Systematic Theology (Volume 3 of 3)

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Systematic Theology (Volume 3 of 3)
Author: Strong, Augustus Hopkins, 1836-1921
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Systematic Theology (Volume 3 of 3)" ***

Systematic Theology

A Compendium and Commonplace‐Book

Designed For The Use Of Theological Students

Augustus Hopkins Strong, D.D., LL.D.

President and Professor of Biblical Theology in the Rochester Theological
Seminary

Revised and Enlarged

In Three Volumes

Volume 3

The Doctrine of Salvation

The Griffith & Rowland Press

Philadelphia

1909

CONTENTS

Part VI. Soteriology, Or The Doctrine Of Salvation Through The Work Of
Christ And Of The Holy Spirit.
Chapter II. The Reconciliation Of Man To God, Or The Application Of
Redemption Through The Work Of The Holy Spirit.
Section I.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its
Preparation.
I. Election.
1. Proof of the Doctrine of Election.
2. Objections to the Doctrine of Election.
II. Calling.
A. Is God’s general call sincere?
B. Is God’s special call irresistible?
Section II.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Actual
Beginning.
I. Union with Christ.
1. Scripture Representations of this Union.
2. Nature of this Union.
3. Consequences of this Union as respects the Believer.
II. Regeneration.
1. Scripture Representations.
2. Necessity of Regeneration.
3. The Efficient Cause of Regeneration.
4. The Instrumentality used in Regeneration.
5. The Nature of the Change wrought in Regeneration.
III. Conversion.
1. Repentance.
2. Faith.
IV. Justification.
1. Definition of Justification.
2. Proof of the Doctrine of Justification.
3. Elements of Justification.
4. Relation of Justification to God’s Law and Holiness.
5. Relation of Justification to Union with Christ and the Work
of the Spirit.
6. Relation of Justification to Faith.
7. Advice to Inquirers demanded by a Scriptural View of
Justification.
Section III.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its
Continuation.
I. Sanctification.
1. Definition of Sanctification.
2. Explanations and Scripture Proof.
3. Erroneous Views refuted by these Scripture Passages.
II. Perseverance.
1. Proof of the Doctrine of Perseverance.
2. Objections to the Doctrine of Perseverance.
Part VII. Ecclesiology, Or The Doctrine Of The Church.
Chapter I. The Constitution Of The Church. Or Church Polity.
I. Definition of the Church.
A. The church, like the family and the state, is an institution
of divine appointment.
B. The church, unlike the family and the state, is a voluntary
society.
II. Organization of the Church.
1. The fact of organization.
2. The nature of this organization.
3. The genesis of this organization.
III. Government of the Church.
1. Nature of this government in general.
A. Proof that the government of the church is democratic or
congregational.
B. Erroneous views as to church government refuted by the
foregoing passages.
2. Officers of the Church.
A. The number of offices in the church is two:—first, the
office of bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and, secondly, the
office of deacon.
B. The duties belonging to these offices.
C. Ordination of officers.
(a) What is ordination?
(b) Who are to ordain?
3. Discipline of the Church.
IV. Relation of Local Churches to one another.
1. The general nature of this relation is that of fellowship
between equals.
2. This fellowship involves the duty of special consultation with
regard to matters affecting the common interest.
3. This fellowship may be broken by manifest departures from the
faith or practice of the Scriptures, on the part of any church.
Chapter II. The Ordinances Of The Church.
I. Baptism.
1. Baptism an Ordinance of Christ.
2. The Mode of Baptism.
A. The command to baptize is a command to immerse.
B. No church has the right to modify or dispense with this
command of Christ.
3. The Symbolism of Baptism.
A. Expansion of this statement as to the symbolism of baptism.
B. Inferences from the passages referred to.
4. The Subjects of Baptism.
A. Proof that only persons giving evidence of being
regenerated are proper subjects of baptism.
B. Inferences from the fact that only persons giving evidence
of being regenerate are proper subjects of baptism.
C. Infant Baptism.
(a) Infant baptism is without warrant, either express or
implied, in the Scripture.
(b) Infant baptism is expressly contradicted.
(c) The rise of infant baptism in the history of the
church.
(d) The reasoning by which it is supported is unscriptural,
unsound, and dangerous in its tendency.
(e) The lack of agreement among pedobaptists.
(f) The evil effects of infant baptism.
II. The Lord’s Supper.
1. The Lord’s Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.
2. The Mode of administering the Lord’s Supper.
3. The Symbolism of the Lord’s Supper.
A. Expansion of this statement.
B. Inferences from this statement.
4. Erroneous views of the Lord’s Supper.
A. The Romanist view.
B. The Lutheran and High Church view.
5. Prerequisites to Participation in the Lord’s Supper.
A. There are prerequisites.
B. The prerequisites are those only which are expressly or
implicitly laid down by Christ and his apostles.
C. On examining the New Testament, we find that the
prerequisites to participation in the Lord’s Supper are four.
First,—Regeneration.
Secondly,—Baptism.
Thirdly,—Church membership.
Fourthly,—An orderly walk.
D. The local church is the judge whether these prerequisites
are fulfilled.
E. Special objections to open communion.
Part VIII. Eschatology, Or The Doctrine Of Final Things.
I. Physical Death.
1. Upon rational grounds.
2. Upon scriptural grounds.
II. The Intermediate State.
1. Of the righteous.
2. Of the wicked.
III. The Second Coming of Christ.
1. The nature of this coming.
2. The time of Christ’s coming.
3. The precursors of Christ’s coming.
4. Relation of Christ’s second coming to the millennium.
IV. The Resurrection.
1. The exegetical objection.
2. The scientific object.
V. The Last Judgment.
1. The nature of the final judgment.
2. The object of the final judgment.
3. The Judge in the final judgment.
4. The subjects of the final judgment.
5. The grounds of the final judgment.
VI. The Final States of the Righteous and of the Wicked.
1. Of the righteous.
(a) Is heaven a place, as well as a state?
(b) Is this earth to be the heaven of the saints?
2. Of the wicked.
A. The future punishment of the wicked is not annihilation.
B. Punishment after death excludes new probation and ultimate
restoration of the wicked.
C. Scripture declares this future punishment of the wicked to be
eternal.
D. This everlasting punishment of the wicked is not inconsistent
with God’s justice, but is rather a revelation of that justice.
E. This everlasting punishment of the wicked is not inconsistent
with God’s benevolence.
F. The proper preaching of the doctrine of everlasting punishment
is not a hindrance to the success of the gospel.
Indexes.
Index Of Subjects.
Index Of Authors.
Index Of Scripture Texts.
Index Of Apocryphal Texts.
Index Of Greek Words.
Index Of Hebrew Words.

[Cover Art]

[Transcriber’s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter
at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]

“THE EYE SEES ONLY THAT WHICH IT BRINGS WITH IT THE POWER OF
SEEING.”—_Cicero._

“OPEN THOU MINE EYES, THAT I MAY BEHOLD WONDROUS THINGS OUT OF THY
LAW.”—_Psalm 119:18._

“FOR WITH THEE IS THE FOUNTAIN OF LIFE: IN THY LIGHT SHALL WE SEE
LIGHT.”—_Psalm 36:9._

“FOR WE KNOW IN PART, AND WE PROPHESY IN PART; BUT WHEN THAT WHICH IS
PERFECT IS COME, THAT WHICH IS IN PART SHALL BE DONE AWAY.”—_1 Cor. 13:9,
10._

PART VI. SOTERIOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION THROUGH THE WORK OF
CHRIST AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

[Transcriber’s Note: This Volume begins with “Chapter II”, because
“Chapter I” of “Part VI” was printed in Volume II.]

Chapter II. The Reconciliation Of Man To God, Or The Application Of
Redemption Through The Work Of The Holy Spirit.

Section I.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Preparation.

(_a_) In this Section we treat of Election and Calling; Section Second
being devoted to the Application of Christ’s Redemption in its Actual
Beginning,—namely, in Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion, and
Justification; while Section Third has for its subject the Application of
Christ’s Redemption in its Continuation,—namely, in Sanctification and
Perseverance.

The arrangement of topics, in the treatment of the reconciliation
of man to God, is taken from Julius Müller, Proof‐texts, 35.
“Revelation _to_ us aims to bring about revelation _in_ us. In any
being absolutely perfect, God’s intercourse with us by _faculty_,
and by direct _teaching_, would absolutely coalesce, and the
former be just as much God’s voice as the latter” (Hutton,
Essays).

(_b_) In treating Election and Calling as applications of Christ’s
redemption, we imply that they are, in God’s decree, logically subsequent
to that redemption. In this we hold the Sublapsarian view, as
distinguished from the Supralapsarianism of Beza and other hyper‐
Calvinists, which regarded the decree of individual salvation as
preceding, in the order of thought, the decree to permit the Fall. In this
latter scheme, the order of decrees is as follows: 1. the decree to save
certain, and to reprobate others; 2. the decree to create both those who
are to be saved and those who are to be reprobated; 3. the decree to
permit both the former and the latter to fall; 4. the decree to provide
salvation only for the former, that is, for the elect.

Richards, Theology, 302‐307, shows that Calvin, while in his early
work, the Institutes, he avoided definite statements of his
position with regard to the extent of the atonement, yet in his
latter works, the Commentaries, acceded to the theory of universal
atonement. Supralapsarianism is therefore hyper‐Calvinistic,
rather than Calvinistic. Sublapsarianism was adopted by the Synod
of Dort (1618, 1619). By Supralapsarian is meant that form of
doctrine which holds the decree of individual salvation as
preceding the decree to permit the Fall; Sublapsarian designates
that form of doctrine which holds that the decree of individual
salvation is subsequent to the decree to permit the Fall.

The progress in Calvin’s thought may be seen by comparing some of
his earlier with his later utterances. Institutes, 2:23:5—“I say,
with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, as he certainly
foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so
willed.” But even then in the Institutes, 3:23:8, he affirms that
“the perdition of the wicked depends upon the divine
predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter of it
are found in themselves. Man falls by the appointment of divine
providence, but he falls by his own fault.” God’s blinding,
hardening, turning the sinner he describes as the consequence of
the divine _desertion_, not the divine _causation_. The relation
of God to the origin of sin is not efficient, but permissive. In
later days Calvin wrote in his Commentary on _1 John 2:2_—“_he is
the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for
the whole world_”—as follows: “Christ suffered for the sins of the
whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men
without distinction, his blood being shed not for a part of the
world only, but for the whole human race; for although in the
world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he holds
out the propitiation to the whole world, since without exception
he summons all to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than
the door unto hope.”

Although other passages, such as Institutes, 3:21:5, and 3:23:1,
assert the harsher view, we must give Calvin credit for modifying
his doctrine with maturer reflection and advancing years. Much
that is called Calvinism would have been repudiated by Calvin
himself even at the beginning of his career, and is really the
exaggeration of his teaching by more scholastic and less religious
successors. Renan calls Calvin “the most Christian man of his
generation.” Dorner describes him as “equally great in intellect
and character, lovely in social life, full of tender sympathy and
faithfulness to his friends, yielding and forgiving toward
personal offences.” The device upon his seal is a flaming heart
from which is stretched forth a helping hand.

Calvin’s share in the burning of Servetus must be explained by his
mistaken zeal for God’s truth and by the universal belief of his
time that this truth was to be defended by the civil power. The
following is the inscription on the expiatory monument which
European Calvinists raised to Servetus: “On October 27, 1553, died
at the stake at Champel, Michael Servetus, of Villeneuve d’Aragon,
born September 29, 1511. Reverent and grateful sons of Calvin, our
great Reformer, but condemning an error which was that of his age,
and steadfastly adhering to liberty of conscience according to the
true principles of the Reformation and of the gospel, we have
erected this expiatory monument, on the 27th of October, 1903.”

John DeWitt, in Princeton Theol. Rev., Jan. 1904:95—“Take John
Calvin. That fruitful conception—more fruitful in church and state
than any other conception which has held the English speaking
world—of the absolute and universal sovereignty of the holy God,
as a revolt from the conception then prevailing of the sovereignty
of the human head of an earthly church, was historically the
mediator and instaurator of his spiritual career.” On Calvin’s
theological position, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:409, note.

(_c_) But the Scriptures teach that men as sinners, and not men
irrespective of their sins, are the objects of God’s saving grace in
Christ (John 15:9; Rom. 11:5, 7; Eph. 1:4‐6; 1 Pet. 1:2). Condemnation,
moreover, is an act, not of sovereignty, but of justice, and is grounded
in the guilt of the condemned (Rom. 2:6‐11; 2 Thess. 1:5‐10). The true
order of the decrees is therefore as follows: 1. the decree to create; 2.
the decree to permit the Fall; 3. the decree to provide a salvation in
Christ sufficient for the needs of all; 4. the decree to secure the actual
acceptance of this salvation on the part of some,—or, in other words, the
decree of Election.

That saving grace presupposes the Fall, and that men as sinners
are the objects of it, appears from _John 15:19_—“_If ye were of
the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of
the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world
hateth you_”; _Rom. 11:5‐7_—“_Even so then at this present time
also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. But if
it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more
grace. What then? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained
not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened._”
_Eph. 1:4‐6_—“_even as he chose us in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him
in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through
Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his
will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely
bestowed on us in the Beloved_”; _1 Pet. 1:2_—elect, “_according
to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the
Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus: Grace
to you and peace be multiplied._”

That condemnation is not an act of sovereignty, but of justice,
appears from _Rom. 2:6‐9_—“_who will render to every man according
to his works ... wrath and indignation ... upon every soul of man
that worketh evil_”; _2 Thess. 1:6‐9_—“_a righteous thing with God
to recompense affliction to them that afflict you ... rendering
vengeance to them that know not God and to them that obey not the
gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment._”
Particular persons are elected, not to have Christ die for them,
but to have special influences of the Spirit bestowed upon them.

(_d_) Those Sublapsarians who hold to the Anselmic view of a limited
Atonement, make the decrees 3. and 4., just mentioned, exchange
places,—the decree of election thus preceding the decree to provide
redemption. The Scriptural reasons for preferring the order here given
have been already indicated in our treatment of the extent of the
Atonement (pages 771‐773).

When “3” and “4” thus change places, “3” should be made to read:
“The decree to provide in Christ a salvation sufficient for the
elect”; and “4” should read: “The decree that a certain number
should be saved,—or, in other words, the decree of Election.”
Sublapsarianism of the first sort may be found in Turretin, loc.
4, quæs. 9; Cunningham, Hist. Theol., 416‐439. A. J. F. Behrends:
“The divine decree is our last word in theology, not our first
word. It represents the _terminus ad quem_, not the _terminus a
quo_. Whatever comes about in the exercise of human freedom and of
divine grace—that God has decreed.” Yet we must grant that
Calvinism needs to be supplemented by a more express statement of
God’s love for the world. Herrick Johnson: “Across the Westminster
Confession could justly be written: ‘The Gospel for the elect
only.’ That Confession was written under the absolute dominion of
one idea, the doctrine of predestination. It does not contain one
of three truths: God’s love for a lost world; Christ’s compassion
for a lost world, and the gospel universal for a lost world.”

I. Election.

Election is that eternal act of God, by which in his sovereign pleasure,
and on account of no foreseen merit in them, he chooses certain out of the
number of sinful men to be the recipients of the special grace of his
Spirit, and so to be made voluntary partakers of Christ’s salvation.

1. Proof of the Doctrine of Election.

A. From Scripture.

We here adopt the words of Dr. Hovey: “The Scriptures forbid us to find
the reasons for election in the moral action of man before the new birth,
and refer us merely to the sovereign will and mercy of God; that is, they
teach the doctrine of personal election.” Before advancing to the proof of
the doctrine itself, we may claim Scriptural warrant for three preliminary
statements (which we also quote from Dr. Hovey), namely:

First, that “God has a sovereign right to bestow more grace upon one
subject than upon another,—grace being unmerited favor to sinners.”

_Mat. 20:12‐15_—“_These last have spent but one hour, and thou
hast made them equal unto us.... Friend, I do thee no wrong.... Is
it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?_” _Rom.
9:20, 21_—“_Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why
didst thou make me thus? Or hath not the potter a right over the
clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and
another unto dishonor?_”

Secondly, that “God has been pleased to exercise this right in dealing
with men.”

_Ps. 147:20_—“_He hath not dealt so with any nation; And as for
his ordinances, they have not known them_”. _Rom. 3:1, 2_—“_What
advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of
circumcision? Much every way: first of all, that they were
intrusted with the oracles of God_”; _John 15:16_—“_Ye did not
choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go
and bear fruit_”; _Acts 9:15_—“_he is a chosen vessel unto me, to
bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of
Israel._”

Thirdly, that “God has some other reason than that of saving as many as
possible for the way in which he distributes his grace.”

_Mat. 11:21_—Tyre and Sidon “_would have repented,_” if they had
had the grace bestowed upon Chorazin and Bethsaida; _Rom.
9:22‐25_—“_What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his
power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath
fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches
of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto
glory?_”

The Scripture passages which directly or indirectly support the doctrine
of a particular election of individual men to salvation may be arranged as
follows:

(_a_) Direct statements of God’s purpose to save certain individuals:

Jesus speaks of God’s elect, as for example in _Mark 13:27_—“_then
shall he send forth the angels, and shall gather together his
elect_”; _Luke 18:7_—“_shall not God avenge his elect, that cry to
him day and night?_”

_Acts 13:48_—“_as many as were ordained_ (τεταγμένοι) _to eternal
life believed_”—here Whedon translates: “disposed unto eternal
life,” referring to κατηρτισμένα in _verse 23_, where “_fitted_” =
“fitted themselves.” The only instance, however, where τάσσω is
used in a middle sense is in _1 Cor. 16:15_—“_set themselves_”;
but there the object, ἑαυτούς, is expressed. Here we must compare
_Rom. 13:1_—“_the powers that be are ordained_ (τεταγμέναι) _of
God_”; see also _Acts 10:42_—“_this is he who is ordained_
(ὡρισμένος) _of God to be the Judge of the living and the dead._”

_Rom. 9:11‐16_—“_for the children being not yet born, neither
having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth.... I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy.... So then
it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God
that hath mercy_”; _Eph. 1:4, 5, 9, 11_—“_chose us in him before
the foundation of the world,_ [not _because_ we were, or were to
be, holy, but] _that we should be holy and without blemish before
him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through
Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his
will ... the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure
... in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained
according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the
counsel of his will_”; _Col. 3:12_—“_God’s elect_”; _2 Thess.
2:13_—“_God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth._”

(_b_) In connection with the declaration of God’s foreknowledge of these
persons, or choice to make them objects of his special attention and care;

_Rom. 8:27‐30_—“_called according to his purpose. For whom he
foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his
Son_”; _1 Pet. 1:1, 2_—“_elect ... according to the foreknowledge
of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ._” On the passage in
Romans, Shedd, in his Commentary, remarks that “_foreknew,_” in
the Hebraistic use, “is more than simple prescience, and something
more also than simply ‘to fix the eye upon,’ or to ‘select.’ It is
this latter, but with the additional notion of a benignant and
kindly feeling toward the object.” In _Rom. 8:27‐30_, Paul is
emphasizing the divine sovereignty. The Christian life is
considered from the side of the divine care and ordering, and not
from the side of human choice and volition. Alexander, Theories of
the Will, 87, 88—“If Paul is here advocating indeterminism, it is
strange that in _chapter 9_ he should be at pains to answer
objections to determinism. The apostle’s protest in _chapter 9_ is
not against predestination and determination, but against the man
who regards such a theory as impugning the righteousness of God.”

That the word “_know,_” in Scripture, frequently means not merely
to “apprehend intellectually,” but to “regard with favor,” to
“make an object of care,” is evident from _Gen. 18:19_—“_I have
known him, to the end that he may command his children and his
household after him, that they may keep the way of Jehovah, to do
righteousness and justice_”; _Ex. 2:25_—“_And God saw the children
of Israel, and God took knowledge of them_”; _cf._ _verse
24_—“_God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant
with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob_”; _Ps. 1:6_—“_For
Jehovah knoweth the way of the righteous; But the way of the
wicked shall perish_”; _101:4,_ marg.—“_I will know no evil
person_”; _Hosea 13:5_—“_I did know thee in the wilderness, in the
land of great drought. According to their pasture, so were they
filled_”; _Nahum 1:7_—“_he knoweth them that take refuge in him_”;
_Amos 3:2_—“_You only have I known of all the families of the
earth_”; _Mat. 7:23_—“_then will I profess unto them, I never knew
you_”; _Rom. 7:15_—“_For that which I do I know not_”; _1 Cor.
8:3_—“_if any man loveth God, the same is known by him_”; _Gal.
4:9_—“_now that ye have come to know God, or rather, to be known
by God_”; _1 Thess. 5:12, 13_—“_we beseech you, brethren, to know
them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and
admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for
their work’s sake._” So the word “foreknow”: _Rom. 11:2_—“_God did
not cast off his people whom he foreknew_”; _1 Pet. 1:20_—Christ,
“_who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world._”

Broadus on _Mat. 7:23_—“_I never knew you_”—says; “Not in all the
passages quoted above, nor elsewhere, is there occasion for the
oft‐repeated arbitrary notion, derived from the Fathers, that
‘know’ conveys the additional idea of approve or regard. It
denotes acquaintance, with all its pleasures and advantages;
‘_knew,_’ _i. e._, as mine, as my people.”

But this last admission seems to grant what Broadus had before
denied. See Thayer, Lex. N. T., on γινώσκω: “With acc. of person,
to recognize as worthy of intimacy and love; so those whom God has
judged worthy of the blessings of the gospel are said ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ
γινώσκεσθαι (_1 Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9_); negatively in the sentence
of Christ: οὐδἐποτε ἔγνων ὑμᾶς, ‘_I never knew you,_’ never had
any acquaintance with you.” On προγινώσκω, _Rom. 8:29_—οὒς
προέγνω, “_whom he foreknew,_” see Denney, in Expositor’s Greek
Testament, _in loco_: “Those whom he foreknew—in what sense? as
persons who would answer his love with love? This is at least
irrelevant, and alien to Paul’s general method of thought. That
salvation begins with God, and begins in eternity, are fundamental
ideas with him, which he here applies to Christians, without
raising any of the problems involved in the relation of the human
will to the divine. Yet we may be sure that προέγνω has the
pregnant sense that γινώσκω often has in Scripture, _e. g._, in
_Ps. 1:6; Amos 3:2;_ hence we may render: ‘those of whom God took
knowledge from eternity’ (_Eph. 1:4_).”

In _Rom. 8:28‐30_, quoted above, “_foreknew_” = elected—that is,
made certain individuals, in the future, the objects of his love
and care; “_foreordained_” describes God’s designation of these
same individuals to receive the special gift of salvation. In
other words, “foreknowledge” is of persons: “foreordination” is of
blessings to be bestowed upon them. Hooker, Eccl. Pol., appendix
to book v. (vol. 2:751)—“ ‘_whom he did foreknow_’ (know before as
his own, with determination to be forever merciful to them) ‘_he
also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his
Son_’—predestinated, not to opportunity of conformation, but to
conformation itself.” So, for substance, Calvin, Rückert, DeWette,
Stuart, Jowett, Vaughan. On _1 Pet. 1:1, 2,_ see Com. of Plumptre.
The Arminian interpretation of “_whom he foreknew_” (_Rom. 8:29_)
would require the phrase “as conformed to the image of his Son” to
be conjoined with it. Paul, however, makes conformity to Christ to
be the result, not the foreseen condition, of God’s
foreordination; see Commentaries of Hodge and Lange.

(_c_) With assertions that this choice is matter of grace, or unmerited
favor, bestowed in eternity past:

_Eph. 1:5‐8_—“_foreordained ... according to the good pleasure of
his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely
bestowed on us in the Beloved ... according to the riches of his
grace_”; _2:8_—“_by grace have ye been saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God_”—here “_and that_”
(neuter τοῦτο, _verse 8_) refers, not to “faith” but to
“salvation.” But faith is elsewhere represented as having its
source in God,—see page 782, (_k_). _2 Tim. 1:9_—“_his own purpose
and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times
eternal._” Election is not because of our merit. McLaren: “God’s
own mercy, spontaneous, undeserved, condescending, moved him. God
is his own motive. His love is not drawn out by our loveableness,
but wells up, like an artesian spring, from the depths of his
nature.”

(_d_) That the Father has given certain persons to the Son, to be his
peculiar possession:

_John 6:37_—“_All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto
me_”; _17:2_—“_that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he
should give eternal life_”; _6_—“_I manifested thy name unto the
men whom thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and
thou gavest them to me_”; _9_—“_I pray not for the world, but for
those whom thou hast given me_”; _Eph. 1:14_—“_unto the redemption
of God’s own possession_”; _1 Pet. 2:9_—“_a people for God’s own
possession._”

(_e_) That the fact of believers being united thus to Christ is due wholly
to God:

_John 6:44_—“_No man can come to me, except the Father that sent
me draw him_”; _10:26_—“_ye believe not, because ye are not of my
sheep_”; _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_of him_ [God] _are ye in Christ Jesus_” =
your being, as Christians, in union with Christ, is due wholly to
God.

(_f_) That those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life, and they
only, shall be saved:

_Phil. 4:3_—“_the rest of my fellow‐workers, whose names are in
the book of life_”; _Rev. 20:15_—“_And if any was not found
written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire_”;
_21:27_—“_there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean
... but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life_” =
God’s decrees of electing grace in Christ.

(_g_) That these are allotted, as disciples, to certain of God’s servants:

_Acts 17:4_—(literally)—“_some of them were persuaded, and were
allotted_ [by God] _to Paul and Silas_”—as disciples (so Meyer and
Grimm); _18:9, 10_—“_Be not afraid, but speak and hold not thy
peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to harm
thee: for I have much people in this city._”

(_h_) Are made the recipients of a special call of God:

_Rom. 8:28, 30_—“_called according to his purpose ... whom he
foreordained, them he also called_”; _9:23, 24_—“_vessels of
mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he also
called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles_”;
_11:29_—“_for the gifts and the calling of God are not repented
of_”; _1 Cor. 1:24‐29_—“_unto them that are called ... Christ the
power of God, and the wisdom of God.... For behold your calling,
brethren, ... the things that are despised, did God choose, yea
and the things that are not, that he might bring to naught the
things that are: that no flesh should glory before God_”; _Gal.
1:15, 16_—“_when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated
me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace,
to reveal his Son in me_”; _cf._ _James 2:23_—“_and he_ [Abraham]
_was called_ [to be] _the friend of God_.”

(_i_) Are born into God’s kingdom, not by virtue of man’s will, but of
God’s will:

_John 1:13_—“_born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God_”; _James 1:18_—“_Of his own
will he brought us forth by the word of truth_”; _1 John
4:10_—“_Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved
us._” S. S. Times, Oct. 14, 1899—“The law of love is the
expression of God’s loving nature, and it is only by our
participation of the divine nature that we are enabled to render
it obedience. ‘Loving God,’ says Bushnell, ‘is but letting God
love us.’ So John’s great saying may be rendered in the present
tense: ‘not that we love God, but that he loves us.’ Or, as Madame
Guyon sings: ‘I love my God, but with no love of mine, For I have
none to give; I love thee, Lord, but all the love is thine, For by
thy life I live’.”

(_j_) Receiving repentance, as the gift of God:

_Acts 5:31_—“_Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince
and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of
sins_”; _11:18_—“_Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted
repentance unto life_”; _2 Tim. 2:25_—“_correcting them that
oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance
unto the knowledge of the truth._” Of course it is true that God
might give repentance simply by inducing man to repent by the
agency of his word, his providence and his Spirit. But more than
this seems to be meant when the Psalmist prays: “_Create in me a
clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me_” (_Ps.
51:10_).

(_k_) Faith, as the gift of God:

_John 6:65_—“_no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him
of the Father_”; _Acts 15:8, 9_—“_God ... giving them the Holy
Spirit ... cleansing their hearts by faith_”; _Rom.
12:3_—“_according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of
faith_”; _1 Cor. 12:9_—“_to another faith, in the same Spirit_”;
_Gal. 5:22_—“_the fruit of the Spirit is ... faith_” (A. V.);
_Phil. 2:13_—In all faith, “_it is God who worketh in you both to
will and to work, for his good pleasure_”; _Eph. 6:23_—“_Peace be
to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the
Lord Jesus Christ_”; _John 3:8_—“_The Spirit breatheth where he
wills, and thou_ [as a consequence] _hearest his voice_” (so
Bengel); see A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 166; _1 Cor.
12:3_—“_No man can say, Jesus is Lord, but in the Holy
Spirit_”—but calling Jesus “_Lord_” is an essential part of
faith,—faith therefore is the work of the Holy Spirit; _Tit.
1:1_—“_the faith of God’s elect_”—election is not in consequence
of faith, but faith is in consequence of election (Ellicott). If
they get their faith of themselves, then salvation is not due to
grace. If God gave the faith, then it was in his purpose, and this
is election.

(_l_) Holiness and good works, as the gift of God.

_Eph. 1:4_—“_chose us in him before the foundation of the world,
that we should be holy_”; _2:9, 10_—“_not of works, that no man
should glory. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus
for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in
them_”; _1 Pet. 1:2_—elect “_unto obedience._” On Scripture
testimony, see Hovey, Manual of Theol. and Ethics, 258‐261; also
art. on Predestination, by Warfield, in Hastings’ Dictionary of
the Bible.

These passages furnish an abundant and conclusive refutation, on the one
hand, of the Lutheran view that election is simply God’s determination
from eternity to provide an objective salvation for universal humanity;
and, on the other hand, of the Arminian view that election is God’s
determination from eternity to save certain individuals upon the ground of
their foreseen faith.

Roughly stated, we may say that Schleiermacher elects all men
subjectively; Lutherans all men objectively; Arminians all
believers; Augustinians all foreknown as God’s own. Schleiermacher
held that decree logically precedes foreknowledge, and that
election is individual, not national. But he made election to
include all men, the only difference between them being that of
earlier or of later conversion. Thus in his system Calvinism and
Restorationism go hand in hand. Murray, in Hastings’ Bible
Dictionary, seems to take this view.

Lutheranism is the assertion that original grace preceded original
sin, and that the _Quia Voluit_ of Tertullian and of Calvin was
based on wisdom, in Christ. The Lutheran holds that the believer
is simply the non‐resistant subject of common grace; while the
Arminian holds that the believer is the coöperant subject of
common grace. Lutheranism enters more fully than Calvinism into
the nature of faith. It thinks more of the human agency, while
Calvinism thinks more of the divine purpose. It thinks more of the
church, while Calvinism thinks more of Scripture. The Arminian
conception is that God has appointed men to salvation, just as he
has appointed them to condemnation, in view of their dispositions
and acts. As Justification is in view of _present_ faith, so the
Arminian regards Election as taking place in view of _future_
faith. Arminianism must reject the doctrine of regeneration as
well as that of election, and must in both cases make the act of
man precede the act of God.

All varieties of view may be found upon this subject among
theologians. John Milton, in his Christian Doctrine, holds that
“there is no particular predestination or election, but only
general.... There can be no reprobation of individuals from all
eternity.” Archbishop Sumner: “Election is predestination of
communities and nations to external knowledge and to the
privileges of the gospel.” Archbishop Whately: “Election is the
choice of individual men to membership in the external church and
the means of grace.” Gore, in Lux Mundi, 320—“The elect represent
not the special purpose of God for a few, but the universal
purpose which under the circumstances can only be realized through
a few.” R. V. Foster, a Cumberland Presbyterian, opposed to
absolute predestination, says in his Systematic Theology that the
divine decree “is unconditional in its origin and conditional in
its application.”

B. From Reason.

(_a_) What God does, he has eternally purposed to do. Since he bestows
special regenerating grace on some, he must have eternally purposed to
bestow it,—in other words, must have chosen them to eternal life. Thus the
doctrine of election is only a special application of the doctrine of
decrees.

The New Haven views are essentially Arminian. See Fitch, on
Predestination and Election, in Christian Spectator, 3:622—“God’s
foreknowledge of what would be the results of his present works of
grace _preceded_ in the order of nature the purpose to pursue
those works, and presented the _grounds_ of that purpose. Whom he
foreknew—as the people who would be guided to his kingdom by his
present works of grace, in which result lay the whole objective
motive for undertaking those works—he did also, by resolving on
those works, predestinate.” Here God is very erroneously said to
_foreknow_ what is as yet included in a merely _possible_ plan. As
we have seen in our discussion of Decrees, there can be no
foreknowledge, unless there is something fixed, in the future, to
be foreknown; and this fixity can be due only to God’s
predetermination. So, in the present case, election must precede
prescience.

The New Haven views are also given in N. W. Taylor, Revealed
Theology, 373‐444; for criticism upon them, see Tyler, Letters on
New Haven Theology, 172‐180. If God desired the salvation of Judas
as much as of Peter, how was Peter elected in distinction from
Judas? To the question, “_Who made thee to differ?_” the answer
must be, “Not God, but my own will.” See Finney, in Bib. Sac.,
1877:711—“God must have foreknown whom he _could_ wisely save,
prior in the order of nature to his determining to save them. But
his knowing who _would_ be saved, must have been, in the order of
nature, subsequent to his election or determination to save them,
and dependent upon that determination.” Foster, Christian Life and
Theology, 70—“The doctrine of election is the consistent
formulation, _sub specie eternitatis_, of prevenient grace....
86—With the doctrine of prevenient grace, the evangelical doctrine
stands or falls.”

(_b_) This purpose cannot be conditioned upon any merit or faith of those
who are chosen, since there is no such merit,—faith itself being God’s
gift and foreordained by him. Since man’s faith is foreseen only as the
result of God’s work of grace, election proceeds rather upon foreseen
unbelief. Faith, as the effect of election, cannot at the same time be the
cause of election.

There is an analogy between prayer and its answer, on the one
hand, and faith and salvation on the other. God has decreed answer
in connection with prayer, and salvation in connection with faith.
But he does not change his mind when men pray, or when they
believe. As he fulfils his purpose by inspiring true prayer, so he
fulfils his purpose by giving faith. Augustine: “He chooses us,
not because we believe, but that we may believe: lest we should
say that we first chose him.” (_John 15:16_—“_Ye did not choose
me, but I chose you_”; _Rom. 9:21_—“_from the same lump_”;
_16_—“_not of him that willeth_”.)

Here see the valuable discussion of Wardlaw, Systematic Theol.,
2:485‐549—“Election and salvation on the ground of works foreseen
are not different in principle from election and salvation on the
ground of works performed.” _Cf._ _Prov. 21:1_—“_The king’s heart
is in the hand of Jehovah as the watercourses; He turneth it
whithersoever he will_”—as easily as the rivulets of the eastern
fields are turned by the slightest motion of the hand or the foot
of the husbandman; _Ps. 110:3_—“_Thy people offer themselves
willingly In the day of thy power._”

(_c_) The depravity of the human will is such that, without this decree to
bestow special divine influences upon some, all, without exception, would
have rejected Christ’s salvation after it was offered to them; and so all,
without exception, must have perished. Election, therefore, may be viewed
as a necessary consequence of God’s decree to provide an objective
redemption, if that redemption is to have any subjective result in human
salvation.

Before the prodigal son seeks the father, the father must first
seek him,—a truth brought out in the preceding parables of the
lost money and the lost sheep (_Luke 15_). Without election, all
are lost. Newman Smyth, Orthodox Theology of To‐day, 56—“The worst
doctrine of election, to‐day, is taught by our natural science.
The scientific doctrine of natural selection is the doctrine of
election, robbed of all hope, and without a single touch of human
pity in it.”

Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:335—“Suppose the deistic view be true: God
created men and left them; surely no man could complain of the
results. But now suppose God, foreseeing these very results of
creation, should create. Would it make any difference, if God’s
purpose, as to the futurition of such a world, should precede it?
Augustine supposes that God did purpose such a world as the deist
supposes, with two exceptions: (1) he interposes to restrain evil;
(2) he intervenes, by providence, by Christ, and by the Holy
Spirit, to save some from destruction.” Election is simply God’s
determination that the sufferings of Christ shall not be in vain;
that all men shall not be lost; that some shall be led to accept
Christ; that to this end special influences of his Spirit shall be
given.

At first sight it might appear that God’s appointing men to
salvation was simply permissive, as was his appointment to
condemnation (_1 Pet. 2:8_), and that this appointment was merely
indirect by creating them with foresight of their faith or their
disobedience. But the decree of salvation is not simply
permissive,—it is efficient also. It is a decree to use special
means for the salvation of some. A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures,
143—“The dead man cannot spontaneously originate his own
quickening, nor the creature his own creating, nor the infant his
own begetting. Whatever man may do after regeneration, the first
quickening of the dead must originate with God.”

Hovey, Manual of Theology, 287—“Calvinism, reduced to its lowest
terms, is election of believers, not on account of any foreseen
conduct of theirs, either before or in the act of conversion,
which would be spiritually better than that of others influenced
by the same grace, but on account of their foreseen greater
usefulness in manifesting the glory of God to moral beings and of
their foreseen non‐commission of the sin against the Holy Spirit.”
But even here we must attribute the greater usefulness and the
abstention from fatal sin, not to man’s unaided powers but to the
divine decree: see _Eph. 2:10_—“_For we are his workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared
that we should walk in them._”

(_d_) The doctrine of election becomes more acceptable to reason when we
remember: first, that God’s decree is eternal, and in a certain sense is
contemporaneous with man’s belief in Christ; secondly, that God’s decree
to create involves the decree of all that in the exercise of man’s freedom
will follow; thirdly, that God’s decree is the decree of him who is all in
all, so that our willing and doing is at the same time the working of him
who decrees our willing and doing. The whole question turns upon the
initiative in human salvation: if this belongs to God, then in spite of
difficulties we must accept the doctrine of election.

The timeless existence of God may be the source of many of our
difficulties with regard to election, and with a proper view of
God’s eternity these difficulties might be removed. Mason, Faith
of the Gospel, 349‐351—“Eternity is commonly thought of as if it
were a state or series anterior to time and to be resumed again
when time comes to an end. This, however, only reduces eternity to
time again, and puts the life of God in the same line with our
own, only coming from further back.... At present we do not see
how time and eternity meet.”

Royce, World and Individual, 2:374—“God does not temporally
foreknow anything, except so far as he is expressed in us finite
beings. The knowledge that exists in time is the knowledge that
finite beings possess, in so far as they are finite. And no such
foreknowledge can predict the special features of individual deeds
precisely so far as they are unique. Foreknowledge in time is
possible only of the general, and of the causally predetermined,
and not of the unique and free. Hence neither God nor man can
foreknow perfectly, at any temporal moment, what a free will agent
is yet to do. On the other hand, the Absolute possesses a perfect
knowledge at one glance of the whole of the temporal order, past,
present and future. This knowledge is ill called foreknowledge. It
is eternal knowledge. And as there is an eternal knowledge of all
individuality and of all freedom, free acts are known as
occurring, like the chords in the musical succession, precisely
when and how they actually occur.” While we see much truth in the
preceding statement, we find in it no bar to our faith that God
can translate his eternal knowledge into finite knowledge and can
thus put it for special purposes in possession of his creatures.

E. H. Johnson, Theology, 2d ed., 250—“Foreknowing what his
creatures would do, God decreed their destiny when he decreed
their creation; and this would still be the case, although every
man had the partial control over his destiny that Arminians aver,
or even the complete control that Pelagians claim. The decree is
as absolute as if there were no freedom, but it leaves them as
free as if there were no decree.” A. H. Strong, Christ in
Creation, 40, 42—“As the Logos or divine Reason, Christ dwells in
humanity everywhere and constitutes the principle of its being.
Humanity shares with Christ in the image of God. That image is
never wholly lost. It is completely restored in sinners when the
Spirit of Christ secures control of their wills and leads them to
merge their life in his.... If Christ be the principle and life of
all things, then divine sovereignty and human freedom, if they are
not absolutely reconciled, at least lose their ancient antagonism,
and we can rationally ‘_work out our own salvation_,’ for the very
reason that ‘_it is God that worketh in us, both to will and to
work, for his good pleasure_’ (_Phil. 2:12, 13_).”

2. Objections to the Doctrine of Election.

(_a_) It is unjust to those who are not included in this purpose of
salvation.—Answer: Election deals, not simply with creatures, but with
sinful, guilty, and condemned creatures. That any should be saved, is
matter of pure grace, and those who are not included in this purpose of
salvation suffer only the due reward of their deeds. There is, therefore,
no injustice in God’s election. We may better praise God that he saves
any, than charge him with injustice because he saves so few.

God can say to all men, saved or unsaved, “_Friend, I do thee no
wrong.... Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine
own?_” (_Mat. 20:13, 15_). The question is not whether a father
will treat his children alike, but whether a sovereign must treat
condemned rebels alike. It is not true that, because the Governor
pardons one convict from the penitentiary, he must therefore
pardon all. When he pardons one, no injury is done to those who
are left. But, in God’s government, there is still less reason for
objection; for God offers pardon to all. Nothing prevents men from
being pardoned but their unwillingness to accept his pardon.
Election is simply God’s determination to make certain persons
willing to accept it. Because justice cannot save all, shall it
therefore save none?

Augustine, De Predest. Sanct., 8—“Why does not God teach all?
Because it is in mercy that he teaches all whom he does teach,
while it is in judgment that he does not teach those whom he does
not teach.” In his Manual of Theology and Ethics, 260, Hovey
remarks that _Rom. 9:20_—“_who art thou that repliest against
God?_”—teaches, not that might makes right, but that God is
morally entitled to glorify either his righteousness or his mercy
in disposing of a guilty race. It is not that he chooses to save
only a few ship‐wrecked and drowning creatures, but that he
chooses to save only a part of a great company who are bent on
committing suicide. _Prov. 8:36_—“_he that sinneth against me
wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate me love death._” It is
best for the universe at large that some should be permitted to
have their own way and show how dreadful a thing is opposition to
God. See Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 1:455.

(_b_) It represents God as partial in his dealings and a respecter of
persons.—Answer: Since there is nothing in men that determines God’s
choice of one rather than another, the objection is invalid. It would
equally apply to God’s selection of certain nations, as Israel, and
certain individuals, as Cyrus, to be recipients of special temporal gifts.
If God is not to be regarded as partial in not providing a salvation for
fallen angels, he cannot be regarded as partial in not providing
regenerating influences of his Spirit for the whole race of fallen men.

_Ps. 44:3_—“_For they gat not the land in possession by their own
sword, Neither did their own arm save them; But thy right hand,
and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, Because thou wast
favorable unto them_”; _Is. 45:1, 4, 5_—“_Thus saith Jehovah to
his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue
nations before him.... For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel my
chosen, I have called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee,
though thou hast not known me_”; _Luke 4:25‐27_—“_There were many
widows in Israel ... and unto none of them was Elijah sent, but
only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, unto a woman that was a
widow. And there were many lepers in Israel ... and none of them
was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian_”; _1 Cor. 4:7_—“_For who
maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not
receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if
thou hadst not received it?_” _2 Pet. 2:4_—“_God spared not angels
when they sinned, but cast them down to hell_”; _Heb. 2:16_—“_For
verily not to angels doth he give help, but he giveth help to the
seed of Abraham._”

Is God partial, in choosing Israel, Cyrus, Naaman? Is God partial,
in bestowing upon some of his servants special ministerial gifts?
Is God partial, in not providing a salvation for fallen angels? In
God’s providence, one man is born in a Christian land, the son of
a noble family, is endowed with beauty of person, splendid
talents, exalted opportunities, immense wealth. Another is born at
the Five Points, or among the Hottentots, amid the degradation and
depravity of actual, or practical, heathenism. We feel that it is
irreverent to complain of God’s dealings in providence. What right
have sinners to complain of God’s dealings in the distribution of
his grace? Hovey: “We have no reason to think that God treats all
moral beings alike. We should be glad to hear that other races are
treated better than we.”

Divine election is only the ethical side and interpretation of
natural selection. In the latter God chooses certain forms of the
vegetable and animal kingdom without merit of theirs. They are
preserved while others die. In the matter of individual health,
talent, property, one is taken and the other left. If we call all
this the result of system, the reply is that God chose the system,
knowing precisely what would come of it. Bruce, Apologetics,
201—“Election to distinction in philosophy or art is not
incomprehensible, for these are not matters of vital concern; but
election to holiness on the part of some, and to unholiness on the
part of others, would be inconsistent with God’s own holiness.”
But there is no such election to unholiness except on the part of
man himself. God’s election secures only the good. See (_c_)
below.

J. J. Murphy, Natural Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 73—“The
world is ordered on a basis of inequality; in the organic world,
as Darwin has shown, it is of inequality—of favored races—that all
progress comes; history shows the same to be true of the human and
spiritual world. All human progress is due to elect human
individuals, elect not only to be a blessing to themselves, but
still more to be a blessing to multitudes of others. Any
superiority, whether in the natural or in the mental and spiritual
world, becomes a vantage‐ground for gaining a greater
superiority.... It is the method of the divine government, acting
in the provinces both of nature and of grace, that all benefit
should come to the many through the elect few.”

(_c_) It represents God as arbitrary.—Answer: It represents God, not as
arbitrary, but as exercising the free choice of a wise and sovereign will,
in ways and for reasons which are inscrutable to us. To deny the
possibility of such a choice is to deny God’s personality. To deny that
God has reasons for his choice is to deny his wisdom. The doctrine of
election finds these reasons, not in men, but in God.

When a regiment is decimated for insubordination, the fact that
every tenth man is chosen for death is for reasons; but the
reasons are not in the men. In one case, the reason for God’s
choice seems revealed: _1 Tim. 1:16_—“_howbeit for this cause I
obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth
all his longsuffering, for an ensample of them that should
thereafter believe on him unto eternal life_”—here Paul indicates
that the reason why God chose him was that he was so great a
sinner: _verse 15_—“_Christ Jesus came into the world to save
sinners; of whom I am chief._” Hovey remarks that “the uses to
which God can put men, as vessels of grace, may determine his
selection of them.” But since the naturally weak are saved, as
well as the naturally strong, we cannot draw any general
conclusion, or discern any general rule, in God’s dealings, unless
it be this, that in election God seeks to illustrate the greatness
and the variety of his grace,—the reasons lying, therefore, not in
men, but in God. We must remember that God’s _sovereignty_ is the
sovereignty of _God_—the infinitely wise, holy and loving God, in
whose hands the destinies of men can be left more safely than in
the hands of the wisest, most just, and most kind of his
creatures.

We must believe in the grace of sovereignty as well as in the
sovereignty of grace. Election and reprobation are not matters of
arbitrary will. God saves all whom he can wisely save. He will
show benevolence in the salvation of mankind just so far as he can
without prejudice to holiness. No man can be saved without God,
but it is also true that there is no man whom God is not willing
to save. H. B. Smith, System, 511—“It may be that many of the
finally impenitent resist more light than many of the saved.”
Harris, Moral Evolution, 401 (for substance)—“Sovereignty is not
lost in Fatherhood, but is recovered as the divine law of
righteous love. Doubtless thou art our Father, though Augustine be
ignorant of us, and Calvin acknowledge us not.” Hooker, Eccl.
Polity, 1:2—“They err who think that of God’s will there is no
reason except his will.” T. Erskine, The Brazen Serpent,
259—Sovereignty is “just a name for what is _unrevealed_ of God.”

We do not know _all_ of God’s reasons for saving particular men,
but we do know _some_ of the reasons, for he has revealed them to
us. These reasons are not men’s merits or works. We have mentioned
the first of these reasons: (1) Men’s greater sin and need; _1
Tim. 1:16_—“_that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all
his longsuffering._” We may add to this: (2) The fact that men
have not sinned against the Holy Spirit and made themselves
unreceptive to Christ’s salvation; _1 Tim. 1:13_—“_I obtained
mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief_”—the fact that
Paul had not sinned with full knowledge of what he did was a
reason why God could choose him. (3) Men’s ability by the help of
Christ to be witnesses and martyrs for their Lord; _Acts 9:15,
16_—“_he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the
Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show
him how many things he must suffer for my name’s sake._” As Paul’s
mission to the Gentiles may have determined God’s choice, so
Augustine’s mission to the sensual and abandoned may have had the
same influence. But if Paul’s sins, as foreseen, constituted one
reason why God chose to save him, why might not his ability to
serve the kingdom have constituted another reason? We add
therefore: (4) Men’s foreseen ability to serve Christ’s kingdom in
bringing others to the knowledge of the truth; _John 15:16_—“_I
chose you and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit._”
Notice however that this is choice _to_ service, and not simply
choice _on account of service_. In all these cases the reasons do
not lie in the men themselves, for what these men are and what
they possess is due to God’s providence and grace.

(_d_) It tends to immorality, by representing men’s salvation as
independent of their own obedience.—Answer: The objection ignores the fact
that the salvation of believers is ordained only in connection with their
regeneration and sanctification, as means; and that the certainty of final
triumph is the strongest incentive to strenuous conflict with sin.

Plutarch: “God is the brave man’s hope, and not the coward’s
excuse.” The purposes of God are an anchor to the storm‐tossed
spirit. But a ship needs engine, as well as anchor. God does not
elect to save any without repentance and faith. Some hold the
doctrine of election, but the doctrine of election does not hold
them. Such should ponder _1 Pet. 1:2_, in which Christians are
said to be elect, “_in sanctification of the Spirit, unto
obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_.”

Augustine: “He loved her [the church] foul, that he might make her
fair.” Dr. John Watson (Ian McLaren): “The greatest reinforcement
religion could have in our time would be a return to the ancient
belief in the sovereignty of God.” This is because there is lack
of a strong conviction of sin, guilt, and helplessness, still
remaining pride and unwillingness to submit to God, imperfect
faith in God’s trustworthiness and goodness. We must not exclude
Arminians from our fellowship—there are too many good Methodists
for that. But we may maintain that they hold but half the truth,
and that absence of the doctrine of election from their creed
makes preaching less serious and character less secure.

(_e_) It inspires pride in those who think themselves elect.—Answer: This
is possible only in the case of those who pervert the doctrine. On the
contrary, its proper influence is to humble men. Those who exalt
themselves above others, upon the ground that they are special favorites
of God, have reason to question their election.

In the novel, there was great effectiveness in the lover’s plea to
the object of his affection, that he had loved since he had first
set his eyes upon her in her childhood. But God’s love for us is
of longer standing than that. It dates back to a time before we
were born,—aye, even to eternity past. It is a love which was
fastened upon us, although God knew the worst of us. It is
unchanging, because founded upon his infinite and eternal love to
Christ. _Jer. 31:3_—“_Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying,
Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with
lovingkindness have I drawn thee_”; _Rom. 8:31‐39_—“_If God is for
us, who is against us?... Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ?_” And the answer is, that nothing “_shall be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our
Lord_.” This eternal love subdues and humbles: _Ps. 115:1_—“_Not
unto us, O Jehovah, not unto us, But unto thy name give glory For
thy lovingkindness, and for thy truth’s sake._”

Of the effect of the doctrine of election, Calvin, in his
Institutes, 3:22:1, remarks that “when the human mind hears of it,
its irritation breaks all restraint, and it discovers as serious
and violent agitation as if alarmed by the sound of a martial
trumpet.” The cause of this agitation is the apprehension of the
fact that one is an enemy of God and yet absolutely dependent upon
his mercy. This apprehension leads normally to submission. But the
conquered rebel can give no thanks to himself,—all thanks are due
to God who has chosen and renewed him. The affections elicited are
not those of pride and self‐complacency, but of gratitude and
love.

Christian hymnology witnesses to these effects. Isaac Watts (†
1748): “Why was I made to hear thy voice And enter while there’s
room, When thousands make a wretched choice, And rather starve
than come. ’T was the same love that spread the feast That sweetly
forced me in; Else I had still refused to taste, And perished in
my sin. Pity the nations, O our God! Constrain the earth to come;
Send thy victorious word abroad, And bring the wanderers home.”
Josiah Conder († 1855): “’Tis not that I did choose thee, For,
Lord, that could not be; This heart would still refuse thee; But
thou hast chosen me;—Hast, from the sin that stained me, Washed me
and set me free, And to this end ordained me That I should live to
thee. ’T was sovereign mercy called me, And taught my opening
mind; The world had else enthralled me, To heavenly glories blind.
My heart owns none above thee: For thy rich grace I thirst; This
knowing,—if I love thee, Thou must have loved me first.”

(_f_) It discourages effort for the salvation of the impenitent, whether
on their own part or on the part of others.—Answer: Since it is a secret
decree, it cannot hinder or discourage such effort. On the other hand, it
is a ground of encouragement, and so a stimulus to effort; for, without
election, it is certain that all would be lost (_cf._ Acts 18:10). While
it humbles the sinner, so that he is willing to err for mercy, it
encourages him also by showing him that some will be saved, and (since
election and faith are inseparably connected) that he will be saved, if he
will only believe. While it makes the Christian feel entirely dependent on
God’s power, in his efforts for the impenitent, it leads him to say with
Paul that he “endures all things for the elects’ sake, that they also may
attain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory” (2 Tim.
2:10).

God’s decree that Paul’s ship’s company should be saved (_Acts
27:24_) did not obviate the necessity of their abiding in the ship
(_verse 31_). In marriage, man’s election does not exclude
woman’s; so God’s election does not exclude man’s. There is just
as much need of effort as if there were no election. Hence the
question for the sinner is not, “Am I one of the elect?” but
rather, “What shall I do to be saved?” Milton represents the
spirits of hell as debating foreknowledge and free will, in
wandering mazes lost.

No man is saved until he ceases to debate, and begins to act. And
yet no man will thus begin to act, unless God’s Spirit moves him.
The Lord encouraged Paul by saying to him: “_I have much people in
this city_” (_Acts 18:10_)—people whom I will bring in through thy
word. “Old Adam is too strong for young Melanchthon.” If God does
not regenerate, there is no hope of success in preaching: “God
stands powerless before the majesty of man’s lordly will. Sinners
have the glory of their own salvation. To pray God to convert a
man is absurd. God elects the man, because he foresees that the
man will elect himself” (see S. R. Mason, Truth Unfolded,
298‐307). The doctrine of election does indeed cut off the hopes
of those who place confidence in themselves; but it is best that
such hopes should be destroyed, and that in place of them should
be put a hope in the sovereign grace of God. The doctrine of
election does teach man’s absolute dependence upon God, and the
impossibility of any disappointment or disarrangement of the
divine plans arising from the disobedience of the sinner, and it
humbles human pride until it is willing to take the place of a
suppliant for mercy.

Rowland Hill was criticized for preaching election and yet
exhorting sinners to repent, and was told that he should preach
only to the elect. He replied that, if his critic would put a
chalk‐mark on all the elect, he would preach only to them. But
this is not the whole truth. We are not only ignorant who God’s
elect are, but we are set to preach to both elect and non‐elect
(_Ez. 2:7_—“_thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they
will hear, or whether they will forbear_”), with the certainty
that to the former our preaching will make a higher heaven, to the
latter a deeper hell (_2 Cor. 2:15, 16_—“_For we are a sweet savor
of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that
perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; to the other a
savor from life unto life_”; _cf._ _Luke 2:34_—“_this child is set
for the falling and the rising of many in Israel_”—for the falling
of some, and for the rising up of others).

Jesus’ own thanksgiving in _Mat. 11:25, 26_—“_I thank thee, O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these
things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto
babes: yea, Father, for so it was well‐pleasing in thy sight_”—is
immediately followed by his invitation in _verse 28_—“_Come unto
me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest._” There is no contradiction in his mind between sovereign
grace and the free invitations of the gospel.

G. W. Northrup, in The Standard, Sept. 19, 1889—“1. God will save
every one of the human race whom he can save and remain God; 2.
Every member of the race has a full and fair probation, so that
all might be saved and would be saved were they to use aright the
light which they already have.”... (Private letter): “Limitations
of God in the bestowment of salvation: 1. In the power of God in
relation to free will; 2. In the benevolence of God which requires
the greatest good of creation, or the greatest aggregate good of
the greatest number; 3. In the purpose of God to make the most
perfect self‐limitation; 4. In the sovereignty of God, as a
prerogative absolutely optional in its exercise; 5. In the
holiness of God, which involves immutable limitations on his part
in dealing with moral agents. Nothing but some absolute
impossibility, metaphysical or moral, could have prevented him
’whose nature and whose name is love’ from decreeing and securing
the confirmation of all moral agents in holiness and blessedness
forever.”

(_g_) The decree of election implies a decree of reprobation.—Answer: The
decree of reprobation is not a positive decree, like that of election, but
a permissive decree to leave the sinner to his self‐chosen rebellion and
its natural consequences of punishment.

Election and sovereignty are only sources of good. Election is not
a decree to destroy,—it is a decree only to save. When we elect a
President, we do not need to hold a second election to determine
that the remaining millions shall be non‐Presidents. It is
needless to apply contrivance or force. Sinners, like water, if
simply let alone, will run down hill to ruin. The decree of
reprobation is simply a decree to do nothing—a decree to leave the
sinner to himself. The natural result of this judicial forsaking,
on the part of God, is the hardening and destruction of the
sinner. But it must not be forgotten that this hardening and
destruction are not due to any positive efficiency of God,—they
are a self‐hardening and a self‐destruction,—and God’s judicial
forsaking is only the just penalty of the sinner’s guilty
rejection of offered mercy.

See _Hosea 11:8_—“_How shall I give thee up, Ephraim?... my heart
is turned within me, my compassions are kindled together_”;
_4:17_—“_Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone_”; _Rom. 9:22,
23_—“_What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his
power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath
fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches
of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto
glory_”—here notice that “_which he afore prepared_” declares a
positive divine efficiency, in the case of the vessels of mercy,
while “_fitted unto destruction_” intimates no such positive
agency of God,—the vessels of wrath fitted themselves for
destruction; _2 Tim. 2:20_—“_vessels ... some unto honor, and some
unto dishonor_”; _1 Pet. 2:8_—“_they stumble at the word, being
disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed_”; _Jude 4_—“_who
were of old set forth_ [‘_written of beforehand_’—Am. Rev.] _unto
this condemnation_”; _Mat. 25:34, 41_—“_the kingdom prepared for
you ... the eternal fire which is prepared_ [not for you, nor for
men, but] _for the devil and his angels_” = there is an election
to life, but no reprobation to death; a “_book of life_” (_Rev.
21:27_), but no book of death.

E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 313—“Reprobation, in the sense
of absolute predestination to sin and eternal damnation, is
neither a sequence of the doctrine of election, nor the teaching
of the Scriptures.” Men are not “_appointed_” to disobedience and
stumbling in the same way that they are “_appointed_” to
salvation. God uses positive means to save, but not to destroy.
Henry Ward Beecher: “The elect are whosoever will; the non‐elect
are whosoever won’t.” George A. Gordon, New Epoch for Faith,
44—“Election understood would have been the saving strength of
Israel; election misunderstood was its ruin. The nation felt that
the election of it meant the rejection of other nations.... The
Christian church has repeated Israel’s mistake.”

The Westminster Confession reads: “By the decree of God, for the
manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated
unto everlasting life, and others to everlasting death. These
angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are
particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so
certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or
diminished. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the
unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or
withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign
power over his creatures, to pass by and to ordain them to
dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious
justice.” This reads as if both the saved and the lost were made
originally for their respective final estates without respect to
character. It is supralapsarianism. It is certain that the
supralapsarians were in the majority in the Westminster Assembly,
and that they determined the form of the statement, although there
were many sublapsarians who objected that it was only on account
of their foreseen wickedness that any were reprobated. In its
later short statement of doctrine the Presbyterian body in America
has made it plain that God’s decree of reprobation is a permissive
decree, and that it places no barrier in the way of any man’s
salvation.

On the general subject of Election, see Mozley, Predestination;
Payne, Divine Sovereignty; Ridgeley, Works, 1:261‐324, esp. 322;
Edwards, Works, 2:527 _sq._; Van Oosterzee, Dogmatics, 446‐458;
Martensen, Dogmatics, 362‐382; and especially Wardlaw, Systematic
Theology, 485‐549; H. B. Smith, Syst. of Christian Theology,
502‐514; Maule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 36‐56; Peck, in
Bapt. Quar. Rev., Oct. 1891:689‐706. On objections to election,
and Spurgeon’s answers to them, see Williams, Reminiscences of
Spurgeon, 189. On the homiletical uses of the doctrine of
election, see Bib. Sac., Jan. 1893:79‐92.

II. Calling.

Calling is that act of God by which men are invited to accept, by faith,
the salvation provided by Christ.—The Scriptures distinguish between:

(_a_) _The general, or external, call_ to all men through God’s
providence, word, and Spirit.

_Is. 45:22_—“_Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the
earth; for I am God, and there is none else_”; _55:6_—“_Seek ye
Jehovah while he may be found; call ye upon him while he is
near_”; _65:12_—“_when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake,
ye did not hear; but ye did that which was evil in mine eyes, and
chose that wherein I delighted not_”; _Ez. 33:11_—“_As I live,
saith the Lord Jehovah, I have no pleasure in the death of the
wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye,
turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of
Israel?_” _Mat. 11:28_—“_Come unto me, all ye that labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest_”; _22:3_—“_sent forth his
servants to call them that were bidden to the marriage feast: and
they would not come_”; _Mark 16:15_—“_Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to the whole creation_”; _John 12:32_—“_And
I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto
myself_”—draw, not drag; _Rev. 3:20_—“_Behold, I stand at the door
and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come
in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me._”

(_b_) _The special, efficacious call_ of the Holy Spirit to the elect.

_Luke 14:23_—“_Go out into the highways and hedges, and constrain
them to come in, that my house may be filled_”; _Rom. 1:7_—“_to
all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace
to you and peace from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ_”;
_8:30_—“_whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified_”; _11:29_—“_For the gifts and the
calling of God are not repented of_”; _1 Cor. 1:23, 24_—“_but we
preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto
Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and
Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God_”;
_26_—“_For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after
the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called_”; _Phil.
3:14_—“_I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high_
[marg. ‘_upward_’] _calling of God in Christ Jesus_”; _Eph.
1:18_—“_that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the
riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints_”; _1 Thess.
2:12_—“_to the end that ye should walk worthily of God, who
calleth you into his own kingdom and glory_”; _2 Thess.
2:14_—“_whereunto he called you through our gospel, to the
obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ_”; _2 Tim.
1:9_—“_who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not
according to our works, but according to his own purpose and
grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal_”;
_Heb. 3:1_—“_holy brethren, partakers of a heavenly calling_”; _2
Pet. 1:10_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make
your calling and election sure._”

Two questions only need special consideration:

A. Is God’s general call sincere?

This is denied, upon the ground that such sincerity is incompatible,
first, with the inability of the sinner to obey; and secondly, with the
design of God to bestow only upon the elect the special grace without
which they will not obey.

(_a_) To the first objection we reply that, since this inability is not a
physical but a moral inability, consisting simply in the settled
perversity of an evil will, there can be no insincerity in offering
salvation to all, especially when the offer is in itself a proper motive
to obedience.

God’s call to all men to repent and to believe the gospel is no
more insincere than his command to all men to love him with all
the heart. There is no obstacle in the way of men’s obedience to
the gospel, that does not exist to prevent their obedience to the
law. If it is proper to publish the commands of the law, it is
proper to publish the invitations of the gospel. A human being may
be perfectly sincere in giving an invitation which he knows will
be refused. He may desire to have the invitation accepted, while
yet he may, for certain reasons of justice or personal dignity, be
unwilling to put forth special efforts, aside from the invitation
itself, to secure the acceptance of it on the part of those to
whom it is offered. So God’s desires that certain men should be
saved may not be accompanied by his will to exert special
influences to save them.

These desires were meant by the phrase “revealed will” in the old
theologians; his purpose to bestow special grace, by the phrase
“secret will.” It is of the former that Paul speaks, in _1 Tim,
2:4_—“_who would have all men to be saved._” Here we have, not the
active σῶσαι, but the passive σωθῆναι. The meaning is, not that
God _purposes_ to save all men, but that he _desires_ all men to
be saved through repenting and believing the gospel. Hence God’s
revealed will, or desire, that all men should be saved, is
perfectly consistent with his secret will, or purpose, to bestow
special grace only upon a certain number (see, on _1 Tim. 2:4_,
Fairbairn’s Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles).

The sincerity of God’s call is shown, not only in the fact that
the only obstacle to compliance, on the sinner’s part, is the
sinner’s own evil will, but also in the fact that God has, at
infinite cost, made a complete external provision, upon the ground
of which “_he that will_” may “_come_” and “_take the water of
life freely_” (_Rev. 22:17_); so that God can truly say: “_What
could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in
it?_” (_Is. 5:4_). Broadus, Com. on _Mat. 6:10_—“_Thy will be
done_”—distinguishes between God’s will of purpose, of desire, and
of command. H. B. Smith, Syst. Theol., 521—“Common grace passes
over into effectual grace in proportion as the sinner yields to
the divine influence. Effectual grace is that which effects what
common grace tends to effect.” See also Studien und Kritiken,
1887:7 _sq._

(_b_) To the second, we reply that the objection, if true, would equally
hold against God’s foreknowledge. The sincerity of God’s general call is
no more inconsistent with his determination that some shall be permitted
to reject it, than it is with foreknowledge that some will reject it.

Hodge, Syst. Theol., 2:643—“Predestination concerns only the
purpose of God to render effectual, in particular cases, a call
addressed to all. A general amnesty, on certain conditions, may be
offered by a sovereign to rebellious subjects, although he knows
that through pride or malice many will refuse to accept it; and
even though, for wise reasons, he should determine not to
constrain their assent, supposing that such influence over their
minds were within his power. It is evident, from the nature of the
call, that it has nothing to do with the secret purpose of God to
grant his effectual grace to some, and not to others.... According
to the Augustinian scheme, the non‐elect have all the advantages
and opportunities of securing their salvation, which, according to
any other scheme, are granted to mankind indiscriminately.... God
designed, in its adoption, to save his own people, but he
consistently offers its benefits to all who are willing to receive
them.” See also H. B. Smith, System of Christian Theology,
515‐521.

B. Is God’s special call irresistible?

We prefer to say that this special call is efficacious,—that is, that it
infallibly accomplishes its purpose of leading the sinner to the
acceptance of salvation. This implies two things:

(_a_) That the operation of God is not an outward constraint upon the
human will, but that it accords with the laws of our mental constitution.
We reject the term “irresistible,” as implying a coercion and compulsion
which is foreign to the nature of God’s working in the soul.

_Ps. 110:3_—“_Thy people are freewill‐offerings in the day of thy
power: in holy array, Out of the womb of the morning Thou hast the
dew of thy youth_”—_i. e._, youthful recruits to thy standard, as
numberless and as bright as the drops of morning dew; _Phil. 2:12,
13_—“_Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it
is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
pleasure_”—_i. e._, the result of God’s working is our own
working. The Lutheran Formula of Concord properly condemns the
view that, before, in, and after conversion, the will only resists
the Holy Spirit: for this, it declares, is the very nature of
conversion, that out of non‐willing, God makes willing, persons
(F. C. 60, 581, 582, 673).

_Hos. 4:16_—“_Israel hath behaved himself stubbornly, like a
stubborn heifer,_” or “_or as a heifer that slideth back_” = when
the sacrificial offering is brought forward to be slain, it holds
back, settling on its haunches so that it has to be pushed and
forced before it can be brought to the altar. These are not “_the
sacrifices of God_” which are “_a broken spirit, a broken and a
contrite heart_” (_Ps. 51:17_). E. H. Johnson, Theology, 2d ed.,
250—“The N. T. nowhere declares, or even intimates, ... that the
general call of the Holy Spirit is insufficient. And furthermore,
it never states that the efficient call is irresistible.
Psychologically, to speak of irresistible influence upon the
faculty of self‐determination in man is express contradiction in
terms. No harm can come from acknowledging that we do not know
God’s unrevealed reasons for electing one individual rather than
another to eternal life.” Dr. Johnson goes on to argue that if,
without disparagement to grace, faith can be a condition of
justification, faith might also be a condition of election, and
that inasmuch as salvation is _received_ as a gift only on
condition of faith exercised, it is in _purpose_ a gift, even if
only on condition of faith foreseen. This seems to us to ignore
the abundant Scripture testimony that faith itself is God’s gift,
and therefore the initiative must be wholly with God.

(_b_) That the operation of God is the originating cause of that new
disposition of the affections, and that new activity of the will, by which
the sinner accepts Christ. The cause is not in the response of the will to
the presentation of motives by God, nor in any mere coöperation of the
will of man with the will of God, but is an almighty act of God in the
will of man, by which its freedom to choose God as its end is restored and
rightly exercised (John 1:12, 13). For further discussion of the subject,
see, in the next section, the remarks on Regeneration, with which this
efficacious call is identical.

_John 1:12, 13_—“_But as many as received him, to them gave he the
right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God._” God’s saving grace and
effectual calling are irresistible, not in the sense that they are
never resisted, but in the sense that they are never successfully
resisted. See Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:373, 513, and 3:807; Gill,
Body of Divinity, 2:121‐130; Robert Hall, Works, 3:75.

Matheson, Moments on the Mount, 128, 129—“Thy love to Him is to
his love to thee what the sunlight on the sea is to the sunshine
in the sky—a reflex, a mirror, a diffusion; thou art giving back
the glory that has been cast upon the waters. In the attraction of
thy life to him, in the cleaving of thy heart to him, in the
soaring of thy spirit to him, thou art told that he is near thee,
thou hearest the beating of his pulse for thee.”

Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 302—“In regard to our reason and to the
essence of our ideals, there is no real dualism between man and
God; but in the case of the will which constitutes the essence of
each man’s individuality, there is a real dualism, and therefore a
possible antagonism between the will of the dependent spirit, man,
and the will of the absolute and universal spirit, God. Such
_real_ duality of will, and not the _appearance_ of duality, as F.
H. Bradley put it, is the essential condition of ethics and
religion.”

Section II.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Actual
Beginning.

Under this head we treat of Union with Christ, Regeneration, Conversion
(embracing Repentance and Faith), and Justification. Much confusion and
error have arisen from conceiving these as occurring in chronological
order. The order is logical, not chronological. As it is only “in Christ”
that man is “a new creature” (2 Cor. 5:17) or is “justified” (Acts 13:39),
union with Christ logically precedes both regeneration and justification;
and yet, chronologically, the moment of our union with Christ is also the
moment when we are regenerated and justified. So, too, regeneration and
conversion are but the divine and human sides or aspects of the same fact,
although regeneration has logical precedence, and man turns only as God
turns him.

Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 3:694 (Syst. Doct., 4:159), gives at this
point an account of the work of the Holy Spirit in general. The
Holy Spirit’s work, he says, presupposes the historical work of
Christ, and prepares the way for Christ’s return. “As the Holy
Spirit is the principle of union between the Father and the Son,
so he is the principle of union between God and man. Only through
the Holy Spirit does Christ secure for himself those who will love
him as distinct and free personalities.” Regeneration and
conversion are not chronologically separate. Which of the spokes
of a wheel starts first? The ray of light and the ray of heat
enter at the same moment. Sensation and perception are not
separated in time, although the former is the cause of the latter.

“Suppose a non‐elastic tube extending across the Atlantic. Suppose
that the tube is completely filled with an incompressible fluid.
Then there would be no interval of time between the impulse given
to the fluid at this end of the tube, and the effect upon the
fluid at the other end.” See Hazard, Causation and Freedom in
Willing, 33‐38, who argues that cause and effect are always
simultaneous; else, in the intervening time, there would be a
cause that had no effect; that is, a cause that caused nothing;
that is, a cause that that was not a cause. “A potential cause may
exist for an unlimited period without producing any effect, and of
course may precede its effect by any length of time. But actual,
effective cause being the exercise of a sufficient power, its
effect cannot be delayed; for, in that case, there would be the
exercise of a sufficient power to produce the effect, without
producing it,—involving the absurdity of its being both sufficient
and insufficient at the same time.

“A difficulty may here be suggested in regard to the flow or
progress of events in time, if they are all simultaneous with
their causes. This difficulty cannot arise as to intelligent
effort; for, in regard to it, periods of non‐action may
continually intervene; but if there are series of events and
material phenomena, each of which is in turn effect and cause, it
may be difficult to see how any time could elapse between the
first and the last of the series.... If, however, as I suppose,
these series of events, or material changes, are always effected
through the medium of motion, it need not trouble us, for there is
precisely the same difficulty in regard to our conception of the
motion of matter from point to point, there being no space or
length between any two consecutive points, and yet the body in
motion gets from one end of a long line to the other, and in this
case this difficulty just neutralizes the other.... So, even if we
cannot conceive how motion involves the idea of time, we may
perceive that, if it does so, it may be a means of conveying
events, which depend upon it, through time also.”

Martineau, Study, 1:148‐150—“Simultaneity does not exclude
duration,”—since each cause has duration and each effect has
duration also. Bowne, Metaphysics, 106—“In the system, the
complete ground of an event never lies in any one thing, but only
in a complex of things. If a single thing were the sufficient
ground of an effect, the effect would coëxist with the thing, and
all effects would be instantaneously given. Hence all events in
the system must be viewed as the result of the interaction of two
or more things.”

The first manifestation of life in an infant may be in the lungs
or heart or brain, but that which makes any and all of these
manifestations possible is the antecedent life. We may not be able
to tell which comes first, but having the life we have all the
rest. When the wheel goes, all the spokes will go. The soul that
is born again will show it in faith and hope and love and holy
living. Regeneration will involve repentance and faith and
justification and sanctification. But the one life which makes
regeneration and all these consequent blessings possible is the
life of Christ who joins himself to us in order that we may join
ourselves to him. Anne Reeve Aldrich, The Meaning: “I lost my life
in losing love. This blurred my spring and killed its dove. Along
my path the dying roses Fell, and disclosed the thorns thereof. I
found my life in finding God. In ecstasy I kiss the rod; For who
that wins the goal, but lightly Thinks of the thorns whereon he
trod?”

See A. A. Hodge, on the Ordo Salutis, in Princeton Rev., March,
1888:304‐321. Union with Christ, says Dr. Hodge, “is effected by
the Holy Ghost in effectual calling. Of this calling the parts are
two: (_a_) the offering of Christ to the sinner, _externally_ by
the gospel, and _internally_ by the illumination of the Holy
Ghost; (_b_) the reception of Christ, which on our part is both
passive and active. The passive reception is that whereby a
spiritual principle is ingenerated into the human will, whence
issues the active reception, which is an act of faith with which
repentance is always conjoined. The communion of benefits which
results from this union involves: (_a_) a change of state or
relation, called justification; and (_b_) a change of subjective
moral character, commenced in regeneration and completed through
sanctification.” See also Dr. Hodge’s Popular Lectures on
Theological Themes, 340, and Outlines of Theology, 333‐429.

H. B. Smith, however, in his System of Christian Theology, is more
clear in the putting of Union with Christ before Regeneration. On
page 502, he begins his treatment of the Application of Redemption
with the title: “The Union between Christ and the individual
believer as effected by the Holy Spirit. This embraces the
subjects of Justification, Regeneration, and Sanctification, with
the underlying topic which comes first to be considered,
Election.” He therefore treats Union with Christ (531‐539) before
Regeneration (553‐569). He says Calvin defines regeneration as
coming to us by participation in Christ, and apparently agrees
with this view (559).

“This union [with Christ] is at the ground of regeneration and
justification” (534). “The great difference of theological systems
comes out here. Since Christianity is redemption through Christ,
our mode of conceiving that will determine the character of our
whole theological system” (536). “The union with Christ is
mediated by his Spirit, whence we are both renewed and justified.
The great fact of objective Christianity is incarnation in order
to atonement; the great fact of subjective Christianity is union
with Christ, whereby we receive the atonement” (537). We may add
that this union with Christ, in view of which God elects and to
which God calls the sinner, is begun in regeneration, completed in
conversion, declared in justification, and proved in
sanctification and perseverance.

I. Union with Christ.

The Scriptures declare that, through the operation of God, there is
constituted a union of the soul with Christ different in kind from God’s
natural and providential concursus with all spirits, as well as from all
unions of mere association or sympathy, moral likeness, or moral
influence,—a union of life, in which the human spirit, while then most
truly possessing its own individuality and personal distinctness, is
interpenetrated and energized by the Spirit of Christ, is made inscrutably
but indissolubly one with him, and so becomes a member and partaker of
that regenerated, believing, and justified humanity of which he is the
head.

Union with Christ is not union with a system of doctrine, nor with
external religious influences, nor with an organized church, nor
with an ideal man,—but rather, with a personal, risen, living,
omnipresent Lord (J. W. A. Stewart). Dr. J. W. Alexander well
calls this doctrine of the Union of the Believer with Christ “the
central truth of all theology and of all religion.” Yet it
receives little of formal recognition, either in dogmatic
treatises or in common religious experience. Quenstedt, 886‐912,
has devoted a section to it; A. A. Hodge gives to it a chapter, in
his Outlines of Theology, 369 sq., to which we are indebted for
valuable suggestions; H. B. Smith treats of it, not however as a
separate topic, but under the head of Justification (System,
531‐539).

The majority of printed systems of doctrine, however, contain no
chapter or section on Union with Christ, and the majority of
Christians much more frequently think of Christ as a Savior
outside of them, than as a Savior who dwells within. This
comparative neglect of the doctrine is doubtless a reaction from
the exaggerations of a false mysticism. But there is great need of
rescuing the doctrine from neglect. For this we rely wholly upon
Scripture. Doctrines which reason can neither discover nor prove
need large support from the Bible. It is a mark of divine wisdom
that the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is so inwoven with
the whole fabric of the New Testament, that the rejection of the
former is the virtual rejection of the latter. The doctrine of
Union with Christ, in like manner, is taught so variously and
abundantly, that to deny it is to deny inspiration itself. See
Kahnis, Luth. Dogmatik, 3:447‐450.

1. Scripture Representations of this Union.

A. Figurative teaching. It is illustrated:

(_a_) From the union of a building and its foundation.

_Eph. 2:20‐22_—“_being built upon the foundation of the apostles
and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;
in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into
a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together
for a habitation of God in the Spirit_”; _Col. 2:7_—“_builded up
in him_”—grounded in Christ as our foundation; _1 Pet. 2:4,
5_—“_unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but
with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up
a spiritual house_”—each living stone in the Christian temple is
kept in proper relation to every other, and is made to do its part
in furnishing a habitation for God, only by being built upon and
permanently connected with Christ, the chief corner‐stone. _Cf._
_Ps. 118:22_—“_The stone which the builders rejected Is become the
head of the corner_”; _Is. 28:16_—“_Behold, I lay in Zion for a
foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner‐stone of sure
foundation: he that believeth shall not be in haste._”

(_b_) From the union between husband and wife.

_Rom. 7:4_—“_ye also were made dead to the law through the body of
Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was
raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto
God_”—here union with Christ is illustrated by the indissoluble
bond that connects husband and wife, and makes them legally and
organically one; _2 Cor. 11:2_—“_I am jealous over you with a
godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might
present you as a pure virgin to Christ_”; _Eph. 5:31, 32_—“_For
this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This
mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the
church_”—Meyer refers _verse 31_ wholly to Christ, and says that
Christ leaves father and mother (the right hand of God) and is
joined to the church as his wife, the two constituting thenceforth
one moral person. He makes the union future, however,—“_For this
cause shall a man leave his father and mother_”—the consummation
is at Christ’s second coming. But the Fathers, as Chrysostom,
Theodoret, and Jerome, referred it more properly to the
incarnation.

_Rev. 19:7_—“_the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath
made herself ready_”; _22:17_—“_And the Spirit and the bride say,
Come_”; _cf._ _Is. 54:5_—“_For thy Maker is thine husband_”; _Jer.
3:20_—“_Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband,
so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith
Jehovah_”; _Hos. 2:2‐5_—“_for their mother hath played the
harlot_”—departure from God is adultery; the _Song of Solomon_, as
Jewish interpreters have always maintained, is an allegorical poem
describing, under the figure of marriage, the union between
Jehovah and his people: Paul only adopts the Old Testament figure,
and applies it more precisely to the union of God with the church
in Jesus Christ.

(_c_) From the union between the vine and its branches.

_John 15:1‐10_—“_I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that
abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for
apart from me ye can do nothing_”—as God’s natural life is in the
vine, that it may give life to its natural branches, so God’s
spiritual life is in the vine, Christ, that he may give life to
his spiritual branches. The roots of this new vine are planted in
heaven, not on earth; and into it the half‐withered branches of
the old humanity are to be grafted, that they may have life
divine. Yet our Lord does not say “I am the root.” The branch is
not something _outside_, which has to get nourishment _out of_ the
root,—it is rather a _part_ of the vine. _Rom. 6:5_—“_if we have
become united with him_ [σύμφυτοι—‘grown together’—used of the man
and horse in the Centaur, Xen., Cyrop., 4:3:18], _in the likeness
of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection_”; _11:24_—“_thou wast cut out of that which is by
nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into
a good olive tree_”; _Col. 2:6, 7_—“_As therefore ye received
Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and builded up in
him_”—not only grounded in Christ as our foundation, but thrusting
down roots into him as the deep, rich, all‐sustaining soil. This
union with Christ is consistent with individuality: for the graft
brings forth fruit after its kind, though modified by the tree
into which it is grafted.

Bishop H. W. Warren, in S. S. Times, Oct. 17, 1891—“The lessons of
the vine are intimacy, likeness of nature, continuous impartation
of life, fruit. Between friends there is intimacy by means of
media, such as food, presents, care, words, soul looking from the
eyes. The mother gives her liquid flesh to the babe, but such
intimacy soon ceases. The mother is not rich enough in life
continuously to feed the ever‐enlarging nature of the growing man.
Not so with the vine. It continuously feeds. Its rivers crowd all
the banks. They burst out in leaf, blossom, clinging tendrils, and
fruit, everywhere. In nature a thorn grafted on a pear tree bears
only thorn. There is not pear‐life enough to compel change of its
nature. But a wild olive, typical of depraved nature, grafted on a
good olive tree finds, contrary to nature, that there is force
enough in the growing stock to change the nature of the wild
scion.”

(_d_) From the union between the members and the head of the body.

_1 Cor. 6:15, 19_—“_Know ye not that your bodies are members of
Christ?... know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God?_” _12:12_—“_For as
the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of the
body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ_”—here Christ is
identified with the church of which he is the head; _Eph. 1:22,
23_—“_he put all things in subjection under his feet, and gave him
to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the
fulness of him that filleth all in all_”—as the members of the
human body are united to the head, the source of their activity
and the power that controls their movements, so all believers are
members of an invisible body whose head is Christ. Shall we tie a
string round the finger to keep for it its own blood? No, for all
the blood of the body is needed to nourish one finger. So Christ
is “_head over all things to_ [for the benefit of] _the church_”
(Tyler, Theol. Greek Poets, preface, ii). “The church is the
fulness (πλήρωμα) of Christ; as it was not good for the first man,
Adam, to be alone, no more was it good for the second man, Christ”
(C. H. M.). _Eph. 4:15, 16_—“_grow up in all things into him, who
is the head, even Christ; from whom all the body ... maketh the
increase of the body unto the building up of itself in love_”;
_5:29, 30_—“_for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth
and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; because we are
members of his body._”

(_e_) From the union of the race with the source of its life in Adam.

_Rom. 5:12, 21_—“_as through one man sin entered into the world,
and death through sin.... that, as sin reigned in death, even so
might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through
Jesus Christ our Lord_”; _1 Cor. 15:22, 45, 49_—“_as in Adam all
die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.... The first man
Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life‐giving
Spirit.... as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly_”—as the whole race is one with the
first man Adam, in whom it fell and from whom it has derived a
corrupted and guilty nature, so the whole race of believers
constitutes a new and restored humanity, whose justified and
purified nature is derived from Christ, the second Adam. _Cf._
_Gen. 2:23_—“_This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man_”—here
C. H. M. remarks that, as man is first created and then woman is
viewed in and formed out of him, so it is with Christ and the
church. “We are members of Christ’s body, because in Christ we
have the principle of our origin; from him our life arose, just as
the life of Eve was derived from Adam.... The church is Christ’s
helpmeet, formed out of Christ in his deep sleep of death, as Eve
out of Adam.... The church will be nearest to Christ, as Eve was
to Adam.” Because Christ is the source of all spiritual life for
his people, he is called, in _Is. 9:6_, “_Everlasting Father,_”
and it is said, in _Is. 53:10_, that “_he shall see his seed_”
(see page 680).

B. Direct statements.

(_a_) The believer is said to be in Christ.

Lest we should regard the figures mentioned above as merely
Oriental metaphors, the fact of the believer’s union with Christ
is asserted in the most direct and prosaic manner. _John
14:20_—“_ye in me_”; _Rom. 6:11_—“_alive unto God in Christ
Jesus_”; _8:1_—“_no condemnation to them that are in Christ
Jesus_”; _2 Cor. 5:17_—“_if any man is in Christ, he is a new
creature_”; _Eph. 1:4_—“_chose us in him before the foundation of
the world_”; _2:13_—“_now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far
off are made nigh in the blood of Christ._” Thus the believer is
said to be “_in Christ_,” as the element or atmosphere which
surrounds him with its perpetual presence and which constitutes
his vital breath; in fact, this phrase “_in Christ_,” always
meaning “in union with Christ,” is the very key to Paul’s
epistles, and to the whole New Testament. The fact that the
believer is in Christ is symbolized in baptism: we are “_baptized
into Christ_” (_Gal. 3:27_).

(_b_) Christ is said to be in the believer.

_John 14:20_—“_I in you_”; _Rom. 8:9_—“_ye are not in the flesh
but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of
his_”—that this Spirit of Christ is Christ himself, is shown from
_verse 10_—“_And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of
sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _Gal.
2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I
that live, but Christ liveth in me_”—here Christ is said to be in
the believer, and so to live his life within the believer, that
the latter can point to this as the dominating fact of his
experience,—it is not so much he that lives, as it is Christ that
lives in him. The fact that Christ is in the believer is
symbolized in the Lord’s supper: “_The bread which we break, is it
not a participation in the body of Christ?_” (_1 Cor. 10:16_).

(_c_) The Father and the Son dwell in the believer.

_John 14:23_—“_If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my
Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our
abode with him_”; _cf._ _10_—“_Believest thou not that I am in the
Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I
speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his
works_”—the Father and the Son dwell in the believer; for where
the Son is, there always the Father must be also. If the union
between the believer and Christ in _John 14:23_ is to be
interpreted as one of mere moral influence, then the union of
Christ and the Father in _John 14:10_ must also be interpreted as
a union of mere moral influence. _Eph. 3:17_—“_that Christ may
dwell in your hearts through faith_”; _1 John 4:16_—“_he that
abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him._”

(_d_) The believer has life by partaking of Christ, as Christ has life by
partaking of the Father.

_John 6:53, 56, 57_—“_Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man
and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves .... He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so
he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me_”—the believer
has life by partaking of Christ in a way that may not
inappropriately be compared with Christ’s having life by partaking
of the Father. _1 Cor. 10:16, 17_—“_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?_”—here it is intimated that the Lord’s Supper sets forth,
in the language of symbol, the soul’s actual participation in the
life of Christ; and the margin properly translates the word
κοινωνία, not “communion,” but “_participation_.” _Cf._ _1 John
1:3_—“_our fellowship (κοινωνία) is with the Father, and with his
Son Jesus Christ._” Foster, Christian Life and Theology, 216—“In
_John 6_, the phrases call to mind the ancient form of sacrifice,
and the participation therein by the offerer at the sacrificial
meal,—as at the Passover.”

(_e_) All believers are one in Christ.

_John 17:21‐23_—“_that they may all be one; even as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us: that the
world may believe that thou didst send me. And the glory which
thou hast given me I have given unto them; that they may be one,
even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be
perfected into one_”—all believers are one in Christ, to whom they
are severally and collectively united, as Christ himself is one
with God.

(_f_) The believer is made partaker of the divine nature.

_2 Pet. 1:4_—“_that through these_ [promises] _ye may become
partakers of the divine nature_”—not by having the essence of your
humanity changed into the essence of divinity, but by having
Christ the divine Savior continually dwelling within, and
indissolubly joined to, your human souls.

(_g_) The believer is made one spirit with the Lord.

_1 Cor. 6:17_—“_he that is joined unto the Lord is one
spirit_”—human nature is so interpenetrated and energized by the
divine, that the two move and act as one; _cf._ _19_—“_know ye not
that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you,
which ye have from God?_” _Rom. 8:26_—“_the Spirit also helpeth
our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the
Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which
cannot be uttered_”—the Spirit is so near to us, and so one with
us, that our prayer is called his, or rather, his prayer becomes
ours. Weiss, in his Life of Jesus, says that, in the view of
Scripture, human greatness does not consist in a man’s producing
everything in a natural way out of himself, but in possessing
perfect receptivity for God’s greatest gift. Therefore God’s Son
receives the Spirit without measure; and we may add that the
believer in like manner receives Christ.

2. Nature of this Union.

We have here to do not only with a fact of life, but with a unique
relation between the finite and the infinite. Our descriptions must
therefore be inadequate. Yet in many respects we know what this union is
not; in certain respects we can positively characterize it.

It should not surprise us if we find it far more difficult to give
a scientific definition of this union, than to determine the fact
of its existence. It is a fact of life with which we have to deal;
and the secret of life, even in its lowest forms, no philosopher
has ever yet discovered. The tiniest flower witnesses to two
facts: first, that of its own relative independence, as an
individual organism; and secondly, that of its ultimate dependence
upon a life and power not its own. So every human soul has its
proper powers of intellect, affection, and will; yet it lives,
moves, and has its being in God (_Acts 17:28_).

Starting out from the truth of God’s omnipresence, it might seem
as if God’s indwelling in the granite boulder was the last limit
of his union with the finite. But we see the divine intelligence
and goodness drawing nearer to us, by successive stages, in
vegetable life, in the animal creation, and in the moral nature of
man. And yet there are two stages beyond all these: first, in
Christ’s union with the believer; and secondly, in God’s union
with Christ. If this union of God with the believer be only one of
several approximations of God to his finite creation, the fact
that it is, equally with the others, not wholly comprehensible to
reason, should not blind us either to its truth or to its
importance.

It is easier to‐day than at any other previous period of history
to believe in the union of the believer with Christ. That God is
immanent in the universe, and that there is a divine element in
man, is familiar to our generation. All men are naturally one with
Christ, the immanent God, and this natural union prepares the way
for that spiritual union in which Christ joins himself to our
faith. Campbell, The Indwelling Christ, 131—“In the immanence of
Christ in nature we find the ground of his immanence in human
nature.... A man may be out of Christ, but Christ is never out of
him. Those who banish him he does not abandon.” John Caird, Fund.
Ideas of Christianity, 2:233‐256—“God is united with nature, in
the atoms, in the trees, in the planets. Science is seeing nature
full of the life of God. God is united to man in body and soul.
The beating of his heart and the voice of conscience witness to
God within. God sleeps in the stone, dreams in the animal, wakes
in man.”

A. Negatively.—It is not:

(_a_) A merely natural union, like that of God with all human spirits,—as
held by rationalists.

In our physical life we are conscious of another life within us
which is not subject to our wills: the heart beats involuntarily,
whether we sleep or wake. But in our spiritual life we are still
more conscious of a life within our life. Even the heathen said:
“Est Deus in nobis; agitante calescimus illo,” and the Egyptians
held to the identification of the departed with Osiris (Renouf,
Hibbert Lectures, 185). But Paul urges us to work out our
salvation, upon the very ground that “_it is God that worketh_” in
us, “_both to will and to work, for his good pleasure_” (_Phil.
2:12, 13_). This life of God in the soul is the life of Christ.

The movement of the electric car cannot be explained simply from
the working of its own motor apparatus. The electric current
throbbing through the wire, and the dynamo from which that energy
proceeds, are needed to explain the result. In like manner we need
a spiritual Christ to explain the spiritual activity of the
Christian. A. H. Strong, Sermon before the Baptist World Congress
in London, 1905—“We had in America some years ago a steam engine
all whose working parts were made of glass. The steam came from
without, but, being hot enough to move machinery, this steam was
itself invisible, and there was presented the curious spectacle of
an engine, transparent, moving, and doing important work, while
yet no cause for this activity was perceptible. So the church,
humanity, the universe, are all in constant and progressive
movement, but the Christ who moves them is invisible. Faith comes
to believe where it cannot see. It joins itself to this invisible
Christ, and knows him as its very life.”

(_b_) A merely moral union, or union of love and sympathy, like that
between teacher and scholar, friend and friend,—as held by Socinians and
Arminians.

There is a moral union between different souls: _1 Sam.
18:1_—“_the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and
Jonathan loved him as his own soul_”—here the Vulgate has: “Anima
Jonathæ agglutinata Davidi.” Aristotle calls friends “one soul.”
So in a higher sense, in _Acts 4:32_, the early believers are said
to have been “_of one heart and soul_.” But in _John 17:21, 26_,
Christ’s union with his people is distinguished from any mere
union of love and sympathy: “_that they may all be one; even as
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in
us;... that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and
I in them_.” Jesus’ aim, in the whole of his last discourse, is to
show that no mere union of love and sympathy will be sufficient:
“_apart from me_,” he says, “_ye can do nothing_” (_John 15:5_).
That his disciples may be vitally joined to himself, is therefore
the subject of his last prayer.

Dorner says well, that Arminianism (and with this doctrine Roman
Catholics and the advocates of New School views substantially
agree) makes man a mere tangent to the circle of the divine
nature. It has no idea of the interpenetration of the one by the
other. But the Lutheran Formula of Concord says much more
correctly: “Damnamus sententiam quod non Deus ipse, sed dona Dei
duntaxat, in credentibus habitent.”

Ritschl presents to us a historical Christ, and Pfleiderer
presents to us an ideal Christ, but neither one gives us the
living Christ who is the present spiritual life of the believer.
Wendt, in his Teaching of Jesus, 2:310, comes equally far short of
a serious interpretation of our Lord’s promise, when he says:
“This union to his person, as to its contents, is nothing else
than adherence to the message of the kingdom of God brought by
him.” It is not enough for me to be merely _in touch_ with Christ.
He must come to be “not so far as even to be near.” Tennyson, The
Higher Pantheism: “Closer is he than breathing, and nearer than
hands or feet.” William Watson, The Unknown God: “Yea, in my flesh
his Spirit doth flow, Too near, too far, for me to know.”

(_c_) A union of essence, which destroys the distinct personality and
subsistence of either Christ or the human spirit,—as held by many of the
mystics.

Many of the mystics, as Schwenkfeld, Weigel, Sebastian Frank, held
to an _essential_ union between Christ and the believer. One of
Weigel’s followers, therefore, could say to another: “I am Christ
Jesus, the living Word of God; I have redeemed thee by my sinless
sufferings.” We are ever to remember that the indwelling of Christ
only puts the believer more completely in possession of himself,
and makes him more conscious of his own personality and power.
Union with Christ must be taken in connection with the other truth
of the personality and activity of the Christian; otherwise it
tends to pantheism. Martineau, Study, 2:190—“In nature it is God’s
immanent life, in morals it is God’s transcendent life, with which
we commune.”

Angelus Silesius, a German philosophical poet (1624‐1677),
audaciously wrote: “I know God cannot live an instant without me;
He must give up the ghost, if I should cease to be.” Lowde, a
disciple of Malebranche, used the phrase “Godded with God, and
Christed with Christ,” and Jonathan Edwards, in his Religious
Affections, quotes it with disapprobation, saying that “the saints
do not become actually partakers of the divine essence, as would
be inferred from this abominable and blasphemous language of
heretics” (Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 224). “Self is not a mode of
the divine: it is a principle of isolation. In order to religion,
I must have a will to surrender.... ‘Our wills are ours, to make
them thine.’... Though the self is, in _knowledge_, a principle of
unification; in _existence_, or metaphysically, it is a principle
of isolation” (Seth).

Inge, Christian Mysticism, 30—“Some of the mystics went astray by
teaching a real _substitution_ of the divine for human nature,
thus depersonalizing man—a fatal mistake, for without human
personality we cannot conceive of divine personality.” Lyman
Abbott: “In Christ, God and man are united, not as the river is
united with the sea, losing its personality therein, but as the
child is united with the father, or the wife with the husband,
whose personality and individuality are strengthened and increased
by the union.” Here Dr. Abbott’s view comes as far short of the
truth as that of the mystics goes beyond the truth. As we shall
see, the union of the believer with Christ is a vital union,
surpassing in its intimacy any union of souls that we know. The
union of child with father, or of wife with husband, is only a
pointer which hints very imperfectly at the interpenetrating and
energizing of the human spirit by the divine.

(_d_) A union mediated and conditioned by participation of the sacraments
of the church,—as held by Romanists, Lutherans, and High‐Church
Episcopalians.

Perhaps the most pernicious misinterpretation of the nature of
this union is that which conceives of it as a physical and
material one, and which rears upon this basis the fabric of a
sacramental and external Christianity. It is sufficient here to
say that this union cannot be mediated by sacraments, since
sacraments presuppose it as already existing; both Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper are designed only for believers. Only faith receives
and retains Christ; and faith is the act of the soul grasping what
is purely invisible and supersensible: not the act of the body,
submitting to Baptism or partaking of the Supper.

William Lincoln: “The only way for the believer, if he wants to go
rightly, is to remember that truth is always two‐sided. If there
is any truth that the Holy Spirit has specially pressed upon your
heart, if you do not want to push it to the extreme, ask what is
the counter‐truth, and lean a little of your weight upon that;
otherwise, if you bear so very much on one side of the truth,
there is a danger of pushing it into a heresy. Heresy means
selected truth; it does not mean error; heresy and error are very
different things. Heresy is truth, but truth pushed into undue
importance, to the disparagement of the truth upon the other
side.” Heresy (αἵρεσις) = an act of choice, the picking and
choosing of a part, instead of comprehensively embracing the whole
of truth. Sacramentarians substitute the symbol for the thing
symbolized.

B. Positively.—It is:

(_a_) An organic union,—in which we become members of Christ and partakers
of his humanity.

Kant defines an organism, as that whose parts are reciprocally
means and end. The body is an organism; since the limbs exist for
the heart, and the heart for the limbs. So each member of Christ’s
body lives for him who is the head; and Christ the head equally
lives for his members: _Eph. 5:29, 30_—“_no man ever hated his own
flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, __ even as Christ also
the church; because we are members of his body_.” The train‐
despatcher is a symbol of the concentration of energy; the
switchmen and conductors who receive his orders are symbols of the
localization of force; but it is all one organic system.

(_b_) A vital union,—in which Christ’s life becomes the dominating
principle within us.

This union is a vital one, in distinction from any union of mere
juxtaposition or external influence. Christ does not work upon us
from without, as one separated from us, but from within, as the
very heart from which the life‐blood of our spirits flows. See
_Gal. 2:20_—“_it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in
me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith,
the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave
himself up for me;_” _Col 3:3, 4_—“_For ye died, and your life is
hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall be
manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory._”
Christ’s life is not corrupted by the corruption of his members,
any more than the ray of light is defiled by the filth with which
it comes in contact. We may be unconscious of this union with
Christ, as we often are of the circulation of the blood, yet it
may be the very source and condition of our life.

(_c_) A spiritual union,—that is, a union whose source and author is the
Holy Spirit.

By a spiritual union we mean a union not of body but of spirit,—a
union, therefore, which only the Holy Spirit originates and
maintains. _Rom. 8:9, 10_—“_ye are not in the flesh but in the
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if
any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if
Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit
is life because of righteousness._” The indwelling of Christ
involves a continual exercise of efficient power. In _Eph. 3:16,
17_, “_strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward
man_” is immediately followed by “_that Christ may dwell in your
hearts through faith_.”

(_d_) An indissoluble union,—that is, a union which, consistently with
Christ’s promise and grace, can never be dissolved.

_Mat. 28:20_—“_lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world_”; _John 10:28_—“_they shall never perish, and no one shall
snatch them out of my hand_”; _Rom. 8:35, 39_—“_Who shall separate
us from the love of Christ?... nor height, nor depth, nor any
other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God,
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord_”; _1 Thess. 4:14, 17_—“_them
also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him ...
then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be
caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall
we ever be with the Lord._”

Christ’s omnipresence makes it possible for him to be united to,
and to be present in, each believer, as perfectly and fully as if
that believer were the only one to receive Christ’s fulness. As
Christ’s omnipresence makes the whole Christ present in every
place, each believer has the whole Christ with him, as his source
of strength, purity, life; so that each may say: Christ gives all
his time and wisdom and care to me. Such a union as this lacks
every element of instability. Once formed, the union is
indissoluble. Many of the ties of earth are rudely broken,—not so
with our union with Christ,—that endures forever.

Since there is now an unchangeable and divine element in us, our
salvation depends no longer upon our unstable wills, but upon
Christ’s purpose and power. By temporary declension from duty, or
by our causeless unbelief, we may banish Christ to the barest and
most remote room of the soul’s house; but he does not suffer us
wholly to exclude him; and when we are willing to unbar the doors,
he is still there, ready to fill the whole mansion with his light
and love.

(_e_) An inscrutable union,—mystical, however, only in the sense of
surpassing in its intimacy and value any other union of souls which we
know.

This union is inscrutable, indeed; but it is not mystical, in the
sense of being unintelligible to the Christian or beyond the reach
of his experience. If we call it mystical at all, it should be
only because, in the intimacy of its communion and in the
transforming power of its influence, it surpasses any other union
of souls that we know, and so cannot be fully described or
understood by earthly analogies. _Eph. 5:32_—“_This mystery is
great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church_”; _Col.
1:27_—“_the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory._”

See Diman, Theistic Argument, 380—“As physical science has brought
us to the conclusion that back of all the phenomena of the
material universe there lies an invisible universe of forces, and
that these forces may ultimately be reduced to one all‐pervading
force in which the unity of the physical universe consists; and as
philosophy has advanced the rational conjecture that this ultimate
all‐pervading force is simply will‐force; so the great Teacher
holds up to us the spiritual universe as pervaded by one
omnipotent life—a life which was revealed in him as its highest
manifestation, but which is shared by all who by faith become
partakers of his nature. He was Son of God: they too had power to
become sons of God. The incarnation is wholly within the natural
course and tendency of things. It was prepared for, it came, in
the fulness of times. Christ’s life is not something sporadic and
individual, having its source in the personal conviction of each
disciple; it implies a real connection with Christ, the head.
Behind all nature there is one force; behind all varieties of
Christian life and character there is one spiritual power. All
nature is not inert matter,—it is pervaded by a living presence.
So all the body of believers live by virtue of the all‐working
Spirit of Christ, the Holy Ghost.” An epitaph at Silton, in
Dorsetshire, reads: “Here lies a piece of Christ—a star in dust, A
vein of gold, a china dish, that must Be used in heaven when God
shall feed the just.”

A. H. Strong, in Examiner, 1880: “Such is the nature of union with
Christ,—such I mean, is the nature of every believer’s union with
Christ. For, whether he knows it or not, every Christian has
entered into just such a partnership as this. It is this and this
only which constitutes him a Christian, and which makes possible a
Christian church. We may, indeed, be thus united to Christ,
without being fully conscious of the real nature of our relation
to him. We may actually possess the kernel, while as yet we have
regard only to the shell; we may seem to ourselves to be united to
Christ only by an external bond, while after all it is an inward
and spiritual bond that makes us his. God often reveals to the
Christian the mystery of the gospel, which is Christ _in_ him the
hope of glory, at the very time that he is seeking only some
nearer access to a Redeemer outside of him. Trying to find a union
of coöperation or of sympathy, he is amazed to learn that there is
already established a union with Christ more glorious and blessed,
namely, a union of life; and so, like the miners in the Rocky
Mountains, while he is looking only for silver, he finds gold.
Christ and the believer have the same life. They are not separate
persons linked together by some temporary bond of friendship,—they
are united by a tie as close and indissoluble as if the same blood
ran in their veins. Yet the Christian may never have suspected how
intimate a union he has with his Savior; and the first
understanding of this truth may be the gateway through which he
passes into a holier and happier stage of the Christian life.”

So the Way leads, through the Truth, to the Life (_John 14:6_).
Apprehension of an external Savior prepares for the reception and
experience of the internal Savior. Christ is first the Door of the
sheep, but in him, after they have once entered in, they find
pasture (_John 10:7‐9_). On the nature of this union, see H. B.
Smith, System of Christian Theology, 531‐539; Baird, Elohim
Revealed, 601; Wilberforce, Incarnation, 208‐272, and New Birth of
Man’s Nature, 1‐30. _Per contra_, see Park, Discourses, 117‐136.

3. Consequences of this Union as respects the Believer.

We have seen that Christ’s union with humanity, at the incarnation,
involved him in all the legal liabilities of the race to which he united
himself, and enabled him so to assume the penalty of its sin as to make
for all men a full satisfaction to the divine justice, and to remove all
external obstacles to man’s return to God. An internal obstacle, however,
still remains—the evil affections and will, and the consequent guilt, of
the individual soul. This last obstacle also Christ removes, in the case
of all his people, by uniting himself to them in a closer and more perfect
manner than that in which he is united to humanity at large. As Christ’s
union with the race secures the objective reconciliation of the race to
God, so Christ’s union with believers secures the subjective
reconciliation of believers to God.

In Baird, Elohim Revealed, 607‐610, in Owen, on Justification,
chap. 8, in Boston, Covenant of Grace, chap. 2, and in Dale,
Atonement, 265‐440, the union of the believer with Christ is made
to explain the bearing of our sins by Christ. As we have seen in
our discussion of the Atonement, however (page 759), this explains
the cause by the effect, and implies that Christ died only for the
elect (see review of Dale, in Brit. Quar. Rev., Apr.
1876:221‐225). It is not the union of Christ with the believer,
but the union of Christ with humanity at large, that explains his
taking upon him human guilt and penalty.

Amnesty offered to a rebellious city may be complete, yet it may
avail only for those who surrender. Pardon secured from a
Governor, upon the ground of the services of an Advocate, may be
effectual only when the convict accepts it,—there is no hope for
him when he tears up the pardon. Dr. H. E. Robins: “The judicial
declaration of acquittal on the ground of the death of Christ,
which comes to all men (_Rom. 5:18_), and into the benefits of
which they are introduced by natural birth, is inchoate
justification, and will become perfected justification through the
new birth of the Holy Spirit, unless the working of this divine
agent is resisted by the personal moral action of those who are
lost.” What Dr. Robins calls “inchoate justification” we prefer to
call “ideal justification” or “attainable justification.” Humanity
in Christ is justified, and every member of the race who joins
himself to Christ by faith participates in Christ’s justification.
H. E. Dudley: “Adam’s sin holds us all down just as gravity holds
all, while Christ’s righteousness, though secured for all and
accessible to all, involves an effort of will in climbing and
grasping which not all will make.” Justification in Christ is the
birthright of humanity; but, in order to possess and enjoy it,
each of us must claim and appropriate it by faith.

R. W. Dale, Fellowship with Christ, 7—“When we were created in
Christ, the fortunes of the human race for good or evil became
his. The Incarnation revealed and fulfilled the relations which
already existed between the Son of God and mankind. From the
beginning Christ had entered into fellowship with us. When we
sinned, he remained in fellowship with us still. Our miseries” [we
would add: our guilt] “were his, by his own choice.... His
fellowship with us is the foundation of our fellowship with
him.... When I have discovered that by the very constitution of my
nature I am to achieve perfection in the power of the life of
Another—who is yet not Another, but the very ground of my being—it
ceases to be incredible to me that Another—who is yet not
Another—should be the Atonement for my sin, and that his relation
to God should determine mine.”

A tract entitled “The Seven Togethers” sums up the Scripture
testimony with regard to the Consequences of the believer’s Union
with Christ: 1. Crucified together with Christ—_Gal.
2:20_—συνεσταύρωμαι. 2. Died together with Christ—_Col.
2:20_—ἀπεθάνετε. 3. Buried together with Christ—_Rom.
6:4_—συνετάφημεν. 4. Quickened together with Christ—_Eph.
2:5_—συνεζωοποίησεν. 5. Raised together with Christ—_Col.
3:1_—συνηγέρθητε. 6. Sufferers together with Christ—_Rom.
8:17_—συμπάσχομεν. 7. Glorified together with Christ—_Rom.
8:17_—συνδοξασθῶμεν. Union with Christ results in common sonship,
relation to God, character, influence, and destiny.

Imperfect apprehension of the believer’s union with Christ works
to the great injury of Christian doctrine. An experience of union
with Christ first enables us to understand the death of sin and
separation from God which has befallen the race sprung from the
first Adam. The life and liberty of the children of God in Christ
Jesus shows us by contrast how far astray we had gone. The vital
and organic unity of the new race sprung from the second Adam
reveals the depravity and disintegration which we had inherited
from our first father. We see that as there is one source of
spiritual life in Christ, so there was one source of corrupt life
in Adam; and that as we are justified by reason of our oneness
with the justified Christ, so we are condemned by reason of our
oneness with the condemned Adam.

A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation, 175—“If it is consistent with
evolution that the physical and natural life of the race should be
derived from a single source, then it is equally consistent with
evolution that the moral and spiritual life of the race should be
derived from a single source. Scripture is stating only scientific
fact when it sets the second Adam, the head of redeemed humanity,
over against the first Adam, the head of fallen humanity. We are
told that evolution should give us many Christs. We reply that
evolution has not given us many Adams. Evolution, as it assigns to
the natural head of the race a supreme and unique position, must
be consistent with itself, and must assign a supreme and unique
position to Jesus Christ, the spiritual head of the race. As there
was but one Adam from whom all the natural life of the race was
derived, so that there can be but one Christ from whom all the
spiritual life of the race is derived.”

The consequences of union with Christ may be summarily stated as follows:

(_a_) Union with Christ involves a change in the dominant affection of the
soul. Christ’s entrance into the soul makes it a new creature, in the
sense that the ruling disposition, which before was sinful, now becomes
holy. This change we call _Regeneration_.

_Rom. 8:2_—“_For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
made me free from the law of sin and of death_”; _2 Cor.
5:17_—“_if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature_”
(marg.—“_there is a new creation_”); _Gal. 1:15, 16_—“_it was the
good pleasure of God ... to reveal his Son in me_”; _Eph.
2:10_—“_For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for
good works._” As we derive our old nature from the first man Adam,
by birth, so we derive a new nature from the second man Christ, by
the new birth. Union with Christ is the true “transfusion of
blood.” “The death‐struck sinner, like the wan, anæmic, dying
invalid, is saved by having poured into his veins the healthier
blood of Christ” (Drummond, Nat. Law in the Spir. World). God
regenerates the soul by uniting it to Jesus Christ.

In the Johnston Harvester Works at Batavia, when they paint their
machinery, they do it by immersing part after part in a great tank
of paint,—so the painting is instantaneous and complete. Our
baptism into Christ is the outward picture of an inward immersion
of the soul not only into his love and fellowship, but into his
very life, so that in him we become new creatures (_2 Cor. 5:17_).
As Miss Sullivan surrounded Helen Keller with the influence of her
strong personality, by intelligence and sympathy and determination
striving to awaken the blind and dumb soul and give it light and
love, so Jesus envelops us. But his Spirit is more encompassing
and more penetrating than any human influence however powerful,
because his life is the very ground and principle of our being.

Tennyson: “O for a man to arise in me, That the man that I am may
cease to be!” Emerson: “Himself from God he could not free; He
builded better than he knew.” Religion is not the adding of a new
department of activity as an adjunct to our own life or the
grafting of a new method of manifestation upon the old. It is
rather the grafting of our souls into Christ, so that his life
dominates and manifests itself in all our activities. The magnet
which left to itself can lift only a three pound weight, will lift
three hundred when it is attached to the electric dynamo.
Expositor’s Greek Testament on _1 Cor. 15:45, 46_—“The action of
Jesus in ‘_breathing_’ upon his disciples while he said, ‘_Receive
the Holy Spirit_’ (_John 20:22_ _sq._) symbolized the vitalizing
relationship which at this epoch he assumed towards mankind; this
act raised to a higher potency the original ‘_breathing_’ of God
by which ‘_man became a living soul_’ (_Gen. 2:7_).”

(_b_) Union with Christ involves a new exercise of the soul’s powers in
repentance and faith; faith, indeed, is the act of the soul by which,
under the operation of God, Christ is received. This new exercise of the
soul’s powers we call _Conversion_ (Repentance and Faith). It is the
obverse or human side of Regeneration.

_Eph. 3:17_—“_that Christ may dwell in your hearts through
faith_”; _2 Tim. 3:15_—“_the sacred writings which are able to
make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ
Jesus._” Faith is the soul’s laying hold of Christ as its only
source of life, pardon, and salvation. And so we see what true
religion is. It is not a moral life; it is not a determination to
be religious; it is not faith, if by faith we mean an external
trust that somehow Christ will save us; it is nothing less than
the life of the soul in God, through Christ his Son. To Christ
then we are to look for the origin, continuance and increase of
our faith (_Luke 17:5_—“_said unto the Lord, Increase our
faith_”). Our faith is but a part of “_his fulness_” of which “_we
all received, and grace for grace_” (_John 1:16_).

A. H. Strong, Sermon before the Baptist World Congress, London,
1905—“Christianity is summed up in the two facts: Christ _for_ us,
and Christ _in_ us—Christ _for_ us upon the Cross, revealing the
eternal opposition of holiness to sin, and yet, through God’s
eternal suffering for sin making objective atonement for us; and
Christ _in_ us by his Spirit, renewing in us the lost image of
God, and abiding in us as the all‐sufficient source of purity and
power. Here are the two foci of the Christian ellipse: Christ
_for_ us, who redeemed us from the curse of the law by being made
a curse for us, and Christ _in_ us, the hope of glory, whom the
apostle calls the mystery of the gospel.

“We need Christ _in_ us as well as Christ _for_ us. How shall I,
how shall society, find healing and purification within? Let me
answer by reminding you of what they did at Chicago. In all the
world there was no river more stagnant and fetid than was Chicago
River. Its sluggish stream received the sweepings of the
watercraft and the offal of the city, and there was no current to
carry the detritus away. There it settled, and bred miasma and
fever. At last it was suggested that, by cutting through the low
ridge between the city and the Desplaines River, the current could
be set running in the opposite direction, and drainage could be
secured into the Illinois River and the great Mississippi. At a
cost of fifteen millions of dollars the cut was made, and now all
the water of Lake Michigan can be relied upon to cleanse that
turbid stream. What Chicago River could never do for itself, the
great lake now does for it. So no human soul can purge itself of
its sin; and what the individual cannot do, humanity at large is
powerless to accomplish. Sin has dominion over us, and we are foul
to the very depths of our being, until with the help of God we
break through the barrier of our self‐will, and let the floods of
Christ’s purifying life flow into us. Then, in an hour, more is
done to renew, than all our efforts for years had effected. Thus
humanity is saved, individual by individual, not by philosophy, or
philanthropy, or self‐development, or self‐reformation, but simply
by joining itself to Jesus Christ, and by being filled in Him with
all the fulness of God.”

(_c_) Union with Christ gives to the believer the legal standing and
rights of Christ. As Christ’s union with the race involves atonement, so
the believer’s union with Christ involves _Justification_. The believer is
entitled to take for his own all that Christ is, and all that Christ has
done; and this because he has within him that new life of humanity which
suffered in Christ’s death and rose from the grave in Christ’s
resurrection,—in other words, because he is virtually one person with the
Redeemer. In Christ the believer is prophet, priest, and king.

_Acts 13:39_—“_by him_ [lit.: ‘_in him_’ = in union with him]
_every one that believeth is justified_”; _Rom. 6:7, 8_—“_he that
hath died is justified from sin ... we died with Christ_”;
_7:4_—“_dead to the law through the body of Christ_”; _8:1_—“_no
condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus_”; _17_—“_heirs of
God, and joint‐heirs with Christ_”; _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_But of him ye
are in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and
righteousness_ [justification]”; _3:21, 23_—“_all things are yours
... and ye are Christ’s_”; _6:11_—“_ye were justified in the name
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God_”; _2 Cor.
5:14_—“_we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all
died_”; _21_—“_Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our
behalf; that we might become the righteousness_ [justification]
_of God in him_” = God’s justified persons, in union with Christ
(see pages 760, 761).

_Gal. 2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no
longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me_”; _Eph. 1:4,
6_—“_chose us in him ... to the praise of the glory of his grace,
which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved_”; _2:5, 6_—“_even
when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together
with Christ ... made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in
Christ Jesus_”; _Phil. 3:8, 9_—“_that I may gain Christ, and be
found in him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that
which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ,
the righteousness which is from God by faith_”; _2 Tim.
2:11_—“_Faithful is the saying: For if we died with him, we shall
also live with him._” Prophet: _Luke 12:12_—“_the Holy Spirit
shall teach you in that very hour what ye ought to say_”; _1 John
2:20_—“_ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all
things._” Priest: _1 Pet. 2:5_—“_a holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ_”;
_Rev. 20:6_—“_they shall be priests of God and of Christ_”; _1
Pet. 2:9_—“_a royal priesthood._” King: _Rev. 3:21_—“_He that
overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne_”;
_5:10_—“_madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests._”
The connection of justification and union with Christ delivers the
former from the charge of being a mechanical and arbitrary
procedure. As Jonathan Edwards has said: “The justification of the
believer is no other than his being admitted to communion in, or
participation of, this head and surety of all believers.”

(_d_) Union with Christ secures to the believer the continuously
transforming, assimilating power of Christ’s life,—first, for the soul;
secondly, for the body,—consecrating it in the present, and in the future
raising it up in the likeness of Christ’s glorified body. This continuous
influence, so far as it is exerted in the present life, we call
_Sanctification_, the human side or aspect of which is _Perseverance_.

For the soul: _John 1:16_—“_of his fulness we all received, and
grace for grace_”—successive and increasing measures of grace,
corresponding to the soul’s successive and increasing needs; _Rom.
8:10_—“_if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but
the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _1 Cor.
15:45_—“_The last Adam became a life‐giving spirit_”; _Phil.
2:5_—“_Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus_”; _1
John 3:2_—“_if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him._”
“Can Christ let the believer fall out of his hands? No, for the
believer is his hands.”

For the body: _1 Cor. 6:17‐20_—“_he that is joined unto the Lord
is one spirit ... know ye not that your body is a temple of the
Holy Spirit which is in you ... glorify God therefore in your
body_”; _Thess. 5:23_—“_And the God of peace himself sanctify you
wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire,
without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ_”; _Rom.
8:11_—“_shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his
Spirit that dwelleth in you_”; _1 Cor. 15:49_—“_as we have borne
the image of the earthy_ [man], _we shall also bear the image of
the heavenly_ [man]”; _Phil. 3:20, 21_—“_For our citizenship is in
heaven; from whence also we wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus
Christ: who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that
it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the
working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto
himself._”

Is there a physical miracle wrought for the drunkard in his
regeneration? Mr. Moody says, Yes; Mr. Gough says, No. We prefer
to say that the change is a spiritual one; but that the “expulsive
power of a new affection” indirectly affects the body, so that old
appetites sometimes disappear in a moment; and that often, in the
course of years, great changes take place even in the believer’s
body. Tennyson, Idylls: “Have ye looked at Edyrn? Have ye seen how
nobly changed? This work of his is great and wonderful; His very
face with change of heart is changed.” “Christ in the soul
fashions the germinal man into his own likeness,—this is the
embryology of the new life. The cardinal error in religious life
is the attempt to live without proper environment” (see Drummond,
Natural Law in Spiritual World, 253‐284). Human life from Adam
does not stand the test,—only divine‐human life in Christ can
secure us from falling. This is the work of Christ, now that he
has ascended and taken to himself his power, namely, to give his
life more and more fully to the church, until it shall grow up in
all things into him, the Head, and shall fitly express his glory
to the world.

As the accomplished organist discloses unsuspected capabilities of
his instrument, so Christ brings into activity all the latent
powers of the human soul. “I was five years in the ministry,” said
an American preacher, “before I realized that my Savior is alive.”
Dr. R. W. Dale has left on record the almost unutterable feelings
that stirred his soul when he first realized this truth; see
Walker, The Spirit and the Incarnation, preface, v. Many have
struggled in vain against sin until they have admitted Christ to
their hearts,—then they could say: “_this is the victory that hath
overcome the world, even our faith_” (_1 John 5:4_). “Go out, God
will go in; Die thou, and let him live; Be not, and he will be;
Wait, and he’ll all things give.” The best way to get air out of a
vessel is to pour water in. Only in Christ can we find our pardon,
peace, purity, and power. He is “_made unto us wisdom from God,
and justification and sanctification, and redemption_” (_1 Cor.
1:30_). A medical man says: “The only radical remedy for
dipsomania is religiomania” (quoted in William James, Varieties of
Religious Experience, 268). It is easy to break into an empty
house; the spirit cast out returns, finds the house empty, brings
seven others, and “_the last state of that man becometh worse than
the first_” (_Mat. 12:45_). There is no safety in simply expelling
sin; we need also to bring in Christ; in fact only he can enable
us to expel not only actual sin but the love of it.

Alexander McLaren: “If we are ‘_in Christ_,’ we are like a diver
in his crystal bell, and have a solid though invisible wall around
us, which keeps all sea‐monsters off us, and communicates with the
upper air, whence we draw the breath of calm life and can work in
security though in the ocean depths.” John Caird, Fund. Ideas,
2:98—“How do we know that the life of God has not departed from
nature? Because every spring we witness the annual miracle of
nature’s revival, every summer and autumn the waving corn. How do
we know that Christ has not departed from the world? Because he
imparts to the soul that trusts him a power, a purity, a peace,
which are beyond all that nature can give.”

(_e_) Union with Christ brings about a fellowship of Christ with the
believer,—Christ takes part in all the labors, temptations, and sufferings
of his people; a fellowship of the believer with Christ,—so that Christ’s
whole experience on earth is in some measure reproduced in him; a
fellowship of all believers with one another,—furnishing a basis for the
spiritual unity of Christ’s people on earth, and for the eternal communion
of heaven. The doctrine of Union with Christ is therefore the
indispensable preparation for _Ecclesiology_, and for _Eschatology_.

Fellowship of Christ with the believer: _Phil. 4:13_—“_I can do
all things in him that strengtheneth me_”; _Heb. 4:15_—“_For we
have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of
our infirmities_”; _cf._ _Is. 63:9_—“_In all their affliction he
was afflicted._” _Heb. 2:18_—“_in that he himself hath suffered
being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted_” = are
being tempted, are under temptation. Bp. Wordsworth: “By his
_passion_ he acquired _compassion_.” _2 Cor. 2:14_—“_thanks be
unto God, who always leadeth us in triumph in Christ_” = Christ
leads us in triumph, but his triumph is ours, even if it be a
triumph over us. One with him, we participate in his joy and in
his sovereignty. _Rev. 3:21_—“_He that overcometh, I will give to
him to sit down with me in my throne._” W. F. Taylor on _Rom.
8:9_—“_The Spirit of God dwelleth in you.... if any man hath not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his_”—“Christ dwells in us,
says the apostle. But do we accept him as a resident, or as a
ruler? England was first represented at King Thebau’s court by her
resident. This official could rebuke, and even threaten, but no
more,—Thebau was sovereign. Burma knew no peace, till England
ruled. So Christ does not consent to be represented by a mere
resident. He must himself dwell within the soul, and he must
reign.” Christina Rossetti, Thee Only: “Lord, we are rivers
running to thy sea, Our waves and ripples all derived from thee; A
nothing we should have, a nothing be, Except for thee. Sweet are
the waters of thy shoreless sea; Make sweet our waters that make
haste to thee; Pour in thy sweetness, that ourselves may be
Sweetness to thee!”

Of the believer with Christ: _Phil. 3:10_—“_that I may know him,
and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his
sufferings, becoming conformed unto his death_”; _Col.
1:24_—“_fill up on my part that which is lacking of the
afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is
the church_”; _1 Pet. 4:13_—“_partakers of Christ’s sufferings._”
The Christian reproduces Christ’s life in miniature, and, in a
true sense, lives it over again. Only upon the principle of union
with Christ can we explain how the Christian instinctively applies
to himself the prophecies and promises which originally and
primarily were uttered with reference to Christ: “_thou wilt not
leave my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to
see corruption_” (_Ps. 16:10, 11_). This fellowship is the ground
of the promises made to believing prayer: _John
14:13_—“_whatsoever ye shall ask is my name, that will I do_”;
Westcott, Bib. Com., _in loco_: “The meaning of the phrase [‘_in
my name_’] is ‘as being one with me even as I am revealed to you.’
Its two correlatives are ‘_in me_’ and the Pauline ‘_in Christ_’.”
“_All things are yours_” (_1 Cor. 3:21_), because Christ is
universal King, and all believers are exalted to fellowship with
him. After the battle of Sedan, King William asked a wounded
Prussian officer whether it were well with him. “All is well where
your majesty leads!” was the reply. _Phil. 1:21_—“_For to me to
live is Christ, and to die is gain._” Paul indeed uses the words
“Christ” and “church” as interchangeable terms: _1 Cor.
12:12_—“_as the body is one, and hath many members, ... so also is
Christ._” Denney, Studies in Theology, 171—“There is not in the N.
T. from beginning to end, in the record of the original and
genuine Christian life, a single word of despondency or gloom. It
is the most buoyant, exhilarating and joyful book in the world.”
This is due to the fact that the writers believe in a living and
exalted Christ, and know themselves to be one with him. They
descend crowned into the arena. In the Soudan, every morning for
half an hour before General Gordon’s tent there lay a white
handkerchief. The most pressing message, even on matters of life
and death, waited till that handkerchief was withdrawn. It was the
signal that Christ and Gordon were in communion with each other.

Of all believers with one another: _John 17:21_—“_that they may
all be one_”; _1 Cor. 10:17_—“_we, who are many, are one bread,
one body: for we all partake of the one bread_”; _Eph.
2:15_—“_create in himself of the two one new man, so making
peace_”; _1 John 1:3_—“_that ye also may have fellowship with us:
yea, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus
Christ_”—here the word κοινωνία is used. Fellowship with each
other is the effect and result of the fellowship of each with God
in Christ. Compare _John 10:16_—“_they shall become one flock, one
shepherd_”; Westcott, Bib. Com., _in loco_: “The bond of
fellowship is shown to lie in the common relation to one Lord....
Nothing is said of one ‘fold’ under the new dispensation.” Here is
a unity, not of external organization, but of common life. Of this
the visible church is the consequence and expression. But this
communion is not limited to earth,—it is perpetuated beyond death:
_1 Thess. 4:17_—“_so shall we ever be with the Lord_”; _Heb.
12:23_—“_to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who
are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the
spirits of just men made perfect_”; _Rev. 21_ and _22_—the city of
God, the new Jerusalem, is the image of perfect society, as well
as of intensity and fulness of life in Christ. The ordinances
express the essence of Ecclesiology—union with Christ—for Baptism
symbolizes the incorporation of the believer in Christ, while the
Lord’s Supper symbolizes the incorporation of Christ in the
believer. Christianity is a social matter, and the true Christian
feels the need of being with and among his brethren. The Romans
could not understand why “this new sect” must be holding meetings
all the time—even daily meetings. Why could they not go singly, or
in families, to the temples, and make offerings to their God, and
then come away, as the pagans did? It was this meeting together
which exposed them to persecution and martyrdom. It was the
natural and inevitable expression of their union with Christ and
so of their union with one another.

The consciousness of union with Christ gives assurance of
salvation. It is a great stimulus to believing prayer and to
patient labor. It is a duty to “_know what is the hope of his
calling, what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the
saints, and what the exceeding greatness of his power to us‐ward
who believe_” (_Eph. 1:18, 19_). Christ’s command, “_Abide in me,
and I in you_” (_John 15:4_), implies that we are both to realize
and to confirm this union, by active exertion of our own wills. We
are to abide in him by an entire consecration, and to let him
abide in us by an appropriating faith. We are to give ourselves to
Christ, and to take in return the Christ who gives himself to
us,—in other words, we are to believe Christ’s promises and to act
upon them. All sin consists in the sundering of man’s life from
God, and most systems of falsehood in religion are attempts to
save man without merging his life in God’s once more. The only
religion that can save mankind is the religion that fills the
whole heart and the whole life with God, and that aims to
interpenetrate universal humanity with that same living Christ who
has already made himself one with the believer. This consciousness
of union with Christ gives “_boldness_” (παρρησία—_Acts 4:13_; _1
John 5:14_) toward men and toward God. The word belongs to the
Greek democracies. Freemen are bold. Demosthenes boasts of his
frankness. Christ frees us from the hidebound, introspective,
self‐conscious spirit. In him we become free, demonstrative,
outspoken. So we find, in John’s epistles, that boldness in prayer
is spoken of as a virtue, and the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews urges us to “_draw near with boldness unto the throne of
grace_” (_Heb. 4:16_). An engagement of marriage is not the same
as marriage. The parties may be still distant from each other.
Many Christians get just near enough to Christ to be engaged to
him. This seems to be the experience of Christian in the Pilgrim’s
Progress. But our privilege is to have a present Christ, and to do
our work not only _for_ him, but _in_ him. “Since Christ and we
are one, Why should we doubt or fear?” “We two are so joined,
He’ll not be in heaven, And leave me behind.”

We append a few statements with regard to this union and its
consequences, from noted names in theology and the church. Luther:
“By faith thou art so glued to Christ that of thee and him there
becomes as it were one person, so that with confidence thou canst
say: ‘I am Christ,—that is, Christ’s righteousness, victory,
_etc._, are mine’; and Christ in turn can say: ‘I am that
sinner,—that is, his sins, his death, _etc._, are mine, because he
clings to me and I to him, for we have been joined through faith
into one flesh and bone.’ ” Calvin: “I attribute the highest
importance to the connection between the head and the members; to
the inhabitation of Christ in our hearts; in a word, to the
mystical union by which we enjoy him, so that, being made ours, he
makes us partakers of the blessings with which he is furnished.”
John Bunyan: “The Lord led me into the knowledge of the mystery of
union with Christ, that I was joined to him, that I was bone of
his bone and flesh of his flesh. By this also my faith in him as
my righteousness was the more confirmed; for if he and I were one,
then his righteousness was mine, his merits mine, his victory also
mine. Now could I see myself in heaven and on earth at once—in
heaven by my Christ, my risen head, my righteousness and life,
though on earth by my body or person.” Edwards: “Faith is the
soul’s active uniting with Christ. God sees fit that, in order to
a union’s being established between two intelligent active beings,
there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive
the other, as entirely joining themselves to one another.” Andrew
Fuller: “I have no doubt that the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness presupposes a union with him; since there is no
perceivable fitness in bestowing benefits on one for another’s
sake, where there is no union or relation between.”

See Luther, quoted, with other references, in Thomasius, Christi
Person und Werk, 3:325. See also Calvin, Institutes, 1:660;
Edwards, Works, 4:66, 69, 70; Andrew Fuller, Works, 2:685; Pascal,
Thoughts, Eng. trans., 429; Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book 5, ch. 56;
Tillotson, Sermons, 3:307; Trench, Studies in Gospels, 284, and
Christ the True Vine, in Hulsean Lectures; Schöberlein, in Studien
und Kritiken, 1847:7‐69; Caird, on Union with God, in Scotch
Sermons, sermon 2; Godet, on the Ultimate Design of Man, in
Princeton Rev., Nov. 1880—the design is “God in man, and man in
God”; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 590‐617; Upham, Divine Union,
Interior Life, Life of Madame Guyon and Fénelon; A. J. Gordon, In
Christ; McDuff, In Christo; J. Denham Smith, Life‐truths, 25‐98;
A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 220‐225; Bishop Hall’s
Treatise on The Church Mystical; Andrew Murray, Abide in Christ;
Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 145, 174, 179; F. B.
Meyer, Christian Living—essay on Appropriation of Christ, _vs._
mere imitation of Christ; Sanday, Epistle to the Romans,
supplementary essay on the Mystic Union; H. B. Smith, System of
Theology, 531; J. M. Campbell, The Indwelling Christ.

II. Regeneration.

Regeneration is that act of God by which the governing disposition of the
soul is made holy, and by which, through the truth as a means, the first
holy exercise of this disposition is secured.

Regeneration, or the new birth, is the divine side of that change of heart
which, viewed from the human side, we call conversion. It is God’s turning
the soul to himself,—conversion being the soul’s turning itself to God, of
which God’s turning it is both the accompaniment and cause. It will be
observed from the above definition, that there are two aspects of
regeneration, in the first of which the soul is passive, in the second of
which the soul is active. God changes the governing disposition,—in this
change the soul is simply acted upon. God secures the initial exercise of
this disposition in view of the truth,—in this change the soul itself
acts. Yet these two parts of God’s operation are simultaneous. At the same
moment that he makes the soul sensitive, he pours in the light of his
truth and induces the exercise of the holy disposition he has imparted.

This distinction between the passive and the active aspects of
regeneration is necessitated, as we shall see, by the twofold
method of representing the change in Scripture. In many passages
the change is ascribed wholly to the power of God; the change is a
change in the fundamental disposition of the soul; there is no use
of means. In other passages we find truth referred to as an agency
employed by the Holy Spirit, and the mind acts in view of this
truth. The distinction between these two aspects of regeneration
seems to be intimated in _Eph. 2:5, 6_—“_made us alive together
with Christ,_” and “_raised us up with him_.” Lazarus must first
be made alive, and in this he could _not_ coöperate; but he must
also come forth from the tomb, and in this he _could_ be active.
In the old photography, the plate was first made sensitive, and in
this the plate was passive; then it was exposed to the object, and
now the plate actively seized upon the rays of light which the
object emitted.

Availing ourselves of the illustration from photography, we may
compare God’s initial work in the soul to the sensitizing of the
plate, his next work to the pouring in of the light and the
production of the picture. The soul is first made receptive to the
truth; then it is enabled actually to receive the truth. But the
illustration fails in one respect,—it represents the two aspects
of regeneration as successive. In regeneration there is no
chronological succession. At the same instant that God makes the
soul sensitive, he also draws out its new sensibility in view of
the truth. Let us notice also that, as in photography the picture
however perfect needs to be developed, and this development takes
time, so regeneration is only the beginning of God’s work; not all
the dispositions, but only the governing disposition, is made
holy; there is still need that sanctification should follow
regeneration; and sanctification is a work of God which lasts for
a whole lifetime. We may add that “heredity affects regeneration
as the quality of the film affects photography, and environment
affects regeneration as the focus affects photography” (W. T.
Thayer).

Sacramentarianism has so obscured the doctrine of Scripture that
many persons who gave no evidence of being regenerate are quite
convinced that they are Christians. Uncle John Vassar therefore
never asked: “Are you a Christian?” but always: “Have you ever
been born again?” E. G. Robinson: “The doctrine of regeneration,
aside from sacramentarianism, was not apprehended by Luther or the
Reformers, was not indeed wrought out till Wesley taught that God
instantaneously renewed the affections and the will.” We get the
doctrine of regeneration mainly from the apostle John, as we get
the doctrine of justification mainly from the apostle Paul.
Stevens, Johannine Theology, 366—“Paul’s great words are,
justification, and righteousness; John’s are, birth from God, and
life. But, for both Paul and John, faith is life‐union with
Christ.”

Stearns, Evidence of Christian Experience, 134—“The sinful nature
is not gone, but its power is broken; sin no longer dominates the
life; it has been thrust from the centre to the circumference; it
has the sentence of death in itself; the man is freed, at least in
potency and promise. 218—An activity may be immediate, yet not
unmediated. God’s action on the soul may be through the sense, yet
still be immediate, as when finite spirits communicate with each
other.” Dubois, in Century Magazine, Dec. 1894:233—“Man has made
his way up from physical conditions to the consciousness of
spiritual needs. Heredity and environment fetter him. He needs
spiritual help. God provides a spiritual environment in
regeneration. As science is the verification of the ideal in
nature, so religion is the verification of the spiritual in human
life.” Last sermon of Seth K. Mitchell on _Rev. 21:5_—“_Behold, I
make all things new_”—“God first makes a new man, then gives him a
new heart, then a new commandment. He also gives a new body, a new
name, a new robe, a new song, and a new home.”

1. Scripture Representations.

(_a_) Regeneration is a change indispensable to the salvation of the
sinner.

_John 3:7_—“_Ye must be born anew_”; _Gal. 6:15_—“_neither is
circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature_”
(marg.—“_creation_”); _cf._ _Heb. 12:14_—“_the sanctification
without which no man shall see the Lord_”—regeneration, therefore,
is yet more necessary to salvation; _Eph. 2:3_—“_by nature
children of wrath, even as the rest_”; _Rom. 3:11_—“_There is none
that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God_”; _John
6:44, 65_—“_No man can come to me, except the Father that sent me
draw him ... no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him
of the Father_”; _Jer. 13:23_—“_Can the Ethiopian change his skin,
or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are
accustomed to do evil._”

(_b_) It is a change in the inmost principle of life.

_John 3:3_—“_Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of
God_”; _5:21_—“_as the Father raiseth the dead and giveth them
life, even so the Son also giveth life to whom he will_”; _Rom.
6:13_—“_present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead_”;
_Eph. 2:1_—“_And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through
your trespasses and sins_”; _5:14_—“_Awake, thou that sleepest,
and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee._” In
_John 3:3_—“_born anew_” = not, “altered,” “influenced,”
“reinvigorated,” “reformed”; but a new beginning, a new stamp or
character, a new family likeness to God and to his children. “_So
is every one that is born of the Spirit_” (_John 3:8_) = 1.
secrecy of process; 2. independence of the will of man; 3.
evidence given in results of conduct and life. It is a good thing
to remove the means of gratifying an evil appetite; but how much
better it is to remove the appetite itself! It is a good thing to
save men from frequenting dangerous resorts by furnishing safe
places of recreation and entertainment; but far better is it to
implant within the man such a love for all that is pure and good,
that he will instinctively shun the impure and evil. Christianity
aims to purify the springs of action.

(_c_) It is a change in the heart, or governing disposition.

_Mat. 12:33, 35_—“_Either make the tree good, and its fruit good;
or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is
known by its fruit.... The good man out of his good treasure
bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil
treasure bringeth forth evil things_”; _15:19_—“_For out of the
heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications,
thefts, false witness, railings_”; _Acts 16:14_—“_And a certain
woman named Lydia ... heard us: whose heart the Lord opened to
give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul_”; _Rom.
6:17_—“_But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of
sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching
whereunto ye were delivered_”; _10:10_—“_with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness_”; _cf._ _Ps. 51:10_—“_Create in me a
clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within me_”; _Jer.
31:33_—“_I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their
hearts will I write it_”; _Ez. 11:19_—“_And I will give them one
heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the
stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of
flesh._”

Horace Mann: “One former is worth a hundred reformers.” It is
often said that the redemption of society is as important as the
regeneration of the individual. Yes, we reply; but the
regeneration of society can never be accomplished except through
the regeneration of the individual. Reformers try in vain to
construct a stable and happy community from persons who are
selfish, weak, and miserable. The first cry of such reformers is:
“Get your circumstances changed!” Christ’s first call is: “Get
yourselves changed, and then the things around you will be
changed.” Many college settlements, and temperance societies, and
self‐reformations begin at the wrong end. They are like kindling a
coal‐fire by lighting kindlings at the top. The fire soon goes
out. We need God’s work at the very basis of character and not on
the outer edge, at the very beginning, and not simply at the end.
_Mat. 6:33_—“_seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness;
and all these things shall be added unto you._”

(_d_) It is a change in the moral relations of the soul.

_Eph. 2:5_—“_when we were dead through our trespasses, made us
alive together with Christ_”; _4:23, 24_—“_that ye be renewed in
the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, that after God
hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth_”; _Col.
1:13_—“_who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and
translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love._” William
James, Varieties of Religious Experience, 508, finds the features
belonging to all religions: 1. an uneasiness; and 2. its solution.
1. The uneasiness, reduced to its simplest terms, is a sense that
there is _something wrong about us_, as we naturally stand. 2. The
solution is a sense that we are saved _from the wrongness_ by
making proper connection with the higher powers.

(e) It is a change wrought in connection with the use of truth as a means.

_James 1:18_—“_Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of
truth_”—here in connection with the special agency of God (not of
mere natural law) the truth is spoken of as a means; _1 Pet.
1:23_—“_having been begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but
of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and
abideth_”; _2 Pet. 1:4_—“_his precious and exceeding great
promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine
nature_”; _cf._ _Jer. 23:29_—“_Is not my word like fire? saith
Jehovah; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?_”
_John 15:3_—“_Already ye are clean because of the word which I
have spoken unto you_”; _Eph. 6:17_—“_the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God_”; _Heb. 4:12_—“_For the word of God is
living, and active, and sharper than any two‐edged sword, and
piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints
and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the
heart_”; _1 Pet. 2:9_—“_called you out of darkness into his
marvellous light._” An advertising sign reads: “For spaces and
ideas, apply to Johnson and Smith.” In regeneration, we need both
the open mind and the truth to instruct it, and we may apply to
God for both.

(_f_) It is a change instantaneous, secretly wrought, and known only in
its results.

_John 5:24_—“_He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent
me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath
passed out of death into life_”; _cf._ _Mat. 6:24_—“_No man can
serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the
other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other._” _John
3:8_—“_The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest the voice
thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:
so is every one that is born of the Spirit_”; _cf._ _Phil. 2:12,
13_—“_work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it
is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
pleasure_”; _2 Pet. 1:10_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more
diligence to make your calling and election sure._”

(_g_) It is a change wrought by God.

_John 1:13_—“_who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God_”; _3:5_—“_Except one be
born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God_”; _3:8_, marg.—“_The Spirit breatheth where it will_”; _Eph.
1:19, 20_—“_the exceeding greatness of his power to us‐ward who
believe, according to that working of the strength of his might
which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and
made him to sit at his right hand in the heavenly places_”;
_2:10_—“_For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for
good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in
them_”; _1 Pet. 1:3_—“_Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto
a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead_”;
_cf._ _1 Cor. 3:6, 7_—“_I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave
the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything,
neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase._”

We have seen that we are “_begotten again ... through the word_”
(_1 Pet. 1:23_). In the revealed truth with regard to the person
and work of Christ there is a divine adaptation to the work of
renewing our hearts. But truth in itself is powerless to
regenerate and sanctify, unless the Holy Spirit uses it—“_the
sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God_” (_Eph. 6:17_).
Hence regeneration is ascribed preëminently to the Holy Spirit,
and men are said to be “_born of the Spirit_” (_John 3:8_). When
Robert Morrison started for China, an incredulous American said to
him: “Mr. Morrison, do you think you can make any impression on
the Chinese?” “No,” was the reply; “but I think the Lord can.”

(_h_) It is a change accomplished through the union of the soul with
Christ.

_Rom. 8:2_—“_For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
made me free from the law of sin and death_”; _2 Cor. 5:17_—“_if
any man is in Christ, he is a new creature_” (marg.—“_there is a
new creation_”); _Gal. 1:15, 16_—“_it was the good pleasure of God
... to reveal his Son in me_”; _Eph. 2:10_—“_For we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works._” On the
Scriptural representations, see E. D. Griffin, Divine Efficiency,
117‐164; H. B. Smith, System of Theology, 553‐569—“Regeneration
involves union with Christ, and not a change of heart without
relation to him.”

_Eph. 3:14, 15_—“_the Father, from whom every fatherhood in heaven
and on earth is named._” But even here God works through Christ,
and Christ himself is called “_Everlasting Father_” (_Is. 9:6_).
The real basis of our sonship and unity is in Christ, our Creator,
and Upholder. Sin is repudiation of this filial relationship.
Regeneration by the Spirit restores our sonship by joining us once
more, ethically and spiritually, to Christ the Son, and so
adopting us again into God’s family. Hence the Holy Spirit does
not reveal himself, but Christ. The Spirit is light, and light
does not reveal itself, but all other things. I may know that the
Holy Spirit is working within me whenever I more clearly perceive
Christ. Sonship in Christ makes us not only individually children
of God, but also members of a commonwealth. _Ps. 87:4_—“_Yea, of
Zion it shall be said, This one and that one was born in her_” =
“the most glorious thing to be said about them is not something
pertaining to their separate history, but that they have become
members, by adoption, of the city of God” (Perowne). The Psalm
speaks of the adoption of nations, but it is equally true of
individuals.

2. Necessity of Regeneration.

That all men without exception need to be changed in moral character, is
manifest, not only from Scripture passages already cited, but from the
following rational considerations:

(_a_) Holiness, or conformity to the fundamental moral attribute of God,
is the indispensable condition of securing the divine favor, of attaining
peace of conscience, and of preparing the soul for the associations and
employments of the blest.

Phillips Brooks seems to have taught that regeneration is merely a
natural forward step in man’s development. See his Life,
2:353—“The entrance into this deeper consciousness of sonship to
God and into the motive power which it exercises is Regeneration,
the new birth, not merely with reference to time, but with
reference also to profoundness. Because man has something sinful
to cast away in order to enter this higher life, therefore
regeneration must begin with repentance. But that is an incident.
It is not essential to the idea. A man simply imperfect and not
sinful would still have to be born again. The presentation of sin
as guilt, of release as forgiveness, of consequence as punishment,
have their true meaning as the most personal expressions of man’s
moral condition as always measured by, and man’s moral changes as
always dependent upon, God.” Here imperfection seems to mean
depraved condition as distinguished from conscious transgression;
it is not regarded as sinful; it needs not to be repented of. Yet
it does require regeneration. In Phillips Brooks’s creed there is
no article devoted to sin. Baptism he calls “the declaration of
the universal fact of the sonship of man to God. The Lord’s Supper
is the declaration of the universal fact of man’s dependence upon
God for supply of life. It is associated with the death of Jesus,
because in that the truth of God giving himself to man found its
completest manifestation.”

Others seem to teach regeneration by education. Here too there is
no recognition of inborn sin or guilt. Man’s imperfection of
nature is innocent. He needs training in order to fit him for
association with higher intelligences and with God. In the
evolution of his powers there comes a natural crisis, like that of
graduation of the scholar, and this crisis may be called
conversion. This educational theory of regeneration is represented
by Starbuck, Psychology of Religion, and by Coe, The Spiritual
Life. What human nature needs however is not evolution, but
involution and revolution—involution, the communication of a new
life, and revolution, change of direction resulting from that
life. Human nature, as we have seen in our treatment of sin, is
not a green apple to be perfected by mere growth, but an apple
with a worm at the core, which left to itself will surely rot and
perish.

President G. Stanley Hall, in his essay on The Religious
Affirmations of Psychology, says that the total depravity of man
is an ascertained fact apart from the teachings of the Bible.
There had come into his hands for inspection several thousands of
letters written to a medical man who advertised that he would give
confidential advice and treatment to all, secretly. On the
strength of these letters Dr. Hall was prepared to say that John
Calvin had not told the half of what is true. He declared that the
necessity of regeneration in order to the development of character
was clearly established from psychological investigation.

A. H. Strong, Cleveland Sermon, 1904—“Here is the danger of some
modern theories of Christian education. They give us statistics,
to show that the age of puberty is the age of strongest religious
impressions; and the inference is drawn that conversion is nothing
but a natural phenomenon, a regular stage of development. The free
will, and the evil bent of that will, are forgotten, and the
absolute dependence of perverse human nature upon the regenerating
spirit of God. The age of puberty is the age of the strongest
religious impressions? Yes, but it is also the age of the
strongest artistic and social and sensuous impressions, and only a
new birth from above can lead the soul to seek first the kingdom
of God.”

(_b_) The condition of universal humanity as by nature depraved, and, when
arrived at moral consciousness, as guilty of actual transgression, is
precisely the opposite of that holiness without which the soul cannot
exist in normal relation to God, to self, or to holy beings.

Plutarch has a parable of a man who tried to make a dead body
stand upright, but who finished his labors saying: “Deest aliquid
intus”—“There’s something lacking inside.” Ribot, Diseases of the
Will, 53—“In the vicious man the moral elements are lacking. If
the idea of amendment arises, it is involuntary.... But if a first
element is not given by nature, and with it a potential energy,
nothing results. The theological dogma of grace as a free gift
appears to us therefore founded upon a much more exact psychology
than the contrary opinion.” “Thou art chained to the wheel of the
foe By links which a world cannot sever: With thy tyrant through
storm and through calm thou shall go, And thy sentence is bondage
forever.”

Martensen, Christian Ethics: “When Kant treats of the radical evil
of human nature, he makes the remarkable statement that, if a good
will is to appear in us, this cannot happen through a partial
improvement, nor through any reform, but only through a
revolution, a total overturn within us, that is to be compared to
a new creation.” Those who hold that man may attain perfection by
mere natural growth deny this radical evil of human nature, and
assume that our nature is a good seed which needs only favorable
external influences of moisture and sunshine to bring forth good
fruit. But human nature is a damaged seed, and what comes of it
will be aborted and stunted like itself. The doctrine of mere
development denies God’s holiness, man’s sin, the need of Christ,
the necessity of atonement, the work of the Holy Spirit, the
justice of penalty. Kant’s doctrine of the radical evil of human
nature, like Aristotle’s doctrine that man is born on an inclined
plane and subject to a downward gravitation, is not matched by a
corresponding doctrine of regeneration. Only the apostle Paul can
tell us how we came to be in this dreadful predicament, and where
is the power that can deliver us; see Stearns, Evidence of
Christian Experience, 274.

Dean Swift’s worthy sought many years for a method of extracting
sunbeams from cucumbers. We cannot cure the barren tree by giving
it new bark or new branches,—it must have new sap. Healing
snakebites is not killing the snake. Poetry and music, the
uplifting power of culture, the inherent nobility of man, the
general mercy of God—no one of these will save the soul. Horace
Bushnell: “The soul of all improvement is the improvement of the
soul.” Frost cannot be removed from a window pane simply by
scratching it away,—you must raise the temperature of the room. It
is as impossible to get regeneration out of reformation as to get
a harvest out of a field by mere plowing. Reformation is plucking
bitter apples from a tree, and in their place tying good apples on
with a string (Dr. Pentecost). It is regeneration or
degradation—the beginning of an upward movement by a power not
man’s own, or the continuance and increase of a downward movement
that can end only in ruin.

Kidd, Social Evolution, shows that in humanity itself there
resides no power of progress. The ocean steamship that has burned
its last pound of coal may proceed on its course by virtue of its
momentum, but it is only a question of the clock how soon it will
cease to move, except as tossed about by the wind and the waves.
Not only is there power lacking for the good, but apart from God’s
grace the evil tendencies constantly became more aggravated. The
settled states of the affections and will practically dominate the
life. Charles H. Spurgeon: “If a thief should get into heaven
unchanged, he would begin by picking the angels’ pockets.” The
land is full of examples of the descent of man, not _from_ the
brute, but _to_ the brute. The tares are not degenerate wheat,
which by cultivation will become good wheat,—they are not only
useless but noxious, and they must be rooted out and burned.
“Society never will be better than the individuals who compose it.
A sound ship can never be made of rotten timber. Individual
reformation must precede social reconstruction.” Socialism will
always be a failure until it becomes Christian. We must be born
from above, as truly as we have been begotten by our fathers upon
earth, or we cannot see the kingdom of God.

(_c_) A radical internal change is therefore requisite in every human
soul—a change in that which constitutes its character. Holiness cannot be
attained, as the pantheist claims, by a merely natural growth or
development, since man’s natural tendencies are wholly in the direction of
selfishness. There must be a reversal of his inmost dispositions and
principles of action, if he is to see the kingdom of God.

Men’s good deeds and reformation may be illustrated by eddies in a
stream whose general current is downward; by walking westward in a
railway‐car while the train is going east; by Capt. Parry’s
traveling north, while the ice‐floe on which he walked was moving
southward at a rate much more rapid than his walking. It is
possible to be “_ever learning, and never able to come to the
knowledge of the truth_” (_2 Tim. 3:7_). Better never have been
born, than not be born again. But the necessity of regeneration
implies its possibility: _John 3:7_—“_Ye must be born anew_” = ye
may be born anew,—the text is not merely a warning and a
command,—it is also a promise. Every sinner has the chance of
making a new start and of beginning a new life.

J. D. Robertson, The Holy Spirit and Christian Service,
57—“Emerson says that the gate of gifts closes at birth. After a
man emerges from his mother’s womb he can have no new endowments,
no fresh increments of strength and wisdom, joy and grace within.
The only grace is the grace of creation. But this view is deistic
and not Christian.” Emerson’s saying is true of natural gifts, but
not of spiritual gifts. He forgot Pentecost. He forgot the all‐
encompassing atmosphere of the divine personality and love, and
its readiness to enter in at every chink and crevice of our
voluntary being. The longing men have to turn over a new leaf in
life’s book, to break with the past, to assert their better
selves, is a preliminary impulse of God’s Spirit and an evidence
of prevenient grace preparing the way for regeneration. Thus
interpreted and yielded to, these impulses warrant unbounded hope
for the future. “No star is ever lost we once have seen; We always
may be what we might have been; The hopes that lost in some far
distance seem May be the truer life, and this the dream.”

The greatest minds feel, at least at times, their need of help
from above. Although Cicero uses the term “regeneration” to
signify what we should call naturalization, yet he recognizes
man’s dependence upon God: “Nemo vir magnus, sine aliquo divino
afflatu, unquam fuit.” Seneca: “Bonus vir sine illo nemo est.”
Aristotle: “Wickedness perverts the judgment and makes men err
with respect to practical principles, so that no man can be wise
and judicious who is not good.” Goethe: “Who ne’er his bread in
sorrow ate, Who ne’er the mournful midnight hours Weeping upon his
bed has sate, He knows you not, ye heavenly Powers.” Shakespeare,
King Lear: “Is there a reason in nature for these hard hearts?”
Robert Browning, in Halbert and Hob, replies: “O Lear, That a
reason out of nature must turn them soft, seems clear.”

John Stuart Mill (see Autobiography, 132‐142) knew that the
feeling of interest in others’ welfare would make him happy,—but
the knowledge of this fact did not give him the feeling. The
“enthusiasm of humanity”—unselfish love, of which we read in “Ecce
Homo”—is easy to talk about; but how to produce it,—that is the
question. Drummond, Natural Law in the Spiritual World,
61‐94—“There is no abiogenesis in the spiritual, more than in the
natural, world. Can the stone grow more and more living until it
enters the organic world? No, Christianity is a new life,—it is
Christ in you.” As natural life comes to us mediately, through
Adam, so spiritual life comes to us mediately, through Christ. See
Bushnell, Nature and the Supernatural, 220‐249; Anderson,
Regeneration, 51‐88; Bennet Tyler, Memoir and Lectures, 340‐354.

3. The Efficient Cause of Regeneration.

Three views only need be considered,—all others are modifications of
these. The first view puts the efficient cause of regeneration in the
human will; the second, in the truth considered as a system of motives;
the third, in the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit.

John Stuart Mill regarded cause as embracing all the antecedents
to an event. Hazard, Man a Creative First Cause, 12‐15, shows
that, as at any given instant the whole past is everywhere the
same, the effects must, upon this view, at each instant be
everywhere one and the same. “The theory that, of every successive
event, the real cause is the whole of the antecedents, does not
distinguish between the passive conditions acted upon and changed,
and the active agencies which act upon and change them; does not
distinguish what _produces_, from what merely _precedes_, change.”

We prefer the definition given by Porter, Human Intellect,
592—Cause is “the most conspicuous and prominent of the agencies,
or conditions, that produce a result”; or that of Dr. Mark
Hopkins: “Any exertion or manifestation of energy that produces a
change is a cause, and nothing else is. We must distinguish cause
from occasion, or material. Cause is not to be defined as
‘everything without which the effect could not be realized.’ ”
Better still, perhaps, may we say, that efficient cause is the
competent producing power by which the effect is secured. James
Martineau, Types, 1: preface, xiii—“A cause is that which
determines the indeterminate.” Not the light, but the
photographer, is the cause of the picture; light is but the
photographer’s servant. So the “_word of God_” is the “_sword of
the Spirit_” (_Eph. 6:17_); the Spirit uses the word as his
instrument; but the Spirit himself is the cause of regeneration.

A. The human will, as the efficient cause of regeneration.

This view takes two forms, according as the will is regarded as acting
apart from, or in conjunction with, special influences of the truth
applied by God. Pelagians hold the former; Arminians the latter.

(_a_) To the Pelagian view, that regeneration is solely the act of man,
and is identical with self‐reformation, we object that the sinner’s
depravity, since it consists in a fixed state of the affections which
determines the settled character of the volitions, amounts to a moral
inability. Without a renewal of the affections from which all moral action
springs, man will not choose holiness nor accept salvation.

Man’s volitions are practically the shadow of his affections. It
is as useless to think of a man’s volitions separating themselves
from his affections, and drawing him towards God, as it is to
think of a man’s shadow separating itself from him, and leading
him in the opposite direction to that in which he is going. Man’s
affections, to use Calvin’s words, are like horses that have
thrown off the charioteer and are running wildly,—they need a new
hand to direct them. In disease, we must be helped by a physician.
We do not stop a locomotive engine by applying force to the
wheels, but by reversing the lever. So the change in man must be,
not in the transient volitions, but in the deeper springs of
action—the fundamental bent of the affections and will. See
Henslow, Evolution, 134. Shakespeare, All’s Well that Ends Well,
2:1:149—“It is not so with Him that all things knows, As ’tis with
us that square our guess with shows; But most it is presumption in
us when The help of heaven we count the act of men.”

Henry Clay said that he did not know for himself personally what
the change of heart spoken of by Christians meant; but he had seen
Kentucky family feuds of long standing healed by religious
revivals, and that whatever could heal a Kentucky family feud was
more than human.—Mr. Peter Harvey was a lifelong friend of Daniel
Webster. He wrote a most interesting volume of reminiscenses of
the great man. He tells how one John Colby married the oldest
sister of Mr. Webster. Said Mr. Webster of John Colby: “Finally he
went up to Andover, New Hampshire, and bought a farm, and the only
recollection I have about him is that he was called the wickedest
man in the neighborhood, so far as swearing and impiety went. I
used to wonder how my sister could marry so profane a man as John
Colby.” Years afterwards news comes to Mr. Webster that a
wonderful change has passed upon John Colby. Mr. Harvey and Mr.
Webster take a journey together to visit John Colby. As Mr.
Webster enters John Colby’s house, he sees open before him a
large‐print Bible, which he has just been reading. When greetings
have been interchanged, the first question John Colby asks of Mr.
Webster is, “Are you a Christian?” And then, at John Colby’s
suggestion, the two men kneel and pray together. When the visit is
done, this is what Mr. Webster says to Mr. Harvey as they ride
away: “I should like to know what the enemies of religion would
say to John Colby’s conversion. There was a man as unlikely,
humanly speaking, to become a Christian as any man I ever saw. He
was reckless, heedless, impious, never attended church, never
experienced the good influence of associating with religious
people. And here he has been living on in that reckless way until
he has got to be an old man, until a period of life when you
naturally would not expect his habits to change. And yet he has
been brought into the condition in which we have seen him to‐
day,—a penitent, trusting, humble believer.” “Whatever people may
say,” added Mr. Webster, “nothing can convince me that anything
short of the grace of Almighty God could make such a change as I,
with my own eyes, have witnessed in the life of John Colby.” When
they got back to Franklin, New Hampshire, in the evening, they met
another lifelong friend of Mr. Webster’s, John Taylor, standing at
his door. Mr. Webster called out: “Well, John Taylor, miracles
happen in these latter days as well as in the days of old.” “What
now, Squire?” asked John Taylor. “Why,” replied Mr. Webster, “John
Colby has become a Christian. If that is not a miracle, what is?”

(_b_) To the Arminian view, that regeneration is the act of man,
coöperating with divine influences applied through the truth (synergistic
theory), we object that no beginning of holiness is in this way
conceivable. For, so long as man’s selfish and perverse affections are
unchanged, no choosing God is possible but such as proceeds from supreme
desire for one’s own interest and happiness. But the man thus supremely
bent on self‐gratification cannot see in God, or his service, anything
productive of happiness; or, if he could see in them anything of
advantage, his choice of God and his service from such a motive would not
be a holy choice, and therefore could not be a beginning of holiness.

Although Melanchthon (1497‐1560) preceded Arminius (1560‐1609),
his view was substantially the same with that of the Dutch
theologian. Melanchthon never experienced the throes and travails
of a new spiritual life, as Luther did. His external and internal
development was peculiarly placid and serene. This Præceptor
Germaniæ had the modesty of the genuine scholar. He was not a
dogmatist, and he never entered the ranks of the ministry. He
never could be persuaded to accept the degree of Doctor of
Theology, though he lectured on theological subjects to audiences
of thousands. Dorner says of Melanchthon: “He held at first that
the Spirit of God is the primary, and the word of God the
secondary, or instrumental, agency in conversion, while the human
will allows their action and freely yields to it.” Later, he held
that “conversion is the result of the combined action
(_copulatio_) of three causes, the truth of God, the Holy Spirit,
and the will of man.” This synergistic view in his last years
involved the theologian of the German Reformation in serious
trouble. Luthardt: “He made a _facultas_ out of a mere
_capacitas_.” Dorner says again: “Man’s causality is not to be
coördinated with that of God, however small the influence ascribed
to it. It is a purely _receptive_, not a productive, agency. The
opposite is the fundamental Romanist error.” Self‐love will never
induce a man to give up self‐love. Selfishness will not throttle
and cast out selfishness. “Such a choice from a selfish motive
would be unholy, when judged by God’s standard. It is absurd to
make salvation depend upon the exercises of a wholly unspiritual
power”; see Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:716‐720 (Syst. Doct.,
4:179‐183). Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:505—“Sin does not first stop,
and then holiness come in place of sin; but holiness positively
expels sin. Darkness does not first cease, and then light enter;
but light drives out darkness.” On the Arminian view, see Bib.
Sac., 19:265, 266.

John Wesley’s theology was a modified Arminianism, yet it was John
Wesley who did most to establish the doctrine of regeneration. He
asserted that the Holy Spirit acts through the truth, in
distinction from the doctrine that the Holy Spirit works solely
through the ministers and sacraments of the church. But in
asserting the work of the Holy Spirit in the individual soul, he
went too far to the opposite extreme of emphasizing the ability of
man to choose God’s service, when without love to God there was
nothing in God’s service to attract. A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith:
“It is as if Jesus had said: If a sailor will properly set his
rudder the wind will fill his sails. The will is the rudder of the
character; if it is turned in the right direction, all the winds
of heaven will favor; if it is turned in the wrong direction, they
will oppose.” The question returns: What shall move the man to set
his rudder aright, if he has no desire to reach the proper haven?
Here is the need of divine power, not merely to coöperate with
man, after man’s will is set in the right direction, but to set it
in the right direction in the first place. _Phil. 2:13_—“_it is
God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
pleasure._”

Still another modification of Arminian doctrine is found in the
Revealed Theology of N. W. Taylor of New Haven, who maintained
that, antecedently to regeneration, the _selfish_ principle is
suspended in the sinner’s heart, and that then, prompted by _self‐
love_, he uses the means of regeneration from motives that are
neither sinful nor holy. He held that all men, saints and sinners,
have their own happiness for their ultimate end. Regeneration
involves no change in this principle or motive, but only a change
in the governing purpose to seek this happiness in God rather than
in the world. Dr. Taylor said that man could turn to God, whatever
the Spirit did or did not do. He could turn to God if he would;
but he could also turn to God if he wouldn’t. In other words, he
maintained the power of contrary choice, while yet affirming the
certainty that, without the Holy Spirit’s influences, man would
always choose wrongly. These doctrines caused a division in the
Congregational body. Those who opposed Taylor withdrew their
support from New Haven, and founded the East Windsor Seminary in
1834. For Taylor’s view, see N. W. Taylor, Revealed Theology,
369‐406, and in The Christian Spectator for 1829.

The chief opponent of Dr. Taylor was Dr. Bennet Tyler. He replied
to Dr. Taylor that moral character has its seat, not in the
purpose, but in the affections back of the purpose. Otherwise
every Christian must be in a state of sinless perfection, for his
governing purpose is to serve God. But we know that there are
affections and desires not under control of this
purpose—dispositions not in conformity with the predominant
disposition. How, Dr. Tyler asked, can a sinner, completely
selfish, from a selfish motive, resolve not to be selfish, and so
suspend his selfishness? “Antecedently to regeneration, there can
be no suspension of the selfish principle. It is said that, in
suspending it, the sinner is actuated by self‐love. But is it
possible that the sinner, while destitute of love to God and every
particle of genuine benevolence, should love himself at all and
not love himself supremely? He loves nothing more than self. He
does not regard God or the universe, except as they tend to
promote his ultimate end, his own happiness. No sinner ever
suspended this selfishness until subdued by divine grace. We can
not become regenerate by preferring God to the world merely from
regard to our own interest. There is no necessity of the Holy
Spirit to renew the heart, if self‐love prompts men to turn from
the world to God. On the view thus combated, depravity consists
simply in ignorance. All men need is enlightenment as to the best
means of securing their own happiness. Regeneration by the Holy
Spirit is, therefore, not necessary.” See Bennet Tyler, Memoir and
Lectures, 316‐381, esp. 334, 370, 371; Letters on the New Haven
Theology, 21‐72, 143‐163; review of Taylor and Fitch, by E. D.
Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 13‐54; Martineau, Study, 2:9—“By
making it a man’s interest to be disinterested, do you cause him
to forget himself and put any love into his heart? or do you only
break him in and cause him to turn this way and that by the bit
and lash of a driving necessity?” The sinner, apart from the grace
of God, cannot see the truth. Wilberforce took Pitt to hear Cecil
preach, but Pitt declared that he did not understand a word that
Cecil said. Apart from the grace of God, the sinner, even when
made to see the truth, resists it the more, the more clearly he
sees it. Then the Holy Spirit overcomes his opposition and makes
him willing in the day of God’s power (_Psalm 110:3_).

B. The truth, as the efficient cause of regeneration.

According to this view, the truth as a system of motives is the direct and
immediate cause of the change from unholiness to holiness. This view is
objectionable for two reasons:

(_a_) It erroneously regards motives as wholly external to the mind that
is influenced by them. This is to conceive of them as mechanically
constraining the will, and is indistinguishable from necessitarianism. On
the contrary, motives are compounded of external presentations and
internal dispositions. It is the soul’s affections which render certain
suggestions attractive and others repugnant to us. In brief, the heart
makes the motive.

(_b_) Only as truth is loved, therefore, can it be a motive to holiness.
But we have seen that the aversion of the sinner to God is such that the
truth is hated instead of loved, and a thing that is hated, is hated more
intensely, the more distinctly it is seen. Hence no mere power of the
truth can be regarded as the efficient cause of regeneration. The contrary
view implies that it is not the truth which the sinner hates, but rather
some element of error which is mingled with it.

Lyman Beecher and Charles G. Finney held this view. The influence
of the Holy Spirit differs from that of the preacher only in
degree,—both use only moral suasion; both do nothing more than to
present the truth; both work upon the soul from without. “Were I
as eloquent as the Holy Ghost, I could convert sinners as well as
he,” said a popular preacher of this school (see Bennet Tyler,
Letters on New Haven Theology, 164‐171). On this view, it would be
absurd to pray to God to regenerate, for that is more than he can
do,—regeneration is simply the effect of truth.

Miley, in Meth. Quar., July, 1881:434‐462, holds that “the will
cannot rationally act without motive, but that it has always power
to suspend action, or defer it, for the purpose of rational
examination of the motive or end, and to consider the opposite
motive or end. Putting the old end or motive out of view will
temporarily break its power, and the new truth considered will
furnish motive for right action. Thus, by using our faculty of
suspending choice, and of fixing attention, we can realize the
permanent eligibility of the good and choose it against the evil.
This is, however, not the realization of a new spiritual life in
regeneration, but the election of its attainment. Power to do this
suspending is of grace [grace, however, given equally to all].
Without this power, life would be a spontaneous and irresponsible
development of evil.”

The view of Miley, thus substantially given, resembles that of Dr.
Taylor, upon which we have already commented; but, unlike that, it
makes truth itself, apart from the affections, a determining
agency in the change from sin to holiness. Our one reply is that,
without a change in the affections, the truth can neither be known
nor obeyed. Seeing cannot be the means of being born again, for
one must first be born again in order to see the kingdom of God
(_John 3:3_). The mind will not choose God, until God appears to
be the greatest good.

Edwards, quoted by Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 64—“Let the sinner
apply his rational powers to the contemplation of divine things,
and let his belief be speculatively correct; still he is in such a
state that those objects of contemplation will excite in him no
holy affections.” The Scriptures declare (_Rom. 8:7_) that “_the
mind of the flesh is enmity_”—not against some error or mistaken
notion of God—but “_is enmity against God_.” It is God’s holiness,
mandatory and punitive, that is hated. A clearer view of that
holiness will only increase the hatred. A woman’s hatred of
spiders will never be changed to love by bringing them close to
her. Magnifying them with a compound oxy‐hydrogen microscope will
not help the matter. Tyler: “All the light of the last day will
not subdue the sinner’s heart.” The mere presence of God, and
seeing God face to face, will be hell to him, if his hatred be not
first changed to love. See E. D. Griffin, Divine Efficiency,
105‐116, 203‐221; and review of Griffin, by S. R. Mason, Truth
Unfolded, 383‐407.

Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 239—“Christianity puts
three motives before men: love, self‐love, and fear.” True, but
the last two are only preliminary motives, not essentially
Christian. The soul that is moved only by self‐love or by fear has
not yet entered into the Christian life at all. And any attention
to the truth of God which originates in these motives has no
absolute moral value, and cannot be regarded as even a beginning
of salvation. Nothing but holiness and love are entitled to be
called Christianity, and these the truth of itself cannot summon
up. The Spirit of God must go with the truth to impart right
desires and to make the truth effective. E. G. Robinson: “The
glory of our salvation can no more be attributed to the word of
God only, than the glory of a Praxiteles or a Canova can be
ascribed to the chisel or the mallet with which he wrought into
beauty his immortal creations.”

C. The immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, as the efficient cause of
regeneration.

In ascribing to the Holy Spirit the authorship of regeneration, we do not
affirm that the divine Spirit accomplishes his work without any
accompanying instrumentality. We simply assert that the power which
regenerates is the power of God, and that although conjoined with the use
of means, there is a direct operation of this power upon the sinner’s
heart which changes its moral character. We add two remarks by way of
further explanation:

(_a_) The Scriptural assertions of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and
of his mighty power in the soul forbid us to regard the divine Spirit in
regeneration as coming in contact, not with the soul, but only with the
truth. The phrases, “to energize the truth,” “to intensify the truth,” “to
illuminate the truth,” have no proper meaning; since even God cannot make
the truth more true. If any change is wrought, it must be wrought, not in
the truth, but in the soul.

The maxim, “Truth is mighty and will prevail,” is very untrue, if
God be left out of the account. Truth without God is an
abstraction, and not a power. It is a mere instrument, useless
without an agent. “_The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of
God_” (_Eph. 6:17_), must be wielded by the Holy Spirit himself.
And the Holy Spirit comes in contact, not simply with the
instrument, but with the soul. To all moral, and especially to all
religious truth, there is an inward unsusceptibility, arising from
the perversity of the affections and the will. This blindness and
hardness of heart must be removed, before the soul can perceive or
be moved by the truth. Hence the Spirit must deal directly with
the soul. Denovan: “Our natural hearts are hearts of stone. The
word of God is good seed sown on the hard, trodden, macadamized
highway, which the horses of passion, the asses of self‐will, the
wagons of imaginary treasure, have made impenetrable. Only the
Holy Spirit can soften and pulverize this soil.”

The Psalmist prays: “_Incline my heart unto thy testimonies_”
(_Ps. 119:36_), while of Lydia it is said: “_whose heart the Lord
opened to give heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul_”
(_Acts 16:14_). We may say of the Holy Spirit: “He freezes and
then melts the soil, He breaks the hard, cold stone, Kills out the
rooted weeds so vile,—All this he does alone; And every virtue we
possess, And every victory won, And every thought of holiness, Are
his, and his alone.” Hence, in _Ps. 90:16, 17_, the Psalmist says,
first: “_Let thy work appear unto thy servants_”; then “_establish
thou the work of our hands upon us_”—God’s work is first to
appear,—then man’s work, which is God’s work carried out by human
instruments. At Jericho, the force was not applied to the rams’
horns, but to the walls. When Jesus healed the blind man, his
power was applied, not to the spittle, but to the eyes. The
impression is prepared, not by heating the seal, but by softening
the wax. So God’s power acts, not upon the truth, but upon the
sinner.

_Ps. 59:10_—“_My God with his lovingkindness will meet me_”; A.
V.—“_The God of my mercy shall prevent me_,” _i. e._, go before
me. Augustine urges this text as proof that the grace of God
precedes all merit of man: “What didst thou find in me but only
sins? Before I do anything good, his mercy will go before me. What
will unhappy Pelagius answer here?” Calvin however says this may
be a pious, but it is not a fair, use of the passage. The passage
does teach dependence upon God; but God’s anticipation of our
action, or in other words, the doctrine of prevenient grace, must
be derived from other portions of Scripture, such as _John 1:13_,
and _Eph. 2:10_. “The enthusiasm of humanity” to which J. R.
Seeley, the author of Ecce Homo, exhorts us, is doubtless the
secret of happiness and usefulness,—unfortunately he does not tell
us whence it may come. John Stuart Mill felt the need of it, but
he did not get it. Arthur Hugh Clough, Clergyman’s First Tale:
“Would I could wish my wishes all to rest, And know to wish the
wish that were the best.” Bradford, Heredity, 228—“God is the
environment of the soul, yet man has free will. Light fills the
spaces, yet a man from ignorance may remain in a cave, or from
choice may dwell in darkness.” Man needs therefore a divine
influence which will beget in him a disposition to use his
opportunities aright.

We may illustrate the philosophy of revivals by the canal boat
which lies before the gate of a lock. No power on earth can open
the lock. But soon the lock begins to fill, and when the water has
reached the proper level, the gate can be opened almost at a
touch. Or, a steamer runs into a sandbar. Tugs fail to pull the
vessel off. Her own engines cannot accomplish it. But when the
tide comes in, she swings free without effort. So what we need in
religion is an influx of spiritual influence which will make easy
what before is difficult if not impossible. The Superintendent of
a New York State Prison tells us that the common schools furnish
83 per cent., and the colleges and academies over 4 per cent., of
the inmates of Auburn and Sing Sing. Truth without the Holy Spirit
to apply it is like sunshine without the actinic ray which alone
can give it vitalizing energy.

(_b_) Even if truth could be energized, intensified, illuminated, there
would still be needed a change in the moral disposition, before the soul
could recognize its beauty or be affected by it. No mere increase of light
can enable a blind man to see; the disease of the eye must first be cured
before external objects are visible. So God’s work in regeneration must be
performed within the soul itself. Over and above all influence of the
truth, there must be a direct influence of the Holy Spirit upon the heart.
Although wrought in conjunction with the presentation of truth to the
intellect, regeneration differs from moral suasion in being an immediate
act of God.

Before regeneration, man’s knowledge of God is the blind man’s
knowledge of color. The Scriptures call such knowledge
“_ignorance_” (_Eph. 4:18_). The heart does not appreciate God’s
mercy. Regeneration gives an experimental or heart knowledge; see
Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:495. _Is. 50:4_—God “_wakeneth mine ear to
hear_.” It is false to say that soul can come in contact with soul
only through the influence of truth. In the intercourse of dear
friends, or in the discourse of the orator, there is a personal
influence, distinct from the word spoken, which persuades the
heart and conquers the will. We sometimes call it “magnetism,”—but
we mean simply that soul reaches soul, in ways apart from the use
of physical intermediaries. Compare the facts, imperfectly known
as yet, of second sight, mind‐reading, clairvoyance. But whether
these be accepted or not, it still is true that God has not made
the human soul so that it is inaccessible to himself. The
omnipresent Spirit penetrates and pervades all spirits that have
been made by him. See Lotze, Outlines of Psychology (Ladd), 142,
143.

In the primary change of disposition, which is the most essential
feature of regeneration, the Spirit of God acts directly upon the
spirit of man. In the securing of the initial exercise of this new
disposition—which constitutes the secondary feature of God’s work
of regeneration—the truth is used as a means. Hence, perhaps, in
_James 1:18_, we read: “_Of his own will he brought us forth by
the word of truth_” instead of “he begat us by the word of
truth,”—the reference being to the secondary, not to the primary,
feature of regeneration. The advocates of the opposite view—the
view that God works _only_ through the truth as a means, and that
his _only_ influence upon the soul is a moral influence—very
naturally deny the mystical union of the soul with Christ. Squier,
for example, in his Autobiog., 343‐378, esp. 360, on the Spirit’s
influences, quotes _John 16:8_—he “_will convict the world in
respect of sin_”—to show that God regenerates by applying truth to
men’s minds, so far as to convince them, by fair and sufficient
arguments, that they are sinners.

Christ, opening blind eyes and unstopping deaf ears, illustrates
the nature of God’s operation in regeneration,—in the case of the
blind, there is plenty of _light_,—what is wanted is _sight_. The
negro convert said that his conversion was due to himself and God:
he fought against God with all his might, and God did the rest. So
our moral successes are due to ourselves and God,—we have done
only the fighting against God, and God has done the rest. The sand
of Sahara would not bring forth flowers and fruit, even if you
turned into it a hundred rivers like the Nile. Man may hear
sermons for a lifetime, and still be barren of all spiritual
growths. The soil of the heart needs to be changed, and the good
seed of the kingdom needs to be planted there.

For the view that truth is “energized” or “intensified” by the
Holy Spirit, see Phelps, New Birth, 61, 121; Walker, Philosophy of
Plan of Salvation, chap. 18. _Per contra_, see Wardlaw, Syst.
Theol., 3:24, 25; E. D. Griffin, Divine Efficiency, 73‐116;
Anderson, Regeneration, 123‐168; Edwards, Works, 2:547‐597;
Chalmers, Lectures on Romans, chap. 1; Payne, Divine Sovereignty,
lect. 23:363‐367; Hodge, Syst. Theol., 3:3‐37, 466‐485. On the
whole subject of the Efficient Cause of Regeneration, see Hopkins,
Works, 1:454; Dwight, Theology, 2:418‐429; John Owen, Works,
3:282‐297, 366‐538; Robert Hall, Sermon on the Cause, Agent, and
Purpose of Regeneration.

4. The Instrumentality used in Regeneration.

A. The Roman, English and Lutheran churches hold that regeneration is
accomplished through the instrumentality of baptism. The Disciples, or
followers of Alexander Campbell, make regeneration include baptism, as
well as repentance and faith. To the view that baptism is a means of
regeneration we urge the following objections:

(_a_) The Scriptures represent baptism to be not the means but only the
sign of regeneration, and therefore to presuppose and follow regeneration.
For this reason only believers—that is, persons giving credible evidence
of being regenerated—were baptized (Acts 8:12). Not external baptism, but
the conscientious turning of the soul to God which baptism symbolizes,
saves us (1 Pet. 3:21—συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα). Texts like John 3:5,
Acts 2:38, Col. 2:12, Tit. 3:5, are to be explained upon the principle
that regeneration, the inward change, and baptism, the outward sign of
that change, were regarded as only different sides or aspects of the same
fact, and either side or aspect might therefore be described in terms
derived from the other.

(_b_) Upon this view, there is a striking incongruity between the nature
of the change to be wrought and the means employed to produce it. The
change is a spiritual one, but the means are physical. It is far more
rational to suppose that, in changing the character of intelligent beings,
God uses means which have relation to their intelligence. The view we are
considering is part and parcel of a general scheme of mechanical rather
than moral salvation, and is more consistent with a materialistic than
with a spiritual philosophy.

_Acts 8:12_—“_when they believed Philip preaching good tidings
concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were baptized_”; _1 Pet. 3:21_—“_which also after a true likeness
doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the interrogation_ [marg.—‘_inquiry_’,
‘_appeal_’] _of a good conscience toward God_” = the inquiry of
the soul after God, the conscientious turning of the soul to God.

Plumptre, however, makes ἐπερώτημα a forensic term equivalent to
“examination,” and including both question and answer. It means,
then, the open answer of allegiance to Christ, given by the new
convert to the constituted officers of the church. “That which is
of the essence of the saving power of baptism is the confession
and the profession which precede it. If this comes from a
conscience that really renounces sin and believes on Christ, then
baptism, as the channel through which the grace of the new birth
is conveyed and the convert admitted into the church of Christ,
‘saves us,’ but not otherwise.” We may adopt this statement from
Plumptre’s Commentary, with the alteration of the word “conveyed”
into “symbolized” or “manifested.” Plumptre’s interpretation is,
as he seems to admit, in its obvious meaning inconsistent with
infant baptism; to us it seems equally inconsistent with any
doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Scriptural regeneration is God’s (1) changing man’s disposition,
and (2) securing its first exercise. Regeneration, according to
the Disciples, is man’s (1) repentance and faith, and (2)
submission to baptism. Alexander Campbell, Christianity Restored:
“We plead that all the converting power of the Holy Spirit is
exhibited in the divine Record.” Address of Disciples to Ohio
Baptist State Convention, 1871: “With us regeneration includes all
that is comprehended in faith, repentance, and baptism, and so far
as it is expressive of birth, it belongs more properly to the last
of these than to either of the former.” But if baptism be the
instrument of regeneration, it is difficult to see how the
patriarchs, or the penitent thief, could have been regenerated.
_Luke 23:43_—“_This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise._”
Bossuet: “_This day_”—what promptitude! “_With me_”—what
companionship! “_In Paradise_”—what rest! Bersier: “ ‘_This
day_’—what then? no flames of Purgatory? no long period of
mournful expiation? ‘_This day_’—pardon and heaven!”

Baptism is a condition of being outwardly in the kingdom; it is
not a condition of being inwardly in the kingdom. The confounding
of these two led many in the early church to dread dying
unbaptized, rather than dying unsaved. Even Pascal, in later
times, held that participation in outward ceremonies might lead to
real conversion. He probably meant that an initial act of holy
will would tend to draw others in its train. Similarly we urge
unconverted people to take some step that will manifest religious
interest. We hope that in taking this step a new decision of the
will, inwrought by the Spirit of God, may reveal itself. But a
religion which consists only in such outward performances is
justly denominated a cutaneous religion, for it is only skin‐deep.
On _John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God_”; _Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye,
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto
the remission of your sins_”; _Col. 2:12_—“_buried with him in
baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith_”;
_Tit. 3:5_—“_saved us, through the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Spirit_”—see further discussion and
exposition in our chapter on the Ordinances. Adkins, Disciples and
Baptists, a booklet published by the Am. Bap. Pub. Society, is the
best statement of the Baptist position, as distinguished from that
of the Disciples. It claims that Disciples overrate the externals
of Christianity and underrate the work of the Holy Spirit. _Per
contra_, see Gates, Disciples and Baptists.

B. The Scriptural view is that regeneration, so far as it secures an
activity of man, is accomplished through the instrumentality of the truth.
Although the Holy Spirit does not in any way illuminate the truth, he does
illuminate the mind, so that it can perceive the truth. In conjunction
with the change of man’s inner disposition, there is an appeal to man’s
rational nature through the truth. Two inferences may be drawn:

(_a_) Man is not wholly passive at the time of his regeneration. He is
passive only with respect to the change of his ruling disposition. With
respect to the exercise of this disposition, he is active. Although the
efficient power which secures this exercise of the new disposition is the
power of God, yet man is not therefore unconscious, nor is he a mere
machine worked by God’s fingers. On the other hand, his whole moral nature
under God’s working is alive and active. We reject the “exercise‐system,”
which regards God as the direct author of all man’s thoughts, feelings,
and volitions, not only in its general tenor, but in its special
application to regeneration.

Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:503—“A dead man cannot assist in his own
resurrection.” This is true so far as the giving of life is
concerned. But once made alive, man can, like Lazarus, obey
Christ’s command and “_come forth_” (_John 11:43_). In fact, if he
does not obey, there is no evidence that there is spiritual life.
“In us is God; we burn but as he moves”—“Est deus in nobis;
agitante calescimus illo.” Wireless telegraphy requires an attuned
receiver; regeneration attunes the soul so that it vibrates
responsively to God and receives the communications of his truth.
When a convert came to Rowland Hill and claimed that she had been
converted in a dream, he replied: “We will see how you walk, now
that you are awake.”

Lord Bacon said he would open every one of Argus’s hundred eyes,
before he opened one of Briareus’s hundred hands. If God did not
renew men’s hearts in connection with our preaching of the truth,
we might well give up our ministry. E. G. Robinson: “The
conversion of a soul is just as much according to law as the
raising of a crop of turnips.” Simon, Reconciliation, 377—“Though
the mere preaching of the gospel is not the _cause_ of the
conversion and revivification of men, it is a necessary
_condition_—as necessary as the action of light and heat, or other
physical agencies, are on a germ, if it is to develop, grow, and
bear its proper fruit.”

(_b_) The activity of man’s mind in regeneration is activity in view of
the truth. God secures the initial exercise of the new disposition which
he has wrought in man’s heart in connection with the use of truth as a
means. Here we perceive the link between the efficiency of God and the
activity of man. Only as the sinner’s mind is brought into contact with
the truth, does God complete his regenerating work. And as the change of
inward disposition and the initial exercise of it are never, so far as we
know, separated by any interval of time, we can say, in general, that
Christian work is successful only as it commends the truth to every man’s
conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2).

In _Eph. 1:17, 18_, there is recognized the divine illumination of
the mind to behold the truth—“_may give unto you a spirit of
wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him; having the eyes of
your heart enlightened, that ye may know what is the hope of his
calling_” On truth as a means of regeneration, see Hovey,
Outlines, 192, who quotes Cunningham, Historical Theology,
1:617—“Regeneration may be taken in a limited sense as including
only the first impartation of spiritual life ... or it may be
taken in a wider sense as comprehending the whole of that process
by which he is renewed or made over again in the whole man after
the image of God,—_i. e._, as including the production of saving
faith and union to Christ. Only in the first sense did the
Reformers maintain that man in the process was wholly passive and
not active; for they did not dispute that, before the process in
the second and more enlarged sense was completed, man was
spiritually alive and active, and continued so ever after during
the whole process of his sanctification.”

Dr. Hovey suggests an apt illustration of these two parts of the
Holy Spirit’s work and their union in regeneration: At the same
time that God makes the photographic plate sensitive, he pours in
the light of truth whereby the image of Christ is formed in the
soul. Without the “sensitizing” of the plate, it would never fix
the rays of light so as to retain the image. In the process of
“sensitizing,” the plate is passive; under the influence of light,
it is active. In both the “sensitizing” and the taking of the
picture, the real agent is not the plate nor the light, but the
photographer. The photographer cannot perform both operations at
the same moment. God can. He gives the new affection, and at the
same instant he secures its exercise in view of the truth.

For denial of the instrumentality of truth in regeneration, see
Pierce, in Bap. Quar., Jan. 1872:52. _Per contra_, see Anderson,
Regeneration, 89‐122. H. B. Smith holds middle ground. He says:
“In adults it [regeneration] is wrought most frequently by the
word of God as the instrument. Believing that infants may be
regenerated, we cannot assert that it is tied to the word of God
absolutely.” We prefer to say that, if infants are regenerated,
they also are regenerated in conjunction with some influence of
truth upon the mind, dim as the recognition of it may be.
Otherwise we break the Scriptural connection between regeneration
and conversion, and open the way for faith in a physical, magical,
sacramental salvation. Squier, Autobiog., 368, says well, of the
theory of regeneration which makes man purely passive, that it has
a benumbing effect upon preaching: “The lack of expectation
unnerves the efforts of the preacher; an impression of the
fortuitous presence neutralizes his engagedness. This antinomian
dependence on the Spirit extracts all vitality from the pulpit and
sense of responsibility from the hearer, and makes preaching an
_opus operatum_, like the baptismal regeneration of the
formalist.” Only of the first element in regeneration are Shedd’s
words true: “A dead man cannot assist in his own resurrection”
(Dogm. Theol., 2:503).

Squier goes to the opposite extreme of regarding the truth alone
as the cause of regeneration. His words are none the less a
valuable protest against the view that regeneration is so entirely
due to God that in no part of it is man active. It was with a
better view that Luther cried: “O that we might multiply living
books, that is, preachers!” And the preacher is successful only as
he possesses and unfolds the truth. John took the little book from
the Covenant‐angel’s hand and ate it (_Rev. 10:8‐11_). So he who
is to preach God’s truth must feed upon it, until it has become
his own. For the Exercise‐system, see Emmons, Works, 4:339‐411;
Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:439.

5. The Nature of the Change wrought in Regeneration.

A. It is a change in which the governing disposition is made holy. This
implies that:

(_a_) It is not a change in the substance of either body or soul.
Regeneration is not a physical change. There is no physical seed or germ
implanted in man’s nature. Regeneration does not add to, or subtract from,
the number of man’s intellectual, emotional or voluntary faculties. But
regeneration is the giving of a new direction or tendency to powers of
affection which man possessed before. Man had the faculty of love before,
but his love was supremely set on self. In regeneration the direction of
that faculty is changed, and his love is now set supremely upon God.

_Eph. 2:10_—“_created in Christ Jesus for good works_”—does not
imply that the old soul is annihilated, and a new soul created.
The “_old man_” which is “_crucified_”—(_Rom. 6:6_) and “_put
away_” (_Eph. 4:22_) is simply the sinful bent of the affections
and will. When this direction of the dispositions is changed, and
becomes holy, we can call the change a new birth of the old
nature, because the same _faculties_ that acted before are acting
now, the only difference being that now these faculties are set
toward God and purity. Or, regarding the change from another point
of view, we may speak of man as having a “new nature,” as
“recreated,” as being a “new creature,” because this _direction_
of the affection and will, which ensures a different life from
what was led before, is something totally new, and due wholly to
the regenerating act of God. In _1 Pet. 1:23_—“_begotten again,
not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible_”—all materialistic
inferences from the word “_seed_,” as if it implied the
implantation of a physical germ, are prevented by the following
explanatory words: “_through the word of God, which liveth and
abideth_.”

So, too, when we describe regeneration as the communication of a
new life to the soul, we should not conceive of this new life as a
_substance_ imparted or infused into us. The new life is rather a
new direction and activity of our own affections and will. There
is, indeed a union of the soul with Christ; Christ dwells in the
renewed heart; Christ’s entrance into the soul is the _cause_ and
_accompaniment_ of its regeneration. But this entrance of Christ
into the soul is not _itself_ regeneration. We must distinguish
the effect from the cause; otherwise we shall be in danger of a
pantheistic confounding of our own personality and life with the
personality and life of Christ. Christ is indeed our life, in the
sense of being the cause and supporter of our life, but he is not
our life in the sense that, after our union with him, our
individuality ceases. The effect of union with Christ is rather
that our individuality is enlarged and exalted (_John 10:10_—“_I
came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly._” See
page 799, (_c_)).

We must therefore take with a grain of allowance the generally
excellent words of A. J. Gordon, Twofold Life, 22—“Regeneration is
the communication of the divine nature to man by the operation of
the Holy Spirit through the word (_2 Pet. 1:4_).... As Christ was
made partaker of human nature by incarnation, that so he might
enter into truest fellowship with us, we are made partakers of the
divine nature, by regeneration, that we may enter into truest
fellowship with God. Regeneration is not a change of nature, _i.
e._, a natural heart bettered. Eternal life is not natural life
prolonged into endless duration. It is the divine life imparted to
us, the very life of God communicated to the human soul, and
bringing forth there its proper fruit.” Dr. Gordon’s view that
regeneration adds a new substance or faculty to the soul is the
result of literalizing the Scripture metaphors of creation and
life. This turning of symbol into fact accounts for his tendency
toward annihilation doctrine in the case of the unregenerate,
toward faith cure and the belief that all physical evils can be
removed by prayer. E. H. Johnson, The Holy Spirit: “Regeneration
is a change, not in the quantity, but in the quality, of the
soul.” E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 320—“Regeneration
consists in a divinely wrought change in the moral affections.”

So, too, we would criticize the doctrine of Drummond, Nat. Law in
the Spir. World: “People forget the persistence of force. Instead
of transforming energy, they try to create it. We must either
depend on environment, or be self‐sufficient. The ‘cannot _bear
fruit of itself_’ (_John 15:4_) is the ‘_cannot_’ of natural law.
Natural fruit flourishes with air and sunshine. The difference
between the Christian and the non‐Christian is the difference
between the organic and the inorganic. The Christian has all the
characteristics of life: assimilation, waste, reproduction,
spontaneous action.” See criticism of Drummond, by Murphy, in
Brit. Quar., 1884:118‐125—“As in resurrection there is a physical
connection with the old body, so in regeneration there is a
natural connection with the old soul.” Also, Brit. Quar., July,
1880, art.: Evolution Viewed in Relation to Theology—“The
regenerating agency of the Spirit of God is symbolized, not by the
vitalization of dead matter, but by the agency of the organizing
intelligence which guides the evolution of living beings.”
Murphy’s answer to Drummond is republished. Murphy’s Natural
Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 1‐33—“The will can no more create
force, either muscular or mental, than it can create matter. And
it is equally true that for our spiritual nourishment and
spiritual force we are altogether dependent on our spiritual
environment, which is God.” In “dead matter” there is no sin.

Drummond would imply that, as matter has no promise or potency of
life and is not responsible for being without life (or “dead,” to
use his misleading word), and if it ever is to live must wait for
the life‐giving influence to come unsought, so the human soul is
not responsible for being spiritually dead, cannot seek for life,
must passively wait for the Spirit. Plymouth Brethren generally
hold the same view with Drummond, that regeneration _adds_
something—as _vitality_—to the substance of the soul. Christ is
transsubstantiated into the soul’s substance; or, the πνεῦμα is
added. But we have given over talking of vitality, as if it were a
substance or faculty. We regard it as merely a mode of action.
Evolution, moreover, uses what already exists, so far as it will
go, instead of creating new; as in the miracle of the loaves, and
as in the original creation of man, so in his recreation or
regeneration. Dr. Charles Hodge also makes the same mistake in
calling regeneration an “origination of the principle of the
spirit of life, just as literal and real a creation as the
origination of the principle of natural life.” This, too,
literalizes Scripture metaphor, and ignores the fact that the
change accomplished in regeneration is an exclusively moral one.
There is indeed a new entrance of Christ into the soul, or a new
exercise of his spiritual power within the soul. But the effect of
Christ’s working is not to add any new faculty or substance, but
only to give new direction to already existing powers.

(_b_) Regeneration involves an enlightenment of the understanding and a
rectification of the volitions. But it seems most consonant with Scripture
and with a correct psychology to regard these changes as immediate and
necessary consequences of the change of disposition already mentioned,
rather than as the primary and central facts in regeneration. The taste
for truth logically precedes perception of the truth, and love for God
logically precedes obedience to God; indeed, without love no obedience is
possible. Reverse the lever of affection, and this moral locomotive,
without further change, will move away from sin, and toward truth and God.

Texts which seem to imply that a right taste, disposition,
affection, logically precedes both knowledge of God and obedience
to God, are the following: _Ps. 34:8_—“_Oh taste and see that
Jehovah is good_”; _119:36_—“_Incline my heart unto thy
testimonies_”; _Jer. 24:7_—“_I will give them a heart to know
me_”; _Mat. 5:8_—“_Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall
see God_”; _John 7:17_—“_If any man willeth to do his will, he
shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God_”; _Acts
16:14_—of Lydia it is said: “_whose heart the Lord opened to give
heed unto the things which were spoken by Paul_”; _Eph.
1:18_—“_having the eyes of your heart enlightened._” “Change the
centre of a circle and you change the place and direction of all
its radii.”

The text _John 1:12, 13_—“_But as many as received him, to them
gave him the right to become children of God, even to them that
believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God_”—seems at first
sight to imply that faith is the condition of regeneration, and
therefore prior to it. “But if ἐξουσίαν here signifies the
‘_right_’ or ‘privilege’ of sonship, it is a right which may
presuppose faith as the work of the Spirit in regeneration—a work
apart from which no genuine faith exists in the soul. But it is
possible that John means to say that, in the case of all who
received Christ, their power to believe was _given_ to them by
him. In the original the emphasis is on ‘_gave,_’ and this is
shown by the order of the words”; see Hovey, Manual of Theology,
345, and Com. on _John 1:12, 13_—“The meaning would then be this:
‘Many did not receive him; but some did; and as to all who
received him, he _gave_ them grace by which they were enabled to
do this, and so to become God’s children.’ ”

Ruskin: “The first and last and closest trial question to any
living creature is, ‘What do you like?’ Go out into the street and
ask the first man you meet what his taste is, and, if he answers
candidly, you know him, body and soul. What we like determines
what we are, and is the sign of what we are; and to teach taste is
inevitably to form character.” If the taste here spoken of is
moral and spiritual taste, the words of Ruskin are sober truth.
Regeneration is essentially a changing of the fundamental taste of
the soul. But by taste we mean the direction of man’s love, the
bent of his affections, the trend of his will. And to alter that
taste is not to impart a new faculty, or to create a new
substance, but simply to set toward God the affections which
hitherto have been set upon self and sin. We may illustrate by the
engineer who climbs over the cab into a runaway locomotive and who
changes its course, not by adding any new rod or cog to the
machine, but simply by reversing the lever. The engine slows up
and soon moves in an opposite direction to that in which it has
been going. Man needs no new faculty of love; he needs only to
have his love set in a new and holy direction; this is virtually
to give him a new birth, to make him a new creature, to impart to
him a new life. But being born again, created anew, made alive
from the dead, are physical metaphors, to be interpreted not
literally but spiritually.

(_c_) It is objected, indeed, that we know only of mental substance and of
mental acts, and that the new disposition or state just mentioned, since
it is not an act, must be regarded as a new substance, and so lack all
moral quality. But we reply that, besides substance and acts, there are
habits, tendencies, proclivities, some of them native and some of them
acquired. They are voluntary, and have moral character. If we can by
repeated acts originate sinful tendencies, God can surely originate in us
holy tendencies. Such holy tendencies formed a part of the nature of Adam,
as he came from the hand of God. As the result of the Fall, we are born
with tendencies toward evil for which we are responsible. Regeneration is
a restoration of the original tendencies toward God which were lost by the
Fall. Such holy tendencies (tastes, dispositions, affections) are not only
not unmoral—they are the only possible springs of right moral action. Only
in the restoration of them does man become truly free.

_Mat. 12:33_—“_Make the tree good, and its fruit good_”; _Eph.
2:10_—“_created in Christ Jesus for good works._” The tree is
first made good—the character renewed in its fundamental
principle, love to God—in the certainty that when this is done the
fruit will be good also. Good works are the necessary result of
regeneration by union with Christ. Regeneration introduces a new
force into humanity, the force of a new love. The work of the
preacher is that of coöperation with God in the impartation of a
new life—a work far more radical and more noble than that of moral
reform, by as much as the origination of a new force is more
radical and more noble than the guidance of that force after it
has been originated. Does regeneration cure disease and remove
physical ills? Not primarily. _Mat. 1:21_—“_thou shalt call his
name Jesus; for it is he that shall save his people from their
sins._” Salvation from sin is Christ’s first and main work. He
performed physical healing only to illustrate and further the
healing of the soul. Hence in the case of the paralytic, when he
was expected to cure the body, he said first: “_thy sins are
forgiven_” (_Mat. 9:2_); but, that they who stood by might not
doubt his power to forgive, he added the raising up of the palsied
man. And ultimately in every redeemed man the holy heart will
bring in its train the perfected body: _Rom. 8:23_—“_we ourselves
groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body._”

On holy affection as the spring of holy action, see especially
Edwards, Religious Affections, in Works, 3:1‐21. This treatise is
Jonathan Edwards’s Confessions, as much as if it were directly
addressed to the Deity. Allen, his biographer, calls it “a work
which will not suffer by comparison with the work of great
teachers in theology, whether ancient or modern.” President
Timothy Dwight regarded it as most worthy of preservation next to
the Bible. See also Hodge, Essays and Reviews, 1:48; Owen on the
Holy Spirit, in Works, 3:297‐336; Charnock on Regeneration; Andrew
Fuller, Works, 2:461‐471, 512‐560, and 3:796; Bellamy, Works,
2:502; Dwight, Works, 2:418; Woods, Works, 3:1‐21; Anderson,
Regeneration, 21‐50.

B. It is an instantaneous change, in a region of the soul below
consciousness, and is therefore known only in its results.

(_a_) It is an instantaneous change.—Regeneration is not a gradual work.
Although there may be a gradual work of God’s providence and Spirit,
preparing the change, and a gradual recognition of it after it has taken
place, there must be an instant of time when, under the influence of God’s
Spirit, the disposition of the soul, just before hostile to God, is
changed to love. Any other view assumes an intermediate state of
indecision which has no moral character at all, and confounds regeneration
either with conviction or with sanctification.

Conviction of sin is an ordinary, if not an invariable, antecedent
of regeneration. It results from the contemplation of truth. It is
often accompanied by fear, remorse, and cries for mercy. But these
desires and fears are not signs of regeneration. They are selfish.
They are quite consistent with manifest and dreadful enmity to
God. They have a hopeful aspect, simply because they are evidence
that the Holy Spirit is striving with the soul. But this work of
the Spirit is not yet regeneration; at most, it is preparation for
regeneration. So far as the sinner is concerned, he is more of a
sinner than ever before; because, under more light than has ever
before been given him, he is still rejecting Christ and resisting
the Spirit. The word of God and the Holy Spirit appeal to lower as
well as to higher motives; most men’s concern about religion is
determined, at the outset, by hope or fear. See Shedd, Dogm.
Theol., 2:512.

All these motives, though they are not the highest, are yet proper
motives to influence the soul; it is right to seek God from
motives of self‐interest, and because we desire heaven. But the
seeking which not only begins, but ends, upon this lower plane, is
never successful. Until the soul gives itself to God from motives
of love, it is never saved. And so long as these preliminary
motives rule, regeneration has not yet taken place. Bible‐reading,
and prayers, and church‐attendance, and partial reformations, are
certainly better than apathy or outbreaking sin. They may be signs
that God is working in the soul. But without complete surrender to
God, they may be accompanied with the greatest guilt and the
greatest danger; simply because, under such influences, the
withholding of submission implies the most active hatred to God,
and opposition to his will. Instance cases of outward reformation
that preceded regeneration,—like that of John Bunyan, who left off
swearing before his conversion. Park: “The soul is a monad, and
must turn all at once. If we are standing on the line, we are yet
unregenerate. We are regenerate only when we cross it.” There is a
prevenient grace as well as a regenerating grace. Wendelius indeed
distinguished five kinds of grace, namely, prevenient,
preparatory, operant, coöperant, and perfecting.

While in some cases God’s preparatory work occupies a long time,
there are many cases in which he cuts short his work in
righteousness (_Rom. 9:28_). Some persons are regenerated in
infancy or childhood, cannot remember a time when they did not
love Christ, and yet take long to learn that they are regenerate.
Others are convicted and converted suddenly in mature years. The
best proof of regeneration is not the memory of a past experience,
however vivid and startling, but rather a present inward love for
Christ, his holiness, his servants, his work, and his word. Much
sympathy should be given to those who have been early converted,
but who, from timidity, self‐distrust, or the faults of
inconsistent church members, have been deterred from joining
themselves with Christian people, and so have lost all hope and
joy in their religious lives. Instance the man who, though
converted in a revival of religion, was injured by a professed
Christian, and became a recluse, but cherished the memory of his
dead wife and child, kept the playthings of the one and the
clothing of the other, and left directions to have them buried
with him.

As there is danger of confounding regeneration with preparatory
influences of God’s Spirit, so there is danger of confounding
regeneration with sanctification. Sanctification, as the
development of the new affection, is gradual and progressive. But
no _beginning_ is progressive or gradual; and regeneration is a
beginning of the new affection. We may gradually come to the
_knowledge_ that a new affection exists, but the knowledge of a
beginning is one thing; the beginning itself is another thing.
Luther had experienced a change of heart, long before he knew its
meaning or could express his new feelings in scientific form. It
is not in the sense of a gradual regeneration, but in the sense of
a gradual recognition of the fact of regeneration, and a
progressive enjoyment of its results, that “_the path of the
righteous_” is said to be “_as the dawning light_”—the morning‐
dawn that begins in faintness, but—“_that shineth more and more
unto the perfect day_” (_Prov. 4:18_). _Cf._ _2 Cor. 4:4_—“_the
god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image
of God, should not dawn upon them._” Here the recognition of God’s
work is described as gradual; that the work itself is
instantaneous, appears from the following _verse 6_—“_Seeing it is
God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in
our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ._”

Illustrate by the unconscious crossing of the line which separates
one State of the Federal Union from another. From this doctrine of
instantaneous regeneration, we may infer the duty of reaping as
well as of sowing: _John 4:38_—“_I sent you to reap._” “It is a
mistaken notion that it takes God a long time to give increase to
the seed planted in a sinner’s heart. This grows out of the idea
that regeneration is a matter of _training_; that a soul must be
_educated_ from a lost state into a state of salvation. Let us
remember that three thousand, whom in the morning Peter called
murderers of Christ, were before night regenerated and baptized
members of his church.” Drummond, in his Nat. Law in the Spir.
World, remarks upon the humaneness of sudden conversion. As self‐
limitation, self‐mortification, suicide of the old nature, it is
well to have it at once done and over with, and not to die by
degrees.

(_b_) This change takes place in the region of the soul below
consciousness.—It is by no means true that God’s work in regeneration is
always recognized by the subject of it. On the other hand, it is never
directly perceived at all. The working of God in the human soul, since it
contravenes no law of man’s being, but rather puts him in the full and
normal possession of his own powers, is secret and inscrutable. Although
man is conscious, he is not conscious of God’s regenerating agency.

We know our own natural existence only through the phenomena of
thought and sense. So we know our own spiritual existence, as new
creatures in Christ, only through the new feelings and experiences
of the soul. “The will does not need to act solitarily, in order
to act freely.” God acts on the will, and the resulting holiness
is true freedom. _John 8:36_—“_If therefore the Son shall make you
free, ye shall be free indeed._” We have the consciousness of
freedom; but the act of God in giving us this freedom is beyond or
beneath our consciousness.

Both Luther and Calvin used the word regeneration in a loose way,
confounding it with sanctification. After the Federalists made a
distinct doctrine of it, Calvinists in general came to treat it
separately. And John Wesley rescued it from identification with
sacraments, by showing its connection with the truth. E. G.
Robinson: “Regeneration is in one sense instantaneous, in another
sense not. There is necessity of some sort of knowledge in
regeneration. The doctrine of Christ crucified is the fit
instrument. The object of religion is to produce a _sound_ rather
than an _emotional_ experience. Revivals of religion are valuable
in just the proportion in which they produce rational conviction
and permanently righteous action.” But none are left unaffected by
them. “An arm of the magnetic needle must be attracted to the
magnetic pole of the earth, or it must be repelled,—there is no
such thing as indifference. Modern materialism, refusing to say
that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, is led to declare
that the hate of God is the beginning of wisdom” (Diesselhoff, Die
klassische Poesie, 8).

(_c_) This change, however, is recognized indirectly in its results.—At
the moment of regeneration, the soul is conscious only of the truth and of
its own exercises with reference to it. That God is the author of its new
affection is an inference from the new character of the exercises which it
prompts. The human side or aspect of regeneration is Conversion. This, and
the Sanctification which follows it (including the special gifts of the
Holy Spirit), are the sole evidences in any particular case that
regeneration is an accomplished fact.

Regeneration, though it is the birth of a perfect child, is still
the birth of a child. The child is to grow, and the growth is
sanctification; in other words, sanctification, as we shall see,
is simply the strengthening and development of the holy affection
which begins its existence in regeneration. Hence the subject of
the epistle to the _Romans_—salvation by faith—includes not only
justification by faith (_chapters 1‐7_), but sanctification by
faith (_chapters 8‐16_). On evidences of regeneration, see
Anderson, Regeneration, 169‐214, 227‐295; Woods, Works, 44‐55. The
transition from justification by faith to sanctification by faith
is in _chapter 8_ of the epistle to the _Romans_. That begins by
declaring that there is _no condemnation_ in Christ, and ends by
declaring that there is _no separation_ from Christ. The work of
the Holy Spirit follows upon the work of Christ. See Godet on the
epistle.

The doctrine of Alexander Campbell was a protest against laying an
unscriptural emphasis on emotional states as evidences of
regeneration—a protest which certain mystical and antinomian
exaggerations of evangelical teaching very justly provoked. But
Campbell went to the opposite extreme of practically excluding
emotion from religion, and of confining the work of the Holy
Spirit to the conscious influence of the truth. Disciples need to
recognize a power of the Holy Spirit exerted below consciousness,
in order to explain the conscious acceptance of Christ and of his
salvation.

William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, 271—“If we
should conceive that the human mind, with its different
possibilities of equilibrium, might be like a many sided solid
with different surfaces on which it could lie flat, we might liken
mental revolutions to the spatial revolutions of such a body. As
it is pried up, say by a lever, from a position in which it lies
on surface A, for instance, it will linger for a time unstably
half way up, and if the lever cease to urge it, it will tumble
back or relapse, under the continued pull of gravity. But if at
last it rotate far enough for its centre of gravity to pass beyond
the surface A altogether, the body will fall over, on surface B,
say, and will abide there permanently. The pulls of gravity
towards A have vanished, and may now be disregarded. The
polyhedron has become immune against further attraction from this
direction.”

III. Conversion.

Conversion is that voluntary change in the mind of the sinner, in which he
turns, on the one hand, from sin, and on the other hand, to Christ. The
former or negative element in conversion, namely, the turning from sin, we
denominate repentance. The latter or positive element in conversion,
namely, the turning to Christ, we denominate faith.

For account of repentance and faith as elements of conversion, see
Andrew Fuller, Works, 1:666; Luthardt, Compendium der Dogmatik, 3d
ed., 201‐206. The two elements of conversion seem to be in the
mind of Paul, when he writes in _Rom. 6:11_—“_reckon ye also
yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ
Jesus_”; _Col. 3:3_—“_ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in
God._” _Cf._ ἀποστρέφω, in _Acts 3:26_—“_in turning away every one
of you from your iniquities_,” with ἐπιστρέφω in _Acts
11:21_—“_believed_” and “_turned unto the Lord_.” A candidate for
ordination was once asked which came first: regeneration or
conversion. He replied very correctly: “Regeneration and
conversion are like the cannon‐ball and the hole—they both go
through together.” This is true however only as to their
chronological relation. Logically the ball is first and causes the
hole, not the hole first and causes the ball.

(_a_) Conversion is the human side or aspect of that fundamental spiritual
change which, as viewed from the divine side, we call regeneration. It is
simply man’s turning. The Scriptures recognize the voluntary activity of
the human soul in this change as distinctly as they recognize the
causative agency of God. While God turns men to himself (Ps. 85:4; Song
1:4; Jer. 31:18; Lam. 5:21), men are exhorted to turn themselves to God
(Prov. 1:23; Is. 31:6; 59:20; Ez. 14:6; 18:32; 33:9, 11; Joel 2:12‐14).
While God is represented as the author of the new heart and the new spirit
(Ps. 51:10; Ez. 11:19; 36:26), men are commanded to make for themselves a
new heart and a new spirit (Ez. 18:31; 2 Cor. 7:1; cf. Phil. 2:12, 13;
Eph. 5:14).

_Ps. 85:4_—“_Turn us, O God of our salvation_”; _Song 1:4_—“_Draw
me, we will run after thee_”; _Jer. 31:18_—“_turn thou me, and I
shall be turned_”; _Lam. 5:21_—“_Turn thou us unto thee, O
Jehovah, and we shall be turned._”

_Prov. 1:23_—“_Turn you at my reproof: Behold, I will pour out my
spirit unto you_”; _Is. 31:6_—“_Turn ye unto him from whom ye have
deeply revolted, O children of Israel_”; _59:20_—“_And a Redeemer
will come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in
Jacob_”; _Ez. 14:6_—“_Return ye, and turn yourselves from your
idols_”; _18:32_—“_turn yourselves and live_”; _33:9_—“_if thou
warn the wicked of his way to turn from it, and he turn not from
his way, he shall die in his iniquity_”; _11_—“_turn ye, turn ye
from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?_”
_Joel 2:12‐14_—“_turn ye unto me with all your heart._”

_Ps. 51:10_—“_Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right
spirit within me_”; _Ez. 11:19_—“_And I will give them one heart,
and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony
heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh_”;
_36:26_—“_A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will
I put within you._”

_Ez. 18:31_—“_Cast away from you all your transgressions, wherein
ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit:
for why will ye die, O house of Israel?_” _2 Cor. 7:1_—“_Having
therefore these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from
all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the
fear of God_”; _cf._ _Phil. 2:12, 13_—“_work out your own
salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in
you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure_”; _Eph.
5:14_—“_Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and
Christ shall shine upon thee._”

When asked the way to heaven, Bishop Wilberforce replied: “Take
the first turn to the right, and go straight forward.” Phillips
Brooks’s conversion is described by Professor Allen, Life, 1:266,
as consisting in the resolve “to be true to himself, to renounce
nothing which he knew to be good, and yet bring all things captive
to the obedience of God, ... the absolute surrender of his will to
God, in accordance with the example of Christ: ‘_Lo, I am come ...
to do thy will, O God_’ (_Heb. 10:7_).”

(_b_) This twofold method of representation can be explained only when we
remember that man’s powers may be interpenetrated and quickened by the
divine, not only without destroying man’s freedom, but with the result of
making man for the first time truly free. Since the relation between the
divine and the human activity is not one of chronological succession, man
is never to wait for God’s working. If he is ever regenerated, it must be
in and through a movement of his own will, in which he turns to God as
unconstrainedly and with as little consciousness of God’s operation upon
him, as if no such operation of God were involved in the change. And in
preaching, we are to press upon men the claims of God and their duty of
immediate submission to Christ, with the certainty that they who do so
submit will subsequently recognize this new and holy activity of their own
wills as due to a working within them of divine power.

_Ps. 110:3_—“_Thy people offer themselves willingly in the day of
thy power._” The act of God is accompanied by an activity of man.
Dorner: “God’s act initiates action.” There is indeed an original
changing of man’s tastes and affections, and in this man is
passive. But this is only the first aspect of regeneration. In the
second aspect of it—the rousing of man’s powers—God’s action is
accompanied by man’s activity, and regeneration is but the obverse
side of conversion. Luther’s word: “Man, in conversion, is purely
passive,” is true only of the first part of the change; and here,
by “conversion,” Luther means “regeneration.” Melanchthon said
better: “Non est enim coäctio, ut voluntas non possit repugnare:
trahit Deus, sed volentem trahit.” See Meyer on _Rom. 8:14_—“_led
by the Spirit of God_”: “The expression,” Meyer says, “is passive,
though without prejudice to the human will, as _verse 13_ proves:
‘_by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body_.’ ”

As, by a well known principle of hydrostatics, the water contained
in a little tube can balance the water of a whole ocean, so God’s
grace can be balanced by man’s will. As sunshine on the sand
produces nothing unless man sow the seed, and as a fair breeze
does not propel the vessel unless man spread the sails, so the
influences of God’s Spirit require human agencies, and work
through them. The Holy Spirit is sovereign,—he bloweth where he
listeth. Even though there be uniform human conditions, there will
not be uniform spiritual results. Results are often independent of
human conditions as such. This is the truth emphasized by Andrew
Fuller. But this does not prevent us from saying that, whenever
God’s Spirit works in regeneration, there is always accompanying
it a voluntary change in man, which we call conversion, and that
this change is as free, and as really man’s own work, as if there
were no divine influence upon him.

Jesus told the man with the withered hand to stretch forth his
hand; it was the man’s duty to stretch it forth, not to wait for
strength from God to do it. Jesus told the man sick of the palsy
to take up his bed and walk. It was that man’s duty to obey the
command, not to pray for power to obey. Depend wholly upon God?
Yes, as you depend wholly upon wind when you sail, yet need to
keep your sails properly set. “_Work out your own salvation_”
comes first in the apostle’s exhortation; “_for it is God who
worketh in you_” follows (_Phil. 2:12, 13_); which means that our
first business is to use our wills in obedience; then we shall
find that God has gone before us to prepare us to obey.

_Mat. 11:12_—“_the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men
of violence take it by force._” Conversion is like the invasion of
a kingdom. Men are not to wait for God’s time, but to act at once.
Not bodily exercises are required, but impassioned earnestness of
soul. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:49‐56—“Not injustice and
violence, but energetic laying hold of a good to which they can
make no claim. It is of no avail to wait idly, or to seek
laboriously to earn it; but it is of avail to lay hold of it and
to retain it. It is ready as a gift of God for men, but men must
direct their desire and will toward it.... The man who put on the
wedding garment did not earn his share of the feast thereby, yet
he did show the disposition without which he was not permitted to
partake of it.”

James, Varieties of Religious Experience, 12—“The two main
phenomena of religion, they will say, are essentially phenomena of
adolescence, and therefore synchronous with the development of
sexual life. To which the retort is easy: Even were the asserted
synchrony unrestrictedly true as a fact (which it is not), it is
not only the sexual life, but the entire higher mental life, which
awakens during adolescence. One might then as well set up the
thesis that the interest in mechanics, physics, chemistry, logic,
physiology and sociology, which springs up during adolescent years
along with that in poetry and religion, is also a perversion of
the sexual instinct, but this would be too absurd. Moreover, if
the argument from synchrony is to decide, what is to be done with
the fact that the religious age _par excellence_ would seem to be
old age, when the uproar of the sexual life is past?”

(_c_) From the fact that the word “conversion” means simply “a turning,”
every turning of the Christian from sin, subsequent to the first, may, in
a subordinate sense, be denominated a conversion (Luke 22:32). Since
regeneration is not complete sanctification, and the change of governing
disposition is not identical with complete purification of the nature,
such subsequent turnings from sin are necessary consequences and evidences
of the first (_cf._ John 13:10). But they do not, like the first, imply a
change in the governing disposition,—they are rather new manifestations of
a disposition already changed. For this reason, conversion proper, like
the regeneration of which it is the obverse side, can occur but once. The
phrase “second conversion,” even if it does not imply radical
misconception of the nature of conversion, is misleading. We prefer,
therefore, to describe these subsequent experiences, not by the term
“conversion,” but by such phrases as “breaking off, forsaking, returning
from, neglects or transgressions,” and “coming back to Christ, trusting
anew in him.” It is with repentance and faith, as elements in that first
and radical change by which the soul enters upon a state of salvation,
that we have now to do.

_Luke 22:31, 32_—“_Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you,
that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee,
that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou hast turned
again_ [A. V.: ‘_art converted_’], _establish thy brethren_”;
_John 13:10_—“_He that is bathed_ [has taken a full bath] _needeth
not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit_ [as a whole].”
Notice that Jesus here announces that only one regeneration is
needed,—what follows is not conversion but sanctification.
Spurgeon said he believed in regeneration, but not in re‐
regeneration. Second blessing? Yes, and a forty‐second. The stages
in the Christian life are like ice, water, invisible vapor, steam,
all successive and natural results of increasing temperature,
seemingly different from one another, yet all forms of the same
element.

On the relation between the divine and the human agencies, we
quote a different view from another writer: “God decrees to employ
means which in every case are sufficient, and which in certain
cases it is foreseen will be effectual. Human action converts a
sufficient means into an effectual means. The result is not always
according to the varying use of means. The power is all of God.
Man has power to resist only. There is a universal influence of
the Spirit, but the influences of the Spirit vary in different
cases, just as external opportunities do. The love of holiness is
blunted, but it still lingers. The Holy Spirit quickens it. When
this love is wholly lost, sin against the Holy Ghost results.
Before regeneration there is a desire for holiness, an
apprehension of its beauty, but this is overborne by a greater
love for sin. If the man does not quickly grow worse, it is not
because of positive action on his part, but only because
negatively he does not resist as he might. ‘_Behold, I stand at
the door and knock_.’ God leads at first by a resistible
influence. When man yields, God leads by an irresistible
influence. The second influence of the Holy Spirit confirms the
Christian’s choice. This second influence is called ‘sealing.’
There is no necessary interval of time between the two. Prevenient
grace comes first; conversion comes after.”

To this view, we would reply that a partial love for holiness, and
an ability to choose it before God works effectually upon the
heart, seem to contradict those Scriptures which assert that “_the
mind of the flesh is enmity against God_” (_Rom. 8:7_), and that
all good works are the result of God’s new creation (_Eph. 2:10_).
Conversion does not precede regeneration,—it chronologically
accompanies regeneration, though it logically follows it.

1. Repentance.

Repentance is that voluntary change in the mind of the sinner in which he
turns from sin. Being essentially a change of mind, it involves a change
of view, a change of feeling, and a change of purpose. We may therefore
analyze repentance into three constituents, each succeeding term of which
includes and implies the one preceding:

A. An intellectual element,—change of view—recognition of sin as involving
personal guilt, defilement, and helplessness (Ps. 51:3, 7, 11). If
unaccompanied by the following elements, this recognition may manifest
itself in fear of punishment, although as yet there is no hatred of sin.
This element is indicated in the Scripture phrase ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας (Rom.
3:20; _cf._ 1:32).

_Ps. 51:3, 11_—“_For I know my transgressions; And my sin is ever
before me.... Cast me not away from thy presence, And take not thy
Holy Spirit from me_”; _Rom. 3:20_—“_through the law cometh the
knowledge of sin_”; _cf._ _1:32_—“_who, knowing the ordinance of
God, that they that practise such things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them._”

It is well to remember that God requires us to cherish no views or
emotions that contradict the truth. He wants of us no false
humility. Humility (_humus_) = groundness—a coming down to the
hard‐pan of facts—a facing of the truth. Repentance, therefore, is
not a calling ourselves by hard names. It is not cringing, or
exaggerated self‐contempt. It is simple recognition of what we
are. The “’umble” Uriah Heep is the arrant hypocrite. If we see
ourselves as God sees us, we shall say with _Job 42:5, 6_—“_I had
heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; But now mine eye seeth
thee: Wherefore I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes._”

Apart from God’s working in the heart there is no proper
recognition of sin, either in people of high or low degree. Lady
Huntington invited the Duchess of Buckingham to come and hear
Whitefield, when the Duchess answered: “It is monstrous to be told
that you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches that crawl
on the earth,—it is highly offensive and insulting.” Mr. Moody,
after preaching to the prisoners in the jail at Chicago, visited
them in their cells. In the first cell he found two, playing
cards. They said false witnesses had testified against them. In
the second cell, the convict said that the guilty man had escaped,
but that he, a mere accomplice, had been caught. In the last cell
only Mr. Moody found a man crying over his sins. Henry Drummond,
after hearing the confessions of inquirers, said: “I am sick of
the sins of these men,—how can God bear it?”

Experience of sin does not teach us to recognize sin. We do not
learn to know chloroform by frequently inhaling it. The drunkard
does not understand the degrading effects of drink so well as his
miserable wife and children do. Even the natural conscience does
not give the recognition of sin that is needed in true repentance.
The confession “_I have sinned_” is made by hardened Pharaoh (_Ex.
9:27_), double minded Balaam (_Num. 22:34_), remorseful Achan
(_Josh. 7:20_), insincere King Saul (_1 Sam. 15:24_), despairing
Judas (_Mat. 27:4_); but in no one of these cases was there true
repentance. True repentance takes God’s part against ourselves,
has sympathy with God, feels how unworthily the Ruler, Father,
Friend of men has been treated. It does not ask, “What will my sin
bring to me?” but, “What does my sin mean to God?” It involves, in
addition to the mere recognition of sin:

B. An emotional element,—change of feeling—sorrow for sin as committed
against goodness and justice, and therefore hateful to God, and hateful in
itself (Ps. 51:1, 2, 10, 14). This element of repentance is indicated in
the Scripture word μεταμέλομαι. If accompanied by the following element,
it is a λύπη κατὰ Θεόν. If not so accompanied, it is a λύπη τοῦ κόσμου =
remorse and despair (Mat. 27:3; Luke 18:23; 2 Cor. 7:9, 10).

_Ps. 51:1, 2, 10, 14_—“_Have mercy upon me ... blot out my
transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, And cleanse
me from my sin.... Create in me a clean heart, O God; ... Deliver
me from bloodguiltiness, O God_”; _Mat. 27:3_—“_Then Judas, who
betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself,
and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests
and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I betrayed innocent __
blood_”; _Luke 18:23_—“_when he heard these things, he became
exceeding sorrowful; for he was very rich_”; _2 Cor. 7:9, 10_—“_I
now rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye were made
sorry unto repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly
sort.... For godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation, a
repentance which bringeth no regret: but the sorrow of the world
worketh death._” We must distinguish sorrow for sin from shame on
account of it and fear of its consequences. These last are
selfish, while godly sorrow is disinterested. “A man may be angry
with himself and may despise himself without any humble
prostration before God or confession of his guilt” (Shedd, Dogm.
Theol., 2:535, note).

True repentance, as illustrated in _Ps. 51_, does not think of 1.
consequences, 2. other men, 3. heredity, as an excuse; but it sees
sin as 1. transgression against God, 2. personal guilt, 3.
defiling the inmost being. Perowne on _Ps. 51:1_—“In all godly
sorrow there is hope. Sorrow without hope may be remorse or
despair, but it is not repentance.” Much so‐called repentance is
illustrated by the little girl’s prayer: “O God, make me good,—not
real good, but just good enough so that I won’t have to be
whipped!” Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, 2:3—“’Tis meet so,
daughter; but lest you do repent As that the sin hath brought you
to this shame, Which sorrow is always towards ourselves, not
heaven, Showing we would not spare heaven as we love it, But as we
stand in fear.... I do repent me as it is an evil, And take the
shame with joy.” Tempest, 3:3—“For which foul deed, the Powers
delaying, not forgetting, Have incensed the seas, and shores, yea,
all the creatures, Against your peace.... Whose wrath to guard you
from ... is nothing but heart’s sorrow And a clear life ensuing.”

Simon, Reconciliation, 195, 379—“At the very bottom it is God
whose claims are advocated, whose part is taken, by that in us
which, whilst most truly our own, yea, our very selves, is also
most truly his, and of him. The divine energy and idea which
constitutes us will not let its own root and source suffer wrong
unatoned. God intends us to be givers as well as receivers, givers
even to him. We share in his image that we may be creators and
givers, not from compulsion, but in love.” Such repentance as this
is wrought only by the Holy Spirit. Conscience indeed is present
in every human heart, but only the Holy Spirit convinces of sin.
Why is the Holy Spirit needed? A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the
Spirit, 189‐201—“Conscience is the witness to the law; the Spirit
is the witness to grace. Conscience brings legal conviction; the
Spirit brings evangelical conviction. The one begets a conviction
unto despair; the other a conviction unto hope. Conscience
convinces of sin committed, of righteousness impossible, of
judgment impending; the Comforter convinces of sin committed, of
righteousness imputed, of judgment accomplished—in Christ. God
alone can reveal the divine view of sin, and enable man to
understand it.” But, however agonizing the sorrow, it will not
constitute true repentance, unless it leads to, or is accompanied
by:

C. A voluntary element,—change of purpose—inward turning from sin and
disposition to seek pardon and cleansing (Ps. 51:5, 7, 10; Jer. 25:5).
This includes and implies the two preceding elements, and is therefore the
most important aspect of repentance. It is indicated in the Scripture term
μετάνοια (Acts 2:38; Rom. 2:4).

_Ps. 51:5, 7, 10_—“_Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And
in sin did my mother conceive me.... Purge me with hyssop, and I
shall be clean: Wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow....
Create in me a clean heart, O God; And renew a right spirit within
me_”; _Jer. 25:5_—“_Return ye now every one from his evil way, and
from the evil of your doings_”; _Acts 2:38_—“_And Peter said unto
them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ_”; _Rom. 2:4_—“_despisest thou the riches of his
goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?_”

Walden, The Great Meaning of _Metanoia_, brings out well the fact
that “repentance” is not the true translation of the word, but
rather “change of mind”; indeed, he would give up the word
“repentance” altogether in the N. T., except as the translation of
μεταμέλεια. The idea of μετάνοια is abandonment of sin rather than
sorrow for sin,—an act of the will rather than a state of the
sensibility. Repentance is participation in Christ’s revulsion
from sin and suffering on account of it. It is repentance _from_
sin, not _of_ sin, nor _for_ sin—always ἀπό and ἔκ, never περί or
ἐπί. The true illustrations of repentance are found in Job
(_42:6_—“_I abhor myself, And repent in dust and ashes_”); in
David (_Ps. 51:10_—“_Create in me a clean heart; And renew a right
spirit within me_”); in Peter (_John 21:17_—“_thou knowest that I
love thee_”); in the penitent thief (_Luke 23:42_—“_Jesus,
remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom_”); in the prodigal
son (_Luke 15:18_—“_I will arise and go to my Father_”).

Repentance implies free will. Hence Spinoza, who knows nothing of
free will, knows nothing of repentance. In book 4 of his Ethics,
he says: “Repentance is not a virtue, that is, it does not spring
from reason; on the contrary, the man who repents of what he has
done is doubly wretched or impotent.” Still he urges that for the
good of society it is not desirable that vulgar minds should be
enlightened as to this matter; see Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 315.
Determinism also renders it irrational to feel righteous
indignation either at the misconduct of other people or of
ourselves. Moral admiration is similarly irrational in the
determinist; see Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 24.

In broad distinction from the Scriptural doctrine, we find the Romanist
view, which regards the three elements of repentance as the following: (1)
contrition; (2) confession; (3) satisfaction. Of these, contrition is the
only element properly belonging to repentance; yet from this contrition
the Romanist excludes all sorrow for sin of nature. Confession is
confession to the priest; and satisfaction is the sinner’s own doing of
outward penance, as a temporal and symbolic submission and reparation to
violated law. This view is false and pernicious, in that it confounds
repentance with its outward fruits, conceives of it as exercised rather
toward the church than toward God, and regards it as a meritorious ground,
instead of a mere condition, of pardon.

On the Romanist doctrine of Penance, Thornwell (Collected
Writings, 1:423) remarks: “The _culpa_ may be remitted, they say,
while the _pœna_ is to some extent retained.” The priest absolves,
not declaratively, but judicially. Denying the greatness of the
sin, it makes man able to become his own Savior. Christ’s
satisfaction, for sins after baptism, is not sufficient; our
satisfaction is sufficient. But performance of one duty, we
object, cannot make satisfaction for the violation of another.

We are required to confess one to another, and specially to those
whom we have wronged: _James 5:16_—“_Confess therefore your sins
one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed._”
This puts the hardest stress upon our natural pride. There are a
hundred who will confess to a priest or to God, where there is one
who will make frank and full confession to the aggrieved party.
Confession to an official religious superior is not penitence nor
a test of penitence. In the Confessional women expose their inmost
desires to priests who are forbidden to marry. These priests are
sometimes, though gradually, corrupted to the core, and at the
same time they are taught in the Confessional precisely to what
women to apply. In France many noble families will not permit
their children to confess, and their women are not permitted to
incur the danger.

Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords said of auricular confession:
“It has been injurious to the moral independence and virility of
the nation to an extent to which probably it has been given to no
other institution to affect the character of mankind.” See Walsh,
Secret History of the Oxford Movement; A. J. Gordon, Ministry of
the Spirit, 111—“Asceticism is an absolute inversion of the divine
order, since it seeks life through death, instead of finding death
through life. No degree of mortification can ever bring us to
sanctification.” Penance can never effect true repentance, nor be
other than a hindrance to the soul’s abandonment of sin. Penance
is something external to be done, and it diverts attention from
the real inward need of the soul. The monk does penance by
sleeping on an iron bed and by wearing a hair shirt. When Anselm
of Canterbury died, his under garments were found alive with
vermin which the saint had cultivated in order to mortify the
flesh. Dr. Pusey always sat on a hard chair, traveled as
uncomfortably as possible, looked down when he walked, and
whenever he saw a coal‐fire thought of hell. Thieves do penance by
giving a part of their ill‐gotten wealth to charity. In all these
things there is no transformation of the inner life.

In further explanation of the Scripture representations, we remark:

(_a_) That repentance, in each and all of its aspects, is wholly an inward
act, not to be confounded with the change of life which proceeds from it.

True repentance is indeed manifested and evidenced by confession of sin
before God (Luke 18:13), and by reparation for wrongs done to men (Luke
19:8). But these do not constitute repentance; they are rather fruits of
repentance. Between “repentance” and “fruit worthy of repentance,”
Scripture plainly distinguishes (Mat. 3:8).

_Luke 18:13_—“_But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift
up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying,
God, be thou merciful to me a sinner_ [‘be propitiated to me the
sinner’]”; _19:8_—“_And Zacchæus stood, and said unto the Lord,
Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I
have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold_”;
_Mat. 3:8_—“_Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance._”
Fruit worthy of repentance, or fruits meet for repentance, are: 1.
Confession of sin; 2. Surrender to Christ; 3. Turning from sin; 4.
Reparation for wrong doing; 5. Right moral conduct; 6. Profession
of Christian faith.

On _Luke 17:3_—“_if thy brother sin, rebuke him; and if he repent,
forgive him_”—Dr. B. H. Carroll remarks that the law is uniform
which makes repentance indispensable to forgiveness. It applies to
man’s forgiveness of man, as well as to God’s forgiveness of man,
or the church’s forgiveness of man. But I must be sure that I
cherish toward the offender the spirit of love, whether he repents
or not. Freedom from all malice toward him, however, and even
loving prayerful labor to lead him to repentance, is not
forgiveness. This I can grant only when he actually repents. If I
do forgive him without repentance, then I impose my rule on God
when I pray: “_Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our
debtors_” (_Mat. 6:12_).

On the question whether the requirement that we forgive without
atonement implies that God does, see Brit. and For. Evang. Rev.,
Oct 1881:678‐691—“Answer: 1. The present constitution of things is
based upon atonement. Forgiveness on our part is required upon the
ground of the Cross, without which the world would be hell. 2. God
is Judge. We forgive, as brethren. When he forgives, it is as
Judge of all the earth, of whom all earthly judges are
representatives. If earthly judges may exact justice, much more
God. The argument that would abolish atonement would abolish all
civil government. 3. I should forgive my brother on the ground of
God’s love, and Christ’s bearing of his sins. 4. God, who requires
atonement, is the same being that provides it. This is ‘handsome
and generous.’ But I can never provide atonement for my brother. I
must, therefore, forgive freely, only upon the ground of what
Christ has done for him.”

(_b_) That repentance is only a negative condition, and not a positive
means of salvation.

This is evident from the fact that repentance is no more than the sinner’s
present duty, and can furnish no offset to the claims of the law on
account of past transgression. The truly penitent man feels that his
repentance has no merit. Apart from the positive element of conversion,
namely, faith in Christ, it would be only sorrow for guilt unremoved. This
very sorrow, moreover, is not the mere product of human will, but is the
gift of God.

_Acts 5:31_—“_Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince
and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of
sins_”; _11:18_—“_Then to the Gentiles also hath God granted
repentance unto life_”; _2 Tim. 2:25_—“_if peradventure God may
give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth._” The truly
penitent man recognizes the fact that his sin deserves punishment.
He never regards his penitence as offsetting the demands of law,
and as making his punishment unjust. Whitefield: “Our repentance
needeth to be repented of, and our very tears to be washed in the
blood of Christ.” Shakespeare, Henry V, 4:1—“More will I do:
Though all that I can do is nothing worth, Since that my penitence
comes after all, Imploring pardon”—imploring pardon both for the
crime and for the imperfect repentance.

(_c_) That true repentance, however, never exists except in conjunction
with faith.

Sorrow for sin, not simply on account of its evil consequences to the
transgressor, but on account of its intrinsic hatefulness as opposed to
divine holiness and love, is practically impossible without some
confidence in God’s mercy. It is the Cross which first makes us truly
penitent (_cf._ John 12:32, 33). Hence all true preaching of repentance is
implicitly a preaching of faith (Mat. 3:1‐12; _cf._ Acts 19:4), and
repentance toward God involves faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21;
Luke 15:10, 24; 19:8, 9; _cf._ Gal. 3:7).

_John 12:32, 33_—“_And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will
draw all men unto myself. But this he said, signifying by what
manner of death he should die._” _Mat. 3:1‐12_—John the Baptist’s
preaching of repentance was also a preaching of faith; as is shown
by _Acts 19:4_—“_John baptized with the baptism of repentance,
saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should
come after him, that is, on Jesus._” Repentance involves faith:
_Acts 20:21_—“_testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ_”; _Luke 15:10,
24_—“_there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one
sinner that repenteth.... this my son was dead, and is alive
again; he was lost, and is found_”; _19:8, 9_—“_the half of my
goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught
of any man, I restore fourfold. And Jesus said unto him, To‐day is
salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he also is a son of
Abraham_”—the father of all believers; _cf._ _Gal. 3:6, 7_—“_Even
as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
righteousness. Know therefore that they that are of faith, the
same are sons of Abraham._”

_Luke 3:18_ says of John the Baptist: “_he preached the gospel
unto the people_,” and the gospel message, the glad tidings, is
more than the command to repent,—it is also the offer of salvation
through Christ; see Prof. Wm. Arnold Stevens, on John the Baptist
and his Gospel, in Studies on the Gospel according to John. _2
Chron. 34:19_—“_And it came to pass, when the king had heard the
words of the law, that he rent his clothes._” Moberly, Atonement
and Personality, 44‐46—“Just in proportion as one sins, does he
render it impossible for him truly to repent. Repentance must be
the work of another in him. Is it not the Spirit of the Crucified
which is the reality of the penitence of the truly penitent?” If
this be true, then it is plain that there is no true repentance
which is not accompanied by the faith that unites us to Christ.

(_d_) That, conversely, wherever there is true faith, there is true
repentance also.

Since repentance and faith are but different sides or aspects of the same
act of turning, faith is as inseparable from repentance as repentance is
from faith. That must be an unreal faith where there is no repentance,
just as that must be an unreal repentance where there is no faith. Yet
because the one aspect of his change is more prominent in the mind of the
convert than the other, we are not hastily to conclude that the other is
absent. Only that degree of conviction of sin is essential to salvation,
which carries with it a forsaking of sin and a trustful surrender to
Christ.

Bishop Hall: “Never will Christ enter into that soul where the
herald of repentance hath not been before him.” _2 Cor.
7:10_—“_repentance unto salvation._” In consciousness, sensation
and perception are in inverse ratio to each other. Clear vision is
hardly conscious of sensation, but inflamed eyes are hardly
conscious of anything besides sensation. So repentance and faith
are seldom equally prominent in the consciousness of the converted
man; but it is important to know that neither can exist without
the other. The truly penitent man will, sooner or later, show that
he has faith; and the true believer will certainly show, in due
season, that he hates and renounces sin.

The question, how much conviction a man needs to insure his
salvation, may be answered by asking how much excitement one needs
on a burning steamer. As, in the latter case, just enough to
prompt persistent effort to escape; so, in the former case, just
enough remorseful feeling is needed, to induce the sinner to
betake himself believingly to Christ.

On the general subject of Repentance, see Anderson, Regeneration,
279‐288; Bp. Ossory, Nature and Effects of Faith, 40‐48, 311‐318;
Woods, Works, 3:68‐78; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, 5:1‐10, 208‐246;
Luthardt, Compendium, 3d ed., 206‐208; Hodge, Outlines of
Theology, 375‐381; Alexander, Evidences of Christianity, 47‐60;
Crawford, Atonement, 413‐419.

2. Faith.

Faith is that voluntary change in the mind of the sinner in which he turns
to Christ. Being essentially a change of mind, it involves a change of
view, a change of feeling, and a change of purpose. We may therefore
analyze faith also into three constituents, each succeeding term of which
includes and implies the preceding:

A. An intellectual element (_notitia, credere Deum_),—recognition of the
truth of God’s revelation, or of the objective reality of the salvation
provided by Christ. This includes not only a historical belief in the
facts of the Scripture, but an intellectual belief in the doctrine taught
therein as to man’s sinfulness and dependence upon Christ.

_John 2:23, 24_—“_How when he was in Jerusalem at the passover,
during the feast, many believed on his name, beholding his signs
which he did. But Jesus did not trust himself unto them, for that
he knew all men_”; _cf._ _3:2_—Nicodemus has this external faith:
“_no one can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with
him_.” _James 2:19_—“_Thou believest that God is one; thou doest
well: the demons also believe, and shudder._” Even this historical
faith is not without its fruits. It is the spring of much
philanthropic work. There were no hospitals in ancient Rome. Much
of our modern progress is due to the leavening influence of
Christianity, even in the case of those who have not personally
accepted Christ.

McLaren, S. S. Times, Feb. 22, 1902:107—“Luke does not hesitate to
say, in _Acts 8:13_, that ‘_Simon Magus also himself believed_.’
But he expects us to understand that Simon’s belief was not faith
that saved, but mere credence in the gospel narrative as true
history. It had no ethical or spiritual worth. He was ‘_amazed_,’
as the Samaritans had been at his juggleries. It did not lead to
repentance, or confession, or true trust. He was only ‘_amazed_’
at Philip’s miracles, and there was no salvation in that.” Merely
historical faith, such as Disciples and Ritschlians hold to, lacks
the element of affection, and besides this lacks the present
reality of Christ himself. Faith that does not lay hold of a
present Christ is not saving faith.

B. An emotional element (_assensus, credere Deo_),—assent to the
revelation of God’s power and grace in Jesus Christ, as applicable to the
present needs of the soul. Those in whom this awakening of the
sensibilities is unaccompanied by the fundamental decision of the will,
which constitutes the next element of faith, may seem to themselves, and
for a time may appear to others, to have accepted Christ.

_Mat. 13:20, 21_—“_he that was sown upon the rocky places, this is
he that heareth the word, and straightway with joy receiveth it;
yet hath he not root in himself, but endureth for a while; and
when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word,
straightway he stumbleth_”; _cf._ _Ps. 106:12, 13_—“_Then believed
they his words; they sang his praise. They soon forgat his works;
they waited not for his counsel_”; _Ez. 33:31, 32_—“_And they come
unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my
people, and they hear thy words, but do them not; for with their
mouth they show much love, but their heart goeth after their gain.
And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath
a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument; for they
hear thy words, but they do them not_”; _John 5:35_—Of John the
Baptist: “_He was the lamp that burneth and shineth; and ye were
willing to rejoice for a season in his light_”; _8:30, 31_—“_As he
spake these things, many believed on him_ (εἰς αὐτόν). _Jesus
therefore said to those Jews that had believed him_ (αὐτῷ), _If ye
abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples._” They believed
_him_, but did not yet believe _on_ him, that is, make him the
foundation of their faith and life. Yet Jesus graciously
recognizes this first faint foreshadowing of faith. It might lead
to full and saving faith.

“Proselytes of the gate” were so called, because they contented
themselves with sitting in the gate, as it were, without going
into the holy city. “Proselytes of righteousness” were those who
did their whole duty, by joining themselves fully to the people of
God. Not _emotion_, but _devotion_, is the important thing.
Temporary faith is as irrational and valueless as temporary
repentance. It perhaps gained temporary blessing in the way of
healing in the time of Christ, but, if not followed by complete
surrender of the will, it might even aggravate one’s sin; see
_John 5:14_—“_Behold, thou art made whole; sin no more, lest a
worse thing befall thee._” The special faith of miracles was not a
high, but a low, form of faith, and it is not to be sought in our
day as indispensable to the progress of the kingdom. Miracles have
ceased, not because of decline in faith, but because the Holy
Spirit has changed the method of his manifestations, and has led
the church to seek more spiritual gifts.

Saving faith, however, includes also:

C. A voluntary element (_fiducia, credere in Deum_),—trust in Christ as
Lord and Savior; or, in other words—to distinguish its two aspects:

(_a_) Surrender of the soul, as guilty and defiled, to Christ’s
governance.

_Mat. 11:28, 29_—“_Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy
laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn
of me_”; _John 8:12_—“_I am the light of the world: he that
followeth me shall not walk in the darkness_”; _14:1_—“_Let not
your heart be troubled: believe in God, believe also in me_”;
_Acts 16:31_—“_Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be
saved._” Instances of the use of πιστεύω, in the sense of trustful
committance or surrender, are: _John 2:24_—“_But Jesus did not
trust himself unto them, for that he knew all men_”; _Rom.
3:2_—“_they were intrusted with the oracles of God_”; _Gal.
2:7_—“_when they saw that I had been intrusted with the gospel of
the uncircumcision._” πίστις = “trustful self‐surrender to God”
(Meyer).

In this surrender of the soul to Christ’s governance we have the
guarantee that the gospel salvation is not an unmoral trust which
permits continuance in sin. Aside from the fact that saving faith
is only the obverse side of true repentance, the very nature of
faith, as submission to Christ, the embodied law of God and source
of spiritual life, makes a life of obedience and virtue to be its
natural and necessary result. Faith is not only a declaration of
dependence, it is also a vow of allegiance. The sick man’s faith
in his physician is shown not simply by trusting him, but by
obeying him. Doing what the doctor says is the very proof of
trust. No physician will long care for a patient who refuses to
obey his orders. Faith is self‐surrender to the great Physician,
and a leaving of our case in his hands. But it is also the taking
of his prescriptions, and the active following of his directions.

We need to emphasize this active element in saving faith, lest men
get the notion that mere indolent acquiescence in Christ’s plan
will save them. Faith is not simple receptiveness. It gives
itself, as well as receives Christ. It is not mere passivity,—it
is also self‐committal. As all reception of knowledge is active,
and there must be attention if we would learn, so all reception of
Christ is active, and there must be intelligent giving as well as
taking. The Watchman, April 30, 1896—“Faith is more than belief
and trust. It is the action of the soul going out toward its
object. It is the exercise of a spiritual faculty akin to that of
sight; it establishes a personal relation between the one who
exercises faith and the one who is its object. When the
intellectual feature predominates, we call it belief; when the
emotional element predominates, we call it trust. This faith is at
once ‘An affirmation and an act Which bids eternal truth be
present fact.’ ”

There are great things received in faith, but nothing is received
by the man who does not first give himself to Christ. A conquered
general came into the presence of his conqueror and held out to
him his hand: “Your sword first, sir!” was the response. But when
General Lee _offered_ his sword to General Grant at Appomattox,
the latter returned it, saying: “No, keep your sword, and go to
your home.” Jacobi said that “Faith is the reflection of the
divine knowing and willing in the finite spirit of man.” G. B.
Foster, in Indiana Baptist Outlook, June 19, 1902—“Catholic
orthodoxy is wrong in holding that the authority for faith is the
church; for that would be an external authority. Protestant
orthodoxy is wrong in holding that the authority for faith is the
book; for that would be an external authority. Liberalism is wrong
in holding that the reason is the authority for faith. The
authority for faith is the revelation of God.” Faith in this
revelation is faith in Christ the Revealer. It puts the soul in
connection with the source of all knowledge and power. As the
connection of a wire with the reservoir of electric force makes it
the channel of vast energies, so the smallest measure of faith,
any real connection of the soul with Christ, makes it the
recipient of divine resources.

While faith is the act of the whole man, and intellect, affection,
and will are involved in it, will is the all‐inclusive and most
important of its elements. No other exercise of will is such a
revelation of our being and so decisive of our destiny. The
voluntary element in faith is illustrated in marriage. Here one
party pledges the future in permanent self‐surrender, commits
one’s self to another person in confidence that this future, with
all its new revelations of character, will only justify the
decision made. Yet this is rational; see Holland, in Lux Mundi,
46‐48. To put one’s hand into molten iron, even though one knows
of the “spheroidal state” that gives impunity, requires an
exertion of will; and not all workmen in metals are courageous
enough to make the venture. The child who leaped into the dark
cellar, in confidence that her father’s arms would be open to
receive her, did not act irrationally, because she had heard her
father’s command and trusted his promise. Though faith in Christ
is a leap in the dark, and requires a mighty exercise of will, it
is nevertheless the highest wisdom, because Christ’s word is
pledged that “_him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out_”
(_John 6:37_).

J. W. A. Stewart: “Faith is 1. a bond between persons, trust,
confidence; 2. it makes ventures, takes much for granted; 3. its
security is the character and power of him in whom we believe,—not
our faith, but his fidelity, is the guarantee that our faith is
rational.” Kant said that nothing in the world is good but the
good will which freely obeys the law of the good. Pfleiderer
defines faith as the free surrender of the heart to the gracious
will of God. Kaftan, Dogmatik, 21, declares that the Christian
religion is essentially faith, and that this faith manifests
itself as 1. doctrine; 2. worship; 3. morality.

(_b_) Reception and appropriation of Christ, as the source of pardon and
spiritual life.

_John 1:12_—“_as many as received him, to them gave he the right
to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
name_”; _4:14_—“_whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give
him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall
become in him a well of water springing up unto eternal life_”;
_6:53_—“_Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his
blood, ye have not life in yourselves_”; _20:31_—“_these are
written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God; and that believing ye may have life in his name_”; _Eph.
3:17_—“_that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith_”;
_Heb. 11:1_—“_Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a
conviction of things not seen_”; _Rev. 3:20_—“_Behold, I stand at
the door and knock: if any man hear my voice and open the door, I
will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me._”

The three constituents of faith may be illustrated from the
thought, feeling, and action of a person who stands by a boat,
upon a little island which the rising stream threatens to
submerge. He first regards the boat from a purely intellectual
point of view,—it is merely an _actually existing boat_. As the
stream rises, he looks at it, secondly, with some accession of
emotion,—his prospective danger awakens in him the conviction that
it is a _good boat for a time of need_, though he is not yet ready
to make use of it. But, thirdly, when he feels that the rushing
tide must otherwise sweep him away, a volitional element is
added,—he gets into the boat, trusts himself to it, accepts it as
his _present, and only, means of safety_. Only this last faith in
the boat is faith that saves, although this last includes both the
preceding. It is equally clear that the getting into the boat may
actually save a man, while at the same time he may be full of
fears that the boat will never bring him to shore. These fears may
be removed by the boatman’s word. So saving faith is not
necessarily assurance of faith; but it becomes assurance of faith
when the Holy Spirit “_beareth witness with our spirit, that we
are children of God_” (_Rom. 8:16_). On the nature of this
assurance, and on the distinction between it and saving faith, see
pages 844‐846.

“Coming to Christ,” “looking to Christ,” “receiving Christ,” are
all descriptions of faith, as are also the phrases: “surrender to
Christ,” “submission to Christ,” “closing in with Christ.” Paul
refers to a confession of faith in _Rom. 10:9_—“_if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord._” Faith, then, is a taking
of Christ as both Savior and Lord; and it includes both
appropriation of Christ, and consecration to Christ. The voluntary
element in faith, however, is a giving as well as a taking. The
giving, or surrender, is illustrated in baptism by submergence;
the taking, or reception, by emergence. See further on the
Symbolism of Baptism. McCosh, Div. Government: “Saving faith is
the consent of the will to the assent of the understanding, and
commonly accompanied with emotion.” Pres. Hopkins, in Princeton
Rev., Sept. 1878:511‐540—“In its intellectual element, faith is
receptive, and believes that God _is_; in its affectional element,
faith is assimilative, and believes that God is a _rewarder_; in
its voluntary element, faith is operative, and actually _comes_ to
God (_Heb. 11:6_).”

Where the element of surrender is emphasized and the element of
reception is not understood, the result is a legalistic
experience, with little hope or joy. Only as we _appropriate_
Christ, in connection with our _consecration_, do we realize the
full blessing of the gospel. Light requires two things: the sun to
shine, and the eye to take in its shining. So we cannot be saved
without Christ to save, and faith to take the Savior for ours.
Faith is the act by which we receive Christ. The woman who touched
the border of Jesus’ garment received his healing power. It is
better still to keep in touch with Christ so as to receive
continually his grace and life. But best of all is taking him into
our inmost being, to be the soul of our soul and the life of our
life. This is the essence of faith, though many Christians do not
yet realize it. Dr. Curry said well that faith can never be
defined because it is a fact of life. It is a merging of our life
in the life of Christ, and a reception of Christ’s life to
interpenetrate and energize ours. In faith we must take Christ as
well as give ourselves. It is certainly true that surrender
without trust will not make us possessors of God’s peace. F. L.
Anderson: “Faith is submissive reliance on Jesus Christ for
salvation: 1. Reliance on Jesus Christ—not mere intellectual
belief; 2. Reliance on him for salvation—we can never undo the
past or atone for our sins; 3. Submissive reliance on Christ.
Trust without surrender will never save.”

The passages already referred to refute the view of the Romanist, that
saving faith is simply implicit assent to the doctrines of the church; and
the view of the Disciple or Campbellite, that faith is merely intellectual
belief in the truth, on the presentation of evidence.

The Romanist says that faith can coëxist with mortal sin. The
Disciple holds that faith may and must exist before
regeneration,—regeneration being completed in baptism. With these
erroneous views, compare the noble utterance of Luther, Com. on
Galatians, 1:191, 247, quoted in Thomasius, III, 2:183—“True
faith,” says Luther, “is that assured trust and firm assent of
heart, by which Christ is laid hold of,—so that Christ is the
object of faith. Yet he is not merely the object of faith; but in
the very faith, so to speak, Christ is present. Faith lays hold of
Christ, and grasps him as a present possession, just as the ring
holds the jewel.” Edwards, Works, 4:71‐73; 2:601‐641—“Faith,” says
Edwards, “includes the whole act of unition to Christ as a Savior.
The entire active uniting of the soul, or the whole of what is
called coming to Christ, and receiving of him, is called faith in
the Scripture.” See also Belief, What Is It? 150‐179, 290‐298.

Hatch, Hibbert Lectures, 530—“Faith began by being: 1. a simple
trust in God; then followed, 2. a simple expansion of that
proposition into the assent to the proposition that God is good,
and, 3. a simple acceptance of the proposition that Jesus Christ
was his Son; then, 4. came in the definition of terms, and each
definition of terms involved a new theory; finally, 5. the
theories were gathered together into systems, and the martyrs and
witnesses of Christ died for their faith, not outside but inside
the Christian sphere; and instead of a world of religious belief
which resembled the world of actual fact in the sublime unsymmetry
of its foliage and the deep harmony of its discords, there
prevailed the most fatal assumption of all, that the symmetry of a
system is the test of its truth and the proof thereof.” We regard
this statement of Hatch as erroneous, in that it attributes to the
earliest disciples no larger faith than that of their Jewish
brethren. We claim that the earliest faith involved an implicit
acknowledgement of Jesus as Savior and Lord, and that this faith
of simple obedience and trust became explicit recognition of our
Lord’s deity and atonement just so soon as persecution and the
Holy Spirit disclosed to them the real contents of their own
consciousness.

An illustration of the simplicity and saving power of faith is
furnished by Principal J. R. Andrews, of New London, Conn.,
Principal of the Bartlett Grammar School. When the steamer
Atlantic was wrecked off Fisher’s Island, though Mr. Andrews could
not swim, he determined to make a desperate effort to save his
life. Binding a life‐preserver about him, he stood on the edge of
the deck waiting his opportunity, and when he saw a wave moving
shoreward, he jumped into the rough breakers and was borne safely
to land. He was saved by faith. He accepted the conditions of
salvation. Forty perished in a scene where he was saved. In one
sense he saved himself; in another sense he depended upon God. It
was a combination of personal activity and dependence upon God
that resulted in his salvation. If he had not used the life‐
preserver, he would have perished; if he had not cast himself into
the sea, he would have perished. So faith in Christ is reliance
upon him for salvation; but it is also our own making of a new
start in life and the showing of our trust by action. Tract 357,
Am. Tract Society—“What is it to believe on Christ? It is: To feel
your need of him; To believe that he is able and willing to save
you, and to save you now; and To cast yourself unreservedly upon
his mercy, and trust in him alone for salvation.”

In further explanation of the Scripture representations, we remark:

(_a_) That faith is an act of the affections and will, as truly as it is
an act of the intellect.

It has been claimed that faith and unbelief are purely intellectual
states, which are necessarily determined by the facts at any given time
presented to the mind; and that they are, for this reason, as destitute of
moral quality and as far from being matters of obligation, as are our
instinctive feelings of pleasure and pain. But this view unwarrantably
isolates the intellect, and ignores the fact that, in all moral subjects,
the state of the affections and will affects the judgment of the mind with
regard to truth. In the intellectual act the whole moral nature expresses
itself. Since the tastes determine the opinions, faith is a moral act, and
men are responsible for not believing.

_John 3:18‐20_—“_He that believeth on him is not judged: he that
believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not
believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is
the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved
the darkness rather than the light; for their works were evil. For
every one that doeth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the
light, lest his works should be reproved_”; _5:40_—“_ye will not
come to me, that ye may have life_”; _16:8, 9_—“_And he, when he
is come, will convict the world in respect of sin ... of sin,
because they believe not on me_”; _Rev. 2:21_—“_she willed not to
repent._” Notice that the Revised Version very frequently
substitutes the voluntary and active terms “disobedience” and
“disobedient” for the “_unbelief_” and “_unbelieving_” of the
Authorized Version,—as in _Rom. 15:31_; _Heb. 3:18; 4:6, 11;
11:31_. See Park, Discourses, 45, 46.

Savages do not know that they are responsible for their physical
appetites, or that there is any right and wrong in matters of
sense, until they come under the influence of Christianity. In
like manner, even men of science can declare that the intellectual
sphere has no part in man’s probation, and that we are no more
responsible for our opinions and beliefs than we are for the color
of our skin. But faith is not a merely intellectual act,—the
affections and will give it quality. There is no moral quality in
the belief that 2 + 2 = 4, because we can not help that belief.
But in believing on Christ there is moral quality, because there
is the element of choice. Indeed it may be questioned, whether, in
every judgment upon moral things, there is not an act of will.

Hence on _John 7:17_—“_If any man willeth to do his will, he shall
know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak
from myself_”—F. L. Patton calls attention to the two common
errors: (1) that obedience will certify doctrine,—which is untrue,
because obedience is the result of faith, not _vice versa_; (2)
that personal experience is the ultimate test of faith,—which is
untrue, because the Bible is the only rule of faith, and it is one
thing to receive truth through the feelings, but quite another to
test truth by the feelings. The text really means, that if any man
is willing to do God’s will, he shall know whether it be of God;
and the two lessons to be drawn are: (1) the gospel needs no
additional evidence; (2) the Holy Ghost is the hope of the world.
On responsibility for opinions and beliefs, see Mozley, on Blanco
White, in Essays Philos. and Historical, 2:142; T. T. Smith,
Hulsean Lectures for 1839. Wilfrid Ward, The Wish to Believe,
quotes Shakespeare: “Thy wish was father, Harry, to that thought”;
and Thomas Arnold: “They dared not lightly believe what they so
much wished to be true.”

Pascal: “Faith is an act of the will.” Emerson, Essay on Worship:
“A man bears beliefs as a tree bears apples. Man’s religious faith
is the expression of what he is.” Bain: “In its essential
character, belief is a phase of our active nature, otherwise
called the will.” Nash, Ethics and Revelation, 257—“Faith is the
creative human answer to the creative divine offer. It is not the
passive acceptance of a divine favor.... By faith man, laying hold
of the personality of God in Christ, becomes a true person. And by
the same faith he becomes, under God, a creator and founder of
true society.” Inge, Christian Mysticism, 52—“Faith begins with an
experiment and ends with an experience. But even the power to make
the experiment is given from above. Eternal life is not γνῶσις,
but the state of acquiring knowledge—ἴνα γιγνώσκωσιν. It is
significant that John, who is so fond of the verb ‘to know,’ never
uses the substantive γνῶσις.” Crane, Religion of To‐morrow,
148—“ ‘I will not obey, because I do not yet know’? But this is
making the intellectual side the only side of faith, whereas the
most important side is the will‐side. Let a man follow what he
does believe, and he shall be led on to larger faith. Faith is the
reception of the personal influence of a living Lord, and a
corresponding action.”

William James, Will to Believe, 61—“This life is worth living,
since it is what we make it, from the moral point of view....
Often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the
only thing that makes the result come true.... If your heart does
not _want_ a world of moral reality, your head will assuredly
never make you believe in one.... Freedom to believe covers only
living options which the intellect cannot by itself resolve.... We
are not to put a stopper on our heart, and meantime act as if
religion were not true”; Psychology, 2:282, 321—“Belief is
consent, willingness, turning of our disposition. It is the mental
state or function of cognizing reality. We never disbelieve
anything except for the reason that we believe something else
which contradicts the first thing. We give higher reality to
whatever things we select and emphasize and turn to with a
will.... We need only in cold blood act as if the thing in
question were real, and keep acting as if it were real, and it
will infallibly end by growing into such a connection with our
life that it will become real. Those to whom God and duty are mere
names, can make them much more than that, if they make a little
sacrifice to them every day.”

E. G. Robinson: “Campbellism makes intellectual belief to be
saving faith. But saving faith is consent of the heart as well as
assent of the intellect. On the one hand there is the intellectual
element: faith is belief upon the ground of evidence; faith
without evidence is credulity. But on the other hand faith has an
element of affection; the element of love is always wrapped up in
it. So Abraham’s faith made Abraham like God; for we always become
like that which we trust.” Faith therefore is not chronologically
subsequent to regeneration, but is its accompaniment. As the
soul’s appropriation of Christ and his salvation, it is not the
result of an accomplished renewal, but rather the medium through
which that renewal is effected. Otherwise it would follow that one
who had not yet believed (_i. e._, received Christ) might still be
regenerate, whereas the Scripture represents the privilege of
sonship as granted only to believers. See _John 1:12, 13_—“_But as
many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children
of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not
of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man,
but of God_”; also _3:5, 6, 10‐15_; _Gal. 3:26_; _2 Pet. 1:3_;
_cf._ _1 John 5:1_.

(_b_) That the object of saving faith is, in general, the whole truth of
God, so far as it is objectively revealed or made known to the soul; but,
in particular, the person and work of Jesus Christ, which constitutes the
centre and substance of God’s revelation (Acts 17:18; 1 Cor. 1:23; Col.
1:27; Rev. 19:10).

The patriarchs, though they had no knowledge of a personal Christ, were
saved by believing in God so far as God had revealed himself to them; and
whoever among the heathen are saved, must in like manner be saved by
casting themselves as helpless sinners upon God’s plan of mercy, dimly
shadowed forth in nature and providence. But such faith, even among the
patriarchs and heathen, is implicitly a faith in Christ, and would become
explicit and conscious trust and submission, whenever Christ were made
known to them (Mat. 8:11, 12; John 10:16; Acts 4:12; 10:31, 34, 35, 44;
16:31).

_Acts 17:18_—“_he preached Jesus and the resurrection_”; _1 Cor.
1:23_—“_we preach Christ crucified_”; _Col. 1:27_—“_this mystery
among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:
whom we proclaim_”; _Rev. 19:10_—“_the testimony of Jesus is the
spirit of prophecy._” Saving faith is not belief in a dogma, but
personal trust in a personal Christ. It is, therefore, possible to
a child. Dorner: “The object of faith is the Christian
revelation—God in Christ.... Faith is union with objective
Christianity—appropriation of the real contents of Christianity.”
Dr. Samuel Hopkins, the great uncle, defined faith as “an
understanding, cordial receiving of the divine testimony
concerning Jesus Christ and the way of salvation by him, in which
the heart accords and conforms to the gospel.” Dr. Mark Hopkins,
the great nephew, defined it as “confidence in a personal being.”
Horace Bushnell: “Faith rests on a person. Faith is that act by
which one person, a sinner, commits himself to another person, a
Savior.” In _John 11:25_—“_I am the resurrection and the
life_”—Martha is led to substitute belief in a person for belief
in an abstract doctrine. Jesus is “_the resurrection_,” because he
is “_the life_.” All doctrine and all miracle is significant and
important only because it is the expression of the living Christ,
the Revealer of God.

The object of faith is sometimes represented in the N. T., as
being God the Father. _John 5:24_—“_He that heareth my word, and
believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life_”; _Rom. 4:5_—“_to
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the
ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness._” We can explain
these passages only when we remember that Christ is God
“_manifested in the flesh_” (_1 Tim. 3:16_), and that “_he that
hath seen me hath seen the Father_” (_John 14:9_). Man may receive
a gift without knowing from whom it comes, or how much it has
cost. So the heathen, who casts himself as a sinner upon God’s
mercy, may receive salvation from the Crucified One, without
knowing who is the giver, or that the gift was purchased by agony
and blood. Denney, Studies in Theology, 154—“No N. T. writer ever
_remembered_ Christ. They never thought of him as belonging to the
past. Let us not preach about the _historical_ Christ, but rather,
about the _living_ Christ; nay, let us preach _him_, present and
omnipotent. Jesus could say: ‘_Whither I go, ye know the way_’
(_John 14:4_); for they knew _him_, and he was both the _end_ and
the _way_.”

Dr. Charles Hodge unduly restricts the operations of grace to the
preaching of the incarnate Christ: Syst. Theol., 2:648—“There is
no faith where the gospel is not heard; and where there is no
faith, there is no salvation. This is indeed an awful doctrine.”
And yet, in 2:668, he says most inconsistently: “As God is
everywhere present in the material world, guiding its operations
according to the laws of nature; so he is everywhere present with
the minds of men, as the Spirit of truth and goodness, operating
on them according to laws of their free moral agency, inclining
them to good and restraining them from evil.” This presence and
revelation of God we hold to be through Christ, the eternal Word,
and so we interpret the prophecy of Caiaphas as referring to the
work of the personal Christ: _John 11:51, 52_—“_he prophesied that
Jesus should die for the nation; and not for the nation only, but
that he might also gather together into one the children of God
that are scattered abroad._”

Since Christ is the Word of God and the Truth of God, he may be
received even by those who have not heard of his manifestation in
the flesh. A proud and self‐righteous morality is inconsistent
with saving faith; but a humble and penitent reliance upon God, as
a Savior from sin and a guide of conduct, is an implicit faith in
Christ; for such reliance casts itself upon God, so far as God has
revealed himself,—and the only Revealer of God is Christ. We have,
therefore, the hope that even among the heathen there may be some,
like Socrates, who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit working
through the truth of nature and conscience, have found the way of
life and salvation.

The number of such is so small as in no degree to weaken the
claims of the missionary enterprise upon us. But that there are
such seems to be intimated in Scripture: _Mat. 8:11, 12_—“_many
shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the
sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into the outer darkness_”;
_John 10:16_—“_And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they
shall become one flock, one shepherd_”; _Acts 4:12_—“_And in none
other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name
under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved_”;
_10:31, 34, 35, 44_—“_Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine
alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.... Of a truth I
perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation
he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to
him.... While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit fell on
all them that heard the word_”; _16:31_—“_Believe on the Lord
Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house._”

And instances are found of apparently regenerated heathen; see in
Godet on _John 7:17_, note (vol. 2:277), the account of the so‐
called “Chinese hermit,” who accepted Christ, saying: “This is the
only Buddha whom men ought to worship!” Edwards, Life of Brainard,
173‐175, gives an account “of one who was a devout and zealous
reformer, or rather restorer, of what he supposed was the ancient
religion of the Indians.” After a period of distress, he says that
God “comforted his heart and showed him what he should do, and
since that time he had known God and tried to serve him; and loved
all men, be they who they would, so as he never did before.” See
art. by Dr. Lucius E. Smith, in Bib. Sac., Oct. 1881:622‐645, on
the question: “Is salvation possible without a knowledge of the
gospel?” H. B. Smith, System, 323, note, rightly bases hope for
the heathen, not on morality, but on sacrifice.

A chief of the Camaroons in S. W. Africa, fishing with many of his
tribe long before the missionaries came, was overtaken by a storm,
and while almost all the rest were drowned, he and a few others
escaped. He gathered his people together afterwards and told the
story of disaster. He said: “When the canoes upset and I found
myself battling with the waves, I thought: To whom shall I cry for
help? I knew that the god of the hills could not help me; I knew
that the evil spirit would not help me. So I cried to the Great
Father, Lord, save me! At that moment my feet touched the sand of
the beach, and I was safe. Now let all my people honor the Great
Father, and let no man speak a word against him, for he can help
us.” This chief afterwards used every effort to prevent strife and
bloodshed, and was remembered by those who came after as a peace‐
maker. His son told this story to Alfred Saker, the missionary,
saying “Why did you not come sooner? My father longed to know what
you have told us; he thirsted for the knowledge of God.” Mr. Saker
told this in England in 1879.

John Fiske appends to his book, The Idea of God, 168, 169, the
following pathetic words of a Kafir, named Sekese, in conversation
with a French traveler, M. Arbrouseille, on the subject of the
Christian religion: “Your tidings,” said this uncultured
barbarian, “are what I want, and I was seeking before I knew you,
as you shall hear and judge for yourself. Twelve years ago I went
to feed my flocks; the weather was hazy. I sat down upon a rock,
and asked myself sorrowful questions; yes, sorrowful, because I
was unable to answer them. Who has touched the stars with his
hands—on what pillars do they rest? I asked myself. The waters
never weary, they know no other law than to flow without ceasing
from morning till night and from night till morning; but where do
they stop, and who makes them flow thus? The clouds also come and
go, and burst in water over the earth. Whence come they—who sends
them? The diviners certainly do not give us rain; for how could
they do it? And why do I not see them with my own eyes, when they
go up to heaven to fetch it? I cannot see the wind; but what is
it? Who brings it, makes it blow and roar and terrify us? Do I
know how the corn sprouts? Yesterday there was not a blade in my
field; to‐day I returned to my field and found some; who can have
given to the earth the wisdom and the power to produce it? Then I
buried my head in both hands.”

On the question whether men are ever led to faith, without
intercourse with living Christians or preachers, see Life of
Judson, by his son, 84. The British and Foreign Bible Society
publish a statement, made upon the authority of Sir Bartle Frere,
that he met with “an instance, which was carefully investigated,
in which all the inhabitants of a remote village in the Deccan had
abjured idolatry and caste, removed from their temples the idols
which had been worshiped there time out of mind, and agreed to
profess a form of Christianity which they had deduced from the
careful perusal of a single Gospel and a few tracts.” Max Müller,
Chips, 4:177‐189, apparently proves that Buddha is the original of
St. Josaphat, who has a day assigned to him in the calendar of
both the Greek and the Roman churches. “Sancte Socrates, ora pro
nobis.”

The Missionary Review of the World, July, 1896:519‐523, tells the
story of Adiri, afterwards called John King, of Maripastoon in
Dutch Guiana. The Holy Spirit wrought in him mightily years before
he heard of the missionaries. He was a coal‐black negro, a heathen
and a fetish worshiper. He was convicted of sin and apparently
converted through dreams and visions. Heaven and hell were
revealed to him. He was sick unto death, and One appeared to him
declaring himself to be the Mediator between God and man, and
telling him to go to the missionaries for instruction. He was
persecuted, but he won his tribe from heathenism and transformed
them into a Christian community.

S. W. Hamblen, missionary to China, tells of a very earnest and
consistent believer who lived at rather an obscure town of about
2800 people. The evangelist went to visit him and found that he
was a worthy example to those around him. He had become a
Christian before he had seen a single believer, by reading a
Chinese New Testament. Although till the evangelist went to his
house he had never met a Baptist and did not know that there were
any Baptist churches in existence, yet by reading the New
Testament he had become not only a Christian but a strong Baptist
in belief, so strong that he could argue with the missionary on
the subject of baptism.

The Rev. K. E. Malm, a pioneer Baptist preacher in Sweden, on a
journey to the district as far north as Gestrikland, met a woman
from Lapland who was on her way to Upsala in order to visit Dr.
Fjellstedt and converse with him as to how she might obtain peace
with God and get rid of her anxiety concerning her sins. She said
she had traveled 60 (= 240 English) miles, and she had still far
to go. Malm improved the opportunity to speak to her concerning
the crucified Christ, and she found peace in believing on his
atonement. She became so happy that she clapped her hands, and for
joy could not sleep that night. She said later: “Now I will return
home and tell the people what I have found.” This she did, and did
not care to continue her journey to Upsala, in order to get
comfort from Dr. Fjellstedt.

(_c_) That the ground of faith is the external word of promise. The ground
of assurance, on the other hand, is the inward witness of the Spirit that
we fulfil the conditions of the promise (Rom. 4:20, 21; 8:16; Eph. 1:13; 1
John 4:13; 5:10). This witness of the Spirit is not a new revelation from
God, but a strengthening of faith so that it becomes conscious and
indubitable.

True faith is possible without assurance of salvation. But if Alexander’s
view were correct, that the object of saving faith is the proposition:
“God, for Christ’s sake, now looks with reconciling love on me, a sinner,”
no one could believe, without being at the same time assured that he was a
saved person. Upon the true view, that the object of saving faith is not a
proposition, but a person, we can perceive not only the simplicity of
faith, but the possibility of faith even where the soul is destitute of
assurance or of joy. Hence those who already believe are urged to seek for
assurance (Heb. 6:11; 2 Peter 1:10).

_Rom. 4:20, 21_—“_looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not
through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to
God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was
able also to perform_”; _8:16_—“_The Spirit himself beareth
witness with our spirit, that we are children of God_”; _Eph.
1:13_—“_in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the
Holy Spirit of promise_”; _1 John 4:13_—“_hereby we know that we
abide in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his
Spirit_”; _5:10_—“_He that believeth on the Son of God hath the
witness in him._” This assurance is not of the essence of faith,
because believers are exhorted to attain to it: _Heb. 6:11_—“_And
we desire that each one of you may show the same diligence unto
the fulness of hope_ [marg.—‘_full assurance_’] _even to the
end_”; _2 Pet. 1:10_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more
diligence to make your calling and election sure._” _Cf._ _Prov.
14:14_—“_a good man shall be satisfied from himself._”

There is need to guard the doctrine of assurance from mysticism.
The witness of the Spirit is not a new and direct revelation from
God. It is a strengthening of previously existing faith until he
who possesses this faith cannot any longer doubt that he possesses
it. It is a general rule that all our emotions, when they become
exceedingly strong, also become conscious. Instance affection
between man and woman.

Edwards, Religious Affections, in Works, 3:83‐91, says the witness
of the Spirit is not a new word or suggestion from God, but an
enlightening and sanctifying influence, so that the heart is drawn
forth to embrace the truth already revealed, and to perceive that
it embraces it. “Bearing witness” is not in this case to declare
and assert a thing to be true, but to hold forth evidence from
which a thing may be proved to be true: God “_beareth witness ...
by signs and wonders_” (_Heb. 2:4_). So the “seal of the Spirit”
is not a voice or suggestion, but a work or effect of the Spirit,
left as a divine mark upon the soul, to be an evidence by which
God’s children may be known. Seals had engraved upon them the
image or name of the persons to whom they belonged. The “seal of
the Spirit,” the “earnest of the Spirit,” the “witness of the
Spirit,” are all one thing. The childlike spirit, given by the
Holy Spirit, is the Holy Spirit’s witness or evidence in us.

See also illustration of faith and assurance, in C. S. Robinson’s
Short Studies for S. S. Teachers, 179, 180. Faith should be
distinguished not only from assurance, but also from feeling or
joy. Instance Abraham’s faith when he went to sacrifice Isaac; and
Madame Guyon’s faith, when God’s face seemed hid from her. See, on
the witness of the Spirit, Short, Bampton Lectures for 1846;
British and For. Evan. Rev., 1888:617‐631. For the view which
confounds faith with assurance, see Alexander, Discourses on
Faith, 63‐118.

It is important to distinguish saving faith from assurance of
faith, for the reason that lack of assurance is taken by so many
real Christians as evidence that they know nothing of the grace of
God. To use once more a well‐worn illustration: It is getting into
the boat that saves us, and not our comfortable feelings about the
boat. What saves us is faith in _Christ_, not faith in _our_
faith, or faith in _the_ faith. The astronomer does not turn his
telescope to the reflection of the sun or moon in the water, when
he can turn it to the sun or moon itself. Why obscure our faith,
when we can look to Christ?

The faith in a distant Redeemer was the faith of Christian, in
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. Only at the end of his journey does
Christian have Christ’s presence. This representation rests upon a
wrong conception of faith as laying hold of a promise or a
doctrine, rather than as laying hold of the living and present
Christ. The old Scotch woman’s direction to the inquirer to “grip
the promise” is not so good as the direction to “grip Christ.” Sir
Francis Drake, the great English sailor, had for his crest an
anchor with a cable running up into the sky. A poor boy, taught in
a mission school in Ireland, when asked what was meant by saving
faith, replied: “It is grasping God with the heart.”

The view of Charles Hodge, like that of Alexander, puts doctrine
before Christ, and makes the formal principle, the supremacy of
Scripture, superior to the material principle, justification by
faith. The Shorter Catechism is better: “Faith in Christ is a
saving grace, whereby we receive and rest _on him alone_ for
salvation, as he is offered to us in the gospel.” If this relation
of faith to the personal Christ had been kept in mind, much
religious despondency might have been avoided. Murphy, Natural
Selection and Spiritual Freedom, 30, 31, tells us that Frances
Ridley Havergal could never fix the date of her conversion. From
the age of six to that of fourteen she suffered from religious
fears, and did not venture to call herself a Christian. It was the
result of confounding _being_ at peace with God and being
_conscious_ of that peace. So the mother of Frederick Denison
Maurice, an admirable and deeply religious woman, endured long and
deep mental suffering from doubts as to her personal election.

There is a witness of the Spirit, with some sinners, that they are
_not_ children of God, and this witness is through the truth,
though the sinner does not know that it is the Spirit who reveals
it to him. We call this work of the Spirit conviction of sin. The
witness of the Spirit that we are children of God, and the
assurance of faith of which Scripture speaks, are one and the same
thing, the former designation only emphasizing the source from
which the assurance springs. False assurance is destitute of
humility, but true assurance is so absorbed in Christ that self is
forgotten. Self‐consciousness, and desire to display one’s faith,
are not marks of true assurance. When we say: “That man has a
great deal of assurance,” we have in mind the false and self‐
centered assurance of the hypocrite or the self‐deceiver.

Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 231—“It has been said that any one who
can read Edwards’s Religious Affections, and still believe in his
own conversion, may well have the highest assurance of its
reality. But how few there were in Edwards’s time who gained the
assurance, may be inferred from the circumstance that Dr. Hopkins
and Dr. Emmons, disciples of Edwards and religious leaders in New
England, remained to the last uncertain of their conversion.” He
can attribute this only to the semi‐deistic spirit of the time,
with its distant God and imperfect apprehension of the
omnipresence and omnipotence of Christ. Nothing so clearly marks
the practical progress of Christianity as the growing faith in
Jesus, the only Revealer of God in nature and history as well as
in the heart of the believer. As never before, faith comes
directly to Christ, abides in him, and finds his promise true:
“_Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world_”
(_Mat. 28:20_). “Nothing before, nothing behind; The steps of
faith Fall on the seeming void and find The Rock beneath.”

(_d_) That faith necessarily leads to good works, since it embraces the
whole truth of God so far as made known, and appropriates Christ, not only
as an external Savior, but as an internal sanctifying power (Heb. 7:15,
16; Gal. 5:6).

Good works are the proper evidence of faith. The faith which does not lead
men to act upon the commands and promises of Christ, or, in other words,
does not lead to obedience, is called in Scripture a “dead,” that is, an
unreal, faith. Such faith is not saving, since it lacks the voluntary
element—actual appropriation of Christ (James 2:14‐26).

_Heb. 7:15, 16_—“_another priest, who hath been made, not after
the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless
life_”; _Gal. 5:6_—“_For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through
love_”; _James 2:14, 26_—“_What doth it profit, my brethren, if a
man say he hath faith, but have not works? Can that faith save
him?... For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so
faith apart from works is dead._”

The best evidence that I believe a man’s word is that I act upon
it. Instance the bank‐cashier’s assurance to me that a sum of
money is deposited with him to my account. If I am a millionaire,
the communication may cause me no special joy. My faith in the
cashier’s word is tested by my going, or not going, for the money.
So my faith in Christ is evidenced by my acting upon his commands
and promises. We may illustrate also by the lifting of the trolley
to the wire, and the resulting light and heat and motion to the
car that before stood dark and cold and motionless upon the track.
Salvation by works is like getting to one’s destination by pushing
the car. True faith depends upon God for energy, but it results in
activity of all our powers. _Rom. 3:28_—“_We reckon therefore that
a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law._” We
are saved only by faith, yet this faith will be sure to bring
forth good works; see _Gal. 5:6_—“_faith working through love._”
Dead faith might be illustrated by Abraham Lincoln’s Mississippi
steamboat, whose whistle was so big that, when it sounded, the
boat stopped. Confession exhausts the energy, so that none is left
for action.

A. J. Gordon, The First Thing in the World, or The Primacy of
Faith: “David Brainard speaks with a kind of suppressed
astonishment of what he observed among the degraded North American
Indians; how, preaching to them the good news of salvation through
the atonement of Christ and persuading them to accept it by faith,
and then hastening on in his rapid missionary tours, he found, on
returning upon his track a year or two later, that the fruits of
righteousness and sobriety and virtue and brotherly love were
everywhere visible, though it had been possible to impart to them
only the slightest moral or ethical teaching.”

(_e_) That faith, as characteristically the inward act of reception, is
not to be confounded with love or obedience, its fruit.

Faith is, in the Scriptures, called a work, only in the sense that man’s
active powers are engaged in it. It is a work which God requires, yet
which God enables man to perform (John 6:29—ἔργον τοῦ Θεοῦ. _Cf._ Rom.
1:17—δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ). As the gift of God and as the mere taking of
undeserved mercy, it is expressly excluded from the category of works upon
the basis of which man may claim salvation (Rom. 3:28; 4:4, 5, 16). It is
not the act of the full soul bestowing, but the act of an empty soul
receiving. Although this reception is prompted by a drawing of heart
toward God inwrought by the Holy Spirit, this drawing of heart is not yet
a conscious and developed love: such love is the result of faith (Gal.
5:6). What precedes faith is an unconscious and undeveloped tendency or
disposition toward God. Conscious and developed affection toward God, or
love proper, must always follow faith and be the product of faith. So,
too, obedience can be rendered only after faith has laid hold of Christ,
and with him has obtained the spirit of obedience (Rom. 1:5—ὑπακοὴν
πίστεως = “obedience resulting from faith”). Hence faith is not the
procuring cause of salvation, but is only the instrumental cause. The
procuring cause is the Christ, whom faith embraces.

_John 6:29_—“_This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom
he hath sent_”; _cf._ _Rom. 1:17_—“_For therein is revealed a
righteousness of God from faith unto faith: as it is written, But
the righteous shall live by faith_”; _Rom. 3:28_—“_We reckon
therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of
the law_”; _4:4, 5, 16_—“_Now to him that worketh, the reward is
not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh
not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith
is reckoned for righteousness.... For this cause it is of faith,
that it may be according to grace_”; _Gal. 5:6_—“_For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision;
but faith working through love_”; _Rom. 1:5_—“_through whom we
received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all
the nations._”

Faith stands as an intermediate factor between the unconscious and
undeveloped tendency or disposition toward God inwrought in the
soul by God’s regenerating act, on the one hand, and the conscious
and developed affection toward God which is one of the fruits and
evidences of conversion, on the other. Illustrate by the motherly
instinct shown in a little girl’s care for her doll,—a motherly
instinct which becomes a developed mother’s love, only when a
child of her own is born. This new love of the Christian is an
activity of his own soul, and yet it is a “_fruit of the Spirit_”
(_Gal. 5:22_). To attribute it wholly to himself would be like
calling the walking and leaping of the lame man (_Acts 3:8_)
merely a healthy activity of his own. For illustration of the
priority of faith to love, see Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:533, note;
on the relation of faith to love, see Julius Müller, Doct. Sin,
1:116, 117.

The logical order is therefore: 1. Unconscious and undeveloped
love; 2. Faith in Christ and his truth; 3. Conscious and developed
love; 4. Assurance of faith. Faith and love act and react upon one
another. Each advance in the one leads to a corresponding advance
in the other. But the source of all is in God. God loves, and
therefore he gives love to us as well as receives love from us.
The unconscious and undeveloped love which he imparts in
regeneration is the root of all Christian faith. The Roman
Catholic is right in affirming the priority of love to faith, if
he means by love only this unconscious and undeveloped affection.
But the Protestant is also right in affirming the priority of
faith to love, if he means by love a conscious and developed
affection. Stevens, Johannine Theology, 368—“Faith is not a mere
passive receptivity. As the acceptance of a divine life, it
involves the possession of a new moral energy. Faith works by
love. In faith a new life‐force is received, and new life‐powers
stir within the Christian man.”

We must not confound repentance with fruits meet for repentance,
nor faith with fruits meet for faith. A. J. Gordon, The First
Thing in the World: “Love is the greatest thing in the world, but
faith is the first. The tree is greater than the root, but let it
not boast: ‘_if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the
root, but the root thee_’ (_Rom. 11:18_). Love has no power to
branch out and bear fruit, except as, through faith, it is rooted
in Christ and draws nourishment from him. _1 Pet. 1:5_—‘_who by
the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready
to be revealed in the last time_’; _1 Cor. 13:13_—‘_now abideth
faith, hope, love_’; _Heb. 10:19‐25_—‘_draw near ... in fulness of
faith ... hold fast the confession of our hope ... provoke unto
love and good works_’; _Rom. 5:1‐5_—‘_justified by faith ...
rejoice in hope ... love of God hath been shed abroad in our
hearts_’; _1 Thess. 1:1, 2_—‘_work of faith and labor of love and
patience of hope._’ Faith is the actinic ray, hope the
luminiferous ray, love the calorific ray. But faith contains the
principle of the divine likeness, as the life of the parent given
to the child contains the principle of likeness to the father, and
will insure moral and physical resemblance in due time.”

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 112—“ ‘_The love of the
Spirit_’ (_Rom. 15:30_) is the love of the Spirit of Christ, and
it is given us for overcoming the world. The divine life is the
source of the divine love. Therefore the love of God is ‘_shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is given unto us_’
(_Rom. 5:5_). Because we are by nature so wholly without heavenly
affection, God, through the indwelling Spirit, gives us his own
love with which to love himself.” A. H. Strong, Christ in
Creation, 286, 287, points out that in _2 Cor. 5:14_—“_the love of
Christ constraineth us_”—the love of Christ is “not our love to
Christ, for that is a very weak and uncertain thing; nor even
Christ’s love to us, for that is still something external to us.
Each of these leaves a separation between Christ and us, and fails
to act as a moving power within.... Not simply our love to Christ,
nor simply Christ’s love to us, but rather Christ’s love _in_ us,
is the love that constrains. This is the thought of the apostle.”
The first fruit of this love, in its still unconscious and
undeveloped state, is faith.

(_f_) That faith is susceptible of increase.

This is evident, whether we consider it from the human or from the divine
side. As an act of man, it has an intellectual, an emotional, and a
voluntary element, each of which is capable of growth. As a work of God in
the soul of man, it can receive, through the presentation of the truth and
the quickening agency of the Holy Spirit, continually new accessions of
knowledge, sensibility, and active energy. Such increase of faith,
therefore, we are to seek, both by resolute exercise of our own powers,
and above all, by direct application to the source of faith in God (Luke
17:5).

_Luke 17:5_—“_And the apostles said unto the Lord, Increase our
faith._” The adult Christian has more faith than he had when a
child,—evidently there has been increase. _1 Cor. 12:8, 9_—“_For
to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom ... to
another faith, in the same Spirit._” In this latter passage, it
seems to be intimated that for special exigencies the Holy Spirit
gives to his servants special faith, so that they are enabled to
lay hold of the general promise of God and make special
application of it. _Rom. 8:26, 27_—“_the Spirit also helpeth our
infirmity ... maketh intercession for us ... maketh intercession
for the saints according to the will of God_”; _1 John 5:14,
15_—“_And this is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if
we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us: and if we
know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask, we know that we have
the petitions which we have asked of him._” Only when we begin to
believe, do we appreciate our lack of faith, and the great need of
its increase. The little beginning of light makes known the
greatness of the surrounding darkness. _Mark 9:24_—“_I believe;
help thou mine unbelief_”—was the utterance of one who recognized
both the need of faith and the true source of supply.

On the general subject of Faith, see Köstlin, Die Lehre von dem
Glauben, 13‐85, 301‐341, and in Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 4:177
_sq._; Romaine on Faith, 9‐89; Bishop of Ossory, Nature and
Effects of Faith, 1‐40; Venn, Characteristics of Belief,
Introduction; Nitzsch, System of Christ. Doct., 294.

IV. Justification.

1. Definition of Justification.

By justification we mean that judicial act of God by which, on account of
Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, he declares that sinner to
be no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, but to be restored to his
favor. Or, to give an alternative definition from which all metaphor is
excluded: Justification is the reversal of God’s attitude toward the
sinner, because of the sinner’s new relation to Christ. God did condemn;
he now acquits. He did repel; he now admits to favor.

Justification, as thus defined, is therefore a declarative act, as
distinguished from an efficient act; an act of God external to the sinner,
as distinguished from an act within the sinner’s nature and changing that
nature; a judicial act, as distinguished from a sovereign act; an act
based upon and logically presupposing the sinner’s union with Christ, as
distinguished from an act which causes and is followed by that union with
Christ.

The word “declarative” does not imply a “spoken” word on God’s
part,—much less that the sinner hears God speak. That
justification is sovereign, is held by Arminians, and by those who
advocate a governmental theory of the atonement. On any such
theory, justification must be sovereign; since Christ bore, not
the penalty of the law, but a substituted suffering which God
graciously and sovereignly accepts in place of our suffering and
obedience.

Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1100, wrote a tract for the
consolation of the dying, who were alarmed on account of sin. The
following is an extract from it: “_Question_. Dost thou believe
that the Lord Jesus died for thee? _Answer._ I believe it. _Qu._
Dost thou thank him for his passion and death? _Ans._ I do thank
him. _Qu._ Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except
by his death? _Ans._ I believe it.” And then Anselm addresses the
dying man: “Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in his death
alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to
his death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself
wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord,
between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus
Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if he shall say
that thou art a sinner, say thou: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of
our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If he say that
thou hast deserved condemnation, say: ‘Lord, I set the death of
our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and his
merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If
he say that he is wroth with thee, say: ‘Lord, I oppose the death
of our Lord Jesus Christ between thy wrath and me.’ And when thou
hast completed this, say again: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord
Jesus Christ between thee and me.’ ” See Anselm, Opera (Migne),
1:686, 687. The above quotation gives us reason to believe that
the New Testament doctrine of justification by faith was
implicitly, if not explicitly, held by many pious souls through
all the ages of papal darkness.

2. Proof of the Doctrine of Justification.

A. Scripture proofs of the doctrine as a whole are the following:

_Rom. 1:17_—“_a righteousness of God from faith unto faith_”;
_3:24‐30_—“_being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus ... the justifier of him that
hath faith in Jesus.... We reckon therefore that a man is
justified by faith apart from the works of the law ... justify the
circumcision by faith, and the uncircumsion through faith_”; _Gal.
3:11_—“_Now that no man is justified by the law before God, is
evident: for, The righteous shall live by faith; and the law is
not of faith; but, He that doeth them shall live in them_”; _Eph.
1:7_—“_in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the
forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his
grace_”; _Heb. 11:4, 7_—“_By faith Abel offered unto God a more
excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne
to him that he was righteous.... By faith Noah ... moved with
godly fear, prepared an ark ... became heir of the righteousness
which is according to faith_”; _cf._ _Gen. 15:6_—“_And he believed
in Jehovah; and he reckoned it to him for righteousness_”; _Is.
7:9_—“_If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be
established_”; _28:16_—“_he that believeth shall not be in
haste_”; _Hab. 2:4_—“_the righteous shall live by his faith._”

_Ps. 85:8_—“_He will speak peace unto his people._” God’s great
word of pardon includes all else. Peace with him implies all the
covenant privileges resulting therefrom. _1 Cor. 3:21‐23_—“_all
things are yours,_” because “_ye are Christ’s; and Christ is
God’s_.” This is not salvation by law, nor by ideals, nor by
effort, nor by character; although obedience to law, and a loftier
ideal, and unremitting effort, and a pure character, are
consequences of justification. Justification is the change in
God’s attitude toward the sinner which makes all these
consequences possible. The only condition of justification is the
sinner’s faith in Jesus, which merges the life of the sinner in
the life of Christ. Paul expresses the truth in _Gal. 2:16,
20_—“_Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law
but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ
Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by
the works of the law ... I have been crucified with Christ; and it
is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life
which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is
in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me._”

With these observations and qualifications we may assent to much
that is said by Whiton, Divine Satisfaction, 64, who distinguishes
between forgiveness and remission: “Forgiveness is the righting of
disturbed personal relations. Remission is removal of the
consequences which in the natural order of things have resulted
from our fault. God forgives all that is strictly personal, but
remits nothing that is strictly natural in sin. He imparts to the
sinner the power to bear his burden and work off his debt of
consequences. Forgiveness is not remission. It is introductory to
remission, just as conversion is not salvation, but introductory
to salvation. The prodigal was received by his father, but he
could not recover his lost patrimony. He could, however, have been
led by penitence to work so hard that he earned more than he had
lost.

“Here is an element in justification which Protestantism has
ignored, and which Romanism has tried to retain. Debts must be
paid to the uttermost farthing. The scars of past sins must remain
forever. Forgiveness converts the persistent energy of past sin
from a destructive to a constructive power. There is a
transformation of energy into a new form. Genuine repentance spurs
us up to do what we can to make up for time lost and for wrong
done. The sinner is clothed anew with moral power. We are all to
be judged by our works. That Paul had been a blasphemer was ever
stimulating him to Christian endeavor. The faith which receives
Christ is a peculiar _spirit_, a certain moral activity of love
and obedience. It is not mere reliance on what Christ was and did,
but active endeavor to become and to do like him. Human justice
takes hold of _deeds_; divine righteousness deals with
_character_. Justification by faith is justification by spirit and
inward principle, apart from the merit of works or performances,
but never without these. God’s charity takes the will for the
deed. This is not justification by outward conduct, as the
Judaizers thought, but by the godly spirit.” If this new spirit be
the Spirit of Christ to whom faith has united the soul, we can
accept the statement. There is danger however of conceiving this
spirit as purely man’s own, and justification as not external to
the sinner nor as the work of God, but as the mere name for a
subjective process by which man justifies himself.

B. Scripture use of the special words translated “justify” and
“justification” in the Septuagint and in the New Testament.

(_a_) δικαιόω—uniformly, or with only a single exception, signifies, not
to make righteous, but to declare just, or free from guilt and exposure to
punishment. The only O. T. passage where this meaning is questionable is
Dan. 12:3. But even here the proper translation is, in all probability,
not “they that turn many to righteousness,” but “they that justify many,”
_i. e._, cause many to be justified. For the Hiphil force of the verb, see
Girdlestone, O. T. Syn., 257, 258, and Delitzsch on Is. 53:11; _cf._ James
5:19, 20.

O. T. texts: _Ex. 23:7_—“_I will not justify the wicked_”; _Deut.
25:1_—“_they_ [the judges] _shall justify the righteous, and
condemn the wicked_”; _Job 27:5_—“_Far be it from me that I should
justify you_”; _Ps. 143:2_—“_in thy sight no man living is
righteous_”; _Prov. 17:15_—“_He that justifieth the wicked, and he
that condemneth the righteous, Both of them alike are an
abomination to Jehovah_”; _Is. 5:23_—“_that justify the wicked for
a bribe, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from
him_”; _50:8_—“_He is near that justifieth me_”; _53:11_—“_by the
knowledge of __ himself shall my righteous servant justify many;
and he shall bear their iniquities_”; _Dan. 12:3_—“_and they that
turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever_”
(“they that justify many,” _i. e._, cause many to be justified);
_cf._ _James 5:19, 20_—“_My brethren, if any among you err from
the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he who
converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul
from death, and shall cover a multitude of sins._”

The Christian minister absolves from sin, only as he marries a
couple: he does not join them,—he only declares them joined. So he
declares men forgiven, if they have complied with the appointed
divine conditions. Marriage may be invalid where these conditions
are lacking, but the minister’s absolution is of no account where
there is no repentance of sin and faith in Christ; see G. D.
Boardman, The Church, 178. We are ever to remember that the term
justification is a forensic term which presents the change of
God’s attitude toward the sinner in a pictorial way derived from
the procedure of earthly tribunals. The fact is larger and more
vital than the figure used to describe it.

McConnell, Evolution of Immortality, 134, 135—“Christ’s terms are
biological; those of many theologians are legal. It may be ages
before we recover from the misfortune of having had the truth of
Christ interpreted and fixed by jurists and logicians, instead of
by naturalists and men of science. It is much as though the
rationale of the circulation of the blood had been wrought out by
Sir Matthew Hale, or the germ theory of disease interpreted by
Blackstone, or the doctrine of evolution formulated by a
legislative council.... The Christ is intimately and vitally
concerned with the eternal life of men, but the question involved
is of their living or perishing, not of a system of judicial
rewards and penalties.” We must remember however that even biology
gives us only one side of the truth. The forensic conception of
justification furnishes its complement and has its rights also.
The Scriptures represent both sides of the truth. Paul gives us
the judicial aspect, John the vital aspect, of justification.

In Rom. 6:7—ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας = “he that once
died with Christ was acquitted from the service of sin considered as a
penality.” In 1 Cor. 4:4—οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ
δεδικαίωμαι = “I am conscious of no fault, but that does not in itself
make certain God’s acquittal as respects this particular charge.” The
usage of the epistle of James does not contradict this; the doctrine of
James is that we are justified only by such faith as makes us faithful and
brings forth good works. “He uses the word exclusively in a judicial
sense; he combats a mistaken view of πίστις, not a mistaken view of
δικαιόω”; see James 2:21, 23, 24, and Cremer, N. T. Lexicon, Eng. trans.,
182, 183. The only N. T. passage where this meaning is questionable is
Rev. 22:11; but here Alford, with א, A and B, reads δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω.

N. T. texts: _Mat. 12:37_—“_For by thy words thou shalt be
justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned_”; _Luke
7:29_—“_And all the people ... justified God, being baptized with
the baptism of John_”; _10:29_—“_But he, desiring to justify
himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?_” _16:15_—“_Ye
are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God
knoweth your hearts_”; _18:14_—“_This man went down to his house
justified rather than the other_”; _cf._ _13_ (lit.) “_God, be
thou propitiated toward me the sinner_”; _Rom. 4:6‐8_—“_Even as
David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto whom God
reckoneth righteousness apart from works, saying, Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed
is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin_”; _cf._ _Ps.
32:1, 2_,—“_Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose
sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom Jehovah imputeth not
iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no guile._”

_Rom. 5:18, 19_—“_So then as through one trespass the judgment
came unto all men to condemnation; even so through one act of
righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of
life. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made
sinners, even so through the obedience of the one shall the many
be made righteous_”; _8:33, 34_—“_Who shall lay anything to the
charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that
condemneth?_” _2 Cor. 5:19, 21_—“_God was in Christ reconciling
the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their
trespasses.... Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our
behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God_ [God’s
justified persons] _in him_”; _Rom. 6:7_—“_he that hath died is
justified from sin_”; _1 Cor. 4:4_—“_For I know nothing against
myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is
the Lord_” (on this last text, see Expositor’s Greek Testament,
_in loco_).

_James 2:21, 23, 24_—“_Was not Abraham our father justified by
works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?...
Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for
righteousness.... Ye see that by works __ a man is justified, and
not only by faith._” James is denouncing a dead faith, while Paul
is speaking of the necessity of a living faith; or, rather, James
is describing the nature of faith, while Paul is describing the
instrument of justification. “They are like two men beset by a
couple of robbers. Back to back each strikes out against the
robber opposite him,—each having a different enemy in his eye”
(Wm. M. Taylor). Neander on _James 2:14‐26_—“James is denouncing
mere adhesion to an external law, trust in intellectual possession
of it. With him, law means an inward principle of life. Paul,
contrasting law as he does with faith, commonly means by law mere
external divine requisition.... James does not deny salvation to
him who _has_ faith, but only to him who falsely _professes_ to
have. When he says that ‘_by works a man is justified_,’ he takes
into account the outward manifestation only, speaks from the point
of view of human consciousness. In works only does faith show
itself as genuine and complete.” _Rev. 22:11_—“_he that is
righteous, let him do righteousness still_”—not, as the A. V.
seemed to imply, “he that is just, let him be justified still”—_i.
e._, made subjectively holy.

Christ is the great Physician. The physician says: “If you wish to
be cured, you must trust me.” The patient replies: “I do trust you
fully.” But the physician continues: “If you wish to be cured, you
must take my medicines and do as I direct.” The patient objects:
“But I thought I was to be cured by trust in you. Why lay such
stress on what I do?” The physician answers: “You must show your
trust in me by your action. Trust in me, without action in proof
of trust, amounts to nothing” (S. S. Times). Doing without a
physician is death; hence Paul says works cannot save. Trust in
the physician implies obedience; hence James says faith without
works is dead. Crane, Religion of To‐morrow, 152‐155—“Paul insists
on apple‐tree righteousness, and warns us against Christmas‐tree
righteousness.” Sagebeer, The Bible in Court, 77,78—“By works,
Paul means works of law; James means by works, works of faith.”
Hovey, in The Watchman, Aug. 27, 1891—“A difference of emphasis,
occasioned chiefly by the different religious perils to which
readers were at the time exposed.”

(_b_) δικαίωσις—is the act, in process, of declaring a man just,—that is,
acquitted from guilt and restored to the divine favor (Rom. 4:25; 5:18).

_Rom. 4:25_—“_who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was
raised for our justification_”; _5:18_—“_unto all men to
justification of life._” Griffith‐Jones, Ascent through Christ,
367, 368—“Raised for our justification” = Christ’s death made our
justification possible, but it did not consummate it. Through his
rising from the dead he was able to come into that relationship to
the believer which restores the lost or interrupted sonship. In
the church the fact of the resurrection is perpetuated, and the
idea of the resurrection is realized.

(_c_) δικαίωμα—is the act, as already accomplished, of declaring a man
just,—that is, no longer exposed to penalty, but restored to God’s favor
(Rom. 5:16, 18; _cf._ 1 Tim. 3:16). Hence, in other connections, δικαίωμα
has the meaning of statute, legal decision, act of justice (Luke 1:6; Rom.
2:26; Heb. 9:1).

_Rom. 5:16, 18_—“_of many trespasses unto justification ...
through one act of righteousness_”; _cf._ _1 Tim.
3:16_—“_justified in the spirit._” The distinction between
δικαίωσις and δικαίωμα may be illustrated by the distinction
between poesy and poem,—the former denoting something in process,
an ever‐working spirit; the latter denoting something fully
accomplished, a completed work. Hence δικαίωμα is used in _Luke
1:6_—“_ordinances of the Lord_”; _Rom. 2:26_—“_ordinances of the
law_”; _Heb. 9:1_—“_ordinances of divine service._”

(_d_) δικαιοσύνη—is the state of one justified, or declared just (Rom.
8:10; 1 Cor. 1:30). In Rom. 10:3, Paul inveighs against τὴν ἰδίαν
δικαιοσύνην as insufficient and false, and in its place would put τὴν τοῦ
Θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην,—that is, a δικαιοσύνη which God not only requires, but
provides; which is not only acceptable to God, but proceeds from God, and
is appropriated by faith,—hence called δικαιοσύνη πίστεως or ἐκ πίστεως.
“The primary signification of the word, in Paul’s writings, is therefore
that state of the believer which is called forth by God’s act of
acquittal,—the state of the believer as justified,” that is, freed from
punishment and restored to the divine favor.

_Rom. 8:10_—“_the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _1
Cor. 1:30_—“_Christ Jesus, who was made unto us ...
righteousness_”; _Rom. 10:3_—“_being ignorant of God’s
righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not
subject themselves to the righteousness of God._” Shedd, Dogm.
Theol., 2:542—“The ‘_righteousness of God_’ is the active and
passive obedience of incarnate God.” See, on δικαιοσύνη, Cremer,
N. T. Lexicon, Eng. trans., 174; Meyer on Romans, trans.,
68‐70—“δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ (gen. of origin, emanation from) =
rightness which proceeds from God—the relation of being right into
which man is put by God (by an act of God declaring him
righteous).”

E. G. Robinson, Christian Theology, 304—“When Paul addressed those
who trusted in their own righteousness, he presented salvation as
attainable only through faith in another; when he addressed
Gentiles who were conscious of their need of a helper, the
forensic imagery is not employed. Scarce a trace of it appears in
his discourses as recorded in the Acts, and it is noticeably
absent from all the epistles except the Romans and the Galatians.”

Since this state of acquittal is accompanied by changes in the character
and conduct, δικαιοσύνη comes to mean, secondarily, the moral condition of
the believer as resulting from this acquittal and inseparably connected
with it (Rom. 14:17; 2 Cor. 5:21). This righteousness arising from
justification becomes a principle of action (Mat. 3:15; Acts 10:35; Rom.
6:13, 18). The term, however, never loses its implication of a justifying
act upon which this principle of action is based.

_Rom. 14:17_—“_the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit_”; _2 Cor.
5:21_—“_that we might become the righteousness of God in him_”;
_Mat. 3:15_—“_Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness_”; _Acts 10:35_—“_in every nation he that feareth
him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him_”; _Rom.
6:13_—“_present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and
your members as instruments of righteousness unto God._” Meyer on
_Rom. 3:23_—“Every mode of conception which refers redemption and
the forgiveness of sins, not to a real atonement through the death
of Christ, but subjectively to the dying and reviving with him
guaranteed and produced by that death (Schleiermacher, Nitzsch,
Hofmann), is opposed to the N. T.,—a mixing up of justification
and sanctification.”

On these Scripture terms, see Bp. of Ossory, Nature and Effects of
Faith, 436‐496; Lange, Com., on _Romans 3:24_; Buchanan on
Justification, 226‐249. _Versus_ Moehler, Symbolism, 102—“The
forgiveness of sins ... is undoubtedly a remission of the guilt
and the punishment which Christ hath taken and borne upon himself;
but it is _likewise_ the transfusion of his Spirit into us”;
Newman, Lectures on Justification, 68‐143; Knox, Remains; N. W.
Taylor, Revealed Theology, 310‐372.

It is a great mistake in method to derive the meaning of δίκαιος
from that of δικαιοσύνη, and not _vice versa_. Wm. Arnold Stevens,
in Am. Jour. Theology, April, 1897—“δικαιοσύνη, righteousness, in
all its meanings, whether ethical or forensic, has back of it the
idea of _law_; also the idea of _violated_ law; it derives its
forensic sense from the verb δικαιόω and its cognate noun
δικαίωσις; δικαιοσύνη therefore is legal acceptableness, _the
status before the law of a pardoned sinner_.”

Denney, in Expos. Gk. Test., 2:565—“In truth, ‘sin,’ ‘the law,’
‘the curse of the law,’ ‘death,’ are names for something which
belongs not to the Jewish but to the human conscience; and it is
only because this is so that the gospel of Paul is also a gospel
for us. Before Christ came and redeemed the world, all men were at
bottom on the same footing: Pharisaism, legalism, moralism, or
whatever it is called, is in the last resort the attempt to be
good without God, to achieve a righteousness of our own, without
an initial all‐inclusive immeasurable debt to him; in other words,
without submitting, as sinful men must submit, to be justified by
faith apart from works of our own, and to find in that
justification, and in that only, the spring and impulse of all
good.”

It is worthy of special observation that, in the passages cited above, the
terms “justify” and “justification” are contrasted, not with the process
of depraving or corrupting, but with the outward act of condemning; and
that the expressions used to explain and illustrate them are all derived,
not from the inward operation of purifying the soul or infusing into it
righteousness, but from the procedure of courts in their judgments, or of
offended persons in their forgiveness of offenders. We conclude that these
terms, wherever they have reference to the sinner’s relation to God,
signify a declarative and judicial act of God, external to the sinner, and
not an efficient and sovereign act of God changing the sinner’s nature and
making him subjectively righteous.

In the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, session 6,
chap. 9 is devoted to the refutation of the “inanis hæreticorum
fiducia”; and Canon 12 of the session anathematizes those who say:
“fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinæ
misericordiæ, peccata remittentis propter Christum”; or that
“justifying faith is nothing but trust in the divine mercy which
pardons sins for Christ’s sake.” The Roman Catholic doctrine on
the contrary maintains that the ground of justification is not
simply the faith by which the sinner appropriates Christ and his
atoning work, but is also the new love and good works wrought
within him by Christ’s Spirit. This introduces a subjective
element which is foreign to the Scripture doctrine of
justification.

Dr. E. G. Robinson taught that justification consists of three
elements: 1. Acquittal; 2. Restoration to favor; 3. Infusion of
righteousness. In this he accepted a fundamental error of
Romanism. He says: “Justification and sanctification are not to be
distinguished as chronologically and statically different.
Justification and righteousness are the same thing from different
points of view. Pardon is not a mere declaration of forgiveness—a
merely arbitrary thing. Salvation introduces a new law into our
sinful nature which annuls the law of sin and destroys its penal
and destructive consequences. Forgiveness of sins must be in
itself a gradual process. The final consequences of a man’s sins
are written indelibly upon his nature and remain forever. When
Christ said: ‘Thy sins are forgiven thee’, it was an objective
statement of a subjective fact. The person was already in a state
of living relation to Christ. The gospel is damnation to the
damnable, and invitation, love and mercy to those who feel their
need of it. We are saved through the enforcement of law on every
one of us. Forgiveness consists in the removal from consciousness
of a sense of ill‐desert. Justification, aside from its forensic
use, is a transformation and a promotion. Sense of forgiveness is
a sense of relief from a hated habit of mind.” This seems to us
dangerously near to a denial that justification is an act of God,
and to an affirmation that it is simply a subjective change in
man’s condition.

E. H. Johnson: “If Dr. Robinson had been content to say that the
divine fiat of justification had the manward effect of
regeneration, he would have been correct; for the verdict would be
empty without this manward efficacy. But unfortunately, he made
the effect a part of the cause, identifying the divine
justification with its human fruition, the clearance of the past
with the provision for the future.” We must grant that the words
_inward_ and _outward_ are misleading, for God is not under the
law of space, and the soul itself is not in space. Justification
takes place just as much in man as outside of him. Justification
and regeneration take place at the same moment, but logically
God’s act of renewing is the cause and God’s act of approving is
the effect. Or we may say that regeneration and justification are
both of them effects of our union with Christ. _Luke 1:37_—“_For
no word from God shall be void of power._” Regeneration and
justification may be different aspects of God’s turning—his
turning us, and his turning himself. But it still is true that
justification is a change in God and not in the creature.

3. Elements of Justification.

These are two:

A. Remission of punishment.

(_a_) God acquits the ungodly who believe in Christ, and declares them
just. This is not to declare them innocent,—that would be a judgment
contrary to truth. It declares that the demands of the law have been
satisfied with regard to them, and that they are now free from its
condemnation.

_Rom. 4:5_—“_But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for
righteousness_”; _cf._ _John 3:16_—“_gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth on him should not perish_”; see page 856,
(_a_), and Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:549. _Rom. 5:1_—“_Being
therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God_”—not
subjective peace or quietness of mind, but objective peace or
reconciliation, the opposite of the state of war, in which we are
subject to the divine wrath. Dale, Ephesians, 67—“Forgiveness may
be defined: 1. in _personal_ terms, as a cessation of the anger or
moral resentment of God against sin; 2. in _ethical_ terms, as a
release from the guilt of sin which oppresses the conscience; 3.
in _legal_ terms, as a remission of the punishment of sin, which
is eternal death.”

(_b_) This acquittal, in so far as it is the act of God as judge or
executive, administering law, may be denominated pardon. In so far as it
is the act of God as a father personally injured and grieved by sin, yet
showing grace to the sinner, it is denominated forgiveness.

_Micah 7:18_—“_Who is a God like into thee, that pardoneth
iniquity, and passeth over the transgression of the remnant of his
heritage?_” _Ps. 130:4_—“_But there is forgiveness with thee, That
thou mayst be feared._” It is hard for us to understand God’s
feeling toward sin. Forgiveness seems easy to us, largely because
we are indifferent toward sin. But to the holy One, to whom sin is
the abominable thing which he hates, forgiveness involves a
fundamental change of relation, and nothing but Christ’s taking
the penalty of sin upon him can make it possible. B. Fay Mills: “A
tender spirited follower of Jesus Christ said to me, not long ago,
that it had taken him twelve years to forgive an injury that had
been committed against him.” How much harder for God to forgive,
since he can never become indifferent to the nature of the
transgression!

(_c_) In an earthly tribunal, there is no acquittal for those who are
proved to be transgressors,—for such there is only conviction and
punishment. But in God’s government there is remission of punishment for
believers, even though they are confessedly offenders; and, in
justification, God declares this remission.

There is no forgiveness in nature. F. W. Robertson preached this.
But he ignored the _vis medicatrix_ of the gospel, in which
forgiveness is offered to all. The natural conscience says: “I
must pay my debt.” But the believer finds that “Jesus paid it
all.” Illustrate by the poor man, who on coming to pay his
mortgage finds that the owner at death had ordered it to be
burned, so that now there is nothing to pay. _Ps. 34:22_—“_Jehovah
redeemeth the soul of his servants, And none of them that take
refuge in him shall be condemned._”

A child disobeys his father and breaks his arm. His sin involves
two penalties, the alienation from his father and the broken arm.
The father, on repentance, may forgive his child. The personal
relation is re‐established, but the broken bone is not therefore
at once reknit. The father’s forgiveness, however, will assure the
father’s help toward complete healing. So justification does not
ensure the immediate removal of all the natural consequences of
our sins. It does ensure present reconciliation and future
perfection. Clarke, Christian Theology, 364—“Justification is not
equivalent to acquittal, for acquittal declares that the man has
not done wrong. Justification is rather the acceptance of a man,
on sufficient grounds, although he has done wrong.” As the
Plymouth Brethren say: “It is not the _sin_‐question, but the
_Son_‐question.” “_Their sins and their iniquities will I remember
no more_” (_Heb. 10:17_). The father did not allow the prodigal to
complete the confession he had prepared to make, but interrupted
him, and dwelt only upon his return home (_Luke 15:22_).

(_d_) The declaration that the sinner is no longer exposed to the penalty
of law, has its ground, not in any satisfaction of the law’s demand on the
part of the sinner himself, but solely in the bearing of the penalty by
Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith. Justification, in its first
element, is therefore that act by which God, for the sake of Christ,
acquits the transgressor and suffers him to go free.

_Acts 13:38, 39_—“_Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that
through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: and by
him_ [lit.: ‘in him’] _every one that believeth is justified from
all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of
Moses_”; _Rom. 3:24, 26_—“_being justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ... that he might
himself be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in
Jesus_”; _1 Cor. 6:11_—“_but ye were justified in the name of the
Lord Jesus_”; _Eph. 1:7_—“_in whom we have our redemption through
his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the
riches of his grace._”

This acquittal is not to be conceived of as the sovereign act of a
Governor, but rather as a judicial procedure. Christ secures a new
trial for those already condemned—a trial in which he appears for
the guilty, and sets over against their sin his own righteousness,
or rather shows them to be righteous in him. C. H. M.: “When Balak
seeks to curse the seed of Abraham, it is said of Jehovah: ‘_He
hath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, Neither hath he seen
perverseness in Israel_’ (_Num. 23:21_). When Satan stands forth
to rebuke Joshua, the word is: ‘_Jehovah rebuke thee, O Satan ...
is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?_’ (_Zech. 3:2_). Thus
he ever puts himself between his people and every tongue that
would accuse them. ‘_Touch not mine anointed ones_,’ he says,
‘_and do my prophets no harm_’ (_Ps. 105:15_). ‘_It is God that
justifieth; who is he that condemneth?_’ (_Rom. 8:33, 34_).” It is
not sin, then, that condemns,—it is the failure to ask pardon for
sin, through Christ. Illustrate by the ring presented by Queen
Elizabeth to the Earl of Essex. Queen Elizabeth did not forgive
the penitent Countess of Nottingham for withholding the ring of
Essex which would have purchased his pardon. She shook the dying
woman and cursed her, even while she was imploring forgiveness.
There is no such failure of mercy in God’s administration.

Kaftan, in Am. Jour. Theology, 4:698—“The peculiar characteristic
of Christian experience is the forgiveness of sins, or
reconciliation—a forgiveness which is conceived as an unmerited
gift of God, which is bestowed on man independently of his own
moral worthiness. Other religions have some measure of revelation,
but Christianity alone has the clear revelation of this
forgiveness, and this is accepted by faith. And forgiveness leads
to a better ethics than any religion of works can show.”

B. Restoration to favor.

(_a_) Justification is more than remission or acquittal. These would leave
the sinner simply in the position of a discharged criminal,—law requires a
positive righteousness also. Besides deliverance from punishment,
justification implies God’s treatment of the sinner as if he were, and had
been, personally righteous. The justified person receives not only
remission of penalty, but the rewards promised to obedience.

_Luke 15:22‐24_—“_Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on
him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring
the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry: for
this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is
found_”; _John 3:16_—“_gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth on him should ... have eternal life_”; _Rom. 5:1,
2_—“_Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ; through whom also we have had our
access by faith into this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoice
in hope of the glory of God_”—“_this grace_” being a permanent
state of divine favor; _1 Cor. 1:30_—“_But of him are ye in Christ
Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and
sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written,
He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord_”; _2 Cor.
5:21_—“_that we might become the righteousness of God in him._”

_Gal. 3:6_—“_Even as Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned
unto him for righteousness_”; _Eph. 2:7_—“_the exceeding riches of
his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus_”; _3:12_—“_in
whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith
in him_”; _Phil. 3:8, 9_—“_I count all things to be loss for the
excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ... the
righteousness which is from God by faith_”; _Col.
1:22_—“_reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to
present you holy and without blemish and unreprovable before
him_”; _Tit. 3:4, 7_—“_the kindness of God our Savior ... that,
being justified by his grace, we might be made heirs according to
the hope of eternal life_”; _Rev. 19:8_—“_And it was given unto
her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure:
for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints._”

Justification is setting one right before law. But law requires
not merely freedom from offence negatively, but all manner of
obedience and likeness to God positively. Since justification is
in Christ and by virtue of the believer’s union with Christ, it
puts the believer on the same footing before the law that Christ
is on, namely, not only acquittal but favor. _1 Tim. 3:16_—Christ
was himself “_justified in the spirit_,” and the believer partakes
of _his_ justification and of the whole of it, _i. e._, not only
acquittal but favor. _Acts 13:39_—“_in him every one that
believeth is justified_” _i. e._, in Christ; _1 Cor.
6:11_—“_justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ_”; _Gal.
4:5_—“_that we might receive the adoption of sons_”—a part of
justification; _Rom. 5:11_—“_through whom we have now received the
reconciliation_”—in justification; _2 Cor. 5:21_—“_that we might
become the righteousness of God in him_”; _Phil. 3:9_—“_the
righteousness which is from God by faith_”; _John 1:12_—“_to them
gave he the right to become children of God_”—emphasis on
“_gave_”—intimation that the “_becoming children_” is not
subsequent to the justification, but is a part of it.

Ellicott on _Tit. 3:7_—“δικαιοθέντες, ‘_justified_,’ in the usual
and more strict theological sense; not however as implying only a
mere outward non‐imputation of sin, but as involving a ‘mutationem
status,’ an acceptance into new privileges, and an enjoyment of
the benefits thereof (Waterland, Justif, vol. vi, p. 5); in the
words of the same writer: ‘Justification cannot be conceived
without some work of the Spirit in conferring a title to
salvation.’ ” The prisoner who has simply served out his term
escapes without further punishment and that is all. But the
pardoned man receives back in his pardon the full rights of
citizenship, can again vote, serve on juries, testify in court,
and exercise all his individual liberties, as the discharged
convict cannot. The Society of Friends is so called, not because
they are friends to one another, but because they regard
themselves as friends of God. So, in the Middle Ages, Master
Eckart, John Tauler, Henry Suso, called themselves the friends of
God, after the pattern of Abraham; _2 Chron. 20:7_—“_Abraham thy
friend_”; _James 2:23_—“_Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned
unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God_”,
_i. e._, one not merely acquitted from the charge of sin, but also
admitted into favor and intimacy with God.

(_b_) This restoration to favor, viewed in its aspect as the renewal of a
broken friendship, is denominated reconciliation; viewed in its aspect as
a renewal of the soul’s true relation to God as a father, it is
denominated adoption.

_John 1:12_—“_But as many as received him, to them gave he the
right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his
name_”; _Rom. 5:11_—“_and not only so, but we also rejoice in God
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received
the reconciliation_”; _Gal. 4:4, 5_—“_born under the law, that he
might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive
the adoption of sons_”; _Eph. 1:5_—“_having foreordained us unto
adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself_”; _cf._ _Rom.
8:23_—“_even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body_”—that is, this
adoption is completed, so far as the body is concerned, at the
resurrection.

Luther called _Psalms 32, 51, 130, 143_, “the Pauline Psalms,”
because these declare forgiveness to be granted to the believer
without law and without works. _Ps. 130:3, 4_—“_If thou, Jehovah,
shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand? But there is
forgiveness with thee, That thou mayest be feared_” is followed by
_verses 7, 8_—“_O Israel, hope in Jehovah; For with Jehovah there
is lovingkindness, And with him is plenteous redemption. And he
will redeem Israel From all his iniquities._” Whitefield was
rebuked for declaring in a discourse that Christ would receive
even the devil’s castaways; but that very day, while at dinner at
Lady Huntington’s, he was called out to meet two women who were
sinners, and to whose broken hearts and blasted lives that remark
gave hope and healing.

(_c_) In an earthly pardon there are no special helps bestowed upon the
pardoned. There are no penalties, but there are also no rewards; law
cannot claim anything of the discharged, but then they also can claim
nothing of the law. But what, though greatly needed, is left unprovided by
human government, God does provide. In justification, there is not only
acquittal, but approval; not only pardon, but promotion. Remission is
never separated from restoration.

After serving a term in the penitentiary, the convict goes out
with a stigma upon him and with no friends. His past conviction
and disgrace follow him. He cannot obtain employment. He cannot
vote. Want often leads him to commit crime again; and then the old
conviction is brought up as proof of bad character, and increases
his punishment. Need of Friendly Inns and Refuges for discharged
criminals. But the justified sinner is differently treated. He is
not only delivered from God’s wrath and eternal death, but he is
admitted to God’s favor and eternal life. The discovery of this is
partly the cause of the convert’s joy. Expecting pardon, at most,
he is met with unmeasured favor. The prodigal finds the father’s
house and heart open to him, and more done for him than if he had
never wandered. This overwhelms and subdues him. The two elements,
acquittal and restoration to favor, are never separated. Like the
expulsion of darkness and restoration of light, they always go
together. No one can have, even if he would have, an incomplete
justification. Christ’s justification is ours; and, as Jesus’ own
seamless tunic could not be divided, so the robe of righteousness
which he provides cannot be cut in two.

Failure to apprehend this positive aspect of justification as
restoration to favor is the reason why so many Christians have
little joy and little enthusiasm in their religious lives. The
preaching of the magnanimity and generosity of God makes the
gospel “_the power of God unto salvation_” (_Rom. 1:16_). Edwin M.
Stanton had ridden roughshod over Abraham Lincoln in the conduct
of a case at law in which they had been joint counsel. Stanton had
become vindictive and even violent when Lincoln was made
President. But Lincoln invited Stanton to be Secretary of War, and
he sent the invitation by Harding, who knew of all this former
trouble. When Stanton heard it, he said with streaming eyes: “Do
you tell me, Harding, that Mr. Lincoln sent this message to me?
Tell him that such magnanimity will make me work with him as man
was never served before!”

(_d_) The declaration that the sinner is restored to God’s favor, has its
ground, not in the sinner’s personal character or conduct, but solely in
the obedience and righteousness of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by
faith. Thus Christ’s work is the procuring cause of our justification, in
both its elements. As we are acquitted on account of Christ’s suffering of
the penalty of the law, so on account of Christ’s obedience we receive the
rewards of law.

All this comes to us in Christ. We participate in the rewards
promised to his obedience: _John 20:31_—“_that believing ye may
have life in his name_”; _1 Cor. 3:21‐23_—“_For all things are
yours; ... all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is
God’s._” Denovan, Toronto Baptist, Dec. 1883, maintains that
“grace operates in two ways: (1) for the _rebel_ it provides a
scheme of _justification_,—this is judicial, matter of debt; (2)
for the _child_ it provides pardon,—fatherly forgiveness on
repentance.” _Heb. 7:19_—“_the law made nothing perfect ... a
bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw nigh
unto God._” This “_better hope_” is offered to us in Christ’s
death and resurrection. The veil of the temple was the symbol of
separation from God. The rending of that veil was the symbol on
the one hand that sin had been atoned for, and on the other hand
that unrestricted access to God was now permitted us in Christ the
great forerunner. Bonar’s hymn, “Jesus, whom angel hosts adore,”
has for its concluding stanza: “’T is finished all: the veil is
rent. The welcome sure, the access free:—Now then, we leave our
banishment, O Father, to return to thee!” See pages 749 (_b_), 770
(_h_).

James Russell Lowell: “At the devil’s booth all things are sold.
Each ounce of dross costs its ounce of gold; For a cap and bells
our lives we pay: Bubbles we buy with a whole soul’s tasking; ’T
is heaven alone that is given away, ’T is only God may be had for
the asking.” John G. Whittier: “The hour draws near, howe’er
delayed and late, When at the Eternal Gate, We leave the words and
works we call our own, And lift void hands alone For love to fill.
Our nakedness of soul Brings to that gate no toll; Giftless we
come to him who all things gives, And live because he lives.”

H. B. Smith, System of Christian Doctrine, 523, 524—“Justification
and pardon are not the same in Scripture. We object to the view of
Emmons (Works, vol. 5), that ‘justification is no more nor less
than pardon,’ and that ‘God rewards men for their own, and not
Christ’s, obedience,’ for the reason that the words, as used in
common life, relate to wholly different things. If a man is
declared just by a human tribunal, he is not pardoned, he is
acquitted; his own inherent righteousness, as respects the charge
against him, is recognized and declared. The gospel proclaims both
pardon and justification. There is no significance in the use of
the word ‘justify,’ if pardon be all that is intended....

“Justification involves what pardon does not, a righteousness
which is the ground of the acquittal and favor; not the mere favor
of the sovereign, but the merit of Christ, is at the basis—the
righteousness which is of God. The ends of the law are so far
satisfied by what Christ has done, that the sinner can be
pardoned. The law is not merely set aside, but its great ends are
answered by what Christ has done in our behalf. God might pardon
as a sovereign, from mere benevolence (as regard to happiness);
but in the gospel he does more,—he pardons in consistency with his
holiness,—upholding that as the main end of all his dealings and
works. Justification involves acquittal from all the penalty of
the law, and the inheritance of all the blessings of the redeemed
state. The penalty of the law—spiritual, temporal, eternal
death—is all taken away; and the opposite blessings are conferred,
in and through Christ—the resurrection to blessedness, the gift of
the Spirit, and eternal life....

“If justification is forgiveness simply, it applies only to the
_past_. If it is also a title to life, it includes the future
condition of the soul. The latter alone is consistent with the
plan and decrees of God respecting redemption—his seeing the end
from the beginning. The reason why justification has been taken as
pardon is two‐fold: first, it _does_ involve pardon,—this is its
negative side, while it has a positive side also—the title to
eternal life; secondly, the tendency to resolve the gospel into an
ethical system. Only our acts of choice as meritorious could
procure a title to favor, a positive reward. Christ might remove
the obstacle, but the title to heaven is derived only from what we
ourselves do.

“Justification is, therefore, not a merely governmental provision,
as it must be on any scheme that denies that Christ’s work has
direct respect to the ends of the law. Views of the atonement
determine the views on justification, if logical sequence is
observed. We have to do here, not with views of natural justice,
but with divine methods. If we regard the atonement simply as
answering the ends of a governmental scheme, our view must be that
justification merely removes an obstacle, and the end of it is
only pardon, and not eternal life.”

But upon the true view, that the atonement is a complete
satisfaction to the holiness of God, justification embraces not
merely pardon, or acquittal from the punishments of law, but also
restoration to favor, or the rewards promised to actual obedience.
See also Quenstedt, 3:524; Philippi, Active Obedience of Christ;
Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:432, 433.

4. Relation of Justification to God’s Law and Holiness.

A. Justification has been shown to be a forensic term. A man may, indeed,
be conceived of as just, in either of two senses: (_a_) as just in moral
character,—that is, absolutely holy in nature, disposition, and conduct;
(_b_) as just in relation to law,—or as free from all obligation to suffer
penalty, and as entitled to the rewards of obedience.

So, too, a man may be conceived of as justified, in either of two senses:
(_a_) made just in moral character; or, (_b_) made just in his relation to
law. But the Scriptures declare that there does not exist on earth a just
man, in the first of these senses (Eccl. 7:20). Even in those who are
renewed in moral character and united to Christ, there is a remnant of
moral depravity.

If, therefore, there be any such thing as a just man, he must be just, not
in the sense of possessing an unspotted holiness, but in the sense of
being delivered from the penalty of law, and made partaker of its rewards.
If there be any such thing as justification, it must be, not an act of God
which renders the sinner absolutely holy, but an act of God which declares
the sinner to be free from legal penalties and entitled to legal rewards.

_Justus_ is derived from _jus_, and suggests the idea of courts
and legal procedures. The fact that “justify” is derived from
_justus_ and _facio_, and might therefore seem to imply the making
of a man subjectively righteous, should not blind us to its
forensic use. The phrases “_sanctify the Holy One of Jacob_” (_Is.
29:23_; _cf._ _1 Pet. 3:15_—“_sanctify in your hearts Christ as
Lord_”) and “_glorify God_” (_1 Cor. 6:20_) do not mean, to _make_
God subjectively holy or glorious, for this he _is_, whatever we
may do; they mean rather, to _declare_, or _show_, him to be holy
or glorious. So justification is not making a man righteous, or
even pronouncing him righteous, for no man _is_ subjectively
righteous. It is rather to count him righteous so far as respects
his relations to law, to treat him as righteous, or to declare
that God will, for reasons assigned, so treat him (Payne). So long
as any remnant of sin exists, no justification, in the sense of
making holy, can be attributed to man: _Eccl. 7:20_—“_Surely there
is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth
not._” If no man is just, in this sense, then God cannot pronounce
him just, for God cannot lie. Justification, therefore, must
signify a deliverance from legal penalties, and an assignment of
legal rewards. O. P. Gifford: There is no such thing as “salvation
_by_ character”; what men need is salvation _from_ character. The
only sense in which salvation by character is rational or
Scriptural is that suggested by George Harris, Moral Evolution,
409—“Salvation by character is not self‐righteousness, but Christ
in us.” But even here it must be remembered that Christ _in_ us
presupposes Christ _for_ us. The objective atonement for sin must
come before the subjective purification of our natures. And
justification is upon the ground of that objective atonement, and
not upon the ground of the subjective cleansing.

The Jews had a proverb that if only one man could perfectly keep
the whole law even for one day, the kingdom of Messiah would at
once come upon the earth. This is to state in another form the
doctrine of Paul, in _Rom. 7:9_—“_When the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died._” To recognize the impossibility of being
justified by Pharisaic works was a preparation for the gospel; see
Bruce, Apologetics, 419. The Germans speak of Werk‐, Lehre‐,
Buchstaben‐, Negations‐, Parteigerechtigkeit; but all these are
forms of self‐righteousness. Berridge: “A man may steal some gems
from the crown of Jesus and be guilty only of petty larceny, ...
but the man who would justify himself by his own works steals the
crown itself, puts it on his own head, and proclaims himself by
his own conquests a king in Zion.”

B. The difficult feature of justification is the declaration, on the part
of God, that a sinner whose remaining sinfulness seems to necessitate the
vindicative reaction of God’s holiness against him, is yet free from such
reaction of holiness as is expressed in the penalties of the law.

The fact is to be accepted on the testimony of Scripture. If this
testimony be not accepted, there is no deliverance from the condemnation
of law. But the difficulty of conceiving of God’s declaring the sinner no
longer exposed to legal penalty is relieved, if not removed, by the three‐
fold consideration:

(_a_) That Christ has endured the penalty of the law in the sinner’s
stead.

_Gal. 3:13_—“_Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having
become a curse for us._” Denovan: “We are justified by faith,
instrumentally, in the same sense as a debt is paid by a good note
or a check on a substantial account in a distant bank. It is only
the intelligent and honest acceptance of justification already
provided.” _Rom. 8:3_—“_God, sending his own Son ... condemned sin
in the flesh_” = the believer’s sins were judged and condemned on
Calvary. The way of pardon through Christ honors God’s justice as
well as God’s mercy; _cf._ _Rom. 3:26_—“_that he might himself be
just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus._”

(_b_) That the sinner is so united to Christ, that Christ’s life already
constitutes the dominating principle within him.

_Gal. 2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no
longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me._” God does not
justify any man whom he does not foresee that he can and will
sanctify. Some prophecies produce their own fulfilment. Tell a man
he is brave, and you help him to become so. So declaratory
justification, when published in the heart by the Holy Spirit,
helps to make men just. Harris, God the Creator, 2:332—“The
objection to the doctrine of justification by faith insists that
justification must be conditioned, not on faith, but on right
character. But justification by faith is itself the doctrine of a
justification conditioned on right character, because faith in God
is the only possible beginning of right character, either in men
or angels.” Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 67‐79, in a similar manner
argues that Paul’s emphasis is on the spiritual effect of the
death of our Lord, rather than on its expiatory effect. The course
of thought in the Epistle to the Romans seems to us to contradict
this view. Sin and the objective atonement for sin are first
treated; only after justification comes the sanctification of the
believer. Still it is true that justification is never the sole
work of God in the soul. The same Christ in union with whom we are
justified does at that same moment a work of regeneration which is
followed by sanctification.

(_c_) That this life of Christ is a power in the soul which will
gradually, but infallibly, extirpate all remaining depravity, until the
whole physical and moral nature is perfectly conformed to the divine
holiness.

_Phil. 3:21_—“_who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation,
that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to
the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto
himself_”; _Col. 3:1‐4_—“_If then ye were raised together with
Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on
the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above,
not on the things that are upon the earth. For ye died, and your
life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life,
shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in
glory._”

Truth of fact, and ideal truth, are not opposed to each other. F.
W. Robertson, Lectures and Addresses, 256—“When the agriculturist
sees a small, white, almond‐like thing rising from the ground, he
calls that an oak; but this is not a truth of fact, it is an ideal
truth. The oak is a large tree, with spreading branches and leaves
and acorns; but that is only a thing an inch long, and
imperceptible in all its development; yet the agriculturist sees
in it the idea of what it shall be, and, if I may borrow a
Scriptural phrase, he _imputes_ to it the majesty, and excellence,
and glory, that is to be hereafter.” This method of representation
is effective and unobjectionable, so long as we remember that the
force which is to bring about this future development and
perfection is not the force of unassisted human nature, but rather
the force of Christ and his indwelling Spirit. See Philippi,
Glaubenslehre, v, 1:201‐208.

Gore, Incarnation, 224—“’Looking at the mother,’ wrote George
Eliot of Mrs. Garth in The Mill on the Floss, ‘you might hope that
the daughter would become like her—which is a prospective
advantage equal to a dowry—the mother too often standing behind
the daughter like a malignant prophecy: Such as I am, she will
shortly be.’ George Eliot imputes by anticipation to the daughter
the merits of the mother, because her life is, so to speak, of the
same piece. Now, by new birth and spiritual union, our life is of
the same piece with the life of Jesus. Thus he, our elder brother,
stands behind us, his people, as a prophecy of all good. Thus God
accepts us, deals with us, ‘_in the Beloved_,’ rating us at
something of his value, imputing to us his merits, because in
fact, except we be reprobates, he himself is the most powerful and
real force at work in us.”

5. Relation of Justification to Union with Christ and the Work of the
Spirit.

A. Since the sinner, at the moment of justification, is not yet completely
transformed in character, we have seen that God can declare him just, not
on account of what he is in himself, but only on account of what Christ
is. The ground of justification is therefore not, (_a_) as the Romanists
hold, a new righteousness and love infused into us, and now constituting
our moral character; nor, (_b_) as Osiander taught, the essential
righteousness of Christ’s divine nature, which has become ours by faith;
but (_c_) the satisfaction and obedience of Christ, as the head of a new
humanity, and as embracing in himself all believers as his members.

Ritschl regarded justification as primarily an endowment of the
church, in which the individual participated only so far as he
belonged to the church; see Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl’sche
Theologie, 70. Here Ritschl committed an error like that of the
Romanist,—the church is the door to Christ, instead of Christ
being the door to the church. Justification belongs primarily to
Christ, then to all who join themselves to Christ by faith, and
the church is the natural and voluntary aggregation of those who
in Christ are thus justified. Hence the necessity for the
resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus. “For as the ministry
of Enoch was sealed by his reception into heaven, and as the
ministry of Elijah was also abundantly proved by his translation,
so also the righteousness and innocence of Christ. But it was
necessary that the ascension of Christ should be more fully
attested, because upon his righteousness, so fully proved by his
ascension, we must depend for all our righteousness. For if God
had not approved him after his resurrection, and he had not taken
his seat at his right hand, we could by no means be accepted of
God” (Cartwright).

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 46, 193, 195, 206—“Christ
must be justified in the spirit and received up into glory, before
he can be made righteousness to us and we can become the
righteousness of God in him. Christ’s coronation is the
indispensable condition of our justification.... Christ the High
Priest has entered the Holy of Holies in heaven for us. Until he
comes forth again at the second advent, how can we be assured that
his sacrifice for us is accepted? We reply: By the gift of the
Holy Spirit. The presence of the Spirit in the church is the proof
of the presence of Christ before the throne.... The Holy Spirit
convinces of righteousness, ‘_because I go unto the Father, and ye
see me no more_’ (_John 16:10_). We can only know that ‘_we have a
Paraclete with the Father, even Jesus Christ the Righteous_’ (_1
John 2:1_), by that ‘_other Paraclete_’ sent forth from the
Father, even the Holy Spirit (_John 14:25, 26; 15:26_). The
church, having the Spirit, reflects Christ to the world. As Christ
manifests the Father, so the church through the Spirit manifests
Christ. So Christ gives to us his name, ‘Christians,’ as the
husband gives his name to the wife.”

As Adam’s sin is imputed to us, not because Adam is in us, but because we
were in Adam; so Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, not because
Christ is in us, but because we are in Christ,—that is, joined by faith to
one whose righteousness and life are infinitely greater than our power to
appropriate or contain. In this sense, we may say that we are justified
through a Christ outside of us, as we are sanctified through a Christ
within us. Edwards: “The justification of the believer is no other than
his being admitted to communion in, or participation of, this head and
surety of all believers.”

_1 Tim. 1:14_—“_faith and love which is in Christ Jesus_”;
_3:16_—“_He who was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the
spirit_”; _Acts 13:39_—“_and by him_ [lit.: ‘_in him_’] _every one
that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could
not be justified by the law of Moses_”; _Rom. 4:25_—“_who was
delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our
justification_”; _Eph. 1:6_—“_accepted in the Beloved_”—Rev.
Vers.: “_freely bestowed on us in the Beloved_”; _1 Cor.
6:11_—“_justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ._” “We in
Christ” is the formula of our justification; “Christ in us” is the
formula of our sanctification. As the water which the shell
contains is little compared with the great ocean which contains
the shell, so the actual change wrought within us by God’s
sanctifying grace is slight compared with the boundless freedom
from condemnation and the state of favor with God into which we
are introduced by justification; _Rom. 5:1, 2_—“_Being therefore
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus
Christ; through whom also we have had our access by faith into
this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoice in hope of the glory
of God._”

Here we have the third instance of imputation. The first was the
imputation of Adam’s sin to us; and the second was the imputation
of our sins to Christ. The third is now the imputation of Christ’s
righteousness to us. In each of the former cases, we have sought
to show that the legal relation presupposes a natural relation.
Adam’s sin is imputed to us, because we are one with Adam; our
sins are imputed to Christ, because Christ is one with humanity.
So here, we must hold that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to
us, because we are one with Christ. Justification is not an
arbitrary transfer to us of the merits of another with whom we
have no real connection. This would make it merely a legal
fiction; and there are no legal fictions in the divine government.

Instead of this external and mechanical method of conception, we
should first set before us the fact of Christ’s justification,
after he had borne our sins and risen from the dead. In him,
humanity, for the first time, is acquitted from punishment and
restored to the divine favor. But Christ’s new humanity is the
germinal source of spiritual life for the race. He was justified,
not simply as a private person, but as our representative and
head. By becoming partakers of the new life in him, we share in
all he is and all he has done; and, first of all, we share in his
justification. So Luther gives us, for substance, the formula: “We
in Christ = justification; Christ in us = sanctification.” And in
harmony with this formula is the statement quoted in the text
above from Edwards, Works, 4:66.

See also H. B. Smith, Presb. Rev., July, 1881—“Union with Adam and
with Christ is the ground of imputation. But the parallelism is
incomplete. While the sin of Adam is imputed to us because it is
ours, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us simply because
of our union with him, not at all because of our personal
righteousness. In the one case, character is taken into the
account; in the other, it is not. In sin, our demerits are
included; in justification, our merits are excluded.” For further
statements of Dr. Smith, see his System of Christian Theology,
524‐552.

C. H. M. on Genesis, page 78—“The question for every believer is
not ‘What am I?’ but ‘What is Christ?’ Of Abel it is said: ‘_God
testified of his gifts_’ (_Heb. 11:4_, A. V.). So God testifies,
not of the believer, but of his gift,—and his gift is Christ. Yet
Cain was angry because he was not received _in his sins_, while
Abel was accepted _in his gift_. This was right, if Abel was
justified in himself; it was wrong, because Abel was justified
only in Christ.” See also Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 384‐388,
392; Baird, Elohim Revealed, 448.

B. The relation of justification to regeneration and sanctification,
moreover, delivers it from the charges of externality and immorality. God
does not justify ungodly men in their ungodliness. He pronounces them just
only as they are united to Christ, who is absolutely just, and who, by his
Spirit, can make them just, not only in the eye of the law, but in moral
character. The very faith by which the sinner receives Christ is an act in
which he ratifies all that Christ has done, and accepts God’s judgment
against sin as his own (John 16:11).

_John 16:11_—“_of judgment, because the prince of this world hath
been judged_”—the Holy Spirit leads the believer to ratify God’s
judgment against sin and Satan. Accepting Christ, the believer
accepts Christ’s death for sin, and resurrection to life for his
own. If it were otherwise, the first act of the believer, after
his discharge, might be a repetition of his offences. Such a
justification would offend against the fundamental principles of
justice and the safety of government. It would also fail to
satisfy the conscience. This clamors not only for pardon, but for
renewal. Union with Christ has one legal fruit—justification; but
it has also one moral fruit—sanctification.

A really guilty man, when acquitted by judge and jury, does not
cease to be the victim of remorse and fear. Forgiveness of sin is
not in itself a deliverance from sin. The outward acquittal needs
to be accompanied by an inward change to be really effective.
Pardon for sin without power to overcome sin would be a mockery of
the criminal. Justification for Christ’s sake therefore goes into
effect through regeneration by the Holy Spirit; see E. H. Johnson,
in Bib. Sac., July, 1892:362.

A Buddhist priest who had studied some years in England printed in
Shanghai not long ago a pamphlet entitled “Justification by Faith
the only true Basis of Morality.” It argues that any other
foundation is nothing but pure selfishness, but that morality, to
have any merit, must be unselfish. Justification by faith supplies
an unselfish motive, because we accept the work done for us by
another, and we ourselves work from gratitude, which is not a
selfish motive. After laying down this Christian foundation, the
writer erects the structure of faith in the Amida incarnation of
Buddha. Buddhism opposes to the Christian doctrine of a creative
Person, only a creative process; sin has relation only to the man
sinning, and has no relation to Amida Buddha or to the eternal law
of causation; salvation by faith in Amida Buddha is faith in one
who is the product of a process, and a product may perish.
Tennyson: “They are but broken lights of Thee, And thou, O Christ,
art more than they.”

Justification is possible, therefore, because it is always accompanied by
regeneration and union with Christ, and is followed by sanctification. But
this is a very different thing from the Romanist confounding of
justification and sanctification, as different stages of the same process
of making the sinner actually holy. It holds fast to the Scripture
distinction between justification as a declarative act of God, and
regeneration and sanctification as those efficient acts of God by which
justification is accompanied and followed.

Both history and our personal observation show that nothing can
change the life and make men moral, like the gospel of free pardon
in Jesus Christ. Mere preaching of morality will effect nothing of
consequence. There never has been more insistence upon morality
than in the most immoral times, like those of Seneca, and of the
English deists. As to their moral fruits, we can safely compare
Protestant with Roman Catholic systems and leaders and countries.
We do not become right by doing right, for only those can do right
who have become right. The prodigal son is forgiven before he
actually confesses and amends (_Luke 15:20, 21_). Justification is
always accompanied by regeneration, and is followed by
sanctification; and all three are results of the death of Christ.
But the sin‐offering must precede the thank‐offering. We must
first be accepted ourselves before we can offer gifts; _Heb.
11:4_—“_By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice
than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was
righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts._”

Hence we read in _Eph. 5:25, 26_—“_Christ also loved the church,
and gave himself up for it; that he might sanctify it, having
cleansed_ = [after he had cleansed] _it by the washing of water
with the word_” [= regeneration]; _1 Pet. 1:1, 2_—“_elect ...
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in
sanctification of the Spirit_ [regeneration], _unto obedience_
[conversion] _and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_
[justification]”; _1 John 1:7_—“_if we walk in the light, as he is
in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood
of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin_”—here the “cleansing”
refers primarily and mainly to justification, not to
sanctification; for the apostle himself declares in _verse 8_—“_If
we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is
not in us._”

Quenstedt says well, that “justification, since it is an act,
outside of man, in God, cannot produce an intrinsic change in us.”
And yet, he says, “although faith alone justifies, yet faith is
not alone.” Melanchthon: “Sola fides justificat; sed fides non est
sola.” With faith go all manner of gifts of the Spirit and
internal graces of character. But we should let go all the
doctrinal gains of the Reformation if we did not insist that these
gifts and graces are accompaniments and consequences of
justification, instead of being a part or a ground of
justification. See Girdlestone, O. T. Synonyms, 104,
note—“Justification is God’s declaration that the individual
sinner, on account of the faith which unites him to Christ, is
taken up into the relation which Christ holds to the Father, and
has applied to him personally the objective work accomplished for
humanity by Christ.”

6. Relation of Justification to Faith.

A. We are justified by faith, rather than by love or by any other grace:
(_a_) not because faith is itself a work of obedience by which we merit
justification,—for this would be a doctrine of justification by works;
(_b_) nor because faith is accepted as an equivalent of obedience,—for
there is no equivalent except the perfect obedience of Christ; (_c_) nor
because faith is the germ from which obedience may spring hereafter,—for
it is not the faith which accepts, but the Christ who is accepted, that
renders such obedience possible; but (_d_) because faith, and not
repentance, or love, or hope, is the medium or instrument by which we
receive Christ and are united to him. Hence we are never said to be
justified διὰ πίστιν, = on account of faith, but only διὰ πίστεως, =
through faith, or ἐκ πίστεως, = by faith. Or, to express the same truth in
other words, while the grace of God is the efficient cause of
justification, and the obedience and sufferings of Christ are the
meritorious or procuring cause, faith is the mediate or instrumental
cause.

Edwards, Works, 4:69‐73—“Faith justifies, because faith includes
the whole act of unition to Christ as a Savior. It is not the
nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with
Christ as a mediator, any further than they enter into the
constitution of justifying faith, and do belong to its nature”;
Observations on Trinity, 64‐67—“Salvation is not offered to us
upon any condition, but freely and for nothing. We are to do
nothing for it,—we are only to take it. This taking and receiving
is faith.” H. B. Smith, System, 524—“An internal change is a _sine
qua non_ of justification, but not its meritorious ground.” Give a
man a gold mine. It is _his_. He has not to work _for_ it; he has
only to work _it_. Working _for_ life is one thing; working _from_
life is quite another. The marriage of a poor girl to a wealthy
proprietor makes her possessor of his riches despite her former
poverty. Yet her acceptance has not _purchased_ wealth. It is
hers, not because of what she is or has done, but because of what
her husband is and has done. So faith is the condition of
justification, only because through it Christ becomes ours, and
with him his atonement and righteousness. Salvation comes not
because our faith saves us, but because it links us to the Christ
who saves; and believing is only the link. There is no more merit
in it than in the beggar’s stretching forth his hand to receive
the offered purse, or the drowning man’s grasping the rope that is
thrown to him.

The Wesleyan scheme is inclined to make faith a work. See Dabney,
Theology, 637. This is to make faith _the_ cause and ground, or at
least to add it to Christ’s work as a _joint_ cause and ground, of
justification; as if justification were διὰ πίστιν, instead of διὰ
πίστεως or ἐκ πίστεως. Since faith is never perfect, this is to go
back to the Roman Catholic uncertainty of salvation. See Dorner,
Glaubenslehre, 2:744, 745 (Syst. Doct., 4:206, 207). C. H. M. on
_Gen. 3:7_—“They made themselves aprons of fig‐leaves, before God
made them coats of skin. Man ever tries to clothe himself in
garments of his own righteousness, before he will take the robe of
Christ’s. But Adam felt himself naked when God visited him, even
though he had his fig‐leaves on him.”

We are justified efficiently by the grace of God, meritoriously by
Christ, instrumentally by faith, evidentially by works. Faith
justifies, as roots bring plant and soil together. Faith connects
man with the source of life in Christ. “When the boatman with his
hook grapples the rock, he does not pull the shore to the boat,
but the boat to the shore; so, when we by faith lay hold on
Christ, we do not pull Christ to us, but ourselves to him.” Faith
is a coupling; the train is drawn, not by the coupling, but by the
locomotive; yet without the coupling it would not be drawn. Faith
is the trolley that reaches up to the electric wire; when the
connection is sundered, not only does the car cease to move, but
the heat dies and the lights go out. Dr. John Duncan: “I have
married the Merchant and all his wealth is mine!”

H. C. Trumbull: “If a man wants to cross the ocean, he can either
try swimming, or he can trust the captain of a ship to carry him
over in his vessel. By or through his faith in that captain, the
man is carried safely to the other shore; yet it is the ship’s
captain, not the passenger’s faith, which is to be praised for the
carrying.” So the sick man trusts his case in the hands of his
physician, and his life is saved by the physician,—yet by or
through the patient’s faith. This faith is indeed an inward act of
allegiance, and no mere outward performance. Whiton, Divine
Satisfaction, 92—“The Protestant Reformers saw that it was by an
inward act, not by penances or sacraments that men were justified.
But they halted in the crude notion of a legal court room process,
a governmental procedure external to us, whereas it is an
educational, inward process, the awakening through Christ of the
filial spirit in us, which in the midst of imperfections strives
for likeness more and more to the Son of God. Justification by
principle apart from performance makes Christianity the religion
of the spirit.” We would add that such justification excludes
education, and is an act rather than a process, an act external to
the sinner rather than internal, an act of God rather than an act
of man. The justified person can say to Christ, as Ruth said to
Boaz: “_Why have I found favor in thy sight, that thou shouldest
take knowledge of me, seeing I am a foreigner?_” (_Ruth 2:10_).

B. Since the ground of justification is only Christ, to whom we are united
by faith, the justified person has peace. If it were anything in
ourselves, our peace must needs be proportioned to our holiness. The
practical effect of the Romanist mingling of works with faith, as a joint
ground of justification, is to render all assurance of salvation
impossible. (Council of Trent, 9th chap.: “Every man, by reason of his own
weakness and defects, must be in fear and anxiety about his state of
grace. Nor can any one know, with infallible certainty of faith, that he
has received forgiveness of God.”). But since justification is an
instantaneous act of God, complete at the moment of the sinner’s first
believing, it has no degrees. Weak faith justifies as perfectly as strong
faith; although, since justification is a secret act of God, weak faith
does not give so strong assurance of salvation.

Foundations of our Faith, 216—“The Catholic doctrine declares that
justification is not dependent upon faith and the righteousness of
Christ imputed and granted thereto, but on the actual condition of
the man himself. But there remain in the man an undeniable amount
of fleshly lusts or inclinations to sin, even though the man be
regenerate. The Catholic doctrine is therefore constrained to
assert that these lusts are not in themselves sinful, or objects
of the divine displeasure. They are allowed to remain in the man,
that he may struggle against them; and, as they say, Paul
designates them as sinful, only because they are derived from sin,
and incite to sin; but they only become sin by the positive
concurrence of the human will. But is not internal lust
displeasing to God? Can we draw the line between lust and will?
The Catholic favors self here, and makes many things _lust_, which
are really _will_. A Protestant is necessarily more earnest in the
work of salvation, when he recognizes even the evil desire as sin,
according to Christ’s precept.”

All systems of religion of merely human origin tend to make
salvation, in larger or smaller degree, the effect of human works,
but only with the result of leaving man in despair. See, in
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, an Apocryphal declaration that alms make
atonement for sin. So Romanism bids me doubt God’s grace and the
forgiveness of sins. See Dorner, Gesch. prot. Theol., 228, 229,
and his quotations from Luther. “But if the Romanist doctrine is
true, that a man is justified only in such measure as he is
sanctified, then: 1. Justification must be a matter of degrees,
and so the Council of Trent declares it to be. The sacraments
which sanctify are therefore essential, that one may be
increasingly justified. 2. Since justification is a continuous
process, the redeeming death of Christ, on which it depends, must
be a continuous process also; hence its prolonged reiteration in
the sacrifice by the Mass. 3. Since sanctification is obviously
never completed in this life, no man ever dies completely
justified; hence the doctrine of Purgatory.” For the substance of
Romanist doctrine, see Moehler, Symbolism, 79‐190; Newman,
Lectures on Justification, 253‐345; Ritschl, Christian Doctrine of
Justification, 121‐226.

A better doctrine is that of the Puritan divine: “It is not the
quantity of thy faith that shall save thee. A drop of water is as
true water as the whole ocean. So a little faith is as true faith
as the greatest. It is not the measure of thy faith that saves
thee,—it is the blood that it grips to that saves thee. The weak
hand of the child, that leads the spoon to the mouth, will feed as
well as the strong arm of a man; for it is not the hand that
feeds, but the meat. So, if thou canst grip Christ ever so weakly,
he will not let thee perish.” I am troubled about the money I owe
in New York, until I find that a friend has paid my debt there.
When I find that the objective account against me is cancelled,
then and only then do I have subjective peace.

A child may be heir to a vast estate, even while he does not know
it; and a child of God may be an heir of glory, even while,
through the weakness of his faith, he is oppressed with painful
doubts and fears. No man is lost simply because of the greatness
of his sins; however ill‐deserving he may be, faith in Christ will
save him. Luther’s climbing the steps of St. John Lateran, and the
voice of thunder: “The just shall live by faith,” are not certain
as historical facts; but they express the substance of Luther’s
experience. Not obeying, but receiving, is the substance of the
gospel. A man cannot merit salvation; he cannot buy it; but one
thing he must do,—he must take it. And the least faith makes
salvation ours, because it makes Christ ours.

Augustine conceived of justification as a continuous process,
proceeding until love and all Christian virtues fill the heart.
There is his chief difference from Paul. Augustine believes in sin
and grace. But he has not the freedom of the children of God, as
Paul has. The influence of Augustine upon Roman Catholic theology
has not been wholly salutary. The Roman Catholic, mixing man’s
subjective condition with God’s grace as a ground of
justification, continually wavers between self‐righteousness and
uncertainty of acceptance with God, each of these being fatal to a
healthful and stable religious life. High‐church Episcopalians,
and Sacramentalists generally, are afflicted with this distemper
of the Romanists. Dr. R. W. Dale remarks with regard to Dr. Pusey:
“The absence of joy in his religious life was only the inevitable
effect of his conception of God’s method of saving men; in parting
with the Lutheran truth concerning justification, he parted with
the springs of gladness.” Spurgeon said that a man might get from
London to New York provided he took a steamer; but it made much
difference in his comfort whether he had a first class or a second
class ticket. A new realization of the meaning of justification in
our churches would change much of our singing from the minor to
the major key; would lead us to pray, not _for_ the presence of
Christ, but _from_ the presence of Christ; would abolish the
mournful upward inflections at the end of sentences which give
such unreality to our preaching; and would replace the pessimistic
element in our modern work and worship with the notes of praise
and triumph. In the Pilgrim’s Progress, the justification of the
believer is symbolized by Christian’s lodging in the Palace
Beautiful whose window opened toward the sunrising.

Even Luther did not fully apprehend and apply his favorite
doctrine of justification by faith. Harnack, Wesen des
Christenthums, 168 _sq._, states the fundamental principles of
Protestantism as: “1. The Christian religion is wholly given in
the word of God and in the inner experience which answers to that
word. 2. The assured belief that the Christian has a gracious God.
‘Nun weisz und glaub’ ich’s feste, Ich rühm’s auch ohne Scheu,
Dasz Gott, der höchst’ und beste, Mein Freund und Vater sei; Und
dasz in allen Fällen Er mir zur Rechten steh’, Und dampfe Sturm
und Wellen, Und was mir bringet Weh’.’ 3. Restoration of simple
and believing worship, both public and private. But Luther took
too much dogma into Christianity; insisted too much on the
authority of the written word; cared too much for the _means_ of
grace, such as the Lord’s Supper; identified the church too much
with the organized body.” Yet Luther talked of beating the heads
of the Wittenbergers with the Bible, so as to get the great
doctrine of justification by faith into their brains. “Why do you
teach your child the same thing twenty times?” he said. “Because I
find that nineteen times is not sufficient.”

C. Justification is instantaneous, complete, and final: instantaneous,
since otherwise there would be an interval during which the soul was
neither approved nor condemned by God (Mat. 6:24); complete, since the
soul, united to Christ by faith, becomes partaker of his complete
satisfaction to the demands of law (Col. 2:9, 10); and final, since the
union with Christ is indissoluble (John 10:28, 29). As there are many acts
of sin in the life of the Christian, so there are many acts of pardon
following them. But all these acts of pardon are virtually implied in that
first act by which he was finally and forever justified; as also
successive acts of repentance and faith, after such sins, are virtually
implied in that first repentance and faith which logically preceded
justification.

_Mat. 6:24_—“_No man can serve two masters_”; _Col. 2:9, 10_—“_in
him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye
are made full, who is the head of all principality and power_”;
_John 10:28, 29_—“_they shall never perish, and no one shall
snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto
me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of
the Father’s hand._”

Plymouth Brethren say truly that the Christian has sin in him, but
not on him, because Christ had sin on him, but not in him. The
Christian has sin but not guilt, because Christ had guilt but not
sin. All our sins are buried in the grave with Christ, and
Christ’s resurrection is our resurrection. Toplady: “From whence
this fear and unbelief? Hast thou, O Father, put to grief Thy
spotless Son for me? And will the righteous Judge of men Condemn
me for that debt of sin, Which, Lord, was laid on thee? If thou
hast my discharge procured, And freely in my room endured The
whole of wrath divine, Payment God cannot twice demand, First at
my bleeding Surety’s hand, And then again at mine. Complete
atonement thou hast made, And to the utmost farthing paid Whate’er
thy people owed; How then can wrath on me take place, If sheltered
in thy righteousness And sprinkled with thy blood? Turn, then, my
soul, unto thy rest; The merits of thy great High‐priest Speak
peace and liberty; Trust in his efficacious blood, Nor fear thy
banishment from God, Since Jesus died for thee!”

Justification, however, is not eternal in the past. We are to
repent unto the remission of our sins (_Act 2:38_). Remission
comes after repentance. Sin is not pardoned before it is
committed. In justification God grants us actual pardon for past
sin, but virtual pardon for future sin. Edwards, Works,
4:104—“Future sins are respected, in that first justification, no
otherwise than as future faith and repentance are respected in it;
and future faith and repentance are looked upon by him that
justifies as virtually implied in that first repentance and faith,
in the same manner that justification from future sins is implied
in that first justification.”

A man is not justified from his sins before he has committed them,
nor is he saved before he is born. A remarkable illustration of
the extreme to which hyper‐Calvinism may go is found in Tobias
Crisp, Sermons, 1:358—“The Lord hath no more to lay to the charge
of an elect person, yet in the height of iniquity, and in the
excess of riot, and committing all the abomination that can be
committed ... than he has to the charge of the saint triumphant in
glory.” A far better statement is found in Moberly, Atonement and
Personality, 61—“As there is upon earth no consummated penitence,
so neither is there any forgiveness consummated.... Forgiveness is
the recognition, by anticipation, of something which is to be,
something toward which it is itself a mighty quickening of
possibilities, but something which is not, or at least is not
perfectly, yet.... Present forgiveness is inchoate, is
educational.... It reaches its final and perfect consummation only
when the forgiven penitent has become at last personally and
completely righteous. If the consummation is not reached but
reversed, then forgiveness is forfeited (_Mat. 18:32‐35_).” This
last exception, however, as we shall see in our discussion of
Perseverance, is only a hypothetical one. The truly forgiven do
not finally fall away.

7. Advice to Inquirers demanded by a Scriptural View of Justification.

(_a_) Where conviction of sin is yet lacking, our aim should be to show
the sinner that he is under God’s condemnation for his past sins, and that
no future obedience can ever secure his justification, since this
obedience, even though perfect, could not atone for the past, and even if
it could, he is unable, without God’s help, to render it.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, conviction of sin may be roused
by presentation of the claims of God’s perfect law, and by drawing
attention, first to particular overt transgressions, and then to
the manifold omissions of duty, the general lack of supreme and
all‐pervading love to God, and the guilty rejection of Christ’s
offers and commands. “Even if the next page of the copy book had
no blots or erasures, its cleanness would not alter the smudges
and misshapen letters on the earlier pages.” God takes no notice
of the promise “_Have patience with me, and I will pay thee_”
(_Mat. 18:29_), for he knows it can never be fulfilled.

(_b_) Where conviction of sin already exists, our aim should be, not, in
the first instance, to secure the performance of external religious
duties, such as prayer, or Scripture‐reading, or uniting with the church,
but to induce the sinner, as his first and all‐inclusive duty, to accept
Christ as his only and sufficient sacrifice and Savior, and, committing
himself and the matter of his salvation entirely to the hands of Christ,
to manifest this trust and submission by entering at once upon a life of
obedience to Christ’s commands.

A convicted sinner should be exhorted, not first to prayer and
then to faith, but first to faith, and then to the immediate
expression of that faith in prayer and Christian activity. He
should pray, not _for_ faith, but _in_ faith. It should not be
forgotten that the sinner never sins against so much light, and
never is in so great danger, as when he is convicted but not
converted, when he is moved to turn but yet refuses to turn. No
such sinner should be allowed to think that he has the right to do
any other thing whatever before accepting Christ. This accepting
Christ is not an outward act, but an inward act of mind and heart
and will, although believing is naturally evidenced by immediate
outward action. To teach the sinner, however apparently well
disposed, how to believe on Christ, is beyond the power of man.
God is the only giver of faith. But Scripture instances of faith,
and illustrations drawn from the child’s taking the father at his
word and acting upon it, have often been used by the Holy Spirit
as means of leading men themselves to put faith in Christ.

Bengel: “Those who are secure Jesus refers to the law; those who
are contrite he consoles with the gospel.” A man left work and
came home. His wife asked why. “Because I am a sinner.” “Let me
send for the preacher.” “I am too far gone for preachers. If the
Lord Jesus Christ does not save me I am lost.” That man needed
only to be pointed to the Cross. There he found reason for
believing that there was salvation for him. In surrendering
himself to Christ he was justified. On the general subject of
Justification, see Edwards, Works, 4:64‐132; Buchanan on
Justification, 250‐411; Owen on Justification, in Works, vol. 5;
Bp. of Ossory, Nature and Effects of Faith, 48‐152; Hodge, Syst.
Theol., 3:114‐212; Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, 3:133‐200;
Herzog, Encyclopädie, art.: Rechtfertigung; Bushnell, Vicarious
Sacrifice, 416‐420, 435.

Section III.—The Application Of Christ’s Redemption In Its Continuation.

Under this head we treat of Sanctification and of Perseverance. These two
are but the divine and the human sides of the same fact, and they bear to
each other a relation similar to that which exists between Regeneration
and Conversion.

I. Sanctification.

1. Definition of Sanctification.

Sanctification is that continuous operation of the Holy Spirit, by which
the holy disposition imparted in regeneration is maintained and
strengthened.

Godet: “The work of Jesus in the world is twofold. It is a work
accomplished _for us_, destined to effect _reconciliation_ between
God and man; it is a work accomplished _in us_, with the object of
effecting our _sanctification_. By the one, a right _relation_ is
established between God and us; by the other, the _fruit_ of the
reëstablished order is secured. By the former, the condemned
sinner is received into the state of grace; by the latter, the
pardoned sinner is associated with the life of God.... How many
express themselves as if, when forgiveness with the peace which it
procures has been once obtained, all is finished and the work of
salvation is complete! They seem to have no suspicion that
salvation consists in the health of the soul, and that the health
of the soul consists in holiness. Forgiveness is not the
reëstablishment of health; it is the crisis of convalescence. If
God thinks fit to declare the sinner righteous, it is in order
that he may by that means restore him to holiness.” O. P. Gifford:
“The steamship whose machinery is broken may be brought into port
and made fast to the dock. She is _safe_, but not _sound_. Repairs
may last a long time. Christ designs to make us both safe and
sound. Justification gives the first—safety; sanctification gives
the second—soundness.”

Bradford, Heredity and Christian Problems, 220—“To be conscious
that one is forgiven, and yet that at the same time he is so
polluted that he cannot beget a child without handing on to that
child a nature which will be as bad as if his father had never
been forgiven, is not salvation in any _real_ sense.” We would
say: Is not salvation in any _complete_ sense. Justification needs
sanctification to follow it. Man needs God to continue and
preserve his spiritual life, just as much as he needed God to
begin it at the first. Creation in the spiritual, as well as in
the natural world, needs to be supplemented by preservation; see
quotation from Jonathan Edwards, in Allen’s biography of him, 371.

Regeneration is instantaneous, but sanctification takes time. The
“developing” of the photographer’s picture may illustrate God’s
process of sanctifying the regenerate soul. But it is development
by new access of truth or light, while the photographer’s picture
is usually developed in the dark. This development cannot be
accomplished in a moment. “We try in our religious lives to
practise instantaneous photography. One minute for prayer will
give us a vision of God, and we think that is enough. Our pictures
are poor because our negatives are weak. We do not give God a long
enough sitting to get a good likeness.”

Salvation is something past, something present, and something
future; a past fact, justification; a present process,
sanctification; a future consummation, redemption and glory.
David, in Ps. 51:1, 2, prays not only that God will blot out his
transgressions (justification), but that God will wash him
thoroughly from his iniquity (sanctification). E. G. Robinson:
“Sanctification consists _negatively_, in the removal of the penal
consequences of sin from the moral nature; _positively_, in the
progressive implanting and growth of a new principle of life....
The Christian church is a succession of copies of the character of
Christ. Paul never says: ‘_be ye imitators of me_’ (_1 Cor.
4:16_), except when writing to those who had no copies of the New
Testament or of the Gospels.”

Clarke, Christian Theology, 366—“Sanctification does not mean
perfection reached, but the progress of the divine life toward
perfection. Sanctification is the Christianizing of the
Christian.” It is not simply deliverance from the penalty of sin,
but the development of a divine life that conquers sin. A. A.
Hodge, Popular Lectures, 343—“Any man who thinks he is a
Christian, and that he has accepted Christ for justification, when
he did not at the same time accept him for sanctification, is
miserably deluded in that very experience.”

This definition implies:

(_a_) That, although in regeneration the governing disposition of the soul
is made holy, there still remain tendencies to evil which are unsubdued.

_John 13:10_—“_He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his
feet, but is clean every whit_ [_i. e._, as a whole]”; _Rom.
6:12_—“_Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye
should obey the lusts thereof_”—sin _dwells_ in a believer, but it
_reigns_ in an unbeliever (C. H. M.). Subordinate volitions in the
Christian are not always determined in character by the
fundamental choice; eddies in the stream sometimes run counter to
the general course of the current.

This doctrine is the opposite of that expressed in the phrase:
“the essential divinity of the human.” Not culture, but
crucifixion, is what the Holy Spirit prescribes for the natural
man. There are two natures in the Christian, as Paul shows in
_Romans 7_. The one flourishes at the other’s expense. The vine
dresser has to cut the rank shoots from self, that all our force
may be thrown into growing fruit. Deadwood must be cut out; living
wood must be cut back (_John 15:2_). Sanctification is not a
matter of course, which will go on whatever we do, or do not do.
It requires a direct superintendence and surgery on the one hand,
and, on the other hand a practical hatred of evil on our part that
coöperates with the husbandry of God.

(_b_) That the existence in the believer of these two opposing principles
gives rise to a conflict which lasts through life.

_Gal. 5:17_—“_For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the
Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the
other; that ye may not do the things that ye would_”—not, as the
A. V. had it, “_so that ye cannot do the things that ye would_”;
the Spirit who dwells in believers is represented as enabling them
successfully to resist those tendencies to evil which naturally
exist within them; _James 4:5_ (the marginal and better
reading)—“_That spirit which he made to dwell in us yearneth for
us even unto jealous envy_”—_i. e._, God’s love, like all true
love, longs to have its objects wholly for its own. The Christian
is two men in one; but he is to “_put away the old man_” and “_put
on the new man_” (_Eph. 4:22, 23_). Compare Ecclesiasticus 2:1—“My
son, if thou dost set out to serve the Lord, prepare thy soul for
temptation.”

_1 Tim. 6:12_—“_fight the good fight of the faith_”—ἀγωνίζου τὸν
καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως = the beautiful, honorable, glorious
fight; since it has a noble helper, incentive, and reward. It is
the commonest of all struggles, but the issue determines our
destiny. An Indian received as a gift some tobacco in which he
found a half dollar hidden. He brought it back next day, saying
that good Indian had fought all night with bad Indian, one telling
him to keep, the other telling him to return.

(_c_) That in this conflict the Holy Spirit enables the Christian, through
increasing faith, more fully and consciously to appropriate Christ, and
thus progressively to make conquest of the remaining sinfulness of his
nature.

_Rom. 8:13, 14_—“_for if ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but
if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall
live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons
of God_”; _1 Cor. 6:11_—“_but ye were washed, but ye were
sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and in the Spirit of our God_”; _James 1:26_—“_If any man
thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue
but deceiveth his heart, this man’s religion is vain_”—see Com. of
Neander, _in loco_—“That religion is merely imaginary, seeming,
unreal, which allows the continuance of the moral defects
originally predominant in the character.” The Christian is
“_crucified with Christ_” (_Gal. 2:20_); but the crucified man
does not die at once. Yet he is as good as dead. Even after the
old man is crucified we are still to mortify him, or put him to
death (_Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:5_). We are to cut down the old rosebush
and cultivate only the new shoot that is grafted into it. Here is
our probation as Christians. So “die Scene wird zum Tribunal”—the
play of life becomes God’s judgment.

Dr. Hastings: “When Bourdaloue was probing the conscience of Louis
XIV, applying to him the words of St. Paul and intending to
paraphrase them: ‘_For the good which I would, I do not, but the
evil which I would not, that I do,_’ ‘_I find two men in me_’—the
King interrupted the great preacher with the memorable
exclamation: ‘Ah, these two men, I know them well!’ Bourdaloue
answered: ‘It is already something to _know_ them, Sire; but it is
not enough,—one of the two must perish.’ ” And, in the genuine
believer, the old does little by little die, and the new takes its
place, as “_David waxed stronger and stronger, but the house of
Saul waxed weaker and weaker_” (_2 Sam. 3:1_). As the Welsh
minister found himself after awhile thinking and dreaming in
English, so the language of Canaan becomes to the Christian his
native and only speech.

2. Explanations and Scripture Proof.

(_a_) Sanctification is the work of God.

_1 Thess. 5:23_—“_And the God of peace himself sanctify you
wholly._” Much of our modern literature ignores man’s dependence
upon God, and some of it seems distinctly intended to teach the
opposite doctrine. Auerbach’s “On the Heights,” for example,
teaches that man can make his own atonement; and “The Villa on the
Rhine,” by the same author, teaches that man can sanctify himself.
The proper inscription for many modern French novels is:
“Entertainment here for man and beast.” The _Tendenznovelle_ of
Germany has its imitators in the sceptical novels of England. And
no doctrine in these novels is so common as the doctrine that man
needs no Savior but himself.

(_b_) It is a continuous process.

_Phil. 1:6_—“_being confident of this very thing, that he who
began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus
Christ_”; _3:15_—“_Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be
thus minded: and if in anything ye are otherwise minded, this also
shall God reveal unto you_”; _Col. 3:9, 10_—“_lie not one to
another; seeing that ye have put off the old man with his doings,
and have put on the new man, that is being renewed unto knowledge
after the image of him that created him_”; _cf._ _Acts
2:47_—“_those that were being saved_”; _1 Cor. 1:18_—“_unto us who
are being saved_”; _2 Cor. 2:15_—“_in them that are being saved_”;
_1 Thess. 2:12_—“_God, who calleth you into his own kingdom and
glory._”

C. H. Parkhurst: “The yeast does not strike through the whole lump
of dough at a flash. We keep finding unsuspected lumps of meal
that the yeast has not yet seized upon. We surrender to God in
instalments. We may not mean to do it, but we do it. Conversion
has got to be brought down to date.” A student asked the President
of Oberlin College whether he could not take a shorter course than
the one prescribed. “Oh yes,” replied the President, “but then it
depends on what you want to make of yourself. When God wants to
make an oak, he takes a hundred years, but when he wants to make a
squash, he takes six months.”

(_c_) It is distinguished from regeneration as growth from birth, or as
the strengthening of a holy disposition from the original impartation of
it.

_Eph. 4:15_—“_speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all
things into him, who is the head, even Christ_”; _1 Thess.
3:12_—“_the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one
toward another, and toward all men_”; _2 Pet. 3:18_—“_But grow in
the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ_”;
_cf._ _1 Pet. 1:23_—“_begotten again, not of corruptible seed, but
of incorruptible, through the word of God, which liveth and
abideth_”; _1 John 3:9_—“_Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no
sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because
he is begotten of God._” Not sin only, but holiness also, is a
germ whose nature is to grow. The new love in the believer’s heart
follows the law of all life, in developing and extending itself
under God’s husbandry. George Eliot: “The reward of one duty done
is the power to do another.” J. W. A. Stewart: “When the 21st of
March has come, we say ‘The back of the winter is broken.’ There
will still be alternations of frost, but the progress will be
towards heat. The coming of summer is sure,—in germ the summer is
already here.” Regeneration is the crisis of a disease;
sanctification is the progress of convalescence.

Yet growth is not a uniform thing in the tree or in the Christian.
In some single months there is more growth than in all the year
besides. During the rest of the year, however, there is
solidification, without which the green timber would be useless.
The period of rapid growth, when woody fibre is actually deposited
between the bark and the trunk, occupies but four to six weeks in
May, June, and July. _2 Pet. 1:5_—“_adding on your part all
diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue
knowledge_”—adding to the central grace all those that are
complementary and subordinate, till they attain the harmony of a
chorus (ἐπιχορηγήσατε).

(_d_) The operation of God reveals itself in, and is accompanied by,
intelligent and voluntary activity of the believer in the discovery and
mortification of sinful desires, and in the bringing of the whole being
into obedience to Christ and conformity to the standards of his word.

_John 17:17_—“_Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth_”; _2
Cor. 10:5_—“_casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every
thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ_”; _Phil. 2:12,
13_—“_work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it
is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good
pleasure_”; _1 Pet. 2:2_—“_as new‐born babes, long for the
spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby
unto salvation._” _John 15:3_—“_Already ye are clean because of
the word which I have spoken unto you._” Regeneration through the
word is followed by sanctification through the word. _Eph.
5:1_—“_Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children._”
Imitation is at first a painful effort of will, as in learning the
piano; afterwards it becomes pleasurable and even unconscious.
Children unconsciously imitate the handwriting of their parents.
Charles Lamb sees in the mirror, as he is shaving, the apparition
of his dead father. So our likeness to God comes out as we advance
in years. _Col. 3:4_—“_When Christ who is our life, shall be
manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory._”

Horace Bushnell said that, if the stars did not move, they would
rot in the sky. The man who rides the bicycle must either go on,
or go off. A large part of sanctification consists in the
formation of proper habits, such as the habit of Scripture
reading, of secret prayer, of church going, of efforts to convert
and benefit others. Baxter: “Every man must grow, as trees grow,
downward and upward at once. The visible outward growth must be
accompanied by an invisible inward growth.” Drummond: “The
spiritual man having passed from death to life, the natural man
must pass from life to death.” There must be increasing sense of
sin: “My sins gave sharpness to the nails, And pointed every
thorn.” There must be a bringing of new and yet newer regions of
thought, feeling, and action, under the sway of Christ and his
truth. There is a grain of truth even in Macaulay’s jest about
“essentially Christian cookery.”

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 63, 109‐111—“The church is
Christian no more than as it is the organ of the continuous
passion of Christ. We must suffer with sinning and lost humanity,
and so ‘_fill up ... that which is lacking of the afflictions of
Christ_’ (_Col. 1:24_). Christ’s crucifixion must be prolonged
side by side with his resurrection. There are three deaths: 1.
death in sin, our natural condition; 2. death for sin, our
judicial condition; 3. death to sin, our sanctified condition....
As the ascending sap in the tree crowds off the dead leaves which
in spite of storm and frost cling to the branches all the winter
long, so does the Holy Spirit within us, when allowed full sway,
subdue and expel the remnants of our sinful nature.”

(_e_) The agency through which God effects the sanctification of the
believer is the indwelling Spirit of Christ.

_John 14:17, 18_—“_the Spirit of truth ... he abideth with you,
and shall be in you. I will not leave you desolate; I come unto
you_”; _15:3‐5_—“_Already ye are clean.... Abide in me ... apart
from me ye can do nothing_”; _Rom. 8:9, 10_—“_the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he
is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because
of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _1 Cor.
1:2, 30_—“_sanctified in Christ Jesus ... Christ Jesus, who was
made unto us ... sanctification_”; _6:19_—“_know ye not that your
body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have
from God?_” _Gal. 5:16_—“_Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not
fulfil the lust of the flesh_”; _Eph. 5:18_—“_And be not drunken
with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit_”; _Col.
1:27‐29_—“_the riches of the glory of this mystery among the
Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: whom we
proclaim, admonishing every man and teaching every man in all
wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ; whereunto
I labor also, striving according to his working, which worketh in
me mightily_”; _2 Tim. 1:14_—“_That good thing which was committed
unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us._”

Christianity substitutes for the old sources of excitement the
power of the Holy Spirit. Here is a source of comfort, energy, and
joy, infinitely superior to any which the sinner knows. God does
not leave the soul to fall back upon itself. The higher up we get
in the scale of being, the more does the new life need nursing and
tending,—compare the sapling and the babe. God gives to the
Christian, therefore, an abiding presence and work of the Holy
Spirit,—not only regeneration, but sanctification. C. E. Smith,
Baptism of Fire: “The soul needs the latter as well as the former
rain, the sealing as well as the renewing of the Spirit, the
baptism of fire as well as the baptism of water. Sealing gives
something additional to the document, an evidence plainer than the
writing within, both to one’s self and to others.”

“Few flowers yield more honey than serves the bee for its daily
food.” So we must first live ourselves off from our spiritual
diet; only what is over can be given to nourish others. Thomas à
Kempis, Imitation of Christ: “Have peace in thine own heart; else
thou wilt never be able to communicate peace to others.” Godet:
“Man is a vessel destined to receive God, a vessel which must be
enlarged in proportion as it is filled, and filled in proportion
as it is enlarged.” Matthew Arnold, Morality: “We cannot kindle
when we will The fire which in the heart resides; The Spirit
bloweth and is still; In mystery our soul abides. But tasks in
hours of insight willed Can be in hours of gloom fulfilled. With
aching hands and bleeding feet, We dig and heap, lay stone on
stone; We bear the burden and the heat Of the long day, and wish
’t were done. Not till the hours of light return All we have built
do we discern.”

(_f_) The mediate or instrumental cause of sanctification, as of
justification, is faith.

_Acts 15:9_—“_cleansing their hearts by faith_”; _Rom. 1:17_—“_For
therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith unto faith:
as it is written, But the righteous shall live from faith._” The
righteousness includes sanctification as well as justification;
and the subject of the epistle to the Romans is not simply
justification by faith, but rather righteousness by faith, or
salvation by faith. Justification by faith is the subject of
_chapters 1‐7_; sanctification by faith is the subject of
_chapters 8‐16_. We are not sanctified by efforts of our own, any
more than we are justified by efforts of our own.

God does not share with us the glory of sanctification, any more
than he shares with us the glory of justification. He must do all,
or nothing. William Law: “A root set in the finest soil, in the
best climate, and blessed with all that sun and air and rain can
do for it, is not in so sure a way of its growth to perfection, as
every man may be whose spirit aspires after all that which God is
ready and infinitely desirous to give him. For the sun meets not
the springing bud that stretches toward him with half that
certainty as God, the source of all good, communicates himself to
the soul that longs to partake of him.”

(_g_) The object of this faith is Christ himself, as the head of a new
humanity and the source of truth and life to those united to him.

_2 Cor. 3:18_—“_we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a
mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image
from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit_”; _Eph.
4:13_—“_till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a fullgrown man, unto the
measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ._” Faith here is
of course much more than intellectual faith,—it is the reception
of Christ himself. As Christianity furnishes a new source of life
and energy—in the Holy Spirit: so it gives a new object of
attention and regard—the Lord Jesus Christ. As we get air out of a
vessel by pouring in water, so we can drive sin out only by
bringing Christ in. See Chalmers’ Sermon on The Expulsive Power of
a New Affection. Drummond, Nat. Law in the Spir. World,
123‐140—“Man does not grow by making efforts to grow, but by
putting himself into the conditions of growth by living in
Christ.”

_1 John 3:3_—“_every one that hath this hope set on him_ (ἐπ᾽
αὐτῷ) _purifieth himself, even as he is pure._” Sanctification
does not begin from within. The objective Savior must come first.
The hope based on him must give the motive and the standard of
self‐purification. Likeness comes from liking. We grow to be like
that which we like. Hence we use the phrase “I like,” as a synonym
for “I love.” We cannot remove frost from our window by rubbing
the pane; we need to kindle a fire. Growth is not the product of
effort, but of life. “_Taking thought_,” or “_being anxious_”
(_Mat. 6:27_), is not the way to grow. Only take the hindrances
out of the way, and we grow without care, as the tree does. The
moon makes no effort to shine, nor has it any power of its own to
shine. It is only a burnt out cinder in the sky. It shines only as
it reflects the light of the sun. So we can shine “_as lights in
the world_” (_Phil. 2:15_), only as we reflect Christ, who is
“_the Sun of Righteousness_” (_Mal. 4:2_) and “_the Light of the
world_” (_John 8:12_).

(_h_) Though the weakest faith perfectly justifies, the degree of
sanctification is measured by the strength of the Christian’s faith, and
the persistence with which he apprehends Christ in the various relations
which the Scriptures declare him to sustain to us.

_Mat. 9:29_—“_According to your faith be it done unto you_”; _Luke
17:5_—“_Lord, increase our faith_”; _Rom. 12:2_—“_be not fashioned
according to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of
your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and
perfect will of God_”; _13:14_—“_But put ye on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts
thereof_”; _Eph. 4:24_—“_put on the new man, that after God hath
been created in righteousness and holiness of truth_”; _1 Tim.
4:7_—“_exercise thyself unto godliness._” Leighton: “None of the
children of God are born dumb.” Milton: “Good, the more
communicated, the more abundant grows.” Faith can neither be
stationary nor complete (Westcott, Bible Com. on _John 15:8_—“_so
shall ye become my disciples_”). Luther: “He who _is_ a Christian
is _no_ Christian”; “Christianus non in esse, sed in fieri.” In a
Bible that belonged to Oliver Cromwell is this inscription: “O. C.
1644. Qui cessat esse melior cessat esse bonus”—“He who ceases to
be better ceases to be good.” Story, the sculptor, when asked
which of his works he valued most, replied: “My next.” The
greatest work of the Holy Spirit is the perfecting of Christian
character.

_Col. 1:10_—“_Increasing by the knowledge of God_”—here the
instrumental dative represents the knowledge of God as the dew or
rain which nurtures the growth of the plant (Lightfoot). Mr.
Gladstone had the habit of reading the Bible every Sunday
afternoon to old women on his estate. Tholuck: “I have but one
passion, and that is Christ.” This is an echo of Paul’s words:
“_to me to live is Christ_” (_Phil. 1:21_). But Paul is far from
thinking that he has already obtained, or is already made perfect.
He prays “_that I may gain Christ, ... that I may know him_”
(_Phil. 3:8, 10_).

(_i_) From the lack of persistence in using the means appointed for
Christian growth—such as the word of God, prayer, association with other
believers, and personal effort for the conversion of the
ungodly—sanctification does not always proceed in regular and unbroken
course, and it is never completed in this life.

_Phil. 3:12_—“_Not that I have already obtained, or am already
made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that
for which also I was laid hold on by Jesus Christ_”; _1 John
1:8_—“_If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and
the truth is not in us._” Carlyle, in his Life of John Sterling,
chap. 8, says of Coleridge, that “whenever natural obligation or
voluntary undertaking made it his duty to do anything, the fact
seemed a sufficient reason for his _not_ doing it.” A regular,
advancing sanctification is marked, on the other hand, by a
growing habit of instant and joyful obedience. The intermittent
spring depends upon the reservoir in the mountain cave,—only when
the rain fills the latter full, does the spring begin to flow. So
to secure unbroken Christian activity, there must be constant
reception of the word and Spirit of God.

Galen: “If diseases take hold of the body, there is nothing so
certain to drive them out as diligent exercise.” Williams,
Principles of Medicine: “Want of exercise and sedentary habits not
only predispose to, but actually cause, disease.” The little girl
who fell out of bed at night was asked how it happened. She
replied that she went to sleep too near where she got in. Some
Christians lose the joy of their religion by ceasing their
Christian activities too soon after conversion. Yet others
cultivate their spiritual lives from mere selfishness. Selfishness
follows the line of least resistance. It is easier to pray in
public and to attend meetings for prayer, than it is to go out
into the unsympathetic world and engage in the work of winning
souls. This is the fault of monasticism. Those grow most who
forget themselves in their work for others. The discipline of life
is ordained in God’s providence to correct tendencies to
indolence. Even this discipline is often received in a rebellious
spirit. The result is delay in the process of sanctification.
Bengel: “Deus habet horas et moras”—“God has his hours and his
delays.” German proverb: “Gut Ding will Weile haben”—“A good thing
requires time.”

(_j_) Sanctification, both of the soul and of the body of the believer, is
completed in the life to come,—that of the former at death, that of the
latter at the resurrection.

_Phil. 3:21_—“_who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation,
that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to
the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto
himself_”; _Col. 3:4_—“_When Christ, who is our life, shall be
manifested, then shall we also with him be manifested in glory_”;
_Heb. 12:14, 23_—“_Follow after peace with all men, and the
sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord ... spirits
of just men made perfect_”; _1 John 3:2_—“_Beloved, now are we
children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be.
We know that, if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for
we shall see him even as he is_”; _Jude 24_—“_able to guard you
from stumbling, and to set you before the presence of his glory
without blemish in exceeding joy_”; _Rev. 14:5_—“_And in their
mouth was found no lie: they are without blemish._”

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 121, puts the completion of
our sanctification, not at death, but at the appearing of the Lord
“_a second time, apart from sin, ... unto salvation_” (_Heb. 9:28;
1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23_). When we shall see him as he is,
instantaneous photographing of his image in our souls will take
the place of the present slow progress from glory to glory (_2
Cor. 3:18; 1 John 3:2_). If by sanctification we mean, not a
sloughing off of remaining depravity, but an ever increasing
purity and perfection, then we may hold that the process of
sanctification goes on forever. Our relation to Christ must always
be that of the imperfect to the perfect, of the finite to the
infinite; and for finite spirits, progress must always be
possible. Clarke, Christian Theology, 373—“Not even at death can
sanctification end.... The goal lies far beyond deliverance from
sin.... There is no such thing as bringing the divine life to such
completion that no further progress is possible to it.... Indeed,
free and unhampered progress can scarcely begin until sin is left
behind.” “O snows so pure, O peaks so high! I shall not reach you
till I die!”

As Jesus’ resurrection was prepared by holiness of life, so the
Christian’s resurrection is prepared by sanctification. When our
souls are freed from the last remains of sin, then it will not be
possible for us to be holden by death (_cf._ _Acts 2:24_). See
Gordon, The Twofold Life, or Christ’s Work for us and in us; Brit.
and For. Evang. Rev., April, 1884:205‐229; Van Oosterzee,
Christian Dogmatics, 657‐662.

3. Erroneous Views refuted by these Scripture Passages.

A. The Antinomian,—which holds that, since Christ’s obedience and
sufferings have satisfied the demands of the law, the believer is free
from obligation to observe it.

The Antinomian view rests upon a misinterpretation of _Rom.
6:14_—“_Ye are not under law, but under grace._” Agricola and
Amsdorf (1559) were representatives of this view. Amsdorf said
that “good works are hurtful to salvation.” But Melanchthon’s
words furnish the reply: “Sola fides justificat, sed fides non est
sola.” F. W. Robertson states it: “Faith alone justifies, but not
the faith that is alone.” And he illustrates: “Lightning alone
strikes, but not the lightning which is without thunder; for that
is summer lightning and harmless.” See Browning’s poem, Johannes
Agricola in Meditation, in Dramatis Personæ, 300—“I have God’s
warrant, Could I blend All hideous sins as in a cup, To drink the
mingled venoms up, Secure my nature will convert The draught to
blossoming gladness.” Agricola said that Moses ought to be hanged.
This is Sanctification without Perseverance.

Sandeman, the founder of the sect called Sandemanians, asserted as
his fundamental principle the deadliness of all doings, the
necessity for inactivity to let God do his work in the soul. See
his essay, Theron and Aspasia, referred to by Allen, in his Life
of Jonathan Edwards, 114. Anne Hutchinson was excommunicated and
banished by the Puritans from Massachusetts, in 1637, for holding
“two dangerous errors: 1. The Holy Spirit personally dwells in a
justified person; 2. No sanctification can evidence to us our
justification.” Here the latter error almost destroyed the
influence of the former truth. There is a little Antinomianism in
the popular hymn: “Lay your deadly doings down, Down at Jesus’
feet; Doing is a deadly thing; Doing ends in death.” The colored
preacher’s poetry only presented the doctrine in the concrete:
“You may rip and te‐yar, You may cuss and swe‐yar, But you’re jess
as sure of heaven, ’S if you’d done gone de‐yar.” Plain Andrew
Fuller in England (1754‐1815) did excellent service in
overthrowing popular Antinomianism.

To this view we urge the following objections:

(_a_) That since the law is a transcript of the holiness of God, its
demands as a moral rule are unchanging. Only as a system of penalty and a
method of salvation is the law abolished in Christ’s death.

_Mat. 5:17‐19_—“_Think not that I came to destroy the law or the
prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be
accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven_”; _48_—“_Ye therefore
shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect_”; _1 Pet.
1:16_—“_Ye shall be holy; for I am holy_”; _Rom. 10:4_—“_For
Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that
believeth_”; _Gal. 2:20_—“_I have been crucified with Christ_”;
_3:13_—“_Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having
become a curse for us_”; _Col. 2:14_—“_having blotted out the bond
written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to
us: and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the
cross_”; _Heb. 2:15_—“_deliver all them who through fear of death
were all their lifetime subject to bondage._”

(_b_) That the union between Christ and the believer secures not only the
bearing of the penalty of the law by Christ, but also the impartation of
Christ’s spirit of obedience to the believer,—in other words, brings him
into communion with Christ’s work, and leads him to ratify it in his own
experience.

_Rom. 8:9, 10, 15_—“_ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if
so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath
not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in
you, the body is dead because of sin; but __ the spirit is life
because of righteousness.... For ye received not the spirit of
bondage again unto fear: but ye received the spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father_”; _Gal. 5:22‐25_—“_But the fruit of
the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, meekness, self‐control; against such there is no
law. And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh
with the passions and the lusts thereof_”; _1 John 1:6_—“_If we
say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we
lie, and do not the truth_”; _3:6_—“_Whosoever abideth in him
sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth
him._”

(_c_) That the freedom from the law of which the Scriptures speak, is
therefore simply that freedom from the constraint and bondage of the law,
which characterizes those who have become one with Christ by faith.

_Ps. 119:97_—“_O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the
day_”; _Rom. 3:8, 31_—“_and why not (as we are slanderously
reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that
good may come? whose condemnation is just.... Do we then make the
law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish
the law_”; _6:14, 15, 22_—“_For sin shall not have dominion over
you: for ye are not under law, but under grace. What then? shall
we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace? God forbid
... now being made free from sin and become servants to God, ye
have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life_”;
_7:6_—“_But now we have been discharged from the law, having died
to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the
spirit, and not in oldness of the letter_”; _8:4_—“_that the
ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit_”; _1 Cor. 7:22_—“_he that was
called in the Lord being a bondservant, is the Lord’s freedman_”;
_Gal. 5:1_—“_For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast
therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage_”; _1
Tim. 1:9_—“_law is not made for a righteous man, but for the
lawless and unruly_”; _James 1:25_—“_the perfect law, the law of
liberty_.”

To sum up the doctrine of Christian freedom as opposed to Antinomianism,
we may say that Christ does not free us, as the Antinomian believes, from
the law as a rule of life. But he does free us (1) from the law as a
system of curse and penalty; this he does by bearing the curse and penalty
himself. Christ frees us (2) from the law with its claims as a method of
salvation; this he does by making his obedience and merits ours. Christ
frees us (3) from the law as an outward and foreign compulsion; this he
does by giving to us the spirit of obedience and sonship, by which the law
is progressively realized within.

Christ, then, does not free us, as the Antinomian believes, from
the law as a rule of life. But he does free us (1) from the law as
a system of curse and penalty. This he does by bearing the curse
and penalty himself. Just as law can do nothing with a man after
it has executed its death‐penalty upon him, so law can do nothing
with us, now that its death‐penalty has been executed upon Christ.
There are some insects that expire in the act of planting their
sting; and so, when the law gathered itself up and planted its
sting in the heart of Christ, it expended all its power as a judge
and avenger over us who believe. In the Cross, the law as a system
of curse and penalty exhausted itself; so we were set free.

Christ frees us (2) from the law with its claims as a method of
salvation: in other words, he frees us from the necessity of
trusting our salvation to an impossible future obedience. As the
sufferings of Christ, apart from any sufferings of ours, deliver
us from eternal death, so the merits of Christ, apart from any
merits of ours, give us a title to eternal life. By faith in what
Christ has done and simple acceptance of his work for us, we
secure a right to heaven. Obedience on our part is no longer
rendered painfully, as if our salvation depended on it, but freely
and gladly, in gratitude for what Christ has done for us.
Illustrate by the English nobleman’s invitation to his park, and
the regulations he causes to be posted up.

Christ frees us (3) from the law as an outward and foreign
compulsion. In putting an end to legalism, he provides against
license. This he does by giving the spirit of obedience and
sonship. He puts love in the place of fear; and this secures an
obedience more intelligent, more thorough, and more hearty, than
could have been secured by mere law. So he frees us from the
burden and compulsion of the law, by realizing the law within us
by his Spirit. The freedom of the Christian is freedom _in_ the
law, such as the musician experiences when the scales and
exercises have become easy, and work has turned to play. See John
Owen, Works, 3:366‐651; 6:1‐313; Campbell, The Indwelling Christ,
73‐81.

Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 195—“The supremacy of those books which
contain the words of Jesus himself [_i. e._, the Synoptic Gospels]
is that they incorporate, with the other elements of the religious
life, the regulative will. Here for instance [in John] is the
gospel of the contemplative life, which, ‘_beholding as in a
mirror the glory of the Lord is changed into the same image from
glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord_’ (_2 Cor. 3:18_).
The belief is that, with this beholding, life will take care of
itself. Life will never take care of itself. Among other things,
after the most perfect vision, it has to ask what aspirations,
principles, affections, belong to life, and then to cultivate the
will to embody these things. Here is the common defect of all
religions. They fail to marry religion to the common life. Christ
did not stop short of this final word; but if we leave him for
even the greatest of his disciples, we are in danger of missing
it.” This utterance of Gould is surprising in several ways. It
attributes to John alone the contemplative attitude of mind, which
the quotation given shows to belong also to Paul. It ignores the
constant appeals in John to the will: “_He that hath my
commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me_” (_John
14:21_). It also forgets that “_life_” in John is the whole being,
including intellect, affection, and will, and that to have Christ
for one’s life is absolutely to exclude Antinomianism.

B. The Perfectionist,—which holds that the Christian may, in this life,
become perfectly free from sin. This view was held by John Wesley in
England, and by Mahan and Finney in America.

Finney, Syst. Theol., 500, declares regeneration to be “an
instantaneous change from entire sinfulness to entire holiness.”
The claims of Perfectionists, however, have been modified from
“freedom from all sin,” to “freedom from all known sin,” then to
“entire consecration,” and finally to “Christian assurance.” H. W.
Webb‐Peploe, in S. S. Times, June 25, 1898—“The Keswick teaching
is that no true Christian need wilfully or knowingly sin. Yet this
is not sinless perfection. It is simply according to our faith
that we receive, and faith only draws from God according to our
present possibilities. These are limited by the presence of
indwelling corruption; and, while never needing to sin within the
sphere of the light we possess, there are to the last hour of our
life upon the earth powers of corruption within every man, which
defile his best deeds and give to even his holiest efforts that
‘nature of sin’ of which the 9th Article in the Church of England
Prayerbook speaks so strongly.” Yet it is evident that this
corruption is not regarded as real sin, and is called “nature of
sin” only in some non‐natural sense.

Dr. George Peck says: “In the life of the most perfect Christian
there is every day renewed occasion for self‐abhorrence, for
repentance, for renewed application of the blood of Christ, for
application of the rekindling of the Holy Spirit.” But why call
this a state of perfection? F. B. Meyer: “We never say that self
is dead; were we to do so, self would be laughing at us round the
corner. The teaching of _Romans 6_ is, not that self is dead, but
that the renewed will is dead to self, the man’s will saying Yes
to Christ, and No to self; through the Spirit’s grace it
constantly repudiates and mortifies the power of the flesh.” For
statements of the Perfectionist view, see John Wesley’s Christian
Theology, edited by Thornley Smith, 265‐273; Mahan, Christian
Perfection, and art. in Bib. Repos. 2d Series, vol. IV, Oct.
1840:408‐428; Finney, Systematic Theology, 586‐766; Peck,
Christian Perfection; Ritschl, Bib. Sac., Oct. 1878:656; A. T.
Pierson, The Keswick Movement.

In reply, it will be sufficient to observe:

(_a_) That the theory rests upon false conceptions: first, of the law,—as
a sliding‐scale of requirement graduated to the moral condition of
creatures, instead of being the unchangeable reflection of God’s holiness;
secondly, of sin,—as consisting only in voluntary acts instead of
embracing also those dispositions and states of the soul which are not
conformed to the divine holiness; thirdly, of the human will,—as able to
choose God supremely and persistently at every moment of life, and to
fulfil at every moment the obligations resting upon it, instead of being
corrupted and enslaved by the Fall.

This view reduces the debt to the debtor’s ability to pay,—a short
and easy method of discharging obligations. I can leap over a
church steeple, if I am only permitted to make the church steeple
low enough; and I can touch the stars, if the stars will only come
down to my hand. The Philistines are quite equal to Samson, if
they may only cut off Samson’s locks. So I can obey God’s law, if
I may only make God’s law what I want it to be. The fundamental
error of perfectionism is its low view of God’s law; the second is
its narrow conception of sin. John Wesley: “I believe a person
filled with love of God is still liable to involuntary
transgressions. Such transgressions you may call sins, if you
please; I do not.” The third error of perfectionism is its
exaggerated estimate of man’s power of contrary choice. To say
that, whatever may have been the habits of the past and whatever
may be the evil affections of the present, a man is perfectly able
at any moment to obey the whole law of God, is to deny that there
are such things as character and depravity. Finney, Gospel Themes,
383, indeed, disclaimed “all expectations of attaining this state
ourselves, and by our own independent, unaided efforts.” On the
Law of God, see pages 537‐544.

Augustine: “Every lesser good has an essential element of sin.”
Anything less than the perfection that belongs normally to my
present stage of development is a coming short of the law’s
demand. R. W. Dale, Fellowship with Christ, 359—“For us and in
this world, the divine is always the impossible. Give me a law for
individual conduct which requires a perfection that is within my
reach, and I am sure that the law does not represent the divine
thought. ‘_Not that I have already obtained, or am already made
perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that for
which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus_’ (_Phil.
3:12_)—this, from the beginning, has been the confession of
saints.” The Perfectionist is apt to say that we must “take Christ
twice, once for justification and once for sanctification.” But no
one can take Christ for justification without at the same time
taking him for sanctification. Dr. A. A. Hodge calls this doctrine
“Neonomianism,” because it holds not to one unchanging, ideal, and
perfect law of God, but to a second law given to human weakness
when the first law has failed to secure obedience.

(1) The law of God demands perfection. It is a transcript of God’s
nature. Its object is to reveal God. Anything less than the demand
of perfection would misrepresent God. God could not give a law
which a sinner could obey. In the very nature of the case there
can be no sinlessness in this life for those who have once sinned.
Sin brings incapacity as well as guilt. All men have squandered a
part of the talent intrusted to them by God, and therefore no man
can come up to the demands of that law which requires all that God
gave to humanity at its creation together with interest on the
investment. (2) Even the best Christian comes short of perfection.
Regeneration makes only the dominant disposition holy. Many
affections still remain unholy and require to be cleansed. Only by
lowering the demands of the law, making shallow our conceptions of
sin, and mistaking temporary volition for permanent bent of the
will, can we count ourselves to be perfect. (3) Absolute
perfection is attained not in this world but in the world to come.
The best Christians count themselves still sinners, strive most
earnestly for holiness, have imputed but not inherent
sanctification, are saved by hope.

(_b_) That the theory finds no support in, but rather is distinctly
contradicted by, Scripture.

First, the Scriptures never assert or imply that the Christian may in this
life live without sin; passages like 1 John 3:6, 9, if interpreted
consistently with the context, set forth either the ideal standard of
Christian living or the actual state of the believer so far as respects
his new nature.

_1 John 3:6_—“_Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not; whosoever
sinneth hath not seen him, neither knoweth him_”; _9_—“_Whosoever
is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him:
and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God._” Ann. Par.
Bible, _in loco_:—“John is contrasting the states in which sin and
grace severally predominate, without reference to degrees in
either, showing that all men are in one or the other.” Neander:
“John recognizes no intermediate state, no gradations. He seizes
upon the radical point of difference. He contrasts the two states
in their essential nature and principle. It is either love or
hate, light or darkness, truth or a lie. The Christian life in its
essential nature is the opposite of all sin. If there be sin, it
must be the afterworking of the old nature.” Yet all Christians
are required in Scripture to advance, to confess sin, to ask
forgiveness, to maintain warfare, to assume the attitude of ill
desert in prayer, to receive chastisement for the removal of
imperfections, to regard full salvation as matter of hope, not of
present experience.

John paints only in black and white; there are no intermediate
tints or colors. Take the words in _1 John 3:6_ literally, and
there never was and never can be a regenerate person. The words
are hyperbolical, as Paul’s words in _Rom. 6:2_—“_We who died to
sin, how shall we any longer live therein_”—are metaphorical; see
E. H. Johnson, in Bib. Sac., 1892:375, note. The Emperor William
refused the request for an audience prepared by a German‐American,
saying that Germans born in Germany but naturalized in America
became Americans: “Ich kenne Amerikaner, Ich kenne Deutsche, aber
Deutsch‐Amerikaner kenne Ich nicht”—“I know Americans, I know
Germans, but German‐Americans I do not know.”

Lowrie, Doctrine of St. John, 110—“St. John uses the noun _sin_
and the verb _to sin_ in two senses: to denote the power or
principle of sin, or to denote concrete acts of sin. The latter
sense he generally expresses by the plural _sins_.... The
Christian is guilty of particular acts of sin for which confession
and forgiveness are required, but as he has been freed from the
bondage of sin he cannot habitually practise it nor abide in it,
still less can he be guilty of sin in its superlative form, by
denial of Christ.”

Secondly, the apostolic admonitions to the Christians and Hebrews show
that no such state of complete sanctification had been generally attained
by the Christians of the first century.

_Rom. 8:24_—“_For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is
not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth?_” The party
feeling, selfishness, and immorality found among the members of
the Corinthian church are evidence that they were far from a state
of entire sanctification.

Thirdly, there is express record of sin committed by the most perfect
characters of Scripture—as Noah, Abraham, Job, David, Peter.

We are urged by perfectionists “to keep up the standard.” We do
this, not by calling certain men perfect, but by calling Jesus
Christ perfect. In proportion to our sanctification, we are
absorbed in Christ, not in ourselves. Self‐consciousness and
display are a poor evidence of sanctification. The best characters
of Scripture put their trust in a standard higher than they have
ever realized in their own persons, even in the righteousness of
God.

Fourthly, the word τέλειος, as applied to spiritual conditions already
attained, can fairly be held to signify only a relative perfection,
equivalent to sincere piety or maturity of Christian judgment.

_1 Cor. 2:6_—“_We speak wisdom, however, among the perfect,_” or,
as the Am. Revisers have it, “_among them that are fullgrown_”;
_Phil. 3:15_—“_Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus
minded._” Men are often called perfect, when free from any fault
which strikes the eyes of the world. See _Gen. 6:9_—“_Noah was a
righteous man, and perfect_”; _Job 1:1_—“_that man was perfect and
upright._” On τέλειος, see Trench, Syn. N. T., 1:110.

The τέλειοι are described in _Heb. 5:14_—“_Solid food is for the
mature_ (τελείων) _who on account of habit have their perceptions
disciplined for the discriminating of good and evil_” (Dr.
Kendrick’s translation). The same word “_perfect_” is used of
Jacob in _Gen. 25:27_—“_Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents_”
= a harmless man, exemplary and well‐balanced, as a man of
business. Genung, Epic of the Inner Life, 132—“_’Perfect’_ in Job
= Horace’s ‘integer vitæ,’ being the adjective of which
‘integrity’ is the substantive.”

Fifthly, the Scriptures distinctly deny that any man on earth lives
without sin.

_1 K. 8:46_—“_there is no man that sinneth not_”; _Eccl.
7:20_—“_Surely there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth
good, and sinneth not_”; _James 3:2_—“_For in many things we all
stumble. If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man,
able to bridle the whole body also_”; _1 John 1:8_—“_If we say
that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in
us._”

T. T. Eaton, Sanctification: “1. Some mistake regeneration for
sanctification. They have been unconverted church members. When
led to faith in Christ, and finding peace and joy, they think they
are sanctified, when they are simply converted. 2. Some mistake
assurance of faith for sanctification. But joy is not
sanctification. 3. Some mistake the baptism of the Holy Spirit for
sanctification. But Peter sinned grievously at Antioch, after he
had received that baptism. 4. Some think that doing the best one
can is sanctification. But he who measures by inches, for feet,
can measure up well. Some regard sin as only a voluntary act,
whereas the sinful nature is the fountain. Stripping off the
leaves of the Upas tree does not answer. 6. Some mistake the power
of the human will, and fancy that an act of will can free a man
from sin. They ignore the settled bent of the will, which the act
of will does not change.”

Sixthly, the declaration: “ye were sanctified” (1 Cor. 6:11), and the
designation: “saints” (1 Cor. 1:2), applied to early believers, are, as
the whole epistle shows, expressive of a holiness existing in germ and
anticipation; the expressions deriving their meaning not so much from what
these early believers were, as from what Christ was, to whom they were
united by faith.

When N. T. believers are said to be “_sanctified_,” we must
remember the O. T. use of the word. “Sanctify” may have either the
meaning “to make holy outwardly,” or “to make holy inwardly.” The
people of Israel and the vessels of the tabernacle were made holy
in the former sense; their sanctification was a setting apart to
the sacred use. _Num. 8:17_—“_all the firstborn among the children
of Israel are mine.... I sanctified them for myself_”; _Deut.
33:3_—“_Yea, he loveth the people; all his saints are in thy
hand_”; _2 Chron. 29:19_—“_all the vessels ... have we prepared
and sanctified._” The vessels mentioned were first immersed, and
then sprinkled from day to day according to need. So the Christian
by his regeneration is set apart for God’s service, and in this
sense is a “_saint_” and “_sanctified_.” More than this, he has in
him the beginnings of purity,—he is “_clean as a whole_,” though
he yet needs “_to wash his feet_” (_John 13:10_)—that is, to be
cleansed from the recurring defilements of his daily life. Shedd,
Dogm. Theol., 2:551—“The error of the Perfectionist is that of
confounding _imputed_ sanctification with _inherent_
sanctification. It is the latter which is mentioned in _1 Cor.
1:30_—‘_Christ Jesus, who was made unto us ... sanctification._’ ”

Water from the Jordan is turbid, but it settles in the bottle and
seems pure—until it is shaken. Some Christians seem very free from
sin, until you shake them,—then they get “riled.” Clarke,
Christian Theology, 871—“Is there not a higher Christian life?
Yes, and a higher life beyond it, and a higher still beyond. The
Christian life is ever higher and higher. It must pass through all
stages between its beginning and its perfection.” C. D. Case: “The
great objection to [this theory of] complete sanctification is
that, if possessed at all, it is not a development of our own
character.”

(_c_) That the theory is disapproved by the testimony of Christian
experience.—In exact proportion to the soul’s advance in holiness does it
shrink from claiming that holiness has been already attained, and humble
itself before God for its remaining apathy, ingratitude, and unbelief.

_Phil. 3:12‐14_—“_Not that I have already obtained, or am already
made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that
for which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus._” Some of the
greatest advocates of perfectionism have been furthest from
claiming any such perfection; although many of their less
instructed followers claimed it for them, and even professed to
have attained it themselves.

In _Luke 7:1‐10_, the centurion does not think himself worthy to
go to Jesus, or to have him come under his roof, yet the elders of
the Jews say: “_He is worthy that thou shouldest do this_”; and
Jesus himself says of him: “_I have not found so great faith, no,
not in Israel_.” “_Holy to Jehovah_” was inscribed upon the mitre
of the high priest (_Ex. 28:36_). Others saw it, but he saw it
not. Moses knew not that his face shone (_Ex. 34:29_). The truest
holiness is that of which the possessor is least conscious; yet it
is his real diadem and beauty (A. J. Gordon). “The nearer men are
to being sinless, the less they talk about it” (Dwight L. Moody).
“Always strive for perfection: never believe you have reached it”
(Arnold of Rugby). Compare with this, Ernest Renan’s declaration
that he had nothing to alter in his life. “I have not sinned for
some time,” said a woman to Mr. Spurgeon. “Then you must be very
proud of it,” he replied. “Indeed I am!” said she. A pastor says:
“No one can attain the ‘Higher Life,’ and escape making mischief.”
John Wesley lamented that not one in thirty retained the blessing.

Perfectionism is best met by proper statements of the nature of the law
and of sin (Ps. 119:96). While we thus rebuke spiritual pride, however, we
should be equally careful to point out the inseparable connection between
justification and sanctification, and their equal importance as together
making up the Biblical idea of salvation. While we show no favor to those
who would make sanctification a sudden and paroxysmal act of the human
will, we should hold forth the holiness of God as the standard of
attainment, and the faith in a Christ of infinite fulness as the medium
through which that standard is to be gradually but certainly realized in
us (2 Cor. 3:18).

We should imitate Lyman Beecher’s method of opposing
perfectionism—by searching expositions of God’s law. When men know
what the law is, they will say with the Psalmist: “_I have seen an
end of all perfection; thy commandment is exceeding broad_” (_Ps.
119:96_). And yet we are earnestly and hopefully to seek in Christ
for a continually increasing measure of sanctification: _1 Cor.
1:30_—“_Christ Jesus, who was made unto us ... sanctification_”;
_2 Cor. 3:18_—“_But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a
mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image
from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit_.” Arnold of
Rugby: “Always expect to succeed, and never think you have
succeeded.”

Mr. Finney meant by entire sanctification only that it is possible
for Christians in this life by the grace of God to consecrate
themselves so unreservedly to his service as to live without
conscious and wilful disobedience to the divine commands. He did
not claim himself to have reached this point; he made at times
very impressive confessions of his own sinfulness; he did not
encourage others to make for themselves the claim to have lived
without conscious fault. He held however that such a state is
attainable, and therefore that its pursuit is rational. He also
admitted that such a state is one, not of absolute, but only of
relative, sinlessness. His error was in calling it a state of
entire sanctification. See A. H. Strong, Christ in Creation,
377‐384.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 116—“It is possible that one
may experience a great crisis in his spiritual life, in which
there is such a total surrender of self to God and such an
infilling of the Holy Spirit, that he is freed from the bondage of
sinful appetites and habits, and enabled to have constant victory
over self instead of suffering constant defeat.... If the doctrine
of sinless perfection is a heresy, the doctrine of contentment
with sinful imperfection is a greater heresy.... It is not an
edifying spectacle to see a Christian worldling throwing stones at
a Christian perfectionist.” Caird, Evolution of Religion,
1:138—“If, according to the German proverb, it is provided that
the trees shall not grow into the sky, it is equally provided that
they shall always grow toward it; and the sinking of the roots
into the soil is inevitably accompanied by a further expansion of
the branches.”

See Hovey, Doctrine of the Higher Christian Life, Compared with
Scripture, also Hovey, Higher Christian Life Examined, in Studies
in Ethics and Theology, 344‐427; Snodgrass, Scriptural Doctrine of
Sanctification; Princeton Essays, 1:335‐365; Hodge, Syst. Theol.,
3:213‐258; Calvin, Institutes, III, 11:6; Bib. Repos., 2d Series,
1:44‐58; 2:143‐166; Woods, Works, 4:465‐523; H. A. Boardman, The
“Higher Life” Doctrine of Sanctification; William Law, Practical
Treatise on Christian Perfection; E. H. Johnson, The Highest Life.

II. Perseverance.

The Scriptures declare that, in virtue of the original purpose and
continuous operation of God, all who are united to Christ by faith will
infallibly continue in a state of grace and will finally attain to
everlasting life. This voluntary continuance, on the part of the
Christian, in faith and well‐doing we call perseverance. Perseverance is,
therefore, the human side or aspect of that spiritual process which, as
viewed from the divine side, we call sanctification. It is not a mere
natural consequence of conversion, but involves a constant activity of the
human will from the moment of conversion to the end of life.

Adam’s holiness was mutable; God did not determine to keep him. It
is otherwise with believers in Christ; God has determined to give
them the kingdom (_Luke 12:32_). Yet this keeping by God, which we
call sanctification, is accompanied and followed by a keeping of
himself on the part of the believer, which we call perseverance.
The former is alluded to in _John 17:11, 12_—“_keep them in thy
name.... I kept them in thy name.... I guarded them, and not one
of them perished, but the son of perdition_”; the latter is
alluded to in _1 John 5:18_—“_he that was __ begotten of God
keepeth himself._” Both are expressed in _Jude 21, 24_—“_Keep
yourselves in the love of God.... Now unto him that is able to
guard you from stumbling..._”

A German treatise on Pastoral Theology is entitled: “Keep What
Thou Hast”—an allusion to _2 Tim. 1:14_—“_That good thing which
was committed unto thee guard through the Holy Spirit which
dwelleth in us._” Not only the pastor, but every believer, has a
charge to keep; and the keeping of ourselves is as important a
point of Christian doctrine as is the keeping of God. Both are
expressed in the motto: _Teneo, Teneor_—the motto on the front of
the Y. M. C. A. building in Boston, underneath a stone cross,
firmly clasped by two hands. The colored preacher said that
“Perseverance means: 1. Take hold; 2. Hold on; 3. Never let go.”

Physically, intellectually, morally, spiritually, there is need
that we persevere. Paul, in _1 Cor. 9:27_, declares that he smites
his body under the eye and makes a slave of it, lest after having
preached to others he himself should be rejected; and in _2 Tim.
4:7_, at the end of his career, he rejoices that he has “_kept the
faith_.” A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 115—“The Christian
is as ‘_a tree planted by the streams of water, that bringeth
forth its fruit in its season_’ (_Ps. 1:3_), but to conclude that
his growth will be as irresistible as that of the tree, coming as
a matter of course simply because he has by regeneration been
planted in Christ, is a grave mistake. The disciple is required to
be consciously and intelligently active in his own growth, as the
tree is not, ‘_to give all diligence to make his calling and
election sure_’ (_2 Pet. 1:10_) by surrendering himself to the
divine action.” Clarke, Christian Theology, 379—“Man is able to
fall, and God is able to keep him from falling; and through the
various experiences of life God will so save his child out of all
evil that he will be morally incapable of falling.”

1. Proof of the Doctrine of Perseverance.

A. From Scripture.

_John 10:28, 29_—“_they shall never perish, and no one shall
snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto
me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of
the Father’s hand_”; _Rom. 11:29_—“_For the gifts and the calling
of God are without repentance_”; _1 Cor. 13:7_—“_endureth all
things_”; _cf._ _13_—“_But now abideth faith, hope, love_”; _Phil.
1:6_—“_being confident of this very thing, that he who began a
good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus Christ_”;
_2 Thess. 3:3_—“_But the Lord is faithful, who shall establish
you, and guard you from the evil one_”; _2 Tim. 1:12_—“_I know him
whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard
that which I have committed unto him against that day_”; _1 Pet.
1:5_—“_who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a
salvation ready to be revealed in the last time_”; _Rev.
3:10_—“_Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also
will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come
upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth._”

_2 Tim. 1:12_—τὴν παραθήκην μου—Ellicott translates: “_the trust
committed to me_,” or “_my deposit_” = the office of preaching the
gospel, the stewardship entrusted to the apostle; _cf._ _1 Tim.
6:20_—“_O Timothy, keep thy deposit_”—τὴν παραθήκην; and _2 Tim.
1:14_—“_Keep the good deposit_”—where the deposit seems to be the
faith or doctrine delivered to him to preach. Nicoll, The Church’s
One Foundation, 211—“Some Christians waken each morning with a
creed of fewer articles, and those that remain they are ready to
surrender to a process of argument that convinces them. But it is
a duty to _keep_. ‘_Ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye
know_’ (_1 John 2:20_).... Ezra gave to his men a treasure of gold
and silver and sacrificial vessels, and he charged them: ‘_Watch
ye, and keep them, until ye weigh them ... in thy chambers of the
house of Jehovah_’ (_Ezra 8:29_).” See in the Autobiography of C.
H. Spurgeon, 1:225, 256, the outline of a sermon on _John
6:37_—“_All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto me;
and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out._” Mr.
Spurgeon remarks that this text can give us no comfort unless we
see: 1. that God has given us his Holy Spirit; 2. that we have
given ourselves to him. Christ will not cast us out because of our
great sins, our long delays, our trying other saviors, our
hardness of heart, our little faith, our poor dull prayers, our
unbelief, our inveterate corruptions, our frequent backslidings,
nor finally because every one else passes us by.

B. From Reason.

(_a_) It is a necessary inference from other doctrines,—such as election,
union with Christ, regeneration, justification, sanctification.

Election of certain individuals to salvation is election to bestow
upon them such influences of the Spirit as will lead them not only
to accept Christ, but to persevere and be saved. Union with Christ
is indissoluble; regeneration is the beginning of a work of new
creation, which is declared in justification, and completed in
sanctification. All these doctrines are parts of a general scheme,
which would come to naught if any single Christian were permitted
to fall away.

(_b_) It accords with analogy,—God’s preserving care being needed by, and
being granted to, his spiritual, as well as his natural, creation.

As natural life cannot uphold itself, but we “_live, and move, and
have our being_” in God (_Acts 17:28_), so spiritual life cannot
uphold itself, and God maintains the faith, love, and holy
activity which he has originated. If he preserves our natural
life, much more may we expect him to preserve the spiritual. _1
Tim. 6:13_—“_I charge thee before God who preserveth all things
alive_” (R. V. marg.)—ζωογονοῦντος τὰ πάντα = the great Preserver
of all enables us to persist in our Christian course.

(_c_) It is implied in all assurance of salvation,—since this assurance is
given by the Holy Spirit, and is based not upon the known strength of
human resolution, but upon the purpose and operation of God.

S. R. Mason: “If Satan and Adam both fell away from perfect
holiness, it is a million to one that, in a world full of
temptations and with all appetites and habits against me, I shall
fall away from imperfect holiness, unless God by his almighty
power keep me.” It is in the power and purpose of God, then, that
the believer puts his trust. But since this trust is awakened by
the Holy Spirit, it must be that there is a divine fact
corresponding to it; namely, God’s purpose to exert his power in
such a way that the Christian shall persevere. See Wardlaw, Syst.
Theol., 2:550‐578; N. W. Taylor, Revealed Theology, 445‐460.

_Job 6:11_—“_What is my strength, that I should wait? And what is
mine end, that I should be patient?_” “Here is a note of self‐
distrust. To be patient without any outlook, to endure without
divine support—Job does not promise it, and he trembles at the
prospect; but none the less he sets his feet on the toilsome way”
(Genung). Dr. Lyman Beecher was asked whether he believed in the
perseverance of the saints. He replied: “I do, except when the
wind is from the East.” But the value of the doctrine is that we
can believe it even when the wind _is_ from the East. It is well
to hold on to God’s hand, but it is better to have God’s hand hold
on to us. When we are weak, and forgetful and asleep, we need to
be sure of God’s care. Like the child who thought he was driving,
but who found, after the trouble was over, that his father after
all had been holding the reins, we too find when danger comes that
behind our hands are the hands of God. The Perseverance of the
Saints, looked at from the divine side, is the Preservation of the
Saints, and the hymn that expresses the Christian’s faith is the
hymn: “How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, Is laid for
your faith in his excellent word!”

2. Objections to the Doctrine of Perseverance.

These objections are urged chiefly by Arminians and by Romanists.

A. That it is inconsistent with human freedom.—Answer: It is no more so
than is the doctrine of Election or the doctrine of Decrees.

The doctrine is simply this, that God will bring to bear such
influences upon all true believers, that they will freely
persevere. Moule, Outlines of Christian Doctrine, 47—“Is grace, in
any sense of the word, ever finally withdrawn? Yes, if by grace is
meant any free gift of God tending to salvation; or, more
specially, any action of the Holy Spirit tending in its nature
thither.... But if by grace be meant the dwelling and working of
Christ in the truly regenerate, there is no indication in
Scripture of the withdrawal of it.”

B. That it tends to immorality.—Answer: This cannot be, since the doctrine
declares that God will save men by securing their perseverance in
holiness.

_2 Tim. 2:19_—“_Howbeit the firm foundation of God standeth,
having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his: and, Let
every one that nameth the name of the Lord depart from
unrighteousness_”; that is, the temple of Christian character has
upon its foundation two significant inscriptions, the one
declaring God’s power, wisdom, and purpose of salvation; the other
declaring the purity and holy activity, on the part of the
believer, through which God’s purpose is to be fulfilled; _1 Pet.
1:1, 2_—“_elect ... according to the foreknowledge of God the
Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ_”; _2 Pet. 1:10,
11_—“_Wherefore, brethren, give the more diligence to make your
calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall
never stumble: for thus shall be richly supplied unto you the
entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ_.”

C. That it leads to indolence.—Answer: This is a perversion of the
doctrine, continuously possible only to the unregenerate; since, to the
regenerate, certainty of success is the strongest incentive to activity in
the conflict with sin.

_1 John 5:4_—“_For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the
world; and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even
our faith_.” It is notoriously untrue that confidence of success
inspires timidity or indolence. Thomas Fuller: “Your salvation is
his business; his service your business.” The only prayers God
will answer are those we ourselves cannot answer. For the very
reason that “_it is God who worketh in you both to will and to
work, for his good pleasure_,” the apostle exhorts: “_work out
your own salvation with fear and trembling_” (_Phil. 2:12, 13_).

D. That the Scripture commands to persevere and warnings against apostasy
show that certain, even of the regenerate, will fall away.—Answer:

(_a_) They show that some, who are apparently regenerate, will fall away.

_Mat. 18:7_—“_Woe unto the world because of occasions of
stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe
to that man through whom the occasion cometh_”; _1 Cor.
11:19_—“_For there must be also factions_ [lit. ‘_heresies_’]
_among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among
you_”; _1 John 2:19_—“_They went out from us, but they were not of
us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us:
but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all
are not of us_.” Judas probably experienced strong emotions, and
received strong impulses toward good, under the influence of
Christ. The only falling from grace which is recognized in
Scripture is not the falling of the regenerate, but the falling of
the unregenerate, from influences tending to lead them to Christ.
The Rabbins said that a drop of water will suffice to purify a man
who has accidentally touched a creeping thing, but an ocean will
not suffice for his cleansing so long as he purposely keeps the
creeping thing in his hand.

(_b_) They show that the truly regenerate, and those who are only
apparently so, are not certainly distinguishable in this life.

_Mal. 3:18_—“_Then shall ye return and discern between the
righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him
that serveth him not_”; _Mat. 13:25, 47_—“_while men slept, his
enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away....
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast
into the sea, and gathered of every kind_”; _Rom. 9:6, 7_—“_For
they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: neither, because they
are Abraham’s seed, are they all children_”; _Rev. 3:1_—“_I know
thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and thou art
dead_.” The tares were never wheat, and the bad fish never were
good, in spite of the fact that their true nature was not for a
while recognized.

(_c_) They show the fearful consequences of rejecting Christ, to those who
have enjoyed special divine influences, but who are only apparently
regenerate.

_Heb. 10:26‐29_—“_For if we sin wilfully after that we have
received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a
sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment,
and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man
that hath set at nought Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the
word of two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment,
think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot
the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant
wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite
unto the Spirit of grace?_” Here “_sanctified_” = external
sanctification, like that of the ancient Israelites, by outward
connection with God’s people; _cf._ _1 Cor. 7:14_—“_the
unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife_.”

In considering these and the following Scripture passages, much
will depend upon our view of inspiration. If we hold that Christ’s
promise was fulfilled and that his apostles were led into all the
truth, we shall assume that there is unity in their teaching, and
shall recognize in their variations only aspects and applications
of the teaching of our Lord; in other words, Christ’s doctrine in
_John 10:28, 29_ will be the norm for the interpretation of
seemingly diverse and at first sight inconsistent passages. There
was a “_faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints_,”
and for this primitive faith we are exhorted “_to contend
earnestly_” (_Jude 3_).

(_d_) They show what the fate of the truly regenerate would be, in case
they should not persevere.

_Heb. 6:4‐6_—“_For as touching those who were once enlightened and
tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy
Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the
world to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them
again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son
of God afresh, and put him to an open shame._” This is to be
understood as a hypothetical case,—as is clear from _verse 9_
which follows: “_But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of
you, and things which accompany salvation, though we thus speak_.”
Dr. A. C. Kendrick, Com. _in loco_: “In the phrase ‘_once
enlightened_,’ the ‘_once_’ is ἅπαξ = once for all. The text
describes a condition subjectively possible, and therefore needing
to be held up in earnest warning to the believer, while
objectively and in the absolute purpose of God, it never
occurs.... If passages like this teach the possibility of falling
from grace, they teach also the impossibility of restoration to
it. The saint who once apostatizes has apostatized forever.” So
_Ez. 18:24_—“_when the righteous turneth away from his
righteousness, and committeth iniquity ... in them shall he die_”;
_2 Pet. 2:20_—“_For if, after they have escaped the defilements of
the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last
state is become worse with them than the first_.” So, in _Mat.
5:13_—“_if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be
salted?_”—if this teaches that the regenerate may lose their
religion, it also teaches that they can never recover it. It
really shows only that Christians who do not perform their proper
functions as Christians become harmful and contemptible (Broadus,
_in loco_).

(_e_) They show that the perseverance of the truly regenerate may be
secured by these very commands and warnings.

_1 Cor. 9:27_—“_I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest
by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself
should be rejected_”—or, to bring out the meaning more fully: “_I
beat my body blue_ [or, ‘strike it under the eye’], _and make it a
slave, lest after having been a herald to others, I myself should
be rejected_” (“unapproved,” “counted unworthy of the prize”);
_10:12_—“_Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed
lest he fall_.” Quarles, Emblems: “The way to be safe is never to
be secure.” Wrightnour: “Warning a traveler to keep a certain
path, and by this means keeping him in that path, is no evidence
that he will ever fall into a pit by the side of the path simply
because he is warned of it.”

(_f_) They do not show that it is certain, or possible, that any truly
regenerate person will fall away.

The Christian is like a man making his way up‐hill, who
occasionally slips back, yet always has his face set toward the
summit. The unregenerate man has his face turned downwards, and he
is slipping all the way. C. H. Spurgeon: “The believer, like a man
on shipboard, may fall again and again on the deck, but he will
never fall overboard.”

E. That we have actual examples of such apostasy.—We answer:

(_a_) Such are either men once outwardly reformed, like Judas and Ananias,
but never renewed in heart;

But, _per contra_, instance the experience of a man in typhoid
fever, who apparently repented, but who never remembered it when
he was restored to health. Sick‐bed and death‐bed conversions are
not the best. There was one penitent thief, that none might
despair; there was but one penitent thief, that none might
presume. The hypocrite is like the wire that gets a second‐hand
electricity from the live wire running parallel with it. This
second‐hand electricity is effective only within narrow limits,
and its efficacy is soon exhausted. The live wire has connection
with the source of power in the dynamo.

(_b_) Or they are regenerate men, who, like David and Peter, have fallen
into temporary sin, from which they will, before death, be reclaimed by
God’s discipline.

Instance the young profligate who, in a moment of apparent
drowning, repented, was then rescued, and afterward lived a long
life as a Christian. If he had not been rescued, his repentance
would never have been known, nor the answer to his mother’s
prayers. So, in the moment of a backslider’s death, God can renew
repentance and faith. Cromwell on his death‐bed questioned his
Chaplain as to the doctrine of final perseverance, and, on being
assured that it was a certain truth, said: “Then I am happy, for I
am sure that I was once in a state of grace.” But reliance upon a
past experience is like trusting in the value of a policy of life
insurance upon which several years’ premiums have been unpaid. If
the policy has not lapsed, it is because of extreme grace. The
only conclusive evidence of perseverance is a present experience
of Christ’s presence and indwelling, corroborated by active
service and purity of life.

On the general subject, see Edwards, Works, 3:509‐532, and 4:104;
Ridgeley, Body of Divinity, 2:164‐194; John Owen, Works, vol. 11;
Woods, Works, 3:221‐246; Van Oosterzee, Christian Dogmatics,
662‐666.

PART VII. ECCLESIOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH.

Chapter I. The Constitution Of The Church. Or Church Polity.

I. Definition of the Church.

(_a_) The church of Christ, in its largest signification, is the whole
company of regenerate persons in all times and ages, in heaven and on
earth (Mat. 16:18; Eph. 1:22, 23; 3:10; 5:24, 25; Col. 1:18; Heb. 12:23).
In this sense, the church is identical with the spiritual kingdom of God;
both signify that redeemed humanity in which God in Christ exercises
actual spiritual dominion (John 3:3, 5).

_Mat. 16:18_—“_thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it_”;
_Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_and he put all things in subjection under his
feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which
is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all_”;
_3:10_—“_to the intent that now unto the principalities and the
powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the
church the manifold wisdom of God_”; _5:24, 25_—“_But as the
church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their
husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ
also loved the church, and gave himself up for it_”; _Col.
1:18_—“_And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the
beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he
might have the preeminence_”; _Heb. 12:23_—“_the general assembly
and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven_”; _John
3:3, 5_—“_Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of
God. ... Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God._”

Cicero’s words apply here: “Una navis est jam bonorum omnium”—all
good men are in one boat. Cicero speaks of the state, but it is
still more true of the church invisible. Andrews, in Bib. Sac.,
Jan. 1883:14, mentions the following differences between the
church and kingdom, or, as we prefer to say, between the visible
church and the invisible church: (1) the church began with
Christ,—the kingdom began earlier; (2) the church is confined to
believers in the historic Christ,—the kingdom includes all God’s
children; (3) the church belongs wholly to this world—not so the
kingdom; (4) the church is visible,—not so the kingdom; (5) the
church has _quasi_ organic character, and leads out into local
churches,—this is not so with the kingdom. On the universal or
invisible church, see Cremer, Lexicon N. T., transl., 113, 114,
331; Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 12.

H. C. Vedder: “The church is a spiritual body, consisting only of
those regenerated by the Spirit of God.” Yet the Westminster
Confession affirms that the church “consists of all those
throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with
their children.” This definition includes in the church a
multitude who not only give no evidence of regeneration, but who
plainly show themselves to be unregenerate. In many lands it
practically identifies the church with the world. Augustine indeed
thought that “_the field_,” in _Mat. 13:38_, is the church,
whereas Jesus says very distinctly that it “_is the world_.”
Augustine held that good and bad alike were to be permitted to
dwell together in the church, without attempt to separate them;
see Broadus, Com. _in loco_. But the parable gives a reason, not
why we should not try to put the wicked out of the church, but why
God does not immediately put them out of the world, the tares
being separated from the wheat only at the final judgment of
mankind.

Yet the universal church includes all true believers. It fulfils
the promise of God to Abraham in _Gen. 15:5_—“_Look now toward
heaven, and number the stars, if thou be able to number them: and
he said into him, So shall thy seed be_.” The church shall be
immortal, since it draws its life from Christ: _Is. 65:22_—“_as
the days of a tree shall be the days of my people_”; _Zech. 4:2,
3_—“_a candlestick all of gold ... and two olive‐trees by it_.”
Dean Stanley, Life and Letters, 2:242, 243—“A Spanish Roman
Catholic, Cervantes, said: ‘Many are the roads by which God
carries his own to heaven.’ Döllinger: ‘Theology must become a
science not, as heretofore, for making war, but for making peace,
and thus bringing about that reconciliation of churches for which
the whole civilized world is longing.’ In their loftiest moods of
inspiration, the Catholic Thomas à Kempis, the Puritan Milton, the
Anglican Keble, rose above their peculiar tenets, and above the
limits that divide denominations, into the higher regions of a
common Christianity. It was the Baptist Bunyan who taught the
world that there was ‘a common ground of communion which no
difference of external rites could efface.’ It was the Moravian
Gambold who wrote: ‘The man That could surround the sum of things,
and spy The heart of God and secrets of his empire, Would speak
but love. With love, the bright result Would change the hue of
intermediate things, And make one thing of all theology.’ ”

(_b_) The church, in this large sense, is nothing less than the body of
Christ—the organism to which he gives spiritual life, and through which he
manifests the fulness of his power and grace. The church therefore cannot
be defined in merely human terms, as an aggregate of individuals
associated for social, benevolent, or even spiritual purposes. There is a
transcendent element in the church. It is the great company of persons
whom Christ has saved, in whom he dwells, to whom and through whom he
reveals God (Eph. 1:22, 23).

_Eph. 1:22, 23_—“_the church, which is his body, the fulness of
him that filleth all in all._” He who is the life of nature and of
humanity reveals himself most fully in the great company of those
who have joined themselves to him by faith. Union with Christ is
the presupposition of the church. This alone transforms the sinner
into a Christian, and this alone makes possible that vital and
spiritual fellowship between individuals which constitutes the
organizing principle of the church. The same divine life which
ensures the pardon and the perseverance of the believer unites him
to all other believers. The indwelling Christ makes the church
superior to and more permanent than all humanitarian
organizations; they die, but because Christ lives, the church
lives also. Without a proper conception of this sublime relation
of the church to Christ, we cannot properly appreciate our dignity
as church members, or our high calling as shepherds of the flock.
Not “ubi ecclesia, ibi Christus,” but “ubi Christus, ibi
ecclesia,” should be our motto. Because Christ is omnipresent and
omnipotent, “_the same yesterday, and to‐day, yea and forever_”
(_Heb. 13:8_), what Burke said of the nation is true of the
church: It is “indeed a partnership, but a partnership not only
between those who are living, but between those who are living,
those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born.”

McGiffert, Apostolic Church, 501—“Paul’s conception of the church
as the body of Christ was first emphasized and developed by
Ignatius. He reproduces in his writings the substance of all the
Paulinism that the church at large made permanently its own: the
preëxistence and deity of Christ, the union of the believer with
Christ without which the Christian life is impossible, the
importance of Christ’s death, the church the body of Christ. Rome
never fully recognized Paul’s teachings, but her system rests upon
his doctrine of the church the body of Christ. The modern doctrine
however makes the kingdom to be not spiritual or future, but a
reality of this world.” The redemption of the body, the redemption
of institutions, the redemption of nations, are indeed all
purposed by Christ. Christians should not only strive to rescue
individual men from the slough of vice, but they should devise
measures for draining that slough and making that vice impossible;
in other words, they should labor for the coming of the kingdom of
God in society. But this is not to identify the church with
politics, prohibition, libraries, athletics. The spiritual
fellowship is to be the fountain from which all these activities
spring, while at the same time Christ’s “_kingdom is not of this
world_” (_John 18:36_).

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 24, 25, 207—“As Christ is
the temple of God, so the church is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
As God could be seen only through Christ, so the Holy Spirit can
be seen only through the church. As Christ was the image of the
invisible God, so the church is appointed to be the image of the
invisible Christ, and the members of Christ, when they are
glorified with him, shall be the express image of his person....
The church and the kingdom are not identical terms, if we mean by
the kingdom the visible reign and government of Jesus Christ on
earth. In another sense they are identical. As is the king, so is
the kingdom. The king is present now in the world, only invisibly
and by the Holy Spirit; so the kingdom is now present invisibly
and spiritually in the hearts of believers. The king is to come
again visibly and gloriously; so shall the kingdom appear visibly
and gloriously. In other words, the kingdom is already here in
mystery: it is to be here to manifestation. Now the spiritual
kingdom is administered by the Holy Spirit, and it extends from
Pentecost to Parousia. At the Parousia—the appearing of the Son of
man in glory—when he shall take unto himself his great power and
reign (_Rev. 11:17_), when he who has now gone into a far country
to be invested with a kingdom shall return and enter upon his
government (_Luke 19:15_), then the invisible shall give way to
the visible, the kingdom in mystery shall emerge into the kingdom
in manifestation, and the Holy Spirit’s administration shall yield
to that of Christ.”

(_c_) The Scriptures, however, distinguish between this invisible or
universal church, and the individual church, in which the universal church
takes local and temporal form, and in which the idea of the church as a
whole is concretely exhibited.

_Mat. 10:32_—“_Every one therefore, who shall confess me before
men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven_”;
_12:34, 35_—“_out of the abundance of the heart the mouth
speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth
good things_”; _Rom. 10:9, 10_—“_if thou shalt confess with thy
month Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart
man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is
made unto salvation_”; _James 1:18_—“_Of his own will he brought
us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of
firstfruits of his creatures_”—we were saved, not for ourselves
only, but as parts and beginnings of an organic kingdom of God;
believers are called “_firstfruits_,” because from them the
blessing shall spread, until the whole world shall be pervaded
with the new life; Pentecost, as the feast of first‐fruits, was
but the beginning of a stream that shall continue to flow until
the whole race of man is gathered in.

R. S. Storrs: “When any truth becomes central and vital, there
comes the desire to utter it,”—and we may add, not only in words,
but in organization. So beliefs crystallize into institutions. But
Christian faith is something more vital than the common beliefs of
the world. Linking the soul to Christ, it brings Christians into
living fellowship with one another before any bonds of outward
organization exist; outward organization, indeed, only expresses
and symbolizes this inward union of spirit to Christ and to one
another. Horatius Bonar: “Thou must be true thyself, If thou the
truth wouldst teach; Thy soul must overflow, if thou Another’s
soul wouldst reach; It needs the overflow of heart To give the
lips full speech. Think truly, and thy thoughts Shall the world’s
famine feed; Speak truly, and each word of thine Shall be a
fruitful seed; Live truly, and thy life shall be A great and noble
creed.”

Contentio Veritatis, 128, 129—“The kingdom of God is first a state
of the individual soul, and then, secondly, a society made up of
those who enjoy that state.” Dr. F. L. Patton: “The best way for a
man to serve the church at large is to serve the church to which
he belongs.” Herbert Stead: “The kingdom is not to be narrowed
down to the church, nor the church evaporated into the kingdom.”
To do the first is to set up a monstrous ecclesiasticism; to do
the second is to destroy the organism through which the kingdom
manifests itself and does its work in the world (W. R. Taylor).
Prof. Dalman, in his work on The Words of Jesus in the Light of
Postbiblical Writing and the Aramaic Language, contends that the
Greek phrase translated “kingdom of God” should be rendered “the
sovereignty of God.” He thinks that it points to the reign of God,
rather than to the realm over which he reigns. This rendering, if
accepted, takes away entirely the support from the Ritschlian
conception of the kingdom of God as an earthly and outward
organization.

(_d_) The individual church may be defined as that smaller company of
regenerate persons, who, in any given community, unite themselves
voluntarily together, in accordance with Christ’s laws, for the purpose of
securing the complete establishment of his kingdom in themselves and in
the world.

_Mat. 18:17_—“_And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the
church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto
thee as the Gentile and the publican_”; _Acts 14:23_—“_appointed
for them elders in every church_”; _Rom. 16:5_—“_salute the church
that is in their house_”; _1 Cor. 1:2_—“_the church of God which
is at Corinth_”; _4:17_—“_even as I teach everywhere in every
church_”; _1 Thess. 2:14_—“_the churches of God which are in Judæa
in Christ Jesus._”

We do not define the church as a body of “baptized believers,”
because baptism is but one of “Christ’s laws,” in accordance with
which believers unite themselves. Since these laws are the laws of
church‐organization contained in the New Testament, no Sunday
School, Temperance Society, or Young Men’s Christian Association,
is properly a church. These organizations 1. lack the transcendent
element—they are instituted and managed by man only; 2. they are
not confined to the regenerate, or to those alone who give
credible evidence of regeneration; 3. they presuppose and require
no particular form of doctrine; 4. they observe no ordinances; 5.
they are at best mere adjuncts and instruments of the church, but
are not themselves churches; 6. their decisions therefore are
devoid of the divine authority and obligation which belong to the
decisions of the church.

The laws of Christ, in accordance with which believers unite
themselves into churches, may be summarized as follows: 1. the
sufficiency and sole authority of Scripture as the rule both of
doctrine and polity; (2) credible evidence of regeneration and
conversion as prerequisite to church‐membership; (3) immersion
only, as answering to Christ’s command of baptism, and to the
symbolic meaning of the ordinance; (4) the order of the ordinance,
Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, as of divine appointment, as well
as the ordinances themselves; (5) the right of each member of the
church to a voice in its government and discipline; (6) each
church, while holding fellowship with other churches, solely
responsible to Christ; (7) the freedom of the individual
conscience, and the total independence of church and state. Hovey
in his Restatement of Denominational Principles (Am. Bap. Pub.
Society) gives these principles as follows: 1. the supreme
authority of the Scriptures in matters of religion; 2. personal
accountability to God in religion; 3. union with Christ essential
to salvation; 4. a new life the only evidence of that union; 5.
the new life one of unqualified obedience to Christ. The most
concise statement of Baptist doctrine and history is that of
Vedder, in Jackson’s Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, 1:74‐85.

With the lax views of Scripture which are becoming common among us
there is a tendency in our day to lose sight of the transcendent
element in the church. Let us remember that the church is not a
humanitarian organization resting upon common human brotherhood,
but a supernatural body, which traces its descent from the second,
not the first, Adam, and which manifests the power of the divine
Christ. Mazzini in Italy claimed Jesus, but repudiated his church.
So modern socialists cry: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” and
deny that there is need of anything more than human unity,
development, and culture. But God has made the church to sit with
Christ “_in the heavenly places_” (_Eph. 2:6_). It is the
regeneration which comes about through union with Christ which
constitutes the primary and most essential element in
ecclesiology. “We do not stand, first of all, for restricted
communion, nor for immersion as the only valid form of baptism,
nor for any particular theory of Scripture, but rather for a
regenerate church membership. The essence of the gospel is a new
life in Christ, of which Christian experience is the outworking
and Christian consciousness is the witness. Christian life is as
important as conversion. Faith must show itself by works. We must
seek the temporal as well as spiritual salvation of men, and the
salvation of society also” (Leighton Williams).

E. G. Robinson: “Christ founded a church only proleptically. In
_Mat. 18:17_, ἐκκλησία is not used technically. The church is an
outgrowth of the Jewish synagogue, though its method and economy
are different. There was little or no organization at first.
Christ himself did not organize the church. This was the work of
the apostles after Pentecost. The germ however existed before.
Three persons may constitute a church, and may administer the
ordinances. Councils have only advisory authority. Diocesan
episcopacy is antiscriptural and antichristian.”

The principles mentioned above are the essential principles of
Baptist churches, although other bodies of Christians have come to
recognise a portion of them. Bodies of Christians which refuse to
accept these principles we may, in a somewhat loose and modified
sense, call churches; but we cannot regard them as churches
organized in all respects according to Christ’s laws, or as
completely answering to the New Testament model of church
organization. We follow common usage when we address a Lieutenant
Colonel as “Colonel,” and a Lieutenant Governor as “Governor.” It
is only courtesy to speak of pedobaptist organizations as
“churches,” although we do not regard these churches as organized
in full accordance with Christ’s laws as they are indicated to us
in the New Testament. To refuse thus to recognize them would be a
discourtesy like that of the British Commander in Chief, when he
addressed General Washington as “Mr. Washington.”

As Luther, having found the doctrine of justification by faith,
could not recognize that doctrine as Christian which taught
justification by works, but denounced the church which held it as
Antichrist, saying, “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, God help
me,” so we, in matters not indifferent, as feet‐washing, but
vitally affecting the existence of the church, as regenerate
church‐membership, must stand by the New Testament, and refuse to
call any other body of Christians a regular church, that is not
organized according to Christ’s laws. The English word “church”
like the Scotch “kirk” and the German “_Kirche_,” is derived from
the Greek κυριακή, and means “belonging to the Lord.” The term
itself should teach us to regard only Christ’s laws as our rule of
organization.

(_e_) Besides these two significations of the term “church,” there are
properly in the New Testament no others. The word ἐκκλησία is indeed used
in Acts 7:38; 19:32, 39; Heb. 2:12, to designate a popular assembly; but
since this is a secular use of the term, it does not here concern us. In
certain passages, as for example Acts 9:31 (ἐκκλησία, sing., א A B C), 1
Cor. 12:28, Phil. 3:6, and 1 Tim. 3:15, ἐκκλησία appears to be used either
as a generic or as a collective term, to denote simply the body of
independent local churches existing in a given region or at a given epoch.
But since there is no evidence that these churches were bound together in
any outward organization, this use of the term ἐκκλησία cannot be regarded
as adding any new sense to those of “the universal church” and “the local
church” already mentioned.

_Acts 7:38_—“_the church_ [marg. ‘_congregation_’] _in the
wilderness_” = the whole body of the people of Israel;
_19:32_—“_the assembly was in confusion_”—the tumultuous mob in
the theatre at Ephesus; _39_—“_the regular assembly_”; _9:31_—“_So
the church throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria had peace,
being edified_”; _1 Cor. 12:28_—“_And God hath set some in the
church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers_”;
_Phil. 3:6_—“_as touching zeal, persecuting the church_”; _1 Tim.
3:15_—“_that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves
in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth._”

In the original use of the word ἐκκλησία, as a popular assembly,
there was doubtless an allusion to the derivation from ἐκ and
καλέω, to call out by herald. Some have held that the N. T. term
contains an allusion to the fact that the members of Christ’s
church are called, chosen, elected by God. This, however, is more
than doubtful. In common use, the term had lost its etymological
meaning, and signified merely an assembly, however gathered or
summoned. The church was never so large that it could not
assemble. The church of Jerusalem gathered for the choice of
deacons (_Acts 6:2, 5_), and the church of Antioch gathered to
hear Paul’s account of his missionary journey (_Acts 14:27_).

It is only by a common figure of rhetoric that many churches are
spoken of together in the singular number, in such passages as
_Acts 9:31_. We speak generically of “man,” meaning the whole race
of men; and of “the horse,” meaning all horses. Gibbon, speaking
of the successive tribes that swept down upon the Roman Empire,
uses a noun in the singular number, and describes them as “the
several detachments of that immense army of northern
barbarians,”—yet he does not mean to intimate that these tribes
had any common government. So we may speak of “the American
college” or “the American theological seminary,” but we do not
thereby mean that the colleges or the seminaries are bound
together by any tie of outward organization.

So Paul says that God has set in the church apostles, prophets,
and teachers (_1 Cor. 12:28_), but the word “church” is only a
collective term for the many independent churches. In this same
sense, we may speak of “the Baptist church” of New York, or of
America; but it must be remembered that we use the term without
any such implication of common government as is involved in the
phrases “the Presbyterian church,” or “the Protestant Episcopal
church,” or “the Roman Catholic church”; with us, in this
connection, the term “church” means simply “churches.”

Broadus, in his Com. on Mat., page 359, suggests that the word
ἐκκλησία in _Acts 9:31_, “denotes the original church at
Jerusalem, whose members were by the persecution widely scattered
throughout Judea and Galilee and Samaria, and held meetings
wherever they were, but still belonged to the one original
organization.... When Paul wrote to the Galatians, nearly twenty
years later, these separate meetings had been organized into
distinct churches, and so he speaks (_Gal. 1:22_) in reference to
that same period, of ‘_the churches of Judæa which were in
Christ_.’ ” On the meaning of ἐκκλησία, see Cremer, Lex. N. T.,
329; Trench, Syn. N. T., 1:18; Girdlestone, Syn. O. T., 367;
Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 301; Dexter,
Congregationalism, 25; Dagg, Church Order, 100‐120; Robinson, N.
T. Lex., _sub voce_.

The prevailing usage of the N. T. gives to the term ἐκκλησία the second of
these two significations. It is this local church only which has definite
and temporal existence, and of this alone we henceforth treat. Our
definition of the individual church implies the two following particulars:

A. The church, like the family and the state, is an institution of divine
appointment.

This is plain: (_a_) from its relation to the church universal, as its
concrete embodiment; (_b_) from the fact that its necessity is grounded in
the social and religious nature of man; (_c_) from the Scripture,—as for
example, Christ’s command in Mat. 18:17, and the designation “church of
God,” applied to individual churches (1 Cor. 1:2).

President Wayland: “The universal church comes before the
particular church. The society which Christ has established is the
foundation of every particular association calling itself a church
of Christ.” Andrews, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1883:35‐58, on the
conception ἐκκλησία in the N. T., says that “the ‘church’ is the
_prius_ of all local ‘churches.’ ἐκκλησία in _Acts 9:31_ = the
church, so far as represented in those provinces. It is
ecumenical‐local, as in _1 Cor. 10:33_. The local church is a
microcosm, a specialized localization of the universal body. קהל,
in the O. T. and in the Targums, means the whole congregation of
Israel, and then secondarily those local bodies which were parts
and representations of the whole. Christ, using Aramaic, probably
used קהל in _Mat. 18:17_. He took his idea of the church from it,
not from the heathen use of the word ἐκκλησία, which expresses the
notion of locality and state much more than קהל. The larger sense
of ἐκκλησία is the primary. Local churches are points of
consciousness and activity for the great all‐inclusive unit, and
they are not themselves the units for an ecclesiastical aggregate.
They are faces, not parts of the one church.”

Christ, in _Mat. 18:17_, delegates authority to the whole
congregation of believers, and at the same time limits authority
to the local church. The local church is not an end in itself, but
exists for the sake of the kingdom. Unity is not to be that of
merely local churches, but that of the kingdom, and that kingdom
is internal, “_cometh not with observation_” (_Luke 17:20_), but
consists in “_righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit_”
(_Rom. 14:17_). The word “church,” in the universal sense, is not
employed by any other N. T. writer before Paul. Paul was
interested, not simply in individual conversions, but in the
growth of the church of God, as the body of Christ. He held to the
unity of all local churches with the mother church at Jerusalem.
The church in a city or in a house is merely a local manifestation
of the one universal church and derived its dignity therefrom.
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles: “As this broken bread was
scattered upon the mountains, and being gathered became one, so
may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth
into thy kingdom.”

Sabatier, Philos. Religion, 92—“The social action of religion
springs from its very essence. Men of the same religion have no
more imperious need than that of praying and worshiping together.
State police have always failed to confine growing religious sects
within the sanctuary or the home ... God, it is said, is the place
where spirits blend. In rising toward him, man necessarily passes
beyond the limits of his own individuality. He feels instinctively
that the principle of his being is the principle of the life of
his brethren also, that that which gives him safety must give it
to all.” Rothe held that, as men reach the full development of
their nature and appropriate the perfection of the Savior, the
separation between the religious and the moral life will vanish,
and the Christian state, as the highest sphere of human life
representing all human functions, will displace the church. “In
proportion as the Savior Christianizes the state by means of the
church, must the progressive completion of the structure of the
church prove the cause of its abolition. The decline of the church
is not therefore to be deplored, but is to be recognized as the
consequence of the independence and completeness of the religious
life” (Encyc. Brit., 21:2). But it might equally be maintained
that the state, as well as the church, will pass away, when the
kingdom of God is fully come; see _John 4:21_—“_the hour cometh,
when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall ye worship
the Father_”; _1 Cor. 15:24_—“_Then cometh the end, when he shall
deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have
abolished all rule and all authority and power_”; _Rev.
21:22_—“_And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the
Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof._”

B. The church, unlike the family and the state, is a voluntary society.

(_a_) This results from the fact that the local church is the outward
expression of that rational and free life in Christ which characterizes
the church as a whole. In this it differs from those other organizations
of divine appointment, entrance into which is not optional. Membership in
the church is not hereditary or compulsory. (_b_) The doctrine of the
church, as thus defined, is a necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of
regeneration. As this fundamental spiritual change is mediated not by
outward appliances, but by inward and conscious reception of Christ and
his truth, union with the church logically follows, not precedes, the
soul’s spiritual union with Christ.

We have seen that the church is the body of Christ. We now
perceive that the church is, by the impartation to it of Christ’s
life, made a living body, with duties and powers of its own. A. J.
Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 53, emphasizes the preliminary
truth. He shows that the definition: The church a voluntary
association of believers, united together for the purposes of
worship and edification, is most inadequate, not to say incorrect.
It is no more true than that hands and feet are voluntarily united
in the human body for the purposes of locomotion and work. The
church is formed from within. Christ, present by the Holy Ghost,
regenerating men by the sovereign action of the Spirit, and
organizing them into himself as the living centre, is the only
principle that can explain the existence of the church. The Head
and the body are therefore one—one in fact, and one in name. He
whom God anointed and filled with the Holy Ghost is called “_the
Christ_” (_1 John 5:1_—“_Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
Christ is begotten of God_”); and the church which is his body and
fulness is also called “_the Christ_” (_1 Cor. 12:12_—“_all the
members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is the
Christ_”).

Dorner includes under his doctrine of the church: (1) the genesis
of the church, through the new birth of the Spirit, or
Regeneration; (2) the growth and persistence of the church through
the continuous operation of the Spirit in the means of grace, or
Ecclesiology proper, as others call it; (3) the completion of the
church, or Eschatology. While this scheme seems designed to favor
a theory of baptismal regeneration, we must commend its
recognition of the fact that the doctrine of the church grows out
of the doctrine of regeneration and is determined in its nature by
it. If regeneration has always conversion for its obverse side,
and if conversion always includes faith in Christ, it is vain to
speak of regeneration without faith. And if union with the church
is but the outward expression of a preceding union with Christ
which involves regeneration and conversion, then involuntary
church‐membership is an absurdity, and a misrepresentation of the
whole method of salvation.

The value of compulsory religion may be illustrated from David
Hume’s experience. A godly matron of the Canongate, so runs the
story, when Hume sank in the mud in her vicinity, and on account
of his obesity could not get out, compelled the sceptic to say the
Lord’s Prayer before she would help him. Amos Kendall, on the
other hand, concluded in his old age that he had not been acting
on Christ’s plan for saving the world, and so, of his own accord,
connected himself with the church. Martineau, Study, 1:319—“Till
we come to the State and the Church, we do not reach the highest
organism of human life, into the perfect working of which all the
disinterested affections and moral enthusiasms and noble ambitions
flow.”

Socialism abolishes freedom, which the church cultivates and
insists upon as the principle of its life. Tertullian: “Nec
religionis est cogere religionem”—“It is not the business of
religion to compel religion.” Vedder, History of the Baptists:
“The community of goods in the church at Jerusalem was a purely
voluntary matter; see _Acts 5:4_—‘_While it remained, did it not
remain thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy
power?_’ The community of goods does not seem to have continued in
the church at Jerusalem after the temporary stress had been
relieved, and there is no reason to believe that any other church
in the apostolic age practised anything of the kind.” By
abolishing freedom, socialism destroys all possibility of
economical progress. The economical principle of socialism is
that, relatively to the enjoyment of commodities, the individual
shall be taken care of by the community, to the effect of his
being relieved of the care of himself. The communism in the Acts
was: 1. not for the community of mankind in general, but only for
the church within itself; 2. not obligatory, but left to the
discretion of individuals; 3. not permanent, but devised for a
temporary crisis. On socialism, see James MacGregor, in Presb. and
Ref. Rev., Jan. 1892:35‐68.

Schurman, Agnosticism, 166—“Few things are of more practical
consequence for the future of religion in America than the duty of
all good men to become identified with the visible church. Liberal
thinkers have, as a rule, underestimated the value of the church.
Their point of view is individualistic, ‘as though a man were
author of himself, and knew no other kin.’ ‘The old is for slaves’
they declare. But it is also true that the old is for freedmen who
know its true uses. It is the bane of the religion of dogma that
it has driven many of the choicest religious souls out of the
churches. In its purification of the temple, it has lost sight of
the object of the temple. The church, as an institution, is an
organism and embodiment such as the religion of spirit necessarily
creates. Spiritual religion is not the enemy, it is the essence,
of institutional religion.”

II. Organization of the Church.

1. The fact of organization.

Organization may exist without knowledge of writing, without written
records, lists of members, or formal choice of officers. These last are
the proofs, reminders, and helps of organization, but they are not
essential to it. It is however not merely informal, but formal,
organization in the church, to which the New Testament bears witness.

That there was such organization is abundantly shown from (_a_) its stated
meetings, (_b_) elections, and (_c_) officers; (_d_) from the designations
of its ministers, together with (_e_) the recognized authority of the
minister and of the church; (_f_) from its discipline, (_g_)
contributions, (_h_) letters of commendation, (_i_) registers of widows,
(_j_) uniform customs, and (_k_) ordinances; (_l_) from the order enjoined
and observed, (_m_) the qualifications for membership, and (_n_) the
common work of the whole body.

(_a_) _Acts 20:7_—“_upon the first day of the week, when we were
gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”;
_Heb. 10:25_—“_not forsaking our own assembling together, as the
custom of some is, but exhorting one another._”

(_b_) _Acts 1:23‐26_—the election of Matthias; 6:5, 6—the election
of deacons.

(_c_) _Phil. 1:1_—“_the saints in Christ Jesus that are at
Philippi, with the bishops and deacons._”

(_d_) _Acts 20:17, 28_—“_the elders of the church ... the flock,
in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops_ [marg.:
‘_overseers_’].”

(_e_) _Mat. 18:17_—“_And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto
the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be
unto thee as the Gentile and the publican_”; _1 Pet. 5:2_—“_Tend
the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not
of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God._”

(_f_) _1 Cor. 5:4, 5, 13_—“_in the name of our Lord Jesus, ye
being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord
Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
Jesus.... Put away the wicked man from among yourselves._”

(_g_) _Rom. 15:26_—“_For it hath been the good pleasure of
Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor
among the saints that are at Jerusalem_”; _1 Cor. 16:1, 2_—“_Now
concerning the collection for the saints, as I __ gave order to
the churches of Galatia, so also do ye. Upon the first day of the
week let each one of you lay by him in store, as he may prosper,
that no collection be made when I come._”

(_h_) _Acts 18:27_—“_And when he was minded to pass over into
Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to
receive him_”; _2 Cor. 3:1_—“_Are we beginning again to commend
ourselves? or need we, as do some, epistles of commendation to you
or from you?_”

(_i_) _1 Tim. 5:9_—“_Let none be enrolled as a widow under
threescore years old_”; _cf._ _Acts 6:1_—“_there arose a murmuring
of the Grecian Jews against the Hebrews, because their widows were
neglected in the daily ministration._”

(_j_) _1 Cor. 11:16_—“_But if any man seemeth to be contentious,
we have no such custom, neither the churches of God._”

(_k_) _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received his word were
baptized_”; _1 Cor. 11:23‐26_—“_For I received of the Lord that
which also I delivered unto you_”—the institution of the Lord’s
Supper.

(_l_) _1 Cor. 14:40_—“_let all things be done decently and in
order_”; _Col. 2:5_—“_For though I am absent in the flesh, yet am
I with you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the
stedfastness of your faith in Christ._”

(_m_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Acts 2:47_—“_And the Lord added to
them day by day those that were being saved._”

(_n_) _Phil. 2:30_—“_because for the work of Christ he came nigh
unto death, hazarding his life to supply that which was lacking in
your service toward me._”

As indicative of a developed organization in the N. T. church, of which
only the germ existed before Christ’s death, it is important to notice the
progress in names from the Gospels to the Epistles. In the Gospels, the
word “disciples” is the common designation of Christ’s followers, but it
is not once found in the Epistles. In the Epistles, there are only
“saints,” “brethren,” “churches.” A consideration of the facts here
referred to is sufficient to evince the unscriptural nature of two modern
theories of the church:

A. The theory that the church is an exclusively spiritual body, destitute
of all formal organization, and bound together only by the mutual relation
of each believer to his indwelling Lord.

The church, upon this view, so far as outward bonds are concerned, is only
an aggregation of isolated units. Those believers who chance to gather at
a particular place, or to live at a particular time, constitute the church
of that place or time. This view is held by the Friends and by the
Plymouth Brethren. It ignores the tendencies to organization inherent in
human nature; confounds the visible with the invisible church; and is
directly opposed to the Scripture representations of the visible church as
comprehending some who are not true believers.

_Acts 5:1‐11_—Ananias and Sapphira show that the visible church
comprehended some who were not true believers; _1 Cor. 14:23_—“_If
therefore the whole church be assembled together and all speak
with tongues, and there come in men unlearned or unbelieving, will
they not say that ye are mad?_”—here, if the church had been an
unorganized assembly, the unlearned visitors who came in would
have formed a part of it; _Phil. 3:18_—“_For many walk, of whom I
told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the
enemies of the cross of Christ._”

Some years ago a book was placed upon the Index, at Rome,
entitled: “The Priesthood a Chronic Disorder of the Human Race.”
The Plymouth Brethren dislike church organizations, for fear they
will become machines; they dislike ordained ministers, for fear
they will become bishops. They object to praying for the Holy
Spirit, because he was given on Pentecost, ignoring the fact that
the church after Pentecost so prayed: see _Acts 4:31_—“_And when
they had prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered
together; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they
spake the word of God with boldness._” What we call a giving or
descent of the Holy Spirit is, since the Holy Spirit is
omnipresent, only a manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit,
and this certainly may be prayed for; see _Luke 11:13_—“_If ye
then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children,
how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to
them that ask him?_”

The Plymouth Brethren would “unite Christendom by its
dismemberment, and do away with all sects by the creation of a new
sect, more narrow and bitter in its hostility to existing sects
than any other.” Yet the tendency to organize is so strong in
human nature, that even Plymouth Brethren, when they meet
regularly together, fall into an informal, if not a formal,
organization; certain teachers and leaders are tacitly recognized
as officers of the body; committees and rules are unconsciously
used for facilitating business. Even one of their own writers, C.
H. M., speaks of the “natural tendency to association without
God,—as in the Shinar Association or Babel Confederacy of _Gen.
11_, which aimed at building up a name upon the earth. The
Christian church is God’s appointed association to take the place
of all these. Hence God confounds the tongues in Gen. 11
(judgment); gives tongues in _Acts 2_ (grace); but only one tongue
is spoken in _Rev. 7_ (glory).”

The Nation, Oct. 16, 1890:303—“Every body of men must have one or
more leaders. If these are not provided, they will make them for
themselves. You cannot get fifty men together, at least of the
Anglo‐Saxon race, without their choosing a presiding officer and
giving him power to enforce rules and order.” Even socialists and
anarchists have their leaders, who often exercise arbitrary power
and oppress their followers. Lyman Abbott says nobly of the
community of true believers: “The grandest river in the world has
no banks; it rises in the Gulf of Mexico; it sweeps up through the
Atlantic Ocean along our coast; it crosses the Atlantic, and
spreads out in great broad fanlike form along the coast of Europe;
and whatever land it kisses blooms and blossoms with the fruit of
its love. The apricot and the fig are the witness of its
fertilizing power. It is bound together by the warmth of its own
particles, and by nothing else.” This is a good illustration of
the invisible church, and of its course through the world. But the
visible church is bound to be distinguishable from unregenerate
humanity, and its inner principle of association inevitably leads
to organization.

Dr. Wm. Reid, Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled, 79‐143, attributes to
the sect the following Church‐principles: (1) the church did not
exist before Pentecost; (2) the visible and the invisible church
identical; (3) the one assembly of God; (4) the presidency of the
Holy Spirit; (5) rejection of a one‐man and man‐made ministry; (6)
the church is without government. Also the following heresies: (1)
Christ’s heavenly humanity; (2) denial of Christ’s righteousness,
as being obedience to law; (3) denial that Christ’s righteousness
is imputed; (4) justification in the risen Christ; (5) Christ’s
non‐atoning sufferings; (6) denial of moral law as rule of life;
(7) the Lord’s day is not the Sabbath; (8) perfectionism; (9)
secret rapture of the saints,—caught up to be with Christ. To
these we may add; (10) premillennial advent of Christ.

On the Plymouth Brethren and their doctrine, see British Quar.,
Oct. 1873:202; Princeton Rev., 1872:48‐77; H. M. King, in Baptist
Review, 1881:438‐465; Fish, Ecclesiology, 314‐316; Dagg, Church
Order, 80‐83; R. H. Carson, The Brethren, 8‐14; J. C. L. Carson,
The Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren; Croskery, Plymouth
Brethrenism; Teulon, Hist. and Teachings of Plymouth Brethren.

B. The theory that the form of church organization is not definitely
prescribed in the New Testament, but is a matter of expediency, each body
of believers being permitted to adopt that method of organization which
best suits its circumstances and condition.

The view under consideration seems in some respects to be favored by
Neander, and is often regarded as incidental to his larger conception of
church history as a progressive development. But a proper theory of
development does not exclude the idea of a church organization already
complete in all essential particulars before the close of the inspired
canon, so that the record of it may constitute a providential example of
binding authority upon all subsequent ages. The view mentioned exaggerates
the differences of practice among the N. T. churches; underestimates the
need of divine direction as to methods of church union; and admits a
principle of ’church powers,’ which may be historically shown to be
subversive of the very existence of the church as a spiritual body.

Dr. Galusha Anderson finds the theory of optional church
government in Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity, and says that not
until Bishop Bancroft was there claimed a divine right of
Episcopacy. Hunt, also, in his Religious Thought in England, 1:57,
says that Hooker gives up the divine origin of Episcopacy. So
Jacob, Eccl. Polity of the N. T., and Hatch, Organization of Early
Christian Churches,—both Jacob and Hatch belonging to the Church
of England. Hooker identified the church with the nation; see
Eccl. Polity, book viii, chap. 1:7; 4:6; 8:9. He held that the
state has committed itself to the church, and that therefore the
church has no right to commit itself to the state. The assumption,
however, that the state has committed itself to the church is
entirely unwarranted; see Gore, Incarnation, 209, 210. Hooker
declares that, even if the Episcopalian order were laid down in
Scripture, which he denies, it would still not be unalterable,
since neither “God’s being the author of laws for the government
of his church, nor his committing them unto Scripture, is any
reason sufficient wherefore all churches should forever be bound
to keep them without change.”

T. M. Lindsay, in Contemp. Rev., Oct. 1895:548‐563, asserts that
there were at least five different forms of church government in
apostolic times: 1. derived from the seven wise men of the Hebrew
village community, representing the political side of the
synagogue system; 2. derived from the ἐπισκόπος, the director of
the religious or social club among the heathen Greeks; 3. derived
from the patronate (προστάτης, προῖστάμενος) known among the
Romans, the churches of Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, being of this
sort; 4. derived from the personal preëminence of one man, nearest
in family to our Lord, James being president of the church at
Jerusalem; 5. derived from temporary superintendents (ἡγούμενοι),
or leaders of the band of missionaries, as in Crete and Ephesus.
Between all these churches of different polities, there was
intercommunication and fellowship. Lindsay holds that the unity
was wholly spiritual. It seems to us that he has succeeded merely
in proving five different varieties of one generic type—the
generic type being only democratic, with two orders of officials,
and two ordinances—in other words, in showing that the simple N.
T. model adopts itself to many changing conditions, while the main
outlines do not change. Upon any other theory, church polity is a
matter of individual taste or of temporary fashion. Shall
missionaries conform church order to the degraded ideas of the
nations among which they labor? Shall church government be
despotic in Turkey, a limited monarchy in England, a democracy in
the United States of America, and two‐headed in Japan? For the
development theory of Neander, see his Church History, 1:179‐190.
On the general subject, see Hitchcock, in Am. Theol. Rev.,
1860:28‐54; Davidson, Eccl. Polity, 1‐42; Harvey, The Church.

2. The nature of this organization.

The nature of any organization may be determined by asking, first: who
constitute its members? secondly: for what object has it been formed? and,
thirdly: what are the laws which regulate its operations?

The three questions with which our treatment of the nature of this
organization begins are furnished us by Pres. Wayland, in his
Principles and Practices of Baptists.

A. They only can properly be members of the local church, who have
previously become members of the church universal,—or, in other words,
have become regenerate persons.

Only those who have been previously united to Christ are, in the
New Testament, permitted to unite with his church. See _Acts
2:47_—“_And the Lord added to them day by day those that were
being saved_ [Am. Rev.: ‘_those that were saved_’]”; _5:14_—“_and
believers were the more added to the Lord_”; _1 Cor. 1:2_—“_the
church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified
in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that call upon the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their Lord and
ours._”

From this limitation of membership to regenerate persons, certain results
follow:

(_a_) Since each member bears supreme allegiance to Christ, the church as
a body must recognize Christ as the only lawgiver. The relation of the
individual Christian to the church does not supersede, but furthers and
expresses, his relation to Christ.

_1 John 2:20_—“_And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye
know all things_”—see Neander, Com., _in loco_—“No believer is at
liberty to forego this maturity and personal independence,
bestowed in that inward anointing [of the Holy Spirit], or to
place himself in a dependent relation, inconsistent with this
birthright, to any teacher whatever among men..... This inward
anointing furnishes an element of resistance to such arrogated
authority.” Here we have reproved the tendency on the part of
ministers to take the place of the church, in Christian work and
worship, instead of leading it forward in work and worship of its
own. The missionary who keeps his converts in prolonged and
unnecessary tutelage is also untrue to the church organization of
the New Testament and untrue to Christ whose aim in church
training is to educate his followers to the bearing of
responsibility and the use of liberty. Macaulay: “The only remedy
for the evils of liberty is liberty.” “Malo periculosam
libertatem”—“Liberty is to be preferred with all its dangers.”
Edwin Burritt Smith: “There is one thing better than good
government, and that is self‐government.” By their own mistakes, a
self‐governing people and a self‐governing church will finally
secure good government, whereas the “good government” which keeps
them in perpetual tutelage will make good government forever
impossible.

_Ps. 144:12_—“_our sons shall be as plants grown up in their
youth._” Archdeacon Hare: “If a gentleman is to grow up, it must
be like a tree: there must be nothing between him and heaven.”
What is true of the gentleman is true of the Christian. There need
to be encouraged and cultivated in him an independence of human
authority and a sole dependence upon Christ. The most sacred duty
of the minister is to make his church self‐governing and self‐
supporting, and the best test of his success is the ability of the
church to live and prosper after he has left it or after he is
dead. Such ministerial work requires self‐sacrifice and self‐
effacement. The natural tendency of every minister is to usurp
authority and to become a bishop. He has in him an undeveloped
pope. Dependence on his people for support curbs this arrogant
spirit. A church establishment fosters it. The remedy both for
slavishness and for arrogance lies in constant recognition of
Christ as the only Lord.

(_b_) Since each regenerate man recognizes in every other a brother in
Christ, the several members are upon a footing of absolute equality (Mat.
23:8‐10).

_Mat. 23:8‐10_—“_But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your
teacher, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father on
the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven_”;
_John 15:5_—“_I am the vine, ye are the branches_”—no one branch
of the vine outranks another; one may be more advantageously
situated, more ample in size, more fruitful; but all are alike in
kind, draw vitality from one source. Among the planets “_one star
differeth from another star in glory_” (_1 Cor. 15:41_), yet all
shine in the same heaven, and draw their light from the same sun.
“The serving‐man may know more of the mind of God than the
scholar.” Christianity has therefore been the foe to heathen
castes. The Japanese noble objected to it, “because the
brotherhood of man was incompatible with proper reverence for
rank”. There can be no rightful human lordship over God’s heritage
(_1 Pet. 5:3_—“_neither as lording it over the charge allotted to
you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock_”).

Constantine thought more highly of his position as member of
Christ’s church than of his position as head of the Roman Empire.
Neither the church nor its pastor should be dependent upon the
unregenerate members of the congregation. Many a pastor is in the
position of a lion tamer with his head in the lion’s mouth. So
long as he strokes the fur the right way, all goes well; but, if
by accident he strokes the wrong way, off goes his head.
Dependence upon the spiritual body which he instructs is
compatible with the pastor’s dignity and faithfulness. But
dependence upon those who are not Christians and who seek to
manage the church with worldly motives and in a worldly way, may
utterly destroy the spiritual effect of his ministry. The pastor
is bound to be the impartial preacher of the truth, and to treat
each member of his church as of equal importance with every other.

(_c_) Since each local church is directly subject to Christ, there is no
jurisdiction of one church over another, but all are on an equal footing,
and all are independent of interference or control by the civil power.

_Mat. 22:21_—“_Render therefore unto Cæsar the things that are
Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s_”; _Acts
5:29_—“_We must obey God rather than men._” As each believer has
personal dealings with Christ and for even the pastor to come
between him and his Lord is treachery to Christ and harmful to his
soul, so much more does the New Testament condemn any attempt to
bring the church into subjection to any other church or
combination of churches, or to make the church the creature of the
state. Absolute liberty of conscience under Christ has always been
a distinguishing tenet of Baptists, as it is of the New Testament
(_cf._ _Rom. 14:4_—“_Who art thou that judgest the servant of
another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be
made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand_”). John
Locke, 100 years before American independence: “The Baptists were
the first and only propounders of absolute liberty, just and true
liberty, equal and impartial liberty.” George Bancroft says of
Roger Williams: “He was the first person in modern Christendom to
assert the doctrine of liberty of conscience in religion....
Freedom of conscience was from the first a trophy of the
Baptists.... Their history is written in blood.”

On Roger Williams, see John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England:
“Such views are to‐day quite generally adopted by the more
civilized portions of the Protestant world; but it is needless to
say that they were not the views of the sixteenth century, in
Massachusetts or elsewhere.” Cotton Mather said that Roger
Williams “carried a windmill in his head,” and even John Quincy
Adams called him “conscientiously contentious.” Cotton Mather’s
windmill was one that he remembered or had heard of in Holland. It
had run so fast in a gale as to set itself and a whole town on
fire. Leonard Bacon, Genesis of the New England Churches, vii,
says of Baptist churches: “It has been claimed for these churches
that from the age of the Reformation onward they have been always
foremost and always consistent in maintaining the doctrine of
religious liberty. Let me not be understood as calling in question
their right to so great an honor.”

Baptists hold that the province of the state is purely secular and
civil,—religious matters are beyond its jurisdiction. Yet for
economic reasons and to ensure its own preservation, it may
guarantee to its citizens their religious rights, and may exempt
all churches equally from burdens of taxation, in the same way in
which it exempts schools and hospitals. The state has holidays,
but no holy days. Hall Caine, in The Christian, calls the state,
not the pillar of the church, but the caterpillar, that eats the
vitals out of it. It is this, when it transcends its sphere and
compels or forbids any particular form of religious teaching. On
the charge that Roman Catholics were deprived of equal rights in
Rhode Island, see Am. Cath. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1894:169‐177. This
restriction was not in the original law, but was a note added by
revisers, to bring the state law into conformity with the law of
the mother country. _Ezra 8:22_—“_I was ashamed to ask of the king
a band of soldiers and horsemen ... because ... The hand of our
God is upon all them that seek him, for good_”—is a model for the
churches of every age. The church as an organized body should be
ashamed to depend for revenue upon the state, although its members
as citizens may justly demand that the state protect them in their
rights of worship. On State and Church in 1492 and 1892, see A. H.
Strong, Christ in Creation, 209‐246, esp. 239‐241. On taxation of
church property, and opposing it, see H. C. Vedder, in Magazine of
Christian Literature, Feb. 1890: 265‐272.

B. The sole object of the local church is the glory of God, in the
complete establishment of his kingdom, both in the hearts of believers and
in the world. This object is to be promoted:

(_a_) By united worship,—including prayer and religious instruction; (_b_)
by mutual watchcare and exhortation; (_c_) by common labors for the
reclamation of the impenitent world.

(_a_) _Heb. 10:25_—“_not forsaking our own assembling together, as
the custom of some is, but exhorting one another._” One burning
coal by itself will soon grow dull and go out, but a hundred
together will give a fury of flame that will set fire to others.
Notice the value of “the crowd” in politics and in religion. One
may get an education without going to school or college, and may
cultivate religion apart from the church; but the number of such
people will be small, and they do not choose the best way to
become intelligent or religious.

(_b_) _1 Thess. 5:11_—“_Wherefore exhort one another, and build
each other up, even as also ye do_”; _Heb. 3:13_—“_Exhort one
another day by day, so long as it is called To‐day; lest any one
of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin._” Churches exist
in order to: 1. create ideals; 2. supply motives; 3. direct
energies. They are the leaven hidden in the three measures of
meal. But there must be life in the leaven, or no good will come
of it. There is no use of taking to China a lamp that will not
burn in America. The light that shines the furthest shines
brightest nearest home.

(_c_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
the nations_”; _Acts 8:4_—“_They therefore that were scattered
abroad went about preaching the word_”; _2 Cor. 8:5_—“_and this,
not as we had hoped, but first they gave their own selves to the
Lord, and to us through the will of God_”; _Jude 23_—“_And on some
have mercy, who are in __ doubt; and some save, snatching them out
of the fire._” Inscribed upon a mural tablet of a Christian
church, in Aneityum in the South Seas, to the memory of Dr. John
Geddie, the pioneer missionary in that field, are the words: “When
he came here, there were no Christians; when he went away, there
were no heathen.” Inscription over the grave of David Livingstone
in Westminster Abbey: “For thirty years his life was spent in an
unwearied effort to evangelize the native races, to explore the
undiscovered secrets, to abolish the desolating slave trade of
Central Africa, where with his last words he wrote: ‘All I can add
in my solitude is, May Heaven’s richest blessing come down on
everyone, American, English or Turk, who will help to heal this
open sore of the world.’ ”

C. The law of the church is simply the will of Christ, as expressed in the
Scriptures and interpreted by the Holy Spirit. This law respects:

(_a_) The qualifications for membership.—These are regeneration and
baptism, _i. e._, spiritual new birth and ritual new birth; the surrender
of the inward and of the outward life to Christ; the spiritual entrance
into communion with Christ’s death and resurrection, and the formal
profession of this to the world by being buried with Christ and rising
with him in baptism.

(_b_) The duties imposed on members.—In discovering the will of Christ
from the Scriptures, each member has the right of private judgment, being
directly responsible to Christ for his use of the means of knowledge, and
for his obedience to Christ’s commands when these are known.

How far does the authority of the church extend? It certainly has
no right to say what its members shall eat and drink; to what
societies they shall belong; what alliances in marriage or in
business they shall contract. It has no right, as an organized
body, to suppress vice in the community, or to regenerate society
by taking sides in a political canvass. The members of the church,
as citizens, have duties in all these lines of activity. The
function of the church is to give them religious preparation and
stimulus for their work. In this sense, however, the church is to
influence all human relations. It follows the model of the Jewish
commonwealth rather than that of the Greek state. The Greek πόλις
was limited, because it was the affirmation of only personal
rights. The Jewish commonwealth was universal, because it was the
embodiment of the one divine will. The Jewish state was the most
comprehensive of the ancient world, admitting freely the
incorporation of new members, and looking forward to a worldwide
religious communion in one faith. So the Romans gave to conquered
lands the protection and the rights of Rome. But the Christian
church is the best example of incorporation in conquest. See
Westcott, Hebrews, 386, 387; John Fiske, Beginnings of New
England, 1‐20; Dagg, Church Order, 74‐99; Curtis on Communion,
1‐61.

Abraham Lincoln: “This country cannot be half slave and half free”
= the one part will pull the other over; there is an irrepressible
conflict between them. So with the forces of Christ and of
Antichrist in the world at large. Alexander Duff: “The church that
ceases to be evangelistic will soon cease to be evangelical.” We
may add that the church that ceases to be evangelical will soon
cease to exist. The Fathers of New England proposed “to advance
the gospel in these remote parts of the world, even if they should
be but as stepping‐stones to those who were to follow them.” They
little foresaw how their faith and learning would give character
to the great West. Church and school went together. Christ alone
is the Savior of the world, but Christ alone cannot save the
world. Zinzendorf called his society “The Mustard‐seed Society”
because it should remove mountains (_Mat. 17:20_). Hermann, Faith
and Morals, 91, 238—“It is not by means of things that pretend to
be imperishable that Christianity continues to live on; but by the
fact that there are always persons to be found who, by their
contact with the Bible traditions, become witnesses to the
personality of Jesus and follow him as their guide, and therefore
acquire sufficient courage to sacrifice themselves for others.”

3. The genesis of this organization.

(_a_) The church existed in germ before the day of Pentecost,—otherwise
there would have been nothing to which those converted upon that day could
have been “added” (Acts 2:47). Among the apostles, regenerate as they
were, united to Christ by faith and in that faith baptized (Acts 19:4),
under Christ’s instruction and engaged in common work for him, there were
already the beginnings of organization. There was a treasurer of the body
(John 13:29), and as a body they celebrated for the first time the Lord’s
Supper (Mat. 26:26‐29). To all intents and purposes they constituted a
church, although the church was not yet fully equipped for its work by the
outpouring of the Spirit (Acts 2), and by the appointment of pastors and
deacons. The church existed without officers, as in the first days
succeeding Pentecost.

_Acts 2:47_—“_And the Lord added to them_ [marg.: ‘_together_’]
_day by day those that were being saved_”; _19:4_—“_And Paul said,
John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the
people that they should believe on him that should come after him,
that is, on Jesus_”; _John 13:29_—“_For some thought, because
Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we
have need of for the feast; or, that he should give something to
the poor_”; _Mat. 26:26‐29_—“_And as they were eating, Jesus took
bread ... and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat....
And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying,
Drink ye all of it_”; _Acts 2_—the Holy Spirit is poured out. It
is to be remembered that Christ himself is the embodied union
between God and man, the true temple of God’s indwelling. So soon
as the first believer joined himself to Christ, the church existed
in miniature and germ.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 55, quotes _Acts 2:41_—“_and
there were added,_” not to them, or to the church, but, as in
_Acts 5:14_, and _11:24_—“_to the Lord._” This, Dr. Gordon
declares, means not a mutual union of believers, but their divine
coüniting with Christ; not voluntary association of Christians,
but their sovereign incorporation into the Head, and this
incorporation effected by the Head, through the Holy Spirit. The
old proverb, “Tres faciunt ecclesiam,” is always true when one of
the three is Jesus (Dr. Deems). Cyprian was wrong when he said
that “he who has not the church for his mother, has not God for
his Father”; for this could not account for the conversion of the
first Christian, and it makes salvation dependent upon the church
rather than upon Christ. The Cambridge Platform, 1648, chapter 6,
makes officers essential, not to the being, but only to the well
being, of churches, and declares that elders and deacons are the
only ordinary officers; see Dexter, Congregationalism, 439.

Fish, Ecclesiology, 14‐11, by a striking analogy, distinguishes
three periods of the church’s life: (1) the pre‐natal period, in
which the church is not separated from Christ’s bodily presence;
(2) the period of childhood, in which the church is under
tutelage, preparing for an independent life; (3) the period of
maturity, in which the church, equipped with doctrines and
officers, is ready for self‐government. The three periods may be
likened to bud, blossom, and fruit. Before Christ’s death, the
church existed in bud only.

(_b_) That provision for these offices was made gradually as exigencies
arose, is natural when we consider that the church immediately after
Christ’s ascension was under the tutelage of inspired apostles, and was to
be prepared, by a process of education, for independence and self‐
government. As doctrine was communicated gradually yet infallibly, through
the oral and written teaching of the apostles, so we are warranted in
believing that the church was gradually but infallibly guided to the
adoption of Christ’s own plan of church organization and of Christian
work. The same promise of the Spirit which renders the New Testament an
unerring and sufficient rule of faith, renders it also an unerring and
sufficient rule of practice, for the church in all places and times.

_John 16:12‐26_ is to be interpreted as a promise of gradual
leading by the Spirit into all the truth; _1 Cor. 14:37_—“_the
things which I write unto you ... they are the commandments of the
Lord._” An examination of Paul’s epistles in their chronological
order shows a progress in definiteness of teaching with regard to
church polity, as well as with regard to doctrine in general. In
this matter, as in other matters, apostolic instruction was given
as providential exigencies demanded it. In the earliest days of
the church, attention was paid to preaching rather than to
organization. Like Luther, Paul thought more of church order in
his later days than at the beginning of his work. Yet even in his
first epistle we find the germ which is afterwards continuously
developed. See:

(1) _1 Thess. 5:12, 13_ (A. D. 52)—“_But we beseech you, brethren,
to know them that labor among you, and are over you_
(προῖσταμένους) _in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them
exceeding highly in love for their work’s sake._”

(2) _1 Cor. 12:28_ (A. D. 57)—“_And God hath set some in the
church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then
miracles, then gifts of healings, helps_ [ἀντιλήψεις = gifts
needed by deacons], _governments_ [κυβερνήσεις = gifts needed by
pastors], _divers kinds of tongues_.”

(3) _Rom. 12:6‐8_ (A. D. 58)—“_And having gifts differing
according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let
us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; or ministry_
[διακονίαν], _let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that
teacheth, to his teaching; or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting:
he that giveth, let him do it with liberality; he that ruleth_ [ὁ
προῖσταμένος], _with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with
cheerfulness_.”

(4) _Phil. 1:1_ (A. D. 62)—“_Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus
Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi,
with the bishops_ [ἐπισκόποις, marg.: ‘_overseers_’] _and deacons_
[διακόνοις].”

(5) _Eph. 4:11_ (A. D. 63)—“_And he gave some to be apostles; and
some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and
teachers_ [ποιμένας καὶ διδασκάλους].”

(6) _1 Tim. 3:1, 2_ (A. D. 66)—“_If a man seeketh the office of a
bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop_ [τὸν ἐπίσκοπον]
_therefore must be without reproach_.” On this last passage,
Huther in Meyer’s Com. remarks: “Paul in the beginning looked at
the church in its unity,—only gradually does he make prominent its
leaders. We must not infer that the churches in earlier time were
without leadership, but only that in the later time circumstances
were such as to require him to lay emphasis upon the pastor’s
office and work.” See also Schaff, Teaching of the Twelve
Apostles, 62‐75.

McGiffert, in his Apostolic Church, puts the dates of Paul’s
Epistles considerably earlier, as for example: _1 Thess._, circ.
48; _1 Cor._, c. 51, 52; _Rom._, 52, 53; _Phil._, 56‐58; _Eph._,
52, 53, or 56‐58; _1 Tim._, 56‐58. But even before the earliest
Epistles of Paul comes _James 5:14_—“_Is any among you sick? let
him call for the elders of the church_”—written about 48 A. D.,
and showing that within twenty years after the death of our Lord
there had grown up a very definite form of church organization.

On the question how far our Lord and his apostles, in the
organization of the church, availed themselves of the synagogue as
a model, see Neander, Planting and Training, 28‐34. The ministry
of the church is without doubt an outgrowth and adaptation of the
eldership of the synagogue. In the synagogue, there were elders
who gave themselves to the study and expounding of the Scriptures.
The synagogues held united prayer, and exercised discipline. They
were democratic in government, and independent of each other. It
has sometimes been said that election of officers by the
membership of the church came from the Greek ἐκκλησία, or popular
assembly. But Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,
1:438, says of the elders of the synagogue that “their election
depended on the choice of the congregation.” Talmud, Berachob, 55
_a_: “No ruler is appointed over a congregation, unless the
congregation is consulted.”

(_c_) Any number of believers, therefore, may constitute themselves into a
Christian church, by adopting for their rule of faith and practice
Christ’s law as laid down in the New Testament, and by associating
themselves together, in accordance with it, for his worship and service.
It is important, where practicable, that a council of churches be
previously called, to advise the brethren proposing this union as to the
desirableness of constituting a new and distinct local body; and, if it be
found desirable, to recognize them, after its formation, as being a church
of Christ. But such action of a council, however valuable as affording
ground for the fellowship of other churches, is not constitutive, but is
simply declaratory; and, without such action, the body of believers
alluded to, if formed after the N. T. example, may notwithstanding be a
true church of Christ. Still further, a band of converts, among the
heathen or providentially precluded from access to existing churches,
might rightfully appoint one of their number to baptize the rest, and then
might organize, _de novo_, a New Testament church.

The church at Antioch was apparently self‐created and self‐
directed. There is no evidence that any human authority, outside
of the converts there, was invoked to constitute or to organize
the church. As John Spillsbury put it about 1640: “Where there is
a beginning, some must be first.” The initiative lies in the
individual convert, and in his duty to obey the commands of
Christ. No body of Christians can excuse itself for disobedience
upon the plea that it has no officers. It can elect its own
officers. Councils have no authority to constitute churches. Their
work is simply that of recognizing the already existing
organization and of pledging the fellowship of the churches which
they represent. If God can of the stones raise up children unto
Abraham, he can also raise up pastors and teachers from within the
company of believers whom he has converted and saved.

Hagenbach, Hist. Doct., 2:294, quotes from Luther, as follows: “If
a company of pious Christian laymen were captured and sent to a
desert place, and had not among them an ordained priest, and were
all agreed in the matter, and elected one and told him to baptize,
administer the Mass, absolve, and preach, such a one would be as
true a priest as if all the bishops and popes had ordained him.”
Dexter, Congregationalism, 51—“Luther came near discovering and
reproducing Congregationalism. Three things checked him: 1. he
undervalued polity as compared with doctrine; 2. he reacted from
Anabaptist fanaticisms; 3. he thought Providence indicated that
princes should lead and people should follow. So, while he and
Zwingle alike held the Bible to teach that all ecclesiastical
power inheres under Christ in the congregation of believers, the
matter ended in an organization of superintendents and
consistories, which gradually became fatally mixed up with the
state.”

III. Government of the Church.

1. Nature of this government in general.

It is evident from the direct relation of each member of the church, and
so of the church as a whole, to Christ as sovereign and lawgiver, that the
government of the church, so far as regards the source of authority, is an
absolute monarchy.

In ascertaining the will of Christ, however, and in applying his commands
to providential exigencies, the Holy Spirit enlightens one member through
the counsel of another, and as the result of combined deliberation, guides
the whole body to right conclusions. This work of the Spirit is the
foundation of the Scripture injunctions to unity. This unity, since it is
a unity of the Spirit, is not an enforced, but an intelligent and willing,
unity. While Christ is sole king, therefore, the government of the church,
so far as regards the interpretation and execution of his will by the
body, is an absolute democracy, in which the whole body of members is
intrusted with the duty and responsibility of carrying out the laws of
Christ as expressed in his word.

The seceders from the established church of Scotland, on the
memorable 18th of May, 1843, embodied in their protest the
following words: We go out “from an establishment which we loved
and prized, through interference with conscience, the dishonor
done to Christ’s crown, and the rejection of his sole and supreme
authority as King in his church.” The church should be rightly
ordered, since it is the representative and guardian of God’s
truth—its “_pillar and ground_” (_1 Tim. 3:15_)—the Holy Spirit
working in and through it.

But it is this very relation of the church to Christ and his truth
which renders it needful to insist upon the right of each member
of the church to his private judgment as to the meaning of
Scripture; in other words, absolute monarchy, in this case,
requires for its complement an absolute democracy. President
Wayland: “No individual Christian or number of individual
Christians, no individual church or number of individual churches,
has original authority, or has power over the whole. None can add
to or subtract from the laws of Christ, or interfere with his
direct and absolute sovereignty over the hearts and lives of his
subjects.” Each member, as equal to every other, has right to a
voice in the decisions of the whole body; and no action of the
majority can bind him against his conviction of duty to Christ.

John Cotton of Massachusetts Bay, 1643, Questions and Answers:
“The royal government of the churches is in Christ, the stewardly
or ministerial in the churches themselves.” Cambridge Platform,
1648, 10th chapter—“So far as Christ is concerned, church
government is a monarchy; so far as the brotherhood of the church
is concerned, it resembles a democracy.” Unfortunately the
Platform goes further and declares that, in respect of the
Presbytery and the Elders’ power, it is also an aristocracy.

Herbert Spencer and John Stuart Mill, who held diverse views in
philosophy, were once engaged in controversy. While the discussion
was running through the press, Mr. Spencer, forced by lack of
funds, announced that he would be obliged to discontinue the
publication of his promised books on science and philosophy. Mr.
Mill wrote him at once, saying that, while he could not agree with
him in some things, he realized that Mr. Spencer’s investigations
on the whole made for the advance of truth, and so he himself
would be glad to bear the expense of the remaining volumes. Here
in the philosophical world is an example which may well be taken
to heart by theologians. All Christians indeed are bound to
respect in others the right of private judgment while stedfastly
adhering themselves to the truth as Christ has made it known to
them.

Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, dug for each neophyte a
grave, and buried him all but the head, asking him: “Art thou
dead?” When he said: “Yes!” the General added: “Rise then, and
begin to serve, for I want only dead men to serve me.” Jesus, on
the other hand, wants only living men to serve him, for he gives
life and gives it abundantly (_John 10:10_). The Salvation Army,
in like manner, violates the principle of sole allegiance to
Christ, and like the Jesuits puts the individual conscience and
will under bonds to a human master. Good intentions may at first
prevent evil results; but, since no man can be trusted with
absolute power, the ultimate consequence, as in the case of the
Jesuits, will be the enslavement of the subordinate members. Such
autocracy does not find congenial soil in America,—hence the
rebellion of Mr. and Mrs. Ballington Booth.

A. Proof that the government of the church is democratic or
congregational.

(_a_) From the duty of the whole church to preserve unity in its action.

_Rom. 12:16_—“_Be of the same mind one toward another_”; _1 Cor.
1:10_—“_Now I beseech you ... that ye all speak the same thing,
and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected
together in the same mind and in the same judgment_”; _2 Cor.
13:11_—“_be of the same mind_”; _Eph. 4:3_—“_giving diligence to
keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace_”; _Phil.
1:27_—“_that ye stand fast in one spirit, with one soul striving
for the faith of the gospel_”; _1 Pet. 3:8_—“_be ye all
likeminded._”

These exhortations to unity are not mere counsels to passive
submission, such as might be given under a hierarchy, or to the
members of a society of Jesuits; they are counsels to coöperation
and to harmonious judgment. Each member, while forming his own
opinions under the guidance of the Spirit, is to remember that the
other members have the Spirit also, and that a final conclusion as
to the will of God is to be reached only through comparison of
views. The exhortation to unity is therefore an exhortation to be
open‐minded, docile, ready to subject our opinions to discussion,
to welcome new light with regard to them, and to give up any
opinion when we find it to be in the wrong. The church is in
general to secure unanimity by moral suasion only; though, in case
of wilful and perverse opposition to its decisions, it may be
necessary to secure unity by excluding an obstructive member, for
schism.

A quiet and peaceful unity is the result of the Holy Spirit’s work
in the hearts of Christians. New Testament church government
proceeds upon the supposition that Christ dwells in all believers.
Baptist polity is the best possible polity for good people. Christ
has made no provision for an unregenerate church‐membership, and
for Satanic possession of Christians. It is best that a church in
which Christ does not dwell should by dissension reveal its
weakness, and fall to pieces; and any outward organization that
conceals inward disintegration, and compels a merely formal union
after the Holy Spirit has departed, is a hindrance instead of a
help to true religion.

Congregationalism is not a strong government to look at. Neither
is the solar system. Its enemies call it a rope of sand. It is
rather a rope of iron filings held together by a magnetic current.
Wordsworth: “Mightier far Than strength of nerve or sinew, or the
sway Of magic portent over sun and star, Is love.” President
Wayland: “We do not need any hoops of iron or steel to hold us
together.” At high tide all the little pools along the sea shore
are fused together. The unity produced by the inflowing of the
Spirit of Christ is better than any mere external unity, whether
of organization or of creed, whether of Romanism or of
Protestantism. The times of the greatest external unity, as under
Hildebrand, were times of the church’s deepest moral corruption. A
revival of religion is a better cure for church quarrels than any
change in church organization could effect. In the early church,
though there was no common government, unity was promoted by
active intercourse. Hospitality, regular delegates, itinerant
apostles and prophets, apostolic and other epistles, still later
the gospels, persecution, and even heresy, promoted unity—heresy
compelling the exclusion of the unworthy and factious elements in
the Christian community.

Dr. F. J. A. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia: “Not a word in the
Epistle to the Ephesians exhibits the one _ecclesia_ as made up of
many _ecclesiæ_.... The members which make up the one _ecclesia_
are not communities, but individual men.... The unity of the
universal _ecclesia_ ... is a truth of theology and religion, not
a fact of what we call ecclesiastical politics.... The _ecclesia_
itself, _i. e._, the sum of all its male members, is the primary
body, and, it would seem, even the primary authority.... Of
officers higher than elders we find nothing that points to an
institution or system, nothing like the Episcopal system of later
times.... The monarchical principle receives practical though
limited recognition in the position ultimately held by St. James
at Jerusalem, and in the temporary functions entrusted by St. Paul
to Timothy and Titus.” On this last statement Bartlett, in
Contemp. Rev., July, 1897, says that James held an unique position
as brother of our Lord, while Paul left the communities organized
by Timothy and Titus to govern themselves, when once their
organization was set agoing. There was no permanent diocesan
episcopate, in which one man presided over many churches. The
_ecclesiæ_ had for their officers only bishops and deacons.

Should not the majority rule in a Baptist church? No, not a bare
majority, when there are opposing convictions on the part of a
large minority. What should rule is the mind of the Spirit. What
indicates his mind is the gradual unification of conviction and
opinion on the part of the whole body in support of some definite
plan, so that the whole church moves together. The large church
has the advantage over the small church in that the single
crotchety member cannot do so much harm. One man in a small boat
can easily upset it, but not so in the great ship. Patient
waiting, persuasion, and prayer, will ordinarily win over the
recalcitrant. It is not to be denied, however, that patience may
have its limits, and that unity may sometimes need to be purchased
by secession and the forming of a new local church whose members
can work harmoniously together.

(_b_) From the responsibility of the whole church for maintaining pure
doctrine and practice.

_1 Tim. 3:15_—“_the church of the living God, the pillar and
ground of the truth_”; _Jude 3_—“_exhorting you to contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the
saints_”; _Rev. 2_ and _3_—exhortations to the seven churches of
Asia to maintain pure doctrine and practice. In all these
passages, pastoral charges are given, not by a so‐called bishop to
his subordinate priests, but by an apostle to the whole church and
to all its members.

In _1 Tim. 3:15_, Dr. Hort would translate “_a pillar and ground
of the truth_”—apparently referring to the local church as one of
many. _Eph. 3:18_—“_strong to apprehend with all saints what is
the breadth and length and height and depth._” Edith Wharton,
Vesalius in Zante, in N. A. Rev., Nov. 1892—“Truth is many‐
tongued. What one man failed to speak, another finds Another word
for. May not all converge, In some vast utterance of which you and
I, Fallopius, were but the halting syllables?” Bruce, Training of
the Twelve, shows that the Twelve probably knew the whole O. T. by
heart. Pandita Ramabai, at Oxford, when visiting Max Müller,
recited from the Rig Veda _passim_, and showed that she knew more
of it by heart than the whole contents of the O. T.

(_c_) From the committing of the ordinances to the charge of the whole
church to observe and guard. As the church expresses truth in her
teaching, so she is to express it in symbol through the ordinances.

_Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them ... teaching them_”; _cf._ _Luke
24:33_—“_And they rose up that very hour ... found the eleven
gathered together, and them that were with __ them_”; _Acts
1:15_—“_And in these days Peter stood up in the midst of the
brethren, and said (and there was a multitude of persons gathered
together, about a hundred and twenty)_”; _1 Cor. 15:6_—“_then he
appeared to above five hundred brethren at once_”—these passages
show that it was not to the eleven apostles alone that Jesus
committed the ordinances.

_1 Cor. 11:2_—“_Now I praise you that ye remember me in all
things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to
you_”; _cf._ _23, 24_—“_for I received of the Lord that which also
I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he
was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake
it, and said, This is my body, which is for you: this do in
remembrance of me_”—here Paul commits the Lord’s Supper into the
charge, not of the body of officials, but of the whole church.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, therefore, are not to be
administered at the discretion of the individual minister. He is
simply the organ of the church; and pocket baptismal and communion
services are without warrant. See Curtis, Progress of Baptist
Principles, 299; Robinson, Harmony of Gospels, notes, § 170.

(_d_) From the election by the whole church, of its own officers and
delegates. In Acts 14:23, the literal interpretation of χειροτονήσαντες is
not to be pressed. In Titus 1:5, “when Paul empowers Titus to set
presiding officers over the communities, this circumstance decides nothing
as to the mode of choice, nor is a choice by the community itself thereby
necessarily excluded.”

_Acts 1:23, 26_—“_And they put forward two ... and they gave lots
for them; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with
the eleven apostles_”; _6:3, 5_—“_Look ye out therefore, brethren,
from among you seven men of good report ... And the saying pleased
the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, ... and Philip, and
Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus_”—as
deacons; _Acts 13:2, 3_—“_And as they ministered to the Lord, and
fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for
the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they had fasted
and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them away._”

On this passage, see Meyer’s comment: “ ‘_Ministered_’ here
expresses the act of celebrating divine service on the part of the
whole church. To refer αὐτῶν to the ‘_prophets and teachers_’ is
forbidden by the ἀφορίσατε—and by _verse 3_. This interpretation
would confine this most important mission‐act to five persons, of
whom two were the missionaries sent; and the church would have had
no part in it, even through its presbyters. This agrees, neither
with the common possession of the Spirit in the apostolic church,
nor with the concrete cases of the choice of an apostle (_ch. 1_)
and of deacons (_ch. 6_). Compare _14:27_, where the returned
missionaries report to the church. The imposition of hands (_verse
3_) is by the presbyters, as representatives of the whole church.
The subject in _verses 2_ and _3_ is ‘_the church_’—(represented
by the presbyters in this case). The church sends the missionaries
to the heathen, and consecrates them through its elders.”

_Acts 15:2, 4, 22, 30_—“_the brethren appointed that Paul and
Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem....
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the
church and the apostles and the elders.... Then it seemed good to
the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men
out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and
Barnabas.... So they ... came down to Antioch; and having gathered
the multitude together, they delivered the epistle_”; _2 Cor.
8:19_—“_who was also appointed by the churches to travel with us
in the matter of this grace_”—the contribution for the poor in
Jerusalem; _Acts 14:23_—“_And when they had appointed_
(χειροτονήσαντες) _for them elders in every church_”—the apostles
announced the election of the church, as a College President
confers degrees, _i. e._, by announcing degrees conferred by the
Board of Trustees. To this same effect witnesses the newly
discovered Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, chapter 15: “Appoint
therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons.”

The derivation of χειροτονήσαντες, holding up of hands, as in a
popular vote, is not to be pressed, any more than is the
derivation of ἐκκλησία from καλέω. The former had come to mean
simply “to appoint,” without reference to the manner of
appointment, as the latter had come to mean an “assembly,” without
reference to the calling of its members by God. That the church at
Antioch “_separated_” Paul and Barnabas, and that this was not
done simply by the five persons mentioned, is shown by the fact
that, when Paul and Barnabas returned from the missionary journey,
they reported not to these five, but to the whole church. So when
the church at Antioch sent delegates to Jerusalem, the letter of
the Jerusalem church is thus addressed: “_The apostles and the
elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in
Antioch and Syria and Cilicia_” (_Acts 15:23_). The Twelve had
only spiritual authority. They could advise, but they did not
command. Hence they could not transmit government, since they had
it not. They could demand obedience, only as they convinced their
hearers that their word was truth. It was not they who commanded,
but their Master.

Hackett, Com. on Acts—“χειροτονησαντες is not to be pressed, since
Paul and Barnabas constitute the persons ordaining. It may
possibly indicate a concurrent appointment, in accordance with the
usual practice of universal suffrage; but the burden of proof lies
on those who would so modify the meaning of the verb. The word is
frequently used in the sense of choosing, appointing, with
reference to the formality of raising the hand.” _Per contra_, see
Meyer, _in loco_: “The church officers were elective. As appears
from analogy of _6:2‐6_ (election of deacons), the word
χειροτονήσαντες retains its etymological sense, and does not mean
‘constituted’ or ‘created.’ Their choice was a recognition of a
gift already bestowed,—not the ground of the office and source of
authority, but merely the means by which the gift becomes [known,
recognized, and] an actual office in the church.”

Baumgarten, Apostolic History, 1:456—“They—the two apostles—allow
presbyters to be chosen for the community by voting.” Alexander,
Com. on Acts—“The method of election here, as the expression
χειροτονήσαντες indicates, was the same as that in _Acts 6:5, 6_,
where the people chose the seven, and the twelve ordained them.”
Barnes, Com. on Acts: “The apostles presided in the assembly where
the choice was made,—appointed them in the usual way by the
suffrage of the people.” Dexter, Congregationalism,
138—“ ‘_Ordained_’ means here ‘prompted and secured the election’
of elders in every church.” So in _Titus 1:5_—“_appoint elders in
every city._” Compare the Latin: “dictator consules creavit” =
prompted and secured the election of consuls by the people. See
Neander, Church History, 1:189; Guericke, Church History, 1:110;
Meyer, on _Acts 13:2_.

The Watchman, Nov. 7, 1901—“The root‐difficulty with many schemes
of statecraft is to be found in deep‐seated distrust of the
capacities and possibilities of men. Wendell Phillips once said
that nothing so impressed him with the power of the gospel to
solve our problems as the sight of a prince and a peasant kneeling
side by side in a European Cathedral.” Dr. W. R. Huntington makes
the strong points of Congregationalism to be: 1. a lofty estimate
of the value of trained intelligence in the Christian ministry; 2.
a clear recognition of the duty of every lay member of a church to
take an active interest in its affairs, temporal as well as
spiritual. He regards the weaknesses of Congregationalism to be:
1. a certain incapacity for expansion beyond the territorial
limits within which it is indigenous; 2. an undervaluation of the
mystical or sacramental, as contrasted with the doctrinal and
practical sides of religion. He argues for the object‐symbolism as
well as the verbal‐symbolism of the real presence and grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Dread of idolatry, he thinks, should not make
us indifferent to the value of sacraments. Baptists, we reply, may
fairly claim that they escape both of these charges against
ordinary Congregationalism, in that they have shown unlimited
capacity of expansion, and in that they make very much of the
symbolism of the ordinances.

(_e_) From the power of the whole church to exercise discipline. Passages
which show the right of the whole body to exclude, show also the right of
the whole body to admit, members.

_Mat. 18:17_—“_And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the
church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto
thee as the Gentile and the publican. Verily I say unto you, What
things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and
what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven_”—words often inscribed over Roman Catholic confessionals,
but improperly, since they refer not to the decisions of a single
priest, but to the decisions of the whole body of believers guided
by the Holy Spirit. In _Mat. 18:17_, quoted above, we see that the
church has authority, that it is bound to take cognizance of
offences, and that its action is final. If there had been in the
mind of our Lord any other than a democratic form of government,
he would have referred the aggrieved party to pastor, priest, or
presbytery, and, in case of a wrong decision by the church, would
have mentioned some synod or assembly to which the aggrieved
person might appeal. But he throws all the responsibility upon the
whole body of believers. _Cf._ _Num. 15:35_—“_all the congregation
shall stone him with stones_”—the man who gathered sticks on the
Sabbath day. Every Israelite was to have part in the execution of
the penalty.

_1 Cor. 5:4, 5, 13_—“_ye being gathered together ... to deliver
such a one unto Satan.... Put away the wicked man from among
yourselves_”; _2 Cor. 2:6, 7_—“_Sufficient to such a one is this
punishment which was inflicted by the many; so that contrariwise
ye should rather forgive him and comfort him_”; _7:11_—“_For
behold, this selfsame thing ... what earnest care it wrought in
you, yea, what clearing of yourselves.... In every thing ye
approved yourselves to be pure in the matter_”; _2 Thess. 3:6, 14,
15_—“_withdraw yourselves from every brother that __ walketh
disorderly ... if any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,
note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the end that
he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish
him as a brother._” The evils in the church at Corinth were such
as could exist only in a democratic body, and Paul does not enjoin
upon the church a change of government, but a change of heart.
Paul does not himself excommunicate the incestuous man, but he
urges the church to excommunicate him.

The educational influence upon the whole church of this election
of pastors and deacons, choosing of delegates, admission and
exclusion of members, management of church finance and general
conduct of business, carrying on of missionary operations and
raising of contributions, together with responsibility for correct
doctrine and practice, cannot be overestimated. The whole body can
know those who apply for admission, better than pastors or elders
can. To put the whole government of the church into the hands of a
few is to deprive the membership of one great means of Christian
training and progress. Hence the pastor’s duty is to develop the
self‐government of the church. The missionary should not command,
but advise. That minister is most successful who gets the whole
body to move, and who renders the church independent of himself.
The test of his work is not while he is with them, but after he
leaves them. Then it can be seen whether he has taught them to
follow him, or to follow Christ; whether he has led them to the
formation of habits of independent Christian activity, or whether
he has made them passively dependent upon himself.

It should be the ambition of the pastor not “to run the church,”
but to teach the church intelligently and Scripturally to manage
its own affairs. The word “minister” means, not master, but
servant. The true pastor inspires, but he does not drive. He is
like the trusty mountain guide, who carries a load thrice as heavy
as that of the man he serves, who leads in safe paths and points
out dangers, but who neither shouts nor compels obedience. The
individual Christian should be taught: 1. to realize the privilege
of church membership; 2. to fit himself to use his privilege; 3.
to exercise his rights as a church member; 4. to glory in the New
Testament system of church government, and to defend and propagate
it.

A Christian pastor can either rule, or he can have the reputation
of ruling; but he can not do both. Real ruling involves a sinking
of self, a working through others, a doing of nothing that some
one else can be got to do. The reputation of ruling leads sooner
or later to the loss of real influence, and to the decline of the
activities of the church itself. See Coleman, Manual of Prelacy
and Ritualism, 87‐125; and on the advantages of Congregationalism
over every other form of church‐polity, see Dexter,
Congregationalism, 236‐296. Dexter, 290, note, quotes from
Belcher’s Religious Denominations of the U. S., 184, as follows:
“Jefferson said that he considered Baptist church government the
only form of pure democracy which then existed in the world, and
had concluded that it would be the best plan of government for the
American Colonies. This was eight or ten years before the American
Revolution.” On Baptist democracy, see Thomas Armitage, in N.
Amer. Rev., March, 1887:232‐243.

John Fiske, Beginnings of New England: “In a church based upon
such a theology [that of Calvin], there was no room for prelacy.
Each single church tended to become an independent congregation of
worshipers, constituting one of the most effective schools that
has ever existed for training men in local self‐government.”
Schurman, Agnosticism, 160—“The Baptists, who are nominally
Calvinists, are now, as they were at the beginning of the century,
second in numerical rank [in America]; but their fundamental
principle—the Bible, the Bible only—taken in connection with their
polity, has enabled them silently to drop the old theology and
unconsciously to adjust themselves to the new spiritual
environment.” We prefer to say that Baptists have not dropped the
old theology, but have given it new interpretation and
application; see A. H. Strong, Our Denominational Outlook, Sermon
in Cleveland, 1904.

B. Erroneous views as to church government refuted by the foregoing
passages.

(_a_) The world‐church theory, or the Romanist view.—This holds that all
local churches are subject to the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome,
as the successor of Peter and the infallible vicegerent of Christ, and, as
thus united, constitute the one and only church of Christ on earth. We
reply:

First,—Christ gave no such supreme authority to Peter. Mat. 16:18, 19,
simply refers to the personal position of Peter as first confessor of
Christ and preacher of his name to Jews and Gentiles. Hence other apostles
also constituted the foundation (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). On one occasion,
the counsel of James was regarded as of equal weight with that of Peter
(Acts 15:7‐30), while on another occasion Peter was rebuked by Paul (Gal.
2:11), and Peter calls himself only a fellow‐elder (1 Pet. 5:1).

_Mat. 16:18, 19_—“_And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven._” Peter exercised this power of the
keys for both Jews and Gentiles, by being the first to preach
Christ to them, and so admit them to the kingdom of heaven. The
“_rock_” is a confessing heart. The confession of Christ makes
Peter a rock upon which the church can be built. Plumptre on
Epistles of Peter, Introd., 14—“He was a stone—one with that rock
with which he was now joined by an indissoluble union.” But others
come to be associated with him: _Eph. 2:20_—“_built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself
being the chief corner stone_”; _Rev. 21:14_—“_And the wall of the
city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the
twelve apostles of the Lamb._” _Acts 15:7‐30_—the Council of
Jerusalem. _Gal. 2:11_—“_But when Cephas came to Antioch, I
resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned_”; _1 Pet.
5:1_—“_The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow‐
elder._”

Here it should be remembered that three things were necessary to
constitute an apostle: (1) he must have seen Christ after his
resurrection, so as to be a witness to the fact that Christ had
risen from the dead; (2) he must be a worker of miracles, to
certify that he was Christ’s messenger; (3) he must be an inspired
teacher of Christ’s truth, so that his final utterances are the
very word of God. In _Rom. 16:7_—“_Salute Andronicus and Junias,
my kinsmen, and my fellow‐prisoners, who are of note among the
apostles_” means simply: “who are highly esteemed among, or by,
the apostles.” Barnabas is called an apostle, in the etymological
sense of a messenger: _Acts 13:2, 3_—“_Separate me Barnabas and
Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Then, when they
had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they sent them
away_”; _Heb. 3:1_—“_consider the Apostle and High Priest of our
confession, even Jesus._” In this latter sense, the number of the
apostles was not limited to twelve.

Protestants err in denying the reference in _Mat. 16:18_ to Peter;
Christ recognizes Peter’s _personality_ in the founding of his
kingdom. But Romanists equally err in ignoring Peter’s
_confession_ as constituting him the “_rock_.” Creeds and
confessions alone will never convert the world; they need to be
embodied in living personalities in order to save; this is the
grain of correct doctrine in Romanism. On the other hand, men
without a faith, which they are willing to confess at every cost,
will never convert the world; there must be a substance of
doctrine with regard to sin, and with regard to Christ as the
divine Savior from sin; this is the just contention of
Protestantism. Baptist doctrine combines the merits of both
systems. It has both personality and confession. It is not
hierarchical, but experiential. It insists, not upon abstractions,
but upon life. Truth without a body is as powerless as a body
without truth. A flag without an army is even worse than an army
without a flag. Phillips Brooks: “The truth of God working through
the personality of man has been the salvation of the world.”
Pascal: “Catholicism is a church without a religion; Protestantism
is a religion without a church.” Yes, we reply, if church means
hierarchy.

Secondly,—If Peter had such authority given him, there is no evidence that
he had power to transmit it to others.

Fisher, Hist. Christian Church, 247—“William of Occam (1280‐1347)
composed a treatise on the power of the pope. He went beyond his
predecessors in arguing that the church, since it has its unity in
Christ, is not under the necessity of being subject to a single
primate. He placed the Emperor and the General Council above the
pope, as his judges. In matters of faith he would not allow
infallibility even to the General Councils. ‘Only Holy Scripture
and the beliefs of the universal church are of absolute
validity.’ ” W. Rauschenbusch, in The Examiner, July 28, 1892—“The
age of an ecclesiastical organization, instead of being an
argument in its favor, is presumptive evidence against it, because
all bodies organized for moral or religious ends manifest such a
frightful inclination to become corrupt.... Marks of the true
church are: present spiritual power, loyalty to Jesus, an
unworldly morality, seeking and saving the lost, self‐sacrifice
and self‐crucifixion.”

Romanism holds to a transmitted infallibility. The pope is
infallible: 1. when he speaks as pope; 2. when he speaks for the
whole church; 3. when he defines doctrine, or passes a final
judgment; 4. when the doctrine thus defined is within the sphere
of faith or morality; see Brandis, in N. A. Rev., Dec. 1892: 654.
Schurman, Belief in God, 114—“Like the Christian pope, Zeus is
conceived in the Homeric poems to be fallible as an individual,
but infallible as head of the sacred convocation. The other gods
are only his representatives and executives.” But, even if the
primacy of the Roman pontiff were acknowledged, there would still
be abundant proof that he is not infallible. The condemnation of
the letters of Pope Honorius, acknowledging monothelism and
ordering it to be preached, by Pope Martin I and the first Council
of Lateran in 649, shows that both could not be right. Yet both
were _ex cathedra_ utterances, one denying what the other
affirmed. Perrone concedes that only one error committed by a pope
in an _ex cathedra_ announcement would be fatal to the doctrine of
papal infallibility.

Martineau, Seat of Authority, 139, 140, gives instances of papal
inconsistencies and contradictions, and shows that Roman
Catholicism does not answer to either one of its four notes or
marks of a true church, _viz._: 1. unity; 2. sanctity; 3.
universality; 4. apostolicity. Dean Stanley had an interview with
Pope Pius IX, and came away saying that the infallible man had
made more blunders in a twenty minutes’ conversation than any
person he had ever met. Dr. Fairbairn facetiously defines
infallibility, as “inability to detect errors even where they are
most manifest.” He speaks of “the folly of the men who think they
hold God in their custody, and distribute him to whomsoever they
will.” The Pope of Rome can no more trace his official descent
from Peter than Alexander the Great could trace his personal
descent from Jupiter.

Thirdly,—There is no conclusive evidence that Peter ever was at Rome, much
less that he was bishop of Rome.

Clement of Rome refers to Peter as a martyr, but he makes no claim
for Rome as the place of his martyrdom. The tradition that Peter
preached at Rome and founded a church there dates back only to
Dionysius of Corinth and Irenæus of Lyons, who did not write
earlier than the eighth decade of the second century, or more than
a hundred years after Peter’s death. Professor Lepsius of Jena
submitted the Roman tradition to a searching examination, and came
to the conclusion that Peter was never in Italy.

A. A. Hodge, in Princetoniana, 129—“Three unproved assumptions: 1.
that Peter was primate; 2. that Peter was bishop of Rome; 3. that
Peter was primate _and_ bishop of Rome. The last is not
unimportant; because Clement, for instance, might have succeeded
to the bishopric of Rome without the primacy; as Queen Victoria
came to the crown of England, but not to that of Hanover. Or, to
come nearer home, Ulysses S. Grant was president of the United
States and husband of Mrs. Grant. Mr. Hayes succeeded him, but not
in both capacities!”

On the question whether Peter founded the Roman Church, see Meyer,
Com. on Romans, transl., vol. 1:23—“Paul followed the principle of
not interfering with another apostle’s field of labor. Hence Peter
could not have been laboring at Rome, at the time when Paul wrote
his epistle to the Romans from Ephesus; _cf._ _Acts 19:21; Rom.
15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16._” Meyer thinks Peter was martyred at Rome,
but that he did not found the Roman church, the origin of which is
unknown. “The Epistle to the Romans,” he says, “since Peter cannot
have labored at Rome before it was written, is a fact destructive
of the historical basis of the Papacy” (p. 28). See also Elliott,
Horæ Apocalypticæ, 3:560.

Fourthly,—There is no evidence that he really did so appoint the bishops
of Rome as his successors.

Denney, Studies in Theology, 191—“The church was first the company
of those united to Christ and living in Christ; then it became a
society based on creed; finally a society based on clergy.” A. J.
Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 130—“The Holy Spirit is the real
‘Vicar of Christ.’ Would any one desire to find the clue to the
great apostasy whose dark eclipse now covers two thirds of nominal
Christendom, here it is: The rule and authority of the Holy Spirit
ignored in the church; the servants of the house assuming mastery
and encroaching more and more on the prerogatives of the Head,
till at last one man sets himself up as the administrator of the
church, and daringly usurps the name of the Vicar of Christ.” See
also R. V. Littledale, The Petrine Claims.

The secret of Baptist success and progress is in putting truth
before unity. _James 3:17_—“_the wisdom that is from above is
first pure, then peaceable._” The substitution of external for
internal unity, of which the apostolic succession, so called, is a
sign and symbol, is of a piece with the whole sacramental scheme
of salvation. Men cannot be brought into the kingdom of heaven,
nor can they be made good ministers of Jesus Christ, by priestly
manipulation. The Frankish wholesale conversion of races, the
Jesuitical putting of obedience instead of life, the
identification of the church with the nation, are all false
methods of diffusing Christianity. The claims of Rome need
irrefragible proof, if they are to be accepted. But they have no
warrant in Scripture or in history. Methodist Review: “As long as
the Bible is recognized to be authoritative, the church will face
Romeward as little as Leo X will visit America to attend a
Methodist campmeeting, or Justin D. Fulton be elected as his
successor in the Papal chair.” See Gore, Incarnation, 208, 209.

Fifthly,—If Peter did so appoint the bishops of Rome, the evidence of
continuous succession since that time is lacking.

On the weakness of the argument for apostolic succession, see
remarks with regard to the national church theory, below. Dexter,
Congregationalism, 715—“To spiritualize and evangelize Romanism,
or High Churchism, will be to Congregationalize it.” If all the
Roman Catholics who have come to America had remained Roman
Catholics, there would be sixteen millions of them, whereas there
are actually only eight millions. If it be said that the remainder
have no religion, we reply that they have just as much religion as
they had before. American democracy has freed them from the
domination of the priest, but it has not deprived them of anything
but external connection with a corrupt church. It has given them
opportunity for the first time to come in contact with the church
of the New Testament, and to accept the offer of salvation through
simple faith in Jesus Christ.

“Romanism,” says Dorner, “identifies the church and the kingdom of
God. The professedly perfect hierarchy is itself the church, or
its essence.” Yet Moehler, the greatest modern advocate of the
Romanist system, himself acknowledges that there were popes before
the Reformation “whom hell has swallowed up”; see Dorner, Hist.
Prot. Theol., Introd., _ad finem_. If the Romanist asks: “Where
was your church before Luther?” the Protestant may reply: “Where
was your face this morning before it was washed?” Disciples of
Christ have sometimes kissed the feet of Antichrist, but it
recalls an ancient story. When an Athenian noble thus, in old
times, debased himself to the King of Persia, his fellow‐citizens
at Athens doomed him to death. See Coleman, Manual on Prelacy and
Ritualism, 265‐274; Park, in Bib. Sac., 2:451; Princeton Rev.,
Apr., 1876:265.

Sixthly,—There is abundant evidence that a hierarchical form of church
government is corrupting to the church and dishonoring to Christ.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 131‐140—“Catholic writers
claim that the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ, is the only
mouthpiece of the Holy Ghost. But the Spirit has been given to the
church as a whole, that is, to the body of regenerated believers,
and to every member of that body according to his measure. The sin
of sacerdotalism is, that it arrogates for a usurping few that
which belongs to every member of Christ’s mystical body. It is a
suggestive fact that the name κλῆρος, ‘_the charge allotted to
you_,’ which Peter gives to the church as ‘_the flock of God_’ (_1
Pet. 5:2_), when warning the elders against being lords over God’s
heritage, now appears in ecclesiastical usage as ’the clergy,’
with its orders of pontiff and prelates and lord bishops, whose
appointed function it is to exercise lordship over Christ’s
flock.... But committees and majorities may take the place of the
Spirit, just as perfectly as a pope or a bishop.... This is the
reason why the light has been extinguished in many a
candlestick.... The body remains, but the breath is withdrawn. The
Holy Spirit is the only Administrator.”

Canon Melville: “Make peace if you will with Popery, receive it
into your Senate, enshrine it in your chambers, plant it in your
hearts. But be ye certain, as certain as there is a heaven above
you and a God over you, that the Popery thus honored and embraced
is the Popery that was loathed and degraded by the holiest of your
fathers; and the same in haughtiness, the same in intolerance,
which lorded it over kings, assumed the prerogative of Deity,
crushed human liberty, and slew the saints of God.” On the
strength and weakness of Romanism, see Harnack, What is
Christianity? 246‐263.

(_b_) The national‐church theory, or the theory of provincial or national
churches.—This holds that all members of the church in any province or
nation are bound together in provincial or national organization, and that
this organization has jurisdiction over the local churches. We reply:

First,—the theory has no support in the Scriptures. There is no evidence
that the word ἐκκλησία in the New Testament ever means a national church
organization. 1 Cor. 12:28, Phil. 3:6, and 1 Tim. 3:15, may be more
naturally interpreted as referring to the generic church. In Acts 9:31,
ἐκκλησία is a mere generalization for the local churches then and there
existing, and implies no sort of organization among them.

_1 Cor. 12:28_—“_And God hath set some in the church, first
apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then
gifts of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues_”;
_Phil. 3:6_—“_as touching zeal, persecuting the church_”; _1 Tim.
3:15_—“_that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves
in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and ground of the truth_”; _Acts 9:31_—“_So the church
throughout all Judæa and Galilee and Samaria had peace, being
edified._” For advocacy of the Presbyterian system, see
Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2:514‐556; McPherson,
Presbyterianism. _Per contra_, see Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T.,
9—“There is no example of a national church in the New Testament.”

Secondly,—It is contradicted by the intercourse which the New Testament
churches held with each other as independent bodies,—for example at the
Council of Jerusalem (Acts. 15:1‐35).

_Acts 15:2, 6, 13, 19, 22_—“_the brethren appointed that Paul and
Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem
unto the apostles and elders about this question.... And the
apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this
matter.... James answered ... my judgment is, that we trouble not
them that from among the Gentiles turn to God ... it seemed good
to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose
men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and
Barnabas._”

McGiffert, Apostolic Church, 645—“The steps of developing
organization were: 1. Recognition of the teaching of the apostles
as exclusive standard and norm of Christian truth; 2. Confinement
to a specific office, the Catholic office of bishop, of the power
to determine what is the teaching of the apostles; 3. Designation
of a specific institution, the Catholic church, as the sole
channel of divine grace. The Twelve, in the church of Jerusalem,
had only a purely spiritual authority. They could advise, but they
did not command. Hence they were not qualified to transmit
authority to others. They had no absolute authority themselves.”

Thirdly,—It has no practical advantages over the Congregational polity,
but rather tends to formality, division, and the extinction of the
principles of self‐government and direct responsibility to Christ.

E. G. Robinson: “The Anglican schism is the most sectarian of all
the sects.” Principal Rainey thus describes the position of the
Episcopal Church: “They will not recognize the church standing of
those who recognize them; and they only recognize the church
standing of those, Greeks and Latins, who do not recognize them.
Is not that an odd sort of Catholicity?” “Every priestling hides a
popeling.” The elephant going through the jungle saw a brood of
young partridges that had just lost their mother. Touched with
sympathy he said: “I will be a mother to you,” and so he sat down
upon them, as he had seen their mother do. Hence we speak of the
“incumbent” of such and such a parish.

There were no councils that claimed authority till the second
century, and the independence of the churches was not given up
until the third or fourth century. In Bp. Lightfoot’s essay on the
Christian Ministry, in the appendix to his Com. on Philippians,
progress to episcopacy is thus described: “In the time of
Ignatius, the bishop, then _primus inter pares_, was regarded only
as a centre of unity; in the time of Irenæus, as a depositary of
primitive truth; in the time of Cyprian, as absolute vicegerent of
Christ in things spiritual.” Nothing is plainer than the steady
degeneration of church polity in the hands of the Fathers.
Archibald Alexander: “A better name than Church Fathers for these
men would be church babies. Their theology was infantile.” Luther:
“Never mind the Scribes,—what saith the Scripture?”

Fourthly,—It is inconsistent with itself, in binding a professedly
spiritual church by formal and geographical lines.

Instance the evils of Presbyterianism in practice. Dr. Park says
that “the split between the Old and the New School was due to an
attempt on the part of the majority to impose their will on the
minority.... The Unitarian defection in New England would have
ruined Presbyterian churches, but it did not ruin Congregational
churches. A Presbyterian church may be deprived of the minister it
has chosen, by the votes of neighboring churches, or by the few
leading men who control them, or by one single vote in a close
contest.” We may illustrate by the advantage of the adjustable
card‐catalogue over the old method of keeping track of books in a
library.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 137, note—“By the
candlesticks in the Revelation being seven, instead of one as in
the tabernacle, we are taught that whereas, in the Jewish
dispensation, God’s visible church was one, in the Gentile
dispensation there are many visible churches, and that Christ
himself recognizes them alike” (quoted from Garratt, Com. on Rev.,
32). Bishop Moule, Veni Creator, 131, after speaking of the unity
of the Spirit, goes on to say: “Blessed will it be for the church
and for the world when these principles shall so vastly prevail as
to find expression from within in a harmonious counterpart of
order; a far different thing from what is, I cannot but think, an
illusory prospect—the attainment of such internal unity by a
previous exaction of exterior governmental uniformity.”

Fifthly,—It logically leads to the theory of Romanism. If two churches
need a superior authority to control them and settle their differences,
then two countries and two hemispheres need a common ecclesiastical
government,—and a world‐church, under one visible head, is Romanism.

Hatch, in his Bampton Lectures on Organization of Early Christian
Churches, without discussing the evidence from the New Testament,
proceeds to treat of the post‐apostolic development of
organization, as if the existence of a germinal Episcopacy very
soon _after_ the apostles proved such a system to be legitimate or
obligatory. In reply, we would ask whether we are under moral
obligation to conform to whatever succeeds in developing itself.
If so, then the priests of Baal, as well as the priests of Rome,
had just claims to human belief and obedience. Prof. Black: “We
have no objection to antiquity, if they will only go back far
enough. We wish to listen, not only to the fathers of the church,
but also to the grandfathers.”

Phillips Brooks speaks of “the fantastic absurdity of apostolic
succession.” And with reason, for in the Episcopal system, bishops
qualified to ordain must be: (1) baptized persons; (2) not
scandalously immoral; (3) not having obtained office by bribery;
(4) must not have been deposed. In view of these qualifications,
Archbishop Whately pronounces the doctrine of apostolic succession
untenable, and declares that “there is no Christian minister
existing now, who can trace up with complete certainty his own
ordination, through perfectly regular steps, to the time of the
apostles.” See Macaulay’s Review of Gladstone on Church and State,
in his Essays, 4:166‐178. There are breaks in the line, and a
chain is only as strong as its weakest part. See Presb. Rev.,
1886:89‐126. Mr. Flanders called Phillips Brooks “an Episcopalian
with leanings toward Christianity.” Bishop Brooks replied that he
could not be angry with “such a dear old moth‐eaten angel.” On
apostolic succession, see C. Anderson Scott, Evangelical Doctrine,
37‐48, 267‐288.

Apostolic succession has been called the pipe‐line conception of
divine grace. To change the figure, it may be compared to the
monopoly of communication with Europe by the submarine cable. But
we are not confined to the pipe‐line or to the cable. There are
wells of salvation in our private grounds, and wireless telegraphy
practicable to every human soul, apart from any control of
corporations.

We see leanings toward the world‐church idea in Pananglican and
Panpresbyterian Councils. Human nature ever tends to substitute
the unity of external organization for the spiritual unity which
belongs to all believers in Christ. There is no necessity for
common government, whether Presbyterian or Episcopal; since
Christ’s truth and Spirit are competent to govern all as easily as
one. It is a remarkable fact, that the Baptist denomination,
without external bonds, has maintained a greater unity in
doctrine, and a closer general conformity to New Testament
standards, than the churches which adopt the principle of
episcopacy, or of provincial organization. With Abp. Whately, we
find the true symbol of Christian unity in “_the tree of life,
bearing twelve manner of __ fruits_” (_Rev. 22:2_). _Cf._ _John
10:16_—γενήσονται μία ποίμνη, εἶς ποιμήν—“_they shall become one
flock, one shepherd_” = not one fold, not external unity, but one
flock in many folds. See Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 130;
Dexter, Congregationalism, 236; Coleman, Manual on Prelacy and
Ritualism, 128‐264; Albert Barnes, Apostolic Church.

As testimonies to the adequacy of Baptist polity to maintain sound
doctrine, we quote from the Congregationalist, Dr. J. L. Withrow:
“There is not a denomination of evangelical Christians that is
throughout as sound theologically as the Baptist denomination.
There is not an evangelical denomination in America to‐day that is
as true to the simple plain gospel of God, as it is recorded in
the word, as the Baptist denomination.” And the Presbyterian, Dr.
W. G. T. Shedd, in a private letter dated Oct. 1, 1886, writes as
follows: “Among the denominations, we all look to the Baptists for
steady and firm adherence to sound doctrine. You have never had
any internal doctrinal conflicts, and from year to year you
present an undivided front in defense of the Calvinistic faith.
Having no judicatures and regarding the local church as the unit,
it is remarkable that you maintain such a unity and solidarity of
belief. If you could impart your secret to our Congregational
brethren, I think that some of them at least would thank you.”

A. H. Strong, Sermon in London before the Baptist World Congress,
July, 1905—“Coöperation with Christ involves the spiritual unity
not only of all Baptists with one another, but of all Baptists
with the whole company of true believers of every name. We cannot,
indeed, be true to our convictions without organizing into one
body those who agree with us in our interpretation of the
Scriptures. Our denominational divisions are at present
necessities of nature. But we regret these divisions, and, as we
grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, we strive, at
least in spirit, to rise above them. In America our farms are
separated from one another by fences, and in the springtime, when
the wheat and barley are just emerging from the earth, these
fences are very distinguishable and unpleasing features of the
landscape. But later in the season, when the corn has grown and
the time of harvest is near, the grain is so tall that the fences
are entirely hidden, and for miles together you seem to see only a
single field. It is surely our duty to confess everywhere and
always that we are first Christians and only secondly Baptists.
The tie which binds us to Christ is more important in our eyes
than that which binds us to those of the same faith and order. We
live in hope that the Spirit of Christ in us, and in all other
Christian bodies, may induce such growth of mind and heart that
the sense of unity may not only overtop and hide the fences of
division, but may ultimately do away with these fences
altogether.”

2. Officers of the Church.

A. The number of offices in the church is two:—first, the office of
bishop, presbyter, or pastor; and, secondly, the office of deacon.

(_a_) That the appellations “bishop,” “presbyter,” and “pastor” designate
the same office and order of persons, may be shown from Acts
20:28—ἐπισκόπους ποιμαίνειν (cf. 17—πρεσβυτέρους); Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1,
8; Titus 1:5, 7; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2—πρεσβυτέρους ... παρακαλῶ ὁ συμπρεσβύτερος
... ποιμάνατε ποίμνιον ... ἐπισκοποῦντες. Conybeare and Howson: “The terms
‘bishop’ and ‘elder’ are used in the New Testament as equivalent,—the
former denoting (as its meaning of overseer implies) the duties, the
latter the rank, of the office.” See passages quoted in Gieseler, Church
History, 1:90, note 1—as, for example, Jerome: “Apud veteres iidem
episcopi et presbyteri, quia illud nomen dignitatis est, hoc ætatis. Idem
est ergo presbyter qui episcopus.”

_Acts 20:28_—“_Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in
which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops_ [marg.
‘_overseers_’], _to feed_ [lit. ‘_to shepherd_,’ ‘_be pastors
of_’] _the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own
blood_”; _cf._ _17_—“_the elders of the church_” are those whom
Paul addresses as bishops or overseers, and whom he exhorts to be
good pastors. _Phil. 1:1_—“_bishops and deacons_”; _1 Tim. 3:1,
8_—“_If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good
work.... Deacons in like manner must be grave_”; _Tit. 1:5,
7_—“_appoint elders in every city.... For the bishop must be
blameless_”; _1 Pet. 5:1, 2_—“_The elders therefore among you I
exhort, who am a fellow‐elder.... Tend_ [lit. ‘_shepherd_,’ ‘_be
pastors of_’] _the flock of God which is among you, exercising the
oversight_ [acting as bishops], _not of constraint, but __
willingly, according to the will of God._” In this last passage,
Westcott and Hort, with Tischendorf’s 8th edition, follow א and B
in omitting ἐπισκοποῦντες. Tregelles and our Revised Version
follow A and אc in retaining it. Rightly, we think; since it is
easy to see how, in a growing ecclesiasticism, it should have been
omitted, from the feeling that too much was here ascribed to a
mere presbyter.

Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, 95‐99—“It is a fact now generally
recognized by theologians of all shades of opinion that in the
language of the N. T. the same officer in the church is called
indifferently ‘_bishop_’ (ἐπίσκοπος) and ‘_elder_’ or
‘_presbyter_’ (πρεσβύτερος).... To these special officers the
priestly functions and privileges of the Christian people are
never regarded as transferred or delegated. They are called
stewards or messengers of God, servants or ministers of the
church, and the like, but the sacerdotal is never once conferred
upon them. The only priests under the gospel, designated as such
in the N. T., are the saints, the members of the Christian
brotherhood.” On _Titus 1:5, 7_—“_appoint elders.... For the
bishop must be blameless_”—Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T., 150, remarks:
“Here the word ‘_for_’ is quite out of place unless bishops and
elders are identical. All these officers, bishops as well as
deacons, are confined to the local church in their jurisdiction.
The charge of a bishop is not a diocese, but a church. The
functions are mostly administrative, the teaching office being
subordinate, and a distinction is made between teaching elders and
others, implying that the teaching function is not common to them
all.”

Dexter, Congregationalism, 114, shows that bishop, elder, pastor
are names for the same office: (1) from the significance of the
words; (2) from the fact that the same qualifications are demanded
from all; (3) from the fact that the same duties are assigned to
all; (4) from the fact that the texts held to prove higher rank of
the bishop do not support that claim. Plumptre, in Pop. Com.,
Pauline Epistles, 555, 556—“There cannot be a shadow of doubt that
the two titles of Bishop and Presbyter were in the Apostolic Age
interchangeable.”

(_b_) The only plausible objection to the identity of the presbyter and
the bishop is that first suggested by Calvin, on the ground of 1 Tim.
5:17. But this text only shows that the one office of presbyter or bishop
involved two kinds of labor, and that certain presbyters or bishops were
more successful in one kind than in the other. That gifts of teaching and
ruling belonged to the same individual, is clear from Acts 20:28‐31; Eph.
4:11; Heb. 13:7; 1 Tim. 3:2—ἐπίσκοπον διδακτικόν.

_1 Tim. 5:17_—“_Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of
double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in
teaching_”; Wilson, Primitive Government of Christian Churches,
concedes that this last text “expresses a diversity in the
exercise of the Presbyterial office, but not in the office
itself”; and although he was a Presbyterian, he very consistently
refused to have any ruling elders in his church.

_Acts 20:28, 31_—“_bishops, to feed the church of the Lord ...
wherefore watch ye_”; _Eph. 4:11_—“_and some, pastors and
teachers_”—here Meyer remarks that the single article binds the
two words together, and prevents us from supposing that separate
offices are intended. Jerome: “Nemo ... pastoris sibi nomen
assumere debet, nisi possit docere quos pascit.” _Heb.
13:7_—“_Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake
unto you the word of God_”; _1 Tim. 3:2_—“_The bishop must be ...
apt to teach._” The great temptation to ambition in the Christian
ministry is provided against by having no gradation of ranks. The
pastor is a priest, only as every Christian is. See Jacob, Eccl.
Polity of N. T., 56; Olshausen, on 1 Tim. 5:17; Hackett on _Acts
14:23_; Presb. Rev., 1886:89‐126.

Dexter, Congregationalism, 52—“Calvin was a natural aristocrat,
not a man of the people like Luther. Taken out of his own family
to be educated in a family of the nobility, he received an early
bent toward exclusiveness. He believed in authority and loved to
exercise it. He could easily have been a despot. He assumed all
citizens to be Christians until proof to the contrary. He resolved
church discipline into police control. He confessed that the
eldership was an expedient to which he was driven by
circumstances, though after creating it he naturally enough
endeavored to procure Scriptural proof in its favor.” On the
question, The Christian Ministry, is it a Priesthood? see C.
Anderson Scott, Evangelical Doctrine, 205‐224.

(_c_) In certain of the N. T. churches there appears to have been a
plurality of elders (Acts 20:17; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5). There is, however,
no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality
which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the
churches for which these elders cared. The N. T. example, while it permits
the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not
require a plural eldership in every case; nor does it render this
eldership, where it exists, of coördinate authority with the church. There
are indications, moreover, that, at least in certain churches, the pastor
was one, while the deacons were more than one, in number.

_Acts 20:17_—“_And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called to
him the elders of the church_”; _Phil. 1:1_—“_Paul and Timothy,
servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that
are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons_”; _Tit. 1:5_—“_For
this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order
the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as
I gave thee charge._” See, however, _Acts 12:17_—“_Tell these
things unto James, and to the brethren_”; _15:13_—“_And after they
had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken
unto me_”; _21:18_—“_And the day following Paul went in with us
unto James; and all the elders were present_”; _Gal. 1:19_—“_But
other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother_”;
_2:12_—“_certain came from James._” These passages seem to
indicate that James was the pastor or president of the church at
Jerusalem, an intimation which tradition corroborates.

_1 Tim. 3:2_—“_The bishop therefore must be without reproach_”;
_Tit. 1:7_—“_For the bishop must be blameless, as God’s steward_”;
_cf._ _1 Tim. 3:8, 10, 12_—“_Deacons in like manner must be
grave.... And let these also first be proved; then let them serve
as deacons, if they be blameless.... Let deacons be husbands of
one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well_”—in all
these passages the bishop is spoken of in the singular number, the
deacons in the plural. So, too, in _Rev. 2:1, 8, 12, 18 and 3:1,
7, 14_, “_the angel of the church_” is best interpreted as meaning
the pastor of the church; and, if this be correct, it is clear
that each church had, not many pastors, but one.

It would, moreover, seem antecedently improbable that every church
of Christ, however small, should be required to have a plural
eldership, particularly since churches exist that have only a
single male member. A plural eldership is natural and
advantageous, only where the church is very numerous and the
pastor needs assistants in his work: and only in such cases can we
say that New Testament example favors it. For advocacy of the
theory of plural eldership, see Fish, Ecclesiology, 229‐249; Ladd,
Principles of Church Polity, 22‐29. On the whole subject of
offices in the church, see Dexter, Congregationalism, 77‐98; Dagg,
Church Order, 241‐266; Lightfoot on the Christian Ministry,
appended to his Commentary on Philippians, and published in his
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age.

B. The duties belonging to these offices.

(_a_) The pastor, bishop, or elder is:

First,—a spiritual teacher, in public and private;

_Acts 20:20, 21, 35_—“_how I shrank not from declaring unto you
anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly, and from
house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks repentance
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.... In all
things I gave you an example, that so laboring ye ought to help
the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that he
himself said, It is more blessed to give than to receive_”; _1
Thess. 5:12_—“_But we beseech you, brethren, to know them that
labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you_”;
_Heb. 13:7, 17_—“_Remember them that had the rule over you, men
that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of
their life, imitate their faith.... Obey them that have the rule
over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your
souls, as they that shall give account._”

Here we should remember that the pastor’s private work of
religious conversation and prayer is equally important with his
public ministrations; in this respect he is to be an example to
his flock, and they are to learn from him the art of winning the
unconverted and of caring for those who are already saved. A
Jewish Rabbi once said: “God could not be every where,—therefore
he made mothers.” We may substitute, for the word ’mothers,’ the
word ’pastors.’ Bishop Ken is said to have made a vow every
morning, as he rose, that he would not be married that day. His
own lines best express his mind: “A virgin priest the altar best
attends; our Lord that state commands not, but commends.”

Secondly,—administrator of the ordinances;

_Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I commanded_”; _1 Cor. 1:16, 17_—“_And __ I baptized
also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I
baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to
preach the gospel._” Here it is evident that, although the pastor
administers the ordinances, this is not his main work, nor is the
church absolutely dependent upon him in the matter. He is not set,
like an O. T. priest, to minister at the altar, but to preach the
gospel. In an emergency any other member appointed by the church
may administer them with equal propriety, the church always
determining who are fit subjects of the ordinances, and
constituting him their organ in administering them. Any other view
is based on sacramental notions, and on ideas of apostolic
succession. All Christians are “_priests unto ... God_” (_Rev.
1:6_). “This universal priesthood is a priesthood, not of
expiation, but of worship, and is bound to no ritual, or order of
times and places” (P. S. Moxom).

Thirdly,—superintendent of the discipline, as well as presiding officer at
the meetings, of the church.

Superintendent of discipline: _1 Tim. 5:17_—“_Let the elders that
rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who
labor in the word and in teaching_”; _3:5_—“_if a man knoweth not
how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of
God?_” Presiding officer at meetings of the church: _1 Cor.
12:28_—“_governments_”—here κυβερνήσεις, or “_governments_,”
indicating the duties of the pastor, are the counterpart of
ἀντιλήψεις, or “_helps_,” which designate the duties of the
deacons; _1 Pet. 5:2, 3_—“_Tend the flock of God which is among
you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly,
according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a
ready mind; neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you,
but making yourselves ensamples to the flock._”

In the old Congregational churches of New England, an authority
was accorded to the pastor which exceeded the New Testament
standard. “Dr. Bellamy could break in upon a festival which he
deemed improper, and order the members of his parish to their
homes.” The congregation rose as the minister entered the church,
and stood uncovered as he passed out of the porch. We must not
hope or desire to restore the New England _régime_. The pastor is
to take responsibility, to put himself forward when there is need,
but he is to _rule_ only by moral suasion, and that only by
guiding, teaching, and carrying into effect the rules imposed by
Christ and the decisions of the church in accordance with those
rules.

Dexter, Congregationalism, 115, 155, 157—“The Governor of New York
suggests to the Legislature such and such enactments, and then
executes such laws as they please to pass. He is chief ruler of
the State, while the Legislature adopts or rejects what he
proposes.” So the pastor’s functions are not legislative, but
executive. Christ is the only lawgiver. In fulfilling this office,
the manner and spirit of the pastor’s work are of as great
importance as are correctness of judgment and faithfulness to
Christ’s law. “The young man who cannot distinguish the wolves
from the dogs should not think of becoming a shepherd.” Gregory
Nazianzen: “Either teach none, or let your life teach too.” See
Harvey, The Pastor; Wayland, Apostolic Ministry; Jacob, Eccl.
Polity of N. T., 99; Samson, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 261‐288.

(_b_) The deacon is helper to the pastor and the church, in both spiritual
and temporal things.

First,—relieving the pastor of external labors, informing him of the
condition and wants of the church, and forming a bond of union between
pastor and people.

_Acts 6:1‐6_—“_Now in these days, when the number of the disciples
was multiplying, there arose a murmuring of the Grecian Jews
against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the
daily ministration. And the twelve called the multitude of the
disciples unto them, and said, It is not fit that we should
forsake the word of God, and serve tables. Look ye out therefore,
brethren, from among you seven men of good report, full of the
Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But
we will continue stedfastly in prayer, and in the ministry of the
word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose
Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip,
and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus
a proselyte of Antioch; whom they set before the apostles: and
when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them_”; _cf._
_8‐20_—where Stephen shows power in disputation; _Rom. 12:7_—“_or
ministry_ διακονίαν, _let us give ourselves to our ministry_”; _1
Cor. 12:28_—“_helps_”—here ἀντιλήψεις, “_helps_,” indicating the
duties of deacons, are the counterpart of κυβερνήσεις,
“_governments_,” which designate the duties of the pastor; _Phil.
1:1_—“_bishops and deacons._”

Dr. E. G. Robinson did not regard the election of the seven, in
_Acts 6:1‐4_, as marking the origin of the diaconate, though he
thought the diaconate grew out of this election. The Autobiography
of C. H. Spurgeon, 3:22, gives an account of the election of
“elders” at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. These “elders”
were to attend to the spiritual affairs of the church, as the
deacons were to attend to the temporal affairs. These “elders”
were chosen year by year, while the office of deacon was
permanent.

Secondly,—helping the church, by relieving the poor and sick and
ministering in an informal way to the church’s spiritual needs, and by
performing certain external duties connected with the service of the
sanctuary.

Since deacons are to be helpers, it is not necessary in all cases
that they should be old or rich; in fact, it is better that among
the number of deacons the various differences in station, age,
wealth, and opinion in the church should be represented. The
qualifications for the diaconate mentioned in _Acts 6:1‐4_ and _1
Tim. 3:8‐13_, are, in substance: wisdom, sympathy, and
spirituality. There are advantages in electing deacons, not for
life, but for a term of years. While there is no New Testament
prescription in this matter, and each church may exercise its
option, service for a term of years, with re‐election where the
office has been well discharged, would at least seem favored by _1
Tim. 3:10_—“_Let these also first be proved; then let them serve
as deacons, if they be blameless_”; _13_—“_For they that have
served well as deacons gain to themselves a good standing, and
great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus._”

Expositor’s Greek Testament, on _Acts 5:6_, remarks that those who
carried out and buried Ananias are called οἱ νεώτεροι—“_the young
men_”—and in the case of Sapphira they were οἱ νεανίσκοι—meaning
the same thing. “Upon the natural distinction between πρεσβύτεροι
and νεώτεροι—elders and young men—it may well have been that
official duties in the church were afterward based.” Dr. Leonard
Bacon thought that the apostles included the whole membership in
the “_we_,” when they said: “_It is not fit that we should forsake
the word of God, and serve tables_.” The deacons, on this
interpretation, were chosen to help the whole church in temporal
matters.

In _Rom. 16:1, 2_, we have apparent mention of a deaconess—“_I
commend unto you Phœbe our sister, who is a servant_ [marg.:
‘_deaconess_’] _of the church that is at Cenchreæ ... for she
herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self_.”
See also _1 Tim. 3:11_—“_Women in like manner must be grave, not
slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things_”—here Ellicott and
Alford claim that the word “_women_” refers, not to deacons’
wives, as our Auth. Vers. had it, but to deaconesses. Dexter,
Congregationalism, 69, 132, maintains that the office of
deaconess, though it once existed, has passed away, as belonging
to a time when men could not, without suspicion, minister to
women.

This view that there are temporary offices in the church does not,
however, commend itself to us. It is more correct to say that
there is yet doubt whether there _was_ such an office as
deaconess, even in the early church. Each church has a right in
this matter to interpret Scripture for itself, and to act
accordingly. An article in the Bap. Quar., 1869:40, denies the
existence of any diaconal rank or office, for male or female.
Fish, in his Ecclesiology, holds that Stephen was a deacon, but an
elder also, and preached as elder, not as deacon,—_Acts 6:1‐4_
being called the institution, not of the diaconate, but of the
Christian ministry. The use of the phrase διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, and
the distinction between the diaconate and the pastorate
subsequently made in the Epistles, seem to refute this
interpretation. On the fitness of women for the ministry of
religion, see F. P. Cobbe, Peak of Darien, 199‐262; F. E. Willard,
Women in the Pulpit; B. T. Roberts, Ordaining Women. On the
general subject, see Howell, The Deaconship; Williams, The
Deaconship; Robinson, N. T. Lexicon, ἀντιλήψις. On the Claims of
the Christian Ministry, and on Education for the Ministry, see A.
H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 269‐318, and Christ in
Creation, 314‐331.

C. Ordination of officers.

(a) What is ordination?

Ordination is the setting apart of a person divinely called to a work of
special ministration in the church. It does not involve the communication
of power,—it is simply a recognition of powers previously conferred by
God, and a consequent formal authorization, on the part of the church, to
exercise the gifts already bestowed. This recognition and authorization
should not only be expressed by the vote in which the candidate is
approved by the church or the council which represents it, but should also
be accompanied by a special service of admonition, prayer, and the laying‐
on of hands (Acts 6:5, 6; 13:2, 3; 14:23; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22).

Licensure simply commends a man to the churches as fitted to preach.
Ordination recognizes him as set apart to the work of preaching and
administering ordinances, in some particular church or in some designated
field of labor, as representative of the church.

Of his call to the ministry, the candidate himself is to be first
persuaded (1 Cor. 9:16; 1 Tim. 1:12); but, secondly, the church must be
persuaded also, before he can have authority to minister among them (1
Tim. 3:2‐7; 4:14; Titus 1:6‐9).

The word “ordain” has come to have a technical signification not
found in the New Testament. There it means simply to choose,
appoint, set apart. In _1 Tim. 2:7_—“_whereunto I was appointed_
[ἐτέθην] _a preacher and an apostle ... a teacher of the Gentiles
in faith and truth_”—it apparently denotes ordination of God. In
the following passages we read of an ordination by the church:
_Acts 6:5, 6_—“_And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and
they chose Stephen ... and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and
Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus ... whom they set before the
apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon
them_”—the ordination of deacons; _13:2, 3_—“_And as they
ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, Separate
me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.
Then, when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on
them, they sent them away_”; _14:23_—“_And when they had appointed
for them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they
commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed_”; _1 Tim.
4:14_—“_Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee
by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery_”;
_5:22_—“_Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other
men’s sins._”

Cambridge Platform, 1648, chapter 9—“Ordination is nothing else
but the solemn putting of a man into his place and office in the
church whereunto he had right before by election, being like the
installing of a Magistrate in the Commonwealth.” Ordination
confers no authority—it only recognizes authority already
conferred by God. Since it is only recognition, it can be repeated
as often as a man changes his denominational relations. Leonard
Bacon: “The action of a Council has no more authority than the
reason on which it is based. The church calling the Council is a
competent court of appeal from any decision of the Council.”

Since ordination is simply choosing, appointing, setting apart, it
seems plain that in the case of deacons, who sustain official
relations only to the church that constitutes them, ordination
requires no consultation with other churches. But in the
ordination of a pastor, there are three natural stages: (1) the
call of the church; (2) the decision of a council (the council
being virtually only the church advised by its brethren); (3) the
publication of this decision by a public service of prayer and the
laying‐on of hands. The prior call to be pastor may be said, in
the case of a man yet unordained, to be given by the church
conditionally, and in anticipation of a ratification of its action
by the subsequent judgment of the council. In a well‐instructed
church, the calling of a council is a regular method of appeal
from the church unadvised to the church advised by its brethren;
and the vote of the council approving the candidate is only the
essential completing of an ordination, of which the vote of the
church calling the candidate to the pastorate was the preliminary
stage.

This setting apart by the church, with the advice and assistance
of the council, is all that is necessarily implied in the New
Testament words which are translated “ordain”; and such
ordination, by simple vote of church and council, could not be
counted invalid. But it would be irregular. New Testament
precedent makes certain accompaniments not only appropriate, but
obligatory. A formal publication of the decree of the council, by
laying‐on of hands, in connection with prayer, is the last of the
duties of this advisory body, which serves as the organ and
assistant of the church. The laying‐on of hands is appointed to be
the regular accompaniment of ordination, as baptism is appointed
to be the regular accompaniment of regeneration; while yet the
laying‐on of hands is no more the substance of ordination, than
baptism is the substance of regeneration.

The imposition of hands is the natural symbol of the
communication, not of grace, but of authority. It does not make a
man a minister of the gospel, any more than coronation makes
Victoria a queen. What it does signify and publish, is formal
recognition and authorization. Viewed in this light, there not
only can be no objection to the imposition of hands upon the
ground that it favors sacramentalism, but insistence upon it is
the bounden duty of every council of ordination.

Mr. Spurgeon was never ordained. He began and ended his remarkable
ministry as a lay preacher. He revolted from the sacramentalism of
the Church of England, which seemed to hold that in the imposition
of hands in ordination divine grace trickled down through a
bishop’s finger ends, and he felt moved to protest against it. In
our judgment it would have been better to follow New Testament
precedent, and at the same time to instruct the churches as to the
real meaning of the laying‐on of hands. The Lord’s Supper had in a
similar manner been interpreted as a physical communication of
grace, but Mr. Spurgeon still continued to observe the Lord’s
Supper. His gifts enabled him to carry his people with him, when a
man of smaller powers might by peculiar views have ruined his
ministry. He was thankful that he was pastor of a large church,
because he felt that he had not enough talent to be pastor of a
small one. He said that when he wished to make a peculiar
impression on his people he put himself into his cannon and fired
himself at them. He refused the degree of Doctor of Divinity, and
said that “D. D.” often meant “Doubly Destitute.” Dr. P. S. Henson
suggests that the letters mean only “Fiddle Dee Dee.” For
Spurgeon’s views on ordination, see his Autobiography, 1:355 _sq._

John Wesley’s three tests of a call to preach: “Inquire of
applicants,” he says, “1. Do they know God as a pardoning God?
Have they the love of God abiding in them? Do they desire and see
nothing but God? And are they holy, in all manner of conversation?
2. Have they gifts, as well as grace, for the work? Have they a
clear sound understanding? Have they a right judgment in the
things of God? Have they a just conception of salvation by faith?
And has God given them any degree of utterance? Do they speak
justly, readily, clearly? 3. Have they fruit? Are any truly
convinced of sin, and converted to God, by their preaching?” The
second of these qualifications seems to have been in the mind of
the little girl who said that the bishop, in laying hands on the
candidate, was feeling of his head to see whether he had brains
enough to preach. There is some need of the preaching of a “trial
sermon” by the candidate, as proof to the Council that he has the
gifts requisite for a successful ministry. In this respect the
Presbyteries of Scotland are in advance of us.

(b) Who are to ordain?

Ordination is the act of the church, not the act of a privileged class in
the church, as the eldership has sometimes wrongly been regarded, nor yet
the act of other churches, assembled by their representatives in council.
No ecclesiastical authority higher than that of the local church is
recognized in the New Testament. This authority, however, has its limits;
and since the church has no authority outside of its own body, the
candidate for ordination should be a member of the ordaining church.

Since each church is bound to recognize the presence of the Spirit in
other rightly constituted churches, and its own decisions, in like manner,
are to be recognized by others, it is desirable in ordination, as in all
important steps affecting other churches, that advice be taken before the
candidate is inducted into office, and that other churches be called to
sit with it in council, and if thought best, assist in setting the
candidate apart for the ministry.

Hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, not by their
ecclesiastical superiors, as High Church doctrine would require,
but by their equals or inferiors, as simple representatives of the
church. Ordination was nothing more than the recognition of a
divine appointment and the commending to God’s care and blessing
of those so appointed. The council of ordination is only the
church advised by its brethren, or a committee with power, to act
for the church after deliberation.

The council of ordination is not to be composed simply of
ministers who have been themselves ordained. As the whole church
is to preserve the ordinances and to maintain sound doctrine, and
as the unordained church member is often a more sagacious judge of
a candidate’s Christian experience than his own pastor would be,
there seems no warrant, either in Scripture or in reason, for the
exclusion of lay delegates from ordaining councils. It was not
merely the apostles and elders, but the whole church at Jerusalem,
that passed upon the matters submitted to them at the council, and
others than ministers appear to have been delegates. The theory
that only ministers can ordain has in it the beginnings of a
hierarchy. To make the ministry a close corporation is to
recognize the principle of apostolic succession, to deny the
validity of all our past ordinations, and to sell to an
ecclesiastical caste the liberties of the church of God. Very
great importance attaches to decorum and settled usage in matters
of ordination. To secure these, the following suggestions are made
with regard to

I. PRELIMINARY ARRANGEMENTS to be attended to by the candidate: 1.
His letter of dismission should be received and acted upon by the
church before the Council convenes. Since the church has no
jurisdiction outside of its own membership, the candidate should
be a member of the church which proposes to ordain him. 2. The
church should vote to call the Council. 3. It should invite all
the churches of its Association. 4. It should send printed
invitations, asking written responses. 5. Should have printed
copies of an Order of Procedure, subject to adoption by the
Council. 6. The candidate may select one or two persons to
officiate at the public service, subject to approval of the
Council. 7. The clerk of the church should be instructed to be
present with the records of the church and the minutes of the
Association, so that he may call to order and ask responses from
delegates. 8. Ushers should be appointed to ensure reserved seats
for the Council. 9. Another room should be provided for the
private session of the Council. 10. The choir should be instructed
that one anthem, one hymn, and one doxology will suffice for the
public service. 11. Entertainment of the delegates should be
provided for. 12. A member of the church should be chosen to
present the candidate to the Council. 13. The church should be
urged on the previous Sunday to attend the examination of the
candidate as well as the public service.

II. THE CANDIDATE AT THE COUNCIL: 1. His demeanor should be that
of an applicant. Since he asks the favorable judgment of his
brethren, a modest bearing and great patience in answering their
questions, are becoming to his position. 2. Let him stand during
his narration, and during questions, unless for reasons of ill
health or fatigue he is specially excused. 3. It will be well to
divide his narration into 15 minutes for his Christian experience,
10 minutes for his call to the ministry, and 35 minutes for his
views of doctrine. 4. A _viva voce_ statement of all these three
is greatly preferable to an elaborate written account. 5. In the
relation of his views of doctrine: (_a_) the more fully he states
them, the less need there will be for questioning; (_b_) his
statement should be positive, not negative—not what he does not
believe, but what he _does_ believe; (_c_) he is not required to
tell the _reasons_ for his belief, unless he is specially
questioned with regard to these; (_d_) he should elaborate the
later and practical, not the earlier and theoretical, portions of
his theological system; (_e_) he may well conclude each point of
his statement with a single text of Scripture proof.

III. THE DUTY OF THE COUNCIL: 1. It should not proceed to examine
the candidate until proper credentials have been presented. 2. It
should in every case give to the candidate a searching
examination, in order that this may not seem invidious in other
cases. 3. Its vote of approval should read: “We do now set apart,”
and “We will hold a public service expressive of this fact.” 4.
Strict decorum should be observed in every stage of the
proceedings, remembering that the Council is acting for Christ the
great head of the church and is transacting business for eternity.
5. The Council should do no other business than that for which the
church has summoned it, and when that business is done, the
Council should adjourn _sine die_.

It is always to be remembered, however, that the power to ordain rests
with the church, and that the church may proceed without a Council, or
even against the decision of the Council. Such ordination, of course,
would give authority only within the bounds of the individual church.
Where no immediate exception is taken to the decision of the Council, that
decision is to be regarded as virtually the decision of the church by
which it was called. The same rule applies to a Council’s decision to
depose from the ministry. In the absence of immediate protest from the
church, the decision of the Council is rightly taken as virtually the
decision of the church.

In so far as ordination is an act performed by the local church with the
advice and assistance of other rightly constituted churches, it is justly
regarded as giving formal permission to exercise gifts and administer
ordinances within the bounds of such churches. Ordination is not,
therefore, to be repeated upon the transfer of the minister’s pastoral
relation from one church to another. In every case, however, where a
minister from a body of Christians not Scripturally constituted assumes
the pastoral relation in a rightly organized church, there is peculiar
propriety, not only in the examination, by a Council, of his Christian
experience, call to the ministry, and views of doctrine, but also in that
act of formal recognition and authorization which is called ordination.

The Council should be numerous and impartially constituted. The
church calling the Council should be represented in it by a fair
number of delegates. Neither the church, nor the Council, should
permit a prejudgment of the case by the previous announcement of
an ordination service. While the examination of the candidate
should be public, all danger that the Council be unduly influenced
by pressure from without should be obviated by its conducting its
deliberations, and arriving at its decision, in private session.
We subjoin the form of a letter missive, calling a Council of
ordination; an order of procedure after the Council has assembled;
and a programme of exercises for the public service.

LETTER MISSIVE.—The —— church of —— to the —— church of ——: _Dear
Brethren_: By vote of this church, you are requested to send your
pastor and two delegates to meet with us in accordance with the
following resolutions, passed by us on the —— ——, 19—: _Whereas_,
brother ——, a member of this church, has offered himself to the
work of the gospel ministry, and has been chosen by us as our
pastor, therefore, _Resolved_, 1. That such neighboring churches,
in fellowship with us, as shall be herein designated, be requested
to send their pastor and two delegates each, to meet and counsel
with this church, at — o’clock —. M., on ——, 19——, and if, after
examination, he be approved, that brother —— be set apart, by vote
of the Council, to the gospel ministry, and that a public service
be held, expressive of this fact. _Resolved_, 2. That the Council,
if it do so ordain, be requested to appoint two of its number to
act with the candidate, in arranging the public services.
_Resolved_, 3. That printed letters of invitation, embodying these
resolutions, and signed by the clerk of this church, be sent to
the following churches, —— —— —— —— ——, and that these churches be
requested to furnish to their delegates an officially signed
certificate of their appointment, to be presented at the
organization of the Council. _Resolved_, 4. That Rev. ——, and
brethren —— ——, be also invited by the clerk of the church to be
present as members of the Council. _Resolved_, 5. That brethren
——, ——, and ——, be appointed as our delegates, to represent this
church in the deliberations of the Council; and that brother —— be
requested to present the candidate to the Council, with an
expression of the high respect and warm attachment with which we
have welcomed him and his labors among us. In behalf of the
church, —— ——, Clerk. ——, 19—.

ORDER OF PROCEDURE.—1. Reading, by the clerk of the church, of the
letter‐missive, followed by a call, in their order, upon all
churches and individuals invited, to present responses and names
in writing; each delegate, as he presents his credentials, taking
his seat in a portion of the house reserved for the Council. 2.
Announcement, by the clerk of the church, that a Council has
convened, and call for the nomination of a moderator,—the motion
to be put by the clerk,—after which the moderator takes the chair.
3. Organization completed by election of a clerk of the Council,
the offering of prayer, and an invitation to visiting brethren to
sit with the Council, but not to vote. 4. Reading, on behalf of
the church, by its clerk, of the records of the church concerning
the call extended to the candidate, and his acceptance, together
with documentary evidence of his licensure, of his present church
membership, and of his standing in other respects, if coming from
another denomination. 5. Vote, by the Council, that the
proceedings of the church, and the standing of the candidate,
warrant an examination of his claim to ordination. 6. Introduction
of the candidate to the Council, by some representative of the
church, with an expression of the church’s feeling respecting him
and his labors. 7. Vote to hear his Christian experience.
Narration on the part of the candidate, followed by questions as
to any features of it still needing elucidation. 8. Vote to hear
the candidate’s reasons for believing himself called to the
ministry. Narration and questions. 9. Vote to hear the candidate’s
views of Christian doctrine. Narration and questions. 10. Vote to
conclude the public examination, and to withdraw for private
session. 11. In private session, after prayer, the Council
determines, by three separate votes, in order to secure separate
consideration of each question, whether it is satisfied with the
candidate’s Christian experience, call to the ministry, and views
of Christian doctrine. 12. Vote that the candidate be hereby set
apart to the gospel ministry, and that a public service be held,
expressive of this fact; that for this purpose, a committee of two
be appointed, to act with the candidate, in arranging such service
of ordination, and to report before adjournment. 13. Reading of
minutes, by clerk of Council, and correction of them, to prepare
for presentation at the ordination service, and for preservation
in the archives of the church. 14. Vote to give the candidate a
certificate of ordination, signed by the moderator and clerk of
the Council, and to publish an account of the proceedings in the
journals of the denomination. 15. Adjourn to meet at the service
of ordination.

PROGRAMME OF PUBLIC SERVICE (two hours in length).—1.
Voluntary—five minutes. 2. Anthem—five. 3. Reading minutes of the
Council, by the clerk of the Council—ten. 4. Prayer of
invocation—five. 5. Reading of Scripture—five. 6. Sermon—twenty‐
five. 7. Prayer of ordination, with laying‐on of hands—fifteen. 8.
Hymn—ten. 9. Right hand of fellowship—five. 10. Charge to the
candidate—fifteen. 11. Charge to the church—fifteen. 12.
Doxology—five. 13. Benediction by the newly ordained pastor.

The tenor of the N. T. would seem to indicate that deacons should
be ordained with prayer and the laying‐on of hands, though not by
council or public service. Evangelists, missionaries, ministers
serving as secretaries of benevolent societies, should also be
ordained, since they are organs of the church, set apart for
special religious work on behalf of the churches. The same rule
applies to those who are set to be teachers of the teachers, the
professors of theological seminaries. Philip, baptizing the
eunuch, is to be regarded as an organ of the church at Jerusalem.
Both home missionaries and foreign missionaries are evangelists;
and both, as organs of the home churches to which they belong, are
not under obligation to take letters of dismission to the churches
they gather. George Adam Smith, in his Life of Henry Drummond,
265, says that Drummond was ordained to his professorship by the
laying‐on of the hands of the Presbytery: “The rite is the same in
the case whether of a minister or of a professor, for the church
of Scotland recognizes no difference between her teachers and her
pastors, but lays them under the same vows, and ordains them all
as ministers of Christ’s gospel and of his sacraments.”

Rome teaches that ordination is a sacrament, and “once a priest,
always a priest,” but only when Rome confers the ordination. It is
going a great deal further than Rome to maintain the indelibility
of _all_ orders—at least, of all orders conferred by an
evangelical church. At Dover in England, a medical gentleman
declined to pay his doctor’s bill upon the ground that it was not
the custom of his calling to pay one another for their services.
It appeared however that he was a retired practitioner, and upon
that ground he lost his case. Ordination, like vaccination, may
run out. Retirement from the office of public teacher should work
a forfeiture of the official character. The authorization granted
by the Council was based upon a previous recognition of a divine
call. When by reason of permanent withdrawal from the ministry,
and devotion to wholly secular pursuits, there remains no longer
any divine call to be recognized, all authority and standing as a
Christian minister should cease also. We therefore repudiate the
doctrine of the “indelibility of sacred orders,” and the
corresponding maxim: “Once ordained, always ordained”; although we
do not, with the Cambridge Platform, confine the ministerial
function to the pastoral relation. That Platform held that “the
pastoral relation ceasing, the ministerial function ceases, and
the pastor becomes a layman again, to be restored to the ministry
only by a second ordination, called installation. This theory of
the ministry proved so inadequate, that it was held scarcely more
than a single generation. It was rejected by the Congregational
churches of England ten years after it was formulated in New
England.”

“The National Council of Congregational Churches, in 1880,
resolved that any man serving a church as minister can be dealt
with and disciplined by any church, no matter what his relations
may be in church membership, or ecclesiastical affiliations. If
the church choosing him will not call a council, then any church
can call one for that purpose”; see New Englander, July,
1883:461‐491. This latter course, however, presupposes that the
steps of fraternal labor and admonition, provided for in our next
section on the Relation of Local Churches to one another, have
been taken, and have been insufficient to induce proper action on
the part of the church to which such minister belongs.

The authority of a Presbyterian church is limited to the bounds of
its own denomination. It cannot ordain ministers for Baptist
churches, any more than it can ordain them for Methodist churches
or for Episcopal churches. When a Presbyterian minister becomes a
Baptist, his motives for making the change and the conformity of
his views to the New Testament standard need to be scrutinized by
Baptists, before they can admit him to their Christian and church
fellowship; in other words, he needs to be ordained by a Baptist
church. Ordination is no more a discourtesy to the other
denomination than Baptism is. Those who oppose reördination in
such cases virtually hold to the Romish view of the sacredness of
orders.

The Watchman, April 17, 1902—“The Christian ministry is not a
priestly class which the laity is bound to support. If the
minister cannot find a church ready to support him, there is
nothing to prevent his entering another calling. Only ten per
cent. of the men who start in independent business avoid failure,
and a much smaller proportion achieve substantial success. They
are not failures, for they do useful and valuable work. But they
do not secure the prizes. It is not wonderful that the proportion
of ministers securing prominent pulpits is small. Many men fail in
the ministry. There is no sacred character imparted by ordination.
They should go into some other avocation. ‘Once a minister, always
a minister’ is a piece of Popery that Protestant churches should
get rid of.” See essay on Councils of Ordination, their Powers and
Duties, by A. H. Strong, in Philosophy and Religion, 259‐268;
Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists, 114; Dexter,
Congregationalism, 136, 145, 146, 150, 151. _Per contra_, see
Fish, Ecclesiology, 365‐399; Presb. Rev., 1886:89‐126.

3. Discipline of the Church.

A. Kinds of discipline.—Discipline is of two sorts, according as offences
are private or public. (_a_) Private offences are to be dealt with
according to the rule in Mat. 5:23, 24; 18:15‐17.

_Mat. 5:23, 24_—“_If therefore thou art offering thy gift at the
altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against
thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way, first
be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy
gift_”—here is provision for self‐discipline on the part of each
offender; _18:15‐17_—“_And if thy brother sin against thee, go,
show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee,
thou hast gained thy brother. But if he hear thee not, take with
thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three
every word may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell
it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let
him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican_”—here is, first,
private discipline, one of another; and then, only as a last
resort, discipline by the church. Westcott and Hort, however omit
the εἰς σέ—“_against thee_”—in _Mat. 18:15_, and so make each
Christian responsible for bringing to repentance every brother
whose sin he becomes cognizant of. This would abolish the
distinction between private and public offences.

When a brother wrongs me, I am not to speak of the offence to
others, nor to write to him a letter, but to go to him. If the
brother is already penitent, he will start from his house to see
me at the same time that I start from my house to see him, and we
will meet just half way between the two. There would be little
appeal to the church, and little cherishing of ancient grudges, if
Christ’s disciples would observe his simple rules. These rules
impose a duty upon both the offending and the offended party. When
a brother brings a personal matter before the church, he should
always be asked whether he has obeyed Christ’s command to labor
privately with the offender. If he has not, he should be bidden to
keep silence.

(_b_) Public offences are to be dealt with according to the rule in 1 Cor.
5:3‐5, 13, and 2 Thess. 3:6.

_1 Cor. 5:3‐5, 13_—“_For I verily, being absent in body but
present in spirit, have already as though I were present judged
him that hath so wrought this thing, in the name of the Lord
Jesus, ye being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power
of our Lord Jesus, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
of the Lord Jesus.... Put away the wicked man from among
yourselves._”

Notice here that Paul gave the incestuous person no opportunity to
repent, confess, or avert sentence. The church can have no valid
evidence of repentance immediately upon discovery and arraignment.
At such a time the natural conscience always reacts in remorse and
self‐accusation, but whether the sin is hated because of its
inherent wickedness, or only because of its unfortunate
consequences, cannot be known at once. Only fruits meet for
repentance can prove repentance real. But such fruits take time,
And the church has no time to wait. Its good repute in the
community, and its influence over its own members, are at stake.
These therefore demand the instant exclusion of the wrong‐doer, as
evidence that the church clears its skirts from all complicity
with the wrong. In the case of gross public offences, labor with
the offender is to come, not before, but after, his
excommunication; _cf._ _2 Cor. 2:6‐8_—“_Sufficient to such a one
is this punishment which was inflicted by the many;... forgive him
and comfort him;... confirm your love toward him._”

The church is not a Mutual Insurance Company, whose object is to
protect and shield its individual members. It is a society whose
end is to represent Christ in the world, and to establish his
truth and righteousness. Christ commits his honor to its keeping.
The offender who is only anxious to escape judgment, and who
pleads to be forgiven without delay, often shows that he cares
nothing for the cause of Christ which he has injured, but that he
has at heart only his own selfish comfort and reputation. The
truly penitent man will rather beg the church to exclude him, in
order that it may free itself from the charge of harboring
iniquity. He will accept exclusion with humility, will love the
church that excludes him, will continue to attend its worship,
will in due time seek and receive restoration. There is always a
way back into the church for those who repent. But the Scriptural
method of ensuring repentance is the method of immediate
exclusion.

In _2 Cor. 2:6‐8_—“_inflicted by the many_” might at first sight
seem to imply that, although the offender was excommunicated, it
was only by a majority vote, some members of the church
dissenting. Some interpreters think he had not been excommunicated
at all, but that only ordinary association with him had ceased.
But, if Paul’s command in the first epistle to “_put away the
wicked man from among yourselves_” (_1 Cor. 5:13_) had been thus
disobeyed, the apostle would certainly have mentioned and rebuked
the disobedience. On the contrary he praises them that they had
done as he had advised. The action of the church at Corinth was
blessed by God to the quickening of conscience and the
purification of life. In many a modern church the exclusion of
unworthy members has in like manner given to Christians a new
sense of their responsibility, while at the same time it has
convinced worldly people that the church was in thorough earnest.
The decisions of the church, indeed, when guided by the Holy
Spirit, are nothing less than an anticipation of the judgments of
the last day; see _Mat. 18:18_—“_What things soever ye shall bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven._” In _John 8:7_, Jesus
recognizes the sin and urges repentance, while he challenges the
right of the mob to execute judgment, and does away with the
traditional stoning. His gracious treatment of the sinning woman
gave no hint as to the proper treatment of her case by the regular
synagogue authorities.

_2 Thess. 3:6_—“_Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother
that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they
received of us._” The mere “dropping” of names from the list of
members seems altogether contrary to the spirit of the N. T.
polity. That recognizes only three methods of exit from the local
church: (1) exclusion; (2) dismission; (3) death. To provide for
the case of members whose residence has long been unknown, it is
well for the church to have a standing rule that all members
residing at a distance shall report each year by letter or by
contribution, and, in case of failure to report for two successive
years, shall be subject to discipline. The action of the church,
in such cases, should take the form of an adoption of preamble and
resolution: “_Whereas_ A. B. has been absent from the church for
more than two years, and has failed to comply with the standing
rule requiring a yearly report or contribution, therefore,
_Resolved_, that the church withdraw from A. B. the hand of
fellowship.”

In _all_ cases of exclusion, the resolution may uniformly read as
above; the preamble may indefinitely vary, and should always cite
the exact nature of the offence. In this way, neglect of the
church or breach of covenant obligations may be distinguished from
offences against common morality, so that exclusion upon the
former ground shall not be mistaken for exclusion upon the latter.
As the persons excluded are not commonly present at the meeting of
the church when they are excluded, a written copy of the preamble
and resolution, signed by the Clerk of the Church, should always
be immediately sent to them.

B. Relation of the pastor to discipline.—(_a_) He has no original
authority; (_b_) but is the organ of the church, and (_c_) superintendent
of its labors for its own purification and for the reclamation of
offenders; and therefore (_d_) may best do the work of discipline, not
directly, by constituting himself a special policeman or detective, but
indirectly, by securing proper labor on the part of the deacons or
brethren of the church.

The pastor should regard himself as a judge, rather than as a
prosecuting attorney. He should press upon the officers of his
church their duty to investigate cases of immorality and to deal
with them. But if he himself makes charges, he loses dignity, and
puts it out of his power to help the offender. It is not well for
him to be, or to have the reputation of being, a ferreter‐out of
misdemeanors among his church members. It is best for him in
general to serve only as presiding officer in cases of discipline,
instead of being a partisan or a counsel for the prosecution. For
this reason it is well for him to secure the appointment by his
church of a Prudential Committee, or Committee on Discipline,
whose duty it shall be at a fixed time each year to look over the
list of members, initiate labor in the case of delinquents, and,
after the proper steps have been taken, present proper preambles
and resolutions in cases where the church needs to take action.
This regular yearly process renders discipline easy; whereas the
neglect of it for several successive years results in an
accumulation of cases, in each of which the person exposed to
discipline has friends, and these are tempted to obstruct the
church’s dealing with others from fear that the taking up of any
other case may lead to the taking up of that one in which they are
most nearly interested. The church which pays no regular attention
to its discipline is like the farmer who milked his cow only once
a year, in order to avoid too great a drain; or like the small boy
who did not see how any one could bear to comb his hair every
day,—he combed his own only once in six weeks, and then it nearly
killed him.

As the Prudential Committee, or Committee on Discipline, is simply
the church itself preparing its own business, the church may well
require all complaints to be made to it through the committee. In
this way it may be made certain that the preliminary steps of
labor have been taken, and the disquieting of the church by
premature charges may be avoided. Where the committee, after
proper representations made to it, fails to do its duty, the
individual member may appeal directly to the assembled church; and
the difference between the New Testament order and that of a
hierarchy is this, that according to the former all final action
and responsibility is taken by the church itself in its collective
capacity, whereas on the latter the minister, the session, or the
bishop, so far as the individual church is concerned, determines
the result. See Savage, Church Discipline, Formative and
Corrective; Dagg, Church Order, 268‐274. On church discipline in
cases of remarriage after divorce, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy
and Religion, 431‐442.

IV. Relation of Local Churches to one another.

1. The general nature of this relation is that of fellowship between
equals.

Notice here:

(_a_) The absolute equality of the churches.—No church or council of
churches, no association or convention or society, can relieve any single
church of its direct responsibility to Christ, or assume control of its
action.

(_b_) The fraternal fellowship and coöperation of the churches.—No church
can properly ignore, or disregard, the existence or work of other churches
around it. Every other church is presumptively possessed of the Spirit, in
equal measure with itself. There must therefore be sympathy and mutual
furtherance of each other’s welfare among churches, as among individual
Christians. Upon this principle are based letters of dismission,
recognition of the pastors of other churches, and all associational
unions, or unions for common Christian work.

H. O. Rowlands, in Bap. Quar. Rev., Oct. 1891:669‐677, urges the
giving up of special Councils, and the turning of the Association
into a Permanent Council, not to take original cognizance of what
cases it pleases, but to consider and judge such questions as may
be referred to it by the individual churches. It could then revise
and rescind its action, whereas the present Council when once
adjourned can never be called together again. This method would
prevent the packing of a Council, and the Council when once
constituted would have greater influence. We feel slow to sanction
such a plan, not only for the reason that it seems destitute of
New Testament authority and example, but because it tends toward a
Presbyterian form of church government. All permanent bodies of
this sort gradually arrogate to themselves power; indirectly if
not directly they can assume original jurisdiction; their
decisions have altogether too great influence, if they go further
than personal persuasion. The independence of the individual
church is a primary element of polity which must not be sacrificed
or endangered for the mere sake of inter‐ecclesiastical harmony.
Permanent Councils of any sort are of doubtful validity. They need
to be kept under constant watch and criticism, lest they undermine
our Baptist church government, a fundamental principle of which is
that there is no authority on earth above that of the local
church.

2. This fellowship involves the duty of special consultation with regard
to matters affecting the common interest.

(_a_) The duty of seeking advice.—Since the order and good repute of each
is valuable to all the others, cases of grave importance and difficulty in
internal discipline, as well as the question of ordaining members to the
ministry, should be submitted to a council of churches called for the
purpose.

(_b_) The duty of taking advice.—For the same reason, each church should
show readiness to receive admonition from others. So long as this is in
the nature of friendly reminder that the church is guilty of defects from
the doctrine or practice enjoined by Christ, the mutual acceptance of
whose commands is the basis of all church fellowship, no church can justly
refuse to have such defects pointed out, or to consider the Scripturalness
of its own proceeding. Such admonition or advice, however, whether coming
from a single church or from a council of churches, is not itself of
binding authority. It is simply in the nature of moral suasion. The church
receiving it has still to compare it with Christ’s laws. The ultimate
decision rests entirely with the church so advised or asking advice.

Churches should observe comity, and should not draw away one
another’s members. Ministers should bring churches together, and
should teach their members the larger unity of the whole church of
God. The pastor should not confine his interest to his own church
or even to his own Association. The State Convention, the
Education Society, the National Anniversaries, should all claim
his attention and that of his people. He should welcome new
laborers and helpers, instead of regarding the ministry as a close
corporation whose numbers are to be kept forever small. E. G.
Robinson: “The spirit of sectarianism is devilish. It raises the
church above Christ. Christ did not say: ‘Blessed is the man who
accepts the Westminster Confession or the Thirty‐Nine Articles.’
There is not the least shadow of churchism in Christ. Churchism is
a revamped and whitewashed Judaism. It keeps up the middle wall of
partition which Christ has broken down.”

Dr. P. H. Mell, in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, calls
Church Councils “Committees of Help.” President James C. Welling
held that “We Baptists are not true to our democratic polity in
the conduct of our collective evangelical operations. In these
matters we are simply a bureaucracy, tempered by individual
munificence.” A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 149, 150,
remarks on _Mat. 18:19_—“_If two of you shall
agree_”—συμφωνήσωσιν, from which our word “symphony” comes: “If
two shall ‘accord,’ or ‘symphonize’ in what they ask, they have
the promise of being heard. But, as in tuning an organ, all the
notes must be keyed to the standard pitch, else harmony were
impossible, so in prayer. It is not enough that two disciples
agree with each other,—they must agree with a Third—the righteous
and holy Lord, before they can agree in intercession. There may be
agreement which is in most sinful conflict with the divine will:
‘_How is it that ye have agreed together_’—συνεφωνήθη—the same
word—‘_to try the Spirit of the Lord?_’ says Peter (_Acts 5:9_).
Here is mutual accord, but guilty discord with the Holy Spirit.”

3. This fellowship may be broken by manifest departures from the faith or
practice of the Scriptures, on the part of any church.

In such case, duty to Christ requires the churches, whose labors to
reclaim a sister church from error have proved unavailing, to withdraw
their fellowship from it, until such time as the erring church shall
return to the path of duty. In this regard, the law which applies to
individuals applies to churches, and the polity of the New Testament is
congregational rather than independent.

Independence is qualified by interdependence. While each church
is, in the last resort thrown upon its own responsibility in
ascertaining doctrine and duty, it is to acknowledge the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit in other churches as well as in
itself, and the value of the public opinion of the churches as an
indication of the mind of the Spirit. The church in Antioch asked
advice of the church in Jerusalem, although Paul himself was at
Antioch. Although no church or union of churches has rightful
jurisdiction over the single local body, yet the Council, when
rightly called and constituted, has the power of moral influence.
Its decision is an index to truth, which only the gravest reasons
will justify the church in ignoring or refusing to follow.

Dexter, Congregationalism, 695—“Barrowism gave all power into the
hands of the elders, and it would have no Councils.
Congregationalism is Brownism. It has two foci: Independence and
Interdependence.” Charles S. Scott, on Baptist Polity and the
Pastorate, in Bap. Quar. Rev., July, 1890:291‐297—“The difference
between the polity of Baptist and of Congregational churches is in
the relative authority of the Ecclesiastical Council.
Congregationalism is Councilism. Not only the ordination and first
settlement of the minister must be with the advice and consent of
a Council, but every subsequent unsettlement and settlement.”
Baptist churches have regarded this dependence upon Councils after
the minister’s ordination as extreme and unwarranted.

The fact that the church has always the right, for just cause, of
going behind the decision of the Council, and of determining for
itself whether it will ratify or reject that decision, shows
conclusively that the church has parted with no particle of its
original independence or authority. Yet, though the Council is
simply a counsellor—an organ and helper of the church,—the neglect
of its advice may involve such ecclesiastical or moral wrong as to
justify the churches represented in it, as well as other churches,
in withdrawing, from the church that called it, their
denominational fellowship. The relation of churches to one another
is analogous to the relation of private Christians to one another.
No meddlesome spirit is to be allowed; but in matters of grave
moment, a church, as well as an individual, may be justified in
giving advice unasked.

Lightfoot, in his new edition of Clemens Romanus, shows that the
Epistle, instead of emanating from Clement as Bishop of Rome, is a
letter of the church at Rome to the Corinthians, urging them to
peace. No pope and no bishop existed, but the whole church
congregationally addressed its counsels to its sister body of
believers at Corinth. Congregationalism, in A. D. 95, considered
it a duty to labor with a sister church that had in its judgment
gone astray, or that was in danger of going astray. The only
primacy was the primacy of the church, not of the bishop; and this
primacy was a primacy of goodness, backed up by metropolitan
advantages. All this fraternal fellowship follows from the
fundamental conception of the local church as the concrete
embodiment of the universal church. Park: “Congregationalism
recognizes a voluntary coöperation and communion of the churches,
which Independency does not do. Independent churches ordain and
depose pastors without asking advice from other churches.”

In accordance with this general principle, in a case of serious
disagreement between different portions of the same church, the
council called to advise should be, if possible, a mutual, not an
_ex parte_, council; see Dexter, Congregationalism, 2, 3, 61‐64.
It is a more general application of the same principle, to say
that the pastor should not shut himself in to his own church, but
should cultivate friendly relations with other pastors and with
other churches, should be present and active at the meetings of
Associations and State Conventions, and at the Anniversaries of
the National Societies of the denomination. His example of
friendly interest in the welfare of others will affect his church.
The strong should be taught to help the weak, after the example of
Paul in raising contributions for the poor churches of Judea.

The principle of church independence is not only consistent with,
but it absolutely requires under Christ, all manner of Christian
coöperation with other churches; and Social and Mission Unions to
unify the work of the denomination, to secure the starting of new
enterprises, to prevent one church from trenching upon the
territory or appropriating the members of another, are only
natural outgrowths of the principle. President Wayland’s remark,
“He who is displeased with everybody and everything gives the best
evidence that his own temper is defective and that he is a bad
associate,” applies to churches as well as to individuals. Each
church is to remember that, though it is honored by the indwelling
of the Lord, it constitutes only a part of that great body of
which Christ is the head.

See Davidson, Eccl. Polity of the N. T.; Ladd, Principles of
Church Polity; and on the general subject of the Church, Hodge,
Essays, 201; Flint, Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, 53‐82; Hooker,
Ecclesiastical Polity; The Church,—a collection of essays by
Luthardt, Kahnis, _etc._; Hiscox, Baptist Church Directory;
Ripley, Church Polity; Harvey, The Church; Crowell, Church
Members’ Manual; R. W. Dale, Manual of Congregational Principles;
Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, excursus on the Christian
Ministry; Ross, The Church‐Kingdom—Lectures on Congregationalism;
Dexter, Congregationalism, 681‐716, as seen in its Literature;
Allison, Baptist Councils in America. For a denial that there is
any real apostolic authority for modern church polity, see O. J.
Thatcher, Sketch of the History of the Apostolic Church.

Chapter II. The Ordinances Of The Church.

By the ordinances, we mean those outward rites which Christ has appointed
to be administered in his church as visible signs of the saving truth of
the gospel. They are signs, in that they vividly express this truth and
confirm it to the believer.

In contrast with this characteristically Protestant view, the Romanist
regards the ordinances as actually conferring grace and producing
holiness. Instead of being the external manifestation of a preceding union
with Christ, they are the physical means of constituting and maintaining
this union. With the Romanist, in this particular, sacramentalists of
every name substantially agree. The Papal Church holds to seven sacraments
or ordinances:—ordination, confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction,
penance, baptism, and the eucharist. The ordinances prescribed in the N.
T., however, are two and only two, viz.:—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

It will be well to distinguish from one another the three words:
symbol, rite, and ordinance. 1. A _symbol_ is the sign, or visible
representation, of an invisible truth or idea; as for example, the
lion is the symbol of strength and courage, the lamb is the symbol
of gentleness, the olive branch of peace, the sceptre of dominion,
the wedding ring of marriage, and the flag of country. Symbols may
teach great lessons; as Jesus’ cursing the barren fig tree taught
the doom of unfruitful Judaism, and Jesus’ washing of the
disciples’ feet taught his own coming down from heaven to purify
and save, and the humble service required of his followers. 2. A
_rite_ is a symbol which is employed with regularity and sacred
intent. Symbols became rites when thus used. Examples of
authorized rites in the Christian Church are the laying on of
hands in ordination, and the giving of the right hand of
fellowship. 3. An _ordinance_ is a symbolic rite which sets forth
the central truths of the Christian faith, and which is of
universal and perpetual obligation. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper
are rites which have become ordinances by the specific command of
Christ and by their inner relation to the essential truths of his
kingdom. No ordinance is a sacrament in the Romanist sense of
conferring grace; but, as the _sacramentum_ was the oath taken by
the Roman soldier to obey his commander even unto death, so
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sacraments, in the sense of vows
of allegiance to Christ our Master.

President H. G. Weston has recorded his objections to the
observance of the so‐called “Christian Year,” in words that we
quote, as showing the danger attending the Romanist multiplication
of ordinances. “1. The ‘Christian Year’ is not Christian. It makes
everything of actions, and nothing of relations. Make a day holy
that God has not made holy, and you thereby make all other days
unholy. 2. It limits the Christian’s view of Christ to the scenes
and events of his earthly life. Salvation comes through spiritual
relations to a living Lord. The ‘Christian Year’ makes Christ only
a memory, and not a living, present, personal power. Life, not
death, is the typical word of the N. T. Paul craved, not a
knowledge of the fact of the resurrection, but of the power of it.
The New Testament records busy themselves most of all with what
Christ is doing now. 3. The appointments of the ‘Christian Year’
are not in accord with the N. T. These appointments lack the
reality of spiritual life, and are contrary to the essential
spirit of Christianity.” We may add that where the “Christian
Year” is most generally and rigidly observed, there popular
religion is most formal and destitute of spiritual power.

I. Baptism.

Christian Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water, in token of his
previous entrance into the communion of Christ’s death and
resurrection,—or, in other words, in token of his regeneration through
union with Christ.

1. Baptism an Ordinance of Christ.

A. Proof that Christ instituted an external rite called baptism.

(_a_) From the words of the great commission; (_b_) from the injunctions
of the apostles; (_c_) from the fact that the members of the New Testament
churches were baptized believers; (_d_) from the universal practice of
such a rite in Christian churches of subsequent times.

(_a_) _Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all
the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the
Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Mark 16:16_—“_He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved_”—we hold, with Westcott and Hort, that
_Mark 16:9‐20_ is of canonical authority, though probably not
written by Mark himself. (_b_) _Acts 2:38_—“_And Peter said unto
them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of
Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins_”; (_c_) _Rom.
6:3‐5_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried
therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we
also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united
with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection_”; _Col. 2:11, 12_—“_in whom ye were
also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the
putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of
Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were
also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who
raised him from the dead._” (_d_) The only marked exceptions to
the universal requisition of baptism are found in the Society of
Friends, and in the Salvation Army. The Salvation Army does not
regard the ordinance as having any more permanent obligation than
feet‐washing. General Booth: “We teach our soldiers that every
time they break bread, they are to remember the broken body of the
Lord, and every time they wash the body, they are to remind
themselves of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and of
the indwelling Spirit.” The Society of Friends regard Christ’s
commands as fulfilled, not by any outward baptism of water, but
only by the inward baptism of the Spirit.

B. This external rite intended by Christ to be of universal and perpetual
obligation.

(_a_) Christ recognized John the Baptist’s commission to baptize as
derived immediately from heaven.

_Mat. 21:25_—“_The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or
from men?_”—here Jesus clearly intimates that John’s commission to
baptize was derived directly from God; _cf._ _John 1:25_—the
delegates sent to the Baptist by the Sanhedrin ask him: “_Why then
baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, neither Elijah,
neither the prophet?_” thus indicating that John’s baptism, either
in its form or its application, was a new ordinance that required
special divine authorization.

Broadus in his American Com. on _Mat. 3:6_, claims that John’s
baptism was no modification of an existing rite. Proselyte baptism
is not mentioned in the Mishna (A. D. 200); the first distinct
account of it is in the Babylonian Talmud (Gemara) written in the
fifth century; it was not adopted from the Christians, but was one
of the Jewish purifications which came to be regarded, after the
destruction of the Temple, as a peculiar initiatory rite. There is
no mention of it, as a Jewish rite, in the O. T., N. T.,
Apocrypha, Philo, or Josephus.

For the view that proselyte‐baptism did not exist among the Jews
before the time of John, see Schneckenburger, Ueber das Alter der
jüdischen Proselytentaufe; Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 1833:338‐355;
Toy, In Baptist Quarterly, 1872:301‐332. Dr. Toy, however, in a
private note to the author (1884), says: “I am disposed now to
regard the Christian rite as borrowed from the Jewish, contrary to
my view in 1872.” So holds Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus,
2:742‐744—“We have positive testimony that the baptism of
proselytes existed in the times of Hillel and Shammai. For,
whereas the school of Shammai is said to have allowed a proselyte
who was circumcised on the eve of the Passover, to partake, after
baptism, of the Passover, the school of Hillel forbade it. This
controversy must be regarded as proving that at that time
[previous to Christ] the baptism of proselytes was customary.”

Porter, on Proselyte Baptism, Hastings’ Bible Dict., 4:132—“If
circumcision was the decisive step in the case of all male
converts, there seems no longer room for serious question that a
bath of purification must have followed, even though early mention
of such proselyte baptism is not found. The law (_Lev. 11‐15_;
_Num. 19_) prescribed such baths in all cases of impurity, and one
who came with the deep impurity of a heathen life behind him could
not have entered the Jewish community without such cleansing.”
Plummer, on Baptism, Hastings’ Bible Dict., 1:239—“What is wanted
is direct evidence that, before John the Baptist made so
remarkable a use of the rite, it was the custom to make all
proselytes submit to baptism; and such evidence is not
forthcoming. Nevertheless the fact is not really doubtful. It is
not credible that the baptizing of proselytes was instituted and
made essential for their admission to Judaism at a period
subsequent to the institution of Christian baptism; and the
supposition that it was borrowed from the rite enjoined by Christ
is monstrous.”

Although the O. T. and the Apocrypha, Josephus and Philo, are
silent with regard to proselyte baptism, it is certain that it
existed among the Jews in the early Christian centuries; and it is
almost equally certain that the Jews could not have adopted it
from the Christians. It is probable, therefore, that the baptism
of John was an application to Jews of an immersion which, before
that time, was administered to proselytes from among the Gentiles;
and that it was this adaptation of the rite to a new class of
subjects and with a new meaning, which excited the inquiry and
criticism of the Sanhedrin. We must remember, however, that the
Lord’s Supper was likewise an adaptation of certain portions of
the old Passover service to a new use and meaning. See also Kitto,
Bib. Cyclop., 3:593.

(_b_) In his own submission to John’s baptism, Christ gave testimony to
the binding obligation of the ordinance (Mat. 3:13‐17). John’s baptism was
essentially Christian baptism (Acts 19:4), although the full significance
of it was not understood until after Jesus’ death and resurrection (Mat.
20:17‐23; Luke 12:50; Rom. 6:3‐6).

_Mat. 3:13‐17_—“_Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill
all righteousness_”; _Acts 19:4_—“_John baptized with the baptism
of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on
him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus_”; _Mat. 20:18,
19, 22_—“_the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests
and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall
deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to
crucify.... Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to
drink?_” _Luke 12:50_—“_But I have a baptism to be baptized with;
and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_” _Rom. 6:3,
4_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ
Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with
him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised
from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might
walk is newness of life._”

Robert Hall, Works, 1:367‐399, denies that John’s baptism was
Christian baptism, and holds that there is not sufficient evidence
that all the apostles were baptized. The fact that John’s baptism
was a baptism of faith in the coming Messiah, as well as a baptism
of repentance for past and present sin, refutes this theory. The
only difference between John’s baptism, and the baptism of our
time, is that John baptized upon profession of faith in a Savior
yet to come; baptism is now administered upon profession of faith
in a Savior who has actually and already come. On John’s baptism
as presupposing faith in those who received it, see treatment of
the Subjects of Baptism, page 950.

(_c_) In continuing the practice of baptism through his disciples (John
4:1, 2), and in enjoining it upon them as part of a work which was to last
to the end of the world (Mat. 28:19, 20), Christ manifestly adopted and
appointed baptism as the invariable law of his church.

_John 4:1, 2_—“_When therefore the Lord knew that the Pharisees
had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than
John (although Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples)_”;
_Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even
unto the end of the world._”

(_d_) The analogy of the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper also leads to the
conclusion that baptism is to be observed as an authoritative memorial of
Christ and his truth, until his second coming.

_1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come._” Baptism, like
the Lord’s Supper, is a teaching ordinance, and the two ordinances
together furnish an indispensable witness to Christ’s death and
resurrection.

(_e_) There is no intimation whatever that the command of baptism is
limited, or to be limited, in its application,—that it has been or ever is
to be repealed; and, until some evidence of such limitation or repeal is
produced, the statute must be regarded as universally binding.

On the proof that baptism is an ordinance of Christ, see Pepper,
in Madison Avenue Lectures, 85‐114; Dagg, Church Order, 9‐21.

2. The Mode of Baptism.

This is immersion, and immersion only. This appears from the following
considerations:

A. The command to baptize is a command to immerse.

We show this:

(_a_) From the meaning of the original word βαπτίζω. That this is to
immerse, appears:

First,—from the usage of Greek writers—including the church Fathers, when
they do not speak of the Christian rite, and the authors of the Greek
version of the Old Testament.

Liddell and Scott, Greek Lexicon: “βαπτίζω, to dip in or under
water; Lat. _immergere_.” Sophocles, Lexicon of Greek Usage in the
Roman and Byzantine Periods, 140 B. C. to 1000 A. D.—“βαπτίζω, to
dip, to immerse, to sink ... There is no evidence that Luke and
Paul and the other writers of the N. T. put upon this verb
meanings not recognized by the Greeks.” Thayer, N. T. Lexicon:
“βαπτίζω, literally to dip, to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to
submerge, ... metaphorically, to overwhelm.... βάπτισμα,
immersion, submersion ... a rite of sacred immersion commanded by
Christ.” Prof. Goodwin of Harvard University, Feb. 13, 1895, says:
“The classical meaning of βαπτίζω, which seldom occurs, and of the
more common βάπτω, is dip (literally or metaphorically), and I
never heard of its having any other meaning anywhere. Certainly I
never saw a lexicon which gives either sprinkle or pour, as
meanings of either. I must be allowed to ask why I am so often
asked this question, which seems to me to have but one perfectly
plain answer.”

In the International Critical Commentary, see Plummer on Luke, p.
86—“It is only when baptism is administered by immersion that its
full significance is seen”; Abbott on Colossians, p. 251—“The
figure was naturally suggested by the immersion in baptism”; see
also Gould on Mark, p. 127; Sanday on Romans, p. 154‐157. No one
of these four Commentaries was written by a Baptist. The two
latest English Bible Dictionaries agree upon this point. Hastings,
Bib. Dict., art.: Baptism, p. 243 a—“The mode of using was
commonly immersion. The symbolism of the ordinance required this”;
Cheyne, Encyc. Biblica, 1:473, while arguing from the _Didache_
that from a very early date “a triple pouring was admitted where a
sufficiency of water could not be had,” agrees that “such a method
[as immersion] is presupposed as the ideal, at any rate, in Paul’s
words about death, burial and resurrection in baptism (_Rom.
6:3‐5_).”

Conant, Appendix to Bible Union Version of Matthew, 1‐64, has
examples “drawn from writers in almost every department of
literature and science; from poets, rhetoricians, philosophers,
critics, historians, geographers; from writers on husbandry, on
medicine, on natural history, on grammar, on theology; from almost
every form and style of composition, romances, epistles, orations,
fables, odes, epigrams, sermons, narratives: from writers of
various nations and religions, Pagan, Jew, and Christian,
belonging to many countries and through a long succession of ages.
In all, the word has retained its ground‐meaning without change.
From the earliest age of Greek literature down to its close, a
period of nearly two thousand years, not an example has been found
in which the word has any other meaning. There is no instance in
which it signifies to make a partial application of water by
affusion or sprinkling, or to cleanse, to purify, apart from the
literal act of immersion as the means of cleansing or purifying.”
See Stuart, in Bib. Repos., 1833:313; Broadus on Immersion, 57,
note.

Dale, in his Classic, Judaic, Christic, and Patristic Baptism,
maintains that βάπτω alone means “to dip,” and that βαπτίζω never
means “to dip,” but only “to put within,” giving no intimation
that the object is to be taken out again. But see Review of Dale,
by A. C. Kendrick, in Bap. Quarterly, 1869:129, and by Harvey, in
Bap. Review, 1879:141‐163. “Plutarch used the word βαπτίζω, when
he describes the soldiers of Alexander on a riotous march as by
the roadside dipping (lit.: baptizing) with cups from huge wine
jars and mixing bowls, and drinking to one another. Here we have
βαπτίζω used where Dr. Dale’s theory would call for βάπτω. The
truth is that βαπτίζω, the stronger word, came to be used in the
same sense with the weaker; and the attempt to prove a broad and
invariable difference of meaning between them breaks down. Of Dr.
Dale’s three meanings of βαπτίζω—(1) intusposition without
influence (stone in water), (2) intusposition with influence (man
drowned in water), (3) influence without intusposition,—the last
is a figment of Dr. Dale’s imagination. It would allow me to say
that when I burned a piece of paper, I baptized it. The grand
result is this: Beginning with the position that baptize means
immerse, Dr. Dale ends by maintaining that immersion is not
baptism. Because Christ speaks of drinking a cup, Dr. Dale infers
that this is baptism.” For a complete reply to Dale, see Ford,
Studies on Baptism.

Secondly,—every passage where the word occurs in the New Testament either
requires or allows the meaning “immerse.”

_Mat. 3:6, 11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance ...
he shall baptize you in the holy Spirit and in fire_”; _cf._ _2
Kings 5:14_—“_Then went he_ [Naaman] _down, and dipped himself_
ἐβαπτίσατο _seven times in the Jordan_”; _Mark 1:5, 9_—“_they were
baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins....
Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John into
the Jordan_”; _7:4_—“_and when they come from the market‐place,
except they bathe_ [lit.: ‘_baptize_’] _themselves, they eat not:
and many other things there are, which they have received to hold,
washings_ [lit.: ‘_baptizings_’] _of cups, and pots, and brasen
vessels_”—in this verse, Westcott and Hort, with א and B, read
ῥαντίσωνται, instead of βαπτίσωνται; but it is easy to see how
subsequent ignorance of Pharisaic scrupulousness might have
changed βαπτίσωνται into ῥαντίσωνται; but not easy to see how
ῥαντίσωνται should have been changed into βαπτίσωνται. On _Mat.
15:2_ (and the parallel passage _Mark 7:4_), see Broadus, Com. on
Mat., pages 332, 333. Herodotus, 2:47, says that if any Egyptian
touches a swine in passing, with his clothes, he goes to the river
and dips himself from it.

Meyer, Com. _in loco_—“ἐὰν μὴ βαπτίσωνται is not to be understood
of washing the hands (Lightfoot, Wetstein), but of immersion,
which the word in classic Greek and in the N. T. everywhere means;
here, according to the context, to take a bath.” The Revised
Version omits the words “and couches,” although Maimonides speaks
of a Jewish immersion of couches; see quotation from Maimonides in
Ingham, Handbook of Baptism, 373—“Whenever in the law washing of
the flesh or of the clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else
than the dipping of the whole body in a laver; for if any man dip
himself all over except the tip of his little finger, he is still
in his uncleanness.... A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dip
it part by part, it is pure.” Watson, in Annotated Par. Bible,
1126.

_Luke 11:38_—“_And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he
had not first bathed_ [lit.: ‘_baptized_’] _himself before
dinner_”; _cf._ _Ecclesiasticus 31:25_—“_He that washeth himself
after the touching of a dead body_” (βαπτιζόμενος ἀπὸ νεκροῦ);
_Judith 12:7_—“_washed herself ἐβαπτίζετο in a fountain of water
by the camp_”; _Lev. 22:4‐6_—“_Whoso toucheth anything that is
unclean by the dead ... unclean until the even ... bathe his flesh
in water._” _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received his word were
baptized: and there were added unto them in that day about three
thousand souls._” Although the water supply of Jerusalem is
naturally poor, the artificial provision of aqueducts, cisterns,
and tanks, made water abundant. During the siege of Titus, though
thousands died of famine, we read of no suffering from lack of
water. The following are the dimensions of pools in modern
Jerusalem: King’s Pool, 15 feet x 16 x 3; Siloam, 53 x 18 x 19;
Hezekiah, 240 x 140 x 10; Bethesda (so‐called), 360 x 130 x 75;
Upper Gihon, 316 x 218 x 19; Lower Gihon, 592 x 260 x 18; see
Robinson, Biblical Researches, 1:323‐348, and Samson, Water‐supply
of Jerusalem, pub. by Am. Bap. Pub. Soc. There was no difficulty
in baptizing three thousand in one day; for, in the time of
Chrysostom, when all candidates of the year were baptized in a
single day, three thousand were once baptized; and, on July 3,
1878, 2222 Telugu Christians were baptized by two administrators
in nine hours. These Telugu baptisms took place at Velumpilly, ten
miles north of Ongole. The same two men did not baptize all the
time. There were six men engaged in baptizing, but never more than
two men at the same time.

_Acts 16:33_—“_And he took them the same hour of the night, and
washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his,
immediately_”—the prison was doubtless, as are most large edifices
in the East, whether public or private, provided with tank and
fountain. See Cremer, Lexicon of N. T. Greek, _sub voce_—“βαπτίζω,
immersion or submersion for a religious purpose.” Grimm’s ed. of
Wilke—“βαπτίζω, 1. Immerse, submerge; 2. Wash or bathe, by
immersing or submerging (_Mark 7:4_, also Naaman and Judith); 3.
Figuratively, to overwhelm, as with debts, misfortunes, _etc._” In
the N. T. rite, he says it denotes “an immersion in water,
intended as a sign of sins washed away, and received by those who
wished to be admitted to the benefits of Messiah’s reign.”

Döllinger, Kirche und Kirchen, 337—“The Baptists are, however,
from the Protestant point of view, unassailable, since for their
demand of baptism by submersion they have the clear Bible text;
and the authority of the church and of her testimony is not
regarded by either party”—_i. e._, by either Baptists or
Protestants, generally. Prof. Harnack, of Giessen, writes in the
Independent, Feb. 19, 1885—“1. _Baptizein_ undoubtedly signifies
immersion (_eintauchen_). 2. No proof can be found that it
signifies anything else in the N. T. and in the most ancient
Christian literature. The suggestion regarding a ‘sacred sense’ is
out of the question. 3. There is no passage in the N. T. which
suggests the supposition that any New Testament author attached to
the word _baptizein_ any other sense than _eintauchen_ =
_untertauchen_ (immerse, submerge).” See Com. of Meyer, and
Cunningham, Croall lectures.

Thirdly,—the absence of any use of the word in the passive voice with
“water” as its subject confirms our conclusion that its meaning is “to
immerse.” Water is never said to be baptized upon a man.

(_b_) From the use of the verb βαπτίζω with prepositions:

First,—with εἰς (Mark 1:9—where Ἰορδάνην is the element into which the
person passes in the act of being baptized).

_Mark 1:9, marg._—“_And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came
from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John into the Jordan._”

Secondly,—with ἐν (Mark 1:5, 8; _cf._ Mat. 3:11. John 1:26, 31, 33; _cf._
Acts 2:2, 4). In these texts, ἐν is to be taken, not instrumentally, but
as indicating the element in which the immersion takes place.

_Mark 1:5, 8_—“_they were baptized of him in the river Jordan,
confessing their sins.... I baptized you in water; but he shall
baptize you in the Holy Spirit_”—here see Meyer’s Com. on _Mat.
3:11_—“ἐν is in accordance with the meaning of βαπτίζω (immerse),
not to be understood instrumentally, but on the contrary, in the
sense of the element in which the immersion takes place.” Those
who pray for a “baptism of the Holy Spirit” pray for such a
pouring out of the Spirit as shall fill the place and permit them
to be flooded or immersed in his abundant presence and power; see
C. E. Smith, Baptism of Fire, 1881:305‐311. Plumptre: “The baptism
with the Holy Ghost would imply that the souls thus baptized would
be plunged, as it were, in that creative and informing Spirit,
which was the source of light and holiness and wisdom.”

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 67—“The upper room became
the Spirit’s baptistery. His presence ‘_filled all the house where
they were sitting_’ (_Acts 2:2_).... Baptism in the Holy Spirit
was given once for all on the day of Pentecost, when the Paraclete
came in person to make his abode in the church. It does not follow
that every believer has received this baptism. God’s gift is one
thing,—our appropriation of that gift is quite another thing. Our
relation to the second and to the third persons of the Godhead is
exactly parallel in this respect. ‘God so loved the world, that he
_gave_ his only begotten Son’ (_John 3:16_). ‘But as many as
_received_ him, to them gave he the right to become children of
God, even to them that believe on his name’ (_John 1:12_). We are
required to appropriate the Spirit as sons, in the same way that
we are required to appropriate Christ as sinners.... ‘_He breathed
on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye_’—take ye, actively—‘_the
Holy Spirit_’ (_John 20:22_).”

(_c_) From circumstances attending the administration of the ordinance
(Mark 1:10—ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος; John 3:23—ὕδατα πολλά; Acts 8:38,
39—κατέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ... ἀνέβησαν ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος).

_Mark 1:10_—“_coming up out of the water_”; _John 3:23_—“_And John
also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much
water there_”—a sufficient depth of water for baptizing; see Prof.
W. A. Stevens, on Ænon near to Salim, in Journ. Soc. of Bib. Lit.
and Exegesis, Dec. 1883. _Acts 8:38, 39_—“_and they both went down
into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
And when they came up out of the water...._” In the case of Philip
and the eunuch, President Timothy Dwight, in S. S. Times, Aug. 27,
1892, says: “The baptism was apparently by immersion.” The Editor
adds that “practically scholars are agreed that the primitive
meaning of the word ’baptize’ was to immerse.”

(_d_) From figurative allusions to the ordinance.

_Mark 10:38_—“_Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?_”—here the cup
is the cup of suffering in Gethsemane; _cf._ _Luke
22:42_—“_Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me_”;
and the baptism is the baptism of death on Calvary, and of the
grave that was to follow; _cf._ _Luke 12:50_—“_I have a baptism to
be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be
accomplished!_” Death presented itself to the Savior’s mind as a
baptism, because it was a sinking under the floods of suffering.
_Rom. 6:4_—“_We were buried therefore with him through baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of
life_”—Conybeare and Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, say,
on this passage, that “it cannot be understood without remembering
that the primitive method of baptism was by immersion.” On _Luke
12:49, marg._—“_I came to cast fire upon the earth, and how would
I that it were already kindled!_”—see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus,
2:225—“He knew that he was called to bring a new energy and
movement into the world, which mightily seizes and draws
everything towards it, as a hurled firebrand, which whereever it
falls kindles a flame which expands into a vast sea of fire”—the
baptism of fire, the baptism in the Holy Spirit?

_1 Cor. 10:1, 2_—“_our fathers were all under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea_”; _Col. 2:12_—“_having been buried with him
in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him_”; _Heb.
10:22_—“_having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and
having our body washed_ [λελουμένοι] _with pure water_”—here
Trench, N. T. Synonyms, 216, 217, says that “λούω implies always,
not the bathing of a part of the body, but of the whole.” _1 Pet
3:20, 21_—“_saved through water: which also after a true likeness
doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward
God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ_”—as the ark whose
sides were immersed in water saved Noah, so the immersion of
believers typically saves them; that is, the answer of a good
conscience, the turning of the soul to God, which baptism
symbolizes. “In the ritual of Moses and Aaron, three things were
used: oil, blood, and water. The oil was poured, the blood was
sprinkled, the water was used for complete ablution first of all,
and subsequently for partial ablution to those to whom complete
ablution had been previously administered” (Wm. Ashmore).

(_e_) From the testimony of church history as to the practice of the early
church.

Tertullian, De Baptismo, chap. 12—“Others make the suggestion
(forced enough, clearly) that the apostles then served the turn of
baptism when in their little ship they were sprinkled and covered
with the waves; that Peter himself also was immersed enough when
he walked on the sea. It is however, as I think, one thing to be
sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing
to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion.”
Fisher, Beginnings of Christianity, 565—“Baptism, it is now
generally agreed among scholars, was commonly administered by
immersion.” Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church,
570—“Respecting the form of baptism, the impartial historian is
compelled by exegesis and history substantially to yield the point
to the Baptists.” Elsewhere Dr. Schaff says: “The baptism of
Christ in the Jordan, and the illustrations of baptism used in the
N. T., are all in favor of immersion, rather than of sprinkling,
as is freely admitted by the best exegetes, Catholic and
Protestant, English and German. Nothing can be gained by unnatural
exegesis. The persistency and aggressiveness of Baptists have
driven pedobaptists to opposite extremes.”

Dean Stanley, in his address at Eton College, March, 1879, on
Historical Aspects of American Churches, speaks of immersion as
“the primitive, apostolical, and, till the 13th century, the
universal, mode of baptism, which is still retained throughout the
Eastern churches, and which is still in our own church as
positively enjoined in theory as it is universally neglected in
practice.” The same writer, in the Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1879,
says that “the change from immersion to sprinkling has set aside
the larger part of the apostolic language regarding baptism, and
has altered the very meaning of the word.” Neander, Church Hist.,
1:310—“In respect to the form of baptism, it was, in conformity
with the original institution and the original import of the
symbol, performed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into
the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated by the same.... It
was only with the sick, where exigency required it, that any
exception was made. Then it was administered by sprinkling; but
many superstitious persons imagined such sprinkling to be not
fully valid, and stigmatized those thus baptized as clinics.”

Until recently, there has been no evidence that clinic baptism,
_i. e._, the baptism of a sick or dying person in bed by pouring
water copiously around him, was practised earlier than the time of
Novatian, in the third century; and in these cases there is good
reason to believe that a regenerating efficacy was ascribed to the
ordinance. We are now, however, compelled to recognize a departure
from N. T. precedent somewhat further back. Important testimony is
that of Prof. Harnack, of Giessen, in the Independent of Feb. 19,
1885—“Up to the present moment we possess no certain proof from
the period of the second century, in favor of the fact that
baptism by aspersion was then even facultatively administered; for
Tertullian (De Pœnit., 6, and De Baptismo, 12) is uncertain; and
the age of those pictures upon which is represented a baptism by
aspersion is not certain. The ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,’
however, has now instructed us that already, in very early times,
people in the church took no offence when aspersion was put in
place of immersion, when any kind of outward circumstances might
render immersion impossible or impracticable.... But the rule was
also certainly maintained that immersion was obligatory if the
outward conditions of such a performance were at hand.” This seems
to show that, while the corruption of the N. T. rite began soon
after the death of the apostles, baptism by any other form than
immersion was even then a rare exception, which those who
introduced the change sought to justify upon the plea of
necessity. See Schaff, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 29‐57, and
other testimony in Coleman, Christian Antiquities, 275; Stuart, in
Bib. Repos., 1883:355‐363.

The “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” section 7, reads as
follows: “Baptize ... in living water. And if thou have no living
water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then
in warm. And if thou have neither, pour water upon the head
thrice.” Here it is evident that “baptize” means only “immerse,”
but if water be scarce pouring may be substituted for baptism. Dr.
A. H. Newman, Antipedobaptism, 5, says that “The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles” may possibly belong to the second half of the
second century, but in its present form is probably much later. It
does not explicitly teach baptismal regeneration, but this view
seems to be implied in the requirement, in case of an absolute
lack of a sufficiency of water of any kind for baptism proper,
that pouring water on the head three times be resorted to as a
substitute. Catechetical instruction, repentance, fasting, and
prayer, must precede the baptismal rite.

Dexter, in his True Story of John Smyth and Sebaptism, maintains
that immersion was a new thing in England in 1641. But if so, it
was new, as Congregationalism was new—a newly restored practice
and ordinance of apostolic times. For reply to Dexter, see Long,
in Bap. Rev., Jan. 1883:12, 13, who tells us, on the authority of
Blunt’s Ann. Book of Com. Prayer, that from 1085 to 1549, the
“Salisbury Use” was the accepted mode, and this provided for the
child’s trine immersion. “The Prayerbook of Edward VI succeeded to
the Salisbury Use in 1549; but in this too immersion has the place
of honor—affusion is only for the weak. The English church has
never sanctioned sprinkling (Blunt, 226). In 1664, the Westminster
Assembly said ’sprinkle or pour,’ thus annulling what Christ
commanded 1600 years before. Queen Elizabeth was immersed in 1533.
If in 1641 immersion had been so generally and so long disused
that men saw it with wonder and regarded it as a novelty, then the
more distinct, emphatic, and peculiarly their own was the work of
the Baptists. They come before the world, with no partners, or
rivals, or abettors, or sympathizers, as the restorers and
preservers of Christian baptism.”

(_f_) From the doctrine and practice of the Greek church.

DeStourdza, the greatest modern theologian of the Greek church,
writes; “βαπτίζω signifies literally and always ‘to plunge.’
Baptism and immersion are therefore identical, and to say ‘baptism
by aspersion’ is as if one should say ‘immersion by aspersion,’ or
any other absurdity of the same nature. The Greek church maintain
that the Latin church, instead of a βαπτισμός, practice a mere
ῥαντισμός,—instead of baptism, a mere sprinkling”—quoted in Conant
on Mat., appendix, 99. See also Broadus on Immersion, 18.

The evidence that immersion is the original mode of baptism is
well summed up by Dr. Marcus Dods, in his article on Baptism in
Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Apostles. Dr. Dods defines
baptism as “a rite wherein by immersion in water the participant
symbolizes and signalizes his transition from an impure to a pure
life, his death to a past he abandons, and his birth to a future
he desires.” As regards the “mode of baptism,” he remarks: “That
the normal mode was by immersion of the whole body may be inferred
(_a_) from the meaning of _baptizo_, which is the intensive or
frequentative form of _bapto_, ‘I dip,’ and denotes to _immerse_
or _submerge_—the point is, that ‘dip’ or ‘immerse’ is the
primary, ‘wash’ the secondary meaning of _bapto_ or _baptizo_.
(_b_) The same inference may be drawn from the law laid down
regarding the baptism of proselytes: ‘As soon as he grows whole of
the wound of circumcision, they bring him to baptism, and being
placed in the water, they again instruct him in some weightier and
in some lighter commands of the Law, which being heard, he plunges
himself and comes up, and behold, he is an Israelite in all
things’ (Lightfoot’s Horæ Hebraicæ). To use Pauline language, his
old man is dead and buried in water, and he rises from this
cleansing grave a new man. The full significance of the rite would
have been lost had immersion not been practised. Again, it was
required in proselyte baptism that ‘every person baptized must dip
his whole body, now stripped and made naked, at one dipping. And
wheresoever in the Law washing of the body or garments is
mentioned, it means nothing else than the washing of the whole
body.’ (_c_) That immersion was the mode of baptism adopted by
John is the natural conclusion from his choosing the neighborhood
of the Jordan as the scene of his labors; and from the statement
of _John 3:23_ that he was baptizing in Enon ‘because there was
much water there.’ (_d_) That this form was continued in the
Christian Church appears from the expression _Loutron
palingenesias_ (bath of regeneration, _Titus 3:5_), and from the
use made by St. Paul in _Romans 6_ of the symbolism. This is well
put by Bingham (Antiquities xi.2).” The author quotes Bingham to
the effect that “total immersion under water” was the universal
practice during the early Christian centuries “except in some
particular cases of exigence, wherein they allow of sprinkling, as
in the case of a clinic baptism, or where there is a scarcity of
water.” Dr. Dods continues: “This statement exactly reflects the
ideas of the Pauline Epistles and the ’_Didache_’” (Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles).

The prevailing usage of any word determines the sense it bears, when found
in a command of Christ. We have seen, not only that the prevailing usage
of the Greek language determines the meaning of the word “baptize” to be
“immerse,” but that this is its fundamental, constant, and only meaning.
The original command to baptize is therefore a command to immerse.

As evidence that quite diverse sections of the Christian world are
coming to recognize the original form of baptism to be immersion,
we may cite the fact that a memorial to the late Archbishop of
Canterbury has recently been erected in the parish church of
Lambeth, and that it is in the shape of a “font‐grave,” in which a
believer can be buried with Christ in baptism; and also that the
Rev. G. Campbell Morgan has had a baptistery constructed in the
newly renovated Westminster Congregational Church in London.

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:211—“As in the case of the Lord’s
Supper, so did Baptism also first receive its sacramental
significance through Paul. As he saw in the immersing under water
the symbolical repetition of the death and resurrection of Christ,
baptism appeared to him as the act of spiritual dying and
renovation, or regeneration, of incorporation into the mystical
body of Christ, that ’new creation.’ As for Paul the baptism of
adults only was in question, faith in Christ is already of course
presupposed by it, and baptism is just the act in which faith
realizes the decisive resolution of giving one’s self up actually
as belonging to Christ and his community. Yet the outward act is
not on that account a mere semblance of what is already present in
faith, but according to the mysticism common to Paul with the
whole ancient world, the symbolical act effectuates what it
typifies, and therefore in this case the mortification of the
carnal man and the animation of the spiritual man.” For the view
that sprinkling or pouring constitutes valid baptism, see Hall,
Mode of Baptism. _Per contra_, see Hovey, in Baptist Quarterly,
April, 1875; Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists, 85;
Carson, Noel, Judson, and Pengilly, on Baptism; especially recent
and valuable is Burrage, Act of Baptism.

B. No church has the right to modify or dispense with this command of
Christ.

This is plain:

(_a_) From the nature of the church. Notice:

First,—that, besides the local church, no other visible church of Christ
is known to the New Testament. Secondly,—that the local church is not a
legislative, but is simply an executive, body. Only the authority which
originally imposed its laws can amend or abrogate them. Thirdly,—that the
local church cannot delegate to any organization or council of churches
any power which it does not itself rightfully possess. Fourthly,—that the
opposite principle puts the church above the Scriptures and above Christ,
and would sanction all the usurpations of Rome.

_Mat. 5:19_—“_Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the
kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven_”; _cf._ _2 Sam.
6:7_—“_And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzzah; and God
smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of
God._” Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part I, 2:4—“Faith, I have been a
truant in the law, And never yet could frame my will to it, And
therefore frame the law unto my will.” As at the Reformation
believers rejoiced to restore communion in both kinds, so we
should rejoice to restore baptism as to its subjects and as to its
meaning. To administer it to a wailing and resisting infant, or to
administer it in any other form than that prescribed by Jesus’
command and example, is to desecrate and destroy the ordinance.

(_b_) From the nature of God’s command:

First,—as forming a part, not only of the law, but of the fundamental law,
of the church of Christ. The power claimed for a church to change it is
not only legislative but constitutional. Secondly,—as expressing the
wisdom of the Lawgiver. Power to change the command can be claimed for the
church, only on the ground that Christ has failed to adapt the ordinance
to changing circumstances, and has made obedience to it unnecessarily
difficult and humiliating. Thirdly,—as providing in immersion the only
adequate symbol of those saving truths of the gospel which both of the
ordinances have it for their office to set forth, and without which they
become empty ceremonies and forms. In other words, the church has no right
to change the method of administering the ordinance, because such a change
vacates the ordinance of its essential meaning. As this argument, however,
is of such vital importance, we present it more fully in a special
discussion of the Symbolism of Baptism.

Abraham Lincoln, in his debates with Douglas, ridiculed the idea
that there could be any constitutional way of violating the
Constitution. F. L. Anderson: “In human governments we change the
constitution to conform to the will of the people; in the divine
government we change the will of the people to conform to the
Constitution.” For advocacy of the church’s right to modify the
form of an ordinance, see Coleridge, Aids to Reflection, in Works,
1:333‐348—“Where a ceremony answered, and was intended to answer,
several purposes which at its first institution were blended in
respect of the time, but which afterward, by change of
circumstances, were necessarily disunited, then either the church
hath no power or authority delegated to her, or she must be
authorized to choose and determine to which of the several
purposes the ceremony should be attached.” Baptism, for example,
at the first symbolized not only entrance into the church of
Christ, but personal faith in him as Savior and Lord. It is
assumed that entrance into the church and personal faith are now
necessarily disunited. Since baptism is in charge of the church,
she can attach baptism to the former, and not to the latter.

We of course deny that the separation of baptism from faith is
ever necessary. We maintain, on the contrary, that thus to
separate the two is to pervert the ordinance, and to make it teach
the doctrine of hereditary church membership and salvation by
outward manipulation apart from faith. We say with Dean Stanley
(on Baptism, in the Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1879), though not, as
he does, with approval, that the change in the method of
administering the ordinance shows “how the spirit that lives and
moves in human society can override the most sacred ordinances.”
We cannot with him call this spirit “the free spirit of
Christianity,”—we regard it rather as an evil spirit of
disobedience and unbelief. “Baptists are therefore pledged to
prosecute the work of the Reformation until the church shall
return to the simple forms it possessed under the apostles” (G. M.
Stone). See Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 234‐245.

_Objections_: 1. Immersion is often impracticable.—We reply that,
when really impracticable, it is no longer a duty. Where the will
to obey is present, but providential circumstances render outward
obedience impossible, Christ takes the will for the deed.

2. It is often dangerous to health and life.—We reply that, when
it is really dangerous, it is no longer a duty. But then, we have
no warrant for substituting another act for that which Christ has
commanded. Duty demands simple delay until it can be administered
with safety. It must be remembered that ardent feeling nerves even
the body. “Brethren, if your hearts be warm, Ice and snow can do
no harm.” The cold climate of Russia does not prevent the
universal practice of immersion by the Greek church of that
country.

3. It is indecent.—We reply, that there is need of care to prevent
exposure, but that with this care there is no indecency, more than
in fashionable sea‐bathing. The argument is valid only against a
careless administration of the ordinance, not against immersion
itself.

4. It is inconvenient.—We reply that, in a matter of obedience to
Christ, we are not to consult convenience. The ordinance which
symbolizes his sacrificial death, and our spiritual death with
him, may naturally involve something of inconvenience, but joy in
submitting to that inconvenience will be a test of the spirit of
obedience. When the act is performed, it should be performed as
Christ enjoined.

5. Other methods of administration have been blessed to those who
submitted to them.—We reply that God has often condescended to
human ignorance, and has given his Spirit to those who honestly
sought to serve him, even by erroneous forms, such as the Mass.
This, however, is not to be taken as a divine sanction of the
error, much less as a warrant for the perpetuation of a false
system on the part of those who know that it is a violation of
Christ’s commands. It is, in great part, the position of its
advocates, as representatives of Christ and his church, that gives
to this false system its power for evil.

3. The Symbolism of Baptism.

Baptism symbolizes the previous entrance of the believer into the
communion of Christ’s death and resurrection,—or, in other words,
regeneration through union with Christ.

A. Expansion of this statement as to the symbolism of baptism.

Baptism, more particularly, is a symbol:

(_a_) Of the death and resurrection of Christ.

_Rom. 6:3_—“_Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?_” _cf._ _Mat
3:13_—“_Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to
be baptized of him_”; _Mark 10:38_—“_Are ye able to drink the cup
that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am
baptized with?_”; _Luke 12:50_—“_But I have a baptism to be
baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_”
_Col. 2:12_—“_buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also
raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised
him from the dead._” For the meaning of these passages, see note
on the baptism of Jesus, under B. (_a_), pages 942, 943.

Denney, in Expositor’s Greek Testament, on _Rom. 6:3‐5_—“The
argumentative requirements of the passage ... demand the idea of
an actual union to, or incorporation in Christ.... We were buried
with him [in the act of immersion] through that baptism into his
death.... If the baptism, _which is a similitude of Christ’s
death_, has had a reality answering to its obvious import, so that
we have really died in it as Christ died, then we shall have a
corresponding experience of resurrection. Baptism, inasmuch as one
emerges from the water after being immersed, is a similitude of
resurrection as well as of death.”

(_b_) Of the purpose of that death and resurrection,—namely, to atone for
sin, and to deliver sinners from its penalty and power.

_Rom. 6:4_—“_We were buried therefore with him through baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of
life_”; _cf._ _7, 10, 11_—“_for he that hath died is justified
from sin.... For the death that he died, he died unto sin once:
but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye
also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ
Jesus_”; _2 Cor. 5:14_—“_we thus judge, that one died for all,
therefore all died._” Baptism is therefore a confession of
evangelical faith both as to sin, and as to the deity and
atonement of Christ. No one is properly a Baptist who does not
acknowledge these truths which baptism signifies.

T. W. Chambers, in Presb. and Ref. Rev., Jan. 1890:113‐118,
objects that this view of the symbolism of baptism is based on two
texts, _Rom. 6:4_ and _Col. 2:12_, which are illustrative and not
explanatory, while the great majority of passages make baptism
only an act of purification. Yet Dr. Chambers concedes: “It is to
be admitted that nearly all modern critical expositors (Meyer,
Godet, Alford, Conybeare, Lightfoot, Beet) consider that there is
a reference here [in _Rom. 6:4_] to the act of baptism, which, as
the Bishop of Durham says, ‘is the grave of the old man and the
birth of the new—an image of the believer’s participation both in
the death and in the resurrection of Christ.... As he sinks
beneath the baptismal waters, the believer buries there all his
corrupt affections and past sins; as he emerges thence, he rises
regenerate, quickened to new hopes and a new life.’ ”

(_c_) Of the accomplishment of that purpose in the person baptized,—who
thus professes his death to sin and resurrection to spiritual life.

_Gal. 3:27_—“_For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did
put on Christ_”; _1 Pet. 3:21_—“_which_ [water] _also after a true
likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of
the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience
toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ_”; _cf._
_Gal. 2:19, 20_—“_For I through the law died unto the law, that I
might live unto God. I have been crucified with Christ; and it is
no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that life
which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is
in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me_”;
_Col. 3:3_—“_For ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in
God._”

C. H. M.: “A truly baptized person is one who has passed from the
old world into the new.... The water rolls over his person,
signifying that his place in nature is ignored, that his old
nature is entirely set aside, in short, that he is a dead man,
that the flesh with all that pertained thereto—its sins and its
liabilities—is buried in the grave of Christ and can never come
into God’s sight again.... When the believer rises up from the
water, expression is given to the truth that he comes up as the
possessor of a new life, even the resurrection life of Christ, to
which divine righteousness inseparably attaches.”

(_d_) Of the method in which that purpose is accomplished,—by union with
Christ, receiving him and giving one’s self to him by faith.

_Rom. 6:5_—“_For if we have become united_ [σύμφυτοι] _with him in
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection_”—σύμφυτοι, or συμπεφυκώς, is used of the man and the
horse as grown together in the Centaur, by Lucian, Dial. Mort.,
16:4, and by Xenophon, Cyrop., 4:3:18. _Col. 2:12_—“_having been
buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him
through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the
dead._” Dr. N. S. Burton: “The oneness of the believer and Christ
is expressed by the fact that the one act of immersion sets forth
the death and resurrection of both Christ and the believer.” As
the voluntary element in faith has two parts, a giving and a
taking, so baptism illustrates both. Submergence = surrender to
Christ; emergence = reception of Christ; see page 839, (_b_).
“_Putting on Christ_” (_Gal. 3:27_) is the burying of the old life
and the rising to a new. _Cf._ the active and the passive
obedience of Christ (pages 749, 770), the two elements of
justification (pages 854‐859), the two aspects of formal worship
(page 23), the two divisions of the Lord’s Prayer.

William Ashmore holds that incorporation into Christ is the root
idea of baptism, union with Christ’s death and resurrection being
only a part of it. We are “_baptized into Christ_” (_Rom. 6:3_),
as the Israelites were “_baptized into Moses_” (_1 Cor. 10:2_). As
baptism symbolizes the incorporation of the believer into Christ,
so the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the incorporation of Christ into
the believer. We go down into the water, but the bread goes down
into us. We are “_in Christ_,” and Christ is “_in us_.” The
candidate does not baptize himself, but puts himself wholly into
the hands of the administrator. This seems symbolic of his
committing himself entirely to Christ, of whom the administrator
is the representative. Similarly in the Lord’s Supper, it is
Christ who through his representative distributes the emblems of
his death and life.

E. G. Robinson regarded baptism as implying: 1. death to sin; 2.
resurrection to new life in Christ; 3. entire surrender of
ourselves to the authority of the triune God. Baptism “_into the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit_” (_Mat
28:19_) cannot imply supreme allegiance to the Father, and only
subordinate allegiance to the Son. Baptism therefore is an
assumption of supreme allegiance to Jesus Christ. N. E. Wood, in
The Watchman, Dec. 3, 1896, 15—“Calvinism has its five points; but
Baptists have also their own five points: the Trinity, the
Atonement, Regeneration, Baptism, and an inspired Bible. All other
doctrines gather round these.”

(_e_) Of the consequent union of all believers in Christ.

_Eph. 4:5_—“_one Lord, one faith, one baptism_”; _1 Cor.
12:13_—“_For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body,
whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to
drink of one Spirit_”; _cf._ _10:3, 4_—“_and did all eat the same
spiritual food; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for
they drank of a spiritual rock that followed them: and the rock
was Christ._”

In _Eph. 4:5_, it is noticeable that, not the Lord’s Supper, but
baptism, is referred to as the symbol of Christian unity. A. H.
Strong, Cleveland Sermon, 1904—“Our fathers lived in a day when
simple faith was subject to serious disabilities. The
establishments frowned upon dissent and visited it with pains and
penalties. It is no wonder that believers in the New Testament
doctrine and polity felt that they must come out from what they
regarded as an apostate church. They could have no sympathy with
those who held back the truth in unrighteousness and persecuted
the saints of God. But our doctrine has leavened all Christendom.
Scholarship is on the side of immersion. Infant baptism is on the
decline. The churches that once opposed us now compliment us on
our stedfastness in the faith and on our missionary zeal. There is
a growing spirituality in these churches, which prompts them to
extend to us hands of fellowship. And there is a growing sense
among us that the kingdom of Christ is wider than our own
membership, and that loyalty to our Lord requires us to recognize
his presence and blessing even in bodies which we do not regard as
organized in complete accordance with the New Testament model.
Faith in the larger Christ is bringing us out from our
denominational isolation into an inspiring recognition of our
oneness with the universal church of God throughout the world.”

(_f_) Of the death and resurrection of the body,—which will complete the
work of Christ in us, and which Christ’s death and resurrection assure to
all his members.

_1 Cor. 15:12, 22_—“_Now if Christ is preached that he hath been
raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no
resurrection of the dead?... For as in Adam all die, so also in
Christ shall all be made alive._” In the Scripture passages quoted
above, we add to the argument from the meaning of the word βαπτίζω
the argument from the meaning of the ordinance. Luther wrote, in
his Babylonish Captivity of the Church, section 103 (English
translation in Wace and Buchheim, First Principles of the
Reformation, 192): “Baptism is a sign both of death and
resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that
are baptized to be altogether dipped into the water, as the word
means and the mystery signifies.” See Calvin on _Acts 8:38_;
Conybeare and Howson on _Rom. 6:4_; Boardman, in Madison Avenue
Lectures, 115‐135.

B. Inferences from the passages referred to.

(_a_) The central truth set forth by baptism is the death and resurrection
of Christ,—and our own death and resurrection only as connected with that.

The baptism of Jesus in Jordan, equally with the subsequent
baptism of his followers, was a symbol of his death. It was his
death which he had in mind, when he said: “_Are ye able to drink
the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am
baptized with?_” (_Mark 10:38_); “_But I have a baptism to be
baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!_”
(_Luke 12:50_). The being immersed and overwhelmed in waters is a
frequent metaphor in all languages to express the rush of
successive troubles; compare _Ps. 69:2_—“_I am come into deep
waters, where the floods overflow me_”; _42:7_—“_All thy waves and
thy billows are gone over me_”; _124:4, 5_—“_Then the waters had
overwhelmed us, The stream had gone over our soul; Then the proud
waters had gone over our soul._”

So the suffering, death, and burial, which were before our Lord,
presented themselves to his mind as a baptism, because the very
idea of baptism was that of a complete submersion under the floods
of waters. Death was not to be poured upon Christ,—it was no mere
sprinkling of suffering which he was to endure, but a sinking into
the mighty waters, and a being overwhelmed by them. It was the
giving of himself to this, which he symbolized by his baptism in
Jordan. That act was not arbitrary, or formal, or ritual. It was a
public consecration, a consecration to death, to death for the
sins of the world. It expressed the essential nature and meaning
of his earthly work: the baptism of water at the beginning of his
ministry consciously and designedly prefigured the baptism of
death with which that ministry was to close.

Jesus’ submission to John’s baptism of repentance, the rite that
belonged only to sinners, can be explained only upon the ground
that he was “_made to be sin on our behalf_” (_2 Cor. 5:21_). He
had taken our nature upon him, without its hereditary corruption
indeed, but with all its hereditary guilt, that he might redeem
that nature and reunite it to God. As one with humanity, he had in
his unconscious childhood submitted to the rites of circumcision,
purification, and legal redemption (_Luke 2:21‐24_; _cf._ _Ex.
13:2, 13_; see Lange, Alford, Webster and Wilkinson on _Luke
2:24_)—all of them rites appointed for sinners. “_Made in the
likeness of men_” (_Phil. 2:7_), “_the likeness of sinful flesh_”
(_Rom. 8:3_), he was “_to put away sin by the sacrifice of
himself_” (_Heb. 9:26_).

In his baptism, therefore, he could say, “_Thus it becometh us to
fulfil all righteousness_” (_Mat. 3:15_) because only through the
final baptism of suffering and death, which this baptism in water
foreshadowed, could he “_make an end of sins_” and “_bring in
everlasting righteousness_” (_Dan. 9:24_) to the condemned and
ruined world. He could not be “_the Lord our Righteousness_”
(_Jer. 23:6_) except by first suffering the death due to the
nature he had assumed, thereby delivering it from its guilt and
perfecting it forever. All this was indicated in that act by which
he was first “_made manifest to Israel_” (_John 1:31_). In his
baptism in Jordan, he was buried in the likeness of his coming
death, and raised in the likeness of his coming resurrection. _1
John 5:6_—“_This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus
Christ; not in the water only, but in the water and in the blood_”
= in the baptism of water at the beginning of his ministry, and in
the baptism of blood with which that ministry was to close.

As that baptism pointed forward to Jesus’ death, so our baptism
points backward to the same, as the centre and substance of his
redeeming work, the one death by which we live. We who are
“_baptized into Christ_” are “_baptized into his death_” (_Rom.
6:3_), that is, into spiritual communion and participation in that
death which he died for our salvation; in short, in baptism we
declare in symbol that his death has become ours. On the Baptism
of Jesus, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion, 226‐237.

(_b_) The correlative truth of the believer’s death and resurrection, set
forth in baptism, implies, first,—confession of sin and humiliation on
account of it, as deserving of death; secondly,—declaration of Christ’s
death for sin, and of the believer’s acceptance of Christ’s
substitutionary work; thirdly,—acknowledgment that the soul has become
partaker of Christ’s life, and now lives only in and for him.

A false mode of administering the ordinance has so obscured the
meaning of baptism that it has to multitudes lost all reference to
the death of Christ, and the Lord’s Supper is assumed to be the
only ordinance which is intended to remind us of the atoning
sacrifice to which we owe our salvation. For evidence of this, see
the remarks of President Woolsey in the Sunday School Times:
“Baptism it [the Christian religion] could share in with the
doctrine of John the Baptist, and if a similar rite had existed
under the Jewish law, it would have been regarded as appropriate
to a religion which inculcated renunciation of sin and purity of
heart and life. But [in the Lord’s Supper] we go beyond the
province of baptism to the very _penetrale_ of the gospel, to the
efficacy and meaning of Christ’s death.”

Baptism should be a public act. We cannot afford to relegate it to
a corner, or to celebrate it in private, as some professedly
Baptist churches of England are said to do. Like marriage, the
essence of it is the joining of ourselves to another before the
world. In baptism we merge ourselves in Christ, before God and
angels and men. The Mohammedan stands five times a day, and prays
with his face toward Mecca, caring not who sees him. _Luke
12:8_—“_Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the
Son of man also confess before the angels of God._”

(_c_) Baptism symbolizes purification, but purification in a peculiar and
divine way,—namely, through the death of Christ and the entrance of the
soul into communion with that death. The radical defect of sprinkling or
pouring as a mode of administering the ordinance, is that it does not
point to Christ’s death as the procuring cause of our purification.

It is a grievous thing to say by symbol, as those do say who
practice sprinkling in place of immersion, that a man may
regenerate himself, or, if not this, yet that his regeneration may
take place without connection with Christ’s death. Edward
Beecher’s chief argument against Baptist views is drawn from _John
3:22‐25_—“_a questioning on the part of John’s disciples with a
Jew about purifying._” Purification is made to be the essential
meaning of baptism, and the conclusion is drawn that any form
expressive of purification will answer the design of the
ordinance. But if Christ’s death is the procuring cause of our
purification, we may expect it to be symbolized in the ordinance
which declares that purification; if Christ’s death is the central
fact of Christianity, we may expect it to be symbolized in the
initiatory rite of Christianity.

(_d_) In baptism we show forth the Lord’s death as the original source of
holiness and life in our souls, just as in the Lord’s Supper we show forth
the Lord’s death as the source of all nourishment and strength after this
life of holiness has been once begun. As the Lord’s Supper symbolizes the
sanctifying power of Jesus’ death, so baptism symbolizes its regenerating
power.

The truth of Christ’s death and resurrection is a precious jewel,
and it is given us in these outward ordinances as in a casket. Let
us care for the casket lest we lose the gem. As a scarlet thread
runs through every rope and cord of the British navy, testifying
that it is the property of the Crown, so through every doctrine
and ordinance of Christianity runs the red line of Jesus’ blood.
It is their common reference to the death of Christ that binds the
two ordinances together.

(_e_) There are two reasons, therefore, why nothing but immersion will
satisfy the design of the ordinance: first,—because nothing else can
symbolize the radical nature of the change effected in regeneration—a
change from spiritual death to spiritual life; secondly,—because nothing
else can set forth the fact that this change is due to the entrance of the
soul into communion with the death and resurrection of Christ.

Christian truth is an organism. Part is bound to part, and all
together constitute one vitalized whole. To give up any single
portion of that truth is like maiming the human body. Life may
remain, but one manifestation of life has ceased. The whole body
of Christian truth has lost its symmetry and a part of its power
to save.

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:212—“In the Eleusinian mysteries,
the act of reception was represented as a regeneration, and the
hierophant appointed to the temple service had to take a
sacramental bath, out of which he proceeded as a ‘new man’ with a
new name, which signifies that, as they were wont to say, ‘the
first one was forgotten,’—that is, the old man was put off at the
same time with the old name. The parallel of this Eleusinian rite
with the thoughts which Paul has written about Baptism in the
Epistle to the Romans, and therefore from Corinth, is so striking
that a connection between the two may well be conjectured; and all
the more that even in the case of the Lord’s Supper, Paul has
brought in the comparison with the heathen festivals, in order to
give a basis for his mystical theory.”

(_f_) To substitute for baptism anything which excludes all symbolic
reference to the death of Christ, is to destroy the ordinance, just as
substituting for the broken bread and poured out wine of the communion
some form of administration which leaves out all reference to the death of
Christ would be to destroy the Lord’s Supper, and to celebrate an
ordinance of human invention.

Baptism, like the Fourth of July, the Passover, the Lord’s Supper,
is a historical monument. It witnesses to the world that Jesus
died and rose again. In celebrating it, we show forth the Lord’s
death as truly as in the celebration of the Supper. But it is more
than a historical monument. It is also a pictorial expression of
doctrine. Into it are woven all the essential truths of the
Christian scheme. It tells of the nature and penalty of sin, of
human nature delivered from sin in the person of a crucified and
risen Savior, of salvation secured for each human soul that is
united to Christ, of obedience to Christ as the way to life and
glory. Thus baptism stands from age to age as a witness for God—a
witness both to the facts and to the doctrine of Christianity. To
change the form of administering the ordinance is therefore to
strike a blow at Christianity and at Christ, and to defraud the
world of a part of God’s means of salvation. See Ebrard’s view of
Baptism, in Baptist Quarterly, 1869:257, and in Olshausen’s Com.
on N. T., 1:270, and 3:594. Also Lightfoot, Com. on _Colossians
2:20_, and _3:1_.

Ebrard: “Baptism = Death.” So Sanday, Com. on _Rom. 6_—“Immersion
= Death; Submersion = Burial (the ratification of death);
Emergence = Resurrection (the ratification of life).” William
Ashmore: “Solomon’s Temple had two monumental pillars: _Jachin_,
‘he shall establish,’ and _Boaz_, ‘in it is strength.’ In
Zechariah’s vision were two olive trees on either side of the
golden candlestick. In like manner, Christ has left two monumental
witnesses to testify concerning himself—Baptism and the Lord’s
Supper.” The lady in the street car, who had inadvertently stuck
her parasol into a man’s eye, very naturally begged his pardon.
But he replied: “It is of no consequence, madame; I have still one
eye left.” Our friends who sprinkle or pour put out one eye of the
gospel witness, break down one appointed monument of Christ’s
saving truth,—shall we be content to say that we have still one
ordinance left? At the Rappahannock one of the Federal regiments,
just because its standard was shot away, was mistaken by our own
men for a regiment of Confederates, and was subjected to a
murderous enfilading fire that decimated its ranks. Baptism and
the Lord’s Supper are the two flags of Christ’s army,—we cannot
afford to lose either one of them.

4. The Subjects of Baptism.

The proper subjects of baptism are those only who give credible evidence
that they have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit,—or, in other words,
have entered by faith into the communion of Christ’s death and
resurrection.

A. Proof that only persons giving evidence of being regenerated are proper
subjects of baptism.

(_a_) From the command and example of Christ and his apostles, which show:

First, that those only are to be baptized who have previously been made
disciples.

_Mat. 28:19_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit_”; _Acts 2:41_—“_They then that received
his word were baptized._”

Secondly, that those only are to be baptized who have previously repented
and believed.

_Mat. 3:2, 3, 6_—“_Repent ye ... make ye ready the way of the Lord
... and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing
their sins_”; _Acts 2:37, 38_—“_Now when they heard this, they
were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of
the apostles, Brethren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto
them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you_”; _8:12_—“_But
when they believed Philip preaching good tidings concerning the
kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,
both men and women_”; _18:8_—“_And Crispus, the ruler of the
synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house; and many of
the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized_”;
_19:4_—“_John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto
the people that they should believe on him that should come after
him, that is, on Jesus._”

(_b_) From the nature of the church—as a company of regenerate persons.

_John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God_”; _Rom. 6:13_—“_neither present
your members unto sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but
present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of righteousness unto God._”

(_c_) From the symbolism of the ordinance,—as declaring a previous
spiritual change in him who submits to it.

_Acts 10:47_—“_Can any man forbid the water, that these should not
be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?_”
_Rom. 6:2‐5_—“_We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live
therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried
therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we
also might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united
with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the
likeness of his resurrection_”; _Gal. 3:26, 27_—“_For ye are all
sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as
were baptized into Christ did put on Christ._”

As marriage should never be solemnized except between persons who
are already joined in heart and with whom the outward ceremony is
only the sign of an existing love, so baptism should never be
administered except in the case of those who are already joined to
Christ and who signify in the ordinance their union with him in
his death and resurrection. See Dean Stanley on Baptism, 24—“In
the apostolic age and in the three centuries which followed, it is
evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came in
full age, of their own deliberate choice. The liturgical service
of baptism was framed for full‐grown converts, and is only by
considerable adaptation applied to the case of infants”; Wayland,
Principles and Practices of Baptists, 93; Robins, in Madison
Avenue Lectures, 136‐159.

B. Inferences from the fact that only persons giving evidence of being
regenerate are proper subjects of baptism.

(_a_) Since only those who give credible evidence of regeneration are
proper subjects of baptism, baptism cannot be the means of regeneration.
It is the appointed sign, but is never the condition, of the forgiveness
of sins.

Passages like Mat. 3:11; Mark 1:4; 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Eph.
5:26; Titus 3:5; and Heb. 10:22, are to be explained as particular
instances “of the general fact that, in Scripture language, a single part
of a complex action, and even that part of it which is most obvious to the
senses, is often mentioned for the whole of it, and thus, in this case,
the whole of the solemn transaction is designated by the external symbol.”
In other words, the entire change, internal and external, spiritual and
ritual, is referred to in language belonging strictly only to the outward
aspect of it. So the other ordinance is referred to by simply naming the
visible “breaking of bread,” and the whole transaction of the ordination
of ministers is termed the “imposition of hands” (_cf._ Acts 2:42; 1 Tim.
4:14).

_Mat. 3:11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance_”;
_Mark 1:4_—“_the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins_”;
_16:16_—“_He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved_”;
_John 3:5_—“_Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of God_”—here Nicodemus, who was familiar
with John’s baptism, and with the refusal of the Sanhedrin to
recognize its claims, is told that the baptism of water, which he
suspects may be obligatory, is indeed necessary to that complete
change by which one enters outwardly, as well as inwardly, into
the kingdom of God; but he is taught also, that to “_be born of
water_” is worthless unless it is the accompaniment and sign of a
new birth of “_the Spirit_”; and therefore, in the further
statements of Christ, baptism is not alluded to; see _verses 6,
8_—“_that which is born of the Spirit is spirit ... so is every
one that is born of the Spirit._”

_Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye, and be baptized ... unto the remission of
your sins_”—on this passage see Hackett: “The phrase ‘in order to
the forgiveness of sins’ we connect naturally with both the
preceding verbs (‘_repent_’ and ‘_be baptized_’). The clause
states the motive or object which should induce them to repent and
be baptized. It enforces the entire exhortation, not one part to
the exclusion of the other”—_i. e._, they were to repent for the
remission of sins, quite as much as they were to be baptized for
the remission of sins. _Acts 22:16_—“_arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on his name_”; _Eph. 5:26_—“_that he
might sanctify it_ [the church], _having cleansed it by the
washing of water with the word_”; _Tit. 3:5_—“_according __ to his
mercy he saved as, through the washing of regeneration_ [baptism]
_and renewing of the Holy Spirit_ [the new birth]”; _Heb.
10:22_—“_having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience_
[regeneration]: _and having our body washed with pure water_
[baptism]”; _cf._ _Acts 2:42_—“_the breaking of bread_”; _1 Tim.
4:14_—“_the laying on of the hands of the presbytery._”

Dr. A. C. Kendrick: “Considering how inseparable they were in the
Christian profession—believe and be baptized, and how imperative
and absolute was the requisition upon the believer to testify his
allegiance by baptism, it could not be deemed singular that the
two should be thus united, as it were, in one complex
conception.... We have no more right to assume that the birth from
water involves the birth from the Spirit and thus do away with the
one, than to assume that the birth from the Spirit involves the
birth from water, and thus do away with the other. We have got to
have them both, each in its distinctness, in order to fulfil the
conditions of membership in the kingdom of God.” Without baptism,
faith is like the works of a clock that has no dial or hands by
which one can tell the time; or like the political belief of a man
who refuses to go to the polls and vote. Without baptism,
discipleship is ineffective and incomplete. The inward
change—regeneration by the Spirit—may have occurred, but the
outward change—Christian profession—is yet lacking.

Campbellism, however, holds that instead of regeneration preceding
baptism and expressing itself in baptism, it is completed only in
baptism, so that baptism is a means of regeneration. Alexander
Campbell: “I am bold to affirm that every one of them, who in the
belief of what the apostle spoke was immersed, did, in the very
instant in which he was put under water, receive the forgiveness
of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” But Peter commanded
that men should be baptized because they had already received the
Holy Spirit: _Acts 10:47_—“_Can any man forbid the water, that
these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as
well as we?_” Baptists baptize Christians; Disciples baptize
sinners, and in baptism think to make them Christians. With this
form of sacramentalism, Baptists are necessarily less in sympathy
than with pedobaptism or with sprinkling. The view of the
Disciples confines the divine efficiency to the word (see
quotation from Campbell on page 821). It was anticipated by Claude
Pajon, the Reformed theologian, in 1673: see Dorner, Gesch. prot.
Theologie, 448‐450. That this was not the doctrine of John the
Baptist would appear from Josephus, Ant., 18:5:2, who in speaking
of John’s baptism says: “Baptism appears acceptable to God, not in
order that those who were baptized might get free from certain
sins, but in order that the body might be sanctified, because the
soul beforehand had already been purified through righteousness.”

Disciples acknowledge no formal creed, and they differ so greatly
among themselves that we append the following statements of their
founder and of later representatives. Alexander Campbell,
Christianity Restored, 138 (in The Christian Baptist, 5:100): “In
and by the act of immersion, as soon as our bodies are put under
water, at that very instant our former or old sins are washed
away.... Immersion and regeneration are Bible names for the same
act.... It is not our faith in God’s promise of remission, but our
going down into the water, that obtains the remission of sins.” W.
E. Garrison, Alexander Campbell’s Theology, 247‐299—“Baptism, like
naturalization, is the formal oath of allegiance by which an alien
becomes a citizen. In neither case does the form in itself effect
any magical change in the subject’s disposition. In both cases a
change of opinion and of affections is presupposed, and the form
is the culmination of a process.... It is as easy for God to
forgive our sins in the act of immersion as in any other way.” All
work of the Spirit is through the word, only through sensible
means, emotions being no criterion. God is transcendent; all
authority is external, enforced only by appeal to happiness—a
thoroughly utilitarian system.

Isaac Erret is perhaps the most able of recent Disciples. In his
tract entitled “Our Position,” published by the Christian
Publishing Company, St. Louis, he says: “As to the _design_ of
baptism, we part company with Baptists, and find ourselves more at
home on the other side of the house; yet we cannot say that our
position is just the same with that of any of them. Baptists say
they baptize believers _because they are forgiven_, and they
insist that they shall have the evidence of pardon before they are
baptized. But the language used in the Scriptures declaring what
baptism is for, is so plain and unequivocal that the great
majority of Protestants as well as the Roman Catholics admit it in
their creeds to be, in some sense, for the remission of sins. The
latter, however, and many of the former, attach to it the idea of
regeneration, and insist that in baptism regeneration by the Holy
Spirit is actually conferred. Even the Westminster Confession
squints strongly in this direction, albeit its professed adherents
of the present time attempt to explain away its meaning. We are as
far from this ritualistic extreme as from the anti‐ritualism into
which the Baptists have been driven. With us, regeneration must be
so far accomplished before baptism that the subject is changed in
heart, and in faith and penitence must have yielded up his heart
to Christ—otherwise baptism is nothing but an empty form. But
_forgiveness_ is something distinct from _regeneration_.
Forgiveness is an act of the Sovereign—not a change of the
sinner’s heart; and while it is extended in view of the sinner’s
faith and repentance, it needs to be offered in a sensible and
tangible form, such that the sinner can seize it and appropriate
it with unmistakable definiteness. In baptism he _appropriates
God’s promise of forgiveness_, relying on the divine testimonies:
‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’; ‘Repent and be
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the
remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit.’ He thus lays hold of the promise of Christ and
appropriates it as his own. He does not _merit_ it, nor _procure_
it, nor _earn_ it, in being baptized; but he _appropriates_ what
the mercy of God has provided and offered in the gospel. We
therefore teach all who are baptized that, if they bring to their
baptism a heart that renounces sin and implicitly trusts the power
of Christ to save, they should rely on the Savior’s own
promise—’He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.’”

All these utterances agree in making forgiveness chronologically
distinct from regeneration, as the concluding point is distinct
from the whole. Regeneration is not entirely the work of God,—it
must be completed by man. It is not wholly a change of heart, it
is also a change in outward action. We see in this system of
thought the beginnings of sacramentalism, and we regard it as
containing the same germs of error which are more fully developed
in pedobaptist doctrine. Shakespeare represents this view in Henry
V, 1:2—“What you speak is in your conscience washed As pure as sin
with baptism”; Othello, 2:3—Desdemona could “Win the Moor—were’t
to renounce his baptism—All seals and symbols of redeemed sin.”

Dr. G. W. Lasher, in the Journal and Messenger, holds that _Mat.
3:11_—“_I indeed baptize you in water unto (εἰς) repentance_”—does
not imply that baptism effects the repentance; the baptism was
_because_ of the repentance, for John refused to baptize those who
did not give evidence of repentance before baptism. _Mat.
10:42_—“_whosoever shall give ... a cup of cold water only, in
(εἰς) the name of a disciple_”—the cup of cold water does not put
one into the name of a disciple, or make him a disciple. _Mat.
12:41_—“_The men of Nineveh ... repented at (εἰς) the preaching of
Jonah_” = because of. Dr. Lasher argues that, in all these cases,
the meaning of εἰς is “in respect to,” “with reference to.” So he
would translate _Acts 2:38_—“_Repent ye, and be baptized ... with
respect to, in reference to, the remission of sins._” This is also
the view of Meyer. He maintains that βαπτίζειν εἰς always means
“_baptize with reference to_” (_cf._ _Mat. 28:19; 1 Cor. 10:12;
Gal. 3:27; Acts 2:38; 8:16; 19:5_). We are brought through
baptism, he would say, into fellowship with his death, so that we
have a share ethically in his death, through the cessation of our
life to sin.

The better parallel, however, in our judgment, is found in _Rom.
10:10_—“_with the heart man believeth unto (εἰς) righteousness;
and with the mouth confession is made unto (εἰς)
salvation,_”—where evidently salvation is the end _to_ which works
the whole change and process, including both faith and confession.
So Broadus makes John’s “_baptism unto repentance_” mean baptism
in order to repentance, repentance including both the purpose of
the heart and the outward expression of it, or baptism in order to
complete and thorough repentance. Expositor’s Greek Testament, on
_Acts 2:38_—“_unto the remission of your sins_”: “εἰς, _unto_,
signifying the aim.” For the High Church view, see Sadler, Church
Doctrine, 41‐124. On F. W. Robertson’s view of Baptismal
Regeneration, see Gordon, in Bap. Quar., 1869:405. On the whole
matter of baptism for the remission of sins, see Gates, Baptists
and Disciples (advocating the Disciple view); Willmarth, in Bap.
Quar., 1877:1‐26 (verging toward the Disciple view); and _per
contra_, Adkins, Disciples and Baptists, booklet pub. by Am. Bap.
Pub. Society (the best brief statement of the Baptist position);
Bap. Quar., 1877:476‐489; 1872:214; Jacob, Eccl. Pol. of N. T.,
255, 256.

(_b_) As the profession of a spiritual change already wrought, baptism is
primarily the act, not of the administrator, but of the person baptized.

Upon the person newly regenerate the command of Christ first terminates;
only upon his giving evidence of the change within him does it become the
duty of the church to see that he has opportunity to follow Christ in
baptism. Since baptism is primarily the act of the convert, no lack of
qualification on the part of the administrator invalidates the baptism, so
long as the proper outward act is performed, with intent on the part of
the person baptized to express the fact of a preceding spiritual renewal
(Acts 2:37, 38).

_Acts 2:37, 38_—“_Brethren, what shall we do?... Repent ye and be
baptized._” If baptism be primarily the act of the administrator
or of the church, then invalidity in the administrator or the
church renders the ordinance itself invalid. But if baptism be
primarily the act of the person baptized—an act which it is the
church’s business simply to scrutinize and further, then nothing
but the absence of immersion, or of an intent to profess faith in
Christ, can invalidate the ordinance. It is the erroneous view
that baptism is the act of the administrator which causes the
anxiety of High Church Baptists to deduce their Baptist lineage
from regularly baptized ministers all the way back to John the
Baptist, and which induces many modern endeavors of pedobaptists
to prove that the earliest Baptists of England and the Continent
did not immerse. All these solicitudes are unnecessary. We have no
need to prove a Baptist apostolic succession. If we can derive our
doctrine and practice from the New Testament, it is all we
require.

The Council of Trent was right in its Canon: “If any one saith
that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, with the
intention of doing what the church doeth, is not true baptism, let
him be anathema.” Dr. Norman Fox: “It is no more important who
baptizes a man than who leads him to Christ.” John Spilsbury,
first pastor of the church of Particular Baptists, holding to a
limited atonement, in London, was newly baptized in 1633, on the
ground that “baptizedness is not essential to the administrator,”
and he repudiated the demand for apostolic succession, as leading
logically to the “popedom of Rome.” In 1641, immersion followed,
though two or three years before this, or in March, 1639, Roger
Williams was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman in Rhode Island.
Williams afterwards doubted its validity, thus clinging still to
the notion of apostolic succession.

(_c_) As intrusted with the administration of the ordinances, however, the
church is, on its part, to require of all candidates for baptism credible
evidence of regeneration.

This follows from the nature of the church and its duty to maintain its
own existence as an institution of Christ. The church which cannot
restrict admission into its membership to such as are like itself in
character and aims must soon cease to be a church by becoming
indistinguishable from the world. The duty of the church to gain credible
evidence of regeneration in the case of every person admitted into the
body involves its right to require of candidates, in addition to a
profession of faith with the lips, some satisfactory proof that this
profession is accompanied by change in the conduct. The kind and amount of
evidence which would have justified the reception of a candidate in times
of persecution may not now constitute a sufficient proof of change of
heart.

If an Odd Fellows’ Lodge, in order to preserve its distinct
existence, must have its own rules for admission to membership,
much more is this true of the church. The church may make its own
regulations with a view to secure credible evidence of
regeneration. Yet it is bound to demand of the candidate no more
than reasonable proof of his repentance and faith. Since the
church is to be convinced of the candidate’s fitness before it
votes to receive him to its membership, it is generally best that
the experience of the candidate should be related before the
church. Yet in extreme cases, as of sickness, the church may hear
this relation of experience through certain appointed
representatives.

Baptism is sometimes figuratively described as “the door into the
church.” The phrase is unfortunate, since if by the church is
meant the spiritual kingdom of God, then Christ is its only door;
if the local body of believers is meant, then the faith of the
candidate, the credible evidence of regeneration which he gives,
the vote of the church itself, are all, equally with baptism, the
door through which he enters. The door, in this sense, is a double
door, one part of which is his confession of faith, and the other
his baptism.

(_d_) As the outward expression of the inward change by which the believer
enters into the kingdom of God, baptism is the first, in point of time, of
all outward duties.

Regeneration and baptism, although not holding to each other the relation
of effect and cause, are both regarded in the New Testament as essential
to the restoration of man’s right relations to God and to his people. They
properly constitute parts of one whole, and are not to be unnecessarily
separated. Baptism should follow regeneration with the least possible
delay, after the candidate and the church have gained evidence that a
spiritual change has been accomplished within him. No other duty and no
other ordinance can properly precede it.

Neither the pastor nor the church should encourage the convert to
wait for others’ company before being baptized. We should aim
continually to deepen the sense of individual responsibility to
Christ, and of personal duty to obey his command of baptism just
so soon as a proper opportunity is afforded. That participation in
the Lord’s Supper cannot properly precede Baptism, will be shown
hereafter.

(_e_) Since regeneration is a work accomplished once for all, the baptism
which symbolizes this regeneration is not to be repeated.

Even where the persuasion exists, on the part of the candidate, that at
the time of baptism he was mistaken in thinking himself regenerated, the
ordinance is not to be administered again, so long as it has once been
submitted to, with honest intent, as a profession of faith in Christ. We
argue this from the absence of any reference to second baptisms in the New
Testament, and from the grave practical difficulties attending the
opposite view. In Acts 19:1‐5, we have an instance, not of rebaptism, but
of the baptism for the first time of certain persons who had been wrongly
taught with regard to the nature of John the Baptist’s doctrine, and so
had ignorantly submitted to an outward rite which had in it no reference
to Jesus Christ and expressed no faith in him as a Savior. This was not
John’s baptism, nor was it in any sense true baptism. For this reason Paul
commanded them to be “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

In the respect of not being repeated, Baptism is unlike the Lord’s
Supper, which symbolizes the continuous sustaining power of
Christ’s death, while baptism symbolizes its power to begin a new
life within the soul. In _Acts 19:1‐5_, Paul instructs the new
disciples that the real baptism of John, to which they erroneously
supposed they had submitted, was not only a baptism of repentance,
but a baptism of faith in the coming Savior. “_And when they heard
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus_”—as they
had not been before. Here there was no rebaptism, for the mere
outward submersion in water to which they had previously
submitted, with no thought of professing faith in Christ, was no
baptism at all—whether Johannine or Christian. See Brooks, in
Baptist Quarterly, April, 1867, art.: Rebaptism.

Whenever it is clear, as in many cases of Campbellite immersion,
that the candidate has gone down into the water, not with intent
to profess a previously existing faith, but in order to be
regenerated, baptism is still to be administered if the person
subsequently believes on Christ. But wherever it appears that
there was intent to profess an already existing faith and
regeneration, there should be no repetition of the immersion, even
though the ordinance has been administered by the Campbellites.

To rebaptize whenever a Christian’s faith and joy are rekindled so
that he begins to doubt the reality of his early experiences,
would, in the case of many fickle believers, require many
repetitions of the ordinance. The presumption is that, when the
profession of faith was made by baptism, there was an actual faith
which needed to be professed, and therefore that the baptism,
though followed by much unbelief and many wanderings, was a valid
one. Rebaptism, in the case of unstable Christians, tends to bring
reproach upon the ordinance itself.

(_f_) So long as the mode and the subjects are such as Christ has
enjoined, mere accessories are matters of individual judgment.

The use of natural rather than of artificial baptisteries is not to be
elevated into an essential. The formula of baptism prescribed by Christ is
“into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

_Mat. 28:19_—“_baptizing them into the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit_”; _cf._ _Acts 8:16_—“_they had
been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus_”; _Rom. 6:3_—“_Or
are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus
were baptized into his death?_” _Gal. 3:27_—“_For as many of you
as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ._” Baptism is
immersion into God, into the presence, communion, life of the
Trinity; see Com. of Clark, and of Lange, on _Mat. 28:19_; also C.
E. Smith, in Bap. Rev., 1881:305‐311. President Wayland and the
Revised Version read, “_into the name_.” _Per contra_, see Meyer
(transl., 1:281, note) on _Rom. 6:3;_ _cf._ _Mat. 10:41; 18:20_;
in all which passages, as well as in _Mat. 28:19_, he claims that
εἰς τὸ ὄνομα signifies “with reference to the name.” In _Acts
2:38_, and _10:48_, we have “_in the name_.” For the latter
translation of _Mat. 28:19_, see Conant, Notes on Mat., 171. On
the whole subject of this section, see Dagg, Church Order, 13‐73;
Ingham, Subjects of Baptism.

C. Infant Baptism.

This we reject and reprehend, for the following reasons:

(a) Infant baptism is without warrant, either express or implied, in the
Scripture.

First,—there is no express command that infants should be baptized.
Secondly,—there is no clear example of the baptism of infants.
Thirdly,—the passages held to imply infant baptism contain, when fairly
interpreted, no reference to such a practice. In Mat. 19:14, none would
have “forbidden,” if Jesus and his disciples had been in the habit of
baptizing infants. From Acts 16:15, _cf._ 40, and Acts 16:33, _cf._ 34,
Neander says that we cannot infer infant baptism. For 1 Cor. 16:15 shows
that the whole family of Stephanas, baptized by Paul, were adults (1 Cor.
1:16). It is impossible to suppose a whole heathen household baptized upon
the faith of its head. As to 1 Cor. 7:14, Jacobi calls this text “a sure
testimony against infant baptism, since Paul would certainly have referred
to the baptism of children as a proof of their holiness, if infant baptism
had been practised.” Moreover, this passage would in that case equally
teach the baptism of the unconverted husband of a believing wife. It
plainly proves that the children of Christian parents were no more
baptized and had no closer connection with the Christian church, than the
unbelieving partners of Christians.

_Mat. 19:14_—“_Suffer the little children, and forbid them not, to
come unto me: for to such belongeth the kingdom of heaven_”; _Acts
16:15_—“_And when she_ [Lydia] _was baptized, and her household_”;
_cf._ _40_—“_And they went out of the prison, and entered into the
house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they
comforted them, and departed._” _Acts 16:33_—The jailor “_was
baptized, he and all his, immediately_”; _cf._ _34_—“_And he
brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and
rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God_”; _1
Cor. 16:15_—“_ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the
firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to
minister unto the saints_”; _1:16_—“_And I baptized also the
household of Stephanas_”; _7:14_—“_For the unbelieving husband is
sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in
the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they
holy_”—here the sanctity or holiness attributed to unbelieving
members of the household is evidently that of external connection
and privilege, like that of the O. T. Israel.

Broadus, Am. Com., on _Mat. 19:14_—“No Greek Commentator mentions
infant baptism in connection with this passage, though they all
practised that rite.” Schleiermacher, Glaubenslehre, 2:383—“All
the traces of infant baptism which it has been desired to find in
the New Testament must first be put into it.” Pfleiderer,
Grundriss, 184‐187—“Infant baptism cannot be proved from the N.
T., and according to _1 Cor. 7:14_ it is antecedently improbable;
yet it was the logical consequence of the command, _Mat. 28:19_
_sq._, in which the church consciousness of the 2d century
prophetically expressed Christ’s appointment that it should be the
universal church of the nations.... Infant baptism represents one
side of the Biblical sacrament, the side of the divine grace; but
it needs to have the other side, appropriation of that grace by
personal freedom, added in confirmation.”

Dr. A. S. Crapsey, formerly an Episcopal rector in Rochester, made
the following statement in the introduction to a sermon in defence
of infant baptism: “Now in support of this custom of the church,
we can bring no express command of the word of God, no certain
warrant of holy Scripture, nor can we be at all sure that this
usage prevailed during the apostolic age. From a few obscure hints
we may conjecture that it did, but it is only conjecture after
all. It is true St. Paul baptized the household of Stephanas, of
Lydia, and of the jailor at Philippi, and in these households
there may have been little children; but we do not know that there
were, and these inferences form but a poor foundation upon which
to base any doctrine. Better say at once, and boldly, that infant
baptism is not expressly taught in holy Scripture. Not only is the
word of God silent on this subject, but those who have studied the
subject tell us that Christian writers of the very first age say
nothing about it. It is by no means sure that this custom obtained
in the church earlier than in the middle of the second or the
beginning of the third century.” Dr. C. M. Mead, in a private
letter, dated May 27, 1895—“Though a Congregationalist, I cannot
find any Scriptural authorization of pedobaptism, and I admit also
that immersion seems to have been the prevalent, if not the
universal, form of baptism at the first.”

A review of the passages held by pedobaptists to support their
views leads us to the conclusion expressed in the North British
Review, Aug. 1852:211, that infant baptism is utterly unknown to
Scripture. Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 270‐275—“Infant baptism
is not mentioned in the N. T. No instance of it is recorded there;
no allusion is made to its effects; no directions are given for
its administration.... It is not an apostolic ordinance.” See also
Neander’s view, in Kitto, Bib. Cyclop., art.: Baptism; Kendrick,
in Christian Rev., April, 1863; Curtis, Progress of Baptist
Principles, 96; Wayland, Principles and Practices of Baptists,
125; Cunningham, lect. on Baptism, in Croall Lectures for 1886.

(b) Infant baptism is expressly contradicted.

First,—by the Scriptural prerequisites of faith and repentance, as signs
of regeneration. In the great commission, Matthew speaks of baptizing
disciples, and Mark of baptizing believers; but infants are neither of
these. Secondly,—by the Scriptural symbolism of the ordinance. As we
should not bury a person before his death, so we should not symbolically
bury a person by baptism until he has in spirit died to sin. Thirdly,—by
the Scriptural constitution of the church. The church is a company of
persons whose union with one another presupposes and expresses a previous
conscious and voluntary union of each with Jesus Christ. But of this
conscious and voluntary union with Christ infants are not capable.
Fourthly,—by the Scriptural prerequisites for participation in the Lord’s
Supper. Participation in the Lord’s Supper is the right only of those who
can discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29). No reason can be assigned for
restricting to intelligent communicants the ordinance of the Supper, which
would not equally restrict to intelligent believers the ordinance of
Baptism.

Infant baptism has accordingly led in the Greek church to infant
communion. This course seems logically consistent. If baptism is
administered to unconscious babes, they should participate in the
Lord’s Supper also. But if confirmation or any intelligent
profession of faith is thought necessary before communion, why
should not such confirmation or profession be thought necessary
before baptism? On Jonathan Edwards and the Halfway Covenant, see
New Englander, Sept. 1884:601‐614; G. L. Walker, Aspects of
Religious Life of New England, 61‐82; Dexter, Congregationalism,
487, note—“It has been often intimated that President Edwards
opposed and destroyed the Halfway Covenant. He did oppose
Stoddardism, or the doctrine that the Lord’s Supper is a
converting ordinance, and that unconverted men, because they are
such, should be encouraged to partake of it.” The tendency of his
system was adverse to it; but, for all that appears in his
published writings, he could have approved and administered that
form of the Halfway Covenant then current among the churches. John
Fiske says of Jonathan Edwards’s preaching: “The prominence he
gave to spiritual conversion, or what was called ‘change of
heart,’ brought about the overthrow of the doctrine of the Halfway
Covenant. It also weakened the logical basis of infant baptism,
and led to the winning of hosts of converts by the Baptists.”

Other pedobaptist bodies than the Greek Church save part of the
truth, at the expense of consistency, by denying participation in
the Lord’s Supper to those baptized in infancy until they have
reached years of understanding and have made a public profession
of faith. Dr. Charles E. Jefferson, at the International
Congregational Council of Boston, September, 1899, urged that the
children of believers are already church members, and that as such
they are entitled, not only to baptism, but also to the Lord’s
Supper—“an assertion that started much thought”! Baptists may well
commend Congregationalists to the teaching of their own Increase
Mather, The Order of the Gospel (1700), 11—“The Congregational
Church discipline is not suited for a worldly interest or for a
formal generation of professors. It will stand or fall as
godliness in the power of it does prevail, or otherwise.... If the
begun Apostacy should proceed as fast the next thirty years as it
has done these last, surely it will come that in New England
(except the gospel itself depart with the order of it) that the
most conscientious people therein will think themselves concerned
_to gather churches out of churches_.”

How much of Judaistic externalism may linger among nominal
Christians is shown by the fact that in the Armenian Church animal
sacrifices survived, or were permitted to converted heathen
priests, in order they might not lose their livelihood. These
sacrifices continued in other regions of Christendom, particularly
in the Greek church, and Pope Gregory the Great permitted them;
see Conybeare, in Am. Jour. Theology, Jan. 1893:62‐90. In The Key
of Truth, a manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia, whose date
in its present form is between the seventh and the ninth
centuries, we have the Adoptianist view of Christ’s person, and of
the subjects and the mode of baptism: “Thus also the Lord, having
learned from the Father, proceeded to teach us to perform baptism
and all other commandments at the age of full growth and at no
other time.... For some have broken and destroyed the holy and
precious canons which by the Father Almighty were delivered to our
Lord Jesus Christ, and have trodden them underfoot with their
devilish teaching, ... baptizing those who are irrational, and
communicating the unbelieving.”

Minority is legally divided into three septennates: 1. From the
first to the seventh year, the age of complete irresponsibility,
in which the child cannot commit a crime; 2. from the seventh to
the fourteenth year, the age of partial responsibility, in which
intelligent consciousness of the consequences of actions is not
assumed to exist, but may be proved in individual instances; 3.
from the fourteenth to the twenty‐first year, the age of
discretion, in which the person is responsible for criminal
action, may choose a guardian, make a will, marry with consent of
parents, make business contracts not wholly void, but is not yet
permitted fully to assume the free man’s position in the State.
The church however is not bound by these hard and fast rules.
Wherever it has evidence of conversion and of Christian character,
it may admit to baptism and church membership, even at a very
tender age.

The rise of infant baptism in the history of the church is due to
sacramental conceptions of Christianity, so that all arguments in its
favor from the writings of the first three centuries are equally arguments
for baptismal regeneration.

Neander’s view may be found in Kitto, Cyclopædia, 1:287—“Infant
baptism was established neither by Christ nor by his apostles.
Even in later times Tertullian opposed it, the North African
church holding to the old practice.” The newly discovered Teaching
of the Apostles, which Bryennios puts at 140‐160 A.D., and
Lightfoot at 80‐110 A. D., seems to know nothing of infant
baptism.

Professor A. H. Newman, in Bap. Rev., Jan. 1884—“Infant baptism
has always gone hand in hand with State churches. It is difficult
to conceive how an ecclesiastical establishment could be
maintained without infant baptism or its equivalent. We should
think, if the facts did not show us so plainly the contrary, that
the doctrine of justification by faith alone would displace infant
baptism. But no. The _establishment_ must be maintained. The
rejection of infant baptism implies insistence upon a baptism of
believers. Only the baptized are properly members of the church.
Even adults would not all receive baptism on professed faith,
unless they were actually compelled to do so. Infant baptism must
therefore be retained as the necessary concomitant of a State
church.

“But what becomes of the justification by faith? Baptism, if it
symbolizes anything, symbolizes regeneration. It would be
ridiculous to make the symbol to forerun the fact by a series of
years. Luther saw the difficulty; but he was sufficient for the
emergency. ‘Yes,’ said he, ‘justification is by faith alone. No
outward rite, apart from faith, has any efficacy.’ Why, it was
against _opera operata_ that he was laying out all his strength.
Yet baptism is the symbol of regeneration, and baptism must be
administered to infants, or the State church falls. With an
audacity truly sublime, the great reformer declares that infants
are regenerated in connection with baptism, and that they are
_simultaneously justified by personal faith_. An infant eight days
old believe? ‘Prove the contrary if you can!’ triumphantly
ejaculates Luther, and his point is gained. If this kind of
personal faith is said to justify infants, is it wonderful that
those of maturer years learned to take a somewhat superficial view
of the faith that justifies?”

Yet Luther had written: “Whatever is without the word of God is by
that very fact against God”; see his Briefe, ed. DeWette, II:292;
J. G. Walch, De Fide in Utero. There was great discordance between
Luther as reformer, and Luther as conservative churchman. His
Catholicism, only half overcome, broke into all his views of
faith. In his early years, he stood for reason and Scripture; in
his later years he fought reason and Scripture in the supposed
interest of the church.

_Mat. 18:10_—“_See that ye despise not one of these little
ones_”—which refers not to little children but to childlike
believers, Luther adduces as a proof of infant baptism, holding
that the child is said to believe—“_little ones that believe on
me_” (_verse 6_)—because it has been circumcised and received into
the number of the elect. “And so, through baptism, children become
believers. How else could the children of Turks and Jews be
distinguished from those of Christians?” Does this involve the
notion that infants dying unbaptized are lost? To find the very
apostle of justification by faith saying that a little child
becomes a _believer_ by being baptized, is humiliating and
disheartening (so Broadus. Com. on Matthew, page 384, note).

Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:342‐345, quotes from Lang as
follows: “By mistaking and casting down the Protestant spirit
which put forth its demands on the time in Carlstadt, Zwingle, and
others, Luther made Protestantism lose its salt; he inflicted
wounds upon it from which it has not yet recovered to‐day; and the
ecclesiastical struggle of the present is just a struggle of
spiritual freedom against Lutherism.” E. G. Robinson: “Infant
baptism is a rag of Romanism. Since regeneration is always through
the truth, baptismal regeneration is an absurdity.” See Christian
Review, Jan. 1851; Neander, Church History, 1:311, 313; Coleman,
Christian Antiquities, 258‐260; Arnold, in Bap. Quarterly,
1869:32; Hovey, in Bap. Quarterly, 1871:75.

(d) The reasoning by which it is supported is unscriptural, unsound, and
dangerous in its tendency.

First,—in assuming the power of the church to modify or abrogate a command
of Christ. This has been sufficiently answered above. Secondly,—in
maintaining that infant baptism takes the place of circumcision under the
Abrahamic covenant. To this we reply that the view contradicts the New
Testament idea of the church, by making it a hereditary body, in which
fleshly birth, and not the new birth, qualifies for membership. “As the
national Israel typified the spiritual Israel, so the circumcision which
immediately followed, not preceded, natural birth, bids us baptize
children, not before, but after spiritual birth.” Thirdly,—in declaring
that baptism belongs to the infant because of an organic connection of the
child with the parent, which permits the latter to stand for the former
and to make profession of faith for it,—faith already existing germinally
in the child by virtue of this organic union, and certain for the same
reason to be developed as the child grows to maturity. “A law of organic
connection as regards character subsisting between the parent and the
child,—such a connection as induces the conviction that the character of
the one is actually included in the character of the other, as the seed is
formed in the capsule.” We object to this view that it unwarrantably
confounds the personality of the child with that of the parent;
practically ignores the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s regenerating
influences in the case of children of Christian parents; and presumes in
such children a gracious state which facts conclusively show not to exist.

What takes the place of circumcision is not baptism but
regeneration. Paul defeated the attempt to fasten circumcision on
the church, when he refused to have that rite performed on Titus.
But later Judaizers succeeded in perpetuating circumcision under
the form of infant baptism, and afterward of infant sprinkling
(McGarvey, Com. on Acts). E. G. Robinson: “Circumcision is not a
type of baptism: 1. It is purely a gratuitous assumption that it
is so. There is not a word in Scripture to authorize it; 2.
Circumcision was a national, a theocratic, and not a personal,
religious rite; 3. If circumcision be a type, why did Paul
circumcise Timothy? Why did he not explain, on an occasion so
naturally calling for it, that circumcision was replaced by
baptism?”

On the theory that baptism takes the place of circumcision, see
Pepper, Baptist Quarterly, April, 1857; Palmer, in Baptist
Quarterly, 1871:314. The Christian Church is either a natural,
_hereditary_ body, or it was merely _typified_ by the Jewish
people. In the former case, baptism belongs to all children of
Christian parents, and the church is indistinguishable from the
world. In the latter case, it belongs only to spiritual
descendants, and therefore only to true believers. “That Jewish
Christians, who of course had been circumcised, were also
baptized, and that a large number of them insisted that Gentiles
who had been baptized should also be circumcised, shows
conclusively that baptism did not take the place of
circumcision.... The notion that the family is the unit of society
is a relic of barbarism. This appears in the Roman law, which was
good for property but not for persons. It left none but a servile
station to wife or son, thus degrading society at the fountain of
family life. To gain freedom, the Roman wife had to accept a form
of marriage which opened the way for unlimited liberty of
divorce.”

Hereditary church‐membership is of the same piece with hereditary
priesthood, and both are relics of Judaism. J. J. Murphy, Nat.
Selection and Spir. Freedom, 81—“The institution of hereditary
priesthood, which was so deeply rooted in the religions of
antiquity and was adopted into Judaism, has found no place in
Christianity; there is not, I believe, any church whatever calling
itself by the name of Christ, in which the ministry is
hereditary.” Yet there is a growing disposition to find in infant
baptism the guarantee of hereditary church membership. Washington
Gladden, What is Left? 252‐254—“Solidarity of the generations
finds expression in infant baptism. Families ought to be Christian
and not individuals only. In the Society of Friends every one born
of parents belonging to the Society is a birthright member.
Children of Christian parents are heirs of the kingdom. The State
recognizes that our children are organically connected with it.
When parents are members of the State, children are not aliens.
They are not called to perform duties of citizenship until a
certain age, but the rights and privileges of citizenship are
theirs from the moment of their birth. The State is the mother of
her children; shall the church be less motherly than the State?...
Baptism does not make the child God’s child; it simply recognizes
and declares the fact.”

Another illustration of what we regard as a radically false view
is found in the sermon of Bishop Grafton of Fond du Lac, at the
consecration of Bishop Nicholson in Philadelphia: “Baptism is not
like a function in the natural order, like the coronation of a
king, an acknowledgment of what the child already is. The child,
truly God’s loved offspring by way of creation, is in baptism
translated into the new creation and incorporated into the
Incarnate One, and made his child.” Yet, as the great majority of
the inmates of our prisons and the denizens of the slums have
received this “baptism,” it appears that this “loved offspring”
very early lost its “new creation” and got “translated” in the
wrong direction. We regard infant baptism as only an ancient
example of the effort to bring in the kingdom of God by externals,
the protest against which brought Jesus to the cross. Our modern
methods of salvation by sociology and education and legislation
are under the same indictment, as crucifying the Son of God afresh
and putting him to open shame.

Prof. Moses Stuart urged that the form of baptism was immaterial,
but that the temper of heart was the thing of moment. Francis
Wayland, then a student of his, asked: “If such is the case, with
what propriety can baptism be administered to those who cannot be
supposed to exercise any temper of heart at all, and with whom the
form must be everything?”—The third theory of organic connection
of the child with its parents is elaborated by Bushnell, in his
Christian Nurture, 90‐223. _Per contra_, see Bunsen, Hippolytus
and his Times, 179, 211; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles,
262. Hezekiah’s son Manasseh was not godly; and it would be rash
to say that all the drunkard’s children are presumptively
drunkards.

(e) The lack of agreement among pedobaptists.

The lack of agreement among pedobaptists as to the warrant for infant
baptism and as to the relation of baptized infants to the church, together
with the manifest decline of the practice itself, are arguments against
it.

The propriety of infant baptism is variously argued, says Dr. Bushnell,
upon the ground of “natural innocence, inherited depravity, and federal
holiness; because of the infant’s own character, the parent’s piety, and
the church’s faith; for the reason that the child is an heir of salvation
already, and in order to make it such.... No settled opinion on infant
baptism and on Christian nurture has ever been attained to.”

Quot homines, tot sententiæ. The belated traveler in a
thunderstorm prayed for a little more light and less noise.
Bushnell, Christian Nurture, 9‐89, denies original sin, denies
that hereditary connection can make a child guilty. But he seems
to teach transmitted righteousness, or that hereditary connection
can make a child holy. He disparages “sensible experiences” and
calls them “explosive conversions.” But because we do not know the
time of conversion, shall we say that there never was a time when
the child experienced God’s grace? See Bib. Sac., 1872:665.
Bushnell said: “I don’t know what right we have to say that a
child can’t be born again before he is born the first time.” Did
not John the Baptist preach Christ before he was born? (_Luke
1:15, 41, 44_). The answer to Bushnell is simply this, that
regeneration is through the truth, and an unborn child cannot know
the truth. To disjoin regeneration from the truth, is to make it a
matter of external manipulation in which the soul is merely
passive and the whole process irrational. There is a secret work
of God in the soul, but it is always accompanied by an awakening
of the soul to perceive the truth and to accept Christ.

Are baptized infants members of the Presbyterian Church? We answer
by citing the following standards: 1. The Confession of Faith,
25:2—“The visible church ... consists of all those throughout the
world, that profess the true religion, together with their
children.” 2. The Larger Catechism, 62—“The visible church is a
society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world
do profess the true religion, and of their children.” 166—“Baptism
is not to be administered to any that are not of the visible
church ... till they profess their faith in Christ and obedience
to him: but infants descending from parents either both or but one
of them professing faith in Christ and obedience to him are in
that respect within the covenant and are to be baptized.” 3. The
Shorter Catechism, 96—“Baptism is not to be administered to any
that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith
in Christ and obedience to him: but the infants of such as are
members of the visible church are to be baptized.” 4. Form of
Government, 3—“A particular church consists of a number of
professing Christians, with their offspring.” 5. Directory for
Worship, 1—“Children born within the pale of the visible church
and dedicated to God in baptism are under the inspection and
government of the church.... When they come to years of
discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady,
and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, they
ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come
to the Lord’s Supper.”

The Maplewood Congregational Church of Malden, Mass., enrolls as
members all children baptized by the church. The relation
continues until they indicate a desire either to continue it or to
dissolve it. The list of such members is kept distinct from that
of the adults, but they are considered as members under the care
of the church. Dr. W. G. T. Shedd: “The infant of a believer is
born into the church as the infant of a citizen is born into the
State. A baptized child in adult years may renounce his baptism,
become an infidel, and join the synagogue of Satan, but until he
does this, he must be regarded as a member of the church of
Christ.”

On the Decline of Infant Baptism, see Vedder, in Baptist Review,
April, 1882:173‐189, who shows that in fifty years past the
proportion of infant baptisms to communicants in general has
decreased from one in seven to one in eleven; among the Reformed,
from one in twelve to one in twenty; among the Presbyterians, from
one in fifteen to one in thirty‐three; among the Methodists, from
one in twenty‐two to one in twenty‐nine; among the
Congregationalists, from one in fifty to one in seventy‐seven.

(f) The evil effects of infant baptism.

First,—in forestalling the voluntary act of the child baptized, and thus
practically preventing his personal obedience to Christ’s commands.

The person baptized in infancy has never performed any act with
intent to obey Christ’s command to be baptized, never has put
forth a single volition looking toward obedience to that command;
see Wilkinson, The Baptist Principle, 40‐46. Every man has the
right to choose his own wife. So every man has the right to choose
his own Savior.

Secondly,—in inducing superstitious confidence in an outward rite as
possessed of regenerating efficacy.

French parents still regard infants before baptism as only animals
(Stanley). The haste with which the minister is summoned to
baptize the dying child shows that superstition still lingers in
many an otherwise evangelical family in our own country. The
English Prayerbook declares that in baptism the infant is “made a
child of God and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” Even the
Westminster Assembly’s Catechism, 28:6, holds that grace is
actually conferred in baptism, though the efficacy of it is
delayed till riper years. Mercersburg Review: “The objective
medium or instrumental cause of regeneration is baptism. Men are
not regenerated outside the church and then brought into it for
preservation, but they are regenerated by being incorporated with
or engrafted into the church through the sacrament of baptism.”
Catholic Review: “Unbaptized, these little ones go into darkness;
but baptized, they rejoice in the presence of God forever.”

Dr. Beebe of Hamilton went after a minister to baptize his sick
child, but before he returned the child died. Reflection made him
a Baptist, and the Editor of The Examiner. Baptists unhesitatingly
permit converts to die unbaptized, showing plainly that they do
not regard baptism as essential to salvation. Baptism no more
makes one a Christian, than putting a crown on one’s head makes
him a king. Zwingle held to a symbolic interpretation of the
Lord’s Supper, but he clung to the sacramental conception of
Baptism. E. H. Johnson, Uses and Abuses of Ordinances, 33, claims
that, while baptism is not a justifying or regenerating ordinance,
it is a sanctifying ordinance,—sanctifying, in the sense of
setting apart. Yes, we reply, but only as church going and prayer
are sanctifying; the efficacy is not in the outward act but in the
spirit which accompanies it. To make it signify more is to admit
the sacramental principle.

In the Roman Catholic Church the baptism of bells and of rosaries
shows how infant baptism has induced the belief that grace can be
communicated to irrational and even material things. In Mexico
people bring caged birds, cats, rabbits, donkeys, and pigs, for
baptism. The priest kneels before the altar in prayer, reads a few
words in Latin, then sprinkles the creature with holy water. The
sprinkling is supposed to drive out any evil spirit that may have
vexed the bird or beast. In Key West, Florida, a town of 22,000
inhabitants, infant baptism has a stronger hold than anywhere else
at the South. Baptist parents had sometimes gone to the Methodist
preachers to have their children baptized. To prevent this, the
Baptist pastors established the custom of laying their hands upon
the heads of infants in the congregation, and “blessing” them, _i.
e._, asking God’s blessing to rest upon them. But this custom came
to be confounded with christening, and was called such. Now the
Baptist pastors are having a hard struggle to explain and limit
the custom which they themselves have introduced. Perverse human
nature will take advantage of even the slightest additions to N.
T. prescriptions, and will bring out of the germs of false
doctrine a fearful harvest of evil. Obsta principiis—“Resist
beginnings.”

Thirdly,—in obscuring and corrupting Christian truth with regard to the
sufficiency of Scripture, the connection of the ordinances, and the
inconsistency of an impenitent life with church‐membership.

Infant baptism in England is followed by confirmation, as a matter
of course, whether there has been any conscious abandonment of sin
or not. In Germany, a man is always understood to be a Christian
unless he expressly states to the contrary—in fact, he feels
insulted if his Christianity is questioned. At the funerals even
of infidels and debauchees the pall used may be inscribed with the
words: “Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord.” Confidence in
one’s Christianity and hopes of heaven based only on the fact of
baptism in infancy, are a great obstacle to evangelical preaching
and to the progress of true religion.

Wordsworth, The Excursion, 596, 602 (book 5)—“At the baptismal
font. And when the pure And consecrating element hath cleansed The
original stain, the child is thus received Into the second ark,
Christ’s church, with trust That he, from wrath redeemed therein
shall float Over the billows of this troublesome world To the fair
land of everlasting life.... The holy rite That lovingly consigns
the babe to the arms Of Jesus and his everlasting care.” Infant
baptism arose in the superstitious belief that there lay in the
water itself a magical efficacy for the washing away of sin, and
that apart from baptism there could be no salvation. This was and
still remains the Roman Catholic position. Father Doyle, in Anno
Domini, 2:182—“Baptism regenerates. By means of it the child is
born again into the newness of the supernatural life.” Theodore
Parker was baptized, but not till he was four years old, when his
“Oh, don’t!”—in which his biographers have found prophetic
intimation of his mature dislike for all conventional forms—was
clearly the small boy’s dislike of water on his face; see
Chadwick, Theodore Parker, 6, 7. “How do you know, my dear, that
you have been christened?” “Please, mum, ’cos I’ve got the marks
on my arm now, mum!”

Fourthly,—in destroying the church as a spiritual body, by merging it in
the nation and the world.

Ladd, Principles of Church Polity: “Unitarianism entered the
Congregational churches of New England through the breach in one
of their own avowed and most important tenets, namely, that of a
regenerate church‐membership. Formalism, indifferentism, neglect
of moral reforms, and, as both cause and results of these, an
abundance of unrenewed men and women, were the causes of their
seeming disasters in that sad epoch.” But we would add, that the
serious and alarming decline of religion which culminated in the
Unitarian movement in New England had its origin in infant
baptism. This introduced into the Church a multitude of
unregenerate persons and permitted them to determine its doctrinal
position.

W. B. Matteson: “No one practice of the church has done so much to
lower the tone of its life and to debase its standards. The first
New England churches were established by godly and regenerated
men. They received into their churches, through infant baptism,
children presumptively, but alas not actually, regenerated. The
result is well known—swift, startling, seemingly irresistible
decline. ‘The body of the rising generation,’ writes Increase
Mother, ‘is a poor perishing, inconverted, and, except the Lord
pour out his Spirit, an undone generation.’ The ‘Halfway Covenant’
was at once a token of preceding, and a cause of further, decline.
If God had not indeed poured out his Spirit in the great awakening
under Edwards, New England might well, as some feared, ‘be lost
even to New England and buried in its own ruins.’ It was the new
emphasis on personal religion—an emphasis which the Baptists of
that day largely contributed—that gave to the New England churches
a larger life and a larger usefulness. Infant baptism has never
since held quite the same place in the polity of those churches.
It has very generally declined. But it is still far from extinct,
even among evangelical Protestants. The work of Baptists is not
yet done. Baptists have always stood, but they need still to
stand, for a believing and regenerated church‐membership.”

Fifthly,—in putting into the place of Christ’s command a commandment of
men, and so admitting the essential principle of all heresy, schism, and
false religion.

There is therefore no logical halting‐place between the Baptist
and the Romanist positions. The Roman Catholic Archbishop Hughes
of New York, said well to a Presbyterian minister: “We have no
controversy with you. Our controversy is with the Baptists.” Lange
of Jena: “Would the Protestant church fulfil and attain to its
final destiny, the baptism of infants must of necessity be
abolished.” The English Judge asked the witness what his religious
belief was. Reply: “I haven’t any.” “Where do you attend church?”
“Nowhere.” “Put him down as belonging to the Church of England.”
The small child was asked where her mother was. Reply: “She has
gone to a Christian and devil meeting.” The child meant a
Christian Endeavor meeting. Some systems of doctrine and ritual,
however, answer her description, for they are a mixture of
paganism and Christianity. The greatest work favoring the doctrine
which we here condemn is Wall’s History of Infant Baptism. For the
Baptist side of the controversy see Arnold, in Madison Avenue
Lectures, 160‐182; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 274,
275; Dagg, Church Order, 144‐202.

II. The Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is that outward rite in which the assembled church eats
bread broken and drinks wine poured forth by its appointed representative,
in token of its constant dependence on the once crucified, now risen
Savior, as source of its spiritual life; or, in other words, in token of
that abiding communion of Christ’s death and resurrection through which
the life begun in regeneration is sustained and perfected.

Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 31, 33, says that the
Scripture nowhere speaks of the wine as “poured forth”; and in _1
Cor. 11:24_—“_my body which is broken for you,_” the Revised
Version omits the word “_broken_”; while on the other hand the
Gospel according to John (_19:36_) calls especial attention to the
fact that Christ’s body was _not_ broken. We reply that Jesus, in
giving his disciples the cup, did speak of his blood as “_poured
out_” (_Mark 14:24_); and it was not the body, but “_a bone of
him_,” which was not to be broken. Many ancient manuscripts add
the word “_broken_” in _1 Cor. 11:24_. On the Lord’s Supper in
general, see Weston, in Madison Avenue Lectures, 183‐195; Dagg,
Church Order, 203‐214.

1. The Lord’s Supper an ordinance instituted by Christ.

(_a_) Christ appointed an outward rite to be observed by his disciples in
remembrance of his death. It was to be observed after his death; only
after his death could it completely fulfil its purpose as a feast of
commemoration.

_Luke 22:19_—“_And be took bread, and when he had given thanks, he
brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given
for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner
after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood,
even that which is poured out for you_”; _1 Cor. 11:23‐25_—“_For I
received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that
the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread;
and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, This is my
body, which is for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like
manner also the cup, after supper, saying, This cup is the new
covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye drink it, in
remembrance of me._” Observe that this communion was Christian
communion before Christ’s death, just as John’s baptism was
Christian baptism before Christ’s death.

(_b_) From the apostolic injunction with regard to its celebration in the
church until Christ’s second coming, we infer that it was the original
intention of our Lord to institute a rite of perpetual and universal
obligation.

_1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come_”; _cf._ _Mat.
26:29_—“_But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this
fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in
my Father’s kingdom_”; _Mark 14:25_—“_Verily I say unto you, I
will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I
drink it new in the kingdom of God._” As the paschal supper
continued until Christ came the first time in the flesh, so the
Lord’s Supper is to continue until he comes the second time with
all the power and glory of God.

(_c_) The uniform practice of the N. T. churches, and the celebration of
such a rite in subsequent ages by almost all churches professing to be
Christian, is best explained upon the supposition that the Lord’s Supper
is an ordinance established by Christ himself.

_Acts 2:42_—“_And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’
teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the
prayers_”; _46_—“_And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one
accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their
food with gladness and singleness of heart_”—on the words here
translated “_at home_” (κατ᾽ οἶκον), but meaning, as Jacob
maintains, “from one worship‐room to another,” see page 961. _Acts
20:7_—“_And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered
together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”; _1 Cor.
10:16_—“_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? seeing that we, who art many, are
one bread, one body: for we all partake of the one bread._”

2. The Mode of administering the Lord’s Supper.

(_a_) The elements are bread and wine.

Although the bread which Jesus broke at the institution of the
ordinance was doubtless the unleavened bread of the Passover,
there is nothing in the symbolism of the Lord’s Supper which
necessitates the Romanist use of the wafer. Although the wine
which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary fermented juice
of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance
which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape,—obedience
to the command “_This do in remembrance of me_” (_Luke 22:19_)
requires only that we should use the “_fruit of the vine_” (_Mat.
26:29_).

Huguenots and Roman Catholics, among Parkman’s Pioneers of France
in the New World, disputed whether the sacramental bread could be
made of the meal of Indian corn. But it is only as food, that the
bread is symbolic. Dried fish is used in Greenland. The bread only
symbolizes Christ’s life and the wine only symbolizes his death.
Any food or drink may do the same. It therefore seems a very
conscientious but unnecessary literalism, when Adoniram Judson
(Life by his Son, 352) writes from Burma: “No wine to be procured
in this place, on which account we are unable to meet with the
other churches this day in partaking of the Lord’s Supper.” For
proof that Bible wines, like all other wines, are fermented, see
Presb. Rev., 1881:80‐114; 1882:78‐108, 394‐399, 586; Hovey, in
Bap. Quar. Rev., April, 1887:152‐180. _Per contra_, see Samson,
Bible Wines. On the Scripture Law of Temperance, see Presb. Rev.,
1882:287‐324.

(_b_) The communion is of both kinds,—that is, communicants are to partake
both of the bread and of the wine.

The Roman Catholic Church withholds the wine from the laity,
although it considers the whole Christ to be present under each of
the forms. Christ, however, says: “_Drink ye all of it_” (_Mat.
26:27_). To withhold the wine from any believer is disobedience to
Christ, and is too easily understood as teaching that the laity
have only a portion of the benefits of Christ’s death. Calvin: “As
to the bread, he simply said ‘_Take, eat_.’ Why does he expressly
bid them _all_ drink? And why does Mark explicitly say that ‘_they
all drank of it_’ (_Mark 14:23_)?” Bengel: Does not this suggest
that, if communion in “one kind alone were sufficient, it is the
cup which should be used? The Scripture thus speaks, foreseeing
what Rome would do.” See Expositor’s Greek Testament on _1 Cor.
11:27_. In the Greek Church the bread and wine are mingled and are
administered to communicants, not to infants only but also to
adults, with a spoon.

(_c_) The partaking of these elements is of a festal nature.

The Passover was festal in its nature. Gloom and sadness are
foreign to the spirit of the Lord’s Supper. The wine is the symbol
of the death of Christ, but of that death by which we live. It
reminds us that he drank the cup of suffering in order that we
might drink the wine of joy. As the bread is broken to sustain our
physical life, so Christ’s body was broken by thorns and nails and
spear to nourish our spiritual life.

_1 Cor. 11:29_—“_For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and
drinketh judgment onto himself, if he discern not the body._” Here
the Authorized Version wrongly had “damnation” instead of
“_judgment_.” Not eternal condemnation, but penal judgment in
general, is meant. He who partakes “_in an unworthy manner_”
(_verse 27_), _i. e._, in hypocrisy, or merely to satisfy bodily
appetites, and not discerning the body of Christ of which the
bread is the symbol (_verse 29_), draws down upon him God’s
judicial sentence. Of this judgment, the frequent sickness and
death in the church at Corinth was a token. See _verses 30‐34_,
and Meyer’s Com.; also Gould, in Am. Com. on _1 Cor.
11:27_—“_unworthily_”—“This is not to be understood as referring
to the unworthiness of the person himself to partake, but to the
unworthy manner of partaking.... The failure to recognize
practically the symbolism of the elements, and hence the treatment
of the Supper as a common meal, is just what the apostle has
pointed out as the fault of the Corinthians, and it is what he
characterizes as an unworthy eating and drinking.” The Christian
therefore should not be deterred from participation in the Lord’s
Supper by any feeling of his personal unworthiness, so long as he
trusts Christ and aims to obey him, for “All the fitness he
requireth Is to feel our need of him.”

(_d_) The communion is a festival of commemoration,—not simply bringing
Christ to our remembrance, but making proclamation of his death to the
world.

_1 Cor. 11:24, 26_—“_this do in remembrance of me.... For as often
as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s
death till he come._” As the Passover commemorated the deliverance
of Israel from Egypt, and as the Fourth of July commemorates our
birth as a nation, so the Lord’s Supper commemorates the birth of
the church in Christ’s death and resurrection. As a mother might
bid her children meet over her grave and commemorate her, so
Christ bids his people meet and remember him. But subjective
remembrance is not its only aim. It is public proclamation also.
Whether it brings perceptible blessing to us or not, it is to be
observed as a means of confessing Christ, testifying our faith,
and publishing the fact of his death to others.

(_e_) It is to be celebrated by the assembled church. It is not a solitary
observance on the part of individuals. No “showing forth” is possible
except in company.

_Acts 20:7_—“_gathered together to break bread_”; _1 Cor. 11:18,
20, 22, 33, 34_—“_when ye come together in the church ... assemble
yourselves together ... have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?
or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that have
not? ... when ye come together to eat.... If any man is hungry,
let him eat at home; that your coming together be not unto
judgment._”

Jacob, Eccl. Polity of N. T., 191‐194, claims that in _Acts
2:46_—“_breaking bread at home_”—where we have οἶκος, not οἶκία,
οἶκος is not a private house, but a “worship‐room,” and that the
phrase should be translated “breaking bread from one worship‐room
to another,” or “in various worship‐rooms.” This meaning seems
very apt in _Acts 5:42_—“_And every day, in the temple and at
home_ [rather, ‘_in various worship‐rooms_’], they ceased not to
teach and to preach Jesus as the Christ”; _8:3_—“_But Saul laid
waste the church, entering into every house_ [rather, ‘_every
worship‐room_’] _and dragging men and women committed them to
prison_”; _Rom. 16:5_—“_salute the church that is in their house_
[rather, ‘_in their worship‐room_’]”; _Titus 1:11_—“_men who
overthrow whole houses_ [rather, ‘_whole worship‐rooms_’],
_teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake._”
_Per contra_, however, see _1 Cor. 11:34_—“_let him eat at home,_”
where οἶκος is contrasted with the place of meeting; so also _1
Cor. 14:35_ and _Acts 20:20_, where οἶκος seems to mean a private
house.

The celebration of the Lord’s Supper in each family by itself is
not recognized in the New Testament. Stanley, in Nineteenth
Century, May, 1878, tells us that as infant communion is forbidden
in the Western Church, and evening communion is forbidden by the
Roman Church, so solitary communion is forbidden by the English
Church, and death‐bed communion by the Scottish Church. E. G.
Robinson: “No single individual in the New Testament ever
celebrates the Lord’s Supper by himself.” Mrs. Browning recognized
the essentially social nature of the ordinance, when she said that
truth was like the bread at the Sacrament—to be passed on. In this
the Supper gives us a type of the proper treatment of all the
goods of life, both temporal and spiritual.

Dr. Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, claims that the Lord’s
Supper is no more an exclusively church ordinance than is singing
or prayer; that the command to observe it was addressed, not to an
organized church, but only to individuals; that every meal in the
home was to be a Lord’s Supper, because Christ was remembered in
it. But we reply that Paul’s letter with regard to the abuses of
the Lord’s Supper was addressed, not to individuals, but to “_the
church of God which is at Corinth._” (_1 Cor. 1:2_). Paul reproves
the Corinthians because in the Lord’s Supper each ate without
thought of others: “_What, have ye not houses to eat and to drink
in? or despise ye the church of God, and put them to shame that
have not?_” (_11:22_). Each member having appeased his hunger at
home, the members of the church “_come together to eat_”
(_11:30_), as the spiritual body of Christ. All this shows that
the celebration of the Lord’s Supper was not an appendage to every
ordinary meal.

In _Acts 20:7_—“_upon the first day of the week, when we were
gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them_”—the
natural inference is that the Lord’s Supper was a sacred rite,
observed apart from any ordinary meal, and accompanied by
religious instruction. Dr. Fox would go back of these later
observances to the original command of our Lord. He would
eliminate all that we do not find in Mark, the earliest gospel.
But this would deprive us of the Sermon on the Mount, the parable
of the Prodigal Son, and the discourses of the fourth gospel.
McGiffert gives A. D. 52, as the date of Paul’s first letter to
the Corinthians, and this ante‐dates Mark’s gospel by at least
thirteen years. Paul’s account of the Lord’s Supper at Corinth is
therefore an earlier authority than Mark.

(_f_) The responsibility of seeing that the ordinance is properly
administered rests with the church as a body; and the pastor is, in this
matter, the proper representative and organ of the church. In cases of
extreme exigency, however, as where the church has no pastor and no
ordained minister can be secured, it is competent for the church to
appoint one from its own number to administer the ordinance.

_1 Cor. 11:2, 23_—“_Now I praise you that ye remember me in all
things, and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to
you.... For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was
betrayed took bread._” Here the responsibility of administering
the Lord’s Supper is laid upon the body of believers.

(_g_) The frequency with which the Lord’s Supper is to be administered is
not indicated either by the N. T. precept or by uniform N. T. example. We
have instances both of its daily and of its weekly observance. With
respect to this, as well as with respect to the accessories of the
ordinance, the church is to exercise a sound discretion.

_Acts 2:46_—“_And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one
accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home_ [or perhaps,
‘_in various worship‐rooms_’]”; _20:7_—“_And upon the first day of
the week, when we were gathered together to break bread._” In
1878, thirty‐nine churches of the Establishment in London held
daily communion; in two churches it was held twice each day. A few
churches of the Baptist faith in England and America celebrate the
Lord’s Supper on each Lord’s day. Carlstadt would celebrate the
Lord’s Supper only in companies of twelve, and held also that
every bishop must marry. Reclining on couches, and meeting in the
evening, are not commanded; and both, by their inconvenience,
might in modern times counteract the design of the ordinance.

3. The Symbolism of the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper sets forth, in general, the death of Christ as the
sustaining power of the believer’s life.

A. Expansion of this statement.

(_a_) It symbolizes the death of Christ for our sins.

_1 Cor. 11:26_—“_For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the
cup, ye proclaim the Lord’s death till he come_”; _cf._ _Mark
14:24_—“_This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for
many_”—the blood upon which the covenant between God and Christ,
and so between God and us who are one with Christ, from eternity
past was based. The Lord’s Supper reminds us of the covenant which
ensures our salvation, and of the atonement upon which the
covenant was based; _cf._ _Heb. 13:20_—“_blood of an eternal
covenant._”

Alex. McLaren: “The suggestion of a violent death, implied in the
_doubling_ of the symbols, by which the body is separated from
that of the blood, and still further implied in the _breaking_ of
the bread, is made prominent in the words in reference to the cup.
It symbolizes the blood of Jesus which is ‘shed.’ That shed blood
is covenant blood. By it the New Covenant, of which Jeremiah had
prophesied, one article of which was, ‘Their sins and iniquities I
will remember no more,’ is sealed and ratified, not for Israel
only but for an indefinite ‘many,’ which is really equivalent to
all. Could words more plainly declare that Christ’s death was a
sacrifice? Can we understand it, according to his own
interpretation of it, unless we see in his words here a reference
to his previous words (_Mat. 20:28_) and recognize that in
shedding his blood ‘for many,’ he ‘gave his life a ransom for
many’? The Lord’s Supper is the standing witness, voiced by Jesus
himself, that he regarded his death as the very centre of his
work, and that he regarded it not merely as a martyrdom, but as a
sacrifice by which he put away sins forever. Those who reject that
view of that death are sorely puzzled what to make of the Lord’s
Supper.”

(_b_) It symbolizes our personal appropriation of the benefits of that
death.

_1 Cor. 11:24_—“_This is my body, which is for you_”; _cf._ _1
Cor. 5:7_—“_Christ our passover is sacrificed for us_”; or R.
V.—“_our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ_”; here
it is evident not only that the showing forth of the Lord’s death
is the primary meaning of the ordinance, but that our partaking of
the benefits of that death is as clearly taught as the Israelites’
deliverance was symbolized in the paschal supper.

(_c_) It symbolizes the method of this appropriation, through union with
Christ himself.

_1 Cor. 10:16_—“_The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a
communion of_ [marg.: ‘_participation in_’] _the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not a communion of_ [marg.:
‘_participation in_’] _the body of Christ?_” Here “_is it not a
participation_” = “does it not symbolize the participation?” So
_Mat. 26:26_—“_this is my body_” = “this symbolizes my body.”

(_d_) It symbolizes the continuous dependence of the believer for all
spiritual life upon the once crucified, now living, Savior, to whom he is
thus united.

_Cf._ _John 6:53_—“_Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life
in yourselves_”—here is a statement, not with regard to the Lord’s
Supper, but with regard to spiritual union with Christ, which the
Lord’s Supper only symbolizes; see page 965, (_a_). Like Baptism,
the Lord’s Supper presupposes and implies evangelical faith,
especially faith in the Deity of Christ; not that all who partake
of it realize its full meaning, but that this participation
logically implies the five great truths of Christ’s preëxistence,
his supernatural birth, his vicarious atonement, his literal
resurrection, and his living presence with his followers. Because
Ralph Waldo Emerson perceived that the Lord’s Supper implied
Christ’s omnipresence and deity, he would no longer celebrate it,
and so broke with his church and with the ministry.

(_e_) It symbolizes the sanctification of the Christian through a
spiritual reproduction in him of the death and resurrection of the Lord.

_Rom. 8:10_—“_And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of
sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness_”; _Phil.
3:10_—“_that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection,
and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed unto his
death; if by any means I may attain unto the resurrection from the
dead._” The bread of life nourishes; but it transforms me, not I
it.

(_f_) It symbolizes the consequent union of Christians in Christ, their
head.

_1 Cor. 10:17_—“_seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one
body: for we all partake of the one bread._” The Roman Catholic
says that bread is the unity of many kernels, the wine the unity
of many berries, and all are changed into the body of Christ. We
can adopt the former part of the statement, without taking the
latter. By being united to Christ, we become united to one
another; and the Lord’s Supper, as it symbolizes our common
partaking of Christ, symbolizes also the consequent oneness of all
in whom Christ dwells. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, IX—“As
this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains, and being
gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered
together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom.”

(_g_) It symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God.

_Luke 22:18_—“_for I say unto you, I shall not drink from
henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God
shall come_”; _Mark 14:25_—“_Verily I say unto you, I will no more
drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new
in the kingdom of God_”; _Mat. 26:29_—“_But I say unto you, I
shall not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that
day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom._”

Like Baptism, which points forward to the resurrection, the Lord’s
Supper is anticipatory also. It brings before us, not simply
death, but life; not simply past sacrifice, but future glory. It
points forward to the great festival, “_the marriage supper of the
Lamb_” (_Rev. 19:9_). Dorner: “Then Christ will keep the Supper
anew with us, and the hours of highest solemnity in this life are
but a weak foretaste of the powers of the world to come.” See
Madison Avenue Lectures, 176‐216; The Lord’s Supper, a Clerical
Symposium, by Pressensé, Luthardt, and English Divines.

B. Inferences from this statement.

(_a_) The connection between the Lord’s Supper and Baptism consists in
this, that they both and equally are symbols of the death of Christ. In
Baptism, we show forth the death of Christ as the procuring cause of our
new birth into the kingdom of God. In the Lord’s Supper, we show forth the
death of Christ as the sustaining power of our spiritual life after it has
once begun. In the one, we honor the sanctifying power of the death of
Christ, as in the other we honor its regenerating power. Thus both are
parts of one whole,—setting before us Christ’s death for men in its two
great purposes and results.

If baptism symbolized purification only, there would be no point
of connection between the two ordinances. Their common reference
to the death of Christ binds the two together.

(_b_) The Lord’s Supper is to be often repeated,—as symbolizing Christ’s
constant nourishment of the soul, whose new birth was signified in
Baptism.

Yet too frequent repetition may induce superstitious confidence in
the value of communion as a mere outward form.

(_c_) The Lord’s Supper, like Baptism, is the symbol of a previous state
of grace. It has in itself no regenerating and no sanctifying power, but
is the symbol by which the relation of the believer to Christ, his
sanctifier, is vividly expressed and strongly confirmed.

We derive more help from the Lord’s Supper than from private
prayer, simply because it is an _external_ rite, impressing the
sense as well as the intellect, celebrated in company with other
believers whose faith and devotion help our own, and bringing
before us the profoundest truths of Christianity—the death of
Christ, and our union with Christ in that death.

(_d_) The blessing received from participation is therefore dependent
upon, and proportioned to, the faith of the communicant.

In observing the Lord’s Supper, we need to discern the body of the
Lord (_1 Cor. 11:29_)—that is, to recognize the spiritual meaning
of the ordinance, and the presence of Christ, who through his
deputed representatives gives to us the emblems, and who nourishes
and quickens our souls as these material things nourish and
quicken the body. The faith which thus discerns Christ is the gift
of the Holy Spirit.

(_e_) The Lord’s Supper expresses primarily the fellowship of the
believer, not with his brethren, but with Christ, his Lord.

The Lord’s Supper, like Baptism, symbolizes fellowship with the
brethren only as consequent upon, and incidental to, fellowship
with Christ. Just as we are all baptized “_into one body_” (_1
Cor. 12:13_) only by being “_baptized into Christ_” (_Rom. 6:3_),
so we commune with other believers in the Lord’s Supper, only as
we commune with Christ. Christ’s words: “_this do in remembrance
of me_” (_1 Cor. 11:24_), bid us think, not of our brethren, but
of the Lord. Baptism is not a test of personal worthiness. Nor is
the Lord’s Supper a test of personal worthiness, either our own or
that of others. It is not primarily an expression of Christian
fellowship. Nowhere in the New Testament is it called a communion
of Christians with one another. But it is called a communion of
the body and blood of Christ (_1 Cor. 10:16_)—or, in other words,
a participation in him. Hence there is not a single cup, but many:
“_divide it among yourselves_” (_Luke 22:17_). Here is warrant for
the individual communion‐cup. Most churches use more than one cup:
if more than one, why not many?

_1 Cor. 11:26_—“_as often as ye eat ... ye proclaim the Lord’s
death_”—the Lord’s Supper is a teaching ordinance, and is to be
observed, not simply for the good that comes to the communicant
and to his brethren, but for the sake of the witness which it
gives to the world that the Christ who died for its sins now lives
for its salvation. A. H. Ballard, in The Standard, Aug. 18, 1900,
on _1 Cor. 11:29_—“_eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if
he discern not the body_”—“He who eats and drinks, and does not
discern that he is redeemed by the offering of the body of Jesus
Christ once for all, eats and drinks a double condemnation,
because he does not discern the redemption which is symbolized by
the things which he eats and drinks. To turn his thought away from
that sacrificial body to the company of disciples assembled is a
grievous error—the error of all those who exalt the idea of
fellowship or communion in the celebration of the ordinance.”

The offence of a Christian brother, therefore, even if committed
against myself, should not prevent me from remembering Christ and
communing with the Savior. I could not commune at all, if I had to
vouch for the Christian character of all who sat with me. This
does not excuse the church from effort to purge its membership
from unworthy participants; it simply declares that the church’s
failure to do this does not absolve any single member of it from
his obligation to observe the Lord’s Supper. See Jacob, Eccl.
Polity of N. T., 285.

4. Erroneous views of the Lord’s Supper.

A. The Romanist view.

The Romanist view,—that the bread and wine are changed by priestly
consecration into the very body and blood of Christ; that this
consecration is a new offering of Christ’s sacrifice; and that, by a
physical partaking of the elements, the communicant receives saving grace
from God. To this doctrine of “transubstantiation” we reply:

(_a_) It rests upon a false interpretation of Scripture. In Mat. 26:26,
“this is my body” means: “this is a symbol of my body.” Since Christ was
with the disciples in visible form at the institution of the Supper, he
could not have intended them to recognize the bread as being his literal
body. “The body of Christ is present in the bread, just as it had been in
the passover lamb, of which the bread took the place” (John 6:53 contains
no reference to the Lord’s Supper, although it describes that spiritual
union with Christ which the Supper symbolizes; _cf._ 63. In 1 Cor. 10:16,
17, κοινωίαν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ is a figurative expression for the
spiritual partaking of Christ. In Mark 8:33, we are not to infer that
Peter was actually “Satan,” nor does 1 Cor. 12:12 prove that we are all
Christs. _Cf._ Gen. 41:26; 1 Cor. 10:4).

_Mat. 26:28_—“_This is my blood ... which is poured out,_” cannot
be meant to be taken literally, since Christ’s blood was not yet
shed. Hence the Douay version (Roman Catholic), without warrant,
changes the tense and reads, “which shall be shed.” At the
institution of the Supper, it is not conceivable that Christ
should hold his body in his own hands, and then break it to the
disciples. There were not two bodies there. Zwingle: “The words of
institution are not the mandatory ‘become’: they are only an
explanation of the sign.” When I point to a picture and say: “This
is George Washington,” I do not mean that the veritable body and
blood of George Washington are before me. So when a teacher points
to a map and says: “This is New York,” or when Jesus refers to
John the Baptist, and says: “_this is Elijah, that is to come_”
(_Mat. 11:14_). Jacob, The Lord’s Supper, Historically
Considered—“It originally marked, not a real presence, but a real
absence, of Christ as the Son of God made man”—that is, a real
absence of his _body_. Therefore the Supper, reminding us of his
body, is to be observed in the church “_till he come_” (_1 Cor.
11:26_).

_John 6:53_—“_Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink
his blood, ye have not life in yourselves_” must be interpreted by
_verse 63_—“_It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh
profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are
spirit, and are life._” _1 Cor. 10:16_—“_The cup of blessing which
we bless, is it not a communion of_ [marg.: ‘_participation in_’]
_the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a
communion of_ [marg. ‘_participation in_’] _the body of
Christ?_”—see Expositor’s Greek Testament, _in loco_; _Mark
8:33_—“_But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked
Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan_”; _1 Cor.
12:12_—“_For the body is one, and hath many members, and all the
members of the body, being many, are one body; so also is
Christ._” _cf._ _Gen. 41:26_—“_The seven good kine are seven
years; and the seven good ears are seven years: the dream is
one;_” _1 Cor. 10:4_—“_they drank of a spiritual rock that
followed them: and the rock was Christ._”

Queen Elizabeth: “Christ was the Word that spake it: He took the
bread and brake it; And what that Word did make it, That I believe
and take it.” Yes, we say; but what does the Lord make it? Not his
body, but only a symbol of his body. Sir Thomas More went back to
the doctrine of transubstantiation which the wisdom of his age was
almost unanimous in rejecting. In his Utopia, written to earlier
years, he had made deism the ideal religion. Extreme Romanism was
his reaction from this former extreme. Bread and wine are mere
remembrancers, as were the lamb and bitter herbs at the Passover.
The partaker is spiritually affected by the bread and wine, only
as was the pious Israelite in receiving the paschal symbols; see
Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 25, 42.

E. G. Robinson: “The greatest power in Romanism is its power of
visible representation. Ritualism is only elaborate symbolism. It
is interesting to remember that this prostration of the priest
before the consecrated wafer is no part of even original Roman
Catholicism.” Stanley, Life and Letters, 2:213—“The pope, when he
celebrates the communion, always stands in exactly the opposite
direction [to that of modern ritualists], not with his back but
with his face to the people, no doubt following the primitive
usage.” So in Raphael’s picture of the Miracle of Bolsina, the
priest is at the north end of the table, in the very attitude of a
Protestant clergyman. Pfleiderer, Philos. Religion, 2:211—“The
unity of the bread, of which each enjoys a part, represents the
unity of the body of Christ, which consists in the community of
believers. If we are to speak of a presence of the body of Christ
in the Lord’s Supper, that can only be thought of, in the sense of
Paul, as pertaining to the mystical body, _i. e._, the Christian
Community. Augustine and Zwingle, who have expressed most clearly
this meaning of the Supper, have therefore caught quite correctly
the sense of the Apostle.”

Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 40‐53—“The phrase
‘consecration of the elements’ is unwarranted. The leaven and the
mustard seed were in no way consecrated when Jesus pronounced them
symbols of divine things. The bread and wine are not arbitrarily
appointed remembrancers, they are remembrancers in their very
nature. There is no change in them. So every other loaf is a
symbol, as well as that used in the Supper. When St. Patrick held
up the shamrock as the symbol of the Trinity, he meant that every
such sprig was the same. Only the bread of the daily meal is
Christ’s body. Only the washing of dirty feet is the fulfilment of
Christ’s command. The loaf not eaten to satisfy hunger is not
Christ’s symbolic body at all.” Here we must part company with Dr.
Fox. We grant the natural fitness of the elements for which he
contends. But we hold also to a divine appointment of the bread
and wine for a special and sacred use, even as the “_bow in the
cloud_” (_Gen. 9:13_), because it was a natural emblem, was
consecrated to a special religious use.

(_b_) It contradicts the evidence of the senses, as well as of all
scientific tests that can be applied. If we cannot trust our senses as to
the unchanged material qualities of bread and wine, we cannot trust them
when they report to us the words of Christ.

Gibbon was rejoiced at the discovery that, while the real presence
is attested by only a single sense—our sight [as employed in
reading the words of Christ]—the real presence is disproved by
three of our senses, sight, touch, and taste. It is not well to
purchase faith in this dogma at the price of absolute scepticism.
Stanley, on Baptism, in his Christian Institutions, tells us that,
in the third and fourth centuries, the belief that the water of
baptism was changed into the blood of Christ was nearly as firmly
and widely fixed as the belief that the bread and wine of the
communion were changed into his flesh and blood. Döllinger: “When
I am told that I must swear to the truth of these doctrines [of
papal infallibility and apostolic succession], my feeling is just
as if I were asked to swear that two and two make five, and not
four.” Teacher: “Why did Henry VIII quarrel with the pope?”
Scholar: “Because the pope had commanded him to put away his wife
on pain of transubstantiation.” The transubstantiation of Henry
VIII is quite as rational as the transubstantiation of the bread
and wine in the Eucharist.

(_c_) It involves the denial of the completeness of Christ’s past
sacrifice, and the assumption that a human priest can repeat or add to the
atonement made by Christ once for all (Heb. 9:28—ἅπαξ προσενεχθείς). The
Lord’s Supper is never called a sacrifice, nor are altars, priests, or
consecrations ever spoken of, in the New Testament. The priests of the old
dispensation are expressly contrasted with the ministers of the new. The
former “ministered about sacred things,” _i. e._, performed sacred rites
and waited at the altar; but the latter “preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:13,
14).

_Heb. 9:28_—“_so Christ also, having been once offered_”—here ἅπαξ
means “once for all,” as in _Jude 3_—“_the faith which was once
for all delivered unto the saints_”; _1 Cor. 9:13, 14_—“_Know ye
not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the things
of the temple, and they that wait upon the altar have their
portion with the altar? Even so did the Lord ordain that they that
proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel._” Romanism
introduces a mediator between the soul and Christ, namely, bread
and wine,—and the priest besides.

Dorner, Glaubenslehre, 2:680‐687 (Syst. Doct., 4: 146‐163)—“Christ
is thought of as at a distance, and as represented only by the
priest who offers anew his sacrifice. But Protestant doctrine
holds to a perfect Christ, applying the benefits of the work which
he long ago and once for all completed upon the cross.”
Chillingworth: “Romanists hold that the validity of every
sacrament but baptism depends upon its administration by a priest;
and without priestly absolution there is no assurance of
forgiveness. But the intention of the priest is essential in
pronouncing absolution, and the intention of the bishop is
essential in consecrating the priest. How can any human being know
that these conditions are fulfilled?” In the New Testament, on the
other hand, Christ appears as the only priest, and each human soul
has direct access to him.

Norman Fox, Christ in the Daily Meal, 22—“The adherence of the
first Christians to the Mosaic law makes it plain that they did
not hold the doctrine of the modern Church of Rome that the bread
of the Supper is a sacrifice, the table an altar, and the minister
a priest. For the old altar, the old sacrifice, and the old
priesthood still remained, and were still in their view appointed
media of atonement with God. Of course they could not have
believed in two altars, two priesthoods and two contemporaneous
sets of sacrifices.” Christ is the only priest. A. A. Hodge,
Popular Lectures, 257—“The three central dangerous errors of
Romanism and Ritualism are: 1. the perpetuity of the apostolate;
2. the priestly character and offices of Christian ministers; 3.
the sacramental principle, or the depending upon sacraments, as
the essential, initial, and ordinary channels of grace.”
“Hierarchy,” says another, “is an infraction of the divine order;
it imposes the weight of an outworn symbolism on the true
vitalities of the gospel; it is a remnant rent from the shroud of
the dead past, to enwrap the limbs of the living present.”

(_d_) It destroys Christianity by externalizing it. Romanists make all
other service a mere appendage to the communion. Physical and magical
salvation is not Christianity, but is essential paganism.

Council of Trent, Session VII, On Sacraments in General, Canon IV:
“If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Testament are not
necessary to salvation, but are superfluous, and that without
them, and without the desire thereof, men attain of God, through
faith alone, the grace of justification; though all [the
sacraments] are not indeed necessary for every individual: let him
be anathema.” On Baptism, Canon IV: “If any one saith that the
baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the church
doth, is not true baptism, let him be anathema.” Baptism, in the
Romanist system, is necessary to salvation: and baptism, even
though administered by heretics, is an admission to the church.
All baptized persons who, through no fault of their own, but from
lack of knowledge or opportunity, are not connected outwardly with
the true church, though they are apparently attached to some sect,
yet in reality belong _to the soul_ of the true church. Many
belong merely _to the body_ of the Catholic church, and are
counted as its members, but do not belong _to its soul_. So says
Archbishop Lynch, of Toronto; and Pius IX extended the doctrine of
invincible ignorance, so as to cover the case of every dissentient
from the church whose life shows faith working by love.

Adoration of the Host (Latin _hostia_, victim) is a regular part
of the service of the Mass. If the Romanist view were correct that
the bread and wine were actually changed into the body and blood
of Christ, we could not call this worship idolatry. Christ’s body
in the sepulchre could not have been a proper object of worship,
but it was so after his resurrection, when it became animated with
a new and divine life. The Romanist error is that of holding that
the priest has power to transform the elements; the worship of
them follows as a natural consequence, and is none the less
idolatrous for being based upon the false assumption that the
bread and wine are really Christ’s body and blood.

The Roman Catholic system involves many absurdities, but the
central absurdity is that of making religion a matter of machinery
and outward manipulation. Dr. R. S. MacArthur calls sacramentalism
“the pipe‐line conception of grace.” There is no patent Romanist
plumbing. Dean Stanley said that John Henry Newman “made
immortality the consequence of frequent participation of the Holy
Communion.” Even Faber made game of the notion, and declared that
it “degraded celebrations to be so many breadfruit trees.” It is
this transformation of the Lord’s Supper into the Mass that turns
the church into “the Church of the Intonement.” “Cardinal
Gibbons,” it was once said, “makes his own God—the wafer.” His
error is at the root of the super‐sanctity and celibacy of the
Romanist clergy, and President Garrett forgot this when he made
out the pass on his railway for “Cardinal Gibbons and wife.” Dr.
C. H. Parkhurst: “There is no more place for an altar in a
Christian church than there is for a golden calf.” On the word
“priest” in the N. T., see Gardiner, in O. T. Student, Nov.
1889:285‐291; also Bowen, in Theol. Monthly, Nov. 1889:316‐329.
For the Romanist view, see Council of Trent, session XIII, canon
III: _per contra_, see Calvin, Institutes, 2:585‐602; C. Hebert,
The Lord’s Supper: History of Uninspired Teaching.

B. The Lutheran and High Church view.

The Lutheran and High Church view,—that the communicant, in partaking of
the consecrated elements, eats the veritable body and drinks the veritable
blood of Christ in and with the bread and wine, although the elements
themselves do not cease to be material. To this doctrine of
“consubstantiation” we object:

(_a_) That the view is not required by Scripture.—All the passages cited
in its support may be better interpreted as referring to a partaking of
the elements as symbols. If Christ’s body be ubiquitous, as this theory
holds, we partake of it at every meal, as really as at the Lord’s Supper.

(_b_) That the view is inseparable from the general sacramental system of
which it forms a part.—In imposing physical and material conditions of
receiving Christ, it contradicts the doctrine of justification only by
faith; changes the ordinance from a sign, into a means, of salvation;
involves the necessity of a sacerdotal order for the sake of properly
consecrating the elements; and logically tends to the Romanist conclusions
of ritualism and idolatry.

(_c_) That it holds each communicant to be a partaker of Christ’s
veritable body and blood, whether he be a believer or not,—the result, in
the absence of faith, being condemnation instead of salvation. Thus the
whole character of the ordinance is changed from a festival occasion to
one of mystery and fear, and the whole gospel method of salvation is
obscured.

Encyc. Britannica, art.: Luther, 15:81—“Before the peasants’ war,
Luther regarded the sacrament as a secondary matter, compared with
the right view of faith. In alarm at this war and at Carlstadt’s
mysticism, he determined to abide by the tradition of the church,
and to alter as little as possible. He could not accept
transubstantiation, and he sought a _via media_. Occam gave it to
him. According to Occam, matter can be present in two ways, first,
when it occupies a distinct place by itself, excluding every other
body, as two stones mutually exclude each other; and, secondly,
when it occupies the same space as another body at the same time.
Everything which is omnipresent must occupy the same space as
other things, else it could not be ubiquitous. Hence
consubstantiation involved no miracle. Christ’s body was in the
bread and wine naturally, and was not brought into the elements by
the priest. It brought a blessing, not because of Christ’s
presence, but because of God’s promise that this particular
presence of the body of Christ should bring blessings to the
faithful partaker.” Broadus, Am. Com. on Mat., 529—“Luther does
not say how Christ is in the bread and wine, but his followers
have compared his presence to that of heat or magnetism in iron.
But how then could this presence be in the bread and wine
separately?”

For the view here combated, see Gerhard, x: 352—“The bread, apart
from the sacrament instituted by Christ, is not the body of
Christ, and therefore it is ἀρτολατρία (bread‐worship) to adore
the bread in these solemn processions” (of the Roman Catholic
church). 397—“Faith does not belong to the substance of the
Eucharist; hence it is not the faith of him who partakes that
makes the bread a communication of the body of Christ; nor on
account of unbelief in him who partakes does the bread cease to be
a communication of the body of Christ.” See also Sadler, Church
Doctrine, 124‐199; Pusey, Tract No. 90, of the Tractarian Series;
Wilberforce, New Birth; Nevins, Mystical Presence.

_Per contra_, see Calvin, Institutes, 2:525‐584; G. P. Fisher, in
Independent, May 1, 1884—“Calvin differed from Luther, in holding
that Christ is received only by the believer. He differed from
Zwingle, in holding that Christ is truly, though spiritually,
received.” See also E. G. Robinson, in Baptist Quarterly,
1869:85‐109; Rogers, Priests and Sacraments. Consubstantiation
accounts for the doctrine of apostolic succession and for the
universal ritualism of the Lutheran Church. Bowing at the name of
Jesus, however, is not, as has been sometimes maintained, a relic
of the papal worship of the Real Presence, but is rather a
reminiscence of the fourth century, when controversies about the
person of Christ rendered orthodox Christians peculiarly anxious
to recognize Christ’s deity.

“There is no ‘corner’ in divine grace” (C. H. Parkhurst). “All
notions of a needed ‘priesthood,’ to bring us into connection with
Christ, must yield to the truth that Christ is ever with us” (E.
G. Robinson). “The priest was the conservative, the prophet the
progressive. Hence the conflict between them. Episcopalians like
the idea of a priesthood, but do not know what to do with that of
prophet.” Dr. A. J. Gordon: “Ritualism, like eczema in the human
body, is generally a symptom of a low state of the blood. As a
rule, when the church becomes secularized, it becomes ritualized,
while great revivals, pouring through the church, have almost
always burst the liturgical bands and have restored it to the
freedom of the Spirit.”

Puseyism, as defined by Pusey himself, means: “1. high thoughts of
the two sacraments; 2. high estimate of Episcopacy as God’s
ordinance; 3. high estimate of the visible church as the body
wherein we are made and continue to be members of Christ; 4.
regard for ordinances as directing our devotions and disciplining
us, such as daily public prayers, fasts and feasts; 5. regard for
the visible part of devotion, such as the decoration of the house
of God, which acts insensibly on the mind; 6. reverence for and
deference to the ancient church, instead of the reformers, as the
ultimate expounder of the meaning of our church.” Pusey declared
that he and Maurice worshiped different Gods.

5. Prerequisites to Participation in the Lord’s Supper.

A. There are prerequisites.

This we argue from the fact:

(_a_) That Christ enjoined the celebration of the Supper, not upon the
world at large, but only upon his disciples; (_b_) that the apostolic
injunctions to Christians, to separate themselves from certain of their
number, imply a limitation of the Lord’s Supper to a narrower body, even
among professed believers; (_c_) that the analogy of Baptism, as belonging
only to a specified class of persons, leads us to believe that the same is
true of the Lord’s Supper.

The analogy of Baptism to the Lord’s Supper suggests a general
survey of the connections between the two ordinances: 1. Both
ordinances symbolize primarily the death of Christ; then
secondarily our spiritual death to sin because we are one with
him; it being absurd, where there is no such union, to make our
Baptism the symbol of his death. 2. We are merged in Christ first
in Baptism; then in the Supper Christ is more and more taken into
us; Baptism = we in Christ, the Supper = Christ in us. 3. As
regeneration is instantaneous and sanctification continues in
time, so Baptism should be for once, the Lord’s Supper often; the
first single, the second frequent. 4. If one ordinance, the
Supper, requires discernment of the Lord’s body, so does the
other, the ordinance of Baptism; the subject of Baptism should
know the meaning of his act. 5. The order of the ordinances
teaches Christian doctrine, as the ordinances do; to partake of
the Lord’s Supper before being baptized is to say in symbol that
one can be sanctified without being regenerated. 6. Both
ordinances should be public, as both “show forth” the Lord’s death
and are teaching ordinances; no celebration of either one is to be
permitted in private. 7. In both the administrator does not act at
his own option, but is the organ of the church; Philip acts as
organ of the church at Jerusalem when he baptizes the eunuch. 8.
The ordinances stand by themselves, and are not to be made
appendages of other meetings or celebrations; they belong, not to
associations or conventions, but to the local church. 9. The
Lord’s Supper needs scrutiny of the communicant’s qualifications
as much as Baptism; and only the local church is the proper judge
of these qualifications. 10. We may deny the Lord’s Supper to one
whom we know to be a Christian, when he walks disorderly or
disseminates false doctrine, just as we may deny Baptism to such a
person. 11. Fencing the tables, or warning the unqualified not to
partake of the Supper, may, like instruction with regard to
Baptism, best take place before the actual administration of the
ordinance; and the pastor is not a special policeman or detective
to ferret out offences. See Expositor’s Greek Testament on _1 Cor.
10:1‐6_.

B. The prerequisites are those only which are expressly or implicitly laid
down by Christ and his apostles.

(_a_) The church, as possessing executive but not legislative power, is
charged with the duty, not of framing rules for the administering and
guarding of the ordinance, but of discovering and applying the rules given
it in the New Testament. No church has a right to establish any terms of
communion; it is responsible only for making known the terms established
by Christ and his apostles. (_b_) These terms, however, are to be
ascertained not only from the injunctions, but also from the precedents,
of the New Testament. Since the apostles were inspired, New Testament
precedent is the “common law” of the church.

English law consists mainly of precedent, that is, past decisions
of the courts. Immemorial customs may be as binding as are the
formal enactments of a legislature. It is New Testament precedent
that makes obligatory the observance of the first day, instead of
the seventh day, of the week. The common law of the church
consists, however, not of any and all customs, but only of the
customs of the apostolic church interpreted in the light of its
principles, or the customs universally binding because sanctioned
by inspired apostles. Has New Testament precedent the authority of
a divine command? Only so far, we reply, as it is an adequate,
complete and final expression of the divine life in Christ. This
we claim for the ordinances of Baptism and of the Lord’s Supper,
and for the order of these ordinances. See Proceedings of the
Baptist Congress, 1896:23.

The Mennonites, thinking to reproduce even the incidental phases
of N. T. action, have adopted: 1. the washing of feet; 2. the
marriage only of members of the same faith; 3. non‐resistance to
violence; 4. the use of the ban, and the shunning of expelled
persons; 5. refusal to take oaths; 6. the kiss of peace; 7. formal
examination of the spiritual condition of each communicant before
his participation in the Lord’s Supper; 8. the choice of officials
by lot. And they naturally break up into twelve sects, dividing
upon such points as holding all things in common; plainness of
dress, one sect repudiating buttons and using only hooks upon
their clothing, whence their nickname of Hookers; the holding of
services in private houses only; the asserted possession of the
gift of prophecy (A. S. Carman).

C. On examining the New Testament, we find that the prerequisites to
participation in the Lord’s Supper are four.

First,—Regeneration.

The Lord’s Supper is the outward expression of a life in the believer,
nourished and sustained by the life of Christ. It cannot therefore be
partaken of by one who is “dead through ... trespasses and sins.” We give
no food to a corpse. The Lord’s Supper was never offered by the apostles
to unbelievers. On the contrary, the injunction that each communicant
“examine himself” implies that faith which will enable the communicant to
“discern the Lord’s body” is a prerequisite to participation.

_1 Cor. 11:27‐29_—“_Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or
drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty
of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove
himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto
himself, if he discern not the Lord’s body._” Schaff, in his
Church History, 2:517, tells us that in the Greek Church, in the
seventh and eighth centuries, the bread was dipped in the wine,
and both elements were delivered in a spoon. See Edwards, on
Qualifications for Full Communion, in Works, 1:81.

Secondly,—Baptism.

In proof that baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper, we urge the
following considerations:

(_a_) The ordinance of baptism was instituted and administered long before
the Supper.

_Mat. 21:25_—“_The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or
from men?_”—Christ here intimates that John’s baptism had been
instituted by God before his own.

(_b_) The apostles who first celebrated it had, in all probability, been
baptized.

_Acts 1:21, 22_—“_Of the men therefore that have companied with us
all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us,
beginning from the baptism of John ... of these must one become a
witness with us of his resurrection_”; _19:4_—“_John baptized with
the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should
believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus._”

Several of the apostles were certainly disciples of John. If
Christ was baptized, much more his disciples. Jesus recognized
John’s baptism as obligatory, and it is not probable that he would
take his apostles from among those who had not submitted to it.
John the Baptist himself, the first administrator of baptism, must
have been himself unbaptized. But the twelve could fitly
administer it, because they had themselves received it at John’s
hands. See Arnold, Terms of Communion, 17.

(_c_) The command of Christ fixes the place of baptism as first in order
after discipleship.

_Mat. 28:19, 20_—“_Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I commanded you_”—here the first duty is to make
disciples, the second to baptize, the third to instruct in right
Christian living. Is it said that there is no formal command to
admit only baptized persons to the Lord’s Supper? We reply that
there is no formal command to admit only regenerate persons to
baptism. In both cases, the practice of the apostles and the
general connections of Christian doctrine are sufficient to
determine our duty.

(_d_) All the recorded cases show this to have been the order observed by
the first Christians and sanctioned by the apostles.

_Acts 2:41, 46_—“_They then that received his word were
baptized.... And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord
in the temple, and breaking bread at home_ [rather, ‘_in various
worship‐rooms_’] _they took their food with gladness and
singleness of heart_”; _8:12_—“_But when they believed Philip ...
they were baptized_”; _10:47, 48_—“_Can any man forbid the water,
that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy
Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ_”; _22:16_—“_And now why tarriest thou?
arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his
name._”

(_e_) The symbolism of the ordinances requires that baptism should precede
the Lord’s Supper. The order of the facts signified must be expressed in
the order of the ordinances which signify them; else the world is taught
that sanctification may take place without regeneration. Birth must come
before sustenance—“_nascimur_, _pascimur_.” To enjoy ceremonial
privileges, there must be ceremonial qualifications. As none but the
circumcised could eat the passover, so before eating with the Christian
family must come adoption into the Christian family.

As one must be “_born of the Spirit_” before he can experience the
sustaining influence of Christ, so he must be “_born of water_”
before he can properly be nourished by the Lord’s Supper. Neither
the unborn nor the dead can eat bread or drink wine. Only when
Christ had raised the daughter of the Jewish ruler to life, did he
say: “_Give her to eat_.” The ordinance which symbolizes
regeneration, or the impartation of new life, must precede the
ordinance which symbolizes the strengthening and perfecting of the
life already begun. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, dating
back to the second half of the second century, distinctly declares
(9:5, 10)—“Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist except those
baptized into the name of the Lord; for as regards this also the
Lord has said: ‘Give not that which is holy unto the dogs’.... The
Eucharist shall be given only to the baptized.”

(_f_) The standards of all evangelical denominations, with unimportant
exceptions, confirm the view that this is the natural interpretation of
the Scripture requirements respecting the order of the ordinances.

“The only protest of note has been made by a portion of the
English Baptists.” To these should be added the comparatively
small body of the Free Will Baptists in America. Pedobaptist
churches in general refuse full membership, office‐holding, and
the ministry, to unbaptized persons. The Presbyterian church does
not admit to the communion members of the Society of Friends. Not
one of the great evangelical denominations accepts Robert Hall’s
maxim that the only terms of communion are terms of salvation. If
individual ministers announce this principle and conform their
practice to it, it is only because they transgress the standards
of the churches to which they belong.

See Tyerman’s Oxford Methodists, preface, page vi—“Even in
Georgia, Wesley excluded dissenters from the Holy Communion, on
the ground that they had not been properly baptized; and he would
himself baptize only by immersion, unless the child or person was
in a weak state of health.” Baptist Noel gave it as his reason for
submitting to baptism, that to approach the Lord’s Supper
conscious of not being baptized would be to act contrary to all
the precedents of Scripture. See Curtis, Progress of Baptist
Principles, 304.

The dismission of Jonathan Edwards from his church at Northampton
was due to his opposing the Halfway Covenant, which admitted
unregenerate persons to the Lord’s Supper as a step on the road to
spiritual life. He objected to the doctrine that the Lord’s Supper
was “a converting ordinance.” But these very unregenerated persons
had been baptized, and he himself had baptized many of them. He
should have objected to infant baptism, as well as to the Lord’s
Supper, in the case of the unregenerate.

(_g_) The practical results of the opposite view are convincing proof that
the order here insisted on is the order of nature as well as of Scripture.
The admission of unbaptized persons to the communion tends always to, and
has frequently resulted in, the disuse of baptism itself, the obscuring of
the truth which it symbolizes, the transformation of Scripturally
constituted churches into bodies organized after methods of human
invention, and the complete destruction of both church and ordinances as
Christ originally constituted them.

Arnold, Terms of Communion, 76—The steps of departure from
Scriptural precedent have not unfrequently been the following: (1)
administration of baptism on a weekday evening, to avoid giving
offence; (2) reception, without baptism, of persons renouncing
belief in the baptism of their infancy; (3) giving up of the
Lord’s Supper as non‐essential,—to be observed or not observed by
each individual, according as he finds it useful; (4) choice of a
pastor who will not advocate Baptist views; (5) adoption of
Congregational articles of faith; (6) discipline and exclusion of
members for propagating Baptist doctrine. John Bunyan’s church,
once either an open communion church or a mixed church both of
baptized and unbaptized believers, is now a regular Congregational
body. Armitage, History of the Baptists, 482 _sq._, claims that it
was originally a Baptist church. Vedder, however, in Bap. Quar.
Rev., 1886:289, says that “The church at Bedford is proved by
indisputable documentary evidence never to have been a Baptist
church in any strict sense.” The results of the principle of open
communion are certainly seen in the Regent’s Park church in
London, where some of the deacons have never been baptized. The
doctrine that baptism is not essential to church membership is
simply the logical result of the previous practice of admitting
unbaptized persons to the communion table. If they are admitted to
the Lord’s Supper, then there is no bar to their admission to the
church. See Proceedings of the Baptist Congress, Boston, November,
1902; Curtis, Progress of Baptist Principles, 296‐298.

Thirdly,—Church membership.

(_a_) The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, observed by churches of
Christ as such. For this reason, membership in the church naturally
precedes communion. Since communion is a family rite, the participant
should first be a member of the family.

_Acts 2:46 47_—“_breaking bread at home_ [rather, ‘_in various
worship‐rooms_’]” (see Com. of Meyer); _20:7_—“_upon the first day
of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread_”; _1
Cor. 11:18, 22_—“_when ye come together in the church ... have ye
not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of
God, and put them to shame that have not?_”

(_b_) The Lord’s Supper is a symbol of church fellowship. Excommunication
implies nothing, if it does not imply exclusion from the communion. If the
Supper is simply communion of the individual with Christ, then the church
has no right to exclude any from it.

_1 Cor. 10:17_—“_we, who are many, are one bread, one body: for we
all partake of the one bread._” Though the Lord’s Supper primarily
symbolizes fellowship with Christ, it symbolizes secondarily
fellowship with the church of Christ. Not all believers in Christ
were present at the first celebration of the Supper, but only
those organized into a body—the apostles. I can invite proper
persons to my tea‐table, but that does not give them the right to
come uninvited. Each church, therefore, should invite visiting
members of sister churches to partake with it. The Lord’s Supper
is an ordinance by itself, and should not be celebrated at
conventions and associations, simply to lend dignity to something
else.

The Panpresbyterian Council at Philadelphia, in 1880, refused to
observe the Lord’s Supper together, upon the ground that the
Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed only by those who are
amenable to the discipline of the body, and therefore not to be
observed by separate church organizations acting together.
Substantially upon this ground, the Old School General Assembly
long before, being invited to unite at the Lord’s table with the
New School body with whom they had dissolved ecclesiastical
relations, declined to do so. See Curtis, Progress of Baptist
Principles, 304; Arnold, Terms of Communion, 36.

Fourthly,—An orderly walk.

Disorderly walking designates a course of life in a church member which is
contrary to the precepts of the gospel. It is a bar to participation in
the Lord’s Supper, the sign of church fellowship. With Arnold, we may
class disorderly walking under four heads:—

(_a_) Immoral conduct.

_1 Cor. 5:1‐13_—Paul commands the Corinthian church to exclude the
incestuous person: “_I wrote unto you in my epistle to have no
company with fornicators;... but now I write unto you not to keep
company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or
covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or __ an
extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.... Put away the
wicked man from among yourselves._”—Here it is evident that the
most serious forms of disorderly walking require exclusion not
only from church fellowship but from Christian fellowship as well.

(_b_) Disobedience to the commands of Christ.

_1 Cor. 14:37_—“_If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or
spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto
you, that they are the commandments of the Lord_”; _2 Thess. 3:6,
11, 15_—“_Now we command you, brethren,... that ye withdraw
yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not
after the tradition which they received of us... For we hear of
some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are
busybodies.... And if any man obeyeth not our word by this
epistle, note that man, that ye have no company with him, to the
end that he may be ashamed. And yet count him not as an enemy, but
admonish him as a brother._”—Here is exclusion from church
fellowship, and from the Lord’s Supper its sign, while yet the
offender is not excluded from Christian fellowship, but is still
counted “_a brother_.” _Versus_ G. B. Stevens, in N. Englander,
1887:40‐47.

In these passages Paul intimates that “not to walk after the
tradition received from him, not to obey the word contained in his
epistles, is the same as disobedience to the commands of Christ,
and as such involves the forfeiture of church fellowship and its
privileged tokens” (Arnold, Prerequisites to Communion, 68). Since
Baptism is a command of Christ, it follows that we cannot properly
commune with the unbaptized. To admit such to the Lord’s Supper is
to give the symbol of church fellowship to those who, in spite of
the fact that they are Christian brethren, are, though perhaps
unconsciously, violating the fundamental law of the church. To
withhold protest against plain disobedience to Christ’s commands
is to that extent to countenance such disobedience. The same
disobedience which in the church member we should denominate
disorderly walking must _a fortiori_ destroy all right to the
Lord’s Supper on the part of those who are not members of the
church.

(_c_) Heresy, or the holding and teaching of false doctrine.

_Titus 3:10_—“_A man that is heretical_ [Am. Revisers: ‘_a
factious man_’] _after a first and second admonition refuse_”; see
Ellicott, Com., _in loco_: “αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος = one who gives
rise to divisions by erroneous teaching, not necessarily of a
fundamentally heterodox nature, but of the kind just described in
_verse 9_.” _Cf._ _Acts 20:30_—“_from among your own selves shall
men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples
after them_”; _1 John 4:2, 3_—“_Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the
flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not
of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist._” B. B.
Bosworth: “Heresy, in the N. T., does not necessarily mean the
holding of erroneous opinions,—it may also mean the holding of
correct opinions in an unbrotherly or divisive spirit.” We grant
that the word “_heretical_” may also mean “_factious_”; but we
claim that false doctrine is the chief source of division, and is
therefore in itself a disqualification for participation in the
Lord’s Supper. Factiousness is an additional bar, and we treat it
under the next head of Schism.

The Panpresbyterian Council, mentioned above, refused to admit to
their body the Cumberland Presbyterians, because, though the
latter adhere to the Presbyterian form of church government, they
are Arminian in their views of the doctrines of grace. As we have
seen, on pages 940‐942, that Baptism is a confession of
evangelical faith, so here we see that the Lord’s Supper also is a
confession of evangelical faith, and that no one can properly
participate in it who denies the doctrines of sin, of the deity,
incarnation and atonement of Christ, and of justification by
faith, which the Lord’s Supper symbolizes. Such denial should
exclude from all Christian fellowship as well.

There is heresy which involves exclusion only from church
fellowship. Since pedobaptists hold and propagate false doctrine
with regard to the church and its ordinances—doctrines which
endanger the spirituality of the church, the sufficiency of the
Scriptures, and the lordship of Christ—we cannot properly admit
them to the Lord’s Supper. To admit them or to partake with them,
would be to treat falsehood as if it were truth. Arnold,
Prerequisites to Communion, 72—“Pedobaptists are guilty of
teaching that the baptized are not members of the church, or that
membership in the church is not voluntary; that there are two
sorts of baptism, one of which is a profession of faith of the
person baptized, and the other is profession of faith of another
person; that regeneration is given in and by baptism, or that the
church is composed in great part of persons who do not give, and
were never supposed to give, any evidence of regeneration; that
the church has a right to change essentially one of Christ’s
institutions, or that it is unessential whether it be observed as
he ordained it or in some other manner; that baptism may be
rightfully administered in a way which makes much of the language
in which it is described in the Scriptures wholly unsuitable and
inapplicable, and which does not at all represent the facts and
doctrines which baptism is declared in the Scriptures to
represent; that the Scriptures are not in all religious matters
the sufficient and only binding rule of faith and practice.”

(_d_) Schism, or the promotion of division and dissension in the
church.—This also requires exclusion from church fellowship, and from the
Lord’s Supper which is its appointed sign.

_Rom. 16:17_—“_Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are
causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the
doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them._” Since
pedobaptists, by their teaching and practice, draw many away from
Scripturally constituted churches,—thus dividing true believers
from each other and weakening the bodies organized after the model
of the New Testament,—it is imperative upon us to separate
ourselves from them, so far as regards that communion at the
Lord’s table which is the sign of church fellowship. Mr. Spurgeon
admits pedobaptists to commune with his church “for two or three
months.” Then they are kindly asked whether they are pleased with
the church, its preaching, doctrine, form of government, _etc._ If
they say they are pleased, they are asked if they are not disposed
to be baptized and become members? If so inclined, all is well;
but if not, they are kindly told that it is not desirable for them
to commune longer. Thus baptism is held to precede church
membership and permanent communion, although temporary communion
is permitted without it.

Arnold, Prerequisites to Communion, 80—“It may perhaps be objected
that the passages cited under the four preceding subdivisions
refer to church fellowship in a general way, without any specific
reference to the Lord’s Supper. In reply to this objection, I
would answer, in the first place, that having endeavored
previously to establish the position that the Lord’s Supper is an
ordinance to be celebrated in the church, and expressive of church
fellowship, I felt at liberty to use the passages that enjoin the
withdrawal of that fellowship as constructively enjoining
exclusion from the Communion, which is its chief token. I answer,
secondly, that the principle here assumed seems to me to pervade
the Scriptural teachings so thoroughly that it is next to
impossible to lay down _any_ Scriptural terms of communion at the
Lord’s table, except upon the admission that the ordinance is
inseparably connected with church fellowship. To treat the subject
otherwise, would be, as it appears to me, a violent putting
asunder of what the Lord has joined together. The objection
suggests an additional argument in favor of our position that the
Lord’s Supper is a _church_ ordinance.” “Who Christ’s body doth
divide, Wounds afresh the Crucified; Who Christ’s people doth
perplex, Weakens faith and comfort wrecks; Who Christ’s order doth
not see, Works in vain for unity; Who Christ’s word doth take for
guide, With the Bridegroom loves the Bride.”

D. The local church is the judge whether these prerequisites are
fulfilled.

The local church is the judge whether these prerequisites are fulfilled in
the case of persons desiring to partake of the Lord’s Supper.—This is
evident from the following considerations:

(_a_) The command to observe the ordinance was given, not to individuals,
but to a company.

(_b_) Obedience to this command is not an individual act, but is the joint
act of many.

(_c_) The regular observance of the Lord’s Supper cannot be secured, nor
the qualifications of persons desiring to participate in it be
scrutinized, unless some distinct organized body is charged with this
responsibility.

(_d_) The only organized body known to the New Testament is the local
church, and this is the only body, of any sort, competent to have charge
of the ordinances. The invisible church has no officers.

(_e_) The New Testament accounts indicate that the Lord’s Supper was
observed only at regular appointed meetings of local churches, and was
observed by these churches as regularly organized bodies.

(_f_) Since the duty of examining the qualifications of candidates for
baptism and for membership is vested in the local church and is essential
to its distinct existence, the analogy of the ordinances would lead us to
believe that the scrutiny of qualifications for participation in the
Lord’s Supper rests with the same body.

(_g_) This care that only proper persons are admitted to the ordinances
should be shown, not by open or forcible debarring of the unworthy at the
time of the celebration, but by previous public instruction of the
congregation, and, if needful in the case of persistent offenders, by
subsequent private and friendly admonition.

“What is everybody’s business is nobody’s business.” If there be
any power of effective scrutiny, it must be lodged in the local
church. The minister is not to administer the ordinance of the
Lord’s Supper at his own option, any more than the ordinance of
Baptism. He is simply the organ of the church. He is to follow the
rules of the church as to invitations and as to the mode of
celebrating the ordinance, of course instructing the church as to
the order of the New Testament. In the case of sick members who
desire to communicate, brethren may be deputed to hold a special
meeting of the church at the private house or sick room, and then
only may the pastor officiate. If an invitation to the Communion
is given, it may well be in the following form: “Members in good
standing of other churches of like faith and practice are
cordially invited to partake with us.” But since the comity of
Baptist churches is universally acknowledged, and since Baptist
views with regard to the ordinances are so generally understood,
it should be taken for granted that all proper persons will be
welcome even if no invitation of any sort is given.

Mr. Spurgeon, as we have seen, permitted unbaptized persons
temporarily to partake of the Lord’s Supper unchallenged, but if
there appeared a disposition to make participation habitual, one
of the deacons in a private interview explained Baptist doctrine
and urged the duty of baptism. If this advice was not taken,
participation in the Lord’s Supper naturally ceased. Dr. P. S.
Henson proposes a middle path between open and close communion, as
follows: “Preach and urge faith in Jesus and obedience to him.
Leave choice with participants themselves. It is not wise to set
up a judgment‐seat at the Lord’s table. Always preach the
Scriptural order—1. Faith in Jesus; 2. Obedience in Baptism; 2.
Observance of the Lord’s Supper.” J. B. Thomas: “Objections to
strict communion come with an ill grace from pedobaptists who
withhold communion from their own baptized, whom they have
forcibly made quasi‐members in spite of the only protest they are
capable of offering, and whom they have retained as subjects of
discipline without their consent.”

A. H. Strong, Cleveland Sermon on Our Denominational Outlook, May
19, 1904—“If I am asked whether Baptists still hold to restricted
communion, I answer that our principle has not changed, but that
many of us apply the principle in a different manner from that of
our fathers. We believe that Baptism logically precedes the Lord’s
Supper, as birth precedes the taking of nourishment, and
regeneration precedes sanctification. We believe that the order of
the ordinances is an important point of Christian doctrine, and
itself teaches Christian doctrine. Hence we proclaim it and adhere
to it, in our preaching and our practice. But we do not turn the
Lord’s Supper into a judgment‐seat, or turn the officers of the
church into detectives. We teach the truth, and expect that the
truth will win its way. We are courteous to all who come among us;
and expect that they in turn will have the courtesy to respect our
convictions and to act accordingly. But there is danger here that
we may break from our moorings and drift into indifferentism with
regard to the ordinances. The recent advocacy of open church‐
membership is but the logical consequence of a previous concession
of open communion. I am persuaded that this new doctrine is
confined to very few among us. The remedy for this false
liberalism is to be found in that same Christ who solves for us
all other problems. It is this Christ who sets the solitary in
families, and who makes of one every nation that dwells on the
face of the earth. Christian denominations are at least
temporarily his appointment. Loyalty to the body which seems to us
best to represent his truth is also loyalty to him. Love for
Christ does not involve the surrender of the ties of family, or
nation, or denomination, but only consecrates and ennobles them.

“Yet Christ is King in Zion. There is but one army of the living
God, even though there are many divisions. We can emphasize our
unity with other Christian bodies, rather than the differences
between us. We can regard them as churches of the Lord Jesus, even
though they are irregularly constituted. As a marriage ceremony
may be valid, even though performed without a license and by an
unqualified administrator; and as an ordination may be valid, even
though the ordinary laying‐on of hands be omitted; so the
ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as administered in pedobaptist
churches may be valid, though irregular in its accompaniments and
antecedents. Though we still protest against the modern
perversions of the New Testament doctrine as to the subjects and
mode of Baptism, we hold with regard to the Lord’s Supper that
irregularity is not invalidity, and that we may recognize as
churches even those bodies which celebrate the Lord’s Supper
without having been baptized. Our faith in the larger Christ is
bringing us out from our denominational isolation into an
inspiring recognition of our oneness with the universal church of
God throughout the world.” On the whole subject, see Madison
Avenue Lectures, 217‐260; and A. H. Strong, on Christian Truth and
its Keepers, in Philosophy and Religion, 238‐244.

E. Special objections to open communion.

The advocates of this view claim that baptism, as not being an
indispensable term of salvation, cannot properly be made an indispensable
term of communion.

Robert Hall, Works, 1:285, held that there can be no proper terms
of communion which are not also terms of salvation. He claims that
“we are expressly commanded to tolerate in the church all those
diversities of opinion which are not inconsistent with salvation.”
For the open communion view, see also John M. Mason, Works, 1:369;
Princeton Review, Oct. 1850; Bib. Sac., 21:449; 24:482; 25:401;
Spirit of the Pilgrims, 6:103, 142. But, as Curtis remarks, in his
Progress of Baptist Principles, 292, this principle would utterly
frustrate the very objects for which visible churches were
founded—to be “_the pillar and ground of the truth_” (_1 Tim.
3:15_); for truth is set forth as forcibly in ordinances as in
doctrine.

In addition to what has already been said, we reply:

(_a_) This view is contrary to the belief and practice of all but an
insignificant fragment of organized Christendom.

A portion of the English Baptists, and the Free Will Baptists in
America, are the only bodies which in their standards of faith
accept and maintain the principles of open communion. As to the
belief and practice of the Methodist Episcopal denomination, the
New York Christian Advocate states the terms of communion as
being: 1. Discipleship; 2. Baptism; 3. Consistent church life, as
required in the “Discipline”; and F. G. Hibbard, Christian
Baptism, 174, remarks that, “in one principle the Baptist and
pedobaptist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from the
communion at the table of the Lord, and denying the rights of
church fellowship to all who have not been baptized. Valid
baptism, they consider, is essential to constitute visible church
membership. This also we [Methodists] hold.... The charge of close
communion is no more applicable to the Baptists than to us.”

The Interior states the Presbyterian position as follows: “The
difference between our Baptist brethren and ourselves is an
important difference. We agree with them, however, in saying that
unbaptized persons should not partake of the Lord’s Supper. Close
communion, in our judgment, is a more defensible position than
open communion.” Dr. John Hall: “If I believed, with the Baptists,
that none are baptized but those who are immersed on profession of
faith, I should, with them, refuse to commune with any others.”

As to the views of Congregationalists, we quote from Dwight,
Systematic Theology, sermon 160—“It is an indispensable
qualification for this ordinance that the candidate for communion
be a member of the visible church of Christ, in full standing. By
this I intend that he should be a man of piety; that he should
have made a public profession of religion; and that he should have
been baptized.” The Independent: “We have never been disposed to
charge the Baptist church with any special narrowness or bigotry
in their rule of admission to the Lord’s table. We do not see how
it differs from that commonly admitted and established among
Presbyterian churches.”

The Episcopal standards and authorities are equally plain. The
Book of Common Prayer, Order of Confirmation, declares: “There
shall none be admitted to the holy communion, until such time as
he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be
confirmed”—confirmation always coming after baptism. Wall, History
of Infant Baptism, part 2, chapter 9—“No church ever gave the
communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the
absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any
person should partake of the communion before he was baptized.”

(_b_) It assumes an unscriptural inequality between the two ordinances.
The Lord’s Supper holds no higher rank in Scripture than does Baptism. The
obligation to commune is no more binding than the obligation to profess
faith by being baptized. Open communion, however, treats baptism as if it
were optional, while it insists upon communion as indispensable.

Robert Hall should rather have said: “No church has a right to
establish terms of baptism which are not also terms of salvation,”
for baptism is most frequently in Scripture connected with the
things that accompany salvation. We believe faith to be one
prerequisite, but not the only one. We may hold a person to be a
Christian, without thinking him entitled to commune unless he has
been also baptized.

Ezra’s reform in abolishing mixed marriages with the surrounding
heathen was not narrow nor bigoted nor intolerant. Miss Willard
said well that from the Gerizim of holy beatitudes there comes a
voice: “Blessed are the inclusive, for they shall be included,”
and from Mount Ebal a voice, saying: “Sad are the exclusive, for
they shall be excluded.” True liberality is both Christian and
wise. We should be just as liberal as Christ himself, and no more
so. Even Miss Willard would not include rum‐sellers in the
Christian Temperance Union, nor think that town blessed that did
not say to saloon keepers: “Repent, or go.” The choir is not
narrow because it does not include those who can only make
discords, nor is the sheepfold intolerant that refuses to include
wolves, nor the medical society that excludes quacks, nor the
church that does not invite the disobedient and schismatic to its
communion.

(_c_) It tends to do away with baptism altogether. If the highest
privilege of church membership may be enjoyed without baptism, baptism
loses its place and importance as the initiatory ordinance of the church.

Robert Hall would admit to the Lord’s Supper those who deny
Baptism to be perpetually binding on the church. A foreigner may
love this country, but he cannot vote at our elections unless he
has been naturalized. Ceremonial rites imply ceremonial
qualifications. Dr. Meredith in Brooklyn said to his great Bible
Class that a man, though not a Christian, but who felt himself a
sinner and needing Christ, could worthily partake of the Lord’s
Supper. This is the logic of open communion. The Supper is not
limited to baptized persons, nor to church members, nor even to
converted people, but belongs also to the unconverted world. This
is not only to do away with Baptism, but to make the Lord’s Supper
a converting ordinance.

(_d_) It tends to do away with all discipline. When Christians offend, the
church must withdraw its fellowship from them. But upon the principle of
open communion, such withdrawal is impossible, since the Lord’s Supper,
the highest expression of church fellowship, is open to every person who
regards himself as a Christian.

H. F. Colby: “Ought we to acknowledge that evangelical
pedobaptists are qualified to partake of the Lord’s Supper? We are
ready to admit them on precisely the same terms on which we admit
ourselves. Our communion bars come to be a protest, but from no
plan of ours. They become a protest merely as every act of loyalty
to truth becomes a protest against error.” Constitutions of the
Holy Apostles, book 2, section 7 (about 250 A. D.)—“But if they
[those who have been convicted of wickedness] afterwards repent
and turn from their error, then we receive them as we receive the
heathen, when they wish to repent, into the church indeed to hear
the word, but do not receive them to communion until they have
received the seal of baptism and are made complete Christians.”

(_e_) It tends to do away with the visible church altogether. For no
visible church is possible, unless some sign of membership be required, in
addition to the signs of membership in the invisible church. Open
communion logically leads to open church membership, and a church
membership open to all, without reference to the qualifications required
in Scripture, or without examination on the part of the church as to the
existence of these qualifications in those who unite with it, is virtually
an identification of the church with the world, and, without protest from
Scripturally constituted bodies, would finally result in its actual
extinction.

Dr. Walcott Calkins, in Andover Review: “It has never been denied
that the Puritan way of maintaining the purity and doctrinal
soundness of the churches is to secure a soundly converted
membership. There is one denomination of Puritans which has never
deviated a hair’s breadth from this way. The Baptists have always
insisted that regenerate persons only ought to receive the
sacraments of the church. And they have depended absolutely upon
this provision for the purity and doctrinal soundness of their
churches.”

At the Free Will Baptist Convention at Providence, Oct., 1874, the
question came up of admitting pedobaptists to membership. This was
disposed of by resolving that “Christian baptism is a personal act
of public consecration to Christ, and that believers’ baptism and
immersion alone, as baptism, are fundamental principles of the
denomination.” In other words, unimmersed believers would not be
admitted to membership. But is it not the Lord’s church? Have we a
right to exclude? Is this not bigotry? The Free Will Baptist
answers: “No, it is only loyalty to truth.”

We claim that, upon the same principle, he should go further, and
refuse to admit to the communion those whom he refuses to admit to
church membership. The reasons assigned for acting upon the
opposite principle are sentimental rather than rational. See John
Stuart Mill’s definition of sentimentality, quoted in Martineau’s
Essays, 1:94—“Sentimentality consists in setting the sympathetic
aspect of things, or their loveableness, above their æsthetic
aspect, their beauty; or above the moral aspect of them, their
right or wrong.”

OBJECTIONS TO STRICT COMMUNION, AND ANSWERS TO THEM (condensed
from Arnold, Terms of Communion, 82):

“1st. _Primitive rules are not applicable now._ Reply: (1) The
laws of Christ are unchangeable. (2) The primitive order ought to
be restored.

“2d. _Baptism, as an external rite, is of less importance than
love._ Reply: (1) It is not inconsistent with love, but the mark
of love, to keep Christ’s commandments. (2) Love for our brethren
requires protest against their errors.

“3d. _Pedobaptists think themselves baptized._ Reply: (1) This is
a reason why they should act as if they believed it, not a reason
why we should act as if it were so. (2) We cannot submit our
consciences to their views of truth without harming ourselves and
them.

“4th. _Strict communion is a hindrance to union among Christians._
Reply: (1) Christ desires only union in the truth. (2) Baptists
are not responsible for the separation. (3) Mixed communion is not
a cure but a cause of disunion.

“5th. _The rule excludes from the communion baptized members of
pedobaptist churches._ Reply: (1) These persons are walking
disorderly, in promoting error. (2) The Lord’s Supper is a symbol
of church fellowship, not of fellowship for individuals, apart
from their church relations.

“6th. _A plea for dispensing with the rule exists in extreme cases
where persons must commune with us or not at all._ Reply: (1) It
is hard to fix limits to these exceptions: they would be likely to
encroach more and more, till the rule became merely nominal. (2)
It is a greater privilege and means of grace, in such
circumstances, to abstain from communing, than contrary to
principle to participate. (3) It is not right to participate with
others, where we cannot invite them reciprocally.

“7. _Alleged inconsistency of our practice._—(_a_) Since we expect
to commune in heaven. Reply: This confounds Christian fellowship
with church fellowship. We do commune with pedobaptists
spiritually, here as hereafter. We do not expect to partake of the
Lord’s Supper with them, or with others, in heaven. (_b_) Since we
reject the better and receive the worse. Reply: We are not at
liberty to refuse to apply Christ’s outward rule, because we
cannot equally apply his inward spiritual rule of character.
Pedobaptists withhold communion from those they regard as
unbaptized, though they may be more spiritual than some in the
church. (_c_) Since we recognize pedobaptists as brethren in union
meetings, exchange of pulpits, _etc._ Reply: None of these acts of
fraternal fellowship imply the church communion which admission to
the Lord’s table would imply. This last would recognize them as
baptized: the former do not.

“8th. _Alleged impolicy of our practice._ Reply: (1) This
consideration would be pertinent, only if we were at liberty to
change our practice when it was expedient, or was thought to be
so. (2) Any particular truth will inspire respect in others in
proportion as its advocates show that they respect it. In England
our numbers have diminished, compared with the population, in the
ratio of 33 per cent; here we have increased 50 per cent. in
proportion to the ratio of population.

“_Summary._ Open communion must be justified, if at all, on one of
four grounds: First, that baptism is not prerequisite to
communion. But this is opposed to the belief and practice of all
churches. Secondly, that immersion on profession of faith is not
essential to baptism. But this is renouncing Baptist principles
altogether. Thirdly, that the individual, and not the church, is
to be the judge of his qualifications for admission to the
communion. But this is contrary to sound reason, and fatal to the
ends for which the church is instituted. For, if the conscience of
the individual is to be the rule of the action of the church in
regard to his admission to the Lord’s Supper, why not also with
regard to his regeneration, his doctrinal belief, and his
obedience to Christ’s commands generally? Fourthly, that the
church has no responsibility in regard to the qualifications of
those who come to her communion. But this is abandoning the
principle of the independence of the churches, and their
accountableness to Christ, and it overthrows all church
discipline.”

See also Hovey, in Bib. Sac., 1862:133; Pepper, in Bap. Quar.,
1867:216; Curtis on Communion, 292; Howell, Terms of Communion;
Williams, The Lord’s Supper; Theodosia Ernest, pub. by Am. Bap.
Pub. Soc.; Wilkinson, The Baptist Principle. In concluding our
treatment of Ecclesiology, we desire to call attention to the fact
that Jacob, the English Churchman, in his Ecclesiastical Polity of
the N. T., and Cunningham, the Scotch Presbyterian, in his Croall
Lectures for 1886, have furnished Baptists with much valuable
material for the defence of the New Testament doctrine of the
Church and its Ordinances. In fact, a complete statement of the
Baptist positions might easily be constructed from the concessions
of their various opponents. See A. H. Strong, on Unconscious
Assumptions of Communion Polemics, in Philosophy and Religion,
245‐249.

PART VIII. ESCHATOLOGY, OR THE DOCTRINE OF FINAL THINGS.

Neither the individual Christian character, nor the Christian church as a
whole, attains its destined perfection in this life (Rom. 8:24). This
perfection is reached in the world to come (1 Cor. 13:10). As preparing
the way for the kingdom of God in its completeness, certain events are to
take place, such as death, Christ’s second coming, the resurrection of the
body, the general judgment. As stages in the future condition of men,
there is to be an intermediate and an ultimate state, both for the
righteous and for the wicked. We discuss these events and states in what
appears from Scripture to be the order of their occurrence.

_Rom. 8:24_—“_in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not
hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth?_” _1 Cor.
13:10_—“_when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part
will be done away._” Original sin is not wholly eradicated from
the Christian, and the Holy Spirit is not yet sole ruler. So, too,
the church is still in a state of conflict, and victory is
hereafter. But as the Christian life attains its completeness only
in the future, so with the life of sin. Death begins here, but
culminates hereafter. _James 1:15_—“_the sin, when it is full
grown, bringeth forth death._” The wicked man here has only a
foretaste of “_the wrath to come_” (_Mat. 3:7_). We may “_lay up
... treasures in heaven_” (_Mat. 6:20_), but we may also
“_treasure up for ourselves wrath_” (_Rom. 2:5_), _i. e._, lay up
treasures in hell.

Dorner: “To the actuality of the consummation of the church
belongs a cessation of reproduction through which there is
constantly renewed a world which the church must subdue.... The
mutually external existence of spirit and nature must give way to
a perfect internal existence. Their externality to each other is
the ground of the mortality of the natural side, and of its being
a means of temptation to the spiritual side. For in this
externality the natural side has still too great independence and
exerts a determining power over the personality.... Art, the
beautiful, receives in the future state its special place; for it
is the way of art to delight in visible presentation, to achieve
the classical and perfect with unfettered play of its powers.
Every one morally perfect will thus wed the good to the beautiful.
In the rest, there will be no inactivity; and in the activity
also, no unrest.”

Schleiermacher: “Eschatology is essentially prophetic; and is
therefore vague and indefinite, like all unfulfilled prophecy.”
Schiller’s Thekla: “Every thought of beautiful, trustful seeming
Stands fulfilled in Heaven’s eternal day; Shrink not then from
erring and from dreaming,—Lofty sense lies oft in childish play.”
Frances Power Cobbe, Peak of Darien, 265—“Human nature is a ship
with the tide out; when the tide of eternity comes in, we shall
see the purpose of the ship.” Eschatology deals with the
precursors of Christ’s second coming, as well as with the second
coming itself. We are to labor for the coming of the kingdom of
God in society as well as in the individual and in the church, in
the present life as well as in the life to come.

Kidd, in his Principles of Western Civilization, says that
survives which helps the greatest number. But the greatest number
is always in the future. The theatre has become too wide for the
drama. Through the roof the eternal stars appear. The image of God
in man implies the equality of all men. Political equality implies
universal suffrage; economic equality implies universal profit.
Society has already transcended, first, city isolation, and
secondly, state isolation. The United States presents thus far the
largest free trade area in history. The next step is the unity of
the English speaking peoples. The days of separate nationalities
are numbered. _Laissez faire_ = surviving barbarism. There are
signs of larger ideas in art, ethics, literature, philosophy,
science, politics, economics, religion. Competition must be
moralized, and must take into account the future as well as the
present. See also Walter Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the
Social Crisis.

George B. Stevens, in Am. Jour. Theology, Oct. 1902: 666‐684,
asks: “Is there a self‐constituted New Testament Eschatology?” He
answers, for substance, that only three things are sure: 1. The
certain triumph of the kingdom—this being the kernel of truth in
the doctrine of Christ’s second coming; 2. the victory of life
over death—the truth in the doctrine of the resurrection; 3. the
principle of judgment—the truth at the basis of the belief in
rewards and punishments in the world to come. This meagre and
abstract residuum argues denial both of the unity and the
sufficiency of Scripture. Our view of inspiration, while it does
not assure us of minute details, does notwithstanding give us a
broad general outline of the future consummation, and guarantees
its trustworthiness by the word of Christ and his apostles.

Faith in that consummation is the main incitement to poetic
utterance and to lofty achievement. Shairp, Province of Poetry,
28—“If poetry be not a river fed from the clear wells that spring
on the highest summits of humanity, but only a canal to drain off
stagnant ditches from the flats, it may be a very useful sanitary
contrivance, but has not, in Bacon’s words, any ’participation of
divineness.’” Shakespeare uses prose for ideas detached from
emotion, such as the merrymaking of clowns or the maundering of
fools. But lofty thought with him puts on poetry as its singing
robe. Savage, Life beyond Death, 1‐5—“When Henry D. Thoreau lay
dying at Concord, his friend Parker Pillsbury sat by his bedside.
He leaned over, took him by the hand, and said: ‘Henry, you are so
near to the border now, can you see anything on the other side?’
And Thoreau answered: ‘One world at a time, Parker!’ But I cannot
help asking about that other world, and if I belong to a future
world as well as to this, my life will be a very different one.”
Jesus knew our need of certain information about the future, and
therefore he said: “_In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it
were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place
for you_” (_John 14:2_).

Hutton, Essays, 2:211—“Imagination may be powerful without being
fertile; it may summon up past scenes and live in them without
being able to create new ones. National unity and supernatural
guidance were beliefs which kept Hebrew poetry from being fertile
or original in its dealings with human story; for national pride
is conservative, not inventive, and believers in actual providence
do not care to live in a world of invention. The Jew saw in
history only the illustration of these two truths. He was never
thoroughly stirred by mere individual emotion. The modern poet is
a student of beauty; the O. T. poet a student of God. To the
latter all creation is a mere shadow; the essence of its beauty
and the sustaining power of its life are in the spiritual world.
Go beyond the spiritual nature of man, and the sympathy of the
Hebrew poet is dried up at once. His poetry was true and divine,
but at the expense of variousness of insight and breadth of
sympathy. It was heliocentric rather than geocentric. Only Job,
the latest, is a conscious effort of the imagination.” Apocalyptic
poetry for these reasons was most natural to the Hebrew mind.

Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 66—“Somewhere and for some Being,
there shines an unchanging splendor of beauty, of which in nature
and in art we see, each of us from his own standpoint, only
passing gleams and stray reflections, whose different aspects we
cannot now coördinate, whose import we cannot fully comprehend,
but which at least is something other than the chance play of
subjective sensibility or the far‐off echo of ancestral lusts.”
Dewey, Psychology, 200—“All products of the creative imagination
are unconscious testimonials to the unity of spirit which binds
man to man, and man to nature, in one organic whole.” Tennyson,
Idylls of the King: “As from beyond the limit of the world, Like
the last echo born of a great cry, Sounds, as if some fair city
were one voice Around a king returning from his wars.” See, on the
whole subject of Eschatology, Luthardt, Lehre von den letzten
Dingen, and Saving Truths of Christianity; Hodge, Systematic
Theology, 3:713‐880; Hovey, Biblical Eschatology; Heagle, That
Blessed Hope.

I. Physical Death.

Physical death is the separation of the soul from the body. We distinguish
it from spiritual death, or the separation of the soul from God; and from
the second death, or the banishment from God and final misery of the
reünited soul and body of the wicked.

Spiritual death: _Is. 59:2_—“_but your iniquities have separated
between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from
you, so that he will not hear_”; _Rom. 7:24_—“_Wretched man that I
am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?_” _Eph.
2:1_—“_dead through your trespasses and sins._” The second death:
_Rev. 2:11_—“_He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second
death_”; _20:14_—“_And death and Hades were cast into the lake of
fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire_”;
_21:8_—“_But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and
murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all
liars, their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and
brimstone; which is the second death._”

Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:303—“Spiritual death, the inner
discord and enslavement of the soul, and the misery resulting
therefrom, to which belongs that other death, the second death, an
outward condition corresponding to that inner slavery.” Trench,
Epistles to the Seven Churches, 151—“This phrase [‘_second
death_’] is itself a solemn protest against the Sadduceeism and
Epicureanism which would make natural death the be‐all and the
end‐all of existence. As there is a life beyond the present life
for the faithful, so there is death beyond that which falls under
our eyes for the wicked.” E. G. Robinson: “The second death is the
continuance of spiritual death in another and timeless existence.”
Hudson, Scientific Demonstration of a Future Life, 222—“If a man
has a power that transcends the senses, it is at least presumptive
evidence that it does not perish when the senses are
extinguished.... The activity of the subjective mind is in inverse
proportion to that of the body, though the objective mind weakens
with the body and perishes with the brain.”

Prof. H. H. Bawden: “Consciousness is simply the growing of an
organism, while the organism is just that which grows.
Consciousness is a function, not a thing, not an order of
existence at all. It is the universe coming to a focus, flowering
so to speak in a finite centre. Society is an organism in the same
sense that the human being is an organism. The spatial separation
of the elements of the social organism is relatively no greater
than the separation of the unit factors of the body. As the
neurone cannot deny the consciousness which is the function of the
body, so the individual member of society has no reason for
denying the existence of a cosmic life of the organism which we
call society.”

Emma M. Caillard, on Man in the Light of Evolution, in Contemp.
Rev., Dec. 1893:878—“Man is nature risen into the consciousness of
its relationship to the divine. There is no receding from this
point. When ‘that which drew from out the boundless deep turns
again home,’ the persistence of each personal life is
necessitated. Human life, as it is, includes, though it transcends
the lower forms through which it has developed. Human life, as it
will be, must include though it may transcend its present
manifestation, _viz._, personality.” “Sometime, when all life’s
lessons have been learned, And suns and stars forevermore have
set, And things which our weak judgments here have spurned, The
things o’er which we grieved with lashes wet, Will flash before us
through our life’s dark night, As stars shine most in deepest
tints of blue: And we shall see how all God’s plans were right,
And most that seemed reproof was love most true: And if sometimes
commingled with life’s wine We find the wormwood and rebel and
shrink, Be sure a wiser hand than yours or mine Pours out this
portion for our lips to drink. And if some friend we love is lying
low, Where human kisses cannot reach his face, O do not blame the
loving Father so, But wear your sorrow with obedient grace; And
you shall shortly know that lengthened breath Is not the sweetest
gift God sends his friend, And that sometimes the sable pall of
death Conceals the fairest boon his love can send. If we could
push ajar the gates of life, And stand within, and all God’s
working see, We could interpret all this doubt and strife, And for
each mystery find a key.”

Although physical death falls upon the unbeliever as the original penalty
of sin, to all who are united in Christ it loses its aspect of penalty,
and becomes a means of discipline and of entrance into eternal life.

To the Christian, physical death is not a penalty: _see Ps.
116:15_—“_Precious in the sight of Jehovah Is the death of his
saints_”; _Rom. 8:10_—“_And if Christ is in you, the body is dead
because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness_”;
_14:8_—“_For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we
die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we
are the Lord’s_”; _1 Cor. 3:22_—“_whether Paul, or Apollos, or
Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or
things to come; all are yours_”; _15:55_—“_O death, where is thy
victory? O death, where is thy sting?_” _1 Pet. 4:6_—“_For unto
this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might
be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according
to God in the spirit_”; _cf._ _Rom. 1:18_—“_For the wrath of God
is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness_”;
_8:1, 2_—“_There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are
in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus
made me free from the law of sin and of death_”; _Heb. 12:6_—“_For
whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth._”

Dr. Hovey says that “the present sufferings of believers are in
the nature of discipline, with an aspect of retribution; while the
present sufferings of unbelievers are retributive, with a glance
toward reformation.” We prefer to say that all penalty has been
borne by Christ, and that, for him who is justified in Christ,
suffering of whatever kind is of the nature of fatherly
chastening, never of judicial retribution; see our discussion of
the Penalty of Sin, pages 652‐660.

“We see but dimly through the mists and vapors Amid these earthly
damps; What are to us but sad funereal tapers May be Heaven’s
distant lamps. There is no death,—what seems so is transition;
This life of mortal breath Is but a suburb of the life Elysian
Whose portal men call death.” “’Tis meet that we should pause
awhile, Ere we put off this mortal coil, And in the stillness of
old age, Muse on our earthly pilgrimage.” Shakespeare, Romeo and
Juliet, 4:5—“Heaven and yourself Had part in this fair maid; now
Heaven hath all, And all the better is it for the maid: Your part
in her you could not keep from death, But Heaven keeps his part in
eternal life. The most you sought was her promotion, For ’t was
your heaven she should be advanced; And weep ye now, seeing she is
advanced Above the clouds, as high as Heaven itself?” Phœbe Cary’s
Answered: “I thought to find some healing clime For her I loved;
she found that shore, That city whose inhabitants Are sick and
sorrowful no more. I asked for human love for her; The Loving knew
how best to still The infinite yearning of a heart Which but
infinity could fill. Such sweet communion had been ours, I prayed
that it might never end; My prayer is more than answered; now I
have an angel for my friend. I wished for perfect peace to soothe
The troubled anguish of her breast; And numbered with the loved
and called She entered on untroubled rest. Life was so fair a
thing to her, I wept and pleaded for its stay; My wish was granted
me, for lo! She hath eternal life to‐day!”

Victor Hugo: “The tomb is not a blind alley; it is a thoroughfare.
It closes with the twilight, to open with the dawn.... I feel that
I have not said the thousandth part of what is in me.... The
thirst for infinity proves infinity.” Shakespeare: “Nothing is
here for tears; nothing to wail, Or knock the breast; no weakness,
no contempt, Dispraise or blame; nothing but well and fair.” O. W.
Holmes: “Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul, As the swift
seasons roll! Leave thy low‐vaulted past! Let each new temple,
nobler than the last Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,
Till thou at length art free, Leaving thine outgrown shell by
life’s unresting sea!” J. G. Whittier: “So when Time’s veil shall
fall asunder, The soul may know No fearful change or sudden
wonder, Nor sink the weight of mystery under, But with the upward
rise, and with the vastness grow.”

To neither saint nor sinner is death a cessation of being. This we
maintain, against the advocates of annihilation:

1. Upon rational grounds.

(_a_) The metaphysical argument.—The soul is simple, not compounded.
Death, in matter, is the separation of parts. But in the soul there are no
parts to be separated. The dissolution of the body, therefore, does not
necessarily work a dissolution of the soul. But, since there is an
immaterial principle in the brute, and this argument taken by itself might
seem to prove the immortality of the animal creation equally with that of
man, we pass to consider the next argument.

The Gnostics and the Manichæans held that beasts had knowledge and
might pray. The immateriality of the brute mind was probably the
consideration which led Leibnitz, Bishop Butler, Coleridge, John
Wesley, Lord Shaftesbury, Mary Somerville, James Hogg, Toplady,
Lamartine, and Louis Agassiz to encourage the belief in animal
immortality. See Bp. Butler, Analogy, part i, chap. i (Bohn’s ed.,
81‐91); Agassiz, Essay on Classification, 99—“Most of the
arguments for the immortality of man apply equally to the
permanency of this principle in other living beings.” Elsewhere
Agassiz says of animals: “I cannot doubt of their immortality any
more than I doubt of my own.” Lord Shaftesbury in 1881 remarked:
“I have ever believed in a happy future for animals; I cannot say
or conjecture how or where; but sure I am that the love, so
manifested by dogs especially, is an emanation from the divine
essence, and as such it can, or rather, it will, never be
extinguished.” St. Francis of Assisi preached to birds, and called
sun, moon, earth, fire, water, stones, flowers, crickets, and
death, his brothers and sisters. “He knew not if the brotherhood
His homily had understood; He only knew that to one ear The
meaning of his words was clear” (Longfellow, The Sermon of St.
Francis—to the birds). “If death dissipates the sagacity of the
elephant, why not that of his captor?” See Buckner, Immortality of
Animals; William Adams Brown, Christian Theology in Outline, 240.

Mansel, Metaphysics, 371, maintains that all this argument proves
is that the objector cannot show the soul to be compound, and so
cannot show that it is destructible. Calderwood, Moral Philosophy,
259—“The facts which point toward the termination of our present
state of existence are connected with our physical nature, not
with our mental.” John Fiske, Destiny of the Creature, 110—“With
his illegitimate hypothesis of annihilation, the materialist
transgresses the bounds of experience quite as widely as the poet
who sings of the New Jerusalem, with its river of life and its
streets of gold. Scientifically speaking, there is not a particle
of evidence for either view.” John Fiske, Life Everlasting,
80‐85—“How could immortal man have been produced through heredity
from an ephemeral brute? We do not know. Nature’s habit is to make
prodigious leaps, but only after long preparation. Slowly rises
the water in the tank, inch by inch through many a weary hour,
until at length it overflows, and straightway vast systems of
machinery are awakened into rumbling life. Slowly the ellipse
becomes eccentric, until suddenly the finite ellipse becomes an
infinite paraboloid.”

Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 206—“The ideas of dividing up or
splitting off are not applicable to mind. The argument for the
indestructibility of mind as growing out of its indiscerptibility,
and the argument by which Kant confuted it, are alike absurd
within the realm of mental phenomena.” Adeney, Christianity and
Evolution, 127—“Nature, this argument shows, has nothing to say
against the immortality of that which is above the range of
physical structure.” Lotze: “Everything which has once originated
will endure forever so soon as it possesses an unalterable value
for the coherent system of the world; but it will, as a matter of
course, in turn cease to be, if this is not the case.” Bowne, Int.
to Psych. Theory, 315‐318—“Of what use would brutes be hereafter?
We may reply: Of what use are they here?... Those things which
have perennial significance for the universe will abide.” Bixby,
Crisis in Morals, 203—“In living beings there is always a pressure
toward larger and higher existence.... The plant must grow, must
bloom, must sow its seeds, or it withers away.... The aim is to
bring forth consciousness, and in greatest fulness.... Beasts of
prey and other enemies to the ascending path of life are to be
swept out of the way.”

But is not the brute a part of that Nature which has been
subjected to vanity, which groans and travails in pain, and which
waits to be redeemed? The answer seems to be that the brute is a
mere appendage to man, has no independent value in the creation,
is incapable of ethical life or of communion with God the source
of life, and so has no guarantee of continuance. Man on the other
hand is of independent value. But this is to anticipate the
argument which follows. It is sufficient here to point out that
there is no proof that consciousness is dependent upon the soul’s
connection with a physical organism. McLane, Evolution in
Religion, 261—“As the body may preserve its form and be to a
degree made to act after the psychic element is lost by removal of
the brain, so this psychic element may exist, and act according to
its nature after the physical element ceases to exist.” Hovey,
Bib. Eschatology, 19—“If I am in a house, I can look upon
surrounding objects only through its windows; but open the door
and let me go out of the house, and the windows are no longer of
any use to me.” Shaler, Interpretation of Nature, 295—“To
perpetuate mind after death is less surprising than to perpetuate
or transmit mind here by inheritance.” See also Martineau, Study,
2:332‐337, 363‐365.

William James, in his Essay on Human Immortality, argues that
thought is not necessarily a _productive_ function of the brain;
it may rather be a permissive or _transmissive_ function. Thought
is not _made_ in the brain, so that when the brain perishes the
soul dies. The brain is only the organ for the _transmission_ of
thought, just as the lens transmits the light which it does not
produce. There is a spiritual world behind and above the material
world. Our brains are thin and half transparent places in the
veil, through which knowledge comes in. Savage, Life after Death,
289—“You may attach a dynamo for a time to some particular
machine. When you have removed the machine, you have not destroyed
the dynamo. You may attach it to some other machine and find that
you have the old time power. So the soul may not be confined to
one body.” These analogies seem to us to come short of proving
personal immortality. They belong to “psychology without a soul,”
and while they illustrate the persistence of some sort of life,
they do not render more probable the continuance of my individual
consciousness beyond the bounds of death. They are entirely
consistent with the pantheistic theory of a remerging of the
personal existence in the great whole of which it forms a part.
Tennyson, In Memoriam: “That each, who seems a separate whole,
Should move his rounds and, fusing all The skirts of self again,
should fall Remerging in the general Soul, Is faith as vague as
all unsweet.” See Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl’sche Theologie, 12;
Howison, Limits of Evolution, 279‐312.

Seth, Hegelianism: “For Hegel, immortality is only the permanence
of the Absolute, the abstract process. This is no more consoling
than the continued existence of the chemical elements of our
bodies in new transformations. Human self‐consciousness is a spark
struck in the dark, to die away on the darkness whence it has
arisen.” This is the only immortality of which George Eliot
conceived in her poem, The Immortal Choir: “O may I join the choir
invisible Of those immortal dead who live again In minds made
better by their presence; live In pulses stirred to generosity, In
deeds of daring rectitude, in scorn For miserable aims that end in
self, In thoughts sublime that pierce the night like stars, And
with their mild persistence urge man’s search To vaster issues.”
Those who hold to this unconscious immortality concede that death
is not a separation of parts, but rather a cessation of
consciousness; and that therefore, while the substance of human
nature may endure, mankind may ever develop into new forms,
without individual immortality. To this we reply, that man’s self‐
consciousness and self‐determination are different in kind from
the consciousness and determination of the brute. As man can
direct his self‐consciousness and self‐determination to immortal
ends, we have the right to believe this self‐consciousness and
self‐determination to be immortal. This leads us to the next
argument.

(_b_) The teleological argument.—Man, as an intellectual, moral, and
religious being, does not attain the end of his existence on earth. His
development is imperfect here. Divine wisdom will not leave its work
incomplete. There must be a hereafter for the full growth of man’s powers,
and for the satisfaction of his aspirations. Created, unlike the brute,
with infinite capacities for moral progress, there must be an immortal
existence in which those capacities shall be brought into exercise. Though
the wicked forfeit all claim to this future, we have here an argument from
God’s love and wisdom to the immortality of the righteous.

In reply to this argument, it has been said that many right wishes
are vain. Mill, Essays on Religion, 294—“Desire for food implies
enough to eat, now and forever? hence an eternal supply of
cabbage?” But our argument proceeds upon three presuppositions:
(1) that a holy and benevolent God exists; (2) that he has made
man in his image; (3) that man’s true end is holiness and likeness
to God. Therefore, what will answer the true end of man will be
furnished; but that is not cabbage—it is holiness and love, _i.
e._, God himself. See Martineau, Study, 2:370‐381.

The argument, however, is valuable only in its application to the
righteous. God will not treat the righteous as the tyrant of
Florence treated Michael Angelo, when he bade him carve out of ice
a statue, which would melt under the first rays of the sun. In the
case of the wicked, the other law of retribution comes in—the
taking away of “_even that which he hath_” (_Mat. 25:29_). Since
we are all wicked, the argument is not satisfactory, unless we
take into account the further facts of atonement and
justification—facts of which we learn from revelation alone.

But while, taken by itself, this rational argument might be called
defective, and could never prove that man may not attain his end
in the continued existence of the race, rather than in that of the
individual, the argument appears more valuable as a rational
supplement to the facts already mentioned, and seems to render
certain at least the immortality of those upon whom God has set
his love, and in whom he has wrought the beginnings of
righteousness.

Lord Erskine: “Inferior animals have no instincts or faculties
which are not subservient to the ends and purposes of their being.
Man’s reason, and faculties endowed with power to reach the most
distant worlds, would be useless if his existence were to
terminate in the grave.” There would be wastefulness in the
extinction of great minds; see Jackson, James Martineau, 439. As
water is implied by the organization of the fish, and air by that
of the bird, so “the existence of spiritual power within us is
likewise presumption that some fitting environment awaits the
spirit when it shall be set free and perfected, and sex and death
can be dispensed with” (Newman Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution,
106). Nägeli, the German botanist, says that Nature tends to
perfection. Yet the mind hardly begins to awake, ere the bodily
powers decline (George, Progress and Poverty, 505). “Character
grows firmer and solider as the body ages and grows weaker. Can
character be vitally implicated in the act of physical
dissolution?” (Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 353). If a rational and
moral Deity has caused the gradual evolution in humanity of the
ideas of right and wrong, and has added to it the faculty of
creating ethical ideals, must he not have provided some
satisfaction for the ethical needs which this development has thus
called into existence? (Balfour, Foundations of Belief, 351).

Royce, Conception of God, 50, quotes Le Conte as follows: “Nature
is the womb _in_ which, and evolution the process _by_ which, are
generated sons of God. Without immortality this whole process is
balked—the whole process of cosmic evolution is futile. Shall God
be so long and at so great pains to achieve a _spirit_, capable of
communing with himself, and then allow it to lapse again into
nothingness?” John Fiske, Destiny of Man, 116, accepts the
immortality of the soul by “a supreme act of faith in the
reasonableness of God’s work.” If man is the end of the creative
process and the object of God’s care, then the soul’s career
cannot be completed with its present life upon the earth (Newman
Smyth, Place of Death in Evolution, 92, 93). Bowne, Philosophy of
Theism, 254—“Neither God nor the future life is needed to pay us
for present virtue, but rather as the condition without which our
nature falls into irreconcilable discord with itself, and passes
on to pessimism and despair. High and continual effort is
impossible without correspondingly high and abiding hopes.... It
is no more selfish to desire to live hereafter than it is to
desire to live to‐morrow.” Dr. M. B. Anderson used to say that
there must be a heaven for canal horses, washerwomen, and college
presidents, because they do not get their deserts in this life.

Life is a series of commencements rather than of accomplished
ends. Longfellow, on Charles Sumner: “Death takes us by surprise,
And stays our hurrying feet; The great design unfinished lies, Our
lives are incomplete. But in the dark unknown Perfect their
circles seem, Even as a bridge’s arch of stone Is rounded in the
stream.” Robert Browning, Abt Vogler: “There never shall be one
lost good”; Prospice: “No work begun shall ever pause for death”;
“Pleasure must succeed to pleasure, else past pleasure turns to
pain; And this first life claims a second, else I count its good
no gain”; Old Pictures in Florence: “We are faulty—why not? We
have time in store”; Grammarian’s Funeral: “What’s time? Leave Now
for dogs and apes,—Man has Forever.” Robert Browning wrote in his
wife’s Testament the following testimony of Dante: “Thus I
believe, thus I affirm, thus I am certain it is, that from this
life I shall pass to another better, there where that lady lives,
of whom my soul was enamored.” And Browning says in a letter: “It
is a great thing—the greatest—that a human being should have
passed the probation of life, and sum up its experience in a
witness to the power and love of God.... I see even more reason to
hold by the same hope.”

(_c_) The ethical argument.—Man is not, in this world, adequately punished
for his evil deeds. Our sense of justice leads us to believe that God’s
moral administration will be vindicated in a life to come. Mere extinction
of being would not be a sufficient penalty, nor would it permit degrees of
punishment corresponding to degrees of guilt. This is therefore an
argument from God’s justice to the immortality of the wicked. The guilty
conscience demands a state after death for punishment.

This is an argument from God’s justice to the immortality of the
wicked, as the preceding was an argument from God’s love to the
immortality of the righteous. “History defies our moral sense by
giving a peaceful end to Sulla.” Louis XV and Madame Pompadour
died in their beds, after a life of extreme luxury. Louis XVI and
his queen, though far more just and pure, perished by an appalling
tragedy. The fates of these four cannot be explained by the
wickedness of the latter pair and the virtue of the former.
Alexander the Sixth, the worst of the popes, was apparently
prosperous and happy in his iniquities. Though guilty of the most
shameful crimes, he was serenely impenitent, and to the last of
his days he defied both God and man. Since there is not an
execution of justice here, we feel that there must be a “_judgment
to come_,” such as that which terrified Felix (_Acts 24:25_).
Martineau, Study, 2:383‐388. Stopford A. Brooke, Justice: “Three
men went out one summer night, No care had they or aim, And dined
and drank. ‘Ere we go home We’ll have,’ they said, ‘a game.’ Three
girls began that summer night A life of endless shame, And went
through drink, disease, and death As swift as racing flame.
Lawless and homeless, foul, they died; Rich, loved and praised,
the men: But when they all shall meet with God, And Justice
speaks,—what then?” See John Caird, Fund. Ideas of Christianity,
2:255‐297. G. F. Wilkin, Control in Evolution: “Belief in
immortality is a practical necessity of evolution. If the
decisions of to‐day are to determine our eternal destiny, then it
is vastly more important to choose and act aright, than it is to
preserve our earthly life. The martyrs were right. Conscience is
vindicated. We can live for the ideal of manhood. Immortality is a
powerful reformatory instrument.” Martineau, Study of Religion,
2:388—“If Death gives a final discharge to the sinner and the
saint alike, Conscience has told us more lies than it has ever
called to their account.” Shakespeare, Henry V, 4:2—“If
[transgressors] have defeated the law and outrun native
punishment, though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to
fly from God”; Henry VI, 2d part, 5:2—“Can we outrun the heavens?”
Addison, Cato: “It must be so,—Plato, thou reasonest well.—Else
whence this pleasing hope, this fond desire, This longing after
immortality? Or whence this secret dread and inward horror Of
falling into naught? Why shrinks the soul Back on herself and
startles at destruction? ’Tis the divinity that stirs within us,
’Tis Heaven itself that points out a hereafter, And intimates
eternity to man.”

Gildersleeve, in The Independent, March 30, 1899—“Plato in the
Phædo argues for immortality from the alternation of opposites:
life must follow death as death follows life. But alternation of
opposites is not generation of opposites. He argues from
reminiscence. But this involves pre‐existence and a cycle of
incarnations, not the immortality which we crave. The soul abides,
as the idea abides, but there is no guarantee that it abides
forever. He argues from the uncompounded nature of the soul. But
we do not know the soul’s nature, and at most this is an analogy:
as soul is like God, invisible, it must like God abide. But this
is analogy, and nothing more.” William James, Will to Believe,
87—“That our whole physical life may lie soaking in a spiritual
atmosphere, a dimension of being which we at present have no organ
for apprehending, is vividly suggested to us by the analogy of the
life of our domestic animals. Our dogs, for example, are _in_ our
human life, but are not of it. They bite, but do not know what it
means; they submit to vivisection, and do not know the meaning of
that.”

George Eliot, walking with Frederic Myers in the Fellows’ Garden
at Trinity, Cambridge, “stirred somewhat beyond her wont, and
taking as her text the three words which have been used so often
as the inspiring trumpet‐calls of men—the words God, Immortality,
Duty—pronounced with terrible earnestness how inconceivable was
the first, how unbelievable the second, and yet how peremptory and
absolute the third.” But this idea of the infinite nature of Duty
is the creation of Christianity—the last infinite would never have
attained its present range and intensity, had it not been
indissolubly connected with the other two (Forrest, Christ of
History and Experience, 16).

This ethical argument has probably more power over the minds of
men than any other. Men believe in Minos and Rhadamanthus, if not
in the Elysian Fields. But even here it may be replied that the
judgment which conscience threatens may be, not immortality, but
extinction of being. We shall see, however, in our discussion of
the endlessness of future punishment, that mere annihilation
cannot satisfy the moral instinct which lies at the basis of this
argument. That demands a punishment proportioned in each case to
the guilt incurred by transgression. Extinction of being would be
the same to all. As it would not admit of degrees, so it would
not, in any case, sufficiently vindicate God’s righteousness. F.
W. Newman: “If man be not immortal, God is not just.”

But while this argument proves life and punishment for the wicked
after death, it leaves us dependent on revelation for our
knowledge how long that life and punishment will be. Kant’s
argument is that man strives equally for morality and for well‐
being; but morality often requires the sacrifice of well‐being;
hence there must be a future reconciliation of the two in the
well‐being or reward of virtue. To all of which it might be
answered, first, that there is no virtue so perfect as to merit
reward; and secondly, that virtue is its _own_ reward, and so _is_
well‐being.

(_d_) The historical argument.—The popular belief of all nations and ages
shows that the idea of immortality is natural to the human mind. It is not
sufficient to say that this indicates only such desire for continued
earthly existence as is necessary to self‐preservation; for multitudes
expect a life beyond death without desiring it, and multitudes desire a
heavenly life without caring for the earthly. This testimony of man’s
nature to immortality may be regarded as the testimony of the God who made
the nature.

Testimonies to this popular belief are given in Bartlett, Life and
Death Eternal, preface: The arrow‐heads and earthen vessels laid
by the side of the dead Indian; the silver obolus put in the mouth
of the dead Greek to pay Charon’s passage money; the furnishing of
the Egyptian corpse with the Book of the Dead, the papyrus‐roll
containing the prayer he is to offer and the chart of his journey
through the unseen world. The Gauls did not hesitate to lend
money, on the sole condition that he to whom they lent it would
return it to them in the other life,—so sure were they that they
should get it again (Valerius Maximus, quoted in Boissier, La
Religion Romaine, 1:264). The Laplanders bury flint and tinder
with the dead, to furnish light for the dark journey. The Norsemen
buried the horse and armor for the dead hero’s triumphant ride.
The Chinese scatter paper images of sedan porters over the grave,
to help along in the sombre pilgrimage. The Greenlanders bury with
the child a dog to guide him (George Dana Boardman, Sermon on
Immortality).

Savage, Life after Death, 1‐18—“Candles at the head of the casket
are the modern representatives of the primitive man’s fire which
was to light the way of the soul on its dark journey.... Ulysses
talks in the underworld with the shade of Hercules though the real
Hercules, a demigod, had been transferred to Olympus, and was
there living in companionship with the gods.... The Brahman
desired to escape being reborn. Socrates: ‘To die and be released
is better for me.’ Here I am walking on a plank. It reaches out
into the fog, and I have got to keep walking. I can see only ten
feet ahead of me. I know that pretty soon I must walk over the end
of that plank,—I haven’t the slightest idea into what, and I don’t
believe anybody else knows. And I don’t like it.” Matthew Arnold:
“Is there no other life? Pitch this one high.” But without
positive revelation most men will say: “_Let us eat and drink, for
to‐morrow we die_” (_1 Cor. 15:32_).

“By passionately loving life, we make Loved life unlovely, hugging
her to death.” Theodore Parker: “The intuition of mortality is
written in the heart of man by a Hand that writes no
falsehoods.... There is evidence of a summer yet to be, in the
buds which lie folded through our northern winter—efflorescences
in human nature unaccountable if the end of man is in the grave.”
But it may be replied that many universal popular impressions have
proved false, such as belief in ghosts, and in the moving of the
sun round the earth. While the mass of men have believed in
immortality, some of the wisest have been doubters. Cyrus said: “I
cannot imagine that the soul lives only while it remains in this
mortal body.” But the dying words of Socrates were: “We part; I am
going to die, and you to live; which of us goes the better way is
known to God alone.” Cicero declared: “Upon this subject I
entertain no more than conjectures;” and said that, when he was
reading Plato’s argument for immortality, he seemed to himself
convinced, but when he laid down the book he found that all his
doubts returned. Farrar, Darkness and Dawn, 134—“Though Cicero
wrote his Tusculan Disputations to prove the doctrine of
immortality, he spoke of that doctrine in his letters and speeches
as a mere pleasing speculation, which might be discussed with
interest, but which no one practically held.”

Aristotle, Nic. Ethics, 3:9, calls death “the most to be feared of
all things ... for it appears to be the end of everything; and for
the deceased there appears to be no longer either any good or any
evil.” Æschylus: “Of one once dead there is no resurrection.”
Catullus: “When once our brief day has set, we must sleep one
everlasting night.” Tacitus: “If there is a place for the spirits
of the pious; if, as the wise suppose, great souls do not become
extinct with their bodies.” “In that _if_,” says Uhlhorn, “lies
the whole torturing uncertainty of heathenism.” Seneca, Ep.
liv.—“Mors est non esse”—“Death is not to be”; Troades, V,
393—“Post mortem nihil est, ipsaque mors nihil”—“There is nothing
after death, and death itself is nothing.” Marcus Aurelius: “What
springs from earth dissolves to earth again, and heavenborn things
fly to their native seat.” The Emperor Hadrian to his soul:
“Animula, vagula, blandula, Hospes comesque corporis, Quæ nunc
abibis in loca? Pallidula, rigida, nudula.” Classic writers might
have said of the soul at death: “We know not where is that
Promethean torch That can its light relume.”

Chadwick, 184—“With the growth of all that is best in man of
intelligence and affection, there goes the development of the hope
of an immortal life. If the hope thus developed is not a valid
one, then we have a radical contradiction in our moral nature. The
survival of the fittest points in the same direction.” Andrew
Marvell (1621‐1678)—“At my back I always hear Time’s winged
chariot hurrying near; And yonder all before us lie Deserts of
vast Eternity.” Goethe in his last days came to be a profound
believer in immortality. “You ask me what are my grounds for this
belief? The weightiest is this, that we cannot do without it.”
Huxley wrote in a letter to Morley: “It is a curious thing that I
find my dislike to the thought of extinction increasing as I get
older and nearer the goal. It flashes across me at all sorts of
time that in 1900 I shall probably know no more of what is going
on than I did in 1800. I had sooner be in hell, a great deal,—at
any rate in one of the upper circles, where climate and the
company are not too trying.”

The book of Job shows how impossible it is for man to work out the
problem of personal immortality from the point of view of merely
natural religion. Shakespeare, in Measure for Measure, represents
Claudio as saying to his sister Isabella: “Aye, but to die, and go
we know not where; To lie in cold obstruction and to rot; This
sensible warm motion to become A kneaded clod.” Strauss,
Glaubenslehre, 2:739—“The other world is in all men the one enemy,
in its aspect of a future world, however, the last enemy, which
speculative criticism has to fight, and if possible to overcome.”
Omar Khayyám, Rubáiyát, Stanzas 28‐35—“I came like Water, and like
Wind I go.... Up from Earth’s Centre through the seventh gate I
rose, and on the throne of Saturn sate, And many a knot unravelled
by the Road, But not the master‐knot of human fate. There was the
Door to which I found no Key; There was the Veil through which I
might not see: Some little talk awhile of _Me_ and _Thee_ There
was,—And then no more of _Thee_ and _Me_. Earth could not answer,
nor the Seas that mourn, In flowing purple, of their Lord forlorn;
Nor rolling Heaven, with all his signs revealed, And hidden by the
sleeve of Night and Morn. Then of the _Thee in Me_, who works
behind The veil, I lifted up my hands to find A Lamp, amid the
darkness; and I heard As from without—‘The Me within Thee blind.’
Then to the lip of this poor earthen Urn I leaned, the secret of
my life to learn; And Lip to Lip it murmur’d—‘While you live,
Drink!—for, once dead, you never shall return!’ ” So “The Phantom
Caravan has reached The Nothing it set out from.” It is a
demonstration of the hopelessness and blindness and sensuality of
man, when left without the revelation of God and of the life to
come.

The most that can be claimed for this fourth argument from popular
belief is that it indicates a general appentency for continued
existence after death, and that the idea is congruous with our
nature. W. E. Forster said to Harriet Martineau that he would
rather be damned than annihilated; see F. P. Cobbe, Peak of
Darien, 44. But it may be replied that there is reason enough for
this desire for life in the fact that it ensures the earthly
existence of the race, which might commit universal suicide
without it. There is reason enough in the present life for its
existence, and we are not necessitated to infer a future life
therefrom. This objection cannot be fully answered from reason
alone. But if we take our argument in connection with the
Scriptural revelation concerning God’s making of man in his image,
we may regard the testimony of man’s nature as the testimony of
the God who made it.

We conclude our statement of these rational proofs with the acknowledgment
that they rest upon the presupposition that there exists a God of truth,
wisdom, justice, and love, who has made man in his image, and who desires
to commune with his creatures. We acknowledge, moreover, that these proofs
give us, not an absolute demonstration, but only a balance of probability,
in favor of man’s immortality. We turn therefore to Scripture for the
clear revelation of a fact of which reason furnishes us little more than a
presumption.

Everett, Essays, 76, 77—“In his Träume eines Geistersehers, Kant
foreshadows the Method of his Kritik. He gives us a scheme of
disembodied spirits, and calls it a bit of mystic (_geheimen_)
philosophy; then the opposite view, which he calls a bit of vulgar
(_gemeimen_) philosophy. Then he says the scales of the
understanding are not quite impartial, and the one that has the
inscription ‘Hope for the future’ has a mechanical advantage. He
says he cannot rid himself of this unfairness. He suffers feeling
to determine the result. This is intellectual agnosticism
supplemented by religious faith.” The following lines have been
engraved upon the tomb of Professor Huxley: “And if there be no
meeting past the grave, If all is darkness, silence, yet ’tis
rest. Be not afraid, ye waiting hearts that weep, For God still
giveth his beloved sleep, And if an endless sleep he wills, so
best.” Contrast this consolation with: “_Let not your heart be
troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s
house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place
for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that
where I am, there ye may be also_” (_John 14:1‐3_).

Dorner: “There is no rational evidence which compels belief in
immortality. Immortality has its pledge in God’s making man in his
image, and in God’s will of love for communion with men.”
Luthardt, Compendium, 289—“The truth in these proofs from reason
is the idea of human personality and its relation to God. Belief
in God is the universal presupposition and foundation of the
universal belief in immortality.” When Strauss declared that this
belief in immortality is the last enemy which is to be destroyed,
he forgot that belief in God is more ineradicable still. Frances
Power Cobbe, Life, 92—“The doctrine of immortality is to me the
indispensable corollary of that of the goodness of God.”

Hadley, Essays, Philological and Critical, 392‐397—“The claim of
immortality may be based on one or the other of two assumptions:
(1) The same organism will be reproduced hereafter, and the same
functions, or part of them, again manifested in connection with
it, and accompanied with consciousness of continued identity; or,
(2) The same functions may be exercised and accompanied with
consciousness of identity, though not connected with the same
organism as before; may in fact go on without interruption,
without being even suspended by death, though no longer manifested
to us.” The conclusion is: “The light of nature, when all directed
to this question, does furnish a presumption in favor of
immortality, but not so strong a presumption as to exclude great
and reasonable doubts upon the subject.”

For an excellent synopsis of arguments and objections, see Hase,
Hutterus Redivivus, 276. See also Bowen, Metaph. and Ethics,
417‐441; A. M. Fairbairn, on Idea of Immortality, in Studies in
Philos. of Religion and of History; Wordsworth, Intimations of
Immortality; Tennyson, Two Voices; Alger, Critical History of
Doctrine of Future Life, with Appendix by Ezra Abbott, containing
a Catalogue of Works relating to the Nature, Origin, and Destiny
of the Soul; Ingersoll Lectures on Immortality, by George A.
Gordon, Josiah Royce, William James, Dr. Osler, John Fiske, B. I.
Wheeler, Hyslop, Münsterberg, Crothars.

2. Upon scriptural grounds.

(_a_) The account of man’s creation, and the subsequent allusions to it in
Scripture, show that, while the body was made corruptible and subject to
death, the soul was made in the image of God, incorruptible and immortal.

_Gen. 1:26, 27_—“_Let us make man in our image_”; _2:7_—“_And
Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living
soul_”—here, as was shown in our treatment of Man’s Original
State, page 523, it is not the divine image, but the body, that is
formed of dust; and into this body the soul that possesses the
divine image is breathed. In the Hebrew records, the animating
soul is everywhere distinguished from the earthly body. _Gen.
3:22, 23_—“_Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good
and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of
the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore Jehovah
God sent him forth from the garden of Eden_”—man had immortality
of soul, and now, lest to this he add immortality of body, he is
expelled from the tree of life. _Eccl. 12:7_—“_the dust returneth
to the earth as it was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave
it_”; _Zech. 12:1_—“_Jehovah, who stretcheth forth the heavens,
and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of
man within him._”

_Mat. 10:28_—“_And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but
are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to
destroy both soul and body in hell_”; _Acts 7:59_—“_And they
stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and saying, Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit_”: _2 Cor. 12:2_—“_I know a man in Christ,
fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether
out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up
even to the third heaven_”; _1 Cor. 15:45, 46_—“_The first man
Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life‐giving
spirit. Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that
which is natural; then that which is spiritual_”—the first Adam
was made a being whose body was psychical and mortal—a body of
flesh and blood, that could not inherit the kingdom of God. So
Paul says the spiritual is not first, but the psychical; but there
is no intimation that the soul also was created mortal, and needed
external appliances, like the tree of life, before it could enter
upon immortality.

But it may be asked: Is not all this, in _1 Cor. 15_, spoken of
the regenerate—those to whom a new principle of life has been
communicated? We answer, yes; but that does not prevent us from
learning from the passage the natural immortality of the soul; for
in regeneration the essence is not changed, no new substance is
imparted, no new faculty or constitutive element is added, and no
new principle of holiness is infused. The truth is simply that the
spirit is morally readjusted. For substance of the above remarks,
see Hovey, State of Impenitent Dead, 1‐27.

Savage, Life after Death, 46, 53—“The word translated ‘soul’, in
_Gen. 2:7_, is the same word which in other parts of the O. T. is
used to denote the life‐principle of animals. It does not follow
that soul implies immortality, for then all animals would be
immortal.... The firmament of the Hebrews was the cover of a
dinner‐platter, solid, but with little windows to let the rain
through. Above this firmament was heaven where God and angels
abode, but no people went there. All went below. But growing moral
sense held that the good could not be imprisoned in Hades. So came
the idea of resurrection.... If a _force_, a universe with God
left out, can do all that has been done, I do not see why it
cannot also continue my existence through what is called death.”

Dr. H. Heath Bawden: “It is only the creature that is born that
will die. Monera and Amœbæ are immortal, as Weismann tells us.
They do not die, because they never are born. The death of the
individual as a somatic individual is for the sake of the larger
future life of the individual in its germinal immortality. So we
live ourselves spiritually into our children, as well as
physically. An organism is nothing but a centre or focus through
which the world surges. What matter if the irrelevant somatic
portion is lost in what we call death! The only immortality
possible is the immortality of function. My body has changed
completely since I was a boy, but I have become a larger self
thereby. Birth and death simply mark steps or stages in the growth
of such an individual, which in its very nature does not exclude
but rather includes within it the lives of all other individuals.
The individual is more than a passive member, he is an active
organ of a biological whole. The laws of his life are the social
organism functioning in one of its organs. He lives and moves and
has his being in the great spirit of the whole, which comes to a
focus or flowers out in his conscious life.”

(_b_) The account of the curse in Genesis, and the subsequent allusions to
it in Scripture, show that, while the death then incurred includes the
dissolution of the body, it does not include cessation of being on the
part of the soul, but only designates that state of the soul which is the
opposite of true life, _viz._, a state of banishment from God, of
unholiness, and of misery.

_Gen. 2:17_—“_in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die_”; _cf._ _3:8_—“_the man and his wife hid themselves
from the presence of Jehovah God_”; _16‐19_—the curse of pain and
toil: _22‐24_—banishment from the garden of Eden and from the tree
of life. _Mat. 8:22_—“_Follow me; and leave the dead to bury their
own dead_”; _25:41, 46_—“_Depart from me, ye cursed, into the
eternal fire.... These shall go away into eternal punishment_”;
_Luke 15:32_—“_this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and
was lost, and is found_”; _John 5:24_—“_He that heareth my word,
and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not
into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life_”; _6:47,
53, 63_—“_He that believeth hath eternal life.... Except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life
in yourselves.... the words that I have spoken unto you are
spirit, and are life_”: _8:51_—“_If a man keep my word, he shall
never see death._”

_Rom. 5:21_—“_that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace
reign through righteousness unto eternal life_”; _8:13_—“_if ye
live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to
death the deeds of the body, ye shall live_”; _Eph. 2:1_—“_dead
through your trespasses and sins_”; _5:14_—“_Awake, thou that
sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon
thee_”; _James 5:20_—“_he who converteth a sinner from the error
of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall cover a
multitude of sins_”; _1 John 3:14_—“_We know that we have passed
out of death into life, because we love the brethren_”; _Rev.
3:1_—“_I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest,
and thou art dead._”

We are to interpret O. T. terms by the N. T. meaning put into
them. We are to interpret the Hebrew by the Greek, not the Greek
by the Hebrew. It never would do to interpret our missionaries’
use of the Chinese words for “God”, “spirit”, “holiness”, by the
use of those words among the Chinese before the missionaries came.
By the later usage of the N. T., the Holy Spirit shows us what he
meant by the usage of the O. T.

(_c_) The Scriptural expressions, held by annihilationists to imply
cessation of being on the part of the wicked, are used not only in
connections where they cannot bear this meaning (Esther 4:16), but in
connections where they imply the opposite.

_Esther 4:16_—“_if I perish, I perish_”; _Gen. 6:11_—“_And the
earth was corrupt before God_”—here, in the LXX, the word ἐφθάρη,
translated “_was corrupt_,” is the same word which in other places
is interpreted by annihilationists as meaning extinction of being.
In _Ps. 119:176_, “_I have gone astray like a lost sheep_” cannot
mean “I have gone astray like an annihilated sheep.” _Is.
49:17_—“_thy destroyers_ [annihilators?] _and they that made thee
waste shall go forth from thee_”; _57:1, 2_—“_The righteous
perisheth_ [is annihilated?] _and no man layeth it to heart; and
merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous
is taken away from the evil to come. He entereth into peace; they
rest in their beds, each one that walketh in his uprightness_”;
_Dan. 9:26_—“_And after the three score and two weeks shall the
anointed one be cut off_ [annihilated?].”

_Mat. 10:6, 39, 42_—“_the lost sheep of the house of Israel ... he
that loseth his life for my sake shall find it ... he shall in no
wise lose his reward_”—in these verses we cannot substitute
“annihilate” for “_lose_”; _Acts 13:41_—“_Behold, ye despisers,
and wonder, and perish_”; _cf._ _Mat. 6:16_—“_for they disfigure
their faces_”—where the same word ἀφανίζω is used. _1 Cor.
3:17_—“_If any man destroyeth_ [annihilates?] _the temple of God,
him shall God destroy_”; _2 Cor. 7:2_—“_we corrupted no
man_”—where the same word φθείρω is used. _2 Thess. 1:9_—“_who
shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of
the Lord and from the glory of his might_” = the wicked shall be
driven out from the presence of Christ. Destruction is not
annihilation. “_Destruction from_” = separation; (_per contra_,
see Prof. W. A. Stevens, Com. _in loco_: “_from_” = the source
from which the “_destruction_” proceeds). “A ship engulfed in
quicksands is destroyed; a temple broken down and deserted is
destroyed”; see Lillie, Com. _in loco_. _2 Pet. 3:7_—“_day of
judgment and destruction of ungodly men_”—here the word
“_destruction_” (ἀπωλείας) is the same with that used of the end
of the present order of things, and translated “_perished_”
(ἀπώλετο) in _verse 6_. “We cannot accordingly infer from it that
the ungodly will cease to exist, but only that there will be a
great and penal change in their condition” (Plumptre, Com. _in
loco_).

(_d_) The passages held to prove the annihilation of the wicked at death
cannot have this meaning, since the Scriptures foretell a resurrection of
the unjust as well as of the just; and a second death, or a misery of the
reunited soul and body, in the case of the wicked.

_Acts 24:15_—“_there shall be a resurrection both of the just and
unjust_”; _Rev. 2:11_—“_He that overcometh shall not be hurt of
the second death_”; _20:14, 15_—“_And death and Hades were cast
into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of
fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was
cast into the lake of fire_”; _21:8_—“_their part shall be in the
lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second
death._” The “_second death_” is the first death intensified.
Having one’s “_part in the lake of fire_” is not annihilation.

In a similar manner the word “_life_” is to be interpreted not as
meaning continuance of being, but as meaning perfection of being.
As death is the loss not of life, but of all that makes life
desirable, so life is the possession of the highest good. _1 Tim.
5:6_—“_She that giveth herself to pleasure is dead while she
liveth_”—here the death is spiritual death, and it is implied that
true life is spiritual life. _John 10:10_—“_I came that they may
have life, and may have it abundantly_”—implies that “_life_” _is
not_: 1. mere existence, for they had this before Christ came; nor
2. mere motion, as squirrels go in a wheel, without making
progress; nor 3. mere possessions, “_for a man’s life consisteth
not in the abundance of things which he possesseth_” (_Luke
12:15_). But life _is_: 1. right relation of our powers, or
holiness; 2. right use of our powers, or love; 3. right number of
our powers, or completeness; 4. right intensity of our powers, or
energy of will; 5. right environment of our powers, or society; 6.
right source of our powers, or God.

(_e_) The words used in Scripture to denote the place of departed spirits
have in them no implication of annihilation, and the allusions to the
condition of the departed show that death, to the writers of the Old and
the New Testaments, although it was the termination of man’s earthly
existence, was not an extinction of his being or his consciousness.

On שאול Sheol, Gesenius, Lexicon, 10th ed., says that, though שאול
is commonly explained as infinitive of שאל, to demand, it is
undoubtedly allied to שעל (root של), to be sunk, and = “sinking,”
“depth,” or “the sunken, deep, place.” Ἁιδης, Hades, = not “hell,”
but the “unseen world,” conceived by the Greeks as a shadowy, but
not as an unconscious, state of being. Genung, Epic of the Inner
Life, on _Job 7:9_—“Sheol, the Hebrew word designating the unseen
abode of the dead; a neutral word, presupposing neither misery nor
happiness, and not infrequently used much as we use the word ‘the
grave’, to denote the final undefined resting‐place of all.”

_Gen. 25:8, 9_—Abraham “_was gathered to his people. And Isaac and
Ishmael his sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah._” “Yet
Abraham’s father was buried in Haran, and his more remote
ancestors in Ur of the Chaldees. So Joshua’s generation is said to
be ‘_gathered to their fathers_’ though the generation that
preceded them perished in the wilderness, and previous generations
died in Egypt” (W. H. Green, in S. S. Times). So of Isaac in _Gen.
35:29_, and of Jacob in _19:29, 33_,—all of whom were gathered to
their fathers before they were buried. _Num. 20:24_—“_Aaron shall
be gathered unto his people_”—here it is very plain that being
“_gathered unto his people_” was something different from burial.
_Deut. 10:6_—“_There Aaron died, and there he was buried._” _Job
3:13, 18_—“_For now should I have lain down and been quiet; I
should have slept; then had I been at rest.... There the prisoners
are at ease together; They hear not the voice of the taskmaster_”;
_7:9_—“_As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away, So he that
goeth down to Sheol shall come up no more_”; _14:22_—“_But his
flesh upon him hath pain, And his soul within him mourneth._”

_Ez. 32:21_—“_The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out
of the midst of Sheol_”; _Luke 16:23_—“_And in Hades he lifted up
his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and
Lazarus in his bosom_”; _23:43_—“_To‐day shalt thou be with me in
Paradise_”; _cf._ _1 Sam. 28:19_—Samuel said to Saul in the cave
of Endor: “_to‐morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with
me_”—evidently not in an unconscious state. Many of these passages
intimate a continuity of consciousness after death. Though Sheol
is unknown to man, it is naked and open to God (_Job 26:6_); he
can find men there to redeem them from thence (_Ps. 49:15_)—proof
that death is not annihilation. See Girdlestone, O. T. Synonyms,
447.

(_f_) The terms and phrases which have been held to declare absolute
cessation of existence at death are frequently metaphorical, and an
examination of them in connection with the context and with other
Scriptures is sufficient to show the untenableness of the literal
interpretation put upon them by the annihilationists, and to prove that
the language is merely the language of appearance.

Death is often designated as a “_sleeping_” or a “_falling
asleep_”; see _John 11:11, 14_—“_Our friend Lazarus is fallen
asleep; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep.... Then Jesus
therefore said unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead._” Here the
language of appearance is used; yet this language could not have
been used, if the soul had not been conceived of as alive, though
sundered from the body; see Meyer on _1 Cor. 1:18_. So the
language of appearance is used in _Eccl. 9:10_—“_there is no work,
nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol whither thou
goest_”—and in _Ps. 146:4_—“_His breath goeth forth; he returneth
to his earth; In that very day his thoughts perish._”

See Mozley, Essays, 2:171—“These passages often describe the
phenomena of death as it presents itself to our eyes, and so do
not enter into the reality which takes place beneath it.”
Bartlett, Life and Death Eternal, 189‐358—“Because the same Hebrew
word is used for ‘spirit’ and ‘breath,’ shall we say that the
spirit is only breath? ‘Heart’ in English might in like manner be
made to mean only the material organ; and David’s heart, panting,
thirsting, melting within him, would have to be interpreted
literally. So a man may be ‘eaten up with avarice,’ while yet his
being is not only not extinct, but is in a state of frightful
activity.”

(_g_) The Jewish belief in a conscious existence after death is proof that
the theory of annihilation rests upon a misinterpretation of Scripture.
That such a belief in the immortality of the soul existed among the Jews
is abundantly evident: from the knowledge of a future state possessed by
the Egyptians (Acts 7:22); from the accounts of the translation of Enoch
and of Elijah (Gen. 5:24; _cf._ Heb. 11:5; 2 K. 2:11); from the invocation
of the dead which was practised, although forbidden by the law (1 Sam.
28:7‐14; _cf._ Lev. 20:28; Deut. 18:10, 11); from allusions in the O. T.
to resurrection, future retribution, and life beyond the grave (Job
19:25‐27; Ps. 16:9‐11; Is. 26:19; Ez. 37:1‐14; Dan. 12:2, 3, 13); and from
distinct declarations of such faith by Philo and Josephus, as well as by
the writers of the N. T. (Mat. 22:31, 32; Acts 23:6; 26:6‐8; Heb.
11:13‐16).

The Egyptian coffin was called “the chest of the living.” The
Egyptians called their houses “hostelries,” while their tombs they
called their “eternal homes” (Butcher, Aspects of Greek Genius,
30). See the Book of the Dead, translated by Birch, in Bunsen’s
Egypt’s Place, 123‐333: The principal ideas of the first part of
the Book of the Dead are “living again after death, and being born
again as the sun,” which typified the Egyptian resurrection (138).
“The deceased lived again after death” (134). “The Osiris lives
after he dies, like the sun daily; for as the sun died and was
born yesterday, so the Osiris is born” (164). Yet the immortal
part, in its continued existence, was dependent for its
blessedness upon the preservation of the body; and for this reason
the body was embalmed. Immortality of the body is as important as
the passage of the soul to the upper regions. Growth or natural
reparation of the body is invoked as earnestly as the passage of
the soul. “There is not a limb of him without a god; Thoth is
vivifying his limbs” (197).

Maspero, Recueil de Travaux, gives the following readings from the
inner walls of pyramids twelve miles south of Cairo: “O Unas, thou
hast gone away dead, but living”; “Teti is the living dead”;
“Arise, O Teti, to die no more”; “O Pepi, thou diest no
more”;—these inscriptions show that to the Egyptians there was
life beyond death. “The life of Unas is duration; his period is
eternity”; “They render thee happy throughout all eternity”; “He
who has given thee life and eternity is Ra”;—here we see that the
life beyond death was eternal. “Rising at his pleasure, gathering
his members that are in the tomb, Unas goes forth”; “Unas has his
heart, his legs, his arms”; this asserts reunion with the body.
“Reunited to thy soul, thou takest thy place among the stars of
heaven”; “the soul is thine within thee”;—there was reunion with
the soul. “A god is born, it is Unas”; “O Ra, thy son comes to
thee, this Unas comes to thee”; “O Father of Unas, grant that he
may be included in the number of the perfect and wise gods”; here
it is taught that the reunited soul and body becomes a god and
dwells with the gods.

Howard Osgood: “Osiris, the son of gods, came to live on earth.
His life was a pattern for others. He was put to death by the god
of evil, but regained his body, lived again, and became, in the
other world, the judge of all men.” Tiele, Egyptian Religion,
280—“To become like god Osiris, a benefactor, a good being,
persecuted but justified, judged but pronounced innocent, was
looked upon as the ideal of every pious man, and as the condition
on which alone eternal life could be obtained, and as the means by
which it could be continued.” Ebers, Études Archéologiques,
21—“The texts in the pyramids show us that under the Pharaohs of
the 5th dynasty (before 2500 B. C.) the doctrine that the deceased
became god was not only extant, but was developed more thoroughly
and with far higher flight of imagination than we could expect
from the simple statements concerning the other world hitherto
known to us as from that early time.” Revillout, on Egyptian
Ethics, in Bib. Sac., July, 1890:304—“An almost absolute
sinlessness was for the Egyptian the condition of becoming another
Osiris and enjoying eternal happiness. Of the penitential side, so
highly developed in the ancient Babylonians and Hebrews, which
gave rise to so many admirable penitential psalms, we find only a
trace among the Egyptians. Sinlessness is the rule,—the deceased
vaunts himself as a hero of virtue.” See Uarda, by Ebers; Dr.
Howard Osgood, on Resurrection among the Egyptians, in Hebrew
Student, Feb. 1885. The Egyptians, however, recognized no
transmigration of souls; see Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 181‐184.

It is morally impossible that Moses should not have known the
Egyptian doctrine of immortality: _Acts 7:22_—“_And Moses was
instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians._” That Moses did
not make the doctrine more prominent in his teachings, may be for
the reason that it was so connected with Egyptian superstitions
with regard to Osiris. Yet the Jews believed in immortality: _Gen.
5:24_—“_and Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took
him_”; _cf._ _Heb. 11:5_—“_By faith Enoch was translated that he
should not see death_”; _2 Kings 2:11_—“_Elijah went up by a
whirlwind into heaven_”; _1 Sam. 28:7‐14_—the invocation of Samuel
by the woman of Endor; _cf._ _Lev. 20:27_—“_A man also or a woman
that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be
put to death_”; _Deut. 18:10, 11_—“_There shall not be found with
thee ... a consulter with a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a
necromancer._”

_Job 19:25‐27_—“_I know that my Redeemer liveth, And at last he
will stand up upon the earth: And after my skin, even this body,
is destroyed, Then without my flesh shall I see God; Whom I, even
I, shall see, on my side, And mine eyes shall behold, and not as a
stranger. My heart is consumed within me_”; _Ps.
16:9‐11_—“_Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: My
flesh also shall dwell in safety. For thou wilt not leave my soul
to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.
Thou wilt show me the path of life: In thy presence is fulness of
joy; In thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore_”; _Is.
26:19_—“_Thy dead shalt live; my dead bodies shall arise. Awake
and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of
herbs, and the earth shall cast forth the dead_”; _Ez.
37:1‐14_—the valley of dry bones—“_I will open your graves, and
cause you to come up out of your graves, O my people_”—a prophecy
of restoration based upon the idea of immortality and
resurrection; _Dan. 12:2, 3, 13_—“_And many of them that sleep in
the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and
some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that are wise
shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn
many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.... But go
thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and shalt stand
in thy lot, at the end of the days._”

Josephus, on the doctrine of the Pharisees, in Antiquities,
XVIII:1:3, and Wars of the Jews, II:8:10‐14—“Souls have an
immortal vigor. Under the earth are rewards and punishments. The
wicked are detained in an everlasting prison. The righteous shall
have power to revive and live again. Bodies are indeed
corruptible, but souls remain exempt from death forever. But the
doctrine of the Sadducees is that souls die with their bodies.”
_Mat. 22:31, 32_—“_But as touching the resurrection of the dead,
have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I
am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living._”

Christ’s argument, in the passage last quoted, rests upon the two
implied assumptions: first, that love will never suffer the object
of its affection to die; beings who have ever been the objects of
God’s love will be so forever; secondly, that body and soul belong
normally together; if body and soul are temporarily separated,
they shall be united; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living, and
therefore they shall rise again. It was only an application of the
same principle, when Robert Hall gave up his early materialism as
he looked down into his father’s grave: he felt that this could
not be the end; _cf._ _Ps. 22:26_—“_Your heart shall live
forever._” _Acts 23:6_—“_I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees:
touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in
question_”; _26:7, 8_—“_And concerning this hope I am accused by
the Jews, O king! Why is it judged incredible with you, if God
doth raise the dead?_” _Heb. 11:13‐16_—the present life was
reckoned as a pilgrimage; the patriarchs sought “_a better
country, that is, a heavenly_”; _cf._ _Gen. 47:9_. On Jesus’
argument for the resurrection, see A. H. Strong, Christ in
Creation, 406‐421.

The argument for immortality itself presupposes, not only the
existence of a God, but the existence of a truthful, wise, and
benevolent God. We might almost say that God and immortality must
be proved together,—like two pieces of a broken crock, when put
together there is proof of both. And yet logically it is only the
existence of God that is intuitively certain. Immortality is an
inference therefrom. Henry More: “But souls that of his own good
life partake He loves as his own self; dear as his eye They are to
him: he’ll never them forsake; When they shall die, then God
himself shall die; They live, they live in blest eternity.” God
could not let Christ die, and he cannot let us die. Southey: “They
sin who tell us love can die. With life all other passions fly;
All others are but vanity. In heaven ambition cannot dwell, Nor
avarice in the vaults of hell; They perish where they had their
birth; But love is indestructible.”

Emerson, Threnody on the death of his beloved and gifted child:
“What is excellent, As God lives, is permanent: Hearts are dust,
hearts’ loves remain; Heart’s love will meet thee again.”
Whittier, Snowbound, 200 _sq._—“Yet Love will dream, and Faith
will trust (Since He who knows our need is just), That somehow,
somewhere, meet we must. Alas for him who never sees The stars
shine through his cypress trees! Who hopeless lays his dead away,
Nor looks to see the breaking day Across his mournful marbles
play! Who hath not learned, in hours of faith, The truth to flesh
and sense unknown, That Life is ever lord of death, And Love can
never lose its own.” Robert Browning, Evelyn Hope: “For God above
Is great to grant as mighty to make, And creates the love to
reward the love; I claim you still for my own love’s sake! Delayed
it may be for more lives yet, Through worlds I shall traverse not
a few; Much is to learn and much to forget, Ere the time be come
for taking you.”

The river St. John in New Brunswick descends seventeen feet
between the city and the sea, and ships cannot overcome the
obstacle, but when the tide comes in, it turns the current the
other way and bears vessels on mightily to the city. So the laws
of nature bring death, but the tides of Christ’s life counteract
them, and bring life and immortality (Dr. J. W. A. Stewart).
Mozley, Lectures, 26‐59, and Essays, 2:169—“True religion among
the Jews had an evidence of immortality in its possession of God.
Paganism was hopeless in its loss of friends, because affection
never advanced beyond its earthly object, and therefore, in losing
it, lost all. But religious love, which loves the creature in the
Creator, has that on which to fall back, when its earthly object
is removed.”

(_h_) The most impressive and conclusive of all proofs of immortality,
however, is afforded in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,—a work
accomplished by his own power, and demonstrating that the spirit lived
after its separation from the body (John 2:19, 21; 10:17, 18). By coming
back from the tomb, he proves that death is not annihilation (2 Tim.
1:10).

_John 2:19, 21_—“_Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up.... But he spake of
the temple of his body_”; _10:17, 18_—“_Therefore doth the Father
love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again....
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again_”;
_2 Tim. 1:10_—“_our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and
brought life and immortality to light through the gospel_”—that
is, immortality had been a truth dimly recognized, suspected,
longed for, before Christ came; but it was he who first brought it
out from obscurity and uncertainty into clear daylight and
convincing power. Christ’s resurrection, moreover, carries with it
the resurrection of his people: “We two are so joined, He’ll not
be in glory and leave me behind.”

Christ taught immortality: (1) By exhibiting himself the perfect
conception of a human life. Who could believe that Christ could
become forever extinct? (2) By actually coming back from beyond
the grave. There were many speculations about a trans‐Atlantic
continent before 1492, but these were of little worth compared
with the actual word which Columbus brought of a new world beyond
the sea. (3) By providing a way through which his own spiritual
life and victory may be ours; so that, though we pass through the
valley of the shadow of death, we may fear no evil. (4) By thus
gaining authority to teach us of the resurrection of the righteous
and of the wicked, as he actually does. Christ’s resurrection is
not only the best proof of immortality, but we have no certain
evidence of immortality without it. Hume held that the same logic
which proved immortality from reason alone, would also prove
preëxistence. “In reality,” he said, “it is the Gospel, and the
Gospel alone, that has brought immortality to light.” It was
truth, though possibly spoken in jest.

There was need of this revelation. The fear of death, even after
Christ has come, shows how hopeless humanity is by nature. Krupp,
the great German maker of cannon, would not have death mentioned
in his establishment. He ran away from his own dying relatives.
Yet he died. But to the Christian, death is an exodus, an
unmooring, a home‐coming. Here we are as ships on the stocks; at
death we are launched into our true element. Before Christ’s
resurrection, it was twilight; it is sunrise now. Balfour: “Death
is the fall of the curtain, not at the end of the piece, but at
the end of the act.” George Dana Boardman: “Christ is the
resurrection and the life. Being himself the Son of man—the
archetypal man, the representative of human nature, the head and
epitome of mankind—mankind ideally, potentially, virtually rose,
when the Son of man rose. He is the resurrection, because he is
the life. The body does not give life to itself, but life takes on
body and uses it.”

George Adam Smith, Yale Lectures: “Some of the Psalmists have only
a hope of corporate immortality. But this was found wanting. It
did not satisfy Israel. It cannot satisfy men to‐day. The O. T. is
of use in reminding us that the hope of immortality is a
secondary, subordinate, and dispensable element of religious
experience. Men had better begin and work for God’s sake, and not
for future reward. The O. T. development of immortality is of use
most of all because it deduces all immortality from God.”
Athanasius: “Man is, according to nature, mortal, as a being who
has been made of things that are perishable. But on account of his
likeness to God he can by piety ward off and escape from his
natural mortality and remain indestructible if he retain the
knowledge of God, or lose his incorruptibility if he lose his life
in God” (quoted in McConnell, Evolution of Immortality, viii,
46‐48). Justin Martyr, 1 Apol., 17, expects resurrection of both
just and unjust; but in Dial. Tryph., 5, he expressly denounces
and dismisses the Platonic doctrine that the soul is immortal.
Athenagoras and Tertullian hold to native immortality, and from it
argue to bodily resurrection. So Augustine. But Theophilus,
Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, with Athanasius, counted it a pagan
error. For the annihilation theory, see Hudson, Debt and Grace,
and Christ our Life; also Dobney, Future Punishment. _Per contra_,
see Hovey, State of the Impenitent Dead, 1‐27, and Manual of
Theology and Ethics, 153‐168; Luthardt, Compendium, 289‐292;
Delitzsch, Bib. Psych., 397‐407; Herzog, Encyclop., art.: Tod;
Splittgerber, Schlaf und Tod; Estes, Christian Doctrine of the
Soul; Baptist Review, 1879:411‐439; Presb. Rev., Jan. 1882:203.

II. The Intermediate State.

The Scriptures affirm the conscious existence of both the righteous and
the wicked, after death, and prior to the resurrection. In the
intermediate state the soul is without a body, yet this state is for the
righteous a state of conscious joy, and for the wicked a state of
conscious suffering.

That the righteous do not receive the spiritual body at death, is plain
from 1 Thess. 4:16,17 and 1 Cor. 15:52, where an interval is intimated
between Paul’s time and the rising of those who slept. The rising was to
occur in the future, “at the last trump.” So the resurrection of the
wicked had not yet occurred in any single case (2 Tim. 2:18—it was an
error to say that the resurrection was “past already”); it was yet future
(John 5:28‐30—“the hour cometh”—ἔρχεται ὤρα, not καὶ νῦν ἐστίν—“now is,”
as in verse 25; Acts 24:15—“there shall be a resurrection”—ἀνάστασιν
μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι). Christ was the firstfruits (1 Cor. 15:20, 23). If the
saints had received the spiritual body at death, the patriarchs would have
been raised before Christ.

1. Of the righteous.

Of the righteous, it is declared:

(_a_) That the soul of the believer, at its separation from the body,
enters the presence of Christ.

_2 Cor. 5:1‐8_—“_if the earthly house of our tabernacle be
dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with
hands, eternal in the heavens. For verily in this we groan,
longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from
heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
For indeed we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being
burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but that we would be
clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life ...
willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with
the Lord_”—Paul hopes to escape the violent separation of soul and
body—the being “_unclothed_”—by living till the coming of the
Lord, and then putting on the heavenly body, as it were, over the
present one (ἐπενδύσασθαι); yet whether he lived till Christ’s
coming or not, he knew that the soul, when it left the body, would
be at home with the Lord.

_Luke 23:43_—“_To‐day shalt thou be with me in Paradise_”; _John
14:3_—“_And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and
will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be
also_”; _2 Tim. 4:18_—“_The Lord will deliver me from every evil
work, and will save me unto_ [or, ‘_into_’] _his heavenly
kingdom_” = will save me and put me into his heavenly kingdom
(Ellicott), the characteristic of which is the visible presence of
the King with his subjects. It is our privilege to be with Christ
here and now. And nothing shall separate us from Christ and his
love, “_neither death, nor life ... nor things present, nor things
to come_” (_Rom. 8:38_); for he himself has said: “_Lo, I am with
you always, even unto the consummation of the age_” (_Mat.
28:20_).

(_b_) That the spirits of departed believers are with God.

_Heb. 12:23_—Ye are come “_to the general assembly and church of
the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of
all_”; _cf._ _Eccl. 12:7_—“_the dust returneth to the earth as it
was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it_”; _John
20:17_—“_Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the
Father_”—probably means: “my body has not yet ascended.” The soul
had gone to God during the interval between death and the
resurrection, as is evident from _Luke 23:43, 46_—“_with me in
Paradise ... Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit._”

(_c_) That believers at death enter paradise.

_Luke 23:42, 43_—“_And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou
comest in thy kingdom. And he said unto him, Verily I say unto
thee, To‐day shalt thou be with me in paradise_”; _cf._ _2 Cor.
12:4_—“_caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words,
which it is not lawful for a man to utter_”; _Rev. 2:7_—“_To him
that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life,
which is in the Paradise of God_”; _Gen. 2:8_—“_And Jehovah God
planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom
he had formed._” Paradise is none other than the abode of God and
the blessed, of which the primeval Eden was the type. If the
penitent thief went to Purgatory, it was a Purgatory with Christ,
which was better than a Heaven without Christ. Paradise is a place
which Christ has gone to prepare, perhaps by taking our friends
there before us.

(_d_) That their state, immediately after death, is greatly to be
preferred to that of faithful and successful laborers for Christ here.

_Phil. 1:23_—“_I am in a strait betwixt the two, having the desire
to depart and be with Christ; for it is very far better_”—here
Hackett says: “ἀναλῦσαι = departing, cutting loose, as if to put
to sea, followed by σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, as if Paul regarded one
event as immediately subsequent to the other.” Paul, with his
burning desire to preach Christ, would certainly have preferred to
live and labor, even amid great suffering, rather than to die, if
death to him had been a state of unconsciousness and inaction. See
Edwards the younger, Works, 2:530, 531; Hovey, Impenitent Dead,
61.

(_e_) That departed saints are truly alive and conscious.

_Mat. 22:32_—“_God is not the God of the dead, but of the
living_”; _Luke 16:22_—“_carried away by the angels into Abraham’s
bosom_”; _23:43_—“_To‐day shalt thou be with me in
Paradise_”—“_with me_” = in the same state,—unless Christ slept in
unconsciousness, we cannot think that the penitent thief did;
_John 11:26_—“_whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never
die_”; _1 Thess. 5:10_—“_who died for us, that, whether we wake or
sleep, we should live together with him_”; _Rom. 8:10_—“_And if
Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit
is life because of righteousness._” Life and consciousness clearly
belong to the “_souls under the altar_” mentioned under the next
head, for they cry: “_How long?_” _Phil. 1:6_—“_he who began a
good work in you will perfect it until the day of Jesus
Christ_”—seems to imply a progressive sanctification, through the
Intermediate State, up to the time of Christ’s second coming. This
state is: 1. a conscious state (“_God of the living_”); 2. a fixed
state (no “_passing from thence_”); 3. an incomplete state (“_not
to be unclothed_”).

(_f_) That they are at rest and blessed.

_Rev. 6:9‐11_—“_I saw underneath the altar the souls of them that
had been slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which
they held: and they cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O
Master, the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our
blood on them that dwell on the earth? And there was given them to
each one a white robe; and it was said unto them, that they should
rest yet for a little time, until their fellow‐servants also and
their brethren, who should be killed even as they were, should
have fulfilled their course_”; _14:13_—“_Blessed are the dead who
die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they
may rest from their labors; for their works follow with them_”;
_20:14_—“_And death and Hades were cast into the lake of
fire_”—see Evans, in Presb. Rev., 1883:303—“The shadow of death
lying upon Hades is the penumbra of Hell. Hence Hades is
associated with death in the final doom.”

2. Of the wicked.

Of the wicked, it is declared:

(_a_) That they are in prison,—that is, are under constraint and guard (1
Peter 3:19—φυλακή).

_1 Pet. 3:19_—“_In which_ [spirit] _also he went and preached unto
the spirits in prison_”—there is no need of putting unconscious
spirits under guard. Hovey: “Restraint implies power of action,
and suffering implies consciousness.”

(_b_) That they are in torment, or conscious suffering (Luke 16:23—ἐν
βασάνοις).

_Luke 16:23_—“_And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in
torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool
my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame._”

Here many unanswerable questions may be asked: Had the rich man a
body before the resurrection, or is this representation of a body
only figurative? Did the soul still feel the body from which it
was temporarily separated, or have souls in the intermediate state
temporary bodies? However we may answer these questions, it is
certain that the rich man suffers, while probation still lasts for
his brethren on earth. Fire is here the source of suffering, but
not of annihilation. Even though this be a parable, it proves
conscious existence after death to have been the common view of
the Jews, and to have been a view sanctioned by Christ.

(_c_) That they are under punishment (2 Pet. 2:9—κολαζομένους).

_2 Pet. 2:9_—“_the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of
temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the
day of judgment_”—here “_the unrighteous_” = not only evil angels,
but ungodly men; _cf._ _verse 4_—“_For if God spared not angels
when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them
to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment._”

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the body is buried,
yet still the torments of the soul are described as physical.
Jesus here accommodates his teaching to the conceptions of his
time, or, better still, uses material figures to express spiritual
realities. Surely he does not mean to say that the Rabbinic notion
of Abraham’s bosom is ultimate truth. “Parables,” for this reason
among others, “may not be made primary sources and seats of
doctrine.” Luckock, Intermediate State, 20—“May the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus be an anticipatory picture of the final
state? But the rich man seems to assume that the judgment has not
yet come, for he speaks of his brethren as still undergoing their
earthly probation, and as capable of receiving a warning to avoid
a fate similar to his own.”

The passages cited enable us properly to estimate two opposite errors.

A. They refute, on the one hand, the view that the souls of both righteous
and wicked sleep between death and the resurrection.

This view is based upon the assumption that the possession of a physical
organism is indispensable to activity and consciousness—an assumption
which the existence of a God who is pure spirit (John 4:24), and the
existence of angels who are probably pure spirits (Heb. 1:14), show to be
erroneous. Although the departed are characterized as “spirits” (Eccl.
12:7; Acts 7:59; Heb. 12:23; 1 Pet. 3:19), there is nothing in this
’absence from the body’ (2 Cor. 5:8) inconsistent with the activity and
consciousness ascribed to them in the Scriptures above referred to. When
the dead are spoken of as “sleeping” (Dan. 12:2; Mat. 9:24; John 11:11; 1
Cor. 11:30; 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:14; 5:10), we are to regard this as simply
the language of appearance, and as literally applicable only to the body.

_John 4:24_—“_God is a Spirit_ [or rather, as margin, ‘_God is
spirit_’]”; _Heb. 1:14_—“_Are they_ [angels] _not all ministering
spirits?_” _Eccl. 12:7_—“_the dust returneth to the earth as it
was, and the spirit returneth unto God who gave it_”; _Acts
7:59_—“_And they stoned Stephen, calling upon the Lord, and
saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit_”; _Heb. 12:23_—“_to God the
Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect_”; _1
Pet. 3:19_—“_in which also he went and preached unto the spirits
in prison_”; _2 Cor. 5:8_—“_we are of good courage, I say, and are
willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be at home with
the Lord_”; _Dan. 12:2_—“_many of them that sleep in the dust of
the earth shall awake_”; _Mat. 9:24_—“_the damsel is not dead, but
sleepeth_”; _John 11:11_—“_Our friend Lazarus is fallen asleep;
but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep_”; _1 Cor.
11:30_—“_For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and
not a few sleep_”; _1 Thess. 4:14_—“_For if we believe that Jesus
died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in
Jesus will God bring with him_”; _5:10_—“_who died for us, that,
whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him._”

B. The passages first cited refute, on the other hand, the view that the
suffering of the intermediate state is purgatorial.

According to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, “all who die at
peace with the church, but are not perfect, pass into purgatory.” Here
they make satisfaction for the sins committed after baptism by suffering a
longer or shorter time, according to the degree of their guilt. The church
on earth, however, has power, by prayers and the sacrifice of the Mass, to
shorten these sufferings or to remit them altogether. But we urge, in
reply, that the passages referring to suffering in the intermediate state
give no indication that any true believer is subject to this suffering, or
that the church has any power to relieve from the consequences of sin,
either in this world or in the world to come. Only God can forgive, and
the church is simply empowered to declare that, upon the fulfilment of the
appointed conditions of repentance and faith, he does actually forgive.
This theory, moreover, is inconsistent with any proper view of the
completeness of Christ’s satisfaction (Gal. 2:21; Heb. 9:28); of
justification through faith alone (Rom. 3:28); and of the condition after
death, of both righteous and wicked, as determined in this life (Eccl.
11:3; Mat. 25:10; Luke 16:26; Heb. 9:27; Rev.22:11).

Against this doctrine we quote the following texts: _Gal 2:21_—“_I
do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through
the law, then Christ died for nought_”; _Heb. 9:28_—“_so Christ
also, having been once_ [or, ‘_once for all_’] _offered to bear
the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to
them that wait for him, unto salvation_”; _Rom. 3:28_—“_We reckon
therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of
the law_”; _Eccl. 11:3_—“_if a tree fall toward the south or
toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth there shall
it be_”; _Mat. 25:10_—“_And while they went away to buy, the
bridegroom came; and they that were ready went in with him to the
marriage feast: and the door was shut_”; _Luke 16:26_—“_And
besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed,
that they that would pass from hence to you may not be able, and
that none may cross over from thence to us_”; _Heb. 9:27_—“_it is
appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment_”;
_Rev. 22:11_—“_He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness
still: and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still: and he
that is righteous, let him do righteousness still: and he that is
holy, let him be made holy still._”

Rome teaches that the agonies of purgatory are intolerable. They
differ from the pains of the damned only in this, that there is a
limit to the one, not the other. Bellarmine, De Purgatorio,
2:14—“The pains of purgatory are very severe, surpassing any
endured in this life.” Since none but actual saints escape the
pains of purgatory, this doctrine gives to the death and the
funeral of the Roman Catholic a dreadful and repellent aspect.
Death is not the coming of Christ to take his disciples home, but
is rather the ushering of the shrinking soul into a place of
unspeakable suffering. This suffering makes satisfaction for
guilt. Having paid their allotted penalty, the souls of the
purified pass into Heaven without awaiting the day of judgment.
The doctrine of purgatory gives hope that men may be saved after
death; prayer for the dead has influence; the priest is authorized
to offer this prayer; so the church sells salvation for money.
Amory H. Bradford, Ascent of the Soul, 267‐287, argues in favor of
prayers for the dead. Such prayers, he says, help us to keep in
mind the fact that they are living still. If the dead are free
beings, they may still choose good or evil, and our prayers may
help them to choose the good. We should be thankful, he believes,
to the Roman Catholic Church, for keeping up such prayers. We
reply that no doctrine of Rome has done so much to pervert the
gospel and to enslave the world.

For the Romanist doctrine, see Perrone, Prælectiones Theologicæ,
2:391‐420. _Per contra_, see Hodge, Systematic Theology,
3:743‐770; Barrows, Purgatory. Augustine, Encheiridion, 69,
suggests the possibility of purgatorial fire in the future for
some believers. Whiton, Is Eternal Punishment Endless? page 69,
says that Tertullian held to a delay of resurrection in the case
of faulty Christians; Cyprian first stated the notion of a middle
state of purification; Augustine thought it “not incredible”;
Gregory the Great called it “worthy of belief”; it is now one of
the most potent doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church; that
church has been, from the third century, for all souls who accept
her last consolations, practically restorationist. Gore,
Incarnation, 18—“In the Church of Rome, the ’peradventure’ of an
Augustine as to purgatory for the imperfect after death—’non
redarguo’, he says, ’quia forsitan verum est,’—has become a
positive teaching about purgatory, full of exact information.”

Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, 1:410, adopts Hume’s simile, and says
that purgatory gave the Roman Catholic Church what Archimedes
wanted, another world on which to fix its lever, that so fixed,
the church might with it move this world. We must remember,
however, that the Roman church teaches no radical change of
character in purgatory,—purgatory is only a purifying process for
believers. The true purgatory is only in this world,—for only here
are sins purged away by God’s sanctifying Spirit; and in this
process of purification, though God chastises, there is no element
of penalty. On Dante’s Purgatory, see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and
Religion, 515‐518.

Luckock, After Death, is an argument, based upon the Fathers,
against the Romanist doctrine. Yet he holds to progress in
sanctification in the intermediate state, though the work done in
that state will not affect the final judgment, which will be for
the deeds done in the body. He urges prayer for the departed
righteous. In his book entitled The Intermediate State, Luckock
holds to mental and spiritual development in that state, to active
ministry, mutual recognition, and renewed companionship. He does
not believe in a second probation, but in a first real probation
for those who have had no proper opportunities in this life. In
their reaction against purgatory, the Westminister divines
obliterated the Intermediate State. In that state there is gradual
purification, and must be, since not all impurity and sinfulness
are removed at death. The purging of the will requires time. White
robes were given to them while they were waiting (_Rev. 6:11_).
But there is no second probation for those who have thrown away
their opportunities in this life. Robert Browning, The Ring and
the Book, 232 (Pope, 2129), makes the Pope speak of following
Guido “Into that sad, obscure, sequestered state Where God unmakes
but to remake the soul He else made first in vain; which must not
be.” But the idea of hell as permitting essential change of
character is foreign to Roman Catholic doctrine.

We close our discussion of this subject with a single, but an important,
remark,—this, namely, that while the Scriptures represent the intermediate
state to be one of conscious joy to the righteous, and of conscious pain
to the wicked, they also represent this state to be one of incompleteness.
The perfect joy of the saints, and the utter misery of the wicked, begin
only with the resurrection and general judgment.

That the intermediate state is one of incompleteness, appears from
the following passages: _Mat. 8:29_—“_What have we to do with
thee, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before
the time?_” _2 Cor. 5:3, 4_—“_if so be that being clothed we shall
not be found naked. For indeed we that are in this tabernacle do
groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but
that we would be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be
swallowed up of life_”; _cf._ _Rom. 8:23_—“_And not only so, but
ourselves also, who have the first‐fruits of the Spirit, even we
ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to
wit, the redemption of our body_”; _Phil. 3:11_—“_if by any means
I may attain unto the resurrection from the dead_”; _2 Pet.
2:9_—“_the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of
temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the
day of judgment_”; _Rev. 6:10_—“_and they_ [the souls underneath
the altar] _cried with a great voice, saying, How long, O Master,
the holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on
them that dwell on the earth?_”

In opposition to Locke, Human Understanding, 2:1:10, who said that
“the soul thinks not always”; and to Turner, Wish and Will, 48,
who declares that “the soul need not always think, any more than
the body always move; the essence of the soul is potentiality for
activity”; Descartes, Kant, Jouffroy, Sir William Hamilton, all
maintain that it belongs to mental existence continuously to
think. Upon this view, the intermediate state would be necessarily
a state of thought. As to the nature of that thought, Dorner
remarks in his Eschatology that “in this relatively bodiless
state, a still life begins, a sinking of the soul into itself and
into the ground of its being,—what Steffens calls ‘involution,’
and Martensen ‘self‐brooding.’ In this state, spiritual things are
the only realities. In the unbelieving, their impurity, discord,
alienation from God, are laid bare. If they still prefer sin, its
form becomes more spiritual, more demoniacal, and so ripens for
the judgment.”

Even here, Dorner deals in speculation rather than in Scripture.
But he goes further, and regards the intermediate state as one,
not only of moral progress, but of elimination of evil; and holds
the end of probation to be, not at death, but at the judgment, at
least in the case of all non‐believers who are not incorrigible.
We must regard this as a practical revival of the Romanist theory
of purgatory, and as contradicted not only by all the
considerations already urged, but also by the general tenor of
Scriptural representation that the decisions of this life are
final, and that character is fixed here for eternity. This is the
solemnity of preaching, that the gospel is “_a savor from life
unto life_,” or “_a savor from death unto death_” (_2 Cor. 2:16_).

Descartes: “As the light always shines and the heat always warms,
so the soul always thinks.” James, Psychology, 1:164‐175, argues
against unconscious mental states. The states were conscious at
the time we had them; but they have been forgotten. In the
Unitarian Review, Sept. 1884, Prof. James denies that eternity is
given at a stroke to omniscience. Lotze, in his Metaphysics, 268,
in opposition to Kant, contends for the transcendental validity of
time. Green, on the contrary, in Prolegomena to Ethics, book 1,
says that every act of knowledge in the case of man is a timeless
act. In comparing the different aspects of the stream of
successive phenomena, the mind must, he says, be itself out of
time. Upton, Hibbert Lectures, 306, denies this timeless
consciousness even to God, and apparently agrees with Martineau in
maintaining that God does not foreknow free human acts.

De Quincey called the human brain a palimpsest. Each new writing
seems to blot out all that went before. Yet in reality not one
letter has ever been effaced. Loeb, Physiology of the Brain, 213,
tells us that associative memory is imitated by machines like the
phonograph. Traces left by speech can be reproduced in speech.
Loeb calls memory a matter of physical chemistry. Stout, Manual of
Psychology, 8—“Consciousness includes not only awareness of our
own states, but these states themselves whether we are aware of
them or not. If a man is angry, that is a state of consciousness,
even though he does not know that he is angry. If he does know
that he is angry, that is another modification of consciousness,
and not the same.” On unconscious mental action, see Ladd,
Philosophy of Mind, 378‐382—“Cerebration cannot be identified with
psychical processes. If it could be, materialism would triumph. If
the brain can do these things, why not do all the phenomena of
consciousness? Consciousness becomes a mere _epi_phenomenon.
Unconscious cerebration = wooden iron or unconscious
consciousness. What then becomes of the soul in its intervals of
unconsciousness? Answer: Unconscious finite minds exist only in
the World‐ground in which all minds and things have their
existence.”

On the whole subject, see Hovey, State of Man after Death; Savage,
Souls of the Righteous; Julius Müller, Doct. Sin, 2:304‐446;
Neander, Planting and Training, 482‐484; Delitzsch, Bib.
Psychologie, 407‐448; Bib. Sac., 13:153; Methodist Rev., 34:240;
Christian Rev., 20:381; Herzog, Encyclop., art.: Hades; Stuart,
Essays on Future Punishment; Whately, Future State; Hovey,
Biblical Eschatology, 79‐144.

III. The Second Coming of Christ.

While the Scriptures represent great events in the history of the
individual Christian, like death, and great events in the history of the
church, like the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost and the destruction
of Jerusalem, as comings of Christ for deliverance or judgment, they also
declare that these partial and typical comings shall be concluded by a
final, triumphant return of Christ, to punish the wicked and to complete
the salvation of his people.

Temporal comings of Christ are indicated in: _Mat. 24:23, 27,
34_—“_Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is the Christ,
or, Here; believe it not.... For as the lightning cometh forth
from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the
coming of the Son of man.... Verily I say unto you, This
generation shall not pass away, till all these things be
accomplished_”; _16:28_—“_Verily I say unto you, There are some of
them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till
they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom_”; _John 14:3,
18_—“_And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again, and
will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be
also.... I will not leave you desolate: I come unto you_”; _Rev.
3:20_—“_Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my
voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with
him, and he with me._” So the Protestant Reformation, the modern
missionary enterprise, the battle against papacy in Europe and
against slavery in this country, the great revivals under
Whitefield in England and under Edwards in America, were all
preliminary and typical comings of Christ. It was a sceptical
spirit which indited the words: “God’s new Messiah, some great
Cause”; yet it is true that in every great movement of
civilization we are to recognize a new coming of the one and only
Messiah, “_Jesus Christ, the same yesterday and to‐day and
forever_” (_Heb. 13:8_). Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, 1:840—“The
coming began with his ascension to heaven (_cf._ _Mat.
26:64_—‘_henceforth_ ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι [_from now_] _ye shall see the Son
of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the
clouds of heaven_’).” Matheson, Spir. Devel. of St. Paul, 286—“To
Paul, in his later letters, this world is already the scene of the
second advent. The secular is not to vanish away, but to be
permanent, transfigured, pervaded by the divine life. Paul began
with the Christ of the resurrection; he ends with the Christ who
already makes all things new.” See Metcalf, Parousia _vs._ Second
Advent, in Bib. Sac., Jan. 1907:61‐65.

The final coming of Christ is referred to in: _Mat. 24:30_—“_they
shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power
and great glory. And he shall send forth his angels with a great
sound of a __ trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect
from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other_”;
_25:31_—“_But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all
the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his
glory_”; _Acts 1:11_—“_Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking
into heaven? this Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven_”;
_1 Thess. 4:16_—“_For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven,
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump
of God_”; _2 Thess. 1:7, 10_—“_the revelation of the Lord Jesus
from heaven with the angels of his power ... when he shall come to
be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them
that believed_”; _Heb. 9:28_—“_so Christ also, having been once
offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time,
apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation_”; _Rev.
1:7_—“_Behold, he cometh with the clouds; and every eye shall see
him, and they that pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth
shall mourn over him._” Dr. A. C. Kendrick, Com. on _Heb.
1:6_—“_And when he shall conduct back again into the inhabited
world the First‐born, he saith, And let all the angels of God
worship him_”—in the glory of the second coming Christ’s
superiority to angels will be signally displayed—a contrast to the
humiliation of his first coming.

The tendency of our day is to interpret this second class of
passages in a purely metaphorical and spiritual way. But prophecy
can have more than one fulfilment. Jesus’ words are pregnant
words. The present spiritual coming does not exhaust their
meaning. His coming in the great movements of history does not
preclude a final and literal coming, in which “_every eye shall
see him_” (_Rev. 1:7_). With this proviso, we may assent to much
of the following quotation from Gould, Bib. Theol. N. T.,
44‐58—“The last things of which Jesus speaks are not the end of
the world, but of the age—the end of the Jewish period in
connection with the destruction of Jerusalem.... After the entire
statement is in, including both the destruction of Jerusalem and
the coming of the Lord which is to follow it, it is distinctly
said that that generation was not to pass away until all these
things are accomplished. According to this, the coming of the Son
of man must be something other than a visible coming. In O. T.
prophecy any divine interference in human affairs is represented
under the figure of God coming in the clouds of heaven. _Mat.
26:64_ says: ‘_From this time ye shall see the Son of man seated
... and coming in the clouds of heaven_.’ Coming and judgment are
both continuous. The slow growth in the parables of the leaven and
the mustard seed contradicts the idea of Christ’s early coming.
‘_After a long time the Lord of these servants cometh_’ (_Mat.
25:19_). Christ came in one sense at the destruction of Jerusalem;
in another sense all great crises in the history of the world are
comings of the Son of man. These judgments of the nations are a
part of the process for the final setting up of the kingdom. But
this final act will not be a judgment process, but the final
entire submission of the will of man to the will of God. The end
is to be, not judgment, but salvation.” We add to this statement
the declaration that the final act here spoken of will not be
purely subjective and spiritual, but will constitute an external
manifestation of Christ comparable to that of his first coming in
its appeal to the senses, but unspeakably more glorious than was
the coming to the manger and the cross. The proof of this we now
proceed to give.

1. The nature of this coming.

Although without doubt accompanied, in the case of the regenerate, by
inward and invisible influences of the Holy Spirit, the second advent is
to be outward and visible. This we argue:

(_a_) From the objects to be secured by Christ’s return. These are partly
external (Rom. 8:21, 23). Nature and the body are both to be glorified.
These external changes may well be accompanied by a visible manifestation
of him who “makes all things new” (Rev. 21:5).

_Rom. 8:10‐23_—“_in hope that the creation also shall be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of
the children of God ... waiting for our adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body_”; _Rev. 21:5_—“_Behold, I make all things
new._” A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 49—“We must not
confound the _Paraclete_ and the _Parousia_. It has been argued
that, because Christ came in the person of the Spirit, the
Redeemer’s advent in glory has already taken place. But in the
Paraclete Christ comes spiritually and invisibly; in the Parousia
he comes bodily and gloriously.”

(_b_) From the Scriptural comparison of the manner of Christ’s return with
the manner of his departure (Acts 1:11)—see Commentary of Hackett, _in
loco_:—“ὂν τρόπον = visibly, and in the air. The expression is never
employed to affirm merely the certainty of one event as compared with
another. The assertion that the meaning is simply that, as Christ had
departed, so also he would return, is contradicted by every passage in
which the phrase occurs.”

_Acts 1:11_—“_this Jesus, who was received up from you into
heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into
heaven_”; _cf._ _Acts 7:28_—“_wouldest thou kill me, as ὂν τρόπον
thou killedst the Egyptian yesterday?_” _Mat. 23:37_—“_how often
would I have gathered thy children together, even as ὂν τρόπον a
hen gathereth her chickens under her wings_”; _2 Tim. 3:8_—“_as ὂν
τρόπον Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also
withstand the truth._” Lyman Abbott refers to _Mat. 23:37_, and
_Luke 13:35_, as showing that, in _Acts 1:11_, “_in like manner_”
means only “_in like reality_.” So, he says, the Jews expected
Elijah to return in _form_, according to _Mal. 4:5_, whereas he
returned only in _spirit_. Jesus similarly returned at Pentecost
in spirit, and has been coming again ever since. The remark of Dr.
Hackett, quoted in the text above, is sufficient proof that this
interpretation is wholly unexegetical.

(_c_) From the analogy of Christ’s first coming. If this was a literal and
visible coming, we may expect the second coming to be literal and visible
also.

_1 Thess. 4:16_—“_For the Lord himself_ [= in his own person]
_shall descend from heaven, with a shout_ [something heard], _with
the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God_”—see Com.
of Prof. W. A. Stevens: “So different from _Luke 17:20_, where
‘_the kingdom of God cometh not with observation_.’ The ‘_shout_’
is not necessarily the voice of Christ himself (lit. ‘_in a
shout_,’ or ‘_in shouting_’). ‘_Voice of the archangel_’ and
‘_trump of God_’ are appositional, not additional.” _Rev.
1:7_—“_every eye shall see him_”; as every ear shall hear him:
_John 5:28, 29_—“_all that are in the tombs shall hear his
voice_”; _2 Thess. 2:2_—“_to the end that ye be not quickly shaken
from your mind, nor yet be troubled ... as that the day of the
Lord is now present_”—they may have “thought that the first
gathering of the saints to Christ was a quiet, invisible one—a
stealthy advent, like a thief in the night” (Lillie). _2 John
7_—“_For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they
that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh_”—here
denial of a future second coming of Christ is declared to be the
mark of a deceiver.

Alford and Alexander, in their Commentaries on _Acts 1:11_, agree
with the view of Hackett quoted above. Warren, Parousia, 61‐65,
106‐114, controverts this view and says that “an omnipresent
divine being can _come_, only in the sense of _manifestation_.” He
regards the parousia, or coming of Christ, as nothing but Christ’s
spiritual presence. A writer in the Presb. Review, 1883:221,
replies that Warren’s view is contradicted “by the fact that the
apostles often spoke of the parousia as an event yet future, long
after the promise of the Redeemer’s spiritual presence with his
church had begun to be fulfilled, and by the fact that Paul
expressly cautions the Thessalonians against the belief that the
parousia was just at hand.” We do not know how all men at one time
can see a bodily Christ; but we also do not know the nature of
Christ’s body. The day exists undivided in many places at the same
time. The telephone has made it possible for men widely separated
to hear the same voice,—it is equally possible that all men may
see the same Christ coming in the clouds.

2. The time of Christ’s coming.

(_a_) Although Christ’s prophecy of this event, in the twenty‐fourth
chapter of Matthew, so connects it with the destruction of Jerusalem that
the apostles and the early Christians seem to have hoped for its
occurrence during their life‐time, yet neither Christ nor the apostles
definitely taught when the end should be, but rather declared the
knowledge of it to be reserved in the counsels of God, that men might ever
recognize it as possibly at hand, and so might live in the attitude of
constant expectation.

_1 Cor. 15:51_—“_We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be
changed_”; _1 Thess. 4:17_—“_then we that are alive, that are
left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet
the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord_”; _2
Tim. 4:8_—“_henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to
me at that day: and not only to me, but also to all them that have
loved his appearing_”; _James __ 5:7_—“_Be patient therefore,
brethren, until the coming of the Lord_”; _1 Pet. 4:7_—“_But the
end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore of sound mind, and
be sober unto prayer_”; _1 John 2:18_—“_Little children, it is the
last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have
there risen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last
hour._”

_Phil. 4:5_—“_The Lord is at hand (ἐγγύς). In nothing be
anxious_”—may mean “the Lord is near” (in space), without any
reference to the second coming. The passages quoted above,
expressing as they do the surmises of the apostles that Christ’s
coming was near, while yet abstaining from all definite fixing of
the time, are at least sufficient proof that Christ’s advent may
not be near to our time. We should be no more warranted than they
were, in inferring from these passages alone the immediate coming
of the Lord.

Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, 2:349‐350, maintains that Jesus expected
his own speedy second coming and the end of the world. There was
no mention of the death of his disciples, or the importance of
readiness for it. No hard and fast organization of his disciples
into a church was contemplated by him,—_Mat. 16:18_ and _18:17_
are not authentic. No separation of his disciples from the
fellowship of the Jewish religion was thought of. He thought of
the destruction of Jerusalem as the final judgment. Yet his
doctrine would spread through the earth, like leaven and mustard
seed, though accompanied by suffering on the part of his
disciples. This view of Wendt can be maintained only by an
arbitrary throwing out of the testimony of the evangelist, upon
the ground that Jesus’ mention of a church does not befit so early
a stage in the evolution of Christianity. Wendt’s whole treatment
is vitiated by the presupposition that there can be nothing in
Jesus’ words which is inexplicable upon the theory of natural
development. That Jesus did not expect speedily to return to earth
is shown in _Mat. 25:19_—“_After a long time the Lord of those
servants cometh_”; and Paul, in _2 Thess._, had to correct the
mistake of those who interpreted him as having in his first
Epistle declared an immediate coming of the Lord.

A. H. Strong, Cleveland Sermon, 1904:27—“The faith in a second
coming of Christ has lost its hold upon many Christians in our
day. But it still serves to stimulate and admonish the great body,
and we can never dispense with its solemn and mighty influence.
Christ comes, it is true, in Pentecostal revivals and in
destructions of Jerusalem, in Reformation movements and in
political upheavals. But these are only precursors of another and
literal and final return of Christ, to punish the wicked and to
complete the salvation of his people. That day for which all other
days are made will be a joyful day for those who have fought a
good fight and have kept the faith. Let us look for and hasten the
coming of the day of God. The Jacobites of Scotland never ceased
their labors and sacrifices for their king’s return. They never
tasted wine, without pledging their absent prince; they never
joined in song, without renewing their oaths of allegiance. In
many a prison cell and on many a battlefield they rang out the
strain: ‘Follow thee, follow thee, wha wadna follow thee? Long
hast thou lo’ed and trusted us fairly: Chairlie, Chairlie, wha
wadna follow thee? King o’ the Highland hearts, bonnie Prince
Chairlie!’ So they sang, so they invited him, until at last he
came. But that longing for the day when Charles should come to his
own again was faint and weak compared with the longing of true
Christian hearts for the coming of their King. Charles came, only
to suffer defeat, and to bring shame to his country. But Christ
will come, to put an end to the world’s long sorrow, to give
triumph to the cause of truth, to bestow everlasting reward upon
the faithful. ‘Even so, Lord Jesus, come! Hope of all our hopes
the sum, Take thy waiting people home! Long, so long, the groaning
earth, Cursed with war and flood and dearth, Sighs for its
redemption birth. Therefore come, we daily pray; Bring the
resurrection‐day; Wipe creation’s curse away!’ ”

(_b_) Hence we find, in immediate connection with many of these
predictions of the end, a reference to intervening events and to the
eternity of God, which shows that the prophecies themselves are expressed
in a large way which befits the greatness of the divine plans.

_Mat. 24:36_—“_But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even
the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only_”;
_Mark 13:32_—“_But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not
even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take
ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is_”; _Acts
1:7_—“_And he said unto them, It is not for you to know times or
seasons, which the Father hath set within his own authority_”; _1
Cor. 10:11_—“_Now these things happened unto them by way of
example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the
ends of the ages are come_”; _16:22_—“_Marana tha_ [marg.: _that
is, O Lord, come!_]”; _2 Thess. 2:1‐3_—“_Now we beseech you,
brethren, touching the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our
gathering together unto him; to the end that ye be not quickly
shaken from your mind, nor yet be troubled ... as that the day of
the Lord is now present_ [Am. Rev.: ‘_is just at hand_’]; _let no
man beguile you in any wise: for it will not be, except the
falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son
of perdition_.”

_James 5:8, 9_—“_Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for
the coming of the Lord is at hand. Murmur not, brethren, one
against another, that ye be not judged: behold, the judge standeth
before the doors_”; _2 Pet. 3:3‐12_—“_in the last days mockers
shall come ... saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for,
from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as
they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they
wilfully forget, that there were heavens from of old.... But
forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord
as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is
not slack concerning his promise.... But the day of the Lord will
come as a thief ... what manner of persons ought ye to be in all
holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring_
[marg.: ‘_hastening_’] _the coming of the day of God_”—awaiting
it, and hastening its coming by your prayer and labor.

_Rev. 1:3_—“_Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the
words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written
therein: for the time is at hand_”: _22:12, 20_—“_Behold, I come
quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according
as his work is.... He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I
come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus._” From these passages it is
evident that the apostles did not know the time of the end, and
that it was hidden from Christ himself while here in the flesh.
He, therefore, who assumes to know, assumes to know more than
Christ or his apostles—assumes to know the very thing which Christ
declared it was not for us to know!

Gould, Bib. Theol. N.T., 152—“The expectation of our Lord’s coming
was one of the elements and _motifs_ of that generation, and the
delay of the event caused some questioning. But there is never any
indication that it may be indefinitely postponed. The early church
never had to face the difficulty forced upon the church to‐day, of
belief in his second coming, founded upon a prophecy of his coming
during the lifetime of a generation long since dead. And until
this Epistle [_2 Peter_], we do not find any traces of this
exegetical legerdemain as such a situation would require. But here
we have it full‐grown; just such a specimen of harmonistic device
as orthodox interpretation familiarizes us with. The definite
statement that the advent is to be within that generation is met
with the general principle that ‘_one day is with the Lord as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day_’ (_2 Pet. 3:8_).”
We must regard this comment of Dr. Gould as an unconscious
fulfilment of the prediction that “_in the last days mockers shall
come with mockery_” (_2 Pet. 3:3_). A better understanding of
prophecy, as divinely pregnant utterance, would have enabled the
critic to believe that the words of Christ might be partially
fulfilled in the days of the apostles, but fully accomplished only
at the end of the world.

(_c_) In this we discern a striking parallel between the predictions of
Christ’s first, and the predictions of his second, advent. In both cases
the event was more distant and more grand than those imagined to whom the
prophecies first came. Under both dispensations, patient waiting for
Christ was intended to discipline the faith, and to enlarge the
conceptions, of God’s true servants. The fact that every age since Christ
ascended has had its Chiliasts and Second Adventists should turn our
thoughts away from curious and fruitless prying into the time of Christ’s
coming, and set us at immediate and constant endeavor to be ready, at
whatsoever hour he may appear.

_Gen. 4:1_—“_And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and
bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man with the help of Jehovah_
[lit.: ‘_I have gotten a man, even Jehovah_’]”—an intimation that
Eve fancied her first‐born to be already the promised seed, the
coming deliverer; see MacWhorter, Jahveh Christ. _Deut.
18:15_—“_Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from
the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye
shall hearken_”—here is a prophecy which Moses may have expected
to be fulfilled in Joshua, but which God designed to be fulfilled
only in Christ. _Is. 7:14, 16_—“_Therefore the Lord himself will
give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son,
and shall call his name Immanuel.... For before the child shall
know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two
kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken_”—a prophecy which the
prophet may have expected to be fulfilled in his own time, and
which was partly so fulfilled, but which God intended to be
fulfilled ages thereafter.

_Luke 2:25_—“_Simeon; and this man was righteous and devout,
looking for the consolation of Israel_”—Simeon was the type of
holy men, in every age of Jewish history, who were waiting for the
fulfilment of God’s promise, and for the coming of the deliverer.
So under the Christian dispensation. Augustine held that Christ’s
reign of a thousand years, which occupies the last epoch of the
world’s history, did not still lie in the future, but began with
the founding of the church (Ritschl, Just. and Reconc., 286).
Luther, near the time of his death, said: “God forbid that the
world should last fifty years longer! Let him cut matters short
with his last judgment!” Melanchthon put the end less than two
hundred years from his time. Calvin’s motto was: “_Domine,
quousque?_”—“O Lord, how long?” Jonathan Edwards, before and
during the great Awakening, indulged high expectations as to the
probable extension of the movement until it should bring the
world, even in his own lifetime, into the love and obedience of
Christ (Life, by Allen, 234). Better than any one of these is the
utterance of Dr. Broadus: “If I am always ready, I shall be ready
when Jesus comes.” On the whole subject, see Hovey, in Baptist
Quarterly, Oct. 1877:416‐432; Shedd, Dogm. Theol., 2:641‐646;
Stevens, in Am. Com. on Thessalonians, Excursus on The Parousia,
and notes on _1 Thess. 4:13, 16; 5:11; 2 Thess. 2:3, 12_;
Goodspeed, Messiah’s Second Advent; Heagle, That Blessed Hope.

3. The precursors of Christ’s coming.

(_a_) Through the preaching of the gospel in all the world, the kingdom of
Christ is steadily to enlarge its boundaries, until Jews and Gentiles
alike become possessed of its blessings, and a millennial period is
introduced in which Christianity generally prevails throughout the earth.

_Dan. 2:44, 45_—“_And in the days of those kings shall the God of
heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall
the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall
break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand
forever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the
mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the
brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made
known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream
is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure._”

_Mat. 13:31, 32_—“_The kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of
mustard seed ... which indeed is less than all seeds; but when it
is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becometh a tree, so
that the birds of heaven come and lodge in the branches
thereof_”—the parable of the leaven, which follows, apparently
illustrates the intensive, as that of the mustard seed illustrates
the extensive, development of the kingdom of God; and it is as
impossible to confine the reference of the leaven to the spread of
evil as it is impossible to confine the reference of the mustard
seed to the spread of good.

_Mat. 24:14_—“_And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then
shall the end come_”; _Rom. 11:25, 26_—“_a hardening in part hath
befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and
so all Israel shall be saved_”; _Rev. 20:4‐6_—“_And I saw thrones,
and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I
saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the testimony of
Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as worshipped not the
beast, neither his image, and received not the mark upon their
forehead and upon their hand; and they lived, and reigned with
Christ a thousand years._”

_Col. 1:23_—“_the gospel which ye heard, which was preached in all
creation under heaven_”—Paul’s phrase here and the apparent
reference in _Mat. 24:14_ to A. D. 70 as the time of the end,
should restrain theorizers from insisting that the second coming
of Christ cannot occur until this text has been fulfilled with
literal completeness (Broadus).

(_b_) There will be a corresponding development of evil, either extensive
or intensive, whose true character shall be manifest not only in deceiving
many professed followers of Christ and in persecuting true believers, but
in constituting a personal Antichrist as its representative and object of
worship. This rapid growth shall continue until the millennium, during
which evil, in the person of its chief, shall be temporarily restrained.

_Mat. 13:30, 38_—“_Let both grow together until the harvest: and
in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up
first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather
the wheat into my barn ... the field is the world; and the good
seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the
sons of the evil one_”; _24:5, 11, 12, 24_—“_For many shall come
in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many
astray.... And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead
many astray. And because iniquity shall be multiplied, the love of
the many shall wax cold.... For there shall arise false Christs,
and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as
to lead astray, if possible, even the elect._”

_Luke 21:12_—“_But before all these things, they shall lay their
hands on you, and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the
synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors
for my name’s sake_”; _2 Thess. 2:3, 4, 7, 8,_—“_it will not be,
except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be
revealed, the son of perdition, he that opposeth and exalteth
himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped; so
that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as
God.... For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work: only
there is one that restraineth __ now, until he be taken out of the
way. And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord
Jesus shall slay with the breath of his mouth, and bring to nought
by the manifestation of his coming._”

Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, 1:65, holds that “Antichrist means
another Christ, a pro‐Christ, a vice‐Christ, a pretender to the
name of Christ, and in that character, an usurper and adversary.
The principle of Antichrist was already sown in the time of Paul.
But a certain hindrance, _i. e._, the Roman Empire as then
constituted, needed first to be removed out of the way, before
room could be made for Antichrist’s development.” Antichrist,
according to this view, is the hierarchical spirit, which found
its final and most complete expression in the Papacy. Dante, Hell,
19:106‐117, speaks of the Papacy, or rather the temporal power of
the Popes, as Antichrist: “To you St. John referred, O shepherds
vile, When she who sits on many waters, had Been seen with kings
her person to defile”; see A. H. Strong, Philosophy and Religion,
507.

It has been objected that a simultaneous growth both of evil and
of good is inconceivable, and that the progress of the divine
kingdom implies a diminution in the power of the adversary. Only a
slight reflection however convinces us that, as the population of
the world is always increasing, evil men may increase in numbers,
even though there is increase in the numbers of the good. But we
must also consider that evil grows in intensity just in proportion
to the light which good throws upon it. “Wherever God erects a
house of prayer, The devil always builds a chapel there.” Every
revival of religion stirs up the forces of wickedness to
opposition. As Christ’s first advent occasioned an unusual
outburst of demoniac malignity, so Christ’s second advent will be
resisted by a final desperate effort of the evil one to overcome
the forces of good. The great awakening in New England under
Jonathan Edwards caused on the one hand a most remarkable increase
in the number of Baptist believers, but also on the other hand the
rise of modern Unitarianism. The optimistic Presbyterian pastor at
Auburn argued with the pessimistic chaplain of the State’s Prison
that the world was certainly growing better, because his
congregation was increasing; whereupon the chaplain replied that
his own congregation was increasing also.

(_c_) At the close of this millennial period, evil will again be permitted
to exert its utmost power in a final conflict with righteousness. This
spiritual struggle, moreover, will be accompanied and symbolized by
political convulsions, and by fearful indications of desolation in the
natural world.

_Mat. 24:29, 30_—“_But immediately after the tribulation of those
days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her
light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the
heavens shall be shaken: and then shall appear the sign of the Son
of man in heaven_”; _Luke 21:8‐28_—false prophets; wars and
tumults; earthquakes; pestilences; persecutions; signs in the sun,
moon, and stars; “_And then shall they see the Son of man coming
in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin
to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads; because your
redemption draweth nigh._”

Interpretations of the book of Revelation are divided into three
classes: (1) the _Præterist_ (held by Grotius, Moses Stuart, and
Warren), which regards the prophecy as mainly fulfilled in the age
immediately succeeding the time of the apostles (666 = Neron
Kaisar); (2) the _Continuous_ (held by Isaac Newton, Vitringa,
Bengel, Elliott, Kelly, and Cumming), which regards the whole as a
continuous prophetical history, extending from the first age until
the end of all things (666 = Lateinos); Hengstenberg and Alford
hold substantially this view, though they regard the seven seals,
trumpets, and vials as synchronological, each succeeding set going
over the same ground and exhibiting it in some special aspect; (3)
the _Futurist_ (held by Maitland and Todd), which considers the
book as describing events yet to occur, during the times
immediately preceding and following the coming of the Lord.

Of all these interpretations, the most learned and exhaustive is
that of Elliott, in his four volumes entitled Horæ Apocalypticæ.
The basis of his interpretation is the “_time and times and half a
time_” of _Dan. 7:25_, which according to the year‐day theory
means 1260 years—the year, according to ancient reckoning,
containing 360 days, and the “_time_” being therefore 360 years
[360 + (2 X 360) + 180 = 1260]. This phrase we find recurring with
regard to the woman nourished in the wilderness (_Rev. 12:14_).
The blasphemy of the beast for forty and two months (_Rev. 13:5_)
seems to refer to the same period [42 X 30 = 1260, as before]. The
two witnesses prophecy 1260 days (_Rev. 11:3_); and the woman’s
time in the wilderness is stated (_Rev. 12:6_) as 1260 days. This
period of 1260 years is regarded by Elliott as the time of the
temporal power of the Papacy.

There is a twofold _terminus a quo_, and correspondingly a twofold
_terminus ad quem_. The first commencement is A. D. 531, when in
the edict of Justinian the dragon of the Roman Empire gives its
power to the beast of the Papacy, and resigns its throne to the
rising Antichrist, giving opportunity for the rise of the ten
horns as European kings (_Rev. 13:1‐3_). The second commencement,
adding the seventy‐five supplementary years of _Daniel 12:12_
[1335 ‐ 1260 = 75], is A. D. 606, when the Emperor Phocas
acknowledges the primacy of Rome, and the ten horns, or kings, now
diademed, submit to the Papacy (_Rev. 17:12, 13_). The first
ending‐point is A. D. 1791, when the French Revolution struck the
first blow at the independence of the Pope [531 + 1260 = 1791].
The second ending‐point is A. D. 1866, when the temporal power of
the Pope was abolished at the unification of the kingdom of Italy
[606 + 1260 = 1866]. Elliott regards the two‐horned beast (_Rev.
13:11_) as representing the Papal Clergy, and the image of the
beast (_Rev. 13:14, 15_) as representing the Papal Councils.

Unlike Hengstenberg and Alford, who consider the seals, trumpets,
and vials as synchronological, Elliott makes the seven trumpets to
be an unfolding of the seventh seal, and the seven vials to be an
unfolding of the seventh trumpet. Like other advocates of the
premillennial advent of Christ, Elliott regards the four chief
signs of Christ’s near approach as being: (1) the decay of the
Turkish Empire (the drying up of the river Euphrates—_Rev.
16:12_); (2) the Pope’s loss of temporal power (the destruction of
Babylon—_Rev. 17:19_); (3) the conversion of the Jews and their
return to their own land (_Ez. 37; Rom. 11:12‐15, 25‐27_—but on
this last, see Meyer); (4) the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and
the conversion of the Gentiles (the way of the kings of the
East—_Rev. 16:12_; the fulness of the Gentiles—_Rom. 11:25_).

Elliott’s whole scheme, however, is vitiated by the fact that he
wrongly assumes the book of Revelation to have been written under
Domitian (94 or 96), instead of under Nero (67 or 68). His
_terminus a quo_ is therefore incorrect, and his interpretation of
chapters 5‐9 is rendered very precarious. The year 1866, moreover,
should have been the time of the end, and so the _terminus ad
quem_ seems to be clearly misunderstood—unless indeed the seventy‐
five supplementary years of Daniel are to be added to 1866. We
regard the failure of this most ingenious scheme of Apocalyptic
interpretation as a practical demonstration that a clear
understanding of the meaning of prophecy is, before the event,
impossible, and we are confirmed in this view by the utterly
untenable nature of the theory of the millennium which is commonly
held by so‐called Second Adventists, a theory which we now proceed
to examine.

A long preparation may be followed by a sudden consummation.
Drilling the rock for the blast is a slow process; firing the
charge takes but a moment. The woodwork of the Windsor Hotel in
New York was in a charred and superheated state before the
electric wires that threaded it wore out their insulation,—then a
slight increase of voltage turned heat into flame. The Outlook,
March 30, 1895—“An evolutionary conception of the Second Coming,
as a progressive manifestation of the spiritual power and glory of
Christ, may issue in a _dénouement_ as unique as the first advent
was which closed the preparatory ages.”

Joseph Cook, on A. J. Gordon: “There is a wide distinction between
the flash‐light theory and the burning‐glass theory of missions.
The latter was Dr. Gordon’s view. When a burning‐glass is held
over inflammable material, the concentrated rays of the sun
rapidly produce in it discoloration, smoke, and sparks. At a
certain instant, after the sparks have been sufficiently diffused,
the whole material suddenly bursts into flame. There is then no
longer any need of the burning‐glass, for fire has itself fallen
from on high and is able to do its own work. So the world is to be
regarded as inflammable material to be set on fire from on high.
Our Lord’s life on earth is a burning‐glass, concentrating rays of
light and heat upon the souls of men. When the heating has gone on
far enough, and the sparks of incipient conflagration have been
sufficiently diffused, suddenly spiritual flame will burst up
everywhere and will fill the earth. This is the second advent of
him who kindled humanity to new life by his first advent. As I
understand the premillenarian view of history, the date when the
sparks shall kindle into flame is not known, but it is known that
the duty of the church is to spread the sparks and to expect at
any instant, after their wide diffusion, the victorious descent of
millennial flame, that is, the beginning of our Lord’s personal
and visible reign over the whole earth.” See article on
Millenarianism, by G. P. Fisher, in McClintock and Strong’s
Cyclopædia; also by Semisch, in Schaff‐Herzog, Cyclopædia; cf.
Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1:840.

4. Relation of Christ’s second coming to the millennium.

The Scripture foretells a period, called in the language of prophecy “a
thousand years,” when Satan shall be restrained and the saints shall reign
with Christ on the earth. A comparison of the passages bearing on this
subject leads us to the conclusion that this millennial blessedness and
dominion is prior to the second advent. One passage only seems at first
sight to teach the contrary, _viz._: Rev. 20:4‐10. But this supports the
theory of a premillennial advent only when the passage is interpreted with
the barest literalness. A better view of its meaning will be gained by
considering:

(_a_) That it constitutes a part, and confessedly an obscure part, of one
of the most figurative books of Scripture, and therefore ought to be
interpreted by the plainer statements of the other Scriptures.

We quote here the passage alluded to: _Rev. 20:4‐10_—“_And I saw
thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them:
and I saw the souls of them that had been beheaded for the
testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and such as
worshipped not the beast, neither his image, and received not the
mark upon their forehead and upon their hand; and they lived, and
reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead lived
not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first
resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first
resurrection: over these the second death hath no power; but they
shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a
thousand years._”

Emerson and Parker met a Second Adventist who warned them that the
end of the world was near. Parker replied: “My friend, that does
not concern me; I live in Boston.” Emerson said: “Well, I think I
can get along without it.” A similarly cheerful view is taken by
Denney, Studies in Theology, 232—“Christ certainly comes,
according to the picture in Revelation, before the millennium; but
the question of importance is, whether the conception of the
millennium itself, related as it is to Ezekiel, is essential to
faith. I cannot think that it is. The religious content of the
passages—what they offer for faith to grasp—is, I should say,
simply this: that _until_ the end the conflict between the kingdom
of God and the kingdom of the world must go on; that as the end
approaches it becomes ever more intense, progress in humanity not
being a progress in goodness merely or in badness only, but in the
antagonism between the two; and that the necessity for conflict is
sure to emerge even after the kingdom of God has won its greatest
triumphs. I frankly confess that to seek more than this in such
Scriptural indications seems to me trifling.”

(_b_) That the other Scriptures contain nothing with regard to a
resurrection of the righteous which is widely separated in time from that
of the wicked, but rather declare distinctly that the second coming of
Christ is immediately connected both with the resurrection of the just and
the unjust and with the general judgment.

_Mat. 16:27_—“_For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man
according to his deeds_”; _25:31‐33_—“_But when the Son of man
shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall
he sit on the throne of his glory: and before him shall be
gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from
another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats_”;
_John 5:28, 29_—“_Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in
which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall
some forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
judgment_”; _2 Cor. 5:10_—“_For we must all be made manifest
before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the
things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether
it be good or bad_”; _2 Thess. 1:6‐10_—“_if so be that it is a
righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that
afflict you, and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the
revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his
power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not
God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who
shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of
the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he shall come to be
glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that
believed._”

_2 Pet. 3:7, 10_—“_the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly
men.... But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which
the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works
that are therein shall be burned up_”; _Rev. 20:11‐15_—“_And I saw
a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face
the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place
for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing
before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was
opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of
the things that were written in the books, according to their
works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and
Hades gave up the dead that __ were in them: and they were judged
every man according to their works. And death and Hades were cast
into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of
fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was
cast into the lake of fire._”

Here is abundant evidence that there is no interval of a thousand
years between the second coming of Christ and the resurrection,
general judgment, and end of all things. All these events come
together. The only answer of the premillennialists to this
objection to their theory is, that the day of judgment and the
millennium may be contemporaneous,—in other words, the day of
judgment may be a thousand years long. Elliott holds to a
conflagration, partial at the beginning of this period, complete
at its close,—Peter’s prophecy treating the two conflagrations as
one, while the book of Revelation separates them; so a nearer view
resolves binary stars into two. But we reply that, if the judgment
occupies the whole period of a thousand years, then the coming of
Christ, the resurrection, and the final conflagration should all
be a thousand years also. It is indeed possible that, in this
case, as Peter says in connection with his prophecy of judgment,
“_one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day_” (_2 Pet. 3:8_). But if we make the word “_day_”
so indefinite in connection with the judgment, why should we
regard it as so definite, when we come to interpret the 1260 days?

(_c_) That the literal interpretation of the passage—holding, as it does,
to a resurrection of bodies of flesh and blood, and to a reign of the
risen saints in the flesh, and in the world as at present constituted—is
inconsistent with other Scriptural declarations with regard to the
spiritual nature of the resurrection‐body and of the coming reign of
Christ.

_1 Cor. 15:44, 50_—“_it is sown a natural body; it is raised a
spiritual body.... Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption._” These passages are inconsistent with the view that
the resurrection is a physical resurrection at the beginning of
the thousand years—a resurrection to be followed by a second life
of the saints in bodies of flesh and blood. They are not, however,
inconsistent with the true view, soon to be mentioned, that “_the
first resurrection_” is simply the raising of the church to a new
life and zeal. Westcott, Bib. Com. on _John 14:18, 19_—“_I will
not leave you desolate_ [marg.: ‘_orphans_’]: _I come unto you.
Yet a little while, and the world beholdeth me no more; but ye
behold me_”:—“The words exclude the error of those who suppose
that Christ will ‘come’ under the same conditions of earthly
existence as those to which he submitted at his first coming.” See
Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 66‐78.

(_d_) That the literal interpretation is generally and naturally connected
with the expectation of a gradual and necessary decline of Christ’s
kingdom upon earth, until Christ comes to bind Satan and to introduce the
millennium. This view not only contradicts such passages as Dan. 2:34, 35,
and Mat. 13:31, 32, but it begets a passive and hopeless endurance of
evil, whereas the Scriptures enjoin a constant and aggressive warfare
against it, upon the very ground that God’s power shall assure to the
church a gradual but constant progress in the face of it, even to the time
of the end.

_Dan. 2:34, 35_—“_Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out
without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of
iron and clay, and brake them in pieces. Then was the iron, the
clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces
together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing‐
floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found
for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great
mountain, and filled the whole earth_”; _Mat. 13:31, 32_—“_The
kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed, which a
man took, and sowed in his field: which indeed is less than all
seeds; but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and
becometh a tree, so that the birds of the heaven come and lodge in
the branches thereof._” In both these figures there is no sign of
cessation or of backward movement, but rather every indication of
continuous advance to complete victory and dominion. The
premillennial theory supposes that for the principle of
development under the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, God will
substitute a reign of mere power and violence. J. B. Thomas: “The
kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, not like a can
of nitro‐glycerine.” Leighton Williams: “The kingdom of God is to
be realized on earth, not by a cataclysm, apart from effort and
will, but through the universal dissemination of the gospel all
but lost to the world.” E. G. Robinson: “Second Adventism
stultifies the system and scheme of Christianity.” Dr. A. J.
Gordon could not deny that the early disciples were mistaken in
expecting the end of the world in their day. So we may be.
Scripture does not declare that the end should come in the
lifetime of the apostles, and no definite date is set. “_After a
long time_” (_Mat. 25:19_) and “_the falling away come first_” (_2
Thess. 2:3_) are expressions which postpone indefinitely. Yet a
just view of Christ’s coming as ever possible in the immediate
future may make us as faithful as were the original disciples.

The theory also divests Christ of all kingly power until the
millennium, or, rather, maintains that the kingdom has not yet
been given to him; see Elliott, Horæ Apocalypticæ, 1:94—where
_Luke 19:12_—“_A certain nobleman went into a far country, to
receive for himself a kingdom, and to return_”—is interpreted as
follows: “Subordinate kings went to Rome to receive the
investiture to their kingdoms from the Roman Emperor, and then
returned to occupy them and reign. So Christ received from his
Father, after his ascension, the investiture to his kingdom; but
with the intention not to occupy it, till his return at his second
coming. In token of this investiture he takes his seat as the Lamb
on the divine throne” (_Rev. 5:6‐8_). But this interpretation
contradicts _Mat. 28:18, 20_—“_All authority hath been given unto
me in heaven and on earth ... lo, I am with you always, even unto
the end of the world._” See Presb. Rev., 1882:228. On the effects
of the premillennial view in weakening Christian endeavor, see J.
H. Seelye, Christian Missions, 94‐127; _per contra_, see A. J.
Gordon, in Independent, Feb. 1886.

(_e_) We may therefore best interpret Rev. 20:4‐10 as teaching in highly
figurative language, not a preliminary resurrection of the body, in the
case of departed saints, but a period in the later days of the church
militant when, under special influence of the Holy Ghost, the spirit of
the martyrs shall appear again, true religion be greatly quickened and
revived, and the members of Christ’s churches become so conscious of their
strength in Christ that they shall, to an extent unknown before, triumph
over the powers of evil both within and without. So the spirit of Elijah
appeared again in John the Baptist (Mal. 4:5; _cf._ Mat. 11:13, 14). The
fact that only the spirit of sacrifice and faith is to be revived is
figuratively indicated in the phrase: “The rest of the dead lived not
again until the thousand years should be finished” = the spirit of
persecution and unbelief shall be, as it were, laid to sleep. Since
resurrection, like the coming of Christ and the judgment, is twofold,
first, spiritual (the raising of the soul to spiritual life), and
secondly, physical (the raising of the body from the grave), the words in
Rev. 20:5—“this is the first resurrection”—seem intended distinctly to
preclude the literal interpretation we are combating. In short, we hold
that Rev. 20:4‐10 does not describe the events commonly called the second
advent and resurrection, but rather describes great spiritual changes in
the later history of the church, which are typical of, and preliminary to,
the second advent and resurrection, and therefore, after the prophetic
method, are foretold in language literally applicable only to those final
events themselves (_cf._ Ez. 37:1‐14; Luke 15:32).

_Mal. 4:5_—“_Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the
great and terrible day of Jehovah come_”; _cf._ _Mat. 11:13,
14_—“_For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And
if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to
come_”; _Ez. 37:1‐14_—the vision of the valley of dry bones =
either the political or the religious resuscitation of the Jews;
_Luke 15:32_—“_this thy brother was dead, and is alive again_”—of
the prodigal son. It will help us in our interpretation of _Rev.
20:4‐10_ to notice that death, judgment, the coming of Christ, and
the resurrection, are all of two kinds, the first spiritual, and
the second literal:

(1) First, a spiritual death (_Eph. 2:1_—“_dead through your
trespasses and sins_”); and secondly, a physical and literal
death, whose culmination is found in the second death (_Rev.
20:14_—“_And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This
is the second death, even the lake of fire_”).

(2) First, a spiritual judgment (_Is. 26:9_—“_when thy judgments
are in the earth_”; _John 12:31_—“_Now is the judgment of this
world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out_”;
_3:18_—“_he that believeth not hath been judged already_”); and
secondly, an outward and literal judgment (_Acts 17:31_—“_hath
appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness
by the man whom he hath ordained_”).

(3) First, the spiritual and invisible coming of Christ (_Mat.
16:28_—“_shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom_”—at the destruction of Jerusalem; _John
14:16, 18_—“_another Comforter ... I come unto you_”—at Pentecost;
_14:3_—“_And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again,
and will receive you unto myself_”—at death); and secondly, a
visible literal coming (_Mat. 25:31_—“_the Son of man shall come
in his glory, and all the angels with him_”).

(4) First, a spiritual resurrection (_John 5:25_—“_The hour
cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son
of God; and they that hear shall live_”); and secondly, a physical
and literal resurrection (_John 5:28, 29_—“_the hour cometh, in
which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall
come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
judgment_”). The spiritual resurrection foreshadows the bodily
resurrection.

This twofoldness of each of the four terms, death, judgment,
coming of Christ, resurrection, is so obvious a teaching of
Scripture, that the apostle’s remark in _Rev. 20:5_—“_This is the
first resurrection_”—seems distinctly intended to warn the reader
against drawing the premillenarian inference, and to make clear
the fact that the resurrection spoken of is the first or spiritual
resurrection,—an interpretation which is made indubitable by his
proceeding, further on, to describe the outward and literal
resurrection in _verse 13_—“_And the sea gave up the dead that
were in it: and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in
them._” This physical resurrection takes place when “_the thousand
years_” are “_finished_” (_verse 5_).

This interpretation suggests a possible way of reconciling the
premillenarian and postmillenarian theories, without sacrificing
any of the truth in either of them. Christ may come again, at the
beginning of the millennium, in a spiritual way, and his saints
may reign with him spiritually, in the wonderful advances of his
kingdom; while the visible, literal coming may take place at the
end of the thousand years. Dorner’s view is postmillennial, in
this sense, that the visible coming of Christ will be after the
thousand years. Hengstenberg curiously regards the millennium as
having begun in the Middle Ages (800‐1800 A. D.). This strange
view of an able interpreter, as well as the extraordinary
diversity of explanations given by others, convinces us that no
exegete has yet found the key to the mysteries of the Apocalypse.
Until we know whether the preaching of the gospel in the whole
world (_Mat. 24:14_) is to be a preaching to nations as a whole,
or to each individual in each nation, we cannot determine whether
the millennium has already begun, or whether it is yet far in the
future.

The millennium then is to be the culmination of the work of the
Holy Spirit, a universal revival of religion, a nation born in a
day, the kings of the earth bringing their glory and honor into
the city of God. A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 211—“After
the present elective work of the Spirit has been completed, there
will come a time of universal blessing, when the Spirit shall
literally be poured out upon all flesh, when that which is perfect
shall come and that which is in part shall be done away.... The
early rain of the Spirit was at Pentecost; the latter rain will be
at the Parousia.”

A. H. Strong, Sermon before the Baptist World Congress, London,
July 12, 1905—“Let us expect the speedy spiritual coming of the
Lord. I believe in an ultimate literal and visible coming of
Christ in the clouds of heaven to raise the dead, to summon all
men to the judgment, and to wind up the present dispensation. But
I believe that this visible and literal coming of Christ must be
preceded, and prepared for, by his invisible and spiritual coming
and by a resurrection of faith and love in the hearts of his
people. ‘_This is the first resurrection_’ (_Rev. 20:5_). I read
in Scripture of a spiritual second coming that precedes the
literal, an inward revelation of Christ to his people, a
restraining of the powers of darkness, a mighty augmentation of
the forces of righteousness, a turning to the Lord of men and
nations, such as the world has not yet seen. I believe in a long
reign of Christ on earth, in which his saints shall in spirit be
caught up with him, and shall sit with him upon his throne, even
though this muddy vesture of decay compasses them about, and the
time of their complete glorification has not yet come. Let us
hasten the coming of the day of God by our faith and prayer.
‘_When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?_’
(_Luke 18:8_). Let him find faith, at least in us. Our faith can
certainly secure the coming of the Lord into our hearts. Let us
expect that Christ will be revealed in us, as of old he was
revealed in the Apostle Paul.”

Our own interpretation of _Rev. 20:1‐10_, was first given, for
substance, by Whitby. He was followed by Vitringa and Faber. For a
fuller elaboration of it, see Brown, Second Advent, 206‐259;
Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 447‐453. For the postmillennial view
generally, see Kendrick, in Bap. Quar., Jan. 1870; New Englander,
1874:356; 1879:47‐49, 114‐147; Pepper, in Bap. Rev., 1880:15;
Princeton Review, March, 1879:415‐434; Presb. Rev., 1883:221‐252;
Bib. Sac., 15:381, 625; 17:111; Harris, Kingdom of Christ,
220‐237; Waldegrave, Bampton Lectures for 1854, on the Millennium;
Neander, Planting and Training, 526, 527; Cowles, Dissertation on
Premillennial Advent, in Com. on Jeremiah and Ezekiel; Weiss,
Premillennial Advent; Crosby, Second Advent; Fairbairn on
Prophecy, 432‐480; Woods, Works, 3:267; Abp. Whately, Essays on
Future State. For the premillennial view, see Elliott, Horæ
Apocalypticæ, 4:140‐196; William Kelly, Advent of Christ
Premillennial; Taylor, Voice of the Church on the Coming and
Kingdom of the Redeemer; Litch, Christ Yet to Come.

IV. The Resurrection.

While the Scriptures describe the impartation of new life to the soul in
regeneration as a spiritual resurrection, they also declare that, at the
second coming of Christ, there shall be a resurrection of the body, and a
reunion of the body to the soul from which, during the intermediate state,
it has been separated. Both the just and the unjust shall have part in the
resurrection. To the just, it shall be a resurrection unto life; and the
body shall be a body like Christ’s—a body fitted for the uses of the
sanctified spirit. To the unjust, it shall be a resurrection unto
condemnation; and analogy would seem to indicate that, here also, the
outward form will fitly represent the inward state of the soul—being
corrupt and deformed as is the soul which inhabits it. Those who are
living at Christ’s coming shall receive spiritual bodies without passing
through death. As the body after corruption and dissolution, so the
outward world after destruction by fire, shall be rehabilitated and fitted
for the abode of the saints.

Passages describing a spiritual resurrection are: _John 5:24‐27_,
especially _25_—“_The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live_”;
_Rom. 6:4, 5_—“_as Christ was raised from the dead through the
glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. For
if we have become united with him by the likeness of his death, we
shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection_”; _Eph. 2:1, 5,
6_—“_And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your
trespasses and sins ... even when we were dead through our
trespasses, made us alive together with Christ ... and raised us
up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places,
in Christ Jesus_”; _5:14_—“_Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise
from the dead, and Christ shall shine upon thee._” _Phil.
3:10_—“_that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection_”;
_Col. 2:12, 13_—“_having been buried with him in baptism, wherein
ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God,
who raised him from the dead. And you, being dead through your
trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did
he make alive together with him_”; _cf._ _Is. 26:19_—“_Thy dead
shall live; my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and sing, ye that
dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the
earth shall cast forth the dead_”; _Ez. 37:1‐14_—the valley of dry
bones: “_I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of
your graves, O my people; and I will bring you into the land of
Israel._”

Passages describing a literal and physical resurrection are: _Job
14:12‐15_—“_So man lieth down and riseth not: Till the heavens be
no more, they shall not awake, Nor be raised out of their sleep.
Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol, That thou wouldest keep me
secret, until thy wrath be past, That thou wouldest appoint me a
set time, and remember me! If a man die, shall he live again? All
the days of my warfare would I wait, Till my release should come.
Thou wouldest call, and I would answer thee: Thou wouldest have a
desire to the work of thy hands_”; _John 5:28, 29_—“_the hour
cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
and shalt come forth: they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of judgment._”

_Acts 24:15_—“_having hope toward God ... that there shall be a
resurrection both of the just and unjust_”; _1 Cor. 15:13, 17, 22,
42, 51, 52_—“_if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither
hath Christ been raised ... and if Christ hath not been raised,
your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins ... as in Adam all
die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive ... it is sown in
corruption: it is raised in incorruption.... We shall not all
sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the
dead shall be raised incorruptible_”; _Phil. 3:21_—“_who shall
fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed
to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is
able even to subject all things unto himself_”; _1 Thess.
4:14‐16_—“_For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even
so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with
him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we
that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall
in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord
himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ
shall rise first._”

_2 Pet. 3:7, 10, 13_—“_the heavens that now are, and the earth, by
the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against
the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.... But the day
of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, which the heavens
shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be
dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are
therein shall be burned up.... But, according to his promise, we
look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
righteousness_”; _Rev. 20:13_—“_And the sea gave up the dead that
were __ in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in
them_”; _21:1, 5_—“_And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for
the first heaven and the first earth are passed away; and the sea
is no more.... And he that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, I
make all things new._”

The smooth face of death with the lost youth restored, and the
pure white glow of the marble statue with all passion gone and the
lofty and heroic only visible, are indications of what is to be.
Art, in its representations alike of the human form, and of an
ideal earth and society in landscape and poem, is prophetic of the
future,—it suggests the glorious possibilities of the
resurrection‐morning. Nicoll, Life of Christ: “The river runs
through the lake and pursues its way beyond. So the life of faith
passes through death and is only purified thereby. As to the body,
all that is worth saving will be saved. Other resurrections [such
as that of Lazarus] were resurrections to the old conditions of
earthly life; the resurrection of Christ was the revelation of new
life.”

Stevens, Pauline Theology, 357 note—“If we could assume with
confidence that the report of Paul’s speech before Felix
accurately reproduced his language in detail, the apostle’s belief
in a ‘_resurrection both of the just and of the unjust_’ (_Acts
24:15_) would be securely established: but, in view of the silence
of his epistles, this assumption becomes a precarious one. Paul
speaks afterwards of ‘_attaining to the resurrection from the
dead_’ (_Phil. 3:11_), as if this did not belong to all.” The
scepticism of Prof. Stevens seems to us entirely needless and
unjustified. It is the blessed resurrection to which Paul would
“attain,” and which he has in mind in Philippians, as in _1 Cor.
15_—a fact perfectly consistent with a resurrection of the wicked
to “_shame and everlasting contempt_” (_Daniel 12:2; John 5:29_).

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 205, 206—“The rapture of the
saints (_1 Thess. 4:17_) is the earthly Christ rising to meet the
heavenly Christ; the elect church, gathered in the Spirit and
named ὁ Χριστός (_1 Cor. 12:12_), taken up to be united in glory
with Christ the head of the church, ‘_himself the Savior of the
body_’ (_Eph. 5:23_). It is not by acting upon the body of Christ
from without, but by energizing it from within, that the Holy
Ghost will effect its glorification. In a word, the Comforter, who
on the day of Pentecost came down to form a body out of flesh,
will at the Parousia return to heaven in that body, having
fashioned it like unto the body of Christ (_Phil. 3:31_).... Here
then is where the lines of Christ’s ministry terminate,—in
sanctification, the perfection of the spirit’s holiness; and in
resurrection, the perfection of the body’s health.”

E. G. Robinson: “Personality is the indestructible principle—not
intelligence, else deny that infants have souls. Personality takes
to itself a material organization. It is a divinely empowered
second cause. This refutes materialism and annihilationism. No one
pretends that the individual elements of the body will be raised.
The individuality only, the personal identity, will be preserved.
The soul is the organific power. Medical practice teaches that
merely animal life is a mechanical process, but this is used by a
personal power. Materialism, on the contrary, would make the soul
the product of the body. Every man, in becoming a Christian,
begins the process of resurrection. We do not know _but_
resurrection begins at the moment of dissolution, yet we do not
know _that_ it does. But if Christ arose with identically the same
body unchanged, how can his resurrection be a type of ours?
Answer: The nature of Christ’s resurrection body is an open
question.”

Upon the subject of the resurrection, our positive information is derived
wholly from the word of God. Further discussion of it may be most
naturally arranged in a series of answers to objections. The objections
commonly urged against the doctrine, as above propounded, may be reduced
to two:

1. The exegetical objection.

_The exegetical objection_,—that it rests upon a literalizing of
metaphorical language, and has no sufficient support in Scripture. To this
we answer:

(_a_) That, though the phrase “resurrection of the body” does not occur in
the New Testament, the passages which describe the event indicate a
physical, as distinguished from a spiritual, change (John 5:28, 29; Phil.
3:21; 1 Thess. 4:13‐17). The phrase “spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44) is a
contradiction in terms, if it be understood as signifying “a body which is
simple spirit.” It can only be interpreted as meaning a material organism,
perfectly adapted to be the outward expression and vehicle of the purified
soul. The purely spiritual interpretation is, moreover, expressly excluded
by the apostolic denial that “the resurrection is past already” (2 Tim.
2:18), and by the fact that there is a resurrection of the unjust, as well
as of the just (Acts 24:15).

_John 5:28, 29_—“_all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice,
and shall come forth_”; _Phil. 3:21_—“_who shall fashion anew the
body of our humiliation_”; _1 Thess. 4:16, 17_—“_For the Lord
himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ
shall rise first_”; _1 Cor. 15:44_—“_it is sown a natural_ [marg.:
‘_psychical_’] _body; it is raised a spiritual body_”; _2 Tim.
2:17, 18_—“_Hymenæus and Philetus; men who concerning the truth
have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and
overthrow the faith of some_”; _Acts 24:15_—“_Having hope toward
God ... that there shall be a resurrection both of the just and
the unjust._”

In _1 Cor. 15:44_, the word ψυχικόν, translated “_natural_” or
“_psychical_,” is derived from the Greek word ψυχή, soul, just as
the word πνευματικόν, translated “_spiritual_,” is derived from
the Greek word πνεῦμα, spirit. And as Paul could not mean to say
that this earthly body is composed of soul, neither does he say
that the resurrection body is composed of _spirit_. In other
words, these adjectives “_psychical_” and “_spiritual_” do not
define the _material_ of the respective bodies, but describe those
bodies in their relations and adaptations, in their powers and
uses. The present body is adapted and designed for the use of the
soul; the resurrection body will be adapted and designed for the
use of the spirit.

_2 Tim. 2:18_—“_saying that the resurrection is past already_” =
undue contempt for the body came to regard the resurrection as a
purely spiritual thing (Ellicott). Dr. A. J. Gordon said that the
“_spiritual body_” means “the body spiritualized.” E. H. Johnson:
“The phrase ‘_spiritual body_’ describes not so much the nature of
the body itself, as its relations to the spirit.” Savage, Life
after Death, 80—“Resurrection does not mean the raising up of the
body, and it does not mean the mere rising of the soul in the
moment of death, but a rising again from the prison house of the
dead, after going down at the moment of death.” D. R. Goodwin,
Journ. Soc. Bib. Exegesis, 1881:84—“The spiritual body is _body_,
and not _spirit_, and therefore must come under the definition of
_body_. If it were to be mere spirit, then every man in the future
state would have two spirits—the spirit that he has here and
another spirit received at the resurrection.”

(_b_) That the redemption of Christ is declared to include the body as
well as the soul (Rom. 8:23; 1 Cor. 6:13‐20). The indwelling of the Holy
Spirit has put such honor upon the frail mortal tenement which he has made
his temple, that God would not permit even this wholly to perish (Rom.
8:11—διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ἐν ὑμῖν, _i. e._, because of his
indwelling Spirit, God will raise up the mortal body). It is this belief
which forms the basis of Christian care for the dead (Phil. 3:21; _cf._
Mat. 22:32).

_Rom. 8:23_—“_waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of
our body_”; _1 Cor. 6:13‐20_—“_Meats for the belly and the belly
for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them. But the
body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for
the body: and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up us
through his power.... But he that is joined unto the Lord is one
spirit.... Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God?... glorify God
therefore in your body_”; _Rom. 8:11_—“_But if the Spirit of him
that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised
up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal
bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you_”—here the Revised
Version follows Tisch., 8th ed., and Westcott and Hort’s reading
of διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος. Tregelles, Tisch., 7th
ed., and Meyer, have διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα, and this
reading we regard as, on the whole, the best supported. _Phil.
3:21_—“_shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation._”

Dr. R. D. Hitchcock, in South Church Lectures, 338, says that
“there is no Scripture declaration of the resurrection of the
flesh, nor even of the resurrection of the body.” While this is
literally true, it conveys a false idea. The passages just cited
foretell a quickening of our mortal bodies, a raising of them up,
a changing of them into the likeness of Christ’s body. Dorner,
Eschatology: “The New Testament is not contented with a bodiless
immortality. It is opposed to a naked spiritualism, and accords
completely with a deeper philosophy which discerns in the body,
not merely the sheath or garment of the soul, but a side of the
person belonging to his full idea, his mirror and organ, of the
greatest importance for his activity and history.”

Christ’s proof of the resurrection in _Mat. 22:32_—“_God is not
the God of the dead, but of the living_”—has for its basis this
very assumption that soul and body belong normally together, and
that, since they are temporally separated in the case of the
saints who live with God, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob shall rise
again. The idealistic philosophy of thirty years ago led to a
contempt of the body; the recent materialism has done at least
this service, that it has reasserted the claims of the body to be
a proper part of man.

(_c_) That the nature of Christ’s resurrection, as literal and physical,
determines the nature of the resurrection in the case of believers (Luke
24:36; John 20:27). As, in the case of Christ, the same body that was laid
in the tomb was raised again, although possessed of new and surprising
powers, so the Scriptures intimate, not simply that the saints shall have
bodies, but that these bodies shall be in some proper sense an outgrowth
or transformation of the very bodies that slept in the dust (Dan. 12:2; 1
Cor. 15:53, 54). The denial of the resurrection of the body, in the case
of believers, leads naturally to a denial of the reality of Christ’s
resurrection (1 Cor. 15:13).

_Luke 24:39_—“_See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:
handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye
behold me having_”; _John 20:27_—“_Then saith he to Thomas, Reach
hither thy finger, and see my hands; and reach hither thy hand,
and put it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing_”;
_Dan. 12:2_—“_And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
everlasting contempt_”; _1 Cor. 15:53, 54_—“_For this corruptible
must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
But when this corruption shall have put on incorruption, and this
mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the
saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory_”;
_13_—“_But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath
Christ been raised._”

Sadducean materialism and Gnostic dualism, which last held matter
to be evil, both denied the resurrection. Paul shows that to deny
it is to deny that Christ rose; since, if it were impossible in
the case of his followers, it must have been impossible in his own
case. As believers, we are vitally connected with him; and his
resurrection could not have taken place without drawing in its
train the resurrection of all of us. Having denied that Christ
rose, where is the proof that he is not still under the bond and
curse of death? Surely then our preaching is vain. Paul’s epistle
to the Corinthians was written before the Gospels; and is
therefore, as Hanna says, the earliest written account of the
resurrection. Christ’s transfiguration was a prophecy of his
resurrection.

S. S. Times, March 22, 1902:161—“The resurrection of Jesus was not
a mere rising again, like that of Lazarus and the son of the widow
of Nain. He came forth from the tomb so changed that he was not at
once or easily recognized, and was possessed of such new and
surprising powers that he seemed to be pure spirit, no longer
subject to the conditions of his natural body. So he was the
‘_first‐fruits_’ of the resurrection‐harvest (_1 Cor. 15:20_). Our
resurrection, in like manner, is to involve a change from a
corruptible body to an incorruptible, from a psychical to a
spiritual.”

(_d_) That the accompanying events, as the second coming and the judgment,
since they are themselves literal, imply that the resurrection is also
literal.

_Rom. 8:19‐23_—“_For the earnest expectation of the creation
waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God ... the whole
creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now ...
even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body_”—here man’s body is
regarded as a part of nature, or the “_creation_,” and as
partaking in Christ of its deliverance from the curse; _Rev. 21:4,
5_—“_he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death
shall be no more.... And he that sitteth on the throne said,
Behold, I make all things new_”—a declaration applicable to the
body, the seat of pain and the avenue of temptation, as well as to
outward nature. See Hanna, The Resurrection, 28; Fuller, Works,
3:291; Boston, Fourfold State, in Works, 8:271‐289. On Olshausen’s
view of immortality as inseparable from body, see Aids to the
Study of German Theology, 63. On resurrection of the flesh, see
Jahrbuch f. d. Theol., 1:289‐317.

2. The scientific object.

This is threefold:

(_a_) That a resurrection of the particles which compose the body at death
is impossible, since they enter into new combinations, and not
unfrequently become parts of other bodies which the doctrine holds to be
raised at the same time.

We reply that the Scripture not only does not compel us to hold, but it
distinctly denies, that all the particles which exist in the body at death
are present in the resurrection‐body (1 Cor. 15:37—οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὸ
γενησόμενον; 50). The Scripture seems only to indicate a certain physical
connection between the new and the old, although the nature of this
connection is not revealed. So long as the physical connection is
maintained, it is not necessary to suppose that even a germ or particle
that belonged to the old body exists in the new.

_1 Cor. 15:37, 38_—“_that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the
body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or
of some other kind; but God giveth it a body even as it pleased
him, and to each seed a body of its own._” Jerome tells us that
the risen saints “habent dentes, ventrem, genitalia, et tamen nec
cibis nec uxoribus indigent.” This view of the resurrection is
exposed to the objection mentioned above. Pollok’s Course of Time
represented the day of resurrection as a day on which the limbs
that had been torn asunder on earth hurtled through the air to
join one another once more. The amputated arm that has been buried
in China must traverse thousands of miles to meet the body of its
former owner, as it rose from the place of its burial in England.

There are serious difficulties attending this view. The bodies of
the dead fertilized the field of Waterloo. The wheat grown there
has been ground and made into bread, and eaten by thousands of
living men. Particles of one human body have become incorporated
with the bodies of many others. “The Avon to the Severn runs, The
Severn to the sea, And Wycliffe’s dust shall spread abroad, Wide
as the waters be.” Through the clouds and the rain, particles of
Wycliffe’s body may have entered into the water which other men
have drunk from their wells and fountains. There is a propagation
of disease by contagion, or the transmission of infinitesimal
germs from one body to another, sometimes by infection of the
living from contact with the body of a friend just dead. In these
various ways, the same particle might, in the course of history,
enter into the constitution of a hundred living men. How can this
one particle, at the resurrection, be in a hundred places at the
same time? “Like the woman who had seven husbands, the same matter
may belong in succession to many bodies, for ‘they all had it’ ”
(Smyth). The cannibal and his victim cannot both possess the same
body at the resurrection. The Providence Journal had an article
entitled: “Who ate Roger Williams?” When his remains were exhumed,
it was found that one large root of an apple tree followed the
spine, divided at the thighs, and turned up at the toes of Roger
Williams. More than one person had eaten its apples. This root may
be seen to‐day in the cabinet of Brown University.

These considerations have led some, like Origen, to call the
doctrine of a literal resurrection of the flesh “the foolishness
of beggarly minds,” and to say that resurrection may be only “the
gathering round the spirit of new materials, and the vitalizing
them into a new body by the spirit’s God‐given power”; see Newman
Smyth, Old Faiths in a New Light, 349‐391; Porter, Human
Intellect, 39. But this view seems as great an extreme as that
from which it was a reaction. It gives up all idea of unity
between the new and the old. If my body were this instant
annihilated, and if then, an hour hence, God should create a
second body, precisely like the present, I could not call it the
same with the present body, even though it were animated by the
same informing soul, and that soul had maintained an uninterrupted
existence between the time of the annihilation of the first body
and the creation of the second. So, if the body laid in the tomb
were wholly dissipated among the elements, and God created at the
end of the world a wholly new body, it would be impossible for
Paul to say: “_this corruptible must put on incorruption_” (_1
Cor. 15:53_), or: “_it is sown in dishonor; it it raised in
glory_” (_verse 43_). In short, there is a physical connection
between the old and the new, which is intimated by Scripture, but
which this theory denies.

Paul himself gives us an illustration which shows that his view
was midway between the two extremes: “_that which thou sowest,
thou sowest not the body that shall be_” (_1 Cor. 15:37_). On the
one hand, the wheat that springs up does not contain the precise
particles, perhaps does not contain any particles, that were in
the seed. On the other hand, there has been a continuous physical
connection between the seed sown and the ripened grain at the
harvest. If the seed had been annihilated, and then ripe grain
created, we could not speak of identity between the one and the
other. But, because there has been a constant flux, the old
particles pressed out by new, and these new in their turn
succeeded by others that take their places, we can say: “the wheat
has come up.” We bury grain in order to increase it. The
resurrection‐body will be the same with the body laid away in the
earth, in the same sense as the living stalk of grain is identical
with the seed from which it germinated. “_This mortal must put on
immortality_”—not the immortal spirit put on an immortal body, but
the mortal body put on immortality, the corruptible body put on
incorruption (_1 Cor. 15:53_). “_Ye know not the Scriptures, nor
the power of God_” (_Mark 12:24_), says our Lord; and Paul asks:
“_Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the
dead?_” (_Acts 26:8_).

Or, to use another illustration nearer to the thing we desire to
illustrate: My body is the same that it was ten years ago,
although physiologists declare that every particle of the body is
changed, not simply once in seven years, but once in a single
year. Life is preserved only by the constant throwing off of dead
matter and the introduction of new. There is indeed a unity of
consciousness and personality, without which I should not be able
to say at intervals of years: “this body is the same; this body is
mine.” But a physical connection between the old and the new is
necessary in addition.

The nails of the hands are renewed in less than four months, or
about twenty‐one times in seven years. They grow to full length,
an average of seven twelfths of an inch, in from 121 to 138 days.
Young people grow them more rapidly, old people more slowly. In a
man of 21, it took 126 days; in a man of 67, it took 244; but the
average was a third of a year. A Baptist pastor attempted to prove
that he was a native of South Carolina though born in another
state, upon the ground that the body he brought with him from
Tennessee had exchanged its physical particles for matter taken
from South Carolina. Two dentists, however, maintained that he
still had the same teeth which he owned in Tennessee seven years
before, there being no circulation in the enamel. Should we then
say: Every particle of the body has changed, except the enamel of
the teeth?

Pope’s Martinus Scriblerus: “Sir John Cutler had a pair of black
worsted stockings which his maid darned so often with silk that
they became at last a pair of silk stockings.” Adeney, in
Christianity and Evolution, 122, 123—“Herod’s temple was treated
as identical with the temple that Haggai knew, because the
rebuilding was gradual, and was carried on side by side with the
demolition of the several parts of the old structure.” The ocean
wave travels around the world and is the same wave; but it is
never in two consecutive seconds composed of the same particles of
water.

The North River is the same to‐day that it was when Hendrick
Hudson first discovered it; yet not a particle of its current, nor
the surface of the banks which that current touches now, is the
same that it was then. Two things make the present river identical
with the river of the past. The first is, that the same formative
principle is at work,—the trend of the banks is the same, and
there is the same general effect in the flow and direction of the
waters drained from a large area of country. The second is, the
fact that, ever since Hendrick Hudson’s time, there has been a
physical connection, old particles in continuous succession having
been replaced by new.

So there are two things requisite to make our future bodies one
with the bodies we now inhabit: first, that the same formative
principle be at work in them; and secondly, that there be some
sort of physical connection between the body that now is and the
body that shall be. What that physical connection is, it is vain
to speculate. We only teach that, though there may not be a single
material particle in the new that was present in the old, there
yet will be such a physical connection that it can be said: “the
new has grown out of the old”; “that which was in the grave has
come forth”; “this mortal has put on immortality.”

(_b_) That a resurrection‐body, having such a remote physical connection
with the present body, cannot be recognized by the inhabiting soul or by
other witnessing spirits as the same with that which was laid in the
grave.

To this we reply that bodily identity does not consist in absolute
sameness of particles during the whole history of the body, but in the
organizing force, which, even in the flux and displacement of physical
particles, makes the old the basis of the new, and binds both together in
the unity of a single consciousness. In our recognition of friends,
moreover, we are not wholly dependent, even in this world, upon our
perception of bodily form; and we have reason to believe that in the
future state there may be methods of communication far more direct and
intuitive than those with which we are familiar here.

_Cf._ _Mat. 17:3, 4_—“_And behold, there appeared unto them Moses
and Elijah talking with him. And Peter answered, and said unto
Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, I will
make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and
one for Elijah_”—here there is no mention of information given to
Peter as to the names of the celestial visitants; it would seem
that, in his state of exalted sensibility, he at once knew them.
The recent proceedings of the English Society for Psychical
Research seem to indicate the possibility of communication between
two minds without physical intermediaries. Hudson, Scientific
Demonstration of a Future Life, 294, 295, holds that telepathy is
the means of communication in the future state.

G. S. Fullerton, Sameness and Identity, 6, 32, 67—“Heracleitus of
Ephesus declared it impossible to enter the same river twice.
Cratylus replied that the same river could not be entered once....
The kinds of sameness are: 1. Thing same _with itself_ at any one
instant; 2. Same pain to‐day I felt yesterday = a _like_ pain; 3.
I See the same tree at different times = two or more percepts
represent the same object; 4. Two plants belonging to the same
_class_ are called the same; 5. Memory gives us the same object
that we formerly perceived; but the object is not the past, it is
the _memory‐image_ which represents it; 6. Two men perceive the
same object = they have like percepts, while both percepts are
only representative of the same object; 7. External thing same
with its representative in consciousness, or with the substance or
noumenon supposed to underlie it.”

Ladd, Philosophy of Mind, 153, 255—“What is called ‘remaining the
same,’ in the case of all organic beings is just this,—remaining
faithful to some immanent idea, while undergoing a great variety
of changes in the pursuit, as it were, of the idea.... Self‐
consciousness and memory are themselves processes of becoming. The
mind that does not change, in the way of growth, has no claim to
be called mind. One cannot be conscious of changes without also
being conscious of being the very being that is changed. When he
loses this consciousness, we say that ‘he has lost his mind.’ Amid
changes of its ideas the ego remains permanent because it is held
within limits by the power of some immanent idea.... Our bodies as
such have only a formal existence. They are a stream in constant
flow and are ever changing. My body is only a temporary loan from
Nature, to be repaid at death.”

With regard to the meaning of the term “identity,” as applied to
material things, see Porter, Human Intellect, 631—“Here the
substance is called the same, by a loose analogy taken from living
agents and their gradual accretion and growth.” The Euphrates is
the same stream that flowed, “When high in Paradise By the four
rivers the first roses blew,” even though after that time the
flood, or deluge, stopped its flow and obliterated all the natural
features of the landscape. So this flowing organism which we call
the body may be the same, after the deluge of death has passed
away.

A different and less satisfactory view is presented in Dorner’s
Eschatology: “Identity involves: 1. Plastic form, which for the
earthly body had its moulding principle in the soul. That
principle could effect nothing permanent in the intermediate
state; but with the spiritual consummation of the soul, it attains
the full power which can appropriate to itself the heavenly body,
accompanied by a cosmical process, made like Christ. 2.
Appropriation, from the world of elements, of what it needs. The
elements into which everything bodily of earth is dissolved, are
an essentially uniform mass, like an ocean; and it is indifferent
what parts of this are assigned to each individual man. The whole
world of substance, which makes the constant change of substance
possible, is made over to humanity as a common possession (_Acts
4:32_—‘_not one of them said that aught of the things which he
possessed was his own; but they had all things common_’).”

(_c_) That a material organism can only be regarded as a hindrance to the
free activity of the spirit, and that the assumption of such an organism
by the soul, which, during the intermediate state, had been separated from
the body, would indicate a decline in dignity and power rather than a
progress.

We reply that we cannot estimate the powers and capacities of matter, when
brought by God into complete subjection to the spirit. The bodies of the
saints may be more ethereal than the air, and capable of swifter motion
than the light, and yet be material in their substance. That the soul,
clothed with its spiritual body, will have more exalted powers and enjoy a
more complete felicity than would be possible while it maintained a purely
spiritual existence, is evident from the fact that Paul represents the
culmination of the soul’s blessedness as occurring, not at death, but at
the resurrection of the body.

_Rom. 8:23_—“_waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of
our body_”; _2 Cor. 5:4_—“_not for that we would be unclothed; but
that we would be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be
swallowed up of life_”; _Phil. 3:11_—“_if by any means I may
attain unto the resurrection from the dead._” Even _Ps.
86:11_—“_Unite my heart to fear thy name_”—may mean the collecting
of all the powers of the body as well as soul. In this respect for
the body, as a normal part of man’s being, Scripture is based upon
the truest philosophy. Plotinus gave thanks that he was not tied
to an immortal body, and refused to have his portrait taken,
because the body was too contemptible a thing to have its image
perpetuated. But this is not natural, nor is it probably anything
more than a whim or affectation. _Eph. 5:29_—“_no man ever hated
his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it._” What we desire
is not the annihilation of the body, but its perfection.

Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 188—“In the Egyptian Book of the Dead,
the soul reunites itself to the body, with the assurance that they
shall never again be separated.” McCosh, Intuitions, 213—“The
essential thing about the resurrection is the development, out of
the dead body, of an organ for the communion and activity of the
spiritual life.” Ebrard, Dogmatik, 2:226‐234, has interesting
remarks upon the relation of the resurrection‐body to the present
body. The essential difference he considers to be this, that
whereas, in the present body, matter is master of the spirit, in
the resurrection‐body spirit will be the master of matter, needing
no reparation by food, and having control of material laws. Ebrard
adds striking speculations with regard to the glorified body of
Christ.

A. J. Gordon, Ministry of the Spirit, 126—“_Now_ the body bears
the spirit, a slow chariot whose wheels are often disabled, and
whose swiftest motion is but labored and tardy. _Then_ the spirit
will bear the body, carrying it as on wings of thought
whithersoever it will. The Holy Ghost, by his divine inworking
will, has completed in us the divine likeness, and perfected over
us the divine dominion. The human body will now be in sovereign
subjection to the human spirit, and the human spirit to the divine
Spirit, and God will be all in all.” Newman Smyth, Place of Death
in Evolution, 112—“Weismann maintains that the living germ not
only persists and is potentially immortal, but also that under
favorable conditions it seems capable of surrounding itself with a
new body. If a vital germ can do this, why not a spiritual germ?”
Two martyrs were led to the stake. One was blind, the other lame.
As the fires kindled, the latter exclaimed: “Courage, brother!
this fire will cure us both!”

We may sum up our answers to objections, and may at the same time throw
light upon the doctrine of the resurrection, by suggesting four principles
which should govern our thinking with regard to the subject,—these namely:
1. Body is in continual flux; 2. Since matter is but the manifestation of
God’s mind and will, body is plastic in God’s hands; 3. The soul in
complete union with God may be endowed with the power of God; 4. Soul
determines body, and not body soul, as the materialist imagines.

Ice, the flowing stream, the waterfall with the rainbow upon it,
steam with its power to draw the railway train or to burst the
boiler of the locomotive, are all the same element in varied
forms, and they are all _material_. Wundt regards physical
development, not as the cause, but as the effect, of psychical
development. Aristotle defines the soul as “the prime entelechy of
the living body.” Swedenborg regarded each soul here as fashioning
its own spiritual body, either hideous or lovely. Spenser, A Hymne
to Beautie: “For of the soul the body form doth take, For soul is
form, and doth the body make.” Wordsworth, Sonnet 36,
Afterthought: “Far backward, Duddon, as I cast my eyes, I see what
was, and is, and will abide; Still glides the stream, and shall
not cease to glide; The Form remains, the Function never dies”;
The Primrose of the Rock: “Sin‐blighted as we are, we too, The
reasoning sons of men, From one oblivious winter called, Shall
rise and breathe again, And in eternal summer lose Our three‐score
years and ten. To humbleness of heart descends This prescience
from on high. The faith that elevates the just Before and when
they die, And makes each soul a separate heaven, A court for
Deity.” Robert Browning, Asolando: “One who never turned his back,
but marched breastforward; Never doubted clouds would break; Never
dreamed, though right were worsted, Wrong would triumph; Held we
fall to rise, are baffled to fight better, Sleep to wake.” Mrs.
Browning: “God keeps a niche In heaven to hold our idols, and
albeit He broke them to our faces and denied That our close kisses
should impair their white, I know we shall behold them raised,
complete, The dust shook off, their beauty glorified.”

On the spiritual body as possibly evolved by will, see Harris,
Philos. Basis of Theism, 386. On the nature of the resurrection‐
body, see Burnet, State of the Departed, chaps. 3 and 8; Cudworth,
Intell. System, 3:310 _sq._; Splittgerber, Tod, Fortleben and
Auferstehung. On the doctrine of the Resurrection among the
Egyptians, see Dr. Howard Osgood, in Hebrew Student, Feb. 1885;
among the Jews, see Gröbler, in Studien und Kritiken, 1879: Heft
4; DeWünsche, in Jahrbuch f. prot. Theol., 1880: Heft 2 and 4;
Revue Théologique, 1881:1‐17. For the view that the resurrection
is wholly spiritual and takes place at death, see Willmarth, in
Bap. Quar., October, 1868, and April, 1870; Ladd, in New
Englander, April, 1874; Crosby, Second Advent.

On the whole subject, see Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, 280; Herzog,
Encyclop., art.; Auferstehung; Goulburn, Bampton Lectures for
1850, on the Resurrection; Cox, The Resurrection; Neander,
Planting and Training, 479‐487, 524‐526; Naville, La Vie
Éternelle, 253, 254; Delitzsch, Bib. Psychologie, 453‐463;
Moorhouse, Nature and Revelation, 87‐112; Unseen Universe, 33;
Hovey, in Baptist Quarterly, Oct. 1867; Westcott, Revelation of
the Risen Lord, and in Contemporary Review, vol. 30; R. W. Macan,
Resurrection of Christ; Cremer, Beyond the Grave.

V. The Last Judgment.

While the Scriptures represent all punishment of individual transgressors
and all manifestations of God’s vindicatory justice in the history of
nations as acts or processes of judgment, they also intimate that these
temporal judgments are only partial and imperfect, and that they are
therefore to be concluded with a final and complete vindication of God’s
righteousness. This will be accomplished by making known to the universe
the characters of all men, and by awarding to them corresponding
destinies.

Passages describing temporal or spiritual judgment are: _Ps.
9:7_—“_He hath prepared his throne for judgment_”; _Is.
26:9_—“_when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of
the world learn righteousness_”; _Mat. 16:27, 28_—“_For the Son of
man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and
then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds. Verily
I say unto you, There be some of them that stand here, who shall
in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in
his kingdom_”; _John 3:18, 19_—“_he that believeth not hath been
judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the
only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light
is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the
light; for their works were evil_”; _9:39_—“_For judgment came I
into this world, that they that see not may see; and that they
that see may become blind_”; _12:31_—“_Now is the judgment of this
world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out._”

Passages describing the final judgment are: _Mat. 25:31‐46_—“_But
when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels
with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory: and before
him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them
one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the
goats...._” _Acts 17:31_—“_he hath appointed a day, in which he
will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath
ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he
hath raised him from the dead_”; _Rom. 2:16_—“_in the day when God
shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus
Christ_”; _2 Cor. 5:10_—“_For we must all be made manifest before
the judgment‐seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things
done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be
good or bad_”; _Heb. 9:27, 28_—“_And inasmuch as it is appointed
unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment; so Christ
also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall
appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him,
unto salvation_”; _Rev. 20:12_—“_And I saw the dead, the great and
the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and
another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead
were judged out of the things which were written in the books,
according to their works._”

Delitzsch: “The fall of Jerusalem was the day of the Lord, the
bloody and fiery dawn of the last great day—the day of days, the
ending‐day of all days, the settling day of all days, the day of
the promotion of time into eternity, the day which for the church
breaks through and breaks off the night of this present world.” E.
G. Robinson: “Judgment begins here. The callousing of conscience
in this life is a penal infliction. Punishment begins in this life
and is carried on in the next. We have no right to assert that
there are no positive inflictions, but, if there are none, still
every word of Scripture threatening would stand. There is no _day_
of judgment or of resurrection all at one time. Judgment is an
eternal process. The angels in _2 Pet. 2:4_—‘_cast ... down to
hell_’—suffer the self‐perpetuating consequences of
transgression..... Man is being judged every day. Every man honest
with himself knows where he is going to. Those who are not honest
with themselves are playing a trick, and, if they are not careful,
they will get a trick played on them.”

1. The nature of the final judgment.

The final judgment is not a spiritual, invisible, endless process,
identical with God’s providence in history, but is an outward and visible
event, occurring at a definite period in the future. This we argue from
the following considerations:

(_a_) The judgment is something for which the evil are “reserved ” (2
Peter 2:4, 9); something to be expected in the future (Acts 24:25; Heb.
10:27); something after death (Heb. 9:27); something for which the
resurrection is a preparation (John 5:29).

_2 Pet. 2:4, 9_—“_God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast
them down to hell ... reserved unto judgment ... the lord knoweth
how ... to keep the unrighteous unto punishment unto the day of
judgment_”; _Acts 24:25_—“_as he reasoned of righteousness, and
self‐control, and the judgment to come, Felix was terrified_”;
_Heb. 10:27_—“_a certain fearful expectation of judgment_”;
_9:27_—“_it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this
cometh judgment_”; _John 5:29_—“_the resurrection of judgment._”

(_b_) The accompaniments of the judgment, such as the second coming of
Christ, the resurrection, and the outward changes of the earth, are events
which have an outward and visible, as well as an inward and spiritual,
aspect. We are compelled to interpret the predictions of the last judgment
upon the same principle.

_John 5:28, 29_—“_Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in
which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall
come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
judgment_”; _2 Pet. 3:7, 10_—“_the day of judgment ... the day of
the Lord ... in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great
noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat_”; _2
Thess. 1:7, 8, 2:10_—“_the revelation of the Lord Jesus from
heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering
vengeance to them that know not God ... when he shall come ... in
that day._”

(_c_) God’s justice, in the historical and imperfect work of judgment,
needs a final outward judgment as its vindication. “A perfect justice must
judge, not only moral units, but moral aggregates; not only the
particulars of life, but the life as a whole.” The crime that is hidden
and triumphant here, and the goodness that is here maligned and oppressed,
must be brought to light and fitly recompensed. “Otherwise man is a
Tantalus—longing but never satisfied”; and God’s justice, of which his
outward administration is the expression, can only be regarded as
approximate.

Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, 194—“The Egyptian Book of the Dead
represents the deceased person as standing in the presence of the
goddess Maāt , who is distinguished by the ostrich‐feather on her
head; she holds the sceptre in one hand and the symbol of life in
the other. The man’s heart, which represents his entire moral
nature, is being weighed in the balance in the presence of Osiris,
seated upon his throne as judge of the dead.” Rationalism believes
in only present and temporal judgment; and this it regards as but
the reaction of natural law: “Die Weltgeschichte ist das
Weltgericht,—the world’s history is the world’s judgment”
(Schiller, Resignation). But there is an inner connection between
present, temporal, spiritual judgments, and the final, outward,
complete judgment of God. Nero’s murder of his mother was not the
only penalty of his murder of Germanicus.

Dorner: “With Christ’s appearance, faith sees that the beginning
of the judgment and of the end has come. Christians are a
prophetic race. Without judgment, Christianity would involve a
sort of dualism: evil and good would be of equal might and worth.
Christianity cannot always remain a historic principle _alongside_
of the contrary principle of evil. It is the only reality.” God
will show or make known his righteousness with regard to: (1) the
disparity of lots among men; (2) the prosperity of the wicked; (3)
the permission of moral evil in general; (4) the consistency of
atonement with justice. “The συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος (‘_end of the
world_,’ _Mat. 13:39_) = stripping hostile powers of their usurped
might, revelation of their falsity and impotence, consigning them
to the past. Evil shall be utterly cut off, given over to its own
nothingness, or made a subordinate element.”

A great statesman said that what he dreaded for his country was
not the day of judgment, but the day of no judgment. “Jove strikes
the Titans down, Not when they first begin their mountain‐piling,
But when another rock would crown their work.” R. W. Emerson: “God
said: I am tired of kings, I suffer them no more; Up to my ears
the morning brings The outrage of the poor.” Royce, The World and
the Individual, 2:384 _sq._—“If God’s life is given to free
individual souls, then God’s life can be given also to free
nations and to a free race of men. There may be an apostasy of a
family, nation, race, and a judgment of each according to their
deeds.”

The Expositor, March, 1898—“It is claimed that we are being judged
now, that laws execute themselves, that the system of the universe
is automatic, that there is no need for future retribution. But
all ages have agreed that there is not here and now any sufficient
vindication of the principle of eternal justice. The mills of the
gods grind slowly. Physical immorality is not proportionately
punished. Deterioration is not an adequate penalty. Telling a
second lie does not recompense the first. Punishment includes
pain, and here is no pain. That there is not punishment here is
due, not to law, but to grace.”

Denney, Studies in Theology, 240, 241—“The dualistic conception of
an endless suspense, in which good and evil permanently balance
each other and contest with each other the right to inherit the
earth, is virtually atheistic, and the whole Bible is a protest
against it.... It is impossible to overestimate the power of the
final judgment, as a motive, in the primitive church. On almost
every page of St. Paul, for instance, we see that he lives in the
presence of it; he lets the awe of it descend into his heart to
keep his conscience quick.”

2. The object of the final judgment.

The object of the final judgment is not the ascertainment, but the
manifestation, of character, and the assignment of outward condition
corresponding to it.

(_a_) To the omniscient Judge, the condition of all moral creatures is
already and fully known. The last day will be only “the _revelation_ of
the righteous judgment of God.”

They are inwardly judged when they die, and before they die; they
are outwardly judged at the last day: _Rom. 2:5, 6_—“_treasurest
up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according
to his works_”—see Meyer on this passage; not “against the day of
wrath,” but “_in the day of wrath_”—wrath existing beforehand, but
breaking out on that day. _1 Tim. 5:24, 25_—“_Some men’s sins are
evident, going before unto judgment; and some men also they follow
after. In like manner also there are good works that are evident;
and such as are otherwise cannot be hid_”; _Rev. 14:13_—“_for
their works follow with them_”—as close companions, into God’s
presence and judgment (Ann. Par. Bible).

Epitaph: “Hic jacet in expectatione diei supremi.... Qualis erat,
dies iste indicabit”—“Here lies, in expectation of the last
day.... Of what sort he was, that day will show.” Shakespeare,
Hamlet, 3:3—“In the corrupted currents of this world Offence’s
glided hand may shove by justice. But ’tis not so above. There is
no shuffling, there the action lies In his true nature; and we
ourselves compelled, Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults.
To give in evidence”; King John, 4:2—“Oh, when the last account
’twixt heaven and earth Is to be made, then shall this hand and
seal [the warrant for the murder of Prince Arthur] Witness against
us to damnation.” “Not all your piety nor wit Can lure it
[justice] back to cancel half a line, Nor all your tears wash out
one word of it.”

(_b_) In the nature of man, there are evidences and preparations for this
final disclosure. Among these may be mentioned the law of memory, by which
the soul preserves the records of its acts, both good and evil (Luke
16:25); the law of conscience, by which men involuntarily anticipate
punishment for their own sins (Rom. 2:15, 16; Heb. 10:27); the law of
character, by which every thought and deed makes indelible impress upon
the moral nature (Heb. 3:8, 15).

The law of memory.—_Luke 16:25_—“_Son, remember!_” See Maclaren,
Sermons, 1:109‐122—Memory (1) will embrace all the events of the
past life; (2) will embrace them all at the same moment; (3) will
embrace them continuously and continually. Memory is a process of
self‐registry. As every business house keeps a copy of all letters
sent or orders issued, so every man retains in memory the record
of his sins. The mind is a palimpsest; though the original writing
has been erased, the ink has penetrated the whole thickness of the
parchment, and God’s chemistry is able to revive it. Hudson, Dem.
of Future Life, 212, 213—“Subjective memory is the retention of
all ideas, however superficially they may have been impressed upon
the objective mind, and it admits of no variation in different
individuals. Recollection is the power of recalling ideas to the
mind. This varies greatly. Sir William Hamilton calls the former
‘mental latency.’ ”

The law of conscience.—_Rom. 2:15, 16_—“_they show the work of the
law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness
therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else
excusing them; in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men,
according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ_”; _Heb. 10:27_—“_a
certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire
which shall devour the adversaries._” Goethe said that his
writings, taken together, constituted a great confession.
Wordsworth, Excursion, III:579—“For, like a plague will memory
break out. And, in the blank and solitude of things, Upon his
spirit, with a fever’s strength, Will conscience prey.” A man who
afterwards became a Methodist preacher was converted in
Whitefield’s time by a vision of the judgment, in which he saw all
men gathered before the throne, and each one coming up to the book
of God’s law, tearing open his heart before it “as one would tear
open the bosom of his shirt,” comparing his heart with the things
written in the book, and, according as they agreed or disagreed
with that standard, either passing triumphant to the company of
the blest, or going with howling to the company of the damned. No
word was spoken; the Judge sat silent; the judgment was one of
self‐revelation and self‐condemnation. See Autobiography of John
Nelson (quoted in the Diary of Mrs. Kitty Trevylyan, 207, by Mrs.
E. Charles, the author of The Schönberg‐Cotta Family).

The law of character.—_Heb. 3:8, 15_—“_Harden not your hearts, as
in the provocation, Like as in the day of the trial in the
wilderness.... Today, if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your
hearts, as in the provocation._” Sin leaves its marks upon the
soul; men become “_past feeling_” (_Eph. 4:19_). In England,
churchmen claim to tell a dissenter by his walk—not a bad sign by
which to know a man. God needs only to hold up our characters to
show what have been our lives. Sin leaves its scars upon the soul,
as truly as lust and hatred leave their marks upon the body. So
with the manifestation of the good—“the chivalry that does the
right, and disregards The yea and nay of the world.... Expect nor
question nor reply At what we figure as God’s judgment‐bar”
(Robert Browning, Ring and Book, 178, 202). Mr. Edison says: “In a
few years the world will be just like one big ear; it will be
unsafe to speak in a house till one has examined the walls and the
furniture for concealed phonographs.” But the world even now is
“one big ear”, and we ourselves in our characters are writing the
books of the judgment. Brooks, Foundations of Zoölogy, 134,
135—“Every part of the material universe contains a permanent
record of every change that has taken place therein, and there is
also no limit to the power of minds like ours to read and
interpret the record.”

Draper, Conflict of Science and Religion: “If on a cold polished
metal, as a new razor, any object, such as a wafer, be laid, and
the metal breathed upon, and when the moisture has had time to
disappear, the wafer be thrown off, though now the most critical
inspection of the polished surface can discern no trace of any
form, if we breathe once more upon it, a spectral image of the
wafer comes plainly into view; and this may be done again and
again. Nay, more; if the polished metal be carefully put aside
where nothing can injure its surface, and be kept so for many
months, on breathing upon it again, the shadowy form emerges. A
shadow never falls upon a wall without leaving thereon a permanent
trace, a trace which might be made visible by resorting to proper
processes. Upon the walls of our most private apartments, where we
think the eye of intrusion is altogether shut out, and our
retirement can never be profaned, there exist the vestiges of all
our acts.”

Babbage, Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, 113‐115—“If we had power to
follow and detect the minutest effects of any disturbance, each
particle of existing matter would furnish a register of all that
has happened. The track of every canoe, of every vessel that has
yet disturbed the surface of the ocean, whether impelled by manual
force or elemental power, remains forever registered in the future
movement of all succeeding particles which may occupy its place.
The furrow which it left is indeed filled up by the closing
waters, but they draw after them other and larger portions of the
surrounding element, and these again, once moved, communicate
motion to others in endless succession. The air itself is one vast
library, in whose pages are forever written all that man has said
or even whispered. There, in their mutable but unerring
characters, mixed with the earliest as well as the latest sighs of
mortality, stand forever recorded vows unredeemed, promises
unfulfilled, perpetuating in the united movements of each particle
the testimony of man’s changeful will.”

(_c_) Single acts and words, therefore, are to be brought into the
judgment only as indications of the moral condition of the soul. This
manifestation of all hearts will vindicate not only God’s past dealings,
but his determination of future destinies.

_Mat. 12:36_—“_And I say unto you, that every idle word that man
shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of
judgment_”; _Luke 12:2, 8, 9_—“_there is nothing covered up, that
shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.... Every
one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also
confess before the angels of God: but he that denieth me in the
presence of men shall be denied in the presence of the angels of
God_”; _John 3:18_—“_He that believeth on him is not judged: he
that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not
believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God_”; _2 Cor.
5:10_—“_For we must all be made manifest_ [not: ‘must all appear,’
as in A. Vers.] _before the judgment‐seat of Christ_.”

Even the human judge, in passing sentence, commonly endeavors so
to set forth the guilt of the criminal that he shall see his doom
to be just. So God will awaken the consciences of the lost, and
lead them to pass judgment on themselves. Each lost soul can say
as Byron’s Manfred said to the fiend that tortured his closing
hour: “I have not been thy dupe, nor am thy prey, But was my own
destroyer.” Thus God’s final judgment will be only the culmination
of a process of natural selection, by which the unfit are
eliminated, and the fit are caused to survive.

O. J. Smith, The Essential Verity of Religion: “Belief in the
immortality of the soul and belief in the accountability of the
soul are fundamental beliefs in all religion. The origin of the
belief in immortality is found in the fact that justice can be
established in human affairs only upon the theory that the soul of
man is immortal, and the belief that man is accountable for his
actions eternally is based upon the conviction that justice should
and will be enforced. The central verity in religion therefore is
eternal justice. The sense of justice makes us men. Religion has
no miraculous origin,—it is born with the awakening of man’s moral
sense. Friendship and love are based on reciprocity, which is
justice. ‘Universal justice,’ says Aristotle, ‘includes all
virtues.’ ” If by justice here is meant the divine justice,
implied in the awakening of man’s moral sense, we can agree with
the above. As we have previously intimated, we regard the belief
in immortality as an inference from the intuition of God’s
existence, and every new proof that God is just strengthens our
conviction of immortality.

3. The Judge in the final judgment.

God, in the person of Jesus Christ, is to be the judge. Though God is the
judge of all (Heb. 12:23), yet this judicial activity is exercised through
Christ, at the last day, as well as in the present state (John 5:22, 27).

_Heb. 12:23_—“_to God the judge of all_”; _John 5:22, 27_—“_For
neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all
judgment unto the Son ... and he gave him authority to execute
judgment, because he is a son of man._” Stevens, Johannine
Theology, 349—“Jesus says that he judges no man (_John 8:15_). He
does not personally judge men. His attitude toward men is solely
that of Savior. It is rather his work, his word, his truth, which
pronounces condemnation against them both here and hereafter. The
judgment is that light is come; men’s attitude toward the light
involves their judgment; the light judges them, or, they judge
themselves.... The Savior does not come to judge but to save them;
but, by their rejection of salvation, they turn the saving message
itself into a judgment.”

This, for three reasons:

(_a_) Christ’s human nature enables men to understand both the law and the
love of God, and so makes intelligible the grounds on which judgment is
passed.

Whoever says that God is too distant and great to be understood
may be pointed to Christ, in whose human life the divine “law
appears, drawn out in living characters,” and the divine love is
manifest, as suffering upon the cross to save men from their sins.

(_b_) The perfect human nature of Christ, united as it is to the divine,
ensures all that is needful in true judgment, _viz._: that it be both
merciful and just.

_Acts 17:31_—“_he will judge the world in righteousness by the man
whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all
men, in that he hath raised him from the dead._”

As F. W. Robertson has shown in his sermon on “The Sympathy of
Christ” (vol. 1: sermon vii), it is not sin that most sympathizes
with sin. Sin blinds and hardens. Only the pure can appreciate the
needs of the impure, and feel for them.

(_c_) Human nature, sitting upon the throne of judgment, will afford
convincing proof that Christ has received the reward of his sufferings,
and that humanity has been perfectly redeemed. The saints shall “judge the
world” only as they are one with Christ.

The lowly Son of man shall sit upon the throne of judgment. And
with himself he will join all believers. _Mat. 19:28_—“_ye who
have followed me, in the regeneration 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_”; _Luke
22:28‐30_—“_But ye are they that have continued with me in my
temptations; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father
appointed unto me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my
kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of
Israel_”; _1 Cor. 6:2, 3_—“_know ye not that the saints shall
judge the world?... Know ye not that we shall judge angels?_”
_Rev. 3:21_—“_He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down
with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my
Father in his throne._”

4. The subjects of the final judgment.

The persons upon whose characters and conduct this judgment shall be
passed are of two great classes:

(_a_) All men—each possessed of body as well as soul,—the dead having been
raised, and the living having been changed.

_1 Cor. 15:51, 52_—“_We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be
changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last
trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed_”; _1 Thess. 4:16,
17_—“_For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a
shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trump of God:
and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we that are alive,
that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the
clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with
the Lord._”

(_b_) All evil angels,—good angels appearing only as attendants and
ministers of the Judge.

Evil angels: _2 Pet. 2:4_—“_For if God spared not angels when they
sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed them to pits of
darkness, to be reserved unto judgment_”; _Jude 6_—“_And angels
that kept not their own principality, but left their proper
habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto
the judgment of the great day_”; Good angels: _Mat. 13:41,
42_—“_The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall
gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and
them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of
fire: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth_”;
_25:31_—“_But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all
the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory:
and before him shall be gathered all the nations._”

5. The grounds of the final judgment.

These will be two in number:

(_a_) The law of God,—as made known in conscience and in Scripture.

_John 12:48_—“_He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings,
hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall
judge him in the last day_”; _Rom. 2:12_—“_For as many as have
sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as
many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law._” On
the self‐registry and disclosure of sin, see F. A. Noble, Our
Redemption, 59‐76. Dr. Noble quotes Daniel Webster in the Knapp
case at Salem: “There is no refuge from confession but suicide,
and suicide is confession.” Thomas Carlyle said to Lord Houghton:
“Richard Milnes! in the day of judgment, when the Lord asks you
why you did not get that pension for Alfred Tennyson, it will not
do to lay the blame on your constituents,—it is you that will be
damned.”

(_b_) The grace of Christ (Rev. 20:12),—those whose names are found
“written in the book of life” being approved, simply because of their
union with Christ and participation in his righteousness. Their good works
shall be brought into judgment only as proofs of this relation to the
Redeemer. Those not found “written in the book of life” will be judged by
the law of God, as God has made it known to each individual.

_Rev. 20:12_—“_And I saw the dead, the great and the small,
standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another
book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were
judged out of the things which were written in the books,
according to their works._” The “_book of life_” = the book of
justification, in which are written the names of those who are
united to Christ by faith; as the “book of death” would = the book
of condemnation, in which are written the names of those who stand
in their sins, as unrepentant and unforgiven transgressors of
God’s law.

Ferries, in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 2:821—“The judgment, in
one aspect or stage of it, is a present act. For judgment Christ
is come into this world (_John 9:39_). There is an actual
separation of men in progress here and now.... This judgment which
is in progress now, is destined to be perfected.... In the last
assize, Christ will be the Judge as before.... It may be said that
men will hereafter judge themselves. Those who are unlike Christ
will find themselves as such to be separate from him. The two
classes of people are parted because they have acquired distinct
natures like the sheep and the goat.... The character of each
person is a ‘_book_’ or record, preserving, in moral and spiritual
effects, all that he has been and done and loved, and in the
judgment these books will be ‘_opened_,’ or each man’s character
will be manifested as the light of Christ’s character falls upon
it.... The people of Christ themselves receive different rewards,
according as their life has been.”

Dr. H. E. Robins, in his Restatement, holds that only under the
grace‐system can the deeds done in the body be the ground of
judgment. These deeds will be repentance and faith, not words of
external morality. They will be fruits of the Spirit, such as
spring from the broken and contrite heart. Christ, as head of the
mediatorial kingdom, will fitly be the Judge. So Judgment will be
an unmixed blessing to the righteous. To them the words “_prepare
to meet thy God_” (_Amos 4:12_) should have no terror; for to meet
God is to meet their deliverance and their reward. “Teach me to
live that I may dread The grave as little as my bed: Teach me to
die, that so I may Rise glorious at the judgment day.” On the
whole subject, see Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 456, 457;
Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, 465, 466; Neander, Planting and
Training, 524‐526; Jonathan Edwards, Works, 2:499, 500; 4:202‐225;
Fox, in Lutheran Rev., 1887:206‐226.

VI. The Final States of the Righteous and of the Wicked.

1. Of the righteous.

The final state of the righteous is described as eternal life (Mat.
25:46), glory (2 Cor. 4:17), rest (Heb. 4:9), knowledge (1 Cor. 13:8‐10),
holiness (Rev. 21:27), service (Rev. 22:3), worship (Rev. 19:1), society
(Heb. 12:23), communion with God (Rev. 21:3).

_Mat. 25:46_—“_And these shall go away into eternal punishment:
but the righteous into eternal life_”; _2 Cor. 4:17_—“_For our
light affliction, which is for the moment, worketh for us more and
more exceedingly an eternal weight of glory_”; _Heb. 4:9_—“_There
remaineth therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God_”; _1
Cor. 13:8‐10_—“_Love never faileth: but whether there be
prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues,
they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done
away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part: but when that
which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done
away_”; _Rev. 21:27_—“_and there shall in no wise enter into it
anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but
only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life_”;
_22:3_—“_and his servants shall serve him_”; _19:1, 2_—“_After
these things I heard as it were a great voice of a great multitude
in heaven, saying, Hallelujah; Salvation, and glory, and power,
belong to our God; for true and righteous are his judgments_”;
_Heb. 12:23_—“_to the general assembly and church of the firstborn
who are enrolled in heaven_”; _Rev. 21:3_—“_And I heard a great
voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is
with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his
peoples, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God._”

_Is. 35:7_—“_The mirage shall become a pool_” = aspiration shall
become reality; _Hos. 2:15_—“_I will give her ... the valley of
Achor_ [that is, _Troubling_] _for a door of hope._” Victor Hugo:
“If you persuade Lazarus that there is no Abraham’s bosom awaiting
him, he will not lie at Dives’ door, to be fed with his crumbs,—he
will make his way into the house and fling Dives out of the
window.” It was the preaching of the Methodists that saved England
from the general crash of the French Revolution. It brought the
common people to look for the redress of the inequalities and
injustices of this life in a future life—a world of less friction
than this (S. S. Times). In the Alps one has no idea of the upper
valleys until he enters them. He may long to ascend, but only
actual ascending can show him their beauty. And then, “beyond the
Alps lies Italy,” and the revelation of heaven will be like the
outburst of the sunny landscape after going through the darkness
of the St. Gothard tunnel.

Robert Hall, who for years had suffered acute bodily pain, said to
Wilberforce: “My chief conception of heaven is _rest_.” “Mine,”
replied Wilberforce, “is _love_—love to God and to every bright
inhabitant of that glorious place.” Wilberforce enjoyed society.
Heaven is not all rest. On the door is inscribed: “No admission
except on business.” “_His servants shall serve him_” (_Rev.
21:3_). Butler, Things Old and New, 143—“We know not; but if life
be there The outcome and the crown of this: What else can make
their perfect bliss Than in their Master’s work to share? Resting,
but not in slumberous ease, Working, but not in wild unrest, Still
ever blessing, ever blest, They see us as the Father sees.”
Tennyson, Crossing the Bar: “Sunset and evening star, And one
clear call for me; And may there be no moaning of the bar When I
put out to sea! But such a tide as moving seems asleep, Too full
for sound and foam, When that which drew from out the boundless
deep Turns again home. Twilight and evening bell, And after that
the dark; And may there be no sadness of farewell, When I embark.
For though from out our bourne of time and place The flood may
bear me far, I hope to see my Pilot face to face, When I have
crossed the bar.”

_Mat. 6:20_—“_lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven_” = there
are no permanent investments except in heaven. A man at death is
worth only what he has sent on before him. Christ prepares a place
for us (_John 14:3_) by gathering our friends to himself. Louise
Chandler Moulton: “Some day or other I shall surely come Where
true hearts wait for me; Then let me learn the language of that
home, While here on earth I be; Lest my poor lips for want of
words be dumb In that high company.” Bronson Alcott: “Heaven will
be to me a place where I can get a little conversation.” Some of
his friends thought it would be a place where he could hear
himself talk. A pious Scotchman, when asked whether he ever
expected to reach heaven, replied: “Why, mon, I live there noo!”

Summing up all these, we may say that it is the fulness and perfection of
holy life, in communion with God and with sanctified spirits. Although
there will be degrees of blessedness and honor, proportioned to the
capacity and fidelity of each soul (Luke 19:17, 19; 1 Cor. 3:14, 15), each
will receive as great a measure of reward as it can contain (1 Cor. 2:9),
and this final state, once entered upon, will be unchanging in kind and
endless in duration (Rev. 3:12; 22:15).

_Luke 19:17, 19_—“_Well done, thou good servant: because thou wast
found faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten
cities.... Be thou also over five cities_”; _1 Cor. 3:14, 15_—“_If
any man’s work shall abide which he built thereon, he shall
receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall
suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through
fire_”; _2:9_—“_Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not, And
which entered not into the heart of man, Whatsoever things God
prepared for them that love him_”; _Rev. 3:12_—“_He that
overcometh, I will make __ him a pillar in the temple of my God,
and he shall go out thence no more_”; _22:15_—“_Without are the
dogs, and the sorcerers, and the fornicators, and the murderers,
and the idolaters, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie._”

In the parable of the laborers (_Mat. 20:1‐16_), each receives a
penny. Rewards in heaven will be equal, in the sense that each
saved soul will be filled with good. But rewards will vary, in the
sense that the capacity of one will be greater than that of
another; and this capacity will be in part the result of our
improvement of God’s gifts in the present life. The relative value
of the penny may in this way vary from a single unit to a number
indefinitely great, according to the work and spirit of the
recipient. The penny is good only for what it will buy. For the
eleventh hour man, who has done but little work, it will not buy
so sweet rest as it buys for him who has “_borne the burden of the
day and the scorching heat_.” It will not buy appetite, nor will
it buy joy of conscience.

E. G. Robinson: “Heaven is not to be compared to a grasshopper on
a shingle floating down stream. Heaven is a place where men are
taken up, as they leave this world, and are carried forward. No
sinners will be there, though there may be incompleteness of
character. There is no intimation in Scripture of that sudden
transformation in the hour of dissolution which is often
supposed.” _Ps. 84:7_—“_They go from strength to strength; Every
one of them appeareth before God in Zion_”—it is not possible that
progress should cease with our entrance into heaven; rather is it
true that uninterrupted progress will then begin. _1 Cor.
13:12_—“_now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face._”
There, progress is not _towards_, but _within_, the sphere of the
infinite. In this world we are like men living in a cave, and
priding themselves on the rushlights with which they explore it,
unwilling to believe that there is a region of sunlight where
rushlights are needless.

Heaven will involve deliverance from defective physical
organization and surroundings, as well as from the remains of evil
in our hearts. Rest, in heaven, will be consistent with service,
an activity without weariness, a service which is perfect freedom.
We shall be perfect when we enter heaven, in the sense of being
free from sin; but we shall grow to greater perfection thereafter,
in the sense of a larger and completer being. The fruit tree shows
perfection at each stage of its growth—the perfect bud, the
perfect blossom, and finally the perfect fruit; yet the bud and
the blossom are preparatory and prophetic; neither one is a
finality. So “_when that which is perfect is come, that which is
in part shall be done away_” (_1 Cor. 13:10_). A broadshouldered
convert at the Rescue Mission said: “I’m the happiest man in the
room to‐night. I couldn’t be any happier unless I were larger.” A
little pail can be as full of water as is a big tub, but the tub
will hold much more than the pail. To be “_filled unto all the
fulness of God_” (_Eph. 3:19_) will mean much more in heaven than
it means here, because we shall then “_be strong to apprehend with
all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and
depth, and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge_.”
In the book of Revelation, John seems to have mistaken an angel
for the Lord himself, and to have fallen down to worship (_Rev.
22:8_). The time may come in eternity when we shall be equal to
what we now conceive God to be (_1 Cor. 2:9_).

Plato’s Republic and More’s Utopia are only earthly adumbrations
of St. John’s City of God. The representation of heaven as a city
seems intended to suggest security from every foe, provision for
every want, intensity of life, variety of occupation, and
closeness of relation to others; or, as Hastings’ Bible
Dictionary, 1:446, puts it: “Safety, Security, Service.” Here, the
greatest degradation and sin are found in the great cities. There,
the life of the city will help holiness, as the life of the city
here helps wickedness. Brotherly love in the next world implies
knowing those we love, and loving those we know. We certainly
shall not know less there than here. If we know our friends here,
we shall know them there. And, as love to Christ here draws us
nearer to each other, so there we shall love friends, not less but
more, because of our greater nearness to Christ.

_Zech. 8:5_—“_And the streets of the city shall be full of boys
and girls playing in the streets thereof._” Newman Smyth, Through
Science to Faith, 125—“As of the higher animals, so even more of
men and women it may be true, that those who play best may succeed
best and thrive best.” Horace Bushnell, in his essay, Work and
Play, holds that ideal work is work performed so heartily and
joyfully, and with such a surplus of energy, that it becomes play.
This is the activity of heaven: _John 10:10_—“_I came that they
may have life, and may have it abundantly._” We enter into the
life of God: _John 5:17_—“_My Father worketh even until now, and I
work._” A nurse who had been ill for sixteen years, said: “If I
were well, I would be at the small‐pox hospital. I’m not going to
heaven to do nothing.” Savage, Life after Death, 129, 292—“In
Dante’s universe, the only reason for any one’s wanting to get to
heaven is for the sake of getting out of the other place. There is
nothing in heaven for him to do, nothing human for him to engage
in.... A good deacon in his depression thought he was going to
hell; but when asked what he would do there, he replied that he
would try to start a prayer meeting.”

With regard to heaven, two questions present themselves, namely:

(a) Is heaven a place, as well as a state?

We answer that this is probable, for the reason that the presence of
Christ’s human body is essential to heaven, and that this body must be
confined to place. Since deity and humanity are indissolubly united in
Christ’s single person, we cannot regard Christ’s human soul as limited to
place without vacating his person of its divinity. But we cannot conceive
of his human body as thus omnipresent. As the new bodies of the saints are
confined to place, so, it would seem, must be the body of their Lord. But,
though heaven be the place where Christ manifests his glory through the
human body which he assumed in the incarnation, our ruling conception of
heaven must be something higher even than this, namely, that of a state of
holy communion with God.

_John 14:2, 3_—“_In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it
were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place
for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I come again,
and will receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be
also_”; _Heb. 12:14_—“_follow after peace with all men, and the
sanctification without which no man shall see the Lord._”

Although heaven is probably a place, we are by no means to allow
this conception to become the preponderant one in our minds.
Milton: “The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a
heaven of hell, a hell of heaven.” As he goes through the gates of
death, every Christian can say, as Cæsar said when he crossed the
Rubicon: “Omnia mea mecum porto.” The hymn “O sing to me of
heaven, when I am called to die” is not true to Christian
experience. In that hour the soul sings, not of heaven, but of
Jesus and his cross. As houses on river‐flats, accessible in time
of flood by boats, keep safe only goods in the upper story, so
only the treasure laid up above escapes the destroying floods of
the last day. Dorner: “The soul will possess true freedom, in that
it can no more become unfree; and that through the indestructible
love‐energy springing from union with God.”

Milton: “What if earth be But the shadow of heaven, and things
therein Each to the other like, more than on earth is thought?”
Omar Khayyám, Rubáiyát, stanzas 66, 67—“I sent my soul through the
Invisible, Some letter of that After‐life to spell: And by and by
my soul returned to me, And answered ‘I myself am Heaven and Hell’
... Heaven but the vision of fulfilled desire, And Hell the shadow
of a soul on fire.” In other words, not the kind of place, but the
kind of people in it, makes Heaven or Hell. Crane, Religion of To‐
morrow, 341—“The earth is but a breeding‐ground from which God
intends to populate the whole universe. After death, the soul goes
to that place which God has prepared as its home. In the
resurrection they ‘_neither marry nor are given in marriage_’
(_Mat. 22:30_) = ours is the only generative planet. There is no
reproduction hereafter. To incorporate himself into the race, the
Father must come to the reproductive planet.”

Dean Stanley: “_Till death us part!_ So speaks the heart When each
repeats to each the words of doom; Through blessing and through
curse, For better and for worse, We will be one till that dread
hour shall come. Life, with its myriad grasp, Our yearning souls
shall clasp, By ceaseless love and still expectant wonder, In
bonds that shall endure, Indissolubly sure, Till God in death
shall part our paths asunder. _Till death us join!_ O voice yet
more divine, That to the broken heart breathes hope sublime;
Through lonely hours and shattered powers, We still are one
despite of change or time. Death, with his healing hand, Shall
once more knit the band, Which needs but that one link which none
may sever; Till through the only Good, Heard, felt and understood,
Our life in God shall make us one forever.”

(b) Is this earth to be the heaven of the saints?

We answer:

First,—that the earth is to be purified by fire, and perhaps prepared to
be the abode of the saints,—although this last is not rendered certain by
the Scriptures.

_Rom. 8:19‐23_—“_For the earnest expectation of the creation
waiteth for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was
subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who
subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the
glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only
so, but ourselves also, who have the first‐fruits of the Spirit,
even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our
adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body_”; _2 Pet. 3:12,
13_—“_looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of
God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be
dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat. But,
according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth,
wherein dwelleth righteousness_”; _Rev. 21:1_—“_And I saw a new
heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth
are passed away; and the sea is no more._” Dorner: “Without loss
of substantiality, matter will have exchanged its darkness,
hardness, heaviness, inertia, and impenetrableness, for clearness,
radiance, elasticity, and transparency. A new stadium will
begin—God’s advance to new creations, with the coöperation of
perfected mankind.”

Is the earth a molten mass, with a thin solid crust? Lord Kelvin
says no,—it is more rigid and solid than steel. The interior may
be intensely hot, yet pressure may render it solid to the very
centre. The wrinkling of the surface may be due to contraction, or
“solid flow,” like the wrinkling in the skin of a baked apple that
has cooled. See article on The Interior of the Earth, by G. F.
Becker, in N. American Rev., April, 1893. Edward S. Holden,
Director of the Lick Observatory, in The Forum, Oct. 1893:211‐220,
tells us that “the star Nova Aurigæ, which doubtless resembled our
sun, within two days increased in brilliancy sixteen fold. Three
months after its discovery it had become invisible. After four
months again it reappeared and was comparatively bright. But it
was no longer a star but a nebula. In other words it had developed
changes of light and heat which, if repeated in the case of our
own sun, would mean a quick end of the human race, and the utter
annihilation of every vestige of animal and other life upon this
earth.... This catastrophe occured in December, 1891, or was
announced to us by light which reached us then. But this light
must have left the star twenty, perhaps fifty, years earlier.”

Secondly,—that this fitting‐up of the earth for man’s abode, even if it
were declared in Scripture, would not render it certain that the saints
are to be confined to these narrow limits (John 14:2). It seems rather to
be intimated that the effect of Christ’s work will be to bring the
redeemed into union and intercourse with other orders of intelligence,
from communion with whom they are now shut out by sin (Eph. 1:20; Col.
1:20).

_John 14:2_—“_In my Father’s house are many mansions_”; _Eph.
1:10_—“_unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up
all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things
upon the earth_”; _Col. 1:20_—“_through him to reconcile all
things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his
cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or
things in the heavens._”

See Dr. A. C. Kendrick, in Bap. Quarterly, Jan. 1870. Dr. Kendrick
thinks we need local associations. Earth may be our home, yet from
this home we may set out on excursions through the universe, after
a time returning again to our earthly abodes. So Chalmers,
interpreting literally _2 Pet. 3_. We certainly are in a prison
here, and look out through the bars, as the Prisoner of Chillon
looked over the lake to the green isle and the singing birds. Why
are we shut out from intercourse with other worlds and other
orders of intelligence? Apparently it is the effect of sin. We are
in an abnormal state of durance and probation. Earth is out of
harmony with God. The great harp of the universe has one of its
strings out of tune, and that one discordant string makes a jar
through the whole. All things in heaven and earth shall be
reconciled when this one jarring string is keyed right and set in
tune by the hand of love and mercy. See Leitch, God’s Glory in the
Heavens, 327‐330.

2. Of the wicked.

The final state of the wicked is described under the figures of eternal
fire (Mat. 25:41); the pit of the abyss (Rev. 9:2, 11); outer darkness
(Mat. 8:12); torment (Rev. 14:10, 11); eternal punishment (Mat. 25:46);
wrath of God (Rom. 2:5); second death (Rev. 21:8); eternal destruction
from the face of the Lord (2 Thess. 1:9); eternal sin (Mark 3:29).

_Mat. 25:41_—“_Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire
which is prepared for the devil and his angels_”; _Rev. 9:2,
11_—“_And he opened the pit of the abyss; and there went up a
smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace.... They
have over them as king the angel of the abyss: his name in Hebrew
is Abaddon, and in the Greek tongue he hath the name Apollyon_”;
_Mat. 8:12_—“_but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth into
the outer darkness: there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of
teeth_”; _Rev. 14:10, 11_—“_he also shall drink of the wine of the
wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger;
and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence
of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: and the smoke
of their torment goeth up for ever and ever_”; _Mat. 25:46_—“_And
these shall go away into eternal punishment._”

_Rom. 2:5_—“_after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up
for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God_”; _Rev. 21:8_—“_But for the fearful,
and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part shall be
in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the
second death_”: _2 Thess. 1:9_—“_who shall suffer punishment, even
eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory
of his might_”—here ἀπό, from, = not separation, but “proceeding
from,” and indicates that the everlasting presence of Christ, once
realized, ensures everlasting destruction; _Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever
shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness,
but is guilty of an eternal sin_”—a text which implies that (1)
some will never cease to sin; (2) this eternal sinning will
involve eternal misery; (3) this eternal misery, as the appointed
vindication of the law, will be eternal punishment. As Uzziah,
when smitten with leprosy, did not need to be thrust out of the
temple, but “_himself hasted also to go out_” (_2 Chron. 26:20_),
so Judas is said to go “_to his own place_” (_Acts 1:25_; _cf._
_4:23_—where Peter and John, “_being let go, they came to their
own company_”). _Cf._ _John 8:35_—“_the bondservant abideth not in
the house forever_” = whatever be his outward connection with God,
it can be only for a time; _15:2_—“_Every branch in me that
beareth not fruit, he taketh it away_”—at death; the history of
Abraham showed that one might have outward connection with God
that was only temporary: Ishmael was cast out; the promise
belonged only to Isaac.

Wrightnour: “Gehenna was the place into which all the offal of the
city of Jerusalem was swept. So hell is the penitentiary of the
moral universe. The profligate is not happy in the prayer meeting,
but in the saloon; the swine is not at home in the parlor, but in
the sty. Hell is the sinner’s own place; he had rather be there
than in heaven; he will not come to the house of God, the nearest
thing to heaven; why should we expect him to enter heaven itself?”

Summing up all, we may say that it is the loss of all good, whether
physical or spiritual, and the misery of an evil conscience banished from
God and from the society of the holy, and dwelling under God’s positive
curse forever. Here we are to remember, as in the case of the final state
of the righteous, that the decisive and controlling element is not the
outward, but the inward. If hell be a place, it is only that the outward
may correspond to the inward. If there be outward torments, it is only
because these will be fit, though subordinate, accompaniments of the
inward state of the soul.

Every living creature will have an environment suited to its
character—“its own place.” “I know of the future judgment, How
dreadful so e’er it be, That to sit alone with my conscience Will
be judgment enough for me.” Calvin: “The wicked have the seeds of
hell in their own hearts.” Chrysostom, commenting on the words
“Depart, ye cursed,” says: “Their own works brought the punishment
on them; the fire was not prepared for them, but for Satan; yet,
since they cast themselves into it, ‘Impute it to yourselves,’ he
says, ‘that you are there.’ ” Milton, Par. Lost, 4:75—Satan:
“Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell.” Byron: “There is no
power in holy men, Nor charm in prayer, nor purifying form Of
penitence, nor outward look, nor fast, Nor agony, nor, greater
than all these, The innate torture of that deep despair Would make
a hell of heaven, can exorcise From out the unbounded spirit the
quick sense Of its own sins.”

Phelps, English Style, 228, speaks of “a law of the divine
government, by which the body symbolizes, in its experience, the
moral condition of its spiritual inhabitant. The drift of sin is
to physical suffering. Moral depravity tends always to a corrupt
and tortured body. Certain diseases are the product of certain
crimes. The whole catalogue of human pains, from a toothache to
the _angina pectoris_, is but a witness to a state of sin
expressed by an experience of suffering. Carry this law into the
experience of eternal sin. The bodies of the wicked live again as
well as those of the righteous. You have therefore a spiritual
body, inhabited and used, and therefore tortured, by a guilty
soul,—a body, perfected in its sensibilities, inclosing and
expressing a soul matured in its depravity.” Augustine,
Confessions, 25—“Each man’s sin is the instrument of his
punishment, and his iniquity is turned into his torment.” Lord
Bacon: “Being, without well‐being, is a curse, and the greater the
being, the greater the curse.”

In our treatment of the subject of eternal punishment we must remember
that false doctrine is often a reaction from the unscriptural and
repulsive over‐statements of Christian apologists. We freely concede: 1.
that future punishment does not necessarily consist of physical
torments,—it may be wholly internal and spiritual; 2. that the pain and
suffering of the future are not necessarily due to positive inflictions of
God,—they may result entirely from the soul’s sense of loss, and from the
accusations of conscience; and 3. that eternal punishment does not
necessarily involve endless successions of suffering,—as God’s eternity is
not mere endlessness, so we may not be forever subject to the law of time.

An over‐literal interpretation of the Scripture symbols has had
much to do with such utterances as that of Savage, Life after
Death, 101—“If the doctrine of eternal punishment was clearly and
unmistakably taught in every leaf of the Bible, and on every leaf
of all the Bibles of all the world, I could not believe a word of
it. I should appeal from these misconceptions of even the seers
and the great men to the infinite and eternal Good, who only is
God, and who only on such terms could be worshiped.”

The figurative language of Scripture is a miniature representation
of what cannot be fully described in words. The symbol is a
symbol; yet it is less, not greater, than the thing symbolized. It
is sometimes fancied that Jonathan Edwards, when, in his sermon on
“Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” he represented the sinner
as a worm shriveling in the eternal fire, supposed that hell
consists mainly of such physical torments. But this is a
misinterpretation of Edwards. As he did not fancy heaven
essentially to consist in streets of gold or pearly gates, but
rather in holiness and communion with Christ, of which these are
the symbols, so he did not regard hell as consisting in fire and
brimstone, but rather in the unholiness and separation from God of
a guilty and accusing conscience, of which the fire and brimstone
are symbols. He used the material imagery, because he thought that
this best answered to the methods of Scripture. He probably went
beyond the simplicity of the Scripture statements, and did not
sufficiently explain the spiritual meaning of the symbols he used;
but we are persuaded that he neither understood them literally
himself, nor meant them to be so understood by others.

Sin is self‐isolating, unsocial, selfish. By virtue of natural
laws the sinner reaps as he has sown, and sooner or later is
repaid by desertion or contempt. Then the selfishness of one
sinner is punished by the selfishness of another, the ambition of
one by the ambition of another, the cruelty of one by the cruelty
of another. The misery of the wicked hereafter will doubtless be
due in part to the spirit of their companions. They dislike the
good, whose presence and example is a continual reproof and
reminder of the height from which they have fallen, and they shut
themselves out of their company. The judgment will bring about a
complete cessation of intercourse between the good and the bad.
Julius Müller, Doctrine of Sin, 1:239—“Beings whose relations to
God are diametrically opposite, and persistently so, differ so
greatly from each other that other ties of relationship became as
nothing in comparison.”

In order, however, to meet opposing views, and to forestall the common
objections, we proceed to state the doctrine of future punishment in
greater detail:

A. The future punishment of the wicked is not annihilation.

In our discussion of Physical Death, we have shown that, by virtue of its
original creation in the image of God, the human soul is naturally
immortal; that neither for the righteous nor the wicked is death a
cessation of being; that on the contrary, the wicked enter at death upon a
state of conscious suffering which the resurrection and the judgment only
augment and render permanent. It is plain, moreover, that if annihilation
took place at death, there could be no degrees in future punishment,—a
conclusion itself at variance with express statements of Scripture.

The old annihilationism is represented by Hudson, Debt and Grace,
and Christ our Life; also by Dobney, Future Punishment. It
maintains that κόλασις, “_punishment_” (in _Mat. 25:46_—“_eternal
punishment_”), means etymologically an everlasting “cutting‐off.”
But we reply that the word had to a great degree lost its
etymological significance, as is evident from the only other
passage where it occurs in the New Testament, namely, _1 John
4:18_—“_fear hath punishment_” (A. V.: “fear hath torment”). For
full answer to the old statements of the annihilation‐theory, see
under Physical Death, pages 991‐998.

That there are degrees of punishment in God’s administration is
evident from _Luke 12:47, 48_—“_And that servant, who knew his
Lord’s will, and made not ready, nor did according to his will,
shall be beaten with many stripes; but he that knew not, and did
things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes_”;
_Rom. 2:5, 6_—“_after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest
up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according
to his works_”; _2 Cor. 5:10_—“_For we must all be made manifest
before the judgment‐seat of Christ; that each one may receive the
things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether
it be good or bad_”; _11:15_—“_whose end shall be according to
their works_”; _2 Tim. 4:14_—“_Alexander the coppersmith did me
much evil: the Lord will render to him according to his works_”;
_Rev. 2:23_—“_I will give unto each one of you according to your
works_”; _18:5, 6_—“_her sins have reached even unto heaven, and
God hath remembered her iniquities. Render unto her even as she
rendered, and double unto her the double according to her works:
in the cup which she mingled, mingle unto her double._”

A French Christian replied to the argument of his deistical
friend: “Probably you are right; probably you are not immortal;
but I am.” This was the doctrine of conditional immortality, the
doctrine that only the good survive. We grant that the measure of
our faith in immortality is the measure of our _fitness_ for its
blessings; but it is not the measure of our _possession_ of
immortality. We are immortal beings, whether we believe it or not.
The acorn is potentially an oak, but it may never come to its full
development. There is a saltless salt, which, though it does not
cease to exist, is cast out and trodden under foot of men. Denney,
Studies in Theology, 256—“Conditional immortality denies that man
can exist after death without being united to Christ by faith. But
the immortality of man cannot be something accidental, something
appended to his nature, after he believes in Christ. It must be
something, at the very lowest, for which his nature is
constituted, even if apart from Christ it can never realize itself
as it ought.”

Broadus, Com. on _Mat. 25:46_ (page 514)—“He who caused to exist
could keep in existence. _Mark 9:49_—‘_Every one shall be salted
with fire_’—has probably this meaning. Fire is usually
destructive; but this unquenchable fire will act like salt,
preserving instead of destroying. So Keble, Christian Year, 5th
Sunday in Lent, says of the Jews in their present condition:
‘Salted with fire, they seem to show How spirits lost in endless
woe May undecaying live. Oh, sickening thought! Yet hold it fast
Long as this glittering world shall last, Or sin at heart
survive.’ ”

There are two forms of the annihilation theory which are more plausible,
and which in recent times find a larger number of advocates, namely:

(_a_) That the powers of the wicked are gradually weakened, as the natural
result of sin, so that they finally cease to be.—We reply, first, that
moral evil does not, in this present life, seem to be incompatible with a
constant growth of the intellectual powers, at least in certain
directions, and we have no reason to believe the fact to be different in
the world to come; secondly, that if this theory were true, the greater
the sin, the speedier would be the relief from punishment.

This form of the annihilation theory is suggested by Bushnell, in
his Forgiveness and Law, 146, 147, and by Martineau, Study,
2:107‐8. Dorner also, in his Eschatology, seems to favor it as one
of the possible methods of future punishment. He says: “To the
ethical also pertains ontological significance. The ’second death’
may be the dissolving of the soul itself into nothing.
Estrangement from God, the source of life, ends in extinction of
life. The orthodox talk about demented beings, raging in impotent
fury, amounts to the same—annihilation of their human character.
Evil is never the substance of the soul,—this remains
metaphysically good.” It is argued that even for saved sinners
there is a loss. The prodigal regained his father’s favor, but he
could not regain his lost patrimony. We cannot get back the lost
time, nor the lost growth. Much more, then, in the case of the
wicked, will there be perpetual loss. Draper: “At every return to
the sun, comets lose a portion of their size and brightness,
stretching out until the nucleus loses control, the mass breaks
up, and the greater portion navigates the sky, in the shape of
disconnected meteorites.”

To this argument it is often replied that certain minds grow in
their powers, at least in certain directions, in spite of their
sin. Napoleon’s military genius, during all his early years, grew
with experience. Sloane, in his Life of Napoleon, however, seems
to show that the Emperor lost his grip as he went on. Success
unbalanced his judgment; he gave way to physical indulgence; his
body was not equal to the strain he put upon it; at Waterloo he
lost precious moments of opportunity by vacillation and inability
to keep awake. There was physical, mental, and moral
deterioration. But may this not be the result of the soul’s
connection with a body? Satan’s cunning and daring seem to be on
the increase from the first mention of him in Scripture to its
end. See Princeton Review, 1882:673‐694. Will not this very
cunning and daring, however, work its own ruin, and lead Satan to
his final and complete destruction? Does not sin blunt the
intellect, unsettle one’s sober standards of decision, lead one to
prefer a trifling present triumph or pleasure to a permanent good?

Gladden, What is Left? 104, 105—“Evil is benumbing and deadening.
Selfishness weakens a man’s mental grasp, and narrows his range of
vision. The schemer becomes less astute as he grows older; he is
morally sure, before he dies, to make some stupendous blunder
which even a tyro would have avoided.... The devil, who has sinned
longest, must be the greatest fool in the universe, and we need
not be at all afraid of him.” To the view that this weakening of
powers leads to absolute extinction of being, we oppose the
consideration that its award of retribution is glaringly unjust in
making the greatest sinner the least sufferer; since to him
relief, in the way of annihilation, comes the soonest.

(_b_) That there is for the wicked, certainly after death, and possibly
between death and the judgment, a positive punishment proportioned to
their deeds, but that this punishment issues in, or is followed by,
annihilation.—We reply first, that upon this view, as upon any theory of
annihilation, future punishment is a matter of grace as well as of
justice—a notion for which Scripture affords no warrant; secondly, that
Scripture not only gives no hint of the cessation of this punishment, but
declares in the strongest terms its endlessness.

The second form of the annihilation theory seems to have been held
by Justin Martyr (Trypho, Edinb. transl.)—“Some, who have appeared
worthy of God, never die; but others are punished so long as God
wills them to exist and be punished.” The soul exists because God
wills, and no longer than he wills. “Whenever it is necessary that
the soul should cease to exist, the spirit of life is removed from
it, and there is no more soul, but it goes back to the place from
which it was taken.”

Schaff, Hist. Christ. Church, 2:608, 609—“Justin Martyr teaches
that the wicked or hopelessly impenitent will be raised at the
judgment to receive an eternal punishment. He speaks of it in
twelve passages: ‘We believe that all who live wickedly and do not
repent will be punished in eternal fire.’ Such language is
inconsistent with the annihilation theory for which Justin Martyr
has been claimed. He does indeed reject the idea of the
independent immortality of the soul, and hints at the _possible_
final destruction of the wicked; but he puts that possibility
countless ages beyond the final judgment, so that it loses all
practical significance.”

A modern advocate of this view is White, in his Life in Christ. He
favors a conditional immortality, belonging only to those who are
joined to Christ by faith; but he makes a retributive punishment
and pain fall upon the godless, before their annihilation. The
roots of this view lie in a false conception of holiness as a form
or manifestation of benevolence, and of punishment as deterrent
and preventive instead of vindicative of righteousness. To the
minds of its advocates, extinction of being is a comparative
blessing; and they, for this reason, prefer it to the common view.
See Whiton, Is Eternal Punishment Endless?

A view similar to that which we are opposing is found in Henry
Drummond, Natural Law in the Spiritual World. Evil is punished by
its own increase. Drummond, however, leaves no room for future
life or for future judgment in the case of the unregenerate. See
reviews of Drummond, in Watts, New Apologetic, 332; and in Murphy,
Nat. Selection and Spir. Freedom, 19‐21, 77‐124. While Drummond is
an annihilationist, Murphy is a restorationist. More rational and
Scriptural than either of these is the saying of Tower: “Sin is
God’s foe. He does not annihilate it, but he makes it the means of
displaying his holiness; as the Romans did not slay their captured
enemies, but made them their servants.” The terms αἰών and
αἰώνιος, which we have still to consider, afford additional
Scripture testimony against annihilation. See also the argument
from the divine justice, pages 1046‐1051; article on the Doctrine
of Extinction, in New Englander, March, 1879:201‐224; Hovey,
Manual of Theology and Ethics, 153‐168; J. S. Barlow, Endless
Being; W. H. Robinson, on Conditional Immortality, in Report of
Baptist Congress for 1886.

Since neither one of these two forms of the annihilation theory is
Scriptural or rational, we avail ourselves of the evolutionary hypothesis
as throwing light upon the problem. Death is not degeneracy ending in
extinction, nor punishment ending in extinction,—it is atavism that
returns, or tends to return, to the animal type. As moral development is
from the brute to man, so abnormal development is from man to the brute.

Lord Byron: “All suffering doth destroy, or is destroyed.” This is
true, not of man’s being, but of his well being. Ribot, Diseases
of the Will, 115—“Dissolution pursues a regressive course from the
more voluntary and more complex to the less voluntary and more
simple, that is to say, toward the automatic. One of the first
signs of mental impairment is incapacity for sustained attention.
Unity, stability, power, have ceased, and the end is extinction of
the will.” We prefer to say, loss of the freedom of the will. On
the principle of evolution, abuse of freedom may result in
reversion to the brute, annihilation not of existence but of
higher manhood, punishment from within rather than from without,
eternal penalty in the shape of eternal loss. _Mat. 24:13_—“_he
that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved_”—has for its
parallel passage _Luke 21:19_—“_In your patience ye shall win your
souls,_” _i. e._, shall by free will get possession of your own
being. Losing one’s soul is just the opposite, namely, losing
one’s free will, by disuse renouncing freedom, becoming a victim
of habit, nature, circumstance, and this is the cutting off and
annihilation of true manhood. “To be in hell is to drift; to be in
heaven is to steer” (Bernard Shaw).

In _John 15:2_ Christ says of all men—the natural branches of the
vine—“_Every branch in me that beareth not fruit, he taketh it
away_”; _Ps. 49:20_—“_Man that is in honor, and understandeth not,
Is like the beasts that perish_”; _Rev. 22:15_—“_Without are the
dogs._” In heathen fable men were turned into beasts, and even
into trees. The story of Circe is a parable of human fate,—men may
become apes, tigers, or swine. They may lose their higher powers
of consciousness and will. By perpetual degradation they may
suffer eternal punishment. All life that is worthy of the name may
cease, while still existence of a low animal type is prolonged. We
see precisely these results of sin in this world. We have reason
to believe that the same laws of development will operate in the
world to come.

McConnell, Evolution of Immortality, 85‐95, 99, 124,
180—“Immortality, or survival after death, depends upon man’s
freeing himself from the law which sweeps away the many, and
becoming an individual (indivisible) that is fit to survive. The
individual must become stronger than the species. By using will
aright, he lays hold of the infinite Life, and becomes one who,
like Christ, has ‘_life in himself_’ (_John 5:26_). Gravitation
and chemical affinity had their way in the universe until they
were arrested and turned about in the interest of life.
Overproduction, death, and the survival of the fittest, had their
ruthless sway until they were reversed in the interest of
affection. The supremacy of the race at the expense of the
individual we may expect to continue until something in the
individual comes to be of more importance than that law, and no
longer.... Goodness can arrest and turn back for nations the
primal law of growth, vigor, and decline. Is it too much to
believe that it may do the same for an individual man?... Life is
a thing to be achieved. At every step there are a thousand
candidates who fail, for one that attains.... Until moral
sensibility becomes self‐conscious, all question of personal
immortality becomes irrelevant, because there is, accurately
speaking, no personality to be immortal. Up to that point the
individual living creature, whether in human form or not, falls
short of that essential personality for which eternal life can
have any meaning.” But how about children who never come to moral
consciousness? McConnell appeals to heredity. The child of one who
has himself achieved immortality may also prove to be immortal.
But is there no chance for the children of sinners? The doctrine
of McConnell leans toward the true solution, but it is vitiated by
the belief that individuality is a transient gift which only
goodness can make permanent. We hold on the other hand that this
gift of God is “_without repentance_” (_Rom. 11:29_), and that no
human being can lose life, except in the sense of losing all that
makes life desirable.

B. Punishment after death excludes new probation and ultimate restoration
of the wicked.

Some have maintained the ultimate restoration of all human beings, by
appeal to such passages as the following: Mat. 19:28; Acts 3:21; Eph. 1:9,
10.

_Mat. 19:28_—“_in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit
on the throne of his glory_”; _Acts 3:21_—Jesus, “_whom the heaven
must receive until the times of restoration of all things_”; _1
Cor. 15:26_—“_The last enemy that shall be abolished is death_”;
_Eph. 1:9, 10_—“_according to his good pleasure which he purposed
in him unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up
all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things
upon the earth_”; _Phil. 2:10, 11_—“_that in the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and
things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father_”; _2 Pet.
3:9, 13_—“_not wishing that any should perish, but that all should
come to repentance ... But, according to his promise, we look for
new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness._”

Robert Browning: “That God, by God’s own ways occult, May—doth, I
will believe—bring back All wanderers to a single track.” B. W.
Lockhart: “I must believe that evil is essentially transient and
mortal, or alter my predicates of God. And I must believe in the
ultimate extinction of that personality whom the power of God
cannot sometime win to goodness. The only alternative is the
termination of a wicked life either through redemption or through
extinction.” Mulford, Republic of God, claims that the soul’s
state cannot be fixed by any event, such as death, outside of
itself. If it could, the soul would exist, not under a moral
government, but under fate, and God himself would be only another
name for fate. The soul carries its fate, under God, in its power
of choice; and who dares to say that this power to choose the good
ceases at death?

For advocacy of a second probation for those who have not
consciously rejected Christ in this life, see Newman Smyth’s
edition of Dorner’s Eschatology. For the theory of restoration,
see Farrar, Eternal Hope; Birks, Victory of Divine Goodness;
Jukes, Restitution of All Things; Delitzsch, Bib. Psychologie,
469‐476; Robert Browning, Apparent Failure; Tennyson, In Memoriam,
§ liv. _Per contra_, see Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 95‐144. See
also, Griffith‐Jones, Ascent through Christ, 406‐440.

(_a_) These passages, as obscure, are to be interpreted in the light of
those plainer ones which we have already cited. Thus interpreted, they
foretell only the absolute triumph of the divine kingdom, and the
subjection of all evil to God.

The true interpretation of the passages above mentioned is
indicated in Meyer’s note on _Eph. 1:9, 10_—this namely, that “the
allusion is not to the restoration of _fallen individuals_, but to
the restoration of _universal harmony_, implying that the wicked
are to be excluded from the kingdom of God.” That there is no
allusion to a probation after this life, is clear from _Luke
16:19‐31_—the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Here penalty is
inflicted for the sins done “_in thy lifetime_” (_v. 25_); this
penalty is unchangeable—“_there is a great gulf fixed_” (_v. 26_);
the rich man asks favors for his brethren who still live on the
earth, but none for himself (_v. 27, 28_). _John 5:25‐29_—“_The
hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the
Son of God; and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath
life in himself, even so gave he to the Son also to have life in
himself: and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he
is a son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which
all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life;
and they that have done evil, until the resurrection of
judgment_”—here it is declared that, while for those who have done
good there is a resurrection of life, there is for those who have
done ill only a resurrection of judgment. _John 8:21, 24_—“_shall
die in your sin: whither I go, ye cannot come ... except ye
believe that I am he, ye shall die in your sins_”—sayings which
indicate finality in the decisions of this life.

Orr, Christian View of God and the World, 243—“Scripture
invariably represents the judgment as proceeding on the data of
this life, and it concentrates every ray of appeal into the
present.” _John 9:4_—“_We must work the works of him that sent me,
while it is day: the night cometh __ when no man can
work_”—intimates that there is no opportunity to secure salvation
after death. The Christian hymn writer has caught the meaning of
Scripture, when he says of those who have passed through the gate
of death: “Fixed in an eternal state, They have done with all
below; We a little longer wait; But how little, none can know.”

(_b_) A second probation is not needed to vindicate the justice or the
love of God, since Christ, the immanent God, is already in this world
present with every human soul, quickening the conscience, giving to each
man his opportunity, and making every decision between right and wrong a
true probation. In choosing evil against their better judgment even the
heathen unconsciously reject Christ. Infants and idiots, as they have not
consciously sinned, are, as we may believe, saved at death by having
Christ revealed to them and by the regenerating influence of his Spirit.

_Rom. 1:18‐28_—there is probation under the light of nature as
well as under the gospel, and under the law of nature as well as
under the gospel men may be given up “_unto a reprobate mind_”;
_2:6‐16_—Gentiles shall be judged, not by the gospel, but by the
law of nature, and shall “_perish without the law ... in the day
when God shall judge the secrets of men._” _2 Cor. 5:10_—“_For we
must all be made manifest before the judgment‐seat of Christ_;
[not that each may have a new opportunity to secure salvation,
but] _that each one may receive the things done in the body,
according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad_”; _Heb.
6:8_—“_whose end is to be burned_”—not to be quickened again;
_9:27_—“_And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and
after this cometh_ [not a second probation, but] _judgment._”
Luckock, Intermediate State, 22—“In _Heb. 9:27_, the word
‘_judgment_’ has no article. The judgment alluded to is not the
final or general judgment, but only that by which the place of the
soul is determined in the Intermediate State.”

Denney, Studies in Theology, 243—“In _Mat. 25_, our Lord gives a
pictorial representation of the judgment of the heathen. All
nations—all the Gentiles—are gathered before the King; and their
destiny is determined, not by their conscious acceptance or
rejection of the historical Savior, but by their unconscious
acceptance or rejection of him in the persons of those who needed
services of love.... This does not square with the idea of a
future probation. It rather tells us plainly that men may do
things of final and decisive import in this life, even if Christ
is unknown to them.... The real argument against future probation
is that it depreciates the present life, and denies the infinite
significance that, under all conditions, essentially and
inevitably belongs to the actions of a self‐conscious moral being.
A type of will may be in process of formation, even in a heathen
man, on which eternal issues depend.... Second probation lowers
the moral tone of the spirit. The present life acquires a relative
unimportance. I dare not say that if I forfeit the opportunity the
present life gives me I shall ever have another, and therefore I
dare not say so to another man.”

For an able review of the Scripture testimony against a second
probation, see G. F. Wright, Relation of Death to Probation, iv.
Emerson, the most recent advocate of restorationism, in his
Doctrine of Probation Examined, 42, is able to evade these latter
passages only by assuming that they are to be spiritually
interpreted, and that there is to be no literal outward day of
judgment—an error which we have previously discussed and
refuted,—see pages 1024, 1025.

(_c_) The advocates of universal restoration are commonly the most
strenuous defenders of the inalienable freedom of the human will to make
choices contrary to its past character and to all the motives which are or
can be brought to bear upon it. As a matter of fact, we find in this world
that men choose sin in spite of infinite motives to the contrary. Upon the
theory of human freedom just mentioned, no motives which God can use will
certainly accomplish the salvation of all moral creatures. The soul which
resists Christ here may resist him forever.

Emerson, in the book just referred to, says: “The truth that sin
is in its permanent essence a free choice, however for a time it
may be held in mechanical combination with the notion of moral
opportunity arbitrarily closed, can never mingle with it, and must
in the logical outcome permanently cast it off. Scripture presumes
and teaches the constant capability of souls to obey as well as to
be disobedient.” Emerson is correct. If the doctrine of the
unlimited ability of the human will be a true one, then
restoration in the future world is possible. Clement and Origen
founded on this theory of will their denial of future punishment.
If will be essentially the power of contrary choice, and if will
may act independently of all character and motive, there can be no
objective certainty that the lost will remain sinful. In short,
there can be no finality, even to God’s allotments, nor is any
_last_ judgment possible. Upon this view, regeneration and
conversion are as possible at any time in the future as they are
to‐day.

But those who hold to this defective philosophy of the will should
remember that unlimited freedom is unlimited freedom to sin, as
well as unlimited freedom to turn to God. If restoration is
possible, endless persistence in evil is possible also; and this
last the Scripture predicts. Whittier: “What if thine eye refuse
to see, Thine ear of heaven’s free welcome fail, And thou a
willing captive be, Thyself thine own dark jail?” Swedenborg says
that the man who obstinately refuses the inheritance of the sons
of God is allowed the pleasures of the beast, and enjoys in his
own low way the hell to which he has confined himself. Every
occupant of hell prefers it to heaven. Dante, Hell, iv—“All here
together come from every clime, And to o’erpass the river are not
loth, For so heaven’s justice goads them on, that fear Is turned
into desire. Hence never passed good spirit.” The lost are
_Heautoutimoroumenoi_, or self‐tormentors, to adopt the title of
Terence’s play. See Whedon, in Meth. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1884;
Robbins, in Bib. Sac., 1881:460‐507.

Denney, Studies in Theology, 255—“The very conception of human
freedom involves the possibility of its permanent misuse, or of
what our Lord himself calls ‘_eternal sin_’ (_Mark 3:29_).” Shedd,
Dogm. Theology, 2:699—“Origen’s restorationism grew naturally out
of his view of human liberty”—the liberty of indifference—“endless
alternations of falls and recoveries, of hells and heavens; so
that practically he taught nothing but a hell.” J. C. Adams, The
Leisure of God: “It is lame logic to maintain the inviolable
freedom of the will, and at the same time insist that God can,
through his ample power, through protracted punishment, bring the
soul into a disposition which it does not wish to feel. There is
no compulsory holiness possible. In our Civil War there was some
talk of ‘compelling men to volunteer,’ but the idea was soon seen
to involve a self‐contradiction.”

(_d_) Upon the more correct view of the will which we have advocated, the
case is more hopeless still. Upon this view, the sinful soul, in its very
sinning, gives to itself a sinful bent of intellect, affection, and will;
in other words, makes for itself a character, which, though it does not
render necessary, yet does render certain, apart from divine grace, the
continuance of sinful action. In itself it finds a self‐formed motive to
evil strong enough to prevail over all inducements to holiness which God
sees it wise to bring to bear. It is in the next world, indeed, subjected
to suffering. But suffering has in itself no reforming power. Unless
accompanied by special renewing influences of the Holy Spirit, it only
hardens and embitters the soul. We have no Scripture evidence that such
influences of the Spirit are exerted, after death, upon the still
impenitent; but abundant evidence, on the contrary, that the moral
condition in which death finds men is their condition forever.

See Bushnell’s “One Trial Better than Many,” in Sermons on Living
Subjects; also see his Forgiveness and Law, 146, 147. Bushnell
argues that God would give us fifty trials, if that would do us
good. But there is no possibility of such result. The first
decision adverse to God renders it more difficult to make a right
decision upon the next opportunity. Character tends to fixity, and
each new opportunity may only harden the heart and increase its
guilt and condemnation. We should have no better chance of
salvation if our lives were lengthened to the term of the sinners
before the flood. Mere suffering does not convert the soul; see
Martineau, Study, 2:100. A life of pain did not make Blanco White
a believer; see Mozley, Hist. and Theol. Essays, vol. 2, essay 1.

Edward A. Lawrence, Does Everlasting Punishment Last Forever?—“If
the deeds of the law do not justify here, how can the penalties of
the law hereafter? The pain from a broken limb does nothing to
mend the break, and the suffering from disease does nothing to
cure it. Penalty pays no debts,—it only shows the outstanding and
unsettled accounts.” If the will does not act without motive, then
it is certain that without motives men will never repent. To an
impenitent and rebellious sinner the motive must come, not from
within, but from without. Such motives God presents by his Spirit
in this life; but when this life ends and God’s Spirit is
withdrawn, no motives to repentance will be presented. The soul’s
dislike for God will issue only in complaint and resistance.
Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:4—“Try what repentance can? what can it
not? Yet what can it, when one cannot repent?” Marlowe, Faustus:
“Hell hath no limits, nor is circumscribed In one self place; for
where we are is hell, And where hell is, there we must ever be.”

The pressure of the atmosphere without is counteracted by the
resistance of the atmosphere within the body. So God’s life within
is the only thing that can enable us to bear God’s afflictive
dispensations without. Without God’s Spirit to inspire repentance
the wicked man in this world never feels sorrow for his deeds,
except as he realizes their evil consequences. Physical anguish
and punishment inspire hatred, not of sin, but of the effects of
sin. The remorse of Judas induced confession, but not true
repentance. So in the next world punishment will secure
recognition of God and of his justice, on the part of the
transgressor, but it will not regenerate or save. The penalties of
the future life will be no more effectual to reform the sinner
than were the invitations of Christ and the strivings of the Holy
Spirit in the present life. The transientness of good resolves
which are forced out of us by suffering is illustrated by the old
couplet: “The devil was sick,—the devil a monk would be; The devil
got well,—the devil a monk was he.”

Charles G. Sewall: “Paul Lester Ford, the novelist, was murdered
by his brother Malcolm, because the father of the two brothers had
disinherited the one who committed the crime. Has God the right to
disinherit any one of his children? We answer that God disinherits
no one. Each man decides for himself whether he will accept the
inheritance. It is a matter of character. A father cannot give his
son an education. The son may play truant and throw away his
opportunity. The prodigal son disinherited himself. Heaven is not
a place,—it is a way of living, a condition of being. If you have
a musical ear, I will admit you to a lovely concert. If you have
not a musical ear, I may give you a reserved seat and you will
hear no melody. Some men fail of salvation because they have no
taste for it and will not have it.”

The laws of God’s universe are closing in upon the impenitent
sinner, as the iron walls of the mediæval prison closed in night
by night upon the victim,—each morning there was one window less,
and the dungeon came to be a coffin. In Jean Ingelow’s poem
“Divided,” two friends, parted by a little rivulet across which
they could clasp hands, walk on in the direction in which the
stream is flowing, till the rivulet becomes a brook, and the brook
a river, and the river an arm of the sea across which no voice can
be heard and there is no passing. By constant neglect to use our
opportunity, we lose the power to cross from sin to righteousness,
until between the soul and God “_there is a great gulf fixed_”
(_Luke 16:26_).

John G. Whittier wrote within a twelvemonth of his death: “I do
believe that we take with us into the next world the same freedom
of will we have here, and that _there_, as _here_, he that turns
to the Lord will find mercy; that God never ceases to follow his
creatures with love, and is always ready to hear the prayer of the
penitent. But I also believe that _now_ is the accepted time, and
that he who dallies with sin may find the chains of evil habit too
strong to break in this world or the other.” And the following is
the Quaker poet’s verse: “Though God be good and free be heaven,
Not force divine can love compel; And though the song of sins
forgiven Might sound through lowest hell, The sweet persuasion of
his voice Respects the sanctity of will. He giveth day; thou hast
thy choice To walk in darkness still.”

Longfellow, Masque of Pandora: “Never by lapse of time The soul
defaced by crime Into its former self returns again; For every
guilty deed Holds in itself the seed Of retribution and undying
pain. Never shall be the loss Restored, till Helios Hath purified
them with his heavenly fires; Then what was lost is won, And the
new life begun, Kindled with nobler passions and desires.” Seth,
Freedom as Ethical Postulate, 42—“Faust’s selling his soul to
Mephistopheles, and signing the contract with his life’s blood, is
no single transaction, done deliberately, on one occasion; rather,
that is the lurid meaning of a life which consists of innumerable
individual acts,—the life of evil means that.” See John Caird,
Fundamental Ideas of Christianity, 2:88; Crane, Religion of To‐
morrow, 315.

(_e_) The declaration as to Judas, in Mat. 26:24, could not be true upon
the hypothesis of a final restoration. If at any time, even after the
lapse of ages, Judas be redeemed, his subsequent infinite duration of
blessedness must outweigh all the finite suffering through which he has
passed. The Scripture statement that “good were it for that man if he had
not been born” must be regarded as a refutation of the theory of universal
restoration.

_Mat. 26:24_—“_The Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him:
but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed!
good were it for that man if he had not been born._” G. F. Wright,
Relation of Death to Probation: “As Christ of old healed only
those who came or were brought to him, so now he waits for the
coöperation of human agency. God has limited himself to an orderly
method in human salvation. The consuming missionary zeal of the
apostles and the early church shows that they believed the
decisions of this life to be final decisions. The early church not
only thought the heathen world would perish without the gospel,
but they found a conscience in the heathen answering to this
belief. The solicitude drawn out by this responsibility for our
fellows may be one means of securing the moral stability of the
future. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven; else why not
pray for the wicked dead?” It is certainly a remarkable fact, if
this theory be true, that we have in Scripture not a single
instance of prayer for the dead.

The apocryphal 2 Maccabees 12:39 _sq._ gives an instance of Jewish
prayer for the dead. Certain who were slain had concealed under
their coats things consecrated to idols. Judas and his host
therefore prayed that this sin might be forgiven to the slain, and
they contributed 2,000 drachmas of silver to send a sin offering
for them to Jerusalem. So modern Jews pray for the dead; see
Luckock, After Death, 54‐66—an argument for such prayer. John
Wesley, Works, 9:55, maintains the legality of prayer for the
dead. Still it is true that we have no instance of such prayer in
canonical Scriptures. _Ps. 132:1_—“_Jehovah, remember for David
All his affliction_”—is not a prayer for the dead, but signifies:
“_Remember for David_”, so as to fulfil thy promise to him, “_all
his anxious cares_”—with regard to the building of the temple; the
psalm having been composed, in all probability, for the temple
dedication. Paul prays that God will “_grant mercy to the house of
Onesiphorus_” (_2 Tim. 1:16_), from which it has been
unwarrantably inferred that Onesiphorus was dead at the time of
the apostle’s writing; but Paul’s further prayer in _verse
18_—“_the Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that
day_”—seems rather to point to the death of Onesiphorus as yet in
the future.

Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:715 note—“Many of the arguments
constructed against the doctrine of endless punishment proceed
upon the supposition that original sin, or man’s evil inclination,
is the work of God: that because man is _born_ in sin (_Ps.
51:5_), he was _created_ in sin. All the strength and plausibility
of John Foster’s celebrated letter lies in the assumption that the
moral corruption and impotence of the sinner, whereby it is
impossible to save himself from eternal death, is not self‐
originated and self‐determined, but infused by his Maker. ‘If,’
says he, ‘the very nature of man, as _created_ by the Sovereign
Power, be in such desperate disorder that there is no possibility
of conversion or salvation except in instances where that Power
interposes with a special and redeeming efficacy, how can we
conceive that the main portion of the race, thus morally impotent
(that is, really and absolutely impotent), will be eternally
punished for the inevitable result of this moral impotence?’ If
this assumption of concreated depravity and impotence is correct,
Foster’s objection to eternal retribution is conclusive and
fatal.... Endless punishment supposes the freedom of the human
will, and is impossible without it. Self‐determination runs
parallel with hell.”

The theory of a second probation, as recently advocated, is not
only a logical result of that defective view of the will already
mentioned, but it is also in part a consequence of denying the old
orthodox and Pauline doctrine of the organic unity of the race in
Adam’s first transgression. New School Theology has been inclined
to deride the notion of a fair probation of humanity in our first
father, and of a common sin and guilt of mankind in him. It cannot
find what it regards as a fair probation for each individual since
that first sin; and the conclusion is easy that there must be such
a fair probation for each individual in the world to come. But we
may advise those who take this view to return to the old theology.
Grant a fair probation for the whole race already passed, and the
condition of mankind is no longer that of mere unfortunates
unjustly circumstanced, but rather that of beings guilty and
condemned, to whom present opportunity, and even present
existence, is a matter of pure grace,—much more the general
provision of a salvation, and the offer of it to any human soul.
This world is already a place of second probation; and since the
second probation is due wholly to God’s mercy, no probation after
death is needed to vindicate either the justice or the goodness of
God. See Kellogg, in Presb. Rev., April, 1885:226‐256; Cremer,
Beyond the Grave, preface by A. A. Hodge, xxxvi _sq._; E. D.
Morris, Is There Salvation After Death? A. H. Strong, on The New
Theology, in Bap. Quar. Rev., Jan. 1888,—reprinted in Philosophy
and Religion, 164‐179.

C. Scripture declares this future punishment of the wicked to be eternal.

It does this by its use of the terms αἰών, αἰώνιος.—Some, however,
maintain that these terms do not necessarily imply eternal duration. We
reply:

(_a_) It must be conceded that these words do not _etymologically_
necessitate the idea of eternity; and that, as expressing the idea of
“age‐long,” they are sometimes used in a limited or rhetorical sense.

_2 Tim. 1:9_—“_his own purpose and grace, which was given us in
Christ Jesus before times eternal_”—but the past duration of the
world is limited; _Heb. 9:26_—“_now once at the end of the ages
hath he been manifested_”—here the αἰῶνες have an end; _Tit.
1:2_—“_eternal life ... promised before times eternal_”; but here
there may be a reference to the eternal covenant of the Father
with the Son; _Jer. 31:3_—“_I have loved thee with an everlasting
love_” = a love which antedated time; _Rom. 16:25, 26_—“_the
mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal ...
according to the commandment of the eternal God_”—here “_eternal_”
is used in the same verse in two senses. It is argued that in
_Mat. 25:46_—“_these shall go away into eternal punishment_”—the
word “_eternal_” may be used in the narrower sense.

Arthur Chambers, Our Life after Death, 222‐236—“In _Mat.
13:39_—‘_the harvest is the end of the_ αἰών,’ and in _2 Tim.
4:10_—‘_Demas forsook me, having loved this present_ αἰών’—the
word αἰών clearly implies limitation of time. Why not take the
word αἰών in this sense in _Mark 3:29_—‘_hath never forgiveness,
but is guilty of an eternal sin_’? We must not translate αἰών by
‘_world_,’ and so express limitation, while we translate αἰώνιος
by ‘_eternal_,’ and so express endlessness which excludes
limitation; _cf._ _Gen. 13:15_—‘_all the land which thou seest, to
thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever_’; _Num. 25:13_—‘_it
shall be unto him_ [Phinehas], _and to his seed after him, the
covenant of an everlasting priesthood_’; _Josh. 24:2_—‘_your
fathers dwelt of old time_ [from eternity] _beyond the River_’;
_Deut. 23:3_—‘_An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter ... into
the assembly of Jehovah for ever_’; _Ps. 24:7, 8_—‘_be ye lifted
up, ye everlasting doors._’ ”

(b) They do, however, express the longest possible duration of which the
subject to which they are attributed is capable; so that, if the soul is
immortal, its punishment must be without end.

_Gen. 49:26_—“_the everlasting hills_”; _17:8, 13_—“_I will give
unto thee ... all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting
possession ... my covenant_ [of circumcision] _shall be in your
flesh for an everlasting covenant_”; _Ex. 21:6_—“_he_ [the slave]
_shall serve him_ [his master] _for ever_”; _2 Chron. 6:2_—“_But I
have built thee an house of habitation, and a place for thee to
dwell in for ever_”—of the temple at Jerusalem; _Jude 6,
7_—“_angels ... he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness
unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah ...
are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal
fire_”—here in _Jude 6_, bonds which endure only to the judgment
day are called ἀϊδίοις (the same word which is used in _Rom.
1:20_—“_his everlasting power and divinity_”), and fire which
lasts only till Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed is called αἰωνίον.
Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:687—“To hold land forever is to hold it
as long as grass grows and water runs, _i. e._, as long as this
world or æon endures.”

In all the passages cited above, the condition denoted by αἰώνιος
lasts as long as the object endures of which it is predicated. But
we have seen (pages 982‐998) that physical death is not the end of
man’s existence, and that the soul, made in the image of God, is
immortal. A punishment, therefore, that lasts as long as the soul,
must be an everlasting punishment. Another interpretation of the
passages in Jude is, however, entirely possible. It is maintained
by many that the “_everlasting bonds_” of the fallen angels do not
cease at the judgment, and that Sodom and Gomorrah suffer “_the
punishment __ of eternal fire_” in the sense that their
condemnation at the judgment will be a continuation of that begun
in the time of Lot (see _Mat. 10:15_—“_It shall be more tolerable
for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than
for that city_”).

(_c_) If, when used to describe the future punishment of the wicked, they
do not declare the endlessness of that punishment, there are no words in
the Greek language which could express that meaning.

C. F. Wright, Relation of Death to Probation: “The Bible writers
speak of eternity in terms of time, and make the impression more
vivid by reduplicating the longest time‐words they had [_e. g._,
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων = ‘unto the ages of the ages’]. Plato
contrasts χρόνος and αἰών, as we do time and eternity, and
Aristotle says that eternity [αἰών] belongs to God.... The
Scriptures have taught the doctrine of eternal punishment as
clearly as their general style allows.” The destiny of lost men is
bound up with the destiny of evil angels in _Mat. 25:41_—“_Depart
from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for
the devil and his angels._” If the latter are hopelessly lost,
then the former are hopelessly lost also.

(_d_) In the great majority of Scripture passages where they occur, they
have unmistakably the signification “everlasting.” They are used to
express the eternal duration of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
(Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 9:14; Rev. 1:18); the abiding presence of
the Holy Spirit with all true believers (John 14:17); and the endlessness
of the future happiness of the saints (Mat. 19:29; John 6:54, 58; 2 Cor.
9:9).

_Rom. 16:26_—“_the commandment of the eternal God_”; _1 Tim.
1:17_—“_Now unto the King eternal, incorruptible, invisible, the
only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever_”; _Heb.
9:14_—“_the eternal Spirit_”; _Rev. 1:17, 18_—“_I am the first and
the last, and the Living one; and I was dead, and behold, I am
alive for evermore_”; _John 14:16, 17_—“_And I will pray the
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may be
with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth_”; _Mat.
19:29_—“_every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters
... for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall
inherit eternal life_”; _John 6:54, 58_—“_He that eateth my flesh
and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.... he that eateth this
bread shall live for ever_”; _2 Cor. 9:9_—“_His righteousness
abideth for ever_”; _cf._ _Dan. 7:18_—“_But the saints of the Most
High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever,
even for ever and ever._”

Everlasting punishment is sometimes said to be the punishment
which takes place in, and belongs to, an αἰών, with no reference
to duration. But President Woolsey declares, on the other hand,
that “αἰώνιος cannot denote ‘pertaining to an αἰών, or world
period.’ ” The punishment of the wicked cannot cease, any more
than Christ can cease to live, or the Holy Spirit to abide with
believers; for all these are described in the same terms; “αἰώνιος
is used in the N. T. 66 times,—51 times of the happiness of the
righteous, 2 times of the duration of God and his glory, 6 times
where there is no doubt as to its meaning ‘eternal,’ 7 times of
the punishment of the wicked; αἰών is used 95 times,—55 times of
unlimited duration, 31 times of duration that has limits, 9 times
to denote the duration of future punishment.” See Joseph Angus, in
Expositor, Oct. 1887:274‐286.

(_e_) The fact that the same word is used in Mat. 25:46 to describe both
the sufferings of the wicked and the happiness of the righteous shows that
the misery of the lost is eternal, in the same sense as the life of God or
the blessedness of the saved.

_Mat. 25:46_—“_And these shall go away into eternal punishment:
but the righteous into eternal life._” On this passage see Meyer:
“The absolute idea of eternity, in respect to the punishments of
hell, is not to be set aside, either by an appeal to the popular
use of αἰώνιος, or by an appeal to the figurative term ‘fire’; to
the incompatibility of the idea of the eternal with that of moral
evil and its punishment, or to the warning design of the
representation; but it stands fast exegetically, by means of the
contrasted ζωὴν αἰώνιον, which signifies the endless Messianic
life.”

(_f_) Other descriptions of the condemnation and suffering of the lost,
excluding, as they do, all hope of repentance or forgiveness, render it
certain that αἰών and αἰώνιος, in the passages referred to, describe a
punishment that is without end.

_Mat. 12:31, 32_—“_Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto
men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be
forgiven.... it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,
nor in that which is to come_”; _25:10_—“_and the door was shut_”;
_Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit
hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin_”; _9:43,
48_—“_to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire ... where their
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched_”—not the dying worm
but the undying worm; not the fire that is quenched, but the fire
that is unquenchable; _Luke 3:17_—“_the chaff he will burn up with
unquenchable fire_”; _16:26_—“_between us and you there is a great
gulf fixed, that they that would pass from hence to you may not be
able, and that none may cross over from thence to us_”; _John
3:36_—“_he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the
wrath of God abideth on him._”

Review of Farrar’s Eternal Hope, in Bib. Sac., Oct. 1878:782—“The
original meaning of the English word ‘hell’ and ‘damn’ was
precisely that of the Greek words for which they stand. Their
present meaning is widely different, but from what did it arise?
It arose from the connotation imposed upon these words by the
impression the Scriptures made on the popular mind. The present
meaning of these words is involved in the Scripture, and cannot be
removed by any mechanical process. Change the words, and in a few
years ‘judge’ will have in the Bible the same force that ‘damn’
has at present. In fact, the words were not mistranslated, but the
connotation of which Dr. Farrar complains has come upon them
since, and that through the Scriptures. This proves what the
general impression of Scripture upon the mind is, and shows how
far Dr. Farrar has gone astray.”

(_g_) While, therefore, we grant that we do not know the nature of
eternity, or its relation to time, we maintain that the Scripture
representations of future punishment forbid both the hypothesis of
annihilation, and the hypothesis that suffering will end in restoration.
Whatever eternity may be, Scripture renders it certain that after death
there is no forgiveness.

We regard the argument against endless punishment drawn from αἰών
and αἰώνιος as a purely verbal one which does not touch the heart
of the question at issue. We append several utterances of its
advocates. The Christian Union: “Eternal punishment is punishment
in eternity, not throughout eternity; as temporal punishment is
punishment in time, not throughout time.” Westcott: “Eternal life
is not an endless duration of being in time, but being of which
time is not a measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the idea
except through forms and images of sense. These must be used, but
we must not transfer them to realities of another order.”

Farrar holds that ἀΐδιος, “_everlasting_”, which occurs but twice
in the N. T. (_Rom. 1:20_ and _Jude 6_), is not a synonym of
αἰώνιος, “_eternal_”, but the direct antithesis of it; the former
being the unrealizable conception of endless time, and the latter
referring to a state from which our imperfect human conception of
time is absolutely excluded. Whiton, Gloria Patri, 145, claims
that the perpetual immanence of God in conscience makes recovery
possible after death; yet he speaks of the possibility that in the
incorrigible sinner conscience may become extinct. To all these
views we may reply with Schaff, Ch. History, 2:66—“After the
general judgment we have nothing revealed but the boundless
prospect of æonian life and æonian death.... Everlasting
punishment of the wicked always was and always will be the
orthodox theory.”

For the view that αἰών and αἰώνιος are used in a limited sense,
see De Quincey, Theological Essays, 1:126‐146; Maurice, Essays,
436; Stanley, Life and Letters, 1:485‐488; Farrar, Eternal Hope,
200; Smyth, Orthodox Theology of To‐day, 118‐123; Chambers, Life
after Death; Whiton, Is Eternal Punishment Endless? For the common
orthodox view, see Fisher and Tyler, in New Englander, March,
1878; Gould, in Bib. Sac., 1880:212‐248; Princeton Review,
1873:620; Shedd, Doctrine of Endless Punishment, 12‐117; Broadus,
Com. on _Mat. 25:45_.

D. This everlasting punishment of the wicked is not inconsistent with
God’s justice, but is rather a revelation of that justice.

(_a_) We have seen in our discussion of Penalty (pages 652‐656) that its
object is neither reformatory nor deterrent, but simply vindicatory; in
other words, that it primarily aims, not at the good of the offender, nor
at the welfare of society, but at the vindication of law. We have also
seen (pages 269, 291) that justice is not a form of benevolence, but is
the expression and manifestation of God’s holiness. Punishment, therefore,
as the inevitable and constant reaction of that holiness against its moral
opposite, cannot come to an end until guilt and sin come to an end.

The fundamental error of Universalism is its denial that penalty
is vindicatory, and that justice is distinct from benevolence. See
article on Universalism, in Johnson’s Cyclopædia: “The punishment
of the wicked, however severe or terrible it may be, is but a
means to a beneficent end; not revengeful, but remedial; not for
its own sake, but for the good of those who suffer its
infliction.” With this agrees Rev. H. W. Beecher: “I believe that
punishment exists, both here and hereafter; but it will not
continue after it ceases to do good. With a God who could give
pain for pain’s sake, this world would go out like a candle.” But
we reply that the doctrine of eternal punishment is not a doctrine
of “pain for pain’s sake,” but of pain for holiness’ sake.
Punishment could have no beneficial effect upon the universe, or
even upon the offender, unless it were just and right in itself.
And if just and right in itself, then the reason for its
continuance lies, not in any benefit to the universe, or to the
sufferer, to accrue therefrom.

F. L. Patton, in Brit. and For. Ev. Rev., Jan. 1878:126‐139, on
the Philosophy of Punishment—“If the Universalist’s position were
true, we should expect to find some manifestations of love and
pity and sympathy in the infliction of the dreadful punishments of
the future. We look in vain for this, however. We read of God’s
anger, of his judgments, of his fury, of his taking vengeance; but
we get no hint, in any passage which describes the sufferings of
the next world, that they are designed to work the redemption and
recovery of the soul. If the punishments of the wicked were
chastisements, we should expect to see some bright outlook in the
Bible‐picture of the place of doom. A gleam of light, one might
suppose, might make its way from the celestial city to this dark
abode. The sufferers would catch some sweet refrain of heavenly
music which would be a promise and prophecy of a far‐off but
coming glory. But there is a finality about the Scripture
statements as to the condition of the lost, which is simply
terrible.”

The reason for punishment lies not in the benevolence, but in the
holiness, of God. That holiness reveals itself in the moral
constitution of the universe. It makes itself felt in
conscience—imperfectly here, fully hereafter. The wrong merits
punishment. The right binds, not because it is the expedient, but
because it is the very nature of God. “But the great ethical
significance of this word _right_ will not be known,” (we quote
again from Dr. Patton,) “its imperative claims, its sovereign
behests, its holy and imperious sway over the moral creation will
not be understood, until we witness, during the lapse of the
judgment hours, the terrible retribution which measures the ill‐
desert of wrong.” When Dr. Johnson seemed overfearful as to his
future, Boswell said to him: “Think of the mercy of your Savior.”
“Sir,” replied Johnson, “my Savior has said that he will place
some on his right hand, and some on his left.”

A Universalist during our Civil War announced his conversion to
Calvinism, upon the ground that hell was a military necessity. “In
_Rom. 12:19_, ‘_vengeance_,’ ἐκδίκησις, means primarily
‘_vindication_.’ God will show to the sinner and to the universe
that the apparent prosperity of evil was a delusion and a snare”
(Crane, Religion of To‐morrow, 319 note). That strange book,
Letters from Hell, shows how memory may increase our knowledge of
past evil deeds, but may lose the knowledge of God’s promises.
Since we retain most perfectly that which has been the subject of
most constant thought, retribution may come to us through the
operation of the laws of our own nature.

Jackson, James Martineau, 193‐195—“Plato holds that the wise
transgressor will seek, not shun, his punishment. James Martineau
painted a fearful picture of the possible lashing of conscience.
He regarded suffering for sin, though dreadful, yet as altogether
desirable, not to be asked reprieve from, but to be prayed for:
‘Smite, Lord; for thy mercy’s sake, spare not!’ The soul denied
such suffering is not favored, but defrauded. It learns the truth
of its condition, and the truth and the right of the universe are
vindicated.” The Connecticut preacher said: “My friends, some
believe that all will be saved; but we hope for better things.
Chaff and wheat are not to be together always. One goes to the
garner, and the other to the furnace.”

Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:755—“Luxurious ages and luxurious men
recalcitrate at hell, and ‘_kick against the goad_’ (_Acts
26:14_). No theological doctrine is more important than eternal
retribution to those modern nations which, like England, Germany
and the United States, are growing rapidly in riches, luxury and
earthly power. Without it, they will infallibly go down in that
vortex of sensuality and wickedness that swallowed up Babylon and
Rome. The bestial and shameless vice of the dissolute rich that
has recently been uncovered in the commercial metropolis of the
world is a powerful argument for the necessity and reality of
‘_the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone_’ (_Rev. 21:8_).”
The conviction that after death there must be punishment for sin
has greatly modified the older Universalism. There is little
modern talk of all men, righteous and wicked alike, entering
heaven the moment this life is ended. A purgatorial state must
intervene. E. G. Robinson: “Universalism results from an
exaggerated idea of the atonement. There is no genuine
Universalism in our day. Restorationism has taken its place.”

(_b_) But guilt, or ill‐desert, is endless. However long the sinner may be
punished, he never ceases to be ill‐deserving. Justice, therefore, which
gives to all according to their deserts, cannot cease to punish. Since the
reason for punishment is endless, the punishment itself must be endless.
Even past sins involve an endless guilt, to which endless punishment is
simply the inevitable correlate.

For full statement of this argument that guilt, as never coming to
an end, demands endless punishment, see Shedd, Doctrine of Endless
Punishment, 118‐163—“Suffering that is penal can never come to an
end, because guilt is the reason for its infliction, and guilt
once incurred, never ceases to be.... One sin makes guilt, and
guilt makes hell.” Man does not punish endlessly, because he does
not take account of God. “Human punishment is only approximate and
imperfect, not absolute and perfect like the divine. It is not
adjusted exactly and precisely to the whole guilt of the offence,
but is more or less modified, first, by not considering its
relation to God’s honor and majesty; secondly, by human ignorance
of inward motives; and thirdly, by social expediency.” But “hell
is not a penitentiary.... The Lamb of God is also Lion of the
tribe of Judah.... The human penalty that approaches nearest to
the divine is capital punishment. This punishment has a kind of
endlessness. Death is a finality. It forever separates the
murderer from earthly society, even as future punishment separates
forever from the society of God and heaven.” See Martineau, Types,
2:65‐69.

The lapse of time does not convert guilt into innocence. The
verdict “Guilty for ten days” was Hibernian. Guilt is indivisible
and untransferable. The whole of it rests upon the criminal at
every moment. Richelieu: “All places are temples, and all seasons
summer, for justice.” George Eliot: “Conscience is harder than our
enemies, knows more, accuses with more nicety.” Shedd: “Sin is the
only perpetual motion that has ever been discovered. A slip in
youth, committed in a moment, entails lifelong suffering. The
punishment nature inflicts is infinitely longer than the time
consumed in the violation of law, yet the punishment is the
legitimate outgrowth of the offence.”

(_c_) Not only eternal guilt, but eternal sin, demands eternal punishment.
So long as moral creatures are opposed to God, they deserve punishment.
Since we cannot measure the power of the depraved will to resist God, we
cannot deny the possibility of endless sinning. Sin tends evermore to
reproduce itself. The Scriptures speak of an “eternal sin” (Mark 3:29).
But it is just in God to visit endless sinning with endless punishment.
Sin, moreover, is not only an act, but also a condition or state, of the
soul; this state is impure and abnormal, involves misery; this misery, as
appointed by God to vindicate law and holiness, is punishment; this
punishment is the necessary manifestation of God’s justice. Not the
punishing, but the not‐punishing, would impugn his justice; for if it is
just to punish sin at all, it is just to punish it as long as it exists.

_Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit
hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin_”; _Rev.
22:11_—“_He that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still;
and he that is filthy, let him be made filthy still._” Calvin:
“God has the best reason for punishing everlasting sin
everlastingly.” President Dwight: “Every sinner is condemned for
his first sin, and for every sin that follows, though they
continue forever.” What Martineau (Study, 2:106) says of this
life, we may apply to the next: “Sin being there, it would be
simply monstrous that there should be no suffering.”

But we must remember that men are finally condemned, not merely
for _sins_, but for _sin_; they are punished, not simply for
_acts_ of disobedience, but for evil _character_. The judgment is
essentially a remanding of men to their “_own place_” (_Acts
1:25_). The soul that is permanently unlike God cannot dwell with
God. The consciences of the wicked will justify their doom, and
they will themselves prefer hell to heaven. He who does not love
God is at war with himself, as well as with God, and cannot be at
peace. Even though there were no positive inflictions from God’s
hand, the impure soul that has banished itself from the presence
of God and from the society of the holy has in its own evil
conscience a source of torment.

And conscience gives us a pledge of the eternity of this
suffering. Remorse has no tendency to exhaust itself. The memory
of an evil deed grows not less but more keen with time, and self‐
reproach grows not less but more bitter. Ever renewed affirmation
of its evil decision presents to the soul forever new occasion for
conviction and shame. F. W. Robertson speaks of “the infinite
maddening of remorse.” And Dr. Shedd, in the book above quoted,
remarks: “Though the will to resist sin may die out of a man, the
conscience to condemn it never can. This remains eternally. And
when the process is complete; when the responsible creature, in
the abuse of free agency, has perfected his ruin; when his will to
good is all gone; there remain these two in his immortal
spirit—sin and conscience, ‘_brimstone and fire_’ (_Rev. 21:8_).”

E. G. Robinson: “The fundamental argument for eternal punishment
is the reproductive power of evil. In the divine law penalty
enforces itself. _Rom. 6:19_—‘_ye presented your members as
servants ... to iniquity unto iniquity._’ Wherever sin occurs,
penalty is inevitable. No man of sense would now hold to eternal
punishment as an objective judicial infliction, and the sooner we
give this up the better. It can be defended only on the ground of
the reactionary power of elective preference, the reduplicating
power of moral evil. We have no right to say that there are no
other consequences of sin but natural ones; but, were this so,
every word of threatening in Scripture would still stand. We shall
never be as complete as if we never had sinned. We shall bear the
scars of our sins forever. The eternal law of wrong‐doing is that
the wrong‐doer is cursed thereby, and harpies and furies follow
him into eternity. God does not need to send a policeman after the
sinner; the sinner carries the policeman inside. God does not need
to set up a whipping post to punish the sinner; the sinner finds a
whipping post wherever he goes, and his own conscience applies the
lash.”

(_d_) The actual facts of human life and the tendencies of modern science
show that this principle of retributive justice is inwrought into the
elements and forces of the physical and moral universe. On the one hand,
habit begets fixity of character, and in the spiritual world sinful acts,
often repeated, produce a permanent state of sin, which the soul, unaided,
cannot change. On the other hand, organism and environment are correlated
to each other; and in the spiritual world, the selfish and impure find
surroundings corresponding to their nature, while the surroundings react
upon them and confirm their evil character. These principles, if they act
in the next life as they do in this, will ensure increasing and unending
punishment.

_Gal. 6:7, 8_—“_Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever
a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth unto his
own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption_”; _Rev. 21:11_—“_He
that is unrighteous, let him do unrighteousness still: and he that
is filthy, let him be made filthy still._” Dr. Heman Lincoln, in
an article on Future Retribution (Examiner, April 2, 1885)—speaks
of two great laws of nature which confirm the Scripture doctrine
of retribution. The first is that “the tendency of habit is
towards a permanent state. The occasional drinker becomes a
confirmed drunkard. One who indulges in oaths passes into a
reckless blasphemer. The gambler who has wasted a fortune, and
ruined his family, is a slave to the card‐table. The Scripture
doctrine of retribution is only an extension of this well‐known
law to the future life.” The second of these laws is that
“organism and environment must be in harmony. Through the vast
domain of nature, every plant and tree and reptile and bird and
mammal has organs and functions fitted to the climate and
atmosphere of its habitat. If a sudden change occur in climate,
from torrid to temperate, or from temperate to arctic; if the
atmosphere change from dry to humid, or from carbonic vapors to
pure oxygen, sudden death is certain to overtake the entire fauna
and flora of the region affected, unless plastic nature changes
the organism to conform to the new environment. The interpreters
of the Bible find the same law ordained for the world to come.
Surroundings must correspond to character. A soul in love with sin
can find no place in a holy heaven. If the environment be holy,
the character of the beings assigned to it must be holy also.
Nature and Revelation are in perfect accord.” See Drummond,
Natural Law in the Spiritual World, chapters: Environment,
Persistence of Type, and Degradation.

_Hosea 13:9_—“_It is thy destruction, O Israel, that thou art
against me, against thy help_”—if men are destroyed, it is because
they destroy themselves. Not God, but man himself, makes hell.
Schurman: “External punishment is unthinkable of human sins.”
Jackson, James Martineau, 152—“Our light, such as we have, we
carry with us; and he who in his soul knows not God is still in
darkness though, like the angel in the Apocalypse, he were
standing in the sun.” Crane, Religion of To‐morrow, 313—“To insure
perpetual hunger deprive a man of nutritious food, and so long as
he lives he will suffer; so pain will last so long as the soul is
deprived of God, after the artificial stimulants of sin’s
pleasures have lost their effect. Death has nothing to do with it;
for as long as the soul lives apart from God, whether on this or
on another planet, it will be wretched. If the unrepentant sinner
is immortal, his sufferings will be immortal.” “Magnas inter opes,
inops”—poverty‐stricken amid great riches—his very nature compels
him to suffer. Nor can he change his nature; for character, once
set and hardened in this world, cannot be cast into the melting‐
pot and remoulded in the world to come. The hell of Robert G.
Ingersoll is far more terrible than the orthodox hell. He declares
that there is no forgiveness and no renewal. Natural law must have
its way. Man is a Mazeppa bound to the wild horse of his passions;
a Prometheus, into whose vitals remorse, like a vulture, is ever
gnawing.

(_e_) As there are degrees of human guilt, so future punishment may admit
of degrees, and yet in all those degrees be infinite in duration. The
doctrine of everlasting punishment does not imply that, at each instant of
the future existence of the lost, there is infinite pain. A line is
infinite in length, but it is far from being infinite in breadth or
thickness. “An infinite series may make only a finite sum; and infinite
series may differ infinitely in their total amount.” The Scriptures
recognize such degrees in future punishment, while at the same time they
declare it to be endless (Luke 12:47, 48; Rev. 20:12, 13).

_Luke 12:47, 48_—“_And that servant who knew his Lord’s will, and
made not ready, nor did according to his will shall be beaten with
many stripes; but he that knew not, and did things worthy of
stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes_”; _Rev. 20:12,
13_—“_And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before
the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened,
which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the
things which were written in the books, according to their works
... judged every man according to their works._”

(_f_) We know the enormity of sin only by God’s own declarations with
regard to it, and by the sacrifice which he has made to redeem us from it.
As committed against an infinite God, and as having in itself infinite
possibilities of evil, it may itself be infinite, and may deserve infinite
punishment. Hell, as well as the Cross, indicates God’s estimate of sin.

_Cf._ _Ez. 14:23_—“_ye shall know that I have not done without
cause all that I have done in it, saith the Lord Jehovah._”
Valuable as the vine is for its fruit, it is fit only for fuel
when it is barren. Every single sin, apart from the action of
divine grace, is the sign of pervading and permanent apostasy. But
there is no _single_ sin. Sin is a germ of infinite expansion. The
single sin, left to itself, would never cease in its effects of
evil,—it would dethrone God. “The idea of disproportion between
sin and its punishment grows out of a belittling of sin and its
guilt. One who regards murder as a slight offence will think
hanging an outrageous injustice. Theodore Parker hated the
doctrine of eternal punishment, because he considered sin as only
a provocation to virtue, a step toward triumph, a fall upwards,
good in the making.” But it is only when we regard its relation to
God that we can estimate sin’s ill desert. See Edwards the
younger, Works, 1:1‐294.

Dr. Shedd maintains that the guilt of sin is infinite, because it
is measured, not by the powers of the offender, but by the majesty
of the God against whom it is committed; see his Dogm. Theology,
2:740, 749—“Crime depends upon the object against whom it is
committed, as well as upon the subject who commits it.... To
strike is a voluntary act, but to strike a post or a stone is not
a culpable act.... Killing a dog is as bad as killing a man, if
merely the subject who kills and not the object killed is
considered.... As God is infinite, offence against him is infinite
in its culpability.... Any man who, in penitent faith, avails
himself of the vicarious method of setting himself right with the
eternal Nemesis, will find that it succeeds; but he who rejects it
must through endless cycles grapple with the dread problem of
human guilt in his own person, and alone.”

Quite another view is taken by others, as for example E. G.
Robinson, Christian Theology, 292—“The notion that the qualities
of a finite act can be infinite—that its qualities can be derived
from the person to whom the act is directed rather than from the
motives that prompt it, needs no refutation. The notion itself,
one of the bastard thoughts of mediæval metaphysical theology, has
maintained its position in respectable society solely by the
services it has been regarded as capable of rendering.” Simon,
Reconciliation, 123—“To represent sins as infinite, because God
against whom they are committed is infinite, logically requires us
to say that trust or reverence or love towards God are infinite,
because God is infinite.” We therefore regard it as more correct
to say, that sin as a finite act demands finite punishment, but as
endlessly persisted in demands an endless, and in that sense an
infinite, punishment.

E. This everlasting punishment of the wicked is not inconsistent with
God’s benevolence.

It is maintained, however, by many who object to eternal retribution, that
benevolence requires God not to inflict punishment upon his creatures
except as a means of attaining some higher good. We reply:

(_a_) God is not only benevolent but holy, and holiness is his ruling
attribute. The vindication of God’s holiness is the primary and sufficient
object of punishment. This constitutes a good which fully justifies the
infliction.

Even love has dignity, and rejected love may turn blessing into
cursing. Love for holiness involves hatred of unholiness. The love
of God is not a love without character. Dorner: “Love may not
throw itself away.... We have no right to say that punishment is
just only when it is the means of amendment.” We must remember
that holiness conditions love (see pages 296‐298). Robert Buchanan
forgot God’s holiness when he wrote: “If there is doom for one,
Thou, Maker, art undone!” Shakespeare, King John, 4:3—“Beyond the
infinite and boundless reach Of mercy, if thou didst this deed of
death, Art thou damned, Hubert!” Tennyson: “He that shuts Love
out, in turn shall be Shut out from Love, and on the threshold lie
Howling in utter darkness.” Theodore Parker once tried to make
peace between Wendell Phillips and Horace Mann, whom Phillips had
criticized with his accustomed severity. Mann wrote to Parker:
“What a good man you are! I am sure nobody would be damned if you
were at the head of the universe. But,” he continued, “I will
never treat a man with respect whom I do not respect, be the
consequences what they may—so help me—Horace Mann!” (Chadwick,
Theodore Parker, 330). The spirit which animated Horace Mann may
not have been the spirit of love, but we can imagine a case in
which his words might be the utterance of love as well as of
righteousness. For love is under law to righteousness, and only
righteous love is true love.

(_b_) In this life, God’s justice does involve certain of his creatures in
sufferings which are of no advantage to the individuals who suffer; as in
the case of penalties which do not reform, and of afflictions which only
harden and embitter. If this be a fact here, it may be a fact hereafter.

There are many sufferers on earth, in prisons and on sick‐beds,
whose suffering results in hardness of heart and enmity to God.
The question is not a question of quantity, but of quality. It is
a question whether any punishment at all is consistent with God’s
benevolence,—any punishment, that is to say, which does not result
in good to the punished. This we maintain; and claim that God is
bound to punish moral impurity, whether any good comes therefrom
to the impure or not. Archbishop Whately says it is as difficult
to change one atom of lead to silver as it is to change a whole
mountain. If the punishment of _many_ incorrigibly impenitent
persons is consistent with God’s benevolence, so is the punishment
of _one_ incorrigibly impenitent person; if the punishment of
incorrigibly impenitent persons for eternity is inconsistent with
God’s benevolence, so is the punishment of such persons for a
limited time, or for any time at all.

In one of his early stories William Black represents a sour‐
tempered Scotchman as protesting against the idea that a sinner he
has in mind should be allowed to escape the consequences of his
acts: “What’s the good of being good,” he asks, “if things are to
turn out that way?” The instinct of retribution is the strongest
instinct of the human heart. It is bound up with our very
intuition of God’s existence, so that to deny its rightfulness is
to deny that there is a God. There is “_a certain fearful
expectation of judgment_” (_Heb. 10:27_) for ourselves and for
others, in case of persistent transgression, without which the
very love of God would cease to inspire respect. Since neither
annihilation nor second probation is Scriptural, our only relief
in contemplating the doctrine of eternal punishment must come
from: 1. the fact that eternity is not endless _time_, but a state
inconceivable to us; and 2. the fact that evolution suggests
reversion to the brute as the necessary consequence of abusing
freedom.

(_c_) The benevolence of God, as concerned for the general good of the
universe, requires the execution of the full penalty of the law upon all
who reject Christ’s salvation. The Scriptures intimate that God’s
treatment of human sin is matter of instruction to all moral beings. The
self‐chosen ruin of the few may be the salvation of the many.

Dr. Joel Parker, Lectures on Universalism, speaks of the security
of free creatures as attained through a gratitude for deliverance
“kept alive by a constant example of some who are suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire.” Our own race may be the only race (of
course the angels are not a “race”) that has fallen away from God.
As through the church the manifold wisdom of God is made manifest
“_to principalities and powers in the heavenly places_” (_Eph.
3:10_); so, through the punishment of the lost, God’s holiness may
be made known to a universe that without it might have no proof so
striking, that sin is moral suicide and ruin, and that God’s
holiness is its irreconcilable antagonist.

With regard to the extent and scope of hell, we quote the words of
Dr. Shedd, in the book already mentioned: “Hell is only a spot in
the universe of God. Compared with heaven, hell is narrow and
limited. The kingdom of Satan is insignificant, in contrast with
the kingdom of Christ. In the immense range of God’s dominion,
good is the rule and evil is the exception. Sin is a speck upon
the infinite azure of eternity; a spot on the sun. Hell is only a
corner of the universe. The Gothic etymon denotes a covered‐up
hole. In Scripture, hell is a ‘_pit_,’ a ‘_lake_’; not an ocean.
It is ‘_bottomless_,’ not boundless. The Gnostic and Dualistic
theories which make God, and Satan or the Demiurge, nearly equal
in power and dominion, find no support in Revelation. The Bible
teaches that there will always be some sin and death in the
universe. Some angels and men will forever be the enemies of God.
But their number, compared with that of unfallen angels and
redeemed men, is small. They are not described in the glowing
language and metaphors by which the immensity of the holy and
blessed is delineated (_Ps. 68:17_; _Deut. 32:2_; _Ps. 103:21_;
_Mat. 6:13_; _1 Cor. 15:25_; _Rev. 14:1_; _21:16, 24, 25_.) The
number of the lost spirits is never thus emphasized and enlarged
upon. The brief, stern statement is, that ‘_the fearful and
unbelieving ... their part shall be in the lake that burneth with
fire and brimstone_’ (_Rev. 21:8_). No metaphors and
amplifications are added to make the impression of an immense
‘_multitude which no man can number_.’ ” Dr. Hodge: “We have
reason to believe that the lost will bear to the saved no greater
proportion than the inmates of a prison do to the mass of a
community.”

The North American Review engaged Dr. Shedd to write an article
vindicating eternal punishment, and also engaged Henry Ward
Beecher to answer it. The proof sheets of Dr. Shedd’s article were
sent to Mr. Beecher, whereupon he telegraphed from Denver to the
Review: “Cancel engagement, Shedd is too much for me. I half
believe in eternal punishment now myself. Get somebody else.” The
article in reply was never written, and Dr. Shedd remained
unanswered.

(_d_) The present existence of sin and punishment is commonly admitted to
be in some way consistent with God’s benevolence, in that it is made the
means of revealing God’s justice and mercy. If the temporary existence of
sin and punishment lead to good, it is entirely possible that their
eternal existence may lead to yet greater good.

_A priori_, we should have thought it impossible for God to permit
moral evil,—heathenism, prostitution, the saloon, the African
slave‐trade. But sin is a fact. Who can say how long it will be a
fact? Why not forever? The benevolence that permits it now may
permit it through eternity. And yet, if permitted through
eternity, it can be made harmless only by visiting it with eternal
punishment. Lillie on Thessalonians, 457—“If the temporary
existence of sin and punishment lead to good, how can we prove
that their eternal existence may not lead to greater good?” We
need not deny that it causes God real sorrow to banish the lost.
Christ’s weeping over Jerusalem expresses the feelings of God’s
heart: _Mat. 23:37, 38_—“_O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the
prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would
I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathered her
chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is
left unto you desolate_”; _cf._ _Hosea 11:8_—“_How shall I give
thee up, Ephraim? how shall I cast thee off, Israel? how shall I
make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboiim? my heart is
turned within me, my compassions are kindled together._” Dante,
Hell, iii—the inscription over the gate of Hell: “Justice the
founder of my fabric moved; To rear me was the task of power
divine, Supremest wisdom and primeval love.”

A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 254, 267—“If one thinks of the Deity
as an austere monarch, having a care for his own honor but none
for those to whom he has given being, optimism is impossible. For
what shall we say of our loved ones who have committed sins? That
splendid boy who yielded to an inherited tendency—what has become
of him? Those millions who with little light and mighty passions
have gone wrong—what of them? Those countless myriads who peopled
the earth in ages past and had no clear motive to righteousness,
since their perception of God was dim—is this all that can be said
of them: In torment they are exhibiting the glorious holiness of
the Almighty in his hatred of sin? Some may believe that, but,
thank God, the number is not large.... No, penalty, remorse,
despair, are only signs of the deep remedial force in the nature
of things, which has always been at work and always will be, and
which, unless counteracted, will result sometime in universal and
immortal harmony.... Retribution is a natural law; it is universal
in its sweep; it is at the same time a manifestation of the
beneficence that pervades the universe. This law must continue its
operation so long as one free agent violates the moral order.
Neither justice nor love would be honored if one soul were allowed
to escape the action of that law. But the sting in retribution is
ordained to be remedial and restorative rather than punitive and
vengeful.... Will any forever resist that discipline? We know not;
but it is difficult to understand how any can be willing to do so,
when the fulness of the divine glory is revealed.”

(_e_) As benevolence in God seems in the beginning to have permitted moral
evil, not because sin was desirable in itself, but only because it was
incident to a system which provided for the highest possible freedom and
holiness in the creature; so benevolence in God may to the end permit the
existence of sin and may continue to punish the sinner, undesirable as
these things are in themselves, because they are incidents of a system
which provides for the highest possible freedom and holiness in the
creature through eternity.

But the condition of the lost is only made more hopeless by the
difficulty with which God brings himself to this, his “_strange
work_” of punishment (_Is. 28:21_). The sentence which the judge
pronounces with tears is indicative of a tender and suffering
heart, but it also indicates that there can be no recall. By the
very exhibition of “_eternal judgment_” (_Heb. 6:2_), not only may
a greater number be kept true to God, but a higher degree of
holiness among that number be forever assured. The Endless Future,
published by South. Meth. Pub. House, supposes the universe yet in
its infancy, an eternal liability to rebellion, an ever‐growing
creation kept from sin by one example of punishment. _Mat. 7:13,
14_—“_few there be that find it_”—“seems to have been intended to
describe the conduct of men then living, rather than to foreshadow
the two opposite currents of human life to the end of time”; see
Hovey, Bib. Eschatology, 167. See Goulburn, Everlasting
Punishment; Haley, The Hereafter of Sin.

A. H. Bradford, Age of Faith, 239, mentions as causes for the
modification of view as to everlasting punishment: 1. Increased
freedom in expression of convictions; 2. Interpretation of the
word “eternal”; 3. The doctrine of the immanence of God,—if God is
in every man, then he cannot everlastingly hate himself, even in
the poor manifestation of himself in a human creature; 4. The
influence of the poets, Burns, Browning, Tennyson, and Whittier.
Whittier, Eternal Goodness: “The wrong that pains my soul below, I
dare not throne above: I know not of his hate,—I know His goodness
and his love.” We regard Dr. Bradford as the most plausible
advocate of restoration. But his view is vitiated by certain
untenable theological presuppositions: 1. that righteousness is
only a form of love; 2. that righteousness, apart from love, is
passionate and vengeful; 3. that man’s freedom is incapable of
endless abuse; 4. that not all men here have a fair probation; 5.
that the amount of light against which they sin is not taken into
consideration by God; 6. that the immanence of God does not leave
room for free human action; 7. that God’s object in his
administration is, not to reveal his whole character, and chiefly
his holiness, but solely to reveal his love; 8. that the
declarations of Scripture with regard to “_an eternal sin_” (_Mark
3:29_), “_eternal punishment_” (_Mat. 25:46_), “_eternal
destruction_” (_2 Thess. 1:9_), still permit us to believe in the
restoration of all men to holiness and likeness to God.

We regard as more Scriptural and more rational the view of Max
Müller, the distinguished Oxford philologist: “I have always held
that this would be a miserable universe without eternal
punishment. Every act, good or evil, must carry its consequences,
and the fact that our punishment will go on forever seems to me a
proof of the everlasting love of God. For an evil deed to go
unpunished would be to destroy the moral order of the universe.”
Max Müller simply expresses the ineradicable conviction of mankind
that retribution must follow sin; that God must show his
disapproval of sin by punishment; that the very laws of man’s
nature express in this way God’s righteousness; that the abolition
of this order would be the dethronement of God and the destruction
of the universe.

F. The proper preaching of the doctrine of everlasting punishment is not a
hindrance to the success of the gospel.

The proper preaching of the doctrine of everlasting punishment is not a
hindrance to the success of the gospel, but is one of its chief and
indispensable auxiliaries.—It is maintained by some, however, that,
because men are naturally repelled by it, it cannot be a part of the
preacher’s message. We reply:

(_a_) If the doctrine be true, and clearly taught in Scripture, no fear of
consequences to ourselves or to others can absolve us from the duty of
preaching it. The minister of Christ is under obligation to preach the
whole truth of God; if he does this, God will care for the results.

_Ez. 2:7_—“_And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they
will hear, or whether they will forbear_”; _3:10, 11, 18,
19_—“_Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I
shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine
ears. And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children
of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the
Lord Jehovah; whether they will hear, or whether they will
forbear.... When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and
thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from
his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in
his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thy hand. Yet if
thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor
from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast
delivered thy soul._”

The old French Protestant church had as a coat of arms the device
of an anvil, around which were many broken hammers, with this
motto: “Hammer away, ye hostile bands; Your hammers break, God’s
anvil stands.” St. Jerome: “If an offence come out of the truth,
better is it that the offence come, than that the truth be
concealed.” Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:680—“Jesus Christ is the
Person responsible for the doctrine of eternal perdition.” The
most fearful utterances with regard to future punishment are those
of Jesus himself, as for example, _Mat. 23:33_—“_Ye serpents, ye
offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?_”
_Mark 3:29_—“_whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit
hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin_”; _Mat.
10:28_—“_be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy
both soul and body in hell_”; _25:46_—“_these shall go away into
eternal punishment._”

(_b_) All preaching which ignores the doctrine of eternal punishment just
so far lowers the holiness of God, of which eternal punishment is an
expression, and degrades the work of Christ, which was needful to save us
from it. The success of such preaching can be but temporary, and must be
followed by a disastrous reaction toward rationalism and immorality.

Much apostasy from the faith begins with refusal to accept the
doctrine of eternal punishment. Theodore Parker, while he
acknowledged that the doctrine was taught in the New Testament,
rejected it, and came at last to say of the whole theology which
includes this idea of endless punishment, that it “sneers at
common sense, spits upon reason, and makes God a devil.”

But, if there be no eternal punishment, then man’s danger was not
great enough to require an infinite sacrifice; and we are
compelled to give up the doctrine of atonement. If there were no
atonement, there was no need that man’s Savior should himself be
more than man; and we are compelled to give up the doctrine of the
deity of Christ, and with this that of the Trinity. If punishment
be not eternal, then God’s holiness is but another name for
benevolence; all proper foundation for morality is gone, and God’s
law ceases to inspire reverence and awe. If punishment be not
eternal, then the Scripture writers who believed and taught this
were fallible men who were not above the prejudices and errors of
their times; and we lose all evidence of the divine inspiration of
the Bible. With this goes the doctrine of miracles; God is
identified with nature, and becomes the impersonal God of
pantheism.

Theodore Parker passed through this process, and so did Francis W.
Newman. Logically, every one who denies the everlasting punishment
of the wicked ought to reach a like result; and we need only a
superficial observation of countries like India, where pantheism
is rife, to see how deplorable is the result in the decline of
public and of private virtue. Emory Storrs: “When hell drops out
of religion, justice drops out of politics.” The preacher who
talks lightly of sin and punishment does a work strikingly
analogous to that of Satan, when he told Eve: “_Ye shall not
surely die_” (_Gen. 3:4_). Such a preacher lets men go on what
Shakespeare calls “the primrose way to the everlasting bonfire”
(Macbeth, 2:3).

Shedd, Dogm. Theology, 2:671—“Vicarious atonement is incompatible
with universal salvation. The latter doctrine implies that
suffering for sin is remedial only, while the former implies that
it is retribution.... If the sinner himself is not obliged by
justice to suffer in order to satisfy the law he has violated,
then certainly no one needs suffer for him for this purpose.”
Sonnet by Michael Angelo: “Now hath my life across a stormy sea
Like a frail bark reached that wide port where all Are bidden, ere
the final reckoning fall Of good and evil for eternity. Now know I
well how that fond fantasy, Which made my soul the worshiper and
thrall Of earthly art, is vain; how criminal Is that which all men
seek unwillingly. Those amorous thoughts that were so lightly
dressed—What are they when the double death is nigh? The one I
know for sure, the other dread. Painting nor sculpture now can
lull to rest My soul that turns to his great Love on high, Whose
arms, to clasp us, on the Cross were spread.”

(_c_) The fear of future punishment, though not the highest motive, is yet
a proper motive, for the renunciation of sin and the turning to Christ. It
must therefore be appealed to, in the hope that the seeking of salvation
which begins in fear of God’s anger may end in the service of faith and
love.

_Luke 12:4, 5_—“_And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of
them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can
do. But I will warn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, who after he
hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you,
Fear him_”; _Jude 23_—“_and some save, snatching them out of the
fire._” It is noteworthy that the Old Testament, which is
sometimes regarded, though incorrectly, as a teacher of fear, has
no such revelations of hell as are found in the New. Only when
God’s mercy was displayed in the Cross were there opened to men’s
view the depths of the abyss from which the Cross was to save
them. And, as we have already seen, it is not Peter or Paul, but
our Lord himself, who gives the most fearful descriptions of the
suffering of the lost, and the clearest assertions of its eternal
duration.

Michael Angelo’s picture of the Last Judgment is needed to prepare
us for Raphael’s picture of the Transfiguration. Shedd, Dogm.
Theology, 2:752—“What the human race needs is to go to the divine
Confessional.... Confession is the only way to light and peace....
The denial of moral evil is the secret of the murmuring and
melancholy with which so much of modern letters is filled.”
Matthew Arnold said to his critics: “Non me tua fervida terrent
dicta; Dii me terrent et Jupiter hostis”—“I am not afraid of your
violent judgments; I fear only God and his anger.” _Heb.
10:31_—“_It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the
living God._” Daniel Webster said: “I want a minister to drive me
into a corner of the pew, and make me feel that the devil is after
me.”

(_d_) In preaching this doctrine, while we grant that the material images
used in Scripture to set forth the sufferings of the lost are to be
spiritually and not literally interpreted, we should still insist that the
misery of the soul which eternally hates God is greater than the physical
pains which are used to symbolize it. Although a hard and mechanical
statement of the truth may only awaken opposition, a solemn and feeling
presentation of it upon proper occasions, and in its due relation to the
work of Christ and the offers of the gospel, cannot fail to accomplish
God’s purpose in preaching, and to be the means of saving some who hear.

_Acts 20:31_—“_Wherefore watch ye, remembering that by the space
of three years I ceased not to admonish every one night and day
with tears_”; _2 Cor. 2:14‐17_—“_But thanks be unto God, who
always leadeth us in triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest
through us the savor of his knowledge in every place. For we are a
sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are being saved, and
in them that are perishing; to the one a savor from death unto
death; to the other a savor from life unto life. And who is
sufficient for these things? For we are not as the many,
corrupting the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in
the sight of God, speak we in Christ_”; _5:11_—“_Knowing therefore
the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, but we are made manifest
unto God; and I hope that we are made manifest also in your
consciences_”; _1 Tim. 4:16_—“_Take heed to thyself and to thy
teaching. Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt
save both thyself and them that hear thee._”

“Omne simile claudicat” as well as “volat”—“Every simile halts as
well as flies.” No symbol expresses all the truth. Yet we need to
use symbols, and the Holy Spirit honors our use of them. It is
“_God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to
save them that believe_” (_1 Cor. 1:21_). It was a deep sense of
his responsibility for men’s souls that moved Paul to say: “_woe
is unto me, if I preach not the gospel_” (_1 Cor. 9:16_). And it
was a deep sense of duty fulfilled that enabled George Fox, when
he was dying, to say: “I am clear! I am clear!”

So Richard Baxter wrote: “I preached as never sure to preach
again. And as a dying man to dying men.” It was Robert McCheyne
who said that the preacher ought never to speak of everlasting
punishment without tears. McCheyne’s tearful preaching of it
prevailed upon many to break from their sins and to accept the
pardon and renewal that are offered in Christ. Such preaching of
judgment and punishment were never needed more than now, when lax
and unscriptural views with regard to law and sin break the force
of the preacher’s appeals. Let there be such preaching, and then
many a hearer will utter the thought, if not the words, of the
Dies Iræ, 8‐10—“Rex tremendæ majestatis, Qui salvandos salvas
gratis, Salva me, fons pietatis. Recordare, Jesu pie, Quod sum
causa tuæ viæ: Ne me perdas ilia die. Quærens me sedisti lassus,
Redemisti crucem passus: Tautus labor non sit cassus.” See
Edwards, Works, 4:226‐321; Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 459‐468;
Murphy, Scientific Bases of Faith, 310, 319, 464; Dexter, Verdict
of Reason; George, Universalism not of the Bible; Angus, Future
Punishment; Jackson, Bampton Lectures for 1875, on the Doctrine of
Retribution; Shedd, Doctrine of Endless Punishment, preface, and
Dogm. Theol., 2:667‐754.

INDEXES.

The author acknowledges his great indebtness to the Reverend Robert Kerr
Eccles, M. D., of Lemoore, California, for the preparation of the
exceedingly full and valuable Indexes which follow, and a similar
obligation to Mr. Herman K. Phinney, Assistant Librarian of the University
of Rochester, for his care in the proof‐reading of the whole work.

Index Of Subjects.

Ability, gracious, 602, 640
natural, of New School, 640, 641
not test of sin, 558
Pelagian, 640

Abiogenesis, 389

Absolute, its denotation, 9
as applied to divine attributes, 249
how related to finite, 58, 255
Reason, an, the postulate of logical thought, 60

Abydos, triad of, 351

_Acceptilatio_, the Grotian, 740

Acquittal of believing sinners, from punishment, 854

Action, divine, not _in distantia_, 418

Acts, evil, God’s concurrence with, 418

_Ad aperturam libri_, 32

Adam, his original righteousness not immutable, 519
had power of contrary choice, 519
not created undecided, 519
his love, God‐given, 519
his exercise of holy will not meritorious, 520
unfallen, according to Romish theologians, 520
his physical perfection, 523
unfallen, according to Fathers and Scholastics, 523
his relations to lower creation, 524
his relations to God, 524
his surroundings and society, 525
the test of his virtue, 526
physical immortality possible to, 527
his Fall, see Fall.
his twofold death, resulting from Fall, 590
his communion with God interrupted, 592
his banishment from God, 593
imputation of his sin to his posterity, see Imputation.
in him “the natural,” had he continued upright, might without death have
obtained “the spiritual,” 658
was Christ in, 759
Christ, the Last, 678
Christ, the Second, 680

Adoption, what?, 857

_Aequale temperamentum_, 523

Affections, 362, 815
holy, authors on, 826

Agency, free, and divine decrees, 359‐362

Alexander, unifier of Greek East, 668

Allegorical arrangement in theology, 50

_Allœosis_, 686

Altruism, 299

Ambition, what? 569

American theology, 48, 49

_Anacoloutha_, Paul’s, 210

Analytical method, in theology, 45, 49

Ancestry of race, proofs of a common, 476‐482

“Angel of the church,” 452, 916

“Angel of Jehovah,” 319

Angelology of Scripture, not derived from Egyptian or Persian sources, 448

“Angels’ food,” 445

Angels, their class defined, 443
Scholastic subtleties regarding, their influence, 443, 444
Milton and Dante upon, 443
their existence a scientific possibility, 444
faith in, enlarges conception of universe, 444
list of authors upon, 444
Scriptural statements and intimations concerning, 441‐459
are created beings, 444
are incorporeal, 445
are personal, 445
possessed of superhuman intelligence, 445
distinct from and older than man, 445
not personifications, 445
numerous, 447
are a company, not a race, 447
were created holy, 450
had a probation, 450
some preserved their integrity, 450
some fell from innocence, 450
the good, confirmed in goodness, 450
the evil, confirmed in evil, 450

Angels, good, they stand worshiping God, 451
they rejoice in God’s works, 451
they work in nature, 451
they guide nations, 451
watch over interests of churches, 452
assist individual believers, 452
punish God’s enemies, 452
ministers of God’s special providences, 452
act within laws of spiritual and moral world, 453
their influence illustrated by psychic phenomena, 453, 454

Angels, evil, oppose God, 454
hinder man’s welfare, 455
tempt negatively and positively, 455
their intercourse with Christ, 456
execute God’s will, 457
their power not independent of human will, 457
limited by permissive will of God, 458
the doctrine of, not opposed to science, 459
not opposed to right views of space or spirit, 459
not impossible that, though wise, they should rebel, 460
the continuance and punishment of evil, not inconsistent with divine
benevolence, 461
their organization, though sinful, not impossible, 461
the doctrine of evil, not hurtful, 461, 462
the doctrine of evil, does not degrade man, 462
good, the doctrine of, its uses, 462
evil, the doctrine of, its uses, 463
fallen, if no redemption provided for, why? 463
created in Christ, 464
their salvation, Scripture silent upon, 464

Anger, sometimes a duty, 294

Annihilation, of infants, held by Emmons, 609
at death, inequitable, 987, 1036
disproved by Scripture, 991‐998
terms which seemingly teach, 993
language adduced to prove, often metaphorical, 994
old view of, 1036
the theory that it is a result of the weakening of powers of soul by
sin, considered, 1036
“second death” regarded as dissolution of the soul, 1036
the theory that a positive punishment proportioned to guilt precedes and
ends in, 1037
the tenet of, rests on a defective view of holiness, 1037
a part of the “conditional immortality” hypothesis, 1037
as connected with the principle, “Evil is punished by its own increase,”
1038

Annihilationists, 487

“Answer (Interrogation) of a good conscience,” phrase examined, 821

Anthropological argument for God’s existence, 80‐85

Anthropological method in theology, 50

Anthropology, a division of theology, 464

Anthropomorphism, 122, 250

“Anthropomorphism inverse,” 468

Antichrist, 1009

“Anticipative consequences,” 403, 658

Antinomianism, 875

Antiquity of race, relation of Scripture to, 224‐226

Apocalypse, its exegetic not yet found, 1014

Apocrypha, 115, 150, 865

Apollinarianism, 487, 670, 671

Apostasy, man’s state of, 533‐664

Apostasy of the believer, how treated in Scripture, 884‐886

_A posteriori_ reasoning, 66, 86

Apostles, 199‐201, 909, 971

_Apotelesmaticum genus_, 686

_A priori_ argument for God’s existence, the, see God.
judgments, 10
reasons for expecting a divine revelation, 111‐114

_Arbitrium_, 557

Argument _ad hominem_ in Scripture, 233
for existence of God, its value, 65‐67, 71, 72, 87‐89

Arianism, 328‐330, 670

Arminianism, 362, 601‐606

Arrangement of material in theology, 2, 49, 50

Art, 529, 1016

Aryan and Semitic languages, their connection, 479

Ascension, Christ’s, 708‐710
Christ’s humanity, how related to the Logos in, 709

Aseity of God, 256, 257
not confined to Father, 342

_Assensus_, an element in faith, 837

Assurance of salvation, 808, 845

“Asymptote of God,” man, the, 565

Athanasian Creed, 329

Atoms, 96, 374

Atomism, 600, 635

Atonement, facts in Christ’s sufferings which prove, 713
defined, 713
satisfies holiness, the fundamental attribute of God, 713
meets the conditions of a universe in which happiness is connected with
righteousness and suffering with sin, 714
in it Christ as Logos, the Revealer of God in the universe, inflicts the
penalty of sin, while, as Life of humanity, he endures the
infliction, 714
humanity has made, when righteousness in Christ, as generic humanity,
condemns sin, and love in Christ endures the penalty, 714
substitutionary and sharing, 715
in, Christ suffers as the very life of man, 715
not made, but revealed, by Christ’s historical sufferings, 715
the sacrifice of, the final revelation of the heart of God and of the
law of universal life, 716
a model of, and stimulus to, self‐sacrifice, 716
its subjective effects must not exclude consideration of its ground and
cause, 716
Scripture methods of representing, 716‐722
originates in God’s love and manifests it, 716
an example of disinterested love to secure our deliverance from
selfishness, 716, 717
a ransom in which death is the price paid, 717
an act of obedience to law, 717
an act of priestly mediation, 718‐728
a sin‐offering, 719
a propitiation, 719
a substitution, 720
correct views of, grounded on proper interpretation of the institution
of sacrifice, 721
is it to be interpreted according to notions derived from Jewish or
heathen sacrifices? 728
theories of, 728‐766
Socinian (example) theory, 728, 729
objections to above, 735‐740
Bushnellian (moral influence) theory, 733‐735
objections to above, 735‐740
Grotian (governmental) theory of, 740, 741
Irvingian (gradually extirpated depravity) theory of, 744, 745
objections to theory, 745‐747
Anselmic (commercial) theory of, 747, 748
Military theory of, 747
objections to, 748‐750
Criminal theory of, 748
the Ethical theory of, 750‐771
a true theory of, resolves two problems, 750, 751
grounded in holiness of God, 751
a satisfaction of an ethical demand of the divine nature, 751, 752, 753
substitution in, an operation of grace, 752
the righteousness of law maintained in, 752
maintains, as a first subordinate result, the interests of the divine
government, 753
provides, as a second subordinate result, for the needs of human nature,
753
the classical passage with reference to, 753
sets forth Christ as so related to humanity that he is under obligation
to pay and does pay, 754
explains how the innocent can suffer for the guilty in, 755, 756, 757
Andover theory of, 756
by one whose nature was purified, but his obligation to suffer
undiminished, 757
the guilt resting on Christ in, what it was, 645, 646, 757
as a member of the race, did he not suffer in, for his own sin?, 758
showed what had been in the heart of God from eternity, 758
explanations of Christ’s identification with humanity as a reason why he
made, 759‐761
exposition of 2 Cor. 5:21, 760
grounded in the holiness and love of God, 761
is accomplished through the solidarity of the race, and Christ the
common life, bearing guilt for men, 761
ground of, on the part of man, 761
rather revealed than made by incarnate Christ, 762, 763
Ethical theory of, philosophically correct, 764
combines the valuable elements of other theories, 764
shows most satisfactorily how demands of holiness are met, 764
presents only explanation of sacrificial rites and language, 765
alone gives proper place to death of Christ, 765
is best explanation of sufferings of Christ, 765
satisfies most completely the ethical demand of human nature, 765, 766
objected to, as inconsistent with God’s omnipotence or love, 766
objected to, as presented ideas mutually exclusive, 767
objected to, as obviating real propitiation, 768
objected to, as an act of injustice, 768
objected to, because transfer of punishment is impossible, 768, 769
objected to, because the remorse implied in it, was impossible to
Christ, 769
objected to, because sufferings finite in time cannot satisfy infinite
demands of law, 769, 770
objected to, that it renders Christ’s active obedience superfluous, 770
objected to, as immoral in tendency, 770
objected to, as requiring faith to complete a satisfaction which ought
to be itself perfect, 771
extent of, 771‐773
unlimited, 771
its application limited, 771
passages asserting its special efficacy, 771
passages asserting its sufficiency for all, 771
secures for all men delay in execution of sentence against sin, 772
has made objective provision for all, 772, 773
has procured for all incentives to repentance, 773
limited, advocates of, 773
universal, advocates of, 773

Attributes, divine, see God.
mental, higher than those of matter, inference from, 92

Aurignac Cave, its evidence doubtful, 532

Australian languages, their affinities, 479

Automatic, mental activity largely, 550

“Automatic excellence or badness,” 611

Avarice, defined, 569

Avatars, Hindu, 187
Christ’s incarnation unlike, 698

_Ayat_ of Koran, 213

Baalim, 318

Balaam, inspired, yet unholy, 207

Baptism and Lord’s Supper, only accounted for as monuments, 157
the formula of, correlates Christ’s name with God’s, 312
according to Romish church, 522
of Jesus, its import, 761, 762, 942
Christian, definition of, 931
instituted by Christ, 931
of universal and perpetual obligation, 931
ignored by Salvation Army and Society of Friends, 931
John’s recognized by Christ, 931, 932
John’s, was it a modification of a previously existing rite?, 931, 932
proselyte, its existence discussed, 931, 932
John’s, essentially Christian baptism, 732
made the law of the church, 932
Christian, complementally related to Lord’s Supper, is of equal
permanency, 932, 933
its mode, immersion, 933
meaning of its original word, according to Greek usage, 933, 934
meaning of original word as determined by contextual relation, 934
meaning of original word determined by voice used with ’water,’, 935
meaning of original word determined by prepositional connections, 935
meaning of original word derived from circumstances, 935
original meaning of word determined from figurative allusions, 936
original meaning of word determined by practice of early church, 936
occasional change in its mode permitted for seeming sufficient reason at
an early date, 936
original meaning of word determined by usage of Greek church, 937, 938
Dr. Dods’ statement as to its mode, 938
concession to its original method of observance in the introduction of
baptisteries or “fontgraves” into non Baptist places of
worship, 938
the church, being only an executive body, cannot modify Christ’s law
concerning, 939
the law of, fundamental, and therefore unalterable save by Legislator
himself, 939
any modification of, by church, implies unwisdom in Appointer of rite,
939
any change in mode vacates ordinance of its symbolic significance, 939
objections to its mode, immersion, 940
if its mode impracticable, ordinance not a duty, 940
when its mode dangerous, ordinance not to be performed, 940
the mode of baptism decently impressive, 940
the ordinance symbolizing suffering and death is consistently somewhat
inconvenient, 940
God’s blessing on an irregular administration of, no sanction of
irregularity, 940
its symbolism, 940‐945
what it symbolizes is general, 940
it symbolizes death and burial of Christ, 940
it symbolizes union with Christ, 941
it symbolizes atonement and redemption, 941
it symbolizes to the believer being baptized his spiritual death and
resurrection, 941
it symbolizes union of believers with each other, 942
it symbolizes the death and resurrection of the body, 942
the central truth, set forth by, 942
a correlative truth set forth by, 943
sets forth purification through communion with death of Christ, 944
symbolizes regenerating power of Jesus’ death, 944
immersion in, alone symbolizes the passage from death unto life in
regeneration and communion with Christ in his death and
rising, 944
the substituting for the correct mode of, one which excludes all
reference to Christ’s death destroys the ordinance, 944
is a historical monument, 945
is a pictorial expression of doctrine, 945
and Lord’s Supper, 945
subjects of, 945‐959
the proper subjects of, 945
those only to be baptized who have first been made disciples, 945
those only to be baptized who have repented and believed, 945
those only to be baptized who can be members of the church, 945
those only to be baptized for whom the symbolism is valid, 946
not a means of regeneration, 946
the spiritual and the ritual so combined in, that the whole ordinance
may be designated by its outward aspect, 946
as a being “born of water,” 946
connected with repentance “for the remission of sins,”, 946
without baptism, discipleship incomplete, and ineffective, 947
the teachings of Campbellism regarding, 947, 948
act of person baptized, 948
before it is administered, church should require evidence that
candidates are regenerated, 949
incorrectly called “door into the church,”, 949
as expressive of inward character of candidate, 950
as regeneration is once for all, baptism must not be repeated, 950
as outward expression of inward change, is the first of all duties, 950
should follow regeneration with least possible delay, 950
if an actual profession of faith, not to be repeated, 950
accessories to, matters of individual judgment, 951
its formula, 951
Infant, 951‐959
without warrant in scripture, 951
has no express command, 951
no clear example, 951
passages held to imply it, have no reference thereto, 951
expressly contradicted, 952
in it the prerequisites of faith and repentance impossible, 952
in it the symbolism of baptism has lost significance, 952
its practice inconsistent with constitution of the church, 952
is unharmonious with prerequisites to the Lord’s Supper, 952
has led in Greek Church to infant communion, 953
denied by the Paulicians, 953
the reasons of its rise and spread, 953
a necessary concomitant of a State Church, 954
founded on unscriptural and dangerous reasonings, 954
it assumes power of church to tamper with Christ’s commands, 954
contradicts New Testament ideas of church, 954
assumes a connection of parent and child closer and more influential
than facts of Scripture and experience will support, 954,
955
its propriety urged on various unsettled grounds, 956
does it make its subjects members of the church?, 956
its evil effects, 957‐959
forestalls any voluntary act, 957
induces superstitious confidence, 957
has led to baptism of irrational and material things, 957
has obscured and corrupted Christian truth, 958
is often an obstacle to evangelical views, 958
merges church in nation and world, 958
substitutes for Christ’s command an invention of men, 958, 959
literature concerning, 959

Baptismal Regeneration, 820‐822, 946, 947
literature upon, 948

Baptist Theology, 47

Baptists, English, 972, 977
Free Will, 972, 977, 979

Believers, and the “old man,”, 870
and the Intermediate State, 998, 999

_Bewusstsein_, in _Gottesbewusstsein_, 63

Bible, see Scripture.

Bishop, office of, early made sole interpreter of apostles, 912
in his progress from _primus inter pares_ to Christ’s vicegerent, 912
ordaining, his qualifications in Episcopal church, 913
“presbyter” and “pastor” designate same order, 914, 915
the duties of, 916, 917
ordination of, 918‐924

Blessedness, what?, 265
contrasted with glory, 265

Bodies, new, of saints, are confined to space, 1032

Body, image of God, mediately or _significative_, 523
honorable, 488
suggestions as to reason why given, 488
immortality of, sought by Egyptians, 995
not indispensable to activity and consciousness, 1000
spiritual, what it imports, 1016, 1021‐1023
resurrection of, see Resurrection.
same, though changed annually, 1020
a “flowing organism,”, 1021
to regard it as a normal part of man’s being, Scriptural and
philosophical, 1021, 1022

“Bond servant of sin,” what?, 509, 510

Book may be called by name of chief author, 239

Book of Mormon, 141
of Enoch, 165
of Judges, 166, 171
of the Law, its finding, 167

Books of O. T. quoted by Jesus, 199
of N. T. received and used, in 2d century, 146

Brahma, 181

Brahmanism, 181

Bread, in Lord’s Supper, its significance, 963
of life, 963

Brethren, Plymouth, 895, 896

Bride catching, not primeval, 528

“Brimstone and fire,” sin and conscience, 1049

Brute, conscious but not self conscious, 252, 467
cannot objectify self, 252, 467
is determined from without, 252, 468
none ever thought ’I,’ 467
has not apperception, 467
has no concepts, 467
has no language, 467
forms no judgments, 467
does not associate ideas by similarity, 467
cannot reason, 467
has no general ideas, 468
has no conscience, 468
has no religious nature, 468
man came not _from_ the, but _through_ the, 467

Buddha, 181, 182, 183

Buddhism, its grain of truth, 181
a missionary religion, 181
its universalism, 181
its altruism, 181
its atheism, 182
its fatalism, 182

“Buncombe,” 17

Burial of food and weapons with the dead body, why practiced by some
races, 532

Burnt offering, its significance, 726

Byzantine and Italian artists differ in their pictures of Jesus Christ,
678

Cæsar, writes in the third person, 151
unifier of the Latin West, 566
his words on passing the Rubicon, 1032

“Caged eagle theory” of man’s life, 560

Caiaphas, inspired yet unholy, 207

Cain, 477

Calixtus, his analytic method in systematic theology, 45, 46

Call to ministry, 919

Calling, efficacious, 777, 782, 790, 791, 793, 794
general or external, 791
is general, sincere?, 791, 792

Calvinism, in history, 368

Calvinistic and Arminian views, their approximation, 362, 368

Cambridge Platform, 923

“Carnal mind,” its meaning, 562

Carthage, Council of (397), and Epistle to the Hebrews, 152
Synod of (412), and Pelagius, 597

Caste, what?, 181
and Buddhism, 181
and Christianity, 898

Casualism, 427, 428

Casuistry, non scriptural, 648

Catacombs, 191

Catechism, Roman, on _originalis justitiæ donum additum_, 522
Westminster Assembly’s, on Infant Baptism, 957

Causality, its law, 73
does not require a first cause, 74

Cause and effect, simultaneity of, 793

Cause, equivalent to ’requisite,’, 44
formal, 44
material, 44
efficient, 44
final, 44
can an infinite, be inferred from a finite universe? 79
when the efficient, gives place to the final? 125
various definitions of, 814, 815

Causes, Aristotle’s four, 44
an infinite series of, does not require a cause of itself, 74

Celsus, derides the same religion for many peoples, 192

Certainty not necessity, 362

Chalcedon (451) Symbol, on Mary as ’mother of God,’ 671, 686
condemned Eutychianism, 672
promulgated orthodox doctrine as to the Person of Christ, 673
its formula negative with a single exception, 673

Chance as a name for ignorance, term allowable, 428
as implying absence of causal connection in phenomena, not allowable,
428
as undesigning cause, insufficient, 428

Change, orderly, requires intelligent cause, 75

Character, helped by systematic truth, 16
changed rather than expressed by some actions, 360
what it is, 506, 600
how a man may change, 507
extent of one’s responsibility for, 605
sinning makes, 1041
sinful, renders certain continuance in sinful actions, 1041
dependent on habit, 1049

Chastisement, not punishment, 654, 766

Cherubim, 449, 593

Child, unborn, has promise and potency of spiritual manhood, 644
individuality of the, 492
visited for sins of fathers, 634

Chiliasts in all ages, 1007

Chinese, their religion a survival of patriarchial family worship, 180
their history, its commencement, 225
may have left primitive abodes while language still monosyllabic, 478

Choice, of an ultimate end, 504
of means, 504
decision in favor of one among several conflicting desires, 505, 506
not creation, our destiny, 508
New School idea of, 550
first moral, 611
evil, uniformity of, what it implies, 611
contrary, possessed by Adam, 519
not essential to will, 600
as at present possessed by man, 605
God’s, see Election.

Christ, his person and character must be historical, 186

Christ, no source for conception of, other than himself, 187
conception of, could not originate in human genius, 187
acceptance of the story of, a proof of his existence, 187
some of the difficulties in which the assumption that the story of, is
false, lands us, 188
if the story of, is true, Christianity is true, 188
his testimony to himself, its substance, 189
his testimony to himself, not that of an intentional deceiver, 189
his testimony to himself, not that of insanity or vanity, 189
if neither mentally nor morally unsound, his testimony concerning
himself is true, 190
in his sympathy and sorrow reveals God’s feeling, 266
the whole Christ present in each believer, 281
his supreme regard for God, 302
recognized as God in certain passages, 305‐308
some passages once relied on to prove his divinity now given up for
textual reasons, 308
Old Testament descriptions of God applied to him, 309
possesses attributes of God, 309
undelegated works of God are ascribed to him, 310
receives honor and worship due only to God, 311
his name associated on equality with that of God, 312
equality with God expressly claimed for him, 312
“_si non Deus, non bonus_,”, 313
proofs of his divinity in certain phrases applied to him, 313
his divinity corroborated by Christian experience, 313, 682
his divinity exhibited in hymns and prayers of church, 313
his divinity, passages which seem inconsistent with, how to be regarded,
314
as pre‐incarnate Logos, Angel of Jehovah, 319
in pre‐existent state, the Logos, 335
in pre‐existent state, the Image of God, 335
in pre‐existent state, the Effulgence of God, 335
the centrifugal action of Deity, 336
and Spirit, how their work differs, 338
his eternal Sonship, 340
if not God, cannot reveal him, 349
orders of creation to be united in, 444
his human soul, 493
his character convinces of sin, 539
he is the ideal and the way to it, 544
not law, “the perfect Image” of God, 548
his holiness, in what it consisted, 572
in Gethsemane felt for the race, 635
with him believers have a connection of spiritual life, 636
human nature in, may have guilt without depravity, 645
educator of the race, 666
the Person of, 669‐700
the doctrine of his Person stated, 669
a brief historical survey of the doctrine of his Person, 669
views of the Ebionites concerning, 669
reality of his body denied by Docetæ, 670
views of Arians concerning, 670
views of Apollinarians, 670, 671
views of Nestorians, 671, 672
views of Eutychians, 672
the two natures of, their integrity, 673
his humanity real, 673
is expressly called “a man,”, 673
his genealogies, 673
had the essential elements of human nature, 674
had the same powers and principles of normal humanity, 674
his elocution, 674
subject to the laws of human development, 675
in twelfth year seems to enter on consciousness of his divine Sonship,
675
suffered and died, 675
dies (Stroud) of a broken heart, 675
lived a life of faith and prayer, and study of Scripture, 675
the integrity of his humanity, 675‐681
supernaturally conceived, 675
free from hereditary depravity and actual sin, 676
his ideal human nature, 678
his human nature finds its personality in union with the divine, 679
his human nature germinal, 680
the “Everlasting Father,” 680
the Vine man, 680
Docetic doctrine concerning, confuted, 681
possessed a knowledge of his own deity, 681
exercised divine prerogatives, 682
in him divine knowledge and power, 682
union of two natures in his one person, 683‐700
possesses a perfect divine and human nature, 683, 684
proof of this union of natures in, 684
speaks of himself as a single person, 684
attributes of both his natures ascribed to one person, 684, 685
Scriptural representation of infinite value of atonement and union of
race with God prove him divine, 685
Lutheran view as to communion of natures in, 686
four _genera_ regarding the natures of Christ, 686
union of natures in, 686
theory of his incomplete humanity, 686
objections to this theory, 687, 688
theory of his gradual incarnation, 688, 689
objections to this view, 689‐691
real nature of union of persons in, 691‐700
importance of correct views of the person of, 691, 692
chief problems in the doctrine of the person of, 692
why the union of the natures in the person of Christ is inscrutable, 693
on what the possibility of the union of deity and humanity in his person
is grounded, 693, 694
no double personality in, 694‐696
union of natures in, its effect upon his humanity, 696, 697
union of natures in, its effect upon the divine, 697
this union of natures in the person of, necessary, 698
the union of natures in, eternal, 698, 699
the infinite and finite in, 699, 700
the two states of, 701‐710
the nature of his humiliation, 701‐706
not the union in him of Logos and human nature, 701
his humiliation did not consist in the surrender of the relative divine
attributes, 701
objections to above view, 701‐703
his humiliation consisted in the surrender of the independent exercise
of the Divine attributes, 703
his humiliation consisted in the assumption by the pre‐existent Logos of
the servant‐form, 703
his humiliation consisted in the submission of the Logos to the Holy
Spirit, 703
his humiliation consisted in the surrender as to his human nature of all
advantages accruing thereto from union with deity, 703, 704
the five stages of his humiliation, 704‐706
his state of exaltation, 706‐710
the nature of his exaltation, 706, 707
the stages of his exaltation, 707‐710
his quickening and resurrection, 707, 708
his ascension, 708‐710
his offices, 710‐776
his offices three, 710
his Prophetic work, 710‐713
prophet, its meaning as applied to him, 710
three methods of fulfilling the prophet’s office, 711
his preparatory work as Logos, 711
his ministry as incarnate, 711, 712
his ascended guidance and teaching of the church on earth, 712
his final revelation of the Father to the saints in glory, 712, 713
his Priestly office, 713‐775
in what respects he was a priest, 713
his atoning work, see Atonement.
as immanent in the universe, see Logos.
bearer of our humanity, life of our race, 715
his sufferings not atonement but revelation of atonement, 715
his death a moral stimulus to men, 716
did he ever utter the words “give his life a ransom for many”?, 717
did not preach, but established the gospel, 721
a noble martyr, 729
his death the central truth of Christianity, 733, 764
his death set forth by Baptism and Lord’s Supper, 733
the Great Penitent, 734, 737, 760
the Savior of all men, 739
refused “the wine mingled with myrrh,”, 742
never makes confession of sin, 746
a stumbling‐block to modern speculation, 746
had not hereditary depravity but guilt, 747, 762
was he slain by himself or another?, 747
does he suffer intensively the infinite punishment of sin?, 747
his obedience, active and passive, needed in salvation, 749, 770
died for all, 750
incorporate with humanity, became our substitute, 750
how “lifted up,”, 751
mediator between the just God and the merciful God, 754
in his organic union with the race is the vital relation which makes his
vicarious sufferings either possible or just, 754
as God immanent in humanity, is priest and victim, condemning and
condemned, atoning and atoned, 755
created humanity, and as immanent God sustains it, while it sins, thus
becoming responsible for its sin, 755, 769
as Logos smitten by guilt and punishment, 755
the “must be” of his sufferings, what?, 755
his race‐responsibility not destroyed by incarnation, or purification in
womb of Virgin, 756
his sufferings reveal the cross hidden in the divine love from
foundation of the world, 756, 763
in womb of Virgin purged from depravity, guilt and penalty remaining,
757, 759
the central brain of our race through which all ideas must pass, 757
his guilt, what?, 757
innocent in personal, but not race relations, 758
his secular and church priesthood, 758
did he suffer only for his own share in sin of the race?, 758
his incarnation an expression of a prior union with race beginning at
creation, 758
various explanations of his identification with race, 759
he longed to suffer, 759
he could not help suffering, 760
all nerves and sensibilities of race meet in him, 760
his place in 2 Cor. 5:21, 760, 761
when and how did he take guilt and penalty on himself, 761
import of his submission to John’s baptism, 762
was he unjustified till his death?, 762
his guilt first purged on Cross, 762
as incarnate, revealed, rather than made, atonement, 762
the personally unmerited sufferings of, the mystery of atonement, 768
may have felt remorse as central conscience of humanity, 769
his sufferings, though temporal, met infinite demands of law, 769
paid a penalty equivalent, though not identical, 769, 770
how Savior of all men, 772
specially Savior of those who believe, 773
his priesthood, everlasting, 773
as Priest he is intercessor, see Intercession.
his Kingly office, 775
his kingship defined, 775
his kingdom of power, 775
his kingdom of grace, 775, 776
the only instance of _Fortwirkung_ after death, 776
his kingdom of glory, 776
his kingdom, the antidote to despair concerning church, 776
his kingship, two practical remarks upon, 776
union with, see Union.
ascended, communicates life to church, 806
heathen may receive salvation from Christ without knowing giver or how
gift was purchased, 843
his sufferings secure acquittal from penalty of law, 858
his obedience secures reward of law, 858
union with, secures his life as dominant principle in soul, 860
his life in believer will infallibly extirpate all depravity, 860
“we in,” Justification, 862
“in us,” Sanctification, 862
his twofold work in the world, 869
a new object of attention to the believer, 873
union with, secures impartation of spirit of obedience, 875
his commands must not be modified by any church, 939
submitted to rites appointed for sinners, 943
God’s judicial activity exercised through, 1027
qualified by his two natures to act as judge, 1027
his body confined to space, 1032
his soul not limited to space, 1032

Christianity, its triumph over paganism, the wonder of history, 191‐193
its influence on civilization, 193, 194
its influence on individuals, 194, 195
submits to judgment by only test of a religion, not ideals, but
performances, 195
and pantheism, 282
circumstances favorable to its propagation, 666
Japanese objection to its doctrine of brotherhood, 898

Christological method in theology, 50

Christology, 665‐776

Chronology, schemes of, 224, 225

Church, its safety and aggressiveness dependent on sound doctrine, 18
its relation to truth, 33
polity and ordinances of, their purpose, 546
a prophetic institution, 712
doctrine of the, 887‐980
constitution of the, or its Polity, 887‐929
in its largest signification, 887
and kingdom, difference between, 887, 889
definition of, in Westminster Confession, 887
the universal, includes all believers, 888
universal, the body of Christ, 888
a transcendent element in, 888
union with Christ, the presupposition of, 888
the indwelling Christ, its elevating privilege, 888
the universal or invisible distinguished from the local or visible, 889
individual, defined, 890
the laws of Christ on which church gathered, 890
not a humanitarian organization, 890
the term employed in a loose sense, 891
significance of the term etymologically, 891
the secular use of its Greek form, 891
used as a generic or collective term, 891
the Greek term translated, its derivation, 891
applied by a figure of rhetoric to many churches, 891
the local, a divine appointment, 892
the Hebrew terms for, its larger and narrower use, 892
Christ took his idea of, from Hebrew not heathen sources, 892
exists for sake of the kingdom, 892
will be displaced by a Christian state, 893
the decline of, not to be deplored, 893
a voluntary society, 893
membership in, not hereditary or compulsory, 893
union with, logically follows union with Christ, 893
its doctrine, a necessary outgrowth of the doctrine of regeneration, 893
highest organism of human life, 894
is an organism such as the religion of spirit necessarily creates, 891
its organization may be informal, 894
its organization may be formal, 894
its organization in N. T. formal, 894
its developed organization indicated by change of names from Gospels to
Epistles, 895
not an exclusively spiritual organization, 895
doctrine of Plymouth Brethren concerning, 895, 896
organization of the, not definitely prescribed in N. T. and left to
expediency; an erroneous theory, 896
government of, five alleged forms in N. T., 897
regenerate persons only members of, 897
Christ law giver of, 897
members on equality, 898
one member of, has no jurisdiction over another, 898
independent of civil power, 899
local, its sole object, 899
local, united worship a duty of, 899
its law, the will of Christ, 900
membership in, qualifications prescribed for, 900
membership in, duties attached to, 900
its genesis, 900
in germ before Pentecost, 900
three periods in life of, 901
officers elected as occasion demanded, 901
Paul’s teaching concerning, progressive, 902
how far synagogue was model of, 902
a new, how constituted, 902
in formation of, a council not absolutely requisite, 902, 903
at Antioch, its independent career, 903
its government, 903‐926
its government, as to source of authority, an absolute monarchy, 903
its government, as to interpretation and execution of Christ’s law, an
absolute democracy, 903
should be united in action, 904
union of, in action should be, not passive submission, but intelligent
co‐operation, 904
peaceful unity in, result of Spirit’s work, 904
Baptist, law of majority rule in, 904
as a whole responsible for doctrinal and practical purity, 905
ordinances committed to custody of whole, 905
as a whole, elects its officers and delegates, 906
as a whole, exercises discipline, 907
the self government of, an educational influence, 908
pastor’s duty to, 908
the world church or Romanist theory of, considered, 908‐911
Peter as foundation of, what meant by the statement, 909‐911
See also Peter.
the hierarchical government of, corrupting and dishonoring to Christ,
911
the theory of a national, considered, 912‐914
Presbyterian system of the, authors upon, 912
independence of, when given up, 912
a spiritual, incapable of delimitation, 913
officers of the, 914‐924
offices in, two, 914‐916
a plurality of eldership in the primitive, occasional, 915, 916
the pastor, bishop or elder of the, his three fold duty, 916, 917
the deacon, his duties, 917, 918
did women in the early church discharge diaconal functions?, 918
ordination of officers in, 918‐924
See Ordination.
local, highest ecclesiastical authority in N. T., 920
discipline of, 924‐926
relation of, to sister churches, 926‐929
each, the equal of any other, 926
each, directly responsible to Christ, and with spiritual possibilities
equal to any other, 926
each, to maintain fraternity and co‐operation with other churches, 926
each, should seek and take advice from other churches, 927
the fellowship of a, with another church may be broken by departures
from Scriptural faith and practice, 928
independence of, qualified by interdependence, 928
what it ought to do if distressed by serious internal disagreements, 928
its independence requires largest co‐operation with other churches, 929
list of authorities on general subject of the, 929
ordinances of the, 930‐980
See Ordinances, Baptism, and Lord’s Supper.

_Circulatio_, 333

Circumcision, of Christ, its import, 761
its law and that of baptism not the same, 954, 955

_Circumincessio_, 333

Civilization, can its arts be lost?, 529

Coffin, called by Egyptians ’chest of the living,’, 995

_Cogito ergo Deus est_, 61

_Cogito ergo sum = cogito scilicet sum_, 55

_Cogito = cogitans sum_, 55

Cognition of finiteness, dependence, etc., the occasion of the direct
cognition of the Infinite, Absolute, etc., 52

Coming, second, of Christ, 1003‐1015
the doctrine of, stated, 1003
Scriptures describing, 1003, 1004
statements concerning, not all spiritual, 1004
outward and visible, 1004
the objects to be secured at, 1004
said to be “in like manner” to his ascension, 1004, 1005
analogous to his first, 1005
can all men at one time see Christ at the?, 1005
the time of, not definitely taught, 1005
predictions of, parallel those of his first, 1007
patient waiting for, disciplinary, 1007
precursors of, 1008‐1010
a general prevalence of Christianity, a precursor of, 1008
a deep and wide spread development of evil, a precursor of, 1008
a personal antichrist, a precursor of, 1008
four signs of, according to some, 1010
millennium, prior to, 1010, 1011
and millennium as pointed out in Rev. 20:4‐10, 1011
immediately connected with a general resurrection and judgment, 1011
of two kinds, 1014
a reconciliation of pre‐millenarian and post‐millenarian theories
suggested, 1014
is the preaching which is to precede, to nations as wholes, or to each
individual in a nation?, 1014
the destiny of those living at, 1015

Comings of Christ, partial and typical, 1003

Commenting, its progress, 35

Commission, Christ’s final, not confined to eleven, 906

Commercial theory of Atonement, 747

Common law of church, what?, 970

Communion, prerequisites to, 969‐980
limitation of, commanded by Christ and apostles, 969
limitation of, implied in its analogy to Baptism, 969
prerequisites to, laid down not by church, but by Christ and his
apostles expressly or implicitly, 970
prerequisites to, are four, 970
Regeneration, a prerequisite to, 971
Baptism, a prerequisite to, 971
the apostles were baptized before, 971
the command of Christ places baptism before, 971
in all cases recorded in N. T. baptism precedes, 971
the symbolism of the ordinances requires baptism to precede, 971, 972
standards of principal denominations place baptism before, 972
where baptism customarily does not precede, the results are
unsatisfactory, 972
church membership, a prerequisite to, 973
a church rite, 973
a symbol of Christian fellowship, 973
an orderly walk, a prerequisite to, 973
immoral conduct, a bar to, 973, 974
disobedience to the commands of Christ, a bar to, 974
heresy, a bar to, 974
schism, a bar to, 975
restricted, the present attitude of Baptist churches to, 976
local church under responsibility to see its, preserved from disorder,
975, 976
open, advocated because baptism cannot be a term of communion, not being
a term of salvation, 977
open, contrary to the practice of organised Christianity, 977
no more binding than baptism, 978
open, tends to do away with baptism, 978
open, destroys discipline, 978
open, tends to do away with the visible church, 979
strict, objections to, answered briefly, 979, 980
open, its justification briefly considered, 980
a list of authors upon, 980

Compact with Satan, 458

Complex act, part may designate whole, 946

Concept, not a mental image, 7
in theology, may be distinguished by definition from all others, 15

Concupiscence, what?, 522
Romish doctrine of, 604

Concurrence in all operations at basis of preservation, 411
divine efficiency in, does not destroy or absorb the efficiency
assisted, 418
God’s, in evil acts only as they are natural acts, 418, 419

Confession, Romanist view of, 834

Conflagration, final, 1012

Confucianism, 180, 181

Confucius, 180, 181

Connate ideas, 53, 54

Conscience, what?, 82, 83
proves existence of a holy Lawgiver and Judge, 82
its supremacy, 82
warns of existence of law, 82
speaks in imperative, 82
represents to itself some other as judge, 82
the will it expresses superior to ours, 83
witness against pantheism, 103
thirst of, assuaged by Christ’s sacrifice, 297
its nature, 498
not a faculty, but a mode, 498
intellectual element in, 498
emotional element in, 498
solely judicial, 498
discriminative, 498
impulsive, 498
other mental processes from which it is to be distinguished, 499
the moral judiciary of the soul, 500
must be enlightened and cultivated, 500
an echo of God’s voice, 501
in its relation to God as holy, 502
the organ by which the human spirit finds God in itself, and itself in
God, 503
rendered less sensitive, but cannot be annulled, by sin, 647
needs Christ’s propitiation, 736
absolute liberty of, a distinguishing tenet of Baptists, 898, 899

Consciousness, Christian, not _norma normans_, but _norma normata_, 28
defined, 63
not source of other knowledge, 63
self, primarily a distinguishing of itself from itself, 104
comes logically before consciousness of the world, 104
self consciousness, what?, 252

Consubstantiation, 968

Contrary choice, in Adam, 519
not essential to will, 600, 605
its present limits, 605

Contrition, Romish doctrine of, 834

Conversion, God’s act in the will in, 793
sudden, 827
defined, 829
relation to regeneration, 829
voluntary, 829
man’s relation to God in, 830
conversions other than the first, 831
relations of the divine and human in, 831

Cosmological argument, see God.

Covetousness, what?, 569

Cranial capacity of man and apes, 473

Creatianism, its advocates, 491
its tenets, 491
its untenability, 491‐493

Creation, attributed to Christ, 310
attributed to Spirit, 316
doctrine of, 371‐410
definition of, 371, 372
by man of ideas and volitions and indirectly of brain modifications, 371
is change of energy into force, 371
Lotzean, author’s view of, 372
is not “production out of nothing,”, 372
is not “fashioning,”, 372, 373
not an emanation from divine substance, 372
the divine in, the origination of substance, 373
free act of a rational will, 373
externalization of God’s thought, 373
creation and “generation” and “procession,”, 373
is God’s voluntary limitation of himself, 373
how an act of the triune God, 373
not necessary to a trinitarian God, 373
the doctrine of, proved only from Scripture, 374
direct Scripture statements concerning, discussed, 374‐377
idea of, originates, when we think of things as originating in God
immediately, 375
Paul’s idea of, 376
absolute, heathen had glimpses of, 376
best expressed in Hebrew, 376
found among early Babylonians, 376
found in pre‐Zoroastrian, Vedic, and early Egyptian religions, 376
in heathen systems, 377
literature on, 377
“out of nothing,” its origin, 377
indirect evidence of, from Scripture, 377, 378
theories which oppose, 378‐391
Dualism opposes, see Dualism.
Emanation opposes, see Emanation.

Creation from eternity, theory stated, 386
not necessitated by God’s omnipotence, 387
contradictory in terms and irrational, 387
another form of the see‐saw philosophy, 387
not necessitated by God’s timelessness, 387
inconceivable, 387
not consistent with the conception of universe as an organism, 388
not necessitated by God’s immutability, 388
not necessitated by God’s love, 388, 389
inconsistent with God’s independence and personality, 389
outgrowth of Unitarian tendencies, 389

Creation, opposed by theory of spontaneous generation, see Generation,
Spontaneous.
Mosaic account of, 391‐397
asserts originating act of God in, 391
makes God antedate and create matter, 391
recognizes development, 392
lays the foundation for cosmogony, 392
can be interpreted in harmony with mediate creation or evolution, 392
not an allegory or myth, 394
Mosaic account of, not the blending of inconsistent stories,‐394
not to be interpreted in a hyperliteral way, 394
does not use “day” for a period of twenty‐four hours, 394
is not a precise geological record, 395
its scheme in detail, 395‐397
literature upon, 396, 397

Creation, God’s end in, 397‐402
God’s end in, his own glory, 398
God’s chief end in, the manifestation of his glory, 398
his glory most valuable end in, 399
his glory only end in, consistent with his independence and sovereignty,
399
his glory the end in, which secures every interest of the universe, 400
his glory the end in, because it is the end proposed to his creatures,
401
its final value, its value for God, 402
the doctrine of, its relation to other doctrines, 402‐410
its relation to the holiness and benevolence of God, 402
first, in what senses “very good,”, 402
pain and imperfection in, before moral evil, reasons for, 402
sets forth wisdom and free‐will of God, 404
Christ in, the Revealer of God, and the remedy of pessimism, 405
presents God in Providence and Redemption, 407
gives value to the Sabbath, 408

Creation of man, exclusively a fact of Scripture, 465
Scripture declares it an act of God, 465
Scripture silent on method of, 465
Scripture does not exclude mediate creation of body, if this method
probable from other sources, 465, 491
and theistic evolution, 466
his soul, its creation, though mediate, yet immediate, 466, 491
not from brute, but _from_ God, _through_ brute, 467, 469, 472
the last stage in the development of life, 469
unintelligible unless the immanent God is regarded as giving new
impulses to the process, 470
as to soul and body, in a sense immediate, 470
natural selection, its relations to, 470
by laws of development, which are methods of the Creator, 472
when finished presents, not a brute, but a man, 472
constitutes him the offspring of God, and God his Father, 474
as taking place through Christ, made its product a son of God by
relationship to the Eternal Son, 474
theory of its occurrence at several centres, 481
and his new creation compared, 694
in it body made corruptible, soul incorruptible, 991

Creation, continuous, its doctrine, 415
its advocates, 416
the element of truth in, 416
its error, 416
contradicts consciousness, 416
exaggerates God’s power at expense of other attributes, 417
renders personal identity inexplicable, 417
tends to pantheism, 417

_Creatura_, 392

_Credo quia impossibile est_, 34

Creeds, 18, 42

Crime best prevented by conviction of its _desert_ of punishment, 655

_Crimen læsæ majestatis_, 748

Criminal theory, 748

Criticism, higher, 169‐172
what it means, 169
influenced by spirit in which conducted, 169, 170
its teachings on Pentateuch and Hexateuch, 170
reveals God’s method in making up record of his revelation, 172
literature upon, 172

Cumulative argument, 71

_Cur Deus Homo_, synopsis of, 748

“Curse” in Gal. 3:13, 760

“Custom, immemorial,” binding, 970

“Damn,” its present connotation acquired from impression made on popular
mind by Scriptures, 1046

“Damnation” in 1 Cor. 11:22, its meaning, 960

Darwinism, its teaching, 470
its truth, 470
is not a complete explanation of the history of life, 470
fails to account for origin of substance and of variations, 470
does not take account of sudden appearance in the geological record of
important forms of life, 470
leaves gap between highest anthropoid and lowest specimen of man
unspanned, 471
fails to explain many important facts in heredity, 471
must admit that natural selection has not yet produced a species, as far
as we know, 472
as its author understood it, was not opposed to the Christian faith, 473

Day in Gen. 1, 35
its meaning, 223, 224, 394, 395

Deacons, their duties, 917, 918
ordination of, 919

Deaconesses, 918

Dead, Christ’s preaching to, 707, 708

Dead, Egyptian Book of the, 995
extracts from, 995
resurrection in, 1022
judgment in, 1024

“Deadly sins, the seven,” of Romanism, 571, 572

Death, spiritual, a consequence of the Fall, 591
spiritual, in what it consists, 591, 659, 660, 982
physical, its nature, 656, 982
physical, a part of the penalty of sin proved from Scripture, 656, 657
and sin complemental, 657
a natural law, on occasion of man’s sin, appointed to a moral use, 657
the liberator of souls, 658
the penalty of sin, proved from reason, 658
its universality how alone explained consistently with idea of God’s
justice, 658
not a necessary law of organized being, 658
higher being might have been attained without its intervention, 658
to Christian not penalty, but chastisement and privilege, 659, 983, 984
eternal, what?, 660
second, 648, 982, 983, 1013
not cessation of being, 984
as dissolution, cannot affect indivisible soul, 984
as a cessation of consciousness preparatory to other development,
considered, 986
cannot terminate the development for which man was made, 986
cannot so extinguish being that no future vindication of God’s moral
government is possible, 987
cannot, by annihilation, falsify the testimony of man’s nature to
immortality, 989
man’s body only made liable to, 991
as applied to soul, designates an unholy and unhappy state of being, 992
consciousness after, indicated in many Scriptures, 993, 994
a “sleep,”, 994
of two kinds, 1013
its passionless and statuesque tranquility prophetic, 1016

Decree to act not the act, 354, 359

Decree, the divine, permissive in case of evil, 354, 365

Decree, not a cause, 360
of end and means combined, 353, 363, 364
does not efficiently work evil choices in men, 365
to permit sin, and the fact of the permission of sin equally equitable,
365
to initiate a system in which sin has a place, how consistent with God’s
holiness?, 367

Decrees of God, the, 353‐370
their definition, 353‐355
many to us, yet in nature one plan, 353
relations between, not chronological but logical, 353
without necessity, 353
relate to things outside of God, 53
respect acts, both of God and free creatures, 354
not addressed to creatures, 354
all human acts covered by, 354
none of them read “you shall sin,”, 354
sinful acts of men, how related to, 354
how divided, 355
declared by Scripture to include all things, 355
declared by Scripture to deal with special things and events, 355
proved from divine foreknowledge, 356
respect foreseen results, 356
proved from divine wisdom, 358
proved from divine immutability, 358, 359
proved from the divine benevolence, 359
a ground of thanksgiving, 359
not inconsistent with man’s free agency, 359
do not remove motive for exertion, 363
and fate, 363
encourage effort, 364
they do not make God the author of sin, 365
practical uses of the doctrine of, 368
the doctrine of, dear to matured understanding and deep experience, 368
how the doctrine should be preached, 369

Deism, defined, 414
some of its advocates, 414
an exaggeration of God’s transcendence, 414
rests upon a false analogy, 415
a system of anthropomorphism, 415
denies providential interference, 415
tends to atheism, 415
“Delivering to Satan,” 457

Delphic oracle, 136

Demons, see Angels, evil.

Depravity, explained by a personal act in the previous timeless state of
being, 488
of nature, repented of by Christians, 555
Arminian theory of, 601, 602
New School theory of, 606, 607
Federal theory of, 612, 613
Augustinian theory of, 619, 620
defined, 637
total, its meaning, 637‐639
is subjective pollution, 645, 646
Christ had no, 645, 756‐758
of human will, requires special divine influence, 784
of all humanity, 813

_Determinatio est negatio_, 9

Determinism, 362, 507‐510

_Deus nescit se quid est quia non est quid_, 244

Deuteronomy, 167‐169, 171, 239

Devil, 454, 455

_Dextra Dei ubique est_, 708

_Diabolus nullus, nullus Redemptor_, 462

Diatoms, and natural selection, 471

Dichotomous and Dichotomy, see Man.

_Dies Iræ_, the, 645, 1056

Dignity, the plural of, 318

Disciples or Campbellites, 821, 840, 947

Discrepancies, alleged, in Scripture, 107, 108, 173, 174

Divorce, permitted by Moses, 230

Docetæ, 670

_Doctor angelicus_, 44

_Doctor subtilis_, 45

Doctrine, 17, 33, 34

Documentary evidence, 141, 142

Doddridge’s dream, 453

Dogmatic system implied in Scripture, 15

Dogmatism, 42

_Domine, quousque?_ Calvin’s motto, 1008

_Donum supernaturale_, 522

Dort, Synod of, 614, 777

Douay version, Mat. 26:28 in, 965

Dualism, two forms of, 378
a form of, holds two distinct and co‐eternal principles, 378
a history of this form of, 378‐380
this form of, presses the maxim _ex nihilo nihil fit_ too far, 380
this form of, applies the test of inconceivability too rigidly, 380
this form of, unphilosophical, 381
this form of, limits God’s power and blessedness, 381
this form of, fails to account for moral evil, 381
another form of, holds the existence of two antagonistic spirits, 381,
382
this form of, at variance with the Scriptural representation of God, 382
this form of, opposed to the Scriptural representation of the Prince of
Evil, 382

_Ducit quemque voluptas_, 299

Duties, our, not all disclosed in revelation, 545

Ebionism, 669

Ebionites, 669, 670

Ecclesiastes, 240

Ecclesiology, 887‐980

Eden, adapted to infantile and innocent manhood, 583

Education, by impersonal law, and by personal dependence, 434

Efficacious call, its nature, 792, 793

“Effulgence,”, 335

Ego, cognition of it logically precedes that of non ego, 104

Egyptian language, old, its linguistic value, 497
idea of blessedness of future life dependent on preservation of body,
995
idea of permanent union of soul and body, 1022
way of representing God, 376, 377
knowledge of future state, 995

_Einzige, der_, every man is, 353

Eldership, plural, 915, 916

Election, its relation to God’s decrees, 355
logically subsequent to redemption, 777
not to share in atonement but to special influence of Spirit, 779
doctrine of, 779‐790
definition, 779
proof from Scripture, 779‐782
statement preliminary to proof, 779
asserted of certain individuals, 780
asserted in connection with divine foreknowledge, 780, 781
asserted to be a matter of grace, 781
connected with a giving by Father to Son of certain persons, 781
connected with union with Christ, 781
connected with entry in the Lamb’s Book of Life, 781
connected with allotment as disciples to certain believers, 782
connected with a special call of God, 782
connected with a birth by God’s will, 782
connected with gift of repentance and faith, 782
connected with holiness and good works as a gift, 782
Lutheran view of, 782, 783
Arminian view of, 783
a group of views concerning, 783
proved from reason, 783‐785
is the purpose or choice which precedes gift of regenerating grace, 783
is not conditioned on merit or faith in chosen, 784
needed by depravity of human will, 784
other considerations which make it more acceptable to reason, 785
objections to, 785‐790
is unjust, 785
is partial, 786
the ethical side of natural selection, 786
is arbitrary, 787
is immoral, 787, 788
fosters pride, 788
discourages effort, 788, 789
implies reprobation, 789, 790
list of authors on, 790

Elijah, his translation, 995
John the Baptist as, 1013

Elizabeth, Queen, immersed, 937

Elohim, 318, 319

Emanation theory of origin of universe, 378‐383

Empirical theory of morals, truth in, 501
reconciled with intuitional theory, 501

Encratites, deny to woman “the image of God,”, 524

Endor, woman of, 966

“Enemies,” Rom. 5:10, 719

Energy, mental, life, 252
resisted, force, 252
universe derived from, 252
its change into force is creation, 252
dissipation of, 374, 415

Enghis and Neanderthal crania, 471

Enmity to God, 569, 817, 818

Enoch, translation of, 658, 994

Environment, 426, 1034, 1049

Eophyte and Eozoon, 395

Epicureanism, 91, 184, 299

Error, systems of, suggest organizing superhuman intelligences, 457

Errors in Scripture, alleged, 222‐236

Eschatology, 981‐1056

_Esprit gelé_ (matter) Schelling’s bon mot, 386

Essenes, 787

Esther, book of, 237, 309

“Eternal sin, an,”, 1034, 1048

Eternity, 276

Ethics, how conditioned, 3
Christian and Christian faith inseparable, 636

Eucharist, see Supper, the Lord’s.

Eutaxiology, 75

Eutychians (Monophysites), 672

Eve, 525, 526, 676

Evidence, principles of, 141‐144

Evil, 354, 1053

Evolution, behind that of our own reason stands the Supreme Reason, 25
and revelation constitute nature, 26
an, of Scripture as of natural science, 35
of ideas, not from sense to nonsense, 64
has given man the height fromwhich he can discern stars of moral truth
previously hidden below the horizon, 65
a process, not a power, 76
only a method of God, 76
spells purpose, 76
awake to ends within the universe, but not to the great end of the
universe itself, 76
answers objections by showing the development of useful collocations
from initial imperfections, 78
has reinforced the evidences of intelligence in the universe, 79
transfers cause to an immanent rational principle, 79
a materialized, logical process, 84
of universe inexplicable unless matter is moved from without, 92
extension and, being, having thought and will, reveals itself in, 101
only another name for Christ, 109
views nature as a progressive order consisting of higher levels and
phenomena unknown before, 121
its principle, the Logos or Divine Reason, 123
its continuity that of plan not of force, 128
depends on increments of force with persistency of plan, 123
irreconcilable with Deism and its distant God, 123
the basis and background of a Christianity which believes in a dynamical
universe of which a personal and loving God is the inner
source of energy, 123
implies not the _uniformity_, but _universality_ of law, 126
has successive stages, with new laws coming in, and becoming dominant,
125
of Hegel, a fact but fatalistic, 176
of human society not primarily intellectual, but religious, 194
is developing _reverence_ with its allied qualities, 194
if not recognized in Scripture leads to a denial of its unity, 217
of “Truth—evolvable from the whole, evolved at last painfully,”, 218
has given us a new Bible—a book which has grown, 224, 230, 231
in a progress in prophecy, doctrine and church‐polity seen in Paul’s
epistles, 236
not a tale of battle, but a love‐story, 264
the object of nature, and altruism the object of evolution, 264
explains the world as the return of the highest to itself, 266
in the idea of holiness and love exhibited in the palæontological
struggle for life and for the life of others, 268, 393
is God’s omnipresence in time, 282
of his own being, God not shut up to a necessary, 287
working out a nobler and nobler justice is proof that God is just, 292
a method of Christ’s operation, 311
in its next scientific form will maintain the divineness of man and
exalt Jesus of Nazareth to an eminence secure and supreme,
328
“Father,” more than symbol of the cause of organic, 334
and gravitation, all the laws of, are the work and manifestation of the
present Christ, 337
the conception of God in, leads to a Trinitarian conception, 349
theological, are the heathen trinities stages in?, 352
is a regress terminating in the necessity of a creator, 374
a self, of God, so Stoic monism regarded the world, 389
implies previous involution, 390
assumes initial arrangements containing the possibilities of the order
afterwards evolved, 390
unable to create something out of nothing, 390
the attempt to comprehend the world of experience in terms of
fundamental idealistic postulates, 390
that ignores freedom of God is pantheistic, 390
from the nebula to man, unfolds a Divine Self, 390
but a habitual operation of God, 390
not an eternal or self‐originated process, 391
natural selection without teleological factors cannot account for
biological, 391
and creation, no antagonism between, 391
its limits, 392
Spencer’s definition of, stated and criticized, 392
illustrated in progress from Orohippus to horse of the present, 392
of inorganic forces and materials, an, in this the source of animate
species, yet the Mosaic account of creation not discredited,
392
in all forms of energy, higher and lower, dependent directly on will of
God, 393
the struggle for life to palæontological stages of, the beginning of the
sense of right and justice, 268, 393
the struggle for the life of others in palæontological stages of, the
beginning of altruism, 268, 393
the science of, has strengthened teleology, 397
its flow constitutes the self‐revelation of the Infinite One, 413
process of, easier believed in as a divine self‐evolution than as a
mechanical process, 459
of man, physical and psychical, no exception to process of, yet faith in
God intact, 465
cannot be explained without taking into account the originating agency
of God, 465
does not make the idea of Creator superfluous, 466
theist must accept, if he keep his argument for existence of God from
unity of design, 466
of music depends on power of transmitting intellectual achievements, 466
unintelligible except as immanent God gives new impulses to the process,
470
according to Mivart, it can account neither for body or soul of man, 472
still incomplete, man is still on all fours, 472
an atheistic, a reversion to the savage view, 473
theistic, regards human nature as efflux and reflection of the Divine
Personality, 473
atheistic, satirized, 473
a superior intelligence has guided, 473
phylogenetic, in the creation of Eve, 525
normal, man’s will may induce a counter‐evolution to, 591
the goal of man’s, is Christ, 680
the derivation of spiritual gifts from the Second Adam consonant with,
681
of humanity, the whole, depicted in the Cross and Passion, 716
the process by which sons of God are generated, 967

Example, Christ did not simply set, 732

Exegesis based on trustworthiness of verbal vehicle of inspiration, 216

Exercise‐system of Hopkins and Emmons, 45, 416, 417, 584, 607, 822

Existence of God, see God.

_Ex nihilo nihil fit_, 380

Experience, 28, 63‐65

Expiation, representative, recognized among Greeks, 723

Ezra, his relation to O. T., 167

Fact local, truth universal, 240

Facts not to be neglected, because relations are obscure, 36

Faculties, mental, man’s three, 487

Faith, a higher sort of knowledge, 3
physical science rests on, 3
never opposed to reason, 3
conditioned by holy affection, 3
act of integral soul, 4
can alone furnish material for a scientific theology, 4
not blind, 5
its _fiducia_ includes _notitia_, 5
its place in the Arminian system, 605, 864
in a truth, possible in spite of difficulties to us insoluble, 629
does not save, but atonement which it accepts, 771
saving, is the gift of God, 782
an effect, not cause, of election, 784
involves repentance, 836
defined, 836
analyzed, 837
an intellectual element (_notitia_, _credere Deum_) in, 837
must lay hold of a present Christ, 837
an emotional element (_assensus_, _credere Deo_) in, 837
a voluntary element (_fiducia_, _credere in Deum_) in, 838
self‐surrender to good physician, 838
the reflection of the Divine knowing and willing in man’s finite spirit,
838
its most important element, will, 838
is a bond between persons, 839
appropriates Christ as source of pardon and life, 839
its three elements illustrated, 839
phrases descriptive of, 839
no element in, must be exaggerated at expense of the others, 839
views refuted by a proper conception of, 840
an act of the affections and will, 840
not a purely intellectual state, 841
is a moral act, and involves responsibility, 841
saving, its general and particular objects, 842
is believing in God as far as he has revealed himself, 842,
is it ever produced “without a preacher”? 843, 844
its ground of faith, the external word, 844
its ground of assurance, the Spirit’s inward witness, 844
it is possible without assurance?, 845
necessarily leads to goods works, 846
is not to be confounded with love or obedience, 847
a work and yet excluded from the category of works, 847
instrumental cause of salvation, 847
the intermediate factor between undeveloped tendency toward God and
developed affection for God, 847
must not be confounded with its fruits, 848
the actinic ray, 848
is susceptible of increase, 848
authors on the general subject of, 849
why justified by faith rather than other graces?, 864
not with the work of Christ a joint cause of justification, 864
its relation to justification, 865
the mediate cause of sanctification, 872
secures righteousness (justification plus sanctification), 873

Faithfulness, Divine, 288, 289

Fall, Scriptural account of temptation and, 582‐585
if account of, mythical, yet inspired and profitable, 582
reasons for regarding account of, as historical, 582, 583
the stages of temptation that preceded, 584, 585
how possible to a holy being?, 585, 586
incorrect explanations of, 585
God not its author, 586
was man’s free act of revolt from God, 587
cannot be explained on grounds of reason, 587
was wilful resistance to the inworking God, 587
was choice of supreme love to the world and self rather than supreme
devotion to God, 587
cannot be explained psychologically, 587
is an ultimate fact, 587
an immanent preference which was first a choice and then an affection,
588
God’s permission of the temptation preceding, benevolent, 588
not Satanic, because not self‐originated, 588
its temptation objectified in an embodied seducer, an advantage, 588
presented no temptation having tendency in itself to lead astray, 588,
589
the slightness of the command in, the best test of obedience, 589
the command in, was not arbitrary, 589
the greatness of the sanction incurred in, had been announced and should
have deterred, 590
the revelation of a will alienated from God, 590
physical death a consequence of, 590
brought death at once, 590
mortal effects of the, counteracted by grace, 590
death said by some not to be a consequence of the, 591
spiritual death, a consequence of, 591
arrested the original tendency of man’s whole nature to God, 591
depraved man’s moral and religious nature, 591
left him with his will fundamentally inclined to evil, 592
darkened the intuition of reason, 592
rendered conscience perverse in its judgments, 592
terminated man’s unrestrained intercourse with God, 592, 593
imposed banishment from the garden, 593
constituted Adam’s posterity sinful, see Imputation.
of human nature could only occur in Adam, 629
repented of, because apostasy of our common nature, 629
all responsible for the one sin of the, as race‐sin, 630
has depraved human nature, 637
has rendered human nature totally unable to do that which is good in
God’s sight, 640
has brought the race under obligation to render satisfaction for self‐
determined violation of law, 644

Fallen condition of man, Romanist and Protestant views of, 521, 522

Falsehood, what?, 569

Fatalism, 427

Fate and the decrees of God, 363

Father, God as, see Trinity.

“Father,” how applied to whole Trinity, 333
’our,’ import, 334

Federal theology, 45, 46, 50, 612‐616

Feeling, 17, 20, 21

Fellowship, Christian, not church, 979

Fetichism, 56, 532

Fiction, the truest, has no heroes, 575

Final cause, 44, 52, 60, 62, 75‐77

Final Things, doctrine of, 981‐1056

Finality, 75, 76, 78, 79

Fishes, the earliest, ganoids large and advanced in type, 470

Flesh, 562, 588, 673

“Fold,” none under New Dispensation, 807

_Fons Trinitatis_, 341

Force, no mental image of, 7
not the atom, the real ultimate, 91
a property of matter, 91, 96
behind all its forms, co‐ordinating mind, 95
atom a centre of, 96
matter a manifestation of, 96, 109
expressed in vibrations foundation of all we know of extended world, 96
the only, we know is that of our own wills, 96
real, lies in the Divine Being, as living, active will, 97
matter and mind as respectively external and internal centres of, 98
as a function of will, 99, 109, 415, 416
all except that of men’s free will, is the will of God, 99
the product of will, 109
in universe works in rational ways and must be product of spirit, 109
Christ, the principle of every manifestation of, 109
is God with his moral attributes omitted, 259
is energy under resistance, 371
is energy manifesting itself under self‐conditioning or differential
forms, 371
identified with the Divine Will, theories in which, 412
and will are one in God, 412
every natural, a generic volition of God, 413
a portion of God’s, disjoined from him in the free‐will of intelligent
beings, 414
_super cuncta, subter cuncta_, 414
not always Divine will, 416
in its various differentations adjusted by God, 436

Foreknowledge of God of all future acts directly, 284
acts of free will excepted by some, 284, 285
denial of the absolute, productive of dread, 285
regarded by some as insoluble, 285
perhaps explicable by the possibility of an all‐embracing present, 285
constant teaching of Scripture favors, 285
mediate, what?, 285
immediate, what?, 285
if intuitive, difficulty removed, 285, 357, 362
rests on fore‐ordination, 356
preceded logically by decree, 356, 357
of undecreed actuals (_scientia media_), not possible, 357
two kinds of, 358
the middle knowledge of Molina, 358
of individuals, 781
distinguished from fore‐ordination, 781

Forgiveness, not in nature but in grace, 548
cannot be granted unconditionally by public bodies, 766
more than the taking away of penalty, 767
optional with God since he makes satisfaction, 767
human accorded without atonement, why not divine?, 835
defined in personal, ethical and legal terms, 854, 855
God’s act as Father, 855
none in nature, 855
does not ensure immediate removal of natural consequences of sin, 855
the peculiar characteristic of Christian experience, 856

Fore‐ordination, its nature, 355, 381
the basis of foreknowledge, 356
distinguished from foreknowledge, 781

Forms of thought are facts of nature, 10

Fourth gospel, its genuineness, 151

Free agency defined, 360
can predict its action, 360

Freedom, man’s, consistent with the divine decrees, 359‐362
four senses of word, 361
of indifference, 362
of choice, which is not incompatible with the complete bondage of will,
509, 510
remnants of, left to man, 510, 640

_Freundlos war der grosse Weltenmeister_, 386

_Fürsehung_ and _Vorsehung_ combined in “Providence,” 419

Future life, the evidence of Jewish belief in a, 994
Egyptian ideas about, 995
Moses instructed in Egyptian “learning” concerning, 995
proof‐texts for, 996
doctrine of Pharisees supports, 996
Christ’s argument for, 996
argument for, presupposes the existence of a truthful, wise and good
creator, 996
the most conclusive proof of, Christ’s resurrection, 997
Christ taught the doctrine of, 997
a revelation of, needed, 997

Futurist method of interpreting Revelation, 1009

Galton’s view of piety, 83

Ganoids, the first geologic fishes, 470

_Gemachte, das_, sin is, 566

Genealogies of Scripture, 229

Generation, as applied to the Son, 340‐343
spontaneous, 389

Genuineness of the Christian documents, 143‐154
of the books of O. T., 165‐172

_Genus apotelesmaticum_, 686
_idiomaticum_, 686
_majestaticum_, 686

_Genus tapeinoticon_, 686

_Gesetz_, 533

Gethsemane, 677, 731

_Gewordene, das_, is not sin, 566

Glory, final state of righteous, 1029
his own, why God’s end in creation?, 397‐402

Gnostic Ebionism, 669, 670

Gnostics, 20, 378, 383, 487

God, the subject of theology, though aprehended by faith, yet a subject of
science, 3
human mind can recognize God, 4
though not phenomenal, can be known, 5
because of analogies between his nature and ours, can be known, 7
though no adequate image of, can be formed, yet may be known, 7
since all predicates of God are not negative, he may be known, 9
so limited and defined, that he may be known, 10
his laws of thought ours, and so he may be known, 10
can reveal himself by external revelation, 12
revealed in nature, history, conscience, Scripture, 14
Christ the only revealer of, 14
the existence of, 52‐110
definitions of the term, 52
his existence a first truth, or rational intuition, 52
his existence conditions observation and reasoning, 52
his existence rises into consciousness on reflection on phenomena of
nature and mind, 52
knowledge of his existence, universal, 56‐58
knowledge of his existence, necessary, 58, 59
knowledge of his existence, logically independent of and prior to, all
other knowledge, 59‐62
other suggested sources of our idea of, 62‐67
idea of, not from external revelation, 62, 63
idea of, not from tradition, 63
idea of, not from experience, 63‐65
idea of, not from sense perception and reflection, 63, 64
idea of, not from race‐experience, 64, 65
idea of, not from actual contact of our sensitive nature with God, 65
rational intuition of, sometimes becomes presentative, 65
idea of, does not arise from reasoning, 65, 66
faith in, not proportioned to strength of reasoning faculty, 65
we know more of, than reasoning can furnish, 65, 66
idea of, not derived from inference, 66, 67
belief in, not a mere working hypothesis, 67
intuition of, its contents, 67‐70
what he is, men to some extent know intuitively, 67
a presentative intuition of, possible, 67
a presentative intuition of, perhaps normal experience, 67
loss of love has weakened rational intuition of, 67
the passage of the intuition of, into personal and presentative
knowledge, 68
his existence not proved but assumed and declared in Scripture, 68
evidence of his existence inlaid in man’s nature, 68
knowledge of, though intuitive may be explicated and confirmed by
argument, 71
the intuition of, supported by arguments probable and cumulative, 71
the intuition of, explicated by reflection and reasoning, 72
arguments for existence of, classified, 72
Cosmological Argument for his existence, 73‐75
its proper statement, 73
its defects, 73, 74
its value, 74, 75
Teleological Argument for his existence, 75‐80
its nature, 75‐78
its defects, 78‐80
its value, 80
Anthropological Argument for his existence, 80‐85
its nature, 80‐83
its defects, 84
its value, 84, 85
Historical Argument for his existence, 85
Biblical Argument for his existence, 85
Ontological Argument for his existence, 85‐89
its three forms, 85, 86
its defects, 87
its value, 87‐89
evidence of his existence from the intellectual starting‐point, 88
evidence of his existence from the religious starting‐point, 88
the nature, decrees and works of, 243‐370
the attributes of, 243‐306
his acts and words arise from settled dispositions, 243
his dispositions inhere in a spiritual substance, 243
his attributes, definition of, 244
relation of his attributes to his essence, 244‐246
his attributes have an objective existence, 244
his attributes are distinguishable from his essence and from each other,
244
regarded falsely as being of absolute simplicity, 244
he is a being infinitely complex, 245
nominalistic notion, its error, 245
his attributes inhere in his essence, 245, 246
is not a compound of attributes, 245
extreme realism, its danger, 245
attributes of, belong to his essence, 245
his attributes distinguished from personal distinctions in his Godhead,
246
his attributes distinguished from his relations to the world, 246
illustrated by intellect and will in man, 246
his attributes essential to his being, 246
his attributes manifest his essence, 246
in knowing his attributes, we know the being to whom attributes belong,
246
his attributes, methods of determining, 246, 247
rational method of determining, 247
three _viæ_ of rational method of determining his attributes, 247
Biblical method, 247
his attributes, how classified, 247‐249
absolute or immanent, 247
his relative or transitive attributes, 247
his attributes, a threefold division of the relative or transitive, 248
his attributes, schedule of, 248
order in which they present themselves to the mind, 248
his moral perfection involves relation of himself to himself, 249
his absolute or immanent attributes, 249‐275
his spirituality, 249‐254
is not matter, 249
is not dependent upon matter, 249
the material universe, not his sensorium, 250
his spirituality not denied by anthropomorphic Scriptures, 250
pictures of him, degrading, 250
desire for an incarnate God, satisfied in Christ, 251
his spirituality involves life and personality, 251, 252
life as an attribute of, 251
life in, has a subject, 251
life in, not correspondence with environment, 251
life in, is mental energy, the source of universal being and activity,
252
personality, an attribute of, 252
his personality, its content, 252
his infinity, its meaning, 254
his infinity, a positive idea, 254
does not involve identity with ’The All,’, 255
intensive rather than extensive, 255
his infinity enables him to love infinitely the single Christian, 256
his infinity qualifies his other attributes, 256
what his infinity involves, 256‐260
his self‐existence, what?, 256
he is _causa sui_, 256
his aseity, what?, 256
exists by necessity of his own being, 257
his immutability, what?, 257
said to change, how explained, 257
his immutability secures his adaptation to the changing conditions of
his children, 258
his immutability consistent with the execution in time of his eternal
purposes, 258
permits activity and freedom, 258
his unity, what?, 259
notion of more than one, self‐contradictory and unphilosophical, 259
his unity not inconsistent with Trinity, 259
his unity, its lessons, 259
his perfection, explanation of the term, 260
involves moral attributes, 260‐275
himself, a sufficient object for his own activity, 260
his truth, what?, 260
his immanent truth to be distinguished from veracity and faithfulness,
260
he is truth, as the truth that is known, 261
his truth, a guarantee of revelation, and ground of eternal divine self‐
contemplation, 262
his love, what?, 263
his immanent love to be distinguished from mercy and goodness, 263
his immanent love finds a personal object in his own perfection, 263
his immanent love, not his all‐inclusive ethical attribute, 263
his immanent love, not a regard for mere being in general, 263
his immanent love, not a mere emotional or utilitarian affection, 264
his immanent love, rational and voluntary, 264
his immanent love subordinates its emotional element to truth and
holiness, 265
his immanent love has its standard in his holiness, and a perfect object
in the image of his own infinite perfections, 265
his immanent love, a ground of his blessedness, 265
his immanent love involves the possibility of his suffering on account
of sin, which suffering is atonement, 266
is passible, 266
blessedness consistent with sorrow, 266
a suffering being, a N. T. thought, 267
his passibility, authors on, 267
his holiness, self‐affirming purity, 268
his holiness, not its expression, justice, 269
his holiness is not an aggregate of perfections, but simple and
distinct, 269
his holiness is not utilitarian self‐love, 270
his holiness is neither love nor its manifestation, 271
his holiness is purity of substance, 273
his holiness is energy of will, 273
his holiness is God’s self‐willing, 274
his holiness is purity willing itself, 274
his holiness, authors on, 275
his relative or transitive attributes, 275‐295
his eternity, defined, 275
his eternity, infinity in its relation to time, 276
regards existing time as an objective reality, 277
in what sense the past, present and future are to him ’one eternal
now,’, 277
his immensity, what?, 278
not under law of space, 279
is not in space, 279
space is in him, 279
to him space has an objective reality, 279
his omnipresence, what?, 279
his omnipresence not potential but essential, 280
in what sense he “dwells in Heaven,”, 280
his omnipresence mistaken by Socinian and Deist, 280
his whole essence present in every part of his universe at the same
time, 281
his omnipresence not necessary, but free, 283
his omniscience, what?, 283
his omniscience, from what deducible, 283
its characteristics, as free from all imperfections, 283
his knowledge direct, 283
his omniscience, Egyptian symbol of, 283
his intense scrutiny, 283
knows things as they are, 284
foreknows motives and acts by immediate knowledge, 284
his prescience not causative, 286
his omniscience embraces the actual and the possible, 286
his omniscience called in Scripture “wisdom,”, 286
his omnipotence, what?, 286
his omnipotence does not extend to the self contradictory or the
contradictory to his own nature, 287
has power over his own power, 287
can do all he will, not will do all he can, 287
has a will‐power over his nature‐power, 287
his omnipotence implies power of self‐limitation, 288
his omnipotence permits human freedom, 288
his omnipotence humbles itself in the incarnation, 288
his attributes which have relation to moral being, 288‐295
his veracity and faithfulness, or transitive truth, 288
his veracity secures the consistency of his revelations with himself,
and with each other, 288
his veracity secures the fulfilment of all promises expressed or
implied, 289
his mercy and goodness, or transitive love, 289
his mercy, what?, 289
his goodness, what?, 289
his love finds its object in his own nature, 290
his love, men its subordinate objects, 290
his justice and righteousness or transitive holiness, 290
his righteousness, what?, 291
his justice, what?, 291
his justice and righteousness not mere benevolence, nor so founded in
the nature of things as to be apart from God, 291
his justice and righteousness are revelations of his inmost nature, 292
do not bestow reward, 293
are devoid of passion and caprice, 294
revulsion of his nature from impurity and selfishness, 294
his attributes, rank and relations, 295‐303
his attributes related, 295
his moral attributes more jealously guarded than his natural, 295
his fundamental attribute is holiness, 296
may be merciful, but must be holy, 296
his holiness put most prominently in Scripture, 296
his holiness, its supremacy asserted by conscience, 296
his holiness conditions exercise of other attributes, 297
his holiness, a principle in his nature which must be satisfied before
he can redeem, 298
his holiness, the ground of moral obligation, 298‐303
commands us to be holy on the ground of his own holiness, 302
as holy, the object of the love that fulfils the law, 302
his holy will, Christ, our example, supremely devoted to, 302
the Doctrine of the Trinity in the One God, 304‐352
see Trinity.
is _causa sui_, 338
is “self willing right,” 338
relations sustained by, in virtue of personal distinctions, 343
unity and threeness equally essential to, 346
independence and blessedness of, require Trinity, 347
Doctrine of his Decrees, 353‐370
definition of his decrees, itemized, 353‐355
evil acts, how objects of the decrees of, 354
his permissive, not conditional agency, 354
his decrees, how classified, 355
his decrees referred to in Scripture and supported by reason, 355‐359
can preserve from sin without violation of moral agency, 366
his works, or the execution of his decrees, 371‐464
not a demiurge working on eternal matter, 391
his supreme end in creation, his own glory, 397‐402
“his own sake,” the fundamental reason of activity in, 399
his self expression not selfishness, but benevolence, 400
the only Being who can rightly live for himself, 401
that he will secure his end in creation, the great source of comfort,
401
his rest, a new exercise of power, 411
not “the soul of the universe,” 411
the physical universe in no sense independent of, 413
has disjoined in the free will of intelligent beings a certain amount of
force from himself, 414
the perpetual Observer, 415
does not work all, but all in all, 418
represented sometimes by Hebrew writers as doing what he only permits,
424
his agency, natural and moral, distinguished, 441
his Fatherhood, 474‐476
implied in man’s divine sonship, 474
extends in a natural relation to all, 474
provides the atonement, 474
special, towards those who believe, 474
secures the natural and physical sonship of all men, 474
this natural sonship preliminary in some to a spiritual sonship, 474
texts referring to, in a natural or common sense, 474
in the larger sense, what it implies, 474
natural, mediated by Christ, 474
texts referring to, in a special sense, 474, 475
to the race rudimental to the actual realization in Christ, 475
extends to those who are not his children, 475
controversy on the doctrine mere logomachy, 475
as announced by Jesus, a relation of love and holiness, 475
if not true, then selfishness logical, 475
this relationship realized in a spiritual sense through atoning and
regenerating grace, 475
logical outcome of the denial of, 475, 476
universal ground for accepting, 476
authors upon, 476
our knowledge of, conditioned by love, 519, 520
“God prays” fulfilled in Christ, 675
reflected in universe, 714
the immanent, is Christ, the Logos, 714
exercises his creative, preserving and providential activity through
Christ, 714
the Revealer of, is Christ, the Logos, 714
personal existence grounded in him, 714
all perceptions or recognitions of the objective through him, 714
as Universal Reason, at the basis of our self consciousness and
thinking, 714, 715
is the common conscience, over finite, individual consciences, 715
the eternal suffering of, on account of human sin, manifested in the
historical sufferings of the incarnate Christ, 715
the heart of, finally revealed in the historic sacrifice of Calvary, 716
dealings of repentant sinner with, rather than with government, 741
salvation of all, in which sense desired by, 791, 792

Golden Age, classic references to, 526

Good deeds of an unregenerated man, how related to the tenor of his life,
814

Goodness, defined, 289

Goodness of God, witness to among heathen, 113

Gospel, testimony of, conformable with experience, 173
its initial successes, a proof of its divine origin, 191
makes men moral, 863

Gospels, run counter to Jewish ideas, 156
superior in literary character to contemporary writings, 158
their relation to a historical Christ, 159
coincidence of their statements with collateral circumstances, 173, 174

_Gottesbewusstsein_, knowledge of God, 63

Government, common, not necessary in church of Christ, 913

Government, church, 903‐926

Grace, supplements law as the expression of the whole nature of the
lawgiver, 547, 548, 752
without works on the sinner’s part, and without necessity on God’s, 548
an expression of the heart of God, beyond law, and in Christ, 548
does not abrogate but reinforces and fulfils law, 548
secures fulfilment of law by removing obstacles to pardon in the divine
mind, and enabling man to obey, 548
has its law which subsumes but transcends “the law of sin and death,”
548
has its place between the Pelagian and Rationalistic ideas of penalty,
548
a revelation partly of law, but chiefly of love, 549
the Pelagian idea of, 598
universal, according to Wesley, 603
what, from the Arminian point of view, 605
may afford sinners a better security for salvation than if they were
Adams, 635
a kingdom of, 775
men as sinners, its objects, 778
certain sinful men chosen to be recipients of special, 779
“unmerited favor to sinners,” 779
more may be equitably bestowed on one man than on another, 779

Gracious Ability, 602‐604

Guilt, defined, 614, 644
how related to sin, 644, 645
how incurred, 644
not mere liability to penalty, 644
constructive, has no place in divine government, 644
to be distinguished from depravity, 645, 762
is obligation to satisfy outraged holiness of God, 645
of sin, how set forth in Scripture, 645
how Christ may have, without depravity, 645
and depravity, _reatus_ and _macula_, 645
of race, how Christ bears, 646, 759
not to be confounded with the consciousness of, 647
first a relation to God, then to conscience, 647
administers its own anesthetics, 647
degrees of, 648‐652
degrees of, set forth in Mosaic ritual, 648
casuistical refinements upon, not to be regarded, 648
variety of award in Judgment explained by degrees in, 648
measured by men’s opportunities and powers, 649
measured by the energy of evil will, 649
measured by degrees of unreceptiveness in soul, 650
of race, shared in by Christ, 759
imparted and imputed to Christ, 759

Habit and character, 1049

“Hands of the Living God,” what? 539

Hatred, what? 569

Heart, its meaning in Scripture, 4

Heathen, the, their virtues, what? 570
may be saved who have not heard the gospel, 664, 843
their religious systems corrupting, 666
whatever good in their religions, God in, 666
in proportion to their culture, become despairing, 666
have an external revelation, 666
instances of apparently regenerated, 843, 844

Heathenism, a negative preparation for redemption, 665, 666
partly a positive preparation for redemption, 665
in it Christ as Logos or immanent God revealed himself in conscience and
history, 665
had the starlight of religious knowledge, 666
their religions not the direct work of the devil, 666
authors on heathenism as an evangelical preparation, 666

Heaven, conception of, 1030
elements of its happy perfection, 1031
rewards in, equal yet various, 1031
is deliverance from defective physical organization and circumstances,
1031
its rest, 1031
how perfect on entering, 1031
a city, 1031
its love, 1031
its activities, 1031
is it a place as well as a state? 460, 1032
probably a place, 460, 1032
may be a state, 460
the essential presence of Christ’s body would imply place, 1032
is it on a purified and prepared earth? 1032, 1033

Hebrews, genuineness and authorship, 152
anti‐Ebionite, 669

Hell, essentially an inward condition, 460, 1034
the outward corresponds with inward, 1034
the pains of, not necessarily positive inflictions of God, 1035
is not an endless succession of sufferings, 1035
its extent and scope, 1052
compared with heaven, narrow and limited, 1052
only a spot, a corner in the universe, 1052

Henotheism, what? 259

Heredity, none in the race to predetermine self‐consciousness, 467
some facts which heredity cannot explain, 471
often presents a product differing from both the producing agents, 492
its influence in fiction, 492
laws of, simply descriptions not explanations, 493
illustrations of heredity, 495, 496
cause of variations in, discussed, 497
Weismann’s views of, 466, 497, 631
works for theology, 621, 632
is God working in us, 624
the law by which living beings tend to reproduce themselves in their
descendants, 625
the scientific attitude of mind in regard to, 632
the opposing views of, illustrated, 632
the conclusion best warranted by science in relation to, 632
when modifications are transmitted by, 632
may be intensified by individual action, 632
has given new currency to doctrine of “Original Sin,” 636

Heresy, what? 800

_Hingewandt zu_, Dorner’s translation of πρός in John 1:3, 337

Hipparion, the two‐toed horse, 472

Holiness of God, see God.

Holy Spirit, 13, 337
organ of internal revelation, 13, 337
recognized as God, 315
possession of, 322, 343
is a person, 323
his work other than that of Christ, 338, 339
sin against, 648, 650‐652
relation to Christ in his state of humiliation, 669, 697, 703
application of redemption through work of, 777‐886

_Honestum_ and _utile_, 300

Host, Romish adoration of, 968

“Host,” Scriptural use of, 448

Humanity, capable of religion, 58
full concept of, marred in First Adam, realized in Second, 678
its exaltation in Christ, the experience of his people, 707
justified in Christ’s justification, 862

Humanity of Christ, 673‐681
atonement as related to, 754‐763
see Christ.

Humiliation of Christ, 701‐706
see Christ.

Humility, what? 832

Hyperphysical communication between minds perhaps possible, 1021

“I Am,” as a Divine title, 253

Idea of God, origin of our, 52‐70
see God.

Ideal human nature in Christ, 678

Idealism, its view of revelation, 11, 12

Idealism, Materialistic, 95‐100

Ideas have decided fate of world, 426

Identity, Edwards’s theory of, 607
what it consists in, 1020‐1023

_Idiomaticum genus_, 686

“Idle word,” 554

Idolatry, 7, 133, 251, 457, 532, 968

Ignorance, sins of, 554, 649
invincible, 967

_Ignorantia legis neminem excusat_, 558

Image, what it suggests, 335, 514
and likeness, 520

Image of God, in what it consisted, 514
its natural element, 514
its moral element, 514
personality, an element in, 515
holiness, an element in, 515, 516
its original righteousness, 517, 518
not confined to personality, 519, 520
not consisting in a natural capacity for religion, 520‐523
reflects itself in physical form, 523
in soul _proprie_, in body _significative_, 523
subjects sensuous impulses to control of spirit, 523, 524
gives dominion over lower creation, 524
secures communion with God, 524, 525
had suitable surroundings and society, 525
furnished with tests of virtue, 526
had associated with it, an opportunity of securing physical immortality,
527
combated by those who hold that civilization has proceeded from
primitive savagery, 527‐531
combated by those who hold that religion begins in fetichism, 531, 532

Immortality, metaphysical argument for, 984, 985
teleological argument for, 986, 987
ethical argument for, 987, 988
historical argument, 989
widespread belief in, 989, 990
a general appetency for, 990
idea of, congruous with our nature, 990
authors for and against, 991
maintained on Scriptural grounds, 991‐998
an inference from the intuition of the existence of God, 996
the resurrection of Jesus Christ the most conclusive proof of, 997
Christ taught, 997

Imprecatory Psalms, 231

_Imputatio metaphysica_, 615

Imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, 593‐637
taught in Scripture, 593
two questions demanding answer, 593
the meaning of the phrase, 354
has a realistic basis in Scripture, 594
two fundamental principles in, 595
theories of New and Old Schools, 596, 597
theories of, 597‐637
Pelagian theory of, considered, 597‐601
Arminian theory of, considered, 601‐606
New School theory of, considered, 606‐612
Federal theory of, considered, 612‐616
Mediate theory of, 616‐619
Augustinian theory of, considered, 619‐637
grounded on organic unity of mankind, 619
tabular views, 628
objections to Augustinian theory, 629‐637
authors on, 637
of sin to Christ, grounded on a real union, 758
of Christ’s righteousness to us, grounded on a real union, 805, 862

Indwelling of God, 693, 798

_Inexistentia_, 333

Infant salvation, 602, 609
doctrine of, 660‐664
is assured, 661
its early advocates, 664
leads to the conclusion that no one is lost solely for sin of nature,
664

Infanticide might have been encouraged by too definite assurances of
infant salvation, 663

Infants, their death proves their sinful nature, 579
are regarded by some as animals, 579, 611, 957
are unregenerate and in a state of sin, 661
relatively innocent, 661
objects of special divine care, 661, 662
chosen by Christ to eternal life, 662
salvation assured to those who die prior to moral consciousness, 662
in some way receive and are united to Christ, 662
at final judgment among the saved, 662
regeneration effected at soul’s first view of Christ, 663

Inference, its nature and kinds, 66

Infinite, 9, 87, 254

Infinity of God, 254‐256
see God.

Infirmity, sins of, 649, 650

Innate or connate ideas, what?, 54

_Insitæ vel potius innatæ cogitationes_, 53

Inspiration of Scripture, 196‐242
definition of, 196‐198
defined by result, 196
may include revelation, 196
may include illumination, 196
list of works on, 198
proof of, 198
presumption in favor of, 198
of the O. T., vouched for by Jesus, 199
promised by Jesus, 199, 200
claimed by the apostles, 200, 201
attested by miracle or prophecy, 201
chief proof of, internal characteristics, 201
theories of, 202‐222
the Intuition‐theory of, 202
this theory of, its doctrinal connections, 202
this theory of, uses only man’s natural insight, 203
this theory of, denies to man’s insight, vitiated in matters of religion
and morals, an indispensable help, 203
this theory of, is self‐contradictory, 203
is “the growth of the Divine through the capacities of the human,”, 204
this theory of, makes moral and religious truth purely subjective, 204
this theory of, practically denies a God who is Truth and its Revealer,
204
the Illumination‐theory of, 204
this theory of, its doctrinal connections, 204
this theory of, principal advocates of, 205
in some cases amounted only to illumination, 206
more than an illumination, which cannot account for revelation of new
truth, 206
if illumination only, cannot secure writers from serious error, 207
as mere illumination can enlighten truth already imparted but not impart
it, 207
the Dictation‐theory of, 208
this theory of, its doctrinal connections, 208
this theory of, its principal advocates, 208
this theory of, post‐reformation, 209
this theory of, covers the few cases in which definite words were used
with the command to write them down, 209
this theory of, rests on an imperfect induction of Scriptural facts, 210
this theory of, fails to account for the human element in Scripture, 210
this theory of, spendthrift in means, as dictating truth already known
to recipient, 210
this theory of, reduces man’s highest spiritual experience to mechanism,
210
the Dynamical theory of, 211‐222
distinguished from other theories of, 211
no theory of, necessary to Christian faith, 211
union of the Divine and human elements in, 212‐222
its mystery, the union of the divine and human, 212
and hypnotic suggestion, 212
the speaking and writing the words of God from within, in the conscious
possession and exercise of intellect, emotion and will, 212
pressed into service all the personal peculiarities, excellencies and
defects of its subjects, 213
uses all normal methods of literary composition, 214
may use even myth and legend, 214
a gradual evolution, 214, 215
the divine side of what on its human side is discovery, 215
does not guarantee inerrancy in things not essential to its purpose, 215
in it God uses imperfect means, 215
is divine truth in historical and individually conditioned form, 216
did not directly communicate the words which its subjects employed, 216
has permitted no form of words which would teach essential error, 216
verbal, refuted by two facts, 216
constitutes its Scriptures an organic whole, 217
develops a progressive system with Christ as centre, 217
furnishes, in the Bible as a whole, a sufficient guide to truth and
salvation, 218
overstatement of, has made sceptics, 218
constitutes Scripture an authority, but subordinate to the ultimate
authority, Christ, 219
three cardinal principles regarding, 220
three common questions regarding, 220, 221
objections to the doctrine of, 222‐242
objected to, on the ground of errors in secular matters, 222
said to be erroneous in its science, 223
reply to above allegation against, 223‐226
said to be erroneous in its history, 226
reply to above allegation against, 226‐229
said to be erroneous in its morality, 230
reply to above allegation against, 230‐232
said to be erroneous in its reasoning, 232
reply to above allegation against, 232, 233
said to be erroneous in quotation and interpretation, 234
reply to above allegation against, 234, 235
said to be erroneous in its prophecy, 235
reply to above allegation against, 235, 236
admits books unworthy of a place as inspired, 236
reply to above allegation against, 236‐238
admits as authentic portions of books written by others than the persons
to whom they are ascribed, 238
reply to above allegation against, 238‐240
admits sceptical or fictitious narratives, 240
reply to above allegation against, 240‐242
acknowledges non‐inspiration of its teachers and writers, 242
reply to above allegation against, 242

Intercession of Christ, 773‐775
see Christ.

Intercessors, saints on earth are, 775

_Intercommunicatio_, 333

Intercommunion of the Persons in the Trinity, 332‐334

Intermediate State, 998‐1003
of the righteous, 988, 999
of the wicked, 999, 1000
not a sleep, 1000
not purgatorial, 1000
one of incompleteness, 1002
a state of thought, 1002
sin if preferred in this more spiritual state becomes demoniacal, 1002
some place the end of man’s probation at the close of the, 1002

Intuition, 52, 53, 67, 72, 125, 499

Intuition‐theory of inspiration, see Inspiration.

Intuitional theory of morals, 501
reconciled with the empirical theory, 501

Intuitions, 52, 53, 67, 248

Isaiah, its composite character, 239

Islam, 186, 427

James, the apostle, his position on Justification, 851

Jefferson, Thomas, on a Baptist church as the truest form of democracy,
908

Jehovah, 256, 309

Jesus, bowing at the name of, 969

Jews, the only forward‐looking people, 666
educated in three great truths, 666, 667
above truths presented by three agencies, 667, 668
this education first of all by law, 667
this education by prophecy, 667
this education by judgment, 668
effects of the exile upon, 668
as propagators of the gospel, 668
authors on Judaism as a preparation for Christ, 668

Job, the book of, when written, 241
is a dramatic poem, 240, 241

John, gospel of, differs from synoptics in its account of Jesus, 143
its genuineness, 151, 152
compared with Revelation, 151, 152
does its characteristic Logos doctrine necessitate a later date?, 320,
321

Judas, 884, 1043

_Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur_, 293

Judge, Christ the final, 1027, 1028

Judgment, the last, a final and complete vindication of God’s
righteousness, 1023, 1024
its nature outward, visible, definite in time, 1024, 1025
its object, the manifestation of character, and assignment of
corresponding condition, 1025, 1026
evidences of, and preparation for, already in the nature of man, 1026,
1027
single acts and words adduced in, why?, 1027, 1028
the judge in, see preceding item, the subjects of, men and evil angels,
1028, 1029
the grounds of, the law of God and grace of Christ, 1029
list of authors on, 1029

Justice of God, 290‐295
see God.

Justification, involved in union with Christ, 805
the doctrine of, 849‐868
defined, 849
declarative and judicial, 849
held as sovereign by Arminians, 849, 855
Scriptural proof of, 849, 850
its nature determined by Scriptural use of ’justify’ and its
derivatives, 850‐854
James and Paul on, 851
includes remission of punishment, 854‐856
a declaration that the sinner is just or free from condemnation of law,
854
is pardon or forgiveness as God is regarded as judge or father, 855
is on the ground of union with Christ who has borne the penalty, 855
includes restoration to favor, 856
since it treats the sinner as personally righteous it must give him the
rewards of obedience, 856
is reconciliation or adoption as God is regarded as friend or father,
857
this restoration rests solely on the righteousness of Christ to whom
sinner is united by faith, 858
its difficult feature stated, 859
believed on testimony of Scripture, 860
the difficulty in, relieved by three considerations, 860
is granted to a sinner in whose stead Christ has borne penalty, 860
is bestowed on one who is so united to Christ as to have Christ’s life
dominating his being, 860
is declared of one in whom the present Christ life will infallibly
extirpate all remaining depravity, 860
its ground is not the infusion into us of righteousness and love (Romish
view), 861
its ground is not the essential righteousness of Christ become the
sinner’s by faith, (Osiander) 861
its ground is the satisfaction and obedience of Christ the head of a new
humanity of which believers are members, 861
is ours, not because Christ is in us, but because we are in Christ, 862
its relation to regeneration and sanctification delivers it from
externality and immorality, 862, 863
and sanctification, not different stages of same process, 863
a declarative, as distinguished from the efficient acts of God’s grace,
regeneration and sanctification, 863
gifts and graces accompaniments, not consequences of, 864
why “by faith” rather than other graces?, 864
produced efficiently by grace, meritoriously by Christ, instrumentally
by faith, evidentially by works, 865
as being complete at the moment of believing, is the ground of peace,
865
is instantaneous, complete and final, 867
not eternal in the past, 867
in, God grants actual pardon for past sin, and virtual pardon for future
sin, 867
cannot be secured by future obedience, 868
must be secured by accepting Christ and manifesting trust and submission
by prompt obedience, 868
list of authors on, 868

_Justitia civilis_, 639

_Justus et justificans_, 753

Kalpa, 352

Karen tradition, 116

Kenosis, 701, 704, 705

Keri and Kethib, 309

“Know,” its meaning in Scripture, 780

Knowledge includes faith as a higher sort of, 3, 4, 5
analogy to one’s nature or experience not necessary to, 7
is “recognition and classification,”, 7
mental image, not essential to, 7
of whole not essential to partial, and of a part, 8
may be adequate though not exhaustive, 8
involves limitation or definition, 9
relative to knowing agent, 10
is of the thing as it is, 10
though imperfect, valuable, 37
requires pre‐supposition of an Absolute Reason, 61
does not ensure right action, 111, 460
aggravates, but is not essential to, sin, 558
two kinds of, and _scientia media_, 357
sins of, 649
final state of righteous one of, 1029

Koran, 115, 186

Kung‐fu‐tse, see Confucius.

Language, difficulty of putting spiritual truths into, 35
dead only living, 39
not essential to thought, 216
defined, 467
is the effect, not the cause of mind, 467

Law, cause and force known without mental image, 7
is method, not cause, 76
the transcript of God’s nature, 293
in general, 533‐536
its essential idea, 533
its implications, 533
first used of voluntary agents, 533
its use in physics implicitly confesses a Supreme Will, 533
its derivation in several languages, 533
because of its ineradicable implications, “method” has been suggested as
a substitute, 533
definitions of, 533, 534
cannot reign, 534
its generality, 534
deals in general rules, 534
implies power to enforce, 534, 535
without penalty is advice, 535
in the case of rational and free agents implies duty and sanctions, 535
expresses and demands nature, 535
formulates relations arising in nature, 535
of God in particular, 536‐547
elemental, 536‐544
physical or natural, 536
moral law, 537
moral law, its implications, 537
is discovered, not made, 538
not constituted, but tested, by utility, 538
of God, what?, 538
the method of Christ, 539
authors upon, 539
not arbitrary, 539
not temporary, or provisional, 540
not merely negative, 540
as seen in Decalogue, 540
not addressed to one part of man’s nature, 540
not outwardly published, 540, 541
not limited by man’s consciousness of it, 541
not local, 541
not modifiable, 541
not violated even in salvation, 541
the ideal of human nature, 542
reveals love and mercy mandatorily, 542, 549
is all‐comprehensive, 542
is spiritual, 543
is a unit, 543
is not now proposed as a method of salvation, 543
is a means of discovering and developing sin, 543, 544
reminds man of the heights from which he has fallen, 544
as positive enactment, 544‐547
as shown in general moral precepts, 545
as shown in ceremonial or special injunctions, 545
its positive form a re‐enactment of its elemental principles, 545
the written, why imperfect?, 546
the Puritan mistake in relation to, 546
its relation to the grace of God, 547‐549
is a general expression of God’s will, 547
is a partial, not an exhaustive, expression of God’s nature, 547
pantheistic mistake in relation to, 547, 548
alone, leaves parts of God’s nature to be expressed by gospel, 548
is not, Christ is, the perfect image of God, 548
not abrogated by grace, but republished and re‐enforced, 548
of sin and death, 548
in the manifestation of grace, combined with a view of the personal love
of the Lawgiver, 549
its all‐embracing requirement, 572
identical with the constituent principles of being, 629
all‐comprehending demand of harmony with God, 637
the Mosaic, inspired hope of pardon and access to God, 667
its basis in the nature of God, 764
as a moral rule unchanging, 875
freedom from, what?, 876
believer not free from obligation to observe, 876
as a system of penalty, believer free from, 876
as a method of salvation, believer free from, 876
as an outward and foreign compulsion, believer free from, 876
not a sliding scale graduated to one’s moral condition, 877
God’s, as known in conscience and Scripture, a ground of final judgment,
1029

Laws of knowing correspond to nature of things, 10
of theological thought, laws of God’s thought, 10
of nature, not violated in miracle, 121
of nature, act not merely singly, but in combination, 434, 435

“Laying‐on of hands,” its significance, 920

Letter‐missive calling council of ordination, 922

_Lex_, its derivation, 533

Licensure, its nature, 919

Life contains promise and potency of every form of matter, 91
not produced from matter, 93
as it ascends, it differentiates, 240
not definable, 251
not a mere process, 251
more than environmental correspondence, 251
ascribed to Christ, 309
ascribed to Holy Spirit, 315
animal, though propagated, not material, 495
has power to draw from the putrescent material for its living, 677
its various relations honored by being taken into union with Divinity in
Christ, 682
man’s physical, conscious of a life within not subject to will, 799
man’s spiritual, conscious of life within its life, 799
man’s natural, preserved by God, much more his spiritual, 883
Christian, attains completeness in future, 981
sinful, attains completeness in future, 981
“book of,” the book of justification, 1029

_Lineamenta extrema_, 614

_Locutiones variæ, sed non contrariæ_; _diversæ, sed non adversæ_, 227

Logos, the whole, present in the man, Christ Jesus, 281
John’s doctrine of the, radically different from Philo’s, 320, 321
John’s doctrine of the, related to the “memra” doctrine, 320
doctrine of the, authorities on, 321
significance of term, 335
the pre‐incarnate, granted to men a natural light of reason and
conscience, 603
purged of depravity that portion of human nature which he assumed in
Incarnation, in the very act of taking it, 677
during earthly life of Jesus existed outside of flesh, 704
the whole present in Christ, and yet present everywhere else, 704
can suffer on earth, and yet reign in heaven at same time, 714
his surrender of independent exercise of divine attributes, how best
conceived, 705
his part in evangelical preparation, 711

“Lord of Hosts,” its significance, 448

Lord’s Day, 410

Lord’s Supper, 959‐980

Lord’s Supper and Baptism, historical monuments, 151

Love, necessary to right use of reason with regard to God, 3, 29, 519, 520
its loss obscures rational intuitions of God, 67
God’s, nature cannot prove it, 84
God’s immanent, what?, 263
not to be confounded with mercy and goodness, 265
God’s, finds a personal object within the Trinity, 285
constitutes a ground of divine blessedness, 285
God’s transitive, what?, 289
God’s transitive, is mercy and goodness, 289
distinct from holiness, 290, 567
attributed to Christ, 309
attributed to Holy Spirit, 316
revealed in grace rather than in law, 548
defined, 567
to God, all‐embracing requirement of law, 572
eternity of God’s, an effective element in appeal, 788
God’s, fixed on sinners of whom he knows the worst, 788
God’s unchanging, 788
God’s, has dignity, 1051
brotherly, in heaven implies knowledge, 1031

_Maat_, the Egyptian goddess, 1024

Maccabees, First, no direct mention of God in, 309

_Magister sententiarum_, 44

Magnetism, personal, what? 820

_Majestaticum genus_, 686

Malice, what? 569

_Malum metaphysicum_, what? 424

Man, in what sense supernatural, 26
furnishes highest type of intelligence and will in nature, 79
as to intellect and freedom, not eternal _a parte ante_, 81
his intellectual and moral nature, implies an intellectual and moral
author, 81
his moral nature proves existence of a holy Lawgiver, 82
his emotional and voluntary nature proves the existence of a Being who
may be a satisfying object of human affection and end of
human activity, 83
recognizes in God, not his like, but his opposite, 83
mistakes as to his own nature lead him into mistakes as to the First
Cause, 84, 253
his consciousness, Royce’s view, 99
his will above nature, 121
a concave glass towards God, 252
can objectify self, 252
is self‐determining, 252
not explicable from nature, 411
a spiritually reproductive agent, yet God begets, 418
a creation, and child of God, 465‐476
his creation a fact of Scripture, 465
exists by creative acts of God, 465
though result of evolution, yet originating agency of God needed, 465
whether mediately or immediately created Scripture does not explicitly
state, 465
the true doctrine of evolution consistent with the Scriptural doctrine
of creation, 466
certain psychological human endowments cannot have come from the brute,
466
God’s breathing into men was such a re‐inforcement of the processes of
life as turned the animal into man, 467
and brute, both created by the immanent God, the former comes to his
status not _from_ but _through_ the latter, 467
the beginnings of his conscious life, 467
some simple distinctions between man and brute, 467, 468
if of brute ancestry, yet the offspring of God, 469
Scripture teaches that man’s nature is the creation of God, 469
his relations to animals, authors upon, 469
immediate creation of his body not forbidden by comparative physiology,
470
that his physical system is descended by natural generation from the
simiæ, an irrational hypothesis, 470
as his soul was an immediate creation of God, so, in this sense, was his
body also, 470
does not degenerate as we travel back in time, 471
no natural process accounts for his informing soul nor for the body
informed by that soul, 472
the laws of development followed in man’s origin from a brute ancestry
are but methods of God, and proofs of his creatorship, 472
comes upon the scene not as a brute but as a self‐conscious, self‐
determining being, 472
his original and new creation, both from within, 472
an emanation of that Divine Life of which the brute was a lower
manifestation, 472
his nature not an undesigned result of atheous evolution but the efflux
of the divine personality, 473
natural selection may account for man’s place _in_ nature, but not for
his place as a spiritual being above nature, 473
his intellectual and moral faculties have only an adequate cause in the
world of spirits, 473
apart from the controlling action of a higher intelligence, the laws of
the material universe insufficient for his production, 473
his brute ancestry, list of authors on, 473, 474
his racial unity, 476‐483
his racial unity, a fact of Scripture, 476
his racial unity at foundation of certain Pauline doctrines, 476
his racial unity, the ground of natural brotherhood, 476
the pre‐Adamite, 476, 477
his racial unity, sustained by history, 477, 478
his racial unity, sustained by philology, 478, 479
his racial unity, sustained by psychology, 479
his racial unity, sustained by physiology, 480, 483
a single species under several varieties, 480
unity of species of, argues unity of origin, 481
according to Agassiz from eight centres of origin, 481
his racial unity, consistent with all existing physical varieties, 481,
482
physiological change in, illustrated, 482
his “originally greater plasticity,” 482
his racial unity, authorities on, 482, 483
the essential elements of his nature, 483‐488
the dichotomous theory of his nature, 483, 484
the dichotomous theory of, supported by consciousness, 483
the dichotomous theory of, supported by Scripture, 483, 484
the trichotomous theory of his nature, 484‐488
his ψυχή and πνεῦμα, 484
his spirit and soul, texts on, 484
trichotomous theory of his nature, element of truth in, 484
the trichotomous theory of his nature untenable, 485, 486
the true relation of πνεῦμα and ψυχή in his nature, 486‐488
is different in kind from the brute, though possessed of certain powers
in common with it, 486
since spirit is soul when in connection with the body, soul cannot be
immortal unless with spiritual body, 486
the trichotomous theory of the nature of, untenable on psychological
grounds, 486
a true view of the spiritual nature of, refutes six errors, 486, 487
some who have held the trichotomous view of, 487
his body, why honorable? 488
has been provided with a fleshly body, for two suggested reasons, 488
origin of his soul, 488‐497
the theory of the pre‐existence of his soul, 488‐491
the advocates, ancient and modern, of this theory of soul pre‐existence,
488, 489
the truth at the basis of soul pre‐existence, 488
the theory of soul pre‐existence, founded on an illusion of memory, 488
explanations of this illusion, 488
the theory of the soul’s pre‐existence, without Scriptural warrant, 489,
490
if his soul was conscious and personal in the pre‐existent state, why is
recollection even of important decisions so defective? 490
the pre‐existence theory of the soul of, is of no theological
assistance, 490
Müller’s view of pre‐existence stated and examined, 490, 491
the creatian theory of his soul, 491‐493
its advocates, 491
Scripture does not teach that God immediately creates his soul, 491
creatianism repulsively false as representing him as not father of his
offspring’s noblest part, 492
his individuality, how best explained, 492
the creatian theory of his birth makes God the author of sin, 493
the creatian theory of his birth, certain mediating modifications of,
493
the traducian theory of his birth, 493‐497
the traducian theory, its advocates, 493
the traducian theory explained, 494
the traducian theory best accords with Scripture, 494
the traducian theory is favored by the analogy of animal and vegetable
life, 495
the traducian theory supported by the transmission of physical, mental,
and moral characteristics, 495, 496
the traducian theory embraces the element of truth in the creatian
theory in that it holds to a divine concurrence in the
development of the human species, 497
his moral nature, 497‐513
the powers which enter into his moral nature, 497
his conscience defined, 498
has no separate ethical faculty, 498
his conscience discriminative and impulsive, 498
his conscience distinguished from related mental processes, 499
his conscience the moral judiciary of the soul, 500
his conscience an echo of God’s voice, 501
has the authority of the personal God, of whose nature law is but a
transcript, 502‐504
his will, 504‐513
his will defined, 504, 505
his will and the other faculties, 505
his will and permanent states, 505, 506
his will and motives, 506, 507
his will and contrary choice, 507, 508
his will and his responsibility, 509, 510
his responsibility for the inherited selfish preferences of his will,
its Scriptural explanation, 510
his natural bent of will to evil so constant, inveterate, and powerful
that only regeneration can save him from it, 510
the hurtful nature of a deterministic theory of his will, 511‐513
and his will, authors upon, 513
his original state, 514‐532
his original state described only in Scripture, 514
list of authors on his original state, 514
essentials of his original state, 514‐523
made “in the image of God,” what implied?, 514
made in natural likeness to God or personality, 514
made in moral likeness to God or holiness, 514
the elements in his original likeness to God, more clearly explicated,
514, 515
indwelt by the Logos or divine Reason, 515
never wholly loses “the image of God,”, 515
in a minor sense “gods” and “partakers of the divine nature,”, 515
has “a deeper depth” rooted and grounded in God, 515
created a personal being with power to know and determine self, 515
his natural likeness to God inalienable and the capacity that makes
redemption possible, 515
his personality further defined, 515
should reverence his humanity, 515, 516
originally possessed such a direction of affections and will as
constituted God the supreme end of his being, and himself a
finite reflection of God’s moral attributes, 517
his chief endowment, holiness, 517
his original righteousness as taught in Scripture, 517
in what the dignity of his human nature consists, 517
his original righteousness not the essence of his human nature, 518
his original righteousness not a gift from without and after creation,
518
his original righteousness a tendency of affections and will to God, 518
his original righteousness propagable to descendants, 518
his likeness to God, more than the perfect mutual adjustment of his
spiritual powers, 519
his fall assigned by some to pre‐existent state, 519
“the image of God” in, was, some say, merely the possibility (_Anlage_)
of real likeness, 519
his individual will not the author of his condition of sin or of
holiness, 519
since he originally knew God, must have loved God, 519, 520
primal “image of God,” not simply ability to be like God, but actual
likeness, 520
if morally neutral, is a violator of God’s law, 520
the original “image of God” in, more than capacity for religion, 520
scholastics and the Romanist church distinguished between “image” and
“likeness” as applied to his first estate, 520
his nature at creation, according to Romanism, received a _donum
superadditum_ of grace, 520
his progress from the state _in puris naturalibus_ to the state
_spoliatus a nudo_, as the Romish church teaches,
pictorially stated, 521
the Romish theory as to his original state considered in detail, 520‐523
results of his original possession of the divine image, 523‐525
his physical form reflects his original endowment, 523
originally possessed an _æquale temperamentum_ of body and spirit which,
though physically perfect, was only provisional, 523
had dominion over the lower creation, 524
enjoyed communion with God, 524, 525
concomitants of his possession of the divine image, 525‐532
his surroundings and society fitted to afford happiness and help, 525,
526
his wife and her creation, 525
was perhaps hermaphrodite, 526
his garden, Eden, 526
provisions for trying his virtue, 526, 527
opportunity for securing for himself physical immortality, 527
the first, had he maintained his integrity, would have been developed
and transformed without undergoing death, 527
the Scriptural view of his original state opposed by those who hold a
prehistoric development of the race from savagery to
civilization, 527
the originally savage condition of, an ill‐founded assumption, 527‐531
the Scriptural account of his original state opposed by those who hold
the Positivist theory of the three consecutive conditions of
knowledge, 531
the assumption that he must hold fetichism, polytheism, and monotheism
in successive steps, if he progresses religiously,
contradicted by facts, 531, 532
monotheistic before polytheistic, 531, 532
in some stocks never practiced fetichism, 532
the earliest discovered sepulchral remains of, prove by presence of food
and weapons an advance upon fetichism, 532
his theologic thought not transient but rooted in his intuitions and
desires, 532
in what sense a law unto himself, 539
as finite needs law, 542
as a free being needs moral law, 542
as a progressive being needs an ideal and infinite standard of
attainment, 542
according to Scripture responsible for more than his merely personal
acts, 634
not wholly a spontaneous development of inborn tendencies, 649
the ideal, realized only in Christ, 678, 679
his reconciliation to God, 777‐885
his perfection reached only in the world to come, 981

Manhood of Christ, ideal, 678, 679

Manichæanism, 382, 670

Moriolatry, invocation of saints, and transubstantiation, origin of, 673

Marriage, a type of human and divine nature in Christ, 693

’Mary, mother of God,’, 671, 686

Material force as little observable as divine agency, 8
organism, not necessarily a hindrance to activity of spirit, 1021

Materialism, idealism, and pantheism, arise from desire after scientific
unity, 90

Materialism, what?, 90
element of truth in, 90
objection to, from intuition, 92
objection to, from mind’s attributes, 92, 93
cannot explain the psychical from the physical, 93
furnishes no sufficient cause for highest phenomena of universe, 94
furnishes no evidence of consciousness in others, 94, 95
Sadducean, denies resurrection of body, 1018
recent, its services to proper views of body, 1018

Materialistic Idealism, 95‐100
its definition, 95
its development, 95‐97
defective in its definition of matter, 97
defective in its definition of mind, 97, 98
opposed to the imperative assumptions of non‐empirical, transcendent
knowledge of things‐in‐themselves, 98
however modified, cumbered with the difficulties of pure materialism,
98, 99
a view of, held by many Christian thinkers, 99, 100

Mathematics, a disclosure of the divine nature, 261
crystallized, the heavens are, 261

Matter, regarded as atoms which have force as a universal and inseparable
property, 90, 91
in its more modern aspect, a manifestation of force, 91
the Tyndall and Crookes deliverances regarding, 91
mind intuitively regarded as different from it in kind, and higher in
rank, 92
to be regarded as secondary and subordinate to mind, 93
and mind, relations between, 93, 94
does it provide “the needful objectivity for God”?, 347
its eternity not disprovable by reason, 374
not stuff that emanated from God, 385
not stuff, but an activity of God, 385
according to Schelling, _esprit gelé_, 386
its continuance dependent on God, 413
made by God, and, therefore, pure, 560
its capacities, as subservient to spirit, inestimable, 1021, 1022

Memory, its impeccability in the case of the apostles, secured by promised
Spirit, 207
a preparation for the final judgment, 1026
of an evil deed, becomes keener with time, 1029

_Memra_, relation to Johannine Logos, 320

_Mendacium officiosum_, 262

Mennonites, 970

_Mens humana capax divinæ_, 212

_Mens rea_, essential to crime, 554

Mercy, in the God of nature, some indications which point to, 113
optional, 271, 296, 297
defined, 289
divine, a matter of revelation, 296
election a matter of, 779

Messiah, 321, 667, 668

Metaphysical generation of the soul, 493

Military theory of atonement, 747

Millennium, 1008‐1015

Mind, has no parts, yet divisible, 9
its organizing instinct, 15, 16
gives both final and efficient cause, 76
recognizes itself as another and higher than the material organization
it uses, 92
its attributes and itself different in kind and higher in rank than
matter, 92, 93
not transformed physical force, 93
the only substantive thing in the universe, all else is adjective, 94
unsatisfactorily defined as a “series of feelings aware of itself,”, 97
Absolute, not conditioned as the finite mind, 104
“carnal,” its meaning, 592

Minister, his chief qualification, 17
his relation to church work, 898
forfeiture of his standing as, 923, 924

Miracle, a preliminary definition, 117
modified definition suggested by Babbage, 117, 118
“signality” must be preserved in definition of, 118
preferable definition, 118, 119
never regarded in Scripture as an infraction of law, 119
natural processes may be in, 119
the attitude of some theologians towards, irrational, 120
a number of opinions upon, presented, 120
possibility of, 121‐123
not beyond the power of a God dwelling in and controlling the universe,
shown in some observations, 121‐123
possibility of, doubly strong to those who give the Logos or Divine
Reason his place in his universe, 122
possible on Lotzean view of universe, 123
possible because God is not far away, 123
possible because of the action and reaction between the world and the
personal Absolute, 123
a presumption against, 124
presupposes, and derives its value from, law, 124
a uniformity of nature, inconsistent with miracle, non‐existent, 124
no one is entitled to say _a priori_ that it is impossible (Huxley), 124
but the higher stage as seen from the lower, 125
when the efficient cause gives place to the final cause, 125
exists because the uniformity of nature is of less importance in the
sight of God than the moral growth of the human spirit, 125
“the greatest I know, my conversion” (Vinet), 125
our view of, determined by our belief in a moral or a non‐moral God, 126
is extraordinary, never arbitrary, 126
not a question of power, but of rationality and love, 126
implies self‐restraint and self‐unfolding, 126
accompanied by a sacrifice of feeling on the part of Christ, 126
probability of, greater from point of view of ethical monism, 126
a work in which God lovingly limits himself, 126
probability of, drawn from the concessions of Huxley, 127
the amount of testimony necessary to prove a, 127
Hume’s misrepresentation of the abnormality of, 127
Hume’s argument against, fallacious, 127
evidential force of, 128‐131
accompanies and attests new communications from God, 128
its distribution in history, 128, 129
its cessation or continuance, 128, 132, 133
certifies directly not to the truth of a doctrine, but of a teacher, 129
must be supported by purity of life and doctrine, 129
to see in all nature the working of the living God removes prejudice
against, 130
the revelation of God, not the proof of that revelation, 130
does not lose its value in the process of ages, 130
of the resurrection sustains the authority of Christ as a teacher, 130
of Christ’s resurrection, is it “an obsolete picture of an eternal
truth”?, 130
of Christ’s resurrection, has complete historical attestation, 130, 131
of Christ’s resurrection, not explicable by the _swoon‐theory_ of
Strauss, 131
of Christ’s resurrection, not explicable by the _spirit‐theory_ of Keim,
131
of Christ’s resurrection, not explicable by the _vision‐theory_ of
Renan, 131
of Christ’s resurrection, its three lessons, 131
the counterfeit, 132
only a direct act of God a, 132
the counterfeit, attests the true, 132
how the false, may be distinguished from the true, 132, 133

Miracles as attesting Divine Revelation, 117‐133

Mohammedanism, 186, 347, 427

Molecular movement and thought, 93

Molecules, manufactured articles, 77

Molluscs, their beauty inexplicable by “natural selection,”, 471

Monarchians, 327

Monism presents that deep force, in which effects, psychical and bodily,
find common origin, 69
there must be a basal, 80

Monism, Ethical, defined, 105
consistent with the teachings of Holy Writ, 105
the faith of Augustine, 105
the faith of Anselm, 105, 106
embraces the one element of truth in pantheism, 106
is entirely consistent with ethical fact, 106
is Metaphysical Monism qualified by Psychological Monism, 106
is supplanting Dualism in philosophic thought, 106
it rejects the two main errors of pantheism, 107, 109
it regards the universe as a finite, partial, and progressive revelation
of God, 107, 108
it regards matter as God’s limitation under law of necessity, 107
it regards humanity as God’s self‐limitation under law of freedom, 107
it regards incarnation and atonement as God’s self‐limitation under law
of grace, 107
regards universe as related to God as thought to the thinker, 107
regards nature as the province of God’s pledged and habitual causality,
107
is the doctrine largely of the poets, 107, 108
guarantees individuality and rights of each portion of universe, 108
in moral realm estimates worth by the voluntary recognition and
appropriation of the divine, 108
does not, like pantheism, involve moral indifference to the variations
observed in universe, 108
does not regard saint and sensualist, men and mice as of equal value,
108
it regards the universe as a graded and progressing manifestation of
God’s love for righteousness and opposition to wrong, 108
it recognizes the mysterious power of selfhood to oppose the divine law,
108
it recognizes the protective and vindicatory reaction of the divine
against evil, 108
it gives ethical content to Spinoza’s apophthegm, ’all things serve,’,
108
it neither cancels moral distinctions, nor minifies retribution, 108
recognizes Christ as the Logos of God in its universal acceptance, 109
recognizes as the Creator, Upholder, and Governor of the universe, Him
who in history became incarnate and by death made atonement
for human sin, 109
rests on Scriptural statements, 109
secures a Christian application of modern philosophical doctrine, 109
gives a more fruitful conception of matter, 109
considers nature as the omnipresent Christ, 109
presents Christ as the unifying reality of physical, mental and moral
phenomena, 109
its relation to pantheism and deism, 109
furnishes a foundation for new interpretation in theology and
philosophy, 109
helps to acceptance of Trinitarianism, 109
teaches that while the natural bond uniting to God cannot be broken, the
moral bond may, 109, 110
how it interprets “rejecting” Christ, 110
enables us to understand the principle of the atonement, 110
strengthens the probability of miracle, 126
teaches that God is pure and perfect mind that passes beyond all
phenomena and is their ground, 255
teaches that “that which hath been made was life in him,” Christ, 311
teaches that in Christ all things “consist,” hold together, as cosmos
rather than chaos, 311
teaches that gravitation, evolution, and the laws of nature are Christ’s
habits, and nature but his constant will, 311
teaches that in Christ is the intellectual bond, the uniformity of law,
the unity of truth, 311
teaches that Christ is the principle of induction, the medium of
interaction, and the moral attraction of the universe,
reconciling all things in heaven and earth, 311
teaches that God transcendent, the Father, is revealed by God immanent,
the Son, 314
teaches that Christ is the life of nature, 337
teaches that creation is thought in expression, reason externalized, 381
teaches a dualism that holds to underground connections of life between
man and man, man and nature, man and God, 386
teaches that the universe is a life and not a mechanism, 391
teaches that God personally present in the wheat makes it grow, and in
the dough turns it into bread, 411
teaches that every man lives, moves, and has his being in God, and that
whatever has come into being, whether material or spiritual,
has its life only in Christ, 413
teaches that “_Dei voluntas est rerum natura_,”, 413
teaches that nothing finite is only finite, 413
its further teaching concerning natural forces and personal beings, 413,
414, 418, 419
allows of “second cause,”, 416

Monogenism, modern science in favor of, 480

Monophysites, 672
see Eutychians.

Monotheism, facts point to an original, 56, 531
Hebrew, preceeds polytheistic systems of antiquity, 531, 532
more and more evident in heathen religions as we trace them back, 531,
532
an original, authors on, 531, 532

Montanists, 304

Montanus, 712

Moral argument for the existence of God, the designation criticized, 81
faculty, its deliverances, evidences of an intelligent cause, 82
freedom, what?, 361
nature of man, 497‐513
likeness to himself, how restored by God, 518
law, what?, 537‐544
law, man’s relations to, reach beyond consciousness, 594
government of God, recognizes race‐responsibilities, 594
union of human and divine in Christ, 671
analogies of atonement, 716
evil, see Sin.
obligation, its grounds determined, 298‐303
judgments, involve will, 841

Morality, Christian, a fruit of doctrine, 16
of N. T., 177, 178
Christian, criticized by Mill, 179
heathen systems of, 179‐186
of Bible, progressive, 230
mere insistence on, cannot make men moral, 863

“Morning stars,”, 445

“Mother of God,”, 681

Motive, not cause but occasion, 360, 506
man never acts without or contrary to, 360
a ground of prediction, 360
influences, without infringing on free agency, 360
the previously dominant, not always the impulsive, 360

Motives, man can choose between, 360
persuade but never compel, 362, 506, 649
not wholly external to mind influenced by them, 506, 817
lower, sometimes seemingly appealed to in Scripture, 826, 827

Muratorian Canon, 147

Music, reminiscent of possession lost, 526

Mystic, 31, 81

Mysticism, true and false, 32

_Mystik_ and _Mysticismus_, 31

Myth, its nature, 155
as distinguished from _saga_ and legend, 155
“the Divine Spirit can avail himself of” (Sabatier), 155
’may be made the medium of revelation’ (Denney), 214
not a falsehood, 155, 214
early part of Genesis may be of the nature of a, 214

Myth‐theory of the origin of the gospels (Strauss), 155‐157
described, 155, 156
objected to, 156, 157
authors on, 157

_Nachwirkung_ and _Fortwirkung_, 776

“Name, in my,”, 807

Names of God, the five Hebrew,
Ewald on, 318

_Nascimur, pascimur_, 972

_Natura_, 392

_Natura enim non nisi parendo vincitur_, 541

_Natura humana in Christo capax divinæ_, 694

_Natura naturans_ (Spinoza), 244, 287

_Natura naturata_ (Spinoza), 244, 287, 700

_Naturæ minister et interpres_, 2

Natural = psychical, 484

Natural insight as to source of religious knowledge, 203

Natural law, advantages of its general uniformity, 124
events aside from its general fixity to be expected if moral ends
require, 125
life, God’s gift of, foreshadows larger blessings, 289
realism, and location of mind in body, 280
revelation supplemented by Scripture, 27

Natural Selection, artificial after all, 93
its teaching, 470
is partially true, 470
is not a complete explanation of the history of life, 470
gives no account of origin of substance or variations, 470
by the _survival_ does not explain the _arrival_ of the fittest, 470
does not explain the sudden and apparently independent appearance of
important geologic forms, 470
certain entomological and anatomical facts are inexplicable upon the
theory of, 471
fails to explain the beauty in lower forms of life, 471
no species has as yet been produced by either artificial or, 472
does not necessarily make the idea of Creator superfluous, 473
may account for man’s place in, but not above, nature, 473
requires, according to Wallace, a superior intelligence to guide in
definite direction or for special purpose, 473
a list of authors upon, 474
atheistically taught, is election with hope and pity left out, 784

Natural theology, what?, 260

Nature, its usual sense, 26, 121
its proper sense, 26, 121
its witness to God, outward and inward, 26
argument for God’s existence from change in, 73‐75
argument for God’s existence from useful collocation in, 75‐80
Mill’s indictment of, 78
apart from man, cannot be interpreted, 79
does not assure us of God’s love and provision for the sinner, 113, 114
by itself furnishes a presumption against miracles, 124
as synonym of substance, 243
according to Schleiermacher, 287
its forces, dependent and independent, 414
the brute submerged in, 468
human, why it should be reverenced, 515
in what sense sin a, 518
as something inborn, 518, 577, 578
the race has a corrupted nature, 577‐582
sinful acts and dispositions explained by a corrupt, 577
a corrupt, belongs to man from first moment of his being, 578
a corrupt, underlies man’s consciousness, 578
a corrupt, which cannot be changed by a man’s own power, 578
a corrupt, the common heritage of the race, 578
designates, not substance, but corruption of substance, 578
how responsible for a depraved, which one did not personally originate,
593
human, Pelagian view of, 598
human, semi‐Pelagian view of, 598
human, Augustinian view of, 598
human, organic view of, 600
human, atomistic view of, 600
the whole human race once a personality in Adam, 629
human, can apostatize but once, 630
human, totally depraved, 637‐639
man can to a certain extent modify his, 642
sin of, and personal transgression, 648
impersonal human, 694
and person, 694, 695
Robinson’s definition of, 695
human, is it to develop into new forms, 986

“Nature of things, in the,” the phrase examined, 357

Nazarenes, 669
see Ebionites.

Nebular hypothesis, 395

Necessitarian philosophy, correct for the brute, 468

Negation, involves affirmation, 9

_Neron Kaisar_, and “666”, 1009

Nescience, divine, 286
see God.

Nestorians, 671

Neutrality, moral, never created by God, 521
moral, a sin, 521

New England theology, 48, 49

New Haven theology, 49

New School theology, 48, 49, 606
its definition of holiness, 271, 272
its definition of sin, how it differs from that of Old School, 549, 550
ignores the unconscious and subconscious elements in human character,
550
its watchword as to sin, 595
its theory of imputation, an evasion, 596
its theory of imputation explained, 606, 607
development of its theory of inspiration, 607, 608
modifications of view within, 608
contradicts Scripture, 608, 609
its advocates cannot understand Paul, 609
rests upon false philosophical principles, 609, 610
impugns the justice of God, 610, 611
inconsistent with facts, 611, 612
its aim that of all the theories of imputation, 612

_Nihil in intellectu nisi quod ante fuerit in sensu_, 63

Nineveh, winged creatures of, 449

_Nirvana_, 182

_Noblesse oblige_, 301

_Nomina_ become _numina_, 245

Nominalism inconsistent with Scripture, 244

Nominalist notion of God’s nature, 244

Non‐apostolic writings recommended by apostles, 201

Non‐inspiration, seeming, of certain Scriptures, 242

_Non pleni nascimur_, 597

“Nothing, creation out of,”, 372

_Notitia_, an element in faith, 837

_Noumenon_ in external and internal phenomena, 6

_Nullus in microcosmo spiritus, nullus in macrocosmo Deus_, 79

Obduracy, sins of, incomplete and final, 650

Obedience, Christ’s active and passive, 749, 770

“Obey,” not the imperative of religion, 21

Obligation to obey law based on man’s original ability, 541

Offences between men, 766
between church members, 924, 925

Old School theology, 49, 606, 607

Omission, sins of, 554, 648

_Omne vivum e vivo_ (_ex ovo_), 389

_Omnia mea mecum porto_, 1032

Omnipotence of God, 286‐288
see God.

Omnipresence of God, 279‐282
see God.

Omnipresent, how God might cease to be, 282

Omniscience of God, 282‐286
see God.

“One eternal now,” how to be understood, 277

Ontological argument for existence of God, 85‐89
see God.

Optimism, 404, 405

Oracles, ancient, 135

Ordinances of the church, 929‐980

Ordination of church officers, 918‐929

_Ordo salutis_, 794

Organic and organized substances, 93

Organic, the, and atomistic views of human nature, 600

Original “image of God” in man, its nature, 514‐523

Original natural likeness to God, or personality, 515, 519, 520
moral likeness to God, man’s, or holiness, 516‐518
righteousness, what? 517, 518
knowledge of God, man’s, implied a direction of the affections and will
toward God, 519
sin, as held by Old School theologians, 49
two‐fold problem of, 593
its definition, 594, 595
two principles fundamental to consideration of, 595
a correct view of race‐responsibility essential to a correct view of,
595
some facts in connection with the guilt of, 596
substance of Scriptural teaching concerning, 625‐627
a misnomer, if applied to any theory but that of its author, Augustine,
636
no one finally condemned merely on account of, 596, 663, 664
state of man, 514‐533
essentials of, 514‐522
results of, 523‐525
concomitants of, 525‐532
Romish and Protestant views of, 521, 522

_Os sublime_, manifestation of internal endowments, 523

Pain, physical, existed before entrance of moral evil into world, 402
this supralapsarian pain, how to be regarded, 402
due not to God, but to man, 402
verdicts declarative of the secondary place of, 402
cannot explain its presence here by the good it may do, 403
it is God’s protest against sin, 403
has its reason in the misconduct of man, 403
supralapsarian pain an “anticipative consequence,”, 403
God’s frown upon sin, and warning against it, 403

Palestine, 174, 421

Pantheism, Idealistic, defined, 100
the elements of truth in, 100
its error, 100
denies real existence of the finite, 100
deprives the infinite of self‐consciousness and freedom, 100
in it the worshiped is the worshiper, 100
the later Brahmanism is, 100
the fruit of absence of will and longing for rest as end of existence,
as among Hindus, 100
in Hegelianism, presents the alternative, no God or no man, 100
of Hegel and Spinoza, 100, 101
of Hegel, its different interpreters, 101
of Hegel, as modified by Schopenhauer, 101
its idea of God self‐contradictory, 101, 102
its asserted unity of substance without proof, 102
it assigns no sufficient cause for highest fact of universe, personal
intelligence, 102
it contradicts the affirmations of our moral and religious nature, 103
antagonizes our intuitive conviction of the absolute perfection of God,
104
its objection that in eternity there was not not‐self over against the
Infinite to call forth self‐consciousness, without
foundation, 104
denies miracle, 122
denies inspiration, 204
anti‐trinitarianism leads to, 347
involved in doctrine of emanation, 383
assumes that law fully expresses God, 547
should worship Satan, 566
at basis of Docetism, 676
not involved in doctrine of Union with Christ, 800

Parables, 240, 784

Paradise, 403, 998, 999

_Paradoxon summum evangelicum_, 753

Pardon, limited by atonement, objections to, refuted, 766
its conditions can of right be assigned by God, 767
the act of God as judge in justification, 855
and justification distinguished, 858, 859
through Christ, honors God’s justice and mercy, 860

Parseeism, 185

Parsimony, law of, 74, 87

Passion, the, necessitated by Christ’s incarnation, 760

Passover, 157, 723, 726, 960

Pastor, 908, 914, 915, 917

“Pastors and teachers,”, 915

Patripassians, 327

Paul, 210, 235, 851, 999

Peace, 865

_Peccatum alienum_, 616

Pelagianism, a development of rationalism, 89
its theory of imputation, 597‐601
its principal author and present advocates, 597
its exposition, 597
its view of Romans 5:12, 597
its seven points, 597
its sinless men, 597
its “_non pleni nascimur_,”, 597
its misinterpretation of the divine influence in man, 597
is deism applied to man’s nature, 598
ignores his dignity and destiny, 598
unformulated and sporadic, 598
unscriptural, 598, 599
a survival of paganism, 598
its key doctrine: _Homo libero arbitrio emancipatus a Deo_, 598
its unscriptural tenets specified, 598, 599
regards sins as isolated volitions, 599
its method contrasted with that of Augustinianism, 599
presents an Ebionitic view of Christ, 599
its principles false in philosophy, 600
ignores law by which acts produce states, 600

Penalty, what?, 294, 652, 653

Penalty, 652‐660
its idea, 652
more than natural consequences of transgression, 652
not essentially reformatory, 653
what essentially?, 653
not essentially to secure social or governmental safety, 653, 655
not essentially deterrent, 655
of sin, two‐fold, 656
of sin, is physical death, 656‐659
of sin, is spiritual death, 659, 660

Penitence, 766

Pentateuch (Hexateuch), its authorship, 170‐172
literature upon, 172

Perfect, as applied to men, 574

Perfection, in God, 9, 260‐275
of Christian and church reached in world to come, 981

Perfectionism, its tenet, 877
its teachers, 877
its modifications, 877
authorities upon, 877
its fundamental false conceptions, 877, 878
is contradicted by Scripture, 878‐886
disproved by Christian experience, 880
how best met, 880, 881

Permanent states of the faculties, 506, 550, 551

Perseverance, human side of sanctification, 868, 881
definition, 881
its proof from Scripture, 882
its proof from reason, 882, 883
is not inconsistent with human freedom, 883
does not tend to immorality, 883, 884
does not lead to indolence, 884
the Scriptural warnings against apostasy do not oppose it, 884, 885
apparent instances of apostasy do not oppose it, 885, 886
list of authors on general subject of, 886

“Person” in doctrine of Trinity, only approximately accurate, 330

Person, how communicated in different measures, 324

Person and character of Christ, as proof of revelation, 186‐190

Person of Christ, the doctrine of, 669‐700
historical survey of views regarding, 669‐673
the two natures in their reality and integrity, 673‐683
the union of the two natures in one, 683‐700

Personal identity, 92, 417
intelligences cannot be accounted for by pantheism, 102
influence, often distinct from word spoken, 820

Personality, defined, 82, 252, 253, 330, 335, 515, 695
of God, the conclusion of the anthropological argument, 84
of God, denied by pantheism, 100
the highest dependent on infiniteness, 104
self‐conscious and self‐determining, 253
triple, in Godhead, consistent with essential unity, 330
in man, inalienable, 515
involves boundless possibilities, 515
foundation of mutual love among men, 515
constitutes a capacity for redemption, 515

Pessimism, 404, 405

Peter, how he differed with Paul, 214
Romish assumptions regarding, 909

Peter, Second, 147, 149, 153

Pharaoh, the hardening of his heart, 434

Phenomena, 6

Philemon and Onesimus, moralized, 767

Philosophy, defined, 42

Physico‐theological argument, a term of Kant’s, 75

Physiology, comparative, favors unity of race, 480‐483

Pictures of Christ, 251

_Pie hoc potest dici, Deum esse Naturam_, 107

Plasticity of species, greater toward origin, 482

Plural quantitative, 318

_Pluralis majestaticus_, 318

Poesy and poem, 852

Poetry, 526

Polytheism, 259, 347

Pools of modern Jerusalem, 934

Positive Philosophy, 6, 9, 535, 545, 632

Possession by demons, 456

Præterist interpreters of Revelation, 1009

Prayer, relation of Providence to, 433
its effect, not solely reflex influence, 433
its answers not confined to spiritual means, 433
not answered by suspension or breach of the order of nature, 434
has no direct influence on nature, 434
is answered by new combinations of natural forces, 434
as an appeal to a personal and present God, it moves God, 435
its answer, while an expression of God’s will, may come through the use
of appointed means, 435
God’s immanency in nature helps to a solution of the problem, how prayer
is answered, 436
how the potency of prayer may be tested, 437, 438

Prayer‐book, English, Arminian, 46
on infant baptism, 957

Prayer‐book of Edward VI, mode of baptism in, 957

Preaching of doctrinal sermons, 19
of the decrees, 369
of the organic unity of the race in transgression, 634
larger part of, should consist in application of Divine law to personal
acts, 648, 649
addressed to elect and non‐elect, 789
must press immediate submission to Christ, 830
of everlasting punishment an auxiliary to the gospel appeal, 1053

Pre‐Adamites, 476

Precedent, N. T., the ’common‐law’ of the church, 970

“Preconformity to future events,”, 76

Predestination, 355, 360, 781

_Predicata_, not attributes, 245

Prediction, only a part of prophecy, 134, 710

“Pre‐established harmony,”, 93

Pre‐existence of soul, 488‐491

Preference, immanent, 514
“elective,”, 557

Preparation, historical, for redemption, 665‐668

Prerational instinct, 98

Prescience, Divine, 286

Presentative intuition, 52, 53, 67

Preservation, 410‐419
definition of, positive and negative, 410, 411
proofs of, from Scripture and reason, 411‐414
deism, with its God withdrawn, denies, 414, 415
continuous creation, with momently new universe, inconsistent with,
415‐418
divine concurrence in, considered, 418, 419

Pretermission of sin, 772

Preventive providence, 423

Pride, 569

“Priest” and “minister,”, 915, 967

Priestly office of Christ, 713‐775

Probability, 71

Probation after death, 707, 1002, 1031‐1044
in Adam, 629

Procession of the Holy Spirit, its true formula, 323
consistent with his equality in Trinity, 340, 341

Progress of early Christianity, what principally conduced to?, 187

Prolegomena, 1‐15

Proof of Divine Revelation, principles of evidence applicable to, 41‐44

Prophecy, as attesting a divine revelation, 134‐141
defined in its narrow sense, 134, 135
its relation to miracles, 135
requirements in, 135
general features of Scriptural, 135, 136
Messianic in general, 136
as used by Christ, 136‐138
the double sense of, 138‐140
evidential force of, 140, 141
alleged errors in, 235, 236
Christians have gifts of, 712
modern, as far as true, what?, 712

Prophet, not always aware of meaning of his own prophecies, 139
later may elucidate earlier utterances, 235, 236
his soul, is it rapt into God’s timeless existence and vision?, 278
larger meaning of the word, 710

_Prophetæ priores_, 710

Prophetic office of Christ, 710‐713
see Christ.
its nature, 710, 711
fulfilled in three ways, 711
its four stages, 711‐713
in his Logos‐work, 711
in his earthly ministry, 711, 712
in his guidance and teaching of the church since his ascension, 712
in his revelations of the Father to the saints in glory, 712, 713
will be eternal, 712

Propitiation, 719, 720

_Proprietates_, distinguished from attributes, 246

Proselyte‐baptism, 931, 932

Protevangelium, Scripture germinally, 175

Providence, doctrine of, 419‐443
defined, 419
explains evolution and progress of universe, 419, 420
doctrine of, its proof from Scripture, 421‐425
a general providential control, 421, 422
a control extending to free actions of men in general, 422, 423
four sorts, preventive, permissive, directive, determinative, 423‐425
rational proof of, 425‐427
arguments _a priori_, 425, 426
arguments _a posteriori_, 426
opposed by theory of fatalism, 427
opposed by casualism, 427, 428
opposed by theory of a merely general providence, 428‐431
its relation to miracles and works of grace, 431‐433
its relation to prayer, 433‐439
its relation to Christian activity, 439‐441
to evil acts of free agents, 441‐443

’Providential miracles,’, 432

Psychic phenomena, 117

Punctiliousness, warning against, 428

Punishment, implied in man’s moral nature, 82
does not proceed from love, 272
proceeds from justice, 293
its idea, 652, 752
what implied in its idea, 652‐656
has in it, beyond the natural consequences of transgression, a personal
element, 652
its object not the reformation of the sufferer, 653
is the necessary reaction of divine holiness against sin, 653
is not essentially deterrent, 655
of sin is physical death, 656‐659
of sin is spiritual death, 659, 660
an ethical need of the divine nature, 751
an ethical need in man’s moral nature, 751
of guilty, Christ’s sufferings substituted for, 752
is borne by the judge and punisher in the nature that has sinned, 752
as presented in atonement, what it secures, 753
endured by Christ righteously, because of his relation to the sinning
race, 754, 755
remitted in justification, 854
remitted on the ground of what Christ, to whom the sinner is united by
faith, has done, 854, 858
the final, of the wicked described in Scriptural figures, 1033, 1034
the final, of the wicked, summed up, 1034
future, some concessions regarding, 1035
of wicked, the future, not annihilation, 1035, 1036
not a weakening process ending in cessation of existence, 1036, 1037
not an annihilating punishment after death, 1037
light from the evolutionary process thrown on, 1038
excludes new probation and ultimate restoration of the wicked, 1039
declared in Scripture to be eternal, 1044
is a revelation of God’s justice, 1046
as the reaction of holiness against sin must continue while sin
continues, 1046, 1047
is endless since guilt is endless, 1048
is eternal since sin is “eternal,”, 1048
the facts of human life and tendencies of scientific thought point to
the perpetuity of, 1049
may have degrees yet be eternal, 1050
may be eternal as the desert of sin of infinite enormity, 1050
not inconsistent with God’s benevolence, 1051‐1054
its proper preaching not a hindrance to success of the gospel, 1054
if it is a fact, it ought to be preached, 1054
to ignore it in pulpit teaching lowers the holiness of God, 1055
the fear of, not the highest but a proper motive to seek salvation, 1055
in preaching it, the misery of the soul should have special emphasis,
1056

Purgatory, 659, 866, 1000‐1002

Purification of Christ, the ritual, 761, 942, 943

Puritans, 546, 557

Purpose of God includes many decrees, 353
in election, what?, 355
in reprobation, what?, 355
to save individuals, passages which prove, 780‐783
to do what he does, eternal, 783
to save, not conditioned upon merit or faith, 784

_Quasi carcere_, Christ not thus in Heaven, 709

_Quia voluit_ of Calvin, not final answer as to God’s acts, 404

Quickening, Christ’s, distinguished from his resurrection, 707

Quietism, 439, 440

_Quo non ascendam?_ not Christ’s query, 764

Race, Scripture teaches its descent from a single pair, 476
its descent from a single pair a foundation truth of Paul’s, 476
its descent from a single pair the foundation of brotherhood, 476
its descent from a single pair corroborated by history, 477, 478
its descent from a single pair corroborated by language, 478, 479
its descent from a single pair corroborated by psychology, 479, 480
its descent from a single pair corroborated by physiology, 480‐483

Race‐responsibility, 594‐597

Rational intuition, 52, 67

Rationalism and Scripture, 29, 30, 89

Readings, various, 226

Realism, in relation to God, 245

Reason, definition of, 4, 29
its office, 29
says _scio_, not _conscio_, 500
moral, depraved, 501

Reasoning, not reason, 29
not a source of the idea of God, 65
errors of, in Bible, 232, 233

Recognition, post‐resurrectional, 1020, 1021

Recollection of things not before seen, the seeming, explained, 488
memory greater than, 705

Reconciliation, removal of God’s wrath, 719
of man to God, 777‐886
objective, secured by Christ’s union with race, 802
subjective, secured by Christ’s union with believers, 802

Redemption and resurrection, what is secured by, 527
wrought by Christ, 665‐776
its meaning, 707
legal, of Christ, its import, 761
its application, 777‐886
application of, in its preparation, 777‐793
application of, in its actual beginning, 793‐868
application of, in its continuation, 868‐886

Redi’s maxim, 389

Reformed theology, 44‐46

Regenerate, some apparently such, will fall away, 884
the truly, not always distinguishable in this life from the seemingly
so, 884
their fate if they should not persevere described, 885
these warnings secure their perseverance, 885

Regeneration, illustrative of inspiration, 212
ascribed to Holy Spirit, 316
its nature, according to Romanists, 522
the view that a child may be educated into, 606
its place in the _ordo salutis_, 793
does a physical miracle attend?, 806
defined, 809
its active and passive aspects, 809
how represented in Scripture, 810‐812
indispensable, 810
a change in the inmost principle of life, 810
a change in governing disposition, 810
a change in moral relations, 810, 811
wrought through use of truth, 811
is instantaneous, 811
wrought by God, 811
through union of soul with Christ, 811, 812
its necessity, 812‐814
its efficient cause, 814‐820
the will not the efficient cause, 815‐817
is more than self‐reformation, 815
is not co‐operation with divine influence, which to the natural man is
impossible, 816
the truth is not the efficient cause, 817, 818
the Holy Spirit, the efficient cause of, 818‐820
the Spirit in, operates not on the truth but on the soul, 819
the Spirit in, effects a change in the moral disposition, 820
the instrumentality used in, 820‐823
baptism a sign of, 821
as a spiritual change cannot be effected by physical means, 821
is accomplished through the instrumentality of the truth, 822
man not wholly passive at time of his, 822
man’s mind at time of, active in view of truth, 822
nature of the change wrought in, 823‐829
is a change by which governing disposition is made holy, 823‐825
does not affect the quantity but the quality of the soul, 824
involves an enlightenment of the understanding and a rectification of
the volitions, 825
an origination of holy tendencies, 826
an instantaneous change in soul, below consciousness and known only in
results, 826‐829
is an instantaneous change, 826, 827
should not be confounded with preparatory stages, 827
taken place in region of the soul below consciousness, 828
is recognized indirectly in its results, 828, 829
the growth that follows, is sanctification, 829

_Regna, gloriæ, gratiæ_ (_et naturæ_), 775

Reign of sin, what?, 553, 554

Religion and theology, how related, 19
derivation of word, 19, 20
false conceptions of it advocated by Hegel, Schleiermacher, and Kant,
20, 21
its essential idea, 21, 22
there is but one, 22, 23
its content greater than that of theology, 23
distinguished from formal worship, 23, 24
conspectus of the systems of, in world, 179‐186

Remorse, perhaps an element in Christ’s suffering, 769

Reparative goodness of God in nature, 113

Repentance, more for sin than sins, 555
the gift of God, 782
described, 832
contains an intellectual element, 832
contains an emotional element, 832, 833
contains a voluntary element, 833, 834
implies free‐will, 834
Romish view, 834
wholly an inward act, 834
manifested by fruits of repentance, 835
a negative and not a positive means of salvation, 835
if true, is in conjunction with faith, 836
accompanies true faith, 836

Reprobation, 355

_Rerum natura Dei voluntas est_, 119

_Respice_, _aspice_, _prospice_ of Bernard applied to prophet’s function,
710

Responsibility for whatever springs from will, 509
for inherited moral evil, its ground, 509
is special help of Spirit essential to? 603, 604
for a sinful nature which one did not personally originate, a fact, 629
none for immediate heredities, 630
for belief, authors on, 841

Restoration of all human beings, 1039‐1044

Resurrection, an event not within the realm of nature, 118
of Christ, the central and sufficient evidence of Christianity, 138
of Christ, dilemma for those who deny, 130
of Christ, Strauss fails to explain belief in, 157
of Christ, attested by epistles regarded as genuine by Baur, 160
of Christ, Renan’s view of, 160, 161
Christ’s argument for, Matt. 22:32, 232, 996, 1018
attributed to Christ, 310
attributed to Holy Spirit, 316
of Christ, angel present at, 483
of Christ, gave proof that penalty of sin was exhausted, 657
a stage in Christ’s exaltation, 707
proclaimed Christ as perfected and glorified man, 708
of Christ, the time of his justification, 762
secured to believer by union with Christ, 805, 806, 867
relation to regeneration, 824
sanctification completed at the, 874
of Christ and of the believer, Baptism a symbol of, 940‐945
implied in symbolism of Lord’s Supper, 963, 964
Christ’s body, an object that may be worshiped, 968
an event preparing for the kingdom of God, 981
allusions to, in O. T., 995
of Christ, the only certain proof of immortality, 997
perfect joy or misery subsequent to, 1002
Scriptures describing a spiritual, 1015
Scriptures describing a physical, 1015
art and post‐resurrection possibilities, 1016
personality in, being indestructible, takes to itself a body, 1016
Christ’s body in, an open question, 1016
an exegetical objection to, 1016
“of the body,” the phrase not in N. T., 1016
receive a “spiritual body” in, 1016, 1017
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit secures preservation of body in, 1017
the believer’s, as literal and physical as Christ’s, 1018
literal, to be suitable to events which accompany, 1018
the physical connection between old and new body in, not unscientific,
1019
the oneness of the body in, and our present body, rests on two things,
1020
the body in, though not absolutely the same, will be identical with the
present, 1020, 1021
the spiritual body in, will complete rather than confine, the activities
of spirit, 1021, 1022
four principles should influence our thinking about, 1022, 1023
authors on the subject in departments and entirety, 1023

Revelation, of such a nature as to make scientific theology possible,
11‐15

Revelation in nature requires supplementing, 26, 27
God submits to limitations of, which are largely those of theology,
34‐36
how regarded in “period of criticism and speculation,”, 46
the Scriptures a, from God, 111‐242
reasons for expecting from God a, 111‐114
psychology shows that the intellectual and moral nature of man needs a,
111, 112
history shows that man needs a, 112
what we know of God’s nature leads to hope of a, 112, 113
_a priori_ reasons for expecting, 113, 114
marks of the expected, 114‐117
its substance, 114
its method, 114‐116
will have due attestation, 116, 117
attended by miracles, 117‐134
attested by prophecy, 134‐141
principles of historical evidence entering into proof of, 141‐144
Scripture, 175
its connection with inspiration and illumination, 196, 197

Revenge, what?, 569

“Reversion to type” never occurs in man, 411

Rewards, earthly, appealed to in O. T., 230
proceed from goodness of God, 290, 293
not bestowed by justice or righteousness, 293
goodness to creatures, righteousness to Christ, 293
are motives, not sanctions, 535

Right, abstract, not ground of moral obligations, 299
God is self‐willing, 338
based on arbitrary will is not right, 338
based on passive nature, is not right, 338
as being is Father, 338
as willing is Son, 338

Righteousness of God, what?, 290
holiness in its mandatory aspect, 291
its meaning in 2 Cor. 5:21, 760
demands punishment of sin, 764
is justification and sanctification, 873

Romanism, and Scripture, 33, 34
a mystical element in, 33
it places church before the Bible, 33
would keep men in perpetual childhood, 33, 34

Sabbath commemorates God’s act of creation, 408
made at creation applies to man always and everywhere, 408
recognized in Assyria and Babylonia, as far back as Accadian times
before Abraham, 408
was not abrogated by our Lord or his apostles, 409
upon, 409

Sabbath, Christ’s example and apostolic sanction have transferred it from
seventh to first day of week, 409
Justin Martyr on, 410
authors on, 410

Sabellianism, 327, 328

Sacrifice, 722‐728
what it is not, 722, 723
its true import, 723, 724
pagan and Semitic, its implications, 723, 724
in the legend of Æschylus, 723
of the Passover, H. C. Trumbull’s views of, 723
its theocratical and spiritual offices, 724
of O. T., when rightly offered, what implied in, 725, 726
cannot present a formal divine institution, 726
how Abel’s differed from Cain’s, 727
the terminology of O. T. regarding, needful to correct interpretation of
N. T. usage regarding atonement of Christ, 727
differing views as to significance of, 728

Sacrifices, Jewish, a tentative scheme of, 725, 726

Saints, prayer to, 775
how intercessors?, 775
as applied to believers, 880

Sanctification, related to regeneration and justification, 862, 863
definition of, 869
what implied in definition of, 869, 870
explanations and Scripture proof of, 870‐875
a work of God, 870
a continuous process, 871
distinguished from regeneration, 871
shown in intelligent and voluntary activity of believer, 871, 872
the agency employed in, the indwelling Spirit of Christ, 872
its mediate or instrumental cause is faith, 872
the object of this instrumental faith is Christ himself, 873
measured by strength of faith, 873
influenced by lack of persistency in using means of growth, 874
completed in life to come, 874
erroneous views of, 875‐881
the Antinomian view, 875‐877
the Perfectionist view, 877‐881

Sanctify, its twofold meaning, 880

Satan, his personality, 447
not a collective term for all evil beings, 447
various literary conceptions of, 447
meaning of term, 454
opposed by Holy Spirit, 454
his temptations, 455
has access to human mind, 455
may influence through physical organism, 455
“delivering to,” 457
was specially active during earthly ministry of Christ, 458
his power limited, 458
the idea of his fall not self‐contradictory, 460
not irrational to suppose that by a single act he could change his
nature, 460
present passion may lead a wise being to enter on a foolish course, 460
that God should create and uphold evil spirits no more inconsistent with
benevolence than similar action towards evil men, 461
a ganglionic centre of an evil system, 461
the doctrine of, if given up, leads to laxity in administration of
justice, 462
as tool and slave of, humanity is indeed degraded, but was not always,
nor needs to be, 462
the fall of, uncaused from without, 585
like Adam, sins under the best circumstances, 588
permitted to divide the guilt with man that man might not despair, 588
grows in cunning and daring, 1037

Satisfaction to an immanent demand of divine holiness rendered by Christ’s
obedience and suffering, 713, 723
by substitution founded on incorporation, 723
and forgiveness not mutually exclusive because the judge makes
satisfaction to his own violated holiness, 767
penal and pecuniary, 767
sinner’s own act, according to Romish view, 834

Scholasticism and Scholastics, 44, 45, 265, 268, 443

Science, defined, 2
its aim, 2
on what its possibility is grounded, 2
requires a knowledge of more than phenomena, 6
existence of a personal God, its necessary datum, 60

_Scientia media, simplicis intelligentiæ, visionis_, 358

Scientific unity, desire for, its influence, 90

_Scio_ and _conscio_, 500

Scripture and nature, 26
and rationalism, 29‐31
contains nothing repugnant to a properly conditioned and enlightened
reason, 29
and mysticism, 31, 32
and Romanism, 33, 34
knowledge of, incomplete, 35
topics on which silent, 72
supernatural character of its teaching, 175
its moral and religious ideas uncontradicted and unsuperseded, 175
its supernaturally secured unity, 176
Christ testifies to its supernatural character, 189
result of its propagation, 191
how interpreted?, 217
authors differ, divine mind one, 217
the Christian rule of faith and practice, 218
contains no scientific untruth, 224
not a code of practical action, but an enunciation of principles, 545

Scriptures, the, a revelation from God, 111‐242
work of one God, and so organically articulated (Scripture), 217
why so many interpretations of?, 223, 224
a rule in their interpretation, 1011

“Sealing,”, 831, 872

Seals, in Revelation, 1010

Selection, natural, without teleological factors, its inadequacy, 391
is it in any sense the _cause_ of the origin of species?, 391
it has probably increased the rapidity of development, 391, 392
or “survival of the fittest,” how suggested?, 403
defined, 470
is partially true, 470
it gives no account of the origin of substance or variations, 470
not the savior of the fittest, but the destroyer of the failures, 470
facts that it cannot explain, 470, 471
nor artificial has produced a new species, 471

Self‐limitation, divine, 9, 126, 255

Selfishness, the essence of sin, 567
cannot be resolved into simpler elements, 568
forms in which it manifests itself, 568, 569
of unregenerate, the substitution of a lower for a higher end, 570

Sentimentality, 979

“Signality,” in miracle, 118

Sin, God the author of free beings who are the authors of, 365
the decree to permit not efficient, 365
its permission a difficulty of all theistic systems, 366
its permission, how not to be explained, 366
its permission, how it may be partially explained, 366
the problem of, one of four at present not to be completely solved, 366,
367
observations from many sources aiming to throw light on the existence of
moral evil, 367, 368
man’s, as suggested from without, perhaps the mitigating circumstance
that allows of his redemption, 462
in what sense a nature?, 518
effect of first, not a weakening but a perversion of human nature, 521
the first did more than despoil man of a special gift of grace, 521
or man’s state of apostasy, 533‐664
its nature, 549‐573
defined, 549
Old and New School views regarding, their difference and approximation,
549, 550
as a state, some psychological notes explanatory of, 550, 551
as a state is counteracted by an immanent divine power which leads
towards salvation, 551
“total depravity” as descriptive of, an out‐grown phrase, 552
as act of transgression and disposition or state, proved from Scripture,
552‐554
the words which describe, applicable to dispositions and states, 552
N. T. descriptions of, give prominence to states and dispositions, 552,
553
and moral evil in the thoughts, affections, and heart, 553
is name given to a state which originated wrong desires, 553
is represented as existing in soul prior to consciousness of it, 553
a permanent power or reigning principle, 553
Mosaic sacrifices for sins other than mere act, 554
universally attributed to disposition or state, 554
attributed to outward act only when such act is symptomatic of inward
state, 554
if it tend from act to a state, regarded as correspondingly blameworthy,
554
in an individual condemned though it cannot be traced back to a
conscious originating act, 554, 555
when it becomes fixed and dominant moral corruption, meets special
disapprobation, 555
regarded by the Christian as a manifestation of subconscious depravity
of nature, 555
repented of, principally as depravity of nature, 555
rather than “sins” repented of by Christians advanced in spiritual
culture; a conspectus of quotations to prove this, 555‐557
its definition as ’the voluntary transgression of known law’ discussed,
557‐559
is not always a distinct and conscious volition, 557
intention aggravates, but is not essential to, 558
knowledge aggravates, but is not essential to, 558
ability to fulfil the law, not essential to, 558
definition of, 558, 559
its essential principle, 559‐573
is not sensuousness, 559‐563
is not finiteness, 563‐566
is selfishness, 567‐573
is universal, 573‐582
committed by every human being, arrived at maturity, 573
its universality set forth in Scripture, 573, 574
its universality proved from history, 574
its universality proved from Christian experience, 576
the outcome of a corrupt nature possessed by every human being, 577
is act or disposition referred to a corrupt nature, 577
rests on men who are called in Scripture ’children of wrath,’, 578
its penalty, death, visits those who have never exercised personal or
conscious choice, 579
its universality proved from reason, 579, 580
testimony of great thinkers regarding, 580‐582
its origin in the personal act of Adam, 582‐593
the origin of the sinful nature whence it comes is beyond the
investigations of reason, 582
Scriptural account of its origin, 582‐585
Adam’s, its essential nature, 587
of Adam in resisting inworking God, 587
an immanent preference of the world, 587
not to be accounted for psychologically, 587
the external temptation to first sin a benevolent permission, 588
self‐originated, Satanic, 588
the first temptation to, had no tendency to lead astray, 588
the first, though in itself small, a revelation of will thoroughly
alienated from God, 590
consequences of original, as respects Adam, 590‐593
physical death, a consequence of his first, 590, 591
spiritual death, a consequence of his first, 591, 592
exclusion from God’s presence, a consequence of his first, 592
banishment from the Garden, a consequence of man’s first, 593
the, of our first parents constituted their posterity sinners, 593
two insistent questions regarding the first, and the Scriptural answer,
593
imputation of, its true meaning, 594
original, its meaning, 594
man’s relations to moral law extend beyond conscious and actual, 595
God’s moral government recognizes race‐sin, 595
actual, more guilty than original, 596
no man condemned for original, alone, 596, 664
the only ground of responsibility for race‐sin, 596
original, its correlate, 596
imputation of Adam’s, 597‐637
see Imputation.
Pelagian theory of the imputation of, 597‐601
Arminian theory of the imputation of, 601‐606
New School theory of the imputation of, 606‐612
Federal theory of the imputation of, 612‐616
Mediate theory of the imputation of, 616‐619
Augustinian theory of the imputation of, 619‐637
table of theories of imputation of, 628
apart from, and prior to, consciousness, 629
conscience and Scripture attest that we are responsible for our unborn
tendency to, 629
as our nature, rightly punishable with resulting sin, 632
reproductive, each reproduction increasing guilt and punishment, 633
each man guilty of personal, which expresses more than original
depravity of nature, 633
is self‐perpetuating, 633
is self‐isolating, 634
the nature, and sins its expression, 635
as Adam’s, ruins, so Christ’s obedience saves, 635
consequences of, to Adam’s posterity, 637‐664
depravity a consequence of Adam’s, 637‐640
in nature, as “total depravity,” considered, 637‐640
total inability a consequence of Adam’s, 640‐644
guilt a consequence of Adam’s, 644‐652
penalty, a consequence of Adam’s, 652‐660
infants in a state of, 661
venial and mortal, 648
of nature and personal transgression, 648, 649
of ignorance and of knowledge, 649
of infirmity and of presumption, 649, 650
of incomplete and final obduracy, 650‐652
unto death, considered, 650‐652
against Holy Spirit, why unpardonable, 651, 652
penalty of, considered, 652‐660
infants in a state of, 661
Christ free from hereditary and actual, 676‐678
Christ responsible for human, 759
Christ responsible for Adam’s, 759
Christ as great Penitent confesses race‐sin, 760
Christ, how made to be, 760‐763
a pretermission of, justified in cross, 772
does not condemn, but the failure to ask pardon for it, 856
judged and condemned on Calvary, 860
future, the virtual pardon of, 867
“dwelling,” and “reigning,”, 869, 870
expelled by bringing in Christ, 873
does not most sympathize with sin, 1028
hinders intercourse with other worlds, 1033
“eternal,”, 1033
made the means of displaying God’s glory, 1038
chosen in spite of infinite motives to the contrary, 1040

Sinner, the incorrigible, glorifies God in his destruction, 442
negatively described, 637, 638
positively described, 639
what he can do, 640
what he cannot do, 640
under conviction, more of a sinner than before, 827
has no right to do anything before accepting Christ, 868

“Six hundred sixty‐six,”, 570

“Slope, the,”, 580

Society, atomistic theory of, 623

Society, _bellum omnium contra omnes_ (Hobbes), 461

Socinianism, 47, 328, 329, 524, 558, 597, 728‐733

Solidarity, 624

_Sola fides justificat, sed fides non est sola_, 758

“Son,” its import in Trinity, 334

Son, the, a perfect object of will, knowledge and love to God, 275, 388
his eternal generation, 341
uncreate, 341
his essence not derived from essence of the Father, 341
his existence eternal, 341
exists by internal necessity of Divine nature, 342
eternal generation of, a life movement of the Divine nature, 342
in person subordinate to person of Father, 342
in essence equal with Father, 342

Son of man, cannotes, among other things, a veritable humanity, 673

Song of Solomon, 233, 238

Sonship of Christ, eternal, 340
metaphysical, 340
authors on, 343

Sorrow for sin, 832, 833

Soteriology, 665‐894

Soul, what?, 92
dichotomous view of, 483
trichotomous view of, 484
distinguished from spirit, 484
its origin, 488
its pre‐existence, according to poets, 489
creatian theory of, 491
not something added from without, 492
introduced into body, _sicut vinum in vase acetoso_, 493
metaphysical generation of, 493
traducian theory of, 494‐497
history of theory, 493, 494
observations favorable to, 494‐497
image of God, _proprie_, 528
always active, though not always conscious, 550
may influence another soul apart from physical intermediaries, 820
not inaccessible to God’s direct operation, 820
as uncompounded cannot die, 984
see Immortality.

“Sovereign, the,” a title of Messiah, 321

Space, 278, 279

Space and time, 85, 275

Space “in God,”, 279

Species, 392, 480‐482, 494

Spirit, the Holy, his teaching, a necessity, 27
hides himself, 213
recognized as God, 315
divine characteristics and prerogatives ascribed to, 316
associated with God, 316
his deity supported by Christian experience, 316
his deity, a doctrine of the church, 316
the Holy, his deity not disproved by O. T. limitations, 317
his deity, authors on, 317
is a person, 323
designations of personality given to him, 323
“the mother‐principle” in the Godhead, 323
so mentioned with other persons as to imply personality, 323, 324
performs acts of personality, 324
affected by acts of others, 324
possesses an emotional nature, 325
visibly appears as distinct from, yet connected with Father and Son, 325
ascription to him, of personal subsistence, 325
import of his presence in Trinity, 334
the centripetal movement of Deity, 336
and Christ, differences in their work, 338‐340
his nature and work, authors on, 340
his eternal procession, 340‐343
if not God, God could not be appropriated, 349
a work of completing belongs to, 313
applies Scriptural truth to present circumstances, 440
directs the God‐man in his humiliation, 696
his intercession, 774, 775
his intermediacy, 793
witness of, what?, 844, 845
doctrine of “sealing” distinguished from mysticism, 845
in believer, substitutes old excitements, 872

“Spirit” and “soul,”, 843

Spirit, how applied to Christ, 333

Spirits, evil, tempt, 455
control natural phenomena, 455
execute God’s plans, 457
not independent of human will, 457, 458
restrained by permissive will of God, 458
exist and act on sufferance, 459
their existence not inconsistent with benevolence of God, 461
are organized, 461
the doctrine of, not immoral, 461, 462
doctrine of, not degrading, 462
their nature and actions illustrate the evil of sin, 463
knowledge of their existence inspires a salutary fear, 463
sense of their power drives to Christ, 463
contrasting their unsaved state with our spiritual advantages causes us
to magnify grace of God, 463

“Spirits in prison,”, 707, 708

Spiritual body, 1016, 1017

Spiritualism, 32, 132

Spontaneous generation, 389

Stoicism, 184

Style, 223

Sublapsarianism, 777

Subordinationism, 342

Substance, known, 5
its characteristics, 6
a direct knowledge of it as underlying phenomena, 97

Substances, the theory of two eternal, 378‐383
See Dualism.

_Substantia una et unica_, 86

Suffering, in itself not reformatory, 104

Suggestion, 453, 454

“Sunday,” used by Justin Martyr, 148

Supererogation, works of, 522

Supper, the Lord’s, a historical monument, 157
its ritual and import, 959
instituted by Christ, 959, 960
its mode of administration, 960‐962
its elements, 960
its communion of both kinds, 960
is of a festal nature, 960, 961
commemorative, 961
celebrated by assembled church, 961
responsibility of its proper observance rests with pastor as
representative of church, 962
its frequency discretional, 962
it symbolizes personal appropriation of the benefits of Christ’s death,
963
it symbolizes union with Christ, 963
it symbolizes dependence on Christ, 963
it symbolizes a reproduction of death and resurrection in believer, 963
it symbolizes union in Christ, 963
it symbolizes the coming joy and perfection of the kingdom of God, 963
its connection with baptism, 964
is to be often repeated, 964
implies a previous state of grace, 964
the blessing conveyed in communion depends on communicant, 964
expresses fellowship of believer, 964
the Romanist view of, 965‐968
the Lutheran and High Church view of, 968, 969
there are prerequisites, 969, 970
prerequisites laid down by Christ, 970
regeneration, a prerequisite to, 971
baptism, a prerequisite to, 971‐973
church membership, a prerequisite to, 973
an orderly walk, a prerequisite to, 973‐975
the local church the judge as to the fulfilment of these prerequisites,
975‐977
special objections to open communion presented, 977‐980

Supralapsarianism, 777

Symbol, derivation and meaning, 42
less than thing symbolized, 1035

Symbolism, period of, 45

_Symbolum Quicumque_, 329

Synagogue, 902

Synergism, 816

Synoptic gospels, date, 150

“Synthetic idealization of our existence,”, 568

Synthetic method in theology, 50

System of theology, a dissected map, some parts of which already put
together, 15

Systematic theologian, the first, 44

Systematic truth influences character, 16

_Tabula rasa_ theory, of Locke, 35

Talmud shows what the unaided genius for religion could produce, 115

_Tapeinoticon genus_, 686

“Teaching, the, of the Twelve Apostles,”, 159, 937, 953

Teleological argument for the existence of God, 75‐80
statement of argument, 75
called also “physico‐theological,”, 75
divided by some into eutaxiology and teleology proper, 75
the major premise is a primitive and immovable conviction, 75
the minor premise, a working principle of science, 77
it does not prove a personal God, 78, 79
it does not prove unity, eternity, or infinity of God, 79, 80
adds intelligence and volition to the causative power already proved to
exist, 80

Telepathy, 1021

Temptation, prevented by God’s providence, 423
does not pervert, but confirms, the holy soul, 588, 589
Adam’s, Scriptural account of, 582, 583
Adam’s, its course and result, 584, 585
Adam’s, contrasted with Christ’s, 677, 678
Christ’s, as possible as that of Adam, 677
aided by limitations of his human intelligence, 677
aided by his susceptibility to all forms of innocent gratification, 677
in wilderness, addressed to desire, 677
in Gethsemane, to fear, 677
_Ueberglaube_, _Aberglaube_, _Unglaube_, appealed to, 677
is always “without sin,”, 677
authors upon, 678
by Satan, negative and positive, 455

Tempter’s promise, the, 572

Tendency‐theory of Baur, 157‐160

Tendency, undeveloped, 847

Terminology, a, needed in progress of a science, 35

Testament New, genuineness of, 146‐165
rationalistic theories to explain origin of its gospels, 155‐165
its moral system, 177‐186
its morality contrasted with that of heathenism, 179‐186

Testament, Old, in what sense its works are genuine, 162
how proved, 165‐175
alleged errors in quoting or interpreting, 234, 235

Testimony, science assumes faith in, 3
amount of, necessary to prove miracle, 127, 128
in general, 142‐144
statements in, may conflict without being false, 227

Tests, does God submit to?, 437

Theologian, characteristics of, 38‐41

Theological Encyclopædia, 42

Theology, its definition, 1, 2
its aim, 2
its possibility, 2‐15
its necessity, 15‐19
its relation to religion, 19‐24
rests on God’s self‐revelation, 25
rests on his revelation in nature, 26
natural and Scriptural, how related, 26‐29
rests on Scripture and reason, 29
rationalism hurtful to, 30‐31
rests on Scripture and a true mysticism, 31
avoids a false mysticism, 32
accepts history of doctrine as ancillary, 33
declines the combination, Scripture and Romanism, 33, 34
its limitations, 34‐36
a perfect system of, impossible, 36, 37
is progressive, 37
its method, 38‐51
requisites to its study, 38‐41
see Theologian.
divisions of, 41‐44
Biblical, 41
historical, 41
systematic, 41, 42
practical, 42‐44

Theology, Systematic, its history, 44
in Eastern church, 44
in Western Church, 44‐46
its period of scholasticism, 44, 45
its period of symbolism, 45, 46
its period of criticism and speculation, 46
a list of authorities in, differing from Protestantism, 47
British theology, 47, 48
Baptist theologians, 47
Puritan theologians, 47, 48
Scotch Presbyterian theologians, 48
Methodist theologians, 48
Quaker theologians, 48
English Church theologians, 48
American theology, 48, 49
the Reformed system, 48, 49
the older Calvinism, 49
order in which its subjects may be treated, 49, 50
analytic method in, 49, 50
synthetic method in, 50
text‐books in, 50, 51

Theonomy, 83

Theophany, Christ not a mere, 686

“Things,”, 95, 96, 254

Thought, does not go on in the brain, 93
possible without language, 216
intermittent or continuous?, 1002

Three thousand baptized in one day in time of Chrysostom, 934

Thucydides never mentions Socrates, 144

Time, its definition, 276
God not under law of, 276
has objective reality to God, 276
his “one eternal now,” how to be understood, 277
can the human spirit escape the conditions of, 278
authors on “time” and “eternity,”, 278

Torments of wicked, outward, subordinate results and accompaniments of
state of soul, 1034

Tradition, and idea of God, 63
cannot long be trusted to give correct evidence, 142
of a “golden age” and matters cognate, 480, 526

Traducianism, its advocates and teaching, 493, 494
best accords with Scripture, 494, 495
favored by analogy of vegetable and animal life, 496
heredities, mental, spiritual, and moral, prove men’s souls of human
ancestry, 496
does not exclude divine concurrence in the development of the human
species, 496
Fathers, who held, 620

Trafalgar, omitted in Napoleon’s dispatches, 143

Transcendence, divine, denied by pantheism, 100
taught in Scripture, 102
deism, an exaggeration of, 414

Transgression, a stab at heart of God, 541
not proper translation of 1 John 3:4, 452
its universality directly taught in Scripture, 573
its universality proved in universal need of atonement, regeneration,
and repentance, 573
its universality shown in condemnation that rests on all who do not
accept Christ, 574
its universality, consistent with passages which ascribe a sort of
goodness to some men, 574
its universality proved by history, and individual experience and
observation, 574, 575
proved from Christian experience, 576
uniformity of actual transgression, a proof that will is impotent, 611
all moral consequences flowing from, are sanctions of law, 637

Transubstantiation, what?, 965
rests on a false interpretation of Scripture, 965
contradicts the senses, 966
denies completeness of sacrifice of Calvary, 967
externalizes and destroys Christianity, 967, 968

Trees of “life” and “knowledge,”, 526, 527, 583

Trichotomous theory of man’s nature, 484‐487

_Trimurti_, Brahman Trinity, 351

_Trinitas dualitatem ad unitatem reducit_, 338

_Trinitatem, I ad Jordanem et videbis_, 325

Trinities, heathen, 351

Trinity, renders possible an eternal divine self‐contemplation, 262
the immanent love of God understood only in light of, 265
the immanent holiness of God rendered intelligible by doctrine of, 274
has close relations to doctrine of immanent attributes, 275, 336
doctrine of the, 304‐352
a truth of revelation only, 304
intimated in O. T., made known in N. T., 304
six main statements concerning, 304
the term ascribed to Tertullian, 304
a designation of four facts, 304
held implicitly, or in solution, by the apostles, 304
took shape in the Athanasian Creed (8th or 9th century), 305
usually connected with “semi‐trinitarian” Nicene Creed (325 A. D.), 305
references on doctrine of, 305
implies the recognition in Scripture of three as God, 305‐322
presents proofs from N. T., 305‐317
presents Father as recognized as God, 305
presents Jesus Christ as recognized as God, 305‐315
appeals to Christian experience as confirming the deity of Christ, 313,
314
explains certain passages apparently inconsistent with Christ’s deity,
314, 315
allows an order of office and operation consistent with essential
oneness and equality, 314, 342
doctrine of, how its construction started, 314
presents the Holy Spirit recognized as God, 315‐317
intimations of, in the O. T., 317‐322
seemingly alluded to in passages which teach a plurality of some sort in
the Godhead, 317‐319
seemingly alluded to in passages relating to the Angel of Jehovah, 319
seemingly alluded to in descriptions of Divine Wisdom and Word, 320, 321
owes nothing to foreign sources, 320
seemingly alluded to in descriptions of the Messiah, 321‐322
O. T. contains germ of doctrine of, 322
its clear revelation, why delayed?, 322
insists that the three recognized as God are presented in Scripture as
distinct persons, 322‐326
asserts that this tripersonality of the divine nature is immanent and
eternal, 326
it alleges Scriptural proof that the distinctions of personality are
eternal, 326
the Sabellian heresy regarding, 327‐328
the Arian heresy regarding, 328‐330
teaches a tripersonality which is not tritheism, for while the persons
are three, the essence is one, 330
how the term “person” is used in, 330, 331
the oneness of essence explained, 331‐334
teaches an association which is more than partnership, 331
presents itself as the organism of the deity, 331
permits intercommunion and mutual immanency of persons, 332, 333
teaches equality of the three persons, 334‐343
teaches that the titles belong to the persons, 334, 335
employs the personal titles in a qualified sense, 335‐340
presents to us life‐movement in the Godhead, 336‐338
teaches a “generation” that is consistent with equality, 340
teaches a “procession” that is consistent with equality, 340
is inscrutable, 344
all analogies inadequate to represent it, 344
illustrations of, their only use, 345
not self‐contradictory, 345
presents faculty and function at highest differentiation, 346
its relations to other doctrines, 347
its acceptance essential to any proper theism, 347
its denial leads to pantheism, 347
essential to any proper revelation, 349
evidence of, in prayer, 349
essential to any proper redemption, 350
effects of its denial on religious life, 350, 351
essential to any proper model for human life, 351
sets law of love before us as eternal, 351
shows divine pattern of receptive life, 351
authors on the doctrine, 351

Trisagion, the, 318

Tritheism, inconsistent with idea of God, 330

Trivialities in Scripture, their use, 217

Truth, God’s, what?, 260
immanent, 260
a matter of being, 261
foundation of truth among men, 261
the principle and guarantee of all revelation, 262
not of God’s will, but of his being, 262
God’s transitive, 288‐290
see Veracity and Faithfulness.
attributed to Christ, 309
attributed to the Holy Spirit, 316
as the efficient cause of regeneration, 817‐820
hated by sinner, 817
neither known nor obeyed without a change of the affections, 818
even God cannot make it more true, 819
without God, an abstraction, not a power, 819

_Ubi caritas_, _ibi claritas_, 520

_Ubi Spiritus, ibi Christus_, 333

_Ubi tres medici, ibi duo athei_, 39

Ubiquity of Christ’s human body, 709
relation to Lord’s Supper, 968
relation to views of heaven, 1032

_Ueberglaube_, _Aberglaube_, _Unglaube_, the chief avenues of temptation,
677

Uhlhorn, on the “if’s” of Tacitus, 989

Ullmann, on the derivation of _sapientia_, 4

_Una navis est jam bonorum omnium_, 881

Uncaused cause, the idea of, not from logical inference, but intuitive
belief, 74

Unconditioned being, the presupposition of our knowing, 58

Unconscious mental action, 551, 555

Unconscious substance cannot produce self‐conscious and free beings, 102

Understanding, the servant of the will, 460

_Unicus_, as applied to the divine nature, 259

Uniformity of nature, a presumption against miracles, 124
not absolute and universal, 124
could only be asserted on the ground of absolute and universal
knowledge, 124
disproved by geology, 124
breaks in, illustrated, 125
final cause is beneath, 125
of volitional action rests on character, 509
of evil choice, implies tendency or determination, 611
of transgression, a demonstration of impotence of will, 611

_Unio personalis_, 689, 690

Union of the two natures in the one person of Christ, 683‐700
moral, between different souls, 799
with Christ, believer’s, and man’s with Adam, compared, 627
with Christ, believer’s, wholly due to God, 781
its relation to regeneration and conversion, 793
doctrine of, 795‐808
reasons for its neglect, 795
Scripture representations of, 795‐798
represented by building and foundation, 795
represented by marriage union, 795, 796
represented by vine and branch, 796
consistent with individuality, 796
represented by head and members, 796
represented by union of race with Adam, 797
believer is in Christ, 797
Christ is in believer, 797
Father and Son dwell in believer, 797
believer has life by Christ as Christ has life by union with the Father,
797
believers are one through, 797
believers made partakers of divine nature through, 798
by it believer made one spirit with the Lord, 798
nature of, 798‐802
not a merely natural union, 799
not a merely moral union, 799
not a union of essence, 799, 800
in it believer most conscious of his personality and power, 800
not mediated by sacraments, 800
an organic union, 800
a vital union, 801
a spiritual union, 801
originated and sustained by Holy Spirit, 801
by virtue of omnipresence the whole Christ with each believer, 281, 704,
801
inscrutable, 801
in what sense mystical, 801
authors on, 802
consequences of, to believer, 802‐809
removes the internal obstacle to man’s return to God, in the case of his
people, 802
involves change in the dominant affection of the soul (Regeneration),
804
is the true “transfusion of blood,”, 804
involves a new exercise of soul’s powers in Repentance and Faith
(Conversion), 804
this phase of, illustrated by the depuration of Chicago River, 804, 805
with Christ gives to believer legal standing and rights of Christ
(Justification), 805
secures to the believer the transforming, assimilating power of Christ’s
life, for soul and body (Sanctification and Perseverance),
805
does it secure physical miracles in deliverance from fleshly besetments
of those who experience it?, 806
brings about a fellowship with Christ, and thus a fellowship of
believers with one another here and hereafter (Ecclesiology
and Eschatology), 806
secures among Christians the unity not of external organization, but of
a common life, 807
gives assurance of salvation, 808
excerpts upon, from noted names in theology, 808
references upon, 808, 809

Unique, the, 244

Unitarianism, derivation of term, 330
its founders, 47
their relation to Arianism, 329
tends to pantheism, 347
fosters lax views of sin, 350
holds to Pelagian views of sin, 597
holds to Socinian views of atonement, 728, 729

Unity of Scripture, 175

Unity of God, 259, 304
consistent with a trinity, 259

Unity of human race, taught in Scripture, 476
lies at foundation of Pauline doctrine of sin and salvation, 476
ground of obligation of brotherhood among men, 476
various arguments for, 477‐483
opposed by theorists who propound different centres of creation, 481
opposed on the ground that the physical diversities in the race are
inconsistent with a common origin, 481, 482

_Universalia, ante_ and _post rem_, and _in re_, 621

Universalism, its error, 1047

Universality of transgression, 573‐577

Universals, 621

Universe, regarded as thought, must have had an absolute thinker, 60
its substance cannot be shown to have had a beginning, 73
has its phenomena had a cause within itself (pantheism)?, 73
mind in it, leads us to infer mind in maker, 73
if eternal, yet, as contingent and relative, it only requires an eternal
creator, 74
since its infinity cannot be proved, why infer from its perhaps limited
existence an infinite creator?, 74
its order and useful collocation may be due to an impersonal
intelligence (pantheism), 77
its present harmony proves a will and intelligence equal to its
contrivance, 80
facts of, erroneous explanations of, 90‐105
not necessary to divine blessedness, 265
“God’s ceaseless conversation with his creatures,”, 436
exists for moral and spiritual ends, 436
a harp in which one string, our world, is out of tune, 451, 1033

_Unus_, as applied to divine nature, 259

Utopia, More’s, an adumbration of St. John’s City of God, 1031

Vacuum, 279

Vanity, what?, 569

Variation, law of, 470, 491, 492

Variations, are in the divine operation, not in the divine plan, 258

Vedas, 56, 203, 222, 225

Veracity and faithfulness of God, the, his transitive truth, 288, 289
by virtue of, his revelations consist with his being and with each
other, 288
by virtue of, he fulfils all his promises expressed or implied, 289

_Viæ_, employed in determining the divine attributes, 247

Vice, can it be created?, 520

Virgin‐birth of Christ, 675‐678

Virgin, the Immaculate Conception of, its absurdity, 677

Virtue, 298‐303
see Moral obligation.

Vishnu, incarnations of, 351

Volition, the shadow of the affections, 815
executive, 504
a subordinate, not always determined by fundamental choice, 510, 870

“Voluntary” and “volitional” contrasted, 557

“_Voluntas_” and “_arbitrium_” distinguished, 557

_Vorsehung_, an aspect of providence, 419

Vulgate, 226, 799

“Waters,” the best term in Hebrew to express “fluid mass,”, 395

_Weltgeschichte, die, ist das Weltgericht_, 1024

Wicked, in the intermediate state, 999, 1000
in intermediate state, under constraint and guard, 999
in intermediate state, in conscious suffering, 999
in intermediate state, under punishment, 1000
in intermediate state, their souls do not sleep, 1000
in the final state, 1033‐1056
their final state, in Scriptural figures, 1033
their final state, a summing up statement, 1034
their final state is not annihilation, 1035, 1036
their final state has in it no element of new probation or final
restoration, 1039‐1043
their final state, one of everlasting punishment, 1044‐1046
their final state, a revelation of God’s justice, 1046‐1051
their final state, a revelation of a benevolence which permits the self‐
chosen ruin of a few to work for the salvation of the many,
1051‐1054
their final state, should be preached with sympathy and solemnity,
1054‐1056

Will, free, not under law of physical causation, 26
human, acts on nature without suspending its laws, 121
human, acts initially without means, 122
its power over body, 122
has not the freedom of indifference, 363
an act of pure, unknown to human consciousness, 363, 507
and sensibility, two distinct powers, 363
Christianity gives us more, 440
Holy Spirit emancipates the, 440
defined, 504
determinism of, rejected, 504
and other faculties, 505
element in every act of soul, 505
man is chiefly, 504
the verb has no imperative, 505
and permanent state, 505, 506
slight decisions of, lead to fixation of character, 506
and motives, 506, 507
permanent states influence, 506
not compelled, but persuaded by motive, 506
in choosing between motives, chooses with a motive, namely the motive
chosen, 507
and contrary choice, 507, 508
we know causality only as we know, 508
a power of originating action, limited by subjective and social
conditions, 508
will, free, chooses between impulses, 508
and responsibility, 509, 510
naturally exercised with a bias, 509
free, gives existence to duty and morality, 510
is defeated in immorality, 511
deterministic theory of, objections to, 511
will does not create force, but directs it, 512
will as great a mystery as the Trinity, 512
references on, 513
evil, the man himself, 555
more than faculty of volitions, 600
its impotence proved by uniformity of transgression, 611
such a decision of, as will justify God in condemning men, when found,
612
a determination of the, prior to individual consciousness—a difficult
but fruitful hypothesis, 624
the cause of sin in holy beings, 629
not absolutely as a man’s character, 633
character its surest but not its infallible index, 633
man’s, does more than express, it may curb, his nature, 633
has permanent states, as well as transient acts, 764
God’s action, in conversion, 792, 793
the depraved, has inconceivable power to resist God, 1048
God’s, not sole force in universe, 411
God’s “revealed” and “secret,” 791

“Will,” and “shall,” as to man’s actions, distinguished, 354

_Wille_ and _Wilkür_, 557

Wisdom, divine, its nature, 286
in O. T., 320
in Apocrypha, 320

Witness of Spirit, 844, 845

Word, divine, the medium and test of spiritual communications, 32
divine, in O. T., 320
Christ, the, 335

Works of God, 371‐464

World, final conflagration and rehabilitation, 1015
may be part of the heaven of the saints, 1032, 1033

Worship, defined, 23
its relation to religion, 23
depends on God’s glory, 255
final state of righteous one of, 1029, 1030

Wrong, must be punished whether good comes of it or not, 655

“Yea, the” (2 Cor. 1:20) = objective certainty, 14

“Zechariah,” proper reading for “Jeremiah,” in Mat. 27:9, 226

Zoroastrianism, Parseeism, 185, 190, 382

Index Of Authors.

Abbot, Ezra, 148, 152, 159, 165, 180, 307

Abbott, A. E., 155

Abbott, F. E., 621

Abbott, Lyman, 128, 201, 208, 379, 524, 589, 599, 694, 700, 720, 722, 732,
739, 768, 800, 896, 1005.

Abbott, T. K., 933

Abelard, Peter, 1, 34, 44, 734

Ackermann, C., 666

Adams, J. C., 1041

Adams, John, 228

Adams, John Quincy, 899

Adams, Nehemiah, 369

Adams, Thomas, 48

Adamson, Thomas, 133, 190, 314, 315, 439, 675, 681.

Addison, Joseph, 649, 988

Adeney, W. F., 985, 1020

Adkins, F., 822, 948

Ælfric, 505

Æschylus, 111, 543, 723, 989

Æsop, 369

Agassiz, Louis, 396, 481, 984

Ahrens, Henri, 536

“Aids to Faith,”, 139, 405

“Aids to Study of German Theology,”, 74

Albertus Magnus, 524

Alcuin, Flaccus, 744

Alden, Joseph, 6, 11, 100

Aldrich, Anne Reeve, 155, 794

Alexander, Archibald, 51, 58, 101, 191, 301, 364, 488, 553, 557, 620, 644,
780, 912.

Alexander, J. A., 654, 907, 1005

Alexander, J. W., 795, 845, 846

Alexander, W. L., 117, 131, 135, 151, 155, 157, 177, 189.

Alford, Henry, 68, 150, 306, 377, 452, 1005

Alger, William R., 281, 493, 991

Allen, A. V. G., 32, 36, 44, 147, 208, 341, 343, 361, 399, 620, 636, 748,
800, 846.

Allen, Grant, 57

Allison, W. H., 929

Ambrose, 25, 48, 297, 619, 620

American Theological Review, 2, 15

Amiel, Henri F., 277, 280, 441, 599

Ammon, Christoph F., 46

Amos, Sheldon, 534, 547

Amyraldus, Moses, 46

Anderson, F. L., 840, 939

Anderson, Galusha, 896

Anderson, Martin B., 11, 987

Andover Review, 122, 133, 643

Andrews, E. A., 20

Andrews, E. B., 182, 694, 892

Andrews, J. N., 410

Andrews, J. R., 840

Andrews, Lancelot, 340

Andrews, S. J., 229

Angelus Silesius, 101, 800

Angus, Joseph, 1045, 1056

Annotated Paragraph Bible, 141, 226, 232, 307, 423, 457, 574, 578, 650,
699, 761, 878, 934, 1025.

Anselm, 34, 44, 86, 87, 89, 105, 279, 447, 487, 613, 630, 631, 675, 704,
748, 834, 849.

Apollinaris, 671

Apollos, 152

Appleton, Jesse, 426

Aquinas, Thomas, 45, 443, 569, 613, 630, 631, 747, 750.

Aratus, 526

Argyll, Duke of, 92, 99, 225, 389, 412, 435, 469, 474, 483, 528, 530, 536.

Aristotle, 2, 33, 38, 40, 43, 44, 45, 58, 97, 120, 181, 184, 244, 252,
259, 262, 284, 378, 491, 516, 568, 579, 580, 581, 799, 814,
989, 1045.

Arius, 328

Arminius, J., 47, 602

Armitage, Thomas, 908, 973

Armour, J. M., 120

Armstrong, ——, 283

Arnold, Albert N., 954, 959, 971, 972, 973, 974, 975, 979.

Arnold, Edwin, 182

Arnold, Matthew, 21, 23, 102, 118, 139, 155, 188, 191, 192, 207, 252, 253,
526, 575, 989, 1056.

Arnold, Thomas, 139, 156, 207, 237, 294, 557, 841.

Arnot, William, 659

Arthur, William, 350

Ascham, Roger, 576

Ashmore, William, 292, 459, 636, 663, 759, 773, 936, 941, 945.

Askwith, E. H., 568

Asmus, P., 56

Athanasius, 44, 388, 620, 748, 997

Athenagoras, 998

Atwater, Lyman H., 97, 368, 637

Auber, H., 398, 598

Auberlen, C. A., 14, 131, 160

Auerbach, Berthold, 871

Augustine, 33, 44, 65, 83, 105, 119, 159, 227, 234, 276, 317, 344, 395,
413, 428, 488, 493, 518, 520, 521, 523, 537, 545, 557, 569,
570, 585, 586, 598, 599, 612, 613, 619, 620, 630, 631, 633,
707, 708, 784, 786, 788, 819, 887, 998, 1001, 1035.

Austin, John, 293, 533, 535

Baader, Franz von, 25

Babbage, Charles, 117

Babcock, Maltbie D., 208

Bacon, B. W., 147, 148, 149, 167

Bacon, Francis, 36, 40, 43, 71, 138, 262, 298, 514, 536, 541, 547, 583,
656, 722, 822, 982

Bacon, L. W., and G. B., 410

Bacon, Leonard, 330, 899, 918

Bähr, K. C. W. F., 722

Baer, K. E. von, 482

Bagehot, Walter, 224, 658

Bailey, G. E., 249

Bain, Alexander, 94, 96, 98

Baird, Samuel J., 49, 51, 404, 418, 494, 544, 555, 571, 576, 585, 589,
606, 607, 610, 611, 612, 615, 616, 619, 622, 630, 637, 640,
644, 647, 660, 680, 705, 754, 771, 802, 808.

Baldwin, C. J., 109, 332, 488, 511, 592, 743

Baldwin, J. Mark, 43

Balfour, A. J., 3, 17, 18, 25, 43, 59, 100, 122, 125, 215, 292, 512, 568,
771, 834, 982, 987, 997.

Balfour, R. G., 739

Bancroft, Bishop, 896

Bancroft, George, 899

Baptist Magazine, 396

Baptist Quarterly, 658, 918, 948

Baptist Quarterly Review, 410

Baptist Review, 207, 575, 998

Barclay, Robert, 48

Bardesanes, 383

Barlow, J. L., 1038

Barlow, J. W., 405

Barnabas, 147, 159, 235, 319

Barnes, Albert, 741, 907, 914

Barnes, Stephen G., 272

Barrett, Elizabeth, 571

Barrows, C. M., 69

Barrows, E. P., 700

Barrows, J. H., 27

Barrows, William, 1001

Barry, Alfred, 187

Bartlet, Vernon, 905

Bartlett, S. C., 172, 201, 227, 532, 660, 708, 989, 994.

Bascom, John, 53, 55, 632

Basilides, 151, 160, 378, 670

Bastian, H. C., 389

Baudissin, Count W. W., 275

Baumgarten, M., 907

Baur, F. C., 145, 155, 157, 158, 160, 328, 382, 750.

Bawden, H. H., 28, 346, 525, 616, 983, 992.

Baxter, Richard, 47, 48, 205, 218, 294, 872, 1056.

Bayle, Pierre, 47

Bayne, Peter, 100, 157

Beal, Samuel, 183

Beale, Lionel, 389

Beard, Charles, 209

Beard, G. H., 405

Beck, ——., 40

Beddoes, T. L., 380

Beebe, Alexander M., 957

Beecher, Edward, 488

Beecher, H. W., 42, 76, 128, 147, 269, 369, 406, 423, 790, 1047, 1052.

Beecher, Lyman, 406

Beecher, Thomas K., 464

Beecher, Willis J., 141

Beet, J. A., 218

Behrends, A. J. F., 25, 39, 42, 102, 367, 697, 755, 779.

Belcher, Joseph, 908

Bellamy, Joseph, 48

Bellarmine, R. P., 47, 522, 1001

Benedict, Wayland R., 80

Bengel, J. A., 132, 222, 661, 683, 762, 782, 960, 1009.

Bennett, W. H., 321

Bentham, Jeremy, 55, 439

Berdoe, Edward, 162, 765

Berkeley, George, 95, 96, 436

Bernard, St., 58, 710

Bernard, J. H., 120, 128, 129, 157

Bernard, T. D., 177, 221, 236

Bernhardt, Sarah, 544

Bersier, Eugene, 622, 821

Bertrand, H. G., Count de, 682

Beryl, 327

Besant, Walter, 576, 737

Beyschlag, Willibald, 213, 221, 310, 622, 668.

Beza, Theodore, 46, 777

Bible Commentary, 238, 374, 375, 376, 394, 396, 474, 583, 726.

Bible Dictionary, Hastings’, 118, 119, 141, 148, 153, 165, 167, 479, 514,
933.

Bible Dictionary, Smith’s, 118, 139, 147, 153, 166, 167, 447, 449, 456,
479, 728.

Bibliotheca Fratrum Polonorum, 47, 729

Bibliotheca Sacra, 6, 11, 12, 14, 20, 21, 29, 42, 53, 56, 62, 103, 127,
160, 162, 201, 238, 528, 656, 790, 1046.

Bickersteth, Edward, 437

Biedermann, A. Em., 68, 105, 119, 250

Binet, Alfred, 454

Bingham, Joseph, 938

Birch, Samuel, 995

Birks, T. R., 174, 387, 488, 588, 615, 648

Bismarck, Otto von, 194, 401

Bissell, Edwin C., 166, 167, 170, 172, 309

Bittinger, J. B., 650

Bixby, J. T., 65, 292, 300, 499, 530, 538, 985

Black, William, 913, 1052

Blackie, John Stuart, 17

Blackstone, William, 656

Bledsoe, Albert T., 367, 520

Bleek, Friedrich, 149

Blount, Charles, 414

Blunt, John H., 2, 86, 146, 153, 330, 383, 414, 937.

Blunt, John James, 151

Boardman, George Dana, 19, 851, 942, 997.

Boardman, H. A., 881

Boardman, W. E., 344

Bodemeyer, J., 706

Böhl, Edward, 762

Boehme, Jacob, 255, 264, 524

Boerne, Ludwig, 561

Boethius, 253, 695

Boissier, M. L. Gaston, 989

Bolingbroke, Viscount, 414

Bonar, Horatius, 650, 889

Bonnet, Charles, 118

“Book of the Dead,”, 989

Booth, Ballington, 904

Booth, William, 750

Bose, see Dubose, W. P.

Bossuet, J. B., 47, 567, 821

Boston, Thomas, 48, 50, 802, 1018

Bowden, John, 48

Bowen, Francis, 11, 29, 63, 68, 98, 99, 113, 121, 405, 412, 991.

Bowne, Borden P., 6, 8, 10, 11, 43, 52, 54, 56, 60, 61, 64, 68, 71, 72,
73, 74, 76, 78, 96, 97, 99, 103, 108, 110, 125, 219, 244, 257,
261, 267, 273, 279, 280, 282, 285, 286, 294, 300, 381, 402,
405, 413, 416, 428, 493, 499, 507, 508, 536, 539, 559, 625,
655, 678, 722, 756, 794, 985, 987.

Boys, Thomas, 133

Brace, C. L., 193

Bradford, A. H., 33, 60, 106, 406, 475, 516, 548, 594, 632, 635, 656, 677,
816, 818, 819, 1001, 1053.

Bradley, F. H., 103, 276, 406, 505

Bramhall, John, 775

Brandi, S. M., 910

Breckenridge, Robert J., 49

“Bremen Lectures,”, 111

Brereton, C. H. S., 116

Bretschneider, K. G., 46, 523

Brewer, Prof., 281

Bridgman, Laura, 113

Briggs, C. A., 140, 141, 489

Brinton, D. G., 476

British and Foreign Evangelical Review, 231, 347, 835, 845, 875.

British Quarterly, 104, 116, 125, 152, 172, 300, 896.

British Weekly, 738

Broadus, John A., 117, 138, 216, 227, 364, 452, 780, 888, 892, 931, 933,
934, 937, 948, 951, 954, 1008.

Bronson, J. M., 466

Brooke, Stopford A., 988

Brooks, Kendall, 434, 950

Brooks, Phillips, 42, 122, 348, 436, 694, 700, 735, 812, 830, 909, 913.

Brooks, Thomas, 463

Brooks, W. K., 64, 124, 497, 536, 673

Brougham, Henry, 140

Brown, David, 105, 744, 1014

Brown, J. Baldwin, 131

Brown, John, 368

Brown, T. B., 410

Brown, William Adams, 321, 348, 596, 612, 638.

Brown, W. R., 83, 221

Browne, Sir Thomas, 143

Browning, Elizabeth Barrett, 18, 59, 107, 441, 544, 571, 1023.

Browning, Robert, 5, 38, 59, 62, 64, 107, 183, 193, 214, 218, 224, 252,
253, 262, 266, 273, 283, 298, 299, 312, 345, 366, 367, 369,
386, 398, 400, 403, 406, 420, 429, 439, 487, 489, 492, 496,
501, 506, 520, 544, 546, 549, 570, 581, 589, 642, 649, 651,
659, 692, 693, 703, 814, 987, 996, 1002, 1023, 1039.

Brownson, Orestes, 37, 118

Bruce, A. Balmain, 105, 131, 133, 139, 145, 156, 157, 160, 186, 187, 217,
237, 238, 274, 341, 414, 465, 666, 676, 745, 786, 905.

Bruch, J. F., 249, 293, 489, 491

Bryennios, Philotheos, 953

Buchanan, James, 95, 853

Buchanan, Robert, 1051

Buckle, H. T., 438

Buckley, J. M., 133

Buckner, E. D., 985

Büchner, Louis, 91

Bückmann, R., 128

Buddeus, J. F., 46, 270

Bull, Bishop George, 217

Bulwer, Edward, Lord Lytton, 645

Bunsen, J. C. C., 447, 956, 995

Bunyan, John, 40, 47, 221, 330, 462, 483, 544, 743, 827, 845, 888.

Burbank, Luther, 632

Burgess, Ezenezer, 157, 477

Burgesse, Anthony, 630, 631

Burke, Edmund, 135

Burnet, Gilbert, 48

Burnet, Thomas, 1023

Burnham, Sylvester, 582

Burns, Robert, 525, 560, 575

Burrage, Henry S., 938

Burroughs, John, 469

Burton, E. D., 158, 376, 571, 941

Burton, N. S., 549, 941

Bushnell, Horace, 15, 26, 48, 103, 118, 133, 187, 245, 271, 294, 327, 335,
340, 369, 403, 433, 447, 502, 530, 541, 660, 668, 679, 728,
733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 739, 813, 814, 956, 1036, 1041.

Butcher, S. H., 38, 115, 406

Butler, Joseph, 30, 51, 71, 82, 114, 124, 232, 296, 300, 368, 417, 427,
668, 727, 771, 984.

Butler, William Archer, 317

Butterworth, H., 437

Buttmann, Philip, 717

Byrom, John, 553

Byron, George Gordon, Lord, 369, 387, 404, 578.

C. H. M., see MacIntosh, C. H.

Cæsar, Julius, 151, 1032

Caillard, Emma Marie, 108, 470, 561, 679, 983.

Caine, T. H. Hall, 495, 899

Caird, Edward, 6, 43, 58, 110

Caird, John, 6, 21, 22, 29, 101, 103, 255, 258, 261, 277, 346, 352, 361,
386, 400, 415, 514, 542, 567, 571, 572, 577, 623, 638, 641,
647, 685, 691, 694, 702, 756, 798, 806, 988, 1043.

Cairns, John, 141

Calderwood, Henry, 5, 9, 10, 29, 34, 51, 58, 66, 67, 68, 74, 79, 85, 86,
87, 89, 93, 95, 101, 279, 302, 362, 437, 468, 500, 696, 985.

Calixtus, Georgius, 45, 49, 50

Calkins, P. W., 149

Calkins, Walcott, 979

Calovius, Abraham, 45, 52

Calthrop, Dr., 348

Calvin, John, 28, 38, 45, 51, 53, 107, 140, 227, 234, 334, 344, 409, 419,
420, 514, 558, 569, 612, 613, 621, 644, 663, 664, 749, 772,
777, 781, 783, 788, 794, 808, 881, 942, 960, 969, 1008, 1034,
1048.

“Cambridge Platform,”, 904, 919

Campbell, Alexander, 821, 947

Campbell, George, 128

Campbell, James M., 798

Campbell, John M., 537, 548, 734, 737, 760.

Canaletto, 148

Candlish, James S., 45, 340, 713

Candlish, Robert S., 476, 664, 726, 773

Canning, George, 135

Canus, Melchior, 47

Capes, J. M., 185

Carey, H. C., 536

Carlisle, Bishop of, 1

Carlyle, Jane, 745

Carlyle, Thomas, 8, 40, 251, 277, 299, 309, 329, 406, 414, 469, 575.

Carman, A. S., 358, 410, 416

Caro, E. M., 101

Carpenter, W. B., 11, 156, 277

Carson, Alexander, 938

Carson, J. C. L., 896

Carson, R. H., 896

Carter, Franklin, 638

Carus, Paul, 349

Cary, Phœbe, 987

Case, Mary E., 102, 276, 279, 530

Catechism, Larger, 956
Racovian, 47, 524
Roman, 522
Shorter, 846, 956
Westminster, 52, 664, 957

Catholic Review, 957

Cattell, J. M., 43

Catullus, 989

Cave, A. B., 775

Cave, Arthur, 205

Celsus, 192, 274

Chadbourne, P. A., 469

Chadwick, J. W., 8, 126, 188, 198, 237, 304, 330, 473, 958, 990, 1051.

Chalmers, Thomas, 48, 50, 124, 128, 141, 302, 394, 404, 415, 435, 616,
640, 820, 873, 1033.

Chamberlain, Jacob, 431, 575

Chamberlin, T. C., 254, 510

Chambers, Arthur, 1044

Chambers, T. W., 17, 726, 941

Chamier, Daniel, 46

Chandler, Arthur, 582, 590

Channing, William E., 12, 125, 694

Chapman, James, 330, 474

Charles, Elizabeth, 1026

Charles, R. H., 165

Charnock, Stephen, 244, 249, 259, 282, 283, 288, 362, 754, 826.

Charteris, A. H., 200

Chase, D. P., 580

Chase, F. H., 154

Chatham, Lord, 190

Chaucer, Geoffrey, 549

Chemnitz, Martin, 45

Cheyne, T. K., 137, 250, 697, 933

Chiba, Yugoro, 180

Chillingworth, W., 20

Chitty, Joseph, 38

Christian Review, 747, 954, 1003

Christian Union, 1046

Christlieb, Theodor, 5, 53, 95, 105, 117, 131, 132, 157, 160, 162, 351,
414.

Chrysostom, John, 39, 148, 796, 934

Church Quarterly Review, 704

Cicero, IV., 40, 53, 300, 425, 429, 516, 575, 589, 598, 647, 814, 887,
989.

Clark, G. W., 951

Clarke, Dorus, 16

Clarke, J. C. C., 246, 286, 755

Clarke, J. Freeman, 58, 179, 186, 205, 329, 376, 394, 664, 729.

Clarke, Samuel, 73, 85, 86, 279, 301, 330

Clarke, W. N., 4, 22, 43, 63, 68, 76, 88, 116, 145, 205, 210, 221, 255,
264, 269, 271, 280, 284, 286, 295, 387, 721, 855.

Clay, Henry, 815

Clement of Alexandria, 44, 154, 167, 235, 998, 1041.

Clement of Rome, 149, 152, 153, 159, 312, 910, 928.

Clifford, W. K., 399, 511

Clough, A. H., 259, 819

Coats, A. S., 769

Cobbe, Frances Power, 216, 404, 918, 981, 990, 991.

Cocceius, Johannes, 46, 50, 612, 613

Cocker, B. F., 63, 414

Coe, E. B., 275

Coe, G. A., 599, 812

Colby, H. F., 978

Colegrove, F. W., 488, 489

Coleman, Lyman, 908, 911, 914, 937, 954

Coleridge, Hartley, 437, 495

Coleridge, Lord, 345

Coleridge, Samuel T., 4, 18, 24, 30, 54, 72, 124, 203, 205, 252, 424, 488,
562, 581, 611, 939.

Colestock, H. T., 294, 721

Comte, Auguste, 6, 11, 57, 531, 567

Conant, T. J., 224, 225, 933, 937, 951

Conder, Josiah, 788

Condillac, E. B. de, 91

Cone, Orello, 610

Congdon, H. W., 449

Constantine, 898

Constantinople, Council of, 695

“Constitution of the Holy Apostles,”, 978

Contemporary Review, 95, 97

Conybeare and Howson, 668, 914, 936, 942.

Cook, Joseph, 304, 344, 482, 537, 558, 1010.

Cooke, J. P., 34, 194, 436, 468, 676

Corelli, Marie, 283, 542

Correggio, 729

Cotterill, Henry, 397

Cotton, John, 904

Cousin, Victor, 55, 61, 63, 97

Cowper, B. H., 159

Cox, Samuel, 122, 156, 397, 437, 1023

Craig, Oscar, 8

Cramer, H., 748

Cranch, C. P., 578

Crane, Frank, 21, 217, 230, 411, 425, 447, 599, 691, 841, 1047, 1050.

Crapsey, A. S., 952

Crawford, Thomas J., 476, 721, 722, 727, 733, 735, 736, 744, 771, 836.

Cremer, H., 221, 291, 484, 717, 721, 851, 887, 892, 935.

Crippen, T. G., 748, 750

Crooker, J. H., 217, 315

Crookes, William, 252

Crooks and Hurst, 42

Crosby, Alpheus, 1015, 1023

Crosby, Fannie J., 515

Crosby, Howard, 710

Croskery, Thomas, 896

Crowell, William, 929

Cudworth, Ralph, 321, 376, 380, 1025

Culver, S. W., 757

Cumming, John, 140

Cunningham, John, 935, 952, 980

Cunningham, William, 41, 368, 523, 614, 619, 640, 644, 744, 773, 779, 823,
912.

Curry, Daniel, 285, 745

“Current Discussions in Theology,”, 626, 695, 767.

Curtis, E. L., 167

Curtis, T. F., 89, 157, 179, 723, 892, 900, 906, 940, 952, 956, 959, 972,
973, 977, 980

Curtiss, S. I., 538

Curtius, Georg, 20

Cuvier, Georges, 77, 444

Cyprian, 33, 152, 620, 901, 1001

Cyril, 342

Cyrus, 989

Dabney, R. L., 49, 418, 497, 601, 603, 616, 864.

Dagg, J. L., 892, 896, 900, 926, 933, 951, 959.

Daggett, Dr., 518

Dale, J. W., 934

Dale, R. W., 42, 148, 238, 272, 369, 592, 632, 636, 654, 680, 721, 735,
750, 754, 759, 802, 803, 806, 854, 929.

Dalgairns, J. B., 8

Dalman, G. H., 313, 889

Damien, Peter, 364, 757

Dana, James D., 224, 395, 396, 403, 473, 481.

Danforth, G. F., 771

Dannhauer, J. C., 45, 50

Dante Alighieri, 45, 138, 256, 263, 277, 443, 447, 451, 492, 569, 653,
987, 1001, 1009, 1041, 1053.

D’Arcy, C. F., 35, 291, 332

Darwin, Charles, 36, 57, 64, 468, 473, 480, 526, 534.

Darwin, G. H., 477

Daub, Carl, 46

Davids, Rhys, 182

Davidson, A. B., 134, 217, 667

Davidson, Samuel, 897, 929

Davis, J. W., 652

Dawkins, W. Boyd, 532

Dawson, J. W., 64, 412, 482, 525, 532

Day, H. N., 24, 213, 345, 504

Declaratory Act, Free Church of Scotland, 641

DeCoverley, Sir Roger, 649

Deems, C. F., 901

Defoe, Daniel, 431

Delbœuf, Joseph, 550

Delitzsch, Franz, 137, 227, 477, 484, 487, 510, 520, 644, 647, 697, 701,
850, 998, 1003, 1023, 1039.

De Marchi, Joseph, 191

Denney, James, 18, 214, 237, 339, 590, 596, 633, 639, 640, 650, 721, 734,
738, 774, 781, 843, 853, 940, 1011, 1025, 1040, 1041

Denovan, Joshua, 339, 548, 710, 711, 819, 858, 860.

De Quincey, Thomas, 128, 1003

Descartes, René, 55, 262, 279, 299, 1002

Deutsch, Emanuel, 675

DeWette, W. M. L., 15, 41, 46, 153, 517, 614, 661, 781.

Dewey, John, 22, 40, 43, 51, 251, 252, 281, 300, 502, 505, 506, 982.

De Witt, John, 43, 778

Dexter, Henry M., 892, 901, 903, 907, 911, 914, 916, 917, 918, 924, 928,
929, 937, 952, 1056.

Dick, John, 48, 269, 353, 358

Dickens, Charles, 223, 492

Dickey, F. O., 663

Dickson, W. P., 562

_Didache_, 159, 311, 410, 892, 906, 937, 938.

Diestel, Ludwig, 56

Dillmann, August, 169, 268, 375, 377

Diman, J. L., 6, 66, 72, 76, 77, 79, 82, 84, 95, 104, 113, 129, 414, 433,
435, 438, 532, 535, 801.

Dinsmore, C. A., 646

Diognetus, 147, 311

Dionysius, 274, 910

Dippel, J. K., 744

Disraeli, Benjamin, 135, 447

Dix, Morgan, 103

Dobney, H. H., 998, 1036

Doddridge, Philip, 453

Dodge, Ebenezer, 146, 448, 590

Dods, Marcus, 158, 181, 321, 337, 394, 938.

Döederlein, L., 46

Döllinger, J. J. I., 888, 935

Dorner, A. J., 523

Dorner, I. A., 5, 13, 18, 21, 29, 30, 33, 34, 46, 51, 62, 69, 87, 104,
106, 118, 159, 187, 208, 238, 245, 253, 259, 265, 271, 274,
275, 278, 282, 296, 305, 309, 320, 324, 328, 331, 333, 337,
338, 344, 386, 388, 408, 411, 412, 413, 418, 439, 493, 523,
549, 550, 555, 565, 569, 596, 598, 599, 600, 604, 615, 620,
621, 631, 651, 654, 656, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 676, 677,
680, 683, 685, 688, 689, 693, 694, 695, 698, 699, 702, 707,
709, 721, 737, 741, 746, 754, 761, 767, 776, 793, 799, 816,
830, 842, 864, 866, 893, 911, 947, 964, 967, 981, 991, 1002,
1014, 1017, 1021, 1024, 1036, 1039, 1051.

Douglas, Frederick, 439

Dove, Patrick E., 2, 3, 29, 39, 66, 71, 85, 86, 87, 103.

Doyle, Father, 958

Dreiäuglein, 253

Driver, S. R., 164, 166, 223

Drummond, Henry, 26, 34, 224, 264, 266, 401, 441, 466, 528, 539, 804, 806,
814, 824, 827, 923.

Dubois, A. J., 60, 122, 810

Dubois, Eugene, 471

Dubose, W. P., 18

Dudley, H. E., 803

Düsselfhoff, 338, 828

Duff, Alexander, 900

Duncan, G. M., 66

Duncan, John, 105, 213

Dunn, Martha Baker, 364

Duns Scotus, Johannes, 45, 244, 262, 299.

Du Prel, Karl, 550

Duryea, Dr., 364

Dwight, Timothy, 48, 300, 323, 573, 593, 608, 820, 826, 936, 977, 1049.

Dwinell, J. E., 550

Eaches, O. P., 222

Ebers, Georg, 995

Ebrard, J. H. A., 21, 46, 52, 62, 72, 174, 217, 338, 449, 462, 477, 485,
493, 514, 679, 686, 762, 945, 1022.

Eccles, Robert Kerr, 37, 84

Eddy, Mary Baker G., 573

Edersheim, Alfred, 141, 172, 227, 902

Edison, Thomas A., 206

Edwards, Jonathan, 19, 36, 48, 49, 50, 51, 208, 219, 263, 265, 270, 271,
278, 290, 299, 300, 333, 342, 362, 364, 365, 366, 399, 401,
402, 416, 417, 442, 461, 494, 504, 507, 518, 554, 555, 556,
557, 571, 577, 582, 585, 586, 593, 594, 595, 607, 612, 613,
619, 622, 637, 644, 668, 683, 699, 751, 754, 790, 800, 805,
808, 818, 820, 826, 840, 843, 845, 862, 864, 867, 868, 886,
952, 953, 971, 1008, 1029, 1035, 1056.

Edwards, Jonathan, Jr., 275, 278, 358, 362, 504, 999, 1051.

Eichhorn, Carl, 105, 253

Elam, Charles, 635

Elder, William, 118, 121

Eliot, George, 210, 492, 561, 575, 766, 988, 1048.

Ellicott, C. J., 35, 307, 318, 341, 450, 782, 856, 1017.

Elliott, E. B., 139, 151, 449, 910, 1001, 1009, 1010, 1013, 1015.

Ellis, George E., 308, 350, 598, 729

Emerson, G. H., 1040

Emerson, R. W., 4, 39, 97, 107, 119, 139, 151, 175, 203, 207, 256, 287,
296, 330, 406, 409, 416, 441, 496, 539, 567, 575, 609, 613,
643, 653, 724, 730, 804, 841, 1025, 1041.

Emmons, Nathanael, 48, 359, 415, 416, 585, 606, 607, 608, 613, 823.

Empedocles, 7

Encyclopædia Britannica, 96, 149, 156, 191, 300, 411, 524, 586, 749, 750,
893.

“Endless Future, The,”, 1054

Epictetus, 185, 425

Epicurus, 184, 299

Epiphanius, 319, 669

Episcopius, Simon, 47, 602

Erasmus, 36, 39

Erdmann, J. E., 101

Ernesti, H. F. T. L., 491, 563

Errett, Isaac, 947

Erskine, Lord, 986

Erskine, Thomas, 351, 787

Estes, H. C., 998

Euripides, 582

Eusebius, 410

Evans, Christmas, 245

Evans, L. J., 229, 706, 999

Everett, C. C., 2, 6, 695, 731, 990

Ewald, J. L., 318

Expositor, 1025

Expositor’s Greek Testament, 135, 699, 719, 948.

Faber, F. W., 301, 334, 776

Faber, G. S., 1014

Fabri, Friedrich, 91

Fairbairn, A. M., 20, 59, 62, 63, 125, 159, 186, 335, 354, 366, 403, 507,
536, 579, 755, 910, 991.

Fairbairn, Patrick, 15, 135, 449, 668, 726, 791, 1015.

Fairchild, James H., 300, 504, 559

“Faith and Free Thought,”, 232

“Faiths of the World,”, 179

Farley, Robert G., 773

Farrar, A. S., 53, 132, 135, 158, 403, 420, 427, 433, 459.

Farrar, F. W., 112, 124, 129, 132, 135, 141, 157, 160, 179, 187, 193, 385,
428, 451, 456, 479, 585, 666, 679, 989, 1039, 1046.

Farrer, J. A., 180

Faunce, D. W., 501

Faunce, W. H. P., 221

Fechner, G. T., 281

Felix of Urgella, 744

Ferguson, W. L., 152

Ferrier, J. F., 469

Feuerbach, L., 14, 83, 91

Fichte, J. G., 3, 40, 97, 407, 467, 510, 616.

Fick, August, 20

Finney, C. G., 48, 238, 262, 278, 291, 299, 300, 367, 546, 783, 818, 877.

Firmilianus, 153

Fischer, Kuno, 512

Fish, E. J., 896, 901, 916, 918, 924

Fisher, G. P., 2, 4, 15, 21, 22, 34, 37, 40, 41, 49, 51, 53, 58, 60, 65,
70, 71, 72, 79, 87, 102, 115, 117, 121, 130, 131, 132, 150,
152, 179, 189, 191, 202, 228, 231, 237, 305, 424, 453, 456,
508, 532, 545, 580, 607, 608, 613, 615, 616, 617, 664, 668,
936, 969, 1046.

Fiske, D. T., 358

Fiske, John, 97, 104, 369, 559, 844, 899, 900, 908, 953, 985, 987.

Fitch, E. T., 365, 554, 783

Fitzgerald, Prof., 416

Fleming, William, 6, 33, 53, 539

Flint, Austin, 389

Flint, Robert, 6, 58, 63, 66, 73, 75, 79, 80, 81, 85, 100, 112, 367, 404,
929.

Fock, Otto, 733

Fonsegrive, G. L., 512

Forbes, Archibald, 228

Forbes, G. M., 12, 43, 102, 291, 360

Forbes, John, 360

Ford, David B., 934

Formula of Concord, 792

Formula of Consensus, 209

Forrest, D. W., 189, 675, 988

Forrest, Edwin, 577

Forster, W. E., 990

Forsyth, P. T., 26, 755

Foster, G. B., 120, 197, 201, 299, 305, 311, 444, 720, 733, 741, 750, 755,
765, 798.

Foster, John, 35, 128, 1043

Foster, R. V., 228, 783

“Foundations of our Faith,”, 5, 79, 865

Fox, Caroline, 461

Fox, George, 48, 1056

Fox, L. A., 1029

Fox, Norman, 215, 663, 949, 959

Francis de Sales, 32

Francis of Assisi, 33, 984

Frank, F. H. R., 4

Frank, Sebastian, 800

Franklin, Benjamin, 363, 431

Fraser, A. C, 63, 417

Freer, G., 744

French, Clara, 261

Frere, B., 844

Froschammer, J., 491, 493, 494

Frothingham, A. L., 380

Froude, James A., 368, 438, 564

Fürst, Julius, 669

Fuller, Andrew, 15, 47, 50, 51, 52, 368, 773, 793, 808, 826, 829, 1018.

Fuller, Margaret, 369

Fuller, Thomas, 128, 290, 633

Fullerton, G. S., 255, 1021

Galton, Francis, 83, 439, 492, 495, 496, 632.

Gambold, John, 888

Gannett, W. C., 202, 290

Ganse, H. G., 351

Garbett, Edward, 112, 177, 179, 193

Garbett, James, 776

Gardiner, F., 137, 139, 227, 322

Gardiner, H. N., 104, 137

Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 766

Garrison, W. E., 947

Garvie, A. E., 6, 270

Gassendi, Pierre, 298, 373

Gates, Errett, 948

Gaussen, L., 209

Gear, H. L., 344

Geddie, John, 900

Geikie, Archibald, 225

Geikie, Cunningham, 156, 661

Gemara, 931

Genung, J. F., 115, 300, 459, 994

George, Henry, 530, 748

George, N. D., 1056

Gerhard, John, 4, 45, 244, 261, 969

Gerhardt, Paul, 282

Gerhart, E. V., 200

Gesenius, William, 944

Gess, W. F., 102, 686, 687, 688, 704

Geulinx, Arnold, 94

Gibbon, Edward, 47, 192, 204, 682, 966

Giesebrecht, Friedrich, 134

Gieseler, J. C. L., 382, 914

Gifford, Lord, 413

Gifford, O. P., 58

Gilbert, George H., 321

Gilder, R. W., 683

Gildersleeve, B. L., 988

Gilfillan, George, 410

Gill, John, 47, 793

Gillespie, William H., 62, 73, 85

Girdlestone, R. B., 850, 864, 892

Gladden, Washington, 56, 120, 122, 140, 141, 237, 956.

Gladstone, W. E., 44, 122, 223, 314, 396

Glennie, J. S. Stuart‐, 527

Gloatz, Paul, 122

Godet, F., 21, 131, 150, 152, 158, 258, 261, 309, 335, 337, 448, 487, 584,
758, 763.

Göschel, C. F., 110, 484, 491

Goethe, J. W. von, 3, 20, 21, 24, 39, 40, 60, 101, 117, 120, 188, 224,
309, 386, 444, 455, 458, 511, 517, 520, 542, 558, 561, 562,
575, 645, 691, 814, 990.

Goodwin, D. R., 483, 485, 1017

Goodwin, Thomas, 576

Goodwin, W. W., 933

Gordon, A. J., 128, 133, 138, 140, 216, 234, 274, 281, 285, 333, 359, 475,
529, 604, 705, 732, 737, 775, 776, 782, 824, 834, 847, 848,
889, 893, 901, 910, 911, 913, 927, 935, 948, 1004, 1013, 1014,
1016, 1022.

Gordon, George A., 17, 19, 28, 65, 188, 346, 348, 397, 402, 405, 415, 492,
502, 542, 732, 751, 790.

Gordon, H. A., 283

Gore, Charles, 12, 16, 25, 33, 112, 113, 120, 121, 129, 164, 173, 187,
198, 214, 218, 229, 240, 305, 321, 329, 333, 340, 351, 389,
414, 500, 598, 671, 673, 679, 783, 911, 1001.

Gough, John B., 641

Goulbourn, E. M., 1023, 1054

Gould, E. P., 720, 1046

Gould, S. Baring‐, 316, 326, 377, 457, 562, 722, 733, 915, 933, 1004,
1007.

Grafton, Bishop, 955

Grant, U. S., 430

Gratry, ——, 267

Grau, R. F., 5

Gray, Asa, 470, 478

“Great Religions of the World,”, 186

Green, J. R., 149, 557

Green, T. H., 19, 43, 176, 505, 615

Green, W. H., 167, 172, 225, 231, 375, 477, 994.

Greenleaf, Simon, 141

Greg, W. R., 135, 548, 758

Gregorovius, Ferdinand, 631

Gregory the Great, 1001

Gregory, D. S., 302, 447, 504

Gregory Nazianzen, 1, 748, 917

Gregory Nyssenus, 44, 493, 620, 747

Gretillat, Augustin, 49

Grey, Lady Jane, 33

Griffin, E. P., 733

Grimm, K. L. W., 782

Grimm‐Wilke, 717, 935

Grisi, Mme., 650

Gröbler, Paul, 1023

Grote, George, 156, 214

Grotius, Hugo, 47, 740, 741, 1009

Gubelmann, J. S., 317

Guericke, H. E. F., 330, 379, 382, 384, 672, 744, 907.

Guizot, F., 193, 409

Gulick, J. T., 530

Gulliver, Julia H., 506

Gunsaulus, F. W., 4, 122, 350

Guyon, Mme. de la Motte, 32, 782

Guyot, Arnold, 224, 374, 395, 477

Gwatkin, Henry, 329

Hackett, H. B., 27, 113, 157, 452, 733, 907, 915, 946, 999, 1005.

Hadley, James, 585, 586, 991

Hadrian, 990

Haeckel, Ernst, 343, 471, 496

Hagenbach, K. P., 14, 36, 41, 44, 49, 50, 51, 321, 323, 331, 382, 523,
601, 603, 607, 621, 744, 833, 903.

Hahn, Aaron, 89

Hahn, G. L., 483

Hales, William, 224

Haley, John W., 174, 228, 1054

Hall, Charles Cuthbert, 770

Hall, Edwin, 938

Hall, G. Stanley, 812

Hall, James, 482

Hall, John, 589, 977

Hall, Joseph, 836

Hall, Robert, 47, 70, 74, 463, 793, 820, 932, 972, 977, 978, 996.

Hallam, A. H., 115, 214, 303, 368, 437, 703.

Haller, ——, 229

Hamerton, P. G., 20

Hamilton, D. H., 121, 437

Hamilton, Sir Wm., 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 34, 39, 40, 66, 74, 96, 98, 121, 153,
516, 1002.

Hamlin, Cyrus, 350

Hammond, W. A., 281, 590

Hanna, W. T. C., 153

Hanna, William, 699, 1018

Hanne, J. W., 105, 415

Hare, Julius Charles, 317, 555, 898

Harnack, A., 46, 125, 130, 148, 152, 153, 154, 158, 163, 208, 379, 433,
446, 456, 598, 621, 683, 722, 729, 911, 935, 937.

Harnoch, G. A., 382

Harris, ——, 467

Harris, George, 26, 203, 293, 494, 571, 701, 787.

Harris, J. H., 103, 303

Harris, J. Rendel, 151

Harris, Samuel, 11, 51, 52, 60, 64, 65, 67, 69, 72, 92, 100, 133, 180,
204, 253, 255, 291, 468, 486, 509, 572, 600, 654, 695, 700,
1014, 1023.

Harris, W. T., 43, 62, 86

Harrison, Frederick, 19, 57

Hart, A. S., 458

Hartmann, E. von, 78, 80, 105, 404

Hartmann, Robert, 473

Harvey, H., 42, 897, 917, 929, 934

Harvey, Lord, 229

Hase, Karl, 49, 50, 51, 158, 518, 558, 583, 621, 686, 702, 991, 1023.

Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, 118, 119, 141, 148, 153, 165, 167, 394, 479,
514, 933.

Hatch, Edwin, 27, 44, 146, 255, 321, 389, 666, 700, 840, 897, 913.

Haug, Martin, 382

Haven, Joseph, 301, 437, 504

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 363, 400, 405, 496, 578, 645.

Hay, John, 587

Hazard, R. G., 39, 279, 362, 504, 794, 814

Heagle, David, 982

Heard, J. B., 484

Heber, Reginald, 2

Hebert, C., 968

Hedge, F. H., 75, 377, 404

Hegel, G. W. F., 20, 27, 42, 55, 100, 101, 115, 176, 344, 378, 407, 550,
581, 653.

Heine, Heinrich, 23, 104, 345, 562, 567

Helmholtz, H. L. F., 94

Hemphill, Samuel, 148, 149, 151

Henderson, E., 128, 198, 199, 200, 204, 210, 216, 322, 614.

Hengstenberg, E. W., 319, 659, 668, 1009, 1010, 1014.

Henly, William Ernest, 507

Henry VIII, 20

Henry, Matthew, 525, 743, 772

Henslow, George, 469, 815

Henson, P. S., 122, 920

Heraclitus, 222, 506

Herbert of Cherbury, Lord Edward, 37, 414.

Herbert, George, 15, 34, 37, 355, 414

Herbert, Thomas M., 11, 66, 94

Herder, J. G., 46, 230

Hermann, ——, 46, 900

Hermas, 159, 312

Herodotus, 181, 250, 934

Herrick, C. L., 252

Herrick, Robert, 362

Herron, G. D., 570

Herschel, J. F. W., 91, 99, 412

Hersey, H. E., 194, 436

Hershon, P. I., 501

Hervey, Arthur C., 229

Herzog, Encyclopædia, 21, 33, 91, 158, 187, 368, 377, 382, 404, 444, 617,
670, 686, 700, 754, 868, 998, 1003, 1023.

Hesiod, 391, 526

Hickok, L. P., 10, 43, 53, 301

Hicks, L. E., 75, 225, 403

Hilary (Hilarius), 619, 620

Hildebrand, 905

Hilgenfeld, A. B. C. C., 161

Hill, D. J., 8, 51, 58, 98, 120, 195, 319, 467, 586.

Hill, George, 358, 368

Hill, Rowland, 577, 789

Hill, Thomas, 92

Hillel, 931

Hilprecht, H. V., 532

Hinton, James, 5, 308

Hippolytus, 159

Hiscox, Edward T., 929

Hitchcock, Edward, 124

Hitchcock, R. D., 897, 1017

Hobbes, Thomas, 40, 124, 298, 461, 567

Hodge, A. A., 49, 50, 121, 198, 323, 353, 362, 435, 486, 557, 586, 644,
688, 693, 710, 712, 728, 784, 794, 795, 836, 862, 910, 1014,
1029, 1044, 1056.

Hodge, Charles, 1, 21, 27, 28, 30, 33, 49, 51, 52, 53, 100, 103, 132, 198,
213, 217, 272, 300, 328, 362, 397, 404, 413, 418, 420, 453,
480, 491, 514, 557, 559, 582, 587, 602, 612, 614, 616, 619,
622, 643, 655, 664, 686, 688, 691, 696, 706, 708, 741, 771,
781, 784, 792, 820, 825, 843, 846, 868, 881, 929, 982, 1001,
1052.

Hodge, C. W., 6

Hodgson, S. H., 5, 15, 100, 288, 512

Höffding, H., 458, 467

Hofmann, J. C. K. von, 41, 68, 320, 519, 686, 722.

Hofmann, R. H., 503

Holbach, Baron Paul H. d’, 91

Holland, H. S., 22, 838

Holland, J. G., 91, 246

Hollaz, David, 45, 261, 558, 615

Holliman, Ezekiel, 949

Holmes, O. W., 369, 405, 496, 643, 755, 984.

Holzmann, ——, 161

Homer, 161, 404

Hood, Thomas, 36

Hooker, Richard, 48, 209, 218, 518, 538, 548, 584, 686, 700, 781, 787,
808, 896, 897, 929.

Hopkins, Mark, 4, 6, 25, 58, 77, 79, 93, 95, 120, 121, 122, 251, 270, 300,
301, 374, 380, 404, 405, 406, 416, 434, 435, 438, 450, 469,
503, 524, 525, 529, 537, 571, 679, 815, 839, 842.

Hopkins, Samuel, 48, 271, 415, 416, 417, 467, 494, 518, 567, 593, 606,
607, 608, 613, 643, 754, 771, 772, 820, 842.

Horace, 124, 156, 190, 294, 581

Hort, F. J. A., 154, 905

Hovey, Alvah, 5, 34, 45, 50, 102, 114, 147, 153, 155, 197, 223, 227, 230,
255, 273, 307, 316, 388, 404, 469, 486, 544, 567, 618, 624,
629, 636, 662, 681, 688, 696, 697, 700, 702, 708, 721, 735,
738, 739, 756, 779, 782, 784, 786, 787, 823, 825, 852, 881,
890, 938, 954, 960, 980, 982, 984, 985, 992, 998, 999, 1003,
1008, 1012, 1023, 1038, 1039, 1054.

Howard, George E., 530

Howe, John, 47, 48, 52, 333, 334, 516

Howell, R. B. C., 918, 980

Howland, S. W., 526

Howson, J. S., 160

Hudson, C. F., 998, 1036

Hudson, Thomas J., 465

Hudson, Thompson J., 281, 381, 454, 458, 983.

Hughes, Archbishop, 959

Hughes, Thomas, 570, 679

Hugo, Victor, 56, 453, 984

Humboldt, Alexander von, 1, 259, 412, 480.

Hume, David, 43, 57, 73, 95, 121, 127, 135, 175, 433, 893, 997, 1001.

Hunt, A. E., 529

Hunt, John, 100, 896

Huntingdon, Wm., 766, 907

Hurter, H., 47

Huther, J. E., 307, 902

Hutter, Leonhard, 45

Hutton, R. H., 27, 59, 67, 70, 82, 100, 125, 131, 160, 162, 192, 204, 347,
351, 408, 440, 511, 561, 564, 565, 571, 646, 667, 777, 982.

Huxley, Thomas, 57, 60, 76, 83, 94, 96, 124, 127, 389, 392, 396, 466, 468,
470, 471, 472, 480, 502, 575, 990.

Hyde, W. D., 433

Hyslop, James H., 654

Iamblicus, 111

Ignatius, 44, 149, 159, 311, 312

Illingworth, J. R., 4, 53, 72, 128, 253, 346.

Immer, A., 177

Independent, 977

Inge, W. R., 31, 33, 237, 311, 800, 841

Ingelow, Jean, 1042

Ingersoll, Robert G., 38, 135, 159, 365, 496, 570, 1050.

Ingham, Richard, 934, 951

Interior, 977

Ireland, W. W., 207, 281

Irenæus, 147, 152, 319, 620, 910, 998

Irving, Edward, 132, 439, 744, 745, 746, 747, 759.

Isocrates, 180, 222

Issel, Ernst, 274

Iverach, James, 11, 79, 97

Jackson, A. V. W., 382

Jackson, A. W., 103, 407, 501, 649, 1047

Jackson, William, 1056

Jacob, G. A., 887, 896, 912, 914, 915, 917, 948, 952, 960, 961, 965, 980.

Jacobi, F. H., 14, 29, 46, 61, 81, 838, 951

Jahn, Johann, 722

Jahrbuch für deutsche Theologie, 708, 754, 1018.

James, William, 4, 33, 42, 55, 94, 96, 98, 111, 122, 182, 274, 276, 281,
338, 403, 435, 467, 468, 488, 504, 511, 536, 748, 806, 811,
829, 831, 841, 985, 988, 1002.

Janet, Paul, 62, 75, 79, 91, 262, 401, 404, 435, 504.

Janósik, ——, 525

Jansen, Cornelius, 47

Jastrow, Morris, Jr., 408

Jefferson, Charles E., 953

Jellett, J. H., 232, 437

Jenkyn, Thomas W., 773

Jensen, ——, 408

Jerome, 148, 152, 159, 429, 491, 597, 796, 914, 915.

Jerrold, Douglas, 42

Jevons, W. S., 66, 124

John of Damascus, 44, 344, 487, 671, 673, 695.

John the Evangelist, 1

Johns, C. H. W., 169

Johnson, E. H., 201, 281, 293, 297, 339, 340, 347, 357, 376, 377, 383,
743, 785, 792, 824, 854, 957, 1017.

Johnson, F. H., 25, 407, 470

Johnson, Franklin, 153, 235, 403

Johnson, Herrick, 779

Johnson, Samuel, 36, 297, 525, 560, 575, 1047.

Johnson’s Cyclopædia, 1047

Johnstone, Robert, 708

Jones, E. Griffith, 119, 466, 528, 583, 625, 657, 852.

Jones, Henry, 101, 103, 108, 266, 291, 406, 540.

Jonson, Ben, 461

Josephus, 144, 166, 226, 448, 947, 996

Jouffroy, T. S., 301, 1002

Journal of Christian Philosophy, 96

Jowett, Benjamin, 728, 781

Judson, Adoniram, 194, 938, 960

Jukes, Andrew, 726, 1039

Julian, 598

Justin Martyr, 148, 152, 319, 410, 665, 671, 675, 747, 997.

Juvenal, 156

Kähler, Martin, 503

Kaftan, J. W. M., 5, 14, 21, 25, 45, 46, 207, 274, 520, 568, 569, 574,
649, 752, 839, 856.

Kahnis, K. F. A., 14, 20, 46, 52, 200, 243, 247, 261, 491, 493, 652, 696,
702, 705, 795, 929.

Kane, Elisha Kent, 40, 765

Kant, Immanuel, 4, 6, 10, 21, 29, 43, 46, 53, 55, 61, 73, 75, 77, 79, 82,
85, 86, 87, 95, 401, 427, 488, 489, 498, 502, 504, 510, 536,
545, 581, 643, 655, 800, 813, 839, 988, 1002.

Keane, A. H., 471, 477, 530

Keats, John, 120

Keble, John, 139, 526, 583, 675

Kedney, J. S., 379

Keen, W. W., 59, 731

Keil, J. K. F., 477, 722

Keim, Theodor, 131

Keller, Helen, 66, 216, 478

Kellogg, S. H., 182, 352, 1044

Kelly, William, 1009, 1015

Kelso, J. A., 169

Kempis, Thomas à, 32, 556

Ken, Thomas, 916

Kendall, Amos, 893

Kendall, Henry, 622

Kendrick, A. C., 152, 234, 316, 627, 661, 699, 708, 934, 947, 952, 1004,
1014, 1033.

Kennard, J. S., 648

Kennedy, John, 131

Kenyon, F. G., 141, 169

Kidd, Benjamin, 17, 194, 426, 567, 813, 981.

Kilpatrick, T. B., 164

King, H. C., 125, 328

King, H. M., 427, 896

Kingsley, Charles, 183, 305, 421, 442, 473

Kipling, Rudyard, 420

Kirk, Dr., 291

Kitto, John, 932

Kloppenburg, John, 614

Knapp, Georg Christian, 46

Knight, William A., 43, 53, 59, 73, 104, 105, 327, 387, 434, 754.

Knobel, August, 726

Knox, Alexander, 853

Knox, John, 134

Köhler, H. O., 621

Koran, 420, 578

Krabbe, Otto, 660

Krauth, C. P., 664

Kreibig, G., 298, 403, 569, 633, 659, 750, 754, 765.

Krüger, Paul, 344

Külpe, Oswald, 43

Kuenen, A., 134, 155, 170, 171, 199

Kurtz, J. H., 51, 168, 172, 320, 394, 415, 660, 667, 668, 677.

Kuyper, Abraham, 338, 667

Lachelier, J. E. N., 62

Lacouperie, A. Terrien de, 479

Lactantius, 2, 20

Ladd, G. T., 4, 10, 43, 55, 56, 61, 66, 70, 91, 106, 110, 121, 198, 205,
249, 263, 275, 361, 416, 459, 486, 495, 498, 499, 506, 509,
534, 537, 550, 916, 929, 958, 985, 1003, 1023.

Lamb, Charles, 312, 644

Lang, G. A., 298, 531

Lange, F. A., 91

Lange, J. L. F., 20, 46, 273

Lange, J. P., 51, 333, 382, 661, 722, 761, 781, 853, 951.

Lanier, Sidney, 194

Lankester, E. Ray, 229, 528

Lao‐tze, 351

La Place, P. S. de, 250

Lardner, Nathaniel, 150

Lasaulx, Ernest von, 727

Lasher, G. W., 948

Laurie, S. S., 511

Law, William, 303, 557

Lawrence, E. A.,697, 754, 1042

Lawrence, William, 133

Laycock, Thomas, 95

Leathes, Stanley, 140, 168, 177, 221

LeBon, Gustave, 488

Lecky, W. E. H., 294

LeConte, Joseph, 77, 110, 225, 250, 395, 396, 469, 474.

Lee, G. S., 125, 237, 264, 362

LeFanu, Joseph S., 575

Legge, James, 56, 180, 225, 531

Leibnitz, G. W., 29, 43, 46, 63, 404, 405, 563.

Leighton, Robert, 401, 873

Leitch, William, 450, 1033

Lemme, Ludwig, 652

Lenormant, F., 224, 225, 377

Leo the Great, 750

Lepsius, K. R., 910

Lessing, G. E., 30, 173, 510, 520

Letson, see LeBon, Gustave.

Lewes, G. H., 64, 194, 251, 380, 533

Lewis, Mrs. A. S., 151

Leydecker, Melchior, 46, 49, 50

Lias, J. J., 759, 760

Lichtenberg, ——, 98

Lichtenberger, F., 748

Liddell and Scott, 933

Liddon, Henry P., 21, 51, 58, 190, 307, 309, 311, 314, 315, 321, 437, 491,
683.

Lidgett, J. S., 295, 528, 726, 732, 750, 754, 756.

Liebner, Th. A., 686, 690, 702

Life, 512

Lightfoot, J. B., 24, 35, 151, 160, 187, 311, 335, 341, 379, 379, 452,
485, 706, 912, 915, 916, 928, 929, 934, 938, 945, 953.

Lightfoot, John, 452

Lightwood, J. M., 535

Lillie, Arthur, 183

Lillie, John, 294, 993, 1005, 1053

Lilly, W. S., 112

Limborch, Philipp von, 47, 524, 602

Lincoln, Abraham, 231, 272, 516, 517, 596, 847, 900, 939.

Lincoln, Heman, 1049

Lincoln, William, 800

Lindsay, T. M., 897

Lindsay, W. L., 469

Lindsley, Philip, 39

Lipsius, Richard A., 46, 380, 404

Lisle, W. M., 17, 486, 561

Litch, Josiah, 1015

Litton, E. A., 48

Livingstone, David, 56, 900

Lobstein, Paul, 676

Locke, John, 43, 54, 63, 73, 81, 95, 213, 444, 899, 1002.

Lockhart, B. W., 330, 560, 736

Lockhart, John G., 449

Lockyer, J. N., 229

Lodge, Oliver J., 416, 512

Loeb, Jacques, 119, 525, 676, 1003

Loisy, Alfred, 683

Lombard, Peter, 44, 613, 704

Lombroso, Cesare, 496

Long, J. C, 44, 937

Longfellow, H. W., 224, 400, 984, 985, 987, 1042.

Lopp, W. T., 477

“Lord’s Supper, The, A Clerical Symposium,”, 964

Lorimer, James, 536

Lorimer, P., 160

Lotz, Gulielmus, 410

Lotze, Hermann, 4, 6, 8, 12, 38, 53, 89, 96, 99, 100, 104, 254, 273, 279,
282, 285, 332, 385, 388, 416, 418, 495, 512, 513, 695, 820,
985, 1002.

Louis XIV., 567

Louis, St., of France, 192

Love, William D., 708

Lovelace, Richard, 507

Lowde, ——, 800

Lowell, James R., 13, 151, 407, 426, 500, 503, 633.

Lowndes, R., 52, 67, 97, 279

Lowrie, Walter, 159, 261, 310, 719

Loyola, Ignatius, 33, 904

Lubbock, John, 527

Lucan, 700

Lucian, 194, 941

Luckock, H. M., 659, 775, 1000, 1002, 1043.

Lucretius, 91, 255, 299, 380

Lünemann, G., 377, 485

Luthardt, C. E., 2, 14, 22, 30, 44, 46, 51, 68, 84, 112, 222, 245, 249,
341, 404, 408, 530, 559, 575, 668, 723, 754, 816, 829, 836,
929, 982, 991, 998.

Luther, Martin, 45, 156, 205, 209, 226, 237, 240, 251, 329, 344, 364, 409,
437, 441, 458, 487, 494, 556, 562, 569, 650, 654, 692, 747,
776, 808, 823, 830, 840, 891, 902, 903, 912, 942, 954, 969,
1008.

Lutheran Quarterly, 300

Lyall, William, 508

Lyell, Charles, 65, 374, 532

Lynch, Archbishop, 967

Lysias, Claudius, 240

Lyttelton, Arthur, 647, 722

Lytton, Edward Bulwer, 645

M., C. H., see MacIntosh, C. H.

Macan, R. W., 1023

Macaulay, T. B., 40, 47, 406, 659, 872, 898, 913.

McCabe, L. D., 285, 357, 358, 359

McCane, John Y., 577

McCheyne, Robert Murray, 1056

McClintock and Strong, 51, 603, 644

McConnell, S. D., 851

McCosh, James, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 43, 54, 67, 70, 73, 77, 78, 87, 93, 94,
95, 102, 339, 403, 427, 437, 839, 1022.

MacDonald, A., 2

MacDonald, G., 491, 569

Macdonnell, J. C., 754

McDuff, J. R., 808

McGarvey, J. W., 534, 955

McGiffert, A. C., 44, 888, 902

MacGregor, James, 894

McIlvaine, C. P., 146, 150, 191

McIlvaine, J. H., 193, 231, 394, 474, 583, 644, 744, 750.

MacIntosh, C. H., 234, 410, 454, 548, 583, 584, 727, 773, 796, 797, 856,
862, 864, 870, 896, 941.

McKim, W. D., 656

Mackintock, Hugh R., 224

McLane, W. W., 985

McLeod, Norman, 459

MacLaren, Alexander, 29, 114, 139, 177, 259, 319, 456, 458, 524, 544, 581,
726, 731, 733, 781, 806, 837, 1026.

Maclaren, Ian, see Watson, John.

Macmillan, Hugh, 145

McPherson, John, 912

MacWhorter, A., 668

Magee, William, 754

Mahaffy, J. P., 18

Mahan, Asa, 877

Maimonides, Moses, 934

Maine, Henry Sumner, 535

Mair, Alexander, 129, 154, 161

Maistre, Joseph de, 576

Maitland, S. R., 1009

Malebranche, Nicolas de, 100, 279

Malm, K. E., 844

Mani, 382

Manly, Basil, 198, 210

Mann, Horace, 810, 1051

Manning, H. E., 317

Manning, J. M., 100

Mansel, Henry L., 7, 8, 9, 52, 54, 58, 70, 121, 253, 254, 278, 379, 384,
385, 469, 504, 546, 985.

Manton, Thomas, 48, 458

Marchi, Joseph de, 191

Marcion, 147, 383, 385

Marck, Johann, 614

Marcus Aurelius, 185, 989

Margoliouth, Moses, 450

Marheinecke, P. C., 46

Marlowe, Christopher, 449, 560, 1042

Marsh, W. H. H., 128

Martensen, H. L., 34, 49, 50, 245, 266, 274, 285, 289, 349, 380, 381, 386,
392, 445, 460, 474, 491, 556, 576, 593, 601, 622, 647, 668,
694, 712, 790, 813, 1002, 1003, 1029.

Martin, Hugh, 739

Martin, W. A. P., 531

Martineau, Harriet, 990

Martineau, James, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 21, 26, 37, 51, 53, 57, 59,
64, 66, 68, 72, 73, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98,
99, 100, 102, 105, 107, 112, 114, 125, 141, 152, 159, 202,
230, 231, 245, 250, 279, 285, 293, 296, 298, 299, 301, 303,
347, 348, 359, 362, 365, 386, 399, 402, 403, 412, 413, 417,
426, 430, 437, 469, 485, 504, 512, 532, 534, 535, 536, 538,
542, 567, 571, 573, 647, 655, 658, 682, 729, 794, 800, 815,
817, 893, 979, 985, 986, 988, 1003, 1036, 1041, 1047, 1048,
1049.

Marvell, Andrew, 990

Mason, J. M., 776

Mason, Otis T., 417, 529

Mason, S. R., 48, 259, 277, 316, 328, 337, 338, 348, 403, 406, 445, 446,
450, 451, 476, 492, 509, 588, 670, 672, 677, 679, 685, 688,
696, 704, 707, 717, 734, 743, 785, 789, 818, 883.

Maspero, G., 377, 995

Masson, David, 385, 447

Mather, Cotton, 899

Mather, Increase, 953, 958

Matheson, George, 8, 12, 23, 118, 180, 183, 185, 298, 338, 339, 382, 436,
452, 543, 584, 682, 752, 793, 1003.

Matteson, W. B., 958

Maudsley, Henry, 416, 511, 554

Maupas, E., 494, 591

Maurice, F. D., 11, 410, 446, 594, 728, 734, 1046.

Maxwell, James Clerk, 77

Mazzini, Giuseppe, 890

Mead, C. M., 11, 14, 120, 263, 279, 475, 681, 952.

Meehan, Thomas, 480

Melanchthon, Philip, 45, 344, 414, 441, 558, 562, 613, 699, 761, 789, 816,
830, 864, 875, 1008.

Melito, 150

Mell, P. H., 927

Melvill, Henry, 911

Menken, Gottfried, 744

Menzies, Allan, 20

Mercersburgh Review, 957

Meredith, ——, 978

Methodist Quarterly Review, 58, 75, 477, 911, 1003.

Meyer, F. B., 32

Meyer, H. A. W., 15, 51, 68, 138, 199, 210, 242, 306, 309, 335, 337, 340,
452, 456, 457, 474, 485, 487, 517, 562, 579, 633, 657, 658,
661, 706, 707, 717, 719, 720, 752, 760, 761, 782, 838, 853,
902, 906, 907, 910, 915, 934, 935, 948, 951, 960, 973, 994,
1010, 1039, 1045.

Meze, S. E., 277

Michael Angelo, 986, 1055

Michaelis, J. D., 46

Miley, J., 818

Mill, James, 114, 299

Mill, J. S., 11, 78, 80, 83, 85, 96, 127, 130, 131, 179, 188, 190, 299,
378, 379, 381, 402, 506, 532, 533, 814, 904, 979, 986.

Miller, Edward, 744

Miller, G. C., 257, 270

Miller, Hugh, 394

Miller, John, 30, 53, 397, 708, 759

Millet, J. F., 256

Milligan, William, 131, 151

Mills, B. Fay, 855

Mills, L. H., 383

Milton, John, 37, 237, 284, 286, 292, 329, 360, 385, 409, 443, 453, 494,
523, 560, 572, 583, 587, 589, 620, 647, 742, 749, 783, 789,
873, 1032, 1034.

Mind, 468, 509

Minton, H. C., 6, 26, 348

Mishna, 931

Mitchell, Arthur, 529

Mitchell, E. C., 147

Mitchell, J. M., 182, 185

Mitchell, Seth K., 810

Mivart, St. George, 9, 78, 97, 104, 283, 380, 468, 470, 472, 474, 528.

Moberly, R. C., 253, 260, 288, 291, 323, 328, 331, 333, 343, 345, 594,
654, 674, 684, 691, 737, 756, 769, 836.

Moehler, J. A., 47, 207, 518, 522, 853, 866, 911.

Moffat, Robert, 56

Molina, Luis, 358

Moltke, Count H. von, 401

Momerie, A. W., 700

Monod, Adolphe, 41, 541, 751

Monrad, D. G., 437

Montesquieu, S., 535

Moody, D. L., 188, 313, 506

Moore, A. L., 416

Moore, Aubrey, 492

Moore, E. M., 481

Moorhouse, James, 679, 1023

More, Sir Thomas, 654, 1031

Morell, J. D., 4, 12, 20, 33, 88, 93, 202, 510.

Morgan, L. H., 527, 530

Morison, James, 148, 149

Mormon, Book of, 141

Morris, E. D., 45, 708, 1044

Morris, George S., 43, 253, 345

Morris, H. W., 483

Morrison, C. R., 131

Morton, S. G., 480

Mosheim, J. L. von, 376

Moule, H. C. G., 48, 340, 485, 790, 913

Moulton, Richard G., 651

Moxom, P. S., 273, 302, 349, 495, 637, 750, 776.

Mozart, W. A., 276

Mozley, J. B., 3, 75, 100, 117, 118, 124, 126, 129, 130, 132, 231, 432,
546, 570, 620, 622, 631, 766, 790, 841, 994, 997, 1041.

Mozoomdar, 678

Müller, G. C, 377

Müller, George, 438, 439

Müller, Gustav A., 144

Müller, Julius, 10, 21, 22, 31, 46, 51, 53, 74, 82, 105, 245, 257, 263,
278, 285, 341, 388, 418, 488, 489, 490, 507, 519, 544, 552,
557, 559, 562, 563, 566, 567, 569, 571, 577, 579, 582, 585,
600, 605, 606, 611, 612, 616, 618, 621, 634, 643, 644, 647,
651, 654, 657, 660, 661, 676, 677, 706, 775, 777, 847, 983,
1003.

Müller, F. Max, 20, 56, 101, 193, 225, 260, 309, 335, 469, 478, 479, 531,
668, 844.

Muir, William, 157, 186

Mulford, Elisha, 101

Mullins, E. Y., 717, 738, 754, 755

Murphy, J. G., 445

Murphy, J. J., 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 71, 73, 76, 79, 80, 82, 99, 103, 121,
129, 276, 401, 412, 512, 538, 544, 548, 576, 606, 622, 786,
824, 846, 955, 1056.

Murray, Andrew, 317

Murray, J. C., 98

Murray, T. C., 172, 479

Murray, W. H. H., 447

Myers, F. W. H., 69, 120, 134, 206, 457, 677.

Myers, Frederic, 205

Nägeli, C. von, 987

Nägelsbach, C. F., 723

Nägelsbach, K. W. E., 239

Nansen, F., 431

Napoleon, 143, 349, 421, 512, 561, 682

Nash, H. S., 150, 157, 691, 763, 841

Nation, The, 896

Nature, 471

Naville, Ernest, 508, 622, 1023

Neander, J. A. W., 40, 41, 305, 335, 384, 487, 563, 587, 600, 621, 661,
670, 749, 852, 870, 878, 896, 897, 902, 907, 936, 951, 952,
953, 954, 1003, 1014, 1023, 1029.

Nelson, Horatio, 577

Nelson, John, 1026

Nestorius, 671

Nevin, J. W., 969

Nevius, J. L., 445, 453, 456, 457, 461

New Englander, 5, 6, 8, 38, 62, 74, 94, 98, 181, 185, 207, 278, 314, 413,
532, 616, 666, 923, 952, 1014, 1038.

New World, 507

Newman, A. H., 44, 379, 382, 385, 937, 953.

Newman, F. W., 12, 37, 202, 585, 988, 1055

Newman, J. H., 5, 17, 33, 37, 114, 202, 208, 222, 451, 584, 586, 853, 866.

Newton, Sir Isaac, 60, 139, 311, 1009

Newton, John, 576

Newton, Thomas, 135

Nicoll, W. R., 130, 155, 161, 313, 659, 708, 746, 1016.

Niese, B., 144

Nippold, Friedrich, 740

Nitzsch, Carl I., 14, 20, 22, 31, 41, 46, 53, 59, 72, 269, 485, 519, 559,
583, 652, 849.

Noel, Baptist W., 938, 972

Noetus, 327

Nordau, Max S., 40

Nordell, P. A., 290

North British Review, 363, 952

Northrup, G. W., 255, 293, 474, 614, 640, 662, 772, 789.

Norton, Andrews, 150

Norton, C. E., 138

Norton, John, 539

Nott, J. C., and G. R. Gliddon, 480

Novalis, 43, 526

Novatian, 937

Noyes, G. R., 548

Occam, William of, 45, 244, 298, 299, 909.

Œdipus, 469

Oehler, G. F., 137, 375, 376, 585, 725

Oetinger, F. C., 216

Oldenberg, Hermann, 183

Oliphant, Mrs. M. O. W., 744

Olshausen, Hermann, 945

Omar Kháyyám, 407, 511, 542, 990

Oosterzee, J. J. Van, see Van Oosterzee, J. J.

Origen, 15, 44, 53, 146, 153, 328, 386, 409, 451, 488, 489, 734, 1019,
1041.

Orr, James, 6, 30, 141, 172, 298

Osgood, Howard, 18, 172, 226, 995, 1023

Ossory, Bishop of, 836, 849, 853, 868

Outlook, The, 305, 350, 650, 718, 744

Ovid, 416, 523, 575, 723

Owen, John, 47, 295, 297, 326, 340, 343, 613, 663, 697, 754, 770, 773,
802, 820, 826, 868, 876, 886.

Owen, Richard, 77, 98, 389, 396, 480

Owen, Robert Dale, 506

Paine, L. L., 44, 148, 262, 305, 308, 328, 500, 718.

Paine, Thomas, 112, 564

Pajon, Claude, 947

Paley, William, 174, 299, 409, 534

Palmer, Frederic, 203, 342, 659, 701

Palmer, G. H., 182

Palmer, T. R., 955

Papias, 148, 149, 159

Park, E. A., 197, 231, 271, 278, 290, 301, 304, 342, 354, 367, 401, 605,
608, 609, 637, 675, 727, 740, 743, 827, 911, 913, 928.

Parker, Edwin P., 711

Parker, Joel, 1052

Parker, Joseph, 317

Parker, Theodore, 12, 120, 186, 202, 446, 501, 958, 989, 1050, 1055.

Parkhurst, Charles H., 22, 242, 486, 584

Pascal, Blaise, 4, 21, 38, 40, 47, 62, 120, 129, 205, 403, 469, 516, 581,
635, 691, 808, 821, 841, 909.

Paton, John G., 32, 76, 195, 423

Pattison, S. R., 225

Pattison, T. H., 24, 42, 200

Patton, F. L., 63, 70, 79, 172, 212, 297, 300, 368, 655, 841, 889, 1047.

Patton, W. W., 437, 708

Paulsen, Friedrich, 281

Payne, B. H., 651

Payne, George, 617, 790, 820

Peabody, A. P., 22, 29, 51, 60, 89, 112, 146, 157, 230, 503, 672.

Peabody, Ephraim, 118

Pearson, John, 48, 708

Pearson, Thomas, 415

Peck, A. C., 790

Peck, George, 877

Peirce, Benjamin, 396

Pelagius, 491, 597

Pengilly, R., 938

Penn, William, 48

Pentecost, G. F., 767, 813

Pepper, G. D. B., 102, 124, 286, 353, 357, 425, 537, 629, 933, 955, 980,
1014.

Perowne, J. J. S., 172, 231, 403, 412, 451, 812, 833.

Perrone, J., 47, 523

Persius, 380, 647

Peschel, O., 58

Petavius, Dionysius, 47

Peter Lombard, 44, 613, 704, 747

Peter Martyr, 46, 524

Peters, ——, 507

Peyrerius, 476

Pezzi, D., 479

Pfleiderer, Otto, 5, 8, 10, 12, 21, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 74, 87, 104, 111,
116, 120, 122, 134, 156, 158, 164, 182, 216, 237, 269, 328,
332, 365, 383, 386, 388, 406, 447, 466, 490, 492, 519, 530,
559, 571, 585, 586, 603, 608, 681, 700, 717, 718, 719, 721,
728, 750, 799, 839, 938, 951, 954.

Phelps, Austin, 437, 496, 820, 1034

Philippi, F. A., 4, 20, 46, 51, 222, 257, 273, 287, 378, 418, 420, 442,
444, 462, 463, 491, 514, 516, 519, 520, 523, 539, 549, 563,
566, 571, 579, 585, 592, 606, 612, 622, 671, 673, 688, 690,
696, 697, 706, 708, 709, 710, 713, 721, 733, 750, 754, 766,
771, 776, 836, 859.

Phillips, Wendell, 907

Philo, 126, 166, 203, 244, 320, 321, 335, 340, 377, 488, 489, 722, 995.

Pickering, Charles, 477, 480

Pictet, Benedict, 46

Pierce, Nehemiah, 823

Pierret, Paul, 377

Pillsbury, Parker, 982

Pinches, T. G., 531

Placeus, Joshua, 46, 616, 617

Plato, 16, 25, 29, 33, 67, 68, 111, 112, 143, 183, 203, 261, 262, 302,
310, 335, 364, 461, 488, 489, 516, 526, 560, 581, 647, 660,
700, 764, 989, 1031.

Pliny, 191, 313

Plummer, A., 932

Plumptre, E. H., 153, 158, 700, 708, 821, 909, 915, 935, 993.

Plutarch, 113, 429, 537, 575, 788, 813, 934

Polanus, A., 491

Pollok, Robert, 1019

Polycarp, 147, 149, 150

Pomeroy, John, 536

Pond, Enoch, 207

Pope, Alexander, 77, 102, 404, 430, 1020

Pope, W. B., 48, 68, 394, 562, 578, 583, 602, 706, 762.

Porter, Frank C., 152, 934

Porter, Noah, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 60, 63,
66, 67, 73, 75, 78, 82, 86, 93, 96, 100, 125, 179, 253, 254,
257, 275, 278, 279, 280, 412, 417, 469, 486, 508, 516, 524,
695, 815, 1019, 1021.

Poteat, E. M., 108

Pott, A. F., 478

Potwin, Lemuel S., 735

Powell, Baden, 434, 548

Praxeas, 327

Prayer Book, English, 46, 937, 957, 978

Prentiss, George L., 664

Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 26

Presbyterian Quarterly Review, 5, 96, 132, 133, 182, 477, 614, 913, 915,
924, 960, 998, 1005, 1013, 1014.

“Present Day Tracts,”, 162, 177

Pressensé, E. D. de, 130, 162, 187, 321, 666.

Prestwich, Joseph, 226

Preyer, W. T., 43

Price, Richard, 301

Prichard, J. C., 480, 483

Priestley, Joseph, 198, 300

Prime, Samuel Irenæus, 437

Princeton Essays, 304, 330, 343, 359, 401, 555, 598, 600, 601, 611, 612,
613, 619, 644, 707, 733, 744, 881.

Princeton Review, 5, 11, 78, 216, 469, 481, 622, 640, 708, 747, 896, 911,
977, 1014, 1037, 1046.

Proudhon, ——, 1

Ptah hotep, 169

Pusey, E. B., 429, 518, 834, 969

Pym, John, 419

Pythagoras, 112, 183, 190, 386

Quarles, Francis, 752

Quatrefages, A. de, 474, 477, 480

Quenstedt, J. A., 45, 208, 244, 269, 444, 669, 795, 859, 864.

Racovian Catechism, 47, 524

Rainy, Robert, 12, 177, 221, 912

Ramabai, Pundita, 161, 905

Ranke, Leopold von, 369

Ratzel, Friedrich, 530

Rauschenbusch, Augustus, 410

Rauschenbusch, Walter, 540, 909, 982

Rawlinson, George, 56, 191, 225, 229, 351, 482, 483, 529, 531, 532.

Raymond, Miner, 48, 53, 358, 362, 519, 602, 605, 606, 611, 621, 644.

Reade, Winwood, 405

Records of the Past, 377

Redford, R. A., 141

Reid, Thomas, 276, 279

Reid, William, 896

Reinhard, F. V., 46

Renan, Ernest, 57, 115, 131, 160, 161, 162, 174, 188, 666.

Renouf, P. Le Page, 57, 58, 103, 351, 377, 397, 479, 482, 799, 995, 1022,
1024.

Renouvier, C. B., 512

Reubelt, John A., 686

Reusch, F. H., 897

Reuss, E., 41, 147, 579, 670

Réville, Jean, 177, 821

Revillout, Eugène, 226, 995

Revue Théologique, 1023

Reynolds, Edward, 622

Rhees, Rush, 144, 190, 315

Ribot, Th., 497, 505, 625, 813

Rice, W. N., 120

Richards, James, 555, 644, 773, 777

Richardson, J. H., 525

Richelieu, 1048

Richter, Jean Paul, 105, 204, 467, 553, 641

Riddle, M. B., 152, 227

Rider, C. E., 173

Riggenbach, C. J., 485

Ridgeley, Thomas, 47, 48, 664, 696, 790, 886

Ripley, Henry J., 929

Ritchie, D. G., 12, 16, 60, 572, 615

Ritschl, Albrecht, 5, 6, 11, 14, 21, 41, 46, 120, 245, 264, 291, 579, 622,
732, 734, 737, 799, 866, 877, 1008.

Ritter, Heinrich, 79

Robbins, R. D. C., 1041

Roberts, B. T., 918

Roberts, W. Page‐, 496

Robertson, F. W., 39, 205, 253, 344, 346, 378, 379, 469, 548, 567, 570,
654, 656, 679, 682, 695, 734, 855, 860, 948, 1028, 1049.

Robertson, J. D., 814

Robertson, James, 121, 143, 169, 668, 724.

Robie, Edward, 351

Robin, C. P., 281

Robins, H. E., 647, 649, 663, 674, 697, 706, 803, 946.

Robinson, C. S., 345

Robinson, Edward, 227, 892, 906, 918, 934.

Robinson, Ezekiel G., 3, 16, 18, 26, 31, 34, 39, 40, 42, 51, 68, 119, 129,
130, 156, 157, 162, 177, 205, 228, 231, 244, 268, 270, 273,
278, 287, 297, 299, 301, 302, 304, 314, 316, 319, 322, 326,
334, 342, 356, 357, 360, 367, 383, 398, 429, 432, 434, 436,
444, 458, 498, 499, 504, 512, 519, 536, 539, 540, 544, 550,
572, 586, 589, 594, 615, 638, 644, 662, 666, 667, 701, 709,
723, 729, 730, 736, 740, 747, 750, 776, 818, 822, 824, 828,
842, 853, 854, 890, 912, 917, 942, 954, 955, 969, 983, 1016,
1023, 1048, 1049, 1051.

Robinson, John, 35, 222

Robinson, Willard H., 1038

Rogers, Henry, 12, 115, 116, 156, 189, 204, 232, 282, 288.

Rogers, J. G., 969

Romaine, W., 437, 849

Romanes, G. J., 22, 69, 94, 250, 346, 466, 469, 470, 478, 510, 631, 676.

Roscelin, Jean, 44

Ross, A. H., 929

Rossetti, Dante Gabriel, 489

Rossetti, Maria F., 443

Rothe, Richard, 50, 216, 244, 249, 285, 287, 416, 493, 559, 689, 740, 893.

Rousseau, J. J., 562, 576, 577

Row, C. A., 51, 121, 131, 152, 157, 160, 179, 187, 204, 233, 433.

Rowland, H. A., 60

Rowlands, H. O., 926

Rowley, F. H., 476

Royce, Josiah, 16, 32, 54, 55, 56, 60, 69, 99, 110, 124, 261, 267, 276,
277, 283, 284, 286, 349, 357, 380, 405, 407, 442, 511, 558,
594, 615, 758, 785, 987, 1025.

Rückert, L. J., 517, 781

Ruskin, John, 59, 415, 443, 482, 648, 825

Russell, John, 287

Ryle, H. E., 168

Saarschmidt, see Schaarschmidt, Karl.

Sabatier, L. A., 21, 128, 137, 155, 205, 666, 697, 892.

Sabellius, 327

Sadler, M. F., 948, 969

Sagebeer, J. E., 141, 153, 653, 852

Sainte‐Beuve, C. A., 561

Saintine, X. B., 145

Saisset, Emil, 86, 101

Saker, Alfred, 843

Sakya‐Mouni, 161

Sale, George, 143

Salisbury, Lord, 834

Salmon, George, 154, 160, 549

Salmond, S. D. F., 708

Salter, W. M., 300, 538, 541

Samson, G. W., 464, 917, 934, 960

Sanday, William, 146, 152, 164, 165, 198, 203, 209, 228, 236, 307, 933,
945.

Sanders, F. W., 427

Sanderson, J. S. Burdon‐, 251

Santayana, George, 269, 510

Sartorius, Ernest, 693, 695, 705

Saturninus, 383

Savage, Eleazer, 926

Savage, M. J., 69, 432, 447, 985, 989, 992, 1017.

Savage, W. R., 1003

Savonarola, Girolamo, 135

Sayce, A. H., 57, 376, 408, 478, 479

Schaarschmidt, Karl, 512

Schäfer, Bernhard, 240

Schäffer, C. F., 329

Schaff, Philip, 44, 46, 50, 131, 189, 341, 598, 599, 622, 637, 652, 668,
670, 678, 682, 696, 902, 936, 937, 971, 1003.

Schelling, F. W. J. von, 101, 252, 386

Schenkel, Daniel, 503

Scherer, E., 460

Schiller, Friedrich, 74, 303, 386, 633, 644, 981.

Schleiermacher, F. E. D., 14, 20, 34, 42, 46, 244, 287, 314, 327, 461,
486, 503, 519, 559, 563, 734, 740, 783, 951, 981.

Schliemann, H., 529

Schmid, C. F., 41, 68

Schmid, H., 699

Schmid, Rudolph, 397, 479, 482

Schneckenburger, M., 931

Schodde, George H., 165

Schöberlein, D. L., 697, 754, 808

Scholz, Paul, 56

Schopenhauer, A., 54, 78, 101, 105, 404

Schrader, Eberhard, 408

Schürer, Emil, 244

Schurman, J. G., 8, 9, 19, 25, 55, 63, 67, 94, 99, 129, 130, 254, 268,
332, 398, 439, 466, 470, 615, 894, 908, 910, 1050.

Schwegler, A., 345, 504

Schweizer, A., 42, 245

Schwenkfeld, Caspar, 800

Scott, C. Anderson, 913, 915

Scott, C. S., 928

Scott, Thomas, 35

Scott, Pres. Walter, 444

Scott, Sir Walter, 177, 350, 489

Scotus Erigena, John, 44, 244, 524

Scotus, Novanticus, 511

Scribner, G. H., 478

Sears, E. H., 227

Secrétan, Charles, 74, 621, 666

Seeley, J. R., 295, 576, 819

Seelye, J. H., 528, 1013

Semler, J. S., 46

Seneca, M. Annæus, 83, 112, 177, 185, 398, 404, 516, 575, 814, 868, 989.

Sennacherib, 143

Septuagint, 166

Serapion, 150

Servetus, Michel, 778

Seth, James, 61, 64, 97, 101, 104, 105, 416, 418, 503, 505, 512, 536, 655,
678, 800, 986, 1042.

Sewall, C. G., 1042

Shaftesbury, Lord, 984

Shairp, J. C., 70, 982

Shakespeare, William, 17, 19, 23, 120, 170, 288, 289, 369, 426, 439, 442,
450, 452, 463, 472, 492, 502, 506, 511, 516, 526, 562, 569,
572, 575, 581, 633, 638, 645, 647, 651, 703, 732, 751, 767,
814, 815, 833, 835, 841, 939, 948, 984, 988, 990, 1042, 1051,
1055.

Shaler, N. S., 112, 119, 194, 225, 432, 435, 468, 492, 529, 632.

Shammai, 931

Shaw, Benjamin, 78

Shedd, W. G. T., 5, 10, 16, 21, 26, 41, 49, 51, 56, 57, 58, 69, 87, 95,
101, 105, 118, 119, 125, 243, 246, 253, 255, 261, 262, 268,
273, 277, 278, 290, 294, 296, 297, 298, 305, 314, 315, 328,
332, 333, 334, 338, 341, 343, 345, 348, 356, 367, 368, 373,
376, 380, 384, 400, 408, 472, 474, 481, 494, 504, 517, 518,
522, 523, 528, 537, 555, 557, 562, 564, 576, 578, 582, 585,
586, 588, 592, 601, 602, 607, 619, 621, 622, 625, 627, 630,
631, 635, 637, 640, 643, 645, 647, 655, 671, 678, 679, 683,
696, 700, 704, 709, 713, 719, 733, 737, 744, 749, 750, 754,
762, 768, 767, 770, 773, 780, 786, 816, 820, 822, 823, 827,
833, 847, 853, 880, 914, 957, 1041, 1043, 1044, 1046, 1048,
1049, 1051, 1052, 1056.

Sheldon, D. N., 598, 729

Sheldon, H. C., 384, 603, 625

Shelley, P. B., 57, 526, 757

Shipley, Orby, 572

Short, Augustus, 845

Sibbes, Richard, 48

Sidgwick, Henry, 64, 510

Siegfried, C., 321

Silvernail, J. P., 674

Simon, D. W., 16, 110, 266, 285, 293, 295, 346, 475, 541, 560, 625, 649,
671, 681, 719, 730, 750, 754, 763, 769, 822, 833, 1051.

Small, A. W., 106

Smalley, John, 49, 608

Smeaton, George, 726

Smith, Adam, 301

Smith, C. E., 340, 872, 935, 951

Smith, Edwin B., 898

Smith, George, 377

Smith, George Adam, 122, 145, 203, 266, 422, 582, 724, 923, 997.

Smith, Goldwin, 303, 422, 429

Smith, H. B., 2, 3, 11, 42, 46, 49, 50, 55, 62, 66, 87, 101, 117, 130,
157, 162, 251, 273, 303, 350, 447, 503, 504, 513, 538, 546,
556, 570, 578, 579, 581, 583, 587, 595, 604, 607, 609, 612,
617, 621, 631, 634, 639, 656, 677, 691, 787, 790, 792, 794,
795, 811, 823, 843, 858, 862, 864

Smith, H. P., 116, 172, 209, 228, 238, 240

Smith, J. A., 368

Smith, J. Denham, 808

Smith, J. Pye, 319, 394

Smith, Lucius E., 843

Smith, Philip, 532

Smith, R. B., 427

Smith, R. Payne, 135, 172, 239

Smith, R. T., 98, 113, 502, 503, 509, 642

Smith, T. T., 841

Smith, Thornley, 48

Smith, W. Robertson, 134, 171, 221, 275, 318.

Smith, William, 118, 147

Smyth, Newman, 13, 30, 37, 62, 63, 65, 122, 265, 271, 289, 291, 296, 302,
304, 335, 402, 448, 591, 657, 784, 987, 1019, 1022, 1039, 1046

Smyth, Thomas, 477, 479, 480, 483

Snodgrass, W. D., 881

Society of Biblical Archæology, 408

Socinus, Faustus, 47, 284, 329, 729

Socinus, Laelius, 47, 729

Socrates, 111, 112, 143, 177, 183, 505, 653, 989.

“Solar Hieroglyphics,”, 344

Solly, Thomas, 276, 545

Solon, 57

Sophocles, 57, 141, 144, 469, 540

Sophocles, E. A., 933

Smith, Robert, 128, 524, 705

Southall, James C., 529

Southampton, Bishop of, 119, 130, 432

Southey, Robert, 32, 996

Spear, Samuel T., 736

Spectator, London, 170, 399

Spencer, Herbert, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22, 29, 43, 57, 63, 73, 74, 94, 96, 98,
187, 223, 245, 251, 294, 301, 331, 416, 426, 438, 508, 528,
532, 566, 722, 904.

Spencer, John, 722

Spencer, Otto, 251

Spenser, Edmund, 257, 463

Spilsbury, J., 903, 949

Spinoza, Benedict de, 9, 30, 43, 55, 86, 94, 103, 244, 287, 415, 559, 563,
682, 834.

Splittgerber, F., 998, 1023

Spurgeon, Charles H., 17, 27, 28, 247, 364, 369, 458, 589, 752, 813, 918,
920, 975, 976.

Squier, Miles P., 820, 823

Stählin, Leonhard, 6

Staël, Madame de, 23

Stahl, F. J., 636, 723

Stalker, James, 691

Stallo, J. B., 91, 397

Stanley, A. P., 35, 193, 227, 230, 239, 242, 427, 691, 888, 910, 936, 940,
946, 957, 966

Stanley, Henry M., 427, 430

Stanley, Hiram M., 278

Stapfer, J. F., 20, 619

Starbuck, E. D., 812

Starkie, Thomas, 128, 141, 144, 174

Statement of Doctrine of Presbyterian Church in America, A Short, 790

Staupitz, Johann, 556

Stead, Herbert, 889

Stearns, L. F., 5, 28, 33, 68, 125, 130, 140, 635, 637, 771.

Steffens, H., 1002

Stephen, J. F., 656

Stephen, Leslie, 114, 596

Sterrett, J. M., 20, 21, 23, 101, 407, 624

Steudel, J. C. F., 41

Stevens, G. B., 31, 270, 296, 525, 579, 609, 623, 738, 848, 974, 982,
1016.

Stevens, W. A., 138, 149, 157, 294, 485, 569, 572, 623, 836, 853, 936,
993, 1005, 1008.

Stevenson, R. L., 643

Stewart, Dugald, 285, 427, 571

Stewart, J. W. A., 21, 261, 339, 795, 839, 997.

Stirling, J. H., 100, 176, 389

Stirling, John, 40

Stone, G. M., 940

Storr, G. C., 46

Storrs, Emory, 1055

Storrs, R. S., 19, 889

Story, W. W., 36

Stourdza, A. de, 937

Stout, G. F., 43, 295, 1003

Stowe, Calvin E., 205

Straffen, G. M., 560

Strauss, D. F., 46, 57, 131, 135, 155, 156, 349, 405, 407, 460, 523, 547,
708, 990.

Stoops, J. D., 571

Strong, Augustus H., 3, 5, 10, 25, 29, 35, 38, 39, 40, 45, 46, 53, 95, 97,
106, 110, 117, 118, 123, 138, 140, 163, 164, 176, 193, 220,
221, 252, 259, 262, 264, 268, 275, 277, 287, 294, 297, 311,
340, 350, 356, 358, 362, 389, 440, 501, 504, 520, 560, 569,
572, 596, 634, 644, 646, 651, 674, 681, 683, 692, 693, 716,
762, 763, 768, 785, 799, 802, 804, 808, 812, 848, 899, 908,
914, 918, 924, 926, 942, 943, 977, 980, 1001, 1006, 1009,
1044.

Strong, Charles A., 97, 98, 281

Strong, John H., 472

Stroud, William, 675, 731

Stuart, Moses, 327, 328, 602, 615, 931, 933, 937, 956, 1003, 1009.

Studien und Kritiken, 75, 747, 792

Sully, James, 488

Sumner, Charles, 409

Sumner, J. B., 783

Sunday School Times, 122, 292, 301, 468, 498, 502, 523, 549, 574, 589,
650, 782, 852, 1018.

“Supernatural Religion,” 130, 151, 158

Swayne, W. S., 315, 699

Swedenborg, Emmanuel, 32, 207, 251, 383, 386, 1041.

Swift, Jonathan, 405

Symington, William, 761, 773, 775

Tacitus, 191, 192, 442, 487, 569, 989

Taine, H. A., 581

Talbot, Samson, 39, 94, 98, 301, 302, 508, 694.

Talleyrand, Prince de, 176

Talmage, T. DeW., 464

Talmud, 282, 902

Tatian, 151, 383

Taylor, Bayard, 525

Taylor, D. T., 1015

Taylor, Father Edward T., 453

Taylor, Herbert, 403

Taylor, Isaac, 382, 422, 440, 526

Taylor, Jeremy, 352, 651

Taylor, John, 416, 602

Taylor, John M., 396

Taylor, N. W., 39, 48, 126, 295, 299, 351, 367, 420, 535, 567, 579, 607,
608, 783, 817, 853.

Taylor, W. M., 852

Taylor, W. R., 889

“Teaching of the Twelve, The,”, 159, 311, 410, 892, 906, 937, 938.

Temple, Frederick, 11, 59, 77, 115, 118, 474

Ten Broeke, James, 45, 184, 414

Tennyson, Alfred, 3, 8, 37, 57, 62, 65, 245, 252, 253, 256, 259, 276, 280,
284, 294, 301, 383, 400, 413, 424, 443, 444, 467, 489, 509,
515, 520, 525, 528, 571, 577, 581, 633, 653, 659, 679, 711,
772, 799, 804, 806, 982, 986, 991, 1039, 1051.

Terence, 698

Tertullian, 34, 146, 150, 152, 159, 191, 493, 599, 619, 620, 665, 783,
894, 936, 937, 953, 998, 1001.

Teulon, J. S., 896

Thackeray, W. M., 151, 575

Thatcher, O. J., 929

Thayer, J. H., 150, 152, 205, 228, 306, 717, 933.

“Theodosia Ernest,”, 980

Theodoret, 319, 796

Theological Eclectic, 160, 739

Theophilus, 147, 319, 998

Thirlwall, Connop, 205

Tholuck, F. A. G., 33, 46, 56, 68, 132, 205, 260, 275, 307, 379, 440, 485,
576, 578, 666.

Thomas à Kempis, 24, 32, 190, 556

Thomas, B. D., 36

Thomas, J. B., 653

Thomasius, G., 46, 50, 51, 245, 249, 257, 261, 263, 270, 273, 274, 288,
297, 315, 328, 338, 342, 349, 487, 514, 527, 556, 579, 622,
647, 668, 678, 683, 690, 701, 750, 761, 808, 868.

Thompson, Chief Justice (Pennsylvania), 581

Thompson, Joseph D., 340, 651

Thompson, R. A., 81, 87

Thompson, R. E., 237, 473

Thomson, J. Radford, 405

Thomson, Archbishop William, 66, 744

Thomson, William, 771

Thomson, William, Lord Kelvin, 36, 473

Thoreau, H. D., 982

Thornton, W. S., 128, 439, 654

Thornwell, James H., 2, 49, 303, 600, 616, 618, 621, 631, 644, 647, 648,
834.

Thucydides, 144

Tiele, C. P., 995

Tillotson, John, 808

Tindal, Matthew, 414

Tischendorf, Constantinus, 142, 915

Titchener, E. B., 43

Titcomb, J. H., 177

Todd, J. H., 1009

Töllner, J. G., 576

Tophel, G., 571

Toplady, A. M., 369

Townsend, W. J., 45

Toy, C. H., 235, 931

Tract No. 357, American Tract Society, 840

Tracy, Frederick, 43

Treffrey, R., 343

Tregelles, S. P., 147, 915

Trench, R. C., 24, 120, 294, 432, 436, 447, 456, 462, 588, 680, 808, 892,
936, 983.

Trendelenburg, F. A., 62

Trent, Canons and Decrees of the Council of, 521, 854

Trumbull, H. Clay, 723

Tulloch, John, 6, 53, 77, 96, 379, 384, 405, 546, 563.

Turnbull, Robert, 66

Turner, G. L., 126, 1002

Turner, J. M. W., 143

Turretin, F., 46, 356, 491, 612, 613, 614, 644, 652, 686, 773, 779.

Twesten, A. D. C., 22, 28, 31, 46, 328, 338, 348, 350, 444.

Tyerman, L., 972

Tyler, Bennet, 358, 359, 360, 364, 367, 567, 579, 608, 644, 783, 796, 814,
817, 818.

Tyler, C. M., 57

Tyler, W. S., 155, 276, 352, 442, 526, 679, 723, 796, 1046.

Tylor, E. B., 58, 477, 480, 528, 529, 530

Tyndall, John, 14, 60, 83, 94, 96, 252, 311, 433.

Tyng, S. H., 744

Ueberweg, Friedrich, 36

Uhlhorn, Gerhard, 162, 989

Ullmann, K., 4, 189, 203, 678, 747

Ulpian, 535

Ulrici, H., 53, 58, 93, 368

“Unseen Universe, The,”, 374, 379, 1023

Upham, L. C., 32, 439, 808

Upton, C. B., 22, 54, 73, 94, 385, 393, 413, 415, 435, 468, 505, 512, 834,
987.

Urban II., 192

Ursinus, Z., 50

Ussher, James, 224

Valentinus, 151, 160, 378, 670

Valerius Maximus, 989

Van Dyke, Henry, 236

Vaniçek, Alois, 20

Van Oosterzee, J. J., 5, 20, 22, 23, 42, 51, 66, 72, 311, 460, 462, 514,
523, 555, 556, 581, 593, 608, 651, 668, 696, 706, 709, 710,
773, 776, 790, 875, 886.

Vatke, J. K. W., 155

Vaughan, C. J., 781

Vaughan, Henry, 276, 489

Vaughan, R. A., 33, 207

Vauvenargues, 40

Vedas, 56

Vedder, H. C., 887, 890, 894, 899, 957, 973.

Veitch, John, 97, 380

Venn, J., 849

Vincent, Marvin R., 133

Vinci, Leonardo da, 190

Vinet, Alexander, 38, 125, 267

Virchow, Rudolph, 471

Virgil, 57, 176, 400, 526, 615, 698, 723

Vischer, E., 152

Vitringa, Campegius, 1009, 1014

Volkmar, Gustav, 165

Voltaire, 57, 77, 462

Vos, Geerhardus, 263

Waffle, A. E., 407, 410, 754

Wagner, ——, 480

Wagner, Richard, 512

Walch, J. G., 954

Waldegrave, L., 1014

Walden, Treadwell, 833

Walker, G. L., 952

Walker, J. B., 151, 317, 668, 820

Walker, W. L., 316, 349

Wall, William, 959, 978

Wallace, A. R., 99, 402, 403, 412, 413, 470, 471, 473, 528, 632.

Wallace, Henry, 725

Walton, Isaak, 192

Ward, James, 110, 124, 534

Ward, Clara E., 263

Ward, Mrs. Humphrey, 568, 580, 633

Ward, Lydia A. Coonley, 596

Ward, Wilfrid, 841

Wardlaw, Ralph, 1, 135, 269, 374, 741, 773, 784, 790, 820.

Warfield, B. B., 735, 782

Warner, Charles Dudley, 229

Warren, H. W., 796

Warren, I. P., 1005, 1009

Warren, W. F., 532

Watchman, The, 425, 907

Waterland, Daniel, 856

Watkins, H. W., 34, 152

Watson, John, 58

Watson, John (Ian McLaren), 19, 42, 237, 369, 439, 788.

Watson, Richard, 48, 343, 350, 358, 404, 593, 602, 934.

Watson, William, 35, 417, 420

Watts, Isaac, 288, 688, 759

Watts, J. F., 508

Watts, Robert, 170, 172, 216, 218, 229, 352, 735, 765, 776.

Wayland, Francis, 301, 504, 533, 892, 897, 903, 905, 917, 924, 929, 938,
946, 951, 952, 956.

Webb, C. C. J., 104, 253

Weber, F. A., 294, 726

Webster, Daniel, 815, 1056

Webster, H. E., 262

Webster, W., 761

Wedgwood, J., 32

Wegscheider, J. A. L., 46

Weigel, Valentine, 800

Weismann, A., 229, 466, 470, 497, 530, 558, 590, 631, 650, 992.

Weiss, Bernhard, 68, 149, 157, 160, 174, 343, 579, 798.

Weiss, ——, 1015

Weisse, C. H., 660

Wellhausen, Julius, 171, 526

Welling, J. C., 927

Wellington, Duke of, 506

Wendelius, 827

Wendt, H. H., 223, 262, 321, 379, 446, 448, 475, 517, 546, 661, 721, 729,
743, 799, 830, 936, 1006.

Wenley, R. M., 38

Wessel, John, 752

Wesley, Charles, 33, 368, 692

Wesley, John, 33, 48, 368, 369, 443, 602, 603, 816, 877, 878, 920, 972,
984, 1043.

West, Nathaniel, 131

Westcott, B. F., 21, 122, 139, 147, 149, 152, 153, 156, 160, 233, 256,
306, 311, 312, 320, 336, 341, 342, 424, 495, 678, 680, 709,
722, 723, 727, 731, 760, 807, 873, 900, 915, 924, 934, 1012,
1046.

Westermarck, E. A., 530

Westervelt, Z. F., 216

Westminster Catechism, 52, 664, 957

Westminster Confession, 145, 599, 613, 643, 779, 790, 887, 937.

Weston, Henry G., 930, 959

Wette, De, see De Wette, W. M. L.

Wetzer und Welte, 572

Wharton, Edith, 905

Wharton, Francis, 656

Whately, Richard, 39, 62, 66, 74, 128,143, 174, 444, 528, 783, 913, 1003,
1015, 1052.

Whedon, D. D., 48, 262, 273, 286, 354, 362, 520, 559, 602, 603, 604, 606,
780, 1041.

Whewell, William, 2, 74, 77, 500

Whitby, Daniel, 602, 1014

White, Blanco, 37, 570, 1041

White, Edward, 1037

Whitefield, George, 368, 835

Whitehouse, Owen C., 461

Whitman, Walt, 567

Whitney, Adeline D. T., 439

Whitney, William D., 185, 217, 479

Whiton, J. M., 119, 208, 297, 305, 334, 336, 342, 343, 348, 413, 516, 542,
633, 680, 684, 699, 743, 772, 850, 1001, 1037, 1046.

Whittier, John G., 369, 678, 765, 984, 996, 1041, 1042.

Wicksteed, P. H., 277

Wieseler, Karl, 144

Wiggers, G. F., 597, 644

Wilberforce, R. I., 671, 679, 680, 693, 696, 697, 698, 969.

Wilberforce, Samuel, 472, 830

Wilder, Burt G., 470

Wilkin, G. F., 591, 988

Wilkinson, W. C., 40, 182, 197, 294, 398, 641, 957, 980.

Wilkinson, W. F., 761

Wilkinson, W. F., 95

Willard, Frances E., 918, 978

William III, 512

William of Occam, 45, 244, 298, 299, 909

Williams, A. P., 980

Williams, ——, 918

Williams, Leighton, 208, 890

Williams, M. Monier, 183, 352, 382

Williams, N. M., 577

Williams, Roger, 369, 949

Williams, Rowland, 100

Williams, W., 790

Willis, N. P., 570

Willmarth, J. W., 948, 1023

Wilson, C. T., 915

Wilson, J. M., 719

Wilson, Woodrow, 2

Winchell, Alexander, 476

Windelband, Wilhelm, 379

Winer, G. B., 523, 717

Winslow, Edward, 227

Withrow, J. L., 914

Witsius, H., 46, 50

Wörter, Friedrich, 598

Wollaston, William, 361

Wood, N. E., 942

Wood, N. R., 381

Wood, W. C., 410

Woods, F. H., 171

Woods, Leonard, 48, 49, 268, 608, 773, 826, 828, 836, 881, 886, 1015.

Woolman, John, 760

Woolsey, T. D., 229, 741, 943, 1045

Wordsworth, C., 68, 441, 458, 622

Wordsworth, William, 30, 39, 58, 59, 103, 252, 380, 406, 441, 489, 501,
568, 576, 599, 958, 991, 1022.

Wortman, J. L., 478

Wotton, Henry, 523

Wright, Charles H. H., 167, 405, 476

Wright, Chauncey, 76, 428

Wright, G. F., 130, 154, 224, 225, 357, 432, 469, 471, 478, 708, 1040,
1043, 1045.

Wright, T. H., 120, 454, 456

Wrightnour, J. S., 214, 667, 699, 764

Wu Ting Fang, 180

Wünsche, Aug. de, 726

Wundt, Wilhelm, 43, 281, 505

Wuttke, Adolph, 62, 179, 182, 184, 185, 302, 516, 539, 581.

Wynne, F. H., 154, 159

Xenophon, 143, 148, 941

Young, Edward, 296, 557

Young, John, 189, 190, 367, 728, 734

Zahn, ——, 278

Zahn, A., 735

Zahn, Th., 707, 735

Zeller, Edward, 38, 512

Zeno, 184

Zinzendorf, Count N. L., 900

Zöckler, Otto, 42, 225, 377, 397, 474, 478, 482, 514.

Zoroaster, 382

Zwingle, Ulrich, 45, 237, 621, 903, 957

Index Of Scripture Texts.

Genesis.

1: — 35.

1:1 — 309, 326, 333.

1:2 — 68, 134, 223, 287, 316, 318, 324, 326, 339, 378, 446.

1:1‐3 — 286.

1:11 — 418.

1:24 — 465.

1:26, — 318, 524.

1:26, 27 — 514, 991.

1:27 — 465.

1:27, 28 — 476, 494.

1:27‐31 — 490.

1:31 — 450, 488, 514, 521.

2:2 — 412, 494.

2:3 — 408.

2:4 — 395.

2:7 — 197, 198, 340, 465, 469, 494, 523, 550, 991.

2:7, 22 — 476.

2:8 — 999.

2:9 — 526, 527.

2:16 — 524.

2:17 — 584, 590, 656, 660, 992.

2:19, 20 — 524.

2:23 — 797.

3:1 — 584.

3:1, 4 — 454.

3:1, 5 — 455.

3:1‐7 — 582.

3:1‐15 — 448.

3:3 — 584, 590.

3:4 — 461.

3:4, 5, 6 — 584.

3:5 — 572.

3:8 — 523, 524, 992.

3:9 — 592.

3:10 — 224.

3:12 — 566.

3:14 — 450.

3:15 — 175, 667, 676.

3:16‐19 — 992.

3:17‐19 — 658.

3:19 — 656.

3:20 — 476, 477.

3:21 — 726.

3:22 — 523, 524, 585.

3:22, 23 — 991.

3:24 — 449.

4:1 — 494, 665.

4:3 — 408.

4:3, 4 — 593, 726.

4:14 — 476.

4:16 — 593.

4:17 — 476.

4:26 — 311.

5:3 — 494, 517.

5:6 — 225.

5:24 — 995.

6:1, 2 — 476.

6:2 — 445.

6:3 — 324, 604, 652.

6:6 — 258, 266.

7:19 — 223.

8:1 — 258.

8:10‐12 — 408.

8:20, 21 — 725.

9:2, 3 — 524.

9:6 — 515.

9:13 — 396.

9:19 — 476.

9:20‐27 — 230.

9:25 — 365.

10:6, 13, 15, 16 — 224.

11: — 896.

11:5 — 523.

11:7 — 318.

13:15 — 1044.

15:5 — 888.

15:6 — 850.

15:13 — 227.

15:16 — 638.

16:9‐13 — 319.

16:13 — 283, 284.

17:1 — 286.

17:8‐13 — 1044.

18:2 — 451.

18:2, 13 — 319.

18:8 — 443.

18:14 — 287.

18:15 — 523.

18:19 — 780.

18:25 — 290.

19:24 — 318.

19:26 — 432.

19:30‐38 — 230.

20:6 — 423.

20:7 — 710.

20:12 — 447.

20:13 — 318.

22:8‐14 — 421.

22:11 — 464.

22:11‐16 — 319.

22:13 — 725.

22:16 — 266.

24:9 — 51.

25:8, 9 — 994.

27:19‐24 — 230.

28: — 134.

28:5 — 280.

28:12 — 463.

29:27, 28 — 408.

31:11, 13 — 319.

31:24 — 423.

32:1, 2 — 463.

32:2 — 448.

32:13, 14 — 765.

32:20 — 720.

32:24 — 463.

32:24‐28 — 258.

35:1, 6, 9 — 259.

35:7 — 318.

35:18 — 483.

35:29 — 994.

39:19 — 318.

40:1 — 318.

41:8 — 483.

41:41‐44 — 318.

46:26 — 494.

47:9 — 996.

47:31 — 234.

48:15, 16 — 319.

48:16 — 463.

49: — 134.

49:26 — 1044.

50:20 — 355, 365, 424.

Exodus.

1:16 — 442.

2:24, 25 — 780.

3:2 — 451.

3:2,4,5 — 319.

3:4 — 209.

3:5 — 319.

3:12 — 713.

3:14 — 253, 257, 275.

4:14‐16 — 200.

4:16 — 307.

4:21 — 424.

6:3 — 257.

7:1 — 200, 307.

7:12 — 733.

7:13 — 424.

8:8, 15 — 424.

9:27 — 832.

10:28 — 459.

12:36 — 422.

12:40, 41 — 227.

13:2, 13 — 761.

14:14 — 241.

14:23 — 1050.

15:11 — 268.

16:5 — 408.

18:20 — 630, 644.

19:10‐16 — 268.

20:1‐17 — 545.

20:3 — 319.

20:8 — 408, 558.

20:12 — 230.

20:22 — 13.

20:23 — 169.

20:24 — 169.

20:25 — 545.

21:6 — 1044.

22:28 — 307.

23:7 — 850.

28:9‐12 — 775.

28:22 — 653.

31:2, 3 — 197.

32:19 — 540.

32:24 — 418.

32:30, 32 — 725.

33:18 — 256.

33:18, 20 — 150.

33:31, 32 — 837.

34:10 — 337.

35:25 — 4.

36:21, 22 — 367, 397, 653.

39:7 — 397.

Leviticus.

1:3 — 554.

1:4 — 725.

4:14, 20, 31 — 554.

4:20, 31, 35 — 725.

5:5, 6 — 554.

5:10‐16 — 725.

5:11 — 554.

5:17 — 652, 647, 718.

6:7 — 725.

11:15 — 932.

11:44 — 269.

12:8 — 554.

13:45 — 555.

14:17 — 732.

16:1‐34 — 725.

16:8 — 448.

16:16, 21 — 552.

16:21 — 765.

16:21, 22 — 720.

17:12 — 725.

20:27 — 996.

20:28 — 995.

22:4‐6 — 934.

Numbers.

5:1 — 432.

6:24‐26 — 318.

6:24, 26 — 774.

7:89 — 209.

8:1 — 209.

12:6‐8 — 203.

14:34 — 718.

16:22 — 465, 484.

15:35 — 907.

16:29 — 656.

16:30 — 377.

19:29, 33 — 994.

23:5 — 197, 207.

23:19 — 258, 288.

23:21 — 454, 856.

25:9 — 227.

25:13 — 719, 1044.

25:28 — 552.

27:3 — 657.

27:16 — 465.

32:23 — 295.

33:2 — 169.

Deuteronomy.

1:6, 7 — 549.

1:39 — 661.

4:19 — 448.

6:4 — 259.

8:2 — 423.

8:3 — 421.

10:6 — 994.

16:2, 6 — 719.

17:3 — 448.

18:10, 11 — 996.

18:15 — 139, 711.

21:1‐8 — 725.

21:23 — 718.

23:3 — 1044.

25:1 — 850.

29:29 — 36, 364.

32:4 — 260, 290.

32:40 — 275.

33:2 — 447, 452.

Joshua.

2:1‐24 — 230.

2:18 — 234.

7:20 — 832.

10:12, 13 — 223.

24:2 — 1044.

Judges.

4:17‐22 — 230.

5:24 — 230.

5:30 — 231.

6:17, 36‐40 — 116.

9:14, 15 — 241.

13:20‐22 — 319.

13:24, 25 — 197.

14:12 — 408.

20:18 — 552.

1 Samuel.

1: — 136.

1:11 — 448.

6:19 — 226.

9:27 — 199.

10: — 136.

15:11 — 258.

15:24 — 832.

15:29 — 258.

16:1 — 421.

18:1 — 799.

18:10 — 424.

23:12 — 282.

24:18 — 422.

28:7‐14 — 995, 996.

28:19 — 994.

29:4 — 719.

2 Samuel.

6:7 — 939.

11:1‐4 — 230.

12:23 — 662.

14:20 — 445.

16:10 — 423.

18:33 — 769.

23:23 — 206.

24:1 — 423, 424.

1 Kings.

1:27 — 278.

8:27 — 105, 254, 281, 523.

8:46 — 573.

11:9 — 294.

12:15‐24 — 355.

17:4, 9 — 443.

17:21 — 483.

18:36‐38 — 116.

18:36‐38 — 116, 437.

18:42‐45 — 433.

19:5 — — 452.

19:15 — 433.

22: — 136.

22:19 — 448.

22:23 — 457.

2 Kings.

2:11 — 995, 996.

4:1‐7 — 465.

5:14 — 934.

5:26 — 13.

6:17 — 451, 459.

17:6, 24, 26, 28, 33 — 167.

19:35 — 167.

22:8 — 167.

23:2 — 167.

1 Chronicles.

21:1 — 448.

22:14 — 226.

28:16 — 225.

2 Chronicles.

6:2 — 1044.

13:3, 17 — 226.

16:12, 13 — 439.

17:14‐19 — 226.

18:18 — 448.

29:27 — 765.

32:31 — 423.

34:19 — 543, 836.

36:22 — 197.

Ezra.

1:3 — 27.

4: — 167.

8:22 — 899.

9:6 — 634.

Nehemiah.

1:6 — 594, 634.

8:12, 18 — 409.

9:6 — 412, 448.

Esther.

6:1 — 429.

Job.

1:5 — 725.

1:6 — 454.

1:6‐12 — 448.

1:9 — 461.

1:9, 11 — 454.

1:11 — 459.

1:12 — 425.

1:12, 16, 19 — 455.

2:4, 5 — 454.

2:5 — 459.

2:6 — 425.

2:7 — 455.

3:8 — 406.

3:13, 18 — 994.

4:18 — 445.

7:9 — 994.

7:20 — 282, 412.

11:7 — 34.

11:7, 9 — 254.

12:23 — 421.

14:4 — 578, 661.

14:5 — 355.

15:15 — 445.

19:25 — 667.

19:25, 27 — 995, 996.

21:7 — 113.

23:10 — 431.

23:13 — 252, 359.

23:13, 14 — 259.

24:1 — 113.

25:5 — 445.

26:6 — 994.

26:14 — 143, 287.

27:3 — 483.

27:5 — 850.

27:5, 6 — 275.

31:37 — 275.

32:8 — 197, 198, 469, 483.

32:18 — 338.

33:4 — 484.

34:14, 15 — 338.

37:5, 10 — 421.

38:7 — 446, 451, 453.

42:5, 6 — 543, 832.

42:6 — 833.

42:7‐9 — 725.

Psalms.

1:6 — 780, 781.

2:1‐4 — 541.

2:6‐8 — 775.

2:7 — 318, 322, 340.

2:7‐8 — 356.

4:4 — 234.

4:8 — 421.

5:5 — 290.

5:12 — 421.

7:9‐12 — 290.

7:11 — 245, 258, 645.

7:12, 13 — 421.

8: — 706.

8:3, 4 — 249.

8:4‐8 — 678.

8:5 — 515.

8:5‐6 — 697.

8:5‐8 — 524.

8:6 — 775.

9:7 — 1023.

10:3 — 817.

11:6 — 421.

11:10 — 63.

14:1 — 217.

16: — 675.

16:7 — 32.

16:9‐11 — 995, 996.

17: — 113.

17:13, 14 — 423.

18:24‐26 — 290.

18:30 — 260.

19: — 26.

19:1 — 27, 256.

19:1‐6 — 26.

19:7 — 538.

19:12 — 553, 558, 578, 647.

19:12,13 — 650.

19:13 — 423.

22:20 — 458.

22:26 — 996.

22:28 — 421.

23:2 — 364.

24:7, 8 — 1044.

25:11 — 314, 401.

25:14 — 40.

26:9 — 1023.

29:1, 2 — 451.

29:3 — 424.

31:5 — 746.

32: — 431.

32:1 — 552.

32:1, 2 — 851.

32:6 — 700.

32:8 — 440.

33:6 — 318, 326, 448.

33:9 — 377.

33:13‐15 — 282.

33:14, 15 — 422.

34:7 — 463.

34:8 — 4, 825.

36:1 — 40.

36:6 — 412.

36:9 — 350.

37: — 113.

37:7 — 439.

40:5 — 283.

40:6‐8 — 234.

42:6 — 483.

42:7 — 694, 942.

44:3 — 369, 786.

45:2 — 678.

45:6 — 318.

45:6, 7 — 322.

49: — 113.

49:15 — 994.

49:20 — 642.

50:5 — 719.

51: — 833.

51:1, 2, 10, 14 — 832.

51:2 — 552.

51:3, 7, 11 — 832.

51:4 — 573, 646, 757.

51:4‐6 — 645.

51:5 — 578, 661, 1043.

51:6 — 555, 558, 578, 647.

51:6, 7 — 578.

51:10 — 519, 782, 810, 829, 833.

51:11 — 317.

51:17 — 792.

56:8 — 282.

58:3 — 578.

59:10 — 364, 819.

63:8 — 421.

66:7 — 421.

68:10 — 421.

68:17 — 447, 1052.

68:18 — 309, 758.

69:2 — 942.

69:9 — 724.

71:15 — 256.

72:6 — 518.

72:15 — 314.

72:18 — 445.

73: — 113.

74:5 — 155.

75:6, 7 — 421.

76:10 — 424.

77:19, 20 — 119.

78:25 — 443, 445.

78:41 — 256.

78:49 — 457.

81:12, 13 — 423.

82:1 — 307.

82:6 — 380, 515.

82:6, 7 — 307.

82:7 — 614.

84:11 — 289, 336.

85:4 — 829.

85:8 — 850.

85:9 — 687.

85:10 — 298, 754.

85:10, 11 — 245.

86:11 — 346.

87:4 — 812.

88:35 — 399.

89:3 — 256.

89:7 — 450.

90:2 — 275, 377.

90:7, 8 — 658.

90:7‐9 — 657.

90:8 — 577.

90:16, 17 — 819.

91:11 — 452.

93:1 — 223.

94:9, 10 — 68.

94:10 — 666.

96:10 — 403.

97:2 — 272, 292, 296.

97:7 — 306.

97:10 — 294, 646, 743.

97:11 — 667.

99:4, 5, 9 — 296.

101:4 — 780.

101:5, 6 — 294.

102:13, 14 — 275.

102:27 — 257, 275.

103:19 — 421.

103:20 — 445, 451.

104: — 412.

104:4 — 451.

104:14 — 421.

104:16 — 421.

104:21, 28 — 421.

104:24 — 282.

104:26 — 412.

104:29, 30 — 412.

105:15 — 710, 856.

106:12, 13 — 837.

106:13 — 440.

106:30 — 737.

107:20 — 320.

107:23, 28 — 431.

110:3 — 784, 792, 830.

113:4‐6 — 256.

113:5 — 105, 280.

113:5, 6 — 249, 255, 288.

114:1 — 401, 788.

115:3 — 122, 287.

116:1‐8 — 437.

116:15 — 983.

118: — 675.

118:22 — 795.

118:22, 23 — 138.

119:18 — 35.

119:36 — 519, 819, 825.

119:89 — 298, 320.

119:89‐91 — 355.

119:96 — 542.

121:3 — 421.

123:1 — 280.

124:2 — 425.

124:4, 5 — 942.

130:4 — 855.

132:1 — 1043.

135:6, 7 — 421.

138:2 — 288.

139:2 — 282.

139:6 — 282.

139:7 — 105, 280, 316.

139:12 — 283.

139:13, 14 — 491.

139:15, 16 — 495.

139:16 — 421.

139:17, 18 — 284.

140:5 — 377.

143:2 — 573, 850.

143:11 — 397.

144:12 — 898.

145:3 — 254.

145:5 — 292.

146:4 — 994.

147:4 — 282.

147:15‐18 — 320.

147:20 — 779.

148:2‐5 — 444.

149:6 — 646.

Proverbs.

1:23 — 829.

3:6 — 440.

3:19 — 320.

4:18 — 827.

5:22 — 633, 652.

8:1 — 320.

8:22, 30, 31 — 320.

8:22‐31 — 341.

8:23 — 309, 378.

8:36 — 786.

14:9 — 649.

14:13 — 294.

16:1 — 422.

16:4 — 397.

16:14 — 720.

16:32 — 288.

16:33 — 421.

17:15 — 850.

19:21 — 423.

20:9 — 573.

20:24 — 423.

20:27 — 22, 486.

21:1 — 423, 784.

30:4 — 318, 341.

31:4 — 231.

31:6‐7 — 231.

Ecclesiastes.

2:11 — 404.

3:21 — 485.

7:20 — 573.

7:29 — 517.

9:10 — 994.

11:3 — 1001.

12:7 — 469, 483, 490, 991, 1000.

Song Of Solomon.

1:4 — 829.

Isaiah.

1:1 — 239.

1:5 — 553.

4:5 — 377.

4:11 — 661.

5:4 — 404, 792.

5:13 — 135.

5:16 — 269.

5:18 — 650.

5:23 — 850.

6:1 — 309.

6:3 — 256, 268, 296, 318.

6:5 — 555, 634.

6:5, 7 — 268.

6:8 — 318.

7: — 136.

7:9 — 850.

7:10‐13 — 437.

7:14‐16 — 138, 1007.

8: — 136.

8:20 — 114, 440.

9:6 — 322, 680, 697, 797, 811.

9:6, 7 — 138, 310.

10:5 — 424.

10:5, 7 — 442.

13:16 — 136.

14:7 — 221.

14:12 — 518.

14:26, 27 — 355.

17:1 — 136.

24:22 — 139.

25:4 — 669.

25:7 — 666.

26:19 — 995, 996.

28:16 — 795, 850.

28:21 — 126, 1053.

31:6 — 829.

37:34‐37 — 136.

38:17, 18 — 657.

40:3 — 309, 506.

40:18 — 119, 288.

40:15, 16 — 399.

40:66 — 239.

41:4 — 275.

41:8 — 136.

41:20 — 377.

41:21, 22 — 285.

41:23 — 135.

42:1 — 138, 485.

42:1‐7 — 137, 697.

42:9 — 135.

42:16 — 426, 441.

42:19 — 649.

42:21 — 740, 749.

43:7 — 397.

44:6 — 259.

44:24 — 286.

44:28 — 136, 197, 282, 355.

45:5 — 197, 421.

45:7, 8 — 377.

45:22 — 791.

46:9, 10 — 282.

46:10, 11 — 355.

48:11 — 397.

48:16 — 318.

48:18 — 284.

49:1‐12 — 696, 697.

49:50, 61 — 675.

50:2 — 850.

52:2 — 678.

52:10 — 256.

53: — 137, 138.

53:1‐12 — 725.

53:4, 10 — 423.

53:5 — 732.

53:5, 6 — 720.

53:6 — 265.

53:6‐12 — 719.

53:10 — 680, 797.

53:10, 11 — 697.

53:11 — 850.

53:12 — 774.

54:5 — 796.

55:6 — 791.

57:2 — 439.

57:15 — 105, 280.

57:16 — 491.

57:19 — 377.

59:2 — 198, 983.

59:20 — 829.

60:21 — 397.

61:1 — 137.

61:3 — 397.

63:7, 10 — 318.

63:9 — 266.

63:10 — 324.

64:4 — 421.

65:12 — 791.

65:17 — 377.

65:22 — 888.

65:24 — 364.

66:1 — 254.

66:11 — 523.

66:13 — 323.

Jeremiah.

1:4 — 27.

1:5 — 421.

3:15 — 16.

3:20 — 796.

3:25 — 394.

9:9 — 485.

9:23, 24 — 245.

9:24 — 3.

10:10 — 245, 251.

10:23 — 423.

10:24 — 272, 653.

13:21 — 578.

13:23 — 810.

14:20 — 594.

17:9 — 553, 578.

18:8 — 136.

20:7 — 240.

23:6 — 943.

23:23, 24 — 105, 280.

23:29 — 811

24:7 — 4, 825.

25:5 — 833.

26:13, 19 — 136.

31:3 — 788, 1044.

31:18 — 829.

31:22 — 377.

31:33 — 810.

32:18 — 634.

36:23 — 540.

44:4 — 295, 418, 652.

45:5 — 410.

55:34, 44 — 241.

Lamentations.

1:12 — 757.

3:39‐45 — 634.

5:7 — 718.

5:21 — 829.

Ezekiel.

1: — 449.

1:5, 12 — 449.

2:7 — 789.

10: — 449.

11:19 — 810, 829.

14:6 — 829.

18:4 — 633.

18:31 — 829.

18:32 — 829.

20:5 — 630.

26:7‐14 — 136.

28:14‐19 — 450.

28:22 — 272.

29:17‐20 — 136.

32:21 — 994.

33:9, 11 — 829.

33:11 — 791.

36:21, 22 — 272.

36:26 — 829.

37:1‐14 — 995, 996.

37:6 — 449.

37:9‐14 — 339.

Daniel.

2:28, 36 — 711.

2:45 — 141.

3:18 — 426.

3:25, 28 — 319.

4:31 — 209.

4:35 — 355, 431.

6:22 — 452.

7:10 — 449.

7:13 — 141, 678, 682.

9:27 — 141.

10:14 — 139.

10:19 — 445.

11:31 — 141.

11:36 — 138, 454.

12:1 — 141.

12:2 — 1000, 1018.

12:2, 3, 13 — 995, 996.

12:3 — 850.

12:8, 9 — 139.

Hosea.

1:7 — 318.

2:2‐5 — 796.

2:6 — 423.

4:17 — 424, 652, 790.

4:18 — 792.

6:7 — 614.

8:1, 2 — 614.

11:1 — 138, 235.

11:8 — 790, 1053.

12:3, 4 — 463.

13:5 — 780.

13:9 — 1050.

Joel.

2:12‐14 — 829.

2:28 — 587.

Amos.

1: — 136.

1:2 — 135.

2: — 136.

3:2 — 780, 781.

6:8 — 485.

9:9 136.

9:14 136.

Jonah.

2:9 137.

3:3 241.

3:4 136.

3:4, 10 — 258.

3:10 136.

4:11 661.

Micah.

3:12 138.

5:2 322.

6:8 299.

7:3 650.

7:18 855.

Nahum.

1:7 — 780.

Habakkuk.

1:13 — 418.

2:4 — 850.

3:4 — 143.

3:20 — 713.

Haggai.

1:13 — 319.

Zechariah.

3:1 — 454.

3:1‐3 — 448.

3:2 — 454, 458, 856.

4:2, 3 — 888.

5:1 — 355.

6:8 — 753.

9:1‐4 — 239.

12:1 — 469, 483, 491, 991.

12:10 — 717.

Malachi.

1:6 — 638, 639.

2:10 — 474.

2:15 — 256.

3:1 — 322.

3:6 — 257, 259.

3:10 — 287, 438.

3:16 — 282.

4:4 — 114.

Matthew.

1:1 — 225.

1:1‐16 — 687.

1:1‐17 — 673.

1:12 — 826.

1:20 319, — 686.

1:22, 23 — 138.

2:15 138, — 235.

2:22 — 717.

3:1‐12 — 836.

3:2, 3, 6 — 945.

3:3 — 309.

3:6 — 934.

3:6‐11 — 934.

3:7 — 981

3:8 — 835.

3:9 — 287.

3:11 — 287, 935.

3:13 — 940.

3:13, 17 — 932.

3:14 — 674.

3:15 — 717, 761, 853, 943.

3:16 — 696.

3:16, 17 — 325.

3:17 — 148, 209, 216, 341, 762.

4:1‐11 — 677.

4:2 — 674.

4:3 — 461.

4:3, 6, 9 — 455.

4:4 — 16, 412.

4:4, 6, 7 — 199.

4:6, 7 — 217.

4:10 — 677.

4:11 — 452, 453.

5:1 — 227.

5:1‐12 — 554.

5:3 — 669.

5:7 — 37.

5‐8: — 545.

5:8 — 4, 67, 246, 524, 825.

5:10 — 230.

5‐7: — 711.

5:17 — 718.

5:17, 18 — 545.

5:18 — 199, 288.

5:19 — 939.

5:21, 22 — 545, 645.

5:22 — 553.

5:27, 28 — 545.

5:23, 24 — 719, 924.

5:22, 28 — 545.

5:28 — 553.

5:32 — 242.

5:33, 34 — 545.

5:34 — 306.

5:38, 39 — 545.

5:39‐42 — 546.

5:44 — 264.

5:44, 45 — 289, 475.

5:45 — 421.

5:48 — 260, 290, 302, 543, 545.

6:8 — 282, 421.

6:9, 10 — 272.

6:10 — 368, 434, 450, 792.

6:12 — 645, 835.

6:12‐14 — 573.

6:13 — 256, 450.

6:16 — 288.

6:20 — 981.

6:22, 23 — 486, 501.

6:24 — 811.

6:26 — 421, 440.

6:30 — 421.

6:32, 33 — 421.

6:33 — 289, 401, 810.

7:11 — 578.

7:22 — 117, 780.

7:23 — 780.

8:11 — 772.

8:11, 12 — 842, 843.

8:22 — 659, 902, 992.

8:24 — 674.

8:28 — 227, 446.

8:29 — 457, 1002

8:31 — 445.

9:2 — 826.

9:4 — 310.

9:5 — 128.

9:6 — 682.

9:12 — 192.

9:12, 13 — 574.

9:24 — 1000.

9:36 — 674.

9:56 — 129.

10:1 — 201.

10:15 — 649, 1045.

10:17, 19, 20 — 207.

10:20 — 206.

10:26 — 283.

10:28 — 459, 483, 660, 991, 1055.

10:29 — 282, 421, 851, 991.

10:30 — 282, 420, 421.

10:32 — 645, 889.

10:38 — 718, 762.

10:40 — 516.

10:41 — 951.

10:42 — 948.

11:3, 4, 5 — 156.

11:9 — 710.

11:10 — 199.

11:12 — 830.

11:19 — 320.

11:21 — 780.

11:23 — 282.

11:24 — 638.

11:25, 26 — 789.

11:27 — 163, 246, 334, 681, 691.

11:28 — 611, 683, 744, 791.

11:28, 29 — 838.

11:29 — 189.

12:10‐13 — 541.

12:28 — 129, 316.

12:31 — 324.

12:31, 32 — 464, 650, 1046.

12:32 — 652.

12:33 — 507, 826.

12:33‐35 — 810.

12:34 — 578.

12:34, 35 — 889.

12:36 — 554.

12:37 — 851.

12:39 — 126, 137, 438.

12:41 — 948.

12:43 — 445.

12:43, 45 — 458.

12:45 — 806.

13:5, 6 — 589.

13:19 — 27, 450, 506.

13:20 — 281.

13:20, 21 — 837.

13:23 — 462.

13:24 — 310.

13:24‐30 — 354.

13:28 — 588.

13:30 — 234.

13:30, 38 — 1008.

13:31, 32 — 1008.

13:33 — 234.

13:38 — 592, 887.

13:39 — 454, 1044.

13:52 — 19, 41.

13:57 — 711.

14:19 — 465.

14:23 — 674.

15:2 — 934.

15:13, 14 — 42.

15:18 — 506.

15:19 — 553, 810.

16:15 — 851.

16:18 — 887.

16:18, 19 — 909.

16:25 — 642.

16:26 — 717.

16:27 — 1011.

16:27, 28 — 1023.

16:28 — 1003.

17:1‐8 — 678.

17:2 — 696.

17:5 — 210.

17:8 — 234.

17:15, 18 — 456.

17:17 — 126.

17:20 — 900.

17:34 — 1021.

18:5, 6, 10, 14 — 661.

18:10 — 450, 451, 452, 954.

18:14 — 662, 851.

18:15‐17 — 924.

18:17 — 890, 892, 907.

18:18 — 925.

18:19 — 927.

18:19, 20 — 774.

18:20 — 951.

18:24, 25 — 749.

19:3‐10 — 242.

19:8 — 545.

19:14 — 648, 661, 951.

19:17 — 894.

19:19 — 264.

19:26 — 287.

19:29 — 1045.

20:3 — 489.

20:12‐15 — 779.

20:13, 15 — 786.

20:17‐23 — 932.

20:22 — 743.

20:28 — 483, 673, 697, 717, 750.

20:30 — 210, 227.

21:2 — 681.

21:21 — 437.

21:25 — 931.

21:42 — 138.

22:3 — 791.

22:21 — 898.

22:23 — 131.

22:30 — 445, 447.

22:31, 32 — 995, 996.

22:32 — 999, 1017.

22:37 — 302.

22:37‐39 — 572.

22:37‐40 — 545.

22:42 — 669.

22:43 — 314.

23:8, 10 — 898.

23:23 — 638.

23:32 — 648.

23:33 — 1055.

23:35 — 315.

23:37 — 1005.

23:37, 38 — 1053.

24: — 138.

24:2 — 681.

24:5, 11, 12, 24 — 1008.

24:14 — 1008.

24:15 — 141.

24:23 — 1003.

24:29, 30 — 1009.

24:30 — 1003.

24:34 — 138.

24:35 — 350.

24:36 — 445, 1006.

25: — 138.

25:1‐13 — 234.

25:10 — 1001, 1046.

25:19 — 1006.

25:24 — 293.

25:27 — 540.

25:29 — 986.

25:31 — 138, 315, 453, 1004.

25:31, 32 — 310, 683, 775.

25:31‐39 — 1011.

25:31, 46 — 1023.

25:32 — 163.

25:34 — 790.

25:41 — 448, 455, 457, 464, 660, 790.

25:41‐46 — 992.

25:45 — 648.

25:45, 46 — 662.

25:46 — 293, 1044, 1045, 1055.

26:24 — 365, 1043.

26:26, 28 — 674.

26:26, 29 — 901.

26:27 — 960.

26:28 — 210, 719.

26:29 — 959, 960.

26:34 — 681.

26:37 — 325.

26:38 — 674.

26:39 — 298, 438, 698, 718, 762.

26:39, 53 — 677.

26:53 — 448, 703.

26:53, 54 — 755.

26:60‐75 — 230.

26:63‐64 — 313.

26:64 — 141.

27:3, 4 — 832.

27:9 — 226.

27:18 — 310.

27:37 — 228.

27:42 — 677, 762.

27:46 — 742, 743, 762.

27:50 — 483.

28:1 — 410.

28:2 — 453.

28:4 — 445.

28:18 — 163, 775.

28:18‐20 — 708.

28:19 — 219, 316, 895, 899, 931, 942, 945, 948, 951, 952.

28:19, 20 — 905, 916, 932.

28:20 — 163, 242, 310, 460, 685, 697, 699, 801, 846, 998.

28:29 — 324.

28:4‐6 — 1003.

Mark.

1:5, 8 — 935.

1:5, 9 — 934.

1:9, 10 — 935.

1:41 — 118.

2:7 — 682.

2:27 — 409, 546.

3:5 — 674, 677.

3:11, 12 — 456.

3:17 — 152.

3:29 — 463, 650, 1041, 1046, 1048, 1055.

4:15 — 455.

4:39 — 682.

5:2, 4 — 456.

5:9 — 455.

5:19 — 190.

5:39, 40 — 659.

5:41 — 696.

7:4 — 934.

7:13 — 199.

7:14 — 738.

7:15 — 546.

7:34 — 126.

8:4 — 190.

8:27, 29 — 175.

8:36, 37 — 485.

8:38 — 450.

9:24 — 848.

9:25 — 456.

9:29 — 458.

9:43, 48 — 1046.

10:2 — 546.

10:5 — 545.

10:11 — 242.

10:18 — 302.

10:21 — 638, 674.

10:21, 22 — 571.

10:23 — 269.

10:32 — 678, 760.

10:38 — 940, 942.

10:39 — 936.

10:45 — 717.

11:24 — 433.

12:29, 30 — 543.

12:30 — 485.

12:30, 31 — 543.

13:19 — 378.

13:27 — 780.

13:32 — 314, 446, 677, 695, 1006.

14:15 — 681.

14:23 — 960.

14:24 — 210, 959.

14:25 — 959.

14:27 — 199.

15:23 — 742.

15:26 — 228.

15:45 — 131.

16:9‐20 — 239, 573, 931.

16:15 — 604, 791.

16:16 — 573, 662, 931.

16:19 — 708.

Luke.

1:1‐4 — 238.

1:6 — 852.

1:34, 35 — 675.

1:35 — 309, 325, 339, 677, 686, 689.

1:37 — 854.

1:38 — 934.

1:46 — 485.

1:52 — 421.

2:11 — 776.

2:13 — 448, 453.

2:14 — 397.

2:21 — 943.

2:21, 22, 23, 24 — 761.

2:24 — 554, 943.

2:25 — 1007.

2:34 — 789.

2:40, 46, 49, 52 — 675.

3:18 — 836.

3:21, 22 — 325.

3:22 — 216.

3:23‐38 — 673.

3:38 — 474, 475.

4:4‐12 — 199.

4:13 — 677.

4:14 — 325.

4:22 — 678.

4:25‐27 — 786.

4:34 — 445.

5:1 — 27.

5:6‐9 — 681.

5:8 — 296, 555.

5:20, 21 — 696.

6:17 — 227.

6:19 — 696.

6:43‐45 — 578.

7:13 — 130.

7:29 — 851.

7:35 — 320.

8:30, 31 — 456.

9:22‐24 — 716.

9:24 — 943.

10:17, 18 — 456.

10:27 — 346.

10:30‐37 — 574.

10:31 — 428.

11:11 — 717.

11:13 — 573, 895.

11:20 — 118.

11:27 — 448.

11:27, 28 — 208.

11:29 — 131.

11:49 — 320.

12:4, 5 — 1055.

12:12 — 324, 805.

12:14 — 241.

12:47, 48 — 648, 649, 1050.

12:48 — 558.

12:49 — 936.

12:50 — 645, 718, 762, 932, 936, 940, 942.

12:56 — 760.

13:2, 3 — 630.

13:4 — 645.

13:11, 16 — 455.

13:17 — 1046.

13:23, 24 — 35.

13:33 — 711.

14:23 — 234, 791.

15: — 516, 784.

15:8 — 515.

15:10, 24 — 836.

15:11‐32 — 241, 474.

15:12, 13 — 572.

15:17 — 338, 558.

15:18 — 833.

15:23, 24 — 856.

15:32 — 659, 992.

16:1‐8 — 241.

16:18 — 242.

16:22 — 452, 999.

16:23 — 994, 999.

16:26 — 1001, 1042, 1046.

16:32 — 446.

17:3 — 835.

17:5 — 804, 848.

17:7‐10 — 293.

17:20 — 892.

18:7 — 780.

18:13 — 556, 720, 741, 834.

18:23 — 832.

18:35 — 210, 227.

19:8 — 835.

19:8, 9 — 836.

19:23 — 541.

19:38 — 776.

20:13 — 681.

20:36 — 445, 447.

21:8‐28 — 1009.

21:12 — 1008.

21:19 — 959.

22:19 — 960.

22:20 — 210.

22:22 — 355.

22:31 — 457.

22:31, 32 — 774, 831.

22:31, 40 — 458.

22:37 — 720.

22:42 — 695, 936.

22:43 — 445, 453.

22:44 — 675.

23:15 — 760.

23:34 — 325, 462, 463, 649, 677, 774.

23:38 — 228.

23:42 — 833.

23:43 — 821, 994, 998.

23:43‐46 — 998, 999.

23:46 — 311, 746.

24:25 — 4.

24:26 — 646, 764.

24:27 — 114, 137.

24:33 — 905.

24:36 — 1018.

24:39 — 131, 674, 691.

John.

1:1 — 2, 151, 305, 309, 335, 336, 337, 378, 388.

1:1, 2 — 326.

1:1‐4 — 109.

1:1‐18 — 320.

1:3 — 275, 310, 326.

1:3, 4 — 311

1:4 — 309, 584, 694.

1:4, 9 — 715.

1:5 — 603.

1:9 — 68, 109, 134, 197, 571, 603, 666, 681, 744.

1:12 — 475, 839, 935.

1:12, 13 — 474, 793, 825, 842.

1:13 — 495, 598, 642, 782, 811, 819.

1:14 — 109, 160, 234, 322, 341, 673, 684, 686, 687.

1:15 — 310.

1:16 — 256, 804, 805.

1:17 — 262, 548.

1:18 — 14, 246, 306, 322, 326, 337, 338, 341, 349.

1:19 — 109.

1:23 — 938.

1:25 — 931.

1:26 — 935.

1:29 — 206, 554, 646, 647, 719, 728, 744, 757.

1:31 — 935, 943.

1:33 — 935.

1:41 — 137.

1:42, 43 — 681.

1:47‐50 — 681.

1:50 — 256.

2:2 — 685, 771.

2:7‐10 — 465.

2:11, 24, 25 — 696.

2:19 — 131.

2:19, 21 — 234.

2:21 — 131.

2:23, 24 — 837.

2:24 — 838.

2:24, 25 — 310, 682.

3:2 — 837.

3:3 — 36, 810, 818, 887.

3:3‐5 — 573.

3:5 — 642, 811, 821, 822, 887, 945.

3:5, 6, 10‐13 — 842.

3:6 — 495, 496, 578, 599, 661, 687.

3:7 — 677, 810, 814.

3:7, 14 — 729.

3:8 — 258, 287, 316, 324, 338, 340, 782, 810, 811.

3:11 — 684.

3:12 — 681.

3:13 — 681, 686.

3:14 — 751, 760.

3:14, 15 — 733.

3:16 — 245, 264, 289, 856, 935.

3:18 — 645.

3:18, 19 — 1023.

3:18‐20 — 841.

3:18‐36 — 574, 645.

3:21 — 5.

3:23 — 935.

3:33 — 288.

3:34 — 696.

3:36 — 645, 1046.

4:1 — 32.

4:1, 2 — 932.

4:6 — 314, 674.

4:9 — 167.

4:10 — 289.

4:14 — 839.

4:17‐19, 39 — 681.

4:21 — 280, 893.

4:24 — 250, 305, 338, 540, 1000.

4:29 — 176.

4:38 — 827.

4:39 — 711.

4:48 — 117.

5:3, 4 — 239.

5:14 — 837.

5:17 — 253, 259, 412, 419, 426.

5:17, 19 — 333.

5:18 — 313.

5:19 — 302.

5:20‐29 — 1024.

5:21 — 680, 810.

5:22 — 333.

5:23 — 311.

5:24 — 659, 811, 842, 992.

5:26 — 245, 251, 309.

5:27 — 678, 682.

5:27‐29 — 310.

5:28 — 350.

5:28, 29 — 1005, 1011, 1017.

5:28‐30 — 998.

5:29 — 1042.

5:30 — 302, 572, 677.

5:32‐37 — 322.

5:35 — 837.

5:39 — 19.

5:39, 40 — 20.

5:40 — 841.

5:42 — 639.

5:44 — 259.

5:46 — 239, 314.

6:14 — 711.

6:19 — 210.

6:20 — 846.

6:27 — 293, 305.

6:32 — 206.

6:37 — 781, 839.

6:41, 51 — 686.

6:44 — 78, 642.

6:44, 65 — 810.

6:47, 52, 63 — 992.

6:50 — 573.

6:53 — 839.

6:53, 56, 57 — 797.

6:54, 58 — 1045.

6:55 — 297.

6:62 — 310.

6:64 — 315.

6:65 — 782.

6:69 — 309.

7:17 — 4, 20, 584, 825, 841.

7:18 — 552, 572.

7:39 — 317.

7:53 — 638.

8:1‐11 — 239, 638.

8:7 — 925.

8:9 — 638.

8:12 — 838.

8:29 — 269.

8:30, 31 — 837.

8:31‐36 — 509.

8:34 — 553, 642.

8:35 — 475.

8:36 — 509, 828.

8:40 — 673.

8:41‐44 — 475.

8:44 — 450, 583, 657.

8:46 — 677.

8:51 — 659, 992.

8:57 — 348, 678.

8:58 — 163, 310, 326, 681, 695.

9:2, 3 — 630.

9:3 — 645.

9:30 — 1023.

10:3 — 364.

10:7 — 34.

10:7‐9 — 802.

10:10 — 824.

10:11 — 720.

10:16 — 842, 843, 914.

10:17, 18 — 703.

10:18 — 131.

10:28 — 781, 801.

10:30 — 313, 695.

10:34‐36 — 307, 515.

10:35 — 199.

10:36 — 234, 322, 669.

10:41 — 131, 156.

11:11 — 1000.

11:11‐14 — 994.

11:14 — 681.

11:25 — 842.

11:26 — 660, 999.

11:33, 35 — 674.

11:35 — 738.

11:35, 43 — 130.

11:36 — 264.

11:43 — 822.

11:49‐52 — 207.

11:51, 52 — 843.

12:24 — 680.

12:27 — 483, 731, 762.

12:31 — 1023.

12:32 — 311, 791.

12:32, 33 — 835.

12:33 — 315, 681.

12:41 — 309.

12:44 — 350.

12:47 — 241, 573.

13:1 — 315.

13:7 — 35.

13:8 — 571, 733.

13:10 — 831.

13:21 — 483.

13:27 — 424, 455, 674.

13:29 — 901.

13:33 — 680.

14:1 — 838.

14:1‐3 — 991.

14:3 — 659, 998.

14:3‐18 — 1003.

14:6 — 28, 251, 260, 309, 802.

14:9 — 14, 313, 333, 349, 699, 845.

14:9, 10 — 681.

14:10, 23 — 797.

14:11 — 117, 833.

14:12 — 120.

14:14 — 311.

14:16 — 774.

14:16, 17 — 323, 339.

14:16‐18 — 323.

14:17 — 288, 604, 1045.

14:18 — 323, 333, 680.

14:20 — 759, 797.

14:21 — 256.

14:26 — 207, 323, 744.

14:28 — 314, 342.

14:30 — 448, 677.

15:1 — 516, 680, 796.

15:3 — 811.

15:4, 5 — 642.

15:4‐6 — 110.

15:5 — 331, 898.

15:6 — 474, 475.

15:7 — 438.

15:9 — 778.

15:10 — 331.

15:15 — 21, 440, 737.

15:16 — 598, 779, 784, 787.

15:26 — 323, 333, 341.

15:26, 27 — 207.

16:2 — 192.

16:7 — 323, 604, 697.

16:8 — 316, 324, 339, 454, 856.

16:8, 9 — 841.

16:8‐11 — 338.

16:9 — 350.

16:10 — 762.

16:11 — 448.

16:12 — 35.

16:12, 13 — 164.

16:12, 26 — 901.

16:13 — 31, 134, 137, 206, 207.

16:13, 14 — 316.

16:14 — 134, 323, 324, 326.

16:14, 15 — 317.

16:15 — 313, 349.

16:18 — 242.

16:26 — 698.

16:28, 30 — 310.

17:2 — 781.

17:3 — 3, 67, 259, 260, 261, 691.

17:4 — 324, 746.

17:4, 5 — 310.

17:5 — 256, 309, 314, 326, 378, 698, 699, 703.

17:6 — 787.

17:8 — 207.

17:9 — 774, 781.

17:9, 20, 24 — 771.

17:10 — 313.

17:11 — 272, 313.

17:12 — 430, 475.

17:19 — 674, 762.

17:21‐23 — 798.

17:22 — 313.

17:22, 23 — 301.

17:23 — 245, 684.

17:24 — 263, 310, 326, 776.

17:25 — 274.

18:4 — 682.

18:8, 9 — 430.

18:11 — 743.

18:32 — 681.

18:36 — 889.

18:36, 37 — 776.

18:37 — 262, 633.

18:38 — 156.

19:11 — 648, 649.

19:19 — 228.

19:28 — 674.

19:30 — 733, 762.

19:30, 34 — 675.

19:38 — 959.

20:17 — 680, 681, 707, 998.

20:22 — 709, 935.

20:26 — 410.

20:27 — 691, 1018.

20:28 — 306, 311.

20:31 — 839.

21:6 — 681.

21:17 — 833.

21:19 — 315, 355, 681.

Acts.

1:1 — 150, 164.

1:2 — 315, 316, 410, 696, 703.

1:7 — 1006.

1:10 — 453.

1:11 — 1004.

1:15, 23, 26 — 906.

1:23‐26 — 894.

1:24 — 310.

1:25 — 660, 1049.

2: — 896, 901.

2:2 — 287.

2:4 — 324.

2:22 — 117, 673.

2:23 — 258, 282, 355, 675.

2:24, 31 — 707.

2:31 — 131.

2:33 — 774.

2:37, 38 — 945, 949.

2:38 — 821, 822, 833, 931, 946, 948, 951.

2:41 — 934.

2:42 — 946, 959, 960.

2:46 — 959, 960.

2:47 — 895, 897, 901.

3:13, 26 — 697.

3:18 — 646.

3:22 — 137, 711.

3:26 — 829.

4:12 — 573, 842, 843.

4:27, 28 — 424.

4:27, 30 — 697.

4:31 — 895.

4:32 — 799.

5:3 — 455.

5:3, 4 — 315, 458.

5:3, 4, 9 — 324.

5:4 — 894.

5:6 — 918.

5:7‐11 — 585.

5:9 — 927.

5:11 — 895.

5:14 — 897, 901.

5:29 — 898.

5:31 — 782, 835.

5:36 — 228.

6:1‐4 — 918.

6:1‐6 — 917.

6:2 — 891.

6:3, 5 — 906.

6:5 — 891.

6:5, 6 — 894, 919.

6:8‐20 — 917.

7:2 — 256.

7:6 — 127.

7:16 — 226.

7:22 — 169, 994, 995.

7:28 — 1004.

7:38 — 891.

7:39, 53 — 448.

7:42 — 448.

7:51 — 32.

7:53 — 452.

7:55 — 708.

7:59 — 311, 991, 1000.

7:60 — 595, 659.

8:4 — 899.

8:12 — 821, 945.

8:13 — 837.

8:16 — 948, 951.

8:25 — 27.

8:26 — 319.

8:29 — 324.

8:38, 39 — 935, 936.

9:5 — 209.

9:15 — 779.

9:15, 16 — 787.

9:31 — 891, 892, 912.

10:19, 20 — 324.

10:31‐44 — 843.

10:34, 35 — 23.

10:35 — 574, 853.

10:38 — 315, 316, 325, 455, 696, 700, 703.

10:42 — 780.

10:43 — 137.

10:48 — 951.

11:18 — 782, 835.

11:21 — 829.

11:24 — 901.

11:28 — 137.

12:7 — 319.

12:15 — 452.

12:23 — 452.

13:2 — 324, 907.

13:2, 3 — 906, 909, 919.

13:33, 34, 35 — 340, 341.

13:38, 39 — 855.

13:39 — 793, 805.

13:48 — 780.

13:48, 49 — 27.

14: — 22.

14:15 — 23.

14:16 — 424.

14:16, 17 — 666.

14:17 — 26, 32, 113.

14:23 — 890, 906, 919.

14:27 — 891, 906.

15:1‐35 — 912.

15:2, 4, 22, 30 — 906.

15:6‐11 — 215.

15:7‐30 — 909.

15:8 — 282.

15:8, 9 — 782.

15:9 — 770.

15:18 — 282.

15:23 — 906.

15:28 — 324.

16:6, 7 — 324.

16:14 — 810, 819, 825.

16:15 — 951.

16:16 — 456.

16:31 — 843.

16:33 — 934.

16:33, 34, 40 — 951.

17: — 22.

17:3 — 110, 760, 764.

17:4 — 782.

17:18 — 842.

17:21‐26 — 494.

17:22 — 23.

17:23 — 27.

17:25‐27 — 113.

17:26 — 115, 355, 421, 476, 691, 692.

17:27 — 68.

17:27, 28 — 105, 280, 571.

17:28 — 254, 412, 474, 503, 715, 798.

17:29 — 759.

17:30 — 573, 649, 652.

17:31 — 333, 405.

18:8 — 945.

18:9, 10 — 782.

18:10 — 789.

18:14 — 152.

18:26 — 547.

18:27 — 895.

19:1‐5 — 950.

19:4 — 836, 901, 932, 945.

19:5 — 948.

19:10, 20 — 27.

19:21 — 910.

19:32, 39 — 981.

20:7 — 410, 894, 960.

20:17 — 914.

20:20, 21 — 916.

20:21 — 836.

20:28 — 137, 894, 914.

20:28‐31 — 915.

20:31 — 1056.

20:35 — 265, 916.

21:9 — 547.

21:10 — 137.

21:31‐33 — 240.

22:16 — 946.

22:26‐29 — 240.

23:5 — 242.

23:6 — 995, 996.

23:26‐30 — 240.

24:15 — 998.

24:25 — 988, 1024.

26:6‐8 — 995.

26:7, 8 — 996.

26:9 — 500.

26:23 — 646.

26:24, 25 — 31.

27:10 — 137.

27:21‐26 — 137.

27:22‐24 — 364.

27:24 — 789.

Romans.

1:3 — 684.

1:3, 4 — 340.

1:4 — 129, 676, 762.

1:5 — 847.

1:7 — 791.

1:13 — 495.

1:16 — 746.

1:17 — 847, 849.

1:17‐20 — 26.

1:18 — 266, 644, 983.

1:19 — 13.

1:19‐21, 28, 32 — 68.

1:19‐25 — 319.

1:20 — 26, 32, 68, 69, 1044, 1046.

1:23 — 256.

1:24 — 633.

1:24, 28 — 424.

1:25 — 288.

1:28 — 68.

1:32 — 26, 649, 832.

2:4 — 113, 289, 571, 776, 833.

2:5 — 981.

2:5‐6 — 662, 1025.

2:6 — 290, 648.

2:6‐11 — 778.

2:7 — 917.

2:12 — 558, 649.

2:14 — 574, 638.

2:14, 15 — 541.

2:14, 19 — 538.

2:15 — 26, 68.

2:10 — 1023.

2:26 — 617, 852.

3:1, 2 — 779.

3:2 — 838.

3:4 — 288.

3:9 — 574, 639.

3:10‐12 — 573.

3:11 — 810.

3:12 — 115.

3:15 — 68.

3:19 — 645.

3:19, 20, 23 — 573.

3:20 — 543, 832.

3:22 — 772.

3:23 — 542, 610.

3:24‐26 — 855.

3:25 — 772.

3:24‐30 — 849.

3:25 — 112, 405, 423, 714.

3:25, 26 — 718, 719, 753.

3:26 — 298, 846.

3:28 — 847, 1001.

3:31 — 548.

4:4‐16 — 847.

4:5 — 842, 854.

4:6, 8 — 851.

4:17 — 287, 376, 377.

4:20, 21 — 844.

4:24,25 — 15, 657.

4:25 — 717, 763, 852.

5:1 — 854.

5:1‐2 — 856.

5:5 — 848.

5:6‐8 — 720.

5:8 — 290, 726.

5:10 — 544, 719.

5:11 — 856.

5:12 — 39, 210, 490, 495, 593, 604, 609, 610, 613, 614, 620, 658.

5:12‐14 — 579.

5:12‐17 — 657.

5:12‐19 — 15, 476, 477, 603, 625.

5:12‐21 — 622, 660, 797.

5:13 — 594.

5:14 — 661, 662, 686.

5:14, 18, 21 — 660.

5:15 — 673.

5:16 — 593.

5:16‐18 — 619, 852.

5:19 — 593, 614, 718.

5:20 — 543.

5:21 — 553, 992.

6:3 — 940, 941, 951.

6:3‐5 — 931.

6:3‐6 — 932.

6:4 — 936, 941.

6:5 — 796, 941.

6:6 — 824.

6:7 — 851.

6:7, 8 — 805.

6:7‐10 — 762.

6:9, 10 — 657.

6:11 — 797, 829.

6:12 — 553.

6:13 — 810, 945.

6:13, 18 — 853.

6:15‐23 — 509.

6:17 — 31, 810.

6:19 — 633, 1049.

6:23 — 293, 645, 657.

7:4 — 805.

7:7, 8 — 544.

7:8, 9, 10 — 553.

7:10‐11 — 941.

7:11, 13, 14, 17, 20 — 553.

7:14 — 540.

7:15 — 780.

7:17 — 552.

7:18 — 562, 639, 642, 687.

7:23 — 581, 639, 646.

7:24 — 555, 578, 642, 983.

8:1 — 646, 647, 659.

8:1‐2 — 983.

8:1‐17 — 805.

8:2 — 316, 548, 590, 804, 811.

8:3 — 341, 677, 706, 714, 718, 762, 943.

8:3, 10, 11 — 657.

8:4 — 548.

8:7 — 562, 571, 573, 580, 639, 818, 831.

8:7, 8 — 645.

8:9, 10 — 797, 801.

8:10 — 805, 852, 983, 999.

8:11 — 316, 324, 339, 488, 806, 1017.

8:13 — 659, 992.

8:14 — 339, 441, 830.

8:14, 15 — 474.

8:16 — 502, 839, 844.

8:18‐23 — 1018.

8:19 — 797.

8:20, 21 — 402, 403.

8:20‐23 — 658.

8:21‐23 — 1004.

8:23 — 826, 1002, 1017, 1022.

8:24 — 981.

8:26 — 323, 324, 325, 338, 339, 439, 454, 798.

8:26, 27 — 438, 774, 848.

8:27 — 349.

8:27‐30 — 780.

8:28 — 353, 368, 421, 443.

8:28, 29, 30 — 781.

8:30 — 791.

8:31‐39 — 788.

8:32 — 265, 266, 289, 341, 405.

8:34 — 544, 774.

8:35‐39 — 801.

8:38 — 998.

8:39 — 278.

9: — 780.

9:1 — 502.

9:5 — 306.

9:11 — 661.

9:11‐16 — 780.

9:16 — 784.

9:17 — 397.

9:17, 18 — 424.

9:17, 22, 23 — 397.

9:18 — 296.

9:20 — 786.

9:20, 21 — 779.

9:21 — 784.

9:22, 23 — 790.

9:22‐25 — 780.

9:23 — 256.

9:23, 24 — 782.

9:28 — 827.

10:3 — 852.

10:4 — 544.

10:6‐7 — 280.

10:6‐8 — 282.

10:7 — 707.

10:9 — 309, 839.

10:9, 10 — 889.

10:9, 12 — 311.

10:10 — 810, 948.

11:2 — 780.

11:5‐7 — 778.

11:8 — 152.

11:13 — 254.

11:16 — 397.

11:18 — 848.

11:25 — 668.

11:25, 26 — 1008.

11:29 — 198, 782, 791.

11:32 — 423.

11:33 — 34, 282.

11:36 — 275, 337.

11:38 — 378.

12:1 — 32, 776.

12:2 — 40, 260.

12:3 — 782.

12:5 — 755.

12:6‐8 — 902.

12:15 — 615.

12:16 — 904.

12:19 — 776.

13:1 — 117, 780.

13:5 — 780.

13:8‐10 — 572.

13:10 — 302.

14:4 — 899.

14:7 — 572.

14:8 — 983.

14:14 — 241.

14:17 — 853, 892.

14:23 — 32, 553.

15:2 — 265, 546, 568.

15:3 — 572, 724.

15:19 — 324, 325.

15:20 — 910.

15:26 — 894.

15:30 — 263, 316, 324.

15:31 — 841.

16:1, 2 — 918.

16:5 — 890.

16:7 — 909.

16:22 — 1006.

16:25, 26 — 1044.

16:26 — 1045.

19:23 — 662.

20:4‐10 — 1011.

1 Corinthians.

1:2 — 201, 890, 892, 897.

1:3 — 774.

1:9 — 288.

1:10 — 904.

1:16 — 210, 951.

1:16, 17 — 916.

1:18 — 27.

1:21 — 4, 1056.

1:23 — 842.

1:23, 24 — 746.

1:23, 24, 26 — 791.

1:24‐29 — 782.

1:26 — 562.

1:28 — 377.

1:30 — 710, 781, 805, 806, 852.

1:31 — 152.

2:4 — 325.

2:7 — 275, 356.

2:7‐16 — 250.

2:9 — 36, 289.

2:9‐13 — 206.

2:10 — 253, 316.

2:10‐12 — 13, 324.

2:11 — 253, 316, 483.

2:11, 12 — 40.

2:13 — 19, 35.

2:14 — 4, 484, 642.

2:14, 16 — 203.

2:28 — 917.

3:1, 2 — 16.

3:6 — 574.

3:6, 7 — 811.

3:10 — 31, 338.

3:10‐15 — 16.

3:16 — 315, 316.

3:21 — 40.

3:21, 23 — 805.

3:22 — 983.

4:4 — 851.

4:5 — 310, 894.

4:7 — 604, 786.

4:13 — 894.

4:15 — 418.

4:17 — 890.

5:3 — 483.

5:3‐5 — 200, 924.

5:4, 5 — 907.

5:5 — 457.

5:9 — 145, 150.

5:13 — 907, 924, 925.

5:21 — 646, 747.

5:37, 38 — 426.

6:3 — 445, 446.

6:11 — 805.

6:13‐20 — 1017.

6:15, 19 — 796.

6:17 — 798.

6:19 — 315, 488.

6:20 — 717.

7:10, 12 — 242.

7:14 — 597, 609, 661, 951, 952.

7:17 — 201, 806.

7:23 — 717.

7:40 — 242.

8:3 — 520, 780, 781.

8:4 — 259, 446, 457.

8:6 — 15, 310, 378, 419, 700.

8:12 — 501.

9:16 — 919, 1056.

10:1‐2 — 936.

10:2 — 941.

10:3, 4 — 942.

10:8 — 227.

10:11 — 1006.

10:12 — 948.

10:13 — 425, 458.

10:16, 17 — 797.

10:20 — 457.

10:31 — 401.

10:33 — 892.

11:2 — 906.

11:3 — 342, 515, 680.

11:5 — 547.

11:7 — 515.

11:8 — 494.

11:10 — 452.

11:11, 12 — 525.

11:16 — 895.

11:23 — 200.

11:23, 24 — 906.

11:23‐25 — 959.

11:23‐26 — 895.

11:24 — 959.

11:24‐25 — 311.

11:26 — 546, 933, 959.

11:27 — 960.

11:29 — 952, 960.

11:30 — 1000.

12:3 — 309, 782.

12:4, 6 — 315.

12:4, 8, 11 — 325.

12:6 — 418.

12:8‐11 — 324.

12:9 — 782.

12:11 — 316.

12:12 — 796, 893.

12:13 — 942.

12:28 — 401, 710, 891, 902, 912, 917.

13: — 35.

13:4 — 325.

13:10 — 981.

13:12 — 8, 35, 143, 219.

13:13 — 848.

14:23 — 895.

14:25 — 546.

14:37 — 901.

14:37, 38 — 200.

14:40 — 895.

15:3, 4 — 15.

15:6 — 906.

15:8 — 131.

15:12 — 942.

15:20, 23 — 680, 998.

15:21 — 673.

15:21, 22 — 476, 657.

15:22 — 495, 593, 603, 622, 942, 998.

15:22, 45 — 686.

15:22, 45, 49 — 797.

15:24 — 893.

15:25 — 356, 776.

15:26 — 590.

15:28 — 314, 397, 698, 699.

15:32 — 989.

15:34 — 68.

15:37, 38 — 1019.

15:38, 40 — 563.

15:40 — 806.

15:40, 45 — 678.

15:41 — 898.

15:42, 50 — 658.

15:44 — 484, 488, 1016.

15:45 — 316, 333, 527, 697, 805.

15:45, 46 — 802, 991.

15:46 — 524.

15:51 — 658, 1005.

15:53, 54 — 1018.

15:54‐57 — 659.

15:55 — 983.

16:1, 2 — 894.

16:15 — 780, 951.

16:22 — 329, 1006.

2 Corinthians.

1:20 — 288.

1:24 — 205.

2:6, 7 — 907.

2:6‐8 — 925.

2:11 — 464.

2:14 — 431.

2:14‐17 — 1056.

2:15, 16 — 789.

2:16 — 1002.

3:1 — 895.

3:5 — 643.

3:6 — 35, 324.

3:15, 16 — 5.

3:17, 18 — 326, 333, 697.

3:18 — 219, 315, 663, 678.

4:2 — 822.

4:4 — 517, 518, 827.

4:6 — 286, 336, 337.

4:7 — 213.

4:17 — 256, 402.

5:1‐8 — 998.

5:1‐9 — 659.

5:3, 4 — 1002.

5:4 — 235.

5:8 — 1000.

5:10 — 1011, 1023.

5:11 — 1056.

5:13 — 31.

5:14 — 622, 623, 805, 941.

5:14, 15 — 766.

5:15 — 572, 662, 716.

5:17 — 793, 797, 804, 811.

5:18, 19 — 719.

5:19 — 333, 686, 699, 714, 718, 768.

5:21 — 645, 677, 718, 731, 743, 760.

5:21 — 718, 731, 743, 805, 853, 856, 943.

6:17 — 474.

7:1 — 268, 639, 829.

7:9, 10 — 832.

7:10 — 836.

7:11 — 294, 907.

8:5 — 899.

8:6 — 334.

8:9 — 703.

8:19 — 705, 906.

9:9 — 1045.

9:15 — 754.

10:5 — 543.

10:16 — 910.

11:1 — 210.

11:2 — 796.

11:14 — 450.

12:2 — 991.

12:4 — 35, 999.

12:7 — 438, 455.

12:8, 9 — 848.

12:9 — 687.

12:10 — 10, 317.

13:4 — 708.

13:11 — 904.

13:12 — 201.

13:14 — 306, 324, 774.

Galatians.

1:2 — 200.

1:4 — 716, 718.

1:7 — 475.

1:12 — 200.

1:15, 16 — 421, 782, 804, 811.

1:16 — 12.

1:22 — 892.

2:7 — 838.

2:10 — 715.

2:11 — 215, 909.

2:15 — 578.

2:16‐20 — 850.

2:19‐20 — 941.

2:20 — 514, 572, 643, 797, 801, 805.

2:21 — 1000.

3:6 — 856.

3:7 — 836.

3:10 — 152.

3:11 — 849.

3:11‐13 — 242.

3:13 — 430, 657, 718, 728.

3:17 — 227.

3:19 — 448, 452, 453.

3:22 — 573.

3:24 — 544.

3:26 — 334, 474, 842.

3:26, 27 — 946.

3:27 — 797, 941, 948, 951.

4:1‐7 — 475.

4:3 — 665.

4:4 — 258, 322, 341, 388, 665.

4:4, 5 — 761.

4:5 — 338, 717.

4:6 — 322, 323, 333, 334, 474.

4:9 — 780, 781.

4:19 — 13.

4:25 — 310.

4:28 — 577.

5:6 — 770, 846, 847.

5:11 — 746.

5:14 — 572.

5:19 — 554.

5:22 — 554, 782, 847.

6:1 — 650.

6:7, 8 — 1049.

6:15 — 810.

Ephesians.

1: — 355.

1:2, 3 — 685.

1:3 — 592.

1:23 — 697.

1:4 — 275, 309, 388, 781, 782, 797.

1:4‐5 — 780.

1:4‐6 — 778, 805.

1:4, 7 — 771.

1:5 — 334, 335.

1:5, 6 — 474.

1:5, 6, 9 — 397.

1:5‐8 — 781.

1:6 — 774.

1:7 — 114, 849, 855.

1:9 — 253.

1:9‐11 — 780.

1:10 — 444, 450, 680.

1:11 — 253, 287, 353, 355, 421.

1:13 — 844.

1:14 — 781.

1:17‐18 — 823.

1:18 — 4, 69, 825, 791.

1:19 — 287.

1:19, 20 — 811.

1:21, 22 — 699.

1:22 — 776.

1:22, 23 — 109, 685, 708, 796, 887, 888.

1:23 — 163, 310, 418.

2:1 — 521, 643, 659, 810, 983, 992.

2:2 — 448, 451, 455, 642.

2:3 — 459, 475, 495, 578, 579, 593, 603, 609, 645, 661, 810.

2:5 — 811.

2:5, 6 — 805.

2:6 — 890.

2:8 — 781.

2:8‐10 — 643.

2:10 — 355, 364, 423, 475, 521, 598, 782, 785, 804, 811, 819, 824, 826,
831.

2:12 — 68.

2:12, 16, 18, 19 — 719.

2:13 — 797.

2:15 — 545.

2:16‐18, 21, 22 — 685.

2:18 — 774.

2:20 — 710, 909.

2:20‐22 — 795.

2:28 — 338.

3:1 — 431.

3:5 — 710.

3:9 — 27, 113, 378.

3:10 — 282, 446, 450, 460, 713, 887, 1052.

3:10, 11 — 356.

3:11 — 353.

3:12 — 774.

3:14, 15 — 334, 448, 474, 811.

3:16, 17 — 801.

3:17 — 797, 804, 839.

3:18 — 905.

3:19 — 8.

3:20 — 287.

4:3 — 904.

4:5 — 758, 941.

4:5, 6 — 259.

4:6 — 102, 333.

4:7‐8 — 309.

4:8 — 340.

4:10 — 685, 708.

4:11 — 19, 745, 902, 915.

4:15, 16 — 796.

4:18 — 639, 820.

4:18, 19 — 647.

4:20 — 261.

4:22 — 824.

4:22‐24 — 639.

4:23 — 484, 633.

4:23, 24 — 811.

4:24 — 514, 517.

4:26 — 234, 294, 743.

4:30 — 266, 316, 324, 325.

4:32 — 314.

5:1 — 543.

5:2 — 719, 736.

5:9 — 31.

5:10 — 32.

5:14 — 659, 810, 829, 992.

5:18 — 464.

5:21 — 311.

5:23 — 680.

5:24, 25 — 887.

5:25, 27 — 717.

5:26 — 946.

5:27 — 739.

5:29 — 1022.

5:29, 30 — 800.

5:31 — 706.

5:31, 32 — 796.

5:32 — 801.

6:11 — 458.

6:12 — 382, 445, 455.

6:16 — 458.

6:17 — 17, 32, 220, 811, 815, 819.

6:23 — 782.

Philippians.

1:1 — 894, 902, 914.

1:6 — 999.

1:9 — 265, 297, 440.

1:19 — 333.

1:21, 23 — 659.

1:23 — 731, 999.

1:27 — 904.

2:5 — 806.

2:6 — 308, 313, 314, 326, 336, 703, 718.

2:6, 7 — 249, 703.

2:6‐11 — 702, 706.

2:7 — 314, 572, 689, 943.

2:7, 8 — 288.

2:10 — 314.

2:10, 11 — 311.

2:12 — 829.

2:12, 13 — 258, 356, 364, 418, 641, 715, 785, 792, 799, 811, 830.

2:13 — 423, 782, 816.

2:16 — 33.

2:30 — 895.

3:6 — 891, 912.

3:8 — 706.

3:8, 9 — 544, 805.

3:8, 10 — 691.

3:9 — 856.

3:11 — 1002.

3:14 — 791.

3:15 — 574.

3:18 — 895.

3:20, 21 — 806.

3:21 — 678, 1015, 1017.

4:3 — 547, 781.

4:5 — 236, 1006.

4:13 — 512.

4:19 — 421.

Colossians.

1:9, 10 — 440.

1:13 — 811.

1:15 — 313, 336, 340, 341, 515.

1:15, 17 — 326.

1:16 — 16, 310, 326, 378, 382, 397, 444, 445, 448, 474, 475, 679.

1:16, 17 — 109, 377, 464.

1:17 — 110, 310, 311, 378, 412, 759.

1:18 — 150, 678, 680, 887.

1:19 — 313.

1:20 — 109, 310, 388, 450, 719.

1:22 — 717.

1:23 — 1008.

1:24 — 716.

1:27 — 19, 691, 801, 842.

1:28 — 260.

2:2 — 691.

2:2, 3 — 109.

2:3 — 28, 310.

2:5 — 895.

2:7 — 795.

2:9 — 109, 308, 313, 348, 680, 686, 692.

2:9, 10 — 32, 253.

2:10 — 444.

2:11, 12 — 931.

2:12 — 821, 822, 936, 940, 941.

2:15 — 442, 459.

2:18 — 446, 452, 453.

2:20, 21, 22 — 217.

2:21 — 216.

3:2 — 941.

3:3 — 829.

3:3, 4 — 810.

3:10 — 514, 517.

3:11 — 546.

3:12 — 780.

4:16 — 201.

1 Thessalonians.

1:1, 2 — 848.

1:6 — 294.

1:9 — 251.

2:10 — 294.

2:12 — 791.

2:14 — 890.

2:18 — 455.

3:5 — 455.

3:13 — 268, 303.

4:2, 8 — 200.

4:7 — 268.

4:13‐17 — 1017.

4:14 — 1000.

4:14‐16 — 1015.

4:16 — 1004, 1005.

4:14, 17 — 801.

4:15‐17 — 137, 235.

4:16 — 448, 998, 1004, 1005.

4:17 — 1005.

5:10 — 999, 1000.

5:11 — 899.

5:12 — 916.

5:12, 13 — 780, 902.

5:22 — 732.

5:23 — 484, 485, 806.

5:24 — 288.

2 Thessalonians.

1:5‐10 — 778.

1:6‐10 — 1011.

1:7 — 445.

1:7, 10 — 1004.

1:9 — 660.

2:1, 2 — 138, 140.

2:1, 3 — 1006.

2:2 — 150, 1005.

2:3 — 137, 138.

2:3, 4 — 572.

2:3, 4, 7, 8 — 1008.

2:3, 4, 9 — 454.

2:3‐5 — 236.

2:7 — 425, 587.

2:8 — 457.

2:9 — 132, 133, 457.

2:10 — 1024.

2:11, 12 — 423.

2:13 — 780.

2:14 — 791.

3:6 — 924, 925.

3:11 — 140.

3:14, 15 — 907.

1 Timothy.

1:3 — 787.

1:10 — 39.

1:11 — 245.

1:12 — 919.

1:13, 15, 16 — 649.

1:15 — 556, 787.

1:16 — 787.

1:17 — 259, 275, 1045.

1:20 — 457.

2:4 — 797.

2:5 — 308, 673, 685.

2:5 — 308, 673, 685, 698.

2:6 — 717, 771.

2:11, 12 — 546.

2:15 — 680.

3:1 — 914.

3:1, 2 — 902.

3:2 — 19, 39, 915.

3:2‐7 — 919.

3: — 912.

3:5 — 917.

3:8 — 914.

3:8‐13 — 918.

3:11 — 918.

3:15 — 18, 33, 891, 903, 905, 977.

3:16 — 15, 686, 691, 718, 762, 843, 852, 856.

4:2 — 501.

4:4 — 758.

4:10 — 758, 771.

4:14 — 919, 946.

4:16 — 1056.

5:2 — 464.

5:6 — 659.

5:9 — 895.

5:17 — 915, 917.

5:21 — 447, 450, 452.

5:22 — 919.

5:24 — 650.

6:4 — 39.

6:13 — 412.

6:15 — 259, 445.

6:16 — 14, 246, 262, 275, 444.

6:20 — 39, 149.

2 Timothy.

1:9 — 771, 781, 791, 1044.

1:10 — 131, 590.

1:12 — 67, 149.

1:13 — 18.

1:14 — 149.

1:16‐18 — 1043.

1:18 — 318.

2:3 — 18.

2:10 — 789.

2:11 — 805.

2:15 — 19.

2:18 — 998, 1017.

2:20 — 790.

2:25 — 17, 451, 782, 835.

2:26 — 445, 835.

3:2 — 572, 639.

3:4 — 639.

3:7 — 814.

3:13 — 633, 638.

3:15 — 218, 804.

3:16 — 197, 200, 205.

4:2 — 19.

4:6 — 236.

4:8 — 1000, 1005.

4:13 — 217.

4:16 — 594.

4:18 — 311, 998.

Titus.

1:1 — 782.

1:2 — 288, 1044.

1:5 — 906, 914.

1:6 — 919.

1:7 — 914.

1:9 — 19, 919.

1:12 — 165, 696.

1:15 — 639.

2:10 — 333.

2:11 — 758, 771.

2:13 — 307.

2:14 — 717.

3:4 — 289.

3:5 — 316, 821, 822, 946.

Hebrews.

1:1 — 214, 221.

1:2 — 160, 320, 326, 333, 378.

1:2, 3 — 109, 412, 685.

1:3 — 165, 256, 286, 310, 313, 320, 336, 419, 515, 762, 775.

1:5, 6 — 340.

1:6 — 307, 311, 1004.

1:7 — 457.

1:8 — 307, 318, 598, 776.

1:9 — 266.

1:10 — 310, 326.

1:11 — 310.

1:14 — 445, 452, 1000.

2:2 — 448, 452.

2:2, 3 — 648.

2:3 — 153.

2:4 — 845.

2:6 — 653.

2:6‐10 — 678.

2:7 — 315, 706.

2:8, 9 — 405, 775.

2:9 — 716, 743.

2:10 — 675, 745.

2:11 — 476, 680, 692.

2:12 — 891.

2:13 — 697.

2:14 — 455, 459, 670, 685.

2:14, 15 — 757.

2:16 — 448, 453, 455, 464, 476, 687, 768, 786.

2:17 — 720.

2:17, 18 — 698, 774.

2:18 — 675.

3:1 — 791, 909.

3:3, 4 — 310.

3:12 — 553, 639.

3:13 — 899.

3:14, 16 — 674.

3:18 — 841.

4:4 — 153.

4:6, 11 — 841.

4:5‐9 — 410.

4:12 — 484, 485, 811.

4:13 — 282.

4:15 — 677.

4:15, 16 — 698, 774.

5:7 — 674.

5:8 — 675.

5:14 — 16.

6:1, 2 — 15.

6:2 — 1053.

6:10 — 399.

6:11 — 844.

6:18 — 288.

6:18, 19 — 485.

7:10 — 494.

7:15, 16 — 680, 694, 846.

7:16 — 309.

7:23, 25 — 773.

7:24, 25 — 698.

7:25 — 639, 698, 774, 776.

7:26 — 309, 646, 677.

8:2 — 260.

8:5 — 152, 310.

8:8, 9 — 614.

8:13 — 152.

9:1 — 852.

9:11, 12 — 718.

9:13, 14 — 724.

9:14 — 298, 415, 316, 317, 326, 338, 341, 378, 677, 696, 703, 736, 1045.

9:14, 22, 25 — 719.

9:15 — 718.

9:22 — 645, 765.

9:26 — 943, 1044.

9:27 — 1001, 1024.

9:27, 28 — 1023.

9:28 — 718, 1001, 1004.

10:5‐7 — 234.

10:7 — 830.

10:9 — 539.

10:12 — 936.

10:19‐25 — 848.

10:22 — 501, 946.

10:25 — 894, 899.

10:26, 29. — 350.

10:27 — 1052.

10:28 — 650.

10:31 — 539, 652, 660, 1056.

10:38 — 485.

11:1 — 839.

11:2 — 675.

11:3 — 377.

11:4 — 726.

11:4‐7 — 850.

11:5 — 995, 996.

11:6 — 643.

11:8 — 280, 441.

11:12 — 234.

11:13‐16 — 995, 996.

11:31 — 230, 841.

11:34, 38 — 165.

12:2 — 266.

12:2, 16 — 717.

12:6 — 272, 983.

12:9 — 465, 474, 483, 491, 495.

12:14 — 296.

12:19 — 209.

12:20 — 234.

12:22, 23 — 446.

12:23 — 333, 367, 483, 509, 887, 998, 1000.

12:29 — 268, 272, 653.

13:7 — 915, 916.

13:8 — 163, 309, 888, 1003.

13:17 — 916.

13:21 — 311.

13:33 — 680.

James.

1:5 — 265, 440.

1:13, 14 — 562.

1:14, 15 — 562.

1:15 — 573, 585, 633, 981.

1:17 — 256, 257, 359.

1:18 — 782, 811, 889.

1:21 — 485.

1:23, 24 — 543.

1:23‐25 — 219, 681.

1:27 — 24.

2:8 — 572.

2:10 — 543.

2:14‐26 — 846.

2:19 — 457, 837.

2:21, 23, 24 — 851.

2:23 — 782.

2:25 — 230.

2:26 — 483.

3:2 — 573.

3:9 — 515.

3:17 — 297, 911.

4:7 — 458.

4:12 — 543.

4:13‐15 — 423.

4:17 — 542, 553, 648.

5:7 — 1006.

5:8, 9 — 1007.

5:9 — 236.

5:11 — 241.

5:14 — 902.

5:16 — 834.

5:19, 20 — 850.

5:20 — 660, 992.

1 Peter.

1:1, 2 — 324, 450, 780, 781.

1:2 — 305, 316, 324, 778, 782, 788.

1:3 — 418, 811.

1:5 — 848.

1:10, 11 — 235.

1:11 — 134, 137, 197, 206.

1:11, 12 — 200.

1:12 — 445, 450.

1:16 — 290, 296, 302, 543.

1:18 — 719.

1:19 — 677.

1:19, 20 — 266.

1:20 — 780.

1:23 — 33, 811, 824.

2:4, 5 — 795.

2:5 — 774.

2:5, 9 — 805.

2:8 — 355, 784, 790.

2:9 — 401, 781, 811.

2:17 — 515.

2:21 — 678, 729, 732.

2:21, 24 — 717.

2:22 — 677.

3:1, 2 — 914.

3:8 — 904.

3:15 — 311, 739.

3:16 — 501.

3:18 — 685, 720, 762.

3:18, 20 — 707, 708.

3:19 — 999, 1000.

3:21 — 501, 776, 821, 941.

3:32 — 444.

4:6 — 657, 762, 983.

4:7 — 236, 1006.

4:11 — 401, 641.

4:14 — 256.

4:19 — 288.

5:1 — 909.

5:2 — 894, 911.

5:2, 3 — 917.

5:3 — 898.

5:6 — 288.

5:8 — 454, 455.

5:9 — 458.

2 Peter.

1:3 — 289, 842.

1:4 — 475, 515, 592, 685, 693, 797, 811.

1:10 — 311, 791, 844.

1:11 — 776.

1:16 — 157.

1:19 — 112.

1:19, 20 — 139.

1:21 — 137, 197, 200, 205, 317, 325, 339.

2:1 — 717, 771.

2:4 — 296, 382, 450, 464, 786.

2:4, 9 — 1024.

2:9 — 1000, 1002.

2:11 — 445.

3:2 — 200.

3:3‐12 — 1007.

3:4 — 236.

3:5 — 509, 558.

3:7, 10 — 1011, 1024.

3:7, 10, 13 — 1015.

3:7‐13 — 287.

3:15, 16 — 201.

3:16 — 200.

3:18 — 16, 311.

1 John.

1:1 — 674.

1:3 — 797.

1:5 — 250, 269, 273, 344.

1:7 — 719.

1:7, 8 — 645.

1:8 — 573.

1:9 — 289, 739.

1:12 — 856.

2:1 — 322, 339, 739, 774.

2:1, 2 — 323.

2:2 — 720.

2:7 — 40.

2:7, 8 — 263.

2:18 — 1006.

2:20 — 805, 897.

3:1, 2 — 474.

3:2 — 524, 663, 705, 806.

3:3 — 678.

3:3‐6 — 263.

3:4 — 552.

3:5‐7 — 677.

3:8 — 459.

3:9 — 418.

3:14 — 660, 992.

3:16 — 309.

3:20 — 647, 722.

4:1 — 440.

4:2 — 674, 684, 686.

4:7 — 68, 152, 570.

4:7, 8 — 4.

4:8 — 250, 263, 336, 520.

4:9 — 716.

4:10 — 720, 776.

4:13 — 844.

4:16 — 797.

4:19 — 694.

4:21 — 460.

5:1 — 893.

5:4 — 732.

5:6 — 943.

5:7 — 261, 288.

5:10 — 200, 844.

5:14, 15 — 848.

5:16, 17 — 650.

5:17 — 553.

5:18, 19 — 450.

5:19 — 574.

5:20 — 260, 308.

2 John.

7 — 686, 1005.

8 — 293.

3 John.

2 — 483.

Jude.

3 — 42, 200, 202, 905.

4 — 790.

6 — 165, 450, 458, 1046.

6, 7 — 1044.

9 — 165, 448.

19 — 484, 485.

21 — 324.

23 — 899.

25 — 275, 388.

28 — 1055.

Revelation.

1:1 — 140.

1:3 — 1007.

1:6 — 776, 917.

1:7 — 460, 710, 1004, 1005.

1:8 — 275, 310.

1:10 — 410.

1:10, 11 — 209.

1:18 — 1045.

1:20 — 452.

2: — 905.

2:1 — 916.

2:6 — 310.

2:7 — 999.

2:8 — 916.

2:11 — 983.

2:12 — 916.

2:13 — 448.

2:18 — 916.

2:21 — 841.

3:1 — 916, 992.

3:7 — 309, 916.

3:14 — 310, 916.

3:20 — 464, 791, 839, 1003.

3:21 — 805.

4:3 — 272.

4:6‐8 — 449.

4:8 — 296.

4:11 — 397, 406.

5:1, 7, 9 — 356.

5:6 — 333, 774.

5:9 — 449.

5:10 — 805.

5:11 — 447.

5:12 — 140.

5:13, 14 — 311

5:20 — 665.

6:9 — 483, 485.

6:9‐11 — 999.

6:10, 11 — 1002.

6:16 — 350.

7: — 896.

7:16 — 251.

7:16, 17 — 774.

8:28, 29 — 782.

10:6 — 278.

10:8‐11 — 823.

11:11 — 251.

11:17 — 889.

12:9‐12 — 457.

12:10 — 454.

12:11 — 732, 751.

12:12 — 445, 461.

13:8 — 266, 285, 298, 762.

14:10 — 464.

14:11 — 660.

14:13 — 999.

15:1‐4 — 273, 653.

15:2 — 274.

15:8 — 275.

15:13 — 325.

16:3 — 485.

16:5 — 273, 653.

16:10 — 448.

17:17 — 355.

18:13 — 445, 516.

19:2 — 273, 653.

19:5 — 653.

19:7 — 796.

19:9 — 209.

19:10 — 842.

19:14 — 448.

19:15, 16 — 775.

20:1‐5 — 403, 1015.

20:2 — 382, 455.

20:2, 3 — 425.

20:2‐10 — 445.

20:4‐6 — 1008.

20:6 — 805.

20:10 — 382, 457, 464.

20:11‐15 — 1011.

20:12 — 1023.

20:12, 13 — 1023, 1050.

20:13 — 1015.

20:14 — 983, 999.

20:15 — 781.

21:4, 5 — 1018.

21:5 — 209, 810, 1004.

21:8 — 983, 1048.

21:9 — 1048.

21:10 — 310.

21:11 — 1049.

21:14 — 909.

21:17 — 781.

21:22 — 893.

21:23 — 256, 712.

22:2 — 914.

21:27 — 790.

22:4 — 67.

22:6 — 200, 465.

22:8, 9 — 319, 453, 515.

22:9 — 446.

22:11 — 851, 852, 1001, 1048.

22:12, 20 — 1007.

22:13, 14 — 326.

22:14 — 527.

22:16 — 680, 697.

22:17 — 392, 547, 796.

Index Of Apocryphal Texts.

1 Esdras.

1:28 — 166.

1:38 — 261.

4:35‐38 — 320.

6:1 — 261.

2 Esdras.

3:7 — 626.

3:21 — 626.

6:55, 66 — 156.

7:11 — 626.

7:46 — 626.

7:48 — 626.

7:118 — 626.

9:19 — 626.

Tobit.

4:15 — 181.

Judith.

12:71 — 934.

Esther, Continuation of.

1:1 — 309.

Wisdom.

2:23, 24 — 626.

7:26 — 320.

7:28 — 320.

9:9, 10 — 320.

11:16 — 633.

11:17 — 377.

Ecclesiasticus, or Sirach.

Prologue — 166.

2:1 — 870.

2:30 — 865.

18:1 — 446.

24:23‐27 — 166.

25:24 — 626.

31:25 — 934.

48:24 — 166.

Baruch.

2:21 — 166.

Bel and the Dragon.

Book of — 115.

1 Maccabees.

Book of — 165, 309.

12:9 — 166.

2 Maccabees.

2:13‐15 — 167.

6:23 — 166.

7:28 — 377.

12:39 — 1043.

Book of Enoch.

165.

Assumption of Moses.

Book of — 165.

v. 9 — 658.

Index Of Greek Words.

ἄ οἶδεν, 67

ἀγαθῆς, 821

ἀγαθόν, 562, 687

ἀγαπάω, 264

ἀγάπη, 35, 342

ἀγάπην, τὴν, 1 John 3:16, = the personal Love, 309

ἀγγέλους, 706

ἀγιάζω, 728

ἀγνωσίαν Θεοῦ τινες ἔχουσιν, 68

ἀγῶνα, 870

ἀγωνίζου, 870

ἄγραφος νόμος, 541

ἀδικία, 552

ἄθεοι ἐν ῷ κόσμῳ, forsaken of God, 68

ἀθεράπευτον, 671

Ἄιδης, 994

ἀΐδιος, 1044, 1046

αἵματι, 753

αἱρετικὸς ἄνθρωπος, meaning in Titus 3:10, 974

αἴρων, its meaning in John 1:29, 719

αἴσθησις, spiritual discernment, Phil. 1:9, 440

αἰῶν, 1038, 1044, 1045, 1046

αἰῶνα, 307

αἰώνιος, 1038, 1044, 1045, 1046

αἰώνος, 1025

αἰώνων, πρὸ τῶν, 275

ἀλήθεια, 204, 549

ἀληθής, the Veracious, 260

ἀληθινός, 1 John 5:20, 151, 260, 308

ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο and the εἶς, 671

ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος and the συνάφεια, 671

ἁμαρτάνειν, Rom. 5:12, 19, 626

ἁμαρτάνουσιν, 626

ἁμαρτία, 552, 657, 706, 714, 761, 832, 851

ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν, 627

ἁμαρτωλὸν γίγνεσθαι, 626

ἀμνος, 151

ἀνά, 523

ἀναβαίνων, 935

ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι, 680

ἀναλῦσαι, 999

ἀνάστασιν μέλλειν, ἔσεσθαι, 998

ἀνδρός, 494

ἀνέβησαν, 935

ἀνήρ, 666

ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας, 210

ἄνθρωπος, 506, 523, 974

ἀνομία, the state of, 552

ἀντάλλαγμα, 717, 721

ἀντί, 717, 720

ἀντίληψεις, 902, 917, 918

ἀντίλυτρον, 717

ἀνυποστασία, 673, 679

ἄνω, 523

ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι, 1003

ἅπαξ, once for all, 200, 885, 967

ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, 222

ἀπαύγασμα, 336

ἀπεθάνετε, 803

ἀπειθήσασιν, 1 Pet. 3:20, 708

ἀπηλάθην, 233

ἀπηλγηκότες, 647

ἁπλῶς ἔν, τό, 245

ἀπό, 833, 1034

ἀπὸ ὁ ὦν, 151

ἀποκαλύπτεται, 26

ἀποκάλυψις, 13

ἀπομνημονεύματα, 148

ἀποδώσει, ἀποδώη, 231

ἀποθανῶν, 851

ἀποστασία, 552, 1008

ἀποστρέφω, 829

ἀποτέλεσμα, _genus apotelesmaticum_, 686

ἀπρόσληπτον καὶ ἀθεράπευτον, τὸ, a patristic dictum, 671

ἀπώλεια, 721, 993

ἀπώλετο, 993

ἀρνίον, 151

ἅρτι, 1003

ἀρτολατρία, 969

ἀρχάγγελος, 320

ἀρχή, 310, 675

ἀρχῇ, ἐν, 309

ἀρχήν, 450

ἀρχιερεύς, 320

ἀσέβεια, 552

ἀττικίζων, 665

αὐτομάτη, 393

αὐτός, 310

αὐτῷ, 837

αὐτῶν, 906

ἀφανίζω, 993

ἀφορίσατε, 906

βαπτίζω, 933, 934, 935, 937, 938, 942, 948

βάπτισμα, 933

βαπτισμός, 937

βάπτω, 933, 934, 938

βάρβαροι, 579

βασάνοις, ἐν, 999

βασιλευόντων, 445

βασιλεὺς τῶν αἰώνων, 275

βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, 151

βουλή, arbitrium, Willkür, 557

βραχύ τι, its translation in Heb. 2:7, 706

γέγονεν, 311

γέγραπται, 148

γενησόμενον, 1019

γενήσονται, 914

γενόμενος, 705

γένος, 681

γῆ, 393

γῆς ἐμῆς ἀπηλάθην, 233

γιγνώσκωσιν, 841

γινώσκεσθαι, 781

γινώσκω, 781

γνόντα, 761

γνώμη, 221

γνῶσις, 1 Tim. 6:20; _cf._ ἐπιγνωσις, 2 Pet. 1:2, 31, 841

γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, 26, 68

γραφή, ἡ, singular denotes unity, 199

δαίμων, 506

δεδικαίωμαι, δεδικαίωται, 851

δεύτερος θεός, applied by Philo to his Logos, 320

δεξάμενοι, 1 Thess. 1:6, 708

διὰ πίστιν, justification not, but διὰ πίστεως or ἐκ πίστεως, 864

διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν and διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος, Rom. 8:11, 488, 1017

διὰ τοῦτο, Rom. 5:12, 39

διαθήκην, 614

διακονεῖν τραπέζαις, 918

διακονία, 902, 917

διάκονος, 902

διάβολος, 454

διδακτικόν, 915

διδακτοῖς, 210

διδάσκαλος, 902

διῆλθεν, 623

δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται, 627

δίκαιος, 291

δικαιοσύνη, 852, 853

δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, that required and provided for by God, 847, 852, 853

δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω, 851

δικαιοσύνην, τὴν ἰδίαν, repudiated by Paul, 852

δικαιοσύνη πίστεως, or ἐκ πίστεως, 852

δικαιοσύνης, 753

δικαιόω, 850, 851, 853

δικαιωθέντης, 856

δικαίωμα, 852

δικαίωσις, 852, 853

δίχα, 483

διψᾷν, 151

δοκῶ, 242, 670

δόξης, 307, 336

δουλεύω, 576

δοῦλοι, 579

δράκοντα, τόν, ὁ ὄφις, 151

δυνάμεις, 117

δύο, 345

ἑαυτόν, LXX, for Hebrew “his soul,”, 485

ἑαυτούς, 780

ἐγγύς, Phil. 4:5, 1006

ἐγένετο, 687

ἔγνων, 781

εἶδον ὄχλος πολύς, 151

εἰκών, 335

εἶναι, τὸ, 377, 753

εἶπεν αὐτῷ, 306

εἶς, 313, 627, 671

εἰς, 935, 948

εἰς and ἐπί, Rom. 3:22, 722

εἰς αὐτόν, 837

εἰς ὄνομα, 312

εἰς σέ, 924

εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, 951

εἰς τὸν κόλπον, John 1:18, 337

ἐκ, 833, 891

Ἐκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, earliest work on Systematic
Theology, 44

ἐκείνος, applied to the Holy Spirit, 323

ἐκένωσεν, Phil. 2:7, 701

ἐκήρυξεν, 707

ἐκκλησία, 890, 891, 892, 905, 906, 912

ἐκκλησίαν, 308

ἐλευθερίας, 549

ἐληλυθότα, 687

ἐλλογᾶται, 594

ἕν, 313, 352

ἐν, its force with βαπτίζω, 935

ἐν ἀρχῇ, John 1:1, 309

ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, 687

ἔνδειξις, Rom. 3:25, 753

ἐνοικοῦν, ἐνοικοῦντος, 488, 1017

ἐνυποστασία, 679

ἕνωσις, 671

ἕνωσις ὑποστατική, 673

ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης, 377

ἐξακολευθέω, 157

ἐξηγήσατο, 349

ἐξιλάσομαι, 729, 737

ἐξ οὐκ ὅντων, ex nihilo, 2 Maccabees 7:28, 377

ἐξουσίαν, John 1:12, 825

ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, 873

ἐπενδύσασθαι, 2 Cor. 5:2, 4, 235, 998

ἐπερώτημα, 821

ἐπί, 772, 833

ἐπίγνωσις, 2 Pet. 1:12; cf. γνῶσις, 1 Tim. 6:20, 31, ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας,
832

ἐπιθυμία, state, 552

ἐπίσκοπος, 897, 902, 914, 915

ἐπισκοποῦντες, 914, 915

ἐπιστρέφω, 829

ἐπιταγὴ κυρίου, 221

ἐπιφάνεια, 307

ἐπιχορηγήσατε, 871

ἔργα, 117

ἔργον τοῦ Θεού, 847

ἔρχεται ὢρα, John 5:28‐30, 998

ἐσκήνωσεν, John 1:14, 234, 687

ἐστίν, 310, 562, 687

ἐτέθην, 919

εὐλογητός, Rom. 9:5, 306

εὐρεθείς, Phil. 2:8, 705

ἐφ᾽ ᾧ, Rom. 5:12, 39, 626

ἐφανερώθη, 308

ἐφθάρη, Gen. 6:11, LXX, 993

ἔχθρα, state, 552

ἐχθροί, 719

ζιζάνια, 149

ζωή, 311, 626, 1045

ζωογονοῦντος τὰ πάντα, 412, 883

ἡγούμενοι, 897

ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων, 506

ἠλάττωσας, 106

ἥμαρτον, 610, 622, 623, 625, 626

ἤν, 309, 310

ἠρεμία, rest, summit of Aristotle’s “slope”, 580

θάνατος, 626

θανατωθείς, 708

θεῖα, 166

θεῖον, 57, 681

θεῖος ἀνήρ, 666

θέλημα, _voluntas_, _Wille_, 557

θεόπνευστος, 197, 205

θεός, 57, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 321, 342, 517

θεοῦ, 731, 781 847

θηρίον, 151

θρήσκεια, 24

θρόνος, 307

θυσία, 728

ἱερώτατος, 203

ἱλάσκομαι, 728

ἱλασμός, 728

ἱλαστήριον, 753

Ἰορδάνην, 935

Ἰσαάκ, 517

καθαίρω, 728

καθορᾶται, 68

καιρῶ, 753

κακία, 552

καλέω, 891, 896

καλόν, 870

κανών, 145

καρποφορεῖ, 393

κατ᾽ οἶκον, Acts 2:46, 960, 961

καταβολῆς κόσμου, πρό, 275

κατάρα, 761

κατασταθήσονται, 627

κατεστάθησαν, 627

κατέβησαν, 935

κατηρτισμένα, Rom. 9:23, 780

κεντυρίων, 151

κηρύσσειν, 1 Pet. 3:18‐20, 707

κλῆρος, 911

κοινωνία, 1 Cor. 10:16, 17; 1 John 1:3, 796, 807, 965

κολαζομένους, 2 Pet. 2:9, 1000

κόλασις, Mat. 25:46; 1 John 4:18, 1036

κόλπῳ, 337

κόσμος, 563

κόσμος νοητός, 320

κόσμου, 275

κτίσεως, 341

κτίσις, _creatura_, 392

κτίστης, οὐ τεχνίτης, 388

κυβερνήσεις, 1 Cor. 12:28, 902, 917

κυριακή, _Kirche_, kirk, church, 891

κυριευόντων, 445

Κύριος, 306, 309

κυρίου, 308

Κυρίου Πνεύματος, 2 Cor. 3:18, 315

λαβών, Phil. 2:7, 705

λελουμένοι, 936

λόγια, 148

Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις, 149

λογισθείη, 594

λόγος, 2, 305, 306, 321, 335, 342, 549, 665, 687, 700

Λόγος κατηχητικὸς ὁ μέγας, by Gregory of Nyssa, 44

λόγος σπερματικός, 665

λόγος σοφίας, 200

λόγος τέλειος, 549

λόγου Θείου τινός, 111

λούω, 936

λύπη κατὰ Θεόν, 832

λύπη τοῦ κόσμου, 832

λύτρον, 717, 720, 721

μέγας θεός, ὁ, 57

μεσίτης, 710

μεταβολή, 672

μεταμέλεια, 833

μεταμέλομαι, 832

μετάνοια, 833

μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν, 761

μὴ ὄντος, 377

μόνη ἀρχή, 327

μονογενής, 336

μονογενής Θεός, variant in John 1:18, 306, 341

μορφῇ Θεοῦ, Phil. 2:6, 705

μορφὴν δούλου, 705

μύθοις, 157

μυστήριον, 691

μύω, 31

Μωσῆς ἀττικίζων, 665

νεανίσκοι, 918

νεκροῦ, 934

νέμω, 533

νεώτεροι, 918

νόμος, 533, 541

νόμος τέλειος, Jas. 1:25, 549

νοσῶν, 39

νοούμενα, Rom. 1:19‐21, 68

νοῦς, 33, 68, 352, 394, 670, 671

νῦν ἐστίν, 998

ὁ, in John 1:1 and 4:24, 305

ὁδηγεῖν, 151

οἱ πάντες, 2 Cor. 5:14, 623

οἱ πολλοί, Rom. 5:19, 627

οἶδεν, 67

οἰκεῖ, 562

οἰκία, 961

οἶκος, 960, 961

ὁμοιούσιον and ὁμοούσιον, 329, 336, 700

ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, ἐν, 706

ὁμοίως, 626

ὅν τρόπον, Acts 1:11, 1004

ὄνομα, 951

ὀργή, Rom. 1:18, 26

ὁρισθέντος, 341

ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, Gen. 4:7, 727

ὅτι οἶδεν, 67

οὐ τάξει, 149

οὐδὲν ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, 851

οὐδέποτε, 781

οὐρανός, 309

οὐρανῷ, 681, 686, 697

οὐσία, 333, 578, 673

οὔτως, Rom. 5:12, 626

παῖς, 697

πᾶν, τό, 102, 392

πάντα, τά, 102

πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, 311

πάντας, 772

πάντες ἥμαρτον, Rom. 5:12, 622, 623, 626

παρά, 337, 341

παραβαίνων, 614

παραθήκην, 149, 882

παρακαλῶ, 914

παράκλητος, 323, 339, 710

παρακοή, Rom. 5:19, 627

πάρεσις, 753

παρρησία, 808

πατήρ, 448

πατριά, 334, 448

πεινόν, 151

πεπίστευκας, 306

περί, 210, 714, 833

Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, of Origen, 44, 489

Περὶ τοῦ Πυθαγορικοῦ βίου, of Iamblicus, 111

περιπατεῖν, 151

περιχώρησις, 333

Πέτρῳ, 149

πεφυκός, 580

πιστεύοντας, 772

πιστεύω, 838

πίστεως, 753, 847, 864, 870

πίστις, 838, 851

πλήρωμα, 348, 796

πνεῦμα, 213, 323, 483‐488, 490, 491, 562, 670, 671, 686, 687, 688, 707,
1017

πνεύματι, 708

πνευματικόν, 1017

πνεύματος, 210

ποιεῖν, 151

ποιήμασιν, τοῖς, 68

ποιμαίνειν, 151, 914

ποιμάνατε, 914

ποιμένας, 902

ποιμήν, εἶς, 914

ποίμνη, μία, 914

ποίμνιον, 964

ποίνη, 652

πόλις, 337, 900

πολλοί, 627

πολλούς, 627

πολλῶν, 717, 720

πολυμερῶς, 221

πολυτροπῶς, 214

πονηρία, 552

πρασιαὶ πρασιαί, 151

πρεσβύτερος, 914, 915

προγινώσκω, 781

προέγνω, 781

προέθετο, 753

προῖστάμενος, 897, 902

πρός, John 1:1, 337

προσενέγκης, 727

προσενεχθείς, 967

προστάτης, 897

προσφορά, 728

πρόσωπον, 333, 673

προφήτης, 710

πρωτότοκος, 341

ῥαντίσωνται, variant in Mark 7:4, 934

ῥαντισμός, 937

σάρκα, 307

σαρκί, 562, 687

σαρκός, 687, 706

σάρξ, 552, 562, 563, 687

σέ, 924

σεσοφισμένοις, 157

σημεῖον, 117

σκηνοῦν ἐν, 151

σοφίζειν, 157

σπεκουλάτωρ, 151

σπερματικός, 665

σπερμάτων, 233

σύγχυσις, 672

συμβάλλειν, 42

συμπάσκομεν, 803

συμπεφυκώς, 941

συμπρεσβύτερος, 914

σύμφυτος, 796, 941

συμφωνήθη, συμφωνήσωσιν, 927

σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι, 999

συνάφεια, 671

συνδοξασθῶμεν, 803

συνεζωοποίησεν, 803

συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα, 821

συνεσταύρωμαι, 803

συνετάφημεν, 803

συνηγέρθητε, 803

συντέλεια, Mat. 13:39, 1025

σχολή, 38

σῶμα, 484, 487, 671, 1019

σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, 965

σῶσαι and σωθῆναι, 791

σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, 307

σώφρων, 1 Tim. 3:2, 39

τάξει, 149

τάσσω, 780

τέλειος, 879

τέλος, 675

τέμνω, 483, 484

τέρατα, 117

τεταγμένοι, Acts 13:43, 780

τετραχηλισμένα, 283

τεχνίτης, 388

τιμή, 717

τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, 26

τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ εἶς, τὸ δὲ καθ᾽ ἕνα, 151

τοῦ διδόντος Θεοῦ, 265, 440

τοῦτο, 781

τραπέζαις, 918

τρίχα, 484

τρόπον, 1005

ὕβρις, 569

ὑγιής, 39

ὕδατα, ὕδατος, 935

ὕδωρ, 935

υἱον, 307

υἱσθεσία, 335

ὔλη, 321, 378, 700

ὑπακοή, 627

ὑπακοή πίστεως, 847

ὑπέρ, 210, 710

ὑπέρ and ἀντί, 717

ὑπερβάλλουσα τῆς γνώσεως, 31

ὑποστάσεως, 336

ὑπόστασις, 333, 673

ὑποσταστική, 673

ὕστερον Πέτρω, 149

ὑστεροῦνται, 623

φανέρωσις, Rom. 1:19, 20, 13

φερόμενοι, 2 Pet. 1:21, 205

φθείρω, 993

φιλέω, 264

φυλακῇ, ἐν, 999

φύσις, _natura_, 392, 579

χαρακτήρ, Heb. 1:3, 336

χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος, 256

χάρις and ὀργή, 26

χειροτονήσαντες, 906, 907

Χριστός, 1016

Χριστοῦ, 965

χρόνος and αἰών, 1045

χωρίς, 311, 731

ψυχαί, 485

ψυχή, 352, 385, 483‐487, 490, 491, 671, 717, 1017

ψυχικοί, 485

ψυχικόν, 1017

ὤν, 349, 681, 686, 697

ὤρα, 998

ὡρισμένος, Acts 10:42, 780

ὡς ἄνθρωπος, 614

ὥψ, 523

Index Of Hebrew Words.

א, Codex Sinaiticus, 306, 308, 449, 681, 686, 697, 851, 891, 915, 934.

אניון, “poor,” whence term “Ebionite,”, 669

אדם, Hos. 6:7, כאדם, ὡς ἄνθρωπος LXX, “like men that break a covenant,”,
614

אדני, 309

אהיה, Exod. 3:14, I am, 252, 257

אל, a singular noun, might have been used instead of אלהים, 318

אלה, to fear, to adore, root of אלהים, 318

אלהים, 318
employed with singular verb, 318
applied to Son, 318
not a _pluralis majestaticus_, 318
according to Oehler, “a quantitative plural,”, 318
its derivation, 318

ברא, implies production of effect without natural antecedent, 375
in Kal used only of God, 375
never has accusative of material, 375
used, in Gen. 1 and 2, to mark introduction of world of matter, life,
and spirit, 374
distinguished from words signifying “to make” and “to form,”, 375
in Gen. 1:2, must mean “calling into being,”, 375
the original signification “to cut,” though retained in Piel, does not
militate against a more spiritual sense in other species,
376
the only word for absolute creation in Hebrew, 376
the meaning “creation by law” suggested, 392

רמות, “the likeness of God,” according to Moehler: “the pious exercise of
צלם, the religious faculty,”, 522
according to Romanist theologians, a product of man’s obedience, 520
a synonym of צלם, 521

זרע, “seed,” Gen. 22:18, referred to in Gal. 3:16, 233

חטא, ἁμαρτάνω, Hiphil, to make a miss, Judges 20:16, 552

חטאה, ἁμαρτία, missing, failure, applicable not merely to act but likewise
to state, 552

יהוה, 309

יום, “day,” Gen. 1, 35
its hyperliteral interpretation, 394
often used for a period of indefinite duration, 394
theory that “six days” indicates series merely, 395
a scheme harmonizing the Mosaic “six days” creation with the order of
the geologic record, 393‐397

יצר, 375

כרובים, Ez. 1, Ex. 37:6‐9, Gen. 3:24, 449
to be identified with the “seraphim” and “the living creatures,”, 449
are temporary symbolic figures, 449
symbols of human nature spiritualized and sanctified, 449
exalted to be the dwelling‐place of God, 449
symbols of mercy, 449
angels and cherubim never together, 449
in closing visions of Revelation no longer seen, 449
some regard them as symbols of divine government, 449
list of authorities on, 449

כתיב, 309

מלאף יהוה, identifies himself with Jehovah, 319
is so identified by others, 319
accepts divine worship, 319
with perhaps single exception in O. T., designates pre‐incarnate Logos,
319

עון, ἀδικία LXX, bending, perverseness, iniquity, referring to state as
well as act, 552

עשה, 375

פקר, judicial visitation, punishment, 657

פשע, ἀσέβεια LXX, separation from, rebellion, indicative of state as well
as act, 552

צלם, Gen. 1:26, according to Moehler, “the religious faculty,”, 522
according to Bellarmine, “ipsa natura mentis et voluntatis”, 522
according to Scholastic and Romanist theologians, alone belonged to
man’s nature at its creation, 520
required addition of supernatural grace that it might possess original
righteousness, 520
a synonym of דמות, 521

צדק, Hiphil form in Dan. 12:3, best rendered “they that justify many,”,
850

קהל, its meaning in O. T. and Targums, 892
perhaps used by Christ in Mat. 18:17, 892
how it differs from ἐκκλησία, 892

קרי, 309

רע, bad, evil, 552

רשע, a wicked person, 552

שאל, an alleged root of Sheol, 994

שעל, a probable root of Sheol, 994

של, 994

שאול, its derivation, 994
its root‐meaning, 994
the soul is still conscious in, 994
God can recover men from, 994

שרפים, Is. 6:2, to be identified with the “cherubim” of Genesis, Exodus
and Ezekiel, and with “the living creatures” of Revelation,
449

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Systematic Theology (Volume 3 of 3)" ***

Home