Throw that idea into the future and you deprive it of all its
      reality, of all its power. I know what it means all too well while
      you let me connect it with my present and personal being, with the
      pangs of conscience which I suffer now. It becomes a mere vague
      dream and shadow to me when you project it into a distant world. And
      if you take from me the belief that God is always righteous, always
      maintaining a fight with evil, always seeking to bring his creatures
      out of it, you take everything from me—all hope now, all hope in the
      world to come. Atonement, redemption, satisfaction, regeneration,
      become mere words, to which there is no counterpart in reality.”

   37 In the German Bible we have the true word—“Auferstehung.”

   38 So De Wette, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum N. T., ad
      locum.

   39 So Schleusner, Lexicon in LXX.

   40 So Usteri (Paulinischen Lehrbegriff) says that σάλπινξ appears to
      denote partly the startling power of the truth, and partly its power
      of calling men together from all the regions of the earth.

   41 Christ only comes when he comes to reign. His first coming was as
      Jesus, not as Christ. The human life is “the life of Jesus.”
      Christian history is “the life of Christ.” In his earthly life he
      was Prophet; in his death he was Priest; in his resurrection, or
      risen state, he was King.

   42 The book of the Revelation of John is the account of Christ’s
      coming; and the true interpretation of that book depends on the
      proper understanding of his coming. If Christ’s coming began at the
      destruction of Jerusalem, and has continued in all the developments
      of human history, then the key to “the Revelation” is to be found in
      the progress of Christian principles and ideas in the world.
      Bertholdt (Christologia Judæorum Jesu Apostolorumque ætate), note to
      § 11, quotes from the Sepher Ikkarim this passage—“The future age
      will come _gradually_ to men after the day of the great judgment,
      which will take place after the resurrection.” Resurrection and
      judgment both come with Jesus, and his were “the last days.”

   43 1 Thess. 4:17. “We, who are alive, and remain, shall be caught up
      together with them, in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.”
      Usteri (Paul. Lehrbeg.) says that “this εἰς ἀέρα has no analogy in
      any other passage of the Epistles, or indeed of the New Testament.”
      But Paul outgrew this literalism, and in his later Epistles speaks
      of sitting already with Christ in “heavenly places.”

   44 Olshausen, an Orthodox commentator, speaks thus in regard to
      Christ’s predictions concerning his coming, in Matt. ch. 24, 25:—

      “One of the most striking examples of the binding of the present and
      future in one narrative, and one which presents many difficulties,
      is to be found in these passages. Plain descriptions of the
      impending destruction of Jerusalem and of the Jewish state blend
      with no less apparent descriptions of the coming of Christ in his
      kingdom. It cannot be denied that the Orthodox interpreters are far
      less natural and unforced than the others, in their treatment of
      this passage. Their dogmatic views lead them to put apart from each
      other elements which are blended together by Matthew and by the
      other evangelists. For example, Schott says, that the description of
      Christ’s coming begins (Matt. 24:29) immediately after ‘the
      tribulation,’ &c., and that all before that belongs to the
      destruction of Jerusalem. But apart from the impossibility of
      regarding the 29th verse as the beginning of something entirely new,
      there are also in the passages which follow distinct references to
      the present generation (verse 34), and in the first part as distinct
      references to ‘the last time.’ We do not, therefore scruple (says
      Olshausen) to accept the simple explanation which alone suits the
      text, that Christ speaks of his coming as coincident with the
      destruction of Jerusalem, and with the downfall of the Jewish
      state.”

      The most interesting question, perhaps, is as to the opinions of
      Jesus _himself_ about his coming. That he forsaw the overthrow of
      Jerusalem and the Temple is certain. Everything indicates that he
      possessed a marvellous power of reading the future in the present,
      and saw in the condition of the Jewish mind the inevitable overthrow
      of their state. He also saw that through his death all men should be
      brought to him, and that he should become King in the way in which
      he described to Pilate his royalty, i.e., King of the truth. All who
      love the truth shall, sooner or later, obey his voice. In what way,
      then, did he expect to come? In the way he himself indicates the
      coming of his kingdom—like leaven, working secretly in the dough;
      like seed, sprouting mysteriously in the ground; like lightning,
      seen everywhere at once. By these images alone could he convey to
      his disciples his ideas. He longed to tell them many things more,
      but they were not able; to bear them.

   45 The difficulties (of which Olshausen and other candid Orthodox
      interpreters speak) in harmonizing the different parts of Matthew’s
      two chapters (24 and 25) about Christ’s coming and judgment, may
      perhaps be relieved in some such way as this. (1.) The end of the
      Mosaic age and the beginning of the Messianic age are fixed at the
      destruction of Jerusalem. (2.) Christ’s coming begins there, and
      continues through Christian history, till all mankind are
      Christians. His coming, therefore, verifies what Schiller says of
      truth, that it “_nimmer ist, immer wird_.” (3.) Whenever he comes,
      he judges men according to the state of mind in which they are. (4.)
      The three parables (virgins, talents, king on his throne) represent
      the judgment of three different classes. The first class (of wise
      and foolish virgins) are those who _are not yet converted_, and have
      not become disciples of Christ. When he comes, those of them who
      have oil in their lamps—or who receive truth into an honest heart
      (Luke 8:15)—are ready to receive him, and to become Christians;
      those who have no oil reject him. The second class (in the talents)
      are Christians, who receive more or less of power and of good,
      according to past fidelity. The third class (the “nations ”) are the
      heathen, and others, who have never known of Christ at all, but are
      Christians outside of Christianity.

   46 The latest illustration of Orthodox ideas on this subject we have
      met with is contained in a little tract which has fallen in our way,
      containing “extracts from a sermon addressed to the students in the
      United Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Xenia, Ohio, by Rev.
      William Davidson.” It begins in this somewhat enigmatical way:—

      “It is an unspeakably terrible thing for any one—for even a youth or
      a heathen—to be _lost_.”

      Why this limiting particle “even” is introduced is not explained. It
      seems to be implied either that a youth and a heathen have not as
      much to lose as others, or else that we are not bound to feel so
      much for their loss as for that of others. After a little poetry
      (which we omit, as it is altogether too stern a matter for any
      sentimental ornament), Mr. Davidson proceeds:—

      “Nor is this all to those who suffer _least_. It is not only the
      loss of all, and a horrible lake of ever-burning fire, but there are
      _horrible objects_, filling every sense and every faculty; and there
      are _horrible engines and instruments of torture_. There are the
      ‘chains of darkness,’ thick, heavy, hard, and smothering as the
      gloom of blank and black despair—chains strong as the cords of
      omnipotence, hot as the crisping flames of vengeance, indestructible
      and eternal as justice. With chains like these, every iron link
      burning into the throbbing heart, is bound each doomed, damned soul,
      on a bed of burning marl, under an iron roof, riven with tempests,
      and dripping with torrents of unquenchable fire.”

      The object of the preacher being to make as terrific a picture as
      possible, he accumulates these material images of bodily torment in
      order to excite the imagination to the utmost. We can conceive of
      his writing these sentences carefully in his comfortable study, in
      an easy chair, by the side of a cheerful fire, with a smile of
      self-complacency, as he selects each striking expression. Then he
      proceeds:—

      “Nor is this all. Unmortified appetites, hungry as death, insatiable
      as the grave, torture it. Every passion burning, an unsealed volcano
      in the heart. Every base lust a tiger unchained—a worm undying, let
      loose to prey on soul and body. Pride, vanity, envy, shame,
      treachery, deceit, falsehood, fell revenge, and black despair,
      malice, and every unholy emotion, are so many springs of
      excruciating and ever-increasing agonies, are so many hot and
      stifling winds, tossing the swooning, sweltering soul on waves of
      fire. And there will be deadly hunger, but no food; parching thirst,
      but no water; eternal fatigue, but no rest; eternal lust of sensuous
      and intellectual pleasures, but no gratification. And there will be
      _terrible companions_, or rather _foes_, there. Eternal longings
      after society, but no companion, no love, and no sympathy there.
      Every one utterly selfish, hateful, and hating. Every one cunning,
      false, malignant, fierce, fell, and devilish. All commingle in the
      confusion and the carnage of one wide-spread, pitiless, truceless,
      desperate strife. And there will be terrible sights and sounds
      there. Fathers and sons, pastors and people, husbands and wives,
      brothers and sisters, with swollen veins and bloodshot eyes,
      straining towards each other’s throats and hearts, reprobate men,
      and devils in form and features, hideous to as great a degree as are
      the beauties of the blest in heaven beautiful. And there are groans
      and curses, and everlasting wailings, as harsh and horrible as
      heaven’s songs, shouts, and anthems are sweet, joyous, and
      enrapturing. And there will be terrible displays of the divine power
      and skill, and infinitely awful displays of merciless and omnipotent
      justice, in the punishment of that rebel crew, that generation of
      moral vipers full grown, that congregation of moral monsters.”

      All this, however, is not enough. It is necessary to go further, and
      represent God in the character of the devil, in order to complete
      the picture.

      “Upon such an assembly, God, who is of purer eyes than to behold
      iniquity, cannot look but with utter detestation. His wrath shall
      come up in his face. His face shall be red in his anger. He will
      whet his glittering sword, and his hand shall take hold on
      vengeance; and he shall recompense. He shall launch forth his
      lightnings, and shoot abroad his arrows. He shall unseal all his
      fountains, and pour out his tumbling cataracts of vengeance. He
      shall build his batteries aloft, and thunder upon them from the
      heavens. His eye shall not pity them, nor shall his soul spare for
      their crying. The day of vengeance is in his heart, and it is what
      he has his heart set on. He will delight in it. He will show his
      wrath, and _make his power known_. That infinite power has never
      been fully made known yet; but it will be then. It is but a little
      that we see of it in creation and providence; but we shall see it,
      fully revealed, in the destruction of that rebel crew. He will tread
      them in his anger, and trample them in his fury, and will stain his
      raiment with their blood. The cup of the wine of his fierce wrath
      shall contain no mixture of mercy at all. And they will not be able
      to resist that wrath, nor will they be able to endure it; but they
      shall, in soul and body, sink wholly down into the _second death_.
      The iron heel of omnipotent and triumphing justice, pitiless and
      rejoicing, shall tread them down, and crush them lower still, and
      lower ever, in that burning pit which knows no bottom. All this, and
      more and worse, do the Scriptures declare; and that preacher who
      hesitates to proclaim it has forsworn his soul, and is a traitor to
      his trust.”

      Now, it is simple truth to say that the blasphemer and profane
      swearer who spends fifty years in cursing God and Christ is not so
      blasphemous as the man who writes such sentences as these about the
      Almighty, and utters them to young men as a preparation for their
      work in the ministry. The people of Sodom and Gomorrah shall rise up
      in the day of judgment against those who speak thus of God, and
      shall condemn them. The Pagans, who represent their gods as horrid
      idols, pleased with blood and slaughter, have an excuse, which Mr.
      Davidson has not, for they do not have the gospel of the Lord Jesus
      in their hands. Thus he continues:—

      “And _all this shall be forever_. It shall never, never end. (Matt.
      ch. 25.) The wicked go away into everlasting torments. This is a
      bitter ingredient in their cup of wormwood, a more terrible thing in
      their terrible doom. If after enduring it all for twice ten thousand
      times ten thousand years, they might have a deliverance, or at least
      some abatement, it were less terrible. But this may never, never be.
      Their estate is remediless. There is a great gulf fixed, and they
      cannot pass from thence. Or, if after suffering all this as many
      years as there are aqueous particles in air and ocean, they might
      then be delivered, or if, after repeating that amazing period as
      many times as there are sand-grains in the globe, they might then be
      delivered, there would be _some_ hope. Or, if you multiply this
      latter sum—too infinite to be expressed by figures, and too
      limitless to be comprehended by angels—by the number of atoms that
      compose the universe, and there might be deliverance when they had
      passed those amazing, abysmal gulfs of duration, then there would be
      _some_ hope. But no! when all is suffered and all is past, still all
      beyond is eternity.”

   47 To show how some _Roman Catholics_ write in the middle of the
      nineteenth century, we quote the following from a Roman Catholic
      book, published in England, by Rev. J. Furniss, being especially “a
      book for children.” Wishing to spare our readers such horrors, we
      put it here, advising no one of weak nerves to read its atrocious
      descriptions.

      “The fourth dungeon is ‘the boiling kettle.’ Listen: there is a
      sound like that of a kettle boiling. Is it really a kettle which is
      boiling? No. Then what is it? Hear what it is. The blood is boiling
      in the scalded veins of that boy; the brain is boiling and bubbling
      in his head; the marrow is boiling in his bones. The fifth dungeon
      is the ‘red-hot oven,’ in which is a _little child_. Hear how it
      screams to come out; see how it turns and twists itself about in the
      fire; it beats its head against the roof of the oven. It stamps its
      little feet on the floor of the oven. To this child God was very
      good. Very likely God saw that this child would get worse and worse,
      and would never repent, and so it would have to be punished _much
      more_ in hell. _So God in his mercy called it out of the world in
      its early childhood._”

   48 We take the following from the “Monthly Religious Magazine:”—

      “The ‘Country Parson,’ in his late work, the ‘Autumn Holidays,’
      contends that the fear of future punishment in another world has
      little influence in deterring from crime. He ought to have added,
      that the reason may be, that there is so little belief in any
      spiritual world whatever, among men of grosser sensuality; and that
      future punishment, as it is preached in the old theology, is so
      arbitrary as to seem unreal, and is losing its power over all
      thinking minds. The following case is cited from the experience of a
      Scotch minister. No ministers, let it be remembered, preach the
      literal flames of a local hell in tones more awful than they.

      “His parishioners were sadly addicted to drinking to excess. Men and
      women were given alike to this degrading vice. He did all he could
      to repress it, but in vain. For many years he warned the drunkards,
      in the most solemn manner, of the doom they might expect in another
      world; but, so far as he knew, not a pot of ale or glass of spirits
      the less was drunk in the parish in consequence of his
      denunciations. Future woe melted into mist in the presence of a
      replenished jug or a market-day. A happy thought struck the
      clergyman. In the neighboring town, there was a clever medical man,
      a vehement teetotaler; him he summoned to his aid. The doctor came,
      and delivered a lecture on the _physical_ consequences of
      drunkenness, illustrating his lecture with large diagrams, which
      gave shocking representations of the stomach, lungs, heart, and
      other vital organs as affected by alcohol. These things came home to
      the drunkards, who had not cared a rush for final perdition. The
      effect produced was tremendous. Almost all the men and women of the
      parish took the total abstinence pledge; and since that day
      drunkenness has nearly ceased in that parish. Nor was the
      improvement evanescent; it has lasted two or three years.”

   49 So Erigena (quoted by Strauss), _De Divis Nat._ “Vera ratio docet,
      nullum contrarium divinæ bonitati vitæque ac beatitudini posse esse
      coeternum; divina siquidem bonitas consumet malitiam, æterna vita
      absorbet mortem, beatitudo miseriam.”

   50 The name given to them by Augustine (“Civ. Dei,” lib. 21, c. 17):
      “Denique hujus sententiæ Patronos S. Augustinus appellat titulo non
      incongruo, ‘Doctores Misericordes’ tractatque non inhumaniter.”
      Thomas Burnet, “De Statu Mortuum et Resurgentium.” Chap. XI.

   51 See Bretschneider, “Dogmatik,” and Strauss, “Christliche
      Glaubenslehre.”

   52 “Nos et angelos futuros dæmones si egerimus negligenter; et rursum
      dæmones, si voluerint capere virtutes, pervenire ad angelicam
      dignitatem.” Origen, quoted by Jerome.

   53 “Nihil enim omnipotenti impossibile est, nec insanabile aliquid est
      factori suo.”

   54 “Quod tamen non ad subitum fieri, sed paulatim et per partes
      intelligen dum est, infinitis et immensis labentibus sæculis, cum
      sensim per singulos emendatio fuerit et correctio prosecuta,
      præcurrentibus aliis, aliis insequentibus.” See these quotations in
      Strauss, Hase, &c.

   55 Matt. 25:46. The Greek word translated in the English as
      “everlasting” punishment in the beginning of the verse, and as life
      “eternal” at the end, is the same word (ἀιώνιος) in both places, and
      should be translated “eternal” in both.

_   56 Remorse_—from _mordeo_, to gnaw. So St. Thomas (Summa, Pars III. 2,
      97): “Vermis non debet esse intelligi corporalis sed spiritualis,
      qui est con scientiæ remorsus.”

   57 “Pauci res ipsas, sed rerum imagines, tanquam in speculo, intuentur:
      at res ipsas, facie ad faciem, ut dicitur, et ablato velo, visuri
      sumus tandem si Deo placuerit, partim sub occasu hujusee mundi,
      plenius autem in futuro.”—_Thomas Burnet_, De Statu Mortuorum et
      Resurgentium Tractatus. Londini. Typis et impensis J. Hooke, in vico
      vulgò dicto _Fleet Street_, 1737.—No one has spoken more powerfully
      and eloquently than he against everlasting punishment, particularly
      in the passage beginning “Nobis difficile est omnem exuere
      humanitatem.” p. 309.

   58 Is it not remarkable (as showing how little the New Testament has as
      yet been really studied) that there should be so many discussions as
      to the future doom of _the heathen_, when Jesus himself here
      distinctly tells us what it will be. The word ἔθνη is the only word
      in the New Testament which is ever translated _heathen_: wherever
      the word _heathen_ occurs in our Bible, it is always this. Jesus
      teaches that the heathen (inside and outside of Christendom) will be
      judged _according to their humanity_, their obedience to the law
      written in their hearts; and he shows that this is coincident with
      the law of Christianity. So, when the Church of England says (in its
      18th article) that “they also are to be had accursed that presume to
      say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect he professeth,
      so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and
      the light of nature;” it denounces this curse on Christ himself, and
      thus proves conclusively that it is not speaking by the Spirit of
      God, since “no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jesus
      accursed.” (1 Cor. 12:3) This comes of the habit (happily less
      common now than formerly) of throwing about curses at random,
      against those who differ from our opinions. Some of them may thus,
      accidentally, hit the Master himself. It is, perhaps, of less
      consequence that this anathema also touches the apostle Paul, who
      declares that the heathen who have not the law are a law to
      themselves when they do right, and are absolved by their conscience.
      (Rom. 2:14.)

   59 Origen, Homil. in Levit. 7:2. “Salvator meus luget etiam nunc
      peccata mea; Salvator meus lætari non potest, donec ego in
      iniquitate permaneo. Non vult solus in regno Dei bibere vinum
      lætitiæ—nos expectat.”

   60 Guericke, Christ. Symbolik, § 70.

   61 “Ecclesia enim est cœtus hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis ut est
      cœtus populi Romani, vel regnum Galliæ, aut respublica Venetorum.”
      Bellarmin. Eccles. Milit. c. 2.

   62 Moehler, Symbolism, § 36.

   63 “Bonos et malos ad ecclesiam pertinere Catholica fides vere et
      constante affirmat.” Cat. Rom.

   64 The chief passage in proof of this, as is well known, is Matt.
      16:18, 19 “Thou art Peter,” &c. But even Augustine, the great light
      of the Latin Church, says that “Peter was not the Rock, but Christ
      was the Rock.” (Neander, vol. ii. p. 168.) The same power was given
      to the other apostles. Matt. 18:18. John 20:23. Rev. 21:14.

   65 Le Protestantisme Libéral par le Pasteur Bost. Paris, Baillière,
      1865.

   66 “Il est de fait que le Catholicisme, qui est essentiellement un
      principe d’authorité, ne sait pas dire où reside cette authorité.”

   67 “Thirty-nine Articles, art. xix.” So Augs. Conf. art. 7:
      “Congregatio sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur, et recte
      administrantur sacramenta.” But it may be asked, Who is to decide on
      the “_recte_”?

   68 In the remarkable work “Ecce Homo”.

   69 Tholuck, in his charming work on the Sermon on the Mount, speaks
      thus (“_Bergpredigt Christ. von A. Tholuck._”) “Two principal
      defects are found in the usual treatment of this doctrine: first,
      the different aspects and relations of the kingdom of God are by
      many considered as different _meanings_ of the word, and are left
      standing side by side, without any attempt to ground their unity in
      some fundamental idea. Or, secondly, and still worse, a single
      aspect of the term is taken up, and the rest are wholly neglected.
      Examples of the first defect are to be found in Zwingle, in his note
      to John 3:3. (Here the kingdom of God is considered as divine
      doctrine and preaching of the gospel, as in Luke 18; sometimes it is
      taken for eternal life, Matt. 25; Luke 14; sometimes for the church
      and congregation of the faithful, as Matt. 13:24.) The later
      lexicographers, as Schleusner and Bretschneider, have not avoided
      these vague statements; and the last of them is particularly
      defective in his article on this phrase. Trahl more correctly sums
      up all these significations of the word thus: ‘Happiness, present
      and future, obtained through Christ.’ But in this definition the
      notion of ‘a kingdom’ is omitted. The opposite defect of taking only
      one of the meanings of the matter, to the neglect of the rest, is to
      be found, for example, in Koppe and Keil, according to whom the
      expression relates merely to the future reign of the Messiah one day
      to be established.

      “Our own explanation of this expression starts from the phrase
      ‘kingdom of God,’ which explains the others, ‘kingdom of heaven’ and
      ‘kingdom of Christ.’ We think that the fundamental idea has been
      grasped by none more correctly than by Origen among the ancients,
      and by Calvin among the reformers. The phase of the idea principally
      dwelt upon by the Church Fathers may be seen in their explanation of
      the third petition of the Lord’s Prayer, which Augustine especially
      examines profoundly. Most of them understand by it the realm of
      glory, the future revelation of Christ. Origen alone, in his book on
      Prayer, taken a more exact view of the subject. In like manner
      Calvin, in his Commentary on the Harmony. So Luther, in his fine
      Sermon on the Kingdom of God. Our own fundamental view we express
      thus: ‘A community in which God reigns, not by force, but by being
      obeyed freely from love, and which is therefore necessarily united
      in itself by mutual love.’ The Saviour came upon the earth to found
      such a community, and since it can only be completely established
      after he has conquered all his enemies, this kingdom of Christ
      belongs in its perfection to the other world.”

   70 An eminent and learned gentleman told me of this conversation which
      he had with a Roman priest: “When the wine of the Eucharist is
      consecrated, it becomes the real blood of Christ—does it not?”
      Priest, “It does.” “What, then, do you do with that which remains in
      the cup, after communion?” Priest, “We drink it.” “Does not some
      adhere to the glass?” Priest, “Yes; but we wash the glass.” “What do
      you do with the water?” Priest, “We drink it.” “But must there not
      yet remain, on the napkin, with which you wipe the glass, some
      portion of the blood of Christ, even though it be an infinitesimal
      portion?” Priest, “Yes.” “Then, might it not happen that when the
      napkin is washed, this portion of Christ’s blood may go into the
      water, and be poured on the ground, and be taken up by the root of a
      plant—say a cabbage. Would, then, the flesh of that cabbage contain,
      or would it not a portion of the blood of Christ?”

   71 See, in the New York “Independent,” June 9, 1866, the account of the
      “Recognition of Congregational Churches in Philadelphia,” where the
      existence of this principle is admitted and defended by some eminent
      Congregational ministers; admitted and deplored by others.

   72 Twesten, “Vorlesungen,” &c., vol ii., p. 216. He adds to this
      definition its Latin form, in which the words “certain
      characteristics” stand “certis characteribus hypostaticis.”

   73 Quoted by Schleiermacher, “Glaubenslehre,” § 170.

   74 See the full discussions of these terms in Twesten (as above), Hase,
      “Christl. Glaubenslehre,” § 56. Strauss, “Christl. Glaubenslehre,”
      vol. i. Hase, “Dogmatik,” &c.

   75 Dogmatik, § 239.

   76 Augustine (de Trinit.), says, “One life in man, but three
      faculties—memory, intelligence, will.” But how if this is bad
      psychology?

   77 Erigena, “The Father in the soul, the Son in the reason, the Spirit
      in the sense—this makes the most luminous illustration.”

   78 Abelard (quoted by Strauss).

   79 Richard St. Victor (quoted by Hase), “There can be no possible
      communion of affection between a less number than three persons.” So
      Augustine, “Cum aliquid amo, tria sunt—_ego_, et _quod_ amo, et ipse
      _amor_.” Such illustrations are hardly satisfactory at the present
      day. Poiret says the Father is “_Deus a se_,” the Son is “_Deus ex
      se_,” the Holy Spirit “_Deus ad se refluens_.” Angelus Silecius
      makes the Trinity a divine kiss. “God kisses himself—the Father
      kisses, the Son is kissed, the Spirit is the kiss.”

   80 Translated from the Latin in Hagenbach (Compend of the History of
      Doctrines, vol. i. p. 289). We agree with Strauss, who says,
      “Fürwahr, wer das _Symbolum Quidcunque_ beschworen hatte, der hatte
      die Gesetze des menschlichen Denkens abgeschworen.” So the Pastor
      Bost (Le Protestantisme Liberal), after giving the Creed, in a
      somewhat different form, adds, “ubi insana faciunt, mysterium
      appellant.”

   81 “Incomprehensible,” Church of England Liturgy.

   82 Or “each person by himself.” The word in the Latin is “sigillatim,”
      a word not in most of the dictionaries, but in some of them made
      equivalent to “singulatim.”

   83 Tertullian said, we can call Christ “God” when we speak of him
      alone; but if we mention him with the Father, then we must call the
      Father “God,” and call Christ only “Lord.” “For a ray of light
      shining into a room, we may call the sun shining there; but if we
      speak of the sun at the same time, then we must distinguish the ray,
      and call it not sun, but sunbeam.”

   84 The decrees of the Council of Nice inclined to Sabellianism. The
      term ὁμοούσιος (_of the same essence_) was a Sabellian term.
      Sabellianism could, in fact, stand most of the tests of modern
      Orthodoxy, since it maintains _three persons and one essence_, μίαν
      ὑπόστασιν and τρία πρόσωπα; and Schleiermacher, in one of his most
      elaborate treatises (Ueber den Gegensatz zwischen der
      Sabellianischen und der Athanasianischen Vorstellung von der
      Trinitat. Theolog. Zeitschrift. Berlin, 1822), has sought to
      rehabilitate Sabellianism. Moses Stuart translated this treatise,
      and plainly advocated a similar view. Hase (Kirchengeschichte, § 91)
      defines the view of Sabellius as making “Father, Son, and Spirit the
      different forms of revelation of the Supreme Unity unfolding itself
      in the world history as the Triad.” Perhaps (see Baur) the chief
      peculiarity of Sabellius is in making the Triad begin and end with
      the process of revelation. The Monad is God in himself: the Triad is
      God in the process of self-revelation (Baur, “Christliche Lehre von
      der Dreieinigkeit,” and “Lehrbuch der Christlichen
      Dogmengeschichte”).

   85 “Dictum est tamen tres personæ, non ut illud diceretur, sed ut ne
      taceretur.” Aug. de. Trin., quoted by Hase, Dog. § 238.

   86 John of Damascus (quoted by Twesten) made his boast of Christianity,
      that it united what was true in Polytheism with what was true in
      Judaism. “From the Jews,” he says, “we have the oneness of nature,
      from the Greeks the distinction in hypostases.”

   87 The substance of what follows in this section, appeared in the
      “Christian Examiner.”

   88 The _nature_ by which the heathen “do the things contained in the
      law,” i.e., obey God, which is here (Rom. 2:15) called “the law
      written in the heart,” is in Rom. 7:23 called the “law of the mind.”
      Olshausen (a sufficiently Orthodox commentator), says, “It is wholly
      false to understand ὅταν ποιῆ of a mere ideal _possibility_; the
      apostle speaks evidently of a real and actual obedience. Paul infers
      that, because there are actually pious heathen, they must have a law
      which they obey.” _Ad locum._

   89 We have no room to enter into an examination of this question at
      this time, and can only give a general statement on this subject
      from one of the authorities which happens to be at hand:—

      “_All_ the Fathers” (before Augustine, fourth and fifth century)
      “differed from Augustine in attributing freedom of will to man in
      his present state. Thus Justin: ‘Every created being is so
      constituted as to be capable of vice or virtue.’ Cyril of Jerusalem:
      ‘Know that thou hast a soul possessed of free will; for thou dost
      not sin by birth (κατὰ γένεσιν), nor by fortune, but we sin by free
      choice.’ _All_ the Latin Fathers also maintained that free will was
      not lost after the fall. The Fathers also denied in part, that man
      is born infected with Adam’s sin. Thus Athenagoras says in his
      Apology, ‘Man is in a good state, not only in respect to his
      Creator, but also in respect to his natural generation.’ ”—Wiggers,
      _Augustinism and Pelagianism_. Translated by Rev. Ralph Emerson,
      Professor in the Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.

   90 “Abi ad Jordonum, et Trinitatem disce,” was on early notion.

   91 Dr. Horace Bushnell, a favorite authority with Dr. Huntington, whom
      Dr. Huntington quotes largely, and whose views he earnestly
      recommends, gives us his testimony to this point, thus (“God in
      Christ,” pp. 130, 131):—

      “A very large portion of Christian teachers, together with the
      general mass of disciples, undoubtedly hold three real living
      persons in the interior nature of God; that is, three
      consciousnesses, wills, hearts, understandings.”

      “_A very large portion of Christian teachers_” hold, then, to a
      belief in three Gods; and with them is joined “_the general mass of
      the disciples_.” The only Unity held by these teachers is, he goes
      on to say, “a social Unity.” Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are, in
      their view, socially united only, and preside in that way, as a kind
      of celestial Tritheocracy, over the world. This heresy, he says,
      “because of its clear opposition to Unitarianism, is counted safe,
      and never treated as a heresy.” That is, the Christian Church allows
      the belief in _three Gods_, and will not discipline those who hold
      that opinion; but, if you believe strictly and only in _one God_,
      you cannot be saved!

   92 Dr. Bushnell goes on to say (p. 133), “While the Unity is thus
      confused and lost in the threeness, perhaps I should admit that the
      threeness sometimes appears to be clouded or obscured by the Unity.
      Thus it is sometimes protested, that in the word, ‘person’ nothing
      is meant beyond a threefold distinction; though it will always be
      observed, that nothing is really meant by the protestation; that the
      protester goes on to speak and to reason of the three, not as being
      only somewhats or distinctions, but as metaphysical and real
      persons.... Indeed, it is a somewhat curious fact in theology, that
      the class of teachers who protest over the word ‘person,’ declaring
      that they mean only a _threefold distinction_, cannot show that
      there is really a hair’s breadth of difference between their
      doctrine and the doctrine asserted by many of the later Unitarians.”

   93 “It has often been asserted _and admitted_,” says Tweaten, one of
      the strongest of modern Trinitarians, “that even the principal
      notions about which the Church doctrine turns are foreign to the New
      Testament; as οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, τρόπος ὑπάρξεως and ἀποκαλύψεως,
      τριάς and ὁμοούσια.”(Twesten: Dogmatik, vol. ii. p. 281.)

   94 “Who will venture to say that any of the definitions heretofore
      given of personality in the Godhead, in Itself considered,—such
      definitions as have their basis in the Nicene or Athanasian
      Creed,—are intelligible and satisfactory to the mind? At least, I
      can truly say, that I have not been able to find them, if they do in
      fact exist; nor, so far as I know, has any one been able, by any
      commentary on them, to make them clear and satisfactory.” (Prof.
      Stuart, Biblical Repository, April, 1835. See Wilson, Trin. Test.,
      p. 272.)

   95 See the creed in Hagenbach (History of Doct., vol. i. p. 208): “Θεος
      ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Θεον ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ.”

   96 Thus speaks Dr. Bushnell on this head (“God in Christ,” p. 139):—

      “Besides, it is another source of mental confusion, connected with
      this view of three metaphysical persons, that, though they are all
      declared to be infinite and equal, they really are not so. The
      proper deity of Christ is not held in this view. He is begotten,
      sent, supported, directed, by the Father, in such a sense as really
      annihilates his deity. This has been shown in a truly searching and
      convincing manner by Schleiermacher, in his historical essay on the
      Trinity; and, indeed, you will see at it at a glance, that this view
      of a metaphysical Trinity of persons breaks down in the very point
      which is commonly regarded as its excellence—its assertion of the
      proper deity of Christ.”