It is evident from these scriptures that the great centralities of the gospel — the pre-existence of Christ, his incarnation, his atoning death, his resurrection from the dead — are expressed in the indicative mood. These great central facts of the gospel are not — indeed, they could not be — expressed in the imperative mood which denotes a command, a request, an exhortation; they are not — indeed, they could not be — expressed in the subjunctive mood which denotes that which is contingent, hypothetical, or prospective. No, these great central facts of the gospel are expressed in the Scriptures in the only mood that is consonant with them, namely, the indicative mood. Thus Machen’s observation, ‘Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative’, reveals the perceptiveness both of a grammarian and of a theologian.

John Carrick, The Imperative of Preaching: A Theology of Sacred Rhetoric, 10.

One of the benefits to the believer who reads mythology is an understanding of how ancient Man answered ultimate questions about life without the light of revelation.

Victor P. Hamilton, The Handbook on the Pentateuch, 68.

Every change in the industrial world since the Sabbath was instituted has been a new reason why God’s Sabbath laws and ours should not be changed.

Wilbur F. Crafts, Practical Christian Sociology, 187.

Philosophy must veil her face in the presence of Jesus Christ, as God manifest in the flesh

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, 346.

The great primal revelation of God is as the “I am,” the personal God. All the names and titles given to Him; all the attributes ascribed to Him; all the works attributed to Him, are revelations of what He truly is. He is the Elohim, the Mighty One, the Holy One, the Omnipresent Spirit; He is the creator, the preserver, the governor of all things. He is our Father. He is the hearer of prayer; the giver of all good.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, 345.

God really is what we believe Him to be, so far as our idea of Him is determined by the revelation which He has made of Himself in his works, in the constitution of our nature, in his word, and in the person of his Son. To know is simply to have such apprehensions of an object as conform to what that object really is. We know what the word Spirit means. We know what the words infinite, eternal, and immutable, mean. And, therefore, the sublime proposition, pregnant with more truth than was ever compressed in any other sentence, “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and immutable,” conveys to the mind as distinct an idea, and as true (i. e., trustworthy) knowledge, as the proposition “The human soul is a finite spirit.” In this sense God is an object of knowledge. He is not the unknown God, because He is infinite. Knowledge in Him does not cease to be knowledge because it is omniscience; power does not cease to be power because it is omnipotence; any more than space ceases to be space because it is infinite.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, 339.

When, therefore, we say there is a God, we do not assert merely that there is in our minds the idea of an infinite Spirit; but that, entirely independent of our idea of Him, such a Being really exists.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, 369.

God, therefore, is in his nature a substance, or essence, which is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable; the common subject of all divine perfections, and the common agent of all divine acts. This is as far as we can go, or need to go.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, 368.

The second antebellum congressional battle over moral legislation, that over Mormon polygamy, had greater significance but revealed similar sectional divisions. . . . Other southerners feared that legislating morality in the territories, even if it involved something they believed to be so clearly immoral as polygamy, would establish a dangerous precedent that could be turned against the South’s own peculiar institution [i.e., race-based slavery]. They rested their case against the proviso on broader principles, however. Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia argued that Congress had no power “to establish any religion” or “to touch the question of morals, which lie at the foundation of all systems of religion.” “If we discriminate to-day against Mormons,” he added, “to-morrow, perhaps, we shall be asked to discriminate against Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Catholics.” An Alabama Democrat also condemned the proviso as one more step toward “centralization” and government regulation of “morality.” The bill died in the House. . . .

Congress’s failure to pass antipolygamy legislation was not surprising; in the antebellum period, it rarely legislated on the issue of personal morality.

Gaines M. Foster, Moral Reconstruction: Christian Lobbyists and the Federal Legislation of Morality, 1865-1920, 15 & 17.

If the outcome of the Sunday mail fight in Congress testified to the existence of a morality polity based in personal liberty, states’ rights, and moral suasion, the Sabbatarians’ crusade, nevertheless, revealed that some Americans doubted that such a moral polity could ensure the moral populace that the nation needed. Two goals of the opponents of the Sunday mail would remain central to the crusade for moral legislation over the next century. First, worried about the religious authority of the state, they wanted it to acknowledge God’s sovereignty and respect God’s laws. Second, they reconceived the federal government’s role in shaping individual behavior; they wanted it to have the power to make people follow God’s law, in so far as possible, that is, to make them behave morally. The goals were intertwined, since a state with religious authority could have the power to regulate morals and a state that encouraged morality had religious authority.

Gaines M. Foster, Moral Reconstruction: Christian Lobbyists and the Federal Legislation of Morality, 1865-1920, 12-13.