diff --git "a/data/catechism_qa.jsonl" "b/data/catechism_qa.jsonl"
--- "a/data/catechism_qa.jsonl"
+++ "b/data/catechism_qa.jsonl"
@@ -112,6 +112,238 @@
 {"_source_id": "1695-baptist-catechism", "_source_title": "1695 Baptist Catechism", "_author": "William Collins", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "cc0-1.0", "_source_url": "http://access.bl.uk/item/viewer/ark:/81055/vdc_100026931442.0x000001#?#ark:/81055/vdc_100026931451.0x00000a&c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=8&xywh=-64,0,2839,1783", "document_id": "1695-baptist-catechism", "item_id": "112", "sort_key": 112, "question": "What do we pray for in the fifth Petition?", "answer": "In the fifth Petition, which is, \"And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors,\" we pray, that God for Christ's sake would freely pardon all our Sins; which we are the rather encouraged to ask, because by his Grace we are enabled from the Heart to forgive others.", "answer_with_proofs": "In the fifth Petition, which is, \"And forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors[1],\" we pray, that God for Christ's sake would freely pardon all our Sins[2]; which we are the rather encouraged to ask, because by his Grace we are enabled from the Heart to forgive others[3].", "proofs": [{"id": 1, "references": [{"raw": "Matt.6.12", "osis": ["Matt.6.12"]}]}, {"id": 2, "references": [{"raw": "Ps.51.1-Ps.51.2,Ps.51.7,Ps.51.9", "osis": ["Ps.51.1-Ps.51.2", "Ps.51.7", "Ps.51.9"]}, {"raw": "Dan.9.17-Dan.9.19", "osis": ["Dan.9.17-Dan.9.19"]}]}, {"id": 3, "references": [{"raw": "Luke.11.4", "osis": ["Luke.11.4"]}, {"raw": "Matt.18.35", "osis": ["Matt.18.35"]}]}], "group": null, "sub_questions": null, "token_count": 78}
 {"_source_id": "1695-baptist-catechism", "_source_title": "1695 Baptist Catechism", "_author": "William Collins", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "cc0-1.0", "_source_url": "http://access.bl.uk/item/viewer/ark:/81055/vdc_100026931442.0x000001#?#ark:/81055/vdc_100026931451.0x00000a&c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=8&xywh=-64,0,2839,1783", "document_id": "1695-baptist-catechism", "item_id": "113", "sort_key": 113, "question": "What do we pray for in the sixth Petition?", "answer": "In the sixth Petition, which is, \"And lead us not into Temptation, but deliver us from Evil,\" we pray that God would either keep us from being tempted to Sin, or support and deliver us when we are tempted.", "answer_with_proofs": "In the sixth Petition, which is, \"And lead us not into Temptation, but deliver us from Evil[1],\" we pray that God would either keep us from being tempted to Sin[2], or support and deliver us when we are tempted[3].", "proofs": [{"id": 1, "references": [{"raw": "Matt.6.13", "osis": ["Matt.6.13"]}]}, {"id": 2, "references": [{"raw": "Matt.26.41", "osis": ["Matt.26.41"]}]}, {"id": 3, "references": [{"raw": "2Cor.12.8", "osis": ["2Cor.12.8"]}]}], "group": null, "sub_questions": null, "token_count": 64}
 {"_source_id": "1695-baptist-catechism", "_source_title": "1695 Baptist Catechism", "_author": "William Collins", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "cc0-1.0", "_source_url": "http://access.bl.uk/item/viewer/ark:/81055/vdc_100026931442.0x000001#?#ark:/81055/vdc_100026931451.0x00000a&c=0&m=0&s=0&cv=8&xywh=-64,0,2839,1783", "document_id": "1695-baptist-catechism", "item_id": "114", "sort_key": 114, "question": "What doth the Conclusion of the Lord's Prayer teach?", "answer": "The Conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, which is, \"For thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, for ever, Amen,\" teacheth us to take our Encouragement in Prayer from God only, and in our Prayers to praise him, ascribing Kingdom, Power and Glory to him: And in testimony of our Desire, and Assurance to be heard, we say, Amen.", "answer_with_proofs": "The Conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, which is, \"For thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory, for ever, Amen[1],\" teacheth us to take our Encouragement in Prayer from God only[2], and in our Prayers to praise him, ascribing Kingdom, Power and Glory to him[3]: And in testimony of our Desire, and Assurance to be heard, we say, Amen[4].", "proofs": [{"id": 1, "references": [{"raw": "Matt.6.13", "osis": ["Matt.6.13"]}]}, {"id": 2, "references": [{"raw": "Dan.9.4,Dan.9.7-Dan.9.9,Dan.9.16-Dan.9.19", "osis": ["Dan.9.4", "Dan.9.7-Dan.9.9", "Dan.9.16-Dan.9.19"]}]}, {"id": 3, "references": [{"raw": "1Chr.29.10-1Chr.29.13", "osis": ["1Chr.29.10-1Chr.29.13"]}]}, {"id": 4, "references": [{"raw": "1Cor.14.16", "osis": ["1Cor.14.16"]}, {"raw": "Rev.22.20-Rev.22.21", "osis": ["Rev.22.20-Rev.22.21"]}]}], "group": null, "sub_questions": null, "token_count": 100}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "1", "sort_key": 1, "group": "Chapter I", "question": "What  is  emhraced  under  Exegetical  Theology  ?", "answer": "If the facts (1) That there is a God, and (2) that he has spoken, be established, it remains to answer the question, ''What has God said?\" Exegetical Theology is the general title of that department of theological science which aims at the Interpretation of the Scriptures as the word of God, recorded in human language, and transmitted to us through human channels; and in order to this. Interpretation aims to gather and organize all that knowledge which is necessarily intro- ductory thereto. This includes tlie answer to two main ques- tions: (1) What books form the canon, and what were the exact words of which the original autographs of the writers of these several books consisted, and (2) What do those divine words, so ascertained, mean. The answers to all questions preliminary to actual Interpre- tation, come under the head of Introduction, and this is divided (1) into General Introduction, presenting all that information, preliminary to interpretation, which stands related in common to the Bible as a whole, or to each Testament as a whole, and (2) into Sjyecial Introduction, which includes all necessary prepa- ration for the interpretation of each book of the Bible in detail. A. General Introduction includes — 1st. The Higher Criticism or the canvass of the extant evidences of all kinds establishing the authenticity and genuine- ness of each book in the sacred canon. 2d. The Criticism of the Text, which, from a comparison of the best ancient manuscripts and versions, from internal evi- dence, and by means of a critical liistory of the text from its first appearance to the present, seeks to determine the ipsissima verba of the original autographs of the inspired writers. 3d. Biblical \"Fhilology, which answers the questions: Why were different languages used in the record? and why Hebrew and Greek ? What are the special characteristics of the dia- lects of those languages actually used, and their relation to the families of language to which they belong? And what Avere the special characteristics of dialect, style, etc., of the sacred writers individually. EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY. 21 4th. Biblical Arcliceology, including the physical and political geography of Bible lands during the course of Bible history, and determining the physical, ethnological, social, political, and religious conditions of tlie people among whom the Script- ures originated, together with an account of their customs and institutions, and of the relation of these to those of their ances- tors and of their contemporaries. 5th. Hermeneutics, or the scientific determination of the prin- ciples and rules of Biblical Interpretation, including (1) the logical and grammatical and rhetorical principles determining the interpretation of human language in general, (2) the mod- ification of these principles appropriate to the interpretation of the specific forms of human discourse, e. g., history, poetry, prophecy, parable, symbol, etc., and (3) those further modifica- tions of these principles appropriate to the interpretation of writings supernaturally inspired. 6th. Apologetics having established the fact that the Chris- tian Scnptures are the vehicle of a supernatural revelation, we must now discuss and determine the nature and extent of Bib- lical Inspiration as far as this is determined by the claims and the phenomena of the Scriptures tliemselves. 7th. The History of Intevpretation, including the history of ancient and modern versions and schools of interpreta- tion, illustrated by a critical comparison of the most eminent commentaries. B. Special Introduction treats of each book of the Bible by itself, and furnishes all that knowledge concerning its dialect, authorship, occasion, design, and reception that is necessary for its accurate interpretation. • C. Exegesis proper is the actual application of all the knowl- edge gathered, and of all the rules developed, in the preceding departments of Introduction to the Interpretation of the sacred text, as it stands in its original connections of Testaments, books, paragraphs, etc. Following the laws of grammar, the usus loqiiendi of words, the analogy of Scripture, and the guidance of the Holy Ghost, Exegesis seeks to determine the mind of the Spirit as expressed in the inspired sentences as they stand in their order. There are several special departments classed under the general head of Exegetical Theology, which involve in some degree that arrangement and combination of Scripture testi- monies under topics or subjects, which is the distinctive char- acteristic of Systematic Theology. These are — 1st. Tyjiology, which embraces a scientific determination of the laws of Biblical symbols and types, and their interpretation, 22 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPAEDIA. especially those of the ]\\Iosaic ritual as related to the person and work of Christ. 2d. Old Testament Christology, the critical exposition of the Messianic idea as it is developed in the Old Testament. 3d. Biblical Theology, wliich traces the gradual evolution of the several elements of revealed truth from their first sugges- tion through every successive stage, to their fullest manifesta- tion in the sacred text, and which exhibits the peculiar forms and connections in which these several truths are presented by each inspired Avriter. 4th. The Development of the principles of Prophetical In- terpretation and their application to the construction of an outline of the Prophesies of both Testaments. — \" Notes on New Testament Literature,\" by Dr. J. A. Alexander. 10. What is embraced under the head of Systematic Theology. As the name imports, Systematic Theology has for its object the gathering all that the Scriptures teach as to what we are to believe and to do, and the presenting all the elements of this teaching in a symmetrical system. The human mind must seek unity in all its knowledge. God's truth is one, and all the contents of all revelations natural and supernatural must constitute one self-contained system, each part organically re- lated to every other. The method of construction is inductive. It rests upon the results of Exegesis for its foundation. Passages of Scripture ascertained and interpreted are its data. These when rightly interpreted reveal their own relations and place in the system of which the Person and work of Christ is the centre. And as the contents of revelation stand intimately related to all the other departments of hmnan knowledge, the work of Systematic Theology necessarily involves the demonstration and illustra- tion of the harmony of all revealed truth with all valid science, material and ps3'chological, with all true speculative philosophy, and with all true moral philosophy and practical philanthropy. It includes — (1.) The construction of all the contents of revelation into a complete system of faith and duties. (2.) The history of this process as it has prevailed in the Church during the past. (3.) Polemics. I. The construction of all the contents of revelation into a complete system. This includes the scientific treatment (a) of all the matters of faith revealed, and (h) of all the duties enjoined. In the arrangement of topics the great majority of theolo- gians have followed what Dr. Cliahners calls the synthetical method. Starting with the idea and nature of God revealed in SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. 23 the Scriptures, they trace his eternal purposes and temporal acts in creation, providence, and redemption to the final con- summation. The Doctor himself prefers what he calls the analytic method, and starts with the facts of experience and the lig-ht of nature, and man's present morally diseased con- dition, leads upward to redemption and to the character of God as revealed therein. Following the former of these methods all the elements of the system are usually grouped under the following heads : 1st. Theology proper: including the existence, attributes, triune personality of God, together with his eternal purposes, and temporal acts of creation and providence. 2d. Anthropology : (doctrine of man) including the creation and nature of man, his original state, fall, and consequent moral ruin. This embraces the Biblical Psychology, and the Script- ural doctrine of sin, its nature, origin, and mode of propagation. 3d. Soteriology : (doctrine of salvation) which includes the plan, execution, and application and glorious effects of human salvation. This embraces Christology (the doctrine of Christ), the incarnation, the constitution of Clirist's person, his life, death, and resurrection, together with the oftice-work of the Holy Ghost, and the means of grace, the word and sacraments. 4th. Christian Ethics: embracing the principles, rvdes, mo- tives, and aids of human duty revealed in the Bible as deter- mined (o) by his natural relations as a man with his fellows, and (?)) his supernatural relations as a redeemed man. 5th. Eschatology (science of last things) comprehending death, the intermediate state of the soul, the second advent, the resurrection of the dead, the general judgment, heaven and hell. 6th. Ecclesiology (science of the Church); including the scientific determination of all that the Scriptures teach as to the Church visible and invisible, in its temporal and in its eternal state ; including the Idea of the Church — its true defi- nition— its constitution and organization, its officers and their functions. A comparison and criticism of all the modifications of ecclesiastical organization that have ever existed, together with their genesis, history, and practical effects. II. Doctrine-History, which embraces the history of each of these great doctrines traced in its first appearance and sub- sequent development, through the controversies it excited and the Confessions in which it is defined. III. Polemics, or Controversial Theology, including the de- fence of the true system of doctrine as a whole and of each constituent element of it in detail against the perversions of heretical parties within the pale of the general Church. This embraces — (1.) The general principles and true method of relig- 24 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. ions controversies. (2.) The definition of the true Status Quces- tionis in each controversy, and an exposition of the sources of evidence and of the methods, defensive and offensive, by which the truth is to be vindicated. (3.) Tlie history of controversies.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "2", "sort_key": 2, "group": "Chapter I", "question": "What  is  embraced  itnder  the  head  of  Practical  Theology?", "answer": "Practical Theology is both a science and an art. As an art it has for its purpose the effective publication of the contents of revelation among all men, and the perpetuation, extension, and edification of the earthly kingdom of God. As a science it has for its province the revealed principles and laws of the art above defined. Hence as Systematic Theology roots itself in a thorough Exegesis at once scientific and spiritual, so docs Practical Theology root itself in the great principles develoj)ed by Sj^stematic Theology, the department of Ecclesiology being connnon ground to both departments: the product of the one, and the foundation of the other. It includes the following main divisions — ■1st. The discussion of the Idea and Design of the Church, and of its divinely revealed attributes. 2d. The determination of the divinel}^ appointed constitu- tion of the Church, and methods of administration, with the discussion and refutation of all the rival forms of Churcli organ- ization that have prevailed, their history, and that of the con- troversies which they have occasioned. 3d. The discussion of the nature and extent of the discre- tion Christ has allowed his followers in adjusting the methods of ecclesiastical organization and administration to changing social and historical conditions. 4th. Church membership, its conditions, and the relation to Christ involved, together with the duties and privileges abso- lute and relative of the several classes of members. The rela- tion of baptized children to the Church, and the relative duties of Parents and of the Church in relation to them. 5tli. The Officers of the Church — extraordinary and tempo- rary; ordinar}^ and perpetual. (1.) Their call and ordination; their relations to Christ and to the Church. (2.) Their functions — A. As Teacliers — including — (a.) Catechetics, its necessity, principles, and history. (b.) Sunday-schools. The duties of parents and of the Church in respect to the religious education of children. (c) Sacred Rhetoric. Homiletics and pulpit elocution. {(l.) Christian literature. The newspaper, and periodicals and permanent books. PRACTICAL THEOLOGY. 25 B. As Leaders of Worship, including- — (a.) Liturgies, their uses, abuses, and history. (&. ) Free forms of prayer. (c.) Psahnody, inspired and uninspired, its uses and history. (fZ.) Sacred Music, vocal and instrumental uses and history. C. As Ptulers — (a.) The office, qualification, duties and Scriptural Warrant of Kuling Elders — (i.) The office, qualification, duties, mode of election, and ordination, and Scriptural Warrant of the New -Testament Bishop or Pastor. (c.) The Session, its constitution and functions. The the- ory and practical rules and methods of Church discipline. (d) The Presbytery and its constitution and functions. The theory and practical rules and precedents regulating the action of Church courts, in the exercise of the constitutional right of Review and Control in the issue and conduct of trials, complaints, appeals, etc., etc. (e.) The Synod and General Assembly and their constitu- tion and functions. The Principles a-nd policy of Committees, Commissioners, Boards, etc., etc. This leads to the functions of the Church as a whole, and the warrant for and the uses and abuses of Denominational dis- tinctions, and the relations of the different Denominations to one another. 1st. Church Statistics, including our own Church, other Churches, and the world. 2d. Christian, social, and ecclesiastical economics, including the duties of Christian stewardship, personal consecration, and systematic benevolence. The relation of the Church to the poor and to criminals, the administration of orphan asylums, hospitals, prisons, etc. The relation of the Church to volun- tary societies. Young Men's Christian Associations, etc., etc. 3d. The education of the ministry, the policy, constitution and administration of theological seminaries. 4th. Domestic Missions, including aggressive evangeliza- tion, support of the ministry among the poor, Church exten- sion and Church erection. 5th. The relation of the Church to the state, and the true relation of the state to religion, and the actual condition of the common and statute law with relation to Church property, and the action of Church Courts in the exercise of discipline, etc. The obligations of Christian citizenship. The relation of the Church to civilization, to moral reforms, to the arts, sciences, social refinements, etc., etc. 6th. Foreign Missions in all their departments. 26 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. See \" Lectures on Theological Encyclopaedia and Method- ology,\" by Rev. John M'Clintock, D.D., LL.D., edited by J. T. Short, B.b. ; and \" Bibliotheca Sacra,\" Vol. 1, 1844; \"Theolog- ical Encyclopaedia and Methodology,\" from unpublished lecture of Prof. Tholuck, by Prof E. A. Park.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "3", "sort_key": 3, "group": "Chapter I", "question": "W]icd  is  embraced  under  the  head  of  Historical  Theology?", "answer": "According to the logical evolution of the whole contents of the theological sciences, the Interpretation of the letter of Scripture, and the construction of the entire Sj^stem of related truths and duties revealed therein, must precede the History of the actual development of that revelation in the life and faith of the Church. Just as the fountain must precede the stream which tlows from it. Yet, as a matter of fact, in the actual study of the family of theological sciences. History must precede and lay the foundation for all the rest. History alone gives us the Scriptures in which our revelation is recorded, and the means whereby the several books and their ipsissima verba are critically ascertained. We are indebted to tJie same source for our methods of interpretation, and for their results as illustrated in the body of theological literature accimiulated in the past; also for our creeds and confessions and records of controversies, and hence for the records preserving the gradual evolution of our system of doctrine. In the order of pro- duction and of acquisition History comes first, while in the order of a logical exposition of tlie constituent theological sciences in their relations within the system. History has the honor of crowning the whole series. Historical Theology is divided into Bihlical and Ecclesiastical. The first derived cliiefly from inspired sources, and continuing down to the close of the New Testament canon. The latter beginning where the former ends, and continuing to the pres- ent time. Biblical History is subdivided into — 1st. Old Testament History, including (1) the Patriarchal, (2) Mosaic, and (3) Pro- phetical eras, together with (4) the history of the chosen peo- ple during the interval between the close of the Old and the opening of the New Testament. 2d. New Testament His- tory, including (1) the life of Christ, (2) The founding of the Christian Church by the Apostles down to the end of the first century. With respect to Ecclesiastical History several preliminary departments of study are essential to its prosecution as a science. 1st. Several of the auxiliary sciences already enumerated must be cited as specifically demanded in this connection. HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. 27 These are — (1.) Ancient, Medieeval, and Modern Geography. (2.) Chronology. (3.) The Antiquities of all the peoples embraced in the area through which the Church has at any period ex- tended. (4.) Statistics, exhibiting the actual condition of the world at any particular period. (5. ) The entire course of General History. 2d. The Sources from which Ecclesiastical History is de- rived should be critically investigated. (1.) Monumental sources, such as (a) buildings, (6) inscriptions, (c) coins, etc. (2.) Docu- mental, which are — (a.) Public, such as the Acts of Councils, the briefs, decretals, and bulls of Popes; the archives of govern- ments, and the creeds, confessions, catechisms, and liturgies of the Churches, etc., etc. (&.) Private documents, such as con- temporary literature of all kinds, pamphlets, biographies, annals, and later reports and compilations. 3d. The History of the literature of ecclesiastical history from Eusebius to Neander, Kurtz, and Scliaff. The methods Avhich have been and which should be followed in the arrange- ment of the material of Church History. The actual JMethod always has been and probably always will be a combination of the two natural methods — (o) chrono- logical, and (?>j topical. The fundamental principle upon which, according to Dr. IM'Clintock, the materials of Church History should be ar- ranged, is the distinction between the life and the faith of the Church. The two divisions therefore, are (1) History of the life of the Church, or Church History proper, and (2) History of the thought of the Church, or Doctrine-History. 1st. The History of the Life of the Church deals with per- sons, communities, and events, and shoidd be treated according to the ordinary methods of historical composition. 2d. The History of the Thought of the Church comprises — (1.) Patristics, or the literature of the early Christian Fathers; and Patrology, or a scientific exhibition of their doctrine. These Fathers are grouped under three heads — (a) Apostol- ical, {l)) Ante-Nicene, and (c) Post-Nicene, terminating with Gregory the Great among the Latins, a. d. 604, and with John of Damascus among the Greeks, a. d. 754. This study involves the discussion of (a) the proper use of these Fathers, and their legitimate authority in modern controversies; (6) a full history of their literature, and of the principal editions of their works ; and (c) the meaning, value, and doctrine of each individual Father separately — (2.) Christian Archaeology, which treats of the usage, wor- ship, discipline of the early Church, and the history of Chris- tian worship, art, architecture, poetry, painting, music, etc., etc. 28 THEOLOGICAL ENCYCLOPEDIA. (3.) Doctrine-History, or the critical history of the genesis and development of each element of the doctrinal system of the Church, or of any of its historical branches, with an account of all the heretical forms of doctrine from which the truth has been separated, and the history of all the controversies by means of which the elimination has been effected. This will, of course, be accompanied with a critical history of the entire Literature of D(Jctrine-History, of the principles recognized, the methods pursued, and the works produced. (4) Symbolics, which involves — (rt.) The scientific deter- mination of the necessity for and uses of public Creeds and Confessions. (6.) The history of the occasions, of the actual genesis, and subsequent reception, authority, and influence of each one of the Creeds and Confessions of Christendom, (c.) The study of the doctrinal contents of each Creed, and of each group of Creeds separately, and (r/.) Comparative Sym- bolics, or the comparative study of all the Confessions of the Church, and thence a systematic exliibition of all their respect- ive points of agreement and of contrast. M'Clintock's \"Theological Encyclopaedia\"; \"Notes on Ec- clesiastical History,\" by Dr. J. A. Alexander, edited by Dr. S. D. Alexander.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "4", "sort_key": 4, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "Hoio  can  a  \"real\"  definition  of  God  he  constructed?", "answer": "Evidently God can be defined only in so far as he is known to us, and the condition of the possibility of our knowing him 30 THE BEING OF GOD. is the fact that we were created in liis image. Every definition of\" God must assume this fact, that in an essential sense he and his intelligent creatures are beings of the same genus. He is therefore defined by giving his genus and specific difference. Thus he is as to genus, an intelligent personal Spirit. He is, as to his specific difference, as to that which constitutes him God, infinite, eternal, unchangeable in his being, in his wisdom, in his power, in his holiness, and in all perfections consistent with his being.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "5", "sort_key": 5, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "To  lohat  extent  is  the  idea  of  God  dite  to  Tixidition  ?", "answer": "It is evident that the complete idea of God presented in the foregoing definition has been attained only by means of the supernatural revelation recorded in the Christian Scriptures. It is a fact also that the only three Theistic religions which have ever prevailed among men (the Jewish, Mohammedan and Christian) are historically connected with the same revela- tion. It is also, of course, in vain to speculate as to Avhat would be the action of the human mind independent of all inherited habits, and of all traditional opinions. We are en- tirely without experience or testimony as to any kind of knowl- edge attained or judgments formed under such conditions. It is moreover certain that the form in which the theistic concep- tion is realized, and the associations with which it is accom- panied, are determined in the case of each community by the theological traditions they have inherited from their fathers. It IS, on the other hand, indubitably certain that all men under all known, and tlierefore under all truly natural con- ditions, do spontaneously recognize the divine existence as more or less clearly revealed to them in the constitution and conscious experience of their own souls, and in external nature. The theistic conception hence is no more due to authority, as often absurdly charged, than the belief in the subjective reality of spirit or in the objective reality of matter formed under the same educational conditions. The recognition of the self-man- ifest God is spontaneous, and universal, which proves the evi- dence to be clear and everywhere present, and convincing to all normally developed men.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "6", "sort_key": 6, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "Is  the  idea  of  God  innate?     And  is  it  an  intuitive  truth?", "answer": "That depends upon the sense in which the respective terms are taken. It is evident that there are no \"innate\" ideas in the sense that any child was ever born with a conception of the divine being, or any other conception already formed in his mind. It is also certain that the human mind when developed under purely natural conditions, in the absence of all super- IN WHAT SENSE INNATE? 31 natural revelation, can never attain to an adequate conception of the divine nature. On the other hand, however, all' history- proves that the idea of God is innate in the sense that the constitutional faculties of the human soul do, under all natural conditions, secure the spontaneous recognition, more or less clear, of God as tJie ultimate ground of all being, and as the Lord of conscience, self-manifested in the soul and in the world. It is innate in so much as the evidence is as universally present as the light of day, and the process by which it is apprehended is constitutional. If the term \"intuition\" is taken in its strict sense of a direct vision of a truth, seen in its own light to be necessary, by an intellectual act incapable of being resolved into more elementary processes of thought, then the existence of God is not a truth apprehended intuitively by men. The process whereby it is reached, whether spontaneously or by elaborate reasoning, em- braces many indubitable intuitions as elements, but no man apprehends God himself by a direct intuition. Because — (1.) Although the recognition of the divine exist- ence is necessary in the sense that the great majority of men recognize the truth, and are unable to disbelieve it even when they wish, and no one can do so without doing violence to his nature, yet it is not necessar}^ to thought in the sense that the non-existence of God is unthinkable. (2.) Because God mani- fests himself to us not immediately but mediately through his works, and there is always present, at least implicitly, an infer- ence in the act whereby the soul recognizes his presence and action. (3.) The true idea of God is exceedingly complex, and is reached by a complex process, whether spontaneous or not, involving various elements capable of analysis and description. On the other hand it is true that God manifests himself in his working in our souls and in external nature just as the invisible souls of our fellow-men manifest themselves, and we spontaneously recognize him just as we do them. We recog- nize them because (a) we are generically like them, and (5) their attributes are significally expressed in their words and actions. And we recognize God because (a) we have been made in his image, Avliich fact we spontaneously recognize (6) from his self- revelations in consciousness, especially in conscience, and from the characteristics of the external world. \"While the mental process which has been described — the theistic inference — is capable of analysis, it is itself synthetic. The principles on which it depends are so connected that the mind can embrace them all in a single act, and must include and apply them all in the apprehension of God. Will, intel- ligence, conscience, reason, and the ideas which they supply; 32 THE BEING OF GOD. cause, design, goudness, infinity, and the arguments which rest on these ideas — all coalesce into this one grand issue.\" — \"Theism\" by Prof. Flint, pp. 71, 72. 5. If the existence of God is spontaneously recognized hy all men under normcd conditions of consciousness, ivhat is the value of formal arguments to prove that existence ? And lohat are the arguments generally used? 1st. These arguments are of value as analyses and scientific verifications of the mental processes implicitly involved in the spontaneous re cognition of the self-manifestations of God. 2d. They are of i. ^e also for the purpose of vindicating the legitimacy of the :)rocess against the criticisms of skeptics. 3d. Also for the purpose of quickening and confirming the spon- taneous recognition by draAving attention to the extent and variety of the evidence to which it responds. 4th. The vari- ous arguments are convergent rather than consecutive. They do not all establish the same elements of the theistic concep- tion, but each establishes independently its separate element, and thus is of use («) in contributing confirmatory evidence that God is, and (Ij) complementary evidence as to ivhcd God is. They constitute an organic whole, and are the analysis and illustration of the spontaneous act whereby the mass of men have always recognized God. \"Although causality does not involve design, nor design goodness, design involves causality, and goodness both causality and design. The proofs of intelli- gence are also proofs of power; and the proofs of goodness are proofs of both intelligence and power. The principles of reason which compel us to think of the Supreme Moral Intelligence as self-existent, eternal, infinite, and unchangeable Being, supple- ment the proofs from other sources, and give self-consistency and completeness to the doctrine of theism.\" — \"Theism,\" Prof. Flint, pp. 73, 74. The usual arguments will be examined under the following heads : 1st. The Cosmological Argument, or the evidence for God's existence as First Cause. 2d. The Teleological Argument, or the evidence of God's existence aftbrded by the presence of order and adaptation in the universe. 3d. The Moral Argument, or the evidence afforded by the moral consciousness and history of mankind. 4th. The evidence afforded by the phenomena of Scripture and the supernatural history they record. 5th. The A priori Argument, and the testimony afforded by reason to God as the Infinite and Absolute. THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUM VT. 33 6. State the Cosmological Argument. It may be stated in tlie form of a syllogism, thus — Major Premise. — Every new existence or change in any thing previously existing must have had a cause pre-existing and adequate. 3Iinor Premise. — The universe as a whole and in all its parts is a system of changes. Conclusion. — Hence the universe must have a cause exterior to itself, and the ultimate or absolute caus'^^ must be eternal, uncaused, and unchangeable. 1st. As to the major premise; the caus/l judgment is in- tuitive and absolutel}^ universal and necesl -iry. It has been denied theoretically by some speculators, as Hume and Mill, but it is always used by them and all others in all their rea- soning as to the origin of the world, as well as of all things it contains. The judgment is unavoidable; the opposite is un- thinkable. Something exists now, therefore something must have existed from eternity, and that which has existed from eternity is the cause of that w^iicli exists now. It has been claimed that the causal judgment leads to an infinite regressive series of causes and effects. But this is absurd. (1.) The judgment is not that every thing must have a. cause, but that every new thing or change must have been caused. But that which is eternal and immutable needs no cause. (2.) An infinite series of causes and effects is absurd, for that is only a series of changes, wdiich is precisely that which demands a cause, and all the more imperatively in pro- portion to its length. A real cause, on the other hand, — that in which the causal judgment can alone absolutely rest, — must be neither a change nor a series of changes, but something uncaused, eternal and immutable. As a matter of fact all philosophers and men of science without exception assume the principles asserted. They all postulate an eternal, self-existent, imchangeable cause of the universe, whether a personal spirit, or material atoms, or a substance of wdiich both matter and spirit are modes, or an unconscious intelligent world-soul in union with matter. 2d. As to the minor premise. The fact that the universe as a whole and in all its parts is a system of changes is empha- sized by every principle and lesson of modern science. Every discovery in the fields of geology and astronomy, and all spec- ulation— as the nebular hypothesis and the hypothesis of evolu- tion— embody this principle as their very essence. But John Stuart Mill in his \"Essay on Theism,\" pp. 142, 143, says: \"There is in nature a permanent element, and also a 3J: THE BEING OF GOD. changeable: the changes are always the effects of previous changes; the permanent existences, so far as we know, are not effects at all. . . . There is in every object another and permanent element, viz., the specific elementary substance or substances of which it consists, and their inherent properties. These are not known as beginning to exist; within the range of human knowledge they had no beginning, consequently no cause; though they themselves are causes or concauses of every thing that takes place.\" \" Whenever a physical phenomenon is traced to its cause, that cause when analyzed is found to be a certain quantum of force, combined with certain collocations. The force itself is essentially one and the same, and there exists of it in nature a fixed quantity, which (if the the- ory of the conservation of forces be true) is never increased or diminished. Here then we find in the changes of material nature a permanent element, to all appearance the very one of which we are in quest. This it is apparently to which, if to any thing, we must assign the character of First Cause.\" — \"Essay on Theism,\" pp. 144, 145. We answer — (1.) The existence of \"Energy\" in any of its convertable forms dissociated from matter is absolutely un- thinkable. This is recognized as an unquestionable scientific truth by Stewart and Tait (\" Unseen Universe,\" p. 79). (2.) It is an obvious fact \"that all but an exceedingly small trac- tion of the light and heat of the sun and stars goes out into space, and does not return to them. In the next place the vis- ible motion of the large bodies of the universe is gradually being stopped by something which may be denominated ethe- rial friction,\" and at last they must fall together, and constitute by successive aggregations one mass. \"In fine the degradation of Energy of the visible universe proceeds, 'pari jpassii^ with the aggregation of mass. The very fact, therefore, that the large masses of the visible universe are of finite size, is suffi- cient to assure us that the process can not have been going on forever, or in other words that the visible universe must have had an origin in time\" — since (a) Energy remains aggregated iit finite quantities yet undiftused, and {h) since the matter of the universe still remains in separate masses. Thus the very law o,f the correlation of Energy to which Mill appeals proves, when really tested, that the visible imiverse had a beginning and will have an end. Stewart and Tait (\" Unseen Universe,\" p. 166). (3.) His assumption, also, that the matter of the uni- verse is in its ultimate atoms eternal and unchangeable, is un- proved and contrary to scientific analogy. Clark ]\\Iaxwell (in his address as President of the British Association for Advance- ment of Science, 1870) says: \"The exact equality of each mole- THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 35 cule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Her- schell has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-ex- istent.\" (4.) As a matter of fact all evolution theories as to the genesis of the universe necessarily postulate a commence- ment in time, and a primordial fire-mist. But this fire-mist can not be the First Cause the causal judgment demands, be- cause it is not eternal and immutable. If eternal it would be fully developed. If fully developed it could not develop into the universe. If immutable it could not pass into change. If not immutable it is itself, like the universe which issues from it, a transient condition of matter, like aJl other change de- manding for itself a cause. 7. State the Teleological Argument. Teleology from reAo?, end, and Xoyo'i, discourse, is the sci- ence of final causes, or of purposes or design as exhibited in the adjustments of parts to wholes, of means to ends, of organs to uses in nature. It is also familiarly called the Argument from Design ; and is ultimately based upon the recognition of the operations of an intelligent cause in nature. It may be profit- ably stated in two forms based respectively on the more general and the more special manifestations of that intelligence. First Form. Major Premise. — Universal order and harmony in the conspiring operation of a vast multitude of separate ele- ments can be explained only by the postulate of an intelligent cause. Minor Premise. — The universe as a whole and in all its parts is a fabric of the most complex and symmetrical order. Conclusion. — Therefore the eternal and absolute cause of the universe is an intelligent mind. Second Form. Major Premise. — The adjustment of parts and the adaptation of means to effect an end or purpose can be ex- plained only by reference to a designing intelligence and will. Minor Premise. — The universe is full of such adjustments of parts, and of organisms composed of parts conspiring to efi\"ect an end. Conclusion. — Therefore the First Cause of the universe must be an intelligent mind and wall. These arguments if valid amount to proving that God is an eternal self-existing Person. For the assumption of an un- conscious intelligence, or of an intelligence producing effects without the exercise of will is absurd. These phrases repre- sent no possible ideas. And intelligence and will together constitute personality. As to the first form of the argument it is evident that the 36 THE BEING OF GOD. very fact that science is possible is an indubitable proof that the order of nature is intellectual. Science is a product of the human mind, which is absolutely incapable of passing beyond the laws of its own constitution. Intuitions of reason, logical processes of analysis, inductive or deductive inference, imagi- nation, invention, and all the activities of the soul organize the scientific process. To all this external nature is found perfectly to correspond. Even the most subtle solutions of abstract mathematical and mechanical problems have been subsequently found by experiment to have been anticipated in nature. The laws of nature are expressions of numerical and geometrical harmonies, and are instinct with reason and beauty. Yet these laws although invariable under invariable conditions, are nei- ther eternal nor inherent in the elementary constitution of the universe. The properties of elemental matter are constant, but the laws which organize them are themselves complicated effects resulting from antecedent adjustments of these elements themselves under the categoi'ies of time, place, quantity, and quality. As these adjustments change the laws change. These adjustments, therefore, are the cause of these laws, and the ad- justments themselves must be the product either of chance, which is absurd, or of intelligence, which is certain. This intellectual order of nature is the first necessary postu- late of all science, and it is the essence of all the processes of the universe from the grouping of atoms to the revolution of worlds, from the digestion of a polyp to the functional action of the human brain. As to the second form of this Argument. — The principle of design presupposes the general intellectual order of the uni- verse and her laws, and presents in advance the affirmation that the character of the First Cause is further ma^iifested by the everywhere present evidence that these general laws are made to conspire by special adjustments to the accomplishment of ends evidently intended. This principle is illustrated by the mutual adjustments of the various provinces of nature, and especially by the vegetable and animal organisms, and the re- lations they involve, of organ to organism, of organism to in- stinct, and of single organisms and classes of organisms to each other and to their physical surroundings. In many cases the intention of these special adjustments is self-evident and undeniable, as in the case of the parts of the eye to the pur- pose of vision. In other cases it is more obscure and conject- in-al. In the present condition of science we can understand oidy in part, but froni the beginning the evidence of intel- ligent purpose has been transparent and overwhelming. A single sentence proves intelligence, although the context is OBJECTIONS TO THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 37 undecipherable. But every advance of science discloses the same evidence over wider areas and in clearer light. 8. State and answer the objections to the theistic inference from the evidences of special design. 1st. Hume (\"Dialogues on Natural Religion,\" Pt. VII., etc.,) argues that our conviction that adaptation implies design is due to experience and cannot go beyond it. That our judg- ment that natural organisms imply design in their cause is an inference from the analogy of human contrivance, and its effects. He argues further that this analogy is false because — (1.) The human worker is antecedently known to us as an intelligent contriver, while the author of nature is antecedently unknown, and the very object sought to be verified by the theistic infer- ence. (2.) The processes of nature are all unlike the processes by which man executes his contrivances, and the formation of the world, and the institution of the processes of nature are peculiar effects of the like of which we have no experience. We answer — (1.) The argument rests upon a false assump- tion of fact. The human contriver, the soul of our fellow-man, is not antecedently known to us, nor is ever in any way known except by the character of the works by which he manifests himself And precisely in the same way and to the same ex- tent is the Author of natiue known. (2.) It rests on a false assumption of principle. The analogy of human contrivances is not the ground of our conviction that order and adaptation imply intelligence. It is a universal and necessary judgment of reason that order and adaptation can only spring from an intelhgent cause, or from accident, and that the latter supposi- tion is absurd. 2d. Some men of science, who have become habituated to the consideration of the universe as an absolute unit, all the pro- cesses of w^iich are executed by invariable general laws (a mode of thought in which for centuries science was anticipated by Augustinian Theology), object that in inferring intention from the adjustment of parts in special groups or systems, the natural theologian had mistaken a part for a whole, and an incidental effect of a general law, resulting from special and temporary conditions, for the real end of the law itself They hold that if even the First Cause of the universe were intelli- gent, it were infinitely absurd for men to presume to interpret his purpose from what we see of the special results of the working of laws working from infinite past time, through infi- nite space, and over an infinite system of conspiring parts. We ansiver — (1.) It is self-evident that the relations of the parts of a special whole conspiring to a special end may be 38 THE BEING OF GOD. fully understood, while the relations of that special whole to the general whole may be entirel}' unknown, although strong light is thrown even on this side by reason and revelation. A single bone of an unknown species of animal gives undeniable evidence of special adaptation, and may even, as scientists justly claim, throAv light beyond itself upon the constitution of that otherwise unknown whole to which it belonged. (2.) We con- fess that this criticism, although failing as to the argument from design, has force relatively to the mode iu which that argument has often been conceived. The older natural theolo- gians did often to too great a degree abstra(;t individual or- ganisms from the great dynamic whole of which they are products as well as parts. Dr. Flint (\"Theism,\" p. 159) well distinguishes between the intrioisic, the extrinsic^ and the ulti- mate ends of any special adjustment. Thus the intrinsic end of that special adjustment of parts called the eye is vision. Its extrinsic ends are the uses it serves to the animal it belongs to, and all the uses he serves to all he stands immediately or remotely related to. Its ultimate ei«;l is the end of the uni- verse itself \"Theism,\" p. 163 — \"When we affirm, then, that final causes in the sense of intrinsic ends are in things, we affirm merely that things are systematic unities, the parts of which are definitely related to one another, and co-ordinated to a common issue; and when we affirm that final causes in the sense of extrinsic ends are in things, we affirm merely that things are not isolated and independent systems, but systems definitely related to other systems, and so adjusted as to be parts or components of higher systems, and means to issues more comprehensive than their own.\" It is true indeed that a man can not discern the ultimate end of a part until he discerns the ultimate end of the whole, and that he can not discern all the extrinsic ends of any spe- cial system until he knows all its relations to all other special systems. Nevertheless, as a man who knows nothing of the relation of a given plant or animal to the flora or fauna of a continent, may be absolutely certain of the functions of the root or the claw in the economy of the plant or beast, so the manner in which all the parts which conspire to make a spe- cial whole are adapted to effect that end may be perfectl}' un- derstood, while we know nothing as yet of the extrinsic relation of that special whole to that which is exterior to itself 3d. It has been claimed in recent times by a certain class of scientists that evidence for the existence of God afibrded by the order and adaptation exhibited in the processes of nature has been very much weakened, if not absolutely invalidated, by the assumed probability of the alternative hypothesis of OBJECTIONS TO THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. 39 Evolution. There are many theories of Evolution, but the term in the general sense denotes the judgment that the state of the universe as a whole and in all its parts any one moment of time, has its cause in its state the immediately preceding moment, and that these changes have been brought about through the agency of powers inherent in nature, and that they may be traced back from moment to moment without any break of causal continuity through all past time. All possible theories of Evolution, considered in their rela- tion to theology, may be classified thus: (1.) Those which neither deny no^* obscure the evidence which the order and adaptation observed in nature afford to the existence of God, and his immanence in and providential control of his works. (2) Those which, while recognizing God as the original source in the remote past, to which the origination and the primary adjustments of the universe are to be referred, yet deny his immanence and constant providential activity in his works. (3.) Those which professedly or virtually obscure or deny the evidence afforded by the (jwder and adaptation of the universe for the existence and activity of God alike as Creator and as Providential Ruler. With the first class of Evolution theories the Natural Theo- logian has, of course, only the most friendly interest. As to the second class, which admits that a divine intelli- gence contrived and inaugurated the universe at the absolute beginning, yet deny that any such agent is immanent in the universe controlling its processes, we remark — (1.) That the point we have at present to establish is the eternal self-exist- ence of an intelligent First Cause, and not the mode of his relation to the universe. The latter question will be treated in subsequent chapters. (2.) It is far more philosophical, and more in accordance with a true interpretation of the scientifio principle of continuity, to conceive of the First Cause as imma- nent in the universe, and as organically concurring with all unintelligent second causes in all processes exhibiting power or intelligence. This is recognized by that large majority of scientific men who are either orthodox Theists, or who refer all the phenomena of the physical universe to the dynamic ac- tion of the divine will. (3.) The evidence afforded by man's moral consciousness and history and by revelation, to the im- manence and effective agency of God in all his works, is un- answerable. As to the third class of Evolution theories, which do either professedly or virtually obscure or deny the evidence afforded by order or contrivance to an intelligent First Cause of the Universe, as for example the theory of Darwin as to the differ- 40 THE BEING OF GOD. entiation of all organisms through accidental variations occumng through nnlimited time, ave remark — 1st. Every such scheme, when it is proposed as an account of the existing universe, must furnish a probable explanation of all classes of facts. It is notorious that every theory of purely natural Evolution fails utterly to explain the following facts: (1.) The origination of life. It could not have existed in the lire-mist. It could not have been generated by that whicli has no life. The mature decision of science to-day (1878) is expressed in the old axiom onme vivum ex vivo. (2.) The origin of sensation. (3.) Also of intelligence and will. (4). Also of conscience. (5.) The establishment of distinct log- ically corrolated and persistent types of genera and species, maintained by the law of hybridity. (6.) The origin of man. Prof A^irchow of Berlin, in his recent address at the German Association of Naturalists and Physicians at ]\\Iunich, says, \"You are aware that I am now specially engaged in the study of anthropology ; but I am bound to declare that every positive advance which we have made in the province of prehistoric anthropology has actually removed us further from the proof of such connection (i. e., the descent of man from any lower type).\" 2d. But even if continuous evolution could be pi-oved as a fact, the significance of the evidence of intelligent order and contrivance would not be in the least affected. It would only establish a method or system of means, but could in no degree alter the nature of the effect, nor the attributes of tlie real cause disclosed by them. (1.) The laws of abiogenesis, of reproduc- tion, of sexual differentiation and reproduction, of heredity, of variation, such as can evolve sensation, reason, conscience, and will out of atoms and mechanical energy, would all still remain to be accounted for. (2.) Laws are never causes, but always complicated modes of action resulting from the co-action _ of innumerable unconscious agents. Instead, therefore, of being explanations they are the very complex effects for which reason demands an intellectual cause. (3.) All physical laws result from the original properties of matter acting under the mutual condition of certain complicated adjustments. Change the ad- justments and the laws change. The laws which execute evo- lution, or rather into which the process of evolution is analyzed, must be referred back to the original adjustments of the ina- terial elements of the fire-mist. These adjustments, in whicli all future order and life is by hypothesis latent, must have been caused by chance or intelligence. Huxley in his \"Criti- cisms on Origin of Species,\" p. 330, founds the whole logic of Evolution on chance thus: It has been \"demonstrated that an THE MORAL ARGUMENT. 41 apparatus tliorouglily well-adapted to a particular purpose, may- be the result of a method of trial and error worked out by un- intelligent agents, as well as of the direct application of the means appropriate to that end by an intelligent agent.\" \"Ac- cording to Teleology, each organism is like a rifle bullet fired straight at a mark; according to Darwin organisms are like grape-shot, of which one hits something and the rest fall wide.\" The modern scientific explanation of the processes of the uni- verse by physical causes alone, to the exclusion of mind, differs from the old long-exploded chance theory, only by the acci- dents (a) of the juggling use of the words \"laws of nature,\" (/;) and the assumption that chance operating through indefi- nate duration can accomplish the work of intelligence. But as no man can believe that any amount of time will explain the form of flint knives and arrow heads, in the absence of human agents, or that any number of throws could cast a font of type into the order of letters in the plays of Shakespeare, so no man can rationally believe that the complicated and significantly intellectual order of the universe sprang from chance. (4.) In artificial breeding man selects. In \"natural selection\" nature selects. Hence, if the results are the most careful adjustments to effect purpose, it follows that that characteristic must be stamped upon the organisms by nature, and hence nature itself must therefore be intelligently directed, either (a) by an intel- ligence immanent in her elements, or in her whole as organized, or (6) by the original adjustment of her machinery by an intel- ligent Creator. 9. State the 3Ioral Argument, or the Evidence afforded by the 3Ioral Consciousness ayid History of mankind. The Cosmological argument led us to an eternal self-existent First Cause. The argument from the order and adaptation dis- covered in the processes of the universe revealed this great First Cause as possessing intelligence and will; that is, as a personal spirit. The moral or anthropological argument fur- nishes new data for inference, at once confirming the former conclusions as to the fact of the existence of a personal intelli- gent First Cause, and at the same time adding to the concep- tion the attributes of holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. The argument from design includes the argument from cause, and the argument from righteousness and benevolence includes both the arguments from cause and from design, and adds to them a new element of its own. This group of arguments may be stated thus: 1st. Consciousness is the fundamental ground of all knowl- edge. It gives us immediately the knowledge of self as exist- 42 THE BEING OF GOD. ing and as the subject of certain attributes, and the agent in certain forms of activity. Tliese souls and all their attributes must be accounted for. They have not existed from eternity. They could not have been evolved out of material elements, because — (1.) Consciousness testilies to their unity, simplicity, and spirituality. (2.) The laws of reason and the moral sense can not be explained as the result of transformed sense impres- sions modified by association derived by heredity (Mill and Spencer) ; for, (a) they are universally the same, ili) incapable of analysis, (c) necessary, and (c/) sovereign over all impulses. Therefore the human soul must have been created, and its Cre- ator must have attributes superior to his work. 2d. Man is essentially and universally a religious being. The sense of absolute dependence and moral accountability is inherent in his nature, universal and necessary. Conscience- always implies responsibility to a sujDerior, in moral authority, and therefore in moral character. It is especially implied in the sense of guilt which accompanies every violation of con- science. God is manifested and recognized in conscience as a holy, righteous, just, and intelligent will; i. e., a holy personal spirit. 3d. The adaptations of nature, as far as we can trace their relations to sentient beings, are characteristically beneficent, and evidence a general purpose to promote happiness, and to gratify a sense of beauty. This implies design, and design of a special esthetic and moral character, and proves that the First Cause is benevolent and a lover of beauty. 4th. The entire history of the human race, as far as known, discloses a moral order and purpose, which cannot be explained by the intelligence or moral purpose of the human agents con- cerned, which discovers an all-embracing unity of plan, com- prehending all peoples and all centuries. The phenomena of social and national life, of ethnological distribution, of the de- velopment and diffusion of civilizations and religions can be explained only by the existence of a wise, righteous, and be- nevolent ruler and educator of mankind. 10. State and answer the objections to the 3Ioral Argument. These objections are founded — 1st. On the mechanical in- variability of natural laws, and their inexorable disregard of the welfare of sentient creatures. 2d. The sufterings of irrational animals. 3d. The prevalence of moral and ph^^'sical evils among men. 4th. The unequal apportionment of providential favors, and the absence of all proportion between the measure of happiness allotted, and the respective moral characters of the recipients. OBJECTIONS TO MORAL ARGUMENT. 43 These difficulties, more or less trying to the faith of all, are the real occasion in the great majority of instances, of skep- tical atheism. John Stewart Mill in his \" Essay on Nature \" (\"Three Essays on Religion \") describes it as the characteristic of \"Nature\" ruthlessly to inflict suffering and death, and affirms that the cause of nature, if a personal will, must be a monster of cruelty and injustice. In his \" Essay on Theism,\" Pt. ii., he argues that the attempt to maintain that the author of nature, such as we know it, is at once omniscient and omnipotent and absolutely just and benevolent is abominably immoral. That he can be excused of cruelty and injustice only on the plea of limited knowledge or power, or both. He sums up his con- clusion from the evidence thus: \"A Being of great but limited power, how or by what limited we cannot even conjecture; of great and perhaps unlimited intelligence, but perhaps also more narrowly limited than his power : who desires and pays some regard to the happiness of his creatures, but who seems to have other motives of action which he cares more for, and who can hardly be supposed to have created the universe for that pur- pose only.\" In his \"Autobiography,\" cli. ii., he says of his fa- ther, James j\\Iill, \"I have heard him say, that the turning point of his mind on the subject was reading Butler's Analogy. That work, of which he always continued to speak with respect, kept him, as he said, for some considerable time, a believer in the divine authority of Christianity ; by proving to him, that what- ever are the difficulties of believing that the Old and New Tes- taments proceed from, or record the acts of, a perfectly wise and good being, the same and still greater difficulties stand in the way of the belief, that a being of such a character can have been the Maker of the universe. He considered Butler's argu- ment as conclusive against the only opponents for whom it was intended. Those who admit an omnipotent as well as perfectly just and benevolent j\\Iaker and Ruler of such a world as this, can say little against Christianity but what can with at least equal force be retorted against themselves. Finding, therefore, no halting place in Deism, he remained in a state of perplexity, until, doubtless after many struggles, he yielded to the conviction, that concerning the origin of things nothing whatever can be known.\" We answer — 1st. It is unquestionably true that God has not created the universe for the single purpose, or even for the chief purpose, of promoting the happiness of his creatures. Our reason and observation, and the Christian Scriptures, unite in revealing as far higher and more worthy ends of divine action the manifestation of his own glory, and the promotion by edu- cation and discipline of the highest excellence of his intelligent 44 THE BEING OF GOD. moral creatures. It is evident that the operation of inexorable general laws, and the mystery and sufferings incident to this life, may be the most effective means to promote those ends. 2d. The direct intention of all the organs with which sensi- tive creatures are endowed is evidently to promote their well- being; pain and misery are incidental. Even the sudden vio- lent deaths of irrational animals probably promote the largest possible amount of sentient happiness. 3d. Conscience has taught men in all ages that the sufferings incident to human life are the direct and deserved consequences of human sin, either penalties, or chastisements benevolently designed for our moral improvement. 4th. The origin of sin is a confessed mystery, relieved however by the consideration, that it results from the abuse of man's highest and most valuable endowment, responsible free agency, and by the tact revealed in the Chris- tian Scriptures that even sin will be divinely overruled to the fuller manifestation of the perfectioiis of God, and to the higher excellence and the more perfect happiness of the intelligent creation. 5th. The inequalities of the allotments of providence, and the disproportion between the well-being and the moral characters of men in this life, results from the fact that it is not the scene of rewards and punishments, and that different characters and different destinies require a different educational discipline, and it points to future readjustments revealed in the Bible (Ps. Ixxiii.). 6th. Neither the teleological nor the moral argument involves the assertion that \"vvith our present knowl- edge we are able to discern in the universe the evidences of either infinite or perfect wisdom or goodness. These are both indicated as matters of fact, and general characteristics of na- ture. But our discernment of both is necessarily limited by the imperfections of our knowledge. Even in the judgment of rea- son alone the infinite probability is that what appears to us anomalous, inconsistent either with perfect wisdom or perfect goodness, will be found, uj^on the attainment of more adequate information on our part, to illustrate those very perfections which we have been tempted to think they obscure. 11. State the Scriptural Evidence. Since man is a finite and guilty and morally corrupt creature it is unavoidable that the self-manifestations of God in nature should be imperfectly apprehended by him. That supernatural revelation which God has disclosed through an historical process of special interventions in chronological suc- cessions, interpreted by a supernaturally endoAved order of prophets, and recorded in the Christian Scriptures, supple- ments the light of nature, explains the mysteries of provi- THE A PRIORI ARGUMENT. 45 dence, and furnishes ns witli the principles of a true theodice. Tlie God whom nature veils while it reveals him, stands before lis unveiled in all the perfection of wisdom, holiness, and love in the person of Christ. He who hath seen Christ hath seen the Father. The truth of Theism is demonstrated in his per- son, and henceforth Avill never be held except by those who loyally acknowledge his Lordship over intellect and conscience and life. 12. State the principle upon luliicli the A priori arguments for the existence of God rest, the value of the prindjjle, and the p)rin- cipal forms in ivhich they have been presented. An a posteriori argument is one which logically ascends from facts of experience to causes, or principles. Thus by means of the preceding arguments we have been led from the facts of consciousness and of external nature to the knowl- edge of God as an intelligent and righteous personal spirit, the powerful, wise, and benevolent First Cause and jNloral Governor. An a pjnori argument is one which proceeds from the necessar}'- ideas of reason to the consequences necessarily deduced from them, or the truths necessarily involved in them. It is certain that the intuitions of necessary truth are the same in all men. 'Hiey are not generalizations from experience, but are presupposed in all experience. They bear the stamp of universality and necessity. They have objective validity, not depending upon the subjective state of personal conscious- ness, nor depending upon the nature of things, but anterior and superior to all things. What then can be the ground of eternal, necessary, universal, unchangeable truth, unless it be an infinite, eternal, self-existent, unchangeable nature, of whose essence they are. We have seen that our reasons can rest only in a cause itself uncaused. An uncaused cause must be eternal, self-ex- istent, and unchangeable. We have in our minds ideas and intuitions of infinity and perfection, as well as of eternity, self- existence, and immutability. \"These, unless they are wholly delusive — which is what we are unable to conceive — must be predicable of some being. The sole question is. Of what being? It must be of him who has been proved to be the First Cause of all things, the source of all the power, wisdom, and good- ness displayed in the universe. It can not be the universe itself, for that has been shown to be but an effect, to have before and behind it a Mind, a Person. It can not be our- selves, or any thing to which our senses can reach, seeing that we and they are finite, contingent, and imperfect. The author of the universe alone — the Father of our spirits, and the Giver 46 THE BEING OF GOD. of every good and perfect gift — can be uncreated, and uncon- ditioned, infinite, and perfect. This completes the idea of God so far as it can be reached or formed by natural reason. And it gives consistency to the idea. The conclusions of the a \"pos- ieriori arguments fail to satisfy either the mind or the heart until they are connected with and supplemented by, the intui- tion of the reason — infinity. The conception of any other than an infinite God — a God unlimited in all his perfections — is a self-contradictory conception which the intelligence refuses to entertain.\"— Dr. Flint, \"Theism,\" p. 291. 1. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury (1093-1109), in his '\"'■ Monologium and ProsJogimn\" states the argument thus: We have the idea of an infinitely perfect being. But real exist- ence is a necessary element of infinite perfection. Therefore an infinitely perfect being exists, otherwise the infinitely per- fect as we conceive it would lack an essential element of perfection. 2. Des Cartes (1596-1650) in his ^^ IlecUiationcs de prima pMIosophia\" prop. 2, p. 89, states it thus: The idea of an infinitely perfect being which we possess could not have orig- inated in a finite source, and therefore must have been commu- nicated to us by an infinitely perfect being. He also in other connections claims that this idea represents an objective reality, because (1) it is pre-eminently clear, and ideas carry convic- tion of correspondence to truth in proportion to their clearness, and (2) it is necessary. 3. Dr. Samuel Clarke, in 1705, published his \"Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God.\" He argues that time and space are infinite and necessarily existent. But they are not substances. Therefore there must exist an eternal infinite substance of which they are properties. The Principal Anti-Theistic Theories.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "7", "sort_key": 7, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "What  is  Atheism  ?", "answer": "Atheism, according to its etymology, signifies a denial of the being of God. It was applied by the ancient Greeks to Socrates and other philosophers, to indicate that they failed to conform to the popular religion. In the same sense it was applied to the early Christians. Since the usage of the term Theism has been definitely fixed in all modern languages, athe- ism necessarily stands for the denial of the existence of a per- sonal -Creator and jMoral Governor. Notwithstanding that the belief in a personal God is the result of a spontaneous recog- nition of God as manifesting himself in consciousness and the works of nature, atheism is still possible as an abnormal state of consciousness induced by sophistical speculation or by the indulgence of sinful passions, precisely as subjective idealism is ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. 47 possible. It exists in the following forms: 1. Practical, 2. Spec- ulative. Again Speculative Atheism may be (1) Dogmatic, as Avhen the conclusion is reached either (a) that God does not exist, or (IS) that the human faculties are positively incapable of ascertaining or of verifying his existence (e. ^., Herbert Spencer, \"First Principles,\" pt. 1). (2.) Skeptical, as when the existence is simply doubted, and the conclusiveness of the evi- dence generally relied upon is denied. (3.) Virtual, as when (ffl.) principles are maintained essentially inconsistent with the existence of God, or with the possibility of our knowledge of him : e. (/., by materialists, positivists, absolute idealists. (&.) When some of the essential attributes of the divine nature are denied, as by Pantheists, and by J. S. Mill in his \" Essays on Eeligion.\" (c.) When explanations of the universe are given which exclude (a^) the agency of an intelligent Creator and Governor, (6') the moral government of God, and the moral freedom of man, e. g., the theories of Darwin and Spencer, and Necessitarians generally. See Ulrici, \"God and Nature\" and \"Eeview of Strauss\"; Strauss, \"Old and New\"; Buchanan, \" Modern Atheism \" ; Tulloch, \"Theism\"; Flint, \"Theism.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "8", "sort_key": 8, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "What  is  Dualism  ?", "answer": "Dualism, in philosophy the opposite of Monism, is the doc- trine that there are two generically distinct essences. Matter and Spirit in the universe. In this sense the common doctrine of Christendom is dualistic. All the ancient pagan philosophers held the eternal independent existence of matter, and conse- quently all among them who were also Theists were strictly cosmological dualists. The religion of Zoroaster was a my- thological dualism designed to account for the existence of evil. Ormuzd and Ahriman, the personal principles of good and evil, sprang from a supreme abstract divinity, Akerenes. Some of the sects of this religion held dualism in its absolute form, and referred all evil to vXr/, self-existent matter. This principle dominated among the various spurious Christian Gnostic sects in the second century, and in the system of Manes in the third century, and its prevalence in the oriental world is manifested in the ascetic tendency of the early Chris- tian Church. See J. F. Clarke, \"Ten Religions\"; Hardwicke, \"Christ and other Masters\"; Neander's \" Chiu-ch History\"; Pressense, \" Early Years of Christianity\"; Tennemann, \"J\\lan- ual Hist. Philos.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "9", "sort_key": 9, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "What  is  Polytheism?", "answer": "Polytheism (*oAu5 and Qsoi) distributes the perfectioms and functions of the infinite God among many limited gods. It 48 THE BEING OF GOD. sprang out of the nature-worship represented in the earliest Hindu Veds, so soon and so generally supplanting primitive monotheism. At first, as it long remained in Chaldea and Arabia, it consisted in the worship of elements, especially of the stars and of fire. Subsequently it took special forms from the traditions, the genius, and the relative civilizations of each nationality. Among the rudest savages it sank to Fetichism as in western and central Africa. Among the Greeks it was made the vehicle for the expression of their refined humanita- rianism in the apotheosis of heroic men rather than the revela- tion of incarnate gods. In India, springing from a pantheistic philosophy, it has been carried to the most extravagant ex- treme, both in respect to the number, and the character of its deities. Whenever polytheism has been connected with spec- ulation it appears as the exoteric counterpart of pantheism. Carlyle, \"Hero-worship\"; Max Mi!dler, \" Compar. Myth.,\" in Oxford Essays; Prof Tyler, \"Theology of Greek Poets.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "10", "sort_key": 10, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "Wliat  is  Deism?", "answer": "Deism, from deMs, although etymologically synonymous with theism, from Oeo?, has been distinguished from it since the mid- dle of the sixteenth century, and designates a system admitting the existence of a personal Creator, but denying his controlling presence in the world, his immediate moral government, and all supernatural intervention and revelation. The movement began with the English Deists, Lord Herbert of Cherbury ,(1581-1648), Hobbes (flGSO), Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke (1678- 1751), Thomas Paine (tl809), etc. It passed over to France and was represented by Voltaire and the Encyclopedists. It passed over into Germany and was represented by Lessing and Reimarus {''Wolfenhuttel Fragmentist\"), and invading Church and Theology, it was essentially represented by the old school of naturalistic rationalists, who admitted with it a low and inconsequent form of Socinianism, e. g., Eichhorn (1752-1827), Paulus (1761-1851), Wegscheider (1771-1848). It has been represented in America by the late Theodore Parker, and the extreme left of the party known as \" Liberal Christians.\" In Germany mere deistical naturalism gave way to pantheism, as the latter has recently given way to materialistic atheism, e.g., Strauss. See Leland, \"View of Deistical Writers\"; Van ]\\lildert's \"Boyle Lectures\"; Farrar, \"Critical Hist, of Free- thought\"; Dorner, \"Hist. Protest. Theology\"; Hurst, \"Hist, of Rationalism\"; Butler's \"Analogy.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "11", "sort_key": 11, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "What  is  Idealism?", "answer": "\" Idealism is the doctrine that in external perceptions the ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. 49 objects immediately known are ideas. It has been held vmder various forms.\" — See Hamilton's \" Reid,\" Note C. \"Some of the phases of modern Idealism among the Ger- mans, may be seen in the following passage from Lewes : — ' I see a tree. The common psychologists tell me that there are three things implied in this one fact of vision, viz. : a tree, an image of that tree, and a mind that apprehends that image. Fichte tells me that it is I alone who exist. The tree and the image of it are one thing, and that is a modification of my mind. This is subjective idealism. Schelling tells me that both the tree and my ego (or self), are existences equally real or ideal; but they are nothing less than manifestations of the absolute, the infinite, or unconditioned. This is objective ideal- ism. But Hegel tells me that all these explanations are false. The only thing really existing (in this one fact of vision) is the idea, the relation. The ego and the tree are but two terms of the relation, and owe their reality to it. This is absolute idealism. According to this, there is neither mind nor matter, heaven or earth, God or man.' The doctrine opposed to Ideal- ism is Realism.\" — \"Vocabulary of the Philosophical Sciences,\" by C. P. Krauth, D.D., 1878.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "12", "sort_key": 12, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "What  is  Materialism  ?", "answer": "As soon as we begin to reflect we become conscious of the presence of two everywhere interlaced, but always distinct classes of phenomena — of thought, feeling, will on the one hand, and of extension, inertia, etc., on the other. Analyze these as we may, we never can resolve the one into the other. The one class we come to know through consciousness, the other through sensation, and we know the one as directly and as certainly as the other; and as we can never resolve either into the other, we refer the one class to a substance called spirit, and the other class to a substance called matter. Materialists are a set of superficial philosophers in whom the moral consciousness is not vivid, and who have formed the habit of exclusively directing attention to the objects of the senses, and explaining physical phenomena by mechanical con- ceptions. Hence they fall into the fundamental error of affirm- ing— (1.) That there is but one substance, or rather that all the phenomena of the universe can be explained in terms of atoms and force. (2.) That intelligence, feeling, conscience, volition, etc., are only properties of matter, or functions of material organization, or modifications of convertible energy. Intelli- gence did not precede and effect order and organization, but order and organization developed by laws inherent in matter develop intelligence. The German Darwinists style that system 50 THE BEING OF GOD. the ^^ mecJianico-caKsal\" development of the universe; Huxley says Hfe, and hence organization results from the \"molecular mechanics of the protoplasm.\" We answer — 1st. This is no recondite theory, as some pre- tend, concerning substance. If the phenomena of conscious- ness ai-e resolved into modifications of matter and force, i e., ultimately into some mode of motion, then all ultimate and necessary truth is impossible, duty has no absolute obligation, coirecience is a lie, consciousness a delusion, and freedom of will absurd. All truth and duty, all honor and hope, all mo- rality and religion, would be dissolved. 2d. The theory is one-sided and unwarrantable. In fact our knowledge of the soul and of its intuitions and powers are more direct and clear than the scientist's knowledge of matter. What does he know of the real nature of the atom, of force, of gravity, etc. 3d. The explanation of matter by mind, of force and order by intelligence and will, is rational. But the explanation of the phenomena of intelligence, will, and consciousness as modes of matter or force is absurd. The reason can rest in the one and can not in the other. The soul of man is known to be an absolute cause — matter is known not to be, to be but the vehi- cle of force, and force to be in a process of dispersion. Intelli- gence is known to be the cause of order and organization, organization can not be conceived to be the cause of intelligence. Tyndal (\"Athenaeum\" for August 29, 1868) says: \"The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously: we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor apparently any rudiment of the organ, which would enable us to pass, by a process of reasoning, from the one phenomenon to the other. ... In affirming that the growth of the body is mechanical, and that thought as exercised by us has its correlative in the physics of the brain, I thiidc the position of the Materialist is stated as far as that position is a tenable one. I think the jMaterialist will be able finally to maintain this posi- tion against all attacks; but I do not think as the human mind is at present constituted, that he can pass beyond it. I do not think he is entitled to say that his molecular grouping and his molecular motions explain every thing. In reality they explain nothing.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "13", "sort_key": 13, "group": "Chapter II", "question": "What  is  Pantheism?", "answer": "Pantheism (Tcav Os6i) is absolute monism, maintaining that the entire phenomenal universe is the everchanging existence- ANTI-THEISTIC THEORIES. 51 form of the one single universal substance, which is God. Thus God is all, and all is God. God is r6 ov, absolute being, of which every finite thing is \"a differentiated and transient ibrm. This doctrine is, of course, capable of assuming very various forms. (1.) The one-substance pantheism of Spinoza. He held that God is the one absolute substance of all things, possessing two attributes, thought and extension, from which respectively the physical and intellectual worlds proceed by an eternal, nec- essary, and unconscious evolution. (\"2.) The material panthe- ism of Strauss, \"Old and New Faith.' (3.) The idealistic pan- theism of Schelling, maintaining the absolute identity of subject and object ; and of Hegel, maintaining the absolute identity of thought and existence as determinations of the one absolute Spirit. It is obvious that pantheism in all its forms must either deny the moral personality of God, or that of man, or both. Logically it renders both impossible. God comes to self-con- sciousness only in man ; the consciousness of free personal self- determination in man is a delusion ; moral responsibility is a prejudice; the supernatural is impossible and religion is super- stition. Yet such is the flexibility of the system, that in one form it puts on a mystical guise, representing God as the all- person absorbing the world into himself, and in the opposite form it puts on a purely naturalistic guise, representing the world as absorbing God, and the human race in its ever-cul- minating development the only object of reverence or devotion. The same Spinoza who was declared by Pascal and Bossuet to be an atheist, is represented by Jacobi and Schleiermacher to be the most devout of mystics. The intense individuality of the material science of this century has reacted powerfully on pantheism, substituting materialism for idealism, retiring God, and elevating man, as is seen in the recent degradation of pan- theism into atheism in the case of Feuerbach and Strauss, etc. The most ancient, persistent, and prevalent pantheism of the world's history is that of India. As a religion it has moulded the character, customs, and mythologies of the people for 4,000 years. As a philosophy it has appeared in three prin- cipal forms — the Sanckhya, the Nyaya, and the Vedanta. Pan- theistic modes of thought more or less underlay all forms of Greek philosophy, and especially the Neo- Platonic school of Plotinus (1205-270), Porphyry (233-305), and Jamblicus (t333). It reappeared in John Scotus Erigena (b. 800), and with the Neo- Platonists of the Renaissance — e. (/., Giordano Bruno (flGOO). Modern pantheism began with Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677), and closes with the disciples of Schelling and Hegel. Besides pure pantheism there has existed an infinite variety 52 THE BEING OF GOD. of impure forms of virtual pantheism. This is true of all sys- tems that affirm the impersonality of the infinite and absolute, and which resolve all the divine attributes into modes of caus- ality. The same is true of all systems which represent provi- dential preservation as a continual creation, deny the real effi- ciency of second causes, and make God the only agent in the universe, e. (7., Edwards on \"Original Sin,\" pt. 4, ch. 3, and Emmons. Under the same general category falls the fanciful doctrine of Emanations, which was the chief feature of Oriental Theosophies, and the Hylozoism of Averroes (tll98), which sup- poses the co-eternity of matter and of an unconscious plastic animamundi. See Hunt, \"Essay on Pantheism,\" London, 1866; Saisset, \"Modern Pantheism,\" Edinburgh, 1863; Cousin, ^'His- tory of ]\\Iodern Philosophy\"; Eitter's \"Hist. Ancient Philos.\"; Buchanan, \"Faith in God,\" etc.; Dollinger, \"Gentile and Jew,\" London, 1863; Max Miiller, \"Hist. Anc. Sancrit Lit.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "14", "sort_key": 14, "group": "Chapter III", "question": "What  is  Rationalism  ?", "answer": "A \" Naturalist \" is one who holds that Nature is a complete self-contained, self-supported sphere in itself, and hence denies either the reality of the supernatural, or that it can be an object of Imman knowledge; and hence denies the necessity, or possibility, or actual fact, of a supernatural revelation. Tlie term \"Rationalist\" is more general. It includes the Naturalist of every grade, and also all those who while admitting the fact of a divine revelation, yet maintain that revelation, its doc- trines and records, are all to be measured and accredited or rejected and interpreted by human reason as ultimate arbiter. With the Rationalists Reason is the ultimate ground and meas- ure of faith. ' rffits historical sense Rationalism, as a mode of freethink- ing springing up in the midst of the Christian Church itself, giving rise to an illegitimate use of reason in the interpretation of the Scriptures and their doctrines, has always been active in RA TIONALISM. 57 some form, and in one degree or another, and has been signally manifest in a class of the Mediseval schoolmen, and in the disci- ples of Socinns. Its modern and most extreme form originated in Germany in the middle of the last century. The causes to which it is to be attributed were — (a.) The low state of religion pervading all Protestant countries. (&.) The influence of the formal philosophy and dogmatism of Wolf, the disciple of Leib- nitz, (c.) The influence of the English Deists, (r/.) The influ- ence of the French infidels collected at the court of Frederick the Great of Prussia. The father of critical rationalism was Sem- ler, Prof, at Halle (b. 1725, and d. 1791). Although personally devout, he arbitrarily examined the canonicity of the books of Scripture, neglecting historical evidence, and substituting his own subjective sense of fitness. He introduced the principle of \" accommodation \" into Biblical interpretation, holding that be- sides much positive truth, Christ and his apostles taught many things in \" accommodation \" to the ideas prevailing among their contemporaries. — Hurst, \" History of Rationalism.\" This tendency, afterwards greatly aggravated through the influence of Lessing and Reimarus the Wolfenbuttel Fragment- ist, penetrated the mass of German theological literature, and culminated in the last years of the eighteenth and first years of the nineteenth century. Among its principal representa- tives were Bretschneider, Eichhorn, and Paulus in Biblical, and Wegscheider in dogmatic theology. The two last espe- cially, while admitting the fact that Christianity is a supernat- ural revelation, yet maintained that it is merely a republication of the elements of natural religion, and that Reason is the supreme arbiter as to what books are to be received as ca- nonical, and as to what they mean. Miracles were regarded as unworthy of belief The narratives of miracles recorded in the Scriptures were referred to the ignorance, superstition, or partiality of the writers, and the miracles themselves were referred to natural causes. Jesus was regarded as a good man, and original Christianity as a sort of philosophical So- cinianism. This is what has been historically designated in Germany by the title Rationalism, and more specifically as the Mationalismus Vulgaris, the old, or common-sense Rationalism. After the rise of the philosophies of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, a new impulse was given to theological speculation, and to Biblical interpretation. This gave rise on the one hand to a reaction towards orthodoxy through the \" Mediation Theo- logy \" of Schleiermacher, and on the other to a new school of Transcendental Rationalism, the basis of Avhich is a pantheistic mode of thought. It necessarily denies the supernatural, and postulates the fundamental principle that miracles are impos- 58 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. sible. This school, whose head-qnarters was Tubingen, has been most prominently represented by Christian Banr with his Ten- dency Theory, Strauss with his Mythical theory, and Renan Avith liis Legendary theory, to accoiint for the origin of the New Testament writings, while denying their historical basis of fact. This tendency, in various degrees of force, is manifested in the state of theological opinion in England and America, prin- cipally in the School of Coleridge, Maurice, Stanley, Jowett and Williams, and the Broad Church party generally; in Scot- land in Tulloch ; in America by the late Theodore Parker, the school of liberal Christians, and in the general relaxation of faith discernible on every side. \"German nationalism,\" Ilagenbach, Clarke Edinburg Li- brary; \"History of German Protestantism,\" Kahnis, Clarke Ed. Lib. ; \" Critical History of Free Thought,\" A. S. Farrar, New York, D. Appleton & Co. ; \" Germany, its Universities, Theo- logy, and Religion,\" Philip Schaff, D.D. ; \"History of Rational- ism,\" President Hurst, C. Scribner, New York. 6. Into what two classes may all the argumentative grounds of opposition to historical Christianity he grouped? 1st. A priori grounds. These rest upon a false view of the being and nature of God, and of his relation to the world. Thus the Positivist, who confines man's knowledge to Phe- nomena, and their laws of co-existence and sequence; the Deist, who denies the immanence of God in his works, and denies or renders remote and obscure his relation to us as floral Governor, and spiritual Father ; and the Pantheist, who denies his person- ality; and the scientific natm'alist, who sees in nature only the operation of invariable self-executing physical laws; — must all alike deny the possibility and credibility of miracles, must resolve inspiration into genius, and in some wa}^ or other explain away the Scriptures, as historical records of fact. This class of questions has been discussed above. Chapter II. 2d. Historical and Critical grounds. These all rest on the assumed defect in the historical evidence for the genuineness and authenticity of the several books of the canon, and in the alleged discrepancies, and historical and scientific inaccuracies, found in Scripture. This class of questions must be met in the departments of Biblical Introduction, and Exegesis. 7. State the grounds vpon ivhicli it is evident that Reason is not the ultimate source and measure of religious ideas. These are in general three: (1.) A priori. Reason, consid- A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION NECESSARY. 59 ering man's present condition of ignorance, moral degradation, and gnilt, has no qualities which render it competent to attain either (a) certainty or (/>) sufficient information for man's prac- tical guidance, as to God's existence, or character, or relation to us, or purposes with regard to us. (2.) From imiversal ex- perience; unassisted reason has never availed for these ends, but wdien unduly relied upon has always led men, in spite of a neglected revelation, to skepticism and confusion. (3.) As a matter of fact an infallible record of a supernatural revelation has been given, which conveys, when interpreted with the ilhi- minating assistance of the Holy Spirit, information, the knowl- edge of which is essential to salvation, which reason could by no means have anticipated. To establish this argument the following points must be separately established in their order: Ist. A supernatural revelation is necessary for man in his present condition. 2d. A supernatural revelation is possible alike d parte Dei and d parte hominis. 3d. From what Natural Theology reveals to us of the Attri- butes of God, of his relations to men, and of our moral con- dition, a supernatural revelation is antecedently probable. 4th. It is an historical fact that Christianity is such a super- natural revelation. 5th. It is also an historical fact that the present Canon of the Old and New Testaments consist only of and contain all the extant authentic and genuine records of that revelation. 6th. That the books constituting this canon were super- naturally inspired, so as to be constituted the word of God, and an infallible and authoritative rule of faith and practice for men. .8/ Prove that a supernatural revelation is necessary for men in tJieir j^rese^it condition. 1st. Reason itself teaches — (1) that as a matter of fact man's moral nature is disordered, and (2) his relations to God dis- turbed by guilt and alienation. Reason is capable of discov- ering the fact of sin, but makes no suggestions as to its remedy. We can determine a ptriori God's determination to punish sin, because that as a matter of Justice rests on his unchangeable and necessary nature, but can so determine nothing with respect to his disposition to provide, or to allow a remedy, because that, as a matter of grace, rests on his simple volition. 2d. A spontaneous religious yearning, natural and universal, for a divine self-revelation and intervention on the part of God, and manifest in all human history, proves its necessity. 60 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. 3d. Reason has never in the case of any historical commu- nity availed to lead men to certainty, to satisfy their wants, or to rule their lives. 4th. Rationalism is strong only for attack and destruction. It has never availed in any considerable degree in the way of positive construction. No two prominent Rationalists agree as to wliat the positive and certain results of the teaching of rea- son are. 9. Prove that a supernatural revelation is possible both a j)arte Dei, and a parte hominis. As to its being possible on God's side, if Theism be true, if God be an infinite extramundane person, who yet controls the operation of the laws he has ordaii>ed as his own methods, and has subordinated the physical system to tlie higher interests of his moral government — then obviously to limit him as to the manner, character, or extent of his self-manifestations to his creatures is transcendently absurd. All the philosophical pre- sumptions, which render a supernatural revelation on the part of God impossible, are based on Deistic, Materialistic, or Pan- theistic principles. We have exhibited the argument for The- ism in Chapter II. As to its being possible on man's side, it has been argued by modern transcendental rationalists that the communication of new truth by means of a \"book revelation\" is impossible. That words are conventional signs which have power to excite in the mind only those ideas which, having been previously apprehended, have been conventionally associated with those words. We answer — 1st. We admit that simple ultimate ideas which admit of no analysis, must in the first instance be appre- hended by an appropriate organ in an act of spontaneous intu- ition. No man can attain the idea of color except through the act of his own eyes, nor the idea of right except by an intuitive act of his own moral sense. But, 2d, the Christian revelation involves no new simple ultimate ideas incapable of analysis. They presuppose and involve the matter of all such natviral intuitions, and they excite the rational and moral intuitions to a more active and normal exercise by association with new aspects of our divine relations, but for the most part they nar- rate objective and concrete facts, they explain the application of intuitive principles to our actual historical condition and relations; they state the purposes, requirements, and promises of God. But, 3d, even new simple ideas may be excited in the mind by means of a supernatural inward spiritual illumination acting on the minds of the subject of religious experience. The A SUPERNATURAL REVELATION PROBABLE. Gl work of the Holy Spirit accompanying the written word com- pletes the revelation. An experienced Christian, under the teaching of\" the Holy Spirit through the word, has as clear and certain a knowledge of the matter involved in his new expe- rience, as he has of the matter of his perceptions through his bodily senses, 10. Shoio from the data of Natural Theology that in the pres- ent state of human nature a supernatural revelation is antecedently probable. As shown in Chapt. H., Natural Theology ascertains for us an infinite, eternal, wise, and absolutely righteous and benevo- lent personal God. It ascertains also that man created in the divine image is morally corrupt and judicially condemned. It reveals to us man needing divine help, yearning and hoping for it, and therefore not incapable of it, as are the finally lost demons. Therefore all the perfections of God, and all the mis- eries of men, lead to the rational hope that at some time and in some way God may be graciously disposed to intervene super- naturally for man's help, and reveal his character and purposes more fully for man's guidance. 11. Hoiv may it he jyroved that it is an historical fact that Chris- tianity is such a supernatural revelation? The reader must here be referred to the many and excellent treatises on the Evidences of Christianity. Paley's, Chalmers', Erskine's, and Alexander's works on the Evidences; A. S. Farrar's \"Critical History of Free Thought'*; Hopkins's \"Evidences of Christianity\"; Barnes's \"Evidences of Christianity in the Nineteenth Century\"; G. Wardlaw's \"Lead- ing Evidences of Christianity\"; Hetherington's \"Apologetics of the Christian Faith \" ; Leathes's \" Grounds of Christian Hope\"; Row's \"Supernatural in the New Testament\"; Rogers's \" Superhuman Origin of the Bible \" ; Christlieb's \" Modern Doubt and Cln-istian Belief\"; Rawlinson's \"Historical Evi- dence of the Truth of the Scripture Records\"; Wace's \"Chris- tianity and Morality\"; Titcomb's \"Cautions for Doubters\"; Pearson's \"Prize Essay on Infidelity\"; F. W. Farrar's \"Wit- ness of History to Christ.\" 12. Hoiu cart, it he proved that the accepted Canon of the Old and New Testament consists ordy of, and contains all the authentic a7id genuine records of tJie Christian Revelation ? Here also the reader must be referred to the best treatises on the Canon of holy Scriptures. B. F. Westcott, on \" The Canon \" and on \"Introduction to the Study of the Gospels\"; Tischen- 62 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY. dorf, \"When were our Goppels composed?\" E. Cone Bissell, \"Historic Origin of the Bible\"; Prof. Georg'e P. Fisher, \"The Supernatural Origin of Christianity,\" and \" The Beginnings of Christianity.\" 13. What is the Nature and Extent of the Inspiration of the Christian Scriptures ? See below. Chapter IV. 14. What is the legitimate office of Reason in the sphere of Religion ? 1st. Keason is the primary revelation God has made to man, necessarily presupposed in every subsequent revelation of whatever kind. 2d. Hence Eeason, including the moral and emotional nature, and experience, must be the organ by means of which alone all subsequent revelations can be appre- hended and received. A revelation addressed to the irrational would be as inconsequent as light to the blind. This is the usus organicus of reason. 3d. Hence no subsequent revelation can contradict reason acting legitimately within its own sphere. For then (1) God would contradict himself, and (2) faith would be impossible. To believe is to assent to a thing as true, but to see that it contradicts reason, is to see that it is not true. Hence the Keason has the office in judging the Evidences or in interpreting the Records of a supernatural revelation, of exercising the judicium contradictionis. Reason has therefore to determine two questions: 1st. Does God speak? 2d. What does God say? This, however, requires («) the co-operation of all the faculties of knowing, moral as well as purely intellec- tual, {])) a modest and teachable spirit, (c) perfect candor and loyalty to truth, {d) willingness to put all known truth to pi'actice, (e) the illumination and assistance of the promised Spirit of truth. This is the old distinction between what is contrary to reason, and what is above it. It is evident that it is the height of absurdity for reason to object to an otherwise ac- credited revelation that its teaching is incomprehensible, or that it involves elements apparently irreconcilable with other truths. Because; — (1.) This presumes that human reason is the highest form of intelligence, which is absurd. (2.\") In no other department do men limit tlicir faith by their ability to under- stand. What do men of science understand as to the ultimate nature of atoms, of inertia, of gravity, of force, of life ? They are every moment forced to assume the truth of the impossible, and acknowledge the inexplicability of the certain. All speculative infidelity springs out of the insane pride of RELATION OF PHILOSOPHY TO THEOLOGY. 63 the human mind, the insatiate rage for explanation, and, above all, for the resolution of all knowledge to apparent logical unity. Common sense, and the habit of reducing opinions to actual practice, leads to health of mind and body, and to religious faith.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "15", "sort_key": 15, "group": "Chapter III", "question": "Wlmt  is  Philosopluj,  and  ivhat  is  its  relation  to  Theology  ?", "answer": "Philosophy, in its wide sense, embraces all human knowl- edge, acquired through the use of man's natural faculties, and consists of that knowledge interpreted and sytematized by the reason. Science is more specific, relating to some special department of knowledge thoroughly reduced to system. In later days the word Science is becoming more and more defi- nitely appropriated to the knowledge of the physical phenomena of the universe. In this sense Science has for its task the de- termination of phenomena in their classifications of likeness and unlikeness, and their laws or. order of co-existence and succession, and does not inquire into substance, or cause, or purpose, etc. Philosophy is presupposed, therefore, in science as the first and most general knowledge. It inquires into the soul and the laws of thought, into intuition and ultimate truth, into substance and real being, into absolute cause, the ultimate nature of force and will, into conscience and duty. As to its relations to Theology it will be observed — 1st. The first principles of a true philosophy are presupposed in all theology, natural and revealed. 2d. The Holy Scriptures, although not designed primarily to teach philosophy, yet necessarily presuppose and involve the fundamental principles of a true philosophy. Not the infer- ences of these principles drawer out into a system, but the principles themselves, as to substance and cause, as to con- science and right, etc. 3d. The philosophy prevalent in every age has always and will necessarily react upon the interpretation of Scripture and the formation of theological systems. This has been true as to the early Platonism, and the Neo-Platonism of the second age; as to the Aristotelian philosophy of the middle ages; as to the systems of Des Cartes and Leibnitz; of Kant, Fichte, Schelhng, and Hegel on the continent, and the systems of Locke, Reid, Coleridge, etc., in Britain. 4th. The devout believer, however, who is assured that the Bible is the very word of God, can never allo^y his philosophy, derived from human sources, to dominate his interpretation of the Bible, but will seek with a docile spirit and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, to bring his own philosophy into perfect harmony with that which is implicitly contained in 64 THE SOURCES OF THEOLOGY, the word. He will, by all means, seek to realize a philosophy which proves itself to be the genuine and natural handmaid of the religion which the word reveals. All human thought, and all human life, is one. If therefore God speaks for any purpose, his word must be supreme, and in so far as it has any bearing on any department of human opinion or action, it must therein be received as the most certain informant and the highest Law. The various departments of Christian Theology have been ennumerated in Chapter I.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "16", "sort_key": 16, "group": "Chapter IV", "question": "What  is  meant  by  ^'■plenary  inspiration\"  ?", "answer": "A divine influence full and sufficient to secure its end. The end in this case secm-ed is the perfect infallibility of the Script- ures in every part, as a record of f;ict and doctrine both in thouglit and*^ verbal expression. f So that although they come to us through the instrumentality of the minds, hearts, imagi- nations, consciences, and wills of men, they are nevertheless in the strictest sense the word of God. 4. What is meant by the phrase \" verbal inspiration\" and hoio can it be proved that the loords of the Bible icere inspired ? It is meant that the divine influence, of whatever kind it may have been, which accompanied the sacred writers in Avhat they wrote, extends to their expression of their thoughts in language, as well as to the thoughts themselves. The eff'ect THE CHURCH DOCTRINE. 67 being that in the original autograph copies the language ex- presses the thought God intended to convey with infallible accurac}', so that the words as well as the thoughts are God's revelation to ns. That this influence did extend to the words appears — 1st, from the very design of inspiration, which is, not to secure the infallible correctness of the opinions of the inspired men them- selves (Paul and Peter differed, Gal. ii. 11, and sometimes the prophet knew not what he wrote), but to secure an infalliblef' record of the truth. But a record consists of language. ^-^^^ 2d. J\\Ien think in words, and the more definitely they think the more are their thoughts immediately associated with an exactly appropriate verbal expression. Infallibility of thought can not be secured or preserved independently of an infalhble verbal rendering. 3d. The Scriptures affirm this fact, 1 Cor. ii. 13 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13. 4th. The New Testament writers, while quoting from the Old Testament for purposes of argument, often base their argu- ment upon the very words used, thus ascribing authority to the word as well as the thought. — ]\\Iatt. xxii. 32, and Ex. iii. 6, 16; ]\\Iatt. xxii. 45, and Psalms ex. 1; Gal. iii. 16, and Gen. xvii. 7. 5. By lohat means does the Church hold that God has effected the result above defined ? The Church doctrine recognizes the fact that every part of Scripture is at once a product of God's and of man's agency. The human writers have produced each his part in the free and natural exercise of his personal faculties under his historical conditions. God has also so acted concurrently in and through them that the whole organism of Scripture and eveiy part there- of is his word to us, infallibly true in the sense intended and_ absolutely authoritative. God's agency includes the three following elements: Ist. His Providential agency in producing the Scripture^ The whole course of redemption, of wdiich revelation and inspi- ration are special functions, was a special providence directing_ the evolution of a specially providential history. Here the natural and the supernatural continuall}^ interpenetrate. But, as is of necessity the case, the natural Avas always the rule and the supernatural the exception ; yet as little subject to accident, and as much the subject of rational design as tJie natural itself Thus God providentially produced the very man for the precise occasion, with the faculties, qualities, education, and gracious experience needed for the production of the intended writing. Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul, or John, genius and character, 6S /xsp//t.4r/ox. nature and grace, peasant, philosopher, or prince, the man, and \\vith him each snbtile pei-sonal accident, was providen- tiallv prepared at the proper moment as the necessary instru- mental precondition of the work to be done. 2d. Kevelatiox of trnth not otherwise attainable. \"When- ever the writer was not possessed, or could not naturally become possessed, of the knowledge God intended to commu- nicate, it was supernatiirally revealed to him by vision or language. This revelation was supernatural, objective to the recipient, and assm-ed to him to be truth of divine origin by appropriate e^^dence. This direct revelation applies to a large element of the sacred Scriptures, such as prophecies of future events, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity, the promises and threatenings of Gods word, etc.. but it applies by no means to all the contents of Scriptiire. 3d. IsspiRATiox. The writei-^ were the subjects of a plenary divine iufluence, called inspiration, which acted upon and through their natm-al faculties in all they wrote, directing them in the choice of subject and the whole coui-se of thought and verbal expression, so as while not interfering with the natural exercise of their faculties, they freely and spontane- ously produce the very writing which God designed, and which thus possesses the attributes of intallibility and author- ity as above defined. This inspiration difters. therefore, fi-om revelation — (1.) In that it was a constant experience of the sacred writers in all they wi'ote. and it afiects the equal intallibility of all the ele- ments of the writings they produced. While, as before said, revelation was supernaturally vouchsi\\fed only when it was needed. (2.) In that revelation communicated objectively to the mind of the wi-iter truth otherwise unknown. While In- spiration was a divine intluence flowing into the sacred writer subjectively, commimicating nothing, but guiding their tacul- ties in their natm-al exercise to the producing an intallible record of the matters of history, doctrine, prophecy, etc., which (jixl designed to send through them to his Church. It diners from spiritual illumination, in that spiritual illu- mination is an essential element in the Si\\nctif\\-ing work of the Holy Spirit common to all true Christians. It never leads to the knowledge of new ti-uth. but only to the pei'sonal discern- ment of the spiritual beauty and poAver of tinth already re- vealed in the Scriptures. Inspiration is a special influence of the Holy Spirit peculiar to the prophets and apostles, and attending them only in the exercise ot their functions as accredited teachers. ^lost of them were the subjects both of inspiration and spii'itual illu- THE STATEMEXTS OF SCRIPTURE. 69 mination. Some, as Balaam, being unregenerate were inspired, though destitute of spiritual illumination. The Proof of the Church Doctrine of Ixspiration. 6. From icliat sources of evidence is the question as to the nature and extent of the Inspiration of the Scriptures to he determined? 1st. From the statements of the Scriptures themselves. 2d. From the phenomena of Scriptm-e Avhen critically ex- amined. The Statemexts of the Scriptures as to the Nature of their owx ixspiratiox. 7. How can the propriety of irroving the T/ispiration of the Scriptures from their own assertions be vindicated? We do not reason in a circle when Ave rest the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures on their own assertions. \\\\e come to this question already belieAT.ng in their credibihty as histo- ries, and in that of their writers as witnesses of facts, and yj the truth of Christianity and in the di^anity of Christ. What- ' ever Christ affirms of the Old Testament, and whatever he ^jtC promises to the Apostles, and whatever they assert as to the divine influence acting in and through themselves, or as to the infallibility and authority of their writings, must be true. | Especially as all their claims were indorsed by God working with them by signs and wonders and gifts of the Holy Ghost. It is evident that if their claims to Inspiration and to the in- fallibility and authority of their wi-itings are denied, they are consequently charged A\\-ith fanatical presumption and gross misrepresentation, and the validity of their testimony on all points is denied- When plenary inspii'ation is denied all Chiis- tian faith is undermined. 8. How may the Inspiration of the apostles he fairly inferred from the faxi thai they ivrought miracles? A miracle is a di\\^ne sign (^Tjuaiov) accrediting the person to whom the power is delegated as a divinely commissioned agent, ]^Iatt. xvi. 1, 4; Acts xiv. 3; Heb. ii. 4. This divine testimony not only encourages, but absolutely renders belief obligatory. Where the sign is God commands us to believe. But he could not unconditionally command us to beheve any other than unmixed truth infallibly conveyed. 9. How may it he shown that tlie gift of InspAration was prom- ised to the apostles ? 70 INSPIRA TION. Matt. X. 19; Luke xii. 12; John xiv. 26; xv. 26, 27; xvi. 13; Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; John xiii. 20. 10. In ivliat several ways did they claim to have possession of the Spirit? They claim ed — 1st. To have the Spirit in f ulfihiient of the promise of Christ. Acts ii. 33; iv. 8; xiii. 2-4; xv. 28; xxi. 11; 1 Thes. i. 5. 2d. To speak as the prophets of God. — 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; ix. 17 ; 2 Cor. V. 19 ; 1 Thes. iv. 8. 3d. To speak with plenary authority. — 1 Cor. ii. 13; 1 Thes. ii. 13; 1 John iv. 6; Gal. i. 8, 9; 2 Cor. xiii. 2, 3, 4. They class their writings on a level with the Old Testament Scriptures. — 2 Pet. iii. 16; 1 Thes. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Kev. ii. 7.— Dr. Hodge.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "17", "sort_key": 17, "group": "Chapter IV", "question": "Hoto  uias  their  claim  conjirmed?", "answer": "1st. By their holy, simple, temperate, yet heroic lives. 2d. By the holiness of the doctrine they taught, and its spiritual power, as attested by its efiect upon communities and individuals. 3d. By the miracles they wrought. — Heb. ii. 4; Acts xiv. 3; lilark xvi. 20. 4th. All these testimonies are accredited to us not only by their own writings, but also by the uniform testimony of the early Christians, their contemporaries, and their immediate successors. 12. Show that the ivriters of the Old Testament claim to he inspired. 1st. INIoses claimed that he wrote a part at least of the Pen- tateuch by divine command. — Deut. xxxi. 19-22; xxxiv. 10; Num. xvi. 28, 29. David claimed it. — 2 Sam. xxiii. 2. 2d. As a characteristic fact, the Old Testament writers speak not in their own name, but preface their messages with, \"Thus saith the Lord,\" \"The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it,\" etc. — Jer. ix. 12; xiii. 13; xxx. 4; Isa. viii. 1; xxxiii. 10; Mic. iv. 4; Amos iii. 1; Deut. xviii. 21, 22; 1 Kings xxi. 28; 1 Chron. xvii. 3. — Dr. Hodge.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "18", "sort_key": 18, "group": "Chapter IV", "question": "Hoiv  tvas  their  claira  confirmed?", "answer": "1st. Their claim Avas confirmed to their cotemporaries by the miracles they wrought, by the fulfilment of many of their predictions (Num. xvi. 28, 29), by the holiness of their lives, the moral and spiritual perfection of their doctrine, and the practical adaptation of the religious system they revealed to the urgent wants of men. THE STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE. ^^. , 2d. Their claim is confirmed to us principally — (1.) By the remarkable fulfillment, in far subsequent ages, of many of their prophesies. (2.) By the evident relation of the sym- bolical relio-ion which they promulgated to the facts and doc- trines of Christianity, proving a divine preadjustment of the type to the antitype. (3.) By the indorsement of Christ and his apostles. 14. What are the formulas hy lolnch quotations from the Old Testament are introduced into the Neiv, and hoiu do these forms of expression prove the inspiration of the ancient Scriptures ? \"The Holy Ghost saith,\" Heb. iii. 7. \"The Holy Ghost this signifying,\" Heb. ix. 8. \"God saith,\" Acts ii. 17, and Isa. xliv. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, and Deut. xxv. 4. \"The Scriptures saith,\" Kom. iv. 3; Gal. iv. 30. \"It is written,\" Luke xviii. 31; xxi. 22; John ii. 17; xx. 31. \"The Lord by the mouth of his ser- vant David says,\" Acts iv. 25, and Ps. ii. 1, 2. \"The Lord lim- iteth in David a certain day, saying,\" Heb. iv. 7; Ps. xcv. 7. \"David in spirit says,\" Matt. xxii. 43, and Ps. ex. 1. Thus these Old Testament Avritings are what God saith, what God saith by David, etc., and are quoted as the author- itative basis for conclusive argumentation; therefore they must have been inspired. 15. Hoio may the Inspiration of the Old Testament ivriters he 'proved hy the express declarations of the Neio Testament ? Luke i. 70; Heb. i. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; 1 Pet. i. 10-12 ; 2 Pet. i. 21. 16. What is the argument on this suhject draivnfrom the manner in ivhich Christ and his apostles argue from the Old Testament as of final authority? Christ constantly quotes the Old Testament, ]\\Iatt. xxi. 13 ; xxii. 43. He declares that it can not be falsified, John vii. 23; X. 35; that the whole law must be fulfilled. Matt. v. 18; and all things also foretold concerning himself \"in ]\\Ioses, the projjhets, and the Psalms,\" Luke xxiv. 44. The apostles habitually quote the Old Testament in the same manner, \"That it might be ful- filled which was written,\" is with them a characteristic formula, Matt. i. 22; ii. 15, 17, 23; John xii. 38; xv. 25; etc. They all appeal to the words of Scripture as of final authority. This certainly proves infallibility. 72 INS FIR A TION. The Phenomexa of Scripture considered as Evidence of the Nature AND Extent of its Inspiration. 17. Wliat evidence do the Phenomena of the Scriptures afford as to nature and extent of the human causes conspiring to produce them ? Every part of Scriptiire alike bears evidence of a human origin. Tlie writers of all the books were men, and the process of composition through Avhich they originated was character- istically human. The personal characteristics of thought and feeling of these writers have acted spontaneously in their lit- erary activity, and have given character to their writings in a manner precisely similar to the effect of character upon writing in the case of other men. They wrote from human impulses, on special occasions, with definite design. Each views his subject from an individual standpoint. They gather their ma- terial I'rom all sources, — personal experience and observation, ancient documents, and contemporary testimony. They ar- range their material with reference to their special purpose, and draw inferences from principles and facts according to the more or less logical habits of their own minds. Their emotions and imaginations are spontaneously exercised, and flow as co-factors with their reasoning into their compositions. The limitations of their personal knowledge and general mental condition, and the defects of their habits of thought and style, are as obvious in their writings as any other personal charac- teristics. They use the language and idiom proper to their nation and class. They adopt the iisus loquendi of terms cur- rent among their people, without committing themselves to the philosophical ideas in which the usage originated. Their mental habits and methods were those of their nation and gen- eration. They were for the most part Orientals, and hence their writings abound Avith metaphor and symbol; and al- though always reliable in statement as far as required for their purpose, they never aimed at the-definiteness of enumeration, or chronological or circumstantial narration, which character- izes the statistics of modern western nations. Like all purely literary men of every age, they describe the order and the facts of nature according to their appearances, and not as related to their abstract law or cause. Some of these facts have, by many careless thinkers, been supposed to be inconsistent with the asserted fact of divine guidance. But it is evident, upon reflection, that if God is to reveal himself at all, it must be under all the limits of human modes of thought and speech. And if he inspires human agents THE PHENOMENA OF SCRIPTURE. 73 to communicate bis revelation in writing, he must use them in a manner consistent with their nature as rational and sponta- neous agents. And it is evident that all the distinctions be- tween the different degrees of perfection in human knowledge, and elegance in human dialect and style, are nothing when viewed in the light of the common relations of man to God. He obviously could as well reveal himself through a peasant as tlu'ough a philosopher; and all the better Avhen the per- sonal characteristics of the peasant were providentially and graciously preadjusted to the special end designed. 1 18. What evidence do the Phenomena of the Scriptures afford as to the nature and extent of the divine agency exercised in their production ? 1st. Every part of Scripture affords moral and spiritual evi- dence of its divine origin. This is, of course, more conspicuous in some portions than in others. There are transcendant truths revealed, a perfect moralit}^ an unveiling of the absolute per- fections of the Godliead, a foresight of future events, a heart- searching and rein -trying knowledge of the secrets of the human soul, a light informing the reason and an authority binding the conscience, a practical grasp of all the springs of human experience and life, all of which can only have orig- inated in a divine source. These are characteristics of a lai-ge portion of the Scriptures, and of the Scriptures alone in all lit- erature, and together with the accompan^'ing witness of the Holy Ghost, these are practically the evidences upon which the faith of a majority of believers rests. 2d. But another characteristic of the Scriptures, taken in connection with the foregoing, proves incontestibly their divine origin as a whole and in every part. The sacred Scriptures are an organism, that is an whole composed of many parts, the parts all differing in matter, form, and structiu'e from each other, like the several members of the human body, yet each adjusted to each other and to the whole, through the most intricate and delicate correlations mediating a common end. Scripture is the record and interpretation of redemption. Re- demption is a work which God has prepared and wrought out by manj' actions in succession through an historical process occupying centuries. A supernatural providence has flowed forward evolving a s^'stem of divine interventions, accompanied and interpreted by a supernatural ly informed and guided order of prophets. Each writer has his own special and temporary occasion, theme, and audience. And yet each contributed to build up the common organism, as the providential history has advanced, each special writing beyond its temporary purpose 74 INSPIRA TION. taking its permanent place as a member of the whole, the gospel fulfilling the law, antitype has answered to type and fulfilment to prophecy, history has been interpreted by doc- trine, and doctrine has given law to duty and to life. The more minutely the contents of each book are studied in the light of its special purpose, the more wonderfully various and exact will its articulations in the general system and ordered structure of the whole be discovered to be. This is the highest conceivable evidence of design, which in the present case is the proof of a divine supernatural influence comprehending the Avhole, and reaching to every part, through sixteen centuries, sixty-six distinct writings, and about forty co-operating human agents. Thus the divine agency in the genesis of every part of Scripture is as clearly and certainly determined as it is in the older genesis of the heavens and the earth. 19. What 'is the objection to this doctrine drawn from the free manner in ivhicJi the Neio Testament writers quote those of the Old Testament, and the ansiver to that objection ? In a majority of instances the New Testament wjfiters quote those of the Old Testament with perfect verbal accuracy. Some- times they quote the Septuagint version, when it conforms to the Hebrew ; at others they substitute a new version ; and at other times again they adhere to the Septuagint, when it differs from the Hebrew. In a number of instances, which however are comparatively few, their quotations from the Old Testament are made very freely, and in apparent accommodation of the literal sense. Rationalistic interpreters have argued from this last class of quotations that it is impossible that both the Old Testament writer quoted from, and the New Testament writer quoting, could have been the subjects of plenary inspiration, because, say they, if the ipsissima verba were infallible in the first in- stance, an infallilDle writer would have transferred them un- changed. But surely if a human author may quote himself freely, changing the expression, and giving a new turn to his thought in order to adapt it the more perspicuously to his present purpose, the Holy Spirit may take the same liberty with his own. The same Spirit that rendered the Old Testa- ment writers infallible in writing only pure truth, in the very form that suited liis purpose then, has rendered the New Tes- tainout writers infallible in so using the old materials, that Avhile they elicit a new sense, they teach only the truth, the very truth moreover contemplated in the mind of God from the beginning, and they teach it with divine authority. — See Fairbairn's \" Herm. Manual,\" Part HI. Each instance of such OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 75 quotation should be examined in detail, as Dr. Fairbairn has done. 20. What objection to the doctrine of Plenary Inspiration is draivn from the alleged fact that ^'■Discrepancies\" exist in the Scriptural Text? and how is this ohjection to he ansivered? It is objected that the sacred text contains numerous state- ments which are inconsistent with other statements made in some part of Scripture itself, or with some certainly ascertained facts of history or of science. It is obvious that such a state of facts, even if it could be proved to exist, would not, in opposition to the abundant pos- itive evidence above adduced, avail to disprove the claim that the Scriptures are to some extent and in some degree the pro- duct of divine inspiration. The force of the objection would depend essentially upon the number and character of the in- stauces of discrepancy actually proved to exist, and would bear not upon the fact of Inspiration, but upon its nature and degree and extent. The fact of the actual existence of any such \"discrepancies,\" it is evident, can be determined only by the careful examina- tion of each alleged case separately. This examination belongs to the departments of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis. The following considerations, however, are evidently well-grounded, and sufficient to allay all apprehension on the subject. 1st. The Church has never held the verbal infallibility of our translations, nor the perfect accuracy of the copies of the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures now possessed by us. These copies confessedly contain many \"discrepancies\" resulting from frequent transcription. It is, nevertheless, the unanimous testimony of Christian scholars, that while these variations embarrass the interpretation of many details, they neither involve the loss nor abate the evidence of a single es- sential fact or doctrine of Christianity. And it is moreover reassuring to know that believing criticism, by the discovery and collation of more ancient and accurate copies, is con- stantly advancing the Church to the possession of a more per- fect text of the original Scriptures than she has enjoyed since the apostolic age. 2d. The Church has asserted absolute infallibility only of the original autograph copies of the Scriptures as they came from the hands of their inspired writers. And even of these she has not asserted infinite knowledge, but only absolute in- fallibility in stating the matters designed to be asserted. A \" discrepancy,\" therefore, in the sense in which the new critics affirm and the Church denies its existence, is a form of state- 76 INSPIRA TION. ment existing in the original text of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures evidently designed to assert as true that which is in plain irreconcilable contradiction to other statements exist- ing in some other portions of the same original text of Script- ure, or to some other certainly ascertained element of human knowledge. A \"discrepancy\" fulfilling in every particular this definition must be proved to exist, or the Church's doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration remains unaffected. 3d. It is beyond question, that, in the light of all that the Scriptures themselves assert or disclose as to the nature and the extent of the divine influence controlling their genesis, and as to their authority over man's conscience and life as the voice of God, the existence of any such \"discrepancies\" as above de- fined is a violent improbability. Those who assert the exist- ence of one or more of them must bring them out, and prove to the community of competent judges, that all the elements of the above definition meet in each alleged instance, not prob- ably merely, but beyond the possibility of doubt. The onus probandi rests exclusively on them. 4th. But observe that this is for them a very difficult task to perform, one in any instance indeed hardly possible. For to make good their point against the vast presumptions opposed to it, they must prove over and over again in the case of each alleged discrepancy each of the following points: (1.) That the alleged discrepant statement certainly occurred in the veritable autograph copy of the inspired writing containing it. (2.) That their interpretation of the statement, which oc- casions the discrepancy, is the only possible one, the one it was certainly intended to bear. The difficulty of this will be apprehended wlien we estimate the inherent obscurity of an- cient narratives, unchronological, and fragmentary, with a background and surroundings of almost unrelieved darkness. This condition of things which so often puzzles the interpreter, and prevents the apologist from proving the harmony of the narrative, with equal force baffles all the ingenious efforts of the rationalistic critic to demonstrate the \"discrepancy.\" Yet this he must do, or the presumption will remain that it does not exist, (3.) He must also prove that the facts of science or of history, or the Scriptural statements, with whicli the state- ment iu cjuestion is asserted to be inconsistent, are real facts or real parts of the autograph text of canonical Scripture, and that the sense in whicJi they are found to be inconsistent with the statement in question is the only sense they can rationally bear. (4.^ Wlien the reality of the opposing facts or statements is determnied, and their true interpretation is ascertained, then it must, in conclusion, be shown not only that they appear incon- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 77 sistent, nor merely that their reconciliation is impossible in our present state of knowledge, but that they are in themselves essentially incapable of being reconciled. 5th. Finally it is sufficient for the present purpose, to point to the fact that no single case of \" discrepancy,\" as above de- fined, has been so proved to exist as to secure the recognition of the community of believing scholars. Difficulties in inter- pretation and apparently irreconcilable statements exist, but no \"discrepancy\" has been proved. Advancing knowledge re- moves some difficulties and discovers others. It is in the high- est degree probable that perfect knowledge would remove all. 21. Explain the meaning of such passages as 1 Cor. vii. 6 and 12 and 40, Rom. iii. 5 and vi. 19, and Gal. iii. 15, and slioiv their 'perfect consistency ivitli the fact of the plenary inspiration of the lohole Bible. \" I speak as a man,\" is a phrase occurring frequently, and its sense is determined by the context. In Romans iii. 5, it signifies that Paul was, for argument's sake, using the language common to men; it was the Jews' opinion, not his own. In Rom. vi. 19, it signifies \"in a manner adapted to human comprehension,\" and in Gal. iii. 15, it signifies \"I use an illustration drawn from human affairs,\" etc. \" I speak this b}^ permission, not of commandment.\" — 1 Cor. vii. 6, refers to verse ii. IMarriage was always permitted, but under certain circumstances inexpedient. \"And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord.\" \"But to the rest speak I, not the Lord.\" — 1 Cor. vii. 10 and 12. Reference is here made to Avhat the \"Lord,\" that is Christ, taught in person Avhile on earth. The distinction is made between what Christ taught while on earth, and what Paul teaches. As Paid puts his word here on an equal basis of authority with Christ's Avord, it of course implies that Paul claims an inspiration which makes his Avord equal to that of Christ in infallibility and authority. \"And I think also that I have the Spirit of God.\" — 1 Cor. vii. 40. \"/ think (SokcS) I have, is only, agreeably to Greek usage, an urbane Avay of saying, I have (comp. Gal. ii. 6, 1 Cor. xii. 22). Paul was in no doubt of his l)eing an organ- of the Holy Ghost.\" Hodge, \" Com. on First Corinthians.\" Defective Statemext of the Doctrine. 22. State ivhat is meant by theological ivriters by the inspira- tion '\"''of sv/perintendence^^ '■'' of elevation,'' '■'' of direction\" and '•'\"of suggestion.\" 78 INS FIR A TION. Certain writers on this subject, confounding the distinction between inspiration and revelation, and using the former term to express the whole divine influence of which the sacred writers were the subjects, first, in knowing the truth, second, in writing it, necessarily distinguish between different degrees of inspira- tion in order to accommodate their theory to the facts of the case. Because, ^rs^, some of the contents of Scripture evidently might be known without supernatural aid, while much more as evidently could not; second, the different Avriters exercised their natural faculties, and carried their individual peculiarities of thought, feeling, and manner into their writings. By the \"inspiration of superintendence,\" these writers meant precisely what we have above given as the definition of inspira- tion. By the \"inspiration of elevation,\" they meant that divine influence which exalted their natural faculties to a degree of energy otherwise unattainable. By the \"inspiration of direction,\" they meant that divine in- fluence which guided the writers in the selection and dispo- sition of their material. By the \" inspiration of suggestion,\" they meant that divine influence which directly suggested to their minds new, and otherwise unattainable truth.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "19", "sort_key": 19, "group": "Chapter IV", "question": "What  objections  may  be  fairly  made  to  these  distinctions  ?", "answer": "1st. These distinctions spring from a prior failure to distin- guish between revelation the frequent, and inspiration the con- stant, phenomenon presented by Scripture; the one furnishing the material when not otherwise attainable, the other guiding the writer at every point, (1) in securing the infallible truth of all he writes; and (2) in the selection and distribution of his material. ' 2d. It is injurious to distinguish between different degrees of inspiration, as if the several portions of the Scriptures were in different degrees God's word, wdiile in truth the whole is equally and absolutely so. False Doctrines of Inspiration. 24. What Principles necessarily lead to the denial of any super- natural Inspiration ? All philosophical principles or tendencies of thought which exclude the distinction between the natural and the supernat- ural necessarily lead to the denial of Inspiration in the sense affirmed by the Church. Tliese are, for example, all Panthe- istic, Materialistic, and Naturalistic principles, and of course Rationalistic principles in all their forms. FALSE DOCTRINES OF. 79 25. In what several forms has the doctrine of a Partial Inspi- ration of the Scriptures been held? 1st. It has been maintained that certain books were the subjects of plenary inspiration, while others were produced with only a natural providential and gracious assistance of God. S. T. Coleridge admittted the plenary inspiration of \"the law and the prophets, no jot or tittle of which can pass unfulfilled,\" while he denied it of the rest of the canon. 2d. ]\\Iany have admitted that the moral and spiritual ele- ments of the Scriptures, and their doctrines as far as these relate to the nature and purposes of God not otherwise ascer- tainable, are products of inspiration, but deny it of the his- torical and biographical elements, and of all its allusions to scientific facts or laws. 3d. Others admit that the inspiration of the writers con- trolled their thoughts, but deny that it extended to its verbal expression. In one, or in all of these senses, different men have held that the Scriptures are only \"partially\" inspired. All such deny that they \"are the word of God\" as affirmed by the Scriptures themselves and by all the historical Churches, and admit merely that they ^'■contain the word of God.\" 26. State the doctrine of Gracious Inspiration. Coleridge, in his \" Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit,\" Let- ter vii., holds that the Scriptures, except the Law and the Prophets, were produced by their writers assisted by \"the highest degree of that grace and communion with the Spirit which the Church under all circumstances, and every regen- erate member of the Church of Christ, is permitted to hope and instructed to pray for.\" This is the doctrine of Maurice (\"Theological Essays,\" p. 339) and virtually that of Morell (\" Philosophy of Religion,\" p. 186) and of the Quakers. These admit an objective supernatural revelation, and that this is contained in the Scriptures, which are highly useful, and in such a sense an authoritative standard of faith and practice; that no pretended revelation which is inconsistent with Script- ure can be true, and that they are a judge in all controversies between Christians. Nevertheless they hold that the Script- ures are only \" a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit from whom they have all their excellency,\" which Spirit illumes every man in the world, and reveals to him either with, or without the Scriptures, if they are unknoAvn, all the knowl- edge of God and of his will Avhicli are necessary for his salva- tion and guidance, on condition of his rendering a constant 80 INSPIRA TION. obedience to that light as thus graciously communicated to liim and to all men. \"Barclay's Apology, Theses Theological,\" Propositions i., ii., and iii. AuTHOBITATrv^ STATEMENTS. Roman Catholic. — \" Decrees of Council of Trent\" Sess. iv. \" Which gospel . . . our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with his own mouth, and then commanded to be i^reached by his apostles to every creature, . . . and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten tradition, which received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand : [the Synod] folloAving the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament- — seeing God is the author of both — as also the said tra- ditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.\" ^'■Dogmatic Decrees of the Vailca/i Council,'^ 1870, Sess. iii., Ch. ii. \"Further this supernatural revelation, according to the universal belief of the Church, declared by the sacred Synod of Trent, is contained in the Avritten books and unwritten traditions which have come down to us, having been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, have been transmitted as it were from hand to hand. And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canon- ical, in their integrity, with all their j^arts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council, and are contained in the ancient Edition of the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation with no admixture of error ; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself.\" LuTHEKAN. — \" FurmuLa Concordup Epitome.\" 1. \"We believe, con- fess, and teach that the only nile and norm, according to which all dog- mas and all doctors ought to be esteemed and judged, is no other whatever than the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testament, as it is written, Ps. cxix. 105, and Gal. i. 8.\" Reformed. ^ — \"Second He/retic Confession,\" Gh. i. Concerning Holy Scripture. \"We believe and confess, that the canonical ScriiJtures of the holy pi'ophets and apostles of each Testament are the true word of God, and that they possess sufficient authority from themselves alone and not from man. For God himself sjioke to the fathers, to the projihets, and to tlie apostles, and continues to speak to us through the Holy Scriptures.\" \" IV/e Behjic Confession,\" Art. iii. \"We confess that this word of God was not sent nor deUvered by the \"will of man, but that liol;/ men of God spake <ts they were moved ht/ the Holy Ghost, as the apostle Peter saitli. And that afterwards God, from a special care which he has for us and our salvation, commanded his servants, the prophets and a]30stles, CREED STATEMENTS. 81 to commit his revealed word to writing, and he himself wrote with his own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holj and divine Scriptures.\" \"Weslmuister Confession of Faith,\" Chap. i. \"Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times and in divers manners, to reveal himself and to declare his will unto his Church; and afterwards, for the better pre- serving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establish- ment and comfort of the Church against the Corruption of the flesh and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto Avi-iting.\" \"The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be beheved and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is trath itself) the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received laecause it is the word of God.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "20", "sort_key": 20, "group": "Chapter V", "question": "By  ichat  other  arguments  may  this  principle  he  proved  ?", "answer": "As the Scriptures profess to be a rule complete for its end, so they have always been practicalh\" found to be such by the true spiritual people of God in all ages. They teach a complete and harmonious system of doctrine. They furnish all necessary principles for the government of the private lives of Christians, in every relation, for the public worship of God, and for the administration of the affairs of his kingdom; and they repel all pretended traditions and priestly innovations. 10. In ivhat sense do Protestants affirm and Bomanists deny the perspicuity of Scripture ? Protestants do not affirm that the doctrines revealed in the Scriptures are level to man's powers of understanding. ^lany of them are confessedly beyond all understanding. Nor do they affirm that every part of Scripture can be certainly and perspicuously expounded, many of the prophesies being per- fectly enigmatical until explained by the event. But they do affirm that every essential article of faith and rule of practice is clearly revealed in Scripture, or may certainly be deduced therefrom. This much the least instructed Christian may learn at once; while, on the other hand, it is true, that with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Christian church is constantly making- progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture, and in the comprehension in its integrity of the system therein taught. Protestants affirm and Romanists deny that private and unlearned Christians may safely be allowed to interpret Script- ure for themselves. 11. Hoio can tlie per sp)icuity of Scripture he proved from the fact that it is a laio and a message ? We saw (question 8) that Scripture is either complete or false, from its own professed design. We now prove its per- spicuity upon the same principle. It professes to be (1) a law to be obeyed; (2) a revelation of truth to be believed, to be received by us in both aspects upon the penalty of eternal 86 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. death. To suppose it not to be perspicuous, relatively to its design of commanding- and teaching, is to charge God with dealing with us in a spirit at once disingenuous and cruel.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "21", "sort_key": 21, "group": "Chapter V", "question": "In  loliat  'passages  is  their  perspicuity  asserted?", "answer": "Ps. xix. 7, 8; cxix. 105, 130; 2 Cor. iii. 14 ; 2 Pet. i. 18, 19; Hab. ii. 2; 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "22", "sort_key": 22, "group": "Chapter V", "question": "By  ivhat  other  arguraents  may  this  point  he  established  ?", "answer": "1st. The Scriptures are addressed immediately, either to all men promiscuously, or else to the Avhole body of believers as such.— Dent. vi. 4-9; Luke i. 3; Rom. i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; iv. 2 ; Gal. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 1 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Col. i. 2 ; James i. 1 ; 1 Peter i. 1 ; 2 Peter i. 1 ; 1 John ii. 12, 14; Jude i. 1 ; Ptev. i. 3, 4; ii. 7. The only exceptions are the epistles to Timothy and Titus. 2d. All Christians promiscuously are commanded to search the Scriptures. — 2 Tim. iii. 15, 17; Acts xvii. 11; John v. 39. 3d. Universal experience. We have the same evidence of the light-giving power of Scripture that we have of the same property in the sun. The argument to the contrary is an insult to the understanding of the whole world of Bible readers. 4th. The essential unity in faith and practice, in spite of all circumstantial differences, of all Christian communities of every age and nation, who draw their religion directly from the open Scriptures. 14. What ivas the third quality required to constitute the Script- ures the sufficient rule of faith and practice? Accessibility. It is self-evident that this is the pre-eminent characteristic of the Scriptures, in contrast to tradition, Avhich is in the custody of a corporation of priests, and to every otlier pretended rule whatsoever. The agency of the church in this matter is simply to give all currency to the word of God. 15. What is meant by saying that the Scriptures are the judge as ivdl as the rule in questions of faith ? \" A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases.\" The Protestant doctrine is — 1st. That the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. 2d. (1.) Negatively. That there is no body of men who are either qualified, or authorized, to interpret the Scriptures, or to apply their principles to the decision of particular ques- tions, in a sense binding upon the faith of their felloiu Christians. THE ROMISH DOCTRINE. 87 (2.) Positively. That Scripture is the only infallible voice in the church, and is to be interpreted, in its own light, and with the gracious help of the Holy Ghost, who is promised to every Christian (1 John ii. 20-27), by each individual for himself^ with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind only those who voluntarily profess them, and as to matter, they bind only so far as they affirm truly what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach. 16. What is the Romish doctrine as to the authoritij of the church as the in/aJUUe interpreter of the rule of faith and the authoritative judge of all controversies ? The Romish doctrine is that the church is absolutely infal- lible in all matters of Christian faith and practice, and the divinely authorized depository and interpreter of the rule of faith. Her office is not to convey new revelations from God to man, yet her inspiration renders her infallible in disseminating and interpreting the original revelation communicated through the apostles. The church, therefore, authoritatively determines — 1st. What is Scripture? 2d. What is genuine tradition? 3d. What is the true sense of Scripture and tradition, and what is the true application of that perfect rule to every particular question of belief or practice. This authority vests in the pope, when acting in his official capacity, and in the bishops as a body ; as when assembled in general council, or when giving universal consent to a decree of pope or council. — \"Decrees of Council of Trent,\" Session iv. ; \"Deus Theo.,\" N. 80, 81, 84, 93, 94, 95, 96. \"Bellarraine,\" Lib. III., de eccles., cap. xiv., and Lib. IL, de council., cap. ii.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "23", "sort_key": 23, "group": "Chapter V", "question": "By  ivhat  arguments  do  they  seek  to  estahlish  this  authority?", "answer": "1st. The promises of Christ, given, as they claim, to the apostles, and to their official successor, securing their infallibil- ity, and consequent authority. — Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 18-20; Luke xxiv. 47-49; John xvi. 13; xx. 23. 2d. The conmiission given to the church as the teacher of the world. — ]Matt. xxviii. 19, 20; Luke x. 16, etc. 3d. The church is declared to be \" the pillar and ground of the truth,\" and it is affirmed that \" the gates of hell shall never prevail against her.\" 4th. To the church is granted power to bind and loose, and he that will not hear the church is to be treated as a heathen. Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 15-18. 5th. The church is commanded to discriminate between 88 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. truth and error, and must consequently be qualified and au- thorized to do so. — 2 Thessalonians iii. 6; liomans xvi. 17; 2 John 10. 6th. From the necessity of the case, men need and crave an ever-living, visible, and cotemporaneous infallible Interpreter and Judge. 7th. From universal analogy every community among men has the living judge as well as the written law, and the one would be of no value without the other. 8th. This power is necessary to secure unity and univer- sality, which all acknowledge to be essential attributes of the true church. 18. By ivhai arguments may this claim of the Bomish church he shotvn to he ntterly haseless? 1st. A claim vesting in mortal men a power so momentous can be established only by tiie most clear and certain evidence, and the failure to produce snch converts the claim into a treason at once against God and the human race. 2d. Her evidence fails, because the promises of Christ to preserve his church from extinction and from error do none of them go the length of pledging infallibility^ The utmost promised is, that the true people of God shall never perish en- tirely from the earth, or be left to apostatize from the essentials of the faith. 3d. Her evidence fails, because these promises of Christ were addressed not to the officers of the church as such, but to the body of true believers. Compare John xx. 23 with Luke xxiv. 33, 47, 48, 49, and 1 John ii. 20, 27. 4th. Her evidence fails, because the church to Avhich the precious promises of the Scriptiu'es are pledged is not an ex- ternal, visible society, the authority of which is vested in the hands of a perpetual line of apostles. For — (1.) the word church (^£HHXT;dia) is a collective term, embracing the effectually called (^H?i?jr6i) or regenerated. — Rom. i. 7; viii. 28; 1 Cor. i. 2; Jude i. ; Rev. xvii. 14; also Rom. ix. 24; 1 Cor. vii. 18-24; Gal. i. 15; 2 Tim. i. 9; Heb. ix. 15; 1 Pet. ii. 9; v. 10; Eph. i. 18; 2 Pet. i. 10. (2.) The attributes ascribed to the church prove it to consist alone of the true, spiritual people of God as such. — Eph. v. 27; 1 Pet. ii. 5; John x. 27; Col. i. 18, 24. (3.) The epistles are addressed to the church, and in their salutations explain that phrase as equivalent to \"the called,\" \"the saints,\" \"all true worshippers of God;\" witness the salutations of 1st and 2d Corintiiians, Ephesians, Colossians, Ist and 2d Peter and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true church as such throughout the body of the Epistles. — 1 Cor. i. ROMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED. 89 30; iii. 16; vi. 11, 19; Epli. ii. 3-8, and 19-22; 1 Tlies. v. 4, 5; 2 Thes. ii. 13; Col. i. 21; ii. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 9. 5th. The inspired apostles have had no successors. (1.) There is no evidence that they had such in the New Testament. (2.) While provision was made for the regular perpetuation of the offices of presbj^ter and deacon (1 Tim. iii. 1-13), there are no directions given for the perpetuation of the apostolate. (3.) There is perfect silence concerning the continued exist- ence of any apostles in the church in the writings of the early centuries. Both the name and the thing ceased. (4.) No one ever claiming to be one of their successors have possessed the \"sitrns of an apostle.\" — 2 Cor. xii. 12; 1 Cor. ix. 1; Gal. i. 1, 12; Acts i. 21, 22. 6th. This claim, as it rests upon the authority of the Pope, is utterly unscriptural, because the Pope is not known to Script- ure. As it rests upon the authority of the whole body of the bishops, expressed in their general consent, it is unscriptural for the reasons above shown, and it is, moreover, impracticable, since their imiversal judgment never has been and never can be impartially collected and pronounced. 7th. There can be no infallibility where there is not self- consistency. But as a matter of fact the Papal church has not been self-consistent in her teaching. (1.) She has taught dif- ferent doctrines in different sections and ages. (2.) She affirms the infallibility of the holy Scriptures, and at the same time teaches a system plainly and radically inconsistent with their manifest sense; witness the doctrines of the priesthood, the mass, penance, of Avorks, and of IMary worship. Therefore the Church of Rome hides the Scriptures from the people. 8th. If this Romish system be true then genuine spiritual re- ligion ought to flourish in her communion, and all the rest of the world ought to be a moral desert. The facts are notoriously the reverse. If, therefore, we admit that the Romish system is true, we subvert one of the principal evidences of Christianity itself, viz., the self-evidencing light and practical power of true religion, and the witness of the Holy Ghost. 19. By wliat direct arguments may tJie doctrine that the Script- ures are the final judge of controversies he established? That all Christians are to study the Scriptures for them- selves, and that in all questions as to God's revealed will the appeal is to the Scriptures alone, is proved by the following facts : 1st. Scripture is perspicuous, see above, questions 11-13. 2d. Scripture is addressed to all Christians as such, see above, question 13. 90 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 3d. All Christians ai'e commanded to search the Scriptures, and by them to judg-e all doctrines and all professed teacliers. — John V. 39; Acts xvii. 11; Gal. i. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 2; 1 Thess. v. 21; 1 John iv. 1, 2. 4th. The promise of the Holy Spirit, the author and inter- preter of Scripture, is to all Christians as such. Compare John XX. 23 with Luke xxiv. 47-49; 1 John ii. 20, 27; Eom. viii. 9; 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17. 5th. Religion is essentially a personal matter. Each Chris- tian must know and believe the truth explicitly for himself, on the direct ground of its own moral and spiritual evidence, and not on the mere ground of blind authority. Otherwise faith could not be a moral act, nor could it \"purify the heart.\" Faith derives its sanctifying power from the truth which it immedi- ately ap})rehends on its own experimental evidence. — John xvii. 17, 19; James i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 22. 20. What is the objection which the Romanists make to this doc- trine, on the ground that tJw church is our only authority for believing that the Scriptures are the loord of God ? Their objection is, that as we receive the Scriptures as the word of God only on the authoritative testimony of the church, our faith in the Scriptures is oidy another form of our faith in the church, and the authority of the church, being the founda- tion of that of Scripture, must of course be held paramount. This is absurd, for two reasons — 1st. The assumed fact is false. The evidence upon which we receive Scripture as the word of God is not the authority of the chiu'ch, but — (1.) God did speak by the apostles and prophets, as is evident («) from the nature of their doctrine, (Ji) from their miracles, (c) their prophecies, {d) our personal experience and observation of the power of the truth. (2.) These very writings which we possess were written by the apostles, etc., as is evident, («) from internal evidence, (/>) from historical testimony ren- dered by all competent cotemj^oraneous witnesses in the church or out of it. 2d. Even if the fact assumed Avas true, viz., that we knoAv the Scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the church's testimony alone, the conclusion they seek to deduce from it would be ahsiard. The witness who proves the identity or pri- mogeniture of a prince does not thereby acqitire a right to govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince. 21. Hoio is the argument for the necessity of a visible judge, derived from the diversities of sects and doctrines among Protestants, to be answered? ROMISH DOCTRINE REFUTED. 91 1st. We do not pretend that the private judgment of Pro- testants is infallible, but only that when exercised in an humble, believing spirit, it always leads to a competent knowledge of essential truth. 2d. The term Protestant is simply negative, and is assumed by many infidels who protest as much against the Scriptures as they do against Rome. But Bible Protestants, among all their circumstantial differences, are, to a wonderful degree, agreed upon the essentials of faith and practice. Witness their \"^ hj^mns and devotional literature. (-^^^ 3d. The diversity that does actually exist arises from failure\" j^^j^--' in applying faithfully the Protestant principles for which we \",,'■'; contend. Alen do not simply and without prejudice take their creed from the Bible. 4th. The Catholic church, in her last and most authoritative '^a'^'^ utterance through the Council of Trent, has proved herself a ;>^»v^\" most indefinite judge. Her doctrinal decisions need an infal- \" i ^^ lible interpreter infinitely more than the Scriptures. 22. How may it he sJioivn that the Romanist theory, as tcell as the Protestant, necessarily throws upon the people the obligation of private judgment ? Is there a God? Has he revealed himself? Plas he estab- lished a church? Is that church an infallible teacher? Is private judgment a blind leader? Which of all pretended churches is the true one ? Every one of these questions evi- dently must be settled in the private judgment of the inquirer, before he can, rationally or irrationally, give up his private judgment to the direction of the self-asserting church. Tlius of necessity Romanists appeal to the Scriptures to prove that the Scriptures can not be understood, and address arguments to the private judgment of men to prove that private judgment is incompetent; thus basing an argument upon that which it is the object of the argument to prove is baseless. 23. Hoio may it he proved that the peopile are far more compe- tent to discover what the Bible teaches than to decide, by the marJcs insisted iqjon by the Romanists, ivhicli is the trite church ? The Romanists, of necessity, set forth certain marks by which the true church is to be discriminated from all counter- feits. These are (1.) Unity (through subjection to one visible head, the Pope); (2.) Holiness; (3.) Catholicity; (4.) Apostol- icity, (involving an uninterrupted succession from the apostles of canonically ordained bishops.) — \"Cat. of Council of Trent,\" Part I., Cap. 10. Now, the comprehension and intelligent appli- cation of these marks involve a great amoiint of learning and 92 THE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. intelligent capacity npon the part of the inqnirer. He might as easily prove himself to be descended from Noah by an unbro- ken series of legitimate marriages, as establish the right of Rome to the last mark. Yet he can not rationally give np the right of studying the Bible for himself until that point is made clear. Surely the Scriptures, with their self-evidencing spiritual power, make less exhaustive demands upon the resources of private judgment. EoMAN Catholic Doctkine as to the Pkivate Inteepketation of SCEIPTUKE, and as TO TkADITION, AND AS TO THE iNFAIiLIBLLITX OF THE Pope. 1st. As TO THE Intekpbetation OF ScKiPTUBE. — \"Decrees of Council of D-en/,\" Sess. iv. — \"Moreover the same sacred and holy Synod . ordains and declares, that the said old and vnlgate edition, which, by the lengthened nsage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever. \"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, — wresting the sacred Scriptiire to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Script- ure contrary to that sense which holy mother Church — whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures — hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the nnanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. \" \"jDof/mah'c Becrees of (lie Vatican Council,\" ch. ii. — \"And as the things which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concern- ing the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been -svrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building uj) of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our holy mother Church hath held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.\" 2d. As to Tbadition. — ''Prcf. Fidei Tridenfince\" (a, d. 156i) ii. and iii. \"I most steadfastly admit and embrace apostolic and ecclesiastic tradi- tions, and all other observances and constitutions of the same Church. I also admit the Holy Scriptures, according to that sense which our holy mother Church has held and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. \" \" Council of Trent \" Sess. iv. — \"And seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten tradi- tions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from tlie apostles themselves the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us transmitted as it were from hand to hand.\" 3d. As TO THE ABSOLrTE Authokity OF THE PoPE. — '' Dogmatic Bed- DECREES OF THE VATICAN COUNCIL. 93 sion!!, of the Valicnn Council,'''' chai^. iii. — \" Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our Lord . . the power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff is immediate, to which all, of wliatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipHne and government of the Church througlioiit the world. . . We farther teach and declare that he is tlie supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may reopen the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review his judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman P(mtifF to an cecumenical council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontilf. \" 4th. CONCEENING THE ABSOLUTE iNFAIiLIBELITY OF THE PoPE AS THE Teacheb of THE UNIVERSAL Chuech. — ^'Dogmatic Decreeii of tlie Vaticmi Council,\" Chap. iv. — \"Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received fi-om the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the saci'ed Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: That the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of aU Christians, by virtue of his suj^reme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine as.sistance i^romised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of the infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine according to faith and morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one — which may God avert — presume to contradict this our definition: let him be anathema.\" Cardinal Manning in his ^^ Vatican Council\" says, \"In this definition there are six jDoints to be noted : \"1st. It defines the meaning of the well-known phrase loquens ex cathedra; that is, speaking from the Seat, or jilace, or with the authority of the supreme teacher of all Christians, and binding the assent of the universal Church. \"2d. The subject matter of the infallible teaching, namely, the doc- trine of faith and morals. \"3d. The efficient cause of infallibility, that is, the divine assistance jDromised to Peter, and in Peter to his successors. \"4:th. The act to which this divine assistance is attached, the defining of doctrines of faith and morals. \"5th. The extension of this infallible authority to the limits of the doctrinal office of the Church. \" 6th. The dogmatic value of the definitions ex cathedra, namely that they are in themselves irreformable, because in themselves infallible, and not because the Church, or any part or member of the Church, should assent to them. \" ^^ Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican Council,\" Ch. iv.— \"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by his revelation they might make known new doctrine; but that by his assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith deUvered through the Apostles.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "24", "sort_key": 24, "group": "Chapter VI", "question": "What  loas  the  origin  of  the  3Iiddle  or  Semipelagian  system  ?", "answer": "In the mean time, while the Pelagian controversy was at its height, John Cassian, of Syrian extraction and educated in the Eastern Church, having removed to Marseilles, in France, for the purpose of advancing the interests of monkery in that region, began to give publicity to a scheme of doctrine occu- pying a middle position between the systems of Augustine and Pelagius. This system, whose advocates were called JMassilians from the residence of their chief, and afterward Semipelagians by the Schoolmen, is in its essential principles one with that system which is now denominated Arminianism, a statement of which will be given in a subsequent part of this chapter. Faustus, bishop of Riez, in France, from a. d. 427 to a. d. 480, was one of the most distinguished and successful advocates of this doctrine, which was permanently accepted by the Eastern Church, and for a time was widely disseminated throughout the western also, until it was condemned by the Synods of Orange and Valence, a. d. 529. 7. What is the relation of Augustinianism to Calvinism arid of Semi^'idagianism to Arminianism ? After this time Augustinianism became the recognized or- thodoxy of the Western Church, and the name of no other uninspired man exerts such imiversal influence among Papists and Protestants alike. If any liuman name ought to be used to designate a system of divinely revealed truth, the phrase * The doctrine of Augustine does not by any means involve the conclusion that the elect are \"few\" or \"a small number.\" DURING THE SCHOLASTIC AGE. 99 Augristinianism as opposed to Pelagiamsm properly designates all those elements of faith which the whole world of Evangel- ical Christians hold in common. On the other hand Augnstin- ianism as opposed to Semipelagianism properly designates that system commonly called Calvinism — while Cassianisia would be the proper historical designation of that Middle or Semipe- lagian Scheme now commonly styled Arminianism. 8. Hotv ivere parties divided icitli respect to tJiese great systems among the Schoolmen, and how are tliey in the modern Papal Church ? After the lapse of the dark ages, during which all active speculation slumbered, the great Thomas Aquinas, an Italian by birth, a. d. 1224, and a monk of the order of St. Dominic, Doctor Angelicus, advocated with consummate ability the Au- gustinian sj^stem of theology in that cumbrous and artificial manner which characterized the Schoolmen. John Duns Sco- tus, a native of Britain, a. d. 1265, a monk of the order of St. Francis, Doctor Subtilis, was in that age the ablest advocate of the system then styled Semipelagian. The controversies then revived were perpetuated for many ages, the Dominicans and the Thomists in general advocating unconditional election and efficacious grace, and the Franciscans and the Scotists in general advocating conditional election and the inalienable power of the human will to co-operate with or to resist divine grace. The same disputes under various party names continue to agitate the Romish Church since the Reformation, although the genius of her ritualistic system, and the predominance of the Jesuits in her councils, have seciu'ed within her bounds the almost universal prevalence of Semipelagianism. The general Council, commenced at Trent, a. d. 1546, at- tempted to form a non-committal Creed that Avould satisfy the adherents of both systems. Accordingly the Dominicans and Franciscans have both claimed that their respective views were sanctioned by that Synod. The truth is that while the general and indefinite statements of doctrine to be found among its canons are often Augustinian in form, the more detailed and accurate explanations which follow these are uniformly Semi- pelagian. — Principal Cunningham's \"Historical Theology,\" vol. 1, pp. 483-495. The order of the Jesuits, founded by Ignatius Loyola, a. d. 1541, has always been identified with Semipelagian Theology. Lewis ]\\Iolina, a Spanish Jesuit, a. d. 1588, the inventor of tiie distinction denoted by the term \"Scientia jMedia,\" attained to such distinction as its advocate, that its adherents in the Papal Church have been for ages styled Molinists. In 1638 Janse- 100 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. nius, Bishop of Ypres in the Netherlands died leaving behind him his great Avork, Angnstinns, wherein he clearly unfolded and established by copious extracts tlie true theological system of Augustine. This book occasioned very wide-spread conten- tions, was ferociously opposed by the Jesuits, and condemned by the Bulls of Popes Innocent X. and Alexander VII., a. d. 1653 and 1656 — which last were followed in 1713 by the more celebrated Bull '\"'' imigenitus'\" of Clement XL, condemning the New Testament Commentary of Qaesnel. The Augustinians in that Church were subsequently called Jansenists, and had their principal seat in Holland and Belgium and at Port Eoyal near Paris. They have numbered among them some very illus- trious names, as Tillemont, Arnauld, Nicole, Pascal, and Quesnel. These controversies between the Dominicans and Molinists, the Jansenists and Jesuits, have continued even to our own time, although at present Semipelagianism shares with Jesuitism in its almost unlimited sway in the Papal Church, which has def- initely triumphed in the Vatican Council, 1870. 9. What is the position of the Lidheran Church ivith relation to these great systems ? Luther, a monk of the order of Augustine, and an earnest disciple of that father, taught a system of faith agreeing in spirit and in all essential points with that afterwards more sys- tematically developed by Calvin. The only important point in which he differed from the common consensus of the Calvinistic Churches related to the literal physical presence of the entire person of Christ in, with, and under the elements in the Eucharist. With these opinions of Luther Melanclithon appears to have agreed at the time he published the first edition of his \" Loci Communes.\" His opinions however as to the freedom of man and the sovereignty of divine grace were subsequently grad- ually modified. After the death of Luther, at the Leipsic Con- ference in 1548, he explicitly declared his agreement with the Si/nergists, who maintain that in the regenerating act the hu- man will co-operates with divine grace. ]\\Ielanchthon, on the other hand, held a view of the relation of the sign to tlie grace signified thereby in the Sacraments, much more nearly con- forming to opinions of the disciples of Zwingle and Calvin than generally prevailed in his own Church. His position on both these points gave great offence to the Old Lutherans, and occasioned protracted and bitter controversies. Finally, the Old or Strict Lutheran party prevailed over their antago- nists, and their views received a complete scientific statement in the \" Formula Concordiae\" published 1580. Although this re- markable document never attained a position by the side of THE LUTHERAN SYSTEM. 101 the Augsburg Confession and Apology as the universally rec- ognized Confession of the Lutheran Churches, it may justly be taken as the best available witness as to what strictly Lutheran theology when developed into a complete system really is. The Characteristics of Lutheran theology as contrasted with that of the Reformed Churches may be briefly stated under the Ibllowing heads : 1st. As to Theology proper and Christology the only points in which it differs from Calvinism are the following: (1.) As to the divine attributes of sovereign foreordination, they hold that as far as it is concerned with the actions of moral agents it is limited to those actions which are morally good, while it sustains no determining relation to those which are bad. (jo^ foreknoioa all events of whatever kind; he foreor- dains all the actions of necessary agents, and the good actions of free agents — but nothing else. (2.) As to Christology, they hold that in virtue of the hypo- statical union the human element of Christ's person partakes with the divine in at least some of its peculiar attributes. Thus his human soul shares in the omniscience and omnipo-j tehee of his divinity, and his body' in its omnipresence, and/ together they have the power of giving life to the truly believW ing recipient of the sacrament. 2d. As to Anthropology\", they hold views identical with those held by the staunchest advocates of the Reformed Theology — as for instance the antecedent and immediate imputation of Adam's public sin ; the total moral depravity of all his descend- ants from birth and by nature, and their absolute inability to do aright in their own strength any thing which pertains to their relation to God. 3d. As to the great central elements of Soteriology, they agree with the Reformed with great exactness as to the nature and necessity of the expiatory work of Christ; as to forensic justification through the imputation to the believer of both the active and passive obedience of Christ; as to the nature and office of justifying faith ; as to the sole agency of divine grace in the regeneration of the sinner, with which, in the first in- stance, the dead soul is unable to co-operate ; as to God's eter- nal and sovereign election of believers in Christ, not because of any thing foreseen in them, but because of his own gracious will — and consequently as to the fact that the salvation of every soul really saved is to be attributed purely and solely to the grace of God, and not in any degree to the co-operating will or merit of the man himself At the same time they teach, with obvious logical incon- sistency, that the grace of the gospel is in divine intention 102 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. absolutely universal. Christ died equally and in the same sense for all men. He gives grace alike to all men. Those who are lost are lost because they resist the grace. Those Avho are saved owe their salvation simply to the grace they have in common with the lost — to the very same grace — not to a greater degree of grace nor to a less degree of sin — not to their own improvement of grace, but simply to the grace itself. According to them God sovereignly elects all those who are saved, but he does not sovereignly pass over those who are lost. He gives the same grace to all men, and the difference is determined by the persistent resistance of those who are lost. The grand distinction of Lutheranism however relates to their doctrine of the Eucharist. They hold to the real phys- ical presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, in, with, and under the elements, and that the grace signified and conveyed by the sacraments is necessary to salvation, and conveyed ordi- narily by no other means. Hence the theology and church life of the strict Lutherans centre in the sacraments. They differ from the high sacramental party in the Episcopal Church chiefly in the fact that they ignore the dogma of apostolical succession, and the traditions of the early church. 10. Inio icliat tivo great parties has the Protestant loorld always been divided? The whole Protestant world from the time of the Reforma- tion has been divided into two great families of churches, clas- sified severally as Lutheran, or those whose character was derived from Luther and ]\\Ielanchth.on ; and as Reformed, or those who have received the characteristic impress of Calvin. The Lutheran family of churches comprises ail- of those Prot- estants of Germauy, of Hungary, and the Baltic provinces of Russia, who adhere to the Augsburg Confession, together with the national churches of Denmark and of Norway and Sweden, and the large denomination of the name in America. These are estimated as amounting to a population of about twenty- five millions of pure Lutherans, Avhile the Evangelical Church of Prussia, which was formed of a political union of the adhe- rents of the two Confessions, embraces probably eleven millions and a half Their Symbolical Books are the Augsburg Con- fession and Apology, the Articles of Smalcald, Luther's Larger and Smaller Catechism, and, as received by the Stricter party, the Formula Concordiae. The Calvtnistic or Reformed churches embrace, in the strict usage of the term, all those Protestant Churches which derive their Theology from Geneva; and among these, because of obvious qualifying conditions, the Episcopal Churches of England, Ireland, and America form a subdivision UNITARIANISM. 103 by themselves; and the Wesleyan Methodists, who are usually classed among the Keformed because they were historically developed from that stock, are even yet more distinctly than the parent church of England removed from the normal type of the general class. In a general sense, however, this class comprises all those churches of Germany which subscribe to the Heidelburg Catechism, the churches of Switzerland, France, Holland, England, and Scotland, the Independents and Baptists of England and America, and the various branches of the Pres- byterian Church in England, Ireland, and America. These em- brace about eight millions German Eeformed; two millions in the Reformed church of Hungary; twelve millions and a half Episcopalians ; Presbyterians, six millions ; Methodists, three millions and a half; Baptists, four millions and a half; and Independents, one million and a half; — in all about thirty-eight millions. The principal confessions of the Reformed Church are the Gallic, Belgic, 2d Helvetic, and Scotch Confessions; the Heidel- burg Catechism ; the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of Eng- land ; the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and the Confession and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly. 11. State the Origin of the Unitarian Hereby. In the early church the Ebionites, a Jewish-Gnostic Chris- tian sect, were the only representatives of. those in modern times called Socinians. A party among them were called Elkesaites. Their ideas, with special modifications, are found expressed in the \"Clementine Homilies,\" written about a. d. 150 in Ori- ental Syi-ia. The most distinguished humanitarians in the early church were the two Theodotuses of Rome, both laymen, Arte- mon (flSO) and Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch (2(30-270), deposed by a Council held 269. j\\Iost of these admitted the supernatural birth of Christ, but maintained that he was a mere man, honored by a special divine influence. They admitted an apotheosis or relative deification of Christ consequent upon his earthly achievements. (Dr. E. De Pressense, \"Early Years of Christianity,\" Part 3, bk. 1, chs. 3 and 5). Cerinthus, who lived during the last of the first and the first of the second century, held that Jesus was a mere man born of Mary and Joseph, that the Christ or Logos came down upon him in the shape of a dove at his baptism, when he was raised to the dignity of the son of God, and wrought miracles, etc. The Logos left the man Jesus to sufi'er alone at his cruci- fixion. The resurrection also was denied. They were succeeded by the Arians in the fourth century. During the Middle Ages there remained no party within the lOJ: COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. church that openly denied the supreme divinity of our Lord. In modern times Unitarianism revived at the period of the Reformation through tlie agency of Lsehus Socinus of Italy, It was carried by him into Switzerland and existed there as a doctrine professed by a few conspicuous heretics from 1525 to 1560. The most prominent of its professors were the Socini, Servetus, and Ochino. It existed as an organized church at Racow in Poland, where the exiled heretics found a refuge from 1539 to 1658, when the Socinians were driven out of Poland by the Jesuits, and passing into Holland became ab- sorbed in the Remonstrant or Arminian Churches. In 1609 Schmetz drew up from materials afforded by the teaching of Faustus Socinus, the nephew of Laslius, and of J. Crellius, the Racovian Catechism, which is the standard of Socinianism (see Ree's translation, 1818.) After their dispersion, Andrew Wisso- watius and others collected the most important writings of their leading theologians under the title \"Bibliotheca Fratrum Polo- norum.\" Socinianism Avas developed by these writers with consummate ability, .and crystalized into its most perfect form, as a logical system. It is purely Unitarian in its theology — Hmnanitarian in its Christology, Pelagian in its Anthrojjohgi/ — and its Soteriology was developed in perfect logical and ethical consistency with those elements. A statement of its charac- teristic positions will be found below. It reappeared again as a doctrine held by a few isolated men in England in the seventeenth century. During tlie eighteenth century a number of degenerate Presbyterian Churches in Eng- land lapsed into Socinianism, and towards the end of the same century a larger number of Congregational Churches in Eastern Massachusetts followed their example, and these together con- stitute the foundation of the modern Unitarian Denomination. \" Its last form is a modification of the old Socinianism formed under the pressure of evangelical religion on the one hand, and of rationalistic criticism on the other. Priestley, Channing, and J. Martineau are the examples of the successive phases of Modern Unitarianism. Priestley, of the old Socinian- ism, building itself upon a sensational philosophy; Channing, of an attempt to gain a large development of the spiritual element; Martineau, of the el.evation of view induced by the phil()so])hy of Cousin, and the introduction of the idea of his- torical progress in religious ideas.\" — \"Farrar's Crit. Hist, of Free Thought,\" Bampton Lecture, 1862. 12. At loliat date and under what circumstances did modern Arminianism arise ? James Arminius, professor of theology in the university of THE REMONSTRANTS. 105 Leyden from 1G02 until his death in 1609, althongh a minis- ter of the Calvinistic Church of Holland, at first secretly, and afterwards more openly, advocated that scheme of theological opinion which has ever subsequently been designated by his name. These views were rapidly diffused, and at the same time strongly opposed by the principal men in the church. His disciples, consequently, about a year after his death formed themselves into an organized party, and in that capacity pre- sented a Bemonstrance to the States of Holland and AVest Fries- land, praying to be allowed to hold their places in the church without being subjected by the ecclesiastical courts to vexatious examinations as to their orthodoxy. From the fact that the ut- terance of this Remonstrance was their first combined act as a party, they were afterwards known in history as Remonstrants. Soon after this the Remonstrants, for the sake of defining their position, presented to the authorities five Articles express- ing their belief on the subject of Predestination and Grace. This is the origin of the famous \"Five Points\" in the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism. Very soon however the controversy took a much wider range, and the Arminians were forced by logical consistency to teach radically erroneous views with respect to the nature of sin, original sin, imputation, the nature of the Atonement, and Justification by faith. Some of their later writers carried the rationalistic spirit inherent in their system to its legitimate results in a hardly qualified Pelagianism, and some were even suspected of Socinianism. As all other means had failed to silence the innovators, the States General called together a General Synod at Dort in Holland, which held its sessions in the year 1618-1619. It consisted of pastors, elders, and theological professors from the churches of Flolland, and depiities from the churches of Eng- land, Scotland, Hesse, Bremen, the Palatinate and Switzerland: the promised attendance of delegates from the French churches being prevented by an interdict of their king. The foreign delegates present were nineteen Presbyterians from Reformed churches on the Continent^ and one from Scotland, and four Episcopalians from the church of England headed by the bisliop of Llandaflf. Tliis Synod unanimously condemned the doctrines of the Arminians, and in their Articles confirmed the common Calvinistic faith of tlie Reformed churches. The most distin- guished Remonstrant Theologians who succeeded Arminius were Episcopius, Ciu'celkeus, Limborch, Le Clerc, Wetstein, and the illustrious jurisconsult Grotius. The denomination of Methodists in Great Britain and Amer- ica is the only large Protestant body in the world with an avowedly Arminian Creed. Their Arminianism, however, as ^ 106 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. presented by their standard writer, Richard Watson, an incom- parably more competent theologian than Wesley, is far less removed from the Calvinism of the Westminster Assembly than the system of the later Remonstrants, and should always be designated by the qualified phrase \" Evangelical Arminian- ism.\" In the hands of Watson the Anthropology and Soteri- ology of Arminianism are in a general sense nearly assimilated to the corresponding provinces of Lutheranism, and of the Cal- vinism of Baxter, and of the French School of the seventeenth century. 13. Give an outline of the main positions of the Sodnian System. Theology and Christology. ^^ 1st. Divine Unity. (a.) This iTmty inconsistent with any personal distinctions in the Godhead. (l).) Christ Jsajnere man. (c.) The Holy Ghost is an impersonal divine influence. 2d. Divine Attributes. (a.) There is no principle of vindicatory justice in God. Nothing to prevent his acceptance of sinners on the simple ground of repentance. {h.) Future contingent events are essentially unknowable. The foreknowledge of God does not extend to such events. Anthropology. (a.) Man was created without positive moral character. The \" image of God \" in which man was said to be created did not include holiness. (&.) Adam in eating the forbidden fruit committed actual sin, and thereby incurred the divine displeasure, but he retained nevertheless the same moral nature and tendencies with which he was created, and he transmitted these intact to his posterity. (r.) The guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed. (c/.) Man is now as able by nature to discharge all his obli- gations as he ever was. The circumstances under which man's character is now formed are more unfavorable than in Adam's case, and therefore man is weak. But God is infinitely mer- ciful; and obligation is graded by abihty. I\\Ian was created naturally mortal and would have died had he sinned or not. SOTERIOLOGY. The great object of Christ's mission Avas to teach and to give assurance with respect to those truths concerning which the conclusions of mere human reason are problematical. This he does both by doctrine and example. 1st. Christ did not execute the office of priest upon earth; but only in heaven, and there in a very indefinite sense. THE SOCINIAN SYSTEM. 107 2d. The main office of Clirist was prophetical. He taught a new law. Gave an example of a holy life. Taught the per- sonality of God. And illustrated the doctrine of a future life by his own resiu'rection. od. His death was necessary only as a condition unavoid- ably prerequisite to his resurrection. It was also designed to make a moral impression upon sinners, disposing them to re- pentance on account of sin, and assuring them of the clemency of God. No propitiation of divine justice was necessary, nor would it be possible by means of vicarious suffering. ESCATOLOGY. 1st. In the intermediate period between death and the res- urrection the soul remains unconscious. 2d. \"For it is'evident from the authorities cited, that they (the older Socinians), equally with others, constantly maintain that there will be a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, and that the latter shall be consigned to everlasting punishment, but the former admitted to everlasting life.\" — B. Wissowatius. \"The doctrine of the proper eternity of hell torments is rejected by most Unitarians of the present day (1818), as in tlieir opinion wholly irreconcilable Avith the divine goodness, and unwarranted by the Scriptures. In reference to the future fate of the wicked, some hold that after the resurrection they will be annihilated or consigned to ' everlasting destruction ' in the literal sense of the words: but most have received the doctrine of universal restoration, which maintains that all men, however depraved their characters may have been in this life, will, by a corrective discipline, suited in the measure of its severity to the nature of each particular case, be brought ulti- mately to goodness and consequently to happiness.\" — Rees's \" Kacovian Catechism,\" pp. 367, \"dQ^. ECCLESIOLOGY. 1st. The church is simply a voluntary society. Its object mutual improvement. Its common bond similarity of senti- ments and pursuits. Its rule is human reason. 2d. The Sacraments are simply commemorative and teach- ing ordinances. 14. Give an outline of the main features of the Arniinian System. Divine Attributes. 1st. They admit that vindicatory justice is,, a. divine at- tribute, but hold that it is relaxable, rather optional than essential, ratFer belonging to administrative policy than to necessary principle. 2d. They admit that God foreknows all events without ex- 108 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. ception. They invented the distinction expressed by the term Scierdia 3Iedia to explain God's certain foreknowledge of future events, the futurition of which remain undetermined by his will, or any other antecedent cause. 3d. They deny that God's foreordination extends to the voli- tions of free agents, and hold that the eternal election of men to salvation is not absolute, but conditioned upon foreseen faith and obedience. Anthropology. 1st. Moral character can not be created but is determined only by previous self-decision. 2d. Both liberty and I'esponsibility necessarily involve pos- session of power to the contrary. 3d. They usually deny the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin. 4tli. The strict Arminians deny total depravity, and admit only the moral enfeeblement of nature. Arminius and Wesley were more orthodox but less self-consistent. 5th. They deny that man has ability to originate holy action or to carry it on in his own unassisted strength — but affirm that every man has power to co-operate with, or to resist ^'■common grace.'\" That which alone distinguishes the saint from the sin- ner is his own use or abuse of grace. 6th. They regard gracious influence as rather moral and suasory than as a direct and effectual exertion of the new cre- ative energy of God. 7th. They maintain the liability of the saint at every stage of his earthl}^ career to fall from grace. SOTERIOLOGY. 1st. They admit that Christ made a vicarious off'ering of himself in place of sinful men, and yet deny that he suffered either the literal penalty of the law, or a full equivalent for it, and maintain that his sufferings were graciously accepted as a substitute for the penalty. 2d. They hold that not only with respect to its sufficiency and adaptation, but also in the intention of the Father in giv- ing the Son, and of the Son in dying, Christ died in the same sense for all men alike. 3d. That the acceptance of Christ's satisfaction in the place of the infliction of the penalty on sinners in person involves a relaxation of the divine law. 4th. That Christ's satisfaction enables God in consistency with his character, and the interests of his general government, to offer salvation on easier terms. The gospel hence is a new law, demanding faith and evangelical obedience in the stead of the original demand of perfect obedience. THE CALVINISTIC SYSTEM. 109 5th. Hence Christ's work does not actually save any, but makes the salvation of all men possible — removes leg-al obsta- cles out of the way — does not secure faith but makes salvation available on the condition of faith. 6th. Sufficient influences of the Holy Spirit, and sufficient opportunities and means of grace are granted to all men. 7th. It is possible for and obligatory upon all men in this life to attain to evangelical perfection — which is explained as a being perfectly sincere — a being animated by perfect love — and a doing all that is required of us under the gospel dispensation. 8th. With respect to the heathen some have held that in some way or other the gospel is virtually, if not in form, preached to all men. Others have held that in the future world there are three conditions corresponding to the three great classes of men as they stand related to the gospel in this world — the Status Credentium; the Status Incredulorum; the Status Ignorantium. 15. Give 'a brief outline of the main features of the Calvinistic System. • ^ ~'** Theology. 1st. God is an absolute sovereign, infinitely wise, righteous, benevolent, and powerful, determining from eternity the cer- tain futurition of all events of every class according to the counsel of his own will. 2d. Vindicatory Justice is an essential and immutable per- fection of the divine nature demanding the full punishment of all sin, the exercise of which can not be relaxed or denied by the divine will. Christology. The Mediator is one single, eternal, divine person, at once very God, and very man. In the unity of the Theanthropic person the two natures remain pin-e and unmixed, and retain each its separate and incommunicable attributes distinct. The personality is that of the eternal and unchangeable Logos. The hmnan nature is impersonal. All mediatorial actions in- volve the concurrent exercise of the energies of both natures according to their several properties in the unity of the single person. Anthropology. 1st. God created man by an immediate fiat of omnipotence and in a condition of physical, intellectual, and moral fault- lessness, with a positively formed moral character. 2d. The guilt of Adam's public sin is by a judicial act of God immediately charged to the account of each of his de- 110 COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS. scendants from the moment he begins to exist antecedently to any act of his own. 3d. Hence men come into existence in a condition of con- demnation deprived of those influences of the Holy Spirit npon which their moral and spiritual life depends. 4th. Hence they come into moral agency deprived of that original righteousness which belonged to human nature as created in Adam, and with an antecedent prevailing tendency in their nature to sin, which tendency in them is of the nature of sin, and worthy of punishment. 5th. jNIan's nature since the fall retains its constitutional faculties of reason, conscience, and free-will, and hence man continues a responsible moral agent, but he is nevertheless spiritually dead, and totally averse to spiritual good, and abso- lutely unable to change his own heart, or adequately to dis- charge 9,x\\j of those duties which spring out of his relation to God. SOTERIOLOGY. 1st. The salvation of man is absolutely of grace. God was free in consistency with the infinite perfections of liis nature to save none, few, many, or all, according to his sovereign good pleasure. 2d. Christ acted as Mediator in pursuance of an eternal cov- enant formed between the Father and the Son, according to which he was put in the law-place of his own elect people as their personal substitute, and as such by his obedience and suffering he discharged all the obligations growing out of their federal relations to law — by his sufferings vicariously endurnig their penal debt — by his obedience vicariously discharging those covenant demands, upon which their eternal well-being was suspended — thus fulfilling the requirements of the law, satisfying the justice of God, and securing the eternal salvation of those for Avhom he died. 3d. Hence, by his death he purchased the saving influences of the Holy Spirit for all for whom he died. And the Holy Spirit infallibly applies the redemption purchased by Christ to all for whom he intended it, in the precise time and under the precise conditions predetermined in the eternal Covenant of Grace — and he does this by the immediate and intrinsically efficacious exercise of his power, operating directly within them, and in the exercises of their renewed nature bringing them to act faith and repentance and all gracious obedience. 4th. Justification is a judicial act of God, whereby imputing to us the perfect righteousness of Christ, includhig his active and passive obedience, he proceeds to regard and treat us accord- ingly, pronouncing all the penal claims of law to be satisfied, CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE. Ill and lis to be graciously entitled to all the immunities and rewards conditioned in the original Adamic covenant upon perfect obedience. 5th. Although absolute moral perfection is unattainable in this life, and assurance is not of the essence of faith, it is never- theless possible and obligatory upon each believer to seek after and attain to a full assurance of his own personal salvation, and leaving the things that are behind to strive after perfection in all things. 6th. Although if left to himself every believer would fall in an instant, and although most believers do experience tem- porary seasons of backsliding, yet God by the exercise of his grace in their hearts, in pursuance of the provisions of the eternal Covenant of Grace and of the purpose of Christ in dying, infallibly prevents even the weakest believer from final apostasy.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "25", "sort_key": 25, "group": "Chapter VII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "26", "sort_key": 26, "group": "Chapter VII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "27", "sort_key": 27, "group": "Chapter VII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "28", "sort_key": 28, "group": "Chapter VII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "29", "sort_key": 29, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "30", "sort_key": 30, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "31", "sort_key": 31, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "32", "sort_key": 32, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "33", "sort_key": 33, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "34", "sort_key": 34, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "35", "sort_key": 35, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "36", "sort_key": 36, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "37", "sort_key": 37, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "38", "sort_key": 38, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "39", "sort_key": 39, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "40", "sort_key": 40, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "41", "sort_key": 41, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "42", "sort_key": 42, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "43", "sort_key": 43, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "44", "sort_key": 44, "group": "Chapter VIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "45", "sort_key": 45, "group": "Chapter VIII", "question": "In  loliat  sense  is  the  will  of  God  said  to  he  eternal?", "answer": "It is one eternal, unsuccessive, all-comprehensive act, abso- lutely determining either to effect or to permit all things, in all of their relations, conditions, and successions, which ever were, are, or ever will be. 58. In loliat sense may the will of God he said to he the rule of righteousness ? It is evident that in the highest sense, with respect to God willing, his mere will can not be regarded as the ultimate ground of all righteousness, any more than it can be as the ultimate ground of all wisdom. Because, in that case, it would follow, first, that there would be no essential difference between right and wrong in themselves, but only a difference arbitrarily constituted by God himself; and, second, that it would be senseless to ascribe righteousness to God, for then that would be merely to say that he wills as he wills. The truth is, tliat his will acts as his infinitely righteous wisdom sees to be right. On the other hand, God's revealed will is to us the absolute and ultimate rule of righteousness, alike when he commands things in themselves indifferent, and thus makes them right, as wdien he commands things in themselves essentially right, be- cause they are right. The Absolute Justice of God. 59. What is meant hy the distinctions, absolute and relative, rectoral, distributive, and punitive or vindicatory justice of God? The absolute justice of God is the infinite moral perfection or universal righteousness of his own being. 154 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. The relative justice of God is his infinite!}' righteous nature, viewed as exercised in his relation to his moral creatures, as their moral governor. This last is called rectoral, when viewed as exercised gen- erally in administering the affairs of his universal government, in providing for and governing his creatures and their actions. It is called distributive, when viewed as exercised in giving luito each creature his exact proportionate due of rewards or punishment. It is called punitive or vindicatory, when viewed as demanding and inflicting the adequate and proportionate punishment of all sin, because of its intrinsic ill desert. 60. Wliat are the different opinions as to the nature of the punitive justice of God, i. e., ivhat are the diffeyxnt reasons as- signed ivJiy God p)iinishes sin ? The Socinians deny the punitive justice of God altogether, and maintain that he punishes sin simply for the good of the individual sinner, and of society, only so far as it may be inter- ested in his restraint or improvement. Those theologians who maintain the governmental theory of the Atonement, hold that God punishes sin not because of a changeless principle in himself demanding its punishment, but for the good of the universe, on the basis of great and changeless principles of governmental policy. Thus resolving justice into a form of general benevolence. Leibnitz held that \"justice is goodness conducted by wisdom.\" This pi'inciple assumes that happiness is the chief good. That the essence of virtue is the desire to promote happiness, and that consequently the end of justice can only be to prevent misery. This is the foundation of the Governmental theory of the Atonement. See Chapter XXV. See Park on the \" Atonement.\" Some hold that the necessity for the punishment of sin is only hypothetical, i. e., results only from the eternal decree of God. The true view is that God is immutably determined by his own eternal and essential righteousness to visit every sin with a pi'oportionate punishment. ■ 61. Prove that disinterested benevolence is not the ivhole of virtue. 1st. Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, for example, natural parental affection, are purely instinctive, and have no positive moral character. 2d. Some exercises of disinterested benevolence, such as the w^eak yielding of a judge to sympathy with a guilty man or his friends, are positively immoral. THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 155 3d. There are virtuous principles incapable of being resolved into disinterested benevolence, such as proper prudential re- gard for one's own highest good; aspiration and effort after personal excellence ; holy abhorrence of sin for its own sake, and just punishment of sin in order to vindicate righteousness. 4th. The idea of oughtness is the essential constitutive idea of virtue. No possible analysis of the idea of benevolence will give the idea of moral obligation. This is simple, unresolvable, ultimate. Oughtness is the genus, and benevolence one of the species comprehended in it. ^^. State the evidence derived from the universal principles of human nature, tJiat the justice of God must be an ultimate and unchangeable princij)le of his nature, determining him to punish sin because of its intrinsic ill desert. The obligation of a righteous ruler to punish sin, the intrin- sic ill desert of sin, the principle that sin ougJd to be p)unished, are ultimate facts of moral consciousness. They can not be resolved into any other principle whatsoever. This is proved — 1st. Because they are involved in every awakened sinner's consciousness of his own demerit. — Ps. li. 4. \"1 have done this evil in thy sight ; that thou mightest be just when thou speakest, and clear when thou judgest.\" In its higher degree this feeling rises into remorse, and can be allayed only by ex- piation. Thus many murderers have had no rest until they have given themselves up to the law, when they have experi- enced instant relief And millions of souls have found peace in the application of the blood of Jesus to their wounded consciences. 2d. All men judge thus of the sins of others. The con- sciences of all good men are gratified when the just penalty of the law is executed upon the offender, and outraged when he escapes. 3d. This principle is witnessed to by all the sacrificial rites common to all ancient religions, by the penances in some form universal even in modern times, by all penal laws, and by the synonyms for guilt, punishment, justice, etc., common to all languages. 4th. It is self-evident, that to inflict an unjust punishment is itself a crime, no matter Iioav benevolent the motive which prompts it, nor how good the effect which follows it. It is no less self-evident that it is the justice of the punishment so de- served which renders its effect on the community good, and not its efiect on the community which renders it just. To hang a man for the good of the community is both a crime and a blunder, unless the hanging is justified by the ill desert 156 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. of the man. In tliat case his ill desert is seen by all the com- mnnity to be the real reason of the hanging. 63. Prove the same from the nature of the divine laio. Grotius in his great work, ^'■Defensia Fidel Catholicce De Sa- fisfactione Christi\" in which he originates the Governmental Tlieory of the Atonement, maintains that the divine law is a product of the divine will, and therefore at the option of God relaxable, alike in its preceptive and its penal elements. But the truth is (a) that the penalty is an essential part of the divine law; (/>) that the law of God, as to all its essential prin- ciples of right and wrong, is 7iot a product of the divine will, but an immutable transcript of the divine nature; (c) therefore the law is immutable and must needs be fulfilled in every iota of it. This is proved — Ist. Because fundamental principles must have their changeless ground in the divine nature, or (a) other- wise the distinction between right and wrong would be purely arbitrary — whereas they are discerned b}^ our moral intuitions to be absolute and independent of all volition divine or human; (h) otherwise it would be meaningless to say that God is right- ous il righteousness be an arbitrarj^ creature of his own will; (c) because he declares that he ^'can not lie,\" that \"he can not deny himself\" 2d. The Scriptures declare that the law can not be relaxed, that it must be fulfilled. — John vii. 2o, and x. 35; Luke xxiv. 44; Matt. V. 25, 26. 3d. The Scriptures declare that Christ came to fulfil the law not to relax it. — Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31; x. 4. 64. Hoiv may it he argued from the indepeiidence and absolute self-sufficiency of God, that imnitive justice is an essential attribute of his nature ? It is inconsistent with these essential attributes to conceive of God as obliged to any course of action by the external exi- gencies of his creation. Both the motive and the end of his action must be in himself — Col. i. 16; Rom. xi. 36; Eph. i. 5, 6; Rora. ix. 22, 23. If he punishes sin because determined so to do by the principles of his own nature, then he acts independ- ently. But if he resorts to this merely as the necessary means of restraining and governing his creatures, then their actions control his. 65. Hoiv may it he 2^^'oved from God's love of holiness and hatred of sin ? God's love for holiness and hatred of sin is represented in THE JUSTICE OF GOD. 157 Scripture as essential and intrinsic. He loves holiness for its own sake. He hates sin and is determined to punish it be- cause of its intrinsic ill desert. He hates the wicked every- day.— Ps. V. 5; vii. 11. \"To me belongeth vengeance and recompense.\" — Deut. xxxii. 35. \"According to their deeds accordingly he will repay.\" — Lsa. lix. 18; 2 Thess. i. 6. \"See- ing it is a righteous thing with God to recomjjense tribulation to them that trouble you.\" — Rom. i. 32. \" Knowing the judg- ment of God that they which commit such things are ivorthy of death.\" — Deut. xvii. 6; xxi. 22. (36. Hoio can this truth he proved from ivhat the Scriptures teach as to the nature and necessity of the atonement of Christ ? As to its nature the Scriptures teach that Christ suffered the penalty of sin vicariously in the place and stead of his elect people, and that he thus expiated their guilt, and recon- ciled God and redeemed their souls by giving himself the ransom price demanded in their stead. The Scriptures every- where, and in every way teach that the design of Christ's death was to produce a sin-expiating effect upon the Governor of the moral universe, and not a moral impression either upon the heart of the individual sinner, or upon the public conscience of the intelligent universe. All this will be proved at length under Chapters XXY and XXXIII. As to the necessity of the Atonement the Scriptures teach that it was absolute. That Christ must die or sinners perish. Gal. ii. 21, and iii. 21. But the propriety of producing a moral impression upon each sinner personally, or upon the public mind of the universe generally, can not give rise to an absolute necessity on the part of God — since God who created the uni- verse and all its members might, of course, if he so pleased, produce moral impressions upon them of whatever kind, either without means, or by whatsoever means he pleases. An abso- lute necessity must have its ground in the unchangeable nature of God, which lies back of and determines his Avill in all its acts. Therefore the eternal nature of God immutably deter- mines him to punish all sin. '' Political Science,\" Pres^ident Theodore D. Wookpif, vol. I., pp. 330-335. \"The theory that correction is the main end of punishment will not bear examination. (1.) The state is not a humane institution. (2.) The theory makes no distinction between crimes. If a murderer is appar- ently reformed in a week, the ends of detention are accomplished, and he should be set free; while the petty offender must stay for months or years until the inoculation of good principles becomes manifest. (3.) What kind of correction is to be aimed at? Is it such as will in- sure society itself against his repeating his crime ? In that case it is society, and not the person himself who is to be benefited by the cor- 158 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. rective process. Or must a thorough cure, a recovery from selfishness and covetousness, an awakening of the higliest principle of soul be aimed at; an established church, in short, be set up in the house of correction? \"The explanation that the state profec/.s its oioi existence, or the inno- cent inhabitants of the country, by striking its subjects with awe and deten-ing them from evil-doing through punishment, is met by admitting that, while this effect is real and important, it is not as yet made out that the state has a right to do this. Crime and desert of punishment must be pre-supposed before the moral sense can be satisfied with the inflic- tion of evil. And the measure of the amount of punishment, supplied by the public good for the time, is most fluctuating and tyrannical; moreover mere awe, unaccompanied by an awakening of the sense of justice, is as much a soiirce of hatred as a motive to obedience. \" \"The theory that in punishing an evil-doer, the state renders to him his deserts, is the only one that seems to have a solid foundation. It assumes that moral evil has been committed by disobedience to rightful commands, that according to a propriety which commends itself to our moral nature it is fit and right that evil, physical or mental, suffering or shame, should be incurred by the wrong-doer, and that in all forms of government over moral beings there ought to be a power able to decide how much evil ought to follow s^Decial kinds and instances of transgressions. The state is in fact, as St. Paul calls it, the minister of God to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. But only in a very limited sphere and for special ends. . . It punishes acts, not thoughts; intentions appearing in acts, not feelings; it punishes persons within a certain territory over which it has the jurisdiction, and perhaps its sub- jects who do wrong elsewhere, but none else; it punishes acts hurtful to its own existence and to the community of its subjects; it punishes not according to an exact scale of deserts, for it can not, without a revelation, find out what the deserts of individuals are, nor what is the relative guilt of diiferent actions of difi'erent persons.\" * ^^^^IwJjLo The Absolute Goodness of God. 67. What distinctions are signified by the terms benevolence, complacency, mercy, and grace ? The infinite goodness of God is a glorious perfection wliich pre-eminently characterizes his nature, and which he, in an nifinitely wise, righteous, and sovereign manner, exercises towards his creatures in various modes according to their rela- tions and conditions. Benevolence is the goodness of God viewed generically. It embraces all his creatures, except the judicially condemned on account of sin, and provides for their welfare. The love of complacency is that approving affection with which God regards his own infinite perfections, and every image and reflection of them in his creatures, especially in the sanctified subjects of the new creation. God's mercy, of which the more passive forms are 2^ify and * This extract is slightly condensed. THE GOOD.VESS OF GOD. 159 compassion, is the divine goodness exercised with respect to the miseries of his creatiu-es, feehng for them, and making pro- vision for tlieir reHef, and in the case of impenitent sinners, leading to long-suffering jjatience. The grace of God is his goodness seeking to commnnicate his favors, and, above all, the fellowship of his own life and blessedness to his moral creatures, — who, as creatures, must be destitute of all merit, — and pre-eminently his electing love, se- curing at infinite cost the blessedness of its objects, who, as sinful creatures, were positively ill deserving. 68. State a false definition of divine benevolence often given, and state hoiv it is rightly defined. The infinite Benevolence of God is often defined as that attribute in virtue of which he communicates to all his crea- tures the greatest possible amount of happiness, i. e., as great as they are capable of receiving, or as great as is consistent with the attaiinnent of the greatest amount of happiness on the ag- gregate in tlie moral universe. But this supposes that God is limited by something out of himself, tliat he could not have seciu'ed more happiness for his creatures than he has actually done. It also makes happiness paramount in the view of God to excellence. Benevolence should, on the other hand, be defined as that attribute in virtue of which God produces all the happiness in the universe, which is consistent witli the end he had in view in its creation. These ends stand in this order. 1. The mani- festation of his own glory. 2. The highest moral excellence of his creatures. 3. Their highest blessedness in himself — Dr. Charles Hodge's Lectures. 69. What are the sources of our knoivledge of the fact that God is benevolent ? 1st. Reason. Benevolence is an essential element of moral perfection. God is infinitely perfect, and therefore infinitely benevolent. 2d. Experience and observation. The wisdom of God in designing, and the power of God in executing, in the several spheres of creation, providence, and revealed religion, have evi- dently been constantly determined by benevolent intentions. 3d. The direct assertions of Scripture. — Ps. clxv. 8, 9; 1 John iv. 8. 70. How may it be proved that God is gracious and loilling to forgive sin ? Neither reason nor conscience can ever raise a presumption IGO THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. on this subject. It is the evident duty of fellow-creatures mu- tually to forgive injuries, but we have nothing to do with for- giving sm as sin. It appears plain that there can be no moral principle making it essential for a sovereign ruler to forgive sin as trangression of law. All that reason or conscience can assure us of in that regard is, that sin can not be forgiven without an atonement. The gracious affection which should prompt such a ruler to provide an atonement, must, from its essential nature, be per- fectly free and sovereign, and therefore it can be known only so far as it is graciously revealed. The gospel is, therefore, good neios confirmed by signs and wonders. — Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7; Epli. i. 7-9. 71. What are the different tJieories or assumptions on loMch it lias heen attempted to reconcile the existence of sin ivith the goodness of God? 1st. It has been argued by some that free agency is essential to a moral system, and that absolute independence of will is essential to free agency. That to control the wills of free agents is no more an object of j'^oioer than the working of contradictions; and consequently God, although omnipotent, could not prevent sin in a moral system without violating its nature.— See Dr. N. W. Taylor's \"Concio ad Clerum,\" 1828. 2d. Others have argued that sin was permitted by God in infinite wisdom as the necessary means to the largest possible measure of happiness in the universe as a whole. On both of these we remark — 1st. That the first theory above cited is founded on a false view of the conditions of human liberty and responsibility (see below, Chapter XV.); and, further, that it grossly limits the power of God by representing him as desiring and attempting what he can not effect, and that it makes him dependent upon his creatures. 2d. With reference to the second theory it should be remem- bered that God's own glory, and not the greatest good of the universe, is the great end of God in creation and providence. 3d. The permission of sin, in its relation both to the right- eousness and goodness of God, is an insolvable mystery, and all attempts to solve it only darken counsel with words without knowledge. It is, however, the privilege of our faith to know, though not of our philosophy to comprehend, that it is assur- edly a most wise, righteous, and merciful permission ; and that it shall redound to the glory of God and to the good of his chosen. THE TRUTH OF GOD. 161 72. How can the attributes of goodness and justice he shoivn to he consistent ? Goodness and justice are the several aspects of one un- changeable, infinitely wise, and sovereign moral perfection. God is not sometimes merciful and sometimes just, nor so far merciful and so far just, but he is eternally iniinitely merciful and just. Relatively to the creature this infinite perfection of nature presents different aspects, as is determined by the judg- ment which infinite wisdom delivers in each individual case. Even in our experience these attributes of our moral nature are found not to be inconsistent in ^principle, though our want both of wisdom and knowledge, a sense of our own unworthi- ness, and a mere physical sjunpathy, often sadly distract our judgments as well as our hearts in adjusting these principles to the individual cases of life. God's Absolute Truth.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "46", "sort_key": 46, "group": "Chapter VIII", "question": "What  is  truth  considei'ed  as  a  divine  attrihute?", "answer": "The truth of God in its widest sense is a perfection which qualifies all his intellectual and moral attributes. His knowl- edge is infinitely true in relation to its objects, and his wisdom unbiassed either by prejudice or passion. His justice and his goodness in all their exercises are infinitely true to the perfect standard of his own nature. In all outward manifestations of his perfections to his creatures, God is always true to his nature — always self-consistently divine. This attribute in its more special sense qualifies all God's intercourse Avith his rational creatures. He is true to us as well as to himself; and thus is laid the foundation of all faith, and therefore of all knowledge. It is the foimdation of all confidence, first, in our senses; second, in our intellect and conscience; third, in any authenticated, su- pernatural revelation. The two forms in which this perfection is exercised in rela- tion to us are, first, his entire truth in all his communications; second, his perfect sincerity in undertaking and faithfulness in discharging all his engagements. 74. Hoiu can the truth of God he reconciled ivith the apparent non-j)erformance of some of his threatenings ? The promises and threatenings of God are sometimes ahso- lute, when they are always infallibly fulfilled in the precise sense in which he intended them. They are often also condi- tional., made to depend upon the obedience or repentance of the 162 THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. creature. — Jonah iii. 4, 10; Jer. xviii. 7, 8. This condition may be either expi-essed or inipHed, because the individual case is understood to be, of course, governed by the general principle that genuine repentance and faith delivers from every threat- ening and secures every promise. 75. How can tJie invitations and exhortations of the Scriptures, addressed to those whom God does not propose to save, he reconciled with his sincerity ? See above (Question 42), the distinction between God's pre- ceptive and his decretive will. His invitations and exhorta- tions are addressed to all men in good faith: first, because it is every man's duty to repent and believe, and it is God's preceptive will that every man should; second, because nothing ever pre- vents the obedience of any sinner, except his OAvn unwilling- ness; third, because in every case in Avhicli the condition is fulfilled the promise implied will be performed; fourth, God never has promised to enable every man to believe; fifth, these invitations and exhortations are not addressed to the reprobate as such, but to all sinners as such, with the avowed purpose of saving thereby the elect. The Infinite Sovereignty of God.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "47", "sort_key": 47, "group": "Chapter VIII", "question": "What  is  meant  hy  tJie  sovereignty  of  God  ?", "answer": "His absolute right to govern and dispose of all his creatures, simply according to his own good pleasure, 77. Prove that this right is asserted in Scripture. Dan. iv. 25, 35; Rev. iv. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rom. ix. 15-23.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "48", "sort_key": 48, "group": "Chapter VIII", "question": "On  ivhat  does  the  absolute  sovereignty  of  God  reM  ?", "answer": "1st. His infinite superiority in being and in all his perfec- tions to any and to all his creatures. 2d. As creatures the}^ were created out of nothing, and are now sustained in being by his power, for his owm glory and according to his own good pleasvn-e. — Rom. xi. 36. 3d. His infinite benefits to us, and our dependence upon and blessedness in him, are reasons why we should not only recognize, but rejoice, in this glorious truth. The Lord reign- eth, let the earth rejoice. 79. Is there any sense in luhich there are limits to the sovereignty of God? The sovereignty of God, viewed abstractly as one attribute among many, must of course be conceived of as qualified by all THE HOLINESS OF GOD. 163 the rest. It can not be otherwise than an infinitely wise, right- eous, and merciful sovereignty. But God, viewed concretely as an infinite sovereign, is abso- lutely unlimited by any thing without himself. \" He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.\" — Dan. iv. 35.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "49", "sort_key": 49, "group": "Chapter VIII", "question": "What  is  meant  by  the  holiness  of  God?", "answer": "The holiness of God is not to be conceived of as one attri- bute among others; it is rather a general term representing the conception of his consummate perfection and total glory. It is his infinite moral perfection crowning his infinite intelli- gence and power. There is a glory of each attribute, viewed abstractly, and a glory of the whole together. The intellectual nature is the essential basis of the moral. Infinite moral per- fection is the crown of the Godhead. Holiness is the total glory thus crowned. Holiness in the Creator is the total perfection of an infinitely righteous intelligence. Holiness in the creature is not mere moral perfection, but perfection of the created nature of moral agents after their kind, in spiritual union and fellowship with the infinite Creator. — 1 John i. 3. The word holiness, as applied to God in Scripture, repre- sents, first, moral purity — Lev. xi. 44; Ps. cxlv. 17; second, his transcendently august and venerable majesty. — Isa. vi. 3; Ps. xxii. 3; Rev. iv. 8. To \"sanctify tlie Lord,\" i. e., to make him holy, is to de- clare and adore his holiness by venerating his august majesty wherever and whereinsoever his person or character is repre- sented.— Isa. viii. 13; xxix. 23; Ezek. xxxviii. 23; Matt. vi. 9; 1 Pet. iii. 15.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "50", "sort_key": 50, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "In  what  sense  is  this  word  used  by  the  ecclesiastical  writers?", "answer": "Until the middle of the fourth century this word, in con- nection with the doctrine of the Trinity, was generally used in its primary sense, as equivalent to substance. It is used in this sense in the creed published by the Council of Nice A. D. 325, and again in the decrees of the Council of Sardica, in Illyria, a. d. 347. These agreed in affirming that there is but one hypostasis in the Godhead. Some, however, at that time understanding the word in the sense of person, its usage was changed by general consent, chiefly through the influence of Athanasius, and ever since it has been established in theolog- ical language in the sense of 2xrson, in contradistinction to 6v6ia, essence. It has been transferred into the English lan- guage in the form of an adjective, to designate the hypostatical or personal union of two natures in the God-man. 7. What is essential to personality, and hoiv is the word per- son to be defined in connection with the doctrine of the Trinity ? The Latin word, '■'■ snppositum\" signifies a distinct individual existence, e. g., a particular tree or horse. A person is ^^snp- positum intellectuale'' a distinct individual existence, to which belongs the properties of reason and free will. Throughout the entire range of our experience and observation of personal existence among creatures, personality rests upon and appears 166 THE HOLY TRINITY. to be inseparable from distinction of essence. Every distinct person is a distinct soul, with or without a body. That distinguishing mode of existence which constitutes the one divine essence co-ordinately three separate persous, is of course an infinite mystery which we can not understand, and therefore can not adequately define, and Avhich we can know only so far as it is explicitly revealed. All that we know is, that this distinction, which is called personality, embraces all those incommunicable properties which eternally belong to Father, Son, or Holy Ghost separately, and not to all in com- mon; that it lays the foundation for their concurrence in comi- sel, their mutual love and action one upon another, as the Father sending the Son, and the Father and Son sending the Spirit, and for use of the personal pronouns I, thou, he, in the revelation which one divine person gives of himself and of the others. Person is defined by Gerhard — \" Persona est substantia individua, intelligens, incommunicabilis, quoe non sustentatur in alio, vel ab alio.\" In relation to this great mystery of the divine trinity of persons in the unity of essence Calvin's defi- nition of Person is better because more modest. \" By 'person., then, I mean a subsistence in the divine essence — a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties.\" — \"Institutes,\" Book I., Chap. 13, § 6. 8. What other terms have been used by theologians as the equiv- alent of Person in this connection ? Greek, v7t66Ta6ii, and 7tp66conov — aspect; Latin, |}er.so?ia, hypo- stasis, subsisfenfia, aspectus: English, person, hypostasis. — Shedd's \" Hist. Christ Doc,\" B. III., C'h. 3, § 5. 9. What is meant by the terms d/toovdiov (of the same substance), and oMuiovdiov {of similar substmice)? In the first general council of the church which, consisting of three hundred and eighteen bishops, was called together by the Emperor Constantine at Nice, in Bithynia, a. d. 325, there were found to be three great parties representing difterent opinions concerning the Trinity. 1st. The orthodox party, who maintained the opinion now held by all Christians, that the Lord Jesus is, as to his divine nature, of the same identical substance with the Father. These insisted upon applying to him the definite tei^ra duoovdiov (ho- mo(uision), compounded of ujud?, same, and ovdia, suhsfance, to teach the great truth that tlie three persons of the Godhead are one God, because they are of the same numerical essence. THE SEVERAL PROPOSITIONS INVOLVED. 167 2d. The Arians, who maintained that the Son of God is the greatest of all creatures, more like God than any other, the only-begotten Son of God, created before all worlds, through whom God created all other things, and in that sense only divine. They held that the Son was srspoovdioy of different or generi- ically unlike essence from the Father. 3d. The middle party, styled Semiarians, who confessed that the Son was not a creature, but denied that he was in the same sense God as the Father is. They held that the Father is the only absolute self-existent God; yet that from eternity he, by his own free will, caused to proceed from himself a divine person of like nature and properties. They denied, therefore, that the Son was of the same substance (homoousion) with the Father, but admitted that he was of an essence truly similar, and derived from the Father (homoiousion, u/ioiovdiov, from, u/uoioi;, like, and 6v6ia, substance), generically though not nu- merically one. The opinions of the first, or orthodox party, prevailed at that council, and have ever since been represented by the technical phrase, Jiomoousian. For the creed promulgated by that council, see Chapter VII. 10. What are the several propositions essentially involved in the doctrine of the Trinity ? 1st. There is but one God, and this God is one, i. e., indivisible. 2d. That the one indivisible divine essence, as a whole, exists eternally as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost; that each person possesses the whole essence, and is consti- tuted a distinct person by certain incommunicable properties, not common to him with the others. 3d. The distinction between these three is a personal distinc- tion, in the sense that it occasions (1) the use of the personal pronouns, I, thou, he, (2) a concurrence in counsel and a mutual love, (3) a distinct order of operation. 4th. Since there is but one divine essence, and since all attri- butes or active properties are inherent in and inseparable from the essence to which they pertain, it follows that all the divine attributes must be identically common to each of the three per- sons who subsist in common of the one essence. Among all creatures every distinct person is a distinct numerical sub- stance, and possesses a distinct intelligence, a distinct will, etc. In the Godhead, however, there is but one substance, and one intelligence, one will, etc., and yet three persons eternally co-exist of that one essence, and exercise that one intelligence and one ^vill, etc. In Christ on the contrary, there are two 168 THE HOLY TRINITY. spirits, two intelligences, two wills, and yet all the while one, indivisible person. 5tli. These divine persons being one God, all the divine attributes being common to each in the same sense, never- theless they are revealed in the Scriptures in a certain order of subsistence and of operation. (1.) Of suhsistence insomuch as the Father is neither begotten nor proceedeth, while the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceedeth from the Father and the Son; (2.) of operation, in- somuch that the first person sends and operates through the second, and the first and second send and operate through the third. Hence the Father is always set forth as first., the Son as second, the Spirit as third. 6th. While all the divine attributes are common equally to the three persons, and all divine works wrought ad extra, such as creation, providence, or redemption, are predicated alike of the one divine being — the one God considered absolutely — and of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost sever- ally ; nevertheless the Scriptures attribute some divine works Avrought ad intra, exclusively to each divine person respect- ively, e. g., generation to the Father, filiation to the Son, pro- cession to the Holy Ghost; and there are likewise some divine works wrought ad extra which are attributed pre-eminently to each person respectively, e. g., creation to the Father, redemp- tion to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Ghost. In order, therefore, to establish this doctrine in all its parts by the testimony of Scripture, it will be necessary for us to prove the following propositions in their order: 1st. That God is one. 2d. That Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, was truly God, yet a distinct person from the Father. 3d. That the Holy Spirit is truly God, yet a distinct person. 4th. That the Scriptures directly teach a trinity of persons in one Godhead. 5th. It will remain to gather Avhat the Scriptures reveal as to the eternal and necessary relations which these three divine persons sustain to each other. These are distributed under the following heads: (1) The relation which the second person sus- tains to the first, or the eternal generation of the Son; (2) the relation which the third person sustains to the first and second, or the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost; and, (3) their per- sonal properties and order of operation, ad extra. I. God is one, and there is but one God. The proof of this proposition, from reason and Scripture, THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 169 has been fully set forth above, in Chap. VIIL, on the Attributes of God, questions 12-18. The answer to the question, How the co-ordinate existence of three distinct persons in the Trinity can be reconciled with this fundamental doctrine of the divine unity, is given below in question 94 of this chapter, 11. Jesus of Nazareth, as to his divine nature, is truly God, and YET A distinct PERSON FROM THE FaTHER. 11. Wliat different views have been entertained tvith respect to the person of Christ ? The orthodox doctrine as to the person of Christ, is that he from eternity has existed as the co-equal Son of the Father, con- stituted of the same infinite self-existent essence with the Father and the Holy Ghost. The orthodox doctrine as to his person as at present consti- tuted, since his incarnation, is set forth in chap. XXIII. An account of the different heretical opinions as to his person are given below, in questions 96-99, of this chapter. 12. Hoiu far did the Jews at the time of Christ expect the Mes- siah to appear as a divine person ? When Christ appeared, it is certain that the great mass of the Jewish people had ceased to entertain the Scriptural ex- pectation of a divine Saviour, and only desired a temporal prince, in a pre-eminent sense, a favorite of heaven. It is said, however, that scattered hints in some of the rablnnical writings indicate that some of the more learned and spiritual still continued true to the ancient faith. 13. Hoio may the pre-existence of Jesus before his birth by the Virgin be proved from Scripture? 1st. Those passages which say that he is the creator of the world.— John i. 3; Col. i. 15-18. 2d. Those passages which directly declare that he Avas with the Father before the world was; that he was rich, and pos- sessed glory. — John i. 1, 15, 30; vi. 62; viii. 58; xvii. 5; 2 Cor. viii. 9. 3d. Those passages which declare that he \" came into the world,\" \"came down from heaven.\" — John iii. 13, 31; xiii. 3; xvi. 28 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47. 14. How can it be proved that the Jehovah ivho manifested him- self as the God of the Jeivs under the old economy was the second person of the Trinity, who became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth ? As this fact is not affirmed in any single statement of 170 THE HOLY TRINITY. Scripture, it can be established only by a careful comparison of many passages. The evidence, as compiled from Hill's Lects., Book 111., ch. v., may be summed up as follows: 1st. All the divine appearances of the ancient economy are referred to one person. — Compare Gen. xviii. 2, 17; xxviii. 13; xxxii. 9, 31; Ex. iii. 14, 15; xiii. 21; xx. 1, 2; xxv. 21; Dent, iv. 33, 36, 39 ; Neh. ix. 7-28. This one person is called Jeho- vah, the incommunicable name of God, and at the same time angel, or one sent. — Compare Gen. xxxi. 11, 13; xlviii. 15, 16; Hosea xii. 2, 5. Compare Ex. iii. 14, 15, with Acts vii. 30-35; and Ex. xiii. 21, with Ex. xiv. 19 ; and Ex. xx. 1, 2, with Acts vii. 38 ; Isa. Ixiii. 7, 9. 2d. But God the Father has been seen by no man (John i. 18; vi. 46): neither could he be an angel, or one sent by any otlier; yet God the Son has been seen (1 John i. 1, 2), and sent (John V. 36). 3d. This Jehovah, who was at the same time the angel, or one sent, of the old economy, was also set forth by the proph- ets as the Saviour of Israel, and the author of the new dis- pensation. In Zech. ii. 10, 11, one Jehovah is represented as sending another. See Micah v. 2. In Mai. iii. 1, it is declared that \"the Lord,\" \"the messenger of the covenant,\" shall come to liis own temple. This applied to Jesus (Mark i. 2). — Com- pare Ps. xcvii. 7, with Heb. i. 6; and Isa. vi. 1-5, with John xii. 41. 4th. Certain references in the New Testament to passages in the Old appear directly to imply this fact. Compare Ps. Ixxviii. 15, 16, 35, with 1 Cor. x. 9. 5th. The Church is one under all dispensations, and Jesus from the beginning is the Redeemer and Head of the Church; it is, therefore, most consistent with all that has been revealed to us as to the offices of the three divine persons in the scheme of redemption, to admit the view here presented. See also John viii. 56, 58; Matt, xxiii. 37; 1 Pet. i. 10, 11. 15. In what form are the earliest disclosures made in the Old Testament of the existence and agency of a Person distinct from God and yet as divine ? In the earlier books an Angel is spoken of, sent from God, often appearing to men, and yet himself God. — Gen. xvi. 7-13. The Angel of Jehovah appears to Hagar, claims divine power, and is called God. — Gen. xviii. 2-33. Three angels appeai'ed to Abraham, one of whom is called Jehovah, v. 17. — Gen. xxxii. 25. An Angel wrestles Avith Jacob and blesses him as God, and in Hosea, xii. 3-5, that Angel is called God. — Ex. iii. 2. The Angel of Jehovah appeared to JMoses in the burn- THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. 171 ing bush, and in the following verses this angel is called Jeho- vah, and other divine titles are ascribed to liim. This Angel led the Israelites in the wilderness. — Ch. xiv. 19 ; Isa. Ixiii. 9. Jehovah is represented as saving his people by the Angel of las Presence. Thus Malachi iii. 1 — \"The Lord, the Angel of the covenant shall suddenly come to his temple.\" This applied to Christ.— Mark i. 2. 16. Wlmt evidence of the divinity of the 3Iessiah does the 2d Psalm iJtesent ? It declares him to be the Son of God, and as such to receive universal power over tlie whole earth and its inhabitants. All are exhorted to submit to him, and to trust him, on pain of his anger. In Acts xiii, 33, Paul declares that Psalm refers to Christ.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "51", "sort_key": 51, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "What  evidence  is  furnished  hy  the  4:5th  Psalm  ?", "answer": "The ancient Jews considered this Psalm addressed to the jSIessiah, and the fact is established by Paul (Heb. i. 8, 9). Here, therefore, Jesus is called God, and his throne eternal. 18. What evidence is furnished by Psalm 110.'* . That this Psalm refers to the Messiah is proved by Christ (Matt. xxii. 43, 44), and by Paul (Heb. v. 6; vii. 17). He is here called David's Lord ( Adonai), and invited to sit at the right hand of Jehovah until all his enemies be made his footstool.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "52", "sort_key": 52, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "WJiat  evidence  is  furnished  by  Isaiah  ix.  6  ?", "answer": "This passage self-evidently refers to the INIessiah, as is con- firmed by Matt. iv. 14-16. It declares explicitly that the child born \"is also the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "53", "sort_key": 53, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "What  is  the  evidence  furnished  by  Micah  v.  2  ?", "answer": "This was understood by the Jews to refer to Christ, which is confirmed by j\\Iatt. ii. 6, and John vii. 42. The passage declares that his goings forth have been \" from ever of old,\" i. e., from eternity.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "54", "sort_key": 54, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "What  evidence  isfurnisJied  by  Malachi  iii.  1,  2  ?", "answer": "This passage self-evidently refers to the Messiah, as is con- firmed by Mark i. 2. The Hebrew term (Adonai), here translated Lord, is never applied to any other than the supreme God. The temple, which w^as sacred to the presence and worship of Jehovah, is called 172 THE HOLY TRINITY. his temple. And in verse 2d, a divine Avork of judgment is ascribed to him. 22. What evidence is afforded by the way in which the writers of the New Testament apply the writings of tJie Old Testament to Christ ? The apostles frequently apply the language of the Old Tes- tament to Christ, when it is evident that the original writers intended to speak of Jehovah, and not of the Messiah as such. Psalm 102 is evidently an address to the supreme Lord, ascribing to him eternity, creation, providential government, worship, and the hearing and answering of prayer. But Paul (Heb. i. 10-12) affirms Christ to be the subject of the address. In Isa. xlv. 20-25, Jehovah speaks and asserts his own supreme Lordship. But Paul, in Rom. xiv. 11, quotes a part of Jeho- vah's declaration with regard to himself, to prove that we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. — Compare also Isa. vi. 3, with John xii. 41. 23. What is the general character of the evidence upon this sttbject afforded by the New Testament ? This fundamental doctrine is presented to us in every indi- vidual writing, and in every separate paragraph of the New Testament, either by direct assertion or by necessary implica- tion, as may be ascertained by every honest reader for himsel£ The mass of this testimony is so great, and is so intimately in- terwoven with every other theme in every passage, that I have room here to present only a general sample of the evidence, classified under the usual heads. ^ 24. Prove that the Neiv Testament ascribes divine titles to Christ. John i. 1; xx. 28; Acts xx. 28; Rom. ix. 5; 2 Thess. i. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Titus ii. 13; Heb. i. 8; 1 John v. 20. 25. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine -perfections to Christ. Eternity. — John i. 2; viii. 58; xvii. 5; Rev. i. 8, 17, 18; xxii. 13. Immutability. — Heb. i. 11, 12, and xiii. 8. Omnipresence. — John iii. 13; Matt, xviii. 20; xxviii. 20. Omniscience. — Matt. xi. 27; John ii. 23-25; xxi. 17; Rev. ii. 23. Omnipotence. — John v. 17; Heb. L 3; Rev. i. 8; xi. 17. DIVINITY AND PERSONALITY OF THE HOLY GHOST. 173 26. Prove that the New Testament ascribes divine works to Christ. Creation.— John i. 3, 10; Col. i. 16, 17. Preservation and Providence. — Heb. i. 3; Col. i. 17; Matt, xxviii. 18. Miracles. — John v. 21, 36. Judgment— 2 Cor. v. 10; Matt. xxv. 31, 32; John v. 22. A work of grace, including election. — John xiii. 18. Sanctification, Eph. v. 26; sending the Holy Ghost, John xvi. 7, 14; giving eternal life, John x. 28; Turretin, Tom. I., L. 3, Q. 28. 27. Prove that the Neio Testament teaches that supreme ivor- ship should be paid to Christ Matt, xxviii. 19; John v. 22, 23; xiv. 1; Acts vii. 59, 60; 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 9, 10; Heb. i. 6; Kev. i. 5, 6; V. 11, 12; vii. 10. 28. Prove that the Son, although God, is a distinct person from the Father. This fact is so plainly taught in Scripture, and so univer- sally implied, that the Sabellian system, which denies it, has never obtained any general currency. Christ is sent by the Father, comes from him, returns to him, receives his commandment, does his will, loves him, is loved by him, addresses prayer to him, uses the pronouns thou and he when speaking to and of him. This is necessarily im- plied, also, in the relative titles. Father and Son. See the whole New Testament. In establishing the doctrine of the Trinity, as far as the Second Person is involved, the stress lies altogether in prov- ing the absolute Divinity of Christ, his distinct personality being so obvious as to be practically beyond dispute. While in vindicating the truth of the doctrine as it respects the Third Person the whole stress lies in proving His distinct person- ality, his absolute divinity being so clearly revealed as to be unquestionable. in. The Holy Ghost is truly God, yet a distinct person.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "55", "sort_key": 55, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "What  sects  have  held  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  creature  ?", "answer": "The divinity of the Holy Ghost is so clearly revealed in Scripture that very few have dared to call it in question. The early controversies of the orthodox with the Arians precedent and consequent to the Council of Nice, a. d. 325, to such a degree absorbed the mind of both parties with the question of 174 THE HOLY TRINITY. the divinity of the Son, that very little prominence was given in that age to questions concerning the Holy Ghost. Arins, how- ever, is said to have taught that as the Son is the first and greatest creature of the Father, so the Holy Ghost is the first and greatest creature of tlie Son ; a MTid^a uri6i.iaxo<i, a creature of a creature.— See Neander's \" Ch. Hist,\" Vol. I., pp. 416-420. Some of the disciples of Macedonius, bishop of Constanti- nople, A. D. 341-360, are said to have held that the Holy Ghost was not Supreme God. These were condemned by the second General Council, Avhich met at Constantinople, a. d. 381. This council defined and guarded the orthodox faith, by adding de- finite clauses to the simple reference which the ancient creed had made to the Holy Ghost. — See the Creed of the Council of Constantinople, Chapter 7. 30. By whom has tlie Holy Spirit been regarded merely as an energy of God? Those early heretical sects, generally styled Monarchians and Patripassians, all with subordinate distinctions taught that there was but one person as well as one essence in the Godhead, who, in different relations, is called Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. In the sixteenth century Socinus, who taught that Jesus Christ was a mere man, maintained that the term Holy Ghost is in Scripture used as a designation of God's energy, when exer- cised in a particular way. This is now the opinion of all mod- ern Unitarians and Rationalists. 31. Hotv can it be proved that all the attributes of personality are ascribed to the Holy Ghost in the Scriptures ? The attributes of personality are such as intelligence, voli- tion, separate agency. Christ uses the pronouns, I, thou, he, when speaking of the relation of the Holy Spirit to himself and the Father: \"I will send him.\" \"He Avill testify of me.\" \"Whom the Father will send in my name.\" Thus he is sent; he testifies; he takes of the things of Christ, and shows tiiem to us. He teaches and leads to all truth. He knows, because he searches the deep things of God. He works all supernat- ural gifts, dividing to every man as he Avills. — John xiv. 17, 26; XV. 26; 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11; xii. 11. He reproves, glorifies, helps, intercedes. — John xvi. 7-13; Rom. viii. 26. 32. Hoio may his personality be argued from, the offices which he is said in the Scriptures to execute ? The New Testament throughout all its teachings discovers the plan of redemption as essentially involving the agency of the Holy Ghost in applying the salvation which it was the THE HOLY SPIRIT. 175 work of the Son to accomplish. He inspired the prophets and apostles; he teaches and sanctifies the church ; he selects her of- ficers, qualifying them by the commnnication of special gifts at his will. He is the advocate, every Christian is his client. He brings all the grace of the absent Christ to ns, and gives it effect in our persons in every moment of our lives. His personal dis- tinction is obviously involved in the very nature of these func- tions which he discharges. — Luke xii. 12; Acts v. 32; xv. 28; xvi. 6; xxviii. 25; Rom. xv. 16; 1 Cor. ii. 13; Heb. ii. 4; iii. 7; 2 Pet. i. 21. 33. What argument for the personality of the Holy Ghost may he deduced from the formula of baptism ? Christians are baptized \"in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.\" It would be inconsistent with every law of language and reason to speak of the \"name\" of an energy, or to associate an energy co-ordinately with two distinct persons. 34. Hoiv may his personality be j^roved by ivhat is said of the sin against the Holy Ghost ? In Matt. xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 28, 29; Luke xii. 10, this sin is called \" blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.\" Now, blas- phemy is a sin committed against a person, and it is here dis- tinguished from the same act as committed against the other persons of the Trinity. 35. Hoiv can such expressions as ^^ giving\" and ^^ pouring out the Sjnrit\" be reconciled with his personcdity ? These and other similar expressions are used figurativel}'' to set forth our participation in the gifts and influences of the Spirit. It is one of the most natural and common of all figures to designate the gift by the name of the giver. Thus we are said \"to put on Christ,\" \"to be baptized into Christ,\" etc. — Eph. V. 30; Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii. 27. 36. Shoio that the names of God are applied to the Spirit. Compare Ex. xvii. 7, and Ps. xcv. 7, with Heb. iii. 7-11. — See Acts v. 3, 4.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "56", "sort_key": 56, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "What  divine  attributes  do  the  Scriptures  ascribe  to  him  ?", "answer": "Omnipresence. — Ps. cxxxix. 7; 1 Cor. xii. 13. Omniscience. — 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11. Omnipotence. — Luke i. 35; Rom. viii. 11. 38. What agency in the external world do tlie Scriptures ascribe to him? 176 THE HOLY TRINITY. Creation. — Gen. i. 2 ; Job xxvi. 13 ; Ps. civ. 30. The power of working miracles. — Matt. xii. 28; 1 Cor. xii. 9-11. 39. Hoiv is Ms supreme divinity established hy what the Script- ures teach of his agency in redemption ? He is declared to be the immediate agent in regeneration, John iii. 6; Titus iii. 5; and in the resurrection of our bodies, Rom. viii. 11. His agency in the generation of Christ's human nature, in his resurrection, and in the inspiration of the Script- ures, were exertions of his divine power in preparing the re- demption which he now applies. 40. Hoiv can siich expressions as, \"/ie shall not speak of himself\" he reconciled ivith his divinity ? This and other similar expressions are to be understood as referring to the official work of the Spirit; just as the Son is said in his official character to be sent by and to be subordinate to the Father. The object of the Holy Ghost, in his official work in the hearts of men, is not to reveal the relations of his own person to the other persons of the Godhead, but simply to reveal the mediatorial character and work of Christ. IV. The Scriptures directly teach a Trinity of Persons in One Godhead. 41. How is this trinity of persons directly taught in the formula of baptism ? Baptism in the name of God implies the recognition of God's divine authority, his covenant engagement to give us eternal life, and our engagement to render him divine worship and obedience. Christians are baptized thus into covenant relation with three persons distinctly named in order. The language necessarily implies that each name represents a person. The nature of the sacrament proves that each person must be divine. — See Matt, xxviii. 19. 42. Hoio is this doctrine directly taught in the formtda of the apostolical benediction ? See 2 Cor. xiii. 14. We have here distinctly named three persons, and each communicating a separate blessing, accord- ing to his own order and manner of operation. The benevo- lence of the Father in designing, the grace of the Son in the acquisition, the communion of the Holy Ghost in the applica- tion of salvation. These are three distinct personal names, . DIRECT STATEMENTS OF THE DOCTRINE. 177 three distinct modes of personal agency, and each equally- divine. 43. What evidence is afforded hy the narrative of Christ's baptism ? See j\\Iatt. iii. 13-17. Here also we have presented to us three persons distinctly named and described as severally act- ing, each after his own order. The Father speaking from heaven, the Spirit descending like a dove and lighting upon Christ, Christ acknowledged as the beloved Son of God ascend- ing from the water. 44 State the argument from John xv. 26, and the context. In this passage again we have three persons severally named at the same time, and their relative action affirmed. The Son is the person speaking of the Father and the Spirit, and claiming for himself the right of sending the Spirit. The Fatlier is tlie person from whom the Spirit proceeds. Of the Spirit the Son says that \"he will come,\" \"he will be sent,\" \"he proceedeth,\" \" he will testify.\" 45. What is the state of the evidence icith regard to the gen- uineness of 1 John V. 7 ? I have not room in which to present a synopsis of the argu- ment for and against the genuineness of the disputed clause which could be of any value. — See \" Home's Intro.,\" Vol IV., Part II., chapter iv., section 5. It will suffice to say — 1st. The disputed clause is as follows, including part of the eighth verse: \"i;'?i heaven., the Fcdher, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that hear witness in earth.\" 2d. Learned and pious men are divided in their opinions as to the preponderance of the evidence; the weight of opinion inclining against the genuineness of the clause. 3d. The doctrine taught is so scriptural, and the grammat- ical and logical connection of the clause with the rest of the passage is so intimate, that for the purpose of edification, in the present state of our knowledge, the clause ought to be retained, although for the purpose of establishiru/ doctrine, it ought not to be relied upon. 4th. The rejection of this passage does in no degree lessen the irresistible weight of evidence of the truth of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity which the Scriptures afford. 178 THE HOLY TRINITY. 46. What passages in the Old Testament imply the existence of more titan one person in the Godhead ? Mark the use of the plural in the following passages. — Gen. i. 26; iii. 22; xi. 7; Isa. vi. 8; Compare the three-fold repeti- tion of the name Jehovah (Num. vi. 24-26) with the apostol- ical benediction — 2 Cor. xiii. 14. Mark also in Isa. vi. 3, the threefold repetition of the ascription of holiness. 47. What passages in the Old Testament speak of the Son as a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine? In Ps. xlv. 6, 7, we have the Father addressing the Son as God, and anointing him. — See also Ps. ex. 1; Isa. xliv. 6, 7, 14. The prophecies always set forth the ]\\Ies.siah as a person distinct from the Father, and yet he is called \" Mighty God,\" etc. — Isa. ix. 6; Jer. xxiii. 6. 48. What passages of the Old Testament speak of the Spirit as a distinct person from the Father, and yet as divine ? Gen. i. 2; vi. 3; Ps. civ. 30; cxxxix. 7; Job xxvi. 13; Isa. xlviii. 16. V. It remains for us to consider what the Scriptures teach con- cerning THE Eternal and Necessary Kelations which the Three Divine Persons sustain to each other. (I.) The Relation which the Second Person sustains to the First, or the Eternal Generation of the Son.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "57", "sort_key": 57, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "IJliaf  is  the  idiomatic  use  of  the  Hehreio  ivord  I?  {son)?", "answer": "It is used in the sense — 1st. Of son. 2d. Of descendant; hence in the plural \"children of Israel,\" for Israelites. Also when joined to a name of place or nation to denote inhabitants or citizens thereof, as \"sons of Zion,\" etc. 3d. Of pupil, disciple, worshipper; thus \"sons of the prophets\" (1 Kings xx. 35); and \"sons of God,\" applied, (1) to kings, Ps. ii. 7; (2) to angels, Gen. vi. 2; (3) to worshippers of God, his own people, Deut. xiv. 1. 4th. In combination with substantives, expressing age or quality, etc.; thus, \"sons of years,\" for aged. Lev. xii. 6; \"son of Belial,\" for worthless fellow, Deut. xiii. 13; \"son of death,\" for one deserving to die, 1 Sam. xx. 31; \"a hill son of fatness,\" for a fruitful hill. The same idiom has been car- ried into the Greek of the New Testament. — See Gesenius' \"Heb. Lex.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "58", "sort_key": 58, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "In  ivhat  sense  are  men  called  \"  sons  of  God  \"  in  Scripture  ?", "answer": "THE ETERNAL SON'S HIP OF CHRIST. 179 The general idea embraced in the rtdation of sonship in- chides — 1st, similarity and derivation of nature; 2d, parental and filial love; and 3d, heirship. In this general sense all God's holy, intelligent creatures are called his sons. The term is applied in an eminent sense to kings and magistrates who receive dominion from God (Ps. Ixxxii. 0), and to Christians who are the subjects of spiritual regeneration and adoption (Gal. iii. 2(3), the special objects of divine favor (Matt. v. 9), and are like him (Matt. v. 45). When applied to creatures, whether men or angels (Job i. 6), this word is always used in the plural. In the singular it is applied only to the second person of the Trinity, Avith the single ex- ception of its application once to Adam (Luke iii. 38), when the reason is obviously to mark the peculiarity of his derivation from God immediately without the intervention of a human father. 51. What reasons do Sodnians assign for the application of the term Son of God to Glirist ? 1st. Some Socinians hold that he is called Son of God only as an official title, as it is applied in the plural to ordinary kings and magistrates. 2d. Other Socinians hold that he was called Son of God only because he was brought into being by God's supernatural agency, and not by ordinary generation. To maintain this they appeal to Luke i. 35. 52. Hovj can you ansiver the Socinian argument derived from Luke i. 35; to the effect that Christ was ccdled \"Son of God\" because of his miraculous birth alone? We answer — 1st. If that reason is the fundamental one why the phrase \"Son of God\" is generally applied to Christ it should render him the \"Son of the Spirit,\" who overshad- owed the Virgin, and not the \"Son of the Father.\" But he is never once so called, nor is any such relation ever indicated in Scripture. 2d. Even if this was one reason for the application of the phrase it would not follow that there are not other and deeper reasons for its use revealed in Scripture — which will be proved below to be the fact. 3d. Probably the real design of the passage was simply to convey to Mary the knowledge that in consequence of his supernatural generation her son, that is the man child born of her, is to be called \"the Son of God.\" It was not a common child — the thing born of her was to be regarded as peculiarly ISO THE HOLY TRINITY. related to God, until the complete revelation of his eternal Son- ship as a divine person. 53. JFhat reason do Avians assign for the asa^iption of this title to Christ? Arians hold that he is so called because he was created by God more in his own likeness than any other creature, and first in the order of time. 54. What reason do some Trinitarians, who at this point depart from the orthodox faith, give for the appilication of this title to Christ, and to lohat passages do they appeal? They hold that the title \"Son of God\" applies to Christ not as Logos, the eternal Second Person of the Trinity, but as The- aiithropos. They object to the orthodox doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ. Ist. That Sonship implies derivation and hence inferiority. 2d. That the term \"Son\" in many passages is applied to him interchangeably with the term \"Christ\" and other official titles, belonging to his jNIediatorial office and not to his eternal relations within the Godhead. They refer to Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 49, etc. 3d. That in Ps. ii. 7 it is expressly declared that Christ is constituted \"Son of God\" in time, instead of his co-existing as such from eternity with the Fatlier by necessity of nature. 4th. The same is argued from Rom. i. 4. 55. Show that the orthodox doctrine is not open to the objection that it represents the Second Person as inferior to the First. This objection derives all its plausibility from unduly press- ing the analogy between the human relations of Father and Son and the divine relations signalized by the same terms. The one may be so far the best existing analogy of the other known to us, as to lay the foundation for the proper application of the terms derived from the known relation to designate the un- known, while we must remember that the two things are necessarily as different as the material is from the spiritual, as the temporal is from the eternal, as the finite is from the infinite. Besides it rests upon a misapprehension of the ortho- dox doctrine as to the following particulars: 1st. The church doctrine is that the Person not the essence of the Son is generated by the Father. The self-existent essence of the Godhead belongs to the Son equally with the Father from eternity. 2d. Tiiat the Father begets the Son by an eternal and nec- essary constitutional (not voluntary) act. This prevents the THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 181 Son from being in any sense dependent upon or inferior to the Father, and distinguishes the church doctrine from Semi- arianism, see below, Question 97. 56. Slioio that their ohjedion to the church doctrine based upon Matt. xvi. 16; John i. 49, etc., does iwt hold good. In none of these passages is it affirmed that he is Son as the Christ, i. e., as JMediator, but that being the eternal Son of God he is the Christ, the King of Israel, etc. 57. Prove that neither the 2d Psalm nor Rom. i. 4, teach that Christ ivas made Son of God. Dr. Alexander says (see \"Com. on Psalms\") with relation to Psalm ii. 7, that it means simply, \"Thou art my Son, this day I am thy Father, now always eternally thy Father. Even if ' this day ' be referred to the inception of the filial relation, it is thrown iijdefinitely back by the form of reminiscence, or narra- tion, in the first clause of the verse. 'Jehovah said to me,' but when? If understood to mean from everlasting the form of expression would be perfectly in keeping with the other figur- ative forms by which the Scriptures represent things really ineffable in human language.\" Rom. i. 4 — \"And declared (^dpidSevro?) to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrec- tion from the dead.\" The word 6pi6fjEvroi everywhere else in the New Testament signifies to constitute, to appoint, but here it is insisted that it signifies to manifest. The word strictly means to hound., to dfne, and may naturally mean to set forth, to characterize. This sense is said (Dr. Charles Hodge, \"Com. Rom.\") to be adopted by the great majority of commentators, including some of the ancient Greek Fathers. Besides, even if our opponents' interpretation of this passage were allowed, the indubitable evidence afforded to our position by other passages would remain. The two reasons for calling Christ Son are not inconsistent. It is very evident that Christ called himself Son of God, and was so recognized by his disciples before his resurrection, and, therefore, he might have been revealed or manifested to be the Son of God, but could not have been constituted such by that event. 58. Shoiu that Acts xiii. 32, 33, does not prove that Jesus was made Son of God. It is argued from this passage that Jesus was constituted Son of God by his resurrection, as the first stage of his official exaltation. This can not be — 1st. Because he was sent into the 182 THE HOLY TRINITY. world as Son of God. 2d. Because the word dradrrjda?, having raised up, refers to the raising np Christ at his birth, and not to his resnrrection (there is nothing in the Greek corresponding to the word again in the English). When this word is used to designate the resurrection it is usually qualified by the phrase from the dead, as in verse 34. \"On di avedrr/dev avrov en vshpcSv. Verse 32 declares the fulfillment of the promise referred to in verse 23. — See Alexander's \" Com. on Acts.\" 59. Sfafe the orthodox ansioer to the question lohy Christ is called '■'■Son of God.\" The orthodox doctrine is that Christ is called \" Son of God \" in Scripture to indicate his eternal and necessary personal rela- tion as the Second Person of the Godhead to the First Person, who is called Father to indicate the reciprocal relation. 60. II021J is the doctrine stated in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and in the Westminster Confession ? Nicene Creed. — \" 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.\" Athanasian Creed. — \"The Son is from the Father alone, nei- ther made, nor created, but begotten.\" Westminster Confession. — \"The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.\" 6L What is the common statement and explanation of this doc- trine given by orthodox loriters ? The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein, by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, aliena- tion, or change, so that the Son is the express image of his Father's person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, bi;t in the Fatlier, and the Father in the Son. — See particularly Heb. i. 3; John x. 38; xiv. 11; xvii. 21. The principal Scrip- tural support of the doctrine of derivation is John v. 26. — Tur- retin, Tom. I., L. 3, Q. 2^i). Those theologians who insist upon this definition believe that the idea of derivation is necessarily implied in generation ; that it is indicated by both the reciprocal terms Father and Son, and by the entire representation given in the Scriptures as to the relation and order of the persons of the Godhead, the THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 183 Father always standing for the Godhead considered absohitely; and they hold that this theory is necessary to the vindication of the essential unity of the three persons. The older theo- logians, therefore, styled the Father itrjyi] Oeor^^ros, fountahi of Godhead., and dizia viuv, prhiciple or cause of the Son, while the Son and Holy Ghost were botli called ditiaroi (those depend- ing upon another as their principle or cause). They at the same time guarded the essential equality of the Son and the Holy Ghost witli the Father, by saying, 1st, that the whole divine essence, without division or change, and, therefore, all the divine attributes, were communicated to them ; and, 2d, that this communication was made by an eternal and necessary act of the Father, and not of his mere will. In all the early Creeds this identity as to essence, and subordination as to mode of subsistence and operation, is ex- pressed by the phrases as above. Qedi kx Beov, cpcSi ek (pc^ro?; £H Tov itatpoi ; QedS d^.TfQivo'S eh Beov dXr]Bivdv ; ysyvr/QEii 6v TtoirjBEii ; oMOOvdiov TOO Ttavpi. 62. State how tliey endeavored to guard their doctrine from aU antliropomorphic grossness. In order to guard their doctrine of derivation and eternal generation from all gross anthropomorphic conceptions they carefully maintained that it was — (1) dxpoyai?, timeless, eterncd; (2) ddooiiazooi, not bodllij, spiritual; (3) ad/jaro?, invisible; (4) dxoo- pidrcoi, not a local transference, a communication not ivithout hut icithin the Godhead; (5) aVaQcJ?, ivithout passion or change; (6) navreXooi duardXyjittoi, altogether irucomprehensible. 63. What is essential to the Scriptural doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son ? In the above rendered account of the orthodox doctrine there is nothing inconsistent with revealed truth. The idea of derivation, as involved in the generation of the Son by the Father, appears rather to be a rational explanation of revealed facts than a revealed fact itself On such a subject, therefore, it should be held in suspense. All that is explicitly revealed is, 1st, the term Son is applied to Christ as the second person of the Godhead. 2d. This term, and the equivalent one, \"only begotten,\" reveal some relation, within the Godhead, of the person of the Son to the person of the Father; the designa- tion Father being reciprocal to that of Son. 3d. That this re- lation is such that Father and Son are tlie same in substance, and are personally equal; that the Father is first and tlie Son second in the order of revelation and operation, that the Son 184 THE HOLY TRINITY. is the express image of the Father's person, not tlie Father of the Son's, and that the Son is not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in tlie Son. 64. How may it he shown tJiat the common doctrine is not self- contradictory ? There is evidently no inconsistency in the simple Scriptural statement given in the answer to the last question. Heterodox controversialists, however, have claimed that there is a mani- fest inconsistency in the orthodox theory that the Father com- municates to the Son the whole divine essence Avithout alien- ating it from himself, dividing or otherwise changing it. This subject does not fall within the legitimate sphere of human logic, yet it is evident that this theory involves no contradic- tion and no mystery greater than that involved in the whole essence of God being at the same time present, without divi- sion or diffusion, to every point of space. 65. By u'Jiat terms, besides that of \">S'o%\" is the personal char- acter of the Second Person, and his relation to the First Person designated? Aoyoi npoi ruv Qsoi'^xat 6s6? t}v 6 XoyoZ. The Word icith God, and who is God — John i. 1. EIkc^v tov Beou rov dopdrov. The Image of tlie invisiUe God — 2 Cor iv. 4; Col. i. 15. Xapaxzrjp rijz v7to6Tcx6Eooi avrov. \" The image or impression of his being or sub- stance\"— Heb. i. 3. Ev /lopcpy Oeov. Tlie form, of God — Phil. ii. 6; 'ATtavya6i.ia rt/i doii/i dvrov. '•''The shining forth of his glory\" — Heb. i. 3. &Q. What is the distinction which some of the fathers made be- tween the eternal, the ante-mundane, and the mundane generation of the Son ? 1st. By his eternal generation they intended to mark his essential relation to the Father as his consubstantial and eter- nal S(jn. 2d. By his ante-mundane generation they meant to signify the commencement of the outgoings of his energy, and the manifestation of his person beyond the bosom of the Godhead, in tlie sphere of external creation, etc. — Col. i. 15. 3d. l^y his mundane generati(m they intended his supernat- ural birth in the flesh. — Luke i. 35. 67. What is the disfiiiction which some of the fathers made be- tween the Xoyoi avdidfjF.roi {rcftio insita, reason), and the Ao>o? TtpoqtopiKo'i {ratio prolata, reason brought forth, or expressed)? THE ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 185 The orthodox fathers used the phrase locjo^ endiatlictos to designate the Word, whom they held to be a distinct person, dwelling- from eternity with the Father. The ground of their use of this phrase was a fanciful analogy which they conceived existed between the relation which the eternal hxjos (word, or reason) (John i. 1) sustains to the Father, and the relation which the reason of a man sustains to his own rational soul. Thus the logos endiathetos was God's own reflective idea hypos- tatized. They were led to this vain attempt to philosophize upon an incomprehensible subject by the influence exerted upon them by the Platonic philosophers of that age, who taught a sort of metaphysical trinity, e. g., that in the one God there were three constituent principles, rJ dya^jov, good- ness, vovi, intelligence, ipvxV) vitality. Their immediate object was to . illustrate the essential unity of the Trinity, and to prove, against the Arians, the essential divinity of the Son, from the application to him by John of the epithet Xoyoi 6sov. By the phrase logos proj^Jtoficos they intended to designate him as the reason of God revealed, when he proceeded from the Father in the work of creation. — See Hill's \" Lectures.\" The Arians, taking advantage of the essential inadequacy of this language, confused the controversy by acknowledging that the phrase logos prophoricos did truly apply to Christ, since he came forth from God as the flrst and highest creation and image of his mind. But declaring, with some color of truth, that the phrase logos endiathetos, when applied to Christ, taught pure Sabellianism, since it marked no personal distinction, but signified nothing else than the mind of the Father itself 68. If God is \" ens a se ipso,'' self -existent, how can the Son he really God, if he he \"Baoi sk Osov,'' God from the Father? The objection presented in this question does not press against the Scriptural statement of the eternal generation of the Son presented above (Question 63), but solely against the theory of derivation as involved in the ordinary definition (see Question 61). Those who insist iipon the validity of that view rebut the objection by saying that self-existence is an attribute of essence, not of person. The Father, as a person, generates the person, not the essence of the Son, whose person is consti- tuted of the very same self-existent essence with the Father's. Thus the Son is avroOsoi, i. e., Deus a se ipso as to his essence, but Oeoi EH 6eou, God from God, as to his person. 69. What argument for the eternal sonship of Christ may he derived from the designcdion of the persons of the Trinity as Father, So7i, and Holy Ghost? 18G THE HOLY TRINITY. In the apostolical benediction and the formnla of baptism the one God is designated as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The term Son can not here be applied to Christ as an official title, or as a miraculously generated man, because, 1st, he is so called as one of the three divine persons constituting the God- head. 2d. The term Son is reciprocal to the term Father, and therefore designates the relation of the second person to the first. Whatever this relation may involve besides, it evidently must be eternal and necessary, and includes paternity on the part of the first person, and filiation on the part of the second. 70. What argument in support of this doctrine may he derived from tJie use of the ivord-son in ]\\Iatt. xi. 27 and Luke x. 22.? In both of these passages the term Son is used to designate the divine nature of the second person of the Trinity in his i-e- lation to the first. The Son, as Son, knows and is known by the Father as Father. He is infinite in knowledge and there- fore knows the Father. He is infinite in being and therefore can be known by none other than the Father, 71. State tJie argument from John i. 1-14. Here the eternal Word, who was God, discovered himself as such to his disciples by the manifestation of his native divine glory, \" the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.\" He was \" only begotten Son,\" therefore as God, and not either as Mediator or as man. 72. State the argument from, the application in Scripture of the terms /.lovoyEvrji, {only begotten) and i'Sioi, {oitii) to the Sonship of Christ. Although many of God's creatures are called his sons, the phrase, Son of God, in the singular, and when limited b}' the terms \" own \" and \" only begotten,\" is applied only to Christ. Christ is called \"only begotten Son of God.\" — John i. 14, 18; iii. 16, 18; 1 John iv. 9. In John V. 18, Christ calls God his oion Father (see Greek). He is called the own Son of the Father. — Rom. viii. 32. The use of these qualifying terms proves that Christ is called Son of God in a sense different from that in which any other is so called. Therefore it designates him as God and not as man, nor as the bearer of an office. 73. IFhat is the argument derived from John v. 22, and con- text, and from John x. 33-37 ? In the first passage the terms Father and Son are used to THE ETERNAL SONSIIIP OF CHRIST. 187 designate two divine and equal persons. As Son, Christ does whatsoever the Father doeth, and is to receive equal honor. In the second passage, Jesus assumes the title, \" Son of God,\" as equivalent to asserting that he was God. The Jews charging it upon him as blasphemy. 74. What is the evidence furnished hy such passages as speak of the manifestation, giving or sending of the Son ? See 1 John iii. 8; Kom. viii. 3; John iii. 16, etc. To say that the Son was sent or manifested implies that he was Son before he was sent or manifested as such. 75. State the argument from Kom. i. 3, 4. The argument from this passage is twofold: 1st. The Son of God is declared to have been made flesh, and therefore must have pre-existed as Son. 2d. By the resurrection he was pow- erfully manifested to be the Son of God as to his divine nature. The phrases, according to the flesh, and according to the spirit of holiness, are evidently anthithetical, designating severally the Lord's human and divine natures. 76. State the argument from Eom. viii. 3. Here God's own Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Obviously he must have pre-existed as such before he assumed the likeness of sinful flesh, the assumption of which certainly could not have constituted him the own Son of God. 77. State the argument from Col. i. 15-21. In this passage the apostle sets forth at length the nature and glory of him whom, in the thirteenth verse, he had called God's dear Son. Thus he proves that Christ as Son is the im- age of the invisible God, and that by him all things consist, etc. 78. State the argument from Heb. i. 5-8. Paul is here setting forth the superiority of Christ as a divine person. As divine he calls him \" the Son,\" \" the first begotten.\" This Son is brought into the world, and therefore niust have pre-existed as such. As Son he is declared to be God, and to reign upon an everlasting throne. 79. Hoiv can those passages which speak of the Son as inferior and subject to the Father he reconciled tcith this doctrine ? It is objected that such passages prove that Jesus, as Son, is inferior and subject to the Father. We answer that in John iii. 13 the \"Son of Man\" is said to have come down from heaven, and to be in heaven. But surely 188 THE HOLY TRINITY. Jesus, as Son of 3Ian, was not omnipresent. In Acts xx. 28 God is said to purchase his cliurch with his own blood; but surely Christ, as God, did not shed his blood. The explanation of this is that it is the common usage of Scripture to designate the single person of the God-man by a title belonging to him as the possessor of one nature, while the condition, attribute, relation, or action predicated of him is true only of the other nature. Thus in the pass'ages in question he is called \" Son of God,\" because he is the eternal Word, while at the same tinje he is said to be inferior to the FatliA*, because he is also man and mediator. (II.) The relation which the third Person sustains to the FIRST AND SECOND, OR THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HoLY GhOST. 80. What is the etymology of the icord Spirit, and the usage of its Hebreio and Greek equivalents? The English word spirit is from the Latin spiritus, hreath, ivind, air, life, soul, which in turn is from the verb spiro, to breathe. The equivalent Hebrew word, n^n. has a perfectly analogous usage. 1st. Its primary sense is wind, air in mo- tion. Gen. viii. 1; then, 2d, breath, the breath of life. Gen. vi. 17; Job xvii. 1; 3d, animal soul, vital principle in men and animals, 1 Sam. xxx. 12 ; 4th, rational soul of man. Gen. xli. 8, and hence, metaphorically, disposition, temperament, Num. v. 14; 5th, Spirit of Jehovah, Gen. i. 2; Ps. li. 11. — Gesenius' \"Lex.\" The equivalent Greek word, Ttrevjaa, has also the same usage. It is derived from Ttveao, to breathe, to hlou: It signifies, 1st, breath, Kev. xi. 11; 2d, air in motion, John iii. 8; 3d, the vital principle. Matt, xxvii. 50; 4th, the rational soul, spoken (1) of the disembodied spirits of men, Heb. xii. 23; (2) of devils, Matt. x. 1; (3) of angels, Heb. i. 14; (4) the Spirit of God, spoken of God, a, absolutely as an attribute of his essence, John iv. 24; and h as the personal designation of the third person of the Trinity, who is called Spirit of God, or of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit of Christ, or of Jesus, or of the Son of God, Acts xvi. 6, 7; Eom. viii. 9; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Gal. iv. 6; Phil. i. 19; 1 Pet. i. 11.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "59", "sort_key": 59, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "Why  is  the  third  person  of  the  Trinity  called  the  Spirit  ?", "answer": "As the one indivisible divine essence which is common to each of the divine persons alike is spiritual, this term, as the personal designation of the third person, can not be intended to signify the fact that he is a spirit as to his essence, but rather to mark what is peculiar to his person, i. e., his personal relation to the Father and the Son, and the peculiar mode of his opera- THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 189 tion ad extra. As the reciprocal epitliets Father and Son are used to indicate, so far forth, the mutual relations of the first and second persons, so the epithets, Spirit, Spirit of God, Spirit of the Son, Spirit which proceedeth from the Father, are applied to the third person to indicate, so far forth, the relation of the third person to the first and second.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "60", "sort_key": 60, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "Why  is  lie  called  Holy  Spirit  ?", "answer": "As holiness is an attribute of the divine essence, and the glory equally of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, it can not be applied in any pre-eminent sense as a personal characteristic to the tliird person. It indicates, therefore, the peculiar nature of his operation. He is called the Holy Spirit because he is the author of holiness throughout the universe. As the Son is also styled Logos, or God, the Revealer, so the Holy Spirit is God, the Operator, the end and glory of whose work in the moral world is holiness, as in the physical world beauty.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "61", "sort_key": 61, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "Why  is  he  called  the  Spirit  of  God  ?", "answer": "This phrase expresses his divinity, his relation to the God- head as himself God, 1 Cor. ii. 11 ; his intimate personal relation to the Father as his consubstantial spirit proceeding from him, John XV. 26; and the fact that he is the divine Spirit, which proceeding from God operates upon the creature, Ps. civ. 30; 1 Pet. iv. 14.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "62", "sort_key": 62, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "Why  is  the  third  person  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ  ?", "answer": "See Gal. iv. 6; Eom. viii. 9; Phil. i. 19; 1 Peter i. 11. As the form of expression is identical in the several phrases, Spirit of God, and Spirit of the Son, and as the Scriptures, witli one exception, John xv. 26, uniformly predicate every thing of the relation of the Spirit to the Son, that they predicate of the rela- tion of the Spirit to the Father, it appears evident that he is called Spirit of the Son for the same reason that he is called Spirit of God. Tliis phrase also additionally sets forth the official relation which the Spirit in his agency in the work of redemption sustains to the God-man, in taking of his, and showing them to us, John xvi. 14. 85. Whcd is meant hy the theological phrase, Procession of the Holy Ghost? Theologians intend by this phrase to designate the rela- tion which the third person sustains to the first and second, wherein by an eternal and necessary, i. e., not voluntary, act 190 THE HOLY TRINITY. of the Father and the Son, their whole identical divine essence, without alienation, division, or change, is communicated to the Holy Ghost- so. Wlxat distinciion do theologians make between ^''procession \" and \" generation ? \" As this entire subject infinitely transcends the measure of our faculties, we can do nothing further than classify and con- trast those predicates which inspiration has applied to the rela- tion of Father and Son with those which it has applied to the relation of the Spirit to the Father and Son. Thus Turretin, Vol. L, L. 3., Q. 31. They differ, \"1st. As to source, the Son emanates from the Father only, but the Spirit from the Father and the Son at the same time. 2d. As to mode. The Son emanates in the way of generation, which affects not only personality, but similitude, on account of which the Son is called the image of the Father, and in consequence of which he receives the property of communicating the same essence to another person; but the Spirit, by the way of spiration, which effects only personality, and in consequence of which the person who proceeds does not receive the property of communicating the same essence to another person. 3d. As to order. The Son is second person, and the Spirit third, and though both are eter- nal, without beginning or succession, yet, in our mode of con- ception, generation precedes procession.\" The technical terms used to express these two mysteries are FayyT/di?, generatio, generation. 'EmtopEvdii, emtEmpii, processio., missio, procession. \"The schoolmen vainly attempted to found a distinction between generation and spn-ation upon the different operations of the divine intellect and the divine will. They say the Son was generated per modum ijitellectus, whence he is called the Word of God. The Spirit proceeds ^er modum voluntatis, whence he is called Love.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "63", "sort_key": 63, "group": "Chapter IX", "question": "What'is  the  Scriptture  ground  for  this  doctrhie?", "answer": "What Ave remarked above (Question 53), concerning the common theological definition of the eternal generation of the Son, holds true also with reference to the common definition of the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, viz., that in order to make the method of the divine unity in Trinity more appar- ent, theologians have pressed the idea of derivation and sub- ordination in the order of personal subsistence too far. This groinid is at once sacred and mysterious. The points given by Scripture are not to be pressed nor speculated upon, but received and confessed nakedly. The data of inspiration are simply as follows: Ist. Father, THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 191 Son, and Hol}^ Ghost, three divine persons, possess from eter- nity the one whole identical, indivisible, nnchangeable essence. 2d. The Father from his characteristic personal name, and the order in which his name uniformly occurs in Scripture, and from the fact that the Son is called his and his only begotten, and that the Spirit is called his, the one proceeding from him, and from the order of his manifestation and operation ad extra, is evidently in some icay first in order of personal subsistence relatively to the Son and Spirit. 3d. For the same reason (see below. Question 89) the Son, in the order of personal subsist- ence, is before the Spirit. 4th. What the real natvu'e of these distinctions in the order of personal subsistence may be is made known to us only so far — (1.) That it involves no distinction as to time, since all are alike eternal. (2.) It does not depend upon any voluntary action, for that would make the second person dependent upon the first, and the third upon the first and second, while tiiey are all \"equal in power and glory.\" (3.) It is such a relation that the second person is eternally only begotten Son of the first, and the third is eternally the Spirit of the first and second. 88. What ivas the difference betiveen the Greek and Latin churches on this doctrine ? The famous Council of Nice, a. d. 325, while so accurately defining the doctrine of the Godhead of the Son, left the testi- mony concerning the Holy Ghost in the vague form in which it stood in the ancient creed, \"in the Holy Ghost.\" But the heresy of JMacedonius, M^ho denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, having sprung up in the meantime, the Council of Con- stantinople, A. D. 381, completed the testimony of the Nicene Creed thus, \"I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Author of Life, who proceedeth from the Father.\" Tliere subsequently arose a controversy upon the question, whether the Scriptures do or do not represent the Holy Spirit as sustaining precisely the same relation to the Son that he does to the Father. This the Latins generally affirmed, and at the third ecclesiastical assembly at Toledo, a, d. 589, they added the word filioque (and the Son) to the Latin version of the Constantinopolitan Creed, making the clause read \" Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit.\" The Greek Church violently opposed this, and to this day reject it. For a short time they were satisfied Avith the compromise, \"The Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son,\" which was finally rejected by both parties. The Constantinopolitan Creed, as amended at the Council of Toledo, is the one now adopted 192 THE HOLY TRINITY. by the Catholic Church, and recognized by all Protestants, currently bearing the title of \"Nicene Creed.\" 89. How may it he proved that., as far as revealed, the Spirit sustains precisely the same relation to the Son which Jie does to the Father? The epithet \" Spirit \" is the characteristic personal designa- tion of the third Person. Whatever is revealed of his eternal and necessary personal relation to either the Father or the Son is indicated by this word. Yet he is called the Spirit of the Son, as well as the Spirit of the Father. He possesses the same identical essence of the Son as of the Father. The Son sends and operates through the Spirit as the Father does. Wherever their Spirit is there both Father and Son are revealed, and there they exercise their power. — John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7. With the single exception of the phrase, \" which pro- ceedeth from the Father\" (John xv. 26), the Scriptures apply precisely the same predicates to the relation of the Spirit to the Son that they do to his relation to the Father. 90. What office does the S2yirit discharge in the economy of redemption ? In the economy of redemption, as imiversally in all the act- ings of the Godhead upon the creature, God the Son is the revealed God, God as known, and God the Spirit is that divine person who exerts his energy immediately upon and in the creature. He is styled in this relation in tlie creed to Kvpiov, xdi TO ZoooTCoiov. The Lord, and the Giver of life. For a more detailed answer see Chapter XXIV., on \"The Mediatorial Office of Christ,\" Question 9. (III.) The Personal Properties peculiar to each of the Three Persons of the Godhead, and their Order of Operation ad extra. 91. What is the theological meaning of the word property «.s applied to the doctrine of the Trinity ? and what are severally the personal properties of each Person of the Godhead. The attrihutes of God are the perfections of the divine es- sence, and therefore common to each of the three persons, who are \" the same in substance,\" and therefore \" equal in power and glory.\" These have been discussed under Chapter VIII. The properties of each divine person, on the other hand, are those peculiar modes of personal subsistence whereby each divine person is constituted as such, and that peculiar order of o})eration whereby each person is distinguished from the others. The peculiar distinguishing properties which belong THE CITA RATER HYPOSTATICUS. 193 to eacli Person severally is called technically his clmrater hy- posMicus — personal character. As far as these are revealed to ns the personal properties of the Father are as follows: He is \"begotten by none, and pro- ceeds from none; he is the Father of the Son, having begotten him from eternity; the Spirit proceeds from him and is his Spirit. Thus he is the first in order and in operation, sending and operating through the Son and Spirit. The personal properties of the Son are as follows: He is the Son, from eternity the only begotten of the Father. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son even as he is the Spirit of the Father, he is sent by the Father, whom he reveals: he, even as the Father, sends and operates through the Spirit. The personal properties of the Spirit are as follows: He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, from eternity proceeding from them: he is sent by the Father and the Son, they operat- ing through him; he operates immediately upon the creature. 92. What kind of suhordination did the early un-iters attrihute to the second and third persons in relation to the first ? They held, as above shown, that the eternal generation of the Son by the Father, aiid the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son involved in both instances the derivation of essence. They illustrated their idea of this eternal and necessary act of communication by the example of a luminous body, which necessarily radiates light the whole period of its existence. Thus the Son is deiined in the words of the Nicene Creed, \"God of God, Light of Light.\" Thus as the radiance of the sun is coeval with its existence, and of the same essence as its source, by this illustration they designed to signify their belief in the identity and consequent equality of the divine persons as to essence, and the relative subordina- tion of the second to the first, and of the third to the first and second, as to personal subsistence and consequent order of operation. 93. What is expressed by the use of the terms first, second, and third in reference to the persons of the Trinity. These terras are severally applied to the persons of the Trinity because — 1st. The Scriptures uniformly state their names in this order. 2d. The personal designations. Father and Son, and Spirit of the Father and of the Son, indicate this order of personal subsistence, od. Their respective modes of operation ad extra is always in this order. The Father sends and oper- ates through the Son, and the Father and Son send and operate 13 194 THE HOLY TRINITY. through the Spirit. The Scriptures never either directly or indirectly indicate the reverse order. As to the outward bearing of the Godhead upon the crea- ture it would appear, that the Father is revealed onl_y as he is seen in the Son, who is the eternal Logos, or divine Word, the express image of the Father's person. \"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.\" — John i. 18. And the Father and Son act immediately upon the creature only through the Spirit. \"The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead invisible, without form, whom no man hath seen or can see.\" \"The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested.\" \"The Spirit is all the fulness of the Godhead acting im- mediately upon the creature, and thus making manifest the Father in the image of the Son, and through the power of the Spirit.\" — \"Higher Christian Life,\" by Rev. W. E. Boardman, p. 105. 94. How can the assumption of personal distinctions in the God- head he reconciled uith the divine unity ? Although this tripersonal constitution of the Godhead is altogether beyond the capacity of reason, and is ascertained to us only through a supernatural revelation, there is evidently no contradiction in the twofold proposition, that God is one, and yet Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are that one God. They are one in one sense, and threefold in an entirely different sense. The eternal, self-existent, divine essence, constituting all those divine perfections called attributes of God is, in the same sense and degree, common to all the persons. In this sense they are one. But this divine essence exists eternally as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost, distinguished by personal properties. Li this sense tliey are three. We believe this, not because we understand it, but because thus God has revealed himself 95. How can the separate incarnation of the So7i he reconciled with the divine unity ? The Son is identical with the Father and Spirit as to essence, but distinct from them as to personal subsistence. In the incar- nation, the divine essence of the Son was not made man, but as a divine person he entered into a personal relation with the human nature of the man Christ Jesus. This did not consti- tute a new person, but merely introduced a new element into his eternal person. It was the personal union of the Son with HERETICAL OPLYIONS. 195 a human soul and bod}-, and not any change either in the divine essence, or in the personal relation of the Son to the Father or the Spirit. Heretical Opinions. 96. What are the three great points lohich together embrace the mystery of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture, and the apparent irreconcilability of tchich, uith each other, occasions the great objec- tion to this doctrine in the minds of heretics of cdl classes ? The three great points are as follows. Ist. There is abso- lutely but one God, but one self-existent, eternal, immutable, spiritual substance. 2d. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each ecLually this one God — are each in common constituted of the whole of this inalienable indivisible essence, having the same identical numerical essence, and the same identical attributes. od. Nevertheless Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, distinguished each by his several personal properties. The difficulty is, that in the case of the only created spirits of which we know any thing, every person is a separate spiritual essence, and distinct personality is definitely discriminated by numerical difference of attribute. We can not conceive how three persons can have among them but one intelligence and one will. Hence all heresies on this subject have sprung from one or other of three distinct tendencies, or efforts to disembarrass this doctrine of its apparent inconsistencies by the denial or abatement of one or other of its three constituent elements. Thus — 1st. One tendency is to cut the knot of the difficulty by denying the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the person- ality of the Holy Ghost. This makes God the Father the onlj^ divine Person and the possessor of the only divine substance. 2d. A second heretical tendency is to deny the divine unity and to maintain the co-existence of three distinct Gods, distinct in essence as well as in person. 3d. The third heretical ten- dency is to press the divine unity so far as to make Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one and the same identical Person as well as the same divine essence, admitting them only to be differ- ent names, or different aspects or functions of the one divine Person. 97. What different opinions have been held by those who deny the divinity of Christ, and either the divinity or p)ersoncdity of the Holy Ghost? 1st. That of the Humanitarians, or those who maintain that Christ is a mere Man. These in the early Church were known 196 THE HOLY TRINITY. b}^ the name of Ebionites, and Alogi — the deniers of the Logos, wliile in the IModern Church they are known as Socinians. For a statement of the History and Doctrine of the Socinians, see above, Chapter VI., Ques. 11 and 13. Those who have held that Christ is a mere man have diifered among themselves as to whether he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin or not, and as to the question of his supernatural en- dowments as a prophet, and as to the degree of honor and obedience owed from us to him. Some admit that he possessed a supernatural divine commission and qualification beyond that vouchsafed to any other prophet. Others deny the supernat- ural element altogether, and regard him as a mere man natu- rally endowed with a very superior moral and religious genius. All of this class, of course, hold that God is one Person as well as one essence, and for tlie most part they regard the term Holy Ghost as only a designation of the divine energy exer- cised in human affairs. Some of the German Rationalists, who for the most part agree with the Socinians, hold that the phrase Holy Ghost properly designates the one divine person working in the world of nature — Creation and Providence. Others hold it designates God in the church. 2d. The Gnostics, as a general class, held that the supreme God is one alike in essence and in Person, and that from him emanates different orders of spiritual beings, none of them in any proper sense God, yet all divine, since they all proceeded by way of emanation from him. These are called ^Eons. The Old Testament Jehovah, or Creator, was one of these JKons, of which class Christ was one of the greatest. The entire sura of these ^Eons constituted, in the view of the Gnostics, the Tiav TO nX7jpoo/.ta rtjs 0EuT7/rui, the entire sum of all the actual or possible self-revelations, or self-communications, of the un- approachable Godhead, which the Apostle Paul declared to be alone and fully realized in Christ. — Col. ii. 9. 3d. The earlier Nominal Trinitarians. \" In tlieir construc- tion of the doctrine of the trinity, the Son is not a subsistence (^vTtooradis) in the Essence, but only an effluence {Sui'ajiui) or en- ergy issuing from it, iience they could not logically assert tlie union of the divine nature, or the very substance of the God- head with the humanity of Jesus. A merely effluent energy proceeding from the deity, and entering the humanity of Christ, would be nothing more than an indwelling inspiration kindred to that of the prophets.\" — Shedd's \"Hist. Christ. Doc,\" Book III., Ch. 5, § 1. 4th. The Avians, so called from Arius, a presbyter of Alex- andria during the first part' of the fourth century, the great opponent of Athanasius. He maintained that the Godhead HERETICAL OPINIONS. 197 consists of one eternal person, who in the beginning, before all worlds, created in his own image a super-angelic being (^£Tepoov(3Lov — of a different essence), his only begotten Son, the beginning of the creation of God, by whom also he made the worlds. The first and greatest creature thus created, through the Son of God, was the Holy Ghost. In the full- ness of time this Sou became incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. 4th. The doctrine of the Semiarians. This party was so called as occupying middle ground between the Arians and the Orthodox. They held that the absolute, self-existent God was one person, but that the Son was a divine person of a glorious essence, like to (^ojnoiovdiuv'^ but not identical with (^djiioovdiov) that of the Father, and from eternity begotten by the Father by a free exercise of will and power, and therefore subordinate to and dependent upon him. This was the view first disseminated by Origen, and advocated with great power at the council of Nice by Eusebius bishop of Ceesarea, and Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia. It appears that some of the Semiarians agreed with the Arians in regarding the Holy Spirit as the first and most glo- rious creature of the Son, but that the majority regarded the words \"Holy Spirit,\" as significant of a divine energy, or as a synonym of the word God. — See Neander's \"Ch. Hist.,\" Tor- rey's translation. Vol. II., pp. 419, 420. 98. WJiat was tJie position of those luho sought to relieve the dif- ficulty of the doctrine by denying tJie divine unity ? These were the Tritheists, who admitted that there were three 6v6iai numerically considered, as well as three vTcodradEi? in the Godhead. They held the idea of 6v6ia (essence) by which the essence was expressed, should be understood as the mere concept of a genus, and the I'Ttodradii as an individual (a species) falling under this generic conception. \"That is there are three Gods, generically one, individually distinct.\" John Ascusnages of Constantinople, and John Philoponus of Alexandria (of the latter part of sixth centurj^) were leaders of the Tritheists. — Smith's edition of Hagenbach's \"Hist, of Doc,\" Vol. I., pp. 267, 268. 99. What was the position of those luho pressed the divine unity in opposition to the Tritheists so far as to make Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one Person as icell as one essence? The Monarchians, so called because they rejected the Triad and maintained the ]\\Ionad, or absolute unity as to person as well as to essence in the Godhead, were of several kinds ; 198 THE HOLY TRINITY. some, as the Alogi, were very nuich the same as the modern Unitarian, which term is intended to express the same idea. Others, as Praxeas of Asia Minor, circum. a. d. 200; Noetus of Smyrna, circmn. a. d. 230, and Beryl of Bostra in Arabia, cir- cum. A. D. 250, held that this one single divine Person became incarnate in the man Christ, and hence they were called Patri- passians. \"Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about the middle of the third century, adopted the notions of the ear- lier ]\\Ionarchians, and maintained in opposition to the doctrine propounded by Origen and his followers, that the appellations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only so many different man- ifestations and names of one and the same divine being. He thus converted the objective and real distinction of persons (a Trinity of essence) into a merely subjective and modalistic view (the Trinity of manifestation).\" — Smith's edition of Ha- genbach's \"Hist, of Doctrine,\" Vol. I., p. 246. \"They affirmed that there is only one divine Person. This one only Person conceived of in his abstract simplicity and eternity was de- nominated God the Father; but in his incarnation, he was denominated God the Son. Sometimes a somewhat different mode of apprehension and statement was employed. God in his concealed, unrevealed nature and being was denominated God the Father, and when he comes forth from the depths of his essence, creating a universe, and revealing and communi- cating himself to it, he therein takes on a different relation, and assumes another denomination; namely, God the Son, or the Logos.\" — Shedd's \"History of Christian Doctrine,\" Book in., Ch. 2, § 2. 100. By what considerations may it he shown that the doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental element of the Gospel? It is not claimed that the refinements of theological spec- ulations upon this subject are essential points of faith, but simply that it is essential to salvation to believe in the three persons in one Godhead, as they are revealed to us in the Scriptures. 1st. The only true God is that God who has re- vealed himself to us in the Scriptures, and the very end of the gospel is to bring us to the knowledge of that God precisely in the aspect in which he has revealed himself. Fvery other conception of God presents a false god to the mind and con- science. There can be no mutual toleration without treason. Socinians, Arians, and Trinitarians Avorship different Gods. 2d. The Scriptures explicitly assert that the knowledge of this true God and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent is eternal life, and that it is necessar}^ to honor the Son even as we honor the Father. — John v. 23 ; xiv. 1 ; xvii. 3 ; 1 John ii. 23 ; v. 20. THE DOCTRINE ESSENTIAL. 199 3d. In the initiatory rite of the Christian church we are baptized into the name of every several person of the Trinity. Matt, xxviii. 19. 4th. The whole plan of redemption in all its parts is founded upon it. Justification, sanctification, adoption, and all else that makes the gospel the wisdom and power of God unto salvation, can be understood only in the light of this fundamental truth. 5th. As an historical fact it is beyond dispute that in what- ever church the doctrine of the Trinity has been abandoned or obscured, every other characteristic doctrine of the gospel has gone with it.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "64", "sort_key": 64, "group": "Chapter X", "question": "What  are  the  decrees  of  God  ?", "answer": "See \" Con. of Faith,\" chap. iii. \" Larger Cat.,\" Q. 12, and \" Shorter Cat.,\" Q. 7. The decree of God is his eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign purpose, comprehending at once all things that ever were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions, and relations, and determining their certain futurition. The several contents of this one eternal purpose are, because of the limitation of our faculties, necessarily conceived of by us in partial aspects, and in logical relations, and are therefore styled Decrees. 2. How are the acts of God classified, and to tuhich class do theologians refer the decrees ? All conceivable divine actions may be classified as follows: 1st. Those actions which are immanent and intrinsic, belong- ing essentially to the perfection of the divine nature, and which bear no reference whatever to any existence witliout the God- head. These are the acts of eternal and necessary generation, whereby the Son springs from the Father, and of eternal and necessary procession, whereby the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and all those actions whatsoever involved in the mutual society of the divine persons. 2d. Those actions which are extrinsic and transient, i. e., those free actions proceeding from God and terminating upon the creature, occurring successively in time, as God's acts in crea- tion, providence, and grace. 3d. The third class are like the first, inasmuch as they are intrinsic and immanent, essential to the perfection of the divine natm'e and permanent states of the divine mind, but they differ, on the other hand, from the first class, inasmuch as they have respect to the whole dependent creation exterior to the God- head. These are the eternal and immutable decrees of God re- Bpecting all beings and events whatsoever exterior to himself THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE SUBJECT. 201 3. Wliat is the essential nature and source of the difficulties which oppress the human reason ivhen speculating on this subject? These difficulties all have their ground in the perfectly in- ■Bcrutable relations of the eternal to the temporal, of the infi- nite to the finite, of God's absolute sovereignty to man's free agency, and of the unquestionable fact of the origination of sin to the holiness, goodness, wisdom, and power of God. They are peculiar to no system of theology, but press equally upon any s^'stem which acknowledges the existence and moral gov- ernment of God, and the moral agency of 7nan. They have perplexed heathen philosophers of old, and deists in modern times, and Socinians, Pelagians, and Arminians just as sorely as Calvinists. 4. From what fixed point of view are we to start in the study of this subject ? A self-existent, independent, all-perfect, and unchangeable God, existing alone from eternity, began to create the universe physical and moral in an absolute vacuum, moved to do so from motives and with reference to ends, and according to ideas and plans, Avholely interior and self-prompted. Also, if God governs the universe, he must, as an intelligent being, govern it according to a plan ; and this plan must be perfect in its comprehension, reaching to all details. If he has a plan now, he must have had the same plan unchanged from the be- ginning. The decree of God therefore is the act of an infinite, absolute, eternal, unchangeable, and sovereign person, com- prehending a plan including all his works of all kinds, great and small, from the beginning of creation to an unending eter- nity. It must therefore be incomprehensible, and it can not be conditioned by any thing exterior to God himself — since it was matured before any thing exterior to him existed, and hence it- self embraces and determines all these supposed exterior things and all the conditions of them forever. 5. What is the distinction between forehioidedrie and foreordi- nation, and what is tJie general position of the Socinians on this point ? Foreknowledge is an act of the infinite intelligence of God, knowing from all eternity, without change, the certain futuri- tion of all events of every class whatsoever that ever will come to pass. Foreordination is an act of the infinitely intelligent, fore- knowing, righteous, and benevolent will of God from all eter- nity determining the certain futurition of all events of every class 202 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. whatsoever that come to pass. Foreknowledge recognizes the certain futurition of events, while foreordination makes them certainly future. Socinians admit that the foreknowledge and the foreordi- nation of God are co-extensive, but they limit both to such ev^ents in creation and providence as God has determined to do by his own immediate agency, or to bring about through the agency of such second causes as act under the law of necessity. They deny that God has either foreordained or foreknown the voluntary actions of free agents, which from their verj^ nature are contingent, and not objects of knowledge until alter their occurrence.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "65", "sort_key": 65, "group": "Chapter X", "question": "What  is  the  position  of  the  Arminians  on  tlm  subject  ?", "answer": "The Arminiaus agree with the Socinians in denying that God foreordains the voluntary acts of free agents, or in any way whatever determines them beforehand to be certainly future. But they difier from the Socinians and agree with us in holding that the certain foreknowledge of God extends equally to all events, as well to those in their nature con- tingent, as to those produced by second causes acting under the law of necessity. They hold that he foresees with absolute certainty from all eternity the futurition of the free actions of moral agents, and that he embraces and adjusts them in his eternal plan — which plan embraces all things, the free actions of moral agents as simply foreseen, and the actions of neces- sary agents as absolutely foreordained. 7. State under several heads the Calvinistic doctrine on this subject. 1st. God foreknows all events as certainly future because he has decreed them and thus made them certainly future. 2d. God's decree relates equally to all future events of every kind, to the free actions of moral agents, as Avell as to action of necessary agents, to sinful as well as morally right actions. 3d. Some things God has eternally decreed to do himself im- mediately, e. r/., creation; other things to bring to pass through the action of second causes acting under a law of necessity, and again other things he has decreed to prompt or to permit free agents to do in the exercise of their free agency; yet the one class of events is rendered by the decree as certainly future as the other. 4th. God has decreed ends as well as means, causes as well as effects, conditions and instrumentalities as well as the events which depend upon tliem. 5th. God's decree determines only the certain futurition of STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE. 203 events, it directly effects or causes no event. But the decree itself provides in every case that the event shall be effected by causes acting in a manner perfectly consistent with the nature of the event in question. Thus in the case of every free act of a moral agent the decree itself provides at the same time — (a.) That the agent shall be a free agent. (6.) That his antecedents and all the antecedents of the act in question shall be what they are. (c.) That all the present condifions of the act shall be what they are. (cl ) That the act shall be perfectly spontaneous and free on the part of the agent, (e.) That it shall be certainly future. 6th. God's purposes relating to all events of every kind constitute one single, all-comprehensive intention comprehend- ing all events, the free as free, the necessary as necessary, together with all their causes, conditions, and relations, as one indiv'isible system of things, every link of which is essential to the integrity of the whole. 8. Show that as respects the eternal plan of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator, foreknowledge is eqidvalent to foreordination. God possessing infinite foreknoAvledge and power, existed alone from eternity ; and in time, self-prompted, began to create in an absolute vacuum. Whatever limiting causes or condi- tions afterwards exist were first intentionally brought into being by himself, with perfect foreknowledge of their nature, relations, and results. If God then foreseeing that if he cre- ated a certain free agent and placed him in certain relations he would freely act in a certain way, and yet with that knowledge proceeded to create that very free agent and put him in precisely those positions, God would, in so doing, obviously predetermine the certain futurition of tlie act foreseen. God can never in his w^ork be rediiced to a choice of evils, because the entire system, and each particular end and cause, and condition, was clearly foreseen and by deliberate choice admitted by himself 9. What reasons may he assigned for contemplating the decrees of God as one all-comprehensive intention ? 1st. Because as shown below it is an eternal act, and ceternitas est nna, individua et tota simid. 2d. Because every event that actually occurs in the system of things is interlaced with all other events in endless involu- tion. ISFo event is isolated. The color of the flower and the nest of the bird are related to the whole material universe. Even in our ignorance we can trace a chemical fact as related to myriad other facts, classified under the heads of mechanics, electricity, and light and life. 204 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 3d. God decrees events as they actually occur, L e., events produced by causes, and depending upon conditions. The decree that determines the event can not leave out the cause or the condition upon which it depends. But the cause of one event, is the effect of another, and every event in the universe is more immediately or remotely the condition of every other, so that an eternal purpose on the part of God must be one all- comprehensive act. As our minds are finite, as it is impossible for us to embrace in one act of intelligent comprehension an infinite number of events in all their several relations and bearings, we necessarily contemplate events in partial groups, and we conceive of the purpose of God relating to them as distinct successive acts. Hence the Scriptures speak of the counsels, the purposes, and the judgments of God in the plural, and in order to indicate the intended relation of one event to another, they represent God as purposing one event, as the means or condition upon which another is suspended. This is all true because these events do have these relations to one another, but they all alike fall witliin, and none remain without, that one eternal design of God which comprehends equally all causes and all effects, all events and all conditions. All the speculative errors of men on this subject, spring from the tendency of the human mind to confine attention to one fragment of God's eternal purpose, and to regard it as isolated from the rest. The Decree of God separates no event from its causes or conditions any more than we find them separated in nature. We are as much unable to take in by one comj^rehen- sive act of intelligence all the works of God in nature as we are to take in all his decrees. We are forced to study his works part by part. But no intelligent student of nature thinks that any event is isolated. So we are forced to study his decrees part by part, but no intelligent theologian should suppose that there are any broken links or imperfect connection eitlier here or there.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "66", "sort_key": 66, "group": "Chapter X", "question": "Hoiu  may  it  he  proved  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  eteomal  ?", "answer": "1st. As God is infinite, he is necessarily eternal and un- changeable, from eternity infinite in wisdom and knowledge, and absolutely independent in thought and pin-pose of every creature. There can never be any addition to his wisdom, nor surprise to his foreknowledge, nor resistance to his power, and therefore there never can be any occasion to reverse or modify that infinitely wise and righteous purpose which, from the per- fection of his nature, he formed from eternity. 2d. It is asserted in Scripture. — (aTr' di^voi) Acts xv. 18; PROOF OF DOCTRINE. 205 {jtfto uaraftoXrji h66/.(ov) Epli. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 20; (aV dpx^ji) 2 Thes. ii. 13; ijrpo xpoToov diGoviGov^ 2 Tim. i. 9; (tt/sJ tgjv dtoovooi^^ 1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 11, etc. 11. Prove that the decrees are immutable. 1st. This is certain from the fact that they are eternal, as just shown. 2d. From the fact that God is eternal, absolute, immutable, and all-perfect in wisdom and power. 3d. It is taught in Scripture. — Ps. xxxiii. 11; Is. xlvi. 9, etc. 12. Prove from reason that the decrees of God comprehend all events. As shown above no event is isolated. If one event is decreed absolutely all events must therefore be determined with it. If one event is left indeterminate all future events will be left in greater or less degrees indeterminate with it, 13. Prove the same from Scripture. 1st. They afHrm that the whole system in general is em- braced in the divine decrees. — Eph. i. 11; Acts xvii. 26; Dan. iv. 34, 35. 2d. They affirm the same of fortuitous events. — Prov. xvi. 33; Matt. X. 29, 30. 3d. Of the free actions of men. — Eph. ii. 10, 11; Phil. ii. 13. 4th. Even of the wicked actions of men. \" Him, being de- livered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and with wicked hands have crucified and slain.\" — Acts ii. 23. \" For of a truth against thy Holy Child whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before- hand to be done.\" — Acts iv. 27, 28; Acts xiii. 29; 1 Peter ii. 8; Jude 4; Rev. xvii. 17. As to the history of Joseph, compare Gen. xxxvii. 28 with Gen. xlv. 7, 8, and 1. 20 : \" So now it was not you that sent me hither but God.\" \" But as for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good.\" — See also Ps. xvii. 13, 14, and Is. x. 5 and 15, etc. 14. Prove the universality of God's decrees from lorovidence. It follows from the eternity, immutability, and infinite wis- dom, foreknowledge, and power of God, that his temporal work- ing in providence must in all things proceed according to his eternal piu'pose. — Eph. i. 11, and Acts xv. 18. But both Script- ure and reason alike teach us that the providential government of God comprehends all things in heaven and on earth as a 206 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. ivliole.1 and every event in detail. — Prov. xvi. 33 ; Dan. iv. 34, 35 ; :\\ratt. X. 29, 30. 15. Prove this doctrine from prophecy. God has in the Scriptures foretold the certain occnrrence of many events, including; the free actions of men, which have afterwards surely come to pass. Now the ground of prophecy is foreknowledge, and the foundation of the foreknowledge of an event as certainly future, is God's decree that made it future. The eternal immutability of the decree is the only foundation of the infallibility either of the foreknowledge or of the prophecy. But if God has decreed certain future events, he must also have included in that decree all of their causes, conditions, co-ordi- nates, and consequences. No event is isolated; to make one certainly future implies the determination of the whole conca- tenation of causes and effects which constitute the universe.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "67", "sort_key": 67, "group": "Chapter X", "question": "In  ivhat  sense  are  tJie  decrees  of  God  free?", "answer": "The decrees of God are free in the sense that in decreeing he was solely actuated by his own infinitely wise, righteous, and benevolent good pleasure. He has always chosen as he pleased, and he has always pleased consistently with the per- fection of his nature.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "68", "sort_key": 68, "group": "Chapter X", "question": "In  ivhat  sense  are  the  decrees  of  God  sovereign?", "answer": "They are sovereign in the sense that while they determine absolutely Avhatever occurs without God, their whole reason and motive is within the divine nature, and they are neither suggested nor occasioned by, nor conditioned upon any thing Avhatsoever without him. 18. What is the distinction hetiveen absolute and conditional decrees ? An absolute decree is one which, while it may include con- ditions, is suspended upon no condition, i. e.. it makes the event decreed, of whatever kind, whether of mechanical necessity or of voluntary agency, certainly future, together Avith all the causes and conditions, of whatever nature, upon Avhich the event depends. A conditional decree is one which decrees that an event shall happen upon the condition that some other event, possi- ble but uncertain (not decreed), shall actually occur. The Socinians denied that the free actions of men, being intrinsically uncertain, are the objects of knowledge, and there- foi*e affirmed that they are not foreknown by God. They held that God decreed absolutely to create the human race, and NO COAWITIONAL DECREES. 207 after Adam sinned he decreed absolutely to save all repenting and believing sinners, yet that he decreed nothing concerning the sinning nor the salvation of individual men. I'he Arniinians, admitting that God certainl}' foreknows the acts of free agents as well as all other events, maintain that he absolutely decreed to create man, and foreseeing that man would sin he absolutely decreed to provide a salvation for all, and actually to save all that repent and believe, but that he conditionally decreed to save individual men on the condition, foreseen but not foreordained, of their faith and obedience. 19. What are the objections to attributing conditional decrees to God? Calvinists admit that the all-comprehensive decree of God determines all events according to their inherent nature, the actions of free agents as free, and the operation of necessary causes, necessarily. It also comprehends the whole system of causes and effects of every kind ; of the motives and conditions of free actions, as well as the necessary causes of necessary events. God decreed salvation upon the condition of faith, yet in the very same act he decreed the faith of those persons whose salvation he has determined. \"Whom he Aidi j'iredesti- nate, them he also called.'^ Thus his decree from the beginning embraced and provided for the free agency of man, as well as the regular procedures of nature, according to established laws. Thus also his covenants, or conditional promises, which he makes in time, are in all their parts the execution of his eter- nal purpose, which comprehended the promise, and the con- dition in their several places as means to the end. But that the decree of God can be regarded as suspended upon condi- tions which are not themselves determined by the decree is evidentl}^ impossible. 1st. This decree has been shown above (Questions 3-7) to be eternal and all-comprehensive. A condition implies liability to change. The whole universe forming one system, if one part is contingent the whole must be contingent, for if one condi- tion failed the whole concatenation of causes and effects would be deranged. If the Arminian should rejoin that although God did not foreordain the free acts of men, yet he infallibly fore- knew and provided for them, and therefore his plans can not fail; then the Calvinist replies that if God foresaw that a given man, in given circumstances, would act at a given juncture in a certain way, then God in decreeing to create that very man and place him in those very circumstances, at that very junc- tiire, did foreordain the certain futurition of that very event, and of all its consequences. That God's decree is immutable and 208 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. does not depend upon uncertain conditions, is proved (1) from its eternity, (2) from the direct assertions of Scripture. — Isa. xiv. 24, 27; xlvi. 10; Ps. xxxiii. 11; Prov. xix. 21; Rom. ix. 11; Eph. iii. 11. 2d. Tlie foreknowledge of God, as Arminians admit, is eter- nal and certain, and embraces all events, free as well as neces- sary. But, (1) as shown in the preceding paragraph, this foreknowledge involves foreordination, and (2) certainty in the foreknowledge implies certainty in the event; certainty implies determination; determination leaves us to choose be- tween the decree of an infinitely wise, righteous, and benevo- lent God, and a blind fate. 3d. A conditional decree would subvert the sovereignty of God and make him, as to the administration of his whole gov- ernment and the execution of all his plans, dependent upon the uncontrollable actions of his own creatures. But the decrees of God are sovereign. — Isa. xl. 13, 14; Dan. iv. 35; Rom. ix. 15-18. 4th. His decree is declared to depend upon his own \" good pleasure,\" and the \"counsel of his own will.\" — Eph. i. 5, 11; Rom. ix. 11; Matt. xi. 25, 26. 5th. The decree of God includes the means and conditions. 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. i. 4. 6th. His decree absolutely determines the free actions of men. — Acts iv. 27, 28 ; Eph. ii. 10. 7th. God himself works in his people that faith and obedi- ence which are called the conditions of their salvation. — Phil, ii. 13; Eph. ii. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 25. 20. How far are tM decrees of God efficacious and how far 2')ermissive ? All the decrees of God are equally efficacious in the sense that they all infallibly determine the certain futurition of the event decreed. Theologians, however, classify the decrees of God thus: 1st. As efficacious in as far as they respect those events which he has determined to effect through necessary causes, or in his own immediate agency. 2d. As permissive, as far as they respect those events which he has determined to allow dependent free agents to effect. 21. Hoio may it be 2)roved that the decree of God renders the event certain ? 1st. From the nature of the decree itself as sovereign and unchangeable (see above). 2d. From the essential nature of God in his relation to his creation, as an iiihnitely wise and powerful sovereign. 3d. The foreknowledge of God regards future events as cer- DIFFERS FROM DOCTRINE OF FATE. 209 tain. Tlie ground of this certainty must be either in God, or in the events themselves, Avhich last is fatalism. 4th. The Scriptures ascribe a certainty of futurition to the events decreed. There is a needs-be that the event should happen \"as it was determined.\" — Luke xviii. 31-33; xxiv. 46; Acts ii. 23; xiii. 29; 1 Cor. xi. 19; Matt. xvi. 21. 22. Hoio does this doctrine, that Gods universal decree renders the occurrence of all future events certain, differ from the ancient doctrine of faith ? The Calvinistic doctrine of Decrees agrees with Fatalism only at one point, i. e., in maintaining that the events in ques- tion are certainly future. But the Arminian doctrine of divine foreknowledge does precisely the same thing. In every other point our doctrine differs from the heathen doctrine of Fate. Fatalism supposes all events to be certainly determined by a universal law of necessary causation, acting blindly and by a simple unintelligent force effecting its end irresistil)ly and irre- spective of the free wills of the free agents involved. There Avas no room left for final ends or purposes, no place for motive or choice, no means or conditions, but a simple evolution of necessity. On the other hand the Calvinistic doctrine of Decrees postu- lates the infinite all-comprehensive plan of an infinitely wise, righteous, poAverful, and benevolent Father, Avhose plan is de- termined not by mere will, but according to the '\"'' counsel of his will,'' securing the best ends, and adopting the best means in order to attain those ends — and whose plan is not executed by mere force, but through the instrumentality of all classes of second causes, free as well as necessary, each pre-adapted to its place and function, and each acting without constraint accord- ing to its nature. There is an infinite difference between a machine and a man, between the operation of motives, intelligence, free choice, and the mechanical forces which act upon matter. There is pre- cisely the same difference between the system of divine decrees, and the heathen doctrine of fate. 23. What objection to this doctrine of tinconditioncd decrees is derived from the ad.mitted fact of mans free agency ? Objection. — Foreknowledge implies the certainty of the event. The decree of God implies that he has determined it to be certain. But that he has determined' it to be certain implies, upon the part of God, an efficient agency in bringing about that event which is inconsistent Avith the free agency of man. 210 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. \"We answer: It is evidently only the execution of tlie decree, and not the decree itself, which can interfere with the free agency of man. On the general subject of the method in wliich God executes his decrees, see below, the chapters on Providence, Effectual Calling, and Regeneration. We have here room only for the following general statement: 1st. The Scriptures attribute all that is good in man to God; these \" he works in us both to will and to do of his good pleas- ure.\" All the sins which men commit tlie Scriptures attribute wholly to the man himself. Yet God's permissive decree does truly determine the certain futurition of the act; because God knowing certainly that the man in question would in the given circumstances so act, did place that very man in precisely those circumstances that he should so act. But in neither case, whether in working the good in us, or in placing us where we will certainly do the wrong, does God in executing his purpose ever violate or restrict the pei-fect freedom of the agent. 2d. We have the fact distinctly revealed that God has de- creed the free acts of men, and yet that the actors were none the less responsible, and consequently none the less free in their acts. — Acts ii. 23; iii. 18; iv. 27, 28; Gen. 1. 20, etc. We never can understand lioiu the infinite God acts upon the finite spirit of man, but it is none the less our duty to believe. 3d. According to that theory of the will which makes the freedom of man to consist in the liberty of indifference, i. e., that the will acts in every case of choice in a state of perfect equi- librium equally independent of all motives for or against, and just as free to choose in opposition to all desires as in harmony with them, it is evident that the very essence of liberty consists in uncertainty. If this be the true theory of the will, God could not execute his decrees without violating the liberty of the agent, aiid certain foreknowdedge would be impossible. But as shown below, in Chapter XV., the true theory of the will is that the liberty of the agent consists in his acting in each case as, upon the whole, he pleases, i. e., according to the dispositions and desires of his heart, under the immediate view which his reason takes of the case. These dispositions and desires are determined in their turn by the character of the agent in relation to his circumstances, which character and circumstances are surely not beyond the control of the infinite God. 24. What is meant hy those icho teach that God is the atdhor of sin ? Many reasoners of a Pantheistic tendency, e. g., Dr. Emmons, maintain that as God is infinite in sovereignty, and by his de- DOES NOT MAKE GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN. 211 cree determines, so by his providence lie effects every thing which comes to pass, so that he is actually the only real agent in the universe. Still they religiously hold that God is an in- finitely holy agent in eftectiiig that which, producedyVom God, is righteous, but, produced in us, is sin.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "69", "sort_key": 69, "group": "Chapter X", "question": "Hoio  may  it  he  shown  that  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin?", "answer": "The admission of sin into the creation of an infinitely Avise, powerful, and holy God is a great mystery, of which no explana- tion can be given. But that God can not be the author of sin is proved — 1st. From the nature of sin, which is, as to its essence, avo/.a'a, want of conformity to law, and disobedience to the Lawgiver. 2d. From the nature of God, who is as to essence holy, and in the administration of his kingdom always forbids and pun- ishes sin. 3d. From the nature of man, who is a responsible free agent who originates his own acts. The Scriptures always attribute to divine grace the good actions, and to the evil heart the sinful actions of men. 26. Hoio may it he shown that the doctrine of unconditional decrees does not rejiresent God as the author of sin? The whole difficulty lies in the awful fact that sin exists. If God foresaw it and yet created the agent, and placed him in the very circumstances under which he did foresee the sin Avould be committed, then he did predetermine it. If he did not fore- see it, or, foreseeing it, could not prevent it, then he is not infinite in knowledge and in power, but is surprised and pre- vented by his creatures. The doctrine of iniconditional decrees presents no special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing that the sin shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and not as by any form of co-action causing, nor by any form of temptation inducing, him to sin. 27. What is the ohjection to this doctrine derived from the use of means ? This is the most common form of objection in the mouths of ignorant and irreligious people. If an immutable decree makes all future events certain, ''if ivhat is to be, will he,'' then it follows that no means upon our part can avoid the result, nor can anj^ means be necessary to secure it. Hence as the use of means is commanded by God, and instinctively natural to man, since many events have been effected by their use, and many more in the future evidently 212 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. depend upon tliem, it follows that God has not rendered certain any of those events which depend upon the use of means on the part of men.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "70", "sort_key": 70, "group": "Chapter X", "question": "Wliat  is  the  ground  upon  luhich  the  use  of  means  is  founded?", "answer": "This use is founded upon the command of God, and upon that fitness in the means to secure the end desired, which our instincts, our intelligence, and our experience disclose to us. But neither the fitness nor the efiiciency of the means to se- cure the end, reside inherently and independently in the means themselves, but were originally established and are now sus- tained by God himself; and in the Avorking of all means God always presides and directs providentially. This is necessarily involved in any Cliristian theory of Providence, although we can never explicate the relative action (concursus) of God on man, the infinite upon the finite. 29. Hoiv may it he sJioivn that the doctrine of decrees does not afford a rational ground of discovragement in the use of means ? This difficulty (stated above, Question 27) rests entirely in a habit of isolating one part of God's eternal decree from the whole (see Question 7), and in confounding the Christian doc- trine of decrees with the heathen doctrine of fate (see Ques. 22.) But when God decreed an event he made it certainly future, not as isolated from other events, or as independent of all means and agents, but as dependent upon means and upon agents freely using those means. The same decree which makes the event certain, also determines the mode by which it shall be effected, and comprehends the means with the ends. This eternal, all-comprehensive act embraces all exist- ence through all duration, and all space as one system, and at once provides for the whole in all its parts, and for all the parts in all their relations to one another and to the whole. An event, therefore, may be certain in respect to God's decree and foreknowledge, and at the same time truly contingent in tlie apprehension of man, and in its relation to the means upon which it depends. 30. What are the distinctions to he home in mind hetioeen the ohjections to the proof of a doctrine, and ohjections to the doctrine when proved ? Reasonable objections to the evidence. Scriptural or other- wise, upon which the claims of any doctrine is based, are evi- dently legitimate. These objections against the proof estab- lishing the truth of the doctrine ought always to be allowed their full weight. But when once the doctrine has been proved PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE. 213 to be taught in Scripture objections levelled against lY, obviously have no weight at all until they amount to a sufficient force to prove that the Scriptures themselves are not the word of God. Before they reach that measure, objectiojis levelled against the doctrine itself, which do not affect the evidence upon which it rests (and most of the objections to the Calvinistic doctrine of Decrees are of this order) oiily illustrate the obvious truth that the finite mind of man can not fully comprehend the matters partially revealed and partially concealed in the word of God.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "71", "sort_key": 71, "group": "Chapter X", "question": "What  are  tlm  proper  practical  effects  of  this  doctriiie  ?", "answer": "Humility, in view of the infinite greatness and sovereignty of God, and of the dependence of man. Confidence and im- plicit reliance upon the wisdom, righteousness, goodness, and immutability of God's purposes, and cheerful obedience to his commandments; always remembering that God's precepts, as distinctly revealed, and not his decrees, are the rule of our duty.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "72", "sort_key": 72, "group": "Chapter XI", "question": "To  lohom  is  election  referred  in  the  Scriptures  ?", "answer": "The eternal decree, as a whole, and in all its parts, is doubt- less the concurrent act of all the three persons of the Trinity, in their perfect oneness of counsel and will. But in the economy of salvation, as revealed to us, the act of sovereign election is specially attributed to the Father, as his personal part, even as redemption is attributed to the Son, and sanctification to the Spirit. — John xvii. 6, 9; vi. 64, 65; 1 Thess. V. 9. 6. State that theory of Predestination designated hy its advo- cates the \"Theory of National Election.\" This is the theory that the only election spoken of in the Bible concerning the salvation of men consists of the divine pre- destination of communities and nations to the knowledge of the true religion and the external privileges of the gospel. This 216 * PREDESTINATION. form of election, which nndoubtedly represents a great gospel fact, is eminently illustrated in the case of the Jews. This is the view advocated by Archbishop Sumner in his work on \"Apostolic Preaching,\" quoted b}^ Dr. Cunningham. 7. Staie the theory styled hy its advocates the '■'Theory of Ecclesi- astical Inclividucdism.\" The view advocated by Mr. Stanley Faber in his \" Primi- tive Doctrine of Election,\" and by Archbishop Whately in his \"Essays on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of the Apostle Paul,\" and others, is styled the doctrine of \"Ecclesias- tical Individualism,\" and it involves the affirmation that God predetermines the relation of individual men to the outward church and the means of grace. Thus by birth and subsequent providences he casts the lot of some men in the most favorable, and of others in the least favorable circumstances.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "73", "sort_key": 73, "group": "Chapter XI", "question": "What  is  the  Armirdan  doctrine  of  election  ?", "answer": "The Arminians admit the foreknowledge of God, but they deny his absolute foreordination as it relates to the salvation of individuals. Their distinguishing doctrine is that God did not eternally make choice of certain persons and ordain their salvation, but that he made choice of certain characters, as holi- ness and faith and perseverance; or of certain classes of men who possess those characters, e. g., believers who persevere imto the end. Since they admit that God foreknows from eternity with absolute certainty precisely what individuals will repent and believe and persevere therein to the end, it follows that their doctrine admits of the statement that God eternally predesti- nated certain persons, who he foresaw would repent and be- lieve and persevere to life and salvation, on the ground of that faith and perseverance thus foreseen. 9. Point out tlue several principles in lohich the above-mentioned views agree and 'wherein they differ. The theories of \" National Election \" and of \" Ecclesiastical Individualism,\" both teach universally admitted facts, namely that God does predestinate individuals and communities and nations to the external privileges of the gospel and the use of the means of grace. This neither any Arminian nor any Cal- vinist will deny. But these theories are both vicious and both identical with the Arminian theory, in that they deny that God unconditionally predestinates either the free actions or the ulti- mate salvation of individuals. They admit that he gives cer- DIFFERENT THEORIES CONTRASTED' 217 tain men a better chance tlian others, but hold that each man's ultimate fate is not determined by God's decree, but left de- pendent upon the free wills of the men themselves. Neverthe- less, while these theories are all consistently Arminian in fun- damental principle, yet they differ in the manner in which they attempt to bring the Scriptures concerned into harmony witii that system. These theories differ among themselves as to the obje-ds, the ends, and the grounds of this election. As to the objects of the election spoken of in Scripture, the Armin- ian, the Calvinistic, and \"Ecclesiastical Individualism\" theories agree in making them individuals. The theory of \" National Election \" makes them nations or communities. As to the end of this election the Calvinistic and Arminian theories make it the eternal salvation of the individuals elected. The theories of \"National Election\" and of \"Ecclesiastical Individualism\" make it admission to the privilege of the means of grace. As to the ground of this election spoken of in the Scripture, ad- vocates of the Calvinistic, the \"National Election,\" and the \" Ecclesiastical Individualism \" theories agree in making it the sovereign good pleasure of God, while the Arminians hold it is conditioned upon the faith, repentance, and perseverance certainly foreseen in each individual case. It is obvious that the Calvinistic Doctrine of Decrees in- cludes the absolute election of both individuals and of commu- nities and nations to the use of the means of grace and the external advantages of the Church. It is also obvious that the admission of the principle of absolute election, as far as this, must be made by all Arminians as well as Calvinists, and hence this admission alone does not discriminate between the two great contesting systems. The only question which touches the true matter in debate is. What is the ground of the eternal predestination of individuals to salvation ? Is it the foreseen faith and repentance of the individuals themselves, or the sovereign good pleasure of God ? Every Christian must take one side or the other of this question. If he takes the side which makes foreseen faith the ground, he is an Arminian no matter what else he holds. If he takes the side which makes the good pleasure of God the ground, he is a Calvinist. This division among themselves, and this alternate agree- ment with and difference from the Calvinistic positions on this subject, is a very suggestive illustration of the extreme diffi- culty the advocates of Arminian principles have in accommo- dating the words of Scripture to their doctrine. In a polemic point of view the Calvinists have the capital advantage of being able to divide their opponents, and to refute them in detail. 218 PREDESTINA TION. 10. State tlie three points involved in the Calvinistic doctrine on this subject. Calviiiists hold, as shown in the preceding chapter, that God's Decrees are absohite and relate to all classes of events whatsoever. They therefore maintain that while nations, com- munities, and individuals are predestined absolutely to all of ever}^ kind of good and bad that befalls them, nevertheless the Scriptures teacii specifically an election (1) of individuals, (2) to grace and salvation, (3) founded not upon the foreseen faith of the persons elected, but upon the sovereign good pleasure of God alone. 11. State the P resnmjjtion of the truth of the above arising from the fact that impartial infidel and rationcdistic interpreters admit that the letter of the Scriptures can be interpreted only in a Cal- vinistic sense. Besides the presumption in favor of Calvinism arising from the fact above stated, that anti-Calvinistic interpreters of the Scripture are reduced to all kinds of various hypotheses in order to avoid the obvious force of the Scriptural testimony upon the subject, we now cite the additional presumption, arising from the fact that rationalists and infidels generally, who agree with Arminians in their intense opposition to Calvinistic Principles, yet not being restrained by faith in the inspiration of the Bible, are frank enough to confess that the Book can be fairly inter- preted oidy in a Calvinistic sense. This is thus the impartial testimony of an enemy. Wegscheider in his '■'•Institutiones TJie- olof/ice Christiana' Boffmatica','' Pt. III., Ch. iii., § 145,* the high- est authority as to the results of German Rationalists in Dog- matic theology, says that the passages in question do teach Calvinistic doctrine, but that Paul was misled by the crude and erroneous notions prevalent in that age, and especially by the narrow spirit of Jewish particularism. See also Gibbon's \" Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\" Chapter xxxiii., Note 31. — \"Perhaps a reasoner still more independent may smile in his turn, when he peruses an Arminian Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.\" 12. Prove from Scripture that the subjects of election are indi- viduals and that the end of election is eternal life. 1st. They are always spoken of as individuals, and the elec- tion of whicli they are tiie subjects is always set forth as having grace or glory as its end. — Acts xiii. 48; Eph. i. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13. 2d. The elect are in Scripture explicitly distiiiguished from the * Dr. Wm. Cuuuingliam, \"Hist. Theo.,\" Vol. II., j). 4G3. THE DOCTRINE PROVED. 219 mass of the visible Church, and hence their election could not have been merely to the external privileges of that Churcii. — Rom. xi. 7. 3d, The names of the elect are said \" to be written in heaven\" and to be in \"the book of life.\" — Heb. xii. 23; Phil. iv. 3. 4th. The blessings which it is explicitly declared are secured by this election are gracious and saving, the}^ are the elements and results of salvation, inseparable from it, and pertain not to nations but to individuals as their subjects, e. r/., \"adoption of sons,\" \"to be conformed to the image of his Son,\" etc. — Rom. viii. 29; Eph. i. 5; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 9; Rom. ix. 15, 16. 13. Show tliat this election is not founded on ivorks tvhether foreseen or not. This follows — 1st. From the general doctrine of Decrees which has been established in the last chapter. If God's decrees relate to and determine ^11 events of every class, it follows that no undecreed events remain to condition his de- cree or any element thereof, and also that he has decreed faith and repentance as well as the salvation which is conditioned upon them. 2d. It is expressly declared in Scripture that this election is not conditioned upon works of any kind. — Rom. xi. 4-7 ; 2 Tim. i. 9; Rom. ix. 11. 14. Shoio that in Scripture it is hahituaVy declared, to he founded on \" tlic good pleasure of God\" and \" the counsel of his oivn loill.\" Eph. i. 5-11; 2 Tim. i. 9; John xv. 16, 19; Matt. xi. 25, 26; Rom. ix. 10-18. 15. State the argument derived from the fact that ^\\fcdth\" \" re- pentance,\" and ^'■evangelical obedience\" are said to he the fruits of the Election. It is self-evident that the same actions can not be both the grounds upon which election rests, and the fruits in whicii that election is designed to result. Since the Bible teaches that \"faith,\" \"repentance,\" and \"evangelical obedience\" are the latter, they can not be the former. The Scriptures do so teach in Eph. i. 4. \"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world thcd loe should he holy, and without blame before him in love.\" — 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. ii. 10. 16. The same from the fact that faith and repentance are said to be the gifts of God. If faith and repentance are the \"gifts of God,\" then a man's possessing them results from God's act. If it results from God's 220 PREDESTINATION. act it must result from his eternal purpose. If they be the re- sults of his purpose, they can not be the conditions upon which that purpose is suspended. They are affirmed to be the \" gifts of God \" in Eph. ii. 8 ; Acts v. 3i ; 1 Cor. iv. 7. 17. State tlie argument derived from what tJie Scriptures teach as to the nature and extent of innate depravity and inability. The teaching of Scripture on these heads will be found stated and established in Chapters XIX. and XX. Now if men are born into the world with an antecedent prevailing tendency in their nature to sin, and they are ever, until regen- erated by the Spirit of God, totally and inalienably averse to and incapable of all good, it follows that unregenerate human nature is incapable either of tending to or of perfecting faith and repentance as the conditions required. If election is con- ditioned upon faith and repentance, then the man must produce his own faith and repentance, or help to produce them. But if human nature can neither produce nor iielp to produce them, it follows either that no man can be elected, or that faith and repentance can not be the condition of election. 18. Stcde the same from what the Scriptures teach of the nature and necessity of regeneration. In Chapter XXIX. it will be proved that the Scriptures teach (1) that regeneration is an act of God; (2) that with respect to that act the soul is passive ; (3) that it is absolutely necessary in the case of every living man. Hence it follows that if it be in no sense man's work, but in every sense God's act alone, it can not be the condition upon which God's purpose is suspended, but an event determined by that purpose. 19. Show that the Scriptures teach that all the elect believe, and that ONLY the elect believe. All the elect believe.— John x. 16, 27-29; John vi. 37-39; John xvii. 2, 9, 24. And only the elect believe. — John x. 26. And those who believe do so because they are elect. — Acts xiii. 48, and ii. 47. 20. What argument is to be drawn fro^n the fact that all evan- geliccd Christians of every theological school express the sentiments proper to the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election in aU their prayers and hymns ? That form of doctrine must be false which can not be con- sistently embodied in personal religious experience and in devo- tion. That form of doctrine must be true which all Christians of all theoretical opinions always find themselves obliged to THE DOCTRINE PROVED. 221 express when they come to commune with God. Now all the psalms arid hymns and prayers, written and spontaneous, of all evangelical Christians, embody the principles and breathe the spirit of Calvinism. They all pray God to make men repent and believe, to come to and to receive the Savioin-. If God gives all men common and sufficient grace, and if the reason why one man repents, is that he makes good use of that grace, and the reason another does not believe, is that he does not use that grace, if the only cause of difference is in the men, it follows that we ought to pray men to convert themselves, i. e., to make themselves to differ. Bat all agree in asking God to save us, and in giving him all the thanks when it is done. 21. Sliow that Paul must have held our position on this subject from the nature of the objections made against his doctrine, and from the ansiuers he gave them. Paul's doctrine is identical with the Calvinistic view. 1st. Because he expressly teaches it. 2d. Because the objections he notices as brought against his doctrine are the same as those brought against ours. The design of the whole passage is to prove God's sovereign right to cast off the Jews as a peculiar people, and to call all men indiscriminately by the gospel. This, he argues, 1st, that God's ancient promises embraced not the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but the spir- itual seed. 2d. That \" God is perfectly sovereign in the distri- bution of his favors.\" But against this doctrine of divine sovereignty two objec- tions are introduced and answered by Paul. 1st. It is unjust. for God thus of his mere good pleasure to show mercy to one and to reject another, v. 14. This precise objection is made against our doctrine at the present time also. \" It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as more false, more cruel, and more unjust.\" — \" Methodist Doc- trinal Tracts,\" pp. 170, 171. This Paul answers by two argu- ments. (1.) God claims the right, \"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.\" — Rom. ix. 15, 16. (2.) God in his provi- dence exercises the right, as in the case of Pharaoh, vs. 17, 18. 2d. The second objection is that this doctrine is inconsistent with the liberty and accountability of men. This would be an absurd objection to bring against Paul's doctrine if he were an Arminian, but it is brought every day by Arminians against our doctrine. Paul answers this objection by condescending to no appeal to human reason, but simply (1) by asserting God's sovereignty as Creator, and man's dependence as creature, and (2) by as- serting the just exposure of all men alike to wrath as sinners, 222 PREDESTINA TION. VS. 20-24. — See Analysis of chap. ix. 6-24, in Hodge's \" Com. on Romans.\" 22. Discriminate accurately the tivo elements involved in the doctrine of Reprohation. Eeprobation is the aspect which God's eternal decree pre- sents in its relation to that portion of the human race which shall lie finally condemned for their sins. It is, 1st, negative, inasmuch as it consists in passing over these, and refusing to elect them to life; and, 2d, positive, in- asmuch as they are condemned to eternal misery. In respect to its negative element, reprobation is simply sovereign, since those passed over were no worse than those elected, and the simple reason both for the choosing and for the passing over was the sovereign good pleasure of God. In respect to its positive element, reprobation is not sover- eign, but simply judicial, because God inflicts misery in any case only as the righteous punishment of sin. \" The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable coun- sel of his own will, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath /or their sins. — \" Con. Faith,\" Chap, iii., Sec. 7. 23. Sltoio that these positions are necessarily involved in the general doctrine of Decrees and in the special doctrine of the election of ,some men to eterncd life. As above stated, this doctrine of reprobation is self-evidently an inseparable element of the doctrines of decrees and of elec- tion. If God unconditionally elects whom he pleases, he must unconditionall}'' leave whom he pleases to themselves. He must foreordain the non-believing, as well as the believing, although the events themselves are brought to pass by very different causes. 24. Prove thcd it is taught in Scripture. Rom. ix. 18, 21 ; 1 Pet. ii. 8; Jude 4; Rev. xiii. 8. \" I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes, even so, Fathei', for so it seemeth good in thy sight.\" — Matt. xi. 25. \"Ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep.\" — John x. 26. 25. Shoiv that the same objection was made against PauVs doc- trine thcd is made against ours. \"Why doth he yet find fault?\" If he has not given gra- cious ability to obey, how can he command? — See also \"Metho- dist Doctrinal Tracts,\" p. 171. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 223 The apostle answers by showing, 1st (verses 20, 21), that God is under no obligation to extend his grace to all or to any; and, 2d, that the \" vessels of wrath \" were condemned for their own sins, to manifest God's just wrath, while the \" vessels of mercy \" were chosen not for any good in them, but to manifest his glorious grace (verses 22, 23). 26. Show the identity of PauTs doctrine with ours from the illustrations he uses in the ninth chapter of Romans. \" Hath not the potter power (iloucJ/a) over the day of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dis- honor, V. 21. Here the whole point of the illustration lies in the fact that there is no difference in the clay — it is day of the same lump — the sole difference is made by the will of the pot- ter. In the case of Esau and Jacob, the very point is that one is just as good as the other — that there is no difference in the children — but that the whole difference is made by the \"pur- pose of God according to election \" — \" for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of ivorks, but of him that collet h,'' V. 11.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "74", "sort_key": 74, "group": "Chapter XI", "question": "In  ivhat  sense  is  God  said  to  harden  men?", "answer": "See Rom. ix. 18, and John xii. 40. This is doubtless a judicial act wherein God \"\\jdthdraws from sinful men, whom he lias not elected to life, for the just pun- ishment of their sins, all gracious influences, and leaves them to the unrestrained tendencies of their own hearts, and to the uncounteracted influences of the world and the devil. 28. Stcde the objection brought against the Ccdvinistic doctrine of election on the ground that it is inconsistent tvith Justice. It is maintained that if God by a sovereign unconditional decree determines to pass by some nien, and to withhold from them the grace necessary to enable them to repent and believe in Christ, it is unjust in God to hold them accountable, and to punish them for tiieir want of faith. 29. State the fundamental vieiv tvhich necessarily underlies all Arminianism as to the relation which the remedied ivork of Christ sustains to the justice of God, and as to the relation ivhich the human race by nature sustains to the divine government. When the Arminian system is sifted to its fundamental principles, it is found to rest upon the postulate that the gift of Christ is a necessary compensation to the human race for the evils brought upon it for the sin of Adam. It is admitted that 224 PREDESTINATION. the sin of Adam was the cause of his whole race becoming sinners, and that every one of his descendants comes into the worhl with a nature so far depraved as to be morally incapable of loving God and disposed to evil. But they maintain that men are by nature in the first instance not responsible for their moral condition, since it comes upon them each at his birth, antecedent to all personal action They hold, therefore, that man can not be punished for original sin, nor could any man ever be held responsible for any act of disobedience springing as an inevitable consequence out of that original depravity, if God had not through Christ provided a remedy, giving to each man gracious ability to do all that is required of him as the condition of his salvation. This redemption and gracious ability to believe and obey God owes to all men, and they are necessary to render any man responsible and punishable for his sins, since thus alone is he, as far as this class of exercises go, endowed with the power of contrary choice. Dr. D. D. Whedon, in the \" Bibliotheca Sacra,\" April, 1862, p. 257. — \" It is not then until there is redemptively conferred upon man what we call a gracious ability for the right, that man can be strictly responsible for the wrong.\" He says, p. 254, that after Adam sinned the only alternatives open to God in con- sistency with justice were either, 1st, to send Adam and Eve to perdition before they had children, or, 2d, to allow him to prop- agate his kind under the antecedent disabilities of sin, and provide a redemptive system for all. He distinguishes between guilt or moral responsibility for character and moral corruption of nature. Under the con- ditions of pure nature, he teaches that only Adam and Eve were responsible, as well as corrupt, because they, having been created morally free, voluntarily made themselves vile by their own act. On the other hand their descendants are all morally polluted and spiritually dead, because they inherit corrupt na- tures from Adam; but they are not guilty, neither responsible for their birth sin nor for any of its consequences, because it was determined inevitably by an act not their own. In the actual state of things consequent to the gift of Christ every man is responsible because every man has sufficient grace. Hence it follows — 1st. That the provision of redemption Avas not a work of infinite free grace, but a mere act of justice in compensation for evils brought upon our nature by Adam. 2d. That this is owed equally to each and every man with- out exception. \"I reject,\" says John Wesley, \"Methodist Doc. Tracts,\" pp. 25, 26, \"the assertion that God might justly have passed by me and all men, as a bold, precarioiis assertion, utterly unsupported by Holy Scripture.\" 3d. It follows also SALVATION IS OF GRACE. 225 that the gracious help of the Holy Ghost is just as necessary to render men responsible sinners as to bring them to salva- tion. 4th. It follows that grace sends men to hell, as well as takes them to heaven, and that it has done far more of the former than of the latter work. 30. 81\\oio tliat their position here is absolutely inconsistent ivith lohat the Scriptures and the entire Christian Church teach of the nature and necessity of the Satisfaction made to divine justice by Christ. It will be shown under Chap. XXV., that the Scriptures teach, the entire Church being witness, that in order to the salvation of man, a lull satisfaction to the inalienable principle of justice essential to the Divine nature was absolutely necessary. So that if God's justice is not satisfied, grace can not be shown to any man. \"^lliis would be absurd if men were not antece- dently responsible for the sins for which it is necessary that they should make satisfaction. What is the sense of a '^Hedemptively conferred gracious ability\" respecting parties who have forfeited nothing because they are responsible for nothing? In their case is not both \"redemption\" and \"grace\" an impertinence? 31. Prove from Scripture that salvation is of grace. Grace is free, undeserved favor showed to the undeserving. If redemption is a debt owed to all men, or if it be a compen- sation prerequisite to their accountability, then it can not be a gratuity, and the gift of Christ can not be an eminent expres- sion of God's free favor and love. It can only be an expression of his rectitude. But the Scriptures declare that the gift of Christ is an un- paralleled expression of free love, and that salvation is of grace. Lam. iii. 22; John iii. 16; Rom. iii. 24; xi. 5, 6; 1 Cor. iv. 7; XV. 10; Eph. i. 5, 6; ii. 4-10, etc. And every true Christian recognizes the essential graciousness of salvation as an insep- arable element of his experience. Hence the doxologies of heaven.— 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Rev. v. 8-14. But if salvation is of grace, then it is obviously consistent with God's justice for him to save all, many, few, or none, just as he pleases. 32. Shoio that the objection that unconditioned election is incon- sistent ivith the justice of God is ctbsurd and antichristian. Justice necessarily holds all sinners alike destitute of all claims upon God's favor. It is unjust to justify the unjust. It would be inconsistent with righteousness for a sinful man to claim, or for God to grant, salvation to anv one as his due. 15 226 PREDESTINATION. Otherwise the condemning sentence of conscience is denied, and the cross of Christ made of none effect. On the very gronnds of justice itself, therefore, salvation must be of grace, and it must rest upon the sovereign option of God himself whether he provides salvation for few, many, or for none. The salvation of none is consistent with justice, or the sacrifice of Christ was a payment of debt not a grace. And the salvation of one undeserving sinner obviously can lay no foundation upon which the salvation of another can be demanded as a right. 33. State and refute the ohjection that our doctrine is inconsistent with the rectitude of God as an impartial ruler. Arminians often argue that reason teaches us to expect the great omnipotent Creator and Sovereign of all men to be im- partial in his treatment of individuals — to extend the same essential advantages and conditions of salvation to all alike. They argue also that this fair presumption of reason is reaf- firmed in the Scriptures, Avhich declare that God is \"no re- specter of persons.\" — Acts x. 34, and 1 Pet. i. 17. In the first- named passage this applies simply to the application of the gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews. In the second passage it is affirmed that in the judgment of human works God is abso- lutely impartial. The question as to election, however, is as to grace not as to judgment pronounced on works, and the Scriptures nowhere say that God is impartial in the commu- nication of his grace. On the other hand, the presumptions of reason and the texts of Scripture must be interpreted in a sense consistent with the palpable facts of human history and of God's daily providential dispensations. If it is unjust in principle for God to be partial in his distributions of spiritual good, it can be no less unjust for him to be partial in his distribution of temporal good. As a matter of fact, however, we find that God in the exercise of his absolute sovereignty makes the greatest possible distinc- tions among men from birth, and independently of their own merits in the allotments both of temporal good and of the es- sential means of salvation. One child is boi-n to health, honor, w^ealth, to the possession of a susceptible heart and conscience, and to all the best means of grace as his secure inheritance. Many others are born to disease, shame, poverty, an obtuse conscience and hardened heart, and absolute heathenish dark- ness and ignorance of Christ. If God may not be partial to indivitluals, why ma}' he be partial to nations, and how can his dealings with heathen nations and the children of the abandoned classes in the nominally Christian cities be ac- counted for? ' OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 227 Archbishop Whately gives this excellent word of Avarning to his Arininian friends: \"I wonld suggest a caution relative to a class of objections frequently urged against Calvinists drawn from the moral attributes of God. We should be very cautious how we employ such weapons as may recoil upon ourselves. It is a frightful but undeniable truth that midti- tudes, even in Christian countries, are born and brought up in such circumstances as afford them no probable, even no pos- sible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truths, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in superstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain; nay, why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suffered to grow up, he foresees, is Avhat no system of rehgion, natural or re- vealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for.\" — \" Essays on some of the Difficulties of St. Paul.\" Essay 3d, on Election. 34. Refute the ohjedion draivn/rom such passages as 1 Tim. ii. 4. \"Who will (SsXsi) all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.\" The word QeXsiv has two senses — (a) to be inclined to, to desire; {h) to purpose, to itdll In such connections as the above it is evident that it can not mean that God jimposes the salva- tion of all, because («) all are not saved, and none of God's purposes fail, and (/>) because it is affirmed that he ivills all to \"come to the knowledge of the truth\" in the same sense that he wills all to be saved — yet he has left the vast majority of men to be born and to live and to die, irrespective of their own agency, in heathenish darkness. Such passages simply assert the essential benevolence of God. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He does take great pleasure in the salvation of men. Yet as a matter of fact, in perfect consistency with his benevolence, for reasons sufficient, though not revealed to us, he has provided no redemption for lost angels, and no efficacious grace for the non-elect among mankind. These passages simply assert that, if it were not for these reasons, it would be agreeable to liis benevolent nature that all men should be saved. 35. Show that our doctrine does not discourage the iise of means. It is objected that if God from eternity has determined that one man is to be converted and saved and another is to be left to perish in his sins, there is no room left for the use of means. As John Wesley, in \"iNIethodist Doc. Tracts,\" falsely represents 228 PREDESTINATION. the doctrine of Toplady, \" There are suppose twenty men, ten are ordained to be saved do what they may, and ten are or- dained to be damned do what they can.\" This is an absurd as Avell as wicked caricature of the doctrine. 1st. The decree of election does not secure salvation without faith and holiness, but salvation through faith and holiness, the means being just as much decreed as the end. The Calvin- ist believes, as well as the Arminian, that every man who does evil will be damned, elect or non-elect. 2d. The doctrine of election does not presume that God con- strains men inconsistently with their freedom. The non-elect are simply let alone, to do as their own evil hearts prompt. The elect are made Avilling in the day of God's power. God works in them to ivill as well as to do of his good pleasure. To be made ivilling takes away no man's liberty. 3d. The decree of election only makes the repentance and faith of the elect certain. But the antecedent certainty of a free act is not inconsistent with its freedom, otherwise the certain foreknowledge of a free act would be impossible. The decree of election does not cause the faith, and it does not interfere with the agent in acting, and certainly it does not supersede the absolute necessity of it. 36. Hoiv far is assurance of our election possible, and on luhat grounds does such assurance rest ? An unwavering and certain assurance of the fact of our elec- tion is possible in this life, for whom God predestinates them he also calls, and whom he calls he justifies, and we know that whom he justifies, he also sanctifies. Thus the fruits of the Spirit prove sanctification, and sanctification proves effectual calling, and effectual calling election. — See 2 Pet. i. 5-10; 1 John ii. 3. Besides this evidence of our own gracious states and acts, we have the Spirit of adoption, who witnesseth with our spirits and seals us. — Rom. viii. 16, 17; Eph. iv. 30. In confirmation of this we have the example of the apostles (2 Tim. i. 12) and of many Christians. 37. Hoiv does this doctrine consist uith the general benevolence of God? The only difficulty at this point is to reconcile the general benevolence of God with the fact that he, being infinitel}'^ wise and powerful, should have admitted a system involving the sin, final impenitence, and consecpient damnation of any. But this difficulty presses equally upon both systems. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 229 The/acfe prove that God's general benevolence is not incon- sistent with his allowing some to be damned for their sins. This is all that reprobation means. Gratnitous election, or the positive choice of some does not rest npon God's general benev- olence, but upon his special love to his own. — John xvii. 6, 23; Rom. ix. 11-13; 1 Thess. v. 9.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "75", "sort_key": 75, "group": "Chapter XI", "question": "How  does  this  doctrine  consist  with  tJie  general  gospel  offer?", "answer": "In the general offers of the gospel God exhibits a salvation sufficient for and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered to every one without exception, and he unfolds all the motives of duty, hope, fear, etc., Avhich ought to induce every one to accept it, solenuily promising that whosoever comes in no wise shall be cast out. Nothing but a sinful unwillingness can pre- vent any one who hears the gospel from receiving and enjoy- ing it. The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition to that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect will come. The decree of election puts no barrier before men preventing them from accepting the gospel offer. Any man, elect or non-elect, will be saved if he accepts. The non-elect are left to act as they are freely determined by their own hearts. There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling God's certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the great majority of those to whom he offers and npon whom he presses, by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer; especially when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will certainly increase their guilt and misery. 39. Hoio can the doctrine of reprobation he reconciled with the holiness of God ? Reprobation leaves men in sin, and thus leads to the increase of sin throughout eternit3^ How then can God, in consistency with his holiness, form a purpose the designed effect of which is to leave men in sin, and thus lead inevitably to the increase of sin. But it is acknowledged by Arminians as well as Calvinists, that God did create the human race in spite of his certain fore- knowledge that sin would be largely occasioned thereby, and he did create individual men in spite of his certain foreknowl- edge that these very men would continue eternally to sin. The real difficulty lies in the insoluble problem of the permission of evil. \"Why is the existence of evil tolerated in the universe of an infinitely wise, righteous, merciful, and powerful God ? 230 PREDESTINA TION. The Avminians are as little able to answer that question as the Calvinist. 40. What is the jiractical hearing of this doctrine on Christian experience and conduct ? It must be remembered, 1st. That this truth is not inconsist- ent with, but is part of, tlie same gracious system with the equally certain principles of the moral liberty and responsi- bility of man, and the free offers of the gospel to all. 2d. That the sole rule of our duty is the commands, threatenings, and promises of God clearly expressed in the gospel, and not this decree of election, which he never reveals except in its conse- quents of effectual calling, faith, and holy living. When thus held, the doctrine of predestination — 1st. Exalts the majesty and absolute sovereignty of God, while it illustrates the riches of his free grace and his just dis- pleasure with sin. 2d. It enforces upon us the essential truth that salvation is entirely of grace. That no one can either complain, if passed over, or boast himself, if saved. 3d. It brings the inquirer to absolute self-despair, and the cordial embrace of the free offer of Christ, 4th. In the case of the believer, who has the witness in him- self, this doctrine at once deepens his humility, and elevates his confidence to the full assurance of hope. 41. State the true nature of the question discussed hy theologians concerning the order of the divine decrees. As we believe that the Decree of God is one single, eternal intention, there can not be an order of succession in his pur- poses either («) in time, as if one purpose actually preceded the other, or {b) in distinct deliberation or option on the part of God. The whole is one choice. Yet in Avilling the entire system God, of course, comprehended all the parts of the system Avilled in their several successions and relations. In like man- ner as a man by one act of mind recognizes a complicated machine with which he is familiar, and in the same act discrim- inates accurately tlie several parts, and comprehends their unity and relation in the system, and the design of the whole. — Dr. Charles Hodge's \" Lectures.\" The question, therefore, as to the Order of the Decrees is not a question as to the order of acts in God decreeing, but it is a question as to the true relation sus- tained by the several parts of the system which he decrees to one another. That is. What relation between Creation, Predes- tination, and Redemption did the one eternal purpose of God THE ORDER OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 231 establish ? AYliat do the Scriptures teach as to the purpose of God ill giving his Son, and as to the object and ground of elec- tion ? The ground and object of election has been fully con- sidered above. The design of God in the gift of Christ will be fully considered under Division IV. of Chapter XXV. 42. What is the Arminian theory as to the order of the decrees relatiruj to the human race? 1st. The decree to create man. 2d. ]\\Ian, as a moral agent, being fallible, and his will being essentially contingent, and his sin therefore being impreventible, God, foreseeing that man would certainly fall into the condemnation and pollution of sin, decreed to provide a free salvation through Christ for all men, and to provide sufficient means for the effectual application of that salvation to the case of all. 3d. He decreed absolutely that all believers in Christ should be saved, and all unbehev- ers reprobated for their sins. 4th. Foreseeing that certain individuals would repent and believe, and that certain other individuals would continue impenitent to the last, God from eternity elected to eternal life those whose faith he foresaw, on the condition of their faith, and reprobated those Avliom he foresaw would continue impenitent on the condition of that impenitence. 43. What is the vieio of this subject entertained by the French Protestant theologians., Camero, Amyraiit, and others ? These theological professors at Saumur, during the second quarter of the seventeenth centiu-y, taught that God — 1st. De- creed to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. To pro- vide, in the mediation of Christ, salvation for all men. 4th. But, foreseeing that if men were left to themselves none would re- pent and believe, therefore he sovereignly elected some to whom he decreed to give the necessary graces of repentance and faith.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "76", "sort_key": 76, "group": "Chapter XI", "question": "What  is  the  infra-Iapsarian  vieio  of  predestination?", "answer": "The infra-lapsarian {infra lapsum) theory of predestination, or the decree of predestination, viewed as subsequent in pur- pose to the decree permitting man to fall, represents man as created and fallen as the object of election. The order of the decrees then stand thus: 1st! The decree to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. The decree to elect certain men, outof the mass of the fallen and justly condemned race, to eternal life, and to pass others by, leaving them to the just consequences of their sins. 4th. The decree to provide salvation for the elect. 232 PREDESTINATIOX. This is the common view of the Eeformed Churches, confirmed alike by the svnod of dort and the westminster assembly.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "77", "sort_key": 77, "group": "Chapter XI", "question": "What  is  the  supra-lapsarian  tlieory  of  predestination  ?", "answer": "The term supra-lapsarian (supra lajjsum) designates that view of\" the various provisions of the divine decree in their logical relations whicli supposes that the ultimate end which God pro- posed to himself was his own glory in the salvation of some men and in the damnation of others, and that, as a means to that end, he decreed to create man, and to permit him to fall. According to this view, man simply as creatible, and fallible, and not as actually created or fallen, is the object of election and reprobation. The order of the decrees would then be — 1st. Of all possible men, God first decreed the salvation of some and the damnation of others, for the end of his own glory. 2d. He decreed, as a means to that end, to create those already elected or reprobated. 3d. He decreed to permit them to fall. 4th. He decreed to provide a salvation for the elect. This view was held by Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva, and by Gomarus, the great opponent of Arminius. 4(3. State the respective pioints of agreement and of difference between these several scJiemes. 1st. The Arminian as compared with the Calvinistic scheme. With the x\\rmiiiian the decree of redemption precedes the decree of election, which is conditioned upon the foreseen faith of the individual. W'ith the Calvinist, on the other hand, the decree of election precedes the decree of redemption, and the decree of election is conditioned upon the simple good pleasure of God alone. 2d. The French or Salmurian as compared with the legiti- mate view of the Eeformed Churches and with the Arminian view. The French view agrees with the Reformed and differs from the Arminian view in making the sovereign good pleasure of God the sole ground of election ; Avliile it differs from the Reformed and agrees with the Arminian in making the decree of redempti(jii precede the decree of election. 3d. The supra-lapsarian scheme as compared with the infra- lapsarian view prevalent among the Reformed Churches. The supra-lapsarian scheme makes the decree to elect some and reprobate others, precede the decree to create and to permit to fall. The infra-lapsarian view makes the decree of election come after the decree to create and permit to fall. The supra- lapsarian view regards man not as created and fallen, but sim- ply as creatible, the object of electicm and reprobation. The THE ORDER OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 233 infra-lapsarian view makes man as already created and fallen the only object of those decrees. 47. State the arguments agaiiist the SKpra-lajJsarian scheme. This scheme is unquestionably the most logical of all. It is postulated upon the principle, that what is last in execution is first in intention, wliich undoubtedly holds true in all splieres comprehended in human experience. Hence it is argued that if the final result of the whole matter is the glorification of God in the salvation of the elect and the perdition of the non- elect, it must have been the deliberate purpose of God from the beginning. But the case is too high and too vast for the a priori application and enforcement of the ordinary rules of human judgment; we can here only know in virtue of and within the limits of a positive revelation. The objections agauist this scheme are — 1st. Man creatible is a nonentity. He could not have been loved or chosen unless considered as created. 2d. The whole language of Scripture upon this subject im- plies that the \" elect \" are chosen as the objects of eternal love, not from the number of creatible, but from the mass of actually sinful men. — John xv. 19 ; Rom. xi. 5, 7. 3d. The Scriptures declare that the elect are chosen to sanc- tification, and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They must therefore have been regarded when chosen as guilty and defiled by sin.— 1 Pet. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 4-6. 4th. Predestination includes reprobation. This view repre- sents God as reprobating the non-elect by a sovereign act, with- out any respect to their sins, simply for his own glory. This appears to be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as well as with the teaching of Scripture. The non-elect are \" or- dained to dishonor and wrath /'or their sins, to the praise of his glorions justice. — \" Conf. Faith,\" ch. 3, sec. 3-7, \"L. Cat.,\" ques- tion 13; \"S. Cat.,\" question 20. 48. Slioiv that a. correct exegesis of Eph. iii. 9, 10, does not sup- port the supra-lapsarian vieiv. This passage is claimed as a direct affirmation of the supra- lapsarian theor}^ H\" tlie 'iya, introducing the tenth verse, refers to the immediately preceding clause, then the passage teaches tliat God created all things in order that his manifold wisdom might be displayed by the church to the angels. It is evident, however, that zVa, refers to the preceding phrase, in which Paul declares that he was ordained to preach tlie gospel to the Gentiles, and to enlighten all men as to the mystery of redemp- 234 PREDESTINATION. tion. All this he was commissioned to do, in order that God's glory might be displayed, etc. — See \" Hodge on Ephesians.\" 49. State the arguments against the French scheme.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "78", "sort_key": 78, "group": "Chapter XII", "question": "What  is  the  origin  of  the  Doctrine  of  Creation  ex  nihilo?", "answer": "The prevalency, if not the conception, of the idea of absohite creation, or of creation ex niliilo^ is to be referred to the influence of the inspired word of God. Anterior to revelation there were two prevalent causes which prevented the acceptance of this idea, (a.) The universally assumed truth of the axiom that ex nihilo nihil Jit. Hence all theists and atheists alike failed to conceive of, or conceiving repudiated, the idea of absolute creation as absurd, {h.) The second cause influencing theists was the presumed interest of natural theology, in the impossi- bility, on that hypothesis, of reconciling the existence of evil with the perfections of God. 2. What views were respectively held by the great theists Plato and Aristotle ? Plato held that there are two eternal, self-existent principles, God and matter, u/l^, which exist co-ordinately in an indivisi- ble, unsuccessive eternity ; that time and the actual phenomenal world which exists in time, are the work of God, who freely moulds matter into forms which image his own infinitely perfect and eternal ideas. Aristotle also held that God and matter are co-ordinately self-existent and eternal; but he differed from Plato in regarding God as eternally self-active in organizing the world out of matter, and consequently in regarding the uni- verse thus organized as eternal as well as the mere matter of which it is formed. — \"Ancient Phil,\" W. Archer Butler, Series 3, Lectures 1 and 2.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "79", "sort_key": 79, "group": "Chapter XII", "question": "What  vieivs  on  this  point  prevailed  among  the  Gnostics  ?", "answer": "Some of the Gnostics taught that the universe proceeds from God by way of emanation, which was explained as \"a necessary and gradual unfolding ad extra, of the germ of exist- ence that lay in God,\" as radiance proceeds from the sun, etc. Most of the Gnostics united with this theory of emanation the 238 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. doctrine of dualism, i. e., of the co-ordinate self-existence of two independent principles, God and matter (uA?/). From God by successive emanations proceeded the Ji^ons, the Demimgos, Creator of the world, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and finally Christ. The material universe springs from self-exist- ent matter, intrinsically evil, organized by the Demimgos. All soals have emanated from the world of light, but have become entangled in matter, hence the historical contest between good and evil, which Christ came to settle by giving power to souls ultimately to escape from the toils of matter. 4. What is the vieiv on this subject common to all schemes of Pantheism ? Pantheists identify God and the universe. God is the abso- lute being of which things are the special and transient modes. God is tlie self-existent and persistent principle of all things, which by an inherent self-acting law of development is eter- nally running through ceaseless cycles of change. 5. State the true doctrine as to creation. The Christian doctrine as to Creation involves the following points: 1st. \"In the beginning,\" at some unknown point of de- finite commencement in time. 2d. God called all things (that is the original principles and causes of all things) into being out of nothing. Thus every thing which has or will or can exist, exterior to the Godhead, owes its being and substance as well as its form to God. 3d. This creative act is an act of free, self-determined will. It was not a necessary constitutional act analogous to the immanent and eternal acts of the Generation of the Son or the Procession of the Holy Spirit. 4th. It was not necessary to complete the divine excellence or blessed- ness, which were eternal and complete and inseparable from the divine essence. But it was done in the exercise of abso- lute discretion for infinitely wise reasons. — Dr. Charles Hodge. This doctrine is essential to Theism. All opposing theories of the origin of the world are essentially Pantheistic or Atheistic. 6. What distinction is signalized by the terms Creatio prima seu immediata, and Creatio secunda seu mediata, and by ivhom ivas it introduced? The phrase Creatio prima seu immediata signifies the origi- nating act of the divine will whereby he brings, or has brought, into being, out of nothing, the principles and elementary es- sences of all things. The phrase Creatio secunda seu mediata signifies the subsequent act of God in originating different forms of things, and especially different species of living beings ABSOLUTE CREATION TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE. 239 out of the already created essences of things. The Christian Church holds both. These phrases originated in the Avritings of certain Lutheran theologians of the seventeenth century, e. (/., Gerhard, Quenstedt, etc. 7. What is the primary signification., and ivhat the biblical usage of the word X\"i3? \"1st. Strictly, To heii\\ cut out. 2d. To form, maJce, 2J'^'oduce (whether out of nothing or not). — Gen. i. 1, 21, 27; ii. 3, 4; Isa. xliii. 1, 7; xlv. 7; Ixv. 18; Ps. li. 12; Jer. xxxi. 22; Amos iv. 13. Niphal, 1st. To be created. — Gen. ii. 4; v. 2. 2d. To be born. — Ps. cii. 19; Ezek. xxi. 35. Piel, 1st. To Jieiv, cut down, e. g., a wood. Josh. xvii. 15, 18. 2d. To cid doion (with the sword), to kill. Ezek. xxiii. 47. 3d. To form, engrave, mark out. — Ezek. xxi. 24.\" Gesenius' \" Lex.\" 8. State the direct proof of the truth of this doctrine afforded in Scrip)ture. 1st. Since the idea itself is new, and foreign to all prece- dent modes of thought, it could be conveyed in Scripture only through the use of old terms, previously bearing a different sense, but so employed as to suggest a new meaning. The word \"barii,\" however, is the best one the Hebrew language afforded to express the idea of absolute making. 2d. This new idea is inevitably suggested by the way in wdiicli the term is first used by Moses, when giving accouiit from the very commencement of the genesis of the heavens and the earth. As a general introduction to the history of the formation of the world and its inhabitants, it is declared that \" In the beginning — in the absolute beginning, God made the heavens and the earth.\" Tliere is not the slightest hint given of any previously existing material. In the beginning God made the heavens and the eartli, after that Chaos existed, for then it is said \"the earth was without form and void,\" and the Spirit of God brooded over the abyss. 3d. The same truth is also inevitably suggested in all the various modes of expression by which the agency of God in originating the world is set forth in Scripture. In no case is there the faintest trace of any reference to any pre-existing materials or precedent conditions of creation. In every case the whole causal agency to which the creation is referred is tlie \" Word,\" the bare \" fiat \" of Jehovah. — Ps. xxxiii. 6 and cxlviii. 5. \"By faith we understand tliat the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen {za fiXETcoi-isi'a) wei'e not made of things which do appear (/(?/ en q)aivoju£'roov). — Heb. xi. 3. See Rom. iv. 17; 2 Cor. iv. 6. 240 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. 9. In what manner is tins doctrhm of the ahsohtte creation of the ivorld by God implied in Scripture ? 1st. In all those passages that teach that God is an absolute Sovereign, and that the creature is ahsoIufeJi/ dependent on him, \"in Avhom we live and move and have our being.\" — Acts xvii. 28; Neh. ix. 6; Col. i. 1(3; Eev. iv. 11; Kom. xi. 36; 1 Cor. viii. 6. Now it is evident that if the essences and primordial princi- ples of all things are not immediately created by God out of nothing, but are eternally self-existent independently of him, then he, in his offices of Creator and Providential governor of all things, must be conditioned and limited by the pre-existing essential properties and powers of those primordial elements. In Avhich case God would not be absolute Sovereign, nor the things made absolutely dependent upon his will. 2d. In all those passages which teach that the kosmos, the \"all things\" had a beginning. — Ps. xc. 2; John xvii. 5, 24. 10. Whcd arguments derived from reason and consciousness, and from the elementary constitution of mcdter, may be adduced in proof of absolute creation ? 1st. This doctrine alone is consistent with the feeling of absolute dependence of the creature upon the Creator, which is inherent in every heart, and which is inculcated in all the teach- ings of the Scriptures. It could not be said that \"he upholds all things by the word of his power,\" nor that \"we live and move and have our being in him,\" unless he be absolutely the Creator as well as the Former of all things. 2d. It is manifest from the testimony of consciousness: (1.) That our souls are distinct individual entities, and not parts or particles of God; (2.) that they are not eternal. It follows consequently that they were created. And if the crea- tion of the spirits of men ex nihilo be once admitted, t/here remains no special difficulty with respect to the absolute crea- tion of matter. 3d. Although the absolute origination of any new existence out of nothing is to us confessedly inconceivable, it is not one whit more so than the relation of the infinite foreknowledge, or foreordination, or providential control of God to the free agency of men, nor than many other truths which we are all forced to believe. 4th. After having a(hnitted the necessary self-existence of an infinitely wise and powerful personal Spirit, whose exist- ence, upon the hypothesis of his possessing the power of abso- lute creation, is sufficient to account for all the phenomena of . SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. 241 the universe, it is unphilosophical gratuitously to multiply causes by supposing the independent, eternal self-existence of matter also. 5th. When the physical philosopher has analyzed matter to its ultimate atoms, and determined their essential primary properties, he finds in them as strong evidence of a powerful antecedent cause, and of a wisely designing mind, as he does in the most complex organizations of nature; for what are the ultimate properties of matter but the elementary constituents of the universal laws of nature, and the ultimate conditions of all phenomena. If design discovered in the constitution of the universe as finished proves a divine Former, by equal right must the same design discovered in the elementary constitution of matter prove a divine Creator. Atoms were asserted by Sir John Herschell to have all the appearance of \"a manufactured article,\" on account of their uniformity. \"Whether or not the conception of a multitude of beings existing from all eternity is in itself self-contradictory, the con- ception becomes palpably absurd when we attribute a relation of quantitive equality to all those beings. We are then forced to look beyond them to some common cause, or common origin, to explain why this singular relation of equality exists . . . We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter can not be eternal and self-existent it must have been created.\" — Prof J. Clerk- Maxwell in Art. Atom, \" Encj^clo. Britannica,\" 9th ed. 11. State and refute the objection to this doctrine based upon the axiom, \" Ex nihilo nihil fit.\" It is objected that it is an original and self-evident princi- ple of reason, that only nothing can come from notliing. We answer that this statement is indefinite. If it is meant that no new thing, nor any change in a previously existing thing, can begin to be without an adequate cause, we aiiswer that it is true, but does not apply to the case in hand. Our doctrine is not that the universe came into being without an adequate cause, but that the essences as well as the forms of all things had a beginning in time, and their cause exists only in the will of God. The infinite power inherent in a self-existent Spirit is precisely the Cause to which we refer the absolute origination of all things. But if it is meant by the above objection that this infinite God has not power to create new entities, then the principle is simply false and not self-evident; it bears not one of the marks of a valid intuition — neither self-evidence, neces- sity, nor universality. 16 242 THE CREATION OE THE WORLD. 12. State and refute the position of some loho maintain on moral grounds the self-existence of matter. Those among theistic thinkers who have been tempted to regai'd matter as eternal and self-existent, have been influenced by the vain hope of explaining thereby the existence of moral evil in consistency with the holiness of God. They would refer all the phenomena of sin to an essentially evil principle inher- ent in matter, and would justify (if)d by maintaining that he has done all that in him lay to limit that evil. Now, besides the inconsistency of this theory's attempt to vindicate the holi- ness of God at the expense of his independence, it proceeds upon absurd principles, as appears from the following consid- erations: (1.) iMoral evil is in its essence an attribute of spirit. To reler it to a material origin must logically lead to the grossest materialism. (2.) The entire Christian system of relig- ion, and the example of Christ, is in opposition to that asceti- cism and \"neglecting of the body\" (Col. ii. 23), which neces- sarily springs from the view that matter is the ground of sin. (3.) When God created the material universe he pronounced his works \"very good.\" (4.) The second Person of the holy Trinity assumed a real material body into personal union with himself (5.) The material creation, now \"made subject to vanity \" through man's sin, is to be renovated and made the tempie in which the God-man shall dwell forever. — See below, Chap. XXXIX., Question 17. (G.) The work of Christ in deliv- ering his people from their sin does not contemplate the renun- ciation of the material part of our natures, but OTir bodies, which are now \"the members of Christ,\" and the \"temples of the Holy Ghost,\" are at the resurrection to be transformed into the like- ness of his glorified body. Yet nothing could be more absurd than to argue that the daijica Tcvev/nocriHov is not as literally material as the present dc^iia ipvxiHov. (7.) If the cause of evil is essentially inherent in matter, and if its past developments have occurred in spite of God's efforts to limit it, wdiat certain ground of confidence can any of us have for the future. 13. Prove that the icork of creation is in Scrij^ture attributed to God absolutely, i. e., to each of the three ^persons of the Trinity co-ordinately, and not to either as his special personal function. 1st. To the Godhead absolutely.— Gen. i. 1, 26. 2d. To the Father, 1 Cor. viii. 6. 3d. To the Son.— John i. 3; Col. i. 16, 17. 4th. To the Holy Spirit.— Gen. i. 2; Job xxvi. 13; Ps. civ. 30.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "80", "sort_key": 80, "group": "Chapter XII", "question": "Hoiv  can  it  be  proved  that  no  creature  can  create  ?", "answer": "1st. From the nature of the work. It appears to us that THE CHIEF END OF GOD IN CREATION. 243 tlie work of absolute creation ex nUtilo is an infinite exercise of power. It is to us inconceivable because infinite, and it can belong, therefore, only to that Being who, for the same reason, is incomprehensible. 2(1. The Scriptures distinguish Jehovah from all creatures, and from false gods, and estabhsh his sover- eignt}^ and rights as the true God by the fact that he is the Creator, Is. xxxvii. 16; xl. 12, 13; liv. 5; Ps. xcvi. 5; Jer. x. 11, 12. 3d. If it were admitted that a creature could create, then the works of creation would never avail to lead the creature to an infallible knowledge that his creator was the eternal and self- existent God. 15. Why is it important for us to kno2V, if such hioidedge he ^Mssihle, lohat God's chief end in creation loas? This is not a question of vain curiosity. It is evident, since God is eternal, immutable, and of absolutely perfect intelli- gence, that the great end or ultimate purpose for which he at the beginning created all things must have been kept in view unchangeably in all his works, and so all his works must be more directly or remotely a means to that end. Now our minds are so constituted that we can understand a system only when we understand its ultimate purpose or end. Thus we can comprehend the parts of a watch or steam engine, and their relations and functions, only after we understand the end or purpose which the entire watch or engine was intended to serve. And although God has hid from us many of his subor- dinate purposes, we believe that he has revealed to us that great ultimate design, without a glimpse of which the true character of his general administration ^never could be in any degree com- prehended. None can deny that if he has revealed his ultimate purpose in creation, that it must be a matter to us of the very highest importance. It is self-evident that loe can not rise to so high a generali- zation as this by any process of induction from what we know or can know of his works. Our conclusion on this subject must therefore be drawn, in the first instance at least, entirely from what we know of God's attributes and from the explicit teach- ings of his word. 16. What is the meaning of the term Theodicy, and, hy ivlum was this department of speculative theology in the first instance formally explored ? The term Theodicy {peoi Siurf) signifies a speculative justifi- cation of the ways of God towards the human race, especially as respects the origin of evil, and the moral government of the world. It was first exalted into a department of theological 244 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. science by the great German philosopher Leibnitz, in his great work entitled \"Theodicy, or the Goodness of God, the Liberty of Man, and the Origin of Evil,\" a. d. 1710. 17. What view as to the end of God in creation did Leihiitz advocate, and hy ivhom has he heenfollotoed? Leibnitz held that all moral excellence can be resolved into benevolence, and that the grand, all-comprehending pnrpose of God in the creation of the universe, and in his preservation and government thereof, is the promotion of the happiness of his creatures. Hence he concludes that God has chosen the best possible system to attain that end in the largest possible degree. This is the system of Optimism. This view has prevailed largely among the New England theologians, in connection with the prevalent theory Avhich regards all virtue as consisting in disinterested benevolence. The objections to this view are — 1st. All virtue does not consist in disinterested benevolence. — See above, Chapter VI II., Ques. 61. And happiness is not the highest good. 2d. It sub- ordinates the Creator to the creature, the greater to the less, as the means to an end. When God from eternity formed the purpose to create, no creatures existed to be made happy or miserable. The motive to create therefore could not have orig- inated in the non-existent, and could have its origin and object only in the divine being himself 3d. The Scriptures (see next question) never either directly or indirectly intimate that any thing in the creature is the chief end of God, nor do they ever propose any personal or public good of the creature as the chief end of the creature himself 18. State the true view and quote the statements of the Confession of Faith ? The true view is that the great end of God in creation was his own glory. Glory is manifested excellence. The excellence of his attributes are manifested by their exercise. This end therefore was not the increase either of his excellence or bless- edness, but their manifestation ad extra. \"It pleased God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, /or the manifestation of the (jlory of his eternal poicer., wi><dom, and good- ness, in the begiiniing to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good.\" — \" Conf Faith,\" Ch. iy., § 1. The same is affirmed to be the chief end of God in all his pur- poses and works of Providence and Redemption. — Ch. iii. § 3, THE MOSAIC RECORD OF CREATION. 245 5, 7, and Cli. v. § 1; Ch. vi. § 1; Ch. xxxiii. § 2; \"Larger Cat,\" Qs. 12 and 18; \" S. Cat.,\" Qs. 7. 19. State from reason and Scri2:)ture the arguments ivhich sus- tain this view. Ist. Since God formed the purpose to create before any crea- ture existed, it is evident that the motive to create must have its source and object in the pre-existing Creator and not in the non-existing creature. The absolute Creator can not be subordinated to nor conditioned upon the finite and depend- ent creature. 2d. Since God himself is infinitely worthier than the sum of all creatures, it follows that the manifestation of his own excellence is infinitely a higher and worthier end than the hap- piness of the creatures, indeed tlie highest and worthiest end conceivable. 3d. Nothing can so exalt and bless the creature as his being made thus the instrument and the witness of the infinite Crea- tor's glory, hence the proposing that glory as the \" chief end \" of the creation is the best security for the creature's advance in excellence and blessedness. 4th. The Scriptures explicitly assert that this is the chief end of God in creation (Col. i. IG; Prov. xvi. 4), and of things as created. — Rev. iv. 11; Rom. xi. 36. 5th. They teach that the same is the chief end of God in his eternal decrees. — Eph. i. 5, 6, 12. 6th. Also of God's providential and gracious governing and disposing of his creatures. — Rom. ix. 17, 22, 23; Eph. iii. 10. 7th. It is made the duty of all moral agents to adopt the same as their personal end in all things. — 1 Cor. x. 31 ; 1 Pet. iv. 11. 20. What is the present attitude of Geological science in relation to the Blosaic Record of creation? The results of modern geological science clearly establish the conchisions — (a.) That the elementary materials of which the world is composed existed an indefinitely great number of ages ago. {h.) That the world has been providentially brought to its present state by a gradual progression, through many widely contrasted ph^'sical conditions, and through long inter- vals of time, (c.) That it has successively been inhabited by many diff\"erent orders of organized beings, each in turn adapted to the physical conditions of the globe in its successive stages, and generally marked in each stage by an advancing scale of organization, from the more elementary to the more complex and more perfect forms, {d.) That man completes the pyramid 24G THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. of creation, tlie most perfect, and the last formed of all the in- habitants of the world. The only difficulty in adjusting these results \"with the INIosaic Record of creation is found in matters of detail, in which the true sense of the inspired record is ob- scure, and the conclusions of the science are innnature. There- fore all such detailed adjustments as that attempted by Hugh Miller in his \"Testimony of the Rocks\" have failed. As to the relation of the findings of science with respect to the an- tiquity of man to Biblical Chronology see beloAv, Chapter XVI. In general, however, there is a most remarkable agreement be- tween the Mosaic Record and the results of Geology as to the following principal points. The Record agrees with the science in teaching — (a.) The creation of the elements in the remote past, (i.) The intermediate existence of chaos, (c.) The ad- vance of the earth through various changes to its present physical condition, {d,.') The successive creations of different genera and species of organized beings — the vegetable before the animal — the lower forms before the higher forms — in adap- tation to the improving condition of the eartli — and man last of all. If we remember when and where and for what purpose this Record was produced, and compare it with all other ancient or medieval cosmogonies, this wonderful agreement with the last results of modern science will be felt to contribute essentially to the evidences of its divine origin. It is certainly, even when read subject to the most searching modern criticism, seen to be amply sufficient for the end intended, as a general introduction to the history of Redemption, which although rooted in creation is henceforward carried on as a system of supernatural revelations and influences. 21. State the several princqjles winch should always he horve in mind in considering questions involving an apparent conflict of science and revelation. 1st. God's wotks and God's word are equally revelations from him. They are consequently both alike true, and both alike sacred, and to be treated with reverence. It is absolutely impossible that when they are both adequately interpreted they can come into conflict. Jealousy on either part, is treason to the Author and Lord of both. 2d. Science, or the interpretation of God's works, is there- fore a legitimate and obligatory department of human study. It has its rights which must be respected, and its duties which it must observe. It is the right of every science to 2:mrsue the investigation of its own branch according to its own legitimate methods. We can not require of the chemist that he should RELATION OF SCIENCE AND REVELATION. 247 pursue the methods of the philologist, nor of the geologist that he should go to history, either profane or sacred, for his facts. It is the duty of the students of every science to keep within its province, to recognize the fact that it is only one depart- ment of the vast empire of truth, and to respect alike all orders of truth, historical and inspired as well as scientihc; mental and spiritual, as well as material. 3d. It follows as a practical consequence from the narrow- ness of the human faculties, that men confined to particular branches of inquiry acquire special habits of thought, and as- sociations of ideas peculiar to their line, by which they are apt to measure and judge the whole world of truth. Thus the man of science misinterprets and then becomes jealous of the theo- logian, and the theologian misinterprets and becomes jealous of the man of science. This is narrowness, not superior knowl- edge; weakness, not strength. 4th. Science is only the human interpretation of God's works, it is always imperfect and m.akes many mistakes. Biblical in- terpreters are also liable to mistakes and should never assert the absolute identity of their interpretations of the Bible with the mind of God. 5th. All sciences in their crude condition have been thought to be in conflict with Scripture. But as they have approached perfection, they have been all found to be perfectly consistent with it. Sometimes it is the science which is amended into harmony with the views of the theologian. Sometimes it is the views of the theologian which are amended into harmony with perfected and demonstrated science, e. ^., the instance of the universal and now grateful acceptance by the church of the once abhorred Copernican s^'stem. 6th. In the case of many sciences, as eminently of Geology, the time has not yet come to attempt an adjustment between their conclusions and revelation. Like contemporaneous his- tory in its relation to prophecy. Geology in its relation to the Mosaic Record of creation is in transitu. 'Its conclusions are not yet mature. When geologists are all agreed among them- selves, when all the accessible tacts of the science are observed, analyzed, and classified, and when Generalization has doue its perfect work, and when all of its results are finished and finally fixed as part of the intellectual heritage of man forever, then the adjustment between science and revelation will stand self- revealed, and science will be seen to support and illustrate, instead of oppose, the written word of God. 7. There are hence two opposite tendencies which equally damage the cause of religion, and manifest the weakness of the faith of its professed friends. Thejirst is the weak accept- 248 THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. ance of every hostile conclusion of scientific speculators as certainly true; the constant confession of the inferiority of the light of revelation to the light of nature, and of the certainty of tlie conclusions of Biblical exegesis and Christian theology to that of the results of modern science; the constant attempt to accommodate the interpretation of the Bible, like a nose of wax, to every new phase assumed by the current interpretations of nature. The second and opposite extreme is that of jealously suspecting all the findings of science as probable offences against the dignity of revelation, and of impatiently attacking even those passing phases of imperfect science which for the time appear to be inconsistent with our own opinions. Stand- ing upon the rock of divine truth. Christians need not fear, and can well afford to await the result. Perfect faith, as well as perfect love, casteth out all fear. All things are ours, whether the natural or the supernatural, whether science or revelation. — See Isaac Taylor's \"Restoration of Belief,\" pp. 9, 10.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "81", "sort_key": 81, "group": "Chapter XIII", "question": "What  were  the  cherubim  ?", "answer": "\"They were ideal creatures, compounded of four parts, those namely, of a man, an ox, a lion, and an eagle.\" \" The predomi- nant appearance was that of a man, but the number of faces, feet, and hands differed according to circumstances.\" — Ezek. i. G, compare with Ezek. xli. 18, 19, and Ex. xxv. 20. To the same ideal beings is applied the designation \" living 250 ANGELS. creatures\" (Ezek. i. 5-22; x. 15, 17; Rev. iv. 6-9; v. 6-14; vi. 1-7; vii. 11; xiv. 3; xv. 7; xix. 4), rendered in our version \"beasts.\" \"They were symholical of the highest properties of creature life, and of these as the outgoings and manifestation of the divine life; but they were fypical of redeemed and glorified manhood, or prophetical representations of it, as that in which these properties were to be combined and exhibited. \"They were appointed immediately after the fall to man's original place in the garden, and to his office in connection with the tree of life.\" — Gen iii. 24. \"The other and more common connection in which the cherub appears is with the throne or pecidiar dwelling-place of God. In tiie holy of holies in the tabernacle, Ex. xxv. 22, he was called the God who dwelleth between and sitteth upon the cherubim, 1 Sam. iv. 4; Ps. Ixxx. 1; Ezek. i. 26, 28; whose glory is above the cherubim. In Rev. iv. 6, we read of the living creatures who were in the midst of the throne and around about it.\" \"What does this bespeak but the wonderful fact brought out in the history of redemption, that man's nature is to be exalted to the dwelling-place of the Godhead? In Christ it is taken, so to speak, into the very bosom of the Deity; and because it is so highly honored in him, it shall attain to more than angelic glory in his members.\" — Fairbairn's \"Typology,\" Pt. II., Chapter i., Section 3. See also \"Imperial Bible Dic- tionary,\" Art. Cherubim. 4. What is the^etymology of the word serajohim, and lohat is taught in Scripture concerning them ? The word signifies burning, bright, dazzling. It occurs in the Bible only once. — Isa. vi. 2, 6. It probably presents, under a difierent aspect, the ideal beings commonly designated cheru- bim and living creatures. 5. Is there any evidence that angels are of various orders and ranks ? That such distinctions certainly exist appears evident — 1st. From the language of Scripture. Gabriel is distinguished as one that stands in the presence of God (Luke i. 19), evi- dently ill some y)re-eminent sense; and Michael as one of the chief princes. — Dan. x. 13. Observe also the epithets archangel, thrones, dominions, principalities, powers. — Jude 9; Eph. i. 21. 2d. From the analogy of the fallen angels. — See Eph. ii. 2 ; Matt, ix. 34. 3d. From the analogy of human society and of the THEIR NUMBER, POWER, AND EMPLOYMENTS. 251 universal creation. Throughout all God's works gradation of rank prevails. 6. Bo the Sa-iptures speak of more than oiie archangel, and is he to be considered a creature? This term occurs but twice in the New Testament, and in both instances it is used in the singular number, and preceded by the definite article o. — 1 Thes. iv. 16; Jude 9. Thus tlie term is evidently restricted to one person, called, Jude 9, Michael, who, in Dan. x. 13, and xii. 1, is called \"one of the chief princes,\" and \"the great prince,\" and in Rev. xii. 7, is said to have fought with his angels against the dragon and his angels. Many suppose that the archangel is the Son of God. Others suppose that he is one of the highest class of creatures, since he is called ''one of the chief princes\" Dan. x. 13; and since divine attributes are never ascribed to him. 7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the number and power of angels ? 1st. Concerning their number, revelation determines only that it is very great. \"Thousand thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand.\" — Dan. vii. 10. \"More than twelve legions of angels.\" — ]\\Iatt. xxvi. 53. \"Multitude of the heavenly host.\" Luke ii. 13. \" iAIyriads of angels.\" — Heb. xii. 22. 2d. Concerning their power, the Scriptures teach that it is very great when exercised both in the material and in the spir- itual worlds. They are called \"mighty angels,\" and are said to \"excel in strength?' — 2 Thess. i. 7; Ps. ciii. 20; 2 Kings xix. 35. Their power, however, is not creative, but, like that of man, it can be exercised only co-ordinately with the general laws of nature, in the absolute sense of that word.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "82", "sort_key": 82, "group": "Chapter XIII", "question": "What  are  their  employments  ?", "answer": "1st. They behold the face of God in heaven, adore the divine perfections, study every revelation he makes of himself in prov- idence and redemption, and are perfectly blessed in his presence and service. — Matt, xviii. 10; Rev. v. 11; 1 Pet. i. 12. 2d. God employs them as his instruments in administer- ing the affairs of his providence. — Gen. xxviii. 12; Dan. x. 13. (1.) The law \"was ordained by angels.\" — Gal. iii. 19; Acts vii. 53; Heb. ii. 2. (2.) They are instruments of good to God's people. — Heb. i. 14; Acts'^xii. 7; Ps. xci. 10-12. (3.) They ex- ecute judgment upon God's enemies. — Acts xii. 23; 2 Kings xix. 35; 1 Chron. xxi. 16. (4.) They will officiate in the final judgment, in separating the good from the bad, in gathering 252 ANGELS. the elect, and in bearing them up to meet the Lord in the air. ]\\Iatt. xiii. 30, 39; xxiv. 31; 1 Thess. iv. 17. 9. Have angels bodies, and Jioiv are the appai^itions of angels to he accounted for ? Angels are called in the Scriptures \"spirits\" {TtvEvnara), Heb. i. 14, a word which is also used to designate the souls of men when separate from the body. — 1 Pet. iii. 19. There is however nothing in that word, nor in the opinions of the Jews at the time of Christ, nor in any thing which is told us of the nature or the employments of angels in the Scriptures, which prove that angels are absolutely destitute of proper material bodies of any kiiKl. Indeed as the Son of God is to have \"a glorious body,\" \"a spiritual body\" forever, and since all the redeemed are to have bodies like his, and since the angels are associated with redeemed men as members of the same infi- nitely exalted kingdom, it may appear probable that angels may have been created with physical organizations not alto- gether dissimilar to the \"spiritual bodies\" of the redeemed. They always appeared and spoke to men in Bible times in the bodily form of men, and as such they ate food and lodged in houses like common men. — Gen. xviii. 8 and xix. 3. It has hence been supposed by some that angels have bodies like the present \" natural \" or animal bodies of men (6c3f.ia jpvxiHov), 1 Cor. XV. 44, of flesh, bones, and blood, of head and features, hands and feet, and that the apparition of an angel involved no change in him, but only a coming within the sphere of the sense perception of the observer, when the angel appeared just as he habitually is. Now this is inconsistent with the facts of the inspired rec- ord. In certain situations the angels \"appeared\" precisely like common men, and in other situations they acted very difierently (Acts xii. 7-10; Num. xxii. 31), in passing through stone walls, appearing and disappearing at will, etc. Besides, one of the three men who appeared to Abraham at Mamre, and wliose feet he washed, and who ate the meat he had prepared, was Jehovah, the second Person of the Trinity, who had no body till he acquired it many centuries afterwards in the womb of tlie Virgin. If the apparent Innnan body of the one angel was not a real, permanent human body, tliere is nt)t ground to argue from the recorded phenomena tiiat the others were. — Gen. xviii. 1-33. Besides this, the theory in question indicates absurd confu- sion of thought. The animal human body, as we know it, is a phj'sical organization in equilibrimn with certain definite and nicely adjusted physical conditions, and it can exist only under THE WORSHIP OF ANGELS. 253 those conditions. The vertebrate type, of Avhich the hnman body is the highest form, has been continnally changed as the physical conditions of the globe have changed, and it ceases always to exist whenever those conditions are changed in any decided degree. If it would be absurd to conceive of a human body existing in water, or in fire, how much more absurd is it to conceive of a warm-blooded, food-consinning animal existing indifferently on earth and in heaven; traversing at Avill the interstellar spaces, and as a true cosmopolite inhabiting alter- nately and indifferently all Avorlds, and all elements, ether, air and water, and all temperatures, from the molten sun to the absolue zero of the starless void. The bodily appearance of angels, therefore, must have been something new assumed, or something pre-existent and perma- nent greatly modified for the purpose of enabling them to hold, upon occasion, profitable intercourse with men. 10. What is the Romish doctrine ami practice ivith regard to the ivorship of angels? \"Catechismus Romanus,\" iii. 2, 9, 10. — \"For the Holy Spirit who says, Honor and glory unto the only God (1 Tim. i. 17), com- mands us also to honor our parents and elders (Lev. xix. 32, etc.) ; and the holy men who worshipped one God only are also said in the sacred Scriptures to have adored (Gen. xxiii. 7, 12, etc.), that is, to have suppliantly venerated, kings. If then kings, by whose agency God governs the world, are treated with so high an honor, shall we not give to the angelic spirits an honor greater in proportion as these blessed minds exceed kings in dignity ; [to those angelic spirits] whom God has been pleased to constitute his ministers; whose services he makes use of, not only in the government of the Church, but also of the rest of the universe; by whose aid, although we see them not, we are daily delivered from the greatest dangers both of soul and body? Add to this the charity with which they love us, through which, as Scripture informs us, they pour out their prayers for those countries (Dan. ii. 13) over which they are placed by Providence, and for those too, no doubt, whose guardians they are, for they present our prayers and tears before the throne of God (Job iii. 25; xii. 12; Rev. viii. 3). Hence our Lord has taught us in the gospel not to scandalize the little ones, because in heaven their angels do always heliold the face of his Father ivhich is in heaven. \"Their intercession, therefore, we must invoke, because they always behold God, and receive from him the most willing ad- vocacy of our salvation. To this, their invocation, tlie sacred Scriptures bear testimony. — Gen. xlviii. 15, 16.\" 254 ANGELS. 11. Wlxat views have been entertained with respect to \"Guar- dian Angels\"? \" It was a favorite opinion of the Christian Fathers that every individual is under tlie care of a particular angel, who is assigned to him as a guardian. They spoke also of two angels, — the one good, the other evil, — whom they conceived to be attendant on each individual: the good angel prompting to all good, and averting ill; and the evil angel prompting to all ill, and averting good (Hermas xi. 6). The Jews (except- ing the Sadducees) entertained this belief, as do the Moslems. The heathen held it in a modified form — the Greeks having their tutelary daamon, and the Romans their genius. There is however nothing to support this notion in the Bible. The passages usually referred to for its support (Ps. xxxiv. 7 ; Matt, xviii. 10), have assuredly no such meaning. The former sim- ply denotes that God employs the ministry of angels to deliver his people from affliction and danger; and the celebrated pas- sage in Matthew means that the infant children of believers, or the least among the disciples of Christ, whom the ministers of the church might be disposed to neglect, are in such esti- mation elsewhere, that angels do not think it below their dignit}^ to minister unto them.\" Nothing is said of the per- sonal assignment of angels to individual men. — Kitto's \"Bib. Encyclo.\" 12. What are the names by ivhich Satan is distinguished, and what is their import ? Satan, which signifies adversary, Luke x. 18. The Devil (SidfJoXoi always occurs in the singular) signifying slanderer. Rev. XX. 2; Apollyon, which means destroj^er, and Abbadon, Rev. ix. 11; Beelzebub, the prince of devils, from the god of the Ekronites, chief among the heathen divinities, all of which the Jews regarded as devils, 2 Kings i. 2; Matt xii. 24; Angel of the Bottomless Pit, Rev. ix. 11; Prince of the World, John xii. 31 ; Prince of Darkness, Eph. vi. 12 ; A Roaring Lion, 1 Pet. V. 8; a Sinner from the Beginning, 1 John iii. 8; Accuser, Rev. xii. 10 ; Belial, 2 Cor. vi. 15 ; Deceiver, Rev. xx. 10 ; Dragon, Rev. xii. 7; Liar and Mvuxlerer, John viii. 44; Leviathan, Is. xxvii. 1; Lucifer, Is. xiv. 12; Serpent, Is. xxvii. 1; Tormentor, IMatt. xviii. 34; God of this World, 2 Cor. iv. 4; he that hath the Power of Death, Heb. ii. 14. — See Cruden's \"Concordance.\" 13. Hoiv mny it he proved that Satan is a personal being, and not a mere person ijication of evil? Throughout all the various books of Scripture Satan is WICKED ANGELS. 255 always consistently spoken of as a person, and personal at- tributes are predicated of him. Such passages as Matt. iv. 1-11, and John viii. 44, are decisive. 14. Wliat do the Scrijjfures teach concerning the relation of Satan to other evil SjMrifs and to our ivorld? Other evil spirits are called \" his angels,\" Matt. xxv. 41 ; and he is called \"Prince of Devils,\" Matt. ix. 34; and \"Prince of the powers of the Air,\" and \" Prince of Darkness,\" Eph. vi. 12. This indicates that he is the master spirit of evil. His relation to this world is indicated by the history of the Fall, 2 Cor. xi. 3 ; Eev. xii. 9, and by such expressions as \" God of this World,\" 2 Cor. iv. 4; and \"Spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience,\" p]ph. ii. 2; wicked men are said to be his children, 1 John iii. 10; he blinds tlie minds of those that believe not and leads them captive at his will, 2 Tim. ii. 26; he also pains, harasses, and tempts God's true people as far as is permitted for their ultimate good. — Luke xxii. 31 ; 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; 1 Thess. ii. 18.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "83", "sort_key": 83, "group": "Chapter XIII", "question": "What  are  the  terms  hij  tvhich  fallen  spirits  are  designated?", "answer": "The Greek word 6 SidfioXoi, the devil, is in the original ap- plied only to Beelzebub. Other evil spirits are called dcx/jnorsi, deemons, ]\\lark v. 12 (translated devils); unclean spirits, INIark V. 13; angels of the devil. Matt. xxv. 41; principalities, powers, rulers of the darkness of this world, Eph. vi. 12; angels tliat sinned, 2 Pet. ii. 4; angels that kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, Jude vi. ; lying spirits, 2 Chron. xviii. 22. 16. What poiver or agency over the bodies and souls of men is ascribed to them ? Satan, like all other finite beings, can only be in one place at a time; yet all that is done by his agents being attributed to him, he appears to be practically ubiquitous. It is certain that at times at least they have exercised an inexplicable influence over the bodies of men, yet that influence is entirely subject to God's control. — Job ii. 7; Luke xiii. 16; Acts X. 38. They have caused and aggravated diseases, and excited appetites and passions. — 1 Cor. v. 5. Satan, in some sense, has the power of death. — Heb. ii. 14. With respect to the souls of men, Satan and his angels are utterly destitute of any power either to change the heart or to coerce the will, their influence being simply moral, and exer- cised in the way of deception, suggestion, and persuasion. The descriptive phrases applied by the Scriptures to their working 256 ANGELS. are such as — \"the deceivahleness of imrighteousness,\" \"power, signs, lying wonders,\" 2 Thess. ii. 9, 10; he \"transforms him- self into an angel of light.\" — 2 Cor. xi. 14. If he can deceive or persuade he uses \"wiles,\" Eph. vi. 11; \"snares,\" 1 Tim. iii. 7; \"depths,\" Kev. ii. 24; he \"blinds the mind,\" 2 Cor. iv. 4; \"leads captive the will,\" 2 Tim. ii. 26; and so \"deceives the whole world.\" — Rev. xii. 9. If he can not persuade he uses \"fiery- darts,\" Eph. vi. 16; and \"buffetings.\" — 2 Cor. xii. 7. As examples of his influence in tempting men to sin the Scriptures cite the case of Adam, Gen iii. ; of David, 1 Chron. xxi. 1; of Judas, Luke xxii. 3; Ananias and Sapphira, Acts v. 3, and the temptation of our blessed Lord, Matt. iv.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "84", "sort_key": 84, "group": "Chapter XIII", "question": "What  evidence  is  tliere  that  the  heathen  u'orsJiip  devils?", "answer": "\"The daif-ioov is the object of their worship, dsidiSaiucovia describes their worship itself, and 8Et6idaiixoov the worshipper.\" Paul (Acts xvii. 22) declared that the men of Athens were 8Ei6idaii.iov£6T£povi, i. e., too much addicted to demon-woi'ship. David says (Ps. cvi. 37), \"The gods of the heathen are demons,\" and Paul (1 Cor. x. 20), \"The things which the Gentiles sacri- fice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God.\" Moses said of apostate Israelites (Deut. xxxii. 17), \"They sacrificed to demons and not to God, to gods Avhom they knew not; to ncAV gods that came newly up; whom your fathers feared not.\" — \"The Imperial Bible Dictionary.\" 18. Where do they reside, and what is the true interpretation of Eph. ii. 2, and vi. 12 ? These passages simply declare that evil spirits belong to the unseen spiritual world, and not to our mundane sj^stem. Noth- ing is taught us in Scripture as to ther place of their residence, further than that they originally dwelt in and fell from heaven, that they now have access to men on earth, and that they Avill be finally sealed up in the lake of fire prepared for them. — Eev. XX. 10; Matt. xxv. 41.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "85", "sort_key": 85, "group": "Chapter XIII", "question": "By  ivhat  terms  ivere  those  possessed  by  evil  spirits  designated?", "answer": "They are called \"demoniacs,\" translated |)osse§ser? ivith devils, Matt. iv. 24; \"having the spirit of an unclean devil,\" Luke iv. 33; \"oppressed of the devil,\" Acts x. 38; \"lunatics,\" JMatt. xvii. 15. 20. What arguments are urged by those ivho regard the de- moniacs mentioned in the Neiv Testament as simjjly diseased or deranged ? That we can not discriminate between the effects of demoni- DEMONIACAL POSSESSION. 257 acal possession and disease. That precisely the same symptoms have, in other cases, been treated as disease and cured. Tliat, hke witchcraft, the experience of such possessions has been confined to the most ignorant ages of the world. They argue further that this doctrine is inconsistent with clearly revealed principles. 1st. That the souls of dead men go immediately either to heaven or hell. 2d. That fallen angels are already shut up in chains and darkness in expectation of the final judgment. — 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6. They attempt to explain away the language of Christ and his apostles upon this subject by affirming, that as it Avas no part of their design to instruct men in the true science of nature or disease, they conformed their language on such subjects to the prevalent opinions of the people they addressed, calling diseases by the popular name, without intending thereby to countenance the theory of tlie nature of the disease, out of which the name originated. Just as we now call crazed peo- ple \" lunatics,\" without believing in the influence of the moon upon them. — \"Kitto's Bib. Ency.\" 21. How may it be proved that the demoniacs of the New Testa- ment luere really possessed of evil spirits ? The simple narratives of all the evangelists put it beyond peradventure that Christ and his apostles did believe, and wished others to believe, that the demoniacs were really pos- sessed with devils. They distinguish between possession and disease. — Mark i. 32; Luke vi. 17, 18. The \"deemons,\" as distinct from the \"possessed,\" spoke (Mark. v. 12), were addressed, commanded, and rebuked by Christ.— Mark i. 25, 34; ix. 25; Matt. viii. 32; xvii. 18. Their desires, reqtiests, and passions are distinguished from those of the possessed. — Matt. viii. 31 ; Mark ix. 26, etc. The number of daemons in one person is mentioned. — Mark xvi. 9. They went out of the \"possessed\" into the swine. — Luke viii. 32. We never speak of the moon entering into, and sore vexing a man, or being cast out of a lunatic, or of the moon crying aloud, etc. The argument of those who w^ould explain away the force of Christ's language on this subject, therefore fails.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "86", "sort_key": 86, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "How  are  miracles  designated  in  the  New  Testament  ?", "answer": "They are called — (1) rspara, wonders, Acts ii. 19; (2) Srva- l-iEii, works of superhuman power, and (3) 6rjnti<x, signs, John ii. 18, INlatt. xii. 38. The last designation expresses their true office. I They are designed to be \"signs\" incapable of being counterfeited, of God's commission and authentication of a religious teacher and of his doctrine, l 39. Hoiv then is a miracle, in the Scrij^tural sense of that tvord, to he defined, so as to signalize its specific distinction from supernat- ural events in genercd, and from extraordinary Providences, as above explained ? A miracle is (1) an event occurring in the physical world, capable of being discerned and discriminated by the bodily senses of human witnesses, (2) of such a character that it can be rationally referred to no other cause than the immediate volition of God, (3) accompanying a religious teacher, and designed to authenticate his divine commission and the truth of his message. 40. State and ansicer the a priori objection to the possibility of miracles, that they essentially involve the violcdion of the laws of nature. It is maintained that all experience, and the integrity of human reason, unite in guaranteeing the absolute inviolability of the law of continuity — that every possible event finds its full explanation in adequate causes which precede it, and that every event in its turn causes endless consequences to succeed it. No event can be isolated from its antecedents and conse- quences, nor from its conditions, and every cause acts accord- ing to an intelligible law of its nature. This is all true, and as true of miracles as of any other events. If by \" law of nature \" Ave mean the physical forces which produce effects, then no miracle involves any suspension or violation of such law. It is a common experience that forces 276 PROVIDENCE. modify each other, and each added force combines with others in producing effects otherwise impossible. If by \" law of na- ture \" Ave mean the ordinary course of events observed in nature, then a miracle is, by definition, a signal suspension of that order. But the same thing is brought about every day by the inter- vention in nature of the intelligent Avills of men. In every physical event there are a combination of con- causes combining to effect it. The human will in acting violates no law, and annihilates no force, it simply combines natural forces under special conditions, and interpolates into the smn of concauses a new concause — the human volition. AVhen the sons of the prophets \" cut down a stick and cast it into the water and the iron of the axe-head did swim \" (2 Kings vi. 6), neither the specific gravities of the iron nor of the water were altered, nor was the law of gravitation sus- pended. The miracle consisted only in a divine volition in- terpolating a new transient force, equal to the excess of the specific gravity of the iron over that of the water, and acting in a directioii opposite to that of gravity. This is precisely analogous to the action of the human will upon physical oljjects — with this exception — man's will acts upon outward objects only indirectly through the mechanism of his body, and directly only upon his voluntary muscles; while God's will acts directly upon every element of the world he has created. And what is true in this simple miracle could be shown to be true in the most complex ones, such as the raising of Lazarus, if we knew enough of the chemistry and physiology of human life. John Stuart INIill (\"Essay on Theism,\" Pt. iv.) says, \"It may be argued that 'the power of volition over phenomena is itself a law, and one of the earliest known and acknowledged laws of nature. . . . The interference of human will with the course of nature is only not an exception to law, when we in- clude among laws the relation of motive to volition ; and by the same rule interference by the divine will would not be an exception either; since we can not but suppose Deity, in every one of his acts, to be determined by motives.' The alleged analogy holds good: but what it proves is only what I have from the first maintained — that divine interference with nature could be proved if we had the same sort of evidence for it which we have for human interferences.\" That is, this greatest of all the philosophical rationalists maintains that there is no a jmoi^i ground to judge miracles impossible. It is purely a question as to tlie sufficiency of the evidence. Every Christian is perfectly satisfied that the evi- dence (historical, moral, and spiritual) for the resurrection of DESIGN OF MIRACLES. 277 Christ, and the miracles historically associated with that event, is abundantly sufficient. 41. State andj answer the objection to the occurrence of a mirade drawn from the balance of the physical univtrse. It is a fact that the whole physical universe forms one sys- tem, and that as at present adjusted it is in a state of such del- icate equilibrium that the addition or subtraction ot a single atom in any one portion of it would disturb that equilibrium throughout the entire system. A disturbance, however slight, ab extra — the intrusion of an agent not belonging to the system of things, would be destructive of the whole. It is obvious that this objection Avould have weight if the material universe were an exclusive whole by itself, and if it sustained no constitutional relation to God. But if God and the created world together constitute a whole — a complete universe of things — the objection is absurd. The sum of his activities of every kind is the necessary complement of the sum of the activities of all his creatures, and only thus the equilibrium is maintained. It is plain that the will of God is no more outside the sum of things constituting the universe than is the will of man. And man is constantly modifying nature over wide areas, and every moment bringing his will as a new concause to act upon the physical laws of the universe ab extra, and giving them new directions and conditions. The equilibrium of the physical universe, moreover, is not a permanent one, but one constantly changing, especially through the diffusion of heat and the massing of matter at the centres of attraction. 42. State and ansiver the objection that the assumption of the necessity of miraculous interfei-ence is derogatory to the icisdom and -power of the Creator. It is argued that the skill of a human workman is always exhibited in proportion to the ability of his work to perform its designed function independently of his repair, or correction, or guidance. That the necessity of interference for any purpose ab extra is a proof of defect or at least of limitation in the skill or power of the maker. Any occasion for a miracle therefore could only arise, they argue, from a change of purpose on the part of God, or a radical defect upon the part of his creation. Theodore Parker said, \" There is no whim in God, and therefore no miracle in nature.\" This would have force if miracles were desiii'ned to correct 278 PROVIDENCE. ■ the defective working of the physical universe. But this no Christian has ever dreamed. The design of a miracle is simply to signify to God's intelli- gent creatures his active intervention in the moral universe for the purpose of restoring the order disturbed by sin. The moral system is essentially different from the physical one. The one is mechanical, the other embraces the reason, consciencje, free WILL, and the law of motive. Free will makes sin possible, and sin makes direct divine intervention necessary, either to redeem or to damn. All the miracles of Scripture are grouped around the great crises in the Avork of Redemption, or the restoration of the original natural law disturbed by sin. Hence the miracles of Scripture, unlike all the miracles of the heathen, or of the Papal Church, or of modern spiritualism, instead of being mere won- ders, exhibitions of power, wanton violations of natural order, are pre-eminently works of healing, acts the whole bearing and spirit of which imply the restoration and confirmation, not the violation, of law. The highest meaning of the word Law is order, arrange- ment, assignment of function, to the end of effecting a purpose. The supreme essence of all law, therefore, is the eternal purpose of God. Not a single miracidous intervention was an after-thought. One eternal act of absolutely intelligent volition embraced the whole scheme of being and events in all space and all duration, appointing all ends and all means and all methods at once, the necessary and the free, the physical and the moral, the acts of tiie creature obeying law, and the interventions of the Creator imposing law. 43. Hoio can an event advally occurring he certainly recognized as coming under the category of 'miracles as above defined? I. A miracle, according to the foregoing definition, is \"an event occurring in the physical world capable of- being dis- cerned and certainly discriminated by the bodily senses.\" The miracles of Scripture fulfil this condition, especially the most important of them. They were exhibited (1) in the clear light of day, (2) on several occasions, (3) under varying circum- stances (4) to a number of witnesses, and (5) to the scrutiny of several senses, as of sight, hearing, and touch, mutually cor- roborating one another. II. A miracle, by the same definition, must \"accompany a religious teacher, and is designed to authenticate his divnie commission and the truth of his message.\" It hence follows that every such event, in order to be credible, must (1) be itself of a character, rationally and morally, congruous with its pro- A MIRACLE CAN BE RECOGNIZED. 279 fessedly divine origin. (2.) The character of the religions teach- er whose commission it antlienticates, and the character of his doctrine, must be such that it is credible that they represent the mind and will of God. (3.) The messenger and his message must be found to be consistent, historically and doctrinally, with the entire organism of preceding revelations and divine interventions. III. The miracle, in the third place, must be \"of such a character that it can be rationally referred to no other cause than the immediate volition of God.\" It has been objected at this point that a miracle could not be certainly determined to be such, even if it occur, because — 1st. No man knows all the laws of nature, nor what is the true line between the natural and the supernatural. What is new or inexplicable is relatively supernatural, i. e., by us incapable of being reduced to the categories of nature. 2d. Because evil spirits often have wrought supernatural works — and it is impos- sible for us, therefore, to determine in any case that the cause of the event can be only a direct volition of God. We answer — 1st. As far as evil spirits are concerned, the kingdom of Satan can easily be recognized by its character. No isolated event is ever to be recognized as a miracle. The man, and the doctrine, and their relation to the whole system of past revelations and miraculous interventions, will in every case be sufficient to discriminate tlie identity of the supernat- ural cause of an event. 2d. As far as the question of deter- mining with certainty what eflects transcend the powers of nature, we answer — (1.) There are some classes of effects about which no man can possibly doubt, e. (/., the raising of Laz- arus, and the miiltiplying of the loaves and fishes; we may doubt about the exact boundaries of the supernatural — but no man can mistake that which so far transcends the boundaries. (2.) These effects were accomplished two thousand years ago, in an unscientific age, by an unlearned people. _ (3.) These efi'ects were produced over and over again at tJie mere ivord^ of command, without the use of any sort of means, or fixed physical condition. (4.) The works were divine in character, and the occasions were worthy, the religious teachers and dootrines carried their own corroborative spiritual evidence, and the events fell into their place in the entire system of revelation. ^^^-\"-^\"^^^^ /3t^«r«tv pA^^^^^^.^^^ -z^ Chapter y^ .^z^^^r^^yZlu^^u^^ ^^tv^/x^'t. THE MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL, WILL, LIBERTY, ETC. -^ 1. TF/za^ general department of theology are ice now entering, and what are the jJrincipal topics embraced in it ? The general department of Anthropology, and the principal topics embraced in this department,^re the moral constitution of man psychologically considered, the moral condition of man when created, and the providential relations into which man was introduced at his creation.3-(the nature of sin, the sin of Adam, the effects of his sin upon himself and upon his pos- terity, and the consequent moral condition and legal relations into which his descendants are introduced at birtliA It is obvious that an accurate understanding of the nature of sin, original or actual, of the influence of divine grace, and of the change wrought in the soul in regeneration, of course involves some previous knowledge of the constitutional facul- ties of the soul, and especially of those faculties which partic- ularly distinguish man as a moral agent. Hence there are certain psychological and metaphysical questions inseparable from theological discussions. 2. What is the general principle which it is always necessary to hear in mind while treating of the various faculties of the human soul ? The soul of man is one single indivisible agent, not an or- ganized wliole consisting of several parts; and, tlierefore, what we call its several faculties are rather the capacity of the one agent, for discharging successively or concurrently the several functions involved, and are never to be conceived of as sepa- rately existing parts or organs. These several functions exer- cised b}'- the one soul are so various and complex, that a minute anal^'sis is absolutely necessary, in order to lay open to us a definite view of their nature. Yet we must carefully remem- ber that a large part of the errors into which philosopliers have \"-^t^*- '^-^-tf.^feX ^ X^ ^^^ ^y^FACULTIES CLASSIFIED. <2 fallen in their interpretation of man's moral constitution, has resulted from the abuse of this very process of analysis. This is especially true with respect to the interpretation of the vol- untary acts of the human soul. In prosecution of his analysis the pliilosopher comes to recognize separately the differences and the likenesses of these various functions of the soul, and too frequently forgets that these functions themselves are, in fact, never exercised in that isolated manner, but concurrently by the one soul, as an indivisible agent, and that thus they always qualify one another. Thus, it is not true, in fact, that the understanding reasons, and the heart feels, and the con- science approves or condemns, and the will decides, as different members of the body work together, or as the different persons constituting a council deliberate and decide in mutual parts; but it is true that tlie one indivisible, rational, feeling, moral, self-determining soul reasons, feels, approves, or condemns and decides. The self-determining power of the ivill as an ahsfract faculty is absurd as a doctrine, and would be disastrous as an experi- ence ; but the self-determining power of the human soul as a concrete, rational, feeling agent, is a fact of universal conscious- ness, and a fundamental doctrine of moral philosophy and of Christian theology. The real question is not as to the liberty of the tvill, but as to the liberty of the man in willing. It is obvi- ous that we are free if we have liberty to will as ive please, i. e., as upon the whole we judge best, and all things consid- ered desire.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "87", "sort_key": 87, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "Hoiv  may  the  leadi7ig faculties  of  the  human  soul  he  classified?", "answer": "and luhich are the seat of our moral nature ? 1st. The intellectual. This class includes all those faculties in different ways concerned in the general function of know- ing; as the reason, the imagination, the bodily senses, and the moral sense (when considered as a mere source of knowledge informing the understanding). 2d. TliR f>pintinna1. This class includes all those feelings which attend, in any manner, the exercise of the other faculties. 3d._Xll£jisalL- It will be observed that the functions of the conscience in- volve faculties belonging to both the first and second classes (see below, Question 5). It is often asked. Which of our faculties is the seat of our moral nature? Now while there is a sense in which all moral questions concern the relation of the states or acts of the will to tlie law of God revealed in the conscience, and therefore in which the will and the conscience are pre-eminently the fouu- 282 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. dation of man's moral nature, it is true, nevertheless, that every one of the faculties of the human soul, as above classified, is exercised in relation to all moral distinctions, e. (/., the intellect- ual in the perception and judg-ment; the emotional in pleasant feeling- or tlie reverse; the will, in choosing or refusing, and in acting. Every state or act of any one of the faculties of the human soul, therefore, which involves the judging, choosing, refusing, or desiring, upon a purel}^ moral question, or the feel- ing corresponding thereto, is a moral state or act, and all the faculties, viewed in their relations to the distinction between good and evil, are moral faculties.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "88", "sort_key": 88, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "What  is  the  Will?", "answer": "The term \"will\" is often used to express the mere faculty of volition, whereby the soul chooses, or refuses, or determines to act, and the exercise of that faculty. It is also used in a Avider sense, and in this sense I use it here, to include the faculty of V volition, together with all of the spontaneous states of the soul \\ (designated by Sir William Hamilton, \" Lectures on Metaphy- ^ sics,\" Lect. XL, the faculties of conation, the excitive, striving faculties, possessing, as their common characteristic, \" a ten- dency toward the realization of their end \"), the dispositions, affections, desires, which determine a man in the exercise of his free power of volition. It must be remembered, however, that these two senses of the word \"will\" are essentially distinct. The will, as including all the faculties of conation (the disposi- tions and desires), is to be essentially distinguished from the single faculty of soul exercised in the resulting volition, i. e., the choosing or the acting according to its prevailing desire. The term \" will \" is used in the wider sense in this chapter. A man in willing is perfectly free, i. e., he always exercises volition according to the prevailing disposition or desire of his will at the time. This is the highest freedom, and the only one consistent with rationality or moral responsibility. 5. Dejine the term Volition. By the term \" faculty of volition \" Ave mean the executive faculty of the soul, the faculty of choice or self-decision ; and by the term \" volition \" we mean the exercise of that faculty in any act of choice or self-decision.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "89", "sort_key": 89, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "W licit  is  Conscience?", "answer": "Conscience, as a faculty, includes (a) a moral sense or intu- ition, a power of discerning right and wrong, which, combining Avith the understanding, or faculty of comparing and judging, judges (jf the right or wrong of our own moral dispositions and TRUE TEST AND SEAT OF MORAL CHARACTER. 283 voluntary actions, and of the dispositions and volnntaiy actions of other free agents. (6.) This faculty judges according to a divine law of right and wrong, included within itself (it is a law to itself, the original law written upon the heart, Horn, ii. 14), and (c) it is accompanied Avith vivid emotions, pleasur- able in view of that which is right, and painful in view of that which is wrong, especially when our conscience is engaged in reviewing the states or the actions of our own souls. This faculty in its own province is sovereign, and can have no other superior than the revealed word of God. — See M'Cosh, \"Divine Government,\" Book III., chap. i. sec. 4. 7. What is the true test for determining the moral quality of any mental act or state ? The only true tests of the moral quahty of any state or act are — 1st. The inspired word of God, and 2d. The spontaneous, practical, and universal judgments of men. The moral judgments of men, like all our intuitive judg- ments, are certainly reliable only when they respect concrete and individual judgments. The generalized and abstract prop- ositions which being supposed to be formed by abstraction and generalization from these individual judgments may be true or not, but they can not be received as a reliable foundation upon which to erect a system of evidence. Very absurd attempts have been often made to demonstrate the moral or non-moral character of any principle, by means of general formularies rep- resenting partial truths imperfectly stated, and by means of other, — either false, senseless, or irrelevant, — a priori consid- erations. 8. Itito what classes are the spontaneous affections of the soul to he distributed, and ivhat are the distinguishing characteristics of each class ? The spontaneous desires and affections of the soul are of two distnict classes. 1st. The animal, or those which arise bHndly without intelligence, e. g., the appetites and instinctive afff ctions, these have no intrinsic moral quality in themselves, and become the occasion of moral action only when they are restrained or inordinately indulged. 2d. The rational affec- tions and desires called out by objects apprehended by the intellect. 9. What rational spontaneous affections possess a moral quality, and in what does thai quality inherently attach ? Such rational spontaneous affections are intrinsically and essentially either good or bad or morally indifferent, and their 284 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. quality is discriminated by the quality of the objects by which they are attracted. They are good when their objects are good, evil when tlieir objects are evil, and morally indifferent when their objects are indifferent. Theii\" moral quality, whatever it be, is intrinsic to them. When they are good, all men con- sider them worthy of approbation, and when they are evil, all men consider them worthy of condemnation and righteous in- dignation, because of their essential nature as good or as evil, and without any consideration of their origin. When good these spontaneous affections determine the volitions to good, when they are evil they determine the volitions to evil. 10. To ivliat do ice apply fJie desk/nation ^'■permanent principles, or dispositions \" of soul ? and when do they possess a moral charac- ter, and what is the source of that character ? There are in the soul, underlying its passing states and af- fections, certain permanent habits or dispositions involving a tendency to or facility for certain kinds of exercises. Some of these habits or dispositions are innate and some are acquired. These constitute the character of the man, and lay the founda- tion for all his successive exercises of feeling, affection, desire, volition, or action. As far as these are morally good, the man and his action are good; as far as these are evil, the man and his action are evil; as far as tliese are morally indifferent, i. e., concern objects morally indifferent, the actions which spring from them are morally indifferent. The moral character of these inherent moral tendencies of the soul is intrinsic and es- sential. They are the ultimate tendencies of the soul itself, and their goodness or badness is an ultimate fact of consciousness. 11. Shoiv that the state and actlo7i of the intellect may possess a moral character. The intellect is so implicated in its exercises with the moral affections and emotions, that its views and judgments on all moral subjects have a moral character also. A man is hence responsible for his moral judgments — and hence for his beliefs as well as for his moral feelings, because the one is as imme- diately as the other determined by the general moral state or character of the soul. A man who is blind to moral excellence, or to the deformity of sin, is condemned bj^ every enhghtened conscience. The Scriptures pronounce a woe upon those \"who call evil good and good evil, Avho put light for darkness and darkness for liglit.\" — Isa. v. 20. Sin is called in Scripture \"blind- ness\" and \"folly.\" — 1 John ii. 11; Eph. iv. 18; Rev. iii. 17; Matt, xxiii. 17; Luke xxiv. '2b. CONSCIENCE INDESTRUCTIBLE. 285", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "90", "sort_key": 90, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "Wliat  are  the  essential  conditions  of  moral  responsibility  ?", "answer": "To be morally responsible a man mnst be a free, rational, moral agent (see answer to preceding question). 1st. He must be in present possession of his reason to distinguish truth from falsehood. 2d. He must also have in exercise a moral sense to distinguish right from wrong. 3d. His will, in its volitions or executive acts, must be self-decided, i. e., determined by its own spontaneous affections and desires. If any of these are wanting, the man is insane, and neither free nor responsible.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "91", "sort_key": 91, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "Is  the  conscience  indestructible  and  infallible  ?", "answer": "The conscience, the organ of God's law in the soul, may vir- tually, i. e., as to its effects and phenomena, be both rendered latent and perverted for a time, and in this phenomenal sense, therefore, it is neither indestructible nor infallible. But if the moral sense be regarded simply in itself it is infallible, and if the total history of even the worst man is taken into the ac- count, conscience is truly indestructible. 1st. As to its imlestructihility. Conscience, like every other faculty of the soul, is undeveloped in the infant, and very imperfectly developed in the savage; and, moreover, after a long habit of inattention to its voice and violation of its law, the individual sinner is often judicially given up to carnal indifference; his conscience for a time lying latent. Yet it is certain that it is never destroyed — (1.) From the fact that it is often aroused to the most fearful energy in the hearts of long-hardened reprobates in the agonies of remorse. (2.) From the fact that this remorse or accusing conscience constitutes the essential torment of lost souls and devils. This is the worm that never dieth. Other Avise their punishment would lose its moral character. 2d. As to its i) fallibility. Conscience, in the act of judging of moral states or actions, involves the concm-rent action of the understanding and the moral sense. This understanding- is always fallible, especially when it is prejudiced in its action by depraved affections and desires. Thus, in fact, conscience constantly delivers false decisions from a misjudgment of the facts and relations of the case; it may be through a selfish or sensual or a malignant bias. Hence we have virtually a deceiving as well as a latent conscience. Notwithstanding this, however, the normal sense of the distinction between right and wrong, as an eternal law to itself, lies indestructible even in the most depraved breasts, as it can not be destroyed, so it can not be changed; when aroused to action, and when not deceived as to the true state of the case, its language is 286 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. eternally the same. — See M'Cosh, \" Divine Government,\" Book III., chapter ii., section 6, and Dr. A. Alexander, \"Moral Sci- ence,\" chapters iv, and v.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "92", "sort_key": 92, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "Wlicd  is  the  essential  nature  of  virtue  ?", "answer": "\"Virtue is a peculiar quality of\" certain states of the will, i. e., either permanent dispositions or temporary affections of the will, and \" of certain voluntary actions of a moral agent, which quality is perceived by the moral faculty with which every man is endowed, and the perception of which is accom- panied by an emotion which is distinct from all other emotions, and is called moral.\" — Dr. Alexander, \"Moral Science,'* ch. xxvi. The essence of virtue is, that it obliges the will. If a thing is morall}\" right it ought to be done. The essence of moral evil is, that it intrinsically deserves disapprobation, and the agent punishment. This point is of great importance, because the truth here is often perverted by a false philosophy, and because this view of mdral good is the only one consistent with the Scriptural doctrine of sins, rewards, and punishments, and, above all, of Christ's atonement. The idea of virtue is a simple and ultimate intuition; at- tempted analysis destroys it. Right is right because it is. It is its own highest reason. It has its norm in the immutable nature of God.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "93", "sort_key": 93, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "What  constitutes  a  virtuous  and  tvhat  a  vicious  character?", "answer": "Virtue, as defined in the answer to the last question, attaches only to the will of man (including all the conative faculties), 1st, to its permanent disposition; 2d, to its temporary afiections; and 3d, to its volitions. Some of these states and actions of the will are not moral, i. e., they are neither approved nor con- demned by the conscience as virtuous or vicious. But virtue or vice belong only to moral states of the soul, and to volun- tary acts. A virtuous character, therefore, is one in which the permanent dispositions, the temporary affections and desires, and the volitions of the soul, are conformahle to the divine laiv. A vicious character, on the other hand, is one in which these states and acts of the will are not conformable to the divine law. The acts of volition are virtuous or vicious as the affections or desires by which the}^ are determined are the one or the other. The affections and desires are as the permanent dispo- sitions or the character. This last is the nature of the will itself, and its character is an ultimate unresolvable fact. Whether that character be innate or acquired by habit, the fact of its WHAT CONSTITUTES MAN A FREE AGENT. 287 moral quality as virtuous or vicious remains the same, and the consequent moral accountability of the agent for his character is unchanged. It must be remembered that the mere possession of a con- science which approves tlie right and condemns the wrong, and which is accompanied witli more or less lively emotion, painful or pleasurable as it condemns or approves, does not make a character virtuous, or else the devils and lost souls would be eminently virtuous. But the virtuous man is he whose heart and actions., in biblical language, or whose disposi- tions, affectioivs, and volitions, in philosophical language, are con- formed to the law of God. 16. State both branches of the Utilitarian theory of virtue. The first and lowest form is that which maintains that vir- tue consists in the intelligent desire for happiness. Dr. N. W. Taylor says — \" Nothing is good but happiness and the means of happiness, and nothing evil but misery and the means of misery.\" The second and higher form of the Utilitarian theory of virtue is that it consists in disinterested benevolence, and that all sin is a form of selfishness. This is shown. Chapters VI II., XII., and XVIII., to be a defective and therefore a false view.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "94", "sort_key": 94, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "What  do  ive  mean  when  loe  say  that  a  man  is  a  free  agent?", "answer": "1st. That, being a spirit, he originates action. Matter acts only as it is acted upon. A man acts from the spring of his own active power. 2d. That, although a man may be forced by fear to will and to do many things which he would neither Avill nor do if it were not for the fear, yet he never can be made to will what he does not himself desire to will, in full view of all the circumstances of the case. 3d. That he is furnished with a reason to distinguish be- tween the true and the false, and with a conscience, the organ of an innate moral law, to distinguish between right and wrong, in order that his desires may be both rational and righteous. And yet his desires are not necessarily either rational or right- eous, but are formed under the light of reason and conscience, either conformable to or contrary to them, according to the permanent, habitual dispositions of the man; i. e., according to his own character. 18. Shoio that this attribute of human nature is inalienable. A man is said to be free in willing when he wills in con 288 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. formity with his own prevaihng dispositions and desires at the time. A man's judgment may be deceived, or his actions may be coerced, but his will must he free, because, if it be truly his iciU, it must be as he desires it to be, in his present state of mind and under all the circumstances of the case at the time. It hence follows that volition is of its very essence free, whether the agent willing or the act willed be wise or foolish, good or bad. 19. Do not the Scriptures, however, speak of mans being under the bondage of corrupiion, and his liberty as lost ? As above shown, a man is alwaj-s free in every responsible volition, as much when he chooses, in violation of the law of God and conscience, as in conformity to it. In the case of unfallen creatures, and of perfectly sanctified men, however, the permanent state of the will, the voluntary affections and desires (in Scripture language, the heart), are conformed to the light of reason and the law of conscience within, and to the law of God, in its objective revelation. There are no conflicting prin- ciples then within the soul, and the law of God, instead of coercing the will by its commands and threatenings, is spon- taneously obeyed. This is \"the liberty of the sons of God;\" and the law becomes the \" royal law of liberty \" when the law in the heart of the subject perfectly corresponds with the law of the moral Governor. In the case of fallen men and angels, on the other hand, the reason and conscience, and God's law, are opposed by the governing dispositions of the will ; and the agent, although free, because he wills as he chooses, is said to be in bondage to an evil nature, and \" the servant of sin,\" because he is impelled by his corrupt dispositions to choose that which he sees and feels to be wrong and injurious, and because the threatenings of God's law tend to coerce his will through fear. The Scriptures do not teach that the unregenerate is not free in his sin, for then he would not be responsible. But the contrast between the liberty of the regenerate and the bondage of the unregenerate arises from the fact that in the regenerate the habitually controlling desires and tendencies are not in conflict with the voice of conscience and the law of God. The unregenerate, viewed psychologically, is free when he sins, be- cause he wills as upon the whole he desires; but viewed theo- logically, in his relation to God's law as enforced by reason and conscience and Scriptiu'e, he maj?^ be said to be in bondage to the evil dispositions and desires of his own heart, which he sees DEFINITIONS OF LIBERTY. 289 to be both wrong and foolish, bnt whicli, nevertheless, he is impotent to change.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "95", "sort_key": 95, "group": "Chapter XIV", "question": "Wliat  is  the  distinction  between  liherty  and  ability?", "answer": "Liberty consists in the power of the agent to will as he pleases, from the fact that the volition is determined only by the character of the agent willing. Ability consists in the power of the a^ent to change his own subjective state, to make him- self prefer what he does not prefer, and to act in a given case in opposition to the coexistent desires and preferences of the agent's own heart. Thus man is as truly free since the fall as before it, because he Avills as his evil heart pleases. But he has lost all ability to obey the law of God, because his evil heart is not subject to that law, neither can he change it. 21. Give Turretins and President Edwards' definitions of Liberty. Turretin, L. 10, Quaes. 1. — \"As only three things are found in the soul besides its essence, namely, facidties, habits (habitus), acts, so will (arbitrium) in the common opinion is regarded as an act of the mind; but here it properly signifies neither an act nor a habit which may be separated from an individual man, and which also determines him to one at least of two contra- ries; but it signifies a faculty, not one which is vegetative nor sensuous, common to us and the brutes, in which there can be no place for either virtue or vice, but a rational faculty, the possession of which does not indeed constitute us either good or bad, but through the states of which, and actions, we are capable of becoming either good or bad.\" QufBS. 3. — \" Since, therefore, the essential nature of liberty does not consist in indifference, it can not be found in any other principle than in {lubenfia rationcdi) a rational willingness or desire, whereby a man does what he prefers or chooses from a previous judgment of the reason (facit quod luhet ijravio rationis judicio). Hence two elements united are necessary to constitute tiiis liberty. (1.) ru npoaipEzixdv (the purpose), so that what is done is not determined by a blind, and certain brutish impulse, but en Ttpoaipi^Eooz, and from a previous illu- mination by the reason, and from a practical judgment of the intellect. (2.) t6 enovdiov (the spontaneous), so that what is done is determined spontaneously and freely and Avithout coaction.\" President Edwards \" On the Will,\" Section 5, defines Liberty as being \"the power, opportunity, or advantage, that any one has to do as he pleases.\" 290 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. 22. Wliai are the two senses in which the loord motive, as influ- encing the ivill, is used ? and in which sense is it true that the volition is always as the strongest motive ? 1st. A motive to act may be something outside the sold itself, as the value of money, the Avislies of a friend, the wisdom or folly, the right or the wrong, of any act in itself considered, or the appetites and impulses of the body. In this sense it is evident that the man does not always act according to the motive. What may attract one man may rej)el another, or a man may repel the attraction of an outward motive by the su- perior force of some consideration drawn from within the soul itself. So that the dictum is true, \"The man makes the motive, and not the motive the man.\" 2d. A motive to act may be the state of the man's own mind, as desire or aversion in view of the outward object, or motive in the first sense. This internal motive evidently must sway the volition, and as clearly it can not in the least interfere with the perfect freedom of the man in willing, since the internal motive is only the man himself desiring, or the reverse, accord- ing to his own disposition or character. 23. May tJiere not he several conflicting desires, or infernal motives, in the mind at the same time, and in such a case how is the ivill decided? There are often several conflicting desires, or impelling affections, in the mind at the same time, in which case the strongest desire, or the strongest group of desires, drawing in one way, determine the volition. That which is strongest proves itself to be such only by the result, and not by the intensity of the feeling it excites. Some of these internal motives are very vivid, like a thirst for vengeance, and others calm, as a sense of duty, yet often the calm motive proves itself the strongest, and draws the Avill its own way. This, of course, must depend upon the character of the agent. It is this inward contest of opposite principles which constitutes the warfare of the Christian life. It is the same experience which occasions a great part of that confusion of consciousness wdiich prevails among men wath respect to the problem of the will and the conditions of free agency. ]\\Ian often acts against inotives, but never without motive. And the motive which actually determines the choice in a given case may often be the least clearly defined in the intellect, and the least vividly experienced in the feelings. Especially in sudden surprises, and in cases of trivial concernment, the volition is constantly determined by vague impulses, or by force of habit almost auto- CERTAINTY NOT INCONSISTENT WITH LIBERTY. 291 matically. Yet in every case, if the Avhole contents of the mind, at the time of the vohtion, be brought np into distinct consciousness, it will be found that the man chose, as upon the whole view of the case presented by the understanding- at the instant he desired to choose. 24. If the immediately preceding state of the mans mind cer- tainJij determines the act of his ivill, hoiv can thcd act he truly free if certainly determined ? This objection rests solely upon the confusion of the two distinct ideas of liberty of the will as an abstract faculty, and liberty of the man who wills. The man is never determined to will by any thing without himself He always himself freely gives, according to his own character, all the weight to the external influences which bear upon him that they ever possess. But, on the other hand, the mere act of volition, abstractly con- sidered, is determined by the present mental, moral, and emo- tional state of the man at the moment he acts. His rational freedom, indeed, consists, not in the uncertainty of his act, but in the very fact that his whole soul, as an indivisible, knowing, feeling, moral agent, determines his OAvn action as it pleases. 25. Prove that the certainty of a volition is in no degree incon- sistent with the liberty of the agent in thcd act. 1st. God, Christ, and saints in glory, are all eminently free m their holy choices and actions, yet nothing can be more certain than that, to all eternity, they shall always will accord- ing to righteousness. 2d. ]Man is a free agent, yet of every infant, from his birth, it is absolutely certain that if he lives he will sin. 3d. God, from eternity, foreknows all the free actions of men as certain, and he has foreordained them, or made them to be certain. In prophecy he has infallibly foretold many of them as certain. And in regeneration his people are made \" his workmanship created unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them.\" 4th. Even we, if we thoroughly understand a friend's char- acter, and all the present circumstances under which he acts, are often absolutely certain how he will freely act, though absent from us. This is the foundation of all human faith, and hence of all human society. 26. What is that theory of moi'al liberty, styled ^'■Liberty of Indifference,''' ^'■Self-deiermirdng Poiver of the Will,'' '•'Power of Con- trary Choice\" ^'Liberty of Contingency,\" etc., held by Arminians and otJters ? 292 MORAL COXSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. This theory mamtaiiis that it is essentially involved in the idea of free ag-ency — 1st. That the will of man in every volition may decide in opposition, not only to all outward inducements, but equally to all the inward judgments, desires, and to the whole coexistent inward state of the man himself. 2d. That man is conscious in every free volition, that he might have willed precisely the opposite, his outward circumstances and his entire inward state remaining the same. 3d. That every free volition is contingent, i. e., uncertain, until the event, since it is determined by nothing but the bare faculty of volition on the part of the agent. — Hamilton's \" lieid,\" pp. 599-624. llie true theory of moral certainty, on the other hand, is that the soul is a unit; that the will is not self-determined, but that man, when he wills, is self-determined; and that his voli- tion is certainly determined by his own internal, rational, moral, emotional state at the time, viewed as a whole. In opposition to the former theory, and in favor of the lat- ter, we argue — 1st. That the character of the agent does cer- tainly determine the character of his free acts, and that the certainty of an act is not inconsistent with the liberty of the agent in his act. — See above. Question 12. 2d. The Christian doctrines of divine foreknowledge, fore- ordination, providence, and regeneration. For the Scriptural evidence of these, see their respective chapters. They all show that the volitions of men are neither uncertain nor in- determinate. 3d. We agree with the advocates of the opposite theory in maintaining that in every free act we are conscious that we had power to perform it, or not to perform it, as we chose. \" But we maintain that we are none the less conscious that this intimate conviction that we had power not to perform an act is conditional. That is, we are conscious that the act might have been otherwise, had other views or feelings been present to our minds, or been allowed their due weight. A man can not prefer against his preference, or choose against his choice. A man n:iay have one preference at one time, and another at another. He may have various conflicting feelings or princi- ples in action at the same time, but he can not have coexisting opposite preferences.\" 4th. The theory of the \"self-determining power of the will\" regards the will, or the mere faculty of volition, as isolated from the other faculties of the soul, as an independent agent within an agent. Now, the soul is a unit. Consciousness and Script- ure alike teach us that the man is the free, responsible agent. By this dissociation of the volitional faculty from the moral dispositions and desires, the volitions can have no moral char- ULTIMATE SEAT OF RESPONSIBILITY. 293 acter. By its dissociation from the reason, the volitions can have no rational character. If they are not determined by the inward state of the man himself, they must be fortuitous, and beyond his control. He can not be free if his will is independent alike of his head and his heart, and he ought not to be held responsible. — See \"Bib. Rep.,\" January, 1857, Article V. 27. Why is a man responsible for Ms outiuard actions; why for his volitions; why for his affections and desires; a'iid prove that he is responsible for his affections ? \"A man is responsible for his outward acts, because they are determined by the will ; he is responsible for his volitions, because they are determined by his own principles and feelings (desires); he is responsible for his principles and feelings, be- cause of their inherent nature as good or bad, and because they are his own and constitute his character.\" — \" Bib. Rep.,\" Jan- uary, 1857, p. 130. It is the teaching of Scripture and the universal judgment of men, that \"a good man out of the good treasures of his heart bringeth forth that which is good,\" and that a \"wicked man out of the evil treasures of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil.\" The act derives its moral character from the state of the heart from which it springs, and a man is respon- sible for the moral state of his heart, whether that state be innate, formed by regenerating grace, or acquired by himself, because — 1st. Of the obliging nature of moral right, and the ill desert of sin ; 2d. Because a man's affections and desires are himself loving or refusing that which is right. It is the judg- ment of all, that a profane or malignant man is to be repro- bated, no matter how he became so. 28. How does Dr. D. D. Whedon state and contrast the position of Arminian and Calvi)dstic philosophy? Dr. Whedon, in the \" Bibliotheca Sacra,\" April, 18(32, says, \" To this maxim, that it is no matter how we come by our evil volitions, dispositions, or nature in order to responsibility, pro- vided that we really possess them, we (the IMethodists) oppose the counter maxim that in order to responsihility for a given act or state., poiver in the agent for a contrary act or stcde is requisite. In other words j^oiver underlies respotvsihility.\" The only limit which he admits to this principle is the case of an inability in- duced by the free act of the agent himself. This, he says, is a fundamental maxim by which all the issues between Armin- ianism and Calvinism are determined. 294 MORAL CONSTITUTION OF THE SOUL. 29. Show that the Arminian vieiv leads to consequences incon- sistent ivith the gospel, and that the Calvinistic view is true. Dr. Wheclon admits that Adam after his fall lost all ability to obey the law of God, and was responsible for that inability and all its consequences, because, having been created with full ability, he lost it by his own free act. He also admits that every child of Adam is born into the world with a coiTnpt nature, and without any ability to obey the law of God. But no infant is responsible nor punishable for this want of ability nor for any sinfvd action which results from it, because it was entailed upon him, without any fault of his own, by the sin of another. In the way of just compensation, however, for this their great misfortune of being- innocent sinners, God gives to all men in Christ sufficient grace, and hence gracious ability to obey the gospel law. If a man uses this gracious ability he is saved, and faith and evangelical obedience is accounted for perfect righteousness ; (/' he does not use this gracious ability he is condemned as responsible for that abuse of ability, and con- sequently responsible for all the sinful feelings, actions, and subsequent inability which result from tliat abuse of power. We argue that it follows from this Arminian view — 1st. That salvation by Christ is not of free grace, but a tardy and incom- plete compensation granted men for undeserved evils brought upon them at their birth in consequence of Adam's sin. 2d. The \" grace \" given to all men is as necessary to render them pun- ishable sinners, as it is to save their souls. In fact, according to this principle, grace sends more souls to hell by making them responsible through the possession of ability, than it sends to heaven through f\\iith in Christ. 3d. Those who die in infancy, not being punishable, because not responsible, for original sin, go to heaven as a matter of natural right. On the contrary we maintain that the responsibility of a man for his moral dispositions, affections, and desires, no matter how they may have originated, if he be a sane man, is an ultimate fact of consciousness, confirmed by Scripture, conscience, and the universal judgments of men. An act de- rives its moral character from the state of the heart from which it springs, but the state of the heart does not acquire its n}oral character from the action. But the moral quality of the state of the heart itself is inherent, and moral responsibility is insep- arable from moral quality. This is so — 1st. Because of the essential nature of right and wrong. The essence of right is that it otcght to be — that it obliges the will. The essence of wrong is that it ought not to be — that the will is under obligation to the contrary, and that ULTIMATE SEAT OF RESPONSIBILITY. 295 the doing of it involves iU desert. 2d. Because a man's moral affections or desires are nothing other tlian the man himself loving or abhorring goodness. It is the judgment of all men that a profane and malignant man is to be reprobated no matter how he became so. It is the character, not the origin, of the moral disposition of the heart which is the real question. Christ says, \" A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good, and a wicked man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil.\" — Luke vi. 45", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "96", "sort_key": 96, "group": "Chapter XVII", "question": "In  loJiat  different  senses  is  the  term  covenant  used  in  Scripture?", "answer": "1st. For a natural ordinance. — Jer. xxxiii. 20. 2d. For an nnconditional promise. — Gen. ix. 11, 12. 3d. For a conditional promise. — Is. i. 19, 20. 4th. A dispensation or mode of administration. — Heb. viii. 6-9. For the usage with respect to the Greek term SiafJrjKrj, usu- ally translated in our version testament and covenant. — See Chap- ter XXII., on \" Covenant of Grace,\" Question 1. In the theological phrases \"covenant of works,\" and \"cove- nant of grace,\" this term is used in the third sense of a promise suspended on conditions.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "97", "sort_key": 97, "group": "Chapter XVII", "question": "What  are  the  several  elements  essential  to  a  covenant?", "answer": "1st. Contracting parties. 2d. Conditions. These conditions in a covenant between equals are mutually imposed and mutu- ally binding, but in a sovereign constitution, imposed by the Creator upon the creature, these \" conditions \" are better ex- pressed as (1) promises on the part of the Creator suspended upon (2) conditions to be fulfilled by the creature. And (3) an alternative penalty to be inflicted in case the condition fails. 3. Shoiv that the constitution under lohich Adam ivas placed by God at his creation may he rightly called a covenant. The inspired record of God's transactions with Adam pre- sents definitely all the essential elements of a covenant as co- existing in that constitution. 1st. The \"contracting parties.\" — (1.) God, the moral Gov- ernor, by necessity of nature and relation demanding perfect conformity to moral law. (2.) Adam, the free moral agent, by necessity of nature and relation under the inalienable obliga- tion of moral law. 310 COVENANT OF WORKS. 2cl. The \"promises,\" life and favor.— ]\\Iatt. xix. 16, 17; Gal. iii. 12. 3d. The \"conditions\" upon which the promises were sus- pended, perfect obedience, in this instance subjected to a spe- cial test, that of abstaining from the fruit of the \"tree of knowledge.\" 4th. The \"alternative penalty.\" \"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.\" — Gen. ii. 16, 17. This constitution is called a covenant. — Hosea vi. 7.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "98", "sort_key": 98, "group": "Chapter XVII", "question": "How  is  it  defined  in  our  standards  ?", "answer": "\"Con. Faith,\" Chap, iv., Sec. 2; Chap, vii., Sec. 1 and 2; Chap, xix.. Sec. 1; \" L. Cat.,\" Q. 20; \"S. Cat.,\" Q. 12. 5. Why is it not absurd to apply the term \" Covenant \" to a sovereign constitution imposed hy the Creator upon the creature tvithout consulting Ms ivill ? 1st. Although it was a sovereign constitution imposed by God, there is no reason to suppose that Adam did not enter upon it voluntarily. He was a holy being, and the arrangement was pre-eminently to his advantage. 2d. We call it a Covenant because that is the proper word to express a conditional prom- ise made to a free agent. 3d. The term \"Covenant\" is constant- ly applied in Scripture to other sovereign constitutions of like character which the Creator has imposed upop men. If God could make covenants with fallen 'and guilty Noah, Gen. ix. 11, 12, and with Abraham, Gen. xvii. 1-21, why could he not make a covenant with unfallen Adam.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "99", "sort_key": 99, "group": "Chapter XVII", "question": "By  what  titles  has  this  covenant  been  designated  and  why  ?", "answer": "Ist. It has been called the Covenant of Nature, because it expresses the relations which man in his natural state as newly created and unfallen sustained to the Creator and Moral Gov- ernor of the universe. It is adjusted to the natural or unfallen man, just as the Covenant of Grace is adjusted to unnatural or fallen man. 2d. It has been called a legal covenant, because its \" condition \" is perfect conformity to^the law of absolute moral perfection. 3d. It has been called the Covenant of Works, because its demands terminate upon man's own being and doing. 4th. It has been called a Covenant of Life, because the promise attached to well-doing was life. It was also essentially a gracious covenant, because although every creature is, as such, bound to serve the Creator to the full extent of his powers, the Creator can not be bound as a mere matter of justice to grant the creature fellowship with himself, THE PARTIES AND PROMISE OF THE COVENANT. 311 or to raise him to an infallible standard of moral power, or to crown him with eternal and inalienable felicity. 7. Wlio were the parties to this covenant, and Jio7o may it he proved that Adam therein represented all his natural descendants ? The \"parties\" were God and Adam, and in him represen- tatively all his natural posterity. That he did thus represent his descendants is evident — 1st. From the parallel which is drawn in Scripture between Adam in his relation to his descendants, and Christ in his rela- tion to his elect. — Rom. v. 12-19, and 1 Cor. xv. 22, 47. 2d. From the matter of fact that the very penalty denounced upon Adam, in case of his disobedience, has taken effect in each individual descendant. — Gen. ii. 17; iii. 17, 18. 3d. From the Biblical declaration that sin, death, and all penal evil came into the world through Adam.-r-Rom. v. 12; 1 Cor. XV. 22. See Chapter XXI., on \" Imputation of Adam's Sin.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "100", "sort_key": 100, "group": "Chapter XVII", "question": "What  ivas  the  promise  attached  to  the  Covenant  ?", "answer": "The promise was \"life\" — 1st. Because it is necessarily im- plied in the penalty of \"death,\" which is expressly denounced. If disobedience is linked to death, obedience is linked to life. 2d. It is clearly taught in other passages of Scripture. — Lev. xviii. 5; Neh. ix. 29; jMatt. xix. 16, 17; Gal. iii. 12; Rom. x. 5. This life was not a mere continuation of the existence with wdiich man was. endowed by creation as a fallible, moral agent, but it was an additional gift of infallible, moral excellence, and inalienable blessedness, conditioned upon obedience during a probationary period. 1st. This is evident because the reward suspended on \" conditions \" must involve something more than had been already granted. 2d. Because man was as created liable to sin, and tiiere could be no permanent and seciu'e bliss nor high excellence in that condition. 3d. Because the grant- ing of the reward necessarily closes the probation, supersedes the conditions, and secures inalienable blessedness. 4th.* Be- cause the angels who had not left their first estate had been rewarded with such a life. 5th. Because the life promised must correspond to the death threatened, and the death threatened involved eternal separation from God and irretrievable destruc- tion. 6th. Because the life secured to us by the \"Second Adam\" is of this nature. 9. What is a '■'■ p>rohation' ? and ivhen and ivhere had the hunum rojce, its probation under the Covenant of Works ? A probation is a trial. The word is variously used to express the state, or the time, or the act of trial. The time of probation 312 COVENANT OF WORKS. under such a constitution as the covenant of works must be a definitely hmited one, because it is self-evident that either the infliction of the penalty or the granting of the reward would, ipsofacio. close the probation forever, and the reward could not accrue until the period of probation Avas completed. The probation of the human race took place once for all in the trial of Adam in the garden of Eden. That trial resulted in loss, and since then the conditions of the covenant being impossible, and its penalty having been incurred, any proba- tion is of course impossible. Men are now by nature children of wrath. 10. What loas the condition of that covenant ? and icliy icas the command not to eat of the tree of knoivledge of good and evil selected as a test ? Perfect conformity of heart, and perfect obedience in act to the whole will of God as far as revealed. — Deut. xxvii. 26; Gal. iii. 10 ; James ii. 10. The command to abstain from eating the forbidden fruit was only made a special and decisive test of that general obedience. As the matter forbidden was mor- ally indifferent in itself, the command was admirably adapted to be a clear and naked test of submission to God's absolute will as such. Tiie forbidden tree Avas doubtless called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because through the disobe- dient eating of it mankind came to the thorough experience of the value of goodness and of the infinite evil of sin. The obedience required by the law as a rule of duty is of course perpetual. But the demand of the law for obedience as a covenant condition of life must be limited to the period of probation. The term \"perpetual\" in \"Conf F.,\" Ch. xix., § 1, and \"L. Cat.,\" Q. 20, was admitted doubtless by inadvertence. 11. Whcd was the ncdure of the decdh threcdened in case of disobedience ? This word, \"dying thou shalt die,\" in this connection evi- dently includes all the penal consequences of sin. These are — 1st, death, natural, Eccle. xii. 7; 2d, death, moral and spiritual, Matt. viii. 22; Eph. ii. 1; 1 Tim. v. 6; Rev. hi. 1; 3d, death, eternal, liev. xx. 6-14. The instant the law was violated its penalty began to ope- rate, although on account of the intervention of the dispensation of grace the full effect of the sentence is suspended during the present life. The Spirit of God was withdrawn the instant man fell, and he at once became spiritually dead, physically mortal, and under sentence of death eternal. This appears — 1st. From the nature of man as a spiritual MEANING OF THE WORD ''DEATHS 313 being. \"This is life eternal to know the only true God,\" etc. — John xvii. 3. The instant the soul is cut off from God it dies, and his wrath and curse is incurred, and the entire per- son, body, and soul, involved in an endless series of evil condi- tions. 2d. The Scriptures everywhere declare that the wages of sin is death. — Rom. vi. 23; Ezek. xviii. 4. The nature of this death is to be determined. (1.) By the narrative of the effects produced in our first parents, e. (/., shame of nakedness, fear, alienation from God, unbelief, and after a time dissolution of body, etc. (2.) By the experience of its effects in their descendants, e. g., corruption of nature, mortality of body, miseries in this life, the second death. 12. What does C. F. Hudson and others hold to he the penalty of the Covenant of Works ? The annihilationists, of whom C. F. Hudson is one of the ablest, hold that the precise thing God said to Adam was \"Thou, thyself, thine entire person art dust, and to dust thou shalt return.\" They quote Num. xxiii. 10; Judges xvi. 30, etc. They hold that death means precisely and only cessation of being. They say i\\.dam could have had no other idea asso- ciated with the word. Death in this sense had pre-existed in the world for innumerable ages among the lower orders of creatures, and this was all Adam knew on the subject. It is idle for us to speculate as to what the original lan- guage God spoke to Adam was, or what the word he used, corresponding to our word death, precisely signified and sug- gested. Adam probably simply understood God to say that if he sinned he should be utterly and irretrievably cut off from the divine favor. That is precisely what happened. But the facts are clear. 1st. The word death in Scripture is used to express not cessation of being but a certain godless condition of being. — Rev. iii. 1 ; Eph. ii. 1-5, and v. 14 ; 1 Tim. v. 6 ; Rom. vi. 13; xi. 15; John v. 24; vi. 47. 2d. It will be shown below. Chapters XXXVII. and XL., that the Scriptures do not allow the notion either of the sleep of the soul during the inter- mediate state, or of the annihilation of the wicked after the judgment. 13. What is meant hy the seal of a covenant, and ivhat icas the seed of the Covenant of Works ? A seal of a covenant is an outward visible sign, appointed by God as a pledge of his faithfulness, and as an earnest of the blessings promised in the covenant. Thus the rainbow is the seal of the covenant made with Noah. — Gen. ix. 12, 13. Circumcision was the original seal of 314 COVENANT OF WORKS. the covenant made with Abraham (Gen. xvii. 9-11 ; Eom. iv. 11), in the place of which baptism is now instituted. — Col. ii. 11, 12; Gal. iii. 2(3, 27. The tree of life was the seal of the covenant of works, because it was the ontward sign and seal of that life which was promised in the covenant, and from which man was excluded on account of sin, and to which he is restored through the second Adam in the Paradise regained. — Compare Gen. ii. 9 ; iii. 22, 24, with Rev. ii. 7; xxii. 2-14. 14. Wliat according to IVitsius, in his great ivork ^^on the Cov- enants,'' are the seals or sacraments of the Covenant of Works ? In Vol. I., Ch. vi., Witsius enumerates four — 1st. Paradise. 2d. The tree of life. 3d. The tree of knowledge of good and evil. 4th. The Sabbath. These were all doubtless symbolical institutions connected with the original divine dispensation of which the Covenant of Works was the foundation. But there appears to be no rea- son for designating them as belonging to that particular class of symbolical institutions called sacraments under the New Testament. The tree of the knoAvledge of good and evil sealed death, and therefore could not have been a seal of the Covenant of Works which offered life. 15. In lohat sense is the Covenant of Woo'ks abrogated, and in what sense is it in force ? This Covenant having been broken by Adam, not one of his natural descendants is ever able to fulfil its conditions, and Christ having fulfilled all of its conditions in behalf of all his own people, salvation is offered now on the condition of faith. In this sense the Covenant of Works having been fulfilled by the second Adam is henceforth abrogated under the gospel. Nevertheless, since it is founded upon the principles of im- mutable justice, it still binds all men who have not fled to the refuge offered in the righteousness of Christ. It is still true that \"he that doeth these things shall live by them,\" and \"the soul that sinneth it shall die.\" This law in this sense remains, and in consequence of the unrighteousness of men condemns them, and in consequence of their absolute inability to fulfil it, it acts as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. For he having fulfilled alike its condition wherein Adam failed, and its penalty which Adam incurred, he has become the end of this covenant for righteousness to every one that believeth, who in him is regarded and treated as one who has fulfilled the covenant, and merited its promised reward.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "101", "sort_key": 101, "group": "Chapter XVIII", "question": "What  must  a  triie  definition  of  the  nature  of  sin  embrace  ?", "answer": "A definition of sin must — 1st. Include all that either the Word of God or an enlightened conscience decides to be sin. 2d. It must include nothing else. Otherwise in either case it is false. 3. State the definitions of sin given by Turretin, and by our Standards, and by Vitringa. Turretin, Locus 9, QufBS. 1. — \" Inclinatio, actio, vel omissio pugnans cum lege Dei, vel carens rectitudine legali debita in esse.\" 316 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. \" Conf. Faith,\" Ch. vi, § 6; \" L. Cat,\" Q. 24; \" S. Cat,\" Q. 14 \" Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God.\" Campejus Vitringa, Prof Theo. in Franeker, died 1722. — \" Forma peccati est disconvenientia, actus, habitus, ant status hominis cum divina lege.\" This last excellent definition embraces two constitutent prop- ositions.— Ist. Sin_i^_any and ey.ery want of conformity with the moral law of God, whether of excess or defect, whether of omission or commission. 2d. Sin is any want of conformity of the moral states and habits as well of the actions of the human soul with the law of God ?", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "102", "sort_key": 102, "group": "Chapter XVIII", "question": "What  is  Laio  ?  And  what  is  tJie  Law  of  God  ?", "answer": "The word law is used in a great many and in very different senses. It is used by natural philosophers often to express — 1st. A general fact, e. (/., the general fact that all matter at- tracts all matter inversely as the square of the distance. 2d. An established order of sequence in which certain events occur, as the order of the seasons, and any established order of nature. 3d. The mode of acting of a specific force, as the law of electri- cal induction, etc. 4th. A spontaneous order of development, as the internal self-acting law of the growth of animals and plants from the seed. The moral law of God, however, is not an internal, self-reg- ulating principle of man's moral nature, like the feigned inner light of the Quakers, but an imperial standard of moral excel- lence imposed upon mankind from without and from above them by the supreme authority of a personal moral Governor over personal moral subjects. It involves (a) a certain degree of enlightenment as to truth and duty, (/>) a rule of action reg- ulating the will and binding the conscience, (c) armed with sanctions, or imperative motives constraining to obedience. 5. Prove that sin is any icant ofconformity to '■'' Laio.'' 1st. Whenever we sin conscience condemns us for not com- ing up to a standard which we intuitivel}^ recognize as morally obligatory upon us. Conscience implies {a) moral accounta- bility, and hence subjection to a moral Governoi', and {Ij) a standard to which we ought to be conformed. The conscience itself, as the organ of God's law, contains the law written on the heart 2d. It is implied in all the language used by the Holy Ghost in Scripture to express the idea of sin \\2t' D''pt:' from nob' to devi- SIN WANT OF CONFORMITY TO LAW OF GOD. 317 ate from the ivay. ^'^^ to miss the mark, djuaprdvoo to err, to miss the mark, jrapa/iadz? (Gal. iii. 19), a going aside from, a trans- gresssion. 3d. It is explicitly asserted in Scripture, \" Every one tliat doetli sin, also doeth rtjr dvojuiav, and sin is dvojuia.\" — 1 John iii. 4. \" For where no law is there is no transgression.\" — Rom. iv. 15. 6. Prove that sin is any ivant of conformity to the moral Law of God. As above shown this is implied in the action of conscience. It testifies to a law imposed upon us by an authority external to us, the supreme authority of God. In the absence of all supernatural revelation it has led all heathen nations to the recognition of the authority of God, or of gods exercising gov- ernment, to a belief in rewards and punishments administered by God, and hence to expiatory and propitiatory rites. It is also asserted by David that sin of any kind is disobe- dience and dishonor done to God. — See fifty-first Psalm. Hence sin is not a mere violation of the law of our own constitution, nor of the system of things, but an offence against a personal Lawgiver and moral Governor, who vindicates his law with penalties. The soul that sins is always conscious that his sin is (a) intrinsically vile and polluting, and {h) that it justly deserves punishment and calls down the righteous wrath of God. Hence sin carries with it two inalienable characters — (a) ill desert, guilt, reatus, (6) pollution, macula. 7. Shoio that this Laio, any tvant of conformity to which is sin, demands absolute moral perfection.* This is necessarily involved in the very essence of moral obligation. The very essence of right is thcd it ought to he. Tlie very essence of wrong is that it ought not to be. If any thing- be indifferent it is not moral, and if it be moral it is a matter of obligation. This being of the essence of right it is, of course, true of each consistent part as Avell as of the whole. Any degree short of full conformity with the highest right is there- fore of the natm-e of sin. \"For whosoever shall keep the Avhole law and yet offend in one point is guilty of all.\" — -James ii. 10. The old maxim is true, Omne minus bonum habet rationem mali. It evidently follows from this principle that the Romish doc- trine of works of Supererogation is absurd as well as wicked, Bince if these works are obligatory they are not supererogatory, and if tliey are not obligatory they are not moral, and if not moral they can have no moral value. Hence also all those Perfectionists who admit that men are not now able to keep * Dr. C. Hodge's Unpublished Lectures. 318 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. perfectly the law of absolute moral perfection, while they main- tain that Christians may in this life live without sin, obviously use incorrect and misleading langaiage. 8. Prove that any want of conformity ivith this Laiv in the states and permanent habit of soul, as well as in its acts, is sin. Ist. This is proved by the common judgments of all men. All jvidge that the moral state of the heart determines the moral character of the actions, and that the moral character of the actions discloses the moral state of the heart, and that a man whose acts are habitually profane, or malignant, or impure, is himself in the permanent state of his heart profane, or malig- nant, or impure. 2d. The same is proved by the common religious experience of all Christians. This experience alwa^'s involves conviction of sin, and conviction of sin involves as its most imiform and prominent element not merely a conviction that our actions fail to come up to the proper standard of excellence, but a sense that in the depths of our nature, below and beyond the reach of volition, we are spiritually dead and polluted, and im- potent and insensible to divine things, and worthy of condem- nation therefore. Every Christian has been brouglit with Paul to cry out, \"0 wretched man that I am: who shall deliver me from the body of this death.\" — Rom. vii. 24 This finds expres- sion, and this principle for which we are contending finds proof in all the prayers, supplications, confessions, and in all the hjanns and devotional literature of Christians of all ages and denominations. 3d. The Scriptures explicitly call the permanent states of the soul \"sin\" Avhen they are not conformed to the law of God. Sin and its lusts are said to reign in the mortal body; the mem- bers are the instruments of sin; the unregenerate are the ser- vants of sin. — Rom. vi. 12-17. The disposition or permanent \"tendency\" to sin is called \"flesh\" as opposed to \"spirit,\" Gal. V. 17; also \"lust,\" James i. 14, 15; \"old Adam,\" and \"body of sin,\" \"ignorance,\" \"blindness of heart,\" \"alienation from the life of God,\" and \" a condition of being past feeling,\" Eph. iv. 18, 19. 9. Shoio that the very first spontaneous motions of concfiipiscence are sin ? 1st. The heart of the Christian often for the moment spon- taneously lusts for evil when the conscience promptly condemns and the will forbids and restrains and diverts the attention. Althcjugh the man does not consent to the sin that is present in him, nevertheless the Christian feels that such movements of ORIGIN OF SIN. 319 concupiscence are unholy, and worthy of condemnation, and he not only resists them but condemns and loathes himself because of them, and seeks to be purged Irom them at once by the atoning blood, and the sanctifying spirit of Jesus. 2d. Concupiscence is called \" sin \" in Scripture. \" I had not known sin, but by the law, ibr I had not known kTuhvi-Uav (con- cupiscence) except the law had said thou shalt not kTtiOvi-a'jGEii.^^ Also rd TtaOrj/uaza rcSv djuapriaov, \"the motions of sin,\" and \"the law in the members,\" and \"sin that dwelleth in me,\" that worketh without \" my consent,\" which \" works all manner of concupiscence,\" etc. — Kom. vii. 5-24. 10. What is the first great mystery connected with the origin of sin ? How or why was the existence of sin tolerated in the crea- tion of a God at once eternal, self-existent, and infinite in Avis- dom, power, holiness, and benevolence? All the attempted solutions of this enigma which have been entertained in our day have been summed up by Prof Haven of Chicago as follows : \" Either God can not prevent sin, i. e., either (a) in any system, (b) in a moral system involving free agency. \" Or for some reason God does not choose to prevent sin, i. e., either because («) its existence is of itself desirable, (b) or though not in itself desirable it is the necessary means of the greatest good, or (c) though not in itself tending to good it may be overruled to that result, or (d) because, in general terms, its permission will involve less evil than its absolute prevention. It is obvious (o.) that God has permitted sin, and (b) hence it was right for him to do so. But why it was right must ever remain a mystery demanding submission and delying solution.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "103", "sort_key": 103, "group": "Chapter XVIII", "question": "What  ivas  the  ^lanicJiwan  doctrine  as  to  the  origin  of  sin?", "answer": "They held the opinion that sin had its ground in some eter- nal, self-existent principle independent of God, either matter or self-existent devil. This doctrine is inconsistent (a) with the independence, infinitude, and sovereignty of God; {b) with the nature of sin as essentially the revolt of a created free-will from God. Sin is an element of perverted moral agency. To con- sider it an attribute of matter is to- deny it. AH the Christian fathers united in opposing JManichasism and in maintaining that sin is the product of the free-will of man alone. 12. State the doctrine of St. Augustine ivith respect to the priva- tive nature of sin. St. Augustine held — 1st. That God is the creator of all 320 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. entities • and the absolutely sovereign Governor of all moral agents and of all their actions; and 2d. That nevertheless God is in no sense either tlie author or the cause of sin. In order to reconcile tliese he held, 3d. That sin is not an entity, but is in its essence simply a defect. His dictum, which hence has passed into general currency with all classes of theologians, was Nihil est malum nisi privafio honi. They have properly distinguished between \"negation\" and \"privation.\" Negation is the absence of that wliich does not belong to the nature of the subject, as sight to a stone. Privation is the absence of that Avhich belonging to the nature of the subject is necessary to its perfec- tion, as sight to a man. Sin therefore is privative because it originates in the absence of those moral qualities which ougld to be present in the states and actions of a free, responsible, moral agent. It is to be remembered, however, that the inherent depravity •which \" comes from a defective or privative cause \" instantly assumes a positive form, from the essentiall}^ active nature of the human soul. In a passive condition of being, a defect might remain purel}' negative. But in a ceaselessly active being, and one acting under ceaseless moral obligations, a moral defect must instantly become a positive vice. Not to love God is to hate him. Not to be in all things conformed to his will is to rebel against him, and to break his law at all points. — See Edwards, \" Original Sin,\" pt. 4. sec. 2.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "104", "sort_key": 104, "group": "Chapter XVIII", "question": "What  is  the  Pelagian  doctrine  as  to  the  nature  of  sin?", "answer": "The Pelagian view of sin, which has been rejected by all branches of the Christian Cliurch, is — 1st. That law can com- mand only volitions. 2d. That states of the soul can be com- manded only in so far as they are the direct effect of previous volitions. 3d. Hence that sin consists simply in acts of volition. 4th. That whatever a man has not plenary ability to do he is under no obligation to do. 5th. That there is no such thing, therefore, as innate depravity. 6th. That since a volition to be moral or the subject of approbation or of condemnation, must be a pure self-decision of the will, it follows that sin is beyond the absolute control of God. 14. In ivhat sense is the dictum that ^^all sin is voluntary\" true, and in ivhat sense false? _ It all turns upon the sense of the phrase \"Voluntary.\" If it be in the Pelagian sense restricted to \" acts of volition ; \" then the dictum that \"all sin is voluntary\" is false. If, however, it is used so as to include the spontaneous dispositions, tenden- cies, and afiections which constitute the permanent character SIN OF ADAM. 321 of the soul, and Avhich prompt to and decide the nature of the voHtions, then all sin is voluntary, because all sin has its ground and spring in these spontaneous tendencies and dispositions, i. e., in the permanent moral states of the soul. 15. State the peculiarities of the Romish position upon this sub- ject, and also that of the Arminian Perfectionists. The Roman Church agrees with all Protestants in holding that all the habits and permanent dispositions as well as the actions of the soul which are not conformed to the law of God are sinful. But it is a prominent characteristic of their doc- trine that they hold that moral condition of soul which remains in the regenerate as the consequence of original sin, and the fomes or fuel of actual sin, is not properly of the nature of sin. They maintain tliat the first spontaneous movement of this concupiscence is not. sin in itself, and not to be treated as such — but that it becomes the cause of sin as soon as its solicita- tions are entertained and translated into action by the will. — \"Cat. of Council of Trent,\" Pt. II., ch. ii., Q. 42. The Arminians avail themselves of the same positions when defending their doctrine of Christian Perfection. Wesley (in \"Meth. Doc. Tracts,\" pp. 294-312) distinguishes between \"sin properly so called, i. e., voluntary transgression of known law, and sin improperly so called, i. e., involuntary transgression of law, known or unknown,\" and declares, \" I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary trans- gressions, which I apprehend to be naturally consequent upon the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality.\" The Sin of Adam. 16. What is the second g7xat mystery connected with tJie origin of sin ? How could sin originate in the will of a creature created with a positively holy disposition ? The difficulty is to reconcile understandingly the fact that sin did so originate — 1st. With the known constitution of the human will. If the volitions are as tlie prevalent affections and desires, and if the affections and desires excited by outward occasions are good or evil, according to the permanent moral state of the will, how could a sinful volition originate in a holy will ? or how could the permanent state of his soul become spontane- ously unholy? 2d. With universal experience. As it is impossible that a sinful desire or volition should originate in the holy will of 21 322 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. God, or in the holj^ M-ill of saints and angels, or that a truly holy affection or volition should originate in the depraved wills of fallen men Avithout supernatural regeneration (Luke vi. 43-45), how could a sinful volition originate in the holy will of Adam ? That Adam was created with a holy yet fallible will, and that he did fall, are facts established by divine testimony. We must believe them, although we can not rationally explain them. This is for us impossible — 1st. Because there remains an inscrutable element in the human will, adopt whichever theory of it we may. 2d. Because all our reasoning must be based upon con- sciousness, and no other man ever had in his consciousness the experience of Adam. The origin of our sinful volitions is plain enough. But we lack some of the data necessary to ex- plain his case. In the way of approximation, however, we may observe— 1st. It is unsound to reason from the independent will of the infinite God to the dependent will of the creature. 2d. The infallibility of saints and angels is not inherent, but is a superinduced conjirmmg grace of God. They are not in a state of probation. Adam was — his will was free, but not confirmed. 3d. The depraved will of man can not originate holy affec- tions and volitions, because the presence of a positively holy principle is necessaiy to constitute them holy. But, on the other hand, there were already in the holy will of Adam many principles morally indifferent, in themselves neither good nor bad, and becoming sinful only wdien, in default of the control of reason and conscience, they prompt to their indulgence in ways forbidden by God; e. q., admiration and appetite for the fruit, and desire for knowledge. The sin coiumenced the moment that, under the powerful persuasion of Satan, these two motives were dwelt upon in spite of the prohibition, and thus allowed to become so prevalent in tlie soul as temporarily to neutralize reverence for God's authority, and fear of his threatening. 4th. Adam, although endowed with a holy disposition, was inexperienced in the assaults of temptation. 5th. He was assailed through the morally indifferent princi- ples of his nature by a vastly superior intelligence and char- acter, to whom, in the highest sense, the origin of all sin must be referred. 17. What appears from the history of the Fall to have been the precise nature of the first sin of Adam? THE EFFECT OF ADAM'S SIN ON HIMSELF. 323 It appears from the record (Gen. iii. 1-6) that the initial influences inducing our first parents, in their first transgression, were in themselves considered morally indifferent. These were — 1st. Natural appetite for the attractive fruit. 2d. Natural de- sire for knowledge. 3d. The persuasive power of Satan upon Eve, including the known influence of a superior mind and will. 4th. The persuasive power of both Satan and Eve upon Adam. Their dreadful sin appears to have been essentially — 1st. Unbelief, they virtually made God a liar. 2d. Deliberate disobedience, they set up their will as a law in place of his.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "105", "sort_key": 105, "group": "Chapter XVIII", "question": "What  relation  did  God  sustain  to  Adams  sin?", "answer": "Concerning the relation sustained by God to the sin of Adam all we know is — 1st. God created Adam holy, with all natural powers necessary for accountable agency. 2d. He rightfully withheld from him, during his probation, any higher supernat- ural influence necessary to render him infallible. 3d. He neither caused nor approved Adam's sin. 4th. He sovereignly decreed to permit him to sin, thus determining that he should sin as he did.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "106", "sort_key": 106, "group": "Chapter XVIII", "question": "What  luas  the  effect  of  Adams  sin  upon  himself?", "answer": "1st. In the natural relation which Adam sustained to God as the subject of his moral government, his sin must have in- stantly had the effect of (1) displeasing and alienating God, and (2) of depraving his own soul. 2d. In the covenant relation which Adam sustained to God the penalty of the covenant of Avorks was incurred, i. e., death, including, (1) mortality of body, (2) corruption of soul, (3) sen- tence of eternal death. 20. In lohat sense did lie become totally depraved, and hoiv coidd total depravity result from one sin ? By the afiirmation that total depravity was the immediate result of Adam's first sin, it is not meant that he became as bad as he could be, or even as corrupt as the best of his unre- generate descendants ; but it is meant — 1st. His apostasy from God was complete. God demands perfect obedience. Adam was now a rebel in arms. 2d. That the favor and communion of God, the sole condition of his spiritual life, was withdrawal. 3d. A schism was introduced into the soul itself The pain- ful reproaches of conscience were excited, and could never be allayed wdthout an atonement. This led to fear of God, distrust, prevarication, and, by necessary consequence, to in- numerable other sins. 32-4 THE NATURE OF SIN AND THE SIN OF ADAM. 4th. Thus the whole nature became depraved. The will being at war with the conscience, the understanding- became darkened; the conscience, in consequence of constant outrage and neglect, became seared; the appetites of the body inordi- nate, and its members instruments of unrighteousness. 5th. There remained in man's nature no recuperative princi- ple ; he must go on from worse to worse, unless God interpose. Thus the soul of man being essentially active, although one sin did not establish a confirmed habit, it did alienate God and work confusion in the soul, and thus lead to an endless course of sin. The Consequences of Adam's sin to his posterity are — 1st. The judicial charging of the legal responsibility of that sin upon all at their creation whom he represented in the Covenant of Works. 2d. The consequent birth of each of his descendants in a state of exclusion from the life-giving communion of the divine Spirit. 3d. The consequent loss of original righteous- ness, and the inherent and prevailing tendency to sin which is the invariable moral condition of each of his descendants from birth. 4th. The absolute moral inability of men to change their natures or to fulfil their obligations. For reasons which will appear subsequently, the subjects connected with man's natural moral corruption and impotency, are discussed before the subject of Imputation, or the reason and method of the passing over of the consequences of Adam's sin from him to his descendants.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "107", "sort_key": 107, "group": "Chapter XIX", "question": "Hoio  is  original  sin  to  he  defined  ?", "answer": "See \"Confession of Faith,\" Chapter vi. ; \"L. Cat.,\" Questions 25, 26; \"S. Cat,\" Question 18. The phrase, original sin, is used sometimes to include the , judicial imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin, as well as the iv'^ hereditary moral corruption, common to all his descendants, ' !?S which is one of the consequences of that imputation. ]More / strictly, however, the phrase original sin designates only the/y hereditary moral corruption common to all men from birth. |' In the definition of this doctrine we deny — 1st. That this corruption is in any sense physical, that it inheres in the essence of the soul, or in any of its natural fac- ulties as such. 2d. That it consists primarily in the mere supremacy of the sensual part of our nature. It is a depraved habit or bias of will. 3d. That it consists solely in the absence of holy dispositions, because, from the inherent activity of the soul, sin exhibits itself from the beginning in the way of a positive proneness to evil. On the other hand, wb affirm — 1st. That original sin is purely moral, being the innate proneness of the ^yil^ |o eyjl. 2d. That having its seat in the will averse to the holy law of God, it biasses the understanding, and thus deceives the conscience, leads to erroneous moral judgments, to blindness of mind, to deficient and perverted sensibility in relation to moral objects, to the inordinate action of the sensuous nature, and thus to corruption of the entire soul. 3d. Thus it presents two aspects: (1.) The loss of the original righteous habit of will. (2.) The presence of a positively un- righteous habit. 326 ORIGINAL SLY. 4th. Yet from the fact that this innate depravity does embrace a positive disposition to evil, it does not follow that a positive evil quality has been infused into the sonl. Because, from the essentially active nature of the soul, and from the essential nature of virtue, as that which obliges the will, it evidently follows that moral indifference is impossible; and so that depravity, which President Edwards says \" comes from a defective or privative cause,\" instantly assumes a positive form. Not to love God is to rebel against him, not to obey virtue is to trample it under foot. Self-love soon brings us to fear, then to hate the vindicator of righteousness. — Edwards on \"Original Sin,\" Part IV., sec. 2.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "108", "sort_key": 108, "group": "Chapter XIX", "question": "Why  is  this  sin  called  original?", "answer": "Not because it belongs to the original constitution of our nature as it came forth from the hand of God, but because, 1st, it is derived by ordinary generation from Adam, the original root of the human race ; and 2d, it is the inward root or origin of all the actual sins that defile our lives. This sin is also technically styled Peccatum Hahituale, or the sin which consists in a morally corrupt habit or state of soul, in distinction from imputed sin and actual sin. 3. Hoiv may it he jyroved that the doctrine of original sin does not involve the corruption of the suhstance of the soul ? It is the universal judgment of men that there are in the soul, besides its essence and its natural faculties, certain habits, innate or acquired, which qualify the action of those faculties, and constitute the character of the man. Those habits, or inhe- rent dispositions which determine the affections and desires of the will, govern a man's actions, and, when good, are the sub- jects of moral approbation, and, when evil, the subjects of moral disapprobation on the part of all men. An innate moral habit of soul, €. g., original sin, is no more a physical corruption than any acquired habit, intellectual or moral, is a physical change. Besides this, the Scriptures distinguish between the sin and the agent in a way which proves that the sinful habit is not something consubstantial with the sinner, Rom. vii. 17; \"sin that dwelleth in me,\" Heb. xii. 1, etc. 4. Hoio can it be shoivn that original sin does not consist in dis- ease, or merely in the szipremacy of the sensuous part of our nature? While it is true that many sins have their occasions in the inordinate appetites of the body, yet it is evident the original or root of sin can not be in them — 1st. From the very nature of sin it must have its seat in the CORRUPTION OF THE WHOLE NATURE. 327 moral state of the voluntary principle. Disease, or any form of physical disorder, is not vohmtary, and therefore not an element of moral responsibility. It is, moreover, the obligation of the will to regulate the lower sensuous nature, and sin must orig- inate in the failure of those moral affections which would have been supreme if they still continued to reign in the will. 2d. From the fact that the most heinous sins are destitute of any sensuous element, e. (/., pride, anger, malice, and aversion FROM God. 5. How can it he proved that this innate disposition or habit of soul, which leads to sinfid action, is itself sin ? 1st. This innate habit of soul is a state of the will, and it is an ultimate principle that all the states as Avell as acts of the will related to the law of conscience are moral, i. c, either virtuous or vicious. — See above. Chapter XV., Questions 9 and 10. 2d. These permanent habits or states of the will constitute the moral character of the agent, which all men regard as the proper subject of praise or blame. 3d. This inherent disposition to sinful action is called \"sin\" in Scriptm^e. — Rom. vi. 12, 14, 17; vii. 5-17. It is called \"flesh\" as opposed to \"spiritual,\" Gal. v. 17, 24; also \"lust,\" James i. 14, 15; and \"old Adam\" and \"body of sin,\" Eom. vi. 6; also \" ignorance,\" \" blindness of heart,\" \" alienation from the life of God,\" and a condition of \" being past feeling,\" Eph. iv. 18, 19. 6. Hoio can it he shown that original sin does not consist simply in the luant of original righteousness ? 1st. It follows from the inherent activity of the human soul, and from the inherently obliging power of moral right, that the absence of right dispositions immediately leads to the formation of positively sinful dispositions. Not to love God is to hate him, not to obey him is to disobey. Disobedience leads to fear, to falsehood, and to every form of sin. — See above. Question 1. 2d. As a matter of fact, innate depravity exhibits its pos- itive character by giving birth to sins, involving positive vi- ciousness in the earliest stages of accountable agency, as pride, malice, etc. 3d. The Scriptures assign it a positive character, when they apply to it such terms as \"flesh,\" \"concupiscence,\" \"old man,\" \" laAV in the members,\" \"body of sin,\" \"body of death,\" \"sin taking occasion,\" \" deceived me,\" and \" wrought all manner of concupiscence.\" — Rom. vii. / 7. Hoio may it he shown that it affects the entire man / p Original sin has its seat in the will, and primarily consists 328 ORIGINAL SIN. in that proneness to unlawful dispositions and affections which is the innate habit of the human soul. But the several facul- ties of the human soul are not separate agents. The one soul acts in each function as an indivisible agent, its several facul- ties or powers after their kind mutually qualifying one another. When the soul is engaged in 'understanding an object, or an aspect of any object, e. r/., mathematics, with which its affec- tions are not concerned, then its action has no moral element. But when it is engaged in understanding an object with respect to which its depraved affections are perversely interested, its action must be biassed. The consequence, therefore, of the sinful bias of the will in its controlling influence over the exercises of the soul, in all its functions, will be — 1st. The understanding, biassed by the perverted affections, acting concurrently with the moral sense in forming moral judgments, will lead to erroneous judgments, to a deceiving conscience, and to general \"blindness of mind\" as to mora\"l subjects. 2d. The emotions and sensibilities which accompany the judgments of conscience in approving the good and in con- demning the wrong, by repeated outrage and neglect, will be rendered less lively, and thus lead to a seared conscience, and general moral insensibility. 3d. In a continued course of sinful action the memory will become defiled with its stores of corrupt experiences, from which the imagination also must draw its materials. 4th. The body in its turn w^ill be corrupted. (1.) Its natural appetites will become inordinate in the absence of proper con- trol. (2.) Its active powers will be used as \"instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.\" 5th. The Scriptures teach — (1.) That the understanding of the \" natural man \" is depraved as well as his affections. — 1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iy. 4; Eph. iv. 18; Col. i. 21. (2.) That regeneration involves illumination as well as renewal of the heart.— Acts xxvi. 18; Eph. i. 18; v. 8; 1 Pet. ii. 9. (3.) That truth addressed to the understanding is the great instrument of the Spirit in regenex'ation and sanctification. — John xvii. 17; James i. 18. 8. Wlxat is meant by the affirmation that man by nature is totally dej^raved ? By this orthodox phrase it is not to be understoo]), 1st, that the depraved man has not a conscience. The virtuousness of an agent does not consist in his having a conscience, but in the conformity of the dispositions and affections of his wdll'to the law of which conscience is the or<»-an. Even the devils TOTAL DEPRAVITY, ITS NATURE AND EVIDENCE. 329 and lost souls retain their sense of right and wrong, and those vindicatory emotions with which conscience is armed. Or, 2d, that nnregenerate men, possessing a natural con- science, do not often admire virtuous character and actions in others. Or, 3d, that they are incapable of disinterested affections and actions in their various relations with their fellow-men. Or, 4th, that any man is as thoroughly depraved as it is pos- sible for him to become, or that each man has a disposition inclined to every form of sin. But IT IS MEANT — Ist. That virtue consisting in the con- formity of the dispositions of the will with the law of God, and the very soul of virtue consisting in the allegiance of the soul to God, every man by nature is totally alienated in his governing disposition from God, and consequently his every act, whether morally indifferent, or conformed to subordinate principles of right, is vitiated by the condition of the agent as a rebel. 2d. That this state of will leads to a schism in the soul, and to the moral perversion of all the faculties of soul and body (see preceding question.) 3d. The tendency of this condition is to further corruption in endless progression in every department of our nature, and this deterioration would, in every case, be incalculably more rapid than it is, if it were not for the supernatural restraints of the Holy Ghost. 4tli. There remains no recuperative element in the soul. Man can only and forever become worse without a miraculous recreation. 9. Wliat 'proof of the doctrine of original sin may be derived from the history of the Fall ? God created man in his own image, and pronounced him as a moral agent to be veiy good. He threatened him with death in the veiy da}'- that he should eat the forbidden fruit, and only in the sense of spiritual death was that threat literally fulfilled. The spiritual life of man depends upon communion with God; but God drove him at once forth in anger from his presence. Consequently the present spiritual state of man is declared to be \" death,\" the very penalty threatened. — Eph. ii. 1 ; 1 John iii., 14. 10. What is the aecount ivhicli the Scriptures give of human nature., and hoio can the existence of an innate hereditary depravity he thence inferred ? The Scriptures represent all men as totally alienated from God, and morally depraved in their understandings, hearts, wills, consciences, bodies, and actions. — Rom. iii. 10-23; viii. 7; 330 ORIGINAL SIN. Job xiv. 4; xv. 14; Gen. vi. 5; viii. 21; Matt. xv. 19; Jer. xvii. 9; Is. i. 5, 6. This depravity of man is declared to be, 1st, of the act, 2d, of the heart, 3d, from birtli and by nature, 4th, of all men without exception. — Ps. li. 5; John iii. 6; Eph. ii. 3; Ps. Iviii. 3. 11. State the evidence for the truth of this doctrine afforded hy Ptom. V. 12-21. Paul here proves that the guilt, — legal obligation to suffer the penalty, — of Adam's sin is imputed to us, by the imquestion- able fact that the penalty of the law which Adam broke has been inflicted upon all. But that penalty Avas all penal evil, death physical, spiritual, eternal. Original sin, therefore, to- gether with natural death, is in this passage assumed as an undeniable fact, upon which the apostle constructs his argu- ment for the imputation of Adam's sin. 12. Hoio is the truth of this doctrine estahlished hy the fact of the general prevalence of sin ? All men, under all circumstances, in every age of the world, and under whatever educational influences they may be brought up, begin to sin uniformly as soon as they enter upon moral agency. A universal effect must have a universal cause. Just as we judge that a man is by nature an intelligence, because the actions of all men involve an element of intelligence, so we as certainly judge that man is by nature depraved, because all men act sinfully. 13. If Adam sinned, though free from any corruption of nature^ how does the fact that his posterity sin prove that their nature is corrupt ? The fact that Adam sinned proves that a moral agent may be at once sinless and fallible, and that such a being, left to himself, may sin, but with respect to his posterity the question is, what is the universal and uniform cause that every indi- vidual always certainly begins to sin as soon as he begins to act as a moral agent? The question in the one case is, Hoio could such cm one sin ? but in the other. Why do cdl certainly sin from the beginning ? 14. B]i ivhat other ohjections do Pelagians and others attempt to avoid the force of the argument from the universality of sin ? 1st. Those who maintain that the liberty of indifference is essential to responsible agency, and that volitions are not de- termined by the precedent moral state of the mind, attribute DOCTRINE PROVED. 331 all sinful actions to the fact that the will of man is uncondi- tioned, and insist that his acting as he acts is an ultimate fact. In answer, we acknowledge that a man always wills as he pleases, but the question is, Why does he always certainly please to will wrong ? An indifferent cause can not account for a uni- form fact. The doctrine of original sin merely assigns the de- praved character of the will itself as the uniform cause of the uniform fact. 2d. Others attempt to explain the facts by the universal influence of sinful example. We ansAver: (1.) Children uniformly manifest depraved dispositions at too early a period to admit of that sin being rationally attributed to the influence of example. (2.) Children manifest depraved dispositions who have been brought up from birth in contact with such influences only as would incline them to holiness. 3d. Others, again, attempt to explain the facts by referring to the natural order in the development of our faculties, e. g., first the animal, then the intellectual, then the moral : thus the lower, by anticipating, subverts the higher. For answer, see above. Question 4. Besides, while this is an imperfect explanation, it is yet a virtual admission of the fact of innate hereditary depravity. Such an order of devel- opment, leading to such uniform consequences, is itself a total corruption of nature. 15. What argument for the doctrine of original sin may he derived from the universality of death? The penalty of the law was death, including death spiritual, physical, and moral. Physical death is universal ; eternal death, temporarily suspended for Christ's sake, is denounced upon all the impenitent. As one part of the penalty has taken effect, even upon infants, who have never been guilty of actual trans- gression, we must believe the other part to have taken effect likewise. Brutes, who also suffer and die, are not moral agents, nor were they ever embraced in a covenant of life, and there- fore their case, although it has its own peculiar difficulties, is not analogous to that of man. Geology affirms that brutes suffered and die.d in successive generations before the creation and apostasy of man. Tliis is at present one of the unsolved questions of God's providence. — See Hugh Miller's \"Testimo- nies of the Rocks.\" 16. Hoio may it he proved hy luhat the Scri'ptures say concern- ing regeneraiion ? The Scriptures declare — 332 ORIGINAL SIN. 1st. That regeneration is a radical change of the moral char- acter, wrought by the Holy Ghost in the exercise of supernat- ural power. It is called \"a new creation\"; the regenerated are called \" God's workmanship, created unto good works,\" etc. Ezek. xxxvi. 2(3; Eph. i. 19; ii. 5, 10; iv. 24; 1 Pet. i. 23; James i. 18. 2d. Regeneration is declared to be necessary absolutely and universally. — John iii. 3; 2 Cor. v. 17. 17. Hoio may it he j)roved from ivliat the Scrijjtures say of redemption ? The Scriptures assert of redemption — 1st. As to its nature, that the design and effect of Christ's sacrifice is to deliver, by means of an atonement, all his people from the poiver as well as from the (luilt of sin. — Eph. v. 25-27; Titus ii. lf;\"'Reb. ix. 12-14; xiii. 12. \" 2d. As to its necessity, that it was absolutely necessary for all — for infants who never have committed actual sin, as well as for adults. — Acts iv. 12; Eom. iii. 25, 26; Gal. ii. 21 and iii. 21, 22; Matt. xix. 14; Eev. i. 5; v. 9. Some have essayed to answer, that Christ only redeemed infants from the \"liability to sin.\" But redemption being an atonement by blood, the \"just for the unjust,\" if infants be not sinners they can not be redeemed. A sinless liability to sin is only a misfortune, and can admit of no redemption. — See Dr. Taylor's \" Concio ad Clerum\" (New Haven, 1828), pp. 24, 25; also Harvey's Review of the same (Hartford, 1829), p. 19. 18. State the evidence afforded by infant baptism. Baptism, as circumcision, is an outward rite, signifying the inward grace of spiritual regeneration and purification. — Mark i. 4; John iii. 5; Titus iii. 5; Deut. x, 16; Rom. ii. 28, 29. Both of these rites were designed to be applied to infants. The ap- plication of the sign would be both senseless and profane if infants did not need, and were not capable of the thing signified. 19. If God is the author of our natm^e, and our nature is sinful, how can ive avoid the conclusion that God is the author of sin ? That conclusion would be unavoidable if, 1st, sin was an essential element of our nature, or if, 2d, it inhered in that na- ture originally, as it came from God. But we know, 1st, that sin originated in the free act of man, created holy, yet fallible; 2d, that entire corruption of nature sprang from tliat sin ; and, 3d, that in consequence of sin God has justly withdrawn the conservative influences of his Holy SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST. 333 Spirit, and left men to the natural and penal consequences of their sin. — See Calvin's \"Instit:,\" Lib. II., Chap. I., sees. 6 and 11. 20. Hoio can this doctrine he reconciled luitli the liberty of man and his responsibility for his acts? Ist. Consciousness affirms that a man is always responsible for his free actions, and tha.t his act is always freewlien he wills as, upon the whole, he prefers to will. 2d. Original sin consists in corrupt dispositions, and, therefore, in every sin a man acts freely, because he acts precisely as he is disposed to act. 3d. Consciousness affirms that inajaility is not inconsistent with responsibility. The inherent habit or disposition of the will determines his action, but no man, by a mere choice or volition, can change his disposition. — See Chap. XVUi., Ques- tions 4 and 25. 21. ffoio is this corruption of nature propagated? n ^«^ *■<-\"-'*''\"' See below, under Chapter XXL", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "109", "sort_key": 109, "group": "Chapter XIX", "question": "In  lohat  sense  may  sin  he  the p>un{shment  of  sin?", "answer": "1st. In the way of natural consequence (1) in the interior W'Orking of the soul itself, in the derangement of its powers; (2) in the entangled relations of the sinner with God and his fellowmen. . 2d. In the way of judicial abandonment. Because of sin God withdraws his Holy Spirit, and further sin is the conse- quence.— Rom. i. 24-28. 23. What do the Scriptures teach concerning tlw sin against the Holy Ghost? See Matt. xii. 31, 32; Mark iii. 29, 30; Heb. vi. 4-6; x. 26, 27; 1 John V. 16. These passages appear to teach that this sin consists in the malicious rejection of the blood of Christ, and of the testimony of the Holy Ghost against evidence and conviction. It is called the sin against the Holy Ghost because he is immediately pres- ent in the heart of the sinner, and his testimony and influence is directly rejected and contemptuously resisted. It is unpar- donable, not because its guilt transcends the merit of Christ, or the state of the siinier transcends the renewing power of the Holy Ghost, but because it consists in the final rejection of these, and because at this limit God has sovereignly staid his grace. 24. What are the main positions involved in the Pelagian doc- trine of original sin ? 334 ORIGINAL SIN. The system called Pelagian originated with Pelagins in his controversies with St. Angustine in the beginning of the fifth century, and was afterwards completely developed by the disci- ples of Faustus and La^lius Socinns in the sixteenth century, is embodied in the Racovian Catechism, and prevails among the English and American Unitarians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It embraces the following points : 1st. Adam's sin affected himself alone. 2d. Infants are born in the same moral state in Avhich Adam was created. 3d. Every man possesses plenary ability to sin or to repent and obey whenever he will. 4th. Re- sponsibility is in exact proportion to ability ; and God's demands are adjusted to the various capacities (moral as well as consti- tutional) and circumstances of men. 25. Wliat are tlue main positions involved in the Semipelagian doctrine ? According to the critical estimate of Wiggers in his \" Hist. Present, of Augustinianism and Pelagianism,\" Pelagianism re- gards man as morally and spiritually well. Semipelagianism regards him as sick. Augustinianism regards him as dead. The current positions of Semipelagianism during the middle ages were — 1st. Denial of the imputation of the guilt of Adam's sin. 2d. Acknowledgment of a morbid condition of man's moral nature from birth by inheritance from Adam. 3d. Which mor- bid condition is not itself sin but the certain cause of sin. 4th. | It involves the moral powers of the soul to such an extent that no man can fulfil the requirements either of the law or of the gos]Del without divine assistance. Man, however, has the power to hexjin to act aright, when God seeing his eftbrt, and knowing that otherwise it would be fruitless, gives him the gracious help he needs. The doctrine of the Arminians, and the \" Synergism \" of ]\\Ielanchthon amount practically to very much the same thing with the statements just made. The main difference is that the Semipelagians held that man can and must begin the work of repentance and obedience when God instantly co-operates with him. While the Arminians and Synergists held that man is so far depraved that he needs grace to dispose and enable him to begin as well as to continue and to succeed in the work, but that all men as a matter of fact have the same common grace acting upon them, which grace eftects nothing until the rnan voluntarily co-operates witii it, when it becomes effica- cious througli that co-operation. The Greek Church, which occupies the same general posi- tion as to original sin and grace, holds — 1st. Original sin is r^' VARIOUS VIEWS. 335 not voluntary and therefore not true sin. 2d. The influence of Adam extends only to the sensuous, and not to the rational nor moral nature of his descendants, and hence it extends to their will only through the sensuous nature. 3d. Infants are guiltless because they possess only a physical propagated na- ture. 4th. The human will takes the initiative in regeneration but needs divine assistance. This is Semipelagianism. While the corresponding Arminian position is that grace takes the in- itiative in regeneration but depends for its effect upon human co-operation.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "110", "sort_key": 110, "group": "Chapter XIX", "question": "What  is  the  Neio  Haven  view  on  this  subject  ?", "answer": "Dr. Nathaniel W. Taylor, of New Haven, the prince of American new school theology, taught that sin consists solely in acts of the will. That \" original sin is man's own act, con- sisting in a free choice of some object rather than God as his chief good.\" He includes in this definition the permanent gov- erning preference of the will, which determines special and transient acts of choice; Avhich preference is formed by each human being as soon as he becomes a moral agent, and is uni- formly a preference of some lesser good in place of God. He maintains also that the nature of man, in the condition in which it comes into being, in consequence of Adam's fall, is the occasion, not the cause, of all men invariably making a wrong moral preference, and consequently original sin is by nature in the sense that the will enacts it freely though uni- formly as occasioned by nature, yet that the nature itself, or its inherent tendency to occasion sin, is not itself sin, or ill- deserving. — See \"Concio ad Clerum,\" New Haven, 1828, and Harvey's Review thereof. 27. What is the Romish doctrine as to the change effected in the moved mdure of man by the fall ? See below the public statements of the various churches. 28. Whcd distinction do the Romanists make betiveen mortal and venial sins ? By mortal sins they mean those that turn away the soul from God, and forfeit baptismal grace. By venial sins they mean those which only impede the course of the soul to God. See below Bellarmin, quoted under \"Authoritative Statement of Church Doctrine,\" etc. The objections are — 1st. This distinction is never made in the Scriptures. 2d. Except for tlie sacrifice of Christ, every sin is mortal. — James ii. 10; Gal. iii. 10. 336 ORIGINAL SIN. The Authokitative Statements of Chuech Docteine. EosnsH DocTKiNE. — \"■Council of Trenl,\" Sess. v. Can. 2. — \"If any one shall assert tliat tlie apostasy of Adam injured himself alone and not his posterity; and that he lost the sanctity and righteousness received from God, for himself alone and not also for us, his posterity; or that the stain which results from the sin of disobedience, death, and physical evils only have overflowed over the whole human race, and not also sin which is the disease of the soul — anathema sit.\" lb., Sess. vi. CajD. 1. \"The Holy Synod declares that in order properly to understand the doctrine of justification it is necessary that every one should acknowl- edge and confess that since all men lost their innocency in the apostasy of Adam, so that .... they are servants of sin, under the power of the devil and of death . . . nevertheless in them free ■will is by no means extinct, although it is weakened as to its strength and biassed. \" lb., Sess. vi. Can. 5. — \"If any one shall say that the free-Avill of man has been lost and extinguished in consequence of the sin of Adam anathema sit.\" Can. 7. — \"If any one shall say that all works performed by a man anterior to justification (regeneration), from whatever reason performed, are true sins which merit the hatred of God, or that the more vehemently one may strive to dispose himself to grace, only the more grievously he sins — anathema sit.\" BellaDnin, ''Amiss. Grati<t,\" iii. 1. — \"The penalty which properly stands over against the first sin, is the loss of original righteousness and of the supernatural gifts with which God had furnished our nature. \"Z)e Gh'atia primi horn.,\" 1. — \"They (the Catholics) teach that, through the sin of Adam the whole man was truly deteriorated, but that he has not lost free will nor any other of the dona naturalia, but only the dojia siiper- naturalia.\" Ih., c. 5. — \"Wherefore the state of man since the fall of Adam does not differ more from his state in pur is naturalibus {i. e., as created and antecedent to his endowment with the dona su/jernaiura/ia, see Statement of Bomish Doctrine end of Ch. XVI.) than a man robbed of his clothes differs from one originally naked, neither is human nature any worse (if you subtract original guilt) nor does it labor under greater ignorance and infirmity, than it was and did as created in pur is natural- ibus. Whence it follows that corruption of natvire does not result from the loss of any gift, nor from the accession of any evil quality, but only from the loss of the supernatural gift because of the sin of Adam.\" \"Amiss. Gra.,\" v. 5. — \" The question between us and our adversaries is not whether human nature has been grievously depraved through the sin of Adam. For that we freely confess. Neither is the question whether this depravity pei'taius in any manner to original sin, so that it may be spoken of as the material of that sin. But the whole contro- versy is whether that corruption of nature and especially concupiscence per se and of its own nature, as it is found in the baptized and justified, is properly original sin. This the Catholics deny.\" Ltjthekan Doctbine. — ''Formula Concordia^\" p. 640. — \" (It is to be believed) — 1st. That this hereditary evil is fault or guilt (ill-desert) by which on account of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, we all are made subject to the Avrath of God, and are by nature children of wrath, as the Apostle testified (Rom. v. 12, sqq., Ejih. ii. 3). 2d. That there is through all a total want, defect, and i)rivation of that original righteousness con- created in Paradise, or of that image of God in Avhich man in the be- ginning was created in truth, holiness, and righteousness ; and there is at the same time that inipoteucy and incapacity, that weakness and AUTHORITATIVE CREED STATEMENTS. 337 stupidity, by wliich man is rendered utterly incapable of all things divine or spiritual. . . . 3d. Moreover that original sin in human nature does not only involve the total loss and absence of all good in matters spiritual and xjertaiuing to God; but that also in the place of the lost likeness to God there is in man an inward, most evil, profound (like an abyss), inscrutable, and ineffable corruption of the whole nature and of all the ijowers, and primarily in the principle and superior faculties of the soul, in the mind, intellect, heart, and will. Ih., p. 645. — \"But although this original sin infects and corrupts the whole nature of man, as a kind of sj)iritual poison and leprosy (as Dr. Luther says), so that now in oiar corruj^ted nature it is not possible to show to the eye these two apart, the nature alone, or the original sin alone; nevertheless that corruiJt nature, or substance of the corrujit man, the body and soul, or the man himself as created by God in whom the original sin dwells, is not one and the same with that original sin which dwells in the nature or essence of man and corrui^ts it; just as in the body of a leper, the leprous body and the lejjrosy itself, wliich is in the body, is not one and the same. Eefoemed Doctbine. — '■'■Bdgic Confession\" Art. 15. — \" (Peccatum originis) is that corruption of the whole nature and that hereditary vice, by which even themselves in their mothers' wombs are polluted, and which, as a root, produces every kind of sin in man, and is therefore so base and execrable in the sight of God, that it suffices to the condem- nation of the human race.\" ''Gallic Gonf.,'\" Ai't. 11. — \"We believe that this vice (originis) is true sin, which makes all and every man, not even excepting little infants, hitherto hiding in the womb of their mothers, deserving (reos) before God of eternal death.\" \"■Thirty-nine Articles of Gh. of Eng.\" Art. 9. — \" (Original or birth sin) is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the olfspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteoiisuess, and is of his own nature inclined to evU, so that the llesh lusteth always contrary to the sjiirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. \" Remonstrant DocTKiNE. — '■'Apol. Gonf. Remonstrcmt., j). 84. — \"They (the Eemonstrants) do not regard original sin as sin jDroperly so called, nor as an evil which as a penalty, in the strict sense of that word, passes over from Adam upon his posterity, but as an evil, infirmity, or vice, or whatever name it may be designated by, which is propagated from Adam, deprived of original righteousness, to his posterity. Limborch '■'Tlieol. Christ.,\" iii. 3, 4. — \"We confess also that infants are born less pure than Adam was created, and with a certain propensity to sinning, but this they receive not so much from Adam, as from their immediate parents, since if it were from Adam, it ought to be equal in aU men. But now it is in the highest degree unequal, and ordinarily childi'en are inclined to the sins of their parents. SociNiAN DoGTKiNE. — ''Rdcovion Giitechism,\" -p. 294. — \"And the fall of Adam, since it was one act, could not have had the power of corrupt- ing the nature of Adam himself, much, less that of his posterity. We do not deny, however, that from the constant habit of sinning, the nature of man has become infected with a certain fall and excessive proclivity to sinning. But we deny that this is per se sin, or of that nature.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "111", "sort_key": 111, "group": "Chapter XX", "question": "What  is  the  Arminian  explanation  of  this  fact?", "answer": "1st. They admit that all men inherit from Adam a corrupt nature predisposing them to sin, but they deny that this innate condition is itself properly sin, or involves guilt or desert of punishment. 2d. They affirm that it was consistent with the justice of God to allow this great evil to come upon all men at birth, only in view of the fact that he had determined to introduce an adequate compensation in the redemption of Christ, impartially intended for all men, and the sufficient influences of his grace which all men experience, and which restores to all ability to do right, and therefore full personal responsibility. Hence, in- fants are not under condemnation. Condemnation attaches to no man until he has abused his gracious ability. In the gift of Christ, God redresses the wrong done us by allowing Adam to use his fallen nature as the medium for the propagation CHURCH DOCTRINE STATED. 353 of sinful children. — Dr. D. D. Whedon, \"Bibliotlieca Sacra,\" April, 1862, \"Conf Rem.,\" vii. 3, Liinborcli, \"Theol. Christ,\" iii., 3, 4, 5, G7. We object to this doctrine. — (1.) Tliat our condemnation in Adam is of jitstice, and our redemption in Christ of Grace. (2.) The remedy of the compensatory system is not applied to many heathen, etc. (3.) The view is inconsistent with Script- ural doctrines as to sin, inability, regeneration, etc., etc. 8. What has been the prevalent ansiver given hy New England Theologians since the days of Dr. Hojjhins ? Dr. Hopkins taught the doctrine of divine efficiency in the production of sin. This, of course, dissolves the question as to the justice of God in bi-inging Adam's descendants into the world as sinners, since he is the ultimate cause of all sin. Later New England divines discard the doctrine of divine efficiency, but they agree with Hopkins in denying imputation, and in referring the law which entails the corruption of Adam upon each of his descendants to a sovereign divine constitution. If this view, while acknowledging that this divine consti- tution is infinitely just and righteous, simply disclaims clear knowledge of its grounds and reasons, we have only to answer, that while in part we sympathize with it, we dare not refuse the partial light thrown upon the problem in Scripture, and exhibited below. But if the design of these theologians be to assert, either (1) that this constitution is not just, or (2) that God's bare will makes it to be just, and that its being sovereign is the ground of its being righteous, Ave protest against it as a grievous heresy. 9. What is the orthodox ansiver to the above question in iclnch the Romish Lutheran and Reformed Theologians as a body concur ? It is certain that while there has been difference of opin- ion and looseness of statement as to the grounds of our just i accountability for Adam's first sin, the whole Church has always / regarded our loss of original rigliteousness and innate moral ' corruption to be a just and righteous, not sovereign, penal ', consequence of Adam's apostatizing act. This is the doctrine, ' agreement with which is alike accordant with Scripture, honor- ing to the moral attributes of God and the equity of his moral government, and conformable to historical ortliodoxy. In the explanation of this doctrine the orthodox have often differed. It is a simple fact that God as a just judge condemned the Avhole race on account of Adam's sin, and condemnation by God, the soiu'ce of life, involves and is justly followed by spir- itual and moral death. 23 35-4 IMPUTATION OF ADAM'S FIRST SIN. 10. Where is the/act asserted in Scripture that God condemned the ivhole race because of Adams apostasy ? Rora. V. 17-19. — \"For if by one man's offence death reigned by one;\" \"Therefore, as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation ; \" \" For as by one man's disobe- dience many were made sinners.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "112", "sort_key": 112, "group": "Chapter XX", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "113", "sort_key": 113, "group": "Chapter XXII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "114", "sort_key": 114, "group": "Chapter XXII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "115", "sort_key": 115, "group": "Chapter XXII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "116", "sort_key": 116, "group": "Chapter XXII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "117", "sort_key": 117, "group": "Chapter XXII", "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.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "118", "sort_key": 118, "group": "Chapter XXIII", "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.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "119", "sort_key": 119, "group": "Chapter XXIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "120", "sort_key": 120, "group": "Chapter XXIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "121", "sort_key": 121, "group": "Chapter XXIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "122", "sort_key": 122, "group": "Chapter XXIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "123", "sort_key": 123, "group": "Chapter XXIII", "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.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "124", "sort_key": 124, "group": "Chapter XXIII", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "125", "sort_key": 125, "group": "Chapter XXIII", "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.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "126", "sort_key": 126, "group": "Chapter XXIV", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "127", "sort_key": 127, "group": "Chapter XXIV", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "128", "sort_key": 128, "group": "Chapter XXIV", "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.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "129", "sort_key": 129, "group": "Chapter XXV", "question": "What  was  the  doctrine  of  the  ^^  3Iarroio  Blen'  in  Scotland?", "answer": "The \"Marrow of ]\\Iodern Divinity\" was published in Eng- land, 1646, and republished in Scotland by James Hog of Car- nock, 1726. The \"Marrow Men\" were Hog, Thomas Boston, and Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, and their followers in the Secession Church. They were perfectly orthodox with respect to the reference of the atonement to the elect. Their peculiar- ity was that they emphasized the general reference of the atone- ment to all men. They said Christ did not die for all, but he is dead for all, /. e., available. \" God made a deed of gift and grant of Christ unto all men.\" They distinguished between his \"giving love,\" which was universal, and his \"electing love,\" which was special (\"Marrow of ]\\Iod. Divinity\"). Dr. John Brown said before the Synod of the United Secession Church, 1845, \" In the sense of the Universalist, that Christ died so as to secure salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died so as to purchase easier terms of salvation, and common grace to enable men to comply with those terms, I hold that he died for no man. In 27 418 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Clirist died to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation by mak- ing perfect satisfaction for sin, I hold that he died for all men \" (\" Hist, of Atonement Controversy in Secess. Church,\" by Rev. And. Eobertson). 20. State the doctrine of AmyraJdus of the French School of Saumur, and of Baxter in England. This scheme of Hypothetical or Conditional Universalism holds that God gave his Son to die in order to provide redemp- tion for all men indiscriminately, suspeiiding its actual enjoy- ment upon their free appropriation of it. At the same time he sovereignly wills to give the effectual grace which deter- mines that free self-appropriation only to the elect. The ordinary Calvinistic doctrine logically makes the de- cree to provide redemption the means to carry into effect the decree of election. The French and Baxterian view makes the decree of election the means of carrying into effect so far forth the general purpose of redemption (See \" Universal Redemp- tion of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ,\" by Richard Baxter. Answered by John Owen in his \"Death of Christ,\" etc.). These \"Novelties\" were explained away before the French Synod, 1637, and virtually condemned. 21. Exhibit the Bihlical evidence upon loldch the Calvinistic doctrine as to the \" Design \" of the Atonement rests. Ist. It is proved by the fact that this doctrine alone is con- sistent with the Scriptural doctrine that God has from eternity sovereignly elected certain persons to eternal life, and to all the means thereof It is evident that the rendering of satis- faction specially for the elect is a rational means for carrjnng the decree of election into execution. But, on the other hand, the election of some to faith and repentance is no rational pro- vision for executing the purpose to redeem all men. R. Wat- son (\"Institutes,\" Vol. II., p. 411) says that the view of Baxter, etc., \"is the most inconsistent theory to which the attempts to modify Calvinism have given rise.\" It is plain that if God pur- posed that the elect should certainly be saved, and others left to the just consequences of their sins, Christ could not have de- signed tiie benefits of his death indifferently for all men. 2d. Its design is shown from the very nature of the atone- ment as above proved. (1.) Christ expiated our sins as our sub- stitute in the strict sense. But a substitute represents definite persons, and his service, when accepted, actually discharges the obligation of those for whom it was rendered. (2.) Christ being our substitute under the \"covenant of works\" actually and per- CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE PROVED. 419 fectly satisfied all the demands of the covenant. In that case the terms of the covenant itself provide that those for whom it is satisfied must enjoy the reward. It is not the possibility of life, bnt life itself that is promised. 3d. The Scriptures declare everywhere that the design and legal effect of Christ's work is not to render salvation possible but actually to save, to reconcile God and not to render him only reconcilable. — Matt, xviii. 11; Rom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21; Gal. i. 4; iii. 13; Eph. i. 7, and ii. 16. 4th. The Scriptures everywdiere teach that Christ p\\n-cliased faith, repentance, and the Holy Spirit's influences by his death and obedience. Hence he must have purchased them for those for whom he suffered and obeyed, and they can not, therefore, be the conditions upon which the enjoyment of the benefits of his death are suspended. \"We are blessed with all spiritvol blessings in heavenly things in Christ.\" — Eph. i. 3, 4. The Holy Ghost is \"shed on us throuqli Jesus Christ our Saviour.'\" Titus iii. 5, 6; Gal. iii. 13, 14; Phil. i. 29; Titus ii. 14; Eph. v. 25-27 ; 1 Cor. i. 30. 5th. Christ died in execution of the terms of an eternal covenant between the Father and himself This is certain — (1.) Because three intelligent eternal Persons must have always had a mutual plan comprehending all their works, prescribing their several parts therein. (2.) The Scriptures often refer to this covenant. — Ps. Ixxxix. 3, 4; Is. xlii. 6, 7, and liii. 10, 12. (3.) Christ made constant reference to it while executing it. Luke xxii. 29; John vi. 38, and x. 18. (4.) Christ claims its reward. — John xvii. 4-9. (5.) And speaks of those who had been previously given him by his Fatlier. — John x. 15-26. Then he must have died specially for those \"whom the Father had given him.\" 6th. The motive for his self-sacrifice is always declared to be the highest form o^ personal love. — John xv. 13; Rom. v. 8, and viii. 32; Gal ii. 20; Eph. iii. 18, 19; 1 John iii. 16; iv. 9, 10. 7th. The doctrine that Christ died specifically for the elect is everywhere stated in Scripture. — John x. 11, 15; Acts xx. 28; Rom. viii. 32-35 ; Eph. v. 25-27. 22. If Christ died only for his oivn i^eople, on what ground, does the general offer of the gospel rest ? \"The Lord Jesus, in order to secure the salvation of his people, and with a specific view to that end, fulfilled the con- dition of the law or covenant under which they and all man- kind were placed. These conditions Avere — (1) perfect obedi- ence; (2) satisfaction to divine justice. Christ's righteousness, therefore, consists of his obedience and death. That righteous- 420 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. ness is precisely what the laAv demands of every sinner in or- der to justification before God. It is, therefore, in its nature adapted to all sinners who were under that law. Its natiu-e is not altered by the fact that it was wrought out for a portion only of such sinners, or that it is secured to them by the cov- enant between the Father and the Son. What is necessary for the salvation of one man is necessary for the salvation of an- other and of all. It is also of infinite value, being the right- eousness of the eternal Son of God, and therefore sufficient for all. \"-^Hodge's \"Essays,\" pp. 181, 182. A hona fide offer of the gospel, therefore, is to be made to all men — 1st. Because the satisfaction rendered to the law is sufficient for all men. 2d. Because it is exactly adapted to the redemption of all. 3d. Because God designs that whosoever exercises faith in Christ shall be saved by him. Thus the atonement makes the salvation of every man to whom it is offered objectively possible. The design of Christ's death being to secure the salvation of his own people, incidentally to the accomplishment of that end, it comprehends the offer of that salvation freely and honestly to all men on the condition of their faith. No man is lost for the want of an atonement, or because there is any other barrier in the way of his salvation than his own most free and wicked will. 23. Hoivcan the condemnation of men for the rejection of Christ he reconciled loith the doctrine that Christ died for the elect only? A salvation all-sufficient and exactly adapted to his neces- sities is honestly offered to every man to whom the gospel comes; and in every case it is his, if he believes; and in no case does any thing prevent his believing other than his own evil disposition. Evidently he is in no way concerned with the design of God in providing that salvation beyond the as- surance that God intends to give it to him if he believes. If a man is responsible for a bad heart, and the exercises thereof, he must be above all worthy of condemnation for rejecting such a Saviour. 24. On ivhcd princijjles are those texts to he explained whicJi speak of Christ's hearing the sins of the world, and of his dying for ALL .'' These are such passages as Heb. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 22 ; 1 John ii. 2; 1 Tim. ii. G; John i. 29; iii. 16, 17; vi. 51. These terms, \"world\" and \"all,\" are imquestionably used in very various degrees of latitude in the Scriptures. In 'many passages that latitude is evidently limited by the context, e. g., 1 Cor. xv. 22; Rom. V. 18; viii. 32; John xii. 32; Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20; 2 Cor. VARIOUS VIEWS HEID IN THE CHURCH. 421 V. 14, 15. In others the word \"world\" is opposed to the Je^\\^sh nation as a people of exclusive privileges. — Eom. xi. 12, 15; 1 John ii. 2. It is evident that statements as to the design of Christ's death, involving such general terms, must be defined by the more definite ones above exhibited. Sometimes this general form of statement is used to give prominence to the fact that Christ, being a single victim, by one sacrifice atoned for so many. — Compare Matt. xx. 28, with 1 Tim. ii. 6, and Heb. ix. 28. And although Christ did not die with the design of saving all, yet he did suffer the penalty of that law under which all were placed, and he does offer the righteousness thus wrought out to all. 25. How are we to understand those passages lohicli speak of tJie possibility of those perishing for luhom Christ died ? Such passages are hypothetical, and truly indicate the na- ture and tendency of the action against which they warn us, and are the means which God uses under the administration of his Spirit to fulfil his purposes. God always deals with men by addressing motives to their understandings and wills, thus fulfilling his own design through their agency. In the case of Paul's shipwreck, it was certain that none should perish, and yet all would perish except they abode in the ship. — Acts xx^'ii. 24-31. On the same principle must be explained all such passages as Heb. x. 26-30; 1 Cor. viii. 11, etc. History of the Various Views held ix the Church. 26. State the gen£ral cliaraxiter of the Soteriology of the Early Fathers. 1st. From the very first the representative Christian Fathers taught in a crude, unscientific manner that Christ suffered as a substitute for his people, to expiate sin and to propitiate God. They freely applied to Christ's work the sacrificial language of the Scriptures. Outram, Dis. 1, ch. 17. — \"As it regards the work of Christ as the Redeemer of mankind, we find already in the language used by the Church Fathers on this point, in the period viiider consideration, all the elements that lay at the basis of the doctrine as it afterwards came to be defined by the Church.\"— Neander's \"Ch. Hist.,\" Vol. I., p. 640, see testi- monies below. 2d. Together with this view there was com- bined during the whole earlier age until the time of Anselm a view especially emphasized by Origen (185-254) and Irenseus (t200^, to the effect that Christ was offered by God as a ransom for his people to Satan, who held them by the power of con- 422 THE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. quest. This view was founded on such passages as Col. ii. 15, and Heb. ii. 14. 27. 8taie generally the four theories under one or other of ivhich all views ever entertained as to the nature of the reconciliation effected by Christ may he grouped. 1st. The Mystical, which, although it has assumed various forms, may be generally stated thus: The reconciliation effected by Christ was brought about by the mysterious union of God and man accomplished by the incarnation, rather than by his sacrificial death. This view was entertained by some of the Platonizing Fathers, by the disciples of Scotus Erigena during the Middle Ages, by Osiander and Schwenkfeld at the Refor- mation, and by the school of Schleiermacher among modern German tlieologians. 2d. The Moral Influence Theory first distinctivel}' elaborated by Abelard (11142) and held by the Socinians, and such Trin- itarians as Maurice, Young, Jowett, Bushnell, etc. The points involved are — (1.) There is no such principle as vindicatory justice in God. (2.) Benevolence is the single ultimate prin- ciple determining God in his provisions for human redemption. (3.) The sole object of the life and death of Christ is to produce a moral effect upon the individual sinner, subduing his obdurate aversion to God and his sullen distrust of his wilHngness to for- give. Thus reconciling man to God instead of God to man. (4.) The Socinians lield in addition that Christ's death was the necessary precondition of his resurrection, by Avhicli he brought immortality to light. 3d. Tlie Governmental Theory, which, presupposing all the positive truth contained in the \" ]\\Ioral Influence Theory,\" maintains — (1.) That justice in God is not vindicatory, but is to be referred to a general Governmental rectitude, based upon a BENEVOLENT regard for the highest ultimate and most general \\\\^ll-being of the subjects of his moral government. (2.) Law li~a product of the divine will and therefore relax- able. (3.) God's sovereign prerogative includes the riglit of pardon. (4.) But the governmental rectitude above explained, in view of the fact that indiscriminate pardon would encourage the violation of law, determines God to condition the pardon of human sinners upon an imposing example of suffering in a victim so related to mankind and to himself, as effectually to demon- strate his determination that sin should not be indulged with impiuiity. Therefore — (a.) Christ's sufferings were not punish- ment, but an example of a determination to punish hereafter. (/>.) They were designed not to satisfy divine justice, but to impress the public mind of the moral universe with a sin- CLASSICAL AND CONFESSIONAL AUTHORITIES. 423 deterring motive. This theory was first elaborated by Hugo Grotius (tl645) in his great work, '■^Defensio Fidei CathoUcce de Satisfacfione Christi,'\" in which he abandoned the faith lie as- sumed to defend. It has never been embodied in the creed of any historical church, but has been held by several schools of theologians, e. g., the Supernaturalists of the last age in Ger- many, as Staudlin, Flatt, and Storr, and in America by Jonathan Edwards, Jr., Smalley, Maxey, Dwight, Emmons, and Park. Remarks. — While this theory embraces much precious truth, it fails in the essential point on which the integrity of the whole depends. For — (1.) Only a real bona fide punishment can be an example of a punishment, \"or a proof of God's determination to punish sin. (2.) It ignores the essential justice of God, and (3) the fact that sin is an essential evil in itself, and (4) the fact that Christ suffered as the Head in whom all his members were United. 4th. The Satisfaction Theory consistently embraces the posi- tive elements of the \"Moral Influence\" and \"Governmental\" theories above stated. It was first analyzed and set forth in a scientific form by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury (flOilS- tll09), in his epocli-raaking book, \"Oi^r Deus Homo\" and it has formed the basis of the Soteriological doctrines of all the creeds and classical theological literature of all the historical churches since his time. It has been sufficiently stated and proved in the former part of this chapter. Literature. — Hase, '■^Libri Symbolici Eccle. Evangelicce\" ; Nie- meyer, ^^CoUedio Coufessionum\" etc.; Streitwolf, '•'•Libri Symbolici Eccle. CathoUcce'' ^ De Sacri/iciis, Gulielmo Outramo Auctore\"; Neander's and Shaff's ^^ Church Histories\"; Archb. Magee, ''The Atonement \"; Shedd's ''History of Christian Doctrine \"; Oicens \"Works\" vol 10, \"Redemption\"; Ritschl, \"Crit. Hist, of the Christ. Doctrine of Reconciliation\" ; Candlish, \" The Atonement\" ; Watson's \"Institutes.\" CijAssicaij and Contessionaij Aijthoeities, Origen, \"Homil. ad Levif.,\" 1, speaking of Christ says, \"He laid his hand npon the head of the calf, i. e. , he laid the sins of mankind upon his own head, for he is the head of the body, the Church.\" Athanasius (1373), contra Aria/tos, 1, 45-160. — \"The death of the incarnate Logos is a ransom for the sins of men and a death of death.\" \"Laden with guilt the world was condemned bylaw, but the Logos assumed the condemnation, and suffering in the flesh gave salva- tion to all.\" Gregnv}/ the Great (t604), ^'Moralia in Jobiivi\" 17, 46. — \"Guilt can be extinguished only by penal offering to justice. . . Hence a sinless man must be offered. . . . Hence the Son of God must be born of a vixgin, and become man for us. He assumed our nature without our 424 TFIE ATONEMENT: ITS NATURE, ETC. coiTuj)tion {culpa). He made himself a sacrifice for us, and set forth for sinners his own body, a victim without sin, and able both to die by virtue of its humanity, and to cleanse the guilty, upon groTinds of justice. \" Beritdrd of Gluirvaux (fllSS), ^'■Tracl. cunlr. Err. Ahoehirdi,\" cap. 6, 15. — \"If One has died for all, then all are dead (2 Cor. v. 14), that is, the satisfaction of one is imputed to all, as that One bore the sins of aU, neither is it found that he who offended is one, and he that satisfied another, for the head and the body is one Christ. Therefore the Head made satisfaction for his members.\" Wi/diffe (1324-1384), \"i)e Incarn. ei Mort. Chri>^ti.\"—'' And since according to the third supposition, it is necessary that satisfaction should be made for sin, so it was necessary that that same race of man should make the satisfaction as great, as it had, in the first parent, made the ofienee, which no man could do, unless he were at the same time God and man.\" The Valenses of Piedmont, in 1542, presented a Confession to Fran- cis I. of France through Cardinal Sadolet. In it they say, \"This Con- fession is that which we have received from our ancestors, even from hand to hand, according as their predecessors in all times, and in every age, have taught and delivered. . . We beHeve and confess that the gratuitous remission of sins proceeds from the mercy and mere goodness of our Lord Jesus Christ, who died once for our sins, the just for the unjust; Avho bore our sins in his own body on the cross; who is our advocate with God, himself the price of our reconciliation; who alone has made satisfaction for believers, to whom sins are not imputed as they are to the unbelieving and the reprobates. \" John Wessel (1419-1489), \"De Oiuslx Incarnatiovis.\" — \" Truly himself God, himself priest, himself victim, he made satisfaction for himself, of himself, to himself. \" ' 'E.cempla Scnlcp Mfdifutiouis, \" Ex. 1, p. 544. — ' ' Our loving Father willed thee his own loving Son to be a surety, sponsor, guaranty with respect to sufficient doing and sufficient suffering, upon just pledge, for my universal failure and miscarriage.\" ' ' Oethodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastekn Chukch, composed bj^ Petrus Mogilas, Metropolitan of Kiew, 1642, and sanctioned by the Synod of Jerusalem 1672, p. 85. ' ' The death of Christ was of a vei'y different kind from that of all other men in these respects; first, because of the weight of our sins; seconf/li/, because he wholly ful- filled the priesthood even to the cross; he offered himself to God and the Father for the ransoming of the human race. Therefore even to the cross he fulfilled the mediation between God and men.\" Roman Doctkine. — \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. 6, chap. 7. — \" ChriNt, who when we were enemies, on account of the great love wherewith he loved us, merited justification by his most holy passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction to God the Father for us.\" \"Cntecltism of CoHiicll of Trent,\" Pt. II., ch. 5, Q. 60.— \"The first and most excellent satisfaction is that by which whatever is due by xis to God, on account of our sins, has been paid abundantly, although he should deal with us according to the strictest rigor of his justice. Tiiis is said to be that satisfaction, which we say has ajipeased God and rendered him propitious to us, and for it we are indebted to Christ the Lord alone, who having paid the price of our sins on the cross, most fully satisfied God.\" Luthekan Confessions, Hasc's \"Collection,\" p. 684, \"Formuln Con- cordia'.\"— \"That righteousness which before God is of mere grace im- puted to faith, or to the believer, is the obedience, suff\"ering, and resur- rection of Christ, by which he for our sakes satisfied the law, and expi- CLASSICAL AND CONFESSIONAL AUTHORITIES. 425 ated our sins. For since Christ was not only man, but God and man in one undivided person, so he was not subject to the law, nor obnoxious to suffering and death on his own account, because he was Lord of the law. On which account his obedience (not merely in respect that he obeyed the Father in his sufferings and death, but also that he for our sakes willingly made himself subject to the law and fulfilled it by his obe- dience) is imputed to us, so that God on account of that whole obedience (which Christ by his acting and by his suffering, in his life and in his death, for our sakes rendered to his Father who is in heaven) remits our sins, repiites us as good and just, and gives us eternal salvation.\" Reformed Doctrine. — \" Tliirty-nine Ariicle>i,'' Axis. 11 and 31.—- \"The offering of Christ once made is that i^erfect redemiDtion, propi- tiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone.\" Homih/ M. \" On Salvaiion.\"—\" God sent his only Son our Saviour Christ into tins world, to fulfil the law for us, and by shedding his most pre- cious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction to his Father for our sins.\" \"Heidelberg Cat.,\" Ques. 12-18 and 40. \"West Conf. Faith.\" ch. viii., ? 5, and ch. xi., | 3. \"Form. Cons. Helvetica,\" cans. 13-15. Cocceius (\"De Faed. et Testam. Dei,\" cap. 5, 92). \"Thus that greatest mystery (the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son) is re- vealed in what manner we are j^^stified and saved by God, in what man- ner God may both be the one who judges, and who acts as surety, and who thus is himself judged, who absolves and who intercedes, who sends and is sent. Tiiat is in what manner God himself satisfied himself by his own blood.\" Remonstrant Doctrine. — Lhnborch, \"Apol. TJies.\" 3, 22, 5. — \"It may here be questioned in what way the sacrifice of one man is able to suffice and in fact did suffice for expiating the innumerable sins of so many myriads of men. Atisirer. It sufficed on two accounts, i^/z-s/ with re- spect to the divine will, which required nothing more for the liberation of the human race, but was satisfied with this one sacrifice alone. Sec- ondli/ with respect to the dignity of the person, Jesus Christ . . .21, 6. The satisfaction of Christ is so-called inasmuch as it releases from ^all the penalties due our sins, and by hearing and exhausting them, satisfies divine justice. But this sentiment has no foundation in Scripture. The death of Christ is called a sacrifice for sin; but sacrifices are not pay- ments of debts, nor are they full satisfactions for sins; but a gratuitous remission is granted when they are offered.\" Ri-monsfrantia, etc., five articles prepared by the Dutch advocates of universal redemption (1610), Art 2. — \"Therefore Jesus Christ, the Sa- viour of the world, died for all and every man, so that he impetrate 1 for all through his death reconciliation and remission of sins, nevertheless on this condition, that no one should have actual fruition of that recnu- ciliation, unless he is a believer, and that also according to the gospel.\" SociNiAN Doctrine. — '' Rm. Cut.,\" Sec. 5, ch. viii. — \" What was the purpose of the divine will that Christ should suffer for our sins ? ^4/(.*. Fir!<f, that a most certain right to, and consequently a sure hope of, the remission of their sins, and of eternal life, might by this means be cre- ted for all sinners (Rom. viii. 32 and v. 8-10). \"Swoudliy, that all sinners might be incited and drawn to Christ, seeking salvation in and by him alone who died for them. T/iivUi/, that God might in this manner tes- tify his boundless love to the human race, and might wholly reconcile them to himself (John iii. 16).\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "130", "sort_key": 130, "group": "Chapter XXVI", "question": "In  what  sense  is  Christ  to  continue  a  priest  forever?", "answer": "This is asserted by Paul, Heb. vii. 3, 24, to contrast the priesthood of Christ with that of Aaron, wliich consisted of a succession of mortal men in their generations. His priesthood is perpetual, because, 1st, by one sacrifice for sin he hath for- ever perfected them that are sanctified; 2d, he ever liveth to make intercession for us ; 3d, his person and work as mediator will continue for all eternity the ground of our acceptance, and the medium of our communion with the Father.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "131", "sort_key": 131, "group": "Chapter XXVI", "question": "Did  he  intercede  for  his  people  on  earth  ?", "answer": "He did exercise this function of his priesthood on earth, Luke xxiii. 34; John xvii. 20; Heb. v. 7; the principal scene of its exercise, however, is his estate of exaltation in heaven. 3. What is the vieiu which the Scriptures present of the inter- cession of Christ? 1st. He appears in the presence of God for us, as the priestly advocate of his people, and presents his sacrifice. — Heb. ix. 12, 24; Eev. V. 6. 2d. He acts as our advocate with the Father, and on the basis of his own perfect work under the terms of the covenant of grace, claims as his own right, though as infinitely free grace to usward, the f\\ilfillment of all the promises of his covenant. 1 John ii. 1; John xvii. 24; xiv. 16; Acts ii. 33; Heb. vii. 25. 3d. Because of his community of nature with his people, and his personal experience of the same sorrows and tempta- tions which now afflict them, he sympathizes with them, and watches and succors them in all their varying circumstances, and adapts his ceaseless intercessions to the entire current of their experiences. — Heb. ii. 17, 18; iv. 15, 16; Matt, xxviii. 20; xviii. 20. AN ESSENTIAL PART OF HIS PRIESTLY WORK. 427 4th. He presents, and through his merits gains acceptance for the persons and services of his people. ��� 1 Pet. ii. 5; Eph. i. 6; Rev. viii. 3, 4; Heb. iv. 14^16.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "132", "sort_key": 132, "group": "Chapter XXVI", "question": "For  wliom  does  he  intercede?", "answer": "/ Not for the world, but for his own people of every fold, and of all times. — John x. 16; xvii. 9, 20. 5. Show that his intercession is an essential part of his 2iriestly work. It is absolutely essential, Heb. vii. 25, because it is necessary for him as mediator not merely to open up a way of possible salvation, but actually to accomplish the salvation of each of those given to him by the Father, and to furnish each with an ^''introduction'' {Ttpudaycoy?}) to the Father. — John xvii. 12; Eph. ii. 18; iii. 12. The communion of his people with the Father will ever be sustained through him as mediatorial priest. — Ps. ex. 4; Rev. vii. 17. 6. What relation does the ivork of the Holy Ghost sustain to the intercession of Christ? Christ is a royal priest. — Zech. vi. 13. From the same throne, as king, he dispenses his Spirit to all the objects of his care, while as priest he intercedes for them. The Spirit acts for him, taking only of his things. They both act with one consent, Christ as principal, the Spirit as his agent. Christ intercedes for us, without us, as our advocate in heaven, accord- ing to the provisions of the eternal covenant. The Holy Ghost works upon our minds and hearts, enlightening and quicken- ing, and thus determining our desires \"according to the Avill of God,\" as our advocate within us. The work of the one is complementary to that of the other, and together they form a complete whole. — Rom. viii. 26, 27; John xiv. 26.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "133", "sort_key": 133, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "When  did  Christ  formally  assume  his  mediatorial  kingdom  ?", "answer": "1st. The advocates of the premillennial advent, and personal reign of Christ on earth, admit that Christ now reigns at his Father's right hand, on his Father's throne, and in liis Father's right, but maintain that he will not enter properly upon his own kingdom and sit upon his own throne as Mediator, until his second advent, when he will assume the literal throne of David, and constitute the kingdom from Jerusalem its capital. 2d. The truth as held by all branches of the historical church is, that while Christ has been virtually mediatorial King as well as Prophet and Priest from the fall of Adam, yet his public and formal assumption of his throne and in- auguration of his spiritual kingdom dates from his ascension and session at the right hand of his Father. This is proved because the Old Testament predictions of his kingdom (Ps. ii. 6; Jer. xxiii. 5; Is. ix. 6; Dan. ii. 44) are in the New Testament applied to the frst advent. John the Baptist declared that the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Christ declared \"the kingdom of God is come unto you,\" and likens it to the field with wheat and tares growing together, etc. — ]\\Iatt. iv. 23; Acts ii. 29-36. 5. What are the different titles apjMed in Scripture to this king- dom, and what are the senses in tvhich these titles of the lingdoni are used ? It is called — (1.) The \"kingdom of God,\" Luke iv. 43, be- 430 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. cause it is pre-eminently of divine origin, and the authority of God is M'ith pecuHar directness and fulness exercised in its administration. (2.) \"The kingdom of Christ\" and of \"God's dear Son,\" Matt. xvi. 28; Col. i. 13, because he is in person the immediate sovereign. (3.) \"The kingdom of heaven,\" Matt, xi. 12, because its origin and characteristics are from heaven, and its consummation is to be in heaven. These phrases are sometimes used to express — (1.) Christ's mediatorial authority, or its administration, and the power and and glory which belong to it, as when we ascribe to him the \" kingdom and the power and the glory,\" or affirm that of \" his kingdom there shall be no end.\" (2.) The blessings and advantages of all kinds, inward and outward, which are char- acteristic of this administration, as wlien we say the \"king- dom is righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.\" Thus Napoleon III. said, \"The Empire is peace.\" (3.) The subjects of the kingdom collectively, as when we are said to \" enter the kingdom,\" and speak of \" the keys of the kingdom,\" which admit to or exclude from this community. In this latter sense the phrase \" kingdom of God,\" or \" of heaven,\" is synon- ymous with the word \"Church.\" The word (jadiXEia, in this connection, occurs one hundred and thirty-seven times in the entire New Testament, and one hundred and ten times in the gospels, fifty-three times in Mat- thew alone, the gospel most nearly related to the Old Testa- ment, and only twenty times in the epistles, while kHKXr]6ia, when referring to the Church of Christ, occurs but once in the gospels and eighty-eight in the epistles and revelations. 6. What is the nature of Christ's hingly administration of the affairs of his own 'people, i. e., of his kingdom as distinct from tJie . universe ? 1st. It is pi'ovidential. He administers his providential gov- ernment over the universe with the design of accomplishing thereby the support, defence, enrichment, and glorification of his people. 2d. It is accomplished by the dispensation of his Spirit effectually calling, sanctifying, comforting, preserving, raising, and glorifying his people. — John xv. 26 ; Acts ii. 33-36. 3d. It is accomplished by his prescribing the form, and order, and functions of his church, the officers who are to act as the organs of those functions, and the laws which they are to ad- minister.—Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, 20; Eph. iv. 8, 11. 4th. By des- ignating the persons who are successively to assume those offices, by means of a spiritual call, expressed in the witness of the Spirit, the leadings of providence, and the call of the HIS KINGDOM IS SPIRITUAL 431 brethren.— Acts i. 23, 24; vi. 5; xiii. 2, 3; xx. 28; 1 Tim. i. 12; iv. 14. Under this administration this kingdom presents two as- pects, 1st, as mihtant, Eph. vi. 11-16; 2d, as glorified.— Rev. iii. 21. And accordingly Christ presents himself as fulliUing, in his administration of the affairs of his kingdom, the functions of a great Captain, Rev. xix. 11, 16, and of a sovereign Prince reigning from a throne. — Rev. xxi. 5, 22, 23. The throne upon which he sits and from which he reigns is presented in three different aspects, corresponding to the dif- ferent relations he sustains to his people and the world; as a throne of grace, Heb. iv. 16; a throne of judgment. Rev. xx. 11-15; and a throne of glory. — Compare Rev. iv. 2-5 with Rev. V. 6.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "134", "sort_key": 134, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "In  tvhat  sense  is  Chrisfs  kingdom  spiritual.?", "answer": "1st. The King is a spiritual and not an earthly sovereign. Matt. XX. 28; John xviii. 36. 2d. His throne is at the right hand of God. — Acts ii. 33. 3d. His sceptre is spiritual. — Is. liii. 1; Ps. ex. 2. 4th. The citizens of his kingdom are spiritual men. — Phil. iii. 20; Eph. ii. 19. 5th. The mode in which he ad- ministers his government is spiritual. — Zech. iv. 6, 7. 6th. His laws are spiritual. — John iv. 24. 7th. The blessings and the penalties of his kingdom are spiritual. — 1 Cor. v. 4-11; 2 Cor. X. 4; Eph. i. 3-8; 2\"Tim. iv. 2; Tit. ii. 15. 8. What is the extent of the poivers which Christ has vested in his visible church ? In respect to the civil magistrate the church is absolutely independent. In subjection to the supreme authority of Christ her head the powers of the church are solely, 1st, declarative, i. e., to expound the Scriptures, which are the perfect rule of faith and practice, and thus to witness to and promulgate the truth in creeds and confessions, by the pulpit and the press. And, 2d, ministerial, i. e., to organize herself according to the pattern furnished in the Word, and then to administer, through the proper officers, tlie sacraments, and those laws and that discipline prescribed bj^ the Master, and to make provision for the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom to every crea- ture.—Is. viii. 20; Deut. iv. 2; Matt, xxviii. 18-20; Heb. xiii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 4.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "135", "sort_key": 135, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "What  are  the  conditions  of  admission  into  Christ's  kingdom  ?", "answer": "Simply practical recognition of the authority of the sover- eign. As the sovereign and the entire method of his admin- istration are spiritual, it is plain that his authority must be 4:32 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. understood and embraced practically, according to its spiritual natnre. This is that spiritual faith which involves spiritual illunnnation. — John iii. 3, 5; i. 12; 1 Cor. xii. 3. 10. Wliat is the Romish doctrine of the relation of the shurcJi to the state ? According to the strictly logical Romish doctrine, the state is only one phase of the church. The whole nation being in all its members a portion of the church universal, the civil or- ganization is comprehended Avithin the church for special sub- ordinate ends, and is responsible to the church for the exercise of all the authority delegated to it. First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.^ Council of the Vat- ican., 1870, Ch. iv., declares that the judgments of the Pope, pronounced ex cathedra., as pastor and doctor of all Christians, upon any question of faith or morals is infallible and irreforma- ble. This infallibility is personal, independent, separate, and absolute. This comprehends all matter of fact and doctrine revealed, and all such further matters of fact or truth unre- vealed yet involved in the defence of that which is revealed. In the third chapter the supreme authority of the infallible Pope is extended \" to the supreme and full power of jurisdic- tion over the universal church, 7iot only in things which belong to faith and morals, hut cdso in those which relate to the disci- pline and government thereof.\" In the \" Papal Syllabus of Errors,\" 1864, sent to all the bishops by the authority of the Pope, the right of religious liberty is condemned, the right to enforce the decrees of the church by force is asserted, and the marriage of those who re- fuse to accept the Romish Sacrament of matrimony declared void (see the affirmative propositions published by Von P. Clemens Schrader, with the approbation of the Pope). Pope Pius himself, in his reply to the Address from the Academia of the Catholic Religion (July 21, 1873), declares that the Pope possesses the riglit, which he properly uses, un- der favorable circumstances, \"to pass judgment even in civil affairs, on the acts of princes and of nations.\" Archbishop Manning, in \" Caesarism and Ultramontanism,\" p. 35, says, \" If, then, the civil power be not competent to de- cide the limits of the spiritual power, and if the spiritual power can define, with a divine certainty, its own limits, it is evi- dently supreme. Or in other words, the spiritual power knows with divine certainty the limits of its own jurisdiction ; and it knows therefore the limits and competence of the civil power.\" \"Any power which is independent, and can alone fix the limits RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 433 of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of all other jurisdiction, is ipso facto supreme.\" — See Hon. Wm. E. Gladstone, \"The Vatican Decrees in their bearing on Civil Allegiance,\" and his \" Answer to Reproofs and Replies.\" 11. What is tJie Erastian doctrine as to the relation of the church to the state ? This doctrine, named from Erastus, a physician resident in Heidelberg in the sixteenth century, is precisely contrary to that of the Romanists, {. e., it regards the church as only one phase of the state. The state, being a divine institution, de- signed to provide for all the wants of men, spiritual as well as temporal, is consequently charged with the duty of providing for the dissemination of pure doctrine, and for the proper ad- ministration of the sacraments, and of discipline. It is the duty of the state, therefore, to support the church, to appoint its officers, to define its laws, and to superintend its administration. 12. What is the commoyi doctrine of the Reformed Church on this point ? That the church and the state are both divine institutions, having different objects, and in every respect independent of each other. The members and officers of the Church are, as men, members of the state, and ought to be good citizens; and the members and officers of the state, if Christians, are mem- bers of the church, and as such subject to her laws. But nei- ther the officers nor the laws of either have any authority within the sphere of the other.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "136", "sort_key": 136, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "What  is  the  idea  and  design  of  the  State  ?", "answer": "Civil government is a divine institution, designed to protect men in the enjoyment of their civil rights. It has, therefoi'e, dei-ived from God authority to define those rights touching all questions of person and property, and to provide for their vin- dication, to regulate intercourse, and to provide all means nec- essary for its own preservation.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "137", "sort_key": 137, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "What  is  the  design  of  the  visible  Church  ?", "answer": "It is a divine institution designed to secure instrumentally the salvation of men. To that end it is specially designed — 1st. To bring men to a knowledge of the truth. 2d. To secTU'e their obedience to the truth, and to exercise their graces by the public confession of Christ, the fellowship of the brethren, and the administration of the ordinances and discipline. 28 434 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. 3d. To constitute tlie visible witness and prophetic type of the church invisible and spiritual. 15. What are the duties of the officers of the State tvith regard to the Church ? The state is a divine institution, and the officers thereof are God's ministers, Rora. xiii. 1-4, Christ the Mediator is, as a revealed fact, \" Ruler among the Nations,\" King of kings, and Lord of lords. Rev. xix. 16; Matt, xxviii. 18; Phil. ii. 9-11; Eph. i. 17-23, and the Sacred Scriptures are an infallible rule of faith and practice to all men under all conditions. It follows therefore — 1st. That every nation should expli- citly acknowledge the Christ of God to be the Supreme Gov- ernor, and his revealed will the supreme fundamental law of the land, to the general principles of which all special legisla- tion should be conformed. 2d. That all civil officers sliould make the glory of God their end, and his revealed will their guide. 3d. That, while no distinction should be made between the various Christian denominations, and perfect liberty of conscience and worship be allowed to all men, nevertheless the Christian magistrate should seek to promote piety as well as civil order (\"Conf Faith,\" ch. 23, § 2). This they are to do, not by assuming ecclesiastical functions, nor by attempting to patronize or control the church, but by their personal example, by giving impartial protection to churcli property and facility to church work, by the enactment and enforcement of laws conceived in the true spirit of the Gospel, and especially in maintaining inviolate the Christian Sabbath, and Clnistian marriage, and in providing for Christian instruction in the public schools. 16. What relation does the civil law in the United States sus- tain to Church polity, discipline, and property ? I. History. — 1st. In England the established Church is a corporation created and controlled by the State. 2d. In most of the American Colonies, the State, at first, undertook the absolute control of ecclesiastical affairs, and limited rights of citizenship by religious tests. II. Present Facts. — 1st. The Constitution of the United States provides that \" No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States, and that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there- of\" The constitutions of the several states provide to the same effect. RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE U. S. 435 2d. Christianity in a general sense is, as an historical fact, an essential element of the common law of England, and. therefore that of the United States (except Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, California, etc.), incorporated in our customs, principles, precedents, etc.* 3d. It is recognized by the civil law as the historical and actual religion of tiie vast majority of the citizens of the United States. The Christian faith and the institutions in which it finds expression, are, therefore, to be reverenced and protected by the civil law. 4th. The civil law, therefore, recognizes the church, as having an historic character, and as being an important element of society. It recognizes and protects its right to exist and enjoy the possession of its legitimate privileges and powers. Thus the civil law recognizes and protects (1) the autonomy of the church as to (a) its general polity and (i) its discipline of persons. (2.) The rights of each cliurch as an organized whole to its property. 5th. The civil courts recognize as final the decisions of church courts as to (1) who are members of the church, and (2) who are the spiritual officers of the church. The civil court will not presume to go back of the decision of the church court in order to determine (1) whether it was rightly constituted (t. e., if the church coin-t in question be recognized by tlie high- est authority in the church), or (2) whether subsequently to its constitution the church court has acted consistently with its own rules. Judge Rogers, of the Supreme Court of Penna., in the case of the German Reformed Church of Lebanon Co., Pa., said, \"The decisions of ecclesiastical courts, like every other judicial tribunal, are final, as they are the best judges of what consti- tutes an offence against the word of God and the constitution of the church.\" The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the Walnut Street Church, Louisville, Ky., 1872, decided — (L) Where the subject matter of dispute is strictly and purely ecclesiastical in its character, a matter which concerns theological controversy, church disciphne, ecclesiastical govern- ment, or the conformity of the members of the church to tlie standard of morals required of them, and the ecclesiastical courts claim jurisdiction, the civil courts will not assume juris- diction— they will not even inquire into the right of tlie juris- diction of the ecclesiastical coiu-t. (2.) A spiritual court is the exclusive judge of its own ju- * Case of Updegraflf v. The Commonwealth of Pemia., 11 S. and E. 400, before Supreme Court, Justices Duncan, Tilghman, and Gibson, 1824. 436 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. risdiction: its decision of that question is binding on the secular courts (see \"Presbyterian Digest,\" Dr. Wm. E. Moore, p. 251). 6th. The civil law recognizes the right of the church to discipline its members. Even the public declaration made pur- suant of the rules of order of a church from which a member has been excommunicated, because of his commission of an offence regarded as infamous by the law, is justified, and no action of slander can be maintained for such a publication. 7th. The church proper, or \"ecclesiastical society,\" is distin- guished from the incorporated \"religious society\" created to hold property for the use of the former. These incorporated religious societies are governed by their charters, and by the by-laws made in pursuance thereof; they hold property by means of trustees, and are virtually civil societies as much as any bank or railroad company. It is governed by the law precisely as other corporations are. It is subject to visitation. Intrusion into its offices may be remedied, and it will be re- strained from a maladministration, or a misappropriation of the property. Its articles of association, and by-laws under its charter, providing for meetings, elections, and conduct of temporal affairs, may be changed according to the terms pro- vided by the charter, but are binding while they exist. Sub- stantial conformity to them is essential to the valid transaction of business, and may be reviewed by the civil court. Sth. When the \"'Will\" or \"Deed of Gift\" or \"Terms of Sub- scription \" of the original donors of the property, or the charter of the church, prescribes neither (1) any specific doctrine, nor (2^ any particular form of church government, nor connection with any definite religious denomination, then the majority of the members of the church in question control the property, and in case of change of doctrines, or discipline, or of denomi- national relation, may carry the property Avith them. But whenever either the doctrine or the form of government or ecclesiastical connection is defined, either by the original donors or by the charter of the church, the civil courts Avill protect and enforce the trust. In such case, if any change is made by the majority in either of these essential points, the majority, however large, forfeits the property, and the minority, however small, will be maintained in possession. And the civil court will in all such cases receive and act on the decisions of the superior ecclesiastical courts as final (see Lectures by Hon. Wm. Strong, LL.D., Justice of Supreme Court of U. S., 1875). 17. What is the relative jurisdictions of the '■'■ Boards of Trustees'' and of the '■^Sessions'' of our Preshytcrian Churches, over the houses of worship pertaining to their respective Congregations ? HIS KINGDOM EVERLASTING. 437 The \"Session\" is the only body of congregational ofRcers known to our ecclesiastical constitution. The \" Board of Trus- tees \" is a creature of the civil courts for the piirpose of holding the congregational property in trust. As to their respective jurisdictions the decisions of the courts and of the general assembly are in harmony with each other. The legal title to the property is vested in the trustees, and they have the custody of it \"for the uses and purposes for which they hold it in trust,\" namely, the worship of God, etc., accord- ing to the order of the church to which it appertains, including business meetings relating to the congregation. The session is charged with the supervision of the spiritual interests of the congregation, including the right to direct and control the use of the building for such purposes. In the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Louisville Walnut Street case, the following principles were enunciated: \"1. By the act of the leg- islature creating the trustees of a church, a body corporate, and by the acknowledged rules of the Presbyterian Church, the trustees are the mere nominal title-holders and custodians of the church property. 2. That in the use of the property for all religious services, or ecclesiastical purposes, the trustees are under the control of the church session.\" In a difference be- tween trustees and the session of a church in Philadelphia respecting an organist, the question was carried to the Supreme Court of that state, who decided that the worship of the con- gregation was under the charge of the session, and that the service of song was a part of the worship, and hence the appointment of the organist was in the session. The civil courts are very firm in maintaining the rights and privileges of religious worship, and of churches, and in requiring the ob- servance of the trust.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "138", "sort_key": 138, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "What  are  the  duties  of  the  Church  ivith  regard  to  the  State?", "answer": "1st. The church owes obedience to the state in the exercise of her lawful authority over the public property of the church. 2d. She is bound to use all the lawful means in her possession for carrying the gospel to all the members of the state. Beyond this the church owes no duty to the state whatever. 19. In lohat sense is Christ to return his kingdom to his JFather, and in ivhat sense will his mediatorial headship continue forever ? The sum of what is revealed to us upon this subject appears to be, that after the complete glorification of his people, and the destruction of his enemies, Christ will demit his mediatorial authority over the universe, which he has administered as God- 438 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. man, in order that the Godhead absohite may be immediately all in all to the creature. — 1 Cor, xv. 24-28. But his mediato- rial headship over his own people, including the offices of propliet, priest, and king, shall continue forever. This is cer- tain— 1st. Because he is a priest forever, and of his kingdom there is no end. — Ps. ex. 4; Dan. vii. 14; Luke i. 33. 2d. The personal union between his divine and human nature is to con- tinue forever. 3d. As Mediator he is the head of the church, wiiich is his fulness, and the consummation of the marriage of the Lamb is the beginning of heaven. — Rev. xix. 7; xxi. 2, 9. 4th. As \"a Lamb that had been slain,\" he is represented in heaven on the throne as ever more the temple and the light of the city, and as feeding his people, and leading them to fountains of living waters. — Rev. v. 6; vii. 17; xxi, 22, 23. Christ executed his Office of Mediator both in his Estate of Humiliation and Exaltation.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "139", "sort_key": 139, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "Wlierem  does  Christ's  Immilicdion  consist  ?", "answer": "See \"Larger Catechism,\" Questions 46-50; \"Shorter Cate- chism,\" Question 27. 21. In what sense was Christ made under the laiv, and hoiu was that subjection an act of humiliation ? In his incarnation Christ was born precisely into the law place of his people, and sustained to the law precisely that rela- tion which they did. He was born under the law, then, 1st, as a rule of duty; 2d, as a covenant of life; 3d, as a broken cove- nant, whose curse was already incurred. His voluntary assump- tion of such a position was pre-eminently an act of humiliation : 1st. His assumption of a human nature was voluntary. 2d. After his incarnation his person remained divine, and the claims of law terminating upon persons, and not upon natures, his sub- mission to those claims was purely gratuitous. 3d, This con- descension is immeasurably heightened by the fact that he accepted the curse of the law as of a covenant of life already broken — Gal. iii. 10-13; iv. 4, 5, 22. In what sense did Christ undergo the curse of the lau\\ and hoiv loas that jyossiblefor God's tvell-beloved So7i ? In his own person, absolutely considered, Christ is often declared by the Father to be his \"beloved Son, with whom he was well i3leased,\" Matt. iii. 17; 2 Pet. i. 17; and he always did that which pleased God. — John viii. 29. But in his office THE HUMILIATION OF CHRIST. 439 as mediator he had assumed our place, and undertaken to bear the guilt of our sin. The wrath of God, then, which Christ bore, was the infinite displeasure of God against our sins, which displeasure terminated upon Christ's person vicariously, because of the iniquity of us all which was laid upon him. — Matt. xxvi. 38; xxvii. 46; Luke xxii. 44. 23. What are the different interpretations of the phrase in the apostles creed, \"Ae descended into hell,'' or Hades? The phrase, uar(xfia6iz eH aSov, desensus ad inferos, was one of the last incorporated into the ancient Creed. It is supposed to be derived from Ps. xvi. 10; Acts ii. 27; 1 Pet. iv. 18-20. Ist. The Catholic Church, on the basis of ancient tradition, interpret this phrase to mean that Christ after his death went in his entire person as God-man, to the Limbus Patrum, that department of Hades in which the Old Testament saints re- mained waiting for the revelation and application to them of his salvation. Here he preached the gospel, and brought them out to heaven. See below the \" Cat. Council of Trent.\" 2d. The Lutherans hold that Christ's death was the last stage in his humiliation, and his descent to Hades the first stage of his exaltation, since he went to reveal and consum- mate his victory over Satan and the powers of darkness, and to pronounce their sentence of condemnation. 3d. The Church of England affirms in the 3d Article — \"As Christ died for us and was buried, so also it is to be believed that he went down into hell.\" In the first book of Edward VI. it is stated more fully — \"The body of Christ lay in the sepul- chre until his resurrection, but his ghost departing from him, was with the ghosts which were in prison, or in hell, and did preach to the same, as the place of St. Peter doth testify.\" Bishop Pearson, in his \"■Exposition of the Creed,'' teaches that Christ really went to the place of the damned to consummate the expiation of human sin, and to destroy the power of hell over his redeemed. 4th. Calvin (\" Institutes,\" Bk. 2, ch. xvi., § 10) interprets this phrase metaphorically, as expressing the penal sufferings of Cln-ist on the cross. Our \" Conf. Faith \" affixes to the Creed the explanatory clause, \"continued in the state of the dead,\" and the American Episcopal Church affixes the equivalent clause, \"he went into the place of departed spirits.\" That is, Christ w^as a real man, consisting of soul and body, and his death was a real death, his soul leaving the body and going into the invisible Avorld of spirits, where it continued a sep- arate conscious existence until his resurrection. 440 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "140", "sort_key": 140, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "Wliat  is  the  true  meaning  of  1  Pet.  iii  19-21  ?", "answer": "This passage is very obscure. The Romish interpretation is shown in the answer to the preceding question, i. e., that Christ went to the Liinhus Patrum and preached the gospel to those imprisoned spirits that were awaiting his advent. The common Protestant interpretation is that Christ was put to death in the body, but qiiickened, or restored to life by the Spirit, by which Spirit, inspiring Noah as a preacher of righteousness, Christ many centuries previously had descended from heaven, and preached to the men of that generation, who in their sin and unbelief were the \"spirits in prison.\" Only eight persons believed and were saved; therefore, Christian professors and teachers ought not to faint because of the nnbelief of mankind now. Another interpretation, suggested by Archbishop Leighton in a note, as his last opinion, and expounded at large by the late Dr. John Brown, of Edinburgh, is, that Christ dying in the body as a vicarious sacrifice is quickened in the spirit, i. e., spiritually quickened, manifested as a complete Saviour in a higher degree than was possible before, as a grain of wheat dying he began to bear much fruit; and thus quickened, he now, through the inspiration of his Spirit, preached to \" spirits in prison,\" i, e., prisoners of sin and Satan, just as he had before done, though with less power, through Noah and all the prophets, when the spirits were disobedient; under the ministry of Noah only eight souls being saved ; but since Christ was quickened in spirit, i. e., manifested as a complete Saviour, multitudes believed.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "141", "sort_key": 141, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "Wherein  does  Christ's  exaltation  consist  ?", "answer": "\" Shorter Cat.,\" Question 28, \" Larger Cat.,\" Questions 51-54. 26. In ivhat sense was it possible for the co-equal Son of God to he exalted ? As the co-equal Son of God this Avas impossible, yet his per- son as God-man was capable of exaltation in several respects. 1st. Through the union of the divine and human natures, the outward manifestations of the glory of his person had been veiled from the eyes of creatures. 2d. As ]\\Iediator he occupied officially a position inferior to the Father, condescending to oc- cupy the place of sinners. He had been inconceivably Innnbled, and, as a reward consequent upon his voluntary self-humilia- tion, the leather highly exalted him. — Phil. ii. 8, 9; Heb. xii. 2; Rev. V. 6. 3d. His human soul and body were inconceivably exalted.— ^latt. xvii. 2; Rev. i. 12-16; xx. 11. THE EXALTATION OF CHRIST. 441 27. Wliat are the various sources of proof by tvhich the resur- rection of Christ is established ? 1st. The Old Testament predicted it. Compare Ps. xvi. 10, and Acts ii. 24-31. All the other predictions concerning the Messiah were fulfilled in Christ, therefore this. 2d. Christ predicted it, and therefore, if he was a true prophet, he must have risen. — ^latt. xx. 19 ; John x. 18. 3d. The event, his extraordinary origin and character con- sidered, is not antecedently improbable. 4th. The testimony of the eleven apostles. These men are proved b}^ their writings to have been good, intelligent, and serious, and they each had every opportunity of ascertaining the fact, and they sealed their sincerity with their blood. — Acts i. 3. 5th. The separate testimony of Paul, who, as one born out of due time, saw his risen Lord, and derived his revelation and commission from him in person. — 1 Cor. xv. 8; Gal. i. 12; Acts ix. 3-8. 6th. He was seen by five hundred brethren at once, to whom Paul appeals. — Cor. xv. 6. 7th. The change of the Sabbath, from the last to the first day of the week, is a monument of the concurrent testimony of the whole of the first generation of Christians, to the fact that they believed that Christ rose from the dead. 8th. The miracles wrought by the apostles were God's seals to their testimony that he had raised Christ. — Heb ii. 4. 9th. The accompanying witness of the Holy Ghost, honor- ing the apostles' doctrine and ministry not merely by mirac- ulous gifts, but by his sanctifying, elevating, and consoling power. — Acts v. 32. Dr. Hodge.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "142", "sort_key": 142, "group": "Chapter XXVII", "question": "By  ivhose  power  did  Christ  rise  from  the  dead?", "answer": "The Scriptures ascribe his resurrection — 1st. To himself — John ii. 19; x. 17. 2d. To the Father. — Acts xiii. 33; Rom. x. 9; Eph. i. 20. This is reconciled upon the principle that all acts of divine power, terminating upon objects external to the Godhead, may be attributed to either of the divine persons, or to the Godhead absolutely. — John v. 17-19. 29. On ichat ground does the apostle declare that our fcnth is vain if Christ be not risen (1 Cor. xv. 14).^ 1st. If Christ be risen indeed, then he is the true ]\\[essiah, and all the prophecies of both dispensations have in that fact 442 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. a pledge of their fulfilment. If he has not risen, then are they all false. 2d. The resurrection proved him to be the Son of God, Rom. i. 4, for (1) he rose by his own power, (2) it authenticated all his claims with respect to himself. 3d. In the resurrection of Christ the Father publicly declared his approbation and acceptance of Christ's work as surety of his people. — Rom. iv. 25. 4th. If Christ has risen, we have an advocate with the Fa- ther.—Rom. viii. 34; Heb. 9, 11, 12, 24. 5t]i. If Christ be raised, we have assurance of eternal life; if he lives, we shall live also. — John xiv. 19 ; 1 Pet. i. 3-5. 6th. Owing to the union between Christ and his members, wdiich is both federal and spiritual, his resurrection secures ours, (1) because, as we died in Adam, so we must live in Christ, 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22-, (2) because of his Spirit, that dwell- eth in us. — Rom. viii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 15; 1 Thess. iv. 14. 7th. Christ's resurrection illustrates and determines the na- ture of our resurrection as well as secures it. — 1 Cor. xv. 49; Phil. iii. 21 ; 1 John iii. 2. Dr. Hodge. 30. WJien, at lohat place, and in luhose presence did Christ ascend ? He ascended forty days after his resurrection, from a portion of the Mount of Olives, near to the village of Bethany, in the presence of the eleven apostles, and possibly of other disciples, while he was in the act of blessing them, and while they beheld him, and were looking steadfastly. Luke says, moreover, that there were two glorified men present, who are conjectured by Professor J. A. Alexander to have been Moses and Elijah. He was attended also witli angels celebrating his victory over sin, and his exaltation to his mediatorial throne. — Luke xxiv. 50, 51 ; Mark xvi. 19; x\\cts i. 9-11; Epli. iv. 8; Col. ii. 13-15; Ps. xxiv. 7-10; Ixviii. 18. 31. What are the different opinions as to the nature of Chrisfs ascoision ? Those who, as the Lutherans, believe that Christ's body is omnipresent to his church, of course, maintain tliat liis ascen- sion consisted not in any local change, but in the withdrawal of his former sensible intercourse with his disciples. It is certain, however, that his human soul and body did actually pass up from earth to the abode of the blessed, and that his entire person, as the God-man, was gloriously exalted. He ascended as Mediator, triumphing over his enemies, and AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE. 443 giving gifts to his friends, Eph. iv. 8-12; to complete his me- diatorial work, John xiv. 2, 3 ; as the Forerunner of his people, Heb. vi. 20; and to fill the universe with the manifestations of his glory and power. — Eph. iv. 10. 32. What is included in Christ's sitting at the right hand of the Father ? See Ps. ex. 1; Mark xvi. 19; Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 20, 22; Col. iii. 1; Heb. i. 3, 4; x. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 22. This language is evidently figurative, yet it very expres- sively sets forth the supreme glorification of Christ in heaven. It presents him as the God-man, and in his office as Mediator exalted to supreme and universal glory, felicity, and power over all principalities and powers, and every name that is named. — Heb. ii. 9; Ps. xvi. 11; Matt. xxvi. 64; Dan. vii. 13, 14; Phil. ii. 9, 11; John v. 22; Rev. v. 6. Thus publicly assuming his throne as mediatorial Priest and King over the universe for the benefit of his church. Seated upon that throne hk, during the present dispensation, AS Mediator, effectually applies to his people, through his Spirit, that salvation which he had previously achieved for them in his estate of humiliation. AUTHOBITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINES. Koman Doctrine. — \"Caf. Cone. Tre7il\" Pt. 1, ch. 6. — \"Therefore we profess that, immediately Christ was dead, his soul descended into hell. . . But in these words we at the same time confess, that the same per- son of Christ was at the same time, in hell and in the sepiilchre, for . . although his sonl departed from his body, his divinity was never sep- arated either from soul or body. . . The word \"hell\" signifies those hidden abodes in which are detained souls that have not attained heavenly bliss. . . These abodes were not all of the same kind. . . A third sort of receptacle is that in which were received the souls of the saints who died before the coming of Christ our Lord; and where, without any sense of pain, svistained by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed a tranquil abode. The souls, then, of these jDious men, who in tlie bosom of Ahniham were expecting the Saviour; Christ the Lord liberated, de- scending into hell. . . . He descended not to suflfer aught but to liberate from the miserable weariness of that captivity the holy and the just, and to impart to them the fruit of his passion.\" Lutheran Doctrine. \"Ff^rmulu Concordice\" (Hase), p. 788. — \"There- fore we believe simply, that the entire person, God and man, after burial descended to the lower regions, overcame Satan, overthrew the infernal powers, and took away from the devil all force and authority. \" Pj). 767, 768. — \"By vii'tue of this personal union and communion, he produced all his miracles, and manifested his divine majesty, according to a most free will, when and in what manner seemed good to him, not only after his resurrection and ascension to heaven, but even in his state of humilia- tion. Indeed he had this majesty immediately upon his conceijtion, 444 MEDIATORIAL KINGSHIP OF CHRIST. even in the womb of liis mother; but as the apostle speaks (Phil. ii. 8), he emptied himself ; and as Dr. Luther teaches, he had this majesty secretly in the state of his humiliation, nor did he use it always, but as often as seemed to him good. But now, after he has, not in a common manner like any other holy person, ascended into the heavens; but, as the Apostle testifies (Eph. iv. 10), has ascended above all heavens, and truly fills all things, and everywhere jjresent, not only as God, but also as man, rules and reigns from sea to sea, and even to the ends of the earth. . . . These things, however, were not done in an earthly manner, but, as Dr. Luther was accustomed to say, in the way and man- ner of the right hand of God [pro modo el ratione de.iierce Dei), which is not any fixed and limited place in heaven, but signifies nothing else than the omnipotent power of God which fills heaven and earth — into posses- sion of wliich Christ really and truly comes as to his humanity without any confusion or equalizing of his natures (divine and human), either as to their essences or essential attributes.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "143", "sort_key": 143, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "What  is  iiicluded  in  the  external  call  ?", "answer": "1st. A declaration of the plan of salvation. 2d. A declara- tion of duty on the part of the sinner to repent and believe. 3d. A declaration of the motives which ought to influence the sinner's mind, such as fear or hope, remorse or gratitude. 446 EFFECTUAL CALLING. 4th. A promise of acceptance in the case of all those who comply with the conditions. — Dr. Hodge. 3. Hoio can it he proved that the external call to salvation is made only through the ivord of God ? The law of God, as impressed upon the moral constitution of man, is natm'al, and inseparable from man as a moral respon- sible agent. — Rom. i. 19, 20; ii. 14, 15. But the gospel is no part of that natural law. It is of grace, not of nature, and it can be made known to us only by a special and supernatural revelation. This is further evident, 1st, because the Scriptures declare that a knowledge of the word is essential to salvation, Rom. x. 14-17 ; and, 2d, because they also declare that those who neg- lect the word, either written or preached, are guilty of the eminent sin of rejecting all possibility of salvation. — Matt. xi. 21, 22; Heb. ii. 3. 4. On 2vhcd principle is this external call addressed equally to the non-elect as well as to the elect ? That it is addressed indiscriminately to both classes is proved — 1st. From the express declaration of Scripture. — Matt, xxii. 14. 2d. The command to preach the gospel to every crea- ture.— Mark xvi. 15. 3d. The promise to every one wlio ac- cepts it, — Rev. xxii. 17. 4th. The awfuljudgment pronounced upon those who reject it. — John iii. 19 ; xvi. 9. It is addressed to the non-elect equally with the elect, be- cause it is equally their duty and interest to accept the gospel, because the provisions of salvation are equally suited to their case, and abundantly sufficient for all, and because God intends that its benefits shall actually accrue to every one who accepts it. 5. Hoiv can it be proved that tJiere is an internal spiritual call distinct from- an external one? 1st. From those passages which distinguish the Spirit's influ- ence from that of the word. — John vi. 45, 64^ 65; 1 Thess. i. 5, 6. 2d. Those passages which teach that the Spirit's influence is necessary to the reception of the truth. — Eph. i. 17. 3d. Those that refer all good in man to God. — Phil. ii. 13; Eph. ii. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 25, e. (/., faith and repentance. 4th. The Scripture dis- tinguishes between the two calls; of the subjects of the one it is said, \" man}^ are called and few are chosen,\" of the subjects of the other it is said, \" whom he called, them he also justified.\" Of the one he says, \"Because I have called, and ye have re- fused.\"— Prov. i. 24. Of the other he says, \" Every man there- THE VARIOUS VIEWS STATED. 447 fore who hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me.\" — John vi. 45. 5th. There is an absolute necessity for such an internal, spiritual call, man by nature is \" blind \" and \" dead \" in trespasses and sins. — 1 Cor. ii. 14 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eph. ii. 1.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "144", "sort_key": 144, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "Wliai  is  the  Pelagian  vieiv  of  the  internal  call?", "answer": "Pelagians deny original sin, and maintain that riglit and wrong are qualities attaching only to executive acts of the will. They therefore assert — 1st. The full ability, of the free- will of man as much to cease from sin at any time as to con- tinue in its practice. 2d. That the Holy Spirit produces no in- ward change in the heart of the subject, except as he is the author of the Scriptures, and as the Scriptures present moral truths and motives, which of their own nature exert a moral influence upon the soul. They deny \"grace\" altogether in the Scriptural sense.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "145", "sort_key": 145, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "What  is  the  Semipelagian  view  ?", "answer": "These maintain that grace isjiecessary to enable a man suc- cessfuU}^ to return unto God and live. ~^ef that from the very nature of the human will man must first of himself desire to be free from sin, and to choose God as his chief good, when he may expect God's aid in carrying his desires into effect. They deny irt-evenient grace, but admit co-operative grace.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "146", "sort_key": 146, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "What  is  the  Arminian  vieio?", "answer": "The Arminians admit the doctrine of man's total depravitv, and that in consequence thereof man is utterly unable to do any thing aright in the unaided exercise of his natural facul- ties. Nevertheless, as Christ died equally for every man, suffi- cient grace, enabling its subject to do all that is required of him, is granted to all. Which sufficient grace becomes efficient only when it is co-operated with and improved by the sinner. — \"Apol. Conf Eemonstr.,\" p. 162, b. ; Limborch, \"Theo. Christ..\" 4, 12, 8. 9. What is the doctrine on this subject tanght by the Symbols of the Lutheran Church ? They agree absolutely with the Eeformed or Calvinists — 1st. That all men are by nature spiritually dead, utterly unable either to commence to tm-n to God, or to co-operate with liis grace to that end prior to regeneration. 2d. That the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit on the human soul is the sole 448 EFFECTUAL CALLING. efficient cause which quickens the dead soul to life. Hence — 3d. The foundation upon which the salvation of believers rests is the eternal, gracious election of God to salvation. They re- fuse however to take the next step, and acknowledge that the reason unbelievers are not quickened is due to tlie equally sov- ereign witliholding of regenerating grace. They insist upon attributing it solely to the criminal resistance to the grace, of the initial stages of which all are the subjects. — '• Formula Con- cordise,\" Hase, pp. 579-583, 602-6(36, 817-821. A and B are alike sinners, A believes and B remains a rep- robate. The Pelagian says, because A willed to believe and B to reject. The Semipelagian says, because A commenced to strive and was helped, and B made no effort. The Arminian saj^s, because A co-operated with common grace, and B did not. The Lutheran says, both were utterly unable to co-operate, but B persistently resisted grace, and A ultimately yielded. The Calvinist says, because A was regenerated by the new creative power of God's Spirit, and B was not.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "147", "sort_key": 147, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "Wliat  is  the  Synergistic  vieiv  of  this  'point  ?", "answer": "At the call of Maurice, the new elector of Saxony, the divines of Wittemburg and Leipsic assembled at Leipsic, a. d. 1548, in conference, and on that occasion the Synergistic con- troversy arose. The term signifies co-operation. The Syner- gists were Lutheran theologians, who departed from their own system on thi^ one subject, and adopted the position of the Arminians. Melanchthon taught that \"there concur three causes of a good action, the word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the human will assenting, not resisting, the word of God.\" \" Loci Communes,\" p. 90. 11. What is tJie common doctrine of tlie Reformed Churches as to the internal call? That it is an exercise of the divine power upon the soul, immediate, spiritual, and supernatural, communicating a new spiritual life, and thus making a new mode of spiritual activity possible. That repentance, faith, trust, hope, love, etc., are purely and simply the sinner's own acts; but as such are pos- sible to him only in virtue of the change wrought in the moral condition of his faculties by the recreative power of God. — See \"Conf of Faith,\" Chap, x.. Sections 1 and 2. Common grace preceding regeneration makes a superficial moral impi-ession upon character and action but is generally resisted. The act of grace which regenerates, operating Avithin the spontaneous energies of the soul and changing their char- ''COMMON'' AND ''EFFICACIOUS'' GRACE. 449 acter, can neither be co-operated with nor resisted. But the instant the soul is regenerated it begins to co-operate with and sometimes, alas! also to resist subsequent gracious influ- ences prevenient and co-operative. But upon the whole and in the end grace preserves, overcomes, and saves. Eegenera- tion is styled by the Reformed Theologians Converdo habit ualis sen passiva, i. e., the change of character in effecting which the soul is the subject, and not the agent of action. Conversion they style Conversio actualis seu activa, i. e., the instantly con- sequent change of action in which the soul still prompted and aided by grace is the only agent. 12. What diversity of opinion prevails among the Romanists upon this subject ? The disciples of Augustine in that churcli, of whom the\\ Jansenists were the most prominent, are orthodox, but these ' have been almost universally overthrown, and supplanted by their enemies the Jesuits, who are Semipelagians. The Coun- cil of Trent attempted to satisfy both parties. — \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. 6, Can. 3 and 4. The doctrines of Quesnel, who advocated the truth on this subject, were condemned in the Bull \" Unigenitus,\" a. d. 1713. Bellarmin taught that the same grace is given to every man, which, by the event only, is proved practically congruous to the nature of one man, and therefore in his case efficacious, and incongruous to the nature of another, and therefore in his case ineffectual. 13. What is meant by \" common cjrace,'^ and hoio may it be shoivn that the Spirit does operate upon the minds of those luho are not reneiued in heart ? \"Common grace\" is the restraining and persuading influ- ences of the Holy Spirit acting only through the truth revealed in the gospel, or through the natural light of reason and of conscience, heightening the natural moral effect of such truth upon the understanding, conscience, and heart. It involves no change of heart, but simply an enhancement of the natural powers of the truth, a restraint of the evil passions, and an in- crease of the natural emotions in view of sin, duty, and self- interest. That God does so operate upon the hearts of the unregen- erate is proved, 1st, from Scripture, Gen. vi. 3; Acts vii. 51; Heb. X. 29 ; 2d, from universal experience and observation.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "148", "sort_key": 148, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "How  does  common  differ  from  efficacious  grace?", "answer": "1st. As to its subjects. All men are more or less the sub- 29 450 EFFECTUAL CALLING. jects of the one; only the elect are snbjects of the other. — Rom. viii. 30; xi. 7; 2 Thess. ii. 13. 2d. As to its natnre. Common grace is only mediate, through the truth, and it is merely moral, heightening the moral influence natural to the truth, and exciting only the natural powers of the soul, both rational and moral. But effi- cacious grace is immediate and supernatural, since it is wrought directly in the soul by the immediate energy of the Holy Ghost, and since it implants a new spiritual life, and a capacity for a new mode of exercising the natural faculties. 3d. As to its effects. The effects of common grace are su- perficial and transient, modyifying the action, but not chang- ing the nature, and its influence is alwaj^s more or less con- sciously resisted, as opposed to the prevailing dispositions of the soul. But efficacious grace, since it acts not upon but in the will itself, changing the governing desires, and giving a new direction to the active powers of the soul, is neither re- sistible nor irresistible, but most free, spontaneous, and yet most certainly effectual. 15. Hoio can it he proved that this ejfficacioiis grace is confined to the elect? 1st. The Scriptures represent the elect as the called, and the called as the elect. — Rom. viii. 28, 30; Rev. xvii. 14 2d. This effectual calling is said to be based upon the decree of election, 2 Thes. ii. 13, 14; 2 -Tim. i. 9, 10. 3d. Sanctification, justifica- tion, and all the temporal and eternal benefits of union Math Christ are declared to be the effects of effectual calling. — 1 Cor. i. 2; Eph. ii. 5; Rom. viii. 30.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "149", "sort_key": 149, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "Prove  that  it  is  given  on  account  of  Christ  ?", "answer": "1st. All spiritual blessings are given on account of Christ. Eph. i. 3; Titus iii. 5, 6. 2d. The Scriptures specifically de- clare that we are called in Christ. — Rom. viii. 2 ; Eph. ii, 4-6 ; 2 Tim. i. 9. 17. What is meant hy saying that this divine influence is im- mediate and supernatural? It is meant, 1st, to deny, (1) that it consists simply in the moral influence of the truth; (2) that it consists simj)ly in the moral influence of the Spirit, heightening the moral in- fluence of the truth as objectively presented ; (3) that it excites the mere natural powers of the soul. It is meant, 2d, to affirm, (1) that the Holy Spirit acts immediately upon the soul from GOD ACTS IMMEDIATELY OX THE SOUL. 451 within; (2) that the Holy Spirit, by an exercise of recreative power, implants a new moral nature or principle of action. 18. What arguments go to shoiv that there is an immediate influence of the Spirit on the soul, besides that zvhich is exerted through the truth? Ist. The influence of the Spirit is clistin punished from that of the word. — John vi. 45, 64, 65; Rom. xv. 13; 1 Cor. ii. 12-15; 1 Thess. i. 5, 6. 2d. A divine influence is declared to be necessary to the reception of the truth. — Ps. cxix. 18; Acts xvi. 14; Eph. i. 17. 3d. Such an internal operation on the heart is attributed to God.— Phil. ii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 11; Heb. xiii. 21. 4th. The gift of the Spirit is disting-uished from the giit of the word. — John xiv. 16; 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19; Eph. iv. 30. 5th. The nature of this influence is evidently different from that eff'ected by the truth. — Eph. i. 19; iii. 7. And the effect is called a \"new creation,\" \"new birth,\" etc., etc. 6th. ]\\Ian b}^ nature is dead in sin, and needs such a direct intervention of supernatural power. — Turretin, \"Theo. Instits.,\" L. XV., Quasstio 4. 19. What are the different reasons assigned for calling this grace EFFICACIOUS ? 1st. The Jesuits and the Arminians, holding that all men receive sufficient grace to enable them to obey the gospel if they will, maintain that this grace becomes efficacious when it is co-operated with by the will of the individual, and in any case is proved to be such only by the event. 2d. Bellarmin, and others, maintain that the same grace given to all is congruous to the moral nature of one man, and in that case efficacious, and incongruous to the nature of an- other, and in his case ineffectual. 3d. Some Romanists have maintained what is called the doctrine of cumulative influence. The consent of the soul is secured by the suasive influence of the spirit, rendered effectual by constant repetition and long continuance. 4th. The orthodox doctrine is that the efficacy of this grace is inherent in its very nature, because it is the exercise of the mighty power of God in the execution of his eternal and un- changeable purpose.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "150", "sort_key": 150, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "In  lohcd  sense  is  grace  irresistible  ?", "answer": "It must be remembered that the true Christian is the subject at the same time of those moral and mediate influences of grace 452 EFFECTUAL CALLING. upon the lo'iU, common to him and to the imconverted, and also of those special influences of grace within the toill, which are certainly efficacious. The first class of influences Christians may, and constantly do resist, through the laAv of sin remain- ing in their members. The second class of influences are cer- tainly efficacious, but are neither resistible nor irresistible, be- cause tliey act from within and carry the will spontaneously with them. It is to be lamented that the term irresistible grace has ever been used, since it suggests the idea of a me- chanical and coercive influence upon an unwilling subject, while, in truth, it is the transcendent act of the infinite Creator, mak- ing the creature spontaneously willing.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "151", "sort_key": 151, "group": "Chapter XXVIII", "question": "Hoiv  can  this  grace  he  proved  to  he  certainly  efficadous  ?", "answer": "1st. By the evidence we have given above, as to its nature, as the immediate operation of the mighty power of God. 2d. By the description of the work of grace. Men by na- ture are \" blind,\" \" dead,\" \" slaves,\" etc. The change effected is a \" new creation,\" etc. 3d. From the promises of God, which are certain. The means which he uses to vindicate his own faithfulness must be efficacious. — Ezek. xxxvi. 26; xi. 19; John vi. 45. 4th. From the connection asserted by Scripture between call- ing and election. The called are the elect. As God's decrees are certain, the call must be efficacious. — See above, Ques. 15. 5th. Faith and repentance are the gifts of God, and he who truly repents and believes is saved. Therefore, the grace which communicates those gifts is effectual. — Eph. ii. 8; Acts xi. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 25. 22. Hoio may it he proved that this infiuenjce is congruous ivitli our nature ? While discarding utterly the distinction made by Bellarmin (for which see above. Question 19), we say that efficacious grace is congruous to human nature as such, in the sense tliat the Spirit of God, while exerting an immediate and recreative influ- ence upon the soul, nevertheless acts in perfect consistency with the integrity of those laws of our free, rational, and moral na- ture, which he has himself constituted. Even in the miracu- lous recreation of the new birth, he acts upon our reasons and upon our wills in perfect accordance with the constitution of each. This is certain. 1st. The same God creates and recre- ates; his object is not to destroy, but to restore his own work. 2d. The Scriptures and our own experience teach that the im- mediately consequent acts of the soul in the exercise of im- planted grace, are pre-eminently rational and free. In fact, the THE WORD THE INVARIABLE INSTRUMENT. 453 soul never acted normally before. — Ps. ex. 3; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Phil. ii. 13. 3d. This divine influence is described by such terms as \"drawing,\" \"teaching,\" \"enlightening.\" — John vi. 44, 45; Eph. i. 18. 23. What do the Scriptures teach as to tlie connection of this influence ivith the truth ? In the case of the regeneration of infants the truth, of course, is not used. In the regeneration of adults the truth is always present. In the act of regeneration the Spirit acts immediately upon the soul, and changes its subjective state, while the truth is the object consciously apprehended, upon which the new faculties of spiritual discernment and the new affections are exercised. The Spirit gives sight, the truth is the light discerned. The Spirit gives feeling, the truth presents the object beloved. — Kom. x. 14, 17; James i. 18; John xvii. 17. 24. What reason may he assigned for the belief that the Spirit does not renew those adults to whom the truth is not known ? Negatively. The Bible never leads us to expect such an extension of grace, and neither the Scriptures nor our own experience among the modern heathen ever present us with any examples of such a work. Positively. The Scriptures always associate all spiritual influence with the truth, and declare the necessity of preach- ing the truth to the end of saving souls. — Rom. x. 14. 25. What are the objections to tJie Arminian doctrhie of suffi- cient grace ? They hold that God has willed the salvation of all men, and therefore has called all alike, giving to all a grace sufficient, if tliey will improve it. We object — 1st. The external call of the gospel has been extended to comparatively few. The heathen are responsible with the light of nature, and under the law of works, yet they have no means of grace. — Rom. i. 18-20; ii. 12-15. 2d. This doctrine is inconsistent with God's purpose of elec- tion.— See above. Chapter XI. 3d. According to the Arminian system it depends upon the free-will of the man to make the sufficient grace of God common to all men efficient in his case. But the Scriptures declare that salvation is altogether of grace, and a gift of God. — Eph. ii. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 25; Rom. ix. 15, 16. 4th. The Scriptures expressly declare that not even all who receive the external call have sufficient grace. — Rom. ix. 16-24; xi. 8. 454 EFFECTUAL CALLING. Authoritative Statements of Doctrine. EoMAN Doctrine. — \" Cone. Trent,\" Sess. 6, c. 1. — \"If any one saith that a man can be justified (by justification they mean the removal of sin and infusion of a gi-acious habit of soul) by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. C. 2. — If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free-will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty, let him be anathema. C. 3. — If any one saith, that without i)revenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema. C. 4. — If any one says that man's free-will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of justification; that it can not refuse its consent, if it would, but that as something inanimate it does nothing whatever, and is merely pas- sive; let him be anathema. Can. 5. — If any one saith that since Adam's sin, the free-will of man is lost and extinguished; or that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment in fine intro- duced into the woi-ld by Satan; let him be anathema.\" Doctrine or the Greek Chxjrch. — \" Jerem. in Act. Witem.\" — \" Even after the fall nothing hinders man from turning away from the bad, and superinduced upon this, doing good and choosing the right, as one who has free- irill. . . . From all these it is plain, that it is our part to awake and to obey, and we have ability to choose the good as well as the bad. We need only one thing, i. e., God's help, in order to succeed in the good and be saved, and without this help we have no strength to finish the work.\" Lutheran Doctrine. — \"Form. Concordicp\" p. 662. — \"But before man is enlightened, converted, regenerated, and drawn by the Holy Spuit, he is not able of himself, and by his own natural powers, in things sjiiritual and (tending) to his own conversion and regeneration, to begin, to produce, or to co-oj^erate in any thing, any more than is a stoneastockor aclod.\" Ih. p. 589. — \"What Doctor Luther wrote — 'That the will of man holds itself purely passive in conversion,' must be re- ceived rightly and fittingly, to wit, with respect to divine grace enkin- dling the new movements, that is, it ought to be understood concerning that, when the Spirit of God acts upon the will of man by the word heard, or by the use of the sacraments, and produces in man conversion and regeneration. For after the Holy Spirit has wrought this very thing, and has by his own divine energy alone changed and renewed the will of man; then, indeed, this new will is an instrument of the Holy Spirit of God, so that it may not only lay hold of grace, but also co-operate with the Holy Spirit in the works following.\" Reformed Doctrine. — •\" Conf. Faith,\" ch. x., | 1. — \"All those whom God hath i^redestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his word and Spii'it, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good ; and AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE. 455 effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.\" \\1. — \"This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spii'it, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.\" \" L. Cat.,\" Q. 67; \" S. Cat.,\" Q. 31. — '■'Canons of Synod of Bori\" chs. iii. and iv., \"Eejec. Er.,\" Error 4. — \" (They are renounced) who teach that an unregenerate man is not strictly and totally dead in sins, nor void of all power as to spiritual good; but that he is able to hunger and thu'st after righteous- ness, and to offer the sacrifice of a broken and contrite si^irit, which is accepted of God.\" Art. 12. — \" (Regeneration) is plainly supernatural, a most povrerful and at the same time most gentle ojjeration, wonderful, secret, and inexpressible, not inferior to a creation, nor less than a reviv- ing of the dead; so that all those, in whose hearts God works in this wonderful manner, are surely regenerated infallibly and effectually, and act faith. And then the will, now renewed, is not only acted on and moved by God, but being so moved, also itself acts. Wherefore also man himself is rightly said, through this received grace, to believe and repent.\" Eemonstkajstt Doctrine. — '■'■ Conf. Remonslr.\" 17, 6. — \"Therefore we decide that the grace of God is the beginning, progress, and comisletion of all good, so that the regenerate person himself, is not able to think, will, or do any saving good, without this previous prevenient, exciting, following, and co-operating grace. \" \" Apol. Conf. Bemons/r.,\" p. 162, b. — \"Grace is called efficacious from the result, vhich, however can be taken in a twofold sense : First, so that grace may be judged to have, of itself, no power to produce con- sent in the will, bi;t its entire efficacy may depend upon the human will: or, Secoiidli/, so that grace may be judged to have of itself sufficient power to produce consent in the will, but because this power is partial, it can not go out in act without the co-oi^eration of the free human will, and hence, that it may have efiect, it depends on free-will. The Re- monstrants wish the \"second \" to be taken as their meaning.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "152", "sort_key": 152, "group": "Chapter XXIX", "question": "What  is  the  Pelagian  view  of  regeneration  ?", "answer": "They hold that sin can be predicated only of volitions, and that it is essential to the liberty and responsibility of man that he is always as able to cease from as to continue in sin. Re- generation is therefore a mere reformation of life and habit. The man who has chosen to transgress the law, now chooses to obey it.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "153", "sort_key": 153, "group": "Chapter XXIX", "question": "What  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  church  on  this  subject  ?", "answer": "The Eomanists, 1st, confound together justification and sanctification, making these one act of God, whereby, for his own glory, for Christ's merits' sake, by the efficient powers of the Holy Ghost, and through the instrumentality of baptism, he at once cancels the guilt of our sins, and delivers us from the inherent power and defilement of original sin. — \"Coimcil of Trent,\" Sess. 6, Chap. vii. 2d. They hold the doctrine that regeneration is accomplished only through the instrumentality of baptism. This is effectual in every instance of its application to an infant. In the case of adults its virtue may be either resisted and nullified, or re- ceived and improved. In baptism (1) sins are forgiven ; (2) the moral nature of the subject is renewed, (3) he is made a son and heir of God. — \"Cat. Kom.,\" Part II., Chap. ii. VARIOUS VIEWS STATED. 457 4. Wliat are the different vieios as to baptismal regeneration entertained in the Church of England ? 1st. The theory of the party styled Puseyite, which is es- sentially the same with that of the Eomish church. They hold in general that the Holy Spirit, through the instrumen- tality of baptism, implants a germ of spiritual life in the soul, which may long remain latent, and may be subsequently de- veloped, or blasted. 2d. That of a large party most ably represented by the late Bishop H. U. Underdonk, in his \" Essay on Regeneration,\" Phila., 1835. He maintained that there are two distinct regen- erations; one a change oi' state or relation, and the other a change of nature. The first is baptismal, the second moral, though both are spiritual in so far as both are wrought by the Holy Ghost. The first or baptismal regeneration is a new birth, since it con- stitutes us sons of God, as the Jews were made his peculiar people by that covenant, the seal of which was circumcision. The second is a new birth, or creation in a higher sense, being a gradual sanctifying change wrought in the whole moral char- acter by the Holy Ghost, and not necessarily connected with baptism. 5. What view of regeneration is held by those in America ivho maintain the '■'■ Exercise Scheme\"? These theologians deny the existence in the soul of any per- manent moral habits or dispositions, and admit the existence only of the soul or agent and his acts or \"exercises.\" In the natural man the series of acts are wholly depraved. In the re- generated man a new series of holy acts are created by the Holv Ghost, and continued by his power. — Emmons, Sermon LXiV., on the \" New Birth.\" 6. What is the New Haven vieiv, advocated by Dr. N. W. Taylor, on this subject ? Dr. Taylor agreed with the advocates of the \"Exercise Scheme,\" that there is nothing in the soul but the agent and his actions; but he differed from them by holding that man and not God is the independent author of human actions. He held that when God and the world is held up before the mind, regeneration consists in an act of the sinner in choosing God as his chief good, thus confounding regeneration and conver- sion. The Holy Spirit, in some unknown way, assists in re- straining the active operation of the natural, selfish principle which prefers the world as its chief good. \"A mind thus de- tached from the world as its supreme good instantly chooses 458 REGENERATION. God for its portion, under the impulse of that inherent desire for happiness, without which no object could ever be regarded as good.^ as either desirable or lovely.\" This original motive to that choice of God which is regeneration is merely natural, and neither morally good nor bad. Thus — 1st. Kegeneration is man's own act. 2d. The Holy Spirit helps man, (1) by sus- pending the controlling power of his sinful, selfish disposition ; (2) by presenting to his mind in the clear light of truth the superiority of God as an object of choice. 3d. Then the sinner chooses God as his chief good under the conviction of his un- derstanding, and from a motive of natural, though not sinful, self-love, which is to be distinguished from selfishness, which is of the essence of sin. — See \" Christian Spectator,\" December, 1829, pp. 693, 694, etc.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "154", "sort_key": 154, "group": "Chapter XXIX", "question": "What  is  the  common  doctrine  Jield  by  evangelical  Christians  ?", "answer": "1st. That there are in the soul, besides its several faculties, habits, or dispositions, of which some are innate and others are acquired, which lay the foundation for the soul's exercising its faculties in some particular way. Thus we intuitively judge a man's moral disposition to be permanently evil when we see him habitually acting sinfully, or to be permanently good when we see him habitually acting righteously. 2d. These dispositions are anterior to moral action, and de- termine its character as good or evil. 3d. In creation God made the disposition of Adam's heart holy. 4th. In the new creation God recreates the governing dis- position of the regenerated man's heart holy. It is, therefore, properly called a \" regeneration,\" a \" new creation,\" a \"new birth.\" 8. Whe7i it is said that regeneration consists in giving a new heart, or in implanting a new ^principle or disposition., ivhat is meant by the terms '•'■hearty' ^^ princijJile\" or ^^disposition\" ? President Edwards says, \" By a principle of nature in this place, I mean that foundation which is laid in nature, either old or new, for any particular kind or manner of exercise of the faculties of the soul. So this new ' spiritual sense ' is not a new faculty of luiderstanding, but it is a new foundation laid in the natiu-e of the soul for a new kind of exercise of the same faculty of ui]de,rstanding. So that new holy disposition of heart that atteiuls this new sense is not a new faculty of will, but a foundation laid in the nature of the soul for a new kind of exercise of the same faculty of will.\" — Edwards on \" Keligious Affections, \" Pt. III., sec. 1. IT INVOLVES NO PHYSICAL CHANGE. 459 The term \"heart,\" signifying that prevailing moral dispo- sition that determines tlie volitions and actions, is the phrase most commonly used in Scripture. — Matt. xii. 33, 35; xv. 19; Luke vi. 43, 45. 9. Sow may it he shoivn that this vieiu of regeneration does not represent it as involving any change in the essence of the soul? This charge is brought against the orthodox doctrine by all those who deny that there is any thing in the soul but its con- stitutional faculties and their exercises. They hence argue that if any thing be changed except the mere exercises of the soul, its fundamental constitution would be physically altered. In opposition to this, we argue that we have precisely the same evidence for the existence of a permanent moral quality or disposition inherent in the will, as the reason why a good man acts habitually righteously, or a bad man viciously, that we have for the existence of the invisible soul itself, or of any of its faculties, as the reason why a man acts at all, or why his actions are such as thought, emotion, volition. It is not possible for us to conceive of the choice being produced in us by the Holy Spirit in more than three ways: \"■First, by his direct agencj'- in producing the choice, in which case it would be no act of ours. Second, by addressing such motives to our constitutional and natural principles of self-love as would in- duce us to make the choice, in which case there would be no morality in the act. Or, thirdly, by producing such a relish for the divine character, that the soul as spontaneously and immediately rejoices in God as its portion as it rejoices in the perception of beauty.\" \" If our ^Nlaker can endow us, not only with the general sus- ceptibility of love, but also with a specific disposition to love our children; if he can give us a discernment and susceptibility of natural beauty, he may give us a taste for spiritual loveliness. And if that taste, by reason of sin, is vitiated and perverted, he may restore it by means of his spirit in regeneration.\" — Hodge's Essaj^s. 10. In lohat seme may the soul he said to he passive in regen- eration ? Dr. Taylor maintains that regeneration is that act of the soul in which man chooses God as his portion. Thus, the man himself, and not God, is the agent. But the Christian church, on the contrary, holds that in regeneration the Holy Ghost is the agent, and man the subject. The act of the Holy Spirit, in implanting a new principle, does not interfere with the essential activity of the soul itself, but 460 REGENERATION. simply gives to that activity a new direction, for the sonl, though active, is nevertheless capable of being acted upon. And although the soul is necessarily active at the very time it is regenerated, yet it is rightly said to be passive with respect to that act of the Holy Spirit whereby it is regenerated. 1st. The soul, under the conviction of the Holy Ghost, and in the exercise of merely natural feelings, regards some aspect of saving truth, and strives to embrace it. 2d. The Holy Ghost, by an exertion of creative power, changes the governing dispo- sition of tlie heart in a manner inscrutable, and by an influence not apprehended by the consciousness of the subject. 3d. Simul- taneously the soul exercises new affections and experimentally embraces the truth. 11. What is the difference between regeneration and conversion ? The term conversion is often used in a wide sense as includ- ing both the change of nature and the exercise of that nature as changed. When distinguished from regeneration, however, conversion signifies the first exercise of the new disposition implanted in regeneration, i. e., in freely turning unto God. Regeneration is God's act; conversion is ours. Regenera- tion is the implantation of a gracious principle ; conversion is the exercise of that principle. Regeneration is never a matter of direct consciousness to the subject of it; conversion always is such to the agent of it. Regeneration is a single act, com- plete in itself, and never repeated ; conversion, as the beginning of holy living, is the commencement of a series, constant, end- less, and progressive. \" Draw me, and I will run after thee.\" Cant. i. 4. This distinction is signalized by the divines of the seventeenth century (Turretin, L. 15, Ques. 4, § V6) by the phrases '■'• conversio habitualis seu passiva\" i. e., the infusion of a gracious habit of soul by God, m respect to which the subject is passive; and \"■conversio actualis seu acfiva,'^ i. e., the consequent acts of faith and repentance elicited by co-operative grace and acted by the subject. 12. Hoiu can it he proved that there is any such thing as that commonly called regeneration ? 1st. By those Scriptures that declare such a change to be necessary. — John iii. 3; 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15. 2(1. By those passages which describe the change. — Eph. ii. 5; iv. *24; James i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 23. 3d. From the fact that it was necessary for the most moral as well as for the most profligate. — 1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. i. 13-16. 4th. That this inward change is not a mere reformation is SUPERNATURAL ILLUMINATION. 461 proved by its being referred to the Holy Spirit. — Eph. i. 19, 20 ; Titus iii. 5. 5th. From the comparison of man's state in grace with his state by nature. — Rom. vi. 13; viii. 6-10; Eph. v. 8. 6th. From the experience of all Christians, and from the testimony of their Jives.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "155", "sort_key": 155, "group": "Chapter XXIX", "question": "What  is  the  nature  of  supernatural  illumination  ?", "answer": "The soul of man is a unit. A radically defective or per- verted condition of any faculty will injuriously affect the exer- cise of all the other iaculties. The essence of sin consists in the perverted moral dispositions and affections of the will. But a perverted condition of these affections must affect the exer- cises of the intellect, concerning all moral objects, as much as the volitions themselves. We can not love or desire any object unless we perceive its loveliness, neither can we intellectually perceive its loveliness unless its qualities are congenial to our inherent taste or dispositions. Sin, therefore, is essentially deceitful, and man as a sinner is spiritually blind. This does not consist in any physical defect. He possesses all the facul- ties requisite to enable him to see the beauty, and to experi- ence the power of the truth, but his whole nature is morally perverted through his evil dispositions. As soon as these are changed he will see, and, seeing, love and obey the truth, although no constitutional change is wrought in his nature, i. €., no new faculty given, but only his perverted faculties morally rectified. This illumination is called supernatural, 1st, because, having been lost, it can be restored only by the immediate power of God. 2d. In contradistinction to the maimed condition of man's present depraved nature. It, how- ever, conveys no new truths to the mind, nor does it relieve the Christian, in any degree, from the diligent and prayerful study of the Word, nor does it lead to any fanciful interpreta- tions of Scripture foreign to the plain sense of the letter; it only leads to the perception and appreciation of the native spiritual beauty and power of the inspired word, and the truths therein revealed. 14. Hoiv may it be jyroved that believers are the subjects of such iUumination ? 1st. It is necessary. — 1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iii. 14; iv. 3; John xvi. 3. From the constitution of our nature we must apprehend an object as lovely before we can love it for its own sake. 2d. The Scriptures expressly affirm it. \" To know God is eternal life.\"— John xvii. 3; 1 Cor. ii. 12, 13; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. 462 RE GENERA TION. i. 18; Phil, i 9; Col. iii. 10; 1 John iv. 7; v. 20; Ps. xix. 7, 8; xliii. 3, 4. As the soitI is a unit, a change in its radical moral disposi- tions must simultaneously modify the exercise of all its facul- ties in relation to moral and spiritual objects. The soul can not love that the loveliness of which it does not perceive, neither can it perceive the loveliness of an object which is totally un- congenial to its own nature. The first effect of regeneration, or a radical change of moral disposition, in the order of nature, therefore, is to open the eyes of our understandings to the excellency of divine truth, and the second effect is the going forth of the renewed affections toward that excellency so per- ceived. This is what Pres. Edwards (\" Religious Affections,\" Pt. III., sec. 4) calls \"-tlie sense of the heart.\" 15. What is the nature of that conviction of sin lohich is the attendant of regeneration ? Spiritual illumination immediately leads to the perception of the righteousness, goodness, and exceeding breadth and exactness of God's law, and by contrast of the exceeding sin- fulness of sin in the abstract, Rom. vii. 7, 13; and above all of his own sin — thus revealing, in contrast to the divine purity and righteousness, the pollution of his own heart, his total ill- desert, and his entire helplessness in all his relations to God. Job xlii. 5, 6. This is a practical experimental knowledge, — produced by the wrestling sXeyxo'^, of the Holy Ghost (John xvi. 8) — of guilt, of pollution, and of helplessness. 16. What is the nature of that conviction of sin tvhich often occurs before or ivithout regeneration, and hoiv may it be distin- guished from tJie genuine ? Natural conscience is an essential and indestructible element of human nature, including a sense of right and wrong, and pain- ful emotions associated with a sense of the latter. Although this faculty may be for a time perverted, and the sensibihty associated with it hardened, yet it may be, and often is, in the case of the unregenerate, quickened to a painful activity, lead- ing to a sense of ill-desert, pollution, helplessness, and danger. In eternity this will constitute a large measure of the suffer- ings of the lost. On the other hand, that conviction of sin which is peculiar to the regenerate is distinguished by being accompanied by a sense of the positive beauty of holiness, and an earnest desire to escape not merely the pangs of remorse, but chiefly the pollution and the dominion of sin. ITS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. 463 17. What is the nature of those new affections ivhicJi flow from tJie renewal of the heart, and how are they distinguished from tli£, exercises of unreneived men ? Spiritual illumination gives the perception of that loveliness which the renewed affections of the heart embrace and delight in. These are spiritual because they are formed in us, and preserved in healthy exercise by the Spirit of God. They are holy because their objects are holy, and because they delight in their objects as holy. The affections of unrenewed men, on the other hand, however pure or even religious they may be, are merely natural in their source, and attach merely to natural objects. They may be grateful to God for his benefits, but they never love him simply for the perfections of his own nature. 18. What is the nature of that neio obedience which results from regeneration, and hoio does it differ from mere morality ? The perfect law is spiritual, and consequently requires per- fect conformity of being as well as of action ; the central and governing principles of life must be in harmony with it. The regenerate man, therefore, thinks, and feels, and wills, and acts in conformity w-ith the spirit of the whole word of God as far as revealed to him, because it is God's word, from a motive of love to God, and with an eye single to his glory. The sancti- fied affections are the spring, the heart-searching laAv the rule, and the glory of God the end, and the Holy Ghost the co- worker in every act of Christian obedience. Morality, on the other hand, has its spring in the merely natural affections; it aims only at the conformity of the outward actions to the letter of the law, while self, in some form of self- righteousness, reputation, safety, or happiness, is the determin- ing end.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "156", "sort_key": 156, "group": "Chapter XXIX", "question": "Hoio  may  the  absolute  necessity  of  regeneration  he  proved  ?", "answer": "1st. The Scriptures assert it. — John iii. 3; Rom. viii. 6; Eph. ii. 10; iv. 21-24. 2d. It is proved from the nature of man as a sinner. — Rom. vii. 18; viii. 7-9; 1 Cor. ii. 14; Eph. ii. 1. 3d. From the nature of heaven. — Isa. xxxv. 8; iii. 1; IMatt. v. 8; xiii. 41; Heb. xii. 14; Rev. xxi. 27. The restoration of holiness is the grand end of the whole plan of salvation. — Eph. i. 4; V. 5, 26, 27. 20. Are infants susceptible of regeneration; and, if so, lohat is the nature of regeneration in them ? Infants, as well as adults, are rational and moral agents, 7-^ and by nature totally depraved. The difference is, that the '/ 464 REGENERA TION. faculties of infants are in the germ, while those of adults are developed. As regeneration is a change wrought by creative power in the inherent moral condition of the soul, infants may plainly be the subjects of it in precisely the same sense as adults ; in both cases the operation is miraculous, and therefore inscrutable. The fact is established by what the Scriptures teach of in- nate depravity, of infant salvation, of infant circumcision and baptism. — Luke i. 15; xviii. 15, 16; Acts ii. 39. See below. Chapter XLII. AUTHOEITATIVE STATEMENTS. Roman Doctetne. — ^^ Cone. Trent\" Sess. vi. Ch. 7. — \"Justification (Kegeneration) is not only a remission of sins, but also a renewal of the inner man through the voluntary reception of the gi'ace and gifts whereby a man born unjust becomes just, and from an enemy becomes a friend, that so he may be an heir according to the hojDe of eternal life. The causes of this justification are — the ^/^rr/ cause, the glory of God and of Christ, and eternal life; the efficient cause, the merciful God who gratu- itously washes and sanctifies, sealing and anointing mth the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the earnest of our inheritance; the meritorious cause, his own most beloved and only begotten Son, oiir Lord Jesus Christ, ■who, when we were enemies, did, on account of the great love where- with he loved us, merit justification for us by his most holy passion on the wood of the cross; and did for us, make satisfaction to God the Fa- ther; also the instrumental cause, the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) justification has never come to any one; and finally i\\\\e formal cause, is the righteousness of God, not that whereby he is himself righteous, but that whereby he makes us righteous, namely that with which we, being by him endowed, are re- newed in the spirit of our mind, and are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are righteous.\" Lutheran Doctrine. — \" Formtda Concordice\" (Hase), page 679. — \"For conversion is such a change of the man through the operation of the Holy Spirit in the understanding, will, and heart of man, that he is able (/. «., by the operation of the Holy Spirit) to embrace the offered grace. Jb. p. 681. — But the understanding and will of the man not as yet renewed are only the subject to be converted, because they are the understanding and will of a man spiritually dead, in whom the Holy Ghost works conversion and renewal ; in whicli work the man to be con- verted contributes nothing, but is acted upon, until he is regenerated. But afterwards in other good works enduring, he co-operates vnth the Holy Spirit, doing those things which are well pleasing to God, in that manner which has now been declared by us fully enough in this treatise. \" Reformed Doctrine and Remonstrant Doctrine. — See under Chap- ter XXVIII.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "157", "sort_key": 157, "group": "Chapter XXX", "question": "Hoio  may  faith  be  defined?", "answer": "Faith is a complex act of the soul, involving the concurrent action of the understanding and the will, and modified in dif- ferent instances of its exercise by the nature of its object, and of the evidence upon which it rests. The most general defini- tion, embracing all its modifications, affirms faith to be \"assent 30 466 FAITH. 1/ to truth upon the exhibition of the appropriate evidence. But ^ it is evident that its nature must vary with the nature of the truth beheved, and especially with the nature of the evidence upon which oin* assent is founded. Assent to a speculative or abstract truth is a speculative act ; assent to a moral truth is a moral act; assent to a promise made to ourselves is an act of trust. Our belief that the earth moves round its axis is a mere assent; our belief in the excellence of virtue is of the nature of a moral judgment; our belief in a promise is an act of trust.\" So likewise with respect to the evidence upon which our faith is founded. \"The same man may believe the same truth on different grounds. One may believe the Christian system sim- ply because others around him believe it, and he has been brought up to receive it without question ; this is the faith of credulity. Another may believe it on the ground of its external evidence, e. gr., of miracle, prophecy, history, its logical consist- ency as a system, or its plausibility as a theory in accounting for the phenomena of creation and providence. This is specu- lative taith. Another may believe, because the truths of the Bible recommend themselves to his reason and conscience, and accord with his inward experience. This faith is founded on moral evidence. There is another faith founded on the intrinsic excellence, beauty, and suitableness of the truth from a sense and love of its moral excellence. This is spiritual faith, which is the gift of God.\"—\" Way of Life.\" Religious faith is hdxef of the truth on the testimony of God. It includes, (1) Notiiia, knowledge; (2) Assensus, assent; (3) Fi- ducia, trust. 4. How far is faith an act of the understanding, and how far an act of the ivill ? The one indivisible soul knows and loves, desires and de- cides, and these several acts of the soul meet on the same object. The soul can neither love, desire, nor choose that which it does not know, nor can it know an object as true or good without some affection of will towards it. Assent to a purely speculative truth may be simply an act of understand- ing, but belief in a moral truth, in testimony, in promises, must be a complex act, embracing both the understanding and the will. The understanding apprehends the truth to be believed, and decides upon the validity of the evidence, but the disposi- tion to believe testimony, or moral evidence, has its foundation in the will. Actual trust in a promise is an act of the will, and not a simple judgment as to its trustworthiness. There is an exact relation between the moral judgment and the affections, and the will, as the seat of the moral affections, determines RELATION OF FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE. 467 the moral judgments. Therefore, as a man is responsible for his will, he is responsible for his faith. As far as faith includes an act of \" cognition \" it is, of course, purely an act of the imderstanding. But as far as it includes \"Assent\" and \"Trust,\" it involves also the spontaneous and active powers of the soul, that is, \" the will,\" and in its higher exercise it often involves deliberate volition itself", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "158", "sort_key": 158, "group": "Chapter XXX", "question": "What  is  tJie  difference  hehveen  knowledge  and  faith  ?", "answer": "Generall}'', knowledge is the apprehension of an object as true, and faith is an assent to its truth. It is obvious, there- fore, that in this general sense of the term every exercise of faith includes the knowledge of the object assented to. It is impossible to distinguish between the apprehension of the truthfulness of a purely speculative truth and an assent to it as true. In such a case faith and knowledge appear identical. But while the apprehension of the trustworthiness of a promise is knowledge, the actual reliance upon it is faith. The appre- hension of the moral truthfulness of an object is knowledge, the assent to it, as good and desirable, is faith. Sometimes the Scriptures use the word knowledge as equiv- alent to faith. — John x. 38 ; 1 John ii. 3. Generally, however, the Scriptures restrict the terra knowl- edge to the apprehension of those ideas which we derive through the natural sources of sensation and reason and human testi- mony, while the term faith is restricted to the assent to those truths which rest upon the direct testimony of God alone, object- ively revealed in the Scriptures, as discerned through spiritual illumination. Thus, faith is the \" evidence of things not seen.\" Heb. xi. 1. We are commanded \" to walk by faith, and not by sight.\" — 2 Cor. v. 7. Here the distinction between faith and knowledge has reference particularly to the mode of know- 1 ing. The one is natural and discursive, the other supernatural and intuitive. \"\" 6. What distinction do the Romanists make heticeen implicit and explicit faith ? Romanists and Protestants agree that it is not essential to faith that its object should be comprehended by the understand- ing. But, on the other hand, Protestants affirm, and Eoman- ists deny, that it is essential that the object believed should be apprehended by the mind; that is, that knowledge of what we believe is essential to faith. The Romanists, therefore, liave invented the distinction between explicit faith, Avliich termi- nates upon an object distinctly apprehended by the mind, and implicit faith, which a man exercises in the truth of proposi- 468 FAITH. tions of which he knows nothing. They hold that if a man exercises expHcit faith in a general proposition, he therein ex- ercises implicit faith in every thing embraced in it, whether he knows what they are or not. If a man, for instance, has explicit faith that the chin-ch is an infallible teacher, he thereby exercises virtual or implicit faith in every doctrine taught by the church, although he may be ignorant as to what those doc- trines are. They distinguish, moreover, between those truths which -it is necessary to regard with explicit faitli, and those which may be held implicitly. They commonly teach that it is necessary for the people to hold only three doctrines expli- citly, 1st, that God is; 2d, that he is a rewarder, including future rewards and punishments ; 3d, that he is a redeemer. \" This doctrine has been recently revived by the Puseyites, under the title of reserve. The distinguisliing truths of the gospel, instead of being clearly presented, should, it is said, be concealed or kept in reserve. The people may gaze upon the cross as the symbol of redemption, but need not know whether it is the form, or the material, or the great sacrifice once enacted on it, to which the efficacy is due. ' Religious light is intellectual darkness,' says Dr. Newman. This theory rests upon the same false assumption that faith can exist with- out knowledge.\" — Dr. Hodge. 7. What is the difference heticeen hioicing and understanding a thing, and how far is knoioledge essential to faith ? We know a thing when we simply apprehend it as true. We understand it only when we fully comprehend its nature, and the perfect consistency of all its properties with each other and with the entire system of things of which it forms a part. We know the doctrine of the trinity when its several parts are stated to us, but no creature can ever understand it. That knowledge, or simple apprehension of the object be- lieved and confided in, is essential to faith, is evident from the nature of faith itself It is that state of mind which bears the relation of assent to a certain object, involving that action of understanding and of will which is appropriate to that object. If a man loves, fears, or believes, he must love, fear, or believe some object, for it is evident that these states of mind can exist only in relation to their appropriate objects. If a real object is not present the imagination may present an ideal one, but that very fiction of the imagination must first be apprehended as true (or known) before it can be assented to as true (or be- lieved). Just as it is impossible for a man to enjoy beaiity with- out perceiving it in some object of the mind, or to exercise complacent love in a virtuous act without perceiving it, so it KNOWLEDGE ESSENTIAL TO FAITH. 469 is, for the same reason, impossible for a man to exercise faith without knowing what he beHeves. \" Imphcit faith\" is a per- fectly unmeaning formula. /^ 8. How can the fact that knowledge is essential to faith he proved from Scrijjture ? 1st. From the etymology of the word Tti6rii, from TcsiQco, to persuade, instruct. Faith is that state of mind which is the result of teaching. 2d. From the use of the word knowledge in Scripture as equivalent to faith. — John x. 38 ; 1 John ii. 3. 3d. From what the Bible teaches as to the source of faith. It comes by teaching. — Eom. x. 14-17. 4th. The Scriptures de- clare that the regenerate are enlightened, have received the unction, and know all things. — Acts xxvi. 18; 1 Cor. ii. 12-15; Col. iii. 10. 5th. The means of salvation consist in the dissem- ination of the truth. Christ is the great teacher. Ministers are teachers. — 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 2 ; iv. 13. Christians are begotten by the truth, sanctified by the truth. — John xvii. 19 ; James i. 18. Dr. Hodge. 9. How are those passages to he explained tvhich speak of knowl- edge as distinguished from faith ? Although every act of faith presupposes an act of knowl- edge, yet both the faith and the knowledge vary very much, both with the nature of the object known and believed, and with the manner in which the knowledge is received, and with the evidence upon which the faith rests. The faith which the Scriptures distinguish from knowledge is the strong persuasion of things not seen. It is the conviction of the truth of things which do not fall within the compass of our own observation which may entirely transcend the powers of our understand- ing, and which rest upon the simple testimony of God. This testimony faith relies upon in spite of whatever to human rea- son appears inconsistent or impossible. Knowledge though essential to faith may be distinguished from it — 1st. As faith includes also an act of the will assent- ing, in addition to the act of the understanding apprehending. 2d. As knowledge derived through a natural is distinguished from knowledge derived through a divine source. 3d. As pres- ent imperfect apprehension of divine things (;'. e., faith) differs from that perfect knowledge of divine things we shall have in heaven. — 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 10. If faith necessarily includes knoidedge, hoiv can men he com- manded to helieve? 1st. No man is ever commanded to believe that which is 470 FAITH. not revealed to him, either in the light of nature or by the inspired word. 2d. No man is ever commanded to believe a purely speculative truth. The truths of religion rest on the testimony of God. They are enforced by moral evidence, and faith in them involves a moral and spiritual knowledge of them, and delight in tliem. jMoral evidence can be appreciated only by a mind possessed of moral sensibility. And such moral in- sensibility as leads to blindness to the distinction between right and wrong is itself a very aggravated state of depravity. The Scriptures, therefore, luminous with their own self- evidencing light, present the truth to all to whom they come, and demand its instant reception upon the testimony of God. If that evidence is not felt to be conclusive by any one, it must be because of the sinful blindness of his mind. Therefore Christ says, \"ye loiU not come unto me that ye may have life.\" And unbelief is uniformly charged to the \" evil heart.\" 11. Wliat are the iiUimate grounds of that assent to the truth which is of the essence of faith ? I, In general, the ultimate ground upon which our assent to the truth of any object of knowledge rests is the veracity of God. The testimony of our senses, the integrity of our con- sciences, the intuitions of our reasons, all rest upon his vera- city as Creator. Practically the mind is moved to this assent through our universal and instinctive confidence in the con- stitution of our own natures. \"^ Keligious faith rests, l^t, upon the faithfulness of God as pledged in his supernatural revelation, John iii. 33 ; 2d^ upon the evidence of spiritual illumination, personal experience of the power of the truth, and the witness of the Holy Ghost, the Sanctifier, and thus \"not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God.\" — 1 Cor. ii. 5-12, 12. What are the two hinds of evidence hy which ive hnoiv that God has revealed certain truths as objects of faith ? 1st. The evidence which resides in the truth itself IMoral, spiritual, experimental, rational. — John vi. 63; xiv. 17, 26; Jer. xxiii. 29. 2d. The accrediting evidence of the presence and power of God accompanying the promulgation of the truth, and proving that it is from him. Tliese are miracles, provi- dential dispensations, the fulfilment of prophecy, etc. — John v, 36; Heb. ii. 4. 13. Hoio can it he shoivn that the authority of the Church is not a ground of faith ? See above, Chapter V., Question 18, DISTINCTION BETWEEN HISTORICAL AND SA VING FAITH. 471 14. Wliat is the nature of historical f ait] i, and iqjon ivhat evi- dence does it rest? That mode of purely rational faith called historical is that apprehension of and assent to the truth which regards it in its purely rational aspects as mere facts of history, or as mere parts of a logical system of opinion. Its appropriate evidence is purely rational, e. (/., the solution aiForded by the Scriptures of the facts of history and experience, and the evidence of his- tory, prophecy, miracles, etc. 15. What is the nature of temporary faith, and of the evidence upon which it is founded? Temporary faith is that state of mind often experienced in this world by impenitent hearers of the gospel, induced by the moral evidence of the truth, the common influences of the Holy Ghost, and the power of religious sympathy. Sometimes the excited imagination joyfully appropriates the promises of the gospel. — Matt. xiii. 20. Sometimes, like Felix, the man be- lieves and trembles. Oftentimes it is at first impossible to dis- tinguish this state of mind from genuine saving faith. But not springing from a divine work of recreation it has no root in the permanent principles of the heart. It is always, there- fore, 1st, inefficient, neither purifying the heart nor overcom- ing the world; 2d, temporary. 16. What is the specific evidenjce upon ivhich saving faith is founded ? This is the light let into the soul by the Holy Ghost in his work of spiritual illumination. Thus is the beauty, and excel- lence, and the suitableness of the truth to the practical wants of the subject apprehended. With this the witness of the Holy Ghost with and by the truth co-operates. — 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5; Rom. viii. 16; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. ii. 8. 17. Hoio may it he proved from Scripture and experience that spiritual illumination is the ground of saving faith ? 1st. The Scriptures, wherever they come, make a demand unconditional, immediate, and universal upon the most intelli- gent and the most ignorant alike, that they should be received and believed, and unbelief is always charged as sin, and not as mere ignorance or mental incapacity. The faith which tliey demand must, therefore, be a moral act, and must depend upon the spiritual congeniality of the believer with the truth. 2d. By nature men are spiritually blind, and subjects of an \"evil heart of unbelief.\" — 2 Cor. iii. 14; iv. 4. V. 472 FAITH. 3d. Believers are said to be enlightened, and to discern the things of the Spirit. — Acts xiii. 48; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 17, 18; 1 John ii. 20, 27 ; v. 9, 10. 4t]i. JMen believe because they are taught of God. — John vi. 44, 45. 5th. Every Christian is conscious of believing, because he sees the trutli believed to be true, lovely, powerful, and satis- fying. 6th. This is proved by the effects of faith. \"We are said to live by faith, to be sanctified by faith, to overcome by faith, to be saved by faith. Blind consent to authority, or rational con- viction, produce no such effects; if the effects are spiritual, the source must be also spiritual.\" 18. Wliat are the different opinions as to the relation hetiveen faith and trust ? In consequence of their doctrine of implicit faith, that noth- ing is required beyond blind assent to the teachings of the church, Eomanists necessarily deny that trust enters into the essence of saving faith. The Sandemanians, as the Campbellites, holding that faith is a mere affirmative judgment of the understanding passed upon the truth on the ground of evidence, also deny that trust is an element of saving faith. Some orthodox theologians have held that trust is rather to be regarded as an immediate and invariable consequent of sav- ing faith, than an element of that faith itself Religious faith, resulting from spiritual illumination, respects the entire word of God and his testimony, and, as such, is a complex state of mind, varying with the nature of the partic- ular portion of revealed truth regarded in any particular act. Many of tlie propositions of Scripture are not the proper objects of trust, and then the faith which embraces them is only a reverent and complacent assent to them as true and good. But the specific act of saving faith which unites to Christ, and is the commencement, root, and organ of our whole spiritual life, terminates upon Christ's person and work as Mediator, as presented in the offers and promises of the gospel. This assuredly includes trust in its very essence, and this is called \" saving faith \" by way of eminence, since it is the faith that saves, and since only tln-ough this as their principle, are any other more general exercises of saving faith possible. 19. Hoiv may the fad that saving faith indwies trust he proved from, the language of Scripttire ? The uniform and single condition of salvation presented in DOCTRINE PROVED. 473 the Scriptures is expressed in the words beheve in or on Christ, fiS or kni rov xfti^i^ov. — John vii. 38; Acts ix. 42; xvi. 31; Gal. ii. 16. To beheve in or on a person necessarily implies trust as well as credit. The same is abundantly proved by the usage with respect to the phrases \"by faith in or on Christ.\" — 2 Tim. iii. 15; Acts xxvi. 18; Gal. iii. 26; Heb. xi. 1. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, but the foundation of hope is trust. 20. Hoio may the same he proved from those expressions which are used in Scripture as equivalent to the phrase ^'■believing in Christ \" ? \"Receiving Christ.\" — John i. 12; Col. ii. 6. \"Looking to Christ.\" — Is. xlv, 22; compare Num. xxi. 9 with John iii. 14, 15. \" Flying to Christ for refuge.\" — Heb. vi. 18. \" Coming to Christ.\"— John vi. 35; Matt. xi. 28. \" Committing.\"— 2 Tim. i. 12. All these illustrate as well as designate the act of saving faith, and all equally imply trust as an essential element, for we can \"receive,\" or \"come to,\" or \"look to,\" Christ only in that character of a propitiation, an advocate and a deliverer, in which he offers himself to us. 21. How may the same he proved from the effects ivhich the Scriptures ascf'ibe to faith ? The Scriptures declare that by faith the Christian \"embraces the promises,\" \"is persuaded of the promises,\" \"out of weak- ness is made strong,\" \"waxes valiant in fight,\" \"confesses him- self a stranger and pilgrim seeking a better country.\" As faith in a threatening necessarily involves fear, so faith in a promise necessarily involves trust. Besides, faith rests upon the trustworthiness of God, and therefore necessarily involves trust. — Heb. x. 23, and the whole of the 11th chapter. 22. How may it he shoivn that this vieio of faith does not con- found faith and hope ? To our doctrine that saving faith involves trust, the Eo- manist objects that this confounds faith and hope, which the Scriptures distinguish (1 Cor. xiii. 13), since hope is only strong- trust. But hope is not merely strong trvist. Trust rests upon the grounds of assurance, while hope reaches forward to the object of which assurance is given. Trust is the foundation of hope. Hope is the fruit of trust. The more confiding the trust, the more assured the hope. 474 FAITH. 23. Wlmt are the different opinions as to the relation betiveen faith and love, and the Romish distindion betiveen \"fides inibrmis\" and \" fides formata \" ? 1st. The Romanists, in order to maintain their doctrine that faith alone is not saving, distinguisli between a formed, or per- fect, and an unformed faith. They acknowledge that faith is distinct from love, but maintain tliat love is essential to render faith meritorious and effectual as the instrument of our salva- tion. Fides iriformis is mere assent, explicit or implicit, to the teachings of the Church. It necessarily precedes \"justificatio\" as its condition. Fides formcda is the fruit of the first justifica- tion, and the condition of those good works which merit further grace. 2d. Some have regarded love as the root out of which faith springs. 3d. The true view is that love is the immediate and neces- sary effect of faith. Faith includes the spiritual apprehension of the beauty and excellence of the trutli, and an act of the will embracing it and relying upon it. Yet these graces can not be analytically separated, since they mutually involve one another. There can be no love without faith, nor any faith without love. Faith apprehends the loveliness of the object, the heart spontaneously loves it. Thus \"faith works by love,\" since these afl\"ections are the source of those motives that con- trol the will. The Romish doctrine is inconsistent with the essential prin- ciples of the gospel. Faith is not a work, nor can it have, when formed or unformed, any merit; it is essentially a self- emptying act, which saves by laying hold of the merits of Christ. It leads to works, and proves itself by its fruits, but in its relation to justification it is in its very nature a strong pro- test against the merits of all human works. — Gal. iii. 10, 11; Epli. i'i. 8, 9. The Protestant doctrine that love is the fruit of faith, is established by what the Scriptures declare concerning faith, tliat it \" sanctifies,\" \" works by love,\" \" overcomes the world.\" Gal. V. 6; Acts xxvi. 18; 1 John v. 4. This is accomplished thus — by faith we are united to Christ, Eph. iii. 17, and so become partakers of his Spirit, 1 John iii. 24, one of the fruits of the Spirit is love. Gal. v. 22, and love is the principle of all obedience. — Rom. xiii. 10.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "159", "sort_key": 159, "group": "Chapter XXX", "question": "What  is  the  object  of  saving  faith  ?", "answer": "The spiritual illumination of the understanding and renewal of the affections, which lays the foundation for the soul's acting MATTERS OF FAITH AND OPINION: 475 faith in any one portion of the testimony of God, lays the fonn- dation for its acting faith in all that testimony. The whole i:eyealadjy_9rcl_o.f God, then, as far as known to the individual, to the exclusion of all traditions, doctrines of men, and pre- tended private revelations, is the object of saving- faith. .That particular act of taith, however, which unites to Christ, called, \\)j way of distinction, justifying faith, has for its object the person and work of Christ as Mediator. — John vii. 38; x4cts XVI. 31. 25. What is meant hy an article of faith as distinguished from a matter of opinion ? The Romanists hold that every dogma decided by the church to be true, whether derived from Scripture or tradition, is, upon pain of damnation, to be believed by every Christian as an article of faith, if known to him by an explicit, if not known by an implicit faith. On the other hand, with respect to all subjects not decided by the church, every man is left free to believe or not as a matter of opinion. 26. What is the Anglican or PuseijUe criterion for distinguish- ing those doctrines which must be hnoivn and believed in order to salvation ? They agree with the Romanists (see above, Question 6) that knowledge is not essential to faith. As to the rule of faith, however, they differ. The Romanist makes that rule the teach- ing of the Papal Church. The Puseyites, on the other hand, make it the uniform testimony of tradition running in the line of the succession of apostolic bishops. 27. What is tJie common Protestant doctrine as to fundamen- tals in religion, and by ivhat evidence can such fundamentals be ascertained ? Every doctrine taught in the Bible is the object of an en- lightened spiritual faith. No revealed principle, however com- paratively subordinate, can be regarded as indifferent, to be adopted or rejected at will. Every man is bound to credit the whole testimony of God. Yet the gospel is a logically con- sistent system of truth, some of whose principles are essential to its integrity, while others are essential only to its symmetry and perfection ; and ignorance, feebleness of logical comprehen- sion, and prejudice may, and constantly do, lead good men to apprehend this system of truth imperfectly. A fundamental doctrine, then, is either one which every soul must apprehend more or less clearly in order to be saved, or one which, when known, is so clearly involved with those 476 FAITH. the knowledge and belief of which is essential to salvation, that the one can not be rejected while the other is really believed. A fundamental doctrine is ascertained — 1st. In the same way that the essential principles of any other system are deter- mined, by their bearing upon the system as a whole. 2d. Every fundamental doctrine is clearly revealed. 3d. These doctrines are in Scripture itself declared to be essential. — John iii. 18; Acts xvi. 31; 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. ii. 21; 1 John i. 8. 28. What is the ohject o/\" fides specialis,\" or that specific act of faith ivhereby we are justified? The person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ as ^Mediator. This is proved — 1st. The Scriptures expressly declare that we are justified by that faith of which Christ is the object. — Rom. iii. 22, 25; Gal. ii. KJ; Phil. iii. 9. 2d. We are said to be saved by faith in Christ. — John iii. 16, 36; Acts X. 43; xvi. 31. 3d. Justifying faith is designated as a \"looking to Christ,\" a \"coming to Christ,\" etc. — John i. 12; vi. 35, 37; Isa. xlv. 22. 4th. Pi ejection of Christ; a refusal to submit to the right- eousness of God is declared to be the ground of reprobation. John viii. 24; iii. 18, 19. 29. Hoiv is the Romish doctrine on this point opposed to the Protestant ? The Romanists, confounding justification and sanctification, hold that faith justifies through the sanctifying power of the truth. As all revealed truth has this sanctifying virtue, it fol- lows that the whole revelation of God as ascertained by the decisions of the church, is the object of justifying faith. This is refuted by all we have established from Scripture concerning justification, sanctification, and faith. 30. Is Christ in all his offices, or only as priest, the immediate ohject of justifying faith ? In this act the believer appropriates and rests upon Christ as Mediator, which includes at once all his functions as such. These may be analytically distinguislied, but in fact they are always inseparably united in him. When he acts as prophet he teaches as king and priest. When he reigns he sits as prophet and priest upon his throne. Besides this, his prophet- ical and kingly work are consciously needed by the awakened soul, and are necessarily apprehended as inseparable from his priestly work in the one act of faith. RELATION OF FAITH AND ASSURANCE. 477 It is true, however, that as the substitutionary work Avhich Christ accomphshed as priest is the meritorious ground of our salvation, so his priestly character is made the more prominent, both in the teachings of Scripture and in the experience of his people. 31. How far is 'peace, of conscience and peace luitli God a neces- sary consequence of faith ? Peace with God is reconciliation with him. Peace of con- science may either mean consciousness of that reconciliation, or the appeasement of our own consciences which condemn us. Faith in every instance secures our peace with God, since it unites us to Christ, Rom. v. 1 ; and in the proportion in which faith in the merits of Christ is clear and constant will be our consciousness of reconciliation with God, and the satisfaction of our own moral sense that righteousness is fulfilled, while we are forgiven. Yet as faith may be obscured by sin, so the true believer may temporarily fall under his Father's displeasure, and lose his sense of forgiveness and his moral satisfaction in the perfection of the atonement. 32. What are tlie three vieios entertained as to the relation he- V tween faith and assurance ? 1st. The Reformers generally maintained that justifying faith consisted in appropriating the promise of salvation through Christ made in the gospel, i. e., in regarding God as propitious to us for Christ's sake. Thus the very act of faith involves-- ■ assurance. 2d. Some have held that assurance in this life is unattain- able. The Romanists, holding that Christian faith is chiefly implicit assent and obedient conformity to the teachings of an infallible, visible society, called the Church, strenuously denied that private individuals have any Scriptural authority to enter- tain an assured persuasion that they are specially objects of divine favor. They were accustomed to assert that it is neither \"obligatory,\" nor \"possible,\" nor \"desirable\" that any one should attain such^^assurance without a special supernatural revelation. See Bellarmin, etc., quoted below. 3d. The true view is that \" although this infallible assurance does not belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long and conflict with many difliculties before he partake of it, yet being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him by God, he may, witliout extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means attain thereunto. And, therefore, it is the duty of each one to give diligence to make his calling and election sure.\" It is 478 FAITH. agreed by all that a true faith can not admit of any doubt as to its object. What is believed is assuredly believed. But the object of saving faith is Christ and his work as JNIediator guar- anteed to us in the promises of the gospel on the condition of faith. True faith does, therefore, essentially include the assur- ance— 1st. That Christ is able to save us. 2d. That he is faith- ful and will save us if loe helieve. It is meant that this is of the essence of faith, not that every true believer always enjoys a state of mind which excludes all doubt as to Christ's power or love; because the spiritual illumination upon which faith rests is often imperfect in degree and variable in exercise. Faith may be weak, or it may be limited by doubt, or it may alternate with doubt. Yet all such doubt is of sin, and is alien to the essential nature of faith. But the condition, if ive believe, upon which all assurance of our own salvation is suspended, is a matter not of revelation, but of experience, not of faith, but of consciousness. Theologians have, therefore, made a distinction between the assurance of faith, Heb. x. 22, and the assurance of hope, Heb. vi. 11. The first is of the essence of saving faith, and is the assurance that Christ is all that he professes to be, and will do all that he promises. The second is the assurance of our own personal salvation, is a fruit of faith, and one of the higher attainments of the Christian life. 33. Hoio may it he proved that assurance of our oivn personal salvation is not essential to saving faith? 1st. From the true object of saving faith as given above. 2d. From the examples given in the Scriptures of eminent saints who doubted with regard to themselves. — 1 Cor. ix. 27. 3d. from the exhortations addressed to those who were already believers to attain to assurance as a degree of faith beyond that which they already enjoyed. 4th. From the experience of God's people in all ages. 34. Hoio may it he proved that assurance is attainable in this life? 1st. This is directly asserted. — Kom. viii. 16; 2 Pet. i. 10; 1 John ii. 3; iii. 14; v. 13. 2d. Scriptural examples are given of its attainment. — 2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 7, 8. 3d. JNIany eminent Christians have enjoyed an abiding assurance, of the genuine- ness of which their holy walk and conversation Avas an indubi- table seal.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "160", "sort_key": 160, "group": "Chapter XXX", "question": "On  what  grounds  may  a  man  he  assured  of  his  salvation?", "answer": "\"It is an infallible assurance of faith, founded, 1st, upon the FAITH PRODUCES GOOD WORKS. 479 divine truth of the promises of salvation ; 2d, the inward evi- dence of those graces unto Avhicli those promises are made, and, 3d, the testimony of the spirit of adoption, Eom. viii. 15, 16, witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God. Which Spirit, Eph. i. 13, 14; 2 Cor. i. 21, 22, is the earnest of our inheritance whereby we are sealed to the day of redemp- tion.\"— \"Con. of Faith,\" Chap, xviii. This genuine assurance may be distinguished fi'om that presumptuous confidence which is a delusion of Satan, chiefly by these marks. True assurance, 1st, begets unfeigned hu- mility, 1 Cor. XV. 10; Gal. vi. 14; 2d, leads to ever-increasing diligence in practical religion, Ps. li. 12, 13, 19; 3d, to candid self-examination, and a desire to be searched and corrected by God, Ps. cxxxix. 23, 24 ; 4th, to constant aspirations after nearer conformity, and more intimate communion with God. — 1 John iii. 2, 3. 36. How may it he slioivn that a living faith necessarily leads to good ivorks ? 1st. From the nature of faith. It is the spiritual apprehen- sion and the voluntary embrace of the whole truth of God, — the promises, the commands, the threatenings of the Scripture, — viewed as true and as good. This faith occasions, of course, the exercise of the renewed affections, and love acted out is obedience. Each separate truth thus apprehended produces its appropriate effect upon the heart, and consequently upon the life. 2d. The testimony of Scripture. — Acts xv. 9 ; xxvi. 18 ; Gal. V. 6 ; James ii. 18 ; 1 John v. 4. 3d. The experience of the universal church. Attthoritative Statements. St. Augustine. — \"Quid est fides nisi credere quod non vides ? \" EoMiSH DocTEiNE. — \"Cat. Counc. Trent,\" i. 1. — 1. \"We here speak of that faith, by force of which we yield our entire assent to whatsoever has been divinely delivered, .... by virtue of which we hold that as fixed whatsoever the authority of our holy mother the church teaches us to have been delivered from God. \" Bellarmin, \"Ju.<iti/.,\" 1, 4. — \"(Catholics) teach that historic faith, both of miracles and of promises, is one and the same thing, and that this one thing is not properly a knowledge or assurance, but a certain and most fixed assent, on the authority of the ultimate verity. . . . The object of justifying faith, which heretics restrict to the single object of special (personal) mercy, Catholics wish to extend as broadly as the word of God extends; nay, they contend that the promise of special mercy belongs not so much to faith as to presumption. Hence they difl'er (from Protestants) as to the faculty and power of mind which is the seat of faith. Inasmuch as they (Protestants) locate faith in the will, they define it to 480 FAITH. be assurance [fiducia) (or trust), and so confound it with hope, for trust (or assurance) is nothing more than strong hope, as holy Thomas teaches. Cathohcs teach that faith has its seat in the intellect. Lastly (they dif- fer) as to the act itself of the intellect (in which faith consists). They (Protestants), indeed, define faith as a form of knowledge; we (Catholics) as assent. For we assent to God, although he proposes things to us to be beheved which we do not understand. Ch. 7. — In him, who believes, there are two things, apjDrehension, and judgment or assent. But ap- prehension is not faith, but something that precedes faith. Besides apprehension is not properly called knowledge. For it may happen that an unlearned Catholic may only very confusedly apprehend the three names (of the Trinity), and nevertheless may truly believe in them. But judgment or assent is twofold, the one follows reason and the evi- dence of a thing, the other follows the authority of the jaropounder; the first is called knowledge, the latter faith. Therefore the mysteries of faith, which transcend the reason, we believe but do not understand, so that faith is distinguished as opposite to science, and is better defined as ignorance than as knowledge. \" ^'Cans. Counc. Trent\" Sess. 6, ch. 9. — \"For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merits of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and ap- prehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which can not be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.\" Bellarmin, ^'Justif.\" 3, 3, says, \"The question in debate between Romanists and the Beformed was. Whether any one should or could, without a special revelation, be certain with the certainty of a divine faith, to which error can in no way pertain, that his sins are remitted ? \" The Pkot:estant Doctkine of Faith and Assurance. Calvin's \"Institutes,'' B. 3, ch. 2, | 7. — \"We shall have a complete definition of faith, if we say that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the divine benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in Christ, is both revealed to our minds and confirmed to our hearts by the Holy Spirit.\" \"Heidelberg Cat.,\" Ques. 21. — \"What is true faith ? It is not a mere knowledge, by which I firmly assent to all that God has revealed to us in his word, but it is also an assured confidence kindled in my heart by the Holy Ghost through the gospel, whereby I acquiesce in God, cer- tainly knowing, that nol to others only, but to me also, remission of sins, eternal righteousness and fife, is given gratuitously, of the mercy of God, on account of the merit of Christ alone.\" \"Apol. Aiir/b. Con/.,\" p. 68. — \"But that faith which justifies is not merely a knowledge of history; but it is assent to the promise of God in which is freely, for Christ's sake, offered the remission of sins and justi- fication. . . . This special faith, therefore, whereby each one beheves that his own sins are remitted to him for Christ's sake, and that God is reconciled and propitious through Christ, (is the faith that) attains remis- sion of sins, and (that) justifies.\" '^West. Con/. Faith,\" ch. 18, § 2. — \"This certainly is not a bare con- jectiiral and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith, founded on (a) the divine truth of the prom- ises, {/>) the inward evidence of those graces to which the promises are made, and (c) the testimony of the Holy Spirit .... ^ 3. — This infal- lible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 481 believer may wait long and conflict with many difiSculties before lie par- take thereof. . . Yet he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means attain thereto. And, therefore, it is the duty of every one to give all dihgence to make his calUng and election sure.\" Turretin, L. 15, Q. 10. — \"The diversity (of expression) which occurs between the orthodox has arisen from a different usage of the word fiducia (confidence), which may be taken in three senses : 1. For confi- dent assent, or persuasion, which arises from the practical judgment of the understanding, concerning the truth and goodness of the evangelical promises, and concerning the power, willingness, and faithfulness of God promising. In which sense 7ZEi6f.ioyTJ (persuasion). Gal. v. 8, is used syn- onymously with it, and nXripocpopia (full assurance) is attributed to faith, Col. ii. 2, and Heb. x. 22. 2. For the act of fleeing to, and of receiving Christ, by which the believer, the truth and goodness of the promises being known, flees to Christ, receives and embraces him, and reclines alone on his merits. 3. For confidence, satisfaction, and tranquillity of mind, which arise from the refuge of the mind to Christ and reception of him. For he who firmly reclines on Christ and embraces him, can not fail to acquiesce in him securely, and to consider himself to have found and to have received that which he sought. In the first and second sense confi- dence {fiducia) is of the essence of faith, is rightly said by theologians to be its form; because, as afterwards proved against the Papists, it is a con- fidential (trusting) apprehension of Christ and of all the benefits ofi'ered in the word of the gospel. But in the third sense it is by others rightly said not to be iYieform, but the fruit, of faith; because it is born from it, but does not constitute it. 4-", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "161", "sort_key": 161, "group": "Chapter XXXI", "question": "To  ivJiom  are  all  men  united  in  their  natural  estate  ?", "answer": "To Adam. Our union with him includes, 1st, his federal headship under the covenant of works. — Rom. v. 12-19. 2d. His natural headship, as per force of ordinary generation, the source of our nature, and of its moral corruptions. — Gen. v. 3 ; 1 Cor. XV. 49. But the law upon which rested the covenant of works, whereby we were held in union with Adam, having been slain by Christ, \"that being dead wherein we were held,\" we were \"married to another,\" that is, to Christ. — Rom. vii. 1-4.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "162", "sort_key": 162, "group": "Chapter XXXI", "question": "What  is  the  general  nature  of  out  union  with  Christ?", "answer": "It is a single, ineifable, and most intimate union, presenting to our view two different aspects, and giving rise to two dif- ferent classes of consequents. 1st. The first aspect of this union is its federal and repre- sentative character, whereby Christ, as the second Adam (1 Cor. XV. 22), assumes in the covenant of grace those broken obHgations of the covenant of works which the first Adam failed to discharge, and fulfils them all in behalf of all his \" sheep,\" \"they whom the Father has given him.\" The conse- quences which arise from our union with Christ under this aspect of it are such as the imputation of our sins to him, and of his righteousness to us, and all of the forensic benefits of justification and adoption, etc. — See Chaps. XXXI II., XXXIV. 2d. The second aspect of this union is its spiritual and vital character, the natvu'e and consequences of which it is our business to discuss under the present head.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "163", "sort_key": 163, "group": "Chapter XXXI", "question": "Whai  is  the  foundation  of  this  union?", "answer": "(1.) The eternal purpose of the triune God, expressed in the ITS ESSENTIAL NATURE. 483 decree of election (we were chosen hi him before the foun- dation of the world. — Eph. i. 4), providing for its own fulfil- ment in the covenant of grace between the Father as God absolute, and the Son as Mediator. — John xvii. 2-Q; Gal. ii. 20; (2) in the incarnation of the Son, whereby he assumed fellowship with us in community of nature, and became our brother. — Heb. ii. 16, 17; and (3) in the mission and official work of the Spirit of Christ (1 John iv. 13), through the powerful operation of whom in the bodies and souls of his people the last Adam is made a quickening spirit (1 Cor. xv. 45), and they are all constituted the body of Christ and members in particular. 1 Cor. xii. 27. 4. By ivhat analogies drawn from, earthly relations is this union of believers ivith Christ illustrated in Scripture ? The technical designation of this union in theological lan- guage is \"mystical,\" because it so far transcends all the anal- ogies of earthly relationships, in the intimacy of its communion, in the transforming power of its influence, and in the excellence of its consequences. Yet Holy Scripture illustrates different as- pects of this fountain of graces by many apt though partial analogies. As, 1st, foundation of a building and its superstructure. — 1 Pet. ii. 4, 6. 2d. Tree and its branches. — John xv. 5. 3d. Head and members of the body. — Eph. iv. 15, 16. 4th. Husband and wife. — Eph. V. 31, 32; Rev. xix. 7-9. 5th. Adam and his descendants, in both their federal and natural relations. — Rom. V. 12-19; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 49.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "164", "sort_key": 164, "group": "Chapter XXXI", "question": "What  is  the  essential  nature  of  this  union  ?", "answer": "On the one hand, this union does not involve any mysterious confusion of the person of Christ with the persons of his people ; and, on the other hand, it is not such a mere association of separate persons as exists in human societies. But it is a union which, 1st, determines our legal status on the same basis with his. 2d. Which revives and sustains, by the influence of his indwelling Spirit, our spiritual life, from the fountain of his life, and which transforms our bodies and souls into the like- ness of his glorified humanity. It is, therefore — 1st. A spiritual union. Its actuating source and bond is the Spirit of the head, Avho dwells and Avorks in the members. 1 Cor. vi. 17; xii. 13; 1 John iii. 24; iv. 13. 2d. A vital union, i. e., our spiritual life is sustained and determined in its nature and movement by the life of Christ, through the indwelling of his Spirit. — John xiv. 19; Gal. ii. 20. 484 UNION OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST. 3d. It embraces our entire persons, onr bodies through our spirits. — 1 Cor. vi. 15, 19. 4th. It is a legal or federal union, so that all of our legal or covenant responsibilities rest upon Christ, and all of his legal or covenant merits accrue to us. 5th. It is an indissoluble union. — John x. 28; Eom. viii. 35, 37 ; 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17. 6th. This union is between the believer and the person of the God-man in his office as Mediator. Its immediate organ is the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us, and through him we are virtually united to and commune with the whole Godhead, since he is the Spirit of the Father as well as of the Son. — John xiv. 23; xvii. 21, 23. 6. How is this union between Christ and the Christian estab- lished ? It was established in the purpose and decree of God, and in the Covenant of the Father with the Son from eternity. — Eph. i. 4; John xvii. 2, 6. Nevertheless, the elect, as to personal character and present relations, before their effectual calling by the Spirit, are born and continued \"by nature children of wrath even as others,\" and \" strangers to the covenants of promise.\" Eph. ii. 3, 12. In God's appointed time, with each individual of his chosen, this union is established mutually — 1st. By the commencement of the effectual and permanent workings of the Holy Spirit within them (they are quickened together with Christ) ; in the act of the new birth opening the eyes and renew- ing the will, and thus laying in their natures the foundation of the exercise of saving faith. 2d. Which faith is the second bond by which this mutual union is established, by the con- tinued actings of which their fellowship with Christ is sus- tained, and its blessed consequences developed. — Eph. iii. 17. Thus we \"come to him,\" \"receive him,\" \"eat of his flesh and drink of his blood,\" etc.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "165", "sort_key": 165, "group": "Chapter XXXI", "question": "What  are  the  consequences  of  this  union  to  the  believer  ?", "answer": "1st. They have a community with him in his covenant standing, and rights. Forensically they are rendered \"com- plete in him.\" His righteousness and his Father is theirs. They receive the adoption in him, and are accepted as to both their persons and services in the beloved. They are sealed by his Holy Spirit of promise; in him obtain an inheritance; sit with him on his throne and behold his glory. — Rom. viii. 1 ; Col. ii. 10; Eph. i. 6, 11, 13; Phil. iii. 8, 9. As Mediator, Jesus is \" the Christ,\" the anointed one, and the believer is the Christian, or receiver of \"the unction.\" — Acts THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS. 485 xi. 26; 1 John ii. 20. His mediatorial office embraces three principal functions — (1.) That of prophet, and in fellowship with him the believer is a prophet. — John xvi. 13; 1 John ii. 27. (2.) That of priest, and the believer also is a priest in him. Isa. Ixi. 6; 1 Pet. ii. 5; Rev. xx. 6. (3.) That of king, and in him the believer is a king. — 1 Pet. ii. 9; Rev. iii. 21; v. 10. 2d. The}'^ have fellowship with him in the transforming, assimilating power of his life, making them like him; every grace of Jesus reproducing itself in them; \"of his fulness we have all received, and grace for grace.\" This holds true, (1) with regard to our souls, Rom. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 5; 1 John iii. 2 ; (2) with regard to our bodies, causing them to be now the temples of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. vi. 17, 19; and his resur- rection to be the cause of ours, and his glorified body to be the type of ours. — Rom. vi. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 47, 49; Phil. iii. 21. And thus believers are made to bear fruit in Christ, both in their bodies and spirits, which are his. — John xv. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 9; 1 John i. 6. 3d. This leads to their fellowship with Christ in their expe- rience, in their labors, sufferings, temptations, and death. — Gal. vi. 17; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. xii. 3; 1 Pet. iv. 13. Thus rendering sacred and glorious even our earthly life. 4th. Also to Christ's rightful fellowship with them in all they possess. — Prov. xix. 17; Rom. xiv. 8; 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20. 5th. Also to the consequence that, in the spiritual reception of the holy sacraments, they do really hold fellowship with him. They are \" baptized into Christ.\" — Gal. iii. 27. \" The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ; the cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ,\" — 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 26; John vi. 51-56. 6th. This leads. also to the fellowship of believers with one another through him, that is, to the communion of saints. 8. What is tJw nature of that \" communion of saints \" which springs from tJw union of each saint with the Lord? See \" Confession of Faith,\" Chapter xxvi. Believers being all united to one head are, of course, through him mutually related in the same community of spirit, life, status, and cove- nanted privileges with one another. This involves upon the part of all believers — Ist. Reciprocal obligations and offices according to the spe- cial grace vouchsafed to each. Like the several organs of the body all have part in the same genei-al life, yet each has his own individual difference of qualification, and consequently of 486 UNION OF BELIEVERS WITH CHRIST. duty; \"for the body is not one member but many.\" — 1 Cor. xii. 4-21; Eph. iv. 11-13. 2d. They have fellowsliip in each other's gifts and comple- mentary graces, each contributing his special loveliness to the beauty of the whole. — Eph. iv. 15, 16. ■ 3d. These reciprocal duties have respect to the bodies and temporal interests of the brethren, as well as to those which concern the soul. — Gal. ii. 10; 1 John iii. 16-18. 4th. They have fellowship in faith and doctrine. — Acts ii. 42 ; Gal. ii. 9. 5th. In mutual respect and subordination. — Eom. xii. 10; Eph. V. 21 ; Heb. xiii. 17. 6th. In mutual love and sympathy. — Rom. xii. 10; 1 Cor. xii. 26. 7th. This fellowship exists unbroken between believers on earth and in heaven. There is one \" whole family in heaven and on earth.\" — Eph. iii. 15. 8th. In glory this communion of saints shall be perfected, when there is \"one fold and one shepherd,\" when all saints shall be one as Father and Son are one. — John x. 16; xvii. 22.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "166", "sort_key": 166, "group": "Chapter XXXII", "question": "What  is  saving  repentance  ?", "answer": "See \"Con. Faith,\" Chap, xv.; \"Larger Cat,\" Q. 76; \"Shorter Cat.,\" Q. 87. It includes — 1st. A sense of personal guilt, pollution, and helplessness. 2d. An apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ. 3d. Grief and hatred of sin, a resolute turning from it unto God, and a persistent endeavor after a new life of holy obedience. 3. Prove that repentance is a grace or gift of God. 1st. This is evident from the nature of repentance itself It includes, (1) sense of the hatefulness of sin, (2) sense of the beauty of holiness, (3) apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ. It, therefore, presupposes faith, which is God's gift. Gal. V. 22; Eph. ii. 8. 2d. The Scriptures expressly affirm it. — Zech. xii. 10; Acts V. 31 ; xi. 18 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25. 4. What is the nature of that sense of sin ivhich is an essential element of repentance ? That spiritual illumination and renewal of the affections 488 REPENTAXCE— ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. which is effected in regeneration, brings the believer to see and appreciate the hohness of God as revealed alike in the law and the gospel, Rom. iii. 20; Job xlii. 6, and in that light to see and feel also the exceeding sinfulness of all sin, and the utter sinfulness of his own nature just as it is in truth. This sense of sin, thus corresponding to the facts of the case, includes, 1st, consciousness of guilt, i. e., exposure to righteous punish- ment, as opposed to the justice of God. — Ps. li. 4, 9. 2d. Con- sciousness of pollution as opposed to the holiness of God, Ps. li. 5, 7, 10; and, 3d, consciousness of helplessness. — Ps. li. 11; cix. 22. See \" Way of Life.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "167", "sort_key": 167, "group": "Chapter XXXII", "question": "What  are  the  fruits  and  evidences  of  this  seme  of  sin  ?", "answer": "A sense of guilt, especially when coupled with a sense of helplessness, will naturally excite apprehension of danger. This painful feeling is experienced in infinitely various degrees and modifications, as determined by natural temperament, educa- tion, and the special dealings of the Holy Spirit. These legal fears, however, are common both to false and to true repent- ance, and possess no sanctifying influence. A sense of pollution leads to shame when we think of God, and to self-loathing when we think of ourselves. Confession of sin, both in private to God and before men, is a natural and indispensable mode in which this sense of sin will give genuine expression to itself — Ps. xxxii. 5, 6; Pro v. xxviii. 13; James v. 16; 1 John i. 9. The only indubitable test of the genuineness of such a sense of sin, however, is an earnest and abiding desire and endeavor to be delivered from it. 6. Shoiv that an appreJiension of tJie mercy of God in Christ is essential to repentance. 1st. The awakened conscience echoes God's law, and can be appeased by no less a propitiation than that demanded by di- vine justice itself, and until this is realized in a believing ap- plication to Christ, either indifference must stupefy, or remorse must torment the soul. 2d. Out of Christ God is a consuming fire, and an inextin- guishable dread drives the soiil away. — Deut. iv. 24 ; Heb. xii. 29. 3d. A sense of the amazing goodness of God to us in the gift of his Son, and of our ungrateful requital of it, is necessary to excite in the repentant soul the proper sliame and sorrow for sin as committed against God. — Ps. li. 4. 4th. This is proved by the teachings and examples furnished in Scripture. — Ps. li. 1 ; cxxx. 4, EVIDENCES OF GENUINE REPENTANCE. 489 7. What is the nature of that \" turning unto God \" ivhich con- stitutes the essence of genuine repentance ? It is a voluntary forsaking of sin as evil and hateful, with sincere sorrow, humiliation, and confession; and a returning unto God, because he has a right to us, and because he is mer- ciful and willing to forgive, together with a determination to live, by the help of his grace, in obedience to his commandments.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "168", "sort_key": 168, "group": "Chapter XXXII", "question": "What  are  the  evidences  of  genuine  repentance  ?", "answer": "1st. The agreement of our own internal experience with the teachings of the word of God on this subject. This is to be de- termined by the prayerful study of the Scriptures in connection with self-examination. 2d. The permanent effects realized in the life. These are the hatred and forsaking of secret as well as of open sins, the choice of God's service as both riglit and desirable, public confession, and entire practical consecration. \"These things must be in us and abound.\" — 2 Cor. vii. 11. 9. What are the relations ivhich the ideas represented by the terms ^\\faith\" ^^ repentance,'^ ^^regeneration\" and ^'•conversion\" mu- tually sustain to one anotlier ? Regeneration is the ineffable act of God implanting a new nature. The terra conversion is used generally to express the first exercises of that new nature in ceasing from the old life and commencing the new. Faith designates the primary act of the new nature, and also that permanent state or habit of mind which continues the essential condition of all other graces. It is the spiritual apprehension of the truth by the mind, and the loyal embrace of the truth by the will, without Avhicli there can be neither love, hope, peace, joy, nor repentance. The com- mon sense attached to the word repentance is ver}^ similar to that attached to the word conversion, but it differs from it as to its usage in two particulars — 1st. Conversion is the more gen- eral term, and is used to include the first exercises of faith, as well as all those expex'iences of love, of holiness, and hatred of sin, etc., which are consequent upon it. Repentance is more specific, and expresses that hatred and renunciation of sin, and that turning unto God, which accompanies faith as its conse- quent. 2d. Conversion is generally used to designate only the first actings of the new nature at the commencement of a re- ligious life, or at most the first steps of a return to God after a notable backsliding. — Luke xxii. 32. While repentance is ap- plied to that constant bearing of the cross which is one main characteristic of the believer's life on earth. — Ps. xix. 12, 13; Luke ix. 23; Gal. vi. 14; v. 24 490 REPENTANCE — ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. 10. Wliat doctrine concerning repentarwe ivas taught by many of the Reformers ? Some of them defined repentance as consisting, 1st, of mor- tification, or dying unto sin; and, 2d, of vivification, or living unto God. This corresponds to our view of sanctification. The Lutherans make repentance to consist in, 1st, contrition, or sor- row for sin; and, 2d, in faith in the gospel, or absolution. — \"Augsburg Conf,\" Art 12. This, although a peculiar phrase- ology, is the true view.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "169", "sort_key": 169, "group": "Chapter XXXII", "question": "What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  of  Penance  ?", "answer": "In their scheme of salvation the true analogy to the Prot- estant doctrine of justification is not to be found in the liomish doctrine of justification (so called), but in their doctrine of penance. By justification Protestants understand a change of relation to the divine law, from condemnation to favor with our Judge and King, on the ground of the satisfaction rendered by Christ. B}^ \"justification \" Romanists mean \" not remission of sin merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and of the gifts whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend.\" \"For although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the passion of Christ, of our Lord Jesus Christ, are communicated, yet is this done in the said justifica- tion of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein.\" ^'■Gonc. Trent\" Sess. 6, ch. 7. This is effected by baptism, and in all its stages presupposes the satisfaction and merit of Christ. His satisfaction atones for all sins committed before baptism, and for the eternal punishment of all sins of the baptized. His merits secure prevenient grace, baptismal regeneration, and are the basis on which the gracious obedience and the temporal sufferings of the believer merit forgiveness of sins and continu- ance, restoration, and increase of grace, and the rewards of heaven. Having been thus justified and made friends of God, they advance from virtue to virtue, and are renewed from day to day through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, Avhich good works truly merit and receive, as a just reward, increase of grace and more and more perfect justi- fication (sanctification). The Christian man^Jirst justification, effected in baptism, was for Christ's sake without co-operation of his own merit, though by co-operation of his own will (if adult). His continued and mo'easmr/ justification (sanctification) DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. 491 is for Christ's sake throngb and in proportion to his own merit, which merit increases in proportion (a) to his holiness, (i) to his obedience to moral and ecclesiastical rules. — \"Cone. Trent,\" Sess. 6, ch. 10, and can. 32. In case of those who have by sin fallen from the received grace of \"justification,\" the grace lost is, through the merits of Christ, restored by the Sacrament of Penance, provided as a second plank, after the shipwreck of grace lost. This penance includes (1) sorrow for sin, (2) confession of those sins, (3) sacer- dotal absolution, (4) satisfaction rendered (a) in this world by fasts, alms, prayers, etc., and (&) after death by the fires of purgatory. They distinguish penance — 1st. As a virtue, equivalent to the Protestant doctrine of the grace of repentance. 2d. As a sacrament. Penance, as a virtue, is internal, or a change of mind, including sorrow for sin and turning unto God. External penance, or the outward expression of the internal state, is that which constitutes the Sacrament of Penance. The matter of this sacrament is constituted by the acts of the penitent in the way of contrition, of confession, and of satisfaction. Contrition is sorrow and detestation of past sins, with a purpose of sinning no more. Confession is sell-accusation to a priest having juris- diction and the power of the keys. Satisfaction is some painful work imposed by the priest, and performed by the penitent to satisfy justice for sins committed. These effect (a) the expia- tion of the guilt of past sins, and (6) the discipline and in- crease of the spiritual life of the soul. The form of the sac- rament is the absolution pronounced judicially, and not merely declaratively, by the priest. They hold \" that it is only by means of this sacrament that sins committed after baptism can be for- given.\"—\"Cat. Rom.,\" Part II., Chap. V., Qu. 12 and 13; \"Cone. Trent,\" Sess. G, chs. 14-lG; Sess. 14, chs. 1-9; Sess. 6, can. 30.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "170", "sort_key": 170, "group": "Chapter XXXII", "question": "Hoiv  may  it  he  proved  that  it  is  not  a  sacrament?", "answer": "1st. It was not instituted by Christ. The Scriptures teach nothing concerning it. 2d. It is an essential consequent of the false theory of baptismal regeneration. 3d. It does not either signify, seal, or convey the benefits of Christ and the new covenant. — See below, Chap. XLL, Questions 2-5.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "171", "sort_key": 171, "group": "Chapter XXXII", "question": "What  is  their  doctrine  concerning  confession  ?", "answer": "Confession is self-accusation to a priest having jurisdiction and the power of the keys. All sins must be confessed without reserve, and in all their details and qualifying circumstances. If any mortal sin is not confessed, it is not pardoned, and if 492 REPENTANCE— ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. the omission is wilful, it is sacrilege, and greater guilt is in- curred.—\" Cat. Rom.,\" Pt. II., Chap. V., Qu. 33, 34 and 42. 14. What are the Protestant arguments against auricular con- fession ? 1st. It has no Avarrant in Scripture. The command is to \"confess one to another.\" 2d. It perverts the whole plan of salvation, by making necessary the mediation of the priest between the Christian and Christ, wliich has been refuted above, Chap. XXIV., Ques- tions 8 and 21. 3d. We are commanded to confess to God immediately. ]\\Iatt. xi. 28 ; 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; 1 John i. 9. 4th. The practical results of this system have always been evil, and this gross invasion of all the sacred rights of person- ality is revolting to every refined soul. 15. What is the nature of that absolution which the Romish priests claim the poiver to grant ? It absolves judicially, not merely declaratively, from all the penal consequences of the sins confessed by the authority of Jesus Christ. They appeal to Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John XX. 22, 23. \"Cat. Rom.,\" Part II., Chap. V., Qu. 13 and 17; \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. 14, De Poenitentia, can. 9. 16. What are the arguments against the possession, upon the part of the Christian 7ninistry, of such a poiver to absolve ? 1st. The Christian ministry is not a priesthood. — See above, Chap. XXIV., Question 21. 2d. But even if it were, the conclusion which the Papists draw from it would not follow. Absolution is a sovereign, not a priestly act. This is plain, from the definition of the priest- hood given (Heb. v. 1-6), from the Levitical practice, and from the very nature of the act itself 3d. The grant of the power of the kej^s, whatever it was, was not made to the ministry as such, for in Matt, xviii. 1-18, Christ was addressing the body of the disciples, and the prim- itive ministers never either claimed or exercised the power in question. 4th. The power of absolute forgiveness is incommunicable in itself, and was not granted as a matter of fact ; the words in (juestion will not bear that sense, and were not so understood. Tlie practice of the apostles shows that their understanding of the words was that they conveyed merely the power of declar- ing the conditions on which God would pardon sin, and in THE DOCTRLYE OF INDULGENCES. 493 accordance with that declaration, of admitting or excluding men from sealing ordinances. 5th. This one false principle makes Christ of none effect, and perverts the whole gospel. — \" Bib. Rep.,\" Jan., 1845. 17. What is the Romish doctrine concerning satisfaction as a part of penance? By satisfaction is meant such works as are enjoined by the priest upon confession, which being set over against the sins confessed, for which contrition has been professed, are supposed to constitute a compensation for the breach of God's law, and in consideration of which the sins are forgiven. — \" Cat. Rom.,\" Part II., Chap. V., Qu. 52 and 53. \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. XIV., \" De Poenitentia,\" Chs. I-IX.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "172", "sort_key": 172, "group": "Chapter XXXII", "question": "What  are  the  objections  to  that  doctrine?", "answer": "1st. It is not supported by any Scriptural authority. 2d. It does dishonor to the one perfect satisfaction offered by our High Priest once for all. — Heb. x. 10-14. 3d. The distinc- tion they make between the temporal and eternal punishments of sin is unauthorized. The penalty of sin is the judicial wrath of God — while that lasts there is no peace. When that is pro- pitiated there is no more condemnation (Rom. viii. 1). The temporal sufferings of believers in Christ are chastisements, not punishments, nor satisfactions. 4th. The pretended \" satisfac- tions\" are either commanded or not. If commanded, they are simple duties. Their performance can have no merit. The performance of one duty can never \"satisfy\" for the neglect or violation of another. If not commanded, they are a form of will-worship which God abhors. — Col. ii. 20-23.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "173", "sort_key": 173, "group": "Chapter XXXII", "question": "What  is  the  Papal  doctrine  of  Indulgences?", "answer": "The Papal doctrine of Indulgences — 1st. Rests upon the same principles with their doctrine of Penance. (1.) The distinction between the eternal and the temporal penalties demanded for the satisfactions for sins. (2.) The superabundant merit ac- quired b}' and belonging to the Head of the Church and his members (Christ, the Virgin INIary, and the saints), which con- stitute a Treasury of Merit, disposable at the discretion of com- petent authority to the relief ot any repentant believer not m mortal sin. (3.) The dispensing power of the church, whereby a church officer possessing competent jurisdiction has authority to dispense in behalf of God and of the church any or all tem- poral satisfactions due from the penitent, either on earth or in purgatory, not as yet discharged by him personally. 2d. These indulgences are to be granted for \"reasonable 494 REPENTANCE— ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE. causes,\" i. e., \"the cause must be pious, that is, not a work wliich is merely temporal, or vain, or in no respect appertain- ing to the divine glory, but any work whatsoever Avhich tends to the honor of God, or the service of the church.\" They \" do not depend for their efficacy on consideration of the work en- joined, but on the infinite treasure of the merits of Christ and the saints.\" These \"causes\" are payments of money for pious purposes, special prayers, visit to certain shrines, etc., etc. ^d. Indulgences are of various kinds. (1.) General for the whole church, granted only by the pope himself, to all the faitiiful thi'oughout the world ; or particular, granted by due authority to certain persons. (2.) They may be 'plenary., granting remis- sion from cdl temporal punishments in this world and in purga- tory; or 'partial., remitting only some part of the penalty due. (3.) They may be temporanj, for a specified number of days or months. (4.) Perpetual, without any limitation of time. ^5.) Local, attached to certain churches or other places. (6.) Real., attached to certain movable things as rosaries, medals, etc. (7.) Personal, granted to particular persons, or communities. — See M'Glintock and Strong's \" Encyclopgedia,\" and below, the \" Counc. of Trent,\" etc. AUTHOKITATIYE STATEMENTS. \"Counc. Trent,\" Sess. 14, cli. 1. — \"But the Lord tlien principally in- stituted tlie Sacrament of Penance, when being raised from the dead, he breathed upon his disciples saying, ' Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins ye retain, they are retained.' By which action so signal, and words so clear, the consent of aU the Fathers has ever understood, that the power of for - ghnnrj and retaining sins was communicated to the apostles and their lawful successors, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism.\" lb., eh. 3. — \"The holy synod doth furthermore teach, (1) that the FOEM of the Sacrament of Penance, wherein its force principally con- sists, is placed in those words of the minister, ' I absolve thee, etc. ' . . . . But (2) the acts of the penitent himself, to wit, contrition, confession, and satisfaction , are as it were the matter of this sacrament, which acts, inasmuch as they are, by God's institution, required in the penitent for the integrity of the sacrament, and for the full and perfect remission of sins, are for this reason called the parts of penance. But (3) the thing signified indeed, and the effect of this sacrament, as far as re- gards its force and efficacy, is reconciliation \\vith God.\" lb., eh. 'k.— \"Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the afore- said acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. \" lb., ch. 5. — \"All mortal sins of which, after a diligent examination of themselves, they are conscious, must needs be by penitents enume- rated in confession, even though those sins be most hidden, and com- mitted only against the two last precepts of the decalogue. . . Venial sins, whereby we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which we fall more frequently, although they be rightly and larofitably and with- A UTHORITA TIVE ST A TEMENTS. 495 out presumption declared in confession, yet they may be omitted witliout guilt, and be expiated by many other remedies Other sins (mortal) which do not occur to him (the penitent) after diligent thought, are understood to be included as a whole in that same confession ; for which sins we confidently say with the prophet. ' From my secret sins cleanse me, O Lord.'\" Ih., ch. 6. — \"It also teaches, that even priests, who are in mortal sin, exercise through the virtue of the Holy Ghost, which God has bestowed in ordination, the office of forgiving sins. . . . But although the absolution of the priest is the disjjensation of another's bounty, yet it is not a bare ministry only, or declarative act, but of the nature of a judicial act, whereby sentence is pronounced by the priest as by a judge. . . Neither would faith without penance bestow any remission of sins; nor would he be otherwise than most careless of his own salvation, who knowing that a priest but absolved him in jest, should not carefully seek for another who would act in earnest.\" lb., ch. 8. — \"Finally, as regards Satisfaction, which as it is, of all the parts of Penance, that which has been at all times recommended to the Christian people by our Fathers. Ch. 9. — We are able through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father, not only by pains volun- tarily undertaken by ourselves for the punishment of sin, or by those imposed at the discretion of the priest according to the measure of our delinquency,— but also, which is a very great proof of love, by the tem- poral scourges inflicted of God and borne patiently by us. \" \"Counc. Trent,\" Sess. 6, Can. 29. — \"If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again ; or that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance Let him be accursed. Can. 30. — If any one saith that after the grace of Justifi- cation (sanctification) has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); Let him be accursed.\" Inditlgences. — \"Cone. 7Ve?i<,\" Sess. 25, \"De Indulgentiis.\" Pope Leo X., \"Brill De Indulgentiis\" (1518). — \"That no one in future may allege ignorance of the doctrine of the Eoman Church respecting indulgences and their efficacy . . . the Roman pontifi\", vicar of Christ on earth, can, for reasonable causes, by the powers of the keys, grant to the faithful, whether in this life or in Purgatory, indulgences, out of the superabundance of the merits of Christ, and of the saints (expressly called a treasure) ; and that those who have truly obtained those indul- gences are released from so much of the temporal punishment due for their actual sins to the divine justice as is equivalent to the indulgence granted and obtained.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "174", "sort_key": 174, "group": "Chapter XXXIII", "question": "Eoio  can  James  ii.  14-26,  he  reconciled  with  this  doctrine?", "answer": "James is not speaking of the meritorious ground of justifi- cation, but of the relation which good works sustain to a gen- 500 JUSTIFICATION. nine faith as its fruit and evidence. The meritorious ground of justification is the righteousness of Christ. — Eom. x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30. Faith is the essential prerequisite and instrument of receiving that righteousness. — Eph. ii. 8. James, in the jDassage cited, simply declares and argues the truth that the faith which is thus the instrumental cause of justification, is never a dead, but always a living and fruitful principle. Paul teaches the same truth often, \" Faith works by love,\" Gal. V. 6, and \"love is the fulfilling of the law,\" Eom. xiii. 10. 12. Wliai do the Scriptures declare to he the true and only ground of justification ? Justification is a declaration on the part of the infinitely wise and holy God that the law is satisfied. The law is, like its Author, absolutely unchangeable, and can be satisfied by nothing else than an absolutely perfect righteousness, at once fulfilling the precept, and suffering the penalty. This was rendered by Christ as our representative, and his perfect right- eousness, as imputed to us, is the sole and strictly legal ground of our justification. Thus he is made for us the end of the law for righteousness, and we are made the righteousness of God in him. — Rom. iii. 24; v. 9, 19; viii. 1; x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30; vi. 11; 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. iii. 9. 13. How can it he 'proved that Christ's active ohedience to the precepts of the law is included in that righteotisness hy ivkich ive are justified? 1st. The condition of the covenant of works was perfect obedience. This covenant having failed in the hands of the first Adam must be fulfilled in the hands of the second Adam, since in the covenant of grace Christ assumed all of the undis- charged obligations of his people under the covenant of works. His suffering discharges the penalty, but only his active obe- dience fulfills the condition. 2d. All the promises of salvation are attached to obedience, not to suffering. — Matt. xix. 16, 17; Gal. iii. 12. 3d. Christ came to fulfil the whole law. — Is. xlii. 21; Rom. iii. 31 ; 1 Cor. i. 30. 4th. The obedience of Christ is expressly contrasted with the disobedience of Adam. — Rom. v. 19.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "175", "sort_key": 175, "group": "Chapter XXXIII", "question": "Hoiv  may  it  he  shown  that  Christ^  s  ohedience  was  free?", "answer": "Although Christ was made under the law by being born of the woman, and rendered obedience to that law in the exercises of his created human nature, yet he did not owe that obedience IMPUTATION OF CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS. 501 for himself, but rendered it freely that its merits might be im- puted to his people, because the claims of law terminate not upon nature, but upon persons; and he was always a divine person. As he suffered, the just for the unjust, so he obeyed, the Lawgiver in the place of the law-subject.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "176", "sort_key": 176, "group": "Chapter XXXIII", "question": "In  wliat  sense  is  Christ's  righteousness  imputed  to  believers?", "answer": "Imputation is an act of God as sovereign judge, at once ju- dicial and sovereign, whereby (1) he makes the guilt and legal responsibilities of our sins really Christ's, and punishes him for them. \" He was wounded for our transgression, the punishment of our peace was upon him.\" — Is. liii. 5 and 11. \"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.\" — Gal. iii. 13. \"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.\"— 2 Cor. v. 21; John i. 29. (2.) He makes the righteousness of Christ ours (that is, the legal right to reward, by the gracious covenant conditioned on righteousness), and then treats us as persons legally invested with those rights. \" Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works.\" — Rom. iv. 6. \" For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everj' one that believeth.\" — Rom. x. 4; 1 Cor. i. 30; 2 Cor. v. 21; Phil. iii. 9. \" Imputation \" is the charging or crediting to one's account as the ground of judicial treatment. \" Guilt \" is the just obligation to punishment. The reatus pcence, or \"guilt of punishment,\" is imputed to Christ in our stead. The reatus culpce, or guilt of fault, remains ours. \"Righteousness imputed\" is the vicarious fulfillment of all the covenant demands on which eternal life is conditioned. \" Merit \" is that which deserves on the ground of covenant promise a reward. The merit of reward is imputed to us from Christ, the merit of praise worthiness remains his forever. As Christ is not made a sinner by the imputation to him of our sins, so we are not made holy by the imputation to us of his righteousness. The transfer is only of guilt from us to him, and of merit from him to us. He justly suffered the punish- ment due to our sins, and we justly receive the rewards due to his righteousness. — 1 John i. 9. For explanation of \" Imputa- tion,\" see above. Chap. XXL, Ques. 12, and Chap. XXV., Ques. 9. 16. Upon what ground does this imputation proceed? && Upon the union federal, spiritual, and vital, which subsists between Christ and his people. Which union, in turn, rests upon the eternal decree of election common to all the persons 502 j^rS T I PICA TION. of the Godhead, and upon the eternal covenant of grace formed between the Father as God absolute and the Son as Mediator. Thus the ultimate ground of imputation is the eternal nature and imperial will of God, the fountain of all law and all right. 17. How may the fact of this imputation he proved from Scripture ? See Rom. v. 12-21. Compare Rom. iv. 6; iii. 21, with Rom. V. 19. The doctrine of imputation is essentially involved in the doctrine of substitution. If Christ obeyed and suffered in our place it can only be because our sins were imputed to him, Avhich is directly asserted in Scripture, Isa. liii. 6; 2 Cor. v. 21; 1 Pet. ii. 24; and, if so, the merit of that obedience and suffer- ing must accrue to us, Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 6; 1 Pet. iii. 18. See above, Chapter XXL, Question 12. This doctrine is also taught by those passages which affirm that Christ fulfilled the law, Rom. iii. 31; x. 4; and by those which assert that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, 1 Cor. vi. 11; Rom. viii. 1, etc. This doctrine, moreover, stands or falls with the whole view we have presented of the priesthood of Christ, of the justice of God, of the covenants of Avorks and of grace, and of the nature of the atonement; to which subjects, under their respective heads, the reader is referred. 18. What are the two effects ascribed to the imputation of Christ's righteousness 7 Christ's righteousness satisfies, 1st, the penalty of the law; 2d, then the positive conditions of the covenant of works, i. e., obedience to the precepts of the law. The imputation of that righteousness to the believer, therefore, secures, 1st, the remis- sion of the penalty, pardon of sins; 2d, the recognition and treatment of the believer as one with respect to whom the covenant is fulfilled, and to whom all its promises and advan- tages legally accrue. — See below, Question 28. 19. Are the sins of believers, committed siihseqiiently to their justification, included in the pardon ivhich is consequent to the im- putation of Christ's 7'ighteousness ; and, if so, in ivhat icay ? The elect, although embraced in the purpose of God, and in his covenant with his Son from eternity, are not effectively united to Christ until the time of their regeneration, when, in consequence of their union with him, and the imputation of his righteousness to them, their relation to the law is permanently changed. Although the immutable law always continues their RELATION OF FAITH TO JUSTIFICATION. 503 perfect standard of experience and of action, it is no longer to them a condition of the covenant of life, because that covenant has been fully discharged for them by their sponsor. God no longer imputes sin to them to the end of judicial punishment. Every suffering which they henceforth endure is of the nature of chastisement, designed for their correction and improve- ment, and forms, in its relation to them, no part of the penalty of the law. 20. What are the dlff^erent opinions as to the class of si7is which are forgiven when the sinner is justified? Romanists teach that original sin and all actual transgres- sions prior to baptism are forgiven for Christ's sake, through the reception of that sacrament, and that after baptism, sins, as they are committed, are through the merits of Christ for- given in the observance of the sacrament of penance. See above. Chapter XXXII., Question 11. Dr. Pusey has revived an ancient doctrine that in baptism all past sins, original and actual, are forgiven; but his system makes no provision for sins subsequently committed. ]\\Iany Protestants have held that only past and present sins are forgiven in the first act of justification, and that sins after regeneration, as they occur, are forgiven upon renewed acts of faith. The true view, however, is, that in consequence of the imputation to him of Christ's righteousness, the believer is emancipated from his former federal relation to the law, and consequently henceforth no sin is charged to him to the end of judicial condemnation. This follows from the nature of justifi- cation, as stated above, and it is illustrated by the recorded experience of Paul, who, while complaining of the law of sin, still warring in his members, yet never doubted of his filial relation to God, nor of the forgiveness of his sins. 21. What are the different opinions as to the relation hetiveen faith and justification ? Socinians hold that faith, including obedience, is the proper meritorious ground of justification. — \" Cat. Rac.,\"\" Quest. 418-421, and 453. Arminians teach that although faith has no merit in itself, since it is the gift of God, yet, as a living principle, including evangelical obedience, it is graciously, for Christ's merits' sake, imputed to us for righteousness, i. e., accepted as righteousness, upon the ground of which we are declared just. — Limborch, \"Theol. Christ.,\" 6,_ 4, 22, and 6, 4, 46. The orthodox view is that the active and passive obedience 504 JUSTIFICA TIOiV. of Christ satisfying botli the precept and penalty of the law as a covenant of life, and thus constituting' a perfect righteousness, is, upon being appropriated by the believer in the act of faith, actually made his, in a legal sense, by imputation. Faith, there- fore, is the mere instrument whereby we partake in the right- eousness of Christ, which is the true ground of our justification, \"V 22. Prove from Scripture that faith is only the instrumental cause of justification. 1st. From the nature of faith itself (1.) It is not of our- selves, it is the gift of God. — Eph. ii. 8; Phil. i. 29. (2.) It is one of the fruits of the Spirit, and, therefore, not the meritorious ground of spiritual blessings. — Gal. v. 22. (3.) It is an act of the sold, and therefore a work, but though, by means of faith, justification is not by works. — Rom. iv. 2-5; xi. 6. (4.) Justi- fying faith terminates on or in Christ, in his blood and sacrifice, and in the promises of God; in its very essence, therefore, it involves trust, and, denying its owr justifying value, affirms the sole merit of that on which it trusts. — Rom. iii. 25, 26; iv. 20, 22; Gal. iii. 26; Eph. i. 12, 13; 1 John v. 10. (5.) The law necessarily demands a perfect righteousness, but faith, even when combined with the evangelical obedience which springs from it, is not a perfect righteousness. 2d. The Scriptures, when referring to the relation of justifi- cation to faith, use the terms £k nidrEooi, hy faith, and 8id Tti6Tf.ooz, by or through faitli, but never 8id Tci6riv, on account of faith, Gal. ii. 16. 3d. Faith is distinguished fi'om the righteousness which it apprehends. — Rom i. 17; Phil. iii. 8-11. Turretin, L. 16, Q. 7.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "177", "sort_key": 177, "group": "Chapter XXXIII", "question": "What  is  the  specific  object  of  justifying  faith  ?", "answer": "The Socinians, denying the divinity of Christ, make the act of justifying faith to terminate \"in God through Christ.\" — \"Rac. Cat.,\" Sec. 5., Ch. 9. The Romanists, confounding justification and sanctification, make the whole revelation of God the object of the faith that justifies. — \"Cat. Rom.\" Part 1, Chap. 1. The Scriptural doctrine is, that while the renewed heart believes equally ever}?- ascertained word of God, the specific act of faith, whereby we are justified, terminates upon the person and work of Cln-ist as Mediator. This is proved, 1st, from express declarations of Scripture. Rom. iii. 22, 25; Gal. ii. 16; Phil. iii. 9. 2d. By the declara- tion that we are saved by believing in him. — Acts x. 43; xvi. 31; John iii. 16, 36. 3d. By those figurative expressions which illustrate the act of saving faith as \"looking to Christ,\" OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 505 etc.— Is. xlv. 22 ; John i. 12 ; vi. 35, 37 ; jSIatt. xi. 28. 4th. Unbe. lief is the refusing the righteousness which God provides, i. e., Christ. — Ptom. x. 3, 4 24. What is the nature of that peace lohich fioivs from justifi- cation ? 1st. Peace with God, his justice being completely satisfied through the righteousness of Christ. — Kom. v. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 ; Col. i. 21 ; Eph. ii. 14. In witness whereof his Holy Spirit is given to us. — Rom. viii. 15, 16; Heb. x. 15, 17. His love shed abroad in our hearts, Rom. v. 5, and our habitual fellowship with him established, 1 John i. 3. 2d. Inward peace of con- science, including consciousness of our reconciliation with God through the operation of his Spirit, as above, and the appease- ment of our self-condemning conscience through the apprehen- sion of the righteousness by which we are justified. — Heb. ix. 14; X. 2, 22.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "178", "sort_key": 178, "group": "Chapter XXXIII", "question": "What  other  l^nefitSfioio  from  justification?", "answer": "Being justified on the ground of a perfect righteousness, our whole relation to God and the law is changed; the gift of the Holy Gliost, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, the working orall things together for good in this life, deliverance in death, the resurrection of the body, and the final glorification, all result. 0 Objections Answered. 26. State and Refute the principal objections made to the Protestant doctrine of justification. 1st. That it is legal, and therefore excludes grace. We ANSWER — that it is transcendently gracious. 1. The admission of a substitute for guilty sinners was an act of grace. 2. The vicarious obedience and sufferings of the God-man were of infinite grace. 3. The imputation of his righteousness to an individual elected out of the mass of fallen humanity is an act of pure grace. Hence, 4, the entire subsequent regarding and treating the believer as righteous, is a work of grace. 2d. That it is impious because it declares the sinner to be righteous with the very righteousness of Christ. We ANSWER. It is not impious because — 1. This righteous- ness was freely wrought out with the intention it should be ours, and it is freely given to us. 2. It is not Christ's per- sonal subjective I'ighteousness which is incommunicable, but his vicarious fulfillment of the covenant of life under which we were created which is imputed to us. 3. The merit of praise- 506 JUSTIFICATION. worthiness is retained by Christ, only its merit of rewardable- ness is given to us. 4. It is given to us gratuitously, that the praise of glorious grace may redound to Christ alone. 3d. That gratuitous justification by faith leads to licen- tiousness. Paul answers, Rom. vi. 2-7: Prop. 1st. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Rom. V. 20. Prop. 2d. Shall we conclude, therefore, that we are to con- tinue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. — Rom. vi. 1, 2. Prop. 3d. The federal union of the believer with Christ, which secures our justification, is the foundation of, and is insepara- ble from, that vital spiritual union with him, which secures our sanctification. Prop. 4th. This method of justification, so far from leading to licentiousness, secures the only conditions under which we could be holy. (1.) This method of justification, by changing our relation to God, enables us to return to him in a way of a free, loving service. — Rom. vi. 14; vii. 1-6. (2.) It alone de- livers us from the spirit of bondage and fear, and gives us that of adoption and love. — Rom. viii. 1-17; xiii. 10; Gal. v. 6; 1 John iv. 18; 2 John 6. 27. In ivlmt respect did the doctrine of Piscator on this subject differ from that ^^ the Reformed Churches? Piscator, a Protestant divine. Prof at Herborn (1584-1625), taught, 1st, that, as to his human nature, Christ was under the law in the same sense as any other creature, and that, therefore, he could only obey the law for himself; 2d, that if Christ had obeyed the law in our place, the law could not claim a second fulfillment of us, and, consequently. Christians would be under no obligations to obey the law of God; 3d, that if Christ had both obeyed the precept of the law and suffered its penalty, then the law would have been doubly fulfilled, since the claims of the precept and the penalty of the law are alternative, not coincident. This doctrine was expressly condemned in the Reformed Churches of Switzerland and Holland, and by the French synods held in the years 1603, 1612, and 1614. \\\\\\ 1615, how- ever, the Synod tacitly allowed these views to pass without condemnation. — Mosheim's \" Hist.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "179", "sort_key": 179, "group": "Chapter XXXIII", "question": "Hoio  may  it  he  shown  that  justification  is  not  mere  pardon?", "answer": "Piscator erred, from tailing to distinguish — 1st. That the claims of law terminate not upon natures, but upon persons. Christ Avas a divine person, and, therefore, his obedience was OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 507 free. 2d. That there is an evident difference between a federal relation to the law as a condition of salvation, and a natural relation to law as a rule of life. Christ discharged the former as our federal representative. The latter necessarily attaches to the believer as to all moral agents forever. Justification is more than pardon — 1st. Because the very word \"to justify\" proves it. To \"pardon\" is, in the exercise of sovereign prerogative, to waive the execution of the penal sanc- tions of the law. \"To justify\" is to declare that the demands of the law are satisfied, not wai^^ed. Pardon is a sovereign act — -justification is a judicial act. 2d. As we proved under Chap. XXV., Christ did in strict rigor of justice satisfy vicariously for us the demands of the law, both the obedience demanded and the , ' ' penalty denounced. His satisfaction is the ground of our justi- .' cation. But pardon is remission of penalty in absence of satis- I ,, ' •' faction. 3d. iF Justification were mere pardon it would simply » ''\"'^ release us from penal suffering, but would provide no further good for us. But \"justification through faith in Christ,\" se- cures not pardon only, but also peace, grace, reconciliation, adoption of sons, coheirship, etc., etc. — See above, Ques. 13. Kom. V. 1-10; Acts xxvi. 18; Rev. i. 5, 6. In the case of justified believers \"justification \" includes \"par- don.\" Our justification proceeds on the ground of a \"satisfac- tion,\" and, therefoi-e, is not mere pardon. But it is a \" vicari- ous \" satisfaction graciously set to the credit of the unworthy, and, therefore, it effects pardon to us sinners who believe in Christ. 29. Did not Calvin often use language to the effect that justifica- tion and pardon are the same ? He did. But his language is to be interpreted — 1st. By the fact that he was arguing with Eomanists who taught that \"jus- tification consists in remission of sins and infusion of grace.\" He argued in opposition that justification consists in the former but does not include the latter. 2d. By the conclusive fact that his full definitions of justification comprehend the full truth more accurately defined in the Symbols of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. Calvin's '^Institutes,\" Bk. 3, ch. 11, ^ 2. — \"A man is said to be justi- fied in tlie sight of God, when in the judgment of God he is decreed righteous, and is accej)ted on account of his righteousness. ... In the same manner a man will be said to he justified by loorTcs, if in his hfe, or by the perfection of his works, he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary a man will be justified by faith, when exchided from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteous- ness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as sinner, 508 JUSTIFICATION. bvit as rigliteoiis. Thus we simply interpret justification, as tlie accept- ance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous, and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins, and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.\" Calvin's ^'Cuni.,\" 1 Cor. i. 30. — \" 'Christ is made unto us righteoiis- ness,' by which, he (the apostle) understood that we are accepted by God in his name (Christ's), because he expiated our sins, and his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness. For since the righteousness of faith consists in remission of sins, and in gratuitous accej)tance, we obtain both through Christ.\" 30. In ivliat respect does the governmental tlieory of the atone- ment modify the doctrine of justification ? See above, Chap. XXV., Question 27. 1st. It follows, from that theory, that justification is a sov- ereign, not a judicial act of God. Christ has not satisfied the law, but merely made it consistent with the government of God to set aside the law in the case of believing men. It is mere pardon, an act of executive clemency. 2d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, it follows that his righteousness is not imputed ; it is the occasion, not the ground of justification. 3d. As Christ did not die as a substitute, there is no strictly federal union between Christ and his people, and faith can not be the instrument of salvation by being the means of uniting us to Christ, but only the arbitrary condition of justification, or the means of recommending us to God. 4th. As justification is mere pardon, it only sets aside con- demnation, and renders, so far forth, future salvation possible. It does nothing to secvire the future standing and relations of the believer, under the covenant of salvation, to God. Dr. Emmons (1745-1840), one of the ablest theologians of the New England School, says (\"Sermons,\" Vol. III., p. 3-67) — (1.) \"Justification, in a gospel sense, signifies no more nor less than pardon or remission of sin.\" (2.) \"Forgiveness is the only favor which God bestows upon men on Christ's account.\" (3.) \"The fidl and final justification of believers, or their title to their eternal inheritance, is conditional. They must perform certaiji things, which he has specified as terms or conditions of their taking possession of their several legacies.\" (4.) \"God does promise eternal life to all who obey his commands or exercise those holy and benevolent afi'ections which his com- mands require.\" 31. How does the Armiman theory as to the nature and design of the scdisf action of Christ modify the doctrine of justification ? They hold — 1st. As to the nature of Christ's satisfaction, THE ARMINIAN, AND THE ROMISH DOCTRINE. 509 that although it was a real propitiation rendered to justice for us, it was not in the rigor of justice perfect, but was gra- ciously accepted and acted on as such by God. — Limborch, \"Apol. Theo.,\" 3, 22, 5. 2d. That it was not strictly the sub- stitution of Christ in place of his elect, but rather that he suf- fered the wrath of God in behalf of all men, in order to make it consistent with justice for God to offer salvation to all men upon condition of faith. Therefore they regard justification as a sovereign, not a judicial act — 1st. In accepting the sufferings of Christ as suf- ficient to enable God consistently to offer to men salvation on the terms of the new covenant of grace, %. e., on the condition of faith. 2d. In imputing to the believer his faith for right- eousness for Christ's sake. This faith they make — 1st. To include evangelical obedi- ence, i. e., the whole principle of religion in heart and life. 2d. They regard it as the graciously admitted ground, rather than the mere instrument of justification ; faith being counted for righteousness, because Christ died. — Limborch, \"Theo. Christ,\" 6, 4, \"i.l, and 6, 4, 46. This theory, besides being opposed by all the arguments we have above presented in establishing the orthodox doctrine, labors under the further objections — 1st. It fails to render a clear account as to how the satis- faction of Christ makes it consistent with divine justice to save men upon the condition of faith. If Christ did not obey and suffer strictly as the substitute of his people, it is difficult to see how the justice of God, as it respects them, could have been appeased ; and if he did so fulfil the demands of justice in their place, then the orthodox view, as above stated, is admitted. 2d. It fails to render a clear account of the relation of faith .to justification — (1.) Because faith in Christ, including trust, necessarily implies that the merits of Christ upon which the trust terminates is the ground of justification. (2.) Faith must be either the ground or the mere instrument of justification. If it be the latter then the righteousness of Christ, which is the object of faith, is that ground. If it be the former, then what is made of the merits of Christ upon which faith rests?", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "180", "sort_key": 180, "group": "Chapter XXXIII", "question": "Hoiv  do  the  Romanists  define  justification?", "answer": "They confound justification with sanctification. It is, 1st, the forgiveness of sins; 2d, the removal of inherent sin for Christ's sake ; 3d, the positive infusion of grace. Of this justification they teach that the final cause is the glory of God and eternal life. The efficient cause is the power 510 yUSTIFICA TION. of the Holy Ghost. The meritorious cause the work of Christ. The instrumental cause baptism. The formal cause the influ- ence of grace, Avhereby we are made not merely forensically but inherently righteous. — \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. vi., Chap- ter vii. They define faith in its relation to justification to be the beginning of luunan salvation, tlie fountain and root of all justification, {. e., of spiritual life. Tliey consequently hold that justification is progressive, and that when a man receives a new nature in baptism, and the work of justification is com- menced in him with the forgiveness and the removal of sin, the work is to be carried on by the exercise of the grace im- planted, i. e., by good works. Since they confound justifica- tion with sanctification, they necessarily deny that men are justified by the imputation of the rigiiteousness of Christ, or by mere faith without works. — Sess. 6, Can. 9th and 11th, \"de Justificatione.\" They admit that justification is entirely gracious, i. e., of the mere mercy of God, and for the sake of the merits of Jesus Christ, as neither the spiritual exercises nor the works of men previous to justification have any merit whatsoever. — \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. vi.. Chapter viii. A careful distinction must be made between (a) that which in the case of an adult prepares for justification, (?>) the reali- zation of justification in the first instance, (c) its subsequent progressive realization in the advance of the gracious soul in justification towards perfection, and {(T) the restoration to a state of grace of the baptized Christian after backsliding into sin. 1st. The preparation of the sinner for justification proceeds from the prevenient grace of God, without any merit on the part of the subject. This grace acting through the hearing of the word leads to conviction of sin, repentance, apprehen- sion of the mercy of God in Christ (the church), and hence to a determination to receive baptism and lead a new life (\" Cone. Trent,\" Sess. vi., chaps, v. and vi). 2d. Tiie actual justification of the sinner is the infusion of gracious habits, the pollution of sin having been washed away by the powder of God, on account of the merits of Christ, through the instrumentality of baptism, which operates its effects by an energy made inherent in it, by the institution of God. After this, inherent sin being removed, remission of guilt necessarily follows as its immediate effect. Guilt is the relation which sin sustains to the justice of God. The thing being removed, the relation ceases ipso facto (Bellarmin, \" De Amiss. Grati^e,\" etc., V. 7. THE ROMISH DOCTRINE. 511 3d. Having thus been justified and made a friend of God, the baptized Christian advances from virtue to virtue, and is renewed from day to day, through the observance of the com- mandments of God and of the church, faith co-operating with good works, now made possible in virtue of the previous justi- fication, and which truly merit, and receive as a just reward, increase of grace, and more and more perfect justification. His iirst justification was for Christ's sake, without any co-opera- tion of his own merit, but by consent of his own will. His sec- ond or continued and increasing justification is for Christ's sake, through and in proportion to his own merit, which deserves increase of grace and acceptance in proportion (a) to his per- sonal holiness, and (/;) to his obedience to ecclesiastical rules (\" Cone. Trent,\" Sess. 6, Chap. x. and Can. 32). 4th. In the case of those who having been justified, have sinned, the lost grace of justification is restored, for the merits of Christ, through the sacrament of Penance, which is provided as a second plank to rescue those who have shipwrecked grace. This penance includes (o) sorrow for sin, (&) confession to a priest having jurisdiction, (c) sacerdotal absolution, {d) satis- faction by alms, prayers, fasts, etc., and this justification if not rendered perfect by these means on earth is completed by pur- gatorial fires. All these satisfactions, earthly and purgatorial, are meritorious satisfactions to divine justice, cancelling the temporal punishments attaching to the sins for which they are undergone, the eternal punishment whereof has been at once and freely remitted, either through the sacrament itself, or the honest desire for it (\"Cone. Trent,\" Sess. 6, Chaps, xiv. and xvi., and Can. 30, and Sess. 14, Chaps, i.-ix). 33. What are the points of difference hetiueen Protestants and Romanists on this tohoJe subject ? 1st. As to the nature of justification. We regard it as a judicial act of God, declaring the believer to be forensically just, on the ground of the righteousness of Christ made his by imputation. They regard it as the infusion of inherent grace. 2d. As to its meritorious ground. Both say the merits of Christ. But they say these merits are made ours by sanctifica- tion. We, by imputation, through the instrumentality of faith. 3d. As to the nature and office of faith. We say that it is the instrument; they the beginning and root of justification. 4th. They say that justification is progressive. 5tli. That it may be lost by mortal sin and regained and increased through the sacrament of Penance, and completed in Purgatory. — See above, Chapter XXXH., on \"Ptcpentance and Penance.\" 512 yUS T I PICA TION. 34. Wltai are the leading arguments against the Bomanist vieio on this subject? 1st. This whole doctrine is confused. (1.) It confounds under one definition two matters entirely distinct, namely, the forensic remission of the condemnation due to sin with the washing away of inlierent sin, and the introduction to a state of covenant favor with God Avith the infusion of inherent grace. (2.) It renders no sensible account as to the manner in which the merit of Christ propitiates divine justice. 2d. Their definition is refuted by all the evidence above exhibited, that the terms \"justification\" and \"righteousness\" are used in Scripture in a forensic sense. 3d. Their view, by making our inherent grace wrought in us by the Holy Ghost for Christ's sake the ground of our ac- ceptance with God, subverts the whole gospel. It is of the very essence of the gospel that the ground of our acceptance with the Father is the mediatorial work of the Son, who is for us the end of the law for righteousness, and not our own graces. 4th. Their view of the merit of works performed by divine grace after baptism is inconsistent with Avhat Scripture teaches and the Eomish Church itself teaches as to original sin and guilt, and as to the essential graciousness of the salvation wrought by Christ. Thomas Aquinas himself (\"Summa.,\" Q. 114, Art. 5) says, \"If grace be considered in the sense of a gratuitous gift, all merit is excluded by grace.\" Therefore the entire s^^stem of Papist justification falls. 5th. It is legal in its spirit and method, and consequently induces either spiritual pride or despair, but never can nourish true evangelical assurance at once humble and confident. 6th. The Scriptures declare that on the ground of the pro- pitiation of Christ God justifies the believer as ungodly, not as sanctified. It certainly could not require an atonement to render God both just and the sanctifier of the ungodly. Rom. iv. 5. 7th. The phrases to impute, reckon, count sin or righteous- ness are absolutely consistent only Avith a forensic interpreta- tion. To impute righteousness without works in the forensic sense, in the 4th chapter of Romans, is reasonable. To impute inherent grace without works is nonsense. 8th. Their definition is refuted by all those arguments which establish the true view with respect to the nature and office of justifying faith. — See above. Questions 21-23. ROMISH DOCTRINE. 513 AxJTHOKITATrVE STATEMENTS. Romish Docteine. —For statement of tlie nature, ground, and means of justification, see above, under Ch. XXIX. For statement of Eomisli Doctrine of Good Works and Woi'ks of Supererogation, see below, under Ch. XXXV., and see Doctrine of Penance, above, under Ch. XXXII. '■'■ Counc. Trent,'\" Sess. 6, ch. 8. — \"We are said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and the root of all justification.\" Ih., can. 23. — \"If any one saith that a man once justified can sin no more nor lose grace, and therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the other hand, that he is able during his whole life to avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin, let him be accursed.\" Can. 24. — \"If any one say that righteousness received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be acciirsed.\" Can. 29. — \"If any one saith that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the righteousness which he has lost, but by faith alone, without the sacrament of penance .... let him be accursed.\" Can. 30. — \"If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justifi- cation has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before he can enter the kingdom of heaven; let him be accursed.\" Can. 32. — -\"If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or that the justified man, by the good works wliich he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit inci'ease of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of eternal life if he die in grace, and also an increase of glory; let him be accursed.\" Bellakmin, ^^De Justificatione,\" 5, 1. — \"The common opinion of all Catholics holds that all the good works of justified persons are truly and jsroperly meritorious, and deserving not merely of a reward of some sort, but of eternal life itself. 4, 7. — We say that good works are necessary to a justified man in order to his salvation, not only in the way of being present, but also in the way of efficiency, since they eff'ect salvation, and faith without them does not eff'ect it. lb. 5, 5. — The merits of ju.stified persons do not stand opposed to the merits of Christ, but they spring from these, and whatever praise those merits of the justified have, redounds entii-e to the praise of the merits of Christ.\" Lutheban Doctrine. — '^Apologia Confenaionis.'\" — \"To justify in this place (Rom. v. 1), signifies in a forensic sense to absolve an accused pei*- son and jn'onounce him righteous, but on account of another's righteous- ness, i. e., of Christ; which other's righteousness is made over to us through faith.\" '■'■Formula Goncordice \" (Hase Ed.), p. 685. — \"The term justification in this transaction means to pronounce righteous, to absolve from sins, and from the eternal punishment of sinners, on account of the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed by God to faith.\" lb. p. 684. — \"Man a sinner may be justified before God . . without any merits or worthi- ness of ours, and apart from any works, preceding, accompanying, or 33 514 yUSTIFICA TION. following, out of mere grace.\" Ih. p. 584. — \"We confess that faith alone is that means and instrument by which we apprehend Christ our Saviour, and in Christ of that righteousness, which can stand the judgment of God.\" Ih. J). 689. — \" Neither repentance, nor love, nor any other virtue, but faith alone, is the single means and instrument by which we are able to ajji^rehend and accejit the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and the remission of sins.\" Befokmed Doctbine. \"Wesfminsier Confession of Faith,\" Ch. 11. \"Heidelberg Cui.\" Ques. 60. — \"Nevertheless I may now embrace all these benefits with a true boldness of mind; without any merit of mine, of the mere mercy of God, the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ is imputed and given to me, as if I had myself com- mitted no sin, nor incurred any stain; yea, as if I had myself perfectly performed that obedience which Christ performed for me.\" Eemonstkant DocTKiNE. — Limborch, ''Christ. Theol.,'\" ^, 4,22. — \"Let it be understood that, when we say we are justified by faith, we do not exclude works, wliich faith requires, and as a fruitful mother produces, but we include them . . . nor by faith is a bare faith to be under- stood, as contradistingitished from the works which faith produces, but together with the faith, all that obedience which God in the New Testa- ment apijoints, and which is suiDplied by faith in Jesus Christ. . . 31. — But faith is a condition in us and is required of us in order that we may obtain justification. It is therefore an act which, although viewed in itself it is by no means perfect, but in many respects defective, is yet received as full and j)erfect by God gTaciously and freely, and on account of it God graciously bestows remission of sins and the reward of eternal life. . . 29. — The object of faith (justifying) we declare to be Jesus Christ entire, as prophet, j^riest, and king; not only his propitiation, but his precepts, promises, and threatenings ; by it therefore we embrace the entire Christ, his word, and all his saving benefits.\" SociNiAN DocTKiNE. — ''Rucovian Catechism,\" Sec. 5, ch. 9. — \"The faith which is by itself followed by salvation, is such an assent to the doctrine of Christ that we apply it to its proper object; that is, that we trust in God through Christ, and give ourselves up wholly to obey his •wUl, whereby we obtain his promises If piety and obedi- ence, when life is continued after the acknowledgment of Christ, be required as indispensable to salvation, it is necessary that the faith to which alone and in reality salvation is ascribed, should comprehend obe- dience. . . lb. ch. 11. — Justification is, when God regards us as just, or so deals with us as if we were altogether just and innocent. This he does in the New Covenant, in forgiving our sins and conferring upon us eternal life.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "181", "sort_key": 181, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "What  relation  does  sanctification  sustain  to  regeneration  ?", "answer": "Kegeneration is the creative act of the Holy Spirit, implant- ing a new principle of spiritual life in the soul. Conversion is the first exercise of that new gracious principle, in the spontane- ous turning of the new-born sinner to God. Sanctification is 522 SANCTIFICATION. the sustaining and developing work of the Holy Ghost, bring- ing all the faculties of the soul more and more perfectly imder the purifying and regulating influence of the implanted principle of spiritual life. 6. What is the I'elation lohicli justification and sandification sustain to each other ? In the order of nature, regeneration precedes justification, although as to time they are always necessarily contemporane- ous. The instant God regenerates a sinner he acts faith in Christ. The instant he acts faith in Christ he is justified, and sanctification, which is the work of carrying on and perfecting that which is begun in regenei'ation, is accomplished under the conditions of those new relations into wliich he is introduced by justification. In justification we are delivered from all the penal consequences of sin, and brought into such a state of reconciliation with God, and communion of the Holy Ghost, that we are emancipated from the bondage of legal fear, and endued with that spirit of filial confidence and love wliich is the essential principle of all acceptable obedience. Our justifi- cation, moreover, proceeds on the ground of our federal union with Christ by faith, which is the basis of that vital and spirit- ual union of the soul with him from whom our sanctification flows. — See above. Chap. XXXI., Question 3. 7. Hoio can it he shown that this work extends to the tvhole man, the understanding, ivill, and affections ? The soul is a unit, the same single agent alike, thinking, feeling, and wilhng. A man can not love that loveliness which he does not perceive, nor can he perceive that beauty, whether moral or natural, wliich is uncongenial to his own heart. His whole nature is morally depraved, 1st, blind or insensible to spiritual beauty; 2d, averse, in the reigning dispositions of the will, to moral right, and therefore disobedient. The order in which the faculties act is as follows: The intellect perceives the qualities of the object concerning which the mind is engaged; the heart loves those qualities which are congenial to it; the will chooses that which is loved. This is proved, 1st, by experience. As the heart becomes more depraved the mind becomes more insensible to spiritual liglit. On the other hand, as the eyes behold more and more clearly the beauty of the truth, the more lively become the affections, and the more obedient the will. 2d. From the tes- timony of Scripture. By nature the whole man is depraved. The understanding darkened, as well as the affections and will perverted. — Eph. iv. 18. THE AGENCY OF THE TRUTH. 523 If this be so, it is evident that sanctification must also be effected throughout the entire nature. 1st. From the necessity of the case. 2d. From the testimony of Scripture. — Rom. vi. 13; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 18; Col. iii. 10; 1 Thess. v. 23; 1 John iv. 7.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "182", "sort_key": 182, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "In  what  sense  is  the  body  sanctified  ?", "answer": "1st. As consecrated, (1) as being the temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. vi. 19; (2) hence as being a member of Christ. — 1 Cor. vi. 15. 2d. As sanctified, since they are integral parts of our persons, their instincts and appetites act immediately upon the passions of our souls, and consequently these must be brought subject to the control of the saij^ified soul, and all its members, as organs of the soul, made instruments of righteous- ness unto God. — Rom. vi. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 4. 3d. It will be made like Christ's glorified body. — 1 Cor. xv. 44; Phil. iii. 21.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "183", "sort_key": 183, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "To  ichom,  is  the  luork  of  sancti/ication  referred  in  Scripture  ?", "answer": "1st. To the Father.— 1 Thess. vi. 23; Heb. xiii. 21. 2d. To the Son.— Eph. v. 25, 26 ; Titus ii. 14. 3d. To the Holy Ghost.— 1 Cor. vi. 11; 2 Thess. ii. 13. In all external actions the three Persons of the Trinity are always represented as concurring, the Father working through the Son and Spirit, and the Son through the Spirit. Hence the work of sanctification is with special prominence attributed to the Holy Spirit, since he is the immediate agent therein, and since this is his special office work in the plan of redemption. 10. What do the Scriptures teach as to the agency of the truth in the icork of sanctification ? The whole process of sanctification consists in the develop- ment and confirmation of the new principle of spiritual life im- planted in the soul in regeneration, conducted by the Holy Ghost in perfect conformity to, and through the operation of the laws and habits of action natural to the soul as an intelligent, moral and free agent. Like the natural faculties both of body and mind, and the natural habits which modify the actions of those faculties, so Christian graces, or spiritual habits, are developed by exercise; the truths of the gospel being the objects iipon wdiich these graces act, and by which they are both excited and directed. Thus the divine loveliness of God presented in the truth, which is his image, is the object of our complacent love; his goodness of our gratitude; his promises of our trust; his judgments of our wholesome awe, and his commandments variouslv exercise us in the thousand forms of filial obedience. John xvii. 19; 1 Pet. i. 22; ii. 2; 2 Pet. i. 4; James i. 18. 524 SANCTIFICA TION. 11. What efficiency do the Scriptures ascribe in this ivorJc to the Sacraments ? There are three views entertained on this subject by theo- logians— 1st. The lowest view is, that the sacraments simply, as symbols, present the truth in a lively manner to the eye, and are effective thus only as a form of presenting the gospel objectively. 2d. The opinion occupying the opposite extreme is, that they, of their own proper efficiency, convey sanctifying grace ex opere operato, \" because they convey grace by the virtue of the sacramental action itself, instituted by God for this very end, and not through the merit either of the agent (priest) or the receiver.\" — Bellarmin, \"De Sac,\" 2, 1. 3d. The true view is, \"that the sacraments are efficacious means of grace, not merely exhibiting but actually conferring upon those who worthily receive them the benefits which they represent;\" yet this efficacy does not reside properly in them, but accompanies their proper use in virtue of the divine insti- tution and promise, through the accompanying agency of the Holy Ghost, and as suspended upon the exercise of faith upon the part of the recipient, which faith is at once the condition and the instrument of the reception of the benefit. — Matt. iii. 11 ; Acts ii. 41; x. 47; Rom. vi. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Titus iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 21. 12. What office do the Scriptures OsScrihe to faith in sandifi- cation ? Faith is the first grace in order exercised by the soul conse- quent upon regeneration, and the root of all other graces in principle. — Acts xv. 9 ; xxvi. 18. It is instrumental in securing sanctification therefore — 1st. By securing the change of the believer's relation to God and to the law, as a condition of life and favor. — See above, Question 6. 2d. By securing his union with Christ. — 1 Cor. xiii. ; Gal. ii. 20; Col. iii. 3. 3d. It is sanctifying in its own nature, since, in its wddest sense, faith is that spiritual state of the soul in wdiich it holds living active communion with spiritual truth. \"By this faith a Christian believeth to be true, whatsoever is revealed in the word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which every particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to tlie commands, trem- bling to the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN COUNSELS AND PRECEPTS. 525 for this life, and that which is to come.\" — \"Conf. Faith,\" ch. 14, § 2. 13. What, according to Scripture, is necessary to constitute a good ivork ? 1st. That it should spring from a right motive, {. e., love for God's character, regard for his authority, and zeal for his glory; love as a fruit of the Spirit, if not always consciously present, yet reigning as a permanent and controlling principle in the soul. 2d. That it be in accordance with his revealed law. — Deut. xii. 32; Isa. i. 11, 12; Col. ii. 16-23. 14. What is the Popish doctrine as to ^Hhe counsels\" of Christ, which are not indvded in the positive precepts of tJie law ? The positive commands of Christ are represented as binding on all classes of Christians alike, and their observance necessary in order to salvation. His counsels, on the other hand, are binding only upon those who, seeking a higher degree of per- fection and a more excellent reward, voluntarily assume them. These are such as celibacy, voluntary poverty, etc., and obedi- ence to rule (monastic). — Bellarmin, \"de Monachis,\" Cap. vii. The wickedness of this distinction is evident — 1st. Because Christ demands the entire consecration of every Christian : after we have done all we are only unprofitable ser- vants. Works of supererogation, therefore, are impossible. 2d. All such will worship is declared abhorrent to God. — Col. ii. 18-23; 1 Tim. iv. 3. 15. WJiat judgment is to be formed of the good works of unre- newed men? Unrenewed men retain some dispositions and affections in themselves relatively good, and they do many things in them- selves right, and according to the letter of God's law. Yet — 1st. As to his person, every unrenewed man is under God's wrath and curse, and consequently can do nothing pleasing to him. The rebel in arms is in every thing a rebel until he sub- mits and returns to his allegiance. 2d. Love for God and regard to his authority are never his supreme motive in any of his acts. Thus while many of his actions are civilly good as respects his fellow-men, none of them can be spiritually good as it respects God. There is an obvious distinction between an act viewed in itself, and viewed in con- nection with its agent. The sinner, previous to justification and renewal, is a rebel; each one of his acts is the act of a 526 SANCTIFICATION. rebel, though as considered in itself any single act may be either good, bad, or indifferent.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "184", "sort_key": 184, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "In  what  sense  are  good  ivorTxS  necessary  for  salvation?", "answer": "As the necessary and invariable fruits of both the change of relation accomplished in justification, and of the change of nature accomplished in regeneration, though never as the meritorious grounds or conditions of our salvation. This necessity results, 1st, from the holiness of God ; 2d, from his eternal purpose, Eph. i. 4; ii. 10; 3d, from the design and redemptive efficacy of Christ's death, Eph. v. 25-27; 4th, from the union of the believer with Christ, and the energy of his indwelling Spirit, John xv. 5; Gal. v. 22; 5th, from the very nature of faith, which first leads to and then works by love. Gal. V. 6 ; 6th, from the command of God, 1 Thes. iv. 6 ; ' 1 Pet. i. 15 ; 7th, from the nature of heaven, Eev. xxi. 27.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "185", "sort_key": 185, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "What  is  the  theory  of  the  Antinoynians  upon  this  subject  ?", "answer": "Antinomians are, as their name signifies, those who deny that Christians are bound to obey the law. They argue that, as Christ has in our place fulfilled both the preceptive and the penal departments of God's law, his people must be deliA^ered from all obligation to observe it, either as a rule of duty or as a condition of salvation. — See above, Question 3, Chap. XXV. It is evident that all sj'stems of Perfectionism, which teach (as the Pelagian and Oberlin theories) that men's ability to obey is the measure of their responsibility, or (as the Papal and Arminian theories) that God, for Christ's sake, has gra- ciously reduced his demand from absolute moral perfection to faith and evangelical obedience, are essentially Antinomian. Because they all agree in teaching that Christians in this life are no longer under obligations to fulfil the Adamic law of absolute moral perfection. Paul, in the 6th chapter of Romans, declares that this damn- able heresy was charged as a legitimate consequent vipon his doctrine in that day. He not only repudiates the charge, but, on the contrary, affirms that free justification through an im- puted righteousness, without the merits of works, is the only Eossible condition in which the sinner can learn to bring forth oly works as the fruits of filial love. The very purpose of Christ was to redeem to himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works, and this he accomplished by delivering them from the federal bondage of the law, in order to render them capable as the Lord's freed men of moral conformity to it, ever increas- ingly in this life, absolutely in the life to come. \"MERIT OF CONDIGNITY AND MERIT OF CONGRUITY:' 527 18. Wliat are the different senses ivJiich have been applied to the term ^^ merit\"? It has been technically used in two different senses. 1st. Strictly, to designate the common quality of all services to which a reward is due, ex justicia, on account of their intrinsic value and dignity. 2d. Improperly, it was used by the Fathers as equivalent to that which results in or attains to a reward or consequent, without specifying the ground or virtue on account of which it is secured. — Turretin, L. xvii., Qusestio 5. 19. What distinction does the Bomish Church design to signal- ize hy the terms ^^ merit of comlignity\" and tJie ^'' merit of congruity'\" ? The \" merit of condignity \" they teach attaches only to works wrought subsequently to regeneration by the aid of divine grace, and is that degree of merit that intrinsically, and in the way of equal right, not b}^ mere promise or covenant, deserves the reward it attains at God's hands. The \"merit of congruity\" they teach attaches to those good dispositions or works which a man may, previously to regeneration, realize without the aid of divine grace, and which makes it congruous or specially fitting for God to reward the agent by infusing grace into his heart. It is extremely difficult to determine the exact position of the Romish Church on this subject, since different schools of theologians in her midst differ widely, and the decisions of the Council of Trent are studiously ambiguous. The general be- lief appears to be that ability to perform good works springs from grace infused into the sinner's heart for Christ's sake, through the instrumentality of the sacraments, but that after- wards these good works merit, that is, lay for us the founda- tion of a just claim to salvation and glory. Some say, like Bellarmin, \"De Justific,\" 5, 1, and 4, 7, that this merit attaches to the good works of Christians intrinsically, as well as in con- sequence of God's promise; others that these works deserve the reward only because God has promised the reward on the condition of the work. — \"Coun. Trent,\" Sess. vi., Cap. xvi., and canons 24 and 32. 20. What is necessary that a loorh shoidd he in the proper sense of the term meritorious ? Turretin makes five conditions necessary to that end. 1st. That the work be not of debt, or which the worker was under obligation to render. — Luke xvii. 10. 2d. That it is our own, i. e., effected by our own natural energy. 3d. That it be per- fect. 4th. That it be equal to the reward merited. 5th. That 528 SANCTIFICATION. the reward be of justice due to such an act. — Turretin, L. xvii., Qusestio 5. According to this definition, it is evident, from the absohite dependence and obligation of the creature, that he can never merit any reward for whatever obedience he may render to the commands of his Creator. 1st. Because all the strength he works with is freely given by God. 2d. All the service he can render is owed to God. 3d. Nothing he can do can equal the reward of God's favor and eternal blessedness. Under the covenant of works, God graciously promised to reward the obedience of Adam with eternal life. This was a reward, however, not of merit, but of free grace and promise. Every tiling under that constitution depended upon the stand- ing of the person before God. As long as Adam continued without sin, his services were accepted and rewarded according to promise. But from- the moment he forfeited the promise, and lost his standing before God, no work of his, no matter of what character, could merit any thing at the hand of God. 21. How can it be proved that our good loorks, even after the restoration of our person to Gods favor by justification, do not merit heaven ? 1st. Justification proceeds upon the infinite merits of Christ, and on that foundation rests our title to the favor of God and all the infinite consequences thereof Christ's merit, lying at the foundation and embracing all, excludes the possibility of our meriting any thing. 2d. The law demands perfect obedience. — Rom. iii. 23; Gal. v. 3. 3d. We are saved by grace not by works. — Eph. ii. 8, 9. 4th. All good dispositions are graces or gifts of God.— 1 Cor. xv. 10; Phil. ii. 13; 1 Thess. ii. 13. 5th. Eternal life itself is declared to be the gift of God. — 1 John V. 11. 22. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the good ivories of believers, and the reivards promised to them ? Both the work and its reward are branches from the same gracious root. The covenant of grace provides alike for the infusion of grace in the heart, the exercise of this grace in the life, and the rewards of that grace so exercised. It is all of grace, grace for grace, grace added to grace, presented to us in this form of a reward: 1st. That it may act upon us as a rational motive to diligent obedience. 2d. To mark that the gift of heaven and eternal blessedness is an act of strict legal justice (1) in respect to the perfect merits of Christ, (2) in re- spect to God's faithful adherence to his own free promise. — 1 John i. 9. 3d. To indicate that the heavenly reward stands in PERFECTIONISM: PELAGIAN VIEW. 529 a certain gracious proportion to the grace given in the obedi- ence on earth; (1) because God so wills it, Matt. xvi. 27; 1 Cor. iii. 8 ; (3) because the grace given on earth prepares the soul to receive the grace given in heaven, 2 Cor. iv. 17. Is PERFECT SaNCTIFICATION ATTAINABLE BY BeLIEVERS IN ChRIST IN THIS Life?", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "186", "sort_key": 186, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "What,  in  general  terms,  is  perfectionism  ?", "answer": "The various theories of perfectionism all agree in maintain- ing that it is possible for a child of God in this world to become, 1st, perfectly free from sin, 2d, conformed to the law under which they now live. They differ very variously among them- selves, however, 1st, as to what sin is; 2d, as to what law we are now obliged to fulfil; 3d, as to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, whether by nature or by grace. 24. Hoiv does the Pelagian theory of the nature of man and of grace lead to perfectionism ? Pelagians maintain, 1st, as to man's nature, that it was not radically corrupted by the fall, and that every man possesses sufficient power to fulfil all the duties required of him, since God can not in justice demand that which man has not full power to do. 2d. As to God's grace, that it is nothing more than the favorable constitution of our own minds, and the in- fluence exerted on them by the truth he has revealed to us, and the propitious circumstances in which he has placed us. Thus in the Christian church, and with the Christian revelation, men are, in fact, placed in the most propitious circumstances possible to persuade them to perform their duties. It follows from this system directly that every one who wishes may certainly attain perfection by using his natural powers and advantages of posi- tion with sufficient care. — \" Wigger's Historical View of Augus- tinianism and Pelagianism.\" 25. What, according to the Pelagian theory, is tJie nature of the sin from lohich man may be perfectly free; what the laiv luhich he may perfectly fulfil, and ivhat are the means by ivhich this per- fection may be attained? They deny original and inherent corruption of nature, and hold that sin is only voluntary transgression of known law, from which any man may abstain if he will. As to the la.w which man in his present state may perfectly fulfil, they hold that it is the single and original law of God, the requirements of which, however, in the case of every indi- 34 530 -S\"--^ NC T I PICA TIOJV. vicinal subject, are measured by the individual's ability, and opportunities of\" knowledge. As to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, they maintain the plenary ability of man's nattu'al will to discharge all the obligations resting upon him, and they admit the assistance of God's grace only in the sense of the influence of the truth, and other propitious circumstances in persuading man to use his own power. Thus the means of perfect sanctitication are, 1st, man's own volition, 2d, as helped by the study of the Bible, prudent avoidance of temptation, etc.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "187", "sort_key": 187, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "In  what  sense  do  Romanists  hold  the  doctrine  of  perfection?", "answer": "The decisions of the Council of Trent upon the subject, as upon all critical points, are studiously ambiguous. They lay down the principle that the law must be possible to them iipon whom it is binding, since God does not command impossibili- ties. Men justified (sanctified) may by the grace of God dwell- ing in them satisfy the divine law, pro htijus vitce statu, i. e., as graciously for Christ's sake adjusted to our present capacities. They confess, nevertheless, that the just may fall into venial sins every day, and that while in the flesh no man can live entirely without sin (unless by a special privilege of God); yet that in this life the renewecl can fully keep the divine law; and even by the observance of the evangelical counsels do more than is commanded; and thus, as many saints have actually done, lay up a fund of supererogatory merit. — \"Council of Trent,\" Session vi. Compare Chap. xi. and xvi., and Canons 18, 23, and 32. See above. Question 14. 27. In lohat sense do they hold that the reneived may, in this life live loithout sin ; in ivhat sense fully satisfy the law ; and by the use of ivhat means do they teach that this perfection may he attained ? As to sin, they hold the distinction between mortal and venial sins, and that the concupiscence that remains in the bosom of the renewed, as the result of original and the fuel of actual sin, is not itself sin, since sin consists only in the consent of the will to the impulse of concupiscence. In accordance with these views they hold that a Christian in this life may live Avithout committing mortal sins, but that he never can be free from the inward movements of concupiscence, nor from liability to fall through ignorance, inattention, or passion, into venial sins. As to the lav), which a believer in this life may fully satisfy, they hold that as God is just and can not demand of us what PERFECTIONISM: AKMINIAN VIEW. 531 is impossible, his law is gvacionsly adjusted to our present ca- pacities, as assisted by grace, and that it is this law i^ro liujus vitce statu, which we may fulfil. As to the means whereby this perfection may be attained, they hold that divine grace precedes, accompanies, and follows all of our good works, which divine grace is to be sought through those sacramental and priestly channels which Christ has instituted in his church, and especially in the observance of works of prayer, fasting, and alms deeds, and the acquisition of supererogatory merit by the fulfilment of the counsels of Christ to chastity, obedience, and voluntary poverty. — \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. xiv.. Chapter v., Sess. vi.. Chapters xi. and xii., Sess. v., Canon 5; \"Cat. Rom.,\" Part II., Chapter ii.. Question 32, and Part II., Chapter v., Question 59, and Part III., Chapter X., Questions 5-10. 28. In ivhat form loas the doctrine taught hy the early Ar- minians ? Arminius declared that his mind was in suspense upon this subject (\"Writings of Arminius,\" translated by Nichols, Vol. I., p. 256). His immediate successors in the theological leadership of the remonstrant party, developed a theory of perfectionism apparently identical with that taught by Wesley, and professed by his disciples. \"A man can, with the assistance of divine grace, keep all the commandments of God perfectly, according to the gospel or covenant of grace. The highest evangelical perfection (for we are not teaching a legal perfection, which includes sinlessness entire in all respects and in the highest degree, and excludes all imperfection and infirmity, for this we believe to be impossible), embraces two things, 1st, a per- fection proportioned to the powers of each individual; 2d, a desire of making continual progress and increasing one's strength more and more.\" — Episcopius, quoted by Dr. G. Peck, \"Christian Perfection,\" pp. 135 and 136.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "188", "sort_key": 188, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "What  is  the  Wesleyan  doctrine  on  this  subject  ?", "answer": "1st. That although every believer as soon as he is justified is regenerated, and commences the incipient stages of sanctifi- cation, yet this does not exclude the remains of much inherent sin, nor the warfare of the flesh against the Spirit, which may continue for a long time, but which must cease at some time before the subject can be fit for heaven. 2d. This state of progressive sanctification is not itself per- fection, which is properly designated by the phrases \" entire,\" or \"perfect santification.\" This, sooner or later, every heir of glory must experience; although the majority do not reach it 532 SANCTIFICA TION. long before death, it is the attainment of some in the midst of life, and consequently it is the dnty and privilege of all to desire, strive for, and expect its attainment now. 3d. This state of evangelical perfection does not consist in an ability to fulfil perfectly the original and absolute law of holiness under which Adam was created, nor does it exclude all liability to mistake, or to the infirmities of the flesh, and of natural temperament, but it does exclude all inward disposition to sin as well as all outward commission of it, since it consists in a state in which perfect faith in Christ and perfect love for God fills the whole soul and governs the entire life, and thus fulfils all the requirements of the \" law of Christ,\" mider which alone the Christian's probation is now held.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "189", "sort_key": 189, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "In  ivhat  sense  do  they  teach  that  men  may  live  ivithont  sin  ?", "answer": "Mr. Wesley did not himself use, though he did not object to, the phrase \" sinless perfection.\" He distinguished between \" sin, properly so called, i. e., a voluntary transgression of a known law, and sin, improperly so called, i. e., an involuntary trangression of a divine law, known or unknown,\" and declared \" I believe there is no such perfection in this life as excludes these involuntary transgressions, which I apprehend to be nat- urally consequent on the ignorance and mistakes inseparable from mortality.\" He also declares that the obedience of the perfect Christian \" can not bear the rigor of God's justice, but needs atoning blood,\" and consequently the most perfect \" must continually say, ' forgive us our trespasses,' \" and Dr. Peck says that the holier men are here \" the more they loathe and abhor themselves.\" On the other hand they hold that a Christian may in this life attain to a state of perfect and constant love, which fulfils perfectly all the requirements of the gospel cove- nant. Violations of the original and absolute law of God are not counted to the believer for sin, since for him Christ has been made the end of that law for righteousness, and for Christ's sake he has been delivered from that law and been made sub- ject to the \" law of Christ,\" and that only is sin to the Christian which is a violation of this law of love. See Mr. Wesley's \" Tract on Christian Perfection,\" in the volume of \" i\\Iethodist Doctrinal Tracts,\" pp. 294, 310, 312, and Dr. Peck's \"Christian Doc. of Perfection,\" p. 204. 31. What law do they say the Christian can in this life per- fectly obey ? Dr. Peck says, p. 244, \"To fallen humanity, though renewed by grace, perfect obedience to the moral law is inpracticable during the present probationary state. And consequently Chris- PERFECTIONISM:' OBERLIN VIEW. 533 tian perfection does not imply perfect obedience to the moral law.\"_Peck, p. 244. This moral law they hold to be imiversal and unchangea- ble, all moral agents are under perpetual o1:>ligation8 to fulfil it, and they are in no degree released therefrom by their loss of ability through sin. — Peck, p. 271. This law sustains, how- ever, a twofold i-elation to the creature. 1st. It is a rule of being and acting. 2d. It is a condition of acceptance. _ In con- sequence of sin, it became impossible for men to obtain salva- tion by the law, and therefore Christ appeared and rendered to this law perfect satisfaction in our stead, and thus is for us the end of the law for righteousness. This law, therefore, remain- ing forever as a rule of duty, is abrogated by Christ as a condi- tion of our acceptance. \"Nor is any man living bound to observe the Adamic more than the Mosaic law (I mean it is not the condition either of present or future salvation.)\" — \"Doc- trinal Tracts,\" p. 332. \" The gospel, which is the law of love, the ' law of liberty,' offers salvation upon other terms, and yet provides the vindication of the broken law. The condition of justification at first is faith alone, and the condition of continued acceptance is faith icorJdng by hue. There are degrees of faith, and degrees of love. . . . Perfect faith and perfect lov« is Christian perfection.\" \"Christian character is estimated by the conditions of the gospel ; Christian perfection implies the per- fect performance of these conditions and nothing more.\" 32. By what means do they teach this 'perfection is to he at- tained? Wesley says, \" I believe this perfection is always wrought in the soul by a simple act of faith, consequently in an instant. But I believe there is a gradual work, both preceding and fol- lowing that instant.\" — Quoted by Dr. Peck, pp. 47, 48. They hold that this entire sanctification is not to be effected through either the strength or the merit of man, but entirely of grace, for Christ's sake, by the Holy Ghost, through the in- strumentalit}^ of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which faith in- volves our believing, 1st, \" in the sufficiency of the provisions of the gospel for the complete deliverance of the soul from sin.\" 2d. \"That these provisions are made for «s.\" 3d. \"That this blessing is for us noiu.\" — Peck, \"Ch. Doc. Sane,\" pp. 405-407.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "190", "sort_key": 190, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "Whcd  is  the  Oherlin  doctrine  of  perfection?", "answer": "\" It is a full and perfect discharge of our entire duty, of all existing obligations to God, and all other beings. It is perfect obedience to the moral law.\" This is God's original and uni- 534 S A NOTIFICATION. versal law, which, however, always, not because of grace, but of sheer justice, adjusts its demands to the measure of the pres- ent ability of the subject. The law of God can not now justly demand that we should love him as we might have done if we had always improved our time, etc. Yet a Christian may now attain to a state of \"perfect and disinterested benevolence,\" may be, \"according to his knowledge, as upright as God is,\" and as \"perfectly conformed to the will of God as is the will of the inhabitants of heaven.\" And this, Mr. Finney appears to teach, is essential for even the lowest stage of genuine Christian ex- perience. The amount of the matter appears to be, God has a right to demand only that which we have the power to render; therefore, it follows that we have full power to render all that God demands, and, therefore, we may be as perfectly conformed to his will as it regards us, as the inhabitants of heaven are to his will as it regards them.\" Pres. ]\\Iahan, \" Scripture Doctrines of Christian Perfection,\" and Prof Finney, \" Oberlin Evangelist,\" Vol. IV., No. 19, and Vol. IV., No. 15, as quoted by Dr. Peck. 34. State the points of agreement and disagreement betiveen these several theories, Pelagian, jRomish, Arminian, and Oherlin? 1st. They all agree in maintaining that it is possible for men in this life to attain a state in Avhich they may habitually and perfectly fulfil all their obligations, i. e., to be and do perfectly all that God requires them to be or do at present. 2d. The Pelagian theory differs from all the rest, in denying the deterioration of our natural and moral powers, and conse- quently, in denying the necessity of the intervention of super- nmin-al grace to the end of making men perfect. 3d. The Pelajndau and Oberlin theories agree in making the original moral law of God the standard of perfection. The Oberlin theologians, however, admitting that our powers are deteriorated by sin, hold that God's law, as a matter of sheer justice, adjusts its demands to the present ability of the subject. The Romish tlieory regards the same law as the standard of perfection, bflt differs from the Pelagian theory in maintaining that the demands of this law are adjusted to man's deteriorated pQwers; and on the other hand, it differs from the Oberlin the- ory, .by holding that* he lowering of the demands of this law in adjustment to the enfeebled powers of man, instead of being of sheer justice, is of grace for the merits of Christ. The Ar- minian theory differs from all the rest in denying that the orig- inal law is the standard of evangelical perfection; in holding that that law having been •fulfilled by Christ, the Christian is now required only to fulfil the requirements of the gospel cove- PERFECTIONISM : ARGUMENTS. 535 nant of grace. This, however, appears to differ more in form than essence from the Romish position in this regard. 4th. Tlie Romish and Arminian theories acjvee — 1st. In admitting that the perfect Christian is still liable to transgress the provisions of the original moral law, and that he is subject to mistakes and infirmities. The Romanist calls them venial sins; the Arminian, mistakes or infirmities. 2d. In referring all the work of making man perfect to the efficiency of the Holy Ghost, who is given for Christ's sake. But they differ, on the other hand, 1st, as to the nature of that faith by which sanctification is effected, and, 2d, as to the merit of good works. 35. Wliat are tlie arguments upon lohich perfectionists sustain their theory, and how may they he ansivered? 1st. They argue that this perfection is attainaUe in this life, (1.) From the commands of God, who never will command impossibilities. — Matt. v. 48. (2.) From the fact that abundant provision has already been made in the gospel for securing the perfect sanctification of God's people ; in fact, all the provision that ever will be made. (3.) From the promises of God to redeem Israel from all his iniquities, etc. — Ps. cxxx. 8; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-29; 1 John i. 7, 9. (4.) From the prayers of saints recorded in Scripture with implied approval. — Ps. li. 2 ; Heb. xiii. 21. 2d. They argue that this perfection has in. fact been attained, (1.) From biblical examples, as David. — Acts xiii. 22. See also Gen. vi. 9; Job i. 1; Luke i. 6. (2.) Modern examples — Peck's \" Christian Perfection,\" pp. 365-396. ^ We ANSWER — ^r 1st. The Scriptures never assert that a Christian may in this life attain to a state in which he may live withoi^t sin. 2d. The meaning of special passages must be interpreted in consistency with the entire testimony»of Scripture. 3d. The language of Scripture never implies that man may here live without sin. The commands of God are adjusted to man's responsibility, and the aspirations and j^ayers 'of the saints to their duties and ultimate privileges, and not ta their present ability. Perfection is the true ^m of the Christian's effort in every period of growth and in Wery act. The^lprms \"perfect\" and \"blameless\" are often»relative, or used to sig- nify simple genuineness or ^ncerity. This is evident from the recorded fact — 4th. That all the perfect men of the Scriptures sometimes sinned; witness the histories of Noah, Job, David, Paul, and compare Gen. vi. 9, with Gen. ix. 21, and Job i. 1, with Job iii. 1, 536 SANCTIFICA TION.. and ix. 20; also see Gal. ii. 11, 14; Ps. xix. 12; Eom. vii. ; Gal. V. 17; Phil. iii. 12-14. 36. What S2xcicd objedioivs hear against the Pelagian theory of perfection ? This is a part of a wholly Anti-Christian system. Its con- stituent elements are a denial of the Scripture testimony with regard to original sin, and the work of the Spirit of grace in effectual calling, and an assertion of man's ability to save him- self It involves low views of the guilt and tiirpitude of sin, and of the extent, spirituality, and michangeableness of God's holy law. This is the only perfectly consistent theory of perfec- tion ever ventilated, and in the same proj)ortion it is the most thoroughly unchristian.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "191", "sort_key": 191, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "What  special  ohjections  hear  against  the  Romish  theory  ?", "answer": "This theory is inconsistent — 1st. With the true nature of sin. It denies that concupis- cence is sin, and admits as such only those deliberate acts of the will which assent to the impulse of concupiscence. It distin- guishes between mortal and venial sins. The truth is that every sin is mortal, and concupiscence, \"sin dwelling in me,\" \"law in my members,\" is of the very essence of sin. — Rom. vii. 8-23. 2d. It is inconsistent with the nature of God's holy law, which is essentially immutable, and the demands of which have never been lowered in accommodation to the weakened faculties of men. 3d. It is essentially connected with their theory of the merit of good works, and of the higher merit of works of supererogation which is radically subversive of the essentials of the gospel.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "192", "sort_key": 192, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "What  special  ohjections  hear  against  the  Oherlin  theory  ?", "answer": "This theory appears to assimilate more nearly than the others with the terrible self-consistency and the Anti-Christian spirit of the Pelagian view. It differs from that heresy, how- ever, in holding — 1st. That the law of God is. as a matter of sheer justice, accommodated to the weakened faculties of men. 2d. That the shortcomings of men in the present life, as meas- ured by the original law of God, are not sin, since a man's duty is measured only by his ability. 3d. In making the principle of this perfection to consist in \"perfect and disinterested benevolence.\" In all these respects, also, this theory is incon- sistent with the true nature of God's law, the true nature of sin, and the true nature of virtue. PERFECTIONISM : OBJECTIONS. 537", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "193", "sort_key": 193, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "What  special  ohjections  hear  against  the  Arminian  theory  ?", "answer": "This view, as presented by the Wesleyan standard writers, is far less inconsistent with the principles and spirit of Chris- tianity than either of the others, and consequently it is pre- cisely in the same proportion less self-consistent as a theory, and less accurate in its use of technical language. These Chris- tian brethren are to be honored for their exalted views, and earnest advocacy of the duty of pressing forward to the high- est measures of Christian attainment, while it is to be forever lamented that their great founder was so far misled by the prejudices of system as to bind in unnatural alliance so much precious truth with a theory and terminology proper only to radical error. I will make here, once for all, the general ex- planation, that when stating the Arminian doctrine on any point, I have generally preferred to refer to the form in which the doctrine was explicitly defined by the Dutch Remonstrants, rather than to the modified, and, as it seems to me, far less logically definite form in which it is set forth by the author- ities of the Wesleyan churches, who properly style themselves '■''Evangelical Arminians.\" I attribute the peculiar theoretical indefiniteness which appears to render their definitions obscure, especially on the subjects of justification and of perfection, to the spirit of a warm, loving, working Christianity struggling with the false premises of an Arminian philosophy. 1st. While over and over insisting upon the distinction as to the twofold relation sustained by the original law of God to man (1) as a rule of being and acting, (2) as a condition of divine favor, their whole .theory is based upon a logical con- fusion of these two things so distinct. Dr. Peck teaches ear- nestly, and confirms by many Wesleyan testimonies, excellent Calvinistic d-octrine upon the following points: The original law of God is universal and unchangeable, its demands never can be changed nor compromised. Obedience to this law was the condition of the original covenant of works. This condi- tion was broken by Adam, but, in our behalf, perfectly fulfilled by Christ, and thus the integrity of God's changeless law was preserved. Therefore, he goes on to argue, the believer is no longer under the law, but under the covenant of gi'ace, i. e., to use Weslej'^'s own qualifying parenthesis, \"as the condition of either present or future salvation.\" Certainly, we ansicer, Christ is the end of the law for us for righteousness, in its forensic sense, that is, to secure our jvistification, but sui'ely Christ did not satisfy that changeless law, in our place, in such a sense that it does not remain our rule of action, to which it is our duty to be personally conformed. The question of per- 538 SANCTIFICA TION. fection is one wliich relates to onr personal character, not to our relations; it is moral and inherent, and not forensic. To prove, thereibre, what we also rejoice to believe, that the orig- inal law of God, under the gospel covenant, is no Longer onr condiiion of salvation, does not avail one iota towards proving that God, under the gospel, demands an obedience adjusted to any easier standard than was required before. 2d. This theory is part of the Arminian view of the covenant of grace, which we regard so inconsistent with the gospel, and which Mr. Watson (see \"Institutes,\" Part II., Chap, xxiii.) ap- pears to attempt to avoid while refusing to admit the imputa- tion to the believer of Christ's righteousness. This view is, that by Christ's propitiation, he having fulfilled the original law of God, it is made consistent with divine justice to present salvation upon easier conditions, i. e., faith and evangelical obe- dience; Christian perfection requiring nothing more than the perfect fulfilment of these new gracious conditions. Now this view, besides confounding the ideas of law, and of covenant, of a rule, and of a condition, of a ground of justification, and of a standard of sanctification, is inconsistent with the broad teachings of the gospel concerning the righteousness of Christ, and the office of faith in justification. It makes the merit of Christ only in some uncertain and distant way the occasion of our salvation, and faith, and evangelical obedience, in the place of perfect obedience under the old covenant, the ground instead of the mere instrument and fruit of our justification. Logically developed, this theory must lead to the Romish doc- trine as to the merit of good works. 3d. This theory denies that mistij^es and infirmities result- ing from the effects of original sin, are themselves sin, yet admits that they are to be confessed, forgiveness implored for them, and the atonement of Christ's blood applied to them, and that the more perfect a man becomes the more he abhors his own internal state. Surely this is a confusion of language, and abuse of the word sin. What is sin but (1) that which trans- gresses God's original law, (2) which needs Christ's atonement, (3) which should [)e confessed, and must be forgiven, (4) which lays a proper foundation for self-abhorrence. 40. What exiwess declarations of Scripture are contradicted by every possible modification of the theory of Christian perfection? 1 Kings viii. 46; Pro v. xx. 9; Eccle. vii. 20; James iii. 2; 1 John i. 8. 41. Hoio may it he shown to he in opposition to the experience of saints, as recorded in the Scriptures ? PERFECTIONISM DISPROVED. 539 See Paul's account of himself, Rom. vii. 14-25; Phil. iii. 12-14. See case of David, Ps. xix. 12; Ps. li. ; of Moses, Ps. xc. 8; of Job, Job xlii. 5, 6; of Daniel, ix. 20. See Luke xviii. 13; Gal. ii. 11-13; vi. 1; James v. 16. 42. How does it confiid tvith the ordinary experience of God's people ? The more holy a man is, the more humble, self-renouncing, self-abhorring, and the more sensitive to every sin he becomes, and the more closely he clings to Christ. The moral imperfec- tions which cling to him he feels to be sins, laments and strives to overcome them. Believers find that their life is a constant Avarfare, and tliey need to take the kingdom of heaven by storm, and watch while they pray. They are always subject to the con- stant chastisement of their Father's loving hand, which can only be designed to correct their imperfections, and to confirm their graces. And it has been notoriously the fact that the best Christians have been those who have been tlie least prone to 1 claim the attainment of perfection for themselves. 1", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "194", "sort_key": 194, "group": "Chapter XXXV", "question": "What  are  the  legitimate  practical  effects  of  perfectionism  ?", "answer": "The tendency of every such doctrine must be evil, except in so far as it is modified or counteracted by limiting or incon- sistent truths held in connection, which is pre-eminently the case with respect to the Wesleyan view, from the amount of pure gospel which in that instance the figment of perfectionism alloys. But perfectionism, by itself, must tend, 1st, to low views of God's law ; 2d, to inadequate views of the heinousness of sin ; 3d, to a low standard of moral excellence ; 4th, to spir- itual pride and fanaticism. AXTTHOBITATIVE STATEMENTS OF ChUBCH DoCTINE. EoiVnSH DOCTKINE AS TO THE MOEAIj PERFECTION OF THE ReGENEBATE, AS TO Good Wobks, and Wobks of Supebeeogation. As to their view of the MEBiT of good wobks, see above, Chap. XXXECI. '^ Cone. Trident.,\" Sess. 5, can. 5. — \"If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; biit says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema But this holy Synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin). . . . This concu- piscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those horn af/ai/>, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin. If any man is of a contrary sentiment, let him be anathema.\" 540 SANCTIFICA TION. \"Cone. Trident.\" Sess. 6, can. 18. — \"If anyone says that tlie com- mandments of God, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, are impossible to keep, let him be anathema. \" Belliinnin, ''De Jusiijjc,\" iv. 10, sqq. — \"If precepts are impossible, they oblige no one, and hence the precejits are not precepts. Neither is it possible to devise wherein any one sins in respect to that which it is imjiossible to avoid.\" Ibid, \"De Monachis,\" caja. 7. — \"A 'council of perfection' we caU a good work, not commanded us by Christ, but declared; not aiapointed but commended. But it differs from a precept in respect to its matter, subject, form, and end. (1.) In respect to their matter (the difference) is twofold. First, because the matter of the precept is easier, that of the counsel more difficult, for the former is derived from the principles of nature, while the latter in some sense exceeds nature, e. g., for nature inclines to the preservation of conjugal fidelity, but not to ab.staining from the conjugal relation. Secondli/, because the matter of the precept is good . . . for the council includes the precept, which relates to the same matter, and adds something beyond the precejit. (2.) In re- spect to the subject, precepts and counsels difi'er, because the jarecept binds all men in common, while the counsel does not. (3.) In respect to their form they differ, because the precept binds of its own inherent obligation, but the counsel through the will of man. (4. ) In respect to their end or effects they differ, because the precept observed has a reward, but when not observed a penalty, but the counsel when not observed has no penalty, but when observed has the greater reward.\" Cap. 8. — \"It is the opinion of all Catholics that there are many true and proper evan- gelical counsels, but especially, viz., celibacy, j)overty, and obedience (monastic), which are neither commanded to all, nor matters of indiffer- ence, but grateful to God and by him commended (Matt. xix. 11, sq., 21; 1 Cor. vii. 1-7).\" Lutheran Docteine. '^Apolor/i/for Aufiburg Con/.,\" p. 91. — \"The entire Scriiiture and the whole church declare that the Law can not be satisfied (by any thing within man's power since the fall). This incomplete fulfilling of the law is accepted, not on its own account, but only through faith in Christ. Otherwise the Law always accuses us. . . In this infirmity there is always sin, which may be charged to our account (for condemnation).\" ^'Formula Cuncordice,\" p. 678. — \"The papal and monastic doctrine, that a man after he is regenerated is able perfectly to fulfill the law of God in this life, is to be rejected.\" lb., Y>. 589. — \"Our Confession is, that good works most surely and indubitably follow a true faith, as the fruits of a good tree. We also believe that good works are entirely to be left out of account, not only when we are treating of justification, but even when we are debating con- cerning oi;r eternal life.\" lb., 13. 700. — \" Because those are not good works, which any one him- seK devises with good intention, or which are done according to human traditions ; but those which God himself has jjrescribed and ordered in his own word. ' Because works truly good can be performed, not by the proper natiii-al powers, but then only when the person is, by faith, recon- ciled with God, and is renewed by the Spirit, and is created anew to good works, in Jesus Christ. \" Keformed Doctrine. '■'Heidellterg Odechism,\" Q. 62. — \"Our best works in the present life are all imperfect and stained with sin.\" AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 541 '\"niirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,\" Art. 12. — \"Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of faith, and follow after Justification, can not put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment ; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith; insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit. \" lb., Art. 14. — \" Voluntary works besides, over and above, God's com- mandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, can not be taught without arrogancy and impiety; for by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is requu-ed: whereas Christ saith jDlainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.\" \"■Confess. Helvetica posterior ,'''' p. 498. — \"We teach that God gives an ample reward to those doing good works. Yet we refer this reward that the Lord gives, not to the merit of the men receiving it, but to the goodness, liberality, and truth of God, who promises and bestows it ; who, while he owes nothing to any one, yet has promised that he will give a reward to his faithful worshippers.\" ''West. Conf. of Faith,'' ch. 16, | 4. — \" They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, that they fall short of much, which in theu' duty they are bound to do \" (see the whole chapter). lb., chap. 13, I 2. — \"This sanctificatiou is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of cor- rujition in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spii'it against the flesh.\" ^ 3. — \" In which war, although the remaining corrujstion for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome : and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. \"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "195", "sort_key": 195, "group": "Chapter XXXVI", "question": "Wliat  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Romish  Church  on  this  subject  ?", "answer": "\"Council of Trent,\" Sess. vi., Canon 23. \"If any one main- tain that a man once justified can not lose grace, and, therefore, that he who falls and sins never was truly justified, let him be accursed.\" — See below, under Eomish doctrine in this chapter, their view as to \"venial sins.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "196", "sort_key": 196, "group": "Chapter XXXVI", "question": "What  is  the  Anninian  doctrine  on  this  point  ?", "answer": "It is an inseparable part of the Arrainian system, flowing necessarily from their views of election, of the design and effect of Christ's death, and of sufficient grace and free will, that those who were once justified and regenerated may, by neglecting grace and grieving the Holy Spirit, fall into such sins as are inconsistent with true justifying faith, and continu- ing and dying in the same, may consequently finally fall into perdition. — \"Confession of the Remonstrants,\" xi. 7. The Lu- therans and the Arminians agree on this point. They both believe that the \"elect\" (those whom God has chosen to eter- nal life because he has certainly foreseen their perseverance in faith and obedience to the end) can not finally apostatize. The true question between them and the Calvinists, therefore, is not whether the \"elect,\" but whether those once truly \"regenerate and justified\" can finally apostatize and perish. 5. What objection is iirged against the orthodox doctrine on the ground of the free agency of man? Those who deny the certainty of the final perseverance of the saints hold the false theory that liberty of the will consists in indifference, or the power of contrary choice, and conse- quently that certainty is inconsistent with liberty. This fal- lacy is disproved above. Chap. XV., see especially Ques. 25, 2Q. That God does govern the free acts of his creatures, as a matter of fact, is clear from history and prophecy, from uni- versal Christian consciousness and experience, and from Script- ure.— Acts ii. 23; Eph. i. 11; Phil. ii. 13; Prov. xxi. 1. That he does secure the final perseverance of his people in a manner perfectly consistent with their free agency is also clear. He changes their affections and thus determines the will by its own free spontaniety. He brings them into the position of children by adoption, surrounding them with all of the sources and instruments of sanctifying influence, and when they sin he 544 PERSEVERANCE. carefully chastises and restores them. Hence the doctrine of Scripture is not that a man who has once truly believed is secure of ultimate salvation, subsequently feel and act as he may; but, on the contrary, that God secures the ultimate sal- vation of every one who is once truly united to his Son by faith, by securing, through the power of the Holy Ghost, his most free perseverance in Christian feeling and obedience to the end. 6. What objection is urged against the orthodox doctrine upon the ground of its supposed unfavorable iyifuence upon morality ? The objection charged is, that this doctrine, \"once in grace always in grace,\" must naturally lead to carelessness, through a false sense of security in our present position, and of confi- dence that God will secure our final salvation independently of our own agency. Although it is certain, on the part of God, that if we are elected and called, we shall be saved ; yet it requires constant watchfulness, and diligence, and prayer to make that calling and election sure to us. — 2 Pet. i. 10. That God powerfully works with us, and therefore secures for us success in our con- test with sin, is in Scripture urged as a powerful reason not for sloth, but for diligence. — Phil. ii. 13. The orthodox doctrine does not affirm certainty of salvation because we have once believed, but certainty of perseverance in holiness if we have truly believed, which perseverance in holiness, therefore, in opposition to all weaknesses and temptations, is the only sure evidence of the genuineness of past experience, or of the validity of our confidence as to our future salvation, and surely such an assurance of certainty can not encourage either carelessness or immorality. 7. What objection to this doctrine is founded on the exhortations to diligence; and on tJie ivarnings of danger in case of carelessness^ addressed to believers in the Scriptures ? The objection alleged is, that these exhortations and warn- ings necessarily imply the contingency of the believer's salva- tion, as conditioned upon the believer's continued faithfulness, and consequently involving liability to apostasy. We answer — 1st. The outward word necessarily comes to all men alike, addressing them in the classes in which they regard themselves as standing; and as professors, or \"those who think they stand,\" are many of them self-deceived, this outward word truly implies the uncertainty of their position (as far as man's knowledge goes), and their liability to fall. OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 545 2d. That God secures the perseverance in holiness of all his true people by the use of means adapted to their nature as rational, moral, and free agents. Viewed in themselves they are alwaj^s, as God warns them, unstable, and therefore, as he exhorts them, they must diligently cleave to his grace. It is always true, also, that if they apostatize they shall be lost; but by means of these very threatenings his Spirit graciously secures them from apostasy. 8. What special texts are relied upon to rebut the arguments of the orthodox upon this subject ? Ezek. xviii. 24; Matt. xiii. 20, 21; 2 Pet. ii. 20, 21, and espe- cially Heb. vi. 4-6 ; x. 26. All of these passages may be naturally explained in perfect consistency Avitli the orthodox docti'ine which is supported upon that wide range of Scripture evidence we have set forth above. Question 2. They present either, 1st, hypothetical warnings of the consequences of apostasy with the design of preventing it, by showing the natural consequences of indifference and of sin, and the necessity for earnest care and effort; or, 2d, they indicate the dreadful consequences of misimproving or of abus- ing the influences of common grace, which, although involving great responsibility, nevertheless come short of a radical change of nature or genuine conversion. 9. What argument do the opponents of this doctrine urge from Bible examples and from our own daily experience of apostates? They cite from the Scriptures such instances as that of David and Peter, and they refer to the many examples of the apos- tasy of well-accredited professors, with which, alas ! we are all familiar. All these examples, however, fall evidently under one of two classes, either, 1st, they were from the beginning without the real power of godliness, although bearing so fair an appear- ance of life in the sight of their fellow-men, Rom. ii. 28 ; ix. 6 ; 1 John ii. 19; Rev. iii. 1; or, 2d, they are true believers who, because of the temporary withdrawal of restraining grace, have been allowed to backslide for a time, while in every such case they are graciously restored, and that generally by chastise- ment.— Rev, iii. 19. Of this class were David and Peter. No true Christian is capable of deliberate apostasy; his furthest departure from righteousness being occasioned by the sudden impulse of passion or fear. — Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Luke xxii. 31. 546 PERSEVERANCE. AuTHOEITATrVE STATEMENTS OF ChuKCH DoCTEINE. EOMISH DOCTKINE. ^'■Conc. Trident.,''' Sess. 6, ch. 15. — \"It is to be maintained that the received grace of justificiition is lost, not only by infidelity, whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin whatever, though faith be not lost.\" lb., can. 23. — \"If any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified . . . let him be anathema.\" lb., chap. 11. — \"For, although, during this mortal life, men how holy and just soever, at times fall at least into hght and daily sins, which are also called venial, not therefore do they cease to be just.\" lb., Sess. 14, ch. 5. — \"For venial sins, whereby we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which we fall more frequently, although they be rightly and profitably, and without any presumjition, declared in confession, as the custom of pious persons demonstrates, yet may they be omitted withoiit guilt, and be expiated by many other remedies. But, \"whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of them all from God, with a modest and open confession.\" Bellarmia, \" De Amii^s. Ora.,\" Sess. 14, cap. 5.— \" (1.) Venial sin is distinguished from mortal sin, as of its own nature, and without any relation to the jsredestination or the mercy of God, or to the state of the regenerate, deserving a certain but not an eternal punishment. (2. ) These sins are either venial from their own nature, having for their object a thing evil and inordinate, but which does not oppose the love of God and of our neighbor — as an idle word, or they are venial from the imperfec- tion of the action, i. e., (a) such as are not perfectly voluntary (delib- erate), as arising from a sudden movement of cupidity or anger, and (b) such as relate to trifles, as the theft of one obolus.\" LtJTHEKAN Doctrine. \"Fonnxla Concoi'due,\" p. 705. — \"That false opinion is to be earnestly confuted and rejected, which certain feign, that faith, and realized jus- tification, and salvation itself, can not be lost by any sins or crimes whatsoever.\" lb., p. 591. — \"We condemn that dogma, that faith in Christ is not lost, and that the Holy Spirit continues to dwell none the less in a man, although he knowingly and willingly sins, and that the sanctified and elect retain the Holy Spirit, although they fall into adulteries or other crimes, and persevere in them.\" ''Apol. Aug. Con/.,\" p. 71. — \"Faith can not coexist with mortal sin.\" lb., !>. 86. — \"That faith, which receives remission of sins . . does not remain in those who indulge their lusts, neither can it coexist with mortal sin.\" Befokmed Doctrine. \" Can. of the Si/aod of Dart,\" ch. 5, c. 3.— \"Because of the remains of indwelling sin . . . the converted could not continue in this grace, if they were left to their own strength. But God is faithful, who confirms them in the grace once mercifully conferred on them, and pow- erfully preserves them in the same, even unto the end. Can. 4. — But though that power of God, confirming the truly faithful in grace, and preserving them, is greater than what can be overcome by the flesh, yet the converted are not always so influenced and moved by God, that they can not depart in certain ijarticular actions, from the leading of grace, AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 547 and be seduced by the lusts of tlie flesh, and obey them. They may fall even into grievous and atrocious sins Can. 5. — But by such enormous sins they exceedingly olfend God, they incur the guilt of death, they grieve the Holy Spirit, they interrupt the exercise of faith, they most grievously wound conscience, and they sometimes lose for a time the sense of grace, until by serious repentance returning into the way, the paternal countenance of God again shines upon them. Can. 6. For God, who is rich in mercy, from his immutable purpose of election, does not whollj^ take away his Holy Spirit from his own, even in lamen- table falls, nor does he so permit them to glide down that they should fall from the grace of adoption, and the state of justification, or commit the sin unto death, or against the Holy Spirit, that being deserted by him, they should cast themselves headlong into eternal destruction. . . Can. 8. — So that not by their own merits or strength, but by the gratui- tous mercy of God they (the elect) obtain it, that they neither totally fall from faith and grace, nor finally continue in their falls and perish.\" \" Wesit. Gonf. Faith,\" ch. 17, § 1.— \"They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, elfectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved. § 2. — This perse- verance of the saints depends not upon their own free-will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and un- changeable love of God the Father; upon the efiicacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.\" XXXVII. DEATH, AND THE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 1. What department o/tJieology are we noiu entering^ and what subjects are embraced in it ? The department of Eschatology or the discussion of last things ra sdxara. It embraces the subjects of death, the state of the soul after death, the second advent of Christ, the resur- rection of the dead, the final judgment, the end of the world, heaven and hell.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "197", "sort_key": 197, "group": "Chapter XXXVI", "question": "By  ivhat  forms  of  expression  is  death  described  in  the  Bible?", "answer": "A departure out of this world. — 2 Tim. iv. 6. A going the way of all the earth. — Josh, xxiii. 14. A being gathered to one's fathers. Judges ii. 10; and to one's people, Deut. xxxii. 50. A dissolving the earthly house of this tabernacle. — 2 Cor. V. 1. A returning to the dust. — Eccle. xii. 7. A sleep. — John xi. 11. A giving up the ghost. — Acts v. 10. A being absent from the body and present Avith the Lord. — 2 Cor. v. 8. Sleep- ing in Jesus. — 1 Thess. iv. 14", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "198", "sort_key": 198, "group": "Chapter XXXVI", "question": "What  is  death  ?", "answer": "The suspension of the personal union between the body and the soul, followed by the resolution of the body_ into its chemical elements, and the introduction of the soul into that separate state of existence which may be assigned to it by its Creator and Judge. — Eccle. xii. 7.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "199", "sort_key": 199, "group": "Chapter XXXVI", "question": "Hoiv  does  death  stand  related  to  sin  ?", "answer": "The entire penalty of the law, including all the spiritual, physical, and eternal penal consequences of sin, is called death in Scripture. The sentence was, \"The day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.\" — Gen. ii. 17; Rom. v. 12. That this in- cluded natural death is proved by Eom. v. 13, 14; and from the fact that when Christ bore the penalty of the law it was necessary for him to die. — Heb. ix. 22. IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL. 549", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "200", "sort_key": 200, "group": "Chapter XXXVI", "question": "Why  do  the  justified  die  ?", "answer": "Justification changes the entire federal relation of its sub- ject to the law, and raises him forever above all the penal con- sequences of sin. Death, therefore, while remaining a part of the penalty of the unsatisfied law in relation to the unjust, is like all other afflictions changed, in relation to the justified, into an element of improving discipline. It is made necessary for them from the present constitution of the body, while it is to both body and soul the gateway of heaven. They are made free from its sting and fear. — 1 Cor. xv. 55, 57; Heb. ii. 15. They are now \" blessed \" in deatli because they die \" in the Lord,\" Rev. xiv. 13, and they shall at last be completely deliv- ered from its power when the last enemy shall be destroyed. 1 Cor. XV. 26. 6. What evidence have we of tJie immateriality of tJie soul, and what argument may he derived from that source in proof of its con- tinued existence after death ? For the evidence establishing the immateriality of the soul see Chap. II., Question 18. Now although the continued existence of any creature must depend simply upon the will of its Creator, that will may either be made known by direct revelation, or inferred in any partic- ular instance by analogical reasoning from what is known of his doings in other cases. As far as this argument from anal- ogy goes it decidedly confirms the belief that a spiritual sub- stance is, as such, immortal. The entire range of human ex- perience fails to make us acquainted with a single instance of the annihilation of an atom of matter, i. e., of matter as such. Material bodies, organized or chemically compounded, or mere mechanical aggregations, we observe constantly coming into existence, and in turn passing away, yet never through the an- nihilation of their elementary constituents or component parts, but simply from the dissolution of that relation which these parts had temporarily sustained to each other. Spirit, how- ever, is essentially simple and single, and therefore incapable of that dissolution of parts to which material bodies are subject. We infer, therefore, that spirits are immortal since they can not be subject to that only form of death of which we have any knowledge. 7. What arguinent in favor of the immortality of the soul may he derived from its imperfect development in this ivorld ? In every department of organized life every individual crea- ture, in its normal state, tends to grow toward a condition 550 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. of complete development, which is the perfection of its kind. The acorn both prophesies and groAvs toward the oak. Every human being, however, is conscious that in this life he never attains that completeness which the Creator contemplated in the ideal of his type ; he has faculties undeveloped, capacities unfulfilled, natural desires unsatisfied ; he knows he was de- signed to be much more than he is, and to fill a much higlier sphere. As the prophetic reason of the Creator makes provi- sion for the butterfly through the instinct of the caterpillar, so the same Creator reveals the immortal existence of the soul in a higher sphere by means of its conscious limitations and in- stinctive movements in this. 8. Wliat argument on this subject may he derived fr<ym the dis- trihutive justice of God? It is an invariable judgment of natural reason, and a funda- mental doctrine of the Bible, that moral good is associated with happiness, and moral evil with misery, by the unchangeable nature and purpose of God. But the history of all individuals and communities alike establishes the fact that this life is not a state of retribution ; that here wickedness is often associated with prosperity, and moral excellence with sorrow; we must hence conclude that there is a future state in which all that appears at present inconsistent with the justice of God shall be adjusted. — See Ps. Ixxiii.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "201", "sort_key": 201, "group": "Chapter XXXVI", "question": "Hoiu  do  the  operations  of  conscience  point  to  a  future  state  ?", "answer": "Conscience is the voice of God in the soul, which witnesses to our sinfulness and ill-desert, and to his essential justice. Except in the case of those who have fovnid refuge in the righteousness of Christ, every man feels that his moral rela- tions to God are never settled in this life, and hence the char- acteristic testimony of the human conscience, in spite of great individual differences as to light, sensibility, etc., has always been coincident with the word of God, that \"after death comes the JUDGMENT.\" 10. How is this doctrine established by the general consent of manJcind ? This has been the universal faith of all men, of all races, and in all ages. Universal consent, like every universal effect, must be referred to an equally universal cause, and this con- sent, uniform among men differing in every other possible rcr spect, can be referred to no common origin other than the con- stitution of man's common nature, which is the testimony of his Maker. THE OLD TESTAMENT DOCTRINE. 551 11. Sliow that the Old Testament teaches the same distinction between soul and body that is taught in the New Testament. 1st. In the account of the creation. The body was formed of the dust of the earth, and the soul in the image of the Al- mighty.— Gen. i. 26; ii. 7. 2d. In the definition of death. — Eccle. xii. 7. \" Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall re- turn to God who gave it.\" — See also Eccle. iii. 21. 12. What does the Old Testament teach concerning Sheol? and how is it shown, from the usage of that icord, that tJie immortality of the soul loas a doctrine of the ancient covenant? Sheol is derived from the verb h^f^ to ask, expressing the sense of our English proverb, that the \"grave crieth give, give.\" It is used in the Old Testament to signify, in a vague and gen- eral sense, the state of the departed, both the good and bad, intermediate between death and the resurrection of the right- eous (Hosea xiii. 14), generally invested with gloomy associa- tions, and i^idefinitely referred to the lower parts of the earth. Deut. xxxii. 22 ; Amos ix. 2. Thus_it is used for grave as the j;ec&ptacle of the body^after death (Gen. xxxvii. 35; Job xiv. 13), but principally to designate the receptacle of departed spirits, without explicit reference to any division between the stations allotted to the righteous and the wicked. That they were active and conscioiis in this state appears to be indicated by what is revealed of Samuel. — 1 Sam. xxviii. 7-20; Is. xiv. 15-17. With regard to the good, however, the residence in Sheol was looked upon only as intermediate between death and a happy resur- rection.— Ps. xlix. 15. In their treatment of this whole subject, the Old Testament Scriptures rather take the continued exist- ence of the soul for granted, than explicitly assert it. — Fair- bairn's \"Herra. Manual\"; \" Josephus' Ant.,\" xviii., 1. 13. What is the purport of our Saviours argument on this sub- ject against the Sadducees? Luke XX. 37, 38. Long after the death of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Jehovah designated himself to Moses as their God. Ex. iii. 6. But, argues Christ against the Sadducee who denied the resurrection of the dead, \" he is tlie God, not of the dead, but of the living.\" This more immediately proves the immor- tality of their souls, but as God is the covenant God of persons, and as the persons of these patriarchs included alike body and soul, this argument likewise establishes the ultimate immor- tality of the body also, i. e., of the entire person. 552 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. 14 What passages of the Old Testament assert or imply the Jwpe of a state of blessedness after death ? Num. xxiii. 10; Job xix. 26, 27; Ps. xvi. 9-11; xvii. 15; xlix. 14, 15; Ixxiii. 24-26; Is. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19; Hosea xiii. 14; Dan. xii. 2, 3, 13. 15. What other evidence does the Old Testament afford of the continued existence of the soul ? 1st. The translations of Enoch and Elijah, and the tempo- rary reappearance of Samuel. — Gen. v. 24 ; Heb. xi. 5 ; 2 Kings ii. 11; 1 Sam. xxviii. 7-20. 2d. The command to abstain from the arts of necromancy implies the prevalent existence of a belief that the dead still continue in being in another state. — Deut. xviii. 11, 12. 3d. In their symboHcal system Canaan represents the per- manent inheritance of Christ's people, and the entire purpose of the whole Old Testament revelation, as apprehended by Old Testament believers, had respect to a future existence and in- heritance after deatii. This is directly asserted in the New Testament. — Acts xxvi. 6-8 ; Heb. xi. 10-16 ; Eph. i. 14. 16. What does the New Testament teach of the state of the soul immediately after death ? \"The souls of the righteous, being made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God in light and glory, Avaiting for the full redemption of their bodies.\"— Luke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. v. 6, 8; Phil. i. 23, 24. \"And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they re- main in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.\" — Luke xvi. 23, 24; Jude v. 6, 7. \"Confes- sion of Faith,\" Chap, xxxii., § 1. This statement represents the doctrine of the Lutheran and Keformed churches. It includes the following points: 1st. The state of souls between death and the resurrection may properly be called intermediate when viewed with relation to the states which precede and follow. 2d. Whether there be also an intermedi- ate place or not the Scriptures do not definitely declare, but they suggest it. — See below, Ch. XL., Ques. 3. 3d. The souls both of the righteous and the lost continue during this state active and conscious. 4th. The moral and spiritual character and destiny of each is irrevocably decided at death either for good or evil. 5th. The righteous are immediately made per- fect in holiness. 6th. They pass at once and remain during the whole period in the presence of Christ. 7th. This interme- HADES, PARADISE, AND GEHENNA. 553 diate differs from the final state of the redeemed — (1.) Because of the absence of the body. (2.) Because redemption is not yet realized in its final stage. 17. What is the signification and usage of the ivord aiSr]<i, Hades, in Scripture? \"AiSrj^, from a primitive, and idsiv, designates generally the invisible world inhabited by the spirits of dead men. Among the ancient classical heathen, this invisible world was regarded as consisting of two contrasted regions, the one called Elysium, the abode of the blessed good, and the other Tartarus, the abode of the vicious and miserable. It was used by the authors of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word Slieol, compare Acts ii. 27, and Ps. xvi. 10. In the New Testament this word occurs only eleven times. Matt. xi. 23; xvi. 18; Luke x. 15; xvi. 23; Acts ii. 27, 31; 1 Cor. XV. 55; Kev. i. 18; vi. 8; xx. 13, 14. In every case, except 1 Cor. xv. 55, where the more critical editions of the original substitute the word OdvavE in the place of adrj, hades is translated hell, and certainly always represents the invisible world as under the dominion of Satan, as opposed to the king- dom of Christ, and as finally subdued under his victorious power. See Fairbairn's \" Herm. ]\\Ianual.\" 18. What is tJw signification and usage of the words napadetdoi and ydevva? JJapddEido';, Paradise, derived from some oriental language, and adopted into both the Hebrew and Greek languages, sig- nifies parks, pleasure gardens. — Neh. ii. 8; Eccle. ii. 5. The Septuagint translators use this word to represent the garden of Eden. — Gen. ii. 8, etc. It occurs only three times in the New Testament, Luke xxiii. 43 ; 2 Cor. xii. 4 ; Rev. ii. 7 ; where the context proves that it refers to the \" third heavens,\" the garden of the Lord, in which grows the \"tree of life,\" which is by the river which flows out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. xxii. 1, 2. new a is a compound Hebrew word, expressed in Greek letters, signifying \"Valley of Hinnom, Josh. xv. 8, skirting Jerusalem on the south, running westward from the valley of Jehosaphat, luider Mount Zion. Here was established the idol- atrous Avorship of Moloch, to whom infants were burned in sac- rifice.— 1 Kings xi. 7. This worship was broken up and the place desecrated by Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii. 10-14, after which it appears to have become the receptacle for all the filth of the city, and of the dead bodies of animals, and of malefactors, to consume which fires would appear to have been from time to time kept 554 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. np, hence called Tophet, an abomination, a vomit, Jer. vii. 31.\" Robinson's \" Greek Lex.\" By a natural figure, therefore, this word was used to designate the place of final punishment, forci- bly carrying with it the idea of pollution and misery. It occiu'S twelve times in the New Testament, and always to signify the place of final torment— Matt. v. 22, 29, 30; x. 28; xviii. 9; xxiii. 15, 33; Mark ix. 43, 47; Luke xii. 5; James iii. 6. 19. What various vieivs are maintained as to the intermediate state of the souls of men between death and the judgment ? 1st. Many Protestants, especially of the Church of England, retaining the classical sense of the word Hades, as equivalent to the Jewish Sheol (as given above. Question 12), hold that there is an intermediate region, consisting of two distinct de- partments, in one or other of which the disembodied souls, both of the lost and of the redeemed, respectively await the resur- rection of their bodies, tlie award of judgment, and their trans- lation to their final abodes of bliss or misery. They differ from the common Protestant doctrine chiefly — (1.) In j^ositively as- serting that the place as well as the state is intermediate. (2.) In asserting that it is situated \"under\" in respect to this world. (3.) In holding that it is not the \"highest heavens\" where God manifests his special presence, and where Christ habitualh/ abides. — See the Rev. E. H. Bickersteth's \" Yesterday, To-day, and Forever,\" and \" Hades and Heaven, or State of the Blessed Dead.\" 2d, For the complete statement of the doctrine of the Ro- manists, see below. Question 22. 3d. Materialists and some Socinians hold that the souls of men remain in a state of unconsciousness or suspended life from death until the moment of the resurrection. This opinion is also held by the advocates of the ultimate annihilation of the wicked, and advocated most ably by C. F. Hudson in America, and as probable by the late Archbishop Whately in England (\"View of Sc. Concerning a Future State\"). The arguments are — (1) We have no experience and can form no conception of conscious mental activity in a disem- bodied state. (2.) That the Scriptural evidence relied upon for the support of the church doctrine is obscure and inconclusive. (3.) That the original and simple meaning of the word death is \"extinction of being.\" God said to Adam, \"The day thou eat- est thereof thou,\" not thy body, but thyself, \"shall surely die.\" Matt. X. 28. (4.) That the great prominence afforded in the NeAv Testament to the future resurrection of the body, as the effect of redemption, and the object of Christian hope, proves that the only future life the apostles expected was subsequent THE SOUL CONSCIOUS AND ACTIVE. 555 to and dependent upon that event. — 1 Cor. xv. 14. (5.) They quote many passages to prove that the Scriptures teach that the dead remain at present in a state of bodily and spiritual inactivity. — Ps. vi. 5. \"For in death there is no remembrance of thee, in the grave wlio shall give thee thanks.\" — Ps. cxlvi. 4; Jer. li. 57. This doctrine was first taught by certain heretics in Arabia in the time of Origen, called Thnetopsychites. It was revived as an opinion of some theologians in the thirteenth and four- teenth centuries, but condemned by the University of Paris, 1240, and by Pope Benedict XII., 1366. It was revived by some Anabaptist and refuted by Calvin in his \"Psychopan- nychia, etc.\" It has never been held by any church or per- manent school of theologians. Isaac Taylor, in his \"Physical Theory of Another Life,\" ch. 17, concludes, purely on Biblical grounds, that the intermediate state of redeemed souls is one \"not of unconsciousness indeed, but of comparative inaction, or of suspended energy. A tran- sition state during the continuance of which the passive facul- ties of our nature rather than the active are to aAvake.\" 20. State the Scriptural grounds upon tvhicli the Protestant doctrine stated above., Ques. 16, rests. Ist. The reappearance of Samuel in the use of all his facul- ties.— 1 Sam. xxviii. 7-20. The appearance of Moses and Elias at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount. — Matt. xvii. 3. Christ's address to the thief upon the cross. — Luke xxiii. 43. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus. — Luke xvi. 23, 24. The praj^er of dying Stephen. — Acts vii. 59. In 2 Cor. v. 1-8 Paul declares that to be at home in the body is to be absent from the Lord, and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and hence he says (Phil. i. 21-24) that for him to die is gain, and that he was in a strait betwixt two, \"having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better, never- theless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.\" He de- clares (1 Thess. V. 10) that the sleep of death is a living together with Christ. — See also Eph. iii. 15; Heb. vi. 12-20; Acts i. 25; Jude 6, 7; Heb. xii. 23; Rev. v. 9; vi. 9-11; vii. 9, and xiv. 1, 3. 21. Hoio can it he shoivn that the Intermediate State does not afford afwtlier probation for those who depart from this life out of Christ ? An opinion is becoming prevalent among some classes of Protestants that another opportunity for repentance and faith will be afforded to Christless souls between death and the res- urrection. That this is unfounded appears — 1st. From the fact 556 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. that it is nowhere taught in Scripture. It is a hope at best suggested by the wish, but without any foundation in the Avord of God. Even if the \" preaching to the spirits in prison \" (1 Pet. iii. ID) is rightly referred to Christ's personal ministry in the sphere of the intermediate state, it certainly did not apply to those who had rejected him on earth, and it would, in that case, probably apply only to true believers under the Old Testament Dispensation, as the Catholic Church has always taught. 2d. The assumption is built upon the grossly unchris- tian principle that God owes to all men a favorable opportunity of knowing and of receiving Christ. If this Avere true the gos- pel would be of debt and not of grace. 3d. All the teaching of Christ and his apostles implies the contrary. \" It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.\" — Heb. ix. 27. \"I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins; whither I go ye can not come.\" — John viii. 21. \" And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that they Avliich would pass from hence to you, can not, neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.\" — Luke xvi. 26; Eev. xxii. 11. 4th. The law of habit, and of confirmed moral character would, of course, even if conditions of repentance were offered, render the moral state of the sinner far more obdurate and hopeless in the intermediate state, than it was during the earthly life. The \" Hope,\" is as much unwarranted by reason as it is by revelation. 22. What do Romanists teach luitli regard to the souls of men after death? 1st. That the souls of unbaptized infants go to a place pre- pared expressly for them, called the '■^limbus infantum\" where they endure no positive suffering, although they do not enjoy the vision of God. This is placed in a higlier part of the Infernus which the fires can not reach, and they suffer only a paenam damni (penalty of loss), and have no share in the pmnam sensics (penalty of actual suffering), which afflicts adult siiniers. 2d. That all unbaptized adults, and all those who subse- quently have lost the grace of baptism by mortal sin, and die unreconciled to the church, go immediately to hell. 3d. That those believers wlio have attained to a state of Christian perfection go immediately to heaven. 4th. That the great mass of partially sanctified Christians dying in fellowship with the church, yet still encumbered with imperfections, go to purgatory, where they suff\"er, more or less intensely, for a longer or shorter period, until their sins are both atoned for and purged out, when they are translated to heaven, ROMISH DOCTRINE STATED AND REFUTED. 557 during- which intermediate period they may be efficiently as- sisted by the prayers and labors of their friends on earth. 5th. That Old Testament believers were gathered into a re- gion called '■'•llmhus fcdrnm',' called \"Abraham's bosom,\" where they remained without the beatific vision of God, yet without suifering, until Christ, during the three days in which his body lay in the grave, came and released them. — 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. \"Cat. Rom.\" Part I., Chapter vi., Question 3; \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. xxv., de Purgatorio. As to purgatory the Council of Trent settled only two points, 1st, that there is a purgatory ; 2d, that souls therein may be ben- efited by the prayers and mass of the church on earth. It is generally held, however, that its pains are both nega- tive and positive. That the instrument of its sufferings is ma- terial fire. That these are dreadful and indefinite in extent. That satisfaction may be rendered in this world on much easier terms. That while there their souls can neither incur guilt nor merit any thing, they can alone render satisfaction for their sins by means of passive sufferings. They confess that this doctrine is not taught directly in Scripture, but maintain, 1st, that it follows necessarily from their general doctrine of the satisfaction for sins; 2d, that Christ and the apostles taught it incidentally as they did infant baptism, etc. They refer to Matt. xii. 32; 1 Cor. iii. 15, 23. How may the Anti- Christian character of this doctrine he shoivn ? 1st. It confessedly has no direct, and obviously no real foundation in Scripture. This consideration alone suffices. 2d. It proceeds upon an entirely unchristian view of the method of satisfying divine justice for sins. (1.) That while Christ's merits are infinite, they atone only for original sins. (2.) That each believer must make satisfaction in his own per- son for sins which he commits after baptism, either in the pains of penance or of purgatory. This is contrary to all the Script- ures teach, as we have above shown under their respective heads, (1) as to the satisfaction rendered to justice by Christ; (2) the nature of justification ; (3) nature of sin; (4) relation of the sufferings and good Avorks of the justified man to the law; (5) state of the soids of believers after death, etc., etc. 3d. It is a heathen doctrine derived from the Egyptians through the Greeks and Romans, and currently received through the Roman empire. — Virgil's \"Eneid,\" vi. 739, 43. 4th. Its practical effects have always been, 1st, the abject subjection of the people to the priesthood; 2d, the gross de- moralization of the people. The church is the self-appointed 558 STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER DEATH. depository and dispenser of the superabundant merits of Christ, and the supererogatory merits of her eminent saints. On this foundation she dispenses the pains of purgatory to those wlio pay for past sins, or sells indnlgeiices to those who pay for the lib- erty to sin in the future. Thus the people sin and pay, and the priest takes the money and remits the penalty. The figment of a purgatory under the control of the priest is the main source of his hold upon the fears of the people. — See Ch. XXXIL, Q. 19. AUTHOKITATITE STATEMENTS OF ChTXRCH DoCTKINE. Romish Doctrtne. ''Cat. of Cone. Trident;' Pt. 1, ch. 6, ^ 3.— \"There is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of the just are purified by puuishment for a stated time, to the end that they may be admitted iuto their eternal country, into which nothing that defileth. entereth. And of the truth of this doctrine which holy Councils declare to be confirmed by the testimonies of Scripture, and by apostolic tradition, the pastor will have occasion to treat more diligently and frequently, as we are fallen on times when men endure not sound doctrine.\" Bellarmin, '■'■Purgator\" \\\\. 10. — \"It is certain that in purgatory, as there is also in hell, there is punishment by fire, whether that fire is understood literally or metaphorically.\" His own opinion is that it is corporeal fire. Doctrine op the Greek Chtjbch. — \"■The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic, Eastern Church,\" now the most authoritative stand- ard of the Orthodox Grseco-Eussian Church. On the 11th Article, Ques. 372-377. — \"From death till the general resurrection the souls, of the righteous are in light and rest, with a foretaste of eternal hai3piness ; biit the souls of the wicked are in a state the reverse of this. We know this because it is ordained that the perfect retribution according to works shall be received by the perfect man after the resurrection of the body and God's last judgment. — 2 Tim. ii. 8 and 2 Cor. v. 10. But that they have a foretaste of bliss is shown on the testimony of Jesus Christ, who says in the parable that the righteous Lazarus was immediately after death carried into Abraham's bosom. — Luke xvi. 22; Phil. i. 23. But •we remark of such souls as have departed with faith, but without having had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, that they may be aided towards the attainment of a blessed resurrection by prayers offered in their behalf, esi^ecially such as are offered in union with the oblation of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, and by works of mercy done in faith for their memory. \" Protestant Doctrine. \"Articles of SnvdcaUr (Lutheran), p. 307.— \"Purgatory, and whatever of religious rites, worship, or business pertains to it, is a mere disguise of the Devil.\" ''Thirti/-nine Articles of the Church of England,\" Art. 22.— -\"The Rom- ish doctrine concerning purgatory, pardons, worshipping and adoration as well as of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.\" \"Shorter Catechism if WeM. Assemhlii,\" Ques. 37.— \" The souls of be- lievers are at their death made perfect in holiness and do immediately pass into glory ; and their bodies being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves till the resurrection.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "202", "sort_key": 202, "group": "Chapter XXXVIII", "question": "What  Old  Testament  passages  hear  upon  this  subject  ?", "answer": "Job xix. 25-27; Ps. xlix. 15; Is. xxvi. 19; Dan. xii. 1-3. 3. What are the principal passages hearing upon this subject in the New Testament ? Matt. V. 29; x. 28; xxvii. 52, 53; John v. 28, 29; vi. 39; Acts ii. 25-34; xiii. 34; Ptora. viii. 11, 22, 23; Phil. iii. 20, 21; 1 Thess. iv. 13-17, and 15th chap, of 1 Cor. 4. What is the meaning of the phrases, dcS/na ipvxtHov, natural hody, and dc^/ua TtvEv^aviHov, spiritual body, as used by Paul, 1 Cor. XV. 44 ? The word ipvxVi when contrasted with Ttvavjua, always desig- nates the principle of animal life, as distinguished from the principle of intelligence and moral agency, which is the nvlvj-ia. A (>fo//a tpvxiHov, translated nafurcd body, evidently means a body endowed with animal life, and adapted to the present condition of the soul, and to the present physical constitution of the world it inhabits. A d(^jiia TtvevjuartKoi^, translated spirUnal body, is a body adapted to the use of the soul in its future glorified estate, and to the moral and physical conditions of the heavenly world, and to this end assimilated by the Holy Ghost, who dwells in it, to the glorified body of Christ. — 1 Cor. xv. 45-48. 5. Hoiv does it appear that the same body is to rise that is de- posited in the grave ? The passages of Scripture which treat of this subject make 560 THE RESURRECTION. it plain that the same bodies are to be raised that are deposited in the grave, by the phrases by which they designate the bod- ies raised: Ist, \"our bodies,\" Phil. iii. 21; 2d, \"this corruptible,\" 1 Cor. XV. 53, 54; 3d, \"all who ai'e in their graves,\" John v. 28; 4th, \"they who are asleep,\" 1 Thess. iv. 13-17; 5th, \"our bod- ies are the members of Christ,\" 1 Cor. vi. 15 ; 6th, our resurrec- tion is to be because of and like that of Christ, which was of his identical body. — John xx. 27. 6. How does if appear that the final resurrection is to he simul- taneous and general ? See below, Chap. XXXIX., Questions 9 and 10. 7. What do the Scriptures teach concerning the nature of the resurrection body ? 1st. It is to be spiritual. — 1 Cor. xv. 44. See above, Ques- tion 4. 2d. It is to be like Christ's body.— Phil. iii. 21. 3d. Glorious, incorruptible, and powerful. — 1 Cor. xv. 54. 4th. It shall never die. — Rev. xxi. 4. 5th. Never be given in marriage. Matt. xxii. 30. 8. How may it he proved that the material hody of Christ rose from the dead ? 1st. Christ predicted it. — John ii. 19-21. 2d. His resurrec- tion is referred to as a miraculous attestation of the truth of his mission, but unless his body rose literally there was noth- ing miraculous in his continued life. 3d. The whole language of the inspired narratives necessarily implies this, the rolling away of the stone, the folding up of the garments, etc. 4th. He did not rise until the third day, which proves that it was a physical change, and not a mere continuance of spiritual ex- istence.— 1 Cor. XV. 4. 5th. His body was seen, handled, and examined, for the space of forty days, in order to establish this very fact. — Luke xxiv. 39. Dr. Hodge. 9. Hoiv can the materiality of Christ's resurrection body he rec- onciled ivith whcd is said as to the modes of its manifestation., and of its ascension into heaven ? The events of his suddenly appearing and vanishing from sight, recorded in Luke xxiv. 31 ; John xx. 19 ; Acts i. 9, were accomplished through a miraculous interference with the ordi- nary laws regulating material bodies, of the same kind pre- cisely with many miracles which Jesus wrought in his body- before his death, e. g., his walking on the sea. — Matt. xiv. 25; John vi. 9-14. OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 561 10. How does the resurrection of Christ secure and illustrate that of his jjeojjle ? Body and soul together constitute the one person, and man in his entire person, and not his soul separately, is embraced in both the covenants of works and of grace, and in federal and vital union with both the fii-st and the second Adam. Christ's resurrection secures ours — 1st. Because his resurrection seals and consummates his redemptive power; and the redemption of our persons involves the redemption of our bodies. — Eom. viii. 23. 2d. Because of our federal and vital union with Christ. 1 Cor. XV. 21, 22; 1 Thess. iv. 14 3d. Because of his Spirit which dwells in us (Rom. viii. 11), making our bodies his members. — 1 Cor. vi. 15. 4th. Because Christ by covenant is Lord both of the living and the dead. — Rom. xiv. 9. This same federal and vital union of the Christian with Christ (see above. Chap. XXXI.) likewise causes the resurrection of the believer to be similar to, as well as consequent upon that of Christ.— 1 Cor. xv. 49; Phil. iii. 21; 1 John iii. 2. 11. How far are ohjecfions of a scientific character against the doctrine of the resurrection of the body entitled to iveight? All truth is one, and of God, and necessarily consistent, whether revealed by means of the phenomena of nature or of the words of inspiration. On the other hand, it follows from our partial knowledge and often erroneous interpretation of the data both of science and revelation, that we often are un- able to discern the harmonies of truths in reality intimately related. Nothing can be believed to be true which is clearly seen to be inconsistent with truth already certainly established. But, on the other hand, in the present stage of our develojD- ment, the largest proportion of the materials of our knowledge rests upon independent evidence, and are received by us all as certain on their own respective grounds, although we fail as yet to reconcile each fact with every other in the harmonies of their higher laws. The principles of physical science are to be taken as true upon their own ground, i. e., so far as they are matured, and the testimony of revelation is to be taken as infallible truth on its own ground. The one ma}^ modify om* interpretation of the other, but the most certain of all principles is that a matured science will always corroborate rightly in- terpreted revelation. 12. Hoiu may the identity of ovr future ivith our present bodies he reconciled luiih 1 Cor. xv. 42-50 ? In verses 42-44 this identity is expressly asserted. The 562 THE RESURRECTION. body is to be the same, though changed in these several partic- lalars. 1st. It is now subject to corruption, ilicn incorruptible. 2d. It is now dishonored, it will tlien be glorified. 3d. It is now weak, it will then be powerful. 4th. It is now natural., i. e., adapted to the present condition of the soul and constitution of the world. It will then be spiritual, i. e., adapted to the glori- fied condition of the soul, and constitution of the \"new heavens and new earth.\" Verse 50 declares simply that \" fiesh and blood,\" that is, the present corruptible, weak, and depraved constitution of the body can not inherit heaven. Yet the passage as a whole clearly teaches, not the substitution of a new body, but the transforma- tion of the old. 13. What facts does physiological science estahlish with respect to the perpetual changes that are going on in our p)resent bodies, and tvhat relation do tlwse facts sustain to this doctrine ? By a ceaseless process of the assimilation of new material and excretion of the old, the particles composing our bodies are ceaselessly changing from birth to death, effecting, as it is com- puted, a change in every atom of the entire structure every seven years. Thus there will not be a particle in tlie organism of an adult which constituted part of his person when a boy, nor in that of the old man of that wliich belonged to him when of middle age. The body from youth to age is imiversally sub- ject to vast changes in size, form, expression, condition, and many times to total change of constituent particles. All this is certain ; but it is none the less certain that through all these changes the man possesses identically the same person from yoi^th to age. This proves that neither the identity of the body of the same man from youth to age, nor the identity of our present with our resurrection bodies, consists in sameness of particles. If we are sure of our identity in the one case, we need not stumble at the difficulties attending the other. 14, What objection to this doctrine is derived from the known fact of the disp)ersion and as.similation into other organisms of the p)articles of our bodies after decdh ? The instant the vital principle surrenders the elements of the body to the unmodified control of the laws of chemical affinity, their present combinations are dissolved and distributed throughout space, and they are taken up and assimilated by other animal and vegetable organisms. Thus the same particles have formed, at different times, part of the bodies of myriads of men, in the successive periods of the growth of individuals, and in successive generations. Plence it has been objected to the THE CONDITIONS OF IDENTITY. 563 scriptni\"il doctrine of the resurrection of the body, that it will be impossible to decide to which of the thousand bodies which these particles have formed part in tm-n, they should be assigned in the resurrection; or to reinvest each soul with its own body, when all the constituent elements of every body have been shared in common by many. We ansioer that bodily identity does not consist in sameness of constituent particles. See above, Question 13. Just as God has revealed to us through consciousness that our bodies are identical from infancy to age, although their constituent elements often change, he has, with equal certainty and reasonableness, revealed to us in his inspired word that our bodies, raised in glory, are identical with our bodies sown in dishonor, although their constituent particles may have been scattered to the ends of the earth.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "203", "sort_key": 203, "group": "Chapter XXXVIII", "question": "What  is  essential  to  identity?", "answer": "1st. \"It is evident that identity depends upon different con- ditions in different cases. The identity of a stone or any other portion of unorganized matter consists in its substance and form. On tlie other hand, the identity of a plant from the seed to its maturity is, in a great measure, independent of sameness of substance or of form. Their identity appears to consist in each plant's being one organized whole, and in the continuity of the succession of its elements and parts. The identity of a picture does not depend upon the sameness of the particles of coloring matter of which it is composed, for these we may con- ceive to be continually changing, but upon the drawing, the tints, the light and shade, the expression, the idea which it embodies,\" etc. 2d. Bodily identity is not a conclusion drawn from the com- parison, or combination of other facts, but it is itself a single irresolvable fact of consciousness. The child, the savage, the philosopher, are alike certain of the sameness of their bodies at different periods of their lives, and on the same grounds. This intuitive conviction, as it is not the result of science, so it is no more bound to give an account of itself to sci- ence, i. e., we are no more called upon to explain it before we believe it than we are to explain any other of the simple data of consciousness. 3d. The resurrection of our bodies, although a certain fact of revelation, is to us, as yet, an unrealized experience, an un- observed phenomenon. The physical conditions, therefore, of the identity of our \"spiritual bodies\" with our \"natural bodies,\" we can not now possibly comprehend, since we have neither the experience, the observation, nor the revelation of the facts 564 THE RESURRECTION. involved in such knowledge. This much, however, is certain as to the result — 1st. The body of the resurrection will be as strictly identical with the body of death, as the body of death is with the body of birth. 2d. Each soul will have an indubi- table intuitive consciousness that its new body is identical with the old. 3d. Each friend shall recognize the individual char- acteristics of the soul in the perfectly transparent expression of the new body. — Dr. Hodge. 16. How far ivas the doctrine oftJie resurrection of the hody held by the Jews? With the exception of some heretical sects, as the Sadducees, the Jews held this doctrine in the same sense in which we hold it now. This is evident — 1st. Because it was clearly revealed in their inspired writings, see above. Question 2. 2d. It is af- firmed in their uninspii-ed writings. — Wisdom, iii. 6, 13; iv. 15; 2 Maccabees vii. 9, 14, 23, 29. 3d. Christ in his discourses, in- stead of proving this doctrine, assumes it as recognized. — Luke xiv. 14; John v. 28, 29. 4th. Paul asserts that both the ancient Jews (Heb. xi. 35), and his own contemporaries (Acts xxiv. 15), believed this doctrine. 17. What early heretical sects in the Christian church rejected this doctrine? All the sects bearing the generic designation of gnostic, and imder various specific names embodying the leaven of oriental philosophy, which infested the church of Christ from the begin- ning for many centuries, believed, 1st, tliat matter is essentially vile, and the source of all sin and misery to the soul; 2d, that complete sanctification is consummated only in the dissolution of the body and the emancipation of the soul; 3d, that conse- quently any literal resurrection of the body is repugnant to the spirit, and would be destructive to the purpose of the whole gospel.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "204", "sort_key": 204, "group": "Chapter XXXVIII", "question": "What  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  Swedenhorg  on  this  subject?", "answer": "It is substantially the same with that set forth by Professor Bush in his once famous book, \" Anastasia.\" They teach that the literal body is dissolved, and finally perishes in death. But by a subtle law of our nature an etherial, luminous body is eliminated out of the Tpvx?? (the seat of the nervous sensibility, occupying the middle link between matter and spirit), so that the soul does not go forth from its tabernacle of flesh a bare HERETICAL VIEWS. 565 power of thought, but is clothed upon at once by this psychical body. Tliis resurrection of the body, they pretend, takes place in every case immediately at death, and accompanies the out- going soul. — See \" Religion and Philosophy of Swedenborg,'' Theophilus Parsons. 19. How do modern rationalists explain the passages of Scripture luhich relate to this subject? They explain them away, denying their plain sense, either, 1st, as purely allegorical modes of inculcating the truth of the continued existence of the soul after death ; or, 2d, as conces- sions to the prejudices and superstitions of the Jews.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "205", "sort_key": 205, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  the  Scriptural  doctrine  concerning  the  miUennitim?", "answer": "1st. The Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, clearly reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over all branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive and more thoroughly transforming than any it has ever realized in time past. This end is to be gradually attained through the spiritual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of Providence, and ministrations of his church. — Matt. xiii. 31, 32; xxviii. 19, 20; Ps. ii. 7, 8; xxii. 27, 29; Ixxii. 8-11; Is. ii. 2, 3; xi. 6-9; Ix. 12; Ixvi. 23; Dan. ii. 35, 44; Zech. ix. 10; xiv. 9; Rev. xi. 15. 2d. The period of this general prevalency of the gospel will THE PREMILLENNIAL ADVENT THEORY. 569 continue a thousand years, and is hence designated the millen- nium.— Rev. XX. 2-7. 3d. The Jews are to be converted to Christianity either at the commencement or during the continuance of this period. Zech. xii. 10; xiii. 1; Rom. xi. 26-29; 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16. 4th. At the end of these thousand years, and before the coming of Christ, there will be a comparativel}^ short season of apostasy and violent conflict between the kingdoms of light and darkness. — Luke xvii. 26-30; 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4; Rev. xx. 7-9. 5th. Christ's advent, the general resurrection and judgment, will be simultaneous, and immediately succeeded by the burn- ing of the old, and the revelation of the new earth and heavens. \"Confession of Faith,\" Chaps, xxxii. and xxxiii. 8. What is the vieiv of those who maintain that Christ's coming loill he '•'• premillennial,'' and that he loill reign jpersonally upon the earth a thousand years before the judgment ? 1st. i\\Iany of the Jews, mistaking altogether the spiritual character of the Messiah's kingdom, entertained the opinion that as the church had continued two thousand years before the giv- ing of the law, so it would continue two thousand years under the law, when the Messiah would commence his personal reign, which should, in turn, continue two thousand years to the com- mencement of the eternal Sabbath. They expected that the Messiah would reign visibly and gloriously in Jerusalem, as his capital, over all the nations of the earth, the Jews, as his espe- cial people, being exalted to pre-eminent dignity and privilege. 2d. 'riie Apostolical Fathers of the Jewish Christian branch of the church, such as Barnabas, Hermes, and Papias, adopted it. It prevailed generally throughout the church from a. d. 150, to A. D. 250, being advocated by Irena^us and Tertullian. Since that time the doctrine taught in this chapter has been the one generally recognized by the whole church, while Millenarianism or Chilianism has been confined to individuals and transient parties. Its advocates based their doctrine on the literal inter- pretation of Rev. XX. 1-10, and held — 1st. That after the de- velopment of the anti-Christian apostasy, at some time very variously estimated, Christ was suddeidy to appear and com- mence his personal reign of a thousand years in Jerusalem. The dead in Christ (some say only the martyrs) were then to rise and reign with him in the world, the majority of \\^'hose inhabitants shall be converted, and live during this period in great prosperity and happiness, the Jews in the mean time being converted, and restored to their own land. (2.) That after the thousand years there shall come the final apostasy for a little season, and then the resurrection of the rest of the dead, 570 SECOND ADVENT. L €., the wicked and their judgment and condemnation at the last day, the final conflagration, and new heavens and earth. 3d. Modern premillenarians, while differing among them- selves as to the details of their interpretations, agree substan- tially with the view just stated. Hence they are called pre- millenarians, because they believe the advent of Christ will occur before the 3Iillennium. > 9. What are the principal Scriptural arguments against this vieiv ? Ist. The theory is evidently Jewish in its origin and Juda- izing in its tendency. 2d. It is not consistent with what tlie Scriptures teach. (1.) As to the nature of Christ's kingdom, e. g., (a) that it is not of this world but spiritual, Matt. xiii. 11-44; John xviii. 36; Rom. xiv. 17; (b) that it was not to be confined to the Jews, Matt. viii. 11, 12; (c) that regeneration is the condition of admission to it, John iii. 3, 5; (d) that the blessings of the kingdom- are purely spiritual, as pardon, sanctification, etc., Matt. iii. 2, 11; Col. i. 13, 14. (2.) As to the fact that the kingdom of Christ has already come. He has sat upon the throne of his Father David ever since his ascension. — Acts ii. 29-36; iii. 13-15; iv. 26-28; v. 29-31; Heb. x. 12, 13; Rev. iii. 7-12. The Old Testament prophecies, therefore, which pre- dict this kingdom, must refer to the present dispensation of grace, and not to a future reign of Christ on earth in person among men in the flesh. 3d. The second advent is not to occur until the resurrec- tion, when all the dead, both good and bad, are to rise at once. Dan. xii. 2; John v. 28, 29; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. XX. 11, 15. Only one passage (Rev. xx. 1-10) is even appar- ently inconsistent with the fact here asserted. For the true interpretation of that pavssage, see next question. 4th. The second advent is not to occur until the simulta- neous judgment of all men,' the good and the bad together. Matt. vii. 21, 23; xiii. 30-43; xvi. 24, 27; xxv. 31-46; Rom. ii. 5, 16; 1 Cor. iii. 12-15; 2 Cor. v. 9-11; 2 Thess. i. 6-10; Rev. XX. 11-15. 5th. The second advent is to be attended Avith tlie general conflagration and the generation of the \" new heavens and the new earth.\" — 2 Pet. iii. 7-13; Rev. xx. 11; xxi. 1. \"Brown on the Second Advent.\" 10. What considerations favor the spiritual and oppose the lit- eral interpretation of Rev. xx. 1-10. The spiritual interpretation of this difficult passage is as THE SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION OF REV. XX. i-io. 571 follows: Christ has in reserve for his church a period of uni- versal expansion and of pre-eminent spiritual prosperity, when the spirit and character of the \"noble army of martyrs\" shall be reproduced again in the great body of God's people in an unprecedented measure, and when these martyrs shall, in the general triumph of their cause, and in the overthrow of that of their enemies, receive judgment over their foes and reign in the earth; while the party. of Satan, \"the rest of the dead,\" shall not flourish again until the thousand years be ended, when it shall prevail again for a little season. The considerations in favor of this interpretation of the passage are — 1st. It occurs in one of the most highly figurative books of the Bible. 2d. This interpretation is perfectly consistent with all the other more explicit teachings of the Scriptures on the several points involved. 3d. The same figure, viz., that of life again from the dead, is frequently used in Scripture to express the idea of the spiritual revival of the church. — Is. xxvi. 19; Ezek. xxxvii. 12-14; Hosea vi. 1-3; Eom. xi. 15; Rev. xi. 11. The considerations bearing against the literal interpretation of this passage are — 1st. That the pretended doctrine of two resurrections, i. e., first of the righteous, and then, after an interval of a thousand years, of the wicked, is taught nowhere else in the Bible, and this single passage in which it occurs is an obscure one. This is a strong presumption against the truth of the doctrine. 2d. It is inconsistent with what the Scriptures uniformly teach as to the nature of the resurrection body, i. e., that it is to be \"spiritual,\" not \"natural,\" or \"flesh and blood.\" — 1 Cor. XV. 44. It is, on the contrary, an essential part of the doc- trine associated with the literal interpretation of this passage, that the saints, or at least the martyrs, are to rise and reign a thousand years in the flesh, and in this woidd as at present constituted. 3d. The literal interpretation of this passage contradicts the clear and uniform teaching of the Scriptures, that all the dead, good and bad, are to rise and be judged together at the second coming of Christ, and the entire revolution of the present order of creation. See the Scripture testimonies collected under the preceding question. 11. Shoio that the future general conversion of the Jeios is taught in Scripture? This Paul, in Eom. xi. 15-29, both asserts and proves from 572 SECOND ADVENT. Old Testament prophecies, e. r/., Isa. lix. 20; Jer. xxxi. 31. See also Zecli. xii. 10; 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16. 12. State the argument for and against the opinion that the Jeics are to he restored to tJieir oivn land? The arguments in favor of that return are — 1st. The literal sense of many old Testament prophecies. Isa. xi. 11, 12; Jer. iii. 17; xvi. 14,. 15; Ezek. xx. 40-44; xxxiv. 11-31; xxxvi. l-3(i; Hosea iii. 4, 5; Amos ix. 11-15; Zech. x. 6-10; xiv. 1-20; Joel iii. 1-17. 2d. That the whole territory promised by God to Abraham has never at any period been fully possessed by his descend- ants. Gen. XV. 18-21 ; Num. xxxiv. 6-12, and renewed through Ezekiel, Ezek. xlvii. 1-23. 3d. The land, though capable of maintaining a vast popula- tion, is as preserved unoccupied, evidently waiting for inhabi- tants.— See Keith's \"Land of Israel.\" 4th. The Jews, though scattered among all nations, have been miraculously preserved a separate people, and evidently await a destiny as signal and peculiar as has been their his- tory. The arguments against their return to the land of their fathers are — 1st. The New Testament is entirely silent on the subject of any such return, which would be an inexplicable omission in the clearer revelation, if that event is really future. 2d. The literal interpretation of the Old Testament proph- ecies concerned in this question would be most unnatural — (1.) Because, if the interpretation is to be consistent, it must be literal in all its parts. Then it would follo\\y that David himself, in person, must be raised to reign again in Jerusalem. Ezek. xxxvii. 24, etc. Then the Levitical priesthood must be restored, and bloody sacrifices offered to God. — Ezek. xl. to xlvi. ; Jer. xvii. 25, iix Then must Jerusalem be tlie centre of government, the Jews a superior class in the Christian church, and all worshippers must come monthly and from Sabbath to Sabbath, from the ends of the earth to worship at the Holy City.— Isa. ii. 2, 3; Ixvi. 20-23; Zech. xiv. 16-21. (2.) Because the literal interpretation thus leads to the revival of the entire ritual system of the Jews, and is inconsistent with the spiritual- ity of the kingdom of Christ. — See above. Question 9. (3.) Be- cause the literal interpretation of these passages is inconsistent with what the New Testament plainly teaches as to the aboli- tion of all distinctions between the Jew and Gentile; the Jews, when converted, are to be grafted back into the same church. Rom. xi. 19-24; Eph. ii. 13-19. (4.) Because this interpretation is inconsistent with what the New Testament teaches as to the THE GENERAL JUDGMENT. 573 temporary purpose, the virtual insufficiency, and the final aboli- tion of the Levitical priesthood and their sacrifices, and of the infinite sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ, and the eternity of his priesthood. — Gal. iv. 9, 10; v. 4-8; Col. ii. 16-23; Heb. vii. 12-18; viii. 7-13; ix. 1-14. 3d. On the other hand, the spiritual interpretation of these Old Testament prophecies — which regards them as predicting the future purity and extension of the Christian church, and as indicating these spiritual subjects by means of those persons, places, and ordinances of the old economy which were typical of them — is both natural and accordant to the analogy of Script- ure. In the New Testament, Christians are called Abraham's seed, Gal. iii. 29; Israelites, Gal. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 12, 19; comers to Mount Zion, Heb. xii. 22; citizens of the heavenly Jerusa- lem, Gal. iv. 26; the circumcision, Phil. iii. 3; Col. ii. 11, and in Rev. ii. 9, they are called Jews. There is also a Christian priesthood and spiritual sacrifice. — 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9; Heb. xiii. 15, 16; Rom, xii. 1. See Fairbairn's \"Typology Appendix,\" Vol. I.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "206", "sort_key": 206, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "Wlio  is  to  be  the  judge  of  the  ivorld  ?", "answer": "Jesus Christ, in his official character as Mediator, in both natures, as the God-man. This is evident, Ist, because as judge he is called the \"Son of Man,\" ]\\Iatt. xxv. 31, 32, and the \"man ordained by God.\" — Acts xvii. 31. 2d. Because all judgment is said to be committed to him by the Father. — John v. 22, 27. 3d. Because it pertains to him as Mediator to complete and publicly manifest the salvation of his people, and the overthrow of his enemies, together with the glorious righteousness of his work in both respects, 2 Thess. i. 7-10; Rev. i. 7; and thus accomplish the \"restitution of all things.\" — Acts iii. 21. And this he shall do in his own person, that his glory may be the more manifest, the discomfiture of his enemies the more humil- iating, and the hope and joy of his redeemed the more complete.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "207", "sort_key": 207, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "Who  are  to  he  tJie  subjects  of  the  judgment  ?", "answer": "1st. The whole race of Adam, without exception, of every generation, condition, and character, each individual appearing in the integrity of his person, \" body, soul, and spirit.\" The dead will be raised, and the living changed simultaneously. Matt. xxv. 31-46; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 2 Cor. v. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Thess. i. 6-10; Rev. xx. 11-15. 2d. All evil angels. 2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6. Good ahgels appearing as attendants and ministers. — Matt. xiii. 41, 42. 574 SECOND ADVENT.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "208", "sort_key": 208, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "In  iclicd  sense  is  it  said  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the  ivorld  ?", "answer": "See Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 29, 30; 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3; Rev. XX. 4. In virtue of the union of believers with Christ, his triumph and dominion is theirs. They are joint heirs with him, and if they suffer with him they shall reign Avith him. — Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12. He will judge and condemn liis enemies as head and champion of his church, all his members assenting to his judgment and glorying in his triumph. — Rev. xix. 1-5. Hodge's \"Com. on 1st Cor.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "209", "sort_key": 209, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "Upon  ivhat  principles  tvill  his  judgment  be  dispensed  ?", "answer": "The judge is figuratively represented (Rev. xx. 12), after the analogy of human tribunals, as opening \" books \" in judg- ment, according to the things written in which the dead are to be judged, and also \" another book,\" \" which is the book of life.\" The books first mentioned doubtless figuratively repre- sent the law or standard according to which each one was to be judged, and the facts in his case, or \" the woi'ks which he had done.\" The \"book of life\" (see also Phil. iv. 3; Rev. iii. 5; xiii. 8; xx. 15) is the book of God's eternal electing love. Those whose names are found written in the \" book of life \" will be declared righteous on the ground of their participation in the righteousness of Christ. Their holy characters and good deeds, however, will be publicly declared as the evidences of their elec- tion, of their relation to Christ, and of the glorious work of Christ in them.— Matt. xiii. 43 ; xxv. 34-40. Those whose names are not found written in \"the book of life \" will be condemned on the ground of the evil \" deeds they have done in the body,\" tried by the standard of God's law, not as that law has been ignorantly conceived of by each, but as it has been more or less fully and clearly revealed by the Judge himself to each severally. Tlie heathen who has sinned with- out the written law \"shall be judged without the law,\" i. e., by the law written upon his heart, which made him a law unto himself — Luke xii. 47, 48; Rom. ii. 12-15. The Jew, Avho \"sinned in the law, shall be judged by the hiw.\" — Rom. ii. 12. Every individual dwelling under the light of the Christian rev- elation shall be judged in strict accordance with the whole will of God as made known to him, all of the special advan- tages of every kind enjoyed by him individually modifying the proportion of his responsibility. — Matt. xi. 20-24; John iii. 19. The secrets of all hearts, the inward states and hidden springs of action, will be brought in as the subject matter of judgment, as well as the actions themselves, Eccle. xii. 14; 1 THE FUTURE CONFLAGRATION OF THE EARTH. 575 Cor. iv. 5 ; and publicly declared to vindicate the justice of the Judge, and to make manifest the shame of the sinner. — Luke viii. 17; xii. 2, 3; Mark iv. 22. Whether the sins of the saints will be brought forward at the judgment or not is a c^uestion not settled by the Scriptures, though debated by theologians. If they should be, we are sure that it will be done only with the design and effect of enhancing the glory of the Saviour and the comfort of the saved. 17. Wliai do the Scriptures reveal concerning the future con- flagration of our earth ? The principal passages bearing upon this point are Ps. cii. 26, 27; Is. li. 6; Rom. viii. 19-23'; Heb. xii. 2(3, 27; 2 Pet. iii. 10-13; Rev. xx. and xxi. JMany of the older theologians thought that these passages indicated that the whole existing physical universe was to be destroyed. This view is now universally discarded. Some held that this earth is to be annihilated. The most common and probable opinion is that at \" the res- titution of all things,\" Acts. iii. 21, this earth, Avith its atmos- phere, is to be subjected to intense heat, which will radically change its present physical condition, introducing in the place of the present an higher order of things, which shall appear as a \"new heavens and a new earth,\" wherein \"the creature itself, also, shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God,\" Rom. viii. 19-23, and wherein the constitution of the new Avorld Avill be adapted to the \" spiritual \" or resurrection bodies of the saints, 1 Cor. XV. 44, to be the scene of the heavenly society, and, above all, to be the palace-temple of the God-man forever. — Eph. i. 14; Rev. v. 9, 10; xxi. 1-5. See also Fairbairn's \"Typology,\" Vol. I., Part II., Chap, ii., sec. 7. 18. What should he the moral effect of the Scripture doctrine of Christ's second advent ? Christians ought thereby to be comforted when in sorrow, and always stimulated to duty. — Phil. iii. 20; Col. iii. 4, 5; James V. 7 ; 1 John iii. 2, 3. It is their duty also to love, watch, ivait for. and hasten unto the coming of their Lord. — Luke xii. 35, 37 ; ICoY. i. 7, 8; Phil. iii. 20; 1 fhess. i. 9, 10; 2 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Pet. iii. 12; Rev. xxii. 20. Unbelievers should be filled with fearful apprehension, and with all their might they should seek place for immediate repentance.— ]\\Iark xiii. 35, 37; 2 Pet. iii. 9, 10; Jude 14, 15. Brown's \" Second Advent.\" 576 SECOND ADVENT. AUTHOEITATIVE STATEMENTS OF ChUKCH DoCTBINE. Aucinsdne {\" De Cirifafe Dei,\" 20, 7) states, that he once held the doctrine of a millenarian sabbath, but then rejected it and advocates the doctrine of this chapter, which has thenceforward prevailed in the Roman Church. \" Amjsburrj Con/esfiion,\" Pt. 1, Aj't. 17. — \" They also teach that Christ will ajipear at the end. of the wor/d for judgment, and that he will resusci- tate all the dead, and that he will give to the pious elect eternal life and perpetual joy, but condemn wicked men and devils, that they shall be tormented without end. Tliey condemn the Anabaptists, who believe that there will be an end of the future punishment of lost men and devils. And they condemn others who scatter Jewish opinions, to the effect that before the resurrection of the dead the pious will occupy the kingdom of the world, and the wicked be everywhere in subjection.\" \" The English Confession of Edwiird VI.\" — \"Those who endeavor to recall the fable of the Millenariaus, oppose the sacred Scriptures, and precipitate themselves into Jewish insanities.\" \" Beli/ic Cotfession,\" Art. 37. — \"Lastly, we believe, from the word of God, that our Lord Jesus Christ will return from heaven bodily and vis- ibly, and with the highest glory, when the time predetermined by God, but unknown to all creatures, shall arrive, and the numher of the elect be compltite. . . . At that time all who have heretofore died on the earth shall arise.\" \" Westminster Gonf Chaps. 32 and 33; ''Larger Gat.,\" Ques. 87-89.— These teach — 1. At the last day shall be a general resurrection of the dead both of the just and of the unjust. 2. All found alive shall be im- mediately changed. 3. Immediately after the resurrection shall follow the general and final judgment of all angels and men, good and bad. 4. That the date of this day and hour is puri:)osely kept secret by God. In Ques. 53-56, we are further taught, that Christ's second coming will not occur until \" the last day,\" \" the end of the world,\" and that he will then come \"to judge the world in righteousness.\" CHAPTER XL. HEAVEN AND HELL. 1. What is the New Testament usage as to the terms 6vpav6z, *^ heaven\" and rd Inovpavia, ^^ heavenly places?\" 'Ovpaj^o? is used chiefly in three senses. Ist. The upper air where the birds fly. — ]\\Iatt. viii. 20; xxiv. 30. 2d. The region in which the stars revolve. — Acts vii. 42; Heb. xi. 12. 3d. The abode of Christ's human nature, the scene of the special mani- festation of divine glory, and of the eternal blessedness of the saints. — Heb. ix. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 22. This is sometimes called the \"third heaven.\" — 2 Cor. xii. 2. The phrases \"new heaven,\" and \" new earth,\" in contrast with \" first heavens,\" and \" first earth,\" 2 Pet. iii. 7, 13; Rev. xxi. 1, refer to some unexplained change which will take place in the final catastrophe, by which God will revolutionize our portion of the physical universe, cleansing it from the stain of sin, and qualifying it to be the abode of blessedness. For the usage with regard to the phrase \"kingdom of heaven,\" see above, Chap. XXVIL, Question 5. The phrase m snovpdvia is translated sometimes, \" heavenly things,\" John iii. 12, where it signifies the mysteries of the un- seen spiritual world; and sometimes \"heavenly places,\" Eph. i. 3, and ii. 6, where it means the state into which a believer is introduced at his regeneration ; see also Eph. i. 20, where it means the \"third heavens\"; and Eph. vi. 12, where it signifies indefinitely the supermundane universe. 2. What are the principal terms, both literal and fgurative, ivhicJi are used in Scripture to designate the future hhssedness of tJie saints ? Literal terms: \"life, eternal life, and life everlasting. — IMatt. vii. 14; xix. 16, 29; xxv. 46. Glory, the glory of God, an eter- nal weight of glory. — Rom. ii. 7, 10; v. 2; 2 Cor. iv. 17. Peace. Rom. ii. 10. Salvation, and eternal salvation. — Heb. v. 9.\" 37 578 HEAVEN AND HELL. Figurative terms: \"Paradise. — Lnke xxiii. 43; 2 Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7. Heavenly Jerusalem. — Gal. iv. 26; Rev. iii. 12. Kingdom of heaven, heavenly kingdom, eternal kingdom, king- dom prepared from the foundation of the world. — jVIatt. xxv. 34; 2 Tim. iv. 18; 2 Pet. i. 11. Eternal inheritance. — 1 Pet. i. 4; Heb. ix. 15. The blessed are said to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to be in Abraham's bosom, Luke Xvi. 22; Matt. viii. 11; to reign with Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12; to enjoy a Sabbath or rest, Heb. iv. 10, 11.\"— Kitto's \"Bib. Ency.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "210", "sort_key": 210, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  revealed  tvith  respect  to  heaven  as  a  place  ?", "answer": "All the Scripture representations of heaven involve the idea of a definite place, as well as of a state of blessedness. Of that place, however, nothing more is revealed than that it is defined by the local presence of Christ's finite soul and body, and that it is the scene of the pre-eminent manifestation of God's glory. John xvii. 24; 2 Cor. v. 9; Rev. v. 6. From such passages as Rom. viii. 19-23; 2 Pet. iii. 5-13; Rev. xxi. 1, it appears not improbable that after the general destruction of the present form of the world by fire, which shall accompany the judgment, this world will be reconsti- tuted, and gloriously adapted to be the permanent residence of Christ and his church. As there is to be a \" spiritual body,\" there may be in the same sense a spiritual world, that is, a world adapted to be the theatre of the glorified spirits of the saints made perfect. As nature was cursed for man's sake, and the creature, through him, made subject to vanity, it may be that they sliall share in his redemption and exaltation. — See Fair- bairn's \"Typology,\" Part H., Chap, ii., sec. 7. 4. Wherein does the blessedness of heaven consist as far as revealed ? 1st. Negatively, in perfect deliverance from sin, and from all its evil consequences, physical, moral, and social. — Rev. vii. 16, 17; xxi. 4, 27. 2d. Positively. (1.) In the perfection of our nature, both material and spiritual; the full development and harmonious exercise of all our faculties, intellectual and moral, and in the unrestrained progress thereof to eternity. — 1 Cor. xiii. 9-12; XV. 45-49; 1 John iii. 2. (2.) In the sight of our blessed Re- deemer, communion with his person, and fellowship in all his glory and blessedness, and through him with saints and angels. John xvii. 24; 1 John i. 3; Rev. iii. 21; xxi. 3, 4, 5. (3.) In that \"beatific vision of God,\" which, consisting in the ever increasingly clear discoveiy of the divine excellence lovingly THE BLESSEDNESS OF HEAVEN. 579 apprehended, transforms the soul into the same image, from glory unto glory. — Matt. v. 8; 2 Cor. iii. 18. In meditating upon what is revealed of the conditions of heavenly existence two errors are to be avoided: 1st, the ex- treme of regarding the mode of existence experienced by the saiats in heaven as too nearly analogous to that of our earthly life; 2d, the opposite extreme of regarding the conditions of the heavenly life as too widely distinguished from that of our present experience. The evil effect of the first extreme will, of course, be to degrade by unworthy associations our concep- tions of heaven; while the evil efiect of the opposite extreme will be in great measure to destroy the moral power which a hope of heaven should naturally exert over our hearts and lives, by rendering our conceptions of it vague, and our sym- pathy with its characteristics consequently distant and feeble. To avoid both of these extremes, we sliould fix the limits within which our conceptions of tlie future existence of the saints must range, by distinguishing between tliose elements of man's na- ture, and of his relations to God and other men, wliich are essential and unchangeable, and those elements which must be changed in order to render his nature in his relations per- fect. 1st. The following must be changed: (1) all sin and its consequences must be removed; (2) \"spiritual bodies\" must take the place of our present flesh and blood; (3) the new heavens and the new earth must take the place of tlie present heavens and earth, as the scene of man's life; (4) the laws of social organization must be radically changed, since in heaven there will be no marriage, but a social order analogous to that of the \" angels of God \" introduced. 2d. The following elements are essential, and therefore unchangeable. (1.) Man will continue ever to exist, as com- pounded of two natures, spiritual and material. (2.) He is essentially intellectual, and must live by knowledge. (3.) He is essentially active, and must have work to do. (4.) Man can, as a finite creature, know God only mediately, ?. e., through his works of creation and providence, the experience of his gracious work upon our hearts, and through his incarnate Son, who is the image of his person, and the fulness of the Godhead bodily. God will therefore in heaven continue to teach man through his works, and to act upon him by means of motives addressed to his will through his understanding. (5.) The memory of man never finally loses the slightest impression, and it will belong to the perfection of the heavenly state that every experience acquired in the past will alwa^'s be within the perfect control of the will. (6.) I\\Ian is essentially a social being. This, taken in connection with the preceding point, 580 HEAVEN AND HELL. indicates the conclusion that the associations, as well as the experience of our earthly life, will cany all of their natural consequences with them into the new mode of existence, except as far as they are necessarily modified (not lost) by the change. (7.) Man's life is essentially an eternal progress towards infinite perfection. (8.) All the known analogies of God's works in creation, in his providence in the material and moral world, and in his dispensation of grace (1 Cor. xii. 5-28), indicate that in heaven saints will differ among themselves both as to inherent capacities and qualities, and as to relative rank and otfice. These differences will doubtless be deter- mined («) by constitutional differences of natural capacity, (/v) by gracious rewards in heaven corresponding in kind and degree to the gracious fruitfulness of the individual on earth, (c) by the absolute sovereignty of the Creator. — Matt. xvi. 27 ; Rom. ii. 6 ; 1 Cor. xii. 4-28. 5. What are the principal terms, literal and figurative, which are applied in Scripture to thefidure condition of the reprobate ? As a place, it is sometimes literally designated by aidr/?, Hades, and sometimes by vsewa, both translated hell. — Matt. V. 22, 29, 30; Luke xvi. 23. Also by the phrase, \"place of tor- ment.\"— Luke xvi. 28. As a condition of suffering, it is literally designated by the phrases, \"wrath of God,\" Rom. ii. 5, and \" second death,\" Rev. xxi. 8. Figurative terms. — Everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. — Matt, xxv, 4L The hell of fire, where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. — Mark ix. 44. The lake which biu'neth Avith fire and brimstone. — Rev. xxi. 8. Bottomless pit. — Rev. ix. 2. The dreadful nature of this abode of the wicked is implied in such expressions as \" oiiter dark- ness,\" the place \"where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth,\" Matt. viii. 12; \"I am tormented in this flame,\" Luke xvi. 24; \"unquenchable fire,\" Luke iii. 17; \"furnace of fire,\" Matt. xiii. 42; \"blackness of darkness,\" Jude 13; \"torment in fire and brimstone,\" Rev. xiv. 10; \"the smoke of their torment ascendeth forever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night,\" Rev. xiv. 11. — Kitto's \" Bib. Ency.\" 0. What do the So'iptures teach as to the nature of future punishments ? The terms used in Scripture to describe these sufferings are evidently figurative, yet they certainly establish the following points. These sufferings will consist — 1st. In the loss of all good, whether natural, as granted through Adam, oFgi-acious, as offered through Christ. 2d. In all the natural consequences THE PENALTY OF SIN ENDLESS SUFFERING. 581 of unrestrained sin, judicial abandonment, utter alienation from God, and the awful society of lost men and devils. — 2 Thess. i. 9. 3 J. In the positive infliction of torment, God's wrath and curse descending upon both the moral and physical nature of its objects. The Scriptures also establish the fact that these suf- ferings must be — 1st. Inconceivably dreadful in degree. 2d. Endless in duration. 3d. Various in degree, proportionately to the deserts of the subject. — Matt. x. 15 ; Luke xii. 48. 7. What is the -usage of the ivords, dioov, eternity, and dioavioi, eternal, in the New Testament, and tJie argument thence derived establishing the endless duration of future punishment ? 1st. The Greek language possesses no more emphatic terms with which to express the idea of endless duration than these. 2d. Although they are sometimes employed in the New Testa- ment to designate limited duration, je,t, in the vast majority of instances, they evidently designate unlimited duration. 3d. They are used to express the endless duration of God. (1.) dioov is thus used, 1 Tim. i. 17, and as applied to Christ, Rev. i. 18. (2.) dioavioi is thus used, Rom. xvi. 26, and as applied to the Holy Ghost. — Heb. ix. 14. 4th. They are used to express the endless duration of the future happiness of the saints. (1.) dioov is thus used. — John vi. 57, 58; 2 Cor. ix. 9. (2.) diojvioi is thus used. — Matt. xix. 29; Mark x. 30; John iii. 15; Rom. ii. 7. 5th. In Matt. XXV. 46, the very same word is used in a single clause to define at once the duration of the future happiness of the saints, and the misery of the lost. Thus the Scriptures do ex- pressly declare that the duration of the future misery of the lost is to be in precisely the same sense unending, as is either the life of God, or the blessedness of the saints. See the learned, independent, and conclusive critical examination of the New Testament usage of these words by the late Prof Moses Stuart, \" Stuart's Essays on Future Punishment,\" published Presby. Board of Publication. 8. What evidence for the truth on this subject is furnished hy the Neil) Testament uscuje of tlie word dCdios? This word, formed from dsi, always, forever, signifies, in classical Greek, eternal. It occurs only twice in the New Tes- tament, Rom. i. 20, \" even his eternal power and Godhead,\" and Jude 6, \" Angels reserved in everlasting chains.\" But lost men share the fate of lost angels. — Matt. xxv. 41 ; Rev. xx. 10. Thus the same word expresses the duration of the Godhead and of the sufierings of the lost. 582 HEAVEN AND HELL.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "211", "sort_key": 211, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  other  evidence  do  the  Scriptures  furnish  on  this  subject  ?", "answer": "1st. There is nothing in the Scriptures which, even by the most remote implication, suggests that the sufferings of the lost shall ever end. 2(1. The constant application to the subject of such figura- tive language as, \"fire that shall not be quenched,\" \"fire un- quenchable,\" \"the Avorm that never dies,\" \"bottomless pit,\" the necessity of paying the \"uttermost farthing,\" \"the smoke of their torment arising forever and ever,\" Luke iii. 17 ; ]\\lark ix. 45, 46; Rev. xiv. 10, 11, is consistent only with the conviction that God wills us to believe on his authority that future punish- ments are literall}^ endless. It is said of those who commit the unpardonable sin that they shall never be forgiven, \"neither in this world nor in that which is to come.\" — Matt. xii. 32. It is argued that this language is figurative, and the dictum is quoted '^Theologia syrtiholica non est demonsfrafiva.\" This is true. But of what are these the figures? What does God in- tend to signify by such symbols? They may miquestionably be pulled to pieces severally, and their meaning brought into doubt in detail. But it must be remembered — (1.) That this language is characteristic of all God's revelations to us of the future of those who die impenitent. Such descriptions color uniformly the whole presentation. (2.) The Bible was intended for popular instruction. Hence the obvious meaning must have been the one intended to be conveyed, and hence the one to which the divine veracity is pledged. This is especially a Aveighty consideration in the case of this doctrine, because — (rt.) It is a practical one of personal concernment, (h.) The language occurs frequently, and strikes the eye of every reader. (<\\) The entire historical church (with only individual excep- tions) have, as a matter of fact, interpreted it in the sense of endless suffering. And this in spite of the constant and tremen- dous pressure of human desires toward the opposite conclusion. 10. What presumption on this sidy'ect is afforded by reason and experience ? The Scriptures teach us — (1.) That man is dead in sin and morally impotent. (2.) That repentance and faith are wrought in the soul by the Holy Ghost. Experience teaches us that repentance and faith are as duties exceedingly difficult under the nu)st favorable conditions. Reason and experience unite in teaching us tliat they become more difficult and unusual the longer a person lives and the more definitely his moral char- acter and habits are fixed. 1st. The most favorable possible conditions are afforded in THEORIES OF ANNIHILATION AND RESTORATION. 583 this life. Youth, immature character, the word and the Spirit, and the providence of God and the Christian Church. Su- pernatural demonstrations and purgatorial sufferings would have no equal moral effect. \"If they hear not JMoses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.\" — Luke xvi. 31. 2d. The law of habit and fixed moral character leads to the conclusion, that the hope of a favorable change must rapidly decrease in proportion as it is delayed. 11. What two views on this subject have been held by different parties in opposition to the faith of the tvhole Christian Church, and the clear teaching of God's ivord ? I. That of the total extinction of the being of the finall}^ reprobate, as the sentence of the \" second death,\" after the last Judgment. This doctrine is styled popularly \"The Annihila- tion of the Wicked,\" and by its advocates \"Conditronal Immor- telTty.\" It has been advocated ably in \" Debt and Grace as related to the Doctrine of a Future Life,\" by C. F. Hudson, and in \"The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment,\" by Henry Constable, and \"View of Scripture Revelation concerning a Future State,\" by Archb. Whately, and in \" Life in Christ,\" by Edward White. They argue that the word \"death\" means always \"cessation of being,\" and \"eternal destruction\" means always the \"putting- out of existence.\" We answer — (1.) They fail utterly in their attempt to show that the words and phrases cited ever have, and much more that they always have, the sense contended for. (2.) Their doctrine is in plain contradiction of the uniform representation of Scripture as to the ultimate state of the finally impenitent as illustrated above, Ques. 9. (3.) Their doctrine is in contradic- tion of the natural and universal instinct of immortality wit- nessed to by the religions and literatures of all nations, whether heathen, Jewish, or Christian. II. The opinion of those who agree in general in teaching the future restoration of sinners after an indefinite period of purifying discipline subsequent to death, whether in the inter- mediate state or after the judgment (see above, Ch. XXXVII., Ques. 21). This view rests, (1) upon a class of texts presumed to teach the restitution of all things as Acts iii. 21; Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 19, 20, etc. (2.) Upon what they claim to be a moral intuition that endless punishment would be imworthy of God. We ANSWER — 1st. The passages of Scripture upon which the argument is based would be consistent with this view of ulti- mate universal salvation, if there were no exi^licit statements 584 HEAVEN AND HELL. of Scripture to the contrary. Each class of Scripture must be interpreted in view of the other. And it is self-evident that the general and indefinite must be ruled by the definite and ex- plicit. It is an axiom that the phrase \"all\" and \"all things\" in- clude more or less according to the subject. We gladly admit — (1) that ALL in Christ shall be made alive, and (2) that he will be made head of all things absolutely without exception, in the sense that the entire universe, including friends and foes, shall be subjected to his royal supremacy, all revolt subdued, and each class put into its own sphere. — See below, Ques. 14. 2d. The \"intuitions\" upon Avhich the doctrine is founded are shown below, Ques. 12 and 13, not to be trustworthy. 3d. See above, Ques. 10, as the hope of moral reformation in another life is not accordant with the representations of Scripture, so it is not confirmed by the lessons of reason and experience. 12. Wliai objections are urged against this doctrine derived from the justice of God? The justice of God requires — (1.) That none should suffer for that for which they are not responsible. (2.) That punish- ment should in every case be exactly proportioned to the guilt of the subject. But it is objected — 1st. Multitudes in Christian as well as in heathen lands are not responsible for their impenitency, be- cause they have never in their whole lives had an opportunity of knowing or of receiving Christ. We ANSWER — that the direct statements of the Bible, the whole analogy of the Christian system, and the experience of all Christians, unite in afiirming that all human nature is guilty and deserving of the wrath and curse of God anterior to the gift or the rejection of Christ. If it were not so Christ need not have been given to expiate guilt. If it were not so Christ would be \" dead in vain,\" and salvation would be of debt and not of GRACE. It is objected — 2d. No sin of a finite creature can deserve an infinite punishment, but all endless punishment is infinite. We ANSWER — that the word infinite in this connection is misleading. It is plain that endless sin deserves endless punish- ment, and that is all the Scriptures or the Church teach. One sin deserves the wrath and curse of God. He is under no obli- gation in justice to provide a redemption. The instant a soul sins it is cut off from the commvniion and life of God. As long as it continues in that state it will continue to sin. As long as it continues to sin, it will continue to deserve his wrath and curse. It is obvious that the sinful tempers and conduct in- OBJECTIONS STATED AND ANSWERED. 585 dulged in hell will deserve and receive punishment as strictly as those previously indulged in this life. Otherwise the mon- strous prniciple would be true that the worse a sinner becomes the less is he worthy of blame or punishment. It is objected — 3d. The infinite does not admit of degrees, yet the guilt of diiferent sinners is various. We ANSWER — this is a dishonest cavil. It is plain that suf- ferings alike endless may vary indefinitely in degree. It is objected — 4th. That the moral difference between the lowest saint saved and the most amiable sinner lost may be imperceptible, yet the difference of destiny is infinite. We ANSWER — that this is all true, but the ground of the treatment of the most unworthy believer is the righteousness of Christ, and the ground of the treatment of the least unworthy unbeliever is his own character and conduct. 13, What objection drawn from the benevolence of God is urged against this doctrine ? It is claimed — 1st. That the benevolence of God prompts him to do all in his power to promote their happiness. And as^we have no right to limit that power, we are warranted to hope that he will ultimately secure the happiness of all. We ANSWER — (1.) God's benevolence prompts him to secure the happiness of all his creatures as far as that is consistent with his other attributes of wisdom, holiness, and justice. (2.) We have constant experience that he does inflict upon his creatures evils which have no tendency and no influence in promoting the ultimate happiness of the individuals con- cerned. (3) The benevolence of the supreme IMoral Governor, as concerned for the peace and purity of the universe, concurs Avith his justice in demanding the execution of the full penalty of the law upon all law-breakers, especially upon all who have aggravated their guilt by the rejection of his crucified Son. It is claimed — 2d. That the cultivated intuitions of Christian men assure them that it is inconsistent with the moral perfec- tions of God^Vs^ to bring into existence immortal beings under conditions common to the majority of men, and then to doom them to an after-life of endless misery. We ANswer — (1.) The permission of sin in general is a mys- tery. The ante-natal forfeiture of human beings in Adam is a mystery. But every enlightened human being knows himself to be without excuse, and worth}' of God's wrath. (2.) God has shown his sense of the terrible guilt of men by the penalty he executed upon his own Son, when he suffered in our place. (3.) It is absurd for us to claim that our intuitions are adequate to determine what it will be right for the Moral Governor of all 586 HEAVEN AND HELL. the universe to do Avith finally impenitent sinners. Doubtless righteousness in him is precisely what righteousness is in a per- fectly righteous man. But we do not know all the conditions of the case, and our \"intuitions\" \"are darkened by sin (Heb. iii. 13). Hence our only source of reliable knowledge is the word of God, and that, as we have seen, gives us no ground to hope for repentance beyond the grave. (2.) It is absolutely cruel to follow the example of the devil with Eve in persuading the people that after all God may be more benevolent than the language of his word implies (Gen. iii. 3, 4). 14. What argument for the future restoration of all rational creatures to holiness and happiness is founded upon Rom. v. 18, 19 ; 1 Cor. XV. 22-28; Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 19, 20.? In regard to Rom. v. 18, it is argued that the phrase \"all men \" must have precisely the same extent of application in the one clause as in the other. We answer, 1st, the phrase \" all men \" is often used in Scripture in connections which nec- essarily restrict the sense. — John iii. 26; xii. 32. 2d. In this case the phrase \"all men\" is evidently defined by the qualify- ing phrase, ver. 17, \"Avho have received abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness.\" 3d. This contrast between the \" all men \" in Adam and the \" all men \" in Christ is consistent with the analogy of the whole gospel. In regard to 1 Cor. xv. 22, the argument is the same as that drawn from Rom. v. 18. From verses 25-28 it is argued that the great end of Christ's mediatorial reign must be the restora- tion of every creature to holiness and blessedness. To this we answer, 1st, this is a strained interpretation put upon these words, which they do not necessarily bear, and which is clearly refuted by the many direct testimonies we have cited from Scripture above. 2d. It is inconsistent with the scope of Paul's subject in this passage. He says that from eternity to the ascension God reigned absolutely. From the ascension to the restitution of all things God reigns in the person of the God- man as Mediator. From the restitution to eternity God will again reign directly as absolute God. The ultimate salvation of all creatures is argued also from Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 19, 20. In both passages, however, the \"all things\" signify the whole company of angels and redeemed men, who are gathered under the dominion of Christ. Because, 1st, in both passages the subject of discourse is the church, not the vniiverse; 2d, in both passages the \"all things\" is limited by the qualifying phrases, \"the predestinated,\" \"we who first trusted in. Christ,\" \"the accepted in the beloved,\" \"if ye con- F/EIV OF SOME ARMINIANS. 587 tinue in the faith,\" etc., etc. See Hodge's \" Commentaries on Romans, 1st Coriutliians, and Ephesians.\" 15. Wliat opinio7is have prevailed among extreme Arminians on this subject ? From their fundamental principles as to the relation of ability to responsibility, they mnst hold that none can perish who have not in some form and degree or another had an op- portunity of availing themselves of salvation through Christ. In order to avoid the obvious inferences from the broad facts of the case, some have supposed that God may extend the probation of some beyond this life. — Scot's \" Christian Life.\" Limborch (Lib. iv., c. xi.) says, that probably all who make a good use of their light in this world will be saved, but if we reject this, rather than believe that the divine goodness could condemn to hell fire these (the ignorant) it appears better to hold that as there is a threefold estate of mankind in this life, — of behevers, of unbelievers, and of the ignorant, — so there is also a threefold estate after this life : of eternal life for believers, of infernal sufferings for unbelievers, and besides these the status ignorantium. CHAPTER XLI. SACRAMENTS, 1. What is the etymology and what the classical and patristic usage of tJie tvord ^^ sac r amentum?\" 1st. It is derived from sacro, are, to make sacred, dedicate to gods or sacred uses. 2d. In its classical usage it signified — (1.) That by which a person binds himself to another to perform any thing. (2.) Thence a sum deposited with the court as pledge, and which, if forfeited, was devoted to sacred uses. (3.) Also an oath, especially a soldier's oath of faithful consecration to his coun- try's service. — Ainsworth's \" Die.\" 3d. The Fathers used this word in a conventional sense as equivalent to the Greek MvSrrjpiov, a mystery, i. e., something luiknown until revealed, and hence an emblem, a type, a rite having some latent spiritual meaning known only to the in- itiated, or instructed. The Greek fathers applied the term Mvdn^piov to the Chris- tian ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, inasmuch as these rites had a spiritual significance, and were thus a form of revelation of divine truth. The Latin fathers used the word \"sacramentum \" as a Latin word, in its own proper sense, for any thing sacred in itself, or having the power of binding, or consecrating men, and in addition they used it as the equivalent of the Greek word jnv6r?'/piov, i. e., in the entirely different sense of a revealed truth, or a sign or symbol revealing a truth otherwise hidden. This fact has given to the usage of this word \" sacramentum,\" in the scholastic theology, an injurious latitude and indefinite- ness of meaning. Thns in Eph. iii. 3, 4, D; v. 32; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Rev. i. 20, the word nvdrr/fnov truly bears the sense of \"the revelation of a truth undiscoverable by reason,\" and it is trans- lated in such passages in the English version, mystery, and in THEIR DEFINITIOiV. 589 the Latin vulgate, ^^ sacramentumy Thus the Romish church uses the same word in two entirely different senses, applying it indifferently to baptism and the Lord's Supper \" as bindnig ordinances,\" and to the union of believers with Christ as a re- vealed truth. — Eph. V. 32. And hence they absurdly infer that matrimony is a sacrament. 2. What is the definition of a sacrament, as given by the Fathers, the Schoolmen, the Romish Church, the Church of England, and in our own Standards ? 1st. Augustine's definition is \" Signum rei sacrse,\" or \" Sac- ramentum est invisibilis gratise visibile signum, ad nostram justificationem institutum;\" \"accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum.\" 2d. Victor of St. Hugo : \" Sacramentum est visibilis forma invisibilis gratis in eo collatse.\" 3d. The Council of Trent: \"A sacrament is something pre- sented to the senses, which has the power, by divine institu- tion, not only of signifying, but also of efficiently conveying grace.\" — \"Cat, Eom.,\" Part II., Chap, i., Q. 6. 4th. The Church of England, in the 25th article of religion, affirms that \" Saci'aments instituted by Christ are not only the badges and tokens of the profession of Christian men, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and of God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work inwardly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him.\" 5th. The \"Westminster Assembly's Larger Cat.,\" Q. 162 and 163, affirms that a \" Sacrament is a holy ordinance insti- tuted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit to those who are within the covenant of grace the benefits of his mediation, to increase their faith and all otlier graces, to oblige them to obedience, to testify and cherish their love and com- munion with one another, and to distinguish them from tliose that are without.\" \"The parts of a sacrament are two, the one an outward and sensible sign used according to Christ's own appointment; the other an inward spiritual grace thereby signified.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "212", "sort_key": 212, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "On  lohat  principles  is  such  a  definition  to  he  constructed  ?", "answer": "1st. It is to be remembered that the terra \"sacrament\" does not occur in the Bible. 2d. From the extreme latitude with which this term has been used, both in the sense proper to it as a Latin word, and in that attributed to it as the conventional equivalent of the 590 SACRAMENTS. Greek word i.iv6Tr} (nov , it is evident that no definition of a gos- pel ordinance can be arrived at by a mere reference either to the etymology or ecclesiastical usage of the word \"sacramentum.\" 3d. The definition of a class of gospel ordinances can be properly formed only by a comparison of all the Scriptures teach concerning the origin, nature, and design of those ordi- nances universally recognized as belonging to that class, and thus by determining those essential elements which are com- mon to each member of the class, and which distinguish them as a class from all other divine ordinances. 4th. Those ordinances which are \" universally recognized \" as sacraments are baptism and the Lord's Supper. \"Thomas Aquinas agreed with other theologians, 'Summa,' P. III., Qu. 62, Art. 5, in regarding baptism and the Lord's Supper as ^ potissima sacramentcL '' — Hagenbach, The true question then is. Are there any other divine ordinances having the essential char- ctcteristics which are common to baptism and the Lord's Supper ? 4. Ho20 many sacraments do Romanists make, and hoiv may the controversy between them and the Protestants be decided ? The Roman church teaches that there are seven sacraments, viz., baptism, confirmation, the Lord's Supper, penance, extreme unction, orders, marriage. We maintain,, however, that only baptism and the Lord's Supper can be properly embraced under either the Protestant or the Catholic definitions of a sacrament, as given above. Ques- tion 2. 1st. Confirmation, penance, and extreme unction are not divine institutions, having no warrant whatever in Scripture. 2d. That marriage instituted by God in Paradise, and ordi- nation to the gospel ministry instituted by Christ, although both divine institutions, are evidently not ordinances of the same kind with baptism and the Lord's Supper, and do not meet the conditions of either definitions of a sacrament, since they neither signify nor convey any inward grace.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "213", "sort_key": 213, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  tivo  things  are  included  in  every  sacrament  ?", "answer": "1st. \" An outward visible sign used according to Christ's own appointment; 2d, an inward spiritual grace thereby sig- nified.\"—\" L. Cat,\" Q. 163. See below, \"Apol. Aug. Conf\" (Hase), p. 267. The Romanists, in the language of the Schoolmen, distin- guish between the matter and the form of a sacrament. The matter is that part of the sacrament subjected to the senses, and significant of grace, e. </., the water, and the act of applying the RELATION OF SIGN TO GRACE SIGNIFIED. 591 water in baptism, and the bread and wine, and the acts of breaking the bread, and pouring out the wine in the Lord's Supper. The form is the divine word used by the minister in administering the elements, devoting them thus to the office of signifying grace. 6. What., according to the Romanists, is the relation hettoeen the sign and the grace signified ? They hold that in consequence of the divine institution, and in virtue of tiie \"power of the Omnipotent which exists in them,\" the grace signified is contained in the very nature of the sacraments themselves, so that it is always conferred, ex opere operato (i. e., ex vi ipsius actionis sacramentalis), upon every receiver of them who does not oppose a positive obstacle thereto. Thus they understand the \"sacramental union,\" or relation between the sign and the grace signified to be p/«/s/ca/, or that which subsists between a substance and its properties, i. e., the virtue of conferring grace is, in the sacraments, as the virtue of burning is in fire. — \"Council of Trent,\" Sess. 7, Cans. 6 and 8. \" Cat. Rom.,\" Part II., Chap, i., Q. 18. Bellarmin, \"De Sacram.,\" 2, 1.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "214", "sort_key": 214, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  the  Zivinglian  doctrine  on  this  subject  ?", "answer": "Zwingle, the reformer of Switzerland, held a position at the opposite extreme to that of the Romish church, viz., that the sign simply represents by appropriate symbols, and symbolical actions, the grace to which it is related. Thus the sacraments are only effective means of the objective presentation of the truth symbolized. 8. In what sense is the loord \" exhibit \" used in our standards in reference to this subject ? Compare \" Con. of Faith,\" Chap, xxvii.. Sec. 3, and Chap, xxviii.. Sec. 6, and \" L. Cat.,\" Q. 162. This word is derived from the Latin word \" exhibeo,\" which bore the twofold sense of conveying and of disclosing. It is evi- dent that the term \"exhibit\" has retained in our standards the former sense of conveying., conferring. As in medical language, \"to exhibit a remedy\" is to administer it. 9. What is the common doctrine of the Reformed churches as to the relation of the sign to the grace signified ? The Reformed confessions agree in teaching that this rela- tion is, 1st, simply moral, i. e., it is established only by the 592 ■ SACRAMENTS. institution and promise of Christ, and it depends upon the right administration of the ordinance, and upon the faith and knowl- edge of the recipient. And, 2d, that it is real, that is, when rightly administered, and when received by the recipient with knowledge and faith they do really, because of the promise of Christ, seal the grace signified, and convey it to the recipient, {. e., the recipient does receive the grace with the sign. This doctrine, therefore, includes, 1st, the Zwinglian view, that the outward visible sign truly signifies the grace. And, 2d, that they are, as ordinances of God's appointment, seals attached to the promise to authenticate it, as the natural phe- nomenon of the rainbow was made a seal of God's promise to Noah in virtue of the divine appointment. 3d. That as seals thus accompanying a divine promise by divine authority, they do actually convey the grace they signify to those for whom that grace is intended, and who are in a proper spiritual state to receive it, \" as a key conveys admission, a deed an estate, the ceremony of marriage the rights of marriage.\" See Tur- retin, L. xix.. Question 4; \"Conf. of Faith,\" Chap, xxvii. ; \" L. Cat.,\" Questions 162, 163; \"Cat. Gene.,\" sec. 5th, \"de Sacra- mentis;\" \"Conf Faith of the French Church,\" article 34; \"Old Scotch Conf.,\" section 21.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "215", "sort_key": 215, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  the  design  of  the  sacraments  ?", "answer": "1st. That they should signify, seal, and exhibit to those within the covenant of grace the benefits of Christ's redemp- tion, and thus as a principal means of grace edify the church. Matt. iii. 11; Gen. xvii. 11, 13; 1 Cor. x. 2-21; xi. 23-26; xii. 13; Rom. ii. 28, 29; iv. 11; vi. 3, 4; Gal. iii. 27; 1 Pet. iii. 21. 2d. That they should be visible badges of membership in the church, to. put a visible difference between the professed followers of Christ and the world, Gen xxxiv. 14; Ex. xii. 48; Eph. ii. 19; \"Conf. Faith,\" Chap, xxvii., section 1. The Romish Doctrine as to the Efficacy of the Sacraments. 11. What is the Romish doctrine as to the efficacy of the Sac- raments ? 1st. As shown above, under Question 6, they hold that the sacraments contain the grace which they signify. That this grace-conferring energy is inseparable from a genuine sacra- ment, and that as an objective fact, they contain it at all times, and present it alike to all subjects irrespective of character. 2d. In every case of their application, except when posi- ROMISH DOCTRINE AS TO THEIR EFFICACY. 593 tively opposed and nullified, they effect the grace they signify, as an o-pit^ operatum, i. e., by the mere inherent power of the sacramental action itself 12. Upon lohat conditions on the part of the administrator do they believe that the efficacy of the sacrament depends? The genuineness of a sacrament on the part of the adminis- trator, depends, according to the Romanists — 1st. On his being canonically authorized. In case of the sacraments of orders and confirmation he must be a bishop in communion with the pope. In the case of the other sacraments he must be a regular popish priest. The personal character of the bishop or priest, even though he be in mortal sin, does not prevent the effect. — \"Con. Trident,\" Sess. can. 12. 2d. The administrator must, in the act, exercise the posi- tive intention of effecting what the chiirch intends to be effected by each sacrament. Dens (Vol. V., p. 127) says, \"To the valid performance of the sacrament is required the intention upon the part of the officiating minister of doing that which the church does. The necessary intention in the minister consists in an act of his will, by which he wills the external action witli the intention of doing what the church does;\" that is, of performing a valid sacrament. Otlierwise, although every external action may be regularly per- formed, the whole is void. See \"Con. Trent,\" Sess. 7, canon 11. This leaves the recipient entirely at the mercy of the minister, since the validity of the whole service depends upon his secret intention, and is evidently one of the devices of that anti-Chris- tian church to make the people dependent upon the priesthood. 13. What is the sense in which Protestants admit '■^ intention\" to he necessary ? They admit that in order to render the outward service a valid sacrament, it must be performed with the ostensible pro- fessed design of compl;y'^ng thereby with the command of Christ, and of doing what he requires to be done by those who accept the gospel covenant. 14. What condition do the Romanists hold to he essential to the efficacy of a sacrament., on the part of the subject ? 1st. In the case of infant baptism no condition upon the part of the subject is necessary. 2d. On the part of adults, the only condition is that they shall not positively oppose them by absolute infidelity or resist- ance of will {non ponentibus ohicem). Faith and repentance, as 38 594 SACRAMENTS. these are possible to the iinregenerate soul, are also required as necessary to the effect of baptism (\" Cat. Eom.,\" Pt. II., Chap, ii., Ques. 39). Bellarmin, \"De Sacramentis,\" 2, 1, says that the will to be baptized, taith, and penitence, are necessary dispositions enabling' the sacrament to produce its effect, just as dryness on the part of wood is the condition of the fire burning it when applied, but never the cause of the burning. 15. What according to the Papal Church are the effects produced hy the sacraments? 1st. Justifying (sanctifying) grace. 2d. Three of the sacraments, baptism, confirmation, and or- ders, also impress upon the subject \"a character.\" This \"sac- ramental character\" (from the Greek word x^xpcxnrTJft, a mark, or device, engraved or impressed hy a seal) is a distinctive and indelible impression stamped on the soul, \" the twofold effect of which is, that it qualifies us to receive or perform something sacred, and distinguishes one from another.\" It is upon this account that baptism and confirmation are never repeated, and that the authority and privileges of the priesthood can never be alienated. — \"Cat. Rom.,\" Part IL, Chap, i., Q. 21-25; \" Council Trent,\" Sess. 7, can. 9.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "216", "sort_key": 216, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "Hoiv  may  this  doctrine  he  disproved  ?", "answer": "That the sacraments have not the power of conveying grace to all, whether they are included within the covenant of grace or not, or Avhether they possess faith or not, is certain, because — 1st. They are seals of the gospel covenant (see below, Ques- tion 14). But a seal merely ratifies a covenant as a covenant. It can convey the grace promised only on the supposition that the conditions of the covenant are fulfilled. But salvation and every spiritual blessing is by that covenant declared to depend upon the condition of faith. 2d. Knowledge and faith are required as the prerequisite conditions necessary to be found in all applicants, as the essen- tial qualification for receiving the sacraments. — Acts ii. 41 ; viii. 37; x. 47; Rom. iv. 11. 3d. Faith is essential to render the sacraments efficacious. Eom. ii. 25-29; 1 Cor. xi. 27-29; 1 Pet. iii. 21. 4th. Many who receive the sacraments are notoriously with- out the grace they signify. Witness the case of Simon j\\Iagus, Acts viii. 9-21, and of many of the Corinthians and Galatians, and of the majority of nominal Christians in tlie present day. 5th. ]\\Iany have had the grace without the sacraments. Witness Abraham, the thief upon the cross, and Cornelius the LUTHERAN VIEW AS TO THEIR EFFICACY. 595 centurion, and a multitude of eminent Christians among the Society of Friends. 6th. This doctrine blasphemously ties down the grace of the ever living and sovereign God, and puts its entire disposal into the hands of fallible and often wicked men. 7th. This doctrine is an essential element of that ritualistic and priestly system which prevailed among the Pharisees, and against which the Avhole New Testament is a protest. 8th. The uniform effect of this system has been to exalt the power of the priests, and to confound all knowledge as to the nature of true religion. As the baptized, as a matter of fact, do not always nor generally bear the fruits of the Spirit, all rit- ualists agree in regarding these fruits as. not essential to salva- tion. Where this system prevails vital godliness expires. Doctrine op Protestant Churches as to the Efficacy of the Sacraments. 17. Wliat is the Lutheran doctrine as to the efficacy of the sacraments ? 1st. They reject the popish doctrine that the sacraments effect grace ex opere operctto. 2d. They maintain that their grace-conferring efficacy resides in the sacraments intrinsically. 3d. That as an objective fact it is communicated to every recipient, whether he have faith or not. 4:th. But it takes effect only in those who have true faith to receive it. As the healing virtue resided in Christ whether the woman touched or not (Matt. ix. 20), yet it would not have availed her unless she had believed and touched. 5th. They hold that this efficacy resides not in the sign or ceremony, but in the Word which accompanies the sign and constitutes it a sacrament. The efficacy is not due to the mere moral power of the truth, nor to the faith of the recipient, but it is supernatural, residing in the power of the Holy Ghost. But not the power of the Holy .Ghost as extrinsic to the truth, but as dwelling in it, and inseparable from it — the virtus Sjjir- itus Sancti intrinsicus ctcredens. See Krauth's \" Conservative Reformation,\" pp. 825-830. 18. JVhat is the Zwinglian and Remonstrant vieio as to the same ? The tendency of thought on this subject first developed by Zwingle was afterward carried out more fully by the Eemon- strants of the next century, and to a greater extent by the 596 SACRAMENTS. Socinians. Low views as to the nature and efficacy of the sacraments have also largely prevailed in this centnry among all evangelical churches, in reaction from the extreme views of the Eomanists and Ritualists. For a general statement of this mode of thought see above, Ques. 7. 19. State the, doctrine of the Reformed churches on this subject. As to their doctrine of the relation of the sign to the grace signified, see above, Ques. 9. Hence as to the efficacy of the sacraments the Reformed — 1st. Deny that they confer grace as an ojyus operatum. 2d. They affirm that they convey no grace to the unworthy recip- ient. 3d. That their efficacy is not of the mere moral power of the truth they symbolize. 4th. That they do really confer grace upon the worthy recipient. 5th. But they do this instru- mentally, because the supernatural efficiency is not due to them, nor to him that administers them, but to the Holy Spirit who as a free personal agent uses them sovereignly as his instru- ments to do his will (virtus Sjnritus Sancti extrinsicus accedens). 6th. That as seals of the covenant of grace they convey and confirm grace to those to whom it belongs, i. e., that is to those who are within that covenant, and in the case of adults, only through a living laith. 7th. That the grace conferred by the sacraments often is conferred upon true believers before and without their use. 20. By lohat evidence is the truth of the Eeformed Doctrine established ? The truth of the Reformed doctrine is established on the one hand by the evidence disproving the truth of the Romish doctrine, set forth under Ques. 16. Its truth as opposed to the meagre Zwinglian view, on the other hand, is established as follows: (1.) That the sacraments are not only signs of the grace of Christ, but also seals of the gospel covenant offering us that grace upon the condition of faith, \" is evident from the fact that Paul says that circumcision is the seal of the right- eousness of faith. — Rom. iv. 11. And that the apostle regarded baptism in the same light is evident from Col. ii. 11. In refer- ence to the Lord's Supper, the Saviour said, 'this cup is the new covenant in my blood,' {. e., the new covenant was ratified by his blood. Of that blood the cup is the appointed memorial, and it is, therefore, both the memorial and the confirmation of the covenant itself .... The gospel is represented under the form of a covenant. The sacraments are the seals of that covenant. God, in their appointment, binds himself to the ful- filment of his promises; his people, by receiving them, bind ROMISH VIEW AS TO THEIR NECESSITY. 597 themselves to trust and serve liim. This idea is inchided in the representation given (Rom. vi. 3, 4) in the formula of baptism, and in all those passages in Avhich a participation of Christian ordinances is said to include a profession of the gospel.\" (2.) As seals attached to the covenant, it follows that they actually convey the grace signified, as a legal form of investiture, to those to whom, according to the terms of the covenant, it belongs. Thus a deed, when signed and sealed, is said to convey the property it represents, because it is the legal form by which the intention of the original possessor is publicly expressed, and his act ratified. It is on this ground that in Scripture, as in common language, the names and attributes of the graces sealed are ascribed to the sacraments by which they are sealed and conveyed to their rightful possessors. — \"Conf Faith,\" Chap, xxvii., section 2. They are said to wash away sin, to unite to Christ, to save, etc. — Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16; Rom. vi. 2, 6; 1 Cor. x. 16; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27; Titus iii. 5. \"Way of Life.\" The Necessity op the Sacraments. 21. Wliat doctrine do the Romanists maintain as to the necessity of the Sacraments ? The Romanists distinguish, 1st, between a condition abso- lutely necessary to attain an end, and one which is only highly convenient and helpful in order to it. And, 2d, between the necessit}'\" which attaches to essential means, and that obli- gation which arises from the positive command of God. Ac- cordingly, they hold that the several sacraments are necessary in different respects. Baptism they hold to be absolutely necessary, either its actual reception, or tlie honest purpose to receive it, alike for infants and adults, as the sole means of attaining salvation. Penance they hold to be absolutely necessary in the same sense, but only for those who have committed mortal sin subse- quently to their baptism. Orders they hold to be absolutely necessary in the same sense, yet not for every individual, as a means of personal sal- vation, but in respect to the whole church as a community. Confirmation, the Eucharist, and Extreme Unction are neces- sary only in the sense of having been commanded, and of being eminently helpful. JMarriage tliey hold to be necessary only in this second sense, and only for those wdio enter into the conjugal relation. — \" Cat. Rom.,\" Fart XL, Chap, i., Q. 13. 598 SACRAMENTS. Puseyitefs, and high churchmen generally, hold the dogma of baptismal regeneration, and of course the consequence that baptism is absolutely necessary as the sole means of salvation. 22. What is the Protestant doctrine as to the necessity of the sacraments ? 1st. That the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper were instituted by Christ, and that their perpetual observance is obligatory upon the church upon the ground of the divine precept. This is evident (1) from the record of their institution, Matt, xxviii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 25, 2Q>', (2) from the example of the apostles.— Acts ii. 41; viii. 37; 1 Cor. xi. 23-28; x. 16-21. 2d. That nevertheless the grace offered in the gospel cove- nant does not reside in these sacraments physically, nor is it tied to them inseparably, so that, although obligatory as duties, and helpful as means to those who are prepared to receive them, they are in no sense the essential means, Avithout which salva- tion can not be attained. This is proved by the arguments presented above, under Q. 16. The Validity of the Sacraments. This includes whatever is essential to the genuineness of a sacrament, in order that it may avail to the end of its institution.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "217", "sort_key": 217, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  are  the  various  opinions  on  this  subject?", "answer": "All church parties agree that there must be — 1st. The right \"matter,\" the proper elements, and actions. 2d. The right \"form,\" the prescribed words which attend its administration, and added to the \" form \" constitute the sacrament. 3d. The right \"intention,\" the serious design of doing what Christ com- manded in the institution of the rite. Different churches differ as to what are the proper \"matter,\" \"form,\" and \"intention.\" It appears certain that no one not sincerely believing in the supreme deity of Christ and in his office as Redeemer, and in the personality of the Holy Ghost, can possibly have the right \"intention.\" Hence the General Assembly, 1814 (\"Moore's Digest.,\" p. 660), decided, \"It is the deliberate and unanimous opinion of the Assembly, that those who renounce the fundamental doctrines of the Trinity, and deny that Jesus Christ is the same in substance, equal in power and glory with the Father, can not be recognized as ministers of the gospel, and that their ministrations (baptism, etc.) are wholly invalid.\" All churches agree that \"the efficacy of a sacrament does not depend upon the piety of him that doth THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR VALIDITY. 599 administer it.\" — \"Conf. Faith,\" Ch. xxvii., § 3, \"Can. Cone. Trident,\" Sess. 7, can. 11. And the \"GaUic Conf.,\" Art. 28, states the common opinion and practice of all the Protestant churches with respect to Romish baptism. \" Because, never- theless, that in the papacy some scant vestiges of the true church remain, and especially the substance of baptism, the efficacy of which does not depend on him that administers it, Ave acknowledge those baptized by them, not to need to be re- baptized, although on account of the corruptions adhering, no one can offer his infants to be baptized by them, without suf- fering pollution himself\" In respect to the qualifications of the person administrating the Papists maintain that it is essential to the validity of a sacrament that it should be administered by a canonically or- dained minister. For orders and confirmation a bishop, for the rest a priest. But on account of the absolute necessity (as they hold) of baptism for salvation, they admit \"all, even from among the laity, whether men or women, whatever sect they profess (to baptize). For this is permitted, if necessity compels, even to Jews, infidels or heretics, provided, however, they intend to perform what the Catholic Church performs in that act of her ministry.\" — \" Cat. of Cone. Trident,\" and \" Cone. Trident,\" Sess, 7, \" On Bapt.,\" can. 4. Protestants regard the sacraments both as a preaching of the Word, and as authoritative seals, and badges of church mem- bership. Their administration consequently must be confined to those church officers who possess by divine commission the office of teaching and ruling, \"neither of which (sacraments) may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word, law- fully ordained.\" — \"Conf Faith,\" Ch. xxvii., §4 Not regarding baptism as essential to salvation, Protestants generally make no exception in favor of lay- baptism. — \"Directory for Worship,\" Ch. vii., § 1, Calvin's \"Instit.,\" Bk. IV., Ch. xv., § 20. The Authoeitative Statements of vAniotis Chiteches. EoMiSH Docteine. — '■'■Gdi. Cone. Trident,\" Pt. 2, ch. i., Ques. 8. — \"A sacrament is a thing lying open to the senses, which from the institution of God, has the power both of signifying and of effecting holiness and righteousness. \" ''Cone. Trident,\" Sess. 7, can. 1. — \"If any one saith that the sacra- ments of the New Law, were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, or that they are more or less than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.\" Can. 4. — \"If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, 600 SACRAMENTS. or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification (though all the sacraments are not necessary for every individual); let him be anathema.\" Can. 6. — \"If any one saith that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify; or that they do not confer that grace on those who do not place an obstacle thereunto; as though they were merely outward signs of grace or justice received through faith, and certain marks of the Christian profession, whereby believers are dis- tinguished amongst men from unbelievers; let him be anathema.\" Can. 8. — \"If any one saith that by the sacraments of the New Law gi'ace is not conferred ex uptre openito, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema.\" Can. 9.— \"If any one says that in the three sacraments, of Baptism, Confirmation, and Orders, there is not imprinted in the soul a character, that is a certain spiritual and indelible sign, on account of which they can not be repeated; let him be anathema.\" Can. 11. — \"If any one saith that in ministers, when they effect and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention, at least, of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.\" ''Cat. Cone. Trident,\" Ft. 2, ch. i., Ques. 24, 25.— \"The other effect of Bai)tism, Confirmation, and Orders is the character which they im- press on the soul. This character is, as it were, a certain distinctive mark impressed on the soul, which inhering, as it does perpetually, can never be blotted out ... it has a twofold effect: it both renders us fit to undertake and i^erform something sacred; and it serves to distin- guish us one from another by some mark. \" Belli trmin \"De Sac,\" 2, 1. — \"That which actively, proximately, and instrumeutally efiects the grace of justification is that sole external action which is called a sacrament, and tliis is called an opus operatum, being received passively (operatum), so that it is the same for a sacrament to confer grace ex opere operate, that it is to confer grace by virtue of the sacramental action itself, instituted by God for this end, and not from the merit either of the agent or of the receiver. . . . The will of God, which uses the sacrament, concurs indeed actively, but is the principal cause. The sufterings of Christ concur, but is the meritori- ous cause, not however the efficient (cause), since it is not in the act, but has passed away, although it remains objectively in the mind of God. The power and will of the minister necessarily concur, but they are remote causes, for they are requii-ed to effect the sacramental action itself, which afterwards acts immediately. . . . Will, faith, and re- pentance in the adult recipient are necessarily required as dispositions on the part of the subject, not as active causes, for not even faith and re- pentance can either efiect sacramental grace, or give efficacy to the sac- rament, but only remove obstacles, which would hinder the sacraments from exercising their own efficacy, hence in the case of children, where disijosition is not required, justification is effected without these things. If in order to burn wood, the wood is first dried, the fire struck out from, the flint, and then applied to the wood, and then combustion ensues, no one would say that the immediate cause of the combustion was either the dryness, or the striking of fire from the flint, or its apjilication to the wood, but that the primai-y cause is the fire alone, and the instru- mental cau.se is the heating alone.\" The Luthekan Doctkine. \"Aug. Conf.,\" p. 13. (Hase). — \"Sacra- ments have been instituted not only that they might be marks of profes- sion among men, but more that they may be signs and testimonies of AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS. 601 tlie will of God toward us set forth to excite and confirra faith in those who use them.\" \"Aj)ol. Augs. Con/.,\" p. 267. — \"And because that in a sacrament there are two things, the sign and the word; the word is the New Testament promise of the remission of sin . , . and the ceremony is as it Avere a picture of the word or a seal showing the promise. Therefore as the promise is ineffective if it be not accepted by faith, so the ceremony is ineffective unless faith accedes. And as the word is given to excite this faith; so the sacrament is instituted, that this representation meeting the eyes may move the heart to believe. \" lb., p. 203. — \" We condemn the whole class of scholastic doctors, who teach that to one presenting no obstacle the sacraments confer grace ex opere opernto, without any good movement of the ijartaker. But sacra- ments are signs of promises, therefore in the txse of them faith should be present. . . We here speak of the special faith which trusts a present promise, which not only beheves in general that God is, but beheves that I'emission of sins is offered. \" Quenstedt {WiUenhurg tl688), Vol. I., p. 169.— \"The word of God has, from the will and ordination of God himself, even before and beyond all legitimate use, an intrinsic power divine and common to all men, and sufficient for producing immediately and properly spiritual and divine effects, both gracious and piinitive.\" \"Aug. Co///.,\" Art. 9. — \" They condemn the Anabaptists who disap- prove of the baptism of children, and who affirm that children can be saved wdthout baptism.\" \"Apol. Aug. Con/.,\" -p. 156. — \"The ninth ai'ticle is approved in which we confess, that Baptism is necessary for salvation, and that children are to be baptized, and that the baptism of children is not void, but neces- sary and efficacious to salvation.\" ''Art. Smaladd,\" pars. 3, ch. 8. — \"And in respect to these things which concern the spoken and outward word, it is steadfastly to be maintained, that God grants to no one his Spirit or grace, unless through the word and with the word outward and preceding. . . Wherefore in this we must constantly persevere, because God does not wish to act otherwise with us than through the spoken word and sacraments, and because whatever is boasted of, as the Spirit, without the word and sac- raments, is the devil himself.\" The Refobmed Doctrine. \"Cofech. Genei\\,\" p. 519. — \"A sacrament is an outward attestation of the divine benevolence towards us, which by a visible sign figures sjiiritual graces, for sealing the promises of God to our hearts, whei'eby their vii'tue may be the better confirmed. Do you think that the power and efficacy of the sacrament are embraced not in the outward element, biit flow only from the Sjiirit of God ? I think so, tridy, as it would be pleasing to the Master to exercise his own force through his own instrumentalities, to whatever design he destined them. \" \"C*'/<. Hfidelh.,\" Fr. 66. — \"Sacraments are visible, sacred signs and seals appointed by God that in their use we may have the promise of the gospel made clearer and sealed; to wit, that God for the sake of the one oblation of Christ bestows on us forgiveness of sins and eternal life.\" \"TIiirti/-nine AHidea,''' Krt. 25. — \"Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and God's good- will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and dotli not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. . . . And in such only as worthily receive the same they have a wholesome 602 SACRAMENTS. eflfect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as St. Paul saith.\" \"T^es/. Conf. Faith,\" ch. 27; \"Z. Cat.,\" Ques. 161-168; ''S. Cat.,\" Ques. 91-93. See above, page 589. ZwiNGLiAN AND Eemonstrant Doctrine. Limhorcl), \"Christ. Theo.,\" 5, 66, 31. — \"It remains to say that God, through the sacraments, exhib- its to us his grace, not hj conferring it in fact through them, but by representing it and placing it before our eyes through them as clear and evident signs. . . And this efficacy is no other than objective, which requires a cognitive faculty rightly disposed that it may be able to appre- hend that which the sign offers objectively to the mind. . . They operate uijon us, as signs representing to the mind the thing whose sign they are. No other efficacy ought to be sought for in them. \" CHAPTER XLII. BAPTISM: ITS NATURE AND DESIGN, MODE, SUBJECTS, EFFICACY, AND NECESSITY. The Nature and Design of Baptism. 1. State the facts with regard to the ^prevalence of tvashing ivith tvater, as a symbol of spiritual puri/ication, among the Jews and Gentile nations before the advent of Christ. No other religious symbol is so natural and obvious, and none has been so universally practiced. Its usage is distinctly traced among the disciples of Zoroaster, the Brahmen, the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, and especially the Jews. In the original tabernacle, the pattern of which God showed Moses on the mount, a large laver stood between the altar on which expiation was made for sin, and the Holy House. At which laver the priests continually washed ere they entered the presence of God. This symbolism penetrated all their re- ligious services and language (Ps. xxvi. 6; Heb. ix. 10), and at the time of Christ it was carried into all the details of secular life (Mark vii. 3, 4). The religious washing of the body with water lay, there- fore, ready to the use of John the Baptist, and the disciples of our Lord.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "218", "sort_key": 218, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "Was  Johrcs  baptism  Christian  baptism  ?", "answer": "The \"Council of Trent\" (Sess. 7, \"De Baptismo,\" can. 1) de- cided, \"If any one should say that the baptism of John had the same eftect with the baptism of Christ; let him be anathema.\" For controversial reasons Protestants, especially those of the school of Zwingle and Calvin, took the opposite side, and de- cided that the two were identical (Calvin's \" Instit,\" Bk. IV., Ch. XV., § 7-18, Turretin's \" Instit.,\" L. 19, Quse. 16). We believe Calvin, etc., to have been wrong, for the follow- ing reason — 1st. John belonged to the Old and not to the New Testa- ment economy. He came \" in the spirit and power of Elias,\" 604 BAPTISM. Luke i. 17, in the garb, with the manners, and teaching the doctrine of the ancient prophets (Matt. xi. 13, 14; Luke i. 17). 2d. His was the \" baptism of repentance,\" binding its sub- jects to repentance, but not to the faith and obedience of Christ. 3d. The Jewish Church yet remained in its okl form. The Christian Church, as such, did not exist. John preached that \" the kingdom of heaven was at hand,\" but he did not by bap- tism gather and seal the subjects of that kingdom into a sepa- rate visible society. While he lived his personal disciples were never merged with those of Christ. 4th. It was not administered in the name of the Trinity. 5th. Those baptized by John were rebaptized by Paul (Acts xviii. 24-xix. 7). 3. Were the baptisms practiced by the disciples of Christ previ- ous to his crucifixion identical ivith that practiced by the apostles after his ascension? — See John iii. 22 and iv. 1 and 2. Up to the time of his death Christ, like John, conformed to the usages and taught the doctrines of the Jewish dispensation. His crucifixion and resurrection mark the actual transition of the new out of the old dispensation. The nature of his king- dom and his own divinity, and hence the doctrine of the Trin- ity, was not clearly discerned, and the Christian Church as a distinct communion was not yet organized. He preached like John, \" Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,\" ]\\Iatt. iv. 17, and he commissioned his disciples to say \"the kingdom of God has come nigh unto you.\" — Luke x. 9. We, therefore, believe that this baptism practiced by his disciples before his crucifixion was, like tliat of John, simply a preparatory purifying rite binding to repentance. 4. Where is the record of the real institution of Christian baptism contained ? Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. — \" Go ye therefore, and disciple {naOrj- rsvdars) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to ob- serve all things, whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.\" 5. Prove fhcd its observance is of pierpetual obligation. This has been denied by Socinians on rationalistic grounds, and by (Quakers (Barclay, \" Apol. Prop.,\" 12, comm. § 6), on the ground of a false spiritualism, and by some parties of Anti- Baptists, who hold baptism to have been exclusively designed for the initiation of aliens to the church, and therefore not ITS ''MATTER'' AND ''FORM:' 605 to be applied to those born within the church, in established Christian communities. That it was designed to be observed everywhere and always is plain — 1st. From the command given in the words of institu- tion. (1.) \"All nations,\" and (2) \"alway, even unto the end of the world.\" 2d. The commands and practice of the apostles. Acts ii. 38 ; X. 47 ; xvi. 33, etc. 3d. The reason of and neces- sity for the ordinance which determined its existence at the hrst, remains and is universal. 4th. The uniform practice of the entire church in all its branches from the beginning.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "219", "sort_key": 219, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "How  is  baptism  defined  in  our  standards  ?", "answer": "\"Con. of Faith,\" Chap, xxviii. ; \"L. Cat,\" Q. 165; \"S. Cat,\" The essential points of this definition are — 1st. It is a wash- ing with water. 2d. A washing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 3d. It is done with the design to \" sig- nify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's.\"", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "220", "sort_key": 220, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  essential  to  the  '■'•  matter\"  of  baptism?", "answer": "As to its \"matter,\" baptism is essentially a washmg unth water. No particular mode of washing is essential — 1st. Be- cause no such mode is specified in the command. — See below, QuevStions 12-21. 2d. Because no such mode of administration is essential to the proper symbolism of the ordinance. — See be- low, Question 11. On the other hand, water is necessary — 1st. Because it is commanded. 2d. Because it is essential to the symbolism of tlie rite. It is the natural symbol of moral puri- fication, Eph. V. 25, 26 ; and it was established as such in the ritual of Moses. 8. What is necessary as to the form of words in which baptism is administered ? It is essential to the validity of the ordinance that it should be administered \" in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of tlie Holy Ghost.\" This is certain — 1st. Because it is included in the command. — Matt, xxviii. 19. 2d. From the significancy of the rite. Besides being a symbol of purifica- tion, it is essentially, as a i\"ite of initiation into the Christian church, a covenanting ordinance whereby the recipient recog- nize and pledges his allegiance to God in that character and in those relations in which he has revealed himself to us in the Scriptures. The formula of baptism, therefore, is a summary 606 BAPTISM. statement of the whole Scripture doctrine of the Triune Jeho- vah as he has chosen to reveal himself to us, and in all those relations which the several Persons of the Trinity graciously sustain in the scheme of redemption to the believer. Hence the baptism of all those sects which reject the scriptural doc- trine of the Trinity is invalid. The frequent phrases, to be baptized in \"the name of Jesus Christ,\" or \"in the name of the Lord Jesus,\" or \"in the name of the Lord\" (Acts ii. 38; x. 48; xix. 5), do not at all present the form of words Avhich the apostles used in administering this sacrament, but are simply used to designate Christian bap- tism in distinction from that of John, or to indicate the uni- form effect of that spiritual grace which is symbolized in bap- tism, viz., union with Christ. — Gal. iii. 27. 9. Wliat is the meaning of the formula '\"'■to baptize in the name (f/? TO ovof.ta) of any one\" ? To be baptized \"in the name of Paul\" (e^s t6 uvojua), 1 Cor. i. 13, or \"unto JMoses\" (e/? ruv Mooudrfv), 1 Cor. x. 2, is, on the part of the baptized, to be made the believing and obedient disciples of Paul and Moses, and the objects of their care, and the participants in whatever blessings they have to bestow. To be baptized in the name of the Trinity (INIatt. xxviii. 19), or \" in the name of the Lord Jesus \" (Acts xix. 5), or \" into Jesus Christ,\" (Rom. vi. 3), is by baptism, or rather by the grace of which ritual baptism is the sign, to be united to Christ, or to the Trinity through Christ, as his disciples, believers in his doc- trine, heirs of his promises, and participants in his spiritual life.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "221", "sort_key": 221, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  the  design  of  baptism  ?", "answer": "Its design is — 1st. Primarily, to signifj^ seal, and convey to those to whom they belong the benefits of the covenant of grace. Thus — (1.) It symbolizes \"the washing of regeneration,\" \"the renew- ing of the Holy Ghost,\" which unites the believer to Christ, and so makes him a participant in Christ's life and all other benefits. ��� 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27; Titus iii. 5. (2.) Christ herein visibly seals his promises to those who receive it with faith, and invests them with the grace promised. 2d. Its design was, secondarily, as springing from the former, (1) to be a visible sign of our covenant to be the Lord's, i. e., to accept his salvation, and to consecrate ourselves to his service. (2.) And, hence, to be a badge of our public profession, our separation from the world, and our initiation into the visible churcli. As a badge it marks us as belonging to the Lord, ITS EMBLEMATIC IMPORT. 607 and consequently (a) distinguishes us from the world, ('?>) sym- bolizes our union with our fellow-Christians. — 1 Cor. xii. 13.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "222", "sort_key": 222, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "Wliat  is  tlie  emblematic  import  ofhopfism?", "answer": "In every sacrament there is a visible sign representing an invisible grace. The sign represents the grace in virtue of Christ's authoritativel}^ appointing it thereto, but the selection by Christ of the particular sign is founded on its fitness as a natural emblem of the grace which he appoints it to represent. Thus in the Lord's supper the bread broken by the officiating minister, and the wine poured out, are natural emblems of the body of Christ broken, and his blood shed as a sacrifice for our sins. And in like manner in the sacrament of baptism the ap- plication of water to tlie person of the recipient is a natural emblem of the \" washing of regeneration.\" — Titus iii. 5. Hence we are said to be \" born of water and of the Spirit,\" John iii. 5, i. e., regenerated by the Holy Spirit, of which new birth baptism with water is the emblem ; and to be baptized \" by one Spirit into one body,\" i. e., the spiritual body of Christ; and to be \" baptized into Christ,\" so as \" to have put on Christ,\" Gal. iii. 27; and to be \"baptized into his death,\" and to be \"buried with him in baptism ... so that we should walk with him in newness of life,\" Rom. vi. 3, 4, because the sacrament of baptism is the emblem of that spiritual regeneration which unites us both federally and spiritually to Christ, so that we have part with him both in his life and in his death, and as he died unto sin as a sacrifice, so we die unto sin in its ceasing to be the controlling principle of our natures; and as he rose again in the resumption of his natural life, we rise to the possession and exercise of a new spiritual life. Baptist interpreters, on the otlier hand, insist that the Bible teaches that the outward sign in this sacrament, being the im- mersion of the whole body in water, is an emblem both of puri- fication and of our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. Dr. Carson says, p. 381, \"The immersion of the whole body is essential to baptism, not because nothing but immersion can be an emblem of purification, but because immersion is the thing commanded, and because that, without immersion, there is no emblem of death, burial, and resurrection, which are in the emblem equally witli purification.\" He founds his assumption that the outward sign in the sacrament of baptism was de- signed to be an emblem of the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer in union with Christ, upon Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. AVe object to this interpretation — 1st. In neither of these passages does Paul say that our baptism in water is an emblem 608 BAPTISM. of our burial with Christ. He is evidently speaking of that spiritual baptism of which water baptism is the emblem ; by which spiritual baptism we are caused to die unto sin, and live unto holiness, in which death and new life we are conformed unto the death and resurrection of Christ. We are said to be \" baptized into Christ,\" which is the work of the Spirit, not \"into the name of Christ,\" which is the phrase always used when speaking of ritual baptism. — ]\\Iatt. xxviii. 19; Acts ii. 38; xix. 5. 2d. To be \"baptized into his death\" is a phrase per- fectly analogous to baptism \"into repentance,\" Matt. iii. 11, and \"into remission of sins,\" Mark i. 4, and \"into one body,\" 1 Cor. xii. 13, i. e., in order that, or to the effect that, we par- ticipate in the benefits of his death. 3d. The Baptist interpretation involves an utter confusion in reference to the emblem. Do they mean that the outward sign of immersion is an emblem of the death, burial, and re- svu'rection of Christ, or of the spiritual death, burial, and resur- rection of the believer? But the point of comparison in the passages themselves is plainly \"not between our baptism and the burial and resurrection of Christ, but between oiu- death to sin and rising to holiness, and the death and resurrection of the Kedeemer.\" 4th. Baptists agree with us that baptism with water is an emblem of spiritual purification, i. e., regeneration, but insist that it is also an emblem (in the mode of immersion) of the death of the believer to sin and his new life of holiness. — Dr. Carson, p. 143. But what is the distinction between regenera- tion and a death unto sin, and life unto holiness. 5th. Baptists agree with us that water baptism is an emblem of purification. But surely it is impossible that the same action should at the same time be an emblem of a washing, and of a burial and a resurrection. One idea may be associated with the other in consequence of their spiritual relations, but it is impossible that the same visible sign should be emblematical of both. 6th. Our union with Christ through the Spirit, and the spir- itual consequences thereof, are illustrated in Scripture by many various figures, e. g., the substitution of a heart of flesh for a heart of stone, Ezek. xxxvi. 2(3; the building of a house, Eph. ii. 22; tiie ingrafting of a limb into a vine, John xv. 5; the putting off of filthy garments, and the putting on of clean, Eph. iv. 22-24; as a spiritual death, burial, and resurrection, and as a being planted in the likeness of his death, Kom. vi. 3-5; as the application of a cleansing element to tlie body, Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Now baptism with water represents all these, because it is an emblem of spiritual regeneration, of which all of ITS MODE. 609 these are analogical illustrations. Hence we are said to be \"bap- tized into one body,\" 1 Cor. xii. 13, and by baptism to \" have put on Christ,\" Gal. iii. 27. Yet it would be absurd to regard Avater baptism as a literal emblem of all these, and our Baptist brethren have no scriptural warrant for assuming that the out- ward sign in this sacrament is an emblem of the one analogy more than of tlie other. — See Dr. Armstrong's \"Doctrine of Baptisms,\" Part II., Chap. ii. The ]\\Iode of Baptism. 12. Wliat are the ivords toJiich, in the original language of Scyiptiire, are used to convey the command to baptize? The primary word (idnzco occurs four times in the New Tes- tament (Luke xvi. 24; John xiii. 26; Rev. xix. 13), but never in connection with the subject of Christian baptism. Its clas- sical meaning was, 1st, to dip; 2d, to dye; 3d, to wash by dipping or pouring. The word fiLxnvLZ,(sa, in form, though not in usage, tlie fre- quentative oi (idTtrco, occurs seventy-six times in the New Tes- tament, and is the word used by the Holy Ghost to convey the command to baptize. Its classical meaning was, (1) dip, sub- merge, sink; (2) to wet thoroughly; (3) to pour upon, to drench ; (4) to overwhelm. Besides these, we have the nouns of the same root and usage, f5dTtTi6ida occurring twenty-two times, translated baptism., and fttxTtTidfioi occurring four times, trans- lated baptism, Heb. vi. 2, and icashing, Mark. vii. 4, 8; Heb. ix. 10. The only question with Avhich we are concerned, however, is as to the scrptural usage of these words. It is an important and universally recognized principle, that the biblical and clas- sical usage of the same word is often very different. This effect is to be traced to the influence of three general causes. — See ^'■Baptism, its 3Iodes and Suhjects\" by Dr. Alex. Carson; '-'- Mean- ing and Use of the Word Baptkein\" by Rev. Dr. Conant, and ^^ Classic, Judaic, Johannic, and Christian Baptism,''' by Rev. James W. Dale, D.D. 1st. The principal classics of the language were composed in the Attic dialect. But the general language used by the Greek-speaking world at the Christian era was the \" common, or Hellenic dialect of the later Greek,\" resulting from the fusion of the different dialects previously existing. . 2d. The language of the writers of the New Testament was again greatly modifled by the fact that their vernacular Avas a form of the Hebrew language (Syro-Chaldaic) ; that their con- stant use of the Septuagint translation of tlie Hebrew Scriptures had largely influenced their usage of the Greek language, espe- 39 . 610 BAPTISM. cially in the department of religious thought and expression; and that, in the very act of composing the New Testament Scriptures, they were engaged in the statement of rehgious ideas, and in the inauguration of rehgious institutions which had their t^'pes and symbols in the ancient dispensation, as revealed in the sacred language of the Hebrew Scriptures. 3d. The New Testament writings are a revelation of new ideas and relations, and hence the words and phrases through wliich these new thoughts are conveyed must be greatly modi- fied in respect to their former etymological sense and heathen usage, and \"for the full depth and compass of meaning belong- ing to them in their new application we must look to the New Testament itself, comparing one passage with another, and viewing the language used in the light of the great things which it brings to our apprehension.\" As examples of this contrast between the scriptural and classical usage of a word, observe, ayytXo'i, angel; TcpEd/Jvrspoi, presbyter or ekhr; hHH\\-t]6ia, church; f5a6iXeia rov Osov, or roov ovpavc^v, Mngdom of God, or of heaven; -rcaXiyyEvEdia, i^egenera- tion; ia'/3??, grace, etc., etc. — Fairbairn's \"Herm. JManual,\" Part I., section 2. 13. What is the position of the Baptist churches as to the mean- ing of the Scriptural ivord ^anriZoo, and by ivhat arguments do tJwy seek tojyrove that im.inersion is the only valid mode of baptism? \"That it always signifies to dip, never expressing any thing but mode.\"— \" Carson on Baptism,\" p. 55. He confesses: \"1 have ALL tlie lexicographers and commentators against me.\" Baptists insist, therefore, upon always translating the words (ianzL^oa and fidTiri6).ia by the words immerse and immersion. They argue that immersion is the only valid mode of bap- tism— 1st. From the constant meaning of the word (ianTiZ^a). 2d. From the symbolical import of the rite, as emblematic of burial and resurrection. 3d. From the practice of the apostles. 4th. From history of the early church. 14. What is the position occupied upon this point by all other Christians ? 1st. It is an established principle of scriptural usage that the names and attributes of the things signified by sacramental signs are attributed to the signs, and on the other hand that the name of the sign is used to designate the grace signified. Thus, Gen. xvii. li, 13, the name of covenant is given to cir- cumcisio)! ; IMatt. xxvi. 2r)-28, Christ called the bread his body, and the wine his blood; Titus iii. 5, baptism is called the wash- WASHING TO EFFECT PURIFICATION. 611 ing of regeneration. Thus also the words baptize and baptism are often used to designate that work of the Holy Ghost in re- generation, which the sign, or water baptism, signifies. — Matt. iii. 11; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27; Deut. xxx. 6. It follows con- sequently that these words are often used in a spiritual sense. 2d. These words when relating to ritual baptism, or the sign representing the thing signified, imply the application of water in the name of the Trinity, as an emblem of purification or spiritual regeneration, and never, in their scriptural usage, sig- nify any thing whatever as to the mode in which the water is applied. The precise question in debate is to be stated thus. Baptists insist that Christ's command to baptize is a command to \"im- merse.\" All other Christians hold that it is a command to \"wash with water\" as a symbol of spiritual purification. I have answered, under Question 11, above, tlie second Bap- tist argument, as stated under Question 13. Their first and third arguments, as there stated, I will proceed to answer now. 15. Hoio may it he jjvoved from their scriptural vsage that the words ficxTtvi^oo and fidnzid/ja do not signify immersion., hut wash- ing to effect PURiFiCATiox, ivithout any reference to mode ? 1st. The word occurs four times in the Septuagint transla- tion of the Old Testament, in three of which instances it refers to baptism with water. 2 Kings v. 14 — The prophet told Naa- man to \"wash and be clean,\" and \"he baptized himself in Jor- dan, and he was clean.\" Eccle. xxxiv. 25 — \" He that baptizeth himself after the touching of a dead body.\" This purification according to the law was accomplished by sprinMinr/ the icater of separation. — Num. xix. 9, 13, 20. Judith xii. 7, Judith \"bap- tized herself in the camp at a fountain of water.\" Bathing was not performed among those nations by immersion; and the cir- cumstances in which Judith was placed increase the improb- ability in her case. It was a purification, for she \" baptized herself,\" and \"so came in ctean.\" 2d. The question agitated between some of John's disciples and the Jews, John iii. 22-30, and iv. 1-3, concerning baptism, is called a question concerning pur if cation, itepi uaOapiGnov. 3d. :\\latt. XV. 2; Mark vii. 1-5; 'Luke xi. 37-39. The word ftaitrit^Go is here used (1) for the customary washing of the hands before meals, which was designed to purity, and was habitually performed by pouring water upon them, 2 Kings iii. 11; (2) it is interchanged with the word viTcrao, which al- ways signifies a partial washing; (3) its effect is declared to be to purify, TuxfjapiZ^Ew; (4) the baptized or washed hands are opposed to the unclean, Hoivai<i. 612 BAPTISM. 4th. Mark vii. 4, 8, \"Baptism of pots and cups, brazen ves- sels, and of tables,\" nXivcci, couches upon which Jews reclined at their meals, large enough to accommodate several persons at once. Tlie object of these baptisms was purification, and the mode could not have been immersion in the case of the tables, couches, etc. 5th. Heb. ix. 10, Paul says the first tabernacle \"stood only in meats, and drinks, and clivers baptisms.\" In verses 13, 19, 21, he specifies some of these \" divers baptisms \" or washings, \"For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh,\" and \" Moses sprinkled both the book and all the people, and the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.\" — Dr. iVrm- strong's \"Doc. of BajDt.,\" Part I. 16. Wliat argument in favor of tins view of the siihject may he draivnfrom ivhat is said of baptism luith the Holy Ghost ? Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26, 33; Acts i. 5; xi. 16; 1 Cor. xii. 13. If the word fia7triZ,co only means to immerse, it would be incapable of the figurative use to which, in these passages, it is actually subjected. But if, as we claim, it signifies to purify, to cleanse, then water baptism, as a washing, though never as an immersion, may fitly represent the cleansing work of the Holy Ghost. See next Question. 17. What argument may he draivn from the fact that the bless- ings symbolized by baptism are said to be applied by sprinkling and pouring ? The gift of the Holv Ghost was the grace signified. — Acts ii. 1-4, 32, 33; x. 44-48; xi. 15, 16. The fire which did not immerse them, but appeared as cloven tongues, and \" sat upon each one of them,\" was the sign of that grace. Jesus was him- self the baptizer, who now fulfilled the prediction of John the Baptist that he should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. This gift of the Holy Ghost is set forth in such terms as \"came from heaven,\" \"poured out,\" \"shed forth,\" \"fell on them.\" These very blessings were predicted in the Old Testament by similar language. — Is. xliv. 3; Iii. 15; Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27; Joel ii. 28, 29. Hence we argue that if these spiritual blessings were predicted in the Old Testament by means of these figures of sprinkling and pouring, and if in the New Testament they were symbolically set forth under the same form, they may, of course, be symbolized by the church now by the same emblem- atical actions. OLD TESTAMENT MODES OF PURIFICATION. 613 18. Wliai argument may he drmon from the mode of 'purijica- tion adopted under the Old Testament ? The rites of purification prescribed by the Levitical law were in no case commanded to be performed by immersion in the case of persons. Washing and bathing is prescribed, but there is no indication given by the words iised, or otherwise, that these were performed by immersion, which was not the usual mode of bathing practiced in those countries. The hands and feet of the priests, whenever they appeared to minister before the Lord, were washed, Ex. xxx. 18-21, and tlieir per- sonal ablutions were performed at the brazen laver, 2 Chron. iv. 6, from which the water poured forth through spouts or cocks. — 1 Kings vii. 27-39. On the other hand, purification was freely ordered to be effected by sprinkling of blood, ashes, or water. — Lev. viii. 30; xiv. 7 and 51; Ex. xxiv. 5-8; Num. viii. 6, 7; Heb. ix. 12-22. Now, as Christian baptism is a puri- fication, and as it was instituted among the Jews, familiar with the Jewish forms of purification, it follows that a knowledge of those forms must throw much light upon the essential nature and proper mode of the Christian rite. 19. Hoio may it he sliown from 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, and from 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, that to haptize does not mean to immerse ? 1 Cor. X. 1, 2. The Israelites are said to have been \" bap- tized mito Moses in the cloud and in the sea.\" — Compare Ex. xiv. 19-31. The Israelites were baptized, yet went over dry- shod. The Egyptians were immersed, yet not baptized. Dr. Carson, p. 413, says, Moses \" got a dry dip.\" 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. Peter declares that baptism is the anti- type of the salvation of the eight souls in the ark. Yet their salvation consisted in their not being immersed. 20. What argument as to tJie proper mode of haptism is to he drawn from the record of the haptisms performed hy John? Ist. John's baptism was not the Christian sacrament, but a rite of purification administered by a Jew upon Jews, under JeAvish law. From this we infer (1) that it was not performed by immersion, since the Levitical purification of persons was not performed in that way; yet (2) that he needed for his purpose either a running stream as Jordan, or much water as at ^Enon (or the springs), because under that law whatsoever an unclean person touched previous to his purification became unclean, Num. xix. 21, 22, with the exception of a \"fountain or pit in which is plenty of water,\" Lev. xi. 36, Avhich he could not find in the desert in which he preached. After the gospel dis- 614 BAPTISM. pensation was introduced we hear nothing of the apostles bap- tizing ill rivers, or needing \"much water\" for that purpose. 2d. In no single instance is it stated in the record that John baptized by immersion. All the language employed applies ijust as naturally and as accurately to a baptism performed by affusion (the subject standing partly in the water, the baptizer pouring water upon the person Avith his hand). The phrases \"baptized in Jordan,\" \"coming out of the water,\" would have been as accurately applied in tlie one case as in the other. That John's baptism was more probably performed by affusion appears (1) from the fact that it was a purification performed by a Jewish prophet upon Jews, and that Jewish washings were performed by affusion. The custom was general then, and has continued to this day. (2.) This mode better accords with the vast multitudes baptized by one man. — Matt. iii. 5, 6; Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 3-21. (3.) The very earliest works of Christian art extant represent the baptism of Christ by John as having been performed by affusion. — Dr. Armstrong's \"Doc- trine of Baptisms,\" Part II., Chap. iii. 21. What evidence is afforded by the instances of Christian haptism recorded in the New Testament? 1st. It has been abundantly shown above that the command to baptize is a command to purify by washing with water, and it hence follows that even if it could be shown that the apostles baptized by immersion, that fact Avould not prove that particu- lar mode of washing to be essential to the validity of the or- dinance, unless it can be proved also that, according to the analogies of gospel institutions, the mere mode of obeying a command is made as essential as the thing itself But the reverse is notoriously the fact. The church was organized on certain general principles, and the public worship of the gospel ordained, but the details as to the manner of accomplishing those ends are not prescribed. Christ instituted the Lord's supper at night, reclining on a couch, and with unleavened bread. Yet in none of these respects is the \"mode\" essential. 2d. But, in fact, there is not one instance in which the record makes it even probable that the apostles baptized by immersion, and in the great majority of instances it is rendered in the last degree improbable. (1.) The baptism of the eunuch by Philip, Acts viii. 26-39, is the only instance which even by appearance favors immersion. But observe (a) the language used by Luke, even as rendered in our version., applies just as naturally to baptism performed by affusion as by immersion. (^>.) The Greek prepositions, eii, here translated into, and hn, here translated out of., are in innumerable HISTORICAL USAGE. 615 instances used to express motion, toward, unto, smd from. — Acts xxvi. 14; xxvii. 34, 40. They probably descended from the cliariot to the brink of the water. Philip is also said to have \"descended to\" and to have \"ascended from the water,\" but surely he was not also immersed, (c.) The very passage of Isaiah, which the eunuch was reading, Is. Hi. 15, declared that the Messiah, in whom he believed, should '■'• sprinlde many na- tions.\" (d.) Luke says the place was \"a desert,\" and no body of water sufficient for immersion can be discovered on that road. (2.) Every other instance of Christian baptism recorded in the Scriptures bears evidence positively against immersion. (a.) The baptism of three thousand in Jerusalem on one occa- sion on the day of Pentecost. — Acts ii. 38-41. (6.) The baptism of Paul. — Acts ix. 17, 18; xxii. 12-16. Ananias said to him \"standing up, be baptized,\" a'j'acJras fSdnridai, and, \"standing up, he was baptized.\" (e.) The baptism of Cornelius. — Acts x. 44-48. {d.) The baptism of the jailor, at Philippi. — Acts xvi, 32-34. In all these instances baptism was administered on the spot, wherever the convert received the gospel. Nothing is said of rivers, or much water, but vast multitudes at a time, and individuals and families were baptized in their houses, or in prisons, wherever they happened to be at the moment. 22. What has been in the past, and what is in the present, the usage of the churches as to the mode of baptism ? In the early church the prevalent mode was to immerse the naked body. For several ages trine-immersion was practiced, or the dipping the head of the person standing in the water three times. In cases of extreme danger of death, and when water was scarce, afi'usion or sprinkling was considered valid (Bingham's \"Christ. Antiquities,\" Bk. II., ch. xi. ; Neander's \"Ch. Hist.,\" Vol. I., Torrey's Trans., p. 310; Schaff's \"Ch. Hist.,\" Vol. II., § 92). The Greek Church has insisted on .im- mersion. The liomish and Protestant churches admit either form. The modern customs favor sprinkling. The Baptists maintain that immersion is the only valid bap- tism. All other western churches deny this and maintain the equal validity of pouring and of sprinkling. — \"Con. Faith,\" ch. xxviii., § 3. No advocate of sprinkling can, in consistency with his own fundamental principles or Avith the historical usages of the Christian Church, outlaw immersion. The opposition of most churches to immersion arises from the narrow and arrogant claims of the Baptists, and from their false views with respect to the emblematic import of bapti.sm, making it a \"burying' instead of a \"washing\"; against this we mean to protest. G16 BAPTISM. Subjects of Baptism.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "223", "sort_key": 223, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "Wlio  are  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  ?", "answer": "\"Conf. Faith,\" Chap, xxviii., Section 4; \" L. Cat,\" Question 166; \"S. Cat.,\" Question 95. All those, and those only, who are members of the visible church, are to be baptized. These are, 1st, they who make a credible profession of their faith in Christ; 2d, the children of one or both believing- parents.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "224", "sort_key": 224, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  in  the  case  of  adults  are  the  prerequisites  of  baptism  ?", "answer": "Credible profession of their faith in Jesus as their Saviour. This is evident — 1st. From the very nature of the ordinance as symbolizing spiritual gifts, and as sealing our covenant to be the Lord's. 2d. From the uniform practice of the apostles and evangelists. — xlcts ii. 41; viii. 37. For a full answer to this question, see below Ch. XLIIL, Ques. 25, for conditions of ad- mission to Lord's table, which are identical with those requisite for baptism. 25. 1720071 luhat essential constitutional principle of human nature does this institution rest? and show how that p)rinciple is recognised in all God's providential and gracious deeding luith tJie race. The grand peculiarity of humanity is that Avhile each indi- vidual is a free responsible moral agent, yet we constitute a race, reproduced under the law of generation, and each new- born agent'is educated and his character formed under social conditions. Hence everywhere the \"free-will of the parent becomes the destiny of the child.\" Hence results the repre- sentative character of progenitors, and the inherited character and destiny of all races, nations, and families. This principle runs through all God's dealing with the hu- man race under the economy of redemption. The family and not the individual is the unit embraced in all covenants and dispensations. This may be traced in all God's dealings with Adam, Noah (Gen. ix. 9), Abraham (Gen. xvii. 7, and Gal. iii. 8), and the nation of Israel (Ex. xx. 5; Dent. xxix. 10-13). The same principle is continued in the Christian dispensation as asserted by Peter in the first sermon. — Acts ii. 38-39. 26. Whcd is the visible church, to which baptism is the initiating rite ? 1st. The word church, kKKkr]6ia, is used in Scripture in the general sense of the company of God's people, called out from the world, and bound to him in covenant relations. THE VISIBLE CHURCH. 617 2d. The true spiritual church, therefore, in distinction to the phenomenal church organized on earth, consists of the whole company of the elect, who are included in the eternal covenant of grace formed between the Father and the second Adam. — Eph. V. 27; Heb. xii. 23. 3d. But the visible church universal consists of \" all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.\" — \"Conf Faith,\" chap, xxv., section 2. This visible kingdom, Christ, as INIediator of the covenant of grace, has instituted, as an administrative provi- sion, for the purpose of administering thereby the provisions of that covenant; and this kingdom, as an outward visible society of professors, he established by the covenant he made with Abraham. — Gen. xii. 1-3; xvii. 1-14. 4th. Christ has administered this covenant in three successive modes or dispensations. (1.) From Abraham to Moses, dur- ing which he attached to it the ratifying seal of circumcision. (2.) From Moses to his advent (for the law which was tem- porarily added did not make the promise of none effect, but rather administered it in a special mode. Gal. iii. 17), he added a new seal, the passover, emblematic of the atoning work of the promised seed, as set forth in the clearer revelation then vouchsafed. (3.) From Christ to the end of the world, when the promise being unfolded in an incomparably fuller revelation, the original seals are superseded by baptism and the Lord's Supper. See below. Question 26. 5th. That the Abrahamic covenant was designed to embrace the visible church of Christ, and not his mere natural seed in their family or national capacity, is plain. (1.) It pledged sal- vation by Christ on the condition of faith. — Compare Gen. xii. 3, with Gal. iii. 8, 16; Acts iii. 25, 26. (2.) The sign and seal at- tached to it symbolized spiritual blessings, and sealed justifica- tion by faith. — Deut. x. 15, 16; xxx. 6; Jer. iv. 4; Rom. ii. 28, 29; iv. 11. (3.) Tliis covenant was made with him as the repre- sentative of the visible church universal, (a.) It was made with him as the \"father of many nations.\" Paul said it con- stituted him the \"heir of the world,\" \"the father of all them that believe,\" Rom. iv. 11, 13, and that all believers in Christ now, Jew or Gentile, are \"Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.\" — Gal. iii. 29. (&.) It contained a provision for the introduction to its privileges of those who were not born of the natural seed of Abraham. — Gen. xvii. 12. Multitudes of such proselytes had been thus introduced before the advent of Christ, and many such were present in Jerusalem as mem- 618 BAPTISM. bers of the church under its old form on the day of Pentecost, \"out of every nation under heaven.\" — Acts ii. 5-11. 6th. That the church thus embraced in this administrative covenant is not the body of the elect, as such, but the visible church of professors and their children, is evident, because, (1.) the covenant contains the offer of the gospel, including the setting- forth of Christ, and the offer of his salvation to all men (all the families of the earth) on the condition of faith. Gal. iii. 8. But this belongs to the visible church, and must be administered by means of inspired oracles and a visible minis- try. (2.) As an indisputable fact, there was such a visible society under the old dispensation; and under the new dispen- sation all Christians, whatever theories they may entertain, attempt to realize the ideal of such a visible society, for Chris- tian and ministerial communion. (3.) Under both dispensations Christ has committed to his church, as to a visible, kingdom, written records, sacramental ordinances, ecclesiastical institu- tions, and a teaching and ruling ministry. Although these are all designed to minister the provisions of the covenant of grace, and to effect as their ultimate end the ingathering of the elect, it is evident that visible signs and seals, a written word and a visible ministry, can, as such, attach only to a visible church. Rom. ix. 4; Eph. iv. 11. (4.) The same representation of the church is given in the New Testament, in the parable of the tares, etc. — Matt. xiii. 24-30 and 47-50; xxv. 1-13. It was to consist of a mixed community of good and evil, true and merely professed believers, and the separation is not to be made until the \"end of the world.\" 7th. This visible church from the beginning has been trans- mitted and extended in a twofold manner. (1.) Those who are born \" strangers from the covenants of promise,\" or \" aliens from the commonwealth of Israel,\" Eph. ii. 12, were introduced to that relation only by profession of faith and conformity ot life. Under the old dispensation these are called ijroselytes. Acts ii. 10; Num. xv. 15. (2.) All born within the covenant had part in all of the benefits of a standing in the visible church by inheritance. The covenant was with Abraham and his ^'■sced after Mm, in all their generaiions, as an everlasting covenant,'' and consequent]}^ they received the sacrament which was the sign and seal of that covenant. Hence the duty of teaching and training was engrafted on the covenant, Gen. xviii. 18, 19; and the church made a school, or training institution, Dent, vi. 0-9. In accordance with this, Christ commissioned his apostles to disciple all nations, baptizing and teaching them. ]\\Iatt. xxviii. 19, 20. Thus tlie church is represented as a flock, including the lambs with the sheep, Is. xl. 11, and as a vine- THE CHURCH ONE UNDER BOTH DISPENSATIONS. 619 yard in which the scion is trained, the barren tree cultivated, and, if incurable, cut down. — Is. v. 1-7; Luke xiii. 7, 8. 27. Hold may it he shown tliat this visible church is identical tinder both dispe7isatioiis, and ivhat argument may he thence derived to prove that the in/ant children of believers should be baptized? 1st. The church, under both dispensations, has the same nature and design. The Old Testament church, embraced in the Abrahamic covenant, rested on the gospel offer of salvation b}^ faith. — Gal. iii. 8; Heb. xi. Its design was to prepare a spiritual seed for the Lord. Hence — (1.) Its foundation was tlie same — the sacrifice and mediation of Christ. (2.) Condi- tions of membership were the same. («.) Every true Israelite was a true believer. — Gal. iii. 7. (b.) All Israelites were at least professors of the true religion. (3.) Its sacraments symbolized and sealed the same grace as those of the New Testament church. Thus the passover, as the Lord's Supper, represented the sacrifice of Christ. — 1 Cor. v. 7. Circumcision, as baptism, represented \"the putting off the body of the sins of the fiesh,\" and baptism is called by Paul \"the circumcision of Christ.\" Col. ii. 11, 12. Even the ritual of the Mosaic law was only a symbolical revelation of the gospel. 2d. They bear precisely the same name. innXi/dia xvpiov, the church of the Lord, is an exact rendering in Greek of the Hebrew nSn;' pnp translated in our version the \" congregation of the Lord.\" — Compare Ps. xxii. 22, with Heb. ii. 12. Thus Stephen called the congregation of Israel before Sinai \"the church in the wilderness.\" — Compare Acts vii. 38, with Ex. xxxii. Thus also Christ is the Greek form of the Hebrew Messiah, and the elders of the New Testament church are iden- tical in function and name with those of the synagogue. 3d. There is no evidence whatever furnished by the apos- tolical records that the ancient church was abolished and a new and a different one organized in its place. The apostles never say one word about any such new organization. The pre-existence of such a visible society is everywhere taken for granted as a fact. Their disciples were always added to the \"church\" or \"congregation\" previously existing. — Acts ii. 47. The Mosaic ritual law, by means of which the Abrahamic char- acter of the church had been administered for about fifteen hundred years, was indeed abolished. But Paul argues that the introduction of this law, i'owr hundred and thirty years after, could not make the promise of none effect, Gal. iii. 17, and consequently the disannulling of the law could only give place to the more perfect execution of the covenant, and devel- opment of the church embraced within it. 620 BAPTISM. 4th. There is abundant positive evidence that the ancient church, resting upon its original charter, was not aboHshed by the new dispensation. (1.) Many of the Old Testament proph- ecies plainly declare that the then existing visible church, instead of being abrogated by the advent of the Messiah, should thereby be gloriously strengthened and enlarged, so as to embrace the Gentiles also. — Is. xlix. 13-23, and Ix. 1-14. They declare also that the federal constitution, embracing the child with the par- ent, shall continue under the new dispensation of the church, after \" the Redeemer has come to Zion.\" — Is. lix. 21, 22. Peter, in Acts' iii. 22, 23, expounds the prophecy of Moses, Deut. xviii. 15-19, to the effect that every soul which will not hear that prophet (the ]\\Iessiah) shall be cut off from among the people, {. €., from the church, Avhieh of course implies that the chvirch from which they are cut off\" continues. (2.) In precise accord- ance with these prophecies Paul declares that the Jewish church was not abrogated, but that the unbelieving Jews were cut off from their own olive-tree, and the Gentile branches grafted in in their place; and he foretells the time when God will graft the Jews back again into their own stock and not into another. Eom. xi. 18-26. He says that the alien Gentiles are made fel- low-citizens with believing Jews in the old household of the faith. — Eph. ii. 11-22. (3.) The covenant which constituted the ancient church also constituted Abraham the father of many na- tions. The promise of\" the covenant was that God would \" be a God unto him and to his seed after him.\" This covenant, therefore, embraced the \"many nations\" with their father Abraham. Hence it never could have been fulfilled until the advent of the Messiah, and the abolishment of the restrictive law. Hence the Abrahamic covenant, instead of having been superseded by the gospel, only now begins to have its just ac- complishment. Hence, on the day of Pentecost, Peter exhorts all to repent and be baptized, because the Abrahamic covenant still held in force for all Jew^s and for their children, and for all those afar off\", i. e.. Gentiles, as many as God should call. Acts ii. 38, 39. Hence also Paul argued earnestly that since the Abrahamic covenant is still in force, therefore, from its very terms, the Gentiles who should believe in Christ had a right to a place in tliat ancient church, which was founded upon it, on equal terms with the .lews. \" In thee shall all nations be blessed, so then,\" says Paul, \"they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham,\" and all who believe in Christ, Jew or Gentile indiscriminately, \" are,\" to the full intent of the cove- nant, \"Abrahaju's seed, and heirs according to the promise,\" Gal. iii. G-29, Avliich promise was, \" I will be a God to thee, and TO THY SEED AFTER THEE.\" / CHURCH MEMBERSHIP OF CHILDREN RECOGNIZED. 621 The bearing of this argument upon the question of infant baptism is direct and conchisive. 1st. Baptism now occupies the same relation to the covenant and the church which circumcision did. (1.) Both rites repre- sent the same spiritual grace, namely, regeneration. — Deut. xxx. 6; Col. ii. 11; Rom. vi. 3, 4. (2.) Baptism is now what circum- cision was, the seal, or confirming sign, of the Abrahamic cov- enant. Peter says, \" be baptized for the promise is to you and to your children.\" — Acts ii. 38, 39. Paul says explicitly that baptism is the sign of that covenant, \" for as many as have been baptized into Christ are Abraham's seed, and heirs accord- ing to the promise,\" Gal. iii, 27, 29 ; and that baptism is the circumcision of Christ. — Col. ii. 10, 11. (3.) Both rites are the appointed forms, in successive eras, of initiation into the church, which we have proved to be the same church under both dispensations. 2d. Since tlie church is tlie same, in the absence of all ex- plicit command to the contrary, the members are the same. Children of believers were members then. They ought to be recognized as members now, and receive the initiatory rite. This the apostles took for granted as self-evident, and imiver- sally admitted; an explicit command to baptize Avould have implied doubt in the ancient church rights of infants. 3d. Since the covenant, with its promise to be \" a God to the believer and his seed,\" is expressly declared to stand firm under the gospel, the believer's seed have a right to the seal of that promise. — Dr. John M. Mason's \"Essays on the Church.\" 28. Present the evidence that Christ recognized the church stand- ing qf children. 1st. Christ declares of little children (^Matthew, vtaidm, Luke fti)i(pr}, infants) that \" of such is the kingdom of heaven.\" — Matt, xix. 14; Luke xviii. 16. The phrase \"kingdom of God and of heaven \" signifies the visible church under the new dispensa- tion.—Matt, iii. 2 ; xiii. 47. 2d. In his recommission of Peter, after his apostasy, our Lord commanded him, as under sliepherd, to feed the lambs, as well as the sheep of the flock. — John xxi. 15-17. 3d. In his general commission of the apostles, he com- manded them to disciple ncdions (which are always consti- tuted of families) by baptizing, and then teaching them. — Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 29. Siiow tliat the apostles ahuays acted on the principle that the child, is a church member if the parent is. The apostles were not settled pastors in the midst of an es- 622 BAPTISM. tablished Christian community, but itinerant missionaries to an unbelieving world, sent not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. — 1 Cor i. 17. Hence we have in the Acts and Epistles the record of only ten separate instances of baptism. In two of these, viz., of the eunuch and of Paul, Acts viii. 38; ix. 18, there were no families to be baptized. In the case of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, the people of Samaria, and the disciples of John at Ephesus, crowds were baptized on the very spot on which they professed to believe. Of the remain- ing five instances, in the four cases in which the family is men- tioned at all, it is expressly said they were baptized, viz., the households of Lydia of Thyatira, of the jailer of Philippi, of Stephanas, and of Crispus. — Acts xvi. 15, 32, 33; xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 16. In the remaining instance of Cornelius, the record im- plies that the family was also baptized. Thus the apostles, in every case, without a single recorded exception, baptized be- lievers on the spot, and whenever they had families, they also baptized their households, as such. They also addressed children in their epistles as members of tlie church. — Compare Eph. i. 1, and Col. i. 1, 2, with Eph. vi. 1-3, and Col. iii. 20. And declared that even the children of only one believing parent were to be regarded \" holy,\" or con- secrated to the Lord, i. e., as church members. — 1 Cor. vii. 12-14. 30. What arguynent may he inferred from the fact that the bless- ings symbolized in baptism are promised and granted to children ? Baptism represents regeneration in union with Christ. In- fants are born children of wrath, even as others. They can not be saved, therefore, unless they are born again, and have part in the benefits of Christ's death. They are evidently, from the nature of the case, in the same sense capable of being subjects of regeneration as adults are. \" Of such is the king- dom of heaven.\" — Matt. xxi. 15, 16; Luke i. 41, 44. 31. What argument may be drawn from the practice of the early church ? The practice of infant baptism is an institution which exists as a fact, and prevails throughout the universal church, with the exception of the modern Baptists, whose origin can be def- initely traced to the Anabaptists of Germany, about a. d. 1537. Such an institution must either have been handed down from the apostles, or have had a definite commencement as a nov- elty, which must have been signalized by opposition and con- troversy. As a fact, however, we find it noticed in the very earliest records as a universal custom, and an apostolical tradi- INFANT BAPTISM APOSTOLICAL. 623 tion. Justin Martyr, writing a. d. 138, says that \"There were among Christians of his time, many persons of both sexes, some sixty and some seventy years old, who had been made disciples of Christ from their infancy.\" Iren^eus, born about a. d. 97, says, \" He came to save all by himself; all I say who by liim are horn again unto God, infants, and little children and youths.\" It is acknowledged by TertuUian, born in Carthage, a. d. 160, or only sixty years after the death of the apostle John. Origen, born of Christian parents in Egypt, a. d. 185, declares that it was \"the usage of the church to baptize infants,\" and that \" the church had received the tradition from the apostles.\" Cyprian, bisliop of Carthage from a. d. 248 to 258, together with an entire synod over which he presided, decided that baptism should be administered to infants before the eighth day. St. Augustine, born a. d. 358, declared that this \" doc- ti'ine is held by the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always retained.\" This Pelagius admitted, after having visited all parts of the church from Britain to Syria, although the fact was so repugnant to his system of doctrine. — See Wall's \"Hist, of Infant Baptism,\" and Bingham's \"Christ. Antiquities,\" Bk. XL, Ch. iv. Our argument is that infant baptism has prevailed (a) from the apostolic age, (Ji) in all sections of the ancient church, (c) uninterruptedly to the present time, {d) in every one of the great historical churches of tlie Reformation. While its im- pugners (a) date since the Reformation, (h) and ai'e generally guilty of the gross schismatical sin of close communion. 32. How is the objection, that faith is a prerequisite to haptism, and that infants can not believe, to be answered ? The Baptists argue — 1st. From the commission of the Lord, \"Go preach — he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned,\" ]\\Iark xvi. 16, that infants ought not to be baptized because they can not believe. 2d. From the nature of baptism, as a sign of a spiritual grace and seal of a covenant, that infants ought not to be baptized, since they are incapable of understanding the sign, or of contracting the covenant. We answer — 1st. The requisition of faith evidently applies only to the adult, because faith is made the essential prere- quisite of salvation, and yet infants are saved, though they can not believe. 2d. Circumcision was a sign of a spiritual grace; it required faith in the adult recipient, and it was the seal of a covenant; yet, by God's appointment, infants were circum- cised. The ix\\\\i\\\\ is that faith is required, but it is the faith of the parent acting for his child. The covenant of which bap- 624 BAPTISM. tism is the seal is contracted with the parent, in behalf of the child upon whom the seal is properly applied. It is besides to be remembered that the infant is not a thing, but a person born with an unholy moral nature, and fully ca- pable of present regeneration, and of receiving from the Holy Ghost the \"habit\" or state of soul of which faith is the expres- sion. Hence Calvin says (\"Instit.,\" Bk. 4, ch. xvi., § 20), \"The seed of both repentance and faith lies hid in them by the secret operation of the Spirit,\" 33. Hoio can lue avoid the conclusion that infants should he ad- mitted to the Lord's Siq^per, if they are admitted to baptism? The same reason and the same precedents do not hold in relation to both sacraments. 1st. Baptism recognizes and seals church membership, while the Lord's Supper is a commemora- tive act. 2d. In the action of baptism the subject is passive, and in that of the Lord's Supper active. 3d. Infants were never admitted to the Passover until they were capable of compre- hending the nature of the service. 4th. The apostles baptized households, but never admitted households as such to the Supper.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "225", "sort_key": 225, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "Whose  children  ought  to  he  haptized  ?", "answer": "\" Infants of such as are members of the visible church,\" \"S. Cat.,\" Q. 95; that is, theoretically, \"infants of one or both believing parents,\" \"Con. of Faith,\" Chap, xxviii,, sec. 4; and practically, \"of parents, one or both of them professing faith in Christ.\" — \"L. Cat,\" Q. 166. Eoman Catholics, Episcopalians, the Protestants of the continent, the Presbyterians of Scotland (and formerly of this country), act upon the principle that every baptized person, not excommunicated, being himself a member of the visible church, has a right to have his child regarded and treated as such also. Even when parents are unbelievers Catholics and Episcopalians will baptize their in- fants upon the faith of sponsors. It is evident, however, that only the children of such parents, or actual guardians, as make a credible profession of personal faith ought to be baptized. 1st. Because of tlie nature of the act. Faith is the condition of the covenant of which baptism is the seal. The Gen. Assembly of 1794 decided that our \"Direc- tory for Worship \" demands that the parent enters before God and the Cliurch into an express engagement,\" \" that they pray with and for the child, that they set an example of piety and godliness before it,\" etc. And the Gen. Synod of 1735 asserts that if other than parents professing piety are encouraged to take these engagements \"the seal would be set to a blank\" THE EFFICACY OF BAPTISM. 625 (\"Moore's Digest,\" pp. 665 and 666). Hence it is evident that the conditions prerequisite for having one's children baptized are precisely the same with those prerequisite for being bap- tized or admitted to the Lord's Supper one's self, {. e., credible profession of a true faith. 2d. Sponsors who are neither parents nor actual and per- manent guardians are evidently neither the providentially con- stituted representatives of the child, nor in a position to make good their engagements. 3d. Those who, having been baptized, do not by faith and obedience discharge their baptismal vows when they are of mature age, are ifso fodo in a state of suspension from cove- nant privileges, and can not, therefore, plead them for their children. 4th. The apostles baptized the households only of those who professed faith in Christ. The Efficacy of Baptism. 35. What is the Romish and Ritualistic doctrine as to the effi- cacy of hajjtism. The Romish doctrine, with which the \"Tractarian\" doctrine essentially agrees, is, 1st, that baptism confers the merits of Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost, and therefore (1) it cleanses from inherent corruption ; (2) it secures the remission of the penalty of sin; (3) it secures the infusion of sanctify- ing grace; (4) it unites to Christ; (5) it impresses upon the soul an indelilale character; (6) it opens the portals of heaven. Newman, \" Lectures on Justification,\" p. 257 ; \" Cat. Rom.,\" Pt. n., Chap, ii., Q. 32-44. 2d. That the efficacy of the ordi- nance is inherent in itself in virtue of the divine institution. Its virtue does not depend either on the merit of the officiating minister, nor on that of the recipient, but in the sacramental action itself as an opus opercdum. In the case of infants, the only condition of its efficiency is the right administration of the ordinance. In the case of adults its efficiency depends upon the additional condition that the recipient is not in mor- tal sin, and does not resist by an opposing will. — Dens \"De Baptismo,\" N. 29.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "226", "sort_key": 226, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  the  Lutheran  doctrine  on  this  subject  ?", "answer": "The Lutherans agreed with the Reformed churches in repu- diating the Romish doctrine of the magical efficacy of this sacrament as an opus operatum. But they went much further than the Reformed in maintaining the sacramental union be- tween the sign and the grace signified. Luther, in his \"Small 40 626 BAPTISM. Cat.,\" Pt. iv., sec. 2, says baptism, \" worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and confers everlasting sal- vation on all who believe,\" and, in sec. 3, that \" it is not the water indeed which produces these effects, bnt the word of God which accompanies, and is connected with the water, and our faith, which relies on the word of God connected with the water. For the water without the Avord is simply water and no baptism. But when connected with the word of God, it is a baptism, that is, a gracious water of life, and a washing of regeneration.\" This efficacy depends upon true saving iaith in the adult subject: \"Moreover, faith being absent, it remains only a naked and inoperative sign.\" Hence they hold — 1st. Baptism is an efficient means of con- ferring the forgiveness of sins and the grace of Christ. 2d. It contains the grace it confers. 3d. Its efficacy resides not in the water but in the word, and in the Holy Spirit in the word. 4th. Its efficacy, in the case of the adult, depends upon the faith of the subject. Krauth's \" Conservative Reformation,\" pp. 545-584", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "227", "sort_key": 227, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  was  the  Zioinglian  doctrine  on  this  subject  ?", "answer": "That the outward rite is a mere sign, an objective rep- resentation by symbol of the truth, having no efficacy what- ever beyond that due to the truth represented. 38. What is the doctrine of the Reformed churches, and of our otvn among the member, on this subject ? They all agree, 1st, that the Zwinglian view is incomplete. 2d. That besides being a sign, baptism is also the seal of grace, and therefore a present and sensible conveyance and con- firmation of grace to the believer who has the witness in him- self, and to all the elect a seal of the benefits of the covenant of grace, to be sooner or later conveyed in God's good time. 3d. That this conveyance is effected, not by the bare opera- tion of the sacramental action, but by the Holy Ghost, which accompanies his own ordinance. 4th. That in the adult the reception of the blessing depends upon faith. 5th. That the benefits conveyed by baptism are not peculiar to it, but belong to the believer before or without baptism, and are often renewed to him afterwards. Our \"Conf Faith,\" Chap, xxviii., sections 5 and 6, affirms, \"1st. 'That by the right use of this ordinance the grace romised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred y the Holy Ghost to such (whether of age or infants), as that grace belongeth unto.' DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 627 '■ 2d. That baptism does not in all cases secure the blessings of the covenant. \" 3d. That in the cases in which it does the gift is not connected necessarily in time with the administration of the ordinance. \"4th. That these blessings depend upon two things: (1) the right use of the ordinance; (2) the secret purpose of God.\" — Dr. Hodge. 39. Wliat in general is the doctrine hiotvn as Baptismal Regen- eration ? On ivliat ground does it rest ? and liow can it he shoivn to be false ? The Protestant advocates of Baptismal Regeneration, with- out committing themselves to the Romish theory of an opus operation, hold that baptism is God's ordained instrument of communicating the benefits of redemption in the first instance. That whatever gracious experiences ma}^ be enjoyed by the unbaptized, are uncovenanted mercies. That by baptism the guilt of original sin is removed, and the Holy Ghost is given, Avhose effects remain like a seed in the soul, to be actualized by the free-will of the subject, or neglected and hence rendered abortive. Every infant is regenerated when baptized. If he dies in infancy the seed is actualized in paradise. If he lives to adult age, its result depends upon his use of it (Bhuit's \" Diet, of Theology,\" Art. Baptism). See above, Ch. XXIX., Ques. 4. They rest their doctrine on a large class of Scripture pas- sages like the following, \" Christ gave himself for the church that he might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of water, by the word,\" Eph v. 26, \"Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.\" — Acts xxii. 16. Also John iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 21; Gal. iii. 27, etc. The Reformed explain these passages on the following prin- ciples. 1st. In every sacrament there are two things (a) an outward visible sign, and (/;) an inward invisible grace thereby signified. There is between these a sacramental or symbolical relation that naturally gives rise to a nsiis loquendi, whereby the properties and effects of the grace are attributed to the sign. Yet it never follows that the two are inseparable, any more than it proves the absurdity that the two are identical. 2d. The sacraments are badges of religious faith, and neces- sarily involve the profession of that faith. In all ordinary lan- guage, therefore, that faith is presumed to be present, and to be genuine, in which case the grace signified by the sacrament is, of course, always not only offered but conveyed (\" S. Cat.,\" Ques. 91 and 92). 628 BAPTISM. That baptism can not be the only or even the ordinary means of conveying the grace of regeneration (i. e., for initi- ating the soul into a state of grace) is plain. — 1st. Faith and repentance are the fruits of regeneration. But faith and re- pentance are required as conditions prerequisite to baptism. — Acts ii. 38; viii. 37; x. 47, and xi. 17. 2d. This doctrine is identical Avith that of the Pharisees, which Christ and his apostles constantly rebuked. — j\\Iatt. xxiii. 23-26. \" For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love — but a new creature.\" — Gal. v. 6, and vi. 15; Rom. ii. 25-29. Faith alone is said to save, the absence of faith alone to damn. — Acts xvi. 31, and ]\\Iark xvi. 1(3. 3d. The entire spirit and method of the gospel is ethical not magical. The great instrument of the Holy Ghost is the truth, and all that is ever said of the eiScacy of the sacraments is said of the efficacy of the truth. They are means of grace therefore in common with the word and as they contain and seal it (1 Pet. i. 23, and John xvii. 17, 19). Our Saviour says \"% their fruits ye shall hioiv them.\" — (i\\Iatt. vii. 20). 4th. This doctrine is disproved by experience. Vast mul- titudes of the baptized of all ages and nations bring forth none of the frviits of regeneration. Multitudes who were never bap- tized have produced these fruits. The ages and communities in which this doctrine has been most strictly held have been conspicuous for spiritual barrenness. 5th. The great evil of the system of which the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is a part, is that it tends to make re- ligion a matter of external and magical forms, and hence to promote rationalistic skepticism among the intelligent, and superstition among the ignorant and morbid, and to dissociate among all classes religion and morality. , The Necessity of Baptism.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "228", "sort_key": 228, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  the  Romish  doctrine  as  to  the  necessity  ofhajjtism?", "answer": "That it is by the appointment of God the one means, s/??e qua non, of justification (regeneration, etc.) both fcji\" infants and adults. In the case of adults they except only the case of those who have formed a sincere piu'pose of being baptized, which has been providentially hindered. In the case of infants there is no exception.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "229", "sort_key": 229, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  the  Lutheran  view?", "answer": "Their standards state the necessity of the sacraments with- out apparent qualification (See \"Aug. Coiif ,\" Art. 9, and \" Apol. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM. 629 Aug. Conf.,\" p. 156, quoted under last chapter). But Dr. Krauth has shown from the writings of Luther and their standard the- ologians, that their actual view was that (1) baptism is not essential (as e. g., Christ's atonement is), but that (2) it is neces- sary, as the ordained ordinary means of conferring grace, yet (3) not unconditlonaUij, because the \"necessity\" is limited (a) by the possibility of having it, so that not the deprivation of bap- tism, but the contempt of it condemns a man, and (&) by the fact that all the blessings of baptism are conditioned on faith. (4) Baptism is not always followed by regeneration, and regen- eration is not always preceded by baptism, and men may be saved though unbaptized. (5) That within the church all in- fants are saved although unbaptized. (6) As to infants of heathen, the point undecided, because unrevealed, but hopeful views entertained. — Krauth's \" Conserv. Reform.,\" pp. 557-564.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "230", "sort_key": 230, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "What  is  the  Reformed  doctrine  ?", "answer": "That it is \"necessary\" because commanded, and universally obligatory, because it is a divinely ordained and most precious means of grace, which it would be impious knowingly and willingly to neglect. And because it is the appointed and com- monhj recognized badge whereby our allegiance to Christ is openly acknowledged. Under the circumstances, intelligent neglect of the sacraments looks very like treason. But baptism does not ordinarily confer grace in the first instance, but presupposes it, and the grace it symbolizes and seals is often realized both before and without their use. — \"Conf. Faith,\" Ch. xxviii., \"Cal. Instit.,\" Bk. IV., ch. xvi., § 26. The Authokitative Ckeed Statements. Romish Doctbine. ''Gil. Cone. Trident.,\" Pt. 2, Ch. 2, Qiies. 5.— \"It foUows that baptism may be accurately and appositely defined to be the sacrament of regen- eration by water in the word. For by nature we are born from Adam children of \\VTath, but by baptism we are regenerated in Christ children of mercy.\" lb., Pt. 2, Ch. 2, Ques. 33. — \"For as no other means of salvation remains for infant children except baptism, it is easy to comprehend the enormity of the guilt under which they lay themselves, who sufler them to be deprived of the gi'ace of the sacrament longer than necessity requires.\" Bellarmin, \"Bapt.,\" 1, 4. — \"The church has always believed that in- fants perish if they depart this life without baptism. For although little children faU of baptism without any fault of then.' own, yet they do not perish without their own faiilt, since they have original sin.\" Lutheran DocTRrNE. — See quotations under last chapter. Quenstedt, iv., 147. — \"By baptism and in baptism the Holy Ghost excites in infants a true, saving, life-giving, and actual faith, whence also baptized infants truly believe.\" 630 BAPTISM. \"Art. SmalcnM,\" pt. 3, art. 5, \"De Baptismo.\" — \"Baptism is nothing else than the word of God with clipping in water, according to his insti- tution and command. . . . The word is added to the element and it becomes a sacrament.\" \"C(xt. Minor,\" iv., Ques. 3. — \"Baptism effects remission of sins, liber- ates from death and the devil, and gives eternal blessedness to all and each who believe this which the word and divine promises hold forth.\" Refoemed Doctbine. '■'■Cat. Giiiiev.,\" p. 522. — \"The signification of baptism has two parts, for therein is rei^resented remission of sins Do you attribute nothing else to the Avater, than that it is only a figure of washing ? I think it is such a figure, that at the same time a truth is joined with it. For God does not disappoint us in promising to us his gifts. Hence it is certain that pardon of sins and newness of life are offered and received by us in baptism.\" C'lliTiu's \"Itistit.,\" B. iv., Ch. 16, | 26. — \"I would not be understood as insinuating that baptism may be contemned with impunity. So far from excusing this contempt, I hold that it violates the covenant of the Lord. The passage (John v. 24) only serves to show that we must not deem baptism so necessary as to supijose that every one who has lost the opportunity of obtaining it has forthwith ijerished. \" '■'Thirtii-nine Art. of Gh. of Enghtiul,\" Axi. 27. — \" Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that are not christened, but it is also a sign of re- generation or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church: the promises of the forgive- ness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confii-med, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.\" \" The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. \" \"Cu»f Faith,\" Ch. 28; \"i. Cat.,\" Q. 165-167; \" S. Cat.,\" Q._ 94, 95. I 1. — \"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of I'emis- sion of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of Hfe.\" I 5. — \"Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are bai> tized are undoubtedly regenerated.\" .^ 6. — \"The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right tise of this ordinance the grace promised is not only ofl:ered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the council of God's own will, in his appointed time.\" SociNiAN Doctbine. — Socinus beheved baptism to have been practiced by the apostles after the death of Christ, and to have been apphcable only to converts from without the church. Socinians generally held baptism to be only a badge of public profession of adherence to Christ, and maintained that immersion is the only proper mode, and adults the only projier subjects. — \"Bacovian Cat.,\" Section 5, Ch. 3. CHAPTER XLIII. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 1. In what passages of the Neiv Testament is the institution of the Lord's Supper recorded ? Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 17-20; 1 Cor. X. 16, 17 ; and xi. 23-30. 2. Prove that its observance is a perpetual obligation. 1st. From the words of institution, \"Do this in remembrance of me,\" and again \"this do as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me.\" 2d. Paul's word. — 1 Cor. xi. 26. \" For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord's death tiU he come.\" 3d. The apostoHc example (Acts ii. 42 and 46; XX. 7, etc). 4th. The frequent reference to it as of perpetual obligation in the apostolical Avritings (1 Cor. x. 16-21, etc). 5th. The practice of the entire Christian church in all its branches from the first. 3. What are the various phrases used in Scripture to designate the Lord's Supper, and their import ? 1st. \"Lord's Supper.\" — 1 Cor. xi. 20. The Greek word deiTtvov, translated supper, designated the dinner, or principal meal of the Jews, taken towards or in the evening. Hence this sacrament received this name because it was instituted at that meal. It was called the \"Lord's,\" because it was instituted by him, to commemorate his death, and signify and seal his grace. 2d. \"Cup of blessing.\" — 1 Cor. x. 16. The cup was blessed by Christ, and the blessing of God is now invoked upon it by the officiating minister. — Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. 3d. \" Lord's Table.\" — 1 Cor. x. 21. Table here stands by a usual figure for the provisions spread upon it. It is the table at which the Lord invites his guests, and at which he presides. 4th. \" Communion.\" — 1 Cor. x. 16. In partaking of this sacrament, the fellowship of the believer with Christ is estab- 632 THE LORD'S SUFFER. lished and exercised in a mutual giving and receiving, and consequently also the fellowship of believers with one another, through Christ. 5th. \" Breaking of bread.\" — Acts ii. 42. Here the symboli- cal action of the officiating minister is put for the whole service.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "231", "sort_key": 231, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "By  ichat  other  terms  tvas  it  designated  in  the  early  church  ?", "answer": "1st. \" Eucharist,\" from evxapidreo), to give thanks. See Matt, xxvi. 27. This beautifully designates it as a thanksgiving ser- vice. It is both the cup of thanksgiving, wdiereby we celebrate the grace of God and pledge our gratitude to him, and tlie cup of blessing, or the consecrated cup. 2d. \"Suva^ii,'' a coming together, because the sacrament was administered in the public congregation. 3d. \"Aeirovpyia,'^ a sacred ministrafion, appHed to the sacra- ment by way of eminence. From this word is derived the English word liturgy. 4th. ''Qv6ia,^^ sacrifice offering. \"This term was not applied to the sacrament in the proper sense of a propitiatory sacrifice. But (1) because it was accompanied with a collection and obla- tion of alms; (2) because it commemorated the true sacrifice of Cln-ist on the cross; (3) because it was truly a eucharistical sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Heb. xiii. 15; (4) because, in the style of the ancients, every religious action, whereby we consecrate any thing to God for his glory and our salvation, is called a sacrifice.\" 5th. 'Aydrcrf. The Agapse, or love feasts, were meals at Avhich all the communicants assembled, and in connection with which they received the consecrated elements. Hence the name of the feast was given to the sacrament itself (3th. Mv6Typiov, a mystery., or a symbolical revelation of truth, designed for the special benefit of initiated Christians. This was applied to both sacraments. In the Scriptures it is applied to all the doctrines of revelation. — Matt. xiii. 11; Col. i. 26. 7th. Missa, ma^s. The principal designation used by the Latin church. The most probable derivation of this term is from the ancient formula of dismission. When the sacred rites were finished the deacons called out, \" Ite, missa est,\" go, it is discharged. — Turretin, L. 19, Q. 21. 5. How is this sacrament defined, and ivhat are the essential points included in the defiidtion ? See \"L. Cat.,\" Q. 168; \"S. Cat.,\" Q. 96. KINDS OF BREAD AND WINE TO BE USED. 633 The essential points of this definition are, 1st, the elements, bread and wine, given and received according to the appoint- ment of Jesus Christ. 2d. The design of the recipient of doing this in obedience to Clirist's appointment, in remembrance of him, to show forth his death till he come. 3d. The promised presence of Christ in the sacrament by his Spirit, \" so that the worthy receivers are not after a corporeal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of Christ's body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace.\" 6. Wliat kind of bread is to he used in the sacrament^ and what is the usage of the different churches on this point ? Bread of some kind is essential, 1st, from the command of Christ; 2d, from the significancy of the symbol; since bread, as the principal natural nourishment of our bodies, represents his fiesh, which, as living bread, he gave for the life of the world. — John vi. 51. But the kind of bread, whether leavened or unleavened, is not specified in the command, nor is it ren- dered essential by the nature of the service. Christ used unleavened bread because it was present at the Passover. The early Christians celebrated the Communion at a common meal, with the bread of common life, which was leavened. The Romish Church has used unleavened bread ever since the eighth century, and commands the use of the same as the only proper kind, but does not make it essential (\" Cat. Cone. Trident.,\" Pt. 2, ch. iv., §§ 13 and 14). The Greek Church insists upon the use of leavened bread. The Lutheran Church uses unleavened bread. The Eeformed Church, includ- ing the Church of England, regards the use of leavened bread, as the food of common life, to be most proper, since bread in the Supper is the symbol of spiritual nourishment. The use of sweet cake, practiced in some of our churches, is provincial and arbitrary, and is without any support in Scripture, tradi- tion, or good taste. 7. What is the meaning of the term oivo?, wine, in the New Testament, and how does it appear that ivine and no other liquid must be used in the Lord's Sup)'per ? It is evident from the usage of this word in the New Testa- ment that it was designed by the sacred writers to designate the fermented juice of the grape.— Matt. ix. 17; John ii. 3-10; Rom. xiv. 21; Eph. v. 18; 1 Tim. iii. 8; v. 23; Titus ii. 3. This is established by the unanimous testimony of all com- petent scholars and missionary residents in the East. — See Dr. Lindsay W. Alexander's article in Ivitto's \" Cyclopt^dia \" ; 634 THE LORD'S SUPPER. and Dr. AVm. L. Beran's art. on \"AVine\" in \"Smith's Bible Diet.\"; and Dr. Ph. Schaff in Lan_ge's \"Com. on John,\" ch. ii. 1-11, note p. Ill; and Kev. Dr. T. Laurie, missionary, in the \"Bibhotheca Sacra,\" Jan., 1869; and Dr. Justin Perkins' \"Res- idence of\" Eight Years in Persia,\" p. 236; and Dr. Eli Smith in the \"Bib. Sacra,\" 1846, pp. 385, etc.; and Rev. J. H. Shedd (missionary), in \"Interior,\" of July 20, 1871. The Romish Church contends, on the authority of tradition, that water should be mingled with the wine (\"Cat. Cone. Tri- dent., Pt. II., Ch. iv., Ques. 16 and 17). But this has not been commanded, nor is it involved in any way in the symbolical significancy of the rite. That wine and no other liquid is to be used is clear from the record of the institution, Matt. xxvi. 26-29, and from the usage of the apostles. 8. How does it appear that hreahing the bread is an important part of the service ? 1st. The example of Christ in the act of institution, which is particularly noticed in each inspired record of the matter. Matt. xxvi. 2(3 ; Mark xiv. 22 ; Luke xxii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xi. 24. 2d. It is prominently set forth in the reference made by the apostles to the sacrament in the epistles. — 1 Cor. x. 16. The entire service is designated from this one action. 3d. It pertains to the symbolical significancy of the sacra- ment. (1.) It represents the breaking of Christ's body for us. 1 Cor. xi. 24. (2.) It represents the communion of believers, being many in one body. — 1 Cor. x. 17. This is denied by the Lutheran Church, which holds that the \"breaking \"is only a preparation for distribution (see Krauth's \" Conservative Ref- ormation,\" pp. 719-722). 9. What is tJie proper interpretation of 1 Cor. x. 16, and in what sense are tJw elements to he blessed or consea^ated ? The phrase to bless is used in Scriptin*e only in three senses, 1st. To bless God, i. c, to declare his praises, and to utter our gratitude to him. 2d. To confer blessing actually, as God does upon his creatures. 3d. To invoke the blessing of God upon any person or tiling. The \" cup of lilessing which Ave bless \" is the consecrated cup upon which the minister has invoked the divine blessing. As the blessing of God is invoked upon food, and it is thus consecrated unto the end of its natural use, 1 Tim. iv. 5, so the elements are set apart as sacramental signs of an invisible spir- itual grace, to the end of showing forth Christ's death, and of ministering grace to the believing recipient, by the invocation DISTRIBUTION OF THE ELEMENTS ESSENTIAL. 635 by the minister of God's blessing in the promised presence of Cln-ist through his Spirit. The Romish Church teaches that when the priest pro- nounces the words of consecration with the due intention, lie really effects the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The form to be used in the consecration of the bread is, \" This is my body.\" The form to be used in consecrating the wine is, \" For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many for the remis- sion of sins\" (\"Cat. Cone. Trident,\" Pt. II., Ch. iv., Ques. 19-26). 10. Show that the distribution of tJie elements to the people and their reception by them is an essential part of this sacramejit ? Since the Romish Church has perfectly developed the doc- trines of transubstantiation, and of the sacrifice of the mass, they have logically come to regard the essential design of the ordinance to be effected when the act of consecration has been performed, and hence the distribution of the elements to the people is considered non-essential. Hence they preserve the bread as the veritable body of the Lord shut up in the pyx, carry it about in processions and worship it. Hence they also maintain the right of the priest in the mass to communicate without the people, and to carry the wafer to the sick who are absent from the place of communion. — \"Cone. Trident.,\" Sess. 13, Ch. 6, and cans. 4-7, and Sess. 22, can. 8. Protestants, on the contrary, hold that it is of the essence of this holy ordinance that it is an action, beginning and ending in the appointed use of the elements. \" Take ecd\" said Christ. \" This do in remembrance of me.\" It is a \" breaking of bread,\" an \" eating and drinking \" in remembrance of Clirist, it is a \"communion.\" Protestants all hold, consequently, that tlie distribution and reception of the elements are essential parts of the service, and that when these are accomplished the sac- rament ends. The Lutherans hold that the presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sacrament is confined to the time of the sacramental use of the elements, that is to the time of their distribution and reception, and that what remains afterwards is common bread and wine. — \" Form. Concord.,\" Pt. 2, Ch. 7, 82, and 108; \" Conf Faith,\" Ch. 29, § 4. The Reformed Church holds that the elements should be put into the hands of the communicant, and not as Catholics, into his mouth. Christ said, \" take eat,\" and the act is sym- bolical of personal self-appropriation. Since this sacrament is a \" communion \" (1 Cor. x. 16, 17) of the members with one another and with Christ together, the 636 THE LORD'S SUPPER. rite is abused when the elements are sent to persons absent from the company among whom it is celebrated, and all pri- vate communion of ministers or laymen is absurd. In case of need all Reformed Churches allow the pastor and elders to go, with as many Christian friends as the case admits of, and hold a communion in the chamber of sick believers, who otherwise would be unable to attend (Gen. Assem. 0. S., 1863, \" Moore's Digest.,\" p. 668). 11. What should he the nature of the exercises during the distri- bution of the elements ? \"The Sacraments are seals of the Covenant of Grace\" formed between Christ and his people, and in the Lord's Supper \" the worthy receivers really and truly receive and apply unto them- selves Christ crucified,\" each believer being made \"a priest unto God\" (1 Pet. ii. 5; Rev. i. 6), \"having liberty to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus\" (Heb. x. 19). From all this it necessarily follows that in this sacrament the communicants are to act immediately in their covenanting ivith the Lord. The minister ought never, therefore, to throw the commu- nicants into a passive attitude as the recipients of instructions or exhortations. All such didactic and hortatory exercises being assigned to the \"preparatory\" services, and to the ser- mon before communion, the minister should confine himself to leading the commimicants in the ait of communion in exe^xises of direct ivorshlp, such as suitable prayers and hymns. And all the prayers and hymns associated with this holy ordinance should be specifically appropriate to it, and not merely of a general religious character. The Relation of the Sign and the Grace Signified. 12. What is the Bomish doctrine on this subject? And hoiv is it expressed by the term Transubstantiation? The early fathers spoke of the presence of Christ in the Supper in indefinite language, and with a general tendency to exaggeration. Their metaphorical language tended to a con- fusion between the symbols of religious service and tlie spir- itual ideas represented. As the ministry came to be regarded as a priesthood, and the only channels of grace to the people, the sacraments were more and more exalted into the necessary instruments through which they acted. With the conception of a real priesthood necessarily emerged the need of a real sac- rifice; and for the reality of the sacrifice the real presence of a divine incarnate victim also was necessarily provided. ROMISH DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 637 The doctrine in its present form was first brought out ex- plicitly by Paschasius Radbert, abbot of Corbet (a. d. 831). It was opposed b}^ Ratramnus, but gradually gained ground. The term transuhstantiatio., conversion of substance, was used to define it in the first instance by Hildebert of Tours (tll34). It was first decreed as an article of faith, at the instance of Innocent in., by the fourth \" Lateran Council,\" a. d. 1215. Their doctrine is that when the words of consecration are pronounced by the priest — 1st. The whole substance of the bread is changed into the very body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven, and the whole substance of the wine is changed into the blood of Christ. 2d. That as in his theanthropic person the soul is inseparable from the body, and the divinity from the soul, so in the sacrament the soul and body of the Re- deemer is present with his flesh and blood. 3d. That only the species, or sensible qualities of the bread and wine remain, accidentia sine subjecto, and that the substance of the flesh and blood is present without their accidents. 4th. This conversion of substance is permanent, so that the flesh and blood remain permanently and are to be preserved and adored as such. They rest their doctrine on Scripture (^Hic est corpus meum), tradition, and the authority of councils. 13. On what grounds does the Romish Church withhold the 2ise of the cup from all except the officiating priest ? and ivhat is their doctrine of ' concomitance ' ? The Eai'ly Church for ages, and the Greek and all Protestant Churches to the present time, follow the example of Christ and his apostles in distributing among all communicants both the bread and the wine, \".sm6 utraque forma.\" The Romish Church however, for fear that some portion of the Lord's person might be unintentionally desecrated, has restricted the cup to the offi- ciating minister alone. The only exception .allowed is when the cardinals receive the cup from the pope ofiiciating on Holy Thursday. The Hussite War had for its principal object the gaining for the people the privilege of communicating in both kinds. To defend their custom theologians advanced the doc- trine that the whole Christ is present in each of the elements, to which Thomas Aquinas first gave the name concomitantia. The body includes the nerves, sinews, and all else that is nec- essaiy to a complete body; and as the blood is inseparable from the flesh, and the soul from the body, and the divinity from the soul, it follows that the entire person of the Redeemer is present in each particle of both elements, separation having been made. He, therefore, who receives any fraction of the 638 THE LORD'S SUPPER. bread receives blood as well as flesh, because he receives the whole Christ. 14. Present the arguments proving the Romish doctrine of the relation of the sign to the thing signified to be unscriptural as well as irrational. 1st. The sole Scriptural argument of the Romanists is derived from the words of institution, \"This is my body\" (Matt. xxvi. 26). Protestants answer. This phrase in this place must mean, \" this bread represents, or symbolizes, my body.\" This is evi- dent— (1.) Because such language in Scripture must often be so interpreted, e. g., Gen. xli. 26, 27 — \"The seven good kine are seven j-ears: and the seven good ears are seven years.\" Dan. vii. 24 — \"And the ten horns are ten kings.\" Ex. xii. 11; Ezek. xxxvii. 11 — \"These bones are the whole house of Israel.\" Matt. xiii. 19, 37; Rev. i. 20 — \"The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches.\" (2.) In this case any other interpretation is ren- dered impossible by the fact that Christ was sitting present in the body when he spoke the words, and that he also eat the bread. (3.) Also by what Christ says of the cup. Matt., \"This cvp is my blood.\" Luke, \"This cup is the New Testament in my blood.\" Paul (1 Cor. x. 16) says the cup is the Hoivoovia of the blood, and the bread is the xotrcovia of the body of Christ. 2d. Paul calls one of the elements bread, as well after as before its consecration. — 1 Cor. x. 16; xi. 26-28. 3d. This doctrine is inconsistent with their own definition of a sacrament. They agree with Protestants and with the fathers in distinguishing, in every sacrament, two things, viz., the sign and the thing signified. See above. Chap. XLI., Ques- tion 2. But the doctrine of transubstantiation confounds these together. 4th. The senses, when exercised in their proper sphere, are as much a revelation from God as any other. No miracle re- corded in the Bible contradicted the senses, but, on the con- trary, the reality of the miracle was established by the testi- mony of the senses. See the transubstantiation of water into wine. — John ii. 1-10, and Luke xxiv. 36-43. But this doctrine flatly contradicts our senses, since we see, smell, taste, and touch the bread and wine as well after their consecration as before. 5th. Reason also, in its proper sphere, is a divine revelation, and though it may be transcended, never can be contradicted by any other revelation, supernatural or otherwise. See above, Chap. III., Question 14. But this doctrine contradicts the prin- ciples of reason (1) with respect to the nature of Christ's body, LUTHERAN VIEW OF THE LORD'S PRESENCE. 639 by supposing that, although it is material, it may be, without division, wholly present in heaven, and at many different places on earth at the same time. (2.) In maintaining that the body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament, yet without any of their sensible qualities, and that all the sensible qualities of tlie bread and wine are present, while the bodies to which they belong are absent. But qualities have no existence apart from the substances to which they belong. 6th. This doctrine is an inseparable part of a system of priestcraft entirely anti-Christian, including the worship of the host, the sacrifice of the mass, and hence the entire substitu- tion of the priest and his work in the place of Christ and his work. It also blasphemously subjects the awful divinity of our Saviour to the control of his sinful creatures, wlio at their own will call him down from heaven, and withhold or commu- nicate him to the people. 15. Staie the LidJieran vieiv as to the nature of Christ's pres- ence in the Eucharist. The Lutherans hold — 1st. The communicatio idiomatum, or that the personal union of the divine and human natures involve the sharing of the humanity at least with the omnipres- ence of the divinity. The entire person of the incarnate God, body, soul, and divinity are everywhere. 2d. That the lan- guage of our Lord in the institution, \"This (bread) is my body,\" is to be understood literally. They, therefore, hold — 1st. That the entire person, body and blood of Christ are really and corporeally present in, Avith, and under the sensible elements. 2d. That they are received by the mouth. 3d. That they are received by the unbeliever as well as by the believer. But the unbeliever receives them to his own condemnation. On the other hand they deny — 1st. Transubstantiation ; hold- ing that the bread and wine remain (as to their substance) what they appear. 2d. That the pi-esence of Christ in the sacrament is effected by the officiating minister. 3d. That the presence of Christ in the elements is permanent; being sacramental, it ceases when the sacrament is over. 4th. That the bread and wine only represent Christ's body and blood. 5th. That the presence of the true body and blood is \" spiritual,\" in the sense of being mediated either (a) through the Holy Ghost, or (6) through the faith of the recipient. 16. State the doctrine of the Reformed Church. Luther's activity as a reformer extended from 1517 to 1546; Melanchthon's from 1521 to 1560; Zwingle's from his appear- 640 THE LORD'S SUPPER. ance at Zurich, 1518, to his death, 1531; Calvin's from 1536 to 1564 The Marburg Colloquy was held October, 1529; the Augsburg Confession published June, 1530; and the first edi- tion of \"Calvin's Institutes\" was published at Basle, 1536, and the finislied work Avas published by him in Geneva, 1559. I. Zwingle held that the bread and wine are mere memo- rials of the body of Christ absent in heaven. His view at first prevailed among the Eeformed churches, and was embodied in Zwingle's \"Fidei Ratio,\" sent to the diet at Augsburg, 1530; the \"Confessio Tetrapolitana,\" by Martin Bucer, 1530; the \"First Basle Confession,\" by Oswald Myconius, 1532; and the \"First Helvetic Confession,\" by Bullinger, Myconius, etc., 1536. II. Calvin occupied middle ground between the Zwinglians and Lutherans. He held — (1.) In common with Zwingle and all the Reformed that the words \"This is my body,\" means \"this bread represents my body.\" (2.) That God in this sacrament offers to all, and gives to all believing recipients, through the eating and drinking the bread and wine, all the sacrificial ben- efits of Christ's reden)ption. (3.) He also taught that besides this the very body and blood of Christ, though absent in heaven, communicate a life-giving influence to the believer in the act of receiving the elements. But that this influence though real and vital is (a) mystical not physical, {h) mediated through the Holy Ghost, (c) conditioned upon the act of faith by which the communicant receives them. This view is set forth chiefly in his \"Institutes,\" Bk. 4, Ch. 17, and in the \"Gallic Confession,\" Art. 36, prepared by a Synod in Paris, 1559; in the \"Scottish Confession,\" Art. 21, by John Knox, 1560; and the \"Belgic Confession,\" Art. 35, by Von Bres, 1561, III. After all hope of reconciling the Lutherans with the Reformed branches of the church on this subject was exhausted, Calvin drew up the Consensus Tigurimts in 1549 for the purpose of uniting the Zurich-Zwinglian with the Genevan-Calvinistic party in one doctrine of the Eucharist. It was accepted by both parties, and the doctrine it presents has ever since been received as the consensus of the Reformed churches. It pre- vails in the \"Second Helvetic Confession,\" by Bullinger, 1564; the \" Heidelberg Catechism,\" by Ursinus, a student of Me- lanchthon, 1562; the \"Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,\" 1562; and the \"Westminster Confession of Faith,\" 1648. These all agree — 1st. As to the \"presence\" of the flesh and blood of Christ. (1.) His human nature is in heaven only. (2.) His Person as God-man is omnipresent everywhere and always, our communion is with his entire person rather than with his flesh and blood (see above, Ch. XIII., Ques. 13 and 16) EFFICACY OF THIS SACRAMENT. 641 (3.) The presence of his flesh and blood in the sacrament is neither physical nor local, but only through the Holy Spirit, affecting the soul graciously. 2d. As to iliat which the believer feeds upon, they agreed that it was not the \" substance \" but the virtue or efficacy of his body and blood, i. e., their sacrificial virtue, as broken and shed for sin. 3d. As to the \"feeding\" of believers upon this \"body and blood,\" they agreed — (1.) It Avas not with the mouth in any manner. (2.) It was by the soul alone. (3.) It was b}' faith, the mouth or hand of the soul. (4.) By or through the power of the Holy Ghost. (5.) It is not confined to the Lord's Supper. It takes place whenever faith in him is exercised. — \" Bib. Kef,\" April, 1848. The Efficacy of this Sacrament. 17. What is the Bomish doctrine as to the efficacy of the Eucha- rist, and in ivhat sense and on what ground do they hold that it is also a sacrifice ? They distinguish between the eucharist as a sacrament, and as a sacrifice. As a sacrament its effect is that ex opere operato the receiver who does not present an obstacle, is nourished spiritually, sanctified and replenished with merit by the actual substance of the Redeemer eaten or drunk. On the other hand — \" The sacrifice of tlie mass is an exter- nal oblation of the body and blood of Christ offered to God in recognition of his supreme Lordship, under the appearance of bread and wine visibly exhibited by a legitimate minister, with the addition of certain prayers and ceremonies prescribed by the church for the greater worship of God and edification of the people.\" — Dens, Vol. v., p. 358. With respect to its end it is to be distinguished into, 1st, Latreuticum, or an act of supreme worship offered to God. 2d. Eucharisticum, thanksgiving. 3d. Propitiatorium, atoning for sin, and propitiating God l)y the offering up of the body and blood of Cln-ist again. 4th. Imperatorium, since through it we attain to many spiritual and temporal blessings. — Dens, Vol. v., p. 368. The difference between the eucharist as a sacrament and a sacrifice is very great, and is twofold ; as a sacrament it is per- fected by consecration, as a sacrifice all its efficacy' consists in its oblation. As a sacrament it is to the worthy receiver a source of merit, as a sacrifice it is not only a source of merit, but also of satisfaction, expiating the sins of the living and the dead. — \"Cat. Rom.,\" Ft. II., Chap, iv., Q. 55; \"Council Trent,\" Sess. 22. 642 THE LORD'S SUPPER. They found this doctrine npon the authority of the church, and absurdly appeal to Mai. i. 11, as a prophecy of this perpet- ually recurrent sacrifice, and to the declaration, Heb. vii. 17, that Christ is \" a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedec,\" who, say they, discharged his priestly functions in offering bread and wine to Abraham. — Gen. xiv. 18.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
+{"_source_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "_source_title": "Outlines of Theology", "_author": "A. A. Hodge", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "https://archive.org/download/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg/outlinesoftheolo1879hodg_djvu.txt", "document_id": "aa-hodge-outlines", "item_id": "232", "sort_key": 232, "group": "Chapter XXXIX", "question": "How  may  this doctrhie  he  refuted?", "answer": "1st. It has no foundation whatever in Scripture. Their appeal to the prophecy in Malachi, and to the typical relation of Melchizedec to Christ, is self-evidently absurd. 2d. It rests wholly upon the fiction of transubstantiation, which was disproved above. Question 14. 3d. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was perfect, and from its essential nature excludes all others. — Heb. ix. 25-28; X. 10-14 and 18, 26, 27. 4th. It is inconsistent with the words of institution pro- nounced by Christ. — Luke xxii. 19, and 1 Cor. xi. 24-26. The sacrament commemorates the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, and consequently can not be a new propitiatory sacrifice itself For the same reason the essence of a sacrament is different from that of a sacrifice. The two can not coexist in the same ordinance. 5th. It belonged to the very essence of all propitiatory sac- rifices, as well to the typical sacrifices of the Old Testament, as to the all-perfect one of Christ, that life should be taken, that blood should be shed, since it consisted in vicariously suffering the penalty of the law. — Heb. ix. 22. But the Papists them- selves call the mass a bloodless sacrifice, and it is wholly with- out pain or death. 6th. A sacrifice implies a priest to present it, but the Chris- tian ministry is not a priesthood. — See above, Chap. XXIV., Question 21. 19. What is the Lutheran vleio as to the efficacy of the sac- rament ? The Lutheran view on this point is that the efficacy of the sacrament resides not in the signs, but in the word of God con- nected Avith them, and that it is operative only when there is true faith in the receiver. This effect is identical with that of the word, and through faith includes the benefits of vital com- munion witli Christ and all the fruits thereof It, however, lays stress upon the virtue of the literal body and blood of Christ as present in, with, and imder, the bread and wine. This body and blood, being physically received equally by EFFICACY OF THIS SACRAMENT. 643 the believer and unbeliever, but being of gracious avail only in the case of the believer. — Luther's \" Small Cat.,\" Part V., Krauth's \" Conserv. Eeform.,' pp. 825-829. 20. What is the so-called Zwinglian and Remonstrant and So- cinian vieiv as to the efficacy of the Eucharist ? Zwingle died preraatiu-ely. He undoubtedly took too low a view of the sacraments. If he had lived he would, doubtless, have accompanied his disciples in their union with Calvin in the adoption of the Consensus Tigurinus. The doctrine ever since known by his name, and really held by the Socinians and Remonstrants, differs from the Reformed — 1st. In making the elements mere signs; and in denying that Christ is in any special sense present in the eucharist. 2d. In denying that they are means of grace, and holding that they are bare acts of commemoration and badges of profession. 21. What is the view of the Reformed churches upon this subject ? They rejected the Romish view which regards the efficacy of the sacrament as inhering in it physically as its intrinsic prop- erty, as heat inheres in fire. They rejected also the Lutheran view as far as it attributes to the sacrament an inherent super- natural power, due indeed not to the signs, but to the word of God wliich accompanies them, but which, nevertheless, is always operative, provided there be faith in the receiver. And, thirdly, they rejected the doctrine of the Socinians and others, that the sacrament is a mere badge of profession, or an empty sign of Christ and his benefits. They declared it to be an effica- cious means of grace ; but its efficacy, as such, is referred neither to any virtue in it, nor in him that administers it, but solely to the attending operation of the Holy Ghost (virtus Spiritus Sancti extrinsecus accedens), precisely as in the case of the word. It has indeed the moral objective power of a signifi- cant emblem, and as a seal it really conveys to every believer the grace of which it is a sign, and it is set apart with especial solemnity as a meeting point between Christ and his people ; but its power to convey grace depends entirely, as in the case of the word, on the co-operation of the Holy Ghost. Hence the power is in no way tied to the sacrament. It may be exerted without it. It does not always attend it, nor is it confined to the time, place, or service. — \"Bib. Ref,\" April, 1848; see \"Gal. Conf,\" Arts. 36 and 37; \" Helv.,\" ii., c. 21; \"Scotch Conf,\" Art. 21; 28th and 29th \"Articles of Church of Eng- land\"; also our own standards, \"Conf Faith,\" Chapter xxix., section 7. 644 THE LORD'S SUPPER, 22. What do 02(r standards teach as to the qualifications for admission to the Lord's Supper? 1st. Only those who are truly regenerated by the Holy Ghost are qualified, and only those who profess faith in Christ and walk consistently are to be admitted. 2d. Wicked and ignorant persons, and those who know themselves not to be regenerate, are not qualified, and ought not to be admitted by the church oflicers. — \" Conf. Faith,\" Ch. xxix., section 8; \" L. Cat.,\" Question 173. 3d. But since man}^ who doubt as to their being in Christ are nevertheless genuine Christians, so if one thus doubtiiig unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity, he ought to labor to have his doubts resolved, and, so doing, to come to the Lord's Supper, that he may be further strengthened. — \" L. Cat.,\" Question 172. 4tli. \"Children born within the pale of the visible chiu'ch, and dedicated to God in baptism, when they come to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to discern the Lord's body, they ought to be informed it is their duty and their privilege to come to the Lord's Supper.\" \"The years of dis- cretion in young Christians can not be precisely fixed. This must be left to the prudence of the eldership.\" — \"Direct, for Worship,\" Chap. ix. 23. What is the practice which prevails in the different churches on this subject, and on lohat j^rinciples does such practice rest ? 1st. The Romanists make the condition of salvation to be union with and obedience to the church, and, consequently, admit all to the sacraments who express their desire to con- form and obey. \"No one,\" however, \"conscious of mortal sin, and having an opportunity of recurring to a confessor, however contrite he may deem himself, is to approach the holy eucha- rist, until he is purified by sacramental confession.\" — \"Coun. Trent,\" sess. 13, canon 11. The Lutherans agree with them in admitting all who conform to the external requirements of the church. 2d. High Church prelatists, and others who regard the sac- raments as in themselves effective means of grace, maintain that even those who, knowing themselves to be destitute of the fruits of the Spirit, nevertheless have speculative faith in the gospel, and are free from scandal, and desire to come, should be admitted. 3d. The faith and practice of all the evangelical churches is that the communion is designed only for believers, and there- QUALIFICATIONS FOR COMMUNION. 645 fore, that a credible profession of faith and obedience shonld be required of every applicant. (1.) The Baptist churches, denjnng; altogether the rig-lit of infant clrurch membership, receive all applicants for the communion as from the world, and therefore demand 2^o.s/^/t'e evidences of the new birth of all. (2.) All the Pedobaptist churches, maintaining that all children baptized in infancy are already members of the church, distinguish between the admission of the children of the church to the communion, and the admission de novo to the church of the unbaptized alien from the world. With regard to the former, the presumption is that they should come to the Lord's table when they arrive at \"years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, appear to be sober and steady, and to have sufficient knowledge to dis- cern the Lord's body.\" In the case of the unbaptized world- ling, the presumption is that they are aliens until they bring a credible profession of a change. 24. How may it he proved that the Lord's Supper is not designed for the unreneived ? It can, of course, be designed only for those who are spirit- ually qualified to do in reality what every recipient of the sac- rament does in form and professedly. But this ordinance is essentially — 1st. A profession of Christ. 2d. A solemn covenant to accept Christ and his gospel, and to fulfil the conditions of discipleship. 3d. An act of spiritual communion with Christ. The qualifications for acceptable communion, therefore, are such knowledge, and such a spiritual condition, as shall enable the recipient intelligently and honestly to discern in the em- blems the Lord's body as sacrificed for sin, to contract with him the gospel covenant, and to hold fellowship with him through the Spirit. 25. What have the church and its officers a right to require of those whom they admit to the Lord's Supper ? \"The officers of the church are the judges of the qualifica- tions of those to be admitted to sealing ordinances.\" \"And those so admitted shall be examined as to their knowledge and piety.\" — \"Direct, for Worsh.,\" Chap. ix. As God has not endowed any of these officers with the power of reading the heart, it follows that the qualifications of which they are the judges are simply those of competent knowledge, purity of life, and credible profession of faith. [By \"credible\" is meant not that which convinces, but that which can be believed to be genuine.] It is their duty to examine the applicant as to 646 THE LORD'S SUPPER. his knowledge, to watch and inquire concerning his Avalk and conversation, to set before him faithful!}^ the inward spiritual quahfications requisite for acceptable communion, and to hear his profession of that spiritual faith and purpose. The respon- sibility of the act then rests upon the individual professor, and not upon the session, wlio are never to be understood as passing judgment upon, or as indorsing the validity of his evidences. 26. What is the difference hetiveen the Presbyterian and the Congregational churches upon this point? There exists a difference between the traditionary views and practice of these two bodies of Christians with respect to the abihty, the right, and the duty of church officers, of form- ing and affirming a positive official judgment upon the in- ward spiritual character of applicants for church privileges. The Cougregationalists understand by \"credible profession\" the positive evidence of a religious experience which satisfies the official judges of the gracious state of the applicant. The Presbyterians understand by that phrase only an intelligent profession of true spiritual faith in Christ, which is not contra- dicted by the life. Dr. Candlish, in the \"Edinburgh Witness,\" June 8th, 1848, says, \"The principle (of communion), as it is notorious that the Presbyterian church has always held it, does not constitute the pastor, elders, or congregation, judges of the actual con- version of the applicant; but, on the contrary, lays much re- sponsibility upon the applicant himself The minister and kirk session must be satisfied as to his competent knowledge, cred- ible profession, and consistent walk. They must determine negatively that there is no reason for pronouncing him not to be a Christian, but they do not undertake the responsibility of p(3sitively judging of his conversion. This is the Presbyte- rian rule of discipline, be it right or wrong, differing materially from that of the Cougregationalists. In practice there is room for much dealing with the conscience under either rule, and persons destitute of knowledge and of a credible profession are excluded.\" AUTHOKITATIVE STATEMENTS OF ChURCH DoCTEINE. EOMISH DoCTEINE. — DOCTBINE OF THE EuCHAKIST BOTH AS A SaCKA- MENT AND AS A SaCBIFICE. ''Gone. Trident., \" Sess. 13, can. 1.— \"If any one deuieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the hody and blood together with the soul and divinity of oiu- Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ ; but_ saith that he is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virttie; let him be anathema.\" AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRINE. 647 Can. 2. — \"If aoy one saith, that, in tlie sacred and lioly sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood — the si^ecies (accidents) of the bread and wine remaining — which conver- sion iudeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation ; let him be anathema.\" Can. 3. — \"If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separation has been made; let him be anathema.\" Can. 4. — \"If any one saith, that, after the consecration has been completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that in the host, or consecrated jjarticles, which are received or remain after communion, the true body remaineth not; let him be anathema.\" Can. 6. — \"If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucha- rist, Christ, the only begotten Sou of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external, of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be exiJosed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolaters; let him be anathema.\" Can. 7. — \"If any one shall say that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrtirium, but that immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honor to the sick; let him be anathema.\" Can. 8. — \"If any one saith that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.\" Can. 10. — \"If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the celebrating priest to communicate by himself; let him be anathema.\" Sess. 21, Can. 1. — \"If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist; let him be anathema.\" Can. 2. — \"If any one saith that the holy Catholic Church was not induced, by just causes and reasons, to communicate under the species of bread only, laymen and also clerics when not consecrating; let him be anathema.\" Can. 3. — \" If any one denieth that Christ whole and entire — the foun- tain and author of all graces — is received under the one species of bread; because that — as some falsely assert — he is not received according to the institution of Christ himself under both sjjecies; let him be anathema.\" Sess. 22, Can. 1. — \"If any one saith, that in the mass, a true and proper sacrifice is not made to God; or, that to be otfered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.\" Can. 2. — \"If any one saith, that by those words. Do this for the com- memoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer his own body and blood; let him be anathema.\" Can. 3. — \"If any one saith that the sacrifice of the mass is only a G48 THE LORD'S SUPPER. sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemora- tion of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatoiy sacrifice; or, that it profits him only that receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and for the dead, for sins, i^ains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.\" Can. 8. — \"If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacrameutally, are unlawful , . let him be anathema.\" Chap. 2. — \"Forasmuch as in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross . . . therefor, not only for the sins,' punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered agreeably to a tradition of the apostles. \" Bellarmin, '■^ Controv. de Euchrir.\" y. 5.- — \"The sacrifice of the mass has not an efficacy ex opere o/ientto after the manner of a sacrament. The sacrifice does not operate efficiently and immediately, nor is it properly the instrument of God for making just. It does not make just imme- diately as baptism and absolution do, but it impetrates the gift of peni- tence, through which a sinner is made willing to api^roach the sacrament, and by this be justified. . . The sacrifice of the mass is the procurer not only of spiritual but also of temporal benefits, and therefore it can be offered for sins, for punishments, and for any other necessary uses. \" Lutheran Docteine. \"Aiu/shxrg Co/i/V.s.s-/o/t,\" Pars 1, Art. 10; \" Apol. A/ic/x. Co///.,\" p. 157 (Hase) ; '' Formuhi CitnconJui^'' Pars 1, ch. 7, | 1. — \"We believe, teach, and profess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and that together with the bread and wine they are truly distributed and received, g 2. — The words of Christ (this is my body) are to be understood only in their strictly literal sense; so that neither the bread signifies the absent body of Christ, nor the wine the absent blood of Christ, but so that on account of the sacra- mental union the bread and wine truly are the body and blood of Christ. 'i 3. — As to what pertains to the consecration we believe, etc., that no human-act, nor any utterance of the minister of the church, is the cause of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supj^er, but that this is to be attributed solely to the omnipotent power of our Lord Jesus Christ. I 5. — The grounds, however, on which, in this matter, we con- tend against the Sacramentarians, are these. . . Tlhe first ground is an article of our Christian faith, namely, Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man, in unity of i^erson insei^arable and undi- vided. The second is that the right hand of God is everywhere; but there Christ has, truly and in very deed, been placed, in respect to his humanity, and therefoi-e being present he rules, and holds in his hands and under his feet all things which are in heaven and on earth. The Hard is that the word of God can not be false. The fourth is that God knows and has in his power various modes in which it is possible to be in a place (present), and he was not restricted to that single mode of presence which ijhilosophers have been accustomed to call local or cir- cumscribed. I 6. — We believe, etc., that the body and blood of Christ are received not only spiritually through faiih, but also by the mouth, not after a cai^ernaitish, but a suj)ernatural and celestial manner, by vii'tue of a sacramental union. . . | 7. — We believe, etc., that not only those who believe in Christ, and worthily approach the Lord's SupiJer, but also the unworthy and unbelievers receive the true body AUTHORITATIVE STATEMENTS OF DOCTRWE. G49 and blood of Christ, so that, however, they shall not thence derive either consolation or life, but rather that this receiving shall fall out to judg- ment to them, unless they be converted and exei'cise repentance.\" Doctrine of the Reformed Churches. \" Gdllic Cuiif.,'^ Ai't. 36. — -\"Although Christ is now in heaven, there also to remain till he shall come to judge the world, yet we believe that he, by the hidden and incomprehensible joower of his Spirit, nourishes and vivifies us with the substance of his body and blood, apj)rehended by faith.\" ^'■Scottish Conf.\" — \"And althovigh there is gTeat distance of place be- tween his now glorified body in heaven and us mortals now upon the earth, yet we nevertheless believe that the bread which we break is the communion of his body, alid the cup which we bless is the communion of his blood. . . So we confess that believers in the right use of the Lord's Supper do thus eat the body and di-ink the blood of Jesus Christ; and we surely believe that he remains in them and they in him, yea, so become flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones, that as the eternal divinity gives life and immortality to the flesh of Jesus Christ, so also, his flesh and blood, when eaten and di'unk by us, confer on us the same privileges.\" ''Behfic Gonf.;' Art. 35. Qdv'ia's ''Institutes;' Bk. iv., Ch. 17, g 10.— \"The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporeal life. . . But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh and blood of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy Si^mt surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore what our mind does not comprehend, let faith conceive; viz., that the Sjiirit truly unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and blood whereby Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it j)enetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals iu his supjier, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And truly tlie thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by believers only.\" '■\"Thirty -nine Articles,\" Art. 28. — \"The Supj^er of the Lord is a sacra- ment of the redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ, and likewise the cup of bless- ing is a i^artaking of the blood of Christ. . . The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spii-- itual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. The sacrament of the Lord's Sup- per was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted uji, or worshipjjed. \" \"Heidelberg Cat.,\" Ques. 76. — \"What is it to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink his shed blood? It means, not only -ftdth thankful hearts to appropriate the passion of Christ, and thereby receive forgive- ness of sins and eternal life, but also and therein, through the Holy Gho.st who dwelleth in Christ and in us, to be more and more united to his blessed body, so that, although he is iu heaven, and we are upon earth, we nevertheless are flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, and live forever one spirit with him.\" 650 THE LORD'S SUFFER. \"West. Conf. Faith,\" Ch. 29, § 5.— \"The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such a relation to him crucified, as that truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the names of the things they i-epreseut, to wit, the body and blood of Christ, albeit in substance and nature they still remain truly and only bread and wine. ^ 7. — Worthy receivers, oiitwardly par- taking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, but not carnally and corporeally, but spir- itually receive and feed upon Christ crucified and all the benefits of his death : the body and blood of Christ being then not corporeally or car- nally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements them- selves are to the outward senses.\" — See \" Consensus Tigurinus\" in Appendix. APPENDIX. THE CONSENSUS TIGURINUS AND THE FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. I. THE CONSENSUS TIGURINUS. WRITTEN BY CALVIN, 1549, FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNITING ALL BRANCHES OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN A COMMON DOCTRINE AS TO THE LORd's SUPPER. HEADS OF CONSENT. TJie whole Spiritual regimen of the Church leads us to Christ. I. Since Christ is the end of the Law, and the knowledge of Him comprehends in itself the entire sum of the Gospel, there is no doubt but that the whole spiritual regimen of the Church is designed to lead us to Christ; as through Him alone we reach God, who is the ultimate end of a blessed (holy) life; and so whoever departs in the least from this truth will never speak rightly or fitly respecting any of the ordi- nances of God. A true Tcnowledge of the Sacraments from, a knowledge of Christ. n. Moreover since the Sacraments are auxiliaries (appendices) of the Gospel, he certainly will discuss both aptly and usefully their nature, theii* power, their office and their fruit, who weaves his discourse from Christ; not merely touching the name of Christ incidentally, but truth- fully holding forth the purj^ose for which He was given to us by the Father, and the benefits which He has conferred upon us. Knoivledge of Christ, what it involves. m. Accordingly it must be held, that Christ, being the eternal Son of God, of the same essence and glory with the Father, jDut on our flesh in order that, by right of adoption, He might communicate to us what by nature was solely His own, to wit, that we should be sons of God. This takes place when we, ingrafted through faith into the body of Christ, and this by the power of the Holy Spirit, are first justified by the gratuitous imputation of righteousness, and then regenerated into a new life, that, new-created in the image of the Heavenly Father, we may put off the old man. 652 APPENDIX. Christ, Priest and King. TV. We must therefore regard Christ in His flesh as a Priest, who has expiated our sins by His death, the only Sacritice, blotted out all our iniquities by His obedieuce, procured for us a perfect righteousness, and now intercedes for us that we may have access to God; as an expia- tory Sacrifice whereby God was reconciled to the world; as a Brut Iter, who from wretched sons of Adam has made us blessed sons of God; as a Restorer (Reparator) , who by the power of His Spirit transforms all that is corrupt [i-iliosum) in us, that we may no longer live unto the world and the flesh, and God himself may Live in us; as a King, who enriches us with every kind of good, governs and preserves us by His power, establishes us \"\\\\'ith spiritual arms, delivers us from every evil, and re- strains and directs us by the sceptre of His mouth; and He is to be so regarded, that He may lift us up to Himself, very God, and to the Father, until that shall be fulfilled which is to be at last, that God be all in ail. How Christ communicates Himself to us. V. Moreover in order that Christ may manifest Himself such a one to us and produce such effects in us, it behooves us to be made one with Him and grow together in His body. For He diifuses His life in us in no other way than by being our Head; \"from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the eftectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body \" (Eph. iv. 16). Communion spiritual. Sacraments instituted. VI. This communion which we have with the Son of God, is spiritual; so that He, dAvelling in us by His Spirit, makes all of us who believe partakers of all the good that resides in Him. To bear witness of this, both the preaching of the Gospel and the use of the Sacraments, Holy Baptism and the Holy Supper were instituted. The Ends of the Sacraments. VII. The Sacraments, however, have also these ends: — to be marks and tokens of Christian profession and (Christian) association, or broth- erhood; to incite gratitude (thanksgiving), and to be exercises of faith and a jjious life, in short, bonds (sealed contracts) making these thmgs obligatory. But among other ends this one is chief, that by these Sacraments God attests, presents anew, and seals to ns His grace. For while they indeed signify nothing more than is declared in the word it- self, yet it is no small matter that they are presented to our eyes as lively symbols which better affect our feeling, leading us to the reality [in rem), while they recall to memory Christ's death and all the benefits thereof, in order that faith may have more vigorous exercise; and finally, it is of < no little moment that what was proclaimed to us by the mouth of God, is confirmed and sanctioned by seals. Thanksgiving. VIII. Moreover, since the testimonials and seals of His grace, which the Lord has given us, are verities, surely He himself will beyond all doubt make good to us inwardly, by His Spirit, what the Sacraments symbohze to our eyes and other senses, viz., possession of Christ as the CONSENSUS TIGURINUS. 653 fountain of all blessings, then reconciliation to Gocl by virtiTe of His death, restoration by the Spirit unto holiness of life, and finally attain- ment of righteousness and salvation; accompanied with thanksgiving for these mercies, which were formerly displayed on the cross, and through faith are daily received by us. 77^6 signs and the things signified are not separated, but distinct. IX. Wherefore, though we rightly make a distinction between the signs and the things signified, yet we do not separate the verity from the signs ; but we believe, that all who by faith embrace the jiromises therein oflfered, do spiritually receive Christ and His spiritual gifts, and so also they who have before been made jjartakers of Christ, do continue and renew their communion. Ill the Sacraments the promise is chiefly to he Tcept in view. X. For not to the bare signs, but rather to the i^romise which is annexed to them, it becomes us to look. As far then as our faith ad- vances in the j^romise offered in the Sacraments, so far will this power and efficacy of which we speak exert itself. Accordingly the matter [materia) of the water, bread or wine, by no means present Christ to us, nor makes us partakers of His spii'itual gifts; but we must look rather to the promise, whose office it is to lead us to Christ by the right way of faith, and this faith makes us partakers of Christ. Tlie Eleinents are not to be siipersiitiously worshipped. XI. Hence the error of those who superstitiously worship {obstxpe- scirni) the elements, and rest therein the assurance of their salvation, falls to the ground. For the Sacraments apart from Christ are nothing but emijty masks; and they themselves clearly declare to all this truth, that we must cKng to nothing else but Christ alone, and in nothing else must the free gift of salvation be sought. The Sacraments {per se) have no efficacy. XII. Furthermore, if any benefit is conferred upon us by the Sacra- ments, this does not proceed from any virtue of their own, even though the promise whereby they are distinguished be included. For it is God alone who works by His Spirit. And in using the instrumentality of the Sacraments, He thereby neither infuses into them His own power, nor abates in the least the efficiency of His Spirit; but in accordance with the capacity of our ignorance [ruditas) He uses them as instriiments in siich a way that the whole efficiency [facultas ageiidi) remains solely with HimseK. God uses the instrument but in such a loay that all the poioer [virtus) is His. Xiii. Therefore, as Paul advises us that \"neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase \" (1 Cor. iii. 7) ; so also it may be said of the Sacraments, that they are nothing, for they will be of no avail except God work the whole to com- pletion [in solii/um omnia etficint). They are indeed instruments with which God works efficiently, when it pleases Him, but in such a manner that the whole work of our salvation must be credited solely to Him. XIV. We have therefore decided that it is solely Christ who verily bai^tizes us within, who makes us partakers of Him in the Supper, who, 654 APPENDIX. in fine, fulfils what the Sacraments symbolize, and so uses indeed, these instruments, that the whole efficiency resides in His Spirit. How the Sacraments confirm. XV. So the Sacraments are sometimes called seals, are said to nour- ish, confirm, and promote faith; and yet the Spirit alone is properly the seal, and the same Spirit is the originator and perfecter of our faith. For all these attributes of the Sacraments occupy a subordinate place, so that not even the least portion of the work of our salvation is trans- ferred from its sole author to either the creature or the elements. Not all who jyarticipnte in the Sacraments partake also of the verity. XVI. Moreover, we sedulously teach that God does not exert His power promiscuously in all who receive the Sacraments, but only in the elect. For just as he enlightens unto faith none but those whom He has foreordained unto life, so by the hidden power of His spirit He causes only the elect to receive what the Sacraments offer. The Sacraments do not confer grace. XVII. This doctrine refutes that invention of sophists which teaches that the Sacraments of the New Covenant confer grace on all who do not interpose the impediment of a mortal sin. For besides the truth that nothing is received in the Sacraments except by faith, it is also to be held that God's grace is not in the least so linked to the Sacraments themselves that whoever has the sign possesses also the reality {res) ; for the signs are administered to the re^srobate as well as to the elect, but the verity of the signs comes only to the latter. GocVs gifts are offered to all; believers alone receive them,. XVHI. It is indeed certain that Christ and His gifts [dona) are offered to all alike, and that the verity of God is not so impaired by the unbelief of men that the Sacraments do not always retain their proper virtue {vim); but all persons are not capable of receiving Christ and His gifts (dona). Therefore on God's part there is no vai'iableness, but on the part of men each one receives according to the measure of his faith. Believers have communion with Christ, before and loitlwut the nse of the Sacraments. XIX. Moreover, as the use of the Sacraments confers on unbelievers nothing more than if they had abstained therefrom, indeed, is only per- nicious to them ; so without their use the verity which they symbolize endures to those who believe. Thus in Baptism were washed away Paul's sins, which had already been washed away before. Thus also BaiJtism was to Cornelius the washing of regeneration, and yet he had already received the gift of the Holy Spirit. So in the Supi^er Christ communicates himself to us, and yet He imparted himself to us before, and abides continually in us forever. For since each one is commanded to examine himself, it hence follows that faith is required of each before he comes to the Sa(^raments. And yet there is no faith without Christ; but in so far as in the Sacraments faith is confirmed and grows, God's gifts are confirmed in us, and so in a measure Christ grows in us and we in Him. CONSENSUS TIGURINUS. 655 Grace is not so joined to the act of the Sacraments, that their fruit is received immediately after the act. XX. The benefit also which we derive from the Sacraments should by no means be restricted to the time in which they are administered to us; just as if the visible sign when brought forward into view, did at the same moment with itself bring God's grace. For those who are baptized in early infancy, God regenerates in boyhood, in budding youth, and sometimes even in old age. So the benefit of Baptism lies oiien to the whole course of life; for the promise which it contains is i^erpetually valid. It may, also, sometimes happen, that a partaking of the Supper, which in the act itself brought us little good because of our inconsider- ateness or dullness, afterward brings forth its fruit. Local imagination should be suppressed. XXI. Especially should every conception of local (bodily) presence be suppressed. For while the signs are here in the world seen by the eyes, and felt by the hands, Christ, in so far as He is man, we must con- template as in no other place but heaven, and seek Him in no other way than with the mind and faith's understanding. Wherefore it is a pre- posterous and impious superstition to enclose Him under elements of this world. Exposition of the words of the Lord's Supper, \" Tliis is my body.\" XXn. We therefore repudiate as absurd interpreters, those who urge the precise literal sense, as they say, of the customary words in the Supper, \"This is my body,\" \"This is my blood.\" For we place it be- yond all controversy that these words are to be understood figuratively, so that the bread and the wine are said to be that which they signify. And verily it ought not to seem novel or unusual that the name of the thing signified be transferred by metonomy to the sign, for expressions of this kind are scattered throughout the Scriptures; and saying this we assert nothing that does not ijlainly appear in all the oldest and most approved writers of the Church. Concerning the eating of the body of Christ. XXm. Moreover, that Christ, through faith by the j)ower of His Holy Spirit, feeds our souls with the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood, is not to be understood as if any commingling or transfu- sion of substance occurred, but as meaning that from flesh once oiiered in sacrifice and blood once poured out in expiation we derive life. Against Transubstantiation and other silly conceits. XXTV. In this way not only is the invention of Papists about tran- siibstantiation refuted, but also all the gross fictions and futile subtleties which are either derogatory to His divine gloiy or inconsistent with the verity of His human nature. For we consider it no less absurd to locate Christ under the bread, or conjoin Him with the bread, than to transub- stantiate the bread into His body. Christ's body is in heaven as in a place. '**'^ XXV. But in order that no ambiguity may remain, when we say that Christ should be contemplated as in heaven, the phrase implies and ex- presses a difference of place (a distance between places). For though, G56 APPENDIX. philosophically speaking, \"above the heavens\" is not a locality, yet because the body of Christ — as the nature and the limitation of the human body show — is finite, and is contained in heaven as in a place, it is therefore necessarily separated from us by as great an interval as lies between heaven and earth. Christ is not to be ^i^orsliipped in the bread. XXVI. But if it is not right for us in imagination to affix Christ to the bread and wine, much less is it lawful to worship Him in the bread. For though the bread is presented to us as a symbol Snd pledge of our communion with Christ, yet because it is the sign, not the reality, neither has the reality enclosed in it or affixed to it, they therefore who bend their minds upon it to worship Christ, make it an idol. II. FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. COMPOSED AT ZURICH, A. D. 1675, BY JOHN HENRY HEIDEGGER, OF ZURICH, ASSISTED BY FRANCIS TURRETINE, OF GENEVA, AND LUKE GERNLER, OF BASLE, AND DESIGNED TO CONDEMN AND EXCLUDE THAT MODIFIED FORM OF CALVINISM, WHICH, IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, EMA- NATED FROM THE THEOLOGICAL SCHOOL AT SAUMUR, REPRESENTED BYAMYRAULT, PLAC^US, AND DAILLE ; ENTITLED \"FORM OF AGREEMENT OF THE HELVETIC REFORMED CHURCHES RESPECTING THE DOCTRINE OP UNIVERSAL GRACE, THE DOCTRINES CONNECTED THEREWITH, AND SOME OTHER POINTS.\" CANONS. I. God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have His word, which is the \" power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth \" ^Kom. i. 16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with j^aternal care ever since it was written up to the present time, so that it could not be cor- rupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes it to His singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world, a \" sure word of prophecy \" and \" Holy Script- ures\" (2 Tim. iii. 15), from which, though heaven and earth perish, \"one jot or one tittle shall in no Avise pass \" (Matt. v. 18). II. But, in particular, the Hebrew Original of the Old Testament, which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Jewish Church, unto whom formerly \"were committed the oracles of God \" (Rom. iii. 2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels — either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points — not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired of God, thus foi-ming, FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 657 together witli tlie Original of the New Testament, the sole and complete rule of our faith and life; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, oriental and occidental, ought to be apj)lied, and where- ever they differ, be conformed. III. Therefore we can by no means approve the opinion of those who declare that the text which the Hebrew Original exhibits was deter- mined by man's -will alone, and do not scruple at all to remodel a Hebrew reading which they consider unsuitable, and amend it from the Greek Versions of the LXX and others, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Chaldee Targums, or even from other sources, yea, sometimes from their own reason alone; and furthermore, they do not acknowledge any other read- ing to be genuine except that which can be educed by the critical power of the human judgment from the collation of editions with each other and with the various readings of the Hebrew Original itself — which, they maintain, has been corrupted in various ways; and finally, they affirm that besides the Hebrew edition of the present time, there are in the Versions of the ancient interjareters which differ from our Hebrew con- text other Hebrew Originals, since these Versions are also indicative of ancient Hebrew Originals differing from each other. Thus they bring the foundation of our faith and its in\\dolable authority into perilous hazard. IV. Before the foundation of the world God purposed in Christ Jesus, our Lord, an eternal purpose (Eph. iii. 11), in which, from the mere good pleasure of His own will, without any prevision of the merit of works or of faith, unto the praise of His glorious grace, out of the hiiman race lying in the same mass of corruption and of common blood, and, there- fore, corrupted by sin, He elected n certain and definite nnmher to be led, in time, unto salvation by Christ, their Surety and sole Mediator, and on account of His merit, by the mighty power of the regenerating Holy Spirit, to be effectually called, regenerated, and gifted with faith and repentance. So, indeed, God, determining to illustrate His glory, de- creed to create man perfect, in the first place, then, permit him to fall, and at length pity some of the fallen, and therefore elect those, but leave the rest in the corrupt mass, and finally give them over to eternal destruction. V. In that gi-acious decree of Divine Election, moreover, Christ him- self is also included, not as the meritorious cause, or foundation anterior to Election itself, but as being Himself also elect (1 Peter ii. 4, 6), fore- known before the foundation of the world, and accordingly, as the first requisite of the execution of the decree of Election, chosen Mediator, and our first born Brother, whose precious merit God determined to use for the purpose of conferring, without detriment to His own justice, salva- tion upon us. For the Holy Scriptiires not only declare that Election was made according to the mere good pleasure of the Divine counsel and will (Eph. i. 5, 9; Matt. xi. 26), but also make the appointment and giv- ing of Christ, our Mediator, to proceed from the strenuous love of God the Father toward tbe world of the elect. VI. Wherefore we can not give suffrage to the opinion of those who teach: — (1) that God, moved by philanthropy, or a sort of special love for the fallen human race, to previouii election, did, in a kind of condi- tioned willing — willingness — first moving of pity, as they call it — ineffi- cacious desire — jjurpose the salvation of all and each, at least, condition- ally, i. e., if they would believe; (2) that He appointed Christ Mediator for all and each of the fallen; and (3) that, at length, certain ones whom He regarded, not simply as sinners in the first Adam, but as redeemed 42 658 APPENDIX. in tlie second Adam, He elected, i. e., He determined to graciously be- stow on these, in time, the saving gift of faith; and in this sole act Elec- tion properly so called is complete. For these and all other kindred teachings are in no wise insignificant deviations from the form of sound words respecting Divine Election; because the Scriptures do not extend unto all and each God's purpose of showing mercy to man, but restrict it to the elect alone, the reprobate being excluded, even by name, as Esau, whom God hated with an eternal hatred (Rom. ix. 10-13). The same Holy Scrij^tures testify that the counsel and the will of God change not, but stand immovable, and God in the heavens doeth whatsoever he will (Ps. cxv. 3; Isa. xlvi. 10); for God is infinitely removed from all that human imperfection which characterizes inefficacious affections and de- sires, rashness, repentance, and change of purpose. The appointment, also, of Christ, as Mediator, equally with the salvation of those who were given to Him for a possession and an inheritance that can not be taken aAvay, proceeds from one and the same Election, and does not underly Election as its foundation. VII. As all His works were known unto God from eternity (Acts xv. 18), so in time, according to His infinite poAver, wisdom, and goodness, He made man, the glory and end of His works, in His own image, and, therefore, upright, wine, and just. Him, thus constituted. He put under the Covenant of Works, and in this Covenant freely promised him com- munion with God, favor, and life, if indeed he acted in obedience to His will. VIII. Moreover that promise annexed to the Covenant of Works was not a continuation only of earthly life and happiness, but the possession especially of life eternal and celestial, a life, namely, of both body and soul in heaven — if indeed man ran the course of perfect obedience — with unspeakable joy in communion with God. Eor not only did the Tree of Life prefigure this very thing unto Adam, but the power of the law, wliich, being fulfilled by Christ, who went tinder it in our stead, awards to us no other than celestial life in Christ who kept the righteousness of the law (Rom. ii. 26), manifestly proves the same, as also the opposite threatening of death Ijoth temporal and eternal. IX. Wherefore we can not assent to the opinion of those who deny that a reward of lieavenly bliss was proifered to Adam on condition of obedience to God, and do not admit that the promise of the Covenant of Works was any thing more than a promise of peri^etual life abound- ing in every kind of good that can be suited to the body and soul of man in a state of perfect nature, and the enjoyment thereof in an eartldy Paradise. For this also is contrary to the sound sense of the Divine Word, and weakens the power [potestas) of the law in itself considered. X. As, however, God entered into the Covenant of Works not only ■with Adam for himself, but also, in him as the head and root [sfirps), with the whole human race, who would, by virtue of, the blessing of the nature derived from him, inherit also the same perfection, provided he continued therein; so Adam by his mournful fall, not only for himself, but also for the whole human race that would be born of bloods and the will of the flesh, sinned and lost the benefits promised in the Covenant. We hold, therefore, that the sin of Adam is imputed by the mysterious and just judgment of God to all his posterity. For the Apostle testifies that ui Addni all sinned, by one man's disobedience VKtuy were made sinners (Rom. V. 12, 19), and in Adam all die (1 Cor. xv. 21, 22). But there appears no way in which here(.litary conniption could fall, as a sj)iritual FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 659 death, upon the whole human race by the just judgment of God, unless some sin [delictum) of that race preceded, incurring {iitducens) the penalty [reatum, guilt) of that death. For God, the supremely just Judge of all the eai'th, punishes none bat the guilty. XL For a double reason, therefore, man, because of sin [pnttt ppccatnm) is by nature, and hence from his birth, before committing any actual sin, exposed to God's wrath and curse ; first, on account of the transgression and disobedience which he committed in the loins of Adam; and, sec- ondly, on account of the consequent hereditary coi-ruptiou implanted in his very conception, whereby his whole nature is depraved and spir- itually dead; so that original sin may rightly be regarded as twofold, viz., impided sill and iiiliereai liereditnri/ sia. XII. Accordingly we can not, without harm to Divine truth, give assent to those who deny that Adam represented his posterity by appoint- ment of God, and that his sin is imputed, therefore, hnviedidleli/ to his posterity; and under the term impufntinn medtdle and confte(p(pid not only destroy the imputation of the tirst sin, but also expose the doctrine [assertin) of hereditary corruption to great danger. XIII. As Christ was from eternity elected the Head, Prince, and Lord [Hfpres) of all who, in time, are saved by His grace, so also, in time, He was made Surety of the New Covenant only for those who, by the eternal Election, were given to Him as His own people (popnlas pecidii), His seed and inheritance. For according to the determinate counsel of the Father and His own intention. He encountered dreadful death instead of the elect alone, restored only these into the bosom of the Father's grace, and these only he reconciled to God, the offended Father, and delivered from the curse of the law. For our Jesus saves His people ivom their sins (Matt. i. 21), who gave His life a ransom for 7naat/ sheep (Matt. xx. 28; John x. 15), His own, who hear His voice (John X. 27, 28), and for these only He also intercedes, as a divinely appointed Priest, and not for the world (John xvii. 9). Accordingly in the death of Christ, only tlie elect, who in time are made new creatures (2 Cor. v. 17), and for whom Christ in His death was substituted as an expiatory sacrifice, are regarded as having died with Him and as being justified from sin; and thus, with the counsel of the Father who gave to Christ none but the elect to be redeemed, and also with the working of the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies and seals unto a living hoj)e of eternal life none but the elect, the Avill of Christ who died so agrees and ami- cably conspires in perfect harmony, that the sphere of the Father's election {Patris elif/entis), the Son's redemption [FUii redimerdis), and the Spirit's sanctification [Spiribis S. sdiidifivHidis) is one and the same [(cqwdis pateat). XIV. This very thing further appears in this also, that Christ merited for those in whose stead He died the means of snlv<(lion, especially the regenerating Spirit and the heavenly gift of fai<:h, as well as salvation itself, and actually confers these upon them. For the Scriptures testify that Chi'ist, the Lord, came U> sure die lost sheep of die house of Israel (Matt. XV. 24), and sends the same Holy Spirit, the fount of regenera- tion, as His own (John xvi. 7, 8) ; that among the better in-omises of the New Covenant of which He was made Mediator and Surety this one is pre-eminent, that He null irrite His law, i. e., the law of faith, in the hearts of his people (Heb. viii. 10); that whatsoever the Father has given to Christ will come to Him, by faith, surely; and finally, that we are chof^en in Christ to be holy and without blame, and, moreover, children hi/ Him (Eph. i. 4, 5); but our being holy and children of God proceeds only from faith and the Spirit of regeneration. 660 APPENDIX. XV. But hy the obedience of his death Christ instead of the elect so satisfied God the Father, that in the estimate, nevertheless, of His vica- rious righteousness and of that obedience, all of that Avhich He rendered to the law, as its just servant, during the whole course of His life, whether by doing or by suflering, ought to be called obedience. For Christ's Hfe, according to the Aj)ostle's testimony (Philip, ii. 7, 8), was nothing but a continuous emptying of self, submission and humiUatiou, descending step by step to the very lowest extreme, even the death of the Cross; and the Spirit of God plainly declares that Christ in our stead satisfied the law and Divine justice by His most holy life, and makes that ransom with which God has redeemed us to consist not in His suft'erings only, but in His whole life conformed to the law. The Spirit, however, ascribes our redemj^tion to the death, or the blood, of Christ, in no other sense than that it was consummated by sufferings; and from that last terminating and grandest act derives a name [denomirKdlnnpm facit) indeed, but in such a way as by no means to separate the life preceding from His death. XVI. Since all these things are entirely so, surely we can not approve the contrary doctrine of those who affirm that of His own intention, by His own counsel and that of the Father who sent Him, Christ died for all and each upon the impossible condition, provided they believe; that He obtained for all a salvation, which, nevertheless, is not ai3plied to all, and by His death merited salvation and faith for no one individually and certainly [proprie et adu), but only removed the obstacle of Divine justice, and acquired for the Father the liberty of entering into a new covenant of grace with all men; and finally, they so sejaarate the active and passive righteousness of Christ, as to assert that He claims His nctive righteoi;s- ness for himself as His own, but gives and imj^utes only His passive righteousness to the elect. All these opinions, and aU that are like these, are contrary to the plain Scriptures and the glory of Christ, who is Author and Fodslier oi our faith and salvation; they make His cross of none effect, and under the appearance of augmenting His merit, they reaUy diminish it. XVII. The call unto salvation was suited to its due time (1 Tim. ii. 6) ; since by God's will it was at one time more restricted, at another, more extended and general, but never absolutely universal. For, indeed, in the Old Testament God showed His u'ord unto Jacob, His statutes and His judfimeuts unto Israel ; He dealt not so with any nation (Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20). In the New Testament, ])eace being made in the blood of Christ and the inner wall of jjartition broken down, God so extended the limits [pomoeria) of Gospel preaching and the external call, that there is no longer any difference betu-een the Jew and die Greek ; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call vpon Him (Ptom. x. 12). But not even thus is the call universal; for Christ testifies that many are called (Matt. xx. 16), not all; and when Paul and Timothy essayed to go into Bithynia to preach the Gospel, the Spirit suffered them not (Acts xvi. 7); and there have ))een and there are to-day, as exjierience testifies, innumerable myriads of men to whom Christ is not known even by rumor. \" XVIIT. Meanwhile God left not himself icidtout vilncss (Acts xiv. 17) unto those whom He refused to call by His \"Word unto salvation. For He divided unto them the spectacle of the heavens and the stars (Deut. iv. 19), and that which may be known of God, even from the works of nature and Providence, He hath showed nnto them (Rom. i. 19), for the pui-jiose of attesting His long sufi\"eri]iig. Yet it is not to be affirmed that the works of nature and Divine Providence were means {organa), suffi- FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 661 cient of themselves and fulfilling the function of the external call, where- by He Avould reveal unto them the mystery of the good pleasure or mercy of God in Christ. For the Apostle immediately adds (Rom. i. 20), \"The invisible things of Him from the creation are clearly seen, being under- stood by the things that are made, even His eter mil power and Godhead;'''' not His hidden good pleasure in Christ, and not even to the end that thence they might learn the mystery of salvation through Christ, but that they might be wilhoid excuse, because they did not use aright the knowledge that was left them, but when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful. Wherefore also Christ glorifies God, His Father, because He had hidden these things from the wise and the pru- dent, and revealed them unto b(d)es (Matt. xi. 25); and the Apostle teaches, moreover, that God has made known unto us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself [in Christo), (Eph. i. 9). XIX. Likewise the external call itself, which is made by the i^reach- ing of the Gospel, is on the part of God also, who calls, earnest and sin- cere. For in His Word He unfolds earnestly and most truly, not, indeed. His secret intention respecting the salvation or destruction of each indi- vidual, but what belongs to our duty, and what remains for lis if we do or neglect this duty. Clearly it is the will of God who calls, that they who are called come to Him and not neglect so great salvation, and so He promises eternal life also in good earnest, to those who come to Him by faith; for, as the Apostle declares, \"it is a faithful saying: — For if we be dead with Him, we shall also live with Him; if we suifer, we shall also reign mth Him; if we deny Him, He also will deny us; if we believe not, yet He abideth faithful; He can not deny Himself.\" Nor in regard to those who do not obey the call is this will inefficacious; for God always attains that which He intends in His will (quod rolens inlendit), even the demonstration of duty, and following this, either the salvation of the elect who do their duty, or the inexcusableness of the rest who neglect the duty set before them. Surely the spiritual man in no way secures [conciliat) the internal jjurpose of God to produce faith {conceptum Dei internum, fidei analogum) along with the externally proifered, or written Word of God. Moreover, because God api^roved every verity which flows from His counsel, therefore it is rightly said to be His will, that all who see the Son and believe on Him inay have everlasting life (John vi. 40). Although these \" all \" are the elect alone, and God formed no i^lan of universal salvation without any selection of persons, and Christ there- fore died not for every one but for the elect only who were given tb Him; yet He intends this in any case to be universally true, which follows from His special and definite purpose. But that, by God's will, the elect alone believe in the external call thus universally profi'ered, while the repro- bate are hardened, proceeds solely from the discriminating grace of God: election by the same grace to them that believe; but their own native wickedness to the reprobate who remain in sin, and after their hard- ness and impenitent heart treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God (Rom. ii. 5). XX. Accordingly we have no doubt that they err who hold that the call unto salvation is disclosed not by the i)reaching of the Gos]pel solely, but even by the works of nature and Providence without any further proclamation; adding, that the call unto salvation is so indefinite and universal that there is no mortal who is not, at least objectively, as they say, sufl&ciently called either med'tately, namely, in that God will further 662 APPENDIX. bestow the light of grace on hina who rightly uses the light of nature, or immedudfh/, unto Christ and salvation; and finally denying that the ex- ternal call can be said to be serious and true, or the candor and sincerity of God be defended, without asserting the absolute universality of grace. For such doctrines are contrary to the Holy Scrijitures and the experi- ence of all ages, and manifestly confound nature with grace, that wliich may be known of God with His hidden wisdom, the light of reason, in fine, with the light of Divine Revelation. XXI. They who are called unto salvation through the preaching of the Gospel can neither believe nor obey the call, unless they are raised up out of spiritual death by that vei*y power whereby God commanded the light to shine out of darkness, and God shines into their hearts with the soul-swaying grace of His Spirit, to give tlie liyht of the knoidedge of the glory of God hi thefice of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. iv. 6). For the natural man receiveth not tli.e tilings of the Spirit of God; for theii are foolishness unto him: neither can lie know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Cor. ii. 14) ; and this utter inability the Scripture demonstrates by so many direct testimonies and under so many emblems that scarcely in any other point is it surer [locupletior). This inability may, indeed, be called moral even in so far as it jjertains to a moral subject or object; but it ought at the same time to be also called natural, inasmuch as man by nature, and so by the law of his formation in the womb, and hence from his birth, is the child of disobedience (Eph. ii. 2); and has that inability so innate (con- genitam) that it can be shaken off in no way except by the omnipotent heart-turning grace of the Holy Sjjirit. XXII. We hold therefore that they sj^eak with too little accuracy and not without danger, who call this inability to believe moral inability, and do not hold it to be n<dural, adding that man in whatever condition he may be placed is able to believe if he will, and that faith in some way or other, indeed, is self-originated ; and yet the Apostle most distinctly calls it the gift of God (Eph. ii. 8). XXIII. There are two ways in which God, the just Judge, has jjrom- ised justification : either by one's own works or deeds in the law ; or by the obedience or righteousness of another, even of Christ our Surety, imputed by grace to him that believes in the Gospel. The former is the method of justifying man perfect ; but the latter, of justifying man a sinner and corrupt. In accordance with these two ways of justification the Scripture establishes two covenants: the Covenant of AVorks, entered into with Adam and A^-ith each one of his descendants in him, but made void by sin; and the Covenant of Grace, made with only the elect in Christ, the second Adam, eternal, and liable to no abrogation, as the former. XXIV. But this later Covenant of Grace according to the diversity of times had also diflerent dispensations. For when the Apostle speaks of the dispensation of the fulness of times, i. e. , the administration of the last time, he very clearly indicates that there had been another dispensa- tion and administration for the times which the TtpoOfu/iiai' (Gal. iv. 2), or appointed time. Yet in each dispensation of the Covenant of Grace the elect have not been saved in any other way than by the Ani/el at' his presence (Is. Ixiii. 9), the Lavd) slain from, tli.e foundation of the world (Rev. xiii. 8), Christ Jesus, through the knowledge of that just Servant and faith in Him and in the Father and His Spirit. For Christ is the same yf'sterday, to-day, ami forever (Heb. xiii. 8); and by His grace we believe that we are saved {servari) in the same manner as the Fathers also were saved {salvati sunt), and in both Testaments these statutes remain im- FORMULA CONSENSUS HELVETICA. 663 mutable: \"Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him,\" the Sou (Ps. ii. 12); \"He that believeth in Him is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already\" (John iii. 18); \"Ye believe in God,\" even the Father, \"believe also in me \" (John xiv. 1). But if, moreover, the sainted Fathers believed in Christ as their Goel, it follows that they also believed in the Holy Spii'it, without whom no one can call Jesus Lord. Truly so many are the clearest exhibitions of this faith of the Fathers and of the necessity thereof in either Covenant, that they can not escape any one unless he wills it. But though this saving knowledge of Christ and the Holy Trinity was necessarily derived, according to the dispensation of that time, both from the promise and from shadows and figures and enigmas, with greater difficulty (operoslufi) than now in the New Testament; yet it was a true knowledge, and, in jjroportion to the measure of Divine Eevelation, was sufiicient to procure for the elect, by help of God's grace, salvation and jieace of conscience. XXV. We disapprove therefore of the doctrine of those who fabricate for us three Covenants, the Natural, the Legal, and the Gospel Covenant, dilferent in their whole nature and pith; and in explaining these and assigning their difi\"erences, so intricately entangle themselves that they obscure not a little, or even impair, the nucleus of solid trutli and piety; nor do they hesitate at all, with regard to the necessity, under the Old Testament dispensation, of knowledge of Christ and faith in Him and His satisfaction and in the whole sacred Trinity, to theologize much too loosely and not without danger. XXVI. Finally, both unto us, to whom in the Church, which is God's house, has been entrusted the dispensation for the present, and unto all our Nazarenes, and unto those who under the will and direction of God will at any time succeed us in our charge, in order to prevent the fearful enkindling of dissensions with which the Church of God in different places is disturbed [infesiatur) in terrible ways, we earnestly wish {volumus, will) this to be a law: — That in this corruption of the world, with the Apostle of the Gentiles as our faithful monitor, tve all keep faithfulhi thai which is committed to our trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings (1 Tim. vi. 20) ; and religiously guard the purity and simplicity of that knowledge which is according to piety, constantly cHnging to that beautiful pair, Charity and Faith, unstained. Moreover, in order that no one may be induced to projaose either publicly or privately some doubtful or new dogma of faith hitherto un- heard of in our churches, and contrary to God's Word, to our Helvetic Confession, our Symbolical Books, and to the Canons of the Synod of Dort, and not proved and sanctioned in a public assembly of brothers according to the Word of God, let it also be a law: — That we not only hand down sincerely in accordance with the Divine Word, the especial necessity of the sanctiflcation of the Lord's Day, but also impressively inculcate it and importunately urge its observation; and, in fine, that in our churches and schools, as often as occasion demands, we unanimously and faithfully hold, teach, and assert the truth of the Canons herein recorded, truth deduced from the indubitable Word of God. The very God of peace in truth sanctify us wholly, and preserve our whole spirit and soul and body blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ ! to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spiiit be eternal honor, praise and glory. Aimen ! INDEX. ABELARD, 422 ABILITY and Liberty distinguished, 339 ABSOLUTE, The, 130, 132, 133, 134 ADOPTION, 515-519 The word defined, 515, 516 The \"Ordo Salutis\" stated, 517, 518 Benefits of, 519 ADVENT, Second. (See Second Ad- vent. ) .ESTHETICS, 19 AGRICOLA, John, 404 A INS WORTH, 588 ALEXANDER, Dr. A., 61, 286, 379 ALEXANDER, Dr. J. A., 22, 28, 181, 182 ALEXANDER, Dr. Lindsay W., 633 ALOQL 196, 197 AMBROSE, 94 AMESIUS, 356, 516 AMYRANT, 231 ANGELS, 249-257 Their nature, characters, titles, offi- ces, orders, and power, 249-251 Archangel, 251 Their bodies, 252 Romish doctrine of worship of, 253 Guardian, 254 Evil, 254-256 Personality of Satan, 254 Deroouiacal possession, 256, 257 ANNIHILA TIONISM, 313 During Intermediate State, 554. 555 After final Judgment, 583 ANSELM, 46, 421, 423 ANTHROPOLOGY, 23, 101, 106, 108, 109, 280 Of Greek Church, 94 ANTHROPOMORPHISM, good and bad sense of, 131, 132 Scripture Passages explained, 132 ANTINOMIANISM. 404, 405, 526 ANTI-THEISTIC Theories, 46-52 APOLLINARIAN Heresies, 386 APOLLINARIS, 386 APOLOGETICS, 19 APOLOGY for Augsburg Conf., 123, 355, 480, 513, 540, 546, 590, 601, 628, 629 APOLOG Y for Conf. of Remonstrants, 337, 447, 456 APOSTLES' CREED. (See Creeds.) APOSTLES had no successors, 89 A PRIORI Argument. (See God.) AQUINAS, Tbomas, 99, 272, 403, 413, 512, 590, 637 ARCHANGEL. (See Angels.) - ARCHEOLOGY, 18 Biblical, 21 ARGYLL, Duke of, 270, 296, 298 ARIANS, 103, 167, 180, 196 ARISTOTELIAN V\\i\\ioiio^h.j, 63 ARIUS, 174 ARMINIUS, James, 104, 355, 303, 531 ARM INI AN Churches, 104 ARMINIANISM, 96, 98, 107-109, 151, 152, 202, 207, 223, 224, 231 Doctrine of will, 292-294 Of Original Righteousness, 302, 307 Of Perfection, 321 Of Original Sin, 334, 335 Of Inability, 339 Of Justice of God in the antenatal forfeiture of mankind, 352 Of Atonement, 413, 415 Of Eflfectual CalUng, 447, 451, 453, 455 Of Justifying Faith, 503 Of Justification, 508, 509, 514 Of Perseverance, 543 Of Future Punishment, 587 ARMSTRONG, Dr. Wm., 609, 614 ARNAULD, 100 AR TIC IE S, XXXIX of Church of Eng- land, 103, 113, 125, 235, 337, 346, 425, 541, 558, 589, 601. 630, 641, 649 Of Smaldcald, 102, 123, 558, 601, 630 A SC ENS ION of Christ. ( See Christ. ) ASSURANCE oi'EAeciion possible, 228 Of Faith, 477-479 A THAN A SI AN Creed. (See Creeds. ) ATHANASIUS, 423 6GG INDEX. A THEISM, 46 A TONEMENT, 401-425 Its Nature, 401-415 Terms deliued, 401-403 Active iiud Passive Obedience, 405 Doctrine stated, 405, 406 And proved, 406 Its Necessity, 411 Includes Active and Passive Obedi- ence, 412 Its Perfection, 412-414 Objections stated and answered, 414, 415 Its Design, 416-421 Doctrine stated, 416, 417 Arminian Doctrine, 417 Of \"Marrow Men,\" 417 Of French School and of Baxter, 418 Eeformed Doctrine of, proved, 418, 419 Objections stated and answered, 419-421 History of Theories which have prevailed, 421-423 Mystical, Moral Influence, Gov- ernmental Theories, 422 Satisfaction Theory, 423 Classical and Confessional Author- ities, 423-425 ATTRIBUTES, The Divine, 107, 129- 163 A VERROES, 52 BAPTISM, 603-630 Water the Symbol of Purification, 603 John's Baptism not Christian, 603, 604 The Baptism practised by the Dis- ciples before the Resurrection not this Sacrament, 604 The Ordinance is of perpetual ob- ligation, 604, 605 Defined as to its \"matter\" and \"form,\" 605, 606, and as to its \"design,\" 606, 607 Emblematic Import of, 607-609 The ''MODE\" of, 609-616 Classical and Scriptural usage of (ianri^oo, 609, 610 The position of Baptist Churches as to \"Mode\" stated, and that of all other Churches, 610, 611 Baptist Doctrine as to the Emblem- atic Import of Baptism, 607-609, and of \" Mode\" of Baptism, 609- 615 The Command to Baptize is a com- mand to Wash to effect Purifica- tion, 611, 612 BAPTISM {continued). The apphcation of Grace symbol- ized by sprinkling and pouring, 612 Old Testament modes of purifica- tion, 613 The Early Baptisms performed by John and the Apostles, 613-615 Historical Usage, SUBJECTS OE BAPTISM, 616- 625 Infant Baptism grounded on the constitution of human nature, 616 Visible Church, its nature and de- sign, 616-619 The Church one under both Dis- pensations, 619-621 Baptism takes the place of Cir- cumcision, 621 Church membership of Children recognized by Christ and his Apostles, 621, 622 Practice of Early Church, 622, 623 Objections stated and answered, 622-624 Whose Children should be bap- tized? 624, 625 The Eflicacy of Baptism (Roman, Lutheran, Zwinglian, and Re- formed doctrines), 625-628 Baptismal Regeneration, 627, 628 The Necessity of Baptism (Rom- ish, Lutheran, and Reformed doctrine), 628, 629 Authoritative Statements, 629, 630 BAPTISM A L RECEIVER A TIOiV, 627, 628 BAPTISTS, 103, 609, 610 BARCLA Y, Robert, 604 BARNABAS, 569 BARNES, Albert, 61 BARROW, Dr. Isaac, 403 BA UR, 58 BAXTER, Richard, 1(56, 403, 418 BEECHER, Dr. Edward, 351 BELLARM/X, 305, 307, 336, 354, 449, 451, 477, 479, 480, 510, 513, 524, 525, 540, 546, 558, 591, 594, 600, 629. 648 BERNARD of Clairvaux, 424 BERYL, 198 BEVAN 634 BEZA, 234, 355 BICKERSTETH, Rev. E. H., 554 BINGHAM, 615, 623 BISSEL, E. Cone, 62 BLUNT, 627 BOARDMIN, Dr. Wm. E., 194 BOLINGHROKE, 48 BOSSUET, 51 BOSTON, Thomas, 417 INDEX. 667 BRENTZ, John, 384 BRE TSCHNEIDER, 57 BROIVX, Dr. Johu, 417, 440 BROWN, Dr., 570 BRUCE, Dr. A. B., 384, 389 BRUNO, Giordano, 51 BUCER, Martin, G40 BUCHANAN, Dr. James, 47, 52 BULL, Unigenitus, 449 BULLLYGER, 640 BUSHNELL, 422 BUTLER, Bishop, 48 CALLLVG, Effectual, 445-455 External Call, 445, 446 Internal Call i^roved, 446 Views of difterent parties stated and compared, 447-449 Keformed Doctrine of, explained and proved, 449-452 Congruous to our nature, 452 How conditioned upon the truth, 453 Arminian Doctrine of, 453 Authoritative Statements of Church Doctrine, 454, 455 CALVIN, 100, 102, 166, 333, 354, 417, 439, 490, 507, 508, 599, 603, 624, 629, 630, 640, 649 CALVINISM, 109-111, 202 Doctrine of original righteousness, 302, 303, 307 Doctrine of Design of the Atone- ment, 416, 419 CAMBRIDGE, Platform, 127 CAMERON, J., 231, 341 CANDLISH, Dr. 423, 446 CARI YLE, 48 CARSON, Dr., A., 607, 609, 610 CATHERINUS, A., 357, 362 CA TECHISMS. Of Geneva, 592, 601, 630 Heidelberg, 103, 113, 124, 424, 480, 514, 540, 601, 640, 649 Luther's Larger and Smaller, 102, 123, 630 Of Council of Trent, 119, 306, 321, 456, 479, 480, 491, 492, 493, 499, 504, 557, 558, 591, 594, 597, 599, 600, 625, 629, 633, 635, 641 Eacovian, 104. 308, 337, 347, 400, 425, 503, 504, 514, 630 Russian of Philaret, 122 Longer, of Eastern Church, 558 Of Westminster Assembly, 103, 113, 116, 200, 245, 258, 263, 307, 310, 312, 316, 325, 356, 363, 371, 403, 440, 451, 487, 516, 518, 521, 558, 624, 632 CERINTHUS, 103 CHALCEDON, Creed of. (See Creeds. ) CHALMERS, Dr. Thos., 22, 61, 357 CHANCE, as the ultimate ground of the Evolution hyjiothesis shown to be absurd, 41 CHANNING, Dr. VVm., 104 CHARENTON. Synod of, 359 CHEMNITZ, 363, 384 CHERUBIM, 249, 250 CHILIANISM, 569-571 CHRIST, His DIVINITY, 169-173 CHRIST, PERSON oi, 378-390 Prophecies of Advent, 378-380 Doctrine stated, 380 And proved, 380, 381 Effects of union upon human na- ture, 382, 383 Lutheran Doctrine of \"Communi- catio Idiomatum,\" 384, 385 Heretical Opinions stated, 386-388 Doctrine of Kenosis, 388, 389 Authoritative Church Statements, 389 390 Christ] MEDIATORIAL office of, 391-400 The Christian Ministry not a Priest- hood, 398, 399 The Priesthood of Believers, 399 Authoritative Church Statements, 399, 400 CHRIST, INTERCESSION of, 426, 427 CHRIST, MEDIATORIAL KING- SHIP of, 428-444 Different aspects of, 428 Subjects of, 429 When assumed by him, 429 Usage of phrases, \"kingdom of God,\" \"kingdom of heaven,\" etc., 429, 430 Its nature and administration, 430, 431 Romish Doctrine of the relation of Church and State, 432, 433 Erastian view of same, 433 Doctrine of Reformed Churches, 433 Design of Church and of State, 433 American law on subject, 434-436 Relative jurisdiction of Sessions and Trustees, 437 CHRIST, His ESTATE of HUMIL- lA TION, 440-443 The Descent in Hell, 439 CHRIST, His ESTA TE of EXALTA- TION, 440-443 His resurrection, 441, 442 His ascension, 442 His sitting at the right hand of God, 443 Authoritative Church Statements, 443, 444 G68 INDEX. CHRIST, Union of belie vers with, 482- 486 Its nature, 482, 483 Ground, 484 Consequences, 484, 485 Communion of Saints, 485 CHRISTIAN Religion what? 15 CHRISTIANITY, Evidences of, 19 CHRISTIIEB, Dr., Gl CHRISTOIOGY, 101, 106, 109 CHURCH, Its idea, constitution, offi- cers, etc., 24, 25 Eomish Doctrine of Infallibility of, stated, 87, 88; and shown to be baseless, 88, 89 One under both Dispensations, 619-621 Visible 616-619 CHURCH and ST A TE, 432-438 CHURCH of England and Episcopal Church in U. S. A., Doctrine of as to the \"Descent into Hell, \"439 CLARKE, Dr. Sam., 46 CLARKE, 47 CLEMENTINE Homilies, 103 CLERK-MAXWELL, Prof. J., 24, 34 COCCEJUS, 362, 425 CCELESTIUS, 96 COLERIDGE, S. T., 58, 63 COMMUNION of saints, 485 COMMUNICA TIO IDIOM A TUM, 382, 384 COMPARA TIVE RELIGION, Science of, IS COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY, 18 COMPARISON of SYSTEMS, 94-111 CON A NT, Dr., 609 CONDITIONAL UNIVERSALISM, 418 CONFERENCE, Leipsic, 100 CONCOMITANCE, Roman doctrine of, 637, 647 CONFESSIONS. Augsburgh, 101, 102, 103, 113, 122, 123, 346, 490, 576, 600, 601, 628, 640, 648 Basle, 640 Belgic, 80, 103, 337, 576, 640, 649 Gallic, 103, 337, 354, 599, 640, 643, 649 English of Edward VI., 576 Helvetic I., 640 Helvetic II., 80, 103, 113, 124, 346, 354, 390, 399, 400, 541, 643 Scotch, 103, 113, 592, 640, 643, 644 Of the Remonstrants, 454, 543 Of Orthodox Greek Church, 122, 424 Tetrapolitana, 124, 640 Westminster, 81, 126, 182, 200, 233, 244, 245, 258, 263, 307, 310, CONFESSIONS {continued). 312, 316, 325, 347, 356, 363, 371, 390, 403, 416, 417, 424, 454, 480, 485, 487, 514, 521, 541, 542, 548, 552, 569, 576, 589, 591, 592, 599, 602, 605, 624, 626, 629, 630, 635, 643, 644, 650 CONSCIENCE, 282-285 CONSENSUS Genevensis, 127 Tigurinus, 127, 640, 641, 650, and in Appendix. CONSTABLE. Rev. Henry, 583 CQSMOLOGICAL Argument. (See God. ) COUNCILS. Carthage, 96 Chalcedon, 95, 385, 387, 388, 464 Constantinople I., 95, 174, 191, 387, 388 Constantinople VI., 95 Ephesus, 95, 96, 385, 387 Lateran IV., 637 Milevum, 96 Nice, 95, 115, 166, 173, 191, 385 Toledo, 95, 191 Trent, Decrees of, 80, 92, 119, 336, 346, 354, 399, 413, 424, 443, 449, 451, 456, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 499, 510, 511, 513, 527, 530, 531, 539, 540, 543, 546, 557, 589, 591, 592, 594, 599, 600, 603, 635, 640, 641, 644, 646, 647, 648 Vatican, Decrees of, 80, 92, 93, 121, 432 COUSIN, 52, 104 COVENANT of Works, 309-314 Different sense ot Word, 309 Doctrine defined, 309-312 And proved, 309-311 Parties and Conditions of, 311, 312 Adam represented the race, 311 Nature of the death threatened, 312, 313 The seal of the Covenant, 313 In what sense still in force, 314 COVENANT of Grace, 367-377 Usage of word Berith and 5 laOjjn?;, 367-369 Different views held by Calvinists, 369, 370 How is Christ Mediator of, 372, 373 Arminian view of, 374 How faith a condition of, 374 History of its administration, 375- 377 CREA TION of the World, 237-248 Doctrine of Absolute, 237, 238 CREA TIO PRIMA and SECUN- DA, 238, 239 Doctrine proved, 239-242 INDEX. 669 CREA TION {continued). Chief end the glory of God, 243- 245 The Mosaic record of and Science, 245-248 CREATION and Original State of Man, 296-308 CREA TIONISM 351, 352 CREEDS, Apostles', 113, 115 Athanasian, 113, 117, 118, 182 Chalcedon, 118, 119 Of Pope Pius IV., 119-121 CREEDS and CONFESSIONS, 112- 128 Why necessary, 112 How produced, 112, 113 Uses of, 114 Authority of, 114 CRELLIUS'.Z., 104 CRISP, Dr. Tobias, 404 CRITICISM, the Higher, 20 Textual, 20 CUNNINGHAM, Dr. Wm., 99, 125, 216, 218. 349, 357, 402 CURCELL.EUS, 105, 413 CYPRIAN, 623 CYRII, 387 DABNEY, Dr. Eobert L., 366 DATE, Dr. James W., 609 DAN^US, L., 355 DARWIN, Charles, 39, 47 DEA TH and the State of the Soul after Death, 548-558 Death defined, 548 How related to sin ? 548 Why the justified die, 549 Immortality of soul, 549-552 Old Testament doctrine of, 551, 552 Intermediate state, 552-558 New Testament doctrine of, 552 Biblical usage of Sheol, 551 Hades, 553 Paradise, 553, and Gehenna, 553 Anglican view of, 554 Romish view of, 556-558 Doctrine of Soul, Sleep, or Anni- hilation, 554, 555 Refuted, 555 No second probation, 555, 556 DECREES of God, 200-213 Difficulties involved, 201 Arminian view of, 202, 207 Calvinistic doctrine of, stated, 202, 203 One purpose, 203 Eternal, 203 Doctrine proved, 205, 206 Sovereign, 2o6 Unconditioned, 207, 208 DECREES {confimied). How far efficacious and how far permissive, 208 Not same as heathen doctrine of fate, 209 Consistent with free agency of man, 209, 210 With the holiness of God, 210, 211 With the use of means, 212 Practical effects of this doctrine, 213 Order of decrees, 230-234 DEISM, 48 DE MOOR, 352 DES CARTES, 46, 63, 260, 270 DEMONIA CAL POSSESSION. (See Angels. ) DENS, 593, 625, 641 DESCENT into Hell, 439 DESIGN, Argument from. (See God.) DICK, Dr. John, 372 DOCTRINE HISTORY, 23 DOCTRINAL STANDARDS. Of Church of Rome, 119-121 Of Greek, 121, 122 Of Lutheran Church, 122-124 Of Reformed Churches, 124-128 DOLLINGER, 52 DOMINICANS, 99, 100 DONA NATURALIA and Supernat- uralia, 305, 306 DORNER, Dr. J. A., 48, 358, 362, 517 DUALISM, 47 D WIGHT, 423 EBIONITES, 196, 386 EBRARD, Dr. 388 ECCLESIOLOGY, 23, 107, 108 EDWARDS, Jonathan, 51, 260, 289, 303, 320, 326, 341, 360, 458, 462 EFFECTUAL Calling. (See Calling. ) EG LIN, Raphael, 362 EICHORN, 48, 57 EMMONS, Dr., 270, 423, 457, 508, 521 ENCYCLOPAEDIA, 15 EPISCOPALIANS, 103 EPISCOPIUS, 105, 531 ERASTUS, 433 ERASTIANISM, 433 ERSKTNE, Ebenezer, 61, 417 ERSKTNE, Ralph, 417 ESCHATOLOGY, 23, 107, 548 ETHICS, Christian, 23 ETHNOLOGY, 18 EUCHARIST, 102 E USEE I US of CiEsarea, 27, 197 E USER lUS oimcomeAm, 197 EUTYCHES, 386, 387 EUTYCHIANISM 387 EVIDENCES oiG\\n:Mmxi\\ij, 19 EVOLUTION, theories of, 39, 40 G70 INDEX. EXALTATION, Estate of. (See Ghrist.') EXEGESIS, 21 EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY, 20 FABER, Stanley, 216 FAIKBAIRN, Dr. Patrick, 250, 398, 573, 578, 610 FAITH, 465-481 Defiued, 465, 466 Faith and knowledge, 467-469 Eomish distinction of \"Implicit\" and \"Explicit\" faith, 467, 468 Grounds of faith, 470 Temporary and living, 471 How related to trust, 472 Doctrine proved, 473 \"Fides informis\" and \"fides for mata,\" 474 Articles of faith and matters of opinion, 475 \"Fides specialis \" and its object, 476 Eelation of Faith and Assiirance, 477-479 Faith leads to works, 479 Authoritative Statements, 479-481 Kelation to Justification, 503, 504 FARKAR, A. S., 61 FARRAR, F. W., 48, 58, 61, 104 FEDERAL THEOLOGY, 362-366 FEUE REACH, 51 FICHTE, 57, 63 FINNEY, Prof., 534 FISHER, Dr. G. P., 62, 357, 361 FLETCHER, Zll FLA TT 423 FLINT, Prof. Robert, 32, 38, 46, 47 FOREORDINATION how far distin- guished from foreknowledge and how fiir equivalent, 203 FORMULA CONGO R DIE, 80, 100, 123, 235, 301, 336, 337, 346, 354, 389, 390, 424, 443, 448, 454, 464, 513, 540, 546, 635, 648 FORMULA CONSENSUS HEL- VETICA, 127, 128, 346, 356, 425, and Appendix FRANCISCANS, 99 FREDERICK t\\\\& Great. 57 FREE AGENCY, 280-295 Will defined, 282 Distinction between liberty and ability, 288, 289 Motives defined, 290 Consistent with certainty, 291 False theories of contingency, 291- 293 Arminian View inconsistent with gospel, 294, 295 FREE WILL, 97 FERGUSON 58 GERHARD, John, 166, 235, 241 GESS, Dr. W. F., 388, 389 GIBBON, 218 GLADSTONE, Hon. Wm. E., 433 GOD. His existence, 29-52 Origin of idea of, 29 Nominal definition of, 29 Real definition, 29, 30 Idea, how far due to tradition? 30 In what sense innate ? and in what sense intuitive, 30, 31 Formal arguments for existence of, their value and classification, 32 Cosmological Argument, 33 Objections to and answer, 33, 34 Teleological Argument, \" in two forms, 35, 36 Objections to and answers, 37-40 Moral Argument stated, 41 Objections and answers, 42, 43 Scrii^tural Argument, 44, 45 A priori Argument, 45, 46 Anti-Theistic theories, 46-52 GOD, his Attributes, 107, 109, 129-163 Method of determining them, 129 Objective reality of our knowledge of, 129-131 Names of, their etymology and meaning, 134, 135 The nature of these attributes, 135, 136, and their classification, 137, 138 His Simplicity, 136 Unity, 138, 168, 169 Spirituality, 139, 140 Relation to space, 140, 141 Relation to time, 142, 143 Immutability, 143, 144 Infinite Intelligence, 144-148 Wisdom, 148, 149 Infinite power, 149, 150 Will, 150, 153 Absolute Justice, 153-158 Goodness, 158-161 Truth, 161, 162 Sovereignty, 162 Holiness, 163 GOD, Decrees of (See Decrees.) GOD, his acts classified, 200 Not the author of sin, 211, 212 G OMAR US, 232, 349 Govei'nmeutal theory of Atone- ment, 422 GNOSTICS, 47, 193 GRACE, 97 GREEK' Church, Doctrine of, as to sin, 334, 335 As to Grace, 454 As to Intermediate State, 558 As to Mode of Baptism, 615 INDEX. 671 GREEN, Dr. Wm. H., 297 GREGOR V, the Great, 423 GROTIUS, 105, 156, 413, 423 HAGENBACH, 58, 164, 197, 198, 387, 388, 590 HALES 297 HAMILTON, Sir Wm., 49, 130, 133, 282, 292, 305, HARE, Julius C, 405 HARD WICK, 47 HARVEY, Keview of N. W. Taylor, 332 HASE, 423, 448 HAVEN, Prof., 319 HEA VEN and HeU, 577-587 Heaven, 577-580 Scriptural Terms, 577, 578 A place, 578 A condition, 578, 580 The State of the Reprobate, 580- 587 Scriptural Terms, 580 The nature of future punishment, 580, 581 It is endless, 581-583 Objections stated and refuted, 584- 587 Theory of Annihilation or Con- ditional Immortalitj', 583 Theory of Restoration, 583, 584 HEGEL, 51, 57, 63 HEIDEGGER, J. H., 127 HELL. (See Heaven and Hell.) HERBERT of Cherbiu-y, 48 HERMENEUTICS, 21 HERMES, 569 HERSCHELL, Sir John, 241 HETHERINGTON, 61 HILARY, 94 HILDEBERT of Tours, 637 HILL, 170, 185 HISTORICAL THEOLOGY, 26, 27 HISTORY, Biblical, 26 Ecclesiastical, 26 Sources of, 27 Of Doctrine, 28 HOBBES, 48 HODGE, Dr. Charles, 137, 159, 181, 230, 262, 272, 317, 344, 377, 420, 441, 442, 446, 459, 468, 469, 560, 567, 587 HOFFMAN, Dr., 388 HOGG, James, 417 HOLY GHOST, His divinity and per- sonality, 173-176 HOPKINS, Dr., 61, 351, 353 HORNE'S Introduction, 177 HUDSON, C. F., 313, 554, 583 HUMANITARIANS, 195 HUME, David, 37 HUMILIATION, Estate of. (See Christ. ) HURST, 48, 57, 58 HUTTER, 363 HUXLE Y, 40 HYPERIUS, 362 IDEALISM, 48, 49 INDULGENCES, 493 IMMORTALITY of the soul, 549-552 IMPUTATION of Adam's first sin, 348-366 Imputation defined, 357, 358 Mediate. 358 Of our sins to Christ, 407, 408 Of Christ's righteousness to us, 501, 502 INABILITY, 338-347 Pelagian view of, 338 Semipelagian, 338 Augnstinian, 339 Distinction of \"Liberty\" and \"Ability,\" 339 Doctrine stated, 339, 340 Distinction of \"Moral\" and \"Nat- ural \" Abihty, 341, 342 Doctrine proved, 340-343 Objections stated and answered, 343-345 Authoritative Church Statements, 346, 347 INDEPENDENT CHURCHES, 103 INFINITE, The, 130, 133 INFRA-LAPSARIANISM, 231 INNOCENT III., 637 INNER LIGHT, 55 INSPIRA TION, 21, 65, 81 Necessary presuppositions, 65 Church doctrine of, 66 Plenary what? 66 Verbal what ? 66 Doctrine proved, 67 God's Providential agency therein, 67 Nature and extent of Inspiration defined, 68 How dift'ers from revelation ? 68 From spiritual illumination, 68 Proof of Church doctrine of, 69-74 Objections stated and answered, 74-77 Defective statements of, 78 False doctrines of, 78, 79 Authoritative Creed statements of, 80, 81 INTERCESSION oi Chxifii, 626, 427 INTERPRETATION, History of, 21 Prophetical, 22 INTRODUCTION, general, 20 Special, 21 IREN^US, 421, 569, 623 672 INDEX. JACOB I, 51 JAMBLICUS, 51 JANSENIUS, 99 JANSENISTS, 100, 449 • JESUITS, 99, 271 JE IV S, future Conversion and Eestora- tion of, 571-573 JOHN Ascusnages, 197 JOHN Philoponus, 197 JOSEPHUS, 297 JOWETT, Prof., 58, 422 JUIIAN, 96 JUDGMENT, final, 573-576 JUSTIFICA TION, 496-514 New Testament usage of ^ixaiooa, etc., 496, 497 Doctrine defined and proved, 498- 502 Not grounded on ■works, 498, 499 But upon the righteousness, active and passive, of Christ, 500 Imputation of righteousness proved 501, 502 Kelation of Faith to, 503, 504 Specific object of justifying faith, 504 Its elfects, 505 Objections stated and answered, 505 Erroneous views of, 505-512 Piscator's view, 506 As modified by Governmental the- ory of the Atonement, 508, and by the Arininian theory, 508, 509 Calvin vindicated, 507, 508 Romish doctrine of Justification stated and refuted, 509-512 Authoritative Church statements, 513, 514 KAHNIS, 58 KANT, 63 KINGSHIP of Christ. (See Christ) KITTO, 249, 578, 580 KNOX, John, 640 KRAUTH, Dr., C. P., 49, 123, 362, 595, 626, 629, 634, 643 KURTZ, 27 LAMPE, 352 LEA TIIES, Stanley, 61 LE CLERC, 105 LEIBNITZ, 63, 244 LEIPSIC Conference, 448 LELAND, 48 LEO the Great, 388 LESSING, 48 LIMBORCH, 105, 307, 337, 347, 353, 413, 425, 447, 503, 509, 514, 587, 602 LOCKE, John, 63 LORD'S SUPPER, 631-650 Its institution and perpetual obli- gation, 631 Scriptural and Ecclesiastical desig- nations, 631, 632 Kind of bread and wine to be used, 633. 634 The breaking of bread, 634 Distribution of elements essential, 635, 636 Proper manner of conducting ser- vices, 636 Relation of the sign to the grace signified, 636-641 Romish view of (Transubstantia- tion) stated and refuted, 636, 639 Doctrine of \"Concomitance,\" 637 Reasons for withholding the cup, 637 Lutheran view of the presence of Christ in, 639 The Reformed view of same, 639- 641 Efficacy of, 641-647 Romish Doctrine of same as a Sac- rament and as a Sacrifice (Mass) stated and refuted, 641, 642 Lutheran view of same, 642, 643 Zwinglian view of, 643 Reformed view of, 643 Qualification for admission to, 644- 646 Authoritative Statements, 846-650 LOYOLA Ignatius, 99 LUTHER, 100, 102, 354, 384, 404, 405, 444, 625, 626, 639 LUTHERAN Churches, 102 L UTHERANISM, 100-102, 122, 123, 271 Of Original Sin, 336, 337 Of Predestination, 234, 235 Of Original Righteousness, 307 Of Inability, 346 Of Person of Christ, 384, 389, 390 Of the \"Descent into Hell,\" 439, 443, 444 Of Effectual Calling, 447 Of Regeneration, 464 Of Justification, 513 Of Perseverance, 546 Of Efficacy of Sacraments, 595, 600, 601 Of Necessity of Baptism, 625, 629 Of Christ's presence in the Eucha- rist, 639, 648, 649 Of Efficacy of same, 64, 643, 648, 649 M'CLINTOCK, Dr. John, 26, 27, 28, 494 MCOSH, Dr. James, 142, 283, 286, 315 MACEDONIUS, 174 INDEX. 673 MA HAN, Prof., 534 MALEBRAXCHE, 260 MAX, his CREATIOX, and ORIG- IX A L ST A TE, 296-308 Immediately created by God, 296 His antiquity, 297, 298 Unity of race proved, 298, 299 Trichotomy disproved, 299, 300 Created righteous, 300, 301 Pelagian view of original right- eousness, 302, 304 Arminian, 302 Kespousibility for innate disposi- tions, 302-305 Distinction between the image and likeness of God, 305 Eoiiiish doctrine of the original state of man, 305, 306 Authoritative Statements, 306-308 MAXES, 47, 350 MAXXIXG, Cardinal, 93, 432 MAXSEL, 130, 133 MARBURG, Colloquy, 640 MARROIV mexi, 417 MARTEXSEX, 388 MARTIXEAU, James, 104 MARTYR, Justin, 623 MARTYR, Peter, 355 MA SOX, Dr. John M., 621 MASS, doctrine of, 632, 641, 647, 648 AIA TERIALISM, modern, involves old doctrine of Chance, 41, 49, 50, 52 MA TTER not eternal, 241, 242 MA URICE, 58, 442, 448 MAX MULLER, 48 MEDIA TIOX THEOLOGY, 57 MEDIATORIAL Office of Christ. (See Christ.) MELAXCHTHOX, 100, 354, 362, 448, 639, 640 MERIT, Komish doctrine of, merit of congruity and of condignity, 527 True view of, 527, 528 METHODISTS, Wesleyan, 103, 105 Articles of religion of, 126 METHODOLOGY, 15 MILL, James, 43 MILL, J. S., 33, 34, 43, 47, 276 MILLER, Hugh, 331, 364 MILLEXXIUM, Scriptural doctrine of, 568, 569 MIRACLES, 274-279 Possible, 275, 276 How consistent with divine per- fections, 277, 278 How recognizable, 27^ 279 MOEHLER, 306 MOLIXA, Lewis, 99, 147 MOLIXISTS, 99, 100 MOXARCHIAXS, 174, 197, 198 MOXOPHYSITES, 387 MOXOTHELITES, 388 i]/6i^^Z Argument. (See (?od.) MORAL accountability, ultimate seat of, 293, 294 MORAL Influence Theory of Atone- ment, 422 MOORE, Dr. Wm. E., 436, 598, 625, 636 MOSHEIM, 164, 506 MULLER, Julius, 351 MYCOXIUS, Oswald, 640 MYSTICAL theory of Atonement, 422 XATURAL THEOLOGY, 19 XEAXDER, Augustus, 27, 47, 174, 197, 305, 387, 421, 615 XEO-PLATOXISTS, 51, C3 XESTORIUS, 387 XESTORIAX, Heresy, 387 XEWMAX, J. H., 62*5 XEWTOX, Sir Isaac, 142 A7C^7\\^A Creed. (See Creed) XICOLE, 100 XIE MEYER, Dr. H. A., 128 XOETUS, 198 NEW HAVEN doctrine of Original Sin, 335 OBERLIN&.o<iix\\a.% of Perfection, 533- 536 OCHINO, 104 OLEVIANUS, 362 ORIGEN, 197, 198, 421, 423, 555, 623 OSIANDER, 422 OUTRAM, 409, 421 OWEN, Dr. J., 362 PAINE, Thos., 48 PALEY, 61 PANTHEISM, 50 PA PI AS, 569 PA REUS, D., 351 PARK, Prof Ed. A., 154, 423 PARKER, Theodore, 48. 58 PARSONS, Dr. Theophilus, 565 PASCAL, 51, 100 PATRIPASSIANS, 174 PA UL of Samosata, 103 PAUL, Father, 357 PAUL US. 48, 57 PEARSON, Bishop, 61, 439 PECK, Dr. George, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 537 PELAGIUS, 96, 623 PELAGIANISM compared with Au- gustinianism, 96, 97 Doctrine of Original righteousness, 302, 304 Of sin, 320 Of original sin, 330, 331, 334 674 INDEX. PELAGIANISM, Doc. {continued.-) Of inability, 338 Of efi'ectual calling, 447 Of regeneration, 456 Of perfection, 529 PENANCE, (See Eepentmice.) PERFECTIONISM, 21. (See Sandi- ficution. ) PERA'LVS, Dr. Justin, 634 PERSE VERANCE of the Saints, 542- 547 Doctrine stated and proved, 542, 543 Objections stated and answered, 543-547 Romish view of, 543, 546 Arminian, 543_ Li;theran, 546 Authoritative Statements, 546, 547, PHILOLOGY, Biblical, 20 PHILOSOPHY, 18 Its relation to Theology, 63 PIGHIUS, Albertus, 357 RISC A TOR, 415, 506 PIUSl^., Pope, 432 PLAC/EUS, Joshua, 358, 359 PLOTINUS, 51 POLEMICS, 23 POL YTHELSM, 47 POPE Innocent, 96 Zosimus, 96 Innocent X., 100 Alexander II., 100 Clement XL, 100 Leo X., 495 POPE, Infallibihty and Authority of, 92, 93 PORPHYRY, 51 PRACTICAL THEOLOGY, 24 PR AXE AS, 198 PREDESTINATION, 98, 214-336 Different senses of word, 214 Theory of \"National Election,\" 215 Theory of \"Ecclesiastical Individ- ualism,\" 216 Armiiiian doctrine of, 216 Calvinis'tic doctrine of, 218 Not founded on works, 220, but on the sovereign will of God, 220 Doctrine proved, 218-223 Objections stated and answered, 223-229 PREMILLENNIAL Advent Theory, 569-571 PRESBYTERIAN G\\mvc'he%, 103, 104 PRESSENSE, Dr. Edward, 47, 103 PRIESTLEY, 104 PRIP'A TE JUDGMENT, 91 PROFESS 10 FID EI TR ID EN- TINE, 92 PROVIDENCE, 258-279 Preservation, 258 Deistical View, 259 Theory of continued creation, 260, 261 True doctrine of preservation sta- ted, 261 Scripture doctrine of Providential Government stated, 262, and proved, 263 266 Special providence, 266 Extends to free and to sinful acts, 267, 268 Mechanical theory of, 269, 270 Theory of occasional causes, 270, 271 Theories of concursus, 271-273 Characteristics set forth in Script- ure, 273, 274 Extraordinary providences and mir- acles, 274-279 PSYCHOLOGY, 18 PUNISHMENT, Future, Endless, 580-587 PURGA TOR Y, 556-558 PUSEY, Dr., 503 QUENSTEDT, Andrew, 239, 355, 360, 629 QUESNEL, 100, 449 RADBERT, Pascasius, 637 RATIONALISM, 55, 57 RATIONALIST.S, 174 RATRAMNUS, 637 RA WLINSON, 61 REALISM, 361-364 REASON, different senses of, 56 Not ultimate ground of religious truth, 58, 59 REDEMPTION, 98 REFORMED Churches, 102, 103 REFORMED doctrine, 103, 271, 272 Of Person of Christ, 390, etc., etc. REGENERA TION, 456-464 Erroneous Views, 456-458 True view stated and proved, 458- 461 Distinguished from Conversion, 460 Absolute necessity of, 463 Authoritative Statements, 464, 494, 495 REID, 63, 292 REIMARUS, 48, 57 RELIGION, what? 15 REMONSTRANCE, 105 REMONSTRANTS, 105, 271 REMONSTRANT Doctrine of Pre- destination, 236 Of original righteousness, 307 INDEX. 675 REMONS TRANT Doc. {continued. ) Of original sin, 337 Of Inability, 347 Confession of, 353 Of Atonement, 425 Of Efficacy of Sacraments, 595, 596, 602 RENAN, 58 REPENTANCE AND ROMISH DOCTRINE OF PENANCE, 487-495 A gift of God, 487 Its fruits, 488 Includes apprehension of God in Christ, 488 Its evidences, 489 Eomish doctrine of Penance, 490 Statement, 490 Of Confession, 491 Of Absolution, 492 Refutation of Romish doctrine, 492, 493 Doctrine of Indulgences, 493 Authoritative statements, 494, 495 RESURRECTION of Christ. (See Chr[st.^ RESURRECTION, 559-565 Simultaneous and general, 560, 565 Christ's resuiTection, 560, 561 Scientific objections stated and an- swered, 561, 563 Conditions of Personal Identity, 563 Doctrine of the Jews, 564 Heretical \\iews, 564, 565 REVELATION supernatural, neces- sary, possible, and probable, 59- 61 Its nature, 68 RIDGE LY, Dr. T., 352 RITSCHL, 423 RITTER, 52 ROBERTSON, Rev. Andrew, 418 ROBINSON, Dr. Ed., 408, 445, 465, 554 RODGERS, Judge, Supreme Court of Penna., 435 ROGERS, Henrv, 61 ROMAN CATHOLIC Doctrine. Of authority and infalUbiUty of the Pope, 92, 93 Of sin, 321 Original sin, 335, 336, 337 Of inability, 346 Of Christian priesthood, 399 Of Christ's \"descent into hell,\" 439, 443 Of grace, 454 Of regeneration, 490-495 Of faith, 472, 474, 476 Of justification, 491, 499, 509 ROMAN CA THOLIC Doc. {continued. ) Of counsels, 525, 540 Of merit of condignity and of con- gnaity, 527 Of perfection, 530-536 Of perseverance, 543, 546 Of purgatory, and the intermediate state, 556-558 Of sacraments, 590-600 Their efficacy, 596, 597 Of efficacy, and necessity of bap- tism, 625-630 Of transubstantiation, 634-639, 646- 648 Doctrine of the Mass, 641, 646-648 ROW, 61 RULE OF FAITH and PRACTICE, 82-93 Protestant Doctrine of, 55, 82 Roman Catholic Doctrine of, 82, 83 SABELLIUS, 198 SACRAMENTS, 588-602 Etymology and usage of the word, 588, 589 Definition of, 589, 590 Relation of sign to grace signified, 591, 592 Romish Doctrine of Efficacy of, 592-595 Protestant Doctrine of same, 595- 597 Necessity of, 597, 598 Validity of, 598, 599 Authentic Statements, 599 - 602. (See BajMsin and Lord's Sup- per.) SAISSET 52 SAMPSON, 165 SANCTIFICATION, 520-541 Difi'erent views of, 520, 521 Doctrine defined, 521, 522 Agency of the truth in, 523 Agency of the sacraments in, 524 And of Faith, 524 Good works, their nature and ne- cessity, 525, 526 Romish Doctrine of Precepts and Counsels, 525 Antinomian view of, 526 Merit of condignity, and merit of congruity, 527 True view of merit, 527, 528 Perfect sanctification, 529-541 Pelagian theorj' of, stated, 529, and refuted, 534-539 Romish theory of, stated, 530, 531, and refuted, 534-539 Arminian theory of, stated, 531-533, and refuted, 534-539 Authoritative Statements, 539-541 676 INDEX. SANDEMANIANS, 472 SATAN. (See Angels.) SA VO V DECLAKA TION, 126 SCHAFF, Dr. Philip, 27, 58, 112, 115, 117, 124, 128, 361, 364, 423, 615, 634 SCHELLING, 51, 57, 63 SCHLEIERiMACHER, 51, 54, 422 SCHOOLMEN, theology of, 99 SCHIVENKFELD, 422 SCIENCE and Revelation, 246-248 SCIENCES, physical, 19 ''SCIENTIA media;' 99, 147 SCOTUS, Erigena, 51, 422 SCOTUS, John Dims, 99, 412 SCRIPTURES, Inspiration of, 65-81 Only infallible rule of faith and practice, 84 Complete, 84, 85 Perspicuous, 85, 86 Accessible, 86 Judge of Controversy, 86, 89-91 Do not derive authority from the Church, 90 Nor to be authoritatively inter- preted by the Church, 90 Eomish Doctrine of the Interpre- tation of, 92 SECOND ADVENT AND GEN- ERAL yCDGMENT, 566-576 New Testament usage of the words, 566 A literal Advent still future, 5G6, 567 Various interpretations of Matthew xxiv. and xxv. , 567 The Apostles did not teach that the coming would be immediate, 568 Millennium, Scriptural Doctrine of, 568, 569 The Premillennial theory stated and refuted, 569, 570 The interpretation of Revelation XX. 1-lU, 570, 571 The future Conversion and Resto- ration of the Jews, 571, 572 The final judgment, 573-576 The Judge and the subjects of judg- ment, 573 How the Saints will judge the world, 574 The Principles of the Judgment, 574 The final Conflagration of the world, 575 Authoritative Statements, 576 SEM/AR/ANS, 167, 197 SEMITE LA GIAA'ISAI 96, 98, 99, 334 Doctrine of Inabilitv, 338 Of Effectual Calling, 447 SEMLER, 57 SERVETiJS, 104 SHAFTESBURY, 48 SHEDD, Rev. J. H., 634 SHEDD, Dr. Wm. G. T., 116, 196, 198, 362, 364, 365, 423 SIN, Its nature, 315-321 Its tests, 315 Its definition, 315 \"Want of conformity to law, 316, 317 Predicable of permanent states as well as of acts, 318, 319 Concupiscence sinful, 319 The Origin of sin, 317-322 Pelagian Doctrine of, 320 In what sense alwaj's voluntary, 320 SIN of Adam, 321-324 Its effect on himself, 323 Upon his posterity, 324 SIN, original, 97, 325-337 Doctrine of, defined, 325 It does not involve corruption of substance, 326 It is truly sin, 327 Not simply loss of original right- eousness, 327 It affects the entire man, 327, 328 In what sense \"total \" ? 328, 329 Doctrine proved, 329, 333 Sin against the Holy (Jhost, 333 Pelagian and Semipelagian Doc- ti-ine of, 333, 334 New Haven Doctrine of, 335 Authoritative Church Statements of, 336, 337 SIN, The IMTUTA TION of Adam's first, 348-366 The difficulty lies in the Facts, 348, 349 Self-evident principles to be re- membered, 349 Two qiiestions to be kept distinct, the How ? and the Why ? 350 Theories of the origination which ignore its Adamic origin, 350, 351 Different views as to the propaga- tion of sin, 351, 352 The Armiuian explanation of the justice of ante-natal forfeiture, 352 The New England view of same,'' 353 The Church view of same, 353 The general consensus of the Churches shown, 354-357 Imputation defined, 357, 358 Mediate Imputation, 358-360 The Church Doctrine proved, 360 Ground of the imputation, 361-366 The Augustinian view, 361-364 The Federal view, 362-366 INDEX. SM ALLEY, 423 SMITH, Dr. Henry B., 403 SMITLL Dr- Robertson, 58 SOCINUS, Faustus, 104, 174, 334, 414, 415 S0CINL4NS, 96, 103, 194, 271, 386 SOCINIANISM, 96, 106, 107, 202, 206, 334, 347 Doctrine of the Priesthood of Christ, 400 Of the Atonement, 414, 415, 422 Of Justifying Faith, 503, 504 Of Justification, 514 Of the Efficacy of Baptism, etc., 630 SOTEKIOLOGY, 23, 96, 106, 108, 110 SPENCER, Herbert, 47 SPINOZA, 51, 260, 270 STANLEY, Dean Edward, 58 STATISTICS, 19 STAUDLIN, 423 STEWART, Prof. B., 34 STORR, 423 STRAUSS, 47, 51, 58 STREITIVOLF, 423 STRONG, Justice Wm., 436 STUART, Dr. Moses, 581 SL'MNER, Ai-chbishop, 216 SUPRA LA PSA RIANS, 232, 233, 411 SIVEDENBORG, 564, 565 SYLLABUS, Papal, 432 SYMBOLLCS, 28 SYNERGISTS, 100 SYNERGISM, 448 SYNOD oiYioxi, 105, 417 Canons and Decrees of, 113, 126, 235, 346, 352, 356, 454, 546 SYNOD of Orange, 98 SYNOD of Valence, 98 SYSTEMATIC Theology, 22 TA YLOR, Isaac, 248, 555 TAYLOR, Dr. N. W., 160, 332, 457, 458, 459, 521 TELEOLOGLCAL Argument. (See (?oc/.) TENNEMANN, 47 TERTULLIAN, 94, 164, 569, 623 Til EO DICE, 243 THEODORE of Mopsuestia, 387 THEODOTUS, 103 THEOLOGY, What? 15 Three systems of, have always pre- vailed, 95, 9G How far possible? 16 Why desirable? 16 Upon what fundamental questions does it rest? 17 Its position in relation to other sciences, 17 THEOLOGY {continued. ) The main divisions in the proposed aiTangement stated, 17 Departments of human knowledge auxiliary to the studv of theol- ogy, 18, 19 THEOLOGY, Natural, 19, 53 Eevealed, 53 Exegetical, 20 Biblical. 22 Systematic, 22 Practical, 24 Historical, 26, 27 THEOLOGY, Sources of, 53, 54, etc. Reason not the ultimate source of, 58, 59 Relation of, to Philosophy, 63 THEOLOGY PROPER, \\^\\, 103 THOLUCK, Prof., 26 THOMASIUS, Dr. Gottfried, 388 THORNIVELL, Dr. James, 357 TILLEMONT, 100 TISCHENDORF, 62 TITCOMB, 61 T^A'^Z'/TYaV Romish doctrine stated, 82, 83, 92, and disproved, 83, 84 TRADUCIANISM, 351, 352 TRANS UBSTANTLA TION, Romish doctrine of, 635-639, 646-648 TRICHOTOMY, 299, 300 TRINITY, doctrine of, 164-199 Meaning of word, 164 Definition of terms, 164-167 The several propositions involved, 167, 168 The divinity and separate person- ahty of the Logos, 169-173 The divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost, 173-176 Doctrine directly taught in Script- ure, 176-178 The Eternal Generation of the Son, 178-188 The Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost, 188-192 Heretical Opinions, 195-199 Doctrine essential to Christianity, 198, 199 TUBINGEN, 58 TULLOCH, 47, 58 TURRETIN, Francis, 127, 137, 145, 152, 164, 173, 182, 190, 258, 262, 268, 272, 289, 315, 356, 359, 360, 377, 402, 451, 460, 481, 497, 504, 515, 516, 527, 528, 592, 603, 632 TYLER, Prof., 48 TYNDAL, 50 TYPOLOGY, 21 TIVISSE, 349, 411 678 INDEX. ULRICT, 47 UNDERDONK, Bishop H. U., 457 ^7A7aV with Christ. (See C/iris?.) UNITARIAN Q,\\mxc\\^%, 104 UNITARIANS, 103, 174, 198 UNIVERSAL History, 18 UPDEGRAFF, case of, 435 URSINUS, 354, 380, 640 USSIIER, Archbishop James, 297, 417 UTILITARIAN TIIEOR Y OF MOR- ALS, 287 VALENSES, 424 VAN MILDERT, WiUiam, 48 VICTOR, St. Hugo, 587 VIRCHOW, 40 VIRTUE, 286 VIRTUOUS CHARACTER, 286, 287 The ultimate seat of moral respon- sibility, 293, 295 VITRINGA, 316 VOLTAIRE, 48 VON B RES, 640 VOSSIUS, G. J., 356 WAGE, 61 WALL, Dr. -William, 623 WALNUT STREET Church case, 439 WARDLA W, 61 WATSON, Kichard, 106, 303, 304, 377, 417, 418, 423, 538 WEEKS, Dr. W. B., 403 WEGSCHEIDER. 48, 57, 218 WESLEY, 106, 224, 303, 321, 532, 533 WESLEYANS, 106 WESSEL, Johu. 424 WESTCOTT, Rev. B. F., 61 WETSTEIN, 105 WHATELY, Ai-chbishop, 216, 227, 554, 583 WHEDON, Dr. D. D., 224, 293, 294, 302, 353 WHITE, Rev. Ed., 583 WIGGERS, Dr. G. F., 97, 334, 354, 529 WILLIAMS, 58 WISSOWATIUS, 104 WITHERSPOON, President, 356 WITSIUS, 314, 356, 377 WOLF, 57 WOLFENB UTTEL ERA G ME NTS, 57 WOOLSEY, President Theodore, 157, 158 WYCLIFFE, 424 YOUNG, Dr. John, 422 ZOROASTER, 47 ZW INGLE, 100, 639, 640 Z WING LI AN Doctrine of the Sacra- ments, 592, 595, 596 Of Baptism, its Efficacy, 626 Of Lord's Supper, its Efficacy, 643 v^ DATE DUE r \"\"^ ^ <%^ HIGHSMITH # -45220 Princeton Theological S em i nary -S peer Library 1 1012 0 016 7320", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "sub_questions": null}
 {"_source_id": "baltimore-catechism-no-1", "_source_title": "Baltimore Catechism No. 1", "_author": "Third Plenary Council of Baltimore", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14551/pg14551.txt", "document_id": "baltimore-catechism-no-1", "item_id": "1", "sort_key": 1, "question": "Who made the world?", "answer": "God made the world.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "group": "LESSON FIRST: ON THE END OF MAN", "sub_questions": null, "token_count": 14}
 {"_source_id": "baltimore-catechism-no-1", "_source_title": "Baltimore Catechism No. 1", "_author": "Third Plenary Council of Baltimore", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14551/pg14551.txt", "document_id": "baltimore-catechism-no-1", "item_id": "2", "sort_key": 2, "question": "Who is God?", "answer": "God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "group": "LESSON FIRST: ON THE END OF MAN", "sub_questions": null, "token_count": 22}
 {"_source_id": "baltimore-catechism-no-1", "_source_title": "Baltimore Catechism No. 1", "_author": "Third Plenary Council of Baltimore", "_contributors": [], "_schema_type": "catechism_qa", "_license": "public-domain", "_source_url": "http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14551/pg14551.txt", "document_id": "baltimore-catechism-no-1", "item_id": "3", "sort_key": 3, "question": "What is man?", "answer": "Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.", "answer_with_proofs": null, "proofs": [], "group": "LESSON FIRST: ON THE END OF MAN", "sub_questions": null, "token_count": 28}