214

To this Dr. Briggs adds:

If the Church has failed thus far to advance to the inevitable consequences of this doctrine, it cannot refrain much longer from it. It must either recede to the Westminster position, or, having abandoned it for a new doctrine, it must give good reasons for the new doctrine, justify it by evidence from Scripture, and make the reconstruction of the related doctrines that is necessarily involved.

We do not hesitate to express our dissent from the Westminster ConWe are of the fession in this limitation of the Divine electing grace. opinion that God's electing grace saves all infants, and not a few of the heathen. We base our right to differ from the Westminster divines on their own fundamental principle, that the electing grace of GOD is not tied to the administration of the ordinary means of grace.

And he closes this subject with the following weighty words, in which we call special attention to what is said. of "the middle state," a new and strange doctrine among Presbyterians, and the bold statement of it shows the tremendous strides that doctrinal advance has made among those who, two hundred years ago, could agree with Samuel Rutherford without a qualm:

But it is vain to construct the doctrine of the universal redemption of infants on the ruins of the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith only. It is not necessary to destroy the Christian doctrine of the order of redempThe relief is to be found in a more comprehensive tion through CHRIST. view of redemption, and an extension of the gracious operations of GOD into the middle state, between death and the Resurrection, where the order of salvation, begun for infants and others in regeneration, may be conducted through all the processes of justification by faith, adoption, sanctification by repentance, and glorification in love and holiness, in the communion of GOD and the MESSIAH.

In treating of "the forgiveness of sin," Dr. Briggs says: "In such ways as these, recent Protestant divines undermine and destroy the vital principle of the Reformation, justification by faith only." Turretine, he tells us, "leads the way in the departure from the faith of the Reformation as to forgiveness of sins, and many recent divines follow him into worse error." Dr. C. Hodge is next severely condemned. Then we are told that "the climax of this departure from the faith of the Reformation has been attained by Dr. A. A. Hodge." And he concludes:

These specimens of modern errors might be increased in number, but. we have given a sufficient number to show that leading divines have greatly

injured the Westminster system, partly by neglecting important doctrines, but chiefly by excess in speculation; and that there are many errors of this kind that must be removed from the minds of the ministry and the people, ere they can clearly understand the Westminster Confession or the Faith of the Reformation, or can make any true progress in theology.

We have, thus far, dealt only with the first eleven. chapters of the Westminster Confession. Dr. Briggs now passes on to the second eleven chapters, which embrace--so he says "those doctrines which Orthodoxism has failed to recognise and value." These are as follows:

XII. Of Adoption. I section.

XIII. Of Sanctification. 3 sections.

XIV. Of Saving Faith. 3 sections.

XV. Of repentance unto Life. 6 sections.

XVI. Of Good Works. 7 sections.

XVII. Of the Perseverance of the Saints. 3 sections.

XVIII. Of the Assurance of Grace and Salvation. 4 sections.

XIX. Of the Law of GOD. 7 sections.

XX. Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience. 4 sections. XXI. Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day. 8 sections. XXII. Of Lawful Oaths and Vows. 7 sections.

Total of 53 sections.

This group, says our Author, "gives us the most characteristic features of Puritanism, and exhibits the advance that the Second Reformation made beyond the First Reformation and the Orthodoxy of the Continent of Europe." He continues:

It is evident at a glance that these doctrines have been neglected by modern evangelical divines. But no one can estimate the extent of their departure from the faith of their fathers until he has considered them in some detail.

It is sometimes said that Presbyterians never get beyond a certain chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. It might be said with more propriety that they do not go beyond the eleventh chapter of the Confession of Faith If the tendency of the Church at present is to advance in an ethical direction, then true progress is not only to study the closing chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, but also the characteristic doctrines of Puritanism contained in the eleven chapters that make up the middle section of the Westminster

Confession.

After commenting on the shortcomings of Dr. Charles Hodge and Dr. A. A. Hodge, he says:

The scholastic divines have so exaggerated Divine sovereignty and

216

salvation in its relations to the Divine justice, that they have little concep tion of the vital relation between CHRIST and His people established in redemption, and of the Divine Fatherhood and Human Sonship involved therein. The whole process of salvation is to them so mechanical, objective, and external, that they do not apprehend the deeper and more comprehensive relations of the redemption of mankind. The Fatherhood of GOD is one of the most precious doctrines of the Scriptures, and we rejoice that it has its due place and importance in the Westminster Symbols; but the people have been deprived of its comfort, until recent times, by the neglect of it in the teaching of so-called orthodox divines.

In treating of Sanctification, we find another most significant reference to "the middle state:"

Sanctification is a work carried on by the Divine grace until its end is accomplished in mankind. It is not immediate at the beginning of the Christian life, it cannot be immediate at any stage of the Christian life. It is not a progressive work for a certain period of time and then suddenly transformed into an act, as many Arminians and semi-Arminians teach. Some dogmatic divines are sound in their advocacy of progressive sanctification over against these errors of Antinomianism and Arminianism; but they commit an error of no less serious consequences when they affirm that sanctification becomes immediate at death. The Confession makes no such statement as this. Immediate sanctification at death is an error added on to the orthodox doctrine of sanctification that makes it inconsistent, and virtually destroys it. It is true that the Confession states that sanctification is 'yet imperfect in this life,' and that without true holiness no man shall see the LORD;' but it does not say that man is made perfect at the moment of death. The progress in sanctification goes on after death, in the middle state, until it is perfected there, and man is prepared by the processes of grace for the final judgment.

As to "Saving Faith," we are told that "the dogmatic divines have so expended their strength upon faith, as the instrument of justification; and have so narrowed and confined its meaning, in order to avoid errors in the doctrine of justification; that they have considered it merely in its first exercise, as the hand grasping the righteousness of GOD." After a quotation from Dr. A. A. Hodge on the subject, he exclaims:

The antithesis to the Confession here springs into the eye. What has Saving Faith to do with these preliminary questions of Biblical criticism? They are in the field of scientific theology. Saving Faith goes directly to GOD, when the Sacred Writings are presented to it; it finds GOD in them and does not raise or consider questions of criticism.

And he thus concludes, on the important point of growth in faith:

This doctrine of growth in Saving Faith, is one of the distinguishing features of Calvinism, and one of the most important achievements of Puritanism. It is based on the teachings of JESUS and His discrimination of the several kinds of faith. It is one of the most practical doctrines for the life and experience of every Christian. And yet the dogmatic divines ignore it, and the ministers seldom touch upon it. The effort of the Church seems to be directed chiefly to this, to induce men to simple justifying faith, and to get them to begin the Christian life. Most Christians have no conception of the wonderful possibilities of growth in faith, of the comfort that there is in store for those who are strong in faith, the joy of the victorious faith, and the holy peace of those who have attained a full assurance through CHRIST.

It is high time for Christian teachers to raise the banner of progressive religion, in which there shall be an advance in faith and sanctification. Salvation is only begun with simple faith and justification. If these do not advance, by growth in faith and sanctification, they discredit themselves and excite doubt as to their reality and vitality.

As to "Repentance unto Life," Dr. Briggs says:

This is one of the most characteristic doctrines of Puritanism, and one of the most important features of Protestant Christianity, and yet it has been so neglected by Protestant divines, that Dr. Charles Hodge, in his immense work on Systematic Theology, has no room for it at all. The Confession divides the theme into six sections, each of which is a gem of Christian theology and Christian experience. But all this is beyond the range of Traditional Orthodoxy.

Dr. Dabney has recently recognised this defect. He says: 'The brevity, and in some cases neglect, with which this prominent subject is treated by many systems is surprising and reprehensible. [Theology, p. 657.]

After various proofs of the neglect of this doctrine, Dr. Briggs concludes thus:

There can be no real revival, no solid progress in theology, that does not begin with repentance. What is faith alone worth at the beginning of a Christian life, if it is not followed by repentance that governs the whole life? What is the benefit of justification if it does not open the door to sanctification? Why should a man be regenerated if he is not to grow in grace? Why go through the agonies of conviction of sin if he is not to battle against sin until it is entirely put away? Repentance and sanctification govern the whole life of the Christian from the first moment of conversion until the day of ultimate judgment. Progressive Christianity must overcome these faults of orthodoxism, and by a reaffirmation of repentance begin a new reformation that will take up the work which the earlier reformations left incomplete, and carry it on to perfection.

218

On the fruitful subject of "Good Works," we have statements so remarkably clear and strong that our quotation must be rather full:

The Westminster Confession adheres to the Protestant doctrine of good works, making those careful definitions and distinctions that divide the Reformed Churches from the Church of Rome. It is a very remarkable development in modern Protestantism, that the principle of evangelical freedom should be so generally abandoned with its doctrines of repentance, sanctification, and holy love; and that a Puritanical and scholastic legalism should have arisen in its place, in which the sense of duty and obligation to the law of GOD dominate the Christian life. The Westminster Confession (chap. xvi) states that:

'Good works are only such as GOD hath commanded in his holy word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intention.'

It needs but a slight familiarity with the history of the Presbyterian Church, the reading of the Digest of the General Assembly, or attendance upon any General Assembly in recent years, to convince any one that the General Assembly has repeatedly violated this section of the Constitution, by prohibiting certain things that are not prohibited by the Word of God, and by commanding what the Sacred Scriptures do not command. The Presbyterian Church in the United States was divided on the question of the sin of slavery. The Southern Presbyterian Church was certainly correct in the position, that slavery is not forbidden in the Word of God; and that, therefore, according to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church, the General Assembly had no right to forbid it. Every Act against slavery in the minutes of the General Assemblies has been a violation of this section of the Westminster Confession.

The Presbyterian Church is not agreed on the question of total abstinence from intoxicating drinks. Certainly the Sacred Scriptures do not prescribe total abstinence, and therefore the Presbyterian Church has no right to prescribe it. Every deliverance of General Assemblies in favor of total abstinence has violated this law of the Confession of Faith. Dr. Charles Hodge correctly expounded the Confession when he said :

'Nothing that the Bible pronounces true can be false; nothing that it declares to be false can be true; nothing is obligatory on the conscience but what it enjoins; nothing can be sin but what it condemns. If, therefore, the Scriptures under the Old Dispensation permitted men to hold slaves, and if the New Testament nowhere condemns slave-holding, but prescribes the relative duties of masters and slaves, then to pronounce slave-holding to be in itself sinful is contrary to the Scriptures. In like manner, if the Bible nowhere condemns the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, if our LORD himself drank wine, then to say that all use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage is sin, is only one of the many forms of the infidelity of benevo lence. It is as much contrary to our allegiance to the Bible to make our own notions of right or wrong the rule of duty as to make our own reason the rule of faith.' [A. A. Hodge, Life of Charles Hodge, p. 334. New