, under the head of ^dtmo, will be
found the sense of washing; and, where authorities are
given, reference, in support of that sense, to one and the
same passage. But this is a mere oversight from the
inconsiderate following of one and the same authority ;
the solitary example referred to being of no such effect, but
simply according to the usual sense of the word.*
And as the sense of cleansing is foreign from the radical
term fiartrTa, equally so is it from the more elaborate form
@aTTTi£a>; a word differing, as regards" its meaning, in no
respect from the preceding, except perhaps in degree ; being
used in the expression of the same effects both of dipping
and dyeing. Thus Diodorus Siculus, i 73, § 6, referring to
the Egyptian government, "They do not overwhelm the
common people with taxes." And Strabo, vi 2, § 9,
speaking of the water of a certain lake as differing from
that of the sea, " For it does not happen to those who are
unable to swim to be submerged therein, floating on the
surface like pieces of wood." In the same sense Plato
(Euthydemus, p. 277, D), " Perceiving the youth in the act
of being submerged ; " and again (Symposion, p. 17, B), " I
myself was one of those who was yesterday drenched [with
wine] ." Heli odorus, p. 1 92, " When mi dnight had immersed
* The original authority for the rendering of the word pdm-a in the
sense of washing' is Suidas ; who in his Lexicon explains it by the verb
TtKivu), referring to a passage in the Ecclesiazusoz of Aristophanes, 215,
where it is said of the Athenian women, irpSiTa pkv yhp t' &pia fSa.TTTov<ri
eeppip Karrh. Tbv apxatov vipov — properly rendered, " For they first bathe,
or dip the wools in warm [water] according to the old custom." The act
here referred to is, not that of washing the wool in the sense of cleansing,
but of soaking it to make it soft for carding ; as appears from the incident
out of which the remark arose — the woman bringing her wool to card
during the sitting of the assembly.

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 167
the city in sleep." Plutarch, Galba, 21, alluding to Otho,
thus represents him, " immersed" or, as we vulgarly express
it, " over head and ears in debt ;" and again, in the Moralia,
p. 96, C, comparing the education of youth to the watering
of plants, " The soul which thrives with a proper amount
of exertion, is drowned with a superabundance of labours."
While Arrian (Peripl. Mar. Erythr), p. 8, in the alternative
sense of dyeing or staining, describes the colour of the river
Phasis as " that of water impregnated with iron or tin." In
the Greek version of the Old Testament the word occurs
only twice ; but still with the same signification — viz., 2
Kings v. 14, in relation to the case of Naaman, " Then
went he down, and dipped himself seven times in the
Jordan ;" and Isaiah xxi. 4, " My heart panted ; tearfulness
overwhelmed me."
On the other hand, as liable to conduce to an opposite
conclusion, must be noticed certain passages where the
word in question is used with reference to certain
ceremonial observances of the Jews, and where rendered
in our authorized version by the words washing and to
wash. Thus Mark vii. 4, 8, "After market, except they
wash themselves they eat not. And many other things
there be, which they had received to hold, as the washing
of cups and pots," &c. Luke xi. 38, " And when the
Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first been
washed before dinner." And Heb. ix. 10, " Which stood
only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings." But in
none of these cases is there any reference to washing in
the sense of cleansing. To wash in English, as in the
Greek vLtttw, Xovw, are words expressive simply of the act,
not of the effect. Whether the effect be cleansing or defiling
depends upon the material in which the operation is .
performed ; as exemplified in the latter sense (the former

168 VEXED QUESTIONS.
needs no illustration) in Ps. lviii. 10, " He shall wash his
feet in the blood of the wicked."
It is true that, in the cases here referred to, the acts, it
may be assumed, were accomplished through the instru
mentality of water ; and in the case of the " hands "
previously mentioned (Mark vii. 2), the act is represented
by the word vItttco, signify literally to wash. But this of
itself does not determine the reference to purification any
more than to sanctification ; in which, as a ceremonial
qualification, the washing with water was equally
employed ; as we find it, for example, in the consecration
of Aaron and his sons, in Exod. xxix. 1-4 — " This is the
thing that thou shall do unto them to hallow them ......
thou shalt bring [them] to the door of the tabernacle of
the congregation, and shalt wash them with water."
Indeed, strictly speaking, water is the proper representa
tive of sanctification, as blood is of justification. Thus
Isaiah xliv. -3, " I will pour water upon him that is
thirsty  I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed;"
John vii 38, " He that believeth on me  out of his
belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this he spake
.of the Spirit." On the other hand, Heb. ix. 22, " And
almost all things according to the law are cleansed with
blood ; " 1 John i. 7, " The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth
us from all sin ;" Eev. i 5, " Unto him that loveth us, and
washed us from our sins in his blood ; " chap. vii. 14, " And
they washed their robes, and made them white in the blood
of the Lamb."
And so, in fact, in the cases here before us, it is in the
sense of .sanctification, implying the restoration to the state
of holy, not of purification with reference to the state of
clean, that the ceremonial observances in question were
intended ; as directly intimated "in the description both of

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 169
the condition of the objects themselves — the "hands"
(Mark vii. 2) by the word /coivai<;, erroneously rendered in
the authorized version defiled, but properly common or
polluted ; and also, of the effect of the eating and drinking
with relation to the acts or observances, by a verb of the
same root, koivoco, to pollute or desecrate, in verses 15, 18,
20, 23 (Matt. xv. 11. 18, 20), everywhere alike erroneously
rendered in our Bible, by the word defile. Not but that,-
as regards the persons themselves, it is most likely both
conditions, of sanctification and purification, were included
in the design — probably in the washing of the hands, which
we have seen represented by another word, viirrm (cf. the
case of Pilate in Matt, xxvii. 21) — if we may judge from
the answer of our Lord to the Pharisees (Luke xi. 39),
wherein He compares them, in their ceremonial ablutions,
to vessels outwardly cleansed but inwardly defiled.
Beside the above there is, so far as I am aware, but one
passage that is liable to be regarded as presenting grounds
for the inference of a relation to cleansing or purifying in
the use of the word rendered baptism; and in this case
obviously with reference to the baptismal rite itself — viz., 1
Pet. iii. 21, " The like figure whereunto, even baptism doth
also now save you ; * not the putting away of the filth of
the flesh." And yet, strong as in these terms may at first
sight appear to be the evidence of such a relation, they
will be found, upon a very slight examination, to constitute
no exception to the position for which we are contending.
To justify this assertion it will only be necessary to direct
attention to three points — First, that in the ceremony of
baptism there was no washing or cleansing of the body,
actual or pretended ; but simply an immersion or dipping
suggestive of no such effect. Secondly, that the " filth of
* Amended text.

17° VEXED QUESTIONS.
the flesh" is only an idiomatic expression of the filthy
flesh ; of which analogous examples are afforded in Eom.
vi. 4, " in newness of life," for the new life ; Eph. i. 6, " the
glory of his grace," for His glorious grace ; chap. vi. 10,
" the power of his might," for His powerful might. And
thirdly, that the expression of " putting away," is with
' equal propriety rendered putting off; as in Eom. xiii. 12,
Eph. iv. 22, Col. iii. 8, 2 Pet. i 14. And thus we have
the passage in question strictly conformable with the
character assigned both to the word and the rite of
baptism, as entirely devoid of any reference to cleansing ;
an expression, not of purification or justification to the
putting away the filth of the flesh — the remission or forgive
ness of sins ; but of sanctification to the putting off the
flesh with all its defilement — the renunciation of the sins
themselves. With this understanding, then, of the meaning of the
words baptism and to baptize, as devoid of any allusion to
the act or effect of cleansing, we get rid of one ground of
argument in favour of a relation to that effect, and conse
quently to the " remission of sins," in the rite itself : and
the question now is, whether that deficiency is made up by
the other attributes or characteristics of the ceremony, as
they are brought before us in the word of God. As a
divinely authorized religious ceremony, the first account we
have of it is in connection with the opening of the Christian
dispensation. In the Old Testament no mention of it
occurs ; nor is there any valid reason to believe it was ever
practised by the Jews in the sense in which we have here
to consider it— that is, as an initiatory rite ; though com
monly alleged to have been so used in the case of
proselytes. It would, of course, strictly speaking, imply
no contradiction to this statement, the description by St.

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 171
Paul in 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, of the Israelites being " all baptized
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; " even if the trans
action in question had been regarded by themselves in the
light in which it is there represented : which, however,
there is no ground for believing ever was the case. Eather
would it appear to be a metaphorical construction of the
apostle himself ; as in Heb. xi. 19, where he describes the
rescue of Isaac from the impending sacrifice as a resurrec
tion from the dead — " in a figure." Indeed it would
appear that the Jews themselves entertained the notion of
such a rite in such a sense, as a peculiar attribute of the
kingdom of the Messiah. Such, at least, appears to be the
purport of their inquiry of John the Baptist as to
the reason of his administering it, recorded in John i. 25 —
" And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest
thou then, if thou be not the Christ, nor Elias [whose.
appearance they expected as His forerunner], neither that
prophet " — evidently the prophet announced by Moses to
be raised up unto them like to himself (Deut. xviii. 15, 18).
At any rate, in ' accordance with these anticipations,
preliminary to the entrance of our Lord upon His
ministerial office, we have the account of its employment,
for the first time, by the antitypical Elias, John the Baptist
The rite of baptism as practised by St John was, in respect
of its administration, of the same material form with that
in which it was subsequently perpetuated by our Lord's
ordinance in the Christian church ; as well as, to a certain
extent, of the same spiritual import also. Both
were administered by immersion, or plunging the body
under water ; both of them were rites of initiation, or con
secration to the service of God ; and both alike typical of
the same effects — namely, of a death or burial, and a resur
rection ; the former aptly represented by the submersion

172 VEXED QUESTIONS.
under the water ; and the latter, by the emersion or re
issuing from the same.
So far both ceremonies were alike. But there are two
peculiarities by which the later was distinguished from the
earlier rite : first, in respect of the Persons of the Godhead
in whose name (cf. Zech. xiv. 9) the party was baptized ; the
Trinal subsistence of which, there is reason to believe, was
altogether unrecognised or but imperfectly considered in
the preliminary institution (cf. Acts xix. 2, 3) : and,
secondly, in the addition of a new principle to the typical
signification! of the act ; whereby, instead of implying
simply the death and resurrection of the individual, it came
to signify a dying with or in Christ, and a rising again with
or in Him. This characteristic of the Christian rite is
explicitly declared in several places. Thus, Eom. vi. 3, 4,
" Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized unto*
Jesus Christ, were baptized unto his death ? Therefore we
were buried with him in baptism unto death ; that like as
Christ was raised up from the dead  even we also
should walk in newness of life." Again, Col. ii 12, " Buried
with him in baptism, wherein also ye were raised with
him." And in 1 Pet. iii. 18, 21, the rite is declared to be
purely a figure of those events — "For Christ also once
suffered for sins  having been put to death in the
flesh, but quickened in the spirit  the like figure
whereunto, baptism, doth also now save us  by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Apart from this characteristic, baptism, regarded simply
as implying the death and resurrection of the individual,
was distinctively a figure of that change of mind with
respect to sin which is represented under the name of
repchtance. This is, indeed, according to the literal meaning
* Els; cf. lCor.>. 2.

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 173
of the statement in Matt. iii. 11, in which we have the
first representation of the ceremony as performed by St
John — " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance ; "
where, besides the necessarily figurative character of the
relation (as above remarked), we have the determination of
the figure itself to the effect in question in the preposition
eh, unto — that is, to the likeness of; as we learn from the
use of the same phraseology in the passage just quoted
from Eom. vi. 3, " Know ye not that so many of us as
were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized unto his
death ;" the meaning of which is explained in verse 5 — " in
the likeness of his death."
And this relation of baptism to repentance — the relation
of type and antitype — is further sustained by the manner
in which the rite is constantly described or referred to.
Thus the name or title of " the baptism of repentance "
whereby it is distinguished, as in Mark i 4, Luke iii. 3,
Acts xiii. 24, xix. 4. Thus also the tenor of the Baptist's
address preliminary to the administration of the rite ; as
in Matt. iii. 1, 2, " In those days came John the
Baptist  saying, Eepent ye, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand ; " and again very notably, in verse 8
(Luke iii. 8), with reference to the repentance as literally
implied in the " baptism " previously mentioned — " But when
he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his
baptism, he said unto them  Bring forth therefore
fruits meet for the repentance."* And thus we have the
* The use of the definite article here is, as above intimated, very
notable ; considering the practice with respect to the same phraseological
elements — the article and the repentance — throughout the whole of the
New Testament. Of course I am aware that the article in the Greek is,
by grammarians in general, represented as liable to be employed in con
nection with abstract qualities without involving the inference of a relation
to any particular case ; under which head_ would probably be counted the

174 VEXED QUESTIONS.
confession of sin, the outward expression of repentance, as
the leading feature in the reception of the rite — " Then went
out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea,  and were
baptized of him in the Jordan, confessing their sins " (Matt.
iii. 6, Mark i. 5) ; by which expression I conceive to be
intended, not merely the oral acknowledgment of their
transgressions, but the practical admission of the sinfulness
of their condition in the figurative character of the rite ;
which, representing repentance, necessarily implies both the
acknowledgment and the renunciation of sin — the essential
pre-requisites and certain grounds of its forgiveness. And
thus the rite becomes further characterized as the " baptism
of repentance for the remission'of sins."
And thus, by two different roads we arrive at the same
description, both for the rite of baptism and the condition
of sanctification ; so far conclusive of the same character to
the rite itself, as contradistinguished from purification or
justification ; and consequently exclusive of any actual
remission of sins in the administration of it. In further
ance of the same conclusion I would yet add two other
passage to which this note is appended. Without assuming to dispute
the correctness of this representation, I would merely observe, with regard
to the case before us, that "repentance," peTdvoia, occurs in the N.T.
just twenty-four times (according to the textus receptus), of which nineteen
are in the abstract and without the article ; while, exclusive of the examples
here in question, the remaining three are with the article, and all of them
with a special reference, or, as it may be called, m the concrete. Thus
Acts xi. 18, "Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted the repentance
[which is] unto life ; " chap. xx. 21, " Testifying both to the Jews, and
also to the Gentiles, the repentance [which is] toward God, and the faith
[which is] toward our Lord Jesus Christ ; " and chap. xxvi. 20, " But
shewed  that they should repent .... and do works meet for
the repentance " — in which last example we have the counterpart of the
passage before us only with the repentance expressly indicated, which in
the analogous case is only implied in the "baptism," of which it was the
recognised, and is thus virtually declared to be the proper, import.

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 175
points of evidence, which I conceive to be of no less certain
efficacy in. determining the character of the rite in the sense
in which it has been thus presented to us.
In the first place, the fact of our Lord's submission to
the rite ; a fact utterly inconsistent with the supposition
of a reference to purification or justification. How
consistent with a reference to sanctification might be
inferred from the nature of that condition as here expounded
— that is, as a simple consecration ; in which sense it has
already been illustrated by reference to our Lord, in His
own words — " For their sakes I sanctify myself ;" as on a
previous occasion He had asserted the same qualification
from His heavenly Father — " Say ye of him whom the
Father hath sanctified" (chap. x. 36). As corroborative of
this argument it is to be observed, that the other figurative
ceremony of the Christian church, the Lord's Supper, being
the commemoration of His atoning sacrifice, is strictly a
rite or type, not of sanctification, but of justification. And
of it, accordingly, it is certain He did not partake. This
fact is expressly declared with respect to one of the
elements of the Supper in each of the three accounts of the
transaction, in the gospels of Matthew (xxvi. 29), Mark
(xiv. 25), and Luke (xxii. 17, 18) ; of which, as most con
clusive upon the point, it will be sufficient to quote the last
— " And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take
this, and divide it among yourselves : for I say unto you,
/ will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom
of God shall have come." And this, be it observed, was
spoken of the cup at the paschal supper ; not till after
which was His own sacramental ordinance instituted, as
described in the succeeding verses.
The remaining point of evidence to which I have
adverted as corroborative of the character of the rite, as a

176 VEXED QUESTIONS.
rite of sanctification, is the analogy of the rite of circum
cision. Waiving, for the moment, the question of the
identity of purpose of the two rites in the dispensations to
which they respectively belong — that the one is, in the
Christian dispensation, the counterpart of, and substitute
for, the other in that of the law — we can have no difficulty
in determining the identity of character in the latter with
that here claimed for the former. To this effect I will only
chiefly notice four grounds of argument. First, the fact of
our Lord himself having been circumcised. This, as I have
already had occasion to point out with respect to the rite
of baptism, is sufficient to show that purification or justifi
cation could not have been included in the purport of the
rite, though perfectly compatible with its character as a
rite of sanctification. Secondly, the application of the rite
to males only ; of which sex also sanctification, as
a ceremonial observance, was exclusively predicable ;
whereas purification was a condition equally proper to
females, and for which, in their case, special ceremonies
were appointed (see Lev. xii. ; 2 Sam. xi. 4 ; Luke ii. 22).
Thirdly the description of the rite itself in Eom. ii. 29,
" Circumcision is of the heart " — that is, not a matter of
forgiveness or justification, which is of God, but of disposi
tion or sanctification, which is of the individual ; and
again, in Col. ii. 11, " In whom also ye were circumcised
with a circumcision made without hands, in putting off the
body of the flesh* by the circumcision of Christ ;" the effect
precisely answering to the putting off the filthy flesh in
baptism, as represented in 1 Pet. iii. 21, and constituting
the peculiar characteristic of sanctification as distinguished
from justification, which consists in the remission or putting
away of the guilt. Lastly, the testimony of the Jewish
* Amended text.

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 177
Scriptures : as in Deut. x. 16, where the rite is identified
with holiness — " Circumcise the foreskin of your hearts, and
be no more stiff-necked ; " Jer. iv 4, where it is contrasted
with unholiness — " Circumcise yourselves to the Lord
 lest my fury come forth  because of the evil
of your doings ; " and Isaiah Iii 1, where it is distinguished
from purification in their negative conditions — " There shall
no more come into thee the uneircumeised and the unclean."
And now reverting to the question of the identity of
purpose of the two rites in their respective dispensations,
upon which the establishment of the analogy between them,
the ground of the present argument, depends : this will be
clearly seen in the perfect agreement of both rites in respect
of all those particulars which are essential to that identifi
cation. As baptism is the badge or sign of the covenant of
grace under the Christian dispensation, so was circumcision
of the same covenant (of grace) under the pre-existing dis
pensation of the covenant of works. This is, indeed,
expressly declared by St Paul in Eom. iv. 11, — " And he
[Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had yet being
uneircumeised;" that is, of the righteousness or justification
which is " by grace through faith, not of works " (Eph. ii.
8, 9) — the peculiar attribute of the covenant of grace as
distinguished from the covenant of works. And as such it
was retained in the Mosaic dispensation — " not, " as our
Lord observes, " that it is of Moses, but of the fathers "
(John- vii. 22). And both these rites, of circumcision and
baptism, are rites of initiation into the, at the time, prevail
ing dispensations ; whether, in the former case, of the
patriarchal or Mosaic, or, in the latter, of the Christian. In
both cases alike the observance is made imperative upon
all those by whom the membership of that dispensation is
M

178 VEXED QUESTIONS.
claimed or professed (Gen. xvii 9-14 ; Exod. xii. 48 ; Mark
xvi. 15, 16) : and that, not simply to the superposition of
the new, but to the supersession of the old ; as we find
it formally announced in Acts xv. 1-29, being the subject
of what may be regarded as the First Council of the
Christian Church. And thus we have the rites of baptism
and of circumcision of the same effect — as badges or signs,
in relation to the same dispensation, of grace ; and in the
same relation to that dispensation, as rites of initiation ;
and the establishment of the one prevailing ipso facto to
the repeal of the other. And if to these evidences of
identity in the characteristics of the two rites be added the
evidences of their identity in character, as rites of sanctifi
cation, independently ascertained ; what more can be
required to establish the identity of their purpose, to the
full effect of the analogy between them, upon which the
confirmation of that character in the case of the rite
of baptism has been founded ?
Upon all these grounds, then, I consider the character
of the rite of baptism, as one of sanctification, and not of
purification or justification, to be sufficiently ascertained ;
to the exclusion, consequently, of any remission or forgive
ness of sins in the administration of it. It only remains
to show that there is nothing contradictory to this conclu
sion in any passage of Scripture which may be liable to be
quoted in that behalf. Of such passages, however, there
is, that I can discover, but one, not already noticed, that
calls for consideration as bearing directly upon the subject —
that is to say, in which baptism is expressly mentioned in
such connection with sin as apparently to justify the
supposition of a remission of the latter through the instru
mentality of the former. Other passages there are from
which the same inference might appear to be deducible

BAPTISMAL ABLUTION. 179
through the intervention of a doctrine of like significance —
the doctrine of Baptismal Begeneration, to which our
attention will be directed in another Article. Leaving
such, however, to be dealt with under their proper head ;
and merely indicating, as unworthy of more particular
notice, certain passages in the New Testament where
washing is referred to in connection with the forgiveness of
sin — such as that in 1 Cor. vi. 11, " And such were some
of you  but ye washed yourselves;" Eph. v. 26,
" Who gave himself for her" [the church], that he might
sanctify her, having cleansed [her] with the washing of
water by the word " — which some commentators have
assumed to explain with reference to the rite of baptism,*
but for which assumption there is certainly no necessary
ground ; there is, as above intimated, but one passage to
be commented upon — viz., Acts xxii. 16, " And now why
tarriest thou ? Arise and baptize thyself, and wash away
thy sins, having called upon his"f name."
The phraseology of the expression j " wash away thy
sins" was of such common occurrence under the Old
Testament dispensation, when there was no rite of baptism
to which it could be referred, that it is only upon the
ground of an inevitable necessity that the application of it
to that rite in the passage before us could be sustained.
Thus Ps. Ii 2, " Wash me throughly from mine iniquity."
Isaiah i 16, " Wash you ; make you clean." Chap. iv. 4,
* " Ye are washed" [authorized version]. "That is, your former sins
are washed away or forgiven at your baptism." Dr "Wells — "Your
baptism is a renouncing of them all." Dr Hammond — " Here having been
washed in Christ's name doth. . . . denote baptism." Dr Isaac Barrow
— "And cleanse it with the washing of water" [authorized version]:
"That he might purify it from all sin; and to that end appointed
baptism" — Dr Hammond.
t Amended text.

180 VEXED QUESTIONS.
" When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the
daughter of Zion." Jer. iv. 14, ",0 Jerusalem, wash thine
heart from wickedness." Ezek. xvi. 9, " Then washed I
thee with water." And as the expression in question was>
in its origin, wholly independent of a reference to the rite
of baptism, so neither is there any reason for assuming
such a reference in the passage before us. I have already
observed that washing has no necessary connection with
cleansing, and is quite as applicable to a rite of sanctifica
tion as to one of purification or justification : in other
words, the washing away of sins is as properly intelligible
of the removal or renunciation of the sins themselves as of
the remission of their guilt ; as, in fact, we have it in one
of the passages just quoted — viz., Jer. iv. 14. With regard
to the injunction to baptize himself, it is only another
example of what has already been remarked, of the
employment of the badge in the sense of the profession.
In exhorting Paul to baptize himself Ananias is merely
exhorting him to profess the Christian faith: as in the
consequent exhortation to wash away his sins, he is only
using the language which he had all his life been using to
the same effect, and which he would, in all probability,
have used had circumcision been the rite referred to.

X.
BAPTISMAL EEGENEEATION.

The doctrine of Baptismal Eegeneration is, in all pro
bability, as old as the time of the apostles ; though the
first recorded mention of it is, I believe, by Justin Martyr
about the middle of the second century. It was not,
however, until the accession of Constantine the Great to
the throne of the united Eoman empire: that it attained -.it*.
full development; when the profession, of: Christianity
becoming general — in other words, a matter of course;
instead of being, as previously during the ages of persecu
tion, a matter of choice — the adoption, of. the- profession, in
other words, baptism, took the place of the- adoption of the
faith; and by an already corrupted priesthood was readily
invested with the imputation of all its privileges, including
that most important of all — regeneration.
This doctrine, however, notwithstanding the prestige of
its all but universal acceptance in times past, has, since the
Eeformation, been gradually losing its hold upon the pro
fessing Protestant world ; and at this present, in these
realms, is rejected by, at least, one-half of the Church of
England, the whole (it may be said) of the Churches of
Ireland and Scotland, and all the orthodox dissenting
denominations in the three kingdoms. But while thus
repudiating the doctrine in its reality, a great majority
concur in regarding the rite as, at all events, typical of the
effect in question ; and in that sense those of this descrip-r

1 82 VEXED QUESTIONS.
tion in the Established Church accept the authorised
formulm with a reservation or understanding accordingly.
Entertaining no doubt of the fallacy, equally of one view
as of the other, it becomes consequently necessary to con
sider the subject in both these regards; in a word, to
show that no more in type than in reality is there any
relation whatever between regeneration and the baptismal
rite. To this effect, as I have already intimated, there is
but one only legitimate, or indeed available ground of
proceeding' — the testimony of the Word of God. Other
evidence than that contained in the Scriptures, there is
literally none ; or rather, what there is pretending to be
such, is more calculated to obscure than to enlighten, to
confound the issue than to make it clear. The opinions of
the Fathers, the speculations of divines, the doctrines of
churches, &c, what are they but the dust and smoke raised
in the strife of theological controversy ; the only effect of
which is to hide from our view the common source of all
our information, the Bible itself ? To come to any satis
factory conclusion our only way is to get behind them ; and
endeavour to ascertain from the Scriptures themselves the
evidences of the true nature of the spiritual condition in
question, from which its relation or wow-relation to the
material ceremony may be infallibly ascertained.
And as a first step in this direction, let us endeavour to
determine what is that condition or qualification into the
circumstances of which we are about to inquire — What is
regeneration ? I do not mean here the signification of the
word (which we all know to be plainly a being begotten
again, of course in a spiritual sense) but the meaning of
the thing — in what does it consist ? The simplest answer
to this question would be — it is the beginning of a new
life. As man by one generation enters upon one life, so by

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 183
a re-generation he necessarily enters upon another life.
This effect St Paul describes as a " new creature, or crea
tion " (2 Cor. v. 17 ; Gal. vi 15),* elsewhere called the " new
man " (Eph. iv. 24) ; for I suppose it may be taken for
granted that it is to this condition of regeneration St Paul
refers under both these designations : unless, indeed, we are
prepared to maintain yet another generation distinct from
either of the former, a third generation, two new creations,
and two new men ; for which, I believe, no one has ever
contended, nor, I am sure, is there any authority in the
Scriptures. And this " new creation " er " new man " implies a new
nature. We are not merely begotten again as we were
before. Sueh a motion is precluded both by the reason of
the thing — What use could there be in a regeneration that
was to make no change, that was to leave us exactly as it
found us ? — and also by the testimony of the Scriptures ;
directly, in the words of St Paul as above referred to, " If
any man be in Christ he is a new creation; old things, have
passed away ; behold, all things have become new ; " and
indirectly (but most effectually, because not only inferential
of the change, but of the peculiar nature of the change) in
relation to the quarter from which it is stated to .proceed,
and the agency by which it is wrought — " begottea -irom
* Strictly creation, . ktIo-is, though in the sense of the creature, for which
the proper term is Kriapa ; as icplais, an adjudication, Kpipa, the judgment ;
trpa^is or iroinffis, the doing of a thing, irpaypa, or iroirjpa the thing done.;
&c. In the following passages we have the two forms distinctively repre
sented — viz. Bom. v. 18, Sucalaais and Siicaiapa, the justification and the
justifying act ; and James i. 17, S6ais and t&pnpa, the giving (see Phil.
iv. 15), and the gift. Jn all these and like cases the former term is liable
to be used in the sense of the latter ; the difference being apparently in
the point of view in which the object is intended to be regarded — in the
latter case with reference more particularly to the work, in the former to
the agent.

1 84 VEXED QUESTIONS.
above, " "begotten of the Spirit " (John^iii. 3, 5) ; thus
indicating a very different source of life to that from which
we derive our first generation, and consequently a very
different nature to the life itseK — even a heavenly.
I have said " begotten from above," " begotten of the
Spirit ;" for such is the proper rendering of the terms ; not
born again, or born of the Spirit, as in our authorized version :
a distinction of sufficient importance to demand confirma
tion at the cost of a temporary interruption of the subject
immediately in view. This distinction has regard to both
the particulars concerned — the act and the epithet by which
it is qualified. As to the former of these — the alteration in
the rendering, by which the character of the act is changed
from the being bom as of the mother to the being begotten
as of the father — it will be sufficient to say that it is in
strict accordance with the primitive sense of the word in
the original, yevvaxa ; and is constantly so rendered in the
authorized version itself;, thus 1 Pet. i 3, "Blessed be
God  which hath begotten us again unto a lively
hope ; " and 1 John v. 1, " Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Christ hath been born [begotten] of God ; and every
one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that hath
been begotten of him ; " and again, verse 18, " We know
that whosoever hath been born [begotten] of God, sinneth
not ; but he that was begotten of God keepeth himself."
With regard to the epithet, avcoOev, rendered in our
version again, it has, simply, no such sense ; neither is it
so rendered in any other place in the Scriptures, or liable
to be so rendered anywhere that I can discover. Its true
and only sense is as I have given it, from above. Com
pounded of the preposition aya, over or above, and the affix
proper to the effect in question (too familiar to need
illustration) it retains the same sense iD all its combina-

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 185
tions everywhere it occurs, whether literally or meta
phorically. Thus literally, Matt, xxvii. 51 (Mark xv. 38),
"And behold, the vail of the temple was rent in twain
from the top to the bottom ;" John iii. 31, " He that cometh
from above is above all;" Chap. xix. 11, "Thou couldest
have no power at all against me, except it were given thee
from above ; " and again, verse 23, " Now the coat was
without seam, woven from the top throughout ; " James i.
17, " Every perfect gift is from above ; " and again chap.
iii. 17, " The wisdom that is from above is first pure." And
so also metaphorically, as where it is employed to signify
from the beginning in relation to - time ; thus Luke i. 3,
" Having had a perfect understanding of all things from the
very first ; and Acts xxvi. 5, " Which knew me from the
beginning" — the course of time according to the usual
phraseology being reckoned from above doumwards. Even
in Gal. iv. 9 — " Whereunto ye desire again to be in
bondage " — where it has been thought to have the disputed
effect, it still retains the same meaning ; being only coupled
with the word tt&Xiv, properly rendered " again," as in our
vernacular idiom, over again.
But this rendering of the word, as giving its natural and
proper meaning, is not disputed ; and is only evaded by
our translators in the present case upon the ground of its
supposed inconsistency with the question of Nicodemus
thus rendered — " How can a man be born when he is old ?
Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb, and be
born ? " But the inconsistency here supposed is due, not
to the adverb, but to the verb; and vanishes with the
proper rendering of the terms — " Except a man be begotten
from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." " How
can a man be begotten when he is old ? Can he enter a
second time into his mother's womb, and be begotten ? " .

1 86 VEXED QUESTIONS.
The importance, in relation to the question before us, of
the distinction involved in these amendments, is twofold.
In the first place, it extinguishes the grounds of the notion
of a reference in the baptismal rite, as originally
administered, to the spiritual condition supposed to be
wrought in it, in the issuing of the neophyte from out of
the water after submersion, as a child from the womb of
its mother. The spiritual act, we now see, is one, not of
being born, but of being begotten ; and not merely begotten
again, but begotten from above — a qualification a step
further removed from a typical affinity with the water of
baptism. And secondly, it determines the character of
the "new creation," the " new man," in the sense of a
relationship to God himself. It sets forth spiritual regenera
tion as the beginning, not merely of a new life, but of a
heavenly one — a life in which God is the Father and we
His children ; and thus opens to our use, in the illustration
of this mysterious dealing, all the revelations of divine
truth in which that relationship is intimated — in which we
are spoken of, in a special sense, as sons of God, children of
God, begotten of God, begotten of the Father, begotten of the
Spirit, begotten of the will of God, begotten again. I say it
places all such passages at our disposal in the elucidation
of the case before us, upon the same ground to which I
have already adverted — the impossibility of deducing from
the Scriptures any authority for the hypothesis of any other
act or condition to which they could be taken to refer.
Seeing that we are actually begotten of God in a spiritual
regeneration, and consequently entitled to be so character
ized, and by necessary inference called His children, His
sons, and so forth ; surely nothing less than positive
evidence of another process of the like description at some
other time could avail to restrict us in the application to

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 187
the one known fact, of all the statements of Scripture in
which such expressions occur. And of such evidence
neither is there any ; nor, indeed, has any such ever been
directly asserted.
It is to be borne in mind that what we are here speaking
of is, as above defined, the application of the terms in
question in a special sense— the imputation of a heavenly
parentage distinct from that which is predicable of all
mankind. For that a relationship of the like denomination
is declared in the Scriptures in a general sense, is not to be
denied. There is a Fatherhood and a sonship by nature in
virtue of creation, in which all participate, alike angels and
men. But the relationship to which reference is here made
is not by nature, but by grace; not in creation, but
in redemption ; not of all men, but only of them that believe.
The proof of this is in the use and application of the terms
themselves, their limitation to some and exclusion of others ;
in illustration of which may be quoted such descriptions as
that of our Lord in John viii. 42, " If God were your
Father," &c. ; and that in chap. xi. 52, of the purpose of
Christ's atoning death, " that he might gather together into
one the children of God that are scattered abroad." Such
also that of St Paul in Eom. viii 15, " Ye received the Spirit
of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father ; " and again,
chap. ix. 8, '' Not they which are the children of the flesh
are the children of God ; " and again, Gal. iv. 4-7, " God
sent forth his Son  to buy off them that were
under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons
 so that thou art no longer a bondservant, but
a son ; " and again, Eph. i. 4, 5, " According as he chose us
in him  having predestinated us unto the adoption
of children ; " again 1 John ii. 29, " Every one that doeth
righteousness hath been begotten of him ; " and yet once

1 88 VEXED QUESTIONS.
more, chap. v. 1, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
Christ hath been begotten of God." Further testimony to
the same conclusion, derived from the characteristics of the
condition itself, the means of its attainment, and its effects
for time and for eternity, will be found in the sequel of
these remarks.
And now that we have sufficiently determined the
essential nature of the spiritual qualification in question, let
us proceed with the examination of the several points of
evidence that appear to bear upon the subject of its con
nection with the rite of baptism. And here the first point
that strikes us is the total absence of all direct testimony
to any such connection. There is not in all Scripture a
single passage in which regeneration and baptism are
mentioned together, or included in the same context.
Passages there are where either regeneration or baptism is
mentioned in connection respectively with facts or expres
sions in which a relation to the alternative condition might
possibly be supposed to be implied; as, for example,
regeneration and water or washing, in John iii. 5, Tit. iii. 5 ;
or baptism and salvation in Mark xvi. 16, 1 Pet. iii. 21.
But of passages in which the two conditions are propounded
together, or either of them with relation to anything that
could be held to constitute a definite bond of connection
with the other, there is certainly not one. Now, when we
consider that the doctrine involved is of no less than vital
importance — for as, our Lord informs us, without regenera
tion no man can see the kingdom of God (John iii. 3), so,
if this is to be understood with reference to the rite of
baptism, then by baptism alone can any man see the
kingdom of God ; and when we further consider the
extraordinary clearness with which all the essential truths
of the Gospel are otherwise inculcated ; the absence of all

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 189
direct evidence of the doctrine in question is an argument
hardly less than absolutely conclusive against it.
But this is not the only argument a priori against the
doctrine in dispute. In the dealings of- God with man for
the salvation of his soul, there is a latitude in all essential
particulars which admits of an application to every
individual of the human race. There is no such thing as
an indispensable remedy prescribed which is not capable'
of being applied, either actually, or by imputation upon the
ground of conditions in the knowledge or foreknowledge
of God, to every one afflicted with the disease. Is the
vicarious suffering of the Eedeemer essential to the
justification and consequent salvation of the sinner ?
Then, as all are sinners, as all have need of the remedy for
sin, so is the remedy for sin applicable to all ; the sacrifice
has been offered up for the sins of the whole world. Is
faith essential to the realization of the benefit of this
redemption ? Then is that faith, which is only the
expression of a cordial agreement with and acceptance of
the remedy, equally capable of an actual application! by
those to whom it is offered, and of an application' by impu
tation to those (to whom it is not, indeed, offered, but) who,
by the operation of God's Holy Spirit (as much the
attribute of the heathen as of the professing Christian)
have been brought into that condition of mind in which, if
the Saviour were offered, He would be accepted. Here,
and here only, in the doctrine of regeneration by the rite
of baptism, we have a qualification essential to salvation
suspended upon a ceremony which only very few ever
could have experienced, whieh the great majority of man
kind could never even have heard of; and which, as a
means to the end, is excluded from the predicament of
imputation. For if the end be attained without the rite,

190 VEXED QUESTIONS.
the rite (not being of the essence of the qualification)
neither need be imputed at all, nor could be imputed as
the means.
And this leads to yet another argument ct priori against
the doctrine of a regeneration in baptism — viz., its incon
sistency with the distinctive character of the dispensation
under which it is maintained. In order to establish this
argument it is necessary to observe that, previously to the
epoch of the Christian ordinance, there was no rite or
ceremony to which the effect in question is likely to be
referred. There are but two ceremonies, indeed, of which
such an effect could, with any show of probability, be
supposed to be predicable — namely, the rite of baptism
assumed as in existence before the appointment of our
Lord ; and that of circumcision. With regard to the former
of these, it can hardly require a formal refutation to set
aside the notion, that a condition, avowedly essential to
salvation, could ever have been suspended upon the
administration of a rite, of which no mention is made in
the only record of the divine appointments which existed
at the time. And that neither was circumcision a rite of
regeneration is demonstratively ascertained by the fact
that it was only applicable to the male sex ; so that if we
would suppose regeneration to have been the appropriate
result of circumcision, we should be under the necessity of
concluding one-half of the Jewish population, either exempt
from the possibility of being saved, or else saved without
recourse to a ceremony indispensable to the salvation of
the rest. Seeing then, that no ceremony (excluding that
very ceremony which we have seen to be the counterpart
and representative of baptism itself)* was requisite to
regeneration in the antecedent condition of the church, the
* Article on Baptismal Ablution, p. 178.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 191
inconsistency of such an instrumentality in the Christian
dispensation is evident upon the slightest reflection. For
if there be any one characteristic by which the Christian
dispensation is more particularly distinguished, it is
assuredly its exemption from the burden of those material
forms and ceremonies which the wisdom of God had
previously prescribed as the means of soliciting and
obtaining the benefits of His grace. To suppose, in the
face of this peculiarity, the inauguration of the Christian
dispensation by the appointment of a new ceremony for
the purpose of obtaining a blessing which had been attain
able in all the previous ages of the church without one, is,
I contend, an assumption which nothing less than the
most direct and unambiguous testimony of the Scriptures
would be sufficient to justify.
But it is not upon the ground of a, priori argument
alone that the doctrine before us is to be fully and fairly
determined. " To the law and the testimony ; if they
speak not according to these, it is because there is no light
in them" (Isa. viii 20). And in the application of this
criterion I propose to consider categorically, with a special
regard to the relation in question, the several characteristics
of the grace or condition of regeneration, as set before us in
the Scriptures, under the five following heads — viz., I., its
origin or prime cause ; II., the means of its accomplish
ment ; III., its effects, regarding, successively, the spiritual
condition of the individual ; IV., his moral constitution ;
and, VT, his future life. And first, as to the origin or
prime cause of regeneration, the principle upon which it is
bestowed, this point will be found clearly determined in
three passages of Scripture, of themselves alone sufficient
to set aside the notion of any real connection with the rite
of baptism. Thus John i 12, 13, " As many as received

192 VEXED QUESTIONS.
him, to them gave he the privilege to become children of
God, to them that believe on his name ; who were begotten,
not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will
of man, but of God." Considering in this description
"bloods" to signify family connections or descent; the
" will of the flesh," the desire of the individual himself (in
Iris carnal nature by the necessity of the case) ; and the
" will of man," the disposition or appointment of others-^-
according to the general acceptation ; this passage is con
clusive to the effect, that it is not by virtue of anything a
man inherits — his Christian parentage, for example ; nor in
consequence of any aspiration or desire of his own ; nor
through the instrumentality of anything which may be
done for him by others — the administration of the rite of
baptism, for instance — that he acquires the privilege of
being a child of God, in other words, regenerated ; but,
irrespectively of all these, by the sovereign will or grace of
God alone. Again, chap. iii. 8, " The wind [or Spirit]
bloweth [or breatheth] where 'it listeth, and thou hearest
the sound [or voice, cf. Isaiah xxx. 21] thereof, but canst
not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is
every one that hath been begotten of the Spirit." The
inconsistency of this description with the idea of a
reference to a ceremony alike palpable to the senses, and
producible at the will of man, is too obvious to require
elucidation. Yet one more, James i. 18, " Of his own will
[literally, having willed or chosen] begat he us." It is
impossible to imagine a phraseology more expressive of a
complete independence of ail foreign control than that
whereby the origin of the condition in question is here
notified; nor, consequently, an effect more incompatible
with the notion of a ceremony of popular arrangement and
avowedly general application.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 193
The second of the characteristics of spiritual regenera
tion above enumerated — the means or instrumentality by
which it is accomplished — will be found equally adverse to
the supposition of any real connection with the rite of
baptism. The testimony to this instrumentality is
presented under several forms of expression ; all of them,
however, to one and the same effect, of a mental or moral
operation; in which the instrumentality is indifferently
represented as the word of God, the truth contained in that
word, or the faith with relation to the truth which is
its proper object. Thus in John i. 12 above quoted, the
" privilege to become children of God " is pronounced with
exclusive reference to " them that believe on his name."
In 1 Cor. iv. 15, the apostle, speaking ministerially, says,
"I have begotten you through the gospel; "and again,
Gal. iii 26, " Ye are all sons ef God by faith in Christ
Jesus." " Of his own will begat he us with the word of
truth " (James i 18). " Having been regenerated, not of
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God "
(1 Pet. i 23). " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
Christ hath been begotten of God" (1 John v. 1). And
with such instrumentality duly ascertained, there would
appear to be no room for question as to the fallacy of the
doctrine which would assign the same spiritual result to
the administration of the baptismal rite.
But here we are met with a distinction by which,
without disparaging the testimony referred to, its efficacy
in the argument before us is assumed to be set aside.
Accepting the instrumentality therein asserted, it is
observed that such instrumentality is only applicable to
persons who have arrived at years of discretion ; and thus
baptism, anticipating this condition, may yet be considered
effectual to the same result. Now, that God does deal

J94 VEXED QUESTIONS.
with infants, and doubtless with all persons whose intellects
are incompetent to realize the appointed means of grace,
without the intervention of those means, there is no
reasonable question. I have already referred to the
possibility of such a proceeding with respect to the article
of faith, in the case of all persons generally, under cir
cumstances to justify the supposition that faith would
have been realized if the means of its attainment had been
vouchsafed. But in all such cases the dealing is necessarily
co-ordinate with the condition upon which it is founded ; the
expedient cannot be predicated beyond the limits of the
contingency for which it was intended to provide. To sup
pose it otherwise would be to suppose a man dealt with
upon a principle that did not apply to his case. And so
the infant and the idiot may be supposed to be regenerated
without .faith : but only upon the hypothesis that they die
in the state of infancy or idiocy ; not attaining to the con
dition of reason, the want of which is the sole ground of
their being so dealt with. The cases of such description
are, moreover, necessarily exceptional ; the number of idiots
and of persons who die in infancy being inferior to that of
the rest of mankind. To suppose men dealt with upon the
same principle who attain to the age of reason, would be to
suppose the general body dealt with upon the principle,
not of the rule, but of the exception. It would, in fact, be
to substitute the exception for the rule.
The third of the characteristics of regeneration indicated
as affording ground for the denial of a connection with the
rite of baptism, is its effect as regards the spiritual condition
of the individual ; or, to speak perhaps more precisely, his
position or standing in the sight of God. And for the
establishment of this point it will be sufficient to refer to
the testimony of St Paul in Tit. iii. 5, where we have the

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 195
effect in question expressly defined — " Not by works of
righteousness which we had done, but according to
his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regenera
tion ;" a description of the effect in the sense of a cleansing
or purifying, spiritual, of course, from the guilt of sin; and
therein, as we have already observed, essentially opposed
to the character of the baptismal rite,* and, consequently, to
the notion of any reference thereto ; and that, equally in the
sense of a typical as of a real connection between them.
It is true that some, charged with the doctrine of baptis
mal regeneration, and unmindful of the distinction we have
been elucidating between purification to the putting away
of the guilt of sin, and sanctification to the putting away of
the sin itself, and the exclusive relation to the latter in the
rite of baptism, have adopted the notion of a reference
here to that very ceremony ; as though the sense of the
passage was to the effect of a washing unto regeneration,
not of a regeneration to the effect of washing : while others
in the same view have gone so far as to render the phrase
in question by the " font," or " laver of regeneration."-)- But,
in the first place, such a transposition of the terms is con
trary to the grammatical construction of the text, as well
as to the indications of the context. Atd Xovrpov
TraXzyyeveo-ias is not through a regeneration of or by washing,
but, through a washing of or by regeneration ; and in this
sense it is confirmed by the analogous construction of the
remaining clause of the sentence — " and by the"renewing
of the Holy Ghost " — where the latter member of the clause,
" the Holy Ghost," can only be understood in the sense of
the Agent in the production of the former. And, secondly,
* Article on Baptismal Ablution, pp. 165, &c.
t For example Bishop Hall and Dr Whitby ; see note on the passage
in Mant's Bible. Also Dean Alford in his revision of the authorized version.

196 VEXED QUESTIONS. J
the word rendered washing, Xovrpbv, does not signify a
laver, or vessel for washing ; the proper word for which is
Xovrrjp* Moreover, the primitive Christians did not baptize
in a font or vessel of any kind, but in a river or other
natural reservoir ; as intimated in John iii. 23, " John also
was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there were
many waters there." And though it is possible to suppose
the apostle inspired to foreknow the future practice of the
church, it can hardly be thought he would have embodied
that knowledge in an address to persons who, without such
inspiration, would have been unable to understand it.
The fourth of the characteristics of spiritual regeneration
relied on as bearing testimony to the inconsistency of a
connection with the rite of baptism, is its effect as regards
the moral condition of the mdividual in whom it has been
wrought. What this effect is, we have already partially
noted. That it amounts to a real change of character and
disposition, extending to all the forms of thought and feel
ing originally impaired by the fall, might be concluded
from the description of the condition itself in the language
of St Paul there quoted — " If any man be in Christ, he is
a new creation : old things are passed away ; behold, all
things have become new." Agreeably with this description
we have the statement of the same apostle in Eom. viii. 14,
16, " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are
sons of God  The Spirit beareth witness with our
spirit that we are children of God." And, to crown the
whole, we have the testimony of another apostle to a yet
more wonderful effect — " Whosoever," says St John, " hath
been begotten of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed
[the seed of God — i.e., the Holy Spirit] remaineth in him :
* AovTpbv from Koia stands in the same relation to \ovriip, that vinTpov
from viirTtn does to ra-T^p ; about which latter there is no question.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 197
and he cannot sin, because he hath been begotten of God "
(1 John iii. 9). How this may be understood we
gather from St Paul in Eom. vii. 20 — " If I do that I would
not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."
Man consisting of two natures, the spiritual and the earnaL
when these become antagonised, as in the regenerated state
of the soul, the character of the individual in the sight of
God attaches to the former. He is the man, in God's
estimation, in which the regenerated will resides: the
carnal nature, to which the responsibility for the sin (in
this case) belongs, being regarded only as a qualification
or accident of his present constitution^ But,, however
explained, the fact remains, that, he that " hath been
begotten of God" — in other words, that, is regenerate —
" doth not commit sim" An attempt to weaken the force
of this declaration is, very commonly hazarded on the ground
of apparently contradictory statements in chap. i. 8, " If we
say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves ; " and again
in verse 10, " If we say that we have not sinned, we make
him a liar." But in truth there is no contradiction between
them. In the passage especially before us the apostle is
describing the conduct of the individual after he has been
created anew in Christ Jesus — "Whosoever hath been
begotten of God doth not commit sin." In the first of the
two passages with which it is contrasted the apostle merely
declares the condition of man by nature, which we know to
be one of sin, negative as well as positive — the not doing as
well as the doing ; to the former of which we are necessarily
obnoxious as long as we abide in the flesh. The second of
the contrasted passages is directly retrospective; and
pronounces nothing with regard to the present or the
future. In judging of the above description we must take care

198 VEXED QUESTIONS.
not to confound the effects there represented with the cause
to which they are to be ascribed. The effects referred to
are not regeneration, but the fruits of regeneration ; which
is an act, like that of the natural conception, complete at
once in the establishment of a living principle, having a
development according to its own laws. Eegeneration is
not a change of character but of constitution, from which a
change of character ensues conformable to its origin ; as the
products of a natural generation, whether animal or vege
table, exhibit the proper characteristics of the stock from
which they spring. These characteristics may be of slow
growth, and imperfect in their development ; but still they
partake of the nature of the parent germ. And so the
effects of regeneration above referred to are not to be looked
for in the origination but in the development of the spiritual
life ; they follow from the " new creation," but they are not
included in the act. Hence the variety in their manifesta
tions, both as regards the character and the time of their
development. And as in the case of the natural creation
with which we have been comparing it, abnormal inter
ferences frequently lead to abnormal results, and the body>
affected by disease, or the fruit stung by an '.insect, present
appearances that do not belong to, or harmonize with, the
character of their natural origin ; so in the case of the
Spiritual creation, fruits of a description altogether alien to
the divine principle but too often display themselves under
the influence of a physical constitution to which the same
regenerating process has not yet been (as it will be here
after) applied. Thus it will be seen that neither the
imperfection nor the incongruity of the phenomena are any
disparagement of the view which has been here taken of
the effects of a spiritual regeneration. It need scarcely be
added that no such effects, or indeed, any moral effects

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 199
whatever, are imputable to a reception of the baptismal
rite. The fifth and last of the characteristics of a spiritual
regeneration presenting grounds of objection to an alliance
with the right of baptism, is its effect as regards the future
life or eternal prospects of the individual by whom it is
realised. In the view of those by whom the spiritual
condition is maintained in connection with the material
ceremony, no conclusive influence, of course, attaches to
the realization of the former. Not all who are baptized
being saved, regeneration as by baptism is not a condition
effectual unto salvation. But regeneration as represented
in Scripture is precisely to the effect thus repudiated. In
Tit. iii. 5, regeneration is described as a washing by which
we are, not merely put in the way of salvation, but actually
saved — " According to his mercy he saved us by the wash
ing of regeneration." " Blessed," says the Apostle Peter,
" be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which
 hath begotten us again  to an inheritance in
corruptible  that fadeth not away " (1 Pet. i 3) ;
again, verse 23, " Having been begotten again, not of corrupti
ble seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which
liveth and abideth " — that is, evidently, in the regenerated
individual; in which sense it is confirmed by another
passage (recently quoted) of similar import — " Whosoever
hath been begotten of God doth not commit sin ; for his
seed remaineth in him : and he cannot sin, because he hath
been begotten of God." This text presents two statements to
the same effect. First, we have the fact, that the regenerate
cannot sin. How this might be understood, I have already
pointed out. But, as before observed, however explained,
the fact remains, that the regenerate " cannot sin," and con
sequently cannot fail of salvation. Secondly, the reason

200 VEXED QUESTIONS.
for this immunity from sin is declared — " because his seed
[the seed of God, the regenerating Spirit] remaineth in' him
— that is, abideth in him for ever ; for less than this would
satisfy neither the sense nor the context of the passage.
Upon any other supposition we should have a statement
simply to the effect, that the seed of God remaineth while
it remaineth ; a palpable absurdity in itself, and affording
no grounds for the conclusion it is intended to support.
But one more passage I would adduce in the same behalf
— 1 John v. 4, " Whatsoever hath been begotten of God
overcometh the world." For though this declaration
be specially exemplified with reference to faith, it is equally
true, as a general proposition,. of individuals as of qualities.
If, then, he that hath been begotten of God — i.e., regener
ated — " overcometh the world," he that hath been
regenerated can never perish.
The foregoing arguments, it may be said, with one excep
tion already .specified, only touch the question of a
real connection between the spiritual condition and the
material rite ; without affecting that of the figurative or
typical character of the latter in relation to the former.
Nevertheless, in the one case referred to (Tit. iii. 5), were
there no other evidence to the same effect, we should have
a perfectly sufficient ground of objection to the inference of
even a typical connection between them. The definition
of regeneration as a " washing " or purification, is itself
conclusive against any reference, real or figurative, to a
ceremony that is distinctively one of sanctification.
To this, however, there is yet to be added another argument,
equally effectual to the same result — the fact, namely, that
the rite of baptism has another typical character of its own,
perfectly well defined, and, indeed, not liable to be
questioned by either of the parties in the controversy.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 201
This character we have already seen established, upon the
direct testimony of the Scriptures, in the sense of a death
and a resurrection. Now, though there may be, as in fact
there are, instances in which various types are employed to
represent one antitype — as where the atoning work
of Christ is shadowed forth under the figures of the scape
goat and of the burnt offering — yet is it, so far as I can
discover, without Scripture precedent, if not indeed
contrary to reason, for two antitypes to be represented by
one and the same type.
In weighing this' position we must be careful to distinguish
the antitype, as represented in the type, from the attributes
with which it may be coupled, and which may be indefinitely
multiplied : as in the case of the " seven heads " of the beast
in Eev. xvii. 9, 10,. explained of "seven, mountains," and
also of " seven kings."" The thing there, represented — the
proper antitype — is, as we learn from the representation
itself, merely the number ; the mountains and the kings,
which have no other correspondence with the heads, being
included in the explanation undeu- that number, as they
would have been* equally aptly under any other form ;
while, had there been a like number of anything else, they
would or might have been included in it also. In the case
before us, the transaction,. b'aptism>, constituting the type,
represents (as we are all agreed) the transaction constitut
ing the antitype, a death and resurrection ; and cannot be
rationally understood with relation to another transaction,
a being begotten again, which it does not represent at all.
The question here, be it observed, is not as to the spiritual
condition, whether resurrection and regeneration be not the
same in effect ; but as to the type or figure under which it
might be represented. The relation with which we have to
deal is not between the figurative expressions and the

202 VEXED QUESTIONS.
spiritual condition they are intended to represent; but
between the baptismal rite and the figurative expressions
themselves. Eegeneration and resurrection (in a spiritual
sense) may be expressions of the same spiritual condition ;
but the aets are different physical processes, and cannot be
included in the design of one and the same physical
representation. Having now gone through all the evidence upon the
ground of which I had assumed to disprove the theory of a
connection between spiritual regeneration and the baptismal
rite, it only remains, for the completion of the argument, to
take account of any passages which have been, or appear
likely to be, regarded as bearing testimony to a contrary
conclusion. I have already observed that the kind of
evidence here alluded to is entirely of an indirect character ;
there being no passage in Scripture in which regeneration
and baptism are mentioned together, or included in the
same context. It is only upon the ground of a presumed
identification of either of them with some third term, that
such a bond of connection is contended for. Of the
passages answerable to this description, some have been
already disposed of — one, Tit. iii. 5, under the present
head ; and others virtually, upon the same ground, under
that of a baptismal remission of sins, in the negation of
which is included the negation of a condition characterised
by that very attribute of a " washing " or moral purification.
Of those which remain to be dealt with, some, however, are
of too transparent insufficiency to justify a formal refuta
tion. It seems like trifling to set to work to prove that,
for example, in Mark xvi. 16 — " He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved " — there is no necessary allusion to
regeneration. Any one can perceive with a moment's
reflection, that the salvation may well be supposed to be

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 203
suspended upon the believing, as it is everywhere else (cf.
John iii. 15, 16, 36, vi. 47, xx. 31 ; Acts xvi. 31; Eom. x. 9,
1 Cor. i 21; Eph. ii. 8, &c); and not upon the being
baptized, which, as observed upon a former occasion, is only
added as affording the evidence of the profession, especially
necessary in the commencement of the dispensation in
order that the progress of the gospel might be perceptibly
manifested. Dismissing, then, from our regard all state
ments of this description as unworthy of serious considera
tion, there remain, so far as I can see, but five passages
(besides those already disposed of) that present sufficient
appearance of affinity with the doctrine in dispute to
require explanation — viz., John iii. 5; Eom. vi. 3, with
which may be coupled Gal. iii. 27 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13 ; and 1
Pet. iii. 21.
" Except a man be begotten of water, and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Such is the
statement of our Lord in the passage, John iii. 5, upon
which, more perhaps than upon all the rest, reliance is
placed for the maintenance of the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration. Yet is there, in my humble judgment,
nothing more clear, nothing more certain, than that in these
words our Lord could have had no regard whatever to the
baptismal rite. In the first place, let us consider to what,
upon the hypothesis of such a reference, the statement
actually amounts — to nothing less than that every human
being that has not, or will not have, been baptized, has been
or will be consigned to everlasting perdition. For, be it
observed, what is here declared is an abstract proposition,
a general rule, admitting of no exceptions, and equally
applicable to the past as to the future. By the terms of
the declaration, then, supposing the regeneration intended
with reference to the baptismal rite, what is here implied

204 VEXED QUESTIONS.
is simply to the effect that except a man has been or shall
be baptized, he cannot have been or be saved. There is no
avoiding this conclusion, with any regard tothe language of
the passage itself. It is vain to endeavour to limit its
application to subsequent ages, or to. resolve it into the ex
pression of a figurative or typical connection! It is stated
in terms of an essential obligation*, which certainly could
not be true of the type if not true of the antitype : and as
regards its limitation to. subsequent ages, the- relief to the
argument upon such, grounds wouldibe too slight to. be of
any real importance..
Secondly, upon the supposition, of an»allusion to- the rite
of baptism, how could, our Lord have expressed surprise- at
the ignorance of Nicodemus when informed of the necessity
of regeneration by that rite to- the entrance into- the
heavenly kingdom?. How should he,, as a "master of
Israel," have been expected toknow the connection between
that consummation, and a ceremony of which* no. mention
is made in the Jewish. Scriptures ? And;yet again, in what.
sense, upon the same supposition, could the statement of
our Lord in explanation of the matter be called an explana
tion at all ? Surely if the ignorance of Nicodemus which
it was intended to enlighten was an ignorance of the
necessity of regeneration by baptism to the attainment of
the kingdom of God, it must have been more than ever en
hanced by the illustration of our Lord, when He compared
the work of the Holy Spirit in the accomplishment of it to
the blowing or breathing of the wind or Spirit " where it
listeth," and our hearing the sound or voice thereof, though
unable to discern its origin or its end. As to the real
meaning of the text in question I consider it sufficiently
satisfied in the strictly parallel passage of St Paul in Tit.
iii. 5, already explained. Indeed, I can hardly avoid

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 205
regarding the statement of the apostle as a bona fide
quotation, or rather paraphrase of the words of our Lord —
" According to his mercy he saved us by the washing of
regeneration" — begotten of water — "and the renewal of
the Holy Ghost "—begotten of the Spirit.
The relation implied in the passage in Eom. vi. 3, rendered
in our authorised version, " Know ye not that so many of
us as were baptized into Jesus Christ," is so obviously
misrepresented in the sense of a real spiritual union with
Christ, that were it not for a repetition ©f the expression in
Gal. iii. 27, accompanied with the imputation of an effect
equally liable to be misunderstood, it would not have been
necessary to notice it further than we have already under
the head of a remission of sins in baptism. That the true
sense and proper rendering of the expression is, not into,
but unto Jesus Christ is clear from the use of the same
preposition, els, in a similar context in 1 Cor. x. 2, where
it is employed with reference to the inauguration of the
Israelites into the Mosaic covenant, — " and were all baptized
unto Moses." In Gal. iii. 27, however, we have the rela
tion carried a step farther — " For as many of you as were
baptized unto Christ, did put on Christ ; " and it may be
thought necessary to show that nothing is implied in this
effect in any way calculated to confirm the notion of a real
spiritual union with Christ in the baptismal rite. And for
this purpose all that is requisite is a slight glance at the
context. The putting on of Christ, it will be observed, is,,
as here represented, an act of the individuals themselves*
(cf. Eom. xiii. 14) ; and, consequently, an act the reality of
which is not determined by the act alone, but depends
upon the reality of the faith in which it was performed.
It is their acknowledgment of a union with Christ ; and
however unavailable to any real spiritual effect, is available

206 VEXED QUESTIONS.
as an argument against themselves. What this argument
is appears from the context. The Galatians, misled by
false teachers, conceived it necessary that they should also
be circumcised, in order that they might be virtually
" children of Abraham," under that covenant by which he
was made the " father of all them that believe," and " heir
of the world " (Eom. iv. 11, 13). This, the apostle tells
them they were already " through faith in Christ Jesus ; "
who was himself the " seed " referred to (verse 16) — one in
His own Person, including all His members* These
members they professed themselves to be by being baptized
unto Him, in which act they had "put on Christ," in
whom — being but One — all are but one also. " There is
neither Jew nor Greek," circumcision nor uncircumcision ;
" for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's,
then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the
promise " (verses 28, 29).
* The normal meaning of the word "seed," and that in which it is
primarily intended in the passage referred to, is in the sense, not of an
individual, nor of individuals as such, but of an aggregate or community of
individuals — a race or progeny ; the application to "Christ" consisting in
His identification with that community, the spiritual seed, as their
embodiment, according as it is frequently represented in other Scriptures
{cf. Matt. xxv. 40, Acts ix. 4, 1 Cor. xii. 12, 27, Eph. i. 28, Phil. i. 20,
Col. i. 24, iii. 11, &c). The force of this distinction, as well as the
necessity for it, is seen in the subsequent use of the word "seeds" in the
plural number — " He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one,
And to thy seed, which is Christ : " the "seeds " implying, not a plurality
of individuals, but a difference of kimds, as by natural descent, and by
adoption or imputation (cf. Ps. xxii. 30, Bom. iv. 16-18, ix. 8) ; the pur
port of the argument being to determine the obliteration of that difference
in the unification of all, Jews and Gentiles, by faith in Him in whom all
are one and One is all (Gal. iii. 28, Eph. ii. 14). In this sense alone
would the argument of the apostle, founded upon the use of the singular
number, be of any avail. In the sense of a reference to individuals
independently regarded, the singular number would determine nothing ;
the word " seed " being a noun of multitude, and equally predicable of the
many as of the one.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 207
But it may be said, have we not a direct enunciation of
a real spiritual union with Christ by baptism in 1 Cor. xii.
13 — " For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one
body." This remark (only proves the necessity for a very
strict attention to the language of Scripture before we
venture to build any conclusion upon it in the way of
controversy. There is no reference here at all to the rite
of baptism. What the apostle is alluding to is the baptism
in or by the Holy Ghost ; quite a different thing from the
baptismal ceremony, differently accomplished, generally by
the imposition of hands (see Acts viii. 17, ix. 17, xix. 6 ; 1
Tim. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. i 6 ; Heb. vi. 2), and without any
association with, or any relation to it. This will appear
from a very brief examination of the passages in which the
expression in question — baptism in or by the Holy Ghost —
is mentioned. These passages are only seven in number ;
of which four are the parallel places in Matt. iii. 11, Mark
i. 8, Luke iii. 16, and John i 33 ; where John the Baptist,
distinguishing the qualifications of the Messiah from his
own, says, " He shall baptize with the Holy Ghost " — a
qualification, sufficient of itself to set aside the notion of a
reference to the baptismal rite, which we are told (John
iv. 2) was not administered by the Lord himself. The
fifth and sixth of the places referred to are merely
recapitulations of the preceding by our Lord and St Peter,
respectively in Acts i. 5, and xi. 16, declaring their applica
tion to certain cases ; to which effects, therefore, we are
bound to consider the import of the expression exclusively
confined. And from the consideration of the cases in
question — the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the
apostles on the day of Pentecost (chap. ii. 4), who, I take
for granted, no one believes to have been sacramentally
baptized on that occasion ; and upon Cornelius and his

208 VEXED QUESTIONS.
companions, whose baptism in water is described as taking
place afterwards (chap. x. 47) — it is clear that no reference
is intended to the rite of baptism ; but simply and solely
to the extraordinary endowment of the parties with certain
miraculous gifts or powers.
The remaining example of the use of the word baptize in
connection with the Holy Spirit is the passage before us.
And here, too, the meaning, as deduced from the context,
is clear to the same effeet. For the context in which the
expression occurs is just that of those very gifts or powers
which it was the proper object of the operation in question
to confer ; and which never were conferred, that we have
any intimation of, in the baptismal rite. Following up
this context from the eighth verse to that immediately
preceding the passage under consideration, we have a
detailed account of the distribution ©f those gifts or powers
among the parties addressed, whereby each becomes
characterised as a member of that body, of which the
whole is represented by Christ himself — " For to one is
given by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the
word of knowledge by the same Spirit ; to another faith by
the same Spirit  For as the body is one, and hath
many members, and all the members of that one body,
being many, are one body ; so also is Christ ; " and then,
after a lengthened representation of the intimate connec
tion and mutual dependence of the members, extending
uninterruptedly from the verse containing the text before
us, the apostle sums up the whole in verses 27, 28 —
" Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in parti
cular. And God hath set some in the church, first
apostles, secondarily prophets," &c. From all of which it
is impossible to conclude otherwise than that the reference
in the passage in question is, not to the spiritual incorpora-

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION 209
tion of the members of Christ in His mystical body, which
we know to be by faith, and faith alone ; but to their
incorporation as fellow-workers in the church of Christ,
under the powers conferred upon them in the baptism of
the Holy Spirit, which sometimes followed, sometimes
preceded, but never accompanied, the reception of the
baptismal rite : as indeed is distinctly declared in Acts viii.
16 — " For as yet he [the Holy Ghost] had fallen upon none
of them ; only they had been baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus."
The remaining passage, to which' it has been observed
importance might attach in the argument before us, is
1 Pet. iii. 21 ; where baptism and salvation are apparently
presented in the relation to one another of cause and
effect — "The like figure* whereunto even baptism doth
also now save us (not the putting off the filth of the flesh
[or, the filthy flesh, as before explained], but the answer of
a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ." I have already referred to this passage as bearing
testimony to the relation of the rite of baptism to the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ mentioned in verse 18 ;
contrary to the usual construction by which the figurative
character of the rite is expounded with relation to the
saving of Noah in the ark, alluded to in the intervening
verses. In order, however, to sustain this interpretation, it will
be necessary, in the first place, to make a slight correction
in the rendering of the previous part of the passage, in
* 'AvtItvttov. This word is calculated to mislead the English reader,
by whom the antitype is commonly, indeed conventionally, understood in
the sense, not of the figure, but of the thing figured. In the Scriptures,
however, the antitype is,, equally with the type, expressive of the figure
or symbol ; as in Heb. ix.,24, "For Christ entered not into holy places
made with hands, antitypes flf the true." 0

210 VEXED QUESTIONS.
which the quickening of the Lord Jesus Christ is described
as " by the Spirit," , instead of in the spirit — the proper
antithesis to the "being put to death in the flesh,"
expressed by the same preposition, iv, and in both cases
alike without the article ;* which, in its present context,
would have been necessary to secure the distinction
between the spirit of the man and the Holy Spirit, if such
had been the purport of the text. And thus, with the
same amendment of the preposition in the beginning of the
next verse — " In which he went," &c. — we have the
ground of that parenthetical character which I have assigned
to the ensuing description of Christ's going and preaching
" to the spirits in prison," &cf
In the next place, it is certain that in nowise could the
rite of baptism be referred to the subject of the intervening
verses, with which, as just remarked, it has been hitherto
identified. There is nothing in either transaction — the
preservation of Noah or the baptismal ceremony — whether
as regards the means or the manner of its accomplishment,
or the character of the operation, by which a bond of con
nection could be established between them. It could not
be the water considered as the instrumental means of the
salvation ; for, besides that the water, in the case of Noah,
was the instrument of destruction, not of salvation, we have
the instrumental means in that case declared to be the ark,
" wherein a few, that is eight, souls were carried safely
* The article is not in the amended text. The fact of its interpolation,
arising doubtless from the supposed exigency of the received interpretation
of the passage, is consequently an additional argumeut in favour of the
above explanation.
t "He went and preached," &c. — a description, by the way, conclusive
against either of the two modes in which the passage is commonly explained
— namely, the preaching by His Holy Spirit to the spirits of the antedi
luvian sinners ; and, whether by His Spirit or in person, to those same
sinners during their life- time, whose spirits are now in prison.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 211
through the water : " * while in the case of baptism, the
means are directly specified — " by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ ; " to which there is nothing analogous in the case
of Noah and the ark. Neither could it be the ark itself;
for, not to dwell upon the incongruity of the comparison,
the ark, ot/3coto?, is in the feminine gender ; while the
pronoun by which the relation of the " figure " is determined,
0 or w, is in the neuter.^ It could not be the manner
in which the effect is accomplished ; for what analogy is
there between a ship sustaining its freight upon the bosom
of the water, and baptism consisting of an immersion
in and emersion from it ? Nor could it be the character of
the salvation ; for what conformity is there between the
escape of the righteous from the punishment inflicted upon
others, and the escape of the sinner from the punishment
due to himself ?
On the other hand, the relation of the figure to the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ is an already ascertained
fact, and needs nothing more to recommend it here than its
perfect conformity with the rest of the description. And
of this conformity we have two striking instances : one, in
the agreement between the particulars referred to both in
the antitype and the type — the " being put to death in the
flesh " and the being " quickened in the spirit," correspond
ing to the " putting off the filth of the flesh " and " the
answer of a good conscience toward God ;" the other, in the
*'Aie<r<!>6naav Si' SSaros {cf. Acts xxiii. 24, xxvii. 44, 1 Cor. x. 1,
2 Pet. iii. 5). The rendering of this passage in the authorized version —
" were saved by water " — is liable to the charge of ambiguity ; considering
the previous mention of the ark as the instrumental means of the salvation.
t There is a question here about the pronoun, whether it should be in
the dative case, as in the textus receptus, or in the nominative. As, how
ever it makes no essential difference in the sense, nor any at all in the
present argument, which is only concerned in the gender, I have not
thought it necessary to deviate from the authorized version.

212 VEXED QUESTIONS.
instrumentality through which the salvation is effected —
" the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
With this understanding of the passage it will be
sufficient, so far as the present argument is concerned, to
observe, that baptism being put before us as a " figure," or
representation of something else, any salvation it is stated
to confer must also be understood in a figurative sense
with reference to the transaction of which it is the type.
And so, in the figure, baptism is said to save us " by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ ; " for the act of baptism repre
senting the death of the sinner with Christ and His
resurrection in Christ, it is by the latter part of the transac
tion, or rather, by what is figured in it, that he is properly
said to be saved (cf. John xi. 25 -; Eph. i 19, 20, ii. 1 (Greek),
6 ; Phil, iii 10 ; Col. ii. 12, iii. 1 ; 1 Pet. i 3 ; also 2 Cor.
iv. 10 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11, Gr.).

XI.
INFANT BAPTISM.
The identity in character and purpose of the rite of baptism
with that of circumcision being, as I venture to assume,
already established in a recent Article,* the propriety of
infant baptism might, I submit, be fairly said to be estab
lished also. If infants were to be consecrated to God in
circumcision under the old covenant, it is only reasonable
to conclude they ought to be so consecrated in the correla
tive rite of baptism under the new. That they are conse
crated in foci, without regard to any ceremony at all, by
the mere intention of the believing parent, we are directly
informed by St Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 14-^" For the unbeliev
ing husband hath been sanctified," or consecrated, " by the
[believing] wife, and the unbelieving wife hath been
sanctified by the [believing] husband ; else are your
children unclean ; but now are they holy " — i.e., consecrated.
And if so in fact, by intent, why not so in form, and by the
appointed ceremony ?
The question here, it will be readily perceived, is
virtually altogether one of the necessity of faith as a con
dition precedent to the reception of the rite ; for which,
apart from any evidence to the contrary, there appears to
be no more occasion in the case of the new covenant
ceremony than in that of the old. That such a condition,
however, is necessary, and that evidence thereof is to be
* On Baptismal Ablution, p. 176, &c.

214 VEXED QUESTIONS.
found in the Scriptures, are, as a matter of course, main
tained by those by whom the practice of infant baptism is
rejected ; and equally as a matter of course denied by those
by whom the practice is upheld, and with whose view in
that respect I myself entirely coincide. I have no hesita
tion in affirming that, not only is there no evidence in the
Scriptures confirmative of the necessity of faith to the
reception of the rite ; but that whatever evidence there is
bearing upon the subject is decidedly to a contrary conclu
sion. I am not now, it is requisite to premise, referring to
the light in which the ceremony is regarded by God — a
point to which we shall hereafter have occasion to recur —
but simply to the duty of performing it as incumbent upon
men ; for the settlement of which question the evidence
we have to consider is the doctrine and practice of the
inspired ministers of the Christian church as recorded in
the pages of the New Testament.
In proceeding to this inquiry it is necessary to bear in
mind (what I have elsewhere enlarged upon) that the word
rendered faith is used in the Scriptures, both, in two senses,
and also with reference to a variety of characters according
to the subjects upon which it is exercised — viz., under the
former head, a real belief and the religion which is the
subject of the faith; under the latter, faith in matters
essential to salvation and in matters which involve no such
consequence — the intended meaning in each case being
determined by the context.* Examples of each of thftse
kinds of faith in relation to the rite of baptism will be
found in the following pages, which include all that I can
discover that have any real bearing upon the subject. It
is scarcely necessary to observe that it is to real faith only,
and in essential particulars, that the controversy before us
* Article on Faith and Works, pp. 70, 71, and 56, 57.

INFANT BAPTISM. 215
has regard. It is not intended to dispute that a profession
of the faith, and that in essential particulars, was a requisite
preliminary to the reception of the rite of baptism in the
case of adults, the first converts ; concerning whom alone
we have any direct information in the Scriptures : the
consecration of their children by baptism being left to be
inferred from the general statement of the baptism of their
"house" or "household;" in which, considering three
occasions on which it is mentioned, it would be rather
unreasonable to suppose there were none.
Taking the passages alluded to in the order in which
they present themselves in our authorized arrangement of
the Scriptures, we have, to begin with, our Lord's commis
sion to His apostles in Matt, xxviii. 19, 20 — " Go ye* and
instruct [literally discipiolate or make disciples of] all the
nations, baptizing them  teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you : " concerning
which we have to observe, in the first place, that no real
faith is implied in this description. On the contrary, the
word chosen to represent the condition of those who were
to be baptised was rather expressive of persons in a state
of probation, corresponding to those at a later period of
church history called catechumens. The being disciples in
the Scripture account of them involved no such fidelity as
belong to a real faith. In Matt. xvii. 17, we have our
Lord taxing His " disciples " with their faithlessness which
prevented them from casting the daemon out of the lunatic ;
and, in verse 20, ascribing it directly to their " unbelief."
In John ii. 11, it is stated of the " disciples " of the Lord
that, in consequence of the miracle of the conversion of the
water into wine, they " believed on him ; " which showed
alike that faith was not implied in the designation of a
* Amended text.

216 VEXED QUESTIONS.
disciple, and that, though called disciples, they had not
believed on Him before. In chap. vi. 64, our Lord
expressly declares that some of His " disciples," distin
guished as such in verse 61, actually did not believe. And
in chap. viii. 31, we have certain " Jews which believed
on him " classed among His " disciples " of whom in verse
44, in continuation of the same discourse, He says, " Ye
are of your father the devil." And secondly, we have, in
the order in which the terms of the two elements of the
discipleship, baptism and teaching, are collocated — the
baptism first, and the teaching afterwards — another indica- "
tion of the independence of the rite upon a real faith; which
could not be supposed to precede the knowledge of the
things that were to be believed.
The next passage to be noted in this inquiry is Mark
xvi. 16 — " He that believeth and is baptized shall be
saved." Here certainly we have the requirement of a real
faith. But this is evidently not with reference to the
baptism, but to the salvation, the proper attribute of the
faith ; the ceremonial observance being included in the
account simply for the purpose of publicly attesting the
conversion in the commencement of Christianity, as I have
before taken occasion to explain. Hence, in the continua
tion of the passage, where the contrary conditions are set
forth, the condemnation is declared in exclusive dependence
upon the not believing, without any allusion to the rite of
baptism. The next passage that affords occasion for remark, in
relation to the present subject, is Acts ii. 41, in which we
have the result of the preaching of Peter on the day
of Pentecost — " Then they that gladly received his word
were baptized." These, we are told, amounted to about
3000 persons. Are we to suppose that the apostles

INFANT BAPTISM. 2 1 7
investigated and ascertained the reality and consistency of
the faith of all these before they baptized them ; seeing it
was accomplished in " the same day ? " But in the begin
ning of chap, v., we have an account of two of the number,
whose faith, as evidenced by their conduct, was certainly
not real or not of the right description — namely, Ananias
and Sapphira (cf. chap. ii. 44, 45, and v.,1, 2) : from which,
at any rate, we learn that the apostles were not gifted with
the power of judging by themselves, or assisted in the
exercise of their judgment to discern the hearts of men ;
but were under the necessity of accepting the profession,
which they actually did in the present instance.
A yet more striking illustration, if possible, of the same
conditions is furnished in the next case to which we have
occasion to refer — that of Simon, the magician — related in
chap. viii. 13-23 ; of whom it is said that he " believed "
and " was baptized ; " the nature of whose faith, as either a
mere profession, or a faith in unessential particulars,
is clearly established, both by the conduct of the individual,
and the declaration of the apostle, that he had " neither
part nor lot " in the matter, but was still " in the gall of
bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."
Three more cases alone are recorded apparently bearing
upon the subject before us ;* and these may be all con
sidered under the one head — viz., that of Lydia and " her
household " (chap. xvi. 15) ; of the jailer of Philippi, " and
all his " (verse 33) ; and of Crispus (chap, xviii. 8), who,
we are told, " believed on the Lord with all his house,"
whose baptism is not indeed directly related, but may be
* In the account of the conversion of the eunuch of queen Candace
(Acts. viii. 26—38), the verse 37, which contains the allusion to faith as
a condition of being baptized, is rejected from all the amended editions of
the text, not being found in any of the ancient MSS.

218 VEXED QUESTIONS.
supposed to be included in the account of the " many of
the Corinthians " whose conversion and baptism are
recorded in the same verse. In all these cases the
remarkable feature is the wholesale character of the trans
action — the baptism of the head of the family followed or
accompanied by that of all those belonging to him, his
children, servants, 'or slaves, at once, and instantaneously
upon his own conversion (in the case of the jailer of
Philippi it is described as occurring in " the same hour of
the night " in which he had witnessed the earthquake, and
released the prisoners), precluding trie possibility of
ascertaining the reality of the conversion in the several
instances ; and, upon the supposition of their reality, com
pelling us to have recourse to a mode of dealing of which
we have no other exemplification in the history of the
church. And here I cannot but remark the singular
analogy which these general descriptions bear to those relat
ing to the rite of circumcision, as affording another and a
strong argument in favour of the identity in character and
purpose of the two rites, and of the merely formal nature
of both, dispensing with the necessity of faith, and even of
the profession of it in regard of the infant members of the
family — thus, Gen. xvii. 12, 23, " And he that is eight days
old shall be circumcised among you  he that is born
in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which
is not of thy seed " — " And Abraham took Ishmael his son,
and all that were born in his house, and all that were
bought with his money, and circumcised  in the
selfsame day, as God had said unto him ; " and again, Exod.
xii. 48, " When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and
will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be
circumcised," &c.
Looking then to the testimony of the Scriptures, it is

INFANT BAPTISM. 2 1 9
sufficiently clear that the ministration of the rite of baptism
was by no means originally restricted to believers ; but
was the proper attribute of all who professed to believe.
And this is nothing more than we should have been com
pelled to conclude from the simple nature of the case
rationally considered. For is it credible or possible that
God should have made that a condition precedent to the
ministration of a rite, which no minister could be expected,
or indeed competent, to ascertain, and which even the
individual himself might not be able satisfactorily to con
firm ? All that the minister has to consider in the case of
adult baptism, is, with respect to the knowledge of the
professor, whether he knows the essential doctrines of
Christianity, and whether they are the doctrines which he
professes to believe. Should his inquiries prove favourable
to the candidate in these respects, and the conduct of the
individual offer no palpable contradiction to his profession,
he is bound, in accordance with the apostolic example, to
execute his office ; without consideration of the genuineness
of the faith, as of a matter beyond his cognisance, and with
which he, as minister, has no concern.
But if faith be not requisite to justify the administration
of the rite of baptism to an adult, why should it be so in
the case of an infant ? The mere profession of the faith, in
which alone there is any essential difference between them;
could never form a qualification in the sight of God to any
effect whatever. The mere professor (as I have already
observed in ,the Article upon the Church, p. 30) is in His
view an infidel, quite as much as, or rather more so than
an infant or child not yet arrived at years of discretion.
Hitherto, it will be observed, we have been dealing
exclusively with the question of the administration of the
rite as a duty to be performed in the sight of men ; with

220 VEXED QUESTIONS.
reference to which aspect of the case alone it is that the
necessity of faith to the due accomplishment of it is denied.
There is, however, the other and higher point of view in
which it has to be regarded — as an act of devotion accept
able in the sight of God. And to this effect, certainly,
faith is an indispensable condition, but only in the case of
the adult. Why this should be so in the case of the adult
and not of the infant, is in the nature of the transaction.
The adult consecrates himself ; an act which implies faith :
the infant is consecrated by another ; to which effect its
own faith is of no importance. As a general rule, if there
be faith the baptism is complete in the sight both of God
and man. If otherwise, the rite is not imputed to the
recipient until, if ever, that faith be realised : the individual,
whether adult or infant, is in the view of God, absolutely
unbaptized ; just as, in the case of the unbelieving commu
nicant, his reception of the elements of the Lord's Supper
is no real participation of the rite. On the other hand, if
he be eventually converted, his baptism will become
imputed to him ; as the rite itself would have been, if he
had not been baptized, and had no means of accomplishing
it. These conclusions are in the strictest accordance with the
manner in which things of similar import are set before us
in the Scriptures. It is upon the same principle of impu
tation, as we have already seen, the whole doctrine of
justification is founded;* and that the efficacy of faith unto
salvation in the case of an actual unbeliever, is capable of
being explained.-f- Upon the same principle it is that the
promise of the inheritance to the seed of Abraham
is literally fulfilled in the case of those who have no claim
* Article on Faith and Works, pp. 61, 62.
+ Article on Baptismal Regeneration, p. 189.

INFANT BAPTISM. 221
to be descended from Abraham at, all ; as expressed by St
Paul in Eom. iv. 16, 17 — " Therefore it is of faith that it
might be of grace : to the end the promise might be sure to
all the seed ; not to that only which is of the law, but to
that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the
father of us all [Gentiles as well as Jews], in the sight of
him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead
[i.e., imparteth the quickening principle of faith to them
that are otherwise spiritually dead, whereby they are made
the children of the promise], and calleth those things which
be not as though they were " — the general proposition, of
which the particular example intended is the calling those
the children of Abraham who really are not.
But the principle of imputation is declared in another
part of the same epistle (chap. ii. 25-29), so directly in
connection with the subject before us as to place the matter
beyond all reasonable question. It is true the statement is
drawn up in terms of the patriarchal rite of circumcision,
and of the condition of the covenant of works — the
fulfilment of the law. But the doctrine, as regards the
principle of imputation, is independent of the rite referred
to ; and quite as applicable, if not more so, to the analogous
circumstances of the new covenant than of the old. For if
circumcision, in the more formal religion of the Jew, was
liable to the law of imputation, dependently upon
the condition of the covenant of works, much more the
rite of baptism in the more spiritual religion of the
Christian, dependently upon the condition of the covenant
of grace.
And so — substituting the terms of the latter for those of
the former, the rite of baptism for that of circumcision, and
the condition of faith for that of works — " baptism verily
profiteth if thou hast faith ; but if thou be an unbeliever thy

222 VEXED QUESTIONS.
baptism is made unbaptism. Therefore if the unbaptism
have the righteousness which is by faith, shall not his
unbaptism be counted for baptism ? And shall not unbaptism
which is by nature, if it attain the righteousness which is
by faith, judge thee, who by the letter and baptism dost
fall short of that attainment ? For he is not a Christian,
which is one outwardly ; neither is that baptism which is
outward in the flesh ; but he is a Christian, which is one
inwardly ; and baptism is that of the heart, in the spirit,
and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, but of
God." -

XII.
THE LOED'S SUPPER.
The peculiarity of an established form of worship and
articles of faith, by which the Church of England is distin
guished from other Protestant communities, gives a
character to her doctrines which particularly qualifies them
to be made the subject of critical observation. Not that
the doctrines themselves acquire any additional importance
by virtue of this association ; but simply that, while other
wise more or less indeterminate and hypothetical, in the
liturgy of the nation they assume both a more definite form
and a more substantial existence. It is on this account
alone — certainly not as implying any special liability to
the charge of error in respect of the doctrines in question
on the part of the church to which I myself belong — that,
in dealing with the subject of the Lord's Supper, I have
adopted the plan of taking up the several points of
importance in succession, according to the form in which
they are brought before us in the order for the celebration
of that rite in the Book of Common Prayer.
Following up this plan, our first attention is drawn to
certain statements in the preliminary exhortation, the
purport of which is to no less an effect than the capital
question of the real nature and character of the rite itself.
After a description of the conditions requisite to the recep
tion of the Holy Communion (upon which, though I con
ceive open to objection upon the^ score of an exaggerated

224 VEXED QUESTIONS.
representation of the language of St Paul, I shall not stop
to comment), we are presented with a contrasted relation
of the " benefit " and " danger " accruing respectively from
their observance and non-observance. Under the former
of these heads are three particulars enumerated as the sum
of the results to be derived from a suitable participation in
the Lord's Supper — " For then we spiritually eat the flesh
of Christ, and drink his blood ; then we dwell in Christ,
and Christ in us ; we are one with Christ, and Christ with
us." The first of these, taken in the sense in which alone it
can be regarded as true, is not properly a benefit of receiv
ing the Holy Sacrament, but the reception itself. It is a
definition of the act, not a representation of its results. To
eat or drink spiritually is an expression only intelligible
in one or other of two senses — either, I., incorrectly, as
though synonymous with figuratively ; * in which sense it
is equivalent to a denial of the reality of the eating and
drinking, or (admitting the reality of the eating and drink
ing) the reality of thing said to be eaten or drank : or, II.,
correctly, as signifying a moral operation, a reception by or
in the spirit of the receiver ; in which sense, recognising
the reality of the object, it limits the realisation of it to the
moral faculty — i.e., in the case before us, the faculty of
believing. If the phrase in question be meant in the former
of these two possible senses, it is simply declaring, that if
we receive that holy sacrament, then we figuratively eat
and drink the real body and blood of Christ, or else that
we really eat and drink the figurative body and blood of
* Spiritually, irvevpaTiKZs,, is the expression of a real, not of a figur
ative effect ; an effect realized in the spirit, wvevpa, as distinguished from
that realized in the soul, the animal principle, i/wx^i tyvxiK&s, or in the
body ff&p.a, ffupariKws. •

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 225
Christ ; of which two alternatives (as the eating and drink
ing in the Lord's Supper is a real eating and drinking) the
latter alone is true ; but as such is only a recapitulation of
the act itself of which it is declared to be one of the
results. If, on the other hand, we accept the statement in
the correct sense of the word " spiritually " — namely, as
implying a real reception of the Lord in the spirit or heart
by faith — then is the statement equivalent to a declara
tion, that in receiving the bread and wine, which are
material acts, we realise that reception of the object which,
by the terms of the definition, we are supposing to be
restricted exclusively to the moral faculty.
The other two particulars in the same predicament —
" then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us ; we are one
with Christ, and Christ with us " — are equally liable to
objection. There can be no doubt the effects here
predicated are founded upon statements in our Lord's
discourse recorded in John vi ; and the ground upon which
they are here liable to objection is in respect to their
application to the subject before us — the Supper of- the
Lord. The discourse in question could have no relation or
reference whatever, direct or indirect, to that institution.
In the first place, the- Supper of the Lord was not in
existence at the time of the delivery of that discourse ;
while all the statements it contains, upon which any
analogy could be presumed to be founded, are expressed in
the language of the present. Thus (verse 51-56), " I am the
living bread  If any eat [not shall eat] of this bread,
he shall live for ever " — " Except ye eat [now, at this present
time] the flesh of the Son of man  ye have no life in
you" — "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath eternal life " — " He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh
my blood, dwelleth in me." Was all this true at the time
p

226 VEXED QUESTIONS.
it was spoken ? If so, as of course there is no doubt it was,
it must have been true without any regard to the Lord's
Supper. Was it a complete truth when it was first
delivered ? Was it fully realised, or realisable, in relation
to the Lord as He then stood, without the need of any
sacramental institution ? Then what room is there for the
sacramental institution in its purport or design ?
Secondly, the statements themselves are opposed to the
hypothesis of an allusion to the Lord's Supper. They are
statements of facts which are not true, in any sense or
degree, of the sacramental rite. Thus, " I am the living
bread  if any man eat of this bread lie shall live for
ever!' — " Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day " —
" He that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." Are
these statements true of a participation in the Lord's
Supper ? If not, as no one believes them to be, how can
they be thought to have had any reference to that institu
tion? Thirdly, in every known case in which two facts or
events are brought into the relation of sign and thing
signified, or in other words, of subordinate and superior, it
is always the former that is declared with a view to the
latter, never the latter with a view to the former. Thus in
our Lord's address to the Jews, as recorded and explained
in John vii. 38, 39 — " He that believeth on me  out
of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this he
spake of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should
receive " — it is not that, in announcing the gift of the Holy
Ghost, Christ had in view the rivers of living water, but
that, in the rivers of living water, He had a view to the
gift of the Holy Ghost. When St Paul says (Eph. v. 32),
" This mystery " — alluding to the relation of husband and

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 227
wife — " is great : but I speak concerning Christ and con
cerning the church ; " it is not Christ's union with the
church that is insisted upon with a view to the relation of
husband and wife, but the relation of husband and wife
with a view to the union of Christ with the church. And
once more, when St Peter in his first epistle (chap. iii. 18,
21) brings into comparison the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ with the rite of baptism — " For Christ also
once suffered for sins  having been put to death in
the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit  The like figure
whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save you 
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ " — it is not the
death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that is propounded
with a view to the rite of baptism, but the rite of baptism
with a view to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Clearly therefore it is contrary to analogy and reason to
suppose that our Lord, in His enunciation of the eating and
drinking of His flesh and blood unto eternal life, had a
view to the eating and drinking of His body and blood in
the typical ceremony of His Last Supper.
Fourthly, there is, in the terms of the description in
John vi., a direct contradiction to the identification of the
Lord's body in that discourse with His body as set forth in
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For there is no
question that the body of Christ contemplated in the latter
case was His body in the literal sense of the word ; that is
to say, that the bread in the sacramental rite did figura
tively represent the real or literal body of Christ, His
human body, the only body He had in the literal sense of
the term. But in John vi. the body or flesh of Christ is
declared in a figurative sense ; it means, not His real body
or flesh to be eaten really or figuratively, but himself, in
His character of the Incarnate Eedeemer, to be received,

228 VEXED QUESTIONS.
taken in, and appropriated to the individual by faith. And
in His own description of this body, or flesh, we have the
question of its true nature as here expounded; to the
exclusion of any possible relation between it and His body
as represented in the sacrament of His Last Supper — " The
bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven " — " I
am the living bread which came down from heaven : if any
man eat of this bread  he shall live for ever ; and the
bread that I will give is my flesh " — " This is the bread
which came down from heaven." Now the body of our Lord,
His " flesh " in the literal sense, never came down from
heaven. It was created or produced upon the earth,
begotten of the blessed Virgin Mary, flesh of her flesh, bone
of her bone. It is clear, therefore, upon this ground also,
that our Lord could not have had in view His natural or
real body, the body represented by the bread in the sacra
mental Supper, when He spoke of himself in the passages
quoted from St John.
But fifthly, it may be said, as it is generally so con
sidered, that the eating and drinking are the same in both
cases, and therefore liable to the imputation of the same
results. When our Lord in John vi. 53 says, "Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye
have no life in you ; " and in the institution of the Last
Supper, " Take, eat, this is my body  Drink ye all of
it, for this is my blood ; " it is still an eating and drinking
in relation to the body and blood of Christ ; and must not
this eating and drinking be one and the same in character,
and consequently in effects? Certainly not; the eating
and drinking are totally different in the two cases. The
relation between them is, in fact, not one of comparison,
but of contrast. Just as we have seen the body or flesh of
Christ to be different in the one case from what it is in the

THE LORDS SUPPER. 229
other, so the eating of it in the one case is different from
the eating of it in the other. In the case of John vi, the
eating of the body of Christ every Christian, every
Protestant at least, acknowledges to mean the reception of
Christ in the soul by faith — a figurative eating. The body
or flesh of Christ in the same discourse we have just seen
to be a real Christ. The eating of the body of Christ in
that discourse is, then, a figurative eating of a real Christ.
In the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, the thing eaten,
the bread, is a figurative thing; but the eating of it is a real
eating. In the one case, therefore, we . have a figurative
eating of a real thing; in the other, a real eating of a
figurative thing.
Again, the eating in John vi. being, as observed, the
reception of Christ by faith, is, in the light in which it is
there put before us, an act complete in itself. It imphes the
acceptance of the Incarnate Son of God as our Eedeemer
in that sense in which our Lord declares it to be unto ever
lasting life — " I am the living bread  If any man eat
of this bread, he shall live for ever " — " Whoso eateth my
flesh  hath eternal life." The eating here, then, is a
conclusive act — it is consummated at once for ever. This, I
have said, is the light in which the eating is presented to
us by our Lord ; and in that light we are bound to regard
it in the same context. But the eating in the ordinance
of the Lord's Supper is to no such effect. It is an act, not
conclusive, but commemorative, involving repetition as a
matter of course in that very designation. Here, then, we
have another difference between the eating in the two con
trasted cases — in the one, an eating once for all, or rather
(if I may be allowed the expression) once for ever ; in the
other, an eating from time to time.
With these marks of distinction already noted — equally

230 VEXED QUESTIONS.
conclusive, be it observed, whichever of the two contrasted
representations be supposed to have been intended with
reference to the other — it is unnecessary to seek for any
further evidences of the difference between the intent of
our Lord's discourse in John vi. and the institution of the
Last Supper. Enough has been adduced for the purpose of
illustration ; and more than enough for demonstration, when
it is considered that not a particle of evidence has ever, been
alleged or suggested on the opposite side. Now, it is of the
reception of Christ as propounded in John vi. that the
effects are really predicated, which in the exhortation before
us are declared with reference to the Lord's Supper. It
is by that eating once for ever — the expression of a faith
unto everlasting life — that " we dwell in Christ, and Christ
in us," that " we are one with Christ, and Christ with us ; "
and to predicate these effects of the eating from time to time
in the Lord's Supper, is not only unscriptural, but (I use
the word in the sense of the schools) absurd. For the
dwelling " in Christ, and Christ in us, " the being " one
with Christ, and Christ with us," are conditions incapable
of gradation. Christ is but One, and we are individually
but one also. If Christ be dwelling in us and we in Him,
He and we must be entirely so ; neither of us can be
partially in and partially out of the other. So also if we
be one with Christ and Christ with us, neither of us
can be more or less than one with the other. If
then, by the faithful reception of Christ according to
His word in John vi, " We dwell in him, and he in us ;
we are one with him, and he with us," the partaking of
the Lord's Supper can make no difference in those respects.
We either were in Christ and one with Christ by faith
before communicating ; in which case the communicating
cannot be charged with those results : or we were not ; in

THE LORDS SUPPER. 231
which case, not being faithful receivers of Christ, we have ,
no participation in that holy ordinance, and consequently
experience no such effects as are here associated with it.
So far as regards the first part of the argument in
support of the necessity of a fitting preparation for the
reception of the Lord's Supper as represented in the
exhortation before us — the relation of the benefit to be
realised. And now, as to the second part of the same —
tne contrasted representation of the danger to be incurred
from the neglect of such a preparation — it will, I venture
to affirm, be found upon examination to be equally liable
to objection : and that, upon the same grounds, of the
misapplication of Scripture ; though the misapplication
itself be not of the same description. For whereas, in the
previous case, the Scriptures referred to had no relation
to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper at all ; the error
here is, not that the passages relied on do not relate to that
ordinance, but that they have no application to it in the
manner in which it is administered at the present day.
There is, of course, no doubt that the reference all
throughout is to the statements of St Paul, in the eleventh
chapter of his First Epistle to the Corinthians upon the
subject of the Lord's Supper. But it is equally certain
that the state of things to which he there refers has no
existence or counterpart certainly in the Church of
England, perhaps in any church in the world. The fact is,
that the condition of the churches in respect of the Lord's
Supper soon became, and has continued ever since, more
liable to censure upon grounds of an exactly opposite
description. For while, in the case of the Corinthians, the
charge was one of indecent disregard of the solemnity of
the transaction; the error ever since has been the
exaggerated regard and superstitious reverence in which it

232 VEXED QUESTIONS.
has been held, as though different in its requirements in
those respects from any other act of devotion.
The fault of the Corinthian Church, like that of the
parties described in Jude 12 as "spots" in their "love-
feasts," was the treatment of the Lord's Supper in the light
of a purely social repast ; in which they eat and drank as
though it were their ordinary meal. " When ye come
together into the same place" — the characteristics of an
assemblage for a special purpose, in the present case a
devotional one — " it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For
in eating each taketh before other his own supper ; and
one hungereth, and another is drunken" — as in Jude,
" feasting together and fearlessly feeding themselves " — " For
have ye not houses wherein to eat and drink ? Or do ye
despise the church of God [your brethren in the faith], and
shame them that have not ? " And then he goes on to con
vince them of their error by instructing them in the true
nature of the rite, as not merely a social, but a religious
ceremony ; in which the bread and wine, though given to
be eaten and drunk, were yet consecrated to a special ,
effect — the representation of the body and blood of the
Lord. " Wherefore," he continues, " whosoever shall eat
the bread or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily " — that
is, in an unworthy manner, ava^lw;, adverb, and consequently
relative to the eating and drinking, not to the condition
of the individual — " shall be guilty of [an offence against]
the body and blood of the Lord. For he that eateth or
drinketh unworthily " — that is, disrespectfully, as before —
" eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself," or " to his
own condemnation" — in other words, in so eating and
drinking he condemns himself — " not discerning "-Mir
distinguishing, i.e., virtually ignoring that which he is
professedly commemorating — "the Lord's body;" an

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 233
analogous case of the offence denounced by the Levitical
law (Lev. x. 10), and charged upon the Jewish priesthood
by the prophet Ezekiel in the words of that same law —
" They have put no difference between the holy and the
common" &c. (Ezek. xxii. 26, xliv. 23). And this conduct
was carried to such an extent by the Corinthians as to
bring down upon them the chastening hand of God in the
form of bodily affliction, in some cases even unto death, in
order that they " should not be condemned with the
world" (verse 32). And that all this is with exclusive
reference to the particular conduct here indicated, is
evidenced in the following verse — "Wherefore, my
brethren, when ye shall come together to eat [the supper
of the Lord], tarry one for another ; and if any man hunger,
let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto con
demnation." Such, then, being the state of the case upon which the
arguments and denunciations of St Paul are founded, it is
clear that they can have no application to the Lord's
Supper as administered in any community of professing
Christians at the present day. The offence against which
they are directed has long been rendered impossible by
arrangements very probably initiated by St Paul himself;
as intimated in the next and last verse of the chapter —
" And the rest I will set in order when I come." In what
manner the apostle carried out the intention here intimated
we know not; but we may reasonably conclude that it
involved the appointment of elders or ministers (of which,
so far as regards the testimony of the epistle, there does
not appear to have been any in the church in Corinth at
the time), to superintend the ceremony ; instead of leaving
it, as it is seen to have been, at the discretion of the com
municants. With such a provision it is clear the offence

234 VEXED QUESTIONS.
in question is an impossible one : and to employ the
language respecting it in connection with the service of the
church is doubly injurious — both as conducing to an
erroneous view of the nature of the rite in those who do
partake of it , and in causing many a timid Christian to
abstain from it altogether. Apart from the particular
offence alluded to, there is no occasion for the imputation
of " danger '' in the participation of the Lord's Supper, no
ground for the introduction of the sentiment of fear into a
ceremony which is essentially one of love. It is with
reference to the offence, not to the ceremony, that St Jude
insists upon the fearlessness of those of whom he wrote as
defiling by their presence the " love-feasts " of the saints to
whom his epistle is addressed. It is not of their partaking
of the rite without fear that he complains, but of their
doing so in the manner described.
How different the conduct of the communicants, and
consequently, the character of the service, here censured,
from that respectively predicable of the present day, cannot
be better illustrated than by reference to a practice and a
principle now very commonly advocated and acted upon —
the practice of early communion, involving abstinence from
food before partaking of it. Both the practice and the
principle upon which it is based are errors in the one
direction as obnoxious to reproof as the behaviour of the
Corinthian Church is in the other. In the latter case the
solemnity of the rite was totally ignored ; as in the former
it is preposterously exaggerated. If there was " danger ''
to the early Christian from an ignorant abuse of the holy
ceremony, the " danger " to the modern professor is just as
great, though upon an exactly opposite ground, for which
no such excuse as ignorance is capable of being pleaded.
The modern innovation is, in fact, liable to censure upon

THE LORDS SUPPER. 235
both the points included in the description — the time of
celebration, and the element ox fasting — as in both respects
opposed to the direct testimony of the Scriptures : the first,
to the example of our Lord in the institution of the rite,
which we all know to have been in the evening ; in the
following of which example alone we have the justification
of its title as the Supper of the Lord : the second, to the
very distinct injunction or authorisation to eat and drink
before partaking of the rite, in the passage to which we
have just had occasion to refer—-" Wherefore, my brethren,
when ye come together to eat [the Lord's Supper], tarry
one for another ; and if any man hunger, let him eat at
home " — that is evidently before coming — " that ye come
not together unto condemnation " (1 Cor. xi. 33, 34).
I take it for a matter of course that all they to whose
judgment these pages are exclusively addressed — the
"orthodox Protestant community at large — agree in the
acceptance of the words of our Lord in the institution of
the Last Supper, " This is my body "  " This is
my blood," as intended in a figurative sense : in other
words, that in these clauses the auxiliary verb " is " has
the force of the word represents or typifies ; in like manner
as, for example, in Ezek. xxxvii. 11, " These bones are the
whole house of Israel ;" Dan. vii. 17, " These great beasts,
which are four, are four kings ; " Eev. i 20, " The seven
stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven
candlesticks  are the seven churches ; " or chap.
xvii 18, "*The woman which thou sawest is that great
city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth ; " or, to
come nearer to the subject, 1 Cor. x. 4, " They all drank of
that spiritual rock that followed them ; and that rock was
Christ." Taking, as I have said, for granted the concurrence of all

236 VEXED QUESTIONS.
who are concerned in the matter as to the meaning of our
Lord in the clauses in question to the effect here assigned,
it will be unnecessary, I conceive, to insist, at any great
length, upon the impropriety of the form in which the
eating and drinking in the Lord's Supper are represented
with direct reference to the " flesh " and " blood " of the
Lord, in the prayer immediately following the " Proper
Prefaces ; " or to defend with much argument the alteration
which would substitute in their place the outward and
visible signs of the body and blood, as that which is to be
eaten and drunk in the celebration of the rite. That they
are the outward and visible signs that are eaten and drunk,
and not the actual body and blood, we are all agreed ; and
the question is simply as to the propriety, not the orthodoxy,
of the amendment — whether we should express ourselves
in the former sense or in the latter ; in the terms of the
sign or of the thing signified ?
In my humble opinion there is very little, if any, room
for doubt upon the matter. In the first place, we cannot,
I hold, with any degree of propriety be said to eat really
the thing signified, but only the sign. If the eating were
figurative, as in John vi. 53-58, the conclusion would be
the other way. But that eating, as we have already shown,
has no application to the present case. The figurative
eating of the Lord is a reception of Him by faith, and
cannot be connected with a ceremony of any kind ; least
of all with one, to the participation in which that very
faith is an essential pre -requisite. By the faith, which is
necessary to the participation in the rite, the believer has
already realised the reception of the Lord ; and the rite
following cannot be credited with the same effect.
In the next place, it is inconsistent with the terms of
the institution itself. Our Lord does not tell His apostles

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 237
to eat His body, or to drink His blood. His language is
clear to the opposite effect. " Take, eat : this " — What ?
Surely the bread which He is described as having broken
and given to them. And then, what follows ? " This
[bread] is " — or, as we are agreed to understand it,
represents — " my body which is broken for you." The
bread He declares to be the figure of His body ; and the
bread is that which He commands to be eaten. The con
clusion is inevitable — that what is really eaten is the figure
or sign of the body, and not the body or thing signified.
And, thirdly, as there is nothing in the original institu
tion of the rite, so neither is there anything elsewhere in
the Scripture to justify the use of such a phraseology.
There is, in fact, but one passage not already before us,
and otherwise disposed of, to which reference is likely to
be made in support of such a construction — I allude to
1 Cor. x. 16, " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not
a communion of the blood of Christ ? The bread which
we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ ? "
The application of this passage to the effect in question is,
however, entirely founded upon an erroneous, but never
theless very general, view of the meaning of the word
" communion," as though it was synonymous with the word
communication ; in the sense of which neither it, nor that
in the original which it is taken to represent, Koivavia, is
capable of being understood. The true meaning of the
word in both languages alike is that of a fellowship or
partnership ; in which sense we have an unmistakable
exemplification of its use to a very similar effect in 1 John
i. 3-7-—" That which we have seen and heard declare we
unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us ; and
truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son
Jesus Christ  God is light  If we say that

238 VEXED QUESTIONS.
we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie,
and do not the truth : but if we walk in the light, as he is
in the light, we have fellowship one with another!'
And that it is in this sense, with special reference to the
communicants inter se through a common fellowship with
Christ, that it is here intended, will be sufficiently clear
from the testimony of the apostle in the succeeding verse —
" Because the bread is one [or, the same], we being many
are one body ; for we all partake of that one [or, the same]
bread." The explanation of this argument is in a physio
logical view of the case. For, as what we eat or drink
becomes ipso facto united, or, as it is technically called,
assimilated, with our own persons, so by eating and drink
ing that which is, in a figure, one and the same thing, all
who do so participate become identified, in a figure, with
that one and the same thing> and, vi rationis, with one
another also.
As to any real bodily presence in the intention of the
apostle, it is wholly opposed to the only legitimate
construction of the terms. The question at issue is,
simply, whether the passage is intended in a literal or only
in a figurative sense ; and this question must be determined
with reference to the whole passage. The passage cannot
be read, part of it in one sense and part in the other. If,
then, " the bread which we break " is " the body of Christ "
in the literal sense of the word, in the literal sense are
" we," the communicants (as represented in the sequel of
the passage), that same body by eating of that same bread —
a conclusion that sufficiently refutes itself.
The form of expression which connects the eating and
drinking in the Lord's Supper with the thing signified-
instead of the sign is not, however, the only objectionable
representation in the prayer before us. Two others

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 239
included in the same passage, present themselves equally
exigent of amendment. One of these is the embodiment
of a doctrine, the fallacy of which I have already, I trust,
satisfactorily established — the doctrine' of a vital union
with Christ, through, or in the celebration of the Lord's
Supper. This doctrine is here reproduced in the concluding
words of the prayer — " Grant us  so to eat the
flesh of thy dear Son  that we may evermore
dwell in him, and he in us."
To this misconstruction, upon which I assume it to be
unnecessary any further to dilate, is here superadded
another equally objectionable as being equally without, or
rather, contrary to, the authority of the divine word —
namely, the allegation of a remission of sins through the
instrumentality of the same ceremonial observance — ¦
" Grant us  so to eat  that our sinful
bodies may be made clean by his body " — an expression,
by the way, the meaning of which I confess myself unable
to comprehend — " and our souls washed by his most
precious blood." Much of the reasoning that applies to the
former, applies with equal force to the latter of these two
representations. The remission of sins, thus, I suppose,
figuratively signified, is an effect, like our dwelling in
Christ and Christ in us, realised, and only realisable,
through that faith — the figurative eating, but real reception,
of the Incarnate Eedeemer — without which there is no
participation in the communion of His body and blood.
And if the communicant be a believer, he has the remission
of his sins by virtue of his faith ; and not by virtue of
anything that faith may lead him to do. And certainly,
to suppose the individual partaking of the Lord's Supper
with his sins unforgiven, to be released from them in the
act of participation, is, to say the least, a very incongruous

240 VEXED QUESTIONS.
conception. If, eating and drinking unworthily, the saints
in Corinth scarcely escaped, " where shall the ungodly and
the sinner appear ? " (1 Pet. iv. 18.)
In the prayer of consecration next following we have a
repetition of the effect upon which we have just been com
menting — the reference of the eating and drinking in the
Lord's Supper to the thing signified instead of the sign— but
in a modified form of expression, and with an intimation of
the purport of the rite which requires a passing notice. In
the present instance the eating and drinking, under the
verbal form of " receiving," are indeed predicated with im
mediate reference to the bread and wine ; but with an
ulterior application to the body and blood of the Lord, the
abstract partaking of which is represented as in itself con
stituting the object of the whole proceeding — " Hear us, 0
merciful Father  and grant that we receiving
these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to
thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution,
may be partakers of his most precious body and
blood." Now the body and blood of Christ, we are all
agreed, are in the sacramental rite only in a figurative
sense. In the real sense — of the Incarnate Eedeemer, as
in John vi. — they have already been appropriated by every
faithful communicant, without reference to the Holy
Communion. But it is not, surely, the realisation of a
merely figurative result which we have in view in the
observance of the rite. When we eat the bread and drink
the wine, the figurative body and blood of Christ, it is not
for their own sakes as figures, but for the sake of the grace
of Christ in or through them, conformably with the special
intent and purport of the rite.
Another occasion for remark in relation to the subject
before us, of slight importance, indeed, compared with

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 241
those upon which we have been hitherto engaged, occurs
in the latter of the two alternative prayers following the
Lord's Prayer immediately preceding the final Doxology —
I allude to the use of the phrase, " spiritual food " with
reference to the "body and blood" of Christ. The word.
spiritual in relation to food properly applies, not to the
thing signified, but to the sign ; as is evident from the only
passage in Scripture in which we have the term, spiritual,
in an analogous construction — viz., 1 Cor. x. 3, 4, " And
did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the
same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that spiritual rock
that followed them ; and that rock was [i.e., represented]
Christ." Here the " spiritual food " is, not Christ, but the
rock, of which Christ was the antitype. And so, to follow
strictly the precedent thus set before us, the bread and
wine in the Lord's Supper is the spiritual food ; and not
the body and blood of Christ which are figured therein.
We have now come to the last of the formulae connected
with the ceremony of the Lord's Supper in the Book of
Common Prayer — the Declaration appended to the Order
for the administration of that rite ; ostensibly with reference
to the act of kneeling in the reception of the sacramental
elements ; but also containing statements respecting the
rite itself which are open to objection, as being more
calculated to mislead than to enlighten, to confuse the
subject than to make it clear. Thus, the " bodily " recep
tion of the elements, though doubtless intended with
reference to the bodies of the communicants, has too much
the character of the " corporal presence " in the same
sentence not to be liable to misapprehension ; while in the
"corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood"
there are, besides the tautology of the terms, no less than
two distinct grounds of confusion — First, in the epithet

242 VEXED QUESTIONS.
" natural ; " as if the Lord Jesus Christ had any body but
the one. In the sense of His Divinity, Christ was " with
out body, parts, or passions " (Thirty-nine Articles, No. 1) ;
and in the sense of His humanity, He had but one body,
however regarded. By some, indeed, this expression, of
the " natural body " of Christ, as it is directly represented
in the latter part of the Declaration, is considered in con
tradistinction to His mystical body, the church ; and is so
explained by Mr Stephens in his argument before the
judicial committee of the Privy Council in the case of
Sheppard v. Bennett. But this is evidently a mistake.
The " natural body " in one part of the Declaration, must
surely be understood in the sense of the " natural flesh and
blood " and the " natural body and blood " in the other ;
which cannot be interpreted as in contrast to the mystical
sense. There is, indeed, a sense in which the body of Christ
may be distinguished in two conditions, the natural and
the spiritual, following the description of St Paul in 1 Cor.
xv. 44. But in the sense of this distinction, Christ has no ,
natural body ; that having been converted into the spiritual
in His resurrection. Other body than that, natural or
spiritual, in which He ascended into heaven, Christ has
none ; and out of heaven that body has never since really
been. What the authors of this Declaration meant, or
ought to have meant, to express, was the condition of body
implied by — not the natural as opposed to the spiritual,
but^-the real as opposed to the figurative. In this contrast
everything necessarily participates ; the terms figurative
and real being strictly antithetical, and consequently com
prehending under one or the other every possible repre
sentation : so that whatever is not real is figurative, and
whatever is not figurative, is real ; the negation of the one

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 243
being simply the affirmation of the other, and vice versd*
There is no escaping this dilemma. And I am persuaded
that, had the framers of our liturgy realised this distinction,
and adhered to the use of those terms in their descriptions
or definitions of doctrine, instead of having recourse to
words — natural and corporal, heavenly and spiritual, in
relation to the body of the Lord, and the manner of
partaking of it — of which the meaning (if there be any in
such constructions) is purely arbitrary, the true character
of the Lord's Supper would never have been so egregiously
misrepresented and misunderstood.
There is, however, as I have intimated, another ground
of confusion in the same sentence ; of equal, if not greater,
influence in the controversy concerning the nature of the
ordinance in question ; a ground of confusion for which,
indeed, the framers of the Declaration are only responsible,
it may be said, negatively ; as, though rejecting the doc
trine, acknowledging, or at any rate overlooking the form
in which it is represented. This doctrine is the hypothesis
of a presence of Christ in the sacramental elements ; so dis
tinguished from the identity of Christ with the elements
themselves : a doctrine for. which in any sense, figurative or
real, there is not a spark of authority in the Word of God.
Christ never said, nor is it anywhere said for Him, that He
was, or would be, in the bread and wine. He identified
himself 'with the bread and wine; or rather, to speak
correctly, the bread and wine with himself ; and in the
sense of this identification, however expounded, consists
the only relation between them. Had He meant otherwise
* To preclude exception it should be observed that, while figurative
has a double application, to things and to words, the antithesis in these
two senses are distinct — real in the former case, and literal in the
latter. An object as well as an expression may be figurative ; but a real
expression and a literal object are incorrect forms of speech*

244 VEXED QUESTIONS.
of His relation to the bread and wine — had He meant that
He would be present in them in some mysterious manner,
He would doubtless have said so ; and so His disciples
would have received and believed, however they might
have been unable to comprehend it. But He said no such
thing. He said what His disciples could not only believe,
but comprehend. He spake to their senses and their
reason, when He declared the bread and wine to be His
body and blood. As sensible and reasonable men they
could not have had one moment's doubt upon the matter.
His language in a figurative sense was the language of the
day ; the style in which, not only the Lord himself, but
all the sacred writers were in the common habit of
expressing themselves ; and of which, in that character,
they had the evidence in their own senses. They, as
sensible men, saw that the bread was not really the flesh,
nor the wine the blood, nor both together the body of the
Lord Jesus Christ. They knew, or felt instinctively if
unconsciously, that real identity consists in identity of
attributes; that with any difference of characteristics, no
matter how slight, there is no real identity ; that shape
and colour, size and place, are attributes of an object as
much as any of its most essential elements ; and that, in
respect of these alone, which were clear to view, the Lord
Jesus Christ was not really the bread which He held in
His hand, or His blood the wine which He commanded
them to drink.
And were the question confined to this issue, we, no
more than they, would ever have had any doubt upon the
matter ; we, as they, would unquestionably have concluded,
or rather, never have conceived otherwise than, that the
identity of the Lord with the sacramental elements, or of
the sacramental elements with the Lord, was simply

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 245
figurative — that is, not real. But then comes in another
view of the case. Christ is (not what He said He was —
the bread and wine — but) what He did not say. He was, or
would be — in the bread and wine. And thus a new door
of controversy is opened, and a flood, not of light, but of
darkness let in; only to be encountered by a rigorous
adherence to the terms in which He who instituted the
ordinance was himself pleased to describe it.
A striking illustration of the foregoing conclusion
is afforded in the judgment recently delivered by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of
Sheppard v. Bennett. Supposing the view which it asserts
of the teaching of the Church of England to be correct, it
would be impossible to conceive anything more absurd than
the doctrine it upholds as therein inculcated. Admitting,
or rather affirming with the full weight of its authority
the real absence of the real body of Christ, conformably with
the terms of the Declaration upon which we have just been
commenting, as well as with the fourth of the Thirty-nine
Articles, it equally admits or affirms the real presence of
that same body in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper ; as
thus briefly summed up by the Archbishop of York — " I
mean by it to pronounce only that, to describe the mode of
presence [of the real body of Christ in the sacrament, of
course] as objective, real, actual, and spiritual, is certainly
not contrary to the law." I have said, the real body
of Christ as a matter of course ; the body of Christ alone
being concerned in the question, and the figurative body
being the sacramental elements themselves, the reality of
the presence of which is not open to dispute : and in one or
other of the two senses, real or figurative, must it, as already
observed, be present, if present at all.
The case as thus stated is in nowise affected by the

246 VEXED QUESTIONS.
'additional epithets with which the nature of the presence in
question is apparently qualified. " Objective " and " actual "
are virtually synonymous with " real ; " and " spiritual " is
intended, either, in the sense oi figurative — in which case it
amounts to a denial of the three other epithets ; or else as
in the spirit contradistinctively to in the body — in which
case it amounts to a denial of the bodily presence altogether.
The only effect of this multiplication of epithets is to
obscure or confound the position. They are simply the
exponents of an endeavour (unconscious perhaps) to com
bine the two opposite characters — the real and the figura
tive — in the same transaction. The two truly opposite
communities, the Eoman Catholic and the Protestant, are
each satisfied with one of the two characters ; respectively
the real or the figurative, according to the view they take of
the meaning of our Lord's words in the institution of the rite.
To the former (the Eoman Catholic), a supernatural element
is necessary, which is assumed in the act of consecration ;
to the latter (the Protestant), all that is requisite is in the
communicant himself — viz., his faith, whereby the simple
elements of bread and wine are invested with the figurative
or representative character. To him, the consecration of the
elements is but — what we have already shown to be the
true meaning and effect of that expression — the separation,
or solemn setting apart* of the bread and wine to the
representation of the body broken and poured out blood of
the Lord : the representation itself is accomplished in and
by the mind or spirit of the believer. And thus, agreeably
with the terms of our ritual, the bread and wine after con
secration are still bread and wine ; while, to the believer,
they are also, in a figurative sense, the body and blood of
Christ. To the unbeliever, ignoring the things represented,
* Article on Baptismal Ablution, p. 159, &c.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 247
they have no such representative effects. To him they
are but the elements without their typical import — the
letter without the spirit, the body without the soul.
If any one thinks there is more in it, let him justify his
conclusion from the only legitimate authority — the Word
of God.

XIII.
THE SECOND ADVENT.

Few subjects in theology have been more persistently
discussed, and with less apparent success as regards the
issue of the controversy, than the time and circumstances
of the second coming of the Lord. Considered with
reference to the epoch of its accomplishment, whether
before or after the thousand years' reign of the saints upon
the earth, technically called the millennium, it has long
constituted a nominal ground of distinction between
parties in the Christian world ; the extent of which is only
fully perceived when regard is had to the variety and
importance of the events with which it is associated. As
an authoritative, and at the same time sufficiently com
prehensive exemplification of this distinction, taken from
the party whose view in this respect I hold to be
demonstrably erroneous, I quote a passage in the Collect
for the First Sunday in Advent in the liturgy of the
Church of England ; in which, prayer is offered up that,
" in the last day, when he [Jesus Christ] shall come again
in his glorious Majesty to judge both the quick and the
dead, we may rise to the life immortal." There are, in
fact, virtually two errors in this description — the confound
ing of both the second coming of the Lord and the resurrec
tion of the just, with the epoch of the final judgment ;
whereas, that the two former of these events, synchronical
with each other, are not synchronical with the last, but

THE SECOND ADVENT. 249
long antecedent to it, is so clearly revealed in the Scrip
tures that it is truly wonderful it should ever have been
overlooked. Taking them separately, and beginning with the second
coming of the Lord, its identification with the epoch of the
final judgment — there are, it is to be observed, certain
particulars related of both events, upon the grounds of
which the inference of their identity has doubtless been
founded. Thus both are attended with acts of judgment;
in both cases a throne or thrones are represented ; and the
dead are raised. But a closer analysis of the respective
descriptions discovers differences far more effectual in
determining their diversity, than any amount of resem
blances in confirming their identity. Thus, the judgment
which is to take place at the second advent is a judgment
in which other parties, the saints of God, are associated
with the Lord Jesus Christ. To this fact we have the
testimony of the vision in Dan. vii. 9-14, of the " thrones "
that were " placed " — not cast down, as in our version — and
the sitting in judgment' upon the " fourth beast " under the
rule of the " little horn " by the " Ancient of days," the
Lord Jesus Christ, and His investiture of the saints with
the sovereignty of the earth (to which I have in a former
Article* already adverted) summed up in verses 21, 22 —
" I looked, and the same horn made war with the saints,
and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days
came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most
High ; " conformable with which is the declaration of our
Lord to His apostles in Matt. xix. 28 (Luke xxii. 30) —
" When the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory,
ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve
tribes of Israel" (cf. 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3 ; Eev. iii. 21) ; of which
* On the Abuse of the Law, pp. 23, 24.

250 VEXED QUESTIONS.
prophecy or promise we have the actual fulfilment in Eev.
xx. 4, where, immediately following the overthrow of the
beast and false prophet by the Lord and His followers, it
is said, " And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and
judgment was given to them." On the other hand, in the
final judgment, Christ is represented as sitting alone, to the
positive exclusion of any assessors or associates. Thus in
Matt' xxv. 31, 32, " When the Son of man shall come in
his glory  then shall he sit upon the throne of his
glory ; and before him shall be gathered all nations 
and he shall set the sheep [the saints] on his right hand"
&c. ; the counterpart of which description is in Eev. xx. 11,
12 — " And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat
on it  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand
before the throne."*
Again, as regards the thrones, besides the distinction of
number — the plural exclusively in the former case, the
singular in the latter — the thrones themselves, in the only
instances in which they are specially described (viz., Dan.
vii. 9, and Eev. xx. 11), are essentially different : in the
former, a " throne of fiery flame [not merely like, as in our
version], its wheels burning fire ; " in the latter, " a great
white throne."
Even in the apparently trifling particular of the sounding
of a trumpet a distinction is observable : such an attribute
being predicated of the second advent in Matt. xxiv. 30, 31,
1 Cor. xv. 52, and 1 Thes. iv. 16, where the coming (as
represented in Eev. xix. 11-21) is in the nature of a warlike
visitation — the war of Armagedon (chap. xvi. 14, 16) ;
while no mention is made of such an accompaniment in
the description of the final judgment, a strictly civil pro
ceeding, in Matt. xiii. 41, 49, xxv. 31, &c, Eev. xx. 11, &c.
* Amended text.

THE SECOND ADVENT. 251
Turning now to the collateral question of the resurrec
tion of the saints as distinct from, and anterior to, that of
the rest of mankind at the last day, we shall find the
testimony of the Scriptures even yet (if possible) more
clear and conclusive. In the first place, the character of
the resurrection to this effect is, not merely intimated, but
involved in the terms by which it is designated — the
"resurrection from the dead;" that is, not, as I believe
many regard it, a resurrection from a state or condition of
being dead, but — e« veicp&v, in the plural number, and with
the preposition ix; a construction which, as every Greek
scholar is aware, means, and can only mean, a resurrection
from among dead persons; implying, of course, the
existence of others deceased, but not participating in that
resurrection. Various examples of the like phraseology
might be adduced to confirm this interpretation, if it were
not so certain as to render illustration liable to the charge
of superfluity. It will be sufficient to refer to Acts iii. 22
and xi. 28, where we have the same action combined with
other terms to unquestionably the same effect ; " A prophet
shall the Lord your God raise yp unto you from among
your brethren ;" " And there rose up one from among
them." Such, then, is the form of the expression in question
exemplified in Matt, xvii 9 ; Mark xii. 25 ; Luke xvi. 31 ;
John xx. 9 ; Acts x. 41 ; 1 Cor. xv. 12 ; Eph. v. 14 ; 1 Pet.
i. 3, and numerous other places, including all those in which
the resurrection of our Lord, precisely of that character, is
alluded to ; indeed everywhere that a resurrection of the
saints is exclusively intended, excepting those instances in
which a yet more specific description is resorted to ; as in
Luke xiv. 14, where it is called " the resurrection of the
just; " and in John v. 29, where it is distinguished as " the

252 VEXED QUESTIONS.
resurrection of" — that is, unto — "life;" in opposition to
" the resurrection of judgment : " expressions themselves
respectively inferential of the same conclusion : while in
Acts iv. 2, and other places, we have the indication of the
sense in question singularly intensified, as it were, by the
use of the definite article in a way, the force of which every
student of the language will immediately recognise —
r) dvdo-Tacus 17 e« vwpwv ; not merely, as we have rendered
it in the authorised version, " the resurrection from the
dead," but specifically, " the resurrection that is from among
the dead."
And that such was the sense in which it was received
by those who heard, as well as intended by those who em
ployed it, we have the evidence in several places ; as in
Mark ix. 10, where the apostles are represented as " ques
tioning together, What is that rising from the dead ? " and
in Luke xx. 35, where our Lord alludes to those "who
shall be accounted worthy to obtain  the resurrec
tion that is from among the dead ; " and again in Phil. iii.
11, where St Paul describes the great aim of his ambition,
that he " might attain to the resurrection from the dead ; "
while in other places we have the same effect in the simple
use of the term, "resurrection," without the qualifying
expression of " the dead ; " as in Luke xx. 36, " They are
 sons of God, being sons of the resurrection ; " and
again, Heb. xi. 35, "Women received their dead by a
resurrection ; and others were tortured, not accepting
deliverance, that they might attain a better resurrection : "
all passages only intelligible upon the grounds of a special
resurrection of the just, distinct from that which the rest
of mankind are to experience at the last day.
But we are not left, for the establishment of this position,
to an inference, however obvious, from the designation

THE SECOND ADVENT. 253
under which it is represented, or the attributes by which it
is characterised. The fact of a resurrection of the just
apart from the resurrection of the unjust, the former in con
nection with the second coming of the Lord, the latter with
the epoch of the final judgment, longo intervallo semotm, is
matter of direct revelation ; and that, of a kind so clear as
to put the question beyond all reasonable doubt. The
evidence to which I allude is of a twofold description. In
the first place, we have the literal enunciation of the fact ;
as in 1 Cor. xv. 22, 23, " For as by Adam all die, even so
by Christ shall all be made alive : but each in his own
order ; Christ the first -fruits ; afterwards [not all men, but]
they that are Christ's at his coming ; " again, in 1 Thes. iv.
16, " For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with
a shout  and the dead in Christ shall rise first ; "
strictly conformable with which is the statement of our
Lord in His own account of His second coming in Matt.
xxiv. 31, " And he shall send his angels with a great sound
of a trumpet ; and they shall gather together [not all men,
but only] his elect from the four winds."
And, secondly, we have the actual representation of both
resurrections in succession in one and the same account ; to
the exclusion of all possibility of confounding the one with
the other. This evidence we have in the nineteenth and
twentieth chapters of Eevelation, beginning at the
eleventh verse of the former; and it is of the more
importance and interest to us in that it embraces, to
precisely the same effect, the question of the two advents,
hitherto similarly argued on the basis merely of their re
spective attributes. So far, indeed, as this latter question,
of the two advents, is concerned, we have already had the
same kind of evidence, to a certain extent, in the Gospel
of St Matthew, chapters' xxiv. and xxv.; bearing in mind

254 VEXED QUESTIONS.
that the division into chapters is an encroachment upon
the original, in which the whole prophetic narrative
appears as it was delivered, without any breach of its con
tinuity. But it is in the book of Eevelation that we have
it in its fullest perfection, both as regards the matter and
the manner of its representation ; the sequence of the several
events being guaranteed, as it were, by the historical
character of the work. In the quotation of it for our
present purpose it will not be necessary to reproduce the
whole account verbatim. An abstract, preserving the
particulars bearing upon the points at issue, will suffice
with the aid of a few interlocutory remarks.
" And I saw the heaven opened, and behold, a white
horse, and he that sat upon it, called Faithful and True ;
and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His
eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many
diadems ; and he had a name written that no man knew
but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped
in blood: and his name hath been called, The Word of
God. And the armies which were in the heaven followed
him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and
clean, (cf. 1 Thes. iii 13, iv. 14 ; Jude 14.) And out of
his mouth goeth a sharp sword  And he hath on
his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings
and Lord of lords." I presume it will be unnecessary to
enter into any argument to prove that this is a representa
tion of the second coming of the Lord. In the following
verses to the end of the chapter is a graphic description of
a conflict between the armies of the Lord on the one side,
and of the " beast " on the other, ending in the overthrow
and final doom of the latter — the counterpart of the vision
of Dan. vii. 9-11, already alluded to.
The twentieth chapter then continues the history with

THE SECOND ADVENT. 255
an account of the binding of Satan for " a thousand years,"
in what sense intended, it is foreign to our present purpose
to inquire — "And I saw thrones (cf. Dan. vii. 9) and they
sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them (Dan.
vii. 22); and [I saw] the souls of them that had been
beheaded because of the testimony of Jesus and because
of the word of God  and they lived, and reigned with
Christ a thousand years. And the rest of the dead lived not
until the thousand years were finished. This is the first
resurrection." We shall consider the question of the
figurative character of the representation hereafter. The
account goes on to describe the loosing of Satan at the
expiration of the thousand years, and his consequent
seduction of the nations into another war against the Lord
and His people ; ending, like the former, in the total over
throw of the rebellious host, and the consignment of Satan
to the same doom as the beast and the false prophet.
Immediately after which the narrative proceeds — " And I
saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from
whose face the earth and the heaven fled away .....
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the
throne ; and books were opened  and the dead were
judged out of those things which were written in the books,
according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead
which were in it ; and death and hades gave up the dead
which were in them: and they were judged every one
according to their works. And death and hades were cast
into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of
fire. And whosoever was not found written in the book
of life was cast into the lake of fire."
That the purport of the foregoing representation is to the
effect of the particulars in support of which it has been
adduced, few, I think, will be found to deny. That it is a

256 VEXED QUESTIONS.
figurative representation is only of course, like the rest of
the book. But this qualification does not affect the
validity of its application in the present argument. Upon
the main points — of the second advent followed in
succession by a special resurrection of the saints, an
interval of their domination upon the earth, another resur
rection, and the final judgment — the testimony of the
prophetic narrative is undeniable. The figurative character,
however it might attach to the events related, cannot attach
to the order of their occurrence. That which is represented
as occurring first cannot have been figuratively intended
to accompany or succeed that which is expressly repre
sented as occurring afterwards.
It is then only in respect of the events that the figura
tive character has any influence in the argument : and this,
in the case before us, only as regards the one particular, of
the resurrection of the saints at the commencement of the
millennium ; with reference to which the question has been
raised — whether it may not be merely a moral effect, a
resurrection from a spiritual death to a spiritual life ; in
short, a spiritual, not a physical, resurrection. Such a
view, however, is essentially barred by the consideration of
some of the parties of whom it is predicated — those who
had suffered martyrdom in the cause of Christ ; a descrip
tion affording double evidence of the nature of the resur
rection, in the definition of the death, and the character of
the dead — a physical death, and dead saints; both
alike indicative of a physical resurrection. Moreover, in
its designation as "the first resurrection," its nature is
determined in conformity with the other resurrection to
which it is thus related ; and the physical character of
which is beyond dispute.

XIV.
MINISTERIAL ABSOLUTION.
The power or privilege here contemplated — that of forgiv
ing sins— is one which, I believe, is only claimed by an
episcopally ordained priesthood ; and consequently, so far
as the present work is concerned, only applies to the
priesthood of the established Church of England. The first
authoritative intimation of the claim is in the rubrical
direction to the form of absolution in the Order for Morning
[and Evening] Prayer ; by which the reading of that form
is restricted to the priest, to the exclusion of the deacon.
It is true that the purport of the form itself is to the
effect of simply announcing the fact of God's forgiveness of
sins to all penitent believers. By the restriction in ques
tion, however, this effect is neutralised ; and the inference
of a personal mediation of some kind or other virtually
affirmed. If nothing more is intended than the mere
announcement of a gospel truth, why might not a deacon
be the medium of its communication, as well as of any of
the other truths of a similar description ?
But it is in the form for the ordination of the priesthood
that the claim alluded to is especially asserted ; and that
in such terms as to leave no room for question with respect,
either to the nature of the claim itself, or the ground upon
which it is founded. The form is, in fact, a reproduction,
with slight but important variations, of our Lord's commis
sion to His apostles, recorded in John xx. 21-23 ; preserving E

.258 VEXED QUESTIONS.
the terms of the address (according to the authorized
version), and with the addition of a reference to the office
and work of the priesthood — " Eeceive the Holy Ghost for
the office and work of a priest in the church of God, now
committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands.
Whosesoever sins thou dost forgive they are forgiven ; and
whosesoever sins thou dost retain, they are retained."
Assuming the power here conferred upon the priesthood in
the same sense in which it was conferred upon the
apostles, the purport of this commission is to the effect, not
of an actual forgiveness or retention of sins as by their own
authority or power, but merely of pronouncing or declaring
the same ; and that not, as in the form of absolution above
referred to, conditionally, but unconditionally, as an accom
plished fact.
This construction, in respect of both these particulars,
may be justly inferred from the following considerations.
First, the nature of the case — the impossibility of accepting
the commission in the sense of an actual remission or
retention of sins ; meaning, of course (as I presume every
body will be ready to admit), sins against other persons,
and especially against God. This is a moral necessity of
the case. No one except the party sinned against can for
give the sin. As between man and man the case is clear
upon the slightest reflection. If one person assault or
insult another, it is not in the power of the monarch, the
fountain of mercy, not even of the Parliament, all powerful
as it is, to pardon the offence. They may remit the
penalty, which is of their own creation ; but the offence can
only be condoned by the party offended. For the offensive-
ness (so to speak) of an act is in the mind or feeling of the
party offended, the view which he has taken of the
offence; over which no one has any control but the

MINISTERIAL ABSOLUTION. 259
individual himself, and which it is clearly out of his power
to delegate to another. And if this be so as between man
and man, how much more certainly must it be so as
between man and God ; so that, with reverence be it said,
it is not possible for God Himself to confer the power of
remitting or retaining sins absolutely to any other being ;
not even to the Lord Jesus Christ, the " Son of man," as
such. Consequently the very fact of His forgiving sins is
equivalent to a declaration of His divinity ; as the Jews
well knew when, for such an exercise of this prerogative,
they taxed Him with blasphemy (Matt. ix. 2, 3, 6 ; Mark ii.
5, 7, 10). The case of St Paul and the Corinthian Church
(2 Cor. ii. 7, 10), sometimes referred to in this connection,
is no exception to the position here asserted. It is not a
forgiveness of the offence as against God that is there
predicated; but a removal from the penitent offender of
the restrictions under which he had been laid by the
church in compliance with the injunctions of the apostle
(1 Cor. v. 3-5) ; and is represented by a different word
from that elsewhere rendered to forgive — the verb
¦^apl^ofiat, literally, to be gracious, or to show favour
to any one in respect of anything, to give or grant, and
generally so rendered.
Secondly, in the same behalf, the natural construction
of the terms according to the precedent of Scripture usage.
As an official declaration, nothing is more common than the
• use of similar modes of expression throughout the Bible.
Thus in Gen. xxvii. 37, Isaac, describing to Esau the
blessing of Jacob, says, " I have made him thy lord, and all
his brethren have I given to him for servants, and with
corn and wine have I sustained him ;" and in chap. xii. 13,
the chief butler, recounting Joseph's interpretation of the
two dreams, says,- " Me he restored unto mine office, and

260 VEXED QUESTIONS.
him he hanged." In Lev. xiv., where we have the counter
part of the case before us under the type or figure of the
leper and his cleansing, it is said in verse 11, " the priest
that cleanseth him shall present the man that is to
be cleansed, " &c. ; meaning the man that was already
recovered from his leprosy, and with reference to whom it
had been said in verse 7, " the priest shall pronounce him
clean." In Isaiah vi. 10, the prophet is told to " make the
heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy," &c. ;
a prediction, as we learn from Matt. xiii. 14, of the spiritual
condition of the Jews at the time of the coming of the
Messiah : and in Jer. i 10, the commission to that prophet
to speak the words of the Lord (verses 6-9) is thus
described — " See, I have this day set thee over the nations,
and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and
to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant."
Again, in Matt, xxiii. 4, our Lord says of the scribes and
pharisees, " They bind heavy burdens," as in Luke xi. 46,
of the lawyers, " Ye lade men with burdens- : " alluding to
their official declaration of laws and ordinances of their
own invention : and in John x. 1, referring to the false-
prophet or pseudo -evangelist, He says, " He that entereth
not by the door into the sheepfold," &c. ; meaning, he that
teacheth or preacheth any other way of entering into the
heavenly kingdom than by or through Him.
And lastly, to the same effect, the grammatical construc
tion of the passage itself ; in which the remission and
retention of sins is declared, the former in the language of
the present, the latter in that of the past — " Whosesoever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose
soever sins ye retain, they have been retained."
And thus we have the purport of the passage as
addressed to the apostles, and consequently as it would

MINISTERIAL ABSOLUTION. 261
have to be understood with reference to the priesthood, in
the sense, not of an actual remission or retention of sins by
their own authority but of a declaration or announcement
of the fact of their remission or retention by Him by whom
alone they could be actually remitted or retained. But
even so regarded, and taking into account the accompany
ing communication of the Holy Ghost, we have, in the
form in question, the allegation of a power and a gift,
which, if really predicable, cannot be deemed of less than
vital importance in the economy of the Christian church.
And yet a power and a gift, which, if assignable to an
episcopally ordained priesthood, had for above a thousand
years, up to the time of the Protestant Eeformation, been
either altogether dormant, or exclusively in the hands of
what we of the Church of England are bound to regard as
an apostate priesthood ; and are even now confined to a
comparatively small part of the orthodox professing
Christian community. Surely, with such a ground of
objection a priori, nothing less than irresistible evidence
of the authenticity of the assumption in the word of God
could be sufficient to reconcile us to its admission. The
question, then is, have we any such evidence ? To which
question I have no hesitation in answering, not only have
we no such evidence, but whatever evidence we have upon
the subject is decidedly adverse to any such admission.
In pursuing this inquiry, the first point that naturally
presents itself for consideration is the status of the priest
hood in the Christian Church with relation to the apostolic
body — whether they are, or are not, the representatives of
the apostles in respect of the powers conferred upon them
on the occasion in question. That the priesthood are the
representatives of the apostles in some sense may well be
conceded, seeing that the apostles did undoubtedly appoint

262 VEXED QUESTIONS.
other persons, under the designation oi presbyters or bishops,
to take charge of the several churches in their stead (Acts
xiv. 23 ; Tit. i 5 ; 1 Pet. v. 2), and commanded them also
to appoint others in like manner as they had been appointed
themselves (2 Tim. ii. 2 ; Tit. i. 5). But the real question
is, to what effects this representation extended — whether it
embraced those particulars which are the subject of dispute.
And in support of such a conclusion there is not, that I
can discover, any evidence in the Scriptures.. The only
argument that I have heard in that behalf is deduced from
a certain form of expression, both in our Lord's communi
cation to the apostle* — " As my Father hath sent me, even
so send I you;" and in their communication to those
appointed by them — as in St Paul's to Titus, above
referred to, " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou
shouldest . . . ordain elders in every city, as I had
appointed thee ;" assuming in both cases an identification
of each class of representatives with the parties by whom
they were appointed.
But granted the correctness of this assumption, it would
leave the point at issue wholly untouched. The question
is not, whether the commission of our Lord to the apostles
was or was not identical with that which He had received
of the Father ; nor whether that of Titus to those whom
he ordained was or was not identical with that which he
had received from St Paul ; but, whether the commission
of Paul to Titus, and which Titus was to transmit to others,
was or was not identical with that which the apostle
had received from the Lord. And this question is
not touched in any respect by the passages referred to.
The principal link of the chain is wanting, and the
continuity is dissolved. In geometrical terms, the magni
tudes are not in continual proportion. We have the first

MINISTERIAL ABSOLUTION. 263
to the second as the second to the third ; and the third to
the fourth as the fourth to the fifth ; but we have not
what we need, the second to the third as the third to the
fourth. The keystone of the arch is deficient, and the
logical superstructure falls to the ground.
But it is not merely that the premises relied on are insuf
ficient to the conclusion drawn from them. There is, in the
actual facts of the case, evidence incontrovertible that the
commission of the apostles to the priesthood was not identi
cal with that which they had themselves received from the
Lord Jesus Christ. And less than this would be of no avail
in the argument. For if in any respect it fall short of that
criterion, it would be impossible to deduce from, it any
inference as to the particular qualification in dispute. If
the commission to the priesthood, being in general terms,
did not extend to all the endowments of those by whom it -
was conferred, the commission per se could afford no ground
for the imputation of any one attribute more than another.
Now, that the commission to the priesthood was; not
identical with that to the apostles, is evident in respect of
one, and that the most essential attribute of them all — the
power of working miracles, included of course in the
accompanying gift of the Holy Ghost ; a power which, it
is scarcely necessary to observe, is no part of the hereditary
endowments of the priesthood. I have called this the most
essential attribute; not merely as a qualification for the
exercise of the privilege in question — the remission and
retention of sins, in the original commission to the apostles
immediately suspended upon it — but as the proof of its
enjoyment. If the priesthood have not the power of
working miracles — the first half of the apostolic com
mission — how can they have, or give assurance of
their having, the other half — the power of remitting and

264 VEXED QUESTIONS.
retaining sins — for the purpose of which it was expressly
bestowed ?
But it may be said that, although our Lord's commission
to the apostles with that of Paul to Titus, may not be com
petent to sustain the inference of a commission to the
priesthood answerable to the conditions of the ordination
service, there -may be other grounds in other Scriptures for
the imputation of the gift and power in question. In the
first place, there is the indubitable gift of the Holy Ghost
by the laying on of hands ; as in Acts viii. 17, where the
Holy Ghost is described as communicated to the Samaritan
converts by the laying on of the hands of Peter and John ;
in chap.' ix. 17, where the same to Paul by the hands of
Ananias ; in chap. xix. 6, the same to the Corinthian
disciples by the hands of Paul : and in 1 Tim. iv. 14, Paul
admonishes Timothy not to neglect the " gift " that was in
him (cf. Acts viii. 20) which has given him by prophecy
with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery ; or, as
he afterwards expresses it (2 Tim. i. 6), to stir up the "gift
of God," which was in him by the putting on of his, Paul's
own hands, with reference, most probably, to his participa
tion in the ceremony. And then there is the equally
indubitable employment of the same form in the appoint
ment or consecration to an office, spiritual or temporal ; as
(confining ourselves to the New Testament) in Acts vi.
1-6, of the parties selected by the disciples to distribute the
charitable contributions of the church at Jerusalem ; and
in chap. xiii. 1-3, of Paul and Barnabas to the work where-
unto they had been called by the Holy Ghost : besides
which we may fairly assume an allusion to the same use
of the form in St Paul's injunction to Timothy — " Lay
hands suddenly on no man " (1 Tim. v. 22).
Why, then, it may be asked, may not the same gift to tho

MINISTERIAL ABSOLUTION. 265
effect here in question be imputable to the same form in
the present emergency, without regard to the transaction
recorded in John xx. 21-23 ? For the two following
reasons — First, that the gift of the Holy Ghost obtained by
the laying on of hands was to a different effect from that
which is here contemplated. The gift thus acquired was
the power of working visible miracles, limited to the
opening of the Christian dispensation ;* whereas the gift of
the Holy Ghost conferred upon the apostles as a qualifica
tion for the remission and retention of sins, was not
through the laying on of hands, but by a different process,
literally by inspiration — " And when he had said thus, he
breathed on them, and saith unto them, Eeceive ye the
Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted
unto them," &c. In order to bring the cases into the
same category, the officiating bishop in the act of ordination
should breathe upon the candidates, if he conceived he had
the power of conferring upon them the Holy Ghost to the
effect in question.
Another reason why the gift of the Holy Ghost may not
be comprehended in the form of laying on of hands in the
ordination of the priesthood is, that the bestowal of the
Holy Ghost never , (so far as the Scripture authority
extends) accompanied the act of consecration by that form
to an office, temporal or spiritual, but was in all cases a
condition precedent, as the following brief review of all the
cases on record will clearly show. Passing over the con
secration of the tribe of Levi to the service of the taber
nacle related in Num. viii. 5-22, which being general, for
the whole tribe including their descendants, must of course
have been merely formal, the first case of special consecra
tion by imposition of hands is that of Joshua to the com-
* See pp. 135, 136, 208.

266 VEXED QUESTIONS.
mand of the children of Israel ; and of him we are told,
" The Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of
Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay thy hand' upon
him " (chap, xxvii. 18). And so in the next case referred
to — that of the persons appointed to distribute the chari
table contributions of the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi.
1-6) — the apostles, we read, directed the disciples to " look
out seven men . . . full of the Holy Ghost . . . And
they chose Stephen, a man . . . full of the Holy Ghost
. . . and having prayed they laid their hands on them."
And so again in the only other case in which the
particulars are recorded — the separation of Barnabas and
Saul to the ministry of the Gentiles, also by the imposi
tion of hands (chap. xiii. 1-3) — both parties, we are told,
the former in chap. xi. 24, the latter in chap. ix. 17, had
been already " full of," or " filled with," the Holy Ghost.
So that in no case, of the particulars of which we have
any description, could the gift of the Holy Ghost be
inferred as accompanying the act of consecration by the
imposition of hands. Three other cases there are of the
use of the same form for one or other of the purposes in
question — two of them, respectively in 1 Tim. iv. 14 and
2 Tim. i 6, with reference to that individual himself;
the third in 1 Tim. v. 22, with reference to his dealing
with others — but in all the cases without indication of the
purpose to which they relate, whether to the act of ordina
tion, or to the gift of the Holy Ghost : but to whichever
purpose, in each case to one only of the two ; which is all
that the exigencies of the present argument require.
The inference of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the
imposition of hands in the act of ordination being thus
peremptorily excluded, there still remains the power of
remitting and retaining sins — the second part of the dis-

MINISTERIAL ABSOLUTION. 267
puted inheritance of the priesthood — for which, even
admitting the inapplicability of the commission of our
Lord in John xx., it may be contended other authority
might be found in the word of God. And such other
authority is, in fact, relied upon in the power of binding
and loosing, the so-called power of the keys, predicated in
Matt. xvi. 19, and xviii. 18. But that in these passages
there is nothing bearing upon the question, will be evident
from a very cursory examination.
In the first place, the terms binding and loosing have no
relation to the retaining and remitting of sins. The usual
sense in which they are employed to a moral effect, is that
of imposing' and superseding as obligatory any particular
doctrine or practice : as in Matt. v. 19, " Whosoever there
fore shall loose (cf. verse 17 Gr.) one of the least of these
commandments," &c. ; chap, xxiii. 4, of the teaching of the
scribes and pharisees, " They bind heavy burdens," &c. ;
John v. 18, of our Lord's relaxation of the strict observance
of the Sabbath, " Therefore the Jews sought the more to
kill him, because he not only had loosed the Sabbath," &c. ;
and again chap. vii. 23, " If a man on the Sabbath day
receive circumcision that the law of Moses be not loosed ; "
chap. x. 35, of the stringency of the divine word, " The
scripture cannot be loosed ; " Acts xx. 22, where used by St
Paul of the moral force upon him to return to Jerusalem,
"And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto
Jerusalem ; " Eom. vii 2, where we have both the binding
and loosing in the sense here respectively assigned to
them — " For the woman which hath a husband is bound
by the law to her husband so long as he liveth ; but if the
husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband ;" and once more, the two combined in 1 Cor. vii.
27 " Art thou bound unto a wife ? seek not to be loosed."

268 VEXED QUESTIONS.
Such then is the ordinary sense of the words binding
and loosing when employed in relation to a moral effect,
and the sense in which they are most reasonably and
naturally expounded in the passages before us in the
present argument ; as will clearly appear from the context
of the passages themselves respectively. Thus, in the first
of the two passages, that in Matt, xvi, our Lord having
declared His intention of building His church — the
Christian distinctively, inasmuch as regarding the future —
upon the foundation of the apostolic body as the first laid
stones of the Christian edifice,* assigns to Peter, in reward
of his ready acknowledgment of Him as the Son of God,
the honour of opening the door of admission into that com
munity, metaphorically represented in the bestowing upon
him " the keys of the kingdom of heaven " — that is, of the
Gospel dispensation, as it almost universally signifies, and
as we have already had it explained, j This office was
discharged exhaustively by Peter on the day of Pentecost,
when through his prsaching there were added to the
number of disciples " about three thousand souls " (Acts ii.
41) ; the binding and loosing here having their special
application to the particulars of that preaching wherein the
conditions of the New Covenant were, for the first time
under its legal establishment, formally and publicly pro
claimed, to the repeal of those of the 01d.j
In the second of the passages referred to, that in Matt.
xviii. 18, the same sense will be seen equally clearly to
attach to the terms in question, tried by the same criterion
of the context. The subject of our Lord's discourse in the
* The justification of this description is the subject of the second of
these Articles.
+ Article III. pp. 20, 49.
t Article III. pp. 20, 21.

MINISTERIAL ABSOLUTION. 269
previous part of the chapter is with regard to the authority
of the church. In the preceding verse He has constituted
it the ultimate referee in cases of dispute between the
brethren. This appointment He here fortifies with the
assurance, in the words of the passage before us, that
whatsoever they [the church] should bind on earth should
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they should loose on
earth should be loosed in heaven. It is evident that this
can have no relation to the laws of God, the transgression
of which is sin (1 John iii. 4), which are bound already,
and can only be loosed by Him that bound them ; but only
to regulations and rules concerning its own constitution and
government, including the conduct of its members : the
binding and loosing having regard, not to the guilt of their
infraction, but to the penalty assigned to it ; and conse
quently devoid of any reference to the retention or remis
sion of sins.
Nor will it be regarded as of slight effect in the argument
by those who have realised what, humanly speaking, we
should have called the carefulness with which the words of
inspiration are applied in " comparing spiritual things with
spiritual," that the order in which the twofold qualifications,
of binding and loosing, and remitting and retaining, are
represented in the contrasted passages, is inverted — the
binding in one case corresponding to the remitting in the
other, and the loosing in the former to the retaining in the
latter, contrary to the natural sense of the terms ; so that,
in order to bring them into practical relation, one or the
other of them must be decomposed in the quotation : while,
at the same time, it is to be observed that the order itself,
in which the binding is placed before the loosing, is con
trary to the usual dealing with the subject, in which
forgiveness, the special object of the redeeming work of

270 VEXED QUESTIONS.
Christ, is always the first, if it be not the only, condition
adverted to.
But, in the next place and finally, in whatever sense the
words might be taken in the passages before us, they could
have no application to the present question, which concerns
the enjoyment of the power implied by the priesthood
alone as such : that power being, as we have just seen, in
the former of the two passages, limited exclusively to Peter
himself ; in the latter, predicated of the church in general,
consisting of laity and clergy, and specially assigned, in the
terms of the address, to the whole body of the disciples
there present, including " little children " (verses 2, 6), and
doubtless their parents with them.

XV.
MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS.
A stkiking example of the (I may say) universal preva
lence of a doctrine for which there is not the slightest
authority in the word of God, is presented in the belief of
a seven-fold operation of the Holy Spirit. This character is
directly affirmed in the liturgy of the Church of England in
the hymn appointed to be sung in the service for the
ordination of priests—" Come Holy Ghost  who dost
thy seven-fold gifts impart ;" and also embodied in a prayer
in the order for the rite of confirmation, in which the gifts
themselves are specified — wisdom, understanding, counsel,
strength, knowledge, godliness, fear. This enumeration at
once determines the reference for their authority to a
passage in Isaiah, chap. xi. 2 ; upon which, together with
the description of the Holy Spirit in the book of Eevelation
(chap. iv. 5) under the symbol of a like number of lamps,
the doctrine in question is exclusively based.
The analogy, as respects both these descriptions, is, how
ever, without any rational grounds. The symbolic repre
sentation referred to has no regard to the gifts of the Holy
Ghost, but only to His personal relation to the Seven
Churches, to which the book itself is specially addressed
(chap, i 4), and to each of which He may be supposed to
stand in the relation which, in an entirely figurative
composition, might be fairly represented by seven distinct
images of one and the same character. In respect of the

z72 VEXED QUESTIONS.
spiritual gifts enumerated in Isaiah there can be no analogy
between them, if for no other reason than this — that there
are but six. And had the reference to them in the prayer
been limited to an exact quotation of the passage there
would have been no occasion for these remarks. But such
a representation would have been inconsistent with the
analogy in question : consequently — and it is too curious
an illustration of the force of inveterate convictions to be
passed over without notice — as the analogy must be true,
there must be another spiritual gift to complete the tale ;
and the spirit of " true godliness " is added to the list.
As to the origin of the doctrine, there can be little doubt
that it was, if not advisedly suggested, unconsciously pro
moted by Jerome, • in whose version the sixth of the gifts,
properly rendered by us " the fear of the Lord," is rendered
by the word " pietas," whereby it becomes differentiated
(so to speak) from the same " fear of the Lord " repeated
in the following verse, thereby constituted a seventh.
Taking the names of the qualities as they are given in the
vulgate — sapientia, intellectus, consilium, fortitudo, seientia,
pietas, timor — some one, most probably a monk, in the
Middle Ages, with more ingenuity than reverence, has
combined their first syllables into an hexameter line —
" Sap • intel • con ¦ for ¦ sci ¦ pi • ti • collige dona."
In the Gospels of Matthew (iii. 11) and Luke (iii. 16) John
the Baptist, describing the qualifications of the Messiah,
after mention of his own baptism " with water," adds, " He
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." By
commentators, as a rule (I believe, without exception) this
latter characteristic is regarded in conjunction with the
former as parts of one and the same transaction; and
explained with reference to the " tongues like as of fire "

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 273
which descended upon the apostles on the day of Pente
cost. The fallacy of this construction will, however, I
think, be sufficiently clear from the following considera
tions. In the first place, the tongues in question were not
of fire, but only " like as of fire ; " a form of expression in
the Scriptures invariably indicative of essential diversity
(see Matt. iii. 16, ix. 36, xxviii. 3, et al. passim). Secondly,
our Lord in His description of the promised qualification
(Acts i 5), obviously referring to the statement of John
the Baptist, makes no mention of the element of fire,
stopping short with the endowment of " the Holy Ghost."
Thirdly, there was no such appearance upon the occasion
of the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the household of
Cornelius (Acts x. 44), when it was only by their speaking
with tongues (verses 45, 46) that the miraculous consumma
tion was discovered ; which nevertheless St Peter identifies
with the Pentecostal effusion as another exemplification of
the same description (chap. xi. 16, 17). And lastly, the
baptism " with fire " has its own independent solution in the
context, in which it is revealed, both in Matt. iii. 10-12 and
Luke iii. 16, 17, with relation to the final destruction of the
wicked — " And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the
trees ; therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good
fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize
you with water unto repentance : but he that cometh after
me  shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and
with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly
purge his floor, and gather his wheat into his garner ; but
he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" And if
we have not the same context to guide us in the Gospels
of Mark and John, we have all the stronger testimony in
its absence ; where, as no mention is made of the baptism by
fire,^so neither is there any allusion to the judgment by fire.
s

274 VEXED QUESTIONS.
The practice of bowing the head at the name of Jesus is
commended, or rather commanded, in one of the canons of
the Church of England ; and reference is conventionally
made in its defence to a passage in St Paul's Epistle to the
Philippians (ii. 9, 10) as it appears in the authorized
translation in the following terms — "Wherefore God also
hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is
above every name ; that at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and
things under the earth." Were this translation correct it
could obviously have no application to the question here
before us, which concerns, not the bending of the knee, but
the bowing of the head — entirely different actions, and
conducive to entirely different effects. But the translation
is not correct. The phrase in the original, iv t<2> ovopan
'Itjctov, does not signify at the name of Jesus — for which
the proper expression would be i-jrl t& ovop,an 'I?;ami (cf.
Luke v. 5) — but, in the name of Jesus, and is so rendered
everywhere else it occurs in the same connection (see Acts
iii. 6, ix. 27, xvi. 18 ; 1 Cor. v. 4, &c), and in the passage
before us, in the Syriac, the Arabic, the Vulgate, the
German of Luther, the Italian of Diodati, and other
versions. And thus we have the sense of the passage, as
I have just observed, to a very different effect. To bow,
or, more correctly, to bend the knee, is an idiomatic
expression,, the meaning of which, as determined by its use
in other places, is simply equivalent to the act of praying ;
thus in Eph. iii 14, " For this cause I bow my knees unto
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ  that he would
grant you," &c. What St Paul then declares in the passage
in question is simply to the effect, that all prayer, by
whomsoever offered up, must be offered up "in the- name,"
or through the mediation of Jesus Christ. How this is to

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 275
be understood with reference to the different classes,
described as " of those in heaven, and those on earth, and
those under the earth " — whether the same [human]
creatures in different states of existence, or different orders
of beings, angels, men, and demons — may not be quite so
clear. But it is certainly in- this sense as clear as in any
other ; and as regards the last of the three (the two former
need no explanation) may be illustrated, if not explained,
by reference to the statement in Psalm xxii. 29 — " All they
that go down to the dust [those under the earth] shall
bow," in the old version, " kneel before him."
With many persons the confounding of the developments
of a principle with the source from which they spring, the
concrete with the abstract, is carried out in respect of most,
if not all, of the great principles of the Christian religion —
regeneration, repentance, conversion, justification, sanctifi
cation : thus in effect converting what are works completed
at once into works of gradual accomplishment that are, of
course, never in this life completed at all. The fallacy of
such a view might almost be concluded from the simple
definition of the principles themselves in the terms under
which they are respectively propounded. Begeneration
must surely be of the same character in a spiritual sense
as generation in the natural ; and the growth in grace and
good ' works which follows in the former case, like the
growth in mind and body which follows in the latter, but
a consequence of the act in which it originates. And so
repentance in the abstract, as it is generally represented
(see Matt. iii. 8, 11 ; Mark i. 4 ; Luke xv. 7, xxiv. 47 ;
Acts v. 31, xi 18, xxvi 20 ; Eom. ii. 4 ; 2 Cor. vii. 10 ;
2 Tim. ii. 25 ; Heb. vi. 1, 6 ; 2 Pet. iii. 9), implying a
change of mind, the adoption of a new view with respect

276 VEXED QUESTIONS.
to sin in general* is, like any other change of mind, a
work complete in itself ; the various acts of repentance
being merely special applications of the general principle.
And thus also conversion, the turning in heart and spirit
to or towards God, is a work completed as soon as it is
realised; the instances in which it displays itself being
simply the developments of the work in practice : as when
a man on his way to any place changes his purpose and
takes another course, the change is completed as soon as
he has begun to go the other way. And thus again justi
fication — the acquittal of the sinner through the vicarious
suffering of Christ, and sanctification — his consecration to
God-J- ; are both works respectively accomplished at once ;
the subsequent acts of forgiveness and sanctificatiqn being
merely the applications of the principles already realised —
"He that hath been washed [in the blood of Jesus, cf.
verse 8] needeth not save to wash his feet [the defilement
Of his daily walk], but is clean every whit " (John xiii 10) ;
and, " He that is holy [that has been sanctified], let him be
sanctified still " (Eev. xxii. 11, amended text).
The authorship of the book of Job is, I believe, admitted
to be still an open question. That Job was a real person,
and the book a record of real facts, we know from the
testimony of Ezekiel xiv. 14, 20, and James v. 11 ; while
that it is the production of an inspired writer, we might,
with almost equal certainty, conclude from the position it
occupies in the canon of Jewish Scriptures. But when,
and by whom composed, are questions for the solution of
which we have no other ground of evidence than what is
afforded by the book itself. With regard to the former of
these questions, the style of the composition and the
* See p. 162. t See p. 159, &c.

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 277
character of the contents are supposed to furnish a suffi
ciently satisfactory answer in 'favour of an extreme
antiquity, generally estimated at about the age of the
patriarch Jacob. But as to the second of the questions
referred to — by whom it was written — nothing satisfactory
has hitherto been suggested. And yet it appears to me
that in the same field of evidence — the book itself — there
are strong, if not conclusive, indications of a title to the
authorship on the part of Elihu, which may be summarily
represented as follows. In the first place, the book con
sisting almost wholly of dialogue, it is not unreasonable to
conclude that it was drawn up by some one who was
present during its delivery ; and certainly, of those men
tioned in the narrative, there is none to whom it could
with like probability be ascribed. In the next place, there
is, in the language of Elihu, a strong appearance of his
actual claim to this authorship under the influence of divine
inspiration, when, in answer to Job's exclamation in chap.
xxxi. 35 — " Oh that one would hear me ! behold, my desire
is that the Almighty would answer me, and that mine
adversary [or accuser] had written [would write ?] a book " —
he replies, directly assuming the divine inspiration, " There
is a spirit in man, and the inspiration of the Almighty
giveth him understanding '' — " Behold, I am according
to thy wish in God's stead " (chap, xxxii. 8, xxxiii. 6).
And lastly, there is a passage, chap, xxxii. 16, 17, in which
Elihu distinctly identifies himself with the author of the
account, continuing the description of the transaction in the
first person singular — " When I had waited (for they spake
not, but stood still, and answered no more) I said, I will
answer also my part, I also will shew my opinion."
The misuse of the article — the substitution of the definite

2.78 ' VEXED QUESTIONS.
for the indefinite, and vice versd, or the omission of it when
present or implied in the original — is a not uncommon
source of error in the authorised translation of the Bible.
We have already* seen how, by the substitution of the
definite for the indefinite in Dan. vii. 13, the purport of
the vision is completely falsified ; just as it had been in a
similar case in chap, iii 25, where an ordinary angel— in
the Hebrew a son of God (see Job i 6, ii. 1, xxxviii. 7) — is,
by the same misconstruction, invested with the character
of the Incarnate Deity, " the Son of God ; " contrary not
only to the indication of the context (see verse 28), but to
the reasonable conditions of the case, which are utterly
opposed to the notion that the heathen king Nebuchad
nezzar could have had that knowledge of the Second Person
of the Trinity which was not possessed even by the Jews
themselves. A precisely analogous case to this latter is presented in
Matt, xxvii. 54, where " the centurion and they that were
with him," a band of pagan soldiers, witnessing the
marvellous events accompanying the death of Jesus, are
represented as saying, " Truly this was the Son of God ;"
notwithstanding the absence of the article in the original,
and the direct testimony of St Luke in the parallel passage
— " Truly this was a righteous man " (chap, xxiii 47).
Another exemplification of this misconstruction, in the
omission of the indefinite article implied in the original,
occurs in Matt. xix. 4 (Mark x. 6), whereby the argument
of our Lord in support of the indissolubility of the conjugal
alliance is completely nullified. The Pharisees had
proposed the question, whether it was " lawful for a man to
put away his wife ? " Our Lord answers the question by
referring to the origin of the matrimonial connection at the
* Article III. p. 23, 24.

MISCELLANEOUS EL UCIDA TIONS. 2 79
creation of the sexes — " Have ye not read, that he which
made them at the beginning made them [not, male and
female, in which phrase and context the terms male and
female appear as adjectives representing the plural number,
but] a male and a female " — substantives and in the singular
number. He made but one of each. The conclusion is
obvious. The parity of numbers in the two sexes (which,
by the way, has virtually continued ' ever since) is a
sufficient indication of God's intention that a man should
have but one wife; and (which is its natural corollary)
should continue to be united to her as long as she lives.
Many other examples of a similar misuse of the article
in our authorised translation might be quoted, where the
consequences are more or less important ; but which do
not require the aid of so elaborate an explanation. Thus
in Matt. x. 2, by the interpolation of the definite article,
Peter is made "the first'' of the apostles ; whereas without
any article he only stands first in the order of nomination,
especially -with reference to his younger brother Andrew
next mentioned. On the other hand, by the omission of
the article, in the same verbal connection, in 1 Tim. i 16,
St Paul is represented as declaring himself first in order of
time of those whose sins are forgiven — " That in me first
Jesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering, " &c. ;
instead of first in degree of sinfulness — " That in me the
first," or chief; with reference to the description of himself
in the preceding verse — " Christ Jesus . came into the
world to save sinners, of whom I am chief." In Luke vii.
5, by the substitution of the indefinite for the definite, the
unity of the synagogue built by the centurion is left unde
termined ; and the very interesting conclusion of its identity
with the remains of a synagogue, recently discovered in
that place, precluded. By the contrary treatment, in chap.

280 VEXED QUESTIONS.
x. 6, an ordinary son of peace, an individual of a peaceful
or religious disposition, is converted into " the Son of
peace," the Lord Jesus Christ ; and in Eev. x. 1, the
" mighty angel coming down from heaven " is deprived of
his chief characteristic as the representative of the Son of
God, by the substitution of the indefinite for the definite
article in connection with the rainbow by which he was
surmounted, evidently referring to the rainbow described in
chap. iv. 3.
In 1 Cor. xv. 22 as it stands in the authorised version —
" For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive " — the use of the preposition in is calculated to lead
to an erroneous impression of the meaning of the passage.
To die in Adam, and to live or be made alive in Christ are
effects by imputation— that is, in a spiritual sense. Now
this is, certainly, not what is here intended. In the first
place, in that sense the latter part of the statement at any
rate would not be true. All men are not made alive in
Christ, by imputation, or spiritually ; but only those who
are spiritually united to Him. In reality all men obtain
life by Jesus Christ. The life which was promised to
Adam and his offspring as the reward of the covenant of
works, but which was forfeited for all by his transgression,
was recovered for all by Jesus Christ, their representative,
as I have already pointed out.* But this is the literal or
natural life ; not the life by imputation, the spiritual, which
is unto salvation. Secondly, that the life here intended is
not the life by imputation, the spiritual, but the literal or
natural, is clear from the context ; both the general, of the
whole chapter, the subject of which, all throughout, is the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body ; and the special, in
* See p. 19.

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 281
which it stands as the counterpart of the resurrection in the
preceding verse, of the literal character of which there is
no question — " For since through man came death, through
man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as by
Adam* all die, even so by Christ* shall all be made alive!'
And lastly, the reference to a literal resurrection is decided
by the following verse, where the effect is expressly declared
to follow the second advent of the Lord — " For as by Adam
all die, even so by Christ shall all be made alive. But
each in his own order : Christ, the first fruits ; then they
that are Christ's at his coming." The same mistake in the
rendering of the preposition occurs in Acts xvii 28 ; which
should be accordingly amended — " For by him [God] we
live, and move, and have our being." St Paul is indors
ing a heathen maxim ; which could only be in a sense
comprehensive of the unconverted.
Interpolated words, indicated in the authorised version
of the Bible by the printing in italics, should ever be regarded
with much suspicion. Either they are implied in the idiom
of the original, in which case they should be represented in
the ordinary type ; or they are not, in which case they
should not be represented at all. An example in which
both these conditions are contravened, and the sense of the
passage is altogether perverted, occurs in Matt. xx. 23.
Our Lord, in answer to a request by the mother of James
and John, that her two sons might sit, one on His right
hand and the other on His left in His kingdom, is repre
sented as saying, " To sit on my right hand, and on my
left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for
whom it is prepared of my Father." Here the words, " to
them," are included in the relative pronoun, ok, in the
* 'Ev Tip 'P&hp — iv t§ Xpta-Tip. cf. Matt. ix. 34 (Greek), Acts xiii. 39.

282 VEXED QUESTIONS.
original, and should have been printed in the regular
characters of the book ; while the phrase, " it shall be
given," is not in the original at all, and should not have
been interpolated, the sense being complete without it as
much in one language as in the other. This version, or
rather perversion, of the passage is defended upon the
ground assumed, that the word rendered " but," aXka, has
not the sense that would justify the literal translation of
the text. This is a mistake, as the translators themselves
should have known ; having in other places rendered it in
the sense required — the sense, that is, of except or save ; as
in the very preceding chapter, verse 11, " All men cannot
receive this saying, save they to whom it has been given ; "
and again in Mark ix. 8, " They saw no man any more save
Jesus only." Amended in these respects, the passage in
question stands properly represented thus — " To sit on my
right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, save to
them for whom it has been prepared of my Father."
There is a passage in the Gospel of St Matthew, chap. vi.
27, and of St Luke xii. 25, where the reasoning of our Lord
appears to be weakened, if not entirely set aside, by the
rendering of the authorised translation. The purport of
our Lord's discourse in the preceding and following verses,
is to inculcate upon His disciples a reliance upon God for
the supply of their daily wants in respect of food and
clothing ; the ground of His argument being the considera
tion of the greater things which He had already done for
them — " Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat,
or what ye shall drink ; nor yet for your body ; what ye
shall put. on. Is not the life [which He has given you]
more than meat, and the'body [which is also His gift] than
raiment ? " And then He adds, as represented in the

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 283
authorised version, " Which of you by taking thought can
add one cubit unto his stature ? " How this remark applies
to the subject is not easy to perceive ; still less when
regarded in connection with the following verse according
to St Luke's account — " If ye then be not able to do that
thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest ? "
Why is the adding a cubit to a man's stature a less thing
than providing him with food and clothing ? and, why is
the mere power of God to the former (which is all that is
implied in this construction) a proof that He will do the
latter ? Eendered according to the normal sense of the
terms, the aorist in the sense of the past, — the difficulty
disappears — " Which of you by taking thought could [or,
is able to] have added one cubit to his stature ? — an effect
which, not to the extent of one cubit only, but of several,
they had already realised as a mere matter of course, under
the providential care of God.
The answer of our Lord to Pilate, recorded in John xix.
11 — " Thou hadst no authority against me, except it had
been given thee from above : therefore he that delivered
me unto thee hath greater sin " — is not, I conceive, in
general, rightly apprehended ; if, indeed, it can be said to
be apprehended at all. The difficulty affecting its inter
pretation is in respect of the relation between the
two clauses indicated by the illative particle, " therefore."
Why the high priest, by whom Jesus was delivered
to Pilate, should have greater sin because Pilate could have
no authority against Jesus except it had been given him
from above, is the main point which requires to be cleared
up. And the first step in this direction is the right under
standing of the latter of the two clauses — in the sense, that
is, not of a comparison of the sin of Pilate with that of the

284 VEXED QUESTIONS.
high priest, but of the sin of the high priest himself
regarded with reference to the circumstances of the case.
The sin of the high priest was aggravated by the fact that
Pilate had authority to execute Jesus. And so it evidently
was. Pilate, a Eoman governor, having authority over the
Jews was a proof that " the sceptre " had departed from
Judah, and,, consequently, that "Shiloh" was come (Gen.
xlix. 10),;. This the high priest should have known ; and
the disregard of it constituted an aggravation of his offence.
Among the incidents in the history of our Lord in the
flesh predicted in the Old Testament Scriptures, there is
one which, so far as I can discover, has not been hitherto
publicly noticed. I allude to the purpose to which the
" potter's field," purchased with the thirty pieces of silver,
the price paid to Judas for His betrayal, was applied — " to
bury strangers in " (Matt, xxvii. 7). There can be no doubt
that in this event we have the fulfilment of the prophetic
enunciation in Psalm cix. 11, with reference to the typical
Judas — " Let the strangers spoil his labour."
" Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to
him the other also. And if any man will sue thee ut the
law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also "
&c. (Matt. v. 39-42). These passages are explained by
verses 29, 30 — " If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out
 If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off " — the
possible by the impossible. No man could pluck out his
right eye, or cut off his right hand. Nor, if he could,
would it avail to his spiritual welfare ; which is, of course,
what is here intended. It is clear, then, that in this latter
case, the literal is not the natural sense ;* and if not in the
See p. 8.

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 285
one case, so neither in the other. Both alike are examples
of a style of argument, frequently adopted by our Lord,
founded upon the use of the figure of speech called
the hyperbole ; the force of which consists in the exaggera
tion of the terms of comparison, and is consequently
greatest when they are impossible. t)ther examples of the
same mode of teaching are presented in the parable of the
mote and the beam in the eye (Matt. vii. 3-5 ; Luke vi. 41,
42) ; of the camel going through the eye of a needle (Matt.
xix. 24 ; Mark. x. 25 ; Luke xviii. 25) ; and of the straining
at, or out, a gnat and swallowing a camel (Matt, xxiii. 24).
With respect to the passages especially before us, this ex
planation, superseding the literal sense of the terms, implies
it should be observed, no abatement of the moral obligation
which they are intended to inculcate. On the contrary,
substituting the spiritual for the literal, it enhances it by
so much as a fulfilment in the former sense, regarding the
disposition, exceeds that in the latter, which, regarding only
the bodily act, limits its application to the cases specified,
and might be realised of " superstitious vanity," as offensive
to God as a direct infraction of the law.
A remarkable example of complex relationship is pre
sented in the interview between our Lord and the blind
man, recorded in John ix. 1—7. The blind man comes to
Jesus to obtain physical light by acquiring the use of his
eyes — as our Lord says (Matt. vi. 22), " the light of the
body is the eye." Jesus prefaces the miracle He was
about to perform with the announcement, " I am the light
of the world " — in a spiritual sense of course ; and then,
spreading clay upon the eyes of the blind man, sensibly
representing the obstruction to be taken away in the
process of his cure, tells him to go, and " wash in the pool

286 VEXED QUESTIONS.
of Siloam, (which, is by interpretation, Sent) " — that is in
the Lord himself, the sent one (John iv. 34, v. 36, &c),
the predicted " Shiloh" (Gen. xlix. 10) — for the names are
the same in the Hebrew and the Greek version (see Isaiah
viii. 6 — observing that the sound of sh, having no corres
ponding symbol in Greek, is in all cases represented in the
latter by the letter s alone ; as Cis for Kish, Eliseus for
Elisha, Salim for Shalem, Sychem for Shechem, Sem for
Shem, &c). And thus, in the process of acquiring physical
light by a physical washing in a typical fountain, we have
accurately represented the process of acquiring spiritual
light by a spiritual washing in the antitypical "blood of
the Lamb " (Eev. vii. 14).
In. chap. xiii. of the same gospel we have another
example of the same combination, of the spiritual and the
materia], in the teaching of our Lord, even yet more
elaborately displayed. Here the ambiguity, which in the
former case was between the light of the body and the
light of the soul, is in relation to the act of washing in the
literal and the figurative senses — the cleansing of the body
and the cleansing of the soul. The occasion for this dis
play is in the lesson of love which our Lord practically
conveyed in the actual washing of the feet of His disciples ;
to the end, as He afterwards informed them, that they
should do to one another as He had done unto them.
Unconscious of the real meaning of the transaction, and
considering only the material act and the humiliation
which it implied, Peter at first objects to its application in
his own case — " Thou shall never wash my feet." Jesus,
using the word in its figurative and spiritual sense, answers
him, " If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me."
Peter, partially realizing our Lord's words, but still only in
the literal and material sense, rejoins, "Lord, not my feet

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 287
only, but also my hands and my head." To which our
Lord replies, combining both senses, the literal and the
figurative, the material and the spiritual, " He that hath
been washed needeth not save to wash his feet " — equally
true of the soul as the body, regard being had to the
figure, in which the "feet" stand as the representa
tive of the daily walk in life, liable to defilement, and
requiring daily cleansing ; which nevertheless, in the
case of those who have been once washed in blood of
Jesus, implies no contradiction to their being " clean
every whit."
The full force of the description in Matt. xv. 22-28, Mark
Vii. 25-30, is impaired in the authorized (and indeed every
other) version, through the imperfect translation of the
terms, vol, rendered " truth " in Matthew, and yap,
rendered "yet" in both accounts. The causes of this
deficiency are partly sentimental, and partly logical. The
answer of the woman to" our Lord's objection to the healing
of her daughter, appeared too direct and unbecoming in its
natural rendering; and the affirmative particle too con
firmative of His argument to admit of her rejoinder with
out some qualification. The directness of her reply showed
-at once the strength of her faith, and the urgency of her
requirement ; while the affirmation is addressed, not to our
Lord's argument as agreeing with it, but to His proposition,
"It is not right," &c, iu contradiction to it — "Yea, Lord,"
it is right ; and then the reason assigned, according to the
literal rendering — " For the dogs do eat of the crumbs that
fa1 1 from their master's table."
Dean Alford iu his edition of the Greek Testament has
fallen into the same error as Dr Colenso in the preface to

288 VEXED QUESTIONS.
the first part of his Critical Examination of the Pentateuch
(p. xxxi revised edition) — the error, namely, of distin
guishing in the Lord Jesus Christ, not merely two natures,
but two Persons, so distinct that one of them has no know
ledge of what is known to the other. This error which is
the characteristic of the old Nestorian heresy, is reproduced
by the dean in his commentary on Matt. xxiv. 32 —
" Another weighty matter for the understanding of this
prophecy is, that (see Mark xiii. 32) any obscurity or con
cealment concerning the time of the Lord's second coming
must be attributed to the right cause, which we know from
His own mouth to be, that the Divine Speaker himself, in
His humiliation, did not know the day nor the hour." Both
writers appear not to have realised the difference between
knowing in the manhood and knowing as the man. Jesus
Christ did not know the matters in question as man;
but He knew them as God; and consequently, being
but one and the same Person, as the God-man, Jesus
Christ. It is deserving of remark, as illustrative of the impor
tance of the most apparently trivial statements in the Scrip
tures, that the evidence to the Jews of the truth of the mis
sion of Jesus Christ afforded by His resurrection, was yet
wholly dependent upon a circumstance of which no com
mentator that I am aware of appears to have taken any
account, although prominently set forth by no less than
three of the Evangelists. I allude to the fact of the tomb in
which our Lord's body was placed being a new one,
" wherein never man before was laid " (Matt, xxvii. 60 ;
Luke xxiii. 53 ; John xix. 41). Had this not been the
case it would have been justly open to the Jews to object,
that the resurrection of Jesus had been the consequence of

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 289
His body having come into contact with the remains of
some saint who had been buried there before; as in the
case of the Moabite, who was restored to life upon touch
ing the bones of Elisha, when deposited in the same tomb
(2 Kings xiii 21).
Our Lord's remark to St Peter (Luke xxii. 31), accord
ing to the authorised translation of it — "Simon, Simon,
behold, Satan hath desired to have you [all] that he might
sift you as wheat " — does not come up to the full force of
what it was intended to convey. The word " desired " is
liable to a signification of much milder import than the
verb in the original ; the proper meaning of which is, not
simply to desire, in the sense of to wish for, as it is generally
understood, but actually, to solicit, require, or demand ; and
thus we are, as it were, instinctively referred for its
explanation, in the present context, to the case of Job
related in chap. i. 9 — ii. 8. How much farther the
parellelism of the two cases might extend, whether the
demand was complied with; and the result of the sifting
the elimination of Judas and the partially successful
attempt upon Peter, as nothing has been; revealed, it is not
for us to inquire.
" Doth not your master pay the didrachma {the tribute
to God for the service of the temple] ? "— " Of whom [saith
Jesus], do the kings of the earth take  tribute ? of
their own sons, or of others ? " — " Of others." — " Then
[saith Jesus], are the sons free" (Matt. xvii. 24-26).
In thus virtually declaring His exemption from the
common charge Jesus declares himself to be' the son of
God. " For this cause shall a man  cleave to his wife ;
T

290 VEXED QUESTIONS.
and they twain shall be one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder " (Matt. xix.
5, 6). But Jesus says (verse 29), " Every one that hath
forsaken  wife  for my name's sake
shall  inherit eternal life." What then was Jesus
that He should put asunder what God had joined
together ?
" Pray ye  the Lord of the harvest, that he
would send forth labourers into his harvest. Go your
ways : behold, I send you forth " (Luke x. 2, 3). Then
must Jesus be the Lord of the harvest.
" We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ ;
for it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall
bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God " (Eom.
xiv. 10, 11). Then must Christ and God be one and the
same. " Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest 
and Christ shall give thee light" (Eph. v. 14). This is
quoted from Isaiah lx. 1, " Arise, shine, for thy light is
come, and the glory of Jehovah is risen, upon thee." Then
are Christ and Jehovah synonymous terms.
"The Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to
shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be
done " (Eev. xxii. 6). " I Jesus have sent mine angel to
testify unto you these things in the churches " (verse 16).
Then is Jesus the Lord God of the prophets.
And have, we nothing of the same kind in the Old
Testament ? — " God, before whom my fathers Abraham and
Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto
this day, the Angel which redeemed me, bless the lads "
(Gen. xlviii. 15, 16). The verb " bless " here in the
original is in the singular number. " God " and the
redeeming " Angel " are one.

MISCELLANEOUS ELUCIDATIONS. 291
The Christian warfare has this peculiarity — that it is the
only one in which the victory is gained before the battle is
fought. " In the world ye shall have tribulation " (John
xvi. 33). This is the battle. " But be of good cheer : I
have overcome the world " (ib.). This is the victory.
"Fear God" (1 Pet. ii. 17). "Perfect love casteth out
fear " (1 John iv. 18). But love is never perfect. There
fore is there room for both.

INDEX
OF TEXTS QUOTED OE EEFEEEED TO.

%* The Texts marked with

an asterisk are newly explained or illustrated.

Genesis.

Numbers.

PAGE

PAGE
i. 26, .
18
vi. 3,
109
ii. 3,
160
20, . .
160
17, .
18
viii. 5-22,
265
iii. 15,
. .
19
xi. 15,
44
xvii. 9-14, .
178
xxvii. 18,
266
12, .
218
23, .
218
Deuteronomy.
xxii. 1,
75
ix. 14, .
44
xxvii. 37,
259
*x. 16, .
177
xii. 13,
259
xvi. 18, .
4
*xlviii. 15, 16,
290
xviii. 15,
171
L*xlix. 10, .
284, 286
18, . .
171
xxvii. 26,
76
EXODTJS.
xxviii. 39,
109
xii. 48,
178, 218
xxix. 1-4,
168
Joshua.
36,
158
ii. 9-13, .
75
xxx. 16,
109 44
109
Judges.
xxxii 32,
xxxv. 21,
xvi. 16, .
109
xxxviii. 24,
109
Ruth.
iv. 1,
4
Leviticus.
11,
4
viii. 15,
158
j.j., •
X. 10,
158, 233
2 Samuel.
xii. 1-8,
176
xi. 4,
176
xiv. 6, 7,
163
7,
260
1 Kings.
11,
260
vi. 36,
109
294

INDEX OF TEXTS.

2 Kings.
v. 14, .
*x. 20, .
xiii. 21, 1 Chronicles.
xxviii. 19,
Nehemiah.
iii. 1, Job.
i. 6,9-ii. 8,
ii. 1,
iv. 18,
ix. 20,31,
xv. 15,
xxv. 4,
xxxi. 35,
" xxxii. 8,
•16,17,
•xxxiii. 6,
xxxviii. 7,
xiii. 5, 6, .
Psalms.
i. 1-3, „
ii. 11,
xxii. 29,30,
xxv. 12, 13,
xxxii. 1,
xxxvii. 29, 35,
Ii. 2,5,
7,
iii. 8,
lviii. 10,
lxviii. 23,
lxix. 28,
lxxx. 8-16,
xcii. 12,
*cix. 11,
cxv. 16,
cxviii. 22,

Proverbs.

ii. 21,

PAGE 167160
289

109

160

278 289
278 116 74
165116 151277
277 277277278 51

51
110275206 229522 52
163, 179 152163 51
168
165 44
50 51
284 22 12

22

Ecclesiastes.

PAGE

xii. 14,

59

Isaiah.

i. 16, .

179

30, .

52

iv. 3,

44

4,

180

v. 1-7, .

50

22, 23,

74

vi. 10, .

260

viii. 20,

191

* xi. 2,

271

xxi. 4,

167

* xxviii. 16,

12

xxx. 21,

192

xliv. 3.

168

xiv. 2'v.
*lii. 1% .

62
177

liv. 17,

62

lv. 1, .

97

*lx. 1,

290

lxii. 3,

102

Ixvi. 17, .

158, 160

Jeremia

a.

i. 6-10, .

260

ii. 21, .

50

*iv, 4,

177

. 14, -

180

vi. 9,

50

xii. 10,

50

xvii. 8,

51

xxiii. 6,

62

Ezekie

L.

xiv. 14,

276

20, .

276

xvi. 9,

186

* xviii. 27, .

16

xxii. 26, .

158, 233

xxiii. 15,

166

xxvi. 2,

4

xxxiv. 4,

109

xxxvi. 9,

109

xxxvii. 11,

235

xliv. 23, .

158, 233

Daniej

ii. 49, .

4

* iii. 25, .

278

INDEX OF TEXTS.

295

PAGE

PAGE

iii. 28, .

278
*v. 22, .
124
vii. 9, . 250.
255
17, . • •
267
9-11, .
254
*19, .
267
* 9-14, .
249
*29, 30,
96, 284
*13, .
278
* 39-42,
284
*13, 14,
23
vi. 22, .
285
17, .
235
25, .
282
*21, 22,
249
*27, .
283
22, .
24
255
vii. 2, . . •
99
27, .
24
*3-5, .
285
xii. 1, . . .
45
7, •
13, 14,
112 29
HOSEA.
21, .
97
vi. 6, . . .
71
24-27, .
97
x. 1, . .
50
viii. 11",
20
xiv. 8, . . .
51
*12, .
ix. 2-6, .
49
259
Joel.
34, . .
106, 281
*ii. 28-31,
25
36, .
*x. 2,
273279
Amos.
7, ¦ •
20
v. 10,
4
*18, .
105
12,
4
34, .
142
15, .
4
39, .
xi. 12, .
96
20, 98
Zeohariah.
xii. 7,
71
i. 3,
98
37, .
73
iii. 8, 9, .
102
xiii. 2,
112
ix. 16, .
102
3, . .
106 97
"vi. 11, .
102
8,
12, 13,
102
11, .
20
xii. 10,
132
14, .
260
"xiv. 9,
172
* 24-30,
* 37-40,
48 48
Matthew.
41, .
250
i. 19,
132
* 47-50,
48
iii. 1, 2, .
173
49, .
250
*2,
*6,
22
*xv. 11, .
169
174
*18, .
169
*s!
173. '2'.: 5
*20, .
169
* 10-12,
273
* 22-28,
287
*11 . 135,
156
, 173,
xvi. 18, . .
3, 10
207,
271
,275,
*19, .
267, 268
* 15,
164
25, .
96
16, .
iv. 17, •
*v. 1,
3, •
6,10, .
15, . •
273 20
112 20
*27...
*xvii. 9,
20, .
17, ¦
63
251
215 215
67, 97
* 24-26,
289
6740
xviii. 2,
6, .
270
270
296

INDEX OF TEXTS.

PAGE

PAGE
xviii. 3,
20
*vii. 2,.
168,169
9, .
96
4, .
167
17, .
34
8,
167
* 17, 18,
..-¦¦ .«.
269
*15, .
169
*18, .
267
*18, .
169
*xix. 4,
278
* 20,
169
•6,6,
290
*23, .
169
11, .
282
* 25-30,
287
* 16, 17,
21
viii. 35,
96
17, .
99
ix. 8,
282
23, ¦.
20
*10, .
252
*24, .
.' 2(
, 285
43-48,
96
28, .
249
"x. 6,
278
*29, .
'. 9e
, 290
15, .
20
xx. 16,
29
19, .
99
*23, .
281
*25, .
285
xxi. 42,
12
29, 30,
96
xxii. 14,
29
*xii. 25,
251
xxiii. 4,
260
, 267
*xiii. 9,
1)05 136
17, .
160
xiv. 19, .
19, .
160
22, .
228
*24, .
185
*25, .
175
xxiv. 30, 31,
250
xv. 38, .
185
?*,' •
253
xvi. 15, 16,
178
*xxv. 1-12, .
48 i
16, .
188, 202, 216
*26,
100:
17, 18,
136
31, 32,
250 ;
31-46,
250
Luke.
34-37,
97
*i. 3,
185
40, .
206
ii. 22, .
176
xxvi. 22,
136
*iii. 3,
156, 173
26, 27,
228
*8,
173
*29,
175
16, .
135, 207, 271
xxvii. 7,
284
* 16, 17,
273
24, .
169
v. 5, . .
274
34, .
135
20, .
20
51, .
185
vi. 37, 38,
99
*54, .
.
278
* 41, 42,
285
* 60,
288
47-49,
97
xxviii. 3,
273
"vii. 5,
279
* 19, 20,
215
36-47,
viii. 16,
117 40
Mark.
ix. 24.
96
*i. 4, .
156, 173,
275
"x. 2, 3,
290
*5,
174
•8,
280
8,
135,
207
H,
20
14, .
20
20,
45
ii. 5-10, .
259
26,
99
iii. 13,
112
xi. 38,
167
iv. 11,
20
39,
169
vi. 20, .
159
46.
260
INDEX OF TEXTS.

297

PAGE

PAGE

xii. 25, 26,

283

*iv. 34, .

286

32, .

29

42, . . .

142

49, .

142

"v. 18, .

267

51, .

142

24, .

28, 120

xiii. 23, 24,

29

28, 29,

97

24, .

98

29, .

251

29, .

20

36, .

286

xiv. 14,

251

vi. 27, .

98

xv. 4-9, .

93

32, .

50

7,

275

33, .

228

* 11-32,

94

47, . 28, 31,

120, 203

xvi. 16,

. 20, 98

51, 143, 226,

228, 229

*31, .

251

* 51-56,

225

xviii. 20,

99

53, .

45, 228

*25, .

285

54, . 28, 120,

226, 229

29, 30,

96

58, .

226, 228

xix. 21,

100

61, . .

216

*22, . •

100

64, . .

216

*xx. 36, .

252

66, .

50

xxi. 13,

105

vii. 7,

49

14, 15,

105

22, .

177

*xxii. 17, 18,

175

*23, .

267

23, .

136

38, .

168

30, .

249

38, 39,

226

*31, .

289

39, .

24

32, .

123

viii. 31, .

216

* xxiii. 53,

288

42, .

187

47, .

278

44, .

216

xxiv. 47,

275

*ix. 1-7, .

285

*x. 1,
260
John
27, 28,
120
i. 11, .
49
28, . .
92
12,
193
5, .
267
12, 13,
191
36, .
175
*25, .
171
xi. 25, .
212
29,
144
26, .
28
33,
135, 207
52, .
187
*42, .
. 3, 13
*xii. 25, .
. 96, 283
ii. 11,
215
*xiii. 5-10, .
286
* iii. 3,
184, 188
10, 11,
163
*3, 4,
185
22-24,
136
*5,
184, 188, 203
26, .
165
*8.
192, 204
xiv. 17, .
49
10.
204
*xv. 1-6, .
48
J.V/J •
14, 15,
151
4, -
124
15, .
203
6,
50
16
203
8, . .
51
23,
196
10, .
124
31,
185
18, .
49
36,
. 45, 120, 203
25, .
64
*iv. 2,
207
xvi. 8,
98
298

INDEX OF TEXTS.

PAGE

PAGE

xvi. 13,

90

xi. 16, 17,

273

20, .

49

*18,

174, 275

*33, .

291

24, .

266

xvii.|2,

92

28,

251

14, .

49

xii. 15,

40

19, .

161, 175

xiii. 1-3,

264, 266

22, .

120

39,

281

xix. 11,

185, 283

xiv. 23,

262

23, .

185

•24,

156, 173

*41, .

288

*43, .

124

*xx. 9,

251

47, .

105, 146

21, .

262

xv. 1-29, .

178

21-23,

257

3,

34

*22, .

25, 265

22, .

34

*23, .

260

11, .

. 88, 92

31, .

203

xvi. 15,

217

*35, .

252

18,

274

30, 31,
21
Acts.
31, .
. 28, 203
i. 5, .
135, 205, 273
33, .
217
*ii..l-4, .
24
xvii. 28,
281
4,
207
xviii. 6,
163
*38, .
155
8, .
217
41, .
216, 268
xix. 2, 3 .
172
44, 45,
217
*4, .
156, 174
iii. 6,
274
6,
135, 207, 264
14, .
159
*xx. 21, .
174
19, .
156
22, .
267
*• S2' '
251
26,
163
*iv. 2,
252
•xxii. 16, .
156, 179
v. 1, 2, .
217
xxiii. 24,
211
31, .
275
xxiv. 24,
71
vi. 1-6, .
264, 266
* xxvi. 5,
185
7, .
69
18, .
32
viii. 13,
136
*20, .
174, 275
13-23,
217
44, .
211
•16, .
209
17, .
135, 207, 264
Eos
(ANS.
17-19,
136
i. 5,
69
20, .
264
7, .
32
32, .
145
16, .
105
ix. 4,
206
•27,
107
17, 135,
207, 264, 266
ii. 4,
275
27, .
274
*6, .
63
x. 14, .
159
*9,
108
15, .
164
13, .
68
35,
97
* 25-29,
221
*41, .
251
27, .
62
* 44-46,
273
•29, .
176
i7, .
208
iii. 20-28, ,
66
xi. 16, .
135, 207
22, .
. . 62
INDEX OF TEXTS.

299

iii. 24, 28, .
iv. 4,
5-7, .
*11, .
13, .
* 15, .
16,
* 16, 17,
16-18,
•v. 3,
9, 9,10,10,12-14, 15-17,
18,
vi. 1,
*3, •3,4,•3-5, 4,6, 16,22,23,
vii. 2,

•13, 15-20,
•20,
viii. 14, 15,
16, 19-23,
23,
*29, 38, 39,

x. 3,
•4, 9,16,
xi. 6,
20,
xiii. 12, 14,
•xiv. 10, 11,
17, ¦

PAGE

PAGE

64

•xiv. 23, .

31

9, 16, 73

xv. 18,

108

65

xvi. 5,

36

95

17, 18,

36

177, 206

25, 26,

69

206

108

1 Corinthians.

65

i. 1, 2, .

32

221

8,

60

206

21, .

203

108

30, .

. 62, 159

88

•ii. 13, .

7

121

* iii. 8, .

63

88

•11, .

12

152

15, .

193

64

v. 1-5, .

37

183

3,

108

92

3-5, .

259

205

4,

274

172

*H, •

37

173

11-13,

36

170

vi. 1-6,

36

61

2, 3,

249

68

4,

34

121

11,

. 32, 179

92

•vii. 14, .

160, 213

267

27,

267

108

ix. 13,

107

25

17,

100

104, 108

22,

101

108

*23,

101

197

* 24-27,

100

196

*27,

125

187

x. 1,

211

115, 196

1,2,

171

147

2,

172

121

3,4,

241

101

4,

235

121

8,

39

44

12,

126

187, 206

•16,

; . 237

66

17,

238

62

19, 20

39

28, 203

28,

39

69

* xi. 18-29,

232

65

24,

237

123

•27,

232

170

30-32,

42

205

32,

. 49, 233

290

33, 34

, 233, 235

114

•34,

233

300

INDEX OF TEXTS.

PAGE

FAGS

xii. 8-12, .

208
iii. 11, .
. 65, 127
12
206
* 16, .
206
* 13, . ' .
135,
207
24, . .
32
27, .
206
26, . .
193
27, 28,
208
* 27, . .
205
xiv. 1-5, .
129
28, .
206
29-32, .
129
28, 29,
206
xv. 2,
124
iv. 4-7, .
. 187
•11, .
124
*9
185
* 12, .
251
v. 1, . .
77
* 13-17,
124
•4, . .
. 65, 127
* 21-23,
281
* 13, . .
92
* 22, .
280
22, .
114
* 22, 23,
253
vi. 15,
183
44, .
242
45, .
19
Ephesians.
46, .
23
i. 2, . .
33
47, .
19
4,
159
52, .
250
4,5, . .
187
57, . .
92
6, . .
* 19, 20,
170
. 61, 212
2 Corinthians.
22, 23,
30
i. 2, . .
33
23, .
206
ii. 6-8, .
37
* ii. 1,
212
7, 8, .
38
3.
152
•7-10, .
259
5,
. 88, 121
* iv. 10, .
212
6,
. 61, 212
* 17, .
104
108
8, . 88,
121, 203
v. 1,
115
8, 9, .
. 90, 177
5,
108
14, .
102, 206
7,
114
* 20, .
. 10, 12
15, .
143
iii. 14,
274
17, .
183
, 196
17,
32
19, 20,
146
iv. 22,
170
* 19-vi. 3, .
126
22-24,
162
21, .
62
24, .
183
' vi. 1,
126
30,
. 20, 121
'vii. 10,
108
, 275
• v. 14, .
251, 290
•11, .
104
, 108
26, .
159, 179
viii. 23,
34
27, .
60
* ix. 11,
108
32, .
226
r. 12,
7
vi. 10, .
170
* xii. 12,
109
13,
109
xiii. 5,
. 31, 71
17, . .
142
. Galatians.
i. 3,
33
Philippians.
22, .
31
i. 2, . .
33
ii. 21,
64
6,
121
15, 16,
67
12-20,
105
20, .
61
» 19, .
104
iii. 1,
69
20, . .
206
* *r-
M 00 fcO

ti: m-

p: p: t- ?* * * r- *F-

oE

tO M N- 10 00

o fo • .

HbOBbOHMM
lO OI OI OI bS bO O C0 OS
eocorf^F^-bOtocoi-tco

» M H M B K> H » M ' "*
caooi<tboi-Ib-'*Joboi-'co
OJCibOOHfcOtOQOJbObOW

!_¦ hJHJfcObO n'MMboJ
m^oboWHOtooo-Jo C0O1UbObOtOO-i00bOO)i^.bd

«  ""!°. . . i "."".  -  ".'. . .
.  »H  * * ' ' S
t_i H O
.SS i . . . jf  • 
i± to o <=>
Jo-** ^ ^
. . " H" • • •  ' • ' ¦ N> " "  b.1 * ' tsO ' "
SbO os a, » a>
go S 00 *- *- _*-

8

o

302

INDEX OF TEXTS.

Hebrews.

PAGE

PAGE
ii. 18-21,
74
i. 3, .
163
20, .
23
ii. 6,
130
21, .
75
9, . .
143
22, .
23
14, .
. 4, 130
23,
75
iv 2,
42
*24, .
73
3, .
. 28, 122
•24, 25.
9
vi. 1, .
275
25, .
75
*2,
207
*26, .
78
* 4-6, .
130
iii. 2,
137
6, .
275
17, . .
185
viii. 2,
50
iv. 4,
49
ix. 10,
167
v. 11, .
276
13, .
163, 164
19-22,
163
1 Peter.
22, . .
168
i. 2, . .
. 3S
, 163
24, .
. 50, 209
* 3, 184, 199
212
, 251
26,
145
5,
88
28, . .
105, 145
8, .
115
x. 4, . .
21
8,9, .
'. 28
, 122
9,
23
18, 19,
151
22, . .
163
19, .
145
26, .
136
23, .
193
199
34, .
122
ii. 5,
10
39, .
. 46, 140
6,
12
xi 1,
114
*16, . .
93
6, .
31
*17, .
291
17, . .
75
24, .
145
19, .
171
iii. 18, .
209
*35, .
252
•18,19,
210
39, .
75
* 18-21,
172,
227
xii. 23,
45
*20, .
211
24, . .
163
*21, . 169,
177, 209
188, 212
James.
iv. 3,
109
i. 3, . .
109
17, .
69
*12, .
125
18, .
240
17, . .
183, 185
v. 1,
122
18, . .
192, 193
2,
262
22, . .
97
26, 27,
71
2 Peter.
27, . .
150
i. 2,
33
ii- 1, . . .
23, 71
5-7, .
137
*8, .
62, 77
9,
163
10 
76, 137
•10, .
137
* 12, .
76
14, .
170
13,- .-. .
77
ii. 4,
116
*14, .
72, 123
iii. 5,
211
•14-26,
69
9,
275
17, . . .
23
18, . . .
23
INDEX OF TEXTS.

3°3

1 John.

i. 3-7, .

PAGE 237

7,

163, 168

8,

197

10, .

197

ii. 2,

144

4,

125

17,

97

19,

36

29,

187

iii. 7,

68

•9,

196, 199

14,

115

19,

115

iv. 1,

5

*3,

5

14,

142

•18,

291

v. 1,

184, 188, 193

4,

200

10,

115

12, 13

120

13,

. 28, 115

14,

120

18,

184

19,

49

2 John.

i. 3,

Jude.

6,
*12, 14,

33

71
116232254

Revelation.

*i. 1,
4,5,
•20,
ii 4, 5,
14-16,20,22,
•23,
*iii. 1,1-3, 2, 3,

40
33, 271
145, 168
39, 40, 235 38 383842 63
42,47

47

PAGE

•iii. 5, . .42

, 46, 47

8, . . .

78

11, . . > .

102

16, .

38, 47

20, .

112

21, .

249

iv. 3, . . .

280

5, . . .

271

vii. 14, . 78, 111,

L68, 286

ix. 11, .

39

*x. 1, . . .

280

xi. 3,

41

3, 4, .

40

xii. 1-6, .

41

14-17,

41

17, .

6

xiii. 1-4,

6

8,

45

"xiv. 13,

63

xri. 5,

40

14, .

250

16, .

250

xvii. 8,

45

9, 10,' .

201

17, •

107

18, .

235

xix. 8,

78

•10,

40

11-21,

250, 254

13, .

165

xx. 2, 3, .

254

4,

250

4, 5, .

255

4-6, .

24

11, •

250

11, 12,

250

11-15,

255

•15, .

46

xxi. 6,

97

14, .

10

23, .

40

* 27, .

. 45, 46

xxii. 3-5, .

24

*6,

290

*6-9, .

40

*8,

40

*12, ,

63

14, .

111

•16, .

. 40, 290

•19, .

137

SKILL AND COMPANY, PRINTEES, EDINBURGH

3 9002 08867 8025

. , . , ,  i\/  s 

"¦