Showing posts with label Charles Hodge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charles Hodge. Show all posts

Saturday, February 26, 2011

The Threefold Love of God

Besides his special love to the elect, orthodox Reformed divines speak of God's general love towards his creatures, as creatures, including all men, made in his own image, whether reprobate or elect. The command of Christ to love our enemies as even our Heavenly Father does is a clear demonstration of this truth. Moreover, the Incarnation itself is proof of God's love for man. Citing Wolfgang Musculus, Loci communes, XLVIII (Commonplaces, pp. 961-963), Richard Muller writes: "There could be no greater indication of the love of God for humanity than this personal union of human nature with the divine nature" (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 3.563). The select extracts which follow demonstrate the consistent understanding of Reformed divines, that, because God is love, and this attribute is essential to himself, the general, benevolent love of God towards all his works of creation, is consistent with his special, discriminating, or electing love, to his chosen ones.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 1 (Twentieth Question), p. 241:

IV. From goodness flows love by which he communicates himself to the creature and (as it were) wills to unite himself with and do good to it, but in diverse ways and degrees according to the diversity of the objects. Hence is usually made a threefold distinction in the divine love: the first, that by which he follow creatures, called "love of the creature" (philoktisia); the second, that by which he embraces men, called "love of man" (philoanthropia); the third, which is specially exercised towards the elect and is called "the love of the elect" (eklektophilia). For in proportion as the creature is more perfect and more excellent, so also does it share in a greater effluence and outpouring (aporroen) of divine love. Hence although love considered affectively and on the part of the internal act is equal in God (because it does not admit of increase or diminution), yet regarded effectively (or on the part of the good which he wills to anyone) it is unequal because some effects of love are greater than others.

Edward Leigh, A Treatise of Divinity, II.viii (p. 71) (quoted by Richard A. Muller, PRRD 3.566):

God's love to Christ is the foundation of his love to us, Matt. 3:17; Ephes. 1:6.
God loves all creatures with a general love, Matt. 5:44, 45, as they are the work of his hands; but he doth delight in some especially, whom he hath chosen in his Son, John 3:16; Ephes. 1:6.

John Collinges, in Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. 3, p. 26 (re Matt. 5.45):

As your heavenly Father hath a common love, which he extendeth to all mankind, in supplying their necessities, with the light and warmth of the sun, and with the rain; as well as a special love and favour, which he exerciseth only toward those that are good, and members of Christ; so ought you to have: though you are not obliged to take your enemies into your bosom, yet you ought to love them in their order. And as your heavenly Father, though he will one day have a satisfaction from sinners, for the wrong done to his majesty, unless they repent; yet, to heap coals of fire on their heads, gives them good things of common providence, that he might not leave them without witness, yea, and affords them the outward means of grace for their souls: so, although you are bound to seek some satisfaction for God's honour and glory from flagitious sinners, and though you may in an orderly course seek a moderate satisfaction for the wrong done to yourselves, yet you ought to love them with a love consistent with these things; that so you may imitate your heavenly Father, and approve yourselves to be his children.

Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service I.3.33, Vol. 1 (1999 ed.), pp. 123-124:

The love of His benevolence is either general as it relates to the manner in which God delights in, desires to bless, maintains, and governs all His creatures by virtue of the fact that they are His creatures (Psa. 145:9), or it is special. This special love refers to God's eternal designation of the elect to be the objects of His special love and benevolence. This finds expression in the following texts, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16); "As Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it" (Eph. 5:25).

William Jenkyn, An Exposition Upon the Epistle of Jude, p. 36:

1. There is a love of God to man, though without passion, sympathy, or any imperfection or weakness; these being attributed to him only to relieve the weakness either of our faith or apprehensions. And this love is,

(I.) Considered as a love of desire; as love desires to be carried to the union of the thing beloved. This desire of union with man God shows many ways; as, I. By being near unto, nay, present with him, by his universal care and providence; he being " not far from every one of us : for in him we live," &c., Acts xvii. 27, 28. 2. By assuming the nature of man into a personal conjunction with himself in the Mediator, Christ. 3. By conversing with man by signs of his presence, extraordinary visions, dreams, oracles, inspiration; and ordinarily by his holy ordinances, wherewith his people, as it were, abide with him in his house. 4. By sending his Holy Spirit to dwell in man, and bestowing upon man the Divine nature. 5. By taking man into an eternal habitation in heaven, where he shall be ever in his glorious presence, Psal. xvi. 11.

(2.) There is a love of God to man, considered as a love of benevolence, or of good-will, or of willingness to do good to the thing beloved: what else was his eternal purpose to have mercy upon his people, and of saving them, but, as it is expressed concerning Jacob, this loving them? Rom. ix. 13. And to whom can a will of doing good so properly agree, as to Him whose will is goodness itself?

(3.) There is a love of God to man, considered as a love of beneficence, bounty, or actual doing good to the thing beloved. Thus he bestows the effects of his love, both for this life, and for that which is to come. And the benencence of God is called love; "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God," 1 John iii. 1. And John iii. 16, "God so loved the world, that he gave," &c. By this love of beneficence he bestows the good things of nature, grace, and glory. God does good to every creature, hating, though the iniquity of any one, yet the nature of none; for the being of every creature is good, Gen. i. 31, and God has adorned it with many excellent qualities. According to these loves of benevolence and benencence, God loves not his creatures equally, but some more than others; inasmuch as he wills to bestow, and also actually bestows, greater blessings upon some than upon others. He makes and preserves all creatures, but his love is more especially afforded to mankind; he styles himself from his love to man, Tit. iii. 4, and not from his love to angels, or any other creature. He is called [Gk.], a lover of man, but never [Gk.], or [Gk.], a friend of angels or creatures without man. His love is yet more peculiarly extended to man in creating him after his own image, Gen. i. 27, and in giving him lordship over the creatures, Psal. viii. 5; in giving his Son to take upon him man's nature, Heb. ii. 16, and exalt it above heavens (Matt, xxviii. 18) and angels, to die for sinning, dying man; offering him to man hi the dispensation of the gospel with wooing and beseechings. And yet of men he loves some more especially and peculiarly than others; namely, those whom he loves with an electing, calling, redeeming, justifying, glorifying love. God loves all creatures, and among them the rational, and among them the members of his Son, and much more the Son himself.

(4.) There is a love of God to man, considered as a love of complacency, and delight in the thing beloved. He is pleased through his Son with his servants; and he is much delighted with his own image wheresoever he finds it. He is pleased with the persons and performances of his people: "He hath made us accepted in the Beloved." "The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him," Psal. cxlvii. 11. They reflecting his excellencies, and showing forth his virtues; he rejoicing over them with joy, and resting in his love, Zeph. iii. 17: accounting a believer amiable; his soul, a lesser heaven; his prayers, melody; his sighs, incense; his stammerings, eloquence; his desires, performances.


Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 70-71:

a. The goodness of God towards His creatures in general. This may be defined as that perfection of God which prompts Him to deal bountifully and kindly with all His creatures. It is the affection which the Creator feels towards His sentient creatures as such. The Psalmist sings of it in the well known words: "Jehovah is good to all; and His tender mercies are over all His works...The eyes of all wait for thee; and thou givest them their food in due season, Thou openest thy hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living creature," Ps. 145:9,15,16. This benevolent interest of God is revealed in His care for the creature's welfare, and is suited to the nature and the circumstances of the creature. It naturally varies in degree according to the capacity of the objects to receive it. And while it is not restricted to believers, they only manifest a proper appreciation of its blessings, desire to use them in the service of their God, and thus enjoy them in a richer and fuller measure. The Bible refers to this goodness of God in many passages, such as Ps. 36:6; 104:21; Matt. 5:45; 6:26; Luke 6:35; Acts 14:17.

b. The love of God. When the goodness of God is exercised towards His rational creatures, it assumes the higher character of love, and this love may again be distinguished according to the objects on which it terminates. In distinction from the goodness of God in general, it may be defined as that perfection of God by which He is eternally moved to self-communication. Since God is absolutely good in Himself, His love cannot find complete satisfaction in any object that falls short of absolute perfection. He loves His rational creatures for His own sake, or, to express it otherwise, He loves them in Himself, His virtues, His work, and His gifts. He does not even withdraw His love completely from the sinner in his present sinful state, though the latter's sin is an abomination to Him, since He recognizes even in the sinner His image-bearer. John 3:16; Matt. 5:44,45. At the same time He loves believers with a special love, since He contemplates them as His spiritual children in Christ. It is to them that He communicates Himself in the fullest and richest sense, with all the fulness of His grace and mercy. John 16:27; Rom. 5:8; I John 3:1.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, p. 427:

Goodness, in the Scriptural sense of the term, includes benevolence, love, mercy, and grace. By benevolence is meant the disposition to promote happiness; all sensitive creatures are its objects. Love includes complacency, desire, and delight, and has rational beings for its objects. Mercy is kindness exercised towards the miserable, and includes pity, compassion, forbearance, and gentleness, which the Scriptures so abundantly ascribe to God. Grace is love exercised towards the unworthy. The love of a holy God to sinners is the most mysterious attribute of the divine nature. The manifestation of this attribute for the admiration and beatification of all intelligent creatures, is declared to be the special design of redemption.

John Gill, A Body of Divinity, p. 79:

All that God has made is the object of his love; all the works of creation, when he had made them, he looked over them, and saw that they were good, very good, Gen. i. 31. he was well pleased, and delighted with them; yea, he is said to rejoice in his works, Psal. civ. 31. he upholds all creatures in their beings, and is the Preserver of all, both men and beasts; and is good to all, and his tender mercies over all his works, Psalm xxxvi. 6. and cxlv. 9. and particularly, rational creatures are the objects of his care, love, and delight: he loves the holy angels, and has shewn his love to them in choosing them to happiness; hence they are called elect angels, 1 Tim. v. 21. by making Christ the head of them, by whom they are confirmed in the estate in which they were created, Col. ii. 10. and by admitting them into his presence, allowing them to stand before him, and behold his face, Matt. xviii. 10. yea, even the devils, as they are the creatures of God, are not hated by him, but as they are apostate spirits from him: and so he bears a general love to all men, as they are his creatures, his offspring, and the work of his hands; he supports them, preserves them, and bestows the bounties of his providence, in common upon them, Acts xvii. 28. and xiv. 17. Matt. v. 45. but he bears a special love to elect men in Christ; which is called his great love, Eph. ii. 4. whom he has chosen and blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, Eph. i. 3, 4. and which love is distinguishing and discriminating, Mal. i. 1, 2. Rom. ix. 11, 12.

James Ussher, A Body of Divinity, p. 55-58:

What is the Love of God?
It is an Essential Property in God, whereby he loveth himself above all, and others for himself, 1 John 4:16; Rom. 5:8; John 3:16; Titus 3:4; Mal. 1:2, 3.

What learn you from hence?
That we should love him dearly, and other things for him.

That we may the better know what the Love of God is, declare first, What Love is in our selves?
It is a passion of the Mind, whereby we are so affected towards the Party whom we love, that we are rather his than our own, forgetting ourselves to do him good whom we so love.

And is love such a thing in God?
No: the true Love of God is not such as our Love is.

What difference is there?
There is great difference two ways. First, In time: for Love was in God before it was in us, or in anything created; for he loved himself and us also before the World was, John 17:23. Secondly, They differ in nature and quality: for that Love which is in God is most perfect and pure, without passion; but in us it is imperfect, and matched with Passions, with impure Affections, and grief of the mind.

After what manner doth the Scripture express the Love of God?
In the Scriptures God doth compare himself to a Father and to a Mother loving their Children; to a Hen gathering her Chickens together under her Wings; to a good Shepherd seeking up his Sheep, and to divers other things.

And wherefore serve these Comparisons?
They are for our profit two ways. First, To shew us that God's Love towards us, is most vehement and sincere. Secondly, To make us bold in coming to him, and calling upon him. So for this Love Christ Jesus calleth us by all the Names of Love: as his Servants, his Kinsmen, His Friends, his Spouse, his Brethren, and by many names more: to shew, that he loveth us with all loves, the Father's Love, the Mother's Love, the Masters Love, the Husbands Love, the Brothers Love, &c. and if all Loves were put together, yet his Love exceedeth them all: for all could not do so much for us as he alone hath done.

If Love doth not signify any Affection or Passion in God, as it doth in us: What then doth it signify?
In God it signifieth three things most perfect. First, The eternal good Will of God towards some Body: for the Love of God (suppose towards the Elect) is his everlasting good Will, or his purpose and determination to shew them Mercy, to do them Good, and to save them, as in Rom. 9:11, 13. Secondly, The effects themselves of this Love or good Will; whether they be temporal concerning this Life, or eternal concerning the Life to come, as in 1 John 3:1. Thirdly, The pleasure and delight which he taketh in that which he loveth: and so it is taken in Psalm 45:7.

That things doth God love besides himself?
Besides himself, God loveth all things else whatsoever he made: but he loveth not sin and iniquity; for he never made it, as St. John saith, 1 John 2:16. Again, he loveth his Son, being manifested in the flesh; and he loveth his chosen Children for his Sons sake, with whom he is well pleased, Matt. 3:17.

Object. 1. The Scripture saith, That God doth hate all that work Iniquity: How then can God both hate and love one and the same Man?
In every wicked Man we must consider two things. First, His Nature. Secondly, His Sin. His Nature is the Work of God, and that he loveth: but his iniquity is not of God, and that he hateth.

Object. 2. God doth afflict his Children; therefore he doth not love them.
Whom he loveth he correcteth, (Prov. 3:12) and therefore he correcteth them because he loveth them; even as a Gold-smith tryeth his Gold in the fire, because he loveth it.

Whether doth God love all alike, or no?
No: he preferreth Mankind before all his other Creatures; for which cause God is called Philanthropos, that is, a Lover of Men. And this appeareth by three effects of his Love.
First, He made him according to his own Image; that is, in Righteousness and true Holiness, Gen. 1:26; Eph. 4:24.
Secondly, He made him Lord over all his Creatures, Psalm 8:5, 6.
Thirdly, He gave his own Son to death for his ransom.

Doth God love all men alike?
No: for he loveth his Elect better than the Reprobate. For the Elect he calleth effectually by his Spirit in their Hearts, when he calleth others but by the outward Voice of the Gospel, &c.
Again, amongst the Elect themselves, some are actually Wicked, and not yet reconciled nor called; as was Paul before his Conversion. But the rest are called and already made holy by Faith in Christ, as Paul was after his Conversion. And of these, he loveth the latter sort with a greater measure of love than the former, as the Scripture testifieth, Prov. 8:17.

What manner of Love doth God bear to his Elect?
It hath three adjuncts or properties. First, It is free without desert.
Secondly, It is great without comparison.
Thirdly, It is constant without any end.

How is the Love of God said to be free?
It is free two ways. First, Because nothing caused God to love us, but his own Goodness and Grace: and therefore St. John saith, that his Love was before ours, 1 John 4:10.
Secondly, It is free, because God in loving us, did not regard any thing that belonged to his own Commodity: for, as David saith, Psalm 16:2, he hath no need of our Goods; but only to our own Salvation he loved us.

Wherein doth the Greatness of God's Love appear to his Elect?
It appeareth two ways. 1. By the means which God used to save us by, that is, the death of his Son: and so St. John setteth forth his Love, John 3:16; 1 John 3:16, when he saith ου'τω, that is, So, (as if he should say, so vehemently, so ardently, so earnestly, so wonderfully) did he love us, that for our Salvation he spared not his own only begotten Son, but gave him to the death of the Cross for our Salvation.

What else doth set forth the greatness of God's Love unto us?
The consideration of our own selves. For he did not only give his only Son to death for us, but it was for us being his Enemies. And this Circumstance is used by the Apostle to express the same, Rom. 5:7, 8.

Where find you it written, that God's Love is constant and perpetual?
That is manifestly shewed in these Scriptures following, Hos. 11:9; John 13:1; Rom. 11:29. For as God is unchangeable in His Essence and Nature; so is he unchangeable in his Love, which is his Essence and Nature: and therefore is God called Love in the Scriptures, 1 John 4:8.

What use must we make of God's Love?
First, It filleth our hearts with gladness, when we understand that our God is so loving, and Love itself: and what is this but the beginning of eternal Life? if eternal Life consists in the true knowledge of God, as our Saviour Christ saith, John 17:3.

Secondly, Out of knowledge of this Love, as out of a Fountain, springeth the Love of God and our Neighbor. For St. John saith, He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is Love, 1 John 4:8.

Thirdly, When we consider that God loveth all his Creatures which he made, it should teach us not to abuse any of the Creatures, to serve our Lusts and beastly Affections. For God will punish them which abuse his beloved; as he punished the rich Glutton, which abused the Creatures of God, Luke 16.

Fourthly, We are taught to love all the Creatures, even the basest of all, seeing that God loveth them, and for the love he beareth to us he made them: and we must (if we love them for God's sake) use them sparingly, moderately, and equally or justly. To this end we are commanded to let our Cattle rest upon the Sabbath day, as well as our selves: to this end we are forbidden to kill the Dam upon her Nest; and to this end we are forbidden to muzzle the Mouth of the Ox which treadeth out the Corn, Deut. 25:4; 1 Cor. 9:9.

Fifthly, We are taught from hence to love Mankind better than all other Creatures, because God doth so: and therefore we must not spare any thing that we have, that may make for the safety of his Body, and the salvation of his Soul. And for this cause, we are commanded to love our Enemies, and to do them good; because our good God doth so.

Sixthly, From God's Love, we learn to prefer the Godly Brethren, and those that profess sincerely the same Religion that we profess before other Men: because God's Love is greater to the Elect, than to the Reprobate: and this doth the Apostle teach us, Gal. 6:10.

Seventhly, Whereas God's Love is freely bestowed upon us, this teacheth us to be humble, and to attribute no part of our Salvation to our selves, but only to the free Love of God.

Eighthly, From hence ariseth the certainty of our Salvation. For if God's Love was so free and great when we were his Enemies, much more will it be so, and constant also to us, being reconciled to God by Jesus Christ, Rom. 5:10.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Rowling

Before Harry Potter, a different sort of Rowling made an impression upon 19th century Princeton divinity students:

Charles Hodge, Princeton Theological Seminary: A Discourse Delivered at the Re-Opening of the Chapel, September 27, 1874, pp. 18-20:

As to the method of instruction adopted by our first professors little need be said. They both used text-books where they could be had. Dr. Alexander's text-book in theology was Turrettin's Theologia Elenchtica, one of the most perspicuous books ever written. In the discussion of every subject it begins with the Status Quaestionis, stating that the question is not this or that; neither this nor that, until every foreign element is eliminated, and then the precise point in hand is laid down with unmistakable precision. Then follow in distinct paragraphs, numbered one, two, three, and so on, the arguments in its support. Then come the Fontes Solutionum, or answers to objections. The first objection is stated with the answer; then the second, and so on to the end. Dr. Alexander was accustomed to give us from twenty to forty quarto pages, in Latin, to read for a recitation. And we did read them. When we came to recite, the professor would place the book before him and ask, What is the State of Question? What is the first argument? What is the second, &c? Then what is the first objection and its answer? What the second, &c? There were some of my classmates, Dr. Johns the present bishop of the Episcopal Church in Virginia, for example, who would day after day be able to give the State of the Question, all the arguments in its support in their order, all the objections and the answers to them, through the whole thirty or forty pages, without the professor saying a word to him. This is what in the College of New Jersey used to be called rowling. Whatever may be thought of this method of instruction, it was certainly effective. A man who had passed through that drill never got over it. Some years ago I heard the late Bishop McIlvaine preach a very orthodox sermon in the Episcopal Church in this place. When we got home, it being a very warm day, he threw himself on the bed to rest. In the course of conversation he happened to remark that a certain professor failed to make any marks on the minds of his students. I said to him, "Old Turrettin, it seems, has left his mark on your mind." He sprang from the bed, exclaiming, "That indeed he has, and I would give any thing to see his theology translated and made the text-book in all our Seminaries." The Jesuits are wise in their generation, and they have adopted this method of instruction in their institutions.

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Conversion Not the Whole of Religion

Charles Hodge, The Way of Life, p. 204:

It is natural for those who have experienced the agitations which frequently attend upon conversion, and have felt the peace which flows from a hope of acceptance with God, to imagine that the conflict is over, the victory won, and the work of religion accomplished. This imagination is soon dissipated. Birth is not the whole of life; neither is conversion the whole of religion. A young mother may, in the fulness of her joy, forget for a moment the great duties of her vocation that lie before her; but when she looks upon her infant, so wonderful in its organization, and instinct with an immortal spirit, she feels that it is entirely dependent. An hour's neglect might prove its ruin. Thus the young Christian, although at first disposed to think that his work is finished, soon finds that the feeble principle of spiritual life needs to be watched and nourished with ceaseless care. If abandoned at its birth, it must perish as certainly and as speedily as an exposed infant.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Sublimity

J.W. Alexander, The Life of Archibald Alexander, D.D.: First Professor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 29-31:

But in this same valley, and not very remote from the objects of which I have spoken, there is one which, I think, produces the feeling which is denominated the sublime, more definitely and sensibly than any that I have ever seen. I refer to the Natural Bridge, from which the county takes its name. It is not my object to describe this extraordinary lusus naturae, as it may be called. In fact, no representation which can be given by the pen or pencil can convey any adequate idea of the object, or one that will have the least tendency to produce the emotion excited by a view of the object itself. There are some things, then, which the traveller, however eloquent, cannot communicate to his readers. All I intend is, to mention the effect produced by a sight of the Natural Bridge on my own mind. When a boy of fourteen or fifteen, I first visited this curiosity. Having stood on the top, and looked down into the deep chasm above and below the bridge, without any new or very strong emotions, as the scene bore a resemblance to many which are common to that country, I descended by the usual circuitous path to the bottom, and came upon the stream or brook some distance below the bridge. The first view which I obtained of the beautiful and elevated blue limestone arch, springing up to the clouds, produced an emotion entirely new; the feeling was as though something within sprung up to a great height by a kind of sudden impulse. That was the animal sensation which accompanied the genuine emotion of the sublime. Many years afterwards, I again visited the bridge. I entertained the belief, that I had preserved in my mind, all along, the idea of the object; and that now I should see it without emotion. But the fact was not so. The view, at this time, produced a revival of the original emotion, with the conscious feeling that the idea of the object had faded away, adn become both obscure and diminutive, but was now restored, in an instant, to its original vividness, and magnitude. The emotion produced by an object of true sublimity, as it is very vivid, so it is very short in its continuance. It seems, then, that novelty must be added to other qualities in the object, to produce this emotion distinctly. A person living near the bridge, who should see it every day, might be pleased with the object, but would experience, after a while, nothing of the vivid emotion of the sublime. Thus, I think, it must be accounted for, that the starry heavens, or the sun shining in his strength, are viewed with little emotion of this kind, although much the sublimest objects in our view; we have been accustomed to view them daily, from our infancy. But a bright-coloured rainbow, spanning a large arch in the heavens, strikes all classes of persons with a mingled emotion of the sublime and beautiful; to which a sufficient degree of novelty is added, to render the impression vivid, as often as it occurs. I have reflected on the reason why the Natural Bridge produces the emotion of the sublime, so well defined and so vivid; but I have arrived at nothing satisfactory. It must be resolved into an ultimate law of our nature, that a novel object of that elevation and form will produce such an effect. Any attempt at analyzing objects of beauty and sublimity only tends to produce confusion in our ideas. To artists, such analysis may be useful; not to increase the emotion, but to enable them to imitate more effectually the objects of nature by which it is produced. Although I have conversed with many thousands who had seen the Natural Bridge; and although the liveliness of the emotion is very different in different persons; yet I never saw one, of any class, who did not view the object with considerable emotion. And none have ever expressed disappointment from having had their expectations raised too high, by the description previously received. Indeed, no previous description communicates any just conception of the object as it appears; and the attempts to represent it by the pencil, as far as I have seen them, are pitiful. Painters would show their wisdom by omitting to represent some of the objects of nature, such as a volcano in actual ebullition, the sea in a storm, the conflagration of a great city, or the scene of a battle-field. The imitation must be so faint and feeble, that the attempt, however skilfully executed, is apt to produce disgust, instead of admiration.

Letter from Charles Hodge to his wife Sarah, dated May 28, 1828, in A.A. Hodge, The Life of Charles Hodge D.D. LL.D. Professor in the Theological Seminary Princeton N.J., p. 197:

My Beloved Sarah: -- I have seen the Alps! If now I never see any thing great or beautiful in nature, I am content. I felt that as soon as I saw you, I could fall at your feet and beg you to forgive my beholding such a spectacle without you, my love. You were dearer to me in that moment than ever. I left Basel about one o'clock with a young English gentleman for Lucerne. We rode about fifteen miles and arrived at the foot of a mountain. As the road was steep and difficult, we commenced walking up the mountain in company with two Swiss gentlemen. We ascended leisurely for about two hours before we reached the top. I was walking slowly with my hands behind me, and my eyes on the ground, expecting nothing, when one of the Swiss gentlemen said with infinite indifference -- "Voila les Alpes." I raised my eyes -- and around me in a grand amphitheatre, high up against the heavens, were the Alps! It was some moments before the false and indefinite conceptions of my life were overcome by the glorious reality. The declining sun shed on the immense mass of mingled snow and forests the brightness of the evening clouds. This was the first moment of my life in which I felt overwhelmed. Every thing I had ever previously seen seemed absolutely nothing. The natural bridge in Virginia had surprised me -- the Rhine had delighted me -- but the first sudden view of the Alps was overwhelming. This was a moment that can never return; the Alps can never be seen again by surprise, and in ignorance of their real appearance.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Validity of Roman Catholic Baptism

The question of the validity of Roman Catholic baptism has been a thorn in the American Presbyterian Church since

James Henley Thornwell in the 19th Century squared off against Charles Hodge in an extensive debate that started on the floor of the Presbyterian (Old School) General Assembly and spilled over later into the Princeton Review, the Watchman and Observer, and the Southern Presbyterian Review. Thornwell rejected Roman Baptism, while Charles Hodge accepted its validity.

Before that time, the general consensus of the Reformed Church was that the Roman Catholic Church had indeed become apostate, but was in some sense still a church. Antichrist was correctly identified as the Papacy by the Reformed Church, in part because the man of sin "sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2.4).

(Both Thornwell and Hodge agreed that the Roman Papacy was Antichrist. The Westminster Confession's affirmation of this doctrine was not removed until 1903, when the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (the Northern Presbyterian Church, or PCUSA) did so.)

Peru Mission was forced to address this issue because of its missionary efforts in Roman Catholic territories, and having investigated the question of whether re-baptism is required of converts from Catholicism, is to be commended for publishing the fruits of its research as The Reformed Churches and Roman Catholic Baptism: an Anthology of Principle Texts. I commend this work as a valuable resource for those who may wish to study the issue for themselves. It cites both pre- and post-Council of Trent Reformed writers who addressed and affirmed the validity of Roman baptism, addressing also the subject of the Roman mass, and Roman ordination, in the context of Rome as an apostate church which is yet a church materially considered. Those who wish to delve into these questions will do well to study this anthology.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Happy 200th Birthday Joseph A. Alexander!

Joseph Addison Alexander was born 200 years ago on April 24, 1809 in Philadelphia. The son of Archibald Alexander and brother of James Waddel Alexander (and William Cowper Alexander -- Cowper, the poet, was certainly appreciated in the Alexander family), J.A. Alexander went on to become one of America's premier 19th century Biblical scholars.

He wrote commentaries on Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, Acts and the Psalms. His sermons were published (and highly regarded), along with other works including a geography of the Bible (with his brother James) and essays on primitive church polity. His literary output was rich, especially considering that he died young, in his 52nd year of life. His letters and a few poems have been published as well. He died without last words, seemingly suddenly, and he was mourned by all. After his death at Princeton, where he had graduated and served the seminary in various capacities as professor for many years, in 1860, Charles Hodge addressed the next meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America with a moving tribute to his dear friend as he sought for the appointment of a new professor to be assigned to Princeton.

A.A. Hodge, The Life of Charles Hodge, pp. 444-445:

In the death of Joseph Addison Alexander we have lost our great glory and defense....I regard Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander as incomparably the greatest man our church has ever produced. His intellect was majestic not only in its greatness but in its harmonious proportions. No faculty was in excess, and none was in defect. His understanding, imagination and memory were alike wonderful. Everything was equally easy to him. Nothing he ever did seemed to reveal half his power. His attainments in classical, oriental and modern languages and literature were almost unexampled. His stores of biblical, historical and antiquarian knowledge seemed inexhaustible. To all these talents and attainments were added great force of character, power over the minds of men, and a peculiar facility in imparting knowledge. His thorough orthodoxy, his fervent piety, humility, faithfulness in the discharge of his duties, and reverence for the Word of God, consecrated all his other gifts. His complete mastery of every form of modern infidelity enabled him to vindicate the Scriptures as with authority. He glorified the Word of God in the sight of his pupils beyond what any I ever saw had the power of doing. Princeton is not what it was, and can never expect to be what it has been. You cannot fill his place. The only compensation for such a loss is the presence of the Spirit of God.

He was buried in the family plot at Princeton Cemetery, but "he being dead yet speaketh" (Heb. 11.4), and his beloved memory is cherished by those who have read his rich writings. As Matthew Poole said, "Ministers are living Books, and Books are dead Ministers; and yet though dead, they speak. When you cannot heare the one, you may read the other."

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to rightousness as the stars for ever and ever. Dan. 12.3