Question: Shoio  that  in  this  doctrine  the  ivhole  Church  has  concurred?

Answer: The sin of Adam was an act of apostasy. The spiritual desertion and consequent spiritual corruption Avhich immedi- ately occiu-red in his personal experience (the very penalty threatened) was, of course, a just penal consequence of that act. Augustine said ("De Nupt. et Concup." II. xxxiv.) — " Nothing remains but to conclude that in that first man all are understood to have sinned, because all were in him when he sinned; whereby sin is brought in with birth, and not removed save b}'' the new birth." Dr. G. F. Wiggers, the learned expounder of " Augustinian- ism and Pelagiauism, from the Original Sources," says in his statement of Augustine's view of original sin, ch. 5, division 2, § 2. "The propagation of Adam's sin among his posterity is a punishment of the same sin. The corruption of human nature, in the whole race, was the righteous punishment of the transgression of the first man, in whom all men already existed." The "Council of Trent," Sess. v., 1 and 2, says that "sin wdiich is the death of tlie soul " was part of that penalty which Adam incurred by his transgression, and which is therefore transmitted to his descendants as well as inflicted on himself" Bellarmin, ^^ Amiss. Grat." iii. 1, says, "The penalty which properly corresponds with the first sin is the forfeiture of orig- inal righteousness and of those supernatural gifts with which God had furnished our nature." Luther (in Genes. 1, p. 98, cap. 5,) says, that the image of Adam in which Seth \vas begotten " included original sin, and the penalty of eternal death inflicted because of the sin of Adam." Melanchthon ("Explicatio Symboli Niceni. Corp. Refor.," xxiii. 403 and 583) says, "Adam and Eve merited guilt and depravity for their descendants." " Formula Concordia?," p. 639 and p. 643, Hase ed. — " Espe- cially since by the seduction of Satan, througli the fall, by the just judgment of God in the punishment of men, concreated or original righteousness was lost . . . and human nature corrupted." THE CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCHES SHOU\N. 355 "Apol. Aug. Conf.," p. 58. — "In Genesis the penalty im- posed for original sin is described. For there was human nature subjected not only to deatli and corporeal evils, but also to the reign of the devil. . . , Defect and concupiscence are both penal evils and sins." Quenstedt (tUi88), " Ques. Theo. Did.," Pol. L, 994— "It was not simply of the good pleasure or the absolute sovereignty of God, but of the highest justice and equity, that the sin, which Adam as the root and origin of the whole himian race committed, should be imputed to us, and propagated in us so as to constitute us guilty." Both the Second Helvetic, Ch. 8, and the Gallic Confessions, Art. 9, say that Adam, "by his own fault {cylpa) became sub- ject to sin, and such as he became after the fall, such are all who were propagated by him, they being subject to sin, death, and various calamities." Peter ^lartyr. Professor at Zurich (1500-15G1), as quoted by Turretin (Loco ix., 2, 9, § 43), says, "Assuredly there is no one who can doubt that original sin (inherent) is inflicted upon us in revenge and punishment of the first fall." Calvin. — "God by a just judgment condemned us to wrath in Adam, and willed us to be born corrupt on account of his sin." Ursinus (1534^1583), friend of Melanchthon, professor at Heidelberg and author of the "Heidelberg Catechism," says (Qua?st. 7, pp. 40, 41), "original sin" (inherent) "passes over" te their descendants, "not through the body, nor through the soul, but through the impure generation of the whole man, on account of (propter) the guilt of our first parents, on account of which, God, by a just judgment, Avliile he creates our souls, at the same time deprives them of the original rectitude and gifts which he had conferred upon the parents." L. Dangeus (1530-1596). — "There are three things whicli constitute a man guilty before God: 1. The sin flowing from this that Ave have all sinned in the first man. 2. Corruption, which is the punishment of this sin, which fell upon Adam and upon all his posterity. 3. Actual sins." Theodore Beza (1519-1605), on Romans xii., etc. — "As Adam, by the commission of sin, first was made guilty of the wrath of God, then, as being guilty, underwent as the punish- ment of his sin the corruption of soul and body, so also he transmitted to posterity a nature in the first place guilty, next, corrupted." J. Arminius, of Leyden (1560-1609). — "Whatever punish- ment, therefore, was inflicted on our first parents, has gone down through and now rests on all their posterity; so that 356 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. all are children of wrath by nature, being obnoxious to con- demnation . . . and to a destitution of righteousness and true holiness," "are destitute of original righteousness, which penalty is usually called a loss of the divine image, and orig- inal sin." G. J. Vossius, Leyden (1577-1649), "Hist. Pelag.," Lb. ii., 1. — 1. "The Catholic Church has always thus decided, that the first sin is 'imputed to all; that is, that its effects are, according to the just judgment of God, transmitted to all the children of Adam ... on account whereof we are born without original righteousness." Synod of Dort (1618). — "Such as man was after the fall, such children also he begat, . . . by the propagation of a vicious nature, by the just judgment of God." Francis Turretin, Geneva (1623-1687), Locus 9, Q. 9, §§ 6, 14. Amesius, "Medulla Theolog.," Lib. prim., cap. 17. — "2. This propagation of sin consists in two parts, in imputation and in real communication. 3. By imputation that single act of disobe- dience which Adam committed is made also ours. 4. By real communication, not indeed the single sin. 5. Original sin, since it essentially consists in deprivation of original righteousness, and this deprivation follows the first sin as a penalty, this has in the first instance the nature of a penalty rather than of a sin. Inasmuch as that original righteousness is denied by the justice of God, so far forth it is penalty ; inasmuch as it ought to be present and is absent by human fault, so far fortii it is sin. 6. Therefore this privation is handed down from Adam after the manner of ill-desert in so far as it is penalty, and after the manner of real efficiency in so far as it has adjoined to it the nature of sin." H. Witsius (1636-1708), "Economy," Bk. L, ch. 8, §§ 33 and 34. — " It is therefore necessary that the sin of Adam in ^nrtue of the covenant of works, be so laid to the charge of his posterity, Avho were comprised with him in the same covenant, that, on accomit of the demerit of his sin, they are born des- titute of original righteousness," etc. "Formula Consensus Helvetica" (1675), canon x. — "But there appears no way in which hereditary corruption could fall, as spiritual death, upon the whole human race by the just judgment of God, unless some sin of that race preceded, incurring the penalty of that death. For God, the supremely just Judge of all the earth, punishes none but the guilty." Westminster "Conf and Cat"; " Conf Faith," ch. vii., § 2 and ch. vi., § 3; "L. Cat.," 22 and 25; "S. Cat.," 18. President Witherspoon, "Works," Vol. IV., p. 96. — "It seems very plain that the state of corruption and wicked- IMPUTATION DEFINED. 357 ness which men are now in, is stated in Scripture as being the effect and punishment of Adam's first sin." See also the truth of this position affirmed by Dr. The. Chahners, "Institutes of Theology," part 1, ch. 6; and by Dr. William Cunningham; "Theology of the Keformation," Essay vii., § 2; Dr. James Thornwell, "Collected Writings," Vol. L, pp. 479, 559, 561, etc. ; and a learned article by Prof Geo. P. Fisher, of New Haven, Theo. Sem., in the "New Englander," July, 1868. ~' Thus we have the consensus of Catholic and Protestant, Lutheran and Eeformed, of Supralapsarian and Infralapsarian, of Goraar and Arminius, of the Synod of Dort and the West- minster Assembly, of Scotland and of New England. 12, Why was this doctrine expressed technically as the imputa- tion of the guilt of Adams apostatizing act ? and state the meaning of tlue terms. At the Council of Trent Albertus Pighius and Ambrosius Catherinus (F. Paul's " Hist. Con. Trent," Lib. ii., s., 65) main- tained that the imputed guilt of Adam's first sin constituted the only ground of the condemnation which rests upon men at birth. The Council did not allow this heresy, but neverthe- less maintained a rather negative than positive view of man's inherent guilty corruption. Consequently Calvin and all the first Reformers and Creeds were principally concerned in em- phasizing the fact that original sin inherent., as distinguished \ from original sin imputed, is intrinsically and justly, as moral corruption, worthy of God's wrath and curse. It is the reason why the salvation of infants is refea-red to the sovereign grace of God, and the expiatory merits of Christ, and it continues in adults the source of all actual sin and the main ground of condemnation to eternal death. Infants and adults sufter, and adults are damned on account of the guilt of inherent sin, but never on account of Adam's sin imputed. But when the question is asked why God, either directly or indirectly, brings us into existence tlius corrupt, the whole church answered as above shown, because God has thereby justly punished us for Adam's apostasy. This is technically expressed as the " imputation to us of the guilt of Adam's act." "Guilt" is just liability to punishment. The recognition' of guilt is a judicial and not sovereign act of God. "Imputation" (the Hebrew iw'n and the Greek XoylZ,oi.iai frequently occurring and translated "to count," "to reckon," "to impute," etc.) is simply to lay to one's charge as a jiist ground of legal procedure, whether the thing imputed antecedently 358 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. belonged to the person to whom it is charged, or for any other adequate reason he is justly responsible for it. Thus not to im- pute sin to the doer of it, is of course graciously to refrain from charging the guilt of his own act or state upon him as a ground of punishment; Avhile to impute righteousness without works is graciously to credit the believer with a righteousness which is not personally his own. — Rom. iv. 6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 19; see Num. XXX. 15; xviii. 22-27, 30; Lev. v. 17, 18; vii. 18; xvi. 22; Rom. ii. 26; 2 Tim. iv. 16, etc. The imputation, i. e., judicial charging of Adam's sin to us, is rather to be considered as contemplating the race as a whole, as one moral body, than as a series of individuals. The race was condemned as a whole, and hence each individual comes into existence in a state of just antenatal forfeiture. Turretin calls it '■'■commune jjcccaium, communis eulpa^' L. 9, Q. 9. This and this alone is what the church has meant by this doctrine. Afterwards in our own persons God condemns us only and most justly because of our inherent moral corruption and our actual transgressions. The imputation of the guilt of Adam's aposta- tizing act to us in common leads judicially to spiritual desertion in particular, and spiritual desertion leads by necessary conse- quence to inherent depravity. The imputation of our sins in common to Christ leads to his desertion (^latt. xxvii. 46), but his temporary desertion leads to no tendency to iidierent sin, because he was the God-man. The imputation of Christ's right- eousness to us is the condition of the restoration of the Holy Ghost, and that restoration leads by necessary consequence to regeneration and sanctification. " It is only when justifcatio forensls maintains its Reformation position at the head of the process of salvation, that it has any firm or secure standing at all."— Dr. J. A. Dorner's " Hist. Prdt. Theo.," Vol. II., p. 160. 13. What is the origin of the Distinction heticeen the 3IecUate and the Immediate ImjDutat ion of Adam's sin, and what has been the usage loith respect to those terms anwng theologians ? As above shown, from the beginning, the universal Church has agreed in holding that the guilt of Adam's first sin was directly charged to the account of tlie human race in mass, just as it was charged to himself, and punished in the race by desertion and consequent depravity, just as it was punished in him. This was uniformly expressed by the technical phrase, the imputation of the guilt of liis first sin to his descendants. In the first half of the seventeenth century, Joshua Placasus, professor at Saumur, was universally understood to deny any imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, and to admit only inherent innate corruption as derived from Adam by natural MEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE IMPUTATION. 359 generation. This was explicitly condemned by the French National Synod at Charenton, 1G45; and repudiated by all orthodox theologians, Lutheran and Reformed. Placeeus sub- sequently originated the distinction between Immediate and ]\lediate Imputation. By the former he meant the direct charg- ing of the guilt of Adam's sin antecedent to their own sinful state. By the latter he meant that we are found guilty with Adam of his apostasy because in virtue of inherent depravity we are apostates also. He denied the former and admitted the latter. It is obvious — 1st. That this doctrine of mediate imputation alone is virtually the " New England Eoot Theory," above dis- cussed, which refers the abandoning of the human race to the operation of the natural law of inheritance to the sovereign will, instead of to the just judgment, of God. 2d. It is a denial of the universal doctrine of the Church that Adam's sin is justly charged to his descendants as to him- self, and punished in them by depravity as it was punislied in himself That imputation was obviously, whatever its ground, purely immediate and antecedent. 3d. It is evident that Adam's sin can not at the same time be both immediately and mediately imputed to the same effect. It would be absurd to think that mankind are judicially pini- ished with inherent corruption as a just pmnshment for Adam's sin, and at the same time counted guilty of Adam's sin because they are afl&icted with tiiat punishment. It is for this reason that so many advocates of the church doctrine of immediate imputation deny that imputation can in any sense be mediate. 4th. But the penalty of Adam's sin was " Death"; that is, all penal evils, temporal, and eternal. The strongest advocates of immediate imputation, in order to account for the infliction of innate inherent sin, admit that all tlie oilier elements of the pen- alty denounced upon Adam come upon us because of our own inherent and actual sins. — See Turretin, L. 9, Quajs. 9, § 14, and "Princeton Essays." 5th. The immediate imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin is to the race as a whole, and respects each individual antecedently to his existence as a judicial cause of his commencing that ex- istence in a depraved condition. When each single man is con- sidered in himself personally and subsequent to birth, all agree that he is condemned with Adam because of a common inherent depravity and life. 6tli. JNIanj'- found difficulty in conceiving how inherited in- herent corruption can be guilt as well as pollution. Their idea was that a sinful state must originate in the free choice of the pei'son concerned, in order to invoke the moral responsibility 3G0 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. implied by guilt. Yet all acknowledge that inherent corrup- tion is guilt. Some tacitly accounted for this on the principle of Edwards, that " the essence of the virtue or vice of disposi- tions of the heart lies not in their cause, but in their nature." Others, however, held that the guilt inherent in innate sin is due to the fact that this sin is connected as an effect with the apostasy of Adam. If the question then be. Why the race is under ban, and we are allowed to commence our moral agency in a depraved condition ? all the ortliodox answer in terms or in effect, "Because of the most just immediate imputation of Adam's first sin." If the question be, Why are we severally, after birth, judged guilty as well as corrupt, and why are we punished with all the temporal and eternal penal evils denounced upon Adam ? many of the orthodox say, " Because of our own inherent sin mediating the full imputation of his sin." Andrew Quenstedt, Wittenberg (tl688), "Theo. Did. Pol.," I., 998. — "The first sin of Adam is imputed to us immediately inasmuch as we exist liitherto in Adam. But the sin of Adam is imputed to us mediatel}^ in so far as we are regarded indi- vidually and in our own proper persons." F. Turretin, Geneva (tl687), Locus 9, Qua3st. 9, § 14. — "The penalty which sin brings upon us is either privative or posi- tive. The former is the want or privation of original right- eousness. The latter is death both temporal and eternal, and in general all evils which are sent upon sinners. . . . With respect to the former we say that the sin of Adam is imputed to us immediately to the effect of the privative penalty, be- cause it is the cause of the privation of original righteousness, and so ought to go before privation, at least in the order of nature; but as to the latter, the positive penalty may be said to be mediately imputed, because we are not obnoxious to that, unless after we are born and corrupt." Hence — (1.) All in effect admit immediate imputation, and deny mediate imputation alone. (2.) Many ignore the distinc- tion, which never emerged till the time of Placasus. (3.) A number, in the senses above shown, assert both. 14. How is tills Doctrine 'proved by the analogy which Paid (Rom. V. 12-21) asserts between our condemnation in Adam and our justification in 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 unto justification of life." The analogy here asserted is as to the fact and nature of the imputation in both cases, not at all as to the ground of it. THE GROUND OF THIS IMPUTATION. 361 Christ is one with his elect because of the gracions appointment of the Father and his vokintary assumption of their nature. Adam is one with his descendants because he is their natural head, and because of the g-racious appointment of God. In these respects the cases differ. But the cases are identical in so far as in view of the oneness in both cases subsisting, we are justl}' charged with the guilt of Adam's first sin and pun- ished therefor, and Christ is justly charged with the guilt of our " many offences " and punished therefor, and we are justly credited with the merit of his righteousness and accepted, re- generated, and saved therefor. — See above Ques. 12. If the imputation of Christ's righteousness is immediate the imputation of Adam's sin must be the same, though the basis of the one is grace it is no less just, and though the basis of the other be justice, the original constitution from which it originated is no less gracious. 15. How have ortliodox fJteohgians explained the GROuxo/or this universcdhj assumed judicial charging of the guilt of Adams apos- tatising act to his descendants ? They are generally agreed that the race is justly responsible for the judicial consequences of that act. Beyond this the ac- counts rendered of the matter have been different, and often vague. 1st. Augustine conceived of the race as essentially one. As far as Adam is considered as a person his sin was his own, but as far as the entire race in its essential undistributed, unindi- vidualized form of existence was in him, his act was the apos- tasy of that whole race, and the common nature being both guilty and depraved is justly distributed to eacli individual in that condition and under that condemnation. The Avhole race was not personally nor individually, but virtually or potentially, coexistent and coactive in him. — Dr. Philip Schaff in " Lange on Ptom.," pp. 191-196; Dr. Geo. P. Fisher, "New Englander," July, 1860. This is a mode of thought which at least presup- poses Realism, and language to the same effect became tradi- tional in the church, and has been used in a general sense by many, who were in no degree philosophical realists, wlien treat- ing of our relation to Adam. Forms of expression originating in this view have lingered among theologians Avho have ex- plicitly rejected realism, and have definitely substituted for it a different explanation of the facts. The whole race has been considered one organically, and Ave have been said to have been in Adam as branches in a tree, etc. Such renderings of the matter have continued to late times, and been commingled Avith others essentially different, as that of representation, etc. 362 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. It is, however unsatisfactoiy as an explanation of gnilt, in the higliest degree orthodox, both because of the nnmber and high authority of the writers who have used it, and because it ira- phes the highest conceivable ground of immediate imputa- tion. The apostatising act is imputed to us, as it is imputed to Adam, " because we were guilty coagents with him in that act."— Shedd's "Essays." 2d. The Federal View presupposes the natural relation. Adam stands before God in Eden a free, responsible, fallible moral agent, with an animal body and a generative nature. Without a miracle his children must be carried along with him in his destinies. His own status was and must ever continue according to bare law contingent upon free-will. God, there- fore, as the benevolent and righteous guardian of the interests of all moral creatures, graciously constituted him the federal head and representative of his race as a whole, and promised him for himself and for all eternal life, or confirmed holiness and happiness, on condition of temporary obedience under favora- ble conditions, with the penalty for him and for thetn of death, or condemnation and desertion, on condition of disobedience. This was an act of grace to him, as it substituted a temporal for an eternal probation. It was no less an act of grace for the race, for reasons stated below. This " Federal Theology " was developed and introduced in all its fulness of detail and bearings by Coccejus (1602-1669), Prof at Franecker and Ley den. It was regarded as eminently a Scriptural system, supplanting the prevailing scholasticism, and destroying forever the influence of supralapsarian speciila- tions, and it gradually found acceptance, under appropriate mod- ifications, with Lutherans and xA.rminians as well as Calvinists. Two things however are historically certain — Ist. That the idea of a covenant with Adam including his descendants had long before been clearly conceived and prominently advanced. This was done by Catherinus before the " Council of Trent "' (Father Paul's " Hist. Council Trent," pp. 175, 177), and by such men among Protestants as Hyperius (tl567), Olevianus (circum. 1563), and Eaphael Eglin (Dorner's '-Hist. Prot. Theo.," Vol. II., pp. 31-45). 2d. That the essential ideas of federal representation Avere long and very generally prevalent ainong Protestant theologi- ans from the beginning. Dr. Charles P. Krauth says, with re- spect to Lutheran theology as a whole, " The reasons assigned for the imputation and transmission centre in the representa- tive character of Adam (and Eve). The technicalities of the federal idea are late in appearing, but the essential idea itself comes in from the beginning in our theology." j\Ielanchthon THE AUGUSTINIAN THEORY EXAMINED. 363 said, " Adam and Eve merited guilt and depravity for their pos- terity, because integrity had been bestowed on our first parents, that they might preserve tliem for their entire posterity, and in this trial they re^jresoi/erf the Avhole human race." — "Expli- catio Symboli Niceni, Corp. Refor.," xxiii. 403 and 583. Chemnitz (1522-1586), "Loci. Theo.," fol. 213, 214, says, "God deposited those gifts with which he willed to adorn human nature with Adam, on this condition, that if he kept them for himself he should keep them for his posterity; but if he lost them and depraved himself, he should beget children after his own likeness." — Hutter, \Yittenberg (flGlG), Lb. " Chr. Con. Expli.," 90. "Adam represented the whole human race." Thus also James Arminius (flOOP) (Disp. 31, Thes. ix); John Owen (1616-1683) ("Justification," p. 286), and West "Conf Faith," Ch. vii. § 2, and "L. Cat.," -I'l (1646 and 1647). Heuce it appears that when theological writers, subsequent to the prevalence of the realistic philosophy, explain our moral oneness with Adam by the uninterpreted general phrases "that we sinned in him being in his loins," or " he being our Root," they are not to be understood as excluding all reference to rep- resentation, or to covenant responsibility. The language, holds true under either theory, or when both are combined in one notion. And from the interchange of terms it is certain, that ver}^ often both theories were latent under a common general notion. 16. What can he fairly adduced in siqiport of the Augiistinian mode of explaining our moral oneness with Adam? This view explains our moral oneness entirely on the ground of his being the natural head and root of the race, and the con- sequent physical or organic oneness of the whole race in him. It may be fairly argued in behalf of this view — 1st. That if it can be proved that we were "guilty coagents with Adam in his sin," the highest and most satisfactory reason possible is assigned for the righteous immediate imputation of the guilt of that sin to us. 2d. The analogy, as far as it goes, of all God's providential dealings, both general and special, with mankind. God's cove- nants with Xoah, Abraham, and David embrace the children with the parents, and rest upon the natural relations of gen- erator and generated. The constitutions alike of the Jewish and Christian Churches provide that the rights of infants are predetermined by the status of their parents. This is, of course, determined by a gracious covenant, yet that covenant presup- poses the more fundamental and general natural relation of generation and education. All human condition and charac- 364 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. ter, aside from any snpeniatiiral intervention, is determined by historical conditions. Hugh Miller ("Testimony of the Rocks") says, as a Christian scientist: "It is a fact broad and palpable as the economy of natm-e, that . . . lapsed progenitors, when cut off from civilization and alf external interference of a mis- sionary character, become founders of a lapsed race. The in- iquities of the parents are visited upon their children." " It is one of the inevitable consequences of that nature of man which the Creator ' bound fast in fate,' while he left free his will, that the free-will of the parent should become the destiny of the child." 17. Wliat can he fairly argued against the siiffiiiency of tins explanation of tlw ground of the immediate imputation of the guilt of Adams first sin ? 1st. Observe (1) that the Jewish and Christian Churches, to whom the second commandment (Ex. xx. 5) was given, and the children of Noah, Abraham, and David were embraced under special gracious covenants. (2.) Observe that in cases in wdiich God visits the iniquities of parents upon their chil- dren in natural providence, irrespective of an}' special cove- nant obligations, God is acting with a most just though sov- ereign discretion in dealing with rebels already under -previous righteous condemnation. 2d. When the Natural Headship of Adam is referred to in general terms, and we are said to have been in him as a "Eoot," or as "branches in a tree," the notion is unsatisfactory, because (1) utterly indefinite. (2.) Because it is, as far as it goes, material and mechanical, and therefore utterly fails to explain moral responsibility, which is essentially spiritual and personal. (3.) Besides this notion at least latently assumes the fallacy that the laAvs of natural development are either necessary limits of divine agency, or agents independent of him, or independent concauses with him. The truth simply being that the constitution of nature is the creature and in- strument of God. (4.) This theory assigns no reason, either on the ground of principle or analogy, why only the first sin of Adam, and not all the subsequent sins of all ancestors, is imputed to posterity as the ground of parental forfeiture. 3d. The idea of a non-personal but virtual or ])otential co- existence and coagency (see Dr. W. G. T. Shedd's "Essays" and " Hist. Christ. Doc," and Dr. Philip Schafi"s " Lange. Eom.," pp. 192-194) as the sole basis of just moral responsi- bility has no support in that testimony of Consciousness, which is our oidy citadel of defence from materialism, naturalism, and pantheism. Consciousness gives us no conception of sin THE FEDERAL THEORY COMMENDED. 365 but as a state or an act of a free personal agent. Even if im- personal, virtual, potential, moral coagency be a fact, it tran- scends both consciousness and understanding, and being dark itself can throw no light upon the mysterious facts it is ad- duced to explain and to justify. 4th. When the attempt is made to expound this theory in the full sense of realistic philosophy' the case does not appear to be improved. (1.) In pure realism humanity is a single, generic, spiritual substance whicli voluntarily apostatized and corrupted itself in Adam. Human persons are the individual manifestations of this common spirit in connection with separate bodily or- ganizations. But — (rt.) If we so far leave consciousness be- hind how can we defend ourselves from pantheism? (6.) How are individual spirits justified and sanctified while the general spirit remains corrupt and guilty? (c.) How did the Logos be- come incarnate? (c/.) How, finally, will part of this spiritual substance be eternally glorified, while another part is eternally damned. '*' (2.) Dr. Shedd explains that the generic spiritual substance whicli sinned has since, through the agency of Adam, been dis- tributed and explicated into a series of individuals. But can a spirit be divided and its parts distributed, each part an agent as the whole was from which it was separated? Is not this to confound the attributes of spirit and matter, and to explain spirit as material, and is not sin pre-eminently spiritual and personal ? 18. State the reasoiis luMcli establish the superior satisfactory charaxier of the Federal Theory of our oneness with Adam ? 1st. The federal headship of Adam presupposes and rests upon his natural headship. He was our natural head before he was our federal head. He was doubtless made our federal representative because he was our natural progenitor, and was so conditioned that his agency must affect our destinies, and because our very nature was on trial (typically if not essen- tially) in him. Whatever, therefore, of virtue in this explana- tion the natural headship of Adam may be supposed to contain the federal theory retains. 2d. The Covenant as shown above was an act of supreme divine grace to Adam himself It Avas still more so as it respects his descendants. All God's moral creatures are intro- duced into existence in a condition of real, thougli instable, moral integrity'. This is obviously true of men and angels, and certainly equitable. They must, therefore, pass through a probation either limited or unlimited. Adam was under coudi- 36G IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. tions to stand that graciously limited probation with every conceivable advantage. But, apparently, his descendants could have no fair probation except in his person. "Three plans exhaust the possible. (1.) The whole race might have been left under their natural rehition to God forever. (2.) Each might have been left to stand for himself under a gracious covenant of works. (3.) That the race as a whole should stand for a limited period represented in its natural head. The first would have certainly led to universal sin. The second is the one Pelagians suppose actual. The third is incomparably the most advantageous for the whole." Dr. Robert L. Dabney's " Syllabus." The separate probation of nascent souls in infant bodies was certainly not to be preferred. 3d. God certainly did as a matter of fact condition Adam with a promise of " Life," and the alternative of " Death," upon a special and temporally limited probationary test. The precise penalty threatened upon him, has been in its general sense and special terms (Gen. ii. 17 and iii. 16-19) inflicted upon all his posterity. 4th. This view also is confirmed by the analogy which the Scriptures assert existed between the imputation of Adam's first sin to us, and the imputation of our sins to Christ, and of his righteousness to us. This, of course, implies necessarily that the race is one with Adam, and the elect one with Christ. And the analogy certainly is the more complete on the federal view of Adam's union with the race, than on that view which ignores it. Both the Covenant of Grace including the elect, and the Covenant of Works including the race, were gracious. Christ voluntarily assumed his headship out of love. Adam obediently assumed his out of interest and duty. God graciously chose the elect out of love, and graciousty included the descendants of Adam in his representation out of benevolence. Does not the remaining mystery lose itself in that abyss which is opened by i\\Qfaet of the 2Jermission of sin, before which all schools of Theists on this side the veil must bow in silence.


Question: What  is  the  nsage  qftlie  ivord  nnn  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures?

Answer: This word occurs more than two hundred and eighty times in the Old Testament, and is in our translation in the vast majority of instances represented by the English word "Cove- nant," in a number of instances by the word " League," Jos. ix. 15, etc., and once each by the words "Confederate," Gen. xiv. 13, and " Confederacy," Obad. 7. 3G8 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. It is used to express. — 1st. A natural ordinance. " God's covenant with the day, the night," etc. — Jer. xxxiii. 20. 2d. A covenant of one man with another. Jonathan and David. — 1 Sam. xviii. 3 and ch. xx. David and Abner. — 2 Sam. iii. 13. 3d. The covenant of God with Noah, Gen. vi. 18, 19, as to his family; and with the human race in him. Gen. ix. 9. The boAv was " a token of a covenant." — Gen. ix. 13. 4th. The "Covenant of Grace" with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 2-7, which Paul calls the "gospel," Gal. iii. 17. Circumcision was the "token of this covenant." — Gen. xvii. 11; comp. Acts vii. 8. 5th. The same covenant as formed generally with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. — Ex. ii. 24, etc. 6th. The same covenant, with special and temporary modifi- cations of form, constituting the National-Ecclesiastical Cove- nant of God with the people of Israel. The law of this Covenant on its legal side was written by Moses first in a book ("the book of the covenant," Ex. xxiv. 7), and then upon tables of stone ("the words of the covenant, the ten commandments, Ex. xxxiv. 27, 28), which were afterwards deposited in a golden chest, "the ark of the covenant." — Num. x. 33. 7th. The covenant with Aaron of an everlasting priesthood. Num. XXV. 12, 13. 8th. The covenant with David. — Jer. xxxiii. 21, 22; Ps. Ixxxix. 3, 4.


Question: What  is  the  Neiv  Testament  usage  of  the  term  SiaOt/m]?

Answer: This word occurs thirty-three times in the New Testament, and is almost uniformly translated covenant when it refers to the dealings of God with his ancient church, and testament when it refers to his dealings with his church under the gospel dispen- sation. Its fundamental sense is that of disposition, arrange- ment; in the classics generally that specific form of arrangement or disposition called a testament., which sense, however, it prop- erly bears in but one passage in the New Testament, viz., Ileb. ix. 16, 17. Although it is never used to designate that eternal Covenant of Grace which the Father made with the Son as the second Adam, in behalf of his people, yet it always designates either the old or the new dispensation, i. e., mode of adminis- tration of that changeless covenant, or some special covenant which Christ has formed with his people in the way of admin- istering the Covenant of Grace, e. r/., the covenants with Abra- ham and with David. Thus the disposition made by God with the ancient church through jMoses, the Old contrasted in the New Testament with the New Siadr/nr/ (Gal. iv. 24), was really a covenant, both civil DIFFERENT VIEWS HELD BY CALVINISTS. 3G9 and religious, formed between Jehovah and the Israehtes, yet alike in its legal element, " which was added because of trans- gressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made," and in its symbolical and typical element teaching of Christ, it was in a higher view a dispensation, or mode of ad- ministration of the Covenant of Grace. So also the present gospel dispensation introduced by Christ assumes the form of a covenant between him and his people, including many gra- cious promises, suspended on conditions, yet it is evidently in its highest aspect that mode of aclministeriiig the changeless Covenant of Grace, which is called the "new and better dispen- sation," in contrast with the comparatively imperfect "old and first dispensation" of that same covenant. — See 2 Cor. iii. 14; Heb. viii. 6, 8, 9, 10; ix. 15; Gal. iv. 24 The present dispensation of the Covenant of Grace by our Saviour, in one respect, evidently bears a near analogy to a 3vill or testamentary disposition, since it dispenses blessings which could^ be fully enjoyed only after, and by means of his death. Consequently Paul uses the word ^la^rj-HTj in one single passage, to designate the present dispensation of the Covenant of Grace in this interesting aspect of it. — Heb. ix. 16, 17. Yet since the various dispensations of that eternal covenant are always else- where in Scripture represented under the form of special ad- ministrative covenants, and not under the form of testaments, it is to be regretted that our translators have so frequently ren- dered this term 8iafJt]H7], by the specific word testament, instead of the word covenant, or by the more general word dispensa- tion.— See 1 Cor. iii. 6, 14; Gal. iii. 15; Heb. vii. 22; xii. 24; xiii. 20. 3. What are the three views as to the parties in the covenant of grace held by Calvinists ? These differences do not in the least involve the truth of any doctrine taught in the Scriptures, but concern only the form in which that truth may be more or less clearly presented. 1st. The first view regards the Covenant of Grace as made by God with elect sinners. God promising to save sinners as such on the condition of faith, they, when converted, promising faith and obedience. Christ in this view is not one of the par- ties to the covenant, but its Mediator in behalf of his elect, and their surety; {. e., he guarantees that all the conditions demanded of them shall be fulfilled by them through his grace. 2d. The second view supposes two covenants, the first, called the Covenant of Redemption, formed from eternity between the Father and the Son as parties. The Son promising to obey and sufier, the Father promising to give him a people and to grant 24 370 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. \ them in him all spiritual blessings and eternal life. The second, called the Covenant of Grace, formed by God with the elect as < parties, Christ being mediator and surety in behalf of his people. 3d. As there are two Adams set forth in the Scripture, the one representing the entire race in an econom}^ of nature, and the otlier representing the whole body of the elect in an econ- omy of grace, it appears more simple to regard as the founda- tion of all God's dealings with mankind, of whatever class, only the two great contrasted Covenants of works and of grace. The fornwr made by God at the creation of the world with Adam, as the federal head and representative of all his posterity. Of the promises, conditions, penalty, and issue of that Covenant I have spoken under a former head, see Chapter XVII. The latter, or Covenant of Grace, formed in the counsels of eternity between the Father and the Son as contracting parties, the Son therein contracting as the Second Adam, representing all his people as their mediator and siu-ety, assuming their place and undertak- ing all their obligations, under the unsatisfied Covenant of Works, and undertaking to apply to them all the benefits se- cured by this eternal Covenant of Grace, and to secure the per- formance upon their part of all those duties which are involved therein. Thus in one aspect this Covenant may be viewed as contracted Avith the head for the salvation of the members, and in another as contracted with tlie members in their head and sponsor. For that which is a grace from God is a duty upon our part, as St. Augustine prayed, "Da quod jubes, et jubes quod vis;" and hence results this complex view of the Covenant. As embraced under one or other of these two great Cove- nants of works or of grace, every man in the world stands in God's sight. It is to be remembered, however, that in the sev- eral dispensations, or modes of administration of the eternal Covenant of Grace, Christ has contracted various special cove- nants with his people, as administrative provisions for carrying out the engagements, and for applying to them tlie benefits of his covenant with the Father. Thus, the covenant of Jehovah (the Second Person, see above, Chapter IX., Question 14) with Noah, the second natural head of the human I'amily, Gen. ix. 11, 15. The covenant with Abraham, the typical be- liever, bearing the visible sign and seal of circumcision, and thus founding the visible church as an aggregate of families. This covenant continues to be the charter of the visible church to this day, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper now attaclied to it, signifying and sealing the benefits of the Covenant of Grace, to wit, eternal life, faith, repentance, obedi- ence, etc., on God's part, as matters of promise; on ours as matters of duty, i. e., so far as they are to be performed by DOCTRINE PROVED. 371 ourselves. — Compare Gen. xvii. 9-13, with Gal. iii. 15-17. The national covenant with the Jews, then constituting the visible church, Ex. xxxiv. 27. The covenant with David, the type of Christ as Mediatorial King, 2 Sam. vii. 15, 16; 2 Chron. vii. 18. The imiversal offers of the gospel during the present dispensa- tion, also, are presented in the form of a covenant. Salvation is offered to all on the condition of faith, but faitli is God's gift secured for and promised to the elect, and when given exercised by them. Ever}^ believer, when brought to the knowledge of the truth, enters into a covenant with his Lord, which he re- news in all acts of faith and praj^er. But these special covenants all and several are provisions for the administration of the eter- nal Covenant of Grace, and are designed solely to convey the benefits therein secured to those to whom they belong. For the statements of our standards upon this subject, com- pare "Confession of Faith," chapter vii., section 3, with "L. Cat.," Questions 30-36. 4. Prove from the Scri'ptures that a " Covenant of Grace'' teas actually formed in eternity between the Divine Persons, in luhich the "aS'oji" represented this elect. 1st. As shown at the opening of this chapter such a Cove- nant is virtuall}'' implied in the existence of an eternal Plan of salvation mutually formed by and to be executed by three Persons. 2d. That Clu'ist represented his elect in that Covenant is necessarily implied in the doctrine of sovereign personal elec- tion to grace and salvation. Christ sajs of his sheep, " Thine they were, and thou gavest them me," and " Those whom thou gavest me I have kept," etc. — John xvii. 6, 12. 3d. The Scriptures declare the existence of the promise and conditions of such a Covenant, and present them in connec- tion.— Isa. liii. 10, 11. 4th. The Scriptures expressly affirm the existence of such a Covenant. — Isa. xlii. 6; Ps. Ixxxix. 3. 5th. Christ makes constant reference to a previous commis- sion he had received of his Father. — John x. 18; Luke xxii. 29. 6th. Christ claims a reward which had been conditioned upon the fulfillment of that commis.sion. — John xvii. 4. 7th. Christ constantly asserts that his people and his ex- pected glory are given to him as a reward by his Father. — John xvii. 6, 9, 24; Phil. ii. 6-11. 5. Who were the parties to this Covenant of Grace; what were its pj^omises or condifiom on the part of the Father; and u'hat its conditions on the part of tlw Son ? 372 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. 1st. The contracting parties were the Father representing the entire Godhead in its indivisible sovereignty; and, on the other hand, God the Son, as ^Mediator, representing all his elect people, and as administrator of the Covenant, standing their surety for their performance of all those duties which were involved on their part. 2d. The conditions upon the part of the Father were, (1") all needful preparation, Heb. x. 5; Isa. xlii. 1-7; (2) support in his work, Luke xxii. 43; (3) a glorious reward, /?rs^ in the exaltation of his theanthropic person " above every name that is named," Phil. ii. 6-11, and the universal dominion committed to him as Mediator, John v. 22; Ps. ex. 1; and in committing to his hand the administration of all the provisions of the Cov- enant of Grace in behalf of all his people, Matt, xxviii. 18; John i. 12; xvii. 2; vii. 39; Acts ii. 33; and, secondly, in the salvation of all those for whom he acted, includiiig the provi- sions of regeneration, justification, sanctification, perseverance, and glory — Titus i. 2 ; Jer. xxxi. 33 ; xxxii. 40 ; Isa. xxxv. 10 ; liii. 10, 11; Dicks' "Theo. Lect.," Vol. 1., pp. 506-509. 3d. The conditions upon the part of the Son were — (1.) That he should become incarnate, made of a woman, made under the law. — Gal. iv. 4, 5. (2.) That he should assume and fully discharge, in behalf of his elect, all violated conditions and incurred liabilities of the covenant of works. Matt. v. 17, 18, which he was to accomplish,^r.s^, by rendering to the precept of the law a perfect obedience, Ps. xl. 8; Isa. xlii. 21; John ix. 4, 5; viii. 29; Matt. xix. 17; a,nd, secondly, in suffering the full penalty incurred by the sins of his people. — Isa. liii.; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. iii. 13; Eph. v. 2. 6. In 2vhat sense is Christ said to he the mediator of the Cove- nant of Grace ? Christ is the mediator of the eternal Covenant of Grace be- cause— 1st. As the one mediator between God and man, he con- tracted it. 2d. As mediator, he fulfils all its conditions in behalf of his people. 3d. As mediator he administers it and dispenses all its blessings. 4th. In all this, Christ was not a mere media- torial internuntius, as Moses is called (Gal. iii. 19), but he was mediator (1) plenipotentiary (Matt, xxviii. 18), and (2) as high priest actually effecting reconciliation by sacrifice (Rom. iii. 25). 5th. Tlie phrase jusdizT/i diaOr'/x7/? mediator of the covenant, is applied to Christ three times in the New Testament (Heb. viii. 6; ix. 15; xii. 24); but as in each case the term for covenant is qualified by either the adjective "new" or "better, " it evidently here is used to designate not the Covenant of Grace properly, but that new dispensation of that eternal cove- CHRIST THE MEDIATOR AND THE SURETY. 373 nant which Christ introduced in person in contrast to the less perfect administration of it which was instrumentally introduced by Moses. In the general administration of the Covenant of Grace, Christ has acted as sacerdotal mediator from the foun- dation of the world (Rev. xiii. 8). On the other hand, the first or "old dispensation," or special mode of administering that Covenant visibly among men, was instrumentally, and as to visible form, "ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator," i. e., ]\loses (Gal. iii. 19). It is precisely in contradistinction to this relation which Moses sustained to the outward revelation of those symbolical and typical institutions, through which the Covenant of Grace was then administered, that the superior excellence of the "new" and "better" dispensation is declared to consist in this, that now Christ the " Son in his own house" visibly discloses himself as the true mediator in the spiritual and personal administration of his covenant. Hence he who from the beginning was the "one mediator between God and man" (1 Tim. ii. 5) now is revealed as in way of eminence, the mediator and surety of that eternal Covenant under the "new" and " better " dispensation of it, since now he is rendered visible in the fulness of his spiritual graces, as the immediate admin- istrator thereof, whereas under the " first " and " old " dispen- sation he was hidden. — See Sampson's Com. on Hebrews." 5th. As Mediator also Christ undertakes to give His people faith and repentance and every grace, and guarantees for them that they shall on their part exercise faith and repentance and every duty. 7. la what sense is Christ said to be Surety of the Covenant of Grace ? In the only instance in which the term surety is applied to Chi'ist in the New Testament (Heb. vii. 22), "surety of a better testament," the word translated testament evidently is designed to designate the new dispensation of the Covenant of Grace, as contrasted with the old. Paul is contrasting the priesthood of Christ with the Levitical. He is priest or surety after a higher order, under a clearer revelation, and a more real and direct administration of grace, than were the typical priests descended from Aaron. Christ is oiu- surety at once as priest and as king. As priest because, as such, he assumes and discharges all our obligations under the broken covenant of works. iVs king (the two in him are inseparable, he is always a royal priest), because, as such, he administers the blessings of his covenant to his people, and to this end entering into covenants with them, offering them grace upon the condition of faith and obedience, 374 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. and then, as their surety, giving them the graces of faith and obedience, that they may fulfil their part. 8. What general method has characterized Christ's adminis- tration of his covenant under all dispensations ? The purchased benefits of the covenant are placed in Christ's hand, to be bestowed upon his people as free and sovereign gifts. From Christ to us they are all gifts, but from us to Christ many of them are duties. Thus, in the administration of the Covenant of Grace, many of these purchased blessings, which are to take eff"ect in our acts, e. g., faith, etc., he demands of us as duties, and promises other benefits as a reward conditioned on our obedience. Thus, so to speak, he rewards grace with grace, and conditions grace upon grace. Promising faith to his elect, then working faith in them, then rewarding them for its exercise with peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, and eternal life, etc., etc.


Question: What  is  the  Arminian  vieiu  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace?

Answer: They hold, 1st, as to the parties of the Covenant of Grace, that God offers it to all men, and that he actually contracts it with all believers. 2d. As to its promises, that they include all the temporal and eternal benefits of Christ's redemption. 3d. As to its conditions, that God now graciously accepts faith and evangelical obedience for righteousness, in the place of that perfect legal obedience he demanded of man under the cove- nant of works, the meritorious work of Christ making it consist- ent with the principles of divine justice for him so to do. Tliey regard all men as rendered by sufficient grace capable of fulfil- ling such conditiojis, if they will.


Question: In  what  sense  can  faith  he  called  a  condition  of  salvation  ?

Answer: Faith is a condition sine qua non of salvation, i. e., no adult man can be saved if he does not believe, and every man that does believe shall be saved. It is, however, a gift of God and the first part or stage of salvation. Viewed on God's side it is the beginning and index of his saving work in us. Viewed on our side it is our duty, and must be our own act. It is, there- fore, as our act, the instrument of our union with Christ, and thus the necessary antecedent, tifough never the meritoiious cause, of the gracious salvation which follows. Faith as the condition is of course living faith, which necessarily brings forth "confession" and obedience. 11. What are the j)^'omises which Christ, as the administrator of the covenant of grace, makes to all those ivho believe ? THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT. 375 The promise to Abraham to be a " God to him and to his seed after him" (Gen xvii. 7) embraces all others. All things alike, physical and moral, in providence and grace, for time and eternity, are to work together for our good. "All are yours, and ye are Christ's, and Christ is God's." — 1 Cor. iii. 22, 23. This gospel covenant is often called the " Covenant of Grace" as distinguished from the "Covenant of Redemption." See above, Q. 3, § 2. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi. 16. 12. Prove that Christ loas mediator of men be/ore as ivell as after his advent in tlwfiesh. 1st. As mediator he is both priest and sacrifice, and as such it is affirmed that he is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world," and a "propitiation for the sins that are past." Rev. xiii. 8; Rom. iii. 25; Heb. ix. 15. 2d. He was promised to Adam. — Gen. iii. 15. 3d. In the 3d chapter of Gal. Paul proves that the promise made to Abraham (Gen. xvii. 7 ; xxii. 18) is the very same gos- pel that the apostle himself preached. Thus Abraham became the father of those that believe. 4th. Acts X. 43. — "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sin." — See 53d chap, of Is., also chap. xlii. 6. 5th. The ceremonial institutions of Moses were symbolical and typical of Christ's work; as symbols they signified Christ's merit and grace to the ancient worshipper for his present sal- vation, while as types they prophesied the substance which was to come. — Heb. x. 1-10; Col. ii. 17. 6th. Christ was the Jehovah of the old dispensation. — See above, Chap. IX., Question 14. 13. Prove that faith loas the condition of salvation before the advent of Christ, in the same sense that it is noiv. 1st. This is affirmed in the Old Testament. — Hab. ii. 4; Ps. ii. 12. 2d. The New Testament writers illustrate their doctrine of justification by faith by the examples of Old Testament be- lievers.— See Rom. iv., and Heb. xi. 14. Shoiv that Christ, as administrator of the Covenant of Grace, gave to the members of the Old Testament Church precisely the same pi'omises that he does to us. 1st. The promises given to Christ's ancient people clearly embrace all spiritual and eternal blessings, e. g., the promise 376 THE COVENANT OF GRACE. given to Abraham, Gen, xvii. 7, as expounded by Christ, Matt xxii. 32, and the promise given to Abraham, Gen. xxii. 18; xii. 3, as expounded by Paul, Gal. iii. 16; see also Is. xliii. 25; Ezek. xxxvi. 27; Dan. xii. 2, 3. 2d. Tliis is plain also from the expectation and prayers of God's peopje. — 51st Ps. and 16th Ps. ; Job xix. 24-27; Ps. Ixxiii. '1^-m. 15. How loas the covenant of grace administered from Adam to Abraham ? 1st. By promise. — Gen. iii. 15. 2d. By means of typical sacrifices instituted in the family of Adam. 3d. By me^-ns of immediate -revelations and appearances of the Jehovah, or divine mediator to his people. Thus "the Lord" is represented throughout the first eleven chapters of Genesis as "speaking" to men. That these promises and sac- rifices were then understood in their true spiritual intent is proved by Paul. — Heb. xi. 4-7. And that this administration of the covenant of grace reached many of the people of the earth, during this era, is proved by the history of Job in Arabia, of Abraham in Mesopotamia, and of Melchisedec in Canaan.


Question: How  tvas  it  administered  from  Abraham  to  Moses?

Answer: 1st. The promise given during the preceding period (Gen. iii. 15), is now renewed in the form of a more definite cove- nant, revealing the coming Saviour as in the line of Abraham's posterity through Isaac, and the interest of the whole world in his salvation is more fully set forth. — Gen. xvii. 7; xxii. 18. This Avas the gospel preached beforehand. — Gal. iii. 8. 2d. Sacrifices were contniued as before. 3d. The church, or company of believers, which existed from the beginning in its individual members, was now formed into a general body as an aggregate of families, by the institution of circumcision, as a visible symbol of the benefits of the cove- nant of grace, and as a badge of church membership. 17. What was the true nature of the covenant made by God ivith the Israelites through Moses ? It may be regarded in three aspects — 1st. As a national and political covenant, whereby, in a political sense, they became his people, under his theocratical government, and in this peculiar sense he became their God. The church and the state were identical. In one aspect the whole system had reference to this relation. 2d. It was in one aspect a legal covenant, because the moral THE HISTORY OF THE COVENANT. 377 law, obedience to which was the condition of the covenant of works, was prominently set forth, and conformity to this law was made the condition of God's favor, and of all national blessings. Even the ceremonial system in its merely literal, and apart from its symbolical aspect, was also a rule of ^vorks, for cursed was he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. — Dent, xxvii. 26. 3d. But in the symbolical and typical significance of all the Mosaic institutions, they were a clearer and fuller revelation of the provisions of the Covenant of Grace than had ever be- fore been made. This Paul abundantly proves throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews. — Hodge on Romans. 18. What are the characteristic differences between the dispensa- tion of the Covenant of Grace under the laio of Moses and after the advent of Christ ? These differences, of course, relate only to the mode of ad- ministration, and not to the matter of the truth revealed, nor of the grace administered. 1st. The truth was then signified by symbols, which, at the same time, were types of the real atonement for sin afterwards to be made. Now the truth is revealed in the plain gospel history. 2d. That revelation was less full as well as less clear. 3d. It was so encumbered with ceremonies as to be comparatively a carnal dispensation. The present dispensation is spiritual. 4tli. It was confined to one people. The present dispensation, disembarrassed from all na- tional organizations, embraces the whole earth. 5th. The for- mer method of administration was evidently preparatory to the present, which is final. For the Calvinistic view of the "Covenant of Grace," see Turretin, "Inst. Theo. Elench.," Loc. 12. ; Witsius, "^Econ. of the Co vs." For Arminian view see Fletcher's works and Richard Watson's "Inst, of Theo."


Question: Hoiv  may  it  be  proved  that  Christ  is  really  a  man  ?

Answer: He is called man. — 1 Tim. ii. 5. His most common title is Son of Man, Matt. xiii. 37, also seed of the woman, Gen. iii. 15; the seed of Abraham, Acts iii. 25; Son of David, and fruit of his loins, Luke i. 32; made of a woman. — Gal. iv. 4. He had a body, ate, drank, slept, and increased in stature, Luke ii. 52 ; and through a life of thirty-tliree years was recognized by all men as a true man. He died in agony on the cross, Avas buried, rose, and proved his identity by physical signs. — Luke xxiv. 36-44. He had a reasonable soul, for he increased in wis- dom. He exercised the common feelings of our nature, he groaned in spirit and was troubled, he wept. — John xi. 33, 35. THE DOCTRINE PROVED. 381 He loved Martha and Mary, and the disciple that Jesus loved leaned upon his bosom. — John xiii. 23. The absolute divinity of Christ has been proved above, Chap. IX. 9. Hov) may it he proved that both these natures constituted but one person ? In many passages both natures are referred to, when it is evident that only one person was intended. — Phil. ii. 6-11. In many passages both natures are set forth as united. It is never affirmed that divinity abstractly, or a divine power, was united to, or manifested in a human nature, but of the divine nature concretely, that a divine person Avas united to a human nature. — Heb. ii. 11-14; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Gal. iv. 4; Rom. viii. 3 and i. 3, 4 ; ix. 5 ; John i. 14 ; 1 John iv. 3. The union of two natures in one person is also clearly taught by tliose passages in which the attributes of one nature are predicated of the person, while that person is designated by a title derived from the other nature. Thus human attributes and actions are predicated of Christ in certain passages, while the person of whom these attributes or actions are predicated, is designated by a divine title. — Acts xx. 28; Rom. viii. 32; 1 Cor. li. 8; Matt. i. 23; Luke i. 31, 32; Col. i. 13, 14. On the other hand, in other passages, divine attributes and actions are predicated of Christ, while his person, of whom those attributes are predicated, is designated by a human title. John iii. 13; vi. 62; Rom. ix. 5; Rev. v. 12. 10. What is the general principle upon ivhich those passages are to be explained ivhich designate the person of Christ from one nature, and jwedicate attributes to it belonging to the other? The person of Christ, constituted of two natures, is one per- son. He may, therefore, indifferently be designated by divine or human titles, and both divine and human attributes may be truly predicated of him. He is still God when he dies, and still man when he raises his people from their graves. ]\Iediatorial actions pertain to both natures. It must be re- membered, however, that while the person is one, the natures are distinct, as such. What belongs to either nature is attrib- uted to the one person to which both belong, but what is pecu- liar to one nature is never attributed to the other. God, /. e., the divine person who is at once God and man, gave his blood for his church, i. c., died as to his human nature (Acts xx. 28). But human attributes or actions are never asserted of Christ's dWine ncdure, nor are divine attributes or actions ever asserted of his human nature. 382 ■ THE PERSON OF CHRIST. 11. How have tJieologians defined the ideas of '■'■ nature''^ aiid ^^ person" o-s they are involved in this doctrine ? In the doctrine of" the Trinity the difficulty is that one Spirit exists as three Persons. In the doctrine of the Incarnation the difficulty is that two spirits exist in union as one Person. " Nature " in this connection has been defined by the terms, " essence," " being," " substance." " Person " in this connection has been defined as " an indi- vidual substance, which is neither part of, nor is sustained by some other thing," or as "an intelligent individual subsistence, per se suhsistens." The human nature in Clirist never Avas "per se subsistens," but since it began to be as a germ generated into personal union with the eternal Second Person of the God- head, so from the beginning "m altero sustentatur." 12. What tvere the effects of this p)ersonal union upon the Divine nature of Christ ? His divine nature being eternal and immutable, and, of course, incapable of addition, remained essentially unchanged by this union. The whole immutable divine essence continued to subsist as the eternal Personal Word, now embracing a per- fect human nature in the unity of his person, and as the organ of his will. Yet thereby is the relation of the divine nature changed to the whole creation, since he has become Emman- uel, " God with us," " God manifest in the flesh."


Question: WlKit  were  the  effects  of  that  union  upon  his  human  nature  ?

Answer: The human nature, being perfect after its kind, began to exist in union with the divine nature, and as one constituent of the divine Person, and as such it ever continues unmixed and essentially unchanged human nature. The effect of this union upon Christ's human nature, there- fore, was — 1st. Exaltation of all human excellencies above the standard of human and of creaturely nature. — Jolm i. 14; iii. 34; Is. xii. 2. 2d. Unparalleled exaltation to dignity and glory, above every name that is named, and a community of honor and worsliip with the divinity in virtue of its union therewith in the one divine Person. 3d. As in the union of soul and body in the natural person, the soul although absolutely destitute of extension in itself, is in virtue of its miion with the body present at once from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot, — that is virtually, if not essentially, present in conscioiis perception and active voli- tion,— so through its personal union with the eternal Word is COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM. 383 the human nature of Christ, (a) virtually present (although lo- cally in heaven) with his people in the most distant parts of the earth at the same time, sympathizing with each severally as one who has himself also been tempted, (i) rendered practically inexhaustible in all those draughts made upon its energies by the constant exercise of those mediatorial functions which in- volve both natures. Hence the church doctrine concerning the " communicatio idioraatum vel proprietatum " of the two natures of Christ. It is affirmed in the concrete in respect to the person, but denied in the abstract in respect to the natures; it is affirmed w^rws naturae ad personam^ but denied utrius natiirce ad naturam. 14. Hoiu far is the human nature of Christ included in tJw wor- ship due to him? We must distinguish between the object and the grounds of worship. There can be no proper ground of worship, except the possession of divine attributes. The object of worship is not the divine excellence in the abstract, but the divine person of Avhom that excellence is an attribute. The God-man, con- sisting of two natures, is to be worshipped in the perfection of his entire person, because only of his divine attributes. 15. State the analogy presented in the union of tioo natures in the persons of inen. 1st. Every human person comprehends two distinct natures, (a) a conscious, self-acting, self-determined spirit absolutely without extension in space, and {h) an extended highly organ- ized body composed of passive matter. 2d. These constitute but one person. The body is part of the person. 3d. These natures remain distinct, the attributes of the spirit never being made common to the material body, nor the attri- butes of the body to the spirit, but the attributes of both body and spirit are common to the one person. The person is often designated by a title proper to one nature while the predicate is proper to the other nature. 4th. The spirit is the person. When the spirit leaves the body the latter is buried as a corpse, while the former goes to judgment. At the resurrection the spirit will resume the corpse into the person. 5th. While in union the person possesses and exercises the attributes of both natures. And in virtue of the union the un- extended spirit is present virtually wherever the extended body is, and the inert insensible matter of the nerve tissues thrill 384 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. with feeling and throb wdth will as organs of the feeling and willing soul. 16. What is the peculiar vieiu as to the ^'■commimicatio idioma- ticm" introduced into theology hy the Lutherans? and state the rea- sons for not accepting it. In connection with, and in the process of maintaining, his peculiar view as to the presence of the very substance of Christ's body and blood in, with, and under the bread and the wine in the Eucharist, Luther and his followers introduced and elabo- rated a doctrine that, in consequence of the hypostatical union of the divine natures in the one person of Christ, each natiuie shares in the essential attributes of the other nature." When tliey came to explain the matter more fully, they did not affirm that any distinctive attribute of humanity was shared by the divinity, nor that the human nature shared all the attri- butes of the divine; they affirmed in detail simply that the humanity shared with the divine in its omniscience, omnipres- ence, and power of giving life. The advocates of this doctrine were divided into two schools: 1st. The most extreme and logically consistent, represented by John Brentz and the tlieologians of Tubingen. These main- tained that the every act of incarnation effected, as the essence of the personal union, the participation of each nature in the properties of the other. From his conception in the womb of the Virgin the human nature of Christ was inalienably endowed with all the divine majesty, and all those properties which con- stitute it. These were necessarily exercised from the first, but not manifested during his earthly life, their exercise being hidden. The facts of Christ's life during his estate of humil- iation are therefore explained by a voluntary Krypsis, or hiding of the divine properties of his humanity^ , , 1 ■ '^ • 2d. The other less extreme view^Avas represented by ]\Iartin Chemnitz, and the theologians of Giessen. They held also, that, by the very act of incarnation tlie humanity of Christ was en- dowed with divine perfections. That as to his relation to space, ^'Logos non extra carnem, et caro non extra Logon.'" Yet they taught that the exercise of these perfections was not neces- sary, but subject to the will of the divine person, who causes his human nature to be present wherever and whensoever he wills, and who during the period of his humiliation on earth voluntarily emptied (Kenosis) his human nature of its use and exercise of its divine attributes. Prof A. B. Bruce, D.D., "Humiliation of Christ," Lecture iii. — "The Lutherans held the exaltation of the humanity to meet the divinity, and (while on earth) the Kenosis of the humanity. The Reformed insisted on LUTHERAN VIEW REJECTED. 385 the reality of the human Hfe of Christ, and the self-emptying (Kenosis) of the divinity to meet the humanity. The Lutherans held the double life of the glorified humanity (the local pres- ence and the illocal omnipresence). The Reformed tendency was to recognize a double Hfe of the Logos — totus extra Jesum^ and totus in JesiL' We reject the Lutheran view because — 1st. It is not taught in the Bible. It really rests upon their mistaken interpretation of the words of Christ — "This is my body." 2d. It is impossible to reconcile it with the phenomena of Christ's earthly life. It increases the difficulties of the problem it was invented to explain. 3d. It virtually destroys the incarnation by assimilating the human nature to the divine in the co-partnership of properties, whereby it is virtually abrogated, and in effect only the divine remains. 4th. It involves the fallacy of conceiving of properties as separable from the substances of which they are the active powers, and thus is open to the same criticisms as the doctrine! of transubstantiation. 17. Hoio can it he shown that the doctrine of the incarnation is a fundamental doctrine of the Gospel ? 1st. This doctrine, and all the elements thereof, is set forth in the Scriptures with pre-eminent clearness and prominence. 2d. Its truth is essentially involved in every other doctrine of the entire sj^stem of faith ; in every mediatorial act of Christ, as prophet, priest and king; in the whole history of his estate of humiliation, and in every aspect of his estate of exaltation ; and, above all, in the significance and value of that vicarious sacrifice which is the heart of the gospel. If Christ is not in the same person both God and man, he either could not die, or his death could not avail. If he be not man, his whole his- tory is a myth ; if he be not God, to worship him is idolatry, yet not to worship him is to disobey the Father. — John v. 23. 3d. Scripture expressly declares that this doctrine is essen- tial.— 1 John iv. 2, 3. 18. In lohat Creeds and by ivhat Councils has this doctrine been most accurately defined? 1st. The Creed of the Council of Nice, amended by the Council of Constantinople, and the Athanasian Creed, an.d, the Creed of the Council of Chalcedon, are accurate and authorita- tive statements of the whole church as to this doctrine. They are all to be found above, Ch. VII. 2d. The decision of the Council of Ephesus, a. d. 431, con- 25 ^ 386 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. demning the Nestorians, and affirming the nnity of the Person ; the decision of the Council of Chalcedon (451) against Eutyches, affirming the distinction of natures; and tiie decision of the Council of Constantinople (681) against the Monothelites, af- firming that Christ's human nature retains in its unimpaired integrity a separate will as well as intelligence, closed the grad- ually perfected definition of the church doctrine as to the Per- son of Christ, and have been accepted by all Protestants.


Question: How  may  all  Heresies  on  this  subject  he  classijied?

Answer: As they seek relief from the impossibility which reason ex- periences in the effort fully to comprehend the mutual consist- ency of all the elements of this doctrine (1) in the denial of the divine element, (2) or in the denial of the human element in its reality and integrity, or (3) in the denial of the imity of the person embracing both natures.


Question: WJiat  parties  have  held  that  Jesus  ivas  a  mere  man  ?

Answer: In the early church the Ebionites, and the Alogi. At the time of the Reformation the Socinians. In latter times Ration- alists and Unitarians. For an account of their history and doctrines, see above, Ch. VI., Q. 11, and Q. 13, and below, at the close of this chapter. 21. What parties denied Christ's true humanity and on ivhat grounds ? These speculations were all of Gnostic origin. Hence came the conviction that matter was inherently evil, and that innu- merable u:Eons, or great spiritual emanations from the absolute God, mediate between him and the actual world. Tlvivuccxa come from God, but matter is self-existent, and the animal souls of men come from some being less than God. Hence the Docetaj (from SoHeoo to think, to appear) held that the human nature (bod}'' and soul) of Christ was a mere q)dyta6),ia, or appearance, having no real substantial existence. It was a mere vision or phantom through which the Logos chose to manifest himself to mankind for a time. 22. State the Apollinarian Heresy. Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, circum. 370, of general re- pute for orthodoxy and learning, taught that as man naturally consists of a body, 6chua, and an animal soul, i>vx>h and a rational soul, Tti'lvi-ia, all comprehended in one person, so in Christ the divine logos takes the place of the human nvevua, and his one Eerson consists of the divine Ttveu/na, or reasonable soul, and the uman animal soul and body. He thus gets rid of the diffi- HERETICAL VIEWS. 387 culty attending the coexistence of two rational, self-conscious, self-determining spirits in one person, and at the same time destroys the revealed fact that Christ is at once very man and very God. This was condemned by the Council of Constanti- nople, A. D. 381.


Question: What  was  the  Nestorian  Heresy  ?

Answer: This term rather expresses an exaggerated, one-sided ten- dency of speculation on this subject than a positive definable false doctrine. It is the tendency to so emphasize the. dis- tinction of the two complete, unmodified natures in Christ, as to thirow into the shade the equally revealed fact of the unity of his Person. This tendency was most conspicuous in the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, tlie leader of the Antiochian school, and from him it became the general character of that school. The theology of the Eastern Church of the fourth and fifth centuries was divided between the two great rival schools of Alexandria and Antioch. " In the Alexandrian school, an intuitive mode of thought inclining to the mystical; in the Antiochian, a logical reflective bent of the understanding pre- dominated.— Neander, "Hist.," Torrey's Trans., Vol. II., p. 352. Nestorius, who had been a monk at Antioch, became patri- arch of Constantinople. He disapproved of the phrase, " Mother of God " (QedroKos), as applied to the Virgin, maintaining that Mary had given birth to Christ but not to God. Cyril, patri- arch of Alexandria, opposed him, and both pronounced anath- emas against each other. Nestorius supposed, in accordance with the Antiochian mode of thought, that the divine and the human natures of Christ ought to he distinctly separated, and admitted only a 6vi'd(pExa (junction) of the one and the other, an kvoiHTi^is (indwelling) of the Deit}^ Cyril, on the contrary, Avas led by the tendencies of the Egyptian (Alexandrian) school, to maintain the perfect union of the two natures [(pv^iH?) h'oodi?). Nestorius, as the representative of his party, was condemned by the Council of Ephesus, a. d. 431. — Hagenbach's " Hist, of Doct," Vol. I., § 100.


Question: What  ivas  the  Eidychian  or  3Ionophysite  Heresy  ?

Answer: Eutyches was an abbot at Constantinople, and an extreme disciple of Dioscuros, tlie successor of Cyril. He pressed the opposition to the Nestorians to the length oF confounding the two natures of Christ, and hence holding that Christ pos- sessed but one nature, resulting from the union of Divinity with humanity. They were styled IMonophy sites. They were condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (a. d. 451), which 388 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. adopted the statement communicated by Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople. '•''Totus in suis, tot us in nostris."


Question: What  teas  the  doctrine  of  the  3Ionothelites  ?

Answer: The Emperor Heraclins attempted to reunite the Monophy- sites with the orthodox Church by adopting, as a compromise, the decision of the Council of Chalcedon as the coexistence of two distinct natures in the one Person of Christ, with the amendment that there was in consequence of the personal union but one divine-human energy {evepyEta) and but one will in Christ. In opposition to this the sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (a. d. 681), with the co-operation of the bishop of Rome, adopted the doctrine of two wills in Christ, and tivo energies, as the orthodox doctrine, but decided that the human will must always be conceived as subordinate to the divine."— Hagenbach's " Hist, of Doct.," § 104. With this de- cision the definition of tliis doctrine, as received by the whole church, Greek, Roman, and Protestant, was closed.


Question: What  is  the  modern  doctrine  of  Kenosis  ?

Answer: The old Socinian doctrine teaches that Jesus, a true man _after his "ascension, becomes the subject of an apotheosis, where- by he is exalted into a condition find rank batwaen .thaLoFGod and the universe. The Eutychians taught that the human nature was"^ absorbed by and assimilated to the divine. The Lutherans taught that the human nature was endowed with the properties of the divine. The modern docti'ine of Kgnogis is tliat instead of man becoming God, or being personally united to divinity^_Gi2dJiterallyJje£umjeJiia It is taught with vari- ous modificationsTy^DrsTThomasius, Hofmann, Ebrard, Marten- sen, and others, and very clearly by Dr. W. F. Gess in a work translated admirably by Dr. J. A. Reubelt, of Indiana. The term signifies a voluntary emptying of himself, of his divinity, by the Logos. It is derived from Phil. ii. 7, kavrov eHEi'ojds, " he emptied himself," and is supported by such decla- rations as John i. 14. "And the Word luas made flesh, and dwelt among us." I. The Father alone is from himself He eternally commu- nicates the fulness of his divine essence and perfections to the Son, thus giving to him to have life in himself The Son thus eternally flowing from the Father unites with the Father in communicating their fulness to the Spirit, and is himself the life of the world. II. "But the Logos is God; he has life in himself even as the Father ; his volition to receive life from the Father is the DOCTRINE OF KENOSIS. 389 sonrce of his life ; his self-consciousness is his own act. Hence it follows that he can suspend his self-consciousness." III. In condescending to be conceived of the Virgin, the Logos laid aside his self-consciousness, and with it the commu- nication of the Father's life to the Son, by which the Son has life in himself even as the Father, and hence his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotent government of the world was suspended. IV. When the substance of the Logos awoke to self-con- sciousness as the infant Jesus, it was as a true human infant, and he grew and developed in knowledge and powers, as a true man without sin, endowed with pre-eminent grace and the fulness of the indwelling Spirit of God. V. When glorified the ante-mundane eternal communica- tion of the fulness of divine life from the Father to the Logos recommenced, and though continuing truly human, he is no less truly God. He is again eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. "Thus a man is received into the trinitarian life of the Deity, from and by the glorification of the Son." — " Script. Doc. Pers. Christ. Gess.," by lieubelt. This doctrine. — 1st. Does violence to the infinite perfections and immutability of the divine nature. 2d. It is not consistent with the Scriptural fact that Christ, while on earth, was real and absolute God. 3d. It is not consistent with the fact that the humanity of Christ was real humanity generated of the seed of Abraham. 4th. It is confessedly diiferent from the imme- , raorial and universal faith of the Church. ci^.'^^-^. --^ -j /t-^.^u^ For a thorough discussion, see Dr. A. B. Bruce's " Humilia- tion of Christ." AUTHOKITATIVE STATEMENTS. The Gkeek, Roman, and Peotestant Churches all agree in accepting the definitions of the Creeds, those of Nice and of Chalcedon and the Athanasian (so called). — See above Chap. VII. The Lutheran Doctrine as to the Relations of the two Natures. "■FormuUi Coucordice," Pars. I., Epitome, ch. 8, ^| 11 and 12. — "Therefore not only as God, but also as man, he knows all things, and had power to do all things, is present to all creatures, and has all things which are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, under his feet, and in his hands. 'All things are given to me in heaven and on earth,' and ' he ascended above all heavens, and fills all things. ' Being everywhere present, he is able to exercise this his power, neither is any thing to him either impossible or unknown. Hence, moreover, and most easily, is he being present, able to distribute his true body and blood in the sacred Supper. But this is done not according to the mode and proijerty of human nature, but according to the mode and property of the right hand of God. . . . And this presence of Christ in the sacred Supper is neither physical nor earthly, nor cai^ernaitish (see John vi. 52-59), never- theless, it is most true and substantial." 390 THE PERSON OF CHRIST. Pars. 2 ("Solida Declaratio "), ch. 8, \ 4. — "For that communion of natures, and of properties, is not tlie result of an essential, or natural effusion of the properties of the divine nature upon the human: as if the humanity of Christ had them subsisting independently and separate from divinity; or as, if by that communion, the human nature of Christ had laid aside its natural properties, and was either converted into the divine nature, or was made equal in itself, and per se to the divine nature by those properties thus communicated, or that the natui-al properties and operations were identical or even equal. For these and like errors have justly been rejected, etc." Luther says, ' ' Where you put God, there you must put the humanity (of Christ), they can not be sundered or riven; it is one i^erson, and the humanity is more closely united \vith God than is our skin with oiu* flesh, yea, more intimately than body with soul." DOCTKINE OF THE ReFOKMED ChUKCHES. "■Goiifessio Helvetica Posterior," ch. xi. — " We acknowledge, therefore, that in one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, there are two natures, and we say that these are so conjoined and united that they are not absorbed, nor confused nor mixed; but are rather united and conjoined in one person, being preserved with their permanent properties; so that we wor- ship one Lord the Christ, and not two; one we say, true God and man, according to his divine nature consubstantial with the Father, and accord- ing to his human nature consubstantial with us men, and in all things like us, sin excepted. Therefore, as we abominate the Nestorian dogma making two out of one Christ, and dissolving the union of the Person; so, also, we heartily execrate the madness of Eutyches and of the Mono- physites and the Monothelites, expunging the property of the human natui'e. Therefore, we in no wise teach that the divine nature in Christ suffered, or that Christ according to his human nature has hitherto been in this world, and so is everywhere. " "TTW. Con/.," Ch. 8, I 2.— "The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance, and equal •with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon him man's natux'e, and all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin: being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. W^hich person is very God and vei"y man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man."


Question: What  is  the  Scriptural  sense  of  the  icord prophet?

Answer: Its general sense is one who speaks for another with au- thority as interpreter. Thus Moses was prophet for his brother Aaron. — Ex. vii. 1. A prophet of God is one qualified and authorized to speak for God to men. Foretelling future events is only incidental.


Question: Hoio  does  Christ  execute  tJie  office  of  a  prophet  ?

Answer: I. Immediately in his own person, as when (1) on earth with his disciples, and (2) the light of the new Jerusalem in the midst of the throne. — Rev. xxi. 23. II. Mediately, 1st, through his Spirit, (1) by inspiration, (2) by spiritual illumination. 2d. Through the officers of his church, (1) those inspired as apostles and prophets, and (2) those naturally endowed, as the stated ministry. — Eph. iv. 11. III. Both externally, as through his word and works ad- dressed to the understanding, and, IV. Internally, by tlie spiritual illumination of the heart. — 1 John ii. 20, and v. 20. V. In three grand successive stages of development, (a.) Before his incarnation; (i) since his incarnation; (c) through- out eternity in glory. — Rev. vii. 17, and xxi. 23. 13. How can it he p)roved that he acted as such before his incarnation ? 1st. His divine title of Logos, "Word," as by nature as well as office the eternal Revealer. 2d. It has been before proved (Chap. XXII., Question 11, and Chap. IX., Question 14) that he was the Jehovah of the Old 396 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. Testament economy. Called Counsellor. — Is. ix. 6. Angel of the Covenant. — Alal. iii. 1. Interpreter. — Job xxxiii. 23. 3d. The fact is directly affirmed in the New Testament. — 1 Pet. i. 11. 14. What is essential to tlie 'priestly office^ or ivhat is a priest in the Scriptural sense of that term ? As the general idea of a prophet is, one qualified and au- thorized to spealc for God to men, so the general idea of a priest is, one qualified and authorized to treat in behalf of men with God. A priest, therefore, must — 1st. Be taken from among men to represent them. — Heb. v. 1, 2; Ex. xxviii. 9, 12, 21, 29. 2d. Chosen by God as his special election and property. — Num. xvi. 5; Heb. v. 4. 3d. Holy, morally pure and consecrated to the Lord. — Lev. xxi. 6, 8; Ps. cvi. 16; Ex. xxxix. 30, 31. 4th. They have a right to draw near to Jehovah, and to bring near, or offer sacrifice, and to make intercession. — Num. xvi. 5; Ex. xix. 22; Lev. xvi. 3, 7, 12, 15. The priest, therefore, was essentially a mediator, admitted from among men to stand before God, for the purpose, 1st, of propitiation by sacrifice, Heb. v. 1, 2, 3; and, 2d, of inter- cession, Luke i. 10; Ex. xxx. 8; Rev. v. 8, and viii. 3, 4. Taken from Fairbairn's "Tj^pology," Vol. II., Part III., Chap. iii. 15. Prove from the Old Testament that Christ ivas truly a priest. 1st. It is expressly declared. — Compare Ps. ex. 4, with Heb. V. 6, and vi. 20; Zech. vi. 13. 2d. Priestly functions are ascribed to him. — Is. liii. 10, 12 ; Dan. ix. 24, 25. 3d. The whole meaning and virtiie of the temple, of its ser- vices, and of the Levitical priesthood, lay in the fact that they were all typical of Christ and his work as priest. This Paul clearly proves in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 16. Shoiv from the Neio Testament that all the requisites of a priest were found in him. 1st. Christ was a man taken from among men to represent them before God. — Heb. ii. 16, and iv. 15. 2d. He was chosen by (jod. — Heb. v. 5, 6. 3d. lie was perfectly holy. — Luke i. 35; Heb. vii. 26. 4th. He had the right of the nearest access, and the greatest HIS OFFICE AS PRIEST. 397 influence with the Father. — John xvi. 28, and xi. 42 ; Heb. i. 3, and ix. 11, 12, 13, 14, 24. 17. Sliow that he actually 'performed all the duties of the office. The duty of the priest is to mediate by (1) propitiation, (2) intercession. 1st. He mediated in the general sense of the word. — John xiv. 6 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; Heb. viii. 6, and xii. 24. 2d. He offered propitiation. — Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 26, and X. 12 ; 1 John ii. 2. 3d. He offered intercession. — Eom. viii. 34; Heb. vii. 25; 1 John ii. 1. That this propitiatory work of Christ was real, and not metaphorical, is evident from the fact that it superseded the temple services, which were only typical of it. A type and shadow necessarily presupposes a literal substance. — Heb. ix. 10-12, andx. 1; Col. ii. 17. 18. What part of his priestly work did Christ execute on earthy and what part in heaven ? On earth he rendered obedience, propitiation, intercession. Heb. V. 7-9, and ix. 26, 28; Rom. v. 19. In heaven he has presented his sacrifice in the most holy place, and ever liveth to make intercession for us. — Heb. vii. 24, 25, and ix. 12, 24. 19. In ivhat respects did tJie priesthood of Christ excel the Aaronic ? 1st. In the dignity of his person. They were mere men. He was the eternal Son. They were sinners who had first to make atonement for their own sin, and afterwards for the sin of the people. He was holy, harmless and undefiled. — Heb. vii. 26, 27. He was perfect man, and yet his access to God was infinitely nearer than that of any other being. — John x. 30; Zech. xiii. 7. 2d. In the infinite value of his sacrifice. Theirs could not cleanse from sin, Heb. x. 4, and were repeated continually. — Heb. X. 1-3. His sacrifice was perfectly efiicacious, and once for all. — Heb. x. 10-14. Thus theirs were only the shadow of his. — Heb. x. 1. 3d. In the manner of their consecration. They Avithout, he with an oath. — Heb. vii. 20-22. 4th. They, being many, succeeded each other by generation. He continueth forever. — Heb. vii. 24. 5th. Christ's priesthood is connected with a "greater and 398 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. more perfect tabernacle," earth the outer court, heaven the true sanctuary. — Heb. ix. 11-24. 6th. Christ's intercession is offered from a throne. — Rom. viii. 34, and Heb. viii. 1, 2. 7th. While several of the Old Testament servants of God were at once both prophet and king, as David; and others both prophet and priest, as Ezra; Christ alone, and that in divine perfection, was at once prophet, priest, and king. Thvis his di- vine, prophetical, and kingly perfections qualified and enhanced the transcendent virtue of every priestly act. — Zech. vi. 13. 20. In luliat sense ivas Christ a priest after the order of Mel- chizedec ? The Aaronic priesthood was typical of Christ, but in two principal respects it failed in representing the great antitype. 1st. It consisted of succeeding generations of mortal men. 2d. It consisted of priests not royal. The Holy Ghost, on the other hand, suddenly brings Me\- chizedec before us in the patriarchal history, a royal priest, with the significant names " King of Righteousness " and " King of Peace," Gen. xiv. 18-20, and as suddenly withdraws him. Whence he comes and whither he goes we know not. As a private man he had an unwritten history, like others. But as a royal priest he ever remains without father, without mother, without origin, succession, or end; and therefore, as Paul says, Heb. vii. 3, made beforehand of God, an exact type of the eter- nity of tlie priesthood of Christ, Ps. ex. 4. The prophecy was, "Thou shalt be a priest /orei;er," or an eternal priest "after the order of Melchizedec." The similitude of this type, therefore, included two things : 1st, an everlasting priesthood; 2d, the union of the kingly and priestly functions in one person. — Fairbairn's "Typology," Vol. II., Part III., Chap. iii. 21. Hoiv can it he proved that the Christian ministry is not a priesthood ? 1st. Human priests were ever possible only as types, but types are possible only before the revelation of the antitype. The purpose of the Aaronic priesthood was fulfilled in Christ, and therefore the institution was forever abolished by Christ. Heb. x. 1, 9, 18. 2d. Christ exhaustively discharges all the duties and pur- poses of the priestly office, so that any human priest (so-called) is an antichrist. — Heb. x. 14; Col. ii. 10. 3d. There can be no need of any priest to open the way for us to Christ. Because, while the Scriptures teach us that we ALL BELIEVERS P-RIESTS. 399 can only go to God by Christ, John xiv. 6, they teach us no less emphatically that we must come immediately to Christ, Matt, xi. 28; John v. 40, and vii. 37; Rev. iii. 20, and xxii. 17. 4th. No priestly function is ever attributed to any New Tes- tament officer, inspired or uninspired, extraordinary or ordi- nary. Tlie whole duty of all these officers of every kind is comprised in the functions of teaching and ruling. — 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11, 12; 1 Tim. iii. 1-13; 1 Pet. v. 2. 5th. They are constantly called by different designations, expressive of an entirely different class of functions, as " mes- sengers, watchmen, heralds of salvation, teachers, rulers, over- seers, shepherds, and elders." — See "Bib. Repertory," Jan., 1845.


Question: In  what  sense  are  all  believers  priests?

Answer: Although there can not be in the Christian church any class of priests standing between their brethren and Christ, yet in consequence of the union, both federal and vital, which every Christian sustains to Christ, which involves fellowship with him in all of Jiis human graces, and in all of his mediatorial functions and prerogatives, every believer has part in the priest- hood of his head in such a sense that he has immediate access to God through Christ, even into the hoHest of all, Heb. x. 19-22; and that being sanctified and spiritually qualified, he may there offer up, as a "holy priest," a "royal priest," spiritual sacrifices, not expiatory, but the oblation of praise, supplication, and thanksgiving, through Jesus Christ, and intercession for living friends, Heb. xiii. 15; 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. They are by equal reason also prophets and kings in fellow- ship with Christ. — 1 John ii. 20; John xvi. 13 ; Rev. i. 6, and v. 10. AuTHOKrrATivE Statements. Catholic Doctrine of the Christian Priesthood. — " Council of Trent," Sess. 23, ch. 1. — "Sacrifice and priesttiood are, by the ordinance of God, in such wise conjoined, as that both have existed in every law. Whereas, therefore, in the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that church, a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated. And the sacred Scrijitures show, and the traditions of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and their suc- cessors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offer- ing, and administering his body and blood, as also of forgiving and of retaining sins." Protestant Doctrine. — '■'■ Conf. Helv., " ii. cap. 18. — " The priestly office and the ministerial office differ exceedingly from each other. The for- mer is common to all Christians, the latter is not In the 400 MEDIATORIAL OFFICE OF CHRIST. New Testament of Christ there is no more such a priesthood as that which existed among the ancient people, which had an external unction, sacred vestments, and numerous ceremonies, which were types of Christ, who by coming and fulfilling them has abrogated all these things. But he remains eternally the only priest, and lest we should derogate aught from him, we give the name of priest to none of the class of ministers. For our Lord himself has not ordained in the church of the New Testa- ment any priests to offer daily the sacrifice of his body and blood . . . but only ministers to preach and to administer the sacraments. " Sociaiaii Doctrine as to the iMediatorial Offices of Christ. — The Racovian Catechism teaches that Christ is both Prophet, Priest, and King. But it occupies one hundred and eighty pages (Section v.) in discussing his Prophetical office, and only eleven images (Section vi.) in discussing his Priestly, and nine pages (Section vii. ) his Kingly office. His death and the manner in which it contributes to our salvation is discussed (Sec. v. eh. 8.) under the head of his Prophetical office, while his Priestly work, though vaguely stated, is made to consist chiefly in his appearing iu heaven as our advocate, his intercession being rendered prevalent with God by his vii'tues and sufferings as a martyr.