by A. A. Hodge
| Content | |————————————————————————-| | A Short History of the Creeds and Confessions | | Some Account of the Origin of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms | | Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scripture | | Chapter 2: Of God and the Holy Trinity | | Chapter 3: Of God’s Eternal Decree | | Chapter 4: Of Creation | | Chapter 5: of Providence | | Chapter 6: Of The Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof | | Chapter 7: Of God’s Covenant With Man | | Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator | | Chapter 9: Of Free Will | | Chapter 10: Of Effectual Calling | | Chapter 11: Of Justification | | Chapter 12: Of Adoption | | Chapter 13: Of Sanctification | | Chapter 14: Of Saving Faith | | Chapter 15: Of Repentance Unto Life | | Chapter 16: Of Good Works | | Chapter 17: Of Perseverance of the Saints | | Chapter 18: Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation | | Chapter 19: Of the Law of God | | Chapter 20: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience | | Chapter 21: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day | | Chapter 22: Of Lawful Oaths and Vows | | Chapter 23: Of the Civil Magistrate | | Chapter 24: Of Marriage and Divorce | | Chapter 25: Of the Church | | Chapter 26: Of the Communion of the Saints | | Chapter 27: of the Sacraments | | Chapter 28: Of Baptism | | Chapter 29: Of the Lord’s Supper | | Chapter 30: Of Church Censures | | Chapter 31: Of Synods and Councils | | Chapter 32: Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead | | Chapter 33: Of the Last Judgment | | Appendix 1: The Meaning of ‘System of Doctrine’: Old School vs. New School | | Appendix 2: The Auburn Declaration and The Declaratory Act | | Appendix 3: What is Presbyterianism? by Charles Hodge | | Appendix 4: What is Meant by Adopting the Westminster Confession? | | Appendix 5: On the Passages of the Confession Concerning the Magistrate’s Power as to Religion and the Church |
It is asserted in the first chapter of this Confession [The Westminster Confession of Faith], and vindicated in this exposition that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, having been given by inspiration of God, are for man in his present state the only and the all-sufficient rule of faith and practice. All that man is to believe concerning God, and the entire duty which God requires of man, are revealed therein, and are to be believed and obeyed because contained therein, because it is the word of God. This divine word, therefore, is the only standard of doctrine which has intrinsic authority binding the conscience of men. And all other standards are of value or authority only in proportion as they teach what the Scriptures teach.
While, however, the Scriptures are from God, the understanding of them belongs to the part of men. Men must interpret to the best of their ability each particular part of Scripture separately, and then combine all that the Scriptures teach upon every subject into a consistent whole, and then adjust their teachings upon different subjects in mutual consistency as parts of a harmonious system. Every student of the Bible must do this, and all make it obvious that they do it by the terms they use in their prayers and religious discourse, whether they admit or deny the propriety of human creeds and confessions. If they refuse the assistance afforded by the statements of doctrine slowly elaborated and defined by the Church, they must make out their own creed by their own unaided wisdom. The real question is not, as often pretended, between the word of God and the creed of man, but between the tried and proved faith of the collective body of God’s people, and the private judgment and the unassisted wisdom of the repudiator of creeds.
As we would have anticipated, it is a matter of fact that the Church has advanced very gradually in this work of the accurate interpretation of Scripture and definition of the great doctrines which compose the system of truth it reveals. The attention of the Church has been specially directed to the study of one doctrine in one age, and of another doctrine in another age. And as she has thus gradually advanced in the clear discrimination of gospel truth, she has at different periods set down an accurate statement of the results of her new attainments in a Creed or Confession of Faith, for the purpose of preservation and popular instruction. In the mean time, heretics spring up on all occasions, who pervert the Scriptures, who exaggerate certain aspects of the truth and deny others equally essential, and thus in effect turn the truth of God into a lie. The Church is forced, therefore, on the great principle of selfpreservation, to form such accurate definitions of every particular doctrine misrepresented as shall include the whole truth and exclude all error, and to make such comprehensive exhibitions of the system of revealed truth as a whole that no one part shall be either unduly diminished or exaggerated, but the true proportion of the whole be preserved. At the same time, provision must be made for ecclesiastical discipline, and to secure the real co-operation of those who profess to work together in the same cause, so that public teachers in the same communion may not contradict one another, and the one pull down what the other is striving to build up. Formularies must also be prepared, representing as far as possible the common consent, and clothed with public authority, for the instruction of the members of the Church, and especially of the children.
Creeds and Confessions, therefore, have been found necessary in all ages and branches of the Church, and, when not abused, have been useful for the following purposes: (1.) To mark, disseminate and preserve the attainments made in the knowledge of Christian truth by any branch of the Church in any crisis of its development. (2.) To discriminate the truth from the glosses of false teachers, and to present it in its integrity and due proportions. (3.) To act as the basis of ecclesiastical fellowship 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.
It must be remembered, however, that the matter of these Creeds and Confessions binds the consciences of men only so far as it is purely scriptural, and because it is so; and as to the form in which that matter is stated, they bind those only who have voluntarily subscribed 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 anything 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 credible profession of the true religion-that is, who are presumptively the people of Christ. This credible profession of course involves a competent knowledge of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity-a declaration of personal faith in Christ and consecration to his service, and a temper of mind and habit consistent therewith. On the other hand, no man can be inducted into any office in any Church who does not protest to believe in the truth and wisdom of the constitution and laws which it will be his duty to conserve and administer. Otherwise all harmony of sentiment and all efficient co-operation in action would be impossible.
The original Synod of our American Presbyterian Church in the year 1729 solemnly adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as the doctrinal standards of the Church. The record is as follows:
‘All the ministers of the Synod now present, which were eighteen in number, except one, that declared himself not prepared, [but who gave his assent at the next meeting], after proposing all the scruples any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith, and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and Catechisms to be the Confession of their Faith, except only some clauses in the twentieth and twenty-third chapters, ‘Concerning the Civil Magistrate.’’
Again, in the year 1788, preparatory to the formation of the General Assembly, ‘the Synod, having fully considered the draught of the Form of Government and Discipline, did, on review of the whole, and hereby do, ratify and adopt the same, as now altered and amended, as the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, and order the same to be considered and strictly observed as the rule of their proceedings, by all the inferior judicatories belonging to the body.
‘The Synod, having now revised and corrected the draught of a Directory for Worship, did approve and ratify the same, and do hereby appoint the same Directory, as now amended, to be the Directory for the worship of God in the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. They also took into consideration the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and, having made a small amendment of the Larger, did approve and do hereby approve and ratify the said Catechisms, as now agreed on, as the Catechisms of the Presbyterian Church in the United States. And the Synod order that the Directory and Catechisms be printed and bound up in the same volume with the Confession of Faith and the Form of Government and Discipline; that the whole be considered as the standard of our doctrine, government, discipline and worship, agreeably to the resolutions of the Synod it their present session.’
What follows is a very brief and general history of the principal Creeds and Confessions of the several branches of the Christian Church. In this statement they are grouped according to the order of time and the churches which adhere to them:
The Creeds formed before the Reformation are very few, relate to the fundamental principles of Christianity, especially the Trinity and the Person of the God-man, and are the common heritage of the whole Church.
1st. The Apostles’ Creed . This was not written by the apostles, but was gradually formed, by common consent, out of the Confessions adopted severally by particular churches, and used in the reception of its members. It reached its present form, and universal use among all the churches, about the close of the second century. This Creed was appended to the Shorter Catechism, together with the Lord’s Prayer and Ten Commandments, in the first edition published by order of Parliament, ‘not as though it were 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 our Constitution as part of the Catechism. 1 It is as follows:
‘I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin 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 at 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 life everlasting. Amen.’
2d. The Nicene Creed. This Creed is formed on the basis of the Apostles’ Creed, the clauses relating to the consubstantial divinity of Christ being contributed by the great Council held in Nice in Bithynia, A.D. 325, and those relating to the divinity and personality of the Holy Ghost added by the Second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople, A.D.381; and the ‘filioque’ clause added by the Council of the Western Church, held at Toledo, Spain, A.D. 569. In its present form it is the Creed of the whole Christian Church, the Greek Church rejecting only the last added clause. It is as follows:
‘I believe in one God, Maker of heaven and earth, and 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 all things were made; who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and 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 with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord the Giver of life, who proeeedeth from the Father and the Son (filioque), who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets. And I believe in one Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.’
3d. As subsequently heretical opinions sprang up in its bosom with respect to the constitution of the person of Christ, the Church was forced to provide additional definitions and muniments of the truth. One heretical tendency culminated in Nestorianism, which maintains that the divine and human natures in Christ constitute two persons. This was condemned by the Creed of the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. The opposite heretical tendency culminated in Eutychianism, which maintains that the divine and human natures are so united in Christ as to form but one nature. This was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451. These Creeds, defining the faith of the Church as embracing two natures in one person , are received and approved by the entire Church. They are sufficiently quoted in the body of the following ‘Commentary.’
4th. The Athanasian Creed. This Creed was evidently composed long after the death of the great theologian whose name it bears, and after the controversies closed and the definitions established by the abovementioned Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. It is a grand and unique monument of the unchangeable faith of the whole Church as to the great mysteries of godliness, the Trinity of Persons in the one God and the duality of natures in the one Christ. It is too long to quote here in full. What relates to the Person of the God-man is as follows:
‘27. But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he should also faithfully believe in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 28. It is therefore true faith that we believe 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, perfect 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 two not from the conversion of 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 rational soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ,’ etc.
1st. The Doctrinal Standards of the Church of Rome .
In order to oppose the progress of the Reformation, Pope Paul III. called the last great ecumenical Council at Trent (1545-1563). The deliverances of this Council, entitled Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, form the highest doctrinal rule known to that Church. The decrees contain the positive statements of doctrine The canons explain the decrees, distribute the matter under brief heads and condemn the opposing of Protestant doctrine on each point.
The Roman Catechism, which explains and enforces the canons of the Council of Trent, was prepared and promulgated by the authority of Pope Pius IV., AD. 1556.
The Tridentine Confession of Faith was also imposed upon all the priests and candidates of the Romish Church and converts from other churches.
In addition to these, different papal bulls and some private writings have been authoritatively set up as standards of the true faith by the authority of popes; e.g., the Catechism of Bellarmine, A.D. 1603, and the bull Unigenitus of Clement XI., 1711.
The theology taught in all these papal standards is Arminianism.
2d. The Doctrinal Standards of the Greek Church .
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 Western or Latin Church. This division began to culminate in the seventh, and was consummated in the eleventh century. The Greek Church embraces Greece, the majority of the Christians of the Turkish Empire and the great mass of the civilized inhabitants of Russia. All the Protestant churches have originated through the Reformation from the Western or Roman Church.
This Church arrogates to herself pre-eminently the title of the ‘orthodox,’ because the original creeds defining the doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, which have been mentioned above, were produced in the Eastern half of the ancient Church, and hence are in a peculiar sense her inheritance. Greek theology is very imperfectly developed beyond the ground covered by these ancient creeds, which that Church magnifies and maintains with singular tenacity.
They possess also a few confessions of more modern date, as ‘The Orthodox Confession’ of Peter Mogilas, A.D. 1642, metropolitan bishop of Kiew, the Confession of Gennadius, A.D. 1453.
The entire Protestant world from the time of the Reformation has been divided into two great families of churches-the LUTHERAN, including all those which received their characteristic impress from the great man whose name they bear; the REFORMED, including all those, on the other hand, which derived their character from Calvin.
The Lutheran family of churches embraces all those Protestants of Germany and the Baltic provinces of Russia who adhere to the Augsburg Confession, together with the national churches of Denmark, of Norway and Sweden, and the large denomination of that name in America.
1537, at the place whose name they hear.
4th. The Confessions of the Reformed or Calvinistic churches.
The Reformed churches embrace all those churches of Germany which subscribe the Heidelberg Catechism; the Protestant churches of Switzerland, France, Holland, England and Scotland: the Independents and Baptists of England and America, and the various branches of the Presbyterian Church in England and America.
The Reformed Confessions are very numerous, although they all substantially agree as to the system of doctrine they teach. Those most generally received, and regarded as of the highest symbolical authority as standards of the common system, are the following:
standard, as well as instrument of religious instruction for the churches of the Palatinate, a German State at that time including both banks of the Rhine. It was endorsed by the Synod of Dort, and is the Confession of Faith of the Reformed churches of Germany and Holland, and of the German and Dutch Reformed churches in America.
Convention 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 Westminster Assembly, and conformed their own deliverance, the Savoy Confession, very nearly to it. Indeed, ‘the difference between these two Confessions is so very small, that the modern Independents have in a manner laid aside the use of it (Savoy Conf.) in their families, and agreed with the Presbyterians in the use of the Assembly’s Catechisms.’ 3 All the Assemblies convened in New England for the purpose of settling the doctrinal basis of their churches have either endorsed or explicitly adopted this Confession and these Catechisms as accurate expositions of their own faith. This was done by the Synod which met at Cambridge, Massachusetts, June, 1647, and again August, 1648, and prepared the Cambridge Platform. And again by the Synod which sat in Boston, September, 1679, and May, 1680, and produced the Boston Confession. And again by the Synod which met at Saybrook, Connecticut, 1708, and produced the Saybrook Platform. 4
Most of the Confessions of the Reformed and Lutheran churches were composed by single authors, or by a small group of theologians to whom the task of drawing up a standard of doctrine had been committed. Thus, Luther and Melancthon were the principal authors of the Augsburg Confession, the common standard of faith and bond of union of the Lutheran churches. The Second Helvetic Confession was composed by Bullinger, to whom the work was entrusted by a number of Swiss theologians; and the celebrated Heidelberg Catechism was composed by Ursinus and Olevianus, who had been appointed thereto by Frederick III., Crown Prince of the Palatinate. The Old Scotch Confession, which was the standard of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland for nearly one hundred years before the adoption of the Westminster Confession, was composed by a committee of six theologians, at the head of whom was John Knox, appointed by the Scottish Parliament. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England and of the Episcopal Church of America were prepared by the bishops of that Church in 1562, as the result of the revision of “The Forty-two Articles of Edward Sixth,” which had been drawn up by Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Ridley in 1551. The “Canons of the Synod of Dort,” of high authority among all the Reformed churches, and the Standard of the Church of Holland, were on the other hand drawn up by a great international Synod convened in Dort by the States General of the Netherlands, and composed of representatives of all the Reformed churches except that of France. And the Confession of Faith
and Catechisms of our Church were drawn up by a large and illustrious national assembly of divines and civilians convened in Westminster, England, by the Long Parliament from Jul 1, 1643, to Feb 22, 1648; a very brief account of which it is the design of this chapter to give.
The Reformation in Scotland had received its first impulse from the return of the illustrious Patrick Hamilton, in AD 1528, from the Continent, where he had enjoyed the instructions of Luther and Melancthon. It was in no degree a political revolution, nor did it originate with the governing classes. It was purely a religious revolution, wrought among the masses of the people and the body of the Church itself, under the direction at different times of several very eminent leaders, the chief of whom were John Knox and Andrew Melville. “The Church of Scotland framed its Confession of Faith and its First Book of Discipline, and met in its first General Assembly for its own government, seven years before it had even received the sanction of the legislature. Its first General Assembly was held in AD 1560, while the first Act of Parliament recognizing it as the National Church was passed in AD 1567.”[1] It continued to maintain in a good degree its independence of civil dictation and its integrity as a Presbyterian Church until after King James assumed the throne of England. After that time, through English influence and the increased power of the throne, the independence of the
Church of Scotland was often temporarily destroyed. In resistance to this invasion of their religious liberties, the friends of liberty and of the Reformed religion among the Scotch nobility, clergy and people, signed the ever-memorable National Covenant at Sterling, Feb 28, 1638, and the Solemn League and Covenant between the kingdoms of England and Scotland in AD 1643. “This Solemn League and Covenant (subscribed by the Scotch General Assembly, the English Parliament and Westminster Assembly) bound the united kingdoms to endeavour the preservation of the Reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline and government, and the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, according to the Word of God and the example of the best Reformed churches.”[2] It was in furtherance of the same design of securing in both kingdoms religious liberty, a more perfect reformation and ecclesiastical uniformity, that the Scotch people gave the effective support of their sympathy to the English Parliament in their struggle with Charles I., and that the Scottish Church sent her most eminent sons as delegates to the Westminster Assembly.
The Reformation in England presents two distinct phases-that of a genuine work of grace, and that of a political and ecclesiastical revolution. In the former character it was introduced by the publication of the Word of God, the Greek Testament of Erasmus, published in Oxford, 1517, and the English translation of the Bible by Tyndal, which was sent over from Worms to England in 1526. By the English Bible, together with the labours of many truly pious men both among the clergy and laity, a thoroughly popular revolution was wrought in the religion of the nation, and its heart rendered permanently Protestant. The real Reformers of England, such as Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Latimer and Jewell, were truly evangelical and thoroughly Calvinistic, in full sympathy and constant correspondence with the great theologians and preachers of Switzerland and Germany. This is illustrated in their writings, in the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI., AD 1551, the present doctrinal
Articles of the Church of England, prepared in AD 1562, and even in the Lambeth Articles, drawn up by Archbishop Whitgift as late as AD 1595.
Although this work of genuine reformation was in the first instance materially aided by the politico-ecclesiastical revolution introduced by Henry VIII. and confirmed by his daughter, Queen Elizabeth, it was nevertheless greatly impeded and prematurely arrested by it. “The Act of Supremacy,” which made the sovereign the earthly head of the Church, and subjected all questions of doctrine, church order and discipline to his absolute control, enabled Elizabeth to arrest the constitutional changes in the Church set up by the process of reform at that precise point which was determined by her worldly taste and her lust of power. An aristocratic hierarchy naturally sided with the Court, and became the facile instrument of the Crown in repressing both the religious and civil liberties of the people. Gradually the struggle between the party called Puritan and the repressive Court party became more intense and more bitter during the whole period of the reigns of James I. and Charles I. A new element of conflict was introduced in the fact that the despotic Court party naturally abandoned the Calvinism of the founders of the Church, and adopted that Arminianism which has always prevailed among the parasites of arbitrary power and the votaries of a churchly and sacramental religion.
The denial of all reform, and the unrelenting execution of the “Act of Uniformity,” repressing all dissent while robbing the people of every trace of religious liberty, necessarily led to such an extension of the royal prerogative, and such constant resort to arbitrary measures and acts of violence, that the civil liberties of the subject were equally trampled under foot. At last, after having for an interval of eleven years attempted to govern the nation through the Star Chamber and Court of High Commission, and having prorogued the refractory Parliament which met in the spring of that year, the king was forced to appeal again to the country, which sent up in Nov, 1640, that illustrious body subsequently known as the Long Parliament. In the
May of the next year this body rendered itself practically independent of the king’s caprice by passing an act, providing that it should be dissolved only at its own consent, and at the same time all the members of both houses, except two of the peers, subscribed a bond binding them to persevere in the defence of their liberties and of the Protestant religion. In the same year Parliament abolished the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber; and in Nov, 1642, it was ordained that after Nov 5, 1643, the office of archbishop and bishop, and the whole framework of prelate government, should be abolished.
In Jun 12, 1643, the Parliament passed an act entitled “An ordinance of the Lords and Commons in Parliament, for the calling of an Assembly of Divines and others, to be consulted with by the Parliament for the settling of the government and liturgy of the Church of England, and clearing of the Doctrine of said Church from false aspersions and interpretations.” As the preexisting government of the Church by bishops had ceased to exist, and yet the Church of Christ in England remained, the only universally recognized authority which could convene the representatives of the Church in General Assembly was the National Legislature. The persons who were to constitute this Assembly were named in the ordinance, and comprised the flower of the Church of that age; subsequently about twenty-one clergymen were superadded to make up for the absence of others. The original list embraced the names of ten lords and twenty commoners as lay-members, and one hundred and twentyone divines. Men of all shades of opinion as to Church government were embraced in this illustrious company-Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents and Erastians. “In the original ordinance four bishops were named, one of whom actually attended on the first day, and another excused his absence on the ground of necessary duty; of the others called, five became bishops afterward, and about twenty-five declined attending, partly because it was not a regular convocation called by the king, and partly because the Solemn League and Covenant was expressly condemned by his majesty.”[3] The Scotch General Assembly also sent as delegates to
Westminster the best and ablest men she had-ministers Alexander Henderson, the author of the Covenant, George Gillespie, Samuel Rutherford and Robert Baillie; and elders Lord John Maitland and Sir Archibald Johnston.
Only sixty appeared the first day, and the average attendance during the protracted sittings of the Assembly ranged between sixty and eighty. Of these the vast majority were Presbyterians, after the Episcopalians had withdrawn subsequently to the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant. The vast majority of the Puritan clergy, after the example of all the Reformed churches of the Continent, were inclined to Presbyterianism, and in many places, especially in the city of London and its neighbourhood, had erected presbyteries.
There were only five prominent Independents in the Assembly, headed by Dr. Thomas Goodwin and Pastor Philip Nye. These were called, from the attitude of opposition to the majority which they occupied, “The Five Dissenting Brethren.” In spite of the smallness of their number, they possessed considerable influence in hindering, and finally preventing, the Assembly in its work of national ecclesiastical construction, and their influence was due to the support they received from politicians without the Assembly, in the Long Parliament, in the army, and, above all, from the great Cromwell himself.
The Erastians, who held that Christian pastors are simply teachers and not rulers in the Church, and that all ecclesiastical as well as all civil power rests exclusively with the civil magistrate, were represented in the Assembly by only two ministers-Thomas Coleman and John Lightfoot, assisted actively by the learned layman, John Selden. Their influence was due to the fact that the Parliament sympathized with them, and as a matter of course all worldly politicians.
The prolocutor, or moderator, appointed by the Parliament, was Dr. Twisse, and after his death he was succeeded by Mr. Herle. On Jul 1, 1643, the Assembly, after hearing a sermon from the prolocutor in the Abbey Church, Westminster, was organized in Henry the VII.’s Chapel. After the weather grew cold they met in the Jerusalem Chamber, “a fair room in the Abbey of Westminster.” When the whole Assembly had been divided for despatch of business into three equal committees, they took up the work which was first assigned to them by Parliament-namely, the revision of the “‘Thirty-nine Articles,” the already existing Creed of the English Church. But on Oct 12, 1643 shortly after subscribing the Solemn League and Covenant, Parliament directed the Assembly “to consider among themselves of such a discipline and government as may be most agreeable to God’s holy word.” They consequently entered immediately upon the work of preparing a Directory of Government, Worship and Discipline. Being delayed by constant controversies with the Independent and Erastian factions, they did not complete this department of their work until near the close of 1644. Then they began to prepare for the composition of a Confession of Faith, and a committee was appointed to prepare and arrange the main propositions to be embraced in it. This committee consisted of Pastor Drs. Gouge, Temple and Hoyle; Messrs. Gataker, Arrowsmith, Burroughs, Burgess, Vines and Goodwin, with the Scotch Commissioners.
The committee at first wrought at the work of preparing the Confession and Catechisms simultaneously. “After some progress had been made with both, the Assembly resolved to finish the Confession first, and then to construct the Catechism on its model.” They presented in a body the finished Confession to Parliament, Dec 3, 1646, when it was recommitted, that the “Assembly should attach their marginal notes, to prove every part of it by Scripture.” They finally reported it as finished, with full Scripture proofs of each separate proposition attached, Apr 29, 1647.
The Shorter Catechism was finished and reported to Parliament Nov 5, 1647, and the Larger Catechism Apr 14, 1648. On Mar 22, 1648, a conference was held between the two Houses, to compare their opinions respecting the Confession of Faith, the result of which is thus stated by Rushworth:
“The Commons this day (Mar 22, 1648), at a conference, presented the Lords with a Confession of Faith passed by them, with some alterations (especially concerning questions of discipline), viz.: That they do agree with their Lordships, and so with the Assembly, in the doctrinal part, and desire the same may be made public, that this kingdom, and all the Reformed churches of Christendom, may see the Parliament of England differ not in doctrine.”[4]
The Confession of Faith, Directory of Public Worship and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms were all ratified by the Scotch General Assembly as soon as the several parts of the work were concluded at Westminster.
On Oct 13, 1647, the Long Parliament established the Presbyterian Church in England experimentally, “until the end of the next session of Parliament, which was to be a year after that date.” But before that date the Parliament had become subservient to the power of the army under Cromwell. Presbyteries and synods were soon superseded by his Committee of Triers, while the Presbyterian ministers were ejected in mass by Charles II. in 1662.
After the completion of the Catechisms, many of the members quietly dispersed and returned to their homes. “Those that remained in London were chiefly engaged in the examination of such ministers as presented themselves for ordination or induction into vacant charges. They continued to maintain their formal existence until Feb 22, 1649, about three weeks after the king’s decapitation, having sat five years, six months and twenty-two days, in which time they had held one thousand one hundred and sixty-three sessions. They were then changed into a committee for conducting the trial and examination of ministers, and continued to hold meetings for this purpose, every Thursday morning, until Mar 25, 1652, when, Oliver Cromwell having forcibly dissolved the Long Parliament by whose authority the Assembly had been at first called together, that committee also broke up, and separated without any formal dissolution, and as a matter of necessity.”
The Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly were adopted by the original Synod in North America, AD 1729, as the “Confession of Faith of this Church,” and it has been received as the standard of faith by all the branches of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, England, Ireland and America; and it is highly reverenced, and its Catechisms used as means of public instruction, by all the Congregational bodies of Puritan stock in the world.[5]
Although the Westminster Assembly resolutely excluded from their Confession all that they recognized as savouring of Erastian error, yet their opinions as to church establishments led to views concerning the powers of civil magistrates, concerning religious things (circa sacra), which have always been rejected in this country. Hence, in the original “Adopting Act,” the Synod declared that it did not receive the passages relating to this point in the Confession “in any such sense as to suppose the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over synods with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority; or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain.”
And again, when the Synod revised and amended its standards in AD 1787, in preparation for the organization of the General Assembly in AD 1789, it “took into consideration the last paragraph of the twentieth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith; [WCF 20.4] the third paragraph of the twenty-third chapter, [WCF 23.3] and the first paragraph of the thirty-first chapter; [WCF 31.1] and, having made some alterations, agreed that the said paragraphs as now altered be printed for consideration.” As thus altered and amended, this Confession and these Catechisms were adopted as the doctrinal part of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America in AD 1788, and so stand to this day.
The original Articles of the Westminster Confession as to the civil magistrate which are altered in our Confession are as follow:
WCF 20.4, of certain offenders it is said: “They may be proceeded against by the censures of the Church and by the power of the civil magistrate.” WCF 23.3: “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church; that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.” WCF 31.2: “As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers and other fit persons to consult and advise with about matters of religion, so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they with other fit persons upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies.”
[1] Hetherington’s “History of the Westminster Assembly,” p. 88. [2] Hetherington’s “History of the Church of Scotland,” p. 187. [3] Hetherington’s “History of the Westminster Assembly,” p. 99. [4] Hetherington’s “History Westminster Assembly,” p. 243. [5] See “The Westminster Assembly, its History and Standards,” by Alex. F. Mitchell, D.D., for the most full and authoritative account of the sources and genesis of the Westminster Confession and Catechism.
SECTION I. –Although the light of nature; and the works of creation; and providence; do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal; Himself, and to declare; that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment 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 writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.
Rom. ii. 14, 15; Rom. i. 19, 20; Ps. xlx, 1, 2, 3; Rom. i. 32, with chap. ii. 1. 1 Cor. i. 21; 1 Cor. ii. 13, 14; Heb. i. 1; Prov. xxii. 19, 20, 21; Luke i. 3, 4; Rom. xv. 4; Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10; Isa. viii. 19, 20; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 2 Peter i. 19; Heb. i. 1, 2.
This section affirms the following propositions: -
revelation of himself and of his purposes to a chosen portion of the human family. 4. And that subsequently God has been pleased to commit that revelation to writing, and that it is now exclusively embraced in the Sacred Scriptures.
Three generically distinct false opinions have been entertained with respect to the capacity of men, in their present circumstances, to attain to any positive knowledge of the being and character of God.
This assumption is disproved - (a.) By the fact that men of all nations, ages, and degrees of culture, have discerned the evidences of the presence of a God in the works of nature and providence, and in the inward workings of their own souls. This has been true, not only of individuals, communities, or generations unenlightened by science, but pre-eminently of some of the very first teachers of positive science in the modern scientific age, such as Sir Isaac
Newton, Sir David Brewster, Dr. Faraday, etc. (b.) By the fact that the works of nature and providence are full of the manifest traces of design, and that they can be scientifically explained, and as a matter of fact are explained by these very sceptics themselves, only by the recognition and accurate tracing out of the evident “ intention” which each of these works is adapted to subserve in their mutual relations. (c.) The same is disproved from the fact that conscience, which is a universal and indestructible element of human nature, necessarily implies our accountability to a personal moral Governor, and as a matter of fact has uniformly led men to a recognition of his existence and of their relation to him.
(2.) An extreme opinion on this subject has been held by some Christians, to the effect that no true and certain knowledge of God can be derived. by man, in his present condition, from the light of nature in the entire absence of a supernatural revelation; that we are altogether dependent upon such a revelation for any certain knowledge that God exists, as well as for all knowledge of his nature and his purposes.
This opinion is disproved – (a.) By the direct testimony of Scripture. Rom. i. 20 – 24; ii. 14, 15. (b.) By the fact that many conclusive arguments for the existence of a great First Cause, who is at the same time an intelligent personal Spirit and righteous moral Governor, have been drawn by a strict induction from the facts of nature alone, as they lie open to the natural understanding. The fact that this argument remains unanswerable shows that the process by which the conclusions are drawn from purely natural sources is legitimate. (c.) All nations, however destitute of a supernatural revelation they may have been, have yet possessed some knowledge of a God. And in the case of the most enlightened of the heathen, natural religion has given birth to a considerable natural theology. We must, however, distinguish between that knowledge of the divine character which may be obtained by men from the worlds of nature arid providence in the exercise of their natural powers alone, without any suggestions or assistance derived from a supernatural revelation –as is illustrated in the theological writings of some most eminent of the heathen who lived before Christ – and that knowledge which men in this age, under the clear light of a supernatural revelation, are competent to deduce from a study of nature. The natural theology of the modern Rationalists demonstrably owes all its special excellences to that Christian revelation it is intended to supersede.
This is proved to be true – (1.) From Scripture. 1 Cor. i. 21; ii. 13, 14. (2.) From the fact that man’s moral relations to God have been disturbed by sin; and while the natural light of reason may teach an unfallen being spontaneously how he should approach and serve God, and while it may teach a fallen being what the nature of God may demand as to the punishment of sin, it can teach nothing by way of anticipation as to what God may be sovereignly disposed to do in the way of remission, substitution, sanctification, restoration, etc. (3.) ‘From the facts presented in the past history of all nations destitute of the light of revelation, both before and since Christ. The truths they have held have been incomplete and. mixed with fundamental error; their faith has been uncertain; their religious rites have been degrading, and their lives immoral. The only apparent exception to this fact is found in the case of some Rationalist’ in Christian lands; and their exceptional superiority to others of their creed is due to the secondary influences of that system of supernatural religion which they deny, but the power of which they cannot exclude.
Hence, the Confession teaches in this section –
Since, as above shown, the light of nature is insufficient to enable men to attain such a knowledge of God and his will as is necessary for salvation, it follows – (1.) That a supernatural revelation is absolutely necessary for man; and, (2.) From what natural religion alone teaches us of the character of God, it follows that the giving of such a revelation is in the highest degree antecedently probable on his part. Man is essentially a moral agent, and needs a clearly revealed rule of duty; and a religious being, craving communion with God. In his natural state these are both unsatisfied. But God is the author of human nature. His intelligence leads us to believe that he will complete all his works and crown a religious nature with the gift of a religion practically adequate to its wants. The benevolence of God leads us to anticipate that he will not leave his creatures in bewilderment and ruin for the want of light as to their condition and duties. And his righteousness occasions the presumption that he will at some time speak in definite and authoritative tones to the conscience of his subjects. (3.) As a matter of fact, God has given such a revelation. Indeed he has in no period of human history left himself without a witness. His communications to mankind through the first three thousand years were made in very “ diverse manners”- by theophanies and audible voices, dreams, visions, the Urim and Thummim, and prophetic inspiration; and the results of these communications were diffused and perpetuated by means of tradition.
The fact that such a revelation has been made, and. that we ‘ have it in the Christian Scriptures, is fully substantiated by that mass of proof styled the “ Evidences of Christianity.” The main departments of this evidence are the following: –
For the questions concerning the Holy Scriptures as containing the whole of this revelation now made by God to men, see below.
SECTION II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations,
Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi.
Of the New Testament:
The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John.
All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life.
SECTION III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
Luke xvi. 29, 31; Eph. ii. 20; Rev. xxii. 18, 19; 2 Tim. iii. 16. Luke xxiv. 27, 44; Rom. iii. 2; 2 Peter i. 21.
These sections affirm the following propositions: –
The Old Testament is the collection of inspired writings given by God to his Church during the Old Dispensation of the Covenant of Grace; and the New Testament is the collection of those inspired writings which he gave during the New or Christian Dispensation of that Covenant.
We determine what books have a place in this canon or divine rule by an examination of the evidences which show that each of them, severally, was written by the inspired. prophet or apostle whose name it bears; or, as in the case of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, written under the superintendence and published by the authority of an apostle. This evidence in the case of the Sacred Scriptures is of the same kind of historical and critical proof as is relied upon by all literary men to establish the genuineness and authenticity of any other ancient writings, such as the Odes of Horace or the works of Herodotus. In general this evidence is (a) Internal, such as language, style, and the character of the matter they contain; (b) External, such as the testimony of contemporaneous writers, the universal consent of contemporary readers, and corroborating history drawn from independent credible sources.
The genuineness of the books constituting the Old Testament canon as now received by all Protestants is established as follows: –
disobeying, but never for forging or corrupting their Scriptures, Matt xxii. 29.
(2.) The Jewish canon thus endorsed by Christ and his apostles is the same as that we now have. (a) The New Testament writers quote as Scripture almost every one of the books we recognize, and no others. (b) The Septuagint, or Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, made in Egypt B.C. 285, which was itself frequently quoted by Christ and his apostles, embraced every book contained in our copies. (c) Josephus, born A.D. 37, enumerates as Hebrew Scriptures the same books by their classes. (d) The testimony of the early Christian writers uniformly agrees with that of the ancient Jews as to every book. (e) Ever since the time of Christ both Jews and Christians, while rival and hostile parties, have separately kept the same canon, and agree perfectly as to the genuineness and authenticity of every book.
The evidence which establishes the canonical authority of the several books of the New Testament may be generally stated as follows: (a) The early Christian writers in all parts of the world agree in quoting as of apostolical authority the books we receive, while they quote all other contemporaneous writings only for illustration. (b) The early Church Fathers furnish a number of catalogues of the books received by them as apostolical, all of which agree perfectly as to most of the books, and differ only in a slight degree with reference to some last written or least generally circulated. (c) The earliest translations of the Scriptures prove that, at the time they were made, the books they contain were recognized as Scripture. The Peshito, or early Syriac translation, agrees almost entirely with ours; and the Vulgate, prepared by Jerome A.D. 385, was based on the Italic or early Latin version, and agrees entirely with ours. (d) The internal evidence corroborates the external testimony in the case of all the books. This consists of the language and idiom in which they are written; the harmony in all essentials in the midst of great variety in form and circumstantials; the elevated spirituality and doctrinal consistency of all the books; and their practical power over the consciences and hearts of men.
The word Apocrypha (anything hidden) has been applied to certain ancient writings whose authorship is not manifest, and for which unfounded claims have been set up for a place in the canon. Some of these have been associated with the Old and. some with the New Testament. In this section of the Confession, however, the name is applied. principally to those spurious scriptures for which a place is claimed in the Old Testament canon by the Roman Church. These are Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees. They also prefix to the book of Daniel the History of Susannah, and insert in the third chapter the Song of the Three Children; and add to the end of the book the History of Bel and the Dragon.
That these books have no right to a place in the canon is proved by the following facts: (1.) They never formed a part of the Hebrew Scriptures. They have always been rejected by the Jews, to whose guardianship the Old Testament Scriptures were committed. (2.) None of them were ever quoted by Christ or the apostles. (3.) They were never embraced in the list of the canonical books by the early Fathers; and even in the Roman Church their authority was not accepted by the most learned and candid men until after it was made an article of faith by the Council of Trent, late in the sixteenth century. (4.) The internal evidence presented by their contents disproves their claims. None of them make any claim to inspiration, while the best of them disclaim it. Some of them consist of childish fables, and inculcate bad morals.
thus given us as an authoritative rule of faith and practice.
The books of Scripture were written by the instrumentality of men, and the national and personal peculiarities of their authors have been evidently as freely expressed in their writing, and their natural faculties, intellectual and moral, as freely exercised in their production, as those of the authors of any other writings. Nevertheless these books are, one and all, in thought and verbal expression, in substance and form, wholly the Word of God, conveying with absolute accuracy and divine authority all that God meant them to convey, without any human additions or admixtures. This was accomplished by a supernatural influence of the Spirit of God acting upon the spirits of the sacred writers, called “inspiration;” which accompanied them uniformly in what they wrote; and which, without violating the free operation of their faculties, yet directed them in all they wrote, and secured the infallible expression of it in words. The nature of this divine influence we, of course, can no more understand than we can in the case of any other miracle. But the effects are plain and certain – viz., that all written under it is the very Word of God, of infallible truth, and of divine authority; and this infallibility and authority attach as well to the verbal expression in which the revelation is conveyed as to the matter of the revelation itself.
The fact that the Scriptures are thus inspired is proved because they assert it of themselves; and because they must either be credited as true in this respect, or rejected as false in all respects; ‘and because God authenticated the claims of their writers by accompanying their teaching with “signs and wonders and divers miracles.” Heb. ii. 4. Wherever God sends his “sign,” there he commands belief; but it is impossible that he could unconditionally command belief except to truth infallibly conveyed.
“Thus saith the LORD. “The mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.” Deut. xviii. 21, 22; 1 Kings xxi. 19; Jer. ix. 12, etc.
SECTION IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
SECTION V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
[9] 2 Peter i. 19, 21; 2 Tim. iii. 16; 1 John v. 9; 1 Thess. ii. 13. [10] 1 Tim. iii. 15; [11] 1 John ii. 20, 27; John xvi. 13, 14; 1 Cor. ii. 10, 11, 12; Isa. lix. 21.
This section teaches the following propositions: –
This proposition is designed to deny the Romish heresy that the inspired Church is the ultimate source of all divine know ledge, and that the written Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition alike depend upon the authoritative seal of the Church for their credibility. They thus make the Scriptures a product of the Spirit through the Church; while, in fact, the Church is a product of the Spirit through the instrumentality of the Word. It is true that the testimony of the early Church to the apostolic authorship of the several books is of fundamental importance, just as a subject may bear witness to the identity of an heir to the crown; but the authority of the Scriptures is no more derived from the Church than that of the king from the subject who proves the fact that he is the legal heir.
This is a part of the evidences of Christianity considered under sect. i. The internal marks of a divine origin in the Bible are such as – (1.) The phenomena it presents of a supernatural intelligence: in unity of design developed through its entire structure, although it is composed of sixty-six separate books, by forty different authors, writing at intervals through sixteen centuries; in its perfect freedom from all the errors incident to the ages of its production, with regard to facts or opinions of whatever kind; in. the marvellous knowledge it exhibits of human nature under all possible relations and conditions; in the original and luminous solution it affords of many of the darkest problems of human history and destiny. (2.) The unparalleled perfection of its moral system: in the exalted view it gives of God, his law, and moral government; in its exalted yet practical and beneficent system of morality, set forth and effectively enforced; in its wondrous power over the human conscience; and in the unrivalled extent and persistence of its influence over communities of men.
The Scriptures to the unregenerate man are like light to the blind. They may be felt as the rays of the sun are felt by the blind, but they cannot be fully seen. The Holy Spirit opens the blinded eyes and gives due sensibility to the diseased heart; and thus assurance comes with the evidence of spiritual experience. When first regenerated, he begins to set the Scriptures to the test of experience; and the more he advances, the more he proves them true, and the more he discovers of their limitless breadth and fulness, and their evidently designed adaptation to all human wants under all possible conditions.
SECTION VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
Scripture Proof Texts
[12] 2 Tim. iii. 15 ,16, 17; Gal. i. 8, 9; 2 Thess. ii. [13] 2; John vi. 45; 1 Cor. ii. 9 to 12; [14] 1 Cor. xi. 13, 14; 1 Cor. xiv. 26. 40.
This section teaches the following propositions: –
This is proved – (1.) From the design of Scripture. It professes to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end it must teach us. If any supplementary knowledge is necessary, it must refer to it. Incompleteness in such an undertaking would be falsehood. But (2.) while Christ and his apostles constantly refer to Scripture as an authoritative rule, neither they nor the Scriptures themselves ever refer to any other source of divine revelation whatsoever. They therefore assume all the awful prerogatives of completeness. John xx. 31; 2 Tim. iii. 15 – 17. And (3.), as a matter of fact, the Scriptures do teach a perfect system of doctrine, and all the principles which are necessary for the practical regulation of the lives of individuals, communities, and churches. The more diligent men have been in the study of the Bible, and the more assiduous they have been in carrying out its instructions into practice, the less has it been possible for them to believe that it is incomplete in any element of a perfect rule of all that which man is to believe concerning God, and of all that duty which God requires of man.
No new revelations of the Spirit are to be expected now –
Traditions of men cannot be allowed to supplement Scripture as a rule of faith, because – (1.) The Scriptures, while undertaking to lead men to a saving knowledge of God, never once ascribe authority to any such a supplementary rule. (2.) Christ rebukes the practical observance of it in the Pharisees. Matt. xv. 3 – 6; Mark vii. 7, 8. (3.) Tradition cannot supplement Scripture, because, while the latter is definite, complete, and perspicuous, the former is essentially indeterminate, obscure, and fragmentary. (4.) The only system of ecclesiastical tradition which pretends to rival the Scriptures as a rule of faith is that of the Roman Church; and her traditions are, many of them, demonstrably of modern origin. None can be traced to the apostolic age, much less to an apostolic origin: they are inconsistent with the clear teaching of Scripture, and with the opinions of many of the highest authorities in that Church itself in past ages.
This necessity does not result from any want of either completeness or clearness in the revelation, but from the fact that man in a state of nature is carnal, and unable to discern the things of the Spirit of God. Spiritual illumination differs from inspiration, therefore, (1.) In that it conveys no new truths to the understanding, but simply opens the mind and heart of the subject to the spiritual discernment and appreciation of the truth already objectively presented in the Scriptures; and (2.) In that it is an element in regeneration common to all the children of God, and not peculiar to prophets or apostles; and hence, (3.) In that it is private and personal in its use, and not public.
This liberty, of course, is allowed only within the limits of the strict interpretation of the principles taught in the Word, and in the legitimate application of those principles, and applies to the regulation of the practical life of the individual and of the Church, in detailed adjustments to changing circumstances.
SECTION VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. [16]
Scripture Proof Texts
[15] 2 Pet. iii. 16; [16] Psalm cxix. 105, 130.
This section affirms –
Protestants admit that many of the truths revealed in the Scriptures in their own nature transcend human understanding, and that many prophecies remain intentionally obscure until explained by their fulfillment in the developments of history. Nevertheless, Protestants affirm, and Romnnists deny – (1.) That every essential article of faith and rule of practice may be clearly learned from Scripture; and (2.) That private and unlearned Christians may be safely allowed to interpret Scripture for themselves. On the other hand, it is true that, with the advance of historical and critical knowledge, and by means of controversies, the Church as a community has made progress in the accurate interpretation of Scripture and in the full comprehension of the entire system of truth revealed therein.
That the Protestant doctrine on this subject is true, is proved –
SECTION VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22]
[17] Matt. v. 18; [18] Isa. viii. 20; Acts xv. 15; [19] John v. 39, 46; [20] 1 Cor. xiv. 6, 9, 11, 12, 24, 27, 28; [21] Col. iii. 16; [22] Rom. xv. 4.
The true text of the ancient Scriptures is ascertained by means of a careful collation and comparison of the following: –
Syriac version, A.D, 100; the Latin Vulgate of Jerome, A.D. 385; the Coptic of the fifth century, and others of less critical value.
SECTION IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23]
SECTION X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]
Scripture Proof Texts
[22] 2 Pet. i. 20, 21; Acts xv. 15, 16. [24] Matt. xxii..29, 31; Eph. ii. 20 with Acts xxviii. 25.
The authority of the Scriptures as the ultimate rule of faith rests alone in the fact that they are the Word of God. Since all these writings are one revelation, and the only revelation of his will concerning religion given by God to men, it follows: –
the Scriptures is the only adequate expounder of his own words, and he is promised to all the children of God as a Spirit of light and truth. In dependence upon his guidance, Christians are of course to study the Scriptures, using all the helps of true learning to ascertain their meaning; but this meaning is to be sought in the light of the Scriptures themselves taken as a whole, and not in the light either of tradition or of philosophy.
“A rule is a standard of judgment; a judge is the expounder and applier of that rule to the decision of particular cases.”
The Romish doctrine is, that the Papal Church is the infallible teacher of men in religion; that, consequently, the Church authoritatively determines, (1.) What is Scripture; (2.) What is tradition; (3.) What is the true sense of Scripture and of tradition; and (4.) What is the true application of that rule to every particular question of faith or practice.
The Protestant doctrine is,– (1.) That the Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice; (2.) (a) Negatively, that there is no body of men qualified or authorized to interpret the Scriptures or to apply their teachings to the decision of particular questions in a sense binding upon their fellow - Christians; (3) Positively, that the Scriptures are the only authoritative voice in the Church; which is to be interpreted and applied by every individual for himself, with the assistance, though not by the authority, of his fellow-Christians. Creeds and confessions, as to form, bind those only 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.
This must be true – (1.) Because the Scriptures, which profess to teach us the way of salvation, refer us to no standard or judge in matters of religion beyond or above themselves; and because no body of men since the apostles has ever existed, with the qualifications or with the authority to act in the office of judge for their fellows. (2.) Because, as we have seen, the Scriptures are themselves complete and perspicuous. (3.) Because all Christians are commanded to search the Scriptures, and to judge both doctrines and professed teachers themselves. John v. 39; 1 John ii. 20, 27; iv. 1, 2; Acts xvii. 11; Gal. i. 8; 1 These. v. 21. (4.) Because all Christians are promised the Holy Spirit to guide them in the understanding and practical use of the truth. Rom. viii. 9; 1 John ii. 20, 27
SECTION I. There is but one only,[1] living, and true God,[2] who is infinite in being and perfection,[3] a most pure spirit,[4] invisible,[5] without body, parts,[6] or passions;[7] immutable,[8] immense,[9] eternal,[10] incomprehensible,[11] almighty,[12] most wise,[13] most holy,[14] most free,[15] most absolute;[16] working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will,[17] for His own glory;[18] most loving,[19] gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin;[20] the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him;[21] and withal, most just, and terrible in His judgments,[22] hating all sin,[23] and who will by no means clear the guilty.[24]
[1] Deut. vi. 4; 1 Cor. viii. 4, 6; [2] 1 Thess. 1. 9; Jer. x. 10; [3] Job xi. 7, 8, 9; Job xxvi. 14; [4] John iv. 24; [5] 1 Tim. i. 17; [6] Deut. iv. 15, 16; John iv. 24, with Luke xxiv, 39; [7] Acts xiv. 11, 15; [8] James i. 17; Mal. iii. 6; [9] 1 Kings viii. 27; Jer. xxiii. 23, 24; [10] Ps. xc. 2; 1 Tim. i. 17; [11] Ps. cxlv. 3; [12] Gen. xvii. 1; Rev. iv. 8; [13] Rom. xvi, 27; [14] Isa. vi. 3; Rev. iv. 8; [15] Ps. cxv. 3; [16] Exod. iii. 14; [17] Eph. i. 11; [18] Prov. xvi. 4; Rom. xi. 36; [19] 1 John iv. 8, 16; [20] Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7; [21] Heb. xi. 6; [22] Neh. ix. 32, 33; [23] Ps. v. 5, 6; [24] Nah. i. 2, 3; Exod. xxxiv. 7. [25] John v. 26. [26] Acts vii. 2 [27] Ps. cxix. 68. [28] 1 Tim. vi. 15; Rom. ix.5. [29] Acts xvii. 24, 25. [30] Job xxii. 2, 3. [31] Rom. xi. 36; [32] Rev. iv. 11; 1 Tim. vi. 15; Dan. iv. 25, 35; [33] Heb. iv. 13;
SECTION II. God has all life,[25] glory,[26] goodness,[27] blessedness,[28] in and of Himself; and is alone in and unto Himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which He has made,[29] nor deriving any glory from them,[30] but only manifesting His own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;[31] and has most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever Himself pleases.[32] In His sight all things are open and manifest,[33] His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature,[34] so as nothing is to Him contingent, or uncertain.[35] He is most holy in all His counsels, in all His works, and in all His commands.[36] To Him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience He is pleased to require of them.[37]
[34] Rom. xi. 33, 34; Ps. cxlvii. 5; [35] Acts xv. 18; Ezek. xi. 5; [36] Ps. cxlv. 17; Rom. vii. 12; [37] Rev. v. 12, 13, 14.
These sections teach the following propositions: –
There have been false gods innumerable, and the title “ god” has been applied to angels (Ps. xcvii. 7), because of their spirituality and exalted excellence; and to magistrates (Ps. 1xxxii. 1, 6), because of their authority; and Satan is called “the god of this world” (2 Cor. iv. 4), because of his usurped dominion over the wicked. In opposition, therefore, to the claims of all false gods, and in exclusion of all figurative use of the term, it is affirmed that there is but one true God, one living God.
This affirmation includes two propositions: (a) There is but one God. (b) This one God is an absolute unit, incapable of division.
That there is but one God is proved –
The indivisible unity of this one God is proved by the same arguments. For an essential division in the one Godhead would in effect constitute two Gods; besides, the Scriptures teach us that the Christian Trinity is one undivided God: “I and my Father are one.” John x. 30.
There is a very ancient, prevalent, and persistent mode of thought, which pervades a great deal of our literature in the present day, which tends to compound God with the world, and to identify him with the laws of nature, the order and beauty of creation. In one way or another he is considered as sustaining to the phenomena of nature the relation of soul to body, or of whole to parts, or of permanent substance to transient modes. Now all the arguments that establish the being of a God agree with the Scriptures in setting him forth as a personal spirit, distinct from the world.
By Spirit we mean the subject to which the attributes of intelligence, feeling, and will belong, as active properties. Where these unite there is distinct personality. The argument from design proves that the great First Cause, to whom the system of the universe is to be referred, possesses both intelligence, benevolence, and will, in selecting ends, and in choosing and adapting means to effect those ends. Therefore he is a personal spirit. The argument from the sense of moral accountability, innate in all men, proves that we are subject to a Supreme Lawgiver, exterior and superior to the person he governs; one who takes knowledge of us, and will hold us to a strict personal account. Therefore he is a personal spirit, distinct from -though intimately associated with – the subjects he governs.
We know spirit by self-consciousness, and in affirming that God is a spirit –
affections, it is inconsistent with those infinite and. absolute perfections which are of his essence, such as simplicity, unchangeableness, unity, omnipresence, etc.
When the Scriptures, in condescension to our weakness, express the fact that God hears by saying that he has an ear, or that he exerts power by attributing to him a hand, they evidently speak metaphorically, because in the case of men spiritual faculties are exercised through bodily organs. And when they speak of his repenting, of his being grieved, or jealous, they use metaphorical language also, teaching us that he acts toward us as a man would when agitated by such passions. Such metaphors are characteristic rather of the Old than of the New Testament, and occur for the most part in highly rhetorical passages of the poetical and prophetical books.
The attributes of God are the properties of his all-perfect nature. Those are absolute which belong to God considered in himself alone – as self-existence, immensity, eternity, intelligence, etc. Those are relative which characterize him in his relation to his creatures – as omnipresence, omniscience, etc.
It is evident that we can know only such properties of God as he has condescended to reveal to us, and only so much of these as he has revealed. The question, then, is, What has God revealed to us of his perfections in his Word?
God is said to be infinite in his knowledge, or his power, we mean that he knows all things, and that he can effect all that he wills, without any limit. When we say that he is infinite in his truth, or his justice, or his goodness, we mean that he possesses these properties in absolute perfection.
time; and his actions upon his creatures pass from him at the precise moments predetermined in his unchanging purpose.
Hence God is absolutely unchangeable in his being and in all the modes and states thereof. In his knowledge, his feelings, his purposes, and hence in his engagements to his creatures, he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. “The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.” Ps. xxxiii. 11.
(4.) The infinite intelligence of God, including omniscience and absolutely perfect wisdom, is clearly taught in Scripture. God’s knowledge is infinite, not only as to the range of objects it embraces, but also as to its perfection. (a) We know things only as they stand related to our organs of perception, and only in their properties; God knows them immediately, in the light of his own intelligence and in their essential nature. (b) We know things successively, as they are present to us, or as we pass inferentially from the know to the before unknown; God knows all things eternally, by one direct, allcomprehensive intuition. (c) Our knowledge is dependent; God’s is independent. Ours is fragmentary; God’s total and complete. Ours is in great measure transient; God’s is permanent.
God knows himself – the depths of his own infinite and eternal being, the constitution of his nature, the ideas of his reason the resources of his power, the purposes of his will. In knowing the resources of his power, he knows all things possible. In knowing the immutable purposes of his will, he knows all that has existed or that will exist, because of that purpose.
Wisdom presupposes knowledge, and is that excellent practical use which the absolutely perfect intelligence and will of God make of his infinite knowledge. It is exercised in the election of ends, general and special, and in the selection of means in order to the accomplishment of those ends; and is illustrated gloriously in the perfect system of God’s works of creation, providence, and grace.
(5.) The omnipotence of God is the infinite efficiency resident in, and inseparable from, the divine essence, to effect whatsoever he wills, without any limitation soever except such as lies in the absolute and immutable perfections of his own nature. The power of God is both unlimited in its range and infinitely perfect in its mode of action. (a) We are conscious that the powers inherent in our wills are very limited. Our wills can act directly only upon the course of our thoughts and a few bodily actions, and can only very imperfectly control these. The power inherent in God’s will acts directly upon its objects, and effects absolutely and unconditionally all he intends. (b) We work through means; the effect often followers only remotely, and our action is conditioned by external circumstances. God acts immediately, with or without means as he pleases. When he acts through means it is a condescension, because the means receive all their efficiency from his power, not his power from the means. And the power of God is absolutely independent of all that is exterior to his own all-perfect nature.
The power of God is the power of his all-perfect, self-existent essence. He has absolutely unlimited power to do whatsoever his nature determines him to will. But this power cannot be directed against his nature. The ultimate principles of reason and of moral right and wrong are not products of the divine power, but are principles of the divine nature. God cannot change the nature of right and wrong, etc., because he did not make himself, and these have their determination in his own eternal perfections. He cannot act unwisely or unrighteously; not for want of the power as respects the act, but for want of will, since God is eternally, immutably, and most freely and spontaneously, wise and righteous.
God’s omnipotence is illustrated, but never exhausted, in his works of creation and providence. God’s power is exercised at his will, but there ever remains an infinite reserve of possibility lying back of the actual exercise of power, since the Creator always infinitely transcends his creation.
(6.) The absolutely perfect goodness of God. The moral perfection of God is one absolutely perfect righteousness. Relatively to his creatures his infinite moral perfection always presents that aspect which his infinite wisdom decides to be appropriate to the case. He is not alternately merciful and just, nor partially merciful and partially just, but eternally and perfectly merciful and just. Both are right; both are equally and spontaneously in his nature; and both are perfectly and freely harmonized by the infinite wisdom of that nature.
His goodness includes (a) Benevolence, or goodness viewed as a disposition to promote the happiness of his sensitive creatures; (b) Love, or goodness viewed as a disposition to promote the happiness of intelligent creatures, and to regard with complacency their excellences; (c) Mercy, or goodness exercised toward the miserable; (d) Grace, or goodness exercised toward the undeserving.
The grace of God toward the undeserving evidently rests upon his sovereign will (Matt. xi. 26; Rom. ix. 15), and can be assured to us only by means of a positive revelation. Neither reason nor conscience nor observation of nature can assure us, independently of his own special revelation, that he will be gracious to the guilty. Our duty is to forgive injuries; we as individuals have nothing to do with either forgiving or pardoning sin. That God’s goodness is absolutely perfect and inexhaustible is proved from universal experience, as well as from Scripture. James i. 17; v. 11. It is exercised, however, not in making the happiness of his creatures indiscriminately and unconditionally a chief end, but is regulated by his wisdom in order to the accomplishment of the supreme ends of his own glory and their excellence.
(7.) God is absolutely true. This is a common property of all the divine perfections and actions. His knowledge is absolutely accurate; his wisdom infallible; his goodness and justice perfectly true to the standard of his own nature. In the exercise of all his properties God is always self-consistent. He is also always absolutely true to his creatures in all his communications, sincere in his promises and threatenings, and faithful in their fulfillment.
This lays the foundation for all rational confidence in the constitution of our own natures and in the order of the external world, as well as in a divinely-accredited, supernatural revelation. It guarantees the validity of the information of our senses, the truth of the intuitions of reason and conscience, the correctness of the inferences of the understanding, and the general credibility of human testimony, and pre-eminently the reliability of every word of the inspired Scriptures.
(8.) The infinite justice of God. This, viewed absolutely, is the allperfect righteousness of God’s being considered in himself. Viewed relatively, it is his infinitely righteous nature exercised, as the moral Governor of his intelligent creatures. in the imposition of righteous laws, and. in their righteous execution. It appears in the general administration of his government viewed as a whole, and distributively in his dealing to individuals that treatment which righteously belongs to them, according to his own covenants and their own deserts. God is most willingly just, but his justice is no more an optional product of his will than is his self-existent being. It is an immutable principle of his divine constitution. He is “of purer eyes than to behold evil, and cannot look on iniquity.” Hab. i. 13. “He cannot deny himself.” 2 Tim. ii. 13. God does not make his demands just by willing them, but he wills them because they are just.
The infinite righteousness of his immutable being determines him to regard and to treat all sin as intrinsically hateful and deserving of punishment. The punishment of sin and its consequent discouragement is an obvious benefit to the subjects of his government in general. It is a revelation of righteousness in God, and a powerful stimulant to moral excellence in them.
But God hates sin because it is intrinsically hateful, and punishes it because such punishment is intrinsically righteous. This is proved –
all his harmonious and blended perfections in one perfection of absolute and infinite excellence: “And one cried to another, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory.” Isa. vi. 3.
The sovereignty of God is his absolute right to govern and dispose of the world of his own hands according to his own good pleasure. This sovereignty rests not in his will abstractly, but in his adorable person. Hence it is an infinitely wise, righteous, benevolent, and powerful sovereignty, unlimited by anything outside of his own perfections.
The grounds of his sovereignty are – -(1.) His infinite superiority. (2.) His absolute ownership of all things, as created by him. (3.) The perpetual and absolute dependence of all things upon him for being, and of all intelligent creatures for blessedness, Dan. iv. 25, 35; Rev. iv. 11.
SECTION III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.[38] The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; [39] the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [40]
[38] 1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; [39] John i. 14, 18; [40] John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6.
Having before shown that there is but one living and true God, and that his essential properties embrace all perfections, this section asserts in addition –
These propositions embrace the Christian doctrine of the Trinity (three in unity), which is no part of natural religion, though most clearly revealed in the inspired Scriptures – indistinctly, perhaps, in the Old Testament, but with especial definiteness in the New Testament.
Since there is but one God, the infinite and the absolute First Cause, his essence, being spiritual, cannot be divided. If then Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are that one God, they must each equally consist of that same essence. And since the attributes of God are the inherent properties of his essence, they are inseparable from that essence; and it follows that if Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, consist of the same numerical essence, they must have the same identical attributes in common – that is, there is common to them the one intelligence and the one will, etc.
The Scriptures are full of the evidences of this fundamental truth. It has never been questioned whether the Father is God. That the Son is the true God is proved by the following considerations: –
That the Holy Ghost is the true God is proved in a similar manner.
Since there is but one indivisible and inalienable spiritual essence, which is common to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and since they have in common one infinite intelligence, power, will, etc., when we say they are distinct persons we do not mean that one is as separate from the other as one human person is from every other. Their mode of subsistence in the one substance must ever continue to us a profound mystery, as it transcends all analogy. All that is revealed to us is, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, stand so distinguished and related that,–
testify of me;” “ Whom the Father will send in my name,” John xiv. 26, and xv. 26.
There are a number of Scripture passages in which all the three persons are set forth as distinct and yet as divine: Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; Matt. iii. 13-17; John xv. 26, etc.; 1 John v. 7.
The “attributes” of God are the properties of the divine essence, and therefore common to each of the three persons, who are “the same in substance,” and therefore “equal in power and glory.” The “properties” of each divine person, on the other hand, are those peculiar modes of personal subsistence, and that peculiar order of operation, which distinguish each from the others, and determine the relation of each to the others. This is chiefly expressed to us by the personal names by which they are revealed. The peculiar personal property of the first person is expressed by the title Father. As a person he is eternally the Father of his only begotten Son. The peculiar personal property of the second person is expressed by the title Son. As a person he is eternally the only begotten Son of the Father, and hence the express image of his person, and the eternal Word in the beginning with God. The peculiar property of the third person is expressed by the title Spirit. This cannot express his essence, because his essence is also the essence of the Father and the Son. It must express his eternal personal relation to the other divine persons, because he is as a person constantly designated as the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son. They are all spoken of in Scripture-in a constant order; the Father first, the Son second, the Spirit third. The Father sends and operates through both the Son and the Spirit. The Son sends and operates through the Spirit. Never the reverse in either case. The Son is sent by, acts for, and reveals the Father. The Spirit is sent by, acts for, and reveals both the Father and the Son. The persons are as eternal as the essence, equal in honour, power, and glory. Three persons, they are one God, being identical in essence and divine perfections. “ I and my Father are one.” John x. 30. “The Father is in me and I in him.” John x. 38. “He that hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father.” John xiv. 9 – 11.
The most ancient and universally accepted statement of all the points involved in the doctrine of the Trinity, is to be found in the Creed of the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, as amended by the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 381.
| 18. What two principal divisions does the infinite intelligence of God embrace? |
|---|
| 19. How does God’s mode of knowing differ from ours? |
| 20. What are the objects embraced by God’s knowledge? |
| 21. What is wisdom, and how is the wisdom of God exercised, and in what departments is it illustrated? |
| 22. What is included in the affirmation that God’s power is infinite? |
| 23. How does the exercise of his power differ from ours? |
| 24. What are the limitations of God’s power? And why cannot God do that which is unwise or unrighteous? |
| 25. Does the moral character of God include inconsistent elements? |
| 26. What does the absolute goodness of God include? |
| 27. How can it be proved that grace is based on sovereign will? |
| 28. How can the absolute goodness of God be proved? |
| 29. What is the grand end which that goodness proposes to itself? |
| 30. What is included in the affirmation that God is absolutely true? |
| 31. For what does this divine attribute lay the foundation? |
| 32. What is the distinction between the absolute and the relative justice of God? |
| 33. How is the relative justice of God exercised? |
| 34. Show that the justice of God is an immutable principle of his nature. |
SECTION 1: GOD from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:(l) yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, (2) nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.(3)
SECTION 2: ALTHOUGH God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;(4) yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.(5)
(1) Eph. 1:11; Rom. 11:33; Heb. 6:17; Rom. 9:15,18. (2) James 1:13,17; 1 John 1:5. (3) Acts 2:23; Matt. 17:12; Acts 4:27,28; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33. (4) Acts 15:18; 1 Sam. 23:11,12; Matt. 11:21,23. (5) Rom. 9:11,13,16,18.
These Sections affirm the following propositions:–
(d) Of the sinful actions of men. “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain” (Acts 2:23). “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, 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 to be done” (Acts 4:27,28). (Compare Gen. 37:28 with Gen. 45:7,8; Isa. 10:5.)
It must be remembered, however, that the purpose of God with respect to the sinful acts of men and wicked angels is in no degree to cause the evil, nor to approve it, but only to permit the wicked agent to perform it, and then to overrule it for his own most wise and holy ends. The same infinitely perfect and self-consistent decree ordains the moral law which forbids and punishes all sin, and at the same time permits its occurrence, limiting and determining the precise channel to which it shall be confined, the precise end to which it shall be directed, and overruling its consequences for good: “But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (Gen. 50:20).
A very obvious distinction must always be kept in mind between an event being conditioned on other events, and the decree of God with reference to that event being conditioned. Calvinists believe, as all men must, that all events in the system of things depend upon their causes, and are suspended on conditions. That is, if a man does not sow seed, he will not reap; if he does sow, and all the favorable climatic influences are present, he will reap. If a man believes, he shall be saved; if he does not believe, he will not be saved. But the allcomprehensive purpose of God embraces and determines the cause and the conditions, as well as the event suspended upon them. The decree, instead of altering, determines the nature of events, and their mutual relations. It makes free actions free in relation to their agents, and contingent events contingent in relation to their conditions; while at the same time, it makes the entire system of events, and every element embraced in it, certainly future. An absolute decree is one which, while it may determine many conditional events by determining their conditions, is itself suspended on no condition. A conditional decree is one which determines that a certain event shall happen on condition that some other undecreed event happens, upon which undecreed event the decree itself, as well as the event decreed, is suspended.
The Confession in this section teaches that all the decrees of God are unconditional.
All who believe in a divine government agree with Calvinists that the decrees of God relating to events produced by necessary causes are unconditional. The only debate relates to those decrees which are concerned with the free actions of men and of angels. The Socinians and Rationalists maintain that God cannot certainly foresee free actions, because from their very nature they are uncertain until they are performed. Arminians admit that he certainly foresees them, but deny that he determines them. Calvinists affirm that he foresees them to be certainly future because he has determined them to be so. The truth of the Calvinist view is proved-
because of God’s plan. (b) It is directly affirmed in Scripture (Dan. 4:35; Isa. 40:13,14; Rom. 9:15-18; Eph. 1:5).
The decree of God is merely a purpose which he executes in his works of creation and providence. When it is said that all the decrees of God are certainly efficacious, it is not meant that they are the proximate causes of events, but that they render, under the subsequent economy of creation and providence, every event embraced in them absolutely certain. This is evident-
This is a self-evident truth from the nature of God as an eternal, absolutely perfect, and unchangeable Being. His decrees must be absolutely perfect in wisdom and righteousness. The problem of the permission of sin is to us insoluble, because unexplained. The fact is certain, the reason beyond discovery. If God be infinitely wise and powerful, he might have prevented it. It is evident that it is consistent with absolute righteousness to permit it and to overrule it. The Arminian admits that God foresaw that sin and misery would certainly eventuate upon the conditions of creation he established. He is therefore as unable as the Calvinist is to explain why God, notwithstanding that certain knowledge, did not change those conditions.
It remains certain, however, that God is not the cause of sin because He is absolutely holy. Moreover, sin is essentially defined as a violation of God’s will (ovomia), and God cannot violate His own will. Also, having free agency we are responsible for our actions. We must assert that God has permitted sin for the purpose of overruling it in the interests of righteousness and benevolence, for His own glory and our highest good.
purpose of God at the same time determines the nature of the agent, his proper mode of action, and each action that shall eventuate. As God’s purpose cannot be inconsistent with itself, the element of it determining the nature of the agent cannot be inconsistent with the element of it determining any particular action of the agent.
Now, that a given free action is certainly future, is obviously not inconsistent with the perfect freedom of the agent in that act: (a) Because all admit that God certainly foreknows the free actions of free agents, and if so, they must be certainly future, although free. (b) God’s actions are certainly holy, though free; and the same is true of all glorified spirits in heaven. (c) The actions of the devil, and of finally reprobate men and angels, will forever be certainly wicked, yet free and responsible.
SECTION 3: BY the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels(6) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.(7)
SECTION 4: THESE angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.(8)
SECTION 5: THOSE of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory,(9) out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto;(10) and all to the praise of his glorious grace.(11)
(8) 2 Tim. 2:19; John 13:18. (9) Eph. 1:4,9,11; Rom. 8:30; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Thess. 5:9. (10) Rom. 9:11,13,16; Eph. 1:4,9. (11) Eph. 1:6,12.
The preceding sections having affirmed that the eternal, sovereign, immutable, unconditional decree of God determines all events of every class that come to pass, these sections proceed to affirm, by way of specification, the following propositions:
The Socinian holds that the free acts of men, being in their nature uncertain, cannot be foreknown as certainly future. Since, therefore, God does not foreknow who will repent and believe, his election amounts to no more than his general purpose to save all believers as a class.
The Arminian holds that God, foreseeing from all eternity who will repent and believe, elects those individuals to eternal life on that condition of faith and repentance thus certainly foreknown.
The Calvinist holds that God has elected certain individuals to eternal life, and all the means and conditions thereof, on the ground of his sovereign good pleasure. He chooses them to faith and repentance, and not because of their faith and repentance. That God does choose individuals to eternal life is certain.
SECTION 6: AS God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto.(12) Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ;(13) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified,(14) and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. (15) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only.(16)
(12) 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:4,5; 2:10; 2 Thess. 2:13. (13) 1 Thess. 5:9,10; Tit. 2:14. (14) Rom. 8:30; Eph. 1:5; 2 Thess. 2:13. (15) 1 Pet. 1:5. (16) John 17:9; Rom. 8:28; John 6:64,65; 10:26; 8:47; 1 John 2:19.
This section affirms:
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth,” to “the praise of the glory of his grace” (2 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 1:6).
(1) From the very statement of the case. The gift of Christ to die for the elect is a very adequate means to accomplish the decree of their salvation. But, on the other hand, the decree to give the efficacious influences of the Holy Ghost only to the elect is a very inadequate means of accomplishing the purpose of redeeming all men by the sacrifice of Christ. A purpose to save all and a purpose to save only some could not coexist in the divine mind.
This is only the negative statement of the same truth, designed to make the positive affirmation of it the more explicit and emphatic.
The doctrine as to the design of God in the sacrifice of Christ is stated again in Chapter 8. Section 8. of the Confession, and will be more appropriately stated and discussed in that place.
SECTION 7: THE rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.(17)
This section teaches the following propositions:
This decree of reprobation, as it is called, is the aspect which God’s eternal purpose presents in its relation to that portion of the human family which shall be finally condemned for their sins.
Reprobation consists of two elements, the negative and the positive. In its negative aspect God does not elect the reprobate, but “passes over” him; in this God is absolutely sovereign, resting upon His good pleasure alone, since those passed over are no worse than those elected. Positively, reprobation is not sovereign, but purely judicial, since God has determined to treat the reprobate according to what they deserve.
This doctrine, instead of being inconsistent with the principles of absolute justice, necessarily follows from the application of those principles to the case in hand.
This doctrine as above stated is true-
SECTION 8: THE doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,(18) that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.(19) So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, (20) and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the gospel.(21)
This section teaches that the high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care. This necessity arises from the fact that it is often abused, and that its proper use is in the highest degree important.
The principle of divine sovereignty in the distribution of grace is certainly revealed in Scripture, is not difficult of comprehension; and is of great practical use to convince men of the greatness and independence of God, of the certain efficacy of his grace and security of his promises, and of their own sin and absolute dependence. But the philosophy of the relation of his sovereign purpose to the free agency of the creature, and to the permission of moral evil, is not revealed in the Scriptures, and cannot be discovered by human reason, and therefore ought not to be rashly meddled with. This truth ought not, moreover, to be obtruded out of its due place in the system, which includes the equally certain truths of the freedom of man and the free offers of the gospel to all.
While the principle of sovereign election as lying at the foundation of all grace is thus clearly revealed, the election or nonelection of particular persons is not revealed in the Scriptures. The preceptive and not the decretive will of God is the rule of human duty. Election is first with God, and grace consequent upon it. But with man duty and grace are first, and the inference of personal election only consequent upon the possession of grace. The command to repent and believe is addressed to all men indiscriminately, and the obligation rests equally upon all. The concern of the inquirer is simply with the fact that the grace is offered, and assured to him upon condition of acceptance, and with his duty to accept and improve it. Afterward it is the great privilege of the believer to make the fact of his eternal calling and election sure, by adding to faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge etc.; for if he do these things he shall never fall (2 Pet. 1:5-10).
SECTION 1: IT pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,(1) for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness,(2) in the beginning, 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.(3)
This section teaches that matter is not self-existing; that God created the visible universe ex nihilo (from nothing) in six days, all of which was very good, to the manifestation of His own glory.
substances of things were created out of nothing was never believed by the ancient heathen philosophers, but is a fundamental principle of Christian Theism. This is proved by the following considerations:
and proprietor of all things (Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Rev. 4:11; Neh. 9:6).
The Scriptures attribute creation-(1) To God absolutely, without distinction of person (Gen. 1:1,26). (2) To the Father (1 Cor. 8:6). (3) To the Father through the Son (Heb. 1:2). (4) To the Father through the Spirit (Ps. 104:30). (5) To the Son (John 1:2,3). (6) To the Spirit (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4).
This section, using the precise words of Scripture (Ex. 20:11), declares that God performed the work of creation, in the sense of formation and adjustment of the universe in its present order, “in the space of six days.” Since the Confession was written the science of geology has come into existence, and has brought to light many facts before unknown as to the various conditions through which this world, and probably the stellar universe, have passed previously to the establishment of the present order. These facts remain in their general character unquestionable, and indicate a process of divinely regulated development consuming vast periods of time. In order to adjust the conclusions of that science with the inspired record found in the first chapter of Genesis, some suppose that the first verse relates to the creation of the elements of things at the absolute beginning, and then, after a vast interval, during which the changes discovered by science took place, the second and subsequent verses narrate how God in six successive days reconstructed and prepared the world and its inhabitants for the residence of man. Others have supposed that the days spoken of are not natural days, but cycles of vast duration. No adjustment thus far suggested has been found to remove all difficulty. The facts which are certain are-(1) The record in Genesis has been given by divine revelation, and therefore is infallibly true. (2) The book of revelation and the book of nature are both from God, and will be found, when both are adequately interpreted, to coincide perfectly. (3) The facts upon which the science of geology is based are as yet very imperfectly collected and much more imperfectly understood. The time has not come yet in which a profitable comparison and adjustment of the two records can be attempted. (4) The record in Genesis, brief and general as it is, was designed and is admirably adapted to lay the foundation of an intelligent faith in Jehovah as the absolute creator and the immediate former and providential ruler of all things. But it was not designed either to prevent or to take the place of a scientific interpretation of all existing phenomena, and of all traces of the past history of the world which God allows men to discover. Apparent discrepancies in established truths can have their ground only in imperfect knowledge. God requires us both to believe and to learn. He imposes upon us at present the necessity of humility and patience.
and relations. (2) That each and the whole was perfectly good with reference to the general and special design of God in their creation.
This is obviously a question of the highest importance. Since the chief end of every system of means and agencies must govern and give character to the whole system, so our view of the chief end of God in his works must give character to all our views as to his creative, providential, and gracious dispensations. Our Confession very explicitly takes the position that the chief end of God in his eternal purposes, and in their temporal execution in creation and providence, is the manifestation of his own glory (Chapter 3., Sections 3., 5., 7.; Chapter 4., Section 1.; Chapter 5., Section 1.; Chapter 6., Section 1.; Chapter 33., Section 2.; Larger Catechism, questions 12, 18; Shorter Catechism, question 7). That this opinion is true is proved:
SECTION 2 AFTER God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female,(4) with reasonable and immortal souls,(5) endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image,(6) having the law of God written in their hearts,(7) and power to fulfill it;(8) and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change(9) Besides this law written in their hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; (10) which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.(11)
(4) Gen. 1:27. (5) Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7; Luke 23:43; Matt. 10:28. (6) Gen. 1:26; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24. (7) Rom. 2:14,15. (8) Eccl. 7:29. (9) Gen. 3:6; Eccl. 7:29. (10) Gen. 2:17; 3:8-11,23. (11) Gen. 1:26,28.
We turn in this section to the immediate creation of man by God.
the order of being immediately below him. That man, on the contrary, was immediately created by God, his body out of earthly materials previously created and his soul out of nothing, is rendered certain by the following evidence:
One class of scientists, as Sir Charles Lyell, have concluded, from the positions and associations in which human remains have been found, that man has existed upon the Earth thousands of years before Adam, who is regarded as the ancestor only of a particular variety of the race. All this weighs nothing against the positive teaching of the Scriptures, since the facts upon which the conclusion is based are not all certainly substantiated, and have not been thoroughly digested; and in any event can prove nothing as to the relation of Adam to the race, but only that he was created longer ago than we supposed.
Another class, of which the leader is Professor Agassiz, maintain that the differences between the different varieties of the human race are so great and so persistent that it is impossible that they could have been generated from the same parents, and that the progenitors of each variety were created separately, each in their appropriate geographical center. This conclusion of science may be fairly balanced by the extreme opposite one above stated. If, in view of all the facts of the case, it is possible for one class of philosophers to conclude that men, monkeys and dogs, etc., have descended, under the modifying influence of different conditions, from like progenitors, surely it is folly for another class to affirm that it is impossible that all the varieties of men have sprung from the same parents. That the doctrine of this section is true is proved:
well as our capacity to be subjects of moral government, depends. And in this respect the likeness is indestructible.
Pelagians have held that a created holiness is an absurdity; that, in order that a permanent disposition or habit of the soul should have a moral character, it must be self-decided-i.e., formed by a previous unbiased choice of the will itself. They therefore hold that God created Adam simply a moral agent, with all the constitutional faculties prerequisite for moral action, and perfectly unbiased by any tendency of his nature either to good or evil, and left him to form his own moral character-to determine his own tendencies by his own volition. But this view is not true, because-
holy moral character to whatever dispositions or habits may be consequent upon it.
SECTION 1: GOD, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold,(1) direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things,(2) from the greatest even to the least,(3) by his most wise and holy providence,(4) according to his infallible foreknowledge,(5) and the free and immutable counsel of his own will,(6) to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.(7)
Since the eternal and immutable purpose of God has certainly predetermined whatsoever comes to pass, it follows that he must execute his own purpose not only in his works of creation, but likewise in his continual control of all his creatures and all their actions. This section therefore teaches:
If this be so, it is plain that God is the only real agent in the universe; that he is the immediate cause of all things, including all evil passions and wicked thoughts and acts; that consciousness is a thorough delusion, and the free agency and moral accountability of man vain imaginations.
That God always continues to exert his almighty power in upholding in being and in the possession and use of their endowments all things he has made is proved-
world, however trivial (Matt. 10:29). (b) Over fortuitous events (Job 5:6; Prov. 16:33). (c) Over the brute creation (Ps. 104:21-27; 147:9). (d) Over the general affairs of men (Job 12:23; Isa. 10:12-15; Dan. 2:21; 4:25). (e) Over the circumstances of individuals (1 Sam. 2:6-8; Prov. 16:9; James 4:13-15). (f) Over the free actions of men (Ex. 12:36; Ps. 33:14,15; Prov. 19:21; 21:1; Phil. 2:13). (g) Over the sinful actions of men (2 Sam. 16:10; Ps. 76:10; Acts 4:27,28). (h) Especially all that is good in man, in principle or action, is attributed to God’s constant gracious control (Phil. 2:13; 4:13; 2 Cor. 12:9,10; Eph. 2:10; Ps. 119:36; Gal. 5:22,25).
SECTION 2: ALTHOUGH in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly;(8) yet, by the same providence, he orders them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.(9)
SECTION 3: GOD in his ordinary providence makes use of means, (10) yet is free to work without,(11) above,(12) and against them,(13) at his pleasure.
These sections teach the doctrine that God’s purpose is efficacious and consistent, effected through means (secondary causes subject to His control), and that He possesses the power to effect His purpose directly and through His own energy.
always be consistent to his own plan, so his mode of action upon the creatures whose existence and constitution have been determined by that plan must always be consistent with their natures and mode of action so determined.
the soul itself, and has determined all the conditions under which its character has been formed and its activities exercised.
at times at his sovereign pleasure exercises this power, is a matter of clear and satisfactory evidence.
All natural law has its birth in the divine reason, and is an expression of will to effect a purpose. In this highest, all-comprehensive sense of the word, miracles also are according to law-they are fixed in their occurrence by God’s eternal plan, and they serve definite ends as his means of communicating with and educating finite spirits. They are in no proper sense a violation of the order of nature, but only the occasional and eternally pre-calculated interpolation of a new power, the immediate energy of the divine will. The order of nature is only an instrument of the divine will, and an instrument used subserviently to that higher moral government in the interests of which miracles are wrought. Thus the order of nature and miracles, instead of being in conflict, are the intimately correlated elements of one comprehensive system.
SECTION 4: THE almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extends itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men,(14) and that not by a bare permission,(15) but such as has joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, (16) and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends;(17) yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceeds only from the creature, and not from God; who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.(18)
(14) Rom. 11:32-34; 2 Sam. 24:1; 1 Chron. 21:1; 1 Kings 22:22,23; 1 Chron. 10:4,13,14; 2 Sam.16:10; Acts. 2:23; 4:27,28. (15) Acts 14:16. (16) Ps. 76:10; 2 Kings 19:28. (17) Gen. 50:20; Isa. 10:6,7,12. (18) James 1:13,14,17; 1 John 2:16.
This section makes no attempt to explain the nature of those providential actions of God which are concerned in the origin of sin in the moral universe, and in the control of the willful actions of his creatures in the execution of his purposes. It simply states the important facts with respect to the relation of his providence to the sins of his creatures which are revealed in Scripture. These points are–
SECTION 5: THE most wise, righteous, and gracious God, oftentimes leaves for a season his own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to make known them the hidden strength of corruption, and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled;(19) and to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for various other just and holy ends. (20)
SECTION 6: AS for those wicked and ungodly men, whom God, as a righteous judge, for former sins, blinds and hardens,(21) from them he not only withholds his grace, whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings and wrought upon in their hearts;(22) but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, (23) and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin;(24) and withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan:(25) whereby it comes to pass, that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.(26)
SECTION 7: AS the providence of God does, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it takes care of his Church, and disposes all things to the good thereof.(27)
We have seen that the providential government of God, as the execution through time of his eternal and immutable purpose, forms one connected system, and comprehends all created things and all their actions. In perfect consistency with this, these sections proceed to teach:
means to an end to the moral government which God exercises over his intelligent creatures, for whose residence, instruction, and development, the physical universe was created. Thus also the providential government of God over mankind in general is subordinate as a means to an end to his gracious providence toward his Church, whereby he gathers it out of every people and nation, and makes all things work together for good to those who are called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28), and of course for the highest development and glory of the whole body. The history of redemption through all its dispensations, Patriarchal, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Christian, is the key to the philosophy of human history in general. The race is preserved, continents and islands are settled with inhabitants, nations are elevated to empire, philosophy and the practical arts, civilization and liberty are advanced, that the Church, the Lamb’s bride, may be perfected in all her members and adorned for her Husband.
What is the first truth taught in the fifth, sixth and seventh sections?
What is the second truth there taught?
What is the third?
What is the fourth?
What is the fifth?
SECTION 1: OUR first parents being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. (1) This their sin God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. (2)
God having brought the souls of Adam and Eve into being by immediate creation holy, and with sufficient knowledge as to his will, capable of obedience yet fallible, this section proceeds to teach:
It appears to be God’s general plan, and one eminently wise and righteous, to introduce all the newly-created subjects of moral government into a state of probation for a time, in which he makes their permanent character and destiny depend upon their own action. He creates them holy, yet capable of falling. In this state he subjects them to a moral test for a time. If they stand the test, the reward is that their moral characters are confirmed and rendered infallible, and they are introduced into an inalienable blessedness forever. If they fail, they are judicially excluded from God’s favor and communion forever, and hence morally and eternally dead. This certainly has been his method of dealing with newly-created angels and men. In the case of mankind the specific test to which our first parents were subjected was their abstaining from eating of the fruit of a single tree. As this was a matter in itself morally indifferent, it was admirably adapted to be a test of their implicit allegiance to God, of their absolute faith and submission.
The dreadful sin committed by Adam and Eve seems to hvae been twofold. Their unbelief induced them to doubt the wisdom of God’s prohibition and the certainty of the divine threatening; and their disobedience to God’s will manifested their sin of unbelief. In respect to the origin of sin in this world, there are two questions which men constantly ask, and which it is impossible to answer:
A. How could sinful desires or volitions originate in the soul of moral agents created holy like Adam and Eve? Men exercise choice according to their prevailing desires and affections. If these are holy, their wills are holy. And the character of their prevailing affections and desires is determined by the moral state of their souls. If their souls are holy, these are holy; if their souls are sinful, these are sinful. Christ says, “A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil things.” “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt.” (Matt. 12:33,35.) But Adam’s heart had been created holy; how then could his action be sinful?
All our experience conspires to make the question more difficult. The sinful souls of fallen men never can give birth to holy volitions until they are regenerated by divine grace. The holy spirits of angels and glorified men in heaven are forever removed from all liability to sinful affections or actions. In both these cases the stream continues as the fountain.
Now, although we cannot explain precisely the origin of sin in the holy soul of Adam, it is plain that the difficulty lies only in our ignorance. We have none of us experienced the same conditions of free agency as those which give character to the case of Adam. We have always been under the bondage of corruption, except insofar as we are momentarily assisted against nature by supernatural grace. Now, in order that a volition shall be holy, it must spring from a positively holy affection or disposition; and as these are not native to our hearts, we cannot exercise holy volitions without grace. But Adam was in a state of probation, holy yet fallible. Saints and angels are holy and infallible, yet their infallibility is not essential to their natures, but is a superadded divine grace sustained by the direct power of God. While holiness must always be positive, rooting itself in divine love, it is plain that sin may originate in defect; not in positive alienation, but in want of watchfulness-in the temporary ascendancy of the natural and innocent appetites of the body or constitutional tendencies of the soul over the higher powers of conscience.
The external influences and the subjective motives which prompted our first parents to this dreadful sin did not in the first instance imply sin in them, but became the occasion of sin upon being allowed to occupy their minds and to sway their wills in despite of the divine prohibition. The external influences and motives combined a natural appetite for the attractive fruit with a natural desire for knowledge. But most importantly, they were seduced by the temptation of Satan, about whose fall little is known, and unto whom the true origin of sin is to be referred.
About the facts of the case there can be no doubt. (1) God did certainly foreknow that if such a being as Adam was put in such conditions as he was, he would sin as he sinned. Yet, in spite of this certain knowledge, God created that very being and put him in those very conditions; and having determined to overrule the sin for good, he sovereignly decreed not to intervene to prevent, and so he made it certainly future. (2) On the other hand, God did neither cause nor approve Adam’s sin. He forbade it, and presented motives which should have deterred from it. He created Adam holy and fully capable of obedience, and with sufficient knowledge of his duty, and then left him alone to his trial. If it be asked why God, who abhors sin, and who benevolently desires the excellence and happiness of his creatures, should sovereignly determine to permit such a fountain of pollution, degradation, and misery to be opened, we can only say, with profound reverence, “Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
SECTION 2: BY this sin they fell from their original righteousness, and communion with God,(3) and so became dead in sin,(4) and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.(5)
Naturally, man depends upon the providential sustaining power of God; but as a moral and religious being he depends upon the intimate and loving communion of God’s Spirit for spiritual life and right moral action. Therefore-
SECTION 3: THEY being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed,(6) and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generations.(7)
SECTION 4: FROM this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,(8) and wholly inclined to all evil,(9) do proceed all actual transgressions.(10)
The nature and provisions of that covenant which God made with Adam will be considered in its appropriate place, ch. 8:, s. 2. The point which demands our attention here is, that in making that covenant with Adam, God constituted him and treated with him as the moral representative of all his natural descendants. This is very explicitly taught in our Standards. Conf. Faith, ch. 7:, s. 2: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” L. Cat., q. 22: “The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.” S. Cat., q. 16: “The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.”
As we have seen, it is God’s general method of dealing with newlycreated moral agents to create them holy, yet capable of falling, and then to put them on trial for a time, making their confirmed and permanent moral character and destiny to depend upon their own action. In the case of the angels, who were severally created independent individuals, they appear to have stood their trial severally, each in his own person. Some fell, and some were confirmed in holiness and blessedness. But in the case of a race to be propagated in a series, each individual to come into existence an unintelligent infant, thence to develop gradually into moral agency, like that of mankind, it is obvious that one of three plans must be adopted: (1) The whole race must be confirmed in holiness and happiness without any probation. (2) Each individual must stand his own probation while groping his way from infancy into childhood. (3) Or the whole race must have their trial in their natural head and root, Adam. We are not in a condition to judge of the propriety of the first of these plans, but we can easily see that the third is incomparably more rational, righteous, and merciful than the second.
As a matter of fact, God did make our character and destiny to depend upon the conduct of Adam in his probation. This was right(1) Because, as sovereign Creator, and infinitely wise, righteous, and merciful Guardian of the interests of all his creatures, it seemed right in his eyes. (2) Because it was more to our advantage than any other plan that can be imagined. Adam was most advantageously constituted and circumstanced in order that he should stand the trial safely. Incalculable benefits as well as risks were suspended upon his action. If he had maintained his integrity for a limited period, all his race would have been born into an indefeasible inheritance of glory. (3) Because the covenant headship of Adam is part of a glorious constitution which culminates in the covenant headship of Christ. That Adam was, as our Standards say, “a public person,” and that the covenant was made with him “not for himself only, but for his posterity,” is proved from the facts-
Thus, “obedience,” “a cursed earth,” “the reign of death,” “painful child-bearing,” and the subsequent promise of redemption through the Seed of the woman, were spoken with reference to us as much as with reference to our first parents.
By the word “guilt” is meant, not the personal disposition which prompted the act, nor the personal moral pollution which resulted from it, but simply the just liability to the punishment which that sin deserved.
By the term “impute” is meant to lay to the charge or credit of any one as a ground of judicial punishment or justification. This is the sense in which the phrase “to impute sin” or “righteousness” is used in the Bible. “David describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, . . . to whom the Lord will not impute sin. . . . Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.” (Rom. 4:3-9.) “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” (2 Cor. 5:19.)
Our Standards expressly affirm that the “guilt,” or just liability to the penalty, of Adam’s apostatizing act is by God “imputed,” or judicially laid to the charge of each of his natural descendants. Conf. Faith, ch. 6., s. 3: “This sin was imputed . . . to all their posterity.” In L. q. 25, and S. Cat., q. 18, “the sinfulness of that estate into which the fall brought mankind” is declared to include each of the following elements:
“(1) The guilt of Adam’s first sin; (2) The want of original righteousness; (3) The corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.” The reason which our Standards give for this judicial charging the punishableness of Adam’s first sin to all his posterity is, that they really “sinned in him in his first transgression” (L. Cat., q. 22; S. Cat., q. 16); since he acted as “a public person,” and the covenant was made with him “not for himself only, but for his posterity” (L. Cat., q. 22; S. Cat., q. 16). That is, Adam, by a divine constitution, so represented and acted for all his posterity that they are fairly responsible for his action, and are worthy of punishment on account of it. Since their destiny, as well as his own, was suspended upon Adam’s action, since they were justly to have part in his reward if he was faithful, so they justly have part in his punishment for his unfaithfulness.
The Articles of the Synod of Dort affirm that moral depravity is inflicted upon all the descendants of Adam at birth “by the just judgment of God.” Ch. 3., s. 2. This is also explicitly taught in Scripture. Paul teaches, in Rom. 5:12-21, (1) That the law of death, spiritual and physical, under which we are born, is a consequent of Adam’s public disobedience; and (2) That it is a “judgment,” a “condemnation”-that is, a penal consequent of Adam’s sin: “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” (3) That the punishment of Adam’s sin comes upon us upon the same principle upon which the righteousness of Christ is charged to the account of those who believe on him: “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.” But the righteousness of Christ is imputed without works (Rom. 4:6), before, and as the necessary condition of, good dispositions or actions upon our part. So the guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity without personal works of their own, before, and as the cause of, their loss of original righteousness and acquisition of original sin. The only Sin of Adam which the Confession says was “imputed” to his descendants, and the Sin of his which they assert we “sinned in him,” was his first sin or apostatizing act. The manifest reason of this is that he represented us, and we are responsible for him only in his trial for character and destiny. His first sin, by incurring the penalty, necessarily and instantly closed his probation and ours, and he immediately became a private person.
The penalty denounced upon Adam and those whom he represented in his trial was the judicial withdrawment of the life-giving influences of the Holy Ghost, and the inevitable consequent moral and physical death. Hence every newly-created soul comes into existence judicially excluded from the life-giving influences of the Holy Spirit, and hence morally and spiritually dead. Other actual sins and miseries in time occur as the natural consequence of this birthpunishment. But the Scriptures and our own consciousness also affirm that these actual transgressions are our own personal sins, and that all the temporal and eternal punishments we suffer are on account of them.
nations, and circumstances, and how ever educated, invariably sin as soon as they become capable of moral action. A universal fact must have a cause universally present. This can only be found in the common depravity of our nature.
What the Confession teaches of man’s sinful inability to do right, in consequence of the depravity of his nature, will be considered under its appropriate head, in Chapter 9.
SECTION 5: THIS corruption of nature, during this life, remain in those that are regenerated;(11) and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.(12)
SECTION 6: EVERY sin, both original and actual. being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto, (13) doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,(14) whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,(15) and curse of the law,(16)
and so made subject to death,(17) with all miseries spiritual,(18) temporal,(19) and eternal.(20)
These sections speak of the corruption that remains in the regenerated, and of the guilt or just liability to punishment which attaches to all sin, and of the punishments God inflicts upon it.
All of these points will be more appropriately treated under the heads of Justification, Conf. Faith, ch. 11.; and of Sanctification, Conf. Faith, ch. 13.
The Catechisms. (L. Cat., q. 24; S. Cat., q. 14) define sin to be “any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.”
This corresponds exactly with what the apostle teaches (1 John 3:4): “Sin is anouia “-any discrepancy of the creature or his acts with God’s law. This is evident-
From the fact that the Holy Ghost, in convincing men of sin, always likewise convinces them of a judgment. (John 16:8.) (4) Men are “by nature children of wrath.” Eph. 2:3. (5) Even infants are redeemed by Christ. And in their case, as in all others, he redeemed them from the curse of the law, being made a curse for them. (Gal. 3:13.)
The temporal miseries indicted upon men, in the just displeasure of God for their sin, are summarily set forth in the Larger Catechism, q. 28, as “the curse of God upon the creatures for our sakes, and all other evils that befall us in our bodies, names, estates, relations, and employments; together with death itself.” This, of course, applies only to the still unbelieving, unjustified sinner; for all the tribulations which are suffered by the justified believer in this life are chastisements, designed for his benefit, and expressive of his heavenly Father’s love-not penal evils, expressive of his wrath and unsatisfied justice.
The spiritual miseries which sin brings upon the unforgiven in this life are set forth “as blindness of mind, a reprobate sense, strong delusions, hardness of heart, horror of conscience, and vile affections.” )Eph. 4:18; Rom. 1:28; 2 Thess. 2:11; Rom. 2:5; Isa. 33:14; Gen. 4:13; Matt. 27:4; Rom. 1:26; L. Cat., q. 28.)
The eternal miseries which are consequent upon unforgiven sin are set forth as “everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell-fire forever.” (2 Thess. 1:9; Mark 9:43,44,46,48; Luke 16:24.)
| 17. What is the second element of mystery in the origin of sin? |
|---|
| 18. Prove that Adam’s sin was permissively embraced in the divine decrees. |
| 19. Prove that God did neither cause nor approve it. |
| 20. Prove that God purposed to order it for his own glory. |
| 21. What is the first proposition taught in the second section? |
| 22. What is the second proposition there taught? |
| 23. What is the third? |
| 24. What is the fourth? |
| 25. Upon what does the human soul depend for spiritual life? |
| 26. Show that the life-sustaining influences of the Holy Spirit were immediately withdrawn in punishment of sin. |
| 27. What was the immediate consequence of that withdrawal? |
| 28. To what extent was the moral and spiritual character of our first parents affected? |
| 29. What is the first proposition taught in the third and fourth sections? |
| 30. What is the second proposition there taught? |
| 31. What is the third? |
| 32. What is the fourth? |
| 33. What is the fifth? |
SECTION 1: THE distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he has been pleased to express by way of covenant. (1)
SECTION 2-THE first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,(2) wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity,(3) upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.(4)
Here we come to the duty which an intelligent creature owes its Creator, that it is essential and inalienable of the creature’s being. Moreover, the enjoyment of the creator by the creature is wholly a matter of sovereign grace, manifest to man through the conditional promises (covenants) of God-the first of which concerned Adam, wherein the promise was life and the condition perfect, personal obedience.
foundation of any right on their part for the infinitely more precious gift of the personal communications of his own ineffable love and grace. God cannot be bound to take all creatures naturally capable of it into the intimacies of his own society. If he does so, it is a matter of infinite condescension and sovereign will.
The analysis of a covenant always gives the following elements: (a) Its parties. (b) Its promise. (c) Its conditions. (d) Its penalty. As to its parties, our Standards teach-
In the first covenant that concerned mankind God dealt with Adam as the representative of all his descendants. The parties, therefore, are God and Adam, the latter representing the human race. That Adam did so act as the representative of his descendants, in such a sense that they were equally interested with himself in all the merit or the demerit, the reward or the penalty, attaching to his action during the period of probation, has already been proved to be the doctrine both of our Standards and of Scripture. (Ch. 6., ss. 3, 4.) As to the further nature of this covenant, our Standards teach-The promise of it was life, the condition of it perfect obedience, and the penalty of it death. (L. Cat., q. 20; S. Cat., q. 12.)
This covenant is variously styled, from one or other of these several elements. Thus, it is called the “covenant of works,” because perfect obedience was its condition, and to distinguish it from the covenant of grace, which rests our salvation on a different basis altogether. It is also called the “covenant of life,” because life was promised on condition of the obedience. It is also called a “legal covenant,” because it demanded the literal fulfillment of the claims of the moral law as the condition of God’s favor. This covenant was also in its essence a covenant of grace, in that it graciously promised life in the society of God as the freely-granted reward of an obedience already unconditionally due. Nevertheless it was a covenant of works and of law with respect to its demands and conditions.
That the life promised was not mere continuance of existence is plain-(a) From the fact that the death threatened was not the mere extinction of existence. Adam experienced that death the very day he ate the forbidden fruit. The death threatened was exclusion from the communion of God. The life promised, therefore, must consist in the divine fellowship and the excellence and happiness thence resulting. (b) From the fact that mere existence was not in jeopardy. It is the character, not the fact, of continued existence which God suspended upon obedience. (c) Because the terms “life” and “death” are used in the Scriptures constantly to define two opposite spiritual conditions, which depend upon the relation of the soul to God. (John 5:24; 6:4; Rom. 6:23; 11:15; Eph. 2:1-3; 5:14; Rev. 3:1.)
(2) That the condition of the covenant was perfect obedience is plain from the fact-(a) That the divine law can demand no less. It is of the essence of all that is right that it is obligatory. James says, that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” James 2:10; Gal. 3:10; Deut. 27:26. (b) That the command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, relating to a thing indifferent in itself, was plainly designed to be a naked test of obedience, absolute and without limit.
This death is a condition of increasing sin and misery, resulting from excision from the only source of life. It involves the entire person, soul and body, and continues as long as the cause continues.
SECTION 3: MAN by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,(5) commonly called the covenant of grace: whereby he freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved;(6) and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.(7)
SECTION 4: THIS covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.(8)
(5) Gal. 3:21; Rom. 8:3; 3:20,21; Gen. 3:15; Isa. 42:6. (6) Mark 16:15,16; John 3:16; Rom. 10:6,9; Gal. 3:11. (7) Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:44,45. (8) Heb. 9:15-17; 7:22; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25.
Since Adam forfeited for himself and his entire race the original promise of life upon the condition of perfect obedience, and incurred the penalty of death attached to disobedience, it follows that, if the old constitution is left without supplement or modification, man is lost. If mankind is to be saved, there must be a new and gracious intervention on the part of God. And if God intervenes to save men, it must be upon a definite plan, and upon certain definitely proclaimed and accurately fulfilled conditions. That is, a new covenant must be introduced, rendering life attainable to those who are to be saved on conditions different from those offered in the preceding constitution. The question, then, relates to what is revealed in the Scriptures as to the parties to whom the promise is made, and the conditions upon which it is suspended.
The Arminian view is, that Adam having lost the promise and incurred the penalty of the covenant which demanded perfect obedience, Christ’s death having made it consistent with the claims of absolute justice, God for Christ’s sake introduces a new covenant, styled the covenant of grace, offering to all men individually the eternal life forfeited by Adam on the lowered and graciously possible condition of faith and evangelical obedience. According to this view, the new covenant is just as much a covenant of works as the old one was; the only difference is that the works demanded are far less difficult, and we are graciously aided in our endeavors to accomplish them. According to this view, also, faith and evangelical obedience secure eternal life in the new covenant in the same way that perfect obedience did in the old covenant.
This view is plainly inconsistent with the nature of the gospel. The method of salvation presented in the gospel is no compromise of principle, no lowering of terms. Christ fulfills the old legal covenant absolutely; and then, on the foundation of what he has done, we exercise faith or trust, and through that trust we are made sharers in his righteousness and beneficiaries of his grace. Faith is not a work which Christ condescends in the gospel to accept instead of perfect obedience as the ground of salvation-it is only the hand whereby we clasp the person and work of our Redeemer, which is the true ground of salvation.
The Calvinist view, therefore, is, that God having determined to save the elect out of the mass of the race fallen in Adam, appointed his Son to become incarnate in our nature; and as the Christ, or Godman Mediator, he appointed him to be the second Adam and representative head of redeemed humanity; and as such entered into a covenant with him and with his seed in him. In this covenant the Mediator assumes in behalf of his elect seed the broken conditions of the old covenant of works precisely as Adam left them. Adam had failed to obey, and therefore forfeited life; he had sinned, and therefore incurred the endless penalty of death. Christ therefore suffered the penalty, and extinguished in behalf of all whom he represented the claims of the old covenant; and at the same time he rendered a perfect vicarious obedience, which was the very condition upon which eternal life had been originally offered. All this Christ does as a principal party with God to the covenant, in acting as the representative of his own people.
Subsequently, in the administration and gracious application of this covenant, Christ the Mediator offers the blessings secured by it to all men on the condition of faith-that is, he bids all men to lay hold of these blessings by the instrumentality of faith, and he promises that if they do so they shall certainly enjoy them; and he, as the mediatorial Surety of his people, insures for them that their faith and obedience shall not fail.
For the sake of simplicity, some Calvinist theologians have set forth the divine method of human redemption as embraced in two covenants The first, styled the “covenant of redemption,” formed in eternity between the Father and Christ as principal, providing for the salvation of the elect; the second, styled the “covenant of grace,” wherein life is offered to all men on the condition of faith, and secured to the elect through the agency of Him who, as “surety of the new covenant,” insures the fulfillment of the condition in their case.
Our Standards say nothing of two covenants. They do not mention the covenant of redemption as distinct from the covenant of grace. But evidently the several passages which treat of this subject (Conf. Faith, ch. 7., s. 3; L. Cat., q. 31; S. Cat., q. 20) assume that there is but one covenant, contracted by Christ in behalf of the elect with God in eternity, and administered by him to the elect in the offers and ordinances of the gospel and in the gracious influences of his Spirit. The Larger Catechism in the place referred to teaches how the covenant of grace was contracted with Christ for his people. The Confession of Faith in these sections teaches how that same covenant is administered by Christ to his people.
The doctrine of our Standards and of Scripture may be stated in the following propositions:
according to his will. These benefits he offers to all men in the gospel. He promises to grant them on the condition they are received. In the case of his own people, he works faith in them, and as their Surety engages for them and makes good all that is suspended upon or conveyed through their agency. In the whole sphere of our experience every Christian duty is a Christian grace; for we can fulfill the conditions of repentance and faith only as it is given to us by our Surety. All Christian graces also involve Christian duties. So that Christ at once purchases salvation for us, and applies salvation to us; commands us to do, and works in us to obey; offers us grace and eternal life on conditions, and gives us the conditions and the grace and the eternal life. What he gives us he expects us to exercise. What he demands of us he at once gives us. Viewed on God’s side, faith and repentance are the gifts of the Son. Viewed on our side, they are duties and gracious experiences, the first symptoms of salvation begun-instruments wherewith further grace may be attained. Viewed in connection with the covenant of grace, they are elements of the promise of the Father to the Son, conditioned upon his mediatorial work. Viewed in relation to salvation, they are indices of its commencement and conditions sine qua non of its completion.
The present administration of this covenant by Christ, in one aspect, evidently bears a near analogy to a testament or will executed only consequent upon the death of the testator. And so in one passage our translators were correct in so translating the word diaqhkh . (Heb. 9:16,17.) But since Christ is an ever-living and constantly-acting Mediator, the same yesterday, today, and forever, this word, which expresses his present administration, should in every other instance have been translated “dispensation,” instead of “testament.” (2 Cor. 3:6,14; Gal. 3:15; Heb. 7:22; 12:24; 13:20.)
SECTION 5: THIS covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel;(9) under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come,(10) which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,(11) by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.(12)
SECTION 6: UNDER the gospel, when Christ the substance(13) was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are, the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper;(14) which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, (15) to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;(16) and is called the New Testament.(17) There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.(18)
These sections teach us concerning the covenant of grace as it has been manifest in both the old and new dispensations.
witnessed to as the Savior from sin by all the prophets. (Acts 10:43.) (2) Faith was the condition of salvation under the old dispensation in the same sense it is now. (Heb. 2:4; Ps. 2:12.) The Old Testament believers are set up for an example to those who are called to exercise faith under the New Testament. (Rom. 4:; Heb. 11:) (3) The same gracious promises of spiritual grace and eternal blessedness were administered then as now. (Compare Gen. 17:7 with Matt. 22:32; and Gen. 22:18 with Gal. 3:16. See, also, Isa. 43:25; Ps. 16:; 51:; 73:24-26; Ezek. 36:27; Job 19:25-27; Dan. 12:2,3.)
present dispensation is spiritual. (5) That was confined to one people: the present dispensation, disembarrassed from all national organizations, embraces the whole Earth. (6) That method of administration was preparatory: the present is final, as far as the present order of the world is concerned. It will give way only to that eternal administration of the covenant which shall be executed by the Lamb in the new heavens and the new earth, when there shall “be gathered together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth.” (Eph. 1:10.) More than this is not yet made known.
SECTION 1: IT pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man;(1) the Prophet,(2) Priest,(3) and King;(4) the Head and Savior of his Church;(5) the Heir of all things;(6) and Judge of the world:(7) unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed,(8) and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.(9)
Having already established the doctrine of God’s sovereign election and the doctrine of the covenant of grace between the Father and His Son, this section teaches that Christ as mediator is both God and man, exercising His authority as prophet, priest, and king. Moreover, He is Head and Savior of His Church, Heir of all things, and Judge of the world. 1. A mediator is one who intervenes between contesting parties for the sake of making reconciliation. The term is sometimes applied to independent and disinterested parties called in to arbitrate a difficulty; sometimes to a dependent messenger or agent of one of the parties to the contest employed to carry overtures to the other party. In this sense Moses was a mediator between God and the people of Israel. (Deut. 5:5; Gal. 3:19.) Sometimes it is applied to an intercessor employed by the weaker party to influence the stronger.
The Scriptures apply the term, in a higher sense than any of these, to Christ. They teach that he intervenes between God and man, not merely to sue for peace and to persuade to it, but, armed with plenipotentiary power, efficiently to make peace and to do all that is necessary to that end.
The things necessary in order to this great end fall into two classes(1) Those that respect God, and (2) Those that respect men.
displeasure of God by expiating the guilt of sin, and that he should supplicate in our behalf, and that he should actually introduce our persons and services to the acceptance of the Father.
“He executes the office of a prophet, in his revealing to the Church, in all ages, by his Spirit and Word, in divers ways of administration, the whole will of God, in all things concerning their edification and salvation.” (L. Cat., q. 43.) That this representation is true is proved from the fact that the Scriptures-(a) Explicitly call him a prophet. (Compare Deut. 18:15,18 and Acts 3:22; 7:37; Heb. 1:2.) (b) Teach that he executed the functions of a prophet before his incarnation. (Isa. 9:6; Mal. 3:1; Job 33:23; 1 Pet. 1:11.) (c) Teach that he executes the office of a prophet since his incarnation. (Matt. 11:27; John 3:2; 6:68; Rev. 7:17; 21:3.)
(2) Christ is a Priest. A priest is (a) one taken from among men, (b) to appear in the presence of God and to treat in behalf of men; and (c), in order thereto, to make propitiation and intercession. It is declared to be essential to the priest-(a) That he be a man chosen to represent men before God. Aaron always bore before the Lord for a memorial a breastplate with the names of all the tribes of Israel engraved upon it. (Ex. 28:9,12,21,29.) (b) He must be chosen of God, as his special election and property. (Num. 16:5; Heb. 5:4.) (c) He must be holy and consecrated to the Lord. (Lev. 21:6-8; Ex. 39:30,31; Ps. 106:16.) (d) He must have a right both to draw near to Jehovah and to bring near-i.e., to offer sacrifices and intercessions. (Lev. 16:315.) (e) He must have an acceptable sacrifice to offer. (Heb. 8:3.) Christ is in this sense a true priest, and he executes this office “in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to God, to be a reconciliation for the sins of his people; and in making continual intercession for them.” (L. Cat., q. 44.) That this is true is proved from the fact that the Scriptures declare-(a) That Christ possessed all the characteristic marks and qualifications of a priest. He became a man for this purpose. (Heb. 2: I6; 4:15.) He was chosen of God, as was Aaron. (Heb. 5:5,6.) He was perfectly holy, and had right of immediate approach to the Father. Heb. 8:6. (b) He is declared to be a priest in the Old Testament. The entire order of priests and the ceremonial of sacrifice were typical of him. {Zech. 6:13; Isa. 53:10; Dan. 9:24,25.) (c) The Gospel history declares that he actually discharged all the functions of a priest. He has made propitiation by a sacrificial bearing of the penalty due to sin. (Eph. 5:2; Heb. 9:26; 1 John 2:2.) He has made intercession, and he ever lives to intercede. (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25.) The work of Christ was the substance of which the entire ceremonial of the temple was the shadow. (Col. 2:17.)
His priesthood is said not to have been of the order of Aaron, because, although Aaron and his priesthood were types of Christ. and existed simply for the purpose of showing forth his work, yet they were inadequate to represent him fully and in all relations. They were inadequate chiefly-(a) With respect to the incomparable dignity and excellence of his person. (John 1:1-4,14.) (b) The infinite value of his sacrifice. (Heb. 10:1-14.) (c) The manner of their consecration. (Heb. 7:20-22.) (d) They were constantly succeeding each other, as dying men. (Heb. 7:23,24.) (e) He was a minister of a greater and more perfect tabernacle. (Heb. 9:11,24.) (f) They were mere priestshe was a royal and prophetical priest. (Zech. 6:13; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 8:1,2.)
His priesthood is said to have been of the order of Melchizedek, because-(a) Like him he was a royal priest. (b) Like him, he had no predecessors or successors in office. He was the only one of his line. (c) Because he was an eternal priest: “Thou art a priest forever, of the order of Melchizedek.” (Heb. 7:17.)
(3) Christ is sovereign Head over all things to his Church. (Eph. 1:22; 4:15; Col. 1:18; 2:19.) He executes the office of a king-(a) In calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them offices, laws, and discipline, by which he visibly governs them; (b) In bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience and correcting them for their sins, and preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings; (c) In restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory and their good; and also (d) In taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God and obey not the gospel.
This lordship differs from that which belongs essentially to the Godhead-(a) Because it is given to him by the Father as the reward of his obedience and suffering. Phil. 2:6-11. (b) The object and design of this mediatorial kingship has special reference to the upbuilding and glory of the redeemed Church. (Eph. 1:22,23.) (c) The dignity and authority belong not to his deity abstractly, but to his entire person as God-man. This power and lordship Christ already possesses, and it extends over all creatures in all worlds. (Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:17-23; Phil. 2:9-11; Jer. 23:5; Isa. 9:6; Ps. 2:6; Acts 2:29-36.) And of this kingdom there shall be no end. (Dan. 2:44; Isa. 9:7.)
Thus Christ has been shown, as Mediator, to be-
SECTION 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 fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature,(10) with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin;(11) being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary of her substance.(12) 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.(13) Which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.(14)
(10) John 1:1,14; 1 John 5:20; Phil. 2:6; Gal. 4:4. (11) Heb. 2:14,16,17; 4:15. (12) Luke 1:27,31,35; Gal. 4:4. (13) Luke 1:35; Col. 2:9; Rom. 9:5; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 Tim. 3:16. (14) Rom. 1:3,4; 1 Tim. 2:5.
The subject of this section is the constitution of the person of the Mediator as the God-man. Having proven (ch. 2., s. 3) that Jesus Christ is the one God; the second person of the Trinity, of one substance and equal with the Father, this section further dwells on the perssonality and natures of Christ.
The most ancient and universally accepted statement of the Church doctrine as to the person of Christ is that which was formed by the fourth General Council, consisting of “six hundred and thirty holy and blessed fathers,” who were convened in Chalcedon A.D. 451: “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 according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us without sin; begotten before all 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; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only Begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably, the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one Person and one Substance, 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 have from the beginning declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has delivered to us.”-
identity by physical signs. (Luke 24:36-44.) He had a reasonable soul, for he increased in wisdom, loved, sympathized, wept and shrank from suffering as a man. (John 11:33-35; Matt. 26:36-46.) (2) The human nature of Jesus is not an independent creation merely. Like ours, but it was generated out of the common life of our race, of the very substance of the Virgin Mary, by the power of the Holy Ghost. The angels do not constitute a race produced by generation, but only a collection of individuals. This distinction is emphasized when it is declared of Christ, “He took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.” (Heb. 2:16.) He is the seed of Eve (Gen. 3:15); the seed of David ( Rom. 1:3.) He was made of a woman (Gal. 4:4); conceived by her in her womb (Luke 1:31; 2:5-7).
predicated. (3) To make the matter more certain and evident, there are passages in which the person is designated by a title proper to his divine nature, while the attribute or action predicated of him is proper to his human nature; e.g., “The Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28); “Crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8.) (4) There are other passages in which the person is designated by a title proper to the human nature, while the attribute or action predicated of it is proper to the divine nature: “The Son of man, who is in heave,” (John 3:13); “If Ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before” (John 6:62). (5) There are other passages in which divine and human attributes and actions are indiscriminately predicated of the same person: “Who hath . . . translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature . . . and having made peace through the blood of his cross,” etc. (Col. 1:13-20; Heb. 1:3.)
There are in Christ, therefore, two natures, but one person; a human as well as a divine nature, but only a divine person. His humanity began to exist in the womb of the Virgin, but his person existed from eternity. His divinity is personal, his humanity impersonal, and his divine nature and his human nature one person.
It is impossible for us to explain philosophically how two selfconscious intelligences, how two self-determined free agents, can constitute one person; yet this is the precise character of the phenomenon revealed in the history of Jesus. In order to simplify the matter, some errorists have supposed that in the person of Christ there was no human soul, but that his divine spirit took the place of the human soul in his human body. Others have so far separated the two natures as to make him two persons-a God and a man intimately united. Others have so pressed the natures together that neither pure divinity nor pure humanity is left, but a new nature resulting from the mixing of both. That Christ’s two natures remain separate and unconfused, is self-evident. The very point proved in Scripture is that Christ always continued a true God and true man-not something else between the two. The essential properties of divinity cannot be communicated to humanity-that is, humanity cannot be made to be infinite, self- eternal, and absolutely perfect; because, if it possessed these, it would cease to be human; and because even God himself cannot create divinity, and therefore cannot make humanity divine. The same is true with respect to Christ’s divinity. If that should take on the limitations of humanity, it would cease to be divine, and even God is not able to destroy divinity. Hence, since Christ is both God and man, it follows that he cannot be a mixture of both, which is neither. Hence, while the Scriptures constantly affirm (as we have seen) of the one person whatsoever is true, without exception, of either nature, they never affirm of either nature that which belongs to the other. It is said that God-i.e., the person who is a God-gave his blood for his Church; but it is never said that his divinity died, or that his humanity came down from heaven.
SECTION 3: THE Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure;(15) having in him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;(16) in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell;(17) to the end, that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth,(18) he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of a Mediator and Surety.(19) Which office he took not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father;(20) who put all power and judgment into his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.(21)
SECTION 4: THIS office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake;(22) which that he might discharge he was made under the law,(23) and did perfectly fulfill it;(24) endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul,(25) and most painful sufferings in his body;(26) was crucified, and died;(27) was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption(28) On the third day he arose from the dead,(29) with the same body in which he suffered;(30) with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father,(31) making intercession;(32) and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.(33)
(15) Ps. 45:7; John 3:34. (16) Col. 2:3. (17) Col. 1:19. (18) Heb. 7:26, John 1:14. (19) Acts 10:38; Heb. 12:24; 7:22. (20) Heb. 5:4,5. (21) John 5:22,27; Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36. (22) Ps. 40:7,8; Heb. 10:5-10; John 10:18; Phil. 2:8. (23) Gal. 4:4. (24) Matt. 3:15; 5:17. (25) Matt. 26:37,38; Luke 22:44; Matt. 27:46. (26) Matt. 26 , 27. (27) Phil. 2:8. (28) Acts 2:23,24,27; Acts 13:37; Rom. 6:9. (29) 1 Cor. 15:3-5. (30) John 20:25,27. (31) Mark 16:19. (32) Rom. 14:9,10; Heb. 9:24; 7:25. (33) Rom. 14:9,10; Acts 1:11: 10:42; Matt. 13:40-42; Jude 6; 2 Pet. 2:4.
Now these sections proceed to addres the effect of Christ’s hypostatical union upon his human nature; His unique function as Mediatorial God-Man, having been voluntarily appointed to this office by the Father; His discharging of Mediatorial functions in humiliation and in exaltation.
will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” (John 5:30.) “Jesus answered them and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.” (John 7:16.) “If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:24,28,31; 10:18; 12:49; 4:34.)
The Eternal Word is of the same identical substance with and equal to the Father in power and glory. But the God-man, in his official relations and works, is officially, and as far as concerns these relations and actions alone, inferior to the Father-sent by his authority, acting for him, returning and accounting to him.
and handled,” and that of “his fullness” we may all receive, and “grace for grace” (John 1:16,18; 1 John 1:1.)
But, as we have seen, chap. 7., s. 3, in the covenant of grace the Mediator assumes in behalf of his elect seed the broken conditions of the old covenant of works precisely as Adam left them. In that covenant punishment was conditioned upon disobedience, and life and blessedness upon obedience. Therefore it was necessary that the “second Adam” should render vicarious obedience in order to secure for his people the promised reward, as well as that he should suffer the penalty in order to secure for them the remission of sins. By Christ’s suffering (passive obedience), our Confession teaches, he purchases for us reconciliation; while by his fulfilling the precepts of the law (active obedience) he purchases for us “an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven.” Chap. 8., s. 5. Christ, therefore, was “made under the law” (Gal. 4:4,5), (a) Not as a rule of righteousness, but as a condition of blessedness, “to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” (b) Not for himself, but officially as our representative. (c) His whole obedience of that law was vicarious-instead of our obedience and for our sakes. “By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.” (Rom. 5:19.)
suffering, it was a vicarious endurance of the penalty of sin. As obedience, it was the discharge in the stead and behalf of his people of that condition upon which their eternal inheritance is suspended. The two were never separated in fact. They are only the two legal aspects presented by the same life of suffering obedience. The essence of the penalty vicariously borne by Christ was “the wrath of God.” The incidents of it were “the miseries of this life.” The culmination of it was “the cursed death of the cross,” (Gen. 2:17; Heb. 9:22.)
Some (as Pearson on the Creed, pp. 333-371) have held that as Christ died vicariously as a sinner, so, in order to fulfill the law of death, his soul went temporarily to the place where the souls of those who die for their own sins die the second death forever.
The Lutherans teach that the descent of the God-man into hell, in order to triumph over Satan and his angels in the very citadel of his kingdom, was the first step in his exaltation. (Form. Of Concord, part 2., chap. 9.)
The Romanists teach that Christ went, while his body was in the grave, to that department of Hades (invisible world) which they call the Limbus Patrum , where the believers under the old dispensation were gathered, to preach the gospel to them, and to take them with him to the heaven he had prepared for them. (Cat. of the Coun. of Trent, part 1., art. 5.)
In his rising from the dead on the third day. The fact of his resurrection is proved. (a) Predicted in the Old Testament. (Compare Ps. 16:10; Acts 2:24-31.) (b) Christ himself predicted it. Matt. 20:18,19; John 10:17,8. (c) The witness of the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:3.) (d) The separate testimony of Paul. (1 Cor. 15:8; Gal. 1:12; Acts 9:3-8.) (e) He was seen by five hundred brethren at once. (1 Cor. 15:6.) (f) The miracles wrought by the apostles in attestation of the fact. (Heb. 2:4.) (g) The witness of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 5:32.) (h) The change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.
The importance of the fact is proved to be fundamental. (a) The resurrection of Christ is the pledge for the fulfillment of all the prophecies and promises of both Testaments. (b) It proved him to be the Son of God, because it authenticated his claims, and because he rose by his own power. (John 2:19; 10:17.) (c) It was a public acceptance of his mediatorial work in our behalf by the Father. (Rom. 4:25.) (d) Hence we have an advocate with the Father. (1 John 2:1; Rom. 8:34.) (e) “If Christ lives, we shall live also.” (John 14:19; 1 Pet. 1:3-5; 1 Cor. 15:21,22.) (f) His resurrection secures ours. (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:15; 15:49; Phil. 3:21; 1 John 3:2.)
The passages which speak of this session of the Mediator at the right hand of the Father are, Ps. 16:1l; 110:1; Dan. 7:13,14; Matt. 26:64; Mark 16:19; John 5:22; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20,22; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3,4; 2:9; 10:12; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 5:6. This right hand of God denotes the official exaltation of the Mediator to supreme glory, felicity, and dominion over every name that is named. It is, moreover, a definite place, since the finite soul and body of Christ must be in a definite place, and there his glory is revealed and his authority exercised. There he intercedes for his people, a priest upon his throne (Zech. 6:13); and hence he effectually applies to his people, by his Spirit, that salvation which he had previously achieved for them in his estate of humiliation.
With the presentation of “his own blood” (Heb. 9:12,24) he pleads for those who are embraced in his covenant, and for those blessings in their behalf which in that covenant were conditioned upon his obedience and suffering. (John 17:9; Luke 22:32; see John 17.) His intercession is always prevalent and successful. (John 11:42; Ps. 21:2.)
SECTION 5: THE Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal Spirit once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of his Father,(34) and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given to him. (35)
SECTION 6: ALTHOUGH the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ until after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof, were communicated to the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed and signified to be the Seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent’s head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same, and forever.(36)
(34) Rom. 5:19; Heb. 9:14,16; 10:14; Eph. 5:2; Rom. 3:25,26. (35) Dan. 9:24,26; Col. 1:19,20; Eph. 1:11,14; John 17:2; Heb. 9:12,15. (36) Gal. 4:4,5; Gen. 3:15; Rev. 13:8; Heb. 13:8.
Compare chapter 11., s. 3: “Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice in their behalf.”
These sections teach us of the effects of Christ’s mediatorial work on earth:
The Formula of Concord, a Lutheran Confession, says: “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, because he was the Lord of the law. On which account his obedience 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 sake rendered to his Father who is in heaven) remits our sins, reputes us as good and just, and gives us eternal salvation.”
the divine demand that the original covenatn of works be fulfilled through the sorrow of His life and death, and he has met the divine demand for essential justice in the punishment of sin through the obedience unto death. Christ suffered as the representative of sinners. Our sins were laid upon him. He, “hath redeemed us from the curse of the law by being made a curse for us.” He died, “the just for the unjust.” “He is the propitiation (expiation) for our sins.” He “gave his life a ransom for many.” We are “bought with a price.” (Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 2:2; Matt. 20:28; 1 Cor. 6:20.) Christ suffered only in his single human soul and body, and only for a time. Nevertheless, his person was the infinite and transcendently glorious person of the eternal Son of God. Consequently his sufferings were precisely, both in kind and in degree, what the infinitely righteous wisdom of God saw to be in strict rigor a full equivalent, in respect to the demands of legal justice, for the eternal sufferings of all for whom he suffered. This is the doctrine of the whole Christian Church. The Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, say, Art. 31: “The offering of Christ, once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual.”
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, 2.5, 63: “Whatever is due by us 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. . . . For it we are indebted to Christ alone, who, having paid the price of our sins on the cross, most fully satisfied God.”
Scriptures habitually set forth the truth that the “adoption of sons” and “eternal life” are given to the believer freely for Christ’s sake, as elements of that purchased possession of which the Holy Spirit is the earnest. (Eph. 1:11-14; Rom. 8:15-17; Gal. 1:4; 3:13,14; 4:4,5; Eph. 5:25-27; Titus 3:5,6; Rev. 1:5,6; 5:9,10.)
This proves, therefore-(1) That Christ did not die simply to make the salvation of those for whom he died possible-i.e., to remove legal obstructions to their salvation-but that he died with the design and effect of actually securing their salvation and of endowing them gratuitously with an inalienable title to heaven. (2) It proves, in the second place, that the vicarious sufferings of Christ must have been, in design and effect, personal and definite as to their object. Salvation must be applied to all those for whom it was purchased. Since not the possibility or opportunity for reconciliation, but actual reconciliation itself was purchased; since not only reconciliation, but a title to an eternal inheritance was purchased, it follows (a) That “to all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the same.” (Conf. Faith, ch. 8. s. 8.) And (b) That he who never receives the inheritance, and to whom the purchased grace is never applied, is not one of the persons for whom it was purchased.
SECTION 7: CHRIST, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself;(37) yet by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.(38)
(37) Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 3:18. (38) Acts 20:28; John 3:13; 1 John 3:16.
Under section 2. we saw-(1) That Jesus of Nazareth was a true man. (2) That he was true God. (3) That he was nevertheless one single person. (4) That his personality is eternal and divine, his human nature having been generated into the pre-existent person of the Son. (5) That these two natures remain one person, yet distinct and unchanged divinity and humanity, without mixture or confusion. This section proceeds to state:
Thus the divine nature of Christ is that fountain from which his revelation as prophet is derived. Other prophets reflect his light, or transmit what they receive from him. He is the original source of all divine knowledge. At the same time his humanity is the form through which his Godhead is revealed, his flesh the veil through which its glory is transmitted. His person as incarnate God is the focus of all revelations-the subject as well as the organ of all prophetical teaching.
Thus, also, the human nature of Christ was necessary in order that his person should be “made under the law”; and it is the subject of his vicarious sufferings, and the organ of his vicarious obedience and intercession as our representative Priest and Intercessor. At the same time, it is only the supreme dignity of his divine person which renders his obedience supererogatory and therefore vicarious, and the temporary and finite sufferings of his humanity a full equivalent in justice-satisfying efficacy for the eternal sufferings of all the elect. Thus, also, the activities of his divinity and humanity are constantly and beautifully blended in all his administrative acts as King. The last Adam, the second Man, the Head of a redeemed and glorified race, the First-born among many brethren, he has dominion over all creatures; and with a human heart acting out through the energies of divine wisdom and power, he makes all things work together for the accomplishment of his purposes of love.
All mediatorial acts are therefore to be attributed to the entire person of the Theanthropos-God-man. And in the whole or his glorious person is he to be obeyed and worshipped by angels and men.
SECTION 8: TO all those for whom Christ has purchased redemption, he certainly and effectually applies and communicates the same;(39) making intercession for them;(40) and revealing to them, in and by the Word, the mysteries of salvation;(41) effectually persuading them by his Spirit to believe and obey; and governing their hearts by his Word and Spirit;(42) overcoming all their enemies by his almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as are most consonant to his wonderful and unsearchable dispensation.(43)
(39) John 6:37,39; 10:15,16. (40) 1 John 2:1,2; Rom. 8:34. (41) John 15:13,15; Eph. 1:7-9; John 17:6. (42) John 14:16; Heb. 12:2; 2 Cor. 4:13; Rom. 8:9,14; 15:18,19; John 17:17. (43) Ps. 110:1; 1 Cor. 15:25,26; Mal. 4:2,3; Col. 2:15.
and Surety of the covenant and mediatorial King, and of his session at the right hand of God.
Our Standards, it will be observed, very explicitly teach that Christ, as mediatorial Priest, made expiation and purchased salvation for certain definite persons. Thus, in chap. 3. s. 6, it is said: “As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has he by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ. . . . Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, . . . but the elect only.” Here it is expressly affirmed (1) That Christ died upon the cross on purpose to carry out the eternal purpose of God in the election of certain individuals to eternal life. (2) That Christ died for the purpose of saving no other than the elect.
In chap. 8., s. 5: “The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, . . . purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given to him.” Here it is expressly taught-(1) That the design of Christ in dying was not simply to make the salvation of all men possible, but actually to purchase reconciliation for those given to him by the Father. (2) That for the same persons Christ actually purchases, and consequently infallibly secures, an eternal inheritance in heaven.
In chapter 8., s. 8, it is said: “TO ALL THOSE for whom Christ has purchased redemption, he certainly and effectually applies and communicates the same.” L. Cat., q. 59: “Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ has purchased it.” When this Confession was written, the phrase “to purchase redemption” was used in the sense in which we use the phrase “make atonement for sin.” So it was so used by Baxter in his work, “Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ”; and by Dr. Isaac Barrow in his sermon entitled “The Doctrine of Universal Redemption Asserted and Explained.” Dr. Henry B. Smith, in his edition of Hagenbach, vol. 2., pp. 356, 357, says that our Confession uses the phrase in the same sense.
The entire truth upon this subject, as set forth in our Standards, may be stated summarily in the following propositions:
| 21. Prove that he possesses and exercises this universal mediatorial dominion now. |
|---|
| 22. What is the subject of the third section? |
| 23. What is the first proposition which it teaches? |
| 24. What is the second proposition here taught? |
| 25. What is the third? |
| 26. What is the fourth? |
| 27. What is the fifth? |
| 28. What is the sixth? |
| 29. How is this doctrine stated in the Nicene Creed? |
| 30. How is it stated in the Athanasian Creed? |
| 31. Prove that Jesus was a true man. |
| 32. Show that he was born of the substance of his mother. |
| 33. Prove that he was absolutely without sin. |
| 34. Prove that he was one single person. |
| 35. How do the Scriptures apply divine and human titles and predicates to Christ? |
| 36. Is the personality of Christ divine or human? |
| 37. Prove that his person is divine and eternal. |
| 38. What relation does his humanity sustain to the Person? |
| 55. What was the design and significance of his undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God and the cursed death of the cross? |
|---|
| 56. What different explanations have been given of the phrase in the Creed, “He descended into hell?” |
| 57. What is the explanation given in the Confession? |
| 58. How is the fact of Christ’s resurrection proved? |
| 59. Show why this fact is of fundamental importance. |
| 60. When, how and for what purpose did he ascend to heaven? |
| 61. What is meant by saying he sits at the right hand of God? |
| 62. For what great purpose does he assume and exercise this authority and power? |
| 63. In what manner, for whom, for what and with what effect does he intercede? |
| 64. What is the first proposition taught in sections 5-6? |
| 65. What is the second proposition there taught? |
| 66. What is the third? |
| 67. What is the fourth? |
| 68. In what two ways did Christ make satisfaction for us? |
| 69. How is this truth stated in the Heidelberg Catechism and Formula of Concord? |
| 70. Prove that Christ has in strict rigor fully satisfied the justice of God. |
What do they teach as to the design of the Father and the Son in the act of redemption?
What do they teach of the certainty of its application to all for whom it was originally designed?
Note.-Mr. Calamy, who represented the most moderate Calvinism entertained by any members of the Assembly, said (see Mitchell’s “Minutes of West. Ass.,” ed. AD 1874, p.152), “I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense, but that I hold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all-absolute for the elect, conditional intention for the reprobate, in case they do believe-that all men should be salvibiles non obstante lapsu Adami.”
[1] Dr. Charles Hodge.
Section I: God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.[1]
This section teaches the great fundamental truth of consciousness and. revelation, which renders moral government possible – that man, in virtue of his creation, is endowed with an inalienable faculty of self-determination, the power of acting or not acting, and of acting in the way which the man himself, upon the whole view of the case, desires at the time. There are only three generically different views upon this subject possible: –
That the first-stated view is not true is proved – (1.) From the universal consciousness of men with respect to their own action, and observation of the action of other men. We are all conscious of possessing the power of determining our own action irrespective of any or of all external influences. In every case of deliberate choice we are conscious that we might have chosen the opposite if we had wished to do so, all outward circumstances remaining unchanged. We see that all material substances act only as they are acted upon, and in the same conditions invariably act in the same way. But, on the other hand, we see that our fellow-men, like ourselves, possess without exception the power of originating action; and that, if they please, they act very variously under the same circumstances. Circumstances, including the sum total of conditions and relations, control the action of all material agents, while personal agents control circumstances.
That the second view, which supposes that a man possesses the power to choose without respect to his judgments or inclinations is not true; and that the third view, which supposes that a man possesses the inalienable faculty of choosing as upon the whole he judges right or desirable, is true, are proved –
Section II: Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]
Section III: Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]
Section IV: When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.[10]
Section V: The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.[11]
These sections briefly state and contrast the various conditions which characterize the free agency of man in his four different estates of innocency, hereditary sin, grace, and glory. In all these estates man is unchangeably a free, responsible agent, and in all cases choosing or refusing as, upon the whole, he prefers to do. A man’s volition is as his desires are in the given case. His desires in any given case are as they are determined to be by the general or permanent tastes, tendencies, and habitudes of his character. He is responsible for his desires, because they are determined by the nature and permanent characteristics of his own soul. He is responsible for these, because they are the tendencies and qualities of his own nature. If these are immoral, he and his actions are immoral. If these are holy, he and his actions are holy.
When we say that man is a free agent, we mean (1.) That he has the power of originating action; that he is self-moved, and does not only move as he is moved upon from without. (2.) That he always wills that which, upon the whole view of the case presented by his understanding at the time, he desires to will. (3.) That man is furnished with a reason to distinguish between the true and the false, and a conscience to distinguish between the right and the wrong, in order that his desires and consequent volitions may be both rational and righteous; and yet his desires are not necessarily either rational or righteous, but they are formed under the light of reason and conscience, either conformable or contrary to them, according to the permanent habitual disposition or moral character of the soul itself.
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, Art. 10: “ The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will.”
Articles of Synod of Dort, chap. iii., Art. 3: “All men are conceived in sin, and born children of wrath, indisposed to all saving good, propense to evil, dead in sins and the slaves of sin; and without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to correct their depraved nature, or to dispose themselves to the correction of it.”
Form of Concord, p. 579, Hase’s Collection (Lutheran): “ Therefore we believe that as it is impossible for a dead body to revive itself, or to communicate animal life to itself, in the same degree is it impossible for a man, spiritually dead by reason of sin, to recall spiritual life within himself.” lb. p. 653: “We believe that neither the intellect, heart, nor will of the unregenerate man, is able of its own natural strength either to understand, believe, embrace, will, begin, perfect, perform, operate, or cooperate anything, in things divine and spiritual; but man is so far dead and corrupt in respect to good, that in the nature of man since the fall, and before regeneration, there is not even a scintilla of spiritual strength remaining whereby he can prepare himself for the grace of God, or apprehend that grace when offered, or is able in whole or in half, or in the least part, to apply or accommodate himself to that grace, or to confer or to act, or to operate or to co-operate anything for his own conversion.”
By liberty we mean the inalienable prerogative of the human soul of exercising volition as it pleases. In this sense man is as free now as before the fall. By ability we mean the capacity either to will in opposition to the desires and affections of the soul at the time, or by a bare exercise of volition to make oneself desire and love that which one does not spontaneously desire or love. We affirm that liberty is, and that ability in this sense is not, an element of the constitution of the soul. A man always wills as upon the whole he pleases, but he cannot will himself to please differently from what he does please.
The moral condition of the heart determines the act of the will, but the act of the will cannot change the moral condition of the heart.
This inability is – (1.) Absolute. Man has no power, direct or indirect, to fulfill the moral law, or to accept Christ, or to change his nature so as to increase his power; and so can neither do his duty without grace, nor prepare himself by himself for grace. (2.) It is purely moral, because man possesses since the fall as much as before all the constitutional faculties requisite to moral agency, and his inability has its ground solely in the wrong moral state of those faculties. It is simply the evil moral disposition of the soul. (3.) It is natural, because it is not accidental, but innate and inheres in the universal and radical moral state of our souls by nature; that is, as that nature is naturally propagated since the fall. (4.) It is not natural in the sense of belonging to the nature of man as originally formed by God, or as resulting from any constitutional deficiency, or development of our natural moral faculties as originally given by God.
That this doctrine is true is proved – (1.) From direct declarations of Scripture: “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.” Jer. xiii. 23. “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him……No man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of my Father.” John vi. 44, 65; Rom. ix. 16; 1 Cor. ii. 14. (2.) From what the Scriptures say of man’s state by nature. It is declared to be a state of “ blindness “ and “darkness “ and of “ spiritual death.” Eph. iv. 18; Col. ii. 13. The unregenerate are the “servants of sin” and “subject to Satan.” Rom. vi. 16, 20; 2 Tim ii. 26; Matt. xii. 33 – 36. (3.) From what the Scriptures say of the nature and the universal and absolute necessity of regeneration: “ Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” John iii. 3. It is called a new birth, a new creation, a begetting anew, a giving a new heart. John iii. 3, 7; Eph. ii. 10; 1 John v. 18; Ezek. xxxvi. 26. In this work God is the agent, man is the subject. It is so great that it requires the “mighty power” of God. Eph. i. 18 – 20. All Christian duties are declared to be “ the fruits of the Spirit.” Gal. v. 22, 23. (4.) From the experience of every true Christian. (5.) From the consciousness of every convinced sinner. The great burden of all true conviction is not chiefly the sins committed, but the sinful deadness of heart and aversion to divine things, which is the root of actual transgression, and which remains immovable in spite of all we do. (6.) From the universal experience of the human race. If any man has ever naturally possessed ability to perform his spiritual duties, it is certain that no one has ever exercised it.
As to the estate into which the regenerate are introduced by grace, our Standards affirm – (1.) The regenerated Christian remains, as before, a free agent, willing always as upon the whole he desires to will. (2.) In the act of regeneration the Holy Spirit has implanted a new spiritual principle, habit, or tendency in the affections of the soul, which, being subsequently nourished and directed by the indwelling Spirit, frees the man from his natural bondage under sin, and enables him prevailingly to will freely that which is spiritually good. And yet, because of the lingering remains of his old corrupt moral habit of soul, there remains a conflict of tendencies, so that the Christian does not perfectly nor only will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil. These points will be discussed under chapters x. and xiii.
As to the estate of glorified men in heaven, our Confession teaches that they continue, as before, free agents, but that, all the remains of their old corrupt moral tendencies being extirpated for ever, and the gracious dispositions implanted in regeneration being perfected, and the whole man being brought to the measure of the stature of perfect manhood in the likeness of Christ’s glorified humanity, they remain for ever perfectly free and immutably disposed to perfect holiness. Adam was holy and unstable. Unregenerate men are unholy and stable; that is, fixed in unholiness. Regenerate men have two opposite moral tendencies contesting for empire in their hearts. They are cast about between them, yet the tendency graciously implanted gradually in the end perfectly prevails. Glorified men are holy and stable. All are free, and therefore responsible.
| 1. What is taught in the first section? |
|---|
| 2. What view as to the nature of human agency is first stated above? |
| 3. What is the second view stated above? |
| 4. What is the true view? |
| 5. Prove that the first stated view is not true. |
| 6. In what sense and under what limitations are we conscious of the power of contrary choice? |
| 7. Does consciousness teach that the will of man or the man himself is free when he acts? How does this bear upon the question in hand? |
| 8. Whence do volitions derive their rational and moral character? |
| 9. What would be the inevitable results if the volitions of men were decided irrespectively of all their mental and emotional states at the time? |
| 10. What do the second, third, fourth and fifth sections teach? |
| 11. When is a man a free agent? |
| 12. Why is a man responsible for his volitions? Why for his desires? Why for the permanent moral state of his soul? |
| 13. What elements must meet together to constitute a man a free agent? |
| 14. What were the peculiar characteristics of Adam’s free agency? |
Section I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,[1] by his Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.[8]
Section II. This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
II Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 9:11
I Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-9; Titus 3:4-5
John 6:37; Ezek. 36:27; I John 3:9; 5:1
THERE is an outward call of God’s Word, extended to all men to whom the gospel is preached, which is considered under the fourth section of this chapter. The first and second sections treat of the internal effectual call of God’s Spirit, which effects regeneration, and which is experienced only by the elect. Of this internal call it is affirmed: –
All these arguments conspire to prove that this spiritual influence is essential to salvation. Whatever is the necessary condition of regeneration is the necessary condition of salvation, because “except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John iii. 3.
experienced by men is proved – (a.) From the fact that the Scriptures affirm that they are resisted. Gen. vi. 3; Heb. x. 29. (b.) Every Christian is conscious that anterior to his conversion he was the subject of influences impressing him with serious thoughts, convincing him of sin, tending to draw him to the obedience of Christ, which he for the time resisted. We observe the same to be true of many men who are never truly converted at all.
(2.) The distinction between regeneration and conversion is obvious and necessary. Under chapter ix. we saw that the voluntary acts of the human soul are determined by, and derive their character from, the affections and desires which prompt them; and that these affections and desires derive their character from the permanent moral state of the soul in which they arise. In the unregenerate this permanent moral state and disposition of the soul is evil, and hence the action is evil. Action positively holy is impossible except as the consequence of a positively holy disposition. The infusion of such a disposition must therefore precede any act of true spiritual obedience. Effectual calling, according to the usage of our Standards, is the act of the Holy Spirit effecting regeneration. Regeneration is the effect produced by the Holy Spirit in effectual calling. The Holy Spirit, in the act of effectual calling, causes the soul to become regenerate by implanting a new governing principle or habit of spiritual affection and action. The soul itself, in conversion, immediately acts under the guidance of this new principle in turning from sin unto God through Christ. It is evident that the implantation of the gracious principle is different from the exercise of that principle, and that the making a man willing is different from his acting willingly. The first is the act of God solely; the second is the consequent act of man, dependent upon the continued assistance of the Holy Ghost.
That God is the sole agent in the act which effects regeneration is plain – (a.) From the nature of the case, as shown above. The making an unwilling man willing cannot be co-operated with by the man while unwilling. (b.) From what was proved under chapter ix., section 3, as to man’s absolute inability with respect to spiritual things. (c.) From what the Scriptures say as to the nature of the change. They call it “a new birth,” “ a begetting,” “a quickening,” “a new creation.” “God begetteth, the Spirit quickeneth;” “ We are born again,” “ We are God’s workmanship.” John iii. 3, 5 – 7; 1John v. 18; Eph. ii. 1, 5, 10. See also Ezek. xi. 19; Ps. li. 10; Eph iv. 23; Heb. viii. 10. That, after regeneration, the new-born soul at once begins and ever continues more or less perfectly to co-operate with sanctifying grace, is self-evident. Faith, repentance, love, good works, are one and all at the same time “fruits of the Spirit” and free actions of men. We are continually conscious, moreover, that we are subject to divine influences, which we are either resisting or obeying, and which we are free to resist or obey as we please, while through grace we do prevailingly please to obey.
That this Divine influence is perfectly congruous to our nature is plain – (1.) From the fact that it is the influence of an all-wise Creator upon the work of his own hand. It is not conceivable either that God is unable or indisposed to control the actions of his creatures in a manner perfectly consistent with their nature. (2.) The influence he exerts is called in Scripture “ a drawing,” “a teaching,” “an enlightening,” etc. John vi. 44, 45; Eph. i. 18. (3.) By nature the mind is darkened and the affections perverted and the will enslaved by sin. Regeneration restores these faculties to their proper condition. It cannot be inconsistent with a rational nature to let in the light, nor to a free will to deliver it from bondage. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” 2 Cor. iii. 17; Phil. ii. 13; Ps. cx. 3. Every regenerated man is conscious – (a.) That no constraint has been laid upon the spontaneous movement of his faculties; and (b.) That, on the other hand, none of his faculties ever acted so freely and consistently with the law of their nature before.
That this change is permanent will be shown under chapter xvii., on the Perseverance of the Saints.
That it affects the entire man – intellect, affections, and will – is evident – (1.) From the essential unity of the soul. It is the one indivisible “I” which thinks, feels, and wills. If the permanent moral state of the soul is corrupt, all its functions must be perverted. We can have no desire for an object unless we perceive its loveliness; nor can we perceive intellectually the loveliness of that which is wholly uncongenial to our inherent tastes and dispositions. (2.) The Scriptures expressly affirm that sin is essentially deceiving, that innate depravity involves moral blindness, and that the natural man cannot receive the tidings which are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. ii. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4; John xvi. 3. (3.) The Scriptures expressly affirm that all the “new-born” are the subjects of a spiritual illumination of the understanding as well as renewal of the affections. John xvii. 3; 1
Cor. ii. 12, 13; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph. i. 18; 1 John iv. 7; v. 20. (4.) In the Bible the phrase “ to give a new heart” is equivalent to effect regeneration; and the phrase “heart” is characteristically used for the entire interior man – intellect, affections, and, will. Observe such phrases as “counsels of the heart,” 1 Cor. iv. 5; “imaginations of the heart,” Luke i. 51; “thoughts and intents of the heart,” Heb. iv. 12.
Section III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit,[12] who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth:[13] so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.[14]
Gen. 17:7; Luke 1:15; 18:15-16; Acts 2:39; John 3:3, 5; I John 5:12
John 3:8 14. John 16:7-8; I John 5:12; Acts 4:12
The outward call of God’s Word, and all the “means of grace” provided in the present dispensation, of course presuppose intelligence upon the part of those who receive them. The will of God, also, is revealed only as far as it concerns those capable of understanding and profiting by the revelation. His purposes with respect to either persons or classes not thus addressed are not explicitly revealed.
If infants and others not capable of being called by the gospel are to be saved, they must be regenerated and sanctified immediately by God without the use of means. If God could create Adam holy without means, and if he can new-create believers in righteousness and true holiness by the use of means which a large part of men use without profit, he can certainly make infants and others regenerate without means. Indeed, the natural depravity of infants lies before moral action, in the judicial deprivation of the Holy Ghost. The evil is rectified at that stage, therefore, by the gracious restoration of the soul to its moral relation to the Spirit of God. The phrase “elect infants” is precise and fit for its purpose. It is not intended to suggest that there are any infants not elect, but simply to point out the facts - (1.) That all infants are born under righteous condemnation; and (2.) That no infant has any claim in itself to salvation; and hence (3.) The salvation of each infant, precisely as the salvation of every adult, must have its absolute ground in the sovereign election of God. This would be just as true if all adults were elected, as it is now that only some adults are elected. It is, therefore, just as true, although we have good reason to believe that all infants are elected. The Confession adheres in this place accurately to the facts revealed. It is certainly revealed that none, either adult or infant, is saved except on the ground of a sovereign election; that is, all salvation for the human race is pure grace. It is not positively revealed that all infants are elect, but we are left, for many reasons, to indulge a highly probable hope that such is the fact. The Confession affirms what is certainly revealed, and leaves that which revelation has not decided to remain, without the suggestion of a positive opinion upon one side or the other.
Section IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,[15] and may have some common operations of the Spirit,[16] yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:[17] much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever,[17] be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess.[18] And, to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.[19]
This section, taken in connection with the parallel passage in L. Cat., q. 60, teaches the following propositions: –
the Word of God. Rom, x. 13 – 17; Matt. xi. 27; John xiv. 6; xvii. 3; Acts iv. 12.
SECTION 1 THOSE whom God effectually calls he also freely justifies,(1) not by infusing righteousness into them but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience, to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,(2) they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.(3)
SECTION 2 FAITH, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness is the sole instrument of justification;(4) yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.(5)
We come now to the sections which instruct us on the nature and reality of justification.
judicial act of God, whereby he declares us to be conformed to the demands of the law as the condition of our life; it is not an act of gracious power, making us holy or conformed to the law as a standard of moral character. The Romanists use the term “justification” in a vague and general sense, as including at once the forgiveness of sins and the infusion of grace. Socinians, and those who teach the moral influence theory of the atonement, regard justification as meaning the same as sanctification; that is, the making a man personally holy. The true sense of Justification, stated above, is, when taken in its connection with faith, the grand central principle of the Reformation, brought out and triumphantly vindicated by Luther. That it is true is proved-
On the other hand, justification (a) Is the act of a judge, not of a sovereign. (b) It rests purely upon the state of the law and of the facts, and is impossible where there is not a perfect righteousness. (c) It pronounces the law not relaxed, but fulfilled in its strictest sense. (d) It declares the person justified to be justly entitled to all the honors advantages suspended upon perfect conformity to all the demands of law. The truth of this proposition is proved-
We are “made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor. 5:21.) Justification is paraphrased as “not imputing sin”; as “imputing righteousness without works.” (Rom. 4:6-8.)
Arminians hold that for Christ’s sake the demands of the law are graciously lowered, and faith and evangelical obedience accepted in the place of perfect obedience as the ground of justification. Our Standards and all the Reformed and Lutheran Confessions teach that the true ground of justification is the perfect righteousness (active and passive) of Christ, imputed to the believer, and received by faith alone. S. Cat., q. 33. This is proved-
This doctrine of our Standards is that of the whole Protestant body of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches.
Calvin says in his Institutes, b. 3., ch. 11., s. 2: “A man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and, clothed in it, appears in the sight of God, not as a sinner, but as righteous.” The Heidelberg Cat., q. 60: “How art thou justified in the sight of God? Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuse me that I have grossly transgressed all the commandments of God, and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil, notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ.”
Lutheran Form. of Concord: “That righteousness which before God is of mere grace imputed to faith, or to the believer, is the obedience, suffering, and resurrection of Christ, by which he for our sakes satisfied the law and expiated our sins. . . . On which account his obedience . . . is imputed to us; so that God, on account of that whole obedience . . . remits our sins, reputes us as good and just, and gives us eternal salvation.”
sake of faith. Rom. 5:1; Gal. 2:16.
SECTION 3 CHRIST, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction, to his Father’s justice in their behalf.(6) Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them,(7) and his obedience and satisfaction in their stead,(8) and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace;(9) that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.(10)
Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7. (10) Rom. 3:26; Eph. 2:7.
The first truth asserted in this section is, that Christ, by his obedience and death, has fully paid the debt of those who are Justified; and that he made for them a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father’s justice. In connection with the above, the second truth that is taught here is, that this justification is, as it respects the persons justified, from beginning to end a stupendous manifestation of the free grace of God.
The fact that Christ’s righteousness is the ground of justification, and that his righteousness in strict rigor fully satisfies all the demands of the divine law, instead of being inconsistent with the perfect freedom and graciousness of justification, vastly enhances its grace. It is evident that God must either sacrifice his law, his elect, or his Son (Gal. 2:21; 3:21). It is no less plain that it is a far greater expression of love and free grace to save the elect at the expense of such a sacrifice than it would be to save them either at the sacrifice of principle or in case no sacrifice of any kind was needed. The cross of Christ is the focus in which the most intense rays alike of divine grace and justice meet together, in which they are perfectly reconciled. This is the highest reach of justice, and at the same time and for the same reason the highest reach of grace the universe can ever see. The self-assumption of the penalty upon the part of the eternal Son of God is the highest conceivable vindication of the absolute inviolability of justice, and at the same time the highest conceivable expression of infinite love. Justice is vindicated in the vicarious suffering of the very penalty in strict rigor. Free grace is manifested-(1) In the admittance of a vicarious sufferer. (2) In the gift of God’s beloved Son for that service. (3) In the sovereign election of the persons to be represented by him. (4) In the glorious rewards which accrue to them on condition of that representation.
SECTION 4 GOD did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect; (11) and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification.(12) Nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit in due time actually applies Christ unto them. (13)
(11) Gal. 3:8; 1 Pet. 1:2,19,20; Rom. 8:30. (12) Gal. 4:4; 1 Tim. 2:6; Rom. 4:25. (13) Col. 1:21,22; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:4-7.
It has been objected to our doctrine by some Arminians, and held as a part of it by some Antinomians, that if Christ literally paid the debt of his elect in his obedience and suffering when on earth, it must follow that the elect have been justified from the moment that debt was paid. The Scriptures, on the contrary, as well as all Christian experience, make it certain that no one is justified until the moment that God gives him saving faith in Christ.
Christ paid the penal, not the money debt of his people. It is a matter of free grace that his substitution was admitted. The satisfaction, therefore, does not liberate ipso facto , like the payment of a money debt, but sets the real criminal free only on such conditions and at such times as had been previously agreed upon between God, the gracious sovereign, on the one hand, and Christ, their representative and substitute, on the other hand. Christ died for his people in execution of a covenant between himself and his Father, entered into in eternity. The effects of his death, therefore, eventuate precisely as and when it is provided in the covenant that it should do so.
SECTION 5 GOD continues to forgive the sins of those who are justified;(14) and although they can never fall from the state of justification,(15) yet they may by their sins fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.(16)
(14) Matt. 6:12; 1 John 1:7,9; 2:1,2. (15) Luke 22:32; John 10:28; Heb. 10:14. (16) Ps. 89:31-33; 51:7-12; 32:5; Matt. 26:75; 1 Cor. 11:30,32; Luke 1:20.
This section teaches that justification changes radically and permanently the relation which the subject of it sustains both to God and to the demands of the divine law viewed as a condition of favor. Before justification, God is an angry judge, holding the sentence of the condemning law for a season in suspense.
After justification, the law instead of condemning acquits, and demands that the subject be regarded and treated like a son, as is provided in the eternal covenant; and God, as a loving Father, proceeds to execute all the kind offices which belong to the new relation. This requires, of course, discipline and correction, as well as instruction and consolation. All suffering is either mere calamity, when viewed aside from all intentional relation to human character; or penalty, when designed to satisfy justice for sin; or chastisement, when designed to correct and improve the offender. Irrespective of the economy of redemption, all suffering is to the reprobate installments of the eternal penalty. After justification, all suffering to the justified, of whatever kind, is fatherly chastisement, designed to correct their faults and improve their graces. And as they came, in the first instance, to God in the exercise of repentance and faith in Christ, so must they always continue to return to him after every partial wandering and loss of his sensible favor in the exercise of the same repentance and faith; and thus only can they hope to have his pardon sensibly renewed to them. Examine the proof-texts appended above to the text of this section of the Confession.
SECTION 6 THE justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.(17)
(17) Gal. 3:9,13,14; Rom. 4:22-24; Heb. 13:8.
The truth taught in this section has already been fully proved above, under chapter 7., ss. 4-6; and chapter 8., s. 6.
All those that are justified, god vouchsafes, in and for his only son jesus christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption,(1) by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of god;(2) have his name put upon them,(3) receive the spirit of adoption;(4) have access to the throne of grace with boldness;(5) are enabled to cry, abba, father;(6) are pitied,(7) protected,(8) provided for,(9) and chastened by him as by a father; (10) yet never cast off,(11) but sealed to the day of redemption,(12) and inherit the promises,(13) as heirs of everlasting salvation.(14)
(1) Eph. 1:5; Gal. 4:4,5. (2) Rom. 8:17; John 1:12. (3) Jer. 14:9; 2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 3:12. (4) Rom. 8:15. (5) Eph. 3:12; Rom. 5:2. (6) Gal. 4:6. (7) Ps. 103:13. (8) Prov. 14:26. (9) Matt. 6:30,32; 1 Pet. 5:7. (10) Heb. 12:6. (11) Lam. 3:31. (12) Eph. 4:30. (13) Heb. 6:12. (14) 1 Pet. 1:3,4; Heb. 1:14.
The instant a believer is united to Christ in the exercise of faith, there is accomplished in him simultaneously and inseparably two things: (1) A total change of relation to God, and to the law as a covenant of life; and (2) A change of his inward spiritual nature. The change of relation is represented by justification-the change of nature by regeneration. REGENERATION is an act of God, originating, by a new creation, a new spiritual life in the heart of the subject. The first and instant act of that new creature, consequent upon his regeneration, is FAITH, or a believing, trusting embrace of the person and work of Christ. Upon the exercise of faith by the regenerated soul, JUSTIFICATION is the instant act of God, on the ground of that perfect righteousness which the sinner’s faith has apprehended, declaring him to be free from all condemnation, and to have a legal right to the relations and benefits secured by the covenant which Christ has fulfilled in his behalf. SANCTIFICATION is the progressive growth toward the perfect maturity of that new life which was implanted in regeneration. ADOPTION presents the new creature in his new relations-his new relations entered upon with a congenial heart, and his new life developing in a congenial home, and surrounded with those relations which foster its growth and crown it with blessedness. Justification effects only a change of relations. Regeneration and sanctification effect only inherent moral and spiritual states of soul. Adoption includes both. As set forth in Scripture, it embraces in one complex view the newly-regenerated creature in the new relations into which he is introduced by justification.
This divine sonship, into which the believer is introduced by adoption, includes the following principal elements and advantages-
SECTION : I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection,[1] by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, [5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]
2. John 17:17, 19; Eph. 5:26; Rom. 8:13-14; II Thess. 2:13 3. Rom. 6:6, 14 4. Gal. 5:24; Rom. 8:13 5. Col. 1:10-11; Eph. 3:16-19 6. II Cor. 7:1; Col. 1:28, 4:12; Heb. 12:14
S ECTION: II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;[7] yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;[8] whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]
7. I Thess. 5:12; Rom. 12:1-2 8. I John 1:8-10; Rom. 7:14-25; Phil. 3:12
S ECTION: III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome;[11] and so, the saints grow in grace,[12] perfecting holiness in the fear of God.[13]
Rom. 7:23
Rom. 6:14; I John 5:4; Eph. 4:15-16; see Rom. 8:2
II Peter 3:18; II Cor. 3:18
II Cor. 7:1
This chapter teaches the following propositions: –
The word “to sanctify” is used in two different senses in Scripture. (1.) To consecrate, or set apart from a common to a sacred use. John x. 36; Matt. xxiii. 17. (2.) To render morally pure or holy. 1 Cor. vi. 11; Heb. xiii. 12. In the latter sense of the word, regeneration is the commencement of sanctification, and sanctification is the completion of the work commenced in regeneration. As regeneration is an act of God’s free grace, so sanctification is a gracious work of God, and eminently of the Holy Spirit. It is attributed to God absolutely (1 Thess. v. 23); to the Son (Eph. v. 25, 26); and preeminently to the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. ii. 13), whose especial office in the economy of redemption it is to apply the grace secured through the mediation of the Son.
The means of sanctification are of two distinct orders – (a.) inward and (b.) outward.
The inward means of sanctification is faith. Faith is the instrument of our justification – and hence of our deliverance from condemnation and communion with God – the organ of our union with Christ an fellowship with his Spirit. Faith, moreover, is that act of the regenerated soul whereby it embraces and experiences the power of the truth, and whereby the inward experiences of the heart and the outward actions of the life are brought into obedience to the truth.
The outward mean of sanctification are –
(1.) The truth as revealed in the inspired Scriptures: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” John xvii. 17, 19. “As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.” 1 Pet. i. 22; ii. 2. The truth, as the outward means of sanctification, stands in correlation to faith, the inward means of it. Conf. Faith, chap. xiv., section 2: This faith “ acteth differently upon that which every particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come.” By this means the truth nourishes and exercises the principles of grace implanted in the soul.
promised to answer believing prayer with the donation of spiritual gifts. John xiv. 13, 14.
It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that Divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he co-operates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Thus, while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits of resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists. The fruits of sanctification are good works. An action to be good must have its origin in a holy principle in the heart, and must be conformed to the law of God. Although not the ground of our acceptance, good works are absolutely essential to salvation, as the necessary consequences of a gracious state of soul and perpetual requirements of the divine law. Gal. v. 22, 23; Eph. ii. 10; John xiv. 21.
That the whole body of death is not immediately destroyed in the instant of regeneration is plainly taught in the sixth and seventh chapters of Romans, in the recorded experience of many Biblical characters, and in the universal experience of Christians in modern times. It hence necessarily follows that the tendencies graciously implanted and sustained must come in conflict with the tendencies to evil which remain. They can co-exist only in a state of active antagonism, and as the one gains in prevalence the other must lose.
“They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts.” Gal. v. 24. “ Mortify, therefore, your members which are upon the earth.” Col. iii. 5.
That this work begins in the state of the heart, and governs the life by previously governing the heart, is evident – (1.) From the known fact of human nature that the moral character of all actions is derived from the inward moral dispositions and affections which prompt to them. (2.) The same is asserted in the Scriptures. Luke vi. 45. As the character of the fruit is determined by the character of the tree which produces it, so the moral character of actions depends upon the heart from which they proceed: “ Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt.” Matt. xii. 33. (3.) Truly good works can be produced only by a heart in living union with Christ: “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; so more can ye, except ye abide in me.” John xv. 4.
This is proved – (1.) From the necessity of the case. Our natural, sinful condition, involves blindness of mind, as well as hardness or perverseness of heart. (2.) From the fact that we are sanctified by means of the truth. (3.) It is explicitly asserted in Scripture that sanctification involves spiritual illumination: “That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: the eyes of your understanding being en- lightened; that ye may know,” etc. Eph. i. 17, 18; Col. iii, 10; 2 Cor. iv. 6; 1 Thess. v. 23.
As our bodies are integral parts of our persons, their instincts and appetites act immediately upon the passions of our souls; and hence they must be brought subject to the control of the sanctified will, and all the members of the body, as organs of the soul, made instruments of righteousness unto God. Rom. vi. 13; 1 Thess. iv. 4.
Different parties of Perfectionists maintain that perfection is possible in this life, in different senses. Pelagians maintain – (1.) That the law of God respects only the voluntary exercises and actions, and not the states of the soul. (2.) That obligation is always limited by ability -that the law of God can demand no more than its subject is fully able to render. Hence from the very limits of moral obligation it follows that every man is always perfectly able to do all that is required of him. Hence he can be perfect whenever he pleases.
Arminian and Papist Perfectionists hold – (1.) That men can do nothing morally right without divine grace; and (2.) That even with this grace no man is able perfectly to keep the original Adamic law of absolute perfection. They maintain, however, that God for Christ’s merits’ sake has graciously lowered the demands of the law, in the case of believers, from absolute perfection to faith and evangelical obedience. They hold that it is the privilege and duty of all men in this life to attain to a state of perfect love and sincere obedience to the gospel law, which they call gracious or Christian perfection.
The Papists make a distinction between voluntary transgressions of known law, and concupiscence, or the involuntary first movements of the remains of corruption within the regenerate. The latter they deny to be properly of the nature of sin. John Wesley teaches the same. Methodist Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 294-312.
But that concupiscence, or the first movement and tendencies of evil desire in the hearts of regenerated men, is of the nature of sin, is distinctly affirmed in our Standards. Conf. Faith, ch. vi., section 5. That this is true is proved: –
them. Paul disclaims it. Rom. vii. 14 – 25; Phil. iii. 12 – 14. John disclaims it in his own behalf and that of all Christians. 1 John i. 8.
The word “ perfect” is applied to some men in Scripture either to mark comparative excellence, or to assert genuine sincerity in profession and service. But the inspired biographies of the men themselves – such as of David, Acts xiii. 22; Noah, Gen. vi. 9; and Job, Job i. 1 – prove very clearly that the perfection intended was not a sinless one.
Titus 1:1; Heb. 10:39
I Cor. 12:3; John 3:5; 6:44-45, 65; Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; II
Peter 1:1; see I Peter 1:2
Matt. 28:19-20; Rom. 10:14, 17; I Cor. 1:21
I Peter 2:2; Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:16-17; Matt. 28:19; see Acts 2:38; I
Cor. 10:16; 11:23-29; Luke 17:5; Phil. 4:6-7
Faith, in the most general sense of the word, is the assent of the mind to the truth of that of which we have not an immediate cognition; knowledge is the perception of the truth of that of which we have an immediate cognition. Yet faith demands and rests upon evidence just as absolutely as does knowledge. It does not differ from reason as rational differs from irrational, nor from knowledge as the conviction of that which is proved differs from the presumption of that which is unproved. Faith, like knowledge itself, demands evidence, and differs in accordance with the evidence in different cases from the barest probability up to the most assured certainty. We have direct knowledge that the book we have in our hands fills a certain portion of space; we have faith that space still stretches illimitable beyond the most distant telescopic star. The one is knowledge and the other faith, but the faith is just as certain as the knowledge. We know the existence and attributes of the city in which we dwell; we believe the existence and attributes of ancient Athens or modern Yeddo from the testimony of men. We know the properties of human nature; we believe the properties of the several persons of the Trinity on the testimony of God. In each case the faith is just as rational and as certain as the knowledge. Faith in many thousands of its forms is spontaneously exercised by all men. The commonest processes of thought and of human action, individual or associated, would be impossible without it. When grounded on legitimate evidence, it leads to absolute assurance. It has its root in the reason, to which it always, when legitimate, conforms. But it reaches beyond reason, and elevates the mind to the contemplation of the highest and-most ennobling truths.
Religious faith, in the most general sense of that word, is the assent of the mind to the general truths of religion, such as the being and attributes of God, and the religious obligations of men, such as is common to all religions, true or false. This religious faith has its ground in our common religious nature, while on the other hand that SAVING FAITH which is the subject of this chapter of the Confession is that spiritual discernment of the excellence and beauty of divine truth, and that cordial embrace and acceptance of it, which are wrought in our hearts by the Holy Ghost.
Of this saving faith it is alarmed in this section: –
preaching of the gospel is the ordinary way in which its truth is most effectually brought to bear upon the hearts and consciences of men. Faith is the act of the regenerated soul, and, as we have seen (ch. x., sections 1, 2 and 4), the Spirit uses the revealed truth of God as his instrument in regeneration and sanctification, and sane adult men never come to the experience of the benefits of Christ’s salvation who are destitute of some knowledge of his person and world.
to what book belong to the inspired canon of Scripture, and as to what is the original text of those books, then the whole must be received as equally the Word of God, and must in all its parts be accepted with equal faith. The same illumination of the understanding and renewal of the affections which lays the foundation for the soul’s acting faith in any one portion of God’s testimony, lays the same foundation for its acting faith in every other portion. The whole Word of God, therefore, as far as known to be individual, to the exclusion of all traditions, doctrines of men, or pretended private revelation, is the object of saving faith.
It was debated largely between the Romanists and the Reformers whether saving faith included trust or not. The true answer is, that trust is an integral and inseparable element of every act of saving faith in which trust is appropriate to the nature of the object believed. It is plain that many of the propositions of Scripture are not the proper objects of trust. In all such cases faith includes recognition, assent, acquiescence, submission, as the case may be. But in all cases in which the nature of the truth believed renders the exercise of trust legitimate, and especially in that specific act of saving faith called justifying faith, which unites to Christ and is the root and organ of the whole spiritual life, trust is certainly an element of the very essence of that state of mind called in Scripture faith. This will be proved under the next head.
intellectual conviction of the truth of truths revealed in the Scriptures, but that it includes a hearty embrace of and a confident reliance upon Christ, his meritorious work and his gracious promises.
10. Heb. 5:13-14; Rom. 4:19-20; 14:1-2; Matt. 6:30; 8:10 11. Luke 22:31-32; Eph. 6:16; I John 5:4-5 12. Heb. 6:11-12; 10:22; Col. 2:2 13. Heb. 12:2
In this section it is affirmed: –
As all the points made in this section are taken up again and discussed at length in chapter xviii., on “ Assurance of Grace and Salvation,” we will defer what we have to say upon the subject until we come to that place.
SECTION 1: REPENTANCE unto life is an evangelical grace,(1) the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.(2)
SECTION 2: BY it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God,(3) purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.(4)
The Confession now approaches the important doctrine of repentance. Here we shall illuminate the basis and essence of repentance.
(Ps. 51:4,9.) (b) Consciousness of pollution, as opposed to the holiness of God. (Ps. 51:5,7,10.) And (c) Consciousness of helplessness. (Ps. 51:11; 109:21,22.)
The grounds of repentance are-(2) A bright apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ. This is necessary in order to true repentance(a) Because the awakened conscience echoes God’s law, and can be appeased by no less a propitiation than that demanded by divine justice itself; and until this is realized in a believing application to the merits of Christ either indifference will stupefy or remorse will torment the soul. (b) Because out of Christ God is “a consuming fire,” and an inextinguishable dread of his wrath repels the soul. (Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29.) (c) A sense of the amazing goodness of God to us in the gift of his Son, and of our ungrateful requital of it, is the most powerful means of bringing the soul to genuine repentance for sin as committed against God. (Ps. 51:4.) (d) This is proved by the examples of repentance recorded in Scripture (Ps. 51:1; 130:4), and by the universal experience of Christians in modern times.
The essence of repentance consists-(2) In our actual turning from all sin unto God. This is that practical turning, or “conversion” from sin unto God, which is the instant and necessary consequence of regeneration. It is a voluntary forsaking of sin as evil and hateful, with sincere sorrow, humiliation, and confession; and a turning unto God as our reconciled Father, in the exercise of implicit faith in the merits and assisting grace of Christ. This is marked by the meaning of the Greek word used by the Holy Spirit to express the idea of repentance-“a change of mind,” including evidently a change or thought, feeling, and purpose, corresponding to our new character as the children of God. If this be sincere, it will of course lead to the element of practical repentance, namely, (3) A sincere purpose of, and a persevering endeavor after, new obedience. (Acts 26:20.)
By these marks it may be seen that repentance unto life can only be exercised by a soul after, and in consequence of, its regeneration by the Holy Spirit. God regenerates; and we, in the exercise of the new gracious ability thus given, repent. Repentance and conversion, therefore, are terms applying often to the same gracious experience. The Scriptural usage of the two words differs in two respects-(1) Conversion is the more general term, including all the various experiences involved in our commencing the divine life. It especially emphasizes that experience as a turning unto God. Repentance is more specific, giving prominence to the work of the law upon the conscience, and especially emphasizing the experiences attending the new birth as a turning from sin. (2) Conversion is generally used to designate only the first actings of the new nature at the commencement of a religious life, or the first steps of a return to God after a notable backsilding (Luke 22:32); while repentance is a daily experience of the Christian as long as the struggle with sin continues in his heart and life. (Ps. 19:12,13; Luke 9:23; Gal. 6:14; 5:24.)
There is a false repentance experienced before regeneration, and by those never regenerated, which arises simply from the common operations of the truth and the Spirit upon the natural conscience, exciting simply a sense of guilt and pollution, leading neither to the hatred of sin, nor to the apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, nor to the practical turning from sin unto God. The genuineness of true repentance is proved (a) By its being conformed perfectly to the requirements and teachings of Scripture, and (b) By its fruits. If genuine, it infallibly springs from regeneration and leads to eternal life.
That it is thus a gift of God is evident-(1) From its nature. It involves true conviction of sin; a holy hatred of sin; faith in the Lord Jesus and his work, which faith is God’s gift. (Gal. 5:22; Eph. 2:8. (2) It is directly affirmed in Scripture. Zech. 12:10; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 2 Tim. 2:25.)
SECTION 3: ALTHOUGH repentance be not to be rested in, as an, satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof,(5) which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ;(6) yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.(7)
SECTION 4: AS there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation; (8) so there is no sin so great, that it can bring damnation upon those who truly repent.(9)
SECTION 5 : Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins particularly.(10)
(5) Ezek. 36:31,32; 16:61,63. (6) Hos. 14:2,4; Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7. (7) Luke 13:3,5; Acts 17:30,31. (8) Rom. 6:23; 5:12; Matt. 12:36. (9) Isa.
55:7; Rom. 8:1; Isa. 1:16,18. (10) Ps. 19:13; Luke 19:8; 1 Tim. 1:13,15.
These sections teach the following propositions:
It also contradicts the Roman doctrine of penance. Romanists distinguish penance-(1) As a virtue, which is internal, including sorrow for sin and a turning from sin unto God. (2) As a sacrament, which is the external expression of the internal state. This sacrament consists of (a) Contrition-i.e., sorrow and detesting of past sins, with a purpose of sinning no more; (b) Confession or self-accusation to a priest having jurisdiction and the power of the keys; (c) Satisfaction or some painful work, imposed by the priest and performed by the penitent, to satisfy divine justice for sins committed; and (d) Absolution, pronounced by the priest judicially, and not merely declaratively. They hold that the element of satisfaction included in this sacrament makes a real satisfaction for sin, and is an efficient cause of pardon, absolutely essential-the only means whereby the pardon of sins committed after baptism can be secured. (Cat. Rom., part 2., ch. 5., qs. 12, 13.)
That repentance is no cause whatever of the pardon of sin is proved by all that the Scriptures teach us-(1) As to the justice of God, which inexorably demands the punishment of every sin;
by works of any kind; and (5) As to the fact that the believer is justified solely on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, imputed to him and received by faith alone. All these points have already been discussed under their appropriate heads; and they are more than sufficient to prove-(a) That pardon is secured entirely on a different basis; (b) That the external penance of the Romanist is an impertinent attempt to supplement the perfect satisfaction of Christ; and (c) That internal repentance, when genuine, is itself a gracious gift of God, without merit in itself; and of value only because it springs from the application of Christ’s grace to the soul, and leads to the application by the soul to Christ’s grace.
moral that it is obligatory, and that its violation is deserving of reprobation. Hence “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all.” (James 2:10.) That there is no sin so great that it can bring condemnation upon those that truly repent is also evident, because true repentance, as we have seen, is the fruit of regeneration, and no man is regenerated who is not also justified. Besides, true repentance includes faith, and faith unites to Christ and secures the imputation of his righteousness, and the righteousness of Christ of course cancels all possible sin. (Rom. 8:1; 5:20.)
SECTION 6: AS every man is bound to make private confession of his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof;(11) upon which, and the forsaking of them, he shall find mercy;(12) so he that scandalizes his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing by private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended;(13) who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him.(14)
This section teaches:
renunciation of his sins are sincere. “If we confess our sins, he (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9.)
The Roman Catholic Church has historially taught that, as an element of penance and evidence of true repentance, the Christian must confess all his sins without reserve, in all their details and qualifying circumstances, to a priest having jurisdiction; and that if any mortal sin is unconfessed it is not forgiven; and if the omission is willful, it is sacrilege, and greater guilt is incurred. (Cat. Rom., part 2., ch. 5., qs. 33, 34, 42.) And they maintain that the priest absolves judicially, not merely declaratively, from all the penal consequences of the sins confessed, by the authority of Jesus Christ.
This is an obvious perversion of the Scriptural command to confess. They bid us simply to confess our faults one to another. There is not a word said about confession to a priest in the Bible. The believer, on the contrary, has immediate access to Christ, and to God through Christ (1 Tim. 2:5; John 14:6; 5:40; Matt. 11:28), and is commanded to confess his sins immediately to God. (1 John 1:9.) No priestly function is ever ascribed to the Christian ministry in the New Testament. The power of absolute forgiveness of sin belongs to God alone (Matt. 9:26), is incommunicable in its very nature, and has never been granted to any class of men as a matter of fact. The authority to bind or loose which Christ committed to his Church was understood by the apostles, as is evident from their practice, as simply conveying the power of declaring the conditions on which God pardons sin; and, in accordance with that declaration, of admitting or of excluding men from sealing ordinances.
SECTION 1. Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his holy Word,[1] and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention.[2]
Micah 6:8; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 13:21
Matt. 15:9; Isa. 29:13; I Peter 1:18; John 16:2; Rom. 10:2; I Sam. 15:21-23; Deut. 10:12-13; Col. 2:16-17, 20-23
SECTION II. These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:[3] and by them believers manifest their thankfulness,[4] strengthen their assurance,[5] edify their brethren,[6] adorn the profession of the gospel,[7] stop the mouths of the adversaries,[8] and glorify God,[9] whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto,[10] that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.[11]
3. James 2:18, 22 4. Psa. 116:12-14; Col. 3:15-17; I Peter 2:9 5. I John 2:3, 5; II Peter 1:5-10 6. II Cor. 9:2; Matt. 5:16; I Tim. 4:12 7. Titus 2:5, 9-12; I Tim. 6:1 8. I Peter 2:15 9. I Peter 2:12; Phil. 1:11; John 15:8 10. Eph. 2:10 11. Rom. 6:22
THESE sections teach the following propositions: –
In order that a work may be truly good, (2.) It must spring from a principle of faith and love in the heart. All men recognize that the moral character of an act always is determined by the moral character of the principle or affection which prompts to it. Unregenerate men perform many actions, good so far as their external relations to their fellow-men are concerned. But love to God is the foundation-principle upon which all moral duties rest, just as our relation to God is the fundamental relation upon which all our other relations rest. If a man is alienated from God, if he is not in the present exercise of trust in him and love for him, any action he can perform will lack the essential element which makes it a true obedience. Good works, according to the Scriptures, are the fruits of sanctification, having their root in regeneration: “ For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Eph. ii. 10. James says that faith is shown by works; which of course implies that the kind of works of which he speaks springs only from a believing heart. James ii. 18, 22.
SECTION III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.[12] And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of his good pleasure:[13] yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14]
As we have seen under chapter x., in regeneration the Holy Spirit implants a permanent holy principle or habit in the soul, which ever continues the germ or seed from which all gracious affections and holy exercises do proceed. In respect to the implantation of this permanent holy principle by the Holy Spirit the soul is passive. But, the instant this new moral disposition or tendency is implanted in the soul, as a matter of course the moral character of its exercises is changed, and the soul becomes active in good works, as before it had, been in evil ones. But, as we also saw under chapter xiii., sanctification is a work of God’s free grace, wherein he continues graciously to sustain, nourish, and guide the exercise of the permanent habit of grace which he had implanted in regeneration. The regenerated man depends upon the continued indwelling, the prompting, and the sustaining and the enabling power of the Holy Spirit, in every act of obedience in the exercise of grace; nevertheless as the acts of obedience to the performance of which the Spirit prompts and enables him are his own acts, it follows that he, while seeking the guidance and support of grace, must actively co-operate with it, acting, like every free agent, under the influence of motives and a sense of personal responsibility. Hence this section asserts: -1. That the ability of the Christian to do good works is not at all from himself, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ.
never the waiters for grace, but always the active seekers for grace and doers of his word, whom God approves. Luke xi. 19-13; James i. 22, 23.
SECTION IV. 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, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.[15]
SECTION V. We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins,[16] but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants:[17] and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit;[18] and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.[19]
16. Rom. 3:20; 4:2, 4, 6; 8:18, 22-24; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7; Psa. 16:2; Job 22:2-3, 35:7-8 17. Luke 17:10 18. Rom. 8:13-14; Gal. 5:22-23 19. Isa. 64:6; Gal. 5:17; Rom. 7:15, 18; Psa. 130:3; 143:2
SECTION VI. Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; [20] not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreprovable in God’s sight;[21] but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections. [22]
Eph. 1:6; I Peter 2:5; see Exod. 28:38; Gen. 4:4; Heb. 11:4
Job 9:20; Psa. 143:2; I John 1:8
Heb. 6:10; 13:20-21; II Cor. 8:12; Matt. 25:21, 23; I Cor. 3:14; 4:5
These sections teach: –
We have already, under chapter xiii., seen that a state of sinless perfection is never attained by Christians in this life; and it, of course, follows that much less is it possible for any to do more than is commanded.
That works of supererogation are always and essentially impossible to all creatures in all worlds is also evident – (1.) From the very nature of the moral law. That which is right under any relation is intrinsically obligatory upon the moral agent standing in that relation. If it be moral, it is obligatory. If it be not obligatory, it is not moral. If it is not moral, it is, of course, of no moral value or merit. If it is obligatory, it is not supererogatory. When men do what it is their duty to do, they are to claim nothing for it. Luke xvii. 10. (2.) The doing of that which God has not made it man’s duty to do – all manner of will-worship and commandments of men – God declares is an abomination to him. Col. ii. 18 – 23 1 Tim. iv. 3 Matt. xv. 9. (3) Christ has given no “counsels,” as distinct from his commands. His absolute and universal command to love God with the whole soul, and our neighbor as ourselves, covers the whole ground of possible ability or opportunity on earth or in heaven. Matt. xxii. 37 – 40. (4.) Increase of grace and eternal felicity, and all else which the believer needs or is capable of, is secured for him by the purchase of Christ’s blood, and either given freely now without price, or is reserved for him in that eternal inheritance which he is to receive as a joint-heir with Christ. (5.) The working of the Romish system of celibacy, voluntary poverty, and monastic vows, has produced such fruits as prove the principle on which they rest radically immoral and false.
deserving any reward at his hand. No action of ours can profit God or lay him under obligation to us. All that is possible to us is already a debt we owe him as our Creator and Preserver. When we have done our utmost we are only unprofitable servants. Much less, then, can any possible obedience at one moment atone for any disobedience in another moment. (4.) As already proved under chapter xiii., on Sanctification, our works, which could merit nothing even if perfect, are in this life, because of remaining imperfections, most imperfect. They therefore, the best of them, need to be atoned. for by the blood, and presented through the mediation, of Christ, before they can find acceptance with the Father.
As to the relation of good works to rewards, it may be observed –
upon it, not because of the intrinsic value of that obedience, but because of the terms of the covenant which God had graciously condescended to form with him. By nature, the creature owed the Creator obedience, while the Creator owed the creature nothing. But by covenant the Creator voluntarily bound himself to owe the creature eternal life, upon the condition of perfect obedience.
It is evident that in this life the works of God’s people can have no merit in either of the senses above noticed. They can have no merit intrinsically, because they are all imperfect, and therefore themselves worthy of punishment rather than of reward. They can have no merit by covenant concession on God’s part, because we are not now standing in God’s sight in the covenant of works, but of grace, and the righteousness of Christ, received by faith alone, constitutes the sole meritorious ground upon which our salvation, in all of its stages, rests. See chapter. xi., on Justification.
In the dispensation of the gospel, the gracious world of the believer and the gracious reward he receives from God are branches from the same gracious root. The same covenant of grace provides at once for the infusion of grace in the heart, the exercise of grace in the life, and the reward of the grace so exercised. It is all of grace – a grace called a reward added to a grace called a work. The one grace is set opposite to the other grace as a reward, for these reasons: (a.) To act upon us as a suitable stimulus to duty. God promises to reward the Christian just as a father promises to reward his child for doing what is its duty, and what is for its own benefit alone. (b.) Re- cause a certain gracious proportion has been established between the grace given in the reward and the grace given in the holy exercises of the heart and life; but both are alike given for Christ’s sake. This proportion has been established – the more grace of obedience, the more grace of reward – the more grace on earth, the more glory in heaven -because God so wills it, and because the grace given and exercised in obedience prepares the soul for the reception of the further grace given in the reward. Matt. xvi. 27; 1 Cor. iii. 8; 2 Cor. iv. 17.
SECTION VII. Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands; and of good use both to themselves and others:[23] yet, because they proceed not from an heart purified by faith;[24] nor are done in a right manner, according to the Word;[25] nor to a right end, the glory of God,[26] they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, or make a man meet to receive grace from God:[27] and yet, their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing unto God.[28]
23. II Kings 10:30-31; I Kings 21:27, 29; Luke 6:32-34; 18:2-7; see Rom. 13:4 24. Heb. 11:4, 6; see Gen. 4:3-5 25. I Cor. 13:3; Isa. 1:12 26. Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; I Cor. 10:31 27. Prov. 21:27; Hag. 2:14; Titus 1:15; Amos 5:21-22; Mark 7:6-7; Hosea 1:4; Rom. 9:16; Titus 3:5 28. Isa. 14:4; 36:3; Matt. 23:23; 25:41-45; see Rom. 1:21-32
This section teaches: –
The distinction is plain between an action in itself considered, and considered in its motives and object. A truly good work is one which springs from a principle of divine love, and has the glory of God as its object and the revealed will of God as its rule. None of the actions of an unregenerate man are of this character.
There is also an obvious distinction between an act viewed in in itself abstractly, and the same action viewed in relation to the person performing it and his personal relations. A rebel against sovereign authority may do many amiable things, and many acts of real virtue, as far as his relations to his fellow-rebels are concerned. It is nevertheless true that a rebel, during the whole period of his rebellion, is in every moment of time and every action of his life a rebel with reference to that supreme authority which through all he continues to defy. In this sense the ploughing of the wicked is said to be sin. Prov. xxi. 4. And thus as long as men stay away from Christ, and refuse to submit to the righteousness of God, all their use of the means of grace and all their natural virtues are sins in God’s sight.
SECTION I. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually 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.[1]
SECTION II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;[2] upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ,[3] the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,[4] and the nature of the covenant of grace:[5] from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.[6]
SECTION III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;[7] and, for a time, continue therein:[8] whereby they incur God’s displeasure,[9] and grieve his Holy Spirit,[10] come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts,[11] have their hearts hardened,[12] and their consciences wounded;[13] hurt and scandalize others,[14] and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.[15]
8. II Sam. 12:9, 13; Gal. 2:11-14 9. Num. 20:12; II Sam. 11:27; Isa. 64:7, 9 10. Eph. 4:30 11. Psa. 51:8, 10, 12; Rev. 2:4; Matt. 26:75 12. Isa. 63:17 13. Psa. 32:3-4; 51:8 14. Gen. 12:10-20; II Sam. 12:14; Gal. 2:13 15. Psa. 89:31-32; I Cor. 11:32
This chapter teaches the following propositions: –
The true believer, having been once regenerated and justified by God, can never afterward totally nor finally fall away from grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end. 2. That the principle of this certain perseverance is not in any degree in the free will of the saints, but altogether – (1.) In the inherent immutability of the eternal decree of election; (2.) In the provisions of the eternal covenant of grace; (3.) In the merits and intercession of Christ; and. (4.) In the constant indwelling and preserving power of the Holy Ghost.
The true believer may nevertheless fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein. The occasions of which falls are – (1.) The temptations of the world; (2.) The seductions of Satan; (3.) The remaining corruptions of their own nature; (4.) The neglect of the means of grace. The effects of which falls are – (a.) God is displeased and the Holy Ghost grieved; (6.) They are themselves to a degree deprived of their graces and comforts, their hearts being hardened and their consciences wounded, and their persons visited with temporal judgments; (a.) Their conduct is a stumbling-block to all who see them, and an occasion of sorrow to their fellow-Christians.
It is obvious that adherents of the Arminian and Calvinistic systems must take opposite sides on this question. The Arminian, as we have seen, holds – (1.) That God elects persons to eternal life only on condition of their voluntary reception of grace and perseverance therein till death, as foreseen by him. (2.) That Christ died to render the salvation of all men indifferently possible, and not as the substitute of certain persons definitely, to discharge all their legal obligations, and to secure for them all the rewards of the covenant. (3.) That all men have the same gracious influence of the Holy Ghost operating upon them, and that the reason why one believes and is regenerated, and that another continues reprobate, is that the former voluntarily cooperates with grace and that the other resists it. Thus, in the personal application of redemption the Arminian makes everything to depend upon the free will of the creature. Since, then, neither the decree of God, nor the atonement of Christ, nor the grace of the Holy Ghost determines the certain salvation of any individual –since the application and effect of the atonement and of the renewing and sanctifying influences of the Spirit depend, in their view, upon the free will of every man in his own case – it necessarily follows that the perseverance of any man in the grace once received must also depend entirely upon his own will. And since the human will is essentially fallible and capable of change, and in this life exposed to seduction, it follows, of course, that the believer is at all times liable to total apostasy, and dying in that state, to final perdition. Hence the Romish Church, whose doctrine is purely Arminian, declares in her authoritative Standards: “ If any one maintain that a man once justified cannot lose grace, and therefore that he who falls and sins never was truly justified, let him be accursed.” Council of Trent, sess. vi., can. 23.
The Protestant Arminians also hold that it is not only possible, but also a frequent fact, that, persons truly regenerate, by neglecting grace and grieving the Holy Spirit with sin, fall away totally, and at length finally, from grace into eternal reprobation. Conf. of the Remonstrants, xi. 7.
The Calvinistic doctrine, as stated in this chapter of our Confession, is, that God has revealed his gracious purpose to cause every true believer to persevere in his faith and obedience till death; that he will never be allowed to fall away totally from grace, and therefore he never can fall away finally.
It is obvious, from this statement, that this doctrine is not open to the objections which are often brought against it.
both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Ps. cx. 3; Phil. ii. 13. The Arminians themselves believe that the saints will be rendered secure from falling from grace when they go to heaven, and yet that they will be none the less perfectly free as to their wills. If the two are consistent conditions in heaven, they can be none the less so on earth.
decree of election (a.) respects individuals; (b.) chooses them to salvation and all the means thereof; (c.) is not conditioned on the use he foresees they will make of grace, but is founded on “ the counsel of his own will;” (d.) is immutable and certainly efficacious. Essence those elected to salvation through grace must persevere in grace unto salvation.
The ground of the certainty of the perseverance of saints is also laid - (2.) In the provisions of the eternal covenant of grace. We saw, under chapter vii., that the Scriptures teach that there was a covenant or personal counsel from eternity between the Father and the Son, as the Surety of the elect, determining explicitly (a.) who were to be saved; (b.) what Christ was to do and suffer in order to save them; (c.) as to how and when the redemption of Christ was to be personally applied to them; (d.) as to all the advantages embraced in their salvation, etc. Hence it follows necessarily that those embraced in this covenant cannot fail of the benefits provided for them. “My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” John x. 29.
This certainty is grounded – (3.) In the merits and intercession of Christ. We saw, under chapter viii., that the Scriptures teach that Christ, by his vicarious obedience and suffering as their federal representative, wrought out a perfect righteousness in the stead of his people -which people were all individually and certainly designated in the eternal covenant in pursuance of which he acted; and that he makes effectual intercession in heaven for all those, and for those only, for whom he hath purchased redemption. Since, therefore, neither Christ’s redemption nor his intercession can fail of the ends for which they are designed, it is evidently impossible that those for whom he was substituted, and for whom he acquired a perfect righteousness, and for whom he offers an effectual intercession, can fail of salvation.
The certainty of the perseverance of the saints in grace is se cured -(4.) By the constant indwelling of the Holy Ghost. He acts upon the soul in perfect accordance with the laws of its constitution as a rational and moral agent, and yet so as to secure the ultimate victory of the new spiritual principles and tendencies implanted in regeneration. John xiv. 16, 17; 1 John iii. 9.
Micah 3:11; Deut. 29:19; John 8:41
Amos 9:10; Matt. 7:22-23
I John 2:3; 3:14, 18-19, 21, 24; 5:13
Rom. 5:2, 5
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption. [9]
5. Heb. 6:11, 19 6. Heb. 6:17-18 7. II Peter 1:4-11; I John 2:3; 3:14; II Cor. 1:12 8. Rom. 8:15-16 9. Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30; II Cor. 1:21-22
THESE sections teach the following propositions: –
True assurance, however, may be distinguished from that which is false by the following tests: – (1.) True assurance begets unfeigned humility; false assurance begets spiritual pride. 1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. vi. 14. (2.) The true leads to increased diligence in the practice of holiness; the false leads to sloth and self-indulgence. Ps. li. 12, 13, 19.
(3.) The true leads to candid self-examination and to a desire to be searched and corrected by God; the false leads to a disposition to be satisfied with appearance and to avoid accurate investigation. Ps. cxxxix. 23, 24. (4.) The true leads to constant aspirations after more intimate fellowship with God. 1 John iii. 2, 3.
That true believers may in this life attain to a certainty with regard to their own personal relations to Christ, and that this certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion founded on a fallible hope, but an infallible assurance of faith, is proved from the fact -(1.) That it is directly affirmed in Scripture: “ The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Rom. viii. 16. “ hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.” 1 John ii. 3. “We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.” 1 John iii. 14. (2.) The attainment of it is commanded as a duty in Scripture. We are exhorted “to shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end,” (Heb. vi. 11); and to “give diligence to make our calling and election sure, for if we do these things we shall never fall.” 2 Pet. i. 10. (3.) There are examples of its attainment by ancient believers recorded in Scripture. Thus Paul: “I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able,” etc. “ I have fought a good fight,…… I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness,” etc. 2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 7, 8; – and John; 1 John ii. 3; iv. 16. (4.) There have been unquestionable instances in modern times in which sincere Christians have enjoyed a full assurance of their personal salvation, and in which their entire lives have vindicated the genuineness of their faith. The Protestant Reformers as a class were eminent examples of the possession of this assurance. God had qualified them for their great work with an extraordinary measure of this grace. Their controversy with the Romanists also led them to lay great stress upon the duty of this attainment, even going so far as to identify assurance with faith, making it essential to salvation. The Romanists held that faith is mere intellectual assent to the truth, not involving trust; and that hence faith has nothing to do with the judgment any one makes of his own personal salvation; and hence that no one could attain to any certainty upon that point in this life without an extraordinary revelation. Council of Trent, sess. vi., ch. ix. The Reformers, on the other hand, went so far as to teach that the special object of justifying faith is the favour of God toward us for Christ’s sake: therefore to believe is to be assured of our own personal salvation. Thus Luther, Melancthon, and Calvin taught. This is the doctrine taught in the Augsburg Confession and Heidelberg Catechism. It is not, however, taught in any other of the Reformed Confessions, and, as will be seen below, is not the Doctrine of our Standards.
This infallible assurance of faith rests (1.) upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation. Although it is one thing to be assured that the promise is true, and another thing to be assured of our own personal interest in it, yet assurance of the truth of the promise tends, in connection with a sense of our personal reliance upon it, directly to strengthen our assured hope that it will be fu1filled in our case also. Therefore God confirmed his promise by an oath, “ That by two immutable things” (his promise and his oath), “ in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us in the gospel “ Heb. vi. 18. Thus faith includes trust. Trust rests upon the divine truth of the promises, and in turn supports hope; and the fullness of hope is assurance. This assurance rests (2.) upon the inward evidence of those graces unto which the promises are made. Thus the Scriptures promise that whosoever believes shall have everlasting life. The believer whose faith is vigorous and intelligent has a distinct evidence in his own consciousness that he for one does believe. Hence the conclusion is obvious that he shall have everlasting life. The same promise is given to all who love God, to all who keep his commandments, to all who love the brethren, to the pure in heart, to those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, etc. Hence, when these graces are possessed in such a degree, strength, and purity, that we are conscious of their genuineness, then the conclusion is immediate and irresistible, that we are in union with Christ, and have a right to appropriate the promises to ourselves.
This assurance rests (3.) upon the testimony of the Spirit of adoption, witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God. This language is taken from Rom. viii. 16. The sense in which this witnessing of the Holy Spirit to our spirits is to be understood has been much debated among theologians.
Some have maintained that the passage teaches that the Holy Spirit in some mysterious way directly reveals to our spirits the fact that we are the children of God, as one man immediately conveys information to another man. The objections to this view are, that Christians are not, and cannot be, conscious of any such injection of information from without into the mind, and that, as far as such testimony alone is concerned, we would be unable to distinguish certainly the testimony of the Spirit from the conclusions of our own reasons or the suggestions of our own hearts. An expectation of such direct communications would be likely to generate enthusiasm and presumption. Some have maintained, on the opposite extreme, that the Spirit witnesses with our spirits only indirectly, through the evidence afforded by the graces he has formed within us. The true view appears to be, that the witness of the Spirit to our spirits that we are the children of God comprehends a number of particulars, all of which are confined by the Spirit to this end. (1.) The Spirit is the author of the promises of Scripture, and of the marks of character indicating the persons to which the promises belong. (2.) The Spirit is the author of the graces of the saints, corresponding to the marks of character which are associated with these promises in the Scripture. (3) The Spirit gives to the true believer, especially to the Christian eminent for diligence and faithfulness, the grace of spiritual illumination, that he may possess a keen insight into his own character, that he may judge truly of the genuineness of his own graces, that he may rightly interpret the promises and the characters to which they are limited in the Scriptures; so that, comparing the outward standard with the inward experience, he may draw correct and unquestionable conclusions. (4.) The Holy Spirit is the direct author of faith in all its degrees, as also of love and hope. Full assurance, therefore – which is the fullness of hope resting on the fullness of faith – is a state of mind which it is the office of the Holy Ghost to induce in our minds in connection with the evidence of our gracious character above stated. In whatever way he works in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure (Phil. ii. 13), or sheds abroad the love of God in our hearts (Rom. v. 5), or begets us again to a lively hope (1 Pet. i. 3), in that way he gives origin to the grace of full assurance – not as a blind and fortuitous feeling, but as a legitimate and undoubting conclusion from appropriate evidence. (5.) The presence of the Holy Spirit is the first installment of the benefits of Christ’s redemption, granted to those for whom they were purchased, and therefore the pledge and earnest of the completion of that redemption in due time. Thus Paul says of the Ephesians: “ In whom also (Christ), after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.” Eph. i. 13, 14; iv. 30; 1 John ii. 20, 27; 2 Cor. i.22; v. 5
III. This infallible assurance doth not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation, in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of everyone to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience, the proper fruits of this assurance;[13] so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14]
I John 5:13
I Cor. 2:12; I John 4:13; Heb. 6:11-12; Eph. 3:17-19
II Peter 1:10
Rom. 5:1-2, 5; 14:17; 15:13; Eph. 1:3-4; Psa. 4:6-7; 119:32
I John 1:6-7; 2:1-2; 3:2-3; Rom. 6:1-2; 8:1, 12; Titus 2:11-12, 14; II
Cor. 7:1; Psa. 130:4
These sections teach: –
Besides this, the phrase full or “ infallible assurance,” in this chapter, does not relate to the certainty of our faith or trust as to the truth of the object upon which the faith rests – that is, the divine promise of salvation in Christ – but to the certainty of our hope or belief as to our own personal relation to Christ and eternal salvation. Hence it follows that while assurance, in some degree of it, does belong to the essence of all real faith in the sufficiency of Christ and the truth of the promises, it is not in any degree essential to a genuine faith that the believer should be persuaded of the truth of his own experience and the safety of his estate. Theologians consequently have distinguished between the assurance of faith (Heb. x. 22) – that is, a strong faith as to the truth of Christ – and the assurance of hope (Heb. vi. 11) – that is, a certain persuasion that we are true believers, and therefore safe. This latter is also called the assurance of sense, because it rests upon the inward sense the soul has of the reality of its own spiritual experiences. The first is of the essence of faith, and terminates directly upon Christ and his promise; and hence is called the direct act of faith. The latter is not of the essence of faith, but is its fruit; and is called the reflex act of faith, because it is drawn as an inference from the experience of the graces of the Spirit which the soul discerns when it reflects upon its own consciousness. God says that whosoever believes is saved – that is the object of direct faith: I believe – that is the matter of conscious experience: therefore I am saved – that is the matter of inference and the essence of full assurance.
That this full assurance of our own gracious state is not of the essence of saving faith is proved – (1.) From the form in which the offer of salvation in Christ – which is the object of saving faith – is set forth in the Scriptures: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;” “ whosoever will, let him take,” etc.; “Him that cometh to me, I wi11 in no wise cast out.” Acts xvi. 31; Rev. xxii. 1 7; John vi. 37. The matter revealed, and therefore the truth accepted by faith, is, not that God is reconciled to me in Christ, but that Christ is presented to me as the foundation of truth, and will save me if I do truly trust. It is evident that trust itself is something different from the certainty that we do trust, and that our trust is of the right kind. (2.) All the promises of the Bible are made to classes – to believers, to saints, etc. – and not to individuals. (3.) Paul appeared to doubt as to the genuineness of his faith long after he was a true believer. (4.) As we saw above, the Bible contains many exhortations addressed to believers to go on to the grace of full assurance, as something beyond their present attainments. Heb. x. 22; vi. 11; 2 Pet. i. 10. (5.) The experience of the great body of God’s people in modern times proves the same thing.
Spirit. As we have seen above, under sections i. and ii., a false and presumptuous assurance is to be discriminated from a genuine assurance by certain clear, practical marks. On the contrary, genuine assurance naturally leads to a legitimate and abiding peace and joy, and to love and thankfulness to God; and these, from the very laws of our being, to greater buoyancy, strength, and cheerfulness in the practice of obedience in every department of duty. It hence follows that every principle of self-interest and every obligation resting upon us as Christians conspire to induce us to use all diligence in seeking the full attainment and the abiding enjoyment of this grace.
Since this assurance rests upon the consciousness of gracious experiences and the witness of the Holy Ghost; and as we have seen, under chapters xiii. and xvii., that true Christians may temporarily, though never totally, fall from the exercise of grace; and since these exercises in this life are never perfect and unmixed with carnal elements – it necessarily follows that the assurance which rests upon them must be subject to be shaken, diminished, and intermitted in divers ways. (1.) Since it is a duty as well as a grace, it must be imperiled by any want of diligence in preserving it in full exercise. (2.) Since it rests upon the consciousness of gracious exercises, it must be marred, if not intermitted, by any notable fall into sin which grieves the Holy Spirit and wounds the conscience, thus clouding the sense of forgiveness and diminishing the evidence of grace. (3.) The same may evidently be effected by some vehement temptation. (4.) The same effect may be produced by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, in the way of fatherly discipline, for the purpose of trying our faith, of convincing us of our entire dependence, and of the all-sufficiency of his gracious help.
Since the true believer may fall into sin, but may never fall totally from grace, it is self-evident, as taught in these sections, that he may lose the exercise of full assurance, but that he cannot lose the principle from which it springs; and that hence, through the blessing of God upon the diligent use of the appropriate means, it may be strengthened when weakened and recovered when lost.
SECTION: I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]
SECTION: II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]
follows self-evidently and necessarily from the very nature of God as a moral Governor, and from the nature of man as a moral agent.
civil and judicial laws of the ancient Jew, which express the will of God for them in their peculiar circumstances, and which of course are intended to be binding only so long as the special conditions to which they are appropriate exist. Or,–
therein as the will of God is part of the moral law for Christian men; and whatever is not revealed therein as his will, either directly or by necessary implication, is no part of our moral obligation at all. See chapter xvi., sections 1 and 2.
God and to one another, may be found there. This is certain, because –
These commandments were originally written by the finger of God himself on two tables of stone. The first four relate to the duties man owes to God, and the remaining six relate to the duties we owe to our fellow-men. The Romish Church assigns only three commandments to the first table, and seven to the second. She unites the first and second commandments together, in order to make it appear that only the worship of false gods and images of them is forbidden, while the images of the true God and of saints are not excluded from the instruments of worship; and, in order to keep up the number, she divides the tenth into two – making the first clause the ninth commandment, and the remaining clauses the tenth.
The great rule for interpreting the Decalogue is to keep constantly in mind that it is the law of God, and not the law of man – that it respects and requires the conformity of the governing affections and dispositions of the heart as well as of the outward actions. Every commandment involves a general moral principle, applicable to a wide variety of particular conditions, respecting the motives and ends of action, as well as action itself The rules of interpretation laid down in the L. Cat., q. 99, are in substance as follows: –
SECTION: III. Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.[6]
Heb. 10:1; Gal. 4:1-3; Col. 2:17; Heb. 9:1-28
Lev. 19:9-10, 19, 23, 27; Deut. 24:19-21; see I Cor. 5:7; II Cor. 6:17;
Jude 1:23 6. Col. 2:14, 16-17; Dan. 9:27; Eph. 2:15-16; Heb. 9:10; Acts 10:9-16; 11:2-10
SECTION: IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]
SECTION: V. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. [10]
Rom. 3:31; 7:25; 13:8-10; I Cor. 9:21; Gal. 5:14; Eph. 6:2-3; I John 2:3-4, 7; Rom. 3:20; 7:7-8 and I John 3:4 with Rom. 6:15
Deut. 6:4-5; Exod. 20:11; Rom. 3:19; James 2:8, 10-11; Matt. 19:4- 6; Gen. 17:1
Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31; I Cor. 9:21; Luke 16:17-18
These sections teach: –
That he also gave to them, as a body politic, a system of judicial laws.
because, also, of the authority of God, who still continues to enforce it. And Christ, instead of lessening, has greatly increased the obligation to fulfil it.
We have already stated, under the preceding sections of this chapter, the principles which distinguish the different classes of divine commands.
Those commands which have their ground or reason either in the essential principles of the divine nature or in the permanent constitution of things, of course have not been abrogated by the introduction of the Christian dispensation. On the contrary, it was precisely the law of perfect moral rectitude that Christ vicariously fulfilled as our representative, and thus became “the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” Rom. x. 4. Christ also redeemed his people “from all iniquity,” that they might be “zealous of good works” (Tit. ii. 14); and we have seen under chapter xvi. that those only are good works which are done in obedience to the law. By redemption, also, Christ has brought his people under new and higher obligations to obedience; he furnishes new motives, and in the graces of regeneration and sanctification he communicates to the soul new powers and encouragements for the same. Some of these original laws, founded on the constitution of things, God was pleased under the Mosaic dispensation to relax to a degree, as in the case of marriage and divorce; but in every case the original law, instead of being abrogated, has been restored to its pristine breadth and authority by Christ and his apostles. The Sermon on the Mount, recorded in the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew, is an example of the manner in which the spirit of Christianity exalts and expands the letter of the law beyond any revelation of it which had previously been made.
The principles by which we are to determine what element of the law enacted under the old dispensation is abrogated, and what element remains in full force under the new dispensation, are the following: -
-
The Mosaic institute may be viewed in three different aspects: –
That the ceremonial law introduced by Moses was typical of Christ and his work is taught throughout the New Testament, and especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It was declared to be a “shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.” The tabernacle and its services were “patterns of things in the heavens,” and figures, antitypes, of the true tabernacle, into which Christ has now entered for us. Col. ii. 17; Heb. ix. 23, 24. Christ is said to have effected our salvation by offering himself as a sacrifice and by acting as our high priest. Eph. v. 2; Heb. ix. 11, 12, 26, 28; xiii. 11, 12. That the coming of Christ has superseded and for ever done away with the ceremonial law is also evident from the very fact just stated – that its ceremonies were types of him, that they were the shadows of which he was the substance. Their whole purpose and design were evidently discharged as soon as his real work of satisfaction was accomplished; and therefore it is not only a truth taught in Scripture (Heb. x. 1 – 14; Col. ii. 14 – 17; Eph. ii. 15, 16), but an undeniable historical fact, that the priestly work of Christ immediately and definitely superseded the work of the Levitical priest. The instant of Christ’s death, the veil separating the throne of God from the approach of men “was rent in twain from the top to the bottom” (Matt. xxvii. 50, 51), thus throwing the way open to all, and dispensing with priests and their ceremonial for ever.
That the judicial laws of the Jews have ceased to have binding obligation upon us follows plainly, from the fact that the peculiar relations of the people to God as theocratical King, and to one another as fellow-members of an Old Testament Church State, to which these laws were adjusted, now no longer exist.
SECTION: VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned;[11] yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;[12] discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives;[13] so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin,[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.[15] It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin:[16] and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.[17] The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof:[18] although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works.[19] So as, a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.[20]
Rom. 6:14; 7:4; 8:1, 33; Gal. 2:16; 3:13; 4:4-5; Acts 13:38-39
Rom. 7:12, 22, 25; Psa. 119:1-6; I Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:14-23
Rom. 3:20; 7:7, 13
James 1:23-25; Rom. 7:9, 14, 24
Gal. 3:24; Rom. 7:24-25; 8:3-4
James 2:11-12; Psa. 119:101, 104, 128
Ezra 9:13-14; Psa. 89:30-34; Gal. 3:13
Exod. 19:5-6; Deut. 5:33; Lev. 18:5; 26:1-13; Matt. 5:5; 19:17; II Cor. 6:16; Eph. 6:2-3; Psa. 19:11; 37:11
Gal. 2:16; Luke 17:10
Rom. 6:12-15; cf. I Peter 3:8-12 with Psa. 34:12-16; Heb. 12:28- 29
SECTION: VII. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it;[21] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.[22]
Rom. 3:31; Gal. 3:21; Titus 2:11-14
Ezek. 36:27; Heb. 8:10 with Jer. 31:33; Psa. 119:35, 47; Rom. 7:22
In these sections it is affirmed: –
whereunto they were apprehended in Christ Jesus. It thus tends to set up in the regenerate the habit of conviction of sin and of repentance and faith. Its threatenings and its promises present motives deterring from sin and assuring of grace, and thus leading the soul onward to that blissful attainment when the sovereignly imposed law of God will become the spontaneous law of our spirits, and hence that royal law of liberty of which James speaks. James i. 25; ii. 8, 12. See L. Cat., qs. 94 – 97.
SECTION: I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;[1] and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;[2] from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;[3] as also, in their free access to God,[4] and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind.[5] All which were common also to believers under the law.[6] But, under the new testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected;[7] and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,[8] and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of. [9]
8:1; I Thess. 1:10
Rom. 5:1-2
Rom. 8:14-15; Gal. 4:6; I John 4:18
Gal. 3:8-9, 14; Rom. 4:6-8; I Cor. 10:3-4; Heb. 11:1-40
Gal. 4:1-7; 5:1; Acts 15:10-11
Heb. 4:14-16; 10:19-22
John 7:38-39; Acts 2:17-18; II Cor. 3:8, 13, 17-18; Jer. 31:31-34
THE subject of this chapter is that liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free, which is very different from that freedom of the will which we discussed under chapter ix. We there saw that freedom of the will is an inalienable, constitutional faculty of the human soul, whereby it always exercises its volitions as upon the whole it pleases in any given case. This liberty of will is essential to free agency, and is possessed by all free agents, good or bad, or they could not be held accountable. Christian liberty, on the other hand, implies two things: – (1.) Such an inward spiritual condition of soul that a man has full power through grace to desire and will as he ought to do in conformity to the law of God; and (2.) Such relations to God that the person is delivered from the constraining motives of fear, and brought under the ennobling impulses of love and hope; and such relations to Satan and evil men that he is delivered. from their coercive influences; and such providential circumstances that he has knowledge of his privileges and gracious aid in availing himself of them. This liberty involves the change of nature effectd in regeneration and perfected in sanctification, and the change of relation involved in justification. It is a main element in the grace of adoption, and a privilege of all the children of God. Rom. viii. 14, 15. It was purchased for us by Christ, and is therefore attributed to him (Gal. v. 1); it is applied and effectually wrought in us by the Holy Ghost, and therefore attributed to him. 2 Cor. iii. 17.
This section sets forth this precious and most comprehensive Christian grace in two orders; – first, as it is common to all believers at all times; and, second, as it is enjoyed pre-eminently in certain respects by believers under the new dispensation in contrast to believers under the old.
hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.” Acts ii. 16, 17, 33.
SECTION: II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: [12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]
James 4:12; Rom. 14:4, 10; I Cor. 10:29
Acts 4:19, 5:29; I Cor. 7:22-23; Matt. 15:1-6, 9; 23:8-10; II Cor. 1:24
Col. 2:20-23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4-5; 4:9-10; 5:1
Rom. 10:17; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; John 4:22; Rev. 13:12, 16-17;
Jer. 8:9; I Peter 3:15
SECTION: III. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life.[14]
IV. And because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.[15] And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.[16]
These sections teach the following propositions: –
The Erastian State Churches of Germany and England have often attempted to enforce outward uniformity in profession and worship, in spite of the conscientious scruples of multitudes of their best citizens, on the plea that the right and responsibility of regulating the ecclesiastical as well as the civil interests of the nation devolve upon the civil magistrate.
In opposition to all this, Protestants insist –
We have already proved, under chapter i. sections 6, 7, 9, 10, that Scripture is at once a complete and perspicuous rule of faith and practice, and the supreme judge of all controversies. It hence follows self-evidently – (1.) That nothing contrary to Scripture can be true; (2.) That nothing in addition to what is revealed or commanded in Scripture can be binding upon the conscience; and (3.) That, since the Scriptures are perspicuous, every believer is personally responsible for interpreting Scripture and judging of all human doctrines and commandments by Scripture for himself. This is further proved –
The question as to the right of the civil magistrate to impose religious articles of faith or rules of worship will recur again under chapter xxiii., section 3. It hence follows –
Christian liberty is also further limited by the mutual duties we owe one another. The eating of meat offered to idols is in itself a thing indifferent, because not either commanded or forbidden. The
Christian, therefore, is at liberty either to eat or not to eat. But Paul commands the Corinthians to “take heed lest by any means this liberty of theirs become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” 1 Cor. viii. 9. To allow this would be a sin. The Christian, therefore, may be at liberty to eat or not to eat, but he is not at all at liberty so to use his liberty that his fellow-man is injured thereby. The liberty ceases to be liberty, and becomes licentiousness, when it transcends the law of God or infringes upon the rights of our fellows.
[1] Catechism of the Council of Trent, i. 10, 18; Bellarmine Eccle. Mil., ch. xiv.; Catechism of the Council of Trent, i. 11, 4.
SECTION I: The light of nature showeth that there is a God, who hath lordship and sovereignty over all, is good, and doth good unto all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, trusted in, and served, with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the might.[1] But the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.[2]
Section II. Religious worship is to be given to God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and to him alone; [3] not to angels, saints, or any other creature:[4] and, since the fall, not without a Mediator; nor in the mediation of any other but of Christ alone.[5]
THESE sections teach: –
distinct persons, are yet each equally, in the same absolute sense, the one supreme God. That God can now be acceptably approached only through a Mediator is proved by what we have already proved,– (1,) As to the guilt of man by nature and in consequence of habitual transgression; (2.) As to the justice of God; and (3.) As to the fact that God has from eternity determined to deal with men, as the subjects of redemption, only through a mediator. If Christ as our High Priest truly represents the elect before the Father, in obeying and suffering vicariously in their stead and in making intercession in their behalf; and if he is the medium through which all gracious benefits come to us from God,– it follows that all our approaches to God should be made through him. That God is the only proper object of worship, and that Christ is the only Mediator through whom we may approach God, will be shown under the next head.
The most authoritative Standards of the Church of Rome teach – (1.) That the Virgin Mary and saints and angels are to receive true religious worship, in proportion to their respective ranks. (2.) That they are to be invoked to help us in our times of need. (3) That they are to be invoked to intercede with God or with Christ for us. (4.) Some of their most authoritative books of worship teach that God is to be asked to save and help us on the ground of the merits of the saints; (5.) That the pictures, images, and relics of saints and martyrs, are to be retained in churches and worshipped.
To avoid the charge of idolatry made upon them for these practices, they distinguish between (a.) Latria, or the highest religious worship, which is due to God alone, and (b.) Doulia, or that inferior religious worship which is due in various degrees to saints and angels, according to their rank. Sonic also mark a middle degree of worship, which is due to the Virgin Mary alone, by the term Hyperdoulia. They also distinguish between (a.) that direct worship which is due severally to God, to the Virgin, or to the saints and angels, and (b.) that indirect worship which terminates upon the picture or image which represents to the worshipper the direct object of his worship.
The objections to this entire system are – (1.) That it has neither as a whole nor in any element of it a shadow of support in Scripture. (2.) That the reasons for worshipping God apply to the worship of no other being. That reason and revelation unite in teaching us that a Being of infinite and absolute perfection, our Creator, Preserver, and moral Governor, stands apart from all other objects, and therefore is not to be classed as an object of worship with any other.
order that the saints may in turn tell God, is worthy of the doctrine it explains.
(7.) The saints and angels are not mediators between us and God or us and Christ – (a.) Because it is explicitly asserted that Christ is the only Mediator between God and man. 1 Tim. ii. 5. (b} Christ has exhaustively discharged every requisite mediatorial function, both on earth and in heaven. Heb. ix. 12, 24; vii. 25; x. 14. (c.) Because we are “complete” in Christ; and we are exhorted to come immediately to God through Christ, and to come with the utmost boldness and sense of liberty. Col. ii. 10; Eph. ii. 18; iii. 12; Heb. iv. 15, 16; x. 19 – 22. The very suggestion of supplementing the work of Jesus Christ with that of other mediators is infinitely derogatory to him. (d.) There can be no room for intercessors between us and Christ, because Christ is our tender Brother Matt. xi. 28), and because it is the once of the Holy Ghost to draw men to Christ. John vi. 44; xvi.18, 14. (e.) Even if there were need for other mediators, the saints would not be fit for the place. They are absent; they cannot bear when we cry. They are dependent; they cannot help others. As we have seen, they have no supererogatory merits, and therefore cannot lay in our behalf a foundation for our acceptance with God. They are busy worshipping and enjoying Christ in person, and have neither the time, the opportunity, nor the ability to manage the affairs of the world.
SECTION III: Prayer, with thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship,[6] is by God required of all men:[7] and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made in the name of the Son,[8] by the help of his Spirit,[9] according to his will,[10] with understanding, reverence, humility, fervency, faith, love, and perseverance;[11] and, if vocal, in a known tongue.[12]
Section IV. Prayer is to be made for things lawful;[13] and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter:[14] but not for the dead,[15] nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death.[16]
Our Confession having established the general truth as to the object to whom religious worship is to be rendered, and as to the source of our knowledge of its nature and proper methods, now proceeds to state more particularly what the Scriptures teach on this subject.
These sections teach –
Scriptures upon all men indiscriminately. 1 Thess. v. 17; Acts viii. 22, 23; Luke xi. 9 – 13. We are told not only to pray after we receive the Holy Spirit, but to pray also that we may receive him.
As to the subjects of intercession, we are taught to pray for all men living or to live. 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2; John xvii. 20. But not for those already dead, nor for those known to have committed the unpardonable sin.
The doctrine of the Romish Church concerning prayers for the dead is a dependent part of their doctrine concerning the state of the souls of men after death. They hold that those who are perfect at the time of death go immediately to heaven; those who are infidels or die in mortal sin go immediately to hell; but the great mass of imperfect Christians go to purgatory, where they must stay until they get fit for heaven. Concerning purgatory, the Council of Trent teaches – (1.) That there is a purifying fire through which imperfect Christian souls must pass. (2.) That the souls temporarily suffering therein may be materially benefited by the prayers of their fellow-Christians and the masses offered up in their behalf on earth. (Council of Trent, sess. 25.)
But if there is no purgatory, as will be shown under chapter xxxii., there can be no prayers for the dead, since those in heaven need no intercession, and for those in hell none can avail. It is as presumptuous as it is futile to assail the throne of God with supplications “when once the Master of the house has shut to the door.” Luke xiii. 25. The Scriptures teach of only two states of existence beyond death, and of a great, impassable gulf fixed between. Luke xvi. 25, 26. Besides, the practice of praying for the dead has no warrant, direct or by remote implication, in Scripture. SECTION V: The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear,[17] the sound preaching [18] and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence,[19] singing of psalms with grace in the heart;[20] as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God:[21] beside religious oaths,[22] vows,[23] solemn fastings,[24] and thanksgivings upon special occasions,[25] which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner.[26]
SECTION VI: Neither prayer, nor any other part of religious worship, is now, under the gospel, either tied unto, or made more acceptable by any place in which it is performed, or towards which it is directed: [27] but God is to be worshiped everywhere,[28] in spirit and truth; [29] as, in private families [30] daily,[31] and in secret, each one by himself;[32] so, more solemnly in the public assemblies, which are not carelessly or willfully to be neglected, or forsaken, when God, by his Word or providence, calleth thereunto.[33]
These sections proceed to particularize the different ways in which God requires us under the present dispensation to worship him. These are the regular and the occasional acts of worship. The regular worship of God is to be conducted in the public assembly, in the private family, and personally in secret. The worship of God in the public assembly is to consist in the reading, preaching, and hearing of the Word; prayer, singing of psalms; and the administration and receiving of the sacraments instituted by him. In the Word, read or properly preached, God speaks to us, and we worship him by hearing with reverence, diligent attention, and self-application and obedience. In prayer and the singing of praise we address to God the holy affections, desires, and thanksgivings inspired in our hearts by his Holy Spirit. In the sacraments God communes with and enters into covenant with our souls, and we commune with and enter into covenant with him. And the acceptability of this worship depends not at all, as Ritualists fondly imagine, upon the sanctity of the place in which it is rendered or the direction in which it is addressed. The dispensation in which worship was limited to holy places, persons, and seasons, has been done away with by our Lord, as we have seen under chapters vii. and xix., and as Christ plainly teaches the woman of Samaria. John iv. 20 – 24. But its acceptance depends upon – (1.) Its being accompanied with .and founded upon the pure, unadulterated truth of God’s Word; (2.) Its being the fruit of the Holy Ghost, the result of en- lightened, reverent, and fervent love; (3.) Its being offered entirely through the mediation of the Lord Jesus.
“Besides the public worship in congregations, it is the indispensable duty of each person, alone in secret, and of every family by itself in private, to pray to and worship God.
“Secret worship is most plainly enjoined by our Lord. Matt. vi. 6; Eph, vi. 18. In this duty every one, apart by himself, is to spend some time in prayer, reading the Scriptures, holy meditation, and serious self-examination. The many advantages arising from a conscientious discharge of these duties are best known to those who are found in the faithful discharge of them.
“Family worship, which ought to be performed by every family, ordinarily morning and evening, consists in prayer, reading the Scriptures, and singing praises.
” The head of the family, who is to lead in this service, ought to be careful that all the members of his household duly attend; and that none withdraw themselves unnecessarily from any part of family worship; and that all refrain from their common business while the Scriptures are read, and gravely attend to the same, no less than when prayer and praise are offered up.
“Let the heads of families be careful to instruct their children and servants in the principles of religion. Every proper opportunity ought to be embraced for such instruction. But we are of opinion that the Sabbath evenings, after public worship, shouldst be sacredly preserved for this purpose. Therefore we highly disapprove of paying unnecessary private visits on the Lord’s day; admitting strangers into the families, except when necessity or charity requires it; or any other practices, whatever plausible pretences may be offered in their favour, if they interfere with the above important and necessary duty.” [American] Directory for Worship, chap. xv.
The occasional modes by which God may be in proper seasons worshipped are such as religious oaths, and vows, and fasting, and special thanksgiving. Of oaths and vows we will treat under chapter xxii. Of the propriety and usefulness of special seasons of fasting and of thanksgiving, the examples of God’s Word (Ps. cvii.; Matt. ix. 15) and the experience of the Christian Church in modern times leave no room for doubt.
SECTION: VII. As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:[34] which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week, [35] and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s day,[36] and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath. [37]
SECTION: VIII. This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest, all the day, from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations,[38] but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.[39]
Under chapter xix. we saw that the different laws of God, when classified according to their respective grounds or reasons, might be grouped as follows: (1.) Those having their ground in the divine nature, and therefore universal and immutable. (2.) Those having their ground, as far as known to us, simply and purely in the divine will, hence called positive commandments, and binding only so far and so long as commanded. (3.) Those having their ground and reason in the temporary circumstances to which they were adapted, and to which alone they were intended to apply, so that they cease to be binding as soon as those circumstances cease to exist. (4.) Those which have their ground in the universal and permanent state and relations of men in this world, and hence are intended to be as universal and as permanent as those relations.
It is evident that the Scriptural law as to the Sabbath comes partly under the fourth and partly also under the second of these classes.
All of these reasons for the institution of the Sabbath have their ground in human nature, and remain in full force among all men of all nations, in all stages of intellectual and moral development. Hence the Sabbath was introduced as a divine institution at the creation of the race, and was then enjoined upon man as man, and hence upon the race generally and in perpetuity. Gen. ii. 2, 3. Hence we find that the Jews (Gen. vii. 10; viii. 10; xxix. 27, 28; Job ii. 13), and all Gentile nations also, as the Egyptians, Arabians, Indians, etc., divided their time by weeks, or periods of seven days, from the earliest ages. Hence before the giving of the law the Jews were required to observe the Sabbath. Ex. xvi. 23. Hence also the law with respect to the Sabbath has been incorporated into the Decalogue, as one of the ten requirements in which the entire moral law, touching all our relations to God and to our fellow-men, is generalized and condensed. It was written by the finger of God on stone. It is put side by side with the commandments which require us to love God, to honour his name, and which forbid unchastity and murder. It was put, as a part of the “testimonies of God,” under the “mercy-seat,” at the foundation of his throne. And hence, when the great commandment is uttered, God does not say, “I appoint to you a Sabbath-day,” but, “remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy,” -evidently implying that he was referring to a well-known and preexistent institution common to the Jews with the Gentiles. And the reason annexed for the enactment of the law is not a fact peculiar to Jewish history, but a fact underlying all the relations God sustains to the entire race, and, as before shown, the fact out of which the Sabbatic institution had originated thousands of years before –” For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,” etc. Ex. xx. 8 -ll. So Christ says, “The Sabbath was made for man;” that is, for mankind. Mark ii. 27.
The time of observance was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week in the age of the apostles, and consequently with their sanction; and that day, as “the Lord’s day” (Rev. i. 10), has ever since been observed in the stead of the ancient Sabbath, in all portions and ages of the Christian Church. We accept this change as it comes to us, and believe it to be according to the will of God – (1.) Because of its apostolic origin; (2.) Because of the transcendent importance of the resurrection of Christ, which is thus associated with the creation of the world by God, as the foundation of the Christian religion; and (3.) Because of the universal consent of Christians of all generations and denominations, and the approbation of the Holy Ghost that dwelleth in them that is implied thereby.
As to the observance of the Christian Sabbath, the obvious general rule is, that it is to be observed, (1.) Not in the spirit of the law, which Christ condemns Matt. xii. 1; Luke xiii. 15), but in the holy and free spirit of the gospel, (2.) In accordance with the ends for which it is instituted, and which have been above enumerated.
Since God has appointed the Sabbath to be one day in seven, we should consecrate the whole day, without curtailment or alienation, to the purposes designed; that is, to rest from worldly labour, the worship of God, and the religious instruction of our fellow-men. We should be diligent in using the whole day for these purposes, and to avoid, and, as far as lieth in us, lead our fellow-men to avoid, all that hinders the most profitable application of the day to its proper ends. And nothing is to be allowed to interfere with this consecration of the day except the evident and reasonable demands of necessity as far as our own interests are concerned, and of mercy as far as the necessities of our fellow-men and of dependent animals are concerned.
SECTION I. A lawful oath is a part of religious worship,[1] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth, or promiseth, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.[2]
Deut. 10:20; Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10-11
Exod. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; Rom. 1:9; II Cor. 1:23; 11:31; Gal. 1:20; II
Chr. 6:22-23
SECTION II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.[3] Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred.[4] Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the new testament as well as under the old;[5] so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.[6]
Deut. 6:12; Josh. 23:7
Exod. 20:7; Jer. 5:7; Matt. 5:33-37; James 5:12
Heb. 6:16; II Cor. 1:23; Isa. 65:16
I Kings 8:31; Neh. 13:25; Ezra 10:5
SECTION III. Whosoever taketh an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.
Exod. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; Jer. 4:2; Hosea 10:4
Gen. 24:2-9; Neh 5:12-13; Eccl. 5:2, 5
SECTION IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[9] It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt.[10] Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[11]
9. Jer. 4:2; Psa. 24:4 10. I Sam. 25:22, 32-34; Psa. 15:4
The subjects treated of in these sections are – 1. The nature of a lawful oath. 2. The only name in which it is lawful to swear. 3. The propriety and duty of taking oaths upon proper occasions. 4. The sense in which an oath is to be interpreted. And, 5. The extent and grounds of its binding obligation.
Hence an oath is an act of supreme religious worship, since it recognizes the omnipresence, omniscience, absolute justice and sovereignty of the Person whose august witness is invoked, and whose judgment is appealed to as final.
swear by the God who created, preserves, and governs all things. Those who swear with hand upon or kissing the Bible, swear by the God who reveals himself in the Bible – that is, by the true Christian God. It is evident that none who believe in the true God can, consistently with their integrity, swear by a false god. And it is no less evident that it is dishonest for an atheist to go through the form of swearing at all; or for an infidel to swear with his hand upon the Christian Scriptures, thereby professing to invoke a God in whose existence he does not believe.
This principle is fully recognized in Scripture. We are told to swear by the true God: “Unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear,” Isa. xlv. 23; “He that sweareth in the earth shall swear by the God of truth,” Isa. 1xv. 16; “Thou shalt fear JEHOVAH thy God and serve him, and shalt swear by his name,” Deut. vi. 13. We are forbidden to swear by the name of false gods: “ How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods.” Jer. v. 7; Josh. xxiii. 7.
It is evident, therefore, that the words of our Saviour (Matt. v. 33 -37), “ Swear not at all,” cannot be intended to forbid swearing upon proper occasions in the name of the true God, but must be designed to forbid the calling upon his name in ordinary conversation and on trifling occasions, and the swearing by that which is not God.
The proper occasions upon which an oath may be taken are all those in which serious and perfectly lawful interests are involved, and in which an appeal to the witness of God is necessary to secure confidence and end strife (Heb. vi. 16); and also whenever the oath is imposed by competent authority upon those subject to it. In the latter case, our Confession says that the taking the oath is a duty, and its refusal a sin.
The oath, of course, both because of its nature as an act of divine worship and because of the effect designed to be attained by it -namely, the establishment of confidence among men – ought always to be administered and taken in a reverent manner, and with whatever outward action – such as raising the hand, placing it upon the Scriptures or kissing them – as by common consent is generally understood, by all parties and witnesses, to signify that the God appealed to is the true God of creation, of providence, and of the Christian revelation.
An oath cannot bind to that which is in itself unlawful, because the obligation of the law is imposed upon us by the will of God, and therefore takes precedence of all obligations imposed upon us by the will of men or by ourselves; and the lesser obligation cannot relieve from the greater. The sin is in taking the oath to do the unlawful thing, not in breaking it. Therefore Luther was right in breaking his monastic vows. Neither can an oath to do that which is impossible bind, for its impossibility is an expression of the will of God.
But an oath to do what is in itself right and binding imposes an additional obligation to perform it – the obligation imposed by the law, and the obligation voluntarily assumed by ourselves. And an oath to do anything which is lawful binds both for truth’s sake and for God’s sake. And –
SECTION V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.[12]
SECTION VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone: [13] and, that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties; or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.[14]
SECTION VII. No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God.[15] In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.[16]
Acts 23:12-14; Mark 6:26; Num. 30:5, 8, 12-13
Matt. 10:11-12; I Cor. 7:2, 9; Heb. 13:4; Eph. 4:28; I Thess. 4:11-
12; I Cor. 7:23
The vow is a promise made to God. In the oath, the parties are both men, and God is invoked as a witness. In the vow, God is the party to whom the promise is made. It is of like nature with an oath, because we are bound to observe them on the same grounds – because of our obligation to truth, and because of our obligation to reverence God. Lightly to vow on a trifling occasion, or having vowed to fail to keep it, is an act of profanity to God.
As in the case of the oath, we have abundant Scriptural sanction for the vow. Eccles. v. 4; Ps. 1xxvi. 11; 1 Sam. i. 11; and the case of Paul, Acts xviii. 18. Reception of either of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper involves very sacred and binding vows to God; and the same is repeated whenever in prayer, orally or in writing, we formally or informally renew our covenant promises to God. Thus a vow, as any other promise, may bind generally to loyal obedience or specially to some particular action.
A vow cannot bind to do that which is unlawful or impossible, for reasons before explained in relation to an oath; nor when made by a child or other person under authority and destitute of the right to bind themselves of their own will. Num. xxx. 1 – 8. Nor can it continue to bind in cases in which its continued observance is found clearly to be inconsistent with our spiritual interests; for then it is certain that God does not wish it, and a promise can never bind when the party to whom it is made does not desire it kept.
When the matter of the vow is not unlawful, but morally indifferent, the vow is binding; but experience abundantly proves that to accumulate such obligations is very injurious. The Word of God in the Scriptures imposes upon us by his authority all that it is his will or for our interest for us to observe. The multiplication of selfimposed duties dishonours him, and greatly harasses us and endangers our safety. Vows had better be restricted to the voluntary assumption and promise to observe, with the help of divine grace, duties imposed by God and plainly revealed in the Scriptures.
Section I: God, the supreme Lord and King of all the world, hath ordained civil magistrates, to be, under him, over the people, for his own glory, and the public good: and, to this end, hath armed them with the power of the sword, for the defense and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evildoers.[1]
II. It is lawful for Christians to accept and execute the office of a magistrate, when called thereunto:[2] in the managing whereof, as they ought especially to maintain piety, justice, and peace, according to the wholesome laws of each commonwealth;[3] so, for that end, they may lawfully, now under the new testament, wage war, upon just and necessary occasion.[4]
Gen. 41:39-43; Neh. 12:26; 13:15-31; Dan. 2:48-49; Prov. 8:15-16; Rom. 13:1-4
Psa. 2:10-12; 82:3-4; I Tim. 2:2; II Sam. 23:3; I Peter 2:13
Luke 3:14; Rom. 13:4; Matt. 8:9-10; Acts 10:1-2
THESE sections teach as follows: –
Of course God has not prescribed for all men any particular form or order of succession of civil government. He has laid the general foundation both for the duty and necessity of government in the consciences and in the social natures of all men, and in the circumstances of all communities, while he has left every people free to choose their own form of government in their own way, according to their various degrees of civilization, their social and political condition, their historical antecedents, and as they are instructed by his Word, and led and sustained by his providence.
In this sense God as Creator, as revealed in the light of nature, has established civil government among men from the beginning, and among all peoples and nations, of all ages and generations. But in the development of the plan of redemption the God-man as mediatorial King has assumed the government of the universe. Matt. xxviii. 18; Phil. ii. 9 – 11; Eph. i. 17 – 23. As the universe constitutes one physical and moral system, it was necessary that his headship as Mediator should extend to the whole and to every department thereof, in order that all things should work together for good to his people and for his glory, that all his enemies should be subdued and finally judged and punished, and that all creatures should worship him, as his Father had determined. Rom. viii. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 25; Heb. x. 13; i. 6; Rev. v. 9 – 13. Hence the present providential Governor of the physical universe and “Ruler among the nations” is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews, to whose will all laws should be conformed, and whom all nations and all rulers of men should acknowledge and serve. “He hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OP KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. Rev. xix. 16.
It is very difficult to decide in particular cases when it is right for a Christian nation to go to war, and it is not our place to consider such questions. But the following general principles are very plain and very certain: – War is an incalculable evil, because of the lives it destroys, the misery it occasions, and the moral degradation it infallibly works on all sides – upon the vanquished and the victor, the party originally in the right and the party in the wrong. In every war one party at least must be in the wrong, involved in the tremendous guilt of unjustifiable war, and in the vast majority of cases both parties are in the wrong. No plea of honour, glory or aggrandizement, policy or profit, can excuse, much less justify, war; nothing short of necessity to the end of the preservation of national existence. In order to make a war right in God’s sight, it is not only necessary that our enemy should aim to do us a wrong, but also (1.) That the wrong he attempts should directly or remotely threaten the national life; and (2.) That war be the only means to avert it. Even in this case every other means of securing justice and maintaining national safety should be exhausted before recourse is had to this last resort. A war may be purely defensive in spirit and intent while it is aggressive in the manner in which it is conducted. The question of right depends upon the former, not the latter – upon the purpose for which, and not upon the mere order in which, or theatre upon which, the attack is made.
Section III: Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;[5] or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.[6] Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.[7] And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.[8] It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.[9]
5. II Chr. 26:18; Matt. 16:19; 18:17; I Cor. 4:1, 12; 12:28-29; Eph. 4:11-12; Rom. 10:15; Heb. 5:4 6. John 18:36; Acts 5:29; Eph. 4:11-12 7. Isa. 49:23; Rom. 13:1-6 8. Psa. 105:15 9. Rom. 13:4; I Tim. 2:2
IV. It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates [10], to honor their persons,[11] to pay them tribute or other dues,[12] to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake.[13] Infidelity, or difference in religion, doth not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them :[14] from which ecclesiastical persons are not exempted,[15] much less hath the pope any power and jurisdiction over them in their dominions, or over any of their people; and, least of all, to deprive them of their dominions, or lives, if he shall judge them to be heretics, or upon any other pretense whatsoever.[16]
10. I Tim. 2:1-3 11. I Peter 2:17 12. Matt. 22:21; Rom. 13:6-7 13. Rom. 13:5 Titus 3:1 14. I Peter 2:13-16 15. Rom. 13:1; Acts 25:9-11; II Peter 2:1, 10-11; Jude 1:8-11
These sections teach that the Church and the State are both divine institutions, having different objects and spheres of action, different governments and officers, and hence, while owing mutual good offices, are independent of each other. This is opposed –
In opposition to this, our Confession teaches that religious liberty is an inalienable prerogative of mankind (chapter xx.), and that it involves the unlimited right upon the part of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Hence, ecclesiastical rulers, although endowed with the power of the keys, are not allowed to apply any civil pains or disabilities to coerce men to obey the laws they administer. Hence, also, the civil magistrate, while bound to protect church members and ecclesiastical organizations in the peaceful enjoyment of their rights and discharge of their functions, is nevertheless allowed no official jurisdiction whatever in the affairs of the Church. The same person may be a civil magistrate and a church member. In the one case he is a ruler – in the other a subject. Or the same person may be a civil magistrate and a church officer, and rule at the same time in both spheres. But his jurisdiction in each case would have entirely independent grounds, objects, spheres, modes and subjects of operation.
These sections also teach that obedience to civil magistrates, when making or executing laws within the proper sphere of the State, is a duty binding upon all the subjects of government for conscience’ sake by the authority of God. This follows directly from the fact, as before shown, that civil government is an ordinance of God – that the powers that be are ordained of God for certain ends; hence obedience to them is obedience to God. It follows hence – (1.) That this obedience ought to be from the heart and for conscience’ sake, and not of constraint. Hence we will pray for and voluntarily assist our rulers, as well as render mere technical obedience. (2.) Rebellion is a grievous sin, since it is disobedience to God, and since it necessarily works such permanent physical ruin and social demoralization among our fellow-men. The limit of this obligation to obedience will be found only when we are commanded to do something contrary to the superior authority of God (Acts iv. 19; v. 29); or when the civil government has become so radically and incurably corrupt that it has ceased to accomplish the ends for which it was established. When that point has unquestionably been reached, when all means of redress have been exhausted without avail, when there appears no prospect of securing reform in the government, itself, and some good prospect of securing it by revolution, then it is the privilege and duty of a Christian people to change their government – peacefully if they may, forcibly if they must.
Gen. 2:18; Eph. 5:28; I Peter 3:7
Gen. 1:28; 9:1; Mal. 2:15
I Cor. 7:2, 9
III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent. [5] Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.[6] And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.[7]
Hence it follows that marriage is a religious as well as a civil contract. No State has any right to change the law of marriage, or the conditions upon which it, may be lawfully constituted or dissolved, as these have been ordained by God. Neither has any man or woman a right to contract any relation different in any respect, as to its character or duration, from that which God has ordained as marriage. Hence marriage is a human contract under the limits and sanctions of a divine constitution, and the parties contracting pledge their vows of truth and constancy to God as well as to each other and to society.
But it is also a civil contract, because every State is bound to protect the foundations upon which social order reposes, and every marriage involves many obvious civil obligations and leads to many civil consequences touching property, the custody of children, etc. The State must therefore define the nature and civil effects of marriage, and prescribe conditions upon which and modes in which it shall be publicly acknowledged and ratified or dissolved. It is of the highest importance that the laws of the State do not contravene the laws of God upon this subject, but be made in all respects to conform to them. In all cases of such conflict Christians and Christian ministers must obey God rather than men. In Great Britain the civil authorities have transgressed the authority of God in this matter, chiefly by declaring marriages, really binding in God’s sight, to be null and void ab initio, because of some trivial illegality as to the time in which or the persons by whom it was solemnized. In this country [America] the sin is chiefly committed in the matter of allowing the marriage bond to be dissolved for many causes not recognized as valid in the Word of God. The law of the land is to be obeyed for conscience sake whenever it does not contravene the higher law of God. When it plainly does so, then Christian men and church sessions are to act themselves and to treat others just as if the ungodly human enactment had no existence, and then take the consequences.
observance of which supererogatory merit may be attained; and hence the Romish Church imposes it as a universal and imperative obligation upon its clergy.
This all Protestants deny for the following reasons: -(1.) God created man male and female, and constituted the relation of the sexes, and ordained marriage in Paradise when man was innocent. Marriage, therefore, must be purely good, and a means of good in itself, except when abused by man.
intermarry with the ungodly, touches not that which is essential to the validity of marriage, but that which belongs to its perfection, and brings in question not the reality of the marriage when formed, but the propriety of forming it. Paul teaches that if one of the parties of a previous marriage becomes a Christian, the other remaining a heathen, the Christian brother or sister remains bound by the marriage-tie as before, unless the heathen party voluntarily abandon them, and so dissolve the relation, when the Christian is no longer bound. 1 Cor. vii. 12 – 15. On the same principle, the marriages at present so common between the converted and the unconverted are unquestionably valid, and to be respected as such.
It nevertheless remains true that true Christians owe it both to Christ and to their own souls not to contract such alliances. For how can one who possesses the mind and the spirit of Christ, whose affections are as a practical fact set upon things above, whose motives, aims and aspirations are heavenly, become one flesh and heart, dwell in the most intimate of all possible communion, with a soul dead in trespasses and sins? (See 2 Cor. vi. 14-18.) If such a union is formed, it must follow, either that the sacred ordinance of marriage is desecrated by a union of bodies where there is no union of hearts, or in the intimate fellowship of soul with soul the believer will be greatly depressed in his inward, spiritual life, and greatly hindered in his attempts to serve his Master in the world. 1 Cor. vii. 39.
IV. Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word.[8] Nor can such incestuous marriages ever be made lawful by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife.[9] The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred, nearer in blood then he may of his own: nor the woman of her husband’s kindred, nearer in blood than of her own.
Lev. 18:6-17; 24-30; Lev. 20:19; I Cor. 5:1; Amos 2:7
Mark 6:18; Lev. 18:24-28
V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.[10] In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce:[11] and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.[12]
10. Matt. 1:18-20; see Deut. 22:23-24 11. Matt. 5:31-32 12. Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2-3
VI. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage:[13] wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case.[14]
13. Matt. 19:8-9; I Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6 14. Deut. 24:1-4
These sections teach the divine law of marriage as to incest and as to divorce.
l. INCEST consists of sexual intercourse between parties forbidden by the divine law to marry, because of their relationship. Marriage between these parties is impossible; and no matter what may be the provisions of human laws or the decisions of human courts, such pretended marriages are void ab initio – invalid in essence as well as improper and injurious. Since the degrees of relationship within which marriage is excluded differ in nearness, so the crime of incest differs, according to these varying degrees, from the highest to the least measure of criminality. The obligation to avoid intermarriage between near blood-relations is a dictate of nature as well as of the Word of God.
The only law on this subject in the Scriptures is the Levitical law recorded in Lev. xviii. 6 – 23; xx. 10 – 21. If this law is still binding, it carries with it the principle that it is incest for a man to cohabit with any one of his deceased wife’s relations nearer in blood. than it is lawful for him to do of his own. If this law is not binding now, there is no other law of God remaining on the subject of incest except the law of nature.
The Greek and Roman Catholic Churches agree in holding that this law is still binding, since the reason of the law rests upon permanent relationships, and not upon any special circumstances peculiar to society among the Jews. All branches of the Protestant Church -Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian – have maintained the same principle in their Confessions of Faith or canons of discipline. It is asserted in these sections of our Confession. But a great diversity of sentiment and practice prevails in different parts of our [the American] Church, on this subject, and for the most part the enforcement of this rule has been left to the discretion of the majority of each local church court. Several efforts have been made, in 1826 and 1827, and 1843, 1845, and 1847, to have this section of this chapter changed, but without effect.
marriage an empty name, void of all reality; and, being causeless, leaves the deserting party without remaining rights to be defended.
[1] See Baird’s Digest, pp. 163-168.
SECTION I. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.[1]
SECTION II. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2] and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]
I Cor. 1:2; 12:12-13; Psa. 2:8; Rev. 7:9; Rom. 15:9-12
I Cor. 7:14; Acts 2:39; Gen. 17:7-12; Ezek. 16:20-21; Rom. 11:16;
see Gal. 3:7, 9, 14; Rom. 4:12, 16, 24
Matt. 13:47; Isa. 9:7; Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-36; Col. 1:13
Eph. 2:19; 3:15
Acts 2:47
SECTION III. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto. [7]
THE word catholic means universal, and therefore is the proper title of the true Church of Christ, viewed as one body, composed of many members, existing in different places and at different times; and is consequently very improperly applied to that corrupt and schismatical body, the Church of Rome.
The word in the New Testament corresponding to the English word church is ecclesia (ekklesia); this is derived from the word calein (kalein), to call, to call out, and thus constitute a separate body; which word is used to express the effectual call of the Holy Spirit, whereby he brings dead souls to life in the world of regeneration. Rom. viii, 28 – 30; 1 Pet. ii. 9; v. 10. The word “ church,” therefore, is a collective term including the whole body of the “ called “ (kletoi) or the “ elect “ (eklektoi), or of “ believers.” Rev. xvii. 14; 1 Cor. i. 2, 24.
To this Church, or collective body of the “effectually called,” all the promises of the Gospel are addressed. It is said to be the “pillar and ground of the truth “ (1 Tim. iii, 15); the “body” and “fulness of Christ” (Eph. i. 22, 23); “the Bride, the Lamb’s wife” (Rev. xxi. 2, 9); and it is affirmed that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. xvi. 18
As every part of this entire body possesses the common nature of the whole, the common term “ Church “ is naturally applied sometimes to the entire body, of all nations and ages, conceived of as a unit (Col. i. 18); and sometimes to the church of a particular province or city, as “the church of the Thessalonians,” or “the church of Ephesus “ (2 Thess. i. 1; Rev. ii. 1); or in the plural for the several individual churches of a province, as “the churches in Asia,” or “ the churches of Macedonia,” or of “ Galatia” (1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 1; Rev. i. 4); and sometimes the word is applied to designate some Christian family, as
” the church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila.” Rom. xvi. 5; Col. iv. 15; Philem. 2.
Our Confession teaches in these sections –
This body, thus seen in its absolute fulness and perfection by God from eternity, will be at last revealed to the universe in all its completeness and glory, so that it will transcend all the other works of God in its visible excellences. And it is seen in part by us now in the successive ages as it is gathered in, because every member of it is a man or woman living and acting in the world, and the spiritual life whereby they are constituted members of the Church makes itself manifest by its fruits. This Church is called “invisible,” however, (1.) Because the portions of it at any time or place visible are immeasurably small in comparison with the body as a whole in its full complement of saints of all nations and generations; and (2.) Because even in the sections of this body visible to us its outlines are very uncertain. Many who appear as parts of it do not really belong to it, and many may really belong to it whose union with it is not manifest. The lines are not to human eye drawn with any degree of accuracy between the Church and the world. In the meantime, the true Church, not yet perfectly developed and manifested, lurks in the phenomenal Church, as the grain of the growing corn lurks in the ear, and in this sense it is invisible. For that which constitutes the essence of this Church is not the visible profession or fruitfulness, but that invisible indwelling divine life, from which the profession and the fruitfulness proceed.
These sections teach that there is also a catholic or universal visible Church, consisting of those of every nation who profess the true religion, together with their children. This proposition involves - (1.) The truth that the true Church, consisting of persons, a part of whom are always living, and, with more or less faithfulness, bringing forth visible fruits of holiness on the earth, of course is itself always in part, and with greater or less clearness, visible. The universal visible Church is therefore not a different Church from that which has just been described as invisible. It is the same body, as its successive generations pass in their order and are imperfectly discriminated from the rest of mankind by the eye of man. (2.) The truth that God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws and officers, badges, ordinances and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible Church; and all together, of all names and nations, constitute the catholic or universal visible Church. The conditions of human life, physical, political, and social, and the imperfections of Christians, render impossible a practical organic union of all these organized bodies; yet that they all are one visible Church is self-evident, from the fact that they are all visible parts of the true spiritual or invisible Church, which, being “the body of Christ,” can never be divided. (3.) The truth also that since the Church is rendered visible by the profession and outward obedience of its members; and since no class of men are ever endowed with the power of discriminating with absolute accuracy the genuineness of Christian characteristics, it necessarily follows that a credible profession, as presumptive evidence of real religion, constitutes a person a member of the visible Church. By a credible profession is meant a profession of the true religion sufficiently intelligent and sufficiently corroborated by the daily life of the professor to be credited as genuine. Every such profession is ground for the presumption that the person is a member of the true Church, and consequently constitutes him a member of the visible Church, and lays an obligation upon all other Christians to regard and treat him accordingly. This visible Church is called “the kingdom of heaven” on the earth; and its nature and progress are set forth in the parables of the “sower and the seed,” the “wheat and the tares,” the “mustard seed,” the “leaven,” the “net which was cast into the sea and gathered fish of every kind,” etc. Matt. xiii. (4.) Also the truth that the children of all professors of the true religion are, on that account, fellowmembers with their parents of the visible Church. This important principle will properly come up for discussion and proof under chapter xxviii. section 4.
These sections teach that God has given to this universal visible Church, in all its branches and constituent elements – (1.) The inspired Scriptures as an infallible oracle and rule of faith and practice; (2.) The Gospel ministry – an order not qualified and indicated by manual contact, but by the gifts and graces of the Holy Ghost; (3.) The ordinances, such as preaching, prayer, singing of praise, and the holy sacraments of Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, and discipline. And (4.) That the great end designed to be accomplished by this grant is (a.) the gathering in of the elect from the children of the Church or from the world, and (b.) the perfecting of the saints when thus gathered. Eph. iv. 11 – 13. And (5.) That the success of these agencies in attaining this end is secured beyond peradventure by the promise of Christ to be with them and to render them effectual until the end of the world. Matt. xxviii. 20.
These sections teach that out of the bounds of this universal visible Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. This proposition is believed by our Church and by all other evangelical Christians to apply only to adults who are out of the pale of the visible Church. A11 the members of the human race dying in infancy are believed to be saved through the merits of Christ. Since, then, the universal visible Church consists of all the professors of the true religion in the world, to say that out of it there is ordinarily no possibility of salvation is only saying – (1.) That God has never in any way revealed his intention of saving any sane adult destitute of the personal knowledge of Christ. (2.) That an unexceptional experience in heathen lands leads us to the conviction that none in such a condition are saved. (3.) That God has very emphatically declared that those who deny his Son before men shall not be saved. Matt. x. 33. (4.) That every man who hears the gospel is commanded to confess Christ before men – that is, to become a public, visible professor of the true religion. Matt. x. 32. The conditions of salvation laid down in Rom. x. 9, 10 are –” If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe with thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” There are obviously various ways in which Christ may be publicly acknowledged and confessed. In some way every person having the love of Christ in his heart will confess him. But our Confession intends in these sections to teach further that ordinarily, where there is the knowledge and opportunity, God requires every one who loves Christ to confess him in the regular way of joining the community of his people and of taking the sacramental badges of his discipleship. That this is commanded will be shown under chapters xxvii.-xxix. And that when providentially possible every Christian heart will be prompt to obey in this matter, is selfevident. When shame or fear of persecution is the preventing consideration, then the failure to obey is equivalent to the positive rejection of Christ, since the rejection of him will have to be publicly pretended in such case in order to avoid the consequences attending upon the public acknowledgment of him.
SECTION IV. This catholic church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible.[8] And particular churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.[9]
Rom. 11:3-5; Acts 2:41, 47; 9:31; 18:8-10
Acts 2:41-42; I Cor. 5:6-7; Rev. ch. 2-3
SECTION V. The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error;[10] and some have so degenerated, as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.[11] Nevertheless, there shall be always a church on earth, to worship God according to his will.[12]
10. I Cor. 13:12; Rev. ch. 2-3; Matt. 13:24-30, 47 11. Matt. 23:37-39; Rom. 11:18-22 12. Matt. 16:18; Psa. 45:16-7; 72:17; Matt. 28:19-20; I Cor. 15:51-52; I Thess. 4:17
SECTION VI. There is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ.[13] Nor can the pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof;[14] but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.
13. Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22 14. Matt. 23:8-10; I Peter 5:2-4
All that is taught in these sections necessarily follows from what we have above ascertained as to the nature of the visible Church: –
entire Church appear more visibly discriminated from the world and manifest in her entire outline. In the same measure, also, will every individual ecclesiastical organization be pure – that is, free from heterogeneous elements – and consecrated to the accomplishment of the ends for which it is designed.
The Church of Rome maintains that the promise of Christ secures the infallible orthodoxy and purity of the visible organization, in subjection to apostolically-ordained bishops, to the end of the world. But the Church whose infallible orthodoxy and purity is guaranteed by the divine promise is no outward visible organization or succession of bishops or priests; it is the particular Church of no nation or generation, but it is the true invisible body of the elect or of true believers of all nations and ages. That it is so is proved – (1.) From the fact that for eighteen hundred years the promise has been fulfilled in the sense we have defined, but has never been fulfilled in the sense the Romish Church demands. They have themselves led the defection from the faith and practice of the apostolic Church. And among Romanists and Protestants alike, visible ecclesiastical organizations are continually changing their characters and relations to the truth. (2.) Several of the Epistles are addressed to “the Church,” and the salutations explain that phrase by the equivalents “the called,” “the saints,” etc. See the salutations of First and Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, First and Second Peter, and Jude. The same attributes are ascribed to the members of the true Church in the body of the Epistles. 1 Cor. i. 30; iii. 16; vi. 11; Eph. ii. 3 – 8, 19 – 22; Col. i. 21, 22; ii. 10; 1 Pet. ii. 9. (3.) The attributes ascribed to the true Church prove it to be spiritual, and, in the sense explained, invisible, and not an outward organized succession. Eph. v. 27; 1 Pet. ii. 5; John x. 27; Col. i. 18, 24.
Many have, however, maintained that, as the visible Church on earth has a government and laws, and since these must be administered by a visible authority, so the Church must have an earthly visible head, acting upon authority delegated by Christ and is his representative. The Church of Rome claims this for the Pope: “So has Christ – the Head and Spouse – placed over his Church, which he governs by his most inward Spirit, a man to be the vicar and minister of his power; for as a visible church requires a visible head, our Saviour appointed Peter head and pastor of all the faithful.” Cat. Rom., part i. ch. x., q. 11.
The Erastian State Churches of Germany and Great Britain have acknowledged their respective sovereigns as supreme heads of the Church as well as of the State. Henry VIII. was recognized as “supreme head of the Church of England,” and it was enacted “That the king, his heirs, etc., shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the only supreme head on earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia; and shall have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm, as well the style and title thereof, as all honours, dignities, immunities, profits and commodities to the said dignity of supreme head of the said. Church belonging and appertaining.” 26 Henry VIII., cap. i. This supremacy of the reigning sovereign over the Church is even made an article of faith, being incorporated into the Thirty- seventh Article of the Church of England: “The Queen’s majesty has the chief power in this realm of England, and other her dominions; unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain.”
In both these cases, and in all cases of like claims to ecclesiastical supremacy, it is a mere question of fact and evidence. If, as a matter of fact, Christ delegated his authority either to the Pope or to national Sovereigns, and made them, as his victors, visible heads of his Church, then we ought to obey them, and our disobedience is treason to Christ. On the contrary, if they have no such authority, and are unable to prove their claims by unquestionable credentials, then their assumption of such power is a blasphemous intrusion upon divine prerogatives and treason to the human race. It is obvious that neither party can show any plausible foundation for their claims, and that upon the slightest interrogation they fall of their own weight.
In the absence of any duly accredited visible head of the Church, we are forced back to direct dependence for law and its administration, as well as for redemption, upon the great invisible Head. He presides over and governs his Church – (1.) Through his inspired Word, which is, as we have seen, an infallible, complete, and perspicuous rule of faith and practice. (2.) Through the apostolical institutions transmitted to us, as the ministry, the sacraments, the ordinances, etc. Eph. iv. 11. And (3.) Through his own spiritual presence, which extends to all his members, and endures to the end of the world. Matt. xviii. 20; xxviii. 20.
The word “Antichrist” occurs in the New Testament in 1 John ii. 18, 22; iv. 3; 2 John 7. The coming of the “man of sin,” the “son of perdition,” is predicted in 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4. Interpreters have differed as to whether these phrases were intended to designate a personal opponent of the Lord, or principles and systems antagonistic to him and his cause. The authors of our Confession can hardly have intended to declare that each individual Pope of the long succession is the personal Antichrist, and they probably meant that the Papal system is in spirit, form, and effect, wholly antichristian, and that it marked a defection from apostolical Christianity foreseen and foretold in Scripture. All of which was true in their day, and is true in ours. We have need, however, to remember that as the forms of evil change, and the complications of the kingdom of Christ with that of Satan vary with the progress of events, “even now are there many Antichrists.” 1 John ii. 18.
[1] The 26 Henry VIII., cap. i.
SECTION I. All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory:[1] and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces,[2] and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man.[3]
I John 1:3; Eph. 2:5-6; 3:16-18; John 1:16; Phil. 3:10; Rom. 6:5-6; 8:17; II Tim. 2:12
Eph. 4:15-16; I Cor. 3:21-23; 12:7, 12; Col. 2:19
I Thess. 5:11, 14; Rom. 1:11-12, 14; I John 3:16-18; Gal. 6:10
SECTION II. Saints by profession are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification;[4] as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.[5]
Heb. 10:24-25; Acts 2:42, 46; Isa. 2:3; I Cor. 11:20
I John 3:17; II Cor. ch. 8-9; Acts 2:44-45; 11:29-30
SECTION III. This communion which the saints have with Christ, doth not make them in any wise partakers of the substance of his Godhead; or to be equal with Christ in any respect: either of which to affirm is impious and blasphemous.[6] Nor doth their communion one with another, as saints, take away, or infringe the title or propriety which each man hath in his goods and possessions.[7]
Col. 1:18-19; I Cor. 8:6; Psa. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:6-9; John 1:14; 20:17
Exod. 20:15; Eph. 4:28; Acts 5:4
COMMUNION is a mutual interchange of offices between parties, which flows from a common principle in which they are united. The nature and degree of the communion will depend upon the nature and intimacy of the union from which it proceeds.
This chapter teaches: –
comprehended under the headship of Christ from eternity, are in time actually united to him – (a.) By the powerful operation of his Spirit, whereby they are “ quickened together with Christ” Eph. ii. 5); which Spirit evermore dwells in them as the organ of Christ’s presence with them, the infinite medium through which the fulness of his love and life, and all the benefits purchased by his blood, pass over freely from the Head to the members. (b.) By the actings of faith upon their part, whereby they grasp Christ and appropriate him and his grace to themselves, and whereby they ever continue to live in him and to draw their resources from him. Eph. iii. 17.
This union is illustrated in Scripture by the relation subsisting between a foundation and its superstructure (1 Pet. ii. 4 – 6); a, tree and its branches (John xv. 5); the members of the body and the head (Eph. iv. 15, 16); a husband and wife (Eph. v. 31, 32); Adam and his descendants. Rom. v. 12-19.
This union has been called by theologians a “ mystical” union, because, it never could have been known unless revealed by the Lord himself, and because it is so incomparably intimate and excellent that it transcends all other unions of which we have experience. Nevertheless it is not mysterious in the sense of involving any confusion between Christ’s personality and ours, nor does it make us in any wise partakers of his Godhead or to be equal with him in any respect. It is a union between persons in which each retains his separate identity, and in which the believer, although immeasurably exalted and blessed, nevertheless is entirely subordinated to and continues dependent upon his Lord.
are theirs. As their mediatorial Head he acts as prophet, priest, and king. In union with him they are also prophets, priests, and kings. 1 John ii. 27; 1 Peter ii. 5; Rev. iii. 21; v. 10. They have fellowship with Christ also (b.) In the transforming, assimilating power of his life. “ Of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.” John i. 16. Thus they have the “ Spirit,” and “ the mind” of Christ, and bear his “ likeness “ or “ image.” Rom. viii. 9; Phil. ii. 5; 1 John iii. 2. This includes the bodies also, making them temples of the Holy Ghost; and in the resurrection our glorified bodies are to be like his. 1 Cor. vi. 19; xv. 43, 49. They have fellowship with Christ (c.) In all their experiences, inward and outward, in their joys and victories, in their labours, sufferings, temptations, and death. Rom. viii. 37; 2 Cor. xii. 9; Gal. vi. 17; Phil. iii. 10; Heb. xii. 3; 1 Pet. iv. 13.
The Romish and Ritualistic view is, that individuals are united to the Church through the sacraments, and through the Church to Christ. The true view is, that the individual is united to Christ the Head by the Holy Ghost and by faith; and by being united to Christ he is, ipso facto, united to all Christ’s members, the Church. The holy catholic Church is the product of the Holy Ghost. Wherever the Spirit is, there the Church is. The presence of the Spirit is known by his fruits, which are “love, joy, peace,” etc. Gal. v. 22, 23. All believers receiving the same Spirit are by him baptized into “ one body;” and thus they all become, “ though many members,” but “ one body,” “ the body of Christ “ and “ members in particular.” 1 Cor. xii. 13 – 27.
their intelligence and their advancement in grace, it follows that all branches of the visible Church, and all the individual members thereof, should do all within their power to act upon the principle of the “communion of saints” in their intercourse with all who profess the true religion. If the Church is one, the churches are one. If all saints are one, and are embraced in this holy “communion,” then all who profess to be saints should regard and treat all their fellowprofessors on the presumption that they are saints and “ heirs together with them of the grace of life.” Think of it! In spite of all controversies and jealousies, one in the eternal electing love of God! - one in the purchase of Christ’s sacrificial blood! – one in the beatifying indwelling of the Holy Ghost! – one in the eternal inheritance of glory! Surely we should be also one in all the charities, sympathies, and helpful offices possible, in these short and evil days of earthly pilgrimage. These mutual duties are, of course, some of them public – as between different evangelical churches – and may of them private and personal. Many of them relate to the souls, and many also to the bodies of the saints. The rule is, the law of love in the heart, and the principles and examples of saints recorded in Scripture applied to the special circumstances of every individual case. But while these mutual relations and offices of the saints sanctify, they are not designed to supersede the fundamental principles of human society, as the rights of property and the family tie.
| 5. What is the fourth? |
|---|
| 6. What is the fifth? |
| 7. What is the foundation of the union of the believer and Christ? |
| 8. What three points are here taught as to the nature of that union? |
| 9. What do you mean by saying that it is federal? |
| 10. What by saying that it is vital and spiritual? |
| 11. What by saying that it involves the entire person? |
| 12. How is this union accomplished? |
| 13. What is the office of the Holy Spirit in respect to it? |
| 14. What is the office of faith in respect to it? |
| 15. By what similitude is this union illustrated? |
| 16. Why has this union been called “mystical”? |
| 17. In what sense is it not mysterious, and what is not involved in it? |
| 18. What is the great practical consequence of our union with Christ? |
| 19. In what respects does the believer have fellowship with Christ? |
| 20. In what respects does Christ have fellowship with the believer? |
| 21. What follows if all believers are united to the one Christ? |
| 22. What is the Romish and Ritualistic and what the true view as to the way in which the individual members are united to Christ and to the world? |
| 23. How can the presence of the Holy Spirit be determined? |
SECTION I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.[5]
SECTION II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]
LARGER CATECHISM, q. 168.– What are the parts of a sacrament? – 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 and spiritual grace thereby signified. [7]
The word “ sacrament” does not occur in the Scriptures. In its classical usage it designated anything which binds or brings under obligations, as a sum of money given in pledge, or an oath, and especially the oath of military allegiance.
In its ecclesiastical usage, the word, while retaining its general sense of something binding as sacred, was at an early period used as the Latin equivalent of the Greek word mysterion (musterion}, that which is unknown until revealed; and hence any symbol, type, or rite having a latent spiritual meaning. Hence the word naturally came to be applied in a general and vague sense to the Christian ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and with them also to many other religious doctrines and ordinances.
It is plainly, therefore, impossible to determine the nature or the number of the sacraments from either the etymology or the usage of the word “sacrament.” We want a thorough definition of the thing, not of the name. This we can get only by taking Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which all men acknowledge to be genuine sacraments, and, by a strict examination of their origin, nature, and uses, determine (a.) the true character of the class of ordinances to which they belong, and (b.) whether any other ordinances belong to the same class or not. In this way the definition of a sacrament given in our Standards was formed. This definition involves the following points: –
In Baptism the outward sensible sign is – (1.) Water, and (2.) The water applied in the name of the Triune God to the person of the subject baptized. The inward, spiritual grace, thereby signified is -(1.) Primarily, spiritual purification by the immediate personal power of the Holy Ghost in the soul; and hence, (2.) Secondarily, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, hence the union of the baptized with Christ, hence regeneration, justification, sanctification, perseverance to the end, glorification, etc.– i.e., all the benefits of the new covenant. In the Lord’s Supper, the outward, sensible signs, are -(1.) Bread and wine; and (2.) The consecration, and the bread broken, and the wine poured out, distributed to, and received and eaten and drunk by, the communicants. The inward, spiritual grace, thereby signified is – (1.) Primarily, Christ crucified (his flesh and blood shed) for us, and giving himself to us to be spiritually received and assimilated as the principle of a new life; and hence, (2.) Secondarily, union with Christ, the indwelling of the Spirit, regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc.– i.e., all the benefits secured by the sacrificial death of Christ.
This sacramental union, therefore, between the sign and the thing signified is (1.) Symbolical and representative – the one symbolizes and so represents the other; and (2.) Instrumental, because by divine appointment, through the right use of the sign, the grace signified is really conveyed.
The grounds of this sacramental union are – (1.) The natural fitness of the sign to symbolize the grace signified, as washing with water to symbolize spiritual purification by the Holy Ghost. (2.) The authoritative appointment of Christ that these signs, rightly used, shall truly represent and convey the grace they signify. (3.) The spiritual faith of the believing recipient, a gift of the Spirit of Christ, whereby, in the proper use of the sign, he is enabled to “discern the Lord’s body.” 1 Cor. xi. 29.
Out of this spiritual relation, or sacramental union between the sign and the grace signified, which we have thus explained by a natural and legitimate use of language, the one is put for the other, and whatever is true of the grace signified is asserted of the sign which signifies it. Thus, to eat the bread and drink the wine in the Lord’s Supper is to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ; that is, to participate in the sacrificial virtue of his death. And whatever is true at Baptism with the Holy Ghost is attributed to Baptism with water. Ananias said to Paul, “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” Acts xxii. 16. “Christ gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word.” Eph. v. 26. “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.” Acts ii. 38. Hence Romanists and Ritualists have inferred that the sign is inseparable from the grace signified, and that these spiritual effects are due to the outward ordinance. Hence the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But it must be observed that the Scriptures do not assert these spiritual attributes of water baptism in itself considered, but of water baptism as the sign or emblem of baptism by the holy Ghost. These spiritual attributes belong “only to baptism by the Spirit, and they accompany the sign only when the sign is accompanied by that which it signifies. It does not follow, however, that the sign is inseparable from the grace. The grace is sovereign; and experience teaches us that it is often absent from the sign, and that the sign is least frequently honoured by the presence of the grace when it is itself most implicitly relied upon.
are as signs or pictures of the truths they represent, and hence present those truths to the eyes and other senses of the recipients in a manner analogous to that in which they are presented to the ears in the preaching of the Word. This follows from what has just been shown as to their beings outward, sensible signs, signifying inward and spiritual grace.
sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.” S. Cat., q. 92. “A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his Church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation.” L. Cat., q. 162. “The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them.” Conf. Faith, ch. xxvii., section 3. “The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost,” etc. Conf. Faith, ch. xxviii., section 6. This the Confession carefully guards in the third section of this chapter, showing that the sacraments have no inherent power or virtue at all, but that the right use of the sacrament is by divine appointment the occasion upon which the Holy Ghost conveys the grace to those to whom it belongs. So that this grace-conferring virtue depends upon two things: (1.) The sovereign will and power of the Holy Spirit. (2.) The lively faith of the recipient. The sacrament is a mere instrument; but IT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF DIVINE APPOINTMENT.
SECTION III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it:[7] but upon the work of the Spirit,[8] and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. [9]
7. Rom. 2:28-29; I Peter 3:21 8. I Cor. 12:13 9. Matt. 26:26-28; 28:19-20; Luke 22:19-20; I Cor. 11:26
Having asserted that the sacraments actually confer the grace which they represent to worthy recipients, our Confession in this section proceeds to guard this important truth from abuse, by carefully showing upon what this grace-conveying efficacy of the sacraments does not, and upon what it does depend.
This whole view is explicitly rejected as false by our Confession; and the whole efficacy of the sacrament is said to depend, not upon any part of it separately, nor upon the whole together, but upon the sovereign power of the Holy Ghost, who is always present, and uses the sacrament as his instrument and medium.
The Romanists admit that the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend upon the personal piety of the administrator; but they insist that it depends – (1.) Upon the fact that the administrator is canonically authorized; (2.) Upon the fact that the administrator exercises at the moment of administration the secret “intention” of doing thereby what the Church intends in the definition of the sacrament. The priest may outwardly pronounce every word and perform every action prescribed in the ritual, and the recipient may fulfil every condition required of him, and yet if the priest fails in the secret intention of conferring the grace through the sacrament then and there, the recipient goes away destitute of the grace he supposes himself to have received, and which the priest has ostensibly professed to confer.
SECTION IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.[10]
As we have seen, the word “sacrament” was used very indefinitely in the early Church to include any religions rite which had a latent spiritual meaning. A pre-eminence was always awarded to Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, as forming a class by themselves; but the number of ordinances to which the term “sacrament” was applied varied at different times and in different places from two to twelve. At last the number seven was suggested during the twelfth century, and determined authoritatively by the Council of Florence, 1439, and by the Council of Trent, 1562. These are Baptism, Confirmation, the Lord’s Supper, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, Marriage. In order to prove that “there be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospel – that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord” –we have only to show that the other five so-called sacraments claimed by the Romanists do not belong to the same class of ordinances with Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and we do this by applying the definition of a sacrament above given. Thus -Penance, Confirmation, and Extreme Unction are not divine institutions in any sense.
Marriage was instituted, not by Christ, but by God; and Orders were instituted by Christ: but neither of these ordinances (a.) consists of an outward, visible sign, signifying an inward, spiritual grace; nor {b.) does either of them “represent, seal, or confer Christ and the benefits of the new covenant.”
Our Confession also adds that no one has a right to administer the sacraments save a lawfully ordained minister. This is not said in the interest of any priestly theory of the ministry, as if there were any grace or grace-conferring virtue transmitted by ordination in succession from the apostles to the person ordained. But since the Church is an organized society, under laws executed by regularly appointed officers, it is evident that ordinances – which are badges of Church membership, the gates of the fold, the instruments of discipline, and seals of the covenant formed by the great Head of the Church with his living members – can properly be administered only by the highest legal officers of the Church, those who are commissioners as ambassadors for Christ to treat in his name with men. 1 Cor. iv. 1; 2 Cor. v. 20.
SECTION V. The sacraments of the old testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.[11]
We saw, under chapter vii., sections 5 and 6, that the old and the new dispensations were only two different modes in which the one changeless covenant of grace was administered and its blessings dispensed. The sacramental seals of the covenant must, therefore, be essentially the same then and now. The difference is – (1.) That they were more prospective and typical then, and that they are more commemorative now. They signified a grace to be revealed then; they signify a grace already revealed now. (2,) They were, as to form, more gross and carnal then, and more spiritual now.
Thus Baptism has taken the place of Circumcision as the rite of initiation. They both signify spiritual regeneration. Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6. Circumcision was Jewish baptism, and Baptism is Christian circumcision. Gal. iii. 27, 29; Col. ii. 10 – 12.
Thus the Lord’s Supper grew out of the Passover. He took the old bread and the old cup, and gave them a new consecration and a new meaning. Matt. xxvi. 26 – 29. “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.” 1 Cor. v. 7.
SECTION I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]
Matt. 28:19
I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
John 3:5; Titus 3:5
Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
Rom. 6:3-4
Matt. 28:19-20
SECTION II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
SECTION III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
IN these sections we are taught the following propositions: –
its subjects to the faith and obedience of the Trinity, and initiating them into the Christian Church; but that, on the contrary, like the baptism of John, it was a purifying rite, binding to repentance, and preparing the way for the coming kingdom.
It is certain that we have the true warrant of the Christian sacrament of Baptism from the lips of the great Head of the Church in person, in Matthew xxviii. 18 – 20: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
Some, as the Quakers, have not understood that this command imposes the obligation of the perpetual observance of this ordinance. That the observance is to endure until the second coming of Christ is plain – (1.) From the universal maxim that every law continues binding until it is abrogated, or until the reason for it has ceased. But this command has never been recalled, and the reason for its observance remains precisely what it was when the command was given. (2.) The plain terms of the command reach (a.) to all nations, and (b.) until the end of this world (aion). (3.) The example of the apostles. Acts ii. 38; xvi. 33. (4.) The constant practice of all branches of the Christian Church from the beginning to the present time.
The Confession teaches that the command to baptize is a command to wash with water in the name of the Trinity. It is often, but erroneously, supposed that the controversy between our baptist brethren and the rest of the Christian Church with respect to Baptism is a question of mode; they affirming that the only right mode is to immerse – we affirming that the best mode is to sprinkle. This is a great mistake. The real Baptist position – as stated by Dr. Alexander Carson (p. 55) – is, that the command to baptize is a simple and single command to immerse, in order to symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ. The true position maintained by other Christians is, that Baptism is a simple and single command to wash with water, in order to symbolize the purification wrought by the Holy Ghost. Hence the mode of washing has nothing to do with it. It is necessarily perfectly indifferent, so that it be decent. According to our view, the essential matter is the water, and the application of the water in the name of the Trinity. According to their view, the essential matter is the burial, total immersion, in water or sand, as the case may be. The evidence of the truth of the view entertained by the vast majority of Christ’s Church is as follows: –
the water on their hands; the poor pour the water on their own hands.
washing of the Spirit; washing of the Spirit unites to Christ; union with Christ involves all the consequences above mentioned.
the situations spoken of. The eunuch was baptized on the roadside in a desert country. Acts viii. 26 – 39. Three thousand were baptized in one day in the dry city of Jerusalem, which depends upon rain-water stored in tanks and cisterns. Acts ii. 37 – 41. Vast multitudes swarmed to John. Matt. iii. 5, 6. The jailer was baptized in prison at midnight Acts xvi. 25 – 33. Paul was baptized by Ananias right at his bedside. Ananias said, “ Standing up, be baptized;” and “ standing up he was baptized.” Acts ix. 18; xxii. 16. (c.) The earliest pictorial representations of baptism, dating from the second or third century, all indicate that the manner of applying the water to the body of the baptized was by pouring. (d.) It is done in the same way universally by Eastern Christians at the present time.
That it is essential that this baptismal washing should be done in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is plain -(1.) From the explicit command to that effect expressed in the words of institution. Matt. xxviii. 18 – 20. (2.) From the fact that Baptism, as a seal of the covenant of grace, and as the divinely appointed rite of initiation into the Christian Church, introduces the baptized into covenant with, and the public profession of, the true God, who is none other than the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
SECTION IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15
Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-
12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14
As to the subjects of Baptism, our Standards teach – l. As to adults: “Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible Church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him.” L. Cat., q. 166, and S. Cat., q. 95.
This is of course self-evident, since the intelligent and honest reception of Baptism itself obviously involves precisely this profession of faith in Christ and obedience to him. And in order to secure this, the usage of the Presbyterian Church requires that the pastors and church session should inform the applicant that only a person who has experienced the grace of regeneration, and who has consequently truly repented of sin and exercised faith in Christ, can honestly do what all necessarily profess to do when they are baptized. And to this end the pastor and session must require of the applicant the evidence (1.) Of a competent knowledge of the fundamental truths of Christianity, and of the nature and binding obligation of Baptism; (2.) Of the fact that he makes a consistent profession of a personal experimental faith and promise of obedience to the Lord, and of due subjection to the constituted authorities of the Church; (3.) Of the fact that his outward walk and conversation do not belie his profession. After this, the entire responsibility of the step must lie upon the person talking it. The church officers have no authority to sit in judgment upon the genuineness of his Christian character, because God has given to no class of men the ability to judge aright of such matters. Some Churches, as, for instance, our Covenanting Presbyterian brethren, demand, as a condition of adult baptism – or, what is the same thing, admission to the Church – in addition to the profession of faith in the fundamental truths of the Gospel, adherence to certain “Testimonies” embodying nonfundamental, denominational peculiarities. This we believe to be entirely unauthorized. The Church is Christ’s fold, designed for all his sheep. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the common rights of all the Lord’s people. If any man holds the fundamentals of the gospel and professes allegiance to our common Lord, and acts consistently therewith, we have no right to exclude him from his Father’s house. It is just as presumptuous to make terms of communion which Christ has not made as it would be to make terms of salvation which he does not require.
to the Hebrews he shows that the Old Testament ritual was a setting forth of the person and work of Christ. See above, under chapter vii. (b.) Faith was the condition of salvation then as well as now. “ Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness” (Rom. iv. 3); so that he was the great typical believer, “the father of all them that believe” (Rom. iv. 11); and all who believe in Christ “are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. iii. 29. See also the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. All the Israelites, even those only “according to the flesh,” professed to believe. And all “true” Israelites did believe. “He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” Rom. ii. 28, 29. (c.) Circumcision, precisely in the same sense and to the same extent as Baptism, represented a spiritual grace and bound to a spiritual profession. This is taught in the 0ld Testament, as witness Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6. It was the seal of the Abrahamic covenant, which Paul says is the gospel. Gen. xii. 3; xvii. 7, 10; Gal. iii. 8. It was the seal of the righteousness of faith. Rom. ii. 28, 29; iv. 11. True Circumcision unites to Christ and secures all the benefits of his redemption. Col. ii. 10, 11. And Baptism has now taken the precise place of Circumcision: “ For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ……And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. iii. 27, 29. (d.) This Church is identically the same with the New Testament Church. It has the same foundation; the same condition of membership, faith and obedience; sacraments of the same spiritual significancy and binding force, The ancient prophecies declare that the same old Church is to be enlarged, not changed. Isa. xlix. 13 – 23; 1x. 1 – 14. The ancient covenant, which was the fundamental charter of the Church, included “many nations” (Gen. xvii. 4; Rom. iv. 17, 18; Gal. iii. 8), which was never fulfilled until after the expansion of the Church in the New Testament dispensation. And Paul says that the Jewish Church, instead of being abrogated, remains the same through all change – the Jewish branches being cut off, the Gentile branches being grafted in; and that hereafter the Jews are to be restored, not to a new Church, but “into their own olive tree.” Rom, xi. 18 – 24. See also Eph. ii. 11 – 22.
(4.) Infants were members of the Church under the Old Testament from the beginning, being circumcised upon the faith of their parents. Now, as the Church is the same Church; as the conditions of membership were the same then as now; as Circumcision signified and bound to precisely what Baptism does; and since Baptism has taken precisely the place of Circumcision – it follows that the church membership of the children of professors should be recognized now as it was then, and that they should be baptized. The only ground upon which this conclusion could be obviated would be that Christ in the gospel explicitly turns them out of their ancient birth-right in the Church.
(5.) On the contrary, Christ and his apostles uniformly, without exception, speak of and treat children on the assumption that they remain in the same church relation they have always occupied. Christ, speaking to Jewish apostles, who had all their lives never heard of any other than the old Padobaptist Church, into which they had been themselves born and circumcised (and their infant circumcision was the only baptism they ever received), never once warns them that he had changed this relation. On the contrary, he says, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven” (i.e., new dispensation of the old Church). Matt. xix. 14; Luke xviii. 16. He commissioned Peter to feed the lambs as well as the sheep of the flock (John xxi, 15-17); and all the apostles to “disciple all nations,” by first baptizing and then teaching them. Matt. xxviii. 18, 19. If only one of the parents is a Christian, the children are said to be “holy,” or “saints;” which is a common designation of church members in the New Testament. 1 Cor. vii. 14. In the old Jewish Church every proselyte from the heathen brought his children into the Church with him. So the Jewish apostles write the brief history of their missionary labours precisely as all modern Padobaptist missionaries write theirs, and as no Baptist missionary ever wrote from the first rise of their denomination. There are only eleven cases of Baptism recorded in the Acts and the Epistles. In the case of two of these, Paul and the Ethiopian eunuch, there were no children to be baptized. Five of the cases were large crowds. After Stephanas was baptized with the crowd among “the many Corinthians,” Paul baptized his household. Also were the households of Lydia, of the jailer, of Crispus, and probably of Cornelius, baptized. Thus in every case in which the household existed it was baptized. The faith of the head of the household is mentioned, but not that of the household itself, except in one case, and that as a general fact. The apostles also address children as members of the Church. Compare Eph. i. 1 with Eph. vi. 1 – 3, and Col. i. 1, 2 with Col. iii. 20.
(6.) This has been the belief and practice of a vast majority of God’s people from the first. The early Church, in unbroken continuity from the days of the apostles, testify to their custom on this subject. The Greek and the Roman, and all branches of the Lutheran and the Reformed Churches, agree in this fundamental point. The Baptist denomination, which opposes the whole Christian world in this matter, is a very modern party, dating from the Anabaptists of Germany, A.D. 1687.
Our Standards teach that precisely the same requirements are made the condition on the part of the parent of having his child baptized that are made the condition of approach to the Lord’s table. S. Cat. q. 95: “Infants of such as are members of the visible Church are to be baptized.” This is explained, L. Cat., q. 166: “Infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ;” and Conf. Faith, ch. xxviii., section 4: “ Infants of one or both believing parents.” In the [American] Directory for Worship, ch. vii., the minister is to require of the parents, among other things, “that they pray with and for (the child); that they set an example of piety and godliness before it; and endeavour by all means of God’s appointment to bring up their child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” The [American] General Assembly in 1794, in answer to an overture on the subject, declared that the above passage in the
Directory is to be understood as bringing the parent under an express engagement to do as there required by the minister.
Some have supposed, since the church-membership of the child follows from that of the parent, that every person who was himself introduced into the Church by Baptism in infancy has an indefeasible right to have his children baptized, whether he professes personal faith in Christ or not. But this is manifestly absurd – (a.) Because all members of the Church have not a right to all privileges of churchmembership. Thus baptized members have no right to come to the communion until they make a profession of personal faith. Until they do this they are like citizens under age, with their rights held in suspension, as a just punishment for their refusal to believe. These suspended rights are those of communing and having their children baptized. (b.) A person destitute of personal faith can only commit perjury and sacrilege by making the solemn professions and talking the obligations involved in the baptismal covenant. It is a sin for him to do it, and a sin for the minister to help him to do it.
V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, [13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
Acts 8:13, 23
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.[17]
John 3:5, 8
Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41
These sections teach: –
The ground taken here is intermediate between two opposite extremes –
not so tied to the sacrament that they are never, or even infrequently, conveyed in any other way. The very grace conveyed by the sacrament must be possessed by the adult as a prerequisite to Baptism, and is often subsequently experienced through other channels.
That Baptism is never to be administered more than once to any person appears (1.) From the symbolical significance of the rite. It signifies spiritual regeneration – the inauguration of the divine life. Of course it can have but one commencement. (2.) It is the rite of initiation into the Christian Church, and as there is no provision made for getting out of the Church when once in, so there is no provision made for coming in more than once. (3.) The apostles baptized each individual but once.
by the disciples of Christ, previous to his resurrection, were not the same with the permanent Christian sacrament of that name.
[1] Baird’s Digest, p.81.
SECTION: I Our Lord Jesus, in the night wherein he was betrayed, instituted the sacrament of his body and blood, called the Lord’s Supper, to be observed in his church, unto the end of the world, for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of himself in his death; the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other, as members of his mystical body.[1]
THIS section teaches us – 1. Of the time in which, and the person by whom, the Lord’s Supper was instituted. 2. Of its perpetual obligation. 3. Of its design and effect.
ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Cor. xi. 25. (2.) The apostolic example. Acts ii. 42. (3.) The frequent references to this ordinance which occur in the apostolic writings, and which all imply that it is of perpetual obligation. (4.) The uniform and universal practice of the Christian Church, in all its branches, from the beginning.
(4.) It was designed to signify and effect our communion with Christ, in his person, in his offices, and in their precious fruits. Paul says (1 Cor. x. 16), “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (koinonia) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” L. Cat., q. 170: “ So they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal and carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his Death.” The bread represents his flesh, and the wine represents his blood. We receive the symbol with the mouth corporally; we receive the flesh and blood symbolized by faith, yet really. “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life……For my flesh is meat indeed, and nay blood is drink indeed.” John vi. 54, 55.
SECTION:II In this sacrament, Christ is not offered up to his Father; nor any real sacrifice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead;[2] but only a commemoration of that one offering up of himself, by himself, upon the cross, once for all: and a spiritual oblation of all possible praise unto God, for the same:[3] so that the popish sacrifice of the mass (as they call it) is most abominably injurious to Christ’s one, only sacrifice, the alone propitiation for all the sins of his elect.[4]
Heb. 9:22, 25-26, 28; 10:10-14
I Cor. 11:24-26; Matt. 26:26-27; Luke 22:19-20
Heb. 7:23-24, 27; 10:11-12, 14, 18
SECTION: III The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to an holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants;[5] but to none who are not then present in the congregation.[6]
SECTION: IV Private masses, or receiving this sacrament by a priest, or any other, alone;[7] as likewise, the denial of the cup to the people, [8] worshiping the elements, the lifting them up, or carrying them about, for adoration, and the reserving them for any pretended religious use; are all contrary to the nature of this sacrament, and to the institution of Christ.[9]
I Cor. 10:16
Matt. 26:27-28; Mark 14:23; I Cor. 11:25-29
Matt. 15:9
SECTION: V The outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to wit, the body and blood of Christ;[10] albeit, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before. [11]
Matt. 26:26-28
I Cor. 11:26-28; Matt. 26:29
SECTION: VI That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the substance of Christ’s body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthroweth the nature of the sacrament, and hath been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yea, of gross idolatries.[12]
The form in which the statements made in these sections are put is rather negative than positive – rather designed to oppose certain Romish and Ritualistic errors than to make a simple statement of the true doctrine of the sacrament. The errors which are here opposed are – (1.) The doctrine of transubstantiation, or the change of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord Jesus. (2.) The sacrifice of the mass. (3.) The worshipping and reservation of the elements for any pretended religious use. (4.) Denying the cup to the laity. (5.) Private communion of the priest alone, or the sending of the elements to persons not present at the administration of the ordinance.
In order to make the statements of these sections plain, we will first state the true doctrine – (1.) As to what elements and actions are essential to the sacrament, and (2.) As to the true relation between the sign and the grace signified; and, secondly, present the opposing Papal errors upon the points above stated.
23; Titus ii. 3. This is made essential by the command and example of Christ, and by the uniform custom of the Christian Church from the beginning.
unbeliever indifferently; and thus he remains before and after the communion, his very body and blood, Godhead and manhood, shut up in a vessel, carried about, elevated, worshipped, etc.
The Lutherans hold that while the bread and the wine remain, nevertheless at the words of consecration the real body and blood of Christ, though invisible, are really present in, with, and under the bread and wine.
The only ground of this doctrine is the word of our Lord, “This is my body.” They hold the word “is” is literal: all the Reformed churches hold it must mean “represents,” “ symbolizes.” This is a frequent usage of the word in Scripture. “ The seven good kine are seven years; and the seven good ears are seven years.” Gen. xli. 26, 27; Ezek. xxxvii. 11; Dan. vii. 24; Luke xii. 1; Rev. i. 20. Besides, when our Lord said this, and gave them the bread to eat, he was sitting by them in his sound, undivided flesh, eating and drinking with them.
This doctrine, then, is false (a.) Because it is not taught in Scripture. (A.) Because it confounds the very idea of sacrament, making the sign identical with the thing it signifies. (c.) It contradicts our senses, since we see, smell, taste, and feel bread and wine, and do never either see, or smell, or taste, or feel flesh and blood. (d.) It contradicts reason; for reason teaches that qualities cannot exist except as they inhere in some substance, and that substance cannot be known and cannot act except by its qualities. But this doctrine supposes that the qualities of bread and wine remain without any substance, and that the substance of flesh and blood remains without any qualities. (e.) It is absurd and impossible; because Christ’s glorified body is still material and therefore finite, and therefore not omnipresent in all places on earth, but absent at the right hand of God in heaven.
(2.) Their doctrine as to the mass as a sacrifice. The Council of Trent teaches (sess. xxii., cans. 1 -3) that the Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice. As a sacrament, the soul of the recipient is nourished by the real body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, which he eats in the form of a wafer. As a sacrifice, it is “an external 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.” This is not a mere act in commemoration of the one sacrifice upon the cross, but a constantly repeated real, although bloodless, expiatory sacrifice, atoning for sin and propitiating God. (Counc. Trent, sess. xxii., can. 3.)
This doctrine is false, because – (a.) It is nowhere taught in Scripture. (b.) The Christian ministry are never called or spoken of as priests, but as “ teachers” and “ rulers.” (c.) The one sacrifice of Christ on the cross was perfect, and excludes all others. Heb. ix. 25 -28; x. 10 – 27. (d.) The same ordinance cannot be both a sacrament and a sacrifice. Christ says that by eating and drinking we are to “shew forth his death,” and to “do this in remembrance of him.” The same act cannot be a commemoration of one sacrifice, and itself an actual sacrifice having intrinsic sin-expiating efficacy.
confined to the priests. To comfort the laity, they teach that as the blood is in the flesh, and as the soul is in the body, and as the divinity is in the soul of Christ, the whole person – body, blood, soul and divinity – of Christ is equally in every particle of the bread; so that he who receives the bread receives all. (Counc. Trent, sess. xxi., cans. 1 - 3.)
SECTION: VII Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,[13] do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive, and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, 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 themselves are to their outward senses.[14]
I Cor. 11:28
I Cor. 10:16; see I Cor. 10:3-4
SECTION: VIII Although ignorant and wicked men receive the outward elements in this sacrament; yet, they receive not the thing signified thereby; but, by their unworthy coming thereunto, are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, to their own damnation. Wherefore, all ignorant and ungodly persons, as they are unfit to enjoy communion with him, so are they unworthy of the Lord’s table; and cannot, without great sin against Christ, while they remain such, partake of these holy mysteries,[15] or be admitted thereunto.[16]
I Cor. 10:21; 11:27-29; II Cor. 6:14-16
I Cor. 5:6-7, 13; II Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Matt. 7:6
These sections teach the Reformed doctrine as to the relation which in the Lord’s Supper subsists between the sign and the grace signified; that is, as to the nature of the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and the sense in which, consequently, the worthy recipient is said to feed upon the body and blood of the Lord. This Reformed doctrine may be stated as follows: –
unbeliever, therefore, receiving the outward sign with his mouth while he fails to receive the inward grace in his soul, only increases his own condemnation and hardens his own heart by the exercise. All, therefore, who are known to be unbelievers, and whose unbelief is made manifest either by their ignorance or their ungodliness, should be prevented, both for their own sake and for the Church’s sake, from coming to the Lord’s table until they are able to make a credible profession of their faith.
[1] Sess. xiii. cans. 1-4. [2] Sess. xxii., cans. 1-3. [3] Dens, vol. v., p. 358.
[4] Council Trent, sess. xxii., can. 3.
[5] Council Trent, sess. xxi., cans. 1-3.
[6] Dr. Charles Hodge’s Lectures. The Consensus Tigurinus of Calvin, caps. 19-26, inclusive.
SECTION: I The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.[1]
THE principle designated Erastianism, which has been practically embodied in all the State Churches of the 0ld World, includes the following elements: – 1. That the Church is an organ of the State to accomplish one of its general functions; and consequently that there is no government of the Church independent of that of the State, but that its officers, its laws, and their administration, are in all things subject to the civil government. 2. That all the subjects of the State are, ipso facto, members of the Church, and entitled to all its ordinances. 3. That the duties and prerogatives of church officers include simply the functions of teaching and administering the ordinances, and do not include discipline, because, according to this view, to exclude a man from church ordinances is to deny him his civil rights as a citizen.
In opposition to this doctrine, our Confession in this section teaches –
While all Christians, with the exception of the Erastians, agree with the two principles taught in this section as thus generally stated, they differ very much as to the human agents with whom Christ has deposited this power, and whom he uses as his instruments in administering it. There are four radically different theories on this subject: – “(1.) The Popish theory, which assumes that Christ, the apostles, and believers constituted the Church while our Saviour was on earth, and that this organization was designed to be perpetual. After the ascension of our Lord, Peter became his vicar, and took his place as the visible head of the Church. This primacy of Peter, as the universal bishop, is continued in his successors, the bishops of Rome; and the apostleship is perpetuated in the order of prelates. As in the primitive Church no one could be an apostle who was not subject to Christ, so now no one can be a prelate who is not subject to the Pope. And as then no one could be a Christian who was not subject to Christ, and the apostles, so now no one can be a Christian who is not subject to the Pope and the prelates. This is the Romish theory of the Church: A vicar of Christ, a perpetual college of apostles, and the people subject to their infallible control.
” (4.) The fourth theory is the Presbyterian…… This includes the following affirmative statement: (a.) The people have a right to a substantive part in the government of the Church. (b.) Presbyters, who labour in word and doctrine, are the highest permanent officers of the Church, and all belong to the same order. (c.) The outward and visible Church is, or should be, one, in the sense that a smaller part is subject to a larger, and a larger to the whole. It is not holding one of these principles that makes a man a Presbyterian, but his holding them all.” Christ has in fact vested all ecclesiastical power in the Church as a whole, none of its members being excluded; yet not in the Church as a mob, but as an organized body consisting of members, their representative ruling elders, and ministers or bishops. Elders or bishops were ordained by the apostles, have always continued in the Church, and were designed to be perpetuated as the highest class of officers in the Church. 1 Tim. iii. 1; Eph. iv. 11, 12. All Church power vests, then, jointly in the lay and clerical elements, in the ministers together with the people.
” Ruling elders are properly the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, chosen by them for the purpose of exercising government and discipline in conjunction with pastors or ministers.” “The powers, therefore, exercised by our ruling elders are powers which belong to the lay members of the Church.” “ They are chosen by them to act in their name in the government of the Church. A representative is one chosen by others to do in their name what they are entitled to do in their own persons; or rather to exercise the powers which radically inhere in those for whom they act. The members of a State Legislature or of Congress, for example, can exercise only those powers which are inherent in the people.”
SECTION: II To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.[2]
SECTION: III Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from the like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and the holy profession of the gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the church, if they should suffer his covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.[3]
SECTION: IV For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition; suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the church; according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.[4]
These sections teach –
testimony for the truth and her protest against error. And as she has been commissioned to teach all nations, she has the right of selecting teachers, of judging of their fitness, of ordaining and sending them forth into the field, and of recalling and deposing them when unfaithful. (2.) The Church has power to set down rules for the ordering of public worship. (3.) She has power to make rules for her own government; such as every Church has in its book of discipline, constitution or canons, etc. (4.) She has power to receive into fellowship, and to exclude the unworthy from her own communion.”
This last power is commonly styled “the power of the keys;” i.e., of operating and closing the doors of the Church, of admitting or excluding from sealing ordinances. Matt. xvi. 19. In view of two unquestionable facts – (a.) to forgive sin is an incommunicable attribute of God and Christ; (b.) God has given to no class of men the faculty of absolutely discriminating the good from the bad – it follows that the Church power of opening and shutting, of binding and loosing, spoken of in Matt. xvi. 19 and in the second section of this chapter, is purely ministerial and declarative. Church censures declare simply what is, to the best of their knowledge, in the opinion of the Church officers pronouncing them, the mind and will of Christ in the case. And they have direct binding effect only in so far as the relation of the person censured to the visible Church is concerned. They can have effect upon the relations of the censured to God and to Christ only in so far as they represent the will of Christ in the case, and because they do.
SECTION I. For the better government, and further edification of the church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils:[1] and it belongeth to the overseers and other rulers of the particular churches, by virtue of their office, and the power which Christ hath given them for edification and not for destruction, to appoint such assemblies;[2] and to convene together in them, as often as they shall judge it expedient for the good of the church. [3]
Acts 15:2, 4, 6
Acts 15:1-35
Acts 15:1-35; 20:17
As we have seen in the last chapter, a11 Church power is vested by Christ in the Church as a whole – not as a mob, but as an organized body. As organized, the Church consists of presbyters or bishops and the people, and the people as represented by lay or ruling elders. This necessarily gives origin to the session or parochial presbytery, consisting of the bishop or pastor, and the ruling elders or representatives of the people. In this body the entire ecclesiastical power of the whole congregation is vested. It admits candidates to sealing ordinances, exercises pastoral care and discipline over the members, provides for the instruction of the flock, and regulates public worship.
In the Episcopal Church this governing power vests with the rector. In the Congregational Churches it is exercised immediately by the whole body of the brotherhood in person. In the Presbyterian Church it vests with pastor and people – the people, however, acting only through their permanent representatives, the ruling elders.
But the third great principle of Presbyterianism, as stated in the preceding chapter, is, that the whole Church of Christ on earth “is one in such a sense that a smaller part is subject to a larger, and a larger to the whole. It has one Lord, one faith, one baptism. The principles of government laid down in the Scriptures bind the whole
Church. The terms of admission and the legitimate grounds of exclusion are everywhere the same. The same qualifications are everywhere to be demanded for admission to the sacred office, and the same grounds for deposition. Every man who is properly received as a member of a particular church becomes a member of the Church universal; every one rightfully excluded from a particular church is excluded from the whole Church: everyone rightfully ordained to the ministry in one church is a minister of the universal Church; and when rightfully deposed in one he ceases to be a minister in any. Hence, while every particular church has a right to manage its own affairs and administer its own discipline, it cannot be independent and irresponsible in the exercise of that right. As its members are the members of the Church universal, and those whom it excommunicates are, according to the Scriptural theory, delivered unto Satan and cut off from the communion of the saints, the acts of a particular church become the acts of the whole Church, and therefore the whole has a right to see that they are performed according to the law of Christ. Hence, on the one hand, the right of appeal; and, on the other, the right of review and control.”
The principle contained in the above statement was certainly acted upon in the apostolic age, and it has been practically recognized and acted upon with more or less fidelity in all branches of the Christian Church ever since.
” A controversy having arisen in the church at Antioch concerning the Mosaic law, instead of settling it among themselves as an independent body, they referred the case to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem; and there it was authoritatively decided (not by the apostles alone, but ‘ by the apostles and elders, with the whole church,’ Acts xv. 22) – not for that church (Antioch) only, but for all others. Paul, therefore, in his next missionary journey, as he passed through the cities, ‘ delivered to them,’ it is said, ‘ the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.’ Acts xvi. 4.” Hence, in carrying these principles into effect, the constitution of the Presbyterian Church provides for the erection and operation of a regularly graduated series of ecclesiastical councils.
In virtue of the principle of APPEAL, any question originating in a church session, or in any other subordinate court, may be carried up in succession through all the series to the General Assembly, whose decisions when once made are final.
In virtue of the principle of REVIEW AND CONTROL, each church court of every grade above a church session has the right, and is under obligation, to review “the records of the proceedings of the judicatory next below;” and of course to judge of those proceedings, and secure their correction when wrong. And each court, including the church session, is an executive as well as a judicial body; and therefore has an inherent right of supervision and of governmental control over the entire field subject to its jurisdiction. Hence a superior judicatory, in default of the proper action of the inferior judicatory to which the case more immediately belongs, may inaugurate investigation and apply discipline immediately in the case of any person within its legitimate bounds.
SECTION II. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.[4]
SECTION III. All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.[5]
SECTION IV. Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.[6]
These sections state – 1. The different subjects which come before these Church courts for decision. 2. The grounds upon which, and the conditions under which, their decisions are to be regarded as requiring submission, and the extent to which that submission is to be carried.
Word of God, the private member should disregard them and take the penalty.
What subjects are defined in the second, third, and fourth sections of this chapter? [WCF 31.3-4]
What rights are denied synods and councils with respect to matters belonging to the jurisdiction of the civil magistrate?
What exceptions to that prohibition are made?
What relations do all church courts sustain to Christ, and to what special functions must their governmental agency be confined?
State the several classes of matters which may be legitimately considered and determined by church courts.
Prove that it is the duty of church courts to instruct those under their jurisdiction with respect to the duties which Christians owe to the civil magistrate, and to enforce by proper ecclesiastical means due compliance.
What do our Standards teach with regard to the liability of church courts to err?
What practical consequent follows necessarily from that fact?
What is the true sphere of private judgment in the case?
What should the Christian do in case the decision of the council be unwise, but not positively opposed to the revealed will of Christ?
What is he to do in case the decision is directly opposed to the Word of Christ?
Upon what grounds does every Christian owe submission to and compliance with those decisions of the courts of God’s house which are consonant to his Word?
[1] “What is Presbyterianism?” Rev. C. Hodge, D.D.
[2] Ibid.
[3] See Book I. of Government.
SECTION I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:[1] but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: [2] the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.[3] And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.[4] Besides these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.
Gen. 3:19; Acts 13:36
Luke 23:43; Eccl. 12:7
Heb. 12:23; II Cor. 5:1, 6, 8; Phil. 1:23; Acts 3:21; Eph. 4:10; Rom.
8:23
This section teaches –
holiness; (2.) During all the intermediate state, from death until the resurrection, continues conscious, active, and happy; and (3.) Is in the presence of Christ, who, after his ascension, sat down at the right hand of God.
and that, as members of Christ, all that is essential to them will be ultimately preserved and brought to a glorious resurrection.
As to the condition and location of the souls of men during the interval which elapses between the death of each individual and the general and simultaneous resurrection of the bodies of all, what the Scriptures teach us may be summed up under the following heads: –
judgment of the great day.” In Matt. xxv. 41, the Judge at the last day says to those on the left hand, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.” The rich man “ lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments,” while his brethren were still alive on earth. Luke xvi. 23. But where these places are situated, and whether the locality of torment now is identical with the locality of torment after the judgment, no man can tell, because God has not revealed it. Of course, the terms “up” or “down,” “under” or “above,” applied to such a subject, must be simply metaphorical, and cannot indicate absolute direction when addressed promiscuously to the inhabitants of a revolving and rotating sphere.
(7.) As to the location of the place where the redeemed are now gathered, absolutely nothing is revealed, except that it is wherever the glorified humanity of Christ is. They are with him, and behold his glory. 2 Cor. v. 1 – 8. See, also, all the scenes opened in the Apocalypse. And Christ, at his ascension, sat down at “the right hand of God,” “the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Mark xvi. 19; Rom. viii. 34; Heb. i. 3; x. 12, etc. This must be a locality, because, the humanity of Christ being finite, his presence marks a definite place; yet the phrase “right hand of God” evidently marks rather the condition of honour and power to which Christ is raised as mediatorial King. As to the location of the place in which Christ and his glorified spouse will hold their central home throughout eternity, a strong probability is raised that it will be our present Earth; first burned with fire and then gloriously replenished. See Rom. viii. 19 -23; 2 Pet. iii. 5 – 13; Rev. xxi. l.
The proof of the main propositions above stated – viz., that the intermediate state of souls is one of conscious activity, the redeemed being perfectly holy and happy with Christ, and the reprobate being with the devil and his angels in torment, and that these conditions are for ever irreversible – can be better presented collectively than distributively. It is as follows: The reappearance of Samuel in a conscious state, in the use of all his faculties, at the call of Saul and the witch of En-dor (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 on the cross –” Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke xxiii. 43); the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 23, 24) – Lazarus is conscious and active in Abraham’s bosom – the rich man is in conscious torment in Hell (Hades), while his brethren are still living in the flesh. Of dying Stephen it is declared (Acts vii. 55 – 59) that, being full of the Holy Ghost, he saw the heavens opened, and Jesus Christ standing at the right hand of God; and so seeing he cried, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit,” and so died.
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 the believer to be “ present with the Lord:” and hence he says (in 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: nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.” In 1 Thess v. 10, Paul declares that the sleep of death is a “living together with Christ.” In Eph. iii. 15, the Church is declared to be one whole family, of which at present part is in heaven and part on earth. In Heb. vi. 12 – 20, it is declared that after Abraham (and other ancient saints) “had patiently endured, he obtained the promises;” which promises, we know, were in their true meaning spiritual and heavenly. In Acts i. 25, Judas is said to have gone “to his own place.” In Jude 6, 7, the lost angels are said to be “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” In Heb. xii. 23, the spirits of the just are represented as “made perfect,” and happy with the angels in heaven. In Rev. vi. 9 – 11, the souls of the martyrs are represented as under the altar in heaven, praying for the punishment of their former persecutors on earth, which of course must be before the resurrection. In Rev. v. 9; vii. 9; xiv. 1, 3, the souls of believers are represented as being now with Christ and the holy angels.
deceased men. The Papists hold that Hades or the under world embraces several distinct regions, to which different classes of human souls are destined: (1.) The souls of unbaptized infants go to the “Limbus Infantum,” where they remain without suffering, and yet without the vision of God. (2.) Old Testament believers were gathered in the “ Limbus Patrurm,” where, without suffering, and yet without the vision of God, they remained the “spirits in prison,” until Christ, during the three days he continued under the power of death, went and released them. 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20. (3.) All unbaptized adults, and those who have subsequently lost the grace of baptism, and die unreconciled to the Church, go immediately to the permanent Hell. (4.) All Christians who have attained a state of Christian perfection go immediately to Heaven. (5.) The great mass of partially sanctified Christians, dying in communion with the Church, still cumbered with imperfections, go to Purgatory. (Cat. Rom., pt. i., ch. vi.)
Concerning purgatory, the Council of Trent teaches – (a.) That there is a purifying fire through which imperfect Christians must pass. (b.) That souls in purgatory may be benefited by the prayers and masses offered in their behalf on earth. (Counc. Trent, sess. xxv.)
This doctrine is false, because – (1.) It is nowhere taught in Scripture. (2.) It is opposed to the teaching of Scripture as to the intermediate state, as above shown. (3.) It rests upon Anti-Christian principles as to the efficacy of the atonement of Christ, as to the sinexpiating and soul-purifying efficacy of temporary suffering, as to the sacrifice of the mass, and as to prayers for the dead, etc.
SECTION II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:[5] and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.[6]
I Thess. 4:17; I Cor. 15: 51-52
John 5:25-29; Acts 24:15; Job 19:26-27; Dan. 12:2; I Cor. 15:42-44
SECTION III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to his own glorious body.[7]
These sections teach –
There are many changes in the material elements and form of the human body between birth and death, and yet no one can for a moment doubt that the body remains one and the same throughout all. There is no difficulty in believing, upon the authority of God’s Word, that, in spite of the lapse of time and of all the changes, whether of matter or of form, it undergoes, the body of the resurrection will be in the same sense and to the same degree one with the body of death as the body of death is one with the body of birth.
The body of man now is “ an animal body “– unhappily translated “a natural body” (1 Cor. xv. 44). It is suited to the present wants of man; to his present stage of development, intellectual, moral, social, and spiritual; and to the physical conditions of the world he inhabits. But “flesh and blood” – bone, muscle, and nerve –” cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” 1 Cor. xv. 50. But this shall be “ changed; “– not a new body substituted for the old, but the old changed into the new. As the seed gives birth to a new organism, so the corruptible will give birth to the incorruptible; for “there is an animal body, and there is a spiritual body.” The spiritual body will be still material and identical with the body which was once animal: but it will be suited to the new wants of “the spirits of just men made perfect;” to their new stage of development, intellectual and spiritual; to their social relations; and to the physical conditions of the “ new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.” 2 Pet. iii. 12, 13.
SECTION I. God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ [1], to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father.[2] In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged.[3] but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.[4]
SECTION II. The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of his justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.[5]
THESE sections teach –
resurrection, in the completeness of his reintegrated person, both soul and body. All the generations of the dead are to be raised and the then living “ changed.” “Before him shall be gathered all nations.” “ We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed; …… the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.” “We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” “And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God……. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (Hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged, every man according to their works.” Matt. xxv. 31 – 40; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52; 2 Cor. v. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 16; Rev. xx. 11 – 15. All evil angels are also to be arraigned in this judgment. “ The angels which kept not their first estate …… he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” Jude 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4. Good angels will be concerned in it as attendants and ministers. Matt. xiii. 41, 42; 2 Thess. i. 7, 8.
The saints will not be acquitted in the day of judgment on the ground of their own good deeds, but because their names are found “written in the book of life,” or the book of God’s electing love, and on the ground of their participation in the righteousness of Christ. Their good deeds will be publicly cited as the evidences of their union with Christ. Their union with Christ is the ground of their justification. Their faith is the instrument of their union with Christ; and their faith, as the Apostle James says, is shown by their works. Phil. iv. 3; Rev. iii. 5; xiii. 8; xx. 12, 15.
Rom. viii. 17; 1 Thess. iv. 17; Rev. xxi. 3. (2.) It shall be perfectly free from all evil of every kind (Rev. xxi. 4), and it shall involve every form of blessedness in an inconceivably great degree (1 Cor. ii. 9) and exalted in kind (Col. i. 12). (3.) It is to endure for an absolutely unending eternity. It is called “ eternal life” and “ everlasting life,” an “ eternal weight of glory,” “eternal salvation,” an “everlasting kingdom,” an “eternal inheritance.” Matt. xix. 16, 29; xxv. 46; Rom. ii. 7; 2 Cor. iv. 17; Heb. v. 9; 2 Pet. i. 11; 1 Pet. i. 4; Heb. ix. 15.
From such passages as Rom. viii. 19 – 23; 2 Pet. iii. 5 – 13, and Rev. xxi. 1, it appears not improbable that after the great conflagration of the Earth and all that inhabits its surface, which the Scriptures reveal shall accompany the judgment, this world will be reconstituted, and as the “new heaven” and the “new earth” be gloriously adapted to be the permanent residence of Christ and his Church.
The strongest terms which the Greek language affords are employed in the New Testament to express the unending duration of the penal torments of the lost. The same words (aion, aionios, and aidios) are used to express the eternal existence of God (1 Tim. i. 17; Rom. i. 20; xvi. 26), of Christ (Rev. i. 18), of the Holy Ghost (Heb. ix. 14), and the endless duration of the happiness of the saints (John vi. 58; Matt. xix. 29; Matt. xxv. 40, etc.. etc.), and the endless duration of the sufferings of the lost. Matt. xxv. 46; Jude 6. Besides, their condition is constantly set forth by such terms as, the “fire that shall not be quenched,” “fire unquenchable,” “the worm that never dies,” “bottomless pit,” the necessity of paying “the uttermost farthing,” “the smoke of their torment ascending up for ever and ever.” Luke iii. 17; Mark ix. 45, 46; Rev. ix. 1; Matt. v. 26; Rev. xiv. 10, 11. Of the unpardonable sin, Christ says that it shall never be pardoned, “neither in this world nor in that which is to come.” Matt. xii. 32.
The entire Christian Church, Greek and Roman, Lutheran and Reformed, have agreed in holding this truth that the penal sufferings of the lost are to last for ever. Certain individuals and heretical societies, however, have denied it, and substituted in its place one or other of the following hypotheses: –
SECTION III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity:[6] so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.[7]
Rom. 8:22-25 7. Matt. 24:36, 42-44; Mark 13:35-37; Luke 12:35-36; Rev. 22:20
when ye think not.” Luke xii. 40. “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.” Acts i. 7. “ The day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night.” 1Thess. v. 2; 2 Pet. iii. 10. “Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments.” Rev. xvi. 15. The designed effect of the attitude of uncertainty with regard to the time of the second advent and general judgment in which the saints are placed is, that they should regard it as always immediately impending; that they should look forward to it with solemn awe, and yet with joyful confidence; and hence, in view of it, be incited to the performance of duty and the attainment of holiness, and. comforted in sorrow. Phil. iii. 20; Col. iii. 4, 5; James v. 7. It is their duty also to love, watch, wait for, and hasten unto the coming of our Lord. Luke xii. 35-37; 1 Cor. i. 7, 8; 1 These. i. 9, 10; 2 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Pet. iii. 12; Rev. xxii. 20.
| 9. Prove from Scripture that God has appointed a certain fixed day for the general judgment of men and angels. |
|---|
| 10. Who is to be the Judge, and in what character? |
| 11. Prove the above answer. |
| 12. Who are to be the subjects of the judgment? |
| 13. Prove your answer. |
| 14. How are good angels to be concerned in the transaction? |
| 15. By what law are men to be judged? |
| 16. How far is the investigation and judgment of that day to extend? -to overt actions only, or also to motives, feelings and thoughts? |
| 17. Prove your answer. |
| 18. Upon what ground will the saints be acquitted? |
| 19. What is the “book of life?” |
| 20. What is God’s great end in his dealings with the reprobate and in his dealings with his saints? |
| 21. Prove your answer. |
| 22. Where are the righteous to go immediately after the judgment? |
| 23. Prove that they are ever to be with Christ. |
| 24. What is to be the character and degree of their blessedness? |
| 25. Prove that it is to endure forever. |
| 26. Where is it probable Christ and his people will be finally located? |
The Meaning of ‘System of Doctrine’: Old School vs. New School
In the debates which preceded the reunion of the two branches of the American Presbyterian Church in 1870, Dr. Charles Hodge represented the Old School branch in the Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, and Dr. Henry B. Smith represented the New School branch in the American Theological Review. It is a significant fact that, while the discussion began in the form of attack and defence, it resulted in the discovery that these truly representative men held precisely identical opinions as to the historical meaning and constitutional force of the formula of subscription to which all ministers and elders must assent as the condition of their ordination. In support of this they mutually cite the history and pledge the faith of their respective denominations pending the solemn covenants implied in reunion.
Dr. Hodge discussed this subject and defined the position of his branch of the Church in articles printed Oct, 1831, and Oct, 1858, and Jul, 1867. He says:[1] “The two principles which by common consent of all honest men determine the interpretation of oaths and professions of faith are, first, the plain, historical meaning of the words; and secondly, the animus imponentis-that is, the intention of the party imposing the oath or requiring the profession. The words, therefore, ‘system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures,’ are to be taken in their plain historical sense.” “Again, by the animus imponentis, in the case contemplated, is to be understood, not the mind or intention of the ordaining Presbytery. It is the mind or intention of the Church, of which the Presbytery is the organ.”
The question, however, is, What is the true sense of the phrase “system of doctrine” in our ordination service? or what does the Church understand the candidate to profess when he says that “he receives and adopts the Confession of Faith of this Church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scripture”? There are three different answers given to that question:
“I. It is said by some that in adopting ‘the system of doctrine’ the candidate is understood to adopt it, not in the form or manner in which it is presented in the Confession of Faith, but only for ‘substance of doctrine’-‘that by the system contained in the Confession is meant the essential doctrines of Christianity, and nothing more.’[2] The objection to this interpretation is that-
“(2) The second objection to this view is that it is contrary to the mind of the Church. That mind, on this point, is rendered clear beyond dispute by her repeated official declarations on the subject. The famous adopting act of the original Synod, passed in AD 1729, is in these words: ‘Although the Synod do not claim or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith on other men’s consciences, but do profess our just dissatisfaction with and abhorrence of such impositions, and do utterly disclaim all legislative power and authority in the Church, being willing to receive one another, as Christ has received us, to the glory of God, and admit to fellowship in sacred ordinances all such as we have grounds to believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven,-yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith once delivered to the saints be kept pure and uncorrupt among us, and so handed down to our posterity; and do therefore agree that all ministers of this Synod shall declare their agreement in and approbation of the Confession of Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines in
Westminster, as being, in all the essentials and necessary articles, good forms of sound words and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the said Confession and Catechisms as the confession of our faith. And we do also agree that all Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate of the ministry into the exercise of the sacred functions, but what declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of said Confession, either by subscribing said Confession and Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent thereto, as such minister or candidate shall think best. And in case any minister of this Synod, or any candidate for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to any article or articles of said Confession or Catechisms, he shall, at the time of making said declaration, declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exercise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial communion, if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge his scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential or necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or candidate erroneous in essential and necessary articles of faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them incapable of communion with them. And the Synod do solemnly agree that none of them will traduce or use any opprobrious terms of those who differ from us in extraessential and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat them with the same friendship, kindness, and brotherly love as if they did not differ in sentiment.’
“On the afternoon of the day on which the above act was adopted, the following minute was recorded-viz.:
“‘All the ministers of this Synod now present, except one, that declared himself not prepared, … after proposing all the scruples that any of them had to make against any articles and expressions in the Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, have unanimously agreed in the solution of those scruples, and in declaring the said Confession and
Catechisms to be the confession of their faith, excepting only some clauses in the twentieth [WCF 20] and twenty-third [WCF 23] chapters, concerning which clauses the Synod do unanimously declare that they do not receive those articles in such sense as to suppose that the civil magistrate hath a controlling power over Synods with respect to the exercise of their ministerial authority or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any sense contrary to the Protestant succession to the throne of Great Britain.
“‘The Synod, observing that unanimity, peace, and unity which appeared in all their consultations relating to the affair of the Confession, did unanimously agree in giving thanks to God in solemn prayer and praises.’
“This important document teaches, first, that in our Church the terms of Christian communion are competent knowledge and a credible profession of faith and repentance; second, that the condition of ministerial communion is the adoption of the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms; third, that the only exceptions allowed to be taken were such as related to matters outside that system of doctrine, and the rejection of which left that system in its integrity.
“In AD 1730 the Synod declared ‘that they understand those clauses that respect the admission of intrants or candidates in such sense as to oblige them to receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms at their admission, in the same manner, and as fully as the members of the Synod did, who were then present.’ In AD 1736 the Synod again says: ‘The Synod has adopted, and still do adhere to, the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and Directory, without variation or alteration; … and they further declare that this was our meaning and true intent in our first adopting of said Confession.’
“When the two Synods (Old Light and New Light) were reunited in AD 1758, the first article of the terms of union was as follows: ‘Both Synods having always approved and received the Westminster
Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms, as an orthodox and excellent system of doctrine, founded on the Word of God, we do still receive the same as the confession of our faith, and also adhere to the plan of worship and government and discipline contained in the Westminster Directory, strictly enjoining it on all our ministers and probationers for the ministry that they preach and teach according to the form of sound words in the said Confession and Catechisms, and avoid and oppose all errors contrary thereto.’
“The objections to this view are:
lower or to raise unduly the evidence which she demands of a vocation to the ministry than she has to alter the evidence of a call to grace and salvation.
In the October number of the American Theological Review, AD 1867, Dr. Henry B. Smith says:
“No declaration of the New School as a body, nor of those considered as its representatives, could be, or was, cited in favor of such a loose phrase as ‘substance of doctrine,’ and by many New School men it was publicly and definitely denied. We agreed to the ‘system-ofdoctrine’ view, and agreed, also, in condemning the ‘everyproposition theory’ as inconsistent with the plain terms of the adopting act, and with the uniform practice of the Presbyterian Church. We disallow the phrase ‘substance of doctrine,’ because it is indefinite, easily misunderstood, and does not suggest the right theory. That right theory is found in a simple and honest interpretation of the ordination formula-that we receive the Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures. This declares that the system of the Confession is the system taught in the Bible. The system of the Confession, as everybody knows, is the Reformed or Calvinistic system, in distinction from the Lutheran, or Arminian, the Antinomian, the Pelagian and the Roman Catholic. No one can honestly and fairly subscribe the Confession who does not accept the Reformed or Calvinistic system. This is the plain sense of the adopting act of AD 1729. Everybody knows that the ‘fair historical’ sense of the Confession is plainly and resolutely Calvinistic.
“On this capital point of assent to the Confession, then, we conclude that there is no real difference between the Old School and the New. We are both willing to accept it as containing the Reformed system of doctrine. We cordially agree-and so, we are convinced, would our whole New School ministry and eldership-to the statement of this theory as given in the Princeton Review. Among honest and candid men there is really no doubt or question as to what subscription implies.”
The Auburn Declaration and The Declaratory Act
“The Auburn Declaration” Adopted by a Representative Body of New School Presbyterians in AD 1837, and “The Declaratory Act,” Adopted by the United Presbyterian Synod of Scotland, AD 1879.
The abovementioned declaratory acts are the only two historical papers authoritatively interpreting the sense in which the Westminster Confession of Faith is accepted by large branches of the Presbyterian Church. Their historical and interpretative value is obvious, but they are especially valuable as demonstrating the fidelity with which the Presbyterian churches on both sides of the ocean adhere to the original type of Reformed theology, and hence their essential unity in spite of their organic differences.
“The Auburn Declaration,” drawn up by the Rev. Baxter Dickinson, D.D., was issued by an important representative convention of Presbyterian ministers adhering to the New School branch, at Auburn, New York, Aug, 1837. It is, therefore, an authoritative explanation of the interpretation given to the Westminster Confession by the leading minds of the New School at the era of its organization as a distinct denomination. The Old School General Assembly in Albany, AD 1868, in resolutions looking to reunion, endorsed the “Auburn Declaration” as containing “all the fundamentals of the Calvinistic Creed.”
redemption by the blood of Christ and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.
hast given me, for they are thine. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word” (John 17:9,20).
does not become theirs, in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities and merit, yet from respect to it God can, and does, treat them as if they were righteous.
The United Presbyterian Church of Scotland was formed in 1847 by a union of the United Associate Synod of the Secession Church with the Synod of the Relief Church. In the doctrinal basis of this union it was declared “that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms are the Confession and Catechisms of this Church, and contain the authorized exhibition of the sense in which we understand the Holy Scriptures.”
In order to explain the above basis the following Declaratory Act as to the sense in which the Confession is to be understood was passed by the Synod in May, 1879:
“Whereas, The formula in which the Subordinate[1] Standards of this Church are accepted requires assent to them as an exhibition of the sense in which the Scriptures are understood; Whereas, These Standards, being of human composition, are necessarily imperfect, and the Church has already allowed exception to be taken to their teaching or supposed teaching on one important subject;[2] And Whereas, There are other subjects in regard to which it has been found desirable to set forth more fully and clearly the view which the Synod takes of the Holy Scripture; Therefore, the Synod hereby declares as follows:
“1. That in regard to the doctrine of redemption as taught in the Standards, and in consistency therewith, the love of God to all mankind, his gift of his Son to be the propitiation for the sins of the whole world, and the free offer of salvation to men without distinction on the ground of Christ’s perfect sacrifice, are matters which have been and continue to be regarded by this Church as vital to the system of gospel truth, and to which due prominence ought ever to be given.
“2. That the doctrine of divine decrees, including the doctrine of election to eternal life, is held in connection and harmony with the truth that God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, that he has provided a salvation sufficient for all, adapted to all and offered to all in the gospel; and also with the responsibility of every man for his dealing with the free and unrestricted offer of eternal life.
“3. That the doctrine of man’s total depravity, and of his loss of all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation, is not held as implying such a condition of man’s nature as would affect his responsibility under the law of God and the gospel of Christ, or that he does not experience the striving and restraining.
influences of the Spirit of God, or that he cannot perform actions in any sense good; although actions which do not spring from a renewed heart are not spiritually good or holy-such as accompany salvation.
“4. That while none are saved except through the mediation of Christ, and by the grace of his Holy Spirit, who worketh when and where and how it pleaseth him; while the duty of sending the gospel to the heathen, who are sunk in ignorance, sin, and misery, is clear and imperative; and while the outward and ordinary means of salvation for those capable of being outwardly called by the word are the ordinances of the gospel, in accepting the Standards, it is not required to be held that any who die in infancy are lost, or that God may not extend his grace to any who are without the pale of the ordinary means, as it may seem good in his sight.
WHAT IS PRESBYTERIANISM? by Charles Hodge
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BRETHREN:-We are assembled this evening as a Presbyterian Historical Society. It has occurred to me that it would not be inappropriate to discuss the question, What is Presbyterianism? You will not expect from me an oration. My object is neither conviction nor persuasion; but exposition. I propose to occupy the hour devoted to this address in an attempt to unfold the principles of that system of Church polity which we, as Presbyterians, hold to be laid down in the word of God.
Setting aside Erastianism, which teaches that the Church is only one form of the State; and Quakerism, which does not provide for the external organization of the Church, there are only four radically different theories on the subject of Church Polity.
an administrative government of its own. The power of the Church relates, 1. To matters of doctrine. She had the right to set forth a public declaration of the truths which she believes, and which are to be acknowledged by all who enter her communion. That is, she has the right to frame creeds or confessions of faith, as her testimony for the truth, and her protest against error. And as she has been commissioned to teach all nations, she has the right of selecting teachers, of judging their fitness, of ordaining and sending them forth into the field, and of recalling and deposing them when unfaithful. 2. The Church has power to set down rules for the ordering of public worship. 3. She has power to make rules for her own government; such as every Church has in its Book of Discipline, Constitution, or Canons, &c. 4. She has power to receive into fellowship, and to exclude the unworthy from her own communion.
Now, the question is, Where does this power vest? Does it, as Romanists and Prelatists affirm, belong exclusively to the clergy? Have they the right to determine for the Church what she is to believe, what she is to profess, what she is to do, and whom she is to receive as members, and whom she is to reject? Or does this power vest in the Church itself-that is, in the whole body of the faithful? This, it will be perceived, is a radical question-one which touches the essence of things, and determines the destiny of men. If all Church power vests in the clergy, then the people are practically bound to passive obedience in all matters of faith and practice; for all right of private judgment is then denied. If it vests in the whole Church, then the people have a right to a substantive part in the decision of all questions relating to doctrine, worship, order, and discipline. The public assertion of this right of the people, at the time of the Reformation, roused all Europe. It was an apocalyptic trumpet, i.e. a trumpet of revelation, tuba per sepulchra sonans, calling dead souls to life; awakening them to the consciousness of power and of right; of power conveying right, and imposing the obligation to assert and exercise it. This was the end of Church tyranny in all truly Protestant countries. It was the end of the theory that the people were bound to passive submission in matters of faith and practice. It was deliverance to the captive, the opening of the prison to those who were bound; the introduction of the people of God into the liberty wherewith Christ has made them free. This is the reason why civil liberty follows religious liberty. The theory that all Church power vests in a divinely constituted hierarchy, begets the theory that all civil power vests, of divine right, in kings and nobles. And the theory that Church power vests in the Church itself, and all Church officers are servants of the Church, of necessity begets the theory that civil power vests in the people, and that civil magistrates are servants of the people. These theories God has joined together, and no man can put them asunder. It was, therefore, by an infallible instinct, the unfortunate Charles of England said, “No bishop, no king;” by which he meant that if there is no despotic power in the Church, there can be no despotic power in the State; or, if there be liberty in the Church, there will be liberty in the State.
But this great Protestant and Presbyterian principle is not only a principle of liberty, it is also a principle of order. 1st. Because this power of the people is subject to the infallible authority of the word; and 2d. Because the exercise of it is in the hands of duly constituted officers. Presbyterianism does not dissolve the bands of authority, and resolve the Church into a mob. Though delivered from the autocratic authority of the hierarchy, it remains under the law to Christ. It is restricted in the exercise of its power by the word of God, which bends the reason, heart, and conscience. We only cease to be the servants of men, that we may be the servants of God. We are raised into a higher sphere, where perfect liberty is merged in absolute subjection. As the Church is the aggregate of believers, there is an intimate analogy between the experience of the individual believer, and of the Church as a whole. The believer ceases to be the servant of sin, that he may be the servant of righteousness; he is redeemed from the law, that he may be the servant of Christ. So the Church is delivered from an illegitimate authority, not that she may be lawless, but subject to an authority legitimate and divine. The Reformers, therefore, as instruments in the hands of God, in delivering the Church from bondage to prelates, did not make it a tumultuous multitude, in which every man was a law to himself, free to believe, and free to do what he pleased. The Church, in all the exercise of her power, in reference either to doctrine or discipline, acts under the written law of God, as recorded in his word.
But besides this, the power of the Church is not only thus limited and guided by the Scriptures, but the exercise of it is in the hands of legitimate officers. The Church is not a vast democracy, where everything is decided by the popular voice. “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, (i.e. of order) as in all churches of the saints.” The Westminster Confession, therefore, expressing the common sentiment of Presbyterians, says-“The Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hands of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.” The doctrine that all civil power vests ultimately in the people, is not inconsistent with the doctrine that that power is in the hands of legitimate officers, legislative, judicial, and executive, to be exercised by them according to law. Nor is it inconsistent with the doctrine that the authority of the civil magistrate is jure divino. So the doctrine that Church power vests in the Church itself, is not inconsistent with the doctrine that there is a divinely appointed class of officers, through whom that power is to be exercised. It thus appears that the principle of liberty and the principle of order are perfectly harmonious. In denying that all Church power vests exclusively in the clergy, whom the people have nothing to do but to believe and to obey, and in affirming that it vests in the Church itself, while we assert the great principle of Christian liberty, we assert the no less important principle of evangelical order.
It is not necessary to occupy your time in quoting either from the Reformed Confessions or from standard Presbyterian writers, that the principle just stated is one of the radical principles of our system. It is enough to advert to the recognition of it involved in the office of ruling elder.
Ruling elders are declared to be the representatives of the people. They are chosen by them to act in their name in the government of the Church. The functions of these elders, therefore, determine the power of the people; for a representative is one chosen by others to do in their name what they are entitled to do in their own persons; or rather to exercise the powers which radically inhere in those for whom they act. The members of a State Legislature, or of Congress, for example, can exercise only those powers which are inherent in the people.
The powers, therefore, exercised by our ruling elders, are powers which belong to the lay members of the Church. What then are the powers of our ruling elders? 1. As to matters of doctrine and the great office of teaching, they have an equal voice with the clergy in the formation and adoption of all symbols of faith. According to Presbyterianism, it is not competent for the clergy to frame and authoritatively set forth a creed to be embraced by the Church, and to be made a condition of either ministerial or Christian communion, without the consent of the people. Such creeds profess to express the mind of the Church. But the ministry are not the Church, and, therefore, cannot declare the faith of the Church, without the cooperation of the Church itself. Such Confessions, at the time of the Reformation, proceeded from the whole Church. And all the Confessions now in authority in the different branches of the great Presbyterian family, were adopted by the people through their representatives, as the expression of their faith. So, too, in the selection of preachers of the word, in judging of their fitness for the sacred office, in deciding whether they shall be ordained, in judging them when arraigned for heresy, the people have, in fact, an equal vote with the clergy.[1]
There can, therefore, be no doubt that Presbyterians do carry out the principle that Church power vests in the Church itself, and that the people have a right to a substantive part in its discipline and government. In other words, we do not hold that all power vests in the clergy, and that the people have only to listen and obey.
But is this a scriptural principle? Is it a matter of concession and courtesy, or is it a matter of divine right? Is our office of ruling elder only one of expediency, or is it an essential element of our system, arising out of the very nature of the Church as constituted by God, and, therefore, of divine authority?
This, in the last resort, is, after all, only the question, Whether the clergy are the Church, or whether the people are the Church. If, as Louis the XIV said of France, “I am the State,” the clergy can say, “We are the Church,” then all Church power vests in them, as all civil power vested in the French monarch. But if the people are the State, civil power vests in them; and if the people are the Church, power vests in the people. If the clergy are priests and mediators, the channel of all divine communications, and the only medium of access to God, then all power is in their hands; but if all believers are priests and kings, then they have something more to do than merely passively to submit. So abhorrent is this idea of the clergy being the
Church to the consciousness of Christians, that no definition of the Church for the first fifteen centuries after Christ, was ever framed that even mentioned the clergy. This is said to have been first done by Canisius and Bellarmine.[2] Romanists define the Church to be “those who profess the true religion, and are subject to the Pope.” Anglicans define it as “those who profess the true religion, and are subject to Prelates.” The Westminster Confession defines the visible Church, “Those who profess the true religion, together with their children.” In every Protestant symbol, Lutheran or Reformed, the Church is said to be the company of faithful men. Now, as a definition is the statement of the essential attributes or characteristics of a subject; and as, by the common consent of Protestants, the definition of the Church is complete without even mentioning the clergy, it is evidently the renunciation of the radical principles of Protestantism, and, of course, of Presbyterianism, to maintain that all Church power vests in the clergy. The first argument, therefore, in support of the doctrine that the people have a right to a substantive part in the government of the Church is derived from the fact that they, according to the Scriptures and all Protestant Confessions, constitute the Church.
The first member of this syllogism is not disputed. The ground on which Romanists hold that Church power vests in the bishops, to the exclusion of the people, is that they hold that the Spirit was promised and given to the bishops as a class. When Christ breathed on his disciples, and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained;” and when he said, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; and when he further said, “He that heareth you heareth me; and lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world;” they hold that he gave the Holy Ghost to the apostles and to their successors in the apostleship, to continue unto the end of the world, to guide them into the knowledge of the truth, and to constitute them the authoritative teachers and rulers of the Church. If this is true, then, of course, all Church power vests in these apostle-bishops. But on the other hand, if it is true that the Spirit dwells in the whole Church; if he guides the people as well as the clergy into the knowledge of the truth; if he animates the whole body, and makes it the representative of Christ on earth so that they who hear the Church hear Christ, and so that what the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven, then, of course, Church power vests in the Church itself, and not exclusively in the clergy.[3]
If there be anything plain from the whole tenor of the New Testament, and from innumerable explicit declarations of the word of God, it is that the Spirit dwells in the whole body of Christ; that he guides all his people into the knowledge of the truth; that every believer is taught of God, and has the witness in himself, and has no need that any should teach him, but the anointing which abideth in him teacheth him all things. It is, therefore, the teaching of the Church, and not of the clergy exclusively, which is ministerially the teaching of the Spirit, and the judgment of the Spirit. It is a thoroughly anti-christian doctrine that the Spirit of God, and therefore the life and governing power of the Church, resides in the ministry, to the exclusion of the people.
When the great promise of the Spirit was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, it was fulfilled not in reference to the apostles only. It was of the whole assembly it was said, “They were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Paul, in writing to the Romans, says, “We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Having, therefore, gifts differing according to the grace given unto us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; or ministry, let us wait on our ministering; or he that teacheth, on teaching.” To the Corinthians he says: “To every one is given a manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit.” To the Ephesians he says: “There is one body and one Spirit; but unto every one is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.” This is the uniform representation of Scripture. The Spirit dwells in the whole Church, animates, guides, and instructs the whole. If, therefore, it be true, as all admit, that Church power goes with the Spirit, and arises out of his presence, it cannot belong exclusively to the clergy.
The third argument on this subject is derived from the commission given by Christ to his Church, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” This commission imposes a certain duty; it conveys certain powers; and it includes a great promise. The duty is to spread and to maintain the gospel in its purity over the whole earth. The powers are those required for the accomplishment of that object, i.e. the power to teach, to rule, and to exercise discipline. And the promise is the assurance of Christ’s perpetual presence and assistance. As neither the duty to extend and sustain the gospel in its purity, nor the promise of Christ’s presence is peculiar to the apostles as a class, or to the clergy as a body, but as both the duty and the promise belong to the whole Church, so also of necessity do the powers of the possession of which the obligation rests. The command, “Go teach all nations,” “go preach the gospel to every creature,” falls on the ear of the whole Church. It wakens a thrill in every heart. Every Christian feels that the command is addressed to a body of which he is a member, and that he has a personal obligation to discharge. It was not the ministry alone to whom this commission was given, and therefore it is not to them alone that the powers which it conveys belong.
The right of the people to a substantive part in the government of the Church is recognized and sanctioned by the apostles in almost every conceivable way. When they thought it necessary to complete the college of apostles, after the apostasy of Judas, Peter, addressing the disciples, the number being an hundred and twenty, said, “Men and brethren, of these men which have companied with us, all the time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and cast lots, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the apostles.” Thus in this most important initiatory step, the people had a decisive voice. So, when deacons were to be appointed, the whole multitude chose the seven men who were to be invested with the office. When the question arose as to the continued obligation of the Mosaic law, the authoritative decision proceeded from the whole Church. “It pleased,” says the sacred historian, “the apostles and elders, with the whole Church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch.” And they wrote letters by them after this manner: “The apostles, elders, and brethren, (oi avpo,stoloi kai. oi presbu,teroi kai. oi` avdeljoi,) send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia.” The brethren, therefore, were associated with the ministry in the decision of this great doctrinal and practical question. Most of the apostolic epistles are addressed to churches, i.e. the saints or believers, of Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, and Philippi. In these epistles, the people are assumed to be responsible for the orthodoxy of their teachers and for the purity of church members.
They are required not to believe every spirit, but to try the spirits; to sit in judgment on the question whether those who came to them as religious teachers were really sent of God. The Galatians are severely censured for giving heed to false doctrines, and are called to pronounce even an apostle anathema, if he preached another gospel. The Corinthians are censured for allowing an incestuous person to remain in their communion; they are commanded to excommunicate him, and afterwards, on his repentance, to restore him to their fellowship. These and other cases of the kind determine nothing as to the way in which the power of the people was exercised; but they prove conclusively that such power existed. The command to watch over the orthodoxy of ministers and the purity of members, was not addressed exclusively to the clergy, but to the whole Church. We believe that, as in the Synogogue, and in every well ordered society, the powers inherent in the society are exercised through appropriate organs. But the fact that these commands are addressed to the people, or to the whole Church, proves that they were responsible, and that they had a substantive part in the government of the Church. It would be absurd in other nations to address any complaints or exhortations to the people of Russia in reference to national affairs, because they have no part in the government. It would be no less absurd to address Roman Catholics as a selfgoverning body. But such addresses may well be made by the people of one of our States to the people of another, because the people have the power, though it is exercised through legitimate organs. While, therefore, the epistles of the apostles do not prove that the churches whom they addressed had not regular officers through whom the power of the Church was to be exercised, they abundantly prove that such power vested in the people; that they had a right and were bound to
take part in the government of the Church, and in the preservation of its purity.
It was only gradually, through a course of ages, that the power thus pertaining to the people was absorbed by the clergy. The progress of this absorption kept pace with the corruption of the Church, until the entire domination of the hierarchy was finally established. The first great principle, then, of Presbyterianism is the re-assertion of the primitive doctrine that Church power belongs to the whole Church; that that power is exercised through legitimate officers, and therefore that the office of ruling elders as the representatives of the people, is not a matter of expediency, but an essential element of our system, arising out of the nature of the Church, and resting on the authority of Christ.
II. The second great principle of Presbyterianism is, that presbyters who minister in word and doctrine are the highest permanent officers of the Church.
candidate is called of God; and if satisfied on that point, to express its judgment in the public and solemn manner prescribed in Scripture.
That ministers do thus derive their authority from Christ, follows not merely from the theocratical character of the Church, and the relation which Christ, its king, sustains to it, as the source of all authority and power, but, (a) From the fact that it is expressly asserted, that Christ gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the edifying of the saints, and for the work of the ministry. He, and not the people, constituted or appointed the apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers. (b) Ministers are, therefore, called the servants, the messengers, the ambassadors of Christ. They speak in Christ’s name, and by his authority. They are sent by Christ to the Church, to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine. They are indeed the servants of the Church, as labouring in her service, and as subject to her authority-servants as opposed to lords-but not in the sense of deriving their commission and powers from the Church. (c) Paul exhorts the presbyters of Ephesus, “To take heed to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers.” To Archippus he says, “Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord.” It was then the Holy Ghost that appointed these presbyters, and made them overseers. (d) This is involved in the whole doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ, in which he dwells by his Spirit, giving to each member his gifts, qualifications, and functions, dividing to every one severally as he wills; and by these gifts making one an apostle, another a prophet, and another a teacher, another a worker of miracles. It is thus that the apostle reconciles the doctrine that ministers derive their authority and power from Christ, and not from the people, with the doctrine that Church powers vest ultimately in the Church as a whole. He refers to the analogy between the human body and the Church as the body of Christ. As in the human body, the soul resides not in any one part to the exclusion of the rest; and as life and power belong to it as a whole, though one part is an eye, another an ear, and another a
hand; so Christ, by his Spirit, dwells in the Church, and all power belongs to the Church, though the indwelling Spirit gives to each member his function and office. So that ministers are no more appointed by the Church, than the eye by the hands and feet. This is the representation which pervades the New Testament, and necessarily supposes that the ministers of the Church are the servants of Christ, selected and appointed by him through the Holy Ghost.
That this is the scriptural view of the presbyterial office, or that presbyters are invested with the powers above referred to, is plain (a)
From the significant titles given to them in the word of God; they are called teachers, rulers, shepherds or pastors, stewards, overseers or bishops, builders, watchmen, ambassadors, witnesses. (b) From the qualifications required for the office. They must be apt to teach, well instructed, able rightly to divide the word of God, sound in the faith, able to resist gainsayers, able to rule their own families; for if a man cannot rule his own house, how can he take care of the Church of God: He must have the personal qualities which give him authority. He must not be a novice, but grave, sober, temperate, vigilant, of good behaviour, and of good report.
saints always need to be fed, and built up in their most holy faith, she must always have the officers which are her divinely appointed organs for the accomplishment of this work.
mere sham. Much more is this necessary, in the living organism of the Church, in which the indwelling Spirit manifests himself as he wills. An apostle without the “word of wisdom,” was a false apostle; a teacher without “the word of knowledge,” was no teacher; a worker of miracles without the gift of miracles, was a magician; any one pretending to speak with tongues without the gift of tongues, was a deceiver. In like manner an apostle without the gifts of an apostle, is a mere pretender. There might as well be a man without a soul.
Romanists tell us that the Pope is the vicar of Christ; that he is his successor as the universal head and ruler of the Church on earth. If this is so, he must be a Christ. If he has Christ’s prerogatives, he must have Christ’s attributes. He cannot have the one without the other. If the Pope, by divine appointment, is invested with universal dominion over the Christian world; if all his decisions as to faith and duty are infallible and authoritative; if dissent from his decision or disobedience to his commands forfeits salvation, then is her heir to the gifts as well as to the office of Christ. If he claims the office, without having the gifts, then is he anti-christ, “the man of sin, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Romanists concede this principle. In ascribing to the Pope the prerogatives of Christ, they are forced to ascribe to him his attributes. Do they not enthrone him? Do they not kiss his feet? Do they not offer him incense? Do they not address him with blasphemous titles? Do they not pronounce anathemas against, and debar from heaven, all who do not acknowledge his authority?
This is the reason why opposition to Popery in the breasts of Protestants is a religious feeling. Cæsar Augustus might rule the world; the Czar of Russia may attain to universal dominion, but such dominion would not involve the assumption of divine attributes; and therefore submission to it would not involve apostasy from God, and opposition to it would not of necessity be a religious duty. But to be the Vicar of Christ, to claim to exercise his prerogatives on earth, does involve a claim to his attributes, and therefore our opposition to Popery is opposition to a man claiming to be God.
But if this principle applies to the case of the Pope, as all Protestants admit, it must also apply to the apostleship. If any set of men claim to be apostles-if they assert the right to exercise apostolic authority, they cannot avoid claiming the possession of apostolic endowments; and if they have not the latter, their claim to the former is an usurpation and pretence.
What, then, were the apostles? It is plain from the divine record that they were men immediately commissioned by Christ to make a full and authoritative revelation of his religion; to organize the Church; to furnish it with officers and laws, and to start it on its career of conquest through the world.
To qualify them for this work, they received, first, the word of wisdom, or a complete revelation of the doctrines of the gospel; secondly, the gift of the Holy Ghost, in such manner as to render them infallible in the communication of the truth, and in the exercise of their authority as rulers; thirdly, the gift of working miracles in confirmation of their mission, and of communicating the Holy Ghost by the imposition of their hands.
The prerogatives arising out of these gifts, were, first-absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice; secondly, authority equally absolute in legislating for the Church as to its constitution and laws; thirdly, universal jurisdiction over the officers and members of the Church.
Paul, when he claimed to be an apostle, claimed this immediate commission, this revelation of the gospel, this plenary inspiration, and this absolute authority and general jurisdiction. And in support of his claims, he appeals not only to the manifest co-operation of God through the Spirit, but to the signs of an apostle, which he wrought in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. 2 Cor. xii. 12.
It followed necessarily from the actual possession by the apostles of these gifts of revelation and inspiration, which rendered them infallible, that agreement with them in faith, and subjection to them were necessary to salvation. The apostle John, therefore, said, “He that knoweth God heareth us; and he that is not of God, heareth not us. Hereby we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” 1 John iv. 6. And the apostle Paul pronounced accursed even an angel should he deny the gospel which he preached, and as he preached it. The writings of the apostles, therefore, have in all ages and in every part of the Church, been regarded as infallible and authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.
Now, the argument is, that if prelates are apostles, they must have apostolic gifts. They have not those gifts, therefore they are not apostles. The first members of this syllogism can hardly need further proof. It is evident from the nature of the case, and from the Scriptures, that the prerogatives of the apostles arose out of their peculiar endowments. It was because they were inspired, and consequently infallible, that they were invested with the authority which they exercised. An uninspired apostle is as much a solecism as an uninspired prophet.
As to the second point, viz.: that prelates have not apostolic gifts, it needs no argument. They have no special revelation; they are not inspired, they have not either the power of working miracles, or of conferring miraculous gifts, and, therefore, they are not apostles.
So inseparable is the connection between an office and its gifts, that prelates, in claiming to be apostles, are forced to make a show of possessing apostolic gifts. Though not inspired individually, they claim to be inspired as a body; though not infallible singly, they claim to be infallible collectively; though they have not the power of conferring miraculous gifts, they claim the power of giving the grace of orders. These claims, however, are not less preposterous than the assumptions of personal inspiration. The historical fact, that the prelates collectively, as well as individually, are uninspired and fallible, is not less palpable than that they are mortal. Those of one age differed from those of another. Those of one Church pronounced accursed those of another-Greeks against Latins, Latins against Greeks, and Anglicans against both. Besides, if prelates are apostles, then there can be no religion and no salvation among those not subject to their authority. He is not of God, said the apostle John, who heareth not us. This is a conclusion which Romanists and Anglicans admit, and boldly assert. It is, however, a complete reductio ad absurdum. It might as well be asserted that the sun never shines out of Greenland, as that there is no religion beyond the pale of prelatical churches. To maintain this position, necessitates the perversion of the very nature of religion. As faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, repentance towards God, love, and holy living, are found outside of prelatical churches, prelatists maintain that religion does not consist in these fruits of the Spirit, but in something external and formal. The assumption, therefore, that prelates are apostles, of necessity leads to the conclusion that prelates have the gifts of the apostles, and that to the conclusion that submission to their teaching and jurisdiction, is essential to salvation; and that again, to the conclusion that religion is not an inward state, but an external relation. These are not merely the logical, but the historical sequences of the theory that the apostolic office is perpetual. Wherever that theory has prevailed, it has led to making religion ceremonial, and divorcing it from piety and morality. We would beg those who love Christ more than their order, and those who believe in evangelical religion, to lay this consideration to heart. The doctrine of a perpetual apostleship in the Church, is not a mere speculative error, but one, to the last degree, destructive.
We cannot pursue this subject further. That the apostolic office is temporary, is a plain historical fact. The apostles, the twelve, stand out just as conspicuous as an isolated body in the history of the Church, without predecessors, and without successors, as Christ himself does. They disappear from history. The title, the thing itself, the gifts, the functions, all ceased when John, the last of the twelve, ascended to heaven.
If it is a fearful thing to put the Pope in the place of Christ, and to make a man our God; it is also a fearful thing to put erring men in the place of infallible apostles, and make faith in their teaching, and submission to their authority, the condition of grace and salvation.
From this awful bondage, brethren, we are free. We bow to the authority of Christ. We submit to the infallible teachings of his inspired apostles; but we deny that the infallible is continued in the fallible, or the divine in the human.
But if the apostolic office was temporary, then presbyters are the highest permanent officers of the Church, because, as is conceded by nine-tenths, perhaps by ninety-nine hundredths of prelates, the Scriptures make no mention of any permanent officers intermediate between the apostles and the presbyter-bishops of the New Testament. There is no command to appoint such officers, no record of their appointment, no specification of their qualifications, no title for them, either in the Scriptures or in ecclesiastical history. If prelates are not apostles, they are presbyters, holding their preeminence by human, and not by divine authority.
III. As then presbyters are all of the same rank, and as they exercise their power in the government of the Church, in connection with the people, or their representatives, this of necessity gives rise to Sessions in our individual congregations, and to Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies, for the exercise of more extended jurisdiction. This brings into view the third great principle of Presbyterianism, the government of the Church by judicatories composed of presbyters and elders, &c. This takes for granted the unity of the Church in opposition to the theory of the Independents.
The Presbyterian doctrine on this subject is, that the Church is one in such a sense that a smaller part is subject to a larger, and the larger to the whole. It has one Lord, one faith, one baptism. The principles of government laid down in the Scriptures bind the whole Church. The terms of demission, and the legitimate grounds of exclusion, are everywhere the same. The same qualifications are everywhere to be demanded for admission to the sacred office, and the same grounds for deposition. Every man who is properly received as a member of a particular church, becomes a member of the Church universal; every one rightfully excluded from a particular church, is excluded from the whole Church; every one rightfully ordained to the ministry in one church, is a minister of the universal Church, and when rightfully deposed in one, he ceases to be a minister in any. Hence, while every particular church has a right to manage its own affairs and administer its own discipline, it cannot be independent and irresponsible in the exercise of that right. As its members are members of the Church universal, and those whom it excommunicates are, according to the Scriptural theory, delivered unto Satan, and cut off from the communion of the saints, the acts of a particular church become the acts of the whole Church, and therefore the whole has the right to see that they are performed according to the law of Christ. Hence, on the one hand, the right of appeal; and, on the other, the right of review and control.
This is the Presbyterian theory on this subject; that it is the scriptural doctrine appears, 1. From the nature of the Church. The Church is everywhere represented as one. It is one body, one family, one fold, one kingdom. It is one because pervaded by one Spirit. We are all baptized into one Spirit so as to become, says the apostle, on body. This indwelling of the Spirit which thus unites all the members of Christ’s body, produces not only that subjective or inward union which manifests itself in sympathy and affection, in unity of faith and love, but also outward union and communion. It leads Christians to unite for the purposes of worship, and of mutual watch and care. It requires them to be subject to one another in the fear of the Lord. It brings them all into subjection to the word of God as the standard of faith and practice. It gives them not only an interest in each other’s welfare, purity, and edification, but it imposes the obligation to promote these objects. If one member suffers, all suffer with it; and if one member is honoured, all rejoice with it. All this is true, not merely of those frequenting the same place of worship, but of the universal body of believers. So that an independent church is as much a solecism as an independent Christian, or as an independent finger of the human body, or an independent branch of a tree. If the Church is a living body united to the same head, governed by the same laws, and pervaded by the same Spirit, it is impossible that one part should be independent of all the rest.
All the reasons which require the subjection of a believer to the brethren of a particular church, require his subjection to all his brethren in the Lord. The ground of this obligation is not the church covenant. It is not the compact into which a number of believers enter, and which binds only those who are parties to it. Church power has a much higher source than the consent of the governed. The Church is a divinely constituted society, deriving its power from its charter. Those who join it, join it as an existing society, and a society existing with certain prerogatives and privileges, which they come to share, and not to bestow. This divinely constituted society, which every believer is bound to join, is not the local and limited association of his own neighbourhood, but the universal brotherhood of believers; and therefore all his obligations of communion and obedience terminate on the whole Church. He is bound to obey his brethren, not because he has agreed to do so, but because they are his brethren-because they are temples of the Holy Ghost, enlightened, sanctified, and guided by Him. It is impossible, therefore, to limit the obedience of a Christian to the particular congregation of which he is a member, or to make one such congregation independent of all others, without utterly destroying the very nature of the Church, and tearing asunder the living members of Christ’s body. If this attempt should be fully accomplished, these separate churches would as certainly bleed to death, as a limb when severed from the body.
The Church, during the apostolic age, did not consist of isolated, independent congregations, but was one body, of which the separate churches were constituent members, each subject to all the rest, or to an authority which extended over all. This appears, in the first place, from the history of the origin of those churches. The apostles were commanded to remain in Jerusalem until they received power from on high. On the day of Pentecost the promised Spirit was poured out, and they began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance. Many thousands in that city were added to the Lord, and they continued in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and prayer. They constituted the Church in Jerusalem. It was one not only spiritually, but externally, united in the same worship, and subject to the same rulers. When scattered abroad, they preached the word everywhere, and great multitudes were added to the Church. The believers in every place were associated in separate, but not independent churches, for they all remained subject to a common tribunal.
For, secondly, the apostles constituted a bond of union to the whole body of believers. There is not the slightest evidence that the apostles had different dioceses. Paul wrote with full authority to the Church in Rome before he had ever visited the imperial city. Peter addressed his epistles to the churches of Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, the very centre of Paul’s field of labour. That the apostles exercised this general jurisdiction, and were thus the bond of external union to the Church, arose, as we have seen, from the very nature of their office. Having been commissioned to found and organize the Church, and being so filled with the Spirit as to render them infallible, their word was law. Their inspiration necessarily secured this universal authority. We accordingly find that they everywhere exercised the powers not only of teachers, but also of rulers. Paul speaks of the power given to him for edification; of the things which he ordained in all the churches. His epistles are filled with such orders, which were binding authority then as now. He threatens the Corinthians to come to them with a rod; he cut off a member of their church, whom they had neglected to discipline; and he delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme. As a historical fact, therefore, the apostolic churches were not independent congregations, but were all subject to one common authority.
In the third place, this is further evident from the Council at Jerusalem. Nothing need be assumed that is not expressly mentioned in the record. The simple facts of the case are, that a controversy having arisen in the church at Antioch, concerning the Mosaic law, instead of settling it among themselves as an independent body, they referred the case to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, and there it was authoritatively decided, not for that church only, but for all others. Paul, therefore, in his next missionary journey, as he “passed through the cities, delivered to them,” it is said, “the decrees for to keep, which were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” Acts xvi. 4. It matters not whether the authority of that Council was due to the inspiration of its chief members or not. It is enough that it had authority over the whole Church. The several congregations were not independent, but were united under one common tribunal.
4th. In the fourth place, we may appeal to the common consciousness of Christians, as manifested in the whole history of the Church. Everything organic has what may be called a nisus formativus; an inward force, by which it is impelled to assume the form suited to its nature. This inward impulse may, by circumstances, be impeded or misdirected, so that the normal state of a plant or animal may never be attained. Still, this force never fails to manifest its existence, nor the state to which it tends. What is thus true in nature, is no less true in the Church. There is nothing more conspicuous in her history than the law by which believers are impelled to express their inward unity by outward union. It has been manifested in all ages, and under all circumstances. It gave rise to all the early councils. It determined the idea of heresy and schism. It led to the exclusion from all churches of those who, for the denial of the common faith, were excluded from any one, and who refused to acknowledge their subjection to the Church as a whole. This feeling was clearly exhibited at the time of the Reformation. The churches then formed, ran together as naturally as drops of quicksilver; and when this union was prevented by internal or external circumstances, it was deplored as a great evil. It may do for men of the world to attribute this remarkable characteristic in the history of the Church, to the love of power, or to some other unworthy source. But it is not thus to be accounted for. It is a law of the Spirit. If what all men do, is to be referred to some abiding principle of human nature; what all Christians do, must be referred to something which belongs to them as Christians.
So deeply seated is this conviction that outward union and mutual subjection is the normal state of the Church, that it manifests itself in those whose theory leads them to deny and resist it. Their Consociations, Associations, and Advisory Councils, are so many devices to satisfy an inward craving, and to prevent the dissolution to which it is felt that absolute Independency must inevitably lead. That then, the Church is one, in the sense that a smaller part should be subject to a larger, and a larger to the whole, is evident. 1. From its nature as being one kingdom, one family, one body, having one head, one faith, one written constitution, and actuated by one Spirit; 2d. From the command of Christ that we should obey our brethren, not because they live near to us; not because we have covenanted to obey them; but because they are our brethren, the temples and organs of the Holy Ghost; 3. From the fact that during the apostolic age the churches were not independent bodies, but subject in all matters of doctrine, order, and discipline, to a common tribunal; and 4. Because the whole history of the Church proves that this union and mutual subjection is the normal state of the Church towards which it strives by an inward law of its being. If it is necessary that one Christian should be subject to other Christians; it is no less necessary that one church should be subject in the same spirit, to the same extent, and on the same grounds, to other churches.
We have now completed our exposition of Presbyterianism. It must strike every one that it is no device of man. It is not an external framework, having no connection with the inward life of the Church. It is a real growth. It is the outward expression of the inward law of the Church’s being. If we teach that the people should have a substantive part in the government of the Church, it is not merely because we deem it healthful and expedient, but because the Holy Ghost dwells in the people of God, and gives the ability and confers the right to govern. If we teach that presbyters are the highest permanent officers of the Church, it is because those gifts by which the apostles and prophets were raised above presbyters, have, in fact, ceased. If we teach that the separate congregations of believers are not independent, it is because the Church is, in fact, one body, all the parts of which are mutually dependent.
If this is so-if there is an outward form of the Church which corresponds with its inward life, a form which is the natural expression and product of that life, then that form must be most conducive to its progress and development. Men may, by art, force a tree to grow in any fantastic shape a perverted taste may choose. But it is at the sacrifice of its vigour and productiveness. To reach its perfection, it must be left to unfold itself according to the law of its nature. It is so with the Church. If the people possess the gifts and graces which qualify and entitle them to take part in the government, then the exercise of that right tends to the development of those gifts and graces; and the denial of the right tends to their depression. In all the forms of despotism, whether civil or ecclesiastical, the people are degraded; and in all forms of scriptural liberty, they are proportionably elevated. Every system which demands intelligence tends to produce it. Every man feels that it is not only one of the greatest advantages of our republican institutions that they tend to the education and elevation of the people, but that their successful operation, demanding popular intelligence and virtue, renders it necessary that constant exertion should be directed to the attainment of that end. As republican institutions cannot exist among the ignorant and vicious, so Presbyterianism must find the people enlightened and virtuous, or make them so.
It is the combination of the principles of liberty and order in the Presbyterian system, the union of the rights of the people with subjection to legitimate authority, that has made it the parent and guardian of civil liberty in every part of the world. This, however, is merely an incidental advantage. The Church organization has higher aims. It is designed for the extension and establishment of the gospel, and for the edification of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God; and that polity must be best adapted to this end, which is most congenial with the inward nature of the Church. It is on this ground we rest our preference for Presbyterianism. We do not regard it as a skilful product of human wisdom; but as a divine institution, founded on the word of God, and as the genuine product of the inward life of the Church.
[1] This point is argued at length by Turrettin, in his chapter, De Jure Vocationis. He proves that the right to call and appoint ministers belongs to the whole Church: 1. Quia data est eccclesiis potestas clavium. He quotes Tostatus, who, he says, proves by various arguments, “Claves datas esse toti ecclesiæ, atque adeo jus illarum exercedarum ad eam primario et radicaliter pertinere, ad alios vero tantum secundario et participative. 2. Idem probatur ex jure ministerii, quod ecclesiæ competit. 3. Ex jure superioritatis. Quia auctoritas et jus actionis ad superiorem, non ad inferiorem pertinet. At ecclesia est superior pastoribus, non pastores ecclesiæ. 4. Ex probatione doctorum. Quia ad illum pertinet jus vocandi, cujus est discernere doctores a seductoribus, probare sanam doctrinam, vocem Christi a voce pseudapostolorum distinguere, alienum non sequi, anathematizare eos qui aliud evangelium prædicant. 5. Ex praxi apostolorum. 6. Ex ecclesia primativa. Gerhard, the great Lutheran theologian of the seventeenth century, teaches the same doctrine. Tomus xii. P. 85. Cuicunque claves regni cœlorum ab ipso Christo sunt traditæ, penes eum est jus vocandi ecclesiæ ministros.
Atqui toti ecclesiæ traditæ sunt a Christo claves regni cœlorum. Ergo penes totam ecclesiam est just vocandi ministros. Propositio confirmata ex definitione clavium regni cœlorum. Per claves enim potestas ecclesiastica intelligitur, cujus pars est jus vocandi et constituendi ecclesiæ ministros. He quotes Augustin, lib. I. De doctrina Christ, cap. 18: “Has claves dedit ecclesiæ suae, ut quæ solveret in terra, soluta essent in coelo, et quæ ligaret in terra, ligata essent in coelo.”
In the Smalcald Articles it is said-“Ad hæc necesse est fateri, quod claves non ad personam unius certi hominis, sed ad ecclesiam pertineant, ut multa clarissima et firmissima argumenta testantur. Nam Christus de clavibus dicens, Matt. Xviii. addit: ubi cunque duo vel tres consenserint super terram etc Tribuit igitur principaliter claves ecclesiæ, et immediate; sicut et ob eam causam ecclesia principaliter habet jus vocationis.-Hase, Libri Symbolici, p. 345.
Ubicunque est ecclesia, ibi est jus administrandi evangelii. Quare necesse est, ecclesiam retinere jus vocandi et ordinandi ministros. Et hoc jus est donum proprie datum ecclesiæ, quod nulla humana auctoritas ecclesiæ eripere potest.-Ibid p. 353.
[2] Sherlock on the Nature of the Church, p. 36.
[3] Certes ex pastorum superb a nata est haec tyrannis, ut quae ad communem totius ecclesiae statum pertinent, excluso populo, paucorum arbitrio, ne dicam libidini, subjecta sint.-Calvin on Acts xv.22.
What is Meant by Adopting the Westminster Confession?
by Charles Hodge, D.D.
Every minister at his ordination is required to declare that he adopts the Westminster Confession and Catechism, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Sacred Scriptures. There are three ways in which these words have been, and still are, interpreted. First, some understand them to mean that every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith is included in the profession made at ordination. Secondly, others say that they mean just what the words import. What is adopted is the “system of doctrine.” The system of the Reformed Churches is a known and admitted scheme of doctrine; and that scheme, nothing more or less, we profess to adopt. The third view of the subject is, that by the system of doctrine contained in the Confession is meant the essential doctrines of Christianity and nothing more.
As to the first of these interpretations, it is enough to say- l. That it is not the meaning of the words. There are many propositions contained in the Westminster Confession which do not belong to the integrity of the Augustinian or Reformed system. A man may be a true Augustinian or Calvinist, and not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist predicted by St. Paul; or that the 18th chapter of Leviticus is still binding. 2. Such a rule of interpretation can never be practically carried out, without dividing the Church into innumerable fragments. It is impossible that a body of several thousand ministers and elders should think alike on all the topics embraced in such an extended and minute formula of belief. 3. Such has never been the rule adopted in our Church. Individuals have held it, but the Church as a body never has. No prosecution for doctrinal error has ever been attempted or sanctioned, except for errors which were regarded as involving the rejection, not of explanations of doctrines, but of the doctrines themselves. For example, our Confession teaches the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine is essential to the Reformed or Calvinistic system. Any man who denies that doctrine, thereby rejects the system taught in our Confession, and cannot with a good conscience say that he adopts it. Original sin, however, is one thing; the way in which it is accounted for, is another. The doctrine is, that such is the relation between Adam and his posterity, that all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, are born in a state of sin and condemnation. Any man who admits this, holds the doctrine. But there are at least three ways of accounting for this fact. The scriptural explanation as given in our Standards is, that “the covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.” The fact that mankind fell into that estate of sin and misery in which they are born, is accounted for on the principle of representation. Adam was constituted our head and representative, so that his sin is the judicial ground of our condemnation and of the consequent loss of the divine image, and of the state of spiritual death in which all men come into the world. This, as it is the scriptural, so it is the Church view of the subject. It is the view held in the Latin and the Lutheran, as well as in the Reformed Church, and therefore belongs to the Church catholic. Still it is not essential to the doctrine. Realists admit the doctrine, but, unsatisfied with the principle of representative responsibility, assume that humanity as a generic life acted and sinned in Adam; and, therefore, that his sin is the act, with its demerit and consequences, of every man in whom that generic life is individualized. Others, accepting neither of these solutions, assert that the fact of original sin (i.e., the sinfulness and condemnation of man at birth) is to be accounted for in the general law of propagation. Like begets like. Adam became sinful, and hence all his posterity are born in t state of sin, or with a sinful nature. Although these views are not equally scriptural, or equally in harmony with our Confession, nevertheless they leave the doctrine intact, and do not work a rejection of the system of which it is an essential part.
So also of the doctrine of inability. That man is by the fall rendered utterly indisposed, opposite, and disabled to all spiritual good, is a doctrine of the Confession as well as of Scripture. And it is essential to the system of doctrine embraced by all the Reformed Church. Whether men have plenary power to regenerate themselves, or can co-operate in the work of their regeneration, or can effectually resist the converting grace of God, are questions which have separated
Pelagians, the later Romanists, Semi-Pelagians, Lutherans, and Arminians, from Augustinians or Calvinists. The denial of the inability of fallen man, therefore, of necessity works the rejection of Calvinism. But if the fact be admitted, it is not essential whether the inability be called natural or moral; whether it be attributed solely to the perverseness of the will, or to the blindness of the understanding. These points of difference are not unimportant, but they do not affect the essence of the doctrine.
Our Confession teaches that God foreordains whatever comes to pass; that he executes his decrees in the works of creation and providence; that his providential government is holy, wise, and powerful, controlling all his creatures and all their actions; that from the fallen mass of men he has, from all eternity, of his mere good pleasure, elected some to everlasting life; that by the incarnation and mediatorial work of his eternal Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the effectual working of his Spirit, he has rendered the salvation of his people absolutely certain; that the reason why some are saved and others not, is not the foresight of their faith and repentance, but solely because he has elected some and not others, and that in execution of his purpose, in his own good time, he sends them the Holy Spirit. who so operates on them as to render their repentance, faith, and holy living absolutely certain. Now it is plain that men may differ as to the mode of God’s providential government, or the operations of his grace, and retain the facts which constitute the essence of this doctrinal scheme. But if any one teaches that God cannot effectually control the acts of free agents without destroying their liberty; that he cannot render the repentance or faith of any man certain; that he does all he can to convert every man, it would be an insult to reason and conscience, to say that he held the system of doctrine which embraces the facts and principles above stated.
The same strain of remark might be made in reference to the other great doctrines which constitute the Augustinian system. Enough, however, has been said to illustrate the principle of interpretation for which Old School men contend. We do not expect our ministers should adopt every proposition contained in our Standards. This they are not required to do. But they are required to adopt the system; and that system consists of certain doctrines; no one of which can be omitted without destroying its identity. Those doctrines are:-the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and the consequent infallibility of all their teachings;doctrine of the Trinity; that there is one God subsisting in three persons, the Father, Son, and Spirit, the same in substance and equal in power and glory;-the doctrine of decrees and predestination, as above stated;-the doctrine of creation, viz., that the universe and all that it contains is not eternal, is not a necessary product of the life of God, is not an emanation from the divine substance, but owes its existence, as to substance and form, solely to his will; and in reference to man, that he was created in the image of God, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, and not in puris naturalibus, without any moral character;-the doctrine of providence, or that God effectually governs all his creatures and all their actions, so that nothing comes to pass which is not in accordance with his infinitely wise, holy, and benevolent purposes;the doctrines of the covenants; the first, or covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience; and the second, or covenant of grace, wherein God freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give, unto all who are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe;-the doctrine concerning Christ our Mediator, ordained of God to be our Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of his Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world; unto whom he did. from eternity, give a people to be his seed, to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified; and that the eternal Son of God of one substance with the Father, took upon him man’s nature, 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; that this Lord Jesus Christ, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, hath fully satisfied
the justice of his Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath given to him;-the doctrine of free will; viz., that man was created not only a free agent, but with full ability to choose good or evil, and by that choice determine his future character and destiny; that by the fall he has lost this ability to spiritual good; that in conversion, God, by his Spirit, enables the sinner freely to repent and believe;-the doctrine of effectual calling, or regeneration; that those, and those only, whom God has predestinated unto life, he effectually calls, by his Word and Spirit, from a state of spiritual death to a state of spiritual life, renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining their wills, thus effectually drawing them to Christ; yet so that they come most freely; and that this effectual calling is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything foreseen in man;-the doctrine of justification; that it is a free act, or act of grace on the part of God; that it does not consist in any subjective change of state, nor simply in pardon, but includes a declaring and accepting the sinner as righteous; that it is founded not on anything wrought in us or done by us; not on faith or evangelical obedience, but simply on what Christ has done for us,i.e., in his obedience and sufferings unto death; this righteousness of Christ being a proper, real, and full satisfaction to the justice of God, his exact justice and rich grace are glorified in the justification of sinners;-the doctrine of adoption; that those who are justified are received into the family of God, and made partakers of the Spirit and privileges of his children;-the doctrine of sanctification; that those once regenerated by the Spirit of God are, by his power and indwelling, in the use of the appointed means of grace, rendered more and more holy; which work, although always imperfect in this life, is perfected at death;-the doctrine of saving faith; that it is the gift of God, and work of the Holy Spirit, by which the Christian receives as true, on the authority of God, whatever is revealed in his Word; the special acts of which faith are the receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life;the doctrine of repentance; that the sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but the odiousness of sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, does, with grief and hatred of his own sins, turn from them unto God, with full purpose and endeavour after new obedience;-the doctrine of good works; that they are such only as God has commanded; that they are the fruits of faith; that such works, although not necessary as the ground of our justification, are indispensable, in the case of adults, as the uniform products of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers;-the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints; that those once effectually called and sanctified by the Spirit can never totally or finally fall from a state of grace; because the decree of election is immutable; because Christ’s merit is infinite, and his intercession constant; because the Spirit abides with the people of God; and because the covenant of grace secures the salvation of all who believe;-the doctrine of assurance; that the assurance of salvation is desirable, possible, and obligatory, but is not of the essence of faith; -the doctrine of the law; that it is a revelation of the will of God, and a perfect rule of righteousness; that it is perpetually obligatory on justified persons as well as on others, although believers are not under it as a covenant of works;-the doctrine of Christian liberty; that it includes freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemnation of the law, from a legal spirit, from the bondage of Satan and dominion of sin, from the world, and ultimately from all evil, together with free access to God as his children. Since the advent of Christ, his people are freed also from the yoke of the ceremonial law. God alone is the Lord of the conscience, which he has set free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it, in matters of faith or worship. The doctrines concerning worship and the Sabbath, concerning vows and oaths, of the civil magistrate, of marriage, contain nothing peculiar to our system, or which is matter of controversy among Presbyterians. The same is true as to what the Confession teaches concerning the Church, of the communion of saints, of the sacraments, and of the future state, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of the final judgment.
That such is the system of doctrine of the Reformed Church is a matter of history. It is the system which, as the granite formation of the Earth, underlies and sustains the whole scheme of truth as revealed in the Scriptures, and without which all the rest is as drifting sand. It has been from the beginning the life and soul of the Church, taught explicitly by our Lord himself, and more fully by his inspired servants, and always professed by a cloud of witnesses in the Church. It has, moreover, ever been the esoteric faith of true believers, adopted in their prayers and hymns, even when rejected from their creeds. It is this system which the Presbyterian Church is pledged to profess, to defend, and to teach; and it is a breach of faith to God and man if she fails to require a profession of this system by all those whom she receives or ordains as teachers and guides of her people. It is for the adoption of the Confession of Faith in this sense that the Old School have always contended as a matter of conscience.
There has, however, always been a party in the Church which adopted the third method of understanding the words “system of doctrine,” in the ordination service-viz., that they mean nothing more than the essential doctrines of religion or of Christianity.
That such a party has existed is plain-l. Because, in our original Synod, President Dickinson and several other members openly took this ground. President Dickinson was opposed to all human creeds; he resisted the adoption of the Westminster Confession, and he succeeded in having it adopted with the ambiguous words, “as to all the essential principles of religion.” This may mean the essential principles of Christianity, or the essential principles of the peculiar system taught in the Confession 2. This mode of adopting the Confession gave rise to immediate and general complaint. 3. When President Davis was in England, the latitudinarian Presbyterians and other Dissenters from the Established Church from whom he expected encouragement and aid in his mission, objected that our Synod had adopted the Westminster Confession in its strict meaning. President Davis replied that the Synod required candidates to adopt it only as to “the articles essential to Christianity.” 4. The Rev. Mr. Creaghead, member of the original Synod, withdrew from it on the ground of this lax rule of adoption. 5. The Rev. Mr. Harkness, when suspended from the ministry by the Synod for doctrinal errors, complained of the injustice and inconsistency of such censure, on the ground that the Synod required the adoption only of the essential doctrines of the Gospel, no one of which he had called in question.
While it is thus apparent that there was a party in the Church who adopted this latitudinarian principle of subscription, the Synod itself never did adopt it. This is plain, because what we call the Adopting Act, and which includes the ambiguous language in question, the Synod call “their Preliminary Act;” i.e., an Act preliminary to the actual adoption of the Westminster Confession. That adoption was effected in a subsequent meeting (on the afternoon of the same day), in which the Confession was adopted in all its articles, except what in the twenty-third chapter related to the power of the civil magistrate in matters of religion. This is what the Synod itself called its Adopting Act… When in 1787 the General Assembly was organized, it was solemnly declared that the Westminster Confession of Faith, as then revised and corrected, was part of the CONSTITUTION of this Church. No man has ever yet maintained that in adopting Republican constitution, it was accepted only as embracing the general principles of government common to monarchies, aristocracies, and democracies.
The Old School have always protested against this Broad Church principle-1. Because, in their view, it is immoral. For a man to assert that he adopts a Calvinistic confession when he rejects the distinctive features of the Calvinistic system, and receives only the essential principles of Christianity, is to say what is not true in the legitimate and accepted meaning of the terms. It would be universally recognized as a falsehood should a Protestant declare that he adopted the canons of the Council of Trent, or the Romish Catechism, when he intended that he received them only so far as they contained the substance of the Apostles’ Creed. If the Church is prepared to make the Apostles’ Creed the standard of ministerial communion, let the constitution be altered; but do not let us adopt the demoralizing principle of professing ourselves, and requiring others to profess, what we do not believe.
ON THE PASSAGES OF THE CONFESSION CONCERNING THE MAGISTRATE’S POWER AS TO RELIGION AND THE CHURCH.
No alteration has been made by any of the Presbyterian Churches in Great Britain and Ireland on the substance of the Confession of Faith. In various ways, however, they have given explanations of the sense in which they adhere to those passages in it on which doubts have been entertained as to their consistency with the rights of conscience and the independence of the Church. The three passages on which the difficulty turns are given on pages 22-23, with the modifications to which the American Presbyterians have subjected them. As the document itself contains the noblest assertion of the rights of conscience (WCF 20.2), and was prepared by a venerable Assembly, composed of men singularly distinguished for theological attainments, and summoned in aid of a great movement for public freedom, reluctance has been felt by the British Churches to affirm that any of the passages referred to is incapable of reconciliation with the assertion of Christian liberty made in the Confession, as well as with the claim put forth in it on behalf of the Church, that its government is “in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate,” so that “there is no other head of the Church but Jesus Christ,” [WCF 25.6] and “the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” [WCF 23.3] It was presumed that some principle might exist by which any seeming inconsistency between these declarations and the passages supposed to be at variance with the rights of individual conscience and the liberties of the Church could be explained and removed. Various explanations, indeed, to this effect have been offered. As a link connecting the modern Church with the past, and constituting a bond of union with Presbyterians of all countries-for it is remarkable how universally Presbyterian Churches of British origin, in all lands, and in spite of all divisions, have held to the Westminster Confession of Faith-there has always been an unwillingness evinced to tamper to any extent with the substance of the document itself.
Not that the unwillingness arose from any superstitious deference to it. On the contrary, the right to examine and revise it has at all times been claimed and exercised, to the effect of issuing important explanations and qualifications of it. In the very Act passed in approval of the Confession of Faith by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in AD 1647, the following explanation is given of the sense in which the Assembly understood and held binding one portion of the Confession:-“It is further declared, That the Assembly understandeth some parts of the second article of the thirty-one chapter only of kirks not settled, or constituted in point of government: And that although, in such kirks, a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, may be called by the magistrate’s authority and nomination, without any other call, to consult and advise with about matters of religion; and although, likewise, the ministers of Christ, without delegation from their churches, may of themselves, and by virtue of their office, meet together synodically in such kirks not yet constituted, yet neither of these ought to be done in kirks constituted and settled; it being always free to the magistrate to advise with synods of ministers and ruling elders, meeting upon delegation from their churches, either ordinarily, or, being indicted by his authority, occasionally, and pro re nata; it being also free to assemble together synodically, as well pro re nata as at the ordinary times, upon delegation from the churches, by the intrinsical power received from Christ, as often as it is necessary for the good of the church so to assemble, in case the magistrate, to the detriment of the Church, withhold or deny his consent; the necessity of occasional assemblies being first remonstrate unto him by humble supplication.”
As the result of various discussions on the subject of the relation of civil magistracy to religion and the Church, the Formula used in the United Presbyterian Church, in the ordination of ministers, missionaries, and elders, has been couched in the following terms: -“Do you acknowledge the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms as an exhibition of the sense in which you understand the Holy Scriptures; it being understood that you are not required to approve of anything in these documents which teaches, or is supposed to teach, compulsory or persecuting and intolerant principles in religion?”
It is also in connection with the questions of the Formula that the Free Church guards itself against misconstruction on this point. In an Act of Assembly AD 1846, “Anent Questions and Formula,” it is declared-“The General Assembly, in passing this Act, think it right to declare that, while the Church firmly maintains the same scriptural principles as to the duties of nations and their rulers in reference to true religion and the Church of Christ, for which she has hitherto contended, she disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles, and does not regard her Confession of Faith, or any portion thereof, when fairly interpreted, as favouring intolerance or persecution, or consider that her office-bearers, by subscribing it, profess any principles inconsistent with liberty of conscience and the right of private judgment.” One of the questions in the Formula itself contains the following clauses:-“Do you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, as King and Head of the Church, has therein appointed a government in the hands of church officers, distinct from, and not subordinate in its own province to, civil government; and that the civil government does not possess jurisdiction or authoritative control over the regulation of the affairs of Christ’s Church?”
The course adopted in the Reformed Presbyterian Church is different.
This Church gives force to the Act AD 1647, but, in addition, by means of a Testimony, specified in its Terms of Communion and in the Formula for Ordination as an authoritative illustration of the principles of the Church, it makes an application of the doctrines contained in the Confession, and gives a full exhibition of the sense in which it adheres to them; declaring that it is “not pledged to defend every sentiment or expression,” and explicitly asserting that “to employ civil coercion of any kind for the purpose of inducing men to renounce an erroneous creed or to espouse and profess a sound, scriptural one, is incompatible with the nature of true religion, and must ever prove ineffectual in practice.” In reference to the disputed and doubtful passages in the Confession, this Testimony lays stress on the obligation to interpret and explain them by the clearer statements in the document, which assert the claims and protect the interests of religious and civil freedom.
The United Original Secession Church likewise avails itself of its Testimony in order to explain its views on this subject. In the Historical Part of that Testimony, the following appears as the sixth general proposition: “6th, That the doctrine respecting civil rulers contained in the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, and particularly in the Westminster Confession, can be defended on the principles of Scripture and reason above stated. Whatever sense may be imposed on some expressions in it, taken by themselves, yet, upon a fair and candid interpretation of the whole doctrine which it lays down upon the subject, the Westminster Confession will not be found justly chargeable with countenancing persecution for conscience’ sake, with subjecting matters purely religious to the cognizance of the civil magistrate, or with allowing him a supremacy over the Church, or any power in it.”
The main body of the American Presbyterians-as will be seen from the Introduction to this work (page 21)-take the direct method of solving all difficulty and escaping all misconstruction by the deletion of one clause and the alteration of two paragraphs in the Confession of Faith.