THEOLOGY.

The word theology, in its most restricted sense, signifies a discourse concerning God, (λoγoς περι τov θεoυ) ; but it is commonly employed to designate that science which treats not only of the divine existence and attributes, but also of the relations which subsist between God and his intelligent creatures, the duties which consequently devolve upon the latter, and the arrangements which He has entered into for their government and benefit. More particularly it is used to designate the scientific development of the doctrines upon these points embraced by Christianity.

Obs. The word θεoaoyειv and its cognates were first used to denote the fables of those poets and philosophers who wrote of the genealogy and exploits of the gods of Greece. They were afterwards adopted by the earliest writers of the Christian church, who styled the author of the Apocalypse, by way of eminence, ὁ θεολογος , the Divine.

Having already, under the article Polytheism, treated of the origin and characteristics of idolatry, we are happily relieved from the necessity of here examining the theology of paganism; for although every pagan nation of antiquity had some tutelary deities peculiar to itself, they may yet be considered as having all had the same theology, since an intercommunity of gods was universally admitted, and the heavenly bodies were adored as the dii majorum gentium over the whole earth. The absurdities and inconsistency of the pretended revelation of the Arabian impostor, have also been sufficiently exposed under the words Alcoran and Mahometanism ; so that the only theology of which we have to treat at present is the Christian theology. This comprises a body of science so important, that in comparison with it all other sciences sink into insignificance; for without a competent knowledge of the attributes of God, of the several relations in which he stands to us, and of the ends for which we were created, it is obvious that we must wander through life like men groping in the dark, strangers to the road on which we are travelling, as well as to the fate awaiting us at the end of our journey.

The Christian theology embraces both what has been called Natural Theology, and that which is peculiar to the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The distinction between these two is clear and well-founded. a At the same time, it is not of that kind which renders it necessary that the two should be treated separately; for as Christianity is no less a republication of the religion of nature, (see Hill’s Divinity, b. ii. c. 3, 1), than an announcement of truths, of which the volume of nature bears no traces, the attempt to present the entire body of its theology in one continuous whole, necessarily involves the statement both of the doctrines of natural, and those of Biblical theology.

a Concerning the extent of natural theology many opinions have been formed, while some have contended that there is no such thing. Into these disputes we mean not at present to enter. We believe that one of them could have had no existence among sober and enlightened men, bad the contending parties been at due pains to define with accuracy the terms which they used. Whatever be the origin of religion, it is obvious, that no man can receive a written book as the word of God, till he be convinced by some other means that God exists, and that he is a Being of power, wisdom, and goodness, who watches over the conduct of his creature man. If the progenitor of the human race was instructed in the principles of religion by the Author of his being, (a fact of which it is difficult to conceive how a consistent theist can entertain a doubt), he might communicate to his children, by natural means, much of that knowledge which he himself could not have discovered had he not been supernatnrally enlightened. Between illustrating or proving a truth which is already spoken of, and making a discovery of what is wholly unknown, every one perceives that there is an immense difference.^[1. The discriminating powers of Aristotle will not be questioned; and in the following extract made by Cicero from some of his works which are now lost, he expresses our sentiments on this important subject with his usual precision “Praeclare ergo Aristoteles, si essent , inquit, qui sub terra semper habitavissent, bonis, et illustribus domiciliis, quae essent ornata signis atque picturis, instructaque rebus iis omnibus, quibus abundant ii, qui beati putantur, nec tamen exissent unquam supra terram: accepissent autem fama et auditione, esse quoddam numen, et vim deorum ; deinde aliquo tempore, patefactis terrae faucibus, ex illis abditis sedibus evadere in baec loca, quae nos incolimus, atque exire potuissent; cum repente terram, et maria, coelumque vidissent; nubium magnitudinem, ventonimque vim cognovissent, adspexissentque solem, ejusque tum magnitudinem, pulchritudinemque, tum etiam efficientiam cognovissent, quod is diem efficeret, toto coelo luce diffusa: cum autem terras nox opacasset, tum coelum totum cernerent astris distinctum et ornatum, lunaeque luminum varietatem tum crescentis, tum senescentis, eorumque omnium ortus et occasus, atque in omni aetemitate ratos, immutabilesque cursus; haec cum viderent, profecto et esse deos, et haec tanta opeba deobum esse arbitrarentur."— De Nat. Deorum, lib. ii. § 37. From this passage it is evident, that the Stagyrite. though he considered the motions of the heavenly bodies, the ebbing and flowing of the sea, and the other phenomena of nature, as affording a complete proof of the being and providence of God, did not however suppose that from these phenomena an untaught barbarian would discover this fundamental principle of religion. On the contrary, he expressly affirms, that before a man can feel the force of the evidence which they give of this important truth, he must have heard of the existence. and power of God. ]

To beings whose natural knowledge originates wholly from sensation, and whose minds cannot, but by much discipline, advance from sense to science, a long series of revelations might be necessary to give them at first just notions of God and his attributes, and to enable them to perceive the relation between the effect and its cause, so as to infer by the powers of their own reason, the existence of the Creator from the presence of his creatures. Such revelations, however, could be satisfactory only to those who immediately received them. Whenever the Deity has been pleased by supernatural means to communicate any information to man, we may be sure that he has taken effectual care to satisfy the person so highly favoured, that his understanding was not under the influence of any illusion; but such a person could not communicate to another the knowledge which be bad thus received, by any other means than an address to his rational faculties. No man can be required to believe, no man indeed can believe, without proof, that another, who has no more faculties, either of sensation or intellect, than himself, has obtained information from a source to which he has no possible access. An appeal to miracles would in this case serve no purpose; for we must believe in the existence, power, wisdom, and justice of God, before a miracle can be admitted as evidence of any thing but the power of him by whom it is performed. See Miracle.

It is therefore undeniable that there are some principles of theology which may be called natural; for though it is in the highest degree probable that the parents of mankind received all their theological knowledge by supernatural means, it is yet obvious that some parts of that knowledge must have been capable of a proof purely rational, otherwise not a single religious truth could have been conveyed through the succeeding generations of the human race, but by the immediate inspiration of each individual. We indeed admit many propositions as certainly true, upon the sole authority of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and we receive these scriptures with gratitude as the lively oracles of God; but it is self-evident that we could not do either the one or the other, were we not convinced by natural means that God exists, that he is a being of goodness, justice, and power, and that he inspired with divine wisdom the penmen of these sacred volumes. Now, though it is possible that no man, or body of men, left to themselves from in. fancy in a desert world, would ever have made a theological discovery, yet whatever propositions relating to the being and attributes of the first cause and the duty of man, can be demonstrated [7:21:203]by human reason, independent of written revelation, may be called natural theology, and are of the utmost importance, as being to us the first principles of all religion. Natural theology, in ibis sense of the word, is the foundation of the Christian revelation; for without a previous knowledge of it, we could have no evidence that the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are indeed the word of God. On this subject many books have been published in our own and other languages; of which the following may be mentioned as the most valuable: Paley’s Natural Theology, especially as edited by Lord Brougham and Sir Charles Bell, 4 vols. 12mo. Chalmers’s Nat. Theol. Works, vol. i. and ii. Sumner’s Records of the Creation, 2 vols. 8vo. The Bridgewater Treatises on the Power, Wisdom, and Goodness of God, &c., by Chalmers, Kidd, Whewell, Bell, Roget, Buckland, Kirby, and Prout.

The principles of this science are to be found only in the word and works of God; and he who would extract them pure and unsophisticated, must dig for them himself in that exhaustless mine. To fit a man for this important investigation, much previous knowledge is requisite. He must study the works of God scientifically, before he can perceive the full force of that testimony which they bear to the power, the wisdom, and the goodness of their author. Hence the necessity of a general acquaintance with the physical and mathematical sciences before a man enter on the proper study of theology, for he will not otherwise obtain just and enlarged conceptions of the God of the universe. He should also make himself acquainted with the principles of logic, the philosophy of the human mind, and the different sources of evidence. Above all, he should devote himself to the study of the original languages of scripture, and to the principles of Biblical criticism and interpretation. He who is incapable of consulting the original scriptures, must rest his faith, not on the sure foundation of the word of God, but on the credit of fallible translators; and if he be at any time called on to vindicate revelation against the scoffs of infidelity, he will have to struggle with many difficulties which are easily solved by him who is master of the original tongues.

Having satisfied himself of the Authenticity and Divine Authority of the Scriptures, (see Scripture and Inspiraτιον), the student will set himself honestly, diligently, and devoutly to examine into their sacred contents, that he may therein learn for himself the system of truths which they contain.

Obs. “Impressed,” says Mr. Tatham, (Chart and Scale of Truth), " with an awful sense of the importance of the sacred volume, the philosophical [scientific] divine will shake off the bias of prejudices, however formed, of opinions however sanctioned, and of passions however constitutional, and bring to the study of it the advantage of a pure and impartial mind. Instead of wasting all his labour upon a number of minute and less significant particulars, and of refining away plain and obvious sense by the subtleties of a narrow and corrosive mind, his first object will be to institute a theological inquiry into the general design of the written word, and from principles fully contained and fairly understood, to illustrate the true nature and genius of the religious dispensation in all its parts. He will mark the difference between the first and second covenants, and observe the connection that subsists between them. He will trace the temporary economy of the Old Testament, and weigh the nature and intent of the partial covenant with the Jews; observing with astonishment how it was made introductory of better things to come: and be will follow it through the law and the prophets in its wonderful evolutions, till be see this vast and preparatory machine of providence crowned and completed in the eternal gospel. This New Testament, the last and best part of the religious dispensation, be will pursue through the sacred pages of that gospel with redoubled attention; contemplating the divine foundation on which it claims to be built, the supernatural means by which it was executed, and the immortal end which it has in view.”

In the course of this inquiry into the import of the sacred volume, the student will pay particular attention to the circumstances of the age and country in which its various writers respectively lived, and to the nature of the different styles, analogical, and parabolical, in which it is written. He will likewise keep in mind that God, whom it claims for its author, is the parent of truth, and that all his actions and dispensations must be consistent with one another. He will therefore compare the different passages of the Old and New Tes taments which relate to the same doctrine, or to the same event, reasonably concluding that the Bible must be the best interpreter of itself; and though the opinions which he thus forms may often be erroneous, they will seldom be dangerous errors, and may easily be corrected by mature reflection, or by consulting approved authors who have treated before him of the various points which have been the subject of his studies. Of this mode of proceeding one good consequence will be, that, having from the sacred scriptures formed a system of theology for himself, be will afterwards study the systems of other men without any violent prejudices for or against them; he will be so much attached to his own opinions, as not to relinquish them in obedience to mere human authority, at the same that be will be ready to give them up when convinced that they are not well-founded; and if he have read the scriptures attentively, he will have acquired such a love of truth as to embrace her wherever she may be found.

No small assistance will be obtained in this inquiry by an acquaintance with the history of theological opinions, and of the different controversies which have at different periods, or more continuously, agitated the church? It has indeed been long fashionable to decry polemical divinity as an useless, if not a pernicious, study; but it is not impossible that this fashion has had its origin in ignorance, and that it tends to perpetuate those schisms which it professes to lament. We are, however, far from recommending to the young divine a perusal of the works of the several combatants on each side of a disputed question, till he has fitted himself for judging between them by a long course of preparatory study; and no preparation can better fit him for this purpose, than an impartial study of ecclesiastical history. He who has with accuracy traced the progress of our holy religion from the days of the apostles to the present time, and marked the introduction of new doctrines, and the rise of the various sects into which the Christian world is divided, is furnished with a criterion within himself, by which to judge of the importance and truth of the many contested doctrines: while he who, without this preparation, shall read a multitude of books on any religious controversy, will be in danger of becoming a convert to his last author, if that author possess any tolerable share of art and ingenuity.

b See Stapferi Theologiae Polemicae Institutiones, 5 tom. 8vo, 1743— 47. Reinhard Theologia Polemica, 8vo, 1745. Petavius De Theologicis Dogmatibus, 3 vols. folio, 1700. Augusti’s Christliche Dogmengeschichte, 8vo, 1885; &c.

The student will find it further of advantage to compare his own conclusions with those which have been arrived at and advocated by the most distinguished writers upon systematic theology. He will thus be enabled to verify his own opinions where they are sound, and to modify or correct them where they are erroneous.

Obs. Systems of theology abound both in our own and in other languages. The following appear especially worthy of the attention of the student: Latin. —Phil. Melanchthonis Loci Communes Theologici, 1521, denuo edidit Augusti, 8vo, 1821. J. Calvini Jnstitutiones Rd. Christ., 1536, denuo ed. Tholuck, 2 tom. 8vo, 1834, 5. J. Gerhardt Loci Theologici, 1610-2*2, denuo ed. Cotta, 20 tom. 4to, 1762—81. Fr. Turretini Institutio Theol. Elencticae, 3 tom. 4to, 1701. D. Hollazii Examen Theol. deroam. 1707, denuo ed. Teller, 1763, 4to. J. Cp. Döderleinii Institutio Theologi Christ, in capp. relig. theor. nostris temporibus accommodata, 1780, ed. 6ta, a Junge, 1797, 8vo. Ric. Buxteri Methodus Theologiae Christ, fol. 1681. Herrn. Witsii De Oeconomia Foederum Dei cum Hominibus lib. iv. 4to, 1693. Herrn. Muntinghe Pars thedl. Christ, theoretica, 2 vols. 8vo, 1800. English. —Tb. Ridgley’s Body of Divinity, &c. 2 vols. fol. 1731; 4 vols 8vo, 1819. Th. Gill’s Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 2 vols. 4to, 1769; 3 vols. 8vo, 1796. Tim. Dwight’s Theology explained and defended, in a series of Sermons, (many editions). G. Hill’s Lectures in Divinity, 2 vols. 8vo, 1821; 2 vols. 12mo, 1833. Dick’s Lectures on Theology, 4 vols. 8vo. Morren’s Biblical Theology, 8vo, 1835. S. S. Schmucker’s Biblical Theology, translated from the Works of Storr and Flatt, 8vo, 2d ed. 1836, (London, reprinted 1839.)

As much of our success, in all theological inquiries, depends upon the spirit and temper in which these are prosecuted, we commend to the attention of the reader the following[7:21:204] solemn charge, with which the late Dr. Taylor of Norwich was wont to preface his Theological Lectures:

“I. I do solemnly charge you, in the name of the God of Truth, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and before whose judgment-seat you must in no long time appear, that in all your studies and inquiries of a religious nature, present or future, you do constantly, carefully, impartially, and conscientiously, attend to evidence, as it lies in the Holy Scriptures, or in the nature of things, and the dictates of reason; cautiously guarding against the sallies of imagination, and the fallacy of ill· grounded conjecture.

“IL That you admit, embrace, or assent to no principle or sentiment by me taught or advanced, but only so far as it shall appear to you to be supported and justified by proper evidence from revelation or the reason of things.

“III. That if, at any time hereafter, any principle or sentiment by me taught or advanced, or by you admitted or embraced, shall, upon impartial and faithful examination, appear to you to be dubious or false, you either suspect or totally reject such principle or sentiment.

“IV. That you keep your mind always open to evidence: That you labour to banish from your breast all prejudice, prepossession, and party-zeal: That you study to live in peace and love with all your fellow-Christians; and that you steadily assert for yourself, and freely allow to others the unalienable rights of judgment and conscience.”

“Bene precasse," said Luther, “est bene studuisse.”

Christian theology may be divided into four parts; the first, embracing the doctrines concerning God; the second, those concerning man; the third, those concerning the scheme of man’s salvation through Jesus Christ; and the fourth, those respecting the means to be used by man for the furtherance of the work of grace in his soul. The last of these relates chiefly to the constitution and duties of the Christian church, and has been already sufficiently considered in this work. See Episcopacy, Indefendents, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pope, Quakers, &c. Baptism , Eucharist, &c.

Of the other three parts we shall here present our readers with a concise view of the leading particulars.

Part I.— Doctrines respecting God. Sect. I. Of the Divine Existence. Iν every system of theology the first truths to be believed are those which relate to the being and attributes of God. The Jewish lawgiver, therefore, who records the earliest revelations that were made to man, begins his history with a display of the power and wisdom of God in the creation of the world. He does not inform his countrymen, and expect them to believe, on the authority of his divine commission, that God exists; for he well knew that the being of God must be admitted, and just notions entertained of his attributes, before man can be required to pay any regard to miracles which afford the only evidence of a primary revelation. “In the beginning,” says he, “God created the heavens and the earth.” Here the being of God is assumed as a truth universally received; but the sentence, short as it is, reveals another, which, as we shall afterwards shew, human reason could never have discovered.

The evidence of the Divine existence is drawn partly from the intimations of conscience within us, and partly from the marks of adaptation and design in the world around us. The conviction that, apart from any human influence whatever, we are obliged to do one thing and to refrain from doing another, and the accompanying sense of responsibility which attaches to us in regard to all parts of our conduct, lead us directly to the assurance that there exists for us an Obliger and a Judge. c So also the obvious adaptation of the world, both as a whole and in its separate parts, to certain definite and ascertainable ends, constrains us to admit the conclusion that it must be the product of some great, wise, and powerful being, whom we call God. d Other modes of proof, such as the ontological one of Des Cartes, and Clarkes a priori one, have been adopted and advanced by philosophical theists, but their argumentative value is more than questionable. e ’ The principal supporter of this moral proof (as it has been called) of the Divine existence, is Kant, who has urged it in several of his works. See his Kritik der reinen Vernunft, s. 223; and his Krit. der Urtheilskroft, s. 426. Part of the latter passage is given by Storr in his “Biblical Theology,” (translated by S. S. Schmucker, D. D. Loud. 1839.)

d This argument is admirably developed by Paley in his Natural Theology, and fully illustrated by the authors of the Bridgewater Treatises.

e Vide Cartesii Meditationes de Prima Philosophia, Med. 3 et 5. Leibnitii Opera Theologica, tom. i. p. 5, &c. ( Ed. Dutens. Genev. 1768.) Clarke’s Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God. Brougham’s Discourse on Natural Theology, p. 81, &c. Gillespie’s Necessary Existence of Deity.

Sect. II. Of the Divine Unity.

As the marks of design in the universe convince us that it is the work of divine power, so the perfect harmony which pervades the universe evinces that that power is the property of one intelligence. That on this globe the several elements serve for nourishment to plants, plants to the inferior animals, and animals to man; that the other planets of our system are probably inhabited, and their inhabitants nourished in the same or a similar manner; that the sun is so placed as to give light and heat to all, and by the law of gravitation to bind the whole planets into one system with itself—are truths so obvious and so universally acknowledged, as to supersede the necessity of establishing them by proof. The fair inference therefore is, that the solar system and all its parts are under the government of one intelligence, which directs all its motions and all the changes which take place among its parts for some wise purposes. To suppose it under the government of two or more intelligences would be highly unreasonable; for if these intelligences had equal power, equal wisdom, and the same designs, one of them would evidently be superfluous; and if they had equal power and contrary designs, they could not be the parents of that harmony which we clearly perceive to prevail in the system.

The truth thus intimated by the harmony of nature is plainly and frequently asserted in the scriptures. The texts affirming this great and fundamental truth are almost numberless. “Unto thee,” says Moses to his countrymen, (Deut. iv. 35 and 39; vi. 4), “it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord is God; there is none else besides him. Know therefore that the Lord he is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is none else." And again, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord," or, as it is expressed in the original, “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah,” one Being to whom existence is essential, who could not have a beginning and cannot have an end. In the prophecies of Isaiah, God is introduced as repeatedly declaring the same truth. (Isa. xiv. 5,6, 18; xliv. 8.) In perfect harmony with these declarations of Moses and the prophets, our Saviour, addressing himself to his Father, says, (John xvii. 3), “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent and St. Paul, who derived his doctrine from his divine Master, affirms, ( 1 Cor. viii. 4), that “an idol is nothing in the world; and that there is none other God but one.”

The unity of the divine nature, which, from the order and harmony of the world, appears probable to human reason, these texts of revelation put beyond a doubt. Hence the first precept of the Jewish law, and, according to their own writers, the foundation of their whole religion, was, “Thou shalt have none other gods before Me.” Hence, too, the reason of that strict command to Jews and Christians[7:21:205] to give worship to none but God: “Thou shalt wor- 'ship the Lord thy God, and him only shaft thou serve;” because he is God alone. Him only must we fear, because he alone hath infinite power; in him alone must we trust, because “he only is our rock and our salvation ;” and to him alone must we direct our devotions, because “he only knoweth the hearts of the children of men.”

Sect. III. Of the Bivine Trinity.

It has been already remarked, on the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis, that it contains an intimation of one of the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, which human reason never could have gathered from the light of nature. That doctrine is the existence of a threefold plurality in the one Godhead. This is intimated in the passage referred to, by the use of the word אלחים , elohim, gods, in conjunction with a singular verb. Some indeed have gone the length of asserting, that from this the doctrine of the Trinity may be proved; but to this opinion we can by no means give our assent. That there are three distinct persons in the one divine nature may be inferred with sufficient evidence from a multitude of passages in the Old and New Testaments diligently compared together; but it would perhaps be rash to rest the proof of so sublime a mystery on any single text of holy scripture, and would certainly be so to rest it on the text in question. That Moses was acquainted with this doctrine, we may reasonably conclude from his so frequently making a plural name of God to agree with a verb in the singular number; but had we not possessed the brighter light of the New Testament to guide us, we should never have thought of drawing such an inference. For supposing the word אלחים to denote clearly a plurality of persons, how could we have known that the number is neither more nor less than three, had it not been ascertained to us by subsequent revelations?

There are indeed various passages in the Old Testament, of the phraseology of which no rational account can be given, but that they indicate more than one person in the Godhead. Such are those texts already noticed; “and the Lord God said, let us make man in our own image, after our likeness ;” and “the Lord God said, behold the man is become like ονε of us.” To these may be added the following, which are to us perfectly unintelligible on any other supposition; and “the Lord God said, let us go down, and there confound their language,” (Gen. xi. 6, 7.) “If I be a Master (in the Hebrew adonim, Masters,) where is my fear?” (Mal. i. 6.) “The fear of the Lord (Jehovah) is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy (in the Hebrew holt ones) is understanding,” ( Prov. ix. 10). “Remember thy Creator (Hebrew, thy Creators) in the days of thy youth,” (Eccles, xii.D. “Arid now the Lord God and his Spirit hath sent me,” (Isa. xlviii. 16.) “Seck ye out of the book of the Lord and read, for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them,” (Isa. xxxiv. 16.)

That these texts imply a plurality of divine persons, seems to us incontrovertible. When Moses wrote the passage in which he represents God as saying, let us make man, “the majesty of the plural number,” as it has been called, had not been adopted by earthly sovereigns; and it is obvious that the Supreme Being could not, as has been supposed, call on angels to make man; for in different places of scripture (John ix. 8; Isa. xlv. passim) creation is attributed to God alone. Hence it is that Solomon speaks of Creators in the plural number, though he means only the one Supreme Being, and exhorts men to remember them in the days of their youth. In the passage first quoted from Isaiah, there is a distinction mode between the Lord God and his Spirit; and in the other, three divine persons are introduced, viz. the Speaker, the Lord, and the Spirit of the Lord. It does not, however, appear evident from these passages, or from any other that we recollect in the Old Testament, that the persons in Deity are three and no more: but no sober Christian will harbour a doubt but that the precise number was by some means or other made known to the ancient Hebrews; for inquiries leading to it would be naturally suggested by the form in which the high priest was commanded to bless the people. “The Lord bless thee and keep thee. The Lord make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee. The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace,” (Numb, vi. 24, 25, 26.)

The form of Christian baptism establishes the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity beyond all reasonable ground of dispute. “Go," says our blessed Saviour, “and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” What was it the apostles were to teach all nations? Was it not to turn from their vanities to the living God; to renounce their idols and false gods, and so to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost? What now must occur to the Gentile nations on this occasion, but that, instead of all their deities, to whom they had before bowed down, they were in future to serve, worship, and adore, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as the only true and living God? To suppose that God and two creatures are here joined together in the solemn rite by which men were to be admitted into a new religion, which directly condemns all creature-worship, would be so unreasonable, that we are persuaded such a supposition never was made by any converted polytheist of antiquity. The nations were to be baptized in the name of three persons, in the same manner, and therefore, doubtless, in the same sense. It is not said in the name of God and his two faithful servants; nor in the name of God , and Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which might have suggested a thought that one only of the three is God; but in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Whatever honour, reverence, or regard, is paid to the first person in this solemn rite, the same is paid to all three. Is he acknowledged as the object of worship? So are the other two likewise. Is he God and Lord over us? So are they. Are we enrolled as subjects, servants, and soldiers, under him? So are we equally under all. Are we hereby regenerated and made the temple of the Father? So are we likewise of the Son and Holy Ghost. “We will come,” says our Saviour, “and make our abode with him,” (John xiv. 23.)

If those who believe the inspiration of the scriptures could require any further proof that the Godhead comprehends a trinity of persons in one nature, we might urge the apostolical form of benediction; “The grace of our LorD Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all,” (2 Cor. xiii. 14.) Would St. Paul, or any other man of common sense, have in the same sentence, and in the most solemn manner, recommended his Corinthian converts to the love of God, and to the grace and communion of two creatures? We should think it very absurd to recommend a man at once to the favour of a king and a beggar; but how infinitely small is the distance between the greatest earthly potentate and the meanest beggar, when compared with that which must for ever subsist between the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth and the most elevated creature?

But how, it will be asked, can three divine persons be but one and the same God? This is a question which has been often put, but which, we believe, no created being can fully answer. It is to be observed, however, that no intelligent Trinitarians affirm that these divine Persons, or Hypostases, are one and three in the same sense; for this would be a contradiction in terms. What is affirmed is, that in one sense they are three, and in another one; though how this is, or what may be the difference between the one sense [7:21:206]and the other, we are utterly unable to tell. The case is one which admits of no explanation. The divine nature and its manner of existence is, to us, wholly incomprehensible; and we might with greater reason attempt to weigh the mountains in scales, than by our limited faculties to fathom the depths of infinity. The Supreme Being is present in power to every portion of space, and yet it is demonstrable, that in his essence he is not extended, (see Metaphysics, p. 699.) Both these truths, his inextension and omnipresence, are fundamental principles in what is called natural religion; and when taken together they form, in the opinion of most people, a mystery as incomprehensible as that of the Trinity in unity. Indeed there is nothing of which it is more difficult to form a distinct notion than unity simple, and absolutely indivisible. Though the Trinity in unity, therefore, were no Christian doctrine, mysteries must still be believed; for they are as inseparable from the religion of nature as from that of revelation; and atheism involves the most incomprehensible of all mysteries, even the beginning of existence without a cause. We must indeed form the best notions that we can of this and all other mysteries; for if we have no notions whatever of a Trinity in unity, we can neither believe nor disbelieve that doctrine. It is however to be remembered, that all our notions of God are more or less analogical; that they must be expressed in words which, literally interpreted, are applicable only to man; and that propositions understood in this literal sense may involve an apparent contradiction, from which the truth meant to be expressed by them would be seen to be free, had we direct and adequate conceptions of the divine nature. On this account it is to be wished that men treating of the mystery of the Holy Trinity, had always expressed themselves in scripture language, and never aimed at being wise above what is written; as all attempts to explain or simplify this doctrine have proved singularly futile, ending either in pompous absurdity, or in a virtual negation of the doctrine to be explained.

Obs. 1. An attempt bas been made by some of the opponents of this doctrine to represent it ns borrowed by the early Christians from the speculations of the later Platonists. But if this be the case, we may properly ask, whence bad those Platonists the doctrine themselves? It is not surely so simple or so obvious as to be likely to have occurred to the reasoning mind of a Pagan philosopher; or if it be, why do Unitarians suppose it to involve a contradiction? Plato indeed taught a doctrine in some respects similar to that of the Christian Trinity, and so did Pythagoras, with many other philosophers of Greece and the East; but though these sages appear to have been on some occasions extremely credulous, and on others to have indulged themselves in the most mysterious speculations, there is no room to suppose that they were naturally weaker men than ourselves, or that they were capable of inculcating as truths what they perceived to involve a contradiction. The Platonic and Pythagorean trinities never could have occurred to the mind of him who merely from the works of creation endeavoured to discover the being and attributes of the Creator; and therefore as those philosophers travelled into Egypt and the East in quest of knowledge, it appears to us in the highest degree probable, that they picked up this mysterious and sublime doctrine in those regions where it had been handed down as a dogma from the remotest ages, and where we know that science was not taught systematically, but detailed in collections of sententious maxims and traditionary opinions. If this be so, we cannot doubt but that the Pagan trinities bad their origin in some primaeval revelation. Nothing else indeed can account for the general prevalence of a doctrine so remote from human imagination, and of which we find vestiges in the sacred books of almost every civilized people of antiquity. The corrupt state in which it is viewed in the writings of Plato and others, is the natural consequence of its descent through a long course of oral tradition; and then falling into the hands of men who bent every opinion as much as possible to a conformity with their own speculations. The trinity of Platonism therefore, instead of being an objection, lends, in our opinion, no feeble support to the Christian doctrine, since it affords almost a complete proof of that doctrine’s having made part of the first revelations communicated to man.

Obs. 2. See Pearson on the Creed; Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles; Wardlaws Discourses on the Socinian Controversy; Stuart’s Letters to Dr. Channing; Horsley’s Letters to Priestley; Fuller’s Works, vol. i. and vol. iv.; Waterland’s Importance of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity asserted; Faber’s Apostolicity of Trinitarianism, Sect. IV. Of the Manifestation of Deity in the Works of Creation and Providence.

The essence of this self-existent, all-powerful, infinitely wise, and perfectly good Being, is to us wholly incomprehensible. That it is not matter, is shown by the process of argumentation by which we have proved it to exist: but what it is we know not, and it would be impious presumption to inquire. It is sufficient for all the purposes of religion to know that God has formed all things, and is somehow or other present to every part of his work; that existence and every possible ]>erfection is essentia) to him; and that he wishes the happiness of all his creatures. That he is the former of all things is explicitly stated in Scripture, as in many places, so especially in the first sentence of Genesis already quoted. That by “the heavens and the earth,” in that passage, is meant the whole universe, visible and invisible, is known to every person acquainted with the phraseology of Scripture; and we need inform no man conversant with English writers, that by creation, in its proper sense, is meant bringing into being or making that to exist which existed not before. It must, however, be acknowledged, that the Hebrew word ברא does not always imply the production of substance, but very often the forming of particular organized bodies out of pre-existing matter. Thus when it is said, (Gen. i. 21, 27), that “God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind,” and again, “that he created man male and female though the word ברא is used on both occasions, we are not to conceive that the bodies of the first human pair, and of these animals, were brought into being from nonentity, but only that they were formed by a proper organization being given to pre-existent matter. But when Moses says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” he cannot be supposed to mean, that “in the beginning God only gave form to matter already existing of itself;” for in the very next verse we are assured that after this act of creation was over, “the earth was still without form and void,” or in other words, in a chaotic state.

That the Jews, before the coming of our Saviour, understood their lawgiver to teach a proper creation, is plain from that passage in the second book of the Maccabees, in which a mother, to persuade her son to suffer the cruellest tortures rather than forsake the law of his God, uses the following argument: “I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not.” To the same purpose the inspired author of the epistle to the Hebrews, when magnifying the excellence of faith, says, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear;” where, as Bishop Pearson has ably proved, (Exposition of the Creed), the phrase μη ἐκφαιvομεvωv is equivalent to ὀυκ ἐξ ὀντων, in the quotation from the Maccabees.

The very first verse, therefore, of the book of Genesis informs us of a most important truth, which all the uninspired wisdom of antiquity could not discover. It assures us, that as nothing exists by chance, so nothing is necessarily existing but the three divine persons in the one Godhead. Every thing else, whether material or immaterial, derives its substance, as well as its form or qualities, from the fiat of that self-existent Being, “who was, and is, and is to come.”

It does not, however, follow from this verse, or from any other passage in the sacred Scriptures, that the whole universe[7:21:207] was called into existence at the same instant; neither is it by any means evident that the chaos of our world was brought into being on the first of those six days during which it was gradually reduced into form. From a passage in the book of Job, (xxxviii. 7), in which we are told by God himself, that when the “foundation of the earth was laid the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,” it appears extremely probable that worlds had been created, formed, and inhabited, long before our earth had any existence. Nor is this opinion at all contrary to what Moses says of the creation of the stars; for though they are mentioned in the same verse with the sun and moon, yet the manner in which, according to the original, they are introduced, by no means indicates that all the stars were formed at the same time with the luminaries of our system. Most of them have been created long before, and some of them since, our world was brought into being; for that clause, (ver. 16.), “he made the stars also,” is in the Hebrew no more than “and the stars ;” the words he made being inserted by the translators. The word verse therefore ought to be rendered thus, “and God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light with the stars to rule the night where nothing is intimated with respect to the time when the stars were formed, any more than in that verse of the Psalms, (cxxxvi. 9), which exhorts us to give thanks to God who made the moon and stars to rule by night; for his mercy endureth “for ever.” The first verse of the book of Genesis informs us that all things spiritual and corporeal derive their existence from God; but it is nowhere said that all matter was created at the same time.^[2. See Lectures “On the Relation between the Holy Scriptures and some parts of Geological Science." By J. P. Smith, D.D. Lect. vii. part ii. Lond. 1839, 8vo. ]

That the whole corporeal universe may have been created at once, must be granted; but if so, we have reason to believe that this earth, with the sun and all the planets of the system, were suffered to remain for ages in a state of chaos, “without form and void because it appears from other scriptures, that worlds of intelligent creatures existed, and even that some angels had fallen from a state of happiness, prior to the era of the Mosaic cosmogony. That the sun and the other planets revolving round him were formed at the same time with the earth, may be confidently asserted; for it is not only probable in itself from the known laws of nature, but is expressly affirmed by the sacred historian, who relates the formation of the sun and moon in the order in which it took place.

Obs. There i» one part of the Mosaic narrative of the creation which requires to be more particularly noticed, as it has afforded considerable difficulty to some, and has been laid bold of by others, as invalidating the claims of the writer to divine superintendence. It is that in which he informs us, that on the first day after the production of the chaos, the element of light was created; and yet within a few sentences be declares, that the sun, the fountain of light, was not made till the fourth day. How are these two passages to be reconciled? We answer, that they may be reconciled many ways. Moses wrote for the use of a whole people, and not for the amusement or instruction of a few astronomers; and in this view his language is sufficiently proper, even though we suppose the formation of the sun and the other planets to have been carried on at the same time, and in the same progressive manncr, with the formation of this earth. The voice which called light into existence would separate the fiery and luminous particles of the chaos from those which were opaque, and, on this hypothesis, consolidate them in one globe, diffusing an obscure light through the planetary system; but if the earth’s atmosphere continued till the fourth day loaded with vapours, as from the narrative of Moses it appears to have done, the sun could not till that day have been seen from the earth, and may therefore, in popular language, be said with sufficient propriety to have been formed on the fourth day, as it was then made to appear. But though this solution of the difficulty serves to remove the objection, and to secure the credit of the sacred historian, candour compels us to confess that it appears not to be the true solution.

The difficulty itself arises entirely from supposing the sun to be the sole fountain of light; but the truth of this opinion is not self-evident, nor has it ever been established by satisfactory proof. It is indeed to a mind divested of undue deference to great names, and considering the matter with impartiality, an opinion extremely improbable. The light of a candle placed on an eminence may in a dark night be seen in every direction at the distance of at least three miles. But if this small body be rendered visible by means of rays emitted from itself, the flame of a candle, which cannot be supposed more than an inch in diameter, must, during every instant that it continues to burn, throw from its own substance luminous matter sufficient to fill a spherical space of six miles in diameter. This phenomenon, if real, is certainly surprising; but if we pursue the reflection a little farther, our wonder will be greatly increased. The matter which, when converted into flame, is an inch in diameter, is not, when of the consistence of cotton and tallow, of the dimensions of the ‘20th part of an inch; and therefore, on the common hypothesis, the 20th part of an inch of tallow may be so rarefied as to fill a space of 113.0976 cubic miles! a rarefaction which to us appears altogether incredible. We have indeed heard much of the divisibility of matter ad infinitum, and think we understand what are usually called demonstrations of the truth of that proposition; but these demonstrations prove not the actual divisibility of real solid substances, but only that on trial we shall find no end of the ideal process of dividing and subdividing imaginary extension.

On the whole, therefore, we are much more inclined to believe that the matter of light is an extremely subtile fluid, diffused through the corporeal universe, and only excited to agency by the sun and other fiery bodies, than that it consists of streams continually issuing from the substance of these bodies. It is indeed an opinion pretty generally received, and certainly not improbable in itself, that light and electricity are one and the same substance; but we know that the electrical fluid, though pervading the whole of corporeal nature, and, as experiments show, capable of acting with great violence, yet lies dormant and unperceived till its agency be excited by some foreign cause. Just so it may be with the matter of light. That substance may be "diffused from one end of the creation to the other. It may traverse the whole universe, form a communication between the most remote spheres, penetrate into the inmost recesses of the earth, and only wait to be put in a proper motion to communicate visible sensations to the eye. Light is to the organ of sight what the air is to the organ of bearing. Air is the medium which, vibrating on the ear, causes the sensation of sound; but it equally exists round us at all times, though there be no sonorous body to put it in motion. In like manner, light may be equally extended at all times, by night as well as by day, from the most distant fixed stars to this earth, though it then only strikes our eyes so as to excite visible sensations when impelled by the sun or some other mass of fire." Nor let any one imagine that this hypothesis interferes with any of the known laws of optics; for if the rays of light be impelled in straight lines, and in the same direction in which they are supposed to be emitted, the phenomena of vision must necessarily be the same.

Moses therefore was probably a more accurate philosopher than he is sometimes represented. The element of light was doubtless created, as he informs us, on the first day; but whether it was then put in that state in which it is the medium of vision, we cannot know, and we need not inquire, since there was neither man nor inferior animal with organs fitted to receive its impressions. For the first three days it may have been used only as a powerful instrument to reduce into order the jarring chaos. Or if it was from the beginning capable of communicating visible sensations, and dividing the day from the night, its agency must have been immediately excited by the Divine power till the fourth day, when the sun was formed, and endowed with proper qualities for instrumentally discharging that office. This was indeed miraculous, as being contrary to the present laws of nature: but the whole creation was miraculous; and we surely need not hesitate to admit a less miracle where we are under the necessity of admitting a greater. The power which called light and all other things into existence, could give them their proper motions by ten thousand different means; and to attempt to solve the difficulties of creation by philosophic theories respecting the laws of nature, is to trifle with the common sense of mankind: it is to consider as subservient to a law that very power by whose continued exertion the law is established.

The Scriptures inform us that creation was the work of the Trinity. Moses declares that the heaven and the earth were created, not by one person, but by the Elohim. The λoγoς indeed, or second person, appears to have been the [7:21:208] immediate Creator; for St. John assures us, (chap. i. 3), that “all things were made by him, and that without him was not any thing made that was made.” Some Arian writers of great learning (and we believe the late Dr. Price was of the number) have asserted, that a being who was created himself may be endowed by the Omnipotent God with the power of creating other beings; and as they hold the λoγoς or word, to be a creature, they contend that he was employed by the Supreme Deity to create, not the whole universe, but only this earth, or at the utmost the solar system. “The old argument,” says one of them, “that no being inferior to the great Omnipotent can create a world, is so childish as to deserve no answer. Why may not God communicate the power of making worlds to any being whom he may choose to honour with so glorious a prerogative? I have no doubt but such a power may be communicated to many good men during the progress of their existence; and to say that it may nor, is not only to limit the power of God, but to contradict acknowledged analogies.”

We are far from being inclined to limit the power of God. He can certainly do whatever involves not a direct contradiction; and therefore, though we know nothing analogous to the power of creating worlds, yet as we perceive not any contradiction implied in the notion of that power being communicated, we shall admit that such a communication may be possible, though we think it in the highest degree improbable. But surely no man will contend that the whole universe was brought into existence by any creature; because that creature himself) however highly exalted, is necessarily comprehended in the notion of the universe. Now St. Paul expressly affirms (Colos, i. 17) that, by the second person in the blessed Trinity, “were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities , or powers ; all things were created by him and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Indeed the Hebrew Scriptures in more places than one (Isa. xl. 12; xliv. 24. Jer. x. 10-13) expressly declare that this earth, and of course the whole solar system, was formed, as well as created, not by an inferior being, but by the true God, even Jehovah alone; and in the New Testament, (Rom. i. 18-22), the Gentiles are said to be without excuse for not glorifying him as God, “because his eternal power and Godhead are clearly seen from the creation of the world.” But if it were natural to suppose that the power of creating worlds has been, or ever will be, communicated to beings inferior to the great Omnipotent, this reasoning of the apostle’s would be founded on false principles, and the sentence which he passed on the Heathen would be contrary to justice.

But though it be thus evident that the λoγoς was the immediate Creator of the universe, we are not to suppose that it was without the concurrence of the other two persons. The Father, who may be said to be the fountain of the Divinity itself, was certainly concerned in the creation of the world, and is therefore in the apostle’s creed denominated the “Father Almighty Maker of heaven and earth and that the Holy Ghost or third person is likewise a Creator, we have the express testimony of two inspired writers: “By the word of the Lord (says the Psaloust) were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath (Hebrew, Spirit ) of his mouth.” And Job declares, that the “Spirit of God made him, and that the breath of the Almighty gave him life.” Indeed these three divine persons are so intimately united, that what is done by one must be done by all, as they have but one and the same will. This is the reason assigned by Origen (Contra Cels. p. 386) for our paying divine worship to each; 6pησ^κfνομtr οw τov πατtpa ms d∖ηβftas, και τov i>ιor mv a∖ηθtiav, owa δvo ττ∕ vrroστaσtι τrpayμaτa, iv bt τη l>μovouf, κaι τp σvμφa>vuf, καt τp rawoτητι ms βoυλησeωt∙ “We worship the Father of truth, and the

Son the truth itself, being two things as to hypostasis, but one in agreement, consent, and sameness of will.” Nor is their union a mere agreement in will only; it is a physical or essential union: so that what is done by one must necessarily be done by the others also, according to that of our Saviour, “I am in the Father and the Father in me: The Father who dwelleth in me, he doth the works.”

Over the universe thus framed by him the Deity presides with watchful providence and care, attending to the minutest circumstance, and regulating the course of every event. Comp. Psal. xviii, 31; xxxvi. 6-15. Matt vi. 25-32; x. 29. John V. 17. Acts xvii. 24, &c. See also Art. Providence and Predestination in this work.

Sect. V. Of the Divine Attributes.

From the phenomena of nature and the statements of Scripture we not only learn that God exists, but also that he is possessed of certain qualities, intellectual and moral, by which he becomes known to his creatures. Of these some are announced by both nature and Scripture; for our knowledge of others we are indebted to Scripture alone. In the present outline it seems necessary to mention only the following:

i. Power. How strongly do the works of creation im press on our minds a conviction of the infinite power of their Author! He spoke, and the universe started into being; he commanded, and it stood fast. How mighty is the arm which “stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations οr the earth; which removeth the mountains and they know it not; which overturneth them in his anger; which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble! How powerful the word which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and which scaleth up the stars ;” which sustaineth numberless worlds of amazing bulk-suspended in the regions of empty space, and directs their various and inconceivably rapid motions with the utmost regularity! “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold, who hath created all these things? By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. He has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out the heavens with a span; and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure: and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance. Behold! the nations are as a drop of the bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. All nations before him are as nothing, and they are counted to him less than nothing and vanity. To whom then will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto him ?” Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9. Job ix. 4, &.; xxvi. 6. Isa. xi. 12.

ii. Wisdom. As the works of creation are the effects of God’s power, they likewise, in the most eminent manner, display his wisdom. This was so apparent to Cicero, even from the partial knowledge in astronomy which his time afforded, that he declared (De Nat. Deorum, lib. ii.) those who could assert the contrary to be void of all understanding. But if that great master of reason had been acquainted with the modern discoveries in astronomy, which exhibit numberless worlds scattered through space, and each of immense magnitude; had he known that the sun is placed in the centre of our system, and that, to diversify the seasons, the planets move round him with exquisite regularity; could he have conceived that the distinction between light and darkness is produced by the diurnal rotation of the earth on its own axis, instead of that disproportionate whirling of the whole heavens which the ancient astronomers were forced to suppose; had he known of the wonderful motions of the comets, and considered how such eccentric bodies have [7:21:209]been preserved from falling upon some of the planets in the same system, and the several systems from falling upon each other; had he taken into the account that there are greater things than these, and “that we have seen but a few of God’s works ;” that virtuous pagan would have been ready to exclaim in the words of the Psaloust, “O Lord, how manifold are thy works! In wisdom hast thou made them all; the earth is full of thy riches.”

In the attribute of infinite wisdom is comprehended that of omniscience; for as wisdom is only knowledge well-directed, perfect wisdom must be the well-directing of all knowledge.

iii. Goodness. The goodness of God is not less conspicuous in his works than His power or His wisdom. Contrivance proves design, and the predominant tendency of the contrivances indicates the disposition of the designer.

Now, all the evidences of design which we behold in the universe are directed to useful and beneficial purposes, and, consequently, indicate benevolence as a predominating feature in the character of the Creator; while, from the vast number of creatures on our earth endowed with life and sense, and a capability of happiness, and the infinitely greater number which probably inhabit the planets of this and other systems, we may infer that the goodness of God is as boundless as his power, and that “as is his majesty, so is his mercy.” Out of his own fulness hath he brought into being numberless worlds, replenished with myriads of myriads of creatures, furnished with various powers and organs, capacities and instincts; and out of his own fulness he continually and plentifully supplies them all with every thing necessary to make their existence comfortable. “The eyes of all wait upon him, and he giveth them their meat in due season. He openeth his hand and satisfies the desires of every living thing; he loveth righteousness and judgment; the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord. He watereth the ridges thereof abundantly; he settleth the furrows thereof; he maketh it soft with showers, and blesseth the springing thereof. He crowneth the year with his goodness; and his paths drop fatness. They drop upon the pastures of the wilderness; and the little hills rejoice on every side. The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered with corn; they shout with joy, they also sing.” Survey the whole of what may be seen on and about this terraqueous globe, and say, if our Maker has a sparing hand. Surely the Author of so much happiness must be essential goodness; and we must conclude with St. John, that “God is love.”

Obs. " The world abounds with contrivances, and all the contrivances in it with which we are acquainted are directed to beneficial purposes. Evil no doubt exists; but it is never, that we can perceive, the object of contrivance. Teeth are contrived to eat, not to ache; their aching now and then is incidental to the contrivance, perhaps inseparable from it: but it is not its object. This is a distinction which well deserves to be attended to. In describing implements of husbandry, one would hardly say of a sickle that it is made to cut the reaper’s fingers, though, from the construction of the instrument, and the manner of using it, this mischief often happens. But if be had occasion to describe instruments of torture or execution, this, he would say, is to extend the sinews; this to dislocate the jointe; this to break the bones; this to scorch the soles of the feet. Here pain and misery are the very objects of the contrivance. Now, nothing of this sort is to be found in the works of nature. We never discover a train of contrivance to bring about an evil purpose. No anatomist ever discovered a system of organization calculated to produce pain and disease; or, in explaining the parts of the human body, ever said, this is to irritate, this to inflame, this duct is to convey the gravel to the kidneys, this gland to secret the humour which forms the gout. If, by chance, he came to a part of which he knows not the use, the most that he can say is, that to him it appears to be useless: no one ever suspects that it is put there to incommode, to annoy, or to torment. If God had wished our misery, he might have made sure of his purpose, by forming our senses to be as many sores and pains to us as they are now instruments of gratification and enjoyment; or, by placing us among objects so ill suited to our perceptions as to have continually offended us, instead of ministering to our refreshment and delight. He might have made, for instance, every thing we tasted bitter, every thing we saw loathsome, every thing we touched a sting, every smell a stench, and every sound a discord.”— Paley’s Natural Theology.

Instead of this, all our sensations, except such as are excited by what is dangerous to our health, are pleasures to us. The view of a landscape is pleasant; the taste of nourishing food is pleasant; sounds not too loud are agreeable, while musical sounds are exquisite; and scarcely any smells, except such as are excited by effluvia obviously pernicious to the brain, are disagreeable; while some of them, if not too long indulged, are delightful. Since, then, God has called forth his consummate wisdom to contrive and provide for our happiness, and has made those things, which are necessary to our existence, sources of pleasure to us; who can doubt but that benevolence is one of his attributes; and that, if it were not impious to draw a comparison between them, it is the attribute in which he himself most delighteth?

But it is not from sensation only that we may infer the benevolence of the Deity. He has formed us with minds capable of intellectual improvement, and be has implanted in the breast of every man a very strong desire of adding to his knowledge. This addition, it is true, cannot be made without labour; and, at first, the requisite labour is to most people irksome: but a very short progress in any study converts what was irksome into a pleasure of the most exalted kind; and he who by study, however intense, enlarges his ideas, experiences a complacency which, though not so poignant, perhaps, as the pleasures of the sensualist, is such as endears him to himself, and is what be would not exchange for any thing else which this world has to bestow, except the still sweeter complacency arising from the consciousness of having discharged his duty.

That the practice of virtue is attended with a peculiar pleasure of the purest kind, is a fact which no man has ever questioned, though the immediate source of that pleasure has been the subject of many disputes. He who attributes it to a moral sense, which instinctively points out to every man his duty, and on the performance of it rewards him with a sentiment of self-approbation, must of necesssity acknowledge benevolence to be one of the attributes of that Being who has so constituted the human mind. That to protect the innocent, relieve the distressed, and do to others as we would in like circumstances wish to be done by, fills the breast, previously to all reflection, with a holy joy, as the commission of any crime tears it with remorse, cannot indeed be controverted. Many, however, contend, that this joy and this remorse spring not from any moral instinct implanted in the mind, but are the consequence of early and deep-rooted associations of the practice of virtue with the hope of future happiness, and of vice with the dread of future misery. On the respective merits of these two theories we shall not now decide, but only observe, that they both lead with equal certainty to the benevolence of the Deity, who made us capable of forming associations, and subjected those associations to fixed laws. This being the case, the moral sense, with all its instantaneous effects, affords not a more convincing proof of his goodness, than that principle in our nature by which remote circumstances become so linked together, that the one circumstance never occurs without bringing the other also into view. It is thus that the pleasing complacency, which was, perhaps, first excited by the hopes of future happiness, comes in time to be so associated with the consciousness of virtuous conduct, the only thing entitled to reward, that a man never performs a meritorious action without experiencing the most exquisite joy diffused through his mind, though his attention at that instant may not be directed either to heaven or to futurity. Were we obliged, before we could experience this joy, to estimate by reason the merit of every individual action, and trace its connection to heaven and future happiness through a long train of intermediate reasoning, we should be, in a great measure, deprived of the present reward of virtue; and, therefore, this associating principle contributes much to our happiness. But the benevolence of a Being, who seems thus anxious to furnish us with both sensual and intellectual enjoyments, and who has made our duty nur greatest pleasure, cannot be questioned; and therefore we must infer, that the Author of Nature wishes the happiness of the whole sensible and intelligent creation. Ps. cxiv. 15, 16; xxiii. 5; lv. 10, &c.

Objectors have asked, Why, if the Author of Nature be a benevolent Being, are we necessarily subject to pain, diseases, and death? The scientific physiologist replies, Because, from these evils, Omnipotence itself could not in our present state exempt us, but by a constant series of miracles. He who believes the Bible, knows likewise that mankind were originally in a state in which they were not subject to death; and that they fell under its dominion through the fault of their common progenitors. Without, however, insisting upon this, the question is one which may be answered upon such data as are presented by the phenomena of nature. Now, we know that as all matter is divisible, every system composed of it must necessarily be liable to decay and dissolution; and our material [7:21:210] system would decay and be dissolved long before it could serve the purposes of nature, were therenot methods contrived, with admirable wisdom, for repairing the waste occasioned by perpetual friction. The body is furnished with different fluids, which continually circulate through it in proper channels, and leave in their way what is necessary to repair the solids. These again are supplied by food ab extra; and to the whole processes of digestion, circulation, and nutrition, the air we breathe is absolutely necessary. But as the air is a very heterogeneous fluid, and subject to violent and sudden changes, it is obvious that these changes must affect the blood, and by consequence the whole frame of the human body. The air, indeed, in process of time consumes even marble itself; and, therefore, we cannot wonder that as it is in one state the parent of health, it should in another be the source of disease to such creatures as man and other terrestrial animals. Nor could these consequences be avoided without introducing others much more deplorable. The world is governed by general laws, without which there could be among men neither arts nor sciences; and though laws different from those by which the system is at present governed might, perhaps, have been established, there is not the smallest reason to imagine that they could on the whole have been better, or attended with fewer inconveniences. As long as we have material and solid bodies capable of motion, liable to resistance from other solid bodies, supported by food, subject to the agency of the air, and divisible, they must necessarily be liable to pain, disease, corruption, and death, and that, too, by the very influence of those laws which preserve the order and harmony of the universe. Thus gravitation is a general law so good and so necessary, that were it for a moment suspended, the world would instantly fall to pieces; and yet, by means of this law, the man must inevitably be crushed to death on whom a tower shall chance to tumble. Again, the attraction of cohesion is a general law, without which it does not appear that any corporeal system could possibly exist: it is by this law, too, or a modification of it, that the glands and lacteals of the human body extract from the blood such particles as are necessary to nourish the solids; and yet it is by means of the very same modification of the very same law that a man is liable to be poisoned.

Although the human body could not have been preserved from dangers and dissolution, but by introducing evils greater on the whole than those to which it is now liable, why, it has sometimes been asked, is every disorder to which it is subject attended with sickness or with pain? and why is such a horror of death implanted in our breasts, seeing that, by the laws of nature, death is inevitable? We answer. That sickness, pain, and the dread of death, serve the very best purposes. Could a man be put to death, or have his limbs broken without feeling pain, the human race bad long ago been extinct. Felt we no uneasiness in a fever, we should be insensible of the disease, and die before we suspected our health to be impaired. The horror which generally accompanies our reflections on death tends to make us more careful of life, and prevents us from quitting this world rashly, when our affairs prosper not according to our wishes. It is likewise an indication that our existence does not terminate in this world; for our dread is seldom excited by the prospect of the pain which we may suffer when dying, but by our anxiety concerning what we may be doomed to suffer Or enjoy in the next stage of our existence; and this anxiety tends more, perhaps, than any thing else to make us live while we are here in such a manner as to ensure our happiness hereafter.

iv. Righteousness. In our views of the Divine benevolence, we must not forget that it is not such a fond affection as often obtains that name among men. All human affections and passions originate in our dependence and wants; and it has been doubted whether any of them be at first disinterested: but he to whom existence is essential cannot be dependent; he who is the Author of every thing can feel no want. The Divine benevolence, therefore, must be wholly disinterested, and, of course, free from those partialities originating in self-love, which are alloys in the most sublime of human virtues. The most benevolent man on earth, though he wishes the happiness of every fellow-creature, has still, from the ties of blood, the endearments of friendship, or, perhaps, from a regard to his own interest, some particular favourites whom, on a competition with others, he would certainly prefer. But the equal Lord of all can have no particular favourites. His benevolence is therefore coincident with justice; or, that which is called divine justice, is only benevolence exerting itself in a particular manner for the propagation of general felicity. When God prescribes laws for regulating the conduct of his intelligent creatures, it is not because he can reap any benefit from their obedience to those laws, but because such obedience is necessary to their own happiness; and when he punishes the transgressor, it is not because, in his nature, there is any disposition to which the prospect of such punishment can afford gratification, but because, in the government of free agents, punishment is necessary to reform the criminal, and to intimidate others from committing the like crimes. Compare Ps. vii. 10-18. Rom. ii. 5, 6. 2 Tim. iv. 8. Rev. xix. 2, &c.—Intimately connected with the righteousness of God is his holiness, for we cannot but infer that he, who so earnestly desires and carefully enjoins the moral excellence of his creatures, is himself the grand pattern of all moral beauty. Compare Math V. 45—48. Eph.iv. 24. 1 Pet. i. 16. 2 Pet. i. 4. 1 John i. 5, &c.

v. Immutability and Veracity. He who is perfectly wise and holy must be unchangeable, for change can characterise the conduct only of beings whose faculties do not exclude the possibility of error, or whose will is liable to be influenced by unworthy motives. Hence the Scriptures ascribe to God the attribute of immutability as to his purposes, decrees, and judgments; compare Exod. iii. 14—17; vi. 2—8. Deut. vii. 8—11. Ps. xxxiii. 9—11. Matt. iii. 6. Rom. xi. 29. Heb. vi. 17, 18. James i. 17, &c. Closely connected with this is the divine Veracity; for he who never changes can never, by any subsequent word or deed, contradict what he has already said; compare Numb, xxiii. 19. Ps. xxxiii. 4. Isa. xlvi. 9, 10. Rom. iii. 3—5. 2 Cor. i. 18— 20. Tit. i. 2, &c.

Obs. See Zanchii De Natura Dei sive Divinis Attributis lib. V. Charnock on the Divine Attr butes.

Sect. VI.— Of the Reverence due to the Deity.

From the short view that we have taken of the divine perfections, it is evidently our duty to reverence, in our minds, the self-existent Being to whom they belong. This is, indeed, not only a duty, but a duty of which no man who contemplates these perfections, and believes them to be real, can possibly avoid the performance. He who thinks irreverently of the Author of nature, can never have considered seriously the power, the wisdom, and the goodness displayed in his works; for whoever has a clear notion of these must be convinced, that he who performed them has no imperfection; that his power can accomplish every thing which involves not a contradiction; that his knowledge is intuitive, and free from the possibility of error; and that his goodness extends to all without partiality and without any alloy of selfish design. This conviction must make every man, on whose mind it is impressed, ready to prostrate himself in the dust before the Author of his being; who, though infinitely exalted above him, is the source of all his enjoyments, constantly watches over him with paternal care, and protects him from numberless dangers. The sense of so many benefits must excite in his mind a sense of the liveliest gratitude to him from whom they are received, and an ardent wish for their continuance.

While silent gratitude and devotion thus glow in the breast of the contemplative man, he will be careful not to form even a mental image of that all-perfect Being to whom they are directed. He knows that God is not material; that he exists in a manner altogether incomprehensible; that to frame an image of him would be to assign limits to what is infinite; and that to attempt to form a positive conception of him would be impiously to compare himself with his Maker.

The man who has any tolerable notion of the perfections of the Supreme Being will never speak lightly of him, or make use of his name except on great and solemn occasions. He knows that the terms of all languages are inadequate and improper, when applied directly to him who has [7:21:211]no equal, and to whom nothing can be compared; and therefore he will employ these terms with caution. When he speaks of his mercy and compassion, he will not consider them as feelings wringing the heart like the mercy and compassion experienced by man, but as rays of pure and disinterested benevolence. When he thinks of the stupendous system of nature, and hears it perhaps said that God formed it for his own glory, he will reflect that God is so infinitely exalted above all his creatures, and so perfect in himself, that he can neither take pleasure in their applause, nor receive any accession of any kind from the existence of ten thousand worlds. The immense fabric of nature, therefore, only displays the glory or perfections of its Author to us, and to other creatures who have not faculties to comprehend him in himself.

When the contemplative man talks of serving God, he does not dream that his services can increase the divine felicity; but means only that it is his duty to obey the divine laws. Even the pronoun He, when it refers to God, cannot be of the same import as when it refers to man; and by the philosophical divine it will seldom be used but with a mental allusion to this obvious distinction.

As the man who daily venerates the Author of his being will not speak of him on trivial occasions, so will he be still further from calling upon him to witness impertinences and falsenood. (See Oath). He will never mention his name but with a pause, that be may have time to reflect in silence on his numberless perfections, and on the immense distance between himself and the Being of whom he is speaking. The slightest reflection will convince him that the world, with all that it contains, depends every moment on that God who formed it; and this conviction will compel him to wish for the divine protection of himself and his friends from all dangers and misfortunes. Such a wish is in effect a prayer, and will always be accompanied with adoration, confession, and thanksgiving. (See Prayer). But adoration, confessions, supplications, and thanksgiving constitute what is called worship, and therefore the worship of God is a natural duty. It is the addressing of ourselves as his dependants to him as the supreme cause and governor of the world, with acknowledgments of what we enjoy, and petitions for what we really want, or he knows to be convenient for us.

Obs. See Wollaston’s Religion of Nature delineated.

Part II.— Doctrines concerning Μαν. Sect. I— Of the Original State of Man. Ιν the Mosaic account of the creation we are told that “God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them,” Gen. i. 27. In these words we have a description of the nature of man as he came at first from the hands of his Creator, into the proper meaning of which it is of great importance that we should inquire.

The answer to this inquiry depends upon the meaning we attach to the words “in the image of God;” for it is by that phrase, that the peculiarity of man’s nature, and his pre-eminence over the brutes, is marked. Now, this image or likeness must have been found either in his body alone, his soul alone, or in both united. That it could not be in his body alone, is obvious; for the infinite and omnipotent God is allowed by all men to be without body, parts, or passions, and therefore to be such as nothing corporeal can possibly resemble.

If this likeness is to be found in the human soul, it comes to be a question in what faculty or power of the soul it consists. Some have contended, that man is the only creature on this earth who is animated by a principle essentially different from matter; and hence they have inferred, that he is said to have been formed in the Divine image, on account of the immateriality of that vital principle which was infused into his body when “the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul,” (Gen. ii. 7.) That this account of the animation of the body of man indicates a superiority of the human soul to the vital principle of all other animals, cannot, we think, be questioned; but it does not therefore follow, that the human soul is the only immaterial principle of life which animates any terrestrial creature. It has been shewn elsewhere (see Metaphysics), that the power of sensation, attended with individual consciousness, as it appears to be in all the higher species of animals, cannot result from any organical structure, or be the quality of a compound extended being. The vital principle in such animals, therefore, must be immaterial as well as the human soul; but as the word immaterial denotes only a negative notion, the souls of men and brutes, though both immaterial, may yet be substances essentially different. This being the case, it is plain that the Divine image in which man was formed, and by which he is distinguished from the brute creation, cannot consist in the mere circumstance of his mind being a substance different from matter, but in some positive quality which distinguishes him from every other creature on this globe.

About this characteristic quality various opinions have been formed. By Calvinists it is generally supposed, “that the image of God in Adam appeared in that rectitude, righteousness, and holiness, in which he was made; for God made man upright (Eccles, vii. 2), a holy and righteous creature; which holiness and righteousness were in their kind perfect; bis understanding was free from all error and mistakes; his will biased to that which is good; his affections flowed in a right channel towards their proper objects; there were no sinful notions and evil thoughts in his heart, nor any propensity or inclination to that which is evil; and the whole of his conduct and behaviour was according to the will of God. And this righteousness (say they) was natural, and not personal and acquired. It was not obtained by the exercise of his free-will, but was created with him, and belonged to his mind, as a natural faculty or instinct.” Gill’s Body of Divinity, b. iii. ch. 3. They, therefore, call it original righteousness, and suppose that it was lost in the fall.

To this doctrine many objections have been made. It has been said that righteousness consisting in right actions proceeding from proper principles, could not be created with Adam and make a part of his nature; because nothing which is produced in a man, without his knowledge and consent, can be in him either virtue or vice. Adam, it is added, was unquestionably placed in a state of trial, which proves that be had righteous habits to acquire; whereas the doctrine under consideration, affirming his original righteousness to have been perfect, and therefore incapable of improvement, is inconsistent with a state of trial. That his understanding was free from all errors and mistakes, has been thought a blasphemous position, as it attributes to man one of the incommunicable perfections of the Deity. It is likewise believed to be contrary to fact; for either his understanding was bewildered in error, or his affections flowed towards an improper object, when he suffered himself, at the persuasion of his wife, to transgress the express law of his Creator. The objector expresses his wonder at its having ever been supposed that the whole of Adam’s conduct and behaviour was according to the will of God, when it is so notorious that he yielded to the first temptation with which, as far as we know, he was assailed in Paradise.

Convinced by these and other arguments, that the image of God, in which man was created, could not consist in original righteousness, or in exemption from all possibility of error, many learned men, and Bishop Bull (English Works, vol. iii.) among others, have supposed, that by the [7:21:212]image of God is to be understood certain gifts and powers supernaturally infused by the Holy Spirit into the minds of our first parents, to guide them in the ways of piety and virtue. This opinion they rest chiefly upon the authority of Tatian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, and other fathers of the primitive church; but they think, at the same time, that it is countenanced by several passages in the New Testament. Thus when St. Paul says, (1 Cor. XV. 45, 46,) “and so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit they understand the whole passage as relating to the creation of man, and not as drawing a comparsion between Adam and Christ, to show the great superiority of the latter over the former. In support of this interpretation they observe, that the apostle immediately adds, “howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual;” an addition which they think was altogether needless, if, by the quickening spirit, he had referred to the incarnation of Christ, which had happened in the very age in which he was writing. They are therefore of opinion, that the body of Adam, after being formed of the dust of the ground, was first animated by a vital principle, endowed with the faculties of reason and sensation, which entitled the whole man to the appellation of a living soul. After this, they suppose certain graces of the Holy Spirit to have been infused into him, by which he was made a quickening spirit, or formed in the image of God; and that it was in consequence of this succession of powers communicated to the same person, that the apostle said, “howbeit, that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural.”

We need hardly observe that, with respect to a question of this kind, the authority of Tatian and the other fathers quoted is of no great weight. Those men had no better means of discovering the true sense of the scriptures of the Old Testament than we have; and their ignorance of the language in which these scriptures are written, added to some metaphysical notions respecting the soul, which too many of them had derived from the school of Plato, rendered them very ill qualified to interpret the writings of Moses. Were authority to be admitted, we should consider that of Bishop Bull and his modem followers as of greater weight than the authority of all the ancients to whom they appeal. But authority cannot be admitted; and the reasoning of this learned and excellent man, from the text of St. Paul, is surely very inconclusive. It makes two persons of Adam; a first, when he was a natural man, composed of a body and a reasonable soul; a second, when he was endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and by them formed in the image of God. In the verse following, the apostle expressly calls the second man, of whom he had been speaking, “the Lord from heaven ;” but this appellation we apprehend to be too high for Adam in the state of greatest perfection in which he ever existed. That our first parents were endowed with the gifts of the Holy Ghost may be granted; but as these gifts were adventitious to their nature, they could not be that image in which God made man.

Since man was made in the image of God, that phrase, whatever be its precise import, must denote something peculiar and at the same time essential to human nature; but the only two qualities at once natural and peculiar to man are his shape and his reason. As none but an anthropomorphite will say that it was Adam’s shape which reflected this image of his Creator, it has been concluded that it was the faculty of reason which made the resemblance. To give strength to this argument, it is observed by Warburton, (Divine Leg, book ix.) that when God says, “let us make man in our image,” he immediately adds, “and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth but as many of the cattle have much greater bodily strength than man, this dominion could not be maintained but by the faculty of reason bestowed upon him and withheld from them.

If the image of God was impressed only on the mind of man, this reason seems to be conclusive; but it has been well observed by Gill, (Body of Divinity, book iii. chap. 3,) that it was the whole man, and not the soul alone, or the body alone, that is said to have been formed in the divine image; even as the whole man, soul and body, is the seat of the new and spiritual image of God in regeneration and sanctification “The very God of peace,” says the apostle, “sanctify you wholly; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body, be preserved blameless to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” It is worthy of notice, that the reason assigned for the prohibition of murder to Noah and his sons after the deluge, is, that man was made in the image of God. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.” These texts seem to indicate, that whatever be meant by the image of God, it was stamped equally on the soul and on the body. In vain it is said that man cannot resemble God in shape. This is true, but it is little to the purpose; for man does not resemble God in his reasoning faculty more than in his form. It would be idolatry to suppose the supreme majesty of heaven and earth to have a body or a shape; and it would be little short of idolatry to imagine that he is obliged to compare ideas and notions together; to advance from particular truths to general propositions; and to acquire knowledge, as we do, by the tedious processes of inductive and syllogistic reasoning. There can, therefore, be no direct image of God either in the soul or in the body of man; and the phrase really seems to import nothing more than those powers or qualities by which man was fitted to exercise dominion over the inferior creation; as if it had been said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, that they may have dominion,” &c. But the erect form of man contributes, in some degree, as well as his rational powers, to enable him to maintain his authority over the brute creation; for it has been observed by travellers, that the fiercest beast of prey, unless ready to perish by hunger, shrinks back from a steady look of the human face divine.

By Dr. Gill and other writers, who have admitted the probability of this interpretation, another has been devised of the expression that man was formed in the image of God. All the members of Christ’s body, say they, were written and delineated in the book of God’s purposes and decrees, and had an ideal existence from eternity in the divine mind; and therefore the body of Adam might be said to be formed after the image of God, because it was made according to that idea. But to this reasoning objections may be urged, which we know not how to answer. All things that ever were or ever shall be, the bodies of us who live at present, as well as the bodies of those who lived 5000 years ago, have from eternity had an ideal existence in the Divine mind; nor in this sense can one be said to be prior to another. It could not, therefore, be after the idea of the identical body of Christ that the body of Adam was formed; for in the Divine mind ideas of both bodies were present together from eternity, and each body was formed after the ideal archetype of itself. It may be added, likewise, that the body of Christ was not God, nor the idea of that body the idea of God. Adam, therefore, could not, with propriety, be said to have been formed in the image of God, if, by that phrase, nothing more were intended than the resemblance between his body and the body of Christ. These objections to this interpretation appear to us unanswerable; but we mean not to dictate to our readers. Every man will adopt that opinion which he thinks supported by the best arguments; but it is obvious, [7:21:213]that whatever more may be meant by the image of God in which man was made, the phrase undoubtedly comprehends all those powers and qualities by which he is enabled to maintain his authority over the inferior creation. Among these the faculty of reason is confessedly the most important; for it is by it that man is capable of being made acquainted with the Author of his being, the relation which subsists between them, and the duties implied in that relation from the creature to the Creator.

Sect. II.— Of the Religion of Man in his Primeval Stare.

It is more than probable that man, after his creation, was not left to discern, by the efforts of his own unassisted reason, either his own character or the duties which devolved upon him towards God. This opinion is confirmed by what the inspired historian tells us, when he says, Gen. ii., “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his works which he had created and made ;” for Adam could not have understood what was meant by the sanctification of a particular day, or of any thing else, unless he had previously received some religious instruction. There cannot therefore be a doubt, but that, as soon as man was made, his Creator communicated to him the truths of what is called natural religion; and to these were added the precept to keep holy the Sabbath-day, and set it apart for the purposes of contemplation and worship.

This was a very wise institution, as all the divine institutions must be. “The great end for which we are brought into life, is to attain the knowledge and be confirmed in the love of God. This includes obedience to his will in thought, word, and deed, or that course of conduct which can alone make us happy here, and fit us for everlasting glory hereafter. But of these things we cannot retain a proper sense without close and repeated application of thought; and the unavoidable cares and concerns of the present life occupying much of our attention, it is, in the nature of things, necessary that some certain portion of time should be appropriated to the purposes of religious instruction and the public adoration of our Creator, in whom we all live, and move, and have our being.” Hence a very learned divine, Dr. Taylor of Norwich, has inferred, that though the particular time is a matter of positive appointment, the observation of a sabbath, in general, is a duty of natural religion, as having its foundation in the reason of things. See Sabbath .

Man, therefore, in his natural and original state was a rational and religious being, bound to do “justice, to love mercy, to walk humbly with his God, and to keep holy the Sabbath-day.”

In this original state, man was under the discipline of what we have called natural religion, entitled to happiness while he should perform the duties required of him, and liable to punishment when be should neglect those duties, or transgress the law of his nature as a rational and moral agent This being the case, it is a matter of some importance, to ascertain, if we can, what the rewards and punishments are which natural religion holds out to her votaries.

That under every dispensation of religion the pious and virtuous man shall enjoy more happiness than misery; and that the incorrigibly wicked shall have a greater portion of misery than happiness, are truths which cannot be controverted by any one who admits that the Almighty governor of the universe is a Being of wisdom, goodness, and justice. But respecting the rewards of virtue and the punishment of vice, more than these general truths seems not to be taught by natural religion. Many divines, however, of great learning and worth, have thought otherwise, and have contended, that from the nature of things, the rewards bestowed by an infinite God upon piety and virtue must be eternal like their author. These men, indeed, appear willing enough to allow that the punishments with which natural religion is armed against vice must be only of a temporary duration, because reason, say they, is ready to revolt at the thought of everlasting punishment.

This opinion, which confounds natural with revealed religion, giving to the former an important truth which belongs exclusively to the latter, has been so ably confuted by Warburton, (Div. Leg. b. ix.) that we shall submit his arguments to our readers in preference to any thing which we ourselves can give.

“If reason doth, on the one hand, seem to revolt at everlasting punishment, we must confess that fancy, on the other, (even when full plumed by vanity), hath scarcely force enough to rise to the idea of infinite rewards. How the heart of man came to consider this as no more than an adequate retribution for his right conduct during the short trial of his virtue here, would be hard to tell, did we not know what monsters pride begot of old upon pagan philosophy; and how much greater still these latter ages have disclosed, by the long incubation of school-divinity upon folly. What hath been urged from natural reason, in support of this extravagant presumption, is so very slender, that it recoils as you enforce it. First, you say, 'that the soul, the subject of these eternal rewards, being immaterial, and so, therefore, unaffected by the causes which bring material things to an end, is, by its nature, fitted for eternal rewards.’ This is an argument ad ignorantiam, and holds no farther. Because an immaterial being is not subject to that mode of dissolution which affects material substances, you conclude it to be eternal. This is going too fast. There may be, and probably are, many natural causes (unknown indeed to us) whereby immaterial beings come to an end. But if the nature of things cannot, yet God certainly can, put a final period to such a being when it hath served the purpose of its creation. Doth annihilation impeach that wisdom and goodness which was displayed when God brought it our of nothing? Other immaterial beings there are, viz., the souls of brutes, which have the same natural security with man for their existence, of whose eternity we never dream. But pride, as the poet observes, calls God unjust,

If man alone engross not heaven’s high care; Alone made perfect here, immortal there.

However, let us (for argument’s sake) allow the human soul to be unperishable by nature, and secured in its existence by the unchangeable will of God, and see what will follow from thence-—An infinite reward for virtue during one moment of its existence, because reason discovers that, by the law of nature, some reward is due? By no means. When God hath amply repaid us for the performance of our duty, will he be at a loss how to dispose of us for the long remainder of eternity? May he not find new and endless employment for reasonable creatures, to which, when properly discharged, new rewards, and in endless succession, will be assigned? Modest reason seems to dictate this to the followers of the law of nature. The flattering expedient of eternal rewards for virtue here was invented in the simplicity of early speculation, after it had fairly brought men to conclude that the soul is immaterial.

“Another argument urged for the eternity of the rewards held out by natural religion, to the practice of piety and virtue, is partly physical and partly moral. The merit of service (say the admirers of that religion) increases in proportion to the excellence of that Being to whom our service is directed and becomes acceptable. An infinite being, therefore, can dispense no rewards but what are infinite. And thus the virtuous man becomes entitled to immortality.

“The misfortune is, that this reasoning holds equally on the side of the unmerciful doctors, as they are called, who doom [7:21:214]the wicked to everlasting punishment. Indeed, were this the only discredit under which it labours, the merciless doctors would hold themselves little concerned. But the truth is, that the argument from infinity proves just nothing. To make it of any force, both the parties should be infinite. This inferior emanation of God’s image, max, should either be supremely good or supremely bad, a kind of deity or a kind of devil. But these reasoners, in their attention to the divinity, overlook the humanity, which makes the decrease keep pace with the accumulation, till the rule of logic, that the conclusion follows the weaker part, comes in to end the dispute.”

These arguments seem to prove unanswerably, that immortality is not essential to any part of the compound being man, and that it cannot be claimed as a reward due to his virtue. It is not, indeed, essential to any created being, for what has not existence of itself, cannot of itself have perpetuity of existence (see Metaphysics) ; and as neither man nor angel can be profitable to God, they cannot claim from him any thing as a debt. Both, indeed, as moral agents, have duties prescribed to them; and while they faithfully perform those duties, they have all the security which can arise from the perfect benevolence of him who brought them into existence, that they shall enjoy a sufficient portion of happiness to make that existence preferable to non-existence; but reason and philosophy furnish no data from which it can be inferred that they shall exist for ever. Man is partly composed of perishable materials. However perfect Adam may be thought to have been when he came first from the hands of his Creator, his body, as formed of the dust of the ground, must have been naturally liable to decay and dissolution. His soul, indeed, was of a more durable substance; but as it was formed to animate his body, and had no prior conscious existence, it is not easy to conceive what should have led him, under an equal providence, where rewards and punishments were exactly distributed, to suppose that one part of him should survive the other.

Sect. III.— condition of Man in Paradise.

Bishop Warburton has advanced the notion that Adam, after his creation, lived for some time under the dispensation of simple natural religion before he was admitted into Paradise, where he was placed under a new dispensation. (Div. Leg. book ix. chap. 1.) To this opinion we are disposed to assent, though not altogether in the form nor for the reasons which the author has adduced. It appears clear from the sacred narrative that though Adam and his wife were created on the sixth day, they were not on that day introduced into Paradise. After telling us that on the sixth day God finished all his works, which he saw to be very good, and rested on the seventh day, Moses briefly recapitulates the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth, gives us a more particular account of the formation of the first man, informing us that the “Lord God formed him out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, when man became a living soul ;” and then proceeds to say, (Gen. ii. 7, 8, and 15,) that the “Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, where he put the man whom he had formed.” From this short history of the first pair it appeals evident beyond dispute, that neither the man nor the woman was formed tn the garden; and that from their creation some time elapsed before the garden was prepared for their reception, is likewise evident from a comparison of

Gen. i. 29, with Gen. ii. 16, 17. In the first of these passages God gives to man, immediately after his creation, “every herb bearing seed which was upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, without exception, in which was the fruit of a tree bearing seed: to him he said it should be for meat.” In the second, “he commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shaft not eat of it; for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shaft surely die.” When the first grant of food was given, Adam and his wife must have been where no tree of knowledge grew, and they must have been intended to live at least so long in that state as that they should have occasion for food, otherwise the formal grant of it would have been not only superfluous, but apt to mislead them with respect to the subsequent restriction.

In Paradise Adam was placed under a new law, and by the grace of God assured of a supernatural and eternal reward in case of perfect obedience. “And the Lord God,” says Moses, “planted a garden eastward in Eden, and took the man and put him in the garden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God,” continues he, “commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shaft surely die,” (Gen. ii. 8, 15, 16, 17.) Here is no mention made of the laws of piety and moral virtue resulting from the relations in which the various individuals of the human race stand to each other, and in which all his creatures stand to God, their Almighty and beneficent Creator. With these laws Adam was already well acquainted; and be must have been sensible, that as they were founded in his nature, no subsequent law could dispense with their obligation. They have been equally binding on all men in every state and under every dispensation; and they will continue to be so as long as the general practice of justice, mercy, and piety, shall contribute to the sum of human happiness. The new law peculiar to his paradisaical state was the command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This was a positive precept, not founded in the nature of man, but very proper to be the test of his obedience to the will of his Creator. The laws of piety and virtue are sanctioned by nature, or by that general system of rules according to which God governs the physical and moral worlds, and by which he has secured, in some state or other, happiness to the pious and virtuous man, and misery to such as shall prove incorrigibly wicked. The law respecting the forbidden fruit was sanctioned by the penalty of death denounced against disobedience; and by the subjects of that law the nature of this penalty must have been perfectly understood: but Christian divines, as we shall afterwards see, have differed widely in opinion respecting the full import of the Hebrew words which our translators have rendered by the phrase thou shall surely die. All however agree that they threatened death, in the common acceptation of the word, or the separation of the soul and body, as one part of the punishment to be incurred by eating the forbidden fruit; and hence we must infer, that had the forbidden fruit not been eaten, our first parents would never have died, because the penalty of death was denounced against no other transgression. What, therefore, is said respecting the fruit of the tree of knowledge, implies not only a law but also a covenant,^[3. It does not appear that any transaction between God and mankind, in general, was denominated by a word equivalent to the English word covenant till the end of the fourth century, when such phraseology was introduced into the church by the celebrated Augustin, bishop of Hippo. That the phraseology is strictly proper, no man can suppose who reflects on the infinite distance between the contracting parties, and absolute dominion of the one over the other. To be capable of entering into a covenant, in the proper sense of the word, both parties must have a right either to agree to the terms proposed or to reject them; but surely Adam had no right to bargain with his Maker, or to refuse the gift of immortality on the terms on which it was offered to him. The word dispensation would more accurately denote what is here meant by the word covenant; but as this last is in general use, we have retained it as sufficient, when thus explained, to distinguish what man received from God upon certain positive conditions, from what be bad a claim to by the constitution of his nature. ] promising to man, upon the [7:21:215]observance of one positive precept, immortality or eternal life; which is not essential to the nature of any created being, and cannot be claimed as the merited reward of the greatest virtue or the most fervent piety.

This obvious truth will enable us to dispose of the objections which have been sometimes brought by free-thinking divines against the wisdom and justice of punishing so severely as by death the breach of a mere positive precept; which, considered in itself, appears to be a precept of very little importance. We have only to reply, that as an exemption from death is not due either to the nature or to the virtue of man, it was wise and just to make it depend on the observance of a positive precept, to impress on the minds of our first parents a constant conviction, that they were to be preserved immortal, not in the ordinary course of divine providence, but by the special grace and favour of God. The same consideration will show us the folly of those men who are for turning all that is said of the trees of knowledge and of life into figure and allegory. But the other trees of which Adam and Eve were permitted to eat, were certainly real trees, or they must have perished for want of food. And what rules of interpretation will authorise us to interpret eating and trees literally in one part of the sentence, and figuratively in the other? A garden in a delightful climate is the very habitation, and the fruits produced in that garden the very food, which we should naturally suppose to have been prepared for the progenitors of the human race; and though in the garden actually fitted up for this purpose two trees were remarkably distinguished from the rest, perhaps in situation and appearance, as well as in use, the distinction was calculated to serve the best of purposes. The one called the tree of life, of which, while they continued innocent, they were permitted to eat, served as a sacramental pledge or assurance on the part of God, that as long as they should observe the terms of the covenant their life should be preserved; the other, of which it was death to taste, was admirably adapted to impress on their minds the necessity of implicit obedience to the Divine will, in whatever manner it might be made known to them.

A question of some importance has been started, What would have finally become of men if the first covenant had not been violated? That they would have been all immortal is certain; but it is by no means clear that they would have lived for ever on this earth. On the contrary, it has been an article of very general belief in all ages of the church, (See Bull’s State of Man before the Fall,) that the garden of Eden was an emblem or type of heaven, and therefore called Paradise (see Paradise) ; and that under the first covenant, mankind, after a sufficient probation here, were to be translated into heaven without tasting death. This doctrine is not indeed explicitly taught in Scripture; but many things conspire to make it highly probable. The frequent communications between God and man before the fall,^[4. That there were such frequent communications, has been shown to be in the highest degree probable, by the late Dr. Law, bishop of Carlisle. See his Discourses on the several Dispensations of Revealed Religion. ] seem to indicate that Adam was training up for some higher state than the terrestrial paradise. Had he been intended for nothing but to cultivate the ground and propagate his species, he might have been left like other animals to the guidance of his own reason and instincts; which, after the rudiments of knowledge were communicated to him, must surely have been sufficient to direct him to everything necessary to the comforts of a life merely sensual and rational, otherwise he would have been but an imperfect animal. It is obvious too, that this earth, however fertile it may have originally been, could not have afforded the means of subsistence to a race of immortal beings multiplying to infinity. For these reasons, and others which will readily occur to the reader, it seems incontrovertible, that under the first covenant, either mankind would have been succes sively translated to some superior state, or would have ceased to propagate their kind as soon as the earth should have been replenished with inhabitants. He who reflects on the promise, that, after the general resurrection, there is to be a new heaven and a new earth, will probably embrace the latter part of the alternative; but that part in its consequences differs not from the former. In the new earth promised in the Christian revelation, nothing is to dwell but righteousness. It will therefore be precisely the same with what we conceive to be expressed by the word heaven; and if under the first covenant this earth was to be converted into a similar place, where, after a certain period, men should never marry nor be given in marriage, but enjoy what divines have called the beatific vision, we may confidently affirm, that, had the first covenant been faithfully observed, Adam and his posterity, after a sufficient probation, would all have been translated to some superior state or heaven.

To fit them for that state, the gifts of divine grace seem to have been absolutely necessary. To them it was a state certainly supernatural, otherwise a God of infinite wisdom and perfect goodness would not, for a moment, have placed them in an inferior state. But to enable any creature, especially such a creature as man, whom an ancient philosopher has justly styled ζωοv μιμητικoν, to rise above its nature, foreign and divine aid is unquestionably requisite; and therefore, though we cannot persuade ourselves that the gifts of the Holy Ghost constituted that image of God in which man was originally made, we agree with Bishop Bull, that these gifts were bestowed on our first parents to enable them to fulfil the terms of the covenant under which they were placed.

On the whole, we think it apparent from the portions of scripture which we have examined, that Adam and Eve were endued with such powers of body and mind as fitted them to exercise dominion over the other animals; that those powers constituted that image of God in which they are said to have been formed; that they received by immediate revelation the first principles of all useful knowledge, and especially of that system which is usually called natural religion; that they lived for some time with no other religion, entitled to the natural rewards of piety and virtue, but all the while liable to death; that they were afterwards translated into Paradise, where they were placed under a new law, with the penalty of death threatened to the breach of it, and the promise of endless life if they should faithfully observe it; and that they were endued with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, to enable them, if not wanting to themselves, to fulfil the terms of that covenant, which has been improperly termed the covenant of works, since it flowed from the mere grace of God, and conferred privileges on man to which the most perfect human virtue could lay no just claim.

Sect. IV.— Of the Fall of Man.

From the preceding account of the primeval state of man, it is evident that his continuance in the terrestrial paradise, together with all the privileges which he there enjoyed, were made to depend on his observance of one positive precept. Every other duty incumbent on him, whether as resulting from what is called the law of his nature, or from the express command of his God, was as much his duty before as after he was introduced into the garden of Eden; and though the transgression of any law would undoubtedly have been punished, it does not appear that a breach of the moral law, or of the commandment respecting the sanctification of the Sabbath-day, would have been punished with death, whatever may be the import of that word in the place where it is first threatened. The [7:21:216] punishment was denounced only against eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: For “the Lord commanded the man saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shaft not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” To the word death in this passage divines have affixed many and different meanings. By some it is supposed to import a separation of the soul and body, while the latter was to continue in a state of conscious existence; by others, it is taken to imply annihilation, or a state without consciousness; by some, it is imagined to signify eternal life in torments; and by others a spiritual and moral death, or a state necessarily subject to sin. In any one of these acceptations it denoted something new to Adam, which he could not understand without an explanation of the term; and therefore, as it was threatened as the punishment of only one transgression, it could not be the divine intention to inflict it on any other.

The abstaining from a particular fruit in the midst of a garden abounding with fruits of all kinds, was a precept which at first view appears of easy observation; and the penalty threatened against the breach of it was, in every sense, awful. The precept, however, was broken notwithstanding that penalty; and though we may thence infer that our first parents were not beings of such absolute perfection as by divines they have sometimes been represented, we shall yet find, upon due consideration, that the temptation by which they were seduced, when taken with all its circumstances, was such as no wise and modest man will think himself able to have resisted. The short history of this important transaction we have in the third chapter of the book of Genesis, ver. 1-6.

To our readers, on referring to this passage, the conversation between the serpent and the woman must appear to begin abruptly; and indeed it is not possible to reconcile it with the natural order of a dialogue, or even with the common rules of grammar, but by supposing the tempter’s question, “Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ?” to have been suggested by something immediately preceding either in words or in significant signs. Eve had undoubtedly by some means or other informed the serpent that she was forbidden to eat of the fruit on which he was probably feasting; and that information, whether given in words or in actions, must have produced the question with which the sacred historian begins his relation of this fatal dialogue. We are told that the woman saw that the tree was good for food; that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise; but all this she could not have seen, had not the serpent eaten of its fruit in her presence. In her walks through the garden, it might have often appeared pleasant to her eyes; but previously to experience she could not know but that its fruit was the most deadly poison, far less could she conceive it capable of conferring wisdom. But if the serpent ate of it before her, and then extolled its virtues in rapturous and intelligible language, she would at once see that it was not destructive of animal life, and naturally infer that it had very singular qualities. At the moment she was drawing this inference, it is probable that he invited her to partake of the delicious fruit, and that her refusal produced the conference before us. That she yielded to his temptation, need excite no wonder; for she knew that the serpent was by nature a brute animal, and if he attributed his speech to the virtues of a tree, she might infer, with some plausibility, that what had power to raise the brute mind to human, might raise the human to divine, and make her and her husband, according to the promise of the tempter, become as gods, knowing good and evil.

Full of these hopes of raising herself to divinity, and not, as has sometimes been supposed, led headlong by a sensual appetite, she took of the fruit and did eat, and gave to her husband with her, and he did eat.

Sect. V.— Immediate consequences of Adam’s Transgression and Fall.

The covenant, which, on the introduction of our first parents into Paradise, their Creator was graciously pleased to make with them, having been broken by their violation of the condition on which they were advanced to that supernatural state, the historian tells us, that “lest they should put forth their hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live for ever, the Lord God sent them forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence they were taken.” Had they been so sent forth without any farther intimation respecting their present condition or their future prospects, and if the death under which they had fallen was only a loss of consciousness, they would have been in precisely the same state in which they lived before they were placed in the garden of Eden: only their minds must now have been burdened with the inward sense of guilt, and they must have known themselves to be subject to death; of which, though not exempted from it by nature, they had probably no apprehension till it was revealed to them in the covenant of life which they had so wantonly broken.

God did not however send them forth thus hopeless and forlorn from the Paradise of delights which they had so recently forfeited. He determined to punish them for their transgression, and at the same time to give them an opportunity of recovering more than their lost inheritance. Calling therefore the various offenders before him, and inquiring into their different degrees of guilt, he began with pronouncing judgment on the serpent in terms which implied that there was mercy for man. “And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field: upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shaft thou eat all the days of thy life; and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: it shall bruise thy head, and thou shaft bruise his heel.”

That this sentence has been fully inflicted on the serpent, no reasoning can be necessary to evince. Every species of that reptile is more hateful to man than any other terrestrial creature; and there is literally a perpetual war between them and the human race. It is remarkable too, that the head of this animal is the only part which it is safe to bruise. His tail may be bruised, or even cut off, and he will turn with fury and death on his adversary; but the slightest stroke on the head infallibly kills him. That the serpent, or at least the greater part of serpents, go on their belly, every one knows; though it is said, that in some parts of the east, serpents have been seen with wings, and others with feet, and that these species are highly beautiful. If there be any truth in this story, we may suppose that these walking and flying serpents have been suffered to retain their original elegance, that mankind might see what the whole race was before the curse was denounced on the tempter of Eve; but it is certain that most of the species have neither wings nor feet, and that many of the most poisonous of them live in burning deserts, where they have nothing to eat but the dust among which they crawl.

Obs. I. See Bochart, Hierozοicon, lib. i. cap. 4. Bruce’s Travels.

Obs. 2. To this degradation of the serpent, infidels have objected, that it implies the punishment of an animal which was incapable of guilt; but this objection is founded in thoughtlessness and ignorance. The elegant form of any species of inferior animals adds nothing to the happiness of the animals themselves; the ass is probably as happy as the horse, and the serpent that crawls as he that Hies. Fine proportions attract indeed the notice of man, and tend to impress upon his mind just notions of the wisdom and goodness of the Creator; but surely the symmetry of the horse, or the beauty of the peacock, is more properly displayed for this purpose, than the elegance of the instrument employed by the enemy of mankind. The degradation [7:21:217]of the serpent in the presence of our first parents must have served the best of purposes. If they had so little reflection as not yet to have discovered that he was only the instrument with which a more powerful being had wrought their ruin, they would be convinced, by the execution of this sentence, that the forbidden fruit had no power in itself to improve the nature either of man or of beast. But it is impossible that they could be so stupid as this objection supposes them. They doubtless knew by this time that some great and wicked spirit bad actuated the organs of the serpent; and that when enmity was promised to be put between its seed and the seed of the woman, that promise was not meant to be fulfilled by serpents occasionally biting the heels of men, and by men in return bruising the heads of serpents. If such enmity, though it has literally taken place, was all that was meant by this prediction, why was not Adam directed to bruise the head of the identical serpent which bad deluded his wife? If he could derive any consolation from the exercise of revenge, surely it would be greater from his revenging himself on his own enemy, than from the knowledge that there should be a perpetual warfare between his descendants and the breed of serpents through all generations.

We cannot doubt but that their gracious and merciful Creator would inform our first parents, that they had a powerful enemy; that he was a rebellious angel capable of deceiving them in many ways; and that they ought therefore to be constantly on their guard against his wiles. They must have known that they were themselves animated by something different from matter; and when they found they were deceived by the serpent, they might surely, without any remarkable stretch of sagacity, infer that their malignant enemy had actuated the organs of that creature in a manner somewhat similar to that in which their own souls actuated their own bodies. If this be admitted, the degradation of the serpent would convince them of the weakness of the tempter when compared with their Creator; and confirm their hopes, that since he was not able to preserve unhurt his own instrument of mischief, he should not be able finally to prevail against them; but that though he had bruised their heels, the promised seed of the woman should at last bruise his head, and recover the inheritance which they bad lost. See Prophecy.

Having thus punished the original instigator to evil, the Almighty Judge turned to the fallen pair, and said to the woman, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception: in sorrow thou shaft bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shaft not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shaft thou eat of it all the days of thy life: Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth unto thee, and thou shaft eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of thy face shaft thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shaft thou return.”

Here is a terrible denunciation of toil and misery and death upon two creatures; who, being inured to nothing, and formed for nothing but happiness, must have felt infinitely more horror from such a sentence, than we, who are familiar with death, intimate with misery, and “born to sorrow as the sparks fly upward,” can form any adequate conception of. The hardship of it seems to he aggravated by its being severer than what was originally threatened against the breach of the covenant of life. It was indeed said, “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shaft surely die but no mention was made of the woman’s incurring sorrow in conception, and in the bringing forth of children; of the curse to be inflicted on the ground; of its bringing forth thorns and thistles instead of food for the use of man; and of Adam’s eating bread in sorrow and the sweat of his face till he should return to the dust from which he was taken.

These seeming aggravations, however, are in reality instances of divine benevolence. Adam and Eve were now subjected to death; but in the sentence passed on the serpent, an obscure intimation had been given them that they were not to remain for ever under its power. It was therefore their interest, as well as their duty, to reconcile themselves as much as possible to their fate; to wean their affections from this world, in which they were to live only for a time; and to hope, with humble confidence, in the promise of their God, that, upon their departure from it, they should be received into some better state. To enable them to wean their affections from earth, nothing could more contribute than to combine sensual enjoyment with sorrow, and lay them under the necessity of procuring their means of subsistence by labour, hard and often fruitless. This would daily and hourly impress upon their minds a full conviction that the present world is not a place fit to be an everlasting habitation; and they would look forward, with pious resignation, to death, as putting a period to all their woes. Had they indeed been furnished with no ground of hope bevond the grave, we cannot believe that the righteous Judge of all the earth would have added to the penalty originally threatened. That penalty they would doubtless have incurred the very day on which they fell; but as they were promised a deliverance from the consequences of their fall, it was proper to train them up by severe discipline for the happiness reserved for them in a future state.

After the passing of their sentence, the man and woman were turned out into the world, where they had formerly lived before they were placed in the garden of Eden; and all future access to the garden was for ever denied them. They were not, however, in the same state in which they originally were before their introduction into Paradise. They were now conscious of guilt, doomed to severe labour, liable to sorrow and sickness, disease and death.

Sect. VI.— Remoter consequences of the Fall.

As all mankind are descended from Adam and Eve, all have become exposed to certain penal consequences of their transgression. It may seem indeed to detract from the moral attributes of God, to inflict misery on children for the sins of their parents; but before any thing can be pronounced concerning the Divine goodness and justice in the present case, we must know precisely how much we suffer in consequence of Adam’s transgression, and whether we have ourselves any share in that guilt which is the cause of our sufferings.

That women would have had less sorrow in the bringing forth of children; that we should have been subjected to less toil, and exempted from death, had our first parents not fallen from their paradisaical state, are truths incontrovertible by him who believes the inspiration of the holy Scriptures; but that mankind would in that state have been wholly free from pain and every bodily distress, is a proposition which is not to be found in the Bible, and which therefore no man is bound to believe. The bodies of Adam and Eve consisted of flesh, blood, and bones, as ours do; they were surrounded by material objects as we are; and their limbs were unquestionably capable of being fractured. That their souls should never be separated from their bodies while they abstained from the forbidden fruit, they knew from the infallible promise of him who formed them, and breathed into their nostrils the breath of life; but that not a bone of themselves or of their numerous posterity should ever be broken by the fall of a stone or of a tree, they were not told, and had no reason to expect. Of such fractures, pain would surely have been the consequence; though we have reason to believe that it would have been quickly removed by some infallible remedy, probably by the fruit of the tree of life.

Perhaps it may be said, that if we suppose our first parents or their children to have been liable to accidents of this kind in the garden of Eden, it will be difficult to conceive how they could have been preserved from death, as a stone might have fallen on their heads as well as on their feet, and have at once destroyed the principle of vitality. But this can be said only by him who knows little of the [7:21:218]physical world, and still less of the power of God. There are many animals which are susceptible of pain, and yet not easily killed; and man in Paradise might have resembled these. At any rate, we are sure that the omnipotent Creator could and would have preserved him from death; but we have no reason to believe that by a constant miracle, he would have preserved him from every kind of pain. Indeed, if, under the first covenant, mankind were in a state of probation, it is certainly conceivable that some one individual of the numerous race might have fallen into sin, without actually breaking the covenant by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge; and such a sinner would undoubtedly have been punished by that God who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity; but how punishment could have been inflicted on a being exempted from all possibility of pain as well as of death, we confess ourselves unable to imagine· Remorse, which is the inseparable consequence of guilt, and constitutes in our present state great part of its punishment, flows from the fearful looking for of judgment, which the sinner knows shall, in a future state, devour the adversaries of the gospel of Christ; but he, who could neither suffer pain nor death, had no cause to be afraid of future judgment, and was therefore not liable to the tortures of remorse. We conclude, therefore, that it is a mistake to suppose pain to have been introduced into the world by the fall of our first parents, or at least that the opinion contrary to ours has no foundation in the word of God.

Death, however, was certainly introduced by their fall; for the inspired apostle assures us, that in Adam all die, (Cor. XV. 22); and again, that through the offence of one many are dead, (Rom. v. 15.) But concerning the full import of the word death in this place, and in the sentence pronounced upon our first parents, divines hold opinions extremely different. Many contend, that it includes death corporal, spiritual or moral, and eternal; and that all mankind are subjected to these three kinds of death, on account of their share in the guilt of the original transgression, which is usually denominated original sin, and considered as the source of moral evil.

That all men are subjected to death corporal in consequence of Adam’s transgression, is universally admitted; but that they are in any sense partakers of his guilt, and on that account subjected to death spiritual and eternal, has been very strenuously denied. To discover the truth is of great importance; for it is intimately connected with the Christian doctrine of redemption. We shall therefore state, with as much impartiality as we can, the arguments commonly urged on each side of this much agitated question.

Those who maintain that all men sinned in Adam, generally state their doctrine thus: “The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, hut for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression; whereby they are deprived of that original righteousness in which he was created, and are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions, so as we are by nature children of wrath, bond-slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world and in that which is to come, even to everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and to most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire for ever.”

What in this passage we are first to examine, is the sentence which affirms all mankind descending from Adam by ordinary generation, to have sinned in him and fallen with him in his first transgression; the truth of which is attempted to be proved by various texts of holy Scripture. Thus, St. Paul says expressly, that “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if, through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift of grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many; and not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift (for the judgment was by one unto condemnation) ; but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if, by one man’s offence, death reigned by one; much more they, who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Rom. v. 12, 15-20.) In this passage the apostle assures us, that all upon whom death has passed have sinned; but death has passed upon infants, who could not commit actual sin. Infants therefore must have sinned in Adam, since death has passed upon them; for death “is the wages only of sin.” He tells us likewise, that by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; and therefore since the righteous Judge of heaven and earth never condemns the innocent with the wicked, we must conclude, that all men partake of the guilt of that offence for which judgment came upon them to condemnation. These conclusions are confirmed by his saying expressly, that “by one man’s disobedience many (i.e . all mankind) were made sinners;" and elsewhere (Rom. ii. 10. and Eph. it. 1, 3), that “there is none righteous, no not one;” and that his Ephesian converts “were dead in trespasses and sins, and were by nature children of wrath even as others" The same doctrine, it is said, we arc taught by the inspired writers of the Old Testament. Thus Joh, expostulating with God for bringing into judgment with him such a creature as man, says, “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” And Elipbaa, reproving the patient patriarch for what he deemed presumption, asks, (Job xiv. 4. and xv. 14), “What is man that he should be clean, or he who is born of a woman that he should be righteous?” From these two passages it is plain, that Job and his unfeeling friend, though they agreed in little else, admitted as a truth unquestionable, that man inherits from his parents a sinful nature, and that it is impossible for any thing born of a woman by ordinary generation o be righteous. The Psaloust speaks the very same language, when aknowledging his transgressions, he says, (Psalm ii. 5), “Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Having thus proved the fact, that all men are made sinners by Adam’s disobedience, the divines who embrace this side of the question, proceed to inquire how they can be partakers in guilt which was incurred so many ages before they were born. It cannot be by imitation; for infants, according to them, are involved in this guilt before they be capable of imitating any thing. Neither do they admit that sin is by the apostle put for the consequences of sin. and many said to be made sinners by one man’s disobedience, because by that disobedience they were subjected to death, which is the wages of sin. This, which they call the doctrine of the Arminiens, they affirm to be contrary to the whole scope and design of the context; as it confounds to-gether sin and death, which are there represented, the one as the cause, and the other as the effect. It likewise exhibits the apostle reasoning in such a manner as would, in their opinion, disgrace any man of common sense, and much more an inspired writer; for then the sense of these words, “Death hath passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,” must be, death has passed upon all men, because it hath [7:21:219] passed upon all men; or, all men are obnoxious to death, because they are obnoxious to death. The only way, therefore, continue they, in which Adam’s posterity can be made sinners through his disobedience, is by the imputation of his disobedience to them; and this imputation is not to be considered in a moral sense, as the action of a man committed by himself, whether good or bad, is reckoned to him as his own; but in a forensic sense, as when one man’s debts are in a legal way placed to the account of another. Of this we have an instance in the apostle Paul, who said to Philemon concerning Onesimus, “If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee any thing, (ἐλλογει ) impute it to me,” or place it to my account. And thus the posterity of Adam are made sinners by his disobedience; that being imputed to them and placed to their account, as if it had been committed by them personally, though it was not.

Some few divines of this school are indeed of opinion, that the phrase, “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,” means nothing more than that the posterity of Adam, through his sin, derive from him a corrupt nature. But though this be admitted as an undoubted truth, the more zealous abettore of the system contend, that it is not the whole truth. “It is true,” say they, “that all men are made of one man’s blood, and that blood tainted with sin; and so a clean thing cannot be brought out of an unclean. What is born of the flesh is flesh, carnal and corrupt: every man is conceived in sin, and shapen in iniquity; but there is a difference between being made sinners, and becoming sinful. The one respects the guilt, the other the pollution of nature; the one is previous to the other, and the foundation of it. Men receive a corrupt nature from their immediate parents; but they are made sinners, not by any act of their disobedience, but only by the imputation of the sin of Adam.”

To illustrate this doctrine of imputed sin, they observe, that the word καrtσταθηoαv, used by the apostle, signifies constituted in a judicial way, ordered and appointed in the dispensation of things that so it should be; just as Christ was made sin or a sinner by imputation, or by that constitution of God which laid upon him the sins of all his people, and dealt with him as if he had been the guilty person. That this is the sense of the passage, they argue further from the punishment inflicted on men for the sin of Adam. The punishment threatened to that sin was death; which includes death corporal, moral, and eternal. Corporal death, say they, is admitted by all to be suffered on account of the sin of Adam; and if so, there must be guilt, and that guilt made over to the sufferer, which can be done only by imputation. A moral death is no other than the loss of the image of God in man, which consisted in righteousness and holiness; and particularly it is the loss of original righteousness, to which succeeded unrighteousness and unholiness. It is both a sin and a punishment for sin; and since it comes on all men as a punishment, it must suppose preceding sin, which can be nothing but Adam’s disobedience, the guilt of which is made over to his posterity by imputation. This appears still more evident from the posterity of Adam being made liable to eternal death in consequence of his transgression; for the wages of sin is death, even death eternal, which never can be inflicted on guiltless persons. But from the passage before us we learn, that “by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation and therefore the guilt of that offence must be reckoned to all men, or they could not be justly condemned for it. That Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity, appears not only from the words, “by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners ;" but likewise from the opposite clause, “so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous;" for the many ordained to eternal life, for whom Christ died, are made righteous, or justified, only through the imputation of his righteousness to them; and therefore it follows, that all men are made sinners only through the imputation of Adam’s disobedience.

To this doctrine it is said to be no objection that Adam’s posterity were not in being when his sin was committed; for though they had not then actual being, they had yet a virtual and representative one. They were in him both seminally and federally, and sinned in him, (Rom. v. 12); just as Levi was in the loins of Abraham, and paid in him tithes to Melchizedec, (Heb. vii. 9, 10.) From Adam they derive a corrupt nature; but it is only from him, as their federal head, that they derive a share of his guilt, and are subjected to his punishment. That he was a federal head to all his posterity, the divines of this school think evident from his being called a figure of Christ, (Rom. v. 14); and the first Adam described as natural and earthly, in contradistinction to Christ the second Adam, described as spiritual and the Lord from heaven; and from the punishment threatened against his sin being inflicted not on himself only, but on all his succeeding offspring. He could not be a figure of Christ, say they, merely as a man; for all the sons of Adam have been men as well as he, and in that sense were as much figures of Christ as he; yet Adam and Christ are constantly contrasted, as though they had been the only two men that ever existed, because they were the only two heads of their respective offspring. He could not be a figure of Christ on account of his extraordinary production; for though both were produced in ways uncommon, yet each was brought into the world in a way peculiar to himself. The first Adam was formed of the dust of the ground; the second, though not begotten by a man, was born of a woman. They did not therefore resemble each other in the manner of their formation, but in their office as covenant-heads; and in that alone the comparison between them is exact.

Nor have any of the posterity of Adam, it is said, reason to complain of such a procedure. Had he stood in his integrity, they would have been, by his standing, partakers of all his happiness; and therefore should not murmur at receiving evil through his fall. If this do not satisfy, let it be considered, that since God, in his infinite wisdom, thought proper that men should have a head and representative, in whose hands their good and happiness should be placed, none could be so fit for this high station as the common parent, made after the image of God, so wise, so holy, just, and good. Lastly, to silence all objections, let it be remembered, that what God gave to Adam as a federal head, relating to himself and his posterity, he gave as the Sovereign of the universe, of whom no created being has a right to ask, “What dost thou ?” (See Gill’s Body of Divinity.)

Such are the consequences of Adam’s fall, and such the doctrine of original sin, as maintained by the more rigid followers of Calvin. That great reformer, however, was not the author of this doctrine. It had been taught so early as in the beginning of the fifth century, by St. Augustin, the celebrated bishop of Hippo; and the authority of that father had made it more or less prevalent in both the Greek and Roman churches long before the Reformation. Calvin was indeed the most eminent modern divine by whom it has been held in all its rigour; and it constitutes one great part of that theological system, which, from being taught by him, is now known by the name of Calvinism.

But if it was as Sovereign of the universe that God gave to Adam what he received in Paradise relating to himself and his posterity, Adam could in no sense of the words be a federal head; because, upon this supposition, there was no covenant. The Sovereign of the universe may unquestionably dispense his benefits, or withhold them, as seems expedient to his infinite wisdom; and none of his subjects or creatures call have a right to say to him, “What dost thou ?” But the dispensing or withholding of benefits is a [7:21:220]transaction very different from the entering into covenants; and a judgment of it is to be formed on very different principles. Every thing around us proclaims that the Sovereign of the universe is a being of perfect benevolence; but, say the disciples of the school now under consideration, the dispensation given to Adam in Paradise was so far from being the offspring of benevolence, that, as it is understood by the followers of Calvin, it cannot possibly be reconciled with the eternal laws of equity. The self-existent and all-sufficient God might or might not have created such a being as man; and in either case there would have been no reason for the question “What dost thou ?” But as soon as he determined to create him capable of happiness or misery, he would not have been either benevolent or just, if he had not placed him in a state where, by his own exertions, he might, if he chose, have a greater share of happiness than of misery, and find his existence, upon the whole, a blessing. They readily acknowledge, that the existence of any created being may be of longer or shorter duration, according to the good pleasure of the Creator; and therefore they have no objection to the apostolic doctrine, that “in Adam all die ;” for immortality being not a debt, but a free gift, may be bestowed on any terms, and with perfect justice withdrawn when those terms are not complied with. Between death, however, as it implies a loss of consciousness, and the extreme misery of eternal life in torments, there is an immense difference. To death all mankind might justly be subjected through the offence of one; because they had originally no claim to be exempted from it, though that one and they too had remained for ever innocent; but eternal life in torments is a punishment which a God of justice and benevolence can never inflict but upon personal guilt of the deepest die. That we can personally have incurred guilt from a crime committed some thousands of years before we were born, is impossible. It is indeed a notion as contrary to reason as to common sense; for the apostle expressly informs us, (1 John iii. 4), “that sin is the transgression of some law and the sin of Adam was the transgresion of a law which it was never in our power either to observe or to break. Another apostle (Rom. iv. 15) assures us, that “where no law is, there is no transgression ;” but there is now no law, nor has been any these five thousand years, forbidding mankind to eat of a particular fruit; for, according to the Calvinists themselves, (Gill’s Body of Divinity, book iii. ch. 10.) Adam had no sooner committed his first sin, by which the covenant with him was broken, than he ceased to be a covenant-head. This law given him was no more; the promise of life by it ceased; and its sanction, death, took place. But if this be so, how is it possible that his unborn posterity should be under a law which had no existence, or that they should be in a worse state in consequence of the covenant being broken, and its promise having ceased, than he himself was before the covenant was first made? He was originally a mortal being, and was promised the supernatural gift of immortality on the single condition of his abstaining from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. From that fruit he did not abstain; but by eating it fell back into his natural state of mortality. Thus far it is admitted that his posterity fell with him; for they have no claim to a supernatural gift which he had forfeited by his transgression. But we cannot admit, say the divines of this school, that they fell into his guilt; for to render it possible for a man to incur guilt by the transgression of a law, it is necessary not only that he have it in his power to keep the law, but also that he be capable of transgressing it by a voluntary act. But surely no man could be capable of voluntarily eating the forbidden fruit five thousand years before he himself or his volitions existed. The followers of Calvin think it a sufficient objection to the doctrine of transubstantiation, that the same numerical body cannot be in different places at the same instant of time. But this ubiquity of body, say the Remonstrants, is not more palpably absurd, than the supposition that a man could exert volitions before he or his will had any existence.

Nor will the introduction of the word imputation into this important question remove a single difficulty. For what is it that we mean by saying that the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity? Is the guilt of that sin transferred from him to them? So surely thought Dr. Gill, when he said that it is made over to them. But this is the same absurdity as the making over of the sensible qualities of bread and wine to the internal substance of the Saviour’s body and blood. This imputation either found the posterity of Adam guilty of his sin, or it made them so. It could not find them guilty for the reason already assigned, as well as because the apostle says expressly, that for the offence of one judgment came upon all men, which would not be true had all offended. It could not make them guilty; for this reason, that if there be in physics or metaphysics a single truth self-evident, it is, that the numerical powers, actions, or qualities of one being cannot possibly be transferred to another, and be made its powers, actions, or qualities. Different beings may in distant ages have qualities of the same kind; but as easily may 4 and 3 be made equal to 9, as two beings be made to have the same identical quality. In Scripture we nowhere read of the actions of one man being imputed to another. “Abraham,” we are told, “believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness but it was his own faith, and not the faith of another man, that was so counted. “To him that worketh not, but believeth,his faith (not another’s) is imputed for righteousness.” And of our faith in him that raised Christ from the dead, it is said, that “it shall be imputed, not to our fathers or our children, but to us for righteousness."

When this phrase is used with a negative, not only is the man’s own personal sin spoken of, but the non-imputation of that sin means nothing more but that it brings not upon the sinner condign punishment. Thus when Shemei “said unto David, Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me;” it could not be his meaning that the king should not think that he had offended; for with the same breath he added, “Neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely, the day that my lord the king went out of Jerusalem, that the king should take it to his heart. For thy servant doth know that I have sinned.” Here he plainly confesses his sin, and declares, that by entreating the king not to impure it to him, he wishes only that it should not be so remembered as that the king should take it to heart, and punish him as his perverseness deserved. When therefore it is said, (2 Cor. v. 19,) that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their iniquities,” the meaning is only, that for Christ’s sake, he was pleased to exempt them from the punishment due to their sins. In like manner, when the prophet, foretelling the sufferings of the Messiah, says, that “the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all,” his meaning cannot be, that the Lord by imputation made his immaculate Son guilty of all the sins that men have ever committed; for in that case it would not be true that the “just suffered for the unjust,” as the apostle expressly teaches, (1 Peter iii. 28); but the sense of the verse must be, as Bishop Coverdale translated it, “through him the Lord pardoneth all our sins.” This interpretation is countenanced by the ancient version of the Seventy, και Kυ ριoς πaρεδωκεν ἀυτov ταις ἁμαρτιαις ἡμων : : words which express a notion very different from that of imputed guilt. The Messiah was, without a breach of justice, delivered for sins of which he had voluntarily offered to pay the penalty; and St. Paul might have been justly charged by Philemon with the debts of Onesimus, which he desired might be placed to his account. Had the apostle, however, expressed no such desire, surely Philemon could [7:21:221]by no deed of his have made him liable for debts contracted by another; far less could he by imputation, whatever that word may mean, have made him virtually concur in the contracting of those debts. He could not have been justly subjected to suffering without his own consent; and he could not possibly have been made guilty of the sins of those for whom he suffered.

The doctrine of imputed guilt, therefore, as understood by the Calvinists, is, in the opinion of their opponents, without foundation in Scripture, and contrary to the nature of things. It is an impious absurdity, say they, to which the mind can never be reconciled by the hypothesis, that all men were in Adam both seminally and federally, and sinned in him, as Levi paid tithes to Melchizedec in the loins of Abraham. The apostle, when he employs that argument to lessen in the minds of his countrymen the pride of birth and the lofty opinions of their priesthood, plainly intimates, that he was using a bold figure, and that Levi’s paying tithes is not to be understood in a strict and literal sense. “Now consider,” says he, “how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils. And, I mag so sag, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, paid tithes in Abraham: for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedec met him.” This is a very good argument to prove that the Levitical priesthood was inferior in dignity to that of Melchizedec; and by the apostle it is employed for no other purpose. Levi could not be greater than Abraham, and yet Abraham was inferior to Melchizedec. This is the whole of St. Paul’s reasoning, which lends no support to the doctrine of original sin, unless it can be shown that Levi and all his descendants contracted from this circumstance such a strong propensity to the paying of tithes, as made it a matter of extreme difficulty for them, in every subseqent generation, to comply with that part of the divine law which constituted them receivers of tithes. That all men were seminally in Adam, is granted; and it is likewise granted that they may have derived from him, by ordinary generation, diseased and enfeebled bodies: but it is as impossible to believe that moral guilt can be transmitted from father to son by the physical act of generation, as to conceive a scarlet colour to be a cube of marble, or the sound of a trumpet a cannon ball. That Adam was as fit a person as any other to be entrusted with the good and happiness of his posterity, may be true; but there is no fitness whatever, according to the Arminians, in making the everlasting happiness or misery of a whole race depend upon the conduct of any fallible individual. “That any man should so represent me,” says Dr. Taylor, (Doctrine of Original Sin, part iii.) “that when he is guilty, I am to be reputed guilty; when he trangresses, I am to be accountable and punishable for his transgression; and this before I was born, and consequently before I am in any capacity of knowing, helping, or hindering, what he doth; all this every one who useth his understanding must clearly see to be false, unreasonable, and altogether inconsistent with the truth and goodness of God.” And that no such appointment ever had place, he endeavours to prove, by showing that the texts of Scripture upon which is built the doctrine of Calvinists respecting original sin, will each admit of a very different interpretation.

One of the strongest of these texts is Romans v. 19, which we have already quoted, and which our author thus explains. He observes, that the apostle was a Jew, familiarly acquainted with the Hebrew tongue; that he wrote his epistle as well for the use of his own countrymen residing in Rome, as for the benefit of the Gentile converts; and that though he made use of the Greek language, as most generally understood, he frequently employed idioms. Now it is certain that the Hebrew words הטאה and עון, “sin and iniquity,” are frequently used in the Old Testament to signify suffering, by a figure of speech which puts the effect for the cause; and it is surely more probable, that in the verse under consideration, the apostle used the corresponding Greek word ἁμαρτωλοι in the Hebrew sense, than that he meant to contradict what he had said in the former verse, by teaching that all men were made guilty of an act of disobedience committed thousands of years before the majority of them had any being. In the preceding verse he says, “that by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” But this cannot be true, if by that offence all men were made sinners; for then judgment must have come upon each for his own share in the original disobedience. “Any one may see,” says Dr. Taylor, “that there is a vast difference between a man’s making himself a sinner by his own wicked act, and his being made a sinner by the wicked act of another. In the latter case, he can be a sinner in no other sense but as he is a sufferer; just as Lot would have been made a sinner with the Sodomites, had he been consumed in the iniquity of the city, (Gen. xix. 15;) and as the subjects of Abimelech would have been made sinners, had he, in the integrity of his heart, committed adultery with Abraham’s wife. (Gen. xx.) That the people of Gerar could have contracted any real guilt from the adultery of their sovereign, or that he, by lying with a woman whom he had reason to believe to be not the wife but the sister of another man, would have incurred all the moral turpitude of that crime, are positions which cannot be maintained. Yet he says, that Abraham had brought upon him and on his kingdom a great sin; though it appears, from comparing the 6th verse with the 17th and 18th, that he had not been brought under sin in any other sense than as he was made to suffer for taking Sarah into his house. In this sense, 'Christ, though we are sure that be knew no sin, was made sin for us, and numbered with the transgressors,’ because he suffered death for us on the cross; and in this sense it is true, that by the disobedience of Adam all mankind were made sinners, because, in consequence of his offence, they were by the judgment of God made subject to death.”

But it may be thought that this interpretation of the word sin and sinners, though it might perhaps be admitted in the 19th verse, cannot be supposed to give the apostle’s real meaning, as it would make him employ in the 12th verse an absurd argument, which has been already noticed. But it may perhaps be possible to get quit of the absurdity, by examining the original text instead of our translation. The words are, και l>ντωt ∙<r πανταt άνθρωπον! à θavaτοt διηλθtv, i<f> à rrarr<r f∣μapτοv. in order to ascertain the real sense of these words, the first thing to be done is to discover the antecedent to the relative ώ. Our translators seem to consider it as used absolutely without any antecedent; but this is inaccurate, as it may be questioned whether the relative was ever used in any language without an antecedent either expressed or understood. Accordingly, the Calvinist critics, and even many Remonstrants, consider «Vor άνθρωπον in the beginning of the verse as the antecedent to ώ in the end of it, and translate the clause under consideration thus: “And so death hath passed upon all men, in whom (viz. Adam) all have sinned.” θavaros, however, stands much nearer to ⅞> than άνθρωπον; and being of the same gender, ought, we think, to be considered as its real antecedent; but if so, the clause under consideration should be thus translated: “and so death hath passed upon all men, unto which f all have sinned,” or, as the Arminians explain it, have suffered. If this criticism be admitted as just, lφ <p must be considered as standing here under particular emphasis, denoting the utmost length of the consequences of Adam’s sin; g as if the apostle had said, “so fiar have the consequences of Adam’s sin extended, and spread their influence among mankind, introducing not only a curse upon the earth, and sorrow and toil upon its inhabitants, but even Death, universal Death, in every part, and in all ages [7:21:222]of the world.” His words, say the Remonstrants, will unquestionably bear this sense; and it is surely much more probable that it is their true sense, than that an inspired writer should have taught a doctrine subversive of all our notions of right or wrong, and which, if really embraced, must make us incapable of judging when we are innocent and when guilty.

f That <πt, when construed with a dative case, often signifies to or anto, is known to every Greek scholar. Thus hr* tv8oξιa 6bot, the way to fame. (Lucian.) Kaκovργot tn r<ρ t>avarω, a criminal unto death, (Demoath.) 'Etr< θavar<p σvλ∖aβetr t to carry to death or execution, ( lsoc.) 'Yμeκ irr’ iaev6epiq iκληθητt, ye have been called to liberty, (Gat V. 13.) Kτισβ<wer iv Χριστώ , lη<rou «’m ipγois ayathis, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, (Ephes, ii. 10.) See also 1 Thes. iv. 7; 2 Tim. ii. 14; and many other places of the New Testament.

g ι,φ' ώ has likewise this import, denoting the terminus ad queue in Phil. iii. 12, and iv. 10.

When the apostle says that there is none righteous, no not one, he gives us plainly to understand that he is quoting from the 14th Psalm; and the question first to be answered is, In what sense were these words used by the Psaloust? That they were not meant to include all the men and women then living, far less all that have ever lived, is plain from the fifth verse of the same Psalm, where we are told that those wicked persons “were in great fear, because God was in the congregation of the righteous." There was then, it seems, a congregation of righteous persons, in opposition to those called the children of men, of whom alone it is said that there was none that did good, no not one. The truth is, that the persons of whom David generally complains in the book of Psalms, constituted a strong party disaffected to his person and government. That faction he describes as proud and oppressive, as devising mischief against him, as violent men continually assembling for war. He styles them his enemies; and sometimes characterizes them by the appellation which was given to the apostate descendants of Cain before the deluge. Thus in the 57th Psalm, which was composed when he fled from Saul to the cave in which he spared that tyrant’s life, he complains—“I lie among them that are set on fire, even the sons of μεν, whose teeth are spears,” &c.; and again, in the 58th Psalm, he says, “Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?” By comparing these texts with 1 Sam. xxvi. 19, it will appear evident that by the sons of μεν mentioned in them, he meant to characterize those enemies who exasperated Saul against him. Now it is well known, that there was a party adhering to the interests of the house of Saul, which continued its enmity to David during the forty years of his reign, and joined with Absalom in rebellion against him only eight years before his death. But it is the opinion of the most judicious commentators, that the 14th Psalm was composed during the rebellion of Absalom; and therefore it is surely much more probable, that by the children of men, of whom it is said there is “none that doth good, no not one,” the inspired poet meant to characterize the rebels, than that he should have directly contradicted himself in the compass of two sentences succeeding each other. Had he indeed known that all the children of men, as descending from Adam, “are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly and continually inclined to all evil,” he could not, with the least degree of consistency, have represented the Lord as “looking down from heaven upon them, to see if there were any that did understand and seek after God;” but if by the children of men was meant only the rebel faction, this scenical representation is perfectly consistent, as it was natural to suppose that there might be in that faction some men of good principles misled by the arts of the rebel chiefs.

Having thus ascertained the sense of the words as ori ginally used by the Psaloust, the Arminien proceeds to inquire for what purpose they were quoted by the apostle;and in this inquiry he seems to find nothing difficult. The aversion of the Jews from the admission of the Gentiles to the privileges of the gospel, the high opinion which they entertained of their own worth and superiority to all other nations, and the strong persuasion which they had that a strict obedience to their own law was sufficient to justify them before God, are facts universally known; but it was the purpose of the apostle to prove that all men stood in need of a Redeemer, that Jews as well as Gentiles had been under the dominion of sin, and that the one could not in that respect claim any superiority over the other. He begins his epistle, therefore, with showing the extreme depravity of the heathen world; and having made good that point, he proceeds to prove, by quotations from the books of Psalms, Proverbs, and Isaiah, that the Jews were in nowise better than they, that every mouth might be stopped, and all the world become guilty, or insufficient for their own justification before God.

The next proof brought by the Calvinists in support of their opinion, that all men derive guilt from Adam by ordinary generation, is that text in which St. Paul says that the Ephesians “were by nature children of wrath even as others.” To this their opponents reply, that the doctrine of original sin is in this verse, as in the last quoted, countenanced only by our translation, and not by the original Greek as understood by the ancient fathers of the Christian church, who were greater masters of that language than we. The words are κaι fiμey τ.eva φυσer ipγηr'. in which it is obvious, that τtκra, though in its original sense it signifies the genuine children of parents by natural generation, cannot be so understood here; because no man was ever begotten by, or born of, the abstract notion wrath. It must therefore be used figuratively; and in other places of scripture it often denotes a close relation to any person or thing. Thus we read of the children of God, of the kingdom, the resurrection, wisdom, light, obedience, and peace; whence it is concluded, that by the children of wrath are meant those who are liable to punishment or rejection. And because there were in those days some children, in a lower and less proper sense, by adoption, and others, in a higher and more proper sense, by natural generation, of whom the relation of the latter to their parents was much closer than that of the former) the apostle tells the Ephesians, that they were by nature children of wrath, to convince them that they were really liable to it by the strictest and closest relation possible. That the word φvσ<ι here is of the same import with really or truly, and that it does not signify what we mean by nature in the proper sense of that word, the ancient fathers are generally agreed, (see Hammond and Whitby on the text, and Suidas on the word φvoei)∙, and that the modern Greeks, who still speak a dialect of the noble language of their ancestors, understand the word in the same sense, is apparent from their version of the text before us. In the most correct and elegant edition of the New Testament in their vernacular tongue, the words under consideration are thus rendered; m∣ φwrικα ημaσβar term ορynt ωσav eaι in λoι>roa, where it is impossible that φυ<rικa can signify natural, otherwise the apostle will be made to say, not that we are by nature derived from Adam liable to wrath, but that we were naturally begottenby wrath in the abstract. For taking the word φvoer in the sense of really or truly, both the ancient and modern Greeks appear indeed to have the authority of St. Paul himself; who, writing to Timothy, calls him γνήσιον reκvor, “his true or genuine son;” not to signify that he was the child of the apostle by natural generation, but that he was closely related to him in the faith to which St. Paul had converted him. That the word r.eι>a φvoer i>pγηc can signify nothing but truly or really relations to wrath, is still further evident from the [7:21:223]ground assigned of that relation. It is not the sin of Adam, or the impurity of natural generation, “but the trespasses and sins in which the Ephesians in time past walked, according to the course of the world, according to the power of the prince of the air,” the spirit that at the time of the apostle’s writing “worked in the children of disobedience.” Surely no man can suppose that the Ephesians at any time past walked in Adam’s trespass and sin, or that the prince of the power of the air tempted them to eat the forbidden fruit.

Having thus commented on the principal texts which are cited from the New Testament to prove the doctrine of original sin, the Arminians treat those which are quoted from the Old Testament, in support of the same doctrine, with much less ceremony. Thus, when Job says, “who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one,” he is speaking, say they, not of the pravity of our nature, but of its frailty and weakness, of the shortness and misery of human life. The sentence is proverbial; and as it is used only to signify, that nothing can be more perfect than its original, it must, whenever it occurs, be understood according to the subject to which it is applied. That in the place under consideration it refers to our mortality, they think plain from the context; and Dr. Taylor adds, (Scripture Doctrine, part ii.), with some plausibility, that if the words refer to the guilt which we are supposed to derive from Adam, they will prove too much to serve the common scheme of original sin. They will prove that our natural and inherent pravity, so far from rendering us fit objects of wrath, may be urged as a reason why God should not even bring us into judgment; for the patriarch’s whole expostulation runs thus, “Dost thou open thine eyes upon such a one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?"

The other text, quoted from the same book, they think still less to the purpose; for Eliphaz is evidently contrasting the creature with the Creator; in comparison with whom, he might well say, without alluding to original guilt, “what is man, that he should be clean? and he who is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like water ?” He does not say, who derives by birth an iniquitous nature; for he knew well, that as we are born, we are the pure workmanship of God, “whose hands have fashioned and formed every one of us;” but “who drinketh iniquity like water,” who maketh himself iniquitous by running headlong into every vicious practice.

Of the text quoted from the fifty-first psalm in support of the doctrine of original sin. Dr. Taylor labours, by a long and ingenious criticism, to prove that our translators have mistaken the sense. The word which they have rendered shapen, he shows to be used once by Isaiah, and twice in the book of Proverbs, to signify brought forth; and that which is rendered conceived, me. is never, he says, employed in scripture to denote human conception. In this last remark, however, he is contradicted by Mr. Parkhurst, who says, (see his Lexico on the word יתם,) that the LXX constantly render it by κισσαω or εγκισσαω. and the Vulgate generally by concipio. Without taking upon us to decide between these two eminent Hebrew scholars, we shall only observe, that upon one occasion, (Gen. xxx. 38, 39, 40, compared with xxxi. 10,) it certainly denotes ideas much grosser than those which the Psaloust must have had of his mother’s conception; and that there, at least, Dr. Taylor properly translates it, incalescebant, adding, “de hoc vero incalescendi genere loqui Davidem nemo sanus existimare potest. Matrem enim incaluisse, aut ipsum calefecisse eo modo quo incalescerent Jacobi pecudes, Regem dicere, prorsus indecorum et absurdum.” He contends, however, that the original force of the word is to be hot, and that it is ap plied to conception, to resentment, to warmth by which the body is nourished, to idolaters in love with idols, and to the heat of metals. The heat of idolaters, of resentment, and of metals, are evidently foreign to the Psaloust’s purpose; and the idea conveyed by the word incalescere being set aside for the reasons already assigned, there remains only the warmth by which the body is nourished, and of that warmth by which our author is confident that David spoke.

If this criticism be admitted, the whole verse will then run thus: “Behold I was born in iniquity, and in sin did my mother nurse me;” which has no reference to the original formation of his constitution, but is a periphrasis of his being a sinner from the womb, and means nothing more than he was a great sinner, or had contracted early habits of sin. He no more designed to signify in this verse, that by ordinary generation he had a nature conveyed to him which was “utterly indisposed, disabled, and opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly and continually inclined to evil,” than he meant in another (Ps. lviii.) to signify strictly and properly that “the wicked are estranged from the womb, and tell lies as soon as they are born ;” or that Job meant to signify, (Job xxxi. 18), that from the moment he came from his mother’s womb he had been a guide to the widow and a succour to the fatherless. All these are hyperbolical forms of expression; which, though they appear strained, and perhaps extravagant, to the phlegmatic inhabitants of Europe, are perfectly suited to the warm imaginations of the orientals, and to the genius of eastern languages. They mean not that Job was born with habits of virtue, that the wicked actually walked, and spoke, and spoke lies from the instant of their birth, or that the Psaloust was really shapen in sin and conceived in iniquity. This last sentence, if interpreted literally, would indeed be grossly impious: it would make the inspired penman throw the whole load of his iniquity and sin from off himself upon him who shaped, and upon her who conceived him; even upon that God “whose hands had made him and fashioned him, and whom he declares that he will praise for having made him fearfully and wonderfully,” and upon that parent who conceived him with sorrow, and brought him forth with pain, and to whom the divine law commanded him to render honour and gratitude. “But if, after all,” says Dr. Taylor, (Scripture Doctrine, part ii.) “you will adhere to the literal sense of the text for the common doctrine of original sin, show me any good reason why you ought not to admit the literal sense of the text, this is my body, for tran-subslantiation? If you say. it is absurd to suppose that Christ speaks of his real natural body; I say, it is likewise absurd to suppose that the Psaloust speaks of his being really and properly shapen in iniquity, and conceived in sin. If you say, that the sense of the words this is my body, may be clearly explained by other texts of scripture where the like forms of speech are used; I say, and have shown, that the Psaloust’s sense may as clearly and evidently be made out by parallel texts, where you have the like kind of expression. If you say that transubstantiation is attended with consequences hurtful to piety, I say that the common doctrine of original sin is attended with consequences equally hurtful; for it is a principle apparently leading to all manner of iniquity, to believe that sin is natural to us, that it is interwoven and ingrafted into our very constitution from our conception and formation in the womb.”

Thus far the Arminians of the present day are agreed in opposing the doctrine of the rigid Calvinists, and in stating their own notions of the consequences of Adam’s fall; but from that event their adversaries deduce one consequence, which some of them admit and others deny. It is said that though we cannot possibly be partakers in Adam’s guilt, we yet derive from him a moral taint and infection, by which we have a natural propensity to sin; that having lost the image of God, in which he was created, Adam begat sons [7:21:224]in his own image; and in one word, that the sensual appe- 'tites of human nature were inflamed, and its moral and intellectual powers greatly weakened, by the eating of the forbidden fruit. The heathens themselves acknowledged and lamented this depravity, though they were ignorant of the source from which it sprung. The scriptures assert it, affirming that no man can be born pure and clean; that whatever is born of the flesh, or comes into the world by ordinary generation, is flesh, carnal and corrupt; that the imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart is only evil continually; that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; and that out of it proceeds all that is vile and sinful. (Job xiv. 4.)

We have thus given as full and comprehensive a view as our limits will permit of the different opinions of the Calvinists and Arminians respecting the consequences of Adam’s fall. If we have dwelt longer upon the scheme of the latter than of the former, it is because every Arminian argument is built upon criticism, and appeals to the original text; while the Calvinists rest their faith upon the plain words of scripture as read in our translation. If we might hazard our own opinion, we should say that the truth lies between them, and that it has been found by the moderate men of both parties, who, while they make use of different language, seem to us to have the same sentiments. That all mankind really sinned in Adam, and are on that account liable to most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell fire for ever, is a doctrine which cannot be reconciled to our natural notions of God. On the other hand, if human nature was not somehow debased by the fall of our first parents, it is not easy to account for the numberless phrases in scripture which certainly seem to speak that language, or for the very general opinion of the Pagan philosophers and poets respecting the golden age and the degeneracy of man. Cicero, in a quotation preserved by St. Augustin from a work that is now lost, has these remarkable words, “Homo non ut a matre sed ut a noverca natura editus est in vitam, corpore nudo, et fragili, et infirmo; animo autem anxio ad molestias, humili ad timores, molli ad labores, prono ad libidines; in quo tamen inest tanquam obrutus quidam divinus ignis ingenii et mentis.” (Vide D. Aug. lib. iv. contra Pelagium.) Nor do we readily perceive what should induce the more zealous Arminians to oppose so vehemently this general opinion of the corruption of human nature Their desire to vindicate the justice and goodness of God, does them honour; but the doctrine of inherent corruption detracts not from these attributes; for what we have lost in the first Adam has been amply supplied to us in the second; and we know from the highest authority, that the duties required of us are in proportion to our ability, since we are told, that “unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required.”

Obs. See Holden’s Dissertation on the Fall of Man. Sherlock’s do. Taylor’s Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin. Edwards’s Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin defended. Woods’s Essay on Native Depravity. Boston, U. S., 1835. The work of Edwards is an answer, and a most able answer, to that of Taylor.

Part III.— Doctrines concerning the Scheme of Human Redemption.

The deliverance of man from the penal consequences of his sin, and his moral renovation in the sight of God, are effected by his cordially and intelligently accepting a gracious pardon offered to him by God, through the meritorious atonement and intercession of Jesus Christ. See John iii. 14—17, 36; x. 9, 28. Rom. viii. 11; v. 1; iv. 5, &c.

Sect. I. Of the Person of Christ.

The Scriptures distinctly inform us that our Saviour Jesus Christ, united in his own person the human nature and the divine; i.e . was a real man having a human body and a human soul, and yet at the same time being God. Whilst on the one hand we are told of his birth by a human mother; of his growing in wisdom and stature, (Luke ii. 52); of his being hungry, thirsty, and weary, (John iv. 6, 10); of his suffering and dying, all which are attributes of humanity; we are on the other assured, that he was in a proper and peculiar sense the Son of God, (John i. 34; iii. 18); that in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, (Col. ii. 9); that he was God over all blessed for ever, (Rom. ix. 5); that he was God manifest in the flesh, (1 Tim. iii. 16); that he is the Creator of the universe, and will be the final omniscient judge of the quick and the dead; and that he is equally with the Father the proper object of worship and religious homage, (John i. 1—3. Col. i. 16, 17. Acts xvii. 31. 2 Tim. iv. 1. 1 Thes. iii. 11—13. Rev. v. 5—14.)

Obs. 1. See Smith’s Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 3 vols. Wardlaw’s Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, Dis. iii—vi. Wynperse’s Demonstration of the Divinity of our Lord, by Alexander. Urwick’s Vindication of our Saviour’s Divine Right to Worship.

Obs. 2. This incarnation of the Son of God is perhaps the greatest mystery of the Christian faith, and that to which ancient and modern heretics have urged the most plausible objections. The doctrine of the Trinity is indeed equally incomprehensible; but the nature of God and the mode of his existence, as revealed in scripture, no man, who thinks, can be surprised that he does not comprehend; for a revelation which should teach nothing mysterious on such a subject, would be as incredible and as useless as another which contained nothing but mystery. The difficulty respecting the incarnation which forces itself on the mind, is not bow two natures so different as the divine and human can be so intimately united as to become one person; for this union in itself is not more inconceivable than that of the soul and body in one man; but that which at first is apt to stagger the fiiith of the reflecting Christian, is the infinite distance between the two natures in Christ, and the comparatively small importance of the object, for the attainment of which the eternal Son of God is said to have assumed on him our nature.

Upon mature reflection, however, much of this difficulty will vanish to him who considers the ways of Providence, and attends to the meaning of the words in which this mystery is taught. The importance of the object for which the Word condescended to be made flesh, we cannot adequately know. The oracles of truth indeed inform us, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; but there are passages scattered through the New Testament (Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 19, 20.) which indicate, not obscurely, that the influence of his sufferings extends to other worlds beside this: and if so, who can take on him to say, that the quantity of good which they may have produced, was not of sufficient importance to move even to this condescension a Being who is emphatically styled love?

But let us suppose that everything which he did and taught and suffered was intended only for the benefit of man, we shall, in the daily administration of providence, find other instances of the divine condescension; which, though they cannot be compared with the incarnation of the second person in the blessed T∣ inity, are yet sufficient to reconcile our understandings to that mystery when revealed to us by the Spirit of God That in Christ there should have dwelt on earth "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," (Col. ii. 9,) is indeed a truth by which the devout mind is overwhelmed with astonishment; but it is little less astonishing that the omnipotent Creator should be intimately present at every instant of time to the meanest of his creatures, “upholding all things, the vilest reptile as well as the most glorious angel, by the word of his power," Heb. i. 3. Yet it is a truth self-evident, that without this constant presence of the Creator, nothing which had a beginning could continue one moment in being; that the visible universe would not only crumble into chaos, but vanish into nothing; and that the souls of men, and even the most exalted spirits of creation, would instantly lose that existence, which, as it was not of Itself, and is not necessary, must depend wholly on the will of Him from whom it was originally derived. (See Metaphysics and Providence.)

In what particular way God is present to his works, we cannot know. He is not diffused through the universe like the anima mundi of the ancient Platonists, or that modern idol termed the substratum of space, (see Metaphysics); but that he is in power as intimately present now to every atom of matter as when he first brought it into existence, is equally the dictate of sound philosophy and of divine revelation; for “in him we live and move and have our being;” and power without substance is inconceivable. If then the divine nature be not debased, if it cannot be debased by being [7:21:225]constantly present with the vilest reptile on which we tread, why should our minds recoil from the idea of a still closer union between the second person of the ever blessed Trinity, and the body and soul of Jesus Christ? The one union is indeed different from the other, but we are in truth equally ignorant of the nature of both. Reason and revelation assure us that God must be present to his works to preserve them in existence; and revelation informs us further, that one of the persons in the Godhead assumed human nature into a personal union with himself, to redeem myriads of rational creatures from the miserable consequences of their own tolly and wickedness. The importance of this object is such, that, for the arrainment of it, we may easily conceive that he who condescends to be potentially present with the worms of the earth and the grass of the field, would condescend still further to be personally present with the spotless soul and body of a man. Jesus Christ lived indeed a life of poverty and suffering upon earth, but his divine nature was not uffected by his sufferings. At the very time when, as a man, he had not a place where to lay his head; as God, he was in heaven as well as upon earth, (John iii. 13,) dwelling in light inaccessible: and while, as a man, he was increasing in wisdom and stature, his divinity was the fulness of him who filleth all in all, and from whom nothing can be hid.

Sect. II. Of the Life and Teaching of Christ.

What men earnestly wish to be true, they readily believe. Hence the Jewish people, losing sight of the yoke under which they and the whole human race were brought by the fall of Adam, mistaking the sense of the blessing promised to all nations through the seed of Abraham, and devoting their whole attention to the most magnificent descriptions of the Messiah’s kingdom, expected in him a prince who should conquer the Romans, and establish on earth a universal monarchy, of which Jerusalem was to be the metropolis.

As our Saviour came for a very different purpose, the first object of his mission was to rectify the notions of his erring countrymen, in order to fit them for the deliverance which they were to obtain through him. Accordingly, when he entered on his office as a preacher of righteousness, he embraced every opportunity of inveighing against the false doctrines taught as traditions of the elders; and by his knowledge of the secrets of all hearts, he exposed the vile hypocrisy of those who made a gain of godliness. The Jews had been led, by their separation from the rest of the world, to consider themselves as the peculiar favourites of Jehovah; and the consequence was, that, contrary to the spirit of their own law, and the explicit doctrines of some of their prophets, they looked on all other nations with abhorrence, as on people physically impure. These prejudices the blessed Jesus laboured to eradicate. Having desired a lawyer, by whom he was tempted, to read that part of the law of Moses which commanded the Israelites to love their neighbours as themselves, he compelled him, by means of a parabolical account of a compassionate Samaritan, to acknowledge, that under the denomination of neighbour, the divine lawgiver had comprehended all mankind as the objects of love, (St. Luke x. 25—38.) The importance in which Moses held the ritual law, and to which, as the means of preserving its votaries from the contagion of idolatry, it was justly entitled, had led the Jews to consider every ceremony of it as of intrinsic value and perpetual obligation: but Jesus brought to their recollection God’s declared preference of mercy to sacrifice; showed them that the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith, claimed their regard in the first place, and its ceremonial observances only in the second; and taught them in conformity with the predictions of their own prophets, (Jeremiah xxxi. 31, &c.) that the hour was about to come when the worship of God should not be confined to Jerusalem, but that “true worshippers should everywhere worship the Father in spirit and in truth,” (John iv. 25—27.)

It being the design of Christ’s coming into the world to break down the middle wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, and to introduce a new dispensation of religion which should unite all mankind as brethren in the worship of the true God, and fit them for the enjoyment of heaven; he did not content himself with merely restoring the moral part of the Mosaic law to its primitive purity, disencumbered of the corrupt glosses of the scribes and pharisees, but added to it many spiritual precepts, which, till they were taught by him, had never occurred to either Jew or Gentile. The Hebrew lawgiver had prohibited murder under the penalty of death; but Christ extended the prohibition to causeless anger, and to contemptuous treatment of our brethren, commanding his followers, as they valued their everlasting salvation, to forgive their enemies, and to love all mankind. Adultery was forbidden by the law of Moses as a crime of the deepest dye; but Jesus said to his disciples, “that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart,” and is of course liable to the Divine vengeance. The lex talionis was in force among the Jews, so that the man who had deprived his neighbour of an eye or a tooth, was to suffer the loss of an eye or a tooth himself; but this mode of punishment, which inflicted blemish for blemish, though suited to the hardness of Jewish hearts, being inconsistent with the mild spirit of Christianity, was abolished by our blessed Lord, who severely prohibited the indulgence of revenge, and commanded his followers to love even their enemies. Perjury has in every civilised nation been justly considered as a crime of the highest atrocity, and the Mosaic law doomed the false witness to bear the punishment, whatever it might be, which he intended, by swearing falsely, to bring on his brother; but the author of the Christian religion forbade not only false swearing, but swearing at all, except on solemn occasions, and when an oath should be required by legal authority.

By thus restoring the law to its original purity, and in many cases extending its sense, the blessed Jesus executed the office of a Prophet to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; but had he not been more than an ordinary prophet, he could not have abrogated the most trivial ceremony of it, nor even extended the sense of any of its moral precepts; for their great lawgiver had told them, that “the Lord their God would raise up unto them but one prophet, like unto him, to whom they should hearken,” (Deut. xviii. 15.) That prophet was by themselves understood to be the Messiah, whom they expected to tell them all things. It was necessary therefore that Jesus, as he taught some new doctrines, and plainly indicated that greater changes would soon be introduced, should vindicate his claim to that exalted character which alone could authorise him to propose innovations. This he did in the amplest manner, by fulfilling prophecies and working miracles, (see Miracle and Prophecy) ; so that the unprejudiced part of the people readily acknowledged him to be of a truth “that prophet which should come into the world—the Son of God, and the King of Israel.” He did not, however, make any change in the national worship, or assume to himself the smallest civil authority. He had submitted to the rite of circumcision, and strictly performed every duty, ceremonial as well as moral, which that covenant made incumbent on other Jews; thus fulfilling all righteousness. Though the religion which he came to propagate was in many respects contrary to the ritual law, it could not be established, or that law abrogated, but in consequence of his death, which the system of sacrifices was appointed to prefigure; and as his kingdom, which was not of this world, could not commence till after his resurrection, he yielded during the whole course of his life a cheerful obedience to the civil magistrate, and wrought a miracle to obtain money to pay the tribute that was exacted of him. Being thus circumstanced, he chose from the lowest and least corrupted of the people certain followers, whom he treated with the most endearing familiarity for three years, and commissioned at his departure to promulgate such doctrines as, consistently with the order of the [7:21:226]divine dispensations, he could not personally preach himself. With these men, during the course of his ministry on earth, he went about continually doing good, healing the sick, casting out devils, raising the dead, reproving sin, preaching righteousness, and instructing his countrymen, by the most perfect example which was ever exhibited in the world, of whatsoever things are true, or honest, or just, or pure, or lovely, or of good report. The scribes and pharisees, however, not finding him that conqueror whom they vainly expected, becoming envious of his reputation among the people, and being filled with rancour against him for detecting their hypocritical arts, delivered him up to the Roman governor, who, though convinced of his innocence, yielded to the popular clamour, and crucified him between two thieves, as an enemy to Caesar.

Sect. III.— Of the Death of Christ.

When our Lord was hanging upon the cross, and just before he expired, he said. It is finished, intimating that the purpose was now fulfilled for which he had come into the world, and which, as he had formerly told his disciples, “was not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many,” (Matt. xx. 28). For his blood, as he assured them at the institution of the Eucharist, “was to be shed for the remission of sins.” That Christ died voluntarily for us, the just for the unjust, and that “there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved,” is the uniform doctrine of the prophets who foretold his coming, of John the Baptist, who was his immediate harbinger, and of the apostles and evangelists who preached the gospel after his ascension into heaven. Thus Isaiah says of the Messiah (chap. liii. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12), that “he was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; that the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and that with his stripes we are healed; that we had all like sheep gone astray, turning every one to his own way, and that the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all; that he was cut off out of the land of the living, and stricken for the transgression of God’s people; and his soul or life was made an offering for sin; and that he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.” The Baptist, “when he saw Jesus coming unto him, said to the people, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world,” (John i. 29); plainly intimating that his death was to be a sacrifice, since it was only as a sacrifice that the Jews could form any conception of a lamb taking away sin. The epistles of St. Paul are so full of the doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction, that it is needless to quote particular texts in proof of it. He tells the Romans, that Jesus Christ was “set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood; he was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification; that he died for the ungodly; and that God commendeth his love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us,” (chap. iii. 25; iv. 25; v. 6, 8). He assures the Corinthians that Christ died for all; that “they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but to him who died for them and rose again; and that God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," (2 Ep. v. 15, 21). He informs the Galatians, that Christ “gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father; and that he redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” (chap. i. 4). St. Peter and St. John speak the very same language; the former teaching us, that '' Christ suffered for us, and bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” (1 Peter ii. 21 and 24); the latter, “that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, and that he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world,” 1 Julin i. 7; ii. 2).

That he came into the world for the purpose of suffering, appears from his own words: for “no man,” said he, (John X. 18), “taketh my life from me, but Hay it down of myself: 1 have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received from my Father.” And that he voluntarily laid it down for mankind, is evident from his calling himself the Good Shepherd, and adding, that “the Good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.” (John x. 11.)

Sect. IV,— Of the nature of that benefit which Man derives from the propitiatory work of Christ.

That Christ died for the benefit of the human race, is a truth so apparent from Scripture, that no man professing Christianity has hitherto called it in question; though very different opinions have been formed, even by pious men, concerning the nature and extent of that benefit, and the means by which it is applied. Of these opinions we shall endeavour to give an impartial account, and as fully as our limits will permit.

The strictest adherents to the theological system of Calvin, interpreting literally such texts of Scripture as speak of Christ’s being made sin for us, of his bearing our sins in his own body on the tree, and of the Lord’s laying on him the iniquity of us all, contend, that the sins of the elect were lifted off from them and laid on Christ by imputation, much in the same way as they think the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity. “By bearing the sins of his people,” says Dr Gill, (Body of Divinity, vol. ii. book iii. chap. v. § 4), “he took them off from them, and took them upon himself, bearing or carrying them, as a man bears or carries a burden on his shoulders. There was no sin in him inherently, for if there had, he would not have been a fit person to make satisfaction for it; but sin was put upon him by his Divine Father, as the sins of the Israelites were put upon the scape-goat by Aaron. No creature could have done this; but the Lord hath laid on him. or made to meet on him, the iniquity of us all, not a single iniquity, but a whole mass and lump of sins collected together, and laid as a common burden upon him, even the sins of all the elect of God. This phrase of laying sin on Christ is expressive of the imputation of it to him; for it was the will of God not to impute the transgressions of his elect to themselves, but to Christ, which was done by an act of his own; for he hath made him to be sin for us; that is, by imputation, in which way we are made the righteousness 1 of God in him; that being imputed to us by him as our sins were to Christ. The sense is, a charge of sin was brought against him as the surety of his people. He was numbered with the transgressors; for bearing the sins of many, he was reckoned as if he bad been a sinner himself, sin being imputed to him; and he was dealt with as such. Sin being found upon him by imputaton, a demand of satisfaction for sin was made, and he answered it to the full. All this was with his own consent. He agreed to have sin laid upon him, and imputed to him, and a charge of it brought against him, to which he engaged to be responsible; yea, he himself took the sins of his people upon him; so the evangelist Matthew has it, “He himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses,” (chap. viii. 17). As he took the nature of men, so he took their sins, which made his flesh to have the likeness of sinful flesh, though it really was not sinful. What Christ bore being laid upon him, and imputed to him, were sins of all sorts, original and actual; sins of every kind, open and secret, of heart, lip, and life.; all acts of sin committed by his people, for he has redeemed them from all their iniquities; and God, for Christ’s sake, forgives all trespasses, his blood cleanses from all sin, and his righteousness justifies from all; all being imputed to him as that is to them. Bearing sin supposes it to be a burden; and indeed it is a [7:21:227]burden too heavy to bear by a sensible sinner.^[5. By the phrase a sensible sinner, the learned author means a sinner who is conscious of guilt and ill desert as a transgressor of the divine law. ] When sin is charged home upon the conscience, and a saint groans, being burdened with it, what must that burden be, and how heavy the load which Christ bore, consisting of all the sins of all the elect front the beginning of the world to the end of it; and yet he sunk not, but stood up under it; failed not, non was he discouraged, being the mighty God, and the Man of God’s right hand, made strong for himself”

To the Arminiens or Remonstrants, this doctrine of the imputation of the sins of men to the Son of God appears as absurd as the similar doctrine of the imputation of the sin of Adam to his unborn posterity; and it is certainly attended with consequences which have alarmed serious Christians of other denominations.

Were it possible in the nature of things, says the Arminian, to transfer the guilt of one person to another, and to lay it upon him as a burden, it could not be done without violating those laws of equity which are established in the Scripture and engraven on the human heart. But this is not possible. To talk of lifting masses of sin, or transferring them like burdens from the guilty to the innocent, is to utter jargon, says he, which has no meaning; and we might with as much propriety speak of lifting a scarlet colour from a piece of cloth and laying it on the sound of a trumpet, as of literally lifting the sins of the elect from them and laying them on Christ. Guilt is seated on the mind; and no man can become a sinner but by an act of volition. If Christ therefore really took upon him the sins of his people, he must have deliberately formed a wish to have actually committed all these sins; but such a wish, though it would have made him inherently guilty, and therefore incapable of satisfying for sin, could not have can celled deeds that were done before he was born, or have made those innocent who really bad been sinners. A deed once done cannot be undone; a volition which has been formed cannot be annihilated. By sincere repentance, the habitual dispositions are indeed changed, and those who have been sinners become objects of mercy; but no power can recal the hours that are past, or make those actions which have been performed to have been not performed. To remove guilt from the sinner and lay it on the innocent may, therefore, be safely pronounced impossible even for Omnipotence itself, for it implies that a thing may be and not be at the same instant of time; and the doctrine which teaches that this removal was made from the elect to Christ, is an imagination of yesterday, which has no countenance from Scripture, and is contrary to the established constitution of things. Those who imagine that guilt may be propagated from father to son, have something like an argument to urge for the imputation of Adam’s sin to his numberless posterity; for all the men and women who have by ordinary generation been introduced into the world, have undoubtedly derived their nature from the primeval pair. But Christ did not derive his nature from the elect that their sins should be communicated to him; nor, as he was miraculously conceived by the Holy Ghost, can we attribute to him any degree of that taint which is supposed to have been conveyed from Adam to all the other generations of men.

Nothing more, therefore, can be meant by “Christ’s being made sin for us,” and “bearing our sins in his own body on the tree,” or by God’s “laying upon him the iniquity of us all,” than that by his sufferings we are freed from the punishment of our sins; it being in Scripture a common figure of speech, as even Dr. Gill has somewhere acknowledged, to denote by the word sin the consequences of sin. That this figure is used in those texts from which he infers that Christ took the sine of the elect on himself, is evident from the verse which he quotes from the gospel of St. Mat thew; in which it is said, that “himself took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses.” The sicknesses and infirmities there alluded to are the leprosy, the palsy, the fever, and demoniacal possessions; but when our blessed Lord cured these diseases, surely he did not by his omnipotent word lift them off from the patients and, take them on himself, so as actually to become a leper, a paralytic, and a daemoniac, or even to be reckoned as such either by the multitude, or by the priest, whose duty it was to take cognizance of every illegal uncleanness, (Levit, xiii). And if his inveterate enemies did not impure to him the leprosy when he removed that plague from others, why should it be supposed that his own Father, to whom he was at all times well-pleasing, imputed to him the sins of which, by his sufferings, he removed the punishment from those who were guilty? To impute to a person any action, whether virtuous or vicious, which he did not perform, can proceed only from ignorance, or malice, or partiality; but God is no respecter of persons, and from ignorance and malice he is removed to an infinite distance. It is indeed an undoubted truth, that “the Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father bath given him,” (Confession of Faith, chap. viii. § v.); but that he actually took on himself the sins of mankind, or that those sin» were imputed to him by God, who punished him as a person whom he considered as guilty, is a doctrine equally injurious to the justice of the Father and to the immaculate purity of the Son.

To this imaginary transferring of virtues and vices from one person to another, as the Scriptures give no countenance, so they nowhere call the death of Christ a satisfaction for the sins of men. The term has indeed been long in use among divines, and when properly explained it may be retained without any danger; but in treating of this subject, it would perhaps be more prudent to restrict ourselves to the use of Scripture language, as the word satisfaction carries in it the ideas of a debt paid and accepted; whereas it is said by St. Paul, that “eternal life is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord; and that we are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,” (Rom. vi. 23; iii. 24, 25).

To clear up this matter, and attain adequate notions of redemption, it will be necessary to look back to the fall of our first parents; for the great purpose for which Christ was promised, and for which he came into the world, was, by bruising the head of the serpent, to restore mankind to the inheritance which they had lost through the transgression of Adam. This is apparent not only from the original promise made to the woman, but also from different passages in the epistles of St. Paul, who expressly calls Christ the second Adam, and says, that, “as by the offence of one, judgment come upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life ;” that, “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous ;” and that, “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” (Rom. v. 18, 19; 1 Cor. xv. 22.) Hence it was that John the Baptist, when he saw Jesus coming to him, said to his disciples, “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away, not the sins, but the sin of the world,” (John i. 23), evidently alluding to Adam’s sin and its consequences, since no other sin was ever committed of which the consequences extend to the whole world.
[7:21:228]

This being the case, it is undeniable, that whatever we lost in the first Adam is restored to us by the second; and therefore they who believe that the punishment denounced against eating the forbidden fruit was death corporal, spiritual, and eternal, must believe that we are redeemed from all these by Christ; who having “appeared once in the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him,” (Heb. ix. 26. 1 Thess. v. 10). If the image of God in which man was created was lost by the breach of the first covenant, it is more than restored to us * by the Mediator of a better covenant, which is established upon better promises if by the sin of Adam we were utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually, we are freed from that dreadful curse by “our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works,” (Titus ii. 14); and if for our share in the first transgression we be justly liable to all punishments in this world and in that which is to come, the apostle assures us, that “when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, because that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” (Rom. v. 10. 2 Cor. v. 19). As Jesus is “the Lamb slain (in the divine decree) from the foundation of the world,” these beneficial consequences of his death have been extended by a retrospective view to all in every age whose names are written in the book of life, though it be absurd to suppose that he literally took their sins upon him, and impious to imagine that he suffered under the imputation of sin.

Sect. V.— Of the extent of that benefit which Christ procured for Man.

It is well known to be one of the fundamental doctrines of the Calvinistic school, that “none are redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only,” (Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, chap. iii. § 6); and if the notions of redemption which, in the end of the 17th century, were very generally embraced, be admitted as just, it will not be easy to overturn the arguments by which that doctrine is supported. Such of them as are connected with the great question of election and reprobation, and enter into the decision of it, we have stated in another place (see Predestination) ; but it is farther argued, (Gill’s Body of Divinity, vol. ii. book iii. chap. 3), that the doctrine of universal redemption reflects on the wisdom, the justice, and the power of God, and robs him of his glory.

The Scriptures assure us that all men shall not be saved; but how can this be, if Christ died for all, and the scheme of salvation, by his death, was formed by infinite wisdom? The Arminians indeed say, that those who fail of salvation, fail through their own fault in not performing the conditions required of them; but God either knew or knew not that such men would not perform those conditions. If he knew it not, his knowledge is limited; if he did know it, where was his wisdom in providing a scheme of redemption for men to whom he was aware that it would be of no benefit? “God,” we are told, “is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works but there is no righteousness in making Christ bear the sins of all men, and suffer the punishment due to them, if any one of those men shall be afterwards punished everlastingly. If Christ has already paid the debts of the whole world, it cannot be just to cast a single inhabitant of the whole world into the prison of hell, there to be detained till he shall again have paid the uttermost farthing. “The Lord’s hand is not shortened that it cannot save ;” for he is and always will be the same Almighty power that he was from eternity; but if by the divine de cree Christ died for all men, and yet all men shall not be saved, it would appear that man is mightier than his Maker. The ultimate end of God in the redemption of man is admitted to have been his own glory; but if any individual of the human race, who was redeemed by Christ, shall not be saved, God will so far lose his end, and be deprived of his glory. For, if this were the case, where would be the glory of God the Father in forming a scheme which, with respect to multitudes, does not succeed; and where would be the glory of the Son of God, the Redeemer, in working out the redemption of men who are yet not to be saved by him? and where would be the glory of the Spirit of God, if redemption were not by him effectually applied to every individual for whom it was wrought? By such arguments as these do the Calvinists oppose the scheme of universal redemption, and contend that Christ died only for the elect, or such as shall be placed on his right hand at the day of judgment. This notion of a limited redemption, as they think it more worthy of the sovereignty of God, they believe to be taught by our Saviour himself, when he saith, (John vi. 37-40), “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will who hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”

The Arminians, on the other hand, contend that it is impious to limit the effects of Christ’s death to a chosen few, since it appears from Scripture, that by the decree and intention of his Father he tasted death for every man, that all, without exception, might through him obtain remission of their sins. Thus our Lord himself told Nicoemus, (John iii. 14-18), that “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” In perfect conformity with the doctrine of his divine Master, St. Paul teaches, (2 Cor. v. 14-20. 1 Tim. it. 4-7. Heb. ii. 9), that “Christ died for all; that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them ;” that “he will have all men to be saved, and to come into the knowledge of the truth that “Christ gave himself a ransom for all and that “Jesus was made a little lower than the angels, that by the grace of God he should taste death for every man.” The very same thing is taught by St. Peter and St. John, when the former says, (2 Peter iii. 9), that “the Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and the latter, (1 John ii. 2), that “Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins; and not for our’s only, but for the whole world.”

On these texts, without any commentary, the Arminians are willing to rest their doctrine of universal redemption; though they think that a very strong additional argument for its truth arises from the numberless absurdities which flow from the contrary opinion. Thus, say they, (Limborch’s Theologia Christiana, Eng. Trans. book iv. chap. iii.) the apostles were commanded by our Saviour (St. Mark xvi. 15, 16), to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” and all who hear it preached are required to believe it: but no man, as the Calvinists themselves confess, can believe the gospel as a Christian, without believing that Christ died for him; and, therefore, if it be true that Christ died only for the elect, a great part of mankind are required to believe a lie, and a falsity is made the object of divine faith! Again, if Christ did not die for all, then [7:21:229]no man can be sure that he is bound to believe in Christ ' when preached to him; nor can any man be justly condemned for infidelity; which is not only absurd in itself, but directly contrary to what we are taught by our blessed Lord, who assures us, (St. John iii. 18, 19, and 36; Rom. xiv. 9), that unbelief is the cause of condemnation. Lastly, if Christ died not for all, then it is certain that he cannot claim dominion over all in consequence of his death and re~ surrection; but St. Paul says expressly, that “to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be the Lord of the dead and living." The Arminians acknowledge, that though Christ died for all, there are many who will not be saved; for, say they, (Wells’s Divine Laws and Covenants, part ii. chap. iii.) the death of Christ did not literally pay the debts incurred by sinners, but only obtained for them the gracious covenant of the gospel, by which all who believe in him, and sincerely endeavour to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, are entitled to forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

Sect VI Of the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ.

The Apostles of Christ, in announcing his religion to men, laid great emphasis on the fact of their Master’s resurrection from the dead, as that which proved the divinity of his mission, and the acceptance of his work by God. That this fact really occurred, there can be no doubt. It may be laid down as a fixed principle, that no man, or body of men, will deliberately choose evil for its own sake, or enter zealously upon a tedious and difficult enterprise, from which no good can possibly arise, and from which unmixed misery is clearly foreseen as the necessary result of every step of the progress. Such, however, must have been the choice and the conduct of the apostles, when they resolved to preach a new religion founded on the resurrection of Jesus, if they did not certainly know that Jesus had risen from the dead. And this conduct must have been adopted, and, in opposition to every motive which can influence the human mind, have been persevered in by a great number of men and women, without the smallest contradiction having ever appeared in the various testimonies, which at different times, and under the cruelest tortures, they all gave to a variety of circumstances, of which not one had its foundation in truth. He who can admit this supposition, will not surely object to the credibility of miracles. The resurrection of a man from the dead is an event so different indeed from the common course of things, that nothing but the most complete evidence can make it an object of rational belief; but as the resurrection of Jesus has always been said to have had God for its Author, it has an effect which does not exceed the power of the cause assigned, and is therefore an event possible in itself and capable of proof. It is a deviation from the laws of nature, but it is not contradictory to any one of those laws. That a great number of men and women should deliberately form a plan of ruin and misery to themselves, without a prospect of the smallest advantage either in this world or the next, is as different from the common course of things as the resurrection from the dead; and therefore in itself at least as great a miracle: but that they should persist in prosecuting this plan in the midst of torments; that they should spread themselves over the whole world, and everywhere publish a number of falsehoods, without any one of them contradicting the rest; that truth should never escape them either in an unguarded moment, or when lingering on the rack, and yet all their lies should be in perfect agreement with each other; that they should every one of them court sufferings for a person whom they knew to be an impostor; that not one of the number—not even a single woman—should have so much compassion for a fellow-creature, as to rescue him from the flames by confessing a truth which could injure nobody—not even the suffering deceivers themselves;—all this is not only different from the common course of things, but directly contrary to the most known laws of nature, and is therefore not miraculous, but may be pronounced impossible. Yet this impossibility we roust admit, or acknowledge, that as Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and was buried, so he arose again the third day, according to the Scriptures; and was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that of above five hundred brethren at once; after that of James; and then of all the apostles; and that he was last of all seen of St. Paul, (1 Cor. xv. 3-9,) who by the vision was converted to preach the faith which till then he had persecuted.

Thus we are assured, that “those who have fallen asleep in Christ are not lost, since he has risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order; Christ the first-fruits, afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming; for all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation." (1 Cor. XV. 20-24, and St. John v. 28, 29.)

Our blessed Lord having conversed familiarly with the eleven apostles for forty days after his resurrection, instructing them in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; having extended their authority as his ministers, by giving them a commission to teach all nations, and make them his disciples, by baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and having promised them power from on high to enable them to discharge the duties of so laborious an office—conducted them as far as Bethany, that they might be witnesses to his ascension into heaven. (See St. Luke xxiv. 49—43, and Acts i. 6-12.)

That our blessed Lord ascended into heaven, will scarcely be denied in the present age by any one who admits that he rose from the dead. The ascension was indeed the natural consequence of the resurrection; for we cannot suppose that a man would be called back from the grave to live for ever in a world where all other men fall in succession a prey to death. The purpose for which he died was to recover for the descendants of Adam every privilege which they had forfeited through his transgression; and if, as has been generally believed, mankind were by the terms of the first covenant to enjoy eternal life in heaven, some proof was necessary that Christ by his death and resurrection had opened the kingdom of heaven to all faithful observers of the terms of the second. Hence it was prophesied (Psalm lxviii. 18; cx. 1; Micah ii. 13) of the Messiah, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, that “he should ascend on high, lead captivity captive, and sit on the right hand of God until his enemies should be made his footstool.” It was therefore of the greatest importance to the apostles to have sufficient proof of their Master’s exaltation to the right hand of the Majesty on high; for otherwise they could neither have looked for an entrance into heaven themselves, by a new and living way, as the author of the epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, nor have preached Jesus as the Messiah promised to their fathers, since they could not have known that in him these prophecies were fulfilled. But the proof vouchsafed them was the most complete that the nature of the thing would bear. The spectators of the ascension were many; for, according to the history of St. Luke, (Acts i. 12-16.) those who returned from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem, and prepared themselves for the coming of the Holy Ghost, were in number about six score; and to such a cloud of witnesses the evangelist would not have appealed, had not the fact he was recording been very generally known. Yet these were perhaps but part of the witnesses; for since Christ had informed his disciples that he [7:21:230]was to ascend to his Father and their Father, to his God> and their God, and that he was going to prepare a place for them, that where he is there they might be likewise; we can hardly doubt but that all who believed in him as the Redeemer of the world would take care to be present, not only to view their Master’s triumph over all his enemies, but also anticipate that glory which awaited themselves. It was probably on this occasion that he was seen after his resurrection by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part were alive at the writing of St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians.

But though such multitudes of people saw Jesus lifted up from the mount, till he gradually vanished out of their sight, some other evidence seemed necessary to certify them of the place to which he had ascended. Two angels therefore appear, and attest what human eyes could not see, but what was indeed the consequence of what they had seen. They attest that Christ had ascended to heaven, not to descend again till the last day; and surely, with respect to this point, the citizens of heaven were the most unexceptionable witnesses. We must therefore acknowledge and confess, against all the wild heresies of old, that Jesus Christ the Son of God, who died and rose again, did with the same body and soul with which he had lived upon earth ascend “into heaven, there to appear in the presence of God for us." (Heb. ix. 24.) Having in the outward tabernacle of this world once offered up himself a pure and perfect sacrifice for the expiation of our sins, he entered within the veil into the most holy place, there to present his blood before God himself, in order to obtain mercy for us, and restore us to the Divine favour. So that “if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, who is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world; and he is able to save to the uttermost those that come to God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for us.” “Seeing then that we have a great high-priest, who is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, we may through him come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help us in time of need.”

But it is not the office a priest only that our Lord discharges in heaven; he is represented as sitting on the right hand of God, to denote that real authority with which he is now vested; “angels, and authorities, and powers, being made subject to him,” (1 Peter iii. 22.) Hence it is, that after his resurrection, he said of himself, (Matt, xxviii. 18,) “all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth ;” for, as St. Paul informs us, (Phil. ii. 8, 9, 10,) “because he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, therefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name; that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.” And this submission is due to him, because “God raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principalities and powers, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church,” (Eph. i. 20, &c.) As God, Christ possessed a kingdom, which, as it had not a beginning, can never have an end: but the dominion, of which the apostle is here treating, was conferred upon him as the mediator of the new covenant, and will no longer continue than till his enemies shall be subdued; for we are told that “he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet; and that the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” “He will ransom his subjects from the power of the grave; he will redeem them from death. O death, he will be thy plague; O grave, he will be thy destruction," (Hosea xiii. 14.) The trumpet shall sound, the graves shall be opened, all the sons and daughters of Adam shall return to life, and death shall be swallowed up in victory. “Then cometh the end, when the office of mediator ceasing, he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God; even the Father, when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power; For when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all,” (1 Cor. xv. 24-28.)

Sect. VII—Of Justification by Faith.

Between pardon of sin and justification there is so close a connection, that many writers seem to consider the terms as synonymous, and to infer, that he who is pardoned is ipso facto justified. That every Christian, who shall be pardoned at the judgment of the great day, will likewise be justified, is indeed true; but in propriety of speech, justification is a word of very different import from pardon, and will entitle the Christian to what mere pardon could not lead him to expect. An innocent person, when falsely accused and acquitted, is justified but not pardoned; and. a criminal may be pardoned, though he cannot be justified or declared innocent. A man whose sins are pardoned is. freed from punishment; but the justified Christian is entitled to everlasting life, happiness, and glory. If we were only pardoned through Christ, we should indeed escape the pains of hell, but could have no claim to the enjoyments of heaven; for these, being more than the most perfect human virtue can merit, must be, what in the scriptures they are always said to be, “the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Hence it is that St. Paul, distinguishing, as we have done upon his authority, between mere remission of sins and justification of life, declares, (Romans iv. 25), that “Jesus our Lord was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justificarion."

The word justification, in Scripture, has been very generally considered as a forensic term expressing the sentence of a judge. The most eminent reformed divines of all denominations, (Limborch, Bull, Waterland, Warburton, Beveridge, Vitringa, Gill, &c.) and even many of the Romanists themselves, have strenuously contended, that this is its genuine sense, when it is distinguished from mere remission of sins, regeneration, and sanctification; and if so, it will signify God’s pronouncing a person just, either as being perfectly blameless, or as having fulfilled certain conditions required of him in the Christian covenant. But that “there is not a just man upon earth, who doth good and sinneth not,” is made known to us by the most complete evidence possible, the joint dictates of our own consciences and of divine revelation; and therefore whosoever is pronounced just by the Judge of all the earth, must be so, either because, though not absolutely blameless, he has performed the conditions required of him in the covenant of grace, or because Christ has fulfilled all righteousness in his stead.

If this be the Scripture notion of justification, it must be the act of God, and cannot be the effect either of our faith or of our virtue. Accordingly, we are said by the apostle to be justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood. (Rom. iii. 24, 25 ) The act of justification therefore proceeds from the divine philanthropy, and cannot be performed by the instrumentality of faith; for it is not God, but man, who believes; and man is not the justifier of himself. To talk of any kind of instrument of justification besides the propitiation set forth by God, is indeed to make use of very improper language: “Omnis causa Instrumentalis,” says Bishop Bull, (Harmonia Apostolica, cap. ii. § 8.) “suo modo in effectum influit, cique effecti productio proprie attribui potest. Jam vero, cum justificatio nihil aliud sit quam gratiosus Dei actus, quo peccata nostra nobis condonet, ac nos ad salutem acceptet, valde absurdum esset dicere, vel fidem, vel opera [7:21:231]nostra, vel quidvis aliud, nostri aut remittere peccata nostra, 'aut personas nostras acceptare: quod tamen, si Instrumentalis causa justificationis fides sit, plane dicendum esset.”

In this sentiment of the bishop of St. David’s some of the most eminent divines both among the Calviniste and Arminians acquiesce. Many however have chosen to treat of justification not only in the active sense, as it is the act of God, for all admit that it is he who justifies; but likewise in a [Missive sense, as it means our privilege or possession held of him, when we are said to be justified by his grace. In this view of the subject they may speak with sufficient propriety, of an instrument of justification, not as the mean by which it is conveyed, but as the medium through which it is received by the true Christian. And hence it follows, (hat Waterland and Warburton strenuously maintain the doctrine of the Westminster Confession, “that failli receiving and resting on Christ is the alone instrument of justification; though it cannot be alone in the person justified, but must ever be accompanied with all other saving graces, and be a faith which worketh by love.”

Obs . Notwithstanding tbis general agreement of Calvinists and Remonstrants on the subject of justification,'there are several differences of sentiment, and still more of phraseology, when they descend to particulars. Of these an idea will be best formed by the perusal of the eminent writers on both sides.

“A notion (says Dr. Gill, Body of Divinity, vol. ii. book iii. chap. 8, sec. 5,) obtained some years apo, that a relaxation of the law and the severities of it has been obtained by Christ; and a new law, a remedial law, a law of milder terms, been introduced by him, which is the gospel; the terms of which are, faith, repentance, and new obedience; and though these be imperfect, yet being sincere, they are accepted by God in the room of perfect righteousness. But every article of this scheme is wrong; for the law is not relaxed, nor any of its severities abated; Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil it; and therefore it requires the same holy, just, and good things, as ever. Nor is the gospel a new law. There is nothing in it which looks like a law; for it has no commands in it, but all promises, being a pure declaration of grace and salvation by Christ; nor are faith, repentance, and a new obedience, required by it as a condition of man’s acceptance with God. Faith and repentance are gospel doctrines, and parts of the gospel ministry; they are graces, and not terms required to be performed by men of themselves. Faith is the gift of God, and repentance is a grant from him. It is not true that God will accept of an imperfect righteousness in the room of a perfect one; nor can anything more highly reflect upon the justice and truth of God, who is the judge of all the earth, than to suppose that fare can ever account that as a righteousness which is not one."

Having thus proved by arguments which were almost in the same words stated long before by Bishop ’Beveridge, (see his Private Thoughts of Religion,) that the gospel is no relaxation of the law, he proceeds to lay down his own notions of justification, of which, he says, “the sole matter, or that for the sake of which a sinner is justified before God, is the righteousness of Christ —that which be did and suffered on earth, in our nature, in our stead, and as our representative. This is commonly called his active and passive obedience; and when the purity and holiness of his own nature was added to it, the whole made up the δικαιωμα τoυ νομου, the righteousness of the law, which was fulfilled by him as the bead and representative of his people, (Rom. viii. '4.); for whatever the law required is necessaryto a sinner’s justification before God, and it required of sinners more than it did of man in innocence. Man was created with a pure and holy nature, conformable to the pure and holy law of God; and it was incumbent on him to continue so, and to yield in it perfect and sinless obedience, in the failure whereof he was threatened with death. Man did fail, by which his nature was vitiated and corrupted, and his obedience became faulty anti imperfect. He therdfore became liable to the penalty of the law, and still perfect obedience was required of him. To the justification of a sinner, therefore, is required the most complete obedience, active and passive; or, in other words, purity of nature, perfect obedience, and the sufferings of death; all which meet in Christ, the representative of his people, in whom they ere justified. There are, indeed, some divines who exclude the active obedience of Christ from being any part of the righteousness by which men are justified. They allow it in have been a condition requisite in him as a Mediator, qualifying him for his office; but deny that it is the matter of justification, or reckoned for righteousness to man. But without the active obedience of Christ the law would not be satisfied; the language of which is, Do and live; and unless its precepts be obeyed, as well as its penalty endured, it cannot be satisfied; and un less it be satisfied there cun be no justification. If, therefore, men are justified by the righteousness of Christ, it must be by his active obedience imputed and made over to them, so as to become theirs, even as David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Rom. iv. 6.) That this is really the way in which men are justified. Dr. Gill thinks evident, because they must be justified either by an inherent or by an imputed righteousness; but they cannot be justified by their own inherent righteousness, for that is imperfect, and therefore not justifying. Hence the apostle 'counts all things but dung, that he may win Christ and be found in him; not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that Which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith,' (Phil. iii. 8, 9.) But by such a righteousness as this a man cannot be justified in any other way than by an imputation of it to him. Whence it follows, that as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners by imputation, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous, by having that obedience placed to their own account.’”

As this author properly considéra justification as the act of God, he does not approve of the language in which faith is called the instrument, either of conferring or receiving it. "Faith,” says he, (Body of Divinity, vol. i. book ii. sec. 5,) "is merely the evidence of justification to the person justified; for faith is the evidence of things not seen.’ The righteousness of God, of the God-man and Mediator Jesus Christ, is revealed from faith to faith in the everlasting gospel, (Rom. i. 17,) and therefore must be before it is revealed, and before the faith to which it is revealed. Faith is that grace whereby a soul, having seen its want of righteousness, beholds in the light of the Divine Spirit a complete righteousness in Christ, renounces its own, lays hold on that. puts it on as a garment, rejoices in it, and glories of it; the Spirit of God witnessing to his spirit that he is a justified person: and so he is evidently and declaratively 'justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Cor. vi. 11.) Faith adds nothing to the esse, only to the bene esse of justification; Which is a complete act in the eternal mind of God, without the being or consideration of faith, or any foresight of it. In the account of God, a man is as much justified before his faith as after it; and after he does believe, his justification depends not on his acts of faith, for though we believe not, yet God abides faithful to his covenant-engagements with his son, by whose suretyship-righteousness the elect are justified; but by faith men have a comfort, able sense, perception, and apprehension, of their justification, and enjoy that peace of soul which results from it. It is by that only, under the testimony of the Divine Spirit, that they know their interest in it, and can claim it, and so bave the comfort of it.”

Though this language differs from that of the Westminster Confession, the author seems not to teach a different doctrine; for if faith be that grace by which a soul renounces its own righteousness, and lays hold of Christ's, which it puts on as a garment, it must be that very thing which the compilers of the Confession meant by their definition of faith receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, when they called it “the alone instrument of justification.” Accordingly this author elsewhere (Body of Practical Divinity, book i. chap. 6.) teaches, that “true faith in sensible sinners assents to Christ and embraces him, not merely as a Saviour of man in general, but as a special suitable Saviour for them in particular. It proceeds upon Christ’s being revealed in them as well as to them, by the spirit of wisdom and revelation, in the knowledge of him as a Saviour that becomes them. It comes not merely through external teachings by the hearing of the word from men; for no man, saith our blessed Lord, can come to me except the Father draw him; but such souls as are thus drawn, having heard and learned of the Father, believe not only in the doctrine Of Christ, but also in himself, trusting in him alone for everlasting life and salvation.”

Were it hot that Dr. Gill, in everything that he writes, has an eye to the doctrine of election and reprobation, which be carries to a greater height than almost any other divine with whose works weare acquainted, he would differ little in his notions of justification from the more moderate Αrminians. Justification,” says Limborch, “is the merciful and gracious act of God, whereby he fully absolves from all guilt the truly penitent and believing soul, through, and for the sake of Christ apprehended by a true faith; or gratuitously remits sin upon the account of faith in Jesus Christ, and graciously imputes that faith for righteousness.” Here, indeed, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is expressly denied; but Dr. Waterland, who can hardly be considered as a Calvinist, seems to contend for the imputation of that righteousness to the Sinner, as well as for faith being the instrument by which it is received.

"It cannot be for nothing," says that able writer, (Summary View of Justification,) “that St. Paul so often and so emphatically speaks of man’s being justified by faith, or through faith in Christ’s ‘blood; and that be particularly notes it of Abrahato, that he believed and that his faith was counted to him for justification, when he might as easily have said that Abraham, to whom the gospel was preached, [7:21:232]was justified by gospel-faith and obedience, bad be thought faith and obedience equally instruments of justification. Besides, it is on all hands allowed, that though St. Paul did not directly oppose faith to evangelical works, yet he comprehended the works of the moral law under those which he excluded from the office of justifying, in his sense of the word justification. He even used such arguments as extended to all kinds of works; for Abraham’s works were excluded, though they were undoubtedly evangelical." To prove that he interprets the apostle’s doctrine fairly, the author quotes, from the genuine epistle of Clemens of Rome, a passage, in which it appears, beyond a doubt, that this fellow-labourer of St. Paul so understood the doctrine of justifying faith as to oppose it even to evangelical works, however exalted. “It is true," continues Waterland, “Clemens elsewhere, and St. Paul almost everywhere, insists upon true holiness of heart and obedience of life as indispensable conditions of salvation or justification; and of that, one would think, there could be no question among men of any judgment or probity. But the question about conditions is very distinct from the other question about instruments; and therefore both parts may be true, viz., that faith and obedience are equally conditions, and equally indispensable where opportunities permit; and yet faith over and above is emphatically the instrument both of receiving and bolding justification, or a title to salvation.

“To explain this matter more distinctly, let it be remembered, that God may be considered either as a party contracting with man on very gracious terms, or as a judge to pronounce sentence on him. Man can enter into the covenant, supposing him adult, only by assenting to it, and accepting it, to have and to bold it on such kind of tenure as God proposes; that is to say, upon a self-denying tenure, considering himself as a guilty man standing in need of pardon, and of borrowed merits, and at length resting upon mercy. So here, the previous question is, Whether a person shall consent to hold a privilege upon this submissive kind of tenure or not? Such assent or consent, if he comes into it, is the very thing which St. Paul and St. Clemens call faith. And this previous and general question is the question which both of them determine against any proud claimants who would hold by a more self-admiring tenure.

“Or if we next consider God as sittting in judgment, and man before the tribunal going to plead his cause, here the question is, What kind of plea shall a man resolve to trust his salvation upon? Shall he stand upon his innocence, and rest upon strict law? or shall he plead guilty, and rest in an act of grace? If he chooses the former, he is proud, and sure to be cast: if he chooses the latter, he is safe so far in throwing himself upon an act of grace. Now this question also, which St. Paul has decided, is previous to the question, What conditions even the act of grace itself finally insists upon? A question which St. James in particular, and the general tenure of the whole Scripture, has abundantly satisfied; and which could never have been made a question by any considerate or impartial Christian. None of our works are good enough to stand by themselves before Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. Christ only is pure enough for it at first hand, and they that are Christ’s at second hand in and through him. Now because it is by faith that we thus interpose, as it were, Christ between God and us, in order to gain acceptance by him; therefore faith is emphatically the instrument whereby we receive the grant of justification. Obedience is equally a condition or qualification, but not an instrument, not being that act of the mind whereby we look up to God and Christ, and whereby we embrace the promisee."

But though Dr. Waterland contends that faith is the instrument of justification, he does not, like the Antinomians, teach that it will save men without works. “The covenant of grace,” says he, “has conditions annexed to it of great importance, for without them no instruments can avail. These are faith and obedience, as St. James hath particularly maintained. St. Paul had before determined the general and previous question respecting the plea by which we ought to abide; and when some libertines, as is probable, bad perverted his doctrine of faith and grace, St. James showed that the very faith which rests in a covenant of grace, implies a cordial submission to the conditions of that covenant, otherwise it would be nothing but an empty ceremony. The perfect agreement between St. Paul and St. James in the article of justification, appears very clear and certain. St. Paul declares, that in order to come at justification, it is necessary to stand upon grace, not upon merit; which St. James does not deny, but rather confirms, in what be says of the perfect law of liberty, (James i. 25; ii. 12). St. Paul makes faith the instrument of receiving that grace; which St. James does not dispute, but approves by what he says of Abraham, (ii. 23); only he maintains. also, that in the conditionate sense, justification depends equally upon faith and good works; which St Paul also teaches and inculcates in effect, or, in other words, through all his writings. If St. Paul bad had precisely the same question before him which St. James happened to have, be would have decided the same as St. James did; and if St. James had had precisely the same question before him which St. Paul had, he would have determined just as St. Paul did. Their principles were exactly the same, but the questions were diverse; and they had different adversaries to deal with, and opposite extremes to encounter, which is a common case.

"It may be noted, that that faith which is here called a condition, is of much wider compass than that particular kind of faith which is precisely the instrument of justification. For faith as a condition means the whole complex of Christian belief, as expressed in the creeds; while faith as an instrument means only the laying hold on grace, and resting in Christ’s merits, in opposition to our own deservings: though this also, if it is a vital and operative principle, (and if it is not, it is nothing worth), must of course draw after it an hearty submission to, and observance of, all the necessary conditions of that covenant of grace wherein we repose our whole trust and confidence; so that St. Paul might well say, "Do we then make void the law (the moral law) through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law," (Rom. iii. 51.) We exempt no man from religious duties, which are duties still, though they do not merit nor are practicable to such a degree as to be above the need of pardon: they are necessary conditions in their measure of justification, though not sufficient in themselves to justify, nor perfect enough to stand before God or to abide trial: therefore Christ’s merits must be taken to supply their defects; and so our resting in Christ’s atonement, by an bumble self-denying faith, is our last resort, our anchor of salvation both sure and steadfast, after we have otherwise done our utmost towards the fulfilling of God’s sacred laws, towards the performing of all the conditions required.

"That good works, internal and external, are according as opportunities offer and circumstances permit, conditions properly so called, is clear from the whole tenor of Scripture, as hath been often and abundantly proved by our own divines,^[6. > Bull. Op. Latin, p. 412, 414, 415, 430, 434, 514, 516, 544, 583, 645, 668. Stillingficet’s Works, vol. iii. p. 367, 380, 393, 398. Tillotson’s Posthumous Sermons, vol. ii. 484, 487. ] and is admitted by the most judicious among the foreign Reformed.^[7. Vossius de Bonis Operibus, Thes. x. p. 370. Op. tom. vi. Frid Spanhem. fil. Op. tom. iii. p. 141, 159, ] Yet some have been very scrupulous as to this innocent name, even while they allow the absolute necessity of good works as indispensable qualifications for future blessedness. Why not conditions therefore as well as qualifications? Perhaps because that name might appear to strike at absolute predestination, or unconditional election; and there may lie the scruple: otherwise the difference appears to lie rather in words than in things.

“Some will have them called not conditions, but fruits or consequents of justification. If they mean by justification the same as the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the first grace of faith springing from it, they say true; and then there is nothing more in it than an improper use of the word justification, except that from abuse of words very frequently arises some corruption of doctrine. If they mean only, that outward acts of righteousness are fruits of inward habits or dispositions, that also is undoubtedly true; but that is no reason why internal acts, virtues, graces, (good works of the mind), should not be called conditions of justification; or why the outward acts should not be justly thought conditions of preserving it. But if they mean that justification is ordinarily given to adults without any preparative or previous conditions of faith and repentance, that indeed is very new doctrine and dangerous, and opens a wide door to carnal security and to all ungodliness."

Sect. VIII.— Of the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit.

Our Saviour before his death promised to his disciples, that after his ascension to heaven he should send unto them another Comforter, (παρακλητος, he who stands by one and assists as required, an advocate, a guide, a helper, &c.) who should abide with them for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, (John xiv. 16, 17, &c.) Elsewhere this Spirit is denominated “the Holy Spirit,” “the Spirit of God,” “the Spirit of Christ,” &c., and is frequently mentioned in union with the Father and the Son as the object of adoration and the author of blessing. (Comp. Matt, xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14, &c.) Hence theologians have denominated the Spirit the third person in the divine Trinity. That there are three persons in the one Godhead, has been shewn at large in a former section of this article; and that the Holy Ghost is one of these three, might be safely concluded from the passages[7:21:233] just referred to. But as more plausible objections have been urged against his divinity than any that we have met with against the divinity of Christ, it may not be improper to consider these before we proceed to give an account of the graces which he imparts to the church. By the Arians the Holy Ghost is considered as a creature; by the Socinians and modern Unitarians, as they call themselves, the words Holy Ghost are supposed to express, not a person or spiritual subsistence, but merely an energy or operation, a quality or power, of the Father, whom alone they acknowledge to be God. If this doctrine can be confuted, the Arian hypothesis will fall to the ground of itself; for it is not conceivable that any inspired teacher should command his followers to be baptized in the name of the self-existent God and two creatures.

It is admitted by the Socinians themselves, that in the scriptures many things are spoken of the Holy Ghost which can be properly predicated only of a person; but the inference drawn from this concession they endeavour to invalidate by observing, that in scripture there are likewise expressions in which things are predicated of abstract virtues, which can be literally true only of such persons as practise those virtues. Thus when St. Paul says, (1 Cor. xiii. 4-8), that “charity suffereth long and is kind, charity envicth not, charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up," &c., we cannot suppose his meaning to be, that these actions are performed by charity in the abstract, but that every’ charitable person, in consequence of that one Christian grace, suffereth long and is kind, envicth not, vaunteth not himself, and is not puffed up, &c. In like manner, say they, personal actions are attributed to the Holy Ghost, which itself is no person, but only the virtue, power, or efficacy, of God the Father; because God the Father, who is a person, performs such actions by that power, virtue, or efficacy, in himself, which is denominated the Holy Ghost. Thus when we read (Acts x. 19, 20), that “the Spirit said unto Peter, Behold three men seek thee; arise therefore and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing, for I have sent them we must understand that God the Father was the person who spoke these words and sent the three men; but because he did so by that virtue in him which is called the Spirit, therefore the Spirit is said to have spoken the words and sent the men. Again, when “the Holy Ghost said (Acts xiii. 2) to those at Antioch, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them we are to conceive that it was God the Father who commanded the two apostles to be separated for the work to which he had called them; but because he had done all this by that power within him which is called the Holy Ghost, therefore his words and actions are attributed to the Holy Ghost, just as long-suffering in men is attributed to charity.

This reasoning has a plausible appearance, and would be of much force were all the actions which in scripture are attributed to the Holy Ghost of such a nature that they could be supposed to have proceeded from the person of God the Father in consequence of any particular power or virtue in him; but this is far from being the case. Thus, the Spirit is said (Rom. viii. 26, 27) to make intercession for us; but with whom can we suppose God the Father, the fountain of divinity, to intercede? Our Saviour assured his disciples, (John xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13, 14, 15), that the Father would, in his name, send to them the Holy Ghost, who is the Comforter; that he would himself send the Comforter unto them from the Father; that the Comforter should not speak of himself, but speak only w hat he should hear; and that he should receive of Christ's, and shew it unto them. But we cannot, without blasphemy and absurdity, suppose that the Father would, in the name of Christ, send himself; that the Son would send the Father from the Father; and the Father would not speak of himself, but speak only what he heard; or that either the Father in person, or a quality of the Father, should receive any thing of Christ to shew unto the apostles.

The sagacity of Socinus perceived the force of such objections as these to his notion of the Holy Ghost being nothing more than the power of the Father personified; and therefore he invented another prosopoppoeia to serve his purpose in the interpretation of those texts to which this one cannot be applied. “The Spirit of God,” says he, (Faust, Socinus in Resp. ad Wickam, cap. 10), “may be considered either as a property or power in God, or as the things on which that power is working. When taken in the former sense, the Spirit, where any personal attribute is given to it, means God the Father; when taken in the latter sense, it means the man on whom the power of the Father is working; who, as long as he is affected by that power, is therefore called the Spirit of God and he quotes, we think most absurdly, the tenth verse of the second chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians, as a text in which by the Spirit is meant an inspired man who could search all things, yea, even the deep things of God.

How his modern followers, who deny the plenary inspiration even of Christ, will relish such a degree of inspiration as this, which raises mere men to a temporary equality with God, we know not; but leaving them to settle the dispute with their master, we shall produce one or two passages in which personal attributes are given to the Spirit of God, when it is impossible to conceive that Spirit, either as a power inherent in the Divine Father, or as the person on whom that power is operating. We need not bring new texts into view, as some of those already quoted will serve our purpose. When our Saviour promises that the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Spirit of truth, should be sent by the Father and the Son to the apostles, we have seen, that by this Spirit he could not mean the Father or a property of the Father; neither could he possibly mean the apostles themselves, unless we are to suppose that the Father and the Son sent St. Peter to St. Peter, and that St. Peter, so sent, came to St. Peter. Again, when Christ says of the Holy Ghost, “he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you," he could not, for the reason already assigned, mean by the Holy Ghost the Father or the power of the Father; and surely his meaning was not, that the apostles, under the influence of the power of the Father, should receive something and shew it each to himself. The Holy Ghost therefore is unquestionably a person; for though there are many passages of scripture in which the gifts of the Holy Ghost are called the Holy Ghost, they are so called by a very common figure of speech, in which the effect receives the name of its cause: and since this person is joined with the Father and the Son in the formula of Christian baptism; since they who lied to the Holy Ghost are said (Acts v. 4) to have lied unto God; since blasphemy against him is a more heinous offence than the same sin against even the Father or the Son, (Mark iii. 28, 29); and since it was by the operation of the Holy Ghost that Jesus Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary, and even on that account called the Son of God (Luke i. 35); it follows that the Holy Ghost is God, of the same substance with the Father and Son.

It was this Divine Spirit which, on the day of Pentecost, inspired the apostles with the knowledge of different languages; and as these were given only to enable them to preach the gospel to every creature, it can admit of no doubt but that He, who so amply provided the means of preaching, would take care that the gospel should be preached in purity. Our Saviour had told his apostles, that the Comforter would guide them into all the truth, (ἐις πασαν mv ἀληθειav), and bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever he had said unto them; but if they had not comprehended the meaning of what he said, the bare remem [7:21:234]brance of his sayings would have been of little importance. ' That before this miraculous shedding abroad of the Spirit they had but a very imperfect knowledge of his doctrines, and of the purpose for which he had come into the world, is apparent from that unseasonable question which they put to him when assembled to witness his glorious ascension; “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ?" Their minds still cherished with fondness the vain prospect of temporal power; but after the day of Pentecost they were directed to nobler objects. From the same Spirit they received diversities of gifts besides that of language, and thus were well qualified to declare to the world the whole counsel of God.

But the work of the Holy Spirit has not been restricted to the apostles and other possessors of miraculous gifts in the early church. As man is designed for a supernatural state in heaven, he stands in need of supernatural direction to guide him to that state. “No man,” says our Saviour, “can come to me except the Father draw him;” and the apostle tells us, that “as no man knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of a man which is in him, even so none knoweth the things of God but the Spirit of God,” (John vi. 44; 2 Cor. ii. 11.) This omniscient Spirit indeed searcheth all things, yea even the “deep things of God,” and revealeth them to the sons of men, to enlighten their understandings and purify their hearts. The grace which he sheds abroad is either external and general, or internal and particular. The former has been extended to the whole church of God under the patriarchal, Mosaic, and Christian dispensations, in such a revelation of the divine will as was sufficient to instruct men unto eternal life, whether they had a full view or not of that stupendous plan of redemption, by which the kingdom of heaven was opened to them after the forfeiture of the terrestrial Paradise; for there have been “holy prophets ever since the world began; and prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” (Luke i. 70, and 2 Peter i. 21.) Hence it is that all scripture was given by inspiration of God to teach every thing which it is necessary for us to know and believe; and the scripture is that work of the Spirit which is extended to the universal church.

But the same spirit which thus generally reveals the object of faith to the church, does likewise particularly illuminate the minds of individual believers, working in them an assent to that which is taught them from the written word. It was thus that “the Lord opened the heart of Lydia, (Acts xvi 14,) that she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul ;" it is thus that “the word preached doth not profit if it be not mixed with faith in them who hear it,” (Heb. iv. 2); and it is thus that “God deals to every man the measure of faith,” (Rom. xii. 3); for “by grace are we saved through faith, which is not of ourselves; it is the gift of God,” (Eph. ii. 8.) This illumination of the Spirit was conveyed to the apostles “in a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind," because it was meant to testify to the world that they were chosen ministers of the gospel; but the ordinary Christian receives it “in the still small voice,” because it is conveyed to him only to “open his understanding that he may understand the scriptures.”

Another operation of the Spirit on the minds of believers is that which in scripture is called Regeneration ; for “according to his mercy God saveth us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he sheds on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Tit. i. 5, 6.) To those who believe that we derive from Adam a corrupted nature, this particular grace must appear so absolutely necessary, that without it we could have no relish for heaven or heavenly things. “The natural man,” we are told, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned,” (1 Cor. ii. 14.) Indeed whatever be the powers of our moral faculties, when compared with those of our first father, it is so long before they be completely developed, that we should infallibly be lost, if we were not blessed by a supernatural guide, when reason is incapable of directing our conduct. Our passions and appetites are in their full strength before experience has furnished the mind with materials, by means of which motives may be weighed; and therefore it would be impossible, without the aid of a divine interference, completely to overcome those evil habits which are formed by sinful indulgence. So true is it, that “except a man be born again of water and of the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This change in our dispositions, from an immoderate attachment to earth to a relish for the things of heaven, is in scripture called “a renewing of our minds, a new creation, a new man ;” in opposition to our natural disposition, which is called “the old man, corrupted according to the deceitful lusts.”

A third office of the Holy Spirit is to lead, direct, and govern us through all the periods of our lives. Without such a leader and guide, the temptations with which we are surrounded would certainly overcome us, and we should faint long before we arrive at the end of our journey. By the very constitution of our nature we are subjected in some degree to the influence of sense, of which the objects are present, while the enjoyments of heaven are future, and seen, as at a distance, only by the eye of faith; but “the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath made us free from the law of sin and death ;” for God worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure; and as many as are thus led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God; and while they walk in the Spirit, they do not fulfil the lusts of the flesh.” Without the aid of the same Spirit, we could not even make our prayers acceptable; for since “our confidence in God is, that he heareth us only when we ask any thing according to his will; and since we know not what we should pray for as we ought, the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” (Rom. viii. 26.)

A fourth operation of the Holy Ghost, as he is the sanctifier of Christians, is to join them to Christ, and make them members of that one body of which he is the head. “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, (1 Cor. xii. 12, 13); and as the body is one and hath many members, and all the members of that one body being many are one body, so also is Christ.” “Hereby we know that God abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.”

It is likewise the office of the Holy Ghost to give us an earnest of our everlasting inheritance, to create in us a sense of the paternal love of God, and thereby to assure us of the adoption of sons. “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God; and because we are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his Son into our hearts. For we have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry Abba, Father; the Spirit itself bearing witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” (GaΙ. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 15, 16.)

By these, and the like means, does the Spirit of God sanctify the sons of men; and in consequence of this sanctification proceeding immediately from his office, he is called the Holy Spirit and the Comforter. This is such a provision “for renewing us in the spirit of our minds, and enabling us to put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness,” as, when made known by revelation, appears to have been expedient, may be conceived to have been even necessary, and though reason could hardly have hoped for it, is contradicted by none of our natural notions either of God or of man.

Obs. See Owen’s Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit. J. Pye [7:21:235]preserved in a state more or less perfect. To the stock of natural knowledge he made some important contributions. The largest of his works are two which relate to the history and to the causes of plants; and by these he has established a claim to be regarded as the father of botanical science. His Characters form one of the most remarkable compositions which ancient Greece has bequeathed to our times.

The works of Theophrastus were first printed by Aldus, in two volumes of his edition of Aristotle, Venet. 1497-8, fol. A separate edition was long afterwards produced by Heinsius, Lugd. Bat. 1613, fol. This only contains the text, and a Latin version, without annotations; nor does the very learned editor appear to have bestowed any extraordinary labour on the undertaking. A more elaborate edition was at length published by Schneider, Lipsiae, 1818-21, 5 tom. 8vo. The text is comprised in the first volume; the others are occupied with a Latin version,

Smith On the Personality of the Holy Spirit Lond∙ 1831. Wardlaw’s Discourses on the Socinian Controversy, Disc. x.

Sect IX.— Of Death and its consequences.

As death has been introduced into our world by sin, and as every member of the race has sinned, the lives of all are forfeited and must in due time be yielded as Providence may appoint. When this takes place, the soul is separated from the body, and the latter speedily decomposes into kindred dust. The former, however, still retains possession of all its peculiar faculties, and passes at once into a state of separate existence, the character of which is determined by the conduct of the individual during life. To those who have availed themselves of the gracious provision made by Christ for their redemption, death brings an immediate entrance into the enjoyment of heaven; while for those who have neglected or despised that provision, there remains only the endurance of the punishment which the Great Judge of all shall see necessary to inflict. (Comp. Rom. v. 12; Matt. x. 28; Luke xvi. 22—31; Phil. i. 23; Rom. xiv. 13, &c.)

This state of separate existence is destined to continue only for a time. Christ has himself arisen from the dead as “the first fruits of them that sleep,” and we are assured, that as he arose, so must all the dead who possess that nature of which he partook, be raised at the last day. When