Question: What  are  their  legitimate  uses  ?

Answer: 114: CREEDS AND COh^FESSIONS. They have been found in all ages of the church nseful for the following purposes. (1.) To mark, preserve, and dissemi- nate the attainments made in the knowledge of Christian truth by any branch of the church in any grand crisis of its devel- opment. (2.) To discriminate the truth from the glosses of false teachers, and accurately to define it in its integrity and due proportions. (3.) To act as the bond of ecclesiastical fel- lowship among those so nearly agreed as to be able to labor together in harmony. (4.) To be used as instruments in the great work of popular instruction. 3. What is fJie growid and extent of their authority, or poiver to bind the conscience? The matter of all these Creeds and Confessions binds the consciences of men only so far as it is purely scriptural, and because it is so. The form in which that matter is stated, on the other hand, binds only those wdio have voluntarily sub- scribed the Confession and because of that subscription. In all churches a distinction is made between the terms upon which private members are admitted to membership, and the terms upon which office-bearers are admitted to their sacred trusts of teaching and ruling. A church has no right to make any thing a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation. The church is Christ's fold. The Sacraments are the seals of his covenant. All have a right to claim admittance who make a credil)le profession of the true religion, that is, who are presumptively the people of Christ. This credible profession of com-se involves a compe- tent knowledge of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, a declaration of personal faith in Christ and of devotion to his service, and a temper of mind and a habit of life consistent therewith. On the other hand, no man can be inducted into any office in any church who does not profess to believe in the truth and wisdom of the constitution and laws it will be his duty to conserve and administer. Otherwise all harmony of sentiment and all efficient co-operation in action would be impossible. It is a universally admitted principle of morals that the animus imponeyitis, the sense in which the persons who impose an oath, or promise, or engagement, understand it, binds the conscience of the persons who bind themselves by oath or promise. All candidates for office in the Presb^-terian Church, therefore, do either personally believe the "system of doctrine" taught in oin- Standards, in the sense in which it has been historically understood to be God's truth, or solemnly lie to God and man. THE ANCIENT CREEDS. 115 4. Wliat ivere the Creeds of the ancient Church, which remain the common inheritance of all branches of the modern Church ? I. The Apostle's Creed, so called. This Creed gradually grew out of the comparison and assimilation of the Baptismal Creeds of the principal Cliurches in the West or Latin half of the ancient Church. Tlie most complete and popular forms of these baptismal creeds were those of Rome, Aquileja, Milan, Ravenna, Carthage, and Hippo, "of which the Roman form, enriching itself by additions from others, gradually gained the more general acceptance. While the several articles considered separately are all of Nicene or Anti-nicene origin, the creed as a whole in its present form, can not be traced be^^ond the sixth century." — Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom," vol. 1. p. 20. It was subjoined by the Westminster divines to their Cate- chism, together with the Lord's Prayer and Ten Command- ments. " Not as thoiTgh it was composed by the apostles, or ought to be esteemed canonical Scripture, but because it is a brief sum of Christian faith, agreeable to the word of God, and anciently received in the Churches of Christ." It was retained by the framers of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States as part of our Catechism. It is a part of the Catechism of the Methodist Episcopal Church also. "It is used in the baptismal Confession of the Roman, English, Re- formed, Lutheran, Methodist Episcopal, and Protestant Epis- copal Cliurches." It is as follows: "I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son, onr Lord ; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost ; born of the Vii-giu Mary ; suffered under Pontius Pilate ; was crucified, dead and buried ; he descended into hell (Hades) ; the third day he rose again from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the hfe everlasting. Amen. " II. The Nicene Creed, in Avhich the true Trinitarian faith of the church is accurately defined in opposition to Arian and Semiarian errors. It exists in three forms, and evidently was moulded upon pre-existing forms similar to those from which the Apostles' Creed grew. 1st. The original form in which it was composed and en- acted by the QEcumenical Council of Nice, a. d. 325. "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the 116 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. Father, the only begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, veiy God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance {oi,ioov6iov) with the Father; by ■whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth; who for lis men, and for our salva- tion, came down and was incarnate, and was made man; he sviffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. "And in the Holy Ghost. " But those who say: ' There was a time when he was not; ' and, ' He was not before he was made;' and, 'He was made out of nothing,' or, 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or, 'The Son of God is created' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church." 2d. The Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed. This consists of the Niceiie Creed, above given, sKghtly changed in the first article, and witli the clanses defining- the Person and work of the Holy Ghost added, and the Anathema omittted. This new form of the Creed has been generally attributed to the Council of Constantinople, convened by the Emperor Theodosius, a. d. 381, to condemn the doctrine of the Macedonians, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost. These changes in the Nicene Creed were unquestionably made about that date, and the several " clauses " added existed previously in formularies pro- posed by individual theologians. But there is no evidence that the changes were made by the Council of Constanti- nople. They were, however, recognized by the Council of Chalcedon, a. d. 451. It is in this latter form that the Creed of Nice is now used in the Greek Church. 3d. The third or Latin form of this creed, in which it is used in the Roman, Episcopal, and Lutheran Churches, differs from the second form above mentioned only in (rf.) restoring the clause ("Dens de Deo") "God of God," to the first clause; it belonged to the original Creed of Nice, but had been dropped out of the Greek Nicajno-Constantinopolitan form. (/>.) The famous '■'■ Filioque" term was added to the clause affirming the procession of the Spirit from the Father. This was added by the provincial Council of Toledo, Spain, a. d. 589, and gradually accepted by the whole Western Church, and thence by all Protestants, without any oecumenical ratification. That phrase is rejected by the Greek Chiu'ch. The text of this Creed as received with reverence by all Catholics and Protestants is as follows (Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom," pp. 25-29): "I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom aU things were made; Who THE ANCIENT CREEDS. 117 foi" us men and for our salvation came down from lieaven, and was incar- nate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He was crucified, also for us, under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again wdth glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose king- dom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son (this phrase "filioque" was added to the creed of Constantinople by the council of the western church held at Toledo, a. d. 589), who, with the Father and the Son together is worshipiaed and glorified, who spake by the prophets. And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church, I acknowl- edge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. " III. The Athanasian Creed, so called, also styled, from its opening words, the symbol Quicunque vuU, is vulgarly ascribed to the great Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, from about A. D. 328 to A. D. 373, and the leader of the orthodox party in the church in opposition to the arch heretic, Arius. But modern scholars unanimously assign to it a later origin, and trace it to Northern Africa and the school of Augustine. Big- ham refers it to Virgilius Tapsensis at the end of the fifth cen- tury. Schaff says its complete form does not appear before the end of the eighth century. Tliis Creed is received in the Greek, Roman, and English Churches, but it has been left out of the Prayer Book of the Episcopal Church of America. It presents a most admirably stated exposition of the faith of all Christians, and it is objected to only because of the " damnatory clauses," which ought never to be attached to any human composition, especially one mak- ing such nice distinctions upon so profound a subject. It is as follows: " 1. Whosoever wishes to be saved, it is above all necessary for him to hold the Catholic faith. 2. Which, unless each one shall jjreserve perfect and inviolate, he shall certainly* perish for ever. 3. But the CathoHc faith is this, that we worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity. 4. Neither confounding the persons, nor separating the sub- stance. 5. For the jjerson of the Father is one, of the Son another, and of the Holy Ghost another. 6. But of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost there is one divinity, equal glory and co-eternal majesty. 7. What the Father is, the same is the Son, and the Holy Ghost. 8. The Father is uncreated, the Son uncreated, the Holy Ghost uncreated. 9. The Father is immense, the Son immense, the Holy Ghost immense. 10. The Father is eternal, the Son eternal, the Holy Ghost eternal. 11. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. 12. So there ai'e not three (beings) uncreated, nor three immense, but one uncreated, and one immense. 13. In like manner the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnii^otent, the Holy Ghost is omnipotent. 14. And yet there are not three omnipotents, but one omnipotent. 15. Thas the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Ghost is God. 118 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. 16. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God. 17. Thus the Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and tlie Holy Ghost is Lord. 18. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord. 19. Because as we are thus compelled by Christian verity to confess each person severally to be God and Lord; so we are prohibited by the Catholic religion from saying that there are three Gods or Lords. 20. The Father was made from none, nor created, nor begotten. 21. The Son is from the Father alone, neither made, nor created, but begotten. 22. The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 23. Therefore there is one Father, not three fathers, one Son, not three sons, one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. 24. And in this trinity no one is first or last, no one is greater or less. 25. But all the three co-eternal persons are co-equal among themselves; so that through all, as is above said, both unity in trinity, and trinity in unity is to be worshiiii^ed. 26. Therefore, he who wishes to be saved must think thus concerning i\\Q trinity. 27. But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he should also faithfully believe the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 28. It is, therefore, true faith that we beheve and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is both God and man. 29. He is God, generated from eternity from the substance of the Father; man, born in time from the substance of his mother. 30. Perfect God, per- fect man, subsisting of a rational soul and human flesh. 31. Equal to the Father in respect to his divinity, less than the Father in respect to his humanity. 32. Who, although he is God and man, is not two but one Christ. 33. But one, not from the conversion of his divinity into flesh, but from the assumption of his humanity into God. 34. One not at all from confusion of substance, but from unity of person. 35. For as a rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ. 36. Who .sutfered for our salvation, descended into hell, the third day rose from the dead. 37. Ascended to heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father omnii^otent, whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead. 38. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall render an account for their own works. 39. And they who have done well shall go into life eternal; they who have done evil into eternal fire. 40. This is the Cathohc faith, which, unless a man shall faithfully and firmly believe, he can not be saved. " IV. The Creed op Chalcedon. The Emperor JMarcianiis called the fourth oecumenical council to meet at Chalcedon in Bithvnia, on the Bosphorus, opposite Constantinople, to put down the Eutychian and Nestorian heresies. The Council con- sisted of 630 bishops and sat from Oct. 8 to Oct. 31, a. u. 451. The principal part of the "Definition of Faith" agreed upon by this Covnicil is as follows: "We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess, one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in Manhood; truly God, and truly Man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father ac- cording to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood ; in all things like unto us without sin ; begotten before aU ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the Virgin Mother of God according to the Manhood. He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, CONFESSIONS OF ROMAN CHURCH. 119 Only-begotten, existing in two natures witliont mixture {d6vyxvri:^%), without change («r/3*';rroo;), without division [ddiaifiiroai), without separation ((t'^ojp/oroj?); the diversity of the two natures not being at all destroyed by their union, but the peculiar proi^erties of each nature being preserved, and concurring to one person and one subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and Only- begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Creed of the holy fathers has delivered to us." This completed the development of the orthodox Church doctrine of the Trinity of Persons in the one God, and of the duality of natures in the one Christ. It remains a universally respected statement of the common faith of the Church.


Question: Wlmt  are  the  doctrinal  Stamlards  of  the  Church  of  Rome?

Answer: Besides the above mentioned Creeds, all of which are of recognized authority in the Romish Church, their great Stand- ards of Faith are — 1st. The ^^ Canons and Decrees of the Cowwil of Trent,'' which they regard as the twentieth oecumenical council, and was called by Pope Pius IV. to oppose the progress of the Eeformation (a. d. 1545-1563). The decrees contain the pos- itive statements of Papal doctrine. The canons explain the decrees, distribute the matter under brief heads, and condemn the opposing doctrine on each point. Although studiously am- biguous, the system of doctrine taught is evidently though not consistently Semipelagian. 2d. The '■''Boman Catechism" which explains and enforces the canons of the Council of Trent, was prepared by order of Pius IV. and promulgated by the authority of Pope Pius V., A. D. 1566. 3d. The '■'■Creed of F ope Pius IV." also called ^'•Prqfessio Fidei Tridentime" or '■'■Forma Professionis Fidel CcdhoUcx^" con- tains a summary of the doctrines taught in the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, and was promulgated in a bull by Pope Pius IV., a. d. 1564. It is subscribed to by all grades of Papal teachers and ecclesiastics, and by all converts from Protestantism, It is as follows: "I, A. B., believe and profess with a firm faith all and every one of the things which are contained in the symbol of faith which is used in the holy Eoman Church; namely, I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invis- ible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only -begotten Son of God, be- gotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consvibstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made ; who for us men and for our salvation 120 CREEDS AND CONEESSIONS. came down from heaven, and was incarnate by tlie Holy Ghost of the Vii'gin Mary, and was made man; Was crucified for lis under Pontius Pilate, suti'ered and was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and A\'ill come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end; and in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, Avho proceeds from the Father and the Son, who, together with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified, who spake by the holy prophets; and one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one baj^tism for the remission of sins, and I expect the resur- rection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions and observances of the same Church. I also admit the sacred Scriptures according to the sense which the holy mother Church has held and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; nor will I ever take or intei'pret them otherwise than accoi-diug to the unanimous consent of the fathers. I profess, also, that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though all are not neces- sary for every one — namely baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, and that they confer gi'ace; and of these, baj)tism, confirmation, and order can not be reiterated without sacrilege. I do also receive and admit the ceremonies of the Catholic Church, received and approved in the solemn administration of all the above-said sacraments. I receive and embrace all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning sin and justification. I profess likewise that in the mass is ofiered to God a true, projjer, and propitiatory sacri- fice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation. I confess, also, that under either kind alone, Christ whole and entire, and a true sacra- ment is received. I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are heliied by the suflrages of the faithful. Lilvewise that the saints reigning together with Christ are to be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, and of the mother of God ever Virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given to them. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the mother and mistress of all churches; and I jjromise and swear true obe- dience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, jji-ince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. I also profess, and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent [and by the Oecumenical Vatican Council delivered, defined, and declared, particularly concerning the primacy and infallible rule of the Koman Pontiff*] •Added by Decree of the "Sacred Congregation of the Coimcil," Jan. 2, 1877. CONFESSIONS OF ROMAN AND GREEK CHURCHES. 121 "And likewise I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all tliina:s contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever condemned, rejected and anathematized by the Ohvirch. This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, I., A. B., promise, vow and swear most constantly to hold, and profess the same whole and entire, with God's assistance, to the end of my life; and to procure as far as lies in my power, that the same shall be held, taught and preached by all who are under me, or who are intrusted to my care, in virtue of my office, so help me God, and these holy gospels of God — ^Amen," 4th. Tlie Holy CEciimenical Vatican Council assembled at the call of Pins IX. in the Basilica of the Vatican, Dec. 8, 1869, and continued its sessions until October 20, 1870, after which it was indefinitely postponed. The Decrees of this Council embrace two sections. I. "The Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith." This embraces four chapters. Chap. 1 treats of God as Cre- ator ; chap. 2, of revelation ; chap. 3, of faith ; chap. 4, of faith and reason. These are followed by eighteen canons, in which the errors of modern rationalism and infidelity are condemned. II. "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ." This also embraces four chapters. Chap. 1 is entitled "Of the Institution of the Apostolic Primacy in Blessed Peter;" chap. 2, "Of the Perpetuity of the Primacy of Blessed Peter in the Ro- man Pontiffs ; " chap. 3, " On the Power and Nature of the Primacy of the Iloman Pontiff;" chap. 4, "Concerning the In- fallible Teaching of the Roman Pontiff." "The new features are contained in the last two chapters, which teach Papal Abso- lutism, and Papal InfalUbilify.'' These definitions are presented to a sufficient extent under Chapter V. of these "Outhnes." In consequence of this principle of Papal Infallibility it nec- essarily follows, that the whole succession of Papal Bulls, and especially those directed against the Jansenists and the Decree of Pius IX. "On the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin jMary," Dec. 8, 1854; and his Syllabus of Errors, Dec. 8, 1864, are all infallible and irreformable and parts of the amazing Standards of Faith professed by the Roman Church.


Question: JVJiat  are  the  Doctrinal  Standards  of  the  Greek  Church  ?

Answer: The ancient church divided, from causes primarily political and ecclesiastical, secondarily doctrinal and ritual, into two great sections — the Eastern or Greek Church, and the West- ern or Latin Church. This division began to culminate in the seventh, and was consummated in the eleventh century. The Greek Church embraces about eighty millions of people, the majority of the Christians iidiabitants of the Turkish Empire, and the national churches of Greece and Russia. All the Prot- 122 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. estant Churches have originated from the Western or Latin division of the church. She arrogates to herself, pre-eminently, the title of "Ortho- dox," because the original oecumenical Creeds defining the doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ were pro- duced in the Eastern division of the ancient church and in the Greek language, and hence are in a special sense her inheri- tance, and because from the fact that her theology is absolutely unprogressive, she contents herself with the literal repetition of the old formulas. She adheres to the ancient Creeds and doctrinal decisions of the first seven oecumenical councils, and possesses a few modern Confessions and Catechisms. The most important of these are — 1st. The "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Greek Chiirch," composed by Peter Mogilas, IMetropolitan of Kieff in Russia, a. d. 1643, and approved by all the Eastern Patriarchs. 2d. The "Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem," or the Con- fession of Dositheus, 1672. 3d. The Piussian Catechisms which have the sanction of the Holy Synod, especially the Longer Catechism of Philaret, Met- ropolitan of Moscow, 1820-1867, unanimously approved by all the Eastern Patriarchs, and since 1839 generally used in the schools and churches of Ilussia. The Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem teach substantially though less definitely the same doctrine as those of the Council of Trent as to the Scriptures and Tradition, good works and faith, justification, the sacraments, the sacrifice of the mass, the worship of saints, and purgatory. The Catechism of Philaret " approaches more nearly to the evangelical principle of the supremacy of the Bible in matters of Christian faith and life than any other deliverance of the Eastern Church." — Scliaff's "Creeds of Christendom," Vol. I., pp. 45 and 71.


Question: What  are  the  Dodrinal  Standards  of  the  Lvtheran  Church?

Answer: Besides the great General Creeds which they receive in common with all Christians their Symbolical Books are —  1st. The Ati(/.'ihi(rc/ Confession, the joint authors of which were Luther and Melanchthon. Having been signed by the Protestant princes and leaders, it was presented to the em- peror and imperial diet in Augsburg, a. d. 1530. It is the oldest Protestant Confession, the ultimate basis of Lutheran theology, and the only universally accepted standard of the Lutheran Churches. It consists oi' two grand divisions. The LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS. 123 first embracing twenty-one articles, presents a positive state- ment of Christian doctrines as the Lutherans understand them ; and the second, embracing* seven articles, condemns the prin- cipal characteristic errors of the Papacy. It is evangelical in the Augustinian sense, although not as precise in statement as the more perfect Calvinistic Confessions, and it, of course, con- tains the germs of the peculiar Lutheran views as to the neces- sity of the Sacraments, and the relation of tlie saca-amental signs to the grace they signify. Yet these peculiarities are so far from being explicitly stated, that Calvin found it consistent with his views of divine truth to subscribe this great Confes- sion during his residence in Strasburg. In 1540, ten years after it had been adopted as the public symbol of Protestant Germany, Melanchthon produced an edi- tion in Latin wdiicli he altered in several particulars, and which was hence distinguished as the Variata, the original and only authentic form of the Confession being distinguished as the Invariata. The principal changes introduced in this edition incline towards Synergistic or Arminian views of divine grace on the one hand, and on the other to simple views as to the sacraments more nearly corresponding with those prevailing among the Reformed Churches. — See Shedd's " Hist, of Christ. Doctrine," Book vii., chap. 2. See also the accurate and learn- edly illustrated edition of the Augsburg Confession by Rev. Charles Krauth, D.D. 2d. The Apohgi/ (Defence) of the Augsburg Confession, pre- pared by Melanchthon, a. d. 1530, and subscribed by the Pro- testant theologians, a. d. 1537, at Smalcald. 3d. The Larger and Smaller Cateddsms prepared by Luther, A. D. 1529, "the first for the use of preachers and teachers, the last as a guide for youth." 4th. The Articles of Smalcald, drawn up by Luther, a. d. 1536, and inscribed by the evangelical theologians in February, A. D. 1537, at the place whose name they bear. 5th. The Formula Concordice (Form of Concord), prepared in A. D. 1577 by Jacob Andreas and Martin Chenniitz and others for the purpose of settling certain controversies which had sprung up in the Lutheran Church, especially («) concern- ing the relative action of divine grace and the human will in regeneration, (h) cojicerning the nature of the Lord's presence in the Eucharist. This Confession contains a more scientific and tiioroughly dev^eloped statement of the Lutheran doctrine than can be found in any other of their public symbols. Its authority is, however, acknowledged only by the high Lu- theran party, that is, by that party in the church which con- sistently carries the peculiarities of Lutheran theology out to 124 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. the most complete logical development. All these Lutheran S^'mbols niaj be found in Latin accurately edited in " Libri Sjmbolici," by Dr. C. A. Hase, Leipsic, 1836, and in Schaflf's "Creeds of Christendom." 8. What are the principal Confessions of the Reformed or Cal- vinistic Churches ? The Confessions of the Keformed Churches are very consid- erable in number, and vary somewhat in character, although they substantially agree in the system of doctrines they teach. 1st. "The oldest Confession of that branch of Protestantism which was not satisfied with the Lutheran tendency and sym- bol is the Confessio Tetrapolitana, — so-called, because the theo- logians of four cities of upper Germany, Strasburg, Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau, drew it up, and presented it to the emperor at the same diet of Augsburg, in 1530, at wdiich the first Lutheran symbol was presented. The principal theolo- gian concerned in its construction was Martin Bucer, of Stras- burg. It consists of twenty-two articles, and agrees generally with the Augsburg Confession. The points of difference per- tain to the doctrine of the sacraments. Upon this subject it is Zwinglian. These four cities, however, in 1532 adopted the Augsburg Confession, so that the Confessio Tetrapolitana ceased to be the formally adopted symbol of any branch of the church." — Shedd's "Hist, of Christ. Doctrine," Book vii., chap. 2. 2d. The Reformed Confessions of the highest authority among the chm-ches are the following: (1.) The Second Helvetic Confession, prepared by Bullinger, A. D. 1564, and published 1566, superseded the First Helvetic Confession of a. d. 1536. It was adopted by all the Eeformed Churches in Switzerland \vith the exception of Basle (which was content with the old Confession) and by the Reformed Churches in Poland, Hungary, Scotland and France, and it has always been esteemed as of the highest authority by all the Reformed Churches. (2.) The Heidelberg Catechism, prepared by Ursinus and Ole- vianvis a. d. 1562. It was established by civil authority as the doctrinal standard as well as the instrument of religious in- striu'tion for tlie churches of the. Palatinate, a German state at that time including both banks of tlie Rhine. It was indorsed by the Synod of Dort, and is a doctrinal standard of the Re- formed Churches of Germany and Holland, and of the [German and Dutch] Reformed Churches in America. It was used for the instruction of children in Scotland, before the adoption of the Catechisms of the AVestminster Assembly, and its use was sanctioned by an unanimous vote of the first General Assembly REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 125 of the reunited Presbyterian Church in the United States a. d. 1870.— See Minutes. (3.) The Thirty -nine Articles of the Church of England. In 1552, Cranmer, with the advice of other bishops, drew up the Forty-tivo Articles of Religion, and which were pubhshed by royal authority in 1553. These Avere revised and reduced to the number of thirty-nine by Archbishop Parker and otlier bishops, and ratified by both houses of Convocation, and pub- lished by royal authority in 1563. They constitute the doc- trinal standard of the Protestant Episcopal Churches of Eng- land, Ireland, Scotland, the Colonies, and the United States of America. The question whether these Articles are Calvinistic or not has been very unwarrantably made a matter of debate. See Lawrence's "BamptonvLecture" for 1804 on the Arminian side, and Toplady's " Doctrinal Calvinism of the Cliurch of England," Dr. Goode's "Doctrine of Church of England as to Effects of Infant Baptism," and Dr. William Cunningham's " Keformers and their Theology," on the Calvinistic side. The seventeenth Article on Predestination is perfectly decisive of the question, and is as follows : "Predestination to life is the everlasting pnrpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his cou^nsel, secret to ris, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore they which he endued with so excellent a benefit of God, he called according to God's purpose by his Sj^irit working in due season : they, through grace, obey the calling; they he justified freely; they he made sons of God by adoption; they he made like the image of his only be- gotten Son, Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting feHcity. "As the godly consideration of predestiBation and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unsj^eakable comfort to godly per- sons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, and draw- ing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faitli of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their- love toward God. So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the S^jirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination, is a most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchedness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desjjeration. "Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture; and, in our doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God. " These Articles purged of their Calvinism and reduced in number to twenty-five, including a new political Article (the 126 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. twenty-third) adopting as an article of faitli the political system of the United States Gfwernment, constitute the doctrinal Stand- ard of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America. (4.) The Canons of the Synod of Dort. This famous Synod was convened in Dort, Flolland, by the authority of the States General, for the purpose of settling the questions brought into controversy by the disciples of Arminius. Its sessions contin- ued from Nov. 13, a. d. 1()18, to May 9, a. d. 1619. It consisted of pastors, elders, and theological professors from the churciies of Holland, and deputies from the churches of England, Scot- land, Hesse, Bremen, the Palatinate, and Switzerland. The Canons of this Synod were received by all the Eeformed Churches as a true, accurate, and eminently authoritative ex- hibition of the Calvinistic S3\stem of theology. Tliey consti- tute in connection with the Heidelberg Catechism the doc- trinal Confession of the Reformed Church of Holland and of its daughter the [Dutch] Reformed Church in America. (5.) The Confession and Catechisms of the Westminster Assem- hly. This Assembly of Divines was convened by an act of the Long Parliament passed June 12, 1643. The original call em- braced ten lords and twenty commoners as lay members, and one hundred and twenty-one divines — twenty ministers being afterward added — all shades of opinion as to Church Govern- ment being represented. The body continued its sessions from 1st of July, 1643, to 22d of February, 1649. The Confession and Catechisms they produced were immediately adopted by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The Con- gregational Convention, also, called by Cromwell to meet at Savoy, in London, a. d. 1658, declared their approval of the doctrinal part of the Confession and Catechisms of the West- minster Assembly, and conformed their own deliverance, the Savoy Declaration, very nearly to it. Indeed " the difference between these two Confessions is so very small, that the mod- ern Independents have in a manner laid aside the use of it (Savoy Declaration) in their families, and agreed with the Presbyterians in the use of the Assembly's Catechisms." — Neal, "Puritans," II., 178. This Confession together with the Larger and Smaller Catechisms is the doctrinal standard of all the Presbyterian b(xlies in tiie world of English and Scotch deri- vation. It is also of all Creeds the one most highly approved by all bodies of Congregationalists in England and America. All of the Assemblies convened in New England for the purpose of settling the doctrinal basis of their churches have either indorsed or explicitly adopted this Confession and these' Catechisms as accm-ate expositions of their own faith. This was done by the Synod which met at Cambridge, Massachu- REFORMED CONFESSIONS. 127 setts, June, 1647, and again August, 1648, and prepared the Camhridge Platform. And it was done again by the Synod which sat in Boston, September, 1679, and May, 1680, and' pro- duced the Boston Confession. And again by the Synod which met at Saybrook, Connecticut, 1708, and produced tlie Say- brook Platform. 3d. There remain several other Reformed Confessions, which, although they are not the doctrinal standards of large denomi- nations of Christians, are nevertheless of high classical interest and authority because of their authors, and the circumstances under which they originated. (1.) The ^^Co7isensus Tigurinus" or the ^^ Consensus of Zurich,'' or "The mutual consent with respect to the doctrine of the sacrament of the ministers of the Church of Zurich and John Calvin, minister of the Church of Geneva." It consisted of twenty-six Articles, and deals exclusively with the questions relating to the Lord's Supper, and it was drawn by Calvin, A. D. 1549, for the purpose of bringing about a mutual consent among all parties in the Eeformed Church on the subject of which it treats. It was subscribed by the Churches of Zurich, Geneva, St. (iall, Schaffhausen, the Grisons, Neuchatel, and Basle, and was received with favor by all parts of the Re- formed Church, and remains an eminent monument of the true mind of the Reformed Church upon this so much debated question; and especially it is of value as setting forth with eminent clearness and unquestionable authority the real opin- ions of Calvin on the subject, deliberately stated after he had ceased from the vain attempt to secure the unity of Protestant- ism by a compromise with the Lutheran views as to the Lord's presence in the Eucharist. An accurate translation of this im- portant document will be found in the iVppendix. (2.) The ^'Consensus Genevensis'' was drawn up by Calvin, A. D. 1552, in the name of the Pastors of Geneva, and is a com- plete statement of Calvin's views on the subject of Predestina- tion. It was designed to unite all the Swiss Churches in their views of this great doctrine. It remains a pre-eminent monu- ment of the fundamental principles of true Calvinism. (3.) The ''Formula Consensus Helvetica,'' composed at Zurich, A. D. 1675, by John Henry Heidegger of Zurich, assisted by Francis Turretin of Geneva and Luke Gender of Basle. Its title is "Form of agreement of the Helvetic Reformed Churches respecting the doctrine of universal grace, the doctrines con- nected therewith, and some other points." It was designed to unite the Swiss Churches in condemning and excluding that modified form of Calvinism, which in that century emanated from the Theological School of Saumur, represented by Amyral- 128 CREEDS AND CONFESSIONS. dns, Placfeus, etc. This is tlie most scientific and thorongli of all the Retbnned Confessions. Its eminent authorship* and the fact that it distinctively represents the most thoroughly con- sistent school of old Calvinists gives it high classical interest. It was subscribed by nearly all the Swiss Churches, but ceased to have public authority as a Confession since A. d. 1722.t All the Confessions of the Reformed Churches may be found col- lected in one convenient volume in the "Collectio Confessionum in Eoclesiis Reformatis publicatarum," by Dr. H. A. Niemeyer, Leipsic, 1840, and in Dr. Schaif 's " Creeds of Christendom." * See Herzog's Keal- Encyclopedia. Bomberger's translation. Article, "Helvetic Confessions." t An accurate translation will be found in the Appendix.


Question: In  taJiat  different  loays  do  the  Scriptures  reveal  God  ?

Answer: They reveal God — 1st. By his names. 2d. By the works which they ascribe to him. 3d. By the attributes which they predicate of him. 4th. By the worship they direct to be paid to him. 5th. By the manifestation of God in Christ. 8. State the etymology and meaning of the several names ap- propriated to God in the Scriptures. 1st. Jehovah, from the Hebrew verb ^Ti' to he. It expresses self-existence and unchangeableness; it is the incommunicable name of God, which the Jews superstitiously refused to pro- nounce, always substituting in their reading the word Adonai, Lord. Hence it is represented in our English version by the word Lord, printed in capital letters. Jah, probably an abbreviation of the name Jehovah, is used principally in the Psalms. — Ps. Ixviii. 4. It constitutes the c<jncluding syllable of hallelujah, praise Jehovah. God gave to Moses his peculiar name, "I am that I am," Ex. iii. 14, from the same root, and bearing the same funda- mental significance as Jehovah. 2d. El, might, poiver, translated God, and applied alike to the true and to the false gods. — Isa. xliv. 10. 3d. Elohim and Eloah, the same name in its singular and plural form, derived from n!?X, to fear, reverence. "In its sin- gular form it is iised oidy in the latter books and in poetry." In the plural form it is sometimes used with a plural sense for THE NAMES OF GOD. 135 gods, but more commonly as a.pluralis exceUentice, for God. It is applied to false gods, but pre-eminently to Jehovah as the great object of adoration. 4tli. Adonai, the Lord, a jjluralis exceUentice, applied exclu- sively to God, expressing possession and sovereign dominion, equivalent to uvpioi. Lord, so frequently applied to Christ in the New Testament. 5th. Saddai, almighty, a pluralis exceUentice. Sometimes it stands by itself — Job v. 17; and sometimes combined with a preceding El. — Gen xvii. 1. 6th. Elyon, Most High, a verbal adjective from n^y, to go up, ascend. — Ps. ix. 3; xxi. 8. 7th. The term Tzebaoth, of hosts, is frequently used as an epithet qualifying one of the above-mentioned names of God. Thus, Jehovah of Hosts, God of Hosts, Jehovah, God of Hosts. — Amos iv. 13; Ps. xxiv. 10. Some have thought this equivalent to God of Battles. The true force of the epithet, however, is " sovereign of the stars, material hosts of heaven, and of the angels their inhabitants." — Dr. J. A. Alexander, " Com. on Ps. xxiv. 10," and Gesenius's " Heb. Lex." 8th. Many other epithets are applied to God metaphorically, to set forth the relation he sustains to us and the offices he ful- fills, e. g., King, Lawgiver, Judge. — Isa. xxxiii. 17; Ps. xxiv. 8; 1. 6. Rock, Eortress, Tower, Deliverer. — 2 Sam. xxii. 2, 3; Ps. Ixii. 2. Shepherd, Husbandman. — Ps. xxiii. 1 ; John xv. 1. Father. — Matt. vi. 9; John xx. 17, etc.


Question: What  are  the  divine  attributes?

Answer: I The divine attributes are the perfections which are predi\ icated of the divine essence in the Scriptures, or visibly exerj Icised by God in his works of creation and providence anci redemption. They are not properties or states of the divind essence separable in fact or idea from the divine essence, as the properties and modes of every created thing are separable from the essence of the creature. God's knowledge is his essence knowing, and his love is his essence loving, and his will is his essence willing, and all these are not latent capa- cities of action, nor changing states, but co-existent and eter- nally unchangeable states of the divine essence which in state and mode as well as in existence is " the same yesterday, to- day and forever" and "without variableness or shadow of turning." Concerning the nature and operations of God, we can know only what he has vouchsafed to reveal to us, and with every conception, either of his being or his acts, there must always attend an element of incomprehensibility, which is inseparable 136 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. from infinitude. His knowledge and power are as truly beyond all understanding as his eternity or immensity. — Job. xi. 7-9; xxvi. 14; Ps. cxxxix. 5, 6; Isa. xl. 28. The moral elements of his glorious nature are the norm or original type of our moral faculties; thus we are made capable of compreliending the ulti- mate principles of truth and justice upon which he acts. Truth and justice and goodness are of course the same in essence in God and in angel and in man. Yet his action upon those prin- ciples is often a tiial of our faith, and an occasion of our ador- ing wonder. — Rom. xi. 33-3G ; Isa. Iv. 8, 9. 10. What do tJieologians mean by iJie phrase simplicity, when applied to God ? The term simplicity is used,y?rs^, in opposition to material composition, whether mechanical, organic, or chemical; second, in a metaphysical sense in negation of the relation of substance and property, essence and mode. In the first sense of the word human souls are simple, because they are not composed of ele- ments, parts, or organs. In the second sense of the word our souls are complex, since there is in them a distinction between their essence and their properties, and their successive modes or states of existence. As, however, God is infinite, eternal, self-existent from eternity, necessarily the same without suc- cession, theologians have maintained that in him essence, and property, and mode are one. He always is what he is; and his various states of intellection, emotion, and volition are not suc- cessive and transient but co-existent and permanent ; and he is wdiat he is essentially, and by the same necessity that he exists. Whatever is in God, whether thought, emotion, volition, or act, is God. Some men conceive of God as passing through various tran- sient modes and states just as men do, and therefore they sup- pose the properties of the divine nature ai'e related to the divine essence as the properties of created things are related to the essences which are endowed with them. Others press the idea of simplicity so far that they deny any distinction in the divine attributes in themselves, and suppose that the only difference between them is to be found in the mode of external manifest- ation, and in the effects produced. They illustrate their idea by the various effects produced on different objects by the same radiance of the sun. In order to avoid both extremes theologians have been ac- customed to say that the divine attributes differ from the divine essence and from one another, 1st, not reaUter or as one thing- differs from another, or in any such way as to imply composi- tion in God. Nor 2d, merely nominaUter, as. though there were PRINCIPLES OF CLASSIFICATION. 137 nothing in God really corresponding to onr conceptions of his perfections. But 3d, they are said to differ viiiiudite); so that there is in him a foundation or adequate reason for all the rep- resentations which are made in Scripture with regard to the divine perfections, and for the consequent conceptions which we have of them. — Turretin's " Institutio Theologicas," Locus iii., Ques. 5 and 7, and Dr. C. Hodge's " Lectures." 11. State the different principles upon ivJiich the classification of tJie divine attributes has been attempted. From the vastness of the subject and the incommensurate- ness of our faculties, it is evident that no classification of the divine attributes we can form can be any thing more than ap- proximately accurate and complete. The most common class- ifications rest upon the following principles: 1st. They are distinguished as oJ^dufe and relative. An ab- solute attribute is a property of the divine essence considered in itself: e. g., self-existence, immensity, eternity, intelligence.\ A relative attribute is a property of the divine essence con- j sidered in relation to the creation: e. g., omnipresence, omni- j science, etc. 2d. They are also distinguished as a^^rmative and negative. An affirmative attribute is one which expresses some positive perfection of the divine essence: e. g., omnipresence, omnipo- tence, etc. K negative attribute is one which denies all defect or limitation of any kind to God: e. g., immutability, infinitude, incomprehensibility, etc. 3d. The attributes of God, distinguished as comniunicable and incommunicable. The communicable are those to which the attributes of the human spirit bear the nearest analogy : e. g., his power, knowledge, will, goodness, and righteousness. The incommunicable are those to which there is in the creature nothing analogous, as eternity, immensity, etc. This distinc- tion, however, must not be pressed too far. God is infinite in his relation to space and time; we are finite in our relation to both. But he is no less infinite as to his knowledge, Avill, good- ness, and righteousness in all their modes, and we are finite in all these respects. All God's attributes known to us, or con- ceivable by us, are communicable, inasmucli as they have their analogy in us, but they are all alike incommunicable, inasmucli as they are all infinite. 4th. The attributes of God, distinguished as natnral and moral. The natural are all those which pertain to his exist- ence as an infinite, rational Spirit: e. g., eternity, immensity, intelligence, will, power. The moral are those additional attri- 138 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. butes which belong to him as an infinite, righteous Spirit : e. ^., justice, mercy, truth. I would diffidently propose the following fourfold clas- sification: (1.) Those attributes which equally qualify all the rest — Infinitude, that which has no bounds; absoluteness, that which is determined either in its being, or modes of being or action, by nothing whatsoever without itself This includes immutability. (2.) Natural attributes. God is an infinite Spirit, self-existent, eternal, immense, simple, free of ivill, intelligent, poioerful. (3.) Moral attributes. God is a Spirit infinitely righteous, good, true, and faithfid. (4.) The consummate glory of all the divine perfections in union. The beauty of holiness. The Unity of God. ] 2. In ivhat ttco senses of the word is Unity predicated of God ? 1st. God is unique: there is only one God to the exclusion of all others. 2d. Notwithstanding the threefold personal distinction in the unity of the Godliead, yet these three Persons are numeri- call}^ one substance or essence, and constitute one indivisible God. 13. Hoiv may the proposition, that God is one and indivisible, be proved ? 1st. There appears to be a necessity in reason for conceiving of God as one. That Avhich is absolute and infinite can not but be one and indivisible in essence. If God is not one, then it will necessarily follow that tliere are more gods than one. 2d. The uniform representation of Scripture. — John x. 30. 14. Prove from Scripture that the proposition, there is but 07?e God, is true. Deut. vi. 4; 1 Kings viii. 60; Isa. xliv. 6; Mark xii. 29, 32; 1 Cor. viii. 4; Eph. iv. 6. 15. Wliat is the argument from the harmony of creation in favor of the divine unity ? The whole creation, between the outermost range of teles- copic and of microscopic observation, is manifestly one indivi- sible system. But we have already (Chapter II.) proved the existence of God from the phenomena of tlie universe; and we now argue, upon the same principle, that if r^n effect proves the prior operation of a cause, and if traces of design prove a UNITY AND SPIRITUALITY OF GOD. 139 designer, then singleness of plan and operation in that design and its execution prove that the designer is one. 16. What is the argument upon this point from necessary ex- istence ? The existence of God is said to be necessary, because it has its cause from eternity in itself It is the same in all duration and in all space alike. It is absurd to conceive of God's not existing at any time or in any portion of space, while all other existence whatsoever, depending upon his mere will, is contin- gent. But the necessity which is uniform in all times and in every portion of space, is evidently only one and indivisible, and can be the ground of the existence only of one God. This argument is logical, and has been prized highly by many distinguished theologians. It however appears to in- volve the error of presuming human logic to be the measure of existence. 17. What is the argument from infinite perfection, in proof that there can be but one God? God is infinite in his being and in all of his perfections. But the infinite, by including all, excludes all others, of the same kind. If there were two infinite beings, each would nec- essarily include the other, and be included by it, and thus they would be the same, one and identical. It is certain that the idea of the co-existence of two infinitely perfect beings is as repug- nant to human reason as to Scriptm*e.


Question: What  is  polytheism  ?  and  what  dualism  ?

Answer: Polytheism, as the etymology of the word indicates, is a gen- eral term designating every system of religion which teaches the existence of a plurality of gods. Dualism is the designation of that system which recognizes two original and independent principles in the universe, the one good and the other evil. At present these principles are in a relation of ceaseless antagonism, the good ever struggling to oppose the evil, and to deliver its province from its baneful intrusion. The Spirituality op God. 19. What is affirmed and ivhat is denied in the proposition that God is a Spirit? We know nothing of substance except as it is manifested by its properties. Matter is that substance whose properties manifest themselves directly to our bodily senses. Spirit is 140 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. that substance whose properties manifest themselves to iis di- redhj in seii'-consciousness, and only inferentially by words and other signs or modes of expression through our senses. When we say God is a Spirit we mean — 1st. Negatively, that he does not possess bodily parts or pas- sions; that he is composed of no material elements; that he is not subject to any of the limiting conditions of material exist- ence ; and, consequentl_y, that he is not to be apprehended as the object of any of our bodily senses. 2d. Positively, that he is a rational being, who distinguishes with infinite precision between the true and the false; that he is a moral being, who distinguishes between the right and the wrong; that he is a free agent, whose action is self-determined by his own will; and, in fine, that all the essential properties of our spirits may truly be predicated of him in an infinite degree. This great truth is inconsistent with the doctrine that God is the soul of the world {anima mundi) a plastic organizing force inseparable from matter; also with the Gnostic doctrine of emanation, and with all forms of modern Materialism and Pantheism. 20. Exldhit the proof that God is a Spirit. 1st. It is explicitly asserted in Scripture. — John iv. 24. 2d. It follows from our idea of infinite and absolute perfec- tions. Matter is obviously inferior to Spirit, and inseparable from many kinds of imperfections and limitations. Matter consisting of separate and ceaselessly reacting atoms can not be "one," nor "infinite," nor "immutable," etc. The idea that matter may be united with spirit in God, as it is in inan, is felt to degrade him, and bind him fast under the limitations of time and space. 3d. There is no trace anywhere of material properties in the Creator and Providential Governor of the universe — whereas all the evidence that a God exists conspires to prove also that he is a supremely wise, benevolent, righteous, and powerful person — that is, that he is a personal spirit. God's Relation to Space.


Question: Wlicd  is  meant  by  the  immensity  of  God?

Answer: The immensity of God is the phrase used to express the fact that (iJod is infinite in his relation to space, i. e., that the entire indivisible essence of God is at every moment of time cotempo- raneously present to every point of infinite space. This is not in virtue of the infinite multiplication of his Spirit, since he is eternally one and individual; nor does it result from HIS RELATION TO SPACE. 141 the infinite diffusion of his essence through infinite space, as air is diffused over the surface of the earth, since, being a Spirit he is not composed of parts, nor is he capable of extension, but the wliole Godhead in the one indivisible essence is equally present in every moment of eternal duration to the whole of infinite space, and to every part of it.


Question: HoiD  does  immensity  differ  from  omnipresence?

Answer: Immensity characterizes the relation of God to space viewed abstractly in itself Omnipresence characterizes the relation of God to his creatures as they severally occupy their several posi- tions in space. The divine essence is immense in its own being, absolutely. It is omnipresent relatively to all his creatures. 23. What are the different modes of the divine presence., and hoio may it he proved that he is everywhere p)resent as to his essence ? God may be conceived of as present in any place, or with any creature, in several modes, first, as to his essence ; second, as to his knowledge ; third, as manifesting that presence to any intel- ligent creature ; fourth, as exercising his power in any way in or upon the creature. As to essence and knowledge, his pres- ence is the same everywhere and always. As to his self-mani- festation and the exercise of his power, his presence differs endlessly in different cases in degree and mode. Tlius God is present to the church as he is not to the world. Thus he is present in hell in the manifestation and execution of righteous wrath, while he is present in heaven in the manifestation and communication of gracious love and glory. 24. Prove that God is omnipresent as to his essence. That God is everywhere present as to his essence is proved, first from Scripture (1 Kings viii. 27 ; Ps. cxxxix. 7-10 ; Isa. Ixvi. 1 ; Acts xvii. 27, 28); second, from reason. (1.) It follows neces- sarily from his infinitude. (2.) From the fact that his knowl- edge is his essence knowing, and his actions are his essence acting. Yet his knowledge and his power reach to all things. 25. State the dfferent rdaiions that bodies, created spirits, and God sustain to space. Turretin says : Bodies are conceived of as existing in space circ2i7nscriptively, because occupying a certain portion of space they are bounded by space upon every side. Created spirits do not occupy any portion of space, nor are they embraced by any, they are, however, in space definitely, as here and not there. God, on the other hand, is in space repietively, because in a tran- scendent manner his essence fills all space. He is included in 142 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. no space ; he is excluded from none. Wholly present to each point, he comprehends all space at once. Time and Space are neither substances, nor qualities, nor mere relations. They constitute a genus by themselves, ab- solutely distinct from all other entities, and therefore defying classification. "We know that space and time exist; we know- on sufficient evidence that God exists; but we have no means of knowing how space and time stand related to God. The view taken by Sir Isaac Newton, — 'Deus durat semper et adest ubique, et, existendo semper et ubique, durationem et spatium constituit' — is certainly a grand one, but I doubt much whether human intelligence can dictatorially affirm that it is as true as it is sublime." — McCosh, "Intuitions of the Mind," p. 212. The Relation of God .to Time.


Question: What  is  eternity  ?

Answer: Eternity is infinite duration; duration discharged from all limits, without beginning, without succession, and without end. The schoolmen phrase it a jJitnctmn stans, an ever-abiding present. We, however, can positively conceive of eternit}' only as du- ration indefinitely extended from the present moment in two directions, as to the past and as to the futm-e, improperly expressed as eternity a parte ante, or past, and eternity a parte jjost, or future. The eternity of God, hoAvever, is one and indivisible. Eternitas est una individua et tota simid.


Question: What  is  time?

Answer: Time is limited duration, measured by succession, either of thought or motion. It is distinguished in reference to our per- ceptions into past, present, and future.


Question: What  relation  does  time  hear  to  eternity  ?

Answer: Eternity, the unchanging present, without beginning or end, comprehends all time, and co-exists as an undivided moment, with all the successions of time as they appear and pass in their order. Thought is possible to us, however, only imder the limita- tions of time and space. We can conceive of God only under the finite fashion of first purposing and then" acting, of first promising or tin-eatening and then fulfilling his word, etc. He that inhal)itetli eternity infinitely transcends our understanding. Isa. Ivii. 15. 29. When ive say that God is eternal, ivhat do we affirm and wlwi do we deny? HIS ETERNITY AND IMMUTABILITY. 143 We affirm, first, that as to his existence, he never had any- beginning, and never will have any end; second, that as to the mode of his existence, his thoughts, emotions, purposes, and acts are, without succession, one and inseparable, the same for- ever; third, that he is immutable. We deny, first, that he ever had a beginning or ever will have an end; second, that his states or modes of being occur in succession ; third, that his essence, attributes, or purposes will ever change. 30. In what sense are the acts of God spoken of as past, present, and future ? The acts of God are never past, present, or future as respects God himself, but only in respect to the objects and effects of his acts in the creature. The efficient purpose comprehending the precise object, time, and circumstance was present to him alwa3^s and changelessly ; the event, however, taking place in the creature occurs in time, and is thus past, present, or future to our observation.


Question: In  U'hat  sense  are  events  past  or  future  as  it  regards  God?

Answer: As God's knowledge is infinite, every event must, first, be ever equally present to his knowledge from eternity to eternity ; second, these events must be known to him as they actually occur in themselves, e. g., in their true nature, relations, and suc- cessions. This distinction, therefore, holds true — God's knowl- edge of all events is without beginning, end, or succession; but he knows them as in themselves occurring in the successions of time, past, present, or future, relatively to one another. The Immutability of God. *i


Question: What  is  meant  by  the  immutabilitj/  of  God  ?

Answer: By his immutability we mean that it follows from the in- finite perfection of God; that he can not be changed by any thing from without himself; and that he will not change from any principle within himself That as to his essence, his will, and his states of existence, he is the same from eternity to eternity. Thus he is absolutely immutable in himself He is also immutable relatively to the creature, insomuch as his knowledge, purpose, and truth, as these are conceived by us and are revealed to us, can know neither variableness nor shadow of turning. — James i. 17. 33. Prove from Scripture and reason that God is immutable. 144 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 1st. Scripture : ]\Ial. iii. 6 ; Ps. xxxiii. 11 ; Isa. xlvi. 10 ; James i. 17. 2d. Eeason: (1.) God is self - existent. As he is caused by none, but causes all, so he can be changed by none, but changes all. (2.) He is the absolute being. Neither his exist- ence, nor the manner of it, nor his will, are determined by any necessary relation -which they sustain to any thing exterior to himself As he preceded all and caused all, so his sovereign will freely determined the relations which all things are per- mitted to sustain to him. (3.) He is infinite in duration, and therefore he can not know succession or change. (4.) He is infinite in all perfection, knowledge, wisdom, righteousness, benevolence, wall, power, and therefore can not change, for nothing can be added to the infinite nor taken from it. Any change would make him either less than infinite before, or less than infinite afterwards. 34. How can the creation of the world and the incarnation of the Son he reconciled ivith the immutability of God? 1st. As to the creation. Tlie efficacious purpose, the will and power to create the world dwelleth in God from eternity without change, but this very efficacious purpose itself provided that the effect should take place in its proper time and order. This effect took place from God, but of course involved no shadow of change in God, as nothing was either taken from him or added to him. 2d. As to the incarnation. The divine Son assumed a cre- ated human nature into personal union with himself. His un- created essence of course was not changed. His eternal person was not changed in itself, but only brought into a new relation. The change effected by that stupendous event occurred only in the created nature of the man Christ Jesus. The Infinite Intelligence of God.


Question: IIoio  does  God's  mode  of  linoioing  differ  from  ours?

Answer: God's knowledge is, 1st, his essence knowing; 2d, it is one eternal, all-compreliensive, indivisible act. (1.) It is not discursive, i. e., proceeding, logically from the known to the unknown; but irdmtive, i. e., discerning all things directly in its own light. (2.) It is independent, i. e., it does in no way depend upon his creatures or their actions, but solely upon his own infinite intuition of all things possible in the light of his own reason, and of all things actual and future in the light of his own eter- nal purpose. THE OBJECTS OF DIVINE KNOWLEDGE. 145 (3.) It is total and simuJtanemis, not successive. It is one single, indivisible act of intnition, beholding all things in themselves, their relations and successions, as ever present. (4.) It is perfect and essentird, not relative, i. e., he knows all things directly in their hidden essences, while we know them only by their properties, as they stand related to onr senses. (5.) We know the present imperfectly, the past we remem- ber dimly, the future we know not at all. But God knows all things, past, present, and future, by one total, unsuccessive, all- comprehensive vision.


Question: Hoio  has  this  divine  perfection  been  defined  hy  theologians?

Answer: Turretin, Locus iii., Q. 12. — "Concerning the knowledge of God, before all else, two things are to be considered, viz., its mode and its object. The Mode of the divine knowledge consists in this, that he perfectly, individually, distinctly, and immutably knows all things, and his knowledge is thus distin- guished from the knowledge of men and angels. He knows all things perfectly, because he has known them through him- self, or his own essence, and not by the phenomena of things, as the creatures know objects. ... 2. He knows all things individually because he knows them intuitively, by a direct act of cognition, and not inferentially, by a process of discursive reasoning, or by comparing one thing with another. 3. He knows all things distinctly, not that he unites by a dif- ferent conception the various predicates of things, but that he sees through all things by one most distinct act of intuition, and nothing, even the least thing, escapes him. ... 4. And he knows all immidaUy, because that with him there is no shadow of change, and he remaining himself, unmoved, moves all things, and so perceives all the various changes of things, by one immutable act of cognition." 37. Hoio may the objects of divine knowledge be classified? (^.ci "^ 1st. God himself in his own infinite being. It is evident that this, transcending the sum of all other objects, is the only adequate object of a knowledge really infinite. 2d. All possible objects, as such, Avhether they are or ever have been, or ever will be or not, seen in the light of his own infinite reason. 3d. All things actual, which have been, are, or will be, he comprehends in one eternal, simultaneous act of knowledge, as ever present actualities to him, and as known to be such in the light of his own sovereign and eternal purpose. 146 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 38. Wlmt is tie fecJmical designafion of the knoioledge of things possible, and ivltat is the foundation of that knoivledge ? Its technical designation is scientia simpUds intelligentice, Jcnoioledge of simple intelligence, so called, because it is conceived by ns as an act simply of the divine intellect, withont any con- current act of the divine Avill. For the same reason it has been styled scientia necessaria, necessary knowledge, i. e., not volun- tary, or determined by will. The foundation of that knowl- edge is God's essential and infinitely perfect knowledge of his own omnipotence. 39. Whai is the technical designation of the knoivledge of things actual, whether past, present, or future, and tvhat is the foundation of that hioivledcje ? It is called scientia visionis, hnoidedge of vision, and scientia libera, free knowledge, because his intellect is in this case con- ceived of as being determined by a concurrent act of his will. The foundation of this knowledge is God's infinite knowl- edge of his own all-comprehensive and unchangeable eternal purpose. 40. Prove that the knowledge of God extends tofidure contingent events. The contingency of events in our view of them has a two- fold ground: first, their immediate causes may be by us inde- terminate, as in the case of the dice; second, their immediate cause may be the volition of a free agent. The first class are in no sense contingent in God's view. The second class are foreknown by him as contingent in their cause, but as none the less certain in thei>- event. That he does foreknow all such is certain — 1st. Scripture affirms it. — 1 Sam. xxiii. 11, 12; Acts ii. 23; XV. 18; Isa. xlvi. 9, 10. 2d. He has often predicted contingent events future, at the time of the prophecy, which has been fulfilled in the event. Mark xiv. 30. 3d. God is infinite in all his perfections, his knowledge, therefore, must (1) be perfect, and comprehend all things future as well as past, (2) independent of the creature. Pie knows all things in themselves by his own light, and can not depend upon the will of the creature to make his knowledge either more certain or more complete. 41. Hotv can the certainty of the foreknowledge of God be recon- ciled toith the freedom of moral agents in their acts ? SCIENTIA MEDIA. 147 The difficulty here presented is of this nature. God's fore- knowledge is certain; the event, therefore, must be certainly future ; if certainly future, how can the agent be free in enacting it. In order to avoid this difficulty some theologians, on the one hand, have denied the reality of man's moral freedom, while others, on the other hand, have maintained that, God's knowl- edge being free, he voluntarily abstains from knowing what his creatures endowed with free agency will do. We remark — 1st. God's certain foreknowledge of all future events and man's free agency are both certain facts, impregnably es- tablished by independent evidence. We must believe both, whether we can reconcile them or not. 2d. Although necessity is inconsistent wuth liberty, moral^ certainty is not, as is abundantly shown in Chapter XV., Question 25.


Question: Wlxat  is  scientia  media  ?

Answer: This is the technical designation of God's knowledge of future contingent events, presumed, by the authors of this dis- tinction, to depend not upon the eternal purpose of God making the event certain, but upon the free act of the creature as fore- seen by a special intuition. It is called scientia media, middle knoivledge, because it is supposed to occupy a middle ground between the knowledge of simple intelligence and the knowledge of vision. It differs from the former, since its object is not all possible things, but a special class of things actually future. It difters from the latter, since its ground is not the eternal purpose of God, but the free action of the creature as simply foreseen. 43. By whom was this distinction introduced, aiid for what purpose ? By Luis 3Iolina, a Jesuit, born 1535 and died 1601, pro- fessor of theology in the University of Evora, Portugal, in his work entitled " Liberi arbitrii cum gratiaa donis, divina praescientia, prfedestinatione et reprobatione concordia." — Ha- genbach's "Hist, of Doc," vol. 2, p. 280. It was excogitated for the purpose of explaining how God might certainly foreknow wdiat his free creatures would do in the absence of any sover- eign foreordination on his part, determining their action. Thus making his foreordination of men to happiness or misery to depend upon his foreknowledge of their faith and obedience, and denying that his foreknowledge depends upon his sover- eign foreordination. 148 TH3 ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 44. Wlxai are the arguments against the validity of this dis- tinction ? 1st. The arg'uments upon which it is based are untenable. Its advocates plead — (1.) Scripture. — 1 Sam. xxiii. 9-12; Matt, xi. 22, 23. (2.) That this distinction is obviously necessary, in order to render the mode of the divine foreknowledge consist- ent with man's free agency. To the first argument Ave answer, that the events mentioned in the above-cited passages of Scripture 2vere not future. They simply teach that God, knowing all causes, free and necessary, knows how they would act under any proposed condition. Even we know that if we add tire to powder an explosion would ensue. This comes under the first class we cited above (Question 38), or the knowledge of all possible things. To the second argument we answer, that the certain foreknowledge of God involves the certainty of the future free act of his crea- ture as mucli as his foreordination does; and that the sovereign foreordination of God, with respect to the free acts of men, only makes them certainly future, and does not in the least provide for causing those acts in any other way than by the free will of the creature himself acting freely. 2d. This middle knowledge is unnecessary, because all pos- sible objects of knowledge, all jjossihie things, and all things actually to he, have already been embraced under the two classes already cited (Questions 38, 39). 3d. If God certainly foreknows any future event, then it must be certainly future, and he must have foreknown it to be certainly future, either because it was antecedently certain, or because his foreknowing it made it certain. If his foreknow- ing it made it certain, then his foreknowledge involves foreor- dination. If it was antecedently certain, then we ask, what could have made it certain, except what we affirm, the decree of God, either to cause it himself immediately, or to cause it through some necessary second cause, or that some free agent should cause it freely? We can only choose between the Ibre- ordination of God and a blind fate. 4th. This view makes the knoAvledge of God to depend upon the acts of his creatures exterior to himself This is both absiu'd and impious, if God is infinite, eternal, and absolute. 5th. The Scrjptiires teach that God does foreordain as well as foreknow the free acts of men. — Isa. x. 5-15; Acts ii. 23; iv. 27, 2S. 45. How does wisdom differ from knowledge, and ivherein does the wisdom of God consist ? THE INFINITE POWER OF GOD. 149 Knowledge is a simple act of the understanding, apprehend- ing tliat a thing is, and comprehending its nature and relations, or liow it is. Wisdom presupposes knowledge, and is the practical use which the understanding, determined by the will, makes of the material of knowledge. God's wisdom is infinite and eter- nal. It is conceived of by us as selecting the highest possible end, the manifestation of his own glory, and then in selecting and directing in every department of his operations the best possible means to secure that end. This wisdom is gloriously manifested to us in the great theatres of creation, providence, and grace. /*^ The Infinite Power of God.


Question: What  is  meant  by  the  omnipotence  of  God?

Answer: Power is that efficiency which, by an essential law of thought, we recognize as inherent in a cause in relation to its effect. God is the uncaused first cause, and the causal efficiency of his will is absolutely unlimited by any thing out- side of the divine perfections themselves. 47. What distinction has been marked betioeen the Potestas ab- soluta, and the Potestas ordinata of God ? The Scriptures and right reason teach us that the causal efficiency of God is not confined to the universe of second- causes and their active properties and laws. The phrase Po- testas absoluta expresses the omnipotence of God absolutely considered in himself — and specifically that infinite reserve of power which remains with him, as a free personal attribute, above and beyond all the powers of nature and his ordinary providential actings upon and through them. Creation, mira- cles, etc., are exercises of tlds power of God. The Potestas or- dinata on the other hand is the power of God as it is now exer- cised in and through the established system of second causes, in the ordinary course of Providence. Ptationalists and advo- cates of mere naturalism, who deny miracles, and any form of divine interference with the established order of nature, of course admit only the latter and deny the former mode of divine power. 48. In ivhat sense is the potver of God limited and in what sense is it unlimited ? AVe are conscious with respect to our own causal efficiency. 1st. That it is very limited. We have direct control only over the course of our thoughts, and the contractions of a few muscles. 2d. That we depend upon the use of means to pro- 150 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. duce the effects we design. 3d. We are dependent upon out- ward circumstances Avliich limit and condition us continually. The power inherent in the divine will on the other hand can produce whatever effects he intends immediately, and when he condescends to use means he freely endows them with what- ever efficiency they possess. All outward circumstances of every kind are his own creation, conditioned upon his will, and therefore incapable of limiting him in any way. He is absolutely unlimited in the exercise of his power. He can not do wrong, nor work contradictions, because his power is the causal efficiency of an infinitely rational and righteous essence. His power therefore is limited only by his own perfections. 49. Is the distinction in us betiveen poiver and ivill a perfection or a defect, and does it exist in God ? It is objected that if our power was equal to our design, and every volition resulted immediately in act, we would not be conscious of the difference between power and will. We admit that when a man's power fails to be commensurate with his will it is a defect — and that this never is the case with God. But on the other hand when a man is conscious that he possesses powers which he might but does not will to exercise, he is conscious that it is an excellence — and that his nature is the more perfect for the possession of such reserves of power than it wo\dd otherwise be. To hold that there is nothing in God which , is not in actual exercise, that his power extends no further than his will, is to make him no greater than his finite creation. The actions of a great man impress us chiefly as the exponents of vastly greater power which remains in reserve. So it is with God.


Question: How  can  absolute  omnipotence  he  proved  to  belong  to  God  ?

Answer: 1st. It is asserted by Scripture. — Jer. xxxii. 17; Matt. xix. 26; Lukei. 37; Rev. xix. 6. 2d. It is necessarily involved in the very idea of God as an infinite being. 3d. Although we have seen but j)art of Ms loays (Job xxvi. 14), yet our constantly extending experience is ever revealing to us new and more astonishing evidences of his power, Avhich always indicate an inexhaustible reserve. The Will of God.


Question: What  is  meant  by  the  ivill  of  God?

Answer: The will of God is the infinitely and eternally wise, powerful, and righteous essence of God willing. In our conception it is THE WILL OF GOD. 151 that attribute of the Deity to which we refer his purposes and decrees as their principle. 52. In loliat sense is the ivill of God said to hefi^ee, and in toliat sense necessary ? The will of God is the wise, powerful, and righteous essence of God willing. His will, therefore, in every act is certainly and yet most freely both wise and righteous. The liberty of indifference is evidently foreign to his nature, because the per- fection of wisdom is to choose the most wisely, and the perfec- tion of righteousness is to choose the most righteously. On the other hand, the will of God is- from eternity abso- lutely independent of all his creatures and all their actions. 53. What is intended by tJie distinction between the decretive and the preceptive luill of God ? The decretive will of God is God efficaciously purposing the certain futurition of events. The preceptive will of God is God, as moral governor, commanding his moral creatures to do that which he sees it right and wise that they in their circumstances should do. These are not inconsistent. What he wills as our duty may very consistently be different from what he wills as his purpose. What it is right for him to permit may be wrong for him to approve, or for us to do. 54. What is meant by the distinction between the secret and revealed ivill of God ? The secret will of God is his decretive will, called secret, because although it is sometimes revealed to man in the proph- ecies and promises of the Bible, yet it is for the most part hidden in God. The revealed will of God is his preceptive will, which is always clearly set forth as the rule of our duty. — Deut. xxix. 29. 55. In what sense do the Arminians maintain the distinction betiveen the antecedent and consequent tvill of God, and what are the objections to their view of the subject ? This is a distinction invented, by the schoolmen, and adopted by the Arminians, for reconciling the will of God with their theory of the free agency of man. They call that an antecedent act of God's will which precedes the action of the creature, e. (/., before Adam sinned God willed him to be happy. They call that a consequent act of God's will which followed the act of the creature, and is consequent upon 152 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. that act, e. g., after Adam sinned God willed him to suffer the penalty due to his sin. It is very evident that this distinction does not truly repre- sent the nature of God's Avill, and its relation to the acts of his creatures: //V.s/, God is eternal, and therefore there can be no distinction in his purposes as to time; second, God is eternally omniscient and omnipotent. If he Avills any thing, therefore, he must from the beginning- will the means to acomplisli it, and thus secure the attainment of the end willed. Otherwise God must have, at the same time, two inconsistent wills with regard to the same object. The truth is that God, eternally and un- changeably, by one comprehensive act of will, willed all that happened to Adam from beginning to end in the precise order and succession in which each event occurred; third, God is in- finitely independent. It is degrading to God to conceive of him as first willing that which he lias no power to effect, and then changing his will consequently to the independent acts of his creatures. It is true, indeed, that because of the natural limits of our capacities we necessarily conceive of the several intentions of God's one, eternal, indivisible purpose, as sustaining a certain logical (not temporal), relation to each other as principal and consequent. Thus we conceive of God's first (in logical order) decreeing to create man, then to permit him to fall, then to elect some to everlasting life, and then to provide a redemp- tion.— Turretin. 56. Ill ivhat sense do Arminians hold the distindion hetiueen the absolute and conditional ivill of God, and ivhat are the objec- tions to that view ? In their view that is the absolute will of God which is sus- pended upon no condition without himself, e. g., his decree to create man. That is the conditional will of God which is sus- E ended upon a condition, e. g., his decree to save those that elieve, i. e., on condition of their faith. It is evident that this view is entirely inconsistent with the natvu'e of God as an eternal, self-existent, independent being, infinite in all his perfections. It degrades him to the position of being simply a co-ordinate part of the creation, mutually limiting and being limited by the creature. The mistake results from detaching a fragment of God's will from the one whole, all-comprehensive, eternal purpose. It is evident that, when properly viewed as eternal and one, God's purpose must comprehend all conditions, as well as their con- sequents. God's will is suspended upon no condition, but he THE ABSOLUTE JUSTICE OF GOD. 153 eternally wills the event as suspended upon its condition, and its condition as determining the event. It is admitted by all that God's preceptive will, as expressed in commands, promises, and threatenings, is often suspended upon condition. If Ave believe we shall certainly be saved. This is the relation which God has immutably established between faith as the condition, and salvation as the conse- quent, %. e., faith is the condition of salvation. But this is something very different from saying that the faith of Paul was the condition of God's eternal purpose to save him, be- cause the same purpose determined the faith as the condition, and the salvation as its consequent. See further, Chapter X., on the decrees.