Footnotes

ft1

The antiquity of this cavil, and its proper refutation, may be seen in the Cur Deus Homo of Anselm, pt. 2, chap. 10, where the topic is the impeccability of Christ. BOSO. I say, then, if He cannot sin, because, as you say, He cannot wish to, He obeys from necessity; whence, He is not righteous from the freedom of His will. Then, what favour will be due Him for His righteousness? For we are wont to say, that God, therefore, made angels and men such that they could sin; since, inasmuch as they could forsake righteousness, and could keep righteousness out of the freedom of their will, they would deserve approbation and favour, which would not be due to them were they righteous from necessity. ANSELM. Are the (elect) angels who now cannot sin, to be approved or not? BOSO. Of course they are, because this gift (that they cannot sin) they earned in this way, viz.: by not choosing to sin when they could. ANSELM. Well, what do you say about God, who is not able to sin, and yet did not earn that state by not choosing to sin while He had power to do it: isnt He to be praised for His righteousness? BOSO. I wish you would answer for me there; for, if I say He is not to be praised for it, I know I am lying; but if I say He is, I am afraid I shall spoil that argument of mine about the angels. Anselm proceeds, accepting this virtual confession of defeat, to explain: That the approvableness of the angels conduct depends, not on the question, How they came by the dispositions which prompt them to obey; but on the question, whether they have such dispositions, and act them out of their own accord: That God, in creating them with free-agency, intelligence and holy dispositions, conferred His own image on them: and that their spontaneity, though conferred, is as real, and as really moral, as Gods spontaneity, which was not conferred, but eternal and necessary. And that, if there were any force in Boses cavil, that a morally necessitated righteousness would not be free and approvable in the creature, it would be far stronger against God, whose holiness is the most strictly necessitated of all, being absolutely eternal. It is related that the famous Dr. Parr, upon hearing a young Socinian flippantly say, he would believe nothing he could not comprehend,

ft2

answered: Then, sir, you, will have the shortest creed of any young gentleman in the kingdom. ft3 See, for the true nature of belief, as distinguished from intuition or deduction, Sensualistic Philippians of the 19th Cent. Considered, Chap. 10, end. ft4 This derivation is illustrated by a comparison, plausible and interesting, if not demonstrative, with the Greek and Latin names of God, Zeuv and Jove. By consulting Gen. 24: 4, and many other places, we learn that God was known to Abraham and his family by the name Jehovah. In Gen. 26:28, we see that the Canaanites under Abimelech, of Gerar, still retained the knowledge of the true God, under the same name. The Phnician mythology is the parent of the Grecian, as the Phnician alphabet is of the Greek. Now the votaries of the comparative philology of modern days, will have Zeuv derived (by a change of Z to its cognate D,) from the sanscrit root, Dis, whose root-meaning was supposed to be splendour. To the same source they trace qeov, Deus, Divus, Dies, &c. This source may plausibly answer for the last named words. But as to Zeuv and Jove, may not another etymology be more robable? (as is confessed by some of the best Greek scholars) that Zeuv is from Zew, the primary meaning of which is fervere,) and that this verb is closely cognate to Zaw, I live, and Zwh, life. Notice, then, the strange resemblance, almost an identity, between Jehovah, and Jove. The latter, with pater, makes the Latin nominative Jupiter Jov-Pater father Jove. If this origin is true, then we have the Greek name of the chief God, Zeuv, involving the same fundamental idea; The Living One, the self-existent source of life. This is much more explanatory of the early myths touching Jove, as the Father of Gods and men, than the primary idea of the supposed sanscrit root.
ft5

For instance: the dice box being shaken and inverted, the dice may, or may not fall with their first faces uppermost ft6 See, on this point, my work on the Sensualistic Philosophy of the 19th Century; Chap. 10 Schuylers Logic Last Part. ft7 If a soul is not spontaneous cause, it is not responsible. If its spontaneity is above providence, it is a God! ft8 See a similar view, in the recently published Lectures of Dr. Thornwell. vol. 1 pp. 112-113. ft9 That the drift of the scheme makes the infant soul initially pure, may be seen from Hodge on Rom. 5:13. Theol. vol. 2, pp. 210, 203. Thornwell, vol. 1, pp. 346, 347. 349. Chalmers Theo. Institutes, vol. 1, pp. 485 and 497. ft10 See Hodges Theol. vol. 2, p. 196. Turrettin, Loc. 9, Qu. 9.

ft11

You will, some of you, recall the queer statement of Woods, in his Old and New Theology, of the geometrical illustration of conversion, given by a famous theologian of the semi-Pelagian school. The cross is the centre of attraction. The sinner is moving around it in a semi-circle, during the process of conversion, under the suasive influence of gospel truth. This finds him, at first, proceeding along the downward limb of the curve, directly towards hell. But the inducement deflects the sinner more and more, until at that point where the first quadrant ends, the . downward motion ceases, and an upward tendency is about to begin. This point marks the stage of regeneration. As gospel inducement still continues to draw, the sinner pursues more and more of an upward course. This quadrant represents the progress of sanctification, at the end of which, the sinner flies off at a tangent to heaven! ft12 Thus Augustine: Pnitentiam nomen habere a punitione, ut sit quasi punitentia, dum ipsum homo punit pnitendo, quod male admisit. ft13 See a crucial investigation of this point in my essay, Prelacy a Blunder. Southern Presbyterian Review. January 1876.