Providence by Thomas Boston

by Thomas Boston

---

1. Beware of drawing an excuse for your sin from the providence of God; for it is most holy, and is in no way any cause of any sin you commit. Every sin is an act of rebellion against God; a breach of his holy law, and deserves his wrath and curse; and therefore cannot be authorised by an infinitely-holy God, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity without detestation and abhorrence. Though he has by a permissive decree allowed moral evil to be in the world, yet that has no influence on the sinner to commit it. For it is not the fulfilling of God's decree, which is an absolute secret to every mortal, but the gratification of their own lusts and perverse inclinations, that men intend and mind in the commission of sin.
2. Beware of murmuring and fretting under any dispensations of providence that you meet with; remembering that nothing falls out without a wise and holy providence, which knows best what is fit and proper for you. And in all cases, even in the middle of the most afflicting incidents that happen to you, learn submission to the will of God, as Job did, when he said upon the end of a series of the heaviest calamities that happened to him, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord," Job, i. 21. In the most distressing case, say with the disciples, "The will of the Lord be done," Acts, 21:14.
3. Beware of anxious cares and fearfulness about your material well-being in the world. This our Lord has cautioned his followers against, Matt. 6:31. "Take no thought, (that is, anxious and perplexing thought,) saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?" Never let the fear of man stop you from duty, Matt. 10:28, 29; but let your souls learn to trust in God, who guides and superintends all the events and administrations of providence, by whatever hands they are performed.
4. Do not think little of means, seeing God works by them; and he that has appointed the end, orders the means necessary for gaining the end. Do not rely upon means, for they can do nothing without God, Matt. 4:4. Do not despair if there be no means, for God can work without them, as well as with them; Hosea 1:7. "I will save them by the Lord their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen." If the means be unlikely, he can work above them, Rom. 4:19. "He considered not his own body now dead, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb." If the means be contrary, he can work by contrary means, as he saved Jonah by the whale that devoured him. That fish swallowed up the prophet, but by the direction of providence, it vomited him out upon dry land.
Lastly, Happy is the people whose God is the Lord: for all things shall work together for their good. They may sit secure in exercising faith upon God, come what will. They have good reason for prayer; for God is a prayer-hearing God, and will be enquired of by his people as to all their concerns in the world. And they have ground for the greatest encouragement and comfort in the middle of all the events of providence, seeing they are managed by their covenant God and gracious friend, who will never neglect or overlook his dear people, and whatever concerns them. For he has said, "I will never leave you, nor forsake you," Heb. 13:5.

The Ground of Faith In The Scriptures Dr Charles Hodge

Ground of Faith in The Scriptures


by Charles Hodge (1823-1886)


This article is an evaluation of an essay by James H. Thornwell titled, "Review of the Arguments of Romanists from the Infallibility of the Church and Testimony of the Fathers in behalf of the Apocrypha, discussed and refuted." It is was first published in the Princeton Review (1845) and subsequently in a collected volume of Hodge articles titled Essays & Reviews (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857) pp. 185-200. The electronic edition of this article was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink. It is in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed. Original pagination has been kept for purposes of reference.

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 185


In 1841, Mr. Thornwell published in the " Spirit of the Nineteenth Century," an essay on the claims of the Apocrypha to divine inspiration. In reply to that essay the Rev. Dr. Lynch, a Romish clergyman of Charleston, S. a., addressed to him a series of letters, to which the present volume is an answer, and a very complete one. It is, as to its form and manner, as well as to thoroughness, a specimen of the old-fashioned mode of controversy. The arguments of his opponent are given at length, and then submitted to the torture of remorseless logic, until the confession of unsoundness is extorted. In this way Dr. Lynch is tracked step by step until he is hunted out of every hiding place, and is seen by others, however he may regard himself, to be completely run down. As a refutation, this work of Mr. Thornwell, is complete. There is much in this book that reminds us of Chillingworth. There is a good deal of the acumen, the perspicuity, and logic of that great master of sentences. There is the same untiring following up of an opponent, giving him the benefit first of one then of another hypothesis, until he has nothing left oh which to hang an argument. This mode of discussion, while it has many advantages, has some inconveniences. It is difficult, in such cases, for the respondent to prevent his book assuming more the character of a refutation of a particular author, than of a discussion of a subject. His

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 186


antagonist's arguments give form to his reply; and the reader feels that he is listening to a debate between two disputants, rather than to a continuous exhibition of the point in controversy. This disadvantage every one must feel to be a very serious one, in the writings of Chillingworth. Their value would, to the present generation at least, be greatly enhanced, had he made it more his object to exhibit the whole truth on the subjects on which he wrote, than to pull to pieces the sophistries of his antagonists Mr. Thornwell has not entirely avoided this inconvenience, though in his case it is not a very serious one, and is less felt in the latter than in the earlier portions of his work. The book exhibits distinguished ability and diligent research, and is not only a valuable accession to our theological literature, but welcome as a specimen of what the church may expect from its author.

Among the blemishes of the work is the profusion of the mere technicalities of logic. The words, major, and minor proposition, middle term, and the like, are of too frequent occurrence. It adds nothing to the perspicuity of the argument, to say that one proposition is of that peculiar species, that the removal of the consequent is a removal of the antecedent; or that another " is a destructive disjunctive conditional." We do not wish to see in a painting, the pencil marks protruding through the coloring; nor is it desirable to have brought constantly to view in actual discussion, the formulas by which reasoning as an art is taught in the schools. When a man comes to fight, it is easy to see whether he has learned to fence, without his exclaiming at ever) thrust or feint, prime, fierce, quart: and Professor Thornwell's skill in logic would be quite as apparent, and more effective, if he could forget, as we doubt not he soon will do, its technical terms.

The point in which the work before us is most open to criticism, is its want of unity. It is really the discussion of a single question: Are the Apocrypha a part of the inspired writings? So much prominence, however, is given to the consideration the infallibility of the church, as to exalt it into a separate question. As Romanists rely mainly on the authority of tbe church in their arguments in behalf of the Apocrypha, the competency of the church, in their sense of the term, authoritatively to decide the question, is unavoidably brought into the discussion.

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 187


But still it is a subordinate question' in the present instance and should be made to appear so. We think the unity, and Of course the force of Mr. Thornwell's argument, would be increased by treating the infallibility of the church, not so distinctly as he has done, but in strict subordination to his main purpose.

We also regret that he has made so little use of the internal character of the Apocrypha, as an argument against their inspiration. In his original essay this topic is adverted to; we are surprised' therefore, not to see it brought forward in this larger work. It is after all one of the soundest, and of all others perhaps the most effective argument, in the minds of ordinary Christians, against the divine origin of these writings. Believers will find it impossible to transfer the reverence they feel for the true word of God, commending itself as it does to their reason, heart, and conscience, to writings replete with silly stories and gross contradictions. We advert the more readily to what we regard defects in this work, because we think it will become a standard book, likely to be often reprinted; we therefore wish to see it as perfect as may be.

The question whether the Apocrypha are inspired, suggests the wider question: How are we to tell whether any book is inspired; or on what ground does the Christian world admit that the authors of the Christian Scriptures spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost ? This question is, in many respects, analogous to the question, How do we know there is a God ? or that he is holy, just and good ? How do we know that we are bound to obey him, or that the moral law is an expression of his will? If these questions were asked different persons, they would probably give very different answers, and those answers might all of them be Correct, though not all adequate. Various as these answers might be, they would all resolve themselves into a statement in some form, of the self- evidencing light of the truths affirmed. We believe there is a God, because the idea of such a being is so congruous to our moral nature; so necessary as a solution of the facts of our own consciousness, that when once clearly presented, we can never rid ourselves of the conviction of its truth; nor can we shake off our sense of allegiance to him or deny our dependence. This conviction exists in the minds of thousands who have never analyzed it, nor inquired into its origin or its legitimacy.

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 188


And when that inquiry is started, they refer their belief to different sources, some appealing to the evidence afforded of the being of God in the works of nature; others to the logical necessity of assuming the existence of an intelligent first cause' and others to their sense of dependence, or to other facts of their moral nature; but after all, it is apparent that the conviction exists and is influential, before any such examination of the grounds on which it rests, and is really independent of the specific reasons that may be assigned to account for it.

The same is true with regard to moral obligation. The fact that we are bound to conform to the moral law; that we ought to love God, and do good to men, is admitted and cannot be denied. Why we are thus bound, few men take the trouble to inquire, and if they did, might be puzzled to give an answer, and no answer they could devise or that any philosopher could suggest would increase the sense of obligation. Some answers, and those among the most common, would really weaken it, and the best could only render it more enlightened, by bringing into the view of the understanding, facts and principles already existing and operating, undetected or unnamed, in our own consciousness.

It is much the same with regard to the Bible. That sacred volume passes among tens of thousands for the word of God, without their ever thinking of asking on what grounds they so regard it. And if called upon to give answer to such a question, unless accustomed to the work of self-inspection, they would hardly know what to say. This hesitation, however, would be no decisive evidence, either that they did not really believe, or that their faith was irrational, or merely hereditary. They would find the same difficulty in answering either of the other questions to which we have referred, How do we know there is a God? or How do we know that his law is binding ? It is very possible that the mind may see a thing to be true, without being able to prove its truth, or to make any satisfactory exhibition of tile grounds of its belief. If a man who had never heard of the Bible, should meet with a copy of the sacred volume, and address himself to its perusal, it cannot be denied that it would address him in the same tone of authority, which it uses towards those born in the bosom of the Christian church. He would be called upon to believe its doctrines, to confide in its promises, to obey its

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 189


precepts. He would be morally guilty in the sight of God, if he did not; and he would be regarded as a wise and good man if he did. Beyond controversy then the book must contain its own evidence of being the word of God; it must prove its own inspiration just as the moral law proves its own authority, or the bell ;, of God reveals itself to every open heart. There is nothing mystical, enthusiastic, or even extraordinary in this. A mathematical work contains in itself the evidence of whatever truth belongs to its reasonings or conclusions. All that one man can do for another, in producing conviction of its truth, is to aid him in understanding, it, enabling him to see the evidence that is in the book itself. The same may be said of any work of art, or of any production of genius. Its truthfulness, its claims to admiration, its power to refine or please, are all inherent qualities, which must be perceived, in order to be really believed. So, too, of any work which treats of our moral obligations; no matter who wrote it, if it contains truth, we assent to it, if it includes error, we reject it This is not a thing which, in the proper sense of the word, admits of proof. The only possible proof of the correctness of a moral doctrine, is to make us see its truth; its accordance with the law of God, the supreme standard, and with that law as written in our own hearts. Thus in the case, which we have supposed, of a man's reading the Bible without knowing whence it came, he would, if properly and naturally affected, be convinced of all, and judged of all, and thus the secrets of his heart being made manifest, falling down on his face, he would worship God, and report that of a truth, that book is not the word of man, but the word of God.

He would find, in reading the Scriptures, the existence of God as the creator and governor of all things, always presented; his Perfections, as infinitely wise, powerful, and good, held up for his adoration and confidence. All this, no matter, whence the book came' is so holy, so true, so consonant to right reason and right feeling, that he cannot doubt its truth. He finds, further, a law therein revealed as obligatory on man, which is holy, just, and good; all whose requirements as soon as understood, assert an authority over his conscience, which he feels to be legitimate and supreme. In comparing himself with that standard of excellence, he finds, that in all things he has come short, that not only in innumerable particular acts, but in the inward, habitual

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 190


state of his heart, he is unholy. This conviction is unavoidably attended with a sense of guilt; he feels that he deserves to be punished, nay, that a moral necessity exists for such punishment; he would gladly punish himself, could he do it satisfactorily, or so as to still his conscience. This sense of inward pollution and exposure to punishment, prompts to strenuous and continued efforts to change his heart, and to conform his life, to the high standard of excellence presented in the wonderful boor, which has revealed him to himself, that has made him know what he is, and in what relation he stands to God. All his efforts however vigorous, or however long sustained, fail of success. The power of evil and the guilty conscience continue; and he sinks down into a state of hopeless despondency. In reading further, he finds that this book tells him just what he has found in his own experience to be true; that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; that there is none righteous, no not one; that no man can come unto God except the Father draw him; that we must be made new creatures, born not of the will of man but of God; that by the deeds of the law, by our own obedience to the rule of duty, no man can be just with God; that without the shedding of blood, that is, without an atonement, there is no remission of sins. All these things are true? true in themselves, true independently of the assertion of them in the word of God. They are truths which have their foundation in our nature and in our relation to God. Here then, the existence and perfections of God; the demands of the moral law; the sinfulness and helplessness of men; the necessity of holiness and of an atonement, are all taught in this book, and when so taught as to be understood, they so commend themselves to the conscience that they cannot be denied. They arc, therefore, received without any external testimony of any kind, to authenticate them as matters of divine revelation. Convinced of these truths, our supposed reader of the Bible finds that in every part of it, provision is made for these two great necessities of man, holiness and atonement; they are everywhere represensed as necessary, and the way in which they are attained as more or less distinctly unfolded. The Son of God is revealed as coming in the flesh, dying for our sins, reconciling us to God' securing the gift of the Holy Ghost, and offering eternal life to all who come unto God by Him. There is in the character' the

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 191


conduct, the doctrines, the claims, the promises, of the Redeemer, such majesty, such excellence, such authority over the heart and conscience, such a divine glory, the glory as of the only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth, that every one who apprehends that glory, feels that he is bound to honor the Son even as he honors the Father; that the same confidence, the same obedience, the same love are due to the Son as to God, for he is God manifested in the flesh.. If it is absurd to say that no man believes in God, who has not comprehended some philosophical argument for his existence, it is no less absurd to say that no man can rationally believe in Christ, who has not been instructed in the historical arguments which confirm his mission, or who has not been told by others that he is the Son of God. We believe in Christ, for the same reason that we believe in God. His character and claims have been exhibited to us, and we assent to them; we see his glory and we recognize it as the glory of God. This exhibition is made in the gospel; it is made to every reader of the word. And when such a reader, though he had never before heard of the Bible, finds this glorious personage, ratifying all those truths which were latent in his own consciousness, and needed only to be stated to be recognized as truths; and when he hears him say that he came to give his life a ransom for many, that whosoever believeth on him shall never perish, but have eternal life; he confides in him with humble and entire confidence. And when he further hears him speak of a future state of blessedness, for which, by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, men are prepared? he understands some of the deepest mysteries of his nature, the obscure apprehension of immortality' the strange mixture of longing and dread in reference to a future state, of which he was conscious but could not understand Such a man believes the gospel on the highest possible evidence; the testimony of God himself with and by the truth to his own heart; making him see and feel that it is truth. The snore the Bible is thus studied, the more it is understood; the more the relation of its several parts, the excellence of its precepts, the suitableness of its doctrines and promises, the correspondence of the experience, which it details or demands, with the exercises of our own hearts, are appreciated, the more firm and enlightened does the conviction become that it is indeed the word of God.

Of this evidence to the inspiration of the Scriptures, which is

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 192


contained in the Scriptures themselves, and which by the Spirit of God is revealed and applied to the hearts of the devout readers of the Bible, it may be remarked, in the first place, that it is of itself perfectly adequate as the foundation of a rational and saving faith, and that it applies to all parts of the sacred volume; partly because it is found in all parts, and partly because the different portions of the Bible, the historical, doctrinal, devotional, and perceptive, are so connected, that they mutually imply each other, so that one cannot be rejected without doing violence more or less to the whole. In the second place, this evidence is in fact tile ground of the faith of all the true people of God, whether learned or unlearned. Whatever other evidence they may have, and which in argument they may properly adduce, they still are believers, in the true sense of that term, only so far as their faith rests on this inward testimony of God with the truth, revealing and applying it as truth to the heart. In the third place, this is the evidence on which the Scriptures challenge universal faith and obedience.. It is the ground on which they rest their claim, and on which they pronounce a sentence of condemnation on all who do not believe, as not of God, for if they were of God, they would know of the doctrine whether it was his or not. In the fourth place, it is obvious that this evidence, in all its fullness and force, may be exhibited to a man, who knew nothing from others of the origin of the Scriptures, even to one who should read them for the first time in a desert island. Such a man being convinced by this evidence that the Scriptures were the word of God; or finding that the writers who propounded these truths, and who exhibited such moral excellence as to secure his entire confidence, declared themselves to be inspired, constantly disclaimed being the discoverers or authors of the doctrines which they taught; when he hears them always speaking in the name and by the authority of God, as his messengers he receives their declaration with full credence. How indeed could it be otherwise ? How could they know of themselves all they teach, and how could men who were so obviously sincere and holy, be false witnesses and imposters? Without going, therefore, beyond the Bible itself, the conviction may be rationally arrived at, and is in fact in multitudes of cases, without doubt entertained, that its authors spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 193


Let us suppose that a man thus convinced, should have the Opportunity of learning the history of the Bible; of tracing it up with certainty to the times of the apostles; of proving with historic accuracy, that the books composing the New Testament, were written by the apostles of Christ; that to these men their divine master expressly promised the gift of inspiration; that they uniformly claimed that gift, saying, He that is of God heareth us, and he that is not of God, heareth not us; that this claim was authenticated by God himself bearing them witness with signs, and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost; that effects followed their ministry which admit of no rational solution but their being the messengers of God; that all they did, all the facts they announced, all the effects they produced, or which attended the introduction of Christianity, had been predicted centuries before, in books which can be proved to have existed at that antecedent period; nay that the predictions in those books, and in the New Testament itself, are in some cases, in the course of fulfillment before our own eyes; and finally, that the claim of these messengers to inspiration Noms recognized by all who received their doctrines, and who by their faith were made new creatures in Christ Jesus, suppose all this to be proved historically, as it has been proved a thousand times, it may be that the faith of a supposed believer might not be really thereby strengthened; he would however be furnished with an answer to all gainsayers,, and would be able to say, in the spirit of our Lord's own remonstrance, If ye believe not the gospel for its own sake, at least believe it for these works' sake

With regard to the Old Testament, much the same course of remark might be pursued. The writers of its several books claimed to be the messengers of God; they authenticated that claim (with few, if any, exceptions), by miracles or prophecy; they taught the truth-truth as far above that contained in any uninspired writings, as the heavens are above the earth; the predictions which they contain, scattered over the whole volume given in detached parts, and at long intervals, yet all concentrating in one great system, have been fulfilled and are still fulfilling. And besides all this, every part of the Jewish Scriptures, in every form recognized as the word of God, as infallible, incapable of being broken, more certain of accomplishment than

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 194


heaven and earth of continuance, by our Lord and his apostles' of whose divine authority, or divine inspiration, we have such abundant evidence.

Such is a very cursory view of the grounds on which Protestants are accustomed to rest their faith in the inspiration of the books which they recognize as the word of God. If we apply these principles to the Apocrypha, what is the result ? In the first place their authors do not claim to be inspired; they do not come before the people as the messengers of God, claiming faith and obedience, on pain of the divine displeasure, and con firming that claim by personal holiness or by mighty works. On the contrary, they disclaim any such authority, or speak in terms utterly incompatible with it. Then, in the second place, there is nothing in the contents of these writings, which leads to the assumption of their being inspired. Some of them are historical, some of them are moral essays of a more or less philosophical cast; some of them are fables. They differ very much in value in all respects, but there is nothing in any of them which might not be expected from Jews living either in Palestine or Egypt, whose opinions had been more or less modified by a knowledge of the Oriental or Grecian systems of philosophy. They are just such books as uninspired men under their circumstances might be expected to write. Then, on the other hand, they often contradict the universally recognized books of the Old Testament, or are at variance with themselves; they contain false doctrines or false principles of morals; or, in many cases, absurd stories How can such books be received as the word of God ? In the third place, there is not the slightest evidence of their having been received as inspired by the contemporaries of their authors, but abundant evidence that they were not so received. This is admitted by the Romanists themselves, who concede that the) formed no part of the Jewish canon. In the fourth place, the? were not recognized by Christ and his apostles as part of the word of God. They are never quoted as of authority, never referred to as " Scripture," or as the words of the Spirit, in the New Testament. To this point the tenth letter in Professor Thornwell's book is devoted, where it is most satisfactorily demonstrated that there are no passages in the New Testament which need be assumed to refer to any corresponding passage in the Apocrypha; and that if there were, it would no more prose

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 195


their inspiration, than the inspiration of the heathen poets can be proved from Paul's use of their language, or the inspiration of Philo from the coincidences between his writings and the language of the apostle John. In the fifth place, the Apocrypha were not recognized as inspired by the Christians of the first four centuries To the proof of this point Mr. Thornwell has devoted five letters, from the fourteenth to the eighteenth both included. In these letters the reader will find a laborious and accurate examination of all the passages quoted from the early Fathers in support of the authority of the Apocrypha; wherein it is clearly shown that nothing can be adduced from that source, which would not prove the inspiration of books which the church of Rome rejects. It need hardly be remarked that even if some, or even all the early Fathers, regarded the writings in controversy as part of the sacred canon, it would be no sufficient proof of their inspiration. That they received the books of the New Testament as of divine authority, is a valid argument in their behalf; because it affords satisfactory evidence that those books were written by the men whose names they bear, of whose inspiration we have abundant proof, and their testimony that the Apocrypha were written by their reputed authors would have a certain historic value; but could not prove the inspiration of those writings, unless we knew from other sources that those authors were inspired. But the Fathers' thinking the Apocrypha to be inspired is no proof that the apostles so regarded them. The apostles are not to be responsible for all the doctrines the Fathers entertained. This testimony in behalf of the Apocrypha, unsatisfactory as it would be, cannot be adduced, for the real testimony of the early church is strongly against the inspiration of the writings in question. In proof of this point, we refer our readers to Mr. Thornwell's concluding letter, in which it is proved that these books " are not included in the catalogues given by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, of Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Ruffin, and others; neither are they mentioned among the canonical books recognized by the council of Laodicea."

We hardly know how a stronger case could be made out, than Professor Thornwell has thus made. Nothing seems to favor the assumption of the Apocrypha being inspired; while all the evidence, both internal and external, is against it. But have

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 196


the Romanists nothing to say in their behalf? Nothing that is of the least weight with a Protestant. They do indeed refer to what they regard as allusions to those writings in the New Testament, which, if admitted, would only prove their existence at that period, which no one denies. They further refer to the fact that several of the Fathers quote them, and quote them too as " holy Scripture ;" but this expression the Fathers often use in the general sense of religious, as opposed to profane writings' and apply it to books for whose inspiration no one contends. The main dependence of the Romanists is the authority of their own church. The council of Trent has decreed that the Apocrypha were written by the inspiration of God, and of course those and those only, who believe that council to have been infallible, bow to their decision.

This brings up the question of the infallibility of the church; much too wide a subject to be here entered upon. It must suffice to show in a few words, that the authority of the council of Trent, is no sufficient ground of faith in the inspiration of the Apocryphal The whole doctrine of the Romanists, as to tile authority of that council, rests on a series of gratuitous and unscriptural assumptions. The fundamental error of Popery and Puseyism, is transferring to the body of external professors of Christianity, that is, to what is commonly called the visible church, what the Scriptures say of the church of God. The body to which the promises and prerogatives of the church belong, according to Scripture, antiquity, and the best men even of the Roman communion itself, consists of true believers, of those who are the members of Christ's body and partakers of his Spirit. Christ has indeed promised to preserve his church, that is, his own people, from all fatal error; to lead them into the knowledge of the truth, and to keep them through faith unto eternal life. But how is this promise to preserve and guide his people, a promise to guide those who are not his people ? How are promises made to the children of God, promises to the children of the world? How are assurances given to those who are born of the Spirit, who are led by the Spirit, who are the temples of the Holy Ghost to be applied to the unrenewed, and to those who pertain to the church only in name, or by office ? It is only by denying that there is any such thing as regeneration, or spiritual religion, or by merging all that the Bible says of the new birth, of

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 197


with Christ, and of a holy life, into descriptions of church-rites and church-ceremonies, that the least plausibility can be given to the Romish theory. The word "church" is always a collective term for the called, the chosen, the true people of God; and what is said of the church and of its prerogatives, belongs only to those who are thus called and sanctified. The promises therefore, which secure the church from apostasy, and which guaranty her perpetuity, have no reference to those who are not the true children of God, any more than the promises to Israel secured the gift of the Holy Spirit to the natural descendants of Abraham.

The first and most fruitful fallacy of Rome, therefore, is founded on the ambiguity of the word church, which, as the recipient of the promises, means the true people of God, though in ordinary language, it is often applied to all who profess to be his people, or call themselves Christians. They err moreover in extending far beyond its scriptural limits, the promise of guidance as made to the church. Christ has promised to purify his church; but that does not secure perfect holiness for all its members, in this life. He has also promised to guide them into the knowledge of the truth; but that does not preserve them from all ignorance or error; it only secures them from failing of that knowledge which is essential to eternal life. The only sense in which even the true church is infallible is, that its members are kept from the rejection of any doctrine essential to their salvation. Rome not satisfied with attributing this infallibility to a body which has no claim to it, extends it to all matters of faith and even (according to one school), of fact. A twofold unscriptural and baseless assumption.

But should we admit that the external or visible church has been invested with the prerogative of infallibility, how would that prove the Romish doctrine on this subject? According to the ultramontane doctrine, the pope is the seat and centre of this prerogative; according to the Gallican doctrine, it resides in the prelates. for either of these assumptions there is not a shadow of claim from Scripture. The prelates are not the church, to be pope is not the church. The promise of the Holy Spirit to be With his disciples, to guide them into the knowledge of the truth was neither made nor fulfilled to the chief officers of the church alone. It was addressed to all the disciples; and it was

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 198


fulfilled in the apostolic and every subsequent age, to all true believers. Here again is another gratuitous assumption, necessary to make out the arguments of Romanists, in support of the infallibility of the council of Trent..

But supposing we should grant that the prelates are the church, that to them in their collective capacity, the gift of infallibility belongs, still, how does it follow that the council of Trent was infallible ? All the prelates were not assembled there; all did not concur in the designation of the members of the council as their representatives; all have not concurred in the decisions of that body. On the contrary, the council was composed of a mere handful of bishops, a small minority of the prelates of Christendom concurred either in their appointment or in their decisions. Admitting then that infallibility resides in the bishops of the universal church, in their collective capacity, which is the most rational form of the Romish doctrine, we must believe that all the Greek, all the Armenian, all the Syrian, all the British, all the Swedish prelates are out of the church, before we can believe that the council of Trent represented the church, and was the organ of its infallibility. Can this be proved from Scripture or from any other source ? Can any show of argument be adduced to prove that recognition of the authority of the bishop of Rome over all other bishops and churches, is necessary to union with the church of God ? Until this is proved, granting all their principles, the infallibility of the council of Trent cannot be established.

We can afford, however, to be still more generous. We may grant not only that the external church is infallible; that the prelates are the church; and that the church must be in communion with the pope and under his direction, and yet deny that the decisions of that body can possibly be the ground on which we are bound to believe the gospel, or to admit the authority of the word of God. There are two fatal objections to making the authority even of an infallible church, the ground of faith. The first is, that faith founded on that ground cannot be anything more than mere intellectual assent to the truth of a proposition. But such a faith may and does exist in the minds of wicked men, and therefore cannot be that faith which is connected with salvation If a man comes to me with a sealed book, and assures me that it is inspired, and then produces such credentials, by

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 199


miracles or otherwise, as command my confidence in his integrity and competency as a witness, I may assent to the proposition that the book is the word of God, but I am not thereby a better man. Unless I know the truth the book contains, perceive it to be true, and receive it in love, I am just the man I was before; may be just as destitute of love to God, and just as unfit for heaven All that an infallible church could do, would be to act the part of the supposed witness. Even should we admit her authority, and assent to her decisions, such assent having no better foundation than external testimony, can have no moral character and produce no moral effect. Such a faith the most wicked men that ever lived may have, and in thousands of cases, have had, and therefore it cannot be that faith to which the Scriptures promise eternal life.

The second objection to making the authority of the church the ground of faith, is that it is entirely inadequate. The gospel is addressed to all men; all who hear it, are bound to receive it as soon as it is presented; but how are all men to know that the church is infallible ? No man can be required to believe, before the evidence on which his faith is to rest, is presented to his mind. If the infallibility of the church is the ground on which he is to receive certain writings as the word of God, that infallibility must be established before he can be required to believe But how is this to be done, with regard to the great mass of mankind ? How are the unlettered, the young, the heathen, to be rationally convinced that the church is infallible ? How are they to know what the church is, or which of the many bodies so called i. the true church ? The peasants of Sweden, Russia, or England, never heard of any church, other than their own, and yet those bodies, according to Rome, are no part of the Church. How are these poor peasants to find that out ? Or even take a peasant of Italy or Spain, how does he know that the church is infallible ? His priest says so. How is he to know what the church teaches ? what his priest tells him. But his priest is not, even according to the Roman theory, inspired; and it is admitted he may be a bad man Thus this boasted infallibility of the church, which looks so imposing, is, as it is brought in actual contact with the minds of the people, nothing more than the "say so" of a parish priest. The only foundation of faith that Rome will admit, for the great mass of her children,

---

CHARLES HODGE, ESSAYS & REVIEWS, 1857, Page 200


is the testimony of a man who is admitted to be fallible, who is in a majority of cases, ignorant, and often wicked! This is the resting-place of the precious faith of God's elect! To such a miserable conclusion does this mighty figment of an infallible church come at last. This is popery. For bread it gives a stone; and for an egg, a scorpion. To teach that we cannot know the Scriptures to be the work of God, except on the testimony of the church, is to teach we cannot see the sun without the help of a candle.

2011 Puritan Reformed Conference

The Puritan Reformed Conference is just a few weeks away. You will want to be part of this year's event August 25-27.

Speakers include:

Michael Barrett is the president of Geneva Reformed Seminary and an associate minister of Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, South Carolina. He earned his doctorate in Old Testament Text with a special focus on Semitic languages. For almost thirty years, he was professor of Ancient Languages and Old Testament Theology and Interpretation at Bob Jones University. He assumed his present position at GRS in the fall of 2000. He has published numerous articles and several books, including Beginning at Moses: A Guide to Finding Christ in the Old Testament; Complete in Him: A Guide to Understanding and Enjoying the Gospel; God’s Unfailing Purpose: The Message of Daniel; The Beauty of Holiness: A Guide to Biblical Worship; Love Divine and Unfailing: The Gospel According to Hosea, and The Hebrew Handbook. Dr. Barrett and his wife, Sandra, have two sons and five grandchildren.

Joel Beeke is president and professor of systematic theology and homiletics at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, a pastor of the Heritage Netherlands Reformed Congregation in Grand Rapids, Michigan, editor of Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth, editorial director of Reformation Heritage Books, president of Inheritance Publishers, and vice-president of the Dutch Reformed Translation Society. He has written, co-authored, or edited sixty books (most recently, Living for the Glory of God: An Introduction to Calvinism, Meet the Puritans, Contagious Christian Living, Calvin for Today, Developing a Healthy Prayer Life, and Taking Hold of God), and contributed fifteen hundred articles to Reformed books, journals, periodicals, and encyclopedias. His Ph.D. is in Reformation and Post-Reformation theology from Westminster Theological Seminary. He is frequently called upon to lecture at seminaries and to speak at Reformed conferences around the world. He and his wife Mary have with three children.

Gerald Bilkes is Professor of New Testament and Biblical Theology. He completed a Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary. He was recipient of the United States Information Agency Fellowship at the Albright Institute (ASOR) in Jerusalem during the 1997-1998 year. He has written several articles on biblical-theological themes and given addresses at several conferences. His areas of special interest include hermeneutics, the history of interpretation, and conversion in the Bible. He and his wife, Michelle, have four children.

David Murray is Professor of Old Testament and Practical Theology. He studied for the ministry at Glasgow University and the Free Church of Scotland College (Edinburgh). He was a pastor for 12 years, first at Lochcarron Free Church of Scotland and then at Stornoway Free Church of Scotland (Continuing). From 2002 to 2007, he was Lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament at the Free Church Seminary in Inverness. He has a Doctor of Ministry degree from Reformation International Theological Seminary for his work relating Old Testament Introduction studies to the pastoral ministry. Dr. Murray joined the faculty of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in 2007. He is the author of Christians Get Depressed Too and the producer of God’s Technology: Training Our Children To Use Technology To God’s Glory. He also blogs at Head Heart Hand. David and his wife, Shona, have four children.

John Thackway is pastor of the Holywell Evangelical Church in North Wales. Pastor Thackway has been editor of the Bible League Quarterly since 1993. Since 2004, he has been a member of the General Committee of the Trinitarian Bible Society. He is a visiting lecturer at the London Reformed Baptist Seminary, and he has spoken at conferences throughout the United Kingdom and abroad. Pastor Thackway and his wife, Margaret, have four children and three grandchildren.

Geoffrey Thomas has been the pastor of Alfred Place Baptist Church in Aberystwyth, Wales, since 1965. He has served as the Chairman of the Grace Churches of England and Wales, and of the Association of Evangelical Churches of Wales. He studied at the university at Cardiff and earned a Master of Divinity degree from Westminster Theological Seminary. This year, Westminster Theological Seminary awarded Pastor Thomas the Doctor of Divinity degree. He has written a numerous articles and several books including Ernest Reisinger: A Biography, Philip and the Revival in Samaria, and Preaching: The Man, The Message and the Method. He has spoken at conferences throughout the United Kingdom and abroad. He is also a visiting lecturer at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. Pastor Thomas and his wife, Iola, have three daughters and nine grandchildren.

William VanDoodewaard serves as Associate Professor of Church History. Previously he served as Assistant Professor of European History at Patrick Henry College, near Washington, D.C., and as Visiting Professor of History at Huntington University. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen. He is a contributing editor for the recent reprint of the 17th century Puritan work, Edward Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity, and has written for several historical and theological journals. His research interests include the church history of Scotland and the Low Countries, and the history of Christian doctrine. An ordained minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Churches, he has served as a guest speaker and preacher for churches in the United States, Canada, and Scotland.

Malcolm Watts trained at London Bible College from 1967-70. Pastor Watts has been the minister of Emmanuel Church, Salisbury since 1971. At present, he is Chairman of the General Committee of the Trinitarian Bible Society, and Chairman of the Bible League Trust, which publishes the Bible League Quarterly. Pastor Watts is a visiting Lecturer at the London Reformed Baptist Seminary and the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary. He has spoken at conferences throughout the United Kingdom and abroad. He is the author of The Lord Gave the Word: A Study in the History of the Biblical Text, and he has co-authored The Worship of God and The Government of the Church. Pastor Watts and his wife, Gillian, have two daughters, and six grandchildren.

Take advantage of the low registration price of just $90 before it's too late. This conference will surely sell out soon. See below for additional pricing.

• College or seminary student registration (and spouse) is $25 per person.
• One day registration is $25 per person.
• Receive last year’s conference book for an additional $10 with registration to this year’s event.

Visit us online at www.puritanseminary.org and register today.

---

Click to view this email in a browser If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe

---

Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary 2965 Leonard ST NE Grand Rapids, Michigan 49525 US Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Christianity Without Christ Dr Charles Hodge

Christianity Without Christ


by Charles Hodge (1823-1886)


The following article was originally published in the Princeton Review, April 1876 (Vol. 5, Issue 18, pp. 352-362). The electronic edition of this article was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink. It is in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed. Original pagination has been kept for purposes of reference.

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW, April 1876, Page 352


In one sense of the word, Christianity is the system of truth taught by Christ and his apostles. In this sense the question, what is Christianity? is simply a historical one. It may be answered intelligently and correctly by a man who does not profess to be a Christian, just as he may answer the question, what is Brahmism? or, what is Buddhism?

In another sense, Christianity is that state of one's mind produced by faith in the truths revealed concerning Christ. In this sense, Christianity without Christ is an impossibility. It would be an effect without its proximate cause. Nevertheless, there is a form of religion, widespread and influential, which is called Christianity, in which Christ fails to occupy the position assigned to him in the Bible.

The Bible teaches us, that the same divine person by whom God for whom the universe was created, is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New. And as natural religion (in the subjective sense of the word) is that state of mind which is, or should be, produced by the revelation of God in the works of nature, and by our relation to him as his rational creatures; and as the religion of the devout Hebrew consisted in the state of mind produced by the revelation of the same God, made in the law and the prophets, and by their relation to him as their covenant God and Father; so Christianity is that state of mind produced by the knowledge of the same God, as manifest in the flesh, who loved us and gave himself for us, and by our relation to him as the subjects of his redemption.

Three things follow from this: first, as the same divine person is the Creator of heaven and Earth, the Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New, there can be no inconsistency between the religion of nature, the religion of the Hebrews, and the religion of Christians. The one does not assume that to be true, which either of the others assumes to be false. The only difference is that which arises from increased knowledge of the object of worship, and the new relations which we sustain to him. The Hebrews, in worshiping Jehovah,

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 353


did not cease to worship the God of nature; and the Christian, in worshiping Christ, does not cease to worship the God of the Hebrews.

Second, it is impossible that the higher form of religion should be merged into a lower. It is impossble that the religion of a Hebrew should sink into natural religion. That would imply that he ceased to be a Hebrew, that he rejected the revelations of Moses and the prophets, and that he renounced his allegiance to Jehovah as the God of his fathers. In like manner, it is impossible that the religion of a Christian can sink into that of the Old Testament, or into that of nature. That would imply that he ceased to be a Christian; that he rejected or ignored all that the New Testament reveals concerning God and Christ. There could be no true religion in the mind of a Hebrew that was not determined by his relation to Jehovah as his covenant God; and there can be no true religion in the mind of a Christian that is not determined by his relation to Christ as God manifested in the flesh.

Third, the Christian, in worshiping Christ, does not cease to worship the Father and the Spirit. He does not fail to recognize and appreciate his relation to the Father, who loved the world and gave his Son for its redemption; nor does he fail to recognize his relation to the Holy Spirit, on whom he is absolutely dependent, and whose gracious office it is to apply to men the redemption purchased by Christ. In worshiping Christ, we worship the Father and the Spirit; for these three are one — one only living and true God, the same in substance and equal in power and glory. Christ says, I am in the Father and the Father in me. I and the Father are one. He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father; and therefore, he that worships the Son, worships the Father. Hence, it is written, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father," but, "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." "He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life." It is to be remembered, however, that in the mysterious constitution of the Godhead, the second person of the Trinity is the Logos, the Word, the Revealer. It is through him that God is known. He is the brightness of his glory, revealing what God is. We should not know that there is a sun in the firmament,

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 354
if it were not for his (apaugasma). So we should not know that God is, or what he is, were it not for his Son. "No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall reveal him." In having Christ, therefore, we have God; for in him dwelleth the fullness of the Godhead.


It does not need to be proved that Jehovah was the God of the Hebrews; the object of their worship, of their love, gratitude, and trust. They recognized him as their absolute and rightful sovereign, whose authority extended over their inward As well as their outward life. On him they were dependent, .And to him they were responsible. His favor was their life, and they could say, "Whom have we in heaven but thee, and there is none on earth we desire beside thee."

As little does it require proof that Christ is the God of Christians. In the New Testament all divine titles are given to him. He is called God, the true God, the great God, God over all, Jehovah. He is declared to be almighty, omnipresent, immutable, and eternal. He created heaven and earth; all things visible and invisible were made by him and for him, and by him all things consist. He upholds all things by the word of his power. This divine person became flesh; he was found in fashion as a man, and in the form of a servant. Having been born of a woman, he was made under the law, and fulfilled all righteousness. He redeemed us from the come of the law by .being made a come for us. He bore our sins in his own body ,on the tree. He died the just for the unjust, to bring us unto God, and having died for our offenses, and risen again for our .justification, has ascended to heaven, where lie is seated on the right hand of God, all power in heaven and earth being committed to his hands, and where he ever lives to make intercession for his people. This Christ, God and man, in two distinct natures and one person forever, was to the writers of the New Testament all and in all. He was; their wisdom; from him they derived all their knowledge of divine things, and to his teaching they implicitly submitted. He was their righteousness; renouncing all dependence on their own righteousness, they trusted exclusively on the merit of his obedience and death for their acceptance with God. He was their sanctification. Their spiritual life was derived from him and sustained by him. They were in him as the branch is in the vine, or the members

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 355


in the body, so that it was not they who lived, but Christ who lived in them. Without him they could do nothing; they could no more bring forth the fruits of holy living separated from him than a branch can bear fruit when separated from the vine, nor than the body can live when separated from the head. They felt themselves to be in him in such a sense, that what he did, they did. They died with him. They rose with him. What he is, they become. What he has, they receive, all in their measure — that is, as much as they can hold. They are filled with the fullness of God in Him.

This being so, it follows, of course, that Christ was to them the object of divine worship and of all the religious affections, of adoration, of supreme love, of trust, of submission, of devotion He was their absolute sovereign and proprietor by the double right of creation and redemption. Love to him was the motive, his Will the rule, his glory the end of their obedience. it It was Christ for them to live. Living or dying, they were the Lord's. They enforced all moral duties out of regard to him; wives were to obey their husbands, children their parents, servants their masters, for Christ's sake. Christians were commanded not to utter a contaminating word in a brother's ear because he belonged to Christ; they endeavored to preserve their personal purity, because their bodies were the members of Christ. The blessedness of heaven in their view consisted in being with Christ, in beholding his glory, enjoying his love, in being like him, and in being devoted to his services. It is a simple fact, that such was the Christianity of the writers of the New Testament Their religious life terminated on Christ, and was determined by their relation to him. He was their God, their Saviour, their prophet, priest, and king; they depended on his righteousness for their justification; they looked to him for sanctification. He was their life, their way, their end. If they lived, it was for him; if they died, it was that they might be with him. They did not attempt to reform or to save me, on the principles of natural religion, or by a process of moral culture. These had their place, but they are inadequate and absorbed in a higher moral power. Paul, in writing to Titus, speaking of Christians before their conversion, says: "They were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving diverse lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 356


hating me another. But after the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that, being justified by grace, we should be heirs according to the promise, of eternal life." They, therefore, labored for the reformation and salvation of men, by going everywhere preaching Christ as the only Saviour from sin.

What Christianity was in the hearts of the apostles, it has been in the hearts of Christians of all ages, and in all parts of the world. Of this, every Christian has the evidence in his own experience. Christ is to him both God and man-God manifest in the flesh; God surrounded by the rainbow of humanity, which softens, diversifies, and beautifies his rays. Christ he worships, trusts, loves, and obey,. Christ is his wisdom, his righteousness, his sanctification, his redemption. Christ is ever near him, so that he can be spoken to, appealed to, and communed with; a present help in every time of needChrist is the Christian's portion for time and for eternity. With Christ he has everything, and without him he has nothing.

The experience of one Christian is the experience of all. This is the conscious bond of their union. The hymns which live through all ages, are hymns of praise to Christ. All Protestants can join with St. Bernard, when he says: "Jesus, the very thought of Thee, With sweetness fills my breast; But sweeter far Thy face to see, And in Thy presence rest. When once Thou visitest the heart, Then light begins to shine, Then earthly vanities depart; Then kindles love divine. Jesus, our only joy be Thou, As Thou our prize shalt be; Jesus, be Thou our glory now, And through eternity." "JESUS, OUR BEING'S HOPE AND END." They can also join with that other Bernard, who says of heaven: "The Lamb is all thy splendor, The Crucified thy praise, His laud and benediction, His ransomed people raise." What is true of the Christianity of the mediaeval saints, is true of believers now. Toplady's hymn "Rock of Ages, cleft for me," finds a response in every Christian heart, So does his hymn... "Compared with Christ, in all besides, No comeliness I see; The one thing needful, clearest

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 357


Lord, Is to be one with Thee." "Thyself bestow; for Thee alone, I absolutely pray." "Less than Thyself will not suffice, My comfort to restore: More than Thyself I cannot have; And Thou canst give no more." Cowper expresses the hopes and feelings of every believer in his hymn, "There is a fountain filled with blood, Drawn from Immanuel's veins; And sinners Plunged beneath that flood, Lose all their guilty stains."

Every Christian can join with Newton in saying, "How sweet the name of Jesus sounds, In a believer's cars; It soothes his sorrows, heals his wounds, And drives away his team. It makes the wounded spirit whole, And calms the troubled breast; 'Tis manna to the hungry soul, And to the weary rest." "He is a rock, a shield, a hiding-place, a never-failing treasury." "Jesus, my Shepherd, Husband, Friend, My Prophet, Priest, and King, My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, Accept the praise I bring." "When I see Thee as Thou art, I'll praise Thee as I ought." In like manner, Keble makes Christ everything to the believer. "Sun of my soul, Thou Saviour dear, It is not night, if Thou be near." "Abide with me from morn to eve, For without Thee, I cannot. live; Abide with me when night is nigh; For without Thee, I dare not die." "Come near to bless-us when we wake, Ere through the world our way we take; Till, in the ocean of Thy love, We lose ourselves in heaven above."

Wesley's hymn, "Jesus, lover of my soul," is on the lips of every English- speaking Christian. All look up to him as a guide, as their refuge, their trust, their only source of strength, as their all, more than a1l — as the source of spiritual and eternal life. In another hymn he says: "I thirst, I pine, I die to prove, The wonders of redeeming love, The love of Christ to me. Thy only love do I require; Nothing on earth beneath desire, Nothing in heaven above. Let earth, and heaven, and all things go, Give me Thy only love to know, Give me Thy only love." Again, "Oh, for a thousand tongues to sing, My dear Redeemer's praise, The glories of my God and 'King, The triumphs of his grace," etc., etc. So Dr, Watts, "Dearest of all the names above, My Jesus and my God." "Till God

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 358


in human flesh I see, My thoughts no comfort find." "But, if Immanuel's face appear, My hope, my joy begins." "Jesus, my God, Thy blood alone, Has power sufficient to atone; Thy blood can make me white as snow; No Jewish type could cleanse me so." 'To the dear fountain of Thy blood, Incarnate God I fly, There let me wash my guilty soul From sins of deepest dye." "A guilty, weak, and helpless worm, On Thy kind arms I fail, Be Thou my strength and righteousness, My Jesus and my all." Volumes might be filled with such proofs of what Christianity is in the hearts of Christians. It will be observed, it is not mainly Christ as a teacher, as an example, nor even as the expiator of our sins — it is not mainly what He has done that is rendered thus prominent; but what He is. He is God clothed in our nature, ever with 'us, ever in us — our life, our present joy, our everlasting portion; the one to whom we owe everything, from whom we derive everything, who loves us with a love that is peculiar, exclusive (that is, such a, he entertains for no other class of beings), and unspeakable.

In painful contrast with the Christianity of the Bible and of the church, there is a kind of religion, very prevalent and very influential, calling itself Christianity, which may be properly designated Christianity without Christ. It might be all that it is, though Christ had never appeared, or, at least, al. though our relation to him were entirely different from what it really is.

The lowest form of this kind of religion is that which assumes Christ to be a mere man, or, at most, merely a creature. Then, of course, He cannot be an object of adoration, of supreme love, of trust, and of devotion. The difference is absolute between the inward religious state of those who regard Christ as a creature, and that of those who regard him as God. If the one be true religion, the other is impiety.

It The second form of this religion admits of higher views of the person of Christ, but it reduces Christianity to. benevolence. And by benevolence is often meant nothing more than philanthropy. The gospel is made to consist in the inculcation of the command, Love your neighbor as yourself. All who approximately do this are called Christians. Hence it is mid, that if all records concerning Christ should be blotted out of existence, his religion could be evolved out of our own nature.

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 359


And hence, too, an avowed atheist is told, that if he sits up all night with a sick child, he is a Christian, whatever he may think. A popular poem — popular because of the sentiment which it teaches — represents the recording angel as placing at the head of those who love God, the name of the man who could only say; "Write me as one who loves my fellow-men." The love of our fellow-men is thus made the highest form of religion. This is below even natural religion. It ignores God as well as Christ. Yet this is the doctrine which we find, variously sugared over and combined, in poetry, in novels, in magazines, and even in religious journals.

The doctrine which makes benevolence, the desire or purpose to promote the happiness not of our fellow-men merely, but of being in general, or all beings, logically, and often actually, results essentially in the same thing. All religion, all moral excellence consists in benevolence, Our only obligation is so to act as to promote the greatest good. This is the motive and the end of obedience. According to the New Testament, the motive to obedience is the love of Christ, the rule of obedience is the will of Christ, and its end the glory of Christ. Every Christian is benevolent; but his benevolence does not make him a Christian; his Christianity makes him benevolent. Throughout all ages the men who have labored most and suffered most for the good of others, have been Christians — men animated and controlled by Christ's love to them, and by their love to Christ. It is evident that the spiritual life — the inward religious state — of the man to whom it is Christ to live, is very different from that of the man who lives for the happiness of the universe. A man might thus live if there were no Christ.

Another form of religion in which Christ fails to occupy his proper position, is that which assumes God to be merely a moral governor, of infinite power and benevolence. Being infinitely benevolent, he desires the well being of his kingdom. To forgive sin without some suitable manifestation of his disapprobation of sin, would be inconsistent with a wise benevolence. Christ makes that manifestation in his sufferings and death. Then he retires; henceforth we have nothing to do with him; we have to deal with God on the principles of natural religion; we must submit to his authority, obey his commandments, and

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 360


expect to be rewarded, not merely according to, but for, our works. Christ merits nothing for us, we are not to look to him for sanctification, or any other blessing. All he has done, or does, is to make it consistent with the benevolence of God to forgive sin. Forgiveness of sin, therefore, is the only benefit which God bestows on us on account of Christ.

This theory changes everything. Men me rebellious subjects. It is now consistent in God to forgive them. He calls on them to submit, to lay down their arms, then he is free to deal with them as though they had never sinned. They must merit, not forgiveness — for that is granted on account of what Christ has done — but the reward promised to obedience; justification is simply pardon. Conversion is that change which takes place in a man when he ceases to be selfish, and becomes benevolent; ceases making his own happiness the end of his life, and determines to seek the happiness of the universe. The essence of faith is love, i.e., benevolence. It is hard to see, according to this theory, in what sense Christ is our prophet, priest, and king; how He is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption; what is meant by our being in him as the branch is in the vine; or, what our Lord meant when He said, "without me, ye can do nothing;" what was in Paul's mind when he said, it is Christ for me to live, "it is not I that live, but Christ liveth in me," and so on to the end. This is a different kind of religion from that which we find in the Bible and in the experience of the church. As the religion (in the subjective sense of the word) is different, so is the preaching different, and so are the modes of dealing with sinners, and of promoting reformation among men. Some go so far as to hold, that there can be morality without religion; men are exhorted to be moral bemuse it is right, because it will promote their own welfare, and make them respected and useful. They we to become morally good by a process of moral culture, by suppressing evil feelings and cherishing such as are good ones, by abstaining from what is wrong and doing what is right.

Others take the higher ground of theism, or of natural religion, and bring in considerations drawn from our relation to God as an infinitely perfect being, our creator and preserver and father, who has rightful authority over us, who has prescribed

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 361

the rule of duty, and who rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked.


All this is true and good in its place. But it is like persuading the blind to see and the deaf to hew. This is not the gospel. Christ is the only Saviour from sin, the only source of holiness, or of spiritual life. The first step in salvation from sin is our reconciliation to God. The reconciliation is effected by the expiation made by the death of Christ (Rom. 5:10). It is his blood, and his blood alone, that cleanses from sin. As long as men arc under the law, they bring forth fruit unto death; it is only when freed from the law, freed from its inexorable demand of perfect obedience and from its awful penalty, that they bring forth fruit unto God (Rom. 7:4-6). Christ delivered us from the law as demanding perfect obedience, by being made under the law, and fulfilling all righteousness for us; and he redeems us from the curse of the law, by being made a curse for us — dying the just for the unjust, and bearing our sins in his own body on the tree. Being thus reconciled unto God by his death, we are saved by his life. He sends the Holy Spirit to impart to us spiritual life, and transforms us more and more into his own image. The Spirit reveals to us the glory of Christ and his infinite love. He makes us feel not only that we owe everything to him, but that he himself is everything to us — our present joy and our everlasting portion — our all in all. Thus every other motive to obedience is absorbed and sublimated into love to Christ and zeal for his glory. His people become like him, and as he went about doing good, so do they. All this of course, is folly to the Greek. God, however, has determined by the foolishness of preaching to save them who believe. Pulmonary consumption is more destructive of human life than the plague. So Christianity without Christ, in all its forms, the phthisis of the church, is more to be dreaded than skepticism, whether scientific or philosophical. The only remedy is preaching Christ, as did the apostles.

Two important facts are to be home in mind. First, the inward religious life of men, as well as their character. and conduct, am determined by their doctrinal opinions. Even the Edinburgh Review, years ago, said, "The character of an age is determined by the theology of that age." Therefore, any system

---

CHARLES HODGE, THE PRINCETON REVIEW 1876, Page 362


of doctrine which assigns to Christ a lower position than that which he occupies in the New Testament, must, in a like degree, lower the standard of Christianity — that is, the religious life of those calling themselves Christians. Second, nevertheless, it is equally true that men are more governed by their practical than by their speculative convictions. The idealist does not feel and act on his belief that the external world has no real existence. In like manner, the religious life of men is often determined more by the plain teaching of the Scriptures and by the common faith of the church than by their theological theories. Hence, men have often more of Christ in their religion than in their theology. It is, however, of the last importance to remember, that sound doctrine is, under God, our only security for true religion and pure morals. If we forsake the truth, God forsakes us.