(Continued from p. 418).
ANOTHER excellent answer is that to the question, What are the decrees of God? The answer being—“The decrees of God are His eternal purpose, according to the counsel of His will, whereby for His own glory, He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.” This is a judicious and scriptural statement of the high mystery of God’s foreordination of all
things. In their Confession the Westminster Divines say:—”The doctrine of this high mystery is to be handled with special prudence and care.” Dr Cunningham has said—”The consideration of this great doctrine runs up into the most profound and inaccessible subjects that can occupy the minds of men—the nature and attributes, the purposes and actings, of the infinite and incomprehensible Jehovah—viewed especially in their bearings upon the everlasting destinies of His intelligent creatures.” While the doctrine is to be handled with prudence and care, it is not to be neglected or set aside because it is difficult to understand and not popular. It is clearly set before us in Scripture, and has its place in the great temple of Truth.
The doctrine of the Fall is very clearly stated in the answers to Questions 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. The universality of the Fall is excellently stated in the Answer to Question 16—”All mankind descending from him [Adam] by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.” In the Answers to Questions 17, 18, and 19, the terrible fruits of the Fall are mentioned and clearly stated. In language noted for its scripturalness and theological exactness the Divines state the doctrines of the guilt and corruption of Adam and through him of all mankind. The teaching of the Shorter Catechism memorised from earliest years was long a barrier against the loose, unscriptural, Pelagian and semi-Pelagian views that are now so rampant in Scotland.
In the Answer to Question 18 it has been discussed what did the Westminster Divines mean by Original Sin when they say—”The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consists in the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin.” Did they mean that Original Sin is “the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature,” or did they mean that Original Sin is simply “the corruption of his whole nature?” The fact that divines have used the phrase “Original Sin” in a twofold sense renders it necessary to make some reference to this point. In answer to the question raised here, Dr Cunningham says:—”The words Original Sin, indeed, are not directly used in the Confession of Faith, but they occur both in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms; and though, in the Shorter Catechism, it might be doubted, as a mere question of grammatical construction,
whether the words, ‘which is commonly called original sin,’ applied only to the ‘corruption of his whole nature,’ which is the immediate antecedent, or included also the other ingredient or constituent elements of the sinfulness of the state into which man fell, which had been also previously mentioned, viz., the guilt of Adam’s first sin, and the want of original righteousness—yet any ambiguity in this respect is removed in the fuller exposition given under the corresponding question in the Larger Catechism, where it is plain that the statement made as to the common meaning of the words ‘original sin,’ applies it only to the corruption of our nature—the inherent depravity which is the immediate source of actual transgressions” (Historical Theology, I., 496). Dr Cunningham, however, points out that the term “Original Sin” is used in a two-fold sense by divines—”Sometimes the phrase is employed as a general comprehensive description of all the different elements or ingredients that constitute the sinfulness of the state into which man, through Adam’s transgression, fell; and sometimes as denoting only the moral corruption or depravity of his nature, the inherent and universal bias or tendency of man, as he comes into the world, to violate God’s laws, which, being the immediate or proximate cause of all actual transgressions, constitutes practically the most important and fundamental feature of his natural condition of sinfulness. It is in the latter and more restricted sense that the phrase is most commonly employed.” This is also Dr A. A. Hodge’s and Thomas Boston’s view. “Original Sin,” says Boston, “in its full extent, consists of three parts—The guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of our whole nature. The last is commonly called ‘original sin,’ as being the worst part of it.”
Sin in its origin and its fruits, affecting the whole human race, opening the floodgates of all misery in time and all the misery in eternity, is clearly set before us in the Shorter Catechism. But desperate though man’s case was by the Fall, yet it pleased God to save some, and so in answer to the question, “Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?” we have the fine answer—”God having, out of His mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” We now enter on what has been happily termed the
“Immanuel’s land of theology,” and at this stage, if under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we may, like Christian under the guidance of Piety, Prudence, and Charity, see the Delectable Mountains of Immanuel’s Land. “Then I saw in my dream,” says Bunyan, “that on the morrow that he got up to go forwards, but they desired him to stay till the next day also, and then, said they, we will if the day be clear show you the Delectable Mountains, which they said would yet further add to his comfort, because they were nearer the desired haven than the place where at present he was; so he consented and stayed. When the morning was up, they had him to the top of the house and bid him look south: so he did, and behold, at a great distance, he saw a most pleasant mountainous country beautified with woods, vineyards, fruits of all sorts, flowers also, with springs and fountains very delectable to behold. Then he asked the name of the country. They said it was Immanuel’s Land, and it is as common, said they, as this hill is, to and for all pilgrims; and when thou comest there, from thence thou mayest see to the gate of the Celestial City, as the shepherds that live there will make appear.” “God having, out of His mere good pleasure, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” In this answer the free sovereign grace of God in His people’s salvation is stated with unmistakable clearness. Man has no part or lot in providing that salvation in which the glory of the Redeemer is made great. The doctrine of election is so clearly set forth in Scripture that one wonders how any one reading the Word of God could ever call it in question. The whole work in the planning and execution of God’s salvation is all of grace. The distinction made by some of the great Puritans, such as Dr Owen, between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace is not recognised in the Westminster standards, nor by our leading Scottish evangelical divines. “The covenant of redemption,” says Boston, “and the covenant of grace are not two distinct covenants; but two names of one covenant under different considerations. By a covenant of redemption is meant a bargain of buying and selling; and the second covenant was such to Christ only (I. Pet. i. 18, 19). By a covenant of grace is meant a bargain whereby all is to be had freely; and it is such a covenant to poor sinners only” (Is. lv. 1).