Part Second. Doctrines of the Holy Scriptures

PART SECOND. DOCTRINES OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

OUTLINE

I. DOCTRINES RELATING TO GOD.

(A.) Existence: (Ch. 1.)

(B.) Attributes: (Ch. 2.-7.)

(C.) Persons:

(I.) Doctrine of Trinity, (Ch. 8, 9.)

(II.) Divinity of Christ, (Ch. 10.-15.)

(III.) Humanity of Christ, (Ch. 16.)

(IV.) Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost, (Ch. 17.) II. DOCTRINES RELATING TO MAN.

(A.) Original sin: (Ch. 18.)

(B.) Redemption:

(I.) Principles of, (Ch. 19.-22.)

(II.) Benefits of, (Ch. 23.-29.)

I. DOCTRINES RELATING TO GOD. — (Ch. 1.-17.)

(A.) — EXISTENCE OF GOD. (Ch. 1.)

(I.) Source of the idea.

I. From the sacred writings.

1. From the names of God as recorded in Scripture:

2. From the actions which the Scriptures ascribe to him:

3. From the attributes with which they invest him.

II. From the sacred writings alone.

1. The language of the Christian philosophers, in regard to the Deity, is very different from the inconsistent and grovelling views of the sages of antiquity: e. g., Barrow, Pearson, Lawson, and Newton, are quoted.

2. The question of man’s ability to discover the existence of a first cause, cannot be determined by matter of fact

3. Nor can the abstract probability of such discovery be sustained. (1.) Uneducated man is a creature of appetite: — but he cannot be educated without civilization and society: — these have never existed, and we may safely say, can never exist, without a religious basis: but by the hypothesis, that basis, viz., the idea of God, is wanting.

(2.) Clear as the argument a posteriori now appears to us, yet all history shows that the eternity of matter has been an impassable barrier in the way of human reasoning, unaided by revelation, in the attempt to establish a divine existence.

(3.) The doctrine of innate ideas is exploded.

(II.) Proofs.

I. Preliminary observations.

(a.) On the relation of cause and effect.

1. The principle is, that nothing exists or comes to pass without an EFFICIENT CAUSE.

2. Hume (probably following Hobbes) objects to this principle on the ground, that what we suppose to be necessary connexions, in nature, are or may be only habitual sequences, and that we cannot demonstrate them to be otherwise.

3. Answered by Dugald Stewart, who admits Hume’s doctrine indeed, but nullifies its evil results, by his distinction between efficient and physical causes. But

4. Our author supposes the true state of the case to be

(1.) That there are efficient causes, and that the relation between them and their effects is necessary.

(2.) That there are physical causes, the relation between which and their effects is necessary in this sense, viz., that GOD has established a certain order in nature, by which his own efficiency exerts itself. This is a very different notion from the unsatisfactory one of habitual sequence. (b.) On the distinction between argument a priori and a posteriori. Superiority of the latter in this case.

II. Proof of the existence of God.

1. Locke’s argument. “I exist: I did not always exist: whatever begins to exist must have a cause: that cause must be adequate: this adequate cause is unlimited: it must be God.”

2. Howe’s argument. The same, but more expanded, thus: (1) Somewhat hath existed from eternity: hence (2) must be uncaused: hence (3) independent: hence (4) necessary: hence (5) self-active and hence (6) originally vital, and the source of all life.

III. Proof of the intelligence of God.

1. Dr. Samuel Clarke’s argument from the intelligence of man, and the variety, order, excellence, and contrivance of things: and especially from the existence of motion.

2. This last (viz., motion) expanded, from Howe’s Living Temple.

3. The basis of NATURAL THEOLOGY, as found in Howe’s Living Temple, — “Whatever exists, with the marks of wisdom and design upon it, had a wise and designing CAUSE. “ Illustrations,

(1.) A watch presented to an observer for the first time.

(2.) Much more, the heavenly bodies exhibit wisdom and contrivance.

(3.) The human frame especially.

1. The double members and their uses.

2. The eye, with its curious optical mechanism.

3. The spine: and, besides the frame of the body,

(4.) Its animal functions, and those of terrestrial creatures, viz.:

1. Growth.

2. Nutrition.

3. Spontaneous motion.

4. Sensation.

(5.) Intellectual powers of man.

4. The instances of the watch, the eye, the double organs, and the spine largely illustrated by quotations from Paley’s Natural Theology. IV. Proof of the personality of God.

(III.) Remarks.

I. Absurdity of Atheism.

1. As to the eternity of the world.

2. As to the eternity of unorganized matter.

3. Some modern schemes of Atheism, viz.:

(1.) Buffon’s organic molecules.

(2.) The system of appetencies. No other answer necessary than that these schemes are entirely wanting in evidence.

II. Character of the argument a priori.

1. It is unsatisfactory, and tends to lead men away from the sure argument, pointed out by Scripture, from “the things which do appear.”

2. The existence itself of a supreme Being can hardly be shown by this method. Indeed, even Dr. S. Clarke first proves the existence of “one unchangeable and independent Being,” a posteriori.

3. Some objections to Dr. S. Clarke’s view of the necessary existence of the supreme Being.

The being of God is necessary, because it is underived; not underived because it is necessary.

(B.) — ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. (Ch. 2.-7.)

I. UNITY. (Ch. 2.)

(I.) Scriptural testimony. Deuteronomy 6:4; 4:35, &c.

1. The Scriptural notion is, that GOD is a pure simple being: so one, that there are no other gods: so one, that there can be no other gods.

2. If we admit the Scriptures, we admit a Deity: if we admit one God, we exclude all others.

(II.) Evidence from reason.

1. A priori argument is here unobjectionable, if logical.

(1.) Dr. Clarke’s shown to be useless.

(2.) Wollaston’s, Wilkins’, and Pearson’s arguments stated.

(3.) The best argument of the kind is that from the idea of absolute perfection.

2. Proofs may be derived also from the works of God.

(1.) In the harmony of the universe we discern but one Will and one Intelligence, and therefore but One Being.

(2.) Uniformity of plan in the universe, is a proof of the unity of God. Illustrations by Paley.

(III.) Importance of this doctrine.

The unity of God the basis of all true religion.

II. SPIRITUALITY. (Ch. 2.)

(I.) Scriptural testimony: “GOD is a SPIRIT.” Similar passages abound. The immateriality of the divine Being is important, because of its connexion with the doctrine of the immortality of the human soul. (II.) Evidence from reason, both as to the spiritual nature of GOD, and the unthinking nature of matter.

1. GOD is intelligent, therefore GOD is a spiritual Being, because intelligence is not a property of matter. For

(1.) Unorganized matter is certainly unintelligent, hence intelligence cannot be an essential property of matter; but it is an essential attribute of Deity, hence the Deity cannot be material.

(2.) Nor is intelligence the result of material organization, for

1. Vegetables are unintelligent.

2. Were intellect constantly conjoined with animal organization, we could deny the necessity of such connexion, but we deny this supposed constant connexion, and thus take away the basis of Priestley’s argument. This denial is based upon the following:

a.) The organization of the human frame is often perfect after death. But dead men do not think.

b.) The organism of Adam’s body was complete before he became a “living soul.”

(3.) But we may be told, that the subject supposed in the argument is a living organized being. This introduces a new element, viz., life, into the argument; but

1. Vegetables live, and yet do not think.

2. The organic life of Bichat is common to animals and vegetables.

3. The animal life is defined by Bichat, Lawrence, and even by Cuvier, to be the “sum total of its functions of a certain class.” Absurdity of this shown by quotations from Rennell and Barclay.

(4.) Further proofs that matter is incapable of thought, drawn from its essential properties of extension, impenetrability, divisibility, &c., none of which belong to thought.

(5.) The notions, matter and mind, are merely relative. Reid. Stewart. Immateriality of brutes not denied.

III. ETERNITY. (Ch. 3.)

1. Scriptural notion, God had no beginning and shall have no end: “From everlasting to everlasting,” &c.

2. These representations evidently convey something more than the mere idea of infinite duration. Life is essential to GOD: he lives by virtue of his own nature, which can be said of him alone.

3. Some obscure notions of the eternity prevailed among the heathens, probably derived from the Jewish Scriptures.

4. Doctrine of the Eternal Now repudiated.

(1.) Duration, as applied to GOD, is an extension of the same idea, as applied to ourselves.

(2.) The objection to this, (viz., that it would argue imperfection,) arises from the confounding succession in the duration with change in the substance.

(3.) If it be said that succession is only an artificial method of conceiving or measuring duration, it may be answered, that leagues measure the ocean, but leagues are not the ocean, though both leagues and the ocean may actually exist.

IV. OMNIPOTENCE. (Ch. 3.)

(I.) Scriptural testimony.

1. Reasons why this attribute is so much dwelt upon by the sacred writers, viz., to secure the obedience, worship, and confidence of man.

2. Mode of its exhibition in the Scriptures.

(a.) By the fact of creation.

(b.) By the vastness and variety of the works of God.

(c.) By the ease with which he is said to create and uphold all things. (d.) By the terrible descriptions given of the divine power. (e.) By the subjection of all intelligent beings to his will.

3. The power of all these descriptions lies in their truth.

4. The works of GOD manifestations, but not the measure, of his omnipotence.

(II.) Only limitation to the divine power: no working of contradictions, or impossibilities.

V. OMNIPRESENCE. (Ch. 3.)

1. Scriptural testimony.

2. Heathen notions of omnipresence: some striking, but all defective.

3. Similar errors pervade the infidel philosophy of modern times.

4. The Scriptural phrases in which this doctrine is conveyed, must be taken in their common-sense acceptation.

5. Illustrations of this doctrine from the material world, quoted from Amory and Paley.

6. The a priori argument stated.

7. The manner in which God is everywhere present, incomprehensible. VI. OMNISCIENCE. (Ch. 4.)

(I.) Scriptural statement of the doctrine.

1. Direct texts: “Great is the Lord, his understanding is INFINITE,” &c.

2. Argument in Psalm 94, from the communication of knowledge to men, illustrated by a quotation from Tillotson.

3. The sacred writers refer to the works of God for confirmation. (II.) The Pagans had many fine sentiments in regard to the divine omniscience, but the moral of the doctrine was wanting.

(III.) The doctrine of foreknowledge examined. Unquestionably it is a Scriptural doctrine; but from its difficulty, &c., three theories have arisen: —

(1.) Theory of Chevalier Ramsay. “It is a matter of choice in God, to think of finite ideas.” Answer to this theory,

1. God’s omnipotence is an infinite capacity, but omniscience actually comprehends all things that are or can be.

2. Choice implies a reason, and that implies knowledge of the things rejected.

3. Some contingent actions have been foreknown by God, and indeed foretold by his prophets.

(2.) Theory, — “That prescience of contingent events implies a contradiction, hence the absence of such prescience is no dishonour to God.” Answer,

(a.) This theory is defective so long as the Scriptures are allowed to contain prophecies of rewardable and punishable actions, such as

1. The long course of events connected with the destruction of Babylon.

2. The contingencies involved in the destruction of Jerusalem. (b.) The principle, that “certain prescience destroys contingency,” cannot be sustained. 1.) The manner of the divine prescience is indeed incomprehensible, but the fact is undeniably asserted in Scripture; but 2.) The principle itself is founded upon a sophism, which lies in supposing that contingency and certainty are opposed to each other: while in fact they are not; but contingency and necessity. It is knowledge, and not influence. Opinions of Dr. Samuel Clarke, Dr. Copleston, and Curcellæus.

(3.) Theory, — “That the foreknowledge of God must be supposed to differ so much from anything of the kind in ourselves, that no argument respecting it can be grounded on our imperfect notions.” — maintained by Archbishop King and Dr. Copleston. Objections to this theory are, (a.) The difficulty is shifted, not taken away.

(b.) These notions are dangerous: — for if, in the language of Archbishop King, “we can have no proper notion of the faculties we ascribe to the divine Being,” we have no proper revelation of the divine character at all. But, to examine more minutely, we say that this theory introduces difficulties, instead of removing them; and

1. It assumes that our notions of God are framed from the results of our observation of his works, &c., which is not the case; — they are derived from express revelation.

2. We may form a true notion, though not an adequate one, of the divine perfections. To be incomprehensible is not to be unintelligible.

3. This theory assumes that the nature of God is essentially different from the spiritual nature of man, which is not the doctrine of Scripture.

4. Wherever the language of Scripture is metaphorical, it is distinctly so; — so that the argument drawn from the ascription of bodily functions, and even of human passions, to the divine Being, fails when applied to intellectual and moral powers.

(c.) We say then, lastly, that there is no incongruity between divine prescience and human freedom, unless influence be superadded to necessitate the human will, Quotation from Edwards.

VII. IMMUTABILITY. (Ch. 5.)

(I.) Scriptural statement. “Of old thou hast said,” &c. “I am the Lord, I change not.” With parallel passages.

(II.) Confirmations from observation.

1. The stability of the general order of nature.

2. The moral government of God, and

(III.) This immutability is not temporary, but a sovereign, essential perfection of the Deity, as we learn from Scripture. He changes not, because he is “the Lord.”

(IV.) The divine immutability is not contradicted, but confirmed, by the variety of his operations, regards, and affections, toward the same creatures under different circumstances.

(V.) Cautions are necessary against certain speculations on the divine immutability — such as, that there are no emotions and no succession of ideas with God, — or, according to Ridgely, that “God’s knowledge is independent of the object known.”

1. In these, the distinction between things possible and things actual is overlooked.

2. And also the distinction between God’s knowledge of all possible things, and of those things to which he determined, before the creation, to give actual existence.

(VI.) The liberty of God is closely allied to his immutability, and a proper idea of this will correct the false notions above alluded to. VIII. WISDOM. (Ch. 5.)

(I.) The Scriptures testify abundantly to the nice application of God’s knowledge to secure his own ends.

(II.) A few of the characters of the divine wisdom, as thus exhibited.

1. It acts for worthy ends.

2. Its means are simple: great effects from few elements.

3. Variety of equally perfect operation: e. g. (1.) Variety of form. (2.) Variety of magnitude.

4. The connexion and dependence of the works of God.

5. The means by which offending men are reconciled to God, — the most eminent manifestations of the wisdom of God.

IX. GOODNESS. (Ch. 6.)

(I.) Scriptural testimony.

1. It is goodness of nature, an essential perfection of the divine character.

2. It is efficient and inexhaustible: — it “endureth forever.”

3. The divine Being takes pleasure in the exercise of it: — he “delights in mercy.”

4. Nothing, capable of happiness, comes from his hand, except in circumstances of positive felicity.

(II.) Evidence from the natural and moral world.

(1.) The dark side. 1.) Positive evils on the globe: volcanoes, sterility, &c. 2.) Diseases and sufferings of the human race. 3.) Sufferings and death of animals.

(2.) The bright side. 1.) Design of every contrivance essentially beneficial: e. g., teeth are contrived to eat, not to ache. But to this may be objected

(1) venomous animals, and (2) animals preying upon one another. As to (1.) So far as the animal itself is concerned, the contrivance is good. As to (2.) The following points are to be considered. 1.) Immortality on earth is out of the question. 2.) Is not death in this way better than decay? 3.) The system is the spring of motion and activity to brutes. The bright side. 2.) The happiness of animal existence. 3.) Many alleviations of positive evils. 4.) Many ills are chargeable upon man’s own misconduct. Consider an individual case, — the good circumstances about him far counterbalance all other.

(3.) The theory of optimism: viz., that the present system is the best which the nature of things would admit.

1. The very principle of this hypothesis implies an unworthy notion of God: considering it (1) as to natural, (2) as to moral evils.

2. We deny, then, that “whatever is, is best.” We can not only conceive a better state of things, but can show that the evils of the present state do not necessarily exist. Sin has entered into the world, and God is just, as well as good.

3. The state of the world exactly answers to the Scriptural representations of the relations between man and God. Illustrated by quotations from Gisborne, 1.) As to the actual appearance of the globe. 2.) By reference to the general deluge. 3.) By the human frame. 4.) By the occupations of man — farmers — shepherds — miners — manufacturers — merchants. (III.) The origin of evil. There are four leading opinions.

1. Necessity.

2. The Manichean doctrine of duality.

3. The doctrine that God is the author of sin. And

4. That evil is the result of the abuse of moral freedom.

1. Refutes itself.

2. Is now given up.

3. Found among the most unguarded Calvinistic writers, but now generally abandoned.

4. Is the opinion generally adopted, and agrees with the Scriptural statement of the creation and fall of man.

(IV.) The mercy of God is a mode of his goodness.

X. HOLINESS. (Ch. 7.)

Preliminary. 1. It is clear that GOD “loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity.”

2. And this from some essential principle of his nature. This principle we call holiness, which exhibits itself in two great branches, viz.: — (I.) JUSTICE,

1. Character of, when particular, (not universal.)

(a.) Legislative, which determines man’s duty and binds him to its performance.

(b.) Judicial or distributive, which respects rewards and punishments; and is either 1) præmiative, or 2) vindictive, but always impartial.

2. Reconciled with the divine administration.

(a.) By the fact that man is under a dispensation of mercy. (b.) By the doctrine of general judgment, which is grounded on that of redemption.

3. Inferences.

(a.) That great offenders may prosper in this life, without impeachment of God’s government.

(b.) That God’s children may be afflicted and oppressed. (c.) That an administration of grace may be apparently unequal without injustice. But,

(d.) As nations have no posthumous existence, national rewards and punishments have been in all ages visible and striking.

(II.) TRUTH, which in Scripture is contemplated under the two great branches of veracity and faithfulness.

1. His veracity regards his word. No deception here.

2. His faithfulness regards his engagements, which never fail. A few general ascriptions of excellence may here be noticed. 1.) God is perfect. 2.) God is all-sufficient. 3.) God is unsearchable. Support each by Scriptural passages.

(C.) — PERSONS OF THE GODHEAD.

(I.) DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. (Ch. viii, 9.)

I. Preliminary remarks and explanations.

1. This doctrine cannot be demonstrated either a priori or a posteriori. Attempts of Poiret, Kidd, &c., noticed. It rests entirely on Scripture.

2. Pretensions to explain this doctrine are highly objectionable.

3. Perhaps it may be admitted that types and symbols of the mystery of the trinity are to be found in natural objects.

4. Explanation of the term person: 1.) In ordinary language. 2.) In a strict philosophical sense. It is not applied in the latter sense to the divine Being; but the distinct persons are represented as having a common foundation in one being: the manner of the union being incomprehensible. Objection to the term, as not being Scriptural, answered.

5. Leading differences of opinion among the orthodox. Howe, Waterland, Pearson, Bull.

II. Importance of the doctrine stated, (I.) Chiefly in answer to Dr. Priestley.

1. The knowledge of GOD is fundamental to religion.

2. Dr: P. allows its necessity “to explain some particular texts.” But we can show that these “texts” comprehend a large portion of Scripture.

3. Our views of God, as the object of our worship, are affected.

4. Dr. P. objects, “that no fact in nature, nor purpose in morals, requires this doctrine.”

1.) As to the natural world, (1.) It is adapted to the scheme of orthodox Christianity, and not to Socinianism, which does not admit of redemption. (2.) The duration of the natural world, is another relation to theology. It was made for Christ.

2.) As to morals. (1.) Morals are conformity to a divine law, which must take its character of its Author. (2.) Faith is obedience to command, and therefore part of morals.

(II.) Importance of this doctrine, on broader grounds.

1. Our love to God, which is the substance of religion, is essentially affected by our views of this doctrine.

2. In other equally essential views, the denial of Christ’s divinity essentially alters the Christian scheme, viz.

1.) The doctrine of atonement is denied by Socinians, though inconsistently admitted by Arians.

2.) Views of the evil of sin are essentially modified.

3.) The character of Christian experience essentially changed, as to repentance, faith, prayer, love, &c.

4.) The religious affections of hope, trust, joy, &c., are all interfered with.

5.) The language of the Church of Christ must be altered and brought down to these views.

6.) The doctrine of divine agency must be changed.

3. The denial of the doctrine of the trinity affects the credit of the Holy Scriptures; for if this doctrine be not contained in them, their tendency to mislead is obvious.

III. Difficulties are said to attend the reception of this doctrine. But,

1. Mere difficulty in conceiving of what is proper to God, forms no objection.

2. No contradiction is implied in this great doctrine.

3. The Arian and Socinian hypotheses do not relieve us from difficulties. IV. Scripture testimony. (Ch. 9.)

Preliminary. Every argument in favour of the trinity flows from the principle of the absolute UNITY of God, which is laid down in the Scriptures with the utmost solemnity, and guarded with the utmost care by precepts, threatening, and promises. But in examining what the Scriptures teach concerning this ONE GOD, we find that,

A. The very names of God have plural forms, and are connected with plural modes of speech.

Examples: Deuteronomy 6:4; Aleim; Adonim, &c.

B. Three persons, and three ONLY, are spoken of in Scripture under divine titles. Example

1. Solemn form of Jewish benediction. Num. 6:24-27.

2. The vision of Isaiah, with the allusions to it by St. John and St. Paul in the New Testament.

3. Various passages in the New Testament might be cited — in which sometimes two, sometimes three, but never more than three, persons are spoken of. 1 John 5:7, is laid out of the argument, as uncertain. C. The great proof on which the doctrine rests: — the multiplied instances in which two persons are spoken of, as associated with God in his perfections.

1. The outline of Scriptural testimony is given, as to the SON.

2. The same as to the SPIRIT.

Therefore, as the Scriptures uniformly declare but ONE GOD, and yet do throughout declare three persons DIVINE, — we harmonize these apparently opposite doctrines in the proposition — THE THREE PERSONS ARE ONE GOD. These views are maintained in the orthodox church, and are chargeable with no greater mystery than is assignable to the Scriptures. We do not give up the unity of God. The Socinian unity is a unity of one: ours is a unity of three.

(II.) DIVINITY OF CHRIST, (Ch. 10-15,) proved,

A. BY HIS PRE-EXISTENCE, (Ch. 10.)

B. BECAUSE HE WAS THE JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, (Ch. 11.)

C. BECAUSE DIVINE TITLES ARE ASCRIBED TO HIM, (Ch. 12.)

D. BECAUSE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES BELONG TO HIM, (Ch. 13.)

E. BECAUSE DIVINE ACTS ARE ASCRIBED TO HIM, (Ch. 14.)

F. BECAUSE DIVINE WORSHIP IS PAID TO HIM, (Ch. 15.)

A. PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. (Ch. 10.)

The pre-existence of Christ, if established, though it does not affect the Arian, destroys the Socinian hypothesis: hence both ancient and modern Socinians have bent all arts of interpretation against those passages which expressly declare it, of which the following are examples: —

1. John 1:15: “He that cometh after me is preferred before me, for he was before me.” The Socinians interpret the last clause in the sense of dignity, and not of time. But John uses the same phrase elsewhere in regard to priority of time. If the last referred to the dignity of Christ, it would have been esti, not hn, — he is, not he was.

2. The passages which express that Christ came down from heaven.

(1.) The early Socinians supposed that Christ was translated to heaven after his birth. Unsupported by Scripture.

(2.) The modern Socinians conveniently resolve the whole into figure: —

1. Ascending into heaven. 2. Coming down from heaven.

3. John 6:62: “What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend to where he was before?”

4. The phrase, to “be sent from God.”

5. John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I am.”

6. John 17:5: “The glory which I had with thee before the world was.” It has thus been shown that Christ had an existence previous to his incarnation, and previous to the very foundation of the world. B. JESUS CHRIST THE JEHOVAH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. (Ch. xi,) In the Old Testament we cannot fail to notice the frequent supernatural appearances to the ancient patriarchs and prophets. The facts cannot be disputed; and in order to show their bearing upon the question of the divinity of Christ, we have three propositions to establish, viz.: — I. The person who made these appearances was truly a DIVINE PERSON.

1. Proof. He bears the names of the divine Being, and was the object of worship to the Israelites. (1.) Hagar in the wilderness. (2.) Abraham in the plains of Mamre. (3.) Isaac and Jacob. (4.) The same Jehovah visible to Moses. The same JEHOVAH attended the Israelites.

2. Objections. (1.) This personage is called “the Angel of the Lord.” Ans. Angel is a designation of office, not of nature. The collation of a few passages will show that JEHOVAH and the Angel of the Lord, in this eminent sense, were the same person. (2.) The Arian hypothesis is, that the appearing angel was Christ personating the Deity. Shown to be untenable.

(3.) The Socinian notion is the marvellous doctrine of occasional personality, to use Priestley’s term. Mysterious and absurd enough. II. This divine person was NOT God the Father.

1. The argument from the passage, “No man hath seen God,” &c. is plausible, but cannot be depended upon.

2. The real argument is from the appellation angel.

III. This divine person WAS the promised Messiah, and consequently JESUS CHRIST.

(1.) Scriptural proof.

1. Jeremiah asserts that the new covenant was to be made by the same person who made the old: “Behold the days come,” &c.

2. Malachi’s striking prediction, “Behold I will send my messenger,” &c. This prophecy is expressly applied to Christ, by St. Mark.

3. “The voice of him that crieth,” &c. Here the application of the prophecy was expressly made to our Lord, by the Baptist.

4. “Behold a virgin shall conceive,” &c. “Unto us a child is born.”

5. Psalm 68. is applied by St. Paul to Christ.

6. Christ is represented by St. Peter, as preaching by his Spirit in the days of Noah.

7. St. Paul, 1 Corinthians, “Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted.”

8. Hebrews 12:25, 26, “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh.”

(2.) Confirmation by the testimony of the fathers, viz.: — Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clemens, Origen, Theophilus, Cyprian, Hilary, and Basil.

(3.) Two objections to this doctrine from Scripture are easily answered.

1. “God who at sundry times,” &c. Ans. We do allow the occasional manifestation of the Father to be recorded in the Old Testament.

2. “If the word spoken by angels,” &c. Here the apostle refers to the judicial law which was given through angels. They were not the authors of the law, but the medium of its communication to men.

IV. DIVINE TITLES ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. (Ch. 12.)

If the titles given to Christ in the Scriptures are such as can designate a divine Being, then is Christ divine, otherwise the Scriptures deceive. I. The title JEHOVAH.

Instances of this have already been given, and indeed Socinians admit the fact by their attempts to explain it away: — thus Dr. Priestley asserts that the name JEHOVAH is sometimes given to places. Miserable pretence. Force of the argument distinctly stated.

II. The title LORD, (Kuriov,) which is applied to Christ in the New Testament, is in its highest sense universally allowed to belong to GOD: and we can show that it is applied to Christ in this highest sense.

1. Both by the LXX. and the writers of the New Testament, it is the term by which the name JEHOVAH is translated.

2. When the title is not employed in the New Testament to render the name Jehovah, it is still manifest, by the context, that the writers considered and used it as a divine title.

III. The title GOD. It is admitted even by Socinians, that Jesus Christ is called God. We have then to show

1. That in its highest sense, the term GOD involves the notion of absolute divinity. Sir I. Newton and Dr. S. Clarke consider it a relative term, importing, strictly, nothing more than dominion. Ans. (1.) By Dr. Waterland. (2.) By Dr. Randolph.

2. That the term is found used of Christ in this highest sense.

(1.) Matthew 1:23, “EMANUEL — God with us.” The Socinians object to this passage, 1.) That it is of doubtful authority; but this objection rests on (confessedly) a narrow foundation. 2.) That the divinity of Christ can no more be argued from the name EMANUEL, than the divinity of Eli, whose name signifies “my God.” But this was the common name of Eli; not so Emanuel, which was a descriptive title, given by revelation.

(2.) Luke 1:16, 17: “And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the LORD THEIR GOD,”

(3.) John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the WORD was with God, and the Word was God,” &c. 1.) The Logos in this passage is called God, in the highest sense. Three reasons. 2.) Criticism on the Greek article, annexed by Dr. Middleton. 3.) Socinians assert that ginomai never signifies to create. Ans. It is thus used in the following passages: Hebrews 4:3; Hebrews 11:3; James 3:9. 4.) They translate the passage also, “All things were made for him.” This interpretation effectually destroys the other. But dia, with a genitive, denotes not the final but the efficient cause.

(4.) John 20:28: “Thomas answered… my Lord and my God.” Socinians make this a mere ejaculation!

(5.) Titus 2:13: “Looking for that blessed hope… great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

(6.) Hebrews 1:8: “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.” Two Socinian objections answered.

(7.) 1 John 5:20: “This is the true God, and eternal life.”

(8.) Romans 9:5: “Whose are the fathers… God blessed forever.” 1.) Four points to be noted in regard to this text. 2.) All attempts to weaken the force of this powerful passage have failed.

IV. The title “KING OF ISRAEL.” The writers of the New Testament could not use this appellation in a lower sense than that which it holds in the Old Testament: it is sufficient to show that it was understood by the Jews to imply divinity. 1.) Nathanael’s exclamation, and 2.) The expressions of the revilers at the crucifixion, are sufficient proofs of this. V. The title “SON OF GOD,” demands a larger notice, inasmuch as Socinians restrain its significance to the mere humanity of Christ; and many who hesitate not to admit the divinity of Christ, coincide with the Socinians as to the Sonship. This subject is treated as follows: — The fact is not disputed, that the title Son of God was applied to Christ. The question then is, what this title imported. One opinion is, (I.) That the title was assumed by Christ because of his miraculous conception. But

1. Our Lord always permitted the Jews to consider him the son of Joseph.

2. When arguing with the Jews, expressly to establish that God was his Father, Christ made no reference to the miraculous conception.

3. Nathanael knew not but Christ was son of Joseph, yet called him “The Son of God, and the King of Israel.”

4. The confession of Peter. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” was made without reference to the miraculous conception; and probably before that fact was made known to the apostles. (II.) Another opinion is, that the title, “SON OF GOD,” was simply an appellation of Messiah, — an official, not a personal designation. But the evangelical history fully refutes this notion, by showing that the Jews regarded the title “SON OF GOD” as necessarily involving a claim to divinity, but did not so regard “MESSIAH.”

(III.) In the Old Testament we find that the title, “Son of God,” was a personal designation; that the Sonship was essential, but the Messiahship accidental.

1. Psa. 2: “Thou art my SON, this day have I begotten thee.” (1.) This cannot be interpreted with reference to the miraculous conception. (2.) Nor with reference to the resurrection; for 1.) Christ was asserted to be the “beloved Son,” before his resurrection; and 2.) Paul, in the Epistle to the Romans, tells us that the resurrection of Christ was the declaration of his Sonship, not the ground of it. Argument corroborated by a quotation from Witsius.

2. Proverbs 8:22. Solomon introduces the personal wisdom of God, under the same relation of a Son.

The ancient Jewish writers speak of the generation of “Wisdom,” and by that term mean “the Word.”

3. Micah 5:2: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephrata,” &c. This passage carefully distinguishes the human nature from the eternal generation: — as two goings forth are spoken of, 1.) A natural one, “from Bethlehem to Judah;” 2.) Another and higher, “from the days of eternity.” The glosses of Priestley and others, which would make this passage refer to the promises or purpose of God from everlasting, are shown to be absurd.

4. Proverbs 30:4: “What is his name, and what is his Son’s name,” &c. Here there is no reference to Messiahship.

Thus the Scriptures of the Old Testament furnished the Jews with the idea of a personal Son in the divine nature.

(IV.) The same ideas of divine Sonship are suggested in the New Testament.

1. “When Jesus was baptized… This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (1.) This name, Son of God, was not here given with reference to the resurrection. (2.) Nor with reference to the Messiahship. Nor (3.) With reference to the miraculous conception. It must follow then that CHRIST was, in a higher nature than his human, and for a higher reason than an official one, the “Son of God.”

2. The epithet, “only begotten,” affords further proof of the Sonship of Christ in his divine nature.

3. Those passages which declare that all things were made by the Son, and that God “sent his Son,” imply that the Creator was the Son of God before he was sent into the world.

It is assumed, but not proved, by some, that the title Son is thus applied by a mere interchange of titles between the human and divine nature.

4. Those passages which connect the title “Son” immediately, and by way of eminence, with the divinity, remain to be considered. Such are — “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.” John 5:17. “I and my Father are one.” John 10:30. “Art thou the Son of God?” Ans. by Christ: “Ye say that I am.”

5. In the apostolic writings we find equal proof that the title “Son of God” was used even by way of opposition to the human nature, (1.) Romans 1:3, 4: “Declared to be the Son of God with power,” &c. (2.) The apostle’s argument in the first chapter of Epistle to Hebrews. (3.) Romans 8:3: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” (4.) “Moses was faithful as a servant, but Christ as a SON.” (5.) All those passages in which the first person is called the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Recapitulation of the argument.

(V.) Importance of the admission of the eternal filiation of our Lord. Some divines, believing the divinity of Christ, have yet opposed the eternal Sonship; but they have nearly, if not quite, adopted Unitarian modes of interpretation; and on a point confessedly fundamental, they differ from the opinions held by the orthodox church in all ages. The following consequences of denying the divine filiation of Christ are worthy of note: —

1. A loose method of interpretation.

2. The destruction of all relation among the persons of the Godhead.

3. The loss of the Scriptural idea, that the Father is the fountain of Deity.

4. The same of the perfect equality, and yet subordination, of the Son.

5. The overthrow of the doctrine of the love of the Father in the gift of his Son. Episcopius’s argument.

(VI.) Objections to the divine Sonship considered.

VI. The title WORD. Used principally by the evangelist John. Two inquiries arise here, viz.: —

I. Whence the evangelist drew the use of this appellation? Ans.

(1.) From the Scriptures of the Old Testament: by quotations from which it is shown to be a theological and not a philosophic title; and one which had received the stamp of inspiration. a. Genesis 15:1. b. Psalm 18:30. c. 1 Samuel 3:21. d. 2 Samuel 7:21; 1 Chronicles 17:19.

(2.) The Targums further evince the theological origin of this appellation. Illustrated by a number of quotations and references.

(3.) Philo and the philosophic Jews, then, may be spared in this inquiry; but it can be shown, 1. That if Philo possessed the idea of a personal Logos, he did not derive it from Plato. 2. That he did derive it from the established theology of his nation.

II. What reasons led the evangelist to adopt this appellation? It is supposed that John wrote with a view to the suppression of the Gnostic heresy: in order to afford the clearest refutation of those who denied the pre-existence of Christ.

III. Argument from its use, against Socinianinism.

1. St. John says, the Logos “was that light, but John Baptist was not.” Here is a parallel between two persons — not between a person and an attribute.

2. The Logos became man. But how could an attribute become man? The personality of the Logos being established, his divinity follows of course. D. CHRIST POSSESSED OF DIVINE ATTRIBUTES. (Ch. 13.)

God is made known to us by his attributes. Should, then, the same attributes be found ascribed in Scripture to Christ, we infer directly that Christ is God.

I. ETERNITY is ascribed to Christ. (1.) Isaiah 9:6. (2.) Revelation 1:17, 18. (3.) Revelation 1:8. (4.) Hebrews 13:8. (5.) Hebrews 1:10-12. (6.) “Eternal life.”

II. OMNIPRESENCE is ascribed to him. (1.) “No man hath ascended up to heaven,” &c. (2.) “Where two or three are gathered together,” &c. (3.) “Lo, I am with you always,” &c. (4.) “By him all things consist.” III. OMNISCIENCE is ascribed to Christ. Two kinds of knowledge peculiar to God: —

1. A perfect knowledge of the thoughts and intents of the human heart. This is expressly attributed to Christ. (1.) “He knew what was in man.”

(2.) The word of God is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (3.) Interpretation of Mark 13:32.

2. The knowledge of futurity. This is also ascribed to Christ, John 6:64, and 13:11; and all the predictions uttered by him, and which are nowhere referred by him to inspiration, are in proof of his possessing this attribute. IV. OMNIPOTENCE is ascribed to Christ. (1.) Revelation 1:8. (2.) To the Jews he said, “What things soever the Father doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (3.) All the Scriptural argument from the ascription of divine attributes to Christ, may be summed up with his own remarkable declaration, “All things which the Father hath are mine: John 16:15. E. DIVINE ACTS ARE ASCRIBED TO CHRIST. (Ch. 14.)

I. Creation. Socinians admit that creation out of nothing is the work of a divine power, and therefore interpret those passages of the New Testament which speak of Christ as a Creator, as referring to a moral creation, or to the regulation of all things in the evangelical dispensation. Absurdity of this.

1. The creation of “all things” is ascribed to Christ, in the introduction to St. John’s Gospel. This can only be understood of a physical creation.

2. “By whom also he made the worlds.” Hebrews 1:2. Two Socinian glosses are offered.

(1.) To render the words, “for whom also;” &c. But dia with a genitive, never signifies the final cause, setting aside the absurdity of the worlds being made for a mere man.

(2.) To understand “the worlds” — touv aiwnav — for the gospel dispensation; — but the same phrase is used in the eleventh chapter, where it can only be understood of a physical creation: — and in the close of the, first chapter the apostle reiterates the doctrine of the creation of the world by Jesus Christ.

3. Colossians 1:15-17: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: for by him were all things created,” &c. Socinian gloss: — “Here is meant the great change introduced into the moral world by the dispensation of the gospel.”

(1.) The Arian notion, that by “first-born” is meant “first created,” is easily refuted. As to date of his being, he was “before all created things.” As to the manner of it, he was by generation, not creation.

(2.) As for the Socinian gloss, it makes the apostle say, that Christ was the first-made member of the Christian Church; and the reason for this is, that he made the Church!

II. The preservation of the universal frame of things is ascribed to Christ. III. The final destruction of material nature is also expressly attributed to him.

IV. Our Lord claims, generally, to perform the works of his Father: also, to possess original miraculous powers.

V. He promises to send the Holy Spirit.

VI. The forgiveness of sins, unquestionably a peculiar act of Deity, claimed by Christ.

F. DIVINE WORSHIP PAID TO CHRIST. (Ch. 15.)

(a.) The fact established.

I. Prior to his ascension.

1.) The case of the leper. 2.) Of the blind man. 3.) The disciples. N.B. Our Lord did not receive these acts of worship as a civil ruler. II. Subsequent to his ascension.

1.) Luke 24:51, 52: “He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven, and they worshipped him,” &c. 2.) The prayer of the apostles, when filling up the place of Judas. 3.) Supplications of Stephen, the protomartyr. Futility of the Socinian gloss, and that of Dr. Priestley. 4.) Paul’s prayer, when afflicted with the “thorn in the flesh.” 5.) Paul’s prayer in behalf of the Thessalonians. III. Adoration of Christ among heavenly beings.

1.) “Let all the angels of God worship him.” Psalm 97. Horsley’s Remarks. 2.) Psalm 72. 3.) The Book of Revelation.

IV. All the doxologies to Christ, and all the benedictions made in his name, in common with those of the Father and the Holy Spirit, are forms of worship.

(b.) Its bearing examined.

1. From the avowed religious sentiments of the apostles, they could not pay religious worship to Christ unless they considered him a divine person.

2. We collect the same from their uniform practice.

3. The Arian doctrine of supreme and inferior worship refuted by Dr. Waterland.

4. The Socinians, more consistently, refuse to “honour the Son as… . the Father.” The passage, Philippians 2:5-7, is shown to contain the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, without which it cannot be rationally interpreted.

(III.) PERSON OF CHRIST. (Ch. 16.)

I. HUMANITY of Christ. In the early church it was necessary to establish that Christ possessed a real human nature. Notice the following

1. Erroneous opinions. 1.) The Gnostics denied the real existence of the body of Christ. 2.) The Apollinarian heresy rejected the existence of a human soul in our Lord. 3.) Among those who held the union of the two natures in Christ, there were various opinions — those of the Nestorians, Monophisites, and Monothelites.

2. The true sense of Scripture was given by the Council of Chalcedon, in the fifth century: — with whose formula the Athanasian Creed agrees, and the orthodox church has adopted this creed. Certainly, without keeping in view the completeness of each nature, we shall find it impossible, in many places, to apprehend the sense of the Scriptures.

II. The UNION of the two natures of Christ in one hypostasis is equally essential to the full exposition of the Scriptures. The following passages illustrate this: —

1. “The Word was made flesh.”

2. “The Church of God, purchased by his own blood.”

Digression — to examine Dr. P. Smith’s view of orthodox language.

3. “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9. 4. “When he had by himself purged our sins,” &c. Hebrews 1:3.

These and similar passages may be embraced under the two following classes: — 1.) Those which speak of the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ for remission of sins. 2.) Those which argue from the compassion, &c., of our Lord, to the exercise of confidence in him.

III. Errors as to the person of Christ.

1. Arianism: so called from its author, Arius, whose characteristic tenet was that Christ was the first and most exalted of creatures.

2. Sabellianism: which, asserting the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and denying the personality of both, stands equally opposed to Arianism and Trinitarianism.

3. Socinianism, in which the two former are now nearly merged. This last has been fully refuted by the establishment of the Scripture doctrine of a trinity of divine persons in the unity of the Godhead, which involves a refutation of the other two heresies.

(IV.) PERSONALITY AND DEITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. (Ch. 17.) I. As to the manner of the Being of the Holy Ghost — the orthodox doctrine is, that as Christ is GOD by an eternal FILIATION, so the Spirit is God by PROCESSION from the Father and the Son. The doctrine of procession rests on direct Scripture authority, as stated by Bishop Pearson.

1. “Even the Spirit of truth, which PROCEEDETH from the Father. “ John 15:26.

2. The very expressions which are spoken of the Holy Spirit in relation to the FATHER, are also spoken of the same Spirit in relation to the SON. II. Arius regarded the Spirit as created by Christ; but afterward his followers considered the Holy Ghost as the exerted energy of God, which notion, with some modifications, is adopted by Socinians. III. Scriptural argument for the personality and deity of the Holy Ghost. (a.) From the frequent association in Scripture of a person, under that appellation, with two other persons, one of whom, “the Father,” is by all acknowledged to be divine; and the ascription to each, or to the three in union, of the same acts, titles, authority, and worship, in an equal degree.

1. Association of the three persons in creative acts.

2. Do. in the preservation of all things.

3. Do. in the inspiration of the prophets.

4. Do. as objects of supreme worship.

5. Do. in the form of baptism.

(b) Some other arguments for

(1.) The personality of the Spirit. 1.) He proceeds from the Father and Son, and cannot therefore be either. 2.) Many Scriptures are absurd unless the Holy Ghost be a person. 3.) The Holy Ghost is spoken of in many passages where personification is impossible. 4.) The use of masculine pronouns and relatives in the Greek of the New Testament, in connexion with the neuter noun pneuma — Spirit.

(2.) The divinity of the Spirit. 1.) He is the subject of blasphemy. 2.) He is called God. 3.) He is the source of inspiration.

II. DOCTRINES RELATING TO MAN. — (Ch. 18.-xxix.)

(A.) — ORIGINAL SIN.

I. Man’s primitive condition.

II. Testimony of Scripture as to the fall of man.

III. Results of the fall, to Adam and his posterity.

I. MAN’S PRIMITIVE CONDITION.

(I.) Adam was made under law, as all his descendants are born under law.

1. There is evidence of the existence of a moral as well as a natural government of the universe.

2. The law under which all moral agents — angels, devils, or men — are placed, there is reason to believe, is, in its great principles, the same.

3. Each particular law supposes the general one. Law was not first introduced into the world when the law of Moses was engraven on the tables of stone.

(II.) The history of man’s creation in brief.

1. The manner of the narration indicates something peculiar and eminent in the being formed. “And God said, Let us make man in our image,” &c.

2. The image of God — in what did it consist?

(1.) Not in the body.

(2.) Not in the dominion granted to man in this lower world.

(3.) Nor in any one essential quality: — as the evidence of Scripture is sufficiently explicit, that it comprises what may be lost and regained.

(4.) But, theologically speaking, we have

(a.) The natural image of God — consisting of spirituality, immortality, and intellectual powers.

(b.) The moral image proved from the following passages of Scripture: —

(1.) Ecc. 7: “God made man upright.” (2.) Colossians 3:10. (3.) Ephesians 4:24. (4.) “And God saw… and behold it was very good.”

(5.) As to the degree of Adam’s perfection in the image of God, there are two extreme opinions. Without falling into either of these; we have the following conclusions: —

1. Adam was sinless both in act and principle.

2. He possessed the faculty of knowledge, and also

3. Holiness and righteousness, which express not only sinlessness, but positive and active virtues.

3. Objection to the creation of man in the moral image of God, by Dr. Taylor, answered.

(1.) The fallacy of the objection lies in confounding habits of holiness with the principle.

(2.) Answer quoted from Wesley.

(3.) From Edwards.

4. Final cause of the creation of man — the display of the glory of God, and principally of his moral perfections.

II. THE FALL OF MAN.

The Mosaic account, (the garden, serpent, &c.,) teaches of, (1) the existence of an evil spirit; (2) the introduction of a state of moral corruptness into human nature; and (3) a vicarious atonement for sin. There are three classes of opinions held among the interpreters of this account.

(I.) Class. Those which deny the literal sense, and regard the whole narration as an instructive mythos.

(A.) Two facts sufficiently refute these notions.

1. The account of the fall of the first pair is a part of a continuous history. If, then, the account of the fall may be excepted as allegorical, any subsequent portion of the Pentateuch may in like manner be taken away.

2. The literal sense of the history is referred to, and reasoned upon, as such, in various parts of Scripture.

(B.) Objections have been started to the literal and historical interpretation, of which the following are specimens: —

1. “It is unreasonable to suppose that the fruit of the tree of life could confer immortality.” But

(1.) Why could not this tree be the appointed means of preserving health and life?

(2.) Why may not the eating of the fruit be regarded as a sacramental act?

2. “How could the fruit of the tree of knowledge have any effect upon the intellectual powers?”

(1.) Surely the tree might be called “the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” because by eating of its fruit man came to know, by sad experience, the value of the good he had forfeited, &c. ; or,

(2.) It was the test of Adam’s fidelity, and hence the name was proper.

3. Objection has been made to the account of the serpent, (a.) That it makes “the invisible tempter assume the body of an animal.” Who can prove this to be impossible? (b.) “But the serpent spoke!” So did Balaam’s ass. (c.) “But Eve was not surprised.” Why should she? or, if she were, the history need not mention so slight a matter. (d.) “But the serpent was unjustly sentenced, if merely an instrument.” The serpent certainly held its rank at the pleasure of the Creator.

(C.) Tradition comes in to support the literal sense of the history.

1. The ancient Jewish writers, Apocrypha, &c.

2. The various systems of heathen mythology — Greek, Egyptian, Indian, Roman, Gothic, and Hindoo.

(II.) Class. Those who interpret the account in part literally and in part allegorically. Sufficiently answered by quotation from Bishop Horsley. (III.) Class. Those who believe that the history has, in perfect accordance with the literal interpretation, a mystical and higher sense than the letter. This sentiment, without running into the extravagances of mysticism, is the orthodox doctrine. The history is before us; — but rightly to understand it, these four points should be kept in view, viz.: —

1. Man was in a state of trial.

(1.) This involved power of obedience and disobedience.

(2.) That which determines to the one or the other, is the will.

(3.) Our first parents were subject to temptation from intellectual pride, from sense, and from passion.

(4.) To resist such temptation, prayer, vigilance, &c., were requisite.

2. The prohibition of a certain fruit was but one part of the law under which man was placed.

(1.) Distinction between positive and moral precepts.

(2.) The moral reason for this positive precept — as indeed for probably all others — may be easily discovered.

3. The serpent was but the instrument of the real tempter, who was that evil spirit whose Scriptural appellatives are the Devil and Satan. Existence and power of this spirit clearly declared in Scripture.

4. The curse of the serpent was symbolical of the punishment of Satan. This symbolical interpretation defended by three considerations. III. RESULTS OF THE FALL.

(I.) To Adam, inevitable death, after a temporary life of severe labour.

1. Statement of opinions as to the extent and application of this penalty. (a.) Pelagian notion, — Adam would have died had he not sinned. (b.) Pseudo-Arminian doctrine of Whitby and others.

(c.) Arminius’s doctrine, taken from his writing. With this nearly agree the Remonstrants, Augsburg Confession, Church of England, French and Scottish churches.

2. Import of the term death, as used in Scripture.

(a.) “Death came into the world by sin.”

(b.) It does not imply annihilation.

(c.) It extends to the soul as well as to the body, thus embracing (1.) Bodily death, 1.e., the separation of the soul from the body. (2.) Spiritual death, 1.e., the separation of the soul from God. (3.) Eternal death, 1.e., separation from God, and a positive infliction of his wrath in a future state. Taylor’s objection answered by Wesley and Edwards.

(II.) This sentence extended to Adam’s posterity.

1. The testimony of Scripture explicitly establishes a federal connexion between Adam and his descendants. Romans v; 1 Corinthians 15:22.

2. The imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, is the result of this connexion. Not mediate — not immediate — but the legal result of sin.

3. The consequences of this imputation are, 1.) Death of the body. 2.) Spiritual death. 3.) Eternal death.

4. Objections are raised against this doctrine — of two kinds, viz.: — one against high Calvinism, which we leave to take care of itself; and the other against the legal part of this transaction, without considering, in connexion with it, the evangelical scheme. The case may be considered.

(1.) With regard to adults. The remedial scheme offers, a.) In opposition to bodily death — the resurrection. b) In opposition to spiritual death — spiritual life. c.) In opposition to eternal death — eternal life.

(2.) With regard to infants, a.) The benefits of Christ’s death are coextensive with the sin of Adam, (Romans 5:18;) hence all children dying in infancy partake of the free gift. b.) Infants are not indeed born justified; nor are they capable of that voluntary acceptance of the benefits of the free gift which is necessary in the case of adults: but, on the other hand, they cannot reject it; and it is by the rejection of it that adults perish, c.) The process by which grace is communicated to infants is not revealed: the administration doubtless differs from that employed toward adults. d.) Certain instrumental causes may be considered in the case of children, viz., the intercession of Christ; ordinances of the church; prayers of parents, &c. (III.) The moral condition in which men are actually born into the world. I. Several facts of experience are to be accounted for.

1. That in all ages great and general national wickedness has prevailed.

2. The strength of the tendency to this wickedness, marked by two circumstances: — 1.) The greatness of the crimes to which men have abandoned themselves. 2.) The number of restraints against which this tide of evil has urged its course.

3. The seeds of the vices may be discovered in children in their earliest years.

4. Every man is conscious of a natural tendency to many evils.

5. The passions, appetites, and inclinations, make strong resistance, when man determines to renounce his evil courses.

II. To account for these facts, we derive from Scripture the hypothesis, — that man is by nature totally corrupt and degenerate, and of himself incapable of any good thing. The following passages contain this doctrine: — 1.) Genesis 5:3: “Adam begat a son in his own likeness.” 2.) Genesis 6:5: “Every imagination,” &c. 3.) Genesis 8:21: “The imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” 4.) Book of Job 11:12; 5:7; 14:47; 15:14. 5.) Psalm 51:5; 58:3, 4. 6.) Proverbs 22:15; 29:15. 7.) Romans 3:10, quoted from Psalm 14. 8.) That class of passages which speak of evil as a distinguishing mark not of any one man, but of human nature: Jeremiah, &c. 9.) Our Lord’s discourse with Nicodemus, John 3:10.) Argument in third chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.

The doctrine of the natural and universal corruption of man’s nature, thus obtained from Scripture, fully accounts for the above-mentioned five facts of experience. Let us see how far they can be explained on. III. The theory of man’s natural innocence and purity. This doctrine refers these phenomena to

1. General bad example. But 1.) This does not account for the introduction of wickedness. 2.) How could bad example become general, if men are generally disposed to good. 3.) This very hypothesis admits the power of evil example, which is almost giving up the matter in dispute. 4.) This theory does not account for the strong bias to evil in men, nor for the vicious tempers of children, nor for the difficulty of virtue. The advocates of this doctrine refer also to

2. Vicious education, to account for these phenomena. But 1.) Where did Cain get his vicious education? 3.) Why should education be generally bad, unless men are predisposed to evil. 3.) But, in fact, education in all countries has in some degree opposed vice. 4.) As for the other facts, education is placed upon the same ground as example.

IV. Some take a milder view of the case than the orthodox, denying these tendencies to various excesses to be sinful, until they are approved by the will. But why this universal compliance of the will with what is known to be evil, unless there be naturally a corrupt state of the mind, which is what we contend for. The death of children proves that all men are “constituted” and treated as “sinners.”

V. Nature of original sin.

1. A privation of the image of God, according to Arminius.

2. No infusion of evil into the nature of man by God, but positive evil, as the effect, is connected with privation of the life of God, as the cause.

3. As to the transmission of this corrupt nature, the Scriptural doctrine seems to be that the soul is ex traduce, and not by immediate creation from God. This doctrine does not necessarily tend to materialism.

4. It does not follow from the corruption of human nature that there can be nothing virtuous among men before regeneration. But all that is good in its principle is due to the Holy Spirit, whose influences are afforded to all, in consequence of the atonement offered for all. The following reasons may be assigned for the apparent virtues that are noticed among unregenerate men: — 1.) The understanding of man cannot reject demonstrated truth. 2.) The interests of men are often connected with right and wrong. 3.) The seeds of sin need exciting circumstances for their full development. 4.) All sins cannot show themselves in all men. 5.) Some men are more powerfully bent to one vice: some to another.

But all virtues grounded on principle, wherever seen among men, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit, which has been vouchsafed to “the world,” through the atonement.

(B.) — REDEMPTION. (Ch. 19.-29.)

(I.) PRINCIPLES OF REDEMPTION. (Ch. 19.-22.)

I. Principles of God’s moral government. (Ch. 19.)

The penalty of death was not immediately executed in all its extent upon the first sinning pair. Why was it not? In order to answer this question, the character of God, and the principles of his moral government, will be briefly examined.

(I.) The divine character is illustrated by the extent and severity of the punishments denounced against transgression.

(II.) It is more fully illustrated by the testimony of God himself in the Scriptures, where

1. The divine holiness, and

2. The divine justice, are abundantly declared. Justice is either, 1) universal, or 2) particular, — which latter is commutative, (respecting equals,) or distributive, (which is exercised only by governors.) Of the strictness and severity of the distributive justice of God, the sentence of death is sufficient evidence.

(III.) Connexion between the essential justice of God, and such a constitution of law and government.

1. The creation of free human beings involved the possibility of evil volitions and acts, and consequently misery.

2. To prevent these evils was the end of the divine government, the first act of which was the publication of the will or law of God: the second, to give motives to obedience, happiness, justice, fear.

3. It was necessary to secure obedience, that the highest penalty should be affixed to transgression.

4. Admitting its necessity, its institution was demanded by 1.) The holiness; 2.) The justice; and 3.) The goodness of God.

(IV.) Does the justice of God oblige him to execute the penalty? The opponents of the doctrine of atonement deny this; but we can show that

1. Sin cannot be forgiven by the mere prerogative of God: for

(1.) God cannot give up his right to obedience, without indifference to moral rectitude.

(2.) Nor can the Deity give up his right to punish disobedience, without either (a) partiality, if pardon be granted to a few; or (b) the abrogation, in effect, of law, if pardon be extended to all.

2. Nor does REPENTANCE, on the part of the offender, place him in a new relation, and thus render him a fit object of pardon. Those who hold this doctrine, admit the necessity of something which shall make it right as well as merciful for God to forgive. But we deny repentance to be that something; for

(1.) We find no intimation in Scripture that the penalty of the law is not to be executed in case of repentance.

(2.) It is not true that repentance changes the legal relation of the guilty to God, whom they have offended. They are offenders still, though penitent.

(3.) So far from repentance producing this change of relation, we have proofs to the contrary, both from the Scriptures and the established course of providence.

(4.) The true nature of repentance, as stated in the Scriptures, is overlooked by those who hold this doctrine.

(5.) In the gospel, which professedly lays down the means by which men are to obtain the pardon of their sins, that pardon is not connected with mere repentance.

II. Death of Christ propitiatory. (Ch. 20.)

In this and the two following chapters, we investigate that method of love, wisdom, and justice, by which a merciful God justifies the ungodly: first, examining the statements of the New Testament; secondly, the sacrifices of the law; and thirdly, the patriarchal sacrifices: — from which investigation we hope to show clearly the unity of the three great dispensations of religion to man, the patriarchal, Levitical, and Christian, in the great principle, “that without the shedding of blood there is no remission. And first,

A. Proof from the New Testament. (Ch. 20.)

I. Man’s salvation is ascribed in the New Testament to the death of Christ, and

1. The Socinian considers the death of Christ merely as the means by which repentance is produced in the heart of man.

2. The Arian connects with it that kind of merit which arises from a generous and benevolent self-devotion. But

II. The New Testament represents the death of Christ as necessary to salvation; not as the meritorious means, but as the meritorious cause.

1. The necessity of Christ’s death follows the admission of his divinity.

2. The matter is put beyond question by the direct testimony of Scripture: “thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead,” &c. III. The New Testament informs us that Christ died “for us,” that is, in our room and stead.

1. All those passages in which Christ is said to have died “for” uper or anti) men, prove that he died for us not consequently but directly, as a substitute.

2. Those passages in which he is said to have “borne the punishment due to our offences,” prove the same thing.

Grotius clearly proves that the Scriptures represent our sins as the impulsive cause of the death of Christ.

3. The passage in Isaiah liii, “the chastisement of our peace was upon him,” &c., is applied to Christ by the apostles.

4. The apostle Paul — 2 Corinthians 5:21.

5. Galatians 3:13.

IV. Some passages of the New Testament connect, with the death of Christ, the words propitiation, atonement, and reconciliation.

1. Propitiation.

(1.) Definition — to propitiate is to atone, to turn away the wrath of an offended person.

(2.) The Socinians, in their improved version, admit that it was “the pacifying of an offended party;” but insist that Christ is a propitiation, because “by his gospel he brings sinners to repentance, and thus averts the divine displeasure.” On this ground, Moses was a propitiation also.

(3.) Socinians also deny the existence of wrath in God: — in order to show that propitiation, in a proper sense, cannot be taught in Scripture. But Scripture abundantly asserts that “God is angry with the wicked.” In holding this Scriptural doctrine, we do not assert the existence of wrath as a vengeful passion in the divine mind: this is one of the many caricatures of orthodoxy by Socinianism.

2. Reconciliation occurs, Colossians 1:19, 22; Romans 5:10, 11; 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.

(1.) The expressions “reconciliation,” “making peace,” imply a previous state of mutual hostility between God and man. This relation is a legal one, as that of sovereign and criminal. The term enmity, used as it respects God, is unfortunate; but certainly something more is implied in reconciliation than man’s laying aside his enmity to God.

(2.) Various passages of Scripture go directly to prove this. Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 2:16.

(3.) Socinian objection to the doctrine of reconciliation answered. V. Some texts speak of redemption in connexion with the death of Christ, e. g., Romans 3:24; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:18, 19; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20.

(1.) The Socinian notion of a gratuitous deliverance is refuted by the very terms used in the above-cited passages: such as lutrow, to redeem, &c.

(2.) The means by which it has been attempted to evade the force of these statements must be refuted. They are

1. “That the term redemption is sometimes used for simple deliverance, when no price is supposed to be given.” Answer, a. The occasional use of the term in an improper manner, cannot be urged against its strict signification.

b. Our redemption by Christ is emphatically spoken of in connexion with the gutron, or redemption price; but this word is never added to the deliverance effected for the Israelites by Moses.

2. “That our interpretation of these passages would involve the absurdity of paying a price to Satan.” Answer, a. The idea of redemption is not to be confined to the purchasing of a captive.

b. Nor does it follow, even in that case, that the price must be paid to him who detains the captive. Our captivity to Satan is judicial, and satisfaction is to be made, not to the jailer, but to him whose law has been violated.

3. “That our doctrine is inconsistent with the freeness of the grace of God in the forgiveness of sins.” Answer, a. Dr. Priestley himself, in requiring penitence from the sinner, admits that grace may be free, while not unconditional.

b. The passage of St. Paul which Dr. P, quotes, runs thus: “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” c. When sin is spoken of as a debt freely remitted, it is clear that a metaphor is employed.

VI. The nature of the death of Christ is still further explained in the New Testament, by the manner in which it connects our justification with faith in the blood of Christ; and both our justification and the death of Christ with the “righteousness of God.” Romans 3:24-26. (a.) Thus the forgiveness of sin is not only an act of mercy, but an act of justice.

(b.) The steps of this “demonstration” of the righteousness of God are easily to be traced; for,

1. The law is by this means established in its authority and perpetuity.

2. On any other theory, there is no manifestation of God’s hatred of sin, commensurate with the intense holiness of the divine nature.

3. The person who suffered the penalty of the law for us was the Son of God — in him divinity and humanity were united: and thus, as “God spared not his own Son,” his justice is declared to be inflexible and inviolable. The Socinians object that “the dignity of a person adds nothing to the estimation of his sufferings.” But (1,) the common opinion of mankind in all ages is directly against this; and (2,) the testimony of Scripture is explicit on this point.

4. Though all men are brought, by the death of Christ, into a salvable state, yet none of them are brought from under the authority of the moral law. VII. “The satisfaction made to divine justice,” is a phrase which, though not found in Scripture, is yet of theological value, and deserves to be considered.

(I.) There are two views of satisfaction among those who hold the doctrine of atonement, viz.: —

1. That the sufferings and death of Christ are, for the dignity of his nature, regarded as a full equivalent and adequate compensation for the punishment of the personally guilty by death.

2. That Christ made satisfaction for our sins, not because his death is to be considered a full equivalent for the remission of punishment, but because his suffering in our stead maintained the honour of the divine law, and yet gave free scope to the mercy of the lawgiver.

Both these are defective, but the first may be admitted, with some explanations.

(II.) Some explanatory observations then are necessary.

1. The term satisfaction is taken from the Roman law, and signifies the contentment of an injured party by anything which he may choose to accept in place of the enforcement of his obligation upon the party offending. As a just governor, then, God is satisfied, — contented with the atonement offered by the vicarious death of his Son.

2. The effect produced upon the mind of the lawgiver is not the satisfaction, as the Socinians would say, of a vengeful affection.

3. Nor is the death of Christ to be regarded merely as a wise and fit expedient of government; for this may imply that it was one of many possible expedients, though the best.

(III.) The Antinomian perversion of these phrases needs to be refuted.

1. Antinomians connect the satisfaction of Christ with the doctrine of the imputation of his active righteousness to believers; but, 1.) We have no such office ascribed in Scripture to the active righteousness of Christ. 2.) This doctrine of imputation makes Christ’s sufferings superfluous. 3.) It leaves man without law, and God without dominion. 4.) This is not satisfaction in any good sense: it is merely the performance of all that the law requires by one person substituted for another.

2. The terms full satisfaction and equivalent, are taken by the Antinomians in the sense of payment of debts by a surety; but we answer, He who pays a debt for another, does not render an equivalent, but gives precisely what the original obligation requires.

3. The Antinomian view makes the justification of men a matter of right, not of grace. On their view, we cannot answer the Socinian objection, that satisfaction destroys the free nature of an act of forgiveness. VIII. It is sometimes said that we do not know the vinculum between the sufferings of Christ and the pardon of sin. But Scripture seems to give definite information on this point, in declaring the death of Christ to be a “demonstration of the righteousness of God.”

IX. Objection is made to the justice of the substitution of the innocent for the guilty. But,

1. It has always been considered a virtue to suffer for others under certain circumstances; and the justice of such acts has never been questioned. Still,

2. It is wrong to illustrate this doctrine by analogies between the sufferings of Christ and the sufferings of persons on account of the sins of others. And,

3. The principle of vicarious punishment could not justly be adopted by human governments in any case whatever. But,

4. In regard to the offering of Christ, — the circumstances, (1) of the willingness of the substitute to submit to the penalty, and (2) his right thus to dispose of himself, fully clear up the question of justice. The difficulty of reconciling the sufferings of Christ with the divine justice lies rather with the Socinians than with us. Ezekiel 18:20, is satisfactorily explained by Grotius.

B. Proof from the sacrifices of the law. (Ch. 21.)

Having adduced, from the New Testament, cogent proofs of the vicarious efficacy of Christ’s death, we proceed, by the light of the argument already made good, to examine the use made of the sacrificial terms of the Old Testament; and first, the sacrifices of the law.

The terms taken from the Jewish sacrifices, (such as “Lamb of God,” “Passover;’ &c.,) when used by the writers of the New Testament, would be not only absurd, but criminally misleading both to Jews and Gentiles, unless intended to teach the sacrificial character of the death of Christ. It is necessary to establish the expiatory nature of the Jewish sacrifices, and their typical character, both of which have been questioned. To prove that

I. The Levitical sacrifices were expiatory, it is only necessary to show that the eminent sacrifices were such.

The notion that these sacrifices were mere mulcts or fines is disproved

1. By the general appointment (Leviticus 17:10, 11) of the blood to be an atonement for the souls.

2. By particular instances: e. g., Leviticus 5:15, 16.

3. By the fact, that atonement was required by the law to be made by sin-offerings and burnt-offerings for even bodily distempers and disorders.

4. By the sacrifices offered statedly for the whole congregation.

5. By the sacrifice of the passover.

II. The Levitical sacrifices were also types.

A type is a sign or example, prepared and designed by God to prefigure some future thing. St. Paul shows that the Levitical sacrifices were such.

1. In his general description of the typical character of the “church in the wilderness.”

2. In his notice of the Levitical sacrifices in particular.

3. The ninth chapter of Hebrews gives direct declarations of the appointment and designation of the tabernacle service to be a shadow of good things to come.

III. Sacrificial allusions are employed in the New Testament to describe the nature and effect of the death of Christ, not figuratively, but properly. (a.) Illustrated in various passages: — 1. For he hath “made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” 2. Ephesians 5:2: “Christ loved us, and gave himself for us,” &c. 3. The whole argument of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 4. “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood,” &c. (b.) Illustrated by distinction between figurative and analogical language. Quotation from Veysies’ Bampton Lectures.

IV. As to the objection, that the Jewish sacrifices had no reference to the expiation of moral transgression, we observe,

1. That a distinction is to be made between sacrifices as a part of the theo-political law of the Jews, and sacrifice as a rite practised by their fathers. 2 Atonement was ordered to be made for sins committed against any divine commandment.

3. But if all the sin-offerings of the Levitical institute had respected legal atonement and ceremonial purification, that circumstance would not invalidate the true sacrifice of Christ.

C. From the patriarchal sacrifices. (Ch. 22.)

Having shown that the sacrifices of the law were expiatory, we proceed now to show the same of the Ante-Mosaical sacrifices. The proofs are, I. The distribution of beasts into clean and unclean.

II. The prohibition of blood for food.

III. The sacrifices of the patriarchs were those of animal victims, and their use was to avert the displeasure of God from sinning men: e. g., those of Job, Noah, and Abel. But as this last has given rise to controversy, we shall consider more at large.

IV. Abel’s sacrifice.

1. As to the matter of it, — it was an animal offering: not wool or milk, as Grotius and Le Clerc would have it, but the “firstlings of his flock.”

2. This animal offering was indicative of Abel’s faith, as declared by the apostle, Hebrews, chapter 11.

3. But Davison, in his “Inquiry,” asserts that the divine testimony was not to the “specific form of Abel’s oblation, but to his actual righteousness.” The objections to this view of the matter are many.

(1.) It leaves out entirely all consideration of the difference between the sacrifice of Abel and that of Cain.

(2.) It passes over Abel’s “faith,” as evinced in this transaction.

(3.) The apostle is not speaking of the general tendency of faith to induce a holy life, but of faith as producing certain acts; and his reference is to Abel’s faith, as expressing itself by his offering a more excellent sacrifice.

(4.) St. John’s incidental allusion to Abel’s personal righteousness does not in the least affect the statement of Paul, who treated professedly, not incidentally, the subject. And Genesis 4:7, may be considered in two views: either, a.) to “do well” may mean, to do as Abel had done; or, b) the words may be considered as a declaration of the principles of God’s righteous government over men.

4. If then Abel’s faith had an immediate connexion with his sacrifice, the question occurs, to what had that faith respect? Let us illustrate the object of the faith of the elders, from Hebrews xi, and then ascertain the object of Abel’s faith also, from the acts in which it im-bodied itself. In this chapter, then,

(1.) Faith is taken in the sense of affiance in God; and supposes some promise or revelation on his part, as the warrant for every act of affiance, — as in the cases of Enoch, Noah, Abraham, &c.

(2.) This revelation was antecedent to the faith; but the acts and the revelation had a natural and striking conformity to each other: e. g., Noah, &c. Our inference, then, as to Abel’s sacrifice, is, that it was not eucharistic merely, but an act of faith, having respect to a previous and appropriate revelation. The conclusion imbodied in the words of Archbishop Magee is warranted by the argument.

(3.) But it may be asked, What evidence have we from Scripture that such an antecedent revelation was made? We have

(a.) The necessary inferences from the circumstances of the transaction, which, combined with the apostle’s interpretation of them, enable us sufficiently to defend this ground. The text which may be wanting in the Old Testament is often supplied by the inspired comment in the New: e. g., the manna, the rock, &c.… If it be argued that such types were not understood, as such, by the persons among whom they were first instituted, the answer is, — 1. Either they were in some degree revealed to such as prayed for light, or we must conclude that the whole system of types was without edification to the Jews, and instructive only to us. 2. We have, in Hebrews xi, in the case of Abraham, a direct proof of a distinct revelation, which is nowhere recorded as such in the Mosaic history. (b.) Besides these inferences, however satisfactory, we have an account, though brief, of such revelation. (1.) The brevity of the account in the Mosaic history, is doubtless not without good reason; and (2,) brief as it is, we can easily collect, from the early part of Genesis, no unimportant information in regard to primitive theology. (3.) It is in regard to the first promise that we join issue with Mr. Davison; believing that his view of it (Inquiry, &c.) contains, with some truth, much error. For, a.) It is assumed, contrary to evidence, that the Book of Genesis is a complete history of the religious opinions of the patriarchs; and he would have the promise interpreted by them. so as to convey only a general indistinct impression of a deliverer, and that the doctrines of the divinity, incarnation, &c., of that deliverer were not in any way to be apprehended in this promise. Let us see, then, whether the promise, “interpreted by itself,” must not have led the patriarchs many steps at least toward these doctrines, b.) The divine nature of the promised Redeemer, we are told, was a separate revelation. But surely, the work assigned to him — the blessings he was to procure — the power that he was to exercise, according to the promise, — were all indications of a nature superior to humanity, and to the angels, c.) The doctrine of the incarnation was contained also in the promise: this restorer was to be of “the seed of the woman.” d.) So of the doctrine of vicarious sufferings: “the heel of the seed of the woman was to be bruised,” &c.

(4.) It is urged by Mr. Davison, that the faith spoken of in Hebrews xi, had for its simple object, that “God is the rewarder of such as diligently seek him.” But,

(a.) Though this is supposed as the groundwork of every act of faith, yet the special acts recorded have each their special object; and, (b.) This notion could not be at all apposite to the purpose for which this recital of the faith of the elders was addressed to the Hebrews. Two views may be given of this recital: — 1. That the apostle adduced this list of worthies as examples of a steady faith in all that God had then revealed to man, and its happy consequences. 2. That he brought them up to prove that all the “elders” had faith in the Christ to come. Nor is this stronger view difficult to be made out, as we may trace in the cases of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, &c., a respect more or less immediate, to the leading object of all faith, the Messiah himself.

Enough has been said to prove that the sacrifice of Abel was expiatory, and that it conformed, as an act of faith, to some anterior revelation. V. A divine origin must be ascribed to sacrifice.

1. The evidence of Scripture is of sufficient clearness to establish the divine origin of the antediluvian sacrifices; but,

2. The argument drawn from the natural incongruity of sacrificial rites ought not to be overlooked: which is strong even as to the fruits of the earth, (the offering of which cannot be shown to originate either in reason or in sentiment,) and still stronger as to animal oblations. The divine institution of expiatory sacrifice being thus carried up to the first ages, we perceive the unity of the three great dispensations of religion. the PATRIARCHAL, the LEVITICAL, and the CHRISTIAN, in the great principle, “that without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” (II.) BENEFITS OF THE ATONEMENT. (Ch. 23.-xxix.)

A. JUSTIFICATION. (Ch. 23.)

Preliminary. All natural and spiritual good must be included among the benefits derived to man from the atonement; but we shall now treat particularly of those which constitute what is called in Scripture man’s SALVATION.

The fruits of the death and intercession of Christ are —

1. To render it consistent with a righteous government to forgive sin,

2. To call forth the active exercise of the love of God to man, which displays itself.

(1.) In the variety of the divine dispensations.

(2.) In the revelation of the divine will, and declaration of God’s purposes of grace.

(3.) In the institution of the Christian ministry.

(4.) In the influences of the Holy Spirit.

The act of mercy by which man is reconciled to God, is called in the Scriptures, JUSTIFICATION.

I. Statement of the Scriptural doctrine.

1. Justification, the remission of sin, the non-imputation of sin, and the imputation of righteousness, are phrases of the same import: of which the following passages are proof: — Luke 18:13, 14; Acts 13:38, 39; Romans 3:25, 26; 4:4, 8.

2. The importance of maintaining this simple view of justification, — viz., that it is the remission of sins, — will appear from the following considerations: —

(1.) We are taught that pardon of sin is not an act of prerogative, done above law; but a judicial process, done consistently with law.

(2.) That justification has respect to particular individuals.

(3.) Justification being a sentence of pardon, the Antinomian notion of eternal justification becomes a manifest absurdity.

(4.) We are guarded, by this view of justification, against the notion that it is an act of God by which we are made actually just and righteous.

(5.) No ground is afforded for the notion that justification imports the imputation to us of the active and passive righteousness of Christ, so as to make us both positively and relatively righteous.

II. Doctrine of imputation.

There are three opinions: —

(I.) The high Calvinistic, or Antinomian scheme, which is, that “Christ’s active righteousness is imputed unto us, as ours.” In answer to this we say,

1. It is nowhere stated in Scripture.

2. The notion here attached to Christ’s representing us, is wholly gratuitous.

3. There is no weight in the argument, that “as our sins were accounted his, so his righteousness was accounted ours;” for our sins were never so accounted Christ’s, as that. he did them.

4. The doctrine involves a fiction and impossibility inconsistent with the divine attributes.

5. The acts of Christ were of a loftier character than can be supposed capable of being the acts of mere creatures.

6. Finally, and fatally, this doctrine shifts the meritorious cause of man’s justification from Christ’s “obedience unto death,” to Christ’s active obedience to the precepts of the law. Quotations are made in confirmation from Piscator and Goodwin.

(II.) The opinion of Calvin himself and many of his followers, adopted also by some Arminians. It differs from the first in not separating the active from the passive righteousness of Christ; for such a distinction would have been inconsistent with Calvin’s notion, that justification is simply the remission of sins.

This view is adopted, with certain modifications, by Arminians and Wesley.

But there is a manifest difference, which arises from the different senses in which the word imputation is used: the Arminian employing it in the sense of accounting to the believer the benefit of Christ’s righteousness: the Calvinist, in the sense of reckoning the righteousness of Christ as ours. A slight examination of the following passages will show that this notion has no foundation in Scripture: — Psalm 32:1; Jeremiah 23:6; Isaiah 45:24; Romans 3:21, 22; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:18, 19. In connexion with this last text, it is sometimes attempted to be shown that as Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity, so Christ’s obedience is imputed unto those that are saved; but (Goodwin on Justification) 1.) The Scripture nowhere affirms either the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, or of the righteousness of Christ to those that believe. 2.) To impute sin, in Scripture phrase, is to charge the guilt of sin upon a man, with a purpose to punish him for it. And 3.) As to the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity, — if by it is meant simply that the guilt of Adam’s sin is charged upon his whole posterity, let it pass; but if the meaning be that all Adam’s posterity are made, by this imputation, formally sinners, then the Scriptures do not justify it. (III.) The imputation of faith for righteousness.

(a.) Proof of this doctrine.

1. It is expressly taught in Scripture, Romans 4:3-24, etc. ; nor is faith used in these passages by metonymy for the object of faith, that is, the righteousness of Christ.

2. The testimony of the church to this doctrine has been uniform from the earliest ages — Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, &c. — down to the sixteenth century.

(b.) Explanation of the terms of the proposition, that “faith is imputed for righteousness.”

(1.) Righteousness. To be accounted righteous, is, in the style of the apostle Paul, to be justified, where there has been personal guilt.

(2.) Faith. It is not faith generally considered, that is imputed to us for righteousness, but faith (trust) in an atonement offered by another in our behalf.

(3.) Imputation. The non-imputation of sin to a sinner is expressly called. “the imputation of righteousness without works;” the imputation of righteousness is, then, the non-punishment or pardon of sin; and by imputing faith for righteousness, the apostle means precisely the same thing.

(c.) The objections to the doctrine of the imputation of faith for righteousness admit of easy answer.

(1.) The Papists err in taking the term justification to signify the making men morally just.

(2.) A second objection is, that if believing is imputed for righteousness, then justification is by works, or by somewhat in our selves. In this objection, the term works is used in an equivocal sense.

(3.) A third objection is, that this doctrine gives occasion to boasting. But 1.) This objection lies with equal strength against the doctrine of imputed righteousness. 2.) The faith itself is the gift of God. 3.) The blessings which follow faith are given in respect to the death of Christ. 4.) Paul says that boasting is excluded by the law of faith.

III. The nature of justifying faith; and its connexion with justification.

1. Faith is, 1) assent; 2) confidence; and this faith is the condition to which the promise of God annexes justification.

2. Justification by faith alone is clearly the doctrine of Scripture. Some suppose this doctrine to be a peculiarity of Calvinism; but it has been maintained by various Arminian writers, and by none with more earnestness and vigour than by Mr. Wesley.

3. The general objection to this doctrine is, that it is unfavourable to morality. The proper answer to this old objection is, that although we are justified by faith alone, the faith by which we are justified is not alone in the heart which exercises it: “faith is sola, yet not solitaria.” Some colour is given to this objection by the Calvinistic view of final perseverance, which we disavow.

4. Various errors have arisen from unnecessary attempts to guard this doctrine.

(1.) The Romish Church confounds justification and sanctification.

(2.) Another opinion is, that justifying faith includes works of evangelical obedience.

(a.) The Scriptures put a plain distinction between faith and works. (b.) It is not probable that Christ and his apostles meant more by this Word than its fixed and usual import.

(3.) A third notion, — that faith apprehends the merits of Christ, to make up for the deficiency of our imperfect obedience, — is sufficiently refuted by the fact, that no intimation of it is given in Scripture.

(4.) The last error referred to is that which represents faith as, per se, the necessary root of obedience. Perhaps those who use this language do not generally intend to say all that it conveys.

IV. A few theories on the subject of justification remain to be stated and examined.

(1.) The doctrine held by Bishop Taylor, Archbishop Tillotson, and others, that “regeneration is necessary to justification,” is an error whose source appears to be two-fold: (a) from a loose notion of the Scriptural doctrine of regeneration; and (b) from confounding the change which repentance implies, with regeneration itself.

(2.) Another theory is that propounded by Bishop Bull, in his Harmonia Apostolica, which has taken deep root in the English Church: the doctrine being, that justification is by works; — those works being such as proceed from faith, are done by the assistance of the Spirit, and are not meritorious. Instead of reconciling St. James to St. Paul, Bishop Bull takes the unusual course of reconciling St. Paul to St. James: but

(a.) St. Paul treats the doctrine of justification professedly; St. James incidentally.

(b.) The two apostles are not addressing themselves to persons in the same circumstances, and hence do not engage in the same argument. (c.) St. Paul and St. James do not use the term justification in the same sense. Lastly, the two apostles agree with each other upon the subject of faith and works.

(3.) A third theory is maintained by some of the leading divines of the English Church: which is, that men are justified by faith only, but that faith is mere assent to the truth of the gospel. The error of this scheme consists in the partial view which is taken of the nature of justifying faith.

(4.) A fourth theory defers justification to the last day. In answer to this, we say, a.) It is not essential to pardon, that all its consequences should be immediately removed.

b.) Acts of private and personal judgment are in no sense contrary to a general judgment.

c.) Justification now, and at the last day, are not the same: — a.) They are not the same act. b.) They do not proceed upon the same principle.

(5.) The last theory is that of collective justification, proposed by Bp. Taylor, of Norwich: which only needs to be stated, not refuted. B. CONCOMITANTS OF JUSTIFICATION. (Ch. 24.)

I. Regeneration is a change wrought in man by the Holy Spirit, by which the dominion of sin over him is broken, so that with free choice of he serves God.

1. Repentance is not regeneration, but precedes it.

2. Regeneration is not justification, but always accompanies it. Which may be proved

(1.) From the nature of justification itself.

(2.) From Scripture: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” II. Adoption is that act by which we who were enemies are made the sons of God and heirs of his eternal glory; and is that state to which belongs freedom from a servile spirit, &c. . . with the Spirit of adoption, or the witness of the Spirit, by which means only we can know that the privileges of adoption are ours. The doctrine of the witness of the Spirit is clearly taught in the Epistles: it is sometimes called assurance, but as this phrase has been abused, it should perhaps be cautiously employed.

(1.) There are four opinions on the subject of this testimony of the Spirit.

1. That it is twofold: — 1.) A direct testimony of the Spirit. 2.) An indirect testimony, arising from the work of the Spirit in the heart.

2. That it is twofold, also: — 1.) The fruits of the Spirit in the heart of the believer. 2.) The consciousness, on the part of the believer, of possessing faith.

3. That there is but one witness, the Holy Spirit, acting concurrently with our own spirits.

4. That there is a direct witness, which is the special privilege of a few favoured persons.

(2.) Observations on these four opinions.

1. All sober divines allow that Christians may attain comfortable persuasions of the divine favour.

2. By those who admit justification, it must be admitted that either this act of mercy must be kept secret from man, or there must be some means of his knowing it: and if the former, there can be no comfortable persuasion, &c. ; but, on the contrary, Scripture declares that the justified “rejoice.”

3. If the Christian, then, may know that he is forgiven, how is this knowledge to be attained? The twofold testimony of the Spirit and heart declares it Romans 8:16.

4. But does the Holy Spirit give his testimony directly to the mind, or mediately by our own spirits, as Bishop Bull and Mr. Scott affirm? To the latter doctrine we object, — that the witness is still that of our own spirit; and that but one witness is allowed, while St. Paul speaks of two.

5. Neither the consciousness of genuine repentance, nor that of faith, is consciousness of adoption; and if nothing more be afforded, the evidence of forgiveness is only that of mere inference.

6. “But are not the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, &c., sufficient proof of our adoption, without a more direct testimony?” Nay: these very fruits (at least love, joy, and peace, which cannot be separated from the others) presuppose not only a pardon, but a clear persuasion of that pardon.

The witness of the Spirit is direct, then, and not mediate; nor is this a new doctrine, as may be easily shown by quotations from Luther, Hooper, Andrew, Usher, Hooker, &c. The second testimony is that of our own spirits, not to the fact of our adoption directly, but to the fact that we have, in truth, received the Spirit of adoption, and that we are under no delusive impressions.

(C.) — ON THE EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT.(Ch. 25.-28.)

The Calvinistic controversy forms a clear case of appeal to the Scriptures, by whose light we propose to examine it. In regard to the extent of the atonement,

I. Our proposition is, that Jesus Christ did so die for all men, as to make salvation attainable by all men, and we prove it by

1. Passages which expressly declare the doctrine.

(a.) Those which say that Christ died “for all men,” and speak of his death as an atonement for the sins of the whole world.

(b.) Those which attribute an equal extent to the death of Christ, as to the effects of the fall.

2. Passages which necessarily imply the doctrine, viz.: — (a.) Those which declare that Christ died, not only for those that are saved, but for those who do or may perish.

(b.) Those which make it the duty of men to believe the gospel; and place them under guilt, and the penalty of death, for rejecting it. (c.) Those in which men’s failure to obtain salvation is placed to the account of their own opposing wills, and made wholly their own fault. II. We have to consider what our opponents have to urge against these plain statements of Scripture. In the first place, they have no text whatever to adduce which declares that Christ did not die for the salvation of all, as literally as those which declare that he did so die. They merely attempt to explain away the force of the passages we have adduced. Thus —

1. To our first class of texts they object that the terms, “all men,” and “the world,” are sometimes used in Scripture in a limited sense. This may be granted; but the true question yet remains, whether in the above-cited passages they can be understood except in the largest sense. We deny this,

(1.) Because the universal sense of the terms used is confirmed either by the context of the passages in which they occur, or by other Scriptures.

(2.) Nor can the phrases “the world,” &c., be paraphrased as “the world of the elect;” for a.) The elect are in Scripture distinguished from the world. b.) The common division of mankind in the New Testament, is into only two parts, viz., the disciples of Christ, and “the world.” c.) When the redemption is spoken of, it often includes both those who had been chosen out of the world, and those who remained still of the world. d.) In the general commission, “Go ye into all the world,” the expression “into” has its fullest latitude of meaning, e.) This restrictive interpretation gives gross absurdity to several passages of Scripture. John 3:16-18.

2. To our second class of texts those which imply the unrestricted extent of Christ’s death — certain qualifying answers are given. Thus —

(1.) As to those which speak of Christ having died for them that perish. a.) “Destroy not him,” &c. Romans 14:15. Poole’s paraphrase on this text, “for whom, in the judgment of charity, we may suppose Christ died,” completely counteracts the argument of the apostle. Scott, also, by explaining this as a “caution against doing anything which has a tendency to destroy,” takes away, completely, the motive on which the admonition is grounded.

b.) “Denying the Lord that bought them,” &c. 2 Peter 2:1. The interpretations of Scott and Poole are evasions of the force of the text, which is, that their offence was aggravated by the fact of Christ having bought them.

c.) The case of the apostates, Hebrews 6:4-8, and 10:26-31. Calvinists deny that the apostates referred to were ever true believers, or capable of becoming such. But,

1. Paul did not hold out that to the Hebrews as a terror which he knew to be impossible.

2. If these apostates never were believers, they could not be admonitory examples.

3. To represent their case as a “falling away” — if it had never been hopeful — was an absurdity of which Paul would not be guilty.

4. But what the apostle affirms of their previous state, clearly shows that it had been a state of salvation.

5. The Calvinistic interpretations are below the force of the terms employed; and they are above the character of reprobates.

(2.) As to those which make it the duty of men to believe the gospel, and threaten them with punishment for not believing, — the Calvinistic reply is, that it is the duty of all men to believe the gospel, whether they are interested in the death of Christ or not; and that they are guilty and deserving of punishment for not believing. But if Christ died not for all such persons, we think it plain that it cannot be their duty to believe the gospel; and to settle this point, we must determine what is meant by believing the gospel. The faith which the gospel requires of all, is, “trust in our Lord Jesus Christ:” true faith, then, and not merely assent, is implied in believing the gospel. But of those for whom Christ did not die, such faith cannot be required; for,

1. It is impossible.

2. God could not command what he never intended.

3. What all are bound to believe in, is true.

(3.) As to the last class of texts, viz., those which impute the blame and fault of their non-salvation to men themselves, the common reply is, that if men willed to come to Christ, they would have life; but,

1. Put the question to the non-elect; and either it is possible for them to come to Christ, or it is not: if the former, then they may come to Christ without receiving salvation; if the latter, then the bar to their salvation is not in themselves.

2. The argument from this class of texts is not exhausted; for they expressly exclude God from all participation in the destruction of sinners. “God willeth all men to be saved,” &c. Texts which gave rise to the ancient notion of a secret and revealed will of God: a subterfuge to which perhaps few Calvinists in the present day are disposed to resort. EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT — CONTINUED. (Ch. 26.)

As the Calvinists have no direct texts in support of their doctrine, they resort mainly to implication and inference. The words election, calling, and foreknowledge, are much relied upon in their arguments. We shall now proceed to examine the Scriptural meaning of them.

I. ELECTION. Three kinds of election are mentioned in Scripture. (I.) That of individuals to perform some special service: e. g., Cyrus was elected to rebuild the temple; Paul, to be the apostle of the Gentiles. (II.) Collective election.

(a.) Explanation of its use in Scripture.

1. Of the Jews, as the chosen people of God.

2. Of the calling of believers in all nations to be in reality what the Jews had been typically.

(b.) Inquiry as to its effect upon the extent of the atonement.

1. With respect to the ancient election of the Jewish church.

(1.) That election did not secure the salvation of every Jew individually.

(2.) Sufficient means of salvation were left to the non-elect Gentiles.

(3.) Nay, the election of the Jews was intended for the benefit of the Gentiles — to restrain idolatry and diffuse spiritual truth.

2. With respect to the election of the Christian Church.

(1.) That election does not infallibly secure the salvation of the Christian.

(2.) It concludes nothing against the salvability of those who are not in the church.

(3.) Christians are thus elected, not in consequence of, or in order to, the exclusion of others; but for the benefit of others as well as themselves. (c.) Collective election is frequently confounded with personal election, by Calvinistic commentators, especially in their expositions of PAUL’S DISCOURSE. Romans 9.-11.

I. Which we shall examine, first, to determine whether personal or collective election be the subject of it.

(1.) The exclusion of the Jew is the first topic: the righteousness of which exclusion Paul vindicates against the objections raised in the minds of the Jews.

a.) By showing that God had limited the covenant to a part of the descendants of Abraham: (1.) In the case of the descendants of Jacob himself. (2.) From Jacob he ascends to Abraham, 5. 7. (3.) The instance of Isaac’s children, 5. 10-13. On the passage, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” which has often been perverted, we remark: 1. The apostle is here speaking of “the seed,” intended in the promise. 2. This is proved by Genesis 25:23: “Two nations are in thy womb,” etc. 3. Instances of individual reprobation would have been impertinent to the apostle’s purpose.

b.) By asking the objecting Jews to say whether in these instances there was a failure of God’s covenant with Abraham, he expressly denies any unrighteousness in them. But those who would interpret these passages as referring to personal unconditional election and reprobation, are bound to show how they could be righteous.

c.) By the statement, “So then, it is not of him that willeth,” etc. — containing a beautiful allusion to the case of Isaac and Esau.

(2.) The next point of the discourse is, to show that God exercises the prerogative of making some notorious sinners the special objects of his displeasure. Here again the example is taken from the Jewish Scriptures; but observe, it is not Ishmael or Esau, but Pharaoh, a Gentile, who was a most appropriate example to illustrate the case of the body of the unbelieving Jews, who were, when the apostle wrote, under the sentence of a terrible excision.

(3.) In verse nineteen the Jew is again introduced as an objector: “Why doth he yet find fault?” &c.

(a.) This objection, and the apostle’s reply, are usually interpreted as inculcating upon nations visited with penal inflictions, the impropriety of debating the case with God. This interpretation is hardly satisfactory; for,

1. What end is answered by teaching a hopeless people not to “reply against God?”

2. If this be the meaning, the apostle’s allusion to the parable of the prophet, Jeremiah, chap. 18, is inappropriate; as that parable supposes the time of trial, as to such nations, to be not yet past.

3. “Dishonour” is not destruction; no potter makes a vessel on purpose to destroy it.

4. This interpretation supposes that the body of the Jewish nation had arrived already at a state of dereliction, which is not the case. (b.) A different view of this part of Paul’s discourse is presented. The objection of the Jew goes upon the ground of predestination, which is refuted, not conceded, by the apostle, as follows: —

1. The “vessel” was not made “unto dishonour,” until the clay had been “marred:” i.e., the Jews were not dishonoured until they had failed to conform with the design of God.

2. Jeremiah, interpreting the parable, represents the “dishonoured” as within the reach of the divine favour upon repentance.

3. What follows verse twenty-two, serves still further to silence the objector. The temporal punishment of the Jews in Judea is alluded to by the apostle, as a proof both of sovereignty and justice; but that punishment does not preclude the salvability of the race.

(c.) The metaphor of “vessels” is still employed; but by “vessels of dishonour,” and “vessels of wrath,” the apostle means vessels in different conditions. The first, being part of the prophecy which signified the dishonoured state in which the Jews, for punishment and correction, were placed under captivity in Babylon: the second, with reference to the prophecy in nineteenth Jeremiah, had relation to the coming destruction of the temple, city, and polity of the Jews, by the Romans. There could be no complaint of injustice or unrighteousness, in regard to this destruction; for,

1. It was brought upon themselves by their own sins.

2. Moreover, these vessels (adapted to destruction by their own sins) were endured with much long-suffering.

The tenth and eleventh chapters contain nothing but what refers to the collective rejection of the Jewish nation, and the collective election of all believing Jews and Gentiles into the visible Church of God. The discourse, then can only be interpreted of collective election; and we now proceed. II. To examine it secondly, with reference to the question of unconditional election, that is, an election of persons to eternal life without respect to their faith or obedience. Such election finds no place in this chapter, though there are several instances of unconditional election; but we deny that the spiritual blessings of piety spring necessarily from it, or that unbelief and ruin follow in like manner non-election. The discourse abundantly refutes such opinions.

(1.) The descendants of Abraham in the line of Isaac and Jacob were elected, but true faith and salvation did not follow as infallible consequents. So were the Gentiles at length elected, but obedience and salvation did not necessarily follow.

(2.) The cases of non-election or rejection were not infallibly followed by unbelief, disobedience, and punishment: e. g., the Ishmaelites — the Edomites — the rejected Jews in the apostolic age.

(3.) The only argument of any weight, for the ground that individuals are intended in this discourse, is, that as none are acknowledged to be the true church but true believers, therefore individual election to eternal life must necessarily be included in the notion of collective election; and that true believers only, under both the old and new dispensations, constituted the “election” — the “remnant according to the election of grace.” In this argument there is much error.

1. It is a mere assumption, that the spiritual Israelites, in opposition to Israelites by birth, are anywhere called the “election,” or the “remnant,” &c.

2. It is not true, that under the old dispensation the election of which the apostle speaks was confined to the spiritual seed of Abraham: e. g., case of Esau and Jacob and their descendants.

3. This notion is often grounded on a mistaken view of verses 6-9 in this chapter: the view, namely, that in this passage Paul distinguishes between the spiritual Israelites and those of natural descent; while the fact is, that he distinguishes between the descendants of Abraham in a certain line, and his other descendants.

4. Though we grant that the election of bodies of men to church privileges involves the election of individuals into the true church, — still this last, as Scripture plainly testifies, is not unconditional, as the former is, but depends upon their repentance and faith.

We have thus shown that the apostle treats of unconditional collective election, but not of unconditional individual election.

(III.) The third kind of election is personal election, or the choice of individuals to be the heirs of eternal life.

a.) It is not denied that true believers are styled in Scripture the “elect of God;” but the question arises, What is the import of that act of grace which is termed “an election?” We find it explained in two clear passages of Scripture. To be elected, is to be separated from “the world,” and to be “sanctified by the Spirit, and by the blood of Christ;” hence, election is not only an act done in time, but subsequent to the administration of the means of salvation.

b.) The Calvinistic doctrine, that God hath from eternity chosen unto salvation a set number of men unto faith and final salvation, presents a different aspect, and requires an appeal to the Word of God. It has two parts: 1. The choosing of a determinate number of men, and, 2. That this election is unconditional.

A. As to the choosing of a determinate number of men, it is allowed by Calvinists that they have no express Scriptural evidence for this tenet. And

(1.) As to God’s eternal purpose to elect, we know nothing except from revelation; and that declares, (a) that he willeth all men to be saved: (b) that Christ died for all men, in order to the salvation of all: and (c) the decree of God is, “He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned;” and if God be unchangeable, this must have been his decree from all eternity: (d) if the fault of men’s destruction lies in themselves — as we have proved — then the number of the elect is capable of increase and diminution.

(2.) This doctrine necessarily carries with it that of the unconditional reprobation of all mankind except the elect, which cannot be reconciled, (a) with the love of God; (b) with the wisdom of God; (c) with the grace of God; (d) with the compassion of God; (e) with the justice of God; (f) with the sincerity of God; (g) with the Scriptural doctrine that God is no respecter of persons; (h) with the Scriptural doctrine of the eternal salvation of infants; (i) and, finally, with the proper end of punitive justice. B. We consider now the second branch of this doctrine, viz., that personal election is unconditional.

(1.) According to this doctrine, the Church of God is constituted on the sole principle of the divine purpose, not upon the basis of faith and obedience, which manifestly contradicts the Word of God.

(2.) This doctrine of election without respect to faith contradicts the history of the commencement and first constitution of the Church of Christ.

(3.) There is no such doctrine in Scripture as the election of individuals unto faith; and it is inconsistent with several passages which speak expressly of personal election: e. g., John 15:19; 1 Peter 1:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 14.

(4.) There is another class of texts, referring to believers, not individually, but as a body forming the Church of Christ, which texts, containing the word election, are ingeniously or perversely applied by Calvinists to the support of their doctrine, when in fact they do not contain it. Such is Ephesians 1:4-6. Now in regard to this text, it might be shown, (a) that if personal election were contained in it, the choice spoken of is not of men merely; but of believing men; but (b) it does not contain the doctrine of personal election, but that of the eternal purpose of God to constitute his visible church no longer upon the ground of descent from Abraham, but on that of faith in Christ.

(5.) Finally, the Calvinistic doctrine has no stronger passage to lean upon. We conclude by asking, if this doctrine be true, (a.) Why are we commanded “to make our election sure?” (b.) Where does Scripture tell us of elect unbelievers? (c.) And how can the Spirit of truth convince such of sin and danger when they are, in fact, in no danger?

II. Having thus considered election, we come now to examine those texts which speak of the calling and predestination of believers. (I.) The words “call” and “calling” occur frequently in the New Testament. The parable in Matthew 22:1-14, seems to have given rise to many of these; and a clear interpretation of it will explain the use of the phrase in most other passages.

a.) Three classes of persons are called in the parable. (1.) The disobedient persons who made light of the call. (2.) Those embraced in the class of “destitute of the wedding garment.” (3.) The approved guests. b.) As to the call itself. (1.) The three classes are on an equality. (2.) No irresistible influence is employed. (3.) They are called into a company, or society, before which the banquet is spread.

These views explain the passages in which the term is used in the epistles: in none of them is the exclusive calling of any set number of men contained.

(II.) The Synod of Dort attempt to reason the doctrine from Romans 8:30. But this passage says nothing of a “set and determinate number of men.” It treats indeed of the privileges and hopes of believers, but not as secured to them by any such decree as the Synod of Dort advocates; for,

(1.) The matter would have been out of place in St. Paul’s lofty conclusion of his high argument on justification by faith.

(2.) The context relieves the text of the appearance of favouring the doctrine.

(3.) The apostle does indeed speak of the foreknowledge of believers, taken distributively and personally, to church privileges; but this strengthens our argument against the use of the passage made by the Synod of Dort; for 1. Foreknowledge may be simple approval, as in Romans 11:2; and 2. If it be taken in this passage in the sense of simple prescience, it will come to the same issue; for believers, if foreknown at all, in any other sense than all men are foreknown, must have been foreknown as believers.

(4.) As to the predestination spoken of in the text, the way is now clear: the foreknown believers were predestinated, called, justified, and glorified. EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE SUPPOSED TO LIMIT THE EXTENT OF CHRIST’S REDEMPTION, (Ch. 27.)

1. John 6:37: “All that the Father giveth to me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out.” The Calvinistic view of this text is, that a certain number were “given” to Christ; and as none others can come to him, the doctrine of distinguishing grace is established.

(1.) Our first objection to this view is, that Christ placed the reason of the Jews’ not coming, in themselves. John 5:38, 40, 44, 46.

(2.) The phrase, “to be given” by the Father to Christ, is abundantly explained by the context.

2. Matthew 20:15, 16. The Calvinistic view here is, that God has a right, on the principle of pure sovereignty, to afford grace to some, and to leave others to perish in their sins. The fact that this passage is the conclusion of the parable of the vineyard, is sufficient refutation of the interpretation.

3. 2 Timothy 2:19. This text bears no friendly aspect toward Calvinism.

4. John 10:26: “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” It is a sufficient reply to the Calvinistic view of this text, to state that men are called “the sheep of Christ” in regard to their qualities and acts, and not with reference to any supposed transaction between the Father and Christ.

5. John 13:18. The term “know” in this text is evidently used in the sense of discriminating character.

6. John 15:16. The word “chosen” in this text is gratuitously interpreted (by Calvinists) as relating to an eternal election; but Christ had “chosen them out of the world,” which must have been done in time.

7. 2 Timothy 1:9: “Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling,” &c. No personal election spoken of here. The parallel passage, Ephesians 3:4-6, shows that the apostle was speaking of the divine purpose to form the church out of both Jews and Gentiles.

8. Acts 13:48: “And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

(1.) If the Gentiles, who believed, only did so because they were “ordained” so to do, then the Jews, who believed not, were not guilty, as it is affirmed, of PUTTING THE WORD AWAY from them.

(2.) The Calvinistic view carries with it the notion that all the elect Gentiles at Antioch believed at once, and that no more remained to be converted.

(3.) Some Calvinists render the words “determined,” or “ordered,” for eternal life.

(4.) In no place in the New Testament where the same word occurs, is it ever employed to convey the meaning of destiny, or predestination.

9. Luke 10:20. Our Calvinistic friends forget, in interpreting this text, that names may be “blotted out of the book of life.”

10. Proverbs 16:4. The true meaning is, that God renders even those who have made themselves wicked, the means of glorifying his justice in their punishment.

11. John 12:37-40. Quotation from Isaiah. In examining this passage, we find,

(1.) That it does not affirm that the eyes of the Jew should be blinded by a divine agency, as Mr. Scott and the Calvinists assume. In every view of the passage, the responsible agent is “THIS PEOPLE” — the perverse and obstinate Jews themselves.

(2.) A simple prophecy is not a declaration of purpose at all; but the declaration of a future event.

(3.) Even admitting the Calvinistic view of this passage, it would afford no proof of general election and reprobation, since it has application to the unbelieving part of the Jews only.

12. Jude 1:4. These certain men had been foretold in the Scriptures, or their punishment predicted. There is nothing here of eternal purpose.

13. 1 Corinthians 4:7: “For who maketh thee to differ from another?” A favourite argument with Calvinists is founded on this text; and a dilemma raised on the supposition of gospel offers being made to two men, why one accepts and the other rejects? They answer that election alone solves the question. But,

(1.) Put the question as to one man, at two different periods; — and election will not solve this difficulty: of course, then, it will not solve the other.

(2.) The question of the apostle has reference to gifts and endowments, not to a difference in religious state.

(3.) Following out their view, the doctrine would follow, that sufficiency of grace is denied to the wicked, — which would remove all their responsibility.

14. Acts 18:9, 10: “…for I have much people in this city.” This may mean, either that there were many devout people in the city, or that there would be many subsequently converted there.

THEORIES WHICH LIMIT THE EXTENT OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. (Ch. 28.) We shall notice in this chapter the doctrines of predestination, etc. I. As stated by Calvin himself, and by Calvinistic theologians and churches.

(I.) Calvin.

1. Statement of his opinions, from the “Institutes.”

2. His answers to objections shown to be weak and futile, e. g., a.) The objection that the system is unjust: which he answers by asserting that it is the will of God: thus making four evasions — l, 2, 3, 4. b.) The objection that if corruption is the cause of man’s destruction, the corruption itself was an effect of the divine decree: which he answers by referring again to the sovereign will of God.

3. His attempts to reconcile his doctrine with man’s demerit, and to relieve it of the charge of making God the author of sin, shown to be feeble and contradictory.

4. His system not reducable to sublapsarianism.

5. His tenets shown to be in opposition to the doctrines of the first ages.

6. Their history from the time of Augustine to Calvin.

(II.) Calvinistic theologians and churches.

1. Three leading theories prevalent among the reformed churches prior to the Synod of Dort.

a.) Supralapsarian. (1.) Decree: to save certain men by grace, and to condemn others by justice. (2.) Means: creation of Adam, and ordination of sin. (3.) Operation: irresistible grace, producing faith and final salvation.

(4.) Result: that reprobates have no grace, and no capacity of believing and of being saved.

b.) Also supralapsarian, but differing somewhat from (a.), viz., that it does not lay down the creation or the fall as a mediate cause, foreordained of God for the execution of the decree of reprobation; but yet Arminius shows that, according to this view, the fall is a necessary means for its exercise, and thus God is made the author of sin.

c.) Sublapsarian. In which man, as the object of predestination, is considered as fallen.

(1.) Statement of the doctrine. Its basis is, that the whole human race are liable to eternal death in consequence of Adam’s transgression.

(2.) Refutation. “The wages of sin is death,” but “sin is the transgression of the law.”

1. If the race be contemplated as contained seminally in Adam, then the whole race would have perished in Adam, without the vouchsafement of mercy to any.

2. If contemplated as to have not only a potential but a real existence, then the doctrine is, that every man of the race is absolutely liable to eternal death for the sin of Adam, to which he was not a consenting party.

3. If the foreknowledge of actual transgression be contemplated by the decree, then the actual sins of men are either evitable or necessary: if the former, then reprobates may be saved; if the latter, none are responsible.

4. It is alleged that Paul represents all men under condemnation to eternal death in consequence of their connexion with the first Adam; but, a.) In the gospel “this is the condemnation, that men love darkness rather than light.” Hence the previous state of condemnation was not unalterable. b.) In Scripture, final condemnation is always placed upon the ground of actual sin.

c.) The true sense of the apostle in Romans v, is to be obtained from a careful examination of the entire argument. He is not representing, as Calvinists have it, the condition in which the human race would have been if Christ had not interposed, but its actual condition, both in consequence of the fall of man and the intervention of Christ.

2. Decisions of the Synod of Dort: from Scott’s translation of the “Judgment of the Synod,” &c., read in the great church at Dort, in 1619. By extracts from Acts 1:1, 4-6, 10, and 15, it is clear that Dr. Heylin gave a true summary of the eighteen articles on predestination, in the following words: — “That God, by an absolute decree, hath elected to salvation a very small number of men, without any regard to their faith and obedience whatsoever; and excluded from saving grace all the rest of mankind, and appointed them by the same decree to eternal damnation, without any regard to their infidelity and impenitency.”

3. The Church of Scotland expresses its doctrine on these topics in the answers to the 12th and 13th questions of its large catechism; in which there appears a strict conformity to the doctrines of Calvin.

4. The Church of the Vaudois, in Piedmont, by the Confession of A. D. 1120, establish the doctrine that Christ died for the salvation of the whole world; but in the seventeenth century pastors were introduced from Geneva, and the Confession of 1655 embraces the doctrine and almost the very words of Calvin on this point.

5. The French Churches, in their Confession of 1558, declare Calvinistic sentiments, but the expressions are guarded and careful.

6. The Westminster Confession gives the sentiments of the English Presbyterian Churches, and of the Church of Scotland. In chapter iii, the doctrine of predestination is advanced in conformity with the most unmitigated parts of Calvin’s Institutes.

II. As held in certain modifications of the Calvinistic scheme. (I.) Baxterianism: advanced by Richard Baxter, in his treatise of Universal Redemption, and in his Methodus Theologiæ; but derived from the writings of Camero, and defended by Amyraut and others.

1. It differs from High Calvinism, as to the doctrine of satisfaction: as the system explicitly asserts that Christ made satisfaction by his death equally for the sins of every man. Baxter draws many “absurd consequents from the doctrine which denieth universal satisfaction.

2. But from an examination of his entire scheme, it amounts only to this, — that although a conditional satisfaction has been purchased by Christ for all men, yet Christ has not purchased for all men, the power of performing the required condition of salvation. Baxter gives to the elect irresistible effectual grace; but to others sufficient grace, which is called by himself, aptly enough, “sufficient ineffectual grace.” He admits that all men may have grace to bring them nearer Christ; but coming nearer to Christ, and nearer to saving faith, are with him quite distinct. His concern seems to be, to show, not how the non-elect might be saved, but how they might with some plausibility be damned. Quotations from Curcellœus, Dr. Womack, and Maclaine, are in point.

(II.) Dr. Williams’s scheme is in substance the same as the theory of supralapsarian reprobation. In all other mitigated schemes, the “sufficiency of grace” is understood in Baxter’s sense. The labour of all these theories is to find out some pretext for punishing those that perish, independent of the Scriptural reason, the rejection of a mercy free for all. III. As to their origin. They seem to have arisen, not from a careful examination of Scripture, but from metaphysical subtleties, for by these they have at all times been chiefly supported.

(I.) Eternal decrees.

1. This term is nowhere employed in Scripture: its signification, (if it be used at all,) must be controlled by Scripture. The decrees of God can only Scripturally signify the determination of his will in his government of the world he has made.

2. These decrees are, in Scripture, referred to two classes: (1) a determination to do certain things; and (2) a determination to permit certain things to be done by free and accountable creatures. This last does not involve the consequence of making God the author of sin.

3. That many of the divine decrees are conditional we have the testimony of Scripture, which abounds with examples of decrees to which conditions are annexed. We have also instances, as in the case of Eli, of the revocation of the divine decrees.

(II.) The prescience of God.

1. The Calvinistic popular argument is, that as the final condition of every man is foreseen, it must be certain, and therefore inevitable and necessary. The answer is, that certainty and necessity are two perfectly distinct predicaments, — as certainty exists in the mind fore-seeing, but necessity qualifies the action foreseen.

2. The scholastic argument.

(a.) The schoolmen distinguish between (1.) Scientia indefinita, the knowledge of possible things, and (2.) Scientia visionis, the knowledge which God has of all real existences; to which the anti-predestinarians added (3.) Scientia media, to express God’s knowledge of the actions of free agents, and the divine acts consequent upon them.

(b.) Absolute predestination is identified with scientia visionis by the Calvinists: illustrated by an extract from Hill’s Lectures. The sophistry of Dr. Hill’s statement lies in this, that the determination of the divine will to produce the universe is made to include a determination “to produce the whole series of beings and events that were then future:” while among the “beings” to be produced were some endowed with free will. If this be denied, then man is not accountable for his personal offences: if allowed, then his (say) sinful acts cannot have been determined in the same manner by the divine will, as the production of the universe and the beings which composed it.

(III.) The human will.

1. Calvinists find it necessary to the consistency of their theory that the volitions, as well as the acts, of man should be placed in bondage; and their doctrine fairly stated is, that the will is determined to one class of objects, no other being possible. The Scriptural doctrine is. that, by the grace of God, man — who without that grace would be morally incapable of choosing anything but evil — is endowed with the power of choosing good.

2. More moderate Calvinists contend that transgressors are responsible for their evil acts, because they are done willingly, although their will could not but choose them. We reply, that this is only the case where the time of trial is past, as in devils and apostates; and then only because these are personally guilty of having vitiated their own wills: but the case is different as to probationers; for,

(1.) It is decided by the Word of God, that men who perish might have “chosen life.”

(2.) The natural reason of mankind is in direct opposition to the doctrine.

3. The metaphysical doctrine is, that the will is swayed by motives which arise from circumstances beyond the control of man; but,

(1.) This still leaves us in the difficulty, that men are bound by a chain of events established by an almighty power.

(2.) The doctrine is contradicted by the language of men in all countries and ages.

(3.) We deny the necessary connexion between motive and volition. That the mind acts generally under the influence of motives may be granted, but that it is operated upon by them necessarily, is contradicted, (a.) By the fact of our often acting under the weakest reason, which is the character of all sins against judgment; and,

(b.) By the fact that we have power to displace one motive by another, and to control those circumstances from which motives flow.

(IV.) The divine sovereignty.

The Calvinistic doctrine is, that God does what he wills, only because he wills it. But it can be shown from Scripture, that the acts of the divine will are under the direction of the divine wisdom, goodness, and justice. (V.) The case of heathen nations is sometimes referred to by Calvinists as presenting equal difficulties to those urged against election and reprobation. But the cases are not parallel, unless it be granted that heathen, as such, are excluded from heaven.

1. Heathen are bad enough, but the question is not what they are, but what they might be: they are under the patriarchal dispensation, and

2. St. Paul affirms that the divine law has not perished from among them, but that if they live up to the light which they possess they may be saved. (VI.) Irresistible grace. We admit that man, in his simply natural state, is insufficient of himself to think or do anything of a saving tendency; and that when the Holy Spirit is vouchsafed, we are often entirely passive in the first instance: but we contend that the grace of God has been bestowed upon all men, inasmuch as all are required to do those things which have a saving tendency. These premises

1. Establish the justice of God in the condemnation of men, and

2. Secure the glory of our salvation to the grace of God. (D.) — FURTHER BENEFITS OF REDEMPTION. (Ch. 29.)

I. Entire sanctification of believers. That there is a distinction between a regenerate state and a state of perfect holiness, is sufficiently proved by the exhortations to believers in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, and 2 Corinthians 7. 1.

1. The time when we are to expect this blessing has been disputed. It is admitted that the soul must be entirely cleansed before it can pass into heaven, but many contend that the final stroke to corruption can only be given at death; but

(1.) The promise of sanctification is nowhere restricted in Scripture to the article of death.

(2.) The soul’s union with the body is nowhere represented as a necessary obstacle to its entire sanctification. Romans vii, has indeed been adduced in proof of this, but it is clear that the apostle is giving the experience of one yet under the law, and not in a state of deliverance by Christ.

(3.) This doctrine is disproved by those passages which connect sanctification with the subsequent exhibition of its fruits in life.

(4.) It is disproved, also, by all those passages which require us to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit; for these are required of us in perfection and maturity, and necessarily suppose the entire sanctification of the soul from the opposite and antagonist evils.

(5.) This doctrine involves other antiscriptural consequences: — that the seat of sin is in the flesh; and that the flesh must not only lust against the spirit, but on many occasions be the conqueror.

We conclude, then, that as sanctification can neither be referred to the hour of death, nor placed subsequently to this life, it is an attainment to which believers are called during this life.

2. The manner of sanctification. It. may be, (1) gradual, or (2) instantaneous,

3. Objections to this doctrine.

(1.) It supposes future impeccability. Nay: the angels sinned, and so did our first parents.

(2.) It renders the atonement and intercession of Christ superfluous; Nay: for this state of sanctification is maintained by the constant influences of the Holy Spirit, vouchsafed through Christ’s intercession.

(3.) It shuts out the use of the prayer, “Forgive us our trespasses.” But, a) this prayer is designed for men in a mixed condition, b) All sin must not be continued, in order that this prayer may be employed. And c) The defects and infirmities of a being naturally imperfect, are not inconsistent with moral holiness.

II. The right to pray is another benefit which accrues to believers; and so is

III. The special providence of God.

IV. Victory over death is also awarded to them.

V. The immediate reception of the soul into a state of blessedness. “The sacred writers proceed on the supposition that the soul and the body are naturally distinct and separable, and that the soul is susceptible of pain or pleasure during that separation.” Quotation from Campbell. VI. Resurrection of the body. There is some dispute in regard to this doctrine — whether it implies a resurrection of the substance of the body, or of a minute and indestructible germ.

1. The only passage of Scripture which seems to favour the germ theory is 1 Corinthians 15:35: “How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?” These two questions both imply a doubt as to the fact, not an inquiry as to the modus agendi; and the apostle answers them by showing, in answer to the first question, that there is nothing incredible in the thing; and in answer to the second, that the doctrine of our reunion with the body implies nothing contrary to the hopes of liberation from the “burden of this flesh,” because of the glorified qualities which God is able to give to matter.

2. There are several difficulties connected with this theory; for on its hypothesis

(1.) There is no resurrection of the body; for the germ cannot be called the body.

(2.) There is no resurrection from death at all, but a vegetation from a secret principle of life.

(3.) It is substantially the same with the pagan doctrine of metempsychosis. An objection to the resurrection of the body has been drawn from the changes of its substance during life. This does not affect the doctrine, that the body which is laid in the grave shall be raised up. “But,” we are told, “the same bodies that sin may not be punished.” We answer, that the soul is the only rewardable subject — the body is its instrument.