1

nature. This logical result of Mrs. Eddy's hypothesis brings her creed into sharp contrast with the gospel as taught by our Lord and his apostles. It requires us to believe that Jesus did wrong to accept the worship of his disciples, and that all who have done so since the days of Jesus have been guilty of idolatry. Mrs. Eddy would have us banish even the very name of Jesus from our prayers. She is reported as saying that "worshipping the personal Jesus keeps the world on a physical basis, and in a physical belief, making such a religion largely emotional; while, on the contrary, the adoration of the Christ-Principle, which influenced Jesus and dictated his demeanor, teaches us that we can be like him, and becomes an incentive to labor for such a glorious possibility. The impersonal Christ should be the only object of worship." Observe, God the Father is not even excepted here. Bearing in mind her teaching that man's destiny is, as we saw just now, to be at last absorbed by, or somehow merged and identified with, that invisible Christ or Christ-Principle,which, even here, is but another term for the "ever-present consciousness of true manhood," and is, in fact, nothing more than perfect manhood;-remembering that she exhorts every sinner to refuse to believe himself a hateful creature, and to hold steadfastly to this thought, "I am perfect, sinless, incapable of sin," etc., and to believe that every man possesses the Christ-Mind, which belongs to the universe, 2 etc., it is easy to see that the only worship consonant with this unique system is SELF-adoration. This fact is abundantly advertised by Mrs. Eddy's oft-repeated definition of God as "the Ego."

And, finally, Mrs. Eddy identifies the Holy Spirit with Christ, and anon with her own precious doctrines! "Throughout all generations the Christ as the spiritual idea,—as the Holy Ghost, the Comforter,-has come."3 And, lest we should fancy him to be a Divine Spirit, infinitely transcend

1 Reminiscences of Class Room, p. 5. 2 Rostrum, January, 1895, p. 56.

3 Science and Health,

Pp. 228-9.

ing the "diffused thought" of Jesus, she tells us that the Holy Ghost, which "reveals this Triune Principle" of Life, Truth, and Love, "is expressed in Divine Science, which is the Comforter, leading into all truth.” 1 Her book, then, is "the spiritual idea," or Christ, and the Comforter promised by our Lord!

We fear our discussion has been too prolix. Enough has been said, we feel sure, to indicate that the remark which Mrs. Eddy puts into the mouth of "Material sense," might very properly have been used by the author herself when speaking of her own very "feeble revelation :"

"Like an airy bubble, I but expand to my own destruction, and shine with the fatal resplendency of error !" 2

Graham, N. C.

Wм. P. McCORKLE.

1Science and Health, p. 227; also, Christian Science Series, No. 2, p. 4. 2 Science and Health, p. 148.

III. THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE IN THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS.

Sin and Grace

Something ought to be said on this topic before the present interest in the work of the Westminster Assembly subsides. It has not been embraced in any of the elaborate programs used in the memorial services of Assemblies, Synods or Presbyteries: nor has it been mentioned in the religious journals, so far as we have observed. This omission is remarkable when it is remembered that the doctrine of the Covenants is peculiar to the Westminster Standards. We have searched in vain for any other instance in Schaff's Creeds of Christendom. It is still more remarkable when the prominence given to the Covenants in the Standards is considered. One entire chapter in the Confession is devoted to the subject; and the Catechisms are equally express. This is not, however, the only, nor the principal, way in which the Covenants are made prominent. They are the mould in which the Westminster Creed is cast. The plan of salvation is treated as a Covenant. are alike taught in the light of the Covenants. almost venture to say that the doctrine of the Covenants constitutes the distinctive feature of the Westminster Creed. It is certainly the distinguishing characteristic so far as the Reformed Creeds are concerned. And, as we shall see later on, the doctrine would not fit any but a Reformed Creed. The omission is due, no doubt, simply to an oversight. It is liable, however, to be misconstrued. The Rev. Dr. Francis R. Beattie, in his work, The Presbyterian Standards, says: "It is quite true that the Standards do not push the Covenant idea so far as some representatives of that type of theology, but it is evident that on broad scriptural outlines they are constructed under the control of the federal principle, both in regard to the natural and the legal relations in Adam, and in reference to the gracious and redemptive relations in Christ. There is

One might

some need to emphasize this aspect of the structural principle of the Standards at the present day, as there is a tendency in certain quarters to overlook or lay it aside."

It is plain enough now that the Westminster Assembly followed the Bible closely in the prominence given to the Covenants. We find a definite word for Covenant in both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. Not only the Word, but the elements of the Covenant, parties, condition and promises, are found there. How deeply embedded in the Scriptures the federal principle is may be learned from the parallel drawn in the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans between Adam and Christ. But it happened in the case of the Covenants as it did in relation to other great doctrines that seem to us now so plainly taught in the Scriptures. It was only after the lapse of centuries, and in many cases after heated controversies, that the Scripture doctrine was distinctly formulated and defined. It has been said that to the Greek mind and to the Greek Church was assigned the task of elaborating the doctrines of the Bible concerning the Trinity and the Person of Christ; to the Latin Church, the doctrines concerning sin and grace; to the German Church, the doctrine of justification. It may be added that it was reserved to the Dutch Church to be chiefly instrumental in developing the doctrine of the Covenants. The Westminster Assembly met just in time to reap the benefit of their labors, and to incorporate the doctrine in a full and final statement of the Reformed theology.

There is a very natural connection between the work of the Reformers, Luther and Calvin, in ascertaining and formulating the true doctrine of justification, and the subsequent work of the Dutch on the Covenants. The doctrine of the Reformers, as stated in the Shorter Catechism, is: "Justification is an act of God's free grace; wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us, and received by faith alone." The act terminates on the legal relations of man; consists of a title to eternal life as well as pardon of sin; and is grounded on

the perfect obedience of Christ to the precept as well as the penalty of the law. The act of justification secures to man far more than was possible under pure moral government. All that unmixed moral government can secure is the favor of God as long as the law is obeyed. Under such a system man's destiny must forever remain precarious. A single sin at any point in his career would alter his relation from that of innocence to that of condemnation. But the introduction of the federal principle modified moral government in two important respects. First, one was made to stand for the many. Under pure moral government every member of the human race would have stood for himself, but in the modification under the first Covenant Adam represented all his natual posterity. The representative character of Adam made it necessary also that another limitation should be placed upon pure moral government. The question of his allegiance had to be settled before the birth of the first of his posterity. Now the first of these limitations necessarily introduces the principle of imputation; and the second, the principle of justification. From this brief statement it will be seen how the apprehension of the Scripture doctrine of justification would tend to the development of the doctrine of the Covenants. No other than the federal arrangement could secure such a result as that implied in justification.

Before passing from the position of the Covenants in our Standards, we cannot forbear to refer to the important service rendered by Dr. Thornwell in this connection. From the time when we studied under him as a candidate for the ministry, we have felt that he deserved the credit of some original work in removing the obscurities that attach to the Standards when dealing with the Covenants. We are glad to see our impression confirmed by so competent a judge as the late Rev. Dr. Thomas E. Peck. We quote a brief passage from his Miscellanies, Vol. II., p. 365: "As to the nature and purpose of the Covenant of Works, the great merit of our author, it appears to us, is the clearness with which he brings out the