A treatise on Mercersburg theology or Mercersburg and modern theology compared

Contents

CHAPTER IV. page. g 19. The Office of the Ministry 58

20. Objective Faith.— -The Creed 63

CHAPTER, V.

Preface

i.

The want of a Church literature of our own, has long since been felt, and become a matter of deep concern. There are good reasons why this feeling should exist in the German Reformed Church, and should make itself heard and understood. It means something more than a desire simply for books written by ministers of our own Church. It is a longing for more, in the various departments of religious literature, of that better nature and quality, which can alone be produced by that peculiar mode of thinking, which underlies our distinctive theology. That is what the feeling means and wants, if rightly interpreted.

If we were of the same mind with other surrounding denominations, the case would be different. There would then be little room or occasion for such a feeling. We could conveniently supply ourselves

PREFACE.

from the abundant store that others have furnished. But we cannot be satisfied with what is thus offered to us; nor remain indifferent to the imperative duty that calls upon us to furnish our people and their children with a different kind of literature. We honestly and sincerely believe the teachings of our own theology, and are convinced that the prevailing religious literature of the day is unsuited to our wants, because of its rationalistic elements, calculated to enervate and undermine a sound religious faith. That is putting the true state of the case in few words.

II

We here offer an humble contribution to our denominational literature. It is designed, indirectly, to deepen and widen the feeling referred to : to show how truly we stand in need of something better and sounder, than is offered us by most of our modern writers. Those who had fondly hoped that the Church had again settled down to the comfortable conviction, that, after all, there was not much, if any, essential difference between our Mercersburg theology and the prevailing popular theology of the day, were slightly mistaken.

PREFACE.

To dispel this notion, if it really existed to any extent, and to bring the subject fresh in review before the mind of the Church, we felt induced to write out a clear, condensed and convincing statement of the manifold and important points of difference between the two systems referred to.

To do this successfully, so as to present the whole in one comprehensive view to the popular mind, and carry conviction at every point, was not an easy task* but required much labor in the way of condensing a great deal that would otherwise have filled a much larger volume, but at the expense of the particular design we had in view. A larger book, or a book encumbered with notes and quotations, would not have answered our purpose to preserve clearly and uninterruptedly the train of thought that connects the various important subjects discussed. If we have succeeded in awakening a desire for more, our object is gained, and that more will yet be abundantly furnished, by other and abler writers.

III

What of Mercersburg and Modern theology is presented in these pages, is given as it appeared to s

PREFACE, our mind in the course of our reading and studying for the last twenty years. We hold no one but ourself responsible for what may be peculiar in their subjective apprehension and reproduction. But we are not aware that we have misconstrued or misrepresented the one or the other at a single point. The attempt to fix such a charge on our production, especially in reference to modern theology, when it first appeared in a series of articles in the German Reformed Messenger, is admitted on all sides to have proved a signal failure.

The point at which our treatise is open to attack, we are told, lies in the use of the term modern theology; which some suppose to be too general and indefinite, implying more than we intend to express, and is, therefore, liable to misapprehension. It was accordingly suggested to us to define it more explicitly in the sense we use it, to avoid future misunderstandings.

It is true, "Modern Theology," like so many other modern-isms, has not been strictly defined by any previous writer; nor do we think that its friends and admirers would care to have it too strictly defined. It is apt to be stripped of its " glittering generali-

PREFACE.

ties," by the glamor of which it has found such general favor. Its strict definition, moreover, involves the principal issue between it and that theology with which it is here contrasted. But as we use the term, for the sake of brevity, rather freely, it may be well enough to explain in the outset more distinctly the sense in which it occurs in our book.

IV

To relieve the minds of all whom it may concern, we would say, then, in the first place, that those who do not hold, expressly or impliedly, the peculiar views we ascribe to modern theology, need not allow their equanimity to be disturbed. If they themselves are very clear on this point, then we beg of them to be well assured that we do not mean them or their theology, whatever it may be, or however they may choose to call it. But a great deal of the prevailing and reigning theology of the day, -as it meets us in every possible shape and form, does hold and teach, expressly or impliedly, the very things we designate as modern theology. This cannot be denied. It is too well known and understood by every body, to admit of a denial.

PREFACE.

But why call it modern theology? For this reason: because it is, in its distinctive features, a modernism; modern in its origin and conception; in no true sympathy and connection with the ancient faith and teachings of the Church, and an actual departure from the confessional and theological position of the Reformation Churches. This is the sense in which we use it. Mercersburg theology, on the contrary, is a deeper and profounder apprehension^ and, therefore, vindication of, and not a departure from, the faith and doctrines of the ancient Church and the Reformation. This is the broad distinction between them on this point, as will appear more fully in the treatment of the several subjects, to which the reader's attention is directed in these pages.

With this explanation we commend our book to a careful and thoughtful perusal, in the hope that it may prove a "source of sound instruction and real edification" to all into whose hands it may happen to fall.

Introduction

Theology is a human science, treating of divine and supernatural things. It is, therefore, liable to fail in representing a full apprehension of the subject of which it treats, and to embrace views and admit principles, which, when carried out to their logical consequences by merciless critics, are calculated to damao-e and undermine the very cause of truth, in whose interest and service they are supposed to stand. It is but, human to err, and when our theology, as a human science, is found to err, or to be defective, it is our duty to review it, and to reproduce it on more correct principles and a profounder apprehension of its doctrines. How this is to be done, is itself a point of difference, to which we may have occasion to refer.

INTRODUCTION.

Roman Catholic Theology passed through this ordeal, and was subjected to a thorough review, the result of which is a deeper and profounder apprehension of the doctrines of Christianity, as reproduced in what is known as Protestant theology, which is accepted by the most enlightened portion of Christendom.

Protestant Theology, however, was not exempt from the same liability of failing to apprehend fully the -system of doctrines, which it exhumed out of the accumulated errors of past ages, or at least to retain it pure and simple; and was subjected, especially in its modern acceptation, to the most unmerciful criticism ot German rationalism and infidelity, which induced a theological struggle, such as the world had never witnessed before. It may well be called the life-struggle of theology for the entire Church, fought on the old battle-field of the Sixteenth Century, which resulted for the second time in a triumphant vindication of the truth ; but apprehended in a deeper and profounder sense than ever before.

INTRODUCTION.

German Evangelical Theology, or theology as thus reproduced, and in part still in the act of being reproduced by the ablest and profoundest defenders of our holy Christianity the Church has ever produced, is Protestant still, over against the errors of Rome; but Catholic, at the same time, as embracing the whole truth as underlying the faith of the Church in all ages; and Evangelical, as doing full justice to the positive results of the Reformation. In Germany it is best known by what is called Evangelical Theology, being the product of the united Evangelical Church of that country, Reformed and Lutheran. In this country it is best known as Mercersburg Theology; as the Theological Professors of the Seminary located there, were the first who reproduced it in this country to meet the wants especially of our own Modern Puritanic and prevailing English and American Theology. The philosophy which underlies it, is taught in Franklin and Marshall College, transferred from Mercersburg to Lancaster.

INTRODUCTION.

Mercersburg and Modern Theology compared, form an intensely interesting subject. The difference between them, on almost every point of doctrine, is so broad and marked, as to be really startling, and withal of such vast importance as to challenge the serious attention of all, who are interested in the common cause of whic'h they treat. Being two broadly distinct systems throughout, proceeding from two entirely different modes of thinking, it is moreover impossible to accept both at the same time. We must either accept the one or the other exclusively, with all the logical consequences it involves. We cannot apply to Mercersburg theology the eclectic mode of accepting a portion of it and rejecting others. The sooner this is understood by the Reformed Church, in whose bosom it has found its home, the better it will be. To be consistent we must either give it up altogether, as a false and dangerous innovation throughout, or heartily embrace it as a whole, as the true sense and meaning of our own theological position as a Church, to the exclusion

INTRODUCTION.

entirely of the modern system, of which it is the direct opposite, so far as their distinctive features are concerned. We want more light on this subject, and more generally diffused among ministers and people. The subject has been brought in review before this; but at a time when discussion had excited the feelings and affected, perhaps, to a degree, the impartial and deliberate judgment of those who were interested in the subject. Let us see how Mercersburg and Modern theology compare, when viewed in the absence of all excitement in reference to it. Let us be fair and candid, and try to get at the truth for its own sake, and for the cause in which we are all equally interested. The brief comparison here attempted, makes of course no pretension to completeness, nor to any systematic arrangement, which is not necessary for our purpose, which is simply to present briefly the gist of their various points of difference.

MERCERSBURG AND MODERN

THEOLOGY.

Chapter I. § 1. — Anthropology

\ERCERSBURG theology has rejected

as untenable the empiricism of Locke,

which still underlies especially our

English and American theologj, and

which denies the existence of innate

ideas, and asserts that all our ideas come from

sensation and reflection; that is, have their

ground and source outside of us. The mind,

according to this theory, is constitutionally like

a blank sheet of paper, in which there is no

self-evolving power to originate an idea or

thought, except what is impressed upon it from

without, through the medium of our senses, and 2 17 reproduced into complex forms by the power of reflection. There is, accordingly, no innate basis, grounded in our nature, on which the truth of the existence of things, spiritual and supernatural, can be based, but has to be established by outside evidences alone. Instead of this bald and superficial conception of the constitution of man's nature, the logical consequences of which lead to infidelity, the anthropological premises from which Mercersburg theology proceeds, is the Grod-consciousness in man, which is inherent in our nature, being self-evident, and requiring no proof. The consciousness of sin is equally innate and self-evident. The consciousness of the need of redemption, as growing out of these, is equally so. These self-evident truths, grounded in the proper self-consciousness of man himself, need not first be established by evidences or arguments derived from other premises, and these again from others, until you are driven back into interminable perplexity and discomfiture by the sharp dialectician ; who justly demands self-evident or

MODERN THEOLOGY.

undeniable premises, from which you attempt to reason. This is one difference between the prevailing modern and Mercersburg theology. 55 " We shall have occasion to speak more particularly of the nature of evidence in its proper connection.

§ 2. — THE CENTRAL IDEA.

Another difference is in their central idea. Modern theology makes the atonement or death of Christ, Mercersburg the person of Christ or the incarnation, its central idea. The importance of this difference can be seen in the fact, for instance, that the atonement itself, or justification by faith, cannot be maintained successfully by adopting the former. According to it, the atonement is made to rest primarily on what Christ has done, not on what he is. It apprehends Christ as a mere individual, God and man

* See note 1, at the end of the volume, on Dr. B.'s criticism.

in one person, it is true, but yet as a mere individual. Mercersburg theology apprehends Christ as the embodiment of the universal life of humanity, the second Adam or federal head of the race;* and his obedience and death receive their atoning merits from this fact. When he was nailed to the cross, more than a mere individual — humanity itself — was nailed to the cross ; consequently whatever merits attach to his suffering and death belong to the race as a whole — not to one individual simply — nor to a limited number of individuals — nor to all individuals numerically considered — but to humanity as a whole (which is something more, and deeper, and broader and more universal, than any number of mere individuals), — subject to appropriation by all who claim them for their individual wants. If Christ had been but a mere individual, one among many, no such universal atonement, nor even a limited atonement, could have been possible. The merits of his death could apply no farther than to himself, and the idea of

* See note 2.

MODERN THEOLOGY.

the atonement, as available for others, falls to the ground. The idea of one individual dying for the crimes of another individual, does not satisfy the demands of justice. The doctrine of the atonement must be apprehended in. a profounder sense than this comes to, and this depends on a proper conception of the person of Christ.

§ 3. — THE PERSON OF CHRIST.

The person of Christ, from which the atonement receives ail its significance, is thus properly made the central idea in Theology ; for not only the atonement, but all other doctrines besides, must be apprehended from this central point of view. As such the doctrine of the person of Christ itself, as already intimated, has received special attention, and is apprehended more profoundly than heretofore. The points of difference between modern and Mercersburg theology, in their Christological conceptions, are numerous and of the utmost importance to the whole system of Christian doctrine.

§ 4. — THE INCARNATION.

The incarnation of the Son of God, according to modern theology, implies no more than that he assumed human nature and became an Individual Man. According to Mercersburg theology, he assumed humanity and became the Universal Man, standing related to the race as redeemed in him, as the first Adam stood related to the race as fallen in him. The humanity of the one is as broad, as universal and comprehensive as the humanity of the other. It is in this sense in which the Son of God, when he assumed human nature, became Man, by virtue of its sinless perfection in him, and thereby assumed the whole of its responsibilities to divine justice.

MODERN THEOLOGY.

§ 5. — REDEMPTION.

According to modern theology, the Son of God assumed our nature in order that through it, as a means to an end beyond himself, he might procure redemption for humanity as fallen in Adam. According to Mercersburg, the very assumption of that nature, in its sinless perfection, was itself the redemption of humanity. In him humanity stands redeemed already, as the source and fountain of the new race which proceeds from him. In him is our redemption, and by becoming one with him, it is all our own.

§ 6. — HYPOSTATICAL UNION.

The hypostatical union, or the union of the divine and human nature in the person of Christ, is real, not only in one person, but in one life, the divine-human life of the Grod-man. The terms here used and italicised, and the ideas they convey, are nowhere embodied in modern theology. It has no definite idea what life it is that is in Christ Jesus, and which is communicated to believers.

§ 7. — THE LIFE OF CHRIST.

The life of Christ, communicated to believers, carries with it, accordingly, his human as well as his divine nature. Modern theology repudiates as obsolete the whole idea, that believers partake of Christ's humanity.* But" in doing so, it must utterly and hopelessly fail to show, not only how we can become real partakers of his divine nature, but how we can become real partakers in the merits of his suffering and death, which he endured in his human nature. . If it be true, as it tells us, that we have no part in his human nature, it is bound to show how it happens that we have part in its merits, or deny this as well.

* See note 3.

MODERN THEOLOGY.

§ 8. — IMPUTATION.

Modern theology tries to help itself at this point by means of the doctrine of imputation. The merits of Christ are imputed to believers. But on this same doctrine of imputation, the same wide difference holds between the two systems. According to the modern conception, which views Christ simply as an individual, the imputation of Christ's merits to believers is a mere abstraction, without a correspdhding participation of them in fact. According to Mercersburg, the sin of our first parents is imputed to their posterity, because they are involved in it ; — and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers for the same reason, i. e., because they have part in it by virtue of their union with him.

CHAPTER IL

§ 9. — THE ATONEMENT.

^mm^O a sound Christology, there are no diffijOyv culiies to the Scriptural idea of the atonement, or vicarious sacrifice. The difficulties that present themselves hold only against the abstract modern conception of this doctrine. For instance, when the apostle says, (2 Cor. v. 21,) " Christ was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him," the question arises, in the first place, how it is reconcilable with divine justice, that Christ, who was without sin, should be accounted and treated as a sinner? and in the second place, how the reverse of this, in our case, is reconcilable with the same divine justice, namely, that

MODERN THEOLOGY.

we, who are sinners, should be accounted and treated as though we had no sin ? Both questions demand a solution, in order to vindicate the doctrine of the atonement. Let us look at the first, and then at the second of these questions.

It is correct, in a general way, to say, that both take place by imputation ; provided, we do not apprehend imputation as a mere abstraction, as is done by modern theology. It is true, the guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ, as though he, who knew no sin, were indeed a sinner. But God ever judges according to truth and justice. How, then, could the truth and justice of God hold Christ, who was sinlessly holy, responsible for the sins of the human race ? Not by setting them simply over to his account, in the abstract sense in which imputation is generally understood. Here, as elsewhere, imputation must be apprehended as something more than an abstraction. The imputation of our guilt to Christ, as in the case of Adam's guilt to his posterity, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers, is not without a participation of what is thus imputed. There must be, and there is, a perfect justice in accounting Christ responsible for our sin, though he himself was without sin. But the truth and justice in the case rest upon the fact, that he assumed our guilt by assuming our nature. The assumption of the same human nature that had sinned, on the part of a sinless Christ, did not absolve that nature from the guilt and responsibility of sin. His assumption of that nature gave justice the right to hold him answerable for the guilt of that nature; for in assuming it, he necessarily assumed all its debts and liabilities, and, therefore, placed himself under the necessity of rendering satisfaction for sin. A man, as far as he himself is concerned, may be free of debts ; but by becoming the proprietor of an estate that is covered with judgments, for the liabilities of its former owner, he becomes responsible for these debts the same as if he had incurred them himself. By assuming the proprietorship of the estate, he assumes its indebtedness, and thereby, and not necessarily by any debts contracted by himself, he becomes

MODERN THEOLOGY.

a debtor to the law, and is justly and legally bound to render satisfaction to its claims. Thus, by assuming our nature that had sinned and is under sentence of condemnation, Christ becomes a debtor to the law, and is, therefore, bound to satisfy the demands of the law, the same as if he himself had incurred the debt. The justice that accounts him responsible does not rest on any sin committed by him, or an abstract assumption of our sins, but on the assumption of our nature that had sinned. Imputation is, therefore, not an abstraction, without reason, truth and justice, but in full accordance with either and all of them. The mere fact that the human nature in the person of Christ is without sin, and perfectly holy, does not exempt it from the guilt and responsibility of sin, as little as our sanctification could justify us before God. As Protestants, we all know that our justification is not effected by our sanctification. As there can be no justification or pardon for the sinner, simply by changing or sanctifying him by the power and operation of the Holy Spirit,

MERCERSBUE.Gr AND so neither could the human nature, that had sinned, be reconciled with God, simply by the fact of Christ's assuming it by the operation of the Holy Ghost, in a state of sinless perfection, without atoning for its guilt. On the contrary, by the very assumption of that nature, he became bound to render satisfaction for its guilt, and on the rendering of that satisfaction rests its reconciliation with God. God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not simply by assuming human nature, but by suffering the penalty of the law in his own person. The assumption of our nature was a free and voluntary act on the part of the Son of God, proceeding from infinite love for a fallen race. The law neither forbade nor demanded his humiliation. But when once freely and voluntarily assumed, then the law demanded, and had a right to demand, full satisfaction for sin. This he rendered by his active and passive obedience, and forms the ground of the sinner's justification before God.

But we now come to the next question, which is precisely the reverse of the one just considered. The first is, how a perfectly righteous man can be justly and truthfully accounted and treated as a sinner ; and the next is, how guilty sinners can justly and truthfully be accounted and treated as if they were perfectly righteous ? A successful vindication of the doctrine of the atonement requires also a solution of this question, bound up and involved as it is in the former ; for " Christ was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of Grod in him." The mere fact that Christ was made sin, who knew no sin ; or, that he assumed the same human nature that had sinned, and thus placed himself under obligation to render satisfaction for sin, does not yet explain how this is done "for us;" how ii we" thereby, become the righteousness of Grod." We can understand well enough, from what has been said, that the satisfaction which he rendered to the law holds good in reference to human nature as comprehended in his own person, whether as individual, or the new federal head of the race. But this does not, in itself, enlighten us on the question, how we, individually, are affected by it. The atonement, to be of any benefit to us, must be vicarious, rendered for us, and in our stead. The doctrine is, that Christ died for us, the just for the unjust. How, then, does it happen that we have part in this objective atonement? How can the truth and justice of God look upon us sinners as being righteous, on account of the satisfaction which Christ has rendered to divine justice?

The learned Bishop Hall replies very pertinently to this question by saying: "He is made our righteousness, as he was made our sin — imputation do etfi both. 1 ' Very good; but imputation here, as in the former case, is clearly not to be apprehended as a mere abstraction, but must be in accordance with truth and justice. Imputation, as a mere abstraction, would fail to meet the case here as much as it failed in the other. Christ, who had no sin of his own, was nevertheless accounted and condemned as though he were a sinner, and that in full accordance with truth and justice, because he partook of the

SAME HUMAN NATURE THAT HAD SINNED. On

MODERN THEOLOGY.

this the imputation rested. It was this that gave it truth and justice. So in the reverse case, we, who have no righteousness of our own, are "made the righteousness of God in him, ,, because we partake, by virtue of our union with

him, OF THE SAME HUMAN NATURE THAT KNEW NO SIN, AND RENDERED SATISFACTION FOR SIN.

On this the imputation in the case rests, and it is this, and this only, that gives it truth and justice. "He was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him/'*

§ 10. — JUSTIFICATION.

Justification by faith in the merits of Christ, is, according to modern theology, simply an

* This article was penned and inserted here, as its most appropriate place, after the rest of the series had alreadybeen written and published. It was occasioned by the reading of a notice of a recent work on the same subject. It is intended, in its present connection, to show more fully how utterly powerless modern theology is to vindicate this vital doctrine, with its abstract notion of imputation, and bold rejection of our partaking of the humanity of Christ.

ME-RCERSBUBG AND outward imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. According to Catholic theology, it is the making us righteous by the regenerating and sanctifying influence of the Spirit, which Protestant theology has justly rejected. According to Oxford theology, or Puseyism (which seeks to mediate between the Catholic and Protestant idea), justification is the making us righteous by the communication of the divine life of Christ, which, being divine and holy, makes us righteous. According to Mercersburg theology, the Protestant doctrine of imputation is substantially correct, that we are accounted righteous for the sake of the merits and righteousness of Christ (his active and passive obedience whilst on earth) ; but apprehends the doctrine more profoundly, by adding, that the divine act of imputation in the case is conditioned by our actual participation in these merits, by virtue of our union with Christ. It is not simply a declaratory, but a creative act at the same time, which brings us into possession of Christ's merits, which are imputed to us for

MODERN THEOLOGY.

righteousness. The merits of Christ are therefore not, as modern theology would have it, simply set over to our account, but are made over to us in fact, in the mystical union of Christ and the believer. The merits of Christ are inseparable from his divine-human person or life, and go together in the simultaneous act of justification and regeneration, which do not follow each other in the order of time.*

§ 11.— REGENERATION.

Regeneration, according to modern theology, is, to use the most plausible form of expression, a change of heart, wrought by the operation of the Holy Spirit. To deny this is enough to cause men and women to raise up their hands in holy horror. According to Mercersburg theology, neither an outward reformation, nor an inward change of heart and mind, constitutes regeneration. These are but the results of regeneration;